FOR BEDS 2
NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

The National Bureau of Standards' was established by an act ot 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. Jo 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.

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

68th National Conference on

Weights and Measures 1983

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

Sacramento, Calif, July 17-22, 1983

Report Editors: Albert D. Tholen

Louis E. Barbrow

Ann P. Heffernan

^0F % United States Department of Commerce

/ \& \ Malcolm Baldrige, Secretary

National Bureau of Standards

Ernest Ambler, Director

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 - Price $6.50
THE WHITE HOUSE

WASHINGTON

March 11, 1983

I send my greetings and congratulations to

the delegates at the annual meeting of the

National Conference of Weights and Measures.

The National Conference plays a vital role

in our marketplace, protecting the rights of

consumers and insuring the legitimate profit

and reputation of every business dependent

upon a system of weights and measures.

The education of consumers about the importance of the weights and measures system

is another function ably performed by the

National Conference.

I applaud your efforts in bringing the public

and private sectors together in this significant work, and I wish you every success in

your endeavors.

ii
CONTENTS

Abstract - - - v Officers of the Conference vii

Standing Committees --- viii

Annual Committees ix

General Committee Meetings, Monday and Tuesday,

July 18-19, 1983 - -- - x PROGRESS IN PROFESSIONALISM, Charles H. Greene, Chief,

Administrative Services, New Mexico Department of

Agriculture 2 COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS - — - 6 ON THE ROAD AGAIN, Ernest Ambler, Director, National Bureau

of Standards 7 PRESENTATION OF HONOR AWARDS - 16

OVERVIEW OF THE U.S. STANDARDS SYSTEM — ANSI's ROLE IN NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL STANDARDIZATION, Donald L. Peyton, President, American National Standards Institute — 1 7 LATEST DEVELOPMENTS IN THE WEIGHTS AND MEASURES AND TRADING

STANDARDS SERVICE IN THE UNITED KINGDOM, Paul Allen,

Chairman, Trading Standards Department, England 25 ANNUAL REPORT, OFFICE OF WEIGHTS AND MEASURES, Albert D. Tholen, Chief, Office of Weights and Measures, National

Bureau of Standards 34 A SURFACE DEPENDENT THERMAL EFFECT IN MASS CALIBRATION,

Randall Schoonover, Physical Science Technician, National

Bureau of Standards 39 METER TESTING WITH A COMPACT PROVER, James W. Williams,

Brooks Instrument Division, Emerson Electric Company 58 REPORTS OF STANDING COMMITTEES

1. REPORT OF THE JOINT EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE AND COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL MEASUREMENT POLICY AND COORDINATION,

Presented by Charles H. Greene, Committee Chairman —- 69

2. REPORT OF THE COWITTEE ON LAWS AND REGULATIONS,

Presented by John J. Bartfai, Committee Chairman 117

3. REPORT OF THE COWITTEE ON SPECIFICATIONS AND TOLERANCES,

Presented by Lacy H. DeGrange, Committee Chairman 215

4. REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION, ADMINISTRATION,

AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS, Presented by Joseph L. Swanson,

Committee Chairman 277

5. REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON LIAISON, Presented by

Kendrick J. Simila, Committee Chairman 299

iii
REPORTS OF THE ANNUAL COMMITTEES

6. REPORT OF THE RESOLUTIONS COMMITTEE, Presented by

John O'Neill, Acting Chairman — 319

7. REPORT OF THE NOMINATIONS COMMITTEE, Presented by

Charles H. Greene for Edward C. Heffron,

Committee Chairman 321

8. REPORT OF THE AUDITING COMMITTEE, Presented by Joseph

Silvestro, Committee Chairman 323

9. REPORT OF THE CONFERENCE TREASURER, Presented by

Allan M. Nelson, Treasurer -- - - — 325

Organization, 68th NCWM -- 328

NCWM Scheduled Events, 68th Annual Meeting - 330

State Representatives 333

Conference Registration List 335

iv
ABSTRACT

The 68th Annual Meeting of the National Conference on Weights and

Measures met at the Red Lion Inn in Sacramento, California during the

week of July 17, 1983. Attendance totaled 424 (333 paid registrants and

91 guests) from forty-seven (47) States and Puerto Rico. The theme of

the meeting was "Progress in Professionalism."

Major actions were taken on organizational and procedural changes to the Conference, labeling of gasoline containing alcohol, national type

evaluation, and development of training materials.

Special meetings included those of the Task Force on Package Control,

the Advisory Committee on Grain Moisture Measurement, Metrologists

Workshop, the Associate Membership Committee, the Scale Manufacturers

Association, the Industry Committee on Packaging and Labeling, the

Weights and Measures Division of the National Association of State

Departments of Agriculture, the State regional weights and measures

associations, and OIML Pilot Secretariat 20 (Prepackaged Products).

Reports by the several standing and annual committees of the Conference

comprise the major portion of the publication. Also included are the

addresses and technical papers delivered at the General Session by

Conference officials and other authorities from Government and industry.

Key words: legal metrology; specifications and tolerances; training;

type evaluation; uniform laws and regulations; and weights and measures. Library of Congress, Catalog Card Number 26-27766

Note: Opinions expressed in Non-NBS papers are those of the authors

and not necessarily those of the National Bureau of Standards. Non-NBS

Speakers are solely responsible for the content and quality of their

material

.

V
OFFICERS OF THE CONFERENCE
OFFICERS OF THE CONFERENCE

(July 16, 1982 - July 21, 1983)

President:

Chairman:

Vice Chairmen:

Treasurer

Chaplain:

Executive

E. Ambler, NBS

Charles H. Greene, New Mexico

James Blackwood, Dallas, TX Patricia Fullinwider, Arizona

Thomas Geiler, Barnstable, MA Frank Nagele, Michigan

Allan Nelson, Connecticut

Francis Daniels, Wayne County,

Albert Tholen, NBS

IN Secretary:

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

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

John Alloway, Nebraska

Barbara Boddicker, South Dakota

Kenneth Butcher, West Virginia

John Chohamin, Middlesex County, NJ Ezio Delfino, California

Leo Letey, Colorado

Donald Lynch, Kansas City, KS

Patrick Nichols, Alameda County, CA

John Pugh, South Carolina

Samuel Valtri, Philadelphia, PA

Past Chairmen:

Sydney Andrews, Florida

Edward Heffron, Michigan

James Lyles, Virginia

Kendrick Simila, Oregon

Edward Stadolnik, Massachusetts

Richard Thompson, Maryland

APPOINTED OFFICIALS

Sergeants-at-Arms: William Korth, Ventura County, CA

Ben Shelton, California

Parliamentarian: Sydney Andrews, Florida

Assistant Treasurer: John Akey, Wisconsin

vii
STANDING COMMITTEES

National Measurement Policy and Coordination

Charles Greene, New Mexico, Chairman

John Bartfai, New York

Lacy DeGrange, Maryland

Kendrick S i mi la, Oregon

Joseph Swanson, Alaska

Laws and Regulations

John Bartfai, New York, Chairman

George Mattimoe, Hawaii

Wesley Mossberg, Los Angeles County, CA

Edward Skluzacek, Minnesota

Donald Stagg, Alabama

(Carroll Brickenkamp, Technical Advisor, NBS)

Specifications and Tolerances

Lacy DeGrange, Maryland, Chairman

Sidney Col brook, Illinois

Fred Gerk, New Mexico

Darrell Guensler, California

Robert Probst, Wisconsin

(Otto Warn 1 of, Technical Advisor, NBS)

Education, Admin i strati on, and Consumer Affairs

Joseph Swanson, Alaska, Chairman

Stan Darsey, Florida

Thomas Geiler, Barnstable, MA Bruce Niebergall, North Dakota

Philip Stagg, Louisiana

(Richard Smith, Technical Advisor, NBS)

Liaison

Kendrick Simila, Oregon, Chairman

Edison Stephens, Utah

Charles Cavagnaro, U.S. Office of Consumer Affairs

David Smith, North Carolina

Chip Kloos, Hunt -Wesson Foods, Inc. (Stephen Hasko, Technical Advisor, NBS)

viii
ANNUAL COMMITTEES

July 16, 1982 - July 21, 1983

Auditing

Joseph Silvestro, Gloucester County, NJ, Chairman

Gunnar Magnuson, Washington

Norman Ross, Omaha, NE Credentials

Donald Lynch, Kansas City, KS, Chairman

John Chohamin, Middlesex County, NJ Eugene Keeley, Delaware

Nomi nating

Edward Heffron, Michigan, Chairman

Sydney Andrews, Florida

James Lyles, Virginia

Wesley Mossberg, Los Angeles, CA Daniel Offner, St. Louis, MO

Kendrick Simila, Oregon

Richard Thompson, Maryland

Resolutions

Lawrence Barker, West Virginia, Chairman

Dean Brahos, Hammond, IN Thomas Kir by, Georgia

John O'Neill, Kansas

Norman Ross, Nebraska

Samuel Valtri, Philadelphia, PA Robert Voss, Fresno County, CA

Associate Membership

Raymond Wells, Seraphin Test Measures Co., Chairman

Richard Southers, American Petroleum Institute, Vice Chairman

Thomas Stabler, Toledo Scale Company

Raymond Fonger, Bennett Pump Company

Alfred Johanson, Foremost -McKesson

Chip Kloos, Hunt-Wesson Foods, Inc. Art Kroll, Gilbarco, Inc. Walter Kupper, Mettler Instrument Corp.

Neal Peterson, General Mills

Austin Rhoads, Milk & Ice Cream Association

Registration

Dawn Alger Nancy Chapwick

Karen Barkley

Ann Heffernan

Carol Ramsey

ix
STATE LABORATORY METROLOGIST WORKSHOPS

Monday, July 15, 1983

and Wednesday, July 17, 1983 The topics discussed at the workshops ranged from international

metrological requirements and NBS calibration procedures to measurement

results among the States and the latest developments in load cell mass comparators. Mr. Dieter Buer, Director of Weights and Measures for the City/State of Bremen, Federal Republic of Germany, discussed the statistics and principles of mass calibration applied in the Federal Republic

of Germany and their relationship to the OIML weight class tolerances.

Jerry Keller, NBS, reported on the operation of the NBS mass calibration

laboratory and explained the extensive information contained in the NBS Report of Calibration for mass standards. Randy Schoonover, NBS,

reported on the results of an experiment to explore the calibration

capability of State laboratories and investigate the influence of factors that limit the ability of State metrologists tc perform mass calibrations. Representatives of the various State regional metrology

groups reported on their activities and the results of round robin

experiments to investigate and promote uniform measurement results

among the States. The second workshop session began with a tour of the California Division

of Measurement Standards (DMS) of fice/ laboratory building. The staff briefed the metrologists on the programs of the Division emphasizing

the metrology programs. Tom Scrivener of Frazier Precision Instrument Company gave a presentation and demonstration of the Frazier-Schoonover load cell mass

comparator. The operation, considerations, and the many innovations of the comparator were described. Steve McGuire, I Hi nois metrologist,

reported on his experiences using the first production model of the

comparator. Joe Rothleder, Calif orni a metrologi st, then discussed the

operation of an experimental version of the 50- T b load cell mass comparator. He also reviewed the results of test that were run on the

comparator.

GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETINGS

Monday, July 18, 1983

and Tuesday, July 19, 1983 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-Conf erence

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 in this publication reflect the discussions that took place

and the actions taken by the Conference at the time the final reports

were presented to the delegates.
GENERAL SESSION

Tuesday Afternoon — July 19, 1983

Call to Order

CHARLES H. GREENE

Conference Chairman, Presiding

Presentation of Colors and National Anthem

Invocation and Pledge of Allegiance

REV. FRANCIS W. DANIELS

Conference Chaplain, Weights and Measures

Administrator, Wayne County, IN Welcoming Address

CLARE BERRYHILL

Director, Department of Food and Agriculture, State of California

Progress in Professionalism

CHARLES H. GREENE

Conference Chairman

ERNEST AMBLER Conference President

Director, National Bureau of Standards

Honor Awards Presentation

Overview of the U.S. Standards System — ANSI's Role in National and

International Standardization

DONALD L. PEYTON

President, American National Standards Institute

Latest Developments in the Weights and Measures and Trading Standards

Service in the United Kingdom

PAUL ALLEN

Chairman, Trading Standards Department, East Sussex County Council,

England

Annual Report, Office of Weights and Measures

ALBERT D. THOLEN

Chief, Office of Weights and Measures, National Bureau of Standards

A Surface Dependent Thermal Effect in Mass Calibration

RANDALL SCH00N0VER

Physical Science Technician, National Bureau of Standards

Meter Testing With a Compact Prover

JAMES W. WILLIAMS

Brooks Instrument Division, Emerson Electric Company
PROGRESS IN PROFESSIONALISM

Presented by Dr. Charles H. Greene

Director, General Services Division

New Mexico Department of Agriculture

The theme for the 68th National Conference on Weights and Measures was

"At the Crossroads." In some respects we are always at the crossroads

in that we face decisions continuously, the outcome of which have the

potential to change the direction our organization will take. The

results of our decisions are often not immediately apparent.

In my case I can say that the decision to accept your invitation to

serve as the Chairman of the 68th National Conference on Weights and

Measures resulted in one of the best years of my life and certainly one of the most interesting ones. The opportunity to attend each of the

regional conferences and to meet and visit with many weights and measures officials and industry representatives who do not get to attend

the National Conference was an experience I will treasure. The

experience enriched me, and will be long remembered.

In terms of another crossroad, there have been those of us who felt for some time that the National Bureau of Standards had strayed from the

path in its support of the Office of Weights and Measures and of the

Conference. We felt alienated and insecure in our future relationships

with the parent organization. As you will recall, we were reassured by

our President, Dr. Ambler, through his remarks at Atlanta. Subsequent

events have shown concretely that the commitment of NBS to weights and measures and to the Conference is unswerving and definitely on the right

track.

Let me take a moment to enumerate some recent events that demonstrate

how we successfully negotiated that crossroad, and began once again to

make progress toward more professionalism in weights and measures. The

additional resources being applied to training, to national type

evaluation, and to laboratory accreditation are important examples that

make my point.

It has always been true that a weights and measures program can be no stronger than the standards that support it and the metrology

laboratories that keep the traceability intact. Our friends and

supporters - indeed, some of our colleagues - seem not to be aware of

the extreme importance of having well equipped laboratories staffed by

competent, well trained metrologists . The field staff are limited in

their professionalism abilities by the validity of the physical

standards by which commercial performance is evaluated. The new

initiative in metrology laboratory accreditation will do much to enhance our professional capabilities at the State and local levels.

2
Device evaluation or prototype examination had pretty much gotten out of

hand. Inadequate resources at the Bureau, as well as proliferating and

non-uniform State regulations, have placed an unreasonable burden on

those whom the device evaluation program ought to benefit most - the

manufacturers. The appointment of the National Task Force on Type

Approval was one of the best things the conference has done in recent

years. And it has been one of the most productive efforts.

Thanks to the strong leadership of people like Ezio Delfino and the many

hours of effort that industry and weights and measures officials put

into the task force, we are on the verge of implementing the National

Type Evaluation Program. Thanks to the additional resources being

committed by NBS to the National Type Evaluation Program we appear to be

coming out of the woods on that one. The mechanics of the program are being developed and we should be able to implement the National Type

Evaluation Program on or ahead of schedule. We will be considering a proposed model regulation which will be up for adoption by the

Conference this week. A model regulation will make State and local

participation in the National lype Evaluation Program easier and more

uniform. There is also a proposal in the Executive Committee report

dealing with the board of governors of the program. Type evaluation is an area in which the Conference has seen considerable progress in

equipping its members with the tools to be more professional in their

enforcement programs.

One other event emanating from the past is worth mentioning at this

time. I refer to the development of educational and training materials.

Most of you are aware of the proposals coming from your Education

Committee for the development of these materials. This effort will be

fully reported and discussed in the report of the Education Committee. I wanted to be certain that each of you is fully aware of the commitment

the Bureau has made to the success of this enterprise. We have received

the first of what we hope will be a continuing series of grants frcm the

Department of Commerce to fund the development of training materials. A

contract has been executed with the Texas Engineering Experiment Station

to do the actual production from materials developed by the Conference.

It is my humble opinion that this one event has done more to enhance the

professionalism of each weights and measures official and eventually the

entire weights and measures community than any other single event in

recent history of the Conference.

Along with the assurances of commitment to the National Conference on

Weights and Measures, we received a strong message from Dr. Ambler last

year at Atlanta that the National Bureau of Standards can do only so much in providing resources and manpower to achieve weights and measures

objectives, and that we as a Conference need to rely on our own

resources to solve our problems. I agree. Dr. Ambler makes a valid

point. The National Bureau of Standards ought to provide only those

services that we as a Conference or as individual jurisdictions can not

provide for ourselves. The National Type Evaluation Program fits the

pattern, as does the development of a uniform set of training materials

for use by the individual jurisdictions.

3
When considering those areas of activity that can best be focussed from a central point, the National Conference on Weights and Measures and the

Office of Weights and Measures ought jointly to decide which of those can best be focussed through the Conference and which through the

Bureau

The decision making process has worked well in the past. In order to

take full advantage of the resources in brain power and leadership that

the above programs and other activities show to exist in the National

Conference on Weights and Measures, the Executive Committee, with the

encouragement of Al Tholen and Dr. Ambler, have proposed some mechanical

changes to the organization and procedures by which we conduct our

Conference affairs. You will be hearing more about those in detail.

You are urged to study the proposals and give your considered advice to

Executive Committee members. I hope you will vote for the proposals.

We need to implement something like these in order to take fuller

advantage of the leadership potential in the National Conference on

Weights and Measures.

There are a number of other examples I could give about our past

accomplishments and our on-going achievements. The list is by no means

complete. Each of the standing committees has brought issues before you

that have, by their nature, contributed to the progress of the

conference and the professionalism of each of us. It is not my intent

to detract frcm the value of the accomplishments of the standing

committees by not expounding on those very real accomplishments. As a matter of fact, they are too numerous to completely cover in the time we

have this week. Let me instead just say to each and every member and

past member of Conference standing committees: "I salute youi"

There is one additional point that can be made. We are addressing

organization and procedures of Conference administration here this week.

Your Executive Committee asks your support of their proposals. At the same time, we recognize that there is still a lot to be done to improve

the way Conference positions are reached. That area of endeavor will be

addressed in the next year I hope.

Turning to a slightly different topic, I should like to make some remarks about the proposal to reorganize the U.S. Department of

Commerce. One result of the reorganization would be to place the

National Bureau of Standards under the National Science Foundation. I had earlier received information from Dr. Ambler about the proposal.

There appears to be no cause for alarm on our part. We are assured by

Dr. Ambler that the Bureau will continue to operate the Office of

Weights and Measures in accordance with current policies. We will of

course be watching the progress in this area quite closely. I am sure that the administration and staff at the Bureau will understand that,

while we pledge our support of the National Bureau of Standards as they

go through this period of change. We still reserve the right to offer

advice and assistance when the Conference sees the need.

4
"Progress in Professionalism": Progress has been real. Let us not be

satisfied. The progress to date should leave you, as it does me, with a

sense of destiny and a feeling of excitement about the future of the

Conference

.

5
COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS BY CHAIRMAN GREENE

The following members of the National Conference on Weights and

Measures (NCWM) will be appointed to the several standing committees of

the Conference.

In making the selection, I considered (a) professional experience,

(b) interest in and attendance at NCWM, (c) field of interest and

special qualifications for a particular committee, (d) State vs local

representation, (e) industry or private sector affiliation (where

appropriate), and (f) regional location and representation.

The new appointees are: COMMITTEE ON LAWS AND REGULATIONS

Mr. Trafford Brink, Director of Weights and Measures and Retail

Inspection, State of Vermont, is appointed for a five-year term to replace Mr. John Bartfai, whose term is expiring.

COMMITTEE ON SPECIFICATIONS AND TOLERANCES

Mr. Kenneth Butcher, Inspector, Weights and Measures, State of

West Virginia, is appointed for a five-year term to replace Mr. Lacy DeGrange, whose term is expiring.

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION, ADMINISTRATION, AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS

Mr. Stan Darsey, Chief, Bureau of Weights and Measures, State of

Florida, is appointed for a second five-year term. COMMITTEE ON LIAISON

Mrs. Peggy Adams, Chief Sealer, Bucks County, Pennsylvania, is appointed for a five-year term to replace Mr. Edison Stephens,

whose term is expiring.

Certificates of Appreciation

Chairman Greene presented Certificates of Appreciation to: John J. Bartfai

Stan Darsey

Lacy DeGrange

Edward Heffron

Edison Stephens

L&R Committee

Education Committee

S&T Committee

Liaison Committee

Liaison Committee

6
ON THE ROAD AGAIN

An address by Dr. Ernest Anibler

Director. National Bureau of Standards

This past year has been one of decision, commitment, and accomplishment.

I am very pleased to be with you in Sacramento to review those

accomplishments and for us to recommit ourselves to progress through the

professionalism that has been described so well by Chairman Greene.

Last year, in Atlanta, we explored the challenges to be overcome in the

context of defining, as our Conference theme stated, "The Direction for

Weights and Measures at the Crossroads." Then, we were facing many

challenges. One of the most significant was, and still is, the struggle

to control the cost of Government. At the same time, we in government,

State, local, and Federal alike, were faced with complications and

complexities of services that increased the expectations of our constituencies

We made some major plans last year at the Crossroad. After reviewing

the progress made since Atlanta, I am confident we have moved out of the

Crossroad of discussion and are "On the Road Again" toward a major

upgrading in the professionalism of Weights and Measures nationwide, if we carry our plans to fulfillment, we shall have attained major advances

in the technical basis and administrative procedures of our State and

local Governments; this will have been accomplished without major

increases in program funding.

One of the keys to moving forward was a definition of the proper roles

each of us, the National Bureau of Standards, the National Conference,

the States, and industry should play. By clearly defining those roles, we were able to plan our respective responsibilities within our

resources

You will recall that I highlighted in Atlanta those roles that were clearly NBS responsibilities. They were to: o Continue sponsorship of the NCWM

o Insure the basic capabilities of the State laboratories o Coordinate the development of the National Type Evaluation

Program, and o Support the Conference in developing training materials in

response to the introduction of electronic technology in the

marketplace

I will review the accomplishments in each of these programs (the

Conference, the State laboratories, the Type Evaluation Program, and

Training Materials) since Atlanta.

7
The questions to be addressed are: o How far have we cone? o Are we on schedule? o What do we need to do this week?

o What do we need to do next year?

SPONSORSHIP OF THE CONFERENCE

First, I'll address the National Conference and its evolution. I view

the continued growth of the Conference and the work of its committees to

be of prime importance. The recent increase in the activities of the

Conference has been very impressive. I congratulate your leadership for

its planning and for putting in place procedures to deal with the

various challenges they have faced. The move to involve the total

membership/ including representatives of industry, in the workings of

your conmittees has paid big dividends. Progress is faster and the

technical content is better.

I note that you are considering some realignment of committee activities

this week. I believe the recommendations of your leadership, through

the Executive Committee/ are very appropriate and would result in

greater efficiencies in the functioning of the Conference.

I especially encourage you to endorse the recommendations of your

Executive Committee in the following actions:

1. Upgrading the Executive Committee to perform those functions

normally associated with such a body.

2. Abolishing the Policy and Coordination Committee and the

transfer of its functions to the new Executive Committee.

3. Assigning the new role of "Board of Governors for National Type

Evaluation" to the Executive Committee.

I believe the establishment of Technical and Advisory Committees to

support the Standing Committees in addressing some of the new issues has

proved to be very effective. I encourage you to continue this practice

and to include representation from the overall conference membership in

the workings of these committees.

I also encourage you to continue to review mechanisms to more closely

interrelate the activities of the four regional Weights and Measures

Associations with the National Conference. I believe that/ if such a mechanism could be developed, the regions could provide additional

insights and advice to the conference committees and, in many instances/

function to screen and resolve issues without the necessity of placing

them on the agenda of the National Conference.

8
Much of the administration of the Conference has been streamlined. I am

sure that the Executive Secretary will continue to seek ways of

improving the operation of the Secretariat, and to bring additional

information to your membership. This will provide a broader

understanding of issues before you (the Membership) are expected to make

decisions on those issues.

The Office of Product Standards Policy, under which Al Tholen and his

associates operate, has recently acquired a new computerized system to

upgrade the capabilities of the various offices under its supervision.

A major computer capability has been installed in the Office of Weights

and Measures to serve the needs of the National Conference.

And, if I might suggest it, perhaps we could rent or borrow compatible

equipment for the secretaries to use at the Conference. This would make

the extensive revisions more efficient and eliminate much of the

overnight typing.

I also encourage your leadership and the Special Study Group on

conference membership to seek means of increasing your membership to

insure that all parties and organizations having interest in the

marketplace are brought under the umbrella of the Conference so that

their views and their knowledge can be included in your deliberations.

STATE LABORATORIES

Let me now say a few words about the State Metrology Laboratories.

The State Laboratories are, of course, most closely associated with the

National Bureau of Standards. They are the mechanism through vyhich

measurements, traceable to the national standards, are provided to

regulatory officials and local industry and business. The health and

continued growth of the capabilities of the State labs is a prime

interest of mine. The Bureau has a role to play in training State

metrologists and auditing measurement competence at the State level.

I understand that currently there are 85 trained metrologists

functioning in the State laboratories. This total continues to increase

steadily. The increase reflects a growing recognition of the kinds of

services that can be provided locally. These are driven by new demands

for regulatory and contnercial use of measurement, which stem from

changes in the nature of services requested of your laboratories. State

services must plan to serve their local needs, needs which, like the

rest of our society, are growing more complex.

With the completion of the State Standards Program about five years ago, we turned our attention to the continuing need for technical and

administrative progress of the laboratories. There are variations in

the needs in the various States, and these are reflected in differences

in services provided by the individual States. Until recently, we

certified the State laboratories on an equal basis; that is, the

9
aertdLfiLcate f gfxvfvI annually by the Bureau was identical for every State.

We decided that our grooecfcnEes should be changed because of the large

Hi ITflHff lamps aimeg laboratories that have evolved in the past decade.

ChPBggcnfcly e iaa_:;ea aod have instituted this year a new program

zz Laboratory sertificatian. He evaluate each laboratory individually

and leteonne in Hbldh areas :a measurement competence that laboratory

zar :njalafy for r.sraaai zaai :

i

3eji.TJ--c vaah 1983, we began issuing certificates that are tailored to

Has canaDilaa_es zz each indtiLvidnal 5 -a- a laboratory . I realize that

rhas has resairec in some surprises aid disappointments to some

larjcranories . As a matter of feet, several State laboratories are not

rsraafaed aa =.11 . lar.er laboratories have very limited certification.

We haws fnon) hc-ever, that this new rrcgrarr. has resulted in several

States tic:.: positive art-ion eitier aa regain their certification or to

arracer. the areas for which they are certified. I am very pleased to

EKJte that we have a new Stare lanrraiiry in Kansas . 1 am also told that

several nsu laboratories have been funded for replacement rr inxr.v .'er.era • r_a: a.a.:ei are being ronsidered by State legislatures

and Oepartnents . We will continue to work with any State locking to

7\7i r

~- tick

Now-, to a srafoject zz acre recent vintage, type evaluation.

Again aa the Jnited Stares scononj las grown in size and as new

icnrerraal devices are introduced into commerce that incorporate

eleatranis and micraprccesscr= _ - zecame evident to your leadersnap

ahaa ahe whole subject of device regulation was due for some serious

a laranaaaan . And you made that very clear to us at NBS.

Several vaars age tie Zonferenoe esaaalishec a "ask Force on National

Ire Iva_raaiir. I rave zee.

-

, _-r.res=ec :a rl.e a.'.: rraclr.esa ar.a rear :ar_:r ;r. ~r_aa ahaa 7as<: Jrrae has roeraaec . Again, I believe

vru -ere rear/ -vase m cringing together on the Task Force

rearesar.aaraves zz both regulatory and ir.crsary organizations. Last

/ear _r. Aalanaa I spoke in some detail about the Bureau's commitment

ra a Air_:r>ara Tgpe Evaluation Program. The concept put forth by your

7a =.<: ~z r re ra_ led f : r :

z A =_rgle ea_aa::. zz a new aype device or system

: Arcecaarce of that evaluation by the various jurisdictions

: lrrra_arera to develop test criteria arc procedures.

I would lake a: restate ny belief rhar ahe attainment of these features

: f aie system is essential if £STEP is going to be effective

.

10
We at the Bureau have an important role to play in the development of

this system. We have a responsibility to establish the criteria to

serve as a basis for authorizing testing laboratories in the system. We

have a responsibility for evaluating the results frcm those testing

laboratories and making the decisions on the issuance of Certificates of

Conformance. We realize that we have a continuing role in providing

technical support to the various committees developing criteria and

procedures to be followed by the authorized laboratories.

You have some very important decisions to make this week regarding the

National Type Evaluation Program. Your leadership is recommending the

adoption of a model regulation for National Type Evaluation. The Task

Force and, subsequently, the Laws and Regulations Committee and the

Executive Committee, have dealt with this subject and are recommending

to the membership the adoption of a model regulation which has been

printed in your Announcement Book.

My staff at the Bureau, including my Legal Advisor, has worked with the

Task Force and your committees in the development of this Model

Regulation. I urge you to vote in favor of the model, which is required

to serve as the basis for: o Recognition of National Type Evaluation o Recognition of testing laboratories o Recognition of the Certificate of Conformance o Reciprocity among the jurisdictions.

Without such a regulation to serve as the legal basis for a National

Program, the other elements which we are all working on, would be

seriously limited.

I encourage you also to vote in favor of the additional sections

developed for inclusion in the Draft Handbook designed to provide the

criteria and testing procedures for evaluation of devices.

These issues are extremely important, and I believe if we keep moving

according to the schedule I suggested to you in Atlanta last year, we

can implement the NTEP Program in October of 1984 as planned.

TRAINING

My fourth subject is key to the future of Weights and Measures in all

its activities; training.

As I noted last year, we each have rather specific responsibilities

regarding training. I believe that the delivery of training, that is,

the actual conduct of the training of your employees, is a primary

responsibility of the State and local jurisdictions. The only major

exception to that is the training of State metrologists which we accept

as an NBS responsibility.

11
Training provided by the States, both technical and administrative,

should be uniform among the States. I also agree with the conclusion of

your Education Committee that the basis for such uniformity today is

rather sparse.

Consequently, I agreed to make arrangements to fund the initial

development of uniform training materials by the Conference through a grant to the Conference. As you probably know, such a grant was awarded

by NBS to the Conference effective the first of February of this year.

1 am very pleased that the Conference, in turn, has negotiated with the

Texas Engineering Extension Service for contractual support in the

developnent of these materials.

I want to compliment the Education Committee for developing a rather

complete plan, including the establishment of a series of Working Groups

for the development of the basic materials that will be used by Texas

A&M in developing a series of technical textbooks and instructors

manuals. I was also very pleased to hear that the nominees for these

working groups all agreed to serve and are working to develop draft

textbooks in several device areas.

I also want to compliment the leadership of your Conference for

establishing mechanisms to supervise the developnent of these materials

and to manage the grant and contract monies provided to get this work

underway.

At the same time that we are looking forward to the evolution of these

training materials, I urge you to keep an eye on a related goal, that

is, the development of State inspector certification programs. The

existence of uniform training manuals and their proper use in State

training programs will be the basis for more rigorous inspector

recruitment and training practices. Such a goal is important if we are to continue to attract the right type of Weights and Measures official

into your State programs.

And so, these actions prove, in my view, that we all have recognized the

challenges facing us today and in the next several years. Last year we

examined these challenges and arrived at a series of decisions. At the

crossroads we set the direction we were going to take. I believe this

past year has been especially noteworthy in the progress that we have

made. I believe we are well on our way, and on schedule.

I would like to repeat for emphasis that there is much yet to be done.

The acceptance by this Conference, this week, of the recommendations of

your leadership will keep us moving toward our overall goals.

OTHER ACTIVITIES

Let me now address a few additional subjects which you are dealing with

and which are important.

12
The Conference Leadership is on the right road in examining the entire

issue of package inspection and control. I encourage you to continue to

study alternatives related to where and how the many hundreds of

millions of packages produced in this country annually can be regulated.

There is a need to regulate in a manner that recognizes the evolving

modern packaging concepts and distribution practices as well as the

inherent physical characteristics of commodities.

A key element in any system of this kind is the standards applied. The

source of the inspection standards is embodied in the new NBS Handbook

133 , which we recommend highly. As you know, we are currently

considering some changes in that Handbook prior to publishing a second

edition. We appreciate the constructive conments provided by the States

and by the industry. I believe it is important that we all agree on a

single document to serve as the basis for package regulation. I encourage you to study the document, to seek training in its

implementation/ and to apply it. Your Task Force on Package Control is

bringing all of the pieces of this issue together. They are working

toward developing an overall Conference position regarding this subject

(including the use of Handbook 133 and the proper recognition of

Moisture Loss in Packaging and Distribution)

.

Another subject that evokes a considerable amount of emotion is the

regulation of petroleum products. I am well aware of the position that

some would have us take, that is, to move immediately into temperature

compensation at all levels of product transfer. I have had a rather

steady correspondence with my friend, George Mattimoe, and his co-worker

of Hawaii on this subject. This is a very interesting subject

technically and philosophically. I note that the Conference has dealt

with this subject many times in the past. I am aware that you have

developed and included in Handbook 44 requirements dealing with

Automatic Temperature Compensation for LPG Liquid Measuring Devices. I also have noted the results of the seminar sponsored by the Conference

and held at the Bureau of Standards four years ago. Two years ago, your

S&T Committee recommended inclusion in Handbook 44 of a requirement for

temperature compensation on Vehicle Tank Meters. They very carefully

worded their intent in this recommendation which was to establish the

basis for uniform approaches to Automatic Temperature Compensation.

This recommendation, made at the sixty-fifth Conference in 1980, was not

accepted by the membership.

The S&T Committee appears to be dealing with this subject in a very

responsible manner, and I encourage them to continue to evaluate the

appropriateness of changes in Handbook 44, and encourage you, the

membership to study the evolving technology and economics of this and

other subjects in order to insure that the marketplace is maintained in

a uniform and equitable manner.

Finally, there is one additional item which I think may be on the minds

of many of you and about which I should perhaps say a word or two. I refer to the proposal by the President to reorganize the Department of

Commerce through the establishment of a Cabinet level Department of

13
International Trade and Industry. I have furnished the Director of each

State Weights and Measures Office a package of material describing that

proposed reorganization. One part of that proposal is the transfer of

the National Bureau of Standards to the National Science Foundation.

As this proposal winds its way through the Congress, I want to assure you that nothing in this proposal will interfere with the strong ties of

the National Bureau of Standards and its dedication to the functions/

mission, and objective of the National Conference on Weights and

Measures. Lest there be any concern on the part of the members of your

organization, members of the Congress, or the general public, I intend

to state that commitment in a firm and positive manner in my

interactions with the Congress. Moreover, I can assure you that this

commitment also constitutes the sentiments of Stanley Warshaw, the

Director of the Office of Product Standards Policy, and Al Tholen, the

Chief of the Office of Weights and Measures

WRAP-UP

In summary, I am very optimistic about the current health of the

commercial weights and measures system. I am very pleased that we have

worked together to develop new programs to deal with new needs. We made

substantial progress in the past year. We agreed on what had to be done

and have moved responsibly toward bringing about the necessary changes.

We are on the road again, on a road that will keep us working together

with a clearly defined agenda.

We now have a better understanding of the roles we each need to play in

order to effectively use the resources provided to us by our Congress or State legislatures. Our plans for continued effectiveness of the

Conference, growth of State laboratories, establishment of a National

Type Evaluation Program, and the development of training materials is

progressing very well.

We need to continue to sharpen our understanding and define our programs

in other areas such as package inspection and control, petroleum

measurement, and new marketing techniques and strategies.

I always enjoy working with you through this Conference, and I am

looking forward to our traveling together toward our overall goal of

insuring equity and uniformity in the marketplace based on programs

built through technical competence and regulatory innovation.

We, at the Bureau, will continue to work closely with you. I congratulate you on the major progress made, and strongly encourage you

to take those additional major steps this week and in the next few years

that will keep us on the road leading to the equity and uniformity that we all seek.

14
I assume most of you have heard Willie Nelson's hit song, "On the Road

Again." I'd like to close with a slight parody of the lyrics of that

song which reflects my feelings at this time:

"On the road again, I'm glad that we are on the road again,

The life I love is making progress with my friends,

I'm glad we're moving on the road again."

My Friends —

Thank you.

15
PRESENTATION OF HONOR AWARDS

Dr. Ambler presented Honor Awards to members of the Conference who, by

attending the 68th Conference in 1982, reached one of the attendance

categories for which recognition is made—attendance at 10, 15, 20, 25,

and 35 meetings.

Award Recipients

35 Years

Samuel H. Christie, Jr, Retired, State of New Jersey

25 Years

James R. Bird State of New Jersey

15 Years

John V. Pugh

George E. Mattimoe

Anthony J. Ladd

Robert S. Jones David E. Edgerly

Stan J. Darsey

John M. Chohamin

Dean Brahos

George W. Staffeldt

Robert W. Probst

Gaylon M. Kennedy

Wi 11 i am V. Goodpaster

Charles E. Forester

State of South Carolina

State of Hawaii

Electronic Weighing & Packaging Systems

Salem County, NJ National Bureau of Standards

State of Florida

Middlesex County, NJ

City of Hammond , IN 10 Years City of Mishawaka, IN State of Wisconsin

State of Maine

Murphy Cardinal Scale Co. State of Texas

16
OVERVIEW OF THE U.S. STANDARDS SYSTEM —

ANSI's ROLE IN NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL STANDARDIZATION

by Donald L. Peyton

President, American National Standards Institute

Thank you very much for inviting me to be with you. It has been many

years since ANSI met with the National Conference on Weights and

Measures. We welcome the opportunity.

In preparing for this presentation I had to do a lot of homework. Al

Tholen was kind enough to provide me with excellent material, including

a very fine brochure on the organization and procedures of NCWM. He

also supplied conference proceedings and a collection of NBS Handbooks

44, 130, and 133. You should be justifiably proud of these documents.

You fellows do great work . If I have any message to leave today, it would be to suggest that you

broaden your horizons , become, an active part of the national consensus

standards system, and take a more active role in "world" standards and

metrology. In the latter I am not only seeking increased participation

by State and local officials in international standardization work of

ISO, IEC, or OIML, as important as these groups are. I am also seeking

your help to bring the fruits of your efforts — your hands-on

experience — to the people of some of the newly emerging nations with

which ANSI is now associated. What you have done for local conmunities

,

and the trust territories, you can now do for the newly independent

nations of the Pacific which can constitute important new markets for

American products and services.

About 17 years ago when someone suggested that I leave the comfortable,

but sequestered halls of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in Washington to

take over direction of the American Standards Association, I viewed the move with considerable alarm. Not only was this outfit in New York City

(which is no place for a small town boy) but it was in a line of work

that was strange and confusing to a Washington lobbyist.

The individual who was responsible for my agreeing to try to

reconstitute ASA and rebuild its programs was the late Malcolm W. Jensen, director of the Office of Weights and Measures. Mac had a vision of coordination between the National Conference and the outside

world of standards that has still to be fully recognized and

appreciated

.

I understand that it is the responsibility of the NCWM Committee on

National Measurement Policy and Coordination to "serve as a policymaking

and coordinating body in matters of national and international

significance which may include such areas as metrication, International

Organization for Legal Metrology (OIML), American National Standards

Institute (ANSI), and International Organization for Standardization

(ISO) ..." ANSI would welcome the opportunity to work more closely with

17
(ISO)..." ANSI would welcome the opportunity to work more closely with

the Conference in all these fields. We frankly did not know that such a group existed.

ANSI is also vitally interested in the work of the Conmittee on Laws

and Regulations because we also encourage uniformity of application and

adoption of many voluntarily developed national codes. Another

committee of importance to voluntary standards organizations is the

Committee on Specifications and Tolerances . There is a good deal of

carry-over and possibly some overlap and duplication in standards,

specifications, and testing methods that could be avoided if there were

closer coordination.

I suspect that the problem (if there is one) lies in the lack of

knowledge and conmunication between the National Conference, ANSI, and

the hundreds of standards developing groups ANSI coordinates. My

purpose today is to introduce you to the "world of voluntary standards."

We have a great deal of respect for the National Conference. MSI and

NCWM are in effect both offsprings of at least one of the same parents.

NBS founded NCWM in 1905. In 1918 NBS (Department of Commerce) joined

with the Departments of War and Navy and five professional societies to

voluntarily establish the American Engineering Standards Committee — ANSI's predecessor organization. The purpose of AESC was to "provide a voluntary mechanism for coordinating the development of engineering

and related standards." Voluntary as contrasted with regulatory

coordination was recognized by Government and private sectors to be

preferable in 1918. We can find no reason to think otherwise today.

The NCWM and ANSI are survivors. Think of it this way: We have both

survived two World Wars — several police actions — many periods of

international unrest — a great depression — and many cyclical

recessions (including the one from which we are just now emerging) . There have been 13 Presidents and 72 sessions of Congress since ANSI was

founded 65 years ago. You are even older.

My presentation on ANSI's role in national and international standards

is not a "sales pitch" for a change in what the Conference is doing. It

is rather the opening gambit in an interchange of ideas and possibly a suggestion as to how you can make your work even more effective and

appreciated

All organizations must stand ready to try out different approaches — to

embark on climate improvement. Dare I say climate control? I firmly

believe that dynamic organizations must do what they can to improve the

climate in which they work and live.

The ability of an organization to bring about improvements is limited

only by whether it has the ability, desire, and intestinal fortitude to

be a "rainmaker" or whether it is satisfied to simply look out the

window and carry a protective umbrella. In the field of standards there

18
are far too few rainmakers. Some lack authority. Some lack the will to

seek authority. Some shy from both authority and responsibility.

From my limited exposure to the National Conference I would characterize

it as a potential rainmaker. The superb work you have already done

leads me to conclude that you have "seeded the clouds" and begun the

rain dance. With affirmative response from State and local

constituencies/ NCWM will continue to create an improved climate for

legal metrology.

The U.S. Standards System

The unique U.S. system for developing and promulgating standards is a

decentralized mechanism operating under principles of voluntary action,

peer acceptance, and verifiable consensus. One must have a healthy respect for pragmatism if one is to work in the

U.S. system. There is an underlying tenet which has been present from

the beginning, that is: Need should dictate standards; standards

should not dictate need . Unlike some of its national counterparts, the

U.S. voluntary standards system provides opportunity rather than

authority.

The U.S. Structure

There is not one structure for standards development in the U.S. There are several. Four major "systems" exist and are active in developing

standards. These are: Government , Company, Independent , and

Coordinated .

1. The Government System mandates standards by law or

regulation for many purposes, including Government,

procurement, health, safety, environmental protection, and

weights and measures.

2. The Company Standards System. Companies develop standards

for internal use or for their purchases. Some are nationally

recognized because of the size of the enterprise, but the

documents are nominally intended for company use.

3. Trade, Technical, Independent Groups . Some trade,

technical, and professional groups prefer to develop their own

standards. These range from the trade associations, which

develop highly sophisticated standards for use by their

members, to large, well-organized industrial groups dealing

directly with government; e.g., aerospace, telecommunications,

and food and drug.

19
4. The Coordinate System. 250 professional, technical,

engineering, trade, labor, consumer, and governmental

organizations voluntarily associate themselves with ANSI's

procedures and voluntary coordination. The standards of these

groups are developed and submitted to ANSI for approval as American National Standards.

ANSI believes that while these categories do exist, they should all

seriously consider operating under ANSI's voluntary coordination. The

door is open to everyone at all times. We would welcome organizations

not currently involved. We would welcome their standards.

How Are We Doing?

While some groups remain "outside the fold" there has been remarkable

increase over the years in both the number of organizations that use the

ANSI system and in the growth in available American National (consensus)

Standards. For example:

1967 1982

Organizational Members 50 240

Standards Actions 300 1,000

Approved Standards 3,000 10,000+

Hidden Structure

There is an amazing degree of discipline, order, and due process in the

voluntary standards system. Developers of standards, whether working

under the aegis of ANSI or not, are subject to the same laws as everyone

else.

There is no exemption, for example, from antitrust. The Sherman,

Clayton, and Federal Trade Commission Acts are applicable and are at

times brought to bear. Tort liability is an added incentive to produce

the best possible standards.

Standards developers soon learn to recognize the power of public opinion

and the necessity to act at all times "in the public interest."

Above everything else there is the marketplace, which is the ultimate

test for standards and certification programs. Good standards are used.

Bad standards remain on the shelves.

The need for standards to provide basic shelter, food, transportation,

and environmental "wants" of our citizens — to provide for safety in

the workplace — to provide safe and effective consumer products —makes

the U.S. voluntary standards system "people oriented."

20
ANSI provides the common bond of national coordination, a clearinghouse

for information, and independent verification of consensus of standards.

ANSI has no legal authority and seeks none. It depends upon voluntary

participation by organizations and individuals and upon peer and public

acceptance of its role and functions.

ANSI's Rale in National Standardization

ANSI is the voluntary coordinator of the U.S. standards system. It is an organization of standards competence dedicated to bringing to bear on

standards needs the cooperative efforts of o Commerce and Industry o Standards Developing Organizations o Public and Consumer Interests

In coordination ANSI enlists the support and participation of o Technical Societies o Scientific Organizations o Labor Organizations o Professional Organizations o Government Groups o Trade Associations o Consumer Groups

Establishing Consensus

ANSI administers the voluntary system for verification of consensus on

standards through public review and comment. Standards that evolve serve the needs of: o Industry o Consumer o Government o Labor

o General Public

Approval

When standards are submitted to ANSI for approval as American National

Standards (from three main sources), they are sent to the Board of

Standards Review. Standards boards are consulted as required. The

Consumer Council Standards Screening and Review Committee reviews and

rates standards of direct interest to the consumer. ANSI's work product is standards (10,000+).

It publishes an annual catalog and bimonthly supplements.

21
The ANSI Structure

Board of Directors/Executive Conmittee

3 key advisory councils - Company, Organizational Member/ Consumer

5 operating councils:

Certification

Executive Standards Council - Standards Boards

Audit and Accreditation

Board of Standards Review

International Standards Council/USNC-IEC

Procedures

ANSI operates its coordination and approval systems under well-defined

procedures that have peer acceptance . The only "authority" that ANSI

wields is voluntary persuasion — nothing more — and the "governed"

decide if what we are doing is acceptable.

One thread runs through all due process. At bottom ours is a society

built on individualism/ competition, and success. These values bring

great personal freedom and mobilize great energies. At the same time

they can arouse temptations to push aside one

1 s competitors , to cut

corners, to ignore the interests of others in the struggle to succeed.

In such a world, much responsibility rests on those who umpire the

contest . As society demands higher standards of fairness and decency,

the rules of the game tend to multiply and the umpire 1 s burden grows

constantly heavier.

The field of legal metrology is yours.

The standards contest is ANSI's. ANSI serves as the "umpire," just as do weights and measures officials. Our respective burdens of

responsibility continue to grow.

International Standards

ANSI serves as the U.S. member of two major international

nongovernmental standards organizations: the International Organization

for Standardization (ISO) and the International Electrotechnical

Commission (IEC) (through the U.S. National Conmittee of IEC) . ANSI is

also the U.S. member of the Pacific Area Standards Congress (PASC),

which is a regional forum for discussing and solving problems.

ISO and IEC serve as the focal points for standards in fields not

covered by intergovernmental bodies. Many international standards

bodies are governmental, e.g., International Atomic Energy Agency/ Bcod

and Agriculture Organization, Vforld Health Organization, and

Organization for International Legal Metrology (OIML) . Most of these

groups maintain close liaison with ISO or IEC or both.

22
ANSI provides the annual membership subscriptions to ISO and IEC, and is

responsible for technical participation. ANSI is responsible for the

administration of 241 technical secretariats.

You are no doubt aware that as a result of the last major GAIT

multilateral trade negotiation, the so-called "Tokyo Round/ " an

international standards code (GATT Code) was negotiated. In the U.S. the provisions of the GATT Standards Code were incorporated in the Trade

Agreements Act of 1979.

The Trade Act establishes rules for Federal agencies engaged in

standards-related activities. Section 403 of the Act requires the

President to take reasonable measures to promote observance by State

and local agencies and private parties to such rules . Voluntary

guidelines for State and Local Governments and Private Sector Bodies were issued by the Commerce Department in December 1982. NBS can provide you with additional information.

To the best of my knowledge U.S. voluntary standards procedures, based

upon consensus, openness and due process requirements, create no unnecessary barriers to trade. The same cannot be said for some regulatory measures . But there are ample opportunities for everyone to

comment on regulations and redress any grievances they may have.

ANSI and the Government (Federal, State, and Local)

ANSI works with government at all levels. The Federal Government

references and adopts many voluntary standards. For example, they are referenced in more than 200 OSHA standards, several hundred Federal

procurement specifications, and in MIL Specs.

According to a recently issued Federal Register report, the total

adopted or referenced by Federal departments and agencies exceeded

3,000.

The real impact of standards, however, is at State and local levels.

Wide use of the ANSI-approved national codes are examples — Boiler and

Pressure Vessel Code; National Electrical Code; Fire Code; Elevator

Code; and a myriad of building codes.

State and local governmental officials are active on many national

committees and often comment on proposed standards. Building

departments, water districts, power authorities, motor vehicle

administrators, electrical and fire inspectors, and labor and health

departments are an integral part of the ANSI national consensus. ANSI

welcomes direct input and personal participation from the National

Conference on Weights and Measures.

23
As I mentioned earlier, ANSI welcomes closer ties with the NCWM

Committee on Specifications and Tolerances . Many years ago we suggested

that it could be worthwhile to develop standards for measuring devices,

scales, and sundry apparatus under ANSI's consensus procedures. We

repeat the "offer" in case the Conference decides to reconsider.

Even though specifications and tolerances are developed within the

Conference, it would not hurt a bit to expose them to public review and

comment via ANSI 1 s Standards Action . SA — the most comprehensive

single information source in the standards world — provides information on national and international voluntary standards , international

regulations, European and Japanese standards and, most recently, the

proposals of OIML. Why not include NBS handbooks?

In closing I want to offer the Conference and the NBS Office of Weights

and Measures an opportunity to "star" in an important trans-Pacific

Conference to be held in San Francisco, California, in late June of

1984.

PASC X — the forum of Pacific Rim countries — will meet then. PASC

members have requested that the U.S. provide a one-day seminar and/or demonstration of topics of interest to developing and emerging

countries. We have several new nations in the Pacific. All are potential trading partners with the United States. Because this is the

first PASC meeting to be held on the American Mainland (we had two in

Hawaii), we are also inviting the national standards bodies of Latin

America.

We would like to invite you to put on a seminar and provide "hands-on

demonstrations" of how to apply standards to legal weights and measures. We know that the State of Hawaii has done this in some of the trust

territories. We would like to show the people of the Pacific that the

U.S. and ANSI are concerned with their needs — that we want to help

them with metrology and standards — that we care. Come share your

experience with those who are reaching out for help. If we turn away, competitors in Japan, Canada, and Europe are waiting to take over. I am

confident that you will welcome this opportunity.

Thank you again.

:-
LATEST DEVELOPMENTS IN THE WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

AND TRADING STANDARDS SERVICE IN THE UNITED KINGDOM

Presented by Anthony Paul Allen, Chairman

United Kingdom's Institute of Trading Standards Administration

The Institute of Trading Standards Administration celebrated its

centenary last year in Manchester. In its 101st year the Institute has

decided to produce an Annual Report which reflects the work of the

comprehensive service in a positive way and which demonstrates the

problems and complexities of maintaining and promoting fair trade in the

rapidly changing technological world of the mid-eighties.

What is I.T.S.A. ? The Institute of Trade Standards Administration is the professional

organization representing some 1500 Trading Standards and Consumer

Protection Officers who enforce over 600 Acts, Regulations, and

Statutory Instruments in the trading standards field throughout the

United Kingdom.

In 1982 the Institute received a Study Contract from the European

Commission to produce a comprehensive Directory of Trading Standards

Legislation showing the national implementing legislation for all 10 Member States, accurate to 1st July 1983.

Lack of uniformity in the administration of early weights and measures

legislation prompted local Inspectors of Weights and Measures to unite

in an endeavor to influence legislation and promote common action on its administration. This they did in 1894 under the title "The

Incorporated Society of Inspectors of Weights and Measures." It is worth noting that the earlier aims of the Society are still among the

Institute's prime objectives, which are - to advance the legal, technical, scientific, practical, and

general knowledge of persons engaged in the administration of

legislation relative to fair trading, quality, quantity, and

safety and to give advice to consumers and traders."

Such aims are achieved through national, regional, and local conferences

and seminars, legal and technical publications, a monthly journal, and a weekly Confidential Information Service.

Uniformity of Weights and Measures in Magna Charta

The earliest statutory declaration for uniformity of weights and measures in the United Kingdom is contained in the Magna Charta of 1215:

25
"There shall be but one measure of wine throughout the realm

and one measure of ale, and one measure of corn, that is to say, the quarter of London; and one breadth of dyed cloth,

russets and haberjects, that is to say, two yards within the

lists. And it shall be of weights as of measures."

The Trial of the Pyx

The proceeding known as "the Trial of the Pyx" is the examination of

coins by a jury entirely independent of the Mint in order that it may be

ascertained that gold, silver, and cupro-nickel coins made by the Royal

Mint in accordance with the Coinage Acts 1870-1971 are of proper weight

and composed of metal of the degree of fineness or composition required

by law.

This trial is carried out annually by the Goldsmiths' Company of the

City of London. Under the Mint indentures by which Masters of the Mint

were formerly bound, and since 1870, under the Coinages Acts, it has

been provided that the Officers of the Mint shall place in the Pyx (or

Mint Box) certain sample coins of currency issued from the Mint, and

that these sample coins shall be periodically examined by a jury of

members of the Company who are specially sworn by the Queen's

Remembrancer in accordance with directions issued by the Treasury.

The Trial of the Pyx is of very ancient origin, for there is reason to believe that an examination of the justness of the coinage of this

country by assay and comparison with Trial Plates were practiced as early as Saxon - or perhaps even Roman - times, and there is record of a public Trial in the year 1248 before the Barons of the Exchequer by a jury of "twelve discreet and lawful Citizens of London with twelve

skillful Goldsmiths of the same place."

For the purposes of the trial, a specified number of coins is required

to be placed in the Pyx and produced by the Officers of the Mint.

Officers of the Standards Department of the Department of Prices and

Consumer Protection produce the standard trial plates of gold, silver,

and cupro-nickel, and the weights in their custody for the Clerk at the

Trial

.

The Queen's Remembrancer charges the jury, composed of members of the

Goldsmiths' Company, and administers the oath prescribed in the Trial of

the Pyx Order 1975 made in accordance with the Coinage Act 1971. The

jurymen first check the number and denomination of the coins in each

packet to see that the proper number has been produced, and then weigh

the coins in bulk, as well as selected samples, to ascertain that the

average weight of the coins is within the "remedy" or tolerance allowed

by law. Afterwards members of the jury carry out assays to test accurately the fineless or composition of the metal by comparison with

the standard trial plates, and to ensure that is is within the

prescribed "remedy." They also measure the diameters of sample coins to

26
ascertain whether they are within the tolerances allowed. The verdicts

of the jury are delivered to the Queen's Remembrancer in May in the

presence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is Master of the Mint,

or his Deputy, and are subsequently published in the London Gazette.

National Information Service

In the late seventies and early eighties there was an explosion of new legislation, partly as a result of our membership of the European

Community and partly due to rapid changes in technology. It is therefore imperative that Trading Standards Officers have access to quick, accurate, and comprehensive guidance notes on new legislation,

with a well documented and pre-packaged news service to supplement

his/her existing legislative tools and investigatory skills.

Recognizing this need, the Institute appointed in March 1983 a Director

of Information, DALLAS WILLCOX, who provided a similar service in his

previous post for the Institute of Chartered Accountants. He will

mastermind the introduction and development of a new National

Information Service and it will provide local authorities with a most valuable aid to their field officers, while at the same time reducing

the duplication of effort currently necessary to produce such vital

information within each and every local authority.

Metrology - N.M.C.U.

The Weights and Measures Act of 1979 implemented the European Directives

which required the United Kingdom to transfer from the 'minimum' system

to an 'average' system of weights and measures. The transition has been

relatively smooth and this is due in no small measure to the National

Metrological Co-ordinating Unit (N.M.C.U.), a statutory body created by

the Weights and Measures Act of 1979, to coordinate the enforcement

activities of the 91 weights and measures authorities in the United

Kingdom.

The second Annual Report of the N.M.C.U. confirms that both industry and

the enforcement authorities have adapted to the new and complex measures remarkably well and are working together with an unprecedented degree of

cooperation.

In the course of 30,000 tests and inspections on some 2 million

individual packages a total of 6,000 infringements were reported by

local authorities to the N.M.C.U. The great majority of cases were

dealt with by warning or by advising a packer how to comply with the

law. However, there were 73 prosecutions, and fines totaling £31,421

were imposed. Written instructions were issued on 74 occasions and the

N.M.C.U. were able to resolve four cases that became the subject of

appeal. The principle of issuing written instructions to deal with

minor or technical infringements of the law is novel in trading

standards law, and could merit consideration for wider application.

27
The main problems reported during the year related to the baking

industry and to imported goods which had a reference test failure rate

of 26 per cent. A special N.M.C.U. study on bread weights confirmed

these were the cause of the majority of prosecutions and other

infringements. As a result, priority was given to the negotiation of two special codes of practice, for Small Bakers and Plant Bakers. The

Code of Practical Guidance for Small Bakers (Small Bakers Code) was approved by the Secretary of State for Trade and while it will not eliminate every problem it should promote an even more sympathetic

understanding of the difficulties faced by the members of this industry.

The average system has been effective since the 1st January 1980. It controls goods packaged in predetermined constant quantities, when the

purchaser is not present and so cannot ascertain, at the time of

purchase, whether the weight or volume is accurately stated. The Act introduced the average system and brought the National Metrological

Co-ordinatng Unit into being.

The average system is designed primarily for application at the point of

production or importation and concerns itself, not so much with the

contents of individual packages, but with the average contents of

packages as produced at the factory or in a consignment at the place of

importation. It allows a certain proportion of the packages to contain

less, within strict limits, than the nominal quantity, provided that the

overall average is satisfactory.

Under the system, it is the primary legal duty of the packer or importer

to ensure that his production passes an enforcement officer's reference

test and that no individual packages are significantly deficient. A packer can achieve this by ensuring that his packages comply with three

rules, often referred to as the Three Rules for Packers.

Rule 1 - The actual contents of the packages shall be not less, on average, than the nominal quantity.

Rule 2 - Not more than 1 package in 40 may contain less than the nominal

quantity by an amount known as the tolerable negative error.

(These packages are called non-standard packages). The

tolerance varies according to the quantity stated on the

package.

Rule 3 - No package may contain less than the nominal quantity by an amount more than twice the tolerable negative error. These

packages are called inadequate packages.

Metrology - MEDICAL WEIGHING AND MEASURING EQUIPMENT

In Germany the Weights and Measures Inspectors carry out a regular

program of verification and inspection of medical measuring equipment;

28
e.g. for temperature, blood pressure, and anaesthetics. Despite such a program they still find signficant inaccuracies. This raises the

question - How accurate is medical measuring equipment in the United

Kingdom?

The answer, in so far as Trading Standards Officers in Britain are concerned, is that we have no statutory responsibility for testing such

equipment because it is not in use for trade. However, Adult and Baby

weighers made available for use by the public are the exception and

these are verified and inspected on a regular basis.

Perhaps, with the German experience in mind, we should now re-examine

our procedures in the UK for regularly testing, not just Baby weighers,

but all types of the more critical medical weighing and measuring

equipment.

Metrication

In Great Britain the Metric Weights and Measures Act of 1864 legalized

the use of metric terms in contracts but not the use of the metric

system in trade.

The Weights and Measures (Metric System) Act of 1897 made lawful the use of the metric system for trade, and the then Board of Trade were required to keep metric weights and measures among their Standards.

In 1965 the UK Government announced a ten year program to convert our imperial system to that of the Systeme International and established a Metrication Board in 1969 to assist the voluntary change in trade and

industry to that system.

The Weights and Measures Act 1976 facilitated the introduction of SI Units for trading purposes but restricted, for a temporary period, the

removal of permitted imperial quantities for the retail sale of a wide

range of goods.

In April 1980 the Metrication Board was abolished, and by the end of

1981 nearly all goods could be sold in metric units with the notable

exceptions of draught beer, cider, and packaged milk. Sales of

non-prepacked goods are still permitted and made mainly in the Imperial

system.

Petrol (gasoline) can and is still sold in either liters or gallons

depending on the preference of the garage concerned, although all wholesale dealings of petrol are now required to be in metric

quantities.

29
The retail carpet trade voluntarily changed to metric sales (square

meters) in 1975 but, due to adverse public reaction and competition from

some retailers who refused to change, subsequently reverted back to imperial measurements (square yards).

It is interesting to note that at one of the first meetings of my

professional Institute in 1894 it was agreed to petition the Government

with a view to adopting the metric system of weights and measures as a matter of urgency. We are still of that view but successive governments

have only been prepared to complete the change on a voluntary basis.

Positive Purchasing

Last November a Memorandum of Understanding on STANDARDS, QUALITY, and

INTERNATIONAL COMPETITIVENESS was signed between the Government and the

British Standards Institution. The aims and objectives of that

agreement are for a stronger, more widely used voluntary national

standards and quality assurance system in Britain, to support the

efficiency and competitiveness of British industry.

The Institute of Trading Standards Administration heartily endorses

those aims and will play its part in achieving them. Two simple

examples will illustrate how the Institute is already making its

contribution -

1. Copper tanks were supplied to a local authority in the West Midlands allegedly in compliance with a British Standard. On investigation it was found that the tanks were made of thin

gauge copper with a much smaller heating coil than specified.

Result: short life, bad circulation, and higher electricity

costs. Following the Trading Standards Officers' investigation

the supplier was fined £520 and the two directors £2600.

2. In East Sussex the Trading Standards Department is team leading

a review of all the County Council's purchasing arrangements,

commodity by commodity. On looking at cleaning equipment it was discovered that the authority was still using some 10 different makes of floor cleaner, many of which had been

inherited at the time of reorganization in 1974. By evaluating

the County Council's needs the choice was reduced to just two makes, both of which complied with British Standards. These were sent to an independent testing house, which advised that

the cheaper of the two machines was quite satisfactory for the

County Council's needs. They were then able to place a bulk

call -off contract for 200 machines, which will save more than

£3000 as compared to the cost of the more expensive machines.

Similar exercises enabled the County Council to reduce its

expenditure by 6.7 % ( £200,000) on its Supplies vote in 1982/83 without reducing the quality or quantity of its

purchases.

30
Fraud, Forgery, Conspiracy, and Deception

Gone are the days when Inspectors of Weights and Measures were mainly

engaged in routine inspection and verification duties. The Trade

Descriptions Act of 1968 changed all that and with the European

Communities Act of '72, the Consumer Credit Act of '74, the Weights and

Measures Acts of '76 and '79, the Consumer Safety Act of *78, the Animal

Health Act of '81, and the Road Traffic Acts of '72, '74, and 1982, the

pace and complexity of change has not slackened.

In historical terms perhaps nothing much has changed as illustrated by

this quotation from the Apocrypha at Ecclesiastes 27 v 2 - "As a nail sticketh fast between the joining of the staves, so doth sin stick close between buying and selling."

Those words would seem to suggest that unfair trading was the norm in biblical times and I am conscious of the fact that this address has

inevitably concentrated on the seamy side of trade and commerce.

However, my Institute firmly believes that the overwhelming majority of

transactions in the UK are fair, honest, and to the satisfaction of all concerned. That having been said, there are a number of disturbing

trends which call for continuing vigil ence coupled with more effective

legislation and rigorous enforcement in order to maintain the present

high degree of protection for consumers and fair traders. Some of the

problem areas are summarized below -

1. WINE FRAUD Probably the longest investigation undertaken by a Trading Standards

Department was successfully concluded last year in a 3 1/2 week trial at the Birkenhead Crown Court. The investigation was conducted by the Merseyside Trading Standards

Commercial Branch and involved the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries

and Food, Le Service de la Repression des Fraudes, the Dutch AID and the

US Department of the Treasury. The allegation was that the defendant

company had exported to the USA over 250,000 bottles of Vin de Table

that had started life at about 80 cents per bottle, having labeled it as prestigious white Burgundy Appelation Controlee wine, which was then

sold for up to 16 dollars per bottle in restaurants, hotels, and night

spots in America. The defendants were convicted of conspiracy to defraud and the managing director and general manager were sentenced to

18 months' imprisonment.

2. CAR FRAUD

Each year tens of thousands of consumers fall victim to one of the most widely perpetrated frauds in the commercial market place, namely the

reversing of the odometer by the unscrupulous motor trader. Such

criminal deception earns these traders many millions of pounds annually.

31
In 1982 a check on 573 ex-company fleet vehicles passing through the

trade in a southern county revealed that at least 297 (51 %) had had

their mileages substantially reduced. The illicit profit made by the

traders and the financial loss to the consumers amounted to at least

£75,000.

We are pleased that the Minister for Consumer Affairs has asked the

British Standards Institution to investigate the feasibility of fitting

tamper-resistant odometers to all new cars. (It is interesting to note that this procedure is already mandatory in at least one American State,

and in Germany Weights and Measures Inspectors test and seal odometers

on hire cars.) We are also encouraged by the Government's action in reintroducing the requirement for the previous owner's name and address

to appear on the registration document BUT my Institute is convinced

that much more is required; in particular, the licensing of car auctions

and the statutory requirement to include and supply mileage details

every time a vehicle changes hands and each and every time it is registered for tax. Until these or similar steps are taken this

multi-million pound fraud will continue unabated.

3. VIDEO FRAUD

(i) Piracy - the unauthorized duplication and distribution

of an original video cassette with similar but

different labels to the original

(ii) Counterfeiting - as for Piracy, but with its packaging and

labels complete in every detail

(iii) Bootlegging - the unauthorized recording of an artist's

performance

The rapid escalation of fraud, forgery, conspiracy, and deception in

relation to video cassettes requires urgent action by Government,

enforcement agencies, and the trade.

Fortunately some effective action has already been taken. Trading

Standards Departments have prosecuted a large number of retail video

traders under the Trade Descriptions Act and the courts have imposed

heavy fines, some in excess of £50,000. However, unless the Trade

Descriptions Act is amended, it cannot deal with the root cause of the

problem; i.e., the manufacturers of pirated and counterfeit tapes.

The reputable trade has set up their own organization, FACT (Federation

Against Copyright Theft) and have used the Anton Pillar civil action

procedure with some limited success. The Government has given its

support to a Private Members Bill which will substantially increase the

penalties under the Copyright Act of 1956. Unfortunately that Bill, as presently drafted, does not give Trading Standards Officers either the

power or the duty necessary for tackling the perpetrators of these

frauds.

32
Conclusion

It gives me considerable pleasure at being invited to address the 68th

National Conference on Weights and Measures; I have very much looked

forward to my second visit to Sacramento. I do hope that the above

paragraphs paint a realistic picture of some of the more important

developments in our comprehensive trading standards service in the

United Kingdom.

33
ANNUAL REPORT

OFFICE OF WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

by

Albert D. Tholen

Chief, Office of Weights and Measures

The histories of the National Bureau of Standards and of the National

Conference on Weights and Measures have been intertwined for close to 80

years. Although my talk today is billed as the "Annual Report of the

Office of Weights and Measures," it is, in reality, a report of the

weights and measures related activities of the National Bureau £

Standards in the past year.

There have been notable changes in our program, both institutionally and

in various program areas. I am going to step through these highlights

and summarize the essence of each, including the impact on the overall

weights and measures activities.

The institutional changes of special note include: first, as you

know, the transfer of the Weights and Measures Program from the National

Measurement Laboratory into the Office of the Director of the National

Bureau of Standards, and second, our program budget has been increased

almost 50 percent.

During the year, we increased support to the National Conference on

Weights and Measures and made major progress in laboratory

certification, in establishing regional measurement management groups,

in establishment of a national type evaluation program, and in launching

a major effort in development of training materials through the award

of a grant to the Conference.

The transfer of our program to the Director's Office was most helpful.

The progress in the past year has largely been a result of the personal

commitment of Dr. Ambler to the Conference on weights and measures in

general. We can more easily get the ear of the Director when necessary;

reciprocally, the Director can get to us more directly I As a reminder of the nature of our transfer to the Director's Office,

you will recall that we are part of the Office of Product Standards

Policy, which is directed by Stan Warshaw. Stan's office includes three

other program areas: Standards Oode and Information, Laboratory

.-.r creditnor., and Standards l'!ar.=re."er.r

.

The relocation of our program has maintained the former close

relationship we have had with the OIML activities under Dave Bdgerly.

5-
In terms of funding, we are currently operating at a level of $1,200,000 a year, substantially higher than the general level of funding for prior

years. This increase in numbers does not tell the entire story. We have

received approval for acquisition of new equipment which will help us make further gains in effectiveness. We now have two mini-computers

dedicated to the technical upgrading of the State laboratory programs.

The Office of Product Standards Policy has recently acquired a new

computer network, with a major component of that system in the Office of

Weights and Measures. We have procured several weight sets for use in

the round robins conducted under the regional measurement management

programs. Beyond that, we have developed new and stronger working

relationships with several of the research divisions in the Bureau in

support of various aspects of our program.

We look upon ourselves as a central resource: a resource of measurement

technology. The weights and measures program could be viewed as the

transfer agent of that NBS technology to the States, counties, and

cities, to the National Conference, to other Federal agencies, to

industry, business, and associations.

The weights and measures program functions in the following areas

(several of them were emphasized by Dr. Ambler in his talk): o Sponsorship of the National Conference o Support of the State laboratory programs o Promotion of uniform laws, regulations, and codes o Standardization of weights and measures operations (including

inspections and enforcement) o Coordination of international standards

and o Development of special programs (the two key activities

currently under development are national type evaluation and

national training)

Dr. Ambler has already addressed the sponsorship of the Conference, the

support of State labs, national type evaluation, and national training.

I plan to amplify a few points.

Our new laboratory certification program has evolved very smoothly and

has been quite effective. The response of the States and the

cooperation of the State Directors and their metrologists has been very

gratifying. Most of the States are certified under the new program. As

you know, the program provides very tailored certification, recognizing

only those areas that we believe meet the high standards required to

support the commercial marketplace.

Some States are certified in most areas of tolerance testing and

calibration in mass, volume, and length. Others have more limited

certification. A few States still lack the credentials to be recognized

through certification. We are working with that last group of States to

35
assist them in attaining certification. The past year has seen some major improvement in State capabilities and facilities. New

laboratories in Illinois and Kansas highlight this progress. Funding

has been approved for new laboratories in other States. Administrators

and legislators in still other States are considering funding for

laboratory upgrading.

