Report of the 93rd

National Conference 

on Weights and Measures 

Burlington, Vermont – July 13 through 17, 2008 

as adopted by the 93rd National Conference on Weights and Measures 2008 

Editors: 

Linda Crown 

Technical Advisors to the Standing Committees 

Carol Hockert, Chief 

Weights and Measures Division 

National Institute of Standards and Technology 

Weights and Measures Division 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2600 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

Carlos M. Gutierrez, Secretary 

National Institute of 

Standards and Technology 

Patrick D. Gallagher, Deputy Director 

NIST Special Publication 1080 

November 2008 

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

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

industry, and consumer organizations. 
Abstract 

The 93rd Annual Meeting of the National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM) was held 

July 13 - 17, 2008, at the Sheraton Burlington Hotel, Burlington, Vermont. The theme of the meeting was “Seeking 

Balance.” 

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

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

from government and industry. 

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

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

Departments of Agriculture, the Industry Committee on Packaging and Labeling, and Associate Membership 

Committee. 

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

evaluation; uniform laws; weights and measures. 

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 26-27766. 

Note: The policy of the National Institute of Standards and Technology is to use metric units of measurement in all 

of its publications. In this publication, however, recommendations received by the NCWM technical committees 

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

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

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

responsible for the content and quality of their material. 

Natl. Inst. Stand. Technol. Spec. Pub. 1080, 484 Pages (November 2008) CODEN: NSPUE2 

WASHINGTON: 2008 

ii 
Table of Contents 

Page

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

Past Chairmen of the Conference ..................................................................................................................................v 

Organization Chart ......................................................................................................................................................vii 

General Session 

President’s Address – Dr. Belinda Collins, NIST, Technology Services Director............................................... GS - 1 

Chairman’s Address – Judy Cardin, Wisconsin Department of Agriculture & Consumer Protection............... GS - 25 

New Chairman’s Address – Jack Kane, Montana Business Standards Division................................................ GS - 27 

2008 Annual Meeting Honor Award Recipients ................................................................................................ GS - 29 

Standing Committee Reports 

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

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

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

Appendix B. Final Report of the NCWM Associate Member Committee (AMC) ................................. BOD - B1 

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

Appendix A. Letters submitted to the NCWM conference concerning Automatic Temperature 

 Compensation .................................................................................................................................. L&R - A1 

Appendix B. Letters submitted to the NCWM conference concerning Engine Fuels, Petroleum 

Products and Automotive Lubricants................................................................................................L&R - B1 

Appendix C. L&R Committee Work Group on Moisture Loss ...............................................................L&R - C1 

Appendix D. Letter from the International Ice Cream Association to the Food and Drug 

Administration.................................................................................................................................. L&R - D1 

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

Appendix A. Item 360-2: Developing Items ..........................................................................................S&T - A1 

Appendix B. Water Meter Manufacturers’ Proposed Changes to Developing Item Part 5, 

Item 3 Water Meters............................................................................................................................ S&T B1 

Appendix C. Jeff Humphrey’s Letter and Comments on Developing Item Part 5, Item 3 Water Meters.. S&T C1 

Report of the Professional Development Committee (PDC)..............................................................................PDC - 1 

Appendix A. Strategic Direction for the Professional Development Committee.....................................PDC - A1 

Appendix B. Curriculum Package: Cover Memorandum........................................................................ PDC - B1 

Appendix C. Curriculum Package: NCWM Core Competency Model .................................................. PDC - C1 

Appendix D. Curriculum Package: NCWM Curriculum Template ........................................................PDC - D1 

Appendix E. Curriculum Package: NCWM Sample Curriculum............................................................ PDC - E1 

Appendix F. Curriculum Package: Guide for Developing Test Questions ..............................................PDC - F1 

Appendix G. Curriculum Package: National Training Curriculum Outline............................................PDC - G1 

Appendix H. Curriculum Package: NCWM Curriculum Work Plan ......................................................PDC - H1 

Appendix I. Model Professional Development Training and Certification Standards Statute for 

Inspectors and Sealers of Weights and Measures (Legislative Model).............................................. PDC - I1 

iii 
iv

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

Appendix A. NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector Meeting Summary ..........................................................NTEP - A1 

Appendix B. NTETC Measuring Sector Meeting Summary..................................................................NTEP - B1 

Appendix C. NTETC Weighing Sector Meeting Summary ...................................................................NTEP - C1 

Appendix D. NTETC Software Sector Meeting Summary .................................................................... NTEP - D1 

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

2008 Annual Meeting Attendees ................................................................................................................ATTEND - 1 
Past Chairmen of the Conference 

44th 1959 C. M. Fuller, CA 69th 1984 Sam F. Hindsman, AR 

45th 1960 H. E. Crawford, FL 70th 1985 Ezio F. Delfino, CA 

46th 1961 R. E. Meek, IN 71st 1986 George E. Mattimoe, HI 

47th 1962 Robert Williams, NY 72nd 1987 Frank C. Nagele, MI 

48th 1963 C. H. Stender, SC 73rd 1988 Darrell A. Guensler, CA 

49th 1964 D. M. Turnbull, WA 74th 1989 John J. Bartfai, NY 

50th 1965 V. D. Campbell, OH 75th 1990 Fred A. Gerk, NM 

51st 1966 J. F. True, KS 76th 1991 N. David Smith, NC 

52nd 1967 J. E. Bowen, MA 77th 1992 Sidney A. Colbrook, IL 

53rd 1968 C. C. Morgan, IN 78th 1993 Allan M. Nelson, CT 

54th 1969 S. H. Christie, NJ 79th 1994 Thomas F. Geiler, MA 

55th 1970 R. W. Searles, OH 80th 1995 James C. Truex, OH 

56th 1971 M. Jennings, TN 81st 1996 Charles A. Gardner, NY 

57th 1972 E. H. Black, CA 82nd 1997 Barbara J. Bloch, CA 

58th 1973 George L. Johnson, KY 83rd 1998 Steven A. Malone, NE 

59th 1974 John H. Lewis, WA 84th 1999 Aves D. Thompson, AK 

60th 1975 Sydney D. Andrews, FL 85th 2000 G. Weston Diggs, VA 

61st 1976 Richard L. Thompson, MD 86th 2001 Lou Straub, MD 

62nd 1977 Earl Prideaux, CO 87th 2002 Ron Murdock, NC 

63rd 1978 James F. Lyles, VA 88th 2003 Ross J. Andersen, NY 

64th 1979 Kendrick J. Simila, OR 89th 2004 Dennis Ehrhart, AZ 

65th 1980 Charles H. Vincent, TX 90th 2005 G. Weston Diggs, VA 

66th 1981 Edward H. Stadolnik, MA 91st 2006 Don Onwiler, NE 

67th 1982 Edward C. Heffron, MI 92nd 2007 Michael Cleary, CA 

68th 1983 Charles H. Greene, NM 

v
vi

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
Org Chart 

National Conference on Weights and Measures, Inc. 

Organization Chart 

2007/2008 

Board of Directors 

Office Representation Name/Affiliation Term Expires 

Chairman: Judy Cardin, WI* 2008 

Chairman-Elect: Jack Kane, MT* 2009 

NTEP Committee Chair: Steve Malone, NE* 2008 

Treasurer: Will Wotthlie, MD 2008 

Active Membership/Northeastern: Charles Carroll, MA* 2009 

Active Membership/Central: Steven Malone, NE 2010 

Active Membership/Southern: Randy Jennings, TN* 2008 

Active Membership/Western: Steven Grabski, NV 2012 

At-Large: Christopher Guay, Procter & Gamble 2008 

At-Large: Tim Tyson, KS 2011 

Associate Membership: Robert Murnane, Seraphin Test Measure 2012 

*National Type Evaluation Program (NTEP) Committee Member

Honorary NCWM President: 

NCWM Executive Secretary: 

NCWM Co-Executive Director: 

NCWM Co-Executive Director: 

BOD Advisor: 

NTEP Director: 

NTEP Administrator: 

NTEP Committee Technical Advisor: 

Dr. James M. Turner, NIST Deputy Director 

Carol Hockert, Chief, NIST W&M Division 

Don Onwiler, NCWM Headquarters 

Beth Palys, CAE, NCWM Headquarters 

Gilles Vinet, Measurement Canada 

Stephen Patoray, NCWM Headquarters* 

Jim Truex, NCWM Headquarters* 

Steven Cook, NIST W&M Division 

Committees 

Laws & Regulations Committee Specifications & Tolerances Committee 

Position Name/Affiliation (Term Ends) Position Name/Affiliation (Term Ends) 

Chair: Vicky Dempsey, Montgomery County, 

OH (2008) 

Chair: Carol Fulmer, SC (2008) 

Members: Roger Macey, CA (2009) 

Stephen Benjamin, NC (2010) 

Joe Benavides, TX (2011) 

John Gaccione, Westchester County, NY 

(2012) 

Members: Todd Lucas, OH (2009) 

Brett Saum, CA (2010) 

Kristin Macey, CO (2011) 

Steve Giguere, ME (2012) 

Associate 

Member Rep: 

O.R. “Pete” O’Bryan, Foster Farms 

Canadian 

Tech 

Advisors: 

Doug Hutchinson Canadian 

Tech 

Advisor: 

Ted Kingsbury 

NIST Tech 

Advisors: 

Kenneth Butcher 

Lisa Warfield 

NIST Tech 

Advisors: 

Tina Butcher 

Steven Cook 

vii
Org Chart 

Committees (continued) 

Professional Development Committee Metrology Committee 

Position Name/Affiliation (Term Ends) Position Name/Affiliation (Term Ends)

Chair: Agatha Shields, OH (2008) Chair: TBD 

Members: 

NIST Advisor: 

Safety Liaison: 

Staff Liaison: 

Richard Cote, NH (2009) 

Ross Andersen, NY (2010) 

John Sullivan, MS (2011) 

Stacy Carlsen, CA (2012) 

Tina Butcher, NIST/W&M 

Charles Gardner, NY 

Linda Bernetich, NCWM 

Co-Chair: 

Members: 

TBD 

Associate Member 

Rep: 

TBD NIST Tech 

Advisor: 

TBD 

Nominating Committee Legislative Liaison 

Chair: Steve Malone, NE Chair: TBD 

Members: Ross Andersen, NY 

Dennis Ehrhart, AZ 

Thomas Geiler, MA 

Maxwell Gray, FL 

TBD 

Members: TBD 

Credentials Committee Appointed Officers 

Chair: Mark Buccelli, MN (2008) Parliamentarian: Lou Straub, Fairbanks Scales 

Members: Raymond Johnson, NM (2009) 

Dave Pfahler, SD (2010) 

Chaplain: Stephen Langford, Cardinal Scale 

Manufacturing Company 

Coordinator: Linda Bernetich, NCWM Staff Sergeants-AtArms: 

Hugh Lund, VT 

Marc Paquette, VT

Presiding 

Officers: 

Jerry Butler, NC 

Tim Chesser, AR 

Kurt Floren, CA 

Mike Sikula, NY 

Associate Membership Committee

Chair: Christopher Guay, Procter and Gamble (2009) 

Vice Chair: Paul Lewis, Rice Lake Weighing Systems (2009) 

Secretary/Treasurer: Michael Gaspers, Farmland Foods, Inc. (2009) 

Members: Darrell Flocken, Mettler-Toledo (2008) 

Cary Frye, International Dairy Foods Assoc. (2008) 

Thomas Herrington, Nestle USA (2010) 

Doug Biette, Sartorius North America (2010) 

Dave Wankowski, Kraft Foods, Inc. (2010) 

viii
Org Chart 

National Type Evaluation Technical Committees 

NTETC Weighing Sector NTETC Measuring Sector 

Chair: Darrell Flocken, Mettler-Toledo Chair: Michael Keilty, Endress & Hauser 

Flowtec AG

Technical 

Advisor: 

Steven Cook, NIST/WMD Technical 

Advisor: 

Tina Butcher, NIST/WMD

Public 

Sector 

Members: 

Ross Andersen, NY 

Jerry Butler, NC 

Gary Castro, CA 

Steve Hadder, FL 

Ted Kingsbury, Measurement Canada 

Todd Lucas, OH 

John Makin, Measurement Canada 

Dan Reiswig, CA 

Richard Wotthlie, MD 

Public 

Sector 

Members: 

Cary Ainsworth, GIPSA 

Ross Andersen, NY 

William Bates, GIPSA 

Andrea Buie, MD 

Luciano Burtini, Measurement Canada 

Tina Butcher, NIST/WMD 

Gary Castro, CA 

Terry Davis, KS 

Ken Jones, CA 

Jack Kane, MT 

Todd Lucas, OH 

Ronald Rigdon, MN 

Juana Williams, NIST/WMD 

Russ Wyckoff, OR 

Private 

Sector 

Members: 

Steven Beitzel, Systems Associates, Inc. 

Doug Biette, Sartorius North America 

John Elengo, Contractor 

Robert Feezor, Norfolk Southern Corp. 

Willliam GeMeiner, Union Pacific 

Railroad 

David Hawkins, Thurman Scale Co. 

Scott Henry, NCR 

John C. Hughes, Avery Weigh-Tronix 

Rafael Jimenez, Association of American 

Railroads 

Gary Lameris, Lameris Consulting 

Stephen Langford, Cardinal Scale Mfg. 

Paul Lewis, Rice Lake Weighing Systems 

Thomas Luna, Scales Unlimited, Inc. 

L. Edward Luthy, Brechbuhler Scales, Inc.

Nigel Mills, Hobart Corporation 

Naresh Puri, NMB Technologies, Inc. 

Louis Straub, Fairbanks Scales, Inc. 

Jerry Wang, A&D Engineering, Inc. 

Otto Warnlof, Consultant 

William West, Consultant 

Nathaniel Wieselquist, Sick, Inc. 

Walter Young, Emery Winslow Scale 

Private 

Sector 

Members: 

F. Michael Belue, Belue Associates 

Joseph Beyer, Liquid Controls, Inc. 

Marc Buttler, Emerson Process 

Management - Micro Motion 

Joe Buxton, Daniel Measurement & 

Control 

Rodney Cooper, Actaris Neptune 

Maurice Forkert, Tuthill Transfer Systems

Mike Gallo, Clean Fueling Technologies 

Paul Glowacki, Murray Equipment 

Alex Gutierrez, MEGGITT Fueling 

Products,Whittaker Controls 

Gordon Johnson, Gilbarco, Inc. 

Yefim Katselnik, Dresser Wayne, Inc. 

Douglas Long, RDM Industrial 

Electronics 

Wade Mattar, Invensys/Foxboro 

Daniel Maslowski, LTS Sales 

Richard Miller, FMC Measurement 

Solution 

Robert Murnane, Jr., Seraphin Test 

Measure 

Andre Noel, Neptune Technology 

Charlene Numrych, Liquid Controls 

Johnny Parrish, Brodie Meter Company, 

LLC 

David Rajala, Veeder-Root Company 

Richard L. Tucker, RL Tucker Consulting 

Otto Warnlof, Consultant 

ix
Org Chart 

National Type Evaluation Technical Committees (continued) 

NTETC Software Sector NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector

Co-Chairs: Norm Ingram, CA 

James Pettinato, FMC Technologies 

Chair: Cassie Eigenmann, DICKEY-john Corp.

Technical 

Advisor: 

Stephen Patoray, NCWM Technical 

Advisors: 

G. Diane. Lee, NIST/WMD 

John Barber, J. B. Associates

Public Sector 

Members: 

Dennis Beattie, MC 

Andrea Buie, MD 

Bill Fishman, NY 

Mike Frailer, MD 

Todd Lucas, OH 

John Roach, CA 

Ambler Thompson, NIST/WMD 

Public Sector 

Members: 

Randy Burns, AR 

Tina Butcher, NIST/WMD 

Karl Cunningham, IL 

Todd Lucas, OH 

Richard Pierce, GIPSA 

Edward Szesnat, Jr., NY 

Cheryl Tew, NC 

Private Sector 

Members: 

John Atwood, Tyson Food 

Doug Bliss, Mettler-Toledo 

André Elle, Endress & Hauser Flowtec 

AG 

Travis Gibson, Rice Lake Weighing 

Systems 

Teri Gulke, Liquid Controls LLC 

Keith Harper, Gencor Industries, Inc. 

Bryan Haynes, Liquid Controls, LLC 

Tony Herrin, Cardinal Scale Mfgr. Co. 

Robert Hoblit, IBM 

Gordon Johnson, Gilbarco, Inc. 

Gary Lameris, Gainco Inc. 

Paul Lewis, Rice Lake Weighing 

Systems 

Mike McGhee, Actaris US Liquid 

Measurement 

Richard Miller, FMC Measurement 

Solutions 

Charlene Numrych, Liquid Controls 

LLC 

Michael Parks, Vulcan Materials Co. 

Steve J. Pollmann, Tyson Food 

Mike Roach, Verifone 

Robin Sax, CompuWeigh Corp. 

Jim Sexton, Rice Lake Weighing 

Systems 

Chris Scott, Gilbarco, Inc. 

David Vande Berg, Vande Berg Scales 

Roland Wagner, Flow Measurements 

& Engineering GmbH 

Nathaniel Wieselquist, Sick, Inc 

Kevin M. Williams, Gilbarco, Inc. 

Private Sector 

Members: 

James Bair, NA Miller’s Association 

Martin Clements, The Steinlite Corp. 

Victor Gates, Shore Sales Company 

Andrew Gell, Foss North America 

Charles Hurburgh, Jr., Iowa State 

University 

David Krejci, Grain Elevator & 

Processing Society 

Jess McCluer, National Grain & Feed 

Association 

Thomas Runyon, Seedboro Equipment 

x
Org Chart 

National Type Evaluation Technical Committees (continued)

NTETC Belt Conveyor Sector 

Chair: TBD 

Technical Advisor: Steven Cook, NIST/WMD 

Public Sector Members: Andrea Buie, MD 

Private Sector Members: R. Jimenez, Association of American Railroads 

L. Marmsater, Merrick Industries 

B. Ripka, Thermo Electron 

P. Sirrico, Thayer Scale - Hyer Industries, Inc. 

T. Vormittag, Sr., SGS Minerals Services 

O. Warnlof, Consultant 

Regional Weights and Measures Associations 

Regional Weights and Measures Contacts 

Northeastern Weights and Measures Association (NEWMA): 

Interim Meeting 2008: October 15 - 16 

Springfield Sheraton Monarch 

Springfield, Massachusetts 

John P. Gaccione 

Westchester County Weights & Measures 

(914) 995-2160 

jpg4@westchestergov.com 

Southern Weights and Measures Association (SWMA): 

Annual Meeting 2008: October 5 - 8 

DoubleTree Airport Hotel 

Atlanta, Georgia 

Rich Lewis 

Georgia Department of Agriculture 

(404) 656-3605 

rlewis@agr.state.ga.us 

Central Weights and Measures Association (CWMA): 

Interim Meeting 2008: September 14 - 17 

Holiday Inn Rock Island Hotel & Conference Center 

Rock Island, Illinois 

Steve Gill 

Missouri Department of Agriculture 

(573) 751-4278 

steve.gill@mda.mo.gov 

Western Weights and Measures Association (WWMA): 

Annual Meeting 2008: September 7 - 11 

Anchorage Marriott Downtown 

Anchorage, Alaska 

Doug Deiman 

Alaska Div of Measurement Standards/CVE 

(907) 365-1222 

doug.deiman@alaska.gov 

xi
Org Chart 

xii

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
General - 2008 Final Report 

President’s Address 

National Conference on Weights and Measures 

Burlington, Vermont 

July 15, 2008 

Dr. Belinda Collins 

NIST, Technology Services Director 

Dr. Belinda Collins addressed the National Conference on Weights and Measures Annual Meeting attendees in 

Burlington, Vermont, on July 15, 2008. Dr. Collins’ gave a presentation based on this year’s conference theme 

“Seeking Balance.” She began her presentation with two quotes. The first quote was from George Washington’s 

1790 State of the Union Address: “Uniformity in currency, weights, and measures of the United States is an object 

of great importance, and will, I am persuaded, be duly attended to.” And, the second quote was from the U.S. 

Constitution: “...The Congress shall have Power to ... and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures.” Both of 

these quotes are powerful statements. NIST (formerly the National Bureau of Standards) has worked since 1901 to 

fulfill the mission of the founding fathers to achieve this balance and uniformity in weights and measures. 

Dr. Collins elaborated on NIST’s contributions to innovative technology and today’s mission to promote U.S. 

innovation and industrial competitiveness by advancing measurement science, standards, and technology in ways to 

enhance economic security and improve our quality of life. The many facets of weights and measures contribute to 

the success of this mission. You are invited to review the following slide presentation, which was used at the 

Annual Meeting. 

GS - 1 
General - 2008 Final Report 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 

GS - 2
General - 2008 Final Report 

GS - 3 
General - 2008 Final Report 

GS - 4
General - 2008 Final Report 

GS - 5 
General - 2008 Final Report 

GS - 6
General - 2008 Final Report 

GS - 7 
General - 2008 Final Report 

GS - 8
General - 2008 Final Report 

GS - 9 
General - 2008 Final Report 

GS - 10
General - 2008 Final Report 

GS - 11 
General - 2008 Final Report 

GS - 12
General - 2008 Final Report 

GS - 13 
General - 2008 Final Report 

GS - 14
General - 2008 Final Report 

GS - 15 
General - 2008 Final Report 

GS - 16
General - 2008 Final Report 

GS - 17 
General - 2008 Final Report 

GS - 18
General - 2008 Final Report 

GS - 19 
General - 2008 Final Report 

GS - 20
General - 2008 Final Report 

GS - 21 
General - 2008 Final Report 

GS - 22
General - 2008 Final Report 

GS - 23 
General - 2008 Final Report 

GS - 24
General - 2008 Final Report 

Chairman’s Address 

93rd National Conference on Weights and Measures 

Burlington, Vermont 

July 15, 2008 

Judy Cardin 

Wisconsin Department of Agriculture & Consumer Protection 

Good Morning Everyone, 

Thank you for trusting me to lead the conference during this year of challenging issues and change. We emerged 

from the challenges a stronger organization, focused on increasing our efficiency and effectiveness. 

My theme this year was “Seeking Balance,” and our organization did a tremendous job of handling difficult and 

complex issues with a steady, thoughtful and balanced approach that helped us make the right decisions. 

The standing committees are outstanding this year, and I’d like to thank them for their balanced approach, expertise, 

attention to due process, and hard work. 

I would like to recognize our strengthening partnership with NIST, and to thank Carol Hockert, Chief of the NIST 

Weights and Measures Division, for her dedication to growing our partnership, in addition to the friendship and 

support she has given me personally. NIST has added talented, positive personnel this year who helped us greatly in 

achieving our shared goals. 

Thank you to Measurement Canada for their commitment the NCWM, and for their continued involvement in 

improving the implementation of our Mutual Recognition Agreement. 

The Board of Directors merits special recognition this year. They worked long hours this year to plan and 

implement changes in NCWM management structure. Their dedication, cooperation and focus allowed us to 

accomplish all of our goals. 

This year of change is also a very strong year for membership, meeting attendance, and participation. Thanks to all 

of the membership and meeting attendees for their involvement. 

We are welcoming a new Executive Director and NTEP Administrator this year, and changing our structure to allow 

direct management of the conference. As a result, we are saying a fond goodbye to Beth Palys and Management 

Solutions Plus. Beth and her staff partnered with us over the last 10 years to help us grow and reach the point where 

we are ready to self manage. 

Now, I’ll introduce our new management team, and also honor the contributions that Beth, Steve Patoray, and the 

rest of Management Solutions’ staff made to our organization. 

Our new Executive Director is well known and respected in the weight and measures community, Don Onwiler. 

Don comes to us from the Nebraska Weights and Measures program. He has been active in the NCWM for 

11 years, including serving as the NCWM Chairman, NTEP Committee chair for two years, and on the NCWM 

Board of Directors for six years. 

In addition to his weights and measures expertise and strong leadership abilities, he brings to his new role a strong 

dedication to NCWM, and a passion for our purpose and goals. Don will now say a few words, and recognize Beth 

Palys’ years of service. 

GS - 25 
General - 2008 Final Report 

Next, it’s my pleasure to re-introduce you to another familiar face, Jim Truex our new NTEP Administrator. Jim 

has been active in the NCWM for 25 years. He comes to us from the Ohio Weights and Measures program, where 

he was Chief for many years. 

Jim has been a strong leader in our conference, serving on the board of directors, and as the NCWM Chairman and 

as NTEP Committee Chair for three terms. He’s been closely involved with NTEP since its inception, including 

participating in the weighing, measuring and software sector, and overseeing the Ohio NTEP laboratory. Jim will 

now say a few words, and recognize Steve Patoray’s contributions to the NTEP Program. 

Please join me in welcoming Don Onwiler and Jim Truex! 

I’d like to add my thanks to Beth, Steve, and all of the staff at Management Solutions for the excellent service and 

partnership we’ve enjoyed over the last 10 years. Aves Thompson asked that I share his letter of appreciation for 

Management Solutions with you, and Ross Anderson would also like to make some comments about Beth and her 

staff. 

Thanks to Ross and Aves for their comments. 

October 1, 2008, is the transition date for the management change. Don will keep us informed on transition 

progress, including new phone numbers and important dates for any communication changes. Our goal is a 

seamless management transfer, and with the excellent cooperation we are receiving from Beth and Steve, and the 

leadership of Don and Jim, we will successfully achieve that goal. 

GS - 26
General - 2008 Final Report 

New Chairman’s Address 

93rd National Conference on Weights and Measures 

Burlington, Vermont 

July 15, 2008 

Jack Kane 

Montana Business Standards Division 

Good Morning, 

First, I would like to let you all know how honored I am to stand before you as the Chairman of the National 

Conference on Weights and Measures, and I would like to thank all those that helped to prepare me to take on this 

role. Without the guidance and advice from many people, some sitting here today, and several who have retired 

from Weights and Measures or moved on in their careers, it would not be possible for anyone to assimilate the 

knowledge and background necessary in the short amount of time many of us have while with our respective 

programs. 

As you are all aware, the NCWM is facing several challenges in the near future. We are moving forward in our 

evolution of becoming a standalone organization with our own employees in charge of our day to day operations. 

For NTEP and our industry partners, we need to implement an effective verification program to insure that 

production meets type; and we all need to effectively react to market driven changes to the world we work in and 

regulate, such as retail price posting and alternative fuels, which are already here. 

In conjunction with our partners in industry and at NIST, we have faced similar challenges in the past, and we will 

deal with these and other issues as they arise. However, in order to rise to these challenges, we need to develop 

leaders for this conference and the best way is to identify, mentor, and task them with increasingly difficult 

positions. In other words, we need to help them grow so they will be able to meet these future challenges, which 

leads into my theme for the coming year “Getting Involved, Making a Difference.” At my first weights and 

measures conference, a regional Western Weights and Measures Association, held in Anchorage, Alaska, back in 

1995, I was approached by two of the more involved members in the west – Monty Hopper of Kern County and 

Gary West from the State of New Mexico. While sitting down at dinner towards the end of the conference, I was 

asked point blank what my intentions were: was I going “to bail in and get involved helping further the work of the 

conference,” or was I “just going to be a tourist?” As is my nature, I chose bail in. As I became more active in the 

conference, both at the regional and national level, I looked to the leaders of the national conference, Ron Murdock, 

Lou Straub, Aves Thompson, and Sid Colbrook, by either asking for or being involuntarily volunteered to various 

committee work. 

What I would like to ask from all of you here is that when you return to your state, actively search out and promote 

the best and brightest in your local jurisdictions and make them aware of the issues. At your regional meetings, 

identify and promote those among your group who are active and involved to take on committee assignments in 

preparation for possible national level participation. 

In my travels to the various regional meetings during the last year, I had an opportunity to listen to the folks who 

came to the microphone to speak and was very impressed with the depth of knowledge. Let’s work to get these 

folks even more involved and help them step up and make the difference. With that said I’d like to make the 

following appointments. 

Specifications and Tolerances (S&T) Committee: 

• Ken Ramsburg, Maryland Department of Agriculture. 

GS - 27 
General - 2008 Final Report 

Laws and Regulations (L&R) Committee: 

• Jonelle Brent, Illinois Department of Agriculture, for a five-year term replacing Vicky Dempsey, 

Montgomery County Weights and Measures, Ohio; 

• Terrance McBride, Memphis Weights and Measures, for a two-year term replacing Steven Benjamin, North 

Carolina Department of Agriculture, who is moving on to the Board of Directors; 

• Joe Gomez, New Mexico Department of Agriculture, for a one-year term replacing Roger Macey, 

California Division of Measurement Standards, who will be retiring this year; and 

• Rob Underwood, Petroleum Marketers Association of America, replacing Chris Guay, Procter& Gamble. 

To the PDC Committee: 

• Julie Quinn, State of Minnesota, Department of Commerce, Weights and Measures Division. 

To the Credentials Committee: 

• Kim Connor, Barnstable (MA) Weights and Measures. 

Presiding Officers: 

• Tim Chesser, Arkansas Bureau of Standards; 

• Kirk Robinson, Washington Department of Agriculture; 

• Jack Walsh, Framingham (MA) Weights and Measures; and 

• Ivan Hankins, Iowa Weights and Measures Bureau. 

I’ve also asked for and received confirmation that Lou Straub, Fairbanks Scales, Inc. will continue in his role as 

Parliamentarian and Steven Langford, Cardinal Scale Manufacturing Company, will continue as our Chaplain for 

the coming year. 

Again, thank you for the privilege of being asked to serve this conference, and travel safe. 

GS - 28
General - 2008 Final Report 

NCWM 2008 Annual Meeting Honor Award Recipients 

Full Name Organization State No. of Years 

Joe Buxton Daniel Measurement and Control, Inc. GA 10 

James Cassidy, Jr. Cambridge Weights and Measures MA 10 

Maurice J. Forkert Tuthill Transfer Systems IN 10 

Alan Johnston Measurement Canada Canada 10 

Ted Kingsbury Measurement Canada Canada 10 

L. Edward Luthy B-Tek Scales, LLC OH 10 

Beth W. Palys, CAE National Conference on Weights and Measures MD 10 

Darrell E. Flocken Mettler-Toledo, Inc. OH 15 

Randy Jennings Tennessee Department of Agriculture TN 15 

Leon Lammers Avery Weigh-Tronix MN 15 

Neal J. Nover Nover Englestein and Associates, Inc. NJ 15 

Michael Pinagel Michigan Department of Agriculture MI 15 

GS - 29 
General - 2008 Final Report 

GS - 30

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
BOD 2008 Final Report 

Report of the Board of Directors 

Judy Cardin, Chief 

Wisconsin, Weights and Measures 

Reference 

Key Number 

100 INTRODUCTION 

The Board held its quarterly Board of Directors (BOD) meeting on Saturday, July 12, 2008, and continued that 

meeting during work sessions throughout the remainder of the Annual Meeting. The Board of Directors and the 

NTEP Committee invited members to dialogue with the BOD on the following issues: Improving Standards 

Development, Mutual Acceptance Arrangements, Increasing Efficiency and Effectiveness, and participation 

internationally, i.e., OIML, CFTM, APLMF, and USNWG. 

Table A identifies the agenda items in the Report by reference key number, item title, and page number. An item 

marked with an “I” after the reference key number is an informational item. An item marked with a “V” after the 

reference key number is a voting item. Table B lists the appendices to the Report, and Table C shows the results of 

voting items. 

Table A 

Table of Contents

Reference Key 

Items Title of Item Page 

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

1. I NCWM Automatic Temperature Compensation (ATC) Steering Committee.................................................2

2. I Marketplace Surveys Update...........................................................................................................................2

3. I Membership and Meeting Attendance.............................................................................................................2

4. I Newsletter and Website...................................................................................................................................3

5. I Meetings Update .............................................................................................................................................3

6. I Participation in International Standard Setting................................................................................................3

7. I Efficiency and Effectiveness ...........................................................................................................................3

8. V Bylaws Amendment: Replace A&P Committee with PDC............................................................................3

9. I NCWM Policies ..............................................................................................................................................5

10. I Improving Standards Development.................................................................................................................5

11. I U.S. Participation in the MAA for R 76..........................................................................................................5

12. I Strategic Planning ...........................................................................................................................................5

Table B 

Appendices 

Appendix Title Page 

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

Metrology Organizations..............................................................................................................................A1 

B Final Report of the NCWM Associate Member Committee (AMC)................................................................... B1 

BOD - 1 
BOD 2008 Final Report 

Table C 

Voting Results 

House of State Representatives House of Delegates Reference Key Number 

Yeas Nays Yeas Nays 

Results 

8 (voice vote) Passed 

Details of all Items 

(In order by Reference Key Number) 

1. I NCWM Automatic Temperature Compensation (ATC) Steering Committee 

The Automatic Temperature Compensation (ATC) Steering Committee has been meeting by conference call. Ross 

Andersen will serve as the NCWM liaison to the California Energy Commission for their work on ATC. The 

NCWM Chair, Judy Cardin, met with a representative from the GAO to offer the NCWM’s assistance in their cost 

benefit analysis. The Steering Committee presented a report and a presentation on options for test procedures at the 

NCWM Annual Meeting. The Steering Committee will continue its work. 

2. I Marketplace Surveys Update 

The Board is planning on conducting a marketplace survey in 2009. The NCWM will work with NIST on this 

survey. 

3. I Membership and Meeting Attendance 

NCWM Membership Report

12/31/07 12/31/06 12/31/05 12/31/04 12/31/03 12/31/02 

Associate 807 804 783 784 780 879

Foreign Assc 53 49 51 33 34 31

Federal Gov't 9 9 13 13 18 17

NIST 14 14 10 8 14 18

State Gov't 814 794 791 826 804 852

Local Gov't 548 547 465 453 515 556

Int’l Gov't 22 29 21 29 18 23

Retired 222 221 221 224 226 229

Total 2489 2467 2355 2370 2409 2605

As of the 2008 Interim Meeting, the total NCWM membership was 2497. This is the highest membership total since 

December 2002. The 2008 Interim Meeting had a record number of members in attendance. Attendance at the 2008 

Annual Meeting was down slightly from 2007. 

BOD - 2 
BOD 2008 Final Report 

4. I Newsletter and Website 

Steve Grabski has been reviewing the NCWM website and newsletter over the past months. .He has determined that 

the website is easy to navigate and works well and no further study is required; however, he would welcome 

feedback from the membership. This item will be removed from future Board agendas. 

5. I Meetings Update 

Interim Meetings 

January 11 - 14, 2009 Hilton Daytona Beach Hotel, Daytona Beach, Florida 

January 24 - 27, 2010 Hilton Nashville, Nashville, Tennessee 

January 23 - 26, 2011 Fairmont Dallas, Dallas, Texas 

Annual Meetings 

July 12 - 16, 2009 Marriott Plaza Hotel, San Antonio, Texas 

July 11 - 15, 2010 Crowne Plaza St. Paul Hotel, St. Paul, Minnesota 

6. I Participation in International Standard Setting 

Chuck Ehrlich and other NIST Weights and Measures Division (WMD) staff briefed the NCWM Board and NCWM 

members on key activities of OIML and regional legal metrology organizations (see Appendix A). 

7. I Efficiency and Effectiveness 

To increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the NCWM, the Board of Directors announced changes to the 

conference management structure. Management Solutions Plus (MSP), the company currently supplying 

management support, elected not to participate in the new management structure. MSP will continue in its current 

role until September 30, 2008. 

On October 1, 2008, the following changes will be in place: 

• Don Onwiler has been hired to serve as the NCWM Executive Director and Jim Truex has been hired to 

serve as NTEP Administrator. 

• The NCWM’s new office will be located in Lincoln, Nebraska. The Executive Director will report to the 

NCWM Board of Directors. Two support staff have been hired to work in the new office and will report to 

the Executive Director. 

• The NTEP Administrator will work from his home and will report to the Executive Director. 

• The membership will not see changes in their services, only the necessary telephone number and address 

changes after October 1, 2008. 

8. V Bylaws Amendment: Replace A&P Committee with PDC 

Background: In 2003, the Board of Directors disbanded the Administration and Public Affairs Committee. At the 

same time, the Professional Development Committee was formed. This new standing committee has a much 

narrower scope than its predecessor. Even though this change occurred in 2003, the board neglected to change the 

corresponding by-laws to reflect the current committee name and its new scope. The changes proposed below 

address this issue. 

BOD - 3 
BOD 2008 Final Report 

Article IX, Section 2 – Standing Committees 

The Board of Directors may create and disband standing committees in the best interests of the Corporation. As 

referenced in Article IX, Section 1, the Chairman makes appointments to the several special purpose committees. 

The current standing committees are: 

Committee on Specifications and Tolerances (S&T); 

Committee on Laws and Regulations (L&R); and 

Committee on Administration and Public Affairs (A&P)Professional Development Committee (PDC). 

Article IX, Section 5 

D. Committee on Administration and Public AffairsProfessional Development Committee

The mission of the Committee is: 

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

- effective program management, 

- education, and 

- public relations. 

The Committee on Administration and Public AffairsProfessional Development Committee annually 

presents a report for Corporation action. 

Its scope embraces all matters dealing with:

1. development and recommendation of administrative procedures;

2. education and training of weights and measures officials;

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

and the

general public; and

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

purview of the

committee. This entails explaining, advocating, and coordinating Corporation positions, recommendations, and 

needs before

Federal Government agencies, consumer groups, the Associate NCWM membership, domestic and international 

standards

organizations, industry, trade associations, and others. The goals are to provide and solicit information, develop 

a spirit of

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

The Professional Development Committee annually presents a report for Corporation action.

The four main areas for focusing their efforts are:

National Training Program – The focus of the National Training Program (NTP) is to increase technical 

knowledge, strengthen credibility, and improve the professionalism of the individual weights and 

measures official. A strong NTP would promote uniformity across the nation.

National Certification System – Develop a national certification system to recognize or accredit weights 

and measures programs as competent or capable. The program would include requirements around 

individual training, proper test standards, use of national handbooks, and a data gathering system.

Conference Training Topics – The Committee would be the focal point for gathering and recommending

workshops or symposia on leadership, management, and emerging issues to be presented during the 

Annual Meeting. These topics would provide a forum for the exchange of ideas and discussion of changes 

in the marketplace.

BOD - 4 
BOD 2008 Final Report 

Uniformity of Data – The Committee would develop standard categories for devices and inspection areas 

so that such things as the number of devices, compliance rates, frequency of inspection and other areas 

could be compiled and compared at the national level. These statistics could be used to benchmark 

organizations and to communicate the value of weights and measures to the public and to decision 

makers.

The by-laws amendment passed. 

9. I NCWM Policies 

The NCWM Board of Directors sets policies for the board, committees, and for the corporation. These policies are 

documented and will be made available as they are approved. In the future, NCWM policies will be posted on the 

NCWM website. 

The board adopted a policy prohibiting acceptance of contributions from associate members to fund special events at 

meetings. The board recommends that regional associations adopt similar policies. 

10. I Improving Standards Development 

Randy Jennings, NCWM Chair-elect, and Carol Hockert, NIST, will work on recommendations to improve the 

standards development process for NCWM. They invite comments from stakeholders. 

11. I U.S. Participation in the MAA for R 76

The NCWM position has been to not participate in the Mutual Acceptance Agreements (MAA) for R 76 (non 

automatic weighing instruments) until we can do so as an issuing participant. A brainstorming session was held at 

the Annual Meeting to identify barriers and possible solutions to U.S. labs becoming authorized for conducting 

evaluations and issuing test data under this MAA. 

12. I Strategic Planning 

The board has decided to review and update the NCWM strategic plan during the coming year. 

Judy Cardin, Wisconsin, NCWM Chairman 

Jack Kane, Montana, Chairman-elect 

Don Onwiler, Nebraska, NTEP Chairman 

Will Wotthlie, Maryland, Treasurer 

Charles Carroll, Massachusetts, Northeastern Regional Representative 

Steven Malone, Nebraska, Central Regional Representative 

Randy Jennings, Tennessee, Southern Regional Representative 

Steven Grabski, Nevada, Western Regional Representative 

Christopher Guay, Procter & Gamble, At-large 

Tim Tyson, Kansas, At-large 

Robert Murnane, Seraphin Test Measure, Associate Membership Representative 

Don Onwiler, NCWM Executive Director 

Carol Hockert, NIST, Executive Secretary 

Board of Directors 

BOD - 5 
BOD 2008 Final Report 

BOD - 6 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
BOD 2008 Final Report 

Appendix A – Report on Activities of OIML

Appendix A 

Report on the Activities of the 

International Organization of Legal Metrology (OIML) 

and Regional Legal Metrology Organizations 

Weights and Measures Division, NIST 

INTRODUCTION 

The Weights and Measures Division (WMD) of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is 

responsible for coordinating U.S. participation in the International Organization of Legal Metrology (OIML) and 

other international legal metrology organizations. Learn more about OIML at the website www.oiml.org and about 

NIST Weights and Measures Division at the WMD website www.nist.gov/owm. Dr. Charles Ehrlich, Group Leader 

of the International Legal Metrology Group (ILMG), can be contacted at charles.ehrlich@nist.gov or at 

(301) 975-4834 or by fax at (301) 975-8091. 

Please note: OIML publications are available without cost at http://www.oiml.org. 

Table A 

Table of Contents

 Subject Page 

I. Report on the Activities of the OIML Technical Committees.............................................................................A2

II. Report on the 42nd CIML Meeting in Shanghai, China, October 24 - 26, 2007 ..................................................A5 

III. Future OIML Meetings........................................................................................................................................A7

IV. Regional Legal Metrology Organizations ...........................................................................................................A7

BOD - A1 
BOD 2008 Final Report 

Appendix A – Report on Activities of OIML 

Table B 

Glossary of Acronyms

BIML International Bureau of Legal Metrology IR International Recommendation 

B Basic Publication IWG International Work Group 

CD Committee Draft1 MAA Mutual Acceptance Arrangement 

CIML International Committee of Legal Metrology MC Measurement Canada 

CPR Committee on Participation Review OIML International Organization of Legal 

Metrology 

D Document R Recommendation 

DD Draft Document2 SC Technical Subcommittee 

DR Draft Recommendation2 TC Technical Committee 

DoMC Declaration of Mutual Confidence WD Working Draft3

DV Draft Vocabulary2 USNWG U.S. National Work Group 

ILMG International Legal Metrology Group 

1

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

successive drafts are numbered 1 CD, 2 CD, etc. 

2

 DD, DR, and DV: draft documents approved at the level of the technical committee or subcommittee concerned 

and sent to BIML for approval by CIML. 

3

 WD: precedes the development of a CD; in this document, successive drafts are number 1 WD, 2 WD, etc.

Details of All Items 

(In Order by Reference Key Number) 

I. Report on the Activities of the OIML Technical Committees 

This section reports on recent activities and the status of work in OIML Technical Committees (TCs) and Technical 

Subcommittees (SCs) of specific interest to members of the NCWM. Also included are schedules of future 

activities of the Secretariats, the U.S. National Work Groups (USNWGs), and the International Work Groups 

(IWGs) of the Committees and Subcommittees. 

TC 3/SC 1 “Pattern approval and evaluation” (United States) 

The subcommittee approved the U.S. proposal for a combined revision of OIML D 19 “Pattern evaluation and 

pattern approval” and D 20 “Initial and subsequent verification of measuring instruments and processes” into a 

single document entitled “Principles of metrological control of measuring instruments: type approval and 

verification.” Key elements of OIML D 3 “Legal qualification of measuring instruments,” R 34 “Accuracy classes 

of measuring instruments,” and R 42 “Metal stamps for verification officers” will also be incorporated into the 

combined revision of OIML D 19 and D 20. The revised documents will incorporate recent developments such as 

the OIML certificate system, D 27 “Initial verification of measuring instruments utilizing the manufacturer's quality 

management system,” and the “Framework for a mutual acceptance arrangement (MAA) on OIML type 

evaluations.” Consideration will be given to the appropriate conformity assessment options developed by the ISO 

Council Committee on Conformity Assessment (ISO CASCO), including quality systems, product certification, and 

accreditation. Consideration will also be given to information technology and statistical methods to increase or 

decrease verification intervals based upon proven instrument performance. For more information on this activity, 

contact Dr. Ambler Thompson at (301) 975-2333 or at ambler@nist.gov. 

BOD - A2 
BOD 2008 Final Report 

Appendix A – Report on Activities of OIML

TC 3/SC 5 “Conformity assessment” (United States and BIML) 

The subcommittee held a meeting in May 2008 to begin revision of the documents B 3 (Certificate System) and 

B 10 (MAA). The meeting included discussion of a new document on the incorporation of measurement uncertainty 

into conformity assessment decisions in legal metrology; in January 2008, a revised WD was sent to the BIML and 

other technical advisors for review. For more information on this activity, contact Dr. Charles Ehrlich at 

(301) 975-4834 or at charles.ehrlich@nist.gov. 

TC 5/SC 2 “Software” (Germany and BIML)

A 1 CD of OIML "General requirements for software-controlled measuring instruments" was received in June 2007 

and circulated to the NCWM Software Sector and other interested U.S. parties. The U.S. comments on the 1 CD 

were submitted to the International Secretariat in September 2007, and a meeting of the OIML Software 

Subcommittee was held in Berlin in December 2007. When complete, the OIML document will serve as guidance 

for software requirements in International Recommendations by OIML technical committees. A 2 CD was received 

in February 2008. The final draft document is out for vote with a September 2008 deadline. The ILMG participated 

in NCWM Software Sector meetings in Lake Tahoe, California, and Little Rock, Arkansas, in October and May 

2007. Please contact Dr. Ambler Thompson at (301) 975-2333 or at ambler@nist.gov if you would like to receive 

information and participate in this project. 

TC 6 “Prepackaged products” (South Africa) 

In September 2007, NIST hosted the OIML TC 6 committee at NIST in Gaithersburg, Maryland. There was 

continued discussion on the issue of an OIML International Quantity Mark, referred to as an IQ Mark. The IQ 

Mark, designed to eliminate trade barriers, would be a program that would allow for an international system of 

acceptance of prepackaged goods. Receiving countries want imported packages to meet all requirements, and 

packers in exporting countries want to be sure prepackaged goods will not be rejected after arriving in the 

destination country. Such a program would also require that participants meet specific requirements in order to 

participate in a program for quantity control and marking of prepackaged goods. The United States is participating 

in a work group that will develop guidelines on good manufacturing practices and additional documentation for 

selected criteria that would be used in the IQ Mark's accreditation programs. 

It was agreed that all members of the TC 6 would send out a questionnaire to all current stakeholders, including 

industry, and federal and state agencies seeking input to specific questions. Please contact Lisa Warfield at 

(301) 975-3308 or at lisa.warfield@nist.gov if you would like more information about the work of this 

subcommittee or to participate in any of these projects. 

TC 8/SC 1 “Static volume and mass measurement” (Austria and Germany) 

The subcommittee has two documents currently out for a CIML postal ballot: OIML R 71 “Fixed storage tanks,” 

and R 85 “Automatic level gages for measuring the level of liquid in fixed storage tanks.” Final approval for both of 

these recommendations is expected in October 2008. The revision of R 80 “Road and rail tankers” should be 

completed in 2009. Please contact Ralph Richter at (301) 975 3997 or at ralph.richter@nist.gov if you would like 

copies of the documents or to participate in any of these projects. 

TC 8/SC 3 “Dynamic volume and mass measurement for liquids other than water” (United States and Germany)

OIML R 117-1 “Dynamic measuring systems for liquids other than water, Part 1: Metrological and technical 

requirements” has undergone an extensive revision. The Recommendation obtained 100 % international “yes” votes 

and final CIML approval at the CIML meeting in Shanghai, China, in October 2007. The revision incorporates new 

instrument technologies and includes a merger with OIML Recommendations R 86 “Drum meters” and R 105 

“Mass flowmeters.” After publication of R 117-1, Recommendations R 86 and R 105 will be withdrawn. The 

ILMG has worked closely with the USNWG on flowmeters, Germany, and the Netherlands on this effort. Meetings 

of the USNWG on flowmeters were held during the NCWM Interim Meeting in January 2007 in Jacksonville, 

Florida, the NCWM Annual Meeting in July 2007 in Utah, and the NCWM Annual Meeting in July 2008 in 

Burlington, Vermont. Measurement Canada has also been a strong contributor to this effort. Subcommittee work 

on R 117-2 “Test methods” and R 117-3 “Test report format” has begun. If you have any questions, would like a 

copy of the R 117-1 DR, or would like to participate in the next phases of this project, please contact Ralph Richter 

at (301) 975-3997 or ralph.richter@nist.gov. 

BOD - A3 
BOD 2008 Final Report 

Appendix A – Report on Activities of OIML 

TC 8/SC 6 “Measurement of cryogenic liquids” (United States) 

In July 2007 the Secretariat (United States) requested that Participating members and U.S. stakeholders decide if 

there was sufficient justification for opening a new project to revise R 81 “Dynamic measuring devices and systems 

for cryogenic liquids.” The response received by the Secretariat indicated that a revision of R 81 was justified to 

update: (1) electronic tests in accordance with the latest edition of OIML D 11 (2004) and/or the latest IEC and ISO 

standards, (2) technical requirements to include new developments in hydrogen measurements, (3) Annex C to 

include current recommendations for density equations, and (4) existing sections into three distinct parts similar in 

format to recently-developed OIML Recommendations. 

Subsequently, the Secretariat submitted a proposal to the BIML requesting approval for the start of a new project to 

revise R 81. The BIML submitted the proposal at the October 2007 42nd Meeting of the CIML and was granted 

approval of the project. The Secretariat will ask members of TC 8/SC 6 to review and formally comment on R 81. 

The Secretariat is forming a National Work Group to establish a U.S. position on the appropriate updates to the 

document. To obtain more information or to participate in this project, please contact Juana Williams at 

(301) 975-3989 or juana.williams@nist.gov.

TC 8/SC 7 “Gas metering” (Netherlands) 

In October 2007, the CIML approved the merger of TC 8/SC 7 (with France and Belgium as co-secretariats) and 

TC 8/SC 8 “Gas meters” (with Netherlands as secretariat). Netherlands has assumed responsibility of this newly 

merged technical subcommittee. In April 2007, a DR of the new Recommendation “Measuring systems for 

compressed natural gas (CNG) for vehicles” was circulated with annexes covering performance tests for electronic 

devices and basic test procedures. The Recommendation was approved by the CIML in October 2007. The United 

States voted “no” on this document at the CIML meeting because some of the systems testing requirements were 

considered to be excessive and very expensive. 

Also in April 2007, a postal ballot was circulated on another new Recommendation, “Measuring systems for 

gaseous fuel” and U.S. comments were submitted in June 2007. This Recommendation is intended for large 

pipelines with large flow rates and high operating pressures. This Recommendation was approved by the CIML in 

October 2007. 

The final draft of OIML R 137-1 “Gas meters” was approved by the CIML at their October 2006 meeting in 

Cape Town, South Africa. Published in 2007, OIML R 137-1 combines and replaces three old Recommendations 

that will soon be withdrawn: R 6 “General provisions for gas volume meters,” R 31 “Diaphragm gas meters,” and 

R 32 “Rotary piston gas meters and turbine gas meters.” Development of R 137-2 “Test methods” is now underway. 

Please contact Ralph Richter at (301) 975-3997 or ralph.richter@nist.gov if you would like to obtain a copy of any 

of these gas measurement documents or if you would like to participate in future work of this subcommittee. 

TC 9 “Instruments for measuring mass” (United States) 

The Secretariat of TC 9 reported that the new edition of R 76-1 was published in December 2007. Members of TC 9 

and the USNWG will be solicited on whether or not to initiate a new project to review R 60 “Metrological 

regulation for load cells.” Based on the results of the solicitation, the Secretariat will provide the BIML with a 

recommendation on whether or not a project to revise R 60 should be initiated. The questionnaire will ask for 

feedback on everything from the basic principles of R 60 (e.g., tolerances and accuracy classes) to exploring the 

addition of new requirements. For more information on these efforts, please contact Steve Cook at (301) 975-4003 

or steven.cook@nist.gov. 

TC 9/SC 1 “Nonautomatic weighing instruments” (Germany and France) 

The revision of R 76 “Non-automatic weighing instruments” is of major importance to U.S. interests because the 

Recommendation serves as the foundation for a majority of the laws and regulations that govern weighing 

instruments around the world. The revision includes new language addressing metrological controls for type 

evaluations, conformity, initial and subsequent inspections, suitability of separable components and requirements for 

metrological software. The USNWG was consulted concerning proposals to harmonize NIST Handbook 44 and 

R 76. As reported at the 2007 NCWM Interim Meeting, the DR of R 76-1 was approved by the CIML in 

October 2006. Most recently, the United States voted “yes” on the DR of R 76-2 “Test report format.” R 76 was 

published in December 2007. For more information on these efforts, please contact Steve Cook at (301) 975-4003 

or steven.cook@nist.gov. 

BOD - A4 
BOD 2008 Final Report 

Appendix A – Report on Activities of OIML

TC 9/SC 2 “Automatic weighing instruments” (United Kingdom) 

The Recommendation R 134-1 “Automatic instruments for weighing road vehicles in motion – total load and axle 

weighing” was approved by CIML in October 2006. U.S. comments concerning terminology and document scope 

were incorporated in the document. The test report format of this document, R 134-2, has been approved by the 

subcommittee and is going through a final editorial process at the BIML. 

The 3 CD of R 106 Parts 1 and 2, “Automatic rail-weighbridges” were distributed by the Secretariat to members of 

TC 9/SC 2 in September 2007. In distributing the 3 CD, the Secretariat commented that although the 2 CD achieved 

majority approval, there were substantial comments and some amendments to the technical requirements of the 

2 CD. Comments and a U.S. “yes” vote on the 4 CD of R 106 Parts 1 and 2 were sent in July 2008. 

The subcommittee approved a revision of R 107 “Discontinuous totalizing automatic weighing instruments 

(totalizing hopper weighers),” and approval was granted on the 1 DR at the October 2007 42nd meeting of the CIML. 

However, the Secretariat first accommodated U.S. concerns by inserting into the document that national legislation 

will dictate whether the automatic zero-tracking feature is allowed in a country. The U.S. CIML member pointed 

out at the CIML meeting that the United States does not allow the automatic zero-tracking feature. If you would like 

to receive copies of these documents or work on these projects, contact Richard Harshman at (301) 975-8107 or at 

harshman@nist.gov and John Barton at (301) 975-4002 or john.barton@nist.gov. 

TC 17/SC 1 “Humidity” (China) 

The Secretariat (China) is working closely with the United States and a small IWG to revise OIML R 59 “Moisture 

meters for cereal grains and oilseeds.” All drafts have been distributed to the USNWG, which for the most part is a 

subset of the NTEP Grain Sector. A 4 CD was circulated to the IWG in August 2006. U.S. comments on the 4 CD 

were returned to the Secretariat in November 2006. A TC 17/SC 1 meeting was hosted by NIST in September 2007 

to discuss the comments to the 4 CD. At the TC 17/SC 1 September 2007 meeting, the subcommittee also discussed 

harmonization of the Recommendation for moisture with the TC 17/SC 8 subcommittee’s Recommendation for 

protein. Please contact Diane Lee at (301) 975-4405 or at diane.lee@nist.gov if you would like to participate in this 

work group. 

TC 17/SC 8 “Quality Analysis of Agricultural Products” (Australia) 

A new subcommittee has been formed to study the issues and write a working draft document “Measuring 

instruments for protein determination in grains.” Australia is the Secretariat for this new subcommittee. A work 

group meeting was held in September 2006 in Ottawa, Canada, to discuss comments on the 1 CD. A TC 17/SC 8 

meeting was hosted by NIST in September 2007 to discuss the 2 CD. At the September 2007 meeting, the 

TC 17/SC 8 subcommittee also discussed comments concerning the maximum permissible errors (MPEs) and 

harmonization of the TC 17/SC 8 Recommendation for protein with the TC 17/SC 1 Recommendation for moisture. 

Please contact Diane Lee at (301) 975-4405 or at diane.lee@nist.gov if you would like to participate in this work 

group. 

OIML Mutual Acceptance Arrangement (MAA) 

Note: The report on the OIML Mutual Acceptance Arrangement (MAA) has moved. It can now be found in the 

NTEP section of the NCWM Annual Report. For further information on the MAA and its implementation, please 

contact Dr. Charles Ehrlich at charles.ehrlich@nist.gov or at (301) 975-4834 or by fax at (301) 975-8091. 

II. Report on the 42nd CIML Meeting in Shanghai, China, October 24 - 26, 2007 

The International Committee of Legal Metrology (CIML) opened with addresses given by Mr. Li Chuanqing, 

Minister of the General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine of the People’s Republic 

of China (AQSIQ), Mr. Zhou Taitong, Deputy Mayor of Shanghai, and Mr. Alan E. Johnston, CIML President. A 

quorum was reached as 48 Member States out of 59 were present or represented at the meeting. 

The Committee noted that two new Corresponding Members, the United Arab Emirates and Sudan, had joined the 

OIML in the past year. 

The CIML gave final approval to the following publications in China: 

BOD - A5 
BOD 2008 Final Report 

Appendix A – Report on Activities of OIML 

• Combined Revision of R 4, R 29, R 45 and R 96 “Vessels for commercial transactions” (now R 138) 

• Combined Revision of R 117, R 105 and R 86 “Dynamic measuring systems for liquids other than water, 

Part 1: Metrological and technical requirements” (new R 117-1) 

• New OIML Recommendation “Compressed gaseous fuel measuring systems for vehicles” (now R 139) 

New OIML Recommendation “Measuring systems for gaseous fuel” (now R 140) 

• Revision of R 21 “Taximeters” 

• Revision of R 107-1 “Discontinuous totalizing automatic weighing instruments (totalizing hopper 

weighers), Part 1: Metrological and technical requirements – Tests, and Part 2: Test report format” (the 

United States voted “yes”, but indicated that the “automatic zero-tracking feature” is not permitted in the 

United States) 

• Revision of R 35 “Material measures of length for general use, Part 1: Metrological and technical 

requirements” 

• Amendment 2 to D 2 “Legal units of measurement” 

The CIML took action on the following publications: 

• Recommendation R 24 “Standard one meter bar for verification officers” was re-confirmed 

• Document D 4 “Installation and storage conditions for cold water meters” was withdrawn 

The CIML approved the following new work projects: 

• Project to revise R 79 “Labeling requirements for pre-packaged products” 

• Project to revise R 81 “Dynamic measuring devices and systems for cryogenic liquids” 

• Project to revise R 66 “Length measuring instruments” 

• Project to revise the new OIML Draft Recommendation “Compressed gaseous fuel measuring systems for 

vehicles” – a new work item in (the newly merged) TC 8/SC 7. 

The CIML also approved the following proposals in China: 

• Proposal to merge subcommittees TC 8/SC 7 Gas metering and TC 8/SC 8 Gas meters, with the 

Netherlands as the Secretariat of the combined subcommittee 

• Proposal to reallocate the responsibility for Measuring Container Bottles from TC 8 to TC 6 

The Committee noted efforts by the “Conformity to Type Work Group.” The WG is in the early stages of 

developing a project to study the issue of conformity to type on a global basis. The WG conducted two surveys on 

the subject in the past year, but survey results have thus far proved to be inconclusive as to how OIML should 

proceed on this. Further study will follow. A few countries have indicated they will be conducting some tests 

related to this effort, although this is not a formally sanctioned OIML activity. 

The Committee also took note of a presentation given by the BIML Director concerning the development of the first 

draft tables of correspondence between OIML Recommendations and the applicable requirements in the European 

“Measuring Instruments Directive (MID).” The Bureau plans to continue its cooperation with WELMEC on this 

issue and requested the European participants of the appropriate TCs/SCs to assist in this effort as soon as a 

Recommendation reaches DR status. 

The CIML presented awards to the following individuals in recognition of their outstanding contribution to legal 

metrology: 

• Mr. Romain Eggermont (Belgium) 

• Mr. Gerard Lagauterie (France) 

• Mr. Wayne Stiefel (United States) 

• Mr. Ali Tukai (Tanzania) 

• Mr. Bruno Vaucher (Switzerland) 

It also gave Letters of Appreciation to: 

• Mr. Peter Brandes (Germany) 

BOD - A6 
BOD 2008 Final Report 

Appendix A – Report on Activities of OIML

• Dr. Charles Ehrlich (United States) 

• Mr. Mikhalchenko Vassily Nikolaevich (Kazakhstan) 

III. Future OIML Meetings 

The 13th OIML Conference and the 43rd CIML Meeting will be held in Sydney, Australia, in October 2008, and the 

CIML accepted Kenya’s invitation to hold the 44th CIML Meeting in 2009. 

IV. Regional Legal Metrology Organizations 

Meeting of the SIM General Assembly and SIM Legal Metrology Working Group (LMWG)

The SIM General Assembly was held in Ottawa, Canada, in September 2007. Dr. Humberto S. Brandi, Director of 

Scientific and Industrial Metrology (SIM) at INMETRO Brazil, is the SIM President (elected last year). Marcos 

Senna (senna@inmetro.rs.gov.br), also of INMETRO in Brazil, was announced as the new Chairman of the SIM 

Legal Metrology Work Group (LMWG). A meeting of the SIM LMWG was held in March 2008. Topics that were 

discussed at the meeting included composition of the SIM Legal Metrology Working Group, SIM Legal Metrology 

directory, survey on training needs and their implementation, events organization costs (translation, mikes, datashow, etc.), events calendar (dates, venue, organization committee, instructors, etc.), budget for 2008-2009, and 

correspondence/communications in LMWG. The next Annual SIM meeting will be held in the Honduras in 

September 2008. Please contact Dr. Ambler Thompson at (301) 975-2333 or at ambler@nist.gov for more 

information. 

APLMF Meeting

The 14th APLMF Meeting was held October 18 - 20, 2007, in Zouzhuang, China (just outside of Shanghai). The 

United States was represented by Dr. Charles Ehrlich, who serves as Chairman of the APLMF Work Group on 

Mutual Recognition Arrangements, and Mr. Wayne Stiefel. The APLMF conducted three training courses/seminars 

in 2007, including a train-the-trainer course on the verification of Mechanical Weighing Scales. A workshop on 

Metrology of Agricultural Products and Foods was held February 7 - 9, 2007, in Chiang Mai, Thailand, and a 

Seminar on Electricity Meters was held March 19 - 22, 2007, in Shanghai, China. The Peoples Republic of China 

assumed the Presidency and Secretariat of the APLMF at the conclusion of this meeting. The next meeting of the 

APLMF will be in late October 2008 in Sydney, Australia, just prior to the 43rd CIML meeting and the 13th OIML 

Conference. 

BOD - A7 
BOD 2008 Final Report 

Appendix A – Report on Activities of OIML 

BOD - A8 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. 
BOD 2008 Final Report 

Appendix B – Meeting Minutes of the AMC 

Appendix B 

Final Report of the 

NCWM Associate Member Committee (AMC) 

Burlington, Vermont

Minutes, July 14, 2008 

CALL TO ORDER:

Chairman Guay called the meeting to order at 12:11 p.m. 

APPROVAL OF JANUARY 27, 2008, MINUTES:

The minutes of the January 27, 2008, meeting were distributed and read individually, Pete O’Bryan made a motion 

to approve the minutes, and Darrell Flocken seconded that motion and the minutes were approved. 

FINANCIAL CONDITION:

Chairman Guay reported the following: 

Fund Balance as of September 30, 2007 $ 3,041.66 

Revenue as of July 6, 2008 $13,545.00 

No money was paid out since the Interim Meeting 

Balance Remaining $16,586.66* 

*Social event will get $10,000 of this balance leaving $ 6,586.66 of disbursable monies for training or other worthy 

initiatives to help the national conference. 

BOARD OF DIRECTORS REPORT:

1. Board of Directors (BOD) – Bob Murnane reported: 

• NTEP applications slow for two quarters in a row. 

• Two hundred thirty-four meeting participants representing 37 states. 

• Automatic Temperature Compensation (ATC) committee presentation scheduled on ATC testing procedure 

recommendations. Currently, there is little agreement within the committee – four options still under 

consideration. 

• VCAP – verified conformity assessment program – for testing of load cells is moving forward. Look for a 

pilot program soon. 

- Pilot program for NTEP load cell certificate holders; 

- Designed to ensure production meets type. 

• Brainstorming session to be held Wednesday morning from 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. regarding how to get a 

U.S. lab for R 76 OMIL testing. 

• Mutual Acceptance Agreements 

- Not moving as fast as expected; 

- Germany and UK want test data accepted from the manufacturer; and 

- OMIL certificates are currently being issued that way. 

BOD - B1 
BOD 2008 Final Report 

Appendix B – Meeting Minutes of the AMC 

• NCWM 2009 Budget approved. 

- In the future, the BOD voted not to take funding from either associate members or sponsors to fund 

events. 

- This year’s special event is unaffected by this decision as arrangements were already underway when 

decision was contemplated. 

• Restructuring from outsourced management to internal management underway and proceeding well. 

- Office will be in Lincoln, Nebraska; 

- Don Onwiler will be the executive Director and is already working in that capacity; 

- Jim Truex will be the director over NTEP; 

- They have hired a full-time office manager who is onboard now; and 

- Currently interviewing for a second full time office position. 

• BOD looking for financial help from AMC for completion of the new office set-up in Lincoln, Nebraska. 

2. Professional Development Committee (PDC) – Paul Hoar Absent: 

• Committee has not yet met. 

3. Laws and Regulations (L&R) – Pete O’Bryan: 

• ATC covered. 

• Moisture Loss workgroup met. Good Conversation – momentum building and looking for practical 

accomplishments soon. 

• Pete reminded all that his term is up, and the AMC will need a new representative for the L&R. 

AMC FUND DISBURSEMENT REPORTS:

• No formal training requests received. 

• NIST verbally requested help for small-scale training to enable bringing people to Gaithersburg, but the 

request was not specific enough so it was not considered. 

• Discussion about request from BOD pertinent to the new national office in Lincoln. 

• Without the special event, the AMC needs to decide the best use of this previously allocated money. 

- Can consider best in January or July after new dues are available. 

• Over the next year Paul Lewis and Chris Guay will make a concerted effort to get the word out at regionals 

(meetings) about available training money. 

• One suggestion made is for AMC to hire web-based training development and place training on the website 

independently. 

- There were several voices of concern that the AMC should not usurp the PDC’s role of developing 

training. 

- PDC, still struggling on the training issue; could be leading the conversion of existing documents and 

modules into web-based training. 

- This would be a great benefit not only to the weights and measures community but also to the service 

personnel from the various industry stakeholders. 

• Moisture loss workgroup may have applicable materials appropriate for conversion to the website. 

• AMC members present indicated a strong message be given to the BOD to get something going out of the 

PDC. 

• Further discussion was entertained about the request to use the AMC additional monies to fund the set-up 

of the Lincoln office and training of its staff. 

- Darrell Flocken moved that the remaining monies – $6,586.66 and any additional funds/deposits made 

this year – be given to the National Conference for the Lincoln office set-up and training needs. Paul 

Lewis seconded the motion. Approved. 

2008 SPECIAL EVENT

• Dinner boat cruise on Lake Champlain. 

• Last time this will be co-sponsored by the AMC. 

BOD - B2 
BOD 2008 Final Report 

Appendix B – Meeting Minutes of the AMC 

• Next year this will mean $10,000 more money in the AMC treasury for helping the conference. 

SELECTION OF INDUSTRY REPRESENTATIVES

Historically these had been 3-year terms but 10 years ago were changed to 5-year terms. Openings exist for the 

PDC and L&R committees. 

• PDC Representative 

- Last year Paul Hoar accepted a one-year appointment to complete the PDC committee term. 

- Some discussion that Gary Lameris may be interested but it’s unclear as he has changed jobs. 

- Position left open for this year; PDC committee unlikely to meet at this meeting. 

• L&R Representative 

- Rob Underwood from the Petroleum Marketer’s Association was nominated and selected to the L&R 

committee. 

SELECTION OF AMC COMMITTEE AND OFFICERS

• Currently eight positions on the committee. 

- Two positions, Frye and Flocken are expired; and 

- One position open due to the resignation of Wankowski. 

• Darrell Flocken selected to another five-year term 

• Paul A. Hoffman, Kraft, selected to a five-year term. 

• Michael Gaspers selected to another five-year term, leaving one year unexpired from his current term. 

• Rob Underwood selected to fill Gaspers unexpired one-year term. 

• Chris Guay will move out of the Chair following this meeting, Paul Lewis will move from Vice Chair to 

Chair, and Mike Gaspers will move from Secretary/Treasurer to Vice Chair. 

• New Recording Secretary/Treasurer for the coming year – no nominations; however Tom Herrington’s 

name has been put forward as a possible candidate. 

OLD BUSINESS:

• No old business. 

NEW BUSINESS:

• Paul Lewis and Chris Guay volunteered to review the by-laws and make necessary changes to reflect the 

special event change and any others that seem appropriate. 

- Changes to the by-laws to be available for consideration at the Interim Meeting. 

• Paul Lewis will research cost and practical considerations for purchasing lapel pins for conference 

attendees. 

- Someone will need to approach the board and secure their approval to use the NCWM logo on the pin. 

ADJOURNMENT:

Pete O’Bryan moved and Darrell Flocken seconded a motion for adjournment. The meeting was adjourned at 

1:03 p.m. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Chris Guay, Chair 

Michael Gaspers, Secretary-Treasurer, AMC 

BOD - B3 
BOD 2008 Final Report 

Appendix B – Meeting Minutes of the AMC 

BOD - B4 

Members in Attendance at the 

Associate Membership Committee (AMC) Meeting 

July 14, 2008 

Name Company E-mail Address Phone

Chris Guay Procter & Gamble guay.cb@pg.com (513) 983-0530

Paul Lewis Rice Lake Weighing Systems plewis@ricelake.com (715) 234-9171

Michael Gaspers Farmland Foods Inc mpgaspers@farmland.com (712) 490-2809

Stephen Langford Cardinal Scale MFG. Co slangford@cardet.com (417) 673-4631

Darrell Flocken Mettler-Toledo darrell.flocken@mt.com (614) 438-4393

Steve Patoray Consultants on Certification, LLC steve@consultoncert.com (828) 859-6178

Bob Murnane Seraphin Test Measures rmurnane@pemfab.com (609) 636-6498

Pete O’Bryan Foster Farms obryanp@fosterfarms.com (209) 765-4978

Steve Steinborn Hogan and Hartson sbsteinborn@hhlaw.com (202) 632-5969

Ann Hines Arkansas Oil Marketer’s Assn ann@aoma.org (501) 374-6293

Jim Hewston Seale Source jhewston@sealesource.com (402) 455-2143

Dennis Kolsun H.J. Heinz Co. dennis.kolsun@us.hjheinz.com (724) 778-4503

Kevin Mikoski Irving Oil kevin.mikoski@irvingoil.com (603) 559-8755

Rob Underwood Petroleum Marketers Association of 

America 

runderwood@pmaa.org (703) 351-8000

Leon Lammers Avery Weigh-Tronix llammers@awtxglobal.com (507) 238-8225

Cary Frye International Dairy Foods Association cfrye@idfa.org (202) 220-3543
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

Report of the Laws and Regulations Committee 

Vicky Dempsey, Chairperson 

Montgomery County, Ohio 

200 INTRODUCTION 

This is the report of the Laws and Regulations Committee (hereinafter referred to as the “Committee”) for the 93rd

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

offered in the NCWM Publication 16, “Committee Reports,” testimony at public hearings, comments received from 

the regional weights and measures associations and other parties, the addendum sheets issued at the Annual 

Meeting, and actions taken by the membership at the voting session of the Annual Meeting. The Informational 

items presented below were adopted as presented when this report was approved. 

Table A identifies the agenda items in the Report by Reference Key Number, title, and page number. The first three 

digits of the Reference Key Numbers of the items are assigned from the subject series listed below. Voting items 

are indicated with a “V” after the item number. Items marked with an “I” are informational. Items marked with a 

“D” are developing items. The developing designation indicates an item has merit; however, the item is returned to 

the submitter for further development before any further action is taken by the Committee. Items marked “W” have 

been withdrawn from consideration. Table B lists the appendices to the report, and Table C provides a summary of 

the results of the voting on the Committee’s items and the report in entirety. 

This report contains recommendations to amend National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) 

Handbook 130, 2008 Edition, “Uniform Laws and Regulations,” or NIST Handbook 133, “Checking the Net 

Contents of Packaged Goods,” Fourth Edition (January 2005). Proposed revisions to the handbook(s) are shown in 

bold face print by striking out information to be deleted and underlining information to be added. New items 

proposed for the handbooks are designated as such and shown in bold face print. Text presented for information 

only is shown in italic print. When used in this report, the term “weight” means “mass.” 

Note: The policy of NIST is to use metric units of measurement in all of its publications; however, 

recommendations received by the NCWM technical committees have been printed in this publication as they were 

submitted and, therefore, some may contain only reference to inch-pound units. 

Subject Series 

INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................ 200 Series 

NIST Handbook 130 – General .................................................................................................................... 210 Series 

 Uniform Laws.......................................................................................................................................... 220 Series 

 Weights and Measures Law (WML) ................................................................................................ 221 Series 

 Weighmaster Law (WL)................................................................................................................... 222 Series 

 Engine Fuels, Petroleum Products, and Automotive Lubricants Inspection Law (EFL).................. 223 Series 

 Uniform Regulations ............................................................................................................................... 230 Series 

 Packaging and Labeling Regulation (PLR)...................................................................................... 231 Series 

 Method of Sale Regulation (MSR)................................................................................................... 232 Series 

 Unit Pricing Regulation (UPR) ........................................................................................................ 233 Series 

 Voluntary Registration Regulation (VRR)....................................................................................... 234 Series 

 Open Dating Regulation (ODR)....................................................................................................... 235 Series 

 Uniform National Type Evaluation Regulation (UNTER)............................................................... 236 Series 

 Engine Fuels, Petroleum Products, and Automotive Lubricants Regulation (EFR)......................... 237 Series 

L&R - 1 
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

 Examination Procedure for Price Verification......................................................................................... 240 Series 

 Interpretations and Guidelines................................................................................................................. 250 Series 

NIST Handbook 133..................................................................................................................................... 260 Series 

Other Items ................................................................................................................................................... 270 Series 

Table A 

Index to Reference Key Items 

Reference 

Key Number Title of Item Page 

200 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................1

223 UNIFORM ENGINE FUELS, PETROLEUM PRODUCTS, AND AUTOMOTIVE LUBRICANTS 

INSPECTION LAW (EFL)..............................................................................................................................4 

223-1 V Revision of the Uniform Engine Fuels, Petroleum Products and Automotive Lubricants 

Inspection Law..................................................................................................................................4

232 METHOD OF SALE REGULATION ..........................................................................................................10

232-1 I Automatic Temperature Compensation (ATC) for Petroleum Products .........................................10

232-2 V Biodiesel Labeling ..........................................................................................................................24

237 ENGINE FUELS, PETROLEUM PRODUCTS AND AUTOMOTIVE LUBRICANTS 

INSPECTION REGULATION .....................................................................................................................28 

237-1 V Revision of the Engine Fuels, Petroleum Products and Automotive Lubricants Inspection 

Regulation.......................................................................................................................................28

237-2 I Revise Section 2.1. Gasoline and Gasoline-Oxygenate Blends ......................................................46

250 INTERPRETATIONS AND GUIDELINES ................................................................................................50

250-1 V Amend Handbook 130 Interpretations and Guidelines Section 2.3.2. Guidelines for the 

Method of Sale of Fresh Fruits and Vegetables ..............................................................................50

270 OTHER ITEMS – DEVELOPING ITEMS..................................................................................................56

270-1 D Amend Section 2.2.1. in Handbook 130 Uniform Engine Fuels Regulation – Premium 

Diesel Lubricity ..............................................................................................................................56

270-2 D Amend Handbook 133 Section 2.3, Moisture Allowances to Provide Clearer Guidance...............58

270-3 D Laws and Regulations Committee Work Group (WG) on Moisture Loss ......................................58

270-4 D Fuels and Lubricants Subcommittee (FALS) (Formerly the Petroleum Subcommittee) ................60

270-5 D Pelletized Ice Cream .......................................................................................................................60

Table B 

Appendices 

Appendix A. Letters Submitted to the NCWM Conference Concerning Automatic Temperature Compensation.....A1

Appendix B. Letters Submitted to the NCWM Conference Concerning Engine Fuels, Petroleum Products and 

Automotive Lubricants........................................................................................................................................ B1

Appendix C. L&R Committee Work Group on Moisture Loss.................................................................................. C1

Appendix D. Letter from the International Ice Cream Association to the Food and Drug Administration ................D1

L&R - 2 
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

Table C 

Voting Results 

House of State 

Representatives Reference Key House of Delegates 

Number 

Yeas Nays Yeas Nays 

Results 

223-1 37 0 35 0 Passed 

232-2 34 2 31 2 Passed 

237-1 (amendment) 37 0 34 1 Passed 

237-1 (includes 

amendment) 36 1 35 0 Passed 

250-1 38 0 38 1 Passed 

L&R - 3 
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

Details of all Items 

(In order by Reference Key Number) 

223 UNIFORM ENGINE FUELS, PETROLEUM PRODUCTS, AND AUTOMOTIVE 

LUBRICANTS INSPECTION LAW (EFL) 

223-1 V Revision of the Uniform Engine Fuels, Petroleum Products and Automotive Lubricants 

Inspection Law 

(This item was adopted) 

Source: Fuels and Lubricants Subcommittee (formerly the Petroleum Subcommittee) 

Background/Discussion: Since 2007 the FALS Subcommittee had met at all Interim and Annual Meetings and 

other various times to carry out the revision of the Uniform Engine Fuels, Petroleum Products, and Automotive 

Lubricants Inspection Law and Regulation in HB 130. At the 2007 WWMA and SWMA meetings and at the 2008 

CWMA and NEWMA annual regional meetings, all regions supported this item. In advance of the 2008 Interim 

Meeting, the Subcommittee distributed their report to the Committee, state Weights and Measures Directors and 

other stakeholders for review. Written comments received on this item are in Appendix B. At the 2008 Interim 

Meeting, the Fuels and Lubricants Subcommittee (FALS) presented a proposed revision of the Engine Fuels, 

Petroleum Products and Automotive Inspection Law. The Subcommittee reviewed the Engine Fuels, Petroleum 

Products and Automotive Lubricants Regulation and prepared a draft revision (refer to 237-1 below). At the 2008 

Annual Meeting there were no additional comments on this item. 

Recommendations: The Subcommittee recommended the title of the uniform law be amended by deleting 

“petroleum products” (also delete the definition) so the title reflects the growing use of alternative and renewable 

fuels in the marketplace. Other proposed amendments will add additional power to provide the Director with 

authority to review records and grant waivers to specific requirements in the event of an emergency or national 

disaster. Editorial revisions were also made to update several references and to reflect the name change of the 

Society of Automotive Engineers to SAE International. 

The Subcommittee recommended that an “active” standard be the current, official version of an ASTM standard. 

An “active” standard supersedes the previous historical versions of a standard. Both “active” and “historical” 

versions are published at www.astm.org or by mail ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, 

West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania 19428-2959. See the proposal for details on other recommended changes. 

Ron Hayes, FALS Chairperson, can be contacted at (573) 751-2922 or at ron.hayes@mda.mo.gov. 

Committee Recommendation: Adopt the revised Uniform Fuels and Automotive Lubricants Law as presented in 

the following text.

L&R - 4 
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

Uniform Engine Fuels, Petroleum Products and Automotive Lubricants Inspection Law 

As adopted by 

The National Conference on Weights and Measures∗

1. Background 

In 1984, the National Conference on Weights and Measures adopted a section in the Uniform Regulation for the 

Method of Sale of Commodities requiring that motor fuel containing alcohol be labeled to disclose to the retail 

purchaser that the fuel contains alcohol. The delegates deemed this action necessary since motor vehicle 

manufacturers were qualifying their warranties with respect to some gasoline-alcohol blends, motor fuel users were 

complaining to weights and measures officials about fuel quality and vehicle performance, and the ASTM 

International had not yet finalized quality standards for oxygenated (which includes alcohol-containing) fuels. 

While many argued that weights and measures officials should not cross the line from quantity assurance programs 

to programs regulating quality, the delegates were persuaded that the issue needed immediate attention. 

A Motor Fuels Task Force was appointed in 1984 to develop mechanisms for achieving uniformity in the evaluation 

and regulation of motor fuels. The Task Force developed the Uniform Motor Fuel Inspection Law and the Uniform 

Motor Fuel Regulation (see the Uniform Regulations section of this handbook) to accompany the law. The 

recommended law required registration and certification of motor fuel as meeting ASTM standards. It established a 

motor fuel quality testing capability by the state. Funding for the installation and support of the testing facility was 

established by a fee per liter or per gallon on all fuel marketed within the state. 

In 1992, the NCWM established the Petroleum Subcommittee under the Laws and Regulations Committee. The 

Subcommittee recommended major revisions to the law that was adopted at the 80th NCWM in 1995. The scope of 

the law was expanded to include all engine fuels, petroleum products, and automotive lubricants, and its title was 

changed accordingly. Other changes included expansion of the definitions section, limitation of the scope of the 

registration section to engine fuels designed for special use, and addition of sections on administrative and civil 

penalties and on criminal penalties. 

In 2007 the Petroleum Subcommittee (now referred to as the Fuels and Lubricants Subcommittee) undertook 

a review of this uniform law to update it to eliminate reference to “petroleum products” and reflect the 

addition of new engine fuels to the marketplace. The amendments included new provisions to provide 

officials with the authority to review delivery records and grant waivers of requirements adopted under the 

law in times of emergency or natural disasters.

At the 2008 NCWM Interim Meeting, the Laws and Regulations Committee changed the Petroleum 

Subcommittee’s name to the Fuels and Lubricants Subcommittee (FALS) in recognition of its work with a 

wide variety of fuels including petroleum and biofuels.

2. Status of Promulgation

The current Uniform Fuels and Automotive Lubricants Inspection Law was recommended for adoption by the 

Conference in 19952008. The table beginning on page 10 shows the status of adoption of the law. 

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

Technology in partial implementation of its statutory responsibility for “cooperation with the states in securing 

uniformity in weights and measures laws and methods of inspection.” 

L&R - 5 
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

Uniform Engine Fuels, Petroleum Products and Automotive Lubricants Inspection Law 

Section 1. Purpose

There should be uniform requirements for engine fuels, petroleum products non-engine fuels, and automotive 

lubricants among the states. This Act provides for the establishment of quality specifications for these products. 

(Amended 2008)

Section 2. Scope

The Act establishes a sampling, testing, and enforcement program, provides authority for fee collection, requires 

registration of engine fuels, and empowers the state to promulgate regulations as needed to carry out the provisions 

of the Act. It also provides for administrative, civil, and criminal penalties. 

Section 3. Definitions 

As used in this act: 

3.1. Engine Fuel. – any liquid or gaseous matter used for the generation of power in an internal combustion engine. 

3.2. Director. – the ______ of the Department of ________ and designated agents. 

3.3. Person. – an individual, corporation, company, society, association, partnership, or governmental entity. 

3.4. ASTM International (www.astm.org) – an international voluntary consensus standards organization formed 

for the development of standards on characteristics and performance of materials, products, systems, and services, 

and the promotion of related knowledge. 

3.5. Petroleum Products. – products obtained from distilling and processing of petroleum (crude oil), 

unfinished oils, recycled oils, natural gas liquids, refinery blend stocks, and other miscellaneous hydrocarbon 

compounds.

3.65. Automotive Lubricants. – any material interposed between two surfaces that reduces the friction or wear 

between them. 

3.76. Engine Fuel Designed for Special Use. – engine fuels designated by the Director requiring registration. 

These fuels normally have no ASTM or other national consensus standards applying to their quality or usability; 

common special fuels are racing fuels and those intended for agricultural and other off-road applications. 

3.87. Sold. – kept, offered, or exposed for sale. 

3.8. Non-engine Fuels. – any liquid or gaseous matter used for the generation of heat, power, or similar uses.

(Added 2008)

L&R - 6 
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

Section 4. Administration, Adoption of Standards, and Rules

The provisions of this Act shall be administered by the Director. For the purpose of administering and giving effect 

to the provisions of this Act, the specification and test method standards set forth in the most recent edition version 

available of the Annual Book of ASTM standards and supplements thereto, and revisions thereof of ASTM 

International standards as published on its website (www.astm.org) are adopted, except as amended or 

modified, as required by the Director to comply with federal and state laws. When no ASTM standard exists, other 

generally recognized national consensus standards may be used. The Director is empowered to write rules and 

regulations on the advertising, posting of prices, labeling, standards for, and identity of fuels, petroleum products, 

non-engine fuels, and automotive lubricants and is authorized to establish a testing laboratory. 

(Amended 2008)

Section 5. General Duties and Powers

The Director shall have the authority to: 

5.1. Enforce and administer all the provisions of this Act by inspections, analyses, and other appropriate actions. 

5.2. Have access during normal business hours to all places where engine fuels, petroleum products, non-engine 

fuels and automotive lubricants are kept, transferred, offered, exposed for sale, or sold for the purpose of 

examination, inspection, taking of samples, and review of fuel storage, receipts, transfers, sales records or 

delivery records for determining compliance with this Act. If such access is refused by the owner, agent, or 

other persons leasing the same, the Director may obtain an administrative search warrant from a court of competent 

jurisdiction. 

(Amended 2008)

5.3. Collect, or cause to be collected, samples of engine fuels, petroleum products, non-engine fuels and 

automotive lubricants marketed in this state, and cause such samples to be tested or analyzed for compliance with 

the provisions of this Act. 

(Amended 2008)

5.4. Define engine fuels for special use and refuse, revoke, suspend, or issue a stop-order if found not to be in 

compliance and remand stop-order if the engine fuel for special use is brought into full compliance with this Act. 

5.5. Issue a stop-sale order for any engine fuel, petroleum product, non-engine fuels and automotive lubricant 

found not to be in compliance and remand a stop-sale order if the engine fuel, petroleum product, or automotive 

lubricant is brought into full compliance with this Act. 

(Amended 2008)

5.6. Refuse, revoke, or suspend the registration of an engine fuel, petroleum product, or automotive lubricant. 

5.7. Delegate to appropriate personnel any of these responsibilities for the proper administration of this Act. 

5.8. The director is empowered to waive specific state requirements adopted under this Act or may establish 

alternative requirements for fuels as determined to be necessary in the event of an emergency or a natural 

disaster for a specified period of time.

(Added 2008)

Section 6. Registration of Engine Fuels Designed for Special Use

All engine fuels designed for special use must be registered with the Director. Such registration shall include: 

6.1. Name, brand, or trademark under which the fuel will be sold. 

L&R - 7 
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

6.2. Name and address of person registering the engine fuel. 

6.3. The special use for which the engine fuel is designed. 

6.4. A certification, declaration, or affidavit stating the fuel specifications. 

Section 7. Inspection Fee

There shall be a fee of $__________ per appropriate unit of measure on all products covered under the scope of this 

Act marketed within this state for the purposes of administering and effectively enforcing the provisions of this Act. 

Section 8. Prohibited Acts

It shall be unlawful to: 

8.1. Represent engine fuels, petroleum products non-engine fuels, or automotive lubricants in any manner that 

may deceive or tend to deceive the purchaser as to the nature, brand, price, quantity, and/or quality of such products. 

(Amended 1996 and 2008) 

8.2. Fail to register an engine fuel designed for special use. 

8.3. Submit incorrect, misleading, or false information regarding the registration of an engine fuel designed for 

special use. 

8.4. Hinder or obstruct the Director in the performance of the Director’s duties. 

8.5. Represent an engine fuel, petroleum product non-engine fuels, or automotive lubricant that is contrary to the 

provisions of this Act. 

(Amended 2008)

8.6. Represent automotive lubricants with an SAE International viscosity grade or API (American Petroleum 

Institute) service classification other than those specified by the intended purchaser. 

(Added 1996) 

Section 9. Civil Penalties

9.1. Assessment of Penalties. – Any person who, by himself or herself, by his or her servant or agent, or as the 

servant or agent of another person commits any of the acts enumerated in Section 22 may be assessed by the 

__________ a civil penalty of: 

a. not less than $ _____ nor more than $_____ for a first violation, 

b. not less than $_____ nor more than $_____ for a second violation within ____ from the date of the first 

violation, and 

c. not less than $_____ nor more than $_____ for a third violation within ____ from the date of the first 

violation. 

9.2. Administrative Hearing. – Any person subject to a civil penalty shall have a right to request an administrative 

hearing within __________ days of receipt of the notice of the penalty. The director or his/her designee shall be 

authorized to conduct the hearing after giving appropriate notice to the respondent. The decision of the director 

shall be subject to appropriate judicial review. 

9.3. Collection of Penalties. – If the respondent has exhausted his or her administrative appeals and the civil 

penalty has been upheld, he or she shall pay the civil penalty within ___ days after the effective date of the final 

decision. If the respondent fails to pay the penalty, a civil action may be brought by the director in any court of 

L&R - 8 
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

competent jurisdiction to recover the penalty. Any civil penalty collected under this Act shall be transmitted to 

__________. 

Section 10. Criminal Penalties

10.1. Misdemeanor. – Any person who violates any provision of this Act or regulations promulgated thereto shall 

be guilty of a Class ___ misdemeanor and upon conviction shall be punished by a fine of not less than $__________ 

nor more than $__________, or imprisonment for not less than ___ nor more than ___ or both. 

10.2. Felony. – Any person who intentionally violates any provision of this Act or regulations promulgated thereto 

or is convicted under the misdemeanor provisions of this section more than three times in a 2-year period shall be 

guilty of a Class __________ felony and upon conviction shall be punished by a fine of not less than $__________ 

nor more than $__________, or imprisonment for not less than __________ nor more than __________, or both. 

Section 11. Restraining Order and Injunction

The Director is authorized to apply to any court of competent jurisdiction for a restraining order or a temporary or 

permanent injunction restraining any person from violating any provision of this Act. 

Section 12. Severability Provisions 

If any word, phrase, provision, or portion of this Act shall be held in a court of competent jurisdiction to be 

unconstitutional or invalid, the unconstitutionality or invalidity shall apply only to such word, phrase, provision, or 

portion, and for this purpose the provisions of this Act are declared to be severable. 

Section 13. Repeal of Conflicting Laws

All laws and parts of laws contrary to or inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are repealed except as to offense 

committed, liabilities incurred, and claims made thereunder prior to the effective date of this Act. 

Section 14. Citation

This Act may be cited as the “Engine Fuels, Petroleum Products, and Automotive Lubricants Inspection Act of 

__________.” 

(Amended 2008)

Section 15. Effective Date

This Act shall become effective on __________. 

L&R - 9 
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

232 METHOD OF SALE REGULATION 

232-1 I Automatic Temperature Compensation (ATC) for Petroleum Products 

Background/Discussion: At the 2007 Annual Meeting, the Committee received eighteen comments requesting this 

item be made Informational to allow the Committee time for additional study and deliberation. The Committee 

believed that the concerns of the commentators were valid but that they were issues to be addressed by the S&T and 

NTEP Committees. Additional studies of the method of sale proposal would not bring anything new to the current 

recommendation that could not be addressed through further revisions next year if needed. The Committee believed 

adopting this proposal would provide guidance to policymakers and others currently considering action on 

temperature compensation at the national, state, or local level. Jurisdictions opposing the proposal because their 

state laws or their policies were against it would not be affected by the adoption of this method of sale because their 

laws prohibit it. The implementation of temperature compensation will be a slow process primarily because there is 

not an existing nationally approved temperature-compensation device, and NIST Handbook 44 must be revised to 

set forth the specifications, tolerances, and other technical requirements for this technology. NTEP will then need to 

undertake its work where needed. The Committee acknowledged that some states may move ahead with their own 

type approvals to allow temperature compensation. The majority of the Committee believed that the proposed 

method of sale was ready for NCWM adoption, as there was not a reasonable justification for delaying the adoption 

of the proposal as presented. Therefore, the Committee recommended adoption of this item. This item was 

subjected to a lengthy discussion at the general voting session, and several issues were raised along with calls for 

further study. The vote in the House of Representatives was 23 yeas and 16 nays, while the vote in the House of 

Delegates was 24 yeas and 16 nays; therefore, the item did not garner enough support to pass. When an item does 

not clearly pass or fail under NCWM procedures, it is carried forward for reconsideration by the appropriate 

committee. 

At the 2008 Interim Meeting, the Committee considered the recommendations and comments received from the 

consumer groups, petroleum marketers associations, and independent business operators on this issue. The 

Committee received written comments (see Appendix A). During the open hearings, the Committee received 

comments, opinions, and concerns from more than 36 attendees. Opponents of the regulation argue that it may put 

the small business owners out of business due to the cost to retrofit their older equipment. A majority of the 

opposing comments argued that consumers would pay more for fuel at the pump to cover the implementation of 

ATC and that they would receive no benefit from the change in methods of sale. The comments also expressed 

concern that weights and measures officials would burden their already strained resources because of the additional 

time that would be needed to test pumps equipped with ATC. There was a recommendation that if the proposed 

method of sale was adopted, an exemption be included for the small business owner. Several speakers said the only 

winners in ATC are the equipment and testing companies, lawyers, and lobbyists. 

Supporting comments were received from a few state and local officials, an organization of independent truckers, 

and a consumer advocacy group. Supporters argued that consumers obtaining gas in “hot spots” are not getting what 

they pay for when they purchase fuel. A few jurisdictions requested that the NCWM act to provide a uniform 

national standard should retailers begin selling on the basis of temperature-compensated deliveries in states where 

the practice is permissive. Concern was voiced over the possibility that national uniformity in the method of sale of 

fuels at retail will diminish if some jurisdictions allow temperature compensation at retail stations while others do 

not. It was decided to make this item Informational, so that additional information and data could be received. 

At the 2008 Annual Meeting it was reported that the California Energy Commission (CEC) is conducting a study 

entitled “AB868 Fuel Delivery Temperature Study.” One of the goals of this study is to determine what impact 

ATC will have on consumers, businesses, agencies and the marketplace within the State of California. The CEC 

advisory panel held three public meetings prior to the NCWM Annual Meeting in July. In September 2008 the CEC 

panel plans to publish preliminary staff findings and recommendations. Two members requested that this item be 

developed to assist states in which ATC is prohibited by a state law or regulation. 

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) is actively working on a study on ATC. GAO submitted the 

following statement to the NCWM since they were not able to attend the 2008 Annual NCWM Meeting. 

L&R - 10 
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

At the request of the Chairman of the House Committee on Science and Technology, the United States 

Government Accountability Office (GAO) is conducting a review of the issues surrounding automatic 

temperature compensation in the retail sales of motor vehicle fuels. This fall the GAO plans to release 

a report that provides information on 1) the views of stakeholders on the costs related to the use of 

automatic temperature compensation devices; 2) who would bear the costs of implementation and the 

support for those views; 3) other factors that might affect the decision of whether or not to install such 

devices; and 4) the reasons some states and nations have promoted or rejected implementation of 

automatic temperature compensation. In its work GAO has or will interview stakeholders including 

state, federal, and international officials as well as representatives of industry and consumer 

organizations. 

The Committee will continue to monitor the progress of the CEC and GAO studies. The Committee agrees with the 

majority of the comments that the cost and benefits of temperature compensation at the retail level are still unknown. 

The members unanimously agreed that further information is needed before a proposal for a temperature 

compensation method of sale can be considered by the NCWM. For the reasons detailed above and in the written 

comments (see Appendix A), this item was kept in Informational status. 

Information on the consideration of this item by the Regional Associations following the NCWM 

Annual Meeting in July 2007 is presented below. 

Central Weights and Measures Association (CWMA): At the Central 2008 Annual Meeting, the Committee 

recommended that this item remain Informational. The Committee heard from an industry representative that this 

item does not resolve the issue of consumers being shorted at the pump. This representative further commented that 

there are alternative methods for measuring BTU contents, but does not support these alternative methods. A 

regulatory official opposed the word “permissive.” 

This is an excerpt from the report of the CWMA’s Laws and Regulations Committee, which considered this item at 

its 2007 Interim Meeting in Bettendorf, Iowa, on September 16 - 19, 2007. (The full report is available at 

www.ncwm.net/central/lr/lr_2007_interim.doc.) 

...considerable testimony both in support and opposition of the Temperature Compensation proposal 

during the open hearings. Many industry representatives opposed the item due to the anticipated cost 

of equipment and the lack of data that supports whether a better system of measurement is worth the 

cost. The CWMA L&R Committee cannot support the item as proposed due to the considerable 

opposition to the permissive language. Several state regulators feel that if permissive is adopted, it 

will be implemented in the northern states, not in the southern states where there appears to be more 

pressure to implement temperature compensation. A good example of this was given that in Canada 

where temperature compensation is allowed, it is not widely used in areas west of the Rockies where 

the climate is more temperate. The Committee further feels that making the item “informational” will 

not resolve the issue. The most requested information of a cost-benefit analysis is not currently being 

conducted by any organization. Although several statements were made that temperature 

compensation may be a more equitable method of sale, many stated that it is not “perfect” nor will it 

resolve current issues of fraud such as artificial heating of fuel. To address the concern of “hot spots,” 

the Committee discussed the option of amending the proposal to exclude sales at retail based upon the 

flow rate of dispensers as previously proposed. The Committee feels that another potential solution for 

a more equitable method of sale is to formulate an alternate proposal to change the method of sale to 

mass. Technology exists to sell motor fuel through mass flow meters. This method of sale would be 

more equitable for all types of fuel including alternative fuels which would allow consumers to make 

value comparisons. The Committee expects that the ATC Steering Committee will provide more 

information which will provide direction to the conference on this issue. We look forward to their 

information which will provide answers to many questions. Based upon the testimony heard, the 

Committee recommends that the item be withdrawn. Note: In response to the ATC Steering 

Committee request, the CWMA L&R Committee suggests that if this proposal goes forward as a 

voting item, that there be a mandatory implementation date with little to no permissive period as a 

transition. 

L&R - 11 
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

Northeastern Weights and Measures Association (NEWMA): At the 2008 NEWMA Annual Meeting, this issue 

was discussed extensively. NEWMA would like to see wording developed in the method of sale to assist states in 

which ATC is prohibited by state law or regulation. In the past, NEWMA had recommended a method of sale of 

gross gallons at retail only. NEWMA would like to have further development of the method of sale of gross gallons 

at retail. This item could possibly be reviewed separately. 

This is an excerpt from the report of the Laws and Regulations Committee meeting held at that association’s 2007 

Interim Meeting in Springfield, Massachusetts, on October 9 - 10, 2007.

It is clear from the majority of comments received (both in written and oral form) that strong 

opposition exists to the item as proposed, especially the inclusion of permissive ATC sales. NEWMA 

could not support an item which allowed for two methods of sale. Confusion would be widespread. 

Additionally, the item raises far too many questions and uncertainties that to date have not been 

answered. Further research must be conducted to answer those questions. The National Conference 

on Weights and Measures is an organization made up of weights and measures officials and industry 

representatives that consistently over the years has worked as a consensus organization. A consensus 

on this item does not exist and the item should be withdrawn. Making the item “informational” would 

not bring us to the needed consensus. 

Western Weights and Measures Association (WWMA): The WWMA held its Annual Meeting 

September 9 - 13, 2007, in Lake Tahoe, Nevada. It voted to recommend that the Committee move a modified 

version of the original proposal forward as a voting item at the 2008 NCWM Annual Meeting. The WWMA 

recommended removal of the term “Permissive” from the title in Section 2.30. Refined Petroleum Products –

Temperature Compensation. The full report is available from NIST WMD. 

Southern Weights and Measures Association (SWMA): The SWMA held its Annual Meeting 

October 21 - 24, 2007, in Little Rock, Arkansas. It voted to recommend that the Committee move a modified 

version of the original proposal forward as a voting item at the 2008 NCWM Annual Meeting. The amendments 

and other changes proposed by the SWMA are presented below. (The full report is available from NIST WMD.) 

The SWMA L&R Committee heard opposition to permissive temperature compensation for retail and 

other meters during the open hearing primarily from industry representatives many of whom suggested 

that further study was needed to determine if the cost versus benefit justified adoption of the original 

proposal. The Committee agrees that more information would be helpful in determining the value of 

using ATC on retail motor fuel dispensers that are marked to deliver less than 30 gallons per minute. 

Several comments called for the withdrawal of the item but the Committee recognized that the item 

will be on the NCWM L&R Interim Agenda in 2008 because it was carried over from the 2007 Annual 

Meeting and because the Western Weights and Measures Association supported adoption of the 

original item at its recent meeting. The Committee also believes that withdrawing this item as some 

regions have suggested would only delay consideration of this issue, which has been on the NCWM 

agenda in one form or another for almost a decade, because the item would likely be resubmitted by a 

regional association. There were other comments recommending that no further action be taken on 

this item or that it be tabled. One comment suggested that the original proposal be amended to limit 

the method of sale to Loading Rack Meters, Vehicle Tank Meters and Retail Dispensers which are 

marked to deliver 30 gallons per minute or more (which are typically used in making larger quantity 

deliveries at truck stops). The Committee believes that separating large flow meters (some of which 

are already equipped with ATC) from the proposal may reduce the opposition to the proposed method 

of sale for ATC. A majority of the Committee recommends the following to the SWMA for adoption. 

L&R - 12 
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

SWMA recommendation to the NCWM L&R Committee: 

1. Remove the word “Permissive” from the title of the proposed method of sale for ATC. 

2. Divide the item into two separate proposals. 

a. For retail motor fuel dispensers marked to deliver less than 30 gal/min, make it Developmental and 

recommend that the NCWM ATC Steering Committee lead or coordinate a study to determine if the 

cost/benefit justifies the implementation of ATC. 

b. For retail motor fuel dispensers marked to deliver 30 gal/min or more, amend the method of sale 

proposal and establish a mandatory implementation date. The SWMA recommends that the NCWM 

L&R Committee move this item for adoption at the 2008 Annual Meeting with the following 

amendments: 

i. Amend Section 2.30.2. to read: When products are sold on the basis of temperature compensated 

volume through Loading Rack Meters, Vehicle Tank Meters and Retail Motor Fuel Dispensers 

marked to deliver 30 gal/min or more. 

ii. Add an implementation date of 10 years from date of adoption. 

METHOD OF SALE PROPOSAL 

The Method of Sale is presented in two parts. Part I includes a proposed method of sale developed by the NCWM 

Automatic Temperature Compensation Steering Committee (ATCSC). Part II includes the original recommendation 

for a method of sale developed by the Committee at the 2007 Interim Meeting. Part II was not adopted at the 2007 

NCWM Annual Meeting.

Part I. Automatic Temperature Compensation Steering Committee (ATCSC) Background and 

Recommended Method of Sale 

Background: The ATCSC held a meeting August 27 - 29, 2007, in Chicago, Illinois, to address issues associated 

with potential implementation of ATC for retail motor fuel. Valuable input was received during that meeting from 

marketers, manufacturers, consumers, and regulatory officials. Following the meeting, the ATCSC continued to 

receive input from the four regional weights and measures associations. 

It is not the charge of the ATCSC to endorse or oppose the implementation of ATC at retail. The ATCSC is tasked 

with addressing issues associated with the implementation of ATC to assist the NCWM membership in coming to a 

consensus on the issue. The proposals of the ATCSC reflect the Committee’s opinion on the best approach to ATC 

if NCWM votes to implement it. 

The ATCSC considered the following discussion points in forming a proposal for the Method of Sale Regulation: 

1. Permissive vs. Mandatory ATC 

In cold climates, voluntary introduction of ATC can be fairly successful. In regions where fuel temperatures 

average below 60 °F, a retailer who implements ATC could lower the unit price while maintaining the same profit 

margin. This acts as an enticement for retailers to take that step. Conversely, in regions where fuel temperatures 

average above 60 °F, retailers would find it necessary to raise the unit price to maintain profit margins. As a result, 

it could be expected that under a permissive implementation, cooler regions will see implementation of ATC, while 

warmer climates will not. In regions where there is no definite advantage one way or the other, it is possible that 

consumers will find price and quantity comparisons impossible between retail outlets that compensate and outlets 

that do not. 

The preamble to the Method of Sale Regulation states, “The purpose of this regulation is to require accurate and 

adequate information about commodities so that purchasers can make price and quantity comparisons.” The 

L&R - 13 
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

ATCSC is convinced that introduction of ATC in the marketplace without making ATC mandatory is in direct 

conflict with the purpose of the regulation. Therefore, the ATCSC proposal provides a transition to ATC where the 

equipment is made available, followed by a period of time when ATC may be implemented (turned on), followed by 

a date when ATC would be mandatory. The timeline for this transition should provide a reasonable timeframe for 

natural replacement of the majority of dispensers in the country. 

It is unclear whether ATC would provide a cost savings to U.S. consumers. The ATCSC believes we must make 

this decision based on facts and data. ATC is a superior method of measurement that provides a higher degree of 

transparency in unit pricing. With mandatory ATC at retail, consumers would have assurance that, no matter where 

they choose to purchase motor fuel, the price stated represents a gallon at 60 °F. This level of transparency does not 

exist in a gross gallon market or a permissive ATC market. 

2. Referencing 60 °F and 15 °C 

The ATCSC realized that the difference between 60 °F and 15 °C is relevant and must be rectified. Testimony 

disclosed that many international markets have established 60 °F as the reference temperature. This practice is also 

implemented throughout the U.S. distribution of petroleum products. One option is to only reference 60 °F, but this 

approach conflicts with the NCWM’s commitment to acknowledge the metric system. To balance the need to 

recognize the metric system without disrupting the current marketing practices throughout the production and 

distribution system in the United States, the ATCSC recommends referencing 60 °F with the metric equivalent of 

15.56 °C. The ATCSC proposes the use of 60 °F (15.56 °C) as the reference temperature for both gallons and liters 

to maintain a common reference temperature in the United States when both gallons and liters are used. However, 

the ATCSC recognizes that when liters are used as the volume measurement unit in other countries, then the 

reference temperature of 15 °C is used. The ATCSC recommends that other parties provide input to the NCWM 

committees on this subject for further discussion. 

3. Establish Standardized Product Densities for Calculating Volume Correction Factors 

To implement ATC for retail motor fuel, there must be an agreement on product densities to be used in volume 

correction factors. In late July 2007, the ATCSC conducted an outreach to accumulate data on the densities for 

various products falling under ASTM Committee D02 standards across the United States. Outreach went to weights 

and measures jurisdictions, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, and the American Petroleum Institute. The 

ATCSC also considered standard densities used in Canada for temperature compensation. The ATCSC set out to 

use this data to develop a single set of standard densities to be used throughout the country for volume correction 

factors. Details of this item can be reviewed in the reports of the ATCSC, which are available at www.ncwm.net on 

the Internet. 

There was much discussion whether to reference standard density as Canada has done, or reference standard API 

gravity as is done throughout much of the U.S. petroleum market. Ultimately, the ATCSC has opted to reference 

standardized API gravity for the following products based on the density data it has reviewed. 

• 62 API for gasoline, including ethanol blends up to E10 

• 37 API for No. 2 diesel, including biodiesel blends up to B20 

More data are needed to determine standard densities for additional products such as No. 1 diesel and higher blends 

of biodiesel and ethanol. 

4. Disclosure – Street Signs, Dispensers, Receipts or Invoices, and Other Advertisements 

Based on comments the ATCSC received, the following issues were considered regarding disclosure when ATC is 

in use. 

• Terminology needs to be uniform to assist consumer recognition. 

• Disclosure on street signs must be prominent to be seen and not too wordy to allow for easy recognition by 

motorists while operating their vehicles. 

• Disclosure on the dispenser should be near the display of volume delivered. 

L&R - 14 
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

• Any other advertising of unit price for motor fuel should also disclose if it represents the price of 

temperature compensated volume. 

• Examples were provided of disclosure labeling for dispensers in Canada for the ATCSC’s consideration. 

The ATCSC recommends a simple, uniform, and prominent display of “ATC” on street signs. It will eventually 

become understood and recognized by motorists. For disclosure on dispensers, receipts, or invoices, the ATCSC 

recommends the statement, “Volume Corrected to 60 °F.” This follows the model found in Canada and seems to be 

clear and concise. 

5. Implementation 

Following the August 27 - 29, 2007, meeting of the ATCSC, its members suggested several options that could be 

considered to address the implementation of ATC in the United States. The ATCSC discussed different proposals 

and comments made at the meetings of the regional weights and measures associations on this subject. The ATCSC 

is not charged with endorsing or opposing the implementation of ATC at retail; it is tasked with addressing issues 

associated with the implementation of ATC. The proposal will also allow ATCSC to assist NCWM membership in 

coming to consensus on the issue. Hence, the ATCSC discussed the various options again and has decided to 

recommend a single option to the NCWM’s Specifications and Tolerances Committee and Laws and Regulations 

Committee for consideration. 

The recommended option is shown below. 

Implementation Option: 

NTEP 

approval 

Status quo; companies may 

purchase dispensers with ATC, but 

use of the ATC feature is 

controlled by individual states 

Å all new retail fuel 

dispensers must be 

equipped with ATC 

Permissive 

ATC Use 

Phase 

Å effective date; 

mandatory use of 

ATC 

7 years from date of adoption by NCWM 2 years 1 year 

10 years from date of adoption by NCWM 

Discussion (ATCSC): The ATCSC believes that if temperature compensation is adopted for the retail sales of 

refined petroleum products, then the ultimate goal is to have mandatory use of ATC to provide a single method of 

sale. The time period before the mandatory use of ATC is a debatable point. The ATCSC recommends that 

10 years after the adoption of an ATC method of sale, using temperature compensation should be mandatory. 

During the first seven years after adoption, the use of ATC should be controlled by the individual states based upon 

existing state laws and regulations. A relatively short period of time (two years) is suggested during which new 

dispensers must be equipped with ATC capability before permissive use of ATC would be allowed. This approach 

would allow station owners to decide, based on their business needs and plans, when to buy dispensers equipped 

with ATC, and this limits the time period during which they would be unable to use the feature after having 

purchased it. This requirement should be placed in NIST Handbook 44 as a nonretroactive requirement to address 

this design requirement. 

The time period for the permissive use of ATC should be kept reasonably short to reduce the potential confusion that 

may exist in the marketplace when both compensated and uncompensated sales occur. One year is a recommended 

time period for the permissive use of ATC. The ATCSC discussed whether to have different implementation dates 

for large and small service stations based upon throughput. The ATCSC recommended a single implementation date 

for all service stations to reduce the time period during which gasoline and diesel fuel will be sold in compensated 

and uncompensated volumes. A short time period must be provided for the permissive use of ATC. Time is needed 

L&R - 15 
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

to activate the ATC capability in dispensers equipped with ATC and to allow service companies and weights and 

measures officials to test the accuracy of dispensers equipped with ATC. 

Under this implementation plan, there will be a seven-year period of continued uncertainty regarding the legal 

method of sale of these products. Some have argued that the lack of definitive language in setting a method of sale 

means that any volume unit is acceptable, compensated or uncompensated. This is based on the principle that laws 

proscribe activity. All other activities not proscribed are legal. Another interpretation is the broad policy change 

made by the NCWM in 1969 and 1970 in adopting specific language on ATC use. Language in NIST Handbook 44 

was clear and directed specifically, and solely, to wholesale sales of petroleum products and for both wholesale and 

retail sales of LPG products. The ATCSC believes that inevitably each state will have to resolve this issue, unless it 

is resolved for us through federal class action suits currently pending. 

Alternative Proposal for a Method of Sale for Engine Fuels and Non-Engine Fuels 

Source: The NCWM Automatic Temperature Compensation Steering Committee (ATCSC). 

2.31. Engine Fuels and Non-Engine Fuels.

2.31.1. Definitions.

2.31.1.1. Engine fuel – any liquid or gaseous matter used for the generation of power in an internal 

combustion engine.

2.31.1.2. Non-engine fuel – any liquid or gaseous matter used for the generation of heat, power, or 

similar uses.

2.31.1.3. Temperature correction. – the process of correcting volume measurements at any 

temperature to an equivalent volume at a reference temperature.

2.31.1.4. Net volume – the volume after temperature correction.

2.31.1.5. Gross volume – a volume measurement that has not been subject to temperature 

correction.

2.31.2. Quantity.

2.31.2.1. Quantity, Wholesale Transactions.

(a) All engine fuels and non-engine fuels shall be sold, offered, or exposed for sale to wholesale 

customers either in terms of liquid volume in liters or gallons or barrels, or in terms of liquid 

volume automatically temperature corrected to 60 °F (15.56 °C) in liters or gallons or 

barrels.

(b) Effective January 1, 200X, all engine fuels and non-engine fuels shall be sold, offered, or 

exposed for sale to wholesale customers in terms of liquid volume automatically temperature 

corrected to 60 °F (15.56 °C) in liters or gallons or barrels.

(c) When engine fuels and non-engine fuels are sold temperature corrected to wholesale 

customers:

(1) Correction shall be made automatically for the fuel temperature either based on the fuel 

standard density and reference tables specified in Table 2.31.X. or based on the actual 

measured density of the fuel and using reference tables specified in Table 2.31.X.

L&R - 16 
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

(2) If using a measured density, the seller shall maintain records of the density 

determination for one year and shall make those records available for inspection by a 

weights and measures official on request during normal business hours.

(3) All primary indications of net volume quantities on measuring devices and all receipts, 

invoices, bills of lading, and other transfer documents shall clearly and conspicuously 

identify net volume quantities with the unit of measure and the terms “Volume 

corrected to 60 °F” or “Volume corrected to 15.56 °C.”

(4) Unless otherwise agreed to by both the buyer and seller in writing, engine fuels and nonengine fuels sold temperature corrected shall be sold in that manner over at least a 

consecutive 12-month period.

2.31.2.2. Quantity, Retail Transactions.

(a) Effective January 1, 2XXX, all engine fuels and non-engine fuels identified in Table 2.31.X 

shall be sold, offered, or exposed for sale to retail customers either in terms of liquid volume 

in liters or gallons, or in terms of liquid volume automatically temperature corrected to 

60 °F (15.56 °C) in liters or gallons.

(b) Effective January 1, 2XXX, all engine fuels and non-engine fuels identified in Table 2.31.X 

shall be sold, offered, or exposed for sale to retail customers in terms of liquid volume 

automatically temperature corrected to 60 °F (15.56 °C) in liters or gallons.

(c) When engine fuels and non-engine fuels are sold temperature corrected to retail customers:

(1) Correction shall be made automatically for the fuel temperature based on the fuel 

standard density and reference table in Table 2.31.X.

(2) All primary indications on measuring devices and all receipts, invoices, and other 

transfer documents shall clearly and conspicuously identify net volume quantities with 

the unit of measure and the terms “Volume corrected to 60 °F” or “Volume corrected to 

15.56 °C.”

(3) If a fuel is sold temperature corrected from a measuring device at a business or fleet 

location, all sales of the same fuel from that business or fleet location shall be sold 

temperature corrected over at least a consecutive 12-month period.

(4) All unit price advertisements shall be clearly and conspicuously marked with the term 

“ATC.”

L&R - 17 
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

Table 2.31.X. Reference Tables and Fuel Densities for Temperature Correction

Fuel

Reference Table for Wholesale 

or Retail Temperature 

Correction

Standard Fuel Density for 

Retail Transactions

(optional density for 

wholesale transactions)

Gasoline, gasolineoxygenate blends 

(3.7 mass % oxygen, max.), 

gasoline ethanol blends 

(10 vol. %, max.)

API Table 6b. 62 API (730 kg/m3

)

Diesel Fuel (grade 2-D),

biodiesel blends (20 vol. % 

biodiesel, max)

API Table 6b. 37 API (840 kg/m3

)

Other fuels TBD _ _

(Added 200X)

Part II. Permissive Temperature Compensation for Refined Petroleum Products and Other Fuels 

(The following text describes the original proposal which was returned to the Committee after it was not adopted at 

the 2007 NCWM Annual Meeting.) 

Sources: The Southern Weights and Measures Association (SWMA), the Western Weights and Measures 

Association (WWMA), and the Central Weights and Measures Association (CWMA). 

Note: This or similar proposals, which have been on the Committee’s agenda for several years, were reviewed by 

each of the regional weights and measures associations. The review process resulted in the submission of several 

different proposals and numerous comments and suggestions for the Committee to consider. Everyone expressed 

concern over the scope, cost, and impact of establishing a method of sale for petroleum products which required 

temperature compensation. This subject was widely discussed by the NCWM at public forums dating back more 

than 30 years. A similar proposal was made by NEWMA as recently as 2000, but the Committee withdrew it in 

2001. NEWMA noted at that time that Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Maine, and Canada permit temperaturecompensated sales of products such as home heating fuel and retail gasoline. Additional historic and background 

information is available in previous editions of the Committee’s agenda. For recent discussions on this subject, see 

Item 232-1 in the report of the 91st NCWM Annual Meeting (2006) on the Internet at www.nist.gov/owm. This 

information is also available from NIST WMD on a searchable DVD, NIST Special Publication 979 “Reports of the 

National Conference on Weights and Measures 1905 to 2007” (Spring 2008). 

Background: At its 2007 Interim Meeting, the Committee received correspondence from consumer groups and 

other organizations and heard testimony from weights and measures officials, the petroleum industry (including the 

American Petroleum Institute (API)), consumers and others regarding temperature compensation of refined 

petroleum products. The Committee appreciates all of the data, discussion, and especially the high level of interest. 

The Committee acknowledges the media attention this item has drawn, and the members were pleased to learn that 

some agricultural commissioners and other policy makers, as well as some governors and state attorneys general, 

have expressed interest in temperature compensation. 

Proponents for the item supported the need for an improvement in the accuracy of measurements of petroleum 

products because of their cost and of the need to improve accountability; opponents spoke to the cost of 

implementing temperature compensation and the potential for confusion in the marketplace. The Committee was 

made aware of legislation under consideration in Missouri and Texas that would establish different definitions for a 

gallon based on the ambient temperature in various areas of their states. The Committee was especially sensitive to 

L&R - 18 
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

concerns expressed by weights and measures inspectors about the potential cost and increased inspection time they 

may expend if temperature compensation is allowed in all applications, especially at the retail level. 

The Committee duly considered the presentations, discussions, letters, data, media stories, comments received at 

public hearings and in hallways, and the proposed legislation. The NCWM has posted this information and 

information on the activities of its ATC Steering Committee at www.ncwm.net. 

Following is a list of justifications for adopting a standard that will facilitate the implementation of an orderly yet 

permissive approach to allowing broader use of temperature compensation in the marketplace: 

• Cost of fuel has led to increased consumer and business interest in better methods of measurement, 

inventory control, and accountability. By now, everyone has realized or should realize that ambient 

temperatures are but one factor which impacts the volume of any liquid. Thus, basing a state’s 

temperature-compensation program on regional ambient temperatures is not a technically valid approach to 

addressing the issue. 

• The use of dual-wall storage tanks and deliveries of fuel directly from refineries result in higher 

temperature product. 

• Awareness and concerns over the impact of temperature on the cost of fuel has come about at the same time 

advances in technology such as electronics and software have made compensation possible in both new and 

existing measuring devices at lower costs. 

• Increased consumer requests that temperature compensation be used, especially in high volume deliveries, 

for improved measurement accuracy. 

• The dramatic growth of public interest in recent years is evidenced by articles in many newspapers and 

widely-read magazines such as Scientific American. This national conversation about energy has led to 

greater consumer awareness, as well as interest on the part of political leaders, of energy issues and has 

contributed to creating an opportunity for change. 

After a thorough discussion and polling by its chairman, the Committee was unanimous that it would recommend to 

the NCWM the adoption of a method of sale for refined petroleum products and other fuels. This would allow 

industry the option of selling these products on the basis of temperature-compensated sales. The decision to submit 

the permissive temperature-compensated method of sale for NCWM consideration was unanimous, the 

representative from the CWMA supported going forward with the recommendation but did not agree with including 

retail sales in the scope of the regulation. The Committee ultimately decided it was in the best interest of the U.S. 

commercial measurement system for the NCWM to adopt a standard that would provide guidance to states 

considering legislation in this area. This action would support the work of the Specifications and Tolerances 

Committee, the National Type Evaluation Program (NTEP), and others to develop technical requirements and test 

procedures for both type approval and field testing for devices equipped with temperature compensation. The 

Committee believed those efforts were critical to facilitating the introduction of temperature compensation to the 

marketplace, especially in NTEP states, as the NCWM learned there are no retail motor-fuel dispensers available 

with Certificates of Conformance that included temperature-compensation functions. 

The following topics/considerations were addressed by the Committee: 

1. Temperature Compensation was Already Legal for Use in Trade Unless Prohibited by State or Local 

Requirements. 

The Committee was aware that temperature compensation was already required or permitted in a number of states 

for vehicle-tank meters, liquefied petroleum gas, and wholesale deliveries to retailers, and that it had been used in 

the marketplace in these applications for decades. At the WWMA Annual Meeting, the State of California reported 

that for transactions involving 5000 gal or more, purchasers may request temperature compensation; Idaho said that 

for transactions involving 8000 gal or more, the purchaser had an option to buy, on a yearly basis, temperaturecompensated product and that all terminal transactions were temperature compensated; Arizona responded that any 

transactions involving more than 5000 gal must be compensated for temperature; and currently Hawaii is the only 

jurisdiction that has taken some action to account for temperature variations in retail sales. The Committee heard 

enough supportive comments from a broad base of weights and measures directors, inspectors, and metrologists to 

L&R - 19 
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

recognize that temperature compensation may find broad acceptance in the marketplace, especially once the 

potential benefits it offers were realized and implementation costs fall. 

The Committee also believed that unless prohibited by state law, temperature compensation at retail dispensers is 

already legal in most states. Additionally, the Committee believed it would be difficult to argue against a 

measurement practice that could only improve the accuracy and reproducibility of a volumetric measurement. The 

Committee position was that legal metrology must not stand in the way of the marketplace striving to change the 

way fuels and other products are marketed and sold. 

2. Under a Permissive Approach Consumers and Businesses Will Decide Where and When to Implement 

Temperature Compensation. 

The Committee was convinced the marketplace will best determine where and when the benefits from temperature 

compensation should be implemented to improve accuracy. The Committee recommended the adoption of a method 

of sale that would allow temperature compensation to be used in sales of petroleum products on a permissive

(voluntary) basis, allowing the marketplace (e.g., industry, consumers, and other government agencies) to decide if 

and when it was appropriate to use temperature compensation in specific commercial applications (e.g., sales at 

truck stops). This recommendation was proposed solely for the purpose of ensuring the delivery of an accurate 

volume of petroleum at a specific reference temperature. It was not the intent of the Committee to attempt to define 

a standard energy content of a liter or gallon of gasoline or other engine fuel with this recommendation. 

3. Temperature Compensation Would be Permissive, But Controlled. 

Although the Committee’s recommendation allowed for permissive use of temperature compensation, it included 

mandatory provisions requiring compensation be made by automatic means to ensure that the measured quantity is 

accurately determined. It also defined a temperature-compensated volume for both liters and gallons, requiring the 

posting of information on dispensers, street signs, and on documents to ensure full disclosure and fair competition. 

Additionally, it required a business location to have all of the devices operating on temperature compensation on a 

year-round basis unless a written waiver was granted by the Director. 

4. The Basis of the Committee’s Recommendation Was the Proposal from the WWMA. 

The Committee’s recommendation was based on the proposal submitted by the WWMA, which was developed at its 

2006 Annual Meeting in Salt Lake City, Utah. The Committee made several amendments to the proposal, but found 

it represented a well-reasoned foundation for the recommendation presented below. The CWMA L&R Committee 

supported the WWMA’s proposal and supported submitting it to the NCWM for a vote. The CWMA agreed with 

the WWMA that temperature compensation, which is currently utilized at every step of distribution except for retail 

sales is the most equitable method of sale. Additionally, the CWMA believed the proposal should not be restricted 

to petroleum products, but should also include alternative fuels such as E85, biodiesel and biodiesel blends. The 

Committee’s recommendation incorporated some of the CWMA’s suggestions and included additional requirements 

to address many of the concerns raised at the 2007 NCWM Interim Meeting open hearings and discussions. For the 

purpose of this recommendation, the Committee used the definition for “refined petroleum products” as presented in 

Handbook 130 Uniform Engine Fuels, Petroleum Products, and Automotive Lubricants Inspection Law which reads, 

“products obtained from distilling and processing of petroleum (crude oil), unfinished oils, recycled oils, natural gas 

liquids, refinery blend stocks, and other miscellaneous hydrocarbon compounds,” with the understanding that its 

intent was that the requirements would also apply when petroleum was blended with other products such as ethanol. 

5. Full Disclosure Will Allow Informed Consumers to Make Value Comparisons. 

The Committee believes that consumers, when educated through marketing and outreach efforts, will accept new 

technology and measurement practices. When provided with sound information, consumers will gain confidence 

that government oversight will prevent deceptive practices. The Committee believes that full disclosure provisions 

of the method of sale will reduce both unfair competition and consumer confusion. If, for example, a truck stop 

offers temperature-compensated sales of diesel fuel through high-speed dispensers for truckers, the road signs with 

price per unit of volume (e.g., gallon or liter) and dispensers must include a declaration that the volume is sold on 

the basis of temperature compensation. If the price per gallon is higher or lower than the usual price per gallon, 

L&R - 20 
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

consumers will be informed that the volume was compensated to a reference temperature. Several people expressed 

concern over marketplace confusion if diesel fuel is sold on the basis of both compensated and uncompensated 

volume. It is incorrect to say that there would be two methods of sale for the same product under this 

recommendation, just as it is inaccurate to say that some consumers will not receive a “full” gallon if temperature 

compensation is used, as some opponents to this method of sale have claimed. The reality is that consumers will be 

able to compare price per gallon between stations and they will receive a “full” gallon as defined under the Method 

of Sale of Commodities Regulation. While confusion is possible with any method of sale, the Committee was not 

deterred by that possibility. If confusion occurs, the proper response is to educate consumers and address any 

changes identified from the confusion through further refinement of the method of sale. In this application, full 

disclosure will inform consumers that one product is sold on the basis of temperature compensation and one is not. 

When consumers are educated, they can make sound value comparisons between these choices just as they already 

make decisions when choosing between different brand name products, octane ratings, additive offerings, and types 

of fuels. Business and industry is also well equipped and very experienced in educating its customers whenever they 

introduce new products or services to the marketplace. Should they decide to use the method of sale, they should be 

sure to introduce it using an informative marketing effort. 

The Committee was urged to clarify that there may be situations in which there is a valid contract where the price is 

based on the fuel being sold on the basis of uncompensated measurement. The Committee agreed with the comment 

that if a purchaser operating under such a contract fills up at a location where the dispensers are temperature 

compensated, the contract should prevail in those transactions. Similarly, the American Petroleum Institute (API) 

said that the Committee should permit either uncompensated or compensated methods of sale at loading-rack meters 

when such sales are under contract. The Committee believes its proposal will not interfere with the contracts or 

understandings that API described. 

6. Costs 

The Committee heard from some users that the lack of temperature compensation was costing them great sums of 

money, while industry representatives said the cost of equipment and installation will cost industry and, ultimately, 

consumers even larger amounts of money. The cost of any NCWM action is a concern to the Committee, which 

must defend its actions on both sides of any issue. However, it is very difficult to give each side everything it wants 

in any recommendation. While the Committee was concerned about cost, it was skeptical of the economic claims 

from both sides in this debate. For example, at the 2007 Interim Meeting one estimate of the cost of implementing 

temperature compensation dropped nearly two billion dollars once industry learned that an alternative technology 

was available in the marketplace. 

That example is but one illustration of the weaknesses the Committee saw in cost or damage claims over the years. 

The issue dates back to the Committee’s work in the 1990s on the price verification procedures where some groups 

claimed that supermarkets were overcharging consumers billions of dollars a year. The Committee never saw data 

that supported such claims; yet the damage values received wide notice in the media. Some members of the NCWM 

may remember the claims made during Congressional consideration of the Metric Conversion Act of 1975 that 

changing to the metric system would cost billions of dollars. In reality those high costs never materialized, which 

was confirmed through several reliable studies. One reason Congress made conversion to the metric system 

voluntary was to allow industry to make changes as part of their normal equipment replacement cycle. The 

automotive industry, for instance, found it cost effective to make the change to metric units when purchasing 

replacement equipment. Advancements in technology also made conversions easier or allowed dual-unit displays on 

equipment as standard features. These factors were key contributors in reducing costs. 

Each State Director in the NCWM, not the Committee, determines whether or not to incorporate what is adopted by 

the NCWM into his state law or regulations. Even states that adopt the Method of Sale of Commodities Regulation 

by reference or citation can take action to exclude a specific section of a uniform regulation that conflicts with other 

requirements or policies. As for taking time for additional study, the NCWM record on consideration of the issue of 

temperature compensation dates back to the mid-1970s and has arisen for consideration every few years since then. 

The Committee was aware of the history, the issues, the various points of view, and the potential costs of 

temperature compensation, and believed it was time for the NCWM to move forward on temperature compensation 

by establishing standards by which this method of sale can be brought into the marketplace on a voluntary, yet 

L&R - 21 
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

controlled, basis. The Committee also heard that no action should be taken pending further studies. The Committee 

was wary of calls for no action pending another study or action by Congress. 

As one speaker alluded to in his presentation, the marketplace is to some degree “intelligent” in that it helps address 

many factors through its price-setting function and can generally be trusted to balance costs and prices as well as 

justify investment in new technology and marketing practices if there is a need, demand, or opportunity. A 

voluntary approach will allow early adopters to develop experience and pull advances in technology into the 

equipment market while competition and other factors will reduce costs even further if the method of sale is broadly 

adopted. The Committee believed a permissive approach to temperature compensation turned the choice over to the 

marketplace where, if consumer demand was sufficient, sellers would make a business decision to invest in the 

technology and marketing according to the new method of sale when the benefits offset costs. 

7. Limiting the Option of Temperature Compensation to Specific Applications 

The Committee received suggestions that temperature compensation be limited to certain applications or not allowed 

in retail sales, but it did not hear sufficient justification for taking such positions. Temperature compensation is not 

new to the commercial measurement system. It is widely used in wholesale transactions in many jurisdictions, and 

consumers in many states have purchased LPG and oil for heating and other uses for decades on the basis of 

temperature-compensated sales. No information was presented to the Committee indicating that its use in those 

applications has been anything but successful. The Committee recognizes that verifying devices with temperature 

compensation may require additional inspection time and require weights and measures officials to purchase 

thermometers or other equipment for testing. However, those factors are not sufficient justification to prohibit the 

marketplace from implementing this method of sale. If a jurisdiction adopts this method of sale and a business 

decides to use temperature compensation, the weights and measures agency would need to obtain funding to 

implement appropriate testing procedures to verify devices. However, the Committee would expect that innovation, 

risk-based testing, and random sampling techniques, as well as technology, would lessen the time required to 

conduct additional tests, just as those factors have reduced the burden of testing many weighing and measuring 

instruments in the past. 

8. Permissive vs. Mandatory Implementation 

The Committee heard from the regional associations and others that temperature-compensated sales should be 

implemented on a permissive basis. The Committee opposed the inclusion of a future mandatory date at this time. 

The Committee believed temperature-compensated sales should be market driven and that suppliers will conduct 

sales on a compensated basis when consumers demand it and should not be required to do so before then. The 

Committee, based on the comments of many jurisdictions, believed the imposition of a mandatory requirement was 

too burdensome on the industry, requiring upgrades and possibly the replacement of many meters without adequate 

justification. 

The Committee agreed that a mandatory requirement would not be justified at this point in time. The Committee 

felt it was important to get some form of regulation regarding temperature-compensated sales of petroleum into 

Handbook 130 and thought as many barriers as possible should be removed in order to achieve that goal. Although 

the Committee’s recommendation is a permissive requirement for temperature-compensated sales, the Committee 

was willing to consider establishing future mandatory dates if a justified need was demonstrated after this 

permissive regulation was implemented and used for a period of time. 

9. Comments Reviewed by the Committee at the 2007 Annual Meeting 

a. The Committee noted if the temperature compensation proposal was adopted at the 2007 Annual Meeting, 

it would go into effect January 1, 2008, in the eighteen jurisdictions that indicated they automatically adopt 

that regulation by reference or citation (see 2008 Edition of NIST Handbook 130, “II Uniformity of Laws 

and Regulations” (page 9) for a list of those states). The Committee recognized that if the recommendation 

was adopted in July 2007, some jurisdictions might want to delay its implementation or exempt that 

particular section from being automatically adopted. Since rulemaking typically takes longer than six 

months to complete, the Committee debated whether or not it should include a delayed effective date of 

July 1, 2009, for this regulation but took no action on this issue. 

L&R - 22 
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

b. The Committee discussed the subject of unscrupulous retailers artificially heating fuels and that this 

deceptive practice has occurred from time to time. Arizona actually forbids the practice; however, the 

Committee did not address that issue in the following recommendation. The Committee considered 

whether a prohibition on the artificial heating of fuels for the purpose of increasing volume at the time of 

sale should be added to the recommendation, but no action was taken on this issue. 

c. The Committee asked to receive comments on whether or not the recommendation should allow the state 

director to grant (and, when justified, revoke) written waivers to some provisions if sufficient justification 

was provided by the business owner. The Committee discussed whether or not the requirement that all 

devices that dispense product at a single location might result in a hardship for some retailers or difficulties 

in implementing the new method of sale for specific customers (e.g., over-the-road truckers). For example, 

if a station decided to sell gasoline and diesel fuel on a temperature-compensated basis but also had a 

dispenser for K-1 Kerosene, from which limited sales were made, a waiver from the temperaturecompensation requirement on all dispensers could be justified. Likewise, if a chain of truck stops decided 

to sell diesel fuel on a temperature-compensated basis through its high-output dispensers to truckers 

(e.g., its prime customers), but did not want to implement temperature-compensated sales through its 

gasoline dispensers, a waiver could also be justified. The purpose of the requirement that all devices at a 

single location either be temperature compensated or not was to prevent a retailer from selling through the 

compensated or uncompensated dispensers when it benefited the seller. The Committee agreed flexibility 

was warranted and could make acceptance of the method of sale easier to implement, but took no action on 

this issue. 

Committee Recommendation: Amend the Method of Sale of Commodities Regulation in Handbook 130 by 

adding a new Section 2.30. Refined Petroleum Products: 

2.30. Refined Petroleum Products – Permissive Temperature Compensation.

2.30.1. Where not in conflict with other statutes or regulations, these products may be sold on the 

basis of temperature-compensated volume.

2.30.2. When products are sold on the basis of temperature compensated volume:

(a) All sales shall be in terms of liters or gallons with the delivered volume adjusted to 15 °C or 

gallons with the delivered volume adjusted to 60 °F;

(b) Temperature compensation must be accomplished through automatic means.

2.30.3. Full Disclosure Requirements.

2.30.3.1. The primary indicating elements of measuring devices, recording elements, and all 

recorded or display representations (e.g., receipts, invoices, bills of lading, etc.) shall be clearly and 

conspicuously marked to show that the product was delivered on the basis of temperature 

compensated volume;

2.30.3.2. When a product is offered for sale on the basis of temperature compensated volume, street 

signs or other advertisements of its unit price must clearly and conspicuously indicate that the 

volume is temperature compensated.

2.30.4. Other Provisions.

2.30.4.1. At a business location all sales on a temperature-compensated basis shall be made 

continuously and for a period of not less than 12 months (e.g., a person may not engage the automatic 

temperature compensator on a device only during certain times of the year to prevent the person 

from taking advantage of temperature compensation).

L&R - 23 
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

2.30.4.2. At a business location which offers products for sale on the basis of a temperature 

compensated volume, all measuring devices shall dispense on the basis of temperature compensated 

volume (e.g., a person must not operate some devices at a location with automatic temperature 

compensators and others without compensators to prevent them from taking advantage of 

temperature variations).

Annotations: 

1. As defined in Handbook 130 Engine Fuels, Petroleum Products, and Automotive Lubricants 

Inspection Law, refined petroleum products are products obtained from distilling and processing of 

petroleum (crude oil), unfinished oils, recycled oils, natural gas liquids, refinery blend stocks, and 

other miscellaneous hydrocarbon compounds as well as biofuels such as E85 and biodiesel at various 

blends.

2. A temperature compensated liter is defined as having a reference temperature of 15 °C and a 

temperature compensated gallon is defined as 231 in3 at a reference temperature of 60 °F;

3. When a product is sold on the basis of a temperature-compensated volume, it is typically called “net” 

or “net volume,” whereas the volume before compensation is called the “gross” or “gross volume.”

4. The metric units are shown solely for the purpose of showing metric equivalents in this uniform 

regulation in this NIST handbook. There is no requirement that dual units be shown in any full 

disclosure information required under this section.

5. Temperature Compensation may be abbreviated (e.g., “Temp Comp,” or “Compensated to 60 °F”) 

in the interest of space as long as its meaning is clear.

6. The seller is not prohibited from providing both gross and net gallons on receipts, invoices, bills of 

lading or other documentation as long as it is not misleading or deceptive.

7. A “business location” means a single outlet and should not be interpreted to mean all of the outlets or 

locations that a business or company operates in a jurisdiction.

232-2 V Biodiesel Labeling 

(This item was adopted) 

Source: Central Weights and Measures Association (CWMA) (See Item 232.3 in the Report of the 92nd Annual 

NCWM Meeting in 2006) 

Committee Recommendation: Add Section 3.15. “Biodiesel Labeling,” which is presented in the proposed 

revision to the Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants Regulation in Item 237-1, to the Method of Sale of 

Commodities Regulation. 

2.31. Biodiesel and Biodiesel Blends.

2.31.1. Identification of Product. – Biodiesel shall be identified by the term “Biodiesel” followed with the 

designation “B100.” Biodiesel bBlends shall be identified by the term “Biodiesel Blend.”

2.31.2. Labeling of Retail Dispensers.

2.31.2.1. Labeling of Grade Required. – Biodiesel shall be identified by the grades S15 or S500. 

Biodiesel Blends shall be identified by the grades No. 1-D, No. 2-D, or No. 4-D.

L&R - 24 
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

2.31.2.2. EPA Labeling Requirements Also Apply. – Retailers and wholesale purchaser-consumers 

of biodiesel blends shall comply with EPA pump labeling requirements for sulfur under 

40 CFR § 80.570.

2.31.2.3. Automotive Fuel Rating. – Biodiesel and Biodiesel Blends shall be labeled with its 

automotive fuel rating in accordance with 16 CFR Part 306.

2.31.2.4. Biodiesel Blends. – When Biodiesel Blends greater than 20 % by volume are offered by 

sale, each side of the dispenser where fuel can be delivered shall have a label conspicuously placed 

that states “Consult Vehicle Manufacturer Fuel Recommendations.”

The lettering of this legend shall not be less than 6 mm (1⁄4 in) in height by 0.8 mm (1

/32 in) stroke; 

block style letters and the color shall be in definite contrast to the background color to which it is 

applied.

2.31.3. Documentation for Dispenser Labeling Purposes. – The retailer shall be provided, at the time of 

delivery of the fuel, a declaration of the volume percent biodiesel on an invoice, bill of lading, shipping 

paper, or other document. This documentation is for dispenser labeling purposes only; it is the 

responsibility of any potential blender to determine the amount of biodiesel in the diesel fuel prior to 

blending.

2.31.4. Exemption. – Biodiesel Blends that contain less than or equal to 5 % biodiesel by volume are 

exempt from the requirements of Sections 2.31.1, 2.31.2, and 2.31.3. when it is sold as diesel fuel.

(Added 2008)

2.31.2. Containing Between More Than 5 % and Up To and Including 20 % Biodiesel. – Each retail 

dispenser of biodiesel blend containing more than 5 % and up to and including 20 % biodiesel shall be 

labeled with either:

2.31.2.1.The capital letter “B” followed by the numerical value representing the volume percentage 

of biodiesel fuel and ending with “biodiesel blend.” (e.g., B10 biodiesel blend; B20 biodiesel blend), 

or;

2.31.2.2.The phrase “biodiesel blend between 5 % and 20 %” or similar words.

2.31.3. Labeling of Retail Dispensers Containing Biodiesel Blend More Than 20 % Biodiesel. – Each 

retail dispenser of biodiesel blend containing more than 20 % biodiesel shall be labeled with the capital 

letter “B” followed by the numerical value representing the volume percentage of biodiesel fuel and 

ending with “biodiesel blend.” (e.g., B60 biodiesel blend).

2.31.4. Additional Labeling Requirements. – The dispenser shall be labeled with “Consult Manufacturer 

fuel recommendations.”

2.31.5. Documentation for Dispenser Labeling Purposes. – The retailer shall be provided, at the time of 

delivery of the fuel, with a declaration of the volume percent biodiesel on an invoice, bill of lading, 

shipping paper, or other document. This documentation is for dispenser labeling purposes only; it is the 

responsibility of any potential blender to determine the amount of biodiesel in the diesel fuel prior to 

blending.

2.31.6. Exemption. – Biodiesel blends containing 5 % or less biodiesel by volume are exempted from the 

requirements of Sections 2.31.1. through 2.31.5.

(Added 200X)

L&R - 25 
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

Background/Discussion: The Committee does not believe this proposal will impose any new requirements. 

However, by including these requirements in the Method of Sale of Commodities Regulation, the Committee is 

obligated to give notice that the requirements will become effective on January 1 of the year following adoption in 

the eighteen jurisdictions which indicate they automatically adopt that regulation by reference or citation (see the 

2008 Edition of NIST Handbook 130, “II Uniformity of Laws and Regulations” [page 9] for a list of those states). 

These requirements have already been adopted and are published in the Engine Fuels, Petroleum Products, and 

Automotive Lubricants Regulation in Handbook 130. 

Section 2.20. within the Method of Sale of Commodities Regulation in Handbook 130, currently contains 

requirements for the disclosure of oxygenates in gasoline blends. Included are requirements for the disclosure of 

biodiesel and biodiesel blends and consistent practices that should be required to ensure consumers are fully 

informed when making purchasing decisions. 

The Committee received numerous comments in support of this item and heard from the National Biodiesel Board 

(NBB) that, in general, supported this item. However, the NBB requested the Committee keep this item on its 

agenda as an Informational item until ASTM finalizes its biodiesel specifications. Waiting for the ASTM biodiesel 

standard before moving this item forward for a vote will ensure there is no conflict with those specifications. 

At its 2006 Annual Meeting, the WWMA L&R Committee received no comments regarding this item. The WWMA 

supported the NBB request to keep this item as Informational pending ASTM action. The WWMA concurred that 

waiting for adoption of the ASTM specifications will prevent conflicts in the final labeling requirement for 

biodiesel. At a recent CWMA meeting, a few comments were received that the biodiesel label requirement should 

include percentages below 5 %. An update on activity within ASTM to develop a stability specification for B100 

was provided. After negative votes were addressed, ballots were circulated to add a B5 limit to the D975 diesel 

specification and to establish a B20 specification. 

At the 2007 Interim Meeting, the CWMA and others recommended the Committee keep this proposal on hold until 

ASTM finalized its work on the biodiesel blend specifications. In response to those suggestions, the Committee 

agreed to separate this item from the Fuel Ethanol requirements and carried this item forward as an Informational 

item. At the Annual Meeting, several people called for this item to be presented for a vote at the 2008 Annual 

Meeting and asked the Petroleum Subcommittee to encourage all stakeholders to move quickly to resolve their 

concerns so this important consumer protection requirement can be adopted by the NCWM. 

Information on the consideration of this item by the Regional Associations following the NCWM 

Annual Meeting in July 2007 is presented below. 

At the fall 2007 meetings of the CWMA and NEWMA and the WWMA meeting, a representative from the National 

Biodiesel Board expressed support for the item as presented. The CWMA and SWMA recommended that additional 

labeling be required for fuels containing more than 5 % biodiesel and the dispenser be labeled with “Consult 

manufacturer fuel recommendations.” 

The CWMA also recommended the following wording:

2.XX.2. Labeling of Retail Dispensers Containing More Than 5 % and Up To and Including 20 % 

Between 5 % and 20 % Biodiesel. – Each retail dispenser of biodiesel blend containing more than 

5 % and up to and including 20 % biodiesel shall be labeled with either:

The SWMA recommends that the proposal be amended based on discussions with the Fuel and Lubricants 

Subcommittee at the NCWM Annual Meeting. The Subcommittee is working on further revisions to this section 

and recommendations. The following language is being considered to require additional labeling for fuels 

containing more than 5 % biodiesel: The dispenser shall be labeled with “Consult manufacturer fuel 

recommendations”. 

L&R - 26 
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

2.XX. Biodiesel. 

2.XX.1. Identification of Product. – Biodiesel shall be identified by the term “Biodiesel” followed 

with the designation “B100.” Biodiesel blends shall be identified by the term “Biodiesel Blend.”

At the 2008 Interim Meeting, the Committee learned that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) would publish a 

similar biodiesel labeling regulation later this summer. The Committee will work with the Fuels and Lubricants 

Subcommittee to ensure that this item is revised and consistent with the FTC requirements. 

At the CWMA 2008 Annual Meeting it was mentioned that the language should not conflict with the finalized 

language that will be issued by FTC. A member of the National Biodiesel Board (NBB) commented that he sent 

comments to FTC opposing the inclusion of “biomass” in the label. A regulatory official also opposed the 

exemption for fuels containing 5 % or less biodiesel. An industry representative requested that this item be made 

Informational, since retailers may not be able to identify the percentage of biodiesel blended due to a lack of 

disclosure through the chain of distribution. This representative would support the following language “may contain 

up to 5 %.” 

At the NEWMA 2008 Annual Meeting, the Association agreed that the language should not conflict with the 

finalized language from FTC. A state Director recommended changing the term “retailer” to the word “purchaser.” 

The Director believes that the buyer/purchaser should be provided, at the time of delivery a declaration of the 

maximum volume percent of the product purchased. NEWMA also was opposed to the disclosure exempting fuels 

containing 5 % or less biodiesel. There was concern that warranties on motor vehicles may be voided due to the 

mixing of fuel that contains less than 5 % biodiesel with other fuels. There was also concern regarding the chain of 

custody of fuels for the purpose of enforcement. Issues would be minimized when a buyer knows that the maximum 

of 5 % biodiesel disclosure requirements are in place and provided by a seller. The Committee would like to review 

the final FTC proposal and to see if any information is distributed after the FALS meeting in Vancouver, Canada in 

June 2008. 

On July 11, 2008, FTC released its final rule (Federal Register/Vol, 73, No. 134, Friday July 11, 2008, 

[40154-40165]). The Fuels and Lubricants Subcommittee worked on language similar to the FTC language for the 

biodiesel and biodiesel blends. At the 2008 Annual Meeting, the Committee heard comments regarding the lack of 

regulation for blends that contain less than 5 % biodiesel. However, labeling for blends less than 5 % was not 

necessary because the ASTM standard requires this type of product to meet requirements for diesel fuel. The FALS 

representative reported that biodiesel is frequently added to diesel fuel in concentrations up to 2 % to increase 

lubricity. 

L&R - 27 
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

237 ENGINE FUELS, PETROLEUM PRODUCTS AND AUTOMOTIVE 

LUBRICANTS INSPECTION REGULATION 

237-1 V Revision of the Engine Fuels, Petroleum Products and Automotive Lubricants Inspection 

Regulation 

(This item was adopted) 

Source: Fuels and Lubricants Subcommittee (FALS) (formerly the Petroleum Subcommittee) 

Background/Discussion: The Subcommittee recommends the title of the uniform regulation be amended by 

deleting reference to petroleum products (and the related definition) to recognize the use of alternative and 

renewable fuels in the marketplace. Editorial revisions were also made to reflect the name change of the Society of 

Automotive Engineers to SAE International. The ASTM International standard identification was also changed to 

be consistent with that now used by ASTM by deleting the space between the letter and number of a standard 

throughout the regulation (e.g., D 4814 is shown as D4814). Among the other proposed changes is a revised 

definition for Reformulated Fuels and new definitions for “Lubricant” and “MTBE.” The addition of a second 

ASTM International standard for Aviation Gasoline is also proposed. A change in Section 3.3. “Diesel Fuel” is 

recommended so that the regulation acknowledges EPA dispenser labeling requirements. Additional information is 

proposed for other sections to either clarify or correct references to other standards. The Subcommittee is 

recommending that E85 dispensers bear a label to encourage consumers to consult their engine manufacturer’s 

recommendations on the appropriate fuel to use in their vehicle and amendments to the M85 labeling requirements 

are also suggested. There is a new subsection proposed for Section 4 to provide requirements for Dispenser Filters. 

The Subcommittee could not agree on a variety of proposed revisions to Section 2.1. Proposed changes have been 

submitted for the Committee to consider as a separate item and are presented in Item 237-2 in this agenda. 

Ron Hayes, FALS Chairperson, can be contacted at (573) 751-2922 or at ron.hayes@mda.mo.gov. 

The Subcommittee met on January 24, 2007, at the Interim Meeting in Jacksonville, Florida, to undertake a review 

of a number of significant issues related to fuel standards. One of its first projects was a review of the Uniform 

Engine Fuels, Petroleum Products, and Automotive Lubricants Regulation in NIST Handbook 130. The goal of the 

Subcommittee was to prepare a draft revision of this regulation for consideration by the Committee at the 2008 

Interim Meeting. The Subcommittee also reviewed the Engine Fuels, Petroleum Products, and Automotive 

Lubricants Law, and a draft revision of the law is presented in Item 223-1 above. 

The Subcommittee met at the 2007 Annual Meeting and continued its work on a number of items, including a 

substantive revision of the fuel ethanol labeling requirement that the NCWM adopted at that meeting. The 

Subcommittee met again on December 5, 2007, at the ASTM International Meeting in Phoenix, Arizona, and held a 

conference call on January 15, 2008, in order to complete its work on the draft revisions of the law and regulation 

that it presented to the L&R Committee at the NCWM 2008 Interim Meeting. 

At the 2008 Interim Meeting, the Fuels and Lubricants Subcommittee presented their final update of the Engine 

Fuels, Petroleum Products and Automotive Inspection Regulation. The Subcommittee had met various times 

throughout the year either in person or by teleconference. In advance of the Interim Meeting, they distributed their 

report to the Committee, state Weights and Measures Directors, and other stakeholders for review and comment. 

Some comments were received during the public hearing and in writing (see Appendix B). 

At the CWMA 2008 Annual Meeting a comment was made by an industry representative that refiners cannot meet 

the minimum vapor pressure requirements referenced in ASTM D5798 (specification for E85). ASTM is aware of 

this issue and is working on this specification. 

At the NEWMA 2008 Annual Meeting there was question on the wording under Section 4.3. The Committee 

agreed that this section should be in sub-sets for clarification. 

L&R - 28 
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

Committee Recommendation: Adopt the revised Uniform Fuels and Automotive Lubricants Law as presented in 

the following text:

Uniform Engine Fuels Petroleum Products and Automotive Lubricants Regulation 

as adopted by 

The National Conference on Weights and Measures∗

1. Background

In 1984, the National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM)1

 adopted a Section 2.20. in the Uniform 

Regulation for the Method of Sale of Commodities requiring that motor fuels containing alcohol be labeled to 

disclose to the retail purchaser that the fuel contains alcohol. The delegates deemed this action necessary since 

motor vehicle manufacturers were qualifying their warranties with respect to some gasoline-alcohol blends, motor 

fuel users were complaining to weights and measures officials about fuel quality and vehicle performance, and 

ASTM International (ASTM) had not yet finalized quality standards for oxygenated (which includes alcoholcontaining) fuels. While a few officials argued weights and measures officials should not cross the line from 

quantity assurance programs to programs regulating quality, the delegates were persuaded that the issue needed 

immediate attention. 

A Motor Fuels Task Force was appointed in 1984 to develop mechanisms for achieving uniformity in the evaluation 

and regulation of motor fuels. The Task Force developed the Uniform Motor Fuel Inspection Law (See the 

Uniform Motor Uniform Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants Inspection Law section of this handbook) 

and the Uniform Motor Fuel Engine Fuel and Automotive Lubricants Regulation to accompany the law. The 

Uniform Law required registration and certification of motor fuel as meeting ASTM standards. The regulation 

defined the ASTM standards to be applied to motor fuel. 

In 1992 the NCWM established the Petroleum Subcommittee under the Laws and Regulations Committee. The 

Subcommittee recommended major revisions to the Regulation that was adopted at the 80th NCWM in 1995. The 

scope of the regulation was expanded to include all engine fuels, petroleum products, and automotive lubricants; its 

title was changed accordingly; and the fuel specifications and method of sale sections were revised to address the 

additional products. Other changes included expansion of the definitions section and addition of sections on retail 

storage tanks, condemned product, registration of engine fuels designed for special use, and test methods and 

reproducibility limits. 

In 2007 the Petroleum Subcommittee (now referred to as the Fuels and Lubricants Subcommittee) undertook 

a review of this regulation to update it by eliminating reference to “petroleum products” and to reflect the 

addition of new engine fuels to the marketplace.

At the 2008 NCWM Interim Meeting the Laws and Regulations Committee changed the Petroleum 

Subcommittee’s name to the Fuels and Lubricants Subcommittee (FALS) in recognition of its work with a 

wide variety of fuels including petroleum and biofuels.

2. Status of Promulgation

The Uniform Regulation for Engine Fuels, Petroleum Products, and Automotive Lubricants was adopted by the 

NCWM in 1995 and the latest amendments were proposed in 2008. The status of state actions with respect to 

this regulation is shown in the table beginning on page 10. 

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

Technology in partial implementation of its statutory responsibility for “cooperation with the states in securing 

uniformity in weights and measures laws and methods of inspection.”

L&R - 29 
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

Uniform Engine Fuels, Petroleum Products, and Automotive Lubricants Regulation 

Section 1. Definitions 

1.1. ASTM International (ASTM). – the international voluntary consensus standards organization formed for the 

development of standards on characteristics and performance of materials, products, systems, and services, and the 

promotion of related knowledge (www.astm.org). 

1.2. Antiknock Index (AKI). – the arithmetic average of the Research Octane Number (RON) and Motor Octane 

Number (MON): AKI = (RON+MON)/2. This value is called by a variety of names, in addition to antiknock index, 

including: octane rating, posted octane, (R+M)/2 octane. 

1.3. Automatic Transmission Fluid. – a product intended for use in a passenger vehicle, other than a bus, as either 

a lubricant, coolant, or liquid medium in any type of fluid automatic transmission that contains a torque converter. 

For the purposes of this regulation, fluids intended for use in continuously variable transmissions are not considered 

“Automatic Transmission Fluid.” 

(Added 2004) 

1.4. Automotive Fuel Rating. – the automotive fuel rating required under the amended Octane Certification and 

Posting Rule (or as amended, the Fuel Rating Rule), 16 CFR Part 306. Under this Rule, sellers of liquid automotive 

fuels, including alternative fuels, must determine, certify, and post an appropriate automotive fuel rating. The 

automotive fuel rating for gasoline is the antiknock index (octane rating). The automotive fuel rating for alternative 

liquid fuels consists of the common name of the fuel, along with a disclosure of the amount, expressed as a 

minimum percentage by volume percent of the principal component of the fuel. For alternative liquid automotive 

fuels, a disclosure of other components, expressed as a minimum percentage by volume percent, may be included, 

if desired. 

1.5. Automotive Gasoline, Automotive Gasoline-Oxygenate Blend. – a type of fuel suitable for use in sparkignition automobile engines and also commonly used in marine and non-automotive applications. 

1.6. Aviation Gasoline. – a type of gasoline suitable for use as a fuel in an aviation spark-ignition internal 

combustion engine. 

1.7. Aviation Turbine Fuel. – a refined middle distillate suitable for use as a fuel in an aviation gas turbine internal 

combustion engine. 

1.8. Base Gasoline. – all components other than ethanol in a blend of gasoline and ethanol. 

1.9. Biodiesel. – a fuel comprised of mono-alkyl esters of long chain fatty acids derived from vegetable oils or 

animal fats, designated B100. 

1.10. Biodiesel Blend. – a fuel comprised of a blend of biodiesel fuel with petroleum-based diesel fuel, designated 

BXX. In the abbreviation BXX, the XX represents the volume percentage of biodiesel fuel in the blend. 

1.11. Cetane Index. – approximation of the cetane number of distillate diesel fuel, which does not contain a 

cetane improver additive, calculated from the density and distillation measurements.

1.121.11. Cetane Number. – a numerical measure of the ignition performance of a diesel fuel obtained by 

comparing it to reference fuels in a standardized engine test. 

1.13. 1.12. Compressed Natural Gas (CNG). – natural gas which has been compressed and dispensed into fuel 

storage containers and is suitable for use as an engine fuel. 

1.14. 1.13. Denatured Fuel Ethanol. – “ethanol” as defined in Section 1.20. 

L&R - 30 
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

1.15.1.14. Diesel Fuel. – a refined middle distillate suitable for use as a fuel in a compression-ignition (diesel) 

internal combustion engine. 

1.16.1.15. Distillate. – any product obtained by condensing the vapors given off by boiling petroleum or its 

products. 

1.17.1.16. EPA. – the United States Environmental Protection Agency (www.epa.gov). 

1.18.1.17. E85 Fuel Ethanol. – a blend of ethanol and hydrocarbons of which the ethanol portion is nominally 

85 to 75 volume percent denatured fuel ethanol. 

1.19.1.18. Engine Fuel. – any liquid or gaseous matter used for the generation of power in an internal combustion 

engine. 

1.20.1.19. Engine Fuels Designed for Special Use. – engine fuels designated by the Director as requiring 

registration. These fuels normally do not have ASTM or other national consensus standards applying to their quality 

or usability; common special fuels are racing fuels and those intended for agricultural and other off-road 

applications. 

1.21.1.20. Ethanol. – (also known as “Denatured Fuel Ethanol”) a nominally anhydrous ethyl alcohol meeting 

ASTM D4806 standards. It is intended to be blended with gasoline for use as a fuel in a spark-ignition internal 

combustion engine. The denatured fuel ethanol is first made unfit for drinking by the addition of the Alcohol and 

Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) (www.ttb.gov) Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF)

approved substances before blending with gasoline. 

1.22.1.21. Fuel Oil. – a refined oil middle distillates, heavy distillates, or residues of refining, or blends of these, 

suitable for use as a fuel for heating or power generation, the classification of which shall be defined by ASTM 

D396. 

1.23.1.22. Gasoline. – a volatile mixture of liquid hydrocarbons generally containing small amounts of additives 

suitable for use as a fuel in a spark-ignition internal combustion engine. 

1.24.1.23. Gasoline-Alcohol Blend. – a fuel consisting primarily of gasoline and a substantial amount (more than 

0.35 mass percent of oxygen, or more than 0.15 mass percent of oxygen if methanol is the only oxygenate) of one or 

more alcohols. 

1.25.1.24. Gasoline Gallon Equivalent (GGE). – gasoline gallon equivalent (GGE) means 2.567 kg (5.660 lb) of 

natural gas. 

1.26.1.25. Gasoline Liter Equivalent (GLE). – gasoline liter equivalent (GLE) means 0.678 kg (1.495 lb) of 

natural gas. 

1.27.1.26. Gasoline-Oxygenate Blend. – a fuel consisting primarily of gasoline along with a substantial amount 

(more than 0.35 mass percent of oxygen, or more than 0.15 mass percent of oxygen if methanol is the only 

oxygenate) of one or more oxygenates. 

1.28.1.27. Gear Oil. – an oil used to lubricate gears, axles, or some manual transmissions. 

(Added 2004) 

1.29.1.28. Kerosene. – (or “Kerosine”) a refined middle distillate suitable for use as a fuel for heating or 

illuminating, the classification of which shall be defined by ASTM D3699. 

1.30.1.29. Lead Substitute. – an EPA-registered gasoline additive suitable, when added in small amounts to fuel, to 

reduce or prevent exhaust valve recession (or seat wear) in automotive spark-ignition internal combustion engines 

designed to operate on leaded fuel. 

L&R - 31 
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

1.31.1.30. Lead Substitute Engine Fuel. – for labeling purposes, a gasoline or gasoline-oxygenate blend that 

contains a “lead substitute.” 

1.32.1.31. Leaded. – for labeling purposes, any gasoline or gasoline-oxygenate blend which contains more than 

0.013 g of lead per liter (0.05 g lead per U.S. gal). NOTE: EPA defines leaded fuel as one which contains more 

than 0.0013 g of phosphorus per liter (0.005 g per U.S. gal), or any fuel to which lead or phosphorus is intentionally 

added. 

1.33.1.32. Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG). – natural gas that has been liquefied at -126.1 °C (-259 °F) and stored in 

insulated cryogenic tanks for use as an engine fuel. 

1.34.1.33. Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG). – a mixture of normally gaseous hydrocarbons, predominantly 

propane, or butane, or both, that has been liquefied by compression or cooling, or both to facilitate storage, 

transport, and handling. 

1.35. Low Sulfur. – low sulfur diesel fuel that meets ASTM D975 (e.g., Grade Low Sulfur No. 1-D or Grade 

Low Sulfur No. 2-D) standards. Diesel Fuel containing higher amounts of sulfur for off-road use is defined by 

EPA regulations.

1.36.1.34. Low Temperature Operability. – a condition which allows the uninterrupted operation of a diesel 

engine through the continuous flow of fuel throughout its fuel delivery system at low temperatures. Fuels with 

adequate low temperature operability characteristics have the ability to avoid wax precipitation and clogging in fuel 

filters. 

(Added 1998) (Amended 1999) 

1.35. Lubricant. – means “oil.” (See 1.41 below) 

1.37.1.36. Lubricity. – a qualitative term describing the ability of a fluid to affect friction between, and wear to, 

surfaces in relative motion under load. 

(Added 2003) 

1.38. M100 Fuel Methanol. – means nominally anhydrous methyl alcohol, generally containing small 

amounts of additives, suitable for use as a fuel in a compression-ignition internal combustion engine.

1.39.1.37. M85 Fuel Methanol. – a blend of methanol and hydrocarbons of which the methanol portion is 

nominally 70 to 85 volume percent. 

1.40.1.38. Motor Octane Number. – a numerical indication of a spark-ignition engine fuel’s resistance to knock 

obtained by comparison with reference fuels in a standardized ASTM D2700 Motor Method engine test. 

1.41.1.39. Motor Oil. – an oil that reduces friction and wear between the moving parts within a reciprocating 

internal combustion engine and also serves as a coolant. For the purposes of this regulation, “vehicle motor oil” 

refers to a motor oil which is intended for use in light- to heavy-duty vehicles including cars, sport utility vehicles, 

vans, trucks, buses, and off-road farming and construction equipment. For the purposes of this regulation, 

“recreational motor oil” refers to a motor oil which is intended for use in four-stroke cycle engines used in 

motorcycles, ATVs, and lawn and garden equipment. For the purposes of this regulation, motor oil also means 

engine oil. 

(Added 2004) 

1.40. MTBE. – methyl tertiary-butyl ether.

1.42.1.41. Oil. – motor oil, engine oil, and/or gear oil. 

(Added 2004) 

L&R - 32 
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

1.43.1.42. Oxygen Content of Gasoline. – the percentage of oxygen by mass contained in a gasoline. 

1.44.1.43. Oxygenate. – an oxygen-containing, ashless, organic compound, such as an alcohol or ether, which can 

be used as a fuel or fuel supplement. 

1.45. Reformulated Gasoline. – means a volatile mixture of liquid hydrocarbons and oxygenates meeting the 

reformulated gasoline requirements of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 and suitable for use as a fuel 

in a spark-ignition internal combustion engine.

1.45.1.44. Reformulated Gasoline (RFG). – a gasoline or gasoline-oxygenate blend certified to meet the 

specifications and emission reduction requirements established by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, 

(as amended by the Energy Policy Act of 2005), required to be sold for use in automotive vehicles in extreme 

and severe ozone non-attainment areas and those areas which opt to require reformulated gasoline.

(Amended 2008)

1.46.1.45. Research Octane Number. – a numerical indication of a spark-ignition engine fuel’s resistance to knock 

obtained by comparison with reference fuels in a standardized ASTM D2699 Research Method Engine Test. 

1.47.1.46. SAE. (SAE International) –means the Society of Automotive Engineers a technical organization for 

engineers, scientists, technicians, and others in positions that cooperate closely in the engineering, design, 

manufacture, use, and maintainability of self-propelled vehicles. 

1.48.1.47. Substantially Similar. – the EPA’s “Substantially Similar” rule, Section 211(f)(1) of the Clean Air 

Act [42 U.S.C. 7545 (f)(1)]. 

1.49.1.48. Thermal Stability. – the ability of a fuel to resist the thermal stress which is experienced by the fuel 

when exposed to high temperatures in a fuel delivery system. Such stress can lead to formation of insoluble gums or 

organic particulates. Insolubles (e.g., gums or organic particulates) can clog fuel filters and contribute to injector 

deposits. 

(Added 1998) (Amended 1999) 

1.50. Total Alcohol. – means the aggregate total in volume percent of all alcohol contained in any fuel defined 

in this Chapter.

1.51. Total Oxygenate. – means the aggregate total in volume percent of all oxygenates contained in any fuel 

defined in this Chapter.

1.52.1.49. Unleaded. – when used in conjunction with “engine fuel” or “gasoline” means any gasoline or gasolineoxygenate blend to which no lead or phosphorus compounds have been intentionally added and which contains not 

more than 0.013 g of lead per liter (0.05 g lead per U.S. gal) and not more than 0.0013 g of phosphorus per liter 

(0.005 g phosphorus per U.S. gal). 

1.53.1.50. Wholesale Purchaser Consumer. – any person who is an ultimate gasoline consumer of fuel methanol, 

fuel ethanol, diesel fuel, biodiesel, fuel oil, kerosene, aviation turbine fuels, natural gas, compressed natural gas, or 

liquefied petroleum gas and who purchases or obtains the product from a supplier and receives delivery of that 

product into a storage tank. 

(Added 1998) (Amended 1999) 

Section 2. Standard Fuel Specifications.

2.1. Gasoline and Gasoline-Oxygenate Blends. – (as defined in this regulation) shall meet the following 

requirements: 

2.1.1. ASTM or other requirements. – The most recent version of ASTM D4814, “Standard Specification 

for Automotive Spark-Ignition Engine Fuel,” except that volatility standards for unleaded gasoline blended with 

L&R - 33 
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

ethanol shall not be more restrictive than those adopted under the rules, regulations, and Clean Air Act waivers 

of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (which includes rules promulgated by the state). Gasoline 

blended with ethanol shall be blended under any of the following three options: 

(a) The base gasoline used in such blends shall meet the requirements of ASTM D4814, or 

(b) The blend shall meet the requirements of ASTM D4814, or 

(c) The base gasoline used in such blends shall meet all the requirements of ASTM D4814 except 

distillation, and the blend shall meet the distillation requirements of the ASTM specification. 

2.1.2. Blends of gasoline and ethanol shall not exceed the ASTM D4814 vapor pressure standard by more 

than 1.0 psi. 

2.1.3. Minimum Antiknock Index (AKI). – The AKI shall not be less than the AKI posted on the product 

dispenser or as certified on the invoice, bill of lading, shipping paper, or other documentation; 

2.1.4. Minimum Motor Octane Number. – The minimum motor octane number shall not be less than 82 for 

gasoline with an AKI of 87 or greater; 

2.1.5. Minimum Lead Content to Be Termed “Leaded.” – Gasoline and gasoline-oxygenate blends sold as 

“leaded” shall contain a minimum of 0.013 g of lead per liter (0.05 g per U.S. gal); 

2.1.6. Lead Substitute Gasoline. – Gasoline and gasoline-oxygenate blends sold as “lead substitute” 

gasoline shall contain a lead substitute which provides protection against exhaust valve seat recession 

equivalent to at least 0.026 g of lead per liter (0.10 g per U.S. gal). 

2.1.6.1. Documentation of Exhaust Valve Seat Protection. – Upon the request of the Director, the 

lead substitute additive manufacturer shall provide documentation to the Director that demonstrates that the 

treatment level recommended by the additive manufacturer provides protection against exhaust valve seat 

recession equivalent to or better than 0.026 g/L (0.1 g/gal) lead. The Director may review the 

documentation and approve the lead substitute additive before such additive is blended into gasoline. This 

documentation shall consist of: 

(a) Test results as published in the Federal Register by the EPA Administrator as required in 

Section 211(f)(2) of the Clean Air Act; or 

(b) Until such time as the EPA Administrator develops and publishes a test procedure to determine the 

additive’s effectiveness in reducing valve seat wear, test results and description of the test 

procedures used in comparing the effectiveness of 0.026 g/L (0.1 g/gal) lead and the recommended 

treatment level of the lead substitute additive shall be provided. 

2.1.7. Blending. – Leaded, lead substitute, and unleaded gasoline-oxygenate blends shall be blended 

according to the EPA “substantially similar” rule or an EPA waiver for unleaded fuel. 

2.2. Diesel Fuel. – shall meet the most recent version of ASTM D975, “Standard Specification for Diesel Fuel 

Oils.” 

2.2.1. Premium Diesel Fuel. – All diesel fuels identified on retail dispensers, bills of lading, invoices, 

shipping papers, or other documentation with terms such as premium, super, supreme, plus, or premier must 

conform to the following requirements: 

(a) Cetane Number. – A minimum cetane number of 47.0 as determined by ASTM Standard Test Method 

D613. 

L&R - 34 
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

(b) Low Temperature Operability. – A cold flow performance measurement which meets the ASTM 

D975 tenth percentile minimum ambient air temperature charts and maps by either ASTM Standard 

Test Method D2500 (Cloud Point) or ASTM Standard Test Method D4539 (Low Temperature Flow 

Test, LTFT). Low temperature operability is only applicable October 1 through March 31 of each 

year. 

(c) Thermal Stability. – A minimum reflectance measurement of 80 % as determined by ASTM Standard 

Test Method D6468 (180 min, 150 °C). 

(d) Lubricity. – A maximum wear scar diameter of 520 microns as determined by ASTM D6079. If an 

enforcement jurisdiction’s single test of more than 560 microns is determined, a second test shall be 

conducted. If the average of the two tests is more than 560 microns, the sample does not conform to 

the requirements of this part. 

(Amended 2003)

2.3. Aviation Turbine Fuels. – shall meet the most recent version of ASTM D1655, “Standard Specification for 

Aviation Turbine Fuels.” 

2.4. Aviation Gasoline. – shall meet the most recent version of one of the following, as appropriate:

(a) ASTM D910 “Standard Specification for Aviation Gasoline,” or

(b) ASTM D6227 “Standard Specification for Grade 82 Unleaded Aviation Gasoline.”

(Amended 2008)

2.5. Fuel Oils. – shall meet the most recent version of ASTM D396, “Standard Specification for Fuel Oils.” 

2.6. Kerosene (Kerosine). – shall meet the most recent version of ASTM D3699, “Standard Specification for 

Kerosine.” 

2.7. Ethanol. – intended for blending with gasoline shall meet the most recent version of ASTM D4806, “Standard 

Specification for Denatured Fuel Ethanol for Blending with Gasolines for Use as Automotive Spark-Ignition Engine 

Fuel.” 

2.8. Liquefied Petroleum (LP) Gases. – shall meet ASTM D1835, “Standard Specification for Liquefied 

Petroleum (LP) Gases.” 

NOTE: Also reference Gas Processors Association 2140, “Liquefied Petroleum Gas Specification and Test 

Methods.”

2.9. Compressed Natural Gas (CNG). – shall meet the most recent version of SAE J1616, “Recommended 

Practice for Compressed Natural Gas Vehicle Fuel.” 

2.10. E85 Fuel Ethanol. – shall meet the most recent version of ASTM D5798, “Standard Specification for Fuel 

Ethanol (Ed75-Ed85) for Automotive Spark-Ignition Engines.” 

(Added 1997) 

2.11. M85 Fuel Methanol. – shall meet the most recent version of ASTM D5797, “Standard Specification for Fuel 

Methanol M70-M85 for Automotive Spark Ignition Engines.” 

(Added 1997)

L&R - 35 
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

2.12. Motor Oil. – shall not be sold or distributed for use unless the product conforms to the following 

specifications: 

(a) Performance claims listed on the label shall be evaluated against SAE J183, API 1509 Engine Oil 

Licensing and Certifications System, or other industry standards as applicable; 

(b) The product shall meet its labeled viscosity grade specification as specified in the latest published version 

of SAE J300; 

(c) Any engine oil that is represented as “energy conserving” shall meet the requirements established by the 

latest revision of SAE J1423. 

(Added 2004) 

2.13. Products for Use in Lubricating Manual Transmissions, Gears, or Axles. – shall not be sold or distributed 

for use in lubricating manual transmissions, gears or axles unless the product conforms to the following 

specifications: 

(a) It is labeled with one or more of the service designations found in the latest revision of the SAE 

Information Report on axle and manual transmission lubricants, SAE J308, and API Publication 1560, and 

meets all applicable requirements of those designations; 

(b) The product shall meet its labeled viscosity grade classification as specified in the latest published version 

of SAE J306; 

(c) The product shall be free from water and suspended matter when tested by means of centrifuge, in 

accordance with the standard test ASTM D2273. 

(Added 2004) 

2.14. Products for Use in Lubricating Automatic Transmissions. – Any automatic transmission fluid sold 

without limitation as to type of transmission for which it is intended shall meet all automotive manufacturers’ 

recommended requirements for transmissions in general use in the state. Automatic transmission fluids that are 

intended for use only in certain transmissions, as disclosed on the label of its container, shall meet the latest 

automotive manufacturers’ recommended requirements for those transmissions. Adherence to automotive 

manufacturers’ recommended requirements shall be based on tests currently available to the lubricants industry and 

the state regulatory agency. Any material offered for sale or sold as an additive to automatic transmission fluids 

shall be compatible with the automatic transmission fluid to which it is added, and shall meet all performance claims 

as stated on the label. Any manufacturer of any such product sold in this state shall provide, upon request by a duly 

authorized representative of the Director, documentation of any claims made on their product label. 

(Added 2004) 

2.15. Biodiesel. – B100 biodiesel intended for blending with diesel fuel shall meet the most recent version of 

ASTM D6751, Standard Specification for Biodiesel Fuel (B100) Blend Stock for Distillate Fuels. 

(Added 2004) 

2.16. Biodiesel Blends. – Blends of biodiesel and diesel fuels shall meet the following requirements: 

(a) Blends that contain less than or equal to 5 % must meet ASTM D975, Standard Specification for Diesel 

Fuel Oils; 

(b) Blends greater than 5 % biodiesel and that contain less than or equal to 20 % by volume shall meet the most 

recent edition of ASTM D7467 Standard Specification for Diesel Fuel Oil, Biodiesel Blend (B6 to B20); 

(c) Use of S15 biodiesel is required when blending into S15 low sulfur motor vehicle diesel fuel when the 

intention is to certify the fuel as S15 grade; and 

L&R - 36 
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

(d) When blends greater than 20 % are offered for sale, the diesel fuel used in the blend shall meet the most 

current requirements of ASTM D975, Standard Specification for Diesel Fuel Oils and the biodiesel blend 

stock shall meet the specifications of 2.15. Biodiesel. 

(Added 2004) (Amended 2008)

(a) The base diesel fuel shall meet the most current requirements of ASTM D975, Standard Specification 

for Diesel Fuel Oils;

(b) The biodiesel blend stock shall meet the most current requirements of ASTM D6751, Standard 

Specification for Biodiesel Fuel (B100) Blend Stock for Distillate Fuels;

(c) Use of S15 biodiesel is required when blending into S15 low sulfur motor vehicle diesel fuel.

(Added 2004) (Amended 2008)

Section 3. Classification and Method of Sale of Fuels and Automotive Lubricants 

3.1. General Considerations.

3.1.1. Documentation. – When all products regulated by this rule gasoline, gasoline-oxygenate blends, 

reformulated gasoline, M85 and M100 fuel methanol, E85 and E100 fuel ethanol, liquefied petroleum 

(LP) gases, compressed natural gas, liquefied natural gas, biodiesel, diesel fuel, kerosene, aviation 

gasoline, aviation turbine fuels, or fuel oils are sold, an invoice, bill of lading, shipping paper or other 

documentation must accompany each delivery other than a retail sale. This document must identify the 

quantity, the name of the product, the particular grade of the product, the applicable automotive fuel rating, and 

oxygenate type and content (if applicable), the name and address of the seller and buyer, and the date and time 

of the sale. Documentation must be retained at the retail establishment for a period not less than 1 year. 

(Amended 2008)

3.1.2. Retail Dispenser Labeling. – All retail dispensing devices must identify conspicuously the type of 

product, the particular grade of the product, and the applicable automotive fuel rating. 

3.1.3. Grade Name. – The sale of any product under any grade name that indicates to the purchaser that it is 

of a certain automotive fuel rating or ASTM grade shall not be permitted unless the automotive fuel rating or 

grade indicated in the grade name is consistent with the value and meets the requirements of Section 2, Standard 

Fuel Specifications. 

3.2. Automotive Gasoline and Automotive Gasoline-Oxygenate Blends.

3.2.1. Posting of Antiknock Index Required. – All automotive gasoline and automotive gasoline-oxygenate 

blends shall post the antiknock index in accordance with applicable regulations, 16 CFR Part 306 issued 

pursuant to the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act, as amended. 

3.2.2. When the Term “Leaded” may be Used. – The term “leaded” shall only be used when the fuel meets 

specification requirements of paragraph 2.1.5. 

3.2.3. Use of Lead Substitute must be Disclosed. – Each dispensing device from which gasoline or 

gasoline-oxygenate blends containing a lead substitute is dispensed shall display the following legend: 

“Contains Lead Substitute.” The lettering of this legend shall not be less than 12 mm 12.7 mm (1⁄2 in) in height 

and the color of the lettering shall be in definite contrast to the background color to which it is applied. 

3.2.4. Nozzle Requirements for Leaded Fuel. – Each dispensing device from which gasoline or gasolineoxygenate blends that contain lead in amounts sufficient to be considered “leaded” gasoline, or lead substitute 

engine fuel, is sold shall be equipped with a nozzle spout having a terminal end with an outside diameter of not 

less than 23.63 mm (0.930 in). 

L&R - 37 
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

3.2.5. Prohibition of Terms. – It is prohibited to use specific terms to describe a grade of gasoline or 

gasoline-oxygenate blend unless it meets the minimum antiknock index requirement shown in Table 1. 

3.2.6. Method of Retail Sale. – Type of Oxygenate Must be Disclosed. – All automotive gasoline or 

automotive gasoline-oxygenate blends kept, offered, or exposed for sale, or sold at retail containing at least 

1.5 mass percent oxygen shall be identified as “with” or “containing” (or similar wording) the predominant 

oxygenate in the engine fuel. For example, the label may read “contains ethanol” or “with methyl tertiary-butyl 

ether (MTBE).” The oxygenate contributing the largest mass percent oxygen to the blend shall be considered 

the predominant oxygenate. Where mixtures of only ethers are present, the retailer may post the predominant 

oxygenate followed by the phrase “or other ethers” or alternatively post the phrase “contains MTBE or other 

ethers.” In addition, gasoline-methanol blend fuels containing more than 0.15 mass percent oxygen from 

methanol shall be identified as “with” or “containing” methanol. This information shall be posted on the upper 

50 % of the dispenser front panel in a position clear and conspicuous from the driver’s position in a type at least 

12.7 mm (1⁄2 in) in height, 1.5 mm (1

/16 in) stroke (width of type). 

(Amended 1996) 

3.2.7. Documentation for Dispenser Labeling Purposes. – The retailer shall be provided, at the time of 

delivery of the fuel, on an invoice, bill of lading, shipping paper, or other documentation, a declaration of the 

predominant oxygenate or combination of oxygenates present in concentrations sufficient to yield an oxygen 

content of at least 1.5 mass percent in the fuel. Where mixtures of only ethers are present, the fuel supplier may 

identify either the predominant oxygenate in the fuel (i.e., the oxygenate contributing the largest mass percent 

oxygen) or, alternatively, use the phrase “contains MTBE or other ethers.” In addition, any gasoline containing 

more than 0.15 mass percent oxygen from methanol shall be identified as “with” or “containing” methanol. 

This documentation is only for dispenser labeling purposes; it is the responsibility of any potential blender to 

determine the total oxygen content of the engine fuel before blending. 

(Amended 1996) 

Table 1. Minimum Antiknock Index Requirements

Minimum Antiknock Index 

Term ASTM D4814 Altitude Reduction 

Areas IV and V All Other ASTM D4814 Areas 

Premium, Super, Supreme, High 

Test 90 91 

Midgrade, Plus 87 89 

Regular Leaded 86 88 

Regular, Unleaded (alone) 85 87 

Economy -- 86 

(Table 1. Amended 1997) 

3.3. Diesel Fuel. 

3.3.1. Labeling of Grade Required. – Diesel Fuel shall be identified by grades No. 1-D, No. 1-D (low 

sulfur), No. 2-D, No. 2-D (low sulfur), or No. 4-D. Each retail dispenser of diesel fuel shall be labeled 

according to the grade being dispensed except the words “low sulfur” are not required.

3.3.2. Location of Label. – These labels shall be located on the upper 50 % of the dispenser front panel 

in a position clear and conspicuous from the driver’s position, in a type at least 12 mm (1⁄2 in) in height, 

L&R - 38 
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

1.5 mm (1

/16 in) stroke (width of type).

3.3.2. EPA Labeling Requirements Also Apply. – Retailers and wholesale purchaser-consumers of 

diesel fuel shall comply with EPA pump labeling requirements for sulfur under 40 CFR § 80.570.

3.3.3. Delivery Documentation for Premium Diesel. – Before or at the time of delivery of premium diesel 

fuel, the retailer or the wholesale purchaser consumer shall be provided on an invoice, bill of lading, shipping 

paper, or other documentation a declaration of all performance properties that qualifies the fuel as premium 

diesel fuel as required in Section 2.2.1. 

(Added 1998) (Amended 1999) 

(Amended 2008)

3.4. Aviation Turbine Fuels.

3.4.1. Labeling of Grade Required. – Aviation turbine fuels shall be identified by Jet A, Jet A-1, or Jet B. 

3.4.2. NFPA Labeling Requirements also Apply. – Each dispenser or airport fuel truck dispensing aviation 

turbine fuels shall be labeled in accordance with the most recent edition of National Fire Protection Association 

(NFPA 407), “Standard for Aircraft Fuel Servicing.” 

Note: For example, NFPA 407, 2007 1990 Edition: Section 4.3.18 2 3.18 Product Identification Signs. Each 

aircraft fuel servicing vehicle shall have a sign on each side and the rear to indicate the product. The sign shall 

have letters at least 75 mm (3 in) high of color sharply contrasting with its background for visibility. It shall 

show the word “FLAMMABLE” and the name of the product carried, such as “JET A,” “JET B,” 

“GASOLINE,” or “AVGAS.” (NOTE: Refer to the most recent edition of NFPA 407.) 

3.5. Aviation Gasoline.

3.5.1. Labeling of Grade Required. – Aviation gasoline shall be identified by Grade 80, Grade 91, 

Grade 100, Grade 100LL, or Grade 82 UL. 

(Amended 2008)

3.5.2. NFPA Labeling Requirements also Apply. – Each dispenser or airport fuel truck dispensing aviation 

gasoline shall be labeled in accordance with the most recent edition of National Fire Protection Association 

(NFPA) 407, “Standard for Aircraft Fuel Servicing.” 

Note: For example, NFPA 407, 2007 1990 Edition: Section 4.3.18 2 3.18 Product Identification Signs. Each 

aircraft fuel servicing vehicle shall have a sign on each side and the rear to indicate the product. The sign shall 

have letters at least 75 mm (3 in) high of color sharply contrasting with its background for visibility. It shall 

show the word “FLAMMABLE” and the name of the product carried, such as “JET A,” “JET B,” 

“GASOLINE,” or “AVGAS.” (NOTE: Refer to the most recent edition of NFPA 407.) 

3.6. Fuel Oils.

3.6.1. Labeling of Grade Required. – Fuel Oil shall be identified by the grades of No. 1 S500, No. 1 S5000, 

No. 2 S500, No. 2 S5000, No. 4 (Light), No. 4, No. 5 (Light), No. 5 (Heavy), or No. 6. 

(Amended 2008)

3.7. Kerosene (Kerosine).

3.7.1. Labeling of Grade Required. – Kerosene shall be identified by the grades No. 1-K or No. 2-K. 

L&R - 39 
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

3.7.2. Additional Labeling Requirements. – Each retail dispenser of kerosene shall be labeled as 1-K 

Kerosene or 2-K. In addition, No. 2-K dispensers shall display the following legend: 

“Warning – Not Suitable For Use In Unvented Heaters Requiring No. 1-K.” 

The lettering of this legend shall not be less than 12.7 mm (1⁄2 in) in height by 1.5 mm (1

/16 in) stroke; block 

style letters and the color of lettering shall be in definite contrast to the background color to which it is 

applied. 

3.8. E85 Fuel Ethanol.

3.8.1. How to Identify E85 Fuel Ethanol. – Fuel ethanol shall be identified as E85. 

3.8.2. Labeling Requirements. 

(a) Fuel ethanol shall be labeled with its automotive fuel rating in accordance with 16 CFR Part 306. 

(b) A label shall be posted which states “For Use in Flexible Fuel Vehicles (FFV) Only” this information 

shall be clearly and conspicuously posted on the upper 50 % of the dispenser front panel in a type at 

least 12.7 mm (1⁄2 in) in height, 1.5 mm (1

/16 in) stroke; (width of type). A label shall be posted which 

states “Consult Vehicle Manufacturer Fuel Recommendation.” and shall not be less than 6 mm 

(

1

/4 in) in height by 0.8 mm (1/32 in) stroke; block style letters and the color shall be in definite 

contrast to the background color to which it is applied.

(Amended 2007 and 2008)

3.9. M85 Fuel Methanol. 

3.9.1. How Fuel Methanol is to be Identified. – Fuel methanol shall be identified by the capital letter M 

followed by the numerical value volume percentage of methanol.

3.9.1. How to Identify M85 Fuel Methanol. – Fuel Methanol shall be identified as M85.

Example: M85 

3.9.2. Retail Dispenser Labeling. – Each retail dispenser of fuel methanol shall be labeled by the capital 

letter M followed by the numerical value volume percent and ending with the word “methanol.”

(a) Fuel methanol shall be labeled with its automotive fuel rating in accordance with 16 CFR 

Part 306.

Example: M85 Methanol 

(b) A label shall be posted which states “For Use in Vehicles Capable of Using M85 Only.” This 

information shall be clearly and conspicuously posted on the upper 50 % of the dispenser front panel 

in a type at least 12.7 mm (1⁄2 in) in height, 1.5 mm (1/16 in) stroke (width of type).

3.9.3. Additional Labeling Requirements. – Fuel methanol shall be labeled with its automotive fuel 

rating in accordance with 16 CFR Part 306.

(Amended 2008) 

3.10. Liquefied Petroleum (LP) Gas.

3.10.1. How LPG is to be Identified. – Liquefied petroleum gases shall be identified by grades Commercial 

Propane, Commercial Butane, Commercial PB Mixtures or Special-Duty Propane (HD5). 

L&R - 40 
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

3.10.2. Retail Dispenser Labeling. – Each retail dispenser of liquefied petroleum gases shall be labeled as 

“Commercial Propane,” “Commercial Butane,” “Commercial PB Mixtures,” or “Special-Duty Propane (HD5).” 

3.10.3. Additional Labeling Requirements. – Liquefied petroleum gas shall be labeled with its automotive 

fuel rating in accordance with 16 CFR Part 306. 

3.10.4. NFPA Labeling Requirements also apply. (Refer to the most recent edition of NFPA 58.) 

3.11. Compressed Natural Gas.

3.11.1. How Compressed Natural Gas is to be Identified. – For the purposes of this regulation, compressed 

natural gas shall be identified by the term “Compressed Natural Gas” or “CNG.” 

3.11.2. Retail Sales of Compressed Natural Gas Sold as a Vehicle Fuel.

3.11.2.1. Method of Retail Sale. – All compressed natural gas kept, offered, or exposed for sale or sold 

at retail as a vehicle fuel shall be in terms of the gasoline liter equivalent (GLE) or gasoline gallon 

equivalent (GGE). 

3.11.2.2. Retail Dispenser Labeling.

3.11.2.2.1. Identification of Product. – Each retail dispenser of compressed natural gas shall be 

labeled as “Compressed Natural Gas.” 

3.11.2.2.2. Conversion Factor. – All retail compressed natural gas dispensers shall be labeled with 

the conversion factor in terms of kilograms or pounds. The label shall be permanently and 

conspicuously displayed on the face of the dispenser and shall have either the statement “1 Gasoline 

Liter Equivalent (GLE) is equal to 0.678 kg of Natural Gas” or “1 Gasoline Gallon Equivalent (GGE) 

is equal to 5.660 lb of Natural Gas” consistent with the method of sale used. 

3.11.2.2.3. Pressure. – CNG is dispensed into vehicle fuel containers with working pressures of 

16 574 kPa, 20 684 kPa, or 24 821 kPa. The dispenser shall be labeled 16 574 kPa, 20 684 kPa, or 

24 821 kPa corresponding to the pressure of the CNG dispensed by each fueling hose. 

3.11.2.2.4. NFPA Labeling. – NFPA Labeling requirements also apply. (Refer to NFPA 52.) 

3.11.3. Nozzle Requirements for CNG. – CNG fueling nozzles shall comply with ANSI/AGA/CGA NGV 1. 

3.12. Liquefied Natural Gas.

3.12.1. How Liquefied Natural Gas is to be Identified. – For the purposes of this regulation, liquefied 

natural gas shall be identified by the term “Liquefied Natural Gas” or “LNG.” 

3.12.2. Labeling of Retail Dispensers of Liquefied Natural Gas Sold as a Vehicle Fuel.

3.12.2.1. Identification of Product. – Each retail dispenser of liquefied natural gas shall be labeled as 

“Liquefied Natural Gas.” 

3.12.2.2. Automotive Fuel Rating. – LNG automotive fuel shall be labeled with its automotive fuel 

rating in accordance with 16 CFR Part 306. 

3.12.2.3. NFPA Labeling. – NFPA Labeling requirements also apply (Refer to NFPA 57). 

L&R - 41 
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

3.13. Oil.

3.13.1. Labeling of Vehicle Motor Oil. 

3.13.1.1. Viscosity. – The label on each container of vehicle motor oil shall contain the viscosity grade 

classification preceded by the letters “SAE” in accordance with the SAE International’s latest version of 

SAE J300. 

3.13.1.2. Intended Use. – The label on each container of vehicle motor oil shall contain a statement of its 

intended use in accordance with the latest version of SAE J300. 

3.13.1.3. Engine Service Category. – The label on each container of vehicle motor oil shall contain the 

engine service category, or categories, met in letters not less than 3.18 mm (1

/8 in) in height, as defined by 

the latest version of SAE J183 or API Publication 1509, Engine Oil Licensing and Certification System. 

3.13.1.2.1. Exception for Quantities of One Gallon (3.785 L) or Less. – A container of engine 

vehicle motor oil with a volume of one gallon (3.785 L) or less that does not meet an active service 

category, as defined by the latest version of SAE J183, shall bear a plainly visible cautionary statement 

in compliance with SAE J183, Appendix A, for obsolete API oil categories. 

3.13.2. Labeling of Recreational Motor Oil.

3.13.2.1. Viscosity. – The label on each container of recreational motor oil shall contain the viscosity 

grade classification preceded by the letters “SAE” in accordance with the SAE International’s latest version 

of SAE J300. 

3.13.1.2. Intended Use. – The label on each container of recreational motor oil shall contain a statement 

of its intended use in accordance with the latest version of SAE J300. 

3.13.3. Labeling of Gear Oil.

3.13.2.1. Viscosity. – The label on each container of gear oil shall contain the viscosity grade 

classification preceded by the letters “SAE” in accordance with the SAE International’s latest version of 

SAE J306 or SAE J300. 

3.13.2.1.1. Exception. – Some automotive equipment manufacturers may not specify an SAE 

viscosity grade requirement for some applications. Gear oils intended to be used only in such 

applications are not required to contain an SAE viscosity grade on their labels. 

3.13.2.2. Service Category. – The label on each container of gear oil shall contain the service category, 

or categories, met in letters not less than 3.18 mm (1

/8 in) in height, as defined by the latest version of 

SAE J308. 

3.14. Automatic Transmission Fluid.

3.14.1. Labeling. – The label on a container of automatic transmission fluid shall not contain any information 

that is false or misleading. In addition, each container of automatic transmission fluid shall be labeled with the 

following: 

(a) The brand name; 

(b) The name and place of business of the manufacturer, packer, seller, or distributor; 

(c) The words “Automatic Transmission Fluid;” 

(d) The duty type of classification; 

(e) An accurate statement of the quantity of the contents in terms of liquid measure. 

L&R - 42 
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

3.14.2. Documentation of Claims Made Upon Product Label. – Any manufacturer or packer of any product 

subject to this article and sold in this state shall provide, upon request of duly authorized representatives of the 

Director, documentation of any claim made upon their product label. 

3.15. Biodiesel and Biodiesel Blends.

3.15.1. Identification of Product. – Biodiesel and Biodiesel Blends shall be identified by the capital 

letter B followed by the numerical value representing the volume percentage of biodiesel fuel (Examples: 

B10; B20, B100) the term “Biodiesel” followed with the designation “B100.” Biodiesel blends shall be 

identified by the term “Biodiesel Blend.”

3.15.2. Labeling of Retail Dispensers.

3.15.2.1. Labeling of Grade Required. – Biodiesel shall be identified by the grades S15 or S500. 

Biodiesel Blends shall be identified by the grades No. 1-D, No. 2-D, or No. 4-D.

3.15.2.2. EPA Labeling Requirements Also Apply. – Retailers and wholesale purchaser-consumers 

of biodiesel blends shall comply with EPA pump labeling requirements for sulfur under 

40 CFR§ 80.570.

3.15.2.3. Automotive Fuel Rating. – Biodiesel and biodiesel blends shall be labeled with its 

automotive fuel rating in accordance with 16 CFR Part 306.

3.15.2.4. Biodiesel Blends. – When biodiesel blends greater than 20 % by volume are offered by 

sale, each side of the dispenser where fuel can be delivered shall have a label conspicuously placed 

that states “Consult Vehicle Manufacturer Fuel Recommendations.”

The lettering of this legend shall not be less that 6 mm (1

/4 in) in height by 0.8 mm (1/32 in) stroke; 

block style letters and the color shall be in definite contrast to the background color to which it is 

applied.

3.15.2. Labeling of Retail Dispensers Containing Between More than 5 % and Up to and including 20 % 

Biodiesel. – Each retail dispenser of biodiesel blend containing more than 5 % and up to and including 

20 % biodiesel shall be labeled with either:

3.15.2.1. The capital letter “B” followed by the numerical value representing the volume percentage 

of biodiesel fuel and ending with “biodiesel blend.” (Examples: B10 biodiesel blend; B20 biodiesel 

blend), or;

3.15.2.2. The phrase “biodiesel blend between 5 % and 20 %” or similar words.

3.15.3. Labeling of Retail Dispensers Containing Biodiesel Blend More Than 20 % Biodiesel. – Each 

retail dispenser of biodiesel blend containing more than 20 % biodiesel shall be labeled with the capital 

letter “B” followed by the numerical value representing the volume percentage of biodiesel fuel and 

ending with “biodiesel blend.” (Example: B60 biodiesel blend).

3.15.4. Additional Labeling Requirements. – The dispenser shall be labeled with “Consult 

Manufacturer fuel recommendations.”

3.15.53. Documentation for Dispenser Labeling Purposes. – The retailer shall be provided, at the time 

of delivery of the fuel, with a declaration of the volume percent biodiesel on an invoice, bill of lading, 

shipping paper, or other document. This documentation is for dispenser labeling purposes only; it is the 

responsibility of any potential blender to determine the amount of biodiesel in the diesel fuel prior to 

blending.

L&R - 43 
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

3.15.64. Exemption. – Biodiesel blends that contain less than or equal to containing 5 % or less 

biodiesel by volume are exempted from the requirements of Section 3.15 Sections 3.15.1., 3.15.2, and 

3.15.3 through 3.15.5. when it is sold as “diesel fuel” as required in Section 3.3.

(Added 2005) (Amended 2008)

Section 4. Retail Storage Tanks and Dispenser Filters

4.1. Water in Gasoline-Alcohol Blends, Biodiesel, Biodiesel Blends, E85 Fuel Ethanol, Aviation Gasoline, and 

Aviation Turbine Fuel. – No water or water-alcohol phase greater than 6 mm (1⁄4 in) as determined by an 

appropriate detection paste or other acceptable means, is allowed to accumulate in any tank utilized in the storage 

of gasoline-alcohol blend, biodiesel, biodiesel blends, E85 fuel ethanol, aviation gasoline, and aviation turbine 

fuel. 

(Amended 2008)

4.2. Water in Gasoline, Diesel, Gasoline-Ether, and Other Fuels. – Water shall not exceed 50 25 mm (21 in) in 

depth when measured with water indicating paste or other acceptable means in any tank utilized in the storage of 

biodiesel, diesel, gasoline, gasoline-ether blends, and kerosene sold at retail except as required in Section 4.1. 

(Amended 2008)

4.3. Dispenser Filters.

4.3.1. Engine Fuel Dispensers.

(a) All gasoline, gasoline-alcohol blends, gasoline-ether blends, E85 fuel ethanol and M85 methanol 

dispensers shall have 10 micron or smaller nominal pore-sized filter.

(b) All biodiesel, biodiesel blends, diesel and kerosene dispensers shall have a 30 micron or smaller 

nominal pore-sized filter.

4.3.2. Delivery of Aviation Fuel and Gasoline.

(a) Fuel delivery of aviation turbine fuel into aircraft shall be filtered through a fuel filter/separator 

conforming to API 1581 Specification and Qualification Procedures for Aviation Jet Fuel 

Filter/Separators.