A key to continued expansion of State laboratory capabilities will be

the activities of regional measurement management groups. The pioneer

group in this program was the Northeastern Measurement Assurance Program

(referred to as NEMAP) . This group is composed of 11 Northeastern

States plus Troemner and Toledo Scale companies. Subsequently, the

Southeastern Measurement Assurance Program (SEMAP) was established,

including most of the States south of the Mason/Dixon line and bordering

the East Coast.

In the past year, a Western Regional Assurance Program was established

on the West Coast, and the mid-MAP or mid-State Measurement Assurance

Program was established in the Midwest. Plans are under way for

completing this picture with the formation of a measurement program in

the Southwest. 'These programs have paid off in many ways. First, they

have provided insight into the intercomparison of standards among member

States. Technical meetings have provided opportunities for the

presentation of technical papers, promoting uniform procedures, and

upgrading the overall knowledge and services of the participants. Their

interactions with the National Bureau of Standards provide overall

intercomparisons among the regions and with the Bureau. We look forward

to the operation of all of these groups and the expansion of their

programs

Our support of the Conference has been highlighted by progress in

several areas. In terms of publications, we are gradually automating

all of the major handbooks which are basic tools of your State and

industry activities. We have two new publications in draft: one on

laboratory certification and a second on criteria and test procedures

for use in the national type evaluation program.

We have reinstituted the tech memo series broadly distributing technical

information. We have worked to make the Executive Committee function more effectively in dealing with organization and procedures and

finance, and to lay the groundwork for its upgraded responsibilities as proposed by your leadership. This past year saw major contributions by

the Executive Committee in the initiation of the new NTEP and training

programs. We've laid the groundwork and tested more effective

communications for this committee and others of the Conference through

the use of formalized distribution of draft papers and collection of

comments through a system of mail ballots. We have formalized the

budgeting system of the Conference and placed it on a more business-like

basis, investing all funds that aren't required for current

expenditures

36
The national type evaluation program is developing on schedule.

Beginning with the approval of the concept last year in Atlanta and the

approval of the first portions of the new draft criteria test procedures

handbook, we at the Bureau worked with the Conference in the

development of a model State regulation, related organizational plans,

and development of additional portions of the draft criteria handbook.

Additionally, we have developed criteria for use in authorizing State

labs to function as test labs under the program. If we collectively

meet our goals established for this week, we should be well on our way

to an operational program beginning October 1984.

Progress in developing training materials has been equally exciting.

Following the adoption of the plan developed by your Education

Committee, and following-up on Dr. Ambler's proposed grant to launch the

program, much has happened.

First, the Bureau awarded a grant to the Conference, effective the first

of February of this year, for $148,000. Subsequently, the Conference

negotiated a major contract with the Texas Engineering Extension Service

of Texas A&M University to provide technical services toward the

development of these training materials. The Conference also budgeted a

small amount of the grant for use in management and coordination of the

work under the grant.

Several working groups were established and have begun development of

basic working drafts for several of the textbooks.

No annual report would be compete without some numbers. The past year

has been a very busy one, including the updating of existing or drafting

of new handbooks (a total of 8) . In addition to broader support of the

Conference and its committees, we have increased our support of the four

regional weights and measures associations. We have delivered 24 talks

and conducted 28 training sessions (an increase in laboratory training

and new emphasis on Handbook 133 training have added to this activity)

.

As the Conference has increased its number of committees and

participants, the technical and administrative support from the Bureau

has increased proportionately. The number of committees now totals 26,

with well over 100 participants representing the full spectrum of

Conference membership.

The budget has been running about $60,000 annually. With the award of

the grant, the monies managed by the Conference increased from an annual

basis of $60,000 to over $200,000 a year.

The prototype examination work load has continued to increase; sane 75 reports of test were issued in the past year.

I thought this annual report would be an appropriate time to reacquaint

you with the members of our staff and their areas of responsibility.

37
In terms of handbooks, Handbook 44 is the province of Otto Ytfarnlof; the

105 series, both Henry Oppermann and Otto; Handbook 112, Otto; Handbook

117, Steve Hasko; and Handbooks 130 and 133, Carroll Brickenkamp (in the case of 133, Steve Hasko is also an author).

Carroll works in the areas of grain moisture, laws and regulations, and

liaison with selected UBS research divisions. Steve deals with LPG. If

your question is metric, Lou Barbrow is the man. Carroll deals with

packaging and labeling and testing. In the area of distance

measurements, call Steve Hasko. Our electronics advisor is Joe Kim. If

you are dealing in field standards and equipment, either Otto or Henry

will assist. In the type evaluation program, I am involved in policy

issues; Henry Oppermann with device testing; Otto or Henry with

technical questions.

The operation of the Conference is split; if you have general questions

or overall administrative questions, give me a call; if your questions

are more detailed, call Ann Heffernan.

Specifications and tolerances are handled primarily by Otto and Henry.

Support of the State laboratories and the regional measurement groups is

the responsibility of Henry.

Dick Smith is responsible for developing our overall training program;

he personally is involved with general support of State and regional

training sessions. Henry Oppermann handles the metrology training.

Otto Warnlof handles the support of the OIML activities.

You can see that we cover a lot of ground with few people. The increase

of resources in the program from the Bureau has resulted in our ability

to strengthen ongoing work and to undertake some major new thrusts.

Although we've made progress in the past year, our future progress is

going to depend on our joint commitment to these programs and to the

continued investment of your time and our time in doing the hard work

necessary to bring our goals to fruition. The opportunities are there,

and I appreciate the generous support and assistance that you, the

membership of this Conference, brings to all of these programs.

In a few years frcm now, the fruits of our efforts will have

materialized into a strong solid network of State laboratories, State

programs flourishing with the materials required for training staff

members, and with a nationwide type evaluation program featuring a

single evaluation of any new device or system. I hope you are as excited about this potential as I am. Thank you.

38
A SURFACE-DEPENDENT THERMAL EFFECT IN MASS CALIBRATION

by

R. M. Schoonover and J. Keller

National Bureau of Standards

INTRODUCTION

Occasionally in the measurement of mass by means of a statistically

characterized calibration process, the authors have observed measured

values that, upon repetition, disagree by an amount that considerably

exceeds the estimated measurement uncertainty. These anomalies are most

often rationalized-'- as errors in the buoyancy correction or moisture

effects. The work we present here illustrates that these errors are more likely related to viscous forces caused by air currents in the

balance weighing chamber arising from a lack of thermal equilibrium

between the mass and the surrounding air. This effect is greatly

enhanced when objects undergoing calibration have a different surface to

mass ratio than that of the mass standards to which they are being

compared.

There are very few instances known to the authors where the air in a balance weighing chamber and weights undergoing calibration are in

thermal equilibrium with each other. Therefore, the weights are either

cooler or warmer than the surrounding air and, furthermore, the air

convection currents in the balance chamber impose a drag force on the

balance structure and on the weights. A component of this force will

either add to the gravitational force acting on the balance or oppose

it. In either event there remains an unaccounted force in the

calibration algorithm. We report on an experiment which was designed to

examine the above hypothesis.

In 1946 Blade2 performed a limited study of mass assignment errors caused by convection forces in measurements related to chemistry. Our

interest here is to understand the insidious aspects of the effect as it

relates to both state-of-the-art and routine mass calibration as performed in modern facilities. To quote Blade "the time variation of

the error depends in part upon the manner in which heat divides between

two paths, and is therefore a complex function of heat capacity,

conductivity, emissivity, and geometry."

llndicates references at the end of talk.

39
Blade's approach was to ask the question "Hew long must one wait until

the mass error for a 17-g plummet does not exceed 0.1 mg?" Today the

uncertainty associated with a 1-kg stainless steel mass standard is

about 0.1 mg; 0.001 mg for a 1-g weight. In some scientific work the

measurement error on a 1-kg platinum standard is just a few parts per

billion.

EXPERIMENTAL

We have limited our investigation to temperature differences just a few

degrees Celsius either side of the balance temperature which has

equilibrated to room temperature. The measurement sequence allows us to

look at weight difference between masses that should exhibit a constant

difference after the application of a small buoyancy correction. Some

of these weights were maintained at temperatures different from that

found inside the balance enclosure, some did not have "the ideal surface

to mass ratio of normal standards, and sane were fabricated from

materials of different thermal properties. Nominally all the weights were 10 g and their pertinent properties are summarized in Table 1. Table II presents the observation sequence of eight mass comparisons

between six weights. The method of double substitution weighing was

used to collect the data.

Weights A and B always remained in the balance chamber and all others,

except during the intercomparisons , remained outside the balance where

they were maintained at temperatures different from inside the balance.

Initially, after each sequence the weights outside the balance were

elevated in temperature in preparation for the next sequence until a predetermined maximum temperature was reached. The process was then

reversed, decreasing the temperature, until a predetermined temperature

below that of the balance was achieved and then reversed again until room temperature was once again attained.

All of the weights were inside the balance on several occasions, usually

the beginning, the middle, and end of the progression. However, the

entire process was repeated twice; the first time stainless steel sheen

metal weights designated S and SH were substituted for X and Y (Group I)

and the second time copper sheet metal weights C2 and C4 were

substituted for X and Y (Group II)

The first observation in the sequence was of the two standard weights

that always remain in the balance and is indicative of a normal weighing

technique. That is, the weights and the air were near thermal

equilibrium and the weights had normal laboratory mass standard

characteristics. The last measurement in the sequence was a repeat of

the first and was merely intended to identify any unusual behavior that

could result from introducing the other weights that were not in thermal

equilibrium with the balance. The second weighing compares tvvo ordinary

laboratory weights of nearly identical properties; however one of them,

C, was artificially maintained at a temperature usually different from

40
Table 1 MASS ARTIFACT CHARACTERISTICS

IDENTIFICATION

MASS (g)

GROUP 1 GROUP 2

i i i i C D X Y X Y

10

SHAPE

MATERIAL

SURFACE

|- CYLINDER HT.=5DIA.-| |— PARALLELEPIPED 1

| STAINLESS STEEL 1 [-COPPER-]

POL.SHED 1 Kml-SHH

DENSITY (g/cm3) |— 7.89

1 | 7.80

THERMAL EXPANSION

(PPM/°C)

SURFACE AREA (cm 2

) SURFACE TO MASS

RATIO (cm 2 /g)

6.4

0.64

15

6.0

0.60

| |- 8.96-]

I— 17 H

ASPECT RATIO |— 0.86 1|— 0.95 —

CYLINDER DIM. (cm) |—

PARALLELEPIPED

DIM. (cm)

— 42.8

4.28

3.32

— 46.7

4.67

3.64

1.23 DIA

.05 HT.

1.19

1.14

h8.3

L 9.1

2.5 W 2.5

0.06 H 0.05 |

41
Table 2 SEQUENCE OF MASS DIFFERENCES

MASS#1 MINUS MASS*2

STORAGE LOCATION STORAGE LOCATION

WEIGHING HOT/COLD WEIGHING HOT/COLD

CHAMBER BLOCK CHAMBER BLOCK

OBS.#

@

8

SHEET METAL WEIGHT

ORIENTATION KEY

D ON END

ON EDGE

ON FACE

B

0 - 0

42
that of the balance. This observation was used to detect any

surface-dependent thermal effects that may have been induced, whereas

the third weighing looked in particular for any cancellation properties.

That is, the weights may not have been in thermal equilibrium with the

balance but were equal to each other in temperature and each would

presumably have undergone the same offsetting force. This condition

would have been undetectable in weighing as the observed difference

should remain constant. Weighings 4 through 6 were meant to amplify any

surface effects that may exist and to see if there was an orientation

dependence. Lastly weighing number 7 looked for cancellation between

identical weights with very high surface to mass ratios.

APPARATUS

The equipment used to conduct the measurements consists of a balance, a circulating thermostated bath, and a means to measure temperature,

barometric pressure, and relative humidity (see Figure 1) . The balance

has a capacity of 20 g and a reproducibility of approximately 0.008 mg. A modification made to the balance permits loading a 5-mg sensitivity

weight on the balance pan without opening the balance door. This

feature causes less disturbance inside the balance weighing chamber and

allows for a more rapid progression through the measurement sequence.

During the weighing sequence the balance pan was exposed to weights of

temperatures quite different from the temperature of the balance.

Protection is provided by an insulated aluminum block that also contains a slot for receiving the sheet metal weights (see Figure 2). Fluid is

circulated from a thermostated bath to a well-insulated steel mass for

thermally soaking the weights at various selected temperatures. The

cylindrical weights simply rest on the block whereas additional smaller

steel blocks rest on top of the sheet metal weights to insure good

thermal contact. This technique has the advantage of rapidly forcing

the sheet metal weights back to their initial temperature after a

substitution weighing is completed. To measure both the air

temperature inside of the balance and that of the soaking block, a calibrated thermistor thermometer with two probes was used. Additional

assurance was provided by a mercury-in-glass thermometer. Both devices

were accurate to about 0.01 °C.

DATA

Our assumption that weights undergoing calibration are not in thermal

equilibrium with the air has been verified in several different

laboratories3 . The lack of thermal equilibrium comes from several

causes. First, mass laboratories are usually not highly-controlled

temperature-stabilized spaces. Second, weights have a long thermal time

constant in air. Third, if equilibrium exists before the measurement

begins, the operator's body heat quickly disrupts this condition. In these measurements, the laboratory temperature fluctuated slowly, about

43
Figure 1: Apparatus Overview

Figure 2: View of weighing chamber with a parallelepiped

weight on balance pan.

44
1 oc per day. The temperature inside the balance enclosure increased

about 0.1 °C during the 45-minute measurement period, due to the

operator's body heat.

In this study a temperature difference of zero is assigned whenever all

the weights were stored inside the balance. These data are plotted in

the figures as numbers (except figure 3) to distinguish between thermal

soaking in the balance and on the soaking block. A number magnitude

greater than one indicates the number of close or overlapping points.

The buoyancy correction is based on the air temperature inside the

balance as measured by the thermistor thermometer.

Figure 3 presents the measured difference between weights A and B. The

reader will recall that the difference (A-B) is observed at the

beginning and end of each sequence for a total of 82 measurements;

however some measurements were lost resulting in only 76 plotted values.

In group 1 there were 36 successful measurements and 40 in group 2. Statistical tests indicate that the first and last sequence measurements

of A-B in group 1 are not statistically different; however in group 2 the test does indicate a slight significance. We believe this slight

significance is due to the difference in thermal conductivity between

the stainless steel and copper weights and does not affect the

conclusions of this report.

The third sequence comparison, C-D, is between two identical laboratory

weights made of stainless steel. These weights were maintained together

outside the balance at temperatures ranging from 5 oc above to 5 iC below the balance temperature as were all weights outside the balance.

Figure 4 presents the data graphically. Ihe group 1 average difference

was -19.

8

JUg and in group 2, -16.4 yUg; the standard deviations were 6.7

and 10.

jug, respectively; the pooled values are given in figure 4. If we compare these results to the second measurement in the sequence, A-C,

figure 5, we see that the difference , C-D, is constant whereas A-C is not. We conclude that there is a very important cancellation property

demonstrated by these results. That is, the viscous forces acting on

each weight are the same and do not affect the measured differences.

Again looking at the second sequence observation (A-C), as shown in

figure 5, we see evidence that the observed difference has a strong

temperature dependence. The reader will recall that weight A, although

nearly identical to weight C, always remains inside the balance whereas

C is heated or cooled prior to the comparison. The line drawn through

the data of figure 5 is not the result of a least-squares fit but is

suggested by the data. The data given in all the figures are treated in

the same way. Looking next to observation 7 in the sequence where sheet metal weights

of large surface-to-mass ratios were compared while supported on end, to present a high aspect ratio, the cancellation property is again present,

figures 6 and 7. ifowever, both in group 1 and group 2 the data have a greater scatter as measured by the standard deviations, 36.4 and 32.0 g, respectively. We conclude that weights with high surface-to-mass ratio

45
GROUP 1 GROUP 2

FIRST LAST

I

FIRST LAST

I

MEASUREMENTS

A-B ALL MEASUREMENTS

Figure 3

MEAN -18 ( M9 >

BLOCK TEMP. - A I R TEMP. <°C)

C-D ALL MEASUREMENTS

TEMP. - AIR TEMP. <°C> A-C ALL MEASUREMENTS

46
GROUP 2 COPPER

MEAN 125 (pg)

S.D. 32

BLOCK TEMP. - AIR TEMP. (°C)

X-Y ON END

Figure 7

GROUP 1 STAINLESS STEEL

MEAN 39 (U9)

S.O. 36

BLOCK TEMP. - AIR TEMP. (°C) X-Y ON END

Figure 6

47
are very sensitive to much smaller thermal inequalities, with

differences in thermal properties between stainless steel and copper

having little effect on the outcome.

Observations 4 through 6 of the sequence were designed to demonstrate

whether or not the observed difference between weights of dissimilar

surface-to-mass ratios might be dependent not only on temperature but

also on their orientation on the balance pan as well. Figures 8 through

13 show clearly the effeet, to be orientation sensitive and with about

the same magnitude for stainless steel and copper weights of the same

dimensions. All of the A-X orientations are shown in figures 14 and 15

for group 1 and group 2 respectively.

Beyond the errors attributed to measurement imprecision, about QJlg

here, there are several errors in the buoyancy correction to be

considered. First there is an error associated with the air density

equation itself that in this work is trivial. Second, when two masses

zf r.;.-ir.illy equal density ere compared but cue is 3 Z Z warmer than the

other, uhe respective buoyant forces are different by 2SjUq assuming the

air takes on the weight temperature. Thus our data of the mass

differences near thermal equilibrium are unaffected but progressively

approach a 25-jcg systematic error near the 5 °C extremes. Therefore,

this error has little effect on the observed trends and is almost

non-existent in the areas approaching equilibrium that are of the

greatest interest to metrology.

The data here clearly demonstrate that there is a significant

surface-dependent thermal effect present under the condition of this

experiment and we suggest that these results reflect similar conditions

encountered in many laboratories. However, the thermal effect is

complex and varies with balance, weight geometry, etc.; therefore, these

results should not be used to predict the exact behavior for other

cases. The effects of these thermal effects are of concern and

safeguards should be established to rrdnimize the errors they cause. Briefly we can summarize these measurement results as follows:

There is a cancellation property for weights of minimized

surface-to-^nass ratio that are equal in temperature. The

cancellation property still exists for the non-idealized weights

with significant degradation in precision. A non-cancelling effect

is present whenever weights are not equal to each other in

geometry, orientation, and temperature, leading to a systematic

error in the measured difference.

48
BLOCK TEMP. - AIR TEMP. CO

A-X ON END

TEMP. ( C)

A-X ON EDGE

TEMP. - AIR TEMP. CO

A-X ON FACE

49
50
GROUP 1 STAINLESS STEEL

ON EDGE

ON END

GROUP 2 COPPER

BLOCK TEMP. - AIR TEMP. (°C) A-X ALL ORIENTATIONS

Figure 14

ON FACE

ON EDGE

ON END

BLOCK TEMP. - AIR TEMP. (°C) A-X ALL ORIENTATIONS

Figure 15

51
To better understand the significance of these results we measured the

temperature change versus time for a few typical laboratory weights and

field standards. This was accomplished by heating and cooling the

weights and then recording both temperature and time until room temperature was attained. The details of this work are summarized in

the appendix to this report but we -use a few calculated equilibrium

times in this discussion.

To understand how a systematic error of this sort can be introduced into

the measurement system and remain -undetected we will examine the NBS

mass calibration program, a procedure which has been duplicated by many

other laboratories in both equipment and method. The program, primarily

is used to calibrate ordered sets of laboratory mass standards. These

weights are usually made of rhodium plated brass or polished stainless

steel and their surface area has been minimized; that is, they are in

the form of a right circular cylinder whose diameter and height are

equal. The densities of these weights are between 7.3 and 8.4 g-cmr^.

The calibration process usually begins with the intercomparison of the mass standard, a check standard, and a combination of weights taken from

the set -undergoing calibration, called a summation. The performance

history for the mass standards and balances from previous calibrations

is used as a guide to determine the validity of these measurements. If

the current calibration does not yield values close to the accepted

values the calibration is flagged "out of control" and repeated. When

repetition is necessary it is usually because of misreadings, wrong

weight combination, and sometimes for unknown reasons. Looking closer at the process and with our new insight, we make the

following observations:

1) The check standard and weight summation have vastly different

surface-to-mass ratios

.

2) A summation of weights is never used as a check standard.

3) Weights undergoing calibration cannot always be stored in the

weighing chamber during calibration and therefore may not be in

thermal equilibrium with mass standards.

4) Occasionally the process is used to calibrate weights with

extraordinary features; that is, aluminum kilograms, silicon

crystals, pressure-^gage weights, and other objects of

scientific interest.

5) The room temperature is not tightly controlled and the balance

operator has an immediate influence on the temperature inside

the balance case. We know7 that if we should repeat an "acceptable measurement" we are likely to get the same result. However in the case of the weight

summation, aluminum kilogram, and other masses of different

52
characteristics our results probably contain the systematic error and

repetition under the same conditions will always yield the same undetected error. Errors of the sort we have been concerned with here

usually remain undetected and unaccounted for in the uncertainty

statements. The few occasions that are indicative of the thermal

problem have occurred when an interlaboratory comparison takes place or

some procedural rule has been violated. If one laboratory has very good

thermal control relative to another we sometimes encounter anomalous

results that we now have the basis to understand.

In conclusion we can see the need for automation where the highest

levels of accuracy are required. This would remove the operator

influence and in conjunction with good thermal control should give

bias-free results. Routine calibration methods might include better

thermal control, check standards designed to look for systematic

effects, improved weight storage, and sufficient equilibrium times. A

stainless steel 1-kg weight removed from a vapor degreaser at 65 °C

requires 14 hours to be within 0.01 °C of the room temperature. If

after equilibration, the weight is placed in a balance 1 °C cooler an

additional 7 hours of soaking is required. For additional details on

required equilibrium times see the appendix of the report.

From both a practical and economic point of view we should consider

techniques that can readily be implemented in the laboratory with an

immediate improvement to mass measurement. Some suggestions are as

follows: Balance weighing stations can be protected with heat shields

and insulation around the balance from the influences of changing room

temperature and the operator's body heat. The operator can be stationed

away from the balance and wear insulating gloves when handling the

weights. Balance weighing chambers can be annexed to accommodate all

the weights in a given sequence to provide uniform thermal soaking.

Lastly, do not emit or shorten the required soaking period.

ACKNOMLELX^MENT

The authors are indebted to Charles P. Reeve of the Statistical

Engineering Division for his generous assistance in analyzing the

thermal equilibrium data.

REFERENCES

1. Pontius, P. E., Science 190, 379 (1975).

2. Blade, E. , Ind. and Eng. Chem. , Analyt. Ed. 12, 330 (1943).

3. R. M. Schconover, R. S. Davis, R. G. Driver and V. E. Bower, J. Res. Nat. Bur. Stand. (U.S.) 35, 27 (Jan-Feb 1980).

53
APPENDIX

The time required for a mass to reach thermal equilibrium with its

surroundings depends on the initial temperature offset (Tj), geometry,

surface finish, thermal capacity, and thermal conductivity. The

difference in temperature between the mass and the ambient laboratory

temperature, Tr, as a function of time, t, is given approximately by the

following equation:

-t/B

T - T = Ae m (1)

I R

where % is a combination of several physical constants for the mass M,

and the coefficient A is equivalent to the initial thermal offset.

By experiment we found that the constant % was a function of weight

design and material and of whether the weight was warmer or cooler than

the laboratory temperature. These families of curves are the result of

heating or cooling various mass standards and then allowing them to

equilibrate to the laboratory temperature while continuously recording

time and temperature; Figure Al is a typical data plot showing the

cooling of weights which were supported on the laboratory floor by an insulating pad.

The data from each curve were fitted by the method of least squares and

the resulting values of % for each family were again fitted to the

following equation:

% = KM? (2)

where the values of K and P are derived frcm several different masses.

The results for P and K are grouped in table Al according to weight type

and thermal state (i.e. hot or cold) as compared to the laboratory

temperature

.

The waiting time, or time required to reach an approximate equilibrium, can then be calculated by making the proper substitutions from table Al

into the formula

Waiting time = K M? In ( T

i " rR). TF - Tr

where Tp is the room temperature plus a small temperature offset that as a practical matter can be between 0.01 OC and 1 °C. Tp-TR which must

not equal zero, is the greatest acceptable temperature differential.

54
40

TIME (hours)

Figure Al: The above data are taken from continuous recording

of thermal decay for a 1 kg stainless steel weight

and are typical of other weight decay data.

55
To illustrate the calculation assume that a 1-kg stainless steel mass

standard is heated to 65 °C in a vapor decreasing cleaning tank. 'The weight is removed form the degreaser and allowed to equilibrate to a 0.01 oc offset (20.01 oc) in the laboratory that is at 20 oc. We then can make the following substitutions from table I into the above

formula:

, .365 , 65-20

Waiting ti^me = 1.611(1) In (^ gl „20 00

= ^ours - The mass must be expressed in kilograms, temperature in oc, and the

result is in hours

.

56
TABLE Al

Thermal

Weight Type State K P Range of Use

Stainless steel

cylinders. Ht.^2^ Hot 1.611 0.365 1 kq to 250 kg

dia. with

polished surface Cold 1.668 0.401 1 kg to 23 kg

Cast iron Hot 0.628 0.454 1 kg to 450 kg

cubic with

painted surfaces Cold 0.934 0.367 1 kg to 23 kg

Brass cylinders Hot 1.098 0.349 1 kg to 23 kg

Ht.^j dia.

bare metal finish Cold 1.379 0.408 1 kg to 23 kg

57
LIQUID METER PROVERS

James W. Williams, Jr. Sales Manager

Brooks Instrument Division Emerson Electric Company

StatesDo-o, Georgia

Abstract The following discussion has been prepared to acquaint

the reader with the various types of liquid meter provers

available in todays market. Particular emphasis is given to the most current calibration tecr-c o;, the compact, small volume, portable prover. Th s -ompact prover provides high

accuracy, repeatability, and rapid operation in a minimum

of space without interrupting the flowing stream.

Introduction The advent of the energy crisis and strict EPA regulations began a drastic change in the philosophy of flow measure- ment. Previous to this time petroleum products were rela- tively inexpensive. Therefore, demands for high measure- ment accuracy was of lesser concern. The energy crisis of 1973 started an era of intense awareness

of accuracy, accountability and profitability. Spiralling inflation during 1978 and 1979, brought on by the

rising cost of imported crude, was the major factor that made

the oil companies look, with a critical eye, at their operations. One of the ways major oil companies could keep

ahead of this skyrocketing inflation was to modernize their operations with accuracy, accountability and profitability as their goal. Accuracy became important because the price of imported crude had increased ten-fold over the last ten years. This means that 1% accuracy in a meter ten years ago would

today have to De .1% to maintain the same cost/accuracy

ratio. This also applies to accountability where the tracking

of products would have to be again 10 times as accurate to maintain the status quo. Profitability would follow the same

rule, with added factors such as transportation, marketcost, taxes and other influencing factors which drive the end result up exponentially. As a result, in recognition of the tremendous problem facing the oil companies, major manufacturers of liquid flow measurement devices and accessories have dedicatee their expertise to supplying the measurement accuracies required. With emphasis on meters being more accurate than they were

10 years ago, it follows that there would be equal emphasis

for better methods of calibrating the meter once it has been

put into service. Todays standards are:

1. Master Meter Prover.

2. Volumetric Seraphin or Can type prover.

3. Pipe provers.

4 Sea z

r z , ers. 5. Small Volume provers. 58

Types of Meter Provers Many factors will affect meter operation. It is therefore necessary to have some means of determining the meter performance under the actual operating conditions. Trie meter performance, or accuracy, is the ratio of the indicated volume to the actual true volume. The actual volume is determined by the use of one of several types of meter

calibration (prover) systems which are as follows:

1 . G'o. —eve o

r c, "z o, „se cf a ,\elg r sca.e - z.z '

Ftgure 1 Weight Scale Prover

2. Volumetric proving using a calibrated seraphin tank

(Figure 2).

= r. -- 5-5 55 = o = C rl 5*35 Or &3T5!

i-e>e : : =• \A.

Tc - 2

: 55---e : :•

: - : - - -

Oram slooe of

at least 5

.a .e ~v 4 4

Figure 2 Field Standard Prover
1 1 1 1 1 1 0

MASTER METER

Figure 3 Master Meter Prover

Figure 4 Piston Prover System

3. Master meter proving by using a standard meter as a reference for testing other working meters (Figure 3). 4. Volumetric proving using a positive displacement type

prover (Figure 4).

5. Compact (small volume) Prover using a poppet valve actuated piston (Figure 5). All of the above mentioned proving systems have varying degrees of accuracy because of their principle of operation, product characteristics, flow rate, pressure and the meter

application. Of the prover systems mentioned above, the positive dis- placement type is by far the most accurate and convenient to

use. The main advantage of the positive displacement meter

proving concept is that the flow of liquid through the meter- Figure 5 Compact Prover 59
ing system, whether in the proving mode or not, is continuous. This continuous flow eliminates errors from the

starting and stopping of the product flow, which is one of the requirements of a volumetric system. Also proving time

is substantially reduced and temperature stability of the prover and meter is more easily achieved. There are numerous types of positive displacement meter

provers on the market today, but they all operate on the same basic principle, that being the displacement of a known

volume of product. This displacement of product occurs through the use of a displacer, either spheroid or piston, which forces the product through a very precisely calibrated section of pipe, commonly referred to as the measuring

section. Since the product flowing through the prover is also the product that passes through the meter in question, a ratio can be established between the registered volume and the

actual volume of the calibrated section in the prover. This

ratio is referred to as the meter factor, and is a multiplier that is applied to the meter registration to determine the

true volume of the product meter.

Meter Factor

Prover Volume

Meter Volume

There are three basic types of positive displacement meter

provers; unidirectional, bidirectional, and compact (small volume) provers. Unidirectional Provers (Reference Figure 6) This type prover uses a spheroid, or piston, which makes a single one-way trip through the prover loop and the measuring

section. The measuring section's limits are defined by a set

of detector switches that have to be precisely located to define the' calibration section. As the sphere, or piston, passes these limit switches, the calibration begins. Since product flow in the unidirectional prover is always in one

direction, higher velocities of the spheroid, or piston, can be

achieved.

Bidirectional Provers (Reference Figure 7) This type of prover uses a spheroid, ur piston which traverses the total length of the prover pipe, and returns back through

-^hat same pipe by means of a four-way diverter valve. It is because of this two-way direction of the spheroid that the name bidirectional is derived. The bidirectional prover is available in sizes to 48" in diameter with pressure rating of 600 lb ANSI. As in the case of the unidirectional prover, the

calibrated section of the prover is again defined by detector

switches. However, since the spheroid makes a two-way trip through the same pipe, the positioning of the detector switches is not as critical as in the unidirectional prover case, since the round trip will tend to cancel out positioning errors of the detector switch. There is another form of the bidirectional prover which uses

a piston as a displacer. The operation of this prover is similar to that discussed above under bidirectional provers. The

difference obviously being that the displacer is a piston instead of spheroid. One of the advantages of the piston type bidirectional prover is that it does not require a ball- launch chamber that is larger than the measuring section. However, it does require a length of pipe at each end in which the piston rests between proving cycles.

Figure 6 Typical Unidirectional Return-Type Prover System 60
Figure 7 Typical Bidirectional U-Type Sphere Meter P rover

Compact, Small Volume, Provers (Reference Figure 8) This compact prover is a passive device which serves as a primary standard in the accurate determination of volume

through a transducer (measuring device) under test. Operation is fully automatic requiring the operator to initiate the run only, with all subsequent actions automatically ac- complished.

Its inherent design represents a departure from the conventional technology used in laboratory weight-time cali- brators or volume calibrators today.

Design features include a piston assembly with an internal poppet valve in conjunction with optical position sensing, hydraulic and/or pneumatic piston actuation and modem

data processing techniques. The result is a complete packACTUATOR

SHAFT

PROVER PISTON WITH

POPPET VALVE (OPEN POSITION)

NEUMATIC SPRING PLENUM

HYDRAULIC MOTOR & PUMP

Figure 8 Compact (Small Volume) Prover 61
Repeatability - .02% or better. Hazardous Location - Prover meets National Electrical Code

Class 1, Group D, Division 1 specifications. Toxic Fluids - Closed system allows users of volatile or

toxic fluids.

Principle of Operation

The hydraulically operated Compact Prover and its component parts are shown in Figure 8. Basically the prover

consists of a flow tube in which is mounted a free piston with a coaxially mounted poppet valve. The poppet valve is contained within the prover piston and is connected via the actuator shaft to the piston of the actuator cylinder. A

pressure in the pneumatic spring'plenum, in combination

with the hydraulic system, operates the actuator piston. The

pressure in the pneumatic spring plenum serves to close the poppet valve and operate the piston through a proving run. The hydraulic system returns the piston upstream and holds

the poppet valve open in the upstream position. The normal

flow of the fluid will pass through the open valve. A fail safe stop is provided at the downstream flange to prevent acci- dental blockage of fluid flow. The piston position in the cylinder is detected by optical switches. A signal is generated when a "flag", which is attached to the shaft and moves in synchronization with the prover piston, passes through the slotted switch blocking the passage of light. Three switches are used: one for sensing

the upstream position of the piston assembly and two for defining the displaced volume of the proving system. These

signals are used to operate various timers and counters

to obtain data, to operate the appropriate valves and controls, and to illuminate the appropriate displays on the data

control console. The prover is in its start, pre-run, mode when the calibration piston is in the upstream position with its poppet valve open. The STANDBY mode is achieved and maintained by applying hydraulic pressure to the downstream face of the actuator

piston. (See Figure 9).

Upstream or Start Proving End of Run Poppet

Stand-by Run Position Volume Valve

Position Sensor Sensor y—(open)

Pickoff Sensor

-Prover

J^L- I Piston / Dump -

1 n .

, / , <-i j Downstrear

Hydraulic Closed 0uf|e( Pressure Upstream

Fluid Inlet

Figure 9 Compact Prover Standby Mode

aged proving system significantly reduced in size, weight, and cost while equalling or exceeding the performance of conventional provers and laboratory calibrators. Unique electronics permit exact time determination and

pulse counting, providing high accuracy proving with smaller volume and fewer flowmeter pulses than -any previous technology. The use of a small displacement volume is made

possible by the high resolution of the compact prover which

is attributed to three major factors: precision optical switches, data acquisition using double chronometry, and adjustable

multi-pass runs. Optical switches are used for defining prover volume by detecting the piston position. These switches are

reliable, precise and have a fast response time (5 x 1G"6 sec ). Data acquisition using double chronometry (having two

electrical response systems) allows a much higher degree of

resolution of meter pulses than the plus or minus pulse common to conventional loop provers. Multi-pass runs are adjustable, allowing for an increased number of meter pulses representing an increased measured volume. A compact microprocessor data control console can be

located adjacent to, or remotely from, the prover and is suitable for either portable or panel mounting. It automatically cycles the prover to the desired number of passes, and processes and displays the data (Average Meter Fre- quency, Flow Rate in Engineering Units, K Factor and Total Meter pulses per run). Raw data can be displayed by de- pressing the Display Switch one time. A second depression

of the display switch will result in the call back of the

calculated data. The microprocessor data control and data reduction system

offers considerable flexibility. Functions can be provided on

a user selected basis, such as an interface output for hard copy printout of raw and processed data, or for connection

to another computer. The effects of temperature and pressure on a displaced volume of liquid is an important factor when

performing a volume calibration (water draw) as well as proving a flowmeter. The data control automatically corrects

for pressure and temperature. The unique features of this prover, as described, are a viable concept for cost reduction and increased versatility in calibration systems. The relatively small size has proved to be an added benefit in congested areas such as metrology

laboratories, off-shore platforms, chemical plants, instrument

calibration/repair facilities, and pipelines.

Design Features

. Compact and Portable - Entire unit may be mounted to a skid or trailer for easy access and mobility.

. Rapid Proving Operation - Single pass calculation and display

in seconds.

. Versatility - Operates with virtually any pulse output flow- meter (Turbine, PD, Vortex Shedding, Helical, Magnetic,

etc.).

. Positive Leak Checking.

. Automatic Mechanical Over-ride insures undisturbed product flow.

. Corrosion Resistant - Standard flow tube is plated with

electroless nickel (Series 300 Stainless Steel optional!.

Initiating a START command through the data control console causes hydraulic pressure to be vented from the downstream face of the actuator piston. Proper gas pressure from the pneumatic spring plenum applied to the upstream
face of the actuator piston overcomes seal bearing friction and the ejecting force applied to the shaft, allowing the poppet valve to close. The closed piston assembly will move

with the continuous stream of fluid through the prover. The

effect is to increase the measured fluid downstream pressure by a very slight amount (usually only a few inches of water). This assures that the poppet valve is closed during a proving

pass (see Figure 10). As the piston assembly moves downstream, the "flag" passes through the first switch generating a pulse then through the second switch generating a second

pulse.

Spring Plenum , Pressure-' Hydraul

Pressure

Figure 10 Compact Prover Starting Mode

As soon as the "flag" passes the End of Run volume switch,

all data acquisition is complete (Figure 11). The console

causes hydraulic pressure to be applied to the downstream

face of the actuator piston overcoming the pressure in the pneumatic spring plenum. The applied pressure repositions the prover piston through the flowing fluid to the upstream

of the flow tube while keeping the poppet valve open.

This action also causes the gas in the pneumatic spring system to be recompressed.

Figure 11 Compact Prover End-of-Run

pulse after the first counter is started. When the displacing device reaches the second detector (P2), which defines the end of the calibrated volume, it stops the first counter. The

elapsed time, which will be called Time A, is the time re- quired to displace the calibrated volume D of the prover. At

the same time that the second detector stops the Time A

counter it sets a gate to stop the other counter which has continued running. This counter is stopped when the next whole flowmeter pulse is counted. This is the time required to count the total number of whole flowmeter pulses C, and

is identified as Time B. Using this data, it is possible to obtain an accurate pulse count in whole numbers for the period (Time A) during which the calibrated volume (D) was displaced. There were A x C/B pulses, where C/B can be see/i to be the average frequency of pulses generated during the time required to displace Volume .D. Time A is the precise time elapsed. Accordingly, the K-factor corresponding to this period of time is seen to be: A C K=—x—

D B Very simply stated it is the average flowmeter frequency

times the time required to displace the calibrated volume.

VOLUME DCount C Whole

Figure 12 Double Chronometry

Figure 12 shows that the time periods for displacing the

calibrated volume of fluid and for counting whole flowmeter

pulses are coincident except for a fraction of one pulse. Therefore, C/B represents the average frequency of flow- meter pulses during the time of the displacement of the

calibrated volume. Double Chronometry K Factor Calculation for a 12" Compact Prover A(Time) C(Pulses) K = D(Volume) B(Time for Pulses) Double Chronometry (Referenced Figure 12) As the piston (displacing device) passes the first detector

(P1 ), which defines the beginning of the calibrated volume, it starts a counter in the electronic console. This device counts

the output of a 100 KHz oscillator; i.e., it counts .000001

second time increments. At the same time it enables another

counter which also counts the output of the I00 KHz oscil- lator. This counter is started by the first whole flowmeter

Reference: A = Time for Known Displaced Volume in Seconds Time Counter - 100 K Hz

jo jo j0 j.5 j8| 3 17 |T

1 B = Time for Whole Meter Pulses Time Counter - 100 K Hz

1 0 ! 0 10 1 .Si 8| 3f 2 1 9 ! 63
C = Accumulated Whole Meter Pulses Pulse Counter (From Meter) 0 0 0 0 0 3 6 4 Known Displaced Volume (By Water Draw Certification) 14.99988 Gal (.35714 BBL ) Example:

Where:

A(Time) D(Volume)

0.58377

C(Pulses) B(Time for Pulses)

364

0.35714 BBL 0.58329 (Referenced Above) K = 1020.0468 Pulses Per BBL (Or Unit of Volume)

Test Results The following test ;(Table 1) is a sample result of a typical Turbine Flowmeter calibration run. An explanation of the column headings is as follows: FREQ Frequency output of the flowmeter under test. F RATE Instantaneous flowrate during proving. K Individual K-factor (pulses per unit volume) of the flowmeter for a particular pass. T DVOL Time in seconds forthe calibrated displaced volume. T FMP Time in seconds for the whole number of pulses from flowmeter. NO. PUL Number of whole pulses accumulated during

proving passes. K AVE Average K-factor (pulses per unit volume) of all previous passes in that run. P NO. Number of passes. NOTE: The measured volume is set into the microprocessor and is not indicated above. It was 15.066276 gallons and was

determined by water draw and traceable to NBS.

The repeatability of the test results with the 3" turbine meter

(Table 1 ) is as follows: Runs 1 & 2 - 0.0072%

Runs 2 & 3 - 0.0082% - worst case Runs 3 & 4 - 0.0034% - best case The total time required to complete all proving runs and print out the data was under 3 minutes. The repeatability of the test results with a 4" Positive Dis- placement Meter (Table 2) was one count difference in over 100,000 count or 0.0001%.

It is easy to see that the repeatability and accuracy of these

tests far exceed the published data on existing calibration systems. The dual chronometry technique and optical sensors have greatly improved the performance of liquid flowmeter

calibration systems. Comparison

Table 3 outlines the salient characteristics of the Compact

Prover, Ball Prover and the Weight-time Calibrator. Conclusion

The Compact Prover is a newcomer to the prover marketplace. It is a piston type prover. It has great advantages in size, accuracy and economy. The compact prover was intro- duced in about 1976 and has become an accepted measure- ment standard in the industry today. Advancements in the realm of micro-processor technology

has allowed the size of the prover volume to be reduced with

accuracies equal to or greater than those of the older designs.

Table 1 3" Turbine Meter

TEMPERATURE 71°F FREQ F RATE K T DVOL T FMP NO. PUL K AVE P NO.

472.53 568.7 49.8506 01.58745 01.58719 00750 49.8506 01 471.84 567.9 49.8512 01.58978 01.58950 00750 49.8509 02

472.88 569.1 49.8494 01.58623 01.58601 00750 49.8504 03

472.11 568.2 49.8478 01.58877 01.58860 00750 49.8497 04

472.93 569.1 49 .8538 01.58621 01.58585 00750 49.8505 05

473.67 570.0 49.8538 01.58373 01.58337 00750 49.8538 01 471.78 567.8 49.8515 01.58999 01.58970 00750 49 8527 02

474.99 571.6 49.8544 01.57934 01.57896 00750 49 8533 03

472.29 568.3 49.8578 01.58848 01.58799 00750 49.8544 04

473.82 570.2 49.8532 01.58320 01.58286 00750 49.8541 05

474.46 570.9 49.8572 01.58121 01.58285 00751 49.8572 01 474.08 570.6 49.8440 01.58206 01.58201 00750 49.8506 02

474.81 571.5 49.8484 01.57976 01.57957 00750 49.8499 03

474.88 571.5 49.8516 01.57962 01.57933 00750 49.8503 04

474.83 571.5 49.8488 01.57971 01.57951 00750 49,8500 05

474.04 570.5 49 8519 01.58243 01.58213 00750 49.8519 01 473.83 570.2 49.8528 01.58316 01.58283 00750 49 852*1 02 475.96 572.8 49.8510 01.57602 01.57575 00750 49.8519 03

473.85 570.3 49 8475 01.58293 01.58277 00750 49.8508 04

474.32 570.8 49.8551 01.58160 01.58120 00750 49.8517 05

Typical Printout (Four 5 Pass Runs • Turbine Meter) 64
Table 2 4" Positive Displacement Meter

TEMPERATURE 71°F FREQ F RATE K T DVOL T FMP NO. PUL K AVE P NO.

955.04 573.7 99.8710 01.57353 01.57374 01503 99.8710 01 959.84 575.4 100.071 01.56882 01.56901 01506 99.9713 02

958.09 574.6 100.029 01.57102 01.57083 01505 99.9906 03

957.18 574.5 99.9565 01.57137 01.57128 01504 99.9821 04

956.68 574.4 99.9253 01.57169 01.57209 01504 99.9707 05 95848 574.2 100.145 01.57219 01.57227 01507 99.9998 06

958.27 574.3 100.111 01.57201 01.57158 01506 100.015 07 957.12 573.3 100.155 01.57460 01.57451 01507 100.033 08

956.66 572.8 100.196 01.57600 01.57527 01507 100.051 09

959.60 574.7 100.173 01.57080 01.57044 01507 100.063 10 958.18 574.2 100.114 01.57221 01.57277 01507 100.1 14 oT~

961.29 575.3 100.247 01.56920 01.56872 01508 100.180 02

961.07 575.2 100.243 01.56950 01.56908 01508 100.201 03

958.35 573.4 100.269 01.57436 01.57458 01509 100.218 04

958.98 574.4 100.158 01.57157 01.57249 01508 100.206 05

957.46 574.8 99 9419 01.57067 01.57081 01504 100.162 06

957.68 575.0 99.9301 01.57013 01.56941 01503 100.129 07

954.84 573 2 99.9324 01.57483 01.57512 01504 100.104 08

955.07 573.1 99.9855 01.57529 01.57579 01505 100.091 09

958.44 576.2 99.8004 01.56685 01.56608 01501 100.062 10

Typical Printout (Two 10 Pass Runt - Positive Displacement Meter)

Table 3 Prover Comparison

Compact Prover (1000 GPM)

Conventional

Ball Prover (1000 GPM)

Conventional Weigh-Time

(150.000 PPH)

Size 8'L x 4'W x 3'H 18'Lx8'Wx 1 1-1/2'H 5'Lx 10'Wx8'H

Speed of Operation0.4 Sec at max. flowrate

1 min at max.

flowrate 10 seconds per run

Data Reduction Can be in terms

of K-factor or meter factor

K-factor or meter factor K-factor only

Printout of Calculated Data

Optional features Optional features Not available

Weight Less than 3000 lb 15,000 lb 7,000 lb Mobility Unlimited by size and weight

Limited by size and weight Must be leveled and

in permanent location Pressure Rating

Std. 600 lb \NS\ Can be 1500 lb ANSI rated at 3600 psig (24,804 kPa)Restricted to 600 lb ANSI

rated at 1400 psig (9925 kPa)

Maximum pressure 125 psig (861 kPa)

Toxic Fluids Yes, closed system Yes, closed system No, open system

Rangeability 1000:1 turndown 200:1 turndown 300:1

Viscosity Range Up to 5,000 centistoke Up to 500 centistoke Up to 30 centistoke

Temperature Range Up to 400°F (204°C) 200°F (93°C) 180°F (82°C)

Cost

(approximate) $40,000 $50,000 $180,000

References

1. Latimer, Wayne "Operational Experience with Compact

Liquid Flow Provers", International School of Hydrocarbons, Norman, OK., April 14, 1982.

2. Physikalisch - Technische Bundesanstadt (PTB) "Test

Results of Compact Prover", February, 1982.

3. Wunsch, Walter "Double Chronometry", International School of Hydrocarbons, Norman, OK., April 14, 1982.

4. Latimer, Wayne MAPCO Competitive Prover Tests

April 22, 1982, Mont Belview, TX.

5. Dahn, Edward "Compact Prover", International Confer- ence and Exhibit, Philadelphia, PA., October 18-21, 1982.

6. Originally presented at 62nd Annual GPA Convention March 14-16, 1983, San Francisco, CA.

COMMITTEE REPORTS

JOINT REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE COWITTEE

AND THE COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL MEASUREMENT POLICY

AND COORDINATION

Presented by Charles H. Greene, Chief

Administrative Services

New Mexico Department of Agriculture

REFERENCE KEY TOO INTRODUCTION

The Executive Committee and the Committee on National Measurement

Policy and Coordination (P & C) presented its joint report to the 68th

National Conference on Weights and Measures. This report consists of

the interim report as printed in the Conference Announcement Book and as amended by the final report.

This report includes recommendations of both Committees based on written

and oral comments received throughout the prior year and at the Annual

Meeting.

Information Items The following items are informational and required no formal action of the NCWM:

Reference

Key Subject

101 102-1

102-2

102- 8 103- 1 104- 1 104- 2 105- 1

Administrative Actions

Organization and Procedures Subcommittee

Changes Not Requiring NCWM Vote

Mail Ballot

Report of the Finance Subcommittee

Report of the Special Study Group on NCWM Membership

Membership Actions

Report of the Task Force on National Type Evaluation

Action of Executive Committee

Report of the Committee on Education, Administration,

105- 2-2

106- 1 107 108-1

108-2

109

110

111

and Consumer Affairs

Laboratory Certification

68th Annual Meeting

Future Meeting Plans

OIML Update

Metric Update

Malcolm W. Jensen Memorial Awards

69
Voting Items Formal Action (Vote) of the NCWM was taken on the following items:

Reference

Key Subject

102-3 Voting Procedures

102-4 Chairman Elect

102-5-1 Executive Committee Structure

102-5-2 Implementation of Restructuring

102-6 Vice Chairman - Duties

102- 7 Management of NTEP

103- 2 Financial Management Procedures

103-3 Grant Administration

105-2-1 Laboratory Authorization Process

The Chairman announced his intent to include all voting items- in a "consent calendar" as a single voting item. He then described each

voting item individually, including the effect of a "yea" vote. Since

no one requested removal of any item from the "consent calendar," the

Chairman moved approval of the "consent calendar." The motion carried

as follows:

Yes No State Representatives 43 0

Delegates 56 0 The Chairman moved adoption of the entire report with editorial

privileges to the Executive Secretary. The motion carried as follows:

Yes No State Representatives 43 0 Delegates 56 0

101 ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS

The National Conference on Weights and Measures is in a growth trend as its officers and committee members organize to keep abreast of changing

weights and measures needs through increased agendas and new programs.

Dr. Ernest Ambler announced planned increases in support of the

Conference by the National Bureau of Standards at the 67th Annual

Meeting. Two new programs singled out by Dr. Ambler for added resources were:

1. National Type Evaluation - a program for uniform nationwide

evaluation of weighing and measuring devices based on reciprocity among the states.

70
2. National Training - underwriting the development of training

materials primarily funded through a grant to the NCWM. The

NCWM submitted a grant request to NBS asking for funding for

two years:

1st Year $148,405

2nd Year $166,784

$315,169

A cooperative agreement has been signed by both NSS and the NCWM for

funding of $148,405 over a 12 month period beginning February 1, 1983.

Work under the Cooperative Agreement will be based on the plan

developed by the NCWM Committee on Education, Administration, and

Consumer Affairs (See their report, Reference Key 400).

It was incumbent on the NCWM leadership to respond responsibly to the

new opportunities offered through increased NBS support. Consequently,

I established two subcommittees of the NCWM Executive Committee to analyze the need for changes in NCWM operations and organizational

structure to insure that we manage our responsibilities related to the

new (and ongoing) programs.

o Organization and Procedures Subcommittee

o Finance Subcommittee

Following my election as Conference Chairman in July, 1982, and

following review of the various Committee reports, I took several

actions:

o reassigned the technical working groups of the Task Force on Type Evaluation from the Task Force itself to the Committee on Specifications and Tolerances.

o discontinued the Special Study Group on the National Weights

and Measures System.

o reassigned the Task Force on Package Control (which had

reported to the Special Study Group on the National Weights

and Measures System) to the Committee on Liaison.

o named Kendrick J. Simila, Oregon, as the Conference

Representative to PS 20/RS1 of OIML.

o reassigned the Special Study Group on NCWM Membership from the

Committee on National Policy and Coordination to the Executive

Committee.

o renamed the Task Force on Grain Moisture Measurement to the

Advisory Committee on Grain Moisture Measurement; reassigned

the Advisory Committee from the Committee on Liaison to the

Committee on Specifications and Tolerances.

71
o made appointments to the various annual and special committees.

Mr. John T. Bennett of Connecticut resigned as a Vi ce-Chairman of the

Conference. The Executive Committee selected Mr. Tom Geiler of

Massachusetts to replace Mr. Bennett. The most recent organization chart of the National Conference on Weights and Measures is shown in the Reference Section at the end of

these Proceedings.

102 ORGANIZATION AND PROCEDURES

102-1 ORGANIZATION AND PROCEDURES SUBCONMITTEE

The report of the Organization and Procedures Subcommittee summarized

those proposals that had been submitted to the subcommittee, both

formally and informally, so that they could be reviewed and augmented

in an orderly fashion at the interim meeting and, where consensus could

be reached, presented to the full Committee for its deliberation. (See

Appendix C for Subcommittee Report).

102-2 CHANGES NOT REQUIRING NCWM VOTE

Selected recommendations of the Organization and Procedures

Subcommittee deal with changes to the administration of the Conference

that can be implemented by the Executive Committee without Conference

action. Of those recommendations, the Executive Committee voted to implement the following:

o At the start of each Conference a review of the rules that

govern voting would be presented. A brief synopsis of the

rules will be included in the Conference material.

o Prior to the comnencement of the Conference all persons

presiding at meetings shall have a review of parliamentary

procedure and the Conference voting rules.

o A "consent calendar" shall be developed to isolate those items

of a non-controversial nature which can then be voted on in a body.

o On controversial issues, the standing committee shall provide

a speaker to lead off the debate by summarizing the reasoning

of the committee.

o The Executive Secretary shall provide to the members of the

standing committee copies of policies or procedures that

affect them.

o The Executive Committee will continue to explore the question

of incorporation.

72
o The Organization and Procedures Subcommittee will continue to explore the need for a NCWM constitution and by-laws for

discussion at the Interim Meetings in January 1984.

o The Executive Secretary will compile and format in a uniform manner all existing NCWM administrative policies and

procedures previously adopted.

102-3 VOTING PROCEDURES

The mechanics of voting have been of some concern to members. The

Executive Committee concurred with the recormiendation of the

Organization and Procedures Subcommittee that there be a test of a procedure at the 68th Annual Meeting using a vote counting device.

Such a test will be limited to one session, perhaps to a single

Committee Report. The test procedure will be utilized in conjunction

with and parallel to the current voting procedure in order to provide

the basis for comparing the two. Realizing that the test procedure may

not provide definitive (or clearly better) results, and that there may

be other techniques with more promise, the Executive Committee does not recommend final adoption of the test procedure at this time.

The Executive Committee recorrmends adoption of the following position:

The Executive Committee recommends that alternative voting procedures

for use to speed up the tabulation process and to keep a more accurate record of Conference ballots be explored.

102-4 CHAIRMAN ELECT

The Executive Committee recommends the establishment of a new elected,

office, Conference Chairman Elect.

The responsibility of the Conference Chairman Elect will be to:

o serve as acting Conference Chairman in the event that the

Chairman is unable to carry out the duties of that office.

o perform other duties assigned by the Conference Chairman.

o serve on the Executive Committee.

This recormiendation would require the election of the Conference

Chairman Elect at the Annual Meeting one year prior to the term of

service as Conference Chairman. After serving one year as Chairman

Elect, the incumbent would succeed to the Office of Conference Chairman.

The effect of this recormiendation, if adopted, would be to select the

Conference Chairman a year in advance of his term as Chairman. The

Executive Committee makes this recormiendation so that a Conference

73
wna^-^an zi" :e j-ov:e: 'moo-oant sxoe-ience anc :-a*-" r*: " r p -e p a - a t

^ on ~

zr n "'s -es z rs ti es , a^: with the expectation that

~z-i :ort^oj''t) ; - Con r erence o-og-ams «cjld '•ei/:.

:o2-5- execjti-.-e ::^:-ee 3~ : :~ : E > <ee:

; -: »r"tn tie intent exo-essed at the 66:- ^nnja 1 Meeting, and ec-:ed st tne 6":^ Annja" w eet*'ng, to aooVsn the Committee z" National

'•teasj-e-ent D o

, *':y and Coordination ^ J ax to rest- jctjre tne Execjt J ve Cc~r ; :tee. an.: a-'te- stjdy and :

: s:.ss": r

z> £ the Alternatives

•:er:

: --'e: oy tne O-gan-'zaf on and ^-oceoj-es Subcommittee, tne

* o 1 1 zm ' n g t « : o a - c -ec:Te n :a: : - *a s ~ a : e : y tne E x ec j t

*' v e C o mm i 1 1 ee

". -::"-'$'- tne Corrrttee on Nations 1 Heasj-ement 3 o

l: :y and Coo-di naf r/i ant assign -: ts duties and -espons i

,; 1 ^ ti es to the

Exeojt :

. e C:~r" :;ee

2. Restrjctj-e tne Execjtwe C:mr J ttee to cons H st of tne

-j 1

". ow' ng twelve ~e~:s-$: the Chai-man, the 3 h a ^ -i a r Elect,

tne -est -ece-t still active oast Cnai-^an. the ~-easj-e-, :^e

D -es

J dent an: tne Execjt've Seo-eta-y 'both ex officio,

-c n - / ot *'

"

, anc s*x "nembe-s elected at la-oe r,*on tne Confe-ence. Inif'a'ly, these $'x memoers at *a r ge sna

1 ! be e"e:te: ~o- tne te-ms: c«c -embe-s to se-ve fo>- one yea-, two ~e'-oe-s to se-ve fo- two yea-s, an: two nembe-s to for tn-ee-yea- te-ms. Insor a- as o-acf' oaol e , the Not! oat*" ng Ccrnittee "'n -e:onmer

: -' ->g cane-" dates *o- tne Executive

C:~r : ttee oons"'de- -eg'onal -ep-esentation.

102-5-2 :^e m en~-~::n df re^rjc-jring

"hose actions "02-- a

rc' a-c 2 of 2C2-5-

1 $ n a"' oe concj--ent and ta<e

'02-6 /::e z-- : :m es-x":es

A f ~ i -n a t / e ao

t

i o n or "oe"~ ~ / - -

1 : e " e c e ^ d e f a o t o TM* en o e

- s h* o : n the

Exec^t've Committee :~ tne oast Conr e-e nce Cna-'-men 'except the

i Tmed i ate oast Cna -' -man;, t

,r, e r :j- Yice-Chai -men , and :

n e Chap "'a 1'"

~"z V i ce-Cha*' -men have onai-ed sess"': n

s o r the Annua" w eet"'ngs. "he

Executive Committee -eccnmer.cs tnat tne 3-ities o* :

r e

: :e-Ch

; -nen be

2 " gr; s^a"

1 " :

n a

"' - tne C:n r e-e-ce sessions a^ f j

1 £

i 1 1 any

as assion ad by th° C'nai-^an, Vice Chai-men sna"

1 be nominated :y o^e ncTiinatinc c>"T*

: :tee and e"e:te: by t

n e 2onr e-ence for one-vea- te-ms. V

J oe-Cna"' -men to not se-.'e : n t-e Execjt've CoTjr^ttee.

othe- dj
102-7 MANAGEMENT OF THE NATIONAL TYPE EVALUATION PROGRAM (NTEP)

The concept for a National Type Evaluation Program (NTEP) approved by

the NCWM membership at the 67th Annual Meeting (Item 101) identifies

the need to establish two organizations within the NCWM to carry out the NCWM responsibilities for the NTEP. Board of Governors to govern and direct the activities, policies, and

procedures of the NTEP. Note that operational management of the NTEP

will be under the supervision of the Executive Secretary . NTEP Advisory Committee to represent the interests of device and

equipment manufacturers, marketers, and users. The Task Force on Type Approval, and the Organization and Procedures

Subcommittee of the Executive Committee explored several alternative

approaches for enabling the NCWM to fulfill their key responsibilities.

The Task Force, Subcommittee, and the Executive Committee have agreed

on a recommendation that will provide for the Board of Governors and

the Advisory Committee in an efficient and effective manner without

establishing new committees requiring additional memberships.

The Executive Committee recommends that:

1. The Executive Committee serve as the Board of Governors for

the National Type Evaluation Program (NTEP).

2. The Executive Committee utilize the technical committees of

the NCWM to resolve technical issues regarding NTEP.

3. The industry members of the Technical Committee on National

Type Evaluation will be the NTEP Advisory Committee and

represent the interests of industry in advising the Board of

Governors

102-8 MAIL BALLOT

The work load of many NCWM Committees has been increasing. Some

committees are finding it difficult to advance their work in a timely manner when limited to one or two meetings a year. Travel funds for

meetings is very limited.

During the past year, the Executive Secretary has implemented and is employing a "mail ballot" system to provide for exchange of information

among committee members and to solicit comments, recommendations, and

positions of the members. This system has been used with the Executive

Committee and the Committee on Specifications and Tolerances.

The Executive Committee endorses this procedure and requested the

Executive Secretary to formalize the procedure (by development of a NCWM Administrative Procedure) and to extend its use to other standing,

annual, and special committees and task forces.

75

103 FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

103-1 REPORT OF THE FINANCE SUBCOMMITTEE

The Finance Subcommittee of the Executive Committee reviewed the

financial planning and Management Procedures of the NCWM. Based on that

review, the Subcommittee recommends the adoption of the following two procedures regarding (1) budgeting and administering NCWM funds, and (2)

grant administration.

PROCEDURES FOR ESTABLISHING THE BUDGET AND ADMINISTERING

FUNDS OF THE NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

Purpose - To assure sufficient and accurately accounted funding for

completion of objectives and activities, prioritized to satisfy the

benefits desired by the National Conference on Weights and Measures

(NCWM).

(I) ESTABLISHING PRIORITIES

(A) A general concept of priorities shall be established

periodically, no less than annually, by the NCWM policy

establishing group, called the "Executive Committee"

presided by the Conference Chairman.

(II) BUDGET

(A) The NCWM Executive Secretary shall, within 120 days after

the annual meeting^, propose a tentative budget for the

following fiscal year2 to include:

(1) Anticipated sources and quantities of revenue.

(2) Recommended ordinary and extraordinary expenditures

to be funded from the anticipated budget.

(3) Types of investments recommended for excess funds.

3

(4) Anticipated need to draw on reserve funds or ability

to provide additional funds to any existing reserve

fund.

(5) Recommended dues and registration fee levels.

'120 days permit study of the first quarter Treasurer's report.

2The fiscal year for the NCWM is from July 1 through June 30. 3lnvested funds shall be Federally insured.

77
(B) The proposed tentative budget as described in ( II )(A)

shall use the same account receipts and expenditures

categories as described in (IV )(A) and submitted by the

Executive Secretary within 120 days after the annual

meeting to the conference budget review committee.

(C) The Conference Chairman shall establish within 60 days

after the annual meeting a budget review committee which

shall:

(1) Be presided by the Conference Chairman.

(2) Consist of two weights and measures officials as appointed voting members, 4 one associate member as an appointed advisory non-voting member, the

Treasurer as an ex-oficio voting member, and the

Executive Secretary as an ex-officio voting member.

(3) Make necessary adjustments to the Executive

Secretary's proposal by deliberation through the use

of mailings and/or conference calls.

(4) Present a committee proposed tentative budget at the

interim meeting to the Executive Committee for

acceptance or return to the budget review committee

for adjustment (s) to enable acceptance, normally to

be completed prior to conclusion of the interim

meeting.

(III) AUTHORITY

(A) Acceptance by the Executive Committee of the budget

review committee's tentative budget constitutes

acceptability for the conference.

(IV) ACCOUNTING

(A) The NCWM shall use receipts and expenditures accounts as follows

(1) Receipts:

1.1 Registration Fees - Annual Meeting

1 .2 Membership Fees

1.3 Publications

1.4 Interest

1.9 Miscellaneous

^Terms for initially appointed voting members shall consist of one

year for one member and two years for the other member with

subsequent annual appointments of one member for a two-year term.

78
(2) Expenses:

2.0 Annual Meeting

2.1 Hotel, Food Service

2.2 Equipment, AV, 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

6.0 - 6.9 as above

7.0 Membership

8.0 Printing and Publications

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

PROCESSING PAYMENTS

(A) A bill or invoice submitted for payment shall be

processed as follows:

(1) It shall be certified by the Executive Secretary to be properly payable.

(2) The Executive Secretary shall retain a copy of the

certified bill or invoice for his files, send a copy

to the Chairman for information, and send the

original to the Treasurer for payment.

(3) The Treasurer shall identify each certified bill or invoice with the number of the check issued.

79
(4) The Treasurer shall issue, sign, and send the check

to the Executive Secretary for countersigning and

mailing to the issuer of the bill or invoice.

(B) A file of all bills and invoices paid in both the current

and preceding fiscal years and the Treasurer's current

interim and last annual reports, preferably placed in a loose-leaf binder, shall be made available to the

Chairman and Executive Committee at the interim meetings

and at the annual meeting for review.

(VI) TREASURER'S REPORT

(A) The conference Treasurer shall issue an interim and

annual report of receipts and expenditures. The annual

report shall be presented to the conference membership.

(VII) AUDIT

(A) An annual audit committee shall:

(1) Be appointed by the Conference Chairman within 60

days after the annual meeting.

(2) Consist of two members who served the previous year

and one new member. One member is to be appointed

chairman.

(3) Conduct an audit and review of accounts (it is recommended the concluding audit be conducted within

the first two days of the annual conference so questions can be resolved) to assure funds are received and disbursed in accordance with these

procedures.

(4) Issue a statement of findings in a committee report

at the time of the annual meeting.

- End of Procedures - The Executive Committee has the authority over expenditures of the

Conference. In the past, the NCWM budget was based primarily on receipts derived from membership fees and registration fees. As of

February 1, 1983, the NBS/NCWM Cooperative Agreement will provide

aproximately $150,000 to fund initial development of training materials.

Most of those funds will be spent on contract. Therefore, the NCWM

Executive Committee will have the responsibility to manage the funds

provided under the Cooperative Agreement including responding to reporting requirements of the NBS and fiscal management of contractors.

The Subcommittee recommends the adoption of the following procedure.

80
PROCEDURE FOR NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES'

GRANT ADMINISTRATION

Purpose - Provide organizational capability and integrity to assure maximum benefits to the NCWM and cause adherence to and fulfillment of the terms of grants in which NCWM is a recipient or beneficiary.

(I) ESTABLISHMENT OF GRANT ACCEPTABILITY

(A) Acceptance of the concept for a tentative or actual grant

proposal, whether originating outside or within the NCWM,

shall be made by the NCWM policy establishing group,

called the "Executive Conmittee," presided by the

Conference Chairman. When, in the judgment of the

Executive Conmittee, the proposed grant would

significantly impact on objectives or activities of NCWM,

the concept shall be presented for acceptance by vote to the general conference or, in the case of time

constraints, by mail ballot to each of the latest State

representatives to the conference. A majority vote of

those voting would constitute acceptance.

(B) A sumnary document compiled and/or approved by the

Executive Conmittee shall be available on request for

review and used as the basis for information to the

membership. This document shall identify the following

for each tentative or proposed grant:

(1) Proposed effective period of the grant.

(2) Obligations and liabilities of NCWM to grantor.

(3) Impact on existing objectives and activities of NCWM.

(4) Anticipated financial and other benefits directly

derived through the grant.

(II) GRANT ACCEPTANCE

(A) The Conference Chairman shall sign a proposed grant or agreement on behalf of the conference, providing

acceptability according to (I) (A) and (B) and providing

the actual contract is: (1) Not substantially different from the grant proposal.

(2) Reviewed and recommended by the Executive Secretary

and National Bureau of Standards (NBS) legal counsel.

81
(Ill) BASIC GRANT TERMS

(A) A grant must stipulate or refer to a plan which defines:

(1) Tasks to be accomplished.

(2) Expected product.

(3) Assignment of responsible entity for completing the

work.

(4) Accountability and report schedules.

(5) Payment schedule.

(6) Effective dates including schedules if applicable.

(7) Method of review and entity responsible.

(IV) REVIEW OF GRANT PERFORMANCE

(A) The reviewing entity5 shall report in writing

periodically, at least every six months, to the

Conference Chairman. Reports required by the grantor can suffice providing the review provides supplemental

information helpful to the Conference Chairman. Each

report shall include but will not be limited to:

(1) Expenditures.

(2) Current financial obligations.

(3) Remaining balance.

(4) Performance progress as obligated by the Grant.

(V) REPORT OF GRANT PERFORMANCE

(A) The Conference Chairman shall report periodically, at least every six months and at the conclusion of a grant,

on the grant performance status to the Executive

Committee and annually to the conference preferably at the annual meeting. The conference report shall include:

(1) Current grants.

(2) Grants terminated since the previous annual report.

(B) Any significant performance detractions from the terms of

the grant shall be reported by the Conference Chairman to the Executive Committee after conferring with the

Executive Secretary, within 30 days of such detraction.

^The reviewing entity, if not designated in the grant or referred

plan, will be appointed by the Conference Chairman.

82
(VI) ACCESS

(A) The Conference Chairman or designee(s) shall have access

upon request to any relative report or product of a Contractor or Grantee.

(VII) GRANT CHANGES

(A) The Conference Chairman may sign a grant modification

providing the adjustment:

(1) Does not significantly alter the purpose of the

grant.

(2) Is reviewed and recommended by the Executive

Secretary, NBS legal counsel, and a majority of the

Executive Committee.

(B) A modification not meeting the criteria of (VII )(A)(1

)

and (2) shall meet the criteria (I) (A) and (B).

(VIII) CONTRACTING

(A) The conference Executive Committee may authorize

contractual performance and product responsibilities

providing:

(1) The offer for bids and acceptance of bids are nondiscrimi natory.

(2) The potential contractor presents optimal support

and resources to fulfill the contract.

(3) The cost is reasonable for the expected task or product.

(4) The contract is not in conflict with the original

grant.

(IX) FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT - CONTRACTOR

(A) NCWM shall negotiate with any contractor as described in

(VIII) and the Conference Chairman is authorized to sign

an agreement providing the agreement is approved by the

majority of the Executive Committee and reviewed and recommended by the Executive Secretary and NBS legal

counsel

(B) The contractor shall be responsible for incurred costs

until NCWM receives funds due from the grantor and

subsequent i ally makes payment.

83
(C) A contractor shall submit reports within a time period

and in a manner specified to permit NCWM conformance to the primary grant. NCWM shall not retain such reports

more than 15 days for review except to obtain additional

information required for its approval.

(D) Payment to a contractor shall be according to NCWM

procedures.

(X) FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT - PRIMARY RECIPIENT

(A) Funds necessary for interim payment of grant performance

and product by NCWM may be taken from general funds of the

conference according to the NCWM procedures providing

replacement deposit is made promptly upon receipt from

the grant.

These two proposed procedures constitute the report of the Finance

Subcommittee of the Executive Committee.

Respectfully Submitted:

E. Heffron, Michigan, Chairman

J. Alloway, Nebraska

J. Blackwood, Texas

E. Delfino, California

T. Geiler, Massachusetts

D. Lynch, Kansas

K. Si mi la, Oregon

E. Stadolnik, Massachusetts

S. Valtri, Pennsylvania

103-2 FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT PROCEDURE

The Executive Committee recommends adoption of the proposed "Procedures

for Establishing the Budget and Administering Funds of the National

Conference on Weights and Measures," as amended.

103-3 GRANT ADMINISTRATION

The Executive Committee recommends adoption of the proposed "Procedure for

National Conference on Weights and Measures' Grant Administration," as amended

.