(b) Fuel delivery of aviation gasoline into aircraft shall be filtered through a fuel filter/separator 

conforming to API 1581 Specification and Qualification Procedures for Aviation Jet Fuel 

Filter/Separators.

(Added 2008)

4.34. Product Storage Identification. 

4.34.1. Fill Connection Labeling. – The fill connection for any fuel petroleum product storage tank or vessel 

supplying engine-fuel devices shall be permanently, plainly, and visibly marked as to the product contained. 

(Amended 2008)

4.34.2. Declaration of Meaning of Color Code. – When the fill connection device is marked by means of a 

color code, the color code shall be conspicuously displayed at the place of business. 

4.45. Volume of Product Information. – Each retail location shall maintain on file a calibration chart or other 

means of determining the volume of each regulated product in each storage tank and the total capacity of such 

storage tank(s). This information shall be supplied immediately to the Director. 

L&R - 44 
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

Section 5. Condemned Product 

5.1. Stop-Sale Order at Retail. – A stop-sale order may be issued to retail establishment dealers for fuels failing to 

meet specifications or when a condition exists that causes product degradation. A release from a stop-sale order will 

be awarded only after final disposition has been agreed upon by the Director. Confirmation of disposition shall be 

submitted in writing on form(s) provided by the Director and contain an explanation for the fuel’s failure to meet 

specifications. Upon discovery of fuels failing to meet specifications, meter readings and physical inventory shall 

be taken and reported in confirmation for disposition. Specific variations or exemptions may be made for fuels 

designed for special equipment or services and for which it can be demonstrated that the distribution will be 

restricted to those uses. 

5.2. Stop-Sale Order at Terminal or Bulk Plant Facility. – A stop-sale order may be issued when products 

maintained at terminals or bulk plant facilities fail to meet specifications or when a condition exists that may cause 

product degradation. The terminal or bulk storage plant shall immediately notify all customers that received those 

product(s) and make any arrangements necessary to replace or adjust to specifications those product(s). A release 

from a stop-sale order will be awarded only after final disposition has been agreed upon by the Director. 

Confirmation of disposition of products shall be made available in writing to the Director. Specific variations or 

exemptions may be made for fuels used for blending purposes or designed for special equipment or services and for 

which it can be demonstrated that the distribution will be restricted to those uses. 

Section 6. Product Registration

6.1. Engine Fuels Designed for Special Use. – All engine fuels designed for special use that do not meet ASTM 

specifications or standards addressed in Section 2 shall be registered with the Director on forms prescribed by the 

Director 30 days prior to when the registrant wishes to engage in sales. The registration form shall include all of the 

following information: 

6.1.1. Identity. – Business name and address(es). 

6.1.2. Address. – Mailing address if different from business address. 

6.1.3. Business Type. – Type of ownership of the distributor or retail dealer, such as an individual, 

partnership, association, trust, corporation, or any other legal entity or combination thereof. 

6.1.4. Signature. – An authorized signature, title, and date for each registration. 

6.1.5. Product Description. – Product brand name and product description. 

6.1.6. Product Specification. – A product specification sheet shall be attached. 

6.2. Renewal. – Registration is subject to annual renewal. 

6.3. Re-registration. – Re-registration is required 30 days prior to any changes in Section 6.1. 

6.4. Authority to Deny Registration. – The Director may decline to register any product that actually or by 

implication would deceive or tend to deceive a purchaser as to the identity or the quality of the engine fuel. 

6.5. Transferability. – The registration is not transferable. 

Section 7. Test Methods and Reproducibility Limits. 

7.1. ASTM Standard Test Methods. – Standard Test Methods referenced for use within the applicable Standard 

Specification shall be used to determine the specification values for enforcement purposes. 

7.1.1. Premium Diesel. – The following test methods shall be used to determine compliance with the 

premium diesel parameters: 

(a) Cetane Number - ASTM D613; 

L&R - 45 
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

(b) Low Temperature Operability - ASTM D4539 or ASTM D2500 (according to marketing claim); 

(c) Thermal Stability - ASTM D6468 (180 min, 150 °C); 

(d) Lubricity - ASTM D6079. 

(Amended 2003) 

7.2. Reproducibility Limits.

7.2.1. AKI Limits. – When determining the antiknock index (AKI) acceptance or rejection of a gasoline 

sample, the AKI reproducibility limits as outlined in ASTM D4814 Appendix XI shall be acknowledged for 

enforcement purposes. 

7.2.2. Reproducibility. – The reproducibility limits of the standard test method used for each test performed 

shall be acknowledged for enforcement purposes, except as indicated in Section 2.2.1, and Section 7.2.1. No 

allowance shall be made for the precision of the test methods for aviation gasoline or aviation turbine 

fuels.

(Amended 2008)

7.2.3. SAE viscosity grades for Engine Oils – All values are critical specifications as defined in 

ASTM D3244. The product shall be considered to be in conformance if the Assigned Test Value (ATV) is 

within the specification.

(Added 2008)

7.2.34. Dispute Resolution. – In the event of a dispute over a reported test value, the guidelines presented in 

the most recent version of ASTM D3244, “Standard Practice for Utilization of Test Data to Determine 

Conformance with Specifications,” shall be used to determine the acceptance or rejection of the sample. 

7.2.5. Additional Enforcement Action. – The Director may initiate enforcement action in the event 

that, based upon a statistically significant number of samples, the average test result for products 

sampled from a particular person is greater than the legal maximum or less than the legal minimum 

limits (specification value), posted values, certified values, or registered values.

(Added 2008)

237-2 I Revise Section 2.1. Gasoline and Gasoline-Oxygenate Blends 

Source: Chairman, Fuels and Lubricants Subcommittee/NIST Technical Advisor 

Background: The proposed changes for the current Section 2.1. of the regulation are based on the belief by some 

members of the Subcommittee that there is ambiguity in the current regulation and a lack of acceptance of the 

current requirements by some states. Some of the members of the Subcommittee believe the uniform regulation 

should include a set of enforceable limits that provide consumer protection yet build a bridge to the future 

predominance of blend stock use. 

1. Ambiguity in the Current Regulation – Discussions between regulators and industry, both during Fuel and 

Lubricants Subcommittee meetings and during the course of performing regulatory functions within the 

jurisdictions, have revealed that the current regulation has varying interpretations. The current regulation 

provides three options for blending. 

a. Option 1 (2.1.1.1. The base gasoline used in such blends shall meet the requirements of ASTM D4814) 

is generally interpreted to mean that if the base gasoline meets the ASTM requirements, then the blend is 

exempt from all ASTM volatility control parameters when splash blending occurs downstream with a 

finished gasoline. Others suggest that, based on the wording, when blending under these conditions, the 

blend is exempt from any ASTM standards. Still others suggest that the section fails to clearly exempt the 

L&R - 46 
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

blend from any standards; therefore, they do not feel that this section provides the final blend with any 

relaxation from the ASTM standards. 

b. Option 2 (2.1.1.2. The blend shall meet the requirements of ASTM D4814) is unclear to most readers that 

were not present when the rule was originally drafted. Obviously, a spark ignition engine fuel can certainly 

meet the ASTM standard and be compliant without question. In actuality, the rule was written to require

that blends constructed at a refinery using ethanol as a blend stream component meet the ASTM standard. 

c. Option 3 (2.1.1.3. The base gasoline used in such blends shall meet all the requirements of ASTM 

D4814 except distillation, and the blend shall meet the distillation requirements of the ASTM 

specification) is also unclear to many. This section was constructed by the original drafters of the rule to 

apply to blending with Blend Stock for Oxygenate Blending (BOBs). The original intent was based upon 

the fact that the blender knows the effect that the ethanol will have on the fuel, and the BOB should be 

manufactured with refinery stream components that will result in an ASTM-compliant fuel after the 

addition of the ethanol. Again, many readers do not understand this option and find that it is hard to 

distinguish from Option 2. The proposed revision combines Option 2 and Option 3 into a clear and concise 

statement. 

2. Lack of Acceptance by States – The current model regulation has proven unacceptable to many states. 

According to a recent survey conducted, eleven states have adopted Section 2.1. into regulation, and 

approximately five other states have adopted similar versions of this section. Seven states have not adopted any 

engine fuel quality standards. The remaining twenty-seven states have not adopted this section of the model 

regulation. This section has been available for states to consider since 1995. Thirteen years later, there remains 

considerable resistance by states to adopt the current language. 

3. Sets an Enforceable Limit that Provides Minimum Consumer Protection and Builds a Bridge to the Future 

Predominance of Blend Stock Use – The proposed revision provides state regulators with limits that will 

provide at least minimal protection to consumers when ethanol is blended with finished gasoline and removes 

the ambiguity that was left in the original wording. Major oil companies have asked states for a compromise 

standard that can be reasonably met when blending finished gasoline with ethanol. This standard is needed now 

in many markets because ethanol blends are not established, and it is not practical for many reasons to ship 

blend stock and finished gasoline into those markets. The proposed revisions provide that compromise, while 

maintaining the ability for regulators to react in the rare event that an abnormal base fuel is imported or entered 

into a marketplace and the gasoline blended with ethanol results in a blend that possesses unacceptable volatility 

characteristics that would result in vehicle operability issues. The proposed revision seeks to build a bridge to 

the time when ethanol blends may become the default fuel in a market place. At such time, it is likely that 

refiners will provide BOBs to those markets, and the resulting fuel would then be expected to meet ASTM 

standards. Finally, changes in the ASTM standards since the original regulation was passed also support a 

change in the model regulation. ASTM now allows a minimum T50 Distillation point of 150 oF for gasoline in 

volatility Classes D and E. It is generally accepted that if ethanol were blended with a base gasoline with a T50 

of 150 oF, the final blend could be problematic. 

Recommendation: Amend Section 2.1. of the Uniform Engine Fuel, Petroleum Products, and Automotive 

Lubricants Regulation by replacing the current text with the following: 

2.1. Gasoline and Gasoline-Oxygenate Blends. – (as defined in this regulation) shall meet the most 

recent version of ASTM D4814 “Standard Specification for Automotive Spark Ignition Engine Fuel” 

except for ethanol blends as provided below and be consistent with state and federal laws and 

regulations.

2.1.1. When finished gasoline is used as the base gasoline for blending, the base gasoline used 

in such blends shall meet the requirements of ASTM D4814 and the ethanol shall meet the 

requirements of ASTM D4806. The finished blend shall meet ASTM D4814 with the following

permissible exceptions:

L&R - 47 
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

2.1.1.1. The distillation minimum temperature at the 50 volume percent evaporated point 

shall not be less than 66 oC (150 oF).

2.1.1.2. The Minimum Temperature for a Vapor/Liquid Ratio of 20 shall be as follows for 

the applicable vapor lock protection class:

Class 1 shall be 51.5 °C (125 °F)

Class 2 shall be 49.0 °C (120 °F)

Class 3 shall be 45.0 °C (113 °F)

Class 4 shall be 41.5 °C (107 °F)

Class 5 shall be 37.0 °C (99 °F)

Class 6 shall be 35.0 °C (95 °F)

2.1.1.3. The maximum vapor pressure shall not exceed the D4814 limits by more than 

1.0 psi for:

(a) Only 10 % ethanol by volume blends (9 % minimum - 10 % maximum) from June 1 

through September 15.

(b) All blends of up to 10 % ethanol by volume from September 16 through May 31.

2.1.2. When blend stock for ethanol blending is used, or when an ethanol blend is created with 

various refinery streams, the final blend shall meet the requirements of D4814 except that the 

vapor pressure requirements of 2.1.1.3. are permissible.

2.1.3. Blends of gasoline and ethanol shall contain no more than 10 volume percent ethanol.

Discussion: The Fuel and Lubricants Subcommittee met at the 2007 Interim Meeting in Jacksonville, Florida, to 

undertake a review of a number of significant issues related to fuel standards. One of their projects was to review 

and update the Uniform Engine Fuels, Petroleum Products, and Automotive Lubricants Regulation in NIST 

Handbook 130 and submit a draft revision of the regulation for consideration by the Committee at the 2008 Interim 

Meeting. 

The Subcommittee met at the 2007 NCWM Annual Meeting and continued its work on a number of items including 

a substantive revision of the fuel ethanol labeling requirement that the NCWM adopted at that meeting. The 

Subcommittee met again on December 5, 2007, at the ASTM International (ASTM) Meeting in Phoenix, Arizona, 

and considered proposed amendments to Section 2.1 as shown below, but a consensus agreement could not be 

reached at that meeting. The Subcommittee held a conference call on January 15, 2008, to complete its work on the 

draft revisions of the law and regulation and to consider the proposed revisions to Section 2.1. Again, after 

extensive deliberation a consensus agreement on the proposed revisions to Section 2.1 could not be obtained. 

At the 2008 Interim Meeting, comments were made during the open hearings where stakeholders voiced their 

concerns that this item was not ready to move forward. Stakeholders would like this item to go back to the Fuels 

and Lubricants Subcommittee for additional work on the language. The L&R Committee voted to make this item 

Informational and requested that the Fuel and Lubricants Subcommittee reconsider this issue. If the Subcommittee 

can resolve its differences on the proposal, it can submit amendments to this section as part of the revision to the 

Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants regulation under Item 237-1 above (see Appendix B for written comments 

received on this item). 

This item was sent to the full L&R Committee for consideration at the 2008 Interim Meeting on the 

recommendation of NIST’s Technical Advisor and with the agreement of the Subcommittee Chairman. The section 

L&R - 48 
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

must be reviewed by the NCWM because the current language may be in conflict with federal fuel waiver 

provisions. 

At the 2008 Annual Meeting, the Committee received one written comment (see Appendix B). This section will 

continue to remain Informational until additional information is received from the Fuels and Lubricants 

Subcommittee. 

Ron Hayes, Chairperson FALS, can be contacted at (573) 751-2922 or at ron.hayes@mda.mo.gov. 

L&R - 49 
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

250 INTERPRETATIONS AND GUIDELINES 

250-1 V Amend Handbook 130 Interpretations and Guidelines Section 2.3.2. Guidelines for the Method 

of Sale of Fresh Fruits and Vegetables 

(This item was adopted) 

Source: Northeast Weights and Measures Association (NEWMA) (See Item 270-6 in the Report of the 92nd Annual 

NCWM Meeting in 2006) 

Proposal: Amend Handbook 130 Interpretations and Guidelines Section 2.3.2. Fresh Fruits and Vegetables to 

recognize and support innovation in modern retail food marketing approaches at all forms of outlets, from typical 

grocery stores to the traditional farm markets. 

Background: The method of sale guidelines for the sale of fresh fruits and vegetables that currently appear in 

Handbook 130 are outdated and in need of revision. The present guidelines do not recognize current retailing 

practices and are not expansive enough to cover many exotic and unusual fruits and vegetables that are becoming 

more common in the marketplace. Additionally, the present guidelines do not take into consideration the necessary 

limitations experienced by retailers at roadside stands and farmers’ markets. 

The original proposal for this item reflected input from only a single jurisdiction. The Committee was informed that 

several industry associations requested an opportunity to review and respond to this proposal. The Committee 

believed there were several factual errors within the classifications of produce provided, and several types of 

produce still were not covered by the provided proposal. The Committee made this item Developmental so it may 

be more fully developed with input from jurisdictions throughout the country and from affected industry 

associations and businesses. 

Discussion: At its 2006 Interim Meeting, the CWMA heard a comment that this item should be moved to 

Informational for a year. The body of the guidelines should be circulated within the CWMA before becoming a 

Voting item. The WWMA L&R Committee received no comments regarding this item. The Committee chairman 

encouraged all to provide input on this item to the NCWM L&R Committee. 

At the 2007 Interim and Annual Meetings, the Committee carried this item over as Informational to reconsider when 

comments are received from the regional associations, retailers, and other industries affected by the proposed 

amendments. The Committee realized the proposed replacement table had previously been omitted from this item. 

That oversight has been corrected in this report (see next page). At the 2007 Annual Meeting, concerns were raised 

that permitting quart sales of some fruits and vegetables would not be useful or practical and the Committee should 

reconsider that provision of the table. 

The Committee requested this item be considered at all upcoming regional meetings and that comments be 

submitted prior to November 1, 2007, for inclusion and review at the Interim Meeting in January 2008. 

At the 2008 Interim Meeting, the Committee had not received any comments from the regional meetings. The 

charts were reviewed at the Interim Meeting and minor modifications were made (i.e., added “grape tomato”). The 

Committee agreed that this item would be submitted for NCWM adoption at the 2008 Annual Meeting. 

At the 2008 Annual Meeting, a state representative recommended adding “suitable dry measure” on the chart. The 

Committee discussed this and declined the recommendation, since this chart is a guideline. 

Recommendation: Adopt the revised Section 2.3.2. Fresh Fruits and Vegetables for inclusion in NIST 

Handbook 130 – Section VI: NCWM Policy, Interpretations, and Guidelines as presented beginning on the next 

page. 

L&R - 50 
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

2.3.2. Fresh Fruits and Vegetables 

(Added 1979, Amended 1980, 1982, and 2008) 

This guideline applies to all sales of fruits and vegetables. There are two tables, one for specific commodities 

and one for general commodity groups. Search the specific list first to find those commodities that either 

don’t fit into any of the general groups or have unique methods of sale. If the item is not listed, find the 

general group in the second table. The item may be sold by any method of sale marked with an X.

Method of Retail Sale for Fresh Fruits and Vegetables

Specific Commodity

Commodity Weight Count

Head 

or 

Bunch

Dry 

Measure 

(any size)

Dry Measure 

(1 dry qt or 

larger)

Artichokes X X

Asparagus X X

Avocados X

Bananas X X

Beans (green, yellow, etc.) X X

Brussels Sprouts (loose) X

Brussels Sprouts (on stalk) X

Cherries X X X

Coconuts X X

Corn on the Cob X X

Dates X

Eggplant X X

Figs X

Grapes X

Melons (cut in pieces) X

Mushrooms (small) X X X

Mushrooms (portobello, large) X X

Okra X

Peas X X

Peppers (bell and other varieties) X X X

Pineapples X X

Rhubarb X X

Tomatoes (except cherry/grape) X X X

L&R - 51 
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

Method of Retail Sale for Fresh Fruits and Vegetables

General Commodity Groups

Commodity

Weight Count

Head

or

Bunch

Dry

Measure

(any size)

Dry 

Measure 

(1 dry qt or 

larger)

Berries and Cherry/Grape Tomatoes X X

Citrus Fruits (oranges, grapefruits, lemons, etc.) X X X

Edible Bulbs (onions [spring or green], garlic, 

leeks, etc.)

X X X X

Edible Tubers (Irish potatoes, sweet potatoes, 

ginger, horseradish, etc.)

X X

Flower Vegetables (broccoli, cauliflower, 

Brussels sprouts, etc.)

X X

Gourd Vegetables (cucumbers, squash, melons, 

etc.)

X X X

Leaf Vegetables (lettuce, cabbage, celery, etc.) X X

Leaf Vegetables (parsley, herbs, loose greens) X X X

Pitted Fruits (peaches, plums, prunes, etc.) X X X

Pome Fruits (apples, pears, mangoes, etc.) X X X

Root Vegetables (turnips, carrots, radishes, etc.) X X

Comparison of Current and Proposed Tables 

The following comparison was prepared for the NCWM L&R Committee at the request of the Central Weights and 

Measures Association. It compares the current Guideline for the Method of Sale of Fresh Fruits and Vegetables in 

Section 2.3.2. of the Interpretations and Guidelines section of NIST Handbook 130 with the changes proposed in 

Item 270-6. A table which lists the commodities included in the current guideline but which do not appear in the 

Specific or General Tables is also provided. 

L&R - 52 
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

Comparison Tables 

Key to Tables:

Green rows (dark gray) indicate there is NO change between the current and proposed guideline (i.e., see the row for 

Artichokes in the Comparison Table). 

Yellow rows (light gray) indicate there is a change between the current and proposed guideline (i.e., see “Dry 

Measure (1 dry qt or larger)” in the header row of the Comparison Table and the cell under the header for Count in 

the row for “Bananas”). 

Explanations of the differences or questions to be resolved are provided in the numbered footnotes which are located 

at the bottom of the table. 

Specific Commodity Weight Count

Head 

or 

Bunch

Dry 

Measure 

(any size)

Dry Measure

(1 dry qt or larger)1

Artichokes X X

Asparagus X X

Avocados X

Bananas2 X X2

Beans (green, yellow, etc.) X X

Brussels Sprouts (loose)3 X3

Brussels Sprouts (on stalk)4 X4

Cherries5, 6 X X6 X6

Coconuts X X

Corn on the Cob X X

Dates X

Eggplant X X

Figs X

Grapes X

Melons (cut in pieces) X

Mushrooms (small)6, 7 X X6 X6

Mushrooms (portobello, large)7 X X7

Okra X

Peas8 X X8

Peppers (bell and other varieties)9 X X X9

Pineapples X X

Rhubarb10 X X10

Tomatoes (except cherry/grape)11 X X11 X 1

 This amendment changes the minimum dry measure from 1 peck to 1 dry quart. The equivalents are: one peck = 16 dry pints, 

8 dry quarts, 1⁄4 bushel, or 8.810 L. 2

 The current guideline forbids sales of bananas by count (only by weight). However, the NCWM permits individual bananas to be 

sold under the Ready-to-Eat Food exception in Section 1.12. in the Method of Sale of Commodities Regulation. 3

 The current guideline addresses Brussels sprouts and does not include the “loose” distinction. 4

 This is a new MOS for Brussels sprouts on “stalks” so there is nothing in the current method of sale to compare this with except 

that the current provision requires Brussels sprouts to be sold by weight. 5

 The reference to Section 4.46. Berry Baskets and Boxes Code in NIST Handbook 44 has been deleted. 6

 If a dry measure of “any size” is ok in column 3, is an X correct in the 4th column which limits sales to 1 dry quart or larger? 7

 This proposal distinguishes mushrooms by size between “small” and “large (portobello)” and introduces the method of sale by 

count for “large” mushrooms which is not permitted in the current guideline (only by weight or measure). 8

 The current guideline does not allow sales of peas by “dry measure” (only by weight). 9

 The current guideline does not allow sales peppers by “dry measure” (only by weight or count). 

10 The current guideline does not allow sales of rhubarb by “head or bunch” (only by weight). 11 The current guideline does not allow sales of tomatoes by “count” (only by weight and dry measure).

L&R - 53 
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

General Commodity Group26

Weight Count

Head

or

Bunch

Dry

Measure

(any size)

Dry Measure 

(1 dry qt or 

larger)

Berries1 and Cherry/Grape Tomatoes X X

Citrus Fruits (oranges2, grapefruits3, lemons4, etc.) X X X2, 3, 4

Edible Bulbs (onions5, 6, garlic7, leeks8, etc.) X X7 X7 X5, 6, 8

Edible Tubers (Irish potatoes9, sweet potatoes10, ginger11, 

horseradish12, etc.) X X9, 10

Flower Vegetables (broccoli, cauliflower, Brussels 

sprouts13, etc.) X X

Gourd Vegetables (cucumbers14, squash15, melons16, etc.) X X X15

Leaf Vegetables (lettuce, cabbage17, celery18, etc.) X X17, 18

Leaf Vegetables (parsley19, herbs20, loose greens21) X X21 X19, 21

Pitted Fruits (peaches, plums22, prunes23, etc.) X X22 X22

Pome Fruits (apples, pears, mangoes24, etc.) X X X24

Root Vegetables (turnips, carrots, radishes25, etc.) X X25

1

 The reference to Section 4.46. Berry Baskets and Boxes Code in NIST Handbook 44 has been deleted. 2

 The current guideline does not allow sales of oranges by “dry measure” (only by weight or count). 3

 The current guideline does not allow sales of grapefruit by “dry measure” (only by weight or count). 4

 The current guideline does not allow sales of lemons by “dry measure” (only by weight or count). 5

 The current guideline does not allow sales of onions by “dry measure” (see 6). 

6

 The current guideline allows sales by weight or bunch for “spring or green” onions and sales by “weight” for dry onions. 7

 The current guideline does not permit sales of garlic by “dry measure” (only by weight or count). 8

 The current guideline does not allow sales of leeks by “count” or “dry measure” (only by weight). 9

 The current guideline does not allow sales of Irish potatoes by “dry measure” (only by weight). 10 The current guideline does not allow sales of sweet potatoes by “dry measure” (only by weight). 11 The current guideline does not include ginger. 

12 The current guideline does not include horseradish. 

13 Brussels sprouts are also in the Specific Commodity Table as “loose” and “on stalk.” 

14 The current guideline does not allow sales of cucumbers by “dry measure” (only by weight or count). 15 The current guideline does not include squash. 

16 The current guideline does not allow sale of whole melons by “dry measure” (only weight or count). 

17 The current guideline does not allow sales by cabbage by “count” (only by weight). 18 The current guideline allows sales of celery by weight or count so perhaps the Committee should decide whether or not “head or bunch” or 

“count” is the most appropriate descriptor. 19 The current guideline does not allow sales of parsley by “dry measure” (only weight or bunch). 20 The current guideline does not include herbs. 

21 The current guideline does not allow sales of “Greens (all)” by count or dry measure (only by weight). 22 The current guideline does not allow sales of plums by count (only by weight or dry measure). 23 The current guideline does not allow sales of prunes by count or dry measure (only by weight). 

24 The current guideline does not allow sales of mangoes by dry measure (only by weight or count). 25 The current guideline does not allow sales of radishes by “head or count” (only by weight). 26 While many of these items may fall under the general categories listed above, it may improve uniformity and simplify the use of the table if 

all of the commodities were placed in a general category instead of the table, saying for instance, “Edible Tubers, etc.” 

L&R - 54 
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

This table lists the commodities that are in the current 

method of sale guidelines but which are not specifically 

identified in the proposed tables.*

Commodity Method of Sale

Apricots Weight

Beets Weight or Bunch

Cantaloupes Weight or Count

Cranberries Weight or Measure

Currants Weight or Measure

Eggplant Weight or Count

Escarole Weight or Bunch

Kale Weight

Kohlrabi Weight

Limes Weight or Count

Nectarines Weight or Count

Papaya Weight or Count

Parsnips Weight

Persimmons Weight or Count

Pomegranates Weight or Count

Rutabagas Weight

Spinach Weight or Bunch

Tangerines Weight or Count

*While many of these items may fall under the general categories 

listed above it may improve uniformity and simplify the use of the 

table if all of these commodities are placed in a general category 

instead of the table saying, for instance, “Edible Tubers, etc.”

L&R - 55 
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

270 OTHER ITEMS – DEVELOPING ITEMS 

INTRODUCTION 

The NCWM has established a mechanism to disseminate information about emerging issues which have merit and 

are of national interest. Developing items either have not received sufficient review by all parties affected by the 

proposals or are insufficiently developed to warrant review by the NCWM L&R Committee. The Developing items 

listed are currently under review by at least one regional association, subcommittee, or work group (WG). 

The Developing items are marked according to the specific NIST Handbook into which they fall – Handbook 130 or 

Handbook 133. The Committee encourages interested parties to examine the proposals included in the appendices 

and to send their comments to the contact listed in each part. 

The Committee asks that the regional weights and measures associations, subcommittees, and WGs continue their 

work to develop fully each proposal. Should an association, subcommittee, or WG decide to discontinue work on a 

Developing item, the Committee asks that it be notified. When the status of an item changes because the submitter 

withdraws the item, the item will be listed in a table below. For more details on items moved from the Developing 

items list to the Committee’s main agenda, refer to the new reference number in the main agenda. 

270-1 D Amend Section 2.2.1. in Handbook 130 Uniform Engine Fuels Regulation – Premium 

Diesel Lubricity 

Source: Southern Weights and Measures Association (SWMA) (See Item 270-5 in the Report of the 92nd Annual 

NCWM Meeting in 2006) 

Background: A member of the petroleum industry believed the test and associated tolerances for lubricity on 

premium diesel specified in Section 2.2.1.(d) were inconsistent with that for regular diesel. Effective 

January 1, 2005, the test tolerance for regular diesel lubricity was the ASTM D6079 reproducibility of 136 μm (see 

ASTM D975-04b). The NCWM chose to accept the ASTM reproducibility limits for all diesel (D975) and gasoline 

(D4814) properties (see Section 7.2.2., Reproducibility), but chose a different reproducibility limit for premium 

diesel lubricity without providing any explanation as to why the ASTM reproducibility limit was insufficient. If the 

NCWM intended to impose a stricter lubricity requirement for premium diesel, it should have designated a tighter 

specification for this property, not a different test tolerance (e.g., for regular and premium gasoline, premium has a 

different octane specification than for regular, but the test tolerance is the same). ASTM reproducibility limits were, 

by definition, based on establishing a 95 % probability that product meeting the specification will pass the test. 

Applying an average test as specified in Section 2.2.1.(d) reduced that probability to 80 %. 

The Committee received comments from several members of the Premium Diesel Work Group (WG) who did not 

support the item as presented by the petroleum industry member. WG members believed that the process that led to 

the current definition was very thorough and complete, and that the premium diesel lubricity requirements were 

established with a full understanding of their implications. The WG members felt that knowledgeable individuals 

provided input to the process, which led to the consensus position contained in the current regulation. The work 

being done by the WG was reported at meetings of ASTM Subcommittee E-2 every six months. The current 

regulation has been endorsed by the American Petroleum Institute, the Engine Manufacturers Association, and the 

NCWM. 

Prior to the current requirement being adopted, the ASTM Lubricity Task Force conducted a great deal of research 

on this topic. Based on its research, the ASTM Lubricity Task Force concluded that a limit of 520 μm would meet 

the requirements of equipment in the field. Since the passage of this model regulation, ASTM included a lubricity 

requirement for No. 1 and No. 2 diesel fuel effective January 1, 2005. The ASTM requirement is also 520 μm. 

WG members reported that when this regulation was written, fuels with adequate lubricity provided a functional 

benefit to the end user. The WG agreed with the ASTM Lubricity Task Force that 520 μm was the correct limit to 

set for premium diesel. However, the WG’s review process also indicated increased pump wear for fuels with HighFrequency Reciprocating Rig (HFRR) values greater than 560 μm. The current reproducibility value of the HFRR 

L&R - 56 
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

test method would have placed enforcement well beyond the 560 μm level, essentially allowing fuels with little 

lubricity protection to be sold as “Premium.” The WG believed they could not recommend a premium fuel standard 

that would permit excessive pump wear. Using the statistical tools provided in ASTM D3244, the WG evaluated an 

enforcement limit of 560 μm. The statistical tools indicated that a single laboratory reporting the assigned test value 

would have an enforcement limit of approximately 80 % probability of acceptance, while the average of two 

separate laboratories reporting the assigned test value would have an enforcement limit of approximately 90 % 

probability of acceptance. It was agreed that for a premium fuel the average of two test results was the best 

approach given the current test methods and precision available. Therefore, if a test exceeded 560 μm, then a 

second test must be run. The average of the two tests must exceed 560 μm before a violation would occur. At the 

2005 WWMA meeting, the Fuels and Lubricants Subcommittee agreed the proposal was the best approach at that 

time, and lacking new information, it continues to hold that position. 

Discussion: At the WWMA 2006 Annual Meeting, the WWMA L&R Committee received only one comment 

regarding this item, acknowledging the ongoing review by the Fuels and Lubricants Subcommittee. The WWMA 

noted that the NCWM L&R Committee forwarded the proposal for review by the Subcommittee and agreed this 

item should remain Developmental pending its recommendation. 

At its 2006 Interim Meeting, the CWMA indicated the NCWM Fuel and Lubricant Subcommittee would make 

recommendations after ASTM improved the test method’s precision and after the conclusion of other tests. The 

CWMA L&R Committee was awaiting the recommendation from the Subcommittee. 

During the 2007 Interim Meeting the Committee carried this item over as an Informational item. The Committee 

sent this proposal to the Subcommittee and requested its recommendation on how to proceed with the issue. The 

Subcommittee suggested this item remain on the agenda as an Information item until further notice and reported that 

the activities of ASTM International and the Coordinating Research Council were continuing. 

At the 2008 Interim Meeting the Committee carried this item over as a Developing item. This proposal was sent to 

the Fuel and Lubricants Subcommittee (FALS) for its recommendation on how to proceed with the issue. The FAL 

Subcommittee suggested this item remain on the agenda as a Developmental item. 

At the 2008 Annual Meeting no changes or recommendations were received from FALS. This item will remain 

Developmental and will await further development from FALS. 

Proposal: Amend Section 2.2.1. Premium Diesel Fuel in Handbook 130 Uniform Engine Fuels, Petroleum 

Products, and Automotive Lubricants Regulation. The following reflects the current text as it was modified in 2003. 

2.2.1. Premium Diesel Fuel. – All diesel fuels identified on retail dispensers, bills of lading, invoices, 

shipping papers, or other documentation with terms such a premium, super, supreme, plus, or premier must 

conform to the following requirements: 

(a) Cetane Number. – A minimum cetane number of 47.0 as determined by ASTM Standard Test 

Method D613. 

(b) Low Temperature Operability. – A cold flow performance measurement which meets the 

ASTM D975 tenth percentile minimum ambient air temperature charts and maps by either ASTM 

Standard Test Method D2500 (Cloud Point) or ASTM Standard Test Method D4539 (Low 

Temperature Flow Test, LTFT). Low temperature operability is only applicable October 1 - March 31 

of each year. 

(c) Thermal Stability. – A minimum reflectance measurement of 80 % as determined by ASTM Standard 

Test Method D6468 (180 min, 150 °C). 

L&R - 57 
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

(d) Lubricity. – A maximum wear scar diameter of 520 μm as determined by ASTM D6079. If an 

enforcement jurisdiction’s single test of more than 560 μm is determined, a second test shall be 

conducted. If the average of the two tests is more than 560 μm, the sample does not conform to the 

requirements of this part. 

(Amended 2003) 

For additional information please contact the Fuels and Lubricants Subcommittee, Ron Hayes, Chairman, 

(573) 751-2922 or ron.hayes@mda.mo.gov by e-mail. 

270-2 D Amend Handbook 133 Section 2.3, Moisture Allowances to Provide Clearer Guidance 

(See Item 270-7 in the Report of the 92nd Annual NCWM Meeting in 2006) 

This item was added to the agenda of the Committee’s Work Group (WG) on Moisture Loss (see Table B, 

Appendix C) following the 2008 NCWM Interim Meeting. Also, see Item 270-3 for an explanation of the WG’s 

role and responsibilities and discussion on this item. 

270-3 D Laws and Regulations Committee Work Group (WG) on Moisture Loss 

(See Item 270-8 in the Report of the 92nd Annual NCWM Meeting in 2006) 

Background: An issue about NIST Handbook 133 raised during the WG discussion was that the established 

moisture allowances listed in the handbook are not shown in one location in the text. The following table was 

prepared by NIST and may be considered for possible future inclusion in the handbook at the next WG meeting. 

The new Table 1.3 Moisture Allowances would bring all of the Moisture Allowance information together in one 

location in HB 133. A sample of a USDA Seal of Inspection was provided because NIST frequently receives 

inquiries from field officials asking what the USDA seal looks like. 

L&R - 58 
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

Table 1.3 Moisture Allowances 

If you are verifying the net 

weight of packages of: The Moisture Allowance is: Notes 

Flour 3 % 

Dry pet food 3 % 

Dry pet food means all extruded dog and cat 

foods and baked treats packaged in Kraft paper 

bags and/or cardboard boxes with a moisture 

content of 13 % or less at time of pack. 

Borax See Section 2.4. 

Wet Tare Only 

If you are using Wet Tare in 

verifying the net weight of 

packages of one of the 

products listed below that 

bear a USDA seal of 

inspection: 

The Moisture Allowance is: 

One example of a USDA Seal of Inspection. 

Seals may vary by product. 

Fresh poultry 3 % 

Fresh poultry is defined as poultry at a 

temperature of 3 °C (26 °F) that yields or gives 

when pushed with the thumb. 

Franks or hotdogs 2.5 % 

Bacon, fresh sausage, and 

luncheon meats 0 % 

If there is no free-flowing liquid or absorbent 

materials in contact with the product and the 

package is clean of clinging material. 

Discussion: At the 2007 NCWM Interim Meeting, the Committee created a WG to undertake a review of a number 

of moisture loss and other issues relating to NIST Handbook 133 “Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods.” 

NIST recommended the NCWM L&R Committee retain responsibility for this project instead of creating a task 

force that would entail additional travel and meeting expenses for all parties. The Board of Directors and the 

Committee agreed with that proposal because a large portion of this project can be accomplished using e-mail and 

teleconferences to reduce costs. The Committee also noted the number of items on the agenda has declined, making 

time available during the Committee’s work sessions to address this project. If additional meetings are needed, they 

will be scheduled to coincide with the regional meetings to reduce travel and other costs. Another justification for 

this approach was that it allowed regional representatives on the Committee to develop a greater understanding of 

moisture loss and enabled them to better explain the subject matter to their constituents. Participation in this effort 

is open to all interested parties. 

The first WG meeting took place at the 2007 Annual Meeting on Sunday, July 8, 2007, following the Committee’s 

regular work session. The first major subject of discussion was the determination of tare using gel-soaker pads. The 

participants agreed that information on the appropriate test procedures for using gel soaker pads should be 

distributed to weights and measures officials and industry following the NCWM Annual Meeting. NIST agreed to 

publish an article in the upcoming edition of WMD’s newsletter. A discussion of that issue is contained in Item 1 of 

Appendix C attached to this report. The group developed a formal work plan and addressed additional items listed 

in Appendix C as time allowed. 

The Moisture Loss Work Group (WG) met at the 2008 Interim Meeting. There was limited time for discussion, so it 

was decided that no changes to NIST Handbook 133 would be recommended at this time. There were 

25 representatives from state and local weights and measures programs, packagers, and other stakeholders in 

attendance. This was the first formal meeting of the WG. There was an extensive discussion of the goals, 

objectives, and effort, and a review of the history of the NCWM’s efforts to address moisture loss issues. After a 

lengthy discussion, it was agreed that there is a need to develop informational materials to explain the average and 

individual package requirements and moisture allowances in NIST Handbook 133 so that handbook users can 

L&R - 59 
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

understand how to effectively apply the statistical allowances and moisture loss adjustments when conducting 

package inspections. Also identified was the need to provide an explanation of federal net quantity of contents 

requirements. It was agreed that NIST WMD would draft a set of graphics to describe how the Sample Error Limit 

(SEL), Moisture Allowance, and other corrections are determined in NIST Handbook 133. NIST WMD will also 

prepare a compilation of laws and terms related to net quantity of contents verification for use by the WG in 

providing guidance to users of NIST Handbook 133 on allowing reasonable variations. 

At the 2008 Annual Meeting the Moisture Loss WG met to review an animated PowerPoint presentation provided 

by Kenneth Butcher. This presentation explained the statistical requirement and moisture allowances of NIST 

Handbook 133. The WG provided input on the presentation. NIST will make revisions to the current presentation 

and, once finalized, it will be posted on the NCWM and NIST WMD websites for use in training and/or self study. 

This WG will develop a draft guideline on small lot testing for use by inspectors and administrators. The WG will 

also develop guidelines for determining moisture loss allowances for products that are not listed in Handbook 133. 

The WG felt this additional information would be useful. 

To participate in this WG, contact Lisa Warfield at (301) 975-3308, e-mail: lisa.warfield@nist.gov or Ken Butcher 

at (301) 975-4859, e-mail: kbutcher@nist.gov. 

270-4 D Fuels and Lubricants Subcommittee (FALS) (Formerly the Petroleum Subcommittee) 

At the 2008 NCWM Interim Meeting the Committee changed the name of the Petroleum Subcommittee to the Fuels 

and Lubricants Subcommittee (FALS).

Background: The Subcommittee had previously met on January 24, 2007, at the 2007 NCWM Interim Meeting to 

undertake a review of a number of significant issues related to fuel standards. Its first project was to carry out a 

major review and update of the Uniform Engine Fuels, Petroleum Products, and Automotive Lubricants Regulation 

in Handbook 130. The Subcommittee also met at the 2007 Annual Meeting and continued its work on a number of 

items, in addition to preparing a major revision of the Fuel Ethanol Labeling requirement in Item 232-2. 

An additional project will be to update and possibly expand the Basic Engine Fuels, Petroleum Products, and 

Lubricants Laboratory Publication, which will then be made available on the Internet. The Subcommittee will 

undertake other projects as time and resources permit. 

At the ASTM International meetings on December 5, 2007, in Phoenix, Arizona, the Subcommittee met to finalize 

its work on a number of projects that included a revision of the Uniform Engine Fuels Law and Regulation. A 

teleconference was held immediately prior to the 2008 Interim Meeting. 

Discussion: At the 2008 Interim Meeting, the Subcommittee prepared and submitted a major revision of this 

regulation for consideration by the Committee. The Subcommittee also conducted a review of the Engine Fuels, 

Petroleum Products, and Automotive Lubricants Law and will prepare suggested changes for this Uniform Law as 

well (see Item 223-1). This item was reviewed at the 2008 Annual Meeting and remains Developmental. 

If you would like to participate in this work contact Ron Hayes, Chairperson, Fuels and Lubricants Subcommittee at 

(573) 751-2922, e-mail: ron.hayes@mda.mo.gov or Ken Butcher at (301) 975-4859, e-mail: kbutcher@nist.gov. 

270-5 D Pelletized Ice Cream 

Background: At the 2008 open hearings, Cary Frye from the International Ice Cream Association (IICA) gave a 

briefing on behalf of industry on pelletized ice cream. Ms. Frye gave a briefing on the product, standard of identity, 

test method procedures and several other key points. She informed the conference that additional assistance would 

be required from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (see Appendix D: Letter from IICA to FDA, dated 

July 10, 2008). Once FDA has addressed the issues and concerns, NIST will host a second meeting at NIST in 

Gaithersburg, Maryland, to follow up and seek resolution on the outstanding concerns. NIST will send out a 

meeting announcement to all state Directors and all other interested parties via the list server. 

L&R - 60 
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

The NIST Weights and Measures Division submitted to the Committee detailed minutes pertaining to the 

June 27, 2008, meeting held at NIST in Gaithersburg, Maryland, concerning issues and concerns about the pelletized 

ice cream product. The minutes (submitted below) provide great detail of the current issue, background information, 

representatives and manufacturers, method of sale, and test method procedure. 

To: State Weights and Measures Directors, NCWM Laws and Regulations Committee and Other 

Interested Parties 

On June 27, 2008 a meeting was held at NIST in Gaithersburg, Maryland to discuss issues related to 

the sale of packaged Pelletized Ice Cream (an attendance list is attached). The participants included 

State and local officials from Maryland, New York and Pennsylvania (including a representative of the 

NCWM L&R Committee), officials from the Food and Drug Administration, two producers of 

pelletized ice cream and a representative of the International Dairy Foods Association (International 

Ice Cream Association). The International Dairy Foods Association (IDFA), based in Washington, 

DC, represents the nation’s dairy manufacturing and marketing industries and their suppliers. IDFA 

is composed of three constituent organizations: the Milk Industry Foundation (MIF), the National 

Cheese Institute (NCI) and the International Ice Cream Association (IICA). IDFA’s 220 dairy 

processing members run more than 600 plants, and range from large multi-national organizations to 

single-plant companies. Together they represent more than 85 % of the milk, cultured products, 

cheese and frozen desserts produced and marketed in the United States. IICA’s members that 

manufacture and sell pelletized ice cream product are: Dippin’ Dots, Unilever/Good Humor Breyers, 

Kemps, and MolliCoolz. Carol Hockert, Chief of the NIST Weights and Measures Division, Lisa 

Warfield, David Sefcik, Elizabeth Gentry and Ken Butcher from NIST also attended. 

Background Information 

Pelletized ice cream is a unique and novel product that entered the market in 1988 with Dippin’ Dots, 

which was predominantly sold in food service venues direct to consumers. Packaged pelletized ice 

cream entered the retail marketplace about 2 years ago. A suggested definition for Pelletized Ice 

Cream is: “beads of ice cream which are quick frozen with liquid nitrogen.” The beads are relatively 

small, but can vary in shape and size. As with other types of ice cream, the pellets are produced in 

several flavors and they are frequently mixed with pieces of cookies, brownies or dough and other 

inclusions. Pelletized ice cream products meet the federal standard of identity (SOI) for ice cream as 

specified in 21 CFR § 135.110. The product is made using pasteurized mix consisting of one or more 

of the prescribed dairy ingredients, sweeteners, stabilizer and flavoring. The ice cream mix is stirred 

via pumping and spraying action as the droplets are frozen at very low temperatures using liquid 

nitrogen. The freezing process results in small round shaped beads or pellets of ice cream that meet 

the required 4.5 lbs per gallon weight requirements set forth in the SOI for ice cream. By itself, the 

density of pelletized ice cream is higher than other ice creams because the product contains much less 

air than regular ice cream. It was noted that using the 4.5 pound density in the FDA’s standard of 

identity is not an effective tool for determining the accuracy of fluid measure because, due to the 

higher density of pelletized ice cream, a package could easily meet the weight requirement and still not 

contain the fluid measure declared on the label. Because density variations occur when inclusions are 

added to packages of pelletized ice cream and, because the inclusions (e.g., cookie bits) themselves 

vary in size and weight, using gravimetric testing to verify the declared volume of a sample may not be 

practical. At least two manufacturers label their packages by net weight and the others label their 

packages in terms of fluid measure. The manufacturers that label their packages by fluid measure 

include the air surrounding the pellets in their net quantity of contents statement. At least four of the 

five known producers of pelletized ice cream are currently selling their packaged product in retail 

stores and their producing facilities are located in California, Florida, Kentucky and Minnesota. At 

least one other manufacturer sells this product from bulk as a ready-to-eat food in mall kiosks, sports 

stadiums and other venues. 

Pelletized ice cream products in the market are currently labeled by both weight and volume as 

follows: 

L&R - 61 
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

Dippin’ Dots - Weight (Dippin’ Dots Pouches and product for export), and Volume (Orblets 

and bulk food service) 

Kemps/Hood - Volume (Itty Bits) 

Good Humor – Breyer’s/Unilever - Weight (Popsicle Shots) 

MolliCoolz - Weight (MolliCoolz) 

Pelletized Ice Cream must be sold by Fluid Volume 

The International Ice Cream Association (IICA) reported that there was a consensus among the 

manufacturers that pelletized ice cream should be labeled and sold on the basis of fluid volume in 

accordance with Subsection 1.7.1. Factory Packaged Ice Cream and Similar Frozen Products in the 

Method of Sale of Commodities Regulation in NIST Handbook 130. That Subsection reads “Ice 

cream, ice milk, frozen yogurt and similar products shall be kept, offered, or exposed for sale or sold 

in terms of fluid volume.” FDA officials at the meeting agreed with industry’s recommendation. 

When a food is frozen and it is sold and consumed in a frozen state, the declaration must express the 

volume at the frozen temperature. FDA regulations also permit fluid ounces to be used when “there is 

a firmly established general consumer usage and trade custom of declaring the contents of a ...solid, 

semisolid, or viscous product by fluid measure.” For ice cream there is a firmly established consumer 

usage and trade custom of selling ice cream and similar frozen products by volume. (See below for 

regulatory references.) 

Volumetric Test Method and Air Measurement Issues 

Once it was agreed that the appropriate method of sale for pelletized ice cream is by fluid volume, 

discussion moved to whether or not the air surrounding the beads is to be included as part of the fluid 

declaration. The IICA again reported that there was a consensus among the manufacturers that the 

air surrounding the beads should not be included as part of the fluid volume of the ice cream (“airexcluded.”) To enforce the “air-excluded” standard, the water displacement method for ice cream 

novelties in Section 3.12. could be used if appropriate modifications were made to ensure the ice 

cream pellets can be completely and properly submerged. Some states and industry have tried 

alternative head-space methods and have substituted glycerin for water in the displacement 

procedures with some limited success. Pelletized ice cream can melt quickly but some states have 

reported that their tests indicate that with careful handling and strict temperature regulation of the 

water, the melting can be limited. Reducing melting is crucial to volume determinations because FDA 

requires that the volume of ice cream be determined while in a frozen state. After ice cream melts, it 

cannot be refrozen and tested because any air that the product contained is lost. There is also a need 

to develop a practical means to keep the pellets immersed in the test fluid so that their volume can be 

accurately determined. One approach which shows promise is to place the beads in a weighted nylon 

mesh bag (the volume displaced by the bag and weight are deducted). The IICA reported that in 

testing pelletized ice cream with added inclusions such as cookie pieces, cookie dough or brownies 

caused inaccurate results due to water absorption by the inclusions. But more testing and a 

collaborative study are needed before any one test method can be proven to provide reliable results. 

The group discussed the possibility of using screening tools or audit type tests to reduce destructive 

testing and to reduce the need to have inspectors collect samples and transport them to a testing 

laboratory 

It was during this discussion a potential problem with the “air-excluded” net content declaration 

surfaced. For nutritional labeling purposes, manufacturers must also state the serving size in volume 

using household measures such as “tablespoon” or “cup” in the nutrition facts panel. Because the air 

will have to be subtracted from the total volume of the ice cream on the net content label, a consumer 

who were to measure out the total number of household 1⁄2-cup measures of ice cream (with air) would 

find a greater number of servings than what would be calculated by dividing the total net contents by 

4 fl oz. The difference between the two volumes with or without air could be as much as 50 %. While 

this may not be a significant issue for individual serving size containers, it could be a problem when 

pelletized ice cream is sold in multiple serving containers. The potential problem is that consumers 

L&R - 62 
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

might be confused or misled by the apparent discrepancies in the declarations. Several suggestions 

were offered to address the potential problem such as having the manufacturer provide special label 

information explaining the reason for the difference in volumes, but it became clear during the 

discussion that this issue would have to be formally submitted to the FDA nutritional labeling experts 

for resolution. The FDA representatives who attended the meeting were experts in package labeling 

and standards of identity but could not respond to questions on nutritional labeling. They asked that a 

written request be submitted to FDA requesting a prompt interpretation of its regulations. IDFA 

agreed that it would draft and send a request for interpretation to FDA before the NCWM Annual 

Meeting. 

If FDA requires an “air-included” standard (i.e., the air surrounding the pellets is included in the 

fluid volume of the ice cream), the volume of the ice cream declared in the net quantity statement and 

the nutritional label serving size would be in approximate agreement. A test procedure to verify the 

volume of ice cream sold on this basis would be simpler to develop and verify than the water 

displacement method in Handbook 133. This test could be as simple as pouring the pelletized ice 

cream into a chilled cylinder and then taking a direct reading of the volume from the graduations on 

the cylinder. The suitability of the test equipment in either test would be crucial so that the combined 

uncertainties of the calibrated test equipment and the uncertainty of the test method do not exceed 1

/6 

of the Maximum Allowable Variation. 

The IDFA representative will send a letter to FDA requesting an interpretation of its regulations in 

regard to whether the air is to be included in the volume of the ice cream and how industry will be 

expected to provide nutritional information on packages. Once FDA issues a response, IDFA will 

collaborate with state weights and measures officials and NIST to develop the appropriate test 

procedures. At this point, NIST will host a second meeting of weights and measures officials, industry 

and the FDA to move forward on the next steps needed. Once the industry receives notice from FDA 

on how they will have to package and label pelletized ice cream, the pelletized ice cream 

manufacturers will need a reasonable period of time to make the necessary changes to packaging for 

declaration of the net contents in fluid volume (from weight to volume or from volume of product with 

“air-included” to “air-excluded.”) This will include package redesign, and the ability to use up 

existing inventory of packaging and product in storage and in the marketplace. Because the shelf life 

of ice cream can range from 12 to over 18 months, inventories of product may be extensive. IICA 

asked that during this time period of determining the proper net content declaration and measurement 

tool if weights and measures officials could consider using regulatory enforcement discretion for 

pelletized ice cream products. 

This report was sent to all state Weights and Measures Officials and other interested parties. It will be 

presented to the Laws and Regulations Committee at the National Conference of Weights and 

Measures during its 93rd Annual Meeting in Burlington, Vermont – July 13 to 17, 2008. 

References: 

NIST Handbook 130 - 2008 Edition - Uniform Laws and Regulations in the Areas of Legal Metrology 

and Engine Fuel Quality – Uniform Regulation for the Method of Sale of Commodities pages 104-105. 

1.6. Fluid Milk Products. – All fluid milk products, including but not limited to milk, lowfat. 

1.7. Other Milk Products. – Cottage cheese, cottage cheese products, and other milk products that 

are solid, semi solid, viscous, or a mixture of solid and liquid, as defined in the Pasteurized Milk 

Ordinance of the U.S. Public Health Service, as amended in 1965, shall be sold in terms of weight. 

1.7.1. Factory Packaged Ice Cream and Similar Frozen Products. – Ice cream, ice milk, frozen 

yogurt, and similar products shall be kept, offered, or exposed for sale or sold in terms of fluid volume. 

CFR TITLE 21 – FOOD AND DRUGS Section 101.105 Declaration of net quantity of contents when 

exempt. 

L&R - 63 
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

L&R - 64 

(a) The principal display panel of a food in package form shall bear a declaration of the net quantity 

of contents. This shall be expressed in the terms of weight, measure, numerical count, or a 

combination of numerical count and weight or measure. The statement shall be in terms of fluid 

measure if the food is liquid, or in terms of weight if the food is solid, semisolid, or viscous, or a 

mixture of solid and liquid; except that such statement may be in terms of dry measure if the food 

is a fresh fruit, fresh vegetable, or other dry commodity that is customarily sold by dry measure. 

If there is a firmly established general consumer usage and trade custom of declaring the contents 

of a liquid by weight, or a solid, semisolid, or viscous product by fluid measure, it may be used. 

Whenever the Commissioner determines that an existing practice of declaring net quantity of 

contents by weight, measure, numerical count, or a combination in the case of a specific packaged 

food does not facilitate value comparisons by consumers and offers opportunity for consumer 

confusion, he will by regulation designate the appropriate term or terms to be used for such 

commodity.

To participate in the work on pelletized ice cream, please contact Lisa Warfield at NIST at lisa.warfield@nist.gov or 

at (301) 975-3308 or Cary P. Frye at the International Dairy Foods Association at cfrye@idfa.org or at 

(202) 220-3543. 

_________________________

Vicky Dempsey, Chairperson, Montgomery County, Ohio 

Roger Macey, California 

Stephen Benjamin, North Carolina 

Joe Benavides, Texas 

John Gaccione, Westchester County, New York 

Ron Hayes, Missouri, Chairman of the Fuel and Lubricants Subcommittee 

Pete O’Bryan, Foster Farms, Associate Member Representative 

Doug Hutchinson, Canada, Technical Advisor 

Ken Butcher, NIST, Technical Advisor 

Lisa Warfield, NIST, Technical Advisor 

Laws and Regulations Committee 
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix A – Automatic Temperature Compensation Presentation and Letters 

Appendix A 

Automatic Temperature Compensation 

Presentation and Letters 

Page 

• NATSO Statement for the Record to the Laws and Regulations Committee ....................................................A3 

• NATSO Slide Presentation: Fuel Transactions – from Rack to Retail .............................................................A4 

• Letters Submitted to the NCWM Conference Concerning Automatic Temperature Compensation ..............A12 

L&R - A1
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix A – Automatic Temperature Compensation Presentations and Letters 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 

L&R - A2
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix A – Automatic Temperature Compensation Presentation and Letters 

Statement for the Record 

Annual Meeting of the National Conference on Weights and Measures 

Laws and Regulations Committee 

July 14, 2008, Burlington, Vermont. 

Madame Chairman and Members of the NCWM: 

My name is Holly Alfano, representing NATSO, a trade association representing more than 1000 truck stops and 

travel plazas. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. 

I thank you for the many hours you have spent deliberating on the issue of ATC, and I encourage you to continue 

your careful deliberations. Consumers here in the United States are fortunate—even with the recent run up in fuel 

prices – to enjoy some of the lowest fuel prices among all of the industrialized nations. Consumers have an 

expectation of low prices, and any actions that are taken which affect fuel prices will be studied by them with a 

magnifying glass. 

I have a presentation that contains a lot of numbers that explain how fuel is priced both at wholesale and retail—and 

I will be happy to run through it with anyone here who has questions. But retail fuel pricing is not rocket science; it 

is simple accounting. A retailer calculates the costs of a load of fuel and passes them on, factoring in the 

competitive marketplace and hopefully a margin that will allow him to stay in business. As you will see from 

reviewing the scenarios in the presentation, hot days or cold days make no difference. Costs are factored into 

pricing. 

The recent run-up in fuel prices has seriously impacted independent fuel retailers. Their credit lines are maxed out, 

with rapidly escalating fuel prices seriously straining their cash flow. Credit card fees and other costs of doing 

business are cutting into margins like never before—and many retailers are on the verge of bankruptcy. The 

adoption of an expensive new technology such as ATC—that has no proven consumer benefit—will simply 

eliminate some of the retailers from the marketplace. They will not be able to afford to upgrade their equipment in 

the current business environment of shrinking margins and declining volume. 

Please carefully evaluate the proposals for implementation of ATC. A continued examination of the facts will 

reveal that this ATC has no merit or consumer benefit. Thank you for your careful deliberation on this issue. 

Holly Alfano 

Vice President, Government Affairs 

NATSO, Inc. 

1737 King Street, Suite 200 

Alexandria, VA 22314 

(703) 739-8501 

halfano@natso.com 

L&R - A3
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix A – Automatic Temperature Compensation Presentations and Letters 

L&R - A4
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix A – Automatic Temperature Compensation Presentation and Letters 

L&R - A5
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix A – Automatic Temperature Compensation Presentations and Letters 

L&R - A6
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix A – Automatic Temperature Compensation Presentation and Letters 

L&R - A7
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix A – Automatic Temperature Compensation Presentations and Letters 

L&R - A8
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix A – Automatic Temperature Compensation Presentation and Letters 

L&R - A9
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix A – Automatic Temperature Compensation Presentations and Letters 

L&R - A10
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix A – Automatic Temperature Compensation Presentation and Letters 

L&R - A11
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix A – Automatic Temperature Compensation Presentations and Letters 

L&R - A12
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix A – Automatic Temperature Compensation Presentation and Letters 

L&R - A13
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix A – Automatic Temperature Compensation Presentations and Letters 

L&R - A14
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix A – Automatic Temperature Compensation Presentation and Letters 

L&R - A15
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix A – Automatic Temperature Compensation Presentations and Letters 

L&R - A16
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix A – Automatic Temperature Compensation Presentation and Letters 

L&R - A17
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix A – Automatic Temperature Compensation Presentations and Letters 

L&R - A18
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix A – Automatic Temperature Compensation Presentations and Letters 

L&R - A19
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix A – Automatic Temperature Compensation Presentations and Letters 

L&R - A20
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix A – Automatic Temperature Compensation Presentations and Letters 

L&R - A21
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix A – Automatic Temperature Compensation Presentations and Letters 

L&R - A22
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix A – Automatic Temperature Compensation Presentations and Letters 

L&R - A23
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix A – Automatic Temperature Compensation Presentations and Letters 

L&R - A24
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix A – Automatic Temperature Compensation Presentations and Letters 

L&R - A25
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix A – Automatic Temperature Compensation Presentations and Letters 

L&R - A26
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix A – Automatic Temperature Compensation Presentations and Letters 

L&R - A27
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix A – Automatic Temperature Compensation Presentations and Letters 

L&R - A28
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix A – Automatic Temperature Compensation Presentations and Letters 

L&R - A29
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix A – Automatic Temperature Compensation Presentations and Letters 

L&R - A30
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix A – Automatic Temperature Compensation Presentations and Letters 

L&R - A31
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix A – Automatic Temperature Compensation Presentations and Letters 

L&R - A32
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix A – Automatic Temperature Compensation Presentations and Letters 

L&R - A33
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix A – Automatic Temperature Compensation Presentations and Letters 

L&R - A34
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix A – Automatic Temperature Compensation Presentations and Letters 

L&R - A35
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix A – Automatic Temperature Compensation Presentations and Letters 

L&R - A36
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix A – Automatic Temperature Compensation Presentations and Letters 

L&R - A37
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix A – Automatic Temperature Compensation Presentations and Letters 

L&R - A38
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix A – Automatic Temperature Compensation Presentations and Letters 

L&R - A39
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix A – Automatic Temperature Compensation Presentations and Letters 

L&R - A40
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix A – Automatic Temperature Compensation Presentations and Letters 

L&R - A41
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix A – Automatic Temperature Compensation Presentations and Letters 

L&R - A42
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix A – Automatic Temperature Compensation Presentations and Letters 

L&R - A43
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix A – Automatic Temperature Compensation Presentations and Letters 

L&R - A44
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix A – Automatic Temperature Compensation Presentations and Letters 

L&R - A45
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix A – Automatic Temperature Compensation Presentations and Letters 

L&R - A46
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix A – Automatic Temperature Compensation Presentations and Letters 

L&R - A47
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix A – Automatic Temperature Compensation Presentations and Letters 

L&R - A48
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix A – Automatic Temperature Compensation Presentations and Letters 

L&R - A49
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix A – Automatic Temperature Compensation Presentations and Letters 

L&R - A50
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix A – Automatic Temperature Compensation Presentations and Letters 

L&R - A51
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix A – Automatic Temperature Compensation Presentations and Letters 

L&R - A52
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix A – Automatic Temperature Compensation Presentations and Letters 

L&R - A53
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix A – Automatic Temperature Compensation Presentations and Letters 

L&R - A54
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix B – Engine Fuels, Petroleum Products and Automotive Lubricants - Letters

 

Appendix B 

Letters Submitted to the NCWM Conference Concerning Engine Fuels, Petroleum Products 

and Automotive Lubricants 

LR - B1
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix B– Engine Fuels, Petroleum Products and Automotive Lubricants - Letters 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 

 

L&R - B2
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix B – Engine Fuels, Petroleum Products and Automotive Lubricants - Letters

LR - B3
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix B– Engine Fuels, Petroleum Products and Automotive Lubricants - Letters 

L&R - B4
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix B – Engine Fuels, Petroleum Products and Automotive Lubricants - Letters

LR - B5
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix B– Engine Fuels, Petroleum Products and Automotive Lubricants - Letters 

L&R - B6
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix B – Engine Fuels, Petroleum Products and Automotive Lubricants - Letters

LR - B7
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix B– Engine Fuels, Petroleum Products and Automotive Lubricants - Letters 

L&R - B8
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix B – Engine Fuels, Petroleum Products and Automotive Lubricants - Letters

LR - B9
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix B– Engine Fuels, Petroleum Products and Automotive Lubricants - Letters 

L&R - B10
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix B – Engine Fuels, Petroleum Products and Automotive Lubricants - Letters

LR - B11
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix B– Engine Fuels, Petroleum Products and Automotive Lubricants - Letters 

L&R - B12
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix B – Engine Fuels, Petroleum Products and Automotive Lubricants - Letters

LR - B13
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix B– Engine Fuels, Petroleum Products and Automotive Lubricants - Letters 

L&R - B14
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix B – Engine Fuels, Petroleum Products and Automotive Lubricants - Letters

LR - B15
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix B– Engine Fuels, Petroleum Products and Automotive Lubricants - Letters 

L&R - B16

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. 
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix C – Work Group on Moisture Loss 

Appendix C 

L&R Committee Work Group on Moisture Loss 

Table of Contents and Agenda 

INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................................C2

Item 1. Gel Soaker Pads .............................................................................................................................C2

Item 2. Moisture Loss Guidance in NIST Handbook 133..........................................................................C3

Item 3. WMD Package Inspection and Moisture Loss Guidance Letter – Withdrawn ..............................C4 

Item 4. WMD Suggestions .........................................................................................................................C5

a. Seek Greater Recognition of NIST Handbook 133 by FDA and other Federal Agencies. ..............C5

b. Create a new supplement or website to NIST Handbook 133 which would provide useful 

information to administrators, field officials and industry...............................................................C5

REFERENCE SECTION I – EXCERPTS FROM THE INTERPRETATIONS AND GUIDELINES 

SECTION OF NIST HANDBOOK 130...........................................................................................................C9

REFERENCE SECTION II – OTHER MOISTURE LOSS GUIDANCE AND RELATED 

DOCUMENTS.................................................................................................................................................C18

A. Text from the WMD Memorandum that was issued on January 1, 2006............................................C18 

B. Letter from Kraft Foods Requesting that NIST Withdraw Letter on Moisture Loss...........................C25 

C. Chapter 3 from the Third Edition of NIST Handbook 133 and 4th Supplement 1994.........................C25 

*NOTE: The following documents could not be included in this publication because they are only available in 

Adobe PDF format; NIST will provide copies on request. Please contact Lisa Warfield at (301) 975-3308 or at

lisa.warfield@nist.gov or Ken Butcher at (301) 975-4859 or at kbutcher@nist.gov.

L&R - C1 
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix C – Work Group on Moisture Loss

Detail of all Items 

(In order by Reference Key Number) 

Moisture Loss and Other Issues for Consideration by the NCWM Laws and 

Regulations Committee and the Board of Directors 

INTRODUCTION 

The Weights and Measures Division (WMD) prepared this document in 2007 at the request of NCWM Chairman 

Mike Cleary to detail several moisture loss and other package inspection issues to be studied under this project with 

the goal of developing recommendations for amendments to NIST Handbook 133 (HB 133) in 2008. There are four 

items listed below and most of the resource material is included to enable this document to serve as an agenda and 

comprehensive resource. The WMD provided this outline for consideration by the NCWM L&R Committee, the 

Board of Directors, and other interested parties with the goal of developing a consensus on whether or not there was 

sufficient justification to study the issues described below. 

Item 1. Gel Soaker Pads 

Several weights and measures officials are concerned that HB 133 does not provide adequate guidance on how to 

verify the net weight declaration on packages where “gel soaker pads” are used in the package to absorb moisture. 

Based on information that the WMD has received, this discussion paper is provided as a technical examination of 

the use of “gel type” soaker pads when determining net weight. Gel soaker pads contain granules of a highly 

absorbent compound that soak up fluid and retain it so efficiently that the “usual” methods of drying (pressure, 

wiping, and air) do not allow the re-creation of “Used Dry Tare.” According to two manufacturers, “gel-based 

soaker pads” can absorb up to 50 times their original weights in fluid compared to “cellulose-based fluff pulp” 

which absorbs only two to four times its weight (see http://www.thermasorb.com and http://www.stockhauseninc.com). Gel-type soaker pads are used by industry to: (1) extend shelf life; thus, reducing repackaging costs, 

(2) reduce bacterial growth, and (3) improve the “presentation of packages” by absorbing blood and fluid; 

eliminating free flowing liquid in the package. 

Inspection problems with this type of tare arise when officials attempt to verify net weight declarations on packages 

which have been wrapped and labeled at a location other than where the commodity is inspected/tested since 

officials have no access to “unused dry tare.” Some officials report that it is impossible to dry these types of soaker 

pads using traditional drying procedures and have even attempted to use microwave ovens to establish “used dry 

tare.” WMD discourages the use of microwave ovens or other extreme drying methods for drying tare materials 

because (1) unused “dry” tare materials have a natural moisture content which cannot be reestablished using most 

heating methods (e.g., for gel-pads this could be 5 % or more); (2) the intensity/power of microwave ovens varies 

substantially from device to device so, given the range of variability, it would be impossible to suggest a power 

setting or heating time that could be considered reasonable, repeatable, and safe; and (3) a more practical concern is 

that an official could overheat tare material and damage the microwave or cause even more serious problems such as 

the possibility of fire. 

WMD solicits recommendations and comments from all concerned who have interest in this topic. Please consider 

possible solutions to allow accurate measurement practices that permit officials to safely recreate “used dry tare” for 

net weight verification on products using “gel-type” material. 

WMD believes the requirements of HB 133 are written broadly enough to apply to all types of tare materials 

including those which are “gel based.” Under the definition of “Used Dry Tare” officials use air drying, washing, 

scraping, pressure, or other techniques which can involve more than normal household procedures but do not go so 

far as to include laboratory procedures such as oven drying. The field test procedures in HB 133 were developed to 

provide uniform procedures to enable officials to dry out “used” tare to recreate as close as possible the weight of 

“unused tare material” that the packager used. When a packager uses a tare material that does not permit the 

recreation of unused dry tare (and the official does not have access to “unused dry tare” material or to readily 

L&R - C2 
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix C – Work Group on Moisture Loss 

accessible reliable information on tare), the official is limited to drying at least two samples of the tare material as 

best he can using the procedures described by the handbook; he then can use an average tare to determine a net 

weight. If the packages are then found to be underweight, the packer must be permitted to provide information on 

whether or not the average tare value used by the official was reasonable or provide other information to the official 

to defend the net weight claims on the label. Since this is really the same opportunity any packer of any type of tare 

material has available to him, WMD believes the current guidance in HB 133 is adequate. 

A test procedure in HB 133 is necessary to ensure weights and measures can continue to maintain marketplace 

surveillance to ensure equity and fair competition while still recognizing reasonable moisture loss or gain as 

required under both federal and state laws and regulations. The relevant sections describing the tare definition and 

determination procedures from fourth edition of HB 133 (2005) are shown below: 

Used Dry Tare 

Used Dry Tare is defined as follows: Used tare material that has been air dried, or dried in 

some manner to simulate the unused tare weight. It includes all packaging materials that can 

be separated from the packaged product, either readily (e.g., by shaking) or by washing, 

scraping, ambient air drying, or other techniques involving more than “normal” household 

recovery procedures, but not including laboratory procedures like oven drying. Labels, wire 

closures, staples, prizes, decorations, and such are considered tare. Used Dry Tare is 

available regardless of where the packages are tested. The net content procedures described 

in this handbook reference Used Dry Tare.

How is a tare weight determined? 

Except in the instance of applying unused dry tare, select the packages for the initial tare 

sample from the sample packages. Mark the first two (three or five) packages in the order the 

random numbers were selected; these packages provide the initial tare sample. Determine 

the gross weight of each package and record it in block a, “Gross Wt,” under the headings 

“Pkg. 1,” “Pkg. 2,” “Pkg. 3,” etc. on the report form. Except for aerosol or other 

pressurized packages, open the sample packages, empty, clean, and dry them as appropriate 

for the packaging material.

NIST Handbook 133 is available online at http://ts.nist.gov/WeightsAndMeasures/h1334-05.cfm. 

Item 2. Moisture Loss Guidance in NIST Handbook 133 

The three items shown below were taken from the L&R Report of the 2004 89th NCWM Annual Meeting 

Proceedings and later agendas including an item from the Committee’s 2007 Interim Meeting agenda. The 

Committee withdrew two of these items in 2004 and asked NIST to review the moisture loss sections of HB 133, 

revise them to improve their readability, and, where appropriate, add additional information or clarifications. 

NIST conducted the promised review but found there were several suggestions contained in these two items. A few 

of the suggestions raised substantive questions about what needs to be added to HB 133 and which questions would 

be the most useful or practical for field officials. NIST believes that responding to some of the suggestions or 

questions could lead to extensive revisions to the handbook. This level of discussion will take considerable time and 

effort for the Committee, and WMD would like to ensure everyone has a full understanding of the concerns and 

agrees to the necessity for change so time and resources will not be wasted. The Committee should review these 

sections and identify what information administrators need versus what information field officials need to perform 

their duties. 

270-7 Amend NIST Handbook 133 Section 2.3. Moisture Allowances to Provide Clearer Guidance 

 (This Item was added to the agenda of the WG on Moisture Loss following the 2007 Interim Meeting) 

Source: Northeast Weights and Measures Association (NEWMA) 

Proposal: Amend NIST Handbook 133 (HB 133) Section 2.3, Moisture Allowances (pages 17 through 19 of 

Handbook 133) to provide clearer guidance. 

L&R - C3 
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix C – Work Group on Moisture Loss

Background: The issue of moisture loss is complex. Handbook 133 currently provides specific guidance on the 

determination and application of moisture allowances for only a limited number of commodities. Concerns have 

been raised that this guidance is confusing and difficult to understand, particularly with regard to when moisture loss 

is applied (i.e., at the time of inspection or subsequent to the inspection). Requests have been received to reword 

this section to make it easier to understand and apply. 

In addition, HB 133 provides little guidance on the determination and application of moisture allowances for 

commodities other than those specifically listed. Weights and measures jurisdictions across the country have been 

struggling with how to properly handle moisture loss during packaging inspections and need more definite guidance 

on this issue. 

The Committee did not believe it had the time or expertise to address properly the issue of moisture loss within the 

structure of the NCWM. The Committee decided to request activation of a NIST Moisture Loss WG to establish 

more effective and extensive guidance to the NCWM regarding the proper determination and application of moisture 

loss. 

Discussion of this Item by the WWMA: The WWMA L&R Committee heard that a meeting was tentatively 

planned for November 2006; the meeting was delayed to allow time for everyone to identify and agree on the issues 

to be addressed by the group to ensure that expectations for the meeting results were clear. The Weights and 

Measures Division (WMD) agreed to fund the travel and attendance of one NCWM representative. Leading issues 

included providing additional guidance in HB 133 regarding the determination and application of appropriate 

moisture loss allowances in package inspections, with noted examples including how to address gel soaker pads in 

poultry/meat packages, as well as how to determine moisture allowances for pasta, rice, and other commodities for 

which no established moisture loss allowances exist. Additionally, guidance regarding application of moisture loss 

allowances at the point-of-pack needed to be addressed. 

An industry representative urged involvement in the meeting and ensuing work on HB 133 amendments from the 

Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to ensure input and 

consensus from all relevant agencies. He further emphasized the need to review and consolidate all decisions and 

directives from any and all court rulings regarding moisture loss issues. Factors to be considered in determining and 

applying appropriate moisture loss allowances and influences upon such losses included commodity stability limits 

and varying environmental conditions at packing plants such as relative humidity and constant temperature rooms 

maintained at different temperature levels. The industry representative also urged that guidance be provided to 

industry members regarding the types of data needed to be tracked and provided by packers/manufacturers in 

addressing moisture allowance determinations. 

Discussion of this Item by the CWMA at its 2006 Interim Meeting: A comment was heard from industry that 

this needs to be addressed in order for businesses to be competitive. The USDA and FDA need to be involved in the 

development of this item. A meeting was tentatively scheduled for November prior to the NCWM Interim Meeting. 

There was general agreement that in order for this meeting to be effective, the USDA and FDA must be present. 

Comments were heard in support of using the New York proposal to correct the error in HB 133. 

Item 3. WMD Package Inspection and Moisture Loss Guidance Letter – Withdrawn 

WMD believed there was some useful information for weights and measures officials and industry contained in the 

2005 Memorandum that WMD issued to state weights and measures officials and other interested parties, entitled 

“Verifying the Net Contents of Packaged Goods and Recommended Procedures for Moisture Allowances.” WMD 

withdrew the memorandum at the request of Kraft Foods which detailed a number of concerns about the guidance 

contained in the WMD communication. The Kraft Foods letter, dated January 31, 2006, was prepared by Steven 

Steinborn of Hogan and Hartson. WMD recommended the committee review both documents to resolve the 

corporation’s concerns where possible and determine if any information in the WMD letter can be revised and 

republished to assist weights and measures officials in dealing with net quantity of contents. The WMD 

memorandum and Kraft’s letter are presented in Reference Section II below. 

L&R - C4 
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix C – Work Group on Moisture Loss 

Item 4. WMD Suggestions 

a. Seek Greater Recognition of NIST Handbook 133 by FDA and other Federal Agencies. 

WMD would like to avoid frequent amendments to HB 133 because, unlike NIST Handbook 44, it is not widely 

adopted automatically. Many jurisdictions adopt new versions of HB 133 using their Administrative 

Procedures Acts. Another consideration is that the USDA adopts versions of the handbook which then 

preempts other versions from being used to verify the net quantity of packages put up under that agency’s 

supervision. In the past, WMD found that several jurisdictions used the wrong edition of HB 133 to take action 

against USDA-inspected products simply because they used a newer version of the handbook than had been 

adopted by the USDA. WMD believes that USDA adoption gives a strong endorsement and recognition to the 

handbook. WMD also believes the fourth edition of HB 133, whose core elements have been in use by the 

states since 1994, should be recognized by the FDA and all other agencies to eliminate any uncertainty over its 

use by the states. Perhaps it is time the NCWM consider petitioning the FDA to provide some type of formal 

recognition of the handbook. WMD believes that establishing a 5-year review cycle for HB 133 may be one 

way to ensure it is acceptable to other agencies, which will help avoid the confusion over which edition is 

currently in effect. 

b. Create a new supplement or website to NIST Handbook 133 which would provide useful information to 

administrators, field officials and industry. 

WMD would like to explore the possibility and usefulness of creating a new publication or website called NIST 

Handbook 133-1 which would provide supplementary information and guidance on net quantity of contents 

testing and moisture loss for administrators and industry. The publication or website would be “informative;” 

thus, it would not include regulatory requirements. Instead, it would be used to provide additional guidance and 

more examples than can be included in HB 133 itself. Such a publication or website could also be used to 

provide complete full-size copies of the various inspection forms and worksheets contained in HB 133 and other 

useful tools developed by jurisdictions. The publication or website could also include a variety of other 

information related to net contents verification and random sampling and could include appropriate information 

from federal regulations and policies as well as frequently asked questions (FAQs). Currently in NIST 

Handbook 130 (HB 130) Interpretations and Guidelines there are sections related to moisture loss, point-ofpack inspections and administrative procedures which may not be well known or readily accessible. These 

could be updated and moved to the new publication or website. 

For example: 

2.2.5. Lot, Shipment, or Delivery 

2.5.6. Guidelines for NCWM Resolution of Requests for Recognition of Moisture Loss in Other 

Packaged Products 

2.6.10. Model Guidelines for the Administrative Review Process 

2.6.11. Good Quantity Control Practices 

2.6.12. Point-of-Pack Inspection Guidelines 

These documents are shown below in Reference Section I. 

Another example of the type of package information which could be included in a publication or website for 

reference purposes is the following report on a meeting held at NIST in 2005 to address concerns over packer 

supplied tare values. 

NIST Weights and Measures Today 

November 2005 

Report of Meeting on Tare 

On November 2, 2005, the Laws and Metric Group at NIST hosted a meeting to discuss ways to 

improve the communication of tare information between packers and retailers when meat products 

are packaged at a plant, but weighed and labeled at the retail store. Representatives from the meat 

L&R - C5 
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix C – Work Group on Moisture Loss

packing industry, the retail food industry, and several weights and measures agencies attended the 

meeting. 

The Problem 

There is a fundamental change occurring in the retail food marketplace. Retail food stores are 

shifting from having in-store meat cutters to purchasing already-packaged meat from an outside 

plant. The supplying plant provides the retail store with packaged meat (including tray, soakers, 

and overwrap), and the store is then responsible for weighing and labeling the package. In order 

to weigh and label these products properly, the retail store needs to know the weight of the 

packaging materials used by the plant (i.e., the tare weight). While this may sound simple and 

straightforward, it is not. 

Retailers 

Many retail food chains manage their tare weights from a central location. Tares are maintained at 

the central or regional office and downloaded to the individual stores on a routine basis. While 

individual stores may have the ability to override the tare provided in a download (e.g., when an 

official from weights and measures informs them that they are using an incorrect tare), this 

correction will be erased when the next download occurs. Several retail food chains believe that 

the centralized management of tare information is critical to the overall success of their meat 

departments. With little cutting and packaging being done at the retail level, stores rarely have 

experienced, professional staff in their meat departments. Without significant expertise at the 

store level, food retailers are reluctant to leave decisions regarding the use and amount of tare to 

individual store management. 

Weights and Measures Officials 

When weights and measures officials find inaccuracies in tares being used, often these 

inaccuracies are not being communicated to the food retailer’s central or regional offices. If the 

food retailer’s central or regional office is not informed that a tare value is inaccurate, then the tare 

value will not get changed in the next download. While some retail food chains require their store 

managers to submit copies of inspection reports to the central or regional office, many do not. 

Some chains leave that decision to the discretion of the individual store managers. Individual 

store managers may be reluctant to forward disparaging information about their store’s 

performance to the central or regional office. As a result, when weights and measures officials 

find an inaccurate tare being used in a store and only notify store management of the correction 

necessary, that information may not be communicated to the people who really need to know—the 

people at the central or regional office who set the tare values for the entire chain of stores. 

Packers 

The weight of tare materials used at a meat packing plant varies regularly. Whenever the plant 

changes suppliers, whether it is suppliers providing soakers, trays, or overwrap, the tare must be 

reevaluated and changed. Whenever suppliers change the materials used in their products, the tare 

must be reevaluated and changed. Most meat packers monitor tare continuously and regularly 

make small adjustments to ensure their packages are accurate. While tare information is routinely 

shared with retailers, it is difficult to ensure that the correct tare goes on the correct package. 

Packers may ship individual packages from several different production lots (lots which may have 

been packaged using different tare materials) in a single shipment to a retailer’s warehouse. The 

retailer’s warehouse then further breaks up these package groups to distribute packages to 

individual stores. Even if accurate tare information for all packages is provided to the retailer’s 

central or regional office, the retailer has difficulty using this information effectively since not all 

packages of the same product at the same location will necessarily have the same tare. In addition, 

new tare information provided to a retailer may only apply to packages still in the retailer’s 

warehouse (and not those presently in the store). This means retailers must coordinate the 

updating of tare data with the placement of new packages on the store shelves. 

L&R - C6 
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix C – Work Group on Moisture Loss 

Is There a Solution? 

The question remains: How do you effectively ensure that the tare information for a particular 

package “travels” with the package from the point of production to the final retail destination? 

One suggestion has been to print tare information directly on individual packages. However, 

packers and retailers all agree that printing tare information on packages, shipping cases, or 

shipping invoice forms would not be effective. Packers order packaging materials and shipping 

containers months in advance and at that point could only guess as to what amount of tare would 

need to be preprinted on these materials. In addition, if tare information were provided on 

individual packages, shipping cases, or shipping invoices, that information would only be 

available at the retail store and would never reach the retailer’s central or regional office in time to 

be included in the next download. Most retail food chains do not want individual stores making 

independent decisions about what tares to use. 

Ultimately, the key will be for packers and retailers to communicate more frequently and more 

effectively. To that end, the American Meat Institute (AMI) has agreed to contact other trade 

associations representing the retail and meat packing industries to ask for their help in reiterating 

to their members the importance of accurate net weight labeling at retail. AMI will encourage 

their packer and processor members to communicate tare values to retail customers whenever 

changes in tare values occur. 

How Can Weights and Measures Officials Help? 

Weights and measures agencies can help by sending copies of test reports (especially from failed 

inspections) to the corporate or regional office of the retailer. While ideally the corporate or 

regional office will receive this information from the retail store, retailers at this meeting stressed 

they would rather receive duplicate reports (from the weights and measures agency and the store) 

than none at all. Retailers consider it absolutely critical that weights and measures officials 

contact, communicate, and work with the corporate and regional offices early and often. Retailers 

specifically asked that weights and measures agencies not wait for problems to escalate before 

they get the corporate or regional offices involved. Weights and measures officials should 

conduct package inspections in full compliance with NIST Handbook 133 (HB 133). Inspectors 

are encouraged to properly clean tare materials during inspections to avoid imposing tares larger 

than they should be. 

According to HB 133, Used Dry Tare is “tare material that has been air dried, or dried in some 

manner to simulate the unused tare weight.” Before adding this definition to HB 133, members of 

the NCWM and NIST did extensive testing to compare the weights of Unused Dry Tare (which 

the packer uses), and Used Dry Tare (which the inspector uses). If Used Dry Tare is dried and 

cleaned properly, its weight should not vary significantly from the Unused Dry Tare weight. In 

addition, NIST strongly discourages the use of microwave ovens when drying tare materials, 

particularly soaker pads. Past tests have shown that excessive heating of soaker pads and other 

tare materials can significantly alter their weight, and even start a fire as some officials have 

learned. 

Following the 2007 Annual Meeting NIST WMD published the following article in its quarterly newsletter to 

provide additional guidance to officials on how to provide moisture allowances for packges. 

MOISTURE LOSS AND GEL SOAKER 

PADS—WHAT DO I DO? 

Tom Coleman 

Weights and Measures Today – September 2007 – Volume 10 Number 3, Page 4 

Moisture loss is the loss of weight or volume after packaging. Packaged products (e.g., cookies, 

granulated sugar), however, may gain as well as lose moisture. The amount of loss or gain 

depends on many factors including but not limited to the nature of the product, packaging 

material, length of time “offered for sale,” environmental conditions, and many other 

L&R - C7 
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix C – Work Group on Moisture Loss

combinations of “similar” circumstances. Loss of weight may include solvent evaporation and 

natural juices—not just the loss of water. Tare determinations can be very simple or a major 

concern depending on the type of tare material and the weight consistency of that substance. 

Unused dry tare (when available and applicable) may be the easiest of the tares to determine. Gel 

soaker pads may not be seen and tested as often, however they may prove to be equally basic. 

NIST Handbook 133 “Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods” provides the following 

guideline for all tare determinations: 

“Tare material includes all packaging materials that can be separated from the packaged product, 

either readily (e.g., by shaking) or by washing, scraping, ambient air drying, or other techniques 

involving more than ‘normal’ household recovery procedures, but not including laboratory 

procedures like oven drying.” Except for aerosol or other pressurized packages, open the sample 

packages, empty, clean, and dry the tare material as appropriate for the packaging material. When 

testing packaged product using gel soaker pads, three types of tare may be used. Used dry tare – 

used dry tare is tare material that has been air dried or dried in some manner to simulate the 

unused tare weight. It includes all packaging materials that can be separated from the packaged 

product, either readily (e.g., by shaking) or by washing, scraping, ambient air drying, or other 

techniques involving more than “normal” household recovery procedures, but not including 

laboratory procedures like oven drying. Labels, wire closures, staples, prizes, decorations, and 

such are considered tare. Used dry tare is available regardless of where the packages are tested. 

Unused dry tare – if testing packages in retail store locations where they are packaged and sold in 

small quantities to the ultimate consumers, the basic test procedures may be modified by using 

samples of the packaging material if available in the store. Wet tare – if wet tare is used, follow 

the procedures described in the used dry tare section above, except make no effort to dry the tare 

material. The following six steps apply when gravimetrically testing any type of packaged 

product: 

1. Identify and define the inspection lot. 

2. Select the sampling plan. 

3. Select the random sample. 

4. Measure the net contents of the packages in the sample. 

5. Evaluate compliance with the maximum allowable variation (MAV) requirement. 

6. Evaluate compliance with the average requirement. If, when following these steps using 

either unused dry tare, used dry tare, or wet tare, the product is found to contain less than 

the quantity represented, or if there is a violation of the maximum allowable variation 

(MAV) requirement, provide a copy of the test results to the appropriate store authority. 

Once this has been accomplished, the “field” test is complete. If upon receipt of the 

“official” test report the manufacturer wishes to contest the inspection results based on 

the “loss or gain of moisture,” official notification shall be directed to the appropriate 

weights and measures administrator for consideration/verification. 

***If testing flour, dry pet food or USDA packages of fresh poultry, franks, hotdogs, 

bacon, fresh sausage, and luncheon meats, specific instructions are provided in NIST 

Handbook 133, moisture allowances, page 17. Note: dry pet food means all extruded 

dog and cat foods and baked treat products packaged in Kraft paper bags and/or 

cardboard boxes with a moisture content of 13 % or less at the time of pack. 

If you have any questions or need additional information regarding moisture loss, please contact 

Lisa Warfield at (301) 975-3308 or at lisa.warfield@nist.gov or Ken Butcher at (301) 975-4859 or 

at kbutcher@nist.gov. 

L&R - C8 
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix C – Work Group on Moisture Loss 

REFERENCE SECTION I – EXCERPTS FROM THE INTERPRETATIONS AND 

GUIDELINES SECTION OF NIST HANDBOOK 130

The following are currently in NIST Handbook 130 (HB 130) Interpretations and Guidelines 

2.2.5. Lot, Shipment, or Delivery 

(L&R, 1981, p. 95) 

Policy

The requirements for the average package net contents to meet or exceed the labeled declaration may be applied to 

production lots, shipments, or deliveries. Shipments or deliveries are smaller collections of packages than 

production lots that may or may not consist of mixed lot codes. 

Emphasis in inspection activities should be placed on warehouse and in-plant testing without neglecting retail 

consumer protection. 

Background

The Committee heard a petition from the California Brewers Association to define a lot as: 

“A selection of containers under one roof produced by a single company of the same size, type and 

style, manufactured or packed under similar conditions with a minimum number to be equivalent 

to one production line shift.” 

The intention of the petition is to focus Weights and Measures enforcement on production lots as opposed to small 

collections of packages on retail shelves, because the production lot is under the control of the packager. 

An alternative proposal was made that would require mingling of lot and date codes in package inspection at 

warehouse locations. 

The Committee has reviewed the proposals in light of Section 7.6. and Section 12.1. of the Uniform Packaging and 

Labeling Regulation which refers to “shipment, delivery, or lot.” If the petition is approved, the terms “shipment” 

and “delivery” would have to be dropped from this Uniform Regulation. 

The Committee recognizes the inherent value of in-plant and warehouse inspection and is of the opinion that, 

wherever possible, such inspections should be carried out. At the same time, the Committee recognizes the need for 

the state and local weights and measures officials to protect the consumer at the level where the ultimate sale is 

made. Therefore, the Committee recommends no change to the Uniform Regulation. 

The Committee looks forward to the work of the Special Study Group on Enforcement Uniformity of the NCWM 

which will be exploring the mechanisms that might be instituted to make in-plant inspection workable. 

2.5.6. Guidelines for NCWM Resolution of Requests for Recognition of Moisture Loss in Other Packaged 

Products

(Exec, 1988, p. 94) 

The Task Force on Commodity Requirements limited its work to only a few product categories, using these 

categories as models for addressing moisture loss. The gray-area concept is the result of this work. 

Recognizing several candidates for future work in moisture loss, the Task Force recommends that the following 

guidelines for moisture loss be followed as far as possible by any industry requesting consideration: 

1. There should be reasonable uniformity in the moisture content of the product category. For example, since 

pet food has final moisture contents ranging from very moist to very dry, some subcategorization of pet 

food needs to be defined by industry before the NCWM study of the issue. 

L&R - C9 
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix C – Work Group on Moisture Loss

2. The predominant type of moisture loss (whether into the atmosphere or into the packaging materials) must 

be specified. 

3. Different types of packaging might make it necessary to subcategorize the product. For example, pasta is 

packaged in cardboard, in polyethylene, or other packaging more impervious to moisture loss. The 

industry should define the domain of packaging materials to be considered. 

4. “Real-world” data is needed on the product as found in the retail marketing chain—not just laboratory 

moisture-loss data. 

5. The industry requesting consideration of moisture loss for its product should collect data on an industrywide basis (rather than from only one or two companies). 

Information concerning the relative fractions of imported and domestically produced product should be 

available, for example, in order to assess the feasibility of interacting with the manufacturer on specific 

problem lots. 

6. Moisture loss may occur either: 

- during manufacturing or 

- during distribution. 

Data will be needed to show the relative proportion of moisture loss in these different locations since 

moisture loss is permitted only under good distribution practices. Geographical and seasonal variations 

may apply. 

7. A description of the processing and packaging methods in use in the industry will be of great value, as will 

a description of the distribution system and time for manufacturing and distribution. A description of the 

existing net quantity control programs in place should be given, together with information on how 

compliance with Handbook 133 is obtained. A description of maintenance and inspection procedures for 

the scales should be provided, together with information on suitability of equipment and other 

measurements under Handbook 44. 

8. A description of federal and local agency jurisdiction and test should be given, as well as any regulatory 

history with respect to moisture loss and short weight. Has weights and measures enforcement generated 

the request? What efforts have addressed the moisture loss issue prior to approaching the NCWM? Are 

the appropriate federal agencies aware of the industry's request to the NCWM? 

9. The industry should propose the type of compliance system and/or moisture determination methodology to 

be used. The compliance scheme, if it contains industry data components, should be susceptible to 

verification (examples: USDA net weight tests for meat; exchange of samples with millers for flour) and 

should state what the companies will do to provide data to field inspection agencies in an ongoing fashion 

(as the gray-area approach requires). If in-plant testing is to be combined with field testing, who is to do 

such testing, and how is this to be accomplished? It should be possible to incorporate the proposed testing 

scheme into Handbook 133 to be used with Category A or B sampling plans. 

When all the preliminary information recommended above has been collected, a field test of the proposed 

compliance scheme should be conducted by weights and measures enforcement officials to prove its viability. 

See the plan diagrammed on the next page. 

L&R - C10 
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix C – Work Group on Moisture Loss 

Decision to Request

Characterize Product:

Imported vs Domestic

Processing and

Packaging Systems

used to produce

product

Net contents and scale

maintenance programs

Moisture content of 

product

Types of packaging 

materials used

Distribution process

and time involved

How moisture is lost in

distribution:

into atmosphere

into packaging

materials

Prioritize Requests

Is Delineation of Problem Complete?

Form Technical Work Group:

Federal Agency representation

State W eights & Measures Agency

Industry or Trade Association

Representation

Recommend Compliance

Testing Scheme

H-133 Category A or B

The "Gray-Area" Concept

Specific Test Methods

Collect Data on:

Amount of moisture in marketing chain

Suitability of compliance testing scheme for

field use

Adopt Compliance Test Method(s)

Incorporate into H-133

Key:

I Industry or Trade Association

C NCWM L&R Committee

T Technical W ork Group

W Weights & Measures Officials

N NCWM Voting Membership

F Federal Agency

Plan For NCWM Resolution of Individual Requests For Recognition of

Moisture Loss

I

C

W

T

F

I

C

C

I

T I W

N

No

Yes

L&R - C11 
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix C – Work Group on Moisture Loss

2.6.10. Model Guidelines for the Administrative Review Process 

Purpose 

These guidelines are provided to assist weights and measures programs in establishing an administrative review 

process. They are not intended to be the only process an agency may use nor are they intended to supersede any 

agency's existing process. Before implementing ANY process, it should be approved by legal counsel. 

These guidelines ensure that persons affected by “inspection findings” (e.g., price misrepresentations or shortweight 

packages), or who are deprived of the use of their property (devices or packages placed under “stop” or “off-sale” 

order), are provided a timely-independent review of the action. The process enables affected persons to provide 

evidence which could be relevant in determining whether the enforcement action was proper. The purpose of the 

process is to ensure that a person's ability to conduct business is not hindered by improper enforcement actions. 

This process is independent of any other action (e.g., administrative penalties, prosecutions, etc.) that may be taken 

by the enforcement agency. 

Background 

In the course of their work, weights and measures officials take enforcement actions that may prohibit the use of 

devices or the sale of packaged goods (e.g., “stop-sale” or “off-sale” orders for packages and “stop-use” or 

“condemnation” tags issued on devices). Improper actions (e.g., not following prescribed test procedures, enforcing 

labeling requirements on exempted packages, or incorrectly citing someone for a “violation”) place the official and 

the jurisdiction in the position of being liable for the action if it is found that the action was “illegal.” In some cases, 

weights and measures jurisdictions could be ordered to pay monetary damages to compensate the affected party for 

the improper action. 

This process is one way to provide affected persons an opportunity to present evidence which may be relevant in 

determining whether the order or finding has been properly made to an independent party. The procedure enables 

business operators to obtain an independent review of orders or findings so that actions affecting their business can 

be evaluated administratively instead of through litigation. This ensures timely review, which is essential because of 

the impact that such actions may have on the ability of a business to operate and in cases where perishable products 

may be lost. 

Review Provisions 

Parties affected by enforcement actions must be given the opportunity to appeal enforcement actions. 

Inspectors are the primary contacts with regulated firms and thus are in the best position to ensure that the 

enforcement actions taken are “proper.” “Proper” means that inspections are conducted (1) within the scope of the 

authority granted by law, (2) according to recognized investigative or testing procedures and standards, and (3) that 

enforcement actions are lawful. The burden for proving that actions are proper falls on the weights and measures 

program, not on regulated firms. 

Weights and measures officials are law enforcement officers; therefore, they have the responsibility to exercise their 

authority within the “due process” provisions of the U.S. Constitution. As weights and measure programs carry out 

their enforcement responsibilities in the future, more and more challenges to their actions and authority will occur. 

It is in the best interest of any program to establish strict operational procedures and standards of conduct to prevent 

the occurrence of improper actions that may place the jurisdiction in an untenable position in a court challenge of an 

enforcement action. The foundation for ensuring proper actions is training, clear and concise requirements, and 

adoption of and adherence to uniform test procedures and legal procedures. 

Prior to taking enforcement actions, the inspector should recheck test results and determine that the information on 

which the action will be taken is accurate. 

Inspections shall be conducted with the understanding that the findings will be clearly and plainly documented and 

reviewed with the store's representative. 

During the review of the findings, the firm’s representative may provide information which must be used by the 

inspector to resolve the problems and concerns before enforcement actions are taken. In some cases, the provided 

L&R - C12 
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix C – Work Group on Moisture Loss 

information may not persuade the inspector to forego the action. In some cases the inspector and business 

representative may not understand the circumstances surrounding the violations, or there may be a conflict between 

the parties that they cannot resolve. In other cases, the owner or manufacturer may not learn that an enforcement 

action has occurred until long after the inspector leaves the establishment. 

Steps: 

1. Provide a framework that will help in resolving most of these situations where “due process” is of concern. 

Make sure that the responsible party (e.g., as declared on the package label) is notified of violations and 

receives copies of inspection reports. Establish standard operating procedures to assure the affected party 

of timely access to a representative of the weights and measures program so that the firm can provide the 

relevant information or obtain clarification of legal requirements. 

2. Make the process as simple and convenient as possible. Especially in distant or rural areas where there are 

no local offices, the review should be conducted by a supervisor of the official taking the action if agreed to 

by the person filing the request for review. 

3. The process should include notice that the firm can seek review at a higher level in the weights and 

measures program or an independent review by a third party. The following procedures are recommended: 

(a) Any owner, distributor, packager, or retailer of a device ordered out of service, or item or commodity 

ordered “off-sale,” or inspection finding (e.g., a price misrepresentation or a shortweight lot of 

packages) shall be entitled to a timely review of such order, to a prompt, impartial, administrative 

review of such off-sale order or finding. 

A notice of the right to administrative review should be included on all orders or reports of findings or 

violations and should be communicated to the responsible firm (e.g., person or firm identified on the 

product label): 

(b) The administrative review shall be conducted by an independent party designated by the Director or 

before an independent hearing officer appointed by the Department. The officer shall not be a person 

responsible for weights and measures administration or enforcement. 

(c) No fees should be imposed for the administrative review process. 

Sample Notice

You have the right to Administrative Review of this order

or finding. To obtain a review, contact the Director of

Weights and Measures by telephone or send a written

request (either postmarked, faxed, or hand delivered) to:

(Name, Address or Fax Number of the Director or other

Designated Official)

Your request should reference any information that you

believe supports the withdrawal or modification of the

order or finding.

(d) The firm responsible for the product or the retailer may introduce any record or other relevant 

evidence. 

L&R - C13 
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix C – Work Group on Moisture Loss

For example: 

(i) Commodities subject to the off-sale action or other findings were produced, processed, 

packaged, priced, or labeled in accordance with applicable laws, regulations or requirements. 

(ii) Devices subject to the “stop-use” order or “condemnation” were maintained in accordance 

with applicable laws, regulations or requirements. 

(iii) Prescribed test procedures or sampling plans were not followed by the inspector. 

(iv) Mitigating circumstances existed which should be considered. 

(e) The reviewer must consider the inspector's report, findings, and actions as well as any evidence 

introduced by the owner, distributor, packager, or retailer as part of the review process. 

(f) The reviewer must provide a timely written recommendation following review unless additional time 

is agreed to by the department and the petitioner. 

(g) The reviewer may recommend to the Department that an order be upheld, withdrawn or modified. If 

justified the reviewer may recommend other action including a reinspection of the device or 

commodity based upon information presented during the review. 

(h) All actions should be documented and all parties advised in writing of the results of the review. The 

report of action should be detailed in that it provides the reasons for the decision. 

2.6.11. Good Quantity Control Practices

Good Quantity Control Practices means that the plant managers should take all reasonable precautions to ensure the 

following quantity control standards or their equivalent are met: 

1. A formal quantity control function is in place with authority to review production processes and records, 

investigate possible errors, and approve, control, or reject lots. 

2. Adequate facilities (e.g., equipment, standards and work areas) for conducting quantity control functions 

are provided and maintained. 

3. A quantity control program (e.g., a system of statistical process control) is in place and maintained. 

4. Sampling is conducted at a frequency appropriate to the product process to ensure that the data obtained is 

representative of the production lot. 

5. Production records are maintained to provide a history of the filling and net content labeling of the product. 

6. Each “production lot” contains on the average the labeled quantity and the number of packages exceeding 

the specified maximum allowable variation (MAV) value in the inspection sample shall be no more than 

permitted in Tables 2-1 and 2-2 in NIST Handbook 133. 

7. Packaging practices are appropriate for specific products and measurement procedures (e.g., quantity 

sampling, density and tare determinations) and guidelines for recording and maintaining test results are 

documented. 

8. Personnel responsible for quantity control follow written work instructions and are competent to perform 

their duties (e.g., background, education, experience and training). Training is conducted at sufficient 

intervals to ensure good practices. 

L&R - C14 
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix C – Work Group on Moisture Loss 

9. Recognized procedures are used for the selection, maintenance, adjustment, and testing of filling equipment 

to insure proper fill control. 

10. Weighing and measuring devices are suitable for their intended purpose, and measurement standards are 

suitable and traceable to national standards. This includes a system of equipment maintenance and 

calibration to include recordkeeping procedures. 

11. Controls over automated data systems and software used in quantity control ensure that information is 

accessible, but changeable only by authorized personnel. 

12. Tare materials are monitored for variation. Label changes are controlled to ensure net quantity matches 

labeled declaration. 

2.6.12. Point-of-Pack Inspection Guidelines 

A. Weights and Measures Officials’ Responsibilities

1. Conduct inspections during hours when the plant is normally open for business. Open the inspection by 

making contact with the plant manager or authorized representative (e.g., the quality assurance manager or 

the production manager). 

2. Present the proper credentials and explain the reason for the visit (e.g., routine or follow-up inspection or 

consumer complaint, etc.). 

3. Request access to quantity measurement equipment in the packing room, moisture testing equipment in the 

laboratory or in the packing room, and product packed on premise or stored in warehouse areas. 

4. Obtain permission from a plant representative prior to using a tape recorder or a camera. 

5. Conduct inspection-related activities in a professional and appropriate manner and, if possible, work in an 

area that will not interfere with normal activities of the establishment. 

6. Abide by all the safety and sanitary requirements of the establishment and clean the work area upon 

completion of the inspection/test. Return borrowed equipment and materials. 

7. To close the inspection, recheck inspection reports in detail and ascertain that all information is complete 

and correct. 

8. Sample questions and tasks for Inspectors: 

a. Inside Buildings and Equipment: 

(i) Is all filling and associated equipment in good repair? 

(ii) Are net content measurement devices suitable for the purpose being used? 

(iii) Are standards used by the firm to verify device accuracy traceable to NIST? 

b. Packing Room Inspection: 

(i) Observe if the program for net quantity of content control in the packing room is actually being 

carried out. 

(ii) Ensure that the weighing systems are suitable and tare determination procedures are adequate. If 

there are questions regarding tare determination, weigh a representative number of tare and/or 

filled packages. 

L&R - C15 
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix C – Work Group on Moisture Loss

(iii) For products labeled and filled by volume and then checked by weight, ensure that proper density 

is used. 

c. Warehouse Inspection: 

If an inspection is conducted: 

(i) Select lot(s) to be evaluated. 

(ii) Determine the number of samples to be inspected. Use the appropriate sampling plan as described 

in NIST Handbook 133. 

(iii) Randomly select the number of samples or use a mutually agreed on plan for selecting the 

samples. 

(iv) Determine the average net quantity of the sample and use the standard deviation factor to compute 

the Sample Error Limit (SEL) to evaluate the lot. 

(v) Look for individual values that exceed the applicable Maximum Allowable Variation as found in 

NIST Handbook 133. 

(vi) Apply moisture allowances, if applicable. 

(vii)Review the general condition of the warehouse relevant to package integrity, good quantity 

control, and distribution practices. 

(viii) Prepare an inspection report to detail findings and actions. 

9. Close the inspection – Review findings with Plant Representative. 

After the inspection, meet with the management representative to discuss inspection findings and 

observations. Provide additional information as needed (e.g., information on laws and regulations or 

explanations of test procedures used in the inspection). Be informative, courteous and responsive. If 

problems/violations are found during the inspection/test, bring them to the attention of the appropriate 

person. 

B. Plant Management Responsibilities 

1. Recognize that inspectors are enforcing a federal, state or local law. 

2. Assist the official in conducting inspection activities in a timely and efficient manner. 

3. During the initial conference with the inspector, find out whether the inspection is routine, a follow-up, or 

the result of a consumer complaint. If a complaint, obtain as much information as possible concerning the 

nature of the complaint, allowing for an appropriate response. 

4. The plant manager, quality assurance manager, or any designated representative should accompany the 

inspector. 

5. Plant personnel should take note of the inspector’s comments during the inspection and prepare a detailed 

write-up as soon as the inspection is completed. 

6. When an official presents an inspection report, discuss the observations and, if possible, provide 

explanations for any changes deemed necessary as a result of the inspection/test. 

L&R - C16 
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix C – Work Group on Moisture Loss 

Plant Management: Information that must be shared with the inspector. 

1. Establishment name and address. 

2. Type of firm and information on related firms or applicable information (e.g., sub-contractor, servant or 

agent). 

3. General description and location of shipping and storage areas where packaged goods intended for 

distribution are stored. 

4. Commodities manufactured by or stored at the facility. 

5. Names of responsible plant officials. 

Plant Management: Information that may be shared with the inspector. 

1. Simple flow sheet of the filling process with appropriate net content control checkpoints. 

2. Weighing or measuring device maintenance and calibration test records. 

3. Type of quantity control tests and methods used. 

4. Net content control charts for any lot, shipment, or delivery in question or lots which have previously been 

cited. 

5. Method of date coding the product to include code interpretation. 

6. Laboratory reports showing the moisture analysis of the products which are in question or have been 

previously cited. 

7. Product volume of lot sizes or related information. 

8. Distribution records related to any problem lots including names of customers. 

L&R - C17 
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix C – Work Group on Moisture Loss

REFERENCE SECTION II – OTHER MOISTURE LOSS GUIDANCE AND RELATED 

DOCUMENTS 

This section contains the text from a WMD memorandum to state weights and measures directors and other 

interested parties and a letter from Kraft General Foods stating the reasons justifying a withdrawal of the WMD 

memorandum. 

A. Text from the WMD Memorandum that was issued on January 1, 2006 

Memorandum for State Weights and Measures Directors and Other Interested Parties 

Subject: Verifying the Net Contents of Packaged Goods and Recommended Procedures for Moisture 

Allowances 

This memo supersedes the April 3, 1995, memorandum from the Weights and Measures Division (WMD) 

concerning the impact of the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990 (NLEA) on net content testing by 

State and local weights and measures officials. 

I am revising the earlier correspondence primarily in response to the National Conference on Weights and 

Measures’ (NCWM) adoption of the fourth edition (January 2005) of the National Institute of Standards and 

Technology’s Handbook 133 “Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods” (Handbook 133). Recent 

inquiries from State officials on the status of package inspection programs that test products subject to Food and 

Drug Administration (FDA) jurisdiction have further prompted a response. This memorandum describes 

guidance provided by FDA. Since 1985 that agency has advised NIST that Handbook 133 has not been in 

conflict with that agency’s practices enforcing net quantity of content on packaged foods. 

I. Recommendations for Verifying the Net Quantity of Contents of Packages Subject to FDA 

Jurisdiction 

 WMD recommends that weights and measures officials use the fourth edition of Handbook 133 

(January 2005) for all products except those subject to regulation by the U.S. Department of Agriculture 

(USDA), which has adopted the third edition of Handbook 133 and its 4th Supplement.1

 NIST recently 

learned that the USDA may adopt the 2005 edition of Handbook 133 in the near future. These publications 

are available on the Internet.2

The Category A Sampling Plans in Handbook 133 provide a statistically valid sampling scheme and 

sample correction factors to enable you to determine if a sample passes or fails a test with a confidence 

level of at least 97 %. The test methods prescribed for foods are consistent with those used by the FDA.3

 Weights and measures officials must apply both the “average” and “individual package” requirements in 

Handbook 133 to the packages they inspect because Federal and State laws and regulations relating to net 

quantity of content require officials to allow reasonable variations (both plus and minus errors in net 

contents) from the labeled net contents. By applying both requirements, officials avoid the appearance 

1

 See 9CFR317.19 and 9CFR381.121b for the applicable meat and poultry regulations. 

2

 The 3rd Edition and 4th Supplement required by USDA and the January 2005 4th Edition of Handbook 133 are free 

at http://ts.nist.gov/WeightsAndMeasures/h1334-05.cfm on the Internet. 

3

 Historically, the FDA has used enforcement procedures based on a 95 % confidence level that findings of underfill 

are accurate. The Category A Sampling Plans in the fourth edition of Handbook 133 are based on an approximate 

97 % confidence level that the findings are accurate; therefore, these plans should be acceptable to use in testing 

packages under FDA jurisdiction. 

L&R - C18 
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix C – Work Group on Moisture Loss 

they are imposing a “minimum” net content system4

 while providing a high level of protection for 

consumers and ensuring fair competition in the marketplace. 

 Weights and Measures Officials should continue to test packages at retail and should consider Section 1.1. 

of Handbook 133 before taking enforcement action on small inspection lots of package: 

Testing packages at retail outlets evaluates the soundness of the manufacturing, distributing, 

and retailing processes of the widest variety of goods at a single location. It is an easily 

accessible, practical means for State, county and city jurisdictions to monitor packaging 

procedures and to detect present or potential problems. Generally, retail package testing is 

not conducive to checking large quantities of individual products of any single production 

lot. Therefore, follow-up inspections of a particular brand or lot code number at a number 

of retail and wholesale outlets, and ultimately at the point-of-pack are extremely important 

aspects in any package-checking scheme. After the evaluation of an inspection lot is 

completed, the jurisdiction should consider what, if any, further investigation or follow-up is 

warranted. At the point-of-sale, a large number of processes may affect the quality or 

quantity of the product. Therefore, there may be many reasons for any inspection lot being 

out of compliance. A shortage in weight or measure may result from mishandling the 

product in the store, or the retailer’s failure to rotate stock. Shortages may also be caused 

through mishandling by a distributor, or failure of some part of the packaging process. 

Shortages may also be caused by moisture loss (desiccation) if the product is packaged in 

permeable media. Therefore, being able to determine the cause of an error in order to 

correct defects is more difficult when retail testing is used. 

It is important to realize that the Category A Sampling Plans in Handbook 133, while statistically valid, 

may fail lots that contain the labeled net quantity of content approximately three times out of 100 tests. By 

basing enforcement actions on samples from multiple lots of the same product from the same manufacturer 

tested at different locations, you will have a better indication of whether or not an enforcement action is 

necessary. When a lot fails an inspection, NIST recommends you contact the manufacturer to obtain 

quantity control records and other production information on the lot to assist in your decision process. To 

ensure due process, we encourage jurisdictions to follow the NCWM’s Section 2.6.10. Model Guidelines 

for the Administrative Review Process in NIST Handbook 130 “Uniform Laws and Regulations in the area 

of legal metrology....” (Those guidelines are shown below this memorandum) for reference but, your 

agency’s general counsel may of course have you follow other procedures. When following up on possible 

violations with manufacturers, recognize they are required under Federal and State laws or regulations to 

follow current good manufacturing practices. The NCWM has also adopted guidelines in Section 2.6.11. 

on “Good Quantity Control Practices” that officials can use as a tool to assess quantity control systems. 

(These are provided below). 

 Weights and Measures officials should conduct inspections at the point of pack whenever possible so they 

will have access to larger lots of packages and can also assess the packager’s entire packaging system. The 

NCWM adopted guidelines in Section 2.6.12. on “point-of-pack inspections” to help officials conduct 

these inspections, (See below this memorandum). 

 We encourage jurisdictions to collaborate on conducting marketplace surveys to determine the level of 

compliance of commodity groups (e.g., store-packed random weight items, mulch, polyethylene sheeting, 

flour, milk, soft drinks, animal food, etc.) and to work together to follow up on possible problems at the 

point-of-pack where the packaging plant or distribution point is located in a jurisdiction other than where 

the packages failed to pass a test. The State of California conducts a wide variety of marketplace surveys 

which can serve as model for other states to follow. NIST encourages all states to follow the example set 

by California’s Division of Measurement Standards for monitoring compliance in the all areas of weights 

4

 Under a “minimum” net content system (these systems are common in European countries), no package in a 

sample may contain less than the net quantity of contents stated on the package label. 

L&R - C19 
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix C – Work Group on Moisture Loss

and measures enforcement. NIST will provide assist to states who want to conduct or collaborate in 

surveys... 

Ensure that all samples are selected randomly. The statistical reliability of the sampling plans is valid only 

when the sample has been randomly selected from the inspection lot. 

 To be consistent with FDA inspection activities, utilize used dry tare when taking enforcement actions. 

The handbook permits unused dry tare to be used to conduct audits and to verify net weights of packages 

put up in retail stores. 

 Apply the average and individual package requirements to products tested at any point in distribution. 

Over the last ten years several jurisdictions have contacted WMD concerning industry claims that States 

can only take action on production lots. FDA advises that there are no provisions in the Federal Food, 

Drug, and Cosmetic Act or its legislative history that support this claim. Another issue that WMD has 

been asked about is the claim that the FDA has a “1 %” tolerance that States must permit. FDA advises 

that they have a policy for their field compliance staff to use in determining whether or not to request 

enforcement actions by the U.S. Justice Department. The only purpose for the policy is for FDA to 

prioritize agency resources, not to set a limit for State enforcement actions. The FDA also reports that it 

did not establish this policy as a statistical allowance or tolerance that could be easily abused by an 

unscrupulous packager. 

 Allow for reasonable moisture loss. 

The following Federal regulation preempts any State or local requirement that is not identical: 

21 CFR § 101.105 

(q) The declaration of net quantity of contents shall express an accurate statement of the 

quantity of contents of the package. Reasonable variations caused by loss or gain of moisture 

during the course of good distribution practice or by unavoidable deviations in good 

manufacturing practice will be recognized. Variations from stated quantity of contents shall 

not be unreasonably large. 

State and local jurisdictions must allow reasonable variations in net contents caused by the loss or gain of 

moisture in food products that occurs during good distribution practice. If not, a jurisdiction may be questioned 

if enforcement action is taken against the product. The moisture loss issue has challenged weights and 

measures officials and industry since the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act allowing for moisture loss was 

passed more than 75 years ago. However, the fact that FDA has not adopted specific moisture allowances is not 

justification for not making reasonable allowances for moisture loss. 

The NCWM has adopted moisture allowances (also called “gray areas”) for flour, dry pet food, chicken, and hot 

dogs. Under the “gray area” concept, any food found short in excess of the allowance is subject to enforcement 

action. If the product is found short, but within the allowance, the official would take additional steps (such as 

comparing the moisture content of a sample from the lot to the time-of-pack moisture content provided by the 

packer) to determine if the product is short because of underweighing at the time of pack, or if the shortage is 

due to “reasonable” moisture loss that occurred during distribution. WMD recommends that officials use the 

following guidelines with the “gray area” approach to allow reasonable moisture loss for the listed foods. 

WMD only recommends moisture allowances. It is the individual jurisdiction's responsibility to make the final 

decision concerning appropriate moisture allowances. Final decisions should be made after considering 

moisture loss data provided by the packager. 

II. Recommended Moisture Allowances for Some Foods 

WMD has consulted with State and local weights and measures agencies and affected industries on moisture 

loss problems associated with hygroscopic foods. The following moisture allowances, beyond those already 

L&R - C20 
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix C – Work Group on Moisture Loss 

addressed by the NCWM, are recommended. WMD used data from the FDA's Quantity of Contents 

Compendium as the major source for the numerical values for gray area recommendations. Moisture loss has 

been identified with flour, pasta, rice, cheese and cheese products, dried fruits and vegetables, fresh and frozen 

fruits and vegetables, coffee beans, and bakery products. Of all of these commodities, the extent of moisture 

loss variations is greatest for flour and pasta. Very little current data are available for many other commodities. 

However, WMD considers the need for allowances for affected commodities to be pressing and believes that 

States must make some allowance for these commodities until other data can be obtained for the respective 

commodities. If a recommended allowance is perceived as too lenient, weights and measures agencies may 

prevent abuses of the allowance through inspections at the point of pack. Allowances if too lenient provide are 

a disadvantage for firms with products in competition with packers where point-of-pack inspections may not be 

possible; consequently, such firms may wish to provide information to WMD so that we can recommend a more 

stringent allowance. Where allowances are too stringent, firms may also provide information justifying a more 

appropriate allowance. WMD suggests that firms desiring such an allowance be encouraged to work closely 

with the NCWM in view of its experience in this area. Even though the process of developing moisture 

allowances is time-consuming, affected firms will be provided some relief during the interim period if State and 

local agencies implement the following recommendations: 

III. Moisture Allowances at Point of Pack 

WMD recommends that moisture allowances at the point of pack not be made for packages taken immediately 

off the production line. However, regulatory officials may often encounter product at the point of pack that has 

been stored by the packer prior to shipment to other locations. In the past, moisture allowances have not been 

recognized in tests until the food is “introduced into interstate commerce;” however, since many manufacturers 

store the product for extended periods at the packing location, moisture loss should be recognized. It is 

recognized that moisture loss is a natural phenomenon that is not controlled or delayed by any specific schedule, 

and WMD recommends that, at some point during such storage, allowances be permitted for moisture loss. But, 

considering the multiplicity of foods, differences in packing materials, and the various environmental factors 

that affect moisture loss, it would be impossible for WMD to determine moisture loss that occurs on the 

packaging line or in the first few hours or days following the packaging of any one product type, let alone the 

tens of thousands of products that might be inspected at the point of pack. Certainly, some products begin to 

lose moisture immediately after packaging, but there must be some definitive guidance provided for weights 

and measures officials and industry. 

This problem is not unique to the United States where we are trying to encourage State and local officials to 

focus more on point-of-pack inspections. WMD is aware that point-of-pack inspections are one of the primary 

tools used in European countries to control net contents in packaged goods. We have learned that in some of 

these countries officials make no allowance for moisture loss within the first 7 days of the date of pack for some 

products. As this is the only documented guidance on the issue available, WMD recommends that States 

consider a similar approach until other guidance on this issue is available. This will provide packers and 

officials with guidance on when moisture loss allowances must be applied and will enable officials to conduct 

inspections at point of pack to ensure that packers are not taking advantage of recognized allowances for 

moisture loss. To minimize the possibility of moisture loss considerations, officials should inspect the most 

recently packed items. 

In 1995 WMD received comments on the 7-day recommendation from the Food Industry Weights and 

Measures Task Force (Task Force) of the Grocery Manufacturers of America. The Task Force was concerned 

the 7-day period was not reasonable because the data submitted to the NCWM to develop the gray areas for 

flour, dry pet food, and other products clearly showed that some products lose as much as 0.5 % to 1 % of their 

weight due to moisture loss in the first few days of packing. WMD acknowledged the industry's concerns about 

the 7-day period but believed then and now that the concerns can be addressed without dropping the 

recommendation. WMD believes it is crucial to have specific guidelines on moisture loss for use in point-ofpack inspections. 

WMD recommends an exception to the 7-day period if the packer can provide daily moisture loss data collected 

using the following procedures. We have developed the following guidelines in collaboration with industry for 

packers to use the results of the short-term moisture loss studies at the point of pack. To be acceptable, the data 

L&R - C21 
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix C – Work Group on Moisture Loss

must be computed using the average moisture loss determined on a daily basis (e.g., the weight of each package 

in each of the sample control lots is determined every day for 7 days) in environmental conditions similar to 

those that exist when the product is being inspected. For example, an inspector visits a pet food plant in Ohio in 

the middle of July to conduct a point-of-pack inspection. If the product tested had been packaged 5 days before 

the inspection and is found underweight; the moisture loss data must reflect the loss that would occur in July not 

January. At least three sample control lots, consisting of at least 48 randomly selected packages, must be used 

to develop the moisture loss data. Each sample lot must be stored under the same conditions that are typical for 

the product (e.g., if the product is typically placed in a sealed case on a pallet and shrink wrapped, the sample 

lots must be stored under the same conditions. Moisture loss data obtained by removing the individual 

packages from the shipping case and storing them in a laboratory would not be acceptable). The three-sample 

control lots must be placed at various locations in the storage site. The average moisture loss value must be 

computed from the three-sample control lots with a 95 % prediction interval. 

Since point-of-pack inspections are not routinely done in most jurisdictions at this time, there will be many 

situations where packers may not have “acceptable” moisture loss data for a particular product found to be 

underweight at the time of a point-of-pack inspection. In these cases, WMD recommends the packer be allowed 

to conduct a study using the criteria specified above. This data could then be provided to the weights and 

measures official for use in making a final determination whether or not moisture loss caused the product to be 

underweight. One benefit of this approach is that the moisture loss study can be conducted within a few days of 

the inspector finding the inspection lot underweight so the test will more closely reflect the environmental 

conditions under which the original inspection lot was subject. 

A similar recommendation is included for fresh bakery products weighed within 1 day following the end of the 

day of pack (in this case the moisture loss data would have to be based on the amount of moisture lost on an 

hourly basis under the same conditions listed above for the 7-day period). WMD will provide technical 

assistance on request to any jurisdiction to resolve these individual moisture loss cases by working with you and 

the packer and will seek FDA assistance in resolving these situations. 

IV. Recommended Moisture Allowances for Use at Point of Pack and Testing at Any Other Location 

Provide the following allowances for moisture loss (expressed as a percentage of the labeled net quantity of 

contents): 

1. No allowance for moisture loss should be made if: 

(a) A food, other than a fresh bakery product, while stored by the packer, is weighed within 

7 days following the end of the day of pack, except when the packer provides acceptable (see 

note below) documentation of the moisture loss for the product in storage at the point-of-pack, 

or 

(b) A fresh bakery product, while stored by the packer, is weighed within 1 day following the end 

of the day of pack, except when the packer provides acceptable (see note below) 

documentation of the moisture loss for the product in storage at the point of pack, or 

(c) The food is not subject to moisture loss, or 

(d) The food is packaged in an air-/moisture-tight container (e.g., cans, glass bottles, enclosed in 

paraffin, etc). 

2. Allow 1 % for the following foods: frozen fruits and frozen vegetables, and fresh baked breads, 

buns, rolls and muffins. 

3. Allow 3 % for the following foods: flour, dry pet food, pasta, rice, cheese and cheese products, 

dried fruits and vegetables, fresh fruits and vegetables, coffee beans, and bakery products other 

than fresh baked breads, buns, rolls and muffins. 

L&R - C22 
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix C – Work Group on Moisture Loss 

Note for Moisture Allowances at Point of Pack: The data must be computed using the average 

moisture loss determined on a daily basis (e.g., the weight of each package in each of the sample 

control lots is determined every day for 7 days) in environmental conditions similar to those that exist 

when the product is being inspected. For example, an inspector visits a pet food plant in Ohio in the 

middle of July to conduct a point-of-pack inspection. If the product tested had been packaged 5 days 

before the inspection and is found underweight; the moisture loss data must reflect the loss that would 

occur in July, not January. At least three sample control lots consisting of at least 48 randomly 

selected packages must be used to develop the moisture loss data. Each sample lot must be stored 

under the same conditions that are typical for the product (e.g., if the product is typically placed in a 

sealed case on a pallet and shrink wrapped, the sample lots must be stored under the same conditions. 

Moisture loss data obtained by removing the individual packages from the shipping case and storing 

them in a laboratory would not be acceptable). The three-sample control lots must be placed at various 

locations in the storage site. The average moisture loss value must be computed from the three-sample 

control lots with a 95 % prediction interval. If the packer does not provide the information, no 

additional moisture allowance should be permitted. 

V. Moisture Loss for Products Not Listed in NIST Handbook 133 

When officials test product for which no moisture loss guidance has been provided NIST can provide technical 

assistance. In the past NIST has published recommended moisture allowances for use at all locations including 

Point-of-Pack. If moisture loss studies are required, NIST will assist in the completion of such studies. If 

studies are a necessity, they should be a collaborative effort between officials and industry and can be very time 

consuming depending on the product. Because of the potential impact on interstate commerce, studies must be 

completed on a nationwide basis and not by individual jurisdictions unless circumstances justify only local 

consideration. 

The amount of moisture lost from a package is a function of many factors not the least of which is the product 

itself (e.g., moisture content), packaging, storage conditions (e.g., temperature, humidity, air flow), time, 

handling and others. If a packaged product is subject to moisture loss officials must allow for “reasonable” 

variations caused by moisture either evaporating or draining from the product. Officials cannot set arbitrary 

moisture allowances based solely on their experience or intuition. Moisture allowances must be based on 

scientific data and must be “reasonable.” Reasonable does not mean that all of the weight loss caused by 

moisture evaporation or draining from the product must be allowed. As a result of product and moisture 

variability the approach used by official must be developed on a case-by-case basis depending on many factors 

to include, but not be limited to, the manufacturing process, packaging materials, distribution, environmental 

influence and the anticipated shelf life of the product. 

NIST Handbook 130 provides a starting point for developing a workable procedure in Section 2.5.6. in the 

Interpretation and Guideline Section regarding “Resolution for Requests for Recognition of Moisture Loss in 

Other Packaged Products.” NIST WMD has worked and will continue to work extensively with the NCWM, 

The Laws and Regulations Committee, and industry to develop protocol for determining moisture allowances 

that can serve as models for future studies. Most studies involving nationally distributed products will require 

that products be tested during different seasons of the year and in different geographic locations to develop a 

nationally recognized moisture allowance. Some studies may require the development of laboratory tests used 

for inter-laboratory comparisons to establish moisture content in products at time-of-pack or at the time-ofinspection. 

In some cases, manufacturers can and may provide valid moisture loss data for officials to consider in lieu of 

conducting studies. In cases like this, WMD will provide assistance to determine if the information is complete 

or if further documentation is required. For example, a major producer of bar soap has provided moisture loss 

evidence for consideration by officials to determine what, if any, moisture loss could be expected to occur; in 

some cases, this information has proven to be accurate as a result avoiding the need for national data collection. 

Moisture loss or gain is a critical consideration for any net content enforcement effort and one that, in most 

cases, cannot be addressed by a field official. If moisture loss issues are to be deliberated, it is the regulatory 

official’s responsibility to resolve the packers concern utilizing available resources and due process procedures. 

L&R - C23 
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix C – Work Group on Moisture Loss

To fulfill this obligation officials may be required to utilize specialized test equipment and specific laboratory 

procedures. Additionally, the collection of adequate test data may require product examination over a broad 

geographical area and consideration of a wide range of environmental factors. If a national effort is required, a 

coordinated effort involving industry, trade associations, weights and measures officials, and federal agencies 

may be required. NIST will provide technical support upon request. 

VI. Background Information on Federal Preemption 

In the previous memorandum, we reported that FDA was expected to adopt regulations identical to those 

contained in the 4th Supplement of the third edition of Handbook 133 adopted by the NCWM in 1994. The 

FDA published proposed regulations regarding net quantity of contents test procedures for packaged food under 

its jurisdiction in the March 4, 1997, issue (62 FR 9826) of the Federal Register. FDA subsequently withdrew 

that proposal on November 26, 2004 (69 FR 68831). FDA based the withdrawal on the need to reduce its 

regulatory backlog and focus its resources on current public health issues. The withdrawal did not speak to the 

merits of the proposal. Based on the experience reported since the adoption of the substantive revisions in 

1994, WMD believes that the latest edition of Handbook 133 provides the basis for nationally uniform test 

methods and other requirements consistent with the requirements in federal laws relating to net quantity of 

contents. Therefore, WMD recommends that state and local authorities test products according to the 

procedures outlined in the latest edition of Handbook 133 unless future FDA guidance or regulations specify 

otherwise. Moreover, it is extremely important that state and local jurisdictions continue to provide regulatory 

oversight so businesses can compete in a fair marketplace and consumers can depend on the representations of 

quantity upon which they make purchasing decisions. 

a. Federal Preemption under the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act (NLEA) of 1990 

The NLEA was signed into law on November 8, 1990, to amend Title 21 Section 343 of the Federal Food, 

Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA). The Act requires nutrition labeling on foods and regulates health claims 

about food nutrients to help consumers select a more healthful diet. Under the Act, State and local laws not 

“identical” to corresponding FDA requirements are preempted. According to regulations under FDA 

[21 CFR Part 100.1 (c)(4)], the phrase “not identical” does not refer to the specific words in the 

requirement. Instead it means that the state or local requirement directly or indirectly imposes obligations 

or contains provisions that (1) are not imposed by or contained in an FDA requirement, or (2) differ from 

those specifically imposed by or contained in an FDA requirement or implementing regulation. 

The preemption ensures uniformity in labeling requirements and prohibits non-uniform State and local 

laws, regulations, formal and informal policies, and other enforcement practices that prevent firms from 

conducting efficient and cost-effective business in all 50 States. Congress recognized that even though 

federal requirements may preempt more restrictive state requirements in certain instances, the net benefits 

from national uniformity in these aspects of the food label outweigh any loss in consumer protection that 

may occur as a result. 

The ultimate goal of the NLEA is uniformity in laws, regulations, and test procedures—a goal shared by 

the NCWM and NIST alike. Under NLEA, state and local labeling requirements must be identical to many 

of the regulations promulgated under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, as amended by the NLEA, 

in Title 21 – Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 100 to 169 (current edition). Jurisdictions may continue to 

enforce state or local regulations on foods where there is no federal requirement and continue to enforce 

existing state and local laws if they are “identical” to FDA regulations. 

b. Defining what is “Identical” 

Federal preemption of the net quantity of contents regulations and test procedures occurred on 

November 8, 1991. On that date, state and local regulations on quantity of contents (e.g., net quantity of 

contents regulations, sampling plans, and test procedures) were preempted under the NLEA if they were 

not “identical” to federal requirements. The question is, “What is ‘identical’?” Both state and FDA 

regulations require packers to express an “accurate” statement of the quantity of contents of packaged food 

while permitting “reasonable” variations. The most common questions WMD receives are “do the test 

L&R - C24 
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix C – Work Group on Moisture Loss 

procedures used by the states and FDA provide identical results” (e.g., do the sampling plans have equal 

confidence levels, and are the products weighed or measured using recognized procedures) and “are the 

criteria for defining reasonable variations (e.g., the values of maximum allowable variations, the sample 

correction factors, and allowances for moisture loss) consistent with those used by FDA?” 

FDA's test procedures are based on those contained in “Official Methods of Analysis” of the Association of 

Official Analytical Chemists International (AOAC). Based on information provided by FDA, WMD 

believes the test procedures contained in the fourth edition of Handbook 133 are identical to the AOAC 

procedures. If officials implement the recommendations in this memo, they should be using test procedures 

equivalent to FDA's. 

c. Preemption Extends Beyond Food Packages Introduced into Interstate Commerce 

Federal courts have ruled that the FDA has jurisdiction over all food products made from ingredients 

shipped in interstate commerce, regardless of the amount of the ingredient present, even though the finished 

product has not moved in interstate commerce. Products that have not entered interstate commerce (e.g., 

bakery products offered for sale in the food store where they are baked and packaged) that are made of 

ingredients shipped in interstate commerce to the store are subject to the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act 

and, therefore, should only be tested according to the following recommendations in this memorandum 

until final regulations are adopted by the FDA. 

This memorandum is not legal advice. You are encouraged you to review this memo with your State 

Attorney General or staff attorney before implementing any policy on these issues or before you take 

enforcement action against a product that falls under FDA or other federal jurisdiction. 

Training and Technical Support 

WMD is committed to supporting state and local jurisdictions in their package inspection programs by 

providing technical assistance and training classes on Handbook 133. If you need assistance, please contact 

Lisa Warfield at (301) 975-3308 or by e-mail at lisa.warfied@nist.gov. 

NOTICE 

The following documents could not be included in this publication because they are only available in Adobe PDF 

format. They are available from NIST upon request. Please contact Kenneth Butcher at (301) 975-4859 or at 

kenneth.butcher@nist.gov or Lisa Warfield at (301) 975-3308 or at lisa.warfield@nist.gov to obtain copies. 

B. Letter from Kraft Foods Requesting that NIST Withdraw Letter on Moisture Loss 

C. Chapter 3 from the Third Edition of NIST Handbook 133 and 4th Supplement 1994 

L&R - C25 
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix C – Work Group on Moisture Loss

L&R - C26 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix D – Letter from International Ice Cream Association 

Appendix D 

Letter Submitted from the International Ice Cream Association to the 

Food and Drug Administration 

L&R - D1
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix D – Letter from International Ice Cream Association 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. 

L&R - D2
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix D – Letter from International Ice Cream Association 

L&R - D3
L&R Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix D – Letter from International Ice Cream Association 

L&R - D4
S&T Committee 2008 Final Report 

Report of the 

Specifications and Tolerances Committee 

Carol Fulmer, Chairman 

Director of Weights and Measures 

South Carolina Department of Agriculture 

Reference 

Key Number 

300 INTRODUCTION 

This is the final report of the Committee on Specifications and Tolerances (S&T) (hereinafter referred to as the 

“Committee”) for the 93rd Annual Meeting of the National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM). The 

report is based on the Interim Report offered in the NCWM Publication 16, “Committee Reports,” testimony at 

public hearings, comments received from the regional weights and measures associations and other parties, the 

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

Annual Meeting. 

Table A identifies the agenda items in the report by Reference Key Number, Item Title, and Page Number. The item 

numbers are those assigned in the Interim Meeting agenda. Voting items are indicated with a “V,” or if the item was 

part of the Voting Consent calendar by the suffix “VC” after the item number. Items marked with an “I” after the 

reference key numbers are Information items. Items marked with a “D” after the key numbers are Developing 

items. The Developing designation indicates that an item, while it has merit, may not be adequately developed for 

action at the national level. Items marked “W” have been withdrawn from consideration. Items marked with a “W” 

will generally be referred to the regional weights and measures associations because they either need additional 

development, analysis, and input or did not have sufficient Committee support to bring them before NCWM. 

Table B lists the appendices to the report, Table C identifies the acronyms for organizations and technical terms used 

throughout the report, and Table D provides a summary of the results of the voting on the Committee’s items and the 

report in entirety. 

This report contains recommendations to amend National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) 

Handbook 44, 2008 Edition, “Specifications, Tolerances, and Other Technical Requirements for Weighing and 

Measuring Devices.” Proposed revisions to the handbook are shown in bold face print by striking out information 

to be deleted and underlining information to be added. New items proposed for the handbook are designated as 

such and shown in bold face print.

Note: The policy of NIST is to use metric units of measurement in all of its publications; however, 

recommendations received by the NCWM technical committees have been printed in this publication as submitted. 

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

Table A 

Index to Reference Key Items

Reference 

Key Number Title of Item Page 

300 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................1 

310 GENERAL CODE ............................................................................................................................................5

310-1 I G-S.8. Provision for Sealing Electronic Adjustable Components, G-S.8.1. Access to 

Calibration and Configuration Adjustments, and G-S.8.2. Automatic or Semi-automatic 

Calibration Mechanism..............................................................................................................5

310-2 I Appendix D – Definition of Electronic Devices, Software-Based....................................................8

S&T - 1 
S&T Committee 2008 Final Report 

310-3 V G-A.1. and Appendix D – Definition of Equipment .........................................................................9

310-4 V G-N.3. Verification of Testing Standards .......................................................................................10

320 SCALES...........................................................................................................................................................12

320-1 V S.1.1.1.(b) Digital Indicating Elements...........................................................................................12

320-2 V S.1.2.1. Weight Units, S.2.3. Tare, and T.N.2.1. General ...............................................................13

320-3 W S.1.7. Capacity Indication, Weight Ranges, and Units Weights .....................................................16

320-4 V S.2.1.5. Initial Zero-Setting Mechanism .........................................................................................17

320-5 V S.2.4. Level-Indicating Means and S.2.4.1. Vehicle On-Board Weighing Systems .......................18

320-6 I S.2.1.6. Combined Zero-Tare (“0/T”) Key, S.2.3. Value of Tare Indication and Recorded 

Representations, S.2.4, Preset Tare Mechanism, Appendix D; Definitions for Tare 

Mechanism, Gross Weight Value, Net Weight, Net Weight Value, Tare, and Tare Weight 

Value........................................................................................................................................19

320-7 I T.N.4.6. Time Dependence (Creep) for Load Cells During Type Evaluation and T.N.4.7. 

Creep Recovery for Load Cells During Type Evaluation ........................................................27

321 BELT-CONVEYOR SCALE SYSTEMS .....................................................................................................27

321-1 V N.2.3. Minimum Test Load.............................................................................................................27

321-2 V UR.2.2.(n) Belt Alignment..............................................................................................................29

324 AUTOMATIC WEIGHING SYSTEMS.......................................................................................................30

324-1 V S.1.2. Value of Division Units and T.2.1. General..........................................................................30

324-2 I S.2.2. Value of Tare Indication and Recorded Representations and S.2.3. Preset Tare 

Mechanism...............................................................................................................................31

330 LIQUID-MEASURING DEVICES...............................................................................................................35

330-1 I Temperature Compensation for Liquid-Measuring Devices Code..................................................35

330-2 I N.4.6. Pour and Drain Times for Hand-held Test Measures ...........................................................41

330-3 I Price Posting and Computing Capability and Requirements for a Retail Motor-Fuel Dispenser 

(RMFD) ...................................................................................................................................42

331 VEHICLE-TANK METERS .........................................................................................................................46

331-1 V S.5.7. Meter Size (Marking Requirements).....................................................................................46

331-2 I T.2.1. Automatic Temperature-Compensating Systems..................................................................47

331-3 I UR.2.5. Automatic Temperature Compensation for Refined Petroleum Products..........................49

336 WATER METERS .........................................................................................................................................50

336-1 V UR.2. Accessibility Customer Indication.......................................................................................50

358 MULTIPLE DIMENSION MEASURING DEVICES ................................................................................52

358-1 V A.1. General, Note 7 in Table S.4.1.b., and Appendix D. Definitions ............................................52

358-2 V S.1.5. Value of Dimension/Volume Division Value .......................................................................53

358-3 V N.1.2. Position Test.........................................................................................................................54

358-4 V N.1.4. Test Objects..........................................................................................................................55

360 OTHER ITEMS ..............................................................................................................................................56

360-1 I International Organization of Legal Metrology (OIML) Report.....................................................56

360-2 Developing Items ............................................................................................................................58 

S&T - 2 
S&T Committee 2008 Final Report 

Table B 

Appendices

Appendix Title Page 

A Item 360-2: Developing Items.......................................................................................................................... A1 

Part 1, Item 1 General Code: G-S.1. Identification – (Software)........................................................................A1 

Part 1, Item 2 Appendix D – Definition of Electronic Devices, Software-Based................................................A2 

Part 2, Item 1 Scales: S.1.4.6. Height and Definition of Minimum Reading Distance, UR.2.10. Primary 

Indicating Elements Provided by the User, UR.2.11. Minimum Reading Distance and 

Definitions of Minimum Reading Distance and Primary Indications.....................................A3 

Part 3, Item 1 Belt-Conveyor Scale Systems: UR.3.2.(c) Maintenance; Zero Load Tests .................................A6 

Part 3, Item 2 Belt-Conveyor Scale Systems: N.3.1.4. Check for Consistency of the Conveyor Belt Along 

Its Entire Length .....................................................................................................................A9

Part 4, Item 1 Liquid-Measuring Devices: T.5. Predominance – Retail Motor-Fuel Devices..........................A11

Part 4, Item 2 Liquid-Measuring Devices: Price Posting and Computing Capability and Requirements for 

a Retail Motor-Fuel Dispenser (RMFD)...............................................................................A12 

Part 5, Item 1 Water Meters: UR.2. Accessibility for Reading ........................................................................A12

Part 5, Item 2 Water Meters: S.1.1.3. Value of the Smallest Unit....................................................................A12

Part 5, Item 3 Water Meters: N.4.1.1. Repeatability Tests and T.1. Tolerance Values ....................................A12

B Water Meter Manufacturers’ Proposed Changes to Developing Item Part 5, Item 3 Water Meters .........B1 

C Jeff Humphrey’s Letter and Comments on Developing Item Part 5, Item 3 Water Meters....................... C1 

Table C 

Glossary of Acronyms 

AWS Automatic Weighing Systems NEWMA Northeastern Weights and Measures Association 

BCS Belt-Conveyor Scales NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology 

CC Certificate of Conformance NTEP National Type Evaluation Program 

CWMA Central Weights and Measures Association NTETC National Type Evaluation Technical Committee 

EPO Examination Procedure Outline NW&SA National Weighing and Sampling Association 

GS Grain Analyzer Sector OEM Original Equipment Manufacturer 

GMM Grain Moisture Meters Pub 14 NCWM Publication 14 

GPMA Gasoline Pump Manufacturers Association RMFD Retail Motor-Fuel Dispenser 

HB 44 NIST Handbook 44 SI International System of Units 

HB 130 NIST Handbook 130 SMA Scale Manufacturers Association 

LMD Liquid-Measuring Device SWMA Southern Weights and Measures Association 

LPG Liquefied Petroleum Gas WG Work Group 

MDMD Multiple Dimension Measuring Devices WMD NIST Weights and Measures Division 

MFM Mass Flow Meter WS NTETC Weighing Sector 

MMA Meter Manufacturers Association WWMA Western Weights and Measures Association 

MS NTETC Measuring Sector USNWG NIST/OIML U.S. National Working Group 

NCWM National Conference on Weights and 

Measures, Inc. VTM Vehicle-tank Meters 

“Handbook 44” (HB 44) means the 2008 Edition of NIST Handbook 44 “Specifications, Tolerances, and Other 

Technical Requirements for Weighing and Measuring Devices” 

“Handbook 130” (HB 130) means the 2008 Edition of NIST Handbook 130 “Uniform Laws and Regulations in the 

Areas of Legal Metrology and Fuel Quality” 

Note: NIST does not imply that these acronyms are used solely to identify these organizations or technical topics. 

S&T - 3 
S&T Committee 2008 Final Report 

Table D 

Voting Results 

House of State 

Representatives Reference Key House of Delegates 

Number 

Yeas Nays Yeas Nays 

Results 

300 

(Consent Calendar) 38 0 33 0 Passed 

310-4 24 13 19 15 Returned to Committee 

320-5 37 1 27 1 Passed 

300 

(Report in its Entirety 

Voice Vote) 

All Yeas No Nays All Yeas No Nays Passed 

S&T - 4 
S&T Committee 2008 Final Report 

Details of All Items

(In Order by Reference Key Number) 

310 GENERAL CODE 

310-1 I G-S.8. Provision for Sealing Electronic Adjustable Components, G-S.8.1. Access to Calibration 

and Configuration Adjustments, and G-S.8.2. Automatic or Semi-automatic Calibration 

Mechanism. 

Source: Southern Weights and Measures Association (SWMA) 

Recommendation: Amend General Code paragraph G-S.8. as follows: 

G-S.8. Provision for Sealing Electronic Adjustable Components. – A device shall be designed with 

provision(s) for applying a security seal that must be broken, or for using other approved means of providing 

security (e.g., data change audit trail available at the time of inspection), before any change that detrimentally 

affects the metrological integrity of the device can be made to any electronic mechanism. 

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1990]

A device may be fitted with an automatic or a semi-automatic calibration mechanism. This mechanism 

shall be incorporated inside the device. After sealing, neither the mechanism nor the calibration process 

shall facilitate fraud.

(Added 1985) (Amended 1989 and 2008) 

Add new General Code paragraphs G-S.8.1. and G-S.8.3., and renumber previous G-S.8.1. to G-S.8.2. as follows: 

G-S.8.1. Access To Calibration and Configuration Adjustments. – A device shall be so designed that:

(a) The application of the physical security seal automatically disables the access, including external 

and remote access, to the calibration and configuration mode, or

(b) The calibration and configuration adjustments, including external and remote access, are protected 

by an approved audit trail, and in addition:

- The device shall not provide metrological indications that can be interpreted, or transmitted into 

memory, or printed while it is in the calibration and/or configuration adjustment mode as a 

correct measurement value, or

- The device shall clearly and continuously indicate that it is in the calibration and/or 

configuration adjustment mode and record such message if capable of printing in this mode.

(Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2009)

(Added 200X)

G-S.8.12. Multiple Weighing or Measuring Elements that Share a Common Provision for Sealing. – A 

change to any metrological parameter (calibration or configuration) of any weighing or measuring element 

shall be individually identified. 

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2010] 

Note: For devices that utilize an electronic form of sealing, in addition to the requirements in G-S.8.12., any 

appropriate audit trail requirements in an applicable specific device code also apply. Examples of identification 

of a change to the metrological parameters of a weighing or measuring element include, but are not limited to: 

S&T - 5 
S&T Committee 2008 Final Report 

(1) a broken, missing, or replaced physical seal on an individual weighing, measuring, or indicating 

element or active junction box; 

(2) a change in a calibration factor or configuration setting for each weighing or measuring element; 

(3) a display of the date of calibration or configuration event for each weighing or measuring element; or 

(4) counters indicating the number of calibration and/or configuration events for each weighing or 

measuring element. 

(Added 2007)

G-S.8.3. Automatic or Semi-automatic Calibration Mechanism. – A device may be fitted with an 

automatic or a semi-automatic calibration mechanism. This mechanism shall be incorporated inside the 

device. After sealing, neither the mechanism nor the calibration process shall facilitate fraud.

(Added 1993) 

Background/Discussion: At its 2007 Annual Meeting, the SWMA received a proposal to add requirements to 

G-S.8. to assure that a device could not be sealed in the configuration mode and continue to operate normally. Such 

a condition could facilitate fraud. The proposal as submitted required that a device continuously indicate when 

access to the set-up mode was not disabled. The SWMA heard comments that manufacturers can incorporate into a 

device ways to indicate a device is in the calibration mode other than having an enunciator or other indication. 

Manufacturers also believe any changes to the requirements need to be nonretroactive. The SWMA S&T 

Committee agreed and modified the original proposal as shown above. The SWMA agreed to forward the modified 

proposal to the NCWM S&T Committee with a recommendation that it be a Voting item on the Committee’s 

agenda. 

At the 2008 Interim Meeting, the Committee and the Meter Manufacturers Association (MMA) supported the 

proposal as presented. The Scale Manufacturers Association (SMA) recommended that, “The device shall provide 

an indication that it is in the setup mode.” The Committee received a comment that as written the requirement that 

the device automatically exit the configuration mode after 60 minutes would not allow for a shorter time frame. 

The Committee reviewed the comments received during the open hearing and discussed the alternate proposals 

provided by WMD and SMA. The Committee agreed that if a device designed for commercial applications is 

capable of being “sealed” with external or remote access to the calibration or configuration mode, it is clearly in 

violation of the current G-S.8. Provision for Sealing Electronic Adjustable Components and G-S.2. Facilitation of 

Fraud and, therefore, no change to the existing language is needed. However, because of the ongoing disagreement 

on the interpretation of G-S.8. among the NTEP Laboratories, the Committee agreed to make changes to the 

proposal based on the concerns raised during the open hearing. 

The changes to the original proposal make a distinction between configuring a device to either enable or disable 

external or remote access to the calibration and configuration modes and taking the device out of a normal mode of 

operation and putting it into a special mode of operation where adjustments are made to calibration and 

configuration parameters. In other words, if the internal position of a switch or jumper enables external access to the 

calibration and configuration modes, the device will operate normally until an operator takes action such as entering 

a pass code, depressing and holding down a specific key, or uses other means to enter a special operating mode to 

make adjustments to calibration and configuration parameters. The Committee also believed that an indication for 

the adjustment mode of operation is only necessary for devices with approved category 1, 2, or 3 audit trails and that 

it not be operable in normal weighing or measuring operation. 

The revised proposal states that: 

− In the case of a device with a physical security seal, the application of the seal means that the external or 

remote access that enables the calibration and configuration modes is automatically disabled. 

S&T - 6 
S&T Committee 2008 Final Report 

− In the case where a device has an approved audit trail, the device would be required to clearly and 

continuously indicate on the display (and printed if equipped with a printer) that it is in a calibration mode 

and not the normal operating mode. 

The Committee did not include the proposed time limits for devices to remain in the calibration/configuration mode 

because suitable times are different for different types of devices. For example, a 15 kg scale is likely to need less 

time to adjust than a vehicle scale or wholesale meter. The Committee is also aware of NTEP evaluation procedures 

that require indications and recorded representations (while in the adjustment mode) be either clearly identified as 

being in the calibration or configuration adjustment mode by means of words, symbols, codes, or that metrological 

indications cannot be interpreted as valid measurements. The Committee decided to present the amended proposal 

as shown in the recommendation for a vote at the Annual Meeting. 

The Committee received the report of the SMA’s 2008 spring meeting. The SMA supported the need for 

clarification of G-S.8. and stated that paragraph G-S.8.1. part (a) in the above recommendation changed the original 

intent of the physical security seal and the wording of part (b) could be accomplished by changing the following 

wording to replace the current recommendation: 

G-S.8.1. Access To Calibration and Configuration Adjustments. – A device shall be so designed that access 

to calibration and configuration mode shall be protected by an approved category 1, 2, or 3 method of 

sealing, and shall clearly indicate to the operator when in this mode.

The Committee agreed with comments from the CWMA, NEWMA, and the NTEP participating laboratories 2008 

spring meeting reports to delete the words “category 1, 2, or 3,” and add language that the device shall clearly and 

continuously indicate and print, if equipped with a printer, that the calibration and configuration adjustment mode is 

enabled or that the device shall not operate while in this mode or shall not display a usable quantity value. NEWMA 

recommended that this item be made Iinformational to allow more time for the NCWM and other interested parties 

to review and analyze the alternate proposals from the CWMA and SMA. 

At the 2008 Annual Meeting, the Committee heard comments from WMD which noted that the alternate language 

submitted by SMA would require that all devices in the calibration mode provide indications to the operator. This 

would encompass mechanical and electronic, and devices that use category 1 physical seals. Additionally, WMD 

believes that a device does not need an indication that is in a calibration or configuration mode if it is incapable of 

providing indications that can be interpreted, printed, or transmitted to a memory device as a correct measurement 

value. WMD suggested that the committee amend the recommendation to address some of the concerns noted by 

the CWMA, NTEP participating laboratories, and WMD since the 2008 Interim Meeting. 

The Committee agreed with the comments from the CWMA, and WMD and amended paragraph G-S.8.1. as shown 

in the recommendations to: 

- delete the references to the sealing categories of device, 

- clarify printing requirements, and 

- include an option that the device not operate or provide metrological indications that can be interpreted, or 

transmitted into memory or to recording elements while in this mode.

Just prior to the voting session, it was noted that the revised language in G-S.8.1.(a) had been inadvertently changed, 

and that it could be interpreted to mean that the physical seal itself disabled access to the adjustment mechanisms 

instead of simply preventing access to the mechanism. Consequently, the Committee changed the status of the item 

from Voting to Informational. The Committee believes that the intent of the recommendation is to ensure that the 

access to the calibration and configuration modes is disabled. 

The Committee redrafted the language in paragraph G-S.8.1. and will submit the following revised language for 

G-S.8.1. to the regional weights and measures associations for further review and consideration. 

G-S.8.1. Access To Calibration and Configuration Adjustments. – A device shall be so designed that access 

to calibration and configuration modes, including external and remote access, are only permitted when:

S&T - 7 
S&T Committee 2008 Final Report 

(a) The application of the physical security seal shall ensure that the access to the calibration and 

configuration modes is disabled, or

(b) The calibration and configuration adjustments are protected by an approved audit trail, and the 

device shall clearly and continuously indicate and print, if equipped with a printer, that the 

calibration and configuration adjustment modes are enabled.

(Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2009)

(Added 200X)

310-2 I Appendix D – Definition of Electronic Devices, Software-Based 

Source: Carryover Item from 2008. This item originated from the NTETC Software Sector and first appeared on 

the Committee’s 2007 Agenda as Developing Item Part 1, Item 2 and was placed on the Committee’s Interim 

Agenda as Item 320-2 and was then returned back to Item 360-2 Developing Items in the Committee’s Interim 

Report to the NCWM. 

Recommendation: Add a new definition and cross-reference term to Appendix D in HB 44 for “Electronic devices, 

software-based” as follows:

Electronic devices, software-based. Weighing and measuring devices or systems that use metrological 

software to facilitate compliance with Handbook 44. This includes:

(a) Embedded software devices (Type P), aka built-for-purpose. A device or element with software 

used in a fixed hardware and software environment that cannot be modified or uploaded via any 

interface without breaking a security seal or other approved means for providing security, and 

will be called a “P,” or

(b) Programmable or loadable metrological software devices (Type U), aka not-built-for-purpose. A 

personal computer or other device and/or element with PC components with programmable or 

loadable metrological software, and will be called “U.” A “U” is assumed if the conditions for 

embedded software devices are not met.

Software-based devices – See Electronic devices, software-based.

Background/Discussion: During the NTETC Software Sector discussion on marking requirements and G-S.1.1. 

Location of Identification Information, it was initially suggested that the term “not-built-for-purpose” be removed 

from the wording in NIST HB 44 paragraph G-S.1.1. since there is no definition for a not-built-for-purpose device in 

HB 44. After a lengthy discussion related to the terms “built-for-purpose” and “not-built-for-purpose,” the Sector 

agreed these terms were not clear and should be replaced with the terminology proposed above. The proposed 

definitions are based on the revision of OIML R 76 Non-automatic weighing instruments subSections 5.5.1. 

(Type P) and 5.5.2. (Type U). 

At the 2008 Interim Meeting, the SMA supported the intent of the item, but stated that it is premature to place these 

definitions in HB 44. The SMA recommended that the status of the item be changed to Developing on the S&T 

Committee Agenda. The Committee agreed to move Item 310-2 of the 2008 S&T Committee Interim Agenda and 

assign Developing status as 360-2 Part 1, Item 2. 

At the 2008 Annual Meeting, the Committee heard comments from the former NTETC Software Sector Chairman 

indicating that the Sector had completed its review of this item and could not develop it any further. The Chairman 

requested that the Committee consider moving the item from the Developmental section of the agenda and at least 

make it an Information item on the Committee’s agenda to facilitate discussion and comment on the proposed 

language. 

The Software Sector has indicated that it has completed its work on the item and noted that sufficient information 

(including specific proposed language) was included in the submission to enable action by the Committee; 

S&T - 8 
S&T Committee 2008 Final Report 

consequently, the Committee agreed to change the status of the item from Developmental to Informational and will 

forward the item to the regional weights and measures associations. 

310-3 V G-A.1. and Appendix D – Definition of Equipment 

(This item was adopted.) 

Source: Carryover Item 310-1B. (This item originated from the 2007 Committee during discussion on agenda 

Item 310-1A General Code, paragraph G-S.2. Facilitation of Fraud.) 

Recommendation: Modify G-A.1.(a) and add a new definition to Appendix D in HB 44 for “equipment” as 

follows: 

G-A.1. Commercial and Law-Enforcement Equipment. – These specifications, tolerances, and other 

technical requirements apply as follows: 

 (a) To commercial weighing and measuring equipment; that is, to weights and measures and weighing and 

measuring devices commercially used or employed in establishing the size, quantity, extent, area, 

composition (limited to meat and poultry), constituent value (limited to grain), or measurement of 

quantities, things, produce, or articles for distribution or consumption, purchased, offered, or submitted for 

sale, hire, or award, or in computing any basic charge or payment for services rendered on the basis of 

weight or measure. 

(Amended 2008)

Appendix D

equipment, commercial. Weights, measures, and weighing and measuring devices, instruments, 

elements, and systems or portion thereof, used or employed in establishing the measurement or in 

computing any basic charge or payment for services rendered on the basis of weight or measure. As 

used in this definition, measurement includes the determination of size, quantity, value, extent, area, 

composition (limited to meat and poultry), constituent value (limited to grain), or measurement of 

quantities, things, produce, or articles for distribution or consumption, purchased, offered, or 

submitted for sale, hire, or award. [1.10, 2.20, 2.21, 2.22, 2.24, 3.30, 3.31, 3.32, 3.33, 3.34, 3.35, 3.38, 

4.40, 5.51, 5.56.(a), 5.56.(b), 5.57, 5.58, 5.59]

 commercial equipment, See equipment

Background/Discussion: During the Committee’s 2007 discussion of agenda Item 310-1 Facilitation of Fraud, the 

Committee agreed there was a need to define the term “equipment.” The Committee believed the proposed 

definition will help prevent misinterpretation of the term as used in paragraph G-S.2. and several other HB 44 codes. 

The proposed definition is intended to clarify which parts or portions of a device or system must comply with 

applicable specifications, tolerances, and other technical requirements in HB 44. The Committee recommended the 

proposed definition be carried over to allow sufficient time for a review of the proposed definition. 

For additional background information, refer to the Committee’s 2007 Interim and Annual Reports. 

At its 2007 Annual Meeting, the WWMA supported the intent of the proposal. The WWMA recommended the 

proposed language be split into two sentences and recommended the proposal move forward as a Voting item on the 

NCWM S&T Committee Agenda.

The CWMA and NEWMA supported the intent of the proposal, agreed with the changes to the proposed definition 

recommended by the WWMA, and recommend the proposal move forward as a Voting item on the NCWM S&T 

Committee Agenda. 

At the 2008 Interim Meeting, the Committee heard no opposition to the item. The Committee received a 

recommendation to modify G-A.1. to: (1) add the words “composition, constituent value” to include the 

S&T - 9 
S&T Committee 2008 Final Report 

measurements provided by Near-Infrared Grain Analyzers and Electronic Livestock, Meat, and Poultry Evaluation 

Systems and/or Devices, and (2) to modify the definition of “equipment” to include law enforcement and statistical 

information collection devices. The Committee modified the proposal as shown above and agreed to present it for a 

vote at the NCWM Annual Meeting. 

At the 2008 Annual Meeting, the Committee agreed with the reports of the CWMA and NEWMA 2008 spring 

meetings that stated that the words “composition” and “constituent” need better definitions to make sure that the 

additional words do not broaden the scope of HB 44. The Committee also agreed with a suggestion from the Grain 

Inspection, Packers, and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) to include the words “meat and poultry” to limit the 

scope of “composition.” The Committee believed that the word “grain” should also be added to limit the scope of 

“constituent value” and amended the proposal to read as shown in the Committee’s recommendation. 

310-4 V G-N.3. Verification of Testing Standards 

(This item did not pass or fail; therefore, it returns to the Committee.) 

Note: This item was originally addressed under Item 330-2 in the Committee’s 2008 Interim Agenda. As a result of 

deliberations (see “Background/Discussion” below) at the 2008 Interim Meeting, the Committee decided to delete 

Item 330-2 and to address the issue in this new Item 310-4, which proposes adding a paragraph to the General Code 

to designate general requirements for all field standards. At the 2008 NCWM Annual Meeting, the Committee 

decided (as a result of comments received following the Interim Meeting) to reinstate Item 330-2 (which proposes 

an addition to the Liquid-Measuring Devices Code to specify pour and drain times for measuring device test 

standards) as an Information item; the Committee’s rationale for this decision is outlined in Item 330-2 of this 

report. Note, however, that the Committee retained Item 310-4 and presented that item as a Voting item at the 

Annual Meeting. 

Source: Central Weights and Measures Association (CWMA) 

Recommendation: Add the following paragraph G-N.3. to the General Code: 

G-N.3. – Verification (Testing) Standards. – Field standards used in verifying weighing and measuring 

devices shall comply with the most current requirements of NIST Handbook 105 Series standards (or 

other suitable and designated standards) or the accuracy requirements expressed in Fundamental 

Considerations, Paragraph 3.2. (i.e., one-third of the smallest tolerance applied).

(Added 2008)

Delete corresponding paragraphs in the Scales Code, Automatic Bulk Weighing Systems Code, and the Automatic 

Weighing Systems Code as follows: 

Scales Code: 

N.2. Verification (Testing) Standards. - Field standard weights used in verifying weighing devices shall 

comply with requirements of NIST Handbook 105-Series standards (or other suitable and designated 

standards) or the tolerances expressed in Fundamental Considerations, Paragraph 3.2. (i.e., one-third of 

the smallest tolerance applied).

(Amended 1986)

Automatic Bulk Weighing Systems Code: 

N.2. Verification (Testing) Standards. - Standard weights and masses used in verifying weighing devices 

shall comply with requirements of NIST Handbook 105-1 (Class F) or the tolerances expressed in 

Appendix A, Fundamental Considerations, paragraph 3.2. (i.e., one-third of the smallest tolerance 

applied).

S&T - 10 
S&T Committee 2008 Final Report 

Automatic Weighing Systems Code: 

N.1.3. Verification (Testing) Standards. - Field standard weights shall comply with requirements of 

NIST Handbook 105-1 (Class F) or the tolerances expressed in Fundamental Considerations, 

Paragraph 3.2. (i.e., one-third of the smallest tolerance applied).

Background/Discussion: This item was originally presented as Item 330-2 on the Committee’s 2008 Interim 

Agenda. The item was moved to Item 310-4. The Committee considered the following proposal from the CWMA 

to add a new paragraph N.4.6.: 

N.4.6. Pour and Drain Times for Hand-held Test Measures – Hand-held test measures require a 

30-second (± 5 seconds) pour followed by a 10-second drain, with the measure held at a 10- to 15-degree 

angle from vertical.

(Added 200X)

The CWMA noted that HB 44 does not address pour or drain times for 5 gal test measures used to test retail motorfuel devices. However, the pour and drain time reqirements are in HB 112 Examination Procedure Outline 

Numbers 21 and 22 for Retail Motor-fuel Dispensers in Test Notes paragraph 2. They are also referenced in NIST 

HB 105-3 Specifications and Tolerances for Graduated Neck-Type Volumetric Field Standards Section 7. Test 

Methods and References. 

Metrology labs are not routinely requiring that hand-held (5 gal) test measures be labeled with this information when 

the information is missing. Additionally, many hand-held test measures used by service agents and agencies do not 

specify drain times. Service agents, as a result, are using incorrect pour and drain times. 

At the 2008 Interim Meeting, the Committee agreed that rather than putting a requirement in HB 44 stipulating pour 

and drain times for provers and test measures, it is preferable to reference the requirements in NIST 

Handbook 105-3 as follows: 

N.4.6. Verification (Testing) Standards. – Field standard provers and test measures used in verifying 

measuring devices shall comply with requirements of, and used in accordance with, NIST 

Handbook 105-3 standards (or other suitable and designated standards) and the tolerances expressed in 

Fundamental Considerations, paragraph 3.2. (i.e., one-third of the smallest tolerance applied). 

(Added 2008) 

The Committee noted that the NIST 105 series handbooks are already referenced in Appendix A – Fundamental 

Considerations of HB 44. The Committee also noted that pour and drain times are referenced in NIST HB 112 

EPOs and are referenced in NIST training materials and training presented by NIST. The Committee questioned 

whether a lack of uniformity in the application of Handbook 105-3 criteria is sufficient technical justification for 

including requirements in HB 44. However, the Committee acknowledged the concerns raised by some jurisdictions 

regarding the need for service companies to apply proper drain times and discussed alternative approaches to assist 

those jurisdictions and to emphasize the need to follow Handbook 105 series criteria. 

In its review of the issue, the Committee noted that several of the weighing devices codes in HB 44 already include 

similar paragraphs referencing requirements for test standards. Since the application of Handbook 105 criteria is 

universal to all devices covered by HB 44, as referenced in the Fundamental Considerations, the Committee believes 

that including a paragraph in the Notes section of the General Code to reference the Handbook 105 series is more 

efficient than including references in each specific code. Consequently, the Committee developed a proposal to add 

a new paragraph G-N.3. Verification (Testing) Standards to the General Code and delete corresponding Notes 

paragraphs currently in the Scales Code, Automatic Bulk-Weighing Systems Code, and the Automatic Weighing 

Systems Code as outlined in the recommendation above. The Committee agreed to present this item for a vote. 

In its spring 2008 report, the CWMA S&T Committee indicated that it heard comments that field inspectors may not 

carry the NIST HB 105 series. Comments were also heard that the proposed item be code specific to eliminate any 

S&T - 11 
S&T Committee 2008 Final Report 

confusion. The CWMA S&T Committee recommended that the item be included only in specific LMD code and 

not in the General Code. 

In their spring 2008 report, NEWMA stated that some of the 105 series are out of date and that before this item is 

adopted, the series should be brought up to date. An example was made of 105-1 where OIML class F1/F2 is not 

recognized even though weights of that class are commonly used to test class II scales in the United States. 

NEWMA further stated that this should remain a Developing item while the 105 series is being updated by NIST. 

The SMA stated that it supported this item at its 2008 spring meeting. 

The Committee received comments from WMD indicating that, since pour and drain times are published in the 

EPOs and taught in WMD training, a reference to the 105 series in the General Code is more appropriate; 

particularly since NIST Handbook 105-3 Section 4.5.10.1 requires the marking of drain and delivery times on 

handheld test measures. With regard to concerns about update intervals for a particular 105 series handbook, WMD 

pointed out that the 105 series are already referenced in the Fundamental Considerations and have been for some 

time, and periods during which a handbook is being updated have apparently not posed any significant problems in 

the past. WMD also raised a concern over whether a trend for inclusion of references such as this in many 

individual codes might ultimately discourage the inspector and service company from referencing the Fundamental 

Considerations where other important information about necessary equipment and practices are found. 

At the 2008 NCWM Annual Meeting, the Committee agreed that the proposed change to the General Code should 

remain as a Voting item since the language will provide guidance for device codes that do not specify the suitability 

and use of standards in the specific codes. The Committee also amended the proposal to address the concerns about 

the references to the term “tolerance” by changing the reference to the term “tolerances” to the words “accuracy 

requirements.” 

The Committee heard comments during the open hearing that specific hand-held test measure user requirements are 

still needed in the LMD Code for weights and measures officials and service agents. Therefore, the Committee 

recommends that language originally submitted by the CWMA be reinstated in the Committee’s report as an 

Iinformation item on the agenda. 

320 SCALES 

320-1 V S.1.1.1.(b) Digital Indicating Elements 

(This item was adopted.) 

Source: Carryover Item 320-2. (This item originated from the NTETC WS and first appeared on the Committee’s 

2007 agenda.) 

Recommendation: Amend S.1.1.1.(b) Digital Indicating Elements as follows: 

S.1.1.1. Digital Indicating Elements. 

(a) A digital zero indication shall represent a balance condition that is within ± 1⁄2 the value of the scale 

division.

(b) A digital indicating device shall either automatically maintain a “center-of-zero” condition to 

± 1⁄4 scale division or less, or have an auxiliary or supplemental “center-of-zero” indicator that defines 

a zero balance condition to ± 1⁄4 of a scale division or less. A “center-of-zero” indication may operate 

when zero is indicated for gross or net mode(s).

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1993] 

(Amended 1992 and 2008) 

S&T - 12 
S&T Committee 2008 Final Report 

Background/Discussion: This proposal was originally intended to clarify that the center-of-zero indicator may be 

operable when a zero condition exists in the net weight mode. At the 2007 NCWM Annual Meeting, the Committee 

heard testimony from the CWMA, NEWMA, and SMA stating that this item in the 2007 Interim Agenda had 

changed from the original intent (to verify that center-of-zero could be operable in the net mode) to include 

additional language which significantly altered the requirement. For example, using “and” instead of “or” at the end 

of paragraph S.1.1.1.(a), makes both requirements mandatory in both (a) and (b) of S.1.1.1. If “or” is used instead of 

“and,” then this proposal lowered the current requirement of 1⁄2 e to 1⁄4 e. The SMA further stated the proposal was 

not consistent with Canadian and OIML requirements because proposed paragraph (a) added a dual requirement for 

the “center-of-zero” indication. Therefore, the CWMA, NEWMA, and SMA recommended the status of the 

proposal be changed to Informational to allow time for further consideration.

At its 2007 Annual Meeting, the WS reviewed this item and agreed to support the WMD language as recommended 

in the 2007 NCWM S&T Committee Final Report on Agenda Item 320-2. 

At their fall 2007 meetings, the CWMA and WWMA S&T Committees heard unanimous support for this proposal 

and agreed with the alternative language written by WMD. The CWMA and WWMA recommended the proposal 

incorporating the WMD alternate language as shown above move forward as a Voting item on the NCWM S&T 

Committee Agenda. 

NEWMA believes the scale should not indicate a “center-of-zero” indication if the scale is displaying a negative 

weight when the tare object is removed from the load-receiving element after tare has been taken. Therefore, at its 

2007 Interim Meeting, NEWMA supported the intent of this proposal but submitted an alternate note for 

paragraph S.1.1.1. as follows: 

Note: The “center-of-zero” indication may also work when zero is indicated in either the gross or net 

mode.

During the 2008 NCWM Interim Meeting, the Committee heard support for the intent of the proposal and for the 

NEWMA recommendation to clarify that the center-of-zero indication is only applicable when there is an indication 

of zero (gross load zero or net load zero with an object on the scale). NIST WMD agreed with NEWMA since the 

NEWMA recommendation is consistent with the language in the 2007 Edition of NCWM Publication 14 Digital 

Electronic Scales Section 41. Zero Indication and OIML R 76-1 Metrological and Technical requirements for 

Nonautomatic Weighing Instruments clause 4.5.5. WMD suggested that the proposed sentence be added to the end 

of paragraph S.1.1. since a “stand-alone” note is not justified. 

The Committee agreed with comments during the open hearing and the recommendations from NEWMA and WMD 

and made this item a Voting item in its Interim Report. The Committee received no opposition to the item prior to 

or at the 2008 Annual Meeting. 

For additional background information, refer to the Committee’s 2007 Final Report. 

320-2 V S.1.2.1. Weight Units, S.2.3. Tare, and T.N.2.1. General 

(This item was adopted.) 

Source: Carryover Item 320-3. (This item originated from the NTETC WS and first appeared on the Committee’s 

2007 agenda.) 

Recommendation: Add a new note to paragraph S.1.2.1. and amend paragraphs S.2.3. and T.N.2.1. as follows: 

S.1.2.1. Weight Units. – Except for postal scales, a digital-indicating scale shall indicate weight values using 

only a single unit of measure. Weight values shall be presented in a decimal format with the value of the scale 

division expressed as 1, 2, or 5, or a decimal multiple or sub-multiple of 1, 2, or 5. 

Note: The requirement that the value of the scale division be expressed only as 1, 2, or 5, or a decimal 

multiple or submultiple of only 1, 2, or 5 does not apply to net weight indications and recorded 

S&T - 13 
S&T Committee 2008 Final Report 

representations that are calculated from gross and tare weight indications where the scale division of the 

gross weight is different from the scale division of the tare weight(s) on multi-interval or multiple range 

scales. For example, a multiple range or multi-interval scale may indicate and record tare weights in a lower 

weighing range (WR) or weighing segment (WS), gross weights in the higher weighing range or weighing 

segment, and net weights as follows:

55 kg Gross Weight (WR2 d = 5 kg) 10.05 lb Gross Weight (WS2 d = 0.05 lb) 

– 4 kg Tare Weight (WR1 d = 2 kg) – 0.06 lb Tare Weight (WS1 d = 0.02 lb) 

= 51 kg Net Weight (Mathematically Correct) = 9.99 lb Net Weight (Mathematically Correct) 

(Note added 2008)

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1989]

(Added 1987) (Amended 2008)

S.2.3. Tare. – On any scale (except a monorail scale equipped with digital indications and multi-interval 

scales or multiple range scales when the value of tare is determined in a lower weighing range or weighing 

segment), 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 zeroload balance condition of the scale. A device designed to automatically clear any tare value shall also be 

designed to prevent the automatic clearing of tare until a complete transaction has been indicated.* 

[Note: On a computing scale, this requires the input of a unit price, the display of the unit price, and a 

computed positive total price at a readable equilibrium. Other devices require a complete weighing operation, 

including tare, net, and gross weight determination]* 

[*Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1983]

(Amended 1985 and 2008) 

T.N.2.1. General. – The tolerance values are positive (+) and negative (-) with the weighing device adjusted to 

zero at no load. When tare is in use, the tolerance values are applied from the tare zero reference (zero net 

indication); the tolerance values apply to the net weight indication for any possible tare load using certified 

test loadsonly. 

(Amended 200X)

Discussion: In 2006 the NTETC WS formed a Tare WG to review existing tare requirements and make 

recommendations as to how tare was to operate on a single range scale, a multiple range scale, and a multi-interval 

scale. The WG was also asked to develop, where necessary, recommendations for changes to NCWM 

Publication 14, HB 44, and HB 130, and to provide guidance to the WS on related type evaluation requirements. 

This proposal, which was developed by the Tare WG and supported by the WS, adds a new note to 

paragraph S.1.2.1. The note recognizes display and printing of net weight values in divisions other than the scale 

division used in the display of gross weight, resulting in a more accurate net weight determination. The proposed 

changes to S.1.2.1. requires that paragraph S.2.3. Tare also be amended as shown in the above proposal to avoid a 

conflict with the changes to paragraph S.1.2.1. Additionally, the Tare WG recommended changes to 

paragraph T.N.2.1. to clarify that tolerances in Table 6 also apply to net weight indications. 

The Tare WG developed a corresponding proposal for the Automatic Weighing Systems Code to clarify the 

appropriate scale division values and the application of tolerances to tare weights for those devices (see S&T 

Item 324-1). 

During the 2007 NCWM Annual Meeting, the Committee heard comments from the CWMA and NEWMA 

supporting this item with recommendations to change the word “value” to “division” and incorporate the SWMA 

recommendation to modify paragraph S.2.3. 

NEWMA pointed out that the proposed amendment to S.1.2.1. appeared to be permissive and not a requirement. 

NEWMA asked if the intent was to prohibit multi-interval and multiple range scales from rounding and indicating 

calculated net weights in scale divisions to only 1, 2, or 5 when appropriate or was rounding the scale divisions still 

S&T - 14 
S&T Committee 2008 Final Report 

allowed. The WMD representative to the NCWM Tare WG stated that the intent was for the language to be 

permissive because there are a significant number of devices in the marketplace with an NTEP CC that round the 

tare values before calculating net weights. 

The Committee made several modifications to the proposal to: 

- clarify the examples in the proposed note to paragraph S.1.2.1., 

- change the words “scale value” to “scale division” to be consistent with the terminology currently used in 

HB 44, and 

- clarify that the SWMA proposed modification to the language in S.2.3. for an exception for multi-interval 

and multiple range scales only applies to the requirement that the value of tare shall be equal to the value of 

the scale division. 

At its 2007 Annual Meeting, the WS reviewed the amended proposal and stated that the examples in the language 

carried over from the 2007 NCWM Annual Meeting did not provide enough information, such as the capacities of 

the weighing ranges or segments and the values of “d” for each weighing range or segment. Additionally, it was 

agreed that the second example should have a net value that is different from the first example. 

At its 2007 Annual Meeting, the WWMA S&T Committee heard from the NTETC WS and SMA which supported 

the intent of this item. The WWMA recommended that the example be amended by changing the second paragraph 

of the note and by adding sample equations. 

The CWMA and NEWMA agreed with the fall 2007 WS and WWMA recommendation. Additionally, the CWMA 

and WWMA recommend that this proposal move forward as a Voting item on the NCWM S&T Committee Agenda. 

During the 2008 NCWM Interim Meeting, Ross Andersen, New York, commented that the proposal is different 

from what is currently permitted in Publication 14 in that the tare values for multi-interval and multiple range scales 

are rounded, indicated, and recorded to the nearest value of the net weight division if the net weight is in a higher 

weighing range or segment. Additionally, he noted that the proposal is also inconsistent with OIML R 76 since the 

value of the net weight division is expressed only as 1, 2, or 5. The NIST technical advisor responded that the Tare 

WG considered the differences between Pub 14 and OIML R 76. The Tare WG believes that the current tare 

requirements in Pub 14 forces tare in a lower range or segment to round up or down to the nearest division. In some 

cases, tare will be rounded to zero. This proposal increases the accuracy of the net weight calculated by the 

difference in the actual gross and tare values without introducing errors due to rounding tare and net weights to a 

larger d value when the gross weight is in a higher range or segment. 

It should be noted that OIML R 76 is different from what is permitted in this proposal. OIML R 76 requires that 

printed weighing results be rounded to the nearest scale division of the actual weighing range or segment of each 

gross, tare and net result and permits a 1 d error in the calculation of net due to rounding. R 76 clause 4.6.12 

“Examples of indications of weighing results” footnote 4 states: 

4) The displayed and printed weighing results (gross, tare weighing, net) shall be rounded each to the actual 

e (d). The e can be different depending on the actual weighing range or the actual partial weighing range, 

so a deviation of 1 x e (d) may be possible between the gross weighing result and the calculation of net and 

tare values. 

The Tare WG concluded that neither of the current requirements in Publication 14 and R 76 were acceptable and 

recommended that the most accurate method to determine net weights is to perform an accurate mathematical 

calculation between the actual gross and net weights and to not require the net weight to comply with the 

requirement that it be expressed only as 1, 2, or 5. 

The Committee heard support from the SMA for the proposal. The Committee believes that the alternate language 

submitted by WMD more clearly states the original intent of the proposal by deleting the second paragraph in the 

note and amending the examples submitted by the WWMA as shown in the above proposal. Don Onwiler 

commented that the NTEP laboratories have been discussing this issue for quite some time. Some of the NTEP labs 

believe that the tare should always round up to the favor of the customer. But that argument does not take into 

S&T - 15 
S&T Committee 2008 Final Report 

account applications where the customer is selling product to the scale owner, in which case rounding tare up is 

always against the customer. Don added that this proposal is a compromise that results in a more accurate net 

weight determination and that he is in support of the proposal and commends the work of the Tare WG to resolve 

this issue. 

At the 2008 Annual Meeting, the Committee agreed with comments from the SMA, the CWMA, and NEWMA to 

include the word “segment” in paragraph S.2.3., and amended the proposal as shown in the above recommendation. 

For additional background information, refer to the Committee’s 2007 Annual Report. 

320-3 W S.1.7. Capacity Indication, Weight Ranges, and Units Weights 

(This item was withdrawn.) 

Source: National Type Evaluation Technical Committee Weighing Sector

Recommendation: Modify paragraph S.1.7. as follows: 

S.1.7. Capacity Indication, Weight Ranges, and Unit Weights.

(a) Gross Capacity. An indicating or recording element shall not display nor record any values when the 

total platform load (not counting the initial dead load that has been canceled by an initial zero-setting 

mechanism) is in excess of 105 % of scale capacity. 

(b) Capacity Indication. Electronic computing scales (excluding postal scales and weight classifiers)

shall neither display nor record a gross or net weight in excess of scale capacity plus 9 d.

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1993] 

(c) Flashing weight values are not acceptable as an overload indication.

The total value of weight ranges and of unit weights in effect or in place at any time shall automatically be 

accounted for on the reading face and on any recorded representation. 

This requirement does not apply to: (1) single-revolution dial scales, (2) multi-revolution dial scales not 

equipped with unit weights, (3) scales equipped with two or more weighbeams, nor (4) devices that indicate 

mathematically derived totalized values. 

(Amended 1990, 1992, and 1995 and 200X)

Background/Discussion: During its review and discussion of the Tare WG recommendation, the WS reviewed a 

comment from the WG that paragraph S.1.7. should be amended to include a statement that flashing weight values 

are not an acceptable indication of over capacity. The Tare WG made this recommendation to the Sector while 

developing a new paragraph that limits tare operating range to the capacity of a scale. This language has been in 

NCWM Publication 14 as early as its 2nd Edition (1989) and was added when NTEP applicants submitted scales 

using flashing weight values to indicate an over-capacity condition since flashing weights could be written down 

and used for commercial weight determinations. The WS agreed with the Tare WG recommendation and requested 

that appropriate language, as shown above, be developed by the NIST technical advisor and submitted to the 

NCWM S&T Committee. 

During the 2008 NCWM Interim Meeting, the SMA stated that they oppose this item and believe that the current 

wording in subparagraphs S.1.7. (a) and (b) sufficiently addresses the issue. The SMA added that the 

recommendation to add a new subparagraph (c) would lead to an open list of possible unacceptable designs 

(solutions). WMD agreed with the SMA and stated that the language in Publication 14 is an appropriate 

interpretation of S.1.7. (a) and (b). Additionally, Publication 14 could be clarified to state that the scale shall not 

display any measurement value when the capacity exceeds 105 % of the nominal capacity (9 d for computing 

scales). 

S&T - 16 
S&T Committee 2008 Final Report 

The Committee agreed with the comments and noted that a flashing weight can be interpreted as a valid weight and, 

therefore, any indication of weight value shall not be displayed nor recorded when the total platform load is in 

excess of 105 % of scale capacity. Consequently, the Committee withdrew this proposal from the agenda in its 

Interim Report. 

320-4 V S.2.1.5. Initial Zero-Setting Mechanism 

(This item was adopted.) 

Source: National Type Evaluation Technical Committee Weighing Sector

Recommendation: Amend NIST Handbook 44, Section 2.20. Scales Code, paragraph S.2.1.5. as follows: 

S.2.1.5. Initial Zero-Setting Mechanism. – (a) Scales of accuracy Classes I, II, and III may be equipped with 

an initial zero-setting device. 

(ab) For weighing, load-receiving, and indicating elements in the same housing or covered on the same 

CC. An initial zero-setting mechanism shall not zero a load in excess of 20 % of the maximum 

capacity of the scale unless tests show that the scale meets all applicable tolerances for any amount of 

initial load compensated by this device within the specified range. 

(b) For indicating elements not permanently attached to weighing and load-receiving elements covered 

on a separate CC, the maximum initial zero-setting mechanism range of electronic indicators shall 

not exceed 20 % of the configured capacity.

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2009]

(Added 2008)

(Added 1990) (Amended 2008)

Background/Discussion: This item first appeared on the NTETC WS agenda in 2004. The Sector noted that 

Scales Code paragraph S.2.1.5. was clear about the requirements for Initial Zero-Setting Mechanism (IZSM) for 

complete scales. However, it did not address the requirements for separable weighing and indicating elements. 

Electronic indicating elements have been submitted to NTEP with an IZSM of 100 % of the configured capacity of 

the indicator. NTEP can easily test to verify IZSM requirements on these elements. However, the problem occurred 

when the separable load-receiving element (with a CC) was not tested for IZSM and was interfaced with an 

indicating element that had been tested for IZSM. 

If the IZSM on the indicating element was configured to zero off 100 % of the scale capacity and then interfaced 

with a load-receiving element that had not been tested for IZSM, the load-receiving element could be inadvertently 

loaded to 200 % of its designed capacity even though it indicated only 100 % capacity. This would likely result in 

inaccurate weight determinations and/or damage to the scale. 

NTEP only evaluates load-receiving elements up to 105 % of the capacity requested by the applicant and marked on 

the device. All Class I, II, and III separable weighing/load-receiving elements with NTEP CC’s have not been 

submitted or tested with an IZSM feature unless the submission was to be treated as a complete scale with a specific 

indicating element. Therefore, there is a possibility that many load-receiving elements consisting of only load-cell 

support structures may not comply with an indicating element configured with IZSM enabled. 

The WS believes that weighing, load-receiving, and indicating elements that are type evaluated together and listed 

on a single CC can be tested with an IZSM up to 100 % to assure compatibility between the indicating and 

weighing/load-receiving elements. Separable weighing/load-receiving elements are typically not tested for IZSM 

since the IZSM is a feature of the indicating element. The Sector considered and agreed that the 20 % limitation 

was an appropriate value for IZSM in developing the proposal to amend HB 44 paragraph S.2.1.5. based on OIML 

R 76 [Technical requirements for a self- or semi-self-indicating instrument paragraph 4.5.1. Maximum Effect (of 

IZSM), WELMEC 2-1 Guide for Testing Indicators] and Canadian requirements (LG-15.04 IZSM RangeMaximum Range of Initial Zero-Setting Mechanism). 

S&T - 17 
S&T Committee 2008 Final Report 

At its 2007 Annual Meeting, the WWMA S&T Committee heard comments questioning why Class III L scales are 

not included in this proposal. A comment was also received to amend the proposal in subparagraph (c) to state that 

the IZSM “shall not exceed” 20 %. The WWMA S&T Committee agreed with the second comment and 

recommended amending the proposal as follows: 

S.2.1.5. Initial Zero-Setting Mechanism. 

(c) For indicating elements not permanently attached to weighing and load-receiving elements covered 

on a separate CC, the maximum initial zero-setting mechanism range shall not exceed 20 % of the 

configured capacity.

The WWMA agreed with the intent of the proposal and recommended this proposal, with modifications as shown 

above, become a Voting item, and that additional research be conducted before the Interim Meeting to determine 

why Class III L scales were omitted from the existing language in HB 44. (Technical Advisor’s Note: The 1990 

NCWM Annual Report of the S&T Committee Agenda Item 320-1 stated that the Committee believed IZSM was 

not appropriate or necessary on vehicle scales or other Class III L scales.) 

At its 2007 Interim Meeting, the CWMA agreed with the WWMA comment and recommendation. 

During the 2008 NCWM Interim Meeting, the Committee heard unanimous support of the item and agreed with the 

WWMA comments to change the proposed phrase “must be limited to 20 %” to “shall not exceed 20 %” as shown 

in the recommendation above. The Committee made the proposal a Voting item. 

At the 2008 Annual Meeting, the Committee agreed with a suggestion to eliminate the reference to railway track 

scales in the third paragraph in the background/discussion section of this item since IZSM has never been applicable 

to Class III L scales. The Committee subsequently amended the referenced paragraph in its Interim Report for the 

Final Report. The Committee also agreed to recommend 2009 as the nonretroactive date. 

320-5 V S.2.4. Level-Indicating Means and S.2.4.1. Vehicle On-Board Weighing Systems 

(This item was adopted.) 

Source: Western Weights and Measures Association

Recommendation: Amend paragraphs S.2.4. and S.2.4.1. as follows: 

S.2.4. Level-Indicating Means. – Except for portable wheel-load weighers and portable axle-load scales, a 

portable scale shall be equipped with level-indicating means if its weighing performance is changed by an 

amount greater than the appropriate acceptance tolerance when it is tilted up to and including 5 % rise over 

run in any direction from a level position and rebalanced. moved from a level position and rebalanced in 

a position that is out of level in any upright direction by 5 % (approximately three degrees). The levelindicating means shall be readable without removing any scale parts requiring a tool. 

[This requirement is nonretroactive as of January 1, 1986, for prescription, jewelers’, and dairy-product-test 

scales, and scales marked I and II.] 

[Note: Portable wheel-load weighers and portable axle-load scales shall be accurate when tilted up to and 

including 5 % rise over run in any direction from a level position and rebalanced. placed out of level up 

to and including 5 % (approximately three degrees).] 

(Amended 1991 and 2008) 

S.2.4.1. Vehicle On-Board Weighing Systems. – A vehicle on-board weighing system shall operate 

within tolerance when the weighing system is tilted up to and including 5 % rise over run in any 

direction from a level position and rebalanced. out of level up to three degrees or 5 %. If the accuracy 

of the system is affected by out-of-level conditions normal to the use of the device, the system shall be 

S&T - 18 
S&T Committee 2008 Final Report 

equipped with an out-of-level sensor that inhibits the weighing operation when the system is out of level to 

the extent that the accuracy limits are exceeded. 

(Added 1992) (Amended 2008)

Background/Discussion: The WWMA received a proposal from a manufacturer to amend paragraph S.2.4. to 

clearly state that the 5 % is referring to slope or grade based on flat plane (180 degrees). The submitter stated that 

existing language in HB 44 paragraph S.2.4. was confusing and that several individuals in the weighing industry 

have said that 5 % refers to 5 % of 90 degrees, which would make the approved angle 4.5 degrees. As a result, these 

manufacturers market their devices as being NTEP certified for 4.5 degrees out-of-level. 

During its 2007 open hearings, the WWMA S&T Committee heard comments from the NTETC WS and a weights 

and measures consultant stating that they believe there is not a problem with existing language. However, additional 

comments from device manufacturers indicate confusion about the difference between the 5 % requirements and the 

parenthetical “approximately 3 degrees.” The NIST technical advisor noted the “degree” equivalent is used in 

international recommendations. One scale manufacturer, noting that the limits in HB 44 are not equivalent, stated 

that an NTEP CC had been issued stating the device complies with out-of level conditions at “5 %” or “3 degrees.” 

To more clearly state the specification in NIST HB 44, and because 5 % does not correspond exactly with 3 degrees, 

the WWMA agreed to forward the proposal to NCWM S&T Committee as a Voting item. 

At its 2007 Interim Meeting, the CWMA agreed that the language for “Level Indicating Means” could be clarified in 

HB 44 and agreed that the 5 % inferred a grade or slope and that the existing language did not explicitly state this. 

Additionally, the CWMA recommended that the phrase in parentheses “(approximately three degrees)” remain in 

paragraph S.2.4. as shown below. The CWMA further recommended this proposal, as revised by the CWMA, move 

forward as a Voting item on the NCWM S&T Committee Agenda. 

At its 2007 Annual Meeting the SWMA heard support from one manufacturer for the proposal as submitted. 

Another manufacturer recommended removing the word “approximately” from the parentheses in the fourth line 

of S.2.4. The SWMA modified S.2.4. accordingly and recommended that the item move forward as a Voting item 

on the NCWM S&T Committee Agenda. 

During the 2008 NCWM Interim Meeting, the Committee heard support for the intent of this item and comments 

recommending that the reference to “in any upright direction” not be deleted from paragraph S.2.4. and added to 

paragraph S.2.4.1. WMD commented that the language in HB 44 does not need clarification and that the problem 

has adequately been addressed by the NTETC WS in their recommendation to clarify the requirements and test 

procedures in Publication 14. WMD added that if the Committee believes that clarification in the referenced 

paragraphs is needed, then the SMA recommendation to delete references to “approximately three degrees” would 

be a reasonable alternative since it does not change the current requirements and is consistent with OIML R 76. The 

Committee agreed with the justification to clarify the current language in HB 44 and the suggestions from the SMA. 

Therefore, the Committee decided to present the amended proposal as shown in their Interim Report for a vote at the 

Annual Meeting. 

At their 2008 spring meetings, the CWMA and NEWMA supported the item as originally recommended in the 

Committee’s Interim Report. 

At the 2008 Annual Meeting, the Committee heard comments that the proposed language in Publication 16 was 

more confusing than the existing language in HB 44. The Committee reviewed a similar requirement from 

Measurement Canada during their deliberations on this item. Based on its review, the Committee amended the 

proposal as shown in the above recommendation and presented it for a vote. 

320-6 I S.2.1.6. Combined Zero-Tare (“0/T”) Key, S.2.3. Value of Tare Indication and Recorded 

Representations, S.2.4, Preset Tare Mechanism, Appendix D; Definitions for Tare Mechanism, 

Gross Weight Value, Net Weight, Net Weight Value, Tare, and Tare Weight Value 

Source: Carryover Item 320-9. (This item originated from the NTETC WS and first appeared on the Committee’s 

2007 agenda.) 

S&T - 19 
S&T Committee 2008 Final Report 

Recommendation: (NOTE: This item was considered jointly with item 324-2.) This recommendation clarifies the 

requirements for metrological tare (e.g., tare objects weighed or balanced off at the time of the transaction), tare 

accuracy, operating range, visibility, and preset tares (e.g., manually entered or stored tares for multiple transactions) 

as outlined in the recommendation below by: 

1. Modifying the definition for “tare mechanism” and adding new definitions for “gross weight value,” “net 

weight,” “net weight value,” “tare,” “tare-balancing mechanism,” “tare-weighing mechanism,” “preset 

tare,” “preset tare mechanism,” and “tare weight value” to Appendix D. 

2. Delete paragraph 2.1.6. and adding a new paragraph S.2.3.6. 

3. Modifying paragraphs S.2.3. and S.2.3.1. and adding new paragraphs S.2.3.1.2. and S.2.3.1.3.; S.2.3.2. 

through S.2.3.8. and S.2.4. through S.2.4.1. to provide new requirements for tare accuracy, operating range, 

and visibility. 

Amend the following definition for “tare mechanism:” 

tare mechanism. A tare-balancing and tare-weighing mechanism (including a tare bar) designed for 

determining or balancing out the weight of packaging material, containers, vehicles, or other materials that are 

not intended to be included in net weight determinations and for setting the net indication to zero when the 

tare object is on the load-receiving element (See also “preset tare,” “tare-weighing mechanism” and 

“tare-balancing mechanism”).

Notes:

1. Reducing the weighing range for net loads is known as subtractive tare (e.g., Net Weight + Tare 

Weight ≤ Gross Weight Capacity).

2. Increasing the weighing range for gross loads without altering the weighing range for net loads 

on mechanical scales is known as additive tare (e.g., a tare bar on a mechanical scale with a beam 

indicator where Net Weight + Tare Weight ≥ Gross Weight Capacity).

The tare mechanism may function as:

1. a non-automatic mechanism (load balanced or weighed by an operator),

2. a semi-automatic mechanism (load balanced or weighed automatically following a single manual 

command), or

3. an automatic mechanism where the load is balanced or weighed automatically without the 

intervention of an operator. An automatic tare mechanism is only suitable for indirect sales to 

the customer (e.g., prepackaging scales).

[2.20, 2.24] 

(Amended 200X)

Add the following new definitions to Appendix D: 

gross weight value. Indication or recorded representation of the weight of a load on a weighing device, 

with no tare mechanism in operation. [2.20, 2.24]

(Added 200X)

net weight (net mass). The weight of a commodity excluding any materials, substances, or items not 

considered to be part of the commodity. Materials, substances, or items not considered to be part of the 

commodity include, but are not limited to, containers, conveyances, bags, wrappers, packaging materials, 

labels, individual piece coverings, decorative accompaniments, and coupons, except that, depending on 

the type of service rendered, packaging materials may be considered to be part of the service. For 

example, the service of shipping includes the weight of packing materials. [2.20, 2.24]

(Added 200X)

S&T - 20 
S&T Committee 2008 Final Report 

net weight value. Indication or recorded representation of the weight of a load placed on a weighing 

device after the operation of a tare mechanism. [2.20, 2.24]

(Added 200X)

preset tare. A numerical value, representing a weight that is entered into a weighing device 

(e.g., keyboard, recalling from stored data, or entered through an interface) and is intended to be applied 

to weighings without determining individual tares.

(Added 200X)

preset tare mechanism. A part of a weighing system for subtracting a preset tare value from a gross or 

net weight value and indicating the result of the calculation as a net weight. The weighing range for net 

loads is reduced accordingly.

Types of preset tare mechanisms include:

- keyboard tare. The operation of keys on a keyboard with a typical 10-key keyboard with 

values 0 through 9, by the pushing of a key numbered 5, the value 5 is entered as a tare value. 

For example, pressing the 0 then 5 key enters 0.05 as the tare value on a scale where d = 0.01.

- digital tare. By the repeated operation of a particular key, tare values are entered in amounts 

equal to the value of a scale division. For example, on a 25 lb x 0.01 lb scale, each time a 

specifically marked key is depressed, a tare is entered equal to 0.01 lb. If that key were 

depressed five times, the tare value would be equal to 0.05 lb.

- programmable tare. Preset (predetermined) tare values that are stored in memory for multiple 

transactions. They may be part of the product information on PLU (product look-up), preset 

product, or tare keys.

- stored tare. Preset (predetermined) tare values that are stored in memory for multiple 

transactions and are used predominately in vehicle scale applications.

- percentage tare. A preset tare value, expressed as a percentage (i.e., 5.6 %), that represents the 

percentage of tare material compared to the gross or net weight of the commodity. A percentage 

tare is one form of proportional tare.

- proportional tare. A preset tare value, automatically calculated by the scale, proportional to the 

gross weight indicated by the scale. A proportional tare can be a percentage tare or a fixed tare 

value relative to a range of gross weights (i.e., a 10 g tare for gross weights between 0 kg and 

2 kg, a 20 g tare for gross weights between 2 kg and 4 kg, etc.). A proportional tare is, therefore, 

not limited to being a percentage tare.

[2.20, 2.24]

(Added 200X)

tare. The weight of packaging material, containers, vehicles, or other materials that are not intended to 

be part of the commodity included in net weight determinations. [2.20, 2.24]

(Added 200X)

tare-balancing mechanism. A tare mechanism with an indication that tare has been taken either 

semiautomatically or automatically and without an indication of the tare value (weight) when the 

instrument is loaded. A negative net weight is assumed to be the tare value when the weighing 

instrument is unloaded. [2.20, 2.24]

(Added 200X)

S&T - 21 
S&T Committee 2008 Final Report 

tare-weighing mechanism. A tare-balancing mechanism that stores the tare value that has been taken 

either semiautomatically or automatically and is capable of displaying (continuously or upon command) 

or printing the value whether or not the instrument is loaded. [2.20, 2.24]

(Added 200X)

tare weight value. The weight value of a load determined by a tare mechanism. [2.20, 2.24]

(Added 200X)

Delete paragraph S.2.1.6. as follows (See proposed paragraph S.2.3.6.): 

S.2.1.6. Combined Zero-Tare (“0/T”) Key. – Scales not intended to be used in direct sales 

applications may be equipped with a combined zero and tare function key, provided that the device is 

clearly marked as to how the key functions. The device must also be clearly marked on or adjacent 

to the weight display with the statement “Not for Direct Sales.”

(Added 1998)

Amend paragraph S.2.3. and S.2.3.1. as follows: 

S.2. Design of Balance, Tare, Level, Damping, and Arresting Mechanisms.