104 MEMBERSHIP

104-1 REPORT OF THE SPECIAL STUDY GROUP ON NCWM MEMBERSHIP

The Committee considered methods of increasing membership in the NCWM. We conclude that increased membership would ultimately result in increased

registration and participation in the Conference program. Some of those

benefits of membership in NCWM are:

8-
1. Awareness of Federal Laws and Regulations.

(a) Agenda items of the various conference committees address

compatibility with Federal laws and regulations.

(b) Representatives of Federal regulatory agencies correspond with

committees as well as testify at committee interim hearings

regarding agenda items.

(c) The Conference Liaison Committee communicates with Federal

agencies when Federal questions arise.

(d) Members and attendees of the Conference become aware of areas of possible conflict between local laws and regulations and

Federal counterparts.

2. Awareness of Federal Preemption.

(a) Members and attendees of the National Conference have

opportunity to become aware of Federal preemption through the

same actions as in #1. above.

3. Uniformity of Interpretations of Laws and Regulations.

(a) The National Conference is the only forum available (since

1905) for weights and measures' jurisdictions, industry, and consumers to develop not only uniform laws and regulations but

also the interpretations of those laws and regulations.

4. Direct Communications with Federal Agencies.

(a) Through the influence of the Conference, we are able to directly communicate with key Federal employees of Federal

agencies impacting on weights and measures' activities.

(b) Meetings between weights and measures' jurisdictions and

Federal agencies are often arranged at the interim meetings

held in January of each year and at the National Conference

annual meeting held in July.

(c) Individual or group problems of particular concern to individual jurisdictions or industries can effectively be

approached through the collective strength of the conference.

5. Timely receipt of publications and NBS technical memos.

6. Updated handbooks (NBS & NCWM) and conference proceedings on yearly

basis.

7. Awareness of NBS resources in coordinating jurisdictions' solutions

to current problems (half-pricing and discount of gasoline metric

sales)

.

85
8. Awareness of other jurisdictions' activities.

9. A more direct distribution of NBS material to local jurisdictions.

(Materials could be distributed directly to local jurisdictions

rather than through State offices).

We recommend the following suggestions be discussed:

1. Develop a complete mailing list of weights and measures jurisdictions and make direct mail solicitations to those non-member

jurisdictions. To develop a more complete mailing list of weights

and measures jurisdictions, the Executive Secretary of the National

Conference should contact the various State and regional

associations requesting that they submit the names and addresses of

the weights and measures officials in their associations. In those

States that do not have associations, the State director should be

contacted requesting this information.

2. Develop a list of prospective associate members and make direct

mail solicitations to those prospective members.

(a) Request a list of company names, addresses, telephone numbers,

and names of representatives from those companies, within each

weights and measures jurisdiction, that might have an interest

in weights and measures or upon which weights and measures

enforcement might have a significant impact. This list would

not represent every company regulated by the local jurisdiction

but would, rather, be a "best judgment" type of list.

(b) Request a list of company and individual representatives from

regional conferences.

(c) Request a list from State and local associations.

3. Consider provisions for host or local jurisdiction officials to be

able to attend conference as non-voting observer members at reduced

rates.

(a) The reduced rate membership would permit individuals to observe the workings of the National Conference and to benefit

from discussion of the agenda items. The fee might also

provide those individuals with mailings of the conference

documents or the mailings might be optional upon request.

(b) The fee should be established bearing in mind that these

members may or may not be reimbursed by their jurisdiction for

such expenses.

4. Consider provisions for retired personnel at reduced rates.

86
(a) Coirmunicate special provisions as well as existing provisions

for membership as a retiree. Some confusion may currently

exist regarding status. The Special Study Group recommends:

o Development of a list of prospective members.

o Development of a NCWM brochure or mailing material to be sent to prospective NCWM members.

o Establishment of special reduced membership fees and/or

registration fees for retired, non-voting, or other categories of

membership.

o Expansion of the Special Study Group to include representation by

i ndustry and OWM.

o Granting of its authority to proceed with the planning phase of

the above recomnendati ons as well as explore other possibilities.

Respectfully submitted:

W. R. Mossberg, California, Chairman

E. F. Delfino, California

T. F. Geiler, Massachusetts

S. F. Valtri, Pennsylvania

104-2 MEMBERSHIP ACTIONS

The Executive Committee reviewed the report of the Special Study Group and approved its recommendations.

List of Prospective Members. The Executive Secretary was requested to contact State directors and private sector companies and associations to obtain names and addresses of prospective members for inclusion in the

NCWM mai ling list.

NCWM Brochure. The Special Study Group was requested to undertake the

development of a NCWM brochure and associated materials for use in

soliciting new NCWM membership.

Reduced Registration Fee. The Executive Committee agreed to establish on

a trial basis, a non-member registration fee of $20 for the 68th Annual

Meeting to encourage attendance of local weights and measures officials of the host State at the meeting sessions. Those attending on this basis

would have the right of the floor but would not receive publications and

mailings of the NCWM nor would they have voting privileges.

Authorization to continue its work was granted to the Special Study Group;

the Chairman will appoint two additional members, one from industry and one from OWM.

87
105 NATIONAL TYPE EVALUATION PROGRAM

105-1 REPORT OF THE TASK FORCE ON NATIONAL TYPE EVALUATION

The Task Force on National Type Evaluation met at and subsequent to the

67th Annual Meeting in Atlanta. Approval of the proposed NTEP concept

at the 67th meeting and the submission by NBS of its "Plan for

Implementation of a National Type Evaluation Program (NTEP)" (see

Appendix A) established the basis for the detailed development of NTEP. The NBS Plan describes a schedule of major events culminating in the

initial operation of NTEP in October 1984. This report provides

information related to:

o NBS legislative authority

o Laboratory Authorization and draft NBS Handbook "Certification

of Capability of State Measurement Laboratories"

o Draft model State regulation

o NCWM organizational and procedural changes

o Draft NBS Handbook "Type Evaluations, Criteria and Test Procedures"

Implementation Plan

The NBS Plan (Appendix A) provides a step-by-step progression of tasks

to be done culminatng in an operating National Type Evaluation Program

(NTEP). If all tasks are completed within the schedule presented, NTEP

will begin operations in October 1983.

The NBS Plan is based on the concept "A National Type Approval Program

(NTAP)" presented at and approved by the NCWM 67th Annual Meeting.*

Two key actions are necessary at the 68th NCWM Annual Meeting in order

to remain on schedule; adoption of:

1. changes in NCWM organization and procedures,

2. a model State regulation

NBS Legislative Authority

The basis for the NBS participation on a national type evaluation is contained in the United States Code, Title 15 (Commerce and Trade), Part

200 (Policies, Services, Procedures, and Fees). Applicable sections are: 200.100 Statutory functions

200.102 Types of calibration and test services

200.103 Consulting and advisory services

200.106 Publications

200.108 Request procedure

*NBS SP645 "Report of the 67th National Conference on Weights and

Measures 1982" pages 36-41.

88
200.109

200.110

200.111

200.114

200.115

Shipping, insurance, and risk of loss

Priorities and time of completion

Witnessing of operations

Fees and bills

Description of services and list of fees, incorporation

by reference

Section 200.115 incorporated NBS Special Publication 250 "Calibration

and Related Measurement Services of the National Bureau of Standards"

by reference. NBS SP250 recognizes the Office of Weights an Measures'

role in these services (Chapter X, paragragh H). This paragraph

specifically describes the current "Prototype Examination of Commercial

Weighing and Measuring Devices, Reference and Field Standards." NBS

proposes to rewrite paragraph H to embrace the functions described in its Plan (Appendix A) and the terminology of Type Evaluation (in lieu

of Prototype Examination). Appendix B is the proposed revision of

SP250, Chapter X, paragraph H. Laboratory Authorization

Under the NTEP Concept (NBS SP645, pges 36-41) evaluation of devices is the responsibility of "participating laboratories." The concept

indicates that testing laboratories might be Federal (including NBS),

State, or private. At the meeting of the Task Force held during the Western W & M Association Meeting (Sept. 20-22, 1982), the Task Force decided that

device evaluation based on Handbook 44 and the criteria and test procedures developed by the technical working groups could be conducted

by selected State laboratories now and in the foreseeable future.

Consequently, the task of authorizing laboratories became a simpler

task.

The authorization criteria would be developed as Part II to the draft

NBS Handbook "Certification of Capability of State Measurement

Laboratories." See Item 107 for a description of the laboratory

certification/authorization process. Part I establishes the basis for

certifying the State laboratories in a series of testing and

calibration areas. Therefore, the technical basis for evaluation of

devices under NTEP exists. Participation under NTEP will require

additional capabilities in terms of facilities and skills.

This Task Force recommends that laboratory authorization be developed

based on use of State laboratories as NTEP participating laboratories,

and that the authorization process be included within the existing NBS

State Laboratory Certification process.

89
Model State Regulation

The Task Force worked with Mr. Allan Farrar, NBS legal advisor, and OWM

to develop a Model State Regulation for National Type Evaluation for

review by the Executive Corrmittee and subsequent review by the

Committee : n Laws and Regulations fsee L & R Committee Reoort for

details).

NCWM Organization and Procedural Changes

T ne Task Force made recommendati ons to the Organization and Procedures

Subcommittee of the Executive Committee for changes in the NCWM

organizational structure to provide for* guidance and management of the

TED

. Recommendations dealt primarily with the proposed Board of Governors and tne Advisory Committee to the Board of Governors (See

Reference Key 102-7 for discussion of this subject).

Summary

All milestones identified for development of NTEP are being dealt with

on schedule. In order for this development to remain on schedule it will oe necessary for the NCWM to approve the Model Regulation

(proposed oy tne L & R Committee' and the organizational changes

(proposed by tne Executive Committee).

In addition the Task Force recommends that the Executive Committee seek

endorsement of the proposed laboratory authorization plan.

Respectfully submitted:

E. Delfino, California, Chairman

3. Mattimoe, Hawaii, Chairman of Policy Working Group

J . 3art r

a' , New Ycr < C. Parent, 3

J lbarco

N. D. Smith, North Carolina

D. Ton^ni, Scale Manufactures Association

A. r ar-ar, N3S ex-officio

A. "nolen, N3S 5 Executive Secretary

105-2-1 LABORATORY AUTHORIZATION PROCESS

The Executive Committee recoTmends the endorsement of the laboratory

authorization process described in the report of the Task Force. 105-2-2 ACTIONS OF EXECUTIVE COWITTEE

~ne Executive Committee approved the recommendations of the Task Force

on

T ype Evaluation; NCWM organization changes (see Reference Key

102-7); and adoption of the "Mod el State Regulation (L & R Committee

Reference Key 202-1 )

.

90
106 TRAINING

106-1 REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION, ADMINISTRATION, AND

CONSUMER AFFAIRS

A detailed briefing on the National Training Program was presented on Monday, January 17, 1983, from 9:00-11:00 a.m., moderated by Mr. Joseph

Swanson, Chairman, Committee on Education, Administration, and Consumer

Affairs. Mr. Swanson gave a general status report including decisions

reached by the Committee at a meeting held in Salt Lake City, Utah,

just prior to the Western Conference last September, and monthly

conference calls since the National Conference in Atlanta, Georgia,

last July.

The major decisions reached were: (1) the Texas A&M Engineering

Extension Service was chosen as the contractor to worlTwith the

Committee in producing instructor and trainee manuals in 37 identified

areas and (2) the first seven working groups have been .organized and

members have agreed to serve in preparing drafts of the technical

material for the contractor in each program area. It was also reported

that Dr. Charles Greene, Conference Chairman, has signed the necessary

papers for the first year of a two-year grant of funds from NBS for

this program. The Education Committee prepared a contractor work statement during its interim meeting, and work by the contractor is expected to begin March 1, 1983. Mr. Richard Smith, Education Committee Technical Advisor, gave a detailed report covering the following program specifics.

(a) Program background and goals

(b) Program content and specific objectives

(c) Identity of 22 functional modules and 15 elective modules

(d) Format and suggested content of manuals

(e) Organization responsibilities

(f) Program activity flow charts

(g) Identity of members of first seven working groups

(h) Overall benefits of program

The complete text of Mr. Smith's report may be found in the Interim

Report, Committee on Education, Administration, and Consumer Affairs,

Reference Key 405, National Training Program.

Dr. Edward Heffron, Chairman, Executive Committee, Finance

Subcommittee, presented a comprehensive, formalized plan for receiving

and dispersing grant funds on behalf of the National Conference, both

for this program grant and possible future funds that may be forthcoming for other Conference programs.

91
107 LABOR-":-' CERTIFICATION

The Office of Heights and Measures is inpletienti ng the certification of

State laboratories by -eas j^ement a^eas. The certification will oe cased jpo r the self-appraisal thecklist completed by the Director and

tne ~et- z'zz st , information DWV nas z" the laboratories based upon previous visits and on-site evaluations, and a review of the

met- s:

s

! training, capabilities, and data sjbmitted to OWM. The

cert ; ficati : r *ill reflect the needs z~ the individual States, the

services provided to the public, and the rariations that exist among

the laboratories. The certifications ssjed in 1983 will be for one

yea**. - **eport r tie 3W M e/a'uation rfill :e sent to each State

5 j p m 1

1

" n g 2 se -app^a -"sa" z

r ec«

" - r. , -\- t-'s . nde" sta n d

J ^gs

,

oversights, and mine deficiencies can be atd^essed in 9 3 3 and

resolved before the 1984 certifications are initiated.

~~e ' a::

* iz:-\ ii\iz~:' is -intended :: identify tnose areas *here a "a::-at:-.. :ar :e e: tc "-s-ease capabi Titles, perfonaance, and

efficiency. Bj Formalizing the OWM evaluation criteria, the States

ce no^e awa-e :f »*iat '$

e x p ec t ed in facilities and perf am ance

;

thus, they rill be better able to justify necessary improvements or equipae^: for the laboratory. - 'a:: -a::"., nay be certified in a teas cement a^ea 6.5- tnojgh a weakness has been identified, provided

it can adequate "iy :5 --

: ~- the ^eas j~ement . 3y identifying areas for

. e-""e~t . a State :a r **Z"< towa-c df "act r g anv

. : e^

" e" es that

naj axis*. Some je ri ci enc 1 es :a r :e corrected in the near Future,

while others nay involve the laboratory building or facilities and can

z"' : ce :ons" de^ed "' " "org-ce-*"" p'ann'ng. I" t'n ese cases, whenever the

" a::- at:-*.. -3 mod-' f ied :- 2 ne* " at: *at: \-

; s instructed, the

deficienc as ' - the laboratory are expected to be corrected.

Jnde*" the :erti fi cat i

o

r -neas demerit areas, " air-at:- i es a-e "equ"" -ed

tc na/e a assurance pclicy statement i-z a cocjnent specifying

:::: 'apc-ato-v cact^ces. ~~"'s

: s necessary ceta.se see -ecera'

agencies "~::se -egj'at ; o°s p r p- j /ate " accatc-"' es squiring that any laboratory performing work for the private 1 aborator ies meet specific

-ec.

: -ements . "he a sta: "

-: sn~ent pf tne qua'ity ass^^a-ce c: cy and a 'ace* ate- j :'a:: = :es : z shou'd a*'d in satisfying :

- a s a f^Tj' <*ori 3

-

2 Based jpor :~e rectifications :.• neas j-e-^t a -e a s , a 'apc-ato-v

d">ectory :a p-eta^e:. ""a :'^ectory will list the measurement

services a.'a

J 'at"e --z~ tne State " aco-atc*

"

; es and fees charged. The

cj^ent sting pf the -*et-:" : r s" 3 an: tne "aoo-atorj accesses and te'eencne njmoe-s :e in:' jce: . - c* tne c

J -eccc*y rfill ce prepared "' -

1 9-33 and :

- st^i .: Jted :: the States for review.

: e:

= ra

= met-o'egy groups :"a.- ir -mpor tant -;"e in tne 3* v ce^ti fi cat"' on c-cg-a" . "ne ^egicna 1 groups provide training, promote

jn J -c*T:i ty -n test procedures, and contact round robin test'^g of \3$

ca"-':-ate: standards as ca-t 0- t-e measj^ement centre" D-cg-ams ceing

"mo'emented. T ne ^cj : ^ ^esjlts provide valuable ^n*ormation to
the States and to NBS regarding the ability of State laboratories to provide measurement results traceable to the national standards. All

States are encouraged to participate in the regional metrology groups.

The authorization of laboratories to perform device evaluations for the

National Type Evaluation Program (NTEP) will be done through the OWM

laboratory program. This will be done because a mechanism for

evaluating State laboratories already exists. The criteria to be used

for laboratory authorization for NTEP wll be included as a second part

of the draft, "Certification of Capability of State Measurement

Laboratories." Although the laboratory authorizations will be granted

through the OWM laboratory program, this will be a separate program and

a separate laboratory certificate will be issued for NTEP laboratories.

The certification of a State laboratory for its metrology program does

not authorize the laboratory to perform device evaluations for NTEP. The initial scope of laboratory authorizations will include only the

States. The scope may be increased in the future to include other

laboratories as NTEP expands and encompasses tests requiring

specialized equipment.

It is expected that NTEP will support only a small number of

laboratories. A small number of laboratories also facilitates

maintaining uniformity in type evaluations. It is expected that each

authorized laboratory will test a range of devices to justify the time

and cost of training and operating a type evaluation laboratory. The

NBS will provide the training for performing type evaluations to the

criteria and test procedures adopted by the National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM). Only those States that will accept the

national "Certificate of Conformance" to be issued by NTEP will be

eligible for authorization to perform type evaluations. Laboratory

authorizations will be given only for those devices where a sufficient

work load exists to justify the costs of training; otherwise, the

device evaluations will be performed by the OWM staff.

In brief, the authorization process will consist of an OWM

representative meeting with the State officials who will ultimately

perform exami nations. The type evaluation criteria, test procedures,

and State requirements will be reviewed to assure a complete

understanding and identify any differences in criteria. The State

facilities and equipment will be evaluated to assure that they can

perform the necessary tests. Next, joint examinations will be

performed on devices to verify the uniform application of test criteria. Finally, the State officials will conduct separate

examinations of devices to determine if they obtain the same results as OWM. Uniformity in test results among the NTEP authorized laboratories

is essential to the success of NTEP.

93
108 CONFERENCE MEETINGS

108-1 68th ANNUAL MEETING

The 68th National Conference on Weights and Measures was held at the

Red Lion Motor Inn, Sacramento, California, from July 17 through July

22, 1983. Sacramento, the capitol of California, is located between

the High Sierras and the Pacific Ocean. The average temperature is 88

degrees Fahrenheit in July, all sunshine with zero days of rain.

The week was very busy but rewarding. Progress on new programs

designed to benefit every constituent of weights and measures were reported. Most notably, the following were on the program:

o implementation of a comprehensive State laboratory

certification plan.

o description of organization, procedural, and legal aspects of

the National Type Evaluation Program.

o explanation of the NBS Grant to the NCWM and subsequent work

accomplished toward development of the National Training

Program.

The membership was asked to take action on many key issues in these, as well as other areas which were addressed by the several standing and

special committees.

o Weights and Measures Regional Association Working Sessions

were scheduled on Wednesday morning; therefore all committee

final reports were available by 8:00 a.m., Wednesday.

o voting commenced on Wednesday at 1:00 p.m. and ran through

Thursday morning and early afternoon.

Meeting Schedule

The Executive Secretary reviewed the schedule of the 67th Annual Meeting

as the basis for developing the schedule for the 68th Annual Meeting.

The Executive Committee agreed to follow the same general format with

modifications designed to improve the overall efficiency of

activities. The following recommendations were made:

o schedule the L & R Committee on Monday to provide more lead

time to prepare its final report.

o announce that the session agendas will follow in sequence as shown on the schedule but will move continually; therefore,

each committee will move through its agenda followed

immediately by the next scheduled committee. This will

permit more effective use of time.

94
Guest Program

While the members were involved in a full week of study and work,

guests found a variety of interesting and unique activities awaiting

them in and near Sacramento.

Included during this week were optional tours to: OLD SACRAMENTO historic area covering 28 acres of the original city

authentically restored to the 1850' s - 1870's; the Gold Rush Days.

With plank sidewalks and cobblestone streets, there are more than 250

unique shops and businesses to delight every visitor.

THE RAILROAD MUSEUM , located in Old Sacramento, it is the largest and

most complete railroad museum in North America. A giant steam locomotive, a post office car, a vintage sleeper, the only cab-forward

locomotive in existence, and much more, depict the early history of western railroading.

THE CAPITOL , California's State Capitol Building, painstakingly

restored at a cost of 67 million dollars, recaptures the grandeur of

its historic wealth and past. NAPA VALLEY WINE COUNTRY is California's North Coast premium wine

production area. Tour and sample the famous vineyards and wineries of

Robert Mondavi, Inglenook, Charles Krug, Christian Brothers, and

Beringer, to name a few.

108-2 FUTURE MEETINGS

Plans are continuing for the future annual meetings as follows:

69th Annual Meeting

Location: Boston, Massachusetts

Time: July 29 - August 3, 1984

Hotel: West in

70th Annual Meeting

Location: Washington, D. C. Time: Not fixed

Hotel: Not fixed

Subsequent Years

Several cities are being proposed for the 71st Annual Meeting (Detroit,

Michigan; Columbus, Ohio; Denver, Colorado; Little Rock, Arkansas;

Albuquerque, New Mexico). The Executive Committee will hear proposals

from host cities at its interim meeting in January 1984.

95
1 09 0IML UPDATE

See Report of Committee on Liaison.

110 METRIC UPDATE

This update was supplied by the Office of Metric Programs of the U.S. Department of Commerce.

Background

Our national policy on the metric system is one of voluntary conversion.

Businesses and other groups that want to convert are free to do so, and our policy is consistent with this country's traditional free enterprise

approach to business activities.

While the metric system is not compulsory, and no target date- has been

set for conversion, the Reagan Administration believes that metric

capability is increasingly necessary for American businesses competing

in the international marketplace if they want to maintain or improve

their share of world trade. On October 1, 1982, the Administration

created the Office of Metric Programs within the Department of Commerce

to make it easier for businesses and other organizations to convert to metric. The office is a separate unit within the Office of

Productivity, Technology, and Innovation and comes under the general

responsibility of the Under Secretary for Economic Affairs.

Mission

One of the main missions of the Department of Commerce is to promote

U.S. exports to expand our share of the international marketplace and

improve our balance of parents. To compete abroad effectively, U.S. companies should consider producing metric products, because most of

the world uses the metric system. Another important mission of the

Department is to stimulate productivity. Many firms that change to metric can expect an increase in productivity. This results from such

actions as reducing the number of sizes they need to keep in stock or simplifying record-keeping by avoiding the necessity of converting back

and forth between measurement systems. It also gives companies the

chance to look at their manufacturing processes and procedures that have

been developed over the years and make changes for greater efficiency.

While our voluntary policy calls for the private sector to set the pace

of metric conversion, the Office of Metric Programs focuses on producing

a favorable environment for the change to take place. According to law,

the mission of the Office of Metric Programs is "to plan and coordinate

the increasing use of the metric system." The office is:

96
o identifying and working to remove barriers that may stand in

the way of voluntary metric conversion, e.g., Federal, state,

or local rules or regulations;

o bringing together representatives from public and private

sectors to solve problems and share information;

o informing U.S. businesses of the metric requirements of

foreign markets;

o acting as the coordinator of Federal agencies' metric

conversions to prevent conflicting policies and practices;

o providing technical and general information about the metric

system to businesses and the public;

o encouraging well planned and coordinated metric conversion

programs to enhance benefits and avoid inefficiencies.

Staff and Budget

The Office of Metric Programs has a staff of five and a budget of $300,000.

97
in MALCOLM W. JENSEN MEMORIAL AWARD

The Executive Committee discussed the proposal made by Mr. Don Mackay

of NBS to establish a new NBS award to recognize the "significant

contributions of Malcolm W. Jensen to the weights and measures field."

Mr. Mackay recommended that the award would take the form of an annual

presentation of a plaque to a recipient selected by either "the

Executive Committee of the NCWM or by a NBS Laboratory Director."

Following discussion of the proposal, the Executive Committee proposed

that award of scholarships to students in weights and measures or related studies would be more desirable than award of plaques. The

Committee asked that the Executive Secretary follow up with Mr. Mackay

and the Jensen family to explore the establishment of a memorial award.

C. H. Greene, New Mexico, Conference Chairman

J. W. Alloway, Nebraska

S. D. Andrews, Florida

A. J. Bartfai, New York

J. C. Blackwood, Dallas, TX

B. K. Boddicker, South Dakota

K. S. Butcher, West Virginia

J. M. Chohamin, Middlesex County, NJ

F. W. Daniels, Wayne County, IN L. H. DeG range, Maryland

E. F. Delfino, California

P. M. Fullinwider, Arizona

T. F. Geiler, Barnstable, MA

E. C. Heffron, Michigan

L. Letey, Colorado

J. F. Lyles, Virginia

D. L. Lynch, Kansas City, KS

F. Nagele, Michigan

A. M. Nelson, Connecticut

P. E. Nichols, Alameda County, CA

J. V. Pugh, South Carolina

K. J. Simila, Oregon

E. H. Stadolnik, Massachusetts

J. L. Swanson, Alaska

R. L. Thompson, Maryland

S. F. Valtri, Philadelphia, PA

A. D. Tholen, Executive Secretary, NCWM

EXECUTIVE AND NATIONAL MEASUREMENT POLICY AND COORDINATION COWITTEES

98
APPENDIX A PLAN FOR IMPLEMENTATION

OF A NATIONAL TYPE EVALUATION PROGRAM

INTRODUCTION

GOAL : A national type evaluation program, acceptable to all States,

that provides for design and performance evaluations of new weighing

and measuring devices subject to weights and measures regulations.

BACKGROUND

The authority for most weights and measures enforcement rests with the

individual States. Each State has the authority and is mandated to examine devices to determine compliance with established design and

performance criteria. A manufacturer wishing to market devices and

systems in interstate commerce must comply with all the requirements of each State. Fourteen States have laws or regulations requiring that a commercial weighing or measuring device be submitted for type evaluation

before it can be declared legal for trade in those States. This can result in considerable expense and marketing delays to a device

manufacturer wishing to obtain approval for entry of a device in several

of these States. The remaining States either (a) turn to another

agency, typically NBS, to determine if a device has been examined and

complies with requirements, or (b) conduct more extensive field examinations on a new device when it is first encountered in the field. This

can result in varying opinions on whether or not a device complies with

requirements and can lead to nonuniform enforcement practices regarding

the device.

ASSUMPTIONS

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

nationwide application. Many States have neither the resources nor the capability to do type evaluation testing and are fully

supportive of a national program that will provide for uniformity

of testing and for reciprocal acceptance of test results. The NBS,

by virtue of its role as a technical advisor to the States in

developing national standards and as participant in the review and development of international standards, has the exposure,

knowledge, and experience to provide technical advice on a national basis.

2. Nonuniformity in device evaluations in the U.S. causes inefficiencies for manufacturers and enforcement officials alike.

99
3. Uniform test procedures and criteria acceptable to all parties are esential to conducting a successful type evaluation 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 when all parties affected participate in the decision

making process. This participatory process is the hallmark of the

National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM).

4. A majority of manufacturers seek a single source of evaluation to satisfy the approval requirements for the entire country. This

will minimize cost and facilitate production and marketing. Past experience demonstrates that most States will accept a device

Report of Test issued by NBS.

5. The role described in this paper for NBS is consistent with its

mission to promote uniformity in weights and measures laws and

methods of inspection by serving as a technical advisor to the

States and the National Conference on Weights and Measures.

6. OIML is in the process of developing an International Certification

System that would permit a device to undergo a type evaluation in one country and then be accepted by all countries. When this is complete, U.S. participation in this system is essential for U.S. manufacturers to compete internationally. This necessitates a fully adequate U.S. program to be in place. Private communications

have clearly indicated that a certification scheme closely

associated with NBS will be the only one acceptable

internationally.

LEGAL METROLOGY CONTROL SYSTEM

CONCEPT

A type evaluation program is the first of a three-stage legal metrology

control system. Under the process described here, "type" devices, which

in fact might be plans, schematics, drawings, or even pre-production

models, are submitted for evaluation using agreed- to procedures and

uniform criteria in authorized laboratories. (For purposes of the

NTEP, production devices imported into the U.S. will be treated as "types" for evaluation purposes.)

Based on the results of evaluation, assuming the type meets the design

and performance criteria, designs are fixed, component sources and

tooling are established, acceptance test procedures are established,

and production lots are manufactured for application to individual

customer orders.

100
ROLES

Responsibilities under the control system follow current practices for

the most part. In simplest terms, the government's role addresses

three key stages:

1. Type evaluation carried out under the authority of the States

through the NCWM with technical support of NBS;

2. Initial verification carried out by State and local authorities;

and

3. Subsequent verification carried out by State and local authorities.

NATIONAL TYPE EVALUATION PROGRAM

SCOPE

The National Type Evaluation Program (NTEP) for commercial weighing and

measuring devices and field test standards is a program for determining

through uniform examination and testing procedures, that type devices

and equipment (by manufacturer and model) are in conformance with

applicable 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 standards as published in NBS Handbook 44 or in handbooks, guidelines, or other references established by the NTEP and

adopted by the National Conference on Weights and Measures.

The type evaluation is a two-phase process: design evaluation and

performance testing. Authorized laboratories, either governmental or private, may perform any phase of the NTEP under the collective

authority of the States through the National Conference on Weights and

Measures.

The NTEP is open to all States and all device manufacturers.

PURPOSE

Approval of the type submitted for evaluation is the first of a three- stage legal metrology control system demonstrating that devices

conform to established metrological , technical, and administrative

requirements as adopted by the National Conference on Weights and Measures.

101
DEFINITIONS AND PRECEPTS

Design evaluation is the analysis of a device with respect to: suitability for the intended application (design and operating

ch aracteristics

)

impact of design on the measurement process

consistency with "equity" and existing equipment

related criteria and information from State and Federal

agencies and other nations.

Performance testing determines those operating characteristics that

include accuracy, precision, and repeatability under varying loads,

flows, power sources, and environmental parameters.

Conformance : A decision by the National Bureau of Standards that the type of a device conforms to the design and performance requirements prescribed

by the National Conference on Weights and Measures; evaluation may

apply to whole systems, main devices or elements, or auxilliary devices

or elements that impact on the commercial measurement process.

CONCEPT

The National Type Evaluation Program is perceived as consisting of the

f ol 1 owi ng components

:

Design and Performance Standards

The standards for commercial devices are continually amended,

revised, and incorporated into N3S Handbook 44 through

existing procedures of the NCWM.

Test Criteria

These performance test criteria and design checklist have

been developed by N3S, revised by the NCWM Technical

Subcommittee of the National Type Approval Task Force, and are expected to become a new NBS handbook, revised and

amended following NCWM procedures.

Laboratory Authorization Criteria

These criteria are to be developed by NBS and reviewed and adopted by the NCWM.

Type Evaluations

Evaluations will be performed by authorized labs (which may

be State or NBS). Some performance evaluations, because of the size and nature of the device, will oe field evaluations

conducted by private and State organizations.

102
Type Evaluation Certificate

NBS will assess the type evaluation and issue the type

evaluation certificate.

Once NTEP becomes operational, a Board of Governors of NTEP will direct

the activities, policies, and procedures of the NTEP. An agent of the

Board of Governors of the NTEP will supervise operations and an NTEP Advisory Committee will represent the interests of the manufacturers,

retail sales organizations, and users of commercial devices.

CRITERIA AND REQUIREMENTS

NBS Handbook 44, "Specifications, Tolerances, and Other Technical

Requirements for Weighing and Measuring Devices" (H-44), is a reference

code book specifying both design and performance requirements for

commercial measurement equipment adopted by all 50 States. In addition

to H-44, test equipment for weights and measures enforcement agency use

is evaluated against three existing NBS handbooks:

105-1, "Specifications and Tolerances for Reference Standards and

Field Standard Weights and Measures, 1. Specifications and

Tolerances for Field Standard Weights (NBS Class F),"

105-2, "Specifications and Tolerances for Reference Standards and

Field Standard Weights and Measures, 2. Specifications and

Tolerances for Field Standard Measuring Flasks,"

105-3, "Specifications and Tolerances for Reference Standards and

Field Standard Weights and Measures, 3. Specifications and

Tolerances for Graduated Neck Type Volumetric Field Standards."

Handbook 44 is written in general terms so as not to hamper device

design and innovation unnecessarily. For type evaluations, therefore,

interpretations of H-44 must be made in order to decide whether a new design does or does not comply with design requirements of H-44.

Performance requirements are clearly defined in H-44, but type

performance test protocols are not specified in this handbook. In order to meet these needs, a new handbook has been drafted to augment

H-44 which describes the interpretations made in the conduct of NBS type evaluations and also provides checklists for manufacturers and

performance test protocols that are being used by NBS, California, and

the Federal Grain Inspection Service (FGIS) in their type evaluations

(draft distributed as NBSIR 80-2179, "Type Approval Criteria and Test Procedures"). The first draft was studied, modified, and endorsed

by the Technical Subcommittees of the NCWM National Type Approval Task

Force and approved by the NCWM at its 67th Annual Meeting.

Significant additions have been made by the Technical Committees and

approval will be requested at the 68th Annual Meeting. This handbook

will be published as a new NBS handbook to accompany H-44 and used as the design assessment criteria for National Type Evaluation once

adopted by the NCWM.

103
LABORATORY AUTHORIZATION

1. Authorization Process Agreement is drafted by NBS and sent to NCWM

for adoption.

2. NBS announces Laboratory Author ization Process in appropriate

medi a.

3. Laboratory applies to NBS for authorization.

4. NBS reviews application.

5. NBS sends criteria for authorization and questionnaire to the

inquiring laboratory.

6. The laboratory returns the completed questionnaire to NBS for

eval uati on.

7. NBS evaluates questionnaire and schedules on-site inspection of laboratory.

8. The on-site inspection is conducted and the results are reported

to NBS.

9. The on-site inspection results are reviewed by NBS.

10. A Certificate of Authorization is sent to the laboratory with a copy to NCWM.

11. List of authorized laboratories maintained by the NCWM.

CONDUCT OF EVALUATIONS

A type device will normally be processed through a two-phased

eval uati on

:

design evaluation, and

performance evaluation.

The design evaluation will be conducted by NBS professional staff or authorized laboratory staff who are specially experienced in the

considerations needed.

The performance evaluation will be conducted in authorized laboratories.

REVOCABI LITY OF A CONFORMITY DECISION

Certificate of conformity of a type can be revoked by decision of the

NBS authority:

104
1. When it is found during initial or subsequent verification that

production devices present faults that render the devices

unsuitable for their intended purpose.

2. When the production devices are not the same as the device that

has been issued an NTEP conformance certificate.

3. When legal requirements change and the conforming model is not consistent with the change.

The manufacturer will have to apply for re-evaluation when he makes a change to the device.

DEVICE POPULATION PROJECTIONS

Table 1 provides the potential market of equipment for a National Type

Evaluation Program. These estimates are based on the present output of NBS and the State of California, anticipated technological innovations,

and that portion of the market presently not utilizing this program.

It is anticipated that the demand will increase after the first year's

operation, peaking in the second or third year, and leveling off in the

fourth year to an average annual demand.

The quantities are for actual evaluations conducted, not certificates

issued, since in some instances the issuance of a certificate may

require tests on two or more devices.

The categories of equipment are based on codes of NBS Handbook 44 and,

to some extent, the time involved in the examination of the equipment.

There is a final category of "field test equipment" denoting equipment

necessary for field enforcement agency use rather than commercial

measurement. This equipment is evaluated against the NBS Handbook 105

series (see CRITERIA AND REQUIREMENTS).

105
Table 1. Device Population Projections

(Potential Market)

F iscal Year

Scales and Weighing Systems 83 84 85 86

o Bench and counter, 30-1 b capacity or less 30 35 35 30

o Bench, counter, and floor, 30-lb to 2000 lb 15 20 20 20 o Self-contained, over 2000 lb 10 15 15 10

o Large capacity 15 20 20 15

o Indicating elements 20 25 25 20

o Printers 5 10 5 5 Liauid Measurina Dpvicp Sv^tpm^

o Retail motor fuel dispensers 5 10 5 5 o Computing registers/consoles 20 25 20 15

o Slow-flow meters 2 3 2 1 o Vehicle tank meters 3 5 5 3

o Wholesale meters 3 5 5 3 o Indicating elements 5 10 10 5 Other Devices and Systems

o Volumetric measures 10 15 10 10

o Fabric measuring devices 2 2 1 1 o Linear measures 2 2 2 2 o Taximeters 3 5 3 2 o Timing devices 2 5 3 2 o Grain moisture meters 5 5 2 2 o Field test equipment _5 _5 _5 _5

Totals 162 222 193 156 Note: If the average cost of a type evaluation is estimated at $1000, then the figures above represent potential business

incomes to authorized labs. The cost of obtaining and

maintaining a laboratory authorization must be examined in

light of this income, because the cost/revenue ratio may be such that almost no private labs will apply.

SCHEDULE FOR IMPLEMENTATION

The following three charts describe the decision and task process

necessary to establish a National Type Evaluation Program. The charts

track this process from fiscal year '82 to fiscal year '85 according to major participating organizations or sectors: NBS, four subgroups of

the NCWM, the voting membership of the NCWM, State and local

governments, and industry. Individual decision and task statements are numbered in a time sequence culiminating in operation of a National

Type Evaluation Program under the auspices of the NCWM by October 1984.

106
©

X 5

Ul I O IqZ

° 9 2 Ul <

©

_t_

"111

< H t o > 5. < zi ©

_1_

3 Q<

Z 2 I E < £

x ° S o IT

©

|k U. j I

* O $ W 0. I

< - o

©

_t_

£ < a Sis

©

2si

13?

© ©t

U I

z 2

±E

C/5 O

03 H

5 < oc

ii

LU l— Q. > 55

5 i?

5 ° m - 0 * £ 2i § 2 m E 1

m

a £

<

. l±J ts§l

8| 8

o

o P z o Q <

$2 ul S

1 £8a Q CC £ ©Q.

31

©

Sis

oc r o

o t o 0|iu

U 5 > ,jOr >°?

Z Q. _ ©

I©

©

o p o

p <

< w

< z p

z r f - <

o I©

H < ^

< ca u z

k o cr © I©

107
108
oo 2 O _ Z h "! t- Z t5<S<<

t

z z g o o < O < *§

> 5

Ul 1

CC (0

109
APPENDIX B PROPOSED REVISION OF NBS SP250

CHAPTER X, PARAGRAPH H

H. Office of Weights and Measures

The role of the Office of Weights and Measures (OWM) is to provide

leadership and those technical resources that will assure accuracy of the quantity representations in all commercial transactions for all buyers and sellers in the United States, and to promote a uniform

national weights and measures system.

In fulfilling its mission, OWM engages in a wide range of activities,

including providing the secretariat and other technical input for the

National Conference on Weights and Measures. Foremost is the

assistance offered to the States in the following areas:

(1) The development of model weights and measures laws and

technical regulations for the States and local jurisdictions.

(2) The development and dissemination of design and performance

specifications for various standards of mass, length, and capacity for use as State and local reference, laboratory,

and field standards.

(3) The design of testing equipment and the development of testing procedures for weighing and measuring devices.

(4) The examination, test, and/or evaluation of weighing and

measuring devices and reference and field standards submitted

by manufacturers

.

(5) The evaluation of test results and data submitted to OWM or to those Measurement Laboratories that have been authorized

by NBS to examine, test, and/or evaluate weighing and measuring devices and reference and field standards submitted

by manufacturers

.

(6) The issuance by OWM of a Certificate of Conformance to the

manufacturer of those weights, measures, and 'weighing or measuring instruments or devices that conform to the

technical requirements set out in NBS Handbooks 44, 105-1,

105-2, or 105-3 as evaluated by OWM or by those Measurement

Laboratories that have been authorized by NBS to conduct such

evaluation under the National Type Evaluation Program.

(5) The calibration of State standards. State weights and measures laboratories perform calibrations and tolerance

tests of mass, volume, and length secondary standards for

industry and service agencies.

110
(6) The conduct of technical training in weights and measures

enforcement and laboratory metrology. OWM serves as a central resource for metric coordination for the States and

local jurisdictions, and prepares and disseminates

information on standards, testing equipment, technical

procedures, technical investigations, and standard practices.

Type Evaluation of Conmercial Weighing and Measuring Devices, Reference

and Fields Standards

OWM provides technical and administrative support to the National Type

Evaluation Program (NTEP) which provides for evaluation of: (1) type

weighing and measuring devices to determine compliance with the requirements of NBS Handbook 44, "Specifications, Tolerances, and Other

Technical Requirements for Conmercial Weighing and Measuring Devices,"

and (2) reference and field standards to determine compliance with the

requirements of NBS Handbook 105-1, "Specifications and Tolerances for

Reference Standards and Field Standard Weights and Measures,

Specifications and Tolerances for Field Standard Weights (NBS Class

F)," NBS Handbook 105-2, "Specifications and Tolerances for Reference

Standards and Field Standard Weights and Measures, Specifications and

Tolerances for Field Standard Measuring Flask," and NBS Handbook 105-3,

"Specifications and Tolerances for Reference Standards and Field

Standard Weights and Measures, Specifications and Tolerances for

Graduated Neck Type Volumetric Field Standards."

This program may be used by manufacturers and weights and measures

officials in determining the acceptability of devices for commercial

use or the suitability of reference and field standards.

Devices will be examined at any stage of development on request. The

evaluation may be made in the laboratories of NBS (and/or laboratories

authorized by NBS), or at the factory or in the field by NBS or authorized laboratories.

When a device is found to be in compliance with NBS Handbook 44, or standards in compliance with NBS Handbooks 105-1, 105-2 or 105-3, a Certificate of Conformance will be issued by the NBS to the submitter

and copies sent to each State Weights and Measures offices.

When a device is found not to be in conformance, the submitter will be

notified by letter and the discrepancies fully explained. The

equipment may then be modified and resubmitted. If it is the

submitter's decision not to make any modifications, a report of test

will be issued to the submitter detailing the areas where discrepancies

exist.

ill
To obtain a type evaluation, follow the request procedure described in

NBS 250 Chapter I, Paragraph C (Request Procedure) and send the request

to: The Office of Weights and Measures

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D.C. 20234

Procedures for shipping, insurance, testing priorities, time of

completion, and NBS reports are described in NBS 250, Chapter I, Paragraphs:

D. Shipping, Insurance, and Risk of Loss

E. Priorities and Time of Completion

F. Use of NBS Reports

112
APPENDIX C REPORT OF ORGANIZATION AND PROCEDURES SUBCOMMITTEE

There are several proposals which deal with restructuring the Executive

Committee:

Proposal 1 The Executive Conmittee shall be composed of 10 elected members

who shall serve for staggered terms (1, 2, 3 years), along with

the elected conference officers and present ex officio members.

Proposal 2 There shall be a Board of Directors which shall be composed of the

Chairman, the Chairman-Elect, the past Chairman, four Vice-Chairmen

who shall be the Presidents of the Regional Conference and who

shall serve for three years from the commencement of their

presidency, the Chairman of the Associate Membership, and present

ex-officio members. The Executive Committee shall be composed of

the Chairman, the Chairman-Elect, the Four Vice-Chairmen, and the

present ex-officio members.

Proposal 3 The Executive Committee shall be composed of a Chairman,

Chairman-Elect, Four Vi ce-Chairmen elected one from each Regional

Conference with three members elected "at-large," and the present

ex-officio members. The Vice-Chairmen shall serve for three

years; the at-large members shall serve for two years.

Proposal 4 The Executive Conmittee shall be composed of the Conference

Chairman and the five most recent past chairmen who are still

active in weights and measures; the President and the Executive

Secretary would be ex-officio members.

Proposal 5 The Conference Chairman shall be elected from the five

Vice-Chairmen; the Vice-Chairmen shall be elected as follows:

four from the Regional Conferences and one at-large by the

Conference.

113
There were several recommendations regarding the duties of the

Executive Committee as it is presently constituted:

Recommendation 1 The Executive Committee should have specific subcommittees who

would report on progress to the Executive Committee, with a formal

report to the Conference. The Vice -Chairmen would chair the

subcommittees.

Recommendation 2 Each of the V ice-Chairmen shall be assigned as liaison to a standing committee and present a summary report to the full

Executive Committee.

Recommendation 3 Each of the Vice -Chairmen shall be assigned as liaison to a standing committee with the fifth Vi ce-Chairman a non-voting

member-at-large to the standing committees.

Recommendation 4 The duties of the Executive Committee and the P & C Committee

shall be merged.

There were several recommendations regarding the voting procedures at the National Conference:

Recommendation 1 Voting on S & T and L & R items shall be on a two-year cycle. Items would be voted on each year, but only items in the system for

two years would be finalized. Items would be voted up or down,

only. The issue would be fixed thirty days before the Conference.

Recommendation 2 Voting on S & T and L & R items would be in alternate years.

Recommendation 3 At the start of each Conference a review of the rules that govern

voting would be presented. A brief synopsis of the rules will be

included in the Conference material.

Recommendation 4 Prior to the commencement of the Conference all persons presiding

at meetings shall have a review of parliamentary procedure and the

Conference voting rules.

114
Recomnendation 5 A "consent calendar" shall be developed to isolate those items of

a noncontroversi al nature which can then be voted on in a body.

Recommendation 6 Items that are presented in the interim reports and that are to be

voted upon shall be entered on a word processor or mini -computer.

The consent items will be determined by having each voting member

fill out a card (mark/sense) at the close of the open meetings and

shall have the following categories: support; oppose; desire

further debate. Those items that "pass" or "fail" will be so indicated on a list the next day and removed from the items that

require further debate.

Recommendation 7 Any item that requires substantive amending shall be sent back to the committee of origin until the next Conference.

Recommendation 8 Voting shall be by a show of placards/hands, and tabulation used

only where issue is in doubt.

Recommendation 9

If recording of votes is necessary then the number of people doing

the tallying should be increased.

Recommendation 10 Limit the amount of debate time for each issue.

There were some recorrmendati ons regarding the Nominating Committee:

Recommendation 1 The information supplied to the Nominating Committee should be

automated so that updated information can be available to the

members.

Recommendation 2 The Committee should meet at the interim meeting and be composed

of the five most recent past active chairmen with the Executive

Secretary as ex officio member.

The following recomnendati ons are of a general nature:

1. The Conference shall incorporate.

115
2. A task force shall be appointed to draft a constitution and by-laws for the conference.

3. Membership eligibility shall be in conformance with the

requirements of the Regional Conferences.

4. Staff assistance to the standing committees shall change each

year with the same person returning to each committee not more than once every three years.

5. Task forces with limited mandates shall be set up to deal with

pressing as well as long range issues. Membership on these

task forces shall be composed of both active and associate

members

.

6. The Conference schedule should be reorganized: all open meetings of lesser controversy shall be held simultaneously on the first morning; L & R and S & T would each have half a day

to present their reports and allow for debate; all regional

meetings would be held on Tuesday afternoon, to allow for coordination prior to the final sports.

7. The Conference should put on a sales campaign to get at least

the 50 State representatives to be present during the Interim

Committee Meetings.

3. The index of the Conference report should be updated from 1971

to 1 932 and then updated annually.

9. On controversial issues, the standing committee should provide

a speaker to lead off the debate by summarizing the reasoning

of the committee.

10. The Conference should prepare a presentation to be submitted

to the Governors of those States that have split 'weights and measures jurisdictions to point out the possible areas of non-uniformity

.

Respectfully submitted:

S. D. Andrews, Florida, Chairman

Barbara Boddicker, South Dakota

John Chohamin, New Jersey

F. M. Daniels, Indiana

Patricia Fullinwider, Arizona

Leo Letey, Colorado

Jim Lyles, Virginia

Frank Nagele, Michigan

Pat Nichols, California

John Pugh, South Carolina

Dick Thompson, Maryland

116
REFERENCE KEY FINAL REPORT

200 OF THE COMMITTEE ON LAWS AND REGULATIONS

The Committee on Laws and Regulations presents its report to the 68th

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 committee 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, 1983 Edition,

"Model State Laws and Regulations" (H-130).

NOTE: Except where paragraphs or sections are to be added or completely revised, changes to H-130 are shown as follows: that which

is to be deleted is shown lined out, and that which is to be added is underlined. When new sections are to be added or completely revised,

the section appears in italics.

Presented below is the list of voting and informational items. (Items

that report work in progress and action that the Committee is contemplating but is not ready to propose to the Conference this year

are information items and are marked in the text with an asterisk .)

CONSENT VOTING ITEMS

These are voting items that were grouped in the final vote. Handbook 130 201-2 Name Change from "Model" to "Uniform"

201-3 Use of the Term "Mass" and of SI Symbols

Model State Packaging and Labeling Regulation

203-3 Section 7. Declaration of Quantity: Nonconsumer Packages

(Metric-Only Labels)

203-4 Section 10.9.5. (b) Sewing Threads, Handicraft Threads and Yarns 203-5 Bakery Products: Variations from Declared Net Weights

203- 6 Nonwoven Synthetic Scouring Pads: Variations from Declared

Net Quantities

204- 6-3 Section 10.11. Bark Mulch: Variations from Declared Volume

117
Model State Regulation for the Method of Sale of Commodities

204-4 Section 2.13. Insulation

204-5 Section 2.16. Precious Metals

204-6-1 Section 2.17. Bark Mulch

Policy and Guidelines

204-6-2 Bark Mulch/Package Test Method

207-3 Method of Sale of Clams, Mussels, and Oysters

207- 4 Method of Sale of Vegetable Oil

General

208- 2-1 Long Range Plan/Goals and Objectives of the Committee on Laws

and Regulations

(All of the items on the consent calendar were adopted.)

SEPARATE VOTING ITEMS

These voting items were voted upon separately.

Handbook 130 201- 1-1 Model State Regulation for National Type Evaluation

Model State Weights and Measures Law 202- 1 Adoption of Regulations in H-130 by Citation

202-2 Section 12. Sale from Bulk

Model State Regulation for the Method of Sale of Comnodities

204-3 Section 2.4.2. (Peat and Peat Moss) Units

204-7 Section 2.18. Kerosene

Policy and Guidelines

207-1 Policy and Guidelines on Motor Fuel Deliveries (Gas Pump)

Price Posting as Related to Cash Discounts

207-2 Method of Sale of Motor Fuel Containing Alcohol

207-5 Method of Sale of Potpourri

(The results of voting appear at the end of each of these items.)

118
INFORMATION ITEMS

Handbook 130

201-1-2 Discussion of Proposed Model State Regulation for National

Type Evaluation

201-4 Use of the Term "Intrastate" in the Models

Model State Weights and Measures Law

202- 3 Section 6.13. (Reference to Handbook 67)

Model State Packaging and Labeling Regulation

203- 1 Section 12.2. Magnitude of Permitted Variations (Reference

to Handbook 67)

203- 2 Sections 6.7.1.(d) Proviso and 6.7.2. Proviso (Random Package

Quantity Declaration)

Model State Regulation for the Method of Sale of Commodities

204- 1 Survey on State Adoption of the Model Regulation

204-2 Ice Cream and Frozen Dessert Combination Foods

204-8 Potting and Top Soil

Model State Regulation for the Voluntary Registration of Servicepersons

and Service Agencies for Commercial Weighing and Measuring Devices

205 Model State Regulation for the Voluntary Registration of

Servicepersons and Service Agencies for Commercial Weighing

and Measuring Devices

Model State Open Dating Regulation

206 Model State Open Dating Regulation

General

208-1 Task Force on Package Control

208-2-2 Long Range Plan/Tasks of the Committee on Laws and Regulations

208-3 Multi-Unit, Combination, and Variety Packages/All Units

Clearly Visible

(These items were adopted as part of the final report of the committee.)

119
201 HANDBOOK 130

201-1-1 MODEL STATE REGULATION FOR NATIONAL TYPE EVALUATION

The Committee met with the Executive Committee and the Task Force on National Type Approval on several occasions during the Interim Meetings

to work out a model regulation to recognize the National Type

Evaluation Program (NTEP). The NCWM Task Force on National Type

Approval analyzed and discussed the provisions of the Model State

Weights and Measures Law as set out in NBS Handbook 130 "Model State Laws and Regulations." On the basis of such analysis, it is the

opinion of the Task Force and the Committee that Section 6 of the Model

State Weights and Measures Law (in particular Sections 6.3, 6.6, 6.9,

6.10, and 6.11), together with the definition of the term "weight(s)

and (or) measure(s)" as given in Section 1.1, are broad and inclusive

enough to authorize State weights and measures agencies to conduct a type evaluation program or to require a type evaluation based on the

technical requirements specified in Section 4 of that Model Law. (Each

State must analyze its own weights and measures law in order to determine whether the Task Force's opinions with respect to the Model Law applies to that individual State). Therefore, the Task Force

recommends no changes to the Model State Weights and Measures Law. However, the Task Force recommends a Model State Regulation for

National Type Evaluation as a necessary adjunct to recognize and enable

participation in the National Type Evaluation Program administered by

the National Bureau of Standards.

The proposed model regulation is quite brief, leaving the details of administration of the program, such as the manner of submitting

devices, treatment of proprietary data, appeals, correction of errors,

and notice of test results to the administrative policies of the

National Bureau of Standards 1

, and of the National Conference on Weights and Measures*?, and to the criteria established under the

Certification of State Measurement Laborator ies^. Setting fees for

type evaluation would be the prerogative of each State operating a Participating Laboratory.

This model should be considered as part of the overall NTEP presented

in the Executive Committee report (see reference keys 105-1, 105-2, and

102-7). The proposed model regulation, including a background

statement, is presented below. After the proposed model regulation,

there is a general discussion of several important sections of the

ISee reference key 105-1

^See reference key 102-7

3See reference key 105-2

120
proposed model (reference key 201-1-2) which will prove useful in understanding the extent of the model regulation and how it is intended

to be applied.

The Committee recommends the following model regulation for Conference

approval

:"

121
MODEL STATE REGULATION FOR NATIONAL TYPE EVALUATION

1. BACKGROUND

The Modal State Regulation for National Type Evaluation is a necessary

adjunct to recognize and enable participation in the National Type

Evaluation Program administered by the National Bureau of Standards.

The proposed model regulation specifically authorizes : type

evaluation ; recognition of a National Bureau of Standards "Certificate

of Conformance" of type; the State Measurement Laboratory to operate as

= ? srziz iz sting Laboratory , if authorized by the National Bureau of

Standards under its program of certification of State Measurement

Laboratories ; sr. : , the State z: dbarge fees z: those persons z seek

tgpe evaluation of weighing and measuring devices.

2 . INTENT

It is the intent of this model regulation to have all States use the

National Type Evaluation Program, as approved by the National

Conference on Weights and Measures, as their examining procedure.

3. STATUS OF PROMULGATION

7': is -yodel ret „ Is tier, is reoozzr.ended zz the Szazes for adaption.

Ill
TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION

1. Application

2. Definitions

2.1. National Type Evaluation Program

2.2. Type Evaluation

2.3. Type

2.4. Participating Laboratory

2.5. Certificate of Conformance

2.6. Director

3. Certificate of Conformance

4. Participating Laboratory

5. Revocation of Conflicting Regulations

6. Effective Date

123

Section 3. Certificate of Conformance

The Director may require any weight or measure, or any weighing or measuring instrument or device to be issued a Certificate of

Conformance prior to use for commercial or law enforcement purposes.*

Section 4. Participating Laboratory

The Director is authorized to operate a Participating Laboratory as part

of the National Type Evaluation Program. In this regard, the Director

is authorized to charge and collect fees for type evaluation services.

Section 5. Revocation of Conflicting Regulations

All provisions of all orders and regulations heretofore issued on this

same subject that are contrary to or inconsistent with the provisions

of this regulation, and specifically _, are hereby

revoked

.

Section 6. Effective Date

This regulation shall become effective on . Given under my hand and the seal of my office in the City of

on this day of , 19 .

*See G-A.l., Section 1.14. General Code, National Bureau of Standards

Handbook 44 for definition of commercial and law enforcement equipment.

(Item 201-1 was adopted.)

125
*201-1-2 DISCUSSION OF MODEL STATE REGULATION FOR NATIONAL TYPE EVALUATION

Section 1. This model regulation will not pertain to all weighing and measuring

devices and equipment, only to those covered in National Bureau of

Standards Handbooks 44, 105-1, 105-2, and 105-3. Existing State

program practices will continue to apply for devices not covered by

Handbooks 44, 105-1, 105-2, and 105-3.

Sections 1., 2.1, and 2.5.

There is no reference to which version or edition of the handbooks will

be used in type evaluation because the Certificate of Conformance will

state the handbook edition under which the device is examined. Of course, the handbook used must be the version adopted by the NCWM at the time of submission for evaluation, not the version used by any

individual State operating a Participating Laboratory.

Section 2.3.

The definition of the term "type" was developed and agreed to by the

Specifications and Tolerances Committee and the Technical Committee on National Type Evaluation.

Section 3. The model regulation would authorize the Director to accept an NTEP Certificate of Conformance as evidence of conformance; however, it is anticipated that certain devices in H-44 will not be issued a Certificate of Conformance. These devices fall into two categories:

(1) Devices for which type evaluation criteria and checklists have

not yet been developed or approved by the NCWM, for example,

LPG devices. The number of devices in this category will

diminish as type evaluation criteria continue to be developed.

(2) Devices for which their manufacturers cannot afford to pay

for an NTEP evaluation but which will meet H-44 requirements.

Both categories of devices will continue to be judged for their

compliance with State laws in the manner in which States currently

operate. States that do not have type evaluation programs of their own will evaluate devices when initially encountered in the field. States

that have type evaluation programs will evaluate devices under their own program. The model regulation is not intended to transform States

that do not operate type-evaluation programs into States that do, nor

is it intended to tranform a State that does not require type

evaluations into a State that does - although Section 3 would authorize

a State to require an NTEP Certificate of Conformance if the Director

chooses to do so.

126
The question was raised at the Interim Meetings as to what procedures

were to be followed if a device manufacturer wished to test market a device in an individual State. It was the consensus of opinion that

this would be an occasion that is not covered by the regulation, and,

as would be the case whether or not the regulation were adopted, should

be addressed as a special request to the State wherein test marketing

was contemplated. The device would be subject to whatever State

requirements are deemed appropriate.

Sections 2.4. and 4. NBS operates a program for certification of State Measurement

Laboratory capabi lity in mass, length, and volume. NBS will extend

this certification program to State Measurement Laboratories desiring

to operate as a "Participating Laboratory" under NTEP. Basic

competences must be determined before certification is granted as is done in the areas of mass, length, and volume measurements. This

program does not extend to private laboratories. The regulation is intended to apply whether or not an individual State wishes to operate

a Participating Laboratory at the present time. It authorizes the

State to do so (if it desires) at the present time, or in the future;

it does not require the State to do so.

201-2 NAME CHANGE FROM "MODEL" TO "UNIFORM"

The Special Study Group that was formed to study feasible methods to permit adoption by citation of the model regulations contained in Handbook 130 has re cormi ended that the titles of Handbook 130 and the

model laws and regulations therein be changed from "Model" to "Uniform."

The Study Group feels that adoption by the States of the model laws 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 word "model" in the title. The word

"model" is intended to provide a guide for the States and thereby allow

each State to utilize those portions of the model laws or regulations

that best fit its requirements rather than simply adopting it in

totality as a standard, which is what the word "uniform" might seem to imply. 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 more comfortable through experience

and training with a "uniform" law or regulation than with so-called

"model" laws or regulations.

The Committee agrees that the term "model" connotes an ideal that may

never be obtained in reality; whereas, the term "uniform" more nearly

connotes a standard intended to be copied rather than used only as a guide.

127
It was pointed out to the Comnittee that municipal jurisdictions in

many States may adopt additional requirements not already adopted by

the State. Dropping the term "State" from the titles of Handbook 130

and the model laws and regulations would help this adoption process and

would better reflect by the titles that other governmental subdivisions

may adopt these models. The Committee concurs with this recommendation.

Therefore, the Comnittee recorrmends that the title of NBS Handbook 130

be changed to "Uniform Laws and Regulations." In addition, the

Committee recommends changing the title of each law or regulation to:

o Uniform Weights and Measures Law

o Uniform Wei ghm aster Law

o Uniform Packaging and Labeling Regulation

o Uniform Regulation for the Method of Sale of Commodities

o Uniform Unit Pricing Regulation

o Uniform Regulation for the Voluntary Registration of

Servicepersons and Service Agencies for Commercial Weighing

and Measuring Devices

o Uniform Open Dating Regulation

[Editor's note: "Model State Regulation for National Type Evaluation"

will appear as "Uniform Regulation for National Type Evaluation."]

(Item 201-2 was adopted as part of the consent calendar.)

201-3 USE OF THE TERM "MASS" AND OF SI SYMBOLS

The U.S. Metric Association, Inc. (USMA) and others propose that the term

"mass" replace all references to "weight" in H-130. In addition the term "volume" is proposed to replace "measure" and SI symbols to replace

spell ed-out names for the units in each model law or regulation.

The Committee is not prepared to make any of the suggested changes in any of the laws and regulations in H-130 for several reasons:

(1) The term "weight", in commercial and everyday use, nearly always means "mass." The Committee cannot condone changing a well

accepted part of government and law from "weights and measures"

to "mass and measures", (or "mass and volume"), from

"weighmaster" to "mass -master" , or other similar changes in

termi nology.

(2) In regard to the methods of sale of commodities and packaged

goods, even though "mass" may be a more specific term, the

purpose of labeling is not to educate the public but to inform

them in terms they understand. In addition, the Congress of the

U.S. and Federal agencies have established standards of labeling

using the term "net weight" which cannot be overridden by State

requirements.

128
(3) The other parts of the USMA proposal, to use the SI symbols

and to replace the term "measure" with "volume", is viewed by

the Comnittee as simply editorial in nature. The Comnittee

does not agree with the proposed changes: "measure container" is strictly defined in NBS Handbook 44; it is usually better to avoid accidents in typesetting by spelling

out all terms and units; and "measure" can be length, area, dry volume, or liquid volume as necessary, not "volume" only.

(Item 201-3 was adopted as part of the consent calendar.)

*201-4 USE OF THE TERM " INTRASTATE" IN THE MODELS

The Special Study Group that was originally formed to study feasible

methods to permit adoption by citation of the model regulations

contained in H-130, at its October 13, 1982 meeting, initiated

consideration of the "interstate" versus "intrastate" issue relating to variations resulting from exposure. The Comnittee at the 1982 National

Conference had authorized the Study Group to examine this issue and to report its recommendations to the Committee.

Central to this issue are the phrases "entered intrastate commerce" and

"introduced into intrastate commerce" which appear in Section 6.15. of the Model State Weights and Measures Law and in Section 12.1.2. of the

Model State Packaging and Labeling Regulation. These phrases do not

appear in the Federal regulations issued by the Food and Drug

Administration or the U.S. Department of Agriculture and thus make the

Model requirements inconsistent with Federal law and regulation. The

continued use of the quoted phrases in the referenced models by the

States in their enforcement activities that relate to variations

resulting from exposure could result in undue burdens on interstate

commerce. The Study Group met in March 1983, to propose to the Comnittee language

changes in the cited models to make them consistent with Federal law. A copy of the letter from the Study Group chairman to the Comnittee

chairman appears on the next two pages.

The Comnittee has not has had an opportunity to study these

recommendations from the Study Group and therefore recommends carrying

this item over until next year.

129
April 12, 1983

Mr. John Bartfai Bureau of Weights and Measures

Building 7-A, State Campus

Albany, NY 12235 Dear Mr. Bartfai

:

As you know, the Special Study Group or task force which you appointed

to look into and report to your Committee on Laws and Regulations met

at the National Bureau of Standards on March 21, 1983, to consider an issue which has long been of concern and interest to the National

Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM); namely, the interstate vs. intrastate issue relating to variations resulting from exposure.

After careful consideration of this important issue and its legal

implications, including a thorough review of relevant court decisions,

applicable Federal laws and regulations, and earlier discussions of the

matter as reflected in talks presented at previous sessions of the NCWM, our task force consisting of Neil Magnus, Deputy Attorney General,

Division of Law, State of New Jersey, Neal Peterson, attorney for

General Mills, and myself, offer for your Cormiittee's consideration and approval certain recommendations for changes in the current versions of

the Model State Weights and Measures Law and the Model State Packaging

and Labeling Regulation as set out in NBS Handbook 130, 1983 edition.

These suggested changes are set out below and pertain to section 6.15

of the referenced Model Law and section 12.1.2 of the referenced Model

Regulation

.

It is our considered opinion that section 6.15 of the Model Law should

be changed by deleting the words "only after the commodity has entered

intrastate commerce." Thus, the section as anged would read as follows:

"6.15. Allow reasonable variations from the stated quantity of

contents, which shall include those caused by loss or gain of

moisture during the course of good distribution or by unavoidable

deviations in good manufacturing practice."

It is our recommendation that section 12, "Variations to be Allowed",

of the Model Regulation should be changed by deleting section 12.1.2 in

its entirety and be replaced by the following language:

"12.1.2. Variations Resulting from Exposure. The statement of net quantity of contents as it is shown on a label shall not be

false or misleading and shall express an accurate statement of the

130
quantity of the contents of the container exclusive of wrappers

and packing substances. Reasonable variations caused by loss or gain of moisture during the course of good distribution practices

or by unavoidable deviations in good manufacturing practice will

be recognized. Variations from stated quantity of contents shall

not be unreasonably large.

The language proposed for substitution of section 12.1.2 is taken from

section 317.2(h)(2) of title 9 of the Code of Federal Regulations as published by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Note that sections

12.1.1 and 12.2 of the Model Regulation remain unchanged.

I think it relevant to point out and even to emphasize that the changes

being proposed are not intended and indeed do not in any way change,

impede, or interfere with a State's lawful authority and duty to check

and examine packages or commodities to ascertain compliance with

applicable weights and measures laws and regulations. The changes are, however, intended to bring a State's weights and measures laws and

regulations into compliance and be consistent with Federal laws and

regulations.

As you know, those Federal laws and regulations have been upheld in

decisions issued by the Supreme Court of the United States. Thus, the

States must allow reasonable variations of the net contents of a package or commodity caused by loss or gain of moisture that may occur during the course of good distribution practices and must also

recognize unavoidable deviations that may occur in good manufacturing

practices.

I hope the recommendations of our task force are acceptable to you and

your Committee. I ask that the Committee schedule consideration of

this item when it informally meets prior to the opening session of the

upcoming July 1983 National Conference on Weights and Measures. If the

Committee accepts the recommendations as set out herein, I trust that

it will seek their adoption by the NCWM, though I understand that it is not expected the Corrmittee will do so at the forthcoming Conference.

It need hardly be said that I and the other members of the task force

stand ready to assist you and the Committee in any way that it is felt

we may be helpful

.

Sincerely,

Allen J. Farrar

Legal Adviser

National Bureau of Standards

131
202 MODEL STATE WEIGHTS AND MEASURES LAW

202-1 ADOPTION OF MODEL REGULATIONS BY CITATION

(This item was carried over from the 67th NCWM, 1982, 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 Adviser 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.

In 1981, the special study group distributed and then compiled the

results from a questionnaire for State officials to determine current

practices regarding adoption of model laws and regulations including

NBS Handbook 44 (H-44). (See Final Report of Cormiittee, Report of the

67th NCWM 1982, for survey results in detail.)

Of the 44 jurisdictions that responded to the survey, approximately

15-20 States permit incorporation of future amendments to H-44 by

reference (see wording of Section 4 of Model State Weights and Measures

Law.) These States automatically adopt updates to H-44 when changes

are made to it by the NCWM. Seven States, however, reported problems

with adopting regulations not yet in existence. It was not determined

whether any of the remaining States had definite prohibitions against

the wording contained in Section 4 of the Model Law ("The specifications ...as published in National Bureau of Standards Handbook 44 ... and

supplements thereto or revisions thereof ...")

It appears that adoption by citation of H-44 is well accepted by almost

all of the States, and many States also automatically udpate H-44.

Handbook 130 (H-130) is a compilation of two model laws and five model

regulations. Laws cannot be adopted by citation; the State legislative

body must take action to pass a law. Regulations may, in general, be adopted by citation. Handbook 44 is a regulation adopted in all 50

States, most often by citation (rather than repeating or rewriting the

entire handbook word for word in State regulations.)

The Committee recommends five additional sections be added to the Model

State Weights and Measures Law in order to permit States to adopt the

five model regulations contained in H-130 by citation and, when

possible, to automatically update the regulations. The Committee

recommends a separate section for each of the five model regulations

contained in Handbook 130 not only because of the varying responsibilities of each weights and measures jurisdiction but also because of the

varying needs for each model regulation in each State. For example,

almost every State has adopted some version of the Model State

132
Packaging and Labeling Regulation, but only about seven States use the

Model State Unit Pricing Regulation. (Of course, some States may not have the authority to adopt unit pricing regulations under their

existing weights and measures laws.)

The Corrmittee recommends the following sections be added to the Model

State Weights and Measures Law (with existing Sections 5 through 22 to be renumbered):

SECTION 5. REQUIREMENTS FOR PACKAGING AND LABELING

The Model State Packaging and Labeling Regulation as adopted by the

National Conference on Weights and Measures and published in the

National Bureau of Standards' Handbook 130 "Model State Laws and

Regulations" and supplements thereto or revisions thereof, shall apply

to packaging and labeling in the State, except insofar as modified or rejected by regulation.

SECTION 6. REQUIREMENTS FOR THE METHOD OF SALE OF COMMODITIES

The Model State Regulation for the Method of Sale of Commodities as adopted by the National Conference on Weights and Measures and

published in National Bureau of Standards' Handbook 130 "Model State

Laws and Regulations" and supplements thereto or revisions thereof,

shall apply to the method of sale of commodities in the State, except

insofar as modified or rejected by regulation.

SECTION 7. REQUIREMENTS FOR UNIT PRICING

The Model State Unit Pricing Regulation as adopted by the National

Conference on Weights and Measures and published in National Bureau of

Standards' Handbook 130 "Model State Laws and Regulations" and

supplements thereto or revisions thereof, shall apply to unit pricing

in the State, except insofar as modified or rejected by regulation.

SECTION 8. REQUIREMENTS FOR THE REGISTRATION OF SERVICEPERSONS

AND SERVICE AGENCIES FOR COMMERCIAL WEIGHING AND MEASURING DEVICES

The Model State Regulation for the Voluntary Registration of

Servicepersons and Service Agencies for Commercial Weighing and

Measuring Devices as adopted by the National Conference on Weights and

Measures and published in National Bureau of Standards' Handbook 130

"Model State Laws and Regulations" and supplements thereto or revisions

thereof, shall apply to the registration of servicepersons and service

agencies in the State, except insofar as modified or rejected by

regulation.

133
SECTION 9. REQUIREMENTS FOR OPEN DATING

The Model State Open Dating Regulation as adopted by the National

Conference on Weights and Measures and published in National Bureau of

Standards ' Handbook 130 "Model State Laws and Regulations" and

supplements thereto or revisions thereof, shall apply to open dating in

the State, except insofar as modified or rejected by regulation.