S.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-weighing and tare-balancing 

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. A device designed to automatically clear any tare 

value shall also be designed to prevent the automatic clearing of tare until a complete transaction has been 

indicated.* 

(Amended 1985 and 200X) 

[Note: On a computing scale, this requires the input of a unit price, the display of the unit price, and a 

computed positive total price at a readable equilibrium. Other devices require a complete weighing 

operation, including tare, net, and gross weight determination.]* 

[*Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1983] 

S.2.3.1. Scale Interval (Division) and Capacity. On any scale (except a monorail scale equipped 

with digital indications and multi-interval scales when the value of tare is determined in a lower 

weighing segment), the value of the tare-weighing division shall be equal to the value of the scale 

division for any given load and shall not be operable above its maximum capacity.

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1983]

(Added 200X)

S.2.3.1.1. Monorail Scales Equipped with Digital Indications. – On a static monorail weighing 

system equipped with digital indications, means shall be provided for setting any tare value of less 

than 5 % of the scale capacity to within 0.02 % of scale capacity. On a dynamic monorail 

weighing system, means shall be provided to automatically maintain this condition. 

(Amended 1999) 

S.2.3.1.2. Multi-interval Scales. – On multi-interval scales, the tare capacity is limited to the 

capacity of the first weighing segment and the value of the tare division shall be equal to the 

value of the scale division from the first weighing segment.

(Added 200X)

S.2.3.1.3. Multiple Range Scales. – On multiple range scales, the tare capacity may be 

operable in the greater weighing ranges if it is possible to switch to a greater weighing range 

S&T - 22 
S&T Committee 2008 Final Report 

with a load on the scale. The value of the tare division shall be equal to the value of the scale 

division from the weighing range where the tare was determined.

(Added 200X)

Add new paragraphs S.2.3.2. through S.2.3.8. as follows: 

S.2.3.2. Accuracy. – A tare-weighing or -balancing mechanism shall permit setting the net indication 

to zero with an accuracy equal to or better than:

± 0.25 d for electronic weighing devices and any weighing device with an analog indication, and

± 0.5 d for mechanical weighing devices with a digital indication (e.g., weighbeams with only 

notched poises and no sliding poises).

On a multi-interval scale, d shall be replaced by d1 (division value of the first weighing segment).

(Added 200X)

S.2.3.3. Visibility of Operation. – Operation of the tare mechanism shall be visibly indicated on the 

instrument. In the case of instruments with digital indications, this shall be done by marking the 

indicated net value with the word “NET” or the symbol “N”. “NET” may be displayed as “NET”, 

“Net” or “net”. If a scale is equipped with an indicator that allows the gross value to be displayed 

temporarily while a tare mechanism is in operation, the “NET” symbol shall disappear while the 

gross value is displayed.

(Added 200X)

S.2.3.4. Subtractive Tare Mechanism. – After any tare operation and while tare is in effect, an 

indicating or recording element shall not display nor record any values when the gross load (not 

counting the initial dead load that has been canceled by an initial zero-setting mechanism) is in excess 

of 105 % of scale capacity after tare has been taken.

(Added 200X)

S.2.3.5. Semi-automatic or Automatic* Tare-Balancing or Tare-Weighing Mechanisms. – These 

mechanisms shall be operable or accessible only by a tool outside of and separate from this 

mechanism or they shall be enclosed in a cabinet, or they shall be operable only when the indication 

is stable within:

(a) ± 3 scale divisions for scales of more than 2000 kg (5000 lb) capacity in service prior to 

January 1, 1981, and for all axle-load, railway track, and vehicle scales; or

(b) ± 1 scale division for all other scales.

* Automatic tare mechanisms are not permitted for direct sales to the public.

(Added 200X)

S.2.3.6. Combined Zero-setting and Tare-balancing Mechanisms (0/T Key). – Scales not intended to 

be used in direct sales to the public may be equipped with a combined zero and tare function key, 

provided the device is clearly marked as to how the key functions. If the semi-automatic zero-setting 

mechanism and the semi-automatic tare-balancing mechanism are operated by the same key, the 

following apply at any load:

(a) After zero/tare setting, the effect of accuracy of the zero setting shall be not more than 

± 0.25 d.

S&T - 23 
S&T Committee 2008 Final Report 

(b) A “center-of-zero” condition shall either automatically be maintained to ± 0.25 scale division 

or less or have an auxiliary or supplemental “center-of-zero” indicator that defines a zerobalance condition to ± 0.25 scale division or less.

(c) A zero-tracking mechanism, if equipped, shall operate only when:

- the indication is at zero, or at a negative net value equivalent to gross zero, and

- the weight indication is stable.

(d) The scale must also be clearly marked on or adjacent to the weight display with the 

statement “Not for Direct Sales.”

(Added 200X)

S.2.3.7. Consecutive Tare Operations. – Repeated operation of a tare mechanism (including preset 

tare) is permitted for single transactions with one gross, one net, and multiple tare values. If more 

than one tare mechanism is operative at the same time, tare weight values shall be clearly designated 

(identified) with either “T” for tare or “PT” for preset tare as appropriate when indicated or printed.

(Added 200X)

S.2.3.8. Indication and Printing of Weighing Results.

(a) Gross weight values may be printed without any designation or by using a complete word or 

symbol. For a designation by a symbol, only uppercase “G” is permitted.

(b) If only net weight values are printed without corresponding gross or tare values, they may 

be printed without any designation or by using a complete word or symbol. The complete 

word “Net” or symbol “N” shall be used to designate a net weight as shown in S.2.3.3. 

Visibility of Operation. This applies also where semi-automatic zero-setting and semiautomatic tare balancing are initiated by the same key.

(c) Gross, net, or tare values determined by a multiple range instrument or by a multi-interval 

instrument need not be marked by a special designation referring to the (partial) weighing 

range.

(d) If net weight values are printed together with the corresponding gross and/or tare values, the 

net and tare values shall be identified at least by the corresponding symbols “N” and “T” or 

by complete words using all upper-case letters, all lower-case letters, or a combination of 

upper- and lower-case letters.

(e) If net weight values and tare values determined by different tare mechanisms are printed 

separately for single transactions with multiple gross, tare, and net values, they shall be 

suitably identified (e.g., vehicle sequentially loaded with mixed commodities).

(Added 200X)

Add new paragraphs S.2.4. and S.2.4.1. as follows: 

S.2.4. Preset Tare Mechanism, Operation. – In addition to the provisions of paragraphs S.2.3. Tare and 

S.2.3.1. Scale Interval, a preset tare mechanism may be operated together with one or more tare devices 

provided:

(a) the preset tare mechanism complies with paragraph S.2.3.7. Consecutive Tare Operations, and

(b) the preset tare operation cannot be modified or cancelled as long as any tare mechanism 

operated after the preset tare operation is still in use,

S&T - 24 
S&T Committee 2008 Final Report 

(c) the preset tare associated with a price look-up (PLU) shall be automatically cancelled at the same 

time a PLU is cancelled, and

(d) the preset tare values are designated by the symbol “PT”; however, it is permitted to replace the 

symbol “PT” with complete words.

A preset tare may operate automatically only if the preset tare value is clearly identified with the load to 

be measured (e.g., part of the product look-up information).

(Added 200X)

S.2.4.1. Indication of Operation. – It shall be possible to temporarily indicate the preset tare value 

(e.g., pressing a tare display button or by indicating a negative net weight with no load on the loadreceiving element). In addition to the provisions of paragraph S.2.3.8. Indication and Printing of 

Weighing Results, the calculated net value is printed and at least the preset tare value is printed, with 

the exception of:

(a) a Class II or a Class III instrument with a maximum capacity not greater than 100 kg 

(200 lb) used in direct sales to the public,

(b) price computing scales, and

(c) nonautomatic weigh/price labeling scales.

(Added 200X)

Background/Discussion: This WS proposal is one of several proposed modifications to HB 44 requirements 

intended to clarify the acceptable tare features already recognized for use in commercial applications. Scales Code 

requirements do not include sufficiently detailed language to identify all types of tare, define how tare features must 

operate, or specify the net and tare values a scale must indicate and record. Current HB 44 requirements that 

address tare include paragraphs S.2.1.6. Combined Zero-Tare (“0/T”) Key; S.2.3. Tare; S.2.3.1. Monorail Scales 

Equipped with Digital Indications; and T.N.2.1. General (Tolerances). 

The WS developed criteria used to type evaluate tare features based on General Code paragraph G-S.2. Facilitation 

of Fraud and other requirements that apply to indicating and recording elements and recorded representations. 

NTEP laboratories find it has become increasingly difficult to base compliance decisions solely on paragraph G-S.2. 

because the general nature of the language results in multiple interpretations. Type evaluation criteria are published 

in NCWM Publication 14; however, this document is not in wide distribution in the weights and measures 

community. Additionally, only a limited number of weights and measures officials, device manufacturers, and 

device owners and operators are regular participants in WS meetings where tare evaluation criteria are developed 

and discussed. It is difficult for parties responsible for the design, use, and test of the tare feature to interpret and 

apply technical requirements published in Publication 14. This results in differing interpretations of HB 44 

requirements. 

In 2006 the NTETC WS formed a Tare WG to review existing tare requirements and make recommendations as to 

how tare should operate on a single range scale, a multiple range scale, and a multi-interval scale. The WG was 

asked to develop, where necessary, recommendations for changes to Publication 14, HB 44, and HB 130 and to 

provide guidance to the WS on type evaluation requirements. 

The WG developed proposals to amend HB 44 requirements to: 

a. ensure a tare feature operates in a manner that increases the accuracy of net weight determinations, 

b. state clearly what information and values are permitted and required for indicated and recorded 

representations of net weight and tare weight, and 

c. identify the types (e.g., semiautomatic and stored) of tare weight values determined at the time objects are 

weighed or tare weight values are determined prior to the time objects are weighed. 

S&T - 25 
S&T Committee 2008 Final Report 

At its 2007 Annual Meeting, the WS reviewed the final recommendation of the Tare WG and recommended that the 

NIST technical advisor submit a number of Tare WG recommendations to the weights and measures regional 

association and the NCWM S&T committees. 

At that meeting, the WS stated that the Tare WG had completed its work. The Sector agreed that most of the 

proposed language is currently verified in Publication 14 with G-S.2. Facilitation of Fraud, S.2.1.6. Combined 

Zero/Tare (0/T) Key, and S.2.3 Tare listed as the HB 44 code references. The WG did not change any existing 

HB 44 tare requirements but recommended an amended definition for “tare mechanism.” The Sector agreed with 

the WG that the proposed items for calculated weights and the identification of preset tare weights go beyond what 

is currently evaluated by NTEP and recommended these items be split into separate proposals on the NCWM S&T 

agenda. 

At their fall 2007 meetings, the WWMA and SWMA heard support from the NTETC WS and SMA to put forth the 

new NTETC WS version of the proposal. The WWMA agreed that the additional definitions would clarify tarerelated terms. It also agreed that the Tare WG’s suggested changes would further harmonize NIST HB 44 with the 

latest version of R 76. Therefore, the WWMA and SWMA recommended the proposal, with the additions from the 

Tare WG, move forward as a Voting item on the NCWM S&T Committee Agenda. 

At its 2007 Interim Meeting, the CWMA agreed that tare needs to be further defined in HB 44. The CWMA 

recommended the proposal be broken up into several parts in order to provide better clarification. The CWMA and 

NEWMA recommended this proposal be moved to Developmental until it can be divided into more manageable 

sections. 

During the 2008 NCWM Interim Meeting, the Committee heard support for the intent of this item. In response to 

questions from the audience, the Committee clarified the term “additive tare” by providing an example of a 

mechanical scale with an ungraduated tare bar that does not reduce the net capacity of the scale. Additionally, the 

NIST Technical Advisor stated that the Tare WG did not believe that a definition for “additive tare” was needed 

since both subtractive tare and additive tare are described within the proposal to amend the definition of “tare 

mechanism.” The Committee considered the recommendations from the CWMA and NEWMA to split this item 

into more manageable sections. However, the Committee could not find a way to effectively split the proposal since 

the requirements in the proposal are interrelated. 

During the Committee discussions on this item, the following clarifications for “consecutive tare operations” and 

“transactions using different tare mechanisms” were provided by Mettler Toledo. 

“Consecutive tare operations” in proposed paragraph S.2.3.7. are described as a single transaction with one 

gross, one net, and multiple tare values. Examples include but are not limited to: 

(1) The sales of wrapped candy sold in bulk where a metrological tare (weighed) for a bag and a preset 

(percentage) tare for the candy wrappers are used to determine the net weight of the candy, 

(2) The loading of a vehicle with bins of products (where the preset tare weight for the bins were 

predetermined). If indicated and/or printed, the representation of tare would include the value of the 

metrological tare (T) and the summed values of the preset tare (PT). 

“Net weight values and tare values determined by different tare mechanisms” in proposed 

paragraph 2.3.8.(e) includes single transactions with multiple gross, tare, and net determinations. For example, 

an unloaded vehicle would first be weighed to determine tare, loaded with a commodity, and reweighed to 

determine the gross weight and the net weight for that commodity. The vehicle would then be loaded with a 

different commodity and reweighed to determine a new gross weight. The second gross weight would be used 

to calculate the net weight of the second commodity by taking the difference between the second “tare” weight 

(gross weight of the first commodity) and the second gross weight (total weight of unloaded vehicle and both 

commodities). 

Based on the clarifications, the Committee amended proposed paragraphs S.2.3.7. and S.2.3.8.(e) in this item. The 

Committee also moved the language from the originally proposed paragraph S.2.3. in its Interim Agenda to 

S&T - 26 
S&T Committee 2008 Final Report 

paragraph S.2.3.1. to group together the language referring to scale intervals. The Committee also deleted the 

originally proposed subparagraphs S.2.3.9 (f) and (g) (Note: S.3.9. was renumbered to S.2.3.8. in the above 

proposal). Since the language for “calculated net weights,” was not fully developed or understood by the 

Committee, the Committee recommended that the subject of calculated net weights be submitted as a separate 

proposal for future consideration. Additionally, the Committee amended the proposed paragraph S.2.4.2. to remove 

requirements already stated in paragraph S.2.3.8. and deleted the “Note” since it addresses scales with a “0/T key” 

that are already marked with the statement “Not for Direct Sales” in the current HB 44 and the above proposed 

paragraph S.2.3.6. 

At the 2008 Interim Meeting, the Committee did not receive any comments opposing this proposal and made this a 

Voting item in its Interim Report. 

At their 2008 spring meetings, the SMA, the CWMA and NEWMA, opposed this as a Voting item and 

recommended that the item be made Informational to allow for further development and evaluation. The rationale 

for this position was that the proposal was significantly amended from the language in the recommendation 

appearing in the 2008 Interim Agenda and that there were some questions regarding some of the definitions and how 

they are to be applied. 

The CWMA also recommended that this should be split into two sections and that the Weighing Sector should 

consider doing a practical review of the language using one or more devices. 

NEWMA also recommend that this item be posted on the NCWM website and appropriate list servers along with a 

summary of how this item would appear in HB 44 if adopted. 

The Committee agreed with the comments that this item needs additional time for review and analysis and that the 

item be given Iinformation status. The Committee also recommends that the NIST technical advisor develop a 

1-2 hour technical presentation on the proposed tare requirements that will be available to the regional weights and 

measures associations and the NTETC Weighing Sector and posted on the WMD and NCWM websites. 

For additional background information, refer to the Committee’s 2007 Annual Report. 

320-7 I T.N.4.6. Time Dependence (Creep) for Load Cells During Type Evaluation and T.N.4.7. Creep 

Recovery for Load Cells During Type Evaluation 

Source: SMA Load Cell Manufacturers 

Background: The Committee received a “priority” request to add a proposal as a Voting item to the Committee’s 

agenda. The request to add the item as a Voting item was not approved according to criteria in HB 44 Introduction 

Section H (c) Exceptions to Policy for Submission of Items to a Committee Agenda; Submission of Priority Items. 

However, the Committee agreed to discuss this item during the Annual Meeting. As a result of these discussions, 

the Committee added this item to its list of carryover items as an Information item and recommended that the NIST 

Technical Advisor work with the submitter of the item to develop a proposal to amend Table T.N.4.6. and add a 

table for designating loading and unloading times for consideration by the regional weights and measures 

associations. 

321 BELT-CONVEYOR SCALE SYSTEMS 

321-1 V N.2.3. Minimum Test Load 

(This item was adopted.) 

Source: Western Weights and Measures Association (WWMA) 

S&T - 27 
S&T Committee 2008 Final Report 

Proposal: Amend NIST HB 44, Section 2.21. Belt Conveyor Scales (BCS) Systems Code, paragraph N.2.3. as 

follows: 

N.2.3. Minimum Test Load. – Except for applications where a normal weighment is less than 10 minutes, 

tThe minimum test load shall not be less than the largest of the following values.

(a) 800 scale divisions, 

(b) the load obtained at maximum flow rate in one revolution of the belt, or 

(c) at least 10 minutes of operation. 

For applications where a normal weighment is less than 10 minutes (e.g., belt-conveyor scale systems used 

exclusively to issue net weights for material conveyed by individual vehicles, and railway track cars) the 

minimum test load shall be the normal weighment that also complies with (a) and (b).

The official with statutory authority may determine that a smaller minimum totalized load down to 2 % of the 

load totalized in 1 hour at the maximum flow rate may be used for subsequent tests, provided that: 

1. the smaller minimum totalized load is greater than the quantities specified in (a) and (b), and 

2. consecutive official testing with the minimum totalized loads described in N.2.3. (a), (b), or (c) and the 

smaller minimum test load has been conducted that demonstrates the system complies with applicable 

tolerances for repeatability, acceptance, and maintenance. 

(Added 2004) (Amended 2008)

Background/Discussion: In 2004 NIST HB 44 paragraph N.2. Conditions of Test. was amended, and the minimum 

totalized load (MTL) requirements were amended and renumbered to N.2.3. Since 10 minutes of operation in 

N.3.2.(c) typically results in a test load larger than (a) or (b), the 10 minutes MTL is used for most BCS installations. 

Additionally, the words “or a normal weighment” were deleted from MTL requirements; the words were no longer 

needed since language was developed to allow a smaller material test load provided the scale demonstrated 

compliance with BCS tolerances with the MTL and the smaller test load. 

As a result of deleting the words “or a normal weighment,” it has been reported that the revised MTL requirements 

are not suitable for BCS installations that issue individual weights for vehicles and railcars. This is due to 

limitations of the installation and uncertainties in determining the net weights of several vehicles or railcars to 

compare material test results of the 10 minutes MTL with the alternate test load of “2 % of the load totalized in 

1 hour.” 

The restoration of the words “or a normal weighment” allows operation of such BCS systems used exclusively to 

issue net weights for material conveyed by individual vehicles and railway track cars, provided the systems comply 

with tolerance and repeatability requirements. It should be noted that the 10-minute test could still be used on 

installations that do not need to start and stop product flow to continuously fill and issue a totalized weight for 

several vehicles or railcars (unit trains). 

At its 2007 Annual Meeting, the WWMA heard comments from a BCS manufacturer in support of the proposal and, 

consequently, recommended this proposal move forward as a Voting item on the NCWM S&T Committee Agenda. 

During the 2008 Interim Meeting, the Committee heard comments from Bill Ripka, Thermo Fisher Scientific, 

supporting the proposal. The Committee agreed to present the proposal for a vote at the Annual Meeting. 

At its February 2008 meeting, the NW&SA WG on BCS reviewed the proceedings from the Committee’s 2008 

Interim Report. This led to discussion regarding the comparison and alignment of the recommendation in the 

Interim Report to similar requirements in OIML R 50 – “Continuous totalizing automatic weighing instruments (belt 

weighers)” Section 2.5. Minimum Test Load. The WG believes the statement “at least 10 minutes of operation” 

should be removed and could be brought into alignment with OIML R 50 use of 2 % load in one hour at maximum 

S&T - 28 
S&T Committee 2008 Final Report 

flow rate. Additionally, the test load listed in OIML R 50 must be understood as the minimum amount needed for a 

materials test and is based on the systems maximum flow rate. However, this recommendation was too large of a 

change to the proposal. Recognizing the urgency of the proposed language, the WG decided to submit their 

recommendation to align the MTL requirements with R 50 at a later time. The WG recommended changing the 

proposed language in paragraph N.2.3. to clarify that the minimum test load for applications when the normal 

weighment is less than 10 minutes still indicate at least 800 scale divisions or one belt revolution. 

At its 2008 spring meeting, the CWMA S&T Committee supported the item as written in the Interim Report and 

recommended that the item move forward to a vote. 

At the 2008 Annual Meeting, the Committee heard comments that the proposed language in the Interim Report 

appeared to indicate that BCS systems would issue weights for the individual vehicles or railway cars. The 

Committee agreed that the intent was for the belt-conveyor scale system to issue “net weights” for materials 

conveyed by vehicles and railway track cars. The Committee also agreed with the NW&SA WG recommendation 

to make the exception for applications for small normal weighments. Consequently, the Committee amended the 

proposal to read as shown in the recommendation above. 

321-2 V UR.2.2.(n) Belt Alignment 

(This item was adopted.) 

Source: Carryover Item 321-1. (This item originated from the SWMA and first appeared on the Committee’s 2007 

agenda.)

Recommendation: Modify paragraph UR.2.2.(n) as follows: 

UR.2.2. Conveyor Installation 

(n) Belt Alignment. – The belt shall not extend beyond the edge of the outermost roller of any carry side 

(top) roller in any area of the conveyor nor touch the conveyor structure on the return (bottom) side of the 

conveyor.

(Amended 1998 and 2008) 

Background/Discussion: During the 2006 NCWM Interim Meeting, the Committee considered the 

recommendations from the NCWM review panel and the comments from industry regarding this proposal. The 

review panel indicated the proposal should have included national data that demonstrated a need for modifying 

paragraph UR.2.2. and should be a Developing item until such data are provided. At that time, one representative 

from the belt-conveyor scale service industry indicated there are too many factors that influence belt tracking to 

ensure a belt is centered at all times. The service representative recommended that the belt should not extend 

beyond the edge of the idler roller in any area of the conveyor on the carrying side or touch holding brackets on the 

return side to reduce any detrimental effects on accuracy. Industry representatives indicated the design of idlers and 

scales are such that the belt is not intended to stay in the exact center. Industry also indicated there was no 

mechanism available to monitor the belt’s tracking 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Industry requested specifications 

for what constituted either “center” or an acceptable “range of center” for belt tracking. Although the 2005 SWMA 

reported the proposal was ready for national consideration, the Committee agreed it was more appropriate to make 

the proposal a Developing item until there was some clear indication that belt alignment could be tracked for 

maintenance and accuracy purposes. 

During the 2007 NCWM Annual Meeting, the Committee heard testimony that a work group of the NW&SA was 

addressing this item. The NW&SA, in a letter dated July 31, 2007, submitted a recommendation to the Committee 

for consideration during the 2008 NCWM Interim Meeting. 

In that letter, the NW&SA WG stated there was insufficient evidence of the effect of small lateral movement of the 

belt to establish a valid requirement narrower than the edge of the idler roller on belt-conveyor scale systems other 

than the short conveyors used by the original submitter. The WG added that no practical devices were available to 

measure such lateral alignment changes and recommended the language added to the original proposal above be 

S&T - 29 
S&T Committee 2008 Final Report 

withdrawn. However, the WG made the recommendation to modify UR.2.2.(n) to include language to clarify that 

the belt shall not come into contact with any part of the conveyor structure. 

At its 2007 Annual Meeting, the WWMA discussed the letter from the NW&SA and heard from a belt-conveyor 

scale manufacturer supporting the recommendation from the NW&SA WG because it provided guidance for the user 

to better maintain the zero condition of the scale and helped prevent damage to the belt. As a result, the WWMA 

recommended that the NW&SA WG version of UR.2.2. move forward as a Voting item on the NCWM S&T 

Committee Agenda. 

At its 2007 Annual Meeting, the SWMA heard that Montana and the WWMA support the position and alternate 

proposal from the NW&SA. The SWMA recommended that the NCWM S&T Committee present the alternate 

proposal shown above and move forward as a Voting item on the NCWM S&T Committee Agenda. 

During the 2008 NCWM Interim Meeting, the Committee heard from Bill Ripka, Thermo Fisher Scientific, who 

supported the intent of the July 31, 2008, alternate proposal, but noted that the language needed some additional 

refining. The NIST Technical Advisor reported on a letter submitted by the WG on October 19, 2007, that 

addressed Mr. Ripka’s concerns that revised their proposal to clarify that the belt shall not extend beyond the edge 

of the outermost roller (i.e., wing roller) of the idler since idlers typically include more than one roller. The 

Committee agreed with the comments and the revised recommendation in that letter and agreed to present the 

amended proposal as shown in the recommendation for a vote at the Annual Meeting. 

At the 2008 Annual Meeting, the Committee reviewed comments from the BSC WG and the CWMA supporting the 

amended proposal as a Voting item as shown in the Committee’s recommendation. 

For additional background information, refer to the Committee’s 2007 Annual Report. 

324 AUTOMATIC WEIGHING SYSTEMS 

324-1 V S.1.2. Value of Division Units and T.2.1. General 

(This item was adopted.) 

Source: Carryover Item 324-1 (This item originated from the NTETC WS and first appeared on the Committee’s 

2007 agenda.) 

Recommendation: Add a new note to paragraph S.1.2. and amend paragraph T.2.1. as follows: 

S.1.2. Value of Division Units. – The value of a division d expressed in a unit of weight shall be equal to: 

(a) 1, 2, or 5; or 

(b) a decimal multiple or submultiple of 1, 2, or 5. 

Note: The requirement that the value of the scale division be expressed only as 1, 2, or 5, or a decimal 

multiple or submultiple of only 1, 2, or 5 does not apply to net weight indications and recorded representations 

that are calculated from gross and tare weight indications where the scale division of the gross weight is 

different from the scale division of the tare weight(s) on multi-interval or multiple range scales. For example, a 

multiple range or multi-interval scale may indicate and record tare weights in a lower weighing range (WR) or 

weighing segment (WS), gross weights in the higher weighing range or weighing segment, and net weights as 

follows:

55 kg Gross Weight (WR2 d = 5 kg) 10.05 lb Gross Weight (WSR2 d = 0.05 lb) 

– 4 kg Tare Weight (WR1 d = 2 kg) – 0.06 lb Tare Weight (WS1 d = 0.02 lb) 

= 51 kg Net Weight (Mathematically Correct) = 9.99 lb Net Weight (Mathematically Correct) 

(Note Added 2008) 

S&T - 30 
S&T Committee 2008 Final Report 

S.2.2. Tare. – On any automatic weighing system (except for multi-interval scales or multiple range scales 

when the value of tare is determined in a lower range or segment), 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 (i.e., in a 

direction of underregistration) with respect to the zero-load balance condition of the automatic weighing 

system. A device designed to automatically clear any tare value shall also be designed to prevent the automatic 

clearing of tare until a complete transaction has been indicated. 

Note: On a computing automatic weighing system, this requires the input of a unit price, the display of the unit price, and a 

computed positive total price at a readable equilibrium. Other devices require that a transaction or lot run be completed. 

(Amended 2004 and 2008) 

T.2.1. General. – The tolerance values are positive (+) and negative (-) with the weighing device adjusted to 

zero at no load. When tare is in use, the tolerance values are applied from the tare zero reference (zero net 

indication); the tolerance values apply to the net weight indication for any possible tare load using certified 

test loadsonly. 

(Amended 2008)

Background/Discussion: During the 2007 NCWM Annual Meeting, the Committee heard comments from the 

CWMA and NEWMA supporting this item with recommendations to change the word “value” to “division” and 

incorporate the SWMA recommendation to modify paragraph S.2.2. 

NEWMA pointed out that the proposed change to paragraph S.2.1. appeared to be permissive and not a requirement 

and asked if the intent was to prohibit multi-interval and multiple range scales from rounding and indicating 

calculated net weights in scale divisions to only 1, 2, or 5 or was rounding the scale divisions to only 1, 2, or 5 still 

allowed. The WMD representative to the NCWM Tare WG stated that the intent was for the language to be 

permissive because there are a significant number of devices with NTEP CCs in the marketplace that round the tare 

values before calculating net weights. 

The Committee made several modifications to the proposal to: 

- clarify the examples in the proposed note to paragraph S.1.2., and 

- clarify that SWMA’s proposed modification to the language in paragraph S.2.2. for an exception for 

multi-interval and multiple range scales only applied to the requirement that the value of tare shall be equal 

the value of the scale division. 

The Committee agreed that the words “scale value” should be changed to “scale division” to be consistent with the 

terminology currently used in HB 44 and recommended the NIST technical advisor forward the amended proposal 

to the Tare WG and WS for their consideration and comment. 

At their fall 2007 meetings, the CWMA, NTETC WS, and WWMA supported this item. 

At the 2008 Interim Meeting, the Committee agreed to submit the proposal as amended by WMD for a vote at the 

Annual Meeting. 

At the 2008 Annual Meeting, the Committee agreed with comments from the SMA, the CWMA, and NEWMA to 

include the word “segment” in paragraph S.2.3., and to submit the proposal as shown in the above recommendation 

for a vote. 

See additional comments and recommendations from Agenda Item 320-2. For additional background information, 

refer to the Committee’s 2007 Annual Report. 

324-2 I S.2.2. Value of Tare Indication and Recorded Representations and S.2.3. Preset Tare Mechanism 

Source: Carryover Item 324-2. (This item originated from S&T Committee and first appeared on the Committee’s 

2007 agenda.) 

S&T - 31 
S&T Committee 2008 Final Report 

Recommendation: (NOTE: This item will be considered jointly with Item 320-6.) This recommendation clarifies 

the requirements for tare by modifying paragraph S.2.2. and adding new paragraphs S.2.2.1. through S.2.2.8. and 

S.2.3 through S.2.3.1. that provide new requirements for metrological tare (e.g., tare objects weighed or balanced off 

at the time of the transaction), tare accuracy, operating range, visibility, and preset tares (e.g., manually entered or 

stored tares for multiple transactions). 

Amend paragraph S.2.2. as follows: 

S.2.2. Tare. The tare-weighing and tare-balancing 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. A 

device designed to automatically clear any tare value shall also be designed to prevent the automatic clearing of 

tare until a complete transaction has been indicated. 

[Note: On a computing scale, this requires the input of a unit price, the display of the unit price, and a 

computed positive total price at a readable equilibrium. Other devices require a complete weighing operation, 

including tare, net, and gross weight determination.] 

(Amended 2004 and 200X) 

Add new paragraphs S.2.2.1. through S.2.2.8. as follows: 

S.2.2.1. Scale Interval (Division) and Capacity. – On any scale (except multi-interval scales when the 

value of tare is determined in the first weighing segment), the value of the tare division shall be equal 

to the value of the scale division for any given load and shall not operate above its maximum 

capacity.

S.2.2.1.1. Multi-interval Scales. – On multi-interval scales, the tare capacity is limited to the 

capacity of the first weighing segment and the value of the tare division shall be equal to the 

value of the scale division from the first weighing segment.

S.2.2.1.2. Multiple Range Scales. – On multiple range scales, the value of the tare division shall 

be equal to the value of the scale division from the weighing range where the tare was 

determined.

(Added 200X)

S.2.2.2. Accuracy. – A tare-weighing or tare-balancing mechanism shall permit setting the net 

indication to zero with an accuracy equal to or better than:

(a) ± 0.25 d for electronic weighing devices and any weighing device with an analog indication, 

and

(b) ± 0.5 d for mechanical weighing devices with a digital indication (e.g., weighbeams with only 

notched poises and no sliding poises).

On a multi-interval scale, d shall be replaced by d1 (division value of the first weighing segment).

(Added 200X)

S.2.2.3. Visibility of Operation. – Operation of the tare mechanism shall be visibly indicated on the 

instrument. In the case of instruments with digital indications, this shall be done by marking the 

indicated net value with the word “NET” or the symbol “N”. “NET” may be displayed as “NET”, 

“Net” or “net”. If a scale is equipped with an indicator that allows the gross value to be displayed 

temporarily while a tare mechanism is in operation, the “NET” symbol shall disappear while the 

gross value is displayed.

(Added 200X)

S&T - 32 
S&T Committee 2008 Final Report 

S.2.2.4. Subtractive Tare Mechanism. – After any tare operation and while subtractive tare is in 

effect, an indicating or recording element shall not display nor record any values when the gross load 

(not counting the initial dead load that has been canceled by an initial zero-setting mechanism) is in 

excess of 105 % of scale capacity after tare has been taken.

(Added 200X)

S.2.2.5. Semi-automatic or Automatic Tare* Balancing or Weighing Mechanisms. – These 

mechanisms shall be operable or accessible only by a tool outside of and separate from this 

mechanism or it shall be enclosed in a cabinet, or it shall be operable only when the indication is 

stable within:

(a) ± 3 scale divisions for scales of more than 2000 kg (5000 lb) capacity in service prior to 

January 1, 1981, and for all axle-load, railway track, and vehicle scales; or

(b) ± 1 scale division for all other scales.

* Automatic tare mechanisms are not permitted for direct sales to the public.

(Added 200X)

S.2.2.6. Combined Zero-setting and Tare-balancing Mechanisms (0/T Key). – Automatic weighing 

systems may be equipped with a combined zero and tare function key. If the semi-automatic zerosetting mechanism and the semi-automatic tare-balancing mechanism are operated by the same key, 

the following apply at any load:

(a) After zero/tare setting the effect of accuracy of the zero setting shall be not more than 

± 0.25 d.

(b) A “center-of-zero” condition shall either automatically be maintained to ± 0.25 scale division 

or less, or have an auxiliary or supplemental “center-of-zero” indicator that defines a 

zero-balance condition to ± 0.25 scale division or less.

(c) A zero-tracking mechanism, if equipped, shall operate only when:

(1) the indication is at zero, or at a negative net value equivalent to gross zero, and

(2) the weight indication is stable.

(d) The scale must also be clearly marked on or adjacent to the weight display with the 

statement “Not for Direct Sales.”

(Added 200X)

S.2.2.7. Consecutive Tare Operations. – Repeated operation of a tare mechanism (including preset 

tare) is permitted for single transactions with one gross, one net, and multiple tare values. If more 

than one tare mechanism is operative at the same time, tare weight values shall be clearly designated 

(identified) with either “T” for tare or “PT” for preset tare as appropriate when indicated or printed.

(Added 200X)

S.2.2.8. Indication and Printing of Weighing Results.

(a) Gross weight values may be printed without any designation or by using a complete word or 

symbol. For a designation by a symbol, only uppercase “G” is permitted.

(b) If only net weight values are printed without corresponding gross or tare values, they may 

be printed without any designation or by using a complete word or symbol. The complete 

word (as shown in S.2.2.3. Visibility of Operation.) or symbol “N” shall be used to designate 

a net weight. This applies also where semi-automatic zero-setting and semi-automatic tare 

balancing are initiated by the same key.

S&T - 33 
S&T Committee 2008 Final Report 

(c) Gross, net, or tare values determined by a multiple range instrument or by a multi-interval 

instrument need not be marked by a special designation referring to the (partial) weighing 

range.

(d) If net weight values are printed together with the corresponding gross and/or tare values, the 

net and tare values shall be identified at least by the corresponding symbols “N” and “T” or 

by complete words using all upper-case letters, all lower-case letters, or a combination of 

upper- and lower-case letters.

(e) If net weight values and tare values determined by different tare mechanisms are printed 

separately for single transactions with multiple gross, tare, and net values, they shall be 

suitably identified (e.g., vehicle sequentially loaded with mixed commodities).

(Added 200X)

Add new paragraphs S.2.3. and S.2.3.1. as follows: 

S.2.3. Preset Tare Mechanism, Operation. – In addition to the provisions of paragraphs S.2.2. Tare and 

S.2.2.1. Scale Interval, a preset tare may be operated together with one or more tare devices provided:

(a) the preset tare mechanism complies with paragraph S.2.2.7. Consecutive Tare Operations., and

(b) the preset tare operation cannot be modified or cancelled as long as any tare mechanism 

operated after the preset tare operation is still in use,

(c) the preset tare associated with a price look-up (PLU) shall be automatically cancelled at the same 

time a PLU is cancelled, and

(d) the preset tare values are designated by the symbol “PT”; however, it is permitted to replace the 

symbol “PT” with complete words.

A preset tare may operate automatically only if the preset tare value is clearly identified with the 

load to be measured (e.g., part of the product look-up information).

S.2.3.1. Indication of Operation. – It shall be possible to temporarily indicate the preset tare value 

(e.g., pressing a tare display button or a negative net weight indication with no load on the 

load-receiving element). Additionally, paragraph S.2.2.8. Indication and Printing of Weighing 

Results. applies accordingly, provided the calculated net value is printed and at least the preset tare 

value is printed, with the exception of:

(a) a Class II or a Class III automatic weighing system with a maximum capacity not greater 

than 100 kg (200 lb) used in direct sales to the public, and

(b) automatic weigh/price labeling systems.

(Added 200X)

Background/Discussion: At the 2007 Interim Meeting, the Committee agreed that for procedural reasons a 

separate corresponding proposal should have appeared on its 2007 S&T agenda in Section 324 for Automatic 

Weighing Systems. Therefore, the Committee developed a separate proposal for automatic weighing systems that 

now appears in this agenda item. The Committee recommended that new S&T Item 324-2, along with a 

corresponding proposal to apply these definitions to devices that fall under the Scales Code S&T Item 320-6, be 

discussed and considered jointly during all deliberations and Voting procedures. In the interest of brevity, the 

Committee placed all recommendations, discussion, and background information for this proposal in S&T 

Item 320-6 because the proposed definitions apply to both applications; this ensures both proposals are addressed 

collectively. 

S&T - 34 
S&T Committee 2008 Final Report 

At their fall 2007 meetings, the CWMA, NTETC WS, and the WWMA supported this item. 

At the 2008 Interim Meeting, the Committee did not receive any comments opposing this proposal and made this a 

Voting item in their Interim Report. 

At their 2008 spring meetings, the SMA, the CWMA and NEWMA, opposed this as a Voting item and 

recommended that the item be made Informational to allow for further development and evaluation. The rationale 

for this position was that the proposal was significantly amended from the language in the recommendation 

appearing in the 2008 Interim Agenda and there were some questions regarding some of the definitions and how 

they are intended to be applied. 

The CWMA also recommended that this should be split into two sections and that the Weighing Sector should 

consider doing a practical review of the language using one or more devices. 

NEWMA also recommend that this item be posted on the NCWM website and appropriate list servers along with a 

summary of how this item would appear in HB 44 if adopted. 

The Committee agreed with the comments that this item needs additional time for review and analysis and that the 

item be given Information status. The Committee also recommends that the NIST technical advisor develop a 1 to 

2 hour technical presentation on the proposed tare requirements that will be available to the regional weights and 

measures associations and the NTETC Weighing Sector and posted on the WMD and NCWM websites. 

See additional comments and recommendations from Agenda Item 320-6. 

330 LIQUID-MEASURING DEVICES 

330-1 I Temperature Compensation for Liquid-Measuring Devices Code 

Source: Carryover Item 330-4. (This item originated from the NCWM S&T Committee and first appeared on the 

Committee’s 2007 Agenda.) 

Recommendation: The Committee is considering a proposal to make the following modifications to Section 3.30. 

Liquid-Measuring Devices (LMD) Code to recognize temperature compensation for retail devices as follows: 

S.1.6.8. Recorded Representations from Devices with Temperature Compensation. – Receipts issued 

from devices or systems with automatic temperature compensation must include a statement that the 

volume of the product has been adjusted to the volume in liters at 15.56 °C for liters or the volume in 

gallons at 60 °F for gallons.

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 200X]

(Added 200X)

S.1.6.89. Lubricant Devices, Travel of Indicator. – The indicator shall move at least 2.5 cm (1 in) in 

relation to the graduations, if provided, for a delivery of 0.5 L (1 pt). 

S.2.6. Temperature Determination - Wholesale Devices. – For test purposes, means shall be provided to 

determine the temperature of the liquid either: 

(a) in the liquid chamber of the meter, or 

(b) immediately adjacent to the meter in the meter inlet or discharge line. 

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1985]

(Added 1984) (Amended 1986 and 200X) 

S&T - 35 
S&T Committee 2008 Final Report 

S.2.7. WholesaleDevices Equipped with Automatic Temperature Compensators.

S.2.7.1. Automatic Temperature Compensation. – A device may be equipped with an automatic means 

for adjustingconversion of the indication and registration of the measured volume of product to the 

volume at 15.56 °C for liters or (60 °F) for gallons.

S.2.7.2. Display of Net and Gross Quantity. – A device equipped with active automatic temperature 

compensation shall indicate or record, both the gross (uncompensated) and net (compensated) volume 

for testing purposes. It is not necessary that both net and gross volume be displayed simultaneously.

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 200X]

S.2.7.3. Display of Temperature. – For test purposes, on a device equipped with active automatic 

temperature compensation, means shall be provided to indicate or record the temperature determined by 

the system sensor to an accuracy of 0.2 °F.

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 200X]

S.2.7.24. Provision for Deactivating. – On a device or system equipped with an automatic temperaturecompensating mechanism that will indicate or record only in terms of gallonsliters compensated to 

15.56 °C or gallons compensated to (60 °F), provision shall be made for deactivating the automatic 

temperature-compensating mechanism so that the meter can indicate, and record if it is equipped toor

record, in terms of the uncompensated volume.

(Amended 1972 and 200X) 

S.2.7.35. Provision for Sealing Automatic Temperature-Compensating Systems. – Provision shall be 

made for applying security seals in such a manner that an automatic temperature-compensating system 

cannot be disconnected and that no adjustment that detrimentally affects the metrological integrity of 

the device may be made to the system without breaking the seal or automatically providing a record 

(e.g., audit trail) of the action. 

(Amended 200X)

S.2.7.5.1. Provision for Sealing the Temperature Sensor. – Provision shall be made for applying security 

seals in such a manner that the temperature sensor cannot be removed or disabled without breaking the 

seal or providing a record (e.g., audit trail) of the action.

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 200X]

S.2.7.4.6. Temperature Determination with Automatic Temperature-Compensation. – For test 

purposes, means shall be provided (e.g., thermometer well) to determine the temperature of the liquid 

either: 

(a) in the liquid chamber of the meter, or 

(b) immediately adjacent to the meter in the meter inlet or discharge line. 

(Amended 1987) 

S.4.3.2. Temperature Compensation. – If a device or system is equipped with active automatic temperature 

compensation, the primary indicating elements, recording elements, orand recorded representation shall be 

clearly and conspicuously marked to show that the volume delivered has been adjusted to the volume at 

15.56 °C for liters or (60 °F) for gallons.

(Amended 200X)

S.4.34. Wholesale Devices, Discharge Rates. – A wholesale device shall be marked to show its designed 

maximum and minimum discharge rates. However, the minimum discharge rate shall not exceed 20 % of the 

maximum discharge rate. 

S&T - 36 
S&T Committee 2008 Final Report 

S.4.45. Retail Devices. 

S.4.45.1. Discharge Rates. – On a retail device with a designed maximum discharge rate of 115 L (30 gal) 

per minute or greater, the maximum and minimum discharge rates shall be marked in accordance with 

S.4.4.2. The marked minimum discharge rate shall not exceed 20 % of the marked maximum discharge 

rate. 

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1985]

(Added 1984) (Amended 2003) 

Example: With a marked maximum discharge rate of 230 L/min (60 gal/min), the marked minimum 

discharge rate shall be 45 L/min (12 gal/min) or less (e.g., 40 L/min (10 gal/min) is acceptable). A marked 

minimum discharge rate greater than 45 L/min (12 gal/min) (e.g., 60 L/min (15 gal/min) is not acceptable. 

S.4.45.2. Location of Marking Information; Retail Motor-Fuel Dispensers. – The marking information 

required in the General Code, paragraph G-S.1. Identification shall appear as follows: 

N.4.1.1. Wholesale Devices Equipped with Automatic Temperature-Compensating Systems. – On 

wholesale devices equipped with active automatic temperature-compensating-systems, normal tests shall 

be conducted: 

(a) by comparing the net (compensated) volume indicated or recorded to the actual delivered volume 

corrected adjusted to 15.56 °C for liters or (60 °F) for gallons, and

(b) with the temperature-compensating system deactivated, comparing the gross (uncompensated)

volume indicated or recorded to the actual delivered volume. (For some devices this may 

require that the temperature compensator be deactivated.)

The first test shall be performed with the automatic temperature-compensating system operating in the “as 

found” condition. On devices that indicate or record both the compensated and uncompensated volume for 

each delivery, the tests in (a) and (b) may be performed as a single test. 

(Amended 1987 and 200X) 

N.5. Change in Product Temperature Correction on Wholesale Devices. – Corrections Adjustments shall be 

made for any changes in volume resulting from the differences in liquid temperatures between time of passage 

through the meter and time of volumetric determination in the prover or test measure. When adjustments are 

necessary, appropriate petroleum measurement tables should shall be used. 

(Amended 1974 and 200X) 

UR.3.6. Temperature Compensation.

UR.3.6.1. Automatic.

UR.3.6.1.1. When to be Used of Automatic Temperature Compensation. – If a device is equipped 

with a mechanical active automatic temperature compensator compensation, it shall be connected, 

operable, and in use at all times. An electronic or mechanical automatic temperature-compensating 

system may not be removed, nor may a compensated device be replaced with an uncompensated 

device, without the written approval of the responsible weights and measures jurisdiction with 

statutory authority over the device. 

[Note: This requirement does not specify the method of sale for product measured through a meter.] 

(Amended 1989 and 200X) 

UR.3.6.1.2. Recorded Representations (Invoices, Receipts, and Bills of Lading).

(a) An written invoice based on a reading of a device or recorded representation issued by a 

device or system that is equipped with an active automatic temperature compensator shall 

S&T - 37 
S&T Committee 2008 Final Report 

show that the volume delivered has been adjusted to the volume at 15.56 °C for liters or

(60 °F) for gallons and decimal subdivisions or fractional equivalents thereof.

(b) The invoice issued from an electronic wholesale device equipped with an automatic 

temperature-compensating system shall also indicate: (1) the API gravity, specific gravity or 

coefficient of expansion for the product; (2) product temperature; and (3) gross reading. 

(Amended 1987 and 200X)

UR.3.6.1.3. Temperature Determination. – Means for determining the temperature of measured 

liquid in an automatic temperature-compensating system shall be so designed and located that, 

in any “usual and customary” use of the system, the resulting indications and/or recorded 

representations are within applicable tolerances.

(Added 200X)

UR.3.6.4. Temperature-Compensated Sale. – All sales of products, when the quantity is determined 

by an approved measuring system with temperature compensation, shall be in terms of the liter at 

15.56 °C or the U.S. gallon of 231 in3 at 60 °F.

(Added 200X)

Background/Discussion: Prior to the 2007 NCWM Interim Meeting, the Committee recognized, via reports from 

the regional L&R committees and other sources, that there was increasing support within the weights and measures 

community to address temperature compensation features for the retail sale of petroleum products in the 

Liquid-Measuring Devices Code. In response to these concerns and to encourage uniformity in applications where 

temperature compensation is being used, the Committee developed this proposal to provide design and performance 

requirements and testing criteria for retail metering systems that incorporate temperature compensation capability. 

The Committee was also concerned that if the current L&R Committee-proposed language for the Method of Sale of 

Commodities in NIST HB 130 is adopted, retail motor-fuel devices could be placed in service with no guidelines in 

NIST HB 44 for type approval and field testing. The L&R-proposed language would permit the 

temperature-compensated sale of petroleum products at all levels of distribution. 

At the 2007 Interim Meeting, the L&R Committee moved forward with a Method of Sale proposal containing 

permissive language for retail sales of petroleum products using automatic temperature compensation (see L&R 

Item 232-1). Although the Committee recognized this S&T item was still not fully developed, it felt it could resolve 

the remaining issues in time for the NCWM Annual Meeting in July 2007; therefore, the Committee unanimously 

voted to make this item a “priority” Voting item as described in Section H of the Introduction of HB 44. The 

Committee did this because it felt strongly that, if the L&R item passed, it was very important to have a 

corresponding S&T item that provided HB 44 guidance as described above. Following the Committee vote, the 

Committee chairman went before the NCWM Board of Directors (BOD) for its input. The BOD instructed the 

Committee to make this an Information item. Irrespective of the concerns about the timing of adoption of language 

in HB 130, the Committee, after further deliberation, concurred with the BOD and added the proposal to its agenda 

as an Information item. The BOD further informed the Committee of its plan to form a steering committee to 

provide guidance and give support to both the S&T and L&R Committees on temperature compensation issues. The 

Committee noted that it looked forward to working with the steering committee on this important issue. 

The Committee acknowledged that the item was still in development and identified the following issues to be 

resolved: 

Recorded Representations (S.1.6.7.): What, if any, abbreviations are acceptable for devices equipped with 

ATC (e.g., gal at 60 oF)? 

API Gravity: How should the API gravity be entered in the device and what API gravity should the inspector 

use during a test? Should an average API gravity be used (national or state)? The Committee will work on 

gathering API data in order to resolve this issue. 

S&T - 38 
S&T Committee 2008 Final Report 

Difference between Net and Gross (T.4.): Is the current tolerance of 0.1 % (electronic) appropriate for 

field-testing of retail devices with ATC? Will maintaining our current tolerances mean taking extra drafts to 

obtain a stable temperature? The Committee will work on gathering data concerning temperature measurement. 

The Committee indicated that it would continue work on this item and seek input from the regions and other 

interested parties in the weights and measures community. 

At its 2007 Annual Meeting, the WWMA did not receive any opposition or comments relating to the technical 

requirements in this proposal and, therefore, it supported the proposal as a Voting item. However, the WWMA 

recommended that the NCWM S&T Committee consider adopting the ATC Steering Committee recommendation to 

use the U.S. reference temperature of 60 °F and direct conversion to SI units (15.56 °C). The WWMA S&T 

Committee noted that the 15 °C SI equivalent was already used in NIST Handbook 44 and that the reference 

temperature should be used consistently throughout the HB 44 where appropriate. 

At its 2007 Interim Meeting, the CWMA S&T Committee received comments concerning the availability of API 

tables for SI units. The CWMA recognized that 15.56 °C is the exact conversion for 60 °F. While, the CWMA 

agreed with the ATC Steering Committee that 60 °F should be the reference temperature in HB 44 for dispensers 

measuring in gallons, the CWMA believed that 15 °C should be the reference temperature for dispensers measuring 

in liters since it is the international standard and is referenced in other sections of HB 44. The CWMA 

recommended this item remain Informational while further information becomes available from the ATC Steering 

Committee and L&R Committee. 

At its 2007 Interim Meeting, NEWMA received a proposal from the State of New York to add proving equations to 

Handbook 44 based on equations found in OIML R 120 Section 4.7 Calculation of meter error and forwarded it to 

the NCWM S&T Committee for consideration. 

At its 2007 Annual Meeting, the SWMA received a comment from an official that a dispenser should not print a 

statement that the volume of the product has been adjusted to the volume in liters at 15 oC or the volume in gallons 

at 60 oF when ATC is not activated. The official also believed the allowance for a record of action in proposed 

S.2.7.5. should be performed automatically by the device and recorded in the audit trail. A manufacturer stated that 

the print statement currently comes from information provided by the inside control console, not from the dispenser. 

The SWMA S&T Committee agreed to forward the comments to the NCWM S&T Committee for consideration. 

At the 2008 Interim Meeting, the Committee received comments that the proposed paragraphs S.2.7.2., S.2.7.3., 

S.4.3., and UR.3.6.4. should be modified to apply only to devices with an active temperature compensation feature 

along with a recommendation that the word “should” in the last sentence in N.5. relating to the use of petroleum 

measurement tables be changed to “shall.” The Committee also heard that based on the recommendation of the 

Automatic Temperature Compensation Steering Committee, the reference to 15 °C should be changed to 15.56 °C 

where appropriate throughout the proposal. The Committee agreed with all the comments and modified the proposal 

as shown above. 

The Committee further heard that Handbook 44 was not the appropriate place to add the proving equations based on 

OIML R 120 Section 4.7 as recommended in a proposal submitted by NEWMA. The statement of scope in OIML 

R 120 states that the document specifies the characteristics of standard capacity measures and describes the methods 

by which measuring systems for liquids other than water are tested in order to verify that they comply with the 

relevant metrological requirements in OIML R 117 Measuring systems for liquids other than water. The sections of 

R 120 relevant to characteristics of standard capacity measures are more similar to the requirements in NIST 

Handbook 105-3. The sections of R 120 relating to test methods more resemble the recommendations for various 

devices in NIST Handbook 112 Examination Procedure Outlines for Commercial Weighing and Measuring 

Devices. The Committee also agreed that Handbook 44 was not the place to include the proving equations noting 

that no other metering codes in the handbook had similar equations and they had not been seen as necessary in the 

past. The Committee believes that a more appropriate place for proving equations would be in the appropriate 

Examination Procedure Outline (EPO) in NIST Handbook 112. If NEWMA believes that proving equations will 

substantially benefit weights and measures officials, it will consider recommending that they be added as an 

example of one method for determining meter error in the appropriate EPOs. 

S&T - 39 
S&T Committee 2008 Final Report 

The Committee also heard a request from an official to move the item forward in order to provide a mechanism for 

evaluation of dispensers with ATC. The official believed that ATC dispensers will be installed in their jurisdiction 

in the near future. 

The Committee acknowledged the need for uniform technical criteria for devices equipped with ATC, particularly in 

jurisdictions where this equipment is or soon will be installed. With the changes made by the Committee in the 

recommendation above, the Committee believes the proposal is substantially complete. Consequently, after 

considerable deliberations at the 2008 Interim Meeting, the Committee agreed to designate 310-1 as a Voting item 

on its agenda for the 2008 Annual Meeting. A key factor in reaching this decision is the Conference policy that 

allows for an item listed as a Voting item on the agenda in Publication 16 to be changed to a lesser status of 

Informational, but does not allow an Information item to be moved up to Voting status unless the Conference agrees 

that the item meets the criteria to be considered an emergency issue. The process would still allow minor changes to 

be made to the recommendation based on input received between the Interim and the Annual Meetings. 

In its spring 2008 meeting report, the CWMA S&T Committee stated that it heard comments that this item should 

not move forward for a vote at this time due to the lack of a method of sale regulation. The report also noted that 

some jurisdictions adopt NIST HB 44 in its entirety and do not have a law that prohibits ATC, and inclusion of ATC 

criteria in this case could make ATC permissible. 

NEWMA reported discussing this item at length during its spring 2008 meeting. Initially it was suggested that this 

item go back to Informational status but an attendee suggested that it should either be withdrawn or put up for a 

vote. Another attendee suggested making this item Informational until the report on ATC from the California 

Energy Commission is released. NEWMA submitted the following concerns and recommended that the item remain 

Informational: 

- A statement similar to the one in the VTM code which addresses states that prohibit ATC by state law 

should appear in the text of this item. 

- One member referenced the 1978 S&T Committee report which discussed a cost benefit consideration and 

the desire that the S&T and L&R move forward in unison. The membership generally agreed with these 

points. 

- NEWMA continues to believe that it is appropriate to place in HB 44 reference calculations for 

determining volume at 60 oF. It is also appropriate to reference the specific API tables including version 

and date. Placing this information in publications such as EPO’s would have no legal standing if we were 

challenged in the future. 

The Committee received input from WMD noting that there are jurisdictions who have reported they are being faced 

with regulating dispensers with ATC. The language in this proposal will provide those jurisdictions with uniform 

specifications, test notes, and user requirements. 

At the 2008 NCWM Annual Meeting, the Committee heard numerous comments on the proposed changes to include 

specifications, test procedures, and user requirements for devices equipped with automatic temperature 

compensation systems. 

Comments/questions were raised about specific items in the proposed language, including: 

- The term “active” is not used consistently in all references to “automatic temperature compensation.” For 

example, it appears in paragraph S.2.7.2., but it does not appear in paragraph S.1.6.8. 

- There is a reference to the accuracy requirements for the temperature sensor in paragraph S.2.7.3.; 

however, there is not a requirement specifying the division size of the temperature sensor. 

- Should a corresponding reference to the accuracy requirements for the temperature sensor be included in 

the “Tolerances” section of the code? 

- Is there an expectation that there will be a field test of the temperature sensor? If so, there is not a 

corresponding test note to indicate this, nor is it clear how the test will be done in the field. 

- A user requirement is needed to specify that, if a single business offers product for sale on the basis of a 

temperature compensated volume, all devices in that business shall be equipped with automatic temperature 

S&T - 40 
S&T Committee 2008 Final Report 

compensating systems. [Note: During the Committee’s work discussions, it was noted that Canada 

permitted a phase-in period based on product or product grades.] 

- There is concern about using 15.56 oC rather than 15 oC. In addition to being different from use in 

international arenas, including Canada, the bulk of the devices in the field, including the retail motor fuel 

dispensers and the temperature standards used by field officials, do not have the capability to display 

temperature to two decimal places. 

- Devices currently in the field may not have the capability to automatically sense when the device is or is 

not in the automatic temperature compensating mode with respect to the requirement to identify volumes as 

“corrected” volumes on printed indications. 

- Although a corresponding paragraph already appears in Section 3.32. LPG and Anhydrous Ammonia 

Liquid-Measuring Devices Code, the language in paragraph UR.3.6.1.3. needs clarification. 

The Committee asks that the NCWM Automatic Temperature Compensation Steering Committee assist in 

addressing these issues and encourages interested parties to submit comments to the Steering Committee or provide 

additional comments to the S&T Committee. 

The Committee heard numerous comments encouraging the Committee to delay a vote on this item while the 

corresponding method of sale and related requirements are being further developed by the Laws and Regulations 

Committee and while other studies in the community are being completed. Comments were also received that costbenefit analysis of equipment implementation needs to be considered. 

Although the Committee did hear opposition to moving forward on this item, the Committee also heard comments in 

support of moving the item forward for a vote. Some members commented that, if this proposal were adopted, the 

proposed specifications, tolerances, notes, and user requirements would be available for use in a timelier manner by 

jurisdictions that do not specifically prohibit the use of temperature compensation. This would encourage 

uniformity in the implementation of such requirements among those jurisdictions and prevent inconsistencies for 

consumers doing business in various jurisdictions. 

Based on the many suggestions that it heard between the 2008 Interim and Annual Meetings to allow time for 

additional study and development of the related method of sale requirements, the Committee decided to change the 

status of this item from Voting to Information. 

330-2 I N.4.6. Pour and Drain Times for Hand-held Test Measures 

Following deliberations at the 2008 NCWM Interim Meeting, Item 330-2 was deleted from the Committee’s agenda 

and the issue addressed under new Item 310-4 as a proposal to add a paragraph to the General Code to designate 

general requirements for all field standards. At the 2008 NCWM Annual Meeting, the Committee decided (as a 

result of comments received following the Interim Meeting) to reinstate item 330-2 (which proposes an addition to 

the Liquid-Measuring Devices Code to specify pour and drain times for measuring device test standards) as an 

Information item based upon the rationale described below. Note that the Committee retained Item 310-4 and 

presented that item as a Voting item at the Annual Meeting. See Item 310-4 for the Committee’s original 

recommendation and background information and the outcome of that discussion. 

Recommendation: The Committee is considering a proposal to add a new paragraph N.4.4. Field Standards to 

address the selection and use of field standards for inspecting and testing liquid-measuring devices covered under 

the Liquid-Measuring Devices Code. 

N.4.4. Field Standards. – Field standards shall be certified to meet the accuracy requirements of NIST 

Handbook 105 Specifications and Tolerances for Reference Standards and Field Standard Weights and 

Measures, 3. Specifications and Tolerances for Graduated Neck Type Volumetric Field Standards.

N.4.4.1. Pour and Drain Times for Hand-held Test Measures. – Hand-held test measures require a 

30 second (± 5 seconds) pour followed by a 10-second drain, with the measure held at a 10 degree to 

15 degree angle from vertical during use.

S&T - 41 
S&T Committee 2008 Final Report 

N.4.4.2. Drain Times for Bottom Drain Test Measures or Provers. – Bottom drain field standard 

provers require a 30-second drain time after main flow cessation.

(Added 200X)

Background/Discussion: The Committee received comments from the CWMA and heard comments during the 

2008 NCWM Annual Meeting open hearing that specific hand-held test measure use requirements are still needed in 

the LMD Code for weights and measures officials and service agents. Therefore, the Committee agreed that 

language originally submitted by the CWMA be reinstated in the Committee’s report as an Information item for the 

Liquid-Measuring Devices Code according to the General Conference Information, Item Categories in 

Publication 16 page Gen-2. 

The Committee also heard comments during the 2008 Annual Meeting that key elements for the use of test measures 

and provers should be included in the Notes section of the LMD Code. In response to the comments, the Committee 

expanded the proposal to include drain requirements for bottom drain provers and test measures. 

The Committee agreed to amend the original proposal to cite the specific document in addition to the test measure 

use requirements to read as shown in the recommendation above. 

330-3 I Price Posting and Computing Capability and Requirements for a Retail Motor-Fuel Dispenser 

(RMFD) 

Source: This item originated from WMD and the regional associations and first appeared on the Committee’s 2007 

Agenda. (This item was previously a Developing item under 360-2, Part 3, Item 2.) 

Recommendation: The Committee is considering a proposal to make the following modifications to Section 3.30. 

Liquid-Measuring Devices (LMD) Code to address price posting and computing capability for retail motor-fuel 

dispensers as follows: 

S.1.6.4. Display of Unit Price and Product Identity.

S.1.6.4.1. Unit Price.

(a) A computing or money-operated device shall be able to display on each face the unit 

price at which the device is set to compute or to dispense.

(b) Whenever a grade, brand, blend, or mixture is offered for sale from a device at more than one 

unit price, then all of the unit prices at which that product is offered for sale shall be 

displayed or shall be capable of being displayed on the dispenser using controls available to 

the customer prior to the delivery of the product. It is not necessary that all of the unit prices 

for all grades, brands, blends, or mixtures be simultaneously displayed prior to the delivery of 

the product. This subsection shall not apply to fleet sales, other contract sales, or truck 

refueling sales, or all purchases of fuel accompanied by an automatically printed receipt of 

the transaction containing the discount unit price, the total gallons delivered, and total 

price of the sale.

[Effective and nonretroactive as of January 1, 1991] 

(Amended 1989, and 1997, and 200X)

S&T - 42 
S&T Committee 2008 Final Report 

S.1.6.5.4. Selection of Unit Price. – Except for dispensers used exclusively for fleet sales, other price 

contract sales, and truck refueling (e.g., truck stop dispensers used only to refuel trucks), and 

purchases where an automatic printed receipt of the transaction containing the discount unit price, 

the total gallons delivered, and total price of the sale, when a product or grade is offered for sale at 

more than one unit price through a computing device, the selection of the unit price shall be made 

prior to delivery using controls on the device or other customer-activated controls. A system shall not 

permit a change to the unit price during delivery of product.

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1991]

(Added 1989) (Amended 1991, 1992, 1993, and 1996, and 200X) 

S.1.6.7. Recorded Representations. – Except for fleet sales and other price contract sales, a printed 

receipt providing the following information shall be available through a built-in or separate recording 

element for all transactions conducted with point-of-sale systems or devices activated by debit cards, credit 

cards, and/or cash: 

(a) the total volume of the delivery, 

(b) the unit price, 

(c) the total computed price, and 

(d) the product identity by name, symbol, abbreviation, or code number. 

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1986] 

(Added 1985) (Amended 1997) 

UR.3. Use of Device. 

UR.3.2. Unit Price and Product Identity.

(a) The following information shall be conspicuously displayed or posted on the face of a retail dispenser 

used in direct sale: 

(1) except for dispensers used exclusively for fleet sales, other price contract sales, and truck 

refueling (e.g., truck stop dispensers used only to refuel trucks), all of the unit prices at 

which the product is offered for sale; and

(2) in the case of a computing type or money-operated type, the unit price at which the dispenser is set 

to compute. 

Provided that the dispenser complies with S.1.6.4.1. Display of Unit Price, it is not necessary that all the 

unit prices for all grades, brands, blends, or mixtures be simultaneously displayed or posted. 

(b) The following information shall be conspicuously displayed or posted on each side of a retail dispenser 

used in direct sale: 

(1) the identity of the product in descriptive commercial terms, and

(2) the identity of the grade, brand, blend, or mixture that a multi-product dispenser is set to 

deliver.

(Amended 1972, 1983, 1987, 1989, 1992, and 1993) 

UR.3.3. Computing Device. – Any computing device used in an application where a product or grade is 

offered for sale at one or more unit prices shall be used only for sales for which the device computes and 

displays the sales price for the selected transaction. 

(Added 1989) (Amended 1992) 

S&T - 43 
S&T Committee 2008 Final Report 

The following exceptions apply: 

(a) Fleet sales and other price contract sales are exempt from this requirement. 

(b) A truck stop dispenser used exclusively for refueling trucks is exempt from this requirement provided 

that: 

(1) all purchases of fuel are accompanied by a printed receipt of the transaction containing the 

applicable price per gallon, the total gallons delivered, and the total price of the sale; and 

(Added 1993) 

(2) unless a dispenser complies with S.1.6.4.1. Display of Unit Price, the price posted on the dispenser 

and the price at which the dispenser is set to compute shall be the highest price for any transaction 

which may be conducted. 

(Added 1993) 

(c) All purchases of fuel accompanied by an automatically printed receipt of the transaction containing 

the discount unit price, the total gallons delivered, and total price of the sale.

(Added 200X)

UR.3.4. Printed Receipt. – Except for *purchases conducted under UR.3.3.(c) *see note below, the total price, 

the total volume of the delivery, and the price per unit liter or gallon shall be shown, on a receipt by either being 

automatically printed or printed in clear hand script,.on any printed ticket issued by a device and containing 

any one of these values.

*Note: Purchases conducted under UR.3.3.(c), shall only be automatically printed, containing at minimum, 

the total price, the total volume of the delivery, and the discount price per unit.

(Amended 2001 and 200X) 

Background/Discussion: In the early 1990s, various sections of the Liquid-Measuring Devices Code in HB 44 

(including paragraphs S.1.6.4. Display of Unit Price and Product Identity, S.1.6.5.4. Selection of Unit Price, UR.3.2. 

Unit Price and Product Identity, and UR.3.3. Computing Device) were modified to address multi-tier pricing 

applications such as cash-credit. Since that time, marketing practices have evolved to include the addition of new 

practices such as frequent shopper discounts and club member discounts. Numerous questions have been posed to 

WMD regarding the requirements for posting unit prices, calculation of total price, customer-operated controls, and 

other related topics such as the definitions for associated terminology. 

It is clear from these questions that changes are needed to HB 44 to ensure the requirements adequately address 

current marketplace conditions and practices. WMD has raised this issue with the Committee and has also discussed 

a variety of pricing practices with individual state and local weights and measures jurisdictions. 

WMD reviewed the existing requirements and their application to current market practices and collected information 

on a number of scenarios, including the following: 

S&T - 44 
S&T Committee 2008 Final Report 

WMD expressed an interest in receiving input from the weights and measures community about the various 

practices and pricing structures in use, and indicated it welcomed opportunities to discuss this item at regional 

weights and measures associations to ensure the item is adequately addressed. 

(1) Frequent shopper discounts 

(2) Club member discounts 

(3) Discount for prepaying cash (to prevent 

“drive-offs”) 

(4) Prepay at the cashier for credit sales 

(5) Discounts for purchasing store products 

(6) Discounts for purchasing a service 

(e.g., carwash) 

(7) Targeted group discounts (e.g., TuesdayLadies 5 cents off per gallon) 

(8) Full service 

(9) Self service 

(10) Progressive discounts based on volume of motorfuel purchased 

(11) Coupons for discounts on immediate or future 

purchases 

(12) Rebates (e.g., use of oil company credit card) 

(13) Day-of-the-Week discounts 

Note: The conditions under some of these scenarios may not typically fall under the authority of weights and 

measures jurisdictions. 

The WWMA acknowledged that marketing practices change on a daily basis and the task to ensure HB 44 codes 

address each scenario is monumental. However, the WWMA encouraged NIST in its efforts to tackle this ongoing 

issue. Therefore, the WWMA recommended this item be considered and move forward to the national level as a 

Developing item as did the SWMA and NEWMA. 

The CWMA recommended that the State Directors compile information regarding whether or not they are enforcing 

the Liquid-Measuring Devices Code in HB 44 (including paragraphs S.1.6.4. Display of Unit Price and Product 

Identity, S.1.6.5.4. Selection of Unit Price, UR.3.2. Unit Price and Product Identity, and UR.3.3. Computing 

Device). If they are not enforcing the specific code requirement, it should be stated why not (for example, 

overriding state statute). Information was to be sent to James Truex, then Chief of the Ohio Division of Weights and 

Measures. 

At the 2007 NCWM Interim Meeting, the Committee agreed to add this proposal to its agenda as a Developing item. 

At its 2007 Annual Meeting, the WWMA urged all stakeholders to provide comments. NEWMA recommended this 

item remain a Developing item as did the CWMA at its 2007 Interim Meeting. 

At its 2007 Annual Meeting the SWMA was informed that the National Association of Convenience Stores 

recognized a problem with the current price posting and computing capability requirements in HB 44 and was 

currently working on information on this item to provide to the NCWM S&T Committee. 

At the 2008 Interim Meeting, Ohio Weights and Measures submitted a proposal to the Committee that included 

specific language for modifying Section 3.30 to address the various pricing and marketing structures being used in 

retail motor-fuel applications. Based on its review of that proposal, the fact that a specific proposal has now been 

developed and presented, and the number of jurisdictions reporting a need to move forward with this issue, the 

Committee decided to elevate the status of this item from a Developmental item to an Information item. 

Consequently, the Committee is considering the specific language submitted by Ohio and encourages the weights 

and measures community to review the proposal and submit comments on this item. 

At its spring 2008 meeting, the CWMA S&T Committee reported hearing comments that current language does not 

meet the needs of what is actually happening in the marketplace. Currently, there are economic issues dealing with 

fair competition and there are numerous marketing techniques that the language in NIST HB 44 cannot address. The 

CWMA S&T Committee believes the item as proposed is a good start on addressing this issue but, it does not 

entirely provide adequate language to aid in enforcement. The CWMA S&T recommended that a working group be 

formed to further evaluate this item. Some examples of the panel discussion were, but not limited to: 

1. Discounts calculated at the pump and other at the counter. 

2. Level of consumer responsibility. 

3. Can the dispensers do tier pricing? 

4. Competitors complaining about non-uniformity of enforcement. 

S&T - 45 
S&T Committee 2008 Final Report 

5. Discounts should be done electronically. 

6. All is okay as long as the receipt explains the transaction. 

NEWMA’s spring 2008 meeting report stated that this is a very important item and NEWMA supports continued 

work on it as an Informational item. One member suggested that at the next NEWMA Interim Meeting a work 

group spend some time coming up with suggestions for this item. 

At the 2008 Annual Meeting, the Committee heard comments on the proposed changes to the Liquid-Measuring 

Devices Code. Several weights and measures officials expressed concern about the provision in the proposed 

language that would allow discounts to be calculated at the console after the customer has dispensed product. These 

officials felt that devices should be able to compute the total sales price at the unit price at which the product is 

offered for sale. Several industry members expressed support of the proposed language. One member stated that it 

is important for retailers with mechanical dispensers to be able to offer their customers a cash discount. 

Current NIST Handbook 44 requirements state that the selection of the unit price must be made by the customer 

using controls on the device or other customer-activated controls. One industry member questioned whether making 

arrangements for a given method of payment at the console might be considered as satisfying that requirement since 

the customer is initiating the sale and the conditions of payment prior to the transaction. Weights and measures 

officials acknowledged the comment, but emphasized the need for the customer to retain control over the selection 

of the price, preferably by making a selection at the dispenser or using customer controls. 

The Committee expressed appreciation for the work that had been done thus far, acknowledging that additional work 

is needed on this item and noted that a working group is being formed to develop this issue further and that working 

group will meet during the 2008 Annual Meeting. The Committee looks forward to receiving input and suggestions 

from the working group and encourages interested parties to participate in the working group and/or forward 

comments to the Committee. 

Technical Advisor’s Note: A meeting was held on July 15, 2008, (in conjunction with the NCWM Annual Meeting) 

of individuals interested in the issue of pricing requirements for retail motor-fuel dispensers. Participants in the 

meeting included weights and measures officials, gasoline pump manufacturers, and other interested parties. The 

purpose of the meeting was to establish an informal work group to review the issue of price posting and computing 

capability for retail motor-fuel dispensers. The work group will focus on the development of proposed changes to 

NIST Handbook 44 necessary to provide flexibility to marketers while ensuring that the buyer and seller have 

adequate information about all aspects of the transaction with respect to the pricing and method of payment. The 

CWMA had suggested the formation of this small working group to study this issue with the idea that the item could 

be more thoroughly developed than could be done in the limited time available during the NCWM Interim and 

Annual Meetings. Note that this work does not replace the discussion of this item at the NCWM Interim and Annual 

Meetings, but rather is intended to supplement the work and provide the S&T Committee with some proposals to 

consider. 

Participants at that meeting were asked to indicate their interest in the work as either “work group participants” 

(expected to regularly participate and contribute to the work) or “observers” (will be kept abreast of work group 

activities, including meeting agendas and summaries). Because there is no budget to support the cost of regular 

face-to-face meetings, the work group will attempt to accomplish its objectives through e-mail and other electronic 

communication. Anyone interested in the details of this work should contact Tina Butcher (NIST WMD) by e-mail 

at tbutcher@nist.gov or by telephone at (301) 975-2196. 

331 VEHICLE-TANK METERS 

331-1 V S.5.7. Meter Size (Marking Requirements) 

(This item was adopted.) 

Source: Central Weights and Measures Association (CWMA) 

Proposal: Amend S.5. by adding a new sub-paragraph S.5.7. as follows: 

S&T - 46 
S&T Committee 2008 Final Report 

S.5.7. Meter Size. – Except for milk meters, if the meter model identifier does not provide a link to the meter size 

(in terms of pipe diameter) on an NTEP Certificate of Conformance, the meter shall be marked to show meter 

size.

[Non-retroactive as of January 1, 2009]

Background/Discussion: Wisconsin Weights and Measures reported that field inspectors may not be able to 

correctly determine the size of a VTM (in terms of pipe diameter) and, therefore, may have applied incorrect 

tolerances to product depletion tests. The requirement for marking the meter size would provide field inspectors 

with a positive method for applying the correct tolerance. 

The CWMA recommended that the language above move forward as a Voting item on the NCWM S&T Committee 

Agenda. 

At the 2008 Interim Meeting, the Meter Manufacturers’ Association (MMA) opposed the proposal submitted by the 

CWMA in the Committee’s Interim Agenda. The MMA stated that currently all NTEP CCs designate the meter size 

in terms of pipe diameter for each specific model identifier. The MMA also stated that adding an additional 

marking to the identification plate would add considerable additional cost and that the cost was not justified because 

the information is already readily available on the NTEP CC. The Committee acknowledged the need for the 

official to be able to readily determine meter size in order to properly apply the tolerances for the product depletion 

test. The Committee also acknowledged (as did some manufacturers) that this can sometimes be difficult to 

determine in a field application given the varying sizes of piping and flanges in a system. However, the Committee 

agreed with the MMA’s concerns noted above and, consequently, modified the original proposal as shown above to 

allow for alternate approaches for providing the information for the official. The Committee agreed to present the 

item for a vote at the 2008 NCWM Annual Meeting. 

In its spring 2008 meeting report, the CWMA S&T Committee recommended that the item move forward for a vote 

with a non-retroactive date of January 1, 2009. 

At the 2008 NCWM Annual Meeting, the Committee heard comments supporting the compromise language in this 

item. Comments were also received from NEWMA and WMD that consideration should be given to develop 

tolerances for product depletion based on the meter flow rate. NEWMA stated in its spring 2008 meeting report that 

it was going to develop a new proposal where the tolerances will be based on meter flow rates and that the current 

proposal should be adopted pending the submission of a new agenda item. 

331-2 I T.2.1. Automatic Temperature-Compensating Systems 

Source: Western Weights and Measures Association (WWMA) 

Proposal: Amend paragraph T.2.1. as follows: 

T.2.1. Automatic Temperature-Compensating Systems. – The difference between the meter error (expressed 

as a percentage) for results determined with and without the automatic temperature-compensating system 

activated shall not exceed: 

(a) 0.40.2 % for mechanical automatic temperature-compensating systems; and 

(b) 0.20.1 % for electronic automatic temperature-compensating systems. 

The delivered quantities for each test shall be approximately the same size. The results of each test shall be 

within the applicable acceptance or maintenance tolerance. 

Background/Discussion: For more than 13 years, Alaska has been testing mechanical and electronic temperaturecompensating vehicle-tank meters ranging in flow rates from 100 gal/min to 300 gal/min. They have applied the 

tolerances of 0.2 % for mechanical and 0.1 % for electronic wholesale meters as specified in the LMD Code, and 

have found that the devices are fully capable of meeting these tolerances. When devices are found out of tolerance, 

S&T - 47 
S&T Committee 2008 Final Report 

it is usually because of a broken cable at the probe for the mechanical devices, an electrical fault at the probe on 

electronic devices, or an incorrect API setting. By keeping the current tolerances that are double this amount, there 

is a risk these problems will be missed. 

The following example illustrates the point using: 

1000 gal prover 

Diesel #2 

API 34.5 

Temperature 60 °F 

Mechanical compensated VTM 

- A net test draw is run and the result is + 2.0 gal or + 0.2 %. This meets the maintenance tolerance of 0.3 % 

or 3.0 gal. 

- A gross draw is run and the result is – 2.0 gal or – 0.2 %. This still meets the tolerance and the difference 

between the two runs is 0.4 %. 

- With the temperature of the fuel at 60 °F, both of these runs should have been equal. 

- If an inspector used the system indication of temperature rather than using a certified thermometer in the 

meter temperature well, calculations show that the current tolerance of 0.4 % for a mechanical automatic 

temperature-compensating system could allow a system malfunction that provided a temperature error of 

up to 9 °F difference from the actual temperature taken in the prover and not be recognized as being caused 

by a faulty system. 

At its 2007 Annual Meeting, the WWMA was presented with a letter from a meter manufacturer in support of the 

proposal based on a request from Alaska Weights and Measures for input from manufacturers of the mechanical and 

electronic compensators. The letter states that the proposed changes will align the VTM tolerances for the 

difference between meter error for results determined with and without the automatic temperature-compensating 

system activated with the LMD Code. Current NIST HB 44 language will require this manufacturer to produce 

different stationary and vehicle-mounted meters; the proposed change will align the United States with Canada and 

OIML, who currently do not have different standards for these meters. 

The WWMA recommends that this proposal move forward as a Voting item on the NCWM S&T Committee 

agenda. 

At its 2007 Interim Meeting, the CWMA commented that tightening the tolerance was premature without additional 

input from other jurisdictions and manufacturers to see how or if this would affect devices currently in the field. 

Therefore, the CWMA requested that data to support or oppose this item be gathered from additional jurisdictions. 

At the 2008 Interim Meeting, the MMA and some individual manufacturers opposed this proposal. While they were 

comfortable with a tighter tolerance being used during type evaluation they were concerned with the impact of a 

tighter tolerance during routine field examinations. During routine field evaluations it becomes more difficult to 

control the influence factors that impact the measurement process leading to higher uncertainty in the accuracy of 

the test results. The Committee agreed that more information is needed before moving the item forward and, 

consequently, made 331-2 an Information item on its 2008 agenda. 

In their spring 2008 meeting reports, CWMA and NEWMA stated that there is not enough data to support the 

proposed changes in tolerance and recommended that the item remains an Information item. WMD submitted 

comments supporting the collection of additional data, and also suggested that the tolerances for stationary and 

vehicle-mounted meters be re-examined and compared to ensure consistency across codes for the same meter type. 

Additionally, WMD noted that as the use of VTMs with ATC increase, there may be a period of transition as 

jurisdictions and companies become accustomed to the test procedures and application of tolerances for these 

systems and that this experience may provide a good indication of how the uncertainties involved in the test process 

will impact the proposed tolerance change. 

At the 2008 NCWM Annual Meeting the Committee reported that it has not received additional data from other 

jurisdictions on the impact of this proposal to existing devices. The Committee also heard comments that the 

S&T - 48 
S&T Committee 2008 Final Report 

tolerances in the VTM code need to be less stringent than equivalent tolerances in the LMD code since VTM meters 

and accessories are mobile devices that are subject to road vibrations and other environmental factors. The 

Committee does not understand the rationale for the comment since the tolerances for Accuracy Class 0.3 in 

Table T.1. for VTMs are tighter than Accuracy Class 0.3 devices in the LMD code. 

The Committee is interested in receiving compliance data from jurisdictions that are enforcing ATC tolerance 

requirements on VTMs. If no information is received, the Committee will consider recommending that this item 

move forward as a Voting item in 2009. 

331-3 I UR.2.5. Automatic Temperature Compensation for Refined Petroleum Products 

Source: Southern Weights and Measures Association (SWMA)

Proposal: Add the following subparagraphs to the Vehicle-Tank Meters Code:

UR.2.5.2.1. Period of Use. – When fuel is bought or sold on an automatic temperature-compensation 

basis, it shall be bought or sold using this basis over at least a consecutive 12-month period unless 

otherwise agreed to by both the buyer and seller in writing.

UR.2.5.2.2. Condition of Use. – At a business location which offers fuel products for sale on the basis 

of a temperature-compensated volume, all vehicle-tank meters shall have active automatic 

temperature compensation and all fuel products offered for sale shall be dispensed on the basis of 

temperature-compensated volume.

Discussion: Currently there are no published guidelines for how a company has to use or operate their VTM with or 

without temperature compensation. They could choose to operate only part of their fleet with ATC or use ATC only 

part of the year when it is to their benefit. They may choose to use ATC only on certain products such as home 

heating oil and not use ATC with diesel, kerosene, or gasoline. 

These two proposals will help to eliminate the potential for facilitation of fraud with ATC. The proposals also will 

help to eliminate consumer confusion regarding why certain products are currently sold using ATC and others are 

not. 

At its 2007 Annual Meeting, the SWMA received the proposal shown above and recommended it move forward as a 

Voting item on the NCWM S&T Committee agenda. 

Based on comments received at the 2008 Interim Meeting that the proposal should only apply to fuel products and to 

VTMs the Committee modified the proposal and agreed to present it for a vote at the 2008 NCWM Annual Meeting. 

In its spring 2008 meeting report, the CWMA S&T Committee stated that it heard comments that there may be 

problems with uniformity over buyer and seller agreements at the retail level. The CWMA S&T Committee 

recommended that the item be moved back to an Informational status for further clarification. 

In its spring 2008 meeting report, NEWMA reported that it initially supported this item, but after hearing comments 

raised by the CWMA regarding written agreements, it re-considered its position and proposed that the item be 

moved back to an Information item. NEWMA members commented that unscrupulous companies could have 

customers unwittingly sign contracts agreeing to gross or net deliveries to their disadvantage. Some members 

suggested that maybe the written agreement language should be removed altogether. NEWMA did not have a 

solution to this problem but recognized how this could be misused. 

NIST WMD noted that the numbering of the proposed paragraphs needs to be reviewed and the paragraphs 

reorganized within the code before proceeding with this item. 

The Committee heard concerns regarding the proposed UR.2.5.2.1. from the CWMA and NEWMA and during its 

open hearings at the 2008 NCWM Annual Meeting. While an identical paragraph is presently included in the 

Liquid-Measuring Devices Code, its use has been limited to wholesale applications where the buyer and the seller 

S&T - 49 
S&T Committee 2008 Final Report 

are well educated regarding the use of temperature compensation. There are concerns that this paragraph is not 

appropriate for the Vehicle-Tank Meters Code since this applies to retail applications where the buyer may not fully 

understand or appreciate the significance of temperature compensated deliveries and may not notice references to 

the basis for the sale in any delivery contract or understand the significance of the references. There is particular 

concern that a seller could include a time period shorter than a 12-month period in a contract and that the timeframe 

could include a time period where the use of temperature compensation is most advantageous to the business. 

Comments suggested that the Committee delay proposing this item for a vote until the language can be more 

carefully studied. 

Based on the comments received, the Committee decided to change the status of this item from Voting to 

Information. 

336 WATER METERS 

336-1 V UR.2. Accessibility Customer Indication 

(This item was adopted.) 

Source: Western Weights and Measures Association (WWMA) 

Proposal: Add a new paragraph UR.2. to HB 44, Section 3.36. Water Meters, as follows: 

UR.2. Accessibility of Customer Indication. – An unobstructed standing space of at least 30 in wide, 36 in 

deep, and 78 in high shall be maintained in front of an indication intended for use by the customer to 

allow for reading the indicator. The customer indication shall be readily observable to a person located 

within the standing space without necessity of a separate tool or device.

Background/Discussion: At its 2006 Annual Meeting, the WWMA received an industry proposal intended to assist 

enforcement personnel in properly and uniformly enforcing the applicable regulations for obtaining meter readings. 

The proposed language is more appropriate than (1) trying to define inherently ambiguous and subjective terms like 

“reasonable” and “ordinary circumstances” or (2) defining specific height requirements that insure visibility for 

customers and/or officials. The industry proposal recommended that a new paragraph UR.2. Accessibility for 

Reading should be added to Section 3.36. Water Meters Code of HB 44 because of the need for language to describe 

acceptable and applicable provisions. 

Industry members stated that existing language in General Code paragraphs G-UR.2.1.1. and G-UR.3.3. includes 

terms such as “reasonable” and “readily observable” which are subjective requirements; it is not possible to 

understand the installation requirements without relying on each local authority’s interpretation of these terms, 

which varies even within the same jurisdiction. 

In a vast majority of cases, water submetering locations are NOT chosen by the service agency or the property/meter 

owner, but are dictated by the engineers and architects who use both national and state building and plumbing codes 

as their primary guide. 

The regulation which is most commonly cited on notices of violation for register visibility issues is 

paragraph G-UR.3.3. Position of Equipment. HB 44 defines direct sale as “a sale in which both parties in the 

transaction are present when the quantity is being determined....” Industry notes that paragraph G-UR.3.3. is being 

misapplied and should have no bearing on a water submeter application since both parties are not present when the 

quantity is determined. Furthermore, the antonym of a direct sale would be an indirect sale. NIST HB 130, 

Packaging and Labeling, Section 11. Exemptions, Subsection 11.1.1. Indirect Sale of Random Packages gives 

examples of indirect sales, several of which are exact examples of how water-submetering bills are paid. Examples 

of such indirect methods include on-line bill payments, phone bill payments, fax bill payments, and bill payments by 

mail. 

Since water submetering is typically billed on a monthly cycle and since water submetering is not a direct sale where 

both parties are present at the time of the transaction, accessibility requirements for reading water meters should not 

S&T - 50 
S&T Committee 2008 Final Report 

be the same as those enforced on direct sale devices where transactions take place frequently and with both parties 

present. 

If the interpretation of the terms “reasonable and readily observable” continue to be enforced as they are currently, 

many meter owners will choose to abandon their systems for alternative billing methods such as “remote utility 

billing service” (RUBS) because re-plumbing existing water lines within walls is costly to building and coop/condo 

owners. This is especially true because there is no framework in place to know how to perform such a plumbing 

retrofit so that the work will be compliant with all interpretations of “reasonable” and “readily observable.” 

A detailed, 12-month sampling of call center complaints from California properties showed that not a single 

complaint about the difficulty in obtaining a water meter reading had been received. 

HB 44, Water Meters Code paragraph S.1.1.1. General permits a remote display as long as it is “readily accessible to 

the customer.” 

The industry proposed language was no more definitive than the existing language. The industry proposal removed 

the requirement for providing a readily accessible customer indicator. The California Division of Measurement 

Standards (DMS) proposed alternative language that would remove the vagueness from the current requirement 

while providing flexibility to installers. 

Property owners do not read the indicators on each meter or they would be placed in a more convenient reading 

location. With remote reading, however, many meters are now being placed in inaccessible locations. Hardware is 

being installed to permit remote readings for billing purposes, but may not be available for customers’ use. 

Complaints have been lodged where the remote billing did not match the meter readings and the WWMA believed 

that customers should be able to easily monitor their actual use without involving the property owner. 

The industry in California has been advised that remote customer indications are permissible. However, industry 

has not submitted devices to California DMS for type evaluation. This problem can be resolved in a manner more 

consistent with other device applications through submitting for type evaluation remote customer indicators to be 

used in future meter installations. 

The WWMA considered the proposal developed by industry and an alternate recommendation developed by 

California DMS. The industry proposal would have permitted access to indications either through a primary 

indicator or a remote indicator. Alternatively, operators would be required to provide customer access to meter 

indications within 24 hours of notification within a billing cycle. The California DMS proposal specified 

installation requirements that provide for a clear, unobstructed perimeter surrounding the device to ensure 

accessibility for viewing meter indications. 

The WWMA acknowledged that utility submeters are commercial devices. However, the measurement operation 

takes place over an extended period of time and the customer is not able to observe the entire measurement 

operation. The customer then receives a bill on a periodic cycle based on meter indications taken at the start and at 

the end of the billing period. In some cases, the meter operator/owner may be offsite and does not observe primary 

meter indications. Consequently, no one General Code or Water Meters Code requirement appears to provide a 

complete and uniform set of guidelines that specifies all conditions for making meter indications available so the 

consumer can verify the measurement and allow the official to conduct an inspection. Some jurisdictions have 

developed policies to address this situation. In 2002 paragraph S.1.1.1. General was amended to ensure that when 

indications are remote they remain accessible to the customer. 

In any case, requirements and jurisdiction policies should address the needs of the customer and the official for 

access to meter indications without placing an undue burden on the operator or customer, and they should not deter a 

customer from making a legitimate complaint. It is essential in the marketplace to have all components used in 

determining utility charges transparent; this includes meter indications that are available to all parties involved in the 

transaction. 

S&T - 51 
S&T Committee 2008 Final Report 

The WWMA agreed that each proposal has some elements necessary to address meter accessibility and indicator 

accessibility. Therefore, the 2006 WWMA recommended the proposal become a Developing item to allow time to 

rework the text to provide uniform guidelines that fully address accessibility and include the following points: 

(1) Installation and location is such that there is no obstruction of the meter or indications, and (2) Indications are 

accessible for viewing by the customer and official without the use of tools separate from the device. 

At its 2007 Annual Meeting, the WWMA heard comments from the California DMS stating that the dimensions 

listed in its alternate proposal are excerpted from utility meter requirements in the Pacific Gas & Electric Utility 

Company (Green Book) manual and California Weights and Measures Electric Meter regulations. The WWMA 

agreed with comments from DMS to add a new paragraph UR.2. to the Water Meters Code and believed it was 

sufficiently developed to be moved forward as a Voting item on the NCWM S&T Committee Agenda. 

At the 2008 Interim Meeting, the Committee heard no opposition to the item and agreed to present it for a vote at the 

2008 NCWM Annual Meeting. 

In their spring 2008 meeting reports, the CWMA and NEWMA supported moving the item forward for a vote. 

358 MULTIPLE DIMENSION MEASURING DEVICES 

358-1 V A.1. General, Note 7 in Table S.4.1.b., and Appendix D. Definitions 

(This item was adopted.) 

Source: Western Weights and Measures Association (WWMA) 

Recommendation: Add new paragraphs A.1.1. and A.1.2.; amend Note 7 in Table S.4.1.b.; and add new 

definitions to Appendix D. Definitions. as follows: 

A.1. General. – This code applies to dimension and volume measuring devices used for determining the 

dimensions and/or volume of objects for the purpose of calculating freight, storage, or postal charges based on 

the dimensions and/or volume occupied by the object. A multiple dimension measuring device: 

(a) is generally used to measure hexahedron-shaped objects, and

(Added 2008)

(b) may be used to measure irregularly-shaped objects.

(Added 2008)

Multiple Dimension Measuring Systems Table S.4.1.b. Notes for Table S.4.1.a.

7. Materials, shapes, structures, combination of object dimensions, speed, spacing, minimum protrusion 

size, or object orientations that are inappropriate for the device or those that are appropriate. 

(Amended 2004 and 2008)

Appendix D – Definitions. 

hexahedron. A geometric solid (i.e., box), with six rectangular or square plane surfaces. [5.58]

(Added 2008)

irregularly-shaped object. Any object that is not a hexahedron shape. [5.58]

(Added 2008)

S&T - 52 
S&T Committee 2008 Final Report 

Background/Discussion. This proposal clarifies the requirements for multiple dimension measuring devices by 

defining the type of objects measured by these devices and including the definitions for these objects. This proposal 

also clarifies a complex marking requirement currently included in this section by: 

1. Providing a better description of the various objects measured using these devices. As the MDMD 

Irregular WG discussed “irregularly-shaped objects,” it was determined that clarification was required as to 

the definition of irregularly-shaped objects. Examples of irregularly-shaped objects include, but are not 

limited to, pails, mufflers, tail pipes, palletized freight containing multiple hexahedron objects, and 

palletized freight containing large uncontainerized objects such as transmissions or engines. 

2. Directing current marking requirements to the appropriate shapes. Current wording requires marking the 

unit for both appropriate and inappropriate shapes. 

3. Defining the terms hexahedron and irregularly-shaped objects to clarify the application of various MDMD 

devices. 

The submitters of this proposal state there are no additional cost impacts to the parties involved in the evaluation of 

these devices. This proposal will benefit both the NTEP evaluation process as well as the field evaluation process 

by clarifying the objects to be used during testing. 

The WWMA recognized that clarification of the device application and marking requirements, along with the 

additional definitions, are integral to the understanding of this relatively new NIST Handbook 44 code. However, 

the WWMA recognized that none of its members have experience in field testing or type evaluating these devices. 

Consequently, the WWMA recommended that this proposal be an Information item so that others with more 

experience may provide comments. 

At its 2007 Interim Meeting, the CWMA heard comments that the proposed language provided a better description 

of the various objects measured on multiple dimension measuring devices and supported the language as proposed. 

At its 2007 Annual Meeting, the SWMA recommended the proposal move forward on the NCWM S&T Committee 

Agenda as a Voting item. 

At the 2008 NCWM Interim Meeting, the Committee was informed that Measurement Canada believed that the 

proposal could be in conflict with some of their requirements. The Committee was aware that the MDMD work 

group was scheduled to meet immediately following the Interim Meeting. The Committee agreed to give the WG 

the opportunity to address Measurement Canada’s concerns and modify the proposal as needed. The Committee 

further agreed to hold a conference call to discuss any proposed changes to the recommendation as a result of the 

WG meeting. The WG, with participation from Measurement Canada, modified the proposal and, thereby, resolved 

Measurement Canada’s concerns. During the conference call the Committee agreed to accept the proposed changes 

from the MDMD work group and to present the item for a vote at the NCWM Annual Meeting. 

At the 2008 NCWM Annual Meeting, the Committee heard support for the item from some of the device 

manufacturers present and received no comments in opposition to this item. 

358-2 V S.1.5. Value of Dimension/Volume Division Value 

(This item was adopted.) 

Source: Western Weights and Measures Association (WWMA) 

Recommendation: Add a new subparagraph S.1.5.2. Devices Capable of Measuring Irregularly-Shaped Objects to 

paragraph S.1.5. Value of Dimension/Volume Division Value, add a new paragraph UR.3.3. as follows, then 

renumber succeeding paragraphs. 

S.1.5.2. Devices Capable of Measuring Irregularly-Shaped Objects. – For devices capable of measuring 

irregularly-shaped objects, the value of the division size (d) shall be the same for the length axis (x) and 

S&T - 53 
S&T Committee 2008 Final Report 

the width axis (y) and may be different for the height axis (z), provided that electronic rotation of the 

object to determine the smallest hexahedron is calculated in only a two-dimension horizontal plane, 

retaining the stable side plane as the bottom of the hexahedron.

(Added 2008)

UR.3.3. Object Placement. – If the object being measured must be transported (e.g., shipped) on a stable 

side, that irregularly-shaped object must be measured while placed on that stable side. The electronic 

rotation of the object to determine the smallest hexahedron shall be calculated in a two-dimensional 

horizontal plane, retaining the stable side plane as the bottom of the hexahedron.

(Added 2008)

Background/Discussion: Irregularly-shaped objects are often electronically rotated in software on the “x” and “y” 

axis to determine the smallest regular hexahedron shape. The only accurate way to perform this function is if the 

“x” and “y” dimensions are measured with the same resolution, i.e., the same size “d.” 

The WWMA acknowledged that additional clarifying language may be needed to describe the specifications of 

devices in this relatively new handbook code. However, the WWMA recognized that none of its members had 

experience in field testing or type evaluating these devices. Consequently, the WWMA recommended this proposal 

be an Information item so that others with more experience may provide comments. 

At its 2007 Interim Meeting, the CWMA heard comments that the proposed language provided a better description 

of the various objects measured on multiple dimension measuring devices and supported the language as proposed. 

At its 2007 Annual Meeting, the SWMA recommended the proposal move forward on the NCWM S&T Committee 

Agenda as a Voting item. 

At the 2008 NCWM Interim Meeting, the Committee was informed that Measurement Canada believed that the 

proposal could be in conflict with some of their requirements. The Committee was aware that the MDMD work 

group was scheduled to meet immediately following the Interim Meeting. The Committee agreed to give the WG 

the opportunity to address Measurement Canada’s concerns and modify the proposal as needed. The Committee 

further agreed to hold a conference call to discuss any proposed changes to the recommendation as a result of the 

WG meeting. The WG, with participation from Measurement Canada, modified the proposal and, thereby, resolved 

Measurement Canada’s concerns. During the conference call the Committee agreed to accept the proposed changes 

from the MDMD work group and to present the item for a vote at the NCWM Annual Meeting. 

At the 2008 NCWM Annual Meeting, the Committee heard support for the item from some of the device 

manufacturers present and received no comments in opposition to this item. 

358-3 V N.1.2. Position Test 

(This item was adopted.) 

Source: Western Weights and Measures Association (WWMA) 

Recommendation: Add a new subparagraph N.1.2.1. to paragraph N.1.2. Position Test. as follows: 

N.1.2.1. Irregularly-Shaped Test Object Placement. – Irregularly-shaped objects must be measured 

while placed on a stable side. The rotation of the object to determine the smallest hexahedron should be 

calculated in a two-dimension plane, retaining the stable side plane as the bottom of the hexahedron.

Background/Discussion: This issue is important to transportation companies which are the primary users of these 

devices. It is critical that goods are moved while in a stable position in order to ensure the safety of the employees 

as well as avoiding the damage of goods being transported. Examples are goods mounted to pallets, placement in 

transportation vehicles, and goods moving along a conveyor belt. 

S&T - 54 
S&T Committee 2008 Final Report 

Three-dimension rotation would result in a measurement that typically leaves the measured object in an 

unacceptable position for transportation for these safety and damage concerns. In fact, it was noted by the MDMD 

WG that irregularly-shaped goods are frequently labeled with “This End Up,” “Top Load,” or “Do Not Stack” 

messages by shippers to enforce these concerns. 

To address these concerns, this proposal maintains the “smallest hexahedron” concept while allowing the object to 

be placed on a stable plane. 

The WWMA agreed that clarification and additional guidance was needed for proper field testing of irregularlyshaped items. However, the WWMA recognized that none of its members have experience in field testing or type 

evaluating these devices. Consequently, the WWMA recommended this proposal be an Information item so that 

others with more experience may provide comments. 

At its 2007 Interim Meeting, the CWMA heard comments that the proposed language provided a better description 

of the various objects measured on multiple dimension measuring devices and supported the language as proposed. 

At its 2007 Annual Meeting, the SWMA recommended the proposal move forward on the NCWM S&T Committee 

Agenda as a Voting item. 

At the 2008 NCWM Interim Meeting, the Committee was informed that Measurement Canada believed that the 

proposal could be in conflict with some of their requirements. The Committee was aware that the MDMD work 

group was scheduled to meet immediately following the Interim Meeting. The Committee agreed to give the WG 

the opportunity to address Measurement Canada’s concerns and modify the proposal as needed. The Committee 

further agreed to hold a conference call to discuss any proposed changes to the recommendation as a result of the 

WG meeting. The WG, with participation from Measurement Canada, modified the proposal and, thereby, resolved 

Measurement Canada’s concerns. During the conference call the Committee agreed to accept the proposed changes 

from the MDMD work group and to present the item for a vote at the NCWM Annual Meeting. 

At the 2008 NCWM Annual Meeting, the Committee heard support for the item from some of the device 

manufacturers present and received no comments in opposition to this item. 

358-4 V N.1.4. Test Objects 

(This item was adopted.) 

Source: Western Weights and Measures Association (WWMA) 

Recommendation: Add new subparagraphs N.1.4.2. and N.1.4.3. to paragraph N.1.4. Test Objects. as follows:

N.1.4.2. Irregularly-Shaped Test Objects. – For irregularly-shaped test objects, at least one angle shall be 

obtuse and the smallest dimension for an axis shall be equal to or greater than the minimum dimension 

for that axis.

N.1.4.3. Test Objects with Protrusions – If the device is marked with a minimum protrusion dimension 

to be measured, test objects with a protrusion shall be used to verify the marked limitation, during type 

evaluation.

Background/Discussion: The primary use of these devices is in the calculation of freight transportation charges 

based on the size of the package. Irregularly-shaped items are typically wrapped in plastic, not enclosed in a 

container or banded by straps. When these items are measured by humans, judgment can be used to exclude loose 

plastic wrapping, fly tag labels, strap ends and other protrusions from the dimensions used to determine the irregular 

object’s shape.

When determining the size of irregular objects, these protrusions need to be excluded from the smallest regular 

hexahedron dimension or the resulting dimensions will generate excessive freight charges to the customer. Defining 

S&T - 55 
S&T Committee 2008 Final Report 

the size limit of the protrusion is necessary to distinguish those protrusions that will be excluded from those that are 

included in an irregular object’s shape. 

The WWMA agreed that clarification and additional guidance was needed for proper field testing of irregularlyshaped items. However, the WWMA recognized that none of its members have experience in field testing or type 

evaluating these devices. Consequently, the WWMA recommended this proposal be an Information item so that 

others with more experience may provide comments. 

At its 2007 Interim Meeting, the CWMA heard comments that the proposed language provided a better description 

of the various objects measured on multiple dimension measuring devices and supported the language as proposed. 

At its 2007 Annual Meeting, the SWMA recommended the proposal move forward on the NCWM S&T Committee 

Agenda as a Voting item. 

At the 2008 NCWM Interim Meeting, the Committee was informed that Measurement Canada believed that the 

proposal could be in conflict with some of their requirements. The Committee was aware that the MDMD work 

group was scheduled to meet immediately following the Interim Meeting. The Committee agreed to give the WG 

the opportunity to address Measurement Canada’s concerns and modify the proposal as needed. The Committee 

further agreed to hold a conference call to discuss any proposed changes to the recommendation as a result of the 

WG meeting. The WG, with participation from Measurement Canada, modified the proposal and, thereby, resolved 

Measurement Canada’s concerns. During the conference call the Committee agreed to accept the proposed changes 

from the MDMD work group and to present the item for a vote at the NCWM Annual Meeting. 

At the 2008 NCWM Annual Meeting, the Committee heard support for the item from some of the device 

manufacturers present and received no comments in opposition to this item. 

360 OTHER ITEMS 

360-1 I International Organization of Legal Metrology (OIML) Report 

Many issues before the OIML, the Asian-Pacific Legal Metrology Forum (APLMF), and other international groups 

are within the purview of the Committee. Additional information on OIML activities will appear in the Board of 

Directors agenda and Interim and Final Reports and on the OIML website at http://www.oiml.org. NIST WMD 

staff will provide the latest updates on OIML activities during the open hearing sessions at NCWM meetings. For 

more information on specific OIML-related device activities, contact the WMD staff listed in the table below. The 

OIML projects listed below represent only currently active projects. For additional information on other OIML 

device activities that involve WMD staff, please contact WMD using the information listed below: 

NIST Weights and Measures Division (WMD) 

Contact List for International Activities 

Contact Information Responsibilities 

Postal Mail and Fax for All 

Contacts: 

NIST WMD 

100 Bureau Drive MS 2600 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2600 

Tel: (301) 975-4004 Fax: (301) 975-8091 

Mr. John Barton (LMDG) 

(301) 975-4002

•R 21 “Taximeters” 

•R 50 “Continuous Totalizing Automatic Weighing Instruments (Belt Weighers)” 

•R 106 “Automatic Rail-weighbridges” 

Mr. Kenneth Butcher (LMG) 

(301) 975-4859 

kenneth.butcher@nist.gov 

•D 1 “Elements for a Law on Metrology” 

•TC 3 “Metrological Control” 

•TC 3/SC 1 “Pattern Approval and Verification” 

•TC 3/SC 2 “Metrological Supervision” 

•TC 6 “Prepackaged Products” 

S&T - 56 
S&T Committee 2008 Final Report 

NIST Weights and Measures Division (WMD) 

Contact List for International Activities 

Contact Information Responsibilities 

Mr. Steven Cook (LMDG) 

(301) 975-4003 

steven.cook@nist.gov 

•R 60 “Metrological Regulations for Load Cells” 

•R 76 “Non-automatic Weighing Instruments” 

Dr. Charles Ehrlich (ILMG) 

(301) 975-4834 

charles.ehrlich@nist.gov 

•CIML Member 

•B “OIML Certificate System for Measuring Instruments” 

•B 10 “Framework for a Mutual Acceptance Arrangement (MAA) on OIML Type 

Evaluations” 

•TC 3/SC 5 “Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement in Legal Metrology 

Applications,” “Guidelines for the Application of ISO/IEC 17025 to the 

Assessment of Laboratories Performing Type Evaluation Tests,” & “OIML 

Procedures for Review of Laboratories to Enable Mutual Acceptance of Test 

Results and OIML Certificates of Conformity” 

•TC 3 “Metrological Control” 

Mr. Richard Harshman 

(LMDG) 

(301) 975-8107 

Richard.harshman@nist.gov 

•R 51 “Automatic Catchweighing Instruments” 

•R 107 “Discontinuous Totalizing Automatic Weighing Instruments” (totalizing 

hopper weighers) 

•R 134 “Automatic Instruments for Weighing Road Vehicles In-Motion and 

Measuring Axle Loads” 

Ms. Diane Lee (LMDG) 

(301) 975-4405 

diane.lee@nist.gov 

•R 59 “Moisture Meters for Cereal Grains and Oilseeds” 

•R 61 “Automatic Gravimetric Filling Instruments” 

•R 92 “Wood Moisture Meters-Verification Methods and Equipment” 

•R 121 “The Scale of Relative Humidity of Air Certified Against Saturated Salt 

Solution” 

•TC 17/SC 8 “Measuring Instruments for Protein Determination in Grains” 

Mr. Ralph Richter (ILMG) 

(301) 975-3997 

ralph.richter@nist.gov 

•R 35 “Material Measures of Length for General Use” 

•R 49 “Water Meters” (Cold Potable Water & Hot Water Meters) 

•R 71 “Fixed Storage Tanks” 

•R 80 “Road and Rail Tankers” 

•R 85 “Automatic Level Gauges for Measuring the Level of Liquid in Fixed Storage 

Tanks” 

•R 105 & R 117 “Measuring Systems for Liquids Other Than Water” (all measuring 

technologies) 

•R 118 “Testing Procedures and Test Report Format for Pattern Examination of Fuel 

Dispensers for Motor Vehicles” 

•R 137 “Gas Meters” (Diaphragm, Rotary Piston, & Turbine Gas Meters) 

•R 140 “Measuring Systems for Gaseous Fuel” (i.e., large pipelines) 

•TC 3/SC 4 “Verification Period of Utility Meters Using Sampling Inspections” 

Dr. Ambler Thompson 

(ILMG) 

(301) 975-2333 

ambler@nist.gov 

•D 16 “Principles of Assurance of Metrological Control” 

•D 19 “Pattern Evaluation and Pattern Approval” 

•D 20 “Initial and Subsequent Verification of Measuring Instruments and Processes” 

•D 27 “Initial Verification of Measuring Instruments Using the Manufacturer’s 

Quality Management System” 

•R 34 “Accuracy Classes of Measuring Instruments” 

•R 46 “Active Electrical Energy Meters for Direct Connection of Class 2” 

•TC 5/SC 2 “General Requirements for Software Controlled Measuring Instruments” 

Ms. Juana Williams 

(LMDG) 

(301) 975-3989 

juana.williams@nist.gov 

•R 81 “Dynamic Measuring Devices and Systems for Cryogenic Liquids” 

•R 139 “Compressed Gaseous Fuels Measuring Systems for Vehicles” 

S&T - 57 
S&T Committee 2008 Final Report 

S&T - 58 

NIST Weights and Measures Division (WMD) 

Contact List for International Activities 

Contact Information Responsibilities 

LIST OF ACRONYMS

B Basic Publication LMDG Legal Metrology Devices Group

CIML International Committee of Legal Metrology P Project 

D Document R Recommendation 

ILMG International Legal Metrology Group SC Subcommittee 

LMG Laws and Metrics Group TC Technical Committee 

The WWMA and the SWMA support these issues and the related device activities as an Information item. 

360-2 Developing Items 

The NCWM established a category of items called “Developing items” as a mechanism to share information about 

emerging issues which have merit and are of national interest, but have not received sufficient review by all parties 

affected by the proposal or that may be insufficiently developed to warrant review by the Committee. The 

Developing items are currently under review by at least one regional association, technical committee, or 

organization. 

Developing items are listed in Appendix A according to the specific HB 44 code section under which they fall. 

Periodically, proposals will be removed from the Developing item agenda without further action because the 

submitter recommends it be withdrawn. Any remaining proposals will be renumbered accordingly. 

The Committee encourages interested parties to examine the proposals included in Appendix A and send their 

comments to the contact listed in each item. The Committee asks that the regional associations and NTETC Sectors 

continue their work to develop each proposal fully. Should an association or Sector decide to discontinue work on 

an item, the Committee asks that it be notified. 

Carol P. Fulmer, South Carolina, Chairman 

Todd R. Lucas, Ohio 

Brett Saum, San Luis Obispo County, California 

Kristin Macey, California 

Steve Giguere, Maine 

Ted Kingsbury, Measurement Canada, Technical Advisor 

Steven Cook, NIST, Technical Advisor 

Tina Butcher, NIST, Technical Advisor 

Specifications and Tolerances Committee
S&T Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix A – Item 360-2: Developing Items 

Appendix A 

Item 360-2: Developing Items 

Part 1, Item 1 General Code: G-S.1. Identification – (Software) 

Source: National Type Evaluation Technical Committee – Software Sector 

Recommendation: Amend G-S.1. and/or G-S.1.1. to include the following: 

Method NTEP CC No. Make/Model/Serial No. Software 

Version/Revision 

TYPE P electronic devices shall meet at least one of the methods in each column: 

Hard-Marked X X Not Acceptable1

Continuously Displayed X X X 

By command or operator action Not Acceptable Not Acceptable X2

1

 If the manufacturer declares that the primary sensing element “software” is integral, has no end user interface and 

no print capability, the version/revision shall be hard marked on the device. Example: Primary sensing element 

may be Positive Displacement (P.D.) meter with integral correction, digital load cell (only for reference, not 

limiting). 

2

 Information on how to obtain the Version/Revision shall be included on the NTEP CC. 

Metrologically significant software shall be clearly identified with the software version. The identification may 

consist of more than one part but one part shall be only dedicated for the metrologically significant portion. 

Method NTEP CC No. Make/Model Software 

Version/Revision 

TYPE U electronic devices shall meet at least one of the methods in each column: 

Hard-Marked X3 X Not Acceptable 

Continuously Displayed X X X 

Via Menu (display) or Print Option Not Acceptable X4 X4

3

 Only if no means of displaying this information is available. 

4

 Information on how to obtain Make/Model, Version/Revision shall be included on the NTEP CC. 

Metrologically significant software shall be clearly identified with the software version. The identification may 

consist of more than one part but one part shall be only dedicated for the metrologically significant portion. 

Background/Discussion: In 2005 the Board of Directors established a NTETC Software Sector. The tasks of the 

Sector are to: 

• Develop a clear understanding of the use of software in today’s weighing and measuring instruments. 

• Develop NIST HB 44 specifications and requirements, as needed, for software incorporated into weighing 

and measuring devices. This may include tools for field verification, security requirements, identification, 

etc. 

• Develop NCWM Publication 14 checklist criteria, as needed, for the evaluation of software incorporated 

into weighing and measuring devices, including marking, security, metrologically significant functions, etc. 

• Assist in the development of training guidelines for W&M officials in verifying software as compliant to 

applicable requirements and traceable to an NTEP Certificate. Training aids to educate manufacturers, 

designers, service technicians and end users may also be considered. 

S&T - A1 
S&T Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix A – Item 360-2: Developing Items 

During their October 2007 meeting, the Sector discussed the value and merits of required markings for software. 

This included the possible differences in some types of devices and marking requirements. After hearing several 

proposals, the Sector agreed to the following technical requirements applicable to the marking of software. 

1. The NTEP CC Number must be continuously displayed or hard marked, 

2. The version must be software-generated and shall not be hard marked, 

3. The version is required for embedded (Type P) software, 

4. Printing the required identification information can be an option, 

5. Command or operator action can be considered as an option in lieu of a continuous display of the required 

information, and 

6. Devices with Type P (embedded) software must display or hard mark make, model, S.N. to comply with 

G-S.1. Identification. 

The Sector recommended that the recommendation to amend G-S.1. and/or G-S.1.1. be given Developmental status 

since additional work is needed to develop the appropriate language to amend paragraphs G-S.1. and G-S.1.1. The 

Sector is also interested in receiving input from the weights and measures community about this item. Working with 

input from the weights and measures community, the Sector plans to introduce proposed modifications to current 

requirements through the regional weights and measures associations and other technical committees. In the 

meantime, the Sector welcomes opportunities to discuss this item at regional weights and measures associations to 

ensure the item is adequately addressed. 

To comment on this proposal, contact Norm Ingram by e-mail at ningram@cdfa.ca.gov, or by telephone at 

(916) 229-3016 and Jim Pettinato by e-mail at jim.pettinato@fmcti.com, or by telephone at (814) 898-5250 or by 

mail at NCWM, Inc., 1135 M Street, Lincoln, NE 68508. 

Part 1, Item 2 Appendix D – Definition of Electronic Devices, Software-Based 

(This item first appeared on the 2008 S&T Committee Interim Agenda as Item 310-2) 

Source: National Type Evaluation Technical Committee (NTETC) – Software Sector 

Recommendation: Add a new definition and cross-reference term to Appendix D in HB 44 for “Electronic devices, 

software-based” as follows:

Electronic devices, software-based. Weighing and measuring devices or systems that use metrological 

software to facilitate compliance with Handbook 44. This includes:

(a) Embedded software devices (Type P), aka built-for-purpose. A device or element with software 

used in a fixed hardware and software environment that cannot be modified or uploaded via any 

interface without breaking a security seal or other approved means for providing security, and 

will be called a “P,” or

(b) Programmable or loadable metrological software devices (Type U), aka not-built-for-purpose. A 

personal computer or other device and/or element with PC components with programmable or 

loadable metrological software, and will be called “U.” A “U” is assumed if the conditions for 

embedded software devices are not met.

Software-based devices – See Electronic devices, software-based.

Background/Discussion: During the NTETC Software Sector discussion on marking requirements and G-S.1.1. 

Location of Identification Information, it was initially suggested that the term “not-built-for-purpose” be removed 

from the wording in NIST HB 44 paragraph G-S.1.1. since there is no definition for a not-built-for-purpose device in 

HB 44. After a lengthy discussion related to the terms “built-for-purpose” and “not-built-for-purpose,” the Sector 

agreed these terms were not clear and should be replaced with the terminology proposed above. The proposed 

definitions are based on the revision of OIML R 76 Non-automatic weighing instruments Subsections 5.5.1. 

(Type P) and 5.5.2. (Type U). 

S&T - A2 
S&T Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix A – Item 360-2: Developing Items 

At the 2008 Interim Meeting, the SMA supported the intent of the item, but stated that it is premature to place these 

definitions in HB 44. The SMA recommended that the status of the item be changed to Developing on the S&T 

Committee Agenda. The Committee agreed to move Item 310-2 of the 2008 S&T Committee Interim Agenda and 

assign Developing status as 360-2 Part 1, Item 2. 

At the 2008 Annual Meeting, the Committee heard comments from the former NTETC Software Sector Chairman 

indicating that the Sector had completed its review of this item and could not develop it any further. He requested 

that the Committee consider moving the item from the Developmental section of the agenda and at least make it an 

Information item on the Committee’s agenda to facilitate discussion and comment on the proposed language. 

The Sector indicated that it has completed its work on the item and noted that sufficient information (including 

specific proposed language) was included in the submission to enable action by the Committee; consequently, the 

Committee agreed to forward the item to the regional weights and measures associations for consideration and will 

include this item on its 2009 Interim Agenda. 

Part 2, Item 1 Scales: S.1.4.6. Height and Definition of Minimum Reading Distance, UR.2.10. Primary 

Indicating Elements Provided by the User, UR.2.11. Minimum Reading Distance and Definitions of Minimum 

Reading Distance and Primary Indications 

Source: NTETC WS 

Note: This proposal was Carryover Item 320-2 which first appeared in the Committee’s 2006 Agenda and again on 

the Committee’s 2007 Agenda as Item 320-4. (This item originated from the 2005 NTETC WS.) The Committee 

believes that although the proposal has merit there does not appear to be a consensus on the size and quality of 

primary indication information on devices used in direct and indirect sales transactions or an enforcement date for 

such requirements. Therefore, the Committee removed Item 320-4 from its agenda and made it a Developing item 

to allow sufficient time for the community to fully develop requirements acceptable to those affected. 

Recommendation: Add new paragraphs S.1.4.6., UR.2.10., and UR.2.11. to the Scales Code as follows: 

S.1.4. Indicators. 

S.1.4.6. Height. – All primary indications shall be indicated clearly and simultaneously.

(a) On digital devices that display primary indications during direct sales to the customer, the 

numerical figures displayed to the customer shall be at least 9.5 mm (0.4 in) high.

(b) The units of mass and other descriptive markings or indications, such as lb, kg, gross, tare, net, 

etc., shall be clearly and easily read and shall be at least 2 mm (0.08 in) high.

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 200X]

(Added 200X)

UR.2. Installation Requirements.

UR.2.10. Primary Indicating Elements Provided by the User. – Primary indicating elements that 

are not the same as the primary indicating elements provided by the original equipment 

manufacturer (e.g., video display monitors) shall comply with the following:

(a) On digital devices that display primary indications during direct sales to the customer, 

the numerical figures displayed to the customer shall be at least 9.5 mm (0.4 in) high.

(b) The units of mass and other descriptive information, such as gross, tare, net, etc., shall 

be displayed or marked on the device and shall be at least 2 mm (0.08 in) high.

(Added 200X)

S&T - A3 
S&T Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix A – Item 360-2: Developing Items 

UR.2.11. Minimum Reading Distance – On digital devices that display primary indications, the 

height of the numbers expressed in millimeters should be not less than three times the minimum 

reading distance expressed in meters, without being less than 2 mm (0.08 in). (Example: If the 

height of the primary indications is 10 mm, then the minimum reading distance should not be 

greater than 30 m).

(Added 200X)

Add new definitions of “minimum reading distance” and “primary indications” to Appendix D as follows:

minimum reading distance. The shortest distance that an observer is freely able to approach the 

indicating device to take a reading under normal conditions of use. This approach is considered to be 

free for the observer if there is a clear space of at least 0.8 m in front of the indicating device. However, if 

the minimum reading distance “S” in Figure X below is less than 0.8 m, then the minimum reading 

distance is “L” in Figure X. [2.20]

(Added 200X)

Figure X

primary indications. Weight or other units of measurement values displayed by a primary indicating 

element. The primary indications are used as the determining factor in arriving at the sale 

representation when the device is used commercially. (Examples of primary indications include the 

measurement value, unit price or count, and total price on instruments capable of price computing. 

Primary indications do not include indications from auxiliary indicating devices such as totalizing 

registers and pre-determined stop mechanisms.) [1.10], [2.20]

(Added 200X)

This proposal was developed to address a growing problem with the readability of weight indications and the values 

that define transaction information. Field and laboratory officials indicate both are becoming increasingly smaller, 

as demonstrated in the following example of a weight display where the actual size of the weight values are 23 mm 

in height, but the unit of measurement (g) is 4 mm in height. 

The Committee agreed that although the clarity and readability of indications was a growing issue, the current 

proposal had only limited support from the public and private sectors. The Committee recognized the proposal 

required a significant amount of work before the language was clear, technically correct, and deemed applicable to 

S&T - A4 
S&T Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix A – Item 360-2: Developing Items 

the different types of installations and technologies in current use. The Committee had concerns about whether or 

not the proposed 2 mm height requirements for units of measurement and other markings were adequate. The 

Committee also questioned the clarity of the proposed user requirements for the minimum reading distance. 

The Committee recommended the submitter consider several points in its review of the current proposal such as: 

- Any specification and corresponding user requirement should provide laboratory and field officials with 

uniform guidelines: 

• determine if the required markings on a new equipment design from the manufacturer or a device 

recently modified by the owner or a service company were suitable for continued use in a particular 

application; and 

• remove all ambiguity or subjectivity when assessing if primary indications can be observed from a 

reasonable customer and operator position. 

- A size requirement for figures and their corresponding descriptive symbols and characters specified as a 

percentage might be a good approach. 

- Corresponding new language in HB 44 that is similar to that which exists in HB 130 for labels to specify, 

“all required markings shall be prominent, definite, plain, and conspicuous as to size and style of symbols, 

letters, and numbers and as to color that is in contrast to the background and presented so that there is 

adequate free area surrounding those markings.” 

- A recognized vision standard such as those used to determine visual acuity (eye exam charts, etc.) might be 

a good source for establishing specific distance limits. 

- When the size of indications becomes a selectable configuration parameter, access to this feature must be 

sealed. 

The NIST technical advisor to the NTETC WS amended the proposal to address the concerns and suggestions from 

the manufacturers, NTEP labs, and WMD and placed the item on the 2007 WS agenda. The NIST technical advisor 

did not develop any changes to the proposed definition of “Primary Indications,” the proposed User Requirements, 

and the associated definition for “Minimum Reading Distance.” The Sector was asked to review the proposed 

language in its agenda and provide a recommendation that can be forwarded to the regional weights and measures 

associations. The Sector agreed to submit the following revised language to the regional weights and measures 

associations and the NCWM S&T Committee. The Sector also recommends deleting the proposed amendment to 

the definition of primary indications. Additionally, the Sector did not discuss or make any recommendations on the 

proposed user requirements and definition for “minimum reading distance.” 

S.1.4. Indicators. 

S.1.4.6. Direct Sale Primary Indications – Size and Character. Scales designed for direct sale applications 

with a capacity of 100 kg (200 lb) or less shall comply with the following:

a. All indications shall be indicated clearly and simultaneously.

b. All indications and associated descriptive markings (e.g., lb, kg, gross, tare, net, etc.) shall be 

presented in such a style of type or lettering as to be boldly, clearly, and conspicuously presented 

with respect to other type, lettering, or graphics and shall be at least 2 mm (3/32 in) high.

c. All indications and associated descriptive markings shall be in a color or shade that contrasts 

conspicuously with its background.

S&T - A5 
S&T Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix A – Item 360-2: Developing Items 

d. All primary numeric indications displayed to the customer shall be at least 9.5 mm (0.4 in) high.

e. All units and descriptors shall be at least 2 mm (3

/32 in) high.

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 200X]

(Added 200X)

primary indications. Weight or other units of measurement values displayed by a primary indicating 

element. The primary indications are used as the determining factor in arriving at the sale 

representation when the device is used commercially. (Examples of primary indications include the 

measurement value, unit price or count, and total price on instruments capable of price computing. 

Primary indications do not include indications from auxiliary indicating devices such as totalizing 

registers and pre-determined stop mechanisms.) [1.10], [2.20]

(Added 200X)

At its 2007 Annual Meeting, the WWMA heard from one scale manufacturer that his company’s devices will pass 

the 9.5 mm and 2 mm requirements, but not the 21 %. 

The WWMA recommended this item remain a Developing item on the NCWM S&T Committee Agenda. 

At its 2007 Interim Meeting, the CWMA commented that although a specification in HB 44 has merit, the proposed 

language in Scales Code paragraph S.1.4.6. is not necessary since other requirements already present in HB 44 

General Code G-UR.3.3. Position of Equipment states that a device shall be positioned so that its indications may be 

accurately read from some reasonable “customer” and “operator” position. Additionally, the new language for 

installation requirements in proposed paragraphs UR.2.10. and UR.2.11. are also addressed in paragraph G-UR.3.3. 

and, therefore, is not necessary. 

The CWMA recommended this item remain a Developing item on the NCWM S&T Committee Agenda.

At its 2007 Interim Meeting, NEWMA recommended this item be Withdrawn as it was already covered in HB 44 

General Code paragraph G-S.5.1. 

At the 2007 SWMA Annual Meeting, a scale manufacturer stated it could support S.1.4. Indicators, but not UR.2. 

Installation Requirements. The SWMA agreed to forward the comment to the NCWM S&T Committee for 

consideration.

To comment on this proposal, contact Steven Cook, NIST Technical Advisor to the NTETC WS, by e-mail at 

steven.cook@nist.gov, by telephone at (301) 975-4003, by fax at (301) 975-8091, or by postal mail at NIST WMD, 

100 Bureau Drive MS 2600, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2600. 

For more background information refer to the Committee’s 2006 and 2007 Final Reports. 

Part 3, Item 1 Belt-Conveyor Scale Systems: UR.3.2.(c) Maintenance; Zero Load Tests 

Source: 2005 Western Weights and Measures Association (WWMA)

Recommendation: Modify UR.3.2.(c) as follows: 

UR.3.2. Maintenance. – Belt-conveyor scales and idlers shall be maintained and serviced in accordance with 

manufacturer’s instructions and the following requirements: 

(c) Zero-load and load (simulated or material) tests, Ssimulated load tests, or material tests, and 

zero load tests shall be conducted at periodic intervals between official tests in order to provide 

reasonable assurance that the device is performing correctly. 

(Amended 200X)

S&T - A6 
S&T Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix A – Item 360-2: Developing Items 

The action to be taken as a result of the zero-load tests is as follows:

(Added 200X)

- if the change in zero is less than ± 0.1 %, make no adjustment, record results and proceed to 

simulated load tests; or

- if the change in zero is ± 0.1 % to ± 0.25 %, inspect the conveyor and weighing area for 

compliance with UR.2. Installation Requirements and retest.

(Added 200X)

The action to be taken as a result of the simulated load or material tests or simulated load tests is as 

follows: 

(Amended 2002 and 200X) 

- if the error is less than 0.25 %, no adjustment is to be made; 

- if the error is at least 0.25 % but not more than 0.6 %, inspect the conveyor and weighing area 

for compliance with UR.2. Installation Requirements and repeat the testadjustment may be 

made if the official with statutory authority is notified;

 (Amended 1991 and 200X) 

- if the result of tests, after compliance with UR.2. Installation Requirements is verified, 

remain greater than ± 0.25 %, a span correction shall be made and the official with statutory 

authority notified;

- if the error is greater than 0.6 % but does not exceed 0.75 %, inspect the conveyor and weighing 

area for compliance with UR.2. Installation Requirements, and repeat the test;

(Amended 1991 and 200X) 

- if the result of tests, after UR.2. Installation Requirements compliance is verified, remains 

greater than ± 0.25 %, a span correction shall be made, the official with statutory authority 

shall be notified, and an official test shall be conducted;

- if the error is greater than 0.75 %, an official test is required. 

(Amended 1987 and 200X) 

Discussion: HB 44 gives limited guidance on what to do with zero-load test results. Belt loss is not the only factor 

which may require the scale operator to make physical adjustments to the belt-conveyor system to correct for 

deficiencies. For example, a dirty scale structure or a worn belt scraper will increase the zero-reference number and 

the test results may exceed tolerances. 

The scale user/owner has to protect his interest between weighing transactions. At present, some belt-conveyor 

systems may have errors greater than 0.5 % in zero reference over a 24-hour period. The belt is part of tare (net 

load) on any empty running system and the system must be maintained to within tolerance at all times. 

During its 2006 meeting, the WWMA recommended the alternate industry proposal shown above. The WWMA 

also recommended the alternate proposal be considered at a future meeting of the USNWG on Belt-Conveyor Scale 

Systems. The WWMA recommended the alternate proposal remain a Developing item to allow sufficient time for a 

review by the WG. The CWMA and the SWMA concurred with the WWMA’s recommendation. 

During the 2007 NCWM Annual Meeting, the Committee heard testimony that a work group of the National 

Weighing and Sampling Association was working on this item and would have a recommendation for the WWMA 

prior to its 2007 Annual Meeting. 

S&T - A7 
S&T Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix A – Item 360-2: Developing Items 

Participants in the work group include: 

Phil Carpentier, PTC Consulting, LLC ptcarpentier@att.net 

Paul Chase, Chase Technology, Inc. mjc@emily.net 

Al Page, Montana Weight and Measures awp88bb@gmail.com 

Peter Sirrico, Thayer Scale psirrico@thayerscale.com 

Bill Ripka, Thermo Ramsey bill.ripka@thermofisher.com 

This WG agrees that there is a need to establish some zero-load test interval for the normal use of a belt-conveyor 

scale system and that there is also a need to vary that interval (longer interval if the scale is stable; shorter if the 

zero-load tests require frequent adjustment). The WG has reviewed and discussed this Developing item and 

submitted the following revised proposal to the NIST technical advisor to the S&T Committee. 

UR.3.2. Maintenance. – Belt-conveyor scales and idlers shall be maintained and serviced in accordance with 

manufacturer’s instructions and the following requirements: 

(c) Simulated load tests or material tests and zero-load testsSsimulated load tests, or material tests, 

and zero load tests shall be conducted at periodic intervals between official tests in order to provide 

reasonable assurance that the device is performing correctly. The minimum test interval shall be 

established by the official with statutory authority.

(Amended 200X)

The action to be taken as a result of the zero-load tests is as follows:

(Added 200X)

- If the zero error is less than 0.25 %, adjustment to zero.

- If the zero error is at least 0.25 % but not more than 0.5 %, inspect the belt-conveyor scale 

system for installation and maintenance items (e.g., clearance, material adhering to the belt, 

alignment, etc.), make required corrections, adjust the zero, and repeat the zero-load test.

- If the zero error is greater than 0.5 %, inspect the belt-conveyor scale system, make required 

corrections to installation and maintenance items (e.g., clearance, material adhering to the 

belt, alignment, etc.), adjust the zero, and reduce the interval between zero tests.

(Added 200X)

The action to be taken as a result of the material tests or simulated load tests is as follows: 

(Amended 2002) 

- If the error is less than 0.25 %, no adjustment is to be made. 

- If the error is at least 0.25 % but not more than 0.56 %, the span shall be adjusted by an 

authorized service agent and adjustment may be made if the official with statutory authority is 

notified; 

 (Amended 1991 and 200X) 

- If the error is greater than 0.56 %but does not exceed 0.75 %, adjustments shall be made only 

by a competent an authorized service person agent and the official with statutory authority 

shall be notified. After such an adjustment, if the results of a subsequent test require 

adjustment in the same direction, an official tests shall be conductedshall adjust the span, 

perform maintenance on the belt-conveyor scale system, and schedule an official test with 

statutory authority.

(Amended 1991 and 200X) 

S&T - A8 
S&T Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix A – Item 360-2: Developing Items 

- If the error is greater than 0.75 %, an official test is required.

(Amended 1987) 

At its 2007 Annual Meeting, the WWMA heard comments from a BCS manufacturer that the NW&SA WG version 

was superior to current language. However, the manufacturer stated that this item needed additional development 

and subsequent review by the entire NW&SA. The WWMA believed this item was not sufficiently developed and 

did not have a consensus from the NW&SW WG and therefore recommended this remain a Developing item on the 

NCWM S&T Committee agenda. 

At its 2007 Interim Meeting, the CWMA recommended this item be Withdrawn. 

During the 2008 NCWM Interim Meeting, the Committee was informed that the USNWG on Belt-Conveyor Scales 

is going to further develop the proposal during their next meeting on February 27 - 28, 2008, in St. Louis, Missouri. 

To comment on this proposal, contact Steven Cook, NIST Technical Advisor to the NTETC Belt-Conveyor Scales 

Sector, by e-mail at steven.cook@nist.gov, by telephone at (301) 975-4003, by fax at (301) 975-8091, or by postal 

mail at NIST WMD, 100 Bureau Drive MS 2600, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2600. 

Part 3, Item 2 Belt-Conveyor Scale Systems: N.3.1.4. Check for Consistency of the Conveyor Belt Along Its 

Entire Length 

Source: 2005 Western Weights and Measures Association (WWMA)

Recommendation: Amend NIST Handbook 44, Section 2.21. Belt Conveyor Scales (BCS) Systems Code, 

paragraph N.3.1.4. as follows: 

N.3.1.4. Check for Consistency of the Conveyor Belt Along Its Entire Length. – During a zero-load test, 

the total change indicated in the totalizer during one revolution of the belt shall not exceed 0.18 % of the 

load that would be totalized at scale capacity for the duration of the test. The end value of the zero-load 

test must meet the ± 0.06 % requirement of paragraphs N.3.1.2. Initial Stable Zero and N.3.1.3. Test for 

Zero Stability. After a zero-load test with flow rate filtering disabled, the totalizer shall not change more 

than plus or minus (± 3 d) 3.0 scale divisions from its initial indication during one complete belt 

revolution.

(Added 2002) (Amended 2004 and 200X)

Discussion: The BCS WG agrees that the existing language in N.3.1.4. results in an excessive allowance for the 

variation in a belt. However, for belt-conveyor scales that can benefit from a smaller minimum division, the 

3-division requirement can impose an excessively narrow restriction. It should be noted that variations in belt 

weight tend to be sinusoidal. In other words, the error caused by belt variations would be canceled if the material 

test were conducted using complete revolutions. The maximum belt variation would occur at 0.5, 1.5., 2.5, etc., 

revolutions. However, material tests are rarely conducted using complete revolutions of the belt. 

The current tolerance of plus or minus 3 divisions can allow belt weight variation to contribute too large a portion to 

the 0.25 % belt-conveyor scale tolerance. The actual quantity represented by 3 divisions can vary with the 

belt-conveyor scale application. Paragraph N.2.3. Minimum Totalized Load (b) allows a material test load to be the 

amount of material to be weighed during one revolution of the belt. If the tolerance for the material test is 0.25 %, 

then on a root-sum-square basis, the variation in zero resulting from changes in the weight of the belt itself should 

not exceed 0.18 % (0.25 % times { 2 } / 2). 

Some rationale other than root-sum-square could result in a different allowable variation due to belt weight. 

S&T - A9 
S&T Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix A – Item 360-2: Developing Items 

The following example illustrates the difference between divisions and percent for this purpose: 

Belt length = 800 ft, 

Division size = 0.1 ton, 

Maximum capacity = 800 tons/hr, and 

Belt speed = 400 ft/min 

These minimum totalized load (MTL) values in paragraph N.2.3. are in a feasible range for an actual application. 

N.2.3. (a) 800 divisions = 80.0 tons 

N.2.3. (b) one revolution = 26.67 tons, which is (66.67 lb/ft * 800 ft) 

N.2.3. (c) ten minutes = 133.3 tons 

The materials test tolerance (T.1.) based on the MTL in N.2.3.(b) = 0.07 tons. 

The allowable variation due to belt weight is ± 3 divisions or ± 0.3 tons. Using ± 0.3 ton error in zero allows a total 

delivery error that can exceed maintenance tolerance in paragraph T.1. Tolerance values because of acceptable belt 

weight variation of 0.6 tons currently in HB 44 paragraph N.3.1.4. This tolerance exceeds the 0.25 % tolerance of 

the weighing system without weighing any material. Even for a 10 min MTL (N.3.1.4.c), the allowable error is 

0.45 % of 133.3 tons. 

The proposed language changes the tolerances in N.3.1.4. from ± 3 divisions to 0.18 %. In the above example, the 

allowable change in the totalizer readings could be no greater than 0.048 tons [0.18 % x 26.67 tons (MTL)]. 

NIST HB 44 paragraph N.2. Conditions of Test. was amended, and the minimum totalized load (MTL) requirements 

were amended and renumbered to paragraph N.2.3. Since 10 min of operation in N.3.2.(c) typically results in a test 

load larger than (a) or (b), the 10 min MTL is used for most BCS installations. Additionally, the words “or a normal 

weighment” were removed from MTL requirements because, at that time, it was thought the words were no longer 

needed since language was developed to allow a smaller material test load provided the scale demonstrated 

compliance with BCS tolerances with the MTL and the smaller test load. 

As a result of removing the words “or a normal weighment,” it has been reported that the revised MTL requirements 

were not suitable for BCS installations that issue individual weights for vehicles and railcars. This is due to 

limitations of the installation and uncertainties in determining the net weights of several vehicles or railcars to 

compare material test results of the 10 min MTL with the alternate test load of “2 % of the load totalized in 1 hour.” 

The current NIST HB 44 paragraph N.2.3. permits “a smaller minimum totalized load down to 2 % of the load 

totalized in 1 hour....” In the above example the minimum load would be 16 tons for this criterion so the belt 

variation is even a larger percentage of the weighed load. 

The change to 0.18 % is a better criterion in several ways. 

1. “It defines the allowable excursion of the totalized value during the zero procedure. Plus or minus requires 

some reference value and it is not known at the start of a zero test whether that portion of the belt is heavy 

or light.” 

2. It is independent of division size. (But the division size must be small enough to resolve the variation.) 

3. It is in harmony with OIML R 50. 

In the above example 0.18 % of 26.67 tons is 0.048 tons. This is quite different from 3 divisions or ± 3 divisions. 

At its 2007 Annual Meeting, the WWMA heard comments from a device manufacturer who would like to leave the 

item as either Developing or Withdrawn. The NIST technical advisor agreed the proposal needed additional work. 

Therefore, the WWMA recommended this proposal be a Developing item to allow the BCS WG additional time to 

make modifications. 

S&T - A10 
S&T Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix A – Item 360-2: Developing Items 

During the 2008 NCWM Interim Meeting, the Committee was informed that the USNWG on Belt-Conveyor Scales 

is going to further develop the proposal during their next meeting on February 27 - 28, 2008, in St. Louis, Missouri. 

To comment on this proposal, contact Steven Cook, NIST Technical Advisor to the NTETC Belt-Conveyor Scales 

Sector, by e-mail at steven.cook@nist.gov, by telephone at (301) 975-4003, by fax at (301) 975-8091, or by postal 

mail at NIST WMD, 100 Bureau Drive, MS 2600, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2600. 

Part 4, Item 1 Liquid-Measuring Devices: T.5. Predominance – Retail Motor-Fuel Devices 

Source: Central Weights and Measures Association (CWMA)

Recommendation: The CWMA recommends withdrawing its earlier proposal (to add a new 

paragraph G-UR.4.1.1. to the General Code) and replacing it with the following new proposal developed by the 

Nebraska Weights and Measures Division to add a new paragraph T.5. to HB 44 Section 3.30. as follows: 

T.5. Predominance - Retail Motor-Fuel Devices. – The retail motor-fuel devices in service at a single 

place of business shall be considered maintained in proper operating condition when evaluation of 

normal test results indicate the following parameters are met:

(a) The number of meters with minus test errors in excess of one-half maintenance tolerance shall be 

less than 60 % of the meters at the location, and

(b) When there are three or more meters of a single grade or type of fuel, the average error of the 

meters shall not be a minus value exceeding one-half maintenance tolerance. Meter test results 

that exceed maintenance tolerance shall not be included in determining the average meter error 

of a single grade or type of fuel.

(Added 200X)

Background/Discussion: In 1991 this same topic was brought before the NCWM as an Information item. The 

intent of the proposal at that time was to provide guidance to states in the interpretation of General Code 

paragraph G-UR.4.1. Maintenance of Equipment. In 1993, the State of Wisconsin adopted and later refined a policy 

that defined “predominance” to assist field officials in consistently applying the criteria. In 2005 the CWMA agreed 

to submit a modified proposal to the NCWM S&T Committee with a recommendation that it be placed on the 

Committee’s agenda as a Developing item. 

See the 2007 Final Report of the NCWM S&T Committee for additional background information on this item. 

At its 2007 Annual Meeting, the WWMA heard comments from state and local jurisdictions that they have been able 

to enforce G-UR.4.3. Predominance through administrative policies and rules. The WWMA forwarded these and 

other comments to the submitter along with a recommendation that the specific proposal being considered be 

Withdrawn and replaced with an alternate proposal and the new item be made developmental. 

At its 2007 Interim Meeting, the CWMA heard comments in favor of this item and from state and local jurisdictions 

that they have been able to enforce G-UR.4.3. Predominance through administrative policies and rules. However, 

there was some concern that the proposed tolerance was not stringent enough and allowed the meters to be set at 

acceptance tolerance values. Consequently, the CWMA developed an alternate proposal for consideration.

At its 2007 Interim Meeting, NEWMA stated that they continue to oppose this item and recommended it be 

withdrawn as it was already adequately addressed in the General Code. 

At its 2008 Annual Meeting, the CWMA recommended the item be Withdrawn. 

S&T - A11 
S&T Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix A – Item 360-2: Developing Items 

Part 4, Item 2 Liquid-Measuring Devices: Price Posting and Computing Capability and Requirements for a 

Retail Motor-Fuel Dispenser (RMFD) 

At the 2008 Interim Meeting, Ohio Weights and Measures submitted a proposal to the Committee that included 

specific language for modifying Section 3.30 to address the various pricing and marketing structures being used in 

retail motor-fuel applications. Based on its review of that proposal, the fact that a specific proposal has now been 

developed and presented, and the number of jurisdictions reporting a need to move forward with this item, the 

Committee decided to elevate the status of this item from a Developmental item to an Information item. See 

Item 330-3 for details. 

Part 5, Item 1 Water Meters: UR.2. Accessibility for Reading (See 336-1) 

Recommendation: The WWMA believes that this item is sufficiently developed and recommends that the 

alternative proposal provided by the DMS as shown in the Committee’s Agenda Item 336-1 be placed on the 

NCWM S&T Committee Agenda as a Voting item. 

Part 5, Item 2 Water Meters: S.1.1. 3. Value of the Smallest Unit 

Source: Southern Weights and Measures Association (SWMA) 

Proposal: Clarify S.1.1.3 of Handbook 44, Section 3.36., for the “value of the smallest unit” of indicated delivery. 

Background/Discussion: At its 2007 Annual Meeting, the SWMA received a request from a meter manufacturer 

for clarification of the intent of S.1.1.3. Along with the request, the manufacturer stated that, “our assumption is that 

this refers to the value of each graduation of the primary indicating element. If this is indeed the intention of 

S.1.1.3., then the S.1.1.3.(a) requirement of 10 gal would pose no problem for utility type meters. However, this 

would represent very poor resolution for smaller water meters. Again, if S.1.1. is indeed referring to the values for 

individual graduations, values for utility type meters under S.1.1.3. should instead be separated into three cateogries: 

0.1 gal for meters 1 in and smaller, 1.0 gal for meters 11⁄2 in through 3 in and 10 gal for meters 4 in and larger. 

Similarly, metric “smallest unit” values would also be in three categories: 1 L for meters 1 in and smaller, 10 L for 

meters 11⁄2 in through 3 in, and 100 L for meters 4 in and larger. 

Utility type water meters 1 in and smaller have 10 gal test circles with 100 graduations (i.e., 0.1 gal increments). 

Utility meters 11⁄2 in through 3 in have 100 gal test circles with 100 graduations (i.e., 1 gal increments), and utility 

meters 4 in and larger have 1000 gal test circles with 100 graduations (i.e., 10 gal increments). See comparable 

registration details for metric offerings (with 0.1 m3

, 1.0 m3, and 10 m3 test circle offerings for progressively larger 

meter sizes).” 

The SWMA also heard comments from the manufacturer that several other water meter manufacturers were having 

difficulty meeting HB 44 requirements for repeatability that were added in 2002. Additionally part of the problem 

was the determination of what constitutes the smallest unit of measure for various sizes of their utility meters. The 

manufacturer is requesting a change to the test draft requirements and/or smallest unit of measure requirements to be 

more appropriate for the meters they and others manufacture. The SWMA agreed to forward the proposal to the 

NCWM S&T Committee for consideration. 

Part 5, Item 3 Water Meters: N.4.1.1. Repeatability Tests and T.1. Tolerance Values 

Source: Southern Weights and Measures Association (SWMA) 

Proposal: Amend repeatability requirements in Section 3.36., Water Meters as follows: 

A) Alternative A: Eliminate the repeatability requirements of HB 44, Section 3.36. (N.4.1.1. and T.1.1.) for 

utility type meters; or

B) Change the test draft quantities of Tables N.4.1. and N.4.2. of HB 44, Section 3.36., as shown in the table 

below, in order to meet the repeatability requirements as given in N.4.1.1. and T.1.1. for utility type meters. 

S&T - A12 
S&T Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix A – Item 360-2: Developing Items 

Changes in test drafts, HB 44, Section 3.36., if current repeatability criteria is to be enforced for utility meters (see 

Tables N.4.1., and N.4.2) 

 

 

Maximum Rate 

 

 

Intermediate Rate 

 

 

Minimum Rate 

 

Meter 

Size 

(inches) 

Rate of 

Flow 

(gpm) 

Test Draft 

(gal) 

Test 

Draft 

(ft3

) 

Rate of 

Flow 

(gpm) 

Test Draft 

(gal) 

Test 

Draft 

(ft3

) 

Rate of 

Flow 

(gpm) 

Test 

Draft 

(gal) 

Test 

Draft 

(ft3

) 

less than 5

/8 8 100 10 2 40 4 1⁄4 20 2

 50 5 10 1 5 1 5

/8 15 100 10 2 40 4 1⁄4 20 2

 50 5 10 1 5 1

3⁄4 25 100 10 3 40 4 1⁄2 20 2

 50 5 10 1 5 1

1 40 100 10 4 40 4 3⁄4 20 2

 100 10 10 1 5 1

11⁄2 80 500 50 8 400 40 11⁄2 200 20

 300 40 50 5 10 1

2 120 500 50 15 400 40 2 200 20

 500 40 50 5 10 1

3 250 20 400 40 4 200 20

 500 50 50 5 10 1

4 350 5000 500 40 4000 400 7 2000 200

 1000 100 100 10 50 5

6 700 5000 500 60 4000 400 12 2000 200

 1000 100 100 10 50 5

Background/Discussion: At its 2007 Annual Meeting, the SWMA received a proposal from a meter manufacturer 

with two options for modifying Section 3.36. as shown above. The manufacturer provided the following 

justification for the modification: 

For proposal A: Water meter “transaction” volumes are based on billing cycles of monthly or quarterly “reads.” As 

such, each transaction for a residential meter may be on the order of 3000 to 30 000 gal. Commercial/industrial 

accounts with larger meters may have transaction volumes that are one or two orders-of-magnitude larger than this. 

Meter repeatability over the course of a pattern approval test volume (currently as little as 5 gal for a residential 

meter, for example) is, therefore, not relevant. Utility water meters are not designed to provide the resolution 

required to meet the Section 3.36. repeatability requirements under typical test drafts. 

For Proposal B: The graduations on the primary indicating element for the meter under test can normally be read 

within an uncertainty of roughly 1⁄3 of a graduation. This is the result of limits in optical discernment, minor 

parallax, minor asymmetries in mechanical gear trains, minor asymmetries in graduation printing, etc. Combining 

the meter’s reading uncertainty at the start of any single test run with the uncertainty at the end of this same test run, 

total meter reading uncertainly is, therefore, roughly 2⁄3 of a graduation. Keeping in mind there are other 

resolution/repeatability concerns for any given test series (resolution in reading the reference volume/mass, ability to 

duplicate parameters such as flow rate, water temperature, water pressure, evaporative losses, etc.), the uncertainty 

limitations for reading the meter under test should not “consume” more than 1⁄4 of the total repeatability requirement. 

For the 1.3 % repeatability requirement at the minimum flow rate, this corresponds to a test draft equal to roughly 

200 graduations of the primary element. For the 0.6 % repeatability requirement at the intermediate rate, this 

corresponds to a test draft equal to roughly 400 or 450 graduations of the primary element. Test draft volumes for 

S&T - A13 
S&T Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix A – Item 360-2: Developing Items 

S&T - A14 

the maximum flow rate must be even larger since these drafts must address other sources of error unique to testing at 

higher flow rates (for example, errors due to ramping up and ramping down the flow rates at the beginning and end 

of the test, which must be done slowly enough so as to not cause water hammer, or mechanical impulse loading of 

the meter registration device). 

The SWMA also heard comments from the manufacturer that several other water meter manufacturers were having 

difficulty meeting HB 44 requirements for repeatability that were added in 2002. Additionally part of the problem 

was the determination of what constituted the smallest unit of measure for various sizes of their utility meters. The 

manufacturer is requesting a change to the test draft requirements and/or smallest unit of measure requirements to be 

more appropriate for the meters they and others manufacture. The SWMA agreed to forward the proposal to the 

NCWM S&T Committee for consideration. 

Just prior to the 2008 NCWM Annual Meeting, the Committee received a proposal for changes to this item from 

Scott Swanson, with Sensus Metering Systems on behalf of five water meter manufacturers, including Badger 

Meter, Inc., Elster Metering, Master Meter, Neptune Metering, and Sensus Metering. During the Committee’s open 

hearings, the S&T Chairman notified NCWM members that copies of this information were available to interested 

parties. The proposed changes to this item as submitted by Mr. Swanson are included in Appendix B to this report. 

During the Committee’s open hearings, Jeff Humphreys, Los Angeles County, provided some additional data to 

consider in conjunction with this item. A letter submitted by Mr. Humphreys that includes the data and that outlines 

his jurisdiction’s comments on the proposal is included in Appendix C to the Committee’s report. 

Concerns were expressed regarding whether or not the size of the test draft for larger meters is realistic. A 

manufacturer of test equipment noted that the largest prover being manufactured at present is 2000 gallons. 
S&T Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix B – Water Meter Manufacturers’ Proposed Changes to Developing Item Part 5, Item 3 Water Meters 

Appendix B 

Water Meter Manufacturers’ Proposed Changes to 

Developing Item Part 5, Item 3 Water Meters 

S&T - B1 
S&T Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix B – Water Meter Manufacturers’ Proposed Changes to Developing Item Part 5, Item 3 Water Meters 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 

S&T - B2 
S&T Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix B – Water Meter Manufacturers’ Proposed Changes to Developing Item Part 5, Item 3 Water Meters 

S&T - B3 
S&T Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix B – Water Meter Manufacturers’ Proposed Changes to Developing Item Part 5, Item 3 Water Meters 

PROPOSAL 

COMMITTEE: S&T Standing Committee 

Priority Level: 1 Date: July 10, 2008 

Contact Person: Scott Swanson Telephone: (724) 430-4059 

Fax: (724) 439-7861 

Email: scott.swanson@sensus.com 

Jurisdiction: All NCWM Sections and derivative standards. 

Proposal: Amend Section T.1. in Handbook 44, Sec. 3.36. 

We propose that Section T.1. be amended to address repeatability for utility type water meters. 

We propose that Section T.1.1. Repeatability read as follows. The tables mentioned below can be found on the 

following page. 

T.1.1. Repeatability. – When multiple tests are conducted at approximately the same flow rate, the range of the test 

results shall not exceed 0.6 % for tests performed at the normal and intermediate flow rates, and 1.3 % for tests 

performed at the minimum flow rate, and each test shall be within the applicable tolerances. When performing 

repeatability tests on utility type water meters, test draft sizes shall comply with Tables T.1.1. and T.1.2. 

Repeatability Testing for Utility Type Water Meters is to be applied only during type evaluation testing. 

Justification: Harmonize with utility type water meter designs derived from AWWA standards 

When agencies use inadequate test draft quantities erroneous test results can be produced. These erroneous test 

results have and are continuing to have serious financial consequences to manufactures and distributors. 

The vast majority of utility-type water meters sold in the United States are designed to comply with ANSI/AWWA 

meter standards. Coupled with actual utility metering practices in the field, this results in meter designs sharing 

common meter reading resolution. These designs are quite different than those used for batching-type meters. 

For utility-type meters 1” and smaller, meter registration test hands (proving indicators) have graduations 

with resolution down to 0.1 gallons or 0.01 cubic feet. For meters 11⁄2 inch and 2 inch, test hands have graduations 

with resolution down to 1.0 gallons or 0.1 cubic feet. In visually reading the test hand position relative to these 

graduations, resolution is limited to a range of roughly 1⁄3 or 1⁄2 of an individual graduation (at both the start of each 

test and at then at the end of each test).

A test draft equal to only 100 graduations, while adequate for accuracy testing, will be insufficient when 

testing for repeatability (given the five-fold tighter tolerance for meter repeatability, compared to the tolerance for 

meter accuracy). For example, an uncertainty of 1⁄3 graduation at the initial meter reading, and an additional reading 

uncertainty of 1⁄3 graduation at the end of the test, would result in a cumulative meter reading uncertainty of 0.67 %, 

for such a 100-graduation test. Test draft sizes need to be increased, so that meter reading uncertainties do not 

consume more that 1⁄4 of the total allowable tolerances for this testing. For a repeatability range requirement of 

0.6 %, test draft size should equal 400 graduations of the test index, in order to have acceptable meter reading 

resolution. Similarly, for a repeatability range requirement of 1.3 %, test draft size should be equal to 200 

graduations of the test index. 

Reasons for: 

Additional 

Considerations:

S&T - B4 
S&T Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix B – Water Meter Manufacturers’ Proposed Changes to Developing Item Part 5, Item 3 Water Meters 

PROPOSAL 

COMMITTEE: S&T Standing Committee 

Priority Level: 1 Date: July 10, 2008 

Contact Person: Scott Swanson Telephone: (724) 430-4059 

Fax: (724) 439-7861 

Email: scott.swanson@sensus.com 

Jurisdiction: All NCWM Sections and derivative standards. 

Proposal: Amend Section N.3. and N.4. in Handbook 44, Sec. 3.36. 

We propose that Section N.4. Testing Procedures be changed to address specific issues related to utility type water 

meters. The three related proposals are to add subsections under paragraph N.3, change the title of tables N.4.1. and 

N.4.2, and to incorporate two new tables to N.4. that speak directly to utility type water meters. 

1. The first proposal is to amend paragraph N.3. to read as follows. 

N.3. Test Drafts. 

(a) Non-Utility Type Water Meters. 

Test drafts should be equal to at least the amount delivered by the device in 2 minutes and in no case less than the 

amount delivered by the device in 1 minute at the actual maximum flow rate developed by the installation. The test 

draft sizes shown in Table N.4.1., Flow Rate and Draft Size for Non-Utility Type Water Meters Normal Tests, and 

in Table N.4.2. Flow Rate and Draft Size for Non-Utility Type Water Meters Special Tests, shall be followed as 

closely as possible. 

(b) Utility Type Water Meters. 

The test draft sizes shown in Table N.4.X. and N.4.Y. shall be followed as closely as possible. Testing shall be done 

in like volumes (meters with gallon registration tested in gallon volumes, meters with cubic feet registration tested in 

cubic feet volumes). 

2. The second proposal is to amend the title of Table N.4.1. and Table N.4.2., changing the words “for Water 

Meters” to read “for Non-Utility Type Water Meters”. 

3. The third proposal is to include in Sections N.4.1. and N.4.2. two new tables that harmonize test flow rates and 

draft sizes listed in Section 3.36. with that of the AWWA specification found in the AWWA M6 manual, Table 5.3. 

The two proposed tables are attached. 

Justification: Harmonize with AWWA standards and water meter manufacturers. 

When agencies use inadequate test draft quantities erroneous test results can be produced. These erroneous test 

results have and are continuing to have serious financial consequences to manufactures and distributors. 

The vast majority of utility-type water meters sold in the United States are designed to comply with ANSI/AWWA 

meter standards. Coupled with actual utility metering practices in the field, this results in meter designs sharing 

common meter reading resolution. These designs are quite different than those used for batching-type meters. 

For utility-type meters 1inch and smaller, meter registration test hands (proving indicators) have 

graduations with resolution down to 0.1 gallons or 0.01 cubic feet. For meters 11⁄2 inch and 2 inch, test hands have 

graduations with resolution down to 1.0 gallons or 0.1 cubic feet. In visually reading the test hand position relative 

to these graduations, resolution is limited to a range of roughly 1⁄3 or 1⁄2 of an individual graduation (at both the start 

of each test and at then at the end of each test). 

(N.3. and N.4. arguments) As a result, a test draft equal to only 50 graduations will result in large meter 

reading uncertainties (cumulative uncertainty range on the order of 1.2 % or worse). Compared to the accuracy 

tolerances for water meters, this level of reading uncertainty is unacceptable, and larger test drafts must be used. See 

AWWA M6 for examples of the larger test drafts that are required, given these reading resolution limitations. 

Reasons for: 

Additional 

Considerations:

S&T - B5 
S&T Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix B – Water Meter Manufacturers’ Proposed Changes to Developing Item Part 5, Item 3 Water Meters 

S&T - B6 

PROPOSAL

COMMITTEE: S&T Standing Committee

Priority Level: 3 Date: July 10, 2008 

Contact Person: Scott Swanson Telephone: (724) 430-4059 

Fax: (724) 439-7861 

Email: scott.swanson@sensus.com 

Jurisdiction: All NCWM Sections and derivative standards. 

Proposal: Amend Section S.1.1.3. in Handbook 44, Sec. 3.36. 

We propose that subsection (a) be amended and an additional subsection be added to S.1.1.3. Value of Smallest 

Unit. 

We propose that Section S.1.1.3. read as follows. 

S.1.1.3. Value of Smallest Unit. - The value of the smallest unit of indicated delivery and recorded delivery, if the 

device is equipped to record, shall not exceed the equivalent of: 

(a) 50 L (10 gal, 1 ft3

) on utility type meters, sizes 1 inch and smaller, or 

(b) 500 L (100 gal, 10 ft3

) on utility type meters, sizes 1.5 inch and 2 inch, or 

(c) 0.2 L (1/10 gal, 1/100 ft3

) on batching meters delivering less than 375 L/min (100 gal/min, 

13 ft3

/min), or 

(d) 5 L (1 gal, 1

/10 ft3) on batching meters delivering 375 L/min (100 gal/min, 13 ft3/min) or more. 

S.1.1.6. Proving indicator: Utility type meters shall be equipped with either a mechanical-type proving indicator, 

or a high-resolution digital proving indication. The individual graduations on a mechanical proving indicator shall 

indicate volumes no larger than 1

/100 of the value of the smallest unit of indicated delivery required in S.1.1.3. For 

digital proving indications, the smallest unit of volume displayed shall be no larger than 1/1000 of the value of the 

smallest unit of indicated delivery required in S.1.1.3. 

Justification: Harmonize with AWWA standards and water meter manufacturers. 

The vast majority of utility-type water meters sold in the United States are designed to comply with ANSI/AWWA 

meter standards. Coupled with actual utility metering practices in the field, this results in meter designs sharing 

common meter reading resolution. These designs are quite different than those used for batching-type meters. 

For utility-type meters 1inch and smaller, meter registration test hands (proving indicators) have 

graduations with resolution down to 0.1 gallons or 0.01 cubic feet. For meters 11⁄2 inch and 2 inch, test hands have 

graduations with resolution down to 1.0 gallons or 0.1 cubic feet. The smallest unit of indicated deliver is then given 

by one full revolution of the test hand (amounting to 100 graduations). 

Reasons for: 

Additional 

Considerations:
S&T Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix C – Jeff Humphrey’s Letter and Comments on Developing Item Part 5, Item 3 Water Meters 

Appendix C 

Jeff Humphrey’s Letter and Comments on Developing Item Part 5, Item 3 Water Meters 

September 2, 2008

TO: Steven Cook, NIST, Technical Advisor 

 Specifications and Tolerances Committee 

 National Conference on Weights and Measures 

FROM: Jeff Humphreys 

 Deputy Director – Weights and Measures Bureau 

SUBJECT: S&T Committee 2008 Report, Specifically Item 360-2, Part 5, Item 3: Water Meters 

This letter is intended to clarify comments made concerning water meter tolerances during the NCWM 2008 

meeting open hearing regarding a proposal to amend HB 44 Section 3.36 T.1. Appendix A, Part 5, Item 3, in 

the S&T Committee report describes a Developing Item proposal to either eliminate HB 44 repeatability 

requirements, or amend HB 44 Section 3.36, Tables N.4.1 and N.4.2. by increasing test draft sizes. We believe 

that the results of numerous water meter tolerance tests conducted on this Department’s test bench at our South 

Gate facility will show that the proposed increases in test draft sizes are unnecessary, and could result in 

substantial increases in costs to jurisdictions performing these tests. 

In the “Background/Discussion” section, the proponents argue that due to uncertainties associated with reading 

individual graduations, additional water volume is required to be run through the meters in order to obtain a 

fair test of their accuracy. In order to determine the truth to this claim, especially to the tests conducted at the 

minimum flow rate, the Department conducted tests at both the 5 gallon test draft size, and at the 10 gallon 

draft size for those 5/8” meters that failed to meet tolerance at 5 gallons. The accompanying chart 

summarizing our tests show that substantial numbers of multi-jet water meters that failed their 5 gallon slowflow tests continued to fail the 3% tolerance requirement when tested again at 10 gallons. 

The enclosed information also shows that very few positive displacement meters fail tolerance tests at any of 

the current HB 44 flow rates. The claim has been made that the tests as currently being conducted have 

seriously impacted meter sales for several water meter manufacturers. Our tests show that manufacturers of 

positive displacement meters should not be negatively impacted by being tested at the current established flow 

rates. 

The Department has received a large number of 5/8” meters for testing over the last several years. The 

proposed requirement to increase test draft sizes would substantially increase the amount of time necessary to 

test these meters at the three flow rates (from approx. 30 minutes to approx. 90 minutes). If evidence 

supported the necessity to conduct these tests, the Department would certainly adopt these larger draft sizes. 

We believe however, that the evidence shows that larger draft sizes are unnecessary. Such tests would increase 

costs to the Department, and these increased costs would ultimately have to be borne by all owners of water 

sub-meters. 

The proposal appears to be advanced by a manufacturer of multi-jet meters. Our suggestion to that 

manufacturer of these meters would be to look to improve the quality of their product. 

KEF:RKI:JNH:jh 

Enclosure 

S&T - C1 
S&T Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix C – Jeff Humphrey’s Letter and Comments on Developing Item Part 5, Item 3 Water Meters 

Water Meter Test Results 

January 2008 - June 2008 

Minimum Flow Rate (1⁄4 GPM) – 5 Gallon vs. 10 Gallon 

5/8 in Positive Displacement Meters

Minimum Rate Tolerances: 1.5 % Overregistration, 5 % Underregistration 

Failure Percentages 

5 Gallon 10 Gallon 

Meter #1 -13.0% -13.0% 

Meter #2 -6.6% -7.1% 

Meter #3 -83.6% -87.7% 

(“-” indicates underregistration, “+” indicates overregistration) 

*All three meters failed by underregistration on both 5 gallon and 10 gallon tests. 

S&T - C2 
S&T Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix C – Jeff Humphrey’s Letter and Comments on Developing Item Part 5, Item 3 Water Meters 

S&T - C3 

Water Meter Test Results 

January 2008 - July 2008 

Minimum Flow Rate (1⁄4 GPM) – 5 Gallon vs. 10 Gallon 

5/8” Multi-Jet Meters

Minimum Flow Rate Tolerances: 3 % Overregistration, 3 % Underregistration 

*Meters #3, #9, #10, #19, #21, #22, #23, #26, and #27 failed on the 5 gallon test and passed on the 10 gallon test. 

The rest of the meters failed both 5 gallon and 10 gallon tests. All meters except two (#21 and #27) were 

underregistering. 

Failure Percentages 

“-” indicates underregistration, “+” indicates overregistration 

 Error 5 gal Error 10 gal % Difference 

Meter #1 -3.78 % -3.38 % -0.40 % 

Meter #2 -3.92 % -3.30 % -0.62 % 

Meter #3 -3.06 % -2.98 % -0.08 % 

Meter #4 -3.80 % -3.71 % -0.09 % 

Meter #5 -3.44 % -3.47 % 0.03 % 

Meter #6 -4.28 % -3.73 % -0.55 % 

Meter #7 -4.80 % -4.28 % -0.52 % 

Meter #8 -5.20 % -4.60 % -0.60 % 

Meter #9 -3.54 % -3.00 % -0.54 % 

Meter #10 -3.30 % -2.49 % -0.81 % 

Meter #11 -4.48 % -3.49 % -0.99 % 

Meter #12 -3.88 % -4.08 % 0.20 % 

Meter #13 -3.32 % -3.26 % -0.06 % 

Meter #14 -7.34 % -5.87 % -1.47 % 

Meter #15 -4.10 % -3.13 % -0.97 % 

Meter #16 -4.38 % -3.61 % -0.77 % 

Meter #17 -6.34 % -5.57 % -0.77 % 

Meter #18 -4.78 % -4.05 % -0.73 % 

Meter #19 -3.50 % -2.73 % -0.77 % 

Meter #20 -4.34 % -3.65 % -0.69 % 

Meter #21 3.20 % 0.82 % 2.38 % 

Meter #22 -17.40 % -1.78 % -15.62 % 

Meter #23 -3.80 % -2.20 % -1.60 % 

Meter #24 -10.20 % -26.68 % 16.48 % 

Meter #25 -3.68 % -3.54 % -0.14 % 

Meter #26 -3.12 % -0.92 % -2.20 % 

Meter #27 3.60 % 0.81 % 2.79 % 

Meter #28 -7.68 % -12.95 % 5.27 % 

Average -4.45 % -4.32 % -0.14 % 

Std Dev 0.036461744 0.049867807 0.0460693 
WATER METER TEST RESULTS: JAN. >08 - JULY >08 

S&T – C4 

Meters failing tolerances within 

passed lots

Meters failing 

fail

Make Model Size Lots Meters Tested Meters Passed Min. Flow Int. Flow Max. Flow Total Fails Misc. Fails Min. Flow Int. Flow 

Arad 5/8” 1 2 0 Amco C-700 5/8” 16 183 174 9 9 Amco C-700 3/4” 3 22 22Amco C-700 1” 3 42 42Badger RCDL 25 5/8” 21 171 165 6 6 Kent C-700 5/8” 1 2 1 1 1 Neptune T-10 5/8” 65 749 655 26 9 1 42 

6 mech 

fails

4 

Master Meter 

USA 140_ F 

5/8” 

USG 

HOT 

51 875 765 5 4 8 19 2 11 

Master Meter MM3C 5/8” 3 39 26 Master Meter MM4 3/4” 3 28 23 1 Master Meter MM5C 

1” 

USG 

COLD 

12 337 262 5 6 53 1 

Master Meter FAM 

5/8” 

USG 

COLD 

29 575 466 3 15 21 17 

Master Meter FAM 3/4” 1 14 3 11 Performance PPD 5/8” 1 1 1
S&T 

– C5

PASSING RATES FOR METERS TESTED - JAN. >08 - JUL. >08 

Arad 

AmcoC

700 

5/8” 

AmcoC

700 

3/4” 

AmcoC

-700 

1” 

Badger 

RCDL25 

5/8” 

Kent 

C-700 

5/8” 

Neptune

T-10 

5/8” 

USA14

0_F 

5/8” 

Master 

Meter 

MM3C 

5/8” 

Master 

Meter 

MM4 

3/4” 

Master 

Meter 

MM5 

C1” 

USG 

Master 

Meter 

FAM 

5/8” USG 

% passed of total tested for each model 

0 95 100 100 96 50 87 87 67 82 78 81 

Lots passed 0 13 3 3 21 1 59 27 0 2 7 14 Lots failed 1 3 0 0 0 0 6 24 3 1 5 15 
S&T Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix C – Jeff Humphrey’s Letter and Comments on Developing Item Part 5, Item 3 Water Meters 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 

S&T - C6 
PDC 2008 Final Report 

Report of the Professional Development Committee (PDC) 

Agatha Shields, Chairman 

Franklin County Weights and Measures 

Columbus, Ohio 

Reference 

Key Number 

400 INTRODUCTION 

This is the report of the Professional Development Committee (hereinafter referred to as the “Committee” or PDC) 

for the 93rd Annual Meeting of the National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM). This report is based 

on the Interim Report offered in NCWM Publication 16, testimony heard at public hearings, comments received 

from the regional weights and measures associations and other parties, the addendum sheets issued at the Annual 

Meeting, and actions taken by the membership at the voting session of the Annual Meeting. The informational 

items presented below were adopted as presented when the Committee’s report was approved. 

Table A identifies the agenda items in the Report by Reference Key Number, Item Title, and Page Number. Item numbers 

are those assigned in the Interim Meeting agenda. A voting item is indicated with a “V” after the item number. An item 

marked with an “I” after the reference key number is an information item. An item marked with a “D” after the reference 

key number is a developing item. The developing designation indicates an item has merit; however, the item was returned 

to the submitter for further development before any action can be taken at the national level. Table B lists the appendices 

to the report. 

Table A 

Index to Reference Key Items

Reference 

Key Number Title of Item Page 

400 INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................................................1

401 EDUCATION ................................................................................................................................................2

401-1 I National Training Program (NTP)........................................................................................................2

401-2 I Create a Curriculum Plan .....................................................................................................................4

401-3 D Instructor Improvement ........................................................................................................................5

401-4 D Certification..........................................................................................................................................5

401-5 D Recommended Topics for Conference Training...................................................................................6

402 PROGRAM MANAGEMENT.....................................................................................................................7

402-1 I Safety Awareness .................................................................................................................................7 

402-2 D PDC Publication ...................................................................................................................................8

PDC - 1 
PDC 2008 Final Report 

Table B 

Appendices

Appendix Title Page 

A Strategic Direction for the Professional Development Committee......................................................................A1 

B Curriculum Package: Cover Memorandum........................................................................................................B1 

C Curriculum Package: NCWM Core Competency Model .................................................................................. C1 

D Curriculum Package: NCWM Curriculum Template .........................................................................................D1 

E Curriculum Package: NCWM Sample Curriculum ............................................................................................ E1 

F Curriculum Package: Guide for Developing Test Questions...............................................................................F1 

G Curriculum Package: National Training Curriculum Outline.............................................................................G1 

H Curriculum Package: NCWM Curriculum Work Plan .......................................................................................H1 

I Model Professional Development Training and Certification Standards Statute for Inspectors and Sealers of 

Weights and Measures (Legislative Model).................................................................................................. I1 

Table C 

Voting Results 

House of State Representatives House of Delegates Reference Key Number 

Yeas Nays Yeas Nays 

Results 

400 (Report in its 

Entirety Voice Vote) 0 0 0 0 Passed 

Details of All Items 

(In Order by Reference Key Number) 

401 EDUCATION 

401-1 I National Training Program (NTP) 

Source: Carryover Item 401-1 (This item originated from the Committee and first appeared on its agenda in 2003.) 

Background: For complete background information, see the PDC page of the NCWM website, 

http://www.ncwm.net/members. 

The Committee’s overall strategic direction is summarized in Appendix A. 

Discussion: The PDC encourages each regional association to dedicate a portion of their Annual Meeting to the 

National Training Program (NTP). 

During the 2008 Interim Meeting, the Committee discussed the WWMA’s suggestion to establish an action plan and 

timeline. The Committee has developed an NTP, Critical Component Analysis, which is an action plan of the 

components of the NTP. The Committee presents a draft of this document below. 

PDC - 2 
PDC 2008 Final Report 

National Conference on Weights and Measures 

National Training Program 

Critical Component Analysis 

DRAFT, February 21, 2008 

The Committee has begun a comprehensive effort to identify critical resources and tasks necessary for the 

project, and the logical sequence in which those tasks must be performed, including the possible use of 

parallel activities. 

Critical path analysis techniques were developed to manage complex projects just like the National 

Training Program. The Committee is planning to use those techniques to the extent possible to plan our 

future activities as we work toward a certification program. 

The Committee sees its task as one of managing four critical elements that come together as a certification 

program as depicted above. Each bubble in the figure represents a milestone that must be reached in order 

to complete the objective. Those four main elements are: 

Budget – involves tasks to secure necessary funding from the Board and other sources to undertake and 

complete all the other tasks. 

Engage Stakeholders – involves tasks necessary to identify stakeholders and the resources they can bring 

to the project, encourage them to participate at all levels, and particularly to incorporate the professional 

standards in their training programs and to eventually take part in the certification program. It should be 

noted that the stakeholders will be the ones doing the training and not the NCWM. The NCWM will only 

be coordinating the professional standards and administering the certifications. 

Manage Professional Standards – involves tasks necessary to create and manage a set of standards for the 

profession. The Committee has identified the professional standards, the first task that must be completed. 

The completion of the curriculum plan, the curriculum template and the guide to preparing curriculum 

segments and the guide to preparing test questions are some of those important steps. The work groups are 

now finalizing the first seven curriculum segments and corresponding test questions. This is a great start 

and there still is a significant amount of additional work necessary in this area. 

PDC - 3 
PDC 2008 Final Report 

Administer Certification – involves tasks necessary to create certification exams, administer those exams, 

and issue certifications to those who qualify. The Committee will manage staffing, both paid and 

volunteer, and physical resources to secure the exams and record and issue the certificates. 

As the necessary curriculum segments are completed and test questions prepared, we may begin to embark 

on some of the steps toward certification. Over the coming months, the Committee will continue to 

elaborate on the details in this project and keep refining it as we move forward. 

401-2 I Create a Curriculum Plan 

Source: Carryover Item 401-2 (This item originated from the Committee and first appeared on its agenda in 2003.) 

Background: For complete background information, see the PDC page of the NCWM website 

http://www.ncwm.net/members.

Discussion: Prior to the 2007 Annual Meeting, the Committee reviewed the curriculum segments submitted by the 

following regions: 

• SWMA, Class III and III L scales; 

• WWMA, Retail Motor-fuel Dispensers; 

• and NEWMA, Small Scales. 

At the 2007 Annual Meeting, the Committee decided, based on comments from several of the regions and its own 

assessment, it was essential to have a standardized format to ensure uniformity. Based on a collective review of 

curriculum plans received, the Committee created a sample template and example for regions to use in developing 

other curricula. The Committee updated its curriculum (Curriculum Package) to include the NCWM Core 

Competency Model (Appendix C), which provides a model for improving the quality of education in a select 

discipline. The Committee included this information as a general guideline for the regions to use as they develop 

other curriculum topics. In addition, the Committee revisited the original “National Training Curriculum Outline” 

from its 2004 NCWM Annual Report (Final Report). The Committee prepared an accompanying “NCWM 

PDC - 4 
PDC 2008 Final Report 

Curriculum Work Plan,” which is intended to assist in the management of curriculum development; this item is 

included in Appendix H. The Committee also revised the original curriculum outline to match the Work Plan. 

The Committee updated the Curriculum Package, and it is included in the following Appendices: 

• Cover Memorandum (guide to curriculum development) Appendix B 

• NCWM Core Competency Model Appendix C 

• NCWM Curriculum Template (curriculum guideline) Appendix D 

• NCWM Sample Curriculum (examples of desired format) Appendix E 

• Guide for Writing Test Questions (including examples) Appendix F 

• National Training Curriculum Outline Appendix G 

• NCWM Curriculum Work Plan Appendix H 

The Committee has received the following curriculum drafts: 

• 4.2 NIST Handbook 44 – Introduction to Device Control; 

• 4.3.1 Static Electronic Weighing Systems, General; 

• 4.3.5 Small Capacity Weighing Systems, Class III; 

• 4.3.7 Vehicle Class III or III L; 

• 4.4.1 Retail Motor Fuel Dispensers; and 

• 5.3.1 Commodities, General 

The Committee will return to the curriculum drafts received, along with the newly revised curriculum package to the 

development team in each region to make revisions based on the Committee’s recommendations. 

The Committee will also be requesting that each region set aside time for a presentation of the new Curriculum 

Package at their upcoming Annual or Interim Meeting. In addition, the Committee is requesting volunteers develop 

additional segments. The Committee acknowledges that the CWMA volunteered to sponsor the first training session 

on the use of the completed curriculum. 

401-3 D Instructor Improvement 

Source: Carryover Item 401-3 (This item originated from the Committee and first appeared on its agenda in 2003.) 

Background: For complete background information, see the PDC page of the NCWM website 

http://www.ncwm.net/members. 

Industry has continued to support and sponsor training on their new technology for weighing and measuring devices. 

NIST has assured the Committee they will continue their work towards providing technical training for the trainers. 

Discussion: The Committee supports the recommendation from the WWMA to encourage jurisdictions to 

participate in the NIST, WMD Instructor Training program as those classes become available. 

401-4 D Certification 

Source: Carryover Item 401-4 (This item originated from the Committee and first appeared on its agenda in 2003.)

Background: For complete background information, please see the PDC page of the NCWM website 

http://www.ncwm.net/members. 

Subsequent to the 2006 NCWM Annual Meeting, all states not previously contacted were sent a letter requesting the 

name of their State Certification Coordinator (SCC). The state director becomes the default SCC in the absence of a 

designated contact. The SCC contact list is posted on the PDC page of the NCWM website 

(http://www.ncwm.net/members). 

PDC - 5 
PDC 2008 Final Report 

Discussion: The Committee continues to hear support from the regions concerning the establishment of a 

certification program. 

The Committee has contacted the SCC of each state to gather information on its current training and certification 

programs. The Committee will be reviewing the Model Professional Development Training and Certification 

Standards Statute for Inspectors and Sealers of Weights and Measures (Appendix I) that was submitted by 

NEWMA. The Committee will study the sample with the possibility that it might ultimately be used to establish 

model criteria for a certification program. 

The Committee has included a Guide for Developing Test Questions (Appendix F) in the curriculum package 

referenced in Item 401-2. At the 2008 Interim Meeting, the Committee brought forth two options for building the 

bank of questions for certification. The first option was to build one large bank of questions developed for use in 

training and during the certification exam. The second option would be to develop two banks of questions using one 

bank of questions for training and the second bank of questions, which would be protected, for certification only. 

Recommendations during the open hearing included having jurisdictions take the lead on developing the questions, 

administering the examination, and grading. The NCWM would issue certificates based on the jurisdictions’ 

reported results. 

Pursuant to the recommendations from the WWMA and the CWMA, the Committee is in the process of developing 

the infrastructure of the program. The Committee believes that a model is necessary to determine what the program 

will look like and what the roles of the states and NCWM should be. 

401-5 D Recommended Topics for Conference Training 

Source: Carryover Item 401-5 (This item originated from the Committee and first appeared on its agenda in 2003.) 

Background: The Board has charged the Committee with responsibility for selecting appropriate topics for the 

technical sessions at future Annual Meetings. The Board asked that the Committee review and prioritize possible 

presentations and submit those to the Chairman. The Chairman would then work with NCWM staff to make the 

arrangements and schedule the sessions. 

The Committee continues to carry the following list and recommends these topics for possible training seminars, 

roundtables, or symposia for presentation at the NCWM meetings: 

(a) Risk-based Inspections (Robert Williams, Tennessee, volunteered to present his state’s Retain Motor-Fuel 

Device (RMFD) testing program); 

(b) Marketplace Surveys; 

(c) Auditing the Performance of Field Staff (Will Wotthlie, Maryland, volunteered to lead the session); 

(d) Alternative Fuels (including motor-fuel trends and technology updates); 

(e) Device Inspections Using a Sampling Model; 

(f) Emerging Issues; 

(g) Proper Lifting Techniques (recommended by Ken Deitzer, Pennsylvania); 

(h) Overview of OIML and its Relationship to Standards Development (recommended by Julie Quinn, 

Minnesota); 

(i) Back and Stress Techniques (recommended by Don Onwiler); 

(j) Public Relations, specifically dealing with aggressive/angry people (recommended by the SWMA); 

(k) Inspector Investigative Procedures (recommended by the SWMA), 

(l) General Safety Issues (recommended by the WWMA); 

(m) Defensive Driving (recommended by the WWMA); 

(n) Administrative Civil Penalty Process (recommended by the WWMA); 

(o) Price Verification (recommended by the WWMA); 

(p) Customer Service (recommended by the WWMA); 

(q) Ethics (recommended by the CWMA); 

(r) Automatic Temperature Compensation (ATC) testing for field inspectors; 

PDC - 6 
PDC 2008 Final Report 

(s) Hydrogen Measuring Systems; and 

(t) OSHA Safety. 

For the 2008 NCWM Annual Meeting Technical Education Sessions, the Committee recommends Automatic 

Temperature Compensation (ATC) testing for field inspectors and OSHA Safety. 

402 PROGRAM MANAGEMENT 

402-1 I Safety Awareness 

Source: Carryover Item 402-1 (This item originated from the Committee and first appeared on its agenda in 2003.) 

Background: In the past, the Committee’s responsibility extended to the identification of safety issues in the 

weights and measures field and included efforts to increase safety awareness. 

At the 2005 Annual Meeting, Past-Chairman Dennis Ehrhart recommended the committee make training its highest 

priority. The Voluntary Quality Assurance Assessment program, NCWM Associate Membership Scholarships, and 

safety awareness efforts were carryover items from the Committee on Administration and Public Affairs (A&P) and 

not PDC items. 

Jurisdictions should send their safety reports and issues to their regional safety liaison, who in turn will forward 

them to Charles Gardner, the NCWM Safety Coordinator. Charles recommends the reports or report summaries be 

published in the NCWM newsletter. At the 2005 Interim Meeting, a CD-ROM on safety produced for the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency was made available for review. The Committee believes safety awareness 

should be a part of every aspect of training for NCWM stakeholders. The regional safety liaisons are listed below. 

SWMA Steve Hadders, Florida Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services 

WWMA Dennis Ehrhart, Arizona Department of Weights & Measures 

CWMA Agatha Shields, Franklin County Weights & Measures 

NEWMA Michael Sikula, New York Bureau of Weights & Measures 

At the 2007 Interim Meeting, the Committee decided to reach out to the regional safety liaisons and ask that they 

write newsletter articles designed to raise safety awareness and provide safety tips to the weights and measures 

community. These archived articles are on the PDC page of the NCWM website. The NCWM newsletter is 

published three times a year and all articles should be e-mailed to the NCWM headquarters office, at 

ncwm@mgmtsol.com, by the deadline dates listed below. (Note: The NCWM e-mail address will change after 

October 1, 2008, to info@ncwm.net.) 

Association Issue Article Deadline 

WWMA 2008, Issue 2 March 15, 2008 

CWMA 2008, Issue 3 July 15, 2008 

NEWMA 2009, Issue 1 November 15, 2008 

SWMA 2009, Issue 2 March 15, 2009 

Discussion:

Southern Weights & Measures Association (SWMA): The SWMA PDC received a report involving static 

electricity while using a three 5 gal unit to return retail motor fuel to storage. An inspector pulled the delivery hose 

from a PVC storage tube, inserted the hose into the area of the return storage tank, and a flash fire from the static 

electricity occurred. The hose and the top of the return were on fire. 

The SWMA PDC recommends the following: 

1. replacing the PVC storage tubes with aluminum tubes; 

2. drilling several holes in the aluminum tube to vent the hose and tube; 

PDC - 7 
PDC 2008 Final Report 

3. connecting the delivery hose to the truck to ensure grounding before approaching the storage tank; 

4. holding annual safety meetings with staff to review safety and testing procedures; 

5. hands-on fire extinguisher training for inspectors with a fire marshal present; and 

6. eliminating all plastic materials (buckets, funnels) in fuel inspections. 

The SWMA PDC also received a report about a ruptured hose accident that occurred during a Liquefied Petroleum 

Gas (LPG) inspection. A company representative was present to help the inspector properly handle the safety 

issues. 

The SWMA PDC recommends the following: 

1. An attendant, company representative, or two people should be present during the testing of LPG, home 

heating oil, rack meters, and terminal meters for operational purposes. 

2. Safety and test procedures should be reviewed at annual staff meetings. 

The SWMA PDC encourages state and local programs to report safety incidents to Steve Hadder, the safety liaison, 

immediately so this information can be distributed to other agencies. Steve’s contact information is as follows: 

Steve Hadder Office: (850) 487-2634 

Division of Standards Fax: (850) 922-6655 

3125 Conner Boulevard E-mail: hadders@doacs.state.fl.us 

Field Operations, Bldg. 1 

Tallahassee, FL 32399-1650 

402-2 D PDC Publication 

As reported in Item 402-3 of the Committee’s 2007 Annual Report, the PDC also maintains a PDC document 

archive on the “members only” PDC page of the NCWM website at http://www.ncwm.net/members. This archive is 

intended to enable NCWM members to follow the history and work of the PDC. The website will continue to be 

updated as new documents are developed. The following listed documents are currently archived on the PDC page 

of the NCWM website for easy access and downloading as needed. 

History of the PDC 

Formal Scope of the PDC 

NCWM Board of Directors Charge to the PDC 

The PDC’s Role in the NCWM Strategic Plan 

The PDC’s Strategic Plan 

National Training Curriculum Outline 

Suggested Topics for the NCWM Annual Conference 

Standard Categories of Weighing and Measuring Devices (Adopted by the 92nd NCWM, July 2007) 

Safety Liaison Contact Information 

List of State Certification Coordinators and Contacts 

NCWM Issued Certification Program 

Voluntary Quality Assurance Assessment Program 

Curriculum Package (Guide for Creating a Curriculum) 

This item will be removed from the PDC agenda following the 2008 Annual Meeting. 

PDC - 8 
PDC 2008 Final Report 

_________________________ 

Agatha Shields, Chair, Franklin County, Ohio 

Ross Andersen, New York 

John Sullivan, Mississippi 

Stacy Carlsen, Marin County, California 

Tina Butcher, NIST, Weights and Measures Division 

Charles Gardner, New York, Safety Liaison 

Linda Bernetich, NCWM Staff Liaison 

Professional Development Committee 

PDC - 9 
PDC 2008 Final Report 

PDC - 10 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
PDC 2008 Final Report 

Appendix A – Strategic Direction for the PDC 

Appendix A 

Strategic Direction for the Professional Development Committee 

The Committee developed its strategic direction to define its roles and responsibilities to the NCWM and the 

weights and measures community. The Committee members wrote principles to guide them in their deliberations 

and defined four main areas to focus their efforts. The Committee recognizes that its direction and responsibilities 

may be changed by the Board of Directors. 

The guiding principles of the group are: 

• Keep things simple; 

• Develop programs that are realistic and achievable; 

• Minimize redundancy and administrative tasks; 

• Recognize that no one size fits all; and 

• Meet the needs of weights and measures officials, service companies, industry, and manufacturers. 

The four main areas for focusing their efforts are: 

National Training Program – The focus of the National Training Program (NTP) is to increase technical 

knowledge, strengthen credibility, and improve the professionalism of the individual weights and measures official. 

A strong NTP would promote uniformity across the nation. 

National Certification System – Develop a national certification system to recognize or accredit weights and 

measures programs as competent or capable. The program would include requirements around individual training, 

proper test standards, use of national handbooks, and a data gathering system. 

Conference Training Topics – The Committee would be the focal point for gathering and recommending 

workshops or symposia on leadership, management, and emerging issues to be presented during the Annual 

Meeting. These topics would provide a forum for the exchange of ideas and discussion of changes in the 

marketplace. 

Uniformity of Data – The Committee would develop standard categories for devices and inspection areas so that 

such things as the number of devices, compliance rates, frequency of inspection and other areas could be compiled 

and compared at the national level. These statistics could be used to benchmark organizations and to communicate 

the value of weights and measures to the public and to decision makers (see Item 402-4). 

PDC - A1 
PDC 2008 Final Report 

Appendix A – Strategic Direction for PDC 

PDC - A2 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
PDC 2008 Final Report 

Appendix B – Curriculum Package: Cover Memorandum 

Appendix B

Curriculum Package 

National Conference on Weights and Measures 

National Training Program 

COVER MEMORANDUM 

TO: Curriculum Development Volunteers 

FROM: NCWM Professional Development Committee (PDC) 

DATE: October 29, 2007 

RE: Development of Basic Level Curriculum 

Thank you for volunteering to work on the curriculum for a Basic Level Inspector. We define “basic” as 

the competency level required for the inspector to operate without direct supervision. In this work, we are 

moving to an outcome-based approach for setting educational standards and away from a textbook 

approach. The outcome approach is widely used in primary and secondary education and in the training 

of many professionals. Under this model we focus on the outcomes and use these to describe the 

organization and coverage of the training course. The course materials become a means to an end rather 

than the end itself. The approach encourages innovation and creativity because it does not limit the 

trainer to a specific textbook or course presentation. The outcomes and milestones in the curriculum also 

will directly drive the certification program. 

The curriculum lists the outcomes in terms of the specific knowledge and skills we expect the basic 

inspector to possess at the end of the training. Each outcome will be further defined by a set of 

milestones, or competencies, that specify the activities and tasks that will be used to measure the student’s 

mastery of the knowledge and skills (i.e., outcomes). The milestones must specify a single, clear 

objective, stating what the student will be able to do after the training. Milestones must be measurable 

and should lead to obvious test questions. Your task is to create the curriculum for a small segment of our 

profession. 

Since many groups will be working on selected pieces of the overall curriculum, the Committee has 

selected a format for the curriculum materials from the NCWM Core Competency Model based on work 

of the California Society of Certified Public Accountants (CACPA). In their publication, The California 

Core Competency Model for the First Course in Accounting, they provide a model accounting 

curriculum, a discussion of their methodology, and the rationale for using that methodology. Before 

beginning your work, we strongly recommend you read the short introduction to the NCWM Core 

Competency Model and if you would like a copy of the CACPA, we will be happy to send that to you as 

well. This common format will ensure that the pieces that get developed mesh together without extensive 

reformatting and editing. 

The Committee is also asking that you review the NCWM Sample Curriculum (Appendix E). These 

serve as a Weights and Measures example of the format we want to use and were prepared using the 

CACPA model. These segments also demonstrate the level of detail we want to see in the final product. 

As in the NCWM Core Competency model document, our goal is to set standards rather than create a 

“lesson plan.” 

PDC - B1 
PDC 2008 Final Report 

Appendix B – Curriculum Package: Cover Memorandum 

Please note the layered approach used in the small scale materials and how this limits redundancy in the 

curriculum. The first segment on general device inspection should be considered a prerequisite for the 

second segment on basic scales. Both are prerequisites for the segment on small capacity scales. The 

first segment is also a prerequisite for any other measuring device area. For some devices, like timing 

devices, only one layer below this first layer is necessary. For liquid measuring devices, we would expect 

there to be two layers, a general layer that applies to all dynamic volume measuring and then a number of 

specific disciplines below that. Above all of these is a much broader segment that will include state and 

local laws and regulations, administrative procedures, enforcement policies, etc that need not be included 

with each specific device segment. 

Your task will be to identify the outcomes and the milestones that are pertinent to the area of Weights and 

Measures you chose to work on. We suggest a process that involves the following steps: 

1. Brainstorm – Create a bullet list of knowledge and skills expected. Ask simple questions. What 

should the inspector know? What should the inspector understand? What should the inspector be 

able to do? 

2. Group the bullets to define a broad outcome. For a device segment consider groupings like; 

technology and terminology, classification and performance standards, markings and operational 

controls, technical requirements, user requirements, and test procedures. As a guideline, you 

should aim to have three to eight milestones under each outcome. 

3. Create a concise outcome statement for each outcome. See Outcomes and Competencies of the 

NCWM Core Competency Model document and Appendix E, NCWM Sample Curriculum. 

4. Group similar milestones to the extent practical into a broader category. For example, instead of 

listing expectations for use of zero, tare, units buttons, state a single expectation regarding typical 

controls on the device and consider listing specific controls parenthetically. 

5. Create a milestone statement, i.e. competency, using a verb from the list based on the levels of 

cognitive learning in Bloom’s Taxonomy in Inventory of Concrete Verbs from the NCWM Core 

Competency Model document. For the basic inspector we recommend you limit your milestones 

primarily to the first three levels, i.e. knowledge, understanding, and application. The higher 

levels of learning in Bloom’s Taxonomy, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation, typically require 

practical experience not expected in the basic inspector. 

In Bloom’s Taxonomy, 

• Knowledge refers to the ability to recall facts, terms, and basic concepts. 

• Understanding refers to the ability to interpret or explain concepts using your own words. 

• Application refers to the ability to put knowledge/understanding to practical use and 

demonstrate skills required to actually perform specific acts. 

As an added challenge to our work groups, we are asking you to draft sample test questions for your 

milestones. Please note that there is a tendency to focus only on knowledge in the typical multiple-choice 

question. Please try to also write questions that also evaluate understanding and require application of 

knowledge. For these you might want to consider putting the candidate in a situation and asking specific 

questions that require multiple steps to achieve an answer. In these cases fill-in-the-blank format may be 

superior to multiple choice. In addition to getting the answer, also consider asking the student to cite the 

specific code reference. 

As a curriculum segment draft is completed, the Committee will do a quick review and suggest editing for 

uniformity of format. When it is ready, we will circulate the draft for review and comment. The critical 

questions we will ask are: What is missing from this curriculum segment and what should be removed or 

PDC - B2 
PDC 2008 Final Report 

Appendix B – Curriculum Package: Cover Memorandum 

moved to another segment in another level? With this review process, we hope to build a consensus of 

agreement on the standards being set. The same would apply to sample questions. 

By using Appendix C, NCWM Competency Guide Model; Appendix D, NCWM Curriculum Template; 

Appendix E, NCWM Sample Curriculum, it should guide you through writing your curriculum so that the 

National Training Program will be uniform throughout all the courses. Appendix F, Guide for 

Developing Test Questions, will guide you through writing ten certification questions on the subject you 

have chosen. 

The Committee greatly appreciates your willingness to contribute to this project. Please send your 

comments or questions on the project to the current chair Agatha Shields at 

aashield@franklincountyohio.gov of the PDC committee with a carbon copy to Linda Bernetich at 

NCWM Inc., lbernetich@mgmtsol.com. Ross Andersen has agreed to help with questions about the 

format and the NCWM Core Competency model. Please contact him at ross.andersen@agmkt.state.ny.us

or by phone at 518-457-3146. 

PDC - B3 
PDC 2008 Final Report 

Appendix B – Curriculum Package: Cover Memorandum 

PDC - B4 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
PDC 2008 Final Report 

Appendix C – Curriculum Package: NCWM Core Competency Model 

Appendix C 

Curriculum Package

The National Conference on Weights and Measures 

National Training Program 

CORE COMPETENCY MODEL 

October 2007 

The National Conference on Weights and Measures Professional Development Committee is proud to present this 

NCWM Core Competency Model for use in creating the curriculum for the NCWM National Training Program. 

The idea for this model began with a grassroots movement of weights and measures educators who wanted to 

reverse a deteriorating articulation process for the modules in weights and measures. 

The model presented here is the result of efforts of PDC members and has made extensive use of the California 

Core Competency Model for the First Course in Accounting. That model was developed by the California Society 

of CPAs’ Committee on Accounting Education and was released in July 1995. 

The competency-based concept and format for the NCWM curriculum was taken almost verbatim from that work. 

The hours of time volunteered for this project is an impressive example of professional volunteerism at its best. 

Even more impressive is the fact that when conflicts arose, committee members searched for creative solutions that 

would meet the needs of more than one point of view. Clearly, weights and measures educators consistently 

subordinated their individual views of the course to the greater good—the long-run improvement of education. 

If you are a weights and measures educator, you are urged to share this model with your faculty and help improve 

weights and measures education. We hope this model will help you to facilitate your weights and measures training. 

THE MISSION OF THE PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE 

The mission of this Committee is to improve the quality of education. Since the state jurisdictions are such an 

integral part of the weights and measures education, our mission is to help prepare an outline for you to use in your 

endeavors. 

ACCOMPLISHING OUR MISSION

We have accomplished our mission by identifying expected student outcomes and core competencies as a basis for 

articulation agreements. The diversity of emerging instructional models for weights and measures has made the 

process of articulation very difficult. To reduce the severity of this problem requires a dramatic change in how 

course equivalencies between states are measured. It is proposed, therefore, that the basis for articulation 

agreements shift from the current textbook/topic approach to one that focuses on identifying desirable outcomes 

students should achieve and core competencies that measure their achievement. 

PDC - C1 
PDC 2008 Final Report 

Appendix C – Curriculum Package: NCWM Core Competency Model 

GENERAL PHILOSOPHY ABOUT HOW TO USE THIS MODEL 

Identifying outcomes and core competencies is an important step in the process of improving weights and measures 

education. How training officers help students master these outcomes and competencies and how they 

simultaneously measure student mastery are equally important tasks. 

Our intent is not to develop a “statewide lesson plan” for weights and measures. Instead, we want individual states 

to be creative in implementing the common set of outcomes and core competencies described in this model. 

Moreover, we hope each state program will develop a set of outcomes and special competencies that will reflect the 

unique perspective of its state and the special needs of its students. Thus, our philosophy encourages diversity. 

Although we want students to attain the educational objectives of the weights and measures training program, we do 

not expect them to attain these objectives in a prescribed manner. 

_________________________ 

Agatha Shields, Franklin County, Ohio (Chair) 

Kenneth Deitzler, Pennsylvania 

Ross Andersen, New York 

John Sullivan, Mississippi 

Stacy Carlsen, Marin County, California 

Dave Wankowski, Kraft Foods, Inc. (Associate Member Representative) 

Tina Butcher, NIST, Weights and Measures Division 

Linda Bernetich, NCWM Staff Liaison 

Professional Development Committee 

PDC - C2 
PDC 2008 Final Report 

Appendix C – Curriculum Package: NCWM Core Competency Model 

MILESTONES FOR IMPLEMENTING COMPETENCY-BASED ARTICULATION 

The intent of the Committee on Accounting Education is to promote the widespread acceptance of essential student 

outcomes and competencies, while encouraging individual programs to implement these outcomes and competencies 

in ways that best suit their own students. The following milestones are used to evaluate progress in implementing 

this competency-based articulation system: 

MILESTONE 1: Derive expected student outcomes (knowledge and skills). 