The Committee further recomnends (if the above sections are approved by

the Conference) that the following letter be sent to each State

Director of Weights and Measures by the Chairman of the NCWM. This

letter explains the purpose of the new sections and sets out certain

precautionary steps that should be taken by the States before the

automatic update provisions of such sections are adopted:

State Director of Weights and Measures

Dear (each letter will be individually addressed):

At the recently concluded National Conference on Weights and Measures

(NCWM), (insert date of Conference) the Conference formally adopted the

recommendation proposed by the Conmittee on Laws and Regulations that

five new sections be inserted into the Model State Weights and Measures

Law (i.e., sections 5 through 9). The purpose of that action by the

NCWM in approving the adoption of those new sections was to encourage

and spur action by the States to adopt by citation and automatically

update the model regulations set out in NBS Handbook 130, "Model State

Laws and Regulations."

The language of the five new sections is set out below for your

information and convenience. Before doing so, however, I believe it may be helpful to explain the reasons why the Committee on Laws and

Regulations felt such action by the NCWM was desirable and the

background that led to the Committee's recommendation.

At the 1980 annual convention of the NCWM, the Committee on Laws and

Regulations was asked to explore a workable method of adoption by

citation by the several States of the mentioned NBS Handbook 130

similar to the approach provided for NBS Handbook 44 in Section 4 of

the Model State Weights and Measures Law. As this problem is largely a legal matter, a Study Group was established consisting of Allen J. Farrar, NBS Legal Adviser, 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 Study Group, as a means of determining current practices regarding

adoption of model laws and model regulations, developed a questionnaire

which in March 1981 was mailed to the chief weights and measures

134
official of each State, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the

Virgin Islands. An analysis was made of the responses and a report

which summarized the results was made to the NCWM at its annual meeting

in 1982. It was found that approximately 15 to 20 States automatically

adopt the annual updates of NBS Handbook 44 as recommended by the NCWM

and as set forth in Section 4 of the Model State Weights and Measures

Law. We also discovered, however, that a number of States are prohibited, either by statute, State case law, or State constitution,

from automatically adopting future amendments by citation - the issue

has yet to be decided in the remaining States.

One of the recommendations that resulted from that survey was to develop new sections for insertion into the Model State Weights and

Measures Law, which would facilitate the adoption by citation of the

model regulations in NBS Handbook 130 by those States that had not done

so and which would permit automatic updating of the model regulations

by those States that can do so. As the NCWM at its 1982 conference supported that approach, the

Committee on Laws and Regulations, with input from its Study Group,

presented its recommendations in the form of five new sections to be

added to the Model State Weights and Measures Law, which recommendations as already indicated have been adopted by the NCWM. These new sections are as follows:

SECTION 5. REQUIREMENTS FOR PACKAGING AND LABELING

The Model State Packaging and Labeling Regulation as adopted by the

National Conference on Weights and Measures and published in the

National Bureau of Standards' Handbook 130 "Model State Laws and

Regulations" and supplements thereto or revisions thereof, shall apply

to packaging and labeling in the State, except insofar as modified or rejected by regulation.

SECTION 6. REQUIREMENTS FOR "ME METHOD OF SALE OF COMMODITIES

The Model State Regulation for the Method of Sale of Commodities as adopted by the National Conference on Weights and Measures and

published in National Bureau of Standards' Handbook 130 "Model State

Laws and Regulations" and supplements thereto or revisions thereof,

shall apply to the method of sale of commodities in the State, except

insofar as modified or rejected by regulation.

SECTION 7. REQUIREMENTS FOR UNIT PRICING

The Model State Unit Pricing Regulation as adopted by the National

Conference on Weights and Measures and published in National Bureau of

Standards' Handbook 130 "Model State Laws and Regulations" and

supplements thereto or revisions thereof, shall apply to unit pricing

in the State, except insofar as modified or rejected by regulation.

135
SECTION 8. REQUIREMENTS FOR THE REGISTRATION OF SERVICE PERSONS

AND SERVICE AGENCIES FOR COMMERCIAL WEIGHING AND MEASURING DEVICES

The Model State Regulation for the Voluntary Registration of

Servicepersons and Service Agencies for Commercial Weighing and

Measuring Devices as adopted by the National Conference on Weights and

Measures and published in National Bureau of Standards' Handbook 130

"Model State Laws and Regulations" and supplements thereto or revisions

thereof, shall apply to the registration of servicepersons and service

agencies in the State, except insofar as modified or rejected by

regulation.

SECTION 9. REQUIREMENTS FOR OPEN DATING

The Model State Open Dating Regulation as adopted by the National

Conference on Weights and Measures and published in National Bureau of

Standards' Handbook 130 "Model State Laws and Regulations" and

supplements thereto or revisions thereof, shall apply to open dating in the State, except insofar as modified or rejected by regulation.

I would like to take this opportunity to encourage you to begin work to amend your State weights and measures law by adding the above sections

to it. However, because of the differences in the various State laws

revealed by our survey, I wish to advise you of certain precautionary

steps you should take before you take action to have your State adopt

these new sections. Each of the sections includes the phrase "and

supplements thereto or revisions thereof" in referring to the particular

regulation covered in that section. As previously mentioned, the

responses to the referenced questionnaire and our own independent

investigation indicate that some States may not lawfully enact a statute that provides for the automatic adoption of future supplements

or revisions to the regulation that is covered by that statute (i.e.,

automatic update provisions). This prohibition may be the result of some other law that has been enacted by the State, State case law, or State constitution. On the other hand, some States may lawfully enact legislation that adopts by citation future amendments to a specified

model regulation.

Therefore, it is essential that you consult with and obtain a written

legal opinion from the Attorney General of your State on this matter.

If you are advised in such opinion that your State may not lawfully

enact a statute that provides for the automati

c

adoption of future

supplements or revisions to the regulations covered by the statute,

there are two options available to you. The first option is to seek to have the sections enacted without the phrase "and supplements thereto

or revisions thereof." The other alternative is to substitute "as adopted, or amended and adopted, by rule of the Director" for the

phrase "except insofar as modified or rejected by regulation." An

136
example of the latter change is set out below as a footnote* to this

letter. No matter which option you select, it would be necessary to follow your State's administrative procedures to adopt a current version of each model regulation each time a supplement or revision

thereto is made by the NCWM.

If, however, the legal opinion you receive advises that the inclusion

of the phrase "and supplements thereto or revisions thereof" would be

legally valid, we urge you to proceed to have those sections enacted as written in the Model State Weights and Measures Law.

It is hoped that your State will take prompt action to carry out the

recommendation of the NCWM in adopting these five sections in a way

that complies with the law in your particular State.

Si nee rely,

Chairman of the NCWM

*SECTI0N 5. REQUIREMENTS FOR PACKAGING AND LABELING

The Model State Packaging and Labeling Regulation as adopted by the

National Conference on Weights and Measures and published in the

National Bureau of Standards' Handbook 130 "Model State Laws and

Regulations" and supplements thereto or revisions thereof, shall apply

to packaging and labeling in the State, as adopted, or amended and

adopted, by rule of the Director.

137
Finally, the Committee recommends that the following paragraph be

inserted into the background statement (p. II 1-3, H-130) to the Model

State Weights and Measures Law and footnoted in Sections 4 through 9: Sections 4 through 9 of the Model Law adopt NBS Handbook 44 and

model regulations in NBS Handbook 130 by citation. In addition,

these sections adopt supplements and revisions to Handbook 44 and

the model regulations "except insofar as modified or rejected by

regulation," Some States may not be able to lawfully enact a statute providing for automatic adoption of future supplements or revisions to a regulation covered by that statute. If this is

determined to be the case in a given State, two alternatives are

available:

(a) Sections 4 through 9 may be enacted without the phrase ..."and

supplements thereto or revisions thereof. . .

(b) Sections 4 through 9 may be enacted by replacing. . ."except

insofar as modified or rejected by regulation. . ." with the

phrase "as adopted, or amended and adopted, by rule of the

Director.

Either alternative requires action of the part of the Director to adopt a current version of Handbook 44 and each model regulation

each time a supplement or revision is made by the National

Conference on Weights and Measures.

(Item 202-1 was adopted.)

202-2 SECTION 12. SALE FROM BULK

(This item was carried over from the 67th NCWM, 1982, in which it was assigned a voting key of 202-1.)

In 1981, the Northwest and Western Weights and Measures Associations

proposed different revisions to Section 12 in order to permit retail

motor fuel deliveries to be sold without requiring a delivery ticket

even though a single delivery can easily exceed $20 as provided in the

Model Law. One association proposed exempting retail motor fuel

deliveries up to and including 30 gallons; the other association

proposed raising the $20 figure in Section 12 to $100.

The Committee is opposed to 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 Committee members feel

the consumer deserves a receipt for delivery in these instances.

However, merely exempting motor fuel deliveries under 30 gallons is

also inadequate because a delivery ticket with a_n^ other type of

138
purchase over $20 would still be required— 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.

The futility of selecting an arbitrary dollar or volume amount to revise Section 12 was brought out in discussions with the National

LP -Gas Association. A passenger vehicle can have a 47-gallon capacity

fuel tank of LP-gas. If delivery ticket requirements were modified to apply to sales over 30 gallons, owners of vehicles running on LP-gas

would be due delivery tickets but owners of passenger cars running on gasoline would not. The Committee believes the main intent of the delivery ticket requirement is to protect the customer when he or she is not present to witness

the measurement of product from bulk. (Of course, the customer always

has the right to request a delivery ticket when he or she is present to witness the measurement.) Additional sections in model regulations

have been recommended to cover specific products such as firewood and carcass meat, emphasizing the intent of Section 12 of the Model Law. Additionally, the Committee believes regulations for specific types of

sales from bulk appearing in both the Model State Method of Sale of

Commodities and in other regulations (such as those covering bulk grain

sales existing in certain States) should be referenced in the Model Law.

It was pointed out to the Committee that there is no reason to restrict

the requirements (as presently written in Section 12) to transactions

in which the quantity is determined only by the seller. There are many

transactions for which the quantity is determined by the buyer (such as buying recycled paper or aluminum cans) and a delivery ticket is still

appropriate.

The Committee therefore recommends the following revision:

Section 12. Sale From Bulk

When-evep-fehe-quanti-ty-i-s-detepmi-ned-by-t^e-sel-l-eF;- all bulk sales in

exeess-ef-twen-ty-dol-l-aps-fS^O} j_n which the buyer and seller are not both present to witness the measurement, an4 all bulk deliveries of

heating fuel^ and all other bulk sales specified by rule or regulation of the Director , shall be accompanied by a delivery ticket

containing the following information:

(a) The name and address of the v&r4&p- buyer and pupeh-asep seller . (b) The date delivered.

(c) The quantity delivered and the quantity upon which the price is based, if this differs from the delivered quantity.

139
(d) The identity in the most descriptive terms commercially

practicable, including any quality representation made in connection with the sale.

(e) The count of individually wrapped packages, if more than one. (Item 202-2 was adopted.)

*202 -3 SECTION 6.13. (REFERENCE TO HANDBOOK 67)

The discussion below covers Section 6.13. of the Model State Weights and

Measures Law and Section 12.2. of the Model State Packaging and Labeling

Regulation (reference key 203-1).

Section 6.13. of the Model State Weights and Measures Law authorizes the

Weights and Measures Director to "... employ recognized sampling

procedures, such as are designated in the National Bureau of Standards

Handbook 67, "Checking Prepackaged Commodities."

Section 12.2. of the Model State Packaging and Labeling Regulation states

that "the magnitude of variations permitted ... shall be those expressly

set forth in this regulation and those contained in the procedures and

tables of the National Bureau of Standards Handbook 67, Checking

Prepackaged Commodities.

There are two problems with these citations:

(1) Many States do not use the table on page 8 of Handbook 67

"Unreasonable Minus or Plus Errors" referred to in Section

12.2. Most of the States that do not use this table use two tables developed by the Office of Weights and Measures in the

late 1960's (see following tables). These two tables are not part of NBS Handbook 67.

(2) NBS has published Handbook 133 to supersede Handbook 67.

Although it will be several years before many States are prepared

to use Handbook 133, there are several States that are using it now or planning to use Handbook 133 in the very near future.

The Committee is studying two proposals. The two proposals are:

(a) Add references to Handbook 133 to both sections, i.e. "...in NBS

Handbook 67 or Handbook 133..."

This approach will not solve the problem for those States that

do not use the page 8 table in Handbook 67 referred to in Section 12.2 of the Model State Packaging and Labeling

Regulation.

140
cr. < o x

cr h

uj a:UJ

00 J—

=> <

-J UJ

ojco ICVJ -K

CM -JCM Q

UJ-J

CD y ~ < P

-J 2 J fv; oo ,a- f j

cr

00 00 UJ UJ u o

ZD o o

CO o o H H

-U<M Qu

-J

UJ . CD t < H

_J 2- U.<

°o

1A1
rr < c x s 

1i M"1^ j ccc

i.0 o

CM

CM

CM

COa

CM

37.0 c

<f

«?

59.2 66.5 o

ro co

cc o 4

%0F

LABELED

QUANTITY

ERRORS

UJ

=> <

_j w c cr

co |Q

00 «S" m CD CO o CM CO CO O

CM CM o

fO

OR

PLUS o x

_1 n

°.

cn

cMaCOc

inCO

CM

cm' CM

CO

CT! CM

roto

in q

ro

^; in

K3e> a

UJ

UJ >-

CO }- < H

si

CM

CO

_D

~Z.

CD U

ECQ

CM

c\i ro m CO CO 2

CM o

Lu' _]CO<o

CO<

L-J 1 <oQ

UJ

_JUJ

CD<

-J NC

_Ju,

COoO

tmo

_jU_

<*o

\-

CM

SSI o

_J

13L coo1 1 HoHTNo

_J

u.CO

1-eo

0.

h-o

ino

hh-o

CMO+

in HO

If] CM

CM Ho

rOOH

j_in

CM HOm

roo*

K3 Oo

fJ.m

to

h-O

inTOH+ o

inof

in on>O

CO<

142
(b) Drop references to Handbook 67 in both sections, i.e. "...employ

recognized sampling and testing procedures..." (Model Law) and

"...magnitude of variations... contained in recognized sampling

and testing procedures." (Model Regulation)

This approach may be too vague for purposes of enforcement and

national uniformity.

The Committee welcomes opinions and advice on this issue. The Comnittee

intends to carry over this item until next year.

203 MODEL STATE PACKAGING AND LABELING REGULATION

*203-l SECTION 12.2. MAGNITUDE OF PERMITTED VARIATIONS (REFERENCE TO

HANDBOOK 67) See reference key 202-3 for a complete discussion of this issue.

*203-2 SECTIONS 6.7.1(d) PROVISO and 6.7.2 PROVISO (RANDOM PACKAGE

QUANTITY DECLARATION)

Sections 6.7.1(d) proviso and 6.7.2 proviso limit the decimal fraction

portion of the quantity statement in inch-pound units for a random package

to two decimal places, e.g. "1.02 lb". (Quantity declarations in metric

units for random packages are permitted decimal fractions to three places

in order to provide equivalent accuracy with inch-pound declarations,

i.e., 0.01 lb is approximately equivalent to 0.005 kg.)

Hobart Corporation proposes permitting decimal fractions of inch-pound

units to be declared to three decimal places. They maintain that

state-of-the-art weighing equipment has better accuracy and finer

resolution than what was available when these sections were incorporated

into the Model Regulation. Scales and printers are now available that

display (and make labels with) inch-pound units to the third decimal place.

Members of the Conmittee see no difficulty, if a given scale or weighing

system can meet all the requirements of NBS Handbook 44, with permitting

random labels to be printed to three decimal places in pound units.

The problem arises because existing Food and Drug Administration (FDA),

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and Federal Trade Conmission (FTC)

regulations specifically prohibit such labels.

It is doubtful that the specific packaged goods under the jurisdiction of

the FTC would ever appear as random packages. However, FDA and USDA

jurisdiction includes most of the commodities for which this type of

weighing and labeling practice would be suitable, namely delicatessen and

confectionary items.

143
Chapter 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Subsection 101 . 105( j)(2) covers random packages under FDA authority:

If the net quantity of contents declaration appears on a random

package, that is a package which is one of a lot, shipment, or delivery of packages of the same consumer commodity with varying

weights and with no fixed weight pattern, it may, when the net weight exceeds 1 pound, be expressed in terms of pounds and

decimal fractions of the pround carried out to not more than two

decimal places. When the net weight does not exceed 1 pound, the

declaration on the random package may be in decimal fractions of

the pound in lieu of ounces (see example in paragraph (m)(5) of

this section.

Chapter 9 of the Code of Federal Regulations Subsection 317.2(h)(5)

covers random packages under USDA authority:

On packages containing 1 pound or 1 pint and less than 4 pounds or

1 gallon, the statement shall be expressed as a dual declaration

both in ounces and (immediately thereafter in parenthesis) in pounds, with any remainder in terms of ounces or common or decimal

fraction of the pound, or in the case of liquid measure, in the

largest whole units with any remainder in terms of fluid ounces or common or decimal fractions of the pint or quart, except that on random weight packages the statement shall be expressed in terms

of pounds and decimal fractions of the pound carried out to not more than two decimal places, for packages over 1 pound, and for

packages which do not exceed 1 pound the statement may be in decimal fractions of the pound in lieu of ounces. The Committee endorses the proposal of the Hobart Corporation; however,

further work with the USDA and FDA is necessary before a final

recommendation can be made to the Conference. The Committee has

written to the Food and Drug Administration and the U.S. Department of

Agriculture concerning this issue. The Committee recommends holding

this item over until next year.

203-3 SECTION 7. DECLARATION OF QUANTITY: NONCONSUMER PACKAGES

(METRIC ONLY LABELS)

The American National Metric Concil (ANMC) contacted the Committee

concerning plans of the ANMC Chemical Sector to "go metric." This

sector's packaged products are nonconsumer items such as industrial

chemicals, solvents, cleaners, etc. The questionnaire which follows was sent by the Committee to all 50

States, the District of Columbia, the Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico.

As of the time of this report, 50 of 53 jurisdictions have responded to the questionnaire. A list of individual responses is included on the

following pages.

144
A summary of the responses so far received indicates that

(1) Only 4 States (of the 50 that responded) do not have a packaging and labeling regulation (P & L reg.). (See

Nebraska, New Mexico, South Dakota and Wyoming.)

(2) Of the 46 States that reported having a P & L reg., 43 of the

regulations cover both consumer and nonconsumer packaged

goods (see Massachusetts, Nevada, and Rhode Island in list).

(3) Twenty-four jurisdictions have not adopted Sections 2.2 and

2.3 of the Model State Packaging and Labeling Regulation

(MSPLR). Three States (California, North Carolina, and

Tennessee) are in the process of adopting the model.

(4) Thirty-four jurisdictions have not adopted Section 7.1 of the

MSPLR. (California and Tennessee are proposing adoption of

the model.)

(5) Of the 34 that have not adopted Section 7.1, 6 do not permit

voluntary use of metric-only labels on nonconsumer packages

(see Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Missouri, New York and West Virginia in list.) New Jersey has not yet taken a position.

Delaware would permit metric-only on export packages only.

Louisiana would consider metric-only labels on a case-by-case

basis, depending upon whether there is a general usage of

metric only labeling in the particular areas in question.

Wyoming would prefer both inch-pound and metric declarations.

(6) Of the 16 States that have adopted Section 7.1, one State

does not permit nonconsumer packages to have metric-only

labels (see Colorado in list.)

The Committee thanks all jurisdictions for participating in this survey.

The survey may indicate that more thought needs to be devoted to the

definition of nonconsumer packages. Nonconsumer packages may be

classified in two categories: (a) packaged goods intended for use by

businesses in the same way that consumers would use the products, e.g.,

cleaning agents, and other consumables; and (b) packaged goods intended

for further processing into another product, e.g., industrial chemicals.

The Committee encourages States to update their packaging and labeling

regulations and adopt Sections 2.2., 2.3., and 7.1. of the Model State

Packaging and Labeling Regulation. Additionally, the Committee recom- mends that States permit metric-only labeling on nonconsumer packages.

The Committee would like to thank Cheryl Cummins, Vice President of

ANMC, for her assistance in devising the survey and Jonathan Barnes,

Office of Weights and Measures, NBS for his assistance in compiling the

results of the survey.

(Item 203-3 was adopted as part of the consent calendar.)

145
National Conference on Weights and Measures

Metric Quantity Labeling Requirements for Nonconsumer Packages

BACKGROUND

(1) The NCWM has recommended NBS Handbook 130 (1982) "Model State Laws & Regulations"

for adoption by state and local weights and measures agencies.

(2) Handbook 130 contains a Model State Packaging and Labeling Regulation.

(3) The Model State Packaging and Labeling Regulation defines consumer packages and nonconsumer packages (Section 2).

2.2. CONSUMER PACKAGE: PACKAGE OF CONSUMER COMMODITY. — A

"consumer package" or "package of consumer commodity" shall be construed to mean

a commodity in package form that is customarily produced or distributed for sale through retail sales agencies or instrumentalities for consumption by individuals

or use by individuals for the purposes of personal care or in the performance of ser- vices ordinarily rendered in or about the household or in connection with personal

possessions.

2.3. NONCONSUMER PACKAGE: PA~CKAGE OF NONCONSUMER COMMODITY. —

A "nonconsumer package" or "package of nonconsumer commodity" shall be construed

to mean any commodity in package form other than a consumer package, and particularly a package intended solely for industrial or institutional. use or for wholesale

distribution.

(4) The Model State Packaging and Labeling Regulation, would permit the declaration

of quantity on nonconsumer packages (Section 7), to appear as metric-only labeling

(providing federal law does not prohibit it).

7.1. GENERAL. — The metric and inch-pound systems of weights and measures

are recognized as proper systems to be used in the declaration of quantity. Units

of both systems might be combined in a dual declaration of quantity. (1)

(1) Reminder: Although nonconsumer packages under this regulation might bear

only metric declarations, this should not be construed to supersede any labeling re- quirement specified in Federal law.

(5) For consumer packages the Federal Fair Packaging & Labeling Act provides for labeling

in inch-pound units of measure. Metric units may also be declared and may even

appear first. Labeling in inch-pound units is not required for nonconsumer packages

in the Federal Fair Packaging in Labeling Act (this Act only covers consumer packages).

(6) The Metric Conversion Act of 1975, P.L. 94-168, declares "a national policy of coordi- nating the increasing use of the metric system in the United States."

146
. Agency

>erson Responding Address and

o Questionnaire Telephone

NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES QUESTIONNAIRE ON

METRIC QUANTITY LABELING REQUIREMENTS FOR NONCONSUMER PACKAGES

1) Does your State have a Packaging and Labeling (or similar) Regulation?

YES NO

2) Does your regulation cover both consumer and nonconsumer packaging?

YES NO

3) Have you adopted Sections 2.2 and 2.3 of the Model State Regulation on

Packaging and Labeling (Handbook 130, 1982), definitions of consumer and

nonconsumer packages, into your State regulation?

YES NO

4) Have you adopted Section 7.1 of the Model State Regulation on Packaging

and Labeling (Handbook 130, 1982), the declaration of quantity on nonconsumer packages to be either in metric or inch-pound units, into your

State regulation?

YES NO

(4a) If you answered yes to (4): do you permit nonconsumer packages

to have metric-only labels?

YES NO

(4b) If you answered no to (4): do you permit the voluntary use of

metric-only labels on nonconsumer packages?

YES NO

5) If you answered no to either 4a or 4b, what are the reasons for not

permitting metric-only labels?

147
List of State Responses to Metric-Only Labeling Survey

Question Number:

State 1 2 3 4 4a 4b 5 Al abama Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Alaska Yes Yes No No — Yes Arizona Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Arkansas Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes ~~ — Notes: 4) ! see Circular 2 and 2A

la i i i ur ill d Yes Yes Yes Notes: Proposed adoption of Model State Packaging and Labeling

Regulation

Colorado Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Regulations were

Connecticut

Delaware

Notes

D.C. Florida

Georgia

Hawaii Notes

adopted prior to the

popularity of metric.

We are in the process

of changing to permit

metric labeling.

Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes

4) but similar language has been adopted

4a) but only on export packages

Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes

No

No

Yes

No

Yes Yes Yes No No

Florida's packaging

and labeling Regulations still require

the primary designation to be in the

customary system.

There is a lack of

knowledge of the

metric system on the

part of the public.

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

1) 4-90 2) 4-90-5 (identity), 4-90-6

(responsibility), 4-90-7 (quantity) 4) 4-90-7

(consumer), 4-90-9 (non-consumer)

148
State

Question Number:

1 2 3 4 4a 4b 5 Idaho Yes Yes Yes

Notes: 4) Our Regulation is not up-to-date with HB-130--but

refer to Idaho Regulation section 4.5.12.2 and 4.6, non-consumer packages; also, State Code 71-229.

4a) We have not made that decision yet, because there

has not been a specific situation.

5) When and if this situation arises, the State Attorney

Generals Office would have to make a ruling. I (Lyman

D. Holloway (Chief)) personally think our Laws and

Regulations would permit metric-only labels.

1 1 li nois

Indiana

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes No No No To avoid purchaser

confusion.

Iowa Kansas Yes Yes No No Notes: 5) We see no problem.

Yes

Kentucky

Louisiana

Yes Yes Yes Yes

NoNoNoNo

Yes Would have to consider each situation on

a case-by-case basis

as to what purchaser

of packaged product

expect on label

.

Maine Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Maryland Yes Yes Yes No -- Yes Notes: 4) W & M Law permits either inch-pound or metric units

to be used.

Massachusetts Yes Yes No -- Yes

Notes: 2) Yes and No — for food in packaged form - relates to any package; for non-food item — to packages sold at

retai 1

.

Note: This is defined in Statute.

4) Our law would not prohibit a metric-only designation

for a non-consumer package.

4a) In essence, our statute would not preclude non consumer package from having a metric-only label.

149
State

Question Number:

1 2 3 4 4a 4b 5 Michigan Yes Yes No No — Yes

Notes: 3) These sections are in Michigan W & M law.

4) Presently promulgating regulation for adoption -- authority for metric-only sales are in Michigan W & M law

since 1964 with clarification of this section of law in 1978.

Minnesota Yes Yes No No Yes Mississi ppi Yes Yes No No Yes Missouri Yes Yes No No No Consumer is still not knowledgeable enough

of the metric system.

Montana Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

(similar)

Nebraska

I1VJ LC O • No No No No — YesOur W & M law is the only thing that would cover packaging. Handbook 67 also has some guidelines for what

a package must contain.

Nevada

Notes: Yes No No No

4) Statute permits inch -pound

Yes

or metric units.

W am \4 am nchi y^o lIcW ncUlipbil l re Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

New Jersey

Notes

Yes Yes Yes No

4) We plan to amend regulations to include this.

4b) We have not yet taken a position.

5) We have not been approached on the subject.

New Mexico No No No No Yes New York Yes Yes Yes No No Regulation requires

dual declaration for

both consumer and non-consumer packages.

North Caroli na Yes Yes No No Yes*

Notes: 1) We are in the process of adopting H-130.

2) per H-130.

3) & 4) (but pending).

*4b) (We will).

North Dakota Yes Yes No No Yes

150
State 1 2 3 4 4a 4b 5 OhioNotes

:

Oklahoma

Yes Yes No No -- Yes

3) We have adopted 1972 MSPLR: our State law, which

supersedes the regulation, allows the use of metric-only

labeling

.

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Question Number:

Oregon Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Notes: 3) KJS NOTE OAR 603-27-115 sub. sect. (2) = 2.2, sect. (3)

= 2.3

4) Earlier version that states "nothing in this section

shall prohibit the labeling. ..in. ..units of the metric

system."

Pennsylvania Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Puerto Rico

Rhode Island Yes No Yes No Yes South Carolina Yes Yes Yes

Notes: 4) State Statutes

No

allow the Yes

use of metric labeling.

South Dakota No No No No Yes Tennessee

Notes:

Yes Yes * * Yes *In the process of adopting Model State Packaging and

Labeling Regulation.

Texas Yes Yes No No Yes

Utah Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vermont Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Virginia Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Virgin Islands

Washington Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes West Virginia Yes Yes No No No Confusion results

value comparisons

made very difficult

151
State 1 2 3 4 4a 4b 5 Wisconsin Yes Yes No No Yes Notes: 4b) Wisconsin Stats 98.02

Wyoming No Yes No No -- Yes Notes: 2) implied in State Law

4b) prefer dual labeling on corns umer and non-consumer

pack ages.

152
203-4 SECTION 10.9.5(b) SEWING THREADS, HANDICRAFTS, AND YARN

A consumer has requested that the net quantity statement for yarn be

changed from weight to length. The proposal is based on her use of the

product and her experience that darker colors often weigh more per unit

of length. Therefore she has found that a lighter color yarn will "go

farther" in her craft application than a darker yarn; she complains that

she cannot predict how much yarn of varying colors to purchase based on

a weight declaration. The Committee is sympathetic to the request but

must support existing labeling requirements for several reasons.

Yarn is by nature extremely stretchy; in order to label yarn by length,

a specified tension would have to be applied in order to make any

repeatable length measurement. Such a tension would have to be agreed

upon by all the manufacturers of yarn, and would have to be applied in any compliance testing of product by weights and measures officials.

Even if this tension "standard" were negotiated and decided upon, it would have little real meaning in use by needle-c rafters, knitters, and

others. The tension applied to yarn in use varies from user to user

and from application to application; therefore, the length also varies.

Not only does dyeing yarn change the weight, dyeing also changes the

length of yarn. For these reasons, industry representatives also

support the requirements as they presently are written in the Model

State Packaging and Labeling Regulation.

The Committee recognizes the difficulty of working with this product

and suggests that users of yarn consider buying an excess of the yarn

over what is expected to be used in any application, and find out

before purchase if, after finishing the product, they can return the

unopened skeins to the retailers from whom the skeins were purchased.

(Item 203-4 was adopted as part of the consent calendar.)

203-5 BAKERY PRODUCTS: VARIATIONS FROM DECLARED NET WEIGHTS

(This item was carried over from the 67th NCWM, 1982, in which it was assigned a voting key of 203-3).

The American Bakers Association (ABA) proposed the need for special

individual package variations for bakery products. They argue that

neither the permitted variations in Handbook 67 ("Unreasonable Minus or Plus Errors") or in Handbook 133 ("Maximum Allowable Variations") are large enough for the special quality control problems prevalent in

their industry. The Committee requested specific data from the ABA

that would support their proposal and agreed to work with the Office of

Weights and Measures and the ABA in order to determine if special

limits of reasonable variation should be set for bakery products.

The ABA supplied data from 185 lots, from 5 companies, of several types

of product (biscuits, buns, bread, donuts, cakes, pies, etc.) with net

weight declarations from 2 1/4 to 30 oz. The data for each product

153
produced by each plant consisted of about 50 individual package net weights taken at intervals of 10 min to 1/2 h spaced throughout a production run (one day's run). Other data were supplied on a few

products for which 10 packages coming consecutively off the production

line were collected at hourly intervals and weighed.

Both sets of data indicated very great variability in net weight for

any given product.

Having reviewed the data submitted to the Conmittee by their member

companies, the ABA requested a tentative figure of twice the maximum

allowable variations as described in Handbook-133.

Two Weights and Measures jurisdictions provided copies of recent package

test reports on bakery products. One jurisdiction tested these products

using Handbook 67 (H-67) and the other using Handbook 133 (H-133).

In the jurisdiction using H-67, 148 samples were taken, (mostly at retail), with only seven lots rejected on the basis of the sample data

(4.7%); the lots that were rejected failed the average requirements as well as the allowable number of individual packages with "unreasonable

minus errors." However, four more lots would have failed if H-67 had

been followed to the letter; four more lots had at least two packages

in a sample of 10 that exceeded the table values of unreasonable minus errors in H-67. Since the particular jurisdiction that provided these

data uses the tables shown in reference key 202-3 rather than H-67,

only one lot in addition to the seven that were rejected should have

been rejected on the basis of the sample data (5.4% rejected). The

variability in each sample was large; however, because the bakers had

overpacked to the extent necessary to account for such variability,

94.6% of the lots complied with the requirements.

In the jurisdiction using H-133, 15 samples from different types of

baked goods were analyzed; 4 were rejected based on the fact that the

average error was minus and only one was rejected on both the average

being minus and on individual packages exceeding the MAV. Again, some

of the data showed wide variability in individual package weights from

the same lot; however the bakeries had accommodated the variability by

setting their targets higher than the label.

Although baked goods do show large variability, the data provided to the Conmittee plus the personal experience of the Conmittee members

indicate that there are no serious compliance problems with such

packaged goods. Although permitting larger individual package

variations would permit some bakeries to decrease their target weights,

the Conmittee wishes to see the status quo maintained. Members of the

Committee are convinced that packagers producing baked goods are able

to meet the existing standards and that those standards are adequate

and not in need of changing. Based on this information, the Committee

therefore recommends no addition to either the Model State Packaging

and Labeling Regulation or to H-67 or H-133 for bakery products.

(Item 203-5 was adopted as part of the consent calendar.)

154
203-6 N0NW0VEN SYNTHETIC SCOURING PADS: VARIATIONS FROM DECLARED

NET QUANTITIES

(This item was carried over from the 67th NCWM, 1982, in which it was assigned a voting key of 203-2.)

3M requests a withdrawal of its proposal for individual package

variations of 2 percent from declared dimensions for non-woven

synthetic scouring pads, because improvements in process and product

quantity control have reduced the variability in 3M's scouring pads.

The Committee recommends no further action on this item.

(Item 203-6 was adopted as part of the consent calendar.)

204 MODEL STATE REGULATION FOR THE METHOD OF SALE OF COMMODITIES

*204-l SURVEY ON STATE ADOPTION OF THE MODEL REGULATION

A review of the Model State Regulation for the Method of Sale of

Commodities was undertaken by the Committee as part of its long range

work plan.

The Committee selected this Model because of the large number of

proposals and requests that are submitted each year for changes to this

Model.

The first step in this review was to intercompare the model with

existing State requirements. The committee's technical advisor was

asked to make this intercomparison. The Committee requested all State

Weights and Measures officials as well as those representing the

District of Columbia, the Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico to review

this material and submit any corrections including proper citations to the Committee before the annual meeting in July, 1983.

In view of the interest shown this Model by the Conference, the extent

of nonuniformi ty of adoption by the States may be surprising. Fewer

than ten States have adopted more than 50% of the Model. Only three

States (Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont) automatically update their

method of sale requirements as the NCWM recommends changes.

It is the opinion of the members of the Committee that this compilation

i ndicates:

(a) the value of adoption of the models by citation by the

States, (see reference key 202-1) and,

(b) that the States and the National Conference should review and

reach a consensus on the continuing need for large sections

of the Model

155
The Conmittee recorrmends carrying this item over for further work next year.

Intercomparison of State Requirements

with the Model State Regulation for the

Method of Sale of Commodities

by C. S. Brickenkamp and Paula BoelkeJ

The Office of Weights and Measures has intercompared the State weights

and measures laws and regulations with the Model State Regulation for

the Method of Sale of Commodities, 1982 version. Methods of sale had

been contained in the model law at one time; therefore, State weights

and measures laws were searched as well as their regulations. The

compilation appears on the following pages.

^Physical Science Aide, Office of Weights and Measures, National

Bureau of Standards.

Key to the following tables:

+: Has adopted this Section of the Model

-: Has modified this Section

pt: Has adopted part of Section

blank: Has not adopted this Section

156
157
2.4.1

Q. + +

+ + +

2.3.5

2.3.4 2.3.3

2.3.2 2.3.1.3

2.3.1.2

2.3.1.1

+ + +

+ i +

2.1 *

1.11 «

l/l o

C 14- b S « ?

£ o

158
2.9.1.1

CM"o

<d 2.8.3 2.8.2.5 2.8.2.4

2.8.2.3

2.8.2.2

2.8.2.1

2.8.1

CM 2.6.2.2

2.6.2.1 2.6.2 2.6.1.3

2.6.1.2

2.6.1.1

ioCMo

JQ

IB m

CM

JO

2.4.2.2

2.4.2.1

Q. CL Q.

Q. Q. Q.

Q. +

•<- O

•i- cn

<c <c <c < <_> o

o c <o .c •<- >-

«o i— -o

>> t= O 1-3 i-

~ (0 _j s se s:

159
-Q + 2.12.2* + o +

-Q +

2.12.1 « +

2.103

NOTE 2 NOTE 1 TABLE 1

2.9.3

2.9.2 2.9.1.13

2.9.1.12

2.9.1.11 2.9.1.10

2.9.1.9 2.9.1.8

2.9.1.7

2.9.1.6 2.9.1.5 2.9.1.4

2.9.1.3

2.9.1.2

.0 m im re «- o e

re te v- . j& 1— 1— ci— 1— 1— i.s-reoo<y =r<:<:<:oooc5

o «

•r- re

s_ o E re re -i-re ^re « •!- 3 TJ -i- •- O « S C 1— ••- O) t- o c « re -P o s- t re .e •- •!- re m +J •>- — «i<_jooSre' r- ,— (ure-o.—

— a2cc3 c o re 23 o

=1 u_t3a:>—'>— >>—

(/> o re

re 3 </> <u 1—

160
o + ++ ++ + +

CO + -«- + + + + +

CO 3.2.1(b)(2)

+ 3.2.1(b)(1) + 3.2.1(a)(2) + + + + + 3.2.1(a)(1) + + + + +

CM + + + +

CO

r

? + + + + + ++ +

CO 2.15.2 + +

2.15.1 + +

2.15 + + 2.14 + + + +++ ++ + +

2.13.3 + +

2.13.2 + +

2.13.1 + + 3 + + + + + o + + + + +

JD + + + + +

2.12.6 3 + + + + + a + + + + + 3 + + + + + 2" + + + + +

2.12.5 3 + + + + + 3 + + + + +

2. 12.4 ^ + + + + +

Tj + + + + +

2" + + + + +

2.12.3 3 + + + + +

_ +J 4- -4-> re 3 o re a> r- O -r- (O 10

CO C O O) 4-> -O m >> «= "23

E<0Cl/>OrtJU«3-.-3'O O c COO'"- (t3o

a> iujs:oe4-j_a)Si_.— -,-a>-t-OE<o re =j co a> <— re

4-> ^3tOM<0.i-OCn3*5 OS_tr lT5^:T-T-IOV5+J , '-C>ilO re rere-^-^i— i— cr— w)cjo63re^-o3Cc=J->-s-<^ +-> r— i— s_ s- re o o <p ajreTji— coreaiorerere OO ete£et<OC_>C_}OQ U_tT!3r^-H>-H^-.i-.^^_J2:2:5:

161
3.4.5

3.4.4 3.4.3

(b)(1)

(a)(1) 3.4.2

3.4.1

ig « l t

J3 tf» IM AS •<- O C <0

lO (Of-j^t— f— Cf— i— »— i_J_<COO0»

1 * 5 " T

Si b

"1

»— 01 *

U. U X

>» c

10 «

C </) «J i-

«J « 3 V) r- *3 g .(_> •-- "c o <5 S o —> S£ *i _J

tJ (J C >> «/>

162
State Citations to State Laws and Regulations

Alabama Weights and Measures Regulation No. 2 (1980), 4 (1981).

Alaska Alaska Statutes Chap. 75, "Weights and Measures Act"; Alaska Administrative Code, Chap. 3, Section 34 (1974).

Arizona Weights and Measures Rules & Regulations, Articles 3 & 4 (1975).

Arkansas Circular 2-A, Reg. 1, 2, 3 (1969).

California California Administrative Code, Title 4, Chap. 8, Sub.

3; Chap. 9, Subchapter 10 (1983).

Colorado "Measure and Standards Act," Colorado Revised Statutes

1973, 35-14-114 to 35-14-129 (1981).

Connecticut General Statutes, Revision of 1958, Title 43, Chap. 752,

Weights and Measures (1981).

Delaware State of Delaware Code, Title 6, Chap. 51 (1974); Title

16, Chap. 41 (1961); Regulation No. 2 (1962).

District of

Columbia Standard Weights and Measures Laws and Regulations

(1973).

Fl ori da

Georgia Weights and Measures Rules & Regulations 40-15-3 to 40-15-6, also 40-7-4 (1973).

Hawaii Hawaii Administrative Code, Title 4, Sub. 7, Chap. 92

(1982).

Idaho Idaho Code, Title 71 - Weights and Measures (1969),

Regulations for Weights and Measures, Part 4, 5, 6, 8 (1972).

Illinois Laws and Rules and Regulations "Illinois Weights and

Measures Act of 1963," Illinois Rev. Stat: Chap. 147

(1981).

Indiana "Laws Governing Weights and Measures," Indiana Code,

Title 16, Article 6, Chap 2 and 8 (1978).

Iowa Code of Iowa, Chap. 210, 212 (1981).

Kansas Kansas Statutes 83-101 thru 83-154, "Weights and

Measures Laws" (undated).

163
State Citations

Kentucky Weights and Measures Regulations, "Method of Sale,"

Kentucky Administrative Regulations, Title 302, Chap. 76 (undated). Most recent paragraph added (1975).

Louisiana Louisiana Revised Statutes of 1950, Title 55; Weights

and Measures Regulations No. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 (undated).

Maine Maine Revised Statutes 1964, Title 10 (1979).

(Automatic adoption of model.)

Maryland Annotated Code of Maryland, Title 11, Subtitle 3,

(1981). Maryland Department of Agriculture

(Regulations) Title 15, Subtitle 3, Chapter 3 (undated).

Massachusetts General Laws of Massachusetts, Chap. 94 (1979).

164
Other Methods of Sale Not Included in Model That Are State

State Requi rements

AL Actual and declared capacities; dimensions of toilet tissue;

paper towels; napkins and facial tissues; weights per bushel,

barrel for agricultural commodities.

AK Furnace and stove oil; coal; coke and charcoal; textile

products.

AR Fruits and vegetables; paper products.

AZ Paper plates; vehicle fluids; ice; hay; coal, coke, charcoal;

fruits and vegetables; additional polyethylene products; metric

softwood lumber.

CA Textiles; soap allowances; produce; minerals; brick; stone;

water; live fish for stocking purposes; baler and binder twine;

paper and plastic cups; paper plates; sanitary paper products.

CT Weights per bushel, barrel; charcoal; flour; potatoes; heated

petroleum; bulk grains; feedstuffs; sand and gravel; saw logs;

thread; additional information for liquid petroleum gas cylinders.

DE Textile products; twine and cordage, weight of a gallon of ice cream; furnace and stove oil; variations from net weight for

bread.

DC Coal, charcoal and coke; ice; oysters.

FL

GA Bagged coal; weights per bushel; additional requirements for

roofing; polyethylene and polyolefin sheeting; bark and hull mulches.

HI Aburage; canned abalone or concholepas; Christmas trees; liquid

fuel products; petroleum; honey; konnyaku; roofing; lettuce;

nuts; Nori; media for planting.

ID Liquid petroleum gas; petroleum products; polyethylene sold

from bulk.

IL Coal; heating and cooking oil; standard of fill for nuts; advertising and sale of petroleum products; standard weights

per bushel for agricultural commodities.

IN Weights per bushel; lime; coal; charcoal; standard weights of

commodities in barrels, gallons.

IA Weights per bushel, perch of stone; fruit and vegetables in

climax baskets; regular /premium grades of gas; saw logs.

KS Ice cream weight per gallon; fruit and vegetables in climax

baskets; liquified petroleum gas; weights per bushel for

certain commodities.

KY Paper plates; sanitary paper products; weights and measures;

bulk commodities; fuel oil. LA Tolerances for bakery items and fluid packages; fish; shrimp;

oysters; cotton; live and dressed poultry.

ME Wood: weight scale, butt scale, log rule, volume scale;

wrapped paper rolls; sheeted paper; wrapped bundles of paper;

herring; "loose cord." MD Liquid fuels; ice. MA Fish; kindling wood; thread; fuel oils; coke, coal and

charcoal; cranberries; ice; grain and meal; feeding stuff; hay;

seed; nails.

165
g s s

166
2.4.1

2.3.5

2.3.4 2.3.3

2.3.2 2.3.1.3

2.3.1.2

2.3.1.1

Q. Q. +

+ Q. +

2.1

1.11

> c£. to i—

z. z o o

s_ -o o o

a. oc i/> oo i—

167
2.5.*. T

s * * 3 *

2-8.3 * *

2.3.2.5 * * LI2.1 * *

2.8-2.3 * *

2.8-2.2 * *

2-8.2.1 * *

2.8.11 * * a

2.6.2-2 * *

2.J.2.T * •* *

2.6.2 * + +

2-S-1-3 * * * * * *

2-S-U-2 J * * * * *

2.S.1.1 * * g

' * 1L1L

.—- *

2.4.2-2 * * * * *

2-4-2-1 *• * -s- *- -riiiiiiiiiiiiiiilllll
2.12.2^

2.12.1

2. 10 jo NOTE 2 NOTE 1 TABLE 1

2.9.3

2.9.2 2.9.1.13

2.9.1.12

2.9.1.11 2.9.1.10

2.9.1.9 2.9.1.8

2.9.1.7 2.9.1.6 2.9.1.5

2.9.1.4

2.9.1.3

2.9.1.2

s: s s: z: s:

_ o 4J O «3 0> C i. i- <— Q) O) O _C J- <D 3 2 O O O Q. CL

169
3.2.1(b)(1)

3.2.1(a)(1)

2.15.2

2.15.1 2.15 2.14 2.13.3

2.13.2

2.13.1

2.12.6^

2.12.5'

2.12.4 «

-O 2.12.3^

«3 •- <— J- > ce. v> to i— i—i c_>

0) <U QJ <D <u z s: o o o q. aa co oo (

170
3.4.5 3.4.4

3.4.3

(b)(1)

(a)(1) 3.4.2

3.4.1

vt

V) u3 2C

•- o <o

(/> Iff +>

«/>«/» c •i- .r- O

0 <o 1 5

> CSC 5 a C) r £

O 3 3 a w w h

171
State

Other Methods of Sale Not Included in Model That Are State

Requi rements

MI Sale of cherries; oleo or margarine; bread pan sizes; weights

per bushel; buckwheat flour.

MNMS Paper napkins; paper towels; writing paper; wrapping paper;

facial tissues; toilet tissues.

MO Bread.

MT Use of metric; additional requirements for paint; liquid

petroleum gas; fuel oil; furnace and stove oil; gasoline,

diesel and kerosene.

NE

NV Sale of liquified petroleum gas; false bottoms, sides, lids and

deceptive construction prohibited on containers, firewood by

"loose cord" or "standard load"; 3 quart dairy products; 1 1/2

lb butter and margarine; petroleum products; antifreeze.

NH Furnace and stove oil; packages sold by count; ice. NJ Holi day decorating materi als; box lunches; weights per bushel

for various commodities; dried, smoked fish; shellfish;

standard containers for farm products; sectioned poultry; paper

products; fresh fruits, vegetables.

NM Liquid feed for livestock by weight or liquid measure; fuel

wood by weight if equivalent price per cord and unit price is provided; pan size requirements for bread.

NY Petroleum products; bulk sale of coal/coke; gasoline; cherries;

beer, ale, port; hay or straw; standard log rule; lawn dressings

and fertilizers; del i -products.

NC Weights per bushel for various commodities; standard loaves of bread.

ND Weights per bushel for various commodities; standard measure of

wood; standard weight of coal, charcoal; ice, perch of stone. OH Commercial fertilizers; liming materials; feedstuffs; eggs;

maple syrup; frozen desserts; oils and paints; seeds;

containers for fruits and vegetables.

OK Weights per bushel for various commodities; weighing of cotton,

"ton of hay" defined; "perch" of mason work defined.

OR Ice; sawdust; wood particles; liquid petroleum gas and liquid

fuels.

PA Paper products; produce; liquified petroleum gases; random

weight packaged meats; bulk meat identity; potatoes; fruits and

vegetables; solid fuel.

PR Tolerances for loaves of bread; construction materials; roofing;

steel mesh; octane rating of gasoline.

RI Grain; salt; weights per bushel, dimensions of bushel; cotton; neat-cattle; charcoal; fish; hay and straw, thread; lumber;

salted meats; apples; fruits and vegetables.

SC Weights per bushel; tobacco baskets; agricultural seed;

petroleum products.

SO

TN Flour and corn meal exceptions; coal, coke, and charcoal; paper

products.

TX

172
State Citations to State Laws and Regulations

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada New Hampshire

New Jersey

New Mexico

New York

Michigan Compiled Laws, Weights and Measures Act of

1964, Act No. 283, Public Acts of 1964, as amended

(1978), Weight per bushel of grain, etc., Act No. 223,

Public Acts of 1863 (1925); Oleo or Margarine, Act No.

63, Public Acts of 1913, as amended, (1980); Standard

Bread Pan Law, Act No. 317, Public Acts of 1941, as amended (1975); Buckwheat Flour, Act 208 of Public

Acts of 1903 (1963); Primal Cut and Carcass Weight

Meat Law Act No. 315 of Public Acts of 1972, as amended (1972); Michigan Administrative Code,

Regulation No. 548 (R 285.548) "Sale of Cherries

Suspended in Liquid" as amended (1973).

Regulations No. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11 in "Rules and

Regulations for the Enforcement of the Mississippi

Weights and Measures Law, Chapter 221, Laws of 1964"

(1964).

Code of State Regulations, Title 2, 90-20 (1978).

Montana Code Annotated, Title 30, Chap. 12; Administrative Rules of Montana 8.5.302 (1980);

8.77.201 (12) (1979).

Nevada Revised Statutes, Chapters 581 and 590 (1981).

New Hampshire Revised Statutes Annotated 359-A as inserted by 1969, 457:2, "Weights and Measures Act"

(1969), Regulation 4 and 5 (1973). (Automatic

adoption of model .

)

New Jersey Administrative Code, Department of Law and

Public Safety, "Weights and Measures Rules," Title 13,

Subtitle I (1973 with revisions to 1982.)

Regulatory Order of the Board of Regents of New Mexico

State University, No. 5, (1975); Regulatory Order No.

10, (1975).

Agriculture and Markets Law, Article 16 as quoted in the Bureau of Weights and Measures Circular 904

(revised 1977); New York Codes, Rules, and

Regulations, Chapter V, Weights and Measures (1978).

North Carolina North Carolina General Statutes, Chap. 81. Art. 3 and

4; adopted model, 1983 edition, with exceptions in Administrative Code, Chap. 38, Section .0400 (1983).

173

2.4.1 + + + +

175
2.9.1.1

2. 12. 2**

2.8.3

2.8.2.5 2.8.2.4

2.8.2.3

2.8.2.2

2.8.2.1

2.8.1

CVJ 2.6.2.2

2.6.2.1 2.6.2 2.6.1.3

2.6.1.2

2.6.1.1

2.12.13

2.11

<£> +->

2.4.2.2

2.4.2.1

2.103

NOTE 2 NOTE 1 TABLE 1

2.9.3

2.9.2 2.9.1.13

2.9.1.12

2.9.1.11 2.9.1.10

2.9.1.9 2.9.1.8

2.9.1.7 2.9.1.6

2.9.1.5

2.9.1.4

2.9.1.3

2.9.1.2

tJ3 >-< *-> i- i- c c c c > c c

S cn O) jc +j

s_ s_ s_ in v> 0) t- i- IB <D > > > 3 3

i/> O

r: >> o

176
+ + +

3.2.1(b)(1)

CVJ 3.2.1(a)(1)

2.15.2

2.15.1 2.15 2.14

2.13.3

2.13.2

2.13.1

+ + +

o +

2.16.6^

3.4.5 + 3.4.4

3.4.3

2.12.52S

2.12.4^

o +

2.12.3 « + +

(b)(1)

(a)(1) 3.4.2

3.4.1

! i

c c c c > c c iriiiii

+ + +

, .-111

1 iJtfli

177
Other Methods of Sale Not Included in Model That Are State

State Requirements

UT

VTVA

VIWA

WV

WIWY

Agricultural twine; dry weight of wood; bulk food commodities;

temperature compensation; petroleum tare weights; motor fuel

labeling.

Ice; coal, coke, charcoal; log measures; liquid fuels.

Paper plates; sanitary paper products; how certain commodities

are to be sold; misleading containers; coal, coke, charcoal;

textile yard goods.

Petroleum products octane posting.

Bread pans. Paper plates; sanitary paper products; capacities and markings

of milk bottles; weights per bushel; barrels; climax baskets;

measurement of logs, lumber, and timber.

Pickled fruits and vegetables; cheese; fruits and vegetables.

Weights per bushel; measurement of hay; labeling of gasoline.

State

Utah

C"'taf'ons to St = te _aws a">: : e:/av: n

s Regulations Governing Method of Sale of Commodities

Promulgated Under Authority of Title 4, Chapter 9, Sec.

2, Utah Code Annotated 1953 as Amended A70-05-W4 (1980)

Vermont

Virginia

Vermont Statutes Annotated, Title 9, Chap. 73, Subchap,

1, (1973). (Automatic adoption of model.)

Rules and Regulations for the Enforcement of the

Virginia Weights and Measures Law, Sections 3.1-919

through 3.1-969, Code of Virginia 1950, Regulation No.

2 (1975).

Virgin Islands

Washington

"Consumer Code of the Virgin Islands" Title 12A, (1981)

Revised Code of Washington, Title 19, Chapters .92 and

.94, (1979). West Virginia "Labor Laws of West Virginia" Official Code of West

Virginia; Chap. 47, Article 1 (1953); West Virginia

Administrative Regulations Chap. 21-2, Series 1 (1975).

Wisconsin Wisconsin Statutes 1977, Chapter 98 "Weights and

Measures", Chapter Ag 54 (19 77).

Wyoming "Weights and Measures Law", Wyoming Statutes, Title 40,

Chap. 10 (undated).

1"5
*204-2 ICE CREAM AND FROZEN DESSERT COMBINATION FOODS

(This item was carried over from the 67th NCWM, 1982, in which it was assigned voting key 204-5.)

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 very difficult. 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 is extremely difficult to separate the ice cream, ice milk, etc. from the rest of the dessert in order to determine compliance with the fluid volume label declaration.

In response to a letter from the Conference, FDA has said that there is a firmly established trade custom of expressing the quantity of frozen

dessert foods in terms of fluid volume and that there does not seem to be any customer confusion resulting from volume plus count declarations

for such items as ice cream sandwiches, for example.

The International Association of Ice Cream Manufacturers (IAICM) concurs with the FDA position, noting that a recent study of purchase

behavior showed that piece count in ice cream novelties was more

important in consumer decisions than the total quantity of contents,

and that a review of consumer complaints for the last five years did

not reveal a single complaint about the quantity of contents.

The IAICM has volunteered to determine if an audit technique can be

developed to spot check these products at the point of sale to determine if an official test needs to be made. Mr. Austin Rhoads,

representing IAICM, reported that consultation with ice cream experts

indicates that there is some promise of success in a nondestructive

checkweighing technique. The official test requires the use of a kerosene bath and is both difficult and tedious; an alternative to the

official test is also being investigated. The Cormnttee recommends

that this item be carried over until next year.

204-3 SECTION 2.4.2. (PEAT AND PEAT MOSS) UNITS

Several peat and peat moss manufacturers have requested that the

specific package sizes listed in sections 2.4.2.1. (a) and (b) and

2. 4. 2. 2. (a) and (b) be eliminated. Changes in marketing required a change in the permitted sizes in 1975. Now the industry finds other

sizes than what the model regulation permits (5 and 3 cu ft) to be

necessary to follow a new marketing trend. The Committee sees no obvious reason for a list of permitted sizes in this commodity; the

Reports of the 1952, 53, 54, 56, 58, 59, 68, 69, 70, 71, and 1975

179
NCWM's do not indicate the reasons for selecting these sizes or limiting the packaged product to these sizes. It is the only non-food

product in the model regulation limited as to sizes; no other horticultural product is so limited. Therefore the Coimiittee recommends

elimination of all specific sizes for peat and peat moss. The proposed

revision is: 2.4.2. UNITS. -

2.4.2.1. WEIGHT. — Peat and peat moss sold in terms of weight

shall be offered and exposed for sale only in weights pep

subseetien 2-s 4«! 2?l(a) er sybseetien 2-!4-.2?4(fe-)-» pounds and/or

kilograms .

(.a) -£BGk-p9URd Weights - §07 4Q 7 2Q 7 19 7 ep 3 peundsr

(.fe) -MetFi-e Weights - 2G 7 IQ T S 7 2 7 I kilog^amr

2.4.2.2. CUBIC MEASURE. — Peat and peat moss sold in terms of

cubic measure shall be offered and exposed for sale only in volumes pep subseetien 2r4r2r2(-a)- of subseotien 2*4*2x2^^ cubic

feet and/or liters . If the commodity is labeled in terms of

compressed cubic measurement, the quantity declaration shall

represent the quantity in the compressed state and the quantity

from which the final product was compressed (the latter

declaration not exceeding the actual amount of material that can be recovered).

(.a) l»Gk.P9un4 Volumes - § T 5»S 7 4 7 2 7 h Qr?7 OrS 7 9»3r of 0*2

eubie feet

(b> -Metric Volumes - 29Q 7 IQQ 7 &G 7 2Q 7 10 7 5 Hteps

The Committee is persuaded by comments made at the open hearing that it

should consider the issue of dropping weight as a method of sale for

peat and peat moss and will take this up as new business at the next interim meeting.

(Item 204-3 was adopted.)

204-4 SECTION 2.13. INSULATION

The Mineral Insulation Manufacturers Association proposes that Section

2.13. be revised in order to be made consistent with requirements of

the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) "Labeling and Advertising of Home

Insulation" (16 CFR 460). The FTC requirements vary according to the. type of insulation, whether loose-fill or batt, and whether cellulose

or non- cellulose. Not only do the FTC requirements specify several

more items of information on the label than the NCWM model, but also,

in the instance of loose-fill insulation, net weight and thickness

statements must be minimum declarations, rather than average .

180
Staff of the FTC have communicated with the NCWM that the FTC rule does

not require the use of the term "minimum net weight" on the package

label, even though the FTC rule requires loose-fill insulation manufacturers to declare a net weight that is the minimum weight of insulation

in the package. The Committee therefore recommends the following

section to replace Section 2.13 in order to achieve consistency with

FTC requirements.

2.13. INSULATION

2.13.1. PACKAGED LOOSE-FILL INSULATION EXCEPT CELLULOSE - Packaged loose-fill insulation, except cellulose, shall declare

the net weight with no qualifying statement; each package must

contain at least the stated weight. In addition, the following

information shall be supplied on the package: minimum thickness,

maximum net coverage area, number of bags per 1000 square feet,

and minimum weight per square foot at R-values of 11, 19, and 22.

This information shall also be supplied for any additional

R-values listed.

2.13.2. PACKAGED LOOSE-FILL CELLULOSE INSULATION - The principal

display panel of packaged loose-fill cellulose insulation shall

declare the net weight with no qualifying statement; each package

must contain at least the stated weight. In addition, the

following information shall be supplied on the package: minimum

thickness, maximum net coverage area, number of bags per 1000

square feet, and minimum weight per square foot at R-values of 13,

19, 24, 32, and 40. This information shall also be supplied for

any additional R-values listed.

2.13.3. BATT AND BLANKET INSULATION - The principal display panel

of packaged batt or blanket insulation shall declare the square

feet of insulation in the package, length, and width of the batt or blanket. In addition, R-value and thickness shall be declared

on the package.

2.13.4. INSTALLED INSULATION - Installed insulation must be

accompanied by a contract or receipt. For all insulation except

loose fill and aluminum foil, the receipt must show the coverage

area, thickness, and R-value of the insulation installed. For

number of bags used. For aluminum foil, the receipt must show the

number and thickness of the air spaces, the direction of heat

flow, and R-value. The receipt must be dated and signed by the

installer.

Example: This is to certify that the insulation has been

installed in conformance with the requirements indicated by the

manufacturer to provide a vlue of R-19 using 31.5 bags of

insulation to cover 1500 square feet area. Signed and dated.

(Item 204-4 was adopted as part of the consent calendar.)

181
204-5 SECTION 2.16. PRECIOUS METALS

(This item was carried over from the 67th NCWM, 1932, in which it was assigned a voting key of 204-7.)

Section 2.16 concerning the method of sale of preciojs metals was adopted in July, 1982. In its Final Report, the Committee decided to carry over consideration of additional requirements proposed for the

sale of precious metals, namely:

(1) to require a delivery ticket that would include the total

weight of the item in troy units, the price per troy unit and

karat value, and the total price paid for the item; ani

(2) to require posting of acid-etch colors associated with the

determination of karat value or fineness.

As to the first proposal, the members of the Committee believe that

requiring a delivery ticket does not solve the problem of deception or fraud potential in the buying of precious metals. When an individual

sells an item of precious metal and receives a delivery ticket for it,

he or she no longer has the proof that what he o

r she sold, in fact,

might not be what is represented on a delivery ticket because he or she

has turned over to the buye^ the item of precious metal. As to the

second proposal, it is the opinion of the Committee members that the

determination of fineness by means of an acid etch procedure is a qualitative, subjective test that must be used with great caution, and,

in addition, is not a measurement in which weights and measures

officials normally have expertise. (The Jeweler's Vigilance Committee,

New York City, normally recommends a fire assay in order to determine

fineness.) Therefore, the Committee recommends no further additions to the method of sale for precious metals adopted by the Conference last year. (Item 204-5 was adopted as part of the consent calendar.)

204-6 BARK MULCH

(This item was carried over from the 67th NCWM, 1932, in which it was assigned a voting key of 206-1.)

The Committee has discussed several issues associated with prepackaged

bark mulch and has several recommendations to make. Tne issues are interrelated and so the Committee directs the Conference to the several

sections out of sequence with the normal order of the Committee's

report. Item 204-6-3 is a proposal for an addition to the Model State

Packaging and Labeling Regulation, item 204-6-1 is a proposal for an addition to the Model State Regulation for the Method of Sale of

Commodities, and item 204-6-2 is a recommended test procedure which, if adopted by the Conference, would appear in the next edition of NBS Handbook 133.

182
204-6-1 SECTION 2.17. BARK MULCH (MODEL STATE REGULATION FOR THE METHOD OF SALE OF COMMODITIES)

(This item was carried over from the 67th NCWM, 1982, in which it was

assigned a voting key of 206-1-1.)

The Committee directs the Conference to last year's Final Report

(p. 145, Report of the 67th NCWM, 1982) for a complete discussion of

this item.

The Committee recommended last year that bark mulch be sold by volume. For those packagers desiring to label a metric quantity on the package

along wih the inch-pound declaration, the Committee sought to determine

whether Canada had requirements that would limit the metric declaration

for those packagers who also wished to sell their product in Canada.

The Committee has been informed that Canada has no specific labeling

requirements for bark mulch. In quantities less than 1/2 cubic meter,

the term liter or cubic decimeter may be used in Canada.

It is the opinion of the members of the Committee:

(1) that volume measure is the most appropriate method of sale

for this commodity;

(2) that the liter is a metric unit better understood by the

public than the cubic decimeter;

(3) that section 6.5(e) and 6.6(e) of the Model State Packaging

and Labeling Regulation should be followed in the method of

sale of this commodity; and

(4) that the Federal Trade Commission staff guidelines, entitled

the "Rule of 1000" is excellent advice that should be

followed by packagers in labeling.

Based on requests from industry and States, the Committee recommends

the following addition to the Model State Regulation for the Method of

Sale of Commodities:

SECTION 2.17. BARK MULCH - All bark mulch shall be sold,

offered, or exposed for sale in terms of volume measure: in

inch-pound units, in terms of the cubic yard or cubic foot; in

metric units, in terms of the cubic meter or liter.

(Item 204-6-1 was adopted as part of the consent calendar.)

183
204-6-2 PACKAGE TEST METHOD

This item was carried over from the 67th NCWM, 1982, in which it was assigned voting keys of 206-1-2 and 206-1-3.)

In last year's Final Report (p. 146, Report of the 67th NCWM, 1982),

the Committee recommended a test procedure for bark mulch on a conditional or trial basis, and requested further information on test

: o 1 1

a

'. n =

" z

' ~ e

s

" c " 3 and : t h

e

r ^ e t h od s

.

The Committee :~a-<s all those jurisdictions that provided information

a-: data, in particular: the States »f -"a: ana, Florida, and Virginia,

and in addition, Appleton, Wiscons ; "; B

i

rm ngham, Alabama; Bucks

County, Pennsylvania; and Nassau and Sulfolk Counties, New York.

lata provided the Committee indicate:

[dentical results were obtained when using test measures with

a 12- inch by 12- inch cross section as were obtained with test measures *itli a 9-inch by 16-inch cross section. Only test easures iritti a 2-:: ---"oot high configuration (and either 9"

i : 16" or 12" by 12" c^oss section) were compared.

:

: ticking the test Measure after filling with bark mulch further

:D~~-esse: tne re :: t**: Jn ces in ceot^ * to 233

cubic inches in volume).

This compression is equivalent to 2.8 to 5.5% compression of

a 3-cu0-: c oag, or 4.2 to 8.3% of a 2 cubic foot bag. The

2:~mittee :e'"e.es t^. at z-eate- variability will be introduced

into the test results if rocking is reconmended as part of the

procedure. One official may rock the container more or less

vigorously than another, resulting in more or less

: or p

- e s s< o n

,

(3) Because of the uneven ness of the material being measured, a

boi ritli Interior scribes it each 1/2 inch is sufficient for -ea:-~: t~e 'eve;. : clear *exan or plexiglass side in the

test measure was found convenient in reading the level. A

box with a height of 4 feet was found useful for other

horticultural products with net contents up to 4 cubic feet.

The Gonwittee recommends the following test method for bark mulch:

Construct tes: seasure srf naterials that rill not bulge when

filled vitfi Mildi [for example, 1/2 inch plywood), with interior

dimensions 9 inches by 16 inches by 48 inches high with 2 opposite

ins":e *a*"3 of the measure marked or scribed at 1/2 inch

intervals. A container with other interior dimensions is also

icceptable as long as It approximates the configuration of the

package being tested (e.g., 12- by 12-inch interior). Container

height may as: be reduced from 48 inches but will restrict the

15-
maximum size of package that can be tested. A lexan or plexiglass

side wall can be useful in determining the level of fill.

(Each half inch of depth of the test measure is equivalent to 72

cubic inches of volume in the 9- by 16-in or 12- by 12-in

configurations.

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.

(Item 204-6-2 was adopted as part of the consent calendar.)

204-6-3 SECTION 10.11. BARK MULCH: VARIATIONS FROM DECLARED VOLUME

(MODEL STATE PACKAGING AND LABELING REGULATION)

(This item was carried over from the 67th NCWM, 1982, in which it was assigned a voting key of 206-1-4.)

Many of the jurisdictions that provided the Committee information on the bark mulch test method also provided actual compliance data on packaged bark mulch. The Committee considered only the variability of individual packages of mulch in those lots of mulch that were found to average at or above the label. In those lots, individual packages were

as much as 144 cubic inches short (2.8% of a 3-cubic foot bag or 4.2%

or a 2-cubic foot bag), even though other bags in the same lot

compensated for the shortages in these individual bags. This

corresponds to only one inch of depth in the test measure. Therefore,

the Committee recommends permitting an individual bark mulch package

variation of 5 percent.

This variation is not a tolerance. The average requirement must still

be met. If a jurisdiction is using Handbook 67, the 5 percent figure

would be used instead of the Table of Unreasonable Minus or Plus Errors

on page 8, and if using Handbook 133, the 5 percent figure would be

used instead of Table 2-9.

The Committee therefore recommends the following section (similar to Section 10.9.3. Textiles: Variations from Declared Dimensions.) be

added to the Model State Packaging and Labeling Regulation:

Section 10.11, Bark Mulch: Variations from Declared Volume —

An individual package minus variation greater than 5 percent of

the declared volume shall be considered unreasonable.

(Item 204-6-3 was adopted as part of the consent calendar.)

185
204-7 SECTION 2.18 KEROSENE

The Committee met jointly with the Liaison Committee on this issue.

Manufacturers of unvented (non flue-connected) kerosene heaters

recommend the use of fuel meeting the American Society for Testing and

Materials (ASTM) specifications for "l-K" (a lower sulfur content than

the more common "2-K" kerosene). Kerosene dispensed from bulk at automotive service stations is rarely labeled by its ASTM grade.

Furthermore, the Committee was informed that prepackaged containers of kerosene are not always labeled by ASTM grade.

A representative from the American Petroleum Institute (API) explained

that the addition of labeling requirements for kerosene will probably

result in most kerosene dispensers from bulk being labeled "2-K" (even

though close to half of the kerosene being produced is "l-K") because

of the numerous possibilities for exchanges of product between refinery

and service station. Those marketers who wish to label their product

"l-K" will have to provide for dedicated transportation and storage of

this specific product; this probably will be most feasible in locations

within 150 miles of the refinery, according to the API. Because of the potential for hazard to health when "2-K" kerosene is used in unvented kerosene heaters, the Committee believes that customers

should be informed as to the grade of kerosene prior to purchase.

Therefore the Conmittee recommends the following section to be added to the Model State Regulation for the Method of Sale of Commodities:

SECTION 2.18. KEROSENE - All kerosene kept, offered, exposed for

sale, or sold shall be identified as such and will include, with

the word kerosene, an indication of its compliance with the

standard specification adopted by the American Society for Testing

and Materials in Specification number D-3699 (1982 or latest

revision) . Example: IK Kerosene; Kerosene - 2K.

It was =

n so pointed out that "space heater fuel" is being sold that may

have kerosene in it or be kerosene based, and may even be equivalent to jet fuel. These products may be extremely dangerous with respect to their combustiDi lity and health effects. Officials who observe these

products being sold should contact the local fire marshal or environmental health official in order to determine the safety of such

products

.

(Item 204-7 was adopted .

)

186
*204-8 POTTING AND TOP SOIL

(This item was carried over from the 67th NCWM, 1982, in which it was assigned voting key 204-8.)

In last year's final report, the Corrmittee expressed the opinion that

the appropriate net contents statement for these types of products

should be dry volume (or cubic measure) with or without a net weight

declaration, as the packager chooses. The Committee solicited the

opinions and experience of Conference members and others as to whether

a method of sale should be recommended. Five manufacturers of these

types of products provided reasons for not limiting the method of sale

to dry volume or cubic measure only. Some of their reasons were: Topsoil is a low cost commodity usually sold in 40- or 50-lb

packages for use on lawns and gardens. Net weight fillers operate

at a higher speed than most volumetric fill machines for this

material and would require the outlay of many millions of dollars

to comply - all resulting in increased cost to the consumer of a relatively cheap product. Potting soil is used primarily indoors

or in containers on patios and varies much more than top soil in density because of the different products that may be mixed to produce the potting soil. If net contents by volume only were permitted, unit pricing and fixed volume bags would tend to favor

lower density soils which would weigh less than higher density

soils of the same volume; yet, many consumers favor the higher

density potting soils.