MILESTONE 2: Create core competencies (activities expressed in behavioral terms) that are logically derived 

from the expected student outcomes. 

MILESTONE 3: Promote a competency-based articulation approach by conducting workshops for interested 

faculty on how to implement and assess core competencies. 

MILESTONE 4: Establish acceptance of a single set of outcomes and core competencies. 

OUTCOMES AND COMPETENCIES

HOW DO YOU DISTINGUISH AN OUTCOME FROM A COMPETENCY? 

An outcome is “what” you expect your students to achieve, whereas a competency demonstrates “how” your 

students can achieve that outcome. Think of an outcome as an end and a competency as a means to that end. 

Outcomes are the knowledge and skills recommended. Competencies are the specific activities used to measure a 

student’s mastery of the knowledge/skills or outcomes. 

The outcome/competency approach is different from the traditional textbook/topic approach to accounting 

instruction. First, the choice of a textbook no longer dictates the organization and coverage of the course. Instead, 

the outcomes and competencies become the driver and the textbook becomes the vehicle. A related difference is 

that the course is driven by an output measure (outcomes/competencies) rather than an input measure 

(textbook/topics). Finally, students more clearly know the content they are expected to study and the precise 

activities they must perform on examinations and other forms of evaluation by studying the outcome/competency 

pairings and working problems that reflect them. 

CHARACTERISTICS OF WELL-CONSTRUCTED COMPETENCIES

A well-constructed behavioral learning objective or competency has the following characteristics: 

• it expresses one objective; 

• it is specific; 

• it states what the student will be able to do after the learning experience; and 

• it uses a concrete verb to specify the desired activity that must be performed by the student to demonstrate 

competency. 

PDC - C3 
PDC 2008 Final Report 

Appendix C – Curriculum Package: NCWM Core Competency Model 

PDC - C4 

INVENTORY OF CONCRETE VERBS DENOTING ACTION TAKEN IN COMPETENCIES 

The following suggested verbs are arranged in the six cognitive domains identified in Bloom's Taxonomy. 

1. Knowledge 2. Comprehension 3. Application 

arrange 

define 

duplicate 

label 

list 

memorize 

name 

order 

recognize 

relate 

recall 

repeat 

reproduce 

classify 

describe 

discuss 

explain 

express 

identify 

indicate 

locate 

record 

report 

restate 

review 

select 

tell 

translate 

apply 

choose 

demonstrate 

dramatize 

employ 

engage 

illustrate 

interpret 

operate 

practice 

schedule 

sketch 

solve 

transfer 

use 

4. Analysis 5. Synthesis 6. Evaluation 

analyze 

appraise 

calculate 

categorize 

compare 

contrast 

convert 

criticize 

diagram 

differentiate 

discriminate 

distinguish 

examine 

experiment 

inventory 

question 

test 

arrange 

assemble 

collect 

compose 

construct 

create 

design 

formulate 

justify 

manage 

organize 

plan 

prepare 

present 

propose 

setup 

suggest 

summarize 

write 

appraise 

argue 

assess 

attach 

choose 

compare 

debate 

defend 

estimate 

evaluate 

judge 

predict 

rate 

score 

select 

support 

value 

The model is a “living document.” It will be re-evaluated annually to consider the evolving content. 
PDC 2008 Final Report 

Appendix D – Curriculum Package: NCWM Guide for Developing Curriculum Segments 

Appendix D 

Curriculum Package

The National Conference on Weights and Measures 

National Training Program 

GUIDE FOR DEVELOPING CURRICULUM SEGMENTS 

Prepared by the NCWM Professional Development Committee 

First Draft – October 2007 

This guide was prepared to assist those work groups preparing segments for the National Training Program 

Curriculum. Each curriculum segment represents a small portion of the standards for educating our weights and 

measures professionals. The Committee is recommending a standard format be used as described below. 

The curriculum will cover the broad range of knowledge included in the field of weights and measures. It is 

organized in a hierarchy of segments ranging from broad topics with general information at level one to narrow 

topics with highly specific information at level three. These segments will be combined to provide the standards for 

educating our professionals. It is critical to understand that a curriculum is not a lesson plan for the trainer. Rather 

it is an organized set of objectives and measurable milestones that can be used to verify that the trainer has covered 

the subject. Since the curriculum is concerned with outcomes rather than input, the trainer must use the objectives 

and milestones in preparing the lesson plan for training. 

Curriculum Segment Format:

• Segment Number and Title 

• Overview and Scope 

• Prerequisite Segments 

• Objectives and Competencies 

Segment Number and Title 

Obtain these directly from the Curriculum Plan with the numbers and titles assigned by the Professional 

Development Committee. Please include a revision date under the title. 

Overview and Scope 

Provide a brief narrative overview and description of the scope of the segment. This should generally be a short 

paragraph of only a few of sentences. 

Prerequisite Segments

List the segment number and title of any prerequisite segments that should be mastered before undertaking the 

material in this segment. Generally, this will remain within one of the four main topic areas in the curriculum. 

When covering device inspection topics, do not include prerequisite segments Weights and Measures General, 

Metrology, or Market Practices areas. 

Objectives and Competencies 

A curriculum segment will typically have multiple objectives, each with two to perhaps ten measurable 

competencies, sometimes called milestones. If the number of competencies exceeds ten, it is best to break the 

objective into two or more objectives. 

The objective statement should follow the guidelines in the NCWM Core Competency Model. A given category or 

area may require more than one objective and associated competencies. Well-constructed objective statements 

should express a single, specific objective. For consistency, the Committee asks that objectives generally be ordered 

following the table below. The order is to provide a consistent feel to the curriculum. Depending on the needs of 

PDC - D1 
PDC 2008 Final Report 

Appendix D – Curriculum Package: NCWM Guide for Developing Curriculum Segments 

PDC - D2 

the particular segment, any one or more categories from this chart may not apply. Following the objective statement 

add a lead-in to the bulleted competencies such as, “To demonstrate this, the inspector can:”. 

The competencies or milestones should represent measurable actions that demonstrate a mastery of one aspect of the 

objective. For base level inspectors, each competency begins with an action verb from the NCWM Core 

Competency Model beginning with the cognitive levels of knowledge, understanding, or application. As the 

curriculum is expanded to journeyman and advanced levels, additional cognitive levels of analysis, integration and 

evaluation may be added. Please present the competencies in bullets. 

Device Segment Category Purpose 

Technology and Terminology 

These sections should set standards for knowledge of the 

technology used in this area of responsibility and understanding of 

the common terms used to communicate effectively. 

Device Operations and Functionality These sections should set standards for knowledge of metrologically 

significant operations and features of the items under inspection. 

Technical Requirements – Inspection 

These sections should set standards for understanding of the 

technical requirements (specifications) for a device or commodity 

and for the ability to conduct inspection to verify conformance. 

User Requirements – Inspection 

These sections should set standards for understanding of the 

requirements incumbent on a device or commodity user and for the 

ability to conduct inspection to verify conformance. 

Test Methods 

These sections should set standards for understanding of the 

physical test procedures used to verify device or commodity 

performance and for the ability to conduct these tests. 

For assistance in working with this template, please contact the current Chair of the Professional Development 

Committee. A sample curriculum segment following this template is also available from the Committee. 
PDC 2008 Final Report 

Appendix E – Curriculum Package: NCWM Sample Curriculum Package 

Appendix E 

Curriculum Package

The National Conference on Weights and Measures 

National Training Program Curriculum 

Segment 3.1.1. Static Electronic Weighing Systems, General 

Revised: October 31, 2007 

Overview

This segment sets standards for knowledge, understanding, and performance required for inspection and testing of 

static electronic scales. This segment will cover a wide range of information that is generic and applicable to many 

different static scale applications. 

Prerequisites

3.0. Introduction to Device Control 

3.0.a Safety Considerations 

3.1. Weighing Technologies and Terminology, General 

Objectives and Competencies

1. Technology of Weighing Systems

A weights and measures inspector should understand the method of operation and the primary technologies 

used in typical electronic weighing systems. To demonstrate this, the inspector can: 

• Restate that scales measure the weight of material resulting primarily from the force exerted by gravity on 

the material on the scale. 

• Restate that weight on a scale is a close approximation of the mass of the material on the scale in reference 

to reference standards used when the device is calibrated; hence, scale units are in units of mass, e.g., lb or 

kg. 

• Describe the basic components of a weighing system: load receiver, load sensor, indicator, and peripherals 

like printers and computers. 

• Describe the principle of operation of strain gage load cell scale technologies from the load sensors, to 

A to D converters, to computer-based processors, to indicators/printers. 

• Explain that the digital division for a typical system is defined by the two zones of uncertainty (break 

points) at approximately +1⁄2 d and –1⁄2 d. 

• Restate that digital scale components can be packaged in multiple ways involving separate discrete 

elements (OIML: modules). 

• Define common terms used with regard to electronic weighing systems. 

2. Classes, Tolerances and Performance Requirements for Scales with a Class Mark

A weights and measures inspector should understand the classification system for static scales and be able to 

apply the performance standards under each class. To demonstrate this, the inspector can: 

• Explain how the basic tolerances, repeatability tolerances, agreement requirements, and General Code 

abnormal performance requirements all work together to specify limits to deviations in scale performance. 

• Describe how the concepts of accuracy, repeatability, linearity and hysteresis relate to scale performance. 

• Describe the organization of accuracy classes for marked scales as specified in Table 3. 

• Explain how scale class is related to typical application in Table 7a in the Scales Code. 

• Appraise whether a scale conforms to the class declared by the manufacturer. 

• Compute tolerances for any class marked scale as per Table 6 of the Scales Code. 

PDC - E1 
PDC 2008 Final Report 

Appendix E – Curriculum Package: NCWM Sample Curriculum Package 

• Illustrate how to find either the acceptance or maintenance tolerance for any load on a scale given the scale 

class, capacity and division size. 

• Illustrate how repeatability requirements apply to static scales. 

3. Scale Markings and Operations

A weights and measures inspector should understand the various marking requirements applicable to a static 

scale and demonstrate ability to operate a static scale. To demonstrate this, the inspector can: 

• Recognize and interpret required identification markings on a scale as per Table S.6.3. 

• Recognize and interpret required markings on the controls, indications and features of a scale. 

• Demonstrate how to operate the following functions/operations on a typical scale. 

- Power on/off 

- Zero 

- Tare (both platter and keyboard tare) and Tare Clear – if scale has a tare function 

- Units selector – if scale indicates in more than one unit 

• Recognize and interpret the information displayed on a scale, including: 

- Gross, Net, and Tare weight indications 

- Center of Zero, Motion, pricing displays, and others 

- Underload/Overload error conditions 

4. Technical Requirements

A weights and measures inspector should be able to apply the various technical requirements to a static scale 

and cite the applicable code reference for a deficiency. To demonstrate this, the inspector can: 

• Apply the technical specifications relating to the following scale features/indications and cite the HB 44 

Code paragraph. 

- Zero-load indications, zero-setting operations, and automatic zero setting (zero tracking) 

- Digital scale divisions and limit of indication 

- Level indication for portable scales 

- Motion detection requirements – zero, tare, printing, etc. 

- Design requirements for weighing elements 

• Interpret the rules for matching weighing elements to indicating elements (modules). 

5. User Requirements

A weights and measures inspector should be able to apply the various user requirements applicable to a static 

scale and cite the applicable code reference for a deficiency. To demonstrate this, the inspector can: 

• Assess suitability of a class marked scale for a given application, considering design, class, application and 

typical load in Tables 7a. and 8. 

• Evaluate compliance of a scale with scale installation requirements in UR.2. 

• Evaluate compliance of a scale with general use requirements in UR.3. (Subsections 3.1., 3.2., 3.3., 

and 3.5.) 

• Evaluate compliance of a scale with maintenance requirements in UR.4. 

6. Basic Test Procedures 

A weights and measures inspector should be able to apply the appropriate performance tests to a static scale and 

evaluate compliance with the applicable tolerances and performance standards. To demonstrate this, the 

inspector can: 

• Demonstrate how to properly use test weights and care for them when not in use. 

• Determine minimum amounts of standards required for testing a given scale. 

• Select appropriate test loads for an Increasing Load Test for a given scale, perform the test, and evaluate 

the test results for compliance with applicable tolerances. 

• Select appropriate test loads for a Decreasing Load Test for a given scale, perform the test, and evaluate the 

test results for compliance with applicable tolerances. 

• Select appropriate test loads for a Shift Test (eccentric loading) for a given scale, perform the test, and 

evaluate the test results for compliance with applicable tolerances and agreement requirements. 

• Discuss appropriate times to perform a Discrimination Test or a Repeatability Test. 

PDC - E2 
PDC 2008 Final Report 

Appendix E – Curriculum Package: NCWM Sample Curriculum Package 

• Select appropriate test loads for a Discrimination Test for a given scale, perform the test, and evaluate the 

test results for compliance with the applicable standards. 

• Select appropriate test loads for a Repeatability Test for a given scale, perform the test, and evaluate the 

test results for compliance with applicable tolerances and agreement requirements. 

PDC - E3 
PDC 2008 Final Report 

Appendix E – Curriculum Package: NCWM Sample Curriculum Package 

PDC - E4 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
PDC 2008 Final Report 

Appendix F – Curriculum Package: Guide for Developing Test Questions 

Appendix F 

Curriculum Package

The National Conference on Weights and Measures 

National Training Program 

GUIDE FOR DEVELOPING TEST QUESTIONS 

Prepared by the NCWM Professional Development Committee 

First Draft – January 2007 

This guide was prepared to assist those work groups preparing curriculum materials as they prepare test questions. 

These test questions will be used both as aids to training delivery and also as a measuring stick in any future 

certification effort. If the certification program is to have credibility, it is vital that the test questions adequately 

evaluate that the student has achieved the multiple milestones in each curriculum area. 

As you write your questions, please remember that we have set the bar at a level of application, the third in Bloom’s 

Taxonomy. Thus, we expect the trainee will KNOW certain things, UNDERSTAND other things, and be able to 

APPLY the remainder. We are not looking for higher learning levels in Bloom’s Taxonomy for basic inspectors and 

we will not be testing for analysis, integration, or evaluation. 

Testing for Knowledge – A test question for knowledge is usually in the form of a true/false, multiple choice, or fillin-the-blank question. At this point, the Committee is suggesting that developers focus on multiple choice and fillin-the-blank questions, such as questions 1 and 2 below. With true/false, the person has a 50-50 chance of guessing 

and getting the right answer. Please note that at this level the trainee need only demonstrate that he/she knows the 

information and not necessarily that he/she understands it or can apply it. 

1. Which statement best describes the legal standing of NIST Handbook 44? (Answer: B) 

A. Handbook 44 is a federal regulation published by the National Institute of Standards and Technology that 

preempts the states. 

B. Handbook 44 is adopted either by act of the state legislature or through promulgation in regulation by the 

state. 

C. Handbook 44 is amended each year and all states agree to abide by the actions of the National Conference 

on Weights and Measures. 

D. Handbook 44 is adopted as part of the administrative policy by order of the state director. 

2. A paragraph beginning with “S.” in any of the NIST Handbook 44 Codes is a ______________________. 

(Answer: Specification) 

Testing for Understanding – A test question for understanding is usually a multiple-choice question, such as 

questions 3 and 4 below. Questions concerning understanding often ask the trainee to pick the best response in 

situations where more than one answer could be correct in some respect. For example, in Question 3, answer B 

could be a correct answer if the equipment was manufactured after the effective date. Answer C is a better answer 

since it is more specific and also includes items brought into the state after the effective date. Please note for 

understanding the trainee needs to demonstrate that he/she knows and understands the information and not 

necessarily that he/she can apply it. 

PDC - F1 
PDC 2008 Final Report 

Appendix F – Curriculum Package: Guide for Developing Test Questions 

3. A nonretroactive requirement is best described by which of the following statements? (Answer: C)

A. A nonretroactive requirement is enforceable on all equipment up to the terminal date. 

B. A nonretroactive requirement is enforceable only on new equipment after the effective date. 

C. A nonretroactive requirement is enforceable on equipment manufactured after the effective date or brought 

into the state after the effective date. 

D. A nonretroactive requirement is enforceable on equipment with an NTEP Certificate granted after the 

effective date. 

4. Which of the following best describes the difference between “d” and “e” in the Scales Code? 

(Answer: D)

A. The value of “e” is always displayed while “d” may or may not be. 

B. The value of “d” is always smaller than or equal to “e”. 

C. The display of values for “d” must always be different in size or character from “e”. 

D. When “d” does not equal “e”, the tolerances are applied to the value of “e”. 

Testing for Application – A test question for application should be either be a multiple-choice question or a “Yes/No 

with reason” question, such as questions 5 and 6 below. Questions concerning application will usually require the 

trainee to perform multiple steps to reach the correct answer. In the field, they will not be guided to the correct 

section of the handbook, but will have to find it based on their knowledge and experience. For example, the 

question may provide information about the situation and some test results. The trainee must then decide whether to 

apply maintenance or acceptance tolerances and then evaluate the test results against the appropriate tolerances for 

that test. In question 5 below, the person must see that the scale is subject to the non-retroactive requirement in 

Scales Code S.1.7.(b) and then correctly deduce that the only correct response is an overload error. The Yes/No 

with reason question (question 6) also requires several steps but goes further in that it also requires the trainee to 

state the nature of any violation and cite the section of the Handbook that is violated. This is critical as this reason 

and citation would have to be indicated on any official stop-use order issued for the violation. Please note that the 

trainee needs to demonstrate that he/she knows, understands, and can apply the requirements. 

5. You are inspecting a new price-computing sale (30 x 0.01 lb) in a deli that was placed in service last week. 

It has an NTEP CC # 99-205. You place a 1 lb weight on the scale and press the tare key. You then 

place an additional 29.2 lb of test weights on the scale. Which of the following is an acceptable indication 

for this test load? (Answer: A)

A. Overload error 

B. 29.24 lb 

C. 29.18 lb 

D. 29.16 lb 

6. You are inspecting the scale at right and find that it has 

no zero tracking. With the scale at zero as indicated, you add 

0.1 d (0.002 lb) to the platform and the scale indicates a stable 

0.02 lb. Is this acceptable? 

Yes or No (No must include reason and citation)

________________________________________

Answer: No – The digital zero indication must be maintained accurate within + 1⁄4 d of true zero or the scale must 

have a center zero indicator. Scales Code S.1.1.1. 

Initially the Committee is looking to build a bank of test questions that evaluate if the trainee has reached the 

milestones in each curriculum segment and cover a range of difficulty. Any exam that is prepared will include a mix 

of questions at each appropriate level in Bloom’s Taxonomy from the curriculum, and varying levels of difficulty 

from easy to challenging. In that way, the test can be fair yet still differentiate those who really have mastered the 

discipline from those who haven’t. 

PDC - F2 
PDC 2008 Final Report 

Appendix F – Curriculum Package: Guide for Developing Test Questions 

After the questions are prepared and tested (testing method to be developed), the Committee would then split the 

questions into two groups. The first group, called “sample questions,” would be widely circulated for use in training 

programs. Instructors could use the sample questions in their training or as part of quizzes or final exams to measure 

effectiveness of the training. Most important, trainees would be exposed to the kinds of questions and the range of 

difficulty that would be included in a certification exam. 

The second group of questions would be secured for use in a certification exam program. The Committee envisions 

charging some group to administer the certification exam and assist in the grading. That group would also create 

alternative exams or periodically change the questions so the exam is not the same for candidates that fail to pass the 

first time. Please look to set the bar so it is fair yet represents the high level of ability you want working for you. 

A long journey begins with one step. We are counting on our curriculum development teams to start generating our 

bank of test questions (with an answer key) based on the milestones they choose in the curriculum segment(s) they 

are preparing. If we work together to create a good range of difficulty in those questions, we can be well on our way 

toward that certification program we want. There is plenty of room for creativity in this effort, including the use of 

graphics and photographs. 

Thanks again for your willingness to contribute. Please call or e-mail Ross Andersen, New York, with questions or 

comments at (518) 457-3146 or ross.andersen@agmkt.state.ny.us. 

PDC - F3 
PDC 2008 Final Report 

Appendix F – Curriculum Package: Guide for Developing Test Questions 

PDC - F4 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
PDC 2008 Final Report 

Appendix G – Curriculum Package: National Training Curriculum Outline 

Appendix G

Curriculum Package 

National Conference on Weights and Measures 

NATIONAL TRAINING CURRICULUM OUTLINE 

Revised November 2007 

1.0 

Fundamentals of 

Weights & 

Measures 

2.0 

Weights & 

Measures 

Administration

3.0 

Laboratory 

Metrology

4.0 

Device Control 

Program 

5.0 

Market Practices, 

Laws and 

Regulations (NIST 

HB 130), & 

Commodities 

(NIST HB 133) 

1.1 Introduction to 

W&M Programs 

2.1 Fundamentals of 

W&M 

Administration 

3.1 NIST Basic 

Metrology 

4.1 Safety Consideration – 

Device Control 

5.1 Safety Considerations – 

Market Practices 

1.2 W&M Laws & 

Regulations 

2.2 Administration 

Functions 

3.2 NIST 

Advanced 

Metrology 

4.2 NIST 

Handbook 44 – 

Introduction to 

Device Control 

5.2 NIST 

Handbook 130 – 

Laws & 

Regulations 

1.3 Field Standards 

& Test 

Equipment 

2.3 Legislation & Regulations 4.3 Weighing Systems – General 

5.3 NIST 

Handbook 133 - 

Package Net 

Contents Control 

1.4 State Program Scope & 

Overview 

2.4 Regulatory Control 

4.4 Dynamic Measuring 

Systems – General 

5.4 Test Purchases 

2.5 Laboratory Metrology 

Administration

4.5 Static Volume 

Measuring 

Systems – General 

5.5 E-Commerce 

2.6 Public Relations & 

Communications 4.6 Other Measuring Systems 

4.7 Quality Measuring 

1.0 

Fundamentals of Weights & Measures 

1.1 Introduction to 

W&M Programs • History 

• Need for W&M 

• Roles in Society 

• Official Powers & Duties 

• System of W&M 

• Associations 

- Regional, State, Federal 

• Federal Agencies

• Relationship to National & 

International W&M 

• W&M in U.S. & Your State

1.2 W&M Laws & 

Regulations • Relationship to National & 

International W&M

1.3 Field Standards & 

Test Equipment • Field Standards 

• Test Equipment 

• Metrology Laboratory 

1.4 State Program 

Scope & 

Overview • State Laws 

• State Administrative 

Issues 

- Completion of 

administrative forms 

- Review of rules and 

policies 

PDC - G1 
PDC 2008 Final Report 

Appendix G – Curriculum Package: National Training Curriculum Outline 

2.0 

Weights & Measures 

Administration 

2.1 Fundamentals of W&M 

Administration • Understanding the Commercial 

Measurement System • Complete Scope of Weights & 

Measures Inspections 

• Responsibilities of W&M 

Regulatory Official 

- Consumer Protection 

- Fair Competition 

- Facilitating Value 

Comparisons 

• Powers & Duties of Officials 

- Weighmaster Considerations 

• Organizational Structure 

• Funding Considerations 

- Licensing of W&M Devices 

- Licensing of Service 

Agencies 

- Conflicts of Interest 

• Roles of Stakeholders 

- Manufacturers 

- Packagers 

- Retailers 

- Service Agencies 

• Economic Impact 

• Strategic Planning & Goals

2.3 Legislation & 

Regulations • Legal Considerations 

- Due Process - Stop Orders - Standards Development 

- Prosecution 

- Court 

• Concurrent Federal & State 

Jurisdiction • Federal Pre-emption 

• Interaction with Legislature, 

Stakeholders, Industry

2.5 Laboratory Metrology 

Administration • Purpose of the Laboratory • Responsibilities of the 

Metrologist • NIST Expectations of the 

Laboratory 

• Rationale for the 

Requirements for Recognition 

of the Laboratory • Important Considerations for 

Laboratory Operation 

• Factors Driving Changes in 

Laboratory Requirements 

• Quality System 

• NVLAP Accreditation 

• Hierarchy of Laboratory 

Standards 

• Calibration Intervals for All 

Standards 

• Annual RMAP Round Robins 

& Training 

• Laboratory Facility 

Requirements 

• Uncertainty Analysis 

• Management Review of 

Laboratory Operations 

2.2 Administration Functions 

• Personnel

- Knowledge, Skills & Abilities 

- Training 

• Management • Strategic Planning & Goals 

• Budget 

• Organizational Structure 

• Education 

- Officials 

- Administrative Staff 

- Public • Safety

2.4 Regulatory Control 

• Device Inspection 

• Type Evaluation, Initial 

Verification & Subsequent 

Inspection • Commodity Inspection 

• Economic Impact 

• Complaints 

• Record Keeping 

• Forms 

2.6 Public Relations & 

Communications • Publicity 

• Public Relations 

• Communication

PDC - G2 
PDC 2008 Final Report 

Appendix G – Curriculum Package: National Training Curriculum Outline 

3.0 

Laboratory Metrology 

Concepts – Basic • Introduction 

• Statistics 

• Uncertainty 

• Measurement Assurance 

• Standard Operating Procedures 

- Mass 

- Volume 

• Calibration 

• Calculations • Traceability

Concepts – Advanced • Program Philosophy 

• New Technology 

• Calibration Design Concepts 

• Computerized Workshops 

• Statistics for Quality 

- t-tests 

- F-tests 

• Workshop on Errors 

• Advanced Uncertainties 

• Software Workshop Integration of 

Advanced Concepts

PDC - G3 
PDC 2008 Final Report 

Appendix G – Curriculum Package: National Training Curriculum Outline 

4.0 

Device Control Program 

4.1 Safety Considerations 

4.2 NIST Handbook 44 – 

Introduction to Device 

Control • Terminology • NIST Handbook 44 • Fundamental Considerations 

• Uncertainty 

• Safety 

• Support Equipment 

• Seals 

• Supports 

• General Enforcement Guidelines

4.3 Weighing Systems – General • Terminology 

• Scale Types 

• Technology 

• Suitability 

• User Requirements 

• Operation/Markings 

• Scale Classes & Tolerances 

• Basic Scale Test Procedures 

• Basic Inspection

4.4 Dynamic Measuring 

Systems – General • Terminology 

• Measuring Device Types 

• Technology 

• Suitability 

• User Requirements 

• Operation & Markings 

• Tolerances • Basic LMD Tests 

• Basic LMD Inspections

Weighing Device General Points: 

• Common Traits 

• Contents of EPO 

- Examination Specifications 

- User Requirements 

- Suitability 

- Test Equipment 

- Examination, Installation, & 

Maintenance 

- Test Specifications 

- Evaluation 

• Field/Practical Exercises

Measuring Systems 

General Points: 

• Terminology 

• Measuring Device Types 

• Technology 

• Suitability 

• User Requirements 

• Operation & Markings 

• Tolerances for LMDs 

• Basic LMD Test 

• Basic LMD Inspections

4.3.1 Static Electronic Weighing 

Systems, General 

4.3.2 Static Mechanical and Hybrid 

Weighing Systems, General 

4.3.3 Dynamic Weighing Systems, 

General 

4.3.4 Precision Weighing Systems 

Class I and II 

4.3.5 Small Capacity Weighing 

Systems Class III 

4.3.6 Medium Capacity Weighing 

Systems Class III 

4.3.7 Vehicle Scale Class III or III L 

4.3.8 Vehicle Scale Class III or III L – 

Advanced 

4.3.9 Railroad Track Scales 

4.3.10 In-Motion Railroad Track Scales 

4.3.11 Hopper Scale Systems 

4.3.12 Automatic Bulk Weighing 

Systems 

4.3.13 Automatic Weighing Systems 

4.3.14Belt Conveyor Weighing 

Systems 

4.3.15 In-Motion Monorail Scales 

4.3.16 Point-of-Sale Scale Systems 

4.3.17 Other Specialty Weighing 

Systems 

4.4.1 Retail Motor Fuel 

Dispensers 

4.4.2 Loading Rack and 

Other Stationary 

Metering Systems 

4.4.3 Loading Rack & Other 

Stationary Metering 

Systems – Advanced 

4.4.4 Vehicle-Tank Meter 

Systems 

4.4.5 Vehicle-Tank Meter 

Systems – Advanced 

4.4.6 Milk Metering 

Systems 

4.4.7 Water Meters 

4.4.8 LPG/Anhydrous 

Ammonia Liquid 

Metering Systems 

4.4.9 LPG/Anhydrous 

Ammonia LiquidMetering Systems – 

Advanced 

4.4.10 LPG Vapor Meter 

Systems 

4.4.11 Mass Flow Metering 

Systems 

4.4.12 Other Metering 

Systems (Cryogenics, 

Carbon Dioxide, etc.) 

PDC - G4 
PDC 2008 Final Report 

Appendix G – Curriculum Package: National Training Curriculum Outline 

4.0 

Device Control Program (cont.) 

4.5 Static Volume Measuring 

Systems – General • Terminology • Measuring Device Types • Technology • Suitability • User Requirements • Operation & Markings • Tolerances 

• Basic Tests 

• Basic Inspections

4.6 Other Measuring Systems 

• Terminology 

• Other Device Types 

• Technology 

• User Requirements 

• Operation & Markings 

• Tolerances 

• Suitability • Basic Tests • Basic Inspections

4.7 Quality Measuring 

Systems • Terminology • Measuring Device Types • Technology • Suitability • User Requirements • Operation & Markings • Tolerances 

• Basic Tests 

• Basic Inspections

4.5.1 Liquid Measures 

4.5.2 Farm Milk Tanks 

4.5.3 Dry Measures 

4.6.1 Taximeters and Odometers 

4.6.2 Wire and Cordage Measuring 

Systems 

4.6.3 Linear Measures 

4.6.4 Timing Devices 

4.6.5 Weights 

4.6.6 Multiple Dimension Measuring 

Systems 

4.7.1 Grain Moisture Meters 

4.7.2 NIR Grain Analyzers 

4.7.3 Carcass Evaluation 

Systems 

PDC - G5 
PDC 2008 Final Report 

Appendix G – Curriculum Package: National Training Curriculum Outline 

PDC - G6 

5.0 

Market Practices, Laws and 

Regulations (NIST HB 130), & 

Commodities (NIST HB 133) 

5.1 Safety Considerations – 

Market Practices 

5.2 NIST Handbook 130 – 

Laws & Regulations 

General Points: 

• Terminology • NIST HB 130 Specifications & 

Requirements • Safety • Support Equipment • General Enforcement 

Guidelines

5.3 NIST Handbook 133 – 

Package Net Contents 

Control 

General Points: 

• Examination Specifications • Contents of EPO 

- Test Equipment 

- Examination 

- Test Specifications • Evaluation • Field/Practical Exercises

5.2.1. NIST Handbook 130 – 

General Provisions 

5.3.1. Commodities – General 

• Terminology 

• Wet/Dry Tare 

• NIST HB 133 Specifications & 

Requirements • Uncertainty • Safety • Support Equipment • General Enforcement 

Guidelines 

5.2.2. Packaging and Labeling 

Regulations 

5.3.2. Packages Labeled by 

Weight, Standard and 

Random 

5.2.3. Method of Sale 

Regulations 

5.3.3. Packages Labeled by 

Weight, Special 

Commodities 

5.2.4. Quality of Automotive 

Fuels and Lubricants 

5.3.4. Packages Labeled by 

Volume (Volumetric and 

Gravimetric Testing) 

5.2.5. Price Verification 5.3.5. Packages Labeled by 

Volume, Special 

5.3.6. Packages Labeled by 

Length/Area/Thickness 

5.3.7. Packages Labeled by 

Count 

5.3.8. Other Package Types 

5.4 Test Purchases 

• Terminology 

• NIST HB 130 Specifications & 

Requirements 

• Safety 

• Support Equipment 

• General Enforcement Guidelines

5.5 E-Commerce 

• Terminology 

• NIST HB 130 Specifications & 

Requirements 

• Safety 

• Support Equipment 

• General Enforcement Guidelines
PDC 2008 Final Report 

Appendix H – Curriculum Package: NCWM Curriculum Work Plan 

Appendix H 

Curriculum Package 

The National Conference on Weights and Measures 

National Training Program

CURRICULUM WORK PLAN 

Revised November 2007 

Segment/Subject 

Level 1/Level 2/Level 3 

1.0 Fundamentals of Weights and Measures 

1.1 Introduction to W&M Programs 

1.2 W&M Laws and Regulations 

1.3 Field Standards & Test Equipment 

1.4 State Program Scope and Overview 

2.0 W&M Administration 

2.1 Fundamentals of W&M Administration (Commercial System, Powers & Duties, etc.) 

2.2 Administration Functions (Personnel, Management, Budget, Safety, etc.) 

2.3 Legislation and Regulations (Legal Considerations, Interaction with Legislature, Stakeholders, Industry, 

etc.) 

2.4 Regulatory Control (Device inspection, commodities, complaints) 

2.5 Laboratory Metrology Administration (Purpose of Laboratory, Responsibilities of Metrologist, NIST 

Expectations for Recognition of Laboratory, Quality System, Training Requirements, etc.) 

2.6 Public Relations & Communications (Publicity, Public Relations, Communications) 

3.0 Laboratory Metrology 

3.1. NIST Basic Metrology 

3.2. NIST Advance Metrology 

4.0 Device Control Program 

4.1 Safety Considerations 

4.2 NIST Handbook 44 – Introduction to Device Control 

4.3 Weighing Systems General 

4.3.1 Static Electronic Weighing Systems, General 

4.3.2 Static Mechanical and Hybrid Weighing Systems, General 

4.3.3 Dynamic Weighing Systems, General 

4.3.4 Precision Weighing Systems Class I and II 

4.3.5 Small Capacity Weighing Systems Class III 

4.3.6 Medium Capacity Weighing Systems Class III 

4.3.7 Vehicle Scale Class III or III L 

4.3.8 Vehicle Scale Class III or III L – Advanced 

4.3.9 Railroad Track Scales 

4.3.10 In-Motion Railroad Track Scales 

4.3.11 Hopper Scale Systems 

4.3.12 Automatic Bulk Weighing Systems 

4.3.13 Automatic Weighing Systems 

4.3.14 Belt Conveyor Weighing Systems 

4.3.15 In-Motion Monorail Scales 

4.3.16 Point-of-Sale Scale Systems 

PDC - H1 
PDC 2008 Final Report 

Appendix H – Curriculum Package: NCWM Curriculum Work Plan 

PDC - H2 

4.3.17 Other Specialty Weighing Systems 

4.4 Dynamic Measuring Systems – General 

4.4.1 Retail Motor Fuel Dispensers 

4.4.2 Loading Rack and Other Stationary Metering Systems 

4.4.3 Loading Rack & Other Stationary Metering Systems – Advanced 

4.4.4 Vehicle-Tank Meter Systems 

4.4.5 Vehicle-Tank Meter Systems – Advanced 

4.4.6 Milk Metering Systems 

4.4.7 Water Meters 

4.4.8 LPG/Anhydrous Ammonia Liquid Metering Systems 

4.4.9 LPG/Anhydrous Ammonia Liquid-Metering Systems – Advanced 

4.4.10 LPG Vapor Meter Systems 

4.4.11 Mass Flow Metering Systems 

4.4.12 Other Metering Systems (Cryogenics, Carbon Dioxide, etc.) 

4.5 Static Volume Measuring Systems – General 

4.5.1 Liquid Measures 

4.5.2 Farm Milk Tanks 

4.5.3 Dry Measures 

4.6 Other Measuring Systems 

4.6.1 Taximeters and Odometers 

4.6.2 Wire and Cordage Measuring Systems 

4.6.3 Linear Measures 

4.6.4 Timing Devices 

4.6.5 Weights 

4.6.6 Multiple Dimension Measuring Systems 

4.7 Quality Measuring Systems 

4.7.1 Grain Moisture Meters 

4.7.2 NIR Grain Analyzers 

4.7.3 Carcass Evaluation Systems 

5.0 Market Practices, Laws and Regulations (NIST HB 130), & Commodities (NIST HB 133) 

5.1 Safety Considerations – Market Practices, NIST HB 130, NIST HB 133 

5.2 NIST Handbook 130 – Laws & Regulations 

5.2.1 NIST Handbook 130 – General Provisions 

5.2.2 Packaging and Labeling Regulations 

5.2.3 Method of Sale Regulations 

5.2.4 Quality of Automotive Fuels and Lubricants 

5.2.5 Price Verification 

5.3 NIST HB 133 – Package Net Contents Control 

5.3.1 Commodities – General 

5.3.2 Packages Labeled by Weight, Standard and Random 

5.3.3 Packages Labeled by Weight, Special Commodities 

5.3.4 Packages Labeled by Volume (Volumetric and Gravimetric Testing) 

5.3.5 Packages Labeled by Volume, Special 

5.3.6 Packages Labeled by Length/Area/Thickness 

5.3.7 Packages Labeled by Count 

5.3.8 Other Package Types 

5.4 Test Purchases 

5.5 E-Commerce 

Note: Initial Verification has been intentionally been left off this listing and will be addressed later. 
PDC 2008 Final Report 

Appendix I – Legislative Model (NEWMA) 

Appendix I 

Model Professional Development Training and Certification 

Standards Statute for Inspectors and Sealers of Weights and Measures 

Submitted by NEWMA, October 2007 

DRAFT 

1. Definition of Terms: Unless defined otherwise by statute, the definitions contained herein shall apply to this 

statute. 

1.1 Commission: The permanent advisory commission appointed pursuant to this statute to develop, plan, and 

certify training standards, certification, and continuing education. 

1.2 Director [Commissioner or other senior state official]: Charged by statute to administer, guide, or direct 

Weights and Measures activities within the state at state, county, or municipal level. 

1.3 Sealers and Inspectors of Weights and Measures: Those public officials appointed pursuant to existing 

law to inspect, approve, or condemn weighing and measuring devices or perform other activities as directed 

by statute or regulation. This definition shall also apply to deputy, assistant, or associate Sealers and 

Inspectors of Weights and Measures. 

1.4 Industry Specialists: Those individuals approved and/or licensed by the State Director to inspect, 

approve, or condemn specific classes or types of weighing and measuring devices. 

2. Certification and Standards Commission 

2.1 Appointment: There shall be a permanent standing advisory commission comprised of the director of the 

state weights and measures department or his designee, and a designee from each of the following 

organizations: the State Weights and Measures Association, the various Regional Weights and Measures 

Associations, and one individual representing Industry Specialists. Members of said commission shall 

serve without compensation. Said commission shall be chaired by the director or deputy director of 

weights and measures. 

2.2 Rule Making Authority: The commission shall promulgate rules and regulations necessary to implement 

and maintain this statute consistent with existing rule-making state legislation. 

2.3 Duties: The commission shall develop, and from time to time, revise the certification and continuing 

education requirements that are established by the Department of Weights and Measures with the advice 

and consent of the commission. The commission shall certify all inspectors, sealers and deputies and 

industry specialists in accordance with sections [insert specific statue citation covering the appointment of 

these officials] and regulations promulgated by the commission including, but not limited to, regulations 

covering initial written certification testing for inspectors, sealers and deputies and industry specialists as 

well as mandatory continuing education programs for inspectors, sealers and deputies, and industry 

specialists to maintain their certifications. Every store, retail establishment, food store or food department 

and all merchants within the jurisdiction of the state department of weights and measures shall provide 

adequate space for the display of information relative to how the state inspector, local sealer or inspector or 

the department of weights and measures can be contacted as provided in regulations to be promulgated by 

the commission. Notwithstanding any certification exemption, all sealers, inspectors, deputy sealers, 

deputy inspectors, and industry specialists shall participate in continuing education programs. The 

commission shall establish a training and education fee to be paid by the state, county, municipality, or 

industry specialist’s organization, which employs such sealer, inspector, deputy sealer and deputy 

inspector, or industry specialist sufficient to offset the cost of providing such training and education. 

PDC - I1 
PDC 2008 Final Report 

Appendix I – Legislative Model (NEWMA) 

PDC - I2 

2.4 Fees: There shall be a revolving account established into which shall be deposited any training and 

education fees paid by the state, county, municipality, or industry specialist. These fees shall be used to 

offset any cost associated with providing such training and education mandated by the commission. 

3. Appointment of Sealers, Inspectors, Deputy Sealers 

3.1 Appointment: The sealer, inspector, and all deputies shall be certified by the commission within one year 

after assuming their powers and duties. Failure to become certified within one year shall be cause for 

termination; provided, however, sealers, inspectors or deputy sealers or deputy inspectors, employed by the 

state, county, or a municipality upon the effective date of this paragraph, shall become certified within two 

years. Sealers, inspectors or deputy sealers or deputy inspectors who pass a civil service exam for a 

position as a sealer, inspector or deputy sealer or deputy inspector of weights and measures, shall be 

exempt from initial certification requirements provided that said civil service exam contains questions 

and/or practices consistent with initial certification requirements. 

3.2 Continuing Education: Notwithstanding any certification exemption, all sealers, inspectors and deputy 

sealers and deputy inspectors shall participate in continuing education programs. The commission shall 

establish a training and education fee to be paid by the county or municipality which employs such sealer, 

inspector, deputy sealer and deputy inspector sufficient to offset the cost of providing such training and 

education. 

4. Appointment of Industry Specialists 

4.1 Appointment: All industry specialists shall be certified by the commission prior to assuming their powers 

and duties as licensed industry specialists; provided, however, industry specialists performing such duties 

shall become certified within one year from the effective date of this statute. Failure to become certified 

prior to assuming their powers and duties as industry specialists shall render any inspections conducted null 

and void and such individuals shall be barred from further inspections for a period of not less than one year.

4.2 Continuing Education: Notwithstanding the appointment of industry specialists, they shall participate in 

continuing education programs approved by the commission. The commission shall establish a training 

and education fee to be paid by the business or organization employing industry specialists sufficient to 

offset the cost of providing such training and education.

5. Conflict with other Laws: Whenever the application of any provision of any other law of this state conflict 

with the application of any provision of sections one through four, inclusive, said sections shall prevail. 

6. Partial Invalidity: If any provision of said sections one to four, inclusive, or the application of said sections 

shall be held invalid, the remainder of said sections, or the application of such provision to any person or 

circumstance other than that as to which it is invalid, shall not be affected thereby. 
NTEP Committee 2008 Final Report 

Report of the 

National Type Evaluation Program (NTEP) Committee 

Steve Malone, Chairman 

Director 

Nebraska Weights and Measures Division 

Reference 

Key Number 

500 INTRODUCTION 

The National Type Evaluation Program (NTEP) Committee (hereinafter referred to as “Committee”) submits its 

report for consideration by the 93rd National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM). This consists of the 

Interim Report presented in NCWM Publication 16 as amended in the Addendum Sheets issued during the Annual 

Meeting that was held July 13 - 17, 2008, in Burlington, Vermont. The Committee considered communications 

received prior to and during the 93rd Annual Meeting that are noted in this report. 

Table A identifies the agenda items in the report by Reference Key Number, Item Title, and Page Number. The item 

numbers are those assigned in the Committee’s Interim Meeting Agenda. A voting item is indicated with a “V”

after the item number or, if the item was part of the consent calendar, by the suffix “VC.” An item marked with an 

“I” after the reference key number is an information item. An item marked with a “W” was withdrawn by the 

Committee and generally will be referred to the regional weights and measures associations because it either needs 

additional development, analysis, and input or does not have sufficient Committee support to bring it before the 

NCWM. Table B lists the appendices to the report, and Table C provides a summary of the results of the voting on 

the Committee’s items and the report in entirety. 

This report contains many recommendations to revise or amend National Conference on Weights and Measures 

(NCWM) Publication 14, Administrative Procedures, Technical Policy, Checklists, and Test Procedures or other 

documents. Proposed revisions to the publication(s) are shown in bold face print by striking out information to be 

deleted, and underlining information to be added. Requirements that are proposed to be nonretroactive are printed 

in italics.

Note: The policy of NIST is to use metric units of measurement in all of its publications; however, 

recommendations received by the NCWM technical committees have been printed in this publication as they were 

submitted and may, therefore, contain references to inch-pound units. 

NTEP - 1 
NTEP Committee 2008 Final Report 

NTEP - 2 

Table A 

Index to Reference Key Items 

Reference 

Key Number Title of Item Page 

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

1. Mutual Recognition Arrangement (MRA) .............................................................................................................3

2. Mutual Acceptance Arrangement (MAA)..............................................................................................................4

3. NTEP Participating Laboratories and Evaluations Reports....................................................................................4

4. NTETC Sector Reports...........................................................................................................................................5

5. NTEP Participation in U.S. National Work Group (USNWG) on Harmonization of NIST Handbook 44, 

NCWM Publication 14 and OIML R 76 and R 60 ..........................................................................................7

6. Conformity Assessment Program...........................................................................................................................7

7. Use of NTEP Logo .................................................................................................................................................8

8. NTEP Policy for Issuing Certificates of Conformance for Software......................................................................8

9. Update to NCWM Publication 14 Administrative Policy.......................................................................................8 

Table B 

Appendices 

Appendix Title Page 

A NTETC – Grain Analyzer Sector Meeting Summary........................................................................................A1 

B NTETC – Measuring Sector Meeting Summary................................................................................................ B1 

C NTETC – Weighing Sector Meeting Summary................................................................................................. C1 

D NTETC – Software Sector Meeting Summary ..................................................................................................D1 

Table C 

Voting Results 

Reference House of State Representatives House of Delegates Results 

Key Number Yeas Nays Yeas Nays 

500 (In its 

entirety) 

voice vote 

All Yeas No Nays All Yeas No Nays Passed 
NTEP Committee 2008 Final Report 

Table D 

Glossary of Acronyms* 

B Basic Publications IR International Recommendation 

BIML Bureau of International Legal Metrology IWG International Work Group 

CD Committee Draft1 MAA Mutual Acceptance Arrangement 

CIML International Committee of Legal 

Metrology 

MC Measurement Canada 

CPR Committee on Participation Review R Recommendation 

D Document OIML International Organization of Legal 

Metrology 

DD Draft Document2 SC Subcommittee 

DR Draft Recommendation2 TC Technical Committee 

DV Draft Vocabulary2 WD Working Document3

DoMC Declarations of Mutual Confidence USNWG U.S. National Work Group 

ILMG International Legal Metrology Group 

1

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

drafts are numbered 1 CD, 2 CD, etc. 

2

 DD, DR, DV: draft documents approved at the level of the technical committee or subcommittee concerned and 

sent to BIML for approval by CIML. 

3

 WD: precedes the development of a CD; in this document, successive drafts are number 1 WD, 2 WD, etc. 

* Explanation of acronyms provided by OIML. 

Details of All Items 

(In Order by Reference Key Number) 

1. Mutual Recognition Arrangement (MRA) 

Background: Both Measurement Canada (MC) and the NTEP labs are engaged in continuing dialog to improve the 

data exchange under the Mutual Recognition Arrangement (MRA). Over the past several months, NTEP and 

Measurement Canada have been in continuous contact regarding the flow of information related to the MRA. 

Measurement Canada has also supplied the U.S. NTEP labs with several updated versions of an Excel spreadsheet 

program to standardize the test report forms for devices that fall under the MRA. This updated version of the 

spreadsheet has been well received by the labs. There is also continued dialog between the labs and the NTEP 

Director. 

Steve Patoray, NTEP Director, reported that the NTEP labs met in April 2008 in Ottawa, Canada. The main topic of 

the Weighing labs was improvements to the MRA for Weighing Devices. Measurement Canada provided an 

updated Excel spreadsheet checklist, which included all updated criteria for both Measurement Canada and NTEP. 

The NTEP labs are now using this checklist for all devices evaluated by the labs. 

Gilles Vinet, Measurement Canada, provided comments on how important the MRA is to Measurement Canada, and 

that they intend to continue to support and improve the MRA process. 

NTEP - 3 
NTEP Committee 2008 Final Report 

2. Mutual Acceptance Arrangement (MAA) 

Background: Information regarding the OIML MAA can be found at http://www.oiml.org/maa. NCWM has 

signed the OIML DoMC for R 60 Load Cells as a utilizing participant. 

A meeting was held in May 2008 of the OIML Technical Subcommittee TC 3/SC 5 on Conformity assessment. The 

main focus of this meeting was revision of the following OIML B documents that are classified as Basic 

Publications: 

− OIML B 3 OIML Certificate System for Measuring Instruments, identified as project p7, 

− OIML B 10-1 Framework for a Mutual Acceptance Arrangement on OIML Type Evaluations, identified as 

project p8, and 

− OIML B 10-2 Checklists for Issuing Authorities and Testing Laboratories carrying out OIML Type 

Evaluations, identified as project p9. 

Additionally, there were presentations and discussions on TC 3/SC 5 project p2 – Expression on uncertainty in 

measurement in legal metrology applications related to drawing up a horizontal document to implement 

uncertainties in conformity assessment in legal metrology. 

NCWM participated in this meeting through written correspondence only. The correspondence was addressed to the 

secretariat of TC 3/SC 5 indicating NCWM’s continued support of the MAA and also indicating its opposition to the 

use of manufacturers’ data for type evaluation. 

Dr. Charles Ehrlich, NIST, provided comments on the recent meetings related to the MAA and the OIML Certificate 

system. 

Regine Gaucher, BIML, provided comments on the status of activities at the BIML related to the MAA. 

3. NTEP Participating Laboratories and Evaluations Reports 

Background: At the 2008 NCWM Interim Meeting, the NTEP Director updated the Committee on NTEP 

laboratory and administrative activities since October 1, 2007. 

Steve Patoray, NTEP Director reported the backlog at the NTEP labs has gone up slightly higher than historical 

levels over the past two months. These values will continue to be monitored. 

Upcoming meetings: 

Grain Analyzer Sector August 2008 Kansas City, Missouri 

Weighing Sector September 2008 St. Louis, Missouri 

Measuring Sector October 2008 Atlanta, Georgia 

NTEP - 4 
NTEP Committee 2008 Final Report 

NTEP Application Statistics 10/01/06 to 06/18/08 

Previous 

Quarter 

Current 

Quarter Total To Date 

2006 - 2007

10/1/06 - 

6/18/07

2007 - 2008

10/1/07 - 

6/18/08 

Grand Total

10/1/00 - 

6/18/08

Applications Processed 246 158 1900

Applications Completed 198 52 1538

New Certificates Issued 245 129 1636

Certificates Distributed to State Directors 247 118 1735

Certificates Posted to Website 246 126 4282

Current Active NTEP Certificates (12/31/2006) 1669

Average Median 

Time for NCWM to Assign an Evaluation 14 days 8 days 

Time for NCWM to Review a Draft Certificate 8.5 days 8 days 

Time for Complete Evaluation (Completed NCWM 

Assignments) 188 days 133 days 

4. NTETC Sector Reports 

Background: 

Grain Moisture Meter and NIR Protein Analyzer Sectors: The NTETC Grain Moisture Meter and NIR Protein 

Analyzer Sectors held a joint meeting in Kansas City, Missouri, August 22 and 23, 2007. A draft of the final 

summary was provided to the Committee prior to the 2008 NCWM Interim Meeting for review and approval. 

The next meeting of the Grain Moisture Meter and NIR Protein Analyzer Sectors is scheduled for August 2008 in 

Kansas City, Missouri. For questions on the current status of Sector work or to propose items for a future meeting, 

please contact the Sector technical advisors: 

Diane Lee Jack Barber 

NIST WMD J.B. Associates 

100 Bureau Drive, Stop 2600 10349 Old Indian Trail 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2600 Glenarm, IL 62536 

Phone: (301) 975-4405 Phone: (217) 483-4232 

Fax: (301) 975-8091 E-mail: jbarber@motion.net 

E-mail: diane.lee@nist.gov 

Measuring Sector: The NTETC Measuring Sector met October 19 and 20, 2007, in Little Rock, Arkansas. A draft 

of the final summary was provided to the NTEP Committee prior to the 2008 NCWM Interim Meeting for review 

and approval. 

The next meeting of the Measuring Sector is scheduled for October 2008 in Atlanta, Georgia, in conjunction with 

the Southern Weights and Measures Association’s Annual Meeting. For questions on the current status of Sector 

work or to propose items for a future meeting, please contact the Sector technical advisor: 

NTEP - 5 
NTEP Committee 2008 Final Report 

Tina Butcher Phone: (301) 975-2196 

NIST WMD Fax: (301) 975-8091 

100 Bureau Drive, Stop 2600 E-mail: tina.butcher@nist.gov 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2600 

Weighing Sector: The NTETC Weighing Sector met September 6 - 8, 2007, in Sacramento, California. A final 

draft of the meeting summary was provided to the Committee prior to the 2008 NCWM Interim Meeting for review 

and approval. 

The next Weighing Sector meeting is scheduled for September 2008 at a location to be determined and announced. 

For questions on the current status of Sector work or to propose items for a future meeting, please contact the Sector 

technical advisor: 

Steven Cook Phone: (301) 975-4003 

NIST WMD Fax: (301) 975-8091 

100 Bureau Drive, Stop 2600 E-mail: steven.cook@nist.gov 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2600 

Software Sector: The NTETC Software Sector met October 17 - 18, 2007, in Little Rock, Arkansas. A final draft 

of the meeting summary was provided to the Committee prior to the 2008 NCWM Interim Meeting for review and 

approval. 

The Software Sector met May 20 - 21, 2008 in Columbus, Ohio. 

There has been a change to the Sector Chair and Technical Advisor positions. 

Documentation Teri Gulke, 

Tech Advisor Doug Bliss, 

Co-Sector Chairs Norm Ingram and Jim Pettinato. 

The date of the next Software Sector meeting has not been scheduled although it is anticipated the meeting will be 

scheduled for spring of 2009. For questions on the current status of Sector work or to propose items for a future 

meeting, please contact the Sector technical advisor: 

Doug Bliss Phone: (614) 438-4307 

Mettler Toledo E-mail: doug.bliss@mt.com 

1150 Dearborn Drive 

Worthington, OH 43085 

The NTEP Committee reviewed all of the recommendations of the NTETC Sectors for change to the technical 

policies of NCWM Publication 14. All technical recommendations were accepted by the NTEP Committee with the 

exception of item 4(d) of the Weighing Sector (sleep/screen saver mode). The appropriate sections of NCWM 

Publication 14 will be updated per those recommendations. 

In addition to the technical recommendations of the Sector, the NTEP Director made a technical recommendation to 

the NTEP Committee to update NCWM Publication 14, Force Transducers, Section L. Subsection II. Determination 

of Creep to include all information found in NIST Handbook 44. The NTEP Committee agreed to these changes. 

The NTEP Director also requested that information found in a previous version of NCWM Publication 14 

Administrative Policy on Appeals, Section T., which had been inadvertently removed during a previous revision, be 

reinstated. During open hearings of the Interim Meeting, the NTEP Committee invited public comment on this 

recommendation. The NCWM Board reviewed this administrative policy recommendation from the NTEP 

Committee and agreed to place the removed information back into NCWM Publication 14, Administrative Policy. 

NTEP - 6 
NTEP Committee 2008 Final Report 

5. NTEP Participation in U.S. National Work Group (USNWG) on Harmonization of 

NIST Handbook 44, NCWM Publication 14 and OIML R 76 and R 60 

Background: At its October 2006 meeting in Cape Town, South Africa, the 41st CIML approved DR 7: R 76-1 

Non-automatic weighing instruments. Part 1: Metrological and technical requirements – Tests. The DoMC for R 76 

will need to be updated to reflect the changes included in the new revision of R 76. Further updates on the current 

status of this project will be provided by Steve Cook. 

During the 2008 NCWM Annual Meeting, Steve Cook, NIST WMD, provided comments regarding the current 

status of activities in these areas. 

6. Conformity Assessment Program 

Background: The Conformity Assessment Program was established to ensure devices produced after the device 

has been type evaluated and certified by NTEP continue to meet the same requirements. This program has three 

major elements: (1) Certificate Review (administrative); (2) Initial Verification (inspection and performance 

testing); and (3) Verified Conformity Assessment (influence factors). This item is included on the Committee’s 

agenda to provide an update on these elements. 

The Conformity Assessment Program consists of the following components: 

 1. Certificate Review 

 2. Initial Verification 

 3. Verified Conformity Assessment Program (VCAP) 

A conference call for the VCAP work group was held in early January. It was determined at that time that sufficient 

development has taken place to initiate a pilot VCAP program for load cells. Don Onwiler indicated that with the 

changes in the NCWM management, the implementation of a pilot of VCAP on load cells will be reevaluated by the 

NCWM Board at their spring Board meeting. 

Lou Straub, Chair of the Initial Verification (IV) working group, expressed concern over the direction and 

implementation of the Initial Verification Program. Don Onwiler thanked Lou for all of his work in this area and 

indicated that NCWM still intends to implement IV as soon as possible. 

During the NCWM Annual Meeting, Jim Truex, NTEP Administrator, reported that a notice had gone out to all 

holders of active NTEP Certificates of Conformance (CC) for load cells regarding a VCAP Pilot. In addition, Jim 

presented the NCWM members with a timetable for implementation. 

NTEP - 7 
NTEP Committee 2008 Final Report 

NTEP VCAP Timeline – Load Cells 

Jul 2008 - Dec 2008 Jan 2009 - Dec 2009 Jan 2010 - Mar 2010 Apr 2010 - Nov 2010 Nov 2010 

• Refine VCAP 

Procedures. 

• Answer 

incoming 

questions. 

• Refine/develop 

appeals process. 

• Notify all CC 

holders of 

updated plan, 

Q&A, etc.

• LC 

Manufacturers 

to put VCAP 

QM system in 

place. 

• Conduct audit 

by Certified 

Body. 

• Submit audit 

report to 

NCWM/NTEP. 

• NTEP to 

evaluate 

incoming 

Certification 

Body reports. 

• NTEP to contact 

manufacturers 

not meeting 

VCAP and 

encourage 

compliance 

before annual 

maintenance fee 

is due in Nov. 

• Continue to 

evaluate 

incoming 

reports. 

• CCs declared 

inactive if CC 

holders fail to 

meet VCAP.

7. Use of NTEP Logo 

Background: Information on the NTEP logo policy can be found by selecting “Logo” on the NCWM/NTEP 

homepage (www.ncwm.net/ntep/) or at the following URL: 

http://www.ncwm.net/ntep/index.cfm?fuseaction=logo 

Steve Patoray, NTEP Director, reported to the NCWM members that the NTEP logo policy has been fully 

implemented, and currently there are no open issues regarding NTEP Logo misuse. 

8. NTEP Policy for Issuing Certificates of Conformance for Software 

Source: NTETC Software Sector 

This item has been moved under Item 4 above and will no longer be a standalone item on the Committee’s agenda. 

For additional information, refer to the Committee’s 2007 Annual Report found in Appendix D. 

During the NCWM Interim Meeting, the NTEP Committee heard comments from the floor regarding the 

recommendation by the NTETC Software Sector that NCWM reconsider its decision on issuing Certificates of 

Conformance on software. Both support and opposition were heard from various NCWM members. One concern 

was that NTEP might be overwhelmed with new applications for various types of periphery software packages. Don 

Onwiler attempted to answer this concern by indicating that there would be no fundamental change in what NTEP is 

currently evaluating and certifying. This would mainly be better identification of the device type as software on 

NTEP Certificates of Conformance. 

9. Update to NCWM Publication 14 Administrative Policy 

The NTEP Committee recommended the changes below to the NCWM Board of Directors. The NTEP Committee 

also received comments from the NCWM members during an open hearing on these items. No negative comments 

were received. The Board approved these changes to the NCWM Publication 14 Administrative Policy. 

NTEP - 8 
NTEP Committee 2008 Final Report 

ITEM A. Clarification of Appendix B and Fees

Page: Administrative Policy, AP - 8 

E. TYPE EVALUATION PROCESS 

The type evaluation process follows a sequence of steps. These are explained further in sections F and G. Refer 

also to Section S, Conformity Assessment. 

E.1. Steps for Type Evaluation 

a. Request for type evaluation (usually by the manufacturer) to NCWM or to Measurement Canada.* 

This request will include a completed NTEP application for the correct device type, an 

application fee and a processing fee. Refer to Appendix B. for additional information on 

fees.

b. Decision by NCWM to accept (or reject) the request. A decision to reject an application is based 

solely upon the inability of NTEP to perform an evaluation on the device due to lack of procedures 

in NCWM Publication 14 “Weighing Devices,” “Measuring Devices,” or “Grain Analyzers.” 

c. Assignment by the NCWM to a Participating Laboratory.* 

Page: Administrative Policy, AP - 16 

N. STATUS OF CERTIFICATE OF CONFORMANCE MAINTENANCE FEE 

Except for Grain Analyzers, a Certificate of Conformance (CC) does not have an expiration date; however, the 

device manufacturer must update the design of a device to meet new or modified requirements adopted by the 

NCWM. The NCWM charges an annual maintenance fee for active Certificates to support the technical and 

administrative activities of the NCWM for NTEP. Refer to Appendix B for additional information on this 

annual fee.

Page: Administrative Policy, AP - 32 

APPENDIX B 

AUTHORIZED AREAS AND OTHER SERVICES 

1. Authorized Areas of Evaluation by U.S. Participating Laboratories 

Refer to NCWM website: www.ncwm.net http://www.ncwm.net/ntep/pdf/authorizedareas.pdf

2. Administrative Fees 

Application and Certificate Processing Fee:

A nonrefundable application fee* and a certificate processing fee* are due at the time the application is 

submitted to NTEP. The application will not be processed or entered into the system until these fees are 

received. If an open file remains inactive for a period of more than 90 days (for example, if the application is 

assigned to the laboratory and the equipment is not received from the manufacturer within 90 days), the 

application request will be closed. Once an application request is closed, the manufacturer must reapply and 

submit another application and certificate processing fee in order to pursue a CC for the device. 

NTEP - 9 
NTEP Committee 2008 Final Report 

Drafting Fee:

A drafting fee* is charged for management, certificate preparation, duplication, and distribution of the 

NTEP Certificates of Conformance. This charge is in addition to the application fee and certificate 

processing fee. The certificate preparation may be completed by the NTEP authorized laboratory, or by 

NTEP.

Annual Fees:

The NCWM charges an annual maintenance fee* for active Certificates to support the technical and 

administrative activities of the NCWM for NTEP. The Certificate holder, usually the manufacturer or 

re-manufacturer, declares intent to continue to manufacture or remanufacture the device by paying the 

NCWM an annual maintenance fee for the Certificate.

In addition to the above, Grain Moisture Meter manufacturers must pay an annual participation fee for 

the NTEP Laboratory On-Going Calibration Program (OCP) Phase II in order to maintain their 

Certificate in an active status.

NTEP Logo Usage Fee:

A one time license fee is charged to non-holders of NTEP CCs for use of the NTEP Logo. No license fee is 

charged to current holders of active NTEP CCs.

*Please contact the NCWM Headquarters or check the NCWM website for the latest fee structure. See

http://www.ncwm.net/ntep/index.cfm?fuseaction=fees

The manufacturer must indicate on the application at the time of submission all the parameters 

(capacity, size, features) that are being requested for inclusion on any CC resulting from the NTEP 

evaluation. Once testing is completed, according to the parameters listed in the application, a draft 

certificate will be prepared. 

The following applies:

• If a request is made to add parameters to the CC and such parameters would require additional 

testing or reanalysis, the manufacturer must either: (1) approve the draft CC which covers the 

parameters originally requested, at which time the CC will be processed and issued. Then submit a 

new application requesting an addendum to the certificate that includes the additional parameters. 

A new application and processing fee must be submitted with the application; OR (2) abandon the 

draft CC based on the original request and await completion of the testing required to evaluate the 

additional parameters. 

• For requests to add parameters which do not require additional testing and which are allowed within 

the NTEP technical policies, the additional parameters can be included on the CC only during the 

time the draft CC is being reviewed.

3. World Wide Web – NCWM Home Page 

The NCWM home page on the World Wide Web is: www.ncwm.net 

Information may be printed or downloaded to individual personal computers, NTEP related information 

available includes: 

• Active and Inactive CCs issued from January 1, 1986, to present 

• List of NTEP Participating Laboratories 

• Authorized Areas of Evaluation for Participating Laboratories (see above) 

• U.S./ Canadian MRA Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) 

NTEP - 10 
NTEP Committee 2008 Final Report 

• NTEP Applications 

• NTEP Fees 

• NTEP Logo

For additional information, please refer to http://www.ncwm.net/ntep.

ITEM B. Proposed Language Changes Related to Provisional NTEP CCs

Page: Administrative Policy, AP - 12 

I.2. Provisional Certificate of Conformance 

The NCWM may issue a Provisional Certificate of Conformance under some circumstances without full 

evaluation. This must be reviewed and authorized by the NTEP Committee. 

In accepting a Provisional Certificate of Conformance, the manufacturer shall agree in writing that: 

a. Further evaluation will take place before a full Certificate of Conformance can be issued, and 

b. Existing copies of the type will be modified or retrofitted if required. 

As an example, a Provisional Certificate of Conformance may be issued after partial or limited evaluation, 

if there is an urgent need for use of the type exists within the marketplace and NTEP is temporarily 

unable to carry out a complete evaluation due to an absence of evaluation criteria and/or procedures 

and/or appropriate equipment. See also Section K. 

j. If the changes ultimately incorporated into NCWM Publication 14 are more demanding and 

require additional evaluation, the type will be tested under those criteria. The applicant will be 

notified that the type must be submitted for evaluation against the new policies and/or procedures 

within a ninety (90) day period for the Provisional Certificate to remain active. The Provisional 

Certificate will be given a withdrawn status if the type has not been submitted within the ninety 

(90) day period or if the type fails the additional evaluation. If the type is submitted and 

successfully evaluated using the more demanding criteria, a full Certificate of Conformance will 

be issued. 

k. Modifications made to the type as a result of the additional requirements may not be required 

retroactively to existing devices unless applicable retroactive requirements are incorporated into 

NIST Handbook 44. 

The NTEP Director will re-evaluate Provisional Certificates of Conformance every two (2) years to determine if the 

situation or conditions necessitating the provisional status of the Certificate continue to exist. When these 

conditions no longer exist and an appropriate testing procedure and/or equipment become available to conduct a full 

NTEP evaluation of a device covered under a Provisional Certificate of Conformance, the NTEP Director will notify 

the device manufacturer giving the manufacturer a maximum of ninety (90) days in which to submit the required 

device(s) for NTEP evaluation. On successful completion of the evaluation, the Provisional Certificate of 

Conformance will be upgraded to a full NTEP Certificate of Conformance. If the device manufacturer finds it 

necessary to make a modification or change in the construction of the device, the devices manufactured under the 

Provisional Certificate of Conformance must receive the same change in order to be covered under the new 

Certificate. 

Should the device manufacturer fail to submit the required device(s) for evaluation within the ninety (90) day 

time limit or if the device(s) fail to successfully complete the NTEP evaluation after the allowed number of 

attempts, the Provisional Certificate of Conformance covering the device(s) will be withdrawn. In such a 

case, devices manufactured under the Provisional Certificate of Conformance will no longer be suitable for 

commercial service.

NTEP - 11 
NTEP Committee 2008 Final Report 

NTEP - 12 

Page: Administrative Policy, AP - 16 

N.3. Inactive Status 

An inactive Certificate of Conformance is a Certificate which was previously active, but the devices 

are no longer being manufactured or remanufactured for commercial applications subject to local 

regulations or laws; however, devices already manufactured, installed or in inventory, but not yet 

sold, may be used, sold, repaired and resold under inactive Certificates of Conformance.

Page: Administrative Policy, AP - 16 

N.5. Withdrawn Status 

The Certificate of Conformance remains valid unless withdrawn as the result of a specific 

determination by NTEP. 

a. Reasons for Withdrawal

(1) Deficiencies in the type; 

(2) Production devices do not meet type; 

(3) Failure to pay costs incurred during the evaluation;

(4) Use of the NTEP certification mark without a license from NCWM; 

(5) Misuse of the NTEP certification mark; or 

(6) Failure to convert a Provisional Certificate of Conformance to a full NTEP Certificate of 

Conformance. (See also Section K.)

ITEM C. Clarification of Section L

Page: Administrative Policy, AP – 15 

L. WHAT CONSTITUTES A “DIFFERENT” TYPE 

With two similar types from a single manufacturer, a decision must be made whether to conduct one or two 

separate evaluation processes and a decision must be made on one or multiple NTEP Certificates of 

Conformance. The following guidelines should be followed: 

_______________________________________ 

Steve Malone, Nebraska, NTEP Committee Chair 

Judy Cardin, Wisconsin, NCWM Chair 

Jack Kane, Montana, NCWM Chair-Elect 

Charles Carroll, Massachusetts 

Randy Jennings, Tennessee 

NTEP Technical Advisor: S. Patoray, NTEP Director

National Type Evaluation Program Committee 
NTEP Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix A – NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector

Appendix A 

National Type Evaluation Technical Committee 

Grain Analyzer Sector 

August 22 - 23, 2007 – Kansas City, Missouri 

Meeting Summary 

Agenda Items 

1. Report on the 2007 NCWM Interim and Annual Meetings........................................................................................ A1 

2. Report on NTEP Type Evaluations and OCP (Phase II) Testing ............................................................................... A2 

3. Review of Ongoing Calibration Program (Phase II) Performance Data..................................................................... A3 

4. Proposed Change to the GMM Chapter of Publication 14 to Avoid Reducing a Previously Evaluated 

Approved/Pending Moisture Range Due to Lack of Data .......................................................................................... A3 

5. Editorial Change to NIST HB 44, Section 5.56. (a) Table S.1.2. and Section 5.57. Table S.1.2. Column 

Headings to Add a Column for “Grain Class”.......................................................................................................... A14 

6. State Responses to Questions in Don Onwiler’s Letter to Enhance State Participation in the Grain Analyzer 

Sector........................................................................................................................................................................ A16 

7. Report on OIML TC 17/SC 1 IR59 “Moisture Meters for Cereal Grains and Oilseeds” ......................................... A18 

8. Report on OIML TC 17/SC 8 Draft International Recommendation “Protein Measuring Instruments for Cereal 

Grain” ....................................................................................................................................................................... A20 

9. Report on OIML TC 5/SC 2 Draft “General Requirements for Software Controlled Measuring Devices” and 

NTETC Software Sector Activities.......................................................................................................................... A21 

10. Enhanced Trait Soybeans – Calibration Issues......................................................................................................... A22 

11. Prevention of Potential GMM Fraud – Expected Integrity among Moisture Meter Manufacturers......................... A23 

12. Time and Place for Next Meeting............................................................................................................................. A25 

1. Report on the 2007 NCWM Interim and Annual Meetings 

The Interim Meeting of the 92nd National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM) was held 

January 21 - 24, 2007, in Jacksonville, Florida. At that meeting the NTEP Committee accepted the Sector's 

recommended amendments and changes to the 2006 Edition of NCWM Publication 14. These changes appear in the 

2007 Edition. For additional background, refer to Committee Reports for the 92nd Annual Meeting, NCWM 

Publication 16 – April 2007. 

Amendments/Changes to the Grain Moisture Meters Chapter 

in the 

2006 Edition of NCWM Publication 14

Section Number Amendment/Change Page Source 

VII. Additional Type Evaluation Test 

Procedures and Tolerances for Grain 

Moisture Meters Incorporating an 

Automatic Test Weight per Bushel 

Measuring Feature 

Add paragraph C. Tolerances For 

Test Weight per Bushel Calibration 

Performance. 

GMM-16 08/06 

Grain Analyzer 

Sector – Item 4 

NTEP - A1 
NTEP Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix A – NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector

Amendments/Changes to the Near Infrared Grain Analyzers Chapter 

in the 

2006 Edition of NCWM Publication 14

Section Number Amendment/Change Page Source 

III. Accuracy, Precision, and 

Reproducibility Requirements 

Amend to add criteria applicable to 

“multi-class” calibrations. 

NIR-3 thru 

NIR-6 

08/06 

Grain Analyzer 

Sector – Item 6(b) 

Two items of interest to the Grain Analyzer Sector were reviewed by the Specifications and Tolerances Committee 

(S&T) at the NCWM Interim Meeting and were forwarded as voting items for consideration at the NCWM Annual 

Meeting scheduled for July 8 - 12, 2007, in Salt Lake City, Utah. 

Conference 

Item Number 

Handbook 44 

Section Number Recommendation Source 

356-1.1 5.56.(a) Grain Moisture 

Meters 

Modify Paragraph S.1.2. and Table S.1.2. to 

include minimum acceptable abbreviations for 

multi-class grain moisture calibrations. 

Grain Analyzer 

Sector 

357-1 5.57. Near Infrared 

Grain Analyzers 

Modify Paragraph S.1.2. and Table S.1.2. to 

add criteria applicable to “multi-class” 

calibrations. 

Grain Analyzer 

Sector 

Diane Lee, NIST/OWM, reported that both items were approved by the Conference and will appear in the 2008 

issue of Handbook 44, Specifications, Tolerances and Other Technical Requirements for Measuring Devices.

Steve Patoray, NTEP Director, reported that the NCWM Board of Directors adopted a more detailed policy on the 

use of the NTEP logo which is a registered trademark of NCWM. All users of the NTEP logo will now be required 

to sign a license agreement regarding its use. Additional information regarding changes to the NCWM 

Publication 14 Administrative Policy, the License Agreement, and guidelines on the use of the NTEP logo will be 

placed on the NCWM website. 

Steve Patoray noted that conformity assessment does not affect Grain Analyzers at present. Conformity assessment 

remains an issue mostly of interest to the Weighing Sector. 

2. Report on NTEP Type Evaluations and OCP (Phase II) Testing 

Cathy Brenner of the Grain Inspection, Packers, and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA), the NTEP Participating 

Laboratory for Grain Analyzers, briefed the Sector on NTEP Type Evaluation activity. In addition to regular grain 

moisture meter (GMM) calibration updates, evaluation of the Perten AM5100 GMM was completed and a certificate 

of conformance (CC) was issued in December 2006. She reported that the following device types are enrolled in the 

OCP (Phase II) for the 2007 harvest: 

[Note: Models listed on a single line are considered to be of the same “type.”] 

 DICKEY-john Corporation GAC2000, GAC2100, GAC2100a, GAC2100b 

 DICKEY-john Corporation OmegAnalyzer G 

 Foss North America Infratec 1241 

 Foss North America Infratec 1227, Infratec 1229 

 Perten Instruments AM5100 

 The Steinlite Corporation SL95 

Ms. Brenner explained that although the CC for Seedburo Equipment Company’s 1299A does not expire until 

July 1, 2008, Seedburo has elected not to enroll in Phase II for the 2007 harvest. Because there are still six devices 

in the program, the same as in 2006, the cost to manufacturers for Phase II will remain $7,730 per meter type. 

NTEP - A2 
NTEP Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix A – NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector

3. Review of Ongoing Calibration Program (Phase II) Performance Data 

At their August 2005 meeting, the Sector agreed that comparative OCP data identifying the Official Meter and 

listing the average bias for each NTEP meter type should be available for annual review by the Sector. Accordingly, 

Cathy Brenner, representing GIPSA, the NTEP Participating Laboratory for Grain Analyzers, presented data 

showing the performance of NTEP meters compared to the air oven. These data are based on the last three crop 

years (2004 - 2006) using calibrations updated for use during the 2007 harvest season. 

Ms. Brenner pointed out that data on the DICKEY-john OmegAnalyzer G was not included in the comparisons 

because it had only been in the program for one year. Next year data on Perten’s AM5100 will not be included for 

the same reason. Comparisons of GMMs with less than three years of data against GMMs with the full three years 

of data are not meaningful as they may be unduly influenced by a single unusual crop year. 

She noted that no Durum samples in the 16 % to 18 % Moisture Range had been received since the 2002 harvest 

season. Dr. Richard Pierce, GIPSA, observed that Medium Grain Rough Rice data showed very few samples in the 

14 % to 16 % Moisture Range while the adjacent ranges, both above and below, show nearly four to five times that 

number. No one was able to offer an explanation. 

Cassie Eigenmann, DICKEY-john, offered the general comment that performance data appears to be getting much 

better; meters are closer to each other and closer to the air oven. 

4. Proposed Change to the GMM Chapter of Publication 14 to Avoid Reducing a 

Previously Evaluated Approved/Pending Moisture Range Due to Lack of Data 

Background: This is a carryover item from the Sector’s August 2006 meeting. This issue was first raised at the 

Sector's 2005 meeting when Dr. Richard Pierce, GIPSA (the NTEP Laboratory) mentioned that the NTEP 

Laboratory was having problems increasing and decreasing “Approved” or “Pending” ranges of grain moisture 

meters depending on the data available in the most recent 3-year period. Most Sector members agreed that it didn't 

seem logical to reduce a range solely because data previously used to justify the range classification had to be 

dropped from the most recent 3-year period. 

At their 2006 meeting, the Sector discussed guidelines for possible revisions to the GMM chapter of Publication 14 

to address this problem. Two of the most significant guidelines considered for revision were: 

1. Redefine “Pending” to be simply: “A new calibration that has not been validated by ongoing calibration 

data collected as part of the national calibration program.” 

2. The maximum upper moisture interval and the minimum lower moisture interval that can be given 

“Approved” status will be defined for each grain. These upper and lower limits are to be fixed values that 

do not change from year to year. 

Most Sector members were generally in favor of either redefining or eliminating the “Pending” classification; 

however, this approach implied that another method had to be found to determine operating ranges, because 

“Pending” Moisture Ranges have traditionally been used to set the upper and lower moisture limits (operating range) 

for each calibration. Manufacturers objected to using a single fixed range for all types of devices, noting that some 

technologies were more accurate than others at high moistures. They preferred an option that would allow them to 

competitively extend the operating range and objected to being restricted by limitations in the Phase II sample 

collection system. Subsequent discussion led to the suggestion that the manufacturer should specify the operating 

Moisture Range for each grain. This range would NOT be listed on the Certificate of Conformance (CC), but would 

be used to determine when warnings would be displayed and printed to indicate that the displayed/printed moisture 

content of a sample being measured was beyond the operating range of the device. (See NIST Handbook 44, 

Section 5.56.(a)., paragraphs S.1.1.(f) and S.1.3.(c).) 

The Sector decided that additional study was needed before a final recommendation could be made on this issue. 

The following points summarize the Sector's thinking at the close of their August 2006 meeting: 

NTEP - A3 
NTEP Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix A – NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector

1. The “Pending Approval” classification will be eliminated. Operating ranges (upper and lower moisture 

limits) will be specified by the manufacturer. Operating ranges will NOT be listed on CCs. 

2. The three most recent years of Phase II data will continue to be used to evaluate calibration performance. 

3. Certificates will list a single “standard” Moisture Range for each grain calibration. These ranges will not 

vary from year-to-year. They will be the same for all instruments (see exception for new instruments). The 

“standard” ranges have to be wide enough to encompass the Moisture Ranges most commonly used in the 

market (to be determined) but narrow enough to assure that sufficient Phase II data will be available (over a 

three-year period) to: 

a. permit a new meter's calibrations to be “verified” over those ranges by the end of its third year in 

Phase II; and 

b. permit existing NTEP certified meters' calibrations to be “verified” over those ranges using the most 

recent 3 years of Phase II data when the new rules are first adopted. 

4. Once a calibration has been “verified” a recalibration will not be forced due to lack of samples. 

5. New instruments will be “evaluated” over the basic 6 % Moisture Ranges for corn, soybeans, and hard red 

winter wheat. Certificates for new instruments will continue to list the 6 % Moisture Ranges as the 

“evaluated” or “verified” ranges until sufficient Phase II data has been collected to allow the new 

instrument to achieve “verified” status for the full Moisture Range. 

6. Outside the basic 6 % Moisture Range, tolerances that used to require a change in calibrations will continue 

to include the application of a 95 % confidence interval to the maximum tolerance for each 2 % moisture 

interval. 

[For additional background, see the Grain Analyzer Sector’s August 23 - 24, 2006, Meeting Summary, Agenda 

Item 7.] 

Discussion: To determine suitable “standard” Moisture Ranges, the NTEP laboratory reviewed historical OCP data 

for the crop years 2000 through 2006, noting the total number of samples in each 2 % moisture interval and each 

running 3-year period. Additionally, for each 2 % interval, they compared the basic approval tolerance (one-half the 

HB 44 acceptance tolerance) to the 95 % confidence interval tolerance that is based on the number of samples. For 

an example of the data reviewed, see Table 4.1 and Figure 4.1. 

NTEP - A4 
NTEP Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix A – NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector

Table 4.1 Number of Phase II Corn Samples 

3 Year Totals Moisture 

Interval 2000 - 2002 2001 - 2003 2002 - 2004 2003 - 2005 2004 - 2006 

8 - 10 13 4 7 7 12 

10 - 12 23 13 17 19 16 

12 - 14 81 67 80 95 117 

14 - 16 113 113 125 128 161 

16 - 18 109 106 107 98 87 

18 - 20 89 99 101 94 88 

20 - 22 53 59 60 48 55 

22 - 24 40 45 41 35 41 

24 - 26 41 41 60 46 46 

26 - 28 39 33 26 18 14 

28 - 30 29 27 29 23 19 

30 - 32 12 17 22 26 27 

32 - 34 7 12 25 24 24 

34 - 36 1 4 15 17 19 

36 - 38 1 3 8 9 11 

38 - 40 0 3 6 6 3 

40 - 42 0 6 7 9 3 

42 - 44 0 2 3 4 2 

44 - 46 0 1 2 3 2 

46 - 48 0 1 1 1 0 

Figure 4.1 – Corn Moisture Tolerances 

NTEP - A5 
NTEP Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix A – NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector

Recommendation (1): Based on the review of historical data, the NTEP laboratory proposed grain specific 

recommendations for the following Moisture Ranges and limits: 

• Basic 6 % Interval – the Moisture Range used for Phase I Type Evaluation. 

• Standard Moisture Range – the Moisture Range used for OCP Phase II calibration review. 

• Maximum Moisture Limit – the upper moisture limit for calculating overall moisture bias in Phase II 

calibration review. 

Grain-specific “standard” Moisture Ranges were selected to encompass the 2 % intervals where the majority of 

samples have been available and where the basic approval tolerance (one-half the HB 44 acceptance tolerance) was 

not significantly different from the tolerance that includes the application of a 95 % confidence interval. 

These ranges and the percent of samples represented in each proposed Standard Moisture Range are listed in 

Table 4.2 along with the corresponding GIPSA sample collection Moisture Range. 

While reviewing the historical data, a trend was noticed in the data for Oats. The bulk of the Oats data is from the 

8 % to 14 % moisture interval instead of the 10 % to 16 % moisture interval presently specified in Publication 14. 

The NTEP lab proposes that the basic 6 % Interval for Oats be changed to 8 % to 14 % moisture for both moisture 

and test weight per bushel evaluation. 

Table 4.2 Proposed Standard Moisture Ranges and Maximum Moisture Limits 

Grain 

GIPSA Moisture 

Handbook 

Range 

Basic 

6 % Interval 

Proposed 

Standard 

Moisture 

Range 

Proposed 

Maximum 

Moisture 

Limit 

% N 

Corn 8 % - 30 % 12 % - 18 % 10 % - 26 % 36 % 84 

Grain Sorghum 8 % - 25 % 10 % - 16 % 10 % - 18 % 20 % 89 

Durum Wheat 7 % - 20 % 10 % - 16 % 8 % - 16 % 16 % 89 

Hard Red Spring Wheat 7 % - 20 % 10 % - 16 % 8 % - 18 % 20 % 91 

Hard Red Winter Wheat 8 % - 20 % 10 % - 16 % 8 % - 18 % 20 % 95 

Hard White Wheat 7 % - 20 % 8 % - 14 % 8 % - 14 % 16 % 95 

Soft Red Winter Wheat 7 % - 20 % 10 % - 16 % 10 % - 18 % 20 % 91 

Soft White Wheat 8 % - 20 % 10 % - 16 % 8 % - 16 % 18 % 95 

“All Class” Wheat 7 % - 20 % 10 % - 16 % 8 % - 18 % 20 % 93 

Wheat Excluding Durum 7 % - 20 % 10 % - 16 % 8 % - 18 % 20 % 94 

Long Grain Rough Rice 7 % - 25 % 10 % - 16 % 10 % - 20 % 24 % 81 

Medium Grain Rough Rice 7 % - 25 % 10 % - 16 % 10 % - 20 % 24 % 80 

“All Class” Rough Rice 7 % - 25 % 10 % - 16 % 10 % - 20 % 24 % 85 

Proposed change to Oats 8 % - 20 % 8 % - 14 % 8 % - 14 % 14 % 89 

Soybeans 8 % - 20 % 10 % - 16 % 8 % - 18 % 22 % 95 

Sunflower Seed 5 % - 25 % 6 % - 12 % 6 % - 16 % 20 % 86 

Six-Row Barley 8 % - 20 % 10 % - 16 % 8 % - 16 % 18 % 90 

Two-Row Barley 8 % - 20 % 10 % - 16 % 8 % - 16 % 18 % 94 

“All Class” Barley 8 % - 20 % 10 % - 16 % 8 % - 16 % 18 % 91 

Conclusion (1): The Sector accepted Recommendation (1) by consensus after the proposed Standard Moisture 

Ranges for both Medium Grain Rough Rice and “All Class” Rough Rice were changed from 10 % to 24 % to 

10 % to 20 % to agree with the Standard Moisture Range for Long Grain Rough Rice. [Note: Table 4.2, above, 

incorporates these changes.] 

NTEP - A6 
NTEP Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix A – NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector

Recommendation (2): Ongoing Calibration Program (OCP) Calibration Review 

The NTEP Laboratory proposed the following guidelines for OCP calibration review: 

1. The most recent 3 years of data will still be used to determine if the calibration performance is acceptable. 

2. For each of their device types, manufacturers will be provided with a report listing all available data in 2 % 

moisture intervals. The report will indicate whether the calibration meets or exceeds the appropriate NTEP 

tolerances for each 2 % interval within the standard range and whether it meets or exceeds the overall 

moisture bias of ± .20 % moisture for all available data up to the Maximum Moisture Limit. (Note: The 

current report indicates whether a calibration is “Approved,” “Pending,” or does not meet either 

tolerance for all available 2 % moisture intervals. The overall moisture bias in the current report is 

calculated using all available data.) 

3. The status of “Approved,” “Pending,” and “Not Available” would be removed from both the Certificate of 

Conformance (CC) and Publication 14. Instead, only grain moisture calibrations that have passed Phase I 

or meet the tolerances for Phase II data will be listed on the CC. All other NTEP grains will be listed on 

the CC as “calibration not available.” 

4. Manufacturer(s) will still be provided with all valid data collected during the OCP, even for samples 

exceeding the maximum limits. 

Table 4.3 Current Long Grain Rough Rice Report Example 

Moisture 

Level 

No. of 

Samples 

Average 

Bias Standard 

Approval 

Tolerance 

Pending 

Tolerance Status 

 8 - 10 42 0.04 0.31 0.40 0.48 * 

10 - 12 90 0.04 0.17 0.40 0.43 * 

12 - 14 50 0.11 0.20 0.40 0.45 * 

14 - 16 70 0.12 0.34 0.40 0.47 * 

16 - 18 190 0.07 0.31 0.45 0.49 * 

18 - 20 140 0.11 0.37 0.50 0.55 * 

20 - 22 68 0.03 0.39 0.55 0.63 * 

22 - 24 44 0.15 0.56 0.60 0.74 * 

24 - 26 8 0.24 0.54 0.65 1.01 * 

26 - 28 5 0.87 0.97 0.70 1.62 ** 

ALL 707 0.09 0.35 

STATUS column: 

* meets the NTEP approval tolerance 

** does not meet NTEP approval tolerance, but meets Pending tolerance 

*** does not meet either tolerance 

NTEP - A7 
NTEP Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix A – NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector

Table 4.4 Proposed Long Grain Rough Rice Report 

Moisture 

Level 

No. of 

Samples 

Average 

Bias Standard 

One-half 

HB 44 

Acceptance 

Tolerance 

Adjustment 

for 95 % 

Confidence 

Interval 

NTEP 

Phase II 

Tolerance 

Status 

 8 - 10 42 0.04 

10 - 12 90 0.04 0.17 0.40 NA 0.40 * 

12 - 14 50 0.11 0.20 0.40 NA 0.40 * 

14 - 16 70 0.12 0.34 0.40 NA 0.40 * 

16 - 18 190 0.07 0.31 0.45 .04 0.49 * 

18 - 20 140 0.11 0.37 0.50 .05 0.55 * 

20 - 22 68 0.03 

22 - 24 44 0.15 

To Max 

Limit 694 0.08 0.34 0.20 * 

24 - 26 8 0.24 

26 - 28 5 0.87 

STATUS column: 

* meets the NTEP tolerance 

** does not meet NTEP tolerance 

Conclusion (2): Recommendation (2) was accepted by consensus.

Recommendation (3): Certificate of Conformance 

The NTEP Laboratory has proposed the following guidelines for preparing the Certificate of Conformance (CC): 

The body of the CC will still report the moisture intervals used during the Phase I evaluation. It will no longer list 

either the “Approved Moisture Range” or the “Pending” Moisture Range. A grain will be listed only if it meets 

either of the criteria listed below: 

 Phase I – Passes either the Accuracy Test (corn, soybeans, hard red winter wheat) or the Moisture Bias Check 

(the “Other 12” NTEP grains) as currently specified in Publication 14. 

 Phase II – Meets both the NTEP Phase II tolerances applied to each 2 % moisture interval within the Standard 

Moisture Range and the NTEP Phase II tolerance for overall moisture bias for all available data up 

to the maximum moisture limits. 

A comparison of the way a grain calibration appears on the current CC with the way it will appear on the proposed 

CC is shown in Table 4.5. 

Table 4.5 Certificate Calibration Table Comparisons 

Current Table Example Proposed Table Example 

Corn 

Designation: Corn 

Calibration Version: 200705 

Moisture Range – Approved: 8 % - 28 % 

Moisture Range – Pending: 8 % - 28 % 

Calibration Constants: 

K1 = 0001 K2 = 0020 K3 = 0300 

Corn 

Designation: Corn 

Moisture Calibration Version: 200705 

Calibration Constants: 

K1 = 0001 K2 = 0020 K3 = 0300 

NTEP - A8 
NTEP Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix A – NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector

Discussion (3): Most of the discussion on the NTEP Lab’s recommendations centered on the following questions: 

1. Should the manufacturer be required to submit data to support the operating ranges (upper and lower 

moisture limits) claimed by the manufacturer? 

2. Should the operating ranges (upper and lower moisture limits) claimed by the manufacturer be listed on the 

CC? 

3. How should the “standard” Moisture Ranges be specified on the CC? 

4. If a meter fails a single 2 % moisture interval outside the “basic” interval does the entire calibration fail or 

does the approval fall back to the “basic” interval? 

Regarding question (1), some Sector members strongly favored requiring the manufacturer to submit some kind of 

data supporting the claimed upper and lower moisture limits for each grain, suggesting that big problems could 

result if data were not required to be submitted. There was concern that a manufacturer might use tempered grain to 

support an operating range. Others were opposed to requiring manufacturer data believing that it served no real 

purpose in that the Standard Moisture Ranges encompass the moistures over which the vast majority of grain is 

traded commercially. Furthermore, there would be no way that manufacturer data could be verified in the field (or 

in the lab without expensive testing) and that mandating its submission (and implied review by the NTEP lab) would 

require more NTEP lab effort than it was worth. Also, if the manufacturer decided to change a limit, modification of 

the CC would be required even if no changes had been made in the calibration. (Note: Manufacturers will still be 

required to submit data with their initial application for Type Evaluation.) 

As for question (2), the suggestion that CCs carry the notation, “Evaluated over the Moisture Range of ___ % to 

___ %, and certified for use over the range of ___ % to ___ %,” was previously rejected by the Sector on the 

grounds that an NTEP certificate was not intended to be a marketing tool. It was pointed out that the functionality 

of displaying or printing a suitable warning message whenever a moisture limit is exceeded is verified by the NTEP 

lab in Phase I testing. Also, in practice when an elevator receives grain at harvest with an indicated “exceeds upper 

moisture limit” warning it typically ignores the warning message and receives the grain, accepting the indicated 

moisture value. 

Regarding question (3), there was general agreement that the verified Moisture Ranges, whether “basic” or 

“standard” should be specified explicitly somewhere on the CC. The NTEP laboratory representative indicated that 

they were not overly opposed to including Standard Moisture Ranges in the body of the CC. However, they were 

opposed to including any Moisture Ranges on the calibrations page. The central argument was that the “basic” 

range would apply uniformly in year one and the “standard” range thereafter, and that the table of these ranges 

would be identical for all manufacturer certificates and would not need to be changed or updated other than 

including a statement indicating which verified range applies, i.e., “basic” or “standard.” 

Question (4) was answered quite simply. The entire calibration fails. The manufacturer is obliged to revise the 

calibration and re-predict moistures using the most recent three years of available Phase II raw data. Concern that 

calibrations might be failed unjustly or might not be able to be revised to “fit” available data were addressed by 

pointing out that Publication 14 changes would be proposed to disregard any 2 % interval containing less than five 

samples. Additionally, outside the “basic” Moisture Range a 95 % confidence interval will be added to the 

maximum tolerance. 

Conclusion (3): With the understanding that manufacturer-supplied calibration operating ranges would not be 

specified in the certificate, but that verified ranges would be included in the body of the certificate rather than in the 

calibration table, the Sector agreed to Recommendation (3) by consensus. 

Final Conclusion/Recommendation: Having agreed to accept the recommendations/guidelines of the NTEP 

Laboratory, subject to the changes noted in the above three conclusions, the Sector agreed by a vote of 11 to 1 to 

accept the amendments/changes to Part IV of the Grain Moisture Meter Chapter of NCWM Publication 14 as 

originally proposed. The deletion from Part V of “Special Cases Dealing with Inadequately Represented Moisture 

Intervals” (except for a portion of “Special Considerations for Multi-Class Calibrations”), was accepted by 

NTEP - A9 
NTEP Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix A – NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector

consensus. Details of the recommended amendments/changes, designed to avoid reducing a previously evaluated 

Approved/Pending Moisture Range due to lack of data in the On-going Calibration Program (Phase II), and the 

related changes to the 6 % moisture interval for Oats in Part VII and Appendix D are shown below.

IV. Tolerances for Calibration Performance 

Calibration performance must be tested against established criteria at the following stages of the type evaluation 

process: 

1. Evaluation of the calibration data supplied by the manufacturer with the application for type evaluation. 

2. Evaluating instrument and calibration performance over the 6 % Moisture Range for corn, HRW wheat and 

soybeans (accuracy test discussed earlier). 

3. Initial calibration approval for grains other than corn, HRW wheat, and soybeans. 

4. Review of ongoing calibration data collected as part of the national calibration program (Phase II). 

Calibrations for corn, HRW wheat and soybeans will be approved initially based upon type evaluation testing over a 

6 % Moisture Range. The bias of all samples in a 2 % moisture interval may not exceed one-half of the 

Handbook 44 acceptance tolerance. 

Calibrations for other grains will be approved initially based upon a bias check using a set of 10 to 12 samples 

referenced to the FGIS air oven laboratory and the FGIS official meter. “Multi-class” calibrations will be bias 

checked using 10 to 12 samples of each individual grain class included in the calibration. The maximum allowable 

overall bias between the meter under test and air oven is ± 0.4 for this bias check. An overall bias will be applied to 

the calibration in making approval decisions. 

In order for a calibration to remain on the CC, the calibration must continue to meet tolerances for all 2 % moisture 

intervals in the Standard Moisture Range. This requirement is waived if a 2 % moisture interval contains fewer than 

five samples. For 2 % moisture intervals outside the basic 6 % Moisture Range, tolerances used to require a change 

in calibrations will include the application of a 95 % confidence interval to the maximum tolerance for each 2 % 

moisture interval. The intent of applying the confidence interval is to avoid forcing a calibration change based upon 

insufficient data. After only one year of data collection, the number of samples in some intervals will be small, and 

the confidence interval may be as large as the tolerance limit. In this instance, the calibration would have to be 

extremely poor before a calibration change would be mandated. After the instrument has been in the calibration 

program for several years, the confidence interval should be reduced to approximately 0.05 and recommendations 

can be made with greater certainty. The latest three years of data will be used to make decisions regarding the need 

to make a calibration update. 

Whenever a calibration update is made, the manufacturer shall re-predict moisture values using the three most recent 

years of available raw data collected by the Type Evaluation Laboratory. 

Updated calibrations will be approved based upon the re-predicted moisture values. Tolerances will be one-half of 

the Handbook 44 acceptance tolerance and will be applied in 2 % intervals over the Standard Moisture Range. 

Tolerances will include the application of a 95 % confidence interval to the maximum tolerance for each 2 % 

moisture interval outside the basic 6 % moisture interval. 

Additionally, all calibrations must meet the following requirements for up to three years of available data: 

a. The difference between the average bias to air oven for all samples up to the maximum moisture limit in a 

given year and the average bias to air oven for any other year shall not exceed: 0.90 for corn; 0.80 for rice, 

oats, sunflowers and sorghum; and 0.70 for wheat, soybeans, and barley. 

NTEP - A10 
NTEP Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix A – NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector

b. The range of year-to-year differences in bias to air oven shall not exceed the HB 44 tolerances for three or 

more consecutive 2 % moisture intervals. Only moisture intervals consisting of five or more samples per 

year will be considered for this comparison. 

c. The average calibration bias with respect to air oven shall not exceed 0.20 % moisture, calculated using the 

most recent calibration and all available raw data collected within the last three years through the maximum 

moisture limit. 

Failure to meet the requirements in item a., b., or c. above will cause a “No Longer Approved for Use” status to be 

assigned to the affected grain type(s) on the NTEP Certificate of Conformance (CC) for that instrument. Calibration 

coefficients will not be listed for any calibration failing these requirements. 

Until calibrations for NTEP grains have been evaluated successfully, they shall not be used on NTEP instruments. 

Calibrations for any of the NTEP grain types that have not been evaluated (or that a manufacturer chooses not to 

provide) will be listed on the CC as “Not Available.” 