Consumers are not confused over the present potting soil labeling

practices. The product is packaged in a poly bag which can be

examined as to the extent of product fill and compared with

competing products as to volume, weight, color, and other more qualitative factors.

The Cormiittee heard several comments from the floor during the general

meeting concerning the need to consider labeling by volume as a method

of sale for these commodities along with soil amendments such as peat

and peat moss. Therefore, the Committee recommends carrying this item over to permit input from industry at next year's interim meeting.

*205 MODEL STATE REGULATION FOR THE VOLUNTARY REGISTRATION OF SERVICEPERSONS AND SERVICE AGENCIES FOR COMMERCI AL WEIGHING

AND MEASURING DEVICES

(This item was carried over from the 67th NCWM, 1982, in which it was assigned a voting key of 205-1).

As a result of the survey conducted by the Corrmittee last year, several

proposals to revise and improve the Model Regulation were made to the

Corrmittee that required further study. These proposals are listed and discussed below.

187
:e

addition of minimum

r e C:-r-'::ee can o r? /

t. Further input is

equipment for cowner: a

- *=-:»:•":. *: 2."^- -1'-": casac'tj sca'es *-£ a:: "-':a-: 7-sc ".avs ava

;, ac"e a^: jss =::"::•* =:=

z

* a-:e cacac • t.. : ~-e aco'-'canc ~_r. nave ava-''ao"e an: jse 2 :- *: Yj2-'z :a"'c-ace: an: acc-ce: cast *»£"'g^ts fr

- ;

- - - : a

-

" s : t n e s =

"

: : e : e

- s

: " u s t

i Quality of repair and

on in

s lire s

: .a"

J c at' :ns

C€S ny ur uiic jrcai ui

""ttee ::«es xc ''so- 2

-:: s:eci--; c

-

: h-j^- = -

" or -"at 'js: :e needed on the placed-ins e

-

.

'' : e -e: :

• : , : . : e test 21: case e c

j " :~

e

" t .se:.

11-
Committee members believe that the placed-in-service report should be

designed by the weights and measures department and have appropriate

spaces for increasing and decreasing load, shift tests, etc. to indicate immediately whether or not all testing had been accomplished.

Examples of such placed-in-service reports or of the department's forms

for its own officials provided to the Committee will be published in order to provide further guidance.

5. Add a requirement that registration be based on the quality of past performance, and that maintenance of registration be based on both review of placed-in-service reports and on rei nspection; and

6. Add an automatic expiration for the registration certificate at the end of the annual or biennial calibration of standards, with

reissuance contingent on all requirements of the Director

being met. The Committee strongly concurs with both proposals.

7. Add specifications of what action or failure of action constitute

violation of the regulation.

Again, the Committee endorses this proposal. Because the model is written as a. voluntary registration, a section describing violations to the regulation should be added so as to clarify what is voluntary

(registration) and what is not voluntary (good repair).

It is worthwhile to point out how one State applies its voluntary

registration program in order to achieve a condition closer to mandatory registration programs. All scales requiring repair are condemned by the weights and measures officials in this State. Since

only registered service persons can remove a red tag, only registered

persons can repair the scales.

The Committee believes that the reciprocity section of the model should

be deleted. Most States understand this section to cover reciprocity

of standards calibration by other State laboratories. Registration

records must still be kept and decisions as to quality of service must

still be made by each individual State. Therefore, the Committee will

propose wording to clarify standards calibration reciprocity.

The Committee received several comments by letter and from the floor at the general meetings:

o that registration of the service agency should be retained,

o that the date of re- regi strati on should be staggered so as to spread out the administrative workload,

o that the certificate should automatically terminate after a set period of time,

o that 10,000 lbs of test weights are not adequate for large

capacity scale installation and repair,

189
o that the recommendation for small capacity scale test weights

should correspond with changes in the Scale Code of Handbook

44,

o that NBS Handbooks 105-1, -2, and -3 should be referenced in

the regulation.

The Committee is not yet ready to recommend the following revision to

the model regulation and the accompanying policy statement. Further

input from interested parties would be welcomed, especially with

respect to minimum equipment requirements. The Committee recommends

that this item be held over until next year.

190
SECTION 1. POLICY

For the benefit of the users, manufacturers, and distributors of

commercial weighing and measuring devices, and for those installing,

servicing, and repairing such devices, it shall be the policy of the

Director of Weights and Measures, hereinafter referred to as "Director,"

to accept ve^femtapy applications for registration ef (a) an from

persons 4fld4v4^ua4 afld (fe) an a§e«€y that provided ing acceptable

evidence that he, or she, &p 4t is fully qualified by training or experience to instaTl, service, repair, or recondition a commercial

weighing or measuring device; has a thorough working knowledge of all appropriate weights and measures laws, orders, rules, and regulations;

and has possession of, or available for use, weights and measures

standards and testing equipment appropriate in design and adequate in amount. (An employee of government shall not be eligible for

registration.

)

The Director will check the qualifications of each applicant. It will

be necessary for a Scale Mechanic to have available sufficient test weights of approved calibration to test a small capacity scale to capacity (a small capacity scale is a scale of not more than 400-pound

capacity) and a minimum of 10 000 pounds of approved test weights for a Large Capacity Scale Mechanic to be registered to service large capacity

scales. Jest weights to be approved must be calibrated at least once a year (or biennium) or more often by~the State Weights and Measures

Laboratory or by the proper authorities of another State that can show

traceability to the National Bureau of Standards.

It will be necessary for a Liquid Measuring Device Serviceperson to have available

(to be written)

It will be necessary for Other Conmercial Devices Serviceperson to have

available

(to be written)

It shall also be the policy of the Department to issue to qualified

servicepersons whose applications for registration are approved a "Certificate of Registration." This will give authority to remove condemnation seals and tags placed on weighing devices by authorized

State Inspectors and local sealers, and to place in service repaired

devices, which have been previously condemned, or to place in service

devices that have been newly installed.

The Director is NOT guaranteeing the work or fair dealing of a Registered Serviceperson. He will, however, remove from the

registration list any Registered Serviceperson who does unsatisfactory

work or takes unfair advantage of a device owner.

191
Registration with the Director shall be on a voluntary basis. The

Director shall reserve the right to limit or reject the application of

any Serviceperson and to revoke his or her permit to remove condemnation seals and tags for good causeT

This policy shall in no way preclude or limit the right and privilege

of any qualified individual or agency not registered with the Director

to install, service, repair, or recondition a commercial weighing or measuring device ( however, see Section 6 below).

SECTION 2. DEFINITIONS

2.1 REGISTERED SERVICEPERSON. -- The term "Registered Serviceperson"

shall be construed to mean any individual who for hire, award,

commission, or any other payment of any kind, installs, services,

repairs, or reconditions a commercial weighing or measuring device, and

who voluntarily peg^steps applies for h^mse-lf he^se-lf as such w4th

registration and is approved by the Director of Weights and Measures.

2 T2—RE6KTiRED-SERVtGE-A6BNG¥r The -tepm-'iRegisteped -Service -AgeRGy"

sr a 14 -be -eeftst-pued -te -meaR - any-agen-ey r -fwn r -eempany r -ei2- -ee^po^at ien

whi-Gh- y -fop -bi-Re T -awa^d 7 -Gemroi-ssi-eR ? -ei* - any-ethep -paymeRt-ef-aRy-ki-RG^

iRskaHsy-seRvieeSy-Repaips^-e^-ReeeR^t^eRS-a-Gew^^

meas«FiR§-devi-Ge r -and-whi'eb-vel-yRtaFi-l-y-iae§i-&t-eps-i-tsel-f -as-sa&R--w*tR

the -9 ipeGtGR -ef -Wei gbt s -a Rd -Me asurgs r - -y" r4eR - agen-Gy -r=e§ isfcpat i&fi T ideR-tifiGatiGR-Gf-iRdi-vi-dyal-seRvi-GepeRseRs-SRaU^

2.32 COMMERCIAL WEIGHING AND MEASURING DEVICE. -- The term "commercial

weighing and measuring device" shall be construed to include any weight

or measure or weighing or measuring device conmerci ally used or employed

in establishing the size, quantity, extent, area, or measurement of quantities, things, produce, or articles for distribution or consumption, purchased, or offered, or submitted for sale, hire, or award, or in computing any basic charge or payment for services

rendered on the basis of weight or measure, and shall also include any

accessory attached to or used in connection with a conmerci al weighing

or measuring device when such accessory is so designed or installed

that its operation affects, or may affect, the accuracy of the device.

SEGTPGN -3 r —REG tRROG £T¥

Tbe-B 4-ReGteR -may-eR-teR - i-Rte - aR - ififeR-mal- -ReGi-pRGGal- -a§ReemeRt -w i-tb -aRy

etkep -State -9P -States -tR at -h as -e^-bave-sim^

pel-i-GieSr--yR4eie-&bK^R--a§ipeemeRt r -the-Re§i-&tei^4-Sepvi-GepeifiS9Rs-aRd-the

Re§is-feepe4 -Sepviee -AgeR-Gies -ef -the -States -pa*1 ty -te -t-be -i^eGi-ppGGa^

agpeemeRt-aiae-gpaRte4-fuH-iaeGipifi9Gal--atttR^^

peGe§Ri-ti-9R-9f -Geifi ti-fi-Gati-eR-9f-staR4ap4s-aR4-testi-Rg-eqHi-pmeRt5--i-R-aU

States -pai* ty-ef-sueR--a§FeemeRtT

192
SECTION 4*3. REGISTRATION FEE There shall be charged by the Director an annual fee of $ir99-($ ) per Registered Serviceperson afld-SSiOO-per-Reg^stered-Serviee-Agency to cover costs at the time application for registration is made, and

annually, during the month of January thereafter.

SECTION §t4. VOLUNTARY REGISTRATION

An individual op agency qualified by training or experience may apply

for registration to service weighing devices or measuring devices on an application form supplied by the Director. Said form, duly signed and

witnessed, shall include certification by the applicant that the

individual er agency is fully qualified to install, service, repair, or recondition whatever devices for the service of which competence is being registered; has in possession, or available for use, and will use

all necessary testing equipment and standards; and has full knowledge

of all appropriate weights and measures laws, orders, rules, and

regulations. An applicant also shall submit appropriate evidence or references as to qualifications.

Application for registration shall be voluntary, but the Director is authorized to reject or limit any application.

SECTION 5. MINIMUM EQUIPMENT

Applicants for small capacity scale service must have available

sufficient test weights approved and calibrated to test to capacity

scales up to 400-lb capacity. For large capacity weighing systems and

scales, 10 000 pounds of calibrated and approved test weights must be

shown to be available.

(other equipment requirements to be written)

The Director will review and check the qualifications of each applicant

if it is determined that the applicant is qualified . Upen receipt an4

acceptance ef a property executed application ferm- The Director shall

issue to the applicant a "Certificate of Registration," including an assigned registration number which shall remain effective until either

returnee* by the applicant er withdrawn by the Director* The

"Certificate of Registration" will expire on December 31 of each year.

SECTION PRIVILEGES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF A VOLUNTARY REGISTRANT

A bearer of a Certificate of Registration shall have the authority to remove an official rejection tag or mark placed on a weighing or measuring device by the authority of the Director; place in service,

until such time as an official examination can be made, a weighing or measuring device that has been officially rejected; and place in service, until such time as an official examination can be made, a new

or used weighing or measuring device. The Registered Serviceperson is responsible for installing, repairing, or adjusting weighing of measuring devices such that the devices are adjusted as closely as practicable to zero error.

193
SECTION §T 7. PLACED IN SERVICE REPORT

The Director shall furnish each Registered Servicemanperson an4

Re§4stered-5erv4ee-A§en€y with a supply of report forms to be known as "Placed in Service Reports." Such a form shall be executed in triplicate, shall include the assigned registration number, and shall

be signed by a Registered Serviceman person eft-by-a-sepvieeman

l^eppesen-ti-ng-a-Regi-st-ei^-Agen-ey for each rejected device restored to service and for each newly installed device placed in service. Within

24 hours after a device is restored to service, or placed in service,

the original of the properly executed Placed in Service Report,

together with any official rejection tag removed from the device, shall

be mailed to the Director at . The duplicate copy of

the report shall be handed to the owner or operator of the device, and

the triplicate copy of the report shall be retained by the Registered

Servicemanperson er- Agency.

SECTION 9*8^ STANDARDS AND TESTING EQUIPMENT

A Registered Serviceperson and-a-Regiskeped-Sepviee-Ageney or the

Service Agency who supplies his or her test equipment shall submit, at least annually (or biennially) to the Director, for examination and

certification, any standards and testing equipment that are used, or are

to be used, in the performance of the service and testing functions with

respect to weighing and measuring devices for which competence is registered. A Registered Serviceperson ep-Ageney shall not use in servicing commercial weighing or measuring devices any standards or testing equipment that have not been certified by the Director. Equipment

calibrated by another State Weights and Measures laboratory that can show

traceability to the National Bureau of Standards will also be recognized

as equipment suitable for use by Registered Servicepersons."

SECTION 10x9^ REVOCATION OF CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION

The Director may is authorized to fep-geod-eauser-aftep-eapefa}

investigation and eensideratieftr-stfspen4 or revoke a Certificate of

Registration for good cause, which shall include but not be limited to: failure to have test equipment certified, failure to use adequate

testing equipment, or failure of commercial equipment to comply with

Handbook 44 subsequent to service or repair.

SECTION UrlO. PUBLICATION OF LISTS OF REGISTERED

SERVICEPERSONS-AND-REGtSTiRED-S&RVtGE-AGENGtES

The Director shall publish, from time to time as he or she deems appropriate, and may supply upon request, lists of Registered Servicepersons

aAd-Regisfceped-Sepviee-Ageneiesr

SECTION 12,11. EFFECTIVE DATE

This regulation shall become effective on

194
*206 OPEN DATING REGULATION

The NCWM in 1973 voted to recommend the Model State Open Dating

Regulation for adoption by State and local jurisdictions and for use by

the private sector in voluntarily providing uniform open dating information. Based on telephone surveys, only five States reported adoption of

the model regulation by 1982. A few years after the NCWM Model was adopted, the U.S. Congress' Office of Technology Assessment (OTA)

conducted hearings to collect background data for possible Federal

legislation. Using the information provided by the NCWM and OTA, the

Association of Food and Drug Officials (AFDO) approved a model law in 1980. There is no exact count as to the number of jurisdictions using

the AFDO model, but it is estimated that no more than five or six States

or cities have adopted this model. AFDO's model does not seriously

conflict with NCWM's, but it is more extensive and definitive than the

NCWM's. Dr. E.C. Heffron, Chief of the Food Division of the Department

of Agriculture, State of Michigan, proposes that the NCWM determine the

feasibility of uniformity between NCWM's and AFDO's Open Dating Models,

with the long range goal of providing a single model endorsed by both

the NCWM and AFDO to the Council of State Governments for their

approval and recommendation.

As the first step towards this objective, the Committee provides the

AFDO "Uniform State Open Dating Bill" (reprinted below) as information

for NCWM members, and requests further discussion and opinions to be

forwarded to the Committee's attention. In general, members of the

Committee believe that most of the AFDO model requirements are improve- ments on the NCWM model. There are several issues or items listed

below that the Committee will address during the coming year. The

Committee will work towards a recommendation for a new NCWM model by

January, 1984.

1. The AFDO model is presented as a law because the AFDO

organization has not built a system of model regulations that

implement a basic enabling law (such as the NCWM Model State

Packaging and Labeling Regulation and the Model State Weights

and Measures Law). The Committee will make changes in the

AFDO model to make it conform to model regulation outlines

(e.g., removal of Sections 100.2(a), 100.3 (a)(1), 100.10,

100.11, 100.12, 100.13, and 100.14; change of title and

references to "Act").

2. The NCWM model limits food requiring a "sell by" date to that

spoiling or losing palatability within 60 days from the date

of packaging. The AFDO model requires the "sell by" date on food spoiling within 90 days from the date of packaging. The

Committee presently favors the 60-day defi niton, but would

appreciate receiving any opinions or information on this issue.

195
3. Meat, poultry, seafood, and fresh produce are specifically

excluded in Section 2.3 of the N CWM Model State Open Dating

Regulation. The A.FDO model specifically exempts fresh produce

and jxrt meat, poultry, and seafood. The Committee requests

input on whether NCWM members wish to continue exclusion of these latter items from open dating requirements. Presented

on the following pages is the AFDO model:

196
ASSOCIATION OF FOOD AND DRUG OFFICIALS

MODEL UNIFORM STATE OPEN DATING BILL

100.1 Short Title. This Act may be cited as the Open Dating Act of

(insert year enacted).

100.2 Purpose, scope, and application.

(a) Purpose. The purpose of this Act is to cause certain foods to be identified relative to physical sensory qualities both for the use by the user and rotation by the distributor(s).

(b) Scope. This Act prescribes the method of posting and

identification date, date determination, required records, responsible

persons, and foods subject to the Act. In addition, this Act provides

for exemption of certain foods and for sale of foods after the

expiration of an identifying open date.

100.3 Definitions.

(a) For purposes of this Act, the following definitions shall be

applicable:

(1) "Act" means Act No. (insert No.) of the Public Act of

(insert year).

(2) "Sell by date" means a recommended last date of sale that

permits a subsequent period before deterioration of

qualities described in (3), (4), and (5).

(3) "Perishable food" means any food having a significant risk

of spoilage, loss of value, or loss of palatability within

90 days of the date of packaging.

(4) "Semi -perishable food" means any food with greater than 90

days, but less than 6 months after the date of packaging

before having a significant risk or spoilage, loss of

value, or loss of palatability.

(5) "Long shelf -life food" means any food in which a significant risk of spoilage, loss of value, or loss of

palatability would not occur sooner than 6 months after the

date of packaging including foods preserved by freezing,

dehydrating, or being in a hermetically sealed container.

(6) "Prepackaged" means packaged prior to being displayed or offered for retail sale.

(7) "Best if used by date" means a date prior to deterioration

of qualities described in (4) and (5).

197
(8) "Person" means an individual, partnership, association or corporation.

100.4 Sale of perishable food and date determination.

(a) A retail food establishment shall not sell or offer for sale

prepackaged perishable food unless identified with a "sell by" date.

(b) (1) Perishable foods shall not be offered for sale after the

"sell by" date unless it is wholesome and advertised in a conspicuous manner as being offered for sale after the

recommended last date of sale. The placement of a sign,

sticker, or tag is acceptable for such advertising if it is easily readable and clearly identifies the perishable food

is having passed the recommended last date of sale.

(2) The retailer or final seller is responsible for the

advertisement, described in (1), of a perishable food

offered for sale after the recommended last date of sale.

(c) (1) A manufacturer, processor, packer, repacker, retailer, or other person who prepackages perishable food, shall

determine a date which allows a reasonable period after

sale, for consumption of the food, without physical

spoilage, loss of value, or loss of palatabi lity. A reasonable period for consumption shall consist of at least one third of the approximate total shelf life of the

perishable food.

(2) A retailer who purchases prepackaged perishable food may

upon written agreement with the person prepackaging such

food detenaine, identify, and be responsible for the date

placed on or attached to each package of such food.

(d) (1) A person described in section (c)(1) or (2) shall place on

or attach to each package of perishable food a date by

month and day. However, bakery products with a shelf -life

of not more than 7 days may be dated with the day of the

week representing the last recommended day of sale.

(2) The "sell by" date shall be displayed with the term "sell

by* immediately preceding or immediately over the

designated date unless a prominent notice is on the label

describing the date as a "sell by" date and indicating the

location of the date.

(3) If the day of the week is solely designated as provided for

in section (d)(1), the name of the day may be abbreviated

by the use of either the first two or first three letters

of the name of the day.
(4) Except as provided for in section (d)(1), the date shall be

designated by the first three letters of the month followed

by a numeral indicating the calendar day or designated by

the month represented numerically followed by a numeral

designation of the calendar day. The month and day

designation shall be separated by a period, slash, dash, or spacing. When a numeral designation of the first nine days

of the month is used, the number shall include a zero as the first digit; for example, 01 or 03.

(5) The "sell by" date may include the year following the day

if such year is expressed as a two or four digit number

separated as described in section (d)(4).

100.5 Sale of semi -perishable and long shelf-life food.

(a) A manufacturer, processor, packer, repacker, or other person who

prepackages semi -perishable or long shelf -life food may place upon or attach to the package an open date providing it is designated by the

"best if used by" date.

(b) A retail food establishment may sell or offer for sale food

beyond the designated "best if used by" date providing the food is wholesome and the sensory physical quality standards for that food have

not significantly diminished.

(c) The "best if used by" date as required by section (a) shall be

placed upon or attached to each container or package and be limited to the terms "best if used by" followed by or immediately over the date

designated by the month and year unless a prominent notice is on the

label describing the date as a "best if used by" date and indicating

the location of the date. The date shall be designated by the first

three letters of the month followed by a numeral indicating the year.

The use of the day of the month is permissible providing the day of the

month is placed prior to the month; for example, 30 JUN 81. 100.6 Placement of the date.

The date, whether a "sell by" or "best if used by," shall be printed,

stamped, embossed, perforated, or otherwise shown on the package, label

on the package, or tag attached to the package in a manner that is easily readable and separate from other information, graphics, or lettering so as to be clearly visible to a prospective purchaser. The

date shall not be superimposed on other required information or obscured by other information, graphics, or pricing. Regardless of the

type size used, the date shall be easily readable. These requirements

do not preclude the serving of a supplemental notice elsewhere on a package describing and/or indicating the location of the date.

199
100.7 Factors for the date determination. A person who, as provided for in this Act, places either the "sell

by" date or "best if used by" date shall determine the date taking into

consideration the food quality, characteristics, formulation,

processing impact, packaging or container and other protective wrapping

or coating, customary transportation, and storage and display

conditions. For purposes of calculating this date, home storage

conditions shall be considered similar to the usual retail store except

that refrigerated food may be calculated using a home storage

temperature standard of 40 degrees Fahrenheit (4.4 degrees Celsius).

100.8 Records.

A person responsible for establishing the date for perishable,

semi -per ishable, and long she If- life food shall keep a record of the

method used for the determination of that date. A record revision is necessary whenever a factor affecting date determination is altered.

Such record shall be retained for not less than 6 months after. the most recent "last date of sale" or "best if used by" date and be available

during normal business hours for examination upon request by (insert

agency name).

100.9 Exemptions.

(a) This Act does not apply to fresh fruits and vegetables offered

for sale unpack aged or in a container permitting sensory examination,

other non-packaged food and food products, salt, and crystallized

refined sugar.

(b) This Act does not apply to an individually packaged food item

that is a component of a larger packaged food item if the larger food

item is identified with a date the same as or earlier than the date of

the component.

100.10 Criminal penalties.

A violation of any provision of this Act shall be a misdemeanor

punishable by a fine of not more than (insert appropriate amount) or by

imprisonment for not longer than (insert appropriate length of time),

or by both such fine and imprisonment.

100.11 Injunctions.

The State of (insert name of State) o^ any person may bring an action

for an injunction in the (insert name of appropriate court) to restrain

any violation of this Act and to compel any person or firm subject to the requirements of this Act to comply with its provisions.
100.12 Seizure; Condemnation.

(a) Whenever a duly authorized agent of the (insert agency name)

finds or has probable cause to believe any food does not comply with

but is subject to the requirements of this Act, he may affix to such

article a tag or other appropriate marking, giving notice that such

article is suspected of being in violation of this Act and has been

detained or embargoed, warning all persons not to remove or dispose of

such articles by sale or otherwise until permission is given by an authorized agent or court. It shall be unlawful for a person to remove

or dispose of such detained or embargoed articles by sale or otherwise

without permission.

(b) When an article is in violation of this Act, it shall be liable

to be proceeded against by petition of the (insert type) court in whose

jurisdiction the article is located, detained, or embargoed for libel

condemnation of such article. When an authorized agent has found that

a detained or embargoed article is not in violation of this Act, he

shall remove the tag or other marking.

100.13 Destruction; costs; corrected food.

If the court finds the detained or embargoed food is identified in

violation of this Act, after entry of the decree it shall be destroyed

at the expense of the claimant thereof, under supervision of the agent,

and all court costs, fees storage, and other proper expenses shall be

taxed against the claimant of such article or his agent. Provided the

violation can be corrected by proper labeling, marking, or processing

of the food, the court, after entry of the decree and after the costs,

fees, and expenses have been paid and a good and sufficient bond has

been executed, may direct the food be delivered to the claimant for

labeling, marking, or processing under the supervision of an agent of

the (insert agency name). The expense of the supervision shall be paid

by the claimant. The food shall be returned to the claimant of the

food on the representation to the court by the (insert agency name)

that the food is no longer in violation of this Act, and the expenses

of supervision have been paid.

100.14 Preemption of local, county, and municipal ordinance.

A municipality or county shall not adopt or impose standards or requirements other than those provided for in this Act. 100.15 Effective date.

This Act shall become effective on and after (insert appropriate

date).

201
:::
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.

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 1£ 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.

The Committee wishes to reaffirm the policy and guidelines adopted by

the Conference last year and provides additional remarks as further

explanation.

Policy/Guideline (4) is based on the following premises:

o This guideline applies to those dispensers that do not have

dual-price-computing capabilities (otherwise there would be no need for policy/guidelines covering a cash discount chart)

o A "chart expressed in terms of... the total cash discount

applicable" is to be used to compute a final cash price.

Therefore, this policy/guideline is intended to indicate that the pump

computer should be set at the credit card (higher) price. In fact, all the oil company practices in the early stages of cash discount

marketing conformed to this approach.

203
Argiments against this policy/guideline are:

(a) Some gas stations do 90% of their business as cash sales, so that the majority of customers are not speedily served unless

the cash price is automatically computed on the dispenser pump.

In the opinion of the Committee, this argument would suggest that

stations doing perhaps 90% of their business as cash should dedicate

certain pumps to cash sales.

(b) Any errors that occur if the cash price were the one set on the dispenser computer would usually be in the favor of the

customer (if the higher credit card price were not computed

and the dispenser computed price were taken as the final pr ice).

(c) Customers do not always receive their discount if unscrupulous

attendants tell them that the credit card price computed is the final cash price or if the customer does not request the

cash price.

As for the last two arguments above, the Committee members believe that

the lack of uniformity in marketing motor fuel, when some marketers set their computers at the cash price and others at the credit card price,

will in itself generate confusion and mistrust on the part of customers.

Because of the relatively earlier and more widespread practice of

setting the dispenser computer at the credit card price and because

adding an extra charge for the use of a credit card may be perceived as

a surcharge, the Committee rejects the arguments against the Conference

recommendation to set the dispenser computer at the credit card price

and reaffirms the Conference policy and guidelines adopted last year.

(Item 207-1 was adopted.)

207-2 METHOD OF SALE OF ALCOHOL IN MOTOR FUEL

Representatives of the Northwest Conference on Weights and Measures

request that motor fuel containing alcohol be so labeled.

Although alcohol has been used in motor fuels for some years, some

serious problems have come to light more recently when large amounts of

methanol or ethanol are present. Alcohols can act as solvents

dissolving materials that have accumulated on the storage tank walls.

Separation of the motor fuel and alcohol can occur if the fuel -alcohol

blend comes in contact with significant amounts of moisture.

Finally, the physical characteristics of alcohol -fuel blends may have

harmful effects upon vehicle performance. Dissolved materials from

storage tanks and water absorbed by the alcohol -fuel blend will also

affect vehicle performance adversely.

204
The purpose of identifying motor fuel as containing alcohol is to inform the customer when significant levels of alcohol are present in

the motor fuel

The questions with which the Committee has had to contend are:

(1) What is the "significant" amount of alcohol that should

trigger a labeling requirement? (The Committee did not wish

to involve itself with labeling of very small amounts of

alcohol .) (2) Which alcohols (methanol, ethanol, butyl, etc.) should be

labeled? (Which are the "bad actors" in alcohol -blended

fuels?)

(3) If labeling is required, will the States have to acquire motor

fuel quality testing facilities in order to determine

compli ance?

In order to answer these questions, the Committee makes the following

information available to the Conference:

To control nitrous oxides, emissions from evaporation, dri veabi lity,

and materials compatibility problems, the Environmental Protection

Agency, (EPA), under its authority in the Clean Air Act (Section

211(f)), has approved the use of alcohol and certain other

oxygen -containing chemicals (all, including alcohol, termed

"oxygenates") in unleaded gasoline in amounts up to 2% by weight of

oxygen

If methanol alone is present in unleaded gasoline, EPA limits the amount of methanol permitted to 0.3% by volume (this is a much lower

level than the 2% oxygen by weight rule would have permitted). If methanol is blended with another higher molecular weight alcohol, as much as 2.75% methanol by volume may be used.

Although the parallels with motor fuels other than unleaded gasoline

are far from clear, the Committee viewed the EPA requirements as a basis for deciding what is a "significant" amount of alcohol (or

oxygenates) for labeling purposes. In addition, from the EPA requirements and from information from State motor fuel testing labs,

the Committee members are of the opinion that methanol with no higher

alcohol added (as a "cosolvent") is the chief "bad actor" to be

controlled, but that ethanol in some instances can also cause serious

problems. The effects of the other alcohols is much less clear cut.

As to the question of what problems a motor fuel labeling requirement

will pose to the States, the Committee is informed that 38 States have

motor fuel requirements but that probably no more than 20 States have

motor fuel testing facilities related to their weights and measures

functions. This may indicate that a clear majority of State Weights

and Measures agencies may not be in a position to check for compliance

205
with motor fuel labeling requirements. However, it should be pointed

out that general product identity requirements for motor fuel in

Handbook 44 (LMD Code S . 1 .4.3) and for other commodities in Handbook

130 have been generally adopted by the States even though some States

may not have had the capability to test for compliance with every

detail of the label

.

The Committee also points out that States are not precluded from taking

product samples to private testing laboratories when complaints or other problems surface.

Nevertheless, because of the lack of clear-cut figures to propose for

amounts of alcohol above which labeling should be required, the

Committee proposes a gui del ine for labeling and requests further input

from industry and gove rnmental officials as to the need for a section

in the Model State Method of Sale of Commodities Regulation or other

action.

It must be stressed that the Committee has no intention of proposing

limits to the amounts of these substances to be added to motor fuel,

only to require disclosure of their presence in motor fuel on the

dispenser face. The Committee also wishes to affirm its endorsement of

standards expected to be issued by the American Society for Testing and

Materials. It is because these standards have not been issued that the

Committee believes the guideline is needed.

Although the Committee proposed labeling guidelines in its interim and

final report paralleling EPA requirements under the Clean Air Act, the

Committee and Conference were persuaded by an eloquent address by Mr.

N. D. Smith, State Representative from North Carolina, to amend the

Committee's final report. The following represents the substance of his remarks and is incorporated as the Committee's report.

Since the 1930's the State of North Carolina has operated a motor fuels

testing program. Our 1983-84 budget for this program is almost

$2,000,000 and includes a staff of analytical chemists and chemical

engineers. In terms of operation and effectiveness, our program is very similar to the programs in Florida, Arkansas, and California.

Many on our staff are very active in ASTM and indeed serve on various

ASTM petroleum committees. Our petroleum testing program operates

under the authority of a Gasoline and Oil Inspection Board which is

composed of people knowledgeable of the petroleum industry. Thus, we

are not to be considered a fly-by-night organization or one that has no knowledge of the testing of motor fuels.

Ladies and gentlemen of this Conference, we (North Carolina) have held

public hearings on specifications for alcohol -gasoli ne fuels and we have

heard all the arguments on why alcohol fuels should not be singled out for special labeling. Notwithstanding the arguments of Syd Andrews* and

others, we feel it is time to stand up and be counted. We hold that it

::6
is a fundamental right for the purchasers of motor fuels to know if a fuel contains significant amounts of alcohol. With the motor vehicle

manufacturers limiting new car warranties when alcohol fuels are used,

it is imperative that a fuel purchaser be advised of the presence of

alcohol. Even with older cars, there may be problems with using alcohol

fuels which affect filters and dri veabi 1 ity. While these particular

problems may not constitute a permanent injury to the engine, they are

still a nuisance and extra expense to the vehicle owner which could

have been avoided if the presence of alcohol was declared. After all,

the proposed action by Chrysler establishes the need for labeling.

Whether you agree with Chrysler** or not, Chrysler has established a policy on vehicle warranties and alcohol fuels that can not be ignored.

Having said all this, I must agree with Syd Andrews that this is a complex problem which should be dealt with by experts. However, as weights and measures officials we are most often the sounding board for consumer complaints and perhaps the first group to learn of new marketing techniques or strategies. Thus, I feel that it is the

responsibility of this Conference to clearly send a message to the

experts so they will be moved to declare the suitability of alcohol-gasoline motor fuels.

While I feel the Committee has done an excellent job in the face of

conflicting testimony, I feel the alcohol percentages are too high. It

is certainly easier to start with a tight labeling requirement and

soften it as more information is developed than to start with a soft

requirement and tighten it later.

I move to amend the Committee on Laws and Regulations recommended

guideline by striking the entire Laws and Regulations guideline and

substituting the following:

"All motor fuel kept, offered, or exposed for sale, or sold containing at least one percent by volume ethanol or methanol should be identified on the motor fuel dispenser

as "with" or "containing" ( "ethanol" ) , ( "methanol" ) or

( "ethanol/methanol" ) or similar wording.

*Director, Florida Division of Standards. He argued that weights and measures jurisdictions should not involve themselves in questions of

quality, and that ASTM has been working on and has not solved this

problem in many years.

**Chrysler Motor Co. proposes limiting its new car warranties excluding

coverage of repairs if gasoline containing methanol is used.

(Item 207-2 as amended was adopted.)

207
207-3 METHOD OF SALE OF CLAMS, MUSSELS, AND OYSTERS

(This item was carried over from the 67th NCWM, 1982, in which it was assigned voting key 206-4)

The Cormiittee recommends the following methods of sale for clams,

mussels, and oysters. Because there is a conflict between existing

trade practices in some areas of the country (selling whole clams,

oysters, or mussels in the shell by weight) and what is being proposed

below, the Committee proposes the following to be a guideli ne rather

than as part of the Model State Regulation for the Method of Sale of

Commodities. The Committee invites further comment from any interested

party.

Guideline for Method of Sale of Clams, Mussels and Oysters

1. Stuffed clams or mussels on the half shell should be sold by

net weight excluding the weight of the shell,

2. Canned (heat-processed) oysters should be sold by net weight.

3. Fresh oysters, clams, or mussels removed from the shell and

placed in a container should be sold by fluid volume . 4. Frozen oysters, clams, or mussels should be sold by net weight.

5. Whole clams, oysters, or mussels in the shell (fresh or

frozen) should be sold by dry measure (e.g., bushel) or count

plus size, not by net weight.

During the discussions on this item at the interim meeting, it was asked what the maximum amount of free liquid is permitted to be in fresh oysters, clams, or mussels removed from the shell and sold by

fluid volume (item 3 above). It was reported that regulations of the

Food and Drug Administration (21 CFR 161.130) permit 5 percent liquid

by weight for oysters. However, Alabama and New York reported

permitting 10 percent free liquid, and Louisiana 15 percent. The

amount of free liquid permitted for clams and mussels is not standardized by Federal regulations.

(Item 207-3 was adopted as part of the consent calendar.)

207-4 METHOD OF SALE OF VEGETABLE OIL Packages of liquid vegetable oil are being sold for restaurant and

other small food business use labeled by weight. It has been brought

to the attention of the Committee that containers of product labeled "5 gallons" look identical in dimensions to those labeled "35 pounds", but

the density of the vegetable oil is such that the 35-pound cans contain

only about 4 1/2 gallons. The Institute of Shortening and Edible Oils

indicates that companies selling liquid vegetable oils often compete

with those selling solid shortening, and that a net weight comparison

is useful for these purposes. Recipes for food products in large sizes

sometimes provide ingredient quantities by weight or by volume.

208
It is the opinion of the members of the Committee that packaged liquid

vegetable oil must be labeled by liquid volume, although a net weight

may be declared in addition to the net volume statement.

When a single manufacturer of vegetable oil packages the same oil in the same size container with two such widely different net quantity

statements, this practice could easily be considered (a) misleading to the customer, and (b) nonfunctional slack-fill. Weights and measures

enforcement action should be taken.

(Item 207-4 was adopted as part of the consent calendar.)

207-5 METHOD OF SALE OF POTPOURRI

Minnetonka, Inc. (Minnetonka, MN) manufacturers a line of fragrant

dried herbs and flowers ("Pot Pourri") used for their decorative nature

and fragrance, and sold from bulk and in prepackaged form. The Federal

Trade Commission (FTC) has communicated with Minnetonka and is of the

opinion that the prepackaged potpourri put up in decorative containers

can be considered as an air freshener unit and, therefore, no net contents statement would be required (because FTC has ruled similarly

for incense and other air fresheners).

The Southern Weights and Measures Association has requested the NCWM to resolve the conflict between Section 13 of the Model State Weights and

Measures Law (requiring a quantity of contents statement in terms of

weight, measure, or count) and the FTC opinion.

The Liaison Committee and Committee on Laws and Regulations met jointly

to consider this issue. Neither Committee saw conflict between the FTC

opinion and the Model Law. Section 11 of the Model Law states in part

"... commodities not in liquid form shall be sold only by weight, or by

measure, or by count, so long as the method of sale provides accurate quantity information." The quantity of air freshener or incense in decorative containers does not directly translate into easily measurable

units such as weight or volume, so count (e.g., "one") appears to be a minimally acceptable declaration of net contents. This is the

interpretation of the FTC. Sale of potpourri from bulk has been made by weight or by dry measure. Questions of how to sell the product from bulk arose because the company

was informed by weights and measures officials that they were supplying

scales that would not meet the requirements of Handbook 44. The company

sells their product in boutiques and department stores, most of which

are not equipped with suitable scales. Therefore, Minnetonka had to supply a measuring device with its bulk potpourri. Since the fragrance

and visual appearance of the product are the main reasons for consumer

purchases, the dry volume of product seemed to be an alternative and

adequate method of sale (since the volume is related to the surface area exposed which in turn is related to the amount of fragrance given off).

Minnetonka had volumetric measures fabricated and sent to the National

209
Bureau of Standards for type approval. The dry volume measures hold

1/8 and 1/4 dry pint and have been issued reports of test. These dry

volume measures were fabricated for Minnetonka and are not available to

the commercial trade, so far as the Committee is aware. The Committee would like to alert field officials to the likelihood of

these and other commodities being sold by weight or measure from bulk

in department stores and other retail outlets not usually recognized as locations where commercial measuring equipment would be present.

The remaining problem is, of course, the fact that the prepackaged

material in decorative containers may contain no declaration of weight

or volume (per FTC information), whereas the material sold from bulk

will be measured by dry volume. This will be a problem for consumers

who wish to make a value comparison between the prepackaged product and

that sold from bulk. Minnetonka, Inc. is studying the feasibility of

putting a declaration of net contents on their prepackaged product in terms of dry volume.

The Committee recommends that potpourri be sold either by weight or by

dry measure either when sold from bulk or when prepackaged and not in

decorative containers.

(Item 207-5 was adopted.)

208 GENERAL

*208-l TASK FORCE ON PACKAGE CONTROL

The Committee met jointly with the Liaison Committee to receive a progress report from the Task Force on Package Control. This progress

report is included in the Liaison Committee's report, reference key 505. Although the work and recommendations of the Task Force may have

long- re aching implications for weights and measures inspection

activities, there is nothing in the objectives or agenda of the Task

Force that proposes modification or revision of the model laws or regulations. The Committee intends to follow the progress of the Task

Force and participate in its activities as far as possible given the

constraints of concurrent meeting schedules during the Conference and

Interim Meeting Weeks.

208-2 LONG RANGE PLAN Committee members agreed on goals and objectives for the Committee and

approved a five-year plan towards achieving these objectives. The

goals and objectives are presented below. Members of the Committee

believe that it is important for the entire Conference to participate

in goal setting and planning for each Committee and requests that the

Conference endorse the goals and objectives of the Committee.

210
208-2-1 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE COMMITTEE ON LAWS AND REGULATIONS

Goals

o To achieve marketplace equity and uniformity,

o Minimize opportunities for unfair or deceptive commerce concerning weight or measures, and

o Remove impediments to interstate commerce and encourage

economic growth, while protecting the consumer. Objectives

1. Review (and revise where necessary) existing model laws and

regulations for their suitability in the modern marketplace

and for their compatibility with other Federal and State laws;

2. Encourage the promulgation of model laws and regulations by

State and local government (including development of efficient

means for the States to adopt these models and keep them

current);

3. Determine the need for and develop new model laws and

regulations (or portions of such) for use by the State and

local governments;

4. Determine the level of conformity of State laws and

regulations with existing NCWM model laws and regulations;

5. Provide guidance on the use of weights and measures laws and

regulations so as to increase the uniformity of application

and interpretation of the model laws and regulations.

(Item 208-2-1 was adopted as part of the consent calendar.)

*208-2-2 TASKS OF THE COMMITTEE ON LAWS AND REGULATIONS

The Committee intends to continue its review of existing model laws and

regulations for their suitability in the modern marketplace. The work

on the Model State Regulation for the Voluntary Registration of Servicepersons and Service Agencies for Conmercial Weighing and Measuring

Devices and the Model State Open Dating Regulation is part of that

activity. Based on the intercomparison of the Model State Regulation

for the Method of Sale of Commodities with existing regulations, the

Cormiittee believes this model regulation needs serious attention by the

Conference as well, and plans to undertake this task in the near future.

211
The Committee also intends to survey the States in order to determine

the extent of weights and measures authority in the following areas: petroleum quantity and quality

pricing and advertising

package inspection

unit pricing and open dating

*208-3 MULTI-UNIT, COMBINATION, AND VARIETY PACKAGES/ALL UNITS

CLEARLY VISIBLE

New Jersey Weights and Measures and Pine Consultants, Inc. have begun

discussions with the Committee concerning a recurring problem to the

weights and measures community: the proper labeling of multi-unit,

combination and variety packages (see sections 10.4 through 10.6 of the

Model State Packaging and Labeling Regulation). Currently, the model

regulation requires a total quantity statement of the entire contents on the labels of these types of packages. The question has been posed to the Committee as to the need for a total quantity statement if two other conditions are met:

(1) the outer wrapping of the multi-unit, combination, or variety

package is completely transparent, and

(2) each individual item inside the multi-unit, combination, or variety package meets all labeling requirements including net contents declarations and the labeling of each unit is completely visible.

Pine Consultants, Inc. made available to the Committee copies of the

Food and Drug Administration provision for this type of packaging of

multi-unit packages (21CFR101 . 1 05 ( s ) ) (underlining added):

On a multiunit retail package, a statement of the quantity of

contents shall appear on the outside of the package and shall

include the number of individual units, and, in parentheses, the

total quantity of contents of the multiunit package in terms of

avoirdupois or fluid ounces, except that such declaration of total

quantity need not be followed by an additional parenthetical

declaration in terms of the largest whole units and subdivisions

thereof, as required by paragraph (j)(l) of this section. A multiunit retail package may thus be properly labeled: "6-16 oz bottles-(96 fl oz) : or "3-16 oz cans--(net wt . 48 oz)". For the

purposes of this section, "multiunit retail package" means a package containing two or more individually packaged units of the

identical commodity and in the same quantity, intended to be sold

as part of the multiunit retail package but capable of being

individually sold in full compliance with all requirements of the

regulations in this part. Open multiunit retail packages that do

not obscure the number of units or prevent examination of the

labeling on each of the individual units are not subject to this

212
paragraph if the labeling of each individual unit complies with

the requirements of paragraphs (f) and (i) of this section. The

provisions of this section do not apply to butter or margarine

covered by the exemptions in 1.24(a) (10) and (11) of this

chapter.

Because this issue was brought to the Comnittee after the deadline for

submission of agenda topics, and because of the need for further study,

the Comnittee is not prepared to propose specific changes to the Model

at this time. However, the Committee would like to point out that it does favor extension of this rule, which FDA has applied to multi-unit

(same commodity) packages, to combination and variety packages as well. The Committee welcomes comment on this item and recomnends

carrying the item over until next year.

J. J. Bartfai, New York, Chairman

G. E. Mattimoe, Hawaii

W. R. Mossberg, Los Angeles County, CA

£. P. Skluzacek, Minnesota

D. E. Stagg, Alabama

C. S. Brickenkamp, Technical Advisor, NBS

A. D. Tholen, Executive Secretary, NCWM

COMMITTEE ON LAWS AND REGULATIONS

213

REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON SPECIFICATIONS AND TOLERANCES

Presented by L. H. DeGrange, Assistant Chief, Weights and Measures,

Department of Agriculture, State of Maryland

VOTING KEY

300 INTRODUCTION

The Committee on Specifications and Tolerances submits its report to the

68th National Conference on Weights and Measures. The report consists of

the interim meeting report as offered in the Conference 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 Committee discussion session at the

Conference. All recommended amendments are to appropriate provisions of

National Bureau of Standards Handbook 44, 1983 edition, "Specifications,

Tolerances, and Other Technical Requirements 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.

The report includes thirty-five Reference Key Items. Of these items some

are recommendations for a specific action by the Conference and are to be

voted on; the others are informational items only and are not subject to vote. Those items marked with an asterisk are informational items. The

items to be voted on are: 301-2 Precision Balances

301-3 Automatic Bulk Weighing Systems

301-4 UR.1.1.4. Value of the Scale Division/For Grain Hopper Scales

301-5 S.l.l. Zero Indication-Positive Value/No-Load Reference

301-7 UR.3.5. Single-Draft Vehicle Weighing

301-8 Menu Service Scales

301-11 UR.2.6.1. Approaches/To Vehicle Scales

301-12 T.3.8.4. Weighing Coupled In Motion Used For Unit Train Weights

301-14 Report of the National Type Evaluation Technical Committee

(NTETC)

303-1 Retail Motor Fuel Devices - Dispenser/Console Money - Value

Division Agreement

303-2 Certain Devices Used to Measure Kerosene

303-3 N.4.2.2. Specific Tests/For Retail Motor-Fuel Devices

303- 7 Report of the National Type Evaluation Technical Committee

304- 1 Temperature Compensation

304-2 S. 1.4.1. Computing-Type Devices/Display of Unit Price

215
305 Section 3.34. Cryogenic Liquid-Measuring Devices

306-1 S.3.5.2. Gage Tube

307 Section 5.55. Code for Timing Devices

308-2 Status of Advisory Committee on Grain Moisture Measurement

310-1 Nonretroactive Requirements

The following items have been placed on the consent ca'e r car and are to be

voted on in a single ballot:

301-2 303-3 306-1

301-4 303-7 307

301-12 304-2 308-2

301-14 305 310-1

(A motion was made and passed to remove item 307 f^o~ the consent calendar. All of the remaining items on the consent calendar were adopted.

)

y/ 2.2:.

*301-1 SCALE CODE FORMAT AND TOLERANCES

The reports of the Committee for the last several years have included

nf ovulational references on this subject. Considerable time and effort

have been expended by many individuals in the development of a practical,

equitable, easy to use Code that _'s co~pat J o'e <>rt r 0IV_ International

Rec emendations, yet recognizes J.S. need s i

r

: D r act-'ces. ~" a organ izations and individuals contributing to this effort are too numerous to mention here, but have been recognized in past reports.

During the last several years, tutorial presentations to provide a clear

understanding of the principles of proposals have been made at State and

regional Conferences for which the committee wishes to express its

appreciation to SMA. As a result, suggestions for changes nave been made

and included in subsequent proposals. It has become evident from these

recommendations that considerable thought, time, and effort have been

spent in the review of these draft proposals, and that a better understanding does exist.

The Committee considers that the draft code that follows is approaching

final form aoo presents it as an

; nf or- a:

1 : r -: 1 item once again for

consideration by the Conference. It is the view of the Committee that this

draft, with a few changes that may result from this years Conference acti or on certain items applicable to the existing Code and some additional editing, will be ready for action by next year's Conference for implementation

January 1,

n 936 . There is also a need to provide a few non-retroactive

clauses for certain devices that will not fit into the new class structure.

2:^
SEC. 2.20. SCALES

A. APPLICATION

A.l. GENERAL.- This code applies to all types of weighing devices other

than 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.

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.

S. SPECIFICATIONS

S.l. DESIGN OF INDICATING AND RECORDING ELEMENTS AND OF RECORDED

REPRESENTATIONS.

5.1.1. ZERO INDICATION.- Provision shall be made on a scale equipped

with indicating or recording elements to either indicate or record a zero balance condition, and on an automatic-indicating scale or balance indicator to indicate or record an out-of -balance condition

on both sides of zero.

S.l. 1.1. DIGITAL INDICATING ELEMENTS.- A digital zero indication shall represent a balance condition that is within

plus or minus one-half the value of the scale division. On a digital indicator equipped with an auxiliary or supplemental

"center of zero" indicator, this indicator shall define a zero balance condition to + 1/4 of a scale division or better.

5.1. 2. Except for scales and weighing systems used exclusively for

weighing in predetermined amounts (i.e., batching scales), the value

of a scale division (d) expressed in a unit of weight shall be equal

to;

a. 1, 2, or 5, or

b. a decimal multiple or submultiple of 1, 2, or 5; or

c. a binary submultiple of a specific unit of weight.

Examples: scale divisions may be .01, .02, .05; .1, .2, or .5; 1, 2, or 5; 10, 20, 50, or 100; or, scale divisions may be 1/2, 1/4, 1/8,

1/16, etc. (non-retroactive as of January 1, 1985)

5.1. 3. GRADUATIONS.

S.l. 3.1. LENGTH.- Graduations shall be so varied in length that

they may be conveniently read.

217
S.l.3.2. 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

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.

S. 1.3.3. CLEAR INTERVAL BETWEEN GRADUATIONS.- The clear interval

shall be not less than 0.02 inch for graduations representing

money values and not less than 0.03 inch for other 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.

.4. INDICATORS.

5. 1.4.1. SYMMETRY. - The index of an indicator shall be symmetrical 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 indicator

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.

218
S.l.4.5. PARALLAX.- Parallax effects shall be reduced to the

practicable minimum.

.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 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

recording 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,

219
(a) the capacity of any weighbeam bar shall be a multiple

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.I. 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.

S.1.6. POISES.

5. 1.6.1. GENERAL . - No part of a poise shall be readily

detachable. 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, wherever 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 indicator of a poise shall be sharply defined, and a reading

edge shall be parallel to the graduations on the weighbeam.

S.1.7. CAPACITY INDICATION, WEIGHT RANGES, AND UNIT WEIGHTS.- Except

for single or multi -revolution dial scales not equipped with unit

weights, scales equipped with two or more weighbeams, or mathematically derived totalized values, an indicating or recording element

shall not display or record any values when the g^oss 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 recorded representation.

220
S.1.8. FOR COMPUTING SCALES ONLY.

5. 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 cervts at unit prices of 26 cents per

pound through $T.!25))er pound. (Special graduations

defining 5-cent intervals may be employed, but not in the spaces between regular graduations.)

(c) Not more than 5 cents per unit prices of $1.26 per

pound through $3.40 per pound.

(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 gradation

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. 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.

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,!

(b) the unit price,

1

(c) the total price, and

(d) the product class or, in a system equipped with price

look-up capability, the product name or code number.

^Weight values shall be identified by the word "pound", the symbol

"lb", or the sign "#".

221
S.1.9. FOR PREPACKAGING SCALES ONLY.

5. 1.9.1. VALUE OF THE SCALE DIVISION.- On a prepackaging scale,

the value of the 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.

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.

S.1.10. PROVISION FOR SEALING ADJUSTABLE COMPONENTS ON ELECTRONIC

DEVICES.- Except on Class I scales, 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 an electronic device, (Nonretroactive

as of January 1, 1979.)

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

condition of the scale is altered.

5.2.1. 2. ON SCALES USED IN DIRECT SALES.- A manual zero setting

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 outside

of and entirely separate from this mechanism, or enclosed in a cabinet. Except on Class I or II scales, 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.

222
5.2.1.3. 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.)

5.2.1.4. ON MONORAIL SCALES.- On a monorail scale equipped with

digital indications, means shall be provided for setting the

zero-load balance to within 0.02% of scale capacity. On an in-motion system, means shall be provided to automatically

maintain these conditions.

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, PRESCRIPTION, AND CLASS I AND II SCALES ONLY.- Except on digital indicating

devices, a dairy-product-test, grain-test, prescription, or Class I or II 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. TARE.- On any scale, (except a monorail scale equipped with

digital indications) the value of the tare division shall be equal to the value of the scale division.* The tare mechanism shall operate

only in a backward direction ( that is, in a direction of underregistration) with respect to the zero load balance condition of the scale.

On a device designed to automatically clear any tare value entered, means shall be provided to prevent the clearing of tare until a complete transaction has been indicated.* ( *Non-retroactive as of

January 1, 1983.) Note: On a computing scale this requires the input of a unit price

and the display of the unit price and a computed positive total price

at a readable equilibrium. On other devices it requires a complete

weighing operation, including a tare, net, and gross weight

determination.

223
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.

5.2.4. LEVEL-INDICATING MEANS.- If the weighing performance of a portable scale (except a prescription, jewelers, dairy product-test,

or class i or ii scale) is changed by an amount greater than the

appropriate acceptance tolerance when it is moved from a level

position and rebalanced in a position that is out of level in any upright direction by 5 percent or approximately 3 degrees, the scale

shall be equipped with level-indicating means. The indications of this level-indicating means shall be readily observable without the

necessity of disassembly of any scale parts requiring the use of mechanical means separate from the scale. (For excepted scales,

this requirement will be non-retroactive and enforceable as of

January 1, 1985.)

5.2.5. 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. 5.2.5. 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.

The values recorded shall be within applicable tolerances.

5.2.5. 2. ON JEWELERS, PRESCRIPTION, AND CLASS I AND CLASS II SCALES ONLY.- A jewelers, prescription, and Class I and Class II scale shall be equipped with appropriate

means for arresting the oscillation of the mechanism.

. DESIGN OF LOAD-RECEIVING ELEMENTS.

S.3.1. TRAVEL OF PANS OF EQUAL-ARM SCALE.- The travel between

limiting stops of the pans of a nonautomatic-i ndicati ng equal-arm

scale not equipped with a balance indicator shall be not less than

the minimum travel shown in table 2.

224
TABLE 2.- MINIMUM TRAVEL OF PANS OF NONAUTOMATIC INDICATING EQUAL-ARM

SCALE WITHOUT BALANCE INDICATOR.

Nominal Capacity Minimum

travel of pans

Pounds Inch

0.35

0.5

0.75

1.0

4 or less

5 to 12, incl.

13 to 26, incl

Over 26 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 removable 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.

5.4. DESIGN OF WEIGHING ELEMENTS.

5.4.1. ANTIFRICTION MEANS.- At all points at which a live part of

the mechanisms may come into contact with another part in the course

of normal usage, frictional effects shall be reduced to a minimum by

suitable antifriction means; i.e., opposing surfaces and points shall

be 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 shall be held securely

in adjustment and except for the level adjusting and zero load

balance mechanisms 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

accurately, clearly, and permanently defined.

5.4.3. MULTIPLE LOAD-RECEIVING ELEMENTS.- Except for mechanical

bench and counter scales, a scale with a single indicating or recording element, or a combination indicating-recording element,

that is coupled to two or more load-receiving elements with

independent weighing systems shall be provided with means to prohibit

the activation of any load-receiving element (or elements) not in use, and shall be provided with automatic means to indicate clearly

and definitely which load-receiving element (or elements) is in use.

5.5. DESIGN OF WEIGHING DEVICES, ACCURACY CLASS. S.5.1. Weighing devices are divided into accuracy classes and shall

be designated as I, II, III, III L, or II II

.

225
S.5.2. This accuracy class as designated by the manufacturer is determined by table 3.TABLE 3.- ACCURACY CLASSES

Value of the Verification Number of Scale Divisions (n)

Class Scale Division (d or e*) Minimum Maximum

I d(e) > 0.001 g 50 000

II 0.001 g < d(e) < 0.05 g 100 50 000

d(e) > 0.1 g 5 000 50 000

III 0.0002 lb < d < 0.005 lb 0.005 oz < d < 0.125 oz 100 10 000

0.1 g < d < 2.0 g

d > 0.01 lb

d > 0.25 oz 480 10 000

d > 5.0 g III L d > 5 lb 2 000 8 000

d > 2 kg

IIII d > 0.01 lb

d > 0.25 oz 100 1 000

d > 5.0 g *For Class I and II devices equipped with auxiliary reading means,

i.e., a rider, a vernier, or a least significant decimal differentiated by size, shape, or color, the value of the verification scale

division (e) is the value of the scale division immediately preceding

the auxiliary means.

NOTE: The symbols <_ and > mean "equal to and less than" and "equal

to and more than" respectively. Thus, the term "d< 5 lb" means that

d is equal to or less than 5 lb and the term "d > 5 lb" means that d

is equal to or more than 5 lb.

6. MARKING REQUIREMENTS. (See also G-S.l.)

5.6.1. - ACCURACY CLASS.- The accuracy class of a device shall be

marked on the identification plate required by G-S.l. with the

appropriate designation as I, II, III, III L, or IIII. 5.6.2. - 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.

226
(c) On any automatic-indicating or recording scale so constructed that the capacity of the indicating or recording element or elements is not immediately apparent.

(d) On any scale with a nominal capacity less than the sum of

the reading elements.

5.6.3. 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 division is not immediately apparent. This value shall be marked with the

nominal capacity in the following manner as appropriate.

Capacity: 100,000 x 10 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. (Added and

nonretroactive as of January 2, 1983.)

5.6.4. 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.)

5.6.5. 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.

5.6.6. FOR 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's

designation that positively identifies the pattern or design, and the

nominal capacity.

N. NOTES

. TESTING PROCEDURES.

N.l.l. INCREASING-LOAD-TEST.- An 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 than 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.

227
N.1.2. DECREASING-LOAD TEST.- A decreasing-load test shall be

conducted on automatic indicating scales and, except for Class III L scales, 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, 20 00d, and 500d (for scales with

less than lOOOd, a test load equal to one-half capacity). On a Class

III L scale the test load shall be equal to one-half of the maximum

applied test load. The test load shall be distributed approximately

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.)

N.I .3- SHIFT TEST.

N. 1.3.1. ON BENCH OR COUNTER SCALES.- A shift test shall be

conducted with a half -capacity test load centered successively

at four points equidistant between the center and the front,

left, back, and right edges of the load-receiving element.

N. 1.3.2. ON DAIRY-PRODUCT-TEST SCALES.- A shift test shall be

conducted with a test load of 18 grams, this load being

successively 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.- A shift test shall be conducted

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.- A shift test shall be conducted

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.

N. 1.3.5. ON RAILWAY TRACK SCALES WEIGHING INDIVIDUAL CARS IN SINGLE DRAFTS.- A 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.

N. 1.3.6. ON ALL OTHER SCALES EXCEPT CRANE SCALES AND HANGING

SCALES.- A 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, successively at the

center of each quarter of the load-receiving element, or with a quarter-capacity test load centered, as nearly as possible,

successively over each main load support.

228
N.1.4. SENSITIVITY TEST.- A sensitivity test shall be conducted on non-automatic indicating (weighbeam) scales only, with the weighing

device in equilibrium at zero-load and at maximum test load.

N.1.5. DISCRIMINATION TEST.- A discrimination test shall be

conducted on all automatic indicating scales with the weighing device

in equilibrium at zero-load and at maximum test load and under

controlled conditions in which environmental factors are reduced to the extent that they will not affect the results obtained.

N. 1.5.1. ON A DIGITAL DEVICE.- On a digital device, this test

is conducted from the lower or upper edge of the zone of

uncertainty for increasing and decreasing load tests,

respectively.

N.1.6. RATIO TEST.- A ratio test shall be conducted on all scales

employing counterpoise weights and on nonautomatic-i ndicating

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

app 1 i ed

)

N.3. MINIMUM TEST-LOAD* FOR IN-SERVICE TESTS.

N.3.1. ON DEVICES OF 100 POUNDS CAPACITY OR LESS.- The minimum test weight load for devices of 100 pounds capacity or less, shall be 106%

of device capacity.

N.3.2. ON DEVICES OF MORE THAN 100 POUNDS CAPACITY UP TO AND

INCLUDING 2 000 POUNDS.- The minimum test-load for devices of more

than 100 pound capacity up to and including 2 000 pounds shall be not

less than 50% of device capacity.

N.3.3. ON DEVICE OF MORE THAN 2 000 POUNDS CAPACITY.- The minimum

test-load for devices of more than 2 000 pounds capacity shall be not

less than 25% of device capacity and where practicable, shall be

equal to the used capacity of the device.

N.3.4. ON RAILWAY TRACK SCALES.- The minimum test-load for railway

track scales on a static test shall not be less than 30 000 pounds,

and for coupled in motion tests a test train of 10 cars or more, yielding at least 100 car weights.

*The term test-load provides for the test of devices using

test-weights less than the values specified for test loads, but

requires substitution or build-up tests up to the values specified.

N.4. NOMINAL CAPACITY OF PRESCRIPTION SCALES.- In the absence of

information to the contrary the nominal capacity of a prescription scale

shall be assumed to be 1/2 apothecaries ounce.

229
T. TOLERANCES MAXIMUM PERMISSIBLE ERRORS (MPE) T.I. PRINCIPLES.

T.l.l. The tolerance for a weighing device is a performance

requirement independent of the design principle used.

T.1.2. 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) or the value of the verification scale

division (e) and is expressed in terms of a scale division (d or e)

.

T.2. TOLERANCE APPLICATIO 1,

.

T.2.1. GENERAL.- The tolerance values are positive ( + ) and negative

- , with the weighing device adjusted to zero at no load. 'When tare

is in use, the tolerance values are applied f^om the tare zero reference.

T.2.2. FOR TY D E EVALUATION EXAMINATIONS . - For type evaluation

examinations the tolerance values apply to increasing and decreasing

load tests within the temperature, humidity, power supply, and barometric D'-essj^e

n ''-^its as soecified in T.3.

T.2.3. FOR SUBSEQUENT VERIFICATION EXAMINATIONS . - For subsequent

verification examinations the tolerance values apply to all tests

rfith the influence factors as specified in T.S. in effect at the time

of the conduct of the examinations.

T.2.4. FOR MULTI-RANGE (VARIABLE SCALE DIVISION) DEVICES.- For multi-range devices, the tolerance values are based on the value of

the scale division of the range in use. T.2.5. FOR RATIO TESTS.- For ratio tests, the tolerance values are 0.75 of values soecified in table 4. T.S. TOLERANCE VALUES.

T.3.1. The maintenance tolerance values are as specified in table 4. T.3.2. The acceptance tolerance values for all weighing devices

shall De one-half the maintenance tolerance values.

T .3.3. SEPARATE MAIN ELEMENTS: LOAD TRANSMITTING ELEMENT,

INDICA I\3 ELEMENT, ETC.- If a main element, separate from a weighing

device, is submitted for type evaluation, the tolerance for the

element is no mo>*e than 0.7 times that for the complete weighing

device. This fraction includes the tolerance attributable to the

testing devices used.

230
d or e

TABLE 4.- MAINTENANCE TOLERANCES

1 2 3 Number of scale divisions (n)

I o - 50 000 50 001 - 200 000 200 001 +

II o - 5 000 5 001 - 20 000 20 001 +

III o - 500 501 - 2 000 2 001 - 4 000 4 000 +

III L o - 500 501 - 1 000 (Add 2d for each additional

lOOOd or fraction thereof) mi o

- 50 51 - 200 201 - 400 400 +

T.3.4. IN-MOTION WEIGHING.- Tolerances for in-motion weighing of a group of weighments appropriate to the application must satisfy the

following conditions:

T.3.4. 1. For any group of weighments, the error in the total of

the individual weights of the group must be within the total of

the maintenance static tolerances appropriate to the weights of

the group; and

T.3.4. 2. For any single weighment within a group, the weighment

error shall not exceed:

Maintenance

Percentage of Static Tolerance

Group Multiplier

65% 1.0

30% 2.0

5% 3.0

T.3.4. 3. For any group of weighments wherein the sole purpose

is to determine the total of the group of weighments, T.3.4. 1. alone applies.

T.3.4. 4. For any single weighment within a group of

non-interactive (i.e., uncoupled), loads, the weighment error

shall not exceed the maintenance static tolerance.

T.4. AGREEMENT OF INDICATIONS.

T.4.1. MULTIPLE INDICATING/RECORDING ELEMENTS, MULTIPLE BALANCING

METHOD.- In the case of multi-indicating/recording elements, including

tare or multiple beams, tolerances shall be applied independently to each separate indicating and recording element of a weighing device.

T.4.2. 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.)

231
T.4.3. 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. T.4.4. 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.5. REPEATABILITY.

T.5.1. 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.5.2. 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.6. SENSITIVITY.

T.6.1. 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.

0.04 inch [1 mm] for scales of Class I and II. 0.08 inch [2 mm] for scales of Classes III and II I I with a maximum capacity, of 70 lb 30 kg or less.

0.20 inch [5 mm] for scales of Classes III, III L, and IIII with a maximum capacity of more than 70 lb [30 kg],

(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.

232
T.7. DISCRIMINATION.

T.7.1. AUTOMATIC INDICATING - ANALOG (I.E., WEIGHING DEVICE WITH

DIAL, DRUM, FAN, ETC.).- A test load of Id shall cause a change in the indication of at least 0.7d.

T.7.2. AUTOMATIC INDICATING - DIGITAL.- A test load equivalent to 1.4 times the minimum division shall cause a change of the indicated

or recorded value of two divisions. This requires that the zone of

uncertainty shall not be greater than 0.3 times the value of minimum

division.

T.8. INFLUENCE QUANTITIES.- Applicable to type evaluation examinations

only and non-retroactive for prescription, jewelers, or dairy-product test

scales.

T.8.1. TEMPERATURE.- Devices shall satisfy the tolerance

requirements under the following temperature conditions:

T.8.1. 1. If not specified in the operating instructions for the

device, the temperature limits shall be:

-10 oC (14 o F ) to +40 oc (104 °F)

T.8.1. 2. If temperature limits are specified for the device,

the range shall be at least:

Class Temperature

I 5 oc (9 o F ) II 15 oC (27 of)

III, III L & IIII 30 oC (54 of) For class III, III L and Class IIII devices, unless the

temperature range is -10 to +40 or,, the temperature range

shall be marked on the identification plate.

T.8.1.3. TEMPERATURE EFFECT ON ZERO-LOAD BALANCE.- The zero-load

indication shall not vary by more than 1 division per 5 oc change in temperature.

T.8.1. 4. OPERATING TEMPERATURE.- Except for Class I and II devices, 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.8.2. HUMIDITY.- If a particular humidity limit is not specified in the operating instructions, the weighing device must satisfy the

conditions defined in paragraphs T.3. through T.7. inclusive within

10 to 95% relative humidty, non -condensing, except for Class I devices for which the limits shall be 40 to 80% relative humidity.

233
T.8.3. ELECTRIC POWER SUPPLY.

T.8.3.1. POWER SUPPLY, VOLTAGE AND FREQUENCY.

(a) Weighing devices that operate js'^z i' ze^.it'^g current

must perform within the conditions :e

r "' r ed in paragraphs

T.3. through T.7. inclusive over the line voltage -*ange of

100-130 volts rms and over the frequency range of 59.5 to 60.5 Hz.

(b) Battery operated instruments shall not indicate or record

values in excess of the applicable tolerance values caused

by excessive or deficient battery power output.

T.3.3.2. POWER INTERRUPTION.- An indicating or recording

ele~e r : s r a" not c'-'so'ay or record any out-of -to -e^ance /a'ues

caused by power interruptions.

T.8.4. BAROMETRIC PRESSURE.- The zero indication must not vary by more than one scale division for a change ir barometric o^essj^e of 1 kilopascal over the total barometric pressure range of 112 to 124

ki looasca Is 22 to 3" J -ones of Hg .

'JR. USE - REQUIREMENTS

UR.l. SELECTION REQUIREMENTS.- Equipment s-a"" :e suitable for the

service which it -'s used with ^esoect to elements of its design,

^ n :"^:' r c but not

"

: ~-'ted to, its capacity, n J -:e i" :*' sca'e ::

, J sions,

value of c^e scale division, nin-'mur :aoacity, and comput'rg caoability.

JR. 1.1. 3ENERAL.- ~ne

J ~.~ o'ass of device f o

r use i n particular

weighing applications shall be as shown in Table 5.

TABLE 5.- Class of Weighing Devices for Particular Applications

CI ass Wei ghi ng Aop

1

•' o at

J z^

I : '-eo's

J :

r" .aooratory Weighing

II Precision Laboratory *e

r ---ec'o^s beta's = r; - 3e~ Zoning

III All Conmercial Weighing not otherwise specified

III L Vehicle Weighing

Axle Load Weighing

Livestock * e

g

J °

g

Rail way Weighing

1 1 1 1 Wheel Load Weighing

Service Weighing (non-custody transfer

22-
UR.1.2. GRAIN HOPPER SCALES.- The minimum number of divisions for a Class III Hopper Scale used for weighing grain shall be 2 000.

.2. INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS.

UR.2.1. SUPPORTS.- A scale that is portable and that is being used

on a counter or table or on the floor shall be so positioned that it

is firmly and securely supported.

UR.2.2. SUSPENSION OF HANGING SCALE.- A hanging scale shall be

freely suspended from a fixed support when in use. UR.2.3. PROTECTION FROM ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS.- The indicating

elements, the lever system or load cells, and the load receiving

element of a permanently installed scale, and the indicating elements

of a scale not intended to be permanently installed, shall be

adequately protected from environmental factors such as wind,

weather, and RFI which may adversely affect the operation or performance of the device.

UR.2.4. FOUNDATION, SUPPORTS, AND CLEARANCE.- The foundation and supports of any scale installed in a fixed location shall be such as

to provide strength, rigidity, and permanence of all components, and clearance shall be provided around all live parts to the extent that

no contacts may result when the load-receiving element is empty and

throughout the weighing range of the scale, on motor truck and

livestock scales the clearance between the load receiving elements

and the coping at the bottom edge of the platform shall be greater

than at the top edge of the platform, (Nonretroactive as of 1973)

UR.2.5. ACCESS TO PIT.- Adequate provision shall be made for ready

access to the pit of a permanently installed vehicle, livestock, or animal scale for purposes of inspection and maintenance.

UR.2.6. APPROACHES.

UR.2.6.1, TO VEHICLE SCALES.- On the approach end or ends of a vehicle scale installed in any one location for a period of six

months or more, there shall be a straight approach as follows:

(a) the width at least the width of the platform, and

(b) the length at least one-half the length of the

platform but not required to be more than 40 feet, and

(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;

and further, where deemed necessary for drainage

purposes, the remaining portion of the approach may

slope slightly. (Nonretroactive as of 1976)

235
UR. 2.6.2. TO AXLE LOAD SCALES.- At each end of an axle load

scale there shall be a straight paved approach in the same plane

as the platform. The approaches shall be the same width as the

platform and of sufficient length to insure the level

positioning of vehicles during weight determinations.

UR.2.7. STOCK RACKS.- A livestock or animal scale shall be equipped

with a suitable stock rack, with gates as required, which shall be

securely mounted on the scale platform. Adequate clearances shall be

maintained around the outside of the rack.

UR.2.8. HOISTS.- On motor vehicle scales equipped with means for

raising the load receiving element from the weighing element for

vehicle unloading, suitable means shall be provided so that it is readily apparent to the weigher when the load receiving element is in

its designed weighing position.

.3. USE REQUIREMENTS

.

UR.3.1. MINIMUM LOAD.- A minimum load is specified in Table 6 to indicate that the use of a device to weigh light loads is likely to result in large relative errors. UR.3.2. MAXIMUM LOAD.- A scale shall not be used to weigh a load more than the nominal capacity of the scale.

TABLE 6.- MINIMUM LOAD

Value of the Minimum Load

Scale Division (Min)

Class (d or e*) (d or e*)

I d(e) > 0.001 g 100

II 0.001 g <d(e) < 0.05 g 20 d(e) > 0.1 g 50

III & 1 1 1 L All 20 IIII All 10 *For Class I and II devices equipped with auxiliary reading means,

i.e., a rider, a vernier, or a least significant decimal differentiated by size, shape or color, the value of the verification scale

division (e) is the value of the scale division immediately preceding

the auxi 1 i ary means.

236
UR.3.3. SINGLE-DRAFT VEHICLE WEIGHING.- A vehicle or a coupled

vehicle combination shall be commercially weighed on a vehicle scale

only as a single draft. That is, the total weight of such a vehicle

or combination shall not be determined by added together the results

obtained by separately and not simultaneously weighing each end of

such vehicle or individual elements of such coupled combination.

However,

(a) the weight of a coupled combination may be determined by

uncoupling the various elements (tractor, semitrailer,

trailer), weighing each unit separately as a single draft,

and adding together the results, and

(b) the weight of a vehicle or coupled-vehicle combination may

be determined by adding together the weights obtained while

all individual elements are resting simultaneously on more

than one scale platform.

UR.3.4. WHEEL-LOAD WEIGHING.

UR.3.4.1. USE IN PAIRS.- When wheel-load weighers are to be

regularly used in pairs, both weighers of each such pair shall

be appropriately marked to identify them as weighers intended to be used in combination.

UR.3.4. 2. LEVEL CONDITION.- A vehicle for which either an axle-load determination or a gross-load determination is being

made utilizing wheel-load weighers, shall be in a reasonably

level position at the time of such determination.

UR.3.5. SPECIAL DESIGNS.- A scale designed and marked for a special

application (such as a prepackaging scale) shall not be used for

other than its intended purpose.

UR.3.6. WET COMMODITIES.- Wet fish and other wet commodities shall

be weighed only on scales on which the pans or platforms will drain

properly.

237
UR.4. MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS.

UR.4.1. BALANCE CONDITION.- The zero-load adjustment of a scale

shall be maintained so that, with no load on the load-receiving

element and with all load-counterbalancing elements of the scale such

as poises, drop weights, or counterbalance weights set to zero, the

scale shall indicate or record a zero balance condition. A scale not equipped to indicate or record a zero-load balance shall be

maintained in balance under any no-load condition.

UR.4. 2. LEVEL CONDITION.- If a scale is equipped with a level-indicating means, the scale shall be maintained in level.

UR.4. 3. SCALE MODIFICATION.- Neither the length nor the width of the

load-receiving element of a scale shall be increased beyond the

manufacturer's design dimension, nor shall the capacity of a scale be

increased beyond its design capacity by replacing or modifying the

original primary indicating or recording element with one of a higher

capacity, except when the modification has been approved by competent

engineering authority, preferably that of the engineering department

of the manufacturer of the scale, and by the weights and measures

authority having jurisdiction over the scale.

Footnote: Prepackaging scales (and other commercial devices) used

for putting up packages in advance of sale are acceptable for use in commerce if all appropriate provisions of Handbook 44 are met. Users of such devices must be alert to the legal requirements relating to the

declaration of quantity on a package. Such requirements are to the effect

that, on the average, the contents of the individual packages of a particular commodity comprising a lot, shipment, or delivery must contain

at least the quantity declared on the label. The fact that a prepackaging

scale may overregister , but within established tolerances, and is approved

for commercial service is not a legal justification for packages to contain, on the average, less than the labeled quantity.

238
301-2 PRECISION BALANCES

In last year's report, the Comnittee indicated that the existing

requirements in the Scale Code did not adequately cover balances. It recommended that when these balances are being officially examined, due

regard should be given to the appropriateness of each code requirement

when applied to balances with special consideration for the use of the

equipment; for example, in laboratories when used by skilled technicians

or when used in the marketplace by precious metals and jewelry dealers.

The Committee also stated that when the new Scale Code is adopted most

problems will be resolved.

The Committee reconfirms that position.

(Item 301-2 was adopted)

301-3 AUTOMATIC GRAIN BULK WEIGHING SYSTEMS

In last year's Report to the Conference there was an item titled "Scales

Used for Weighing Grain." In this item a letter from the Federal Grain

Inspection Service (FGIS) was included in which they offered their

whole-hearted cooperation and requested the Committee to consider the

development of a separate code for automatic grain bulk weighing systems.

The letter further stated that it was their ultimate goal to eliminate

FGIS regulations applicable to scales used for weighing grain. In this

spirit of cooperation, the Committee's technical advisor, in consultation

with a staff member of FGIS did develop a draft code for automatic grain

bulk weighing systems. During the interim meeting the Committee reviewed

this draft code, decided that it had considerable merit, and that it could

be applicable to not only grain but all automatic bulk weighing systems.

However, it is the view of the Committee that additional changes would be

necessary if it were to be applied to other automatic bulk weighing

applications, and is not prepared to make those changes at this time. The

Committee then referred this draft code to the National Type Evaluation

Technical Committee (NTETC), requesting their review and comment. During

its meeting held February 8 and 9, 1983, the Technical Committee did

review this material and the draft code that follows is the result. The

Committee recommends the adoption of this code and further recommends that

if the Conference acts affirmatively the new scale code and format be

amended if necessary to embody the principles and requirements of this

draft code into it.

239
AUTOMATIC BULK WEIGHING SYSTEMS FOR GRAIN

A. APPLICATION

A-l. GENERAL.- This code applies to automatic bulk weighing systems for

grain; that is, a weighing system adapted to the automatic weighing of

grain in successive drafts of predetermined amounts automatically

recording the no-load and loaded weight values and accumulating the net weight of each draft.

A-2. See also General Code Requirements.

S. SPECIFICATIONS

S.l. DESIGN OF INDICATING AND RECORDING ELEMENTS AND RECORDED

REPRESENTATIONS.

5.1.1. ZERO INDICATION.- Provisions shall be made to indicate and

record a no-load reference value and if the no-load reference value

is a zero value indication, to indicate and record an out-of-balance

condition on both sides of zero.

S.l. 1.1. DIGITAL ZERO INDICATION.- A digital zero indication

shall represent a balance condition that is within plus or minus

1/2 the value of the scale division.

5.1. 2. VALUE OF SCALE DIVISION (d).- The value of the scale division

(d) expressed in a unit of weight shall be equal to:

(a) 1, 2, or 5, or

(b) a decimal multiple or submultiple of 1, 2, or 5, or

(c) a binary submultiple of a unit of weight.

Examples: Scale divisions may be .01, .02, or .05; .1, .2, or .5; 1, 2, or 5; 10, 20, or 50; or 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/16, etc.

5.1. 3. CAPACITY INDICATION AND RECORDED REPRESENTATION.- An indicating or recording element shall not indicate or record any

values when the gross load is in excess of 105% of the capacity of

the system.

5.1. 4. WEIGHING SEQUENCE.- For systems used to receive (weigh in)

the no-load reference value shall be determined and recorded only at the beginning of each weighing cycle. For systems used to deliver

(weigh out), the no-load reference value shall be determined and

recorded only after the gross load reference value for each weighing

cycle has been indicated and recorded.

5.1. 5. RECORDING SEQUENCE.- Provision shall be made so that all weight values are indicated until the completion of the recording of

the indicated value.

240
S.I .6. 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.

5.2. DESIGN OF BALANCE AND DAMPING MECHANISM.

5.2.1. ZERO-LOAD ADJUSTMENT.- The weighing system shall be equipped

with manual or semiautomatic means by which the zero-load balance or no-load reference value indication may be adjusted. An automatic

zero setting mechanism is prohibited.

5.2.1. 1. MANUAL.- A manual zero-load or no-load reference value

setting mechanism shall be operable or accessible only by a tool

outside of or entirely separate from this mechanism or enclosed

in a cabinet.

5.2.1. 2. SEMIAUTOMATIC- A semiautomatic zero-load or no load

reference value setting mechanism shall meet the provisions of

S.2.1. 1. or shall be operable only when:

(a) the indication is stable within plus or minus 3 scale

divisions, and

(b) cannot be operated during a weighing operation.

5.2.2. DAMPING MEANS.- A system shall be equipped with effective

means necessary to bring the indications quickly to a readable, stable

equilibrium. Effective means shall also be provided to permit the

recording of weight values only when the indication is stable within

plus or minus 3 scale divisions for devices with 10 000 scale

divisions, or plus minus 1 division for devices with less than 10 000

scale divisions.

5.3. INTERLOCKS AND GATE CONTROL.

5.3.1. GATE POSITION.- Provision shall be made to clearly indicate

to the operator the position of the gates leading directly to and

from the weigh hopper.

5.3.2. INTERLOCKS.- Each automatic bulk weighing system shall have

operating interlocks to provide for the following:

(a) Product cannot be cycled and weighed if the weight recording

element is disconnected or subjected to a power loss.

(b) The recording element cannot print a weight if either of the

gates leading directly to or from the weigh hopper is open.

(c) A "low paper" sensor, when provided, is activated.

(d) The system will operate only in the proper sequence in all

modes of operation.

241
S.4. DESIGN OF WEIGHING ELEMENTS.

S.4.1. ANTIFRICTION MEANS.- At all points at which a live part of the mechanism may come into contact with another part in the course

of normal usage, fractional effects shall be reduced to a minimum by means of suitable antifriction means, opposing surfaces, and points

being properly shaped, finished, and hardened.

S .4.2. ADJUSTABLE COMPONENTS.- An adjustable component, such as a potentiometer, shall be held securely in adjustment and, except for a component for adjusting level or a no-load reference value shall not

be adjustable from the outside of the device.

S .4.3. MULTIPLE LOAD-RECEIVING ELEMENTS.- A system with a single

indicating or recording element, or a combination indicating-recording

element, that is coupled to two or more load-receiving elements with

independent weighing systems, shall be provided with means to prohibit

the activation of any load-receiving element (or elements) not in use, and shall be provided with automatic means to indicate clearly

and definitely which load-receiving element (or elements) is in use. S.4.4. VENTING.- All weighing systems shall be vented so that any

internal or external pressure will not affect the accuracy or operation of the system.

S.5. MARKING REQUIREMENTS. (See also G-S.l.)

5.5.1. CAPACITY AND VALUE OF THE SCALE DIVISION.- The capacity of the weighing system and the value of the scale division shall be

clearly and conspicuously marked on the indicating element near the

weight value indications.

5.5.2. 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's designation that

positively identifies the pattern or design, and the nominal capacity.

N. NOTES

N.l. TESTING PROCEDURES.

N.l.l. INCREASING LOAD TEST.- An increasing load test shall be

conducted with test weights equal to 10% of the capacity of the

system. (Non-retroactive as of January 2, 1984.) A buildup test using bulk material shall be conducted in increments equal to the

total value of the official test weights; the test shall be conducted

to the used capacity of the weighing system.

242
N.1.2. ZERO BALANCE OR NO-LOAD REFERENCE VALUE CHANGE.- A zero-balance or no-load reference value change 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.

N.1.3. ZONE OF UNCERTAINTY TEST.- A zone of uncertainty test shall

be conducted under controlled conditions in which environmental

factors are reduced to the extent that they will not affect the

results obtained.

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).

T. TOLERANCES

T.l. TOLERANCE APPLICATION.- Tolerance values shall be applied to all indications and recorded representations of a weighing system.

T.l.l. TO ERRORS OF UNDERREGISTRATION AND OVERREGI STRATION . - The

tolerances hereinafter prescribed shall be applied equally to errors

of underregistration and errors of overregistration.

T.l. 2. TO INCREASING LOAD TESTS.- Basic tolerances shall be applied.

T.2. MINIMUM TOLERANCE VALUES.- The minimum tolerance value shall not be

less than half the value of the scale division.

T.3. BASIC TOLERANCE VALUES.- The basic maintenance tolerance shall be one pound per 1000 pounds of test load (0.1 percent). The basic

acceptance tolerance shall be one-half the basic maintenance tolerance.

UR. USER REQUIREMENTS

UR.l. SELECTION REQUIREMENTS,- The number of scale divisions of a weighing system shall not be less than 4 000 or greater than 10 000 for a system

with a capacity greater than 10 000 pounds, and not less than 2 OOO or greater than 10 OOO for a system with a capacity equal to or less than

10 OOO pounds. (Non-retroactive and enforceable as of January 2, 1984.)

Examples:

System

Capacity

20 000

40 000

60 000

100 000

120 000

200 000

Value of

Scale

Division

5(2)

10(5)

1020(10)

2050(20)

No. of

Scale

Divis ions

4 000

4 000

6 000

000

000

000

Maximum No, of Scale

Divisions

10 000

8 000

10 000

10 000

243
UR.2. INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS.

UR.2.1. PROTECTION FROM ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS.- The indicating

elements, the lever system or load cells, the load-receiving element,

and any permanently installed test weights shall be adequately

protected from environmental factors such as wind, weather, and RFI which may adversely affect the operation or performance of the device.

UR.2. 2. FOUNDATION, SUPPORTS, AND CLEARANCE.- The foundation and

supports of any system shall be such as to provide strength, rigidity,

and permanence of all components, and clearance shall be provided

around all live parts to the extent that no contacts may result when

the load-receiving element is empty and throughout the weighing range

of the scale.

UR.3. LOADING REQUIREMENTS.- A system shall not be used to weigh drafts

less than 40% of the weighing capacity of the system except for a final

partial draft. Loads shall not normally be retained on the weighing

element for a period longer than a normal weighing cycle.

UR.4. SYSTEM MODIFICATION.- The weighing system shall not be modified

except when the modification has been approved by a competent engineering

authority preferably that of the engineering department of the manufacturer

of the scale, and the authority having jurisdiction over the scale.

Amend Scale Code paragraph A.l. GENERAL, by adding in the second line

after the words belt conveyor scales the words "and automatic bulk

weighing systems for grain."

(A motion was made to amend this item by including in N.l.l.

a requirement that the amount of test weights be 1 000 times

the value of the scale division. The Chair recognized a majority vote to debate. The motion to amend was defeated.

Item 301-3 was adopted.)

301-4 UR.1.1.4. VALUE OF THE SCALE DIVISION/FOR GRAIN HOPPER SCALES

ONLY

The Committee received comments from a Regional Association, that this

requirement was not adequate to cover small capacity grain hopper scales.

For example, a 2 000-pound capacity hopper scale would only be required to have a 10-pound division. The recommendation of this Regional Association

to resolve the problem is to require these devices to have a minimum

number of scale divisions, and specifically 2 000. Thus a 2 000-pound

capacity hopper scale would be required to have a 1-pound scale division,

a 1 000-pound capacity, a 0.5-pound scale division, a 10 000-pound

capacity a 5-pound division.

The Committee agrees with this suggestion and recommends that this

requirement be amended by adding the following non -retro act i ve sentence at the end of the paragraph.

244
In any case, the value of the scale division shall not be greater

than 0.05% (1/2 000) of scale capacity.

(Item 301-4 was adopted)

301-5 S.l.l. ZERO INDICATION-POSITIVE VALUE/NO-LOAD REFERENCE

At the conclusion of the Committee's report to last years Conference, a group of Conference attendees requested a brief meeting with the Committee

to discuss what they considered to be a problem in interpreting this

paragraph for a certain weighing application. The Committee agreed that a problem did exist, and as a result, the Committee developed an interpretation which was circulated to all State officers in a memo dated October 25,

1982. The information and interpretation contained in that memo is as follows:

"The National Conference on Weights and Measures Specifications and

Tolerances Committee has been requested to express their opinion with

respect to the use of a positive value no-load reference for devices other

than automatic bulk weighing systems.

The Committee dealt with this issue for automatic bulk weighing systems

and presented their view in their report to the 66th NCWM in 1981. That

information can be found in Item 303-7, pages 152-154 (a copy is enclosed

for your convenience).

The specific application for which the Committee has been requested to provide an opinion is a receiving hopper scale, manually operated, single

draft, installed below grade , and used to receive grain in a direct sale at grain elevators. This type of device replaces a vehicle scale with a dump.

It is the view of the Committee that a positive value no-load reference

can be used if the principles expressed in the aforementioned criteria

applicable to automatic bulk weighing systems are met; e.g.,

1. If the device is used to receive grain, the no-load reference value is displayed and recorded first.

2. All values are recorded; i.e., (a) no load, (b) full load, and (c) net

load, and are included with the information provided to the seller.

3. An effective motion detection system is provided consistent with the

requirements of NBS Handbook 44 with respect to a semi-automatic (push

button) zero and the recording element.

4. The values are displayed during the printing cycle.

5. Some guarantee and indication that the discharge gates on the weigh

hopper and garner are closed during the weighing and printing cycle,

and that both cannot be open at the same time.

6. The method used to transport the grain from the weigh hopper cannot be

operated during the weighing cycle.

245
7. The system shuts down automatically when it fails to operate in accordance with its design."

After this memo was circulated, one State responded that if this

requirement was in need of such an interpretation it should be reviewed

and amended.

To clarify this situation the Committee recommends code amendment as

f ol lows

:

Add a new paragraph S. 1.1.1. to read:

S. 1.1.1. NO LOAD REFERENCE VALUE.- On a single-draft manually-operated

receiving hopper scale installed below grade, used to receive grain,

and utilizing a no-load reference value, provision shall be made to indicate and record the no-load reference value prior to the gross

load value.

(Item 301-5 was adopted)

*301-6 DYNAMIC WEIGHING OF MOTOR TRUCKS FOR ENFORCEMENT PURPOSES

This subject has appeared in the Committee reports of the last two years

as informational items, requesting any data available. The Federal

Highway Administration has also requested that the Committee seriously

consider recommending code amendment in recognition of these devices. The

only information available to the Committee at the present time is that

these devices have been used with varying degrees of success as screening

devices; that is, they have been installed along highways for screening

out trucks that are obviously light enough to proceed without going to the

scales used for official weight determination.

It is the view of the Committee that if these devices can perform within

the same accuracy limits as wheel-load weighers ( + 2%), they would be

equally as appropriate for use. If it is necessary to restrict speeds to

less than 5 mph to attain this accuracy, certain restrictions such as the

impossibility of indicating any values when the vehicle speed will present

weight values in excess of + 2%, must be included. If approaches can also cause inaccuracies, then specific criteria for approaches must also be

developed

.

Although the Committee is receptive to the suggestion to recognize this

equipment by code amendment, it is not aware of any data developed in the

U.S. that indicate that this equipment can perform within the previously

mentioned criteria. Thus it does not recommend code amendment until

sufficient data are available. The Committee requests that any data be

forwarded to the Committee for its consideration at the next interim

meeting

.

246
301-7 UR.3.5. SINGLE-DRAFT VEHICLE WEIGHING

It was brought to the attention of the Committee during its interim

meeting by a representative of the Federal Highway Administration that

this paragraph caused problems for officials in enforcing gross load

overweights using wheel load weighers. Paragraph UR.3.6. does provide for

gross weight determinations using wheel-load weighers; however truckers

are successfully defending themselves by referencing UR.3.5. which

prohibits two-draft weighing for "commercial purposes."

To resolve this issue and clearly indicate to the courts that wheel-load

weighers and axle load scales may be used for determining gross loads for

enforcement purposes only, the Committee recommends that paragraph UR.3.5.

be amended by adding the following sentence to the end of this requirement;

This requirement is not applicable when obtaining gross load weights

for highway weight limit enforcement purposes.

(Item 301-7 was defeated)

301-8 MENU SERVICE SCALES

This subject was included in last year's report of the Committee and was defeated by a narrow margin. Two regional associations addressed this

issue at their meetings following last years Conference and recommended

this subject be brought to the floor once again supporting adoption of the

item as previously presented. The rationale of the Committee for the

recognition of these devices and adoption of appropriate design and

operational characteristics is as follows:

(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 conspicuously marked "For Menu Service Only."

(b) Since almost all sales are in amounts less than one pound, it is considered appropriate to have scale divisions in units of ounces rather than pounds. Thus, unit prices are expressed in terms of price

per ounce.

247
(c) The appropriate value for the scale division is 0.05 ounce for

several reasons. An equivalent value expressed in pounds is 0.003125. Since that value (0.003125) is impossible to utilize as a real scale division, other designs would present scale divisions of

0.005 pound or 0.01 pound. In these instances the precision is decreased by a factor of 2 or 3, resulting in a greater uncertainty

and less equity for each sale. For example, at a unit price of 20£

per ounce, the uncertainty with 0.05-ounce divisions is + 0.5 cent,

with 0.005-pound divisions it is 0.8 cent, and with 0.01 pound

divisions it is 1.6 cents.

(d) Because the error that can result in random weighing can be large

due to the scale division value, the device should not be used to weigh loads less than 20d (1 ounce), and the scale should be so marked. Applying this same principle to devices equipped with

0.005-pound divisions the minimum load would be increased to 0.1 pound

(1.6 ounce) and with 0.01-pound divisions the minimum load would be

increased to 0.2 pound (3.2 ounces).

(e) Although the scale will seldom if ever be used to weigh amounts

greater than one or two pounds, it is considered appropriate to have a scale capacity of 160 ounces (10 pounds). This allows existing

weighing elements of that magnitude to be used; a new design is unnecessary thus realizing a more efficient marketing and measurement

system.

The Committee reconfirms its position, reminding the Conference that these

devices are being used equitably and successfully in several States, and

although this merchandising practice is somewhat limited, should most certainly be recognized.

Therefore the Comnittee recommends code amendment as follows:

Add new User Requirement to read:

UR. 1.1.2. FOR MENU SERVICE SCALES.- The value of the scale division

shall be not greater than 0.05 ounce. Amend S. 1.6.3. CUSTOMERS INDICATIONS by adding the following to the

end of the paragraph.

except on menu service scales, which shall compute and display

unit prices in terms of a whole ounce.

Add a definition as follows: menu service scale, a scale designed, marked, and used to weigh one or more elements comprising a meal for consumption on the premises.

(Item 301-8 was defeated)

248
*301-9 MULTI-RANGE SCALES

The Committee again reviewed the information available on this subject,

and then referred its recommendations to the NTETC for its review and comment. The Technical Committee, during its meeting of February 8 and 9,

1983, did review this material and its recommendations, endorsed by the

Committee, appear in Item 301-14 of this report.

*301-10 GRAIN TEST SCALES

Once again in the spirit of cooperation toward uniformity and equity, the

Committee reviewed the requirements of FGIS applicable to this equipment

and developed recommendations for specific code interpretations. These

recommendations were also referred to the NTETC for review and comment and

the results, endorsed by the Committee, appear in Item 301-14 of this

report.

301-11 UR. 2.6.1. APPROACHES/TO VEHICLE SCALES

This subject appeared in the interim meeting report of the Committee last

year. The problem referenced was with subsection (c) of this requirement,

that allowed a slope in that portion of the approach beyond the initial 10 feet for drainage purposes. The amount of slope allowable in this part is described as "slightly" and it was recorrm ended* that the word slightly be

eliminated and the amount of slope be described in more definitive terms;

e.g. one-half inch per foot.

After several motions were made from the floor during last years

Conference, a motion to table was passed.

Since last years Conference and at its interim meeting the Committee

received several comments on this subject. The Committee discussed at length the problems with steep approaches such as the difficulty in removing test weights from the rear of a test truck with the truck sloping

toward the front; the possible undue wear of the scale when trucks must

pull up an incline to gain access to the platform and that semi -tractors

and trailers may "drag." The Committee also discussed the problems for

scale purchasers with limited space when new scales of greater length are

to be installed.

Therefore, the Committee recommends as a practical solution that paragraph

(c) 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 equal to the sectional capacity of the scale may

be installed in this portion; afld further? where deemed neeessary for

drainage purposes? the remaining pertien ef the approach may slope

249
sightly- Any slope in the remaining portion of the approach shall

insure (1) ease of vehicle access, (?) ease for testing purposes, and

(3) drainage away from the scale . (Nonretroactive as of 1976}

Amended 1977 and 1983 . (Item 301-11 was adopted)

301-12 T.3.8.4. WEIGHING COUPLED IN MOTION USED FOR UNIT TRAIN WEIGHTS

The Committee received a comment from representatives of the Railroads

that this paragraph as adopted by the Conference last year should be

amended by adding the following sentence. "Individual car weights shall be recorded for determining overloads."

Their rationale for this requirement is that the recording of individual

car weights is essential for detecting overloaded cars. During the

discussion on this item at last years Conference, several officials

expressed their concern that if individual car weights are recorded, these

values could be used in a commercial transaction. This was considered to be clearly inappropriate since there is no limit on the accuracy of these

individual car weights.

The Committee is of the view that there is no prohibition on recording

individual car weights, and recognizes the problem for weights and measures officials and the Railroad Industry.

To resolve this issue the Committee will confer with all affected parties

and make a positive recommendation in its interim meeting report of 1984.

(Item 301-12 was adopted)

*301-13 SELF-OPERATED RECYCLING MATERIALS DEVICES AND SYSTEMS

During the last several years, recycling centers have been established in

many locations in the U.S. The various products that can be sold are aluminum cans and other alumi num materi al , steel cans, glass bottles, and

newspapers. The largest volume product is aluminum cans. Many methods are used to determine the quantity of product, including conventional scales,

manual counting, and reverse vending machines, which accept cans placed in the machine and weigh or count them and dispense coins and/or coupons.

Since this is a commercial transaction involving a determination of

quantity, it is a weights and measures concern. However, many of the

devices used, by reason of special design, do not fall clearly within one of the particular equipment classes for which separate codes have been

established in NBS H-44. There is no code, for example, for counting

machines. It is the view of the Committee that some criteria should be

developed to determine the appropriateness of counting machines for this

use, as well as other equipment utilizing some form of weighing device.

250
Thus, the Committee offers the following guidance to the Conference in evaluating this equipment.

The primary consideration is the performance of the device and the test methods used to determine compliance with the performance specified. In the case of these devices, these two factors are so interrelated that they

must be considered together. Since in most cases tests with physical

artifact standards are either not possible or the results are not indicative of the performance, the best test method is a material test using the product intended to be weighed or counted. Since material tests

introduce more uncertainties in the testing process, this must be

considered in developing appropriate tolerances.

In H-44 Fundamental Considerations, it is stated that "tolerance values are

so fixed that the permissible errors are sufficiently small that there is no serious injury to either the buyer or seller of commodities, yet not so small as to make manufacturing or maintenance costs of equipment disproportionately high." Another way of stating this is simply "economic impact."

Some of the economic factors to be considered are: cost of manufacture

and maintenance of the device, cost of the product being measured, volume

of individual sales, and the economic value of measurement errors.

In applying these factors to a reverse vending machine, which counts or weighs cans, the following example can be developed:

a) the average weight of a 12-ounce can is 0.04 pound or 2/3 ounce

b) there are approximately 24 cans per pound or one case per pound

c) the average sale according to some market research is four to five pounds

d) the present market value is 18£ to 24£ per pound.

In extending these values to the marketplace, if a family accumulates 2 cases (48 cans) in a week, they will have accumulated 8 cases or approximately 8 pounds in a month. If the market value at the reverse vending machine is 25£ per pound, the total value of their one month's

accumulation is $2.00. It would seem that an error of 10# per month or $1.20 per year could hardly be considered significant. Converted to relative terms this would be 5%. From a weights and measures standpoint 5% seems to be a relatively high

figure. To aid in evaluating the appropriateness of 5%, other examples

must be considered. This same family may well have an average monthly

electric bill of $50.00. Since a kilowatthour meter is a + 2% device, the

effect on this family of a 2% error is $1.00 per month or $12.00 per year.

Thus, the economic impact of the 2% device is 10 times that of a 5% device.

251
Another example is this family's consumption of gasoline to operate their

automobiles. If a car is driven 15,000 miles per year, at 20 miles per

gallon the consumption is 750 gallons per year or 62.5 gallons per month.

If the average cost of gas is $1.25 per gallon, the monthly cost is $78,125. Since the tolerance on a gas pump is 0.5% the value of that error

is $0.39. Thus, the economic impact with a device 10 times more accurate, can result in an error almost 4 times as great.

There are many other examples that could be cited that would produce

similar results. It is on this basis that the Committee considers that a 5% tolerance on a material test of these devices meets all of the criteria

and is appropriate.

A secondary consideration is the design and operating characteristics of

the device. Since these devices are a special design and do not fall

clearly within a particular equipment class for which there is a separate

code, certain code provisions and requirements can be applied only with

due regard to their design, intended purpose, and conditions of use. It

is the view of the Committee that particular attention should be given to the following requirements of the General Code.

- G.S.I. Identification.

- G.S.6. Marking Operational Controls, Indications, and Features.

(Proper and complete operating instructions should be displayed to the customer.)

- G.S.7. Lettering. (All required markings shall be distinct and

easily readable and reasonably permanent.)

- G-UR.1.1. Suitability of Equipment. (In determining the

appropriateness of the value of the scale division, the ratio of

the average draft to the value of the scale division should be at least 75:1 for small drafts of one pound or less and at least

200:1 for larger drafts.)

- G-UR.1.2. Environment.

- G-UR.2.1. Installation.

- G-UR.2.3. Accessibility for Testing Purposes.

- G-UR.3.1. Method of Operation.

- G-UR.3.4. Responsibility - Money Operated Devices (including the

posting of the unit price).

- G.UR.4.4. Assistance in Testing Operations (supplying cans for

test materi als etc. )

.

These devices are still under study and if anyone has any comments or seeks

further advice please contact the National Conference on Weights and

Measures, Specifications and Tolerances Committee, c/o Office of Weights

and Measures, National Bureau of Standards, Washington, D.C. 20234.

252
301-14 REPORT OF THE NATIONAL TYPE EVALUATION TECHNICAL COMMITTEE

(NT ETC)

This Technical Committee (Scales and Weighing Systems Section) met for a one-half day session during the week of the interim meetings and once

again for a two-day session February 8 and 9, 1983. This Technical

Committee undertook a tremendous amount of work and the results are voluminous. Since their output contains far too much material to be

included in this report, it will be produced as a separate document, and

will be circulated prior to the Conference to all the States and other

interested organizations.

The Committee greatly appreciates the help of the Technical Committee and

views this cooperative effort as vital in attaining the goals of the

Conference.

An outline of the subjects covered by the Technical Committee for

inclusion in the new Handbook, Type Evaluation Examinations, Criteria, and Test Procedures, is presented below. The Committee recommends adoption by

the Conference of the Technical Committee's output in its entirety.

1. Electronic Cash Register Type Evaluation Check List

2. Interpretations applicable to Weigh-In/Weigh-Out Systems

3. Interpretations applicable to systems equipped with multiple

weighing elements and a single indicator

4. Interpretations applicable to multi-range scales

5. Interpretations applicable to grain test scales

6. Additional interpretations applicable to electronic digital

indicating devices

7. Additional interpretations for

(a) Identification plate location

(b) Motion indication means

c) Manual weight entries

d) Devices using magnetic-force restoration principle

8. A definition of "type" for the Model Regulation

9. Further refinements of type definition and parameters for models

of a type submitted for evaluation

(Item 301-14 was adopted)

*302 SECTION 2.21. BELT-CONVEYOR SCALE CODE

The Committee has identified three existing documents applicable to Belt

Conveyor Scales that are National or International in scope and is aware that there are others regional in scope. The three documents are:

o NBS H-44 - Belt Conveyor Scale Code

o OIML International Recommendation #50 - Continuous Totalizing

Weighing Machines

o Instrument Society of America (ISA) Draft Recommended Practice - Continuous Belt Weigh Scales

253
It is the view of the Conmittee that there 'is a need to review these

documents, to recommend amendment to NBS H-44 where necessary, and to attempt to bring all documents into harmonization as closely as practicable. This is no small task and since the establishment of

Technical Committees to deal with special problems has been so successful,

the Committee has recommended to the Conference Chairman that such a Technical Committtee be appointed. Represented on this Technical Committee

should be Weights and Measures Officials, Users and Manufacturers of Belt

Conveyors Scales, ISA, and other regional organizations involved in the

testing of these devices. The Conference Chairman agrees that this effort

should be undertaken and has assured the Committee that an organizational

meeting will be scheduled during this years Conference, and that he will

appoint the members of this Technical Committee to be chaired by a member

of the S&T Committee.

Interested individuals are urged to contact the Conference Chairman,

expressing their desire to participate in this effort, and attend this

years Conference and organizational meeting.

303 SECTION 3.30 LIQUID-MEASURING DEVICE CODE

303-1 RETAIL MOTOR FUEL DEVICES - DISPENSER/CONSOLE MONEY - VALUE

DIVISION AGREEMENT

This subject has been included in the last two reports of the Committee.

This item as it appeared in last years report and Conference action is as follows:

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:

5.1.4.4.3, MONEY-VALUE DIVISIONS AUXILIARY INDICATIONS.- In a system

equipped with auxiliary indications, all indicated money-value

divisions shall be identical. (Nonretroactive as of January 2, 1984).

This item was adopted by the 67th NCWM (1982).

The Committee received a communication, requesting that this subject be

reconsidered.

The Conmittee recommends that paragraph S. 1.4. 4. 3. be amended by changing

the parenthetical clause at the end of the paragraph to read

"(Non-retroactive and enforceable as of January 1, 1985)"

(Item 303-1 was adopted)

254
303-2 CERTAIN DEVICES USED TO MEASURE KEROSENE

a. With the increase in retail sales of kerosene, there has also been an increase in the demand for measuring devices and for adequate consumer information. Requests have been received by jurisdictions

to allow the use of stroke type pumps once used for retail sales of motor oil, anti-freeze and other petroleum products at service

stations. The Committee believes that these devices can meet

accuracy requirements, and can be acceptable for use providing they

meet the requirements of the code, with two amendments.

The recommended code amendments are: Amend S. 1.1.3. VALUE OF THE SMALLEST UNIT by adding the following phrase

at the beginning of the paragraph.

Except for manually operated devices equipped with stops or stroke

limiti ng means, . .

.

Amend S.2.4. STOP MECHANISM to read:

S.2.4. STOP MECHANISM.- If stops or other stroke-limiting elements

are subject to direct pressure or impact, the security of their

position shall be accomplished by positive, non frictional engagement

of parts and they shall be adjustable to provide for deliveries

within prescribed tolerances. The delivery for which the device is set at any time shall be conspicuously indicated If two or more

stops or other elements may selectively be brought into operation to permit deliveries of predetermined amounts, the position for the

proper setting of each such element shall be accurately defined, and

any inadvertent displacement from position shall be obstructed. an3

the-de^Uvery-f er-wh4€h-the-dev4ee-4s-set-a£-any-t4me-sha4}-be

GeRsp4eueus4y-4fid4eated7

(Item 303-2a was adopted)

b. Another vital concern to consumers is the proper identification of the product being dispensed. Thus the Committee recommends that

paragraph UR.3.2. Unit Price and Product Identity be amended by

changing the second sentence to read:

There shall be conspicuously displayed on each face of the device the

identity of the product that is being dispensed. , in the most

descriptive terms commercially practicable . (Item 303-2b was adopted)

255
303-3 N.4.2.2. SPECIAL TESTS/FOR RETAIL MOTOR-FUEL DEVICES

The Committee received comment that part (a) of this paragraph should be amended by adding a metric value equivalent to 5 gallons per minute.

Since metric equivalents to inch-pound values are seldom whole numbers, in

recommending an amendment to this paragraph the Committee advises the

Conference that any value in parenthesis is rounded to the least

significant digit (so called soft conversion) and any value in brackets is the value to be used when the unit in brackets is the primary value to be

applied (hard conversion).

Thus the Committee recommends amendment to part (a) to read,

(a) 5 gallons 19 liters per minute.

(Item 303-3 was adopted)

* 303-4 CASH-CREDIT-DEBIT/DISCOUNT PRICING

The Committee received a suggestion that requirements be added, if

necessary, applicable to the technology used for this marketing practice.

The suggestion included a comment that any new requirements or interpretations should provide for the following:

1. That a console interfaced with either an analog or digital

indicating dispenser may have the capability of recomputing at the console a displayed total price, if the total price to be paid is different from the value displayed on the dispenser.

2. Allow unit price selection at the dispenser.

3. Allow unit price selection at the console.

4. Allow any unit price displayed on the dispenser to remain

following a sale.

5. When the sale includes a pre-set amount, either a money value or

a quantity value, discount may be offered the consumer in terms

of money returned or additional product delivered.

The Committee agrees that these technical capabilities should be recognized with appropriate designs and that code amendment is not necessary, but that this can best be accomplished with a interpretative

references in the new Handbook, Type Evaluation Examinations, Criteria,

and Test Procedures. Thus the Committee referred this item to the

Technical Committee on National Type Evaluation.

256
303- 5 ARTIFICIAL HEATING OF PETROLEUM PRODUCTS

The Committee has received information that some retailers are artificially

heating certain petroleum products, including diesel fuel and fuel oil,

prior to measurement to the user. It is the view of the Committee that (1)

this practice, providing heating is not necessary to facilitate the

measurement process in a firmly established general practice, is fraudulent, (2) that code amendment is not necessary to prevent this activity,

and (3) that existing laws and regulations are sufficient to apply the

following principle:

"The temperature of all heating fuels and motor fuels during the

measurement process shall be that temperature of the product as attained and maintained in a normal storage environment, and shall not be artificially raised or lowered.

*303-6 TEMPERATURE COMPENSATION

A comment was received indicating there was a need for amending the

requirements of the Liquid -Measuri ng Device code that apply to temperature

compensators to recognize latest technology and methodology. Specific code

paragraphs referenced were S.2.6.4. THERMOMETER WELL WITH AUTOMATIC

TEMPERATURE COMPENSATION and UR.3.5.3. NONAUTOMATIC TEMPERATURE COMPENSATION. Other concerns were (a) allowable difference in temperatures taken

at the meter and at a location where the temperature may be taken for

nonautomatic temperature compensation purposes, (b) the time interval

automatic temperature probes should sense and input temperatures into the

system, and (c) that generally tolerances applicable to who/fesale meters

are excessive.

The Comnittee discussed at length these suggestions and those comments

offered on this item during the interim meeti-ng. As a result the

Committee does not see the need for code amendment and expresses the

following opinions.

In any system that corrects a measured volume to a volume at a specific temperature, it is essential that wherever the temperature is taken, and whatever the means used in determining the net quantity, an accurate quantity representation must result. If a temperature probe

is located at some distance from the meter and sends that information

to a micro-processor based instrument in which a specific value for

the cubical coefficient of thermal expansion of the product being

measured is pre-programmed, all of the elements of the system must provide correct results.

A consideration in determining the adequacy of a temperature determination

methodology is as follows:

257
The acceptance tolerance for a wholesale meter on a 500-gallon test draft is 137.5 cubic inches. Expressed as a percentage, the

tolerance is 0.12% (137.5 115 500 = 0.0011904). If the cubical

coefficient of thermal expansion for the product being measured is 0.0005 per °F, a 5 °F temperature difference represents a change

in volume equal to 0.0025 or 0.25%. This amount is greater than 2 times the meter acceptance tolerance and more than the maintenance

tolerance of 275 cubic inches. (500 gallons x 0.0025 = 1.25 gallons x 231 = 288.75 cubic inches)

This example clearly illustrates the need for an accurate temperature

measurement process.

With respect to the appropriateness of the present tolerance values on wholesale meters, it is the view of the Committee that they are too small

rather than too large. When one considers the many variables in the test

and measurement process, i.e., temperature, cubical coefficient of thermal

expansion of the prover material, the tolerance and uncertainty of the

prover, it is evident that tolerances should be increased. There is no question, however, that the meters used have the capability of a measurement precision or repeatability less than the tolerance limits.

303-7 REPORT OF THE NATIONAL TYPE EVALUATION TECHNICAL COMMITTEE

(NT ETC)

This Technical Committee (Meter and Measuring Systems Section) also met

during the week of the interim meetings. The meeting results were almost

as voluminous as those of the Scales and Weighing Systems Section and,

therefore, cannot be included in this report. This material too, will be circulated prior to the conference to all the States and other interested

organizations.

An outline of the subjects covered is presented below, and the Committee

recommends Conference adoption of the material as circulated in its

entirety for inclusion in the Handbook on Type Evaluation Examinations.

1. A section applicable to vehicle tank and wholesale meters.

2. Criteria applicable to service station equipment dealing with

the technical means for cash/credit-debit operations.

3. Referred back to S&T Committee a recommendation for code

amendment to S. 1.4.1. in the Code for Vehicle Tank Meters. (See Item 304-2).

(Item 303-7 was adopted)

304 SECTION 3.31. VEHICLE TANK METER CODE

304-1 TEMPERATURE COMPENSATION

This subject has been a part of the Committee's report for the last several

conferences, and the position of the Committee has been well documented and

has not changed. At last year's conference, the recommendation of the

258
committee to include requirements applicable to temperature compensation

technology in the code for vehicle tank ^meters was defeated. Those opposing the adoption of these requirements indicated that their main reason was that with automatic adoption of H-44 changes, it would allow for voluntary

temperature compensation in the retail sale of fuel oil. To avoid this

problem, their recommendation was to develop a separate code applicable to automatic temperature compensation.

Such a code was developed by a representative of the Northeast Conference,

and submitted to the Committee for its review. It is the view of the

Committee that it is not appropriate to have a separate code for

temperature compensation technology for the following reasons:

1. In the previously recommended amendments to the Vehicle Tank

Meter Code, paragraph UR.2.4. clearly states that temperature

compensation is applicable only when the gallon is defined by

State Law as a specified volume at a specific temperature. Thus

voluntary temperature compensation is not allowed.

2. In the recommended separate code, there is an additional

tolerance for temperature compensators. This tolerance is considered appropriate on vehicle tank meters when tested with

50-gallon or 100-gallon drafts, but is not considered appropriate for wholesale meters with drafts of 500 gallons or more, since the increased tolerance for larger drafts is sufficient to include any error caused by the temperature compensator. This is also true for LPG Meters, (i.e. larger tolerance values are sufficient to include the operation of the temperature

compensator).

3. In the recommended separate code, there is reference to 60 °F. This temperature may be appropriate for certain products, but is inappropriate for many other products. Thus, the specific

temperature is more appropriately referenced in the specific code

for certain devices, e.g., water meters, agri-chemical meters,

milk, cryogenics, etc.

4. H-44 does not contain separate Codes applicable to components.

Such a Code would unnecessarily complicate the use of the

Handbook. Consider, for example, the confusion that would

result if separate codes with tolerances would be established

for components such as a measuring element, a computing

register, an air eliminator, or a remote console.

Therefore, it is the Committee's view that its recommendation made in last

year's Report item 304-1 is the most appropriate resolution of the issue

and the Committee recommends Conference action accordingly.

(A motion to table was defeated. Item 304-1 was defeated)

259
304-2 S. 1.4.1. COMPUTING-TYPE DEVICES/DISPLAY OF UNIT PRICE This item was referred to the committee by the NT ETC. A concern was expressed that this paragraph could be interpreted to require a computing

type digital electronic indicating element to provide a continual display

of the unit price. It is the view of the Committee that under certain

conditions, it is appropriate that these devices utilize a shared display,

that is, the same display area can be used to indicate the volume

delivered, the unit price, and the total price. Therefore, to clarify the

intent of this paragraph the Committee recommends it be amended to read:

S. 1.4.1. DISPLAY OF UNIT PRICE.- In a device of the computing type, means shall be provided for displaying on the outside of the device,

afl^-i-R-el-ese-prex4m4^y-te-t^e-d4sp4ay-ef-t>:ie--teta4-e9 iflpyted-pi£ 46eT

in a manner clear to the operator and an observer , the un it price

peF-§al49A at which the device is set to compute.

(Item 304-2 was adopted)

305 SECTION 3.34. CRYOGENIC LIQUID-MEASURING DEVICES

The Office of Weights and Measures cooperated with the Internationa 1 Legal Metrology Program in the Fall of 1982 in developing a Preliminary

Draft International Recommendation (IR) for Meters and Measuring Systems

for Cryogenic Liquids for the consideration of SP5/SR15 of OIML. At the

outset it was decided to review the H-44 Code and to develop such

recommended changes as were deemed necessary to make the U.S. requirements

appropriate for use as the basis of a Draft IR. Specific changes are therefore recommended in Section 3.34. to harmonize some of the U.S. requirements with the practices of the European gas industry and other

changes are recommended to improve the adequacy of the H-44 requirements.

The following changes are recommended by the S&T Committee for adoption

by the Conference.

A.I.- This code applies to devices used for the measurement of the

cryogenic liquids oxygen, nitrogen, and argon , whether such devices are installed in a permanent location, or mounted on a vehicle, or mounted on

a portable tank . $R€9f aR-as-tRey-a^-e4eaR4y-aBB^9p*4ate7 -£&e-^qy}reffleRts

a-Fid-Br9v4s4eRS-ef-tbe-eede-ifl ay-ee-app-14ed--te-dev4€es-ysed-f 9*- the

measy^effleRt-ef-e^lReF-44qy4ds-t^at-de-flet-reffla4R-4fl-a-44qy4d-state-at

atfflespRef4€-pressyres-afl'd-tetflpe^aty^esi

*A.2.- This code does not apply to devices used solely for dispensing a product in connection with operations in which the amount dispensed does

not affect customer charges.

S. 1.1.2. UNITS.- A device shall indicate and record, if

equipped to record, its deliveries in terms of: pounds o** ki lograms ; gallons or liters (NBP); p9yRds-9R-cubic feet of gas (NTP), or decimal subdivisions or multiples thereof.

*The subsection has been completely revised.

260
S.l.1.3. VALUE OF SMALLEST UNIT.- The value of the smallest

unit of indicated delivery, and recorded delivery, if the device

is equipped to record, shall not exceed the equivalent of:

(a) For Small Delivery Devices

(1) One-tenth gallon

(2) One half liter

(3) One pound

(4) One half kilogram

(5) Ten cubic feet of gas

(b) For Large Delivery Devices

(1) One gallon

2) Five Ten liters

3) Ten pounds

(4) Five Ten kilograms

(5) One hundred cubic feet of gas S.l.1.5. RETURN TO ZERO.- Primary indicating and recording

elements shall be readily returnable to a definite zero indication. Means shall be provided to prevent the return of

primary indicating elements, and of primary recording elements

if-these-are-returflable-te-zere, beyond their correct zero position.

S.l.4.2. MONEY-VALUE COMPUTATIONS.- Money-value computations

shall be of the full -computing type in which the money value at

a single unit price, or at each of a series of unit prices,

shall be computed for every delivery within either the range of

measurement of the device or the range of the computing

elements, whichever is less. Value graduations shall be

supplied and shall be accurately positioned. The-va4ue-ef-eaeh

§ra^uated-in%eFva4-sha44-be-4-eentT 9n-e4eetrenie-dev46es-w4th

d4§4ta4-ifldieatiensy-the-teta4-pFiee-teta4-pifi iee-may-be-eefflputed

en-the-bas4s-9f-the-quant4ty-ifldieated-when-the-va4ue-ef-the

sma44est-div4sien-ifldiea%ed-4s-eqHa4-te-er-4ess-than-9T4-ga44eRT

The total price shall be computed on the basis of the quantity

indicated when the value of the smallest division indicated is

' equal to or less than the values specified in S.l.1.3.

S.2.1. VAPOR ELIMINATION.- A measuring system shall be equipped with

an effective vapor eliminator or other effective means to prevent the

passa§e-ef-vapeF-thFe«§h-the-deviee-where-su€h-vapef! -wi44-6ause-eveia - re§4stFatien-ef-eifi -tefld-te-dama§e-eia -de§rade-the-devieeT the measurement of vapor that will cause errors in excess of the applicable

tolerances? (See Sec. T.). Ven-t-4i-nes-f»=em-the-vapeFi -eii-m4nateiP sha4i-be-made-9f-meta4-tub4n§-eF-s9me-ether--swHab4y-pi§id-matepia4T

261
i ' : 7~ rirrs : : i :r 3 :r : ^

- = : ~

: . : =~ Z" r ~c -n.r

*r- ;* tt«*s--2: - : _ : : = - :e :

-

» e - i =?: - -:r V: tt e ii -" ~ : irance-

:- :-e :e :e : - :e rsrs-s -:n. i - 5

. :f ;ce-e: ~ :- : _ : zr :~i : i*=-=^=

:: : ::vv- ^ ?-^:-" :

| I'-Z " 5 I - " I : 1 "

EfTl ' i Zz I = "71 ' ZZ i Z.

z.--~:. z TTe= :e :-•:»-" re: ~: : -r.fr-: :-f riiSiif :*

"

"

L"

1 " - £ J

r E IP :Ehs:~« :::»w~EvV~':>.- :- = :f :f : s fC-':ce:

i" fL 7.3TT f ~ ' I ".-BTTC'f ' r~ _ ~f T rfTS'-j ! inc f "f i " " . " ~ f % 2T j 5

~ erne" - 5 . ••=: f " fure- :

_

:

. = -c ~ f : :r : -f r~f 5fr-f ::* :>~ =

I " ; Df If;""/ f **C I : " > I

* I _ j. :

*

• nflfC T-I E ~C H Z~ IZ Z

' - Z *Zz~Z Zj

:

: — t : : rrtf 1 : . -f : f- - - - z-- - i - - ~ - r -== - -:- — f - -

: -s-r -i - - 5 = - :- - r i

-

.PE ip ije ^ r r

*

; f : . ::

: x : e- 3 i HTC r

!" 3 : " I " . " " f ""<:*: =".f-: :

fc i-: «p-t-

. :

:

" ' " : zc ' ~ z z~ z~

Z DJl Z Z z

' '

Z TT

n.1.1. 10 IflBOStSGISi S&i ION MO 10 0VE88EGISniATI(M. - Hie tolerances

~z ~r" Z\-Zz " Z ~zZ Z" " I S~r"~ LZC

T

" fC T-! f " " I"

. e z

:"

" iz' :~ i~c z~~z"i z~ :<f—f £" - =.*" z~ .
T.2. TOLERANCE VALUES.

T.2.T. ON NORMAL TESTS.- The maintenance tolerance on "normal" tests

shall be two and one-half percent (2 1/2%) of the indicated

quantity. The acceptance tolerance shall be one and one-half percent

(1.5%) of the indicated quantity.

T.2.2. ON SPECIAL TESTS.- The maintenance and acceptance tolerance

on "special" tests shall be two and one-half percent (2 1/2%) of the

indicated quantity.

T.2. ON TESTS USING TRANSFER STANDARDS, becomes T.3.

UR.2.1. RETURN OF INDICATING AND RECORDING ELEMENTS TO ZERO.- The

primary indicating elements (visual) and the primary recording

elements 4f-these-afe-?etarfiab4e-*e-zere shall be returned to zero

immedi ately before each delivery.

UR.2.2. CONDITION OF DISCHARGE SYSTEM.- The discharge system, up to the measuring element , shall be precooled to liquid temperatures

before a "zero" condition is established prior to the start of a commerci al de 1 i very, where- vaper-w444-eause-everre§4strat4en-ef-er

tefld-te-dama§e-eic-de§rade-the-metef?T

*UR.2.5. CONVERSION FACTORS.- The conversion values established in NBS Technical Note 361, Revised, "Liquid Densities of Oxygen,

Nitrogen, Argon, and Parahydrogen, " shall be used whenever metered

liquids are to be billed in terms of:

a) pounds or kilograms based on a meter indication of gallons,

liters, or cubic feet of gas; or,

b) cubic feet of gas based on a meter indication of gallons,

liters, pounds, or kilograms; or,

c) gallons or liters based on a meter indication of pounds,

kilograms, or cubic feet of gas. All sales of cryogenic liquids shall be based on either pounds or kilograms, gallons or liters at NBP, or cubic feet of gas at NTP. UR.2.6.2. TICKETS OR WRITTEN INVOICES.- Any written invoice or printed ticket based on a reading of a device that is equipped with an automatic temperature or density compensator shall have shown thereon

that the quantity delivered has been adjusted to the quantity at the

ReFffla4-be444R§-pe4nt NBP of the specific cryogenic product or the

equivalent volume of gas at NTP. *This section has been completely revised editorially.

263
DEFINITIONS OF TERMS

*automatic temperature or density compensation. The use of integrated

or ancillary equipment to obtain from the output of a volumetric meter an equivalent mass, or an equivalent liquid volume at the normal boiling

point of the product, or an equivalent gas volume at a normal temperature

and absolute pressure of 70 °F and 14.696 psi.

cryogenic liquids. Fluids whose normal boiling point is below 423 120 kelvins (-238-QF) (-243 O F).

large delivery device. Devices used primarily for single deliveries

greater than 499 200 gallons, 4-999 2 000 pounds, er-49-999 20 000 cubic

feet, 2 000 liters, or 2 000 kilograms.

*new definition added.

(Item 305 was adopted)

306 SECTION 4.43. CODE FOR FARM MILK TANKS

306-1 S .3.5 .2. GAGE TUBE The Committee received a comment that flexible tubing has and is being

used successfully as gage tube material and that this paragraph should be

amended to recognize this practice. The Committee received further

information in support of the use of this material. It is the view of the

Committee that, if rigidly supported flexible tubing is equal in performance to borosilicate glass or rigid plastic tubing, it should be recognized. Thus, the Committee recommends that this paragraph be amended

by adding to the second sentence immediately after the words rigid plastic

the following phrase, "or rigidly supported flexible tubing."

(Item 306-1 was adopted)

*306-2 N . NOTES

The Committee received a suggestion that a paragraph should be added to this part explaining the proper methodology for obtaining a reading

defined by a meniscus. It is the view of the Committee that this is not necessary and offers the following for informational purposes.

When a reading or setting is to be obtained from a meniscus formed by

water or other transparent liquid, the index or reading line is the

position of the lowest point of the meniscus.

When a reading or setting is to be obtained from a meniscus formed by milk

or other opaque liquid, the index or reading line is the position of

highest point of the center of the meniscus.

When calibrating a device with water and the device is to be used with an opaque liquid, the reading should be obtained accordingly; that is, the

position of the highest point of the center of the meniscus.

264
307 SECTION 5.55. CODE FOR TIMING DEVICES

The Conmittee received a cormient that paragraph S.I. 4. PRINTED TICKETS was

too restrictive with respect to new developments in the design of parking

lot timing devices and meters. The communication also included a complete

description of the new equipment and its method of operation. The

referenced paragraph requires a printed representation of the time when

service begins and the time when the services ends. It is the view of the

Conmittee that the principle expressed is to provide this information to any user in a clear manner, and thus the requirement is appropriate when

applied to an attended operation. However, when the device is intended

for self-service (i.e., money operated), and the time of day is appropriately displayed, and the time that the service ends is available

in a printed form, the user is provided sufficient information consistent

with the principle expressed in the paragraph. Thus the Conmittee

recommends this paragraph be amended to read:

S.1.4. PRINTED TICKETS.- A printed ticket issued or stamped by a timing device shall have printed clearly thereon:

a. the time and day when the service ends and the time and day

when the service begins, except that a self-service

money-operated device that clearly displays the time of day need

not record the time and day when the service begins, or

b. the time interval purchased, and the time and day that the

service either begins or ends.

(A motion to table was defeated. Item 307 was adopted)

308 SECTION 5.56. TENTATIVE CODE FOR GRAIN MOISTURE METERS

*308-l. REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE

The Advisory Committee on Grain Moisture Measurement was not able to meet

during this past year. In order to provide some guidance to the

Specifications and Tolerances (S and T) Committee, a Committee ballot was sent to the Advisory Conmittee and the S and T Conmittee. A tally of the

votes is provided below: Item 1. METER TEST METHODS AND TOLERANCES

Item 1.1. Test pads and pellets and other artificial capacitance devices

can indicate whether the grain moisture meter is operating electrically

within manufacturer's specifications, but cannot be used to determine the

accuracy of grain moisture meters in measuring the moisture content of grain.

AFFIRMATIVE NEGATIVE ABSTAIN

19 0 4

265
Conment received: "We could support the use of an artificial means of

check testing the electrical operations of a moisture meter. Pellets or other artificial capacitance devices could be helpful to the user in

detecting problems with his meter. These devices can only be an indication of the operating conditions of the meter and cannot reflect the

meter's accuracy. This type of device would need to be supplied by the

manufacturer rather than placing the burden on the user to obtain a device

with given characteristics. In addition, the use of artificial

capacitance devices should be an option to the user, not a requirement."

Item 1-2. Grain must at some point be used in a testing program to compare the responses of a grain moisture meter with (a) the oven reference or (b) another meter. AFFIRMATIVE NEGATIVE ABSTAIN

23 0 0 Conment received: "The commodities of interest are grains and must be

used in a meter testing program. Since the dielectric properties of

grains vary greatly and can be affected by many different variables, grain

is needed in a test program. The reliability of using high moisture

content grains in a field testing program for meters is questionable.

However, high moisture grains would be needed for an oven calibration

process."

Item 1-3. The proposed tolerances in the Handbook 44 Tentative Code are reasonable with respect to the precision of the transfer standard(s)

(i.e., Paragraph 3.2 Sec. 1.11 of Handbook 44).

AFFIRMATIVE NEGATIVE ABSTAIN

12 3 8 Comment received: "The reasonableness of the tolerances in the tentative

code has not been determined. There is very little information on meter

testing programs using grain samples for other than corn and wheat. There

are a number of other grains covered for which no data has been

presented: sorghum, soybeans, sunflowers, flax, oats, barley, and grass

seed. There are currently no tolerances for meter to meter testing."

Item 1-4. The proposed tolerances will need to be enlarged if master

meter methods are to be recognized in the tentative code.

AFFIRMATIVE NEGATIVE ABSTAIN

9 3 11 Comment received: "Although I agree that the proposed tolerances in

Handbook 44 are reasonable, we have no adequate data to say that they are the best or correct. Consequently, I am not ready to accept a specific

plan for enlarging the tolerances for master meter methods. While it may

266
be necessary to change those tolerances, I have seen no data to indicate

what the tolerances should be. I would like to know if the variance among

brands of meters with a true moisture sample is more or less than the

variance among meters of the same brand using a single sample of unknown

moisture. Although theoretically master meter testing methods will have a greater variance than natural grain samples, we do not have empirical data

to substantiate the fact nor to establish new values. For that reason, I would prefer to wait for more information before making any specific

change to increase or reestablish tolerances. I think there are still

many knowledge gaps before we establish tolerances in quantitative terms."

I am opposed to the use of the master meter as a testing program. ..the

investment and the amount of error which must be incorporated into the

tolerances would be too large."

"The master meter method should be discussed further at the July meeting

before a decision is made to enlarge the proposed tolerances."

Item 2. FULLY AUTOMATIC METERS

Item 2-1. A requirement should be added to the tentative Handbook 44 code

for further designs of grain moisture meters so that the grain does not have to be weighed before it is introduced into the grain moisture meter. AFFIRMATIVE NEGATIVE ABSTAIN

6 10 7 Item 2-2. A requirement should be added.for future designs of grain

moisture meters so that the temperature of the grain (if needed to obtain

a moisture content) is automatically sensed and compensated for by the

device.

AFFIRMATIVE NEGATIVE ABSTAIN

8 7 8 Item 2-3. A requirement should be added for future designs of grain

moisture meters that the device provide final moisture content values

without the need for an operator to look up values or make computations.

AFFIRMATIVE NEGATIVE ABSTAIN

10 6 7 Comments on 2-1. through 2-3. received:

"Standards should reflect currently available technology and not dictate

new designs or technology. When meters that are fully automated for

weighing become readily available and in use, consideration can be given

to this concept. There are many meters currently in use that can be used

effectively along with an accompanying weighing device. The existing

267
devices should continue to be used as long as they are serviceable and accurate. There is a tendency to set cut-off dates and rule out existing

equipment. There will be users who will want automatic meter requirements

but until it becomes an industry practice, it should not be mandated.

There is currently only one meter that claims to be able to weigh the

sample accurately."

"Also, the requirements stated in Item No. 2, Subjects 1, 2, and 3, may

very well reduce, and possibly eliminate, human error in obtaining the

moisture content of grain but the price tag for such a device will be

substantial. For the manufacturer of moisture meters who does not already

have this type of meter in production, or even in the planning stage, the

financial burden will be great. Also, the small grain operations, farms,

and other users to grain moisture meters will not, or cannot, pay the high

price for such a device."

"My concern with this item was whether it is appropriate for regulatory

agencies to require fully automatic equipment."

"I believe specifications for moisture meters should be written in terms

of performance with respect to accuracy; not with respect to convenience

or honesty of the operator. Automatic meters will not eliminate fraud.

If there are dishonest grain buyers, there are many ways to adjust weight,

moisture, and price. Automation of moisture meters will have little, if any, effect on the number or magnitude of unfair payments to farmers.

Unnecessary restrictions on the form and the cosmetics of the meter reduce

competition in the meter industry (by eliminating some current

manufacturers and brands) thus lowering quality, raising prices, and reducing freedom of choice of meter characteristics by elevators of

different sizes and preferences. We can accept some design requirements

to eliminate major sources of errors such as using outdated charts,

etc.— Thus I could accept item 2-3 (although with some reluctance). Based

on the principle of operator convenience and accuracy, automatic readout

seems to me to reduce some dangers of operator error though I do not think

it will have an impact on operator fairness or honesty. I feel that

elevator operators should have a freedom of choice of whether they want a completely automated system of measurement just as they might choose a scale with an automatic printout or digital readout or some other

particular form of quantity identification."

The Advisory Committee will meet during the Annual Meeting to discuss this

ballot and other issues. It is fairly clear from this talley, however,

that there is not the strong support for requirements for fully automatic

devices that there appeared to be a short time ago and so the Advisory

Conmittee will probably not recommend to the S and T Committee at this

time, incorporation of sections requiring fully automatic devices.

308-2. STATUS

On the basis of the information presented in the previous item, the

Committee recommends that the Advisory Committee be continued for another

268
year to complete their study and make final recommendations, that the Code

remain tentative, and that no changes be made in it at the present time.

(Item 308-2 was adopted)

*309 MEASURING DEVICES AND SYSTEMS FOR AGRI-CHEMICAL LIQUID

COMMODITIES

Since last year's Report referencing this subject, the Committee has

received several communications. A letter was received from the Meter Manufacturers Technical Committee (WTC) in which they offered their help

in the development of a code or specific requirements applicable to these

systems. The Committee received data from two jurisdictions on the

performance of these devices. From this information it was obvious that

these devices were not performing within the tolerance limits specified in the Liquid Measuring Device Code for wholesale meters, or those specified

in the Vehicle Tank Meter Code.

It is the Conmittee's view that the establishment of appropriate

tolerances values applicable to this equipment is essential. The

Committee accepts the offer of the WTC and requests that they submit a report to the Committee for its consideration at the 1984 Interim Meeting.

310 OTHER ITEMS

310-1 NONRETROACTIVE REQUIREMENTS

In accordance with the recommendation in Section 1.10. Introduction,

paragraph 5, Classification of Requirements, the Committee has reviewed

the following nonretroactive requirements, which have been effective for ten years or more, and recommends that the first two items remain

non -retroactive and that the third become retroactive.

1.14. G-S.l. IDENTI FICATION--that part requiring a nonrepet iti ve serial

number. (1968)

2.20. UR.2.4. FOUNDATION, SUPPORTS AND CLEARANCE—that part requiring

the clearance between the platform and coping to be wider at the bottom

than at the top. (1973)

3.30. S.2.5.1. ZERO-SET-BACK INTERLOCK-that part requiring the starting

lever to be in its designed shut-off position and zero-set -back interlock

to be engaged before the discharge nozzle can be returned to its designed

hanging position. (1970)

(Item 310-1 was adopted)

*310-2 FIVE YEAR PLAN The Committee has developed a five-year plan to aid it in carrying out its

responsibilities. The plan outlines action to be taken by the Committee

and recommended action by other organizations over the next five years.

269
The plan includes a procedure to systematically review all appropriate

OIML documents impacting on the responsibilities of the Committee, to provide input to OIML, recommending amendment where deemed appropriate,

and to recommend amendment to U.S. documents where deemed appropriate. It also includes a review of other publications, such as NBS H-105-1, 105-2,

and 105-3, and a schedule for the Technical Committees of the Committee.

The work of the Committee is on schedule for 1983 and is reflected in this

Interim Meeting Report. Highlights of items for the following four years

are

1984

Finalize Code for Grain Moisture Meters. Review reports of Technical Committees including NTETC,

Agri-Chemical measuring systems, and Belt-Conveyor Scales and

make recommendations.

Begin review of Fabric-and Wire-and Cordage-Measuring Device

Codes and OIML International Recommendations.

1985

Draft Codes for Belt-Conveyor Scales and requirements for

Agri -Chemical measuring systems.

Draft Code revision for Fabric-and Wire-and Cordage-Measuring

Devices.

Begin review of Liquid-Measuring-Device Codes, metering systems

tolerances, and OIML International Recommendations.

Begin review of NBS H-105, -2, & -3 and OIML International

Recommendations.

1986

Finalize Belt-Conveyor Scale Code and requirements for

agri -chemical measuring systems.

Finalize revisions of Fabric-and Wire-and Cordage-Measuring

Devices.

Draft Code for Liquid-Measuring Devices.

Draft Revision of NBS H-105-1.

1987

Finalize Liquid-Measuring Devices Code Revision.

Finalize H-105-1 Revision

Draft Revision to H-105-2, & -3. Begin review of Taximeters and Odometers Code and OIML

International Recommendations.

Begin review of Water Meters Code and OIML International

Recommendations.

Consider development of Draft Code on Electricity Meters. This plan is, of course, flexible and is intended to aid the Committee in meeting the needs of the Conference. The Committee encourages comments

from all interested parties.

270
*310-3 SECTION 3.32 LPG LIQUID-MEASURING DEVICES—S. 2 .7. 1 FOR RETAIL MOTOR-FUEL DEVICES/ZERO-SET-BACK INTERLOCK

The Conmittee has been requested to provide information concerning the

availability of devices equipped with interlocks or retrofit units for

existing equipment. The Comnittee has been informed that there are presently two or three manufacturers marketing equipment properly equipped

with interlocks and several more with devices about to be marketed. They

have also been informed that the Neptune Measurement Company has retrofit

units for certain models and that there are others that cannot be

retrofitted. The Committee reconfirms its position that newly installed

equipment should be required to be in compliance and that each

jurisdiction develop a practical program for conversion.

In continuation of established policy, the listing of OWM Reports of Test completed since last year is included at the end of this report.

The Conmittee 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 deliberation.

L. H. DeGrange, Maryland, Chairman

S. A. Colbrook, II li nois

F. Gerk, New Mexico

D. A. Guensler, California

R. W. Probst, Wisconsin

0. K. Warnlof, Technical Advisor, NBS

A. D. Tholen, Executive Secretary, NCWM

CONMITTEE ON SPECIFICATIONS AND TOLERANCES

271
VOTING RESULTS - COMMITTEE ON SPECIFICATIONS AND TOLERANCES

House of State House of

Representatives Delegates

VOTING KEY Yes No Yes No N on 1 9 oU 1 -L oU 1 -d

7C\ 1 19 ou 1 - 1 c - id OU 0—0

*J\J O / r to 0 57 0

OU*+ — <_ ouu — 1 ouo—

C

-J 1 U 1 ^

301-3* 2

O A 34 9 38

301-3 38 o

<L A O 48 0 301-5 dl 1 50 0 301-7 25 17 22 27 301-8 22 20 16 36 301-11 36 2

AC46 3 303-1 39 0 47 1 303-2a 37 2 48 3 303-2b 38 2 48 2 304-1** 16 304-1 22 15 28 19 307** 16 307 37 1 39 2 300 41 0 42 0

* motion on amendment

** motion to table

272
i

Q S ffi s s s

CO CI H S S CO 1111§

n n n f> cm SQSSQSSBSSQQSSSQ(nincoronninSforosriinciHSiain

cm CM

asaasatuaaaaa sa aaa^aa aaaa

S Q Q

ffi s in s co

(0

cn ru I

to u <3 |j

c3 $ § $

U 4JW Oi CnE-"

(0 c

_ tT>,V -H T> 0 E-i C3 O +> S

J-i -H (d (0 o

g +j q ,2 a. u h si 1

83A

IS Q _ CM I Q rH HQ < CO C\ Q <S n(Nro I ifl ^ I (N oi in S H J I CO

§ S3 iH -H (N Q IS W CO IN (N w js

c2 c3 P

Is

Q) Mfl) H H S

C W (0 Rial's 6 5

CM (N CN CM CM (N CM CM CM CM CM CM

CO CMCMCMCMCMCM.HCOC0C0C0C0C0C0CMCMCMCMCMCMCMC0C0COC0C0 \oococococococooo COCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCOCOCOCOCOCOCO www\Win in Win in W\m in in w\CO CO CO wCO CO wCO CO W\in in in Win in

rH WWWWLTl minHHHHHHHrlrHHHrtHHHHrlrlrHHHHH WWW PO rH i—lr—ItHiHi—WWW IrHi—li-H»—IrH WWWWWWWW\WWW i—I

•—I (N OJ i—l<—I i—I i—li—lr—I i—ICMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCM nC^C^^f^WC^C^tyiC^C^C^HHHrHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

cor^coc^QrHCMco^inv£)r»-co<ri vocMCMCMronrocomcororonn

id\0>i)vOil)vflvO>flvD^Oiflv£)vOifi invor-cocyiQiHCMro^invor^cOinQrH

^•'sj"<st<^<^<ininininininininminvOvo

7.73
nils mi in mini ii mini

- 1 « ^ ^ z z z

s* r> i - ;.

5 < S 5 S = 5 i

5 S 5 rt

hi!

1 J,

-5 BSSSIBSiSalJ s ?2 -5 f ? f I i 5 5 5 i s 1 1 1

5

: a r. i r - 3 r - - a - r - - .". - c - -

i ||j I - r ; - F I i

' : : a = - I = ; = i -.T r t Z ~- _ - r = r - d 1 2 1 1 3 1 i 5 1

1

1 $ t ^ 1 1 1 *

' -g 7 £ £ - £ ^ 1 1 - ^ * s = - i s Illl1IIIIilllliiIlflilifrIlliiHl!1

•-3 i I,

a J

9

„ = _ _ - =. ~ ~ _ E 4 5 :" - r ? = = I 5 $

— ~ ~ ~ — ~ ~ —

r - .- •_ ' 2 = = §

— — .

"-- £ „. i i . < i« 14 i j ill

• {„]<«!!

-- = ---•• 5 - r - - - — — — — - ^ - < * = - -

F ---T.-- r ,r-T.-r-~-!: _- -.. E ----- r .i^:iiC]c:::: - s - 5 = ; - - ^

r- - SSS: l|fl||llllf1 fffssssff

f

— —

zzzzzzzzzzzzzz-zzzz~zz~l~z~Z = Z 5 -

r ?

27/
lillll

sn ton sn

<D -l-> u i—i c oi w tr>w $ d) co CD

3 -g as t! -8 3 -a C EC Q) C ,Q -a T3 -H

S 1 s s

n n co co co

CO CO CO CO CO

r» co

CO rH , r» r- i

275
a 9

£5

s a ei

8 8

to

8 8

& i

8 ti I !

1

1

o &

is 5

&

8

CO rH1

1

S 1

fN fM CM CM CO CO CO CM CO OO

CM CM CM \ \ CO \ CO 00 oo

CO CD CO in m in in CO CO \ \ rH —

i

rH rH rH \ \ rH rH \CM \rH \rH CM \CM

rH rH \rH 3? 0> 00 rH rH rH rH rH rH

CM

rH 00 <sf rHoo

in

oo sfr CM rH

v£> in

276
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 68th 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 presentations made during the general meeting of the committee.

The Chairman announced that only Item 405, National Training Program,

is a voting item and that all other items are informational. The

Chairman moved approval of Item 405. The motion carried as follows:

Yes No

State Representatives 44 0

Delegates 51 0

The Chairman moved adoption of the entire report with editorial

privileges to the Executive Secretary. The motion carried as follows:

Yes No State Representatives 44 "TF Delegates 57 0

401 NATIONAL WEIGHTS AND MEASURES WEEK Co-Chairmen Bruce Niebergall, North Dakota, and Peggy Adams, Bucks

County, Pennsylvania, reported the following to the Committee: The

list of State Weights and Measures Week Coordinators was updated and

furnished to associate members for their use in providing promotional

material. A packet of educational and advertising aids was developed

by Peggy Adams and will be mailed to jurisdictional Coordinators. This

material and other information will be used to formulate a reference

manual on promotion and education of weights and measures with emphasis

on National Weights and Measures Week. Jurisdictions are requested to mail any current promotional materials to Peggy Adams.

The Committee appointed Phil Stagg of Louisiana and Peggy Adams of

Bucks County, Pennsylvania, as Cochairmen for National Weights and

Measures Week 1984.

277
The Committee would like to thank the Scale Manufacturers' Association,

the American National Metric Council, Hobart Corporation, Fairbanks

Weighing Division, and the Institute for Weights and Measures for the

excellent promotional materials provided.

402 NATIONAL ADVERTISING PROGRAM

Dick Hurley of Fairbanks Weighing Division of Colt Industries reported

to the Committee that he was pursuing several avenues to obtain support

for a national advertising program and had initiated correspondence

with his Congressional delegation, the U. S. Office of Consumer Affairs

and other Associate members.

He is also formulating a plan to present to the National Association of Broadcasters to promote a national advertising campaign.

403 NATIONAL PROGRAM EVALUATION

Work is continuing on refinement of Program Evaluation Criteria and

further evaluations will be conducted as we advance into the third

phase (Program Evaluation) of the National Training Program. However,

if an urgent request for an evaluation is received by the Committee in the interim every effort will be made to answer such request.

404 NATIONAL CERTIFICATION PROGRAM

The Certification process has been incorporated into the production

schedule of the modules as outlined in item 405, Table 7. 405 NATIONAL TRAINING PROGRAM

This section describes the plan of the Committee on Education,

Administration, and Consumer Affairs, of the National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM) for development of the Primary Training

Materi als of the National Training Program.

~"~ ~

The Committee worked on this plan at the 67th Annual Meeting of the

NCWM in Atlanta, Georgia during the week of July 12, 1982, at the

special meeting of the Committee on September 18, 1982 just prior to the meeting of the Western Weights and Measures Association in Utah,

and at the Interim Meeting held at NBS during the week of January 16,

1 983. The Committee:

1. Reordered its priorities in order to focus on development of

the primary training materials.

2. Defined the training modules to be developed and their

application.

3. Established a format for development of the modules.

278
4. Identified the need for seven Working Groups to develop the

draft material for thirteen modules, and recommended

membership of these Working Groups.

5. Agreed on contractor for development of technical modules and

support of the Working Groups.

6. Established a schedule for module development.

7. Developed an outline work statement for contractor performance.

8. Outlined procedures for management of proposed grant and

related contract.

279
I. INTRODUCTION

A. General

This presentation is based on the Plan for a National Training Program , developed by the Committee on Education, Administration, and Consumer

Affairs, NCWM, and approved by the NCWM membership at the 67th Annual

Meeting in Atlanta, Georgia on July 15, 1982.

That Plan describes the need for formalized training materials in three

general categories:

1 . Primary Training

2. Continuing Education

3. Specialized Education

B . Primary Training

Primary Training is considered the key for subsequent evolvement of:

1. A Certification Program; and

2. A State Program Evaluation Plan.

The National Training Program (Primary Training) and its individual

modules of training materials number thirty-seven (37). As each module

is completed and published, it will become a resource for training (and

subsequent certification) of state officials. (This certification can

take several forms: a National/State Program, or individual State

Programs existing or developed to meet local needs). As the National

Certification Program evolves, it will provide the basis for evaluating

the staffing of State weights and measures programs.

C . Concept

The products of this program will be "hard copy" manuals and training

aids designed for use by State and local weights and measures

jurisdictions for training their personnel. The materials will be produced as "modules" of training. Table 1 lists the training modules

currently identified for development. Modules 1-22 deal with Weights

and Measures functions; Modules 23-37 are elective and may be used at the discretion of the training agency (see section on "Modules").

First drafts for Modules 1 through 25 will be developed by working

groups of experts representing Federal, State, and local jurisdictions

and industry. These working groups will draw on work previously

completed by other organizations (several working groups will start

with manuals developed by the State of Alaska). Subsequently, the

Contractor will convert the Working Group developed drafts into final

student manuals.

Modules 26 through 37 will be developed completely on contract.

280
TABLE 1 TRAINING MODULES

Module

Weights and Measures Functions No. Module Title

Retail Computing

Scales-Mechanical & Electronic

1.

2.

Bench, Counter & Hanging Scales 3.

Medium Capacity Scales,

Dormant & Industrial

Vehicle & Axle Load Scales

Mechanical Cylinder, Fan Computing, and Pre-package.

Digital Electronic Computing

and Electronic Cash Registers.

Bench, Counter, & Hanging

Scales, Automatic & Nonautomatic, Indicating.

Counter, Portable, Floor, &

Bui It-In, Automatic & Nonautomatic, Indicating.

Vehicle & Axle Load,

Mechanical & Electronic.

Livestock & Animal Scales

Retail Motor Fuel Dispensers

6. Monorail Scales & Meat Beams.

7. Livestock & Animal

Mechanical & Electronic.

8. Single Product, Blend and Twin

Motor Fuel DispensersMechanical & Electronic.

Checking Net Contents of

Packaged Goods

9. Gasoline Dispenser Electronic

Consoles.

10. Random, Standard, Mass,

Liquid, Linear, Special

Products.

Small Capacity Balances & Test Scales

Hopper Scales

11. Prescription and Jewelers

Balances.

12. Cream Test, Moisture Test,

and Grain Test Scales.

13. Automatic Grain Hopper,

Construction Material Hopper,

Mechanical & Electronic.

281
TABLE 1 (Continued)

Wheel Load Weighers

Belt Conveyor Scales

Liquid Measures

Other Retail Measuring Devices

Large Capacity Meters

14,

15,

Weights-Equal Arm & Counterpoise 16, 1718

19

20,

Liquefied Petroleum Gas Meters 21

Labeling of Packaged Products 22

Wheel Load Weighers,

Mechanical & Electronic

Belt Conveyor Scales,

Mechanical & Electronic.

Weights-All Types.

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.

Net Contents Statement,

Responsibility, Method of

Sale.

ELECTIVE MODULES

Weights and Measures Admini- 23 stration Device Technical

Requirements

Communications

El ectronics

24

25

26

27

28

29

Functions, History, Organization, Legal Authority,

Penalties.

HB44 Organization and Use. Weights & Measures Officials,

Device Owners & Operators,

Industry, Consumers.

Analog Technology; DC Circuits, AC Circuits.

Digital Technology; Numbering

Systems, Digital Circuits.

Solid State Circuits and

Applications.

Analog-to-Digital Conversion.

282
TABLE 1 (Continued)

30. Load Cells.

31. Time and Frequency.

32. Electrical Standards.

33. Ground Loops.

34. Electrical Safety.

3D . 1 CI III 1 I IU 1 vJyjr • LIcLtriLdl rlcdb U rem ci 1 Lb 00 . 1 II b Li UN 1 ci 1 L liU 1 be • Computer Technology 37. Microprocessor Based Systems,

Automatic Control Systems.

D. Funding

The National Conference on Weights and Measures has submitted a proposal to the National Bureau of Standards for a grant to fund the

first two years of development of this Program. The stated purpose of

the Grant is: "To provide for the development of manuals and other materials to be used in a national, uniform training program for State and

local weights and measures officials." The proposal requires

funding over a two year period of: Year 1 - $148,405

Year 2 - $166,784

$315,189

283

C. Module Format (Elective Modules)

Separate modules will be developed, which may be selectively used

independent of the functional modules or integrated into a training

program with one or more other modules. These elective modules provide

training material for general regulatory subjects (modules 23, 24, 25) or specific technical areas (modules 26 through 37). This modular

development provides a wide range of discretion to the jurisdiction to tailor the training for the specific needs of its staff.

285
w

: j. . -: :

* - 22

: - t- - t: • 5- - :

' e = -»: * e _ :

= : I :

=

" e 3

- -;; c c t

" :

r

s QUIZ

I-SDe:."

- Se-s-£* :: ! :e : s

- -:>- :- :-s:-e:t-^

-

: k:-: ' '." 1. r

QUIZ

-.::-:.=* :»- :~

- Adjustment and Repair

- r

: :>-::
Example 1 : To provide a training program in vehicle and axle load

scales for a group of inspectors with prior experience in regulatory

work dealing with Retail Computing Scales, and with prior basic

electronics training, the instructor would use:

- module 5 Example 2 : Assuming inspectors had prior regulatory experience in mechanical devices only, the instructor might select:

- module 5, plus

- one or more of modules 26 through 37. Example 3 : Assuming inspectors are new hires with no previous

regulatory experience but have had electronics training, the instructor

might select:

- module 23, 24, 25 plus

- module 5 Modules 23-25.

Suggested contents for Model 23 are listed in Table 3; for Module 24 in Table 4; for Module 25 in Table 5.

287
- -i.i :

P art 1 . —F uncti ons : * :

" e ^ • :r : : i n: n e c : . -ei :~ " : a" Responsibilities and duties of office'

Mechanical activities

Supervisory activities

Apportionment of effort

Summation

Part 2.—Historical background and review of Federal weights aic

rreasj-es legislation in the J" " t e: Etctes

Th€ interstate comre^c? : . : = The n: i h.: . : :"a-sa

:.:":»'"=" acf'or The Jefferson report

~"z first Federal law

"'" a Adams report

The troy pound of the mint

Hassler's early activities

The Joint Resolution of June "U. " E3£ The Act of July 7, 1B3S

The Act of July 25 , Ex. an: :e ?es:\t^* r _Vj IV Eft: The Joint Resolution of March 3, 1831

Standards and balances furnished to States

Effects of Congressional action

The Metric Convention

The "Mendenhall Order"

The International Yard and International Pound

New definition of tn* meteFederal legislation proposed and enacted

Part 3.—State an: ' xa" w=-?-:s ii: rr eas - ~e-: e: : Coramerci al equi pment ans or a: t

- ca s Etate coverage

Compilation of Federal and State 'cvs Part 4. —Current organization for we-?"-.: n: n ^i.: _ : •* the United

S t a te s The National Bureau o*' Etaxi-::

~-e . E»e : a- cn e- :

1 ?~ :. -a Use . . E . jer'i.- tmer t of nealtn and Soman Sendees

~*z : ex -a' ~-ax :: t : : : - " " r . . E . jet S" tm5" T

: ef = -a" c* t:

: ex acex" es State organizations

Exclusive State operation

Dual State and local operation

.:>::' DX^ar y . nx - 5 tax : .: r

-

:

' : •

2BB
Part 5.—Units and Systems of Weights and Measures

Part 6. —Investigation of complaints

Special investigator

Testimony

Action following investigation

Reports of investigations

Part 7. —Independent investigations

Planning and investigation

Analysis and presentation of results

Part 8.—Prosecutions

Administrative discretion

Criminal and civil statutes Preliminary considerations

Restitution

Probability of successful prosecution

Charging principal or agent

Charging a corporation

Vigor of prosecution effort

Exhibits

Records and memoranda

Witnesses

The representation

Quantity determinations by the official

Safeguarding the evidence

Evidence

Preliminary hearings

The law

The complaint

The trial

Appeals

Decisions

Personal aspects

Part 9.—Cooperation with other State and local officials and with

Federal agencies

Out-of -State manufacturers or packers

Exchange of information

Federal laws and agencies

Part 10.—Regional and State Weights and Measures Associations

Part 11.—National Conference on Weights and Measures

289
"A3.E -

:»£.::e ~e:-m:-_ z i:>.: z i u

i

x >

Part 1.—Spec

: • :

2kl
TABLE 5 FORMAT OF THE CONTENTS OF MODULE 25 COMMUNICATIONS

Part 1.—Relations with manufacturers and dealers

Impartiality

Intimacy

Gratuities

Comments

Commercial advantages

Financial interest

Cooperation

Part 2.—Education of the users of weighing and measuring devices

Scope

Maintenance of equipment

Improvements in methods and equipment

Cooperation

Procedures

Exhibits and audio and visual aids

Demonstrations

Charts and slides

Motion pictures

Trade publications

Part 3.—Education of the public

Scope

Visual and audio aids

Television broadcasting

Exhibits

Publications for distribution

Continuity of effort

Part 4.— Publicity

Essential characteristics

Sources

Preparation of releases

Distribution of releases

Reader interest

News value

291
III. WORKING GROUPS

A. General

The functional modules will be developed by working groups made up of experts in the specific functions being addressed. Each working group

will consist of at least three individuals:

1. A member of the Committee on Education, Administration, and

Consumer Affairs (to coordinate the developmental work with

the Committee, the NCWM, the NBS(OWM), and the NCWM

contractor (s) )

.

2. Two subject experts: a regulatory official and an industry

representati ve

.

More working groups will be needed as work is started on other

modules. Therefore the committee earnestly solicits volunteers from

the active and associate membership to make up future working groups.

We invite interested persons to notify the Committee in writing of

their desires.

B. Composition of Working Groups

Table 5 contains the identification of the first seven working groups

being established and the candidate members. Other working groups will

be established as work progresses.

292
00

S-CDe

0)

CD

-f-> f« o

ao

Q.O ' i— CO > cu

<D i—

•a

^ o

O CD

COc

jQ

S_ «C -r-

*0 »< CU •» «r- •> CD* * 4-> -K t_ a) i- s- +j >>

cu r— <d a> (L) a> _a oj +-> cdi—

a) CT)4-> •!— fo s-

•r- «o *o a> s_ r»

CD Li. U. I— J Of

CD •> CD C C C

•r- t—• •(—

+-> I +-> » (O +J (O

co o — O

<D "I— •!— T~ -XI 3T3

(O Cm C

O »—i i—

CO ©3

<_> O

cr»-t- c +-> s_ +-> r O *

Dig O E

00 cn a> c

•r—

4-> u co 00 S- Ol aj 1

CD+->

c: co

• +j cd C 00 Z5 CU U_ r— E

fl or * o o oo

S- CO f0 ai o o "O CU «r- c cd c o

•r- ic o «r- J* s- c

>> O •-> O

CJ fO O S_ CL CU 4->

1— I

'— o

<o a> uj a> o$- <—

•r— Q_ i— UJ

fO T3 +J T3

JC C C

O (O CD ITS CU •--

fO «» fO ©3 C <l) C

O i— O

S- fO

CU ©2 4-> o3

+-> S- C U O O

rs -r- a. -r- o +-> 4-> • O «3 » fO CO £ S- E <L> •O OJ OrO C3 C Z3 O

cu o

CO o

5^ cj <: a. k S_ 4_> * . * C QJ 00 it «TD

O <— TJ >>* $_ CO 00 O- CU +-> *> *3 c c -a oo -m cdj=

A3 CU O S- O C <-> 5 =J O <T3 O -i- -r- W CD CD D tO y Cl

—I cu <MJC

* o

*>* t— I 8e <U S- o <— jQ -O

•r- r— S_

(!) O d) CD CJ CD

"O 00

fd CU O i

_J <Vo

<D CO X u

c

o3 O

s_ cu +-> i— u o cu

CO O

CU fC CO szo

-M O)

5£: * to <— cu o3 fT3 r—

co •!— o

CU E tO

to C

-V o r- y s-

•i- O 4-> 5_ co o <u «— C > LU o •-

I— CO 3

O

CO

X X LU

O S- oo «3 c 5

rt3 CU

3: +-> to to

CL

0) 3 s- - 3:

•» CU 00 o * -f-> Q- k 00 .r- • O O CD

•r- <T3 1_ •!— >r- S_ r- +J O x: E

co ^ to u_ a. to •"ooooo-o-Ja:

o cu a s 1— cu LU CD C i- O CO

•r- ©3 CU 2 to c o

(— C o <o

<T3 CU s_ o_

T3 U CX +-> 5 *•- 00 o 4-

cu o

A3 O r—

-a jc LU CO c <->•- 4-> cu cu cu c

CO i u_

s_ cu

cu M J- CO c

• CU i_ c o

•P V) o cu o

o c: +-> Cl

=3 O) o 00

cu O CO O 00

$_ t- r- cu O- Q •<- CU i— CD • c o C CO

CU <— 4-> •r- CO

i— CU CU •— c

cd C3 a: o o o o

00 CJ CU CD

JC to CD o

CD t—

S_ o

O o — JC o +-> +J J3 «3 -a o < C -r- «3 C

rej e CD CO E

CU CO o

I z u

CO LO

CNJ C\J C\J

293
IV. ORGANIZATIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES

A. General

Overall responsibility for development of the Primary Training Program

rests with the NCWM leadership. Specific responsibilities are:

1. Finance Subcommittee of the NCWM Executive CTE - Administer

the grant and contract(s) made possible by the grant.

2. Education, Administration, and Consumer Affairs Committee

- provides overall technical management with assistance from

NBS (OWN!).

- acts as Finance Subcommittee's representative for evaluating

the technical performance of contractor(s)

- coordinates and reviews work of the working groups

3. Working Groups, NCWM - Development of draft modules.

B. Contractor (s)

The Contractor will be responsible for:

1. Conversion of working group drafts of student manuals into "camera ready" final manuals;

2. Development of Elective Technical student manuals (modules

26-37);

3. Development of Instructor manuals to accompany all student

manuals

;

4. Development of slides and graphics for all manuals; and

6. Producing the manuals in accordance with Year 1 of the

Production Schedule, (see Table 7). In summary, the contractor will produce final modules, each consisting

of:

1 . instructor 1 s manual

2. student' s manual

3. electronic manuscript compatible with NBS equipment

4. negatives of slides used

5. one copy of each module is to be assembled in final format

294
V. SCHEDULE OF WORK

A. General

Development of the Primary Training Program is expected to extend over

a period of 6 1/2 years. The major responsibilities and events are depicted in Table 6 of the NCWM Plan.

Major events in this plan are considered critical and must take place

as specified for the completion of the program. These are as follows:

1. Approval of NBS Grant to Conference to support program must occur

by January 1983.

2. Contractor work statement completed by Education Committee and

ready for review by NCWM Executive Committee (December 1982).

3. Conference management approves contractor work statement during

Interim Meeting January 1983.

4. Contract is awarded to Contractor in February 1983.

5. First working group was established for module preparation in

January 1983.

6. Working group initiated work in January 1983.

7. Contractor initiates work in March 1983.

B. Single Module Development

Module development will be staggered over the 6 1/2 year period

commencing with work by the first working group in January, 1983.

Each module is scheduled for a two year development period following

the following work schedule:

D day - Working Groups begin.

D+6 months - 1st working draft of student manual to review by

Education Committee.

D+8 months - Education Committee completes review; revised draft

to Contractor with comments.

D+12 months - Contractor completes drafts of Student and

Instructor Manuals. To Education Committee for

review.

D+14 months - Draft to selected jurisdiction(s) for field test. D+20 months - Education Committee completes review.

D+22 months - Education Committee and Contractor complete final

review.

D+24 months - Module published by Contractor.

C. Program Development

The NCWM Education Committee has established a schedule for development

and production of the modules (Table 7). This schedule provides for

interspersing of development of the Elective Technical Modules by the

Contractor(s) subject to negotiation between the NCWM and Contractor(s)

concerning work that can be done within the anticipated funding.

295
^2' - 7 =ro3j:-::v'"s:-ex.e 5 >2- :

1 lieJ

' 7 '22 1/84 3 9 34 11/84 ; r 2 _£

'

2 2 : 2 '33 2

-' 1 3- - 2- " 2 '2- '2 2- 2

z z 3 z z 2 9/33 ; : ; 3- : 2- - - ' lL " 2 5 3> z z -

1' - - - J ' z3 i z z - 3- - : - "2 2- 2 2 5 4> z z

' 2 j z - 7 1 - 7 '2- 2 5 2 25 5j z z 2 : :: : ;7

2 2- 2 25 - 2 5 oil 2 f f

:

: -~ - - -

_ _

: : :

9 ET(c) 5 2-

- 2 5

2 5

: 33

2 2-

9 5- / 3-

5 2

r 9> 11 " '52 5 3I

- " : 2- 25 " 2 5 9 2 5 2 5 2 5

:

~ ^ — - a / - 3- : z :

- 2 c - : '35

' - -

" 2 5- 3 2- "': 2- / j M ~ - 2 5 2 25 ' 3 5

1

3

- i z- 9/3- 3-

- - z z 2 6 -

' 2

5

c a

5 2 26 4/ 17

1

3

- E!a c J

5 2 -

5 3-

2-

"! 2/34

1/35 E ;

7/3 z

z zz

z z

_ ;

:

; Z Z 4/36

d 0

z z 22 —

— c 3-

* z - zz - 2 5

- z z

1 z z

' : 2 5

w ^ - - 2 6

r

" ~

;

z z 'z z

2 9 2 - Z'ZZ Z ZZ 9 25 2 5 5 25 9 z z 22

2~ — 1 2-

2-

- 2 5 z ' 3 0

5 35

2

1

: 35 2 35

: 5

c z z z z- 56

- 10/ z z

z z I'- ll

1—

" 2 - 5/35 3/55 " - "

" - z 2 2 6

- 5 12i

2 26 —

27 -

"

. z zz 2 6 1/87

2

*

. . ;

: ::

_ -

.

- -

-- so z z

" '37 2 '37 z 57

2C - 2

" 31

- : r : 35

: 11 : : - J 22 2 2: - 36 2 35 2 2 5 - 2"

5 2"

Z. 37

- 2 5 5

7 3 5

" : 2 5 "2 25 5 '37 35 — : 5 7/25 V 26

7 ' 3^ 9/37 2-

2~T "2 35 "226 - zz c z

" 2/ 57 2 2"

Mc : j" e

" : < - : S S'^ 1 S Z" ' iz iz S Wl 1 z - :e ,e' ::

(b) - i C

r e a d 1 g "S exc" - Z Z

"

" * e " . z

D - i -cry

~

^ £

-' <

p| g

s a

n

«: 5 s s

5. s s g

^ ed for the firs

" s * = "'•*: e r will De ass

296
During the Conference week, meeting with Doctor Lee Phillips of Texas A

and M, the Committee:

o Finalized Module 2 from Group A.

o Reviewed Module 1 from Group A.

o Reviewed written reports from Groups B and E. The

Committee's comments will be forwarded to those groups.

o Received a report of progress regarding Module 23 from Group

G.

o Received a first draft of Module 26 from Texas A and M. The

Committee has scheduled a trial presentation of Module 26 this fall.

At present, all Modules are progressing on schedule. The Committee

wishes to express its sincere appreciation of the efforts of the

working groups, without whose contributions this project would be

impossible.

The Committee is pleased to report that Ed Bratle of NCR and Dan Rice

of Toledo Scale have responded to the Committee's request for

volunteers to assist the working groups.

J. L. Swanson, Alaska, Chairman

S. J. Darsey, Florida

T. Geiler, Hyannis, Massachusetts

P. A. Stagg, Louisiana

B. R. Niebergall, North Dakota

R. N. Smith, NBS Technical Advisor

A. D. Tholen, Executive Secretary

Committee on Education, Administration, and Consumer Affairs

297

REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE

on liaison

Presented by KENDRICK J. SIMLA, Administrator

Weights and Measures Division, Department of Agriculture

Salem, Oregon

VOTING KEY INTRODUCTION

500

The Committee on Liaison submits its report to the 68th National

Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM). This 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 Committee that have been formed on the basis of written and oral comments received during the year and oral presentations made during

the general meeting of the Committee.

The Chairman announced that only Item 502-6, Cash-Credit Pricing, is a voting item and that all other items are informational. The Chairman

moved approval of Item 501-6. The motion carried as follows:

Yes No State Representatives 39 0

Delegates 42 0

The Chairman moved adoption of the entire report with editorial

privilege to the Executive Secretary. The motion carried as follows:

Yes No State Representatives 42 0

Delegates 44 0

501 NBS-NCWM RELATIONSHIP

The status of the NBS Office of Weights and Measures (OWM) five-year

program to improve services to State and local jurisdictions and others

in the weights and measures field was reviewed by Albert Tholen, Chief,

OWM. He noted that funding for FY 1983 was $1.2 million, which is an increase of approximately $400,000 over the prior year, and that he

expected the funding to remain at that level for FY 1984 and FY 1985. He cautioned that any future funding was subject to many variables,

particularly decisions by the Federal Government including the Congress.

During the current year, the OWM has arranged for support from several

Centers at NBS, each for a specific task. Additionally, arrangements

have been made for employment of students in cooperative work study

programs. This method of "subcontracting" brings unique skills to bear

299
on selected tasks while retaining the flexibility to shop around for

different skills as the OWM program progresses. This approach provides

augmentation of present OWM staff; OWM can utilize NBS staff experts on

an "as-needed" basis or hire students from a cooperative education

university.

In addition, Mr. Tholen reviewed the goals and objectives as set forth

in the published plan and discussed the elements of the plan's delivery

mechanisms. Those mechanisms include:

1. providing the NCWM Secretariat,

2. preparation of handbooks and publications,

3. fostering and conducting training activities,

4. general servicing of requests for information or assistance,

5. support of regional and State meetings,

6. support supplied by mail and telephone.

It was noted that of the $1.2 million funding, $150,000 was a grant to the NCWM for development of the National Training Program. This is an addition to support of regional training and metrology seminars.

Since the interim meetings of the NCWM Standing Committees in January,

President Reagan has proposed a major reorganization of the Federal

Government that will eliminate as a cabinet-level agency the U.S.

Department of Comnerce, parent agency of the National Bureau of

Standards. Under the President's plan, the National Bureau of

Standards, including the Office of Product Standards Policy, together

with the Office of Weights and Measures, would be transferred to the

National Science Foundation. Under this arrangement, policy direction

for NBS will come from the National Science Board, a 24 member committee

of representatives from academia and industry appointed by the

President. The Committee calls this development to the attention of

the Conference because of the substantial nature of the change in the

way the Bureau and its components will receive policy direction, if the

Congress enacts the proposal. Depending on the priorities set by the

National Science Board for the Bureau, the Committee feels the NBS-NCWM

relationship could be significantly affected.

502 FEDERAL AGENCY ACTIVITIES

502-1 FEDERAL GRAIN INSPECTION SERVICE

Representatives of the Federal Grain Inspection Service (FGIS) met with

the committee and presented a report covering the status of the Master

Track Scale Testing Program. Present were Dick Pforr, Chief, Scale

Testing and Weighing Branch and Ben Banks, Program Manager.

The purpose of the meeting was twofold, (1) to hear and discuss

developments during the past 12 months in relation to the calibration

300
and certification of master track scales, test cars, and other railroad

track scales; and (2) to discuss any problems that may have developed

in the overall FGIS program.

There are approximately 5,500 railroad track scales that are tested and approved through the use of test cars operated by the railroads and by

State agencies. Those test cars are calibrated by reference to a system of 15 master track scales throughout the United States. The

calibration of the 15 master scales and the testing of other track

scales for which FGIS is directly responsible are being done with two

test cars operated by FGIS.

The two test cars operated by FGIS are to be calibrated once each year

by use of the National Bureau of Standards master standard at the

Clearing, Illinois, master scale facility. The NBS standard is to be

recalibrated at least every five years by NBS at Gaithersburg,

Maryland. In this way traceability will be maintained.

During FY 1982 with both test cars in operation Mr. Pforr and Mr. Banks

reported the following activities: (1) all J_5 master track scales were tested, (2) 12 test car field calibrations were conducted, (3) 21 Clearing facility car calibrations were completed, (4) 18 railroad-owned

scales were tested, (5) 76 grain scales and ]_8 other raTTroad track

scales were tested.

The Association of American Railroads provided financial and operational

assistance to FGIS in conducting these tests.

In addition to the above tests, several requests from private industries

seeking assistance in calibrating large mass standards and in testing

special purpose large-capacity scales were responded to. These tests

were conducted on a total cost recovery basis, giving priority to the

testing of grain industry and master track scales.

During FY 1982, as a result of a request from the State of Illinois,

two 2500- lb mass standards were transferred to the Illinois metrology

laboratory to be used in conjunction with their new, large-capacity

mass comparator.

Mr. Pforr indicated that they would review the routing of both east and west coast itineraries for FY 1983 to determine if more efficient

routing can be accomplished.

There are 24 States involved in the Federal Grain Inspection Program;

all but three States, Ohio, Texas, and Maine, participated in the

certification of scales calibrated by FGIS in 1982. The Liaison

Committee encourages all States involved to cooperate and make certain3 all FGIS tested devices are simultaneously certified by appropriate

weights and measures officials.

301
The need for accurancy in railroad track scales involves many industries

other than those in the grain trade. The Committee is concerned that

those who employ track scales in their operations be able to receive

appropriate track scale calibration and certification services.

The Committee on Liaison is encouraged by the progress report for FY

1 982 given by Mr. Pforr and Mr. Banks. Their projection for FY 1983

indicates more participation in expanded areas. 502-2 NET WEIGHT--USDA/FDA

On November 30, 1982, the Liaison Committee, acting upon a recommendation in its report to the 67th Conference, submitted a recommendation to the USDA and to the FDA to consider Handbook 133 as

an alternative to the agencies' net weight proposals published in 1980

but which have not been acted upon. The Committee also submitted to USDA and FDA copies of H-133 and a draft of the field manual version of

the handbook for their review and evaluation.

On January 10, 1983, Donald L. Houston, Food Safety and Inspection

Services, USDA responded that the publications were being studied by

their technical staff. He commented that the Maximum Allowable

Variations (MAV's) provided good net weight controls for meat and poultry products. However, he stated that the sampling criteria in H-133 may not be suitable when compared to their labeling proposal.

During the i nter im meeti ng in January, Dr. William Dubbert, FSIS, USDA,

stated that the Department felt that their current regulations in force

are adequate and satisfactory. His statements imply that they do not plan to adopt their 1980 proposal modeled after H-133 and that the

Conference suggestion to their Department to consider adopting H-133

for meat and poultry will not be followed.

Because differences exist between H-133 and the USDA regulations,

adoption of H-133 by the States could result in the continued exercise

of concurrent jurisdiction over Federally inspected meat and poultry

products. This has been illustrated in the past by the coexistence and use of the NBS Handbook 67, "Checking Prepackaged Commodities" and the

USDA regulations.

On July 13, 1983, William F. Randolph, Deputy Associate Commissioner

for Regulatory Affairs, FDA, sent a memorandum to the Liaison Committee

to inform the Conference that it has forwarded a document for approval

announcing final action on its August 8, 1 980 proposed rule concerning

net weight labeling requirements. The FDA expects that this document

will be published in the Federal Register in approximately two to three

months.

302
502-3 AEROSOL NET WEIGHT LABELING

Deputy Associate Commissioner William Randolph, FDA, advised the

Committee that he expected proposal action to be published within a few

months in the Federal Register regarding the NCWM petition pertaining

to net weight labeling of aerosol packaged products. However because

the agency implements proposed label changes only on very limited

uniform dates and the next uniform effective date that permits the

required minimum one full year advance notice to industry is July 1, 1985, publication of the proposal in May or June of this year will not result in early modification of the federal regulation. Mr. Randolph

suggested that meanwhile, section 10.3 of the Model State Packaging and

Labeling Regulations will require most aerosol packages to comply with

the Conference position.

In their July 13, 1983 memo, the FDA stated that final action on this

proposal is also pending a determination as to whether or not it is subject to the requirements of the Office of Management and Budget

March 31, 1983, final rule (48 FR 13666) on controlling paperwork

burdens on the public.

502-4 NET WEIGHT LABELING OF MARGARINE

On June 14, 1982, a letter of request in behalf of the Conference was

sent to the FDA asking them to propose to the Congress that section 407

(b)(z) of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 USC 347(b)(z)) be

modified to permit the sale of margarine in packages with a net weight

greater than one pound. In a letter of response to the request, Howard

Pippin, Chief, Guidelines and Compliance Research Branch, Bureau of

Foods stated that FDA would give due consideration to the views of NCWM

during their next planning sequence for legislative proposals.

At the Interim Committee Meeting, Deputy Associate Commissioner William

Randolph, told the Committee that they were permitted to make only four

legislative proposals in this planning sequence and this request had a lower priority than others. The Committee made known its desire that

this be given due consideration at the next planning sequence.

In their July 13, 1983 memo, the FDA reiterated the fact that the

Conference proposal would not be addressed this year. However, the FDA

did suggest that the NCWM consider submitting their proposal directly

to interested members of Congress.

It was observed during the Interim Committee Meeting with some irony

that with respect to the labeling of margarine, during the short

interval of time between August 1982 and December 1982, some western

State jurisdictions had:

1. received angry letters from a margarine manufacturer

criticizing the NCWM's request to FDA seeking repeal of the

M l-lb maximum" law because it would "permit undue

proliferation of package sizes";

303
2. found the same manufacturer to, have actually introduced and packaged more than 8000 cases (24 packages per case) of a new 12-ounce size of margarine that is not permitted under either

the NCWM model regulation or any of the State laws in the

States where it was being marketed;

3. found the same manufacturer's 5-lb institutional size

margarine packages on sale at retail in a large regional

chain's supermarket, although such sales are unlawful under

the FDA administered "l-lb maximum" law.

This last observation was clearly the most ironic since the NCWM's

position would have in fact removed the Federal prohibition on such

sales (the NCWM and the States already recognize sales of margarine in

multiples of 1 lb) while the manufacturer's own letters opposed their

being able to market their product at retail in 5-lb sizes.

502-5 PRODUCTS WITH NO OR WITH INACCURATE QUANTITY STATEMENTS

The Committee met in joint session with the Committee on Laws and

Regulations concerning the sale of a product (potpourri) in decorative

containers with no quantity statement. The results of the session and

the action proposed are reported in the Laws and Regulations Committee

Tentative Report (item 207-5).

The Committee also met with representatives of USDA concerning

inaccurate quantity statements on small snack-size sausages. The USDA

officials expressed interest and said they would look into the problem.

502-6 CASH-CREDIT PRICING

The Liaison Committee, in joint session with the Committee on Laws and

Regulations, met with Gerald Hurst from the Federal Reserve Board (FR3)

and Sarah Jane Hughes of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in an effort to remove confusion regarding permitted practices for cash

discounting of motor fuel sales under the Cash Discount Act. After

hearing the background from the two officials on the often confusing

published Federal Reserve Board staff commentary on Regulation Z, the

L&R Committee moved as indicated in their report (item 207-1 ) to clarify the cash discount guidelines that were presented to the 1982

NCWM. The Liaison Committee will present the modified guidelines to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. The Board of

Governors will be asked to indicate to the NCWM whether the guidelines

are in conformance with the Cash Discount Act. With the belief that

the Conference guidelines are more specific and understandable, and

that they can better serve as a practical means of achieving the price

posting aims of the Cash Discount Act in motor fuel sales, the

Committee will also urge the Federal Reserve Board to recognize or incorporate provisions of the NCWM Guidelines in any further

interpretations or staff commentar ies published.

304
Upon receipt of the Interim Report of the Committee on Laws and

Regulations, the Committee for Liaison, through its Chairman, wrote to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and inquired if

the proposed NCWM guidelines for the cash discounting of motor fuel

sales were appropriate and in accordance with the Cash Discount Act.

Mr. Griffith L. Garwood, Director, Division of Consumer and Community

Affairs, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, responded in

a letter dated June 1, 1983 that the guidelines do not conflict with

the requirements of the Cash Discount Act to the extent that the Act

has been interpreted by Board staff. The Committee, however, wishes to advise the members of the NCWM that the surcharge prohibition in the

Cash Discount Act will expire on February 27, 1984. Any Conference

member wishing to express an opinion on the expiration of the surcharge

prohibition should contact: (1) U.S. Senate Banking Committee; (2) the

U.S. House of Representatives Banking Committee, Subcommittee on Consumer Affairs and Coinage; and (3) the Federal Reserve Board,

Consumer Affairs Department.

The Committee further recommends that the National Conference support

dropping of the credit surcharge prohibition when it expires in

February 1984. If this NCWM policy position is adopted, the Conference

position on this issue will be conveyed to the above listed offices.

502-7 KEROSENE GRADES

The State of Maryland, through the Southern Weights and Measures

Association, requested that the L & R Committee require, as a method of

sale, that all kerosene kept, offered, exposed for sale, or sold be

identified by ASTM designations for kerosene. The L & R Committee plans

to offer to the 1983 NCWM such an amendment to the Method of Sale of

Commodities Regulation for prepackaged kerosene (item 204-7). The S & T Committee has offered changes to H-44 that will require that kerosene

sold through retail dispensers be appropriately identified. There

appears to be no need at this time for liaison action on this matter.

503 PROMOTION OF USE AND APPLICATION OF NBS H-133

The Committee in its Final Report to the 1982 Conference supported

further exposure to H-133 through NBS-sponsored field training seminars

as well as preparation of a field manual and a video-tape series.

Personnel from the Office of Weights and Measures conducted field

training seminars on H-133 at NBS in August 1982 for industry and

Federal agencies, and regional seminars in September at Snowbird, Utah,

and Denver, Colorado for weights and measures officials. The seminar

at Snowbird was held following the Western Conference and included

participation by members of the Western Conference. The seminar in Colorado included participation by officials from Kansas and Nebraska.

Regional seminars are being planned for the metropolitan New York area

in Nyack in April 1983, and in Boston, Massachusetts in May.

305
A seminar is being considered by the Department of Commerce Bureau of

Fisheries; in addition, a seminar will be held in Hawaii following the

Western Conference, in Connecticut in October, and in Arkansas in April

1984.

A condensed field manual version of H-133 has been developed and used

in training seminars. A third draft of the field manual is now

avai 1 able

.

A script for the videotape training program for H-133 has been prepared

by an American University student class on videotape productions as a class project. However, the script will require considerable revising

by the OWM staff.

504 UPDATE OF NBS HANDBOOKS

As stated in its Organization and Procedures booklet two of the primary

objectives of the National Conference on Weights and Measures are: (1) "to develop a consensus on model laws and regulations, specifications,

and tolerances for weighing and measuring devices and on testing,

enforcement, and administrative procedures" and (2) "to encourage and

promote uniformity of requirements and methods among jurisdictions."

With this thought in mind the Liaison Committee in its report last year

(1982) reviewed the extensive series of Handbooks dealing with weights

and measures that are published by the National Bureau of Standards. A number of these were either no longer in print or had not been kept

current (published within the past ten years) and yet all of these are widely accepted reference works by weights and measures officials. As

a result the Committee recommended 15 different publications be updated,

reprinted, and made available to weights and measures officials.

In response to that recommendation Mr. Albert D. Tholen, Chief of the

Office of Weights and Measures, appeared before the Liaison Committee

and reported as follows:

(1) The material in most of the handbooks identified by the Liaison

Committee in its report to the 67th Annual Meeting will be updated

as part of the work underway in the National Training Program. A series of modules (textbooks) will be written that, collectively,

will include the subject material of the existing (but out of

date) handbooks. In Table 1 the publications recommended for

updating are listed. The right hand column, identifies the number

of the training module that will contain updated material now in

the handbooks of interest (left hand column). See the report of the Committee on Education, Administration, and Consumer Affairs

(item 407) for identification of modules.

(2) All new publications, including updating of existing handbooks and

manuals of the training program, will be computer based for ease

of updating.

306
cu ZZ 1

>> sz "o 0 0 1

rC LO to •<- E r~~ ro +-> c O 03 r— •r— CM LO TJ E <—

r-^ 1CU T3 K CO * •> 1— 0 cu

LxJ -

to ^fr M— —1 Cd •> 1— ' a ZJ ZD LU 00 LO »> -t-> *> f~ Q £0 o s: 1 LO r> OO TO 0 CNJ "?J- 1— "CD 1— cu c: to

rC "O •1— cu ' 2: ^d- CO CM S- 13 CM CU 1— to 3

cd CM " +-> E U 0 -0 O <— CU C Q_ O

00 00 ^ CM CD •.- LU E

00—1<1—

O1—

Lo- Ll. LU O ro

_J CO ct LU > ct: zd

LU CO O <c Z LU

LU

cc

LU O

LU <C

or CO

LU oz h-

_J l— or

CO 0 < 3 1— LU 2 3 O _J

<C

DO O O O_J <zc q

CO «=C DOS LU

I—

CO01—

CM O 00 *-* cn 1—

<— o I— co < =0 o I— ZEJ

CO CO

ZD

Cu

2: OOI CD ^ CO z o DO < O ZICQ

-0 XD TD

cn

-O T3 TD C CD C CD C CD C CD C CD ? CD

CU c cu c cu jz CU c CU C CU e cu c:

+-> £ +J 4-> +-> -M 4-> E -i-> O <T3 O rC 0 fO 0 r0 O rO 0 rC O f0 O -O 0 -0 0 -O 0 -0 O T3 c_> O U TO a1 a. CU CL cu CL cu a. CU CL cu Q. CU CL

CtL ZD CC ZD or ZD ZD a; ZD or zd CU ZD 8ocu r-». to CO

s- 1—

cu 1 Q.DZ

CJ CO • •> CM

4-> 1—

5- 1—

rC I d_ zc c >>

•—1 JO

JZ

+-> to

JDII

cuo to O CD

cu >—

Csl w

CU CT O 0 0 to 0

ro •!-

•J-> -a +J CO -M -0 fD cu ro CU ro cu U JC O to -0

to • r- 00 • r- to CU LU

s- O

cu jo <— JD <— JZ> C CM

Q. ZJ JO =3 JO 13 =5 D_ 13 Q_ =3 CL. ^C^

CO CL Q. CU r— CM 1— CU 1— CU M4-> ro CU rO qj sj- S- r— c c C or «^

f0 1 •r- i_ •1- s- 1 o_ zc CD CU CD cu CD CU 3Z

•r- > 1- > X) c >, cu s- cu O E

1—1 CD 0 z: 0 2: 0 O O

to CD to rO to c•1

c M- +-> 1

III CD1 re JZ to

$- C5 O ro o_ Z5 0 cu to cu U_ _l CD to •1- £C to ro C E E ro +J 0 ro CU c O CL M- CU ro •— M CU •1

O O S- ST O r- s: +-> =3 =3 •i- Z3 O o_ ro cr C C to •XD E O CO »—

M— C ro C LU O lO O ro C ro O C£ O H-> rO S- •r- ^ CU ro X CU C +-> E CD 4-> C +-> J* LU i- < CO CD CU to to ro JZ ro ro ro to 00 0 Z3 ZC LU sz E +-> •>- X C r— c -0 CU -P O cu *c

CO •r- CL SZ E LU JZ 0 JC JO CJ cu

+-> cn E 1

ZJ CDTZ •r- O

lO C5 CU ro «— cr > •r- SZ > O

CU CT cu -0 JZ CU X T- X •1

cu CU rO CU 1— LU 3 <C 1

3 lu LU -J 0 3 ZC co a_

LU LU CM LO LO CO 0

1— ZD LO to to to to

<C CO

CO CO LO to CO LO LO to o

CL

cu

CsL

307
(3) As manuals are completed, the Liaison Committee should review them

to determine if the contents are in the format and detail deemed

necessary as reference documents (thereby replacing outdated

handbooks) or if some additional work of extraction and

reformatting is necessary.

(4) Preliminary work is underway to update NBS Circular 540, "Weights

and Measures Case Reference Book."

505 TASK FORCE ON PACKAGE CONTROL

The task force, previously a subgroup to the Special Study Group on a National Weights and Measures System, now reports to the National

Conference through the Committee on Liaison due to restructuring of

activities within the NCWM during 1982.

The task force met twice during the interim committee meetings at the

National Bureau of Standards in January, 1983. The task force also met

and reported to a joint meeting of the Standing Committees on Liaison

and on Laws and Regulations.

The task force has given priority during the past year to three of the

recomnendati ons referred to it by its predecessor, the NCWM Special

Study Group on Enforcement Uniformity. In addition the task force has

initiated activity toward identifying those concepts and elements of

package control that are practical from an operational standpoint,

economically feasible, and politically achievable. Reports on the three

ongoing activity areas and the new work item, and their results to date

follow.

ONGOING ACTIVITY I . DEVELOPMENT OF A FIELD MANUAL ON PACKAGE SAMPLING

AND NET CONTENTS CHECKING PROCEDURES . Carroll Brickenkamp, Stephen Hasko, and Mary Natrella from the National

Bureau of Standards have developed a field manual version of H-133. The

first draft appeared in August, 1982. A second draft was issued at the

Interim Meetings of the National Conference on Weights and Measures in

January, 1983.

The field manual consists of the procedures, tables, and report forms

needed for field inspectors. Most of the material comes directly from

H-133 and is organized in a manner that facilitates field use. The manual consists of eight sections:

Section I : Decision Charts - a description of the steps

necessary to determine package compliance.

Section II : Sampling Plans - tables that describe each type of

sampling plan in H-133.

308
Section III : Alternative Tare - procedures for determining the tare of glass, aerosol, and other variable tare packages.

Section IV : Weighing Rules - determination of units of measure

Section V : Maximum Allowable Variations (MAV's) - tables of

allowances for individual packages.

Section VI : Report Forms - worksheets and forms needed to record the results of an inspection.

Section VII : Examples - completed worksheets and report forms

commonly used.

Section VIII: Random Number Tables—tables for unbiased selection

of samples.

The field manual has been used in training seminars presented to industry representatives and regulatory officials on H-133. Comments

received from the seminars has resulted in the incorporation of

improvements in the second draft version.

The Task Force recommends that the ease of use, simplicity,

organization, and completeness of the manual be evaluated under actual

field conditions. The task force will undertake to do this. If further refinements are suggested, the Task Force will assist the

authors to make the necessary changes in subsequent editions.

ONGOING ACTIVITY II. TRAINING NEEDS/RESOURCES FOR WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

PERSONNEL INVOLVED IN PACKAGE CONTROL WORK.

The areas of need in package control training as identified by the task

force were listed in and are published on pages 44 and 45 of NBS Special

Publication 645, Report to the 67th NCWM. In the area of training

resources, at the inception of the task force, it appeared that

education and training resources and opportunities were very limited.

During the past two years this perspective has changed quite rapidly.

The NBS Office of Weights and Measures has completed H-133 and is offering (see agenda item 503) training sessions on its application and use to officials and industry representatives. A videotape training

series on H-133 is in process by NBS, the scripts to be developed with

the assistance of American University in Washington, D.C. These will serve to provide two modules of training devoted to packaging.

The Institute for Weights and Measures, headquartered in Columbus,

Ohio, at Franklin University, has developed and is offering a course in package checking. Alfred College (NY) and Butler College (IN) in the

East, and Yuba and Golden West Colleges in California have for some time offered two-year courses leading to Associate degrees in weights

and measures. These curricula all include some courses in or applicable

to package checking, sampling, and statistical quantity control.

309
The Task Force believes that because of the extensive work being done

in this field by the groups and organizations identified above, it has

reached the end of its work on this activity unless further involvement

is requested of it by others in specific areas. ONGOING ACTIVITY III. COMPARISON AND EVALUATION OF PACKAGE CONTROL

SYSTEMS USED IN OTHER COUNTRIES

The task force has begun review and evaluation of the systems of

package control used in various foreign countries in order to assess whether to recommend any elements of these systems for possible use in the U.S. A detailed comparison of some of the structural elements and

features of such systems in eight other nations, plus the EEC (common

market) and related work underway in the OIML and Codex organizations, was published in preliminary form on pages 46-59 of NBS Special

Publication 645, Report of the 67th NCWM.

NEW WORK ACTIVITY - IDENTIFYING STEPS THAT CAN BE TAKEN TOWARD A MORE

EFFECTIVE AND MORE EFFICIENT SYSTEM OF PACKAGE

CONTROL IN THE U.S.

The existing system of package control in the U.S. involves a division

of responsibility among the packager, various Federal authorities, and

State and local weights and measures officials. Although the existing

system has served us well in some respects for many years, more

coordination among the various authorities would be beneficial in terms

of both efficiency and effectiveness.

Moreover, developments such as the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court

in the Rath case, the increasing use by packagers of high-speed

packaging machinery, national distribution, and the shortage of resources to be devoted to package checking in some jurisdictions all

suggest the need for mechanisms that would permit more effective

coordi nation.

With all this in mind, the task force has developed a framework for

considering some of the issues raised both by the existing, fragmented

system of package control in the U.S. and by the Task Force study of other countries' systems of package control. This framework, in the

form of the discussion paper that follows, includes concepts for a rationalized U.S. national package control system that incorporates a mechanism (the "T'-mark Program) for more effective coordination among

local, State, and Federal jurisdictions and affected packagers.

310
NCWM TASK FORCE ON PACKAGE CONTROL

DISCUSSION PAPER TOWARD A RATIONALIZED U.S. NATIONAL PACKAGE CONTROL SYSTEM

I . Starting Assumptions . A. Such a system is achievable with no additional Federal

legislation.

B. Changes that may be necessary can be accomplished by

evolutionary means.

C. All proposed State and local net contents requirements including

the way that they are interpreted and applied, will not be

inconsistent with corresponding Federal requirements.

D. All parties involved will use their best efforts on a continuous

basis to seek to simplify and unify, to the maximum extent

possible, corresponding policies, procedures, and requirements.

II. Scope and Coverage Principles . A. Packaged products covered by this package control system include

any consumer or non-consumer packages, food or non-food, subject

to exclusive or concurrent jurisdiction of the States under the

NCWM model laws (See Table II). TABLE II 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

UNITS^\

OF MEASURE

MEAT

POULTRY

FOOD

DRUGS COSMETICS

NON- FOOD

HERBICIDES PESTICIDES RODENTICIDES

ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES TOBACCO

OTHER

SPTG GDS AUTO.CHEM HARDWARE

etc

MEAT

POULTRY FOOD

DRUGS

COSMETICS

PESTICIDES ALCOHOL TOBACCO

ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES

OTHER

CUSTOMARY

UNITS ONLY ,COVE

' OF F '//A

»AGE /

S LA ^-

TOBACCO MALT

BEVERAGE

TOBACCO

MALT

BEVERAGE DUAL

UNITS W, 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

311
B. Government agencies (Federal, State, and local) will continue

to exercise their existing respective authority to function

with respect to net contents labeling. This means (See Table

II) that the States will in some product areas exercise con- current jurisdiction with a Federal agency, in other product

areas exercise exclusive jurisdiction, and in some areas exercise concurrent jurisdiction with a city or county unit.

III. Package Compliance Standards . A. The "average concept" will apply to net content label

declarations.

B. Appropriate "unreasonable error limits" or Maximum Allowable

Variations (MAV) will be established to allow for unavoidable

deviations in good manufacturing practice.

C. The package control system will have a statistical approach

based on NBS H-133 as a starting point.

IV. Operating Principles . A. Place of Inspection. Inspections of packaged product for net content compliance can be conducted at:

1. The plant or package level;

2. The wholesale or warehouse level;

3. The retail level or point of final sale.

B. Time and Nature of Inspections. With due consideration for

the reasonableness and frequency of such visits, any inspection under "A" can be performed on an unannounced-in-advance

basis during normal business hours.

C. Agency Corrective Action Alternatives. In cases of

noncompliance, the jurisdiction involved shall, if and as authorized, employ progression enforcement actions including:

1. administrative warnings;

2. off -sale orders and injunctions;

3. civil penalties and diversionary agreements; and

4. prosecution.

Use of any of these agency corrective action alternatives

would be governed by the circumstances applicable in each

case.

V. Supporting Principles . (See further discussion in Section VI.)

A. A U.S. "I"-mark Plan. A voluntary, jointly-administered

NCWM-industry U.S. package control "I" (for inspection) mark

program can be developed to provide that the qualifying

312
products of participating firms will not be subjected to official sanctions under IV. C. above, unless or until verified

deviations from good manufacturing practices and, where

applicable, from good distribution practices, have been shown

to have occurred.

B. Access to Inspection Records. Participants in a joint

NCWM-i ndustry "I "-mark program will agree to make available on

a complete and reciprocal basis lot inspection records for any product under question; access shall be for a specific product

lot. U.S. "I "-Mark Program Description . The U.S. "I "-mark program is intended to assure weights and measures officials in other jurisdictions that the products from

participating plants have been subject to an in-plant net contents compliance program which is sufficient under normal

circumstances to assure that packages leaving the plant bear

correct net content labeling. Some processors and packers of

food products already have implemented programs. An analogous

approach is the European Economic Community's "e" mark program.

The adequacy of "I "-mark net content control programs can in part

be evaluated according to accepted statistical principles. To the

extent that technical expertise is essential in judging the

adequacy of any particular program, the NCWM could call on the

National Bureau of Standards for evaluation assistance,

particularly in relation to sampling plans. Other elements of a quantity control QC program would be measured against minimum

"I"-mark program standards developed by the NCWM with the

assistance of industry and other agencies in a manner similar to that involving H-44 and NTEP (Type Evaluation) standards. In order to keep the workload manageable for the Bureau, the

"I"-mark Program could provide that QC programs could be developed

for official certification by industry trade associations as well

as individually by firms. After NCWM/NBS certification, firms

that implement in a complete, verifiable, and documented manner

either their own certified (NCWM/NBS) or their associations'

s

certified model net content quantity control program would be

able to use the "I"-mark on their qualifying products.

There is precedent for such a NCWM sponsored - NBS administered

program in certification of devices being evolved under the

National Type Evaluation Program. Under NTEP the Bureau will

issue a "Certificate of Conformance" to type for particular

devices. In addition, through NTEP NBS will authorize State

measurement laboratories to act as participants in the Type

Evaluation Program.

Similarly in connection with the "I"-mark Program concept, a participating model (or individual) net content quantity control

313
program would be certified by NBS under the auspices of the

Conference. Upon implementing in a complete, verifiable, and

documented manner a certified QC program, a packer or processor

would be entitled to place an "I" on his product. The packer

would also be entitled to expect that his product would not be

held or ordered off -sale officially during its distribution, prior

to a confirmed official finding that either the approved in-plant

"I "-mark net quantity control program standards had been violated

for the lot(s) involved, or where applicable, that good distribution practices had not been followed. It follows that the packer,

as a further condition of the use of the "I" -mark agrees to make

the records of net content fill control and all in-plant QC

checking on specific questioned lots available for prompt review.

Also, packers would have to allow site visits by inspection

officials, or their designees, to the plant during business hours

if reasonably necessary to review records and procedures or to confirm the operation of the approved net content quantity

control program.

It is anticipated that within a reasonable period of time after

development and implementation of an acceptable U.S. NCWM/NBS

'T'-mark program, most U.S. packed and nationally distributed

food commodities would be eligible for the "I" mark. Non-food

commodities would possibly lag behind. Inspection procedures for

products that gain or lose moisture and that are currently

entitled to an allowance for that factor under Federal law would

be the same as exist for those products now. The incentive for

industry to qualify for the "T'-mark is that the program would

provide greater confidence and uniformity in government

inspection efforts. The payback to the jurisdictions would be

for the most part the ability to use scarce resources in other

areas, rather than duplicating efforts of others. Certainly a beneficial outcome for all would be the increased efficiency and

effectiveness that would stem from greater coordination of

parallel efforts between the various authorities.

The task force plans to continue to refine the above outlined and

described package control system principles, concepts, and

elements and is not prepared to offer a definitive draft program

plan for Conference consideration at this time. However, the task

force seeks and welcomes comments from all interested persons.

NCWM TASK FORCE ON PACKAGE CONTROL

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

K. Simila, Oregon, Co-chairman

J. Alloway, Nebraska

R. Belliveau, Proctor & Gamble Co.

C. Kloos, Hunt Wesson Foods, Inc.

0. Offner, St. Louis, MO

N. Peterson, General Mills

D. Stagg, Alabama

314
506 0IML ACTIVITIES

Mr. David Edgerly, U.S. Representative to the International Organization

of Legal Metrology, met with the Committee to provide an update of OIML

activities during the past year. He reported that U.S. participation in OIML remains strong, particularly in the basic areas of mass, length,

and volume. Continuing emphasis is being given in OIML to developing

international recommendations on electronic-equipped weighing and

measuring instruments. Further, work is now underway in developing

recommendations dealing with prepackaged products, and Mr. Edgerly

indicated his pleasure over the nomination of Mr. Ken Simila as NCWM

representative to the multi-agency U.S. Working Group that has been

assembled to chair this work in OIML. Mr. Edgerly also reported that

the process set up by NCWM to provide input to OIML activities of interest to the Conference is still working well and that no changes

are needed to improve the process.

507 INTERACTIONS WITH STANDING COMMITTEES

507-1 COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION, ADMINISTRATION, AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS

Co-Chairmen of National Weights and Measures Week, Bruce Niebergall,

North Dakota, and Peggy Adams, Bucks County, Pennsylvania, reported

that a kit of information which included press releases, public service

announcements, school programs, and promotional ideas was mailed to coordinators of National Weights and Measures Week in all jurisdictions

and to State Directors. A Presidential Proclamation is being pursued

through a Congressional resolution. In March, President Reagan sent a letter to the National Conference on Weights and Measures supportive of

weights and measures activities, which is printed in the Announcement

Book. A slide show depicting all weights and measures activities with

an accompanying narrative is being completed and will be duplicated by

the Office of Weights and Measures for distribution.

507-2 COMMITTEE ON LAWS AND REGULATIONS

A substantial portion of the output of the National Conference on Weights and Measures originates from the work of the Standing Committee

on Laws and Regulations. Their deliberations and recommendations are the basis on which the Conference acts to adopt or update its numerous

Model State Weights and Measures Law and Regulation provisions. While

adoption in whole or in part of these models by States and local

jurisdictions goes a long way toward achieving the aim of uniformity,

independent action by the Congress, Federal agencies, and other

standards-writing bodies can and sometimes does frustrate this aim.

These conflicts (direct or indirect) and inconsistencies (real or perceived) give rise to liaison needs such as are exemplified in preceding items 502-2, -3, -4, -5, -6, and -7. The Committee on Liaison continues to work closely in conjunction with the Laws and

Regulations Committee as pertinent agenda items evolve, to be in a

315
::i ' t: er ectwe"y = t SO^ 3-33.3:3 ::s

J v:'s and ~::e's

:: :.:s

J :e ;an -' zav z"s , e3:e: : a"\. to r e:ea agencies *nose legal

etrology responsibilities are freque-":".. only peripheral or ~3 J :ental

:: s:~e : - e

- -

: : . s

507-3 COMMITTEE ON S?E" r

: CATIONS AND TOLERANCES

--e~e : : zz :a an^ '-'a-'so- -'te~5 :-::"e-3 •' - t"e

:crr-"ttee Spec J cat*'

r

s and "o'e^ances agenda s e 3 £

- :

" s

,

: :

. - sr e::-~ : e_ ~z: -;: :~_ : e /aria-ions

Phase I - Ho« to :ea" *itfi the problem of State and local officials

:

J — e-e- t : e - 3 e : :

- 3 " 3 a-: e-s: a

-•:

' -:s :~ -c'st^e . a--' r/r

•ea l^es

a

• ; : a

- :-

: 3 1

-

: measures ing or providing "real world" data on moisture

3 ^^t'j Da:<ace: anc :•' s"" 2 jtec

508-2 ::ns>'e~ -a.n:.:s3 suner Aff a rs i s planning tc :-ese": a training

«r'th esta: " -'3-'' and Jt""-'z-' n

g ~e3-a'*

J s~sr o" riling in State and local offices and in weights

[isiness and industry. It is h3:e: that this will

luthern Heights and Heas.^3 Conference in October,

-on:: :jT.n::-~:ons

decade of the 198C 3 and beyond has been

anage interactive e"e: tronic communications

-

: tz ~eet tne :a:a and -' = State, a

nd

r e:e-a" agencies involved in

'€3, Sz~- :-' the " . e s t

-' :

" 3 that need to be

ect a re a

"

' ~ z ' j 3 e : — - • :-a: 3a" :e erected?

~e Naf'dna" Ionx

e-*e n :e ;n nVchts a*: '-'easj^s "ne Navona' 3'j-eau 3-' :~ i-:a-is anc 3WV

::a:e a -3

- xal governments

. : z -zZz-i -: = -;• e 3 * - v a

" a

- 3 : - -e a :

• 3

'* 3 -

" : zz the

316
K. J. Simila, Oregon, Chairman

C. R. Cavagnaro, U.S. Office of Consumer Affairs

C. R. Kloos, Hunt-Wesson Foods, Inc.

N. D. Smith, North Carolina

E. J. Stephens, Utah

S. Hasko, Technical Advisor, NBS

A. D. Tholen, Executive Secretary, NCWM

COWITTEE ON LIAISON

317

REPORT OF THE RESOLUTIONS COMMITTEE

Presented by John O'Neill, Acting Chairman

Sealer, State of Kansas

VOTING KEY

700 INTRODUCTION

The Resolutions Committee wishes to express the appreciation of the

68th National Conference on Weights and Measures to those who

contributed their time and telents toward the arrangements for, the

conduct of, and the success of this National Conference. Special votes

of thanks go

701

1) To Dr. Ernest Ambler, Director of the National Bureau of

Standards, for his appropriate and straight-forward remarks.

2) To Honorable Clare Berryhill, Director of Food and Agriculture,

State of California, for his warm and timely remarks, and to his

staff for hosting and assisting in the conduct of this Conference.

3) To Donald L. Peyton, Executive Vice President, American National

Standards Institute, for his discussion on the role of ANSI.

4) To Paul Allen, Chairman Trading Standards Department, East Sussex

County Council, England, for his comparative report.

5) To Albert D. Tholen, Office of Weights and Measures, National Bureau of Standards for his informative remarks on the program of

the Office of Weights and Measures - National Conference on Weights and Measures joint activities.

6) To Randall Schoonover, Physical Science Technician, National Bureau of Standards, for his highly technical and investigative

report on mass comparisons.

7) To James W. Williams, Brooks Instrument Division, Emerson Electric

Company, for informing us regarding updated volume measurement

science applications.

8) To officers and appointed officials of the 68th National

Conference on Weights and Measures for their assistance and

service toward progress on National issues.

9) To committee members for their efforts throughout the past year

preparing and presenting their reports; to the sub-committees of

the Executive Committee for their discerning and appropriate

recommendations of reorganization.

319
10) To governing officials of State and local jurisdictions for their

advice, interest, and support in weights and measures

administration in the United States; to Ezio Delfino and his staff.

11) To representatives of business and industry for their cooperation,

assistance in committee and Conference work; to the Associate

Membership organization for its hosting functions.

12) To the staff of Red Lion Motor Inn for their assistance and

courtesies, which contributed to the enjoyment and comfort of the

delegates in their fine facilities.

13) To the 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.

14) To Office of Weights and Measures staff: Ann Heffernan, Conference Coordinator

Karen Bark ley Dawn Alger

Nancy Chapwick

To Guest Program staff:

Claire Delfino

Lynn Guensler

Irene Warnlof

To Sacramento Measurement Standards staff:

Barbara Bloch

Carol Ramsey

Li nda Simmons

Chris Estes

Jean Tabor

for ever-present support and hard work for the Conference and its

delegates

.

John O'Neill, Kansas, Acting Chairman

Thomas Kirby, Georgia

Samuel Valtri, Philadelphia, PA Robert Voss, Fresno County, CA

Lawrence Barker, West Virginia

Dean Brahos, Hammond, IN Norman Ross, Omaha, NE (On motions of the Committee Acting Chairman the report of the

Resolutions Committee, voting key item 701, was adopted in its entirety

by the Conference.

)

320
FINAL REPORT OF THE NOMINATIONS COMMITTEE

Presented by Charles H. Greene, Conference Chairman,

for Edward C. Heffron, Committee Chairman

I VOTING KEY

j 800 INTRODUCTION

| The Nominations Committee convened at the interim meeting at

I Gaithersburg, Maryland to select a slate of nominees for all elective

'officers and for the ten elective members of the Executive Committee in accordance with the existing procedure. The Nominations Committee

;| convened again at the National Conference to select a slate of nominees

[for all elective officers and the six elective members of the Executive

I Committee as required by the adoption at the 68th Conference of voting

item 102-5-2 "Implementation of Restructuring" in conjunction with the

adoption of voting item 102-5-1 "Executive Committee Structure."

j In the selection of nominees from the active membership, consideration

was given to professional experience, qualification of individuals,

i attendance, Conference participation, and other factors considered to be important. Adoption of item 102-5-1 at this Conference directed the

; Committee so far as practicable to consider regional representation.

! Therefore the Nominations Committee modified its interim meeting

selections to conform with the directive recognizing a need also to

li provide continuity during this transitional period.

801 NOMINATIONS

I The Nominations Committee submits the following names in nomination for

I office to serve during the terms for which elected beginning at the

close of the 68th National Conference on Weights and Measures:

Chairman:

Sam Hindsman, Arkansas

Chairman elect:

Ezio Delfino, California

Vice Chairman:

John Bartfai, New York

Barbara Boddicker, South Dakota

Lacy DeGrange, Maryland

Joseph Swanson, Alaska

Treasurer: Allan Nelson, Connecticut

Chaplain:

Francis Daniels, Wayne County, Indiana

Executive Committee:

Three-year term

James Blackwood, City of Dallas, TX Robert Walker, Indiana

321
Two-year term Norman Ross, City of Omaha, NE Lyman Holloway, Idaho

One-year term Eugene Keeley, Delaware

Edward Heffron, Michigan

To avoid conflict of interest this report is submitted by the

Conference Chairman, Dr. Charles Greene.

Edward C. Heffron, Michigan, Chairman

Sidney D. Andrews, Florida

James T. Lyles, Virginia

Uesley R. Mossberg, Los Angeles, California

Daniel I. Offner, St. Louis, Missouri

Kendrick J. Si mi la, Oregon

Richard L. Thompson, Maryland

322
REPORT OF THE AUDITING COWITTEE

Presented by Joseph Silvestro, Superintendent

Gloucester County Weights and Measures

Woodbury, New Jersey

VOTING KEY TO5

The Auditing Committee met on Wednesday morning, July 20, 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. Silvestro, Gloucester County, NJ, Chairman

N. Ross, Omaha, Nebraska

G. Magnuson, Washington

AUDITING COWITTEE

323

REPORT OF THE CONFERENCE TREASURER

Presented by Allan M. Nelson, Chief

Weights and Measures Division

Department of Consumer Protection

State of Connecticut

VOTING KEY

1000 INTRODUCTION

It is my pleasure to report to you on the

financial status of the Conference Treasury

as follows:

Cash on Hand - June 30 1982

DEPOSITORIES

Connecticut Bank & Trust Co., Southington, CT $40,000.00 91 Day Treasury Bill - Connecticut Bank & Trust Co., Southington, CT Union Trust Co., Gaithersburg, MD

$ 6,805.41

38,766.06

314.24

$ 45,885.71

$ 45,885.71

RECEIPTS

Account Number 1.1 Registration-67th Conference $11,950.00

1.1 Regi strati on-68th Conference 1,500.00

1.1 Special California

Registration 60.00

1.2 Membership - F. Y. 67 15,610.00

1.2 Membership - F. Y. 68 25,550.00

1.3 Publications 2,653.46

1.4 Interest 3,669.29

1.5 Grant 37,101.00

1.9 Miscellaneous 282.70

Total Receipts

Total Cash Balance & Receipts

$ 98,376.45

$144,262.16

325
DISBURSEMENTS

Account Number 2.0 Annual Meeting $ 9,323.42

" 3.0 Interim Meeting 19,388.34

" 4.0 Grant -0-

" 5.0 Special Program 13,339,31

" 6.0 Chairman's Expenses 3,079.84 "7.0 Membership 5,664.82

" " 8.0 Printing & Publications 3,000.00 "9.0 Administration 12,623.43

Total Disbursements $ 66,419.16

Cash on Hand - June 30, 1983

N.O.W. Account $ 3,913.21

Connecticut Bank & Trust Co. Southington, CT

Money Market Check Book Account 73,615.55

Connecticut Bank & Trust Co. Southington, CT

Checking Account 314.24

Union Trust Co. Gaithersburg, MD Total Assets $ 77,843.00

Total Disbursement & Assets $144,262.16

(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.)

326
REFERENCES

Organization, 68th NCWM

NCWM Scheduled Events, 68th Annual Meeting

State Representatives

Conference Registration List

327
NATIONAL CONFERENCE Of

ASSOCIATE MEMBERSHIP COMMITTEE NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

CHAIRMAN: R. WELLS. SERAPHIN PRESIDENT: E. AMBLER

VICE-CHAIRMAN: R. SOUTHERS, API EXECUTIVE SECRETARY: A. THOLEN

TREASURER: T. STABLER. TOLEDO SCALE CONFERENCE COORDINATOR: A. HEFFERNAN

MEMBERS: R. FONGER, BENNETT PUMP

C. KLOOS, HUNT-WESSON — A. KROLL, GILBARCO 1 W. KUPPER, METTLER

A. JOHANSON, FOREMOST-MCKESSON

A. RHOADS, MILK & ICE CREAM ASSN.

N. PETERSON. GENERAL MILLS

TASK FORCE ON NATIONAL TYPE EVALUATION NATIONAL MEASUREMENT POLICY AND

COORDINATION COMMITTEE

CHAIRMAN: E DELFINO. CA

SECRETARY: A. THOLEN, NBS

POLICY WORKING GROUP CHAIRMAN: G. MATTIMOE. HI CHAIRMAN: C. GREENE, NM*

SECRETARY: A. THOLEN, NBS

MEMBERS: J. BARTFAI, NY

L. DEGRANGE. MD

J. SWANSON, AK

K. SIMILA. OR

MEMBERS: J. BARTFAI, NY

C. PARENT, GILBARCO

N.D. SMITH, NC

D. TONINI, SMA

A. FARRAR, NBS*

SPECIFICATIONS & TOLERANCES COMMITTEE

CHAIRMAN: L. DEGRANGE. MD (1) MEMBERS: S. COLBROOK. IL (2) F. GERK. NM (4) D. GUENSLER, CA (3) R. PROBST, Wl (5) TECHNICAL ADVISOR: 0. WARNLOF. NBS

LAWS & REGULATIONS COMMITTEE

CHAIRMAN: J. BARTFAI, NY (1) MEMBERS: G. MATTIMOE, HI (5) W. MOSSBERG, CA (2) E. SKLUZACEK, MN (3) D. STAGG, AL (4) TECHNICAL ADVISOR: C. BRICKENKAMP, NBS

TECHNICAL COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL

TYPE EVALUATION

PUBLIC MEMBERS

R. ANDERSON, NY

L. DEGRANGE. MD

F. NAGELE. Ml

C. SMITH, CA

D. MAHONEY, FGIS

C. OAKLEY, P&S

0. WARNLOF, NBS

H. OPPERMANN, NBS

WEIGHING INDUSTRY SECTOR

CHAIRMAN: H. LOCKERY, SMA

A. GOLDBERG, HOWE-RICHARDSON

W. GOODPASTER, CARDINAL SCALE

R. HURLEY, FAIRBANKS

F. KATTERHEINRICH. HOBART

J. ROBINSON, AAR

T. STABLER. TOLEDO SCALE

D TONINI, SMA

MEASURING INDUSTRY SECTOR

CHAIRMAN: M. BELUE, SOUTHWEST PUMP

W. DUBSKY, DRESSER WAYNE

A. EVANS, VEEDER-ROOT

R. FONGER. BENNETT PUMP

W. GERDOM, TOKHEIM

W. KEAY, TOKHEIM

A. KROLL, GILBARCO

W. REITZ, LIQUID CONTROLS

CHAIRMAN: S. HINDSMAN, AR W & M OFFICIALS

L. LETEY. CO

T. ROSSBOTTOM, CA

R. WILLIAMS, TN

R. THOMPSON, MD

J. O'CONNOR. IA

J. PUGH. SC

S. COLBROOK, IL

T. KIRBY, GA

W. COGBURN. FL

H. SWAIN, MS

METER MANUFACTURERS

D. FUNK, DICKEY-JOHN

T. BARNETT. STEIN LABS

C. CRUMP. SEEDBURO

A. FARRAR, NBS

N. MAGNUS, NJ

N. PETERSON. GENERAL MILLS

J. BARTFAI, NY

EDUCATION, ADMINISTRATION, AND CONSUMER

AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

CHAIRMAN: J. SWANSON, AK (2) VICE CHAIRMEN: S. DARSEY, FL (1) T. GEILER, MA (3) B. NIEBERGALL, ND (4) P. STAGG, LA (5) TECHNICAL ADVISOR: R. SMITH, NBS

J. MANNESS. NATIONAL GRAIN AND

FEED ASSOCIATION

J. JOHNSTON, GRAIN ELEVATOR

& PROCESSORS SOCIETY

TRAINING SUBCOMMITTEE

CHAIRMAN:

EVALUATION & CERTIFICATION SUBCOMMITTEE I CHAIRMAN: S. DARSEY, FL I P. STAGG, LA 328
jVEIGHTS AND MEASURES

NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

REASURER:

IHAPLAIN: UBLICATION OORDINATOR:

C. GREENE, NM*

T. GEILER, MA

J. BLACKWOOD, TX*

P. FULLENWIDER, AZ'

F. NAGELE, Ml*

A. NELSON, CT*

F. DANIELS. IN*

L. BARBROW

CONFERENCE REPRESENTATIVE TO

U.S. PUBLIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE

FOR INTERNATIONAL LEGAL METROLOGY

E. HEFFRON, Ml

IAISON COMMITTEE

IHAIRMAN: K. SIMILA, OR (3) (EMBERS: C. CAVAGNARO, OCA (2) C. KLOOS, HUNT-WESSON (5) N.D. SMITH, NC (4) E. STEPHENS, UT (1) ECHNICAL ADVISOR: S. HASKO, NBS

ASK FORCE ON PACKAGE CONTROL

OCHAIRMEN: K. SIMILA, OR

A. JOHANSON, FOREMOST MCKESSON

IEMBERS: J. ALLOWAY, NE

R. BELLIVEAU, PROCTOR & GAMBLE

C. KLOOS, HUNT-WESSON

D. OFFNER, MO

N. PETERSON, GENERAL MILLS

D. STAGG, AL

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

CHAIRMAN: C. GREENE, NM*

EXECUTIVE OFFICER: A. THOLEN, NBS« TREASURER: A. NELSON, CT* CHAPLAIN: F. DANIELS, IN*

ORGANIZATION & PROCEDURES SUBCOMMITTEE

S. ANDREWS, FL,n

F. NAGELE, Ml*

L. LETEY, CO*

P. NICHOLS, CA*

J. LYLES, VA«"

P. FULLINWIDER, AZ*

J. PUGH, SC*

B. BODDICKER, SD*

J. CHOHAMIN, NJ*

R. THOMPSON, MD«n

FINANCE SUBCOMMITTEE

CHAIRMAN: E. HEFFRON, Ml"

K. BUTCHER, WV

E. DELFINO, CA*

T. GEILER. MA

K. SIMILA, OR""

E. STADOLNIK, MA,n

S. VALTRI, PA

J. ALLOWAY, NE

J. BLACKWOOD, TX*

D. LYNCH, KS*

WEIGHTS & MEASURES WEEK

SUBCOMMITTEE

CO-CHAIRMEN:

ANNUAL COMMITTEES

NOMINATING COMMITTEE

CHAIRMAN: E. HEFFRON, Ml'

S. ANDREWS, FL*

J. LYLES, VA»

W. MOSSBERG, CA

D. OFFNER, MO

K. SIMILA. OR*

R. THOMPSON, MD«

RESOLUTIONS COMMITTEE

CHAIRMAN: L. BARKER, WV

MEMBERS: D. BRAHOS, IN

T. KIRBY, GA

J. O'NEILL, KS

N. ROSS, NE

S. VALTRI, PA

R. VOSS, CA

AUDITING COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN: J. SILVESTRO, NJ MEMBERS: G. MAGNUSON, WA

N. ROSS, NE

CREDENTIALS COMMITTEE

CHAIRMAN: D. LYNCH, KS MEMBERS: J. CHOHAMIN, NJ

E. KEELEY, DE

SPECIAL STUDY GROUP NCWM MEMBERSHIP

W. MOSSBERG, CA

E. DELFINO, CA

T. GEILER, MA

S. VALTRI, PA

APPOINTED OFFICIALS PARLIAMENTARIAN: S ANDREWS, FL SERGEANT AT-ARMS: w SULLIVAN, WA

K GRIDLEY, NY

ASSISTANT TREASURER: J. AKEY, Wl

KEY:

•Elected

•Ex-olficio "Non-voting Published: March 19S3 329
NCWM SCHEDULED EVENTS

68th ANNUAL MEETING

7 a.m.

8 a.m.

9 a.m.-

10 a.m.-

11 a.m.-

Noon

1 p.m.-

2 p.m.

3 p.m.

4 p.m.

5 p.m.

6 p.m.

7 p.m.

8 p.m.-

9 p.m.

SUNDAY MONDAY TUESDAY

ORIENTATION SESSION FOR MEMBERS

SPECIFICATION AND

TOLERANCES

COMMITTEE

SESSION

TASK FORCE ON PACKAGE CONTROL

INDUSTRY COW EE ON

PACKAGING AND

LABELING

LIAISON COMMITTEE

SESSION

JOINT EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE AND

P & C COMMITTEE

SESSION

LUNCH (OPEN' LUNCH (OPEN)

JOINT EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE AND

P & C COMMITTEE AGENDA REVIEW

L & R CTE

STANDING COMMITTEES AGENDA REVIEWS

EDUCATION CTE

S &T

CTE

NASDA

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

DIVISION

LAWS AND

REGULATIONS COMMITTEE

SESSION

EDUCATION COMMITTEE

SESSION

METROLOGY WORKSHOP

GENERAL SESSION OPENING CEREMONY

ADDRESS—GOVERNOR DEUKMEJIAN ADDRESS—CONFERENCE CHAIRMAN ADDRESS—CONFERENCE PRESIDENT HONOR AWARDS PRESENTATION ADDRESS— DONALD PEYTON ADDRESS— PAUL ALLEN REPORT—CHIEF. OWM

PAPER— RANDALL SCHOONOVER

PAPER—JAMES W. WILLIAMS

ASSOCIATE MEMBERSHIP COMMITTEE

CHAIRMAN'S

RECEPTION

330
WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY

7 a.m.

BREAKFAST MEETINGS

NOMINATING CTE

AUDITING CREDENCTE TIALS CTE

REGIONAL

ASSOCIATION SESSIONS

E =

uj O 5§

RESOLU- TIONS CTE

TASK FORCE ON PACKAGE CONTROL

VOTING SESSION - (CONTINUED)

5 • NOMINATING COMMITTEE

6 • LAWS & REGULATIONS COMMITTEE

7 • LIAISON COMMITTEE

8 • RESOLUTIONS COMMITTEE

9 • AUDITING COMMITTEE

10 • TREASURER'S REPORT

• CLOSING CEREMONY

BREAKFAST MEETING

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE AND

OFFICERS

STANDING COMMITTEESPLANNING

SPECIAL COMMITTEES AND TASK FORCESPLANNING

LUNCH (OPEN)

VOTING SESSION -

1 • VOTING PROCEDURE

2 • EDUCATION COMMITTEE

3 • JOINT EXECUTIVE/P & C COMMITTEES

4 • SPECIFICATIONS AND

TOLERANCES COMMITTEE CONFERENCE OUTING

LAKE TAHOE

ABBREVIATIONS KEY:

• P&C = National Measurement

Policy and Coordination Committee

• S&T = Specifications and Tolerances Committee

• L&R = Laws and Regulations Committee

• EDUCATION = Education,

Administration, and Consumer Affairs Committee

• LIAISON = Liaison Committee NASDA= National Association of State Departments of Agriculture NCWM = National Conference on Weights and Measures

*At the two voting sessions the listed items will be voted in the order shown; time availability will determine whether the Wednesday

voting session closes at, after, or before item 4.

-8 a.m.

9 a.m.

-10 a.m.

-11 a.m.

-Noon

1 p.m.

-2 p.m.

3 p.m.

4 p.m.

5 p.m.

6 p.m.

7 p.m.

8 p.m.

9 p.m.

331

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 Joe Swanson

3. Arizona Patricia M. Fullinwider Roger L. Macey

4. Ark an sas Sam Hindsman

5. California Ezio F. Delfino Darrell A. Guensler

6. Co 1 or ado Leo Letey

7. Connecti cut Allan M. Nelson Bryant Pearson

8. De 1 aware Eugene Keeley

9. District of Columbia

10. F 1 or i da Stan J. Darsey Sydney Andrews

11. Ge orgi a Thomas Kirby S. S. Abercrombie

12. H awa i i Cpnr ucui npyc Fi_ • Ma"H" na ll imnp itiiuc P Rpra 1 rl Rnrk ik 13. I d aho Lyman Holloway

14! Illinois Sidney A. Colbrook Wayne Behrns

15. I nd i a na Robert W. Walker

16. Iowa James M. O'Connor Robert E. Hollis

17. Kansas John L. O'Neill Donald Lynch

18. Ken tuc ky Charles Prebble Mark L. Whitaker

19. Lou i s i a na Phil Stagg

20! Ma i ne

21Mary 1 a nd Richard L. Thompson Lacy H. DeGrange

22Mass achu sett s Charles H. Carroll

23. Mi ch i gan Edward C. Heffron Frank Nagele

24. Mi nnesota Edward Skluzacek George Mac Dona Id 25. Mississi ppi James H. Spencer

26. Missouri Leslie M. Greiner

27. Montana Gary Delano Edgar L. Kelsh

28. Nebraska Steve Malone

29. Nevada Walter F. Headrick

30. New Hampshire Michael Grenier

31. New Jersey Thomas W. Kelly Joseph Silvestro

32. New Mexico Fred A. Gerk Charles H. Greene

33. New York John J. Bartfai Ross Andersen

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

35. North Dakota Bruce Niebergall

36. Ohio Anthony Logan Fred Clem

37. Okl ahoma George M. Parker 0. Ray Elliott

38. Oregon Kendrick J. Simi la James Clifford

39. Pennsyl vani a Fred A. Thomas Peggy Adams

40. Puerto Rico Maria Maldonada

41. Rhode Island

42. South Carolina John V. Pugh

43. South Dakota Barbara K. Boddicker Leonard Bies

44. Tennessee Robert Wi 11 i ams 45. Texas Charles Forester Herbie Eskew

46. Utah Dan Mays

47. Vermont Trafford F. Brink

48. Virginia James F. Lyles Oscar T. Almarode

49. Virgin Islands

50. Washington Gunnar N. Magnuson Gil Allen

51. West Virginia Kenneth S. Butcher

52. Wisconsin Robert Probst

53. Wyomi ng

333

REGISTRATION LIST

68TH NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

JULY 17-22, 1983 RED LION MOTOR INN, SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA

ALABAMA WEIGHTS AND MEASURES OFFICIALS CALIFORNIA

STATE STATE

R ABB t JOHN B

W £ M LABORATORY SUPERVISOR

ST OF ALA W £ M DEPT OF AGRI

PO BOX 3336 1445 FEDERIAL DR MONTGOMERY AL 36193

(205) 832-6767

STAGG. DON E DIRECTOR

WEIGHTS £ MEASURES DIV

P.O. BOX 3336 MONTGOMERY AL 36193

(205) 832-6766 ALASKA

STATE SWANSON,

01 RECTOR JOSEPH L ALASKA DEPT COMM/ECON DEV

PO BOX 111686 ANCHORAGE AK 99511

(907) 345-7750

BEEBE. CHARLES PROGRAM SUPERVISOR

CA DIV OF MEASUREMENT STANDARD

8500 FRUITRI DGE RD SACRAMENTO CA 95826

(916) 366-5119

BLOCH. BARBARA J MANAGER

8500 FRUITRI DGE RO SACRAMENTO CA 95826

(9161 366-5119

BRANUM, PAUL PROGRAM MANAGER

CA DIV OF MEASUREMENT STANDARD

8500 FRUITR I DGE RD SACRAMENTO CA 95826

(916) 366-5119

CORRICK* BERT G WEIGHTS £ MEASURES TECH

8500 FRUITRI DGE SACRAMENTO CA 95826

(916) 366-5119

ARIZONA

STATE Fj^fNWIDER. PATRICIA M ARIZONA WEIGHTS £ MEASURES DIV 3039 W INDIAN SCHOOL RD PHOENIX AZ 85017

(602) 255-5211 X4 HORN. RICHARO P WEIGHTS £ MEASURES OFFICIAL

STATE OF ARIZONA

3039 WEST INDIAN SCHOOL RD PHOENIX AZ 85017

M ACE Y t ROGER WEIGHTS £ MEASURES DIV DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION

3039 WEST INDIAN SCHOOL RD PHOENIX AZ 85017 ARKANSAS

STATE SIM- SAM F LITTLE ROCK AR 72209

(501) 371-1759

DELFINO, EZIO F ASSISTANT DIRECTOR

CA DIV OF MEASUREMENT STDS 8500 FRUITRI DGE RD SACRAMENTO CA 95826

(916) 366-5119

DE VOL t RICHARD E REGIONAL COORDINATOR

DEPT OF FOOD £ AGRICULTURE

1220 N ST SACRAMENTO CA 95814

(916) 445-7944

FLETCHER. THOMAS WEIGHTS £ MEASURES TECH

CA DIV OF MEASUREMENT STANDARD

8500 FRUITR I DGE RD SACRAMENTO CA 95826

19161 366-5119 HifiVIRf 8

A

?§ ELL A CALIF DIV OF MEASUREMENT STD 8500 FRUITRI DGE RD SACRAMENTO CA 95826

(9161 366-5119

JENKINS. EARL

WTS l ME AS TECHINICI AN 8500 FRUITRI DGE RD SACRAMENTO CA 95826

(916) 366-5119

335
LAKE* KEN PROGRAM SUPERVISOR CADIV OF MEASUREMENT STANDARD

35 D C FRUITRIDGE R

D

SACRAMENTO CA 95826

(916) 366-5119

LUSE. NEY J Q C STATE OF CALIF

8500 FRUITRIDGE RD SACRAMENTO CA 95282

(916) 366-5119

FARIA, BRENT J INSPECTOR

33 3 5TH ST OAKLAND CA 94607

1415) 874-6736

HA SEME YER » RONALD C WEIGHTS L MEASURES ASST

333 5TH ST OAKLAND CA 946D7

(415) 874-6736 MICHEL. TOM WEIGHTS £ MEASURES TECH III 8500 FRUITRIDGE RD SACRAMENTO CA 95826

(916) 366-5119

JENSEN, FRANK E WEIGHTS L MEASURES INSPECTOR

333 5TH ST OAKLAND CA 94607

(415) 874-6736 ROSSBOTTOM, THOMAS

WEIGHTS C MEASURES TECH

CA DIV OF MEASUREMENT STANDARD

35 00 FRJITRIDGE S3 SACRAMENTO CA 95326

(916) 366-5119

ROTHLEDER, JOSEPH METRCLCGIST

OIV OF MEASUREMENT STANDARDS

8500 FRUITRIDGE ROAD SACRAMENTO CA 95826

(916) 366-5119

SALING, MIKE PROGRAM SUPERVISOR

35C0 FRUITRIDGE RD SACRAMENTO CA 98819

(9 16) 366-5 119 SMITH, CLIFTON E PROGRAM MANAGER

85C0 FRUITRIDGE RD SACRAMENTO CA 95826

(916) 366-5119

MANGONQN. ARTHUR L WEIGHTS I MEASURES INSPECTOR

333 5TH ST OAKLAND CA 94607

(415) 874-6736

NICHOLS, PATRICK E DIRECTOR OEPT OF WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

333 FIFTH ST OAKLAND CA 94607

(415) 874-6736 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY

DEFREMFRY, JOHN H DIRECTOR OF *TS £ MEASURES

161 JD-N GLEN N DR CONCORD CA 9452:

(415) 671-4250

FRESNO COUNTY

STRONG, JANICE LEGISLATIVE ASST 1220 N ST

SAC 5 A*ENTG CA 95814

(916} 322-4834

TOLLEFSON, JAMES L CAL WTS 6 MEASURES

DIV OF MEAS STDS 8500 FRUITRIDGE RD SACRAMENTO CA 95282

(916) 366-5119

WORCESTER, FLOYD B SUPERVISING INVESTIGATOR

350C FRUITRIDGE RD SACRAMENTO CA 95232

(916) 366-5119

YOUNG, ELVIN D SUPERVISING CHEMIST

850C FRUITRIDGE ROAD SACRAMENTO CA 95282

(9161 366-5119 ALAMEDA COUNTY CHAPMAN, LEWIS R SENIOR INSPECTOR

33 3 5TH ST OAKLAND CA 9 4607

(415) 874-6736

VOSS, ROBERT 3 DIRECTOR

WEIGHTS £ MEASURES

4535 E HAMILTON

FRESNO CA 93702

(2C9) 453-5904

GLENN COUNTY

PCMANCi ED SEALER DEPT OF "EIGHTS C MEASURES

P 0 BOX 351 WILLOWS CA 95988

(916) 934-4651

KERN COUNTY HARRIES, JOHN C ASST DIP WEIGHTS & MEASURES

DEPT OF WEIGHTS & MEASURES

1116 E CALIFORNIA AVE 6AKERSFI ELD CA 93307

(805) 861-2418

LOS ANGELES COUNTY

btR

S |ctCR3, DF

E ^!GHTS £ MEASURES COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES W L M UC12 GARFIELD AVE

SO GATE CA 90280

(213) 922-8921

336
GOODRICK JR. JOSEPH L SEALER OF WEIGHTS £ MEASURES

120 WILGART WAY SALINAS CA 93901

(408) 758-3876 NEVADA COUNTY

THUNERt KATHLEEN A SEALER OF WEIGHTS £ MEASURES COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

5555 OVERLAND AVENUE BLDG 3 SAN DIEGO CA 92123

<714) 565-5789

SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY

INSPECTOR NEVADA COUNTY

255 SOUTH AUBURN ST GRASS VALLEY CA 95945

(916) 273-2648

TAYLOR, JOHN V SEALER OF WEIGHTS £ MEASURES

NEVADA COUNTY

255 S AUBURN ST GRASS VALLEY CA 95945

1916) 273-2648 RIVERSIDE COUNTY

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

2950 WASHINGTON RIVERSIDE CA 92504

(714) 787-2620 SACRAMENTO COUNTY

BEARDSLEY, NORMAN R WEIGHTS £ MEASURES INSP II 4137 BRANCH CENTER RD SACRAMENTO CA 95827

1916) 366-2003 DUNCAN t DONALD S SR W £ M INSPECTOR

4137 BRANCH CENTER RD SACRAMENTO CA 95827

1916) 366-2003 FORBES

DEPUT WILLIAMY SEALER

4137 BRANCH CENTER RD SACRAMENTO CA 95826

(916) 366-2003

GIBSON. CLARK

SR WEIGHTS £ MEASURES INSPECTO

R4137 BRANCH CENTER RD SACRAMENTO CA 95826

1916) 366-2003

GORDY, CECIL E SEN INSPECTOR 4137 BR CEN RD SACRAMENTO CA 95827

(916) 366-2003

KELSEY, DORI

SR W £ M INSPECTOR 4137 BRANCH CENTER RD SACRAMENTO CA 95827

<916) 366-2003

EBY, ERWIN B SEALER

P 0 BOX 1809 STOCKTON CA 95201

1209) 944-2225 FOILES. RICHARD

SR INSP

P 0 BOX 407 STOCKTON CA 95201

<209) 982-4532

RAY, LARRY G DEPUTY SEALER

P 0 BOX 407 STOCKTON CA 95201

1209) 982-4532

SAN MATEO COUNTY

GINILO, GEORGE

SEALER WEIGHTS £ MEASURES

SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY

P 0 BOX 999 REDWOOD CITY CA 94064

(415) 36 3-4700

VAN WASSENHOVE, GREG A DEPUTY SEALER WTS-MEASURES

P 0 BOX 999 REDWOOD CA 94064

(415) 363-4700 SOLANO_COUNTY

BURK. STUART C 5SZIR!°c85£r?E,GHTS £ HEASURES

70 HEL IGTROPE VALLEJO CA 94590

(707) 642-7849

OLSON. WILLIAM C OIRECTOR

560 FAIRGROUNDS DR VALLEJO CA 94589

(707) 553-5281 SONOMA COUNTY

CAPRI, RAY WEIGHTS £ MEASURES INSPECTOR SONOMA COUNTY

2688 VENTURA AVE RM 1005 SANTA ROSA CA 95401

(707) 527-2548

SANDRETTO, RAY WEIGHTS £ MEASURES INSPECTOR SONOMA COUNTY

2688 VENTURA AVE RM 1005 SANTA ROSA CA 95401

(707) 527-2548 STANISLAUS COUNTY ft»£l!88I"Sl«ISION CHIEF

777 E RIALTO AVE

SAN BERNARDINO CA 92415

1714) 383-1411

KLINK, JOHN N DEP SEALER OF WTS £ MEAS

725 CO CENTER #3 CT MODESTO CA 95353

(209) 571-6587

337
TEHAMA CCUNTY CITY: NE* HAVES

BOVEE, GARY C WEIGHTS £ ME AS INSPECTOR I 1760 WALNUT ST RED BLuFF CA 96080

( 9 1 6 J 527-450*

WILLIAMS, BILL L WEIGHT £ MEASURES INSPECTOR II

P C BCX 33 RED BLUFF CA 96030

19161 527-4012

TULARE CCUNTY

CAUSGRCVE, H PENNY

S E ALES CF WEIGHTS £ MEASURES

CITY CF NEW HAVEN

13 :AVIS STREET NEW HAVEN CT 06515

1203) 387-4913

DELAWARE

STATE sEELEY, EU SUPERVISOR

,ENE

s1aler

gtdn JOHN DELAWARE WEIGHTS AND MEASjRES

DRAPER D DOVER DE 1W01

(302) 736-4324 AGRICULTURAL COMMISSNER SEALER AGRICULTURAL BLDG CIVIC CT

R

VISALIA CA 93291

( 209 } 733-6391 VENTURA COUNTY

FLORIDA

STATE KQRTH, WILLIAM H DIRECTOR

VENTURA CNTY WEIGHTS £ MEASURE

300 S VICTORIA AVE VENTURA CALIFORNIA CA 93009

1805) 654-2446

YU3A CCUNTY

ANDREWS, SYDN

HUEY. JACK A RETIRED DIRECTOR WEIGHTS L MEA YUBA CCUNTY DEPT OF WTS £ MEAS 6449 3ALD MOUNTAIN ROAD

BROWNS VALLEY CA 95913

(916) 743-6175

VICK.REY, EARNIE E SEALER

938 14TH ST

M AR Y S V I LLE CA 959C1

(916) 741-6484

o r D N E Y Z DIRECTOR DIVISION OF STANDARDS

FLA DEPT OF AGRICULTURE L C S 3125 CCNNER BLVD /LAB COMPLEX TALLAHASSEE FL 32301

(904) 488-0645

OARSEY. STAN J CHIEF BUR OF WEIGHT £ MEASURES

FL DEPT Of AGRI & CONSUMER SVC 3125 CCNNER BLVD /LA3 COMPLEX TALLAHASSEE FL 32301

(904) 488-9140

DADE CCUNTY

HERSriSEIN, ARTHUR DIRECTOR - DADE COUNTY FLORIDA CONSUMER PROTECTION DIVISION

44 m FLAGLEC ST SUITE 2303

MIA«I FL 33130

(305) 579-4222 COLORADO

;eorgia STATE

;tate LETEY, LEO CHIEF MEASUREMENT STANDARD DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

3125 WYANDOT

DENVER CO 30211

(3C3J 866-2845 CONNECTICUT

STATE

NELSON, ALLAN M CHIEF WEIGHTS £ MEASURES DIV

DEPT OF COSUMER PROTECTION W£W STATE CFF BD 165 CAPITOL AVE HARTFORD CT 06106

(203) 566-5230

ABERCRC-BIE, S S DIRECTOR

GA DEPT GF AGRICULTURE

AGRI BLDG CAPITAL S; ATLANTA GA 30334

(404) 656-3704

COILE,

ASST 5IRECTOC MARTIN T

~ wTS AND MEAS GEORGIA DEPT AGRICULTURE ATLANTA FARMERS MARKET FOREST PARK GA 30050

(404) 363-76 11 KIR3Y, THOMAS E DIRECTOR

WEIGHTS £ MEASURES LABORATORY

ATLANTA FARMERS MARKET FOREST PARK GA 30050

(404) 363-7611

CITY NEW BRITAIN

PEARSON, BRYANT

SEALER OF WEIGHTS £ MEASURES

CITY OF NEW BRITAIN CONN CITY HALL 27 W MAIN ST NEW 3RITAIN CT 06051

(203) 224-2491 X230

STATE

BENA VENTS, FRANK C -EIGHTS I MEASURES

DEPT CF REVENUE

P C BCX 2796

AG AN A GUAM GU 96910

INSPECTOR TAXATION

235
HA W A I I LAKE COUNTY

STATE BOCKUS, CHARLES G METROLOGIST

OIV OF MEASUREMENT STANDARDS

PO BOX 226 CAPT COOK HI 96704

(8081 323-2608

Sif

T6?SE 6FG§l5iSRi«ENT STDS

DEPT OF AGRICULTURE W £ M 1428 S. KING ST PO BOX 22159 HONOLULU HI 96822

(808) 548-7152

MY SOGLAND, ALBERT M COUNTY SEALER WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

2293 N MAIN ST CROWN POINT IN 46307

1219) 663-2896

LAPORTE COUNTY

HANI SH * EDWIN M INSPECTOR LAPORTE COUNTY INDIANA WEIGHTS £ MEASURES

119 TILDEN AVE MICHIGAN CITY IN 46360

(219) 879-9486

IDAHO MADISON COUNTY

STATE HOLLOWAY, LYMAN D CHIEF BUREAU OF WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

2116 KELLOGG LANE

BOISE ID 83702

1208) 334-2345

ILLINOIS

STATE COLBROOK. SIDNEY A W £ M PROGRAM MANAGER ILLINOIS DEPT OF AGRICULTURE EMMERSON BLDG STATE FAIRGROUND SPRINGFIELO IL 62706

<217) 785-8312

MCGUIRE, STEPHEN E METROLOGIST

ILLINOIS DEPT OF AGRICULTURE

EMMERSON BLDG STATE FA IRGRNDS SPRINGFIELD IL 62706

1217) 782-7655

INDIANA

STATE

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES DIVISION

1330 W MICHIGAN ST INDIANAPOLIS IN 46206

1317) 633-0350 CLARK COUNTY BRADSHAW. HAROLD D INSPECTOR/ WE I GHTS6MEASURES

DEPT OF WEIGHT AND MEASURES

CITY COUNTY BLDG ROOM 314 JEFFER SONVILLE IN 47130

<812) 283-4451 X53 GIBSON COUNTY

SEVIER. WILLIAM R WEIGHTS AND MEASURES INSPECTOR

BOX 302 SOMERVI LLE IN 47683

1812) 795-2532

MOORE, CHARLES W COUNTY INSPECTOR WEIGHTS £ MEASURES OF MADISON MADISON COUNTY GOVT CENTER ANDERSON IN 46051

1317) 646-9359

PORTER COUNTY

CLAUSSEN, RICHARD H DIRECTOR RM 105 PORTER COUNTY WEIGHTS £ MEAS COURTHOUSE ANNEX 1401N CALUMET VALPARAISO IN 46383

1219) 766-2323 X214

VI GO COUNTY

SCOTT, JAMES A INSPECTOR WEIGHTS AND MEASURES VIGO CO ROOM 5 COURTHOUSE

TERRE HAUTE IN 47801

1812) 238-8349

WAYNE COUNTY

DANIELS, FRANCIS W ADM OF WEIGHTS £ MEAS WAYNE COUNTY

50 NORTH FIFTH ST RICHMOND IN 47374

1317) 935-4813 X246 CITY2 INDIANAPOLIS

BRUGH. FRANK L ADMINISTRATOR

DEPT OF WEIGHTS 6 MEASURES ROOM G6 CITY COUNTY BLDG INDIANAPOLIS IN 46204

(317) 236-4272

CITY; ANDERSON

LAND, ROBERT L INSPECTOR OF CITY ANDERSON

DEPT OF WEIGHTS £ MEASURES

PO BOX 2100 120 E 8TH ST ANDERSON IN 46011

(3171 646-5814

CITYs SOUTH BEND

NAGY, JOSEPH

SEALER OF WEIGHTS £ MEASURES CITY OF SOUTH BEND IN 701 W SAMPLE ST SOUTH BEND IN 46621

1219) 284-9273

339
: * 4rf==i r T

, pedi : e •

: : : E t . : I . •

. -

'

: - : Mr LTJi.i:

: * - - • .

. . ; - i . . : 4 <-t 5~

--0*,AE •

[ ' • Qf

: -

' "

i- cbi2) r

^AW * INI

- .

• : : * e -31 :;

THDM*S.3f

tiE I StfT S AMI MEaEJAE!

-E>»' ( i iCE BLDt

DEE MCI NEE ."a bll.- (515) 281-571*

l.i. <v l.l :." 1 1 E

s : ^ • : 3= «sf : ; e , . » . Pl BOX 551 i—: : . : » I" - : " T3D E U I ^r»6D5 CITY: KANSAS

» a:

U'NCr , DONALD L ::»=: -3?

? :

. ' ; ; me t.: jt e: cdi* K3.

-

: . " f" KANE-i. ' : .01 KENTUCKY

: - . E 3= i*E : 5

3= LU.*-"

me . . l« =

STATE ( tl~

DIV D= »~E lM: MEaE AS*. I CLI^~iH IDi »<E 51 IN: 5

FRANKFORT O *D6D1 LOUISIANA

STATE

5 T AS:-- : : : ?,r; "

; • = :

•: -

L - : EPARTMEKT t

• : ec: ; batok rouse ^ •' : -

ANT

34D
MINNE SOTA NEVADA

STATE smw' EowARD p WTS AND MEASURES DIVISION

1015 CURRIE AVE MINNEAPOLIS MN 55403

1612) 341-7200 X7205

C I TY: MINNEAPOLIS

ZIEGLER. KENNETH M INSPECTOR

DEPT LICENSES £ CONSUMER SVCS CITY HALL RM 105 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55415

(612) 348-4283

HEADRICK, WALTER NEVADA DEPT OF AGRICULTURE

P 0 BOX 11100 RENO NV 89510

MISSOURI

STATE GREINER, DIRECTCR

LESLIE M DIV OF WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

P 0 BOX 630 JEFFERSON CITY MO 65102

(314) 751-4278

CITY: ST LOUIS

OFFNER. DANIEL I COMMISSIONER

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY ROOM 311 CITY HALL

ST LOUIS MO 63103

<314) 622-3252 MONTANA

STATE

DIV OF WEIGHTS fc MEASURES

1434 9TH AVENUE HELENA MT 59620

(406) 449-3163 X6 KELSH, EDGAR L DIVISION OF WEIGHTS 6 MEASURES

DEPT OF BUSINESS REGULATION

805 N MAIN HELENA MT 59601 NEBRASKA

STATE

DEPT/AGRICULTURE-DIV WTS/MEAS

4401 SOUTH 27TH LINCOLN NE 68512

(402) 423-0854 X208

MA LONE » STEVEN DIRECTOR

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES DIVISION

301 CENTENNIAL MALL S B0X94757 LINCOLN NE 68509

1402) 471-4292 X208

NEW JERSEY

STATE

BIRO* JAMES R BOX 194 BELLA BRIDGE RD RD #1 MEOFORO NJ 08055

16091 267-5520 CHRISTIE JR. SAMUEL H RETIRED STATE SUPERINTENDENT WEIGHTS AND MEASURES -STATE123 HILLCREST RD WARREN TWP NJ 07060

(201) 647-3267

KELLY, THOMAS W STATE SUPERINTENDENT

STATE OFFICE OF WEIGHTS

187 WEST HANOVER ST TRENTON NJ 08625

1609) 292-4615 CHOHAMIN. JOHN M SUPERINTENDENT

MIDDLESEX CTY DEPT WTS I MEAS

841 GEORGES RD NORTH BR UN SW 1XX NJ 0B902

(201) 745-3298 CUMBERLAND COUNTY

FRANKS* GEORGE S COUNTY SUPERINTENDENT

DEPT WTS £ MEAS I CONS PROT

788 E COMMERCE ST BRIDGETON NJ 08302

1609) 451-8000 X370 GLOUCESTER COUNTY

GLOU CO WTS&MEAS DEPT

49 WOOD ST COUNTY BLDG WOODBURY NJ 08096

1609) 845-1600 X252 MONMOUTH COUNTY

MONMGUTH COUNTY DEPT WTSSMEAS HALL OF RECORDS ANNEX MAIN ST FREEHOLD NJ 07728

<201l 431-7363

SALEM COUNTY

JONES. ROBERT B SUPERINTENDENT

SALEM COUNTY DEPT WTS £ MEAS 94 MARKET ST BOX 24 SALEM NJ 08079

(609) 935-7510 X369 CITY: LINDEN

ESKA, ALEXANDER SUPERINTENDENT

CITY OF LINDEN WTS AND MEASURE

1408 SUMMIT TERRACE LINDEN NJ 07036

(201) 486-8429

341
STATE

3- H- : - - ' " (41?) "E-Z1-:

. -3 != .CES"s« 5 5CC3 ,

- E - : . : E : CCUSTY

(5:5V (216J :2 :-353 <=

5. --IT ICoST STATE ASSESSES, = CSS . S.--IT CCCST A.:iTQS

s"fribi!h

T c, « ,,3 Hie? y

T :«?:

S1 - ; BJILjISG 7 ± STATE CA«PjS (216) 3

7 9-5*;<5

Aa_5as> - 5 A MY ST 1223 5 :515> 457-3--= CITYJ

5 Js|aJ*2P -EIr-'S L "Ea$.5=$ ;-{=' = ':= - = F 5 — — 3 iSZ -EiSJPES

= l:s 7* 122: -as-is3t:s a r e c:ty ciscissA': -—--5 mm--- :::

CITY: CCL.'-E'JS

EAT- ST l-i.: 6! e -ais s T Ci T~H C A.: QL I s i

: «LL A.-C -A STATE

STa"E

'< 2

: " - ; a c t a

:AL£Ii.- v

v:_27cll

[435) 32 5-1334 X235

C<LA-:-A C ;Tt :« "31 !5 (435i 521-3937

C*E3"S

STATE *IE5 = STATE mUirkw mm:. wrm** nmm :

:- i

e i 3 . = e i : i •

mi; sv'Bii

C2L-«5.S C- 43215

(614) *:c-273-
PENNSYLVANIA TENNESSEE

STATE STATE THOMAS. FRED A DIRECTOR

PA BUREAU OF WEIGHTS £ MEASURE

2301 N CAMERON ST HARRISBURG PA 17110

(717) 787-6772 BUCKS COUNTY

WILLIAMS, ROBERT G SUPERVISOR OF WEIGHTS £ MEASUR DEPT OF AGR DIV OF MARKETING

P 0 BOX 40627 MELROSE STATION NASHVILLE TN 37220

(615J 741-1539

SHELBY COUNTY

ADAMS, PEGGY H CHIEF SEALER BUCKS CTY CONSUMER PROTECTION BROAD ANO UNION ST DOYLESTOWN PA 18901

(2151 348-7442 CITY ALLENTOWN TEXAS

MASSEY, SEALERVERNON L SHELBY COUNTY GOVERNMENT

814 JEFFERSON MEMPHIS TN 38105

19011 528-3456

HJ^LNAN JR, ARNOLD L WEIGHTS AND MEASURES 2324 SOUTH THIRD STREET ALLENTOWN PA 18103

1215) 797-1953

CITY: PHILADELPHIA

VALTRI , SAM F CHIEF PHILADELPHIA WEIGHTS £ MEASURE

801 ARCH ST ROOM 636 PHILADELPHIA PA 19145

(215J 686-3475 PUERTO RICO

STATE

STATE

ESKEW, HERB CHIEF METROLOGI ST ST OF TEXAS TEXAS DEPT OF AGRICULTURE

119 CUMBERLAND RD AUSTIN TX 78704

1 5121 475-3720 FORESTER, CHARLES E SUPERVISOR

TX DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

PO BOX 12847 AUSTIN TX 78711

(512) 475-6577

CITY: DALLAS Aks^AN

DEPT OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS

1500 W MOCKINGBIRD RM A-19 DALLAS TX 75235

(214) 670-6414

OOD, JAMES C DIRECTC

MA LOON ADC » MARIA A ASSISTANT SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS

PO BOX 41059 MINILLAS STATION

SANTURCE PR 00940

(8091 726-7585

VERMONT

SOUTH CAROLINA

STATE

PUGH. JOHN V DIRECTOR METROLOGY LABORATORY

S C DEPT OF AGRICULTURE

PO BOX 11280 COLUMBIA SC 29211

(803) 758-2130

STATE BRINK, TRAFFORO F DIR WfS £ MEAS £ RETAIL INSP VERMONT DEPT OF AGRICULTURE

116 STATE ST MONTPELIER VT 05602

(802) 828-2436 VIRGINIA

SOUTH DAKOTA

STATE WEIG^TS^MEASURlb INSPECTOR II SD DIV/COMMERCIAL INSP £ REG

4109 S FAIRHALL

SIOUX FALLS SD 57106

(605) 334-1135 BODDICKER, BARBARA K DIRECTOR

DIV COMM INSP £ REG STATE CAPITOL

PIERRE SD 57501

(605) 773-3697

STATE LYLES * JAMES F CHIEF VIRGINIA WEIGHTS £ MEASURES

P 0 BOX 1163 ROOM 403 RICHMOND VA 23209

(804) 786-2476 WASHINGTON

STATE HANSON, GUNNAR N SECTION OF WTS AND MEAS AGRIC 406 GENERAL ADMINISTRATION BLD OLYMPIA WA 98504

(206) 753-5059

343
CITY: SPOKANE ALLEN, GILBERT R SEALER CITY OF SPOKANE

WEST 808 SPOKANE FALLS BLVO SPOKANE WA 99201

(5091 456-4306

CITY: EVERETT

FOREIGN REGISTRANTS

Ltr8WJ'A6BE Be*SU«ES OFFICIAL CITY H ALL 3002 WETMORE EVERETT WA 98201

12061 259-8845

WEST VIRGINIA

STATE BUTCHER* KENNETH S DIRECTOR

OIV OF CONSUMER PROTECTION

DEPT OF LABOR CHARLESTON WV 25305

(304) 348-7890 WISCONSIN

STATE

A-KEY JAMES H INSPECTOR OF WEIGHTS L MEASURE

STATE OF WI 718 JACKSON ST WAUSAU WI 54401

1715) 842-3789

WEIGHTS' ^MEASURES INSPECTOR

TRADE € CONSUMER PROTECTION 224 MAIN ST PO BOX 231 EAGLE WI 53119

(414) 594-2168

PROBST * ROBERT W DIRECTOR BUR WEIGHTS/MEASURES

WI DEPT AGRI TRADE CONSUMER PR

8C1 W BADGER RD-BOX 8911 MADISON WI 53708

(608) 266-7241

DEMPSTER* JOHN CHEMIST

CANADIAN GRAIN COMMISSION

1404-303 MAIN STREET MANITOBA CAN R3C 3G9 CANADA

KNAPP, RICHARD G DIRECTOR LEGAL METROLOGY CONSUMER-CORP-AFFAIRS CAN OTTAWA ONTARIO CANADA KIA 0C9 CANADA

WINDER, JACK HEAD TRAFFIC AREA COORD DIV DEPT OF TRANSPORT LONDON

2 MAR SHAM ST/LONDON ENGLAND

ENGLAND

DUNFFISONS WESTERN CORPORATION

1200-805 WEST BROADWAY VANCOUVER BC V5Z 1K1 ALLEN. PAUL CHAIRMAN ITSA POLICY COMM TRADING STANDARDS DEPT

P 0 BOX 5 COUNTY HALL LEWES

E SUSSEX ENG BN7 ISW ENGLAND

HODSMAN. G F LESAL METROLOGY EXECUTIVE

W & T AVERY LTO SMETHWICK WARLEY

WEST MIDLANDS B662LP ENGLAND

GORMAN. LEN F MANAGING DIRECTOR

WE IGHWRITE LTD

49 WEST ST/FARNHAM SURREY ENGLAND ENGLAND

344
MANUFACTURERS, INDUSTRY, AND BUS INESS ALPHABETICALLY BY COMPANY

L ADD, ANTHONY J CONSULTANT

A J L ADD WEI GHING6PKGI NG SYSTM

1350 N HOWARD ST SUITE 412 AKRON OH 44310

(216) 928-0219

OBERMAN, GARY L MARKETING REPRESENTATIVE

A R SYSTEMS

292 CHERCOT AVE

SAN JOSE CA 90061

(4081 263-1500

REN2I, LUKE PROJECT LEADER AGREX INC

P 0 BOX 2330 LONG BEACH CA 90801

(213) 435-3441

STERN, MARK ALLEGANY TECHNOLOGY INC

P 0 BOX 1744 CUMBERLAND MD 21502

(301) 722-7330 MCDONALD, BOB ALLEGHANY TECHNOLOGY INC

P 0 BOX 1744 CUMBERLAND MD 21502

(301) 722-7330

WILSON, GEORGE D

V P SCIENTIFIC AFFAIRS AMERICAN MEAT INST

P 0 BOX 3556 WASHINGTON DC 20007

(703) 841-2400

PETERSEN, ROBERT J PROGRAM MANAGER AMERICAN NATIONAL METRIC COUNC

5410 GROSVENOR LANE BETHESDA MD 20814

(301) 530-8333

PEYTON, DONALD L EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT AMERICAN NATIONAL STNDS INST 1430 BROADWAY

NEW YORK NY 10018

(212) 354-3322

SOUTHERS, RICHARD

MGR OPERATIONS AND ENGINEERING

AMERICAN PETROLEUM INSTITUTE

2101 L ST NW WASHINGTON DC 20037

(202) 457-7014

WILSON, GUY W MGR CORPORATE MARKETING DEV ANALOGIC CORPORATION

AUDUBON RD WAKEFIELD MA 01880

(617) 774-4500

SOLTES, JOHN E DIRECTOR OF PACKAGING ANDERSON PEAT-ORGANIC COMPOST 2013 S ANTHONY B'LVD FT WAYNE IN 46803

(219) 422-6511

ZADROZNY, ARTHUR J ARCO CHEMICAL COMPANY

1500 MARKET STREET CS 26 PHILADELPHIA PA 19101

(215) 557-3635 DEJOVINE. JAMES M ARCO PETROLEUM PRODUCTS CO 400 EAST SIBLEY BLVD HARVEY IL 60426

(312) 333-3000 X460 DIGIOVANNI, BERNARD S MGR ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATION

ARCO PETROLEUM PRODUCTS CO

BOX 2679 TA LOS ANGELES CA 90051

(213) 486-2876 ROBINSON, JOHN J ASSISTANT VICE PRESIOENT ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN RR 1920 L ST NW WASHINGTON DC 20036

(202) 293-4144

LEVI STER , META SENIOR ANALYST ATLANTIC RICHFIELD CO

515 S FLOWER ST LOS ANGELES CA 90071

(2131 486-2661 X0520

BABIC, NICHOLAS D CORPORATE METRIC COORDINATOR

ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY

515 S FLOWER ST AP 23117

LOS ANGELES CA 90071

(213J 486-1564

FONGER, ROBERT L SENIOR TECHNICION

BENNETT PUMP CO

2740 WOOD ST MUSKEGON MI 49444

(616) 733-1302

DE RYKE. TOM

MGR ENGINEERING AND PROD DEVEL BERKEL INC

1 BERKEL DRIVE LAPORTE IN 46350 WILLIAMS, JAMES W SALES MANAGER

BROOKS INSTRUMENT DIVISION

PO BOX 450 STATESBORO GA 30458

(912) 764-5471 X252 CAMPBELL, JIM EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

CA SERVICE STATION COUNCIL

2355 A WHITMAN RD CONCORD CA 94518

(415) 682-3102

MARKWITH, ROBERT L ASSISTANT PROJECT ENGINEER CALIF ALMOND GROWERS EXCHANGE

PO BOX 1768 SACRAMENTO CA 95808

(916) 442-0771 X0520

BROWN. DONALD A PROJECT ENGINEER CALIFORNIA ALMOND GROWERS EXCH

PO BOX 1768 SACRAMENTO CA 95808

(916) 446-8386

345
JOHNSTON, JOHN A MANAGER

CARGILL INC 3444 DIGHT AVE SO MINNEAPOLIS MN 55406

(6121 721-8531 THOMPSON. MERRILL S VICE PRESIOENT £ PARTNER CHAOMELL KAYSER RUGGLES ET AL

P 0 BOX 8500 BRIOGETON IN 47836

(317) 548-2202

BLAMIRE. JAMES SUPERVISING ENGINEER CHEVRON USA INC 575 MARKET STREET ROOM 2616

SAN FRANCISCO CA 94105

OAVIES, JEFFREY B MARKETING DIRECTOR

CMI /DEARBORN

EXETER RD HAMPTON FALLS NH 03844

(6031 772-9791

APPELL, KENNETH C DIRECTOR-QUALITY ASSURANCE

COLGATE PALMOLIVE CO 300 PARK AVE NEW YORK NY 10022

(2121 310-2022

OAY, FRED A SYSTEM ENGINEER STRUCTURES CONRAIL

6 PENN CENTER RM 1634 PHILADELPHIA PA 19104

(2151 977-1615

KITCHING, ROGER D PACKAGING MGR - CONSUMER PROD CROWN ZELLERBACH CORP

ONE BUSH ST SAN FRANCISCO CA 94104

(4151 951-5568

HARSHMAN, JACK MANAGER PROOUCT DEVELOPMENT

DANIEL INDUSTRIES INC

PO BOX 19097 HOUSTON TX 77024

(713) 827-5131

BROWN, WILLIAM J WESTERN REGL SALES MGR DOVER CORP / OPW DIV

PO BOX 40240 CINCINNATI OH 45240

(513) 870-3222

MURRAY, L E CHIEF ENGINEER DRESSER INDUSTRIES INC 124 W COLLEGE AVE PO BOX 1859 SALISBURY MO 21801

(301) 546-6600

LODGE, HARVEY M VICE PRESIDENT-SALES

DUNBAR MANUFACTURING INC 307 BROADWAY SWANTON OH 43558

(419) 244-3021

PETITT, TIM TECHNICAL OPERATIONS MANAGER

ELECTRONIC MARKETING SYSTEMS

P 0 BOX 261207

SAN OIEGO CA 92126

1619) 457-1183

LOBSINGER, DAVID J ELECTRONICS ENGINEERING MGR ELECTROSCAVE CORPORATION

P 0 BOX 1786 SANTA .ROSA CA 95402

(707) 584-9720

PHILLIPS, LEE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR ENGINEERING ENGINEERING EXTENSION SERVICE TEXAS ASM UNIV, F E DRAWER K COLLEGE STATION TX 77801

(409) 845-7600 HURLEY. DICK MANAGER ENGINEERING SERVICES FAIRBANKS WEIGHING DIV COLT IN 711 EAST ST JOHN SBURY RD

ST JOHNSBURY VT 05819

(802) 748-5111 X349 HAMMER , KENNETH F PRESIOENT FAIRBANKS WEIGHING DIVISION

COLT INDUSTRIES

ST JOHNSBURY VT 05819

(802) 748-5111 X300 ANDREWS. GEORGE C EXECUTIVE VICE-PRESIDENT

FERRANTI INDIANA INC 4211 ENGLE ROAD

FT WAYNE IN 46804

(219) 432-4214

JOHANSON, ALFRED E COUNSEL FOREMOST-MCKESSON INC 180 BALDWIN AVE JERSEY CITY NJ 07306

(201) 653-3800 X330

SCR IVENER. TOM FRAZIER PRECISION INSTRUMENT C 210 OAKMONT AVENUE

GAI THERSBURG MD 20760

NELSON, ROBERT L MGR PHYSICAL TESTING-BAKING SE GENERAL MILLS INC 9000 PLYMOUTH AVE N MINNEAPOLIS MN 55427

(612) 540-2729 PETERSON, NEAL D ATTORNEY GENERAL MILLS INC 1730 M STREET NW WASHINGTON DC 20036

(202) 296-0360

MAILHOT. WILLIAM C DIRECTOR QUALITY CONTROL GENERAL MILLS INC SPERRY DIV 9200 WAYZATA BLVD MINNEAPOLIS MN 55426

1612) 540-2354

VANHUSS, RAY E DIRECTOR GOVERNMENT RELATIONS

GERBER PRODUCTS CO 445 STATE STREET FREMONT MI 49412

(616) 928-2267

TULLIER, A S GETTY REFINING £ MARKETING CO 1437 S BOULDER BOX 1650 TULSA OK 74102

(918) 560-6981

KROLL, ART AUTHORITIES L STANDARDS GP LDR GILBARCO INC 7300 W FRIENDLY AVE GREENSBORO NC 27420

(9191 292-3011 X255 PARENT, CLAUDE R DIRECTOR-NATIONAL ACCOUNTS GILBARCO INC 3717 MT DIABLO BLVD NO 207 LAFAYETTE CA 94549

(415) 284-1813

346
JONES. LARRY R AUTHORITIES AND STANDARDS ENG GILMARCO INC 7300 FRIENDLY ROAD GREENSBORO NC 27420

(919) 292-3011

MOORE, ANDREW B SCIENCE ASSOCIATE GROCERY MANUFACTURERS OF AMER

1010 WISCONSIN AV NW STE 800 WASHINGTON DC 20007

C202I 337-9400

KATTERHEI NRICH. MANAGER GOVT FRED H

£ INDUSTRY REG

HOBART CORP

400 WAYNE AVENUE DAYTON OH 45410

15131 223-0452

SCHAFER. CHET MANAGER NATIONAL ACCTS WESTERN HOBART CORPORATION

1501 W 8TH STREET LOS ANGELES CA 90017

1213) 483-1310

AQUADRO, JOHN W VICE PRESIDENT INDUSTRIAL DIV HOWE RICHARDSON

680 VAN HOUTEN AVE CLIFTON NJ 07015

1201) 471-3400 X243 KLOOS, CHIP SECTION HEAD - R £ D HUNT WESSON FOODS INC 1645 W VALENCIA FULLERTON CA 92633

17141 680-1098 X1098 DAVIS* RICHARD L ADMINISTRATOR REGULATORY COMPL JAMES RIVER-DIXIE/NORTHERN INC NEENAH TECH CTR 1915 MARATHON

NEENAH WI 54956

1414) 729-8174

SEALE. RICHARD C PRESIDENT KAMLAR CORP

105 KAMLAR DRIVE ROCKY MOUNT NC 27801

(9191 443-2576

LEAHY, DAVID P TECHNICAL CONSULTANT

KROGER CO

2 CAMPBELL DRIVE HIGHLAND HEIGHTS KY 41076

(606) 572-2200 YASUKOCHI, ERNIE H

Q A MANAGER

LAWRYS FOOD INC 570 WEST AVENUE L6 LOS ANGELES CA 90065

1213) 225-2491 LIQUID CONTROLS CORP

PO BOX 101 WAUKEGAN ROAD NORTH CHICAGO IL 60064

1312) 689-2400 X234

TENNEY, STEVEN W ASST DISTRICT MANAGER

LIQUIO CONTROLS CORP

P 0 BOX 1253 MILL VALLEY CA 94942

(415) 331-6161

HOOD. ROBERT B DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING

LODEC INC DRAWER D LYNWOOD WA 98036

(206) 775-6471

HARRINGTON, ROBERT J SUPERVISOR MEASUREMENTS

MARATHON PETROLEUM CO FINDLAY OH 45840

(419) 422-2121 KLUS^N

A si! ABVo MAZDA (NORTH AMERICA) INC 1444 MCGAW AVE IRVINE CA 92714

(714) 979-5560

BOUBILLE, JACQUES C PRESIDENT

METRO EQUIPMENT CORPORATION

1235 REAMWOOD AVE SUNNYVALE CA 94086

(408) 734-5400

HAUSHERR, WALTER

DIR MGMT SERVICES METTLER INSTRUMENT CORP

BOX 71 HIGHTSTOWN NJ 08520

1609) 448-3000

KUpVdR, WALTER E MGR BALANCES SCALES £ SYSTEMS METTLER INSTRUMENT CORP

BOX 71 HIGHTSTOWN NJ 08520

16091 448-3000

LEMME t WOLFGANG MANAGER TECHNICAL SERVICES METTLER INSTRUMENT CORPORATION

PR I NC ETON—HIGHTSTOWN ROAD HIGHTSTOWN NJ 08520

(609) 448-3000

COLPITTS, DONALD B MILLERS NATIONAL FEDERATION

ROUTE #1 BOX 115B WORLEY ID 83876

(208) 686-1911

KLEVAY, TOM DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL AFFAIRS MILLERS NATIONAL FEDERATION

600 MARYLAND AVENUE SUITE 305 WASHINGTON DC 20024

(202) 484-2200

CADY, SHELDON H EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT MINERAL INSULATION MFGRS ASSOC

382 SPRINGFIELD AVE SUMMIT NJ 07901

(201) 277-1550

PETRELLI, JOSEPH A MGR MKTG OPERATIONS ENVIRONMT

MOBIL OIL CORPORATION

3225 GALLOWS RD ROOM 4N004 FAIRFAX VA 22037

(703) 849-3730 GOOOPASTER, WILLIAM V VICE PRESIDENT MURPHY CARDINAL SCALE CO 1610 N C ST SACRAMENTO CA 95814

1916) 441-0178

LYNCH, G DAN A EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

NATIONAL BARK PRODUCERS ASSN

301 MAPLE AVE W TOWER 505 VIENNA VA 22180

1703) 938-3999

PRUNTY, JAMES J EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

NATL SCALE MENS ASSN

800 S MILWAUKEE AVE SUITE 101

LI BERTYVILLE IL 60046

(312) 680-1750

347
BRATLE, EDWARD

INDUSTRY STANDARDS £ RELATIONS

NCR CORPORATION

WORLD HEADQUARTERS 4TH FLOOR DAYTON OH 45*79 DANIELS. A R DIRECTOR INDUSTRY STDS £ R EL NCR CORPORATION

1700 S PATTERSON BLVD WHQ DAYTON OH 45479

(513) 445-1310

BAUMANN, JOHN S VICE PRESIDENT

NEW BRUNSWICK INTERNATIONAL

5 GREEK LANE EDISON NJ 08817

1201) 287-2288

CAMPBELL. MICHAEL P PROJECT ENGINEER

OHAJS SCALE CO

29 HANOVER ROAD FLORHAM PARK NJ 07932

1201) 377-9000

COOK, CHARLES F OSCAR MAYER £ CO 910 MAYER AVE MADISON WI 53704

(6081 344-6819

PAUL, DONALD L VP QUALITY AND REGULATORY AFFR OSCAR MAYER FOODS CORPORATION

PO BOX 7188 MADISON WI 53707

(608) 241-6803

MURRAY. JOHN F EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OXYGENATED FUELS ASSN

1075 CENTRAL PARK AVE SCARSDALE NY 10583

(914) 725-1492

PEDERSEN, JEFFREY A PRESIDENT

PEDERSCN OIL INC 162C MARINEVIEW DR TACOMA WA 98422

(206) 272-0980

HOCKMUTH, RICHARD L MECHANICAL PRODUCTS ENGR MGR PETROLEUM METER £ PUMP CO INC 25 SECURITY DRIVE POB 422 AVON CT 06001

(203) 677-9656

JACKSON, WILLIAM C MARKETING ENG SERV COORD PHILLIPS PETROLEUM CO

752 AOAMS BUILDING BARTLESVILLE OK 74004

(918) 661-7011 FAULCONER. HAL M PRINCIPAL TECH REPRESENTATIVE

PHILLIPS PETROLEUM COMPANY

SENECA BLDG BARTLESVILLE OK 74004

(918) 661-6334

FREYER, RONALD

MANAGER QUALITY GROCERY

PI LLS8URY COMPANY

PI LLSBURY CENTER MINNEAPOLIS MN 55402 TAUBERT, CARL A DIRECTOR QA TECHNICAL SERVICES PILLSBURY COMPANY-MS 9441

311 SECOND STREET S E MINNEAPOLIS MN 55414

(612) 330-4477

FENN] RUTHERFORD H DIRECTOR CORPORATE STANDARDS

PITNEY BCWES WALTER WHEELER DRIVE STAMFORD CT 06926

(203) 853-0727

FEINL AND, SY PITNEY BOWES INC MAIN AVE NORWALK CT 06851

(203) 853-7113 BOWLES, WILLIAM T DIRECTOR PREP ENGINEERING

PITTSBR&— MIDWAY COAL MINING CO

1720 S BELLAIRE ST DENVER CO 80222

(303) 758-1700 X386 BRAUN. WILLIAM H PACKAGING SECTION HEAD PROCTER £ GAMBLE 6100 CENTER HILL RD CINCINNATI OH 45224

(513) 659-5233

BELLI VEAU > ROBERT E ASSOCIATE MANAGER

PROCTER £ GAMBLE COMPANY

I VORYD ALE TECHNICAL CENTER

CINCINNATI OH 45217

(513) 763-5203 CARLETCN. GEORGE E MGR MARKETING SYSTEMS DEVELOP

PROCTOR £ GAMBLE CO.

PO BOX 599 SPACE 8C-GO CINCINNATI OH 45201

(513) 562-2721

TGPAL IS, TOM QUALITY ASSURANCE COMPLIANCE

QUAKER OATS CO JOHN STUART LAB 617 W MAIN ST BARRINGTGN IL 60010

(312) 381-1980 CASANOVA, MAX C MANAGER FIELD SERVICE RAMSEY ENGINEERING COMPANY

1853 W CCUNTY RD C SAINT PAUL MN 55113

(612) 633-5150 X264 CHASE. PAUL VICE PRESIDENT OF RES £ DEVEL RAMSEY ENGINEERING COMPANY

1853 W COUNTRY ROAD C ST PAUL MN 55113

(612) 633-5150 HALLBERG, DAVID E PRESIDENT/CEO RENEWABLE FUELS ASSOC

499 SO CAPITOL ST SW WASHINGTON DC 20003

(202) 484-9320 GRIEVES. JOHN L MS 929 QUALITY CONTROL SPECIALIST REYNOLDS ELECTRICAL £ ENG CO

PO BOX 14400

LAS VEGAS NV 89114

(702) 986-9960

WINSLOW, ROBERT L MGR FOOD TECHNOLOGY DIVN

SAFE WAY STORES INC 430-A JACKSON ST OAKLAND CA 94660

(415) 891-3250

TONINI, DARYL E TECHNICAL DIRECTOR

SCALE MANUFACTURER ASSOCIATION

1133 15TH ST N W WASHINGTON DC 20005

(202J 429-9440

348
BOCCHI, GREGORY J TECHNICAL ASSISTANT

SCALE MANUFACTURERS ASSN

1133 15TH ST NW WASHINGTON DC 20005

(202) 429-9440

LLOYD. RAYMOND J EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

SCALE MANUFACTURERS ASSN

1133 15TH ST N W WASHINGTON DC 20005

(2021 429-9440

WELLS. RAYMOND R VICE PRES - SALES SERAPHIN TEST MEASURE CO

30 INDEL AVE RANCOCAS NJ 08073

(609) 267-0922 VAN INWAGEN. CHARLES L STAFF ENGINEER SHELL OIL COMPANY

1100 MILAM PG BOX 3105 HOUSTON TX 77001

(713) 241-1778

WITTNER, EUGENE

STAFF LOSS CONTROL SPECIALIST

SHELL GIL COMPANY

TWO SHELL PLAZA HOUSTON TX 77001

(713) 241-6563

KILCOYNE, MARY P DIRECTOR LEG I REG INFO SOAP 6 DETERGENT ASSN

475 PARK AVE S NEW YORK NY 10016

(212) 725-1262 X21 AWBREY, JACK C QUALITY CONTROL SPECIALIST

SOUTHERN CO SERVICES FUEL DEPT

P 0 BOX 2625 BIRMINGHAM AL 35202

(205) 877-7675

BANKS. EDWIN G SUPERVISOR OF SCALES SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANSP CO

1 MARKET PLAZA ROOM 1007 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94105

(415) 891-7828 SOUTHWEST MICROGRAPHICS CO RT 9 BOX 205 BOAT CLUB ROAD

FORT WORTH TX 76179

(817) 654-5849

BELUE, FRED M MECHANICAL ENGINEERING DEPT SOUTHWEST PUMP COMPANY

PO DRAWER 280 BONHAM TX 75418

(214) 583-3134 X47 CALDICOTT. JACK R VICE PRESIDENT

STREETER AMET

155 WICKS ST GRAYSLAKE IL 60030

(312) 223-4801 BUCHANAN. WILLIAM W REGULATORY AFFAIRS SUNNYSIDE CORPORATION

225 CARPENTER AVENUE WHEELING IL 60090

(312) 541-5700 X0022

MORROW, THOMAS L R AND 0 SUPERVISOR

TEC AMERICA INC 19250 VAN NESS AVE TORRANCE CA 90501

(213) 320-8900 X67

SCHAFFER, DENNIS

SCALE SERVICE COORDINATOR

TEC AMERICA INC 19250 VAN NESS AVE TORRANCE CA 90501

(213) 320-8900

REFF, JERRY D MARKETING COORDINATOR

TOKHEIM CORP

1600 WABASH AVE FT WAYNE IN 46801

(219) 423-2552 GERDOM JR. WALTER F MANAGER-TECHNICAL SERVICES TOKHEIM CORPORATION

P 0 BOX 360 FORT WAYNE IN 46801

1219) 423-2552 X316

KEY. WILLIAM D MANAGER OF ENGINEERING

TOKHEIM CORPORATION

1602 WABASH AVE FT WAYNE IN 46801

(2191 423-2552 X345

GOH, TONY L MODIFICATION MANAGER TOLEDO SCALE 3070 BAY VISTA CT BENICIA CA 94510

(707) 746-0725

STABLER. THOMAS M MANAGER-WTS AND MEAS TOLEDO SCALE

P 0 BOX 658 WORTH I NGTON OH 43085

(614) 438-4548 PERINO. PETER R PRESIDENT TRANSDUCERS INC 14030 BOLSA LANE CERRITGS CA 90701

(714) 739-1991 CORRIGAN, BRIAN J WEIGHMASTER

TRI STATE GRAIN INSPECTION SVC 3906 RIVER ROAD

CINCINNATI OH 45204

(513) 251-6571

VIND, DOUG FIELD OPERATIONS SUPERVISOR

TROPIC ANA PETROLEUM

305 N HARBOR BLVD FULLERTON CA 92623

(714) 992-0925

POLITI, HENRY L MARKETING MANAGER UNIDYNAMICS/ST LOUIS INC 1326 ASHBY ROAD

ST LOUIS MO 63132

(314) 991-0273

BROWN. ELAINE R OPERATIONS ENGINEER

UNION OIL OF CALIFORNIA

P 0 BOX 7600 LOS ANGELES CA 90051

(213) 977-6108 GREENBANK » DALE L SUPPLY £ DISTRIBUTION MGR UNITED AMERICAN FUELS

1433 E THOMAS RD PHOENIX AZ 85014

1602) 278-7993

349
LOMBARDO. PHILLIP J MGR ADVANCED DEVELOPMENT VEEDER-ROOT CO

70 SARGEANT ST HARTFORD CT 06102

(203) 527-7201

RAY, B D VICE PRESIDENT ENGINEERING

VINCE HAGAN CO

PO BOX 225141

DALLAS TX 75265

12 14) 339-7194

ERICSGN, ROBERT C QUALITY ASSURANCE MANAGER

W R GRACE £ CO

62 WHITTEMORE AVE CAMBRIDGE MA 02148

(617) 876-1400 X181 DENNY « CHARLES J MGR CUSTOMER £ TECHNICAL SERV WILLIAM M WILSONS SONS INC

8 £ VALLEY FORGE RDS LANSDALE PA 19446

(215) 855-4631 X37 WOLSKI, EDWARD E CONSULTANT

WOLSKI COMPANY

405 GLENDALE ROAD SUITE 525 WYCKOFF NJ 07481

1201) 652-0284 X6131 SCHRADER, DO INSTRUCTOR

NALD

YUBA COLLEGE

N BEALE RD MARYS VILLE CA 95901

(916i 742-7351 X286

CAPINO, WANDA FISCAL ANALYST NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS WASHINGTON DC 20234

(301) 921-3751 CHAPWICK, NANCY C SECRETARY OWM NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS WASHINGTON DC 20234

(301) 921-2401

DONALDSON, JOHN L DEPUTY DIRECTOR OFF PROD STDS NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS WASHINGTON DC 20234

(301) 921-3751

FARRAR, ALLEN J LEGAL ADVISER NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

ADMIN BLDG ROOM A-1128 WASHINGTON DC 20234

13011 921-2425

HASKQ, STEPHEN ENGINEER NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

OFFICE OF WEIGHTS £ MEASURES WASHINGTON DC 20234

(301) 921-2401 HEFFERNAN, ANN P CONFERENCE COORDINATOR

NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON W PO BOX 3137 GAITHERSBURG MD 20878

(301) 921-3677

£ M

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT

KELLER t JERRY G NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

A117 METROLOGY BLDG WASHINGTON DC 20234

(301) 921-2461

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

KIM, JOE ENGINEER

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

OFFICE OF WEIGHTS £ MEASURES WASHINGTON DC 20234

(301J 921-3677

ALGER, DAWN E NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS WASHINGTON DC 20234

(301) 921-3307

AMBLER. ERNEST DIRECTOR

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS WASHINGTON DC 20234

(301) 921-2411

8ARKLEY, KAREN L NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS WASHINGTON DC 20234

(301) 921-2401

BRICKENKAMP, CARROLL S PROGRAM MANAGER NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

OFFICE OF WEIGHTS £ MEASURES WASHINGTON DC 20234

(301) 921-2401

MACKAY, DONALD R STANDARDS MANAGEMENT PROGRAM NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS WASHINGTON DC 20234

(301) 921-3307

OPPERM ANN t HENRY V GEN PHYS SCI NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

OFFICE OF WTS £ MEASURES WASHINGTON DC 20234

(301) 921-2401 SCHGONCVER, RANDY PHYSICS B152 NBS WASHINGTON DC 20234

(301) 921-3520

SMITH, RICHARD N TECHNICAL COORDINATOR

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS OFFICE OF WEIGHTS £ MEASURES WASHINGTON DC 20234

(301) 921-3677

THOLEN, ALBERT D CHIEF OFF OF WEIGHTS £ MEASURE NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANOARDS WASHINGTON DC 20234

(301) 921-2401

350
VADELUND, ERIC A SENIOR STANDARDS SPECIALIST

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

WASHINGTON DC 20234

(3011 921-3307

WARNLOF , OTTO K MANAGER-TECHNICAL SERVICES NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDAROS

OFFICE OF WEIGHTS 6 MEASURES

WASHINGTON DC 20234

13011 921-2401

WAR SHAW, STANLEY I CHIEF OFFICE PRODUCT STDS POL NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS WASHINGTON DC 20234

430l» 921-3751

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

ft!TNPi 8P

Bl8JieutT«E RICHARDS GEBAUR AFB BLOG 221 GRANDVIEW MO 64030

(816) 348-2295

JCALES & WEIGHING BRANCH

USDA PACKERS OF STOCKYARDS ADM 14TH £ INDEPENDENCE WASHINGTON OC 20250

12021 475-3209 J^sSa^*? Seighing branch USDA EQUIPMENT BRANCH WEIGHING

SECTION ROOM 0631 SOUTH BLDG WASHINGTON DC 20250

(202) 382-1716 SCHOOUl BlYRON INDUSTRIAL SPECIALIST

USDA ROOM 0631 SOUTH BLDG WASHINGTON DC 20250

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1983 O—380-997 (5204)

351

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 lime 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 information 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 N BS 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 oj Documents. Government Printing Office, Washington. DC 20402. Order the following NBS publications— FlPS and NBSlR'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 1 1717 (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. D C 20234 POSTAGE AND FEES PAID

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

OFFICIAL BUSINESS

Penalty for Private Use. $300

SPECIAL FOURTH-CLASS RATE BOOK


WERT

BOOKBINDING MAY 84