V. Criteria for NTEP Moisture Calibration Review 

By grain, the basic 6 % Moisture Interval, Standard Moisture Range, and Maximum Upper Limit for moisture 

calibration review are: 

Grain Type or Class Basic 6 % 

Moisture Interval 

Standard Moisture 

Range 

Maximum Upper 

Limit 

Corn 12 % - 18 % 10 % - 26 % 36 % 

Durum Wheat 10 % - 16 % 8 % - 16 % 16 % 

Hard Red Spring Wheat 10 % - 16 % 8 % - 18 % 20 % 

Hard Red Winter Wheat 10 % - 16 % 8 % - 18 % 20 % 

Hard White Wheat 8 % - 14 % 8 % - 14 % 16 % 

Soft Red Winter Wheat 10 % - 16 % 10 % - 18 % 20 % 

Soft White Wheat 10 % - 16 % 8 % - 16 % 18 % 

All-class Wheat 10 % - 16 % 8 % - 18 % 20 % 

Wheat Excluding Durum 10 % - 16 % 8 % - 18 % 20 % 

Grain Sorghum 10 % - 16 % 10 % - 18 % 20 % 

Long Grain Rough Rice 10 % - 16 % 10 % - 20 % 24 % 

Medium Grain Rough Rice 10 % - 16 % 10 % - 20 % 24 % 

All-class Rough Rice 10 % - 16 % 10 % - 20 % 24 % 

Oats 8 % - 14 % 8 % - 14 % 14 % 

Six-Row Barley 10 % - 16 % 8 % - 16 % 18 % 

Two-Row Barley 10 % - 16 % 8 % - 16 % 18 % 

All-class Barley 10 % - 16 % 8 % - 16 % 18 % 

Soybean 10 % - 16 % 8 % - 18 % 22 % 

Sunflower Seed (Oil) 6 % - 12 % 6 % - 16 % 20 % 

The following criteria are to be applied along with criteria listed in Part IV above to verify calibration performance. 

Special Considerations for “Multi-Class Calibrations 

For Phase II, data for each individual grain class included in a “multi-class” calibration will be reviewed to 

determine what adjustments, if any, are needed. 

NTEP - A11 
NTEP Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix A – NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector

Data for each individual grain class and the combined data for all grain classes included in the “multi-class” 

calibration will be reviewed to verify calibration performance for each individual grain class and the combined data. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

VII. Additional Type Evaluation Test Procedures and Tolerances for Grain Moisture 

Meters Incorporating an Automatic Test Weight per Bushel Measuring Feature 

. 

. 

B. Accuracy, Precision, and Reproducibility: 

. 

. 

. 

NTEP - A12 
NTEP Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix A – NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector

Type of Grain Moisture Range 

Minimum Test 

Weight per Bushel 

Range 

Criteria for Sample Selection 

Corn 12 % - 18 % 54 - 58 

Soybeans 10 % - 16 % 55 - 59 

Hard Red Winter Wheat 10 % - 16 % 59 - 63 

Durum Wheat 10 % - 16 % 59 - 63 

Soft White Wheat 

(except White Club) 10 % - 16 % 58 - 62 

Hard Red Spring Wheat 

(and White Club) 10 % - 16 % 58 - 61 

Soft Red Winter Wheat 10 % - 16 % 56 - 60 

Hard White Wheat 8 % - 14 % 60 - 64 

Two-Row Barley 10 % - 16 % 47 - 51 

Six-Row Barley 10 % - 16 % 43 - 47 

Oats 8 % - 14 % 33 - 39 

Sunflower Seed 

(Oil Type) 6 % - 12 % 28 - 31 

Long Grain Rough Rice 10 % - 16 % 43 - 47 

Medium Grain Rough Rice 10 % - 16 % 44 - 48 

Grain Sorghum or Milo 10 % - 16 % 58 - 62 

a) No less than 8 samples 

should come from the 

lowest two-thirds of the 

6 % Moisture Range. 

b) No less than 2 samples 

should come from the 

highest one-third of the 

6 % Moisture Range. 

c) Samples should 

represent a distribution 

of Test Weights per 

Bushel (TW) that 

minimizes the 

correlation between TW 

and moisture. 

. 

. 

NTEP - A13 
NTEP Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix A – NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector

Appendix D 

Sample Temperature Sensitivity 

(For grains/oil seeds other than corn, soybeans, & hard red winter wheat) 

. 

. 

. 

Moisture Ranges and Tolerance for Sample Temperature Sensitivity 

(for the “Other 12” NTEP grains) 

Grain Type Moisture Range 

for Test 

Tolerance Limit 

(Bias at Temperature 

Extremes) 

Durum Wheat 10 % - 16 % 0.35 

Soft White Wheat 10 % - 16 % 0.35 

Hard Red Spring Wheat 10 % - 16 % 0.35 

Soft Red Winter Wheat 10 % - 16 % 0.35 

Hard White Wheat 8 % - 14 % 0.35 

Sunflower seed (Oil) 6 % - 12 % 0.45 

Grain Sorghum 10 % - 16 % 0.45 

Two-rowed Barley 10 % - 16 % 0.35 

Six-rowed Barley 10 % - 16 % 0.45 

Oats 8 % - 14 % 0.45 

Long Grain Rough Rice 10 % - 16 % 0.45 

Medium Grain Rough Rice 10 % - 16 % 0.45 

5. Editorial Change to NIST HB 44, Section 5.56. (a) Table S.1.2. and Section 5.57. 

Table S.1.2. Column Headings to Add a Column for “Grain Class” 

Background: At its August 2006 meeting, the Sector recommended changes to both the Grain Moisture Meter 

(GMM) and Near Infrared Grain Analyzer (NIR) sections of NIST HB 44 to include criteria applicable to “multiclass” calibrations. These recommendations were subsequently adopted by the NCWM for inclusion in the 2008 

version of NIST HB 44. 

Overlooked in the original recommendations were changes to column headings to more specifically indicate that the 

items listed in those columns include grain “types” or “classes.” Following the NCWM Annual Meeting NIST 

conducted a review of the Specifications and Tolerances Committee's (S&T) Grain issues. At this review Diane 

Lee, NIST-WMD, mentioned the additional changes to Table S.1.2. to add “Class” to the headings. These changes 

were judged to be editorial changes not requiring Sector approval. Steve Cook of NIST, new NCWM S&T 

Technical Advisor, and Ms. Lee further modified the tables to improve their appearance and to clarify the 

relationship between “Type” and “Class” by adding columns for “Grain Type” and “Grain Class.” Additional 

changes were made to the titles in tolerance tables to include “Class.” The modified tables are shown below as they 

will appear in the 2008 version of NIST HB 44: 

NTEP - A14 
NTEP Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix A – NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector

Accepted: 

a. In Table S.1.2. of Section 5.56.(a) add a column for “Grain Class” as shown below. 

Section 5.56.(a) GRAIN MOISTURE METERS 

S.1.2. Grain or Seed Kind and Class Selection and Recording 

. 

. 

.

Table S.1.2. Grain Types and Multi-Class Groups Considered for Type Evaluation 

and Calibration and Their Minimum Acceptable Abbreviations

Grain Type Grain Class Minimum Acceptable 

Abbreviation

Two-Rowed Barley TRB 

Barley Six-Rowed Barley SRB 

 All-Class Barley* BARLEY 

Corn --- CORN 

Grain Sorghum --- SORG or MILO 

Oats --- OATS 

Long Grain Rough Rice LGRR 

Medium Grain Rough 

Rice Rice MGRR 

All-Class Rough Rice* RGHRICE 

Small Oil Seeds 

(under consideration) --- --- 

Soybeans --- SOYB 

Sunflower seed (Oil) --- SUNF 

Durum Wheat DURW 

Soft White Wheat SWW 

Hard Red Spring Wheat HRSW 

Hard Red Winter Wheat HRWW 

Soft Red Winter Wheat SRWW 

Hard White Wheat HDWW 

All-Class Wheat* WHEAT 

Wheat 

Wheat Excluding Durum* WHTEXDUR 

[Note: Grain Types marked with an asterisk (*) are “Multi-Class Calibrations”] 

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1998]

(Table Added 1993) (Amended 1995, 1998, and 2007) 

NTEP - A15 
NTEP Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix A – NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector

b. In Table S.1.2. of Section 5.57. add a column for “Grain Class” as shown below. 

Section 5.57. NEAR-INFRARED GRAIN ANALYZERS 

S.1.2. Selecting and Recording Grain Class and Constituent 

. 

. 

.

Table S.1.2. Grain Types and Multi-Class Groups Considered for Type Evaluation and 

Calibration and Their Minimum Acceptable Abbreviations 

Grain Type Grain Class Minimum Acceptable 

Abbreviation

Two-Rowed Barley TRB 

Barley Six-Rowed Barley SRB 

All-Class Barley* BARLEY 

Corn --- CORN 

Soybeans --- SOYB 

Durum Wheat DURW 

Soft White Wheat SWW 

Hard Red Spring Wheat HRSW 

Hard Red Winter Wheat HRWW 

Soft Red Winter Wheat SRWW 

Hard White Wheat HDWW 

All-Class Wheat* WHEAT 

Wheat 

Wheat Excluding Durum* WHTEXDUR 

[Note: Grain Types marked with an asterisk (*) are “Multi-Class Calibrations”] 

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1998]

(Table Added 1993) (Amended 1995, 1998, and 2007) 

6. State Responses to Questions in Don Onwiler’s Letter to Enhance State Participation in 

the Grain Analyzer Sector 

Background: In mid-February 2007, Don Onwiler, NTEP Committee Chairman, sent a letter to key weights and 

measures (W&M) officials seeking their responses to the following questions: 

1. Does your jurisdiction inspect devices for accuracy in test weight determination? How is that working out? 

Are the test procedures and tolerances appropriate? 

2. Has your jurisdiction performed inspections of grain analyzers for protein content of grain? How has that 

worked out? If you have not done these inspections, is there a reason why? Are there still hurdles to clear 

in NIST Handbook 44? 

3. How are you getting along with the tolerances and test procedures for grain moisture? 

This was done in an attempt to identify issues of immediate interest to state W&M personnel; reasoning that an 

agenda featuring issues that are of high concern to them would encourage participation by state W&M personnel. 

Also, a direct written request from NCWM for assistance on topics of high concern to them may be helpful when 

they approach administrators for travel funds. 

Responses to Don’s questions were received from six states: Colorado, Illinois, Maryland, Nebraska, North 

Carolina, and South Carolina. They are summarized below: 

1. Four of the six states have been inspecting grain moisture meters (GMMs) for Test Weight per Bushel 

(TW) for several years. An additional state will begin this year. The sixth state has been unable to collect 

NTEP - A16 
NTEP Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix A – NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector

samples that will test within the tolerances. (There may be a misunderstanding regarding samples used for 

testing.) Among the states presently inspecting GMMs with TW capability, one reported using a single 

SRWW sample for this test. Another reported that rejection rates for TW dropped from 47.7 % in 2004 to 

12.27 % in 2006, with tests thus far in 2007 at 2.83 %. Cheryl Tew, North Carolina Department of 

Agriculture, suggested that it would be helpful if there were procedures for the preparation/selection of 

field test samples. All respondents presently inspecting GMMs for TW were of the opinion that test 

procedures and tolerances were appropriate. 

2. None of the six states reported that they were performing inspections of NIR grain analyzers measuring 

protein in grain. Four of the six indicated that to the best of their knowledge their jurisdictions did not have 

any commercial meters performing protein tests. The fifth gave no reason, but said that they have “no 

plans at this time to conduct inspections on the protein content in grain.” The remaining state, Colorado, 

gave several reasons why they were not inspecting NIR grain analyzers at present: 

a) Statutory authority: The Colorado Measurement Standards Act provides for the licensing of grain 

moisture meters but not for NIR grain analyzers. 

b) Resources: To implement a grain analyzer for protein (NIR) program, we would require more test 

samples, metrologist and field staff training, and additional inspection time. To date we have not 

researched the number of eligible devices in our state. 

c) Industry input: We have not yet contacted our industry partners for input. 

d) Handbook 44, Section 5.57. paragraph N.1.2.: Colorado interprets this paragraph to mean that 

constituent values be assigned to NIR test samples by GIPSA. We suspect that purchasing enough 

samples from GIPSA to test all the commercially used devices in Colorado would be cost prohibitive. 

3. All six states had no problems with current test procedures and tolerances for grain moisture; however, 

several areas of concern were mentioned: 

a) Testing with high moisture corn – difficult to determine if a “failed” inspection is due to the meter or 

the sample. 

b) Sample preparation – some makes of meters agree well with air oven on a sample while other makes 

do not. Is the problem with the air oven or is this a normal difference between meter types? 

c) Testing meter to unlike meter – consistent problems approving one specific type and a large 

percentage of rejects of another type. 

4. One state suggested that it might be helpful to do a round robin air oven comparison among laboratories. 

Discussion: The Sector was surprised to learn that field inspections of NIR grain analyzers were not being 

performed. When the NIR Sector was founded, over 15 years ago, there was an indication that there was an urgent 

need to develop Handbook 44 Code covering near infrared protein analyzers. The scope of the Code was later 

expanded to include near infrared devices measuring additional grains/oil seeds and additional constituents. The 

Near Infrared Grain Analyzer Code was elevated to permanent status effective January 1, 2003. 

Diane Wise, Colorado Department of Agriculture, estimated that there are 100 to 150 NIR instruments in Colorado, 

mostly used in grain elevators for determining wheat protein. She reported that letters have been sent out to survey 

industry needs and to seek participants in a pilot program for testing NIR units in the field. 

A question was raised regarding how the standard reference samples needed for field-testing would be provided to 

the states. It was pointed out that, at present, states must provide the samples. Paragraph N.1.2. of the NIR Grain 

Analyzer Code of NIST Handbook 44 stipulates: 

NTEP - A17 
NTEP Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix A – NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector

N.1.2. Standard Reference Samples. – Reference samples used for field inspection purposes 

shall be clean and selected to reasonably represent the constituent range. These samples shall be 

selected such that the difference between constituent values obtained using the GIPSA standard 

reference method and an official GIPSA NIR grain analyzer does not exceed one-half of the 

acceptance tolerance shown in Table T.2. for individual test samples or 0.375 times the acceptance 

tolerance shown for the average of five samples. 

(Amended 2001and 2003) 

Dr. Richard Pierce, GIPSA, did not immediately recall the origin of the traceability numbers, but suspected they 

came from the original Tentative Code that covered only wheat protein. He noted that they would not apply to 

soybeans. 

The estimated cost of the NIR protein, Combustion Nitrogen Analyzer (CAN) as-is protein, and air oven moisture 

tests (based on the fees/charges listed in USDA/GIPSA/FGIS Directive 9180.74, dated February 12, 2007) are listed 

below: 

GIPSA NIR Wheat Protein (at 12 % M.B.) $10.00 

GIPSA Lab Fees/test: 

 CNA “as is protein” $16.00 

 Air Oven Moisture* $13.00

 Total per sample $39.00 

(*required for reporting protein on a specified moisture basis.) 

A minimum of five samples are required for field inspection of devices measuring protein in wheat. More than five 

samples might have to be submitted for testing to assure that at least five samples will meet the criteria specified in 

N.1.2. 

Because of time constraints, further discussion on this issue was postponed to a future Sector meeting. 

7. Report on OIML TC 17/SC 1 IR59 “Moisture Meters for Cereal Grains and Oilseeds” 

Background and Discussion: This item was included on the Sector’s agenda to provide a summary of the activities 

of OIML TC 17/SC 1. The Secretariat (China) is working closely with the United States and a small international 

work group (IWG) to revise OIML R 59 “Moisture Meters for Cereal Grains and Oilseeds.” All committee drafts 

(CD) have been distributed to the United States National Working Group (USNWG), which for the most part is a 

subset of the NTEP Grain Analyzer Sector. 

TC 17/SC 1 last met in September 2004 in Paris, France to review comments to the April 2004 2 CD of OIML R 59. 

Since that time, revisions and comments have been handled by mail. A 4 CD dated July 2006 was received from the 

Secretariat and circulated to the USNWG in August 2006. U.S. comments were returned to the Secretariat in 

November 2006. To assist in identifying and locating changes that had been made to the 3 CD for inclusion in the 

4 CD, a copy of the collated comments to the 3 CD from all participating countries was forwarded to the USNWG in 

May of 2007. 

The United States will host the next meeting of TC 17/SC 1 at NIST September 24 and 25, at which time comments 

on the 4 CD will be reviewed. Diane Lee, NIST/WMD, briefed the Sector on the status of comments to the 4 CD of 

IR 59 and brought the Sector up to date on plans for the TC 17/SC 1 meeting to be held at NIST. 

Many of the 172 comments on the 4 CD of IR 59 dealt with formatting or editorial issues. Major issues brought up 

in the comments are summarized below: 

NTEP - A18 
NTEP Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix A – NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector

Change scope from “fully automated digitally indicating” to “direct indicating” grain 

moisture meters.

Remove “The minimum allowable sample size used in analysis shall be 100 g or 400 kernels 

or seeds, whichever is smaller” (or remove resistance type meters from the scope). 

Japan 

Remove requirement that Meters must be equipped with a communications interface. 

In order to have a complete harmonization of the measurements, it would be appropriate to 

define an International Reference Method based on ISO Standards. In 4 CD, the reference 

method for moisture content is defined by the national responsible body. Reference Methods 

should be those defined in International Standards (e.g., ISO 711, ISO 712, ISO 665...). 

BIML 

Disturbance tests should include at least: 

• Radiated radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (OIML D 11 - 12.1.1), 

• Conducted radiofrequency fields (OIML D 11 - 12.1.2), 

• Electrostatic discharges (OIML D 11 - 12.2), 

• Bursts on supply lines (OIML D 11 - 13.5), 

• Surges on supply lines (OIML D 11 - 13.8), 

• Bursts on signal, data and control lines (OIML D 11 - 12.4), 

• Surges on signal, data and control lines (OIML D 11 - 12.5), 

• AC mains voltage dips short interruptions and voltage variation (OIML D 11 - 13.4), 

• Mechanical shocks (OIML D 11 - 11.2), 

• Damp heat cyclic (OIML D 11 - 10.2.2), 

• Low voltage of internal battery (OIML D 11 - 14.1) 

Testing procedures should specify the number of instruments to be tested. Only one could be 

used for all the tests except reproducibility test which could specify that at least two samples 

of moisture meters shall be provided by the manufacturer for type approval testing. 

(Note: Many countries have objected to requiring that two instruments be submitted for all 

tests.) 

Requirements related to software should be included on the basis of OIML TC 5/SC 2 work. 

Please refer to the draft Recommendation R 76-1 (clause 5.5 for requirements and annex G 

for evaluation and testing procedures). 

BIML 

(continued) 

Proposal: 

Manufacturers shall provide the technical documentation, a user manual and the 

description of the adjustment procedure. Other information may be provided such as 

information on performance tests, on calibrations that support a determination whether 

the design of the moisture meter meets the requirements of this Recommendation. 

The technical documentation shall include: 

• a list of the electronic sub-assemblies with their essential characteristics; 

• a description of the electronic devices with drawings, diagrams; 

• a description of the software and its characteristics (including identification 

numbers) and operation including a list of the data variables and the 

circumstances when they may be changed; 

• mechanical drawings; and 

• a plan for marking and sealing. 

Ms. Lee asked Sector members (most of whom are also members of the USNWG) to review the country comments 

and provide any reply or concerns they may have with these comments by September 15, 2007. She will arrange a 

conference call with those who plan to attend the TC 17/SC 1 meeting to discuss some of the more important 

concerns with the standard. 

[Editor’s Update: During the September 24 - 25, 2007, TC 17/SC 1 meeting, the subcommittee members agreed to a 

number of changes to the OIML grain moisture Recommendation and addressed a number of the issues that were 

reviewed during the Sector meeting. The subcommittee agreed that: 

NTEP - A19 
NTEP Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix A – NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector

• the scope would state that “This Recommendation applies to digitally indicating grain moisture meters that 

directly display moisture content,” 

• ISO Standards were recommended but the reference method will still be determined by the national 

responsible body, 

• the sample size of 100 g or 400 Kernels remains in the standard but the national authorities may determine 

otherwise, 

• at least two instruments must be submitted for type approval. 

Efforts were made at the meeting to harmonize the OIML grain moisture Recommendation and the protein 

Recommendation. The updated grain moisture Recommendation will be forwarded to the USNWG when updates to 

the Recommendation have been completed]. 

8. Report on OIML TC 17/SC 8 Draft International Recommendation “Protein 

Measuring Instruments for Cereal Grain” 

Background: This item was included on the Sector’s agenda to provide a summary of the activities of OIML 

TC 17/SC 8. The first meeting of OIML TC 17/SC 8, charged with developing an International Recommendation 

(IR) for “Protein Measuring Instruments for Cereal Grain,” was held in Sydney, Australia May 31 - June 1, 2004, to 

review comments received on an outline draft that had been developed earlier by Australia, the Secretariat of 

TC 17/SC 8. At that meeting, the scope of the recommendation was expanded to include wheat, barley, corn, 

soybeans, and rice, and changes were made to allow the national measurement authority to determine moisture basis, 

reference method, instrument monitoring process, and whether or not to test non-direct measuring devices. 

The United States received a 2nd working draft (WD) of this document in August 2004, and a 3rd draft was received 

in May 2005. The USNWG members provided comments to these drafts relating mostly to parts of the document 

that appeared to be in conflict with U.S. metrological practice and procedures. In June 2005, a work group meeting 

was held in Berlin to address comments on the 3rd draft. Subsequently, a 1st Committee Draft (CD) of “Protein 

Measuring Instruments for Cereal Grain and Oil Seeds” dated May 2006 was forwarded to the USNWG with a 

request for comments by July 1, 2006. A second meeting of the work group was held in Ottawa, Canada in 

September 2006 to review comments received on the 1 CD. The main points of contention were: 1) Maximum 

permissible errors (MPEs), and 2) the standard reference method (Kjeldahl method vs. Dumas method). A small 

working group (WG) was established to consider appropriate MPEs for protein measuring instruments. A table of 

proposed MPEs (see table following) has been distributed to USNWG members for review and comment by 

June 25, 2007. 

The United States will host the next meeting of the TC 17/SC 8 work group at NIST September 20 and 21, 2007, to 

attempt to resolve issues related to MPEs and the standard reference method. 

NTEP - A20 
NTEP Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix A – NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector

Grain type 

MPE 

(type approval) 

% 

MPE 

(repeatability) 

% 

MPE 

(in-field, 

verification, 

re-verification) 

% 

MPE 

(reproducibility) 

% 

Wheat ± 0.3 ± 0.2 ± 0.4 ± 0.3 

Barley ± 0.4 ± 0.3 ± 0.5 ± 0.4 

Rice ± 0.5 ± 0.25 ± 0.5 ± 0.5 

Corn ± 0.5 ± 0.25 ± 0.8 ± 0.5 

Soybean ± 0.55 ± 0.5 ± 0.8 ± 0.55 

Discussion: Diane Lee, NIST/WMD, reported that U.S. comments had been forwarded to Australia. The United 

States response included a table of the tolerances that are applied in the U.S. type evaluation program for protein 

measuring instruments and also field evaluation tolerances and an explanation of how the tolerances are applied. As 

of the August 2007 Grain Analyzer Sector meeting, no response had been received from Australia. 

[Editor’s Update: Australia’s reply to comments on the Table of Proposed MPEs was received in the United States 

approximately one week after the Grain Analyzer Sector meeting. The reply was distributed to members of the 

USNWG requesting comments or feedback by September 15, 2007. In summary, Australia’s reply indicated that 

they were firmly opposed to separate MPEs for repeatability and reproducibility and to the further separation of 

MPEs for particular instrument characteristics. However, they would support the inclusion of tight MPEs for 

repeatability, but they are yet to be convinced that there is any need for MPEs for reproducibility.] 

[Additional Editor’s update: During the September 20 - 21, 2007, TC 17/SC 8 meeting, Australia and other 

members of the subcommittee agreed to add additional tests and separate MPEs for these tests to the OIML Protein 

Recommendation. An updated OIML Protein Recommendation with changes from the September 20 - 21, 2007, 

TC 17/SC 8 meeting will be circulated to the USNWG when the United States receives the updates from the 

Secretariat.] 

9. Report on OIML TC 5/SC 2 Draft “General Requirements for Software Controlled 

Measuring Devices” and NTETC Software Sector Activities 

Background: This item was included on the Sector’s agenda to provide a summary of the activities of OIML 

TC 5/SC 2 and the NTETC Software Sector. In 2004, all OIML TCs and SCs that were revising an OIML 

Recommendation were contacted to ensure that software aspects would be considered in revised Recommendations. 

All OIML Documents and Recommendations published since 1990 have been reviewed for terms and requirements 

related to software. A pre-draft of the document “Software in Legal Metrology” was circulated in October 2004 by 

the Co-Secretariats (Germany and France). When complete, this document will serve as guidance for OIML 

technical committees addressing software requirements in Recommendations for software-controlled instruments. 

NIST submitted U.S. comments on an early draft in February 2005. The 1st working draft (WD) of this document, 

titled “General Requirements for Software Controlled Measuring Instruments” was received in February 2006. U.S. 

comments to this WD were sent to the Secretariat in June 2006. A 1st Committee Draft (CD), addressing comments 

received on 1 WD, was recently distributed by the Secretariat. Copies (in pdf format) are available at 

http://www.oiml.org/download/cds.html. 

NTEP - A21 
NTEP Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix A – NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector

The NTETC Software Sector held its first meeting in April 2006. At that time, several subcommittee work groups 

were formed to focus on various aspects relating to the use of software in today’s weighing and measuring 

instruments. A second meeting was held in October 2006.

Discussion: Diane Lee, NIST/WMD, reported that Ambler Thompson of NIST-WMD has requested that any U.S. 

comments on 1 CD should be sent to him no later than September 7, 2007. The next meeting of TC 5/SC 2 is 

scheduled to be held at the PTB in Berlin, Germany during the week of December 3 - 7, 2007. Comments to 1 CD 

will be addressed at that time. 

The NTETC Software Sector held its third meeting May 7 - 8, 2007, in Sacramento, California. Their next meeting 

is tentatively scheduled for the spring of 2008, either immediately preceding or following the meeting of NTEP 

laboratory representatives held at that time. Steve Patoray, NTEP Director, reported that the WELMEC document 

for Type P (built-for-purpose) and Type U (using a universal general-purpose computer) instruments is being used 

as a model for much of the Software Sector’s proposed Code. 

[Editor’s Note: A history and overview of WELMEC activities towards the development of software requirements 

and software examination for measuring instruments under legal control can be downloaded from 

http://www.oiml.org/bulletin/2000/07/welmec.pdf. The complete WELMEC software document is available from 

http://www.welmec.org/publications/7-2en.pdf.] 

10. Enhanced Trait Soybeans – Calibration Issues 

Source: United Soybean Board (USB) 

Background: Near infrared analyzers are becoming increasingly necessary for measuring soybean composition 

factors. In some cases, the factors are those covered by NTEP (protein and oil) and in others the factors are outside 

NTEP (individual fatty acids, sugar profiles, and others). Successful development of new traits requires uniform 

measurements across the entire developmental chain, from seed breeder to end user, a broader scope than covered by 

NIST Handbook 44. Additional instruments beyond those actually submitted for NTEP are used; collectively all 

instruments across the development chain need to agree, both on average, and, to the extent possible, from sample to 

sample. 

Two United Soybean Board projects, Soybean Quality Traits (SQT) and Analytical Measurements and Marketing 

Standards Initiative (AMMS) have been developing a program that would generate a common soybean sample pool 

(with reference chemistry) that could be used to: 

1. Modify existing instrument calibrations of all manufacturers (whether NTEP participants or not) such that 

differences among them are minimized. 

2. Allow new manufacturers/technologies to enter the market efficiently. 

3. Form the basis for a voluntary-participation proficiency program open to any user at any point in the 

development chain, many of which would not be subject to Handbook 44. 

4. Allow rapid evaluation and introduction of tests for new traits, such as amino acids, phytate, fatty acid 

profiles. This would include the measurement of general market factors (protein and oil) on specialty 

grains that likely were not in the calibration pool of the NTEP calibrations. 

The overall goal is to facilitate the introduction of new technologies and new traits in an organized way that supports 

the more direct supply chain markets developing from bioprocessing and biotechnology. Activities of the two USB 

projects could provide both support and sample materials for the NTEP program. 

Discussion: Participants in the SQT and AMMS projects will share results and future concepts for cooperation with 

the Grain Analyzer Sector. Some of the topics include: 

1. Should we bring new traits more quickly into the NTEP system, and if so, how can the USB programs 

assist? 

NTEP - A22 
NTEP Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix A – NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector

2. Can we harmonize sample pools? 

3. Is there a way to collaborate to gain participation in NTEP of instruments not necessarily 

designed/marketed for trade use, but that still are integral parts of the value chain (i.e., those designed for 

breeder use). 

4. How to harmonize contractual trades as well as those subject to open market regulation - especially when 

NTEP factors may be measured along with others, but on specialty rather than general market grains. 

5. How to update NTEP calibrations to measure the general market factors on new genetics not likely to be 

found in open market channels. 

Amy Lopez, AOCS, manager of the USB SQT Analytical Standards Program, summarized efforts underway on the 

development and evaluation of analytical tools for the analysis of soybean quality traits. These efforts involve both 

wet chemistry and NIR analyzers. Work is being done with mulitple NIR companies to improve calibrations not 

only for protein and oil, but also for fatty acids and amino acids. Toward this end, a sample library, representative 

of many of the new genotypes, is being maintained. Assistance is offered to NIR manufacturers by supplying 

samples for calibration development. Calibration files developed in the SQT Analytical Standards Program (with 

yearly calibration updates) are offered to NIR device users. Also included is the opportunity to take advantage of a 

QC program in which the same prepared sample is sent to all participating laboratories to obtain specific analytical 

results. After performing the required analyses a participaing laboratory returns the results to AOCS which provides 

a statistical evaluation of the analytical results that compare, on a confidential basis, that laboratory's data with those 

of the other participating laboratories. A submitting laboratory’s identity is known only to the submitter. 

Dr. Nick Bajjalieh, Integrative Nutritition, Inc., outlined the approach the USB AMMS program was taking to 

develop marketing initiatives especially in the animal feed area. 

Following the presentations, it was pointed out that most of the suggested topics were outside of the Sector’s scope. 

However, several Sector members agreed that all NIR instruments in commercial use should be capable of providing 

in-tolerance results for protein, oil, and moisture when tested using the same soybean sample, whether that sample is 

a commodity-type soybean variety or a so-called “enhanced trait” variety. In other words, protein, oil, and moisture 

measurements using a “specialty soybean calibration” should agree with protein, oil, and moisture measurements 

using an NTEP soybean calibration. As more “enhanced trait” varieties are introduced, it is inevitable that some 

will find their way into commodity soybean channels, so harmonization of soybean protein, oil, and moisture 

calibrations between NTEP calibrations and “Enhanced Trait” calibrations should be a goal. 

Dr. Pierce noted that GIPSA is expanding their NIR calibration database to include some specialty trait grains. 

11. Prevention of Potential GMM Fraud – Expected Integrity among Moisture Meter 

Manufacturers 

Source: DICKEY-john Corporation 

Background: This item is intended to call attention to the potentially fraudulent practice of “calibrating” field 

instruments to read differently (higher) than like-type NTEP meters in the grain moisture meter (GMM) Ongoing 

Calibration Program (OCP) at GIPSA in Kansas City, thereby encouraging elevator owner-operators to purchase 

meters reading higher than the Federal Standard moisture meter. This issue has recently surfaced again due to 

seasonal grain movement in commercial corn markets. 

For years, certain manufacturers or service agencies have been suspected of performing fraudulent electronic 

calibration adjustments to grain moisture meters before returning them to the field after repair or periodic routine 

maintenance. In fact, many like-type commercial moisture meters in field use have been noted to read (consistently) 

at the high end of the maintenance tolerance for moisture, thus allowing them to read several tenths to full 

percentage points higher in moisture, during commercial grain trade, than the GAC2100 Federal Standard meter. 

Grain purchased using a meter reading higher, inaccurate moisture values costs producers money in terms of inflated 

drying charges and excess shrinkage, thus benefiting the buyer. This same grain can then be sold by the buyer using 

a different meter (one that reads lower moisture) without incurring excess shrinkage or inflated drying cost, 

affording the buyer (now seller) an unfair profit at the cost of the producer. 

NTEP - A23 
NTEP Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix A – NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector

This alleged fraudulent practice has been noted due to the fact that comparative OCP data for Corn identifying the 

Official Meter and listing the average bias for each NTEP meter type published by the NTEP Participating 

Laboratory for Grain Analyzers in 2005 and 2006 clearly show the Official Meter (the DICKEY-john GAC2100) to 

agree within 0.2 % moisture with any other NTEP meter up to 20 % moisture. Above 20 % moisture, the GAC2100 

moisture indication increases to over 0.4 % moisture above other NTEP meters and peaks to 1.3 % moisture above 

most other meters at 27 % moisture. These data would indicate that most field meters should consistently read the 

same as the Federal Standard meter below 20 % moisture and below the Federal Standard meter at moistures higher 

than 20 %. However, state regulatory field test results for Corn (crop years 2005 and 2006) appear to indicate that 

the opposite may be true. 

There are several NIST HB 44 requirements that speak to the maintenance and use of devices that are intended to 

prevent the user from taking advantage of the tolerance of any device. The general code in HB 44 includes the 

following pertinent paragraphs: 

G-UR.4.1 Maintenance of Equipment 

This paragraph states that, “...Equipment in service at a place of business found to be in error predominately 

in a direction favorable to the device user shall not be considered maintained in a proper operating 

condition.” Although this does not speak directly to moisture meters, its intent is to ensure that when devices 

are calibrated, the calibration is set as close to zero as possible and is not set to one side of the tolerance in 

favor of the device owner. 

G-UR.4.3 Use of Adjustments 

This paragraph states that “...Whenever equipment is adjusted, the adjustment shall be so made as to bring 

performance as close as practicable to zero value.” 

Fundamental Considerations, NIST HB 44, paragraph 2.3. Tolerance and Adjustments 

“...Equipment owners should not take advantage of the tolerances by deliberately adjusting their equipment 

to have a value or to give performance at or close to the tolerance limit...” 

There are also provisions for avoidance of perpetration of fraud found in NIST Handbook 130 Uniform Laws and 

Regulations: 

Section 15, Misrepresentation of Quantity 

“No person shall: sell, offer, or expose for sale a quantity less than the quantity represented, nor take more 

than the represented quantity when, as buyer, he/she furnished the weight or measure by means of which the 

quantity is determined, nor represent the quantity in any manner calculated or tending to mislead or in any 

way deceive another person.”

Section 22, Prohibited Acts 

“No person shall use or have in possession for use any incorrect weight or measure...”

The above information is not intended in any way to accuse or insinuate that any particular meter manufacturer is 

knowingly participating in fraudulent practices, but is intended to provide information regarding the regulations 

designed to prevent such potential occurrences. Reviewing these regulations is intended to remind manufacturers 

and their service agencies that intentionally adjusting meters to be in error predominately in a direction favorable to 

the device user is considered a fraudulent practice, and also to remind weights and measures officials that meters 

adjusted in this manner shall not be considered maintained in a proper operating condition.

Discussion: Questions were raised about the validity of the 2002 study in Illinois, especially with regard to the use 

of high-moisture corn samples (above 22 % moisture), many of which were so wet that they had to be hand-shelled. 

Responding to the question, “How do you prove that production does or does not meet type?” Dr. Richard Pierce, 

GIPSA, noted that because different meter types react differently to the same sample, the only way to show 

conformance to type is by a meter-to-like-meter comparison where the “standard” meter is traceable to the meters in 

the NTEP Phase II program at GIPSA. Steve Patoray, NTEP Director, suggested that this may be an enforcement 

issue, not a conformity issue. As such, this type of issue should be discussed at a regional meeting. Co-Technical 

Advisor, Jack Barber, offered the opinion that it is a standardization or normalization issue. If a difference does 

NTEP - A24 
NTEP Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix A – NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector

exist between the NTEP “standard” meters and a device in the field, it could be due to improper adjustment either by 

the manufacturer or by a service agency. It was suggested that states may need to ensure that there is a Registered 

Service Agent program in the state and that service personnel receive the proper training to ensure that adjustments 

made to the meter are appropriate. 

The Sector took no action on this issue. 

12. Time and Place for Next Meeting 

The next meeting is tentatively planned for Wednesday, August 20 and Thursday, August 21, 2008, in the 

Kansas City, Missouri area. Meetings will be held in either the meeting hotel or the National Weather Service 

Training Center. Sector members are asked to hold these days open pending determination of agenda items, exact 

meeting times, and meeting duration. Final meeting details will be announced by early May 2008. 

If you would like to submit an agenda item for the 2008 meeting, please contact Steve Patoray, NTEP Director, at 

spatoray@mgmtsol.com; G. Diane Lee, NIST Technical Advisor, at diane.lee@nist.gov; or Jack Barber, Technical 

Advisor, at jwbarber@insightbb.com by April 15, 2008.

Change Summary 

Recommended Amendments/Changes to the Grain Moisture Meters Chapter 

 in the 

2007 Edition of NCWM Publication 14

Section Number Amendment/Change Page Source 

IV. Tolerances for 

Calibration 

Performance 

Delete all text relating to “approved” and 

“Pending” categories. Amend/modify to show 

the revised criteria for calibration approval. 

GMM-5 

thru 

GMM-7 

08/07

Grain Moisture 

Meter Sector 

Agenda Item 4

V. Criteria for NTEP 

Moisture Calibration 

Review 

Add Table specifying “Basic 6 % Moisture 

Interval,” “Standard Moisture Range,” and 

“Maximum Upper Limit” for each grain type 

or class. Delete Cases I through VII dealing 

with inadequately represented moisture 

intervals. Modify “Special Considerations for 

‘Multi-Class’ Calibrations.” 

GMM-7 

thru 

GMM-10 

08/07

Grain Moisture 

Meter Sector 

Agenda Item 4

VII.B. Accuracy, 

Precision, and 

Reproducibility 

Change Oats Moisture Range from 10 % 

to 16 % to 8 % to 14 % in table. 

GMM-13 08/07

Grain Moisture 

Meter Sector 

Agenda Item 4

Appendix D – Sample 

Temperature Sensitivity 

(For grains/oil seeds other 

than corn, soybeans, and 

hard red winter wheat) 

Change Oats Moisture Range from 10 % to 

6 % to 8 % to14 % in table titled “Moisture 

Ranges and Tolerance for Sample Temperature 

Sensitivity.” 

GMM-44 08/07

Grain Moisture 

Meter Sector 

Agenda Item 4

NTEP - A25 
NTEP Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix A – NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector

NTEP - A26 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
NTEP Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix B – NTETC Measuring Sector 

Appendix B 

National Type Evaluation Technical Committee 

Measuring Sector 

October 18 - 19, 2007 – Little Rock, Arkansas 

Meeting Summary 

Agenda Items 

National Type Evaluation Technical Committee ................................................................................................... B2

1. Recommendations to Update NCWM Publication 14 to Reflect Changes to NIST Handbook 44 .............. B2

A. Checklist and Test Procedures (LMD – 28).......................................................................................... B2

B. Checklist and Test Procedures (LMD – 30).......................................................................................... B2

C. Checklist and Test Procedures (LMD – 32).......................................................................................... B2

D. Checklist and Test Procedures (LMD – 33, 34).................................................................................... B3

E. Checklist and Test Procedures for Specific Criteria for Vehicle Tank Meters (LMD – 44)................. B3

Carryover Items........................................................................................................................................................ B6

2. Table of Key Characteristics of Products in Family Products Table for Meters.......................................... B6

3. NTEP Checklist for Water Meters in Submetering Applications............................................................... B10

4. NTEP Checklist for LPG Vapor Meters in Submetering Applications...................................................... B11

5. Testing Meters Made of Different Metals.................................................................................................. B11

New Items................................................................................................................................................................ B13

6. Revise NTEP Policy F “New Product Applications for Meters” ............................................................... B13

7. Add Testing Criteria to NTEP Policy U “Evaluating electronic indicators submitted separate from a 

measuring element”.................................................................................................................................... B15

8. Next Meeting.............................................................................................................................................. B15

Additional Items as Time Allows........................................................................................................................... B15

9. Temperature Compensation for Liquid-Measuring Devices Code............................................................. B15

List of Appendices .................................................................................................................................................. B16

Appendix A – Measurement Canada Approval Procedure for Electronic Registers and Printers..................... B16

Appendix B – Measurement Canada Approval Procedure for Linearization Functions Incorporated in 

Measuring Instruments............................................................................................................... B16

Appendix C – Measurement Canada Approval Procedure for Automatic Temperature Compensator 

Electronic Type .......................................................................................................................... B16

Appendix D – Checklist and Test Procedures for Water Meters....................................................................... B16

NTEP - B1 
NTEP Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix B – NTETC Measuring Sector 

National Type Evaluation Technical Committee 

1. Recommendations to Update NCWM Publication 14 to Reflect Changes to NIST 

Handbook 44 

Source: NIST/WMD 

Background: The 92nd National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM) adopted the following items that 

will be reflected in the 2008 Edition of NIST Handbook 44 (HB 44) and NCWM Publication 14. These items are 

part of the agenda to inform the Measuring Sector (MS) of the NCWM actions and recommend changes to NCWM 

Publication 14. 

Recommendation: The Sector reviewed following changes to Publication 14 based on changes to NIST HB 44:

A. Checklist and Test Procedures (LMD – 28)

Code Reference: S.1.2.3. Value of Smallest Unit 

7.24. The value of the quantity division shall not exceed the equivalent of one 

pint 0.5 L (0.1 gal) on retail devices with a flow rate of 750 L/min 

(200 gal/min) or less. 

Yes  No  N/A 

B. Checklist and Test Procedures (LMD – 30)

Code Reference: S.1.6.5.6., Display of Quantity and Total Price, Aviation Refueling Applications

7.41. S.1.6.5.6. Display of Quantity and Total Price, Aviation Refueling 

Applications.

(a) The quantity shall be displayed throughout the transaction.

(b) The total price shall also be displayed under one of the 

following conditions:

i. The total price can appear on the face of the dispenser or 

through a controller adjacent to the device.

ii. If a device is designed to continuously calculate and 

display the total price, it shall be displayed for the 

quantity delivered throughout the transaction.

(c) The total price and quantity shall be displayed for at least 

5 min or until the next transaction is initiated by using 

controls on the device or other customer-activated controls.

(d) A printed receipt shall be available and shall include, at a 

minimum, the total price, quantity, and unit price.

Yes  No  N/A 

C. Checklist and Test Procedures (LMD – 32) 

Code Reference: S.2.2.1. Multiple Measuring Devices with a Single Provision 

for Sealing 

9.6 A change to the adjustment of any measuring element shall be 

individually identified. 

Yes  No  N/A 

B - 2
NTEP Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix B – NTETC Measuring Sector 

Note: Examples of acceptable identification of a change to the adjustment of a 

measuring element include, but are not limited to: 

(a) a broken, missing, or replaced physical seal on an individual 

measuring element, 

(b) a change in a calibration factor for each measuring element, 

(c) display of the date of or the number of days since the last calibration 

event for each measuring element or, 

(d) a counter indicating the number of calibration events per measuring 

element. 

Note (2): S.2.2.1. will be removed in the 2010 edition of Handbook 44 when General Code 

paragraph G-S.8.1. Multiple Weighing or Measuring Elements with a Single Provision for Sealing 

becomes effective.

D. Checklist and Test Procedures (LMD – 33, 34)

10. Discharge Lines and Discharge Line Valves 

Code Reference: S.3.1. Diversion of Measured Liquid 

This paragraph does not apply to devices that comply with Paragraph S.3.2. 

To prevent fraudulent practices, no means for which any measured liquid can be diverted from the 

measuring chamber or the discharge line of a device shall be available. 

A device may have two or more delivery outlets if there are automatic means to 

insure that: 

Yes  No  N/A 

(a) liquid can flow from only one outlet at a time, and 

(b) the direction of liquid flow is definitely and conspicuously 

indicated. 

10.1. Except as identified above, it shall not be possible to divert measured 

liquid from the measuring chamber or the discharge line of the device. 

Yes  No  N/A 

10.2. Two or more delivery outlets may be installed if there are automatic 

means to ensure that liquid can flow from only one outlet at a time, and 

the direction of flow for which the mechanism may be set at any time is 

definitely and conspicuously indicated. 

Yes  No  N/A 

10.3. Except as identified above, an manually controlled outlet that may be 

opened for purging or draining the measuring system or for recirculating,

if recirculation is required in order to maintain the product in a 

deliverable state, suspension shall be permitted only when the system 

is measuring food products, or agri-chemicals, biodiesel, or biodiesel 

blends. Effective automatic means shall be provided to prevent passage 

of liquid through any such outlet during normal operation of the 

measuring system and to inhibit meter indications (or advancement of 

indications) and recorded representations while the outlet is in operation. 

Yes  No  N/A 

E. Checklist and Test Procedures for Specific Criteria for Vehicle Tank Meters (LMD – 44)

Checklist and Test Procedures for Specific Criteria for Vehicle Tank Meters 

Code Reference S.2.5. Automatic Temperature Compensation for Refined Petroleum Products

NTEP - B3 
NTEP Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix B – NTETC Measuring Sector 

24. Primary Elements 

24.12. A device may be equipped with an automatic means for adjusting the 

indication and registration of the measured volume of product to the 

volume at 15 °C for liters or the volume at (60 °F) for gallons and 

decimal subdivisions or fractional equivalents thereof where not 

prohibited by state law.

24.13 On a device equipped with an automatic temperature-compensating 

mechanism that will indicate or record only in terms of liters (gallons) 

compensated to 15 °C (60 °F), provision shall be made for deactivating 

the automatic temperature-compensating mechanism so the meter can 

indicate and record, if it is equipped to record, in terms of the 

uncompensated volume.

Yes  No  N/A 

24.14 A device equipped with automatic temperature compensation shall 

indicate or record, if equipped to record, both the gross 

(uncompensated) and net (compensated) volume for testing purposes. 

It is not necessary that both net and gross volume be displayed 

simultaneously.

Yes  No  N/A 

26 Measuring Element 

Code Reference: S.2.2. Provision for Sealing 

26.3. The adjusting mechanism shall be readily accessible to affix a security seal. Yes  No  N/A 

Code Reference: S.2.5.4. Provision for Sealing Automatic Temperature-Compensating Systems 

26.4 Adequate provision shall be made for an approved means of security 

(e.g., data change audit trail) or physically applying security seals in 

such a manner that an automatic temperature-compensating system 

cannot be disconnected and no adjustment may be made to the system.

Yes  No  N/A 

Code Reference: S.2.4. Zero Set-Back Interlock, Vehicle-Tank Meters, 

Electronic 

26.45 Except for vehicle-mounted metering systems used solely for the delivery 

of aviation fuel, a device shall be so constructed that after individual or 

multiple deliveries at one location have been completed, an automatic 

interlock system shall engage to prevent a subsequent delivery until the 

indicating and, if equipped, recording elements have been returned to their 

zero position. For individual deliveries, if there is no product flow for 

3 minutes, the transaction must be completed before additional product 

flow is allowed. The 3-minute timeout shall be a sealable feature on an 

indicator. 

Yes  No  N/A 

Code Reference S.2.5.5. Temperature Determination with Automatic Temperature Compensation

26.6 For test purposes, means shall be provided (e.g., thermometer well) to 

determine the temperature of the liquid either:

(a) in the liquid chamber of the meter, or

(b) immediately adjacent to the meter in the meter inlet or 

discharge line.

Yes  No  N/A 

B - 4
NTEP Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix B – NTETC Measuring Sector 

28 Marking Requirements 

Code Reference: S.5.6. Temperature Compensation for Refined Petroleum Products.

28.4. If a device is equipped with an automatic temperature compensator, 

the primary indicating elements, recording elements, and recorded 

representations shall be clearly and conspicuously marked to show that 

the volume delivered has been adjusted to the volume at 15 °C for liters 

or the volume at 60 °F for gallons and decimal subdivisions or 

fractional equivalents thereof.

Yes  No  N/A 

Field Evaluation and Permanence Tests for Metering Systems 

(Section C. below is part of agenda item E.) 

C. Field Evaluation and Permanence Test for Vehicle-Tank Meters, Except LPG, Cryogenic, and 

CO2

The following tests are considered to be appropriate for vehicle-tank metering systems: 

• Four test drafts at each of five flow rates. 

• One vapor or air eliminator (product depletion) test. 

Note: The normal test of a measuring system shall be made at the maximum discharge rate that may be anticipated 

under the conditions of the installation. Any additional tests conducted at flow rates down to and including one-half 

of the sum of the maximum discharge flow rate and the rated minimum discharge flow rate shall be considered 

normal tests. (Code reference N.4.1.) 

Only one meter is required for the initial test, and after the test, the meter will be placed into service for the 

permanence test. The minimum throughput criterion for these meters is the maximum rated flow in units per minute 

x 2000. 

Following the period of use, the tests listed above are to be repeated. All results within the range of flow rates to be 

included on the certificate of conformance must be within the applicable tolerances. Extended flow range testing 

performed at the manufacturer's discretion may be included on the certificate of conformance provided the results 

are within the acceptable tolerances. 

Tests of Automatic Temperature Compensating Systems (Code Reference T.2.1.) 

The difference between the meter error (expressed as a percentage) for results determined with and 

without the automatic temperature-compensating system activated shall not exceed:

(a) 0.4 % for mechanical automatic temperature-compensating systems; and

(b) 0.2 % for electronic automatic temperature-compensating systems.

The delivered quantities for each test shall be approximately the same size. The results of each test shall 

be within the applicable acceptance or maintenance tolerance.

Repeatability on Vehicle-Tank Meters (Code Reference T. 3.)

When multiple tests are conducted at approximately the same flow rate, the range of the test results for 

the flow rate shall not exceed 40 % of the absolute value of the maintenance tolerance, and the results of 

each test shall be within the applicable tolerance. This tolerance does not apply to the test of the 

automatic temperature-compensating system.

NTEP - B5 
NTEP Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix B – NTETC Measuring Sector 

Tests for repeatability shall include a minimum of three consecutive test drafts of approximately the 

same size and be conducted under controlled conditions where variations in factors, such as temperature, 

pressure, and flow rate, are reduced to the extent that they will not affect the results obtained.

Conclusion: The Sector agreed to forward Items 1A through E to the NTEP Committee for addition to 

Publication 14. 

Carryover Items 

2. Table of Key Characteristics of Products in Family Products Table for Meters 

Source: NTEP Director 

Background: Prior to the 2006 Sector Meeting the NTEP director, Steve Patoray, submitted the following 

comments for Sector consideration: 

This is a developing item. Probably all of you reading this know more about this topic than I ever will. I 

have had discussions with several different people on this topic over the past several months. The Product 

Family Table in NCWM Publication 14 has been improved over the past several years. Currently, Mass 

Flow Meters have a key characteristic of specific gravity. PD meters have a key characteristic of viscosity. 

We list in the table numbers. However, these numbers are without reference. These are normally tied to 

some temperature. None is listed. Also, there is no cross reference for anyone to identify what products 

might fall within those ranges. I had a very difficult time finding specific information on even some very 

basic products that we normally use in evaluations. Several of the folks on the Sector helped locate various 

tables and charts to help ID these values. The information in these charts varies for the “same” product. 

As an example of the potential confusion, there are both dynamic (absolute) and kinematic viscosity. The 

values for these are not the same for the same product, the unit for these, respectively, is CentiPoises and 

CentiStokes. 

Quoting from the Engineering Tool Box: The viscosity of a fluid is highly temperature-dependent and for 

either dynamic or kinematic viscosity to be meaningful, the reference temperature must be quoted. 

In the table on page LMD-3 there are numbers for both Viscosity and Specific Gravity but no temperatures. 

While S.G. may not be as temperature-dependent, some reference should still be cited. 

To expand on this in the table in Pub 14 on page LMD-3, we have Test C which just states viscosity, while 

Test E states specifically kinematic viscosity. This may be very important for the device that uses these 

tests, but I would suggest that it be clarified and consistent. The use of just the term “viscosity” could be 

misinterpreted. 

What I am proposing is that this group consider listing specific values for each of the typical products listed 

in this table. It may need to be a separate table. With this information, the NTEP evaluator would then be 

able to look to the chart and find the correct value for the critical characteristic. This could be listed on the 

CC and the range could clearly be identified. Additional products could be added as necessary when used 

for an evaluation. The main point is that the same values will be used. 

Also, there are four different product groups for crop chemicals. Without further information, this can lead 

to confusion. 

Trying to follow all of the special notes is very difficult. 

There still seem to be product families that are based on some other factor that is not specified, not just 

viscosity or specific gravity (first page of table). Many of the different products' values overlap. 

B - 6
NTEP Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix B – NTETC Measuring Sector 

This should be enough to get the discussion started. I hope that I have been clear in the fact that I would 

like to see this table continue to be revised and if possible condensed. 

At the 2006 meeting, the Sector discussed the NTEP director’s concerns and explored the concept of having a table 

of additional product characteristics beyond what is currently in the Product Family Table. The Sector considered 

appointing a separate work group to develop this item for presentation and discussion at the next meeting. The 

Sector ultimately agreed that further development of key characteristics should be included in the tasks of the work 

group formed to develop a new Product Family Table approach, as discussed in the 2006 agenda Item 5. 

Work Group (WG) Recommendation: The Product Family Table from Pub 14 has been reviewed and 

reorganized by the work group as shown below. The new table removes the named liquids and focuses on the 

influence factors for the mass, magnetic, positive displacement, and turbine flowmeters. 

There remains a need to list the liquids describing the viscosity, specific gravity, and conductance. 

Product 

Family Flowmeter Test Requirements

Normal 

Liquids

Magnetic Flowmeters – Use Test F

Mass Flowmeters – Use Test B

Positive Displacement Flowmeters – Use Test C

Turbine Flowmeters – Use Test E

Other Flowmeter Types – Use Test A

Heated 

Products 

(above 50 °C)

Mass Flowmeters – Use Test D

Positive Displacement Flowmeters – Use Test D

Other Flowmeter Types – Use Test A

Compressed 

Liquids

Mass Flowmeters – Use Test D

Positive Displacement Flowmeters – Use Test D

Turbine flowmeters – Use Test E

Other Flowmeter Types – Use Test A 

Cryogenic 

Liquids and

Liquefied 

Natural Gas

Mass Flowmeters – Use Test D

Positive Displacement Flowmeters – Use Test A

Turbine flowmeters – Use Test D

Other Flowmeter Types – Use Test A

Compressed 

Gases

Mass Flowmeters – Use Test D

Not applicable to Positive Displacement Flowmeters

Other Flowmeter Types – Use Test A

Note: CNG is only included in Section 3.37 Mass Flow Meters of Handbook 44

NTEP - B7 
NTEP Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix B – NTETC Measuring Sector 

Tests to be Conducted

Test A – Products must be individually tested and noted on the Certificate of Conformance.

Test B – To obtain coverage for a range of products within a family: Test with one product having a low 

specific gravity; test with a second product having a high specific gravity. The Certificate of Conformance 

will cover all products in the family within the specific gravity range tested.

Test C – To obtain coverage for a range of products within a family: Test with one product having a low 

viscosity; test with a second product having a high viscosity. The Certificate of Conformance will cover all 

products in the family within the viscosity range tested.

Test D – To obtain coverage for a product family: Test with one product in the product family.

Test E – To obtain coverage for a range of products within a family: Test with one product having a low 

kinematic viscosity; test with a second product having a high kinematic viscosity. The Certificate of 

Conformance will note coverage for all products in the family within the kinematic viscosity range tested.

Test F – To obtain coverage for a range of products within a family: Test with one product having a specified 

conductivity. The Certificate of Conformance will note coverage for all products in the family with 

conductivity equal to or above the conductivity of the tested liquid.

B - 8
NTEP Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix B – NTETC Measuring Sector 

Product Family Typical Products1

Viscosity5

(Centipoise) 

(Centistokes)

Specific

Gravity2

Normal Liquids Diesel Fuel3, Distillate, Gasoline4, Fuel Oil, Kerosene, 

Light Oil, Spindle Oil, Lubricating Oils, SAE Grades, 

Bunker Oil, 6 Oil, Crude Oil, Asphalt, Vegetable Oil, 

Biodiesel above B20, Avgas, Jet A, Jet A-1, Jet B, JP4, 

JP5, JP7, JP8, Cooking Oils, Sunflower Oil, Soy Oil, 

Peanut Oil, Olive Oil, etc.

Acetates, Acetone, Esters, Ethylacetate, Hexane, MEK, 

Naphtha, Toluene, Xylene, etc.

Carbon Tetra-Chloride, Methylene-Chloride, 

Perchloro-Ethylene, Trichloro-Ethylene, etc.

Ethanol, Methanol, Butanol, Isopropyl, Isobutyl, 

Ethylene glycol, Propylene glycol, etc.

Tap, Deionized, Demineralized, Potable, Nonpotable 

Water

Nitrogen Solution; 28 %, 30 % or 32 %; 20 % AquaAmmonia; Urea; Ammonia Nitrate; N-P-K solutions; 

10-34-0; 4-10-10; 9-18-9; etc.

Herbicides: Round-up, Touchdown, Banvel, Treflan, 

Paraquat, Prowl, etc.

Fungicides, Insecticides, Adjuvants, Fumigants

Dual, Bicep, Marksman, Broadstrike, Doubleplay, 

Topnotch, Guardsman, Harness, etc.

Fungicides

Micronutrients

3-10-30; 4-4-27, etc.

Liquid Molasses; Molasses plus Phos Acid and/or Urea; 

etc.

Sulfuric Acid, Hydrochloric Acid, Phosphoric Acid, etc.

0.3 to 2500

0.44 to 2270

0.6 to 

1.85

Heated Products 

(above 50 °C) Bunker C, Asphalt, etc. 0.8 to 1.2

NTEP - B9 
NTEP Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix B – NTETC Measuring Sector 

Product Family Typical Products1

Viscosity5

(Centipoise) 

(Centistokes)

Specific

Gravity2

Compressed 

Liquids

LPG, Propane, Butane, Ethane, Freon 11, Freon 12, 

Freon 22, etc.

Anhydrous Ammonia

Note: If a meter is certified for anhydrous ammonia the 

same meter type may also be certified for LPG without 

further testing

0.1 to 

0.77

Cryogenic 

Liquids and

Liquefied 

Natural Gas 

Liquefied Oxygen, Nitrogen, etc. 0.07 to 

1.4

Compressed 

Gases Compressed Natural Gas 0.6 to 0.8

Discussion/Conclusion: The WG presented their work to date and received comments and recommendations. One 

member stated his belief that the statement in the table that the Compressed Liquids Family was not applicable to 

positive displacement meters should be removed. If a manufacturer is able to produce a positive displacement meter 

that will measure compressed liquids appropriately, they should not be restricted from doing so. The WG will 

continue to develop the item for presentation and discussion at the next meeting. The WG will also look at 

identifying the units of measure and reference temperatures as appropriate for various products in the table. 

3. NTEP Checklist for Water Meters in Submetering Applications 

Source: NTEP Director 

Background/Discussion: The NTEP Committee asked the MS to consider and develop a checklist for residential 

water meters. These devices will most likely be used for submetering. Several states have recently contacted NTEP 

regarding these devices. California already has evaluation and certification of these devices in their state. It is 

recommended that the Sector review the procedures used by California and rework them into a format acceptable to 

NCWM Publication 14. 

Comments from the California NTEP laboratory: 

I have found a Word version of the water meter checklist and test procedure and copied the specific section. This is 

used as an EPO for field enforcement, but the same guidelines are followed in type approval. Three tests at three 

flow rates are performed and repeatability is verified. The basic form can be printed and used for water meter tests. 

This follows HB 44 sections 1.10. and 3.36. 

In type evaluation California uses a procedure (not a checklist) for the evaluator, which starts with an application 

review and other directives not pertinent to actual testing. An electronic form is available which is specific for the 

California provers. California follows the testing criteria of the EPO. The electronic form could probably be 

formatted to the Pub 14 format. 

B - 10
NTEP Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix B – NTETC Measuring Sector 

The California type evaluation checklist for Domestic Cold Water Meters was included as Appendix C of the 2006 

meeting agenda. 

At its 2006 meeting, the Sector agreed that the best approach for developing a Publication 14 checklist for water 

meters would be the utilization of a WG made up of technical experts and other interested parties. The members 

present at the meeting who volunteered to serve on the WG were: Dan Reiswig, California NTEP Laboratory; Jim 

Welch, Measurement Canada; and Rodney Cooper, Actaris Neptune. The Sector Chairman, Mike Keilty will also 

invite participation by water meter manufacturers AMR, Badger Meter, and Neptune water meter division. 

At the time of development of the 2007 meeting agenda no information had been received from the WG. Following 

distribution of the initial agenda the California NTEP Laboratory submitted a draft checklist based on Handbook 44 

that is used in their lab. The Sector reviewed the draft checklist to determine if it should be submitted to the NTEP 

Committee for inclusion in Publication 14 with or without modification as shown in Appendix D.

Conclusion: The Sector reviewed the checklist submitted by the California NTEP laboratory. The NTEP director 

stated that the draft checklist needs to be formatted for inclusion in Publication 14. The NTEP director and the 

California laboratory will convert the checklist into the proper format and submit it to the members with a ballot for 

approval prior to forwarding to the NTEP Committee for inclusion in Publication 14. 

4. NTEP Checklist for LPG Vapor Meters in Submetering Applications 

Source: NTEP Director 

Background/Discussion: The NTEP Committee asked the MS to consider and develop a checklist for residential 

water meters. These devices will most likely be used for submetering. Several states have recently contacted NTEP 

regarding these devices. California already has evaluation and certification of these devices in their state. It is 

recommended the Sector review the procedures used by California and rework them into a format acceptable for 

NCWM Publication 14. 

The California type evaluation checklist for LPG vapor meters was included as the Appendix D of the 2006 meeting 

agenda. 

At its 2006 meeting, Sector agreed the best approach for developing a Publication 14 checklist for LPG vapor meters 

would be the utilization of a WG made up of technical experts and other interested parties. Dan Reiswig, California 

NTEP Laboratory, will provide a list of vapor meter manufacturers to be contacted for participation in the WG. 

At the time of development of the 2007 meeting agenda no information had been received from the WG. At the 

meeting, the Sector reviewed a recommendation and considered changes to Publication 14 deemed appropriate. 

Conclusion: After reviewing a draft presented by the California NTEP laboratory, the Sector agreed that “LPG” in 

the title should be changed to “Hydrocarbon Gas” so that the measurement of natural gas would be included. The 

California NTEP laboratory and the NTEP director will continue to develop this checklist for presentation and 

discussion at the next Sector meeting. 

5. Testing Meters Made of Different Metals 

Source: California NTEP Laboratory 

Discussion/Background: The California NTEP Laboratory is conducting an NTEP evaluation of a family of meters 

using multiple products in different product families. The meter family includes meters made of aluminum and 

stainless steel. Because Publication 14 does not specifically address this scenario, the laboratory is asking for input 

from the Sector before testing starts. 

NTEP - B11 
NTEP Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix B – NTETC Measuring Sector 

At the 2006 meeting the Sector discussed the scenario described above. The following proposal was offered as a 

possible solution. The Sector reviewed the proposal for possible forwarding to the NTEP Committee for inclusion 

in Publication 14. 

Proposal: Add a new Section F. to the Publication 14 Technical Policy as follows and renumber subsequent 

sections: 

U. Meters Made of Different Materials within the Same Family

When multiple meters made of different materials within a meter family are submitted for evaluation all 

meters will be tested with at least one product from each product family to be included on the CC and at least 

one meter will be tested with the range of products required in the Product Family Table for the meter type 

(e.g., positive displacement, turbine, mass meter, etc.) submitted for evaluation.

The MMA provided the following white paper for Sector consideration during the discussion: 

Meter Manufacturers Association 

Speaking as experienced manufacturers of PD Meters, Turbine Meters, and Mass Meters, it is our experience that 

the materials of construction do not affect the quality of measurement over the specified operating range of a 

particular metering technology, as these have been considered and accounted for during the design phase of the 

meter. 

It is the manufacturer’s responsibility to ensure that the meter meets type; additionally, material selection is the 

manufacturer’s responsibility and is typically driven by the requirements of chemical compatibility with the liquid 

products that are being measured or by industry regulations (e.g., non-ferrous meters for aircraft refueling). 

Materials are not selected or modified for reasons of accuracy. The market does identify and eliminate the inferior 

products through the normal surveillance process as well as the manufacturer’s warranty process. 

It is normal industry practice to include material varieties such as stainless steel, aluminum, cast iron, plastic, etc., 

into one meter; for example, some of our PD meters have cast steel outer housings, stainless steel bearings, cast iron 

rotors, anodized aluminum blades or cast iron blades or plastic blades. Non-ferrous aircraft meters will utilize 

aluminum cast components and SS bearings. We manufacturer turbine meters with stainless steel housings and 

aluminum rotors. The point being the measurement accuracy is a function of the manufacturing process, not the 

materials used. 

It is not the intent of HB 44 to differentiate between measurement technologies, only the intended application. 

Doesn’t material selection fall under measurement technology? 

Where do you draw the line on NTEP lab decisions on the materials of construction? 

The manufacturers believe that the answer to the question is in the LONG history of meters themselves. There are 

hundreds of thousands of meters in service in the United States used for direct sales (e.g., home heating oil delivery, 

loading rack wholesale deliveries, aircraft refueling, agriculture chemical deliveries, etc.). These meters are verified 

routinely by the local W&M agencies, and if problems are detected (accuracy out of range) then they are taken out 

of service. 

Summary: The meter manufacturers make determination of materials of construction. Meter manufacturers make 

the determination of what particular attributes of a meter enable it to be considered as part of a family. 

Questions that need to be answered in order to make an informed decision:

1) Is there a real world problem that requires a solution by the inclusion of a new section specifically aimed at 

materials in Pub 14? 

B - 12
NTEP Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix B – NTETC Measuring Sector 

2) Is there an inequity in the market, facilitation of fraud? 

One of the NTEP laboratories stated that during an evaluation of a mass flow meter the performance was different 

for two meters with different “tube” materials. Two mass flow meter manufacturers stated that if both meters were 

calibrated for the product being measured there should be no difference in performance due to “tube” material. 

Another laboratory stated that the permanence test of a meter conducted after 30 days is not a true indicator of longterm permanence. Another member stated that NTEP should be interested in testing key characteristics and 

metrologically significant components. 

After further discussion at the 2006 meeting, the Sector agreed that the best approach for resolving the issue of what 

components are “metrologically significant” and require additional evaluation was to include the discussion and 

development of a proposal for Sector consideration in the tasks of the WG formed to develop a new Family Product 

Table approach, as discussed in agenda Item 5. 

Recommendation/Discussion: At the time of development of the 2007 meeting agenda no information had been 

received from the WG, nor was any formal update presented at the meeting. One industry member suggested the 

item be withdrawn. The Sector technical advisor cautioned the group that withdrawing the item would not resolve 

the question as to whether or not a change in material used in the construction of a meter would require that the 

model be resubmitted for NTEP evaluation in order to maintain a valid CC. The manufacturers present at the 

meeting met following the conclusion of the first day’s agenda and came back with some suggestions for resolving 

the problem. One suggestion was for the manufacturer to submit a drawing listing material used, similar to what is 

done with Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. (UL), who evaluates or tests what they consider to be the worst case. 

Another suggestion was to include ASTM specifications for the original material and any replacement material. 

Some of the NTEP laboratories believed that changing material constitutes a change of design and, therefore, 

requires a new model designation. 

Conclusion: The Sector was not able to reach a consensus on this item, and it will be carried over for further 

development and consideration at the next Sector meeting. 

New Items 

6. Revise NTEP Policy F “New Product Applications for Meters” 

Source: Endress and Hauser 

Background/Discussion: Publication 14 Policy F addresses "New Product Applications for Meters". Criteria 1 and 

Criteria 2 apply to an initial evaluation of a device where a new product family is added. However, when a device 

has been repeatedly evaluated, the entire range of meter sizes should be covered—not just one size larger and one 

size smaller. 

Researching past NTETC Sector reports, Endress and Hauser found little information regarding Policy F. One year 

there was a little discussion from an unidentified lab reporting that Policy F was a necessity for initially submitted 

devices. Criteria 2, which requires the new product fall within a less strict NIST Handbook 44 accuracy class than 

the most strict accuracy class covered by the existing CC, places a restriction upon devices previously tested and 

held to a high level of performance. Endress and Hauser recommended that Criteria 2 be deleted from Policy F.

The Sector was asked to consider the request to delete Criteria 2 from Policy F and develop a recommendation to the 

NTEP Committee. 

The NTEP laboratories discussed this item thoroughly. The California lab submitted a proposal to reverse 

requirements 1 and 2 of Section F in Publication 14. The laboratories were concerned that accuracy class should not 

be the only consideration for adding a new product to a CC. The family products subgroups and a product’s 

physical characteristics should also be considered when determining what products can be added to an existing CC 

based on the testing of one additional product. 

NTEP - B13 
NTEP Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix B – NTETC Measuring Sector 

At the Sector meeting, Endress and Hauser explained they recently experienced a problem with an NTEP 

laboratory’s interpretation of Section F during an evaluation. The Sector discussed the issue at length and developed 

the chart shown below as a replacement to the current text in Section F. 

F. New Product Applications for Meters 

If a manufacturer wants to add a new product to an existing family of meters, the following criteria will be 

applied:

1. If the accuracy class in NIST Handbook 44 for the new product falls within the same NIST 

Handbook 44 accuracy class or a more strict accuracy class than the most strict accuracy class 

covered on the Certificate of Conformance, the entire range of meter sizes will be covered for the 

product tested.

2. If the accuracy class in NIST Handbook 44 for the new product falls within a less strict NIST 

Handbook 44 accuracy class than the most strict accuracy class covered by the Certificate, the new 

product will only be covered for the meters meeting the requirements of paragraph E, Meter Sizes to 

be Included on a Certificate of Conformance.

Meter Sizes Covered when Adding a New Product

Certificate 

Covers Test

Tolerance Class 

HB 44

Product 

Family

Pub 14

New 

Certificate 

Covers

Example

(to be added) 

Application for 

new CC

1 meter Any Accuracy 

Class 

(Tolerance)

Any Product 

Family

Policy E.

Range of Sizes 1 meter Same or New 

Accuracy Class 

with greater 

tolerance

Same Product 

Family

Current 

Range of 

Sizes + 

Policy E.

Range of Sizes 1 meter New Accuracy 

Class with 

smaller 

tolerance

Same Product 

Family

Policy E.

Range of Sizes 1 meter Any Accuracy 

Class 

New Product 

Family

Policy E.

Range of Sizes 

with 2 or more 

Accuracy 

Classes and1 2 

or more 

Product 

Families

1 meter Any Accuracy 

Class

Any Product 

Family

Current 

Range of 

Sizes + 

Policy E. 

If the product being added is from a family of products that has been previously subjected to the permanence test, 

then the requirement for a permanence test may be waived provided the initial test of the product being added meets 

following conditions: 

a) the results of the initial test were not questionable; and 

b) multi-point calibration may not be used to add the new product. 

Conclusion: The Sector agreed to forward the proposed changes to the NTEP Committee for approval and 

inclusion in Publication 14. 

B - 14
NTEP Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix B – NTETC Measuring Sector 

7. Add Testing Criteria to NTEP Policy U “Evaluating electronic indicators submitted 

separate from a measuring element” 

Source: California NTEP Lab 

Background/Discussion: Section U allows for testing an indicator separate from a measuring element. Specific 

test criteria has not been developed for this section.

Recommendation: Develop and add specific criteria for testing an indicator separate from a measuring element for 

this section. California recommended using Canada's test criteria as a guideline to develop the tests as outlined in 

Appendices A, B, and C. 

Conclusion: The Sector agreed the California NTEP laboratory should lead a WG to develop a specific test 

procedure for review at the next Sector meeting. Members of the WG are Dave Rajala (Veeder Root Company), 

Rich Miller (FMC Measurement Solutions), Maurice Forkert (Tuthill Transfer Systems), Dmitri Karimov (Liquid 

Controls), Rodney Cooper (Actaris Neptune), and Ralph Richter (NIST). 

8. Next Meeting 

Background/Discussion: The Sector discussed the date and location for its next meeting. 

Conclusion: The Sector agreed that the 2008 meeting should be held immediately prior to the Southern Weights 

and Measures Association Annual Meeting that is tentatively scheduled for October 12 - 16, 2008, at the Doubletree 

Hotel in Atlanta, Georgia.

Additional Items as Time Allows 

9. Temperature Compensation for Liquid-Measuring Devices Code 

Source: NCWM S&T Committee 

Background/Discussion: The NCWM S&T Committee is considering a proposal to modify Section 3.30. LiquidMeasuring Devices (LMD) Code by modifying paragraphs S.2.6., S.2.7.1., S.2.7.3., N.4.1.1.(a) and (b), N.5., 

UR.3.6.1.1., and UR.3.6.1.2., to add new paragraphs S.1.6.8., S.2.7.2., S.4.3., UR.3.6.1.3., and UR.3.6.4., and to 

renumber other existing paragraphs as appropriate to recognize temperature compensation for retail devices as 

shown in Item 330-4 of the Final Report of the 2007 S&T Committee: 

Prior to the 2007 NCWM Interim Meeting, the Committee recognized via reports from the regional L&R 

committees and other sources that there was increasing support within the weights and measures community to 

address temperature compensation features for the retail sale of petroleum products in the Liquid-Measuring Devices 

Code. In response to these concerns and to encourage uniformity in applications where temperature compensation is 

being used, the Committee developed this proposal to provide design and performance requirements and testing 

criteria for retail metering systems that incorporate temperature compensation capability. The Committee was also 

concerned that if the current L&R Committee’s proposed language for the Method of Sale of Commodities in NIST 

HB 130 was adopted, retail motor-fuel devices could be placed in service with no guidelines in NIST HB 44 for type 

approval and field testing. The L&R proposed language would permit the temperature-compensated sale of 

petroleum products at all levels of distribution. 

At the Interim Meeting, the L&R Committee moved forward with a Method of Sale proposal containing permissive 

language for retail sales of petroleum products using automatic temperature compensation (see L&R Item 232-1). 

Although the Committee recognized that this S&T item was still not fully developed, it felt it could resolve the 

remaining issues in time for the NCWM Annual Meeting in July 2007; therefore, the Committee unanimously voted 

to make this item a “priority” Voting item as described in Section H of the Introduction of HB 44. The Committee 

NTEP - B15 
NTEP Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix B – NTETC Measuring Sector 

B - 16

felt strongly that if the L&R item passed it was very important there be a corresponding S&T item that provided 

HB 44 guidance as described above. Following the Committee vote, the Committee chairman went before the 

NCWM Board of Directors (BOD) for their input. The BOD instructed the Committee to make this an Information 

item. Irrespective of the concerns about the timing of adoption of language in HB 130, after further deliberation the 

Committee concurred with the BOD and added the proposal to its agenda as an Information item. The BOD further 

informed the Committee of its plan to form a steering committee to provide guidance and give support to both the 

S&T and L&R Committees on temperature compensation issues. The Committee looks forward to working with the 

steering committee on this important issue. 

This item is still in development. Below are some of the issues the Committee is currently working on. 

Recorded Representations (S.1.6.7.): What, if any, abbreviations are acceptable for devices equipped with 

ATC (e.g., gal at 60 oF)? 

API Gravity: How should the API gravity be entered in the device and what API gravity should the inspector 

use during test? Should an average API gravity be used (national or state)? The Committee will work on 

gathering API data in order to resolve this issue. 

Difference between Net and Gross (T.4.): Is the current tolerance of 0.1 % (electronic) appropriate for fieldtesting of retail devices with ATC? Will maintaining our current tolerances mean taking extra drafts to obtain a 

stable temperature? The Committee will gather data concerning temperature measurement. 

The Committee will continue work on this item and will seek input from the regions and other interested parties in 

the weights and measures community. 

Background/Discussion: The Sector was asked, if time allowed, to review the proposed changes to the LMD code 

and provide comments and recommend changes to the NCWM S&T Committee. 

Conclusion: The Sector did not have time to review this item during the meeting. 

List of Appendices 

Appendix A – Measurement Canada Approval Procedure for Electronic Registers and Printers 

Appendix B – Measurement Canada Approval Procedure for Linearization Functions Incorporated in 

Measuring Instruments 

Appendix C – Measurement Canada Approval Procedure for Automatic Temperature Compensator 

Electronic Type 

Appendix D – Checklist and Test Procedures for Water Meters 

(Note: The appendices were distributed as separate documents with the 2007 Sector Agenda. Copies are available 

from NIST/WMD.) 
Name Company/Agency Address Telephone # E-Mail Addres

Ross Andersen New York Bureau of Wghts & Meas. 10B Airline Drive, Albany, NY 12235 (518) 457-3146 ross.andersen@Mike Belue Belue Associates 1319 Knight Drive, Murfreesboro, TN 37128 (615) 867-1010 bassoc@aol.comDennis Beattie Measurement Canada 4th Floor 400 St Mary Ave, Winnipeg, Manitoba, 

 Canada R3C 4K5 

(204) 983-8910 beattie.dennis@

Jerry W. Butler North Carolina Dept of Agriculture 1050 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-

1050 

(919) 733-3313 Jerry.butler@nc

Marc Butler Emerson Process Management Micro 

Motion 

7070 Winchester Circle, Boulder, CO 80301 (303) 530-8562 marc.butler@em

Joe Buxton Daniel Measurement Control 19267 Hwy 301 N, Statesboro, GA 30461 (912) 489-0253 Joe.buxton@emJudy Cardin Wisconsin Dept of Agriculture & 

Consumer Protection 

PO Box 8911 2811 Agriculture Drive, Madison, WI 53708-8911 

(608) 224-4945 judy.cardin@da

Rodney Cooper Actaris Neptune 1310 Emerald Road, Greenwood, SC 29646 (864) 942-2226 rcooper@greenwMaurice Forkert Tuthill Transfer Systems 8825 Aviation Drive, Ft Wayne, IN 46809 (260) 747-7529 mforkert@tuthiMike Gallo Clean Fuel Technologies 140 Market Street, Georgetown, TX 78626 (512) 942-8304 mike.gallo@clePaul Glowacki Murray Equipment, Inc. 2515 Charleston Place, Fort Wayne, IN 46808 (260) 484-0382 pglowacki@muNorman Ingram California Div. of Measurement Stds. 6790 Florin Perkins Road, Suite 100 Sacramento, 

CA 95828 

(916) 229-3016 ningram@cdfa.c

Gordon Johnson Marconi Commerce Systems Inc 7300 W Friendly Avenue, Greensboro, NC 27420 (336) 547-5375 gordon.johnsonMichael Frailer Maryland Department of Agriculture 50 Harry S. Truman Parkway, Annapolis, MD 

21401 

(410) 841-5790 michaelfrailer@

Jack Kane Montana Bureau of Building & 

Measurement Standards 

PO Box 200516, Helena, MT 59620-0516 (406) 841-2240 jkane@mt.gov

Dmitri Karimov Liquid Controls LLC 105 Albrecht Drive, Lake Bluff, IL 60044 (847) 283-8317 dkarimov@idexAllen Katalinic North Carolina Dept of Agriculture 1050 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 

27699-1050 

(919) 733-3313 Merleallen1234

Mike Keilty Endress & Hauser Flowtech AG 2350 Endress Place, Greenwood, IN 46143 (317) 535-2745 michael.keilty@Douglas Long RDM Industrial Electronics 850 Harmony Grove Road, Nebo, NC 28761 (828) 652-8346 doug@wnclink.Richard Miller FMC Measurement Solutions 1602 Wagner Avenue, Box 10428, Erie, PA 

16514 

(814) 898-5286 rich.miller@fmc

John Makin Measurement Canada 151 Tunney’s Pasture Driveway, Ottawa, Ontario, 

 Canada K1A 0C9 

makin.john@ic.

Charlene Numrych Liquid Controls LLC 105 Albrecht Drive, Lake Bluff, IL 60044 (847) 283-8330 cnumrych@idexDon Onwiler Nebraska Div of Weights & Meas 301 Centennial Mall S., PO Box 94757, Lincoln, 

NE 68509 

(402) 471-4292 don.onwiler@ne

Steve Patoray NTEP/NCWM 1239 Carolina Drive, Tryon, NC 28782 (828) 859-6178 spatoray@mgm

NTEP - B17 
Name Company/Agency Address Telephone # E-Mail Addres

Ralph Richter NIST/WMD Stop 2600 100 Bureau Drive, Gaithersburg, MD 20878 (301) 975-3997 ralph.richter@nDanny Reiswig California Div. of Measurement Stds. 6790 Florin Perkins Road, Suite 100, Sacramento, CA 95828 (916) 229-3015 dreiswig@cdfa.David Rajala Veder-Root Company P.O. Box 1673, Altoona, PA 19906-1673 (814) 696-8125 drajala@veederRichard C. Suiter NIST/WMD Stop 2600 100 Bureau Drive, Gaithersburg, MD 20878 (301) 975-4406 rsuiter@nist.gov Richard Wotthlie Maryland Dept of Agriculture 50 Harry S. Truman Parkway, Annapolis, MD 21401 (410) 841-5790 wotthlrw@mdaSteven Wrigley Brodie Meter Co. LLC 19267 Highway 301, North Statesboro, GA 30459 (912) 489-0270 Steve.wrigley@

NTEP - B17 
NTEP Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix C – NTETC Weighing Sector

Appendix C 

National Type Evaluation Technical Committee 

Weighing Sector 

September 6 - 9, 2007 – Sacramento, California 

Meeting Summary 

Agenda Items 

Railway Track Scale Items ......................................................................................................................................C2

1. CLC Type Evaluation Tests on Railway Track/Vehicle Scales – Technical Policy (Carryover)................. C2

2. In-Motion Railway Track Scale Performance and Permanence - Technical Policy (Carryover) ................. C4

3. Vehicle and Railway Track Scale NTEP Capacity – Technical Policy (New)............................................. C6

Carryover Items........................................................................................................................................................C7

4. Recommended Changes to Publication 14 Based on Actions at the 2007 NCWM Annual Meeting........... C7

4.(a) G-S.2. Facilitation of Fraud ............................................................................................................. C7

4.(b) G-S.5.6.1. Indicated and Recorded Representation of Units – Appropriate Abbreviations and 

Table 1. Recorded Representation of SI Units on Equipment with Limited Character Sets............ C7

4.(c) G-S.8.1. Multiple Weighing or Measuring Elements that Share a Common Provision for 

Sealing ............................................................................................................................................. C8

4.(d) S.1.1.(c) Zero Indication (Marking Requirements).......................................................................... C8

4.(e) Bench/Counter Scale Shift Test and Definitions ............................................................................. C9

5. Publication 14 Force Transducer (Load Cell) Family and Selection Criteria – Report of the Load Cell 

Work Group (WG) ..................................................................................................................................... C10

6. Report of the Tare Work Group ................................................................................................................. C10

6.(a) Add New and Amended Tare Definitions and Tare Requirements................................................ C10

6.(b) Amend Scales Code and AWS Code Paragraph S.1.1.1. Digital Indicating Elements .................. C11

6.(c) Amend Scales Code Paragraph S.1.2.1. Weight Units .................................................................. C11

6.(d) Amend Scales Code Tolerance Paragraph T.N.2.1........................................................................ C12

7. Minimum Size of Weight and Units Indications ........................................................................................ C13

New Items................................................................................................................................................................C14

8. Level Indicating Means – Out-of-Level Test ............................................................................................. C14

9. Wireless Communication Information on the Certificate of Conformance (CC)....................................... C15

10. Hopper Scale Design Parameters – Technical Policy................................................................................. C16

11. Method of Sealing – Set-up and Verification of Calibration/Configuration Access .................................. C18

Next Sector Meeting ...............................................................................................................................................C20

Appendices ..............................................................................................................................................................C21

Appendix A – Recommendations for Amendments to Publication 14.............................................................. C21

Appendix B – Meeting Attendees ................................................................................................................... ..C27

Appendix C – Attachments ............................................................................................................................... C29

Attachment for Agenda Item 5................................................................................................................... C29

Attachment for Agenda Item 6................................................................................................................... C34

NTEP - C1 
NTEP Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix C – NTETC Weighing Sector

Glossary of Acronyms 

AWS Automatic Weighing Systems NTETC National Type Evaluation Technical 

Committee 

CC NTEP Certificate of Conformance OIML International Organization of Legal 

Metrology 

CIM Coupled-in-Motion (Railway Track Scales) S&T NCWM Specifications and Tolerances 

Committee 

CLC Concentrated Load Capacity SWMA Southern Weights and Measures Association 

EPO Examination Procedure Outline W/LRE Weighing/Load-receiving Element 

GIPSA Grain Inspection Packers and Stockyards 

Administration WG Work Group 

NCWM National Conference on Weights and 

Measures WMD NIST Weights and Measures Division 

NIST National Institute of Standards and 

Technology WWMA Western Weights and Measures Association 

NTEP National Type Evaluation Program 

Unless Otherwise Stated: 

- “Handbook 44” (HB 44) means the 2007 Edition of NIST Handbook 44 “Specifications Tolerances, and Other 

Technical Requirements for Weighing and Measuring Devices” 

- “Handbook 130” (HB 130) means the 2007 Edition of NIST Handbook 130 “Uniform Laws and Regulations in 

the areas of legal metrology and fuel quality.” 

- “Publication 14” (Pub. 14) means the 2007 Edition of NCWM Publication 14 - Weighing Devices - Technical 

Policy • Checklists • Test Procedures 

- “Sector” means the NTETC Weighing Sector. 

Note: NIST does not imply that these acronyms are used solely to identify these organizations or technical topics. 

Railway Track Scale Items

1. CLC Type Evaluation Tests on Railway Track/Vehicle Scales – Technical Policy 

(Carryover) 

Source: 2006 NTETC Weighing Sector Agenda Item 13 

Background: Please see the 2006 NTETC Weighing Sector Meeting Summary Agenda Item 13 for complete 

background information on this item. 

During the 2006 NTETC Weighing Sector meeting, the NTEP Director, Stephen Patoray, noted that the proposed 

amendment to Publication 14 technical policies in Section 8.e. applies only to devices submitted for evaluation and 

could not be applied to previous evaluations without additional testing as it is currently worded. The Sector 

discussed the impact of the proposal to accept a vehicle scale application on an existing NTEP CC for railway track 

scales. 

The NTEP director suggested, and the Sector agreed, that Publication 14 Section E. Modification of Type could be 

amended to update existing railway track scale CCs to include vehicle-weighing applications without additional 

testing if: 

1. the section test on the railway track scale was performed with 100 000 lb of certified test weights or weight 

carts; 

2. strain load tests were conducted during the original railway track scale evaluation; 

3. the design of the load-receiving element (LRE) is no wider than 12 ft; and 

NTEP - C2 
NTEP Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix C – NTETC Weighing Sector

4. the design of the weighing element is “beam and girder” design. (This item would not be applicable to 

other scale designs such as composite designs where the strength of the deck is dependent on several 

individual elements being combined in the design of the scale deck.) 

Above items (1-3) were added to the 2007 Edition of Publication 14 as notes to technical policy paragraph 8.2.e. 

To address Item 4, the Sector also recommended specific language for Publication 14 Section E. Modifications be 

developed as a carryover item based on the above discussion. Stephen Patoray, Todd Lucas, and Steve Beitzel 

agreed to review Section E and develop language to be considered by the Sector during its 2007 Annual Meeting. 

For the 2007 Sector Meeting, the NIST technical advisor developed language for Publication 14 Section E. 

Modifications for a new paragraph 10 titled “Adding a vehicle scale feature or option to an active railway track scale 

CC” for review by the Sector. The Sector was asked to review and comment on the proposed new paragraph to 

determine if it was sufficiently developed to recommend that it be added to Publication 14. 

During the development of this agenda item, Stephen Patoray and Steven Cook noted that several existing railway 

track and combination vehicle/railway track scales have the dump-through option listed on the CC without 

additional evaluation. Publication 14 Technical Policy E. Modification of Type paragraph 7 does not include 

railway track and combination vehicle/railway track scales in the language. Additionally, paragraphs 8 and 9 do not 

specify what kind of evaluations are to be conducted. The Sector was asked to review the proposed amendments to 

paragraphs 7, 8, and 9 developed by the technical advisor and: 

1. agree with the proposal to include “railway track, or a combination vehicle/railway track scales” to the 

existing language; 

2. recommend that either an initial or complete evaluation be conducted on the scales with composite 

construction for the “dump-through” option; 

3. recommend that either an initial or complete evaluation be conducted on the scales with composite 

construction for the “rotary dump” feature/option; and 

4. provide any additional comments and recommendations proposed by the technical advisor. 

Discussion: The Sector reviewed the proposed language to amend Publication 14 Technical Policy Section E 

paragraphs 7, 8, and 9, and the new paragraph 10. The sector provided the technical advisor with additional 

suggestions to amend the proposed language in paragraph 10 to include a limitation that the LRE be no wider than 

12 ft to be consistent with current technical policy in section 8.1.c. “Additional criteria for vehicle scales, railway 

track scales, combination vehicle/railway track scales, and other platform scales over 30 000 lb and up to and 

including 200 000 lb,” and corresponding footnote 3 for scales with widths greater than 12 ft, which requires 

additional testing with procedures “addressed by NTEP management and the NTEP laboratories on a case-by-case 

basis.” 

The Sector also discussed the proposed revisions to Section E Modification of Type paragraphs 7 through 9 and 

provided input to the four recommendations. 

Conclusion: The Sector agreed to recommend that Publication 14 Section E Modification of Type paragraphs 7 

through 9 be amended and paragraph 10 be added to: 

1. provide NTEP laboratories and applicants with guidelines to add a vehicle scale feature or option to an 

active railway track scale CC; 

2. clarify that combination vehicle/railway track scales are included in paragraphs addressing the “dumpthrough” option; 

3. clarify that a full evaluation is required to add a “dump-through” option for scales with other than the 

“beam and girder” design; and 

NTEP - C3 
NTEP Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix C – NTETC Weighing Sector

4. clarify that a full evaluation is required to add a “rotary dump” option for all railway track scales with an 

active CC. 

A copy of the recommended changes to Publication 14 Section E Modification of Type is in Appendix A –

 Recommendations to Publication 14 – Agenda Item 1. 

2. In-Motion Railway Track Scale Performance and Permanence - Technical Policy 

(Carryover) 

Source: 2007 NTETC Weighing Sector Agenda Item 15 

Background: See 2006 Weighing Sector Agenda Item 15 (a) for additional background information on an NTEP 

appeal to the permanence testing requirements for evaluation of a separable in-motion indicator interfaced to railway 

track scale with an active CC. The Sector was unable to come to a consensus on whether to agree with the NTEP 

Committee or propose any changes to the permanence test requirements at its 2006 meeting. The Sector chairman 

asked for a vote to see if the Sector agrees with the NTEP Committee decision to waive permanence testing for 

indicators and controllers used in coupled-in-motion (CIM) railway track scale type evaluations. 

- 8 Sector members voted to support the NTEP Committee decision. 

- 9 Sector members voted not to support the NTEP Committee decision. 

- 1 Sector member abstained from voting. 

The Sector made no recommendation on this item since Don Onwiler reported that the NTEP Committee would 

reconsider its decision during their October 2006 meeting. 

During the 2006 Fall meeting of the NCWM Board of Directors, the NTEP Committee (a subset of the board 

members) offered the Sector several options in its response to the 2006 Sector discussion on this item. A copy of 

the NTEP Committee’s response was provided to 2007 NTEP Participating Laboratory meeting and to the full 

NTETC Weighing Sector. The NTEP Committee requested the Weighing Sector revisit this subject to review and 

discuss NCWM Publication 14, Digital Electronic Scales (DES) Section 68, Performance and Permanence Tests for 

Railway Track Scales Used to Weigh In-Motion, including the opening paragraph that states: 

Performance tests are conducted to determine compliance with the tolerances. The tests described 

here apply primarily to the indicating element. It is assumed that the weighing/load-receiving 

element used during the test has already been examined and been found to comply with applicable 

requirements. If the design and performance of the weighing/load-receiving element is to be 

determined during the same test, the applicable requirements for Railway Scales Used to Weigh 

Statically must also be referenced. 

The NTEP Committee also suggested the Sector come to one of the following conclusions, or develop an alternate 

proposal: 

1. The Sector may agree with the implication of this opening paragraph that a CIM controller may be used in 

conjunction with any weighing/load-receiving element that is NTEP certified for static weighing. If so, the 

NTEP Committee recommends Section 68 be modified to eliminate reference to permanence testing. 

2. The Sector may determine that NTEP certification of a weighing/load-receiving element as a static scale is 

not sufficient for its use in commerce in a CIM weighing system. If so, the NTEP Committee recommends 

a new checklist be developed explicitly for the performance and permanence testing of a CIM 

weighing/load-receiving element and another checklist be developed explicitly for the performance 

evaluation of the CIM controller.

3. The Sector may determine that the NTEP certification for CIM weighing should be on an entire system, 

limiting use of the CIM controller only in connection with the weighing/load-receiving element(s) with 

which it underwent type approval. If so, the NTEP Committee recommends this clarification be provided. 

NTEP - C4 
NTEP Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix C – NTETC Weighing Sector

Existing certificates would be amended providing this limitation of use and additional testing may be 

required to correctly identify and certify these system requirements. 

At the May 2007 NTEP Laboratory meeting, the NTEP “field” labs met separately and reviewed the NTEP 

Committee’s recommendation to the Weighing Sector. The “field” labs agreed with the NTEP Committee’s first 

suggestion and provided a recommendation to modify Publication 14 DES, Section 68. The proposal makes 

Section 68 a checklist for the evaluation of a CIM controller. It recognizes that any weighing/load-receiving 

element with an NTEP certificate as a static railway track scale may be used in conjunction with the controller. The 

permanence testing of the weighing/load-receiving element will be verified when the checklist in Section 69 is 

completed. The “field” labs forwarded their recommendation to the Sector and also recommended that a definition 

for an “in-motion controller” be developed. 

Discussion: The first part of the discussion was on the possible directions/options suggested by the NTEP 

Committee. 

Steve Beitzel, System Associates, stated that in-motion devices should be NTEP evaluated and certified as a system. 

However, he does not agree with suggested option 3 from the NTEP Committee. Under option 3 nearly all 

installations would need to be evaluated since it requires the system be limited to the metrological elements 

approved during the evaluation and would not permit the mixing and matching of compatible elements unless they 

were listed on the certificate for the system. Darrell Flocken, Mettler Toledo, agreed that this option does not give 

the applicant flexibility to use compatible elements and suggested the Sector consider NTEP Committee options 1 

and 2 or develop an alternative 4th option. Stephen Patoray, NTEP director, stated that a CC for a system is specific 

for the components or elements that were evaluated as part of the system. He asked what the purpose of the NTEP 

evaluation of a complete system is if it is determined that a previously certified static W/LRE is allowed to be 

substituted with other certified static W/LREs. 

The Sector discussed option 2 in great detail. Following are the salient points of the discussion regarding 

tests/verifications in the controller and W/LRE checklists: 

1. An in-motion system can be very long, and the controller has to resolve varying parameters (e.g., speed, 

direction, etc). The permanence test provides confidence the system (installation) can perform over a 

period of time. 

2. Does the permanence test apply to the in-motion controller, W/LRE, and the entire system? 

3. The permanence test should apply to just the controller since it must be able to compensate for both 

metrological and non-metrological signals from the W/LRE and other inputs from the installation in order 

for the controller to determine the proper time to establish a weight. 

4. Track settling issues: 

a. Parts of the track may have settled or loosened causing unwanted signals that are received and 

compensated for by the in-motion controller; 

b. Could NTEP evaluate 20 to 30 days after installation? Too costly since the railroads would have to 

pay for an extra “placed-in-service” test in addition to the subsequent test or tests performed by NTEP 

(GIPSA); 

c. NTEP should consider verifying the approach foundation is installed according to the manufacturer’s 

(and/or railroad’s) recommendations; 

d. Performance problems cannot be resolved by recalibration; problems are typically caused by 

poor/inappropriate installation; 

e. Installation problems where the open track interfaces with the track supported by the concrete 

foundations are also a source of performance problems; 

f. The in-motion controller checklist would have to include testing to verify it can compensate or filter 

out unwanted signals. Can unwanted signals be simulated? 

NTEP - C5 
NTEP Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix C – NTETC Weighing Sector

A straw poll of the Sector indicated the majority of the Sector agreed with option 1 of the NTEP Committee, though 

WMD representatives supported option 3 since it is a more complete evaluation. As a result of the straw poll, the 

Sector proceeded to discuss the NTEP “field” labs’ proposal on the agenda. 

Conclusion: The Sector agreed with the proposal from the NTEP “field” labs to eliminate the permanence test 

requirements in Publication 14 Section 68 and to limit the evaluation to “in-motion” controllers since the W/LRE is 

required to be evaluated as a static railway track scale in Publication 14 Section 69. Performance and Permanence 

Tests for Railway Track Scales Used to Weigh Statically. The Sector agreed to change the term “coupled inmotion” systems to “in-motion” systems since the type evaluation requirements apply to both coupled and 

uncoupled in-motion railway track scale controllers. 

The Sector also asked the NIST technical advisor to develop a Publication 14 definition of the term “in-motion 

controller.” The NIST technical advisor will investigate the possibility on making the definition broad enough to 

include controllers for other “in-motion” weighing devices such as dynamic monorail scales. The proposed 

language will be voted on by the Sector in a letter ballot prior to the 2008 NCWM Interim Meeting. 

The Sector suggested minor changes to the NTEP “field” labs’ proposed amendment to Section 68 as shown in 

Appendix A – Recommendations to Publication 14 – Agenda Item 2 and recommended the changes be incorporated 

into Publication 14. 

3. Vehicle and Railway Track Scale NTEP Capacity – Technical Policy (New) 

Source: Don Onwiler, Nebraska

Background: This item questions the necessity of basing the NTEP-certified capacity limits of vehicle and railway 

track scales on strain-load testing. 

- In Nebraska’s experience, performance problems are identified in type evaluations during section tests. By the 

time a strain-load test is conducted, problems related to performance have been identified and corrected. (Note: 

The shift test is usually conducted first because this test frequently reveals accuracy problems.) 

- In section testing on vehicle scales, the evaluator is testing to at least 90 % of CLC. This provides a better test 

of the upper range capabilities of a scale than strain-load testing which distributes the load to multiple sections 

of the scale. 

- For railway track scales, the minimum strain load is 200 000 lb, regardless of the desired nominal capacity. If a 

manufacturer requests to amend a CC for a higher capacity, Publication 14 Technical Policy 8.2.a. (for scales 

with a capacity greater than 200 000 lb) only obligates the evaluator to repeat the tests completed in the original 

evaluation since there are no differences in the required load used for the strain-load test. 

- Handbook 44 provides formulas for maximum nominal capacity of these devices based on CLC and section 

capacities. 

Strain-load tests may still have value in demonstrating the ability of the scale sections to interact with each other and 

sum together to provide accurate weighments when loads are distributed on the platform. 

Nebraska recommends the following: 

- Modify the Publication 14 DES Technical Policy for Scales to allow a maximum capacity for vehicle and 

railway track scales based on the formulas in paragraphs S.6.1. and S.6.4. in Handbook 44, and 

- Modify the evaluation checklist for vehicle scales to provide guidance for minimum strain loads other than the 

traditional nominal capacity provided by the manufacturer or submitter of the device. For example, NTEP 

could perform a stain-load test to 160 000 lb or 80 % of the calculated maximum nominal capacity of the device 

under evaluation, whichever is less. 

The Sector agenda included additional background from HB 44 Scales Code marking requirements, the 1994 and 

2001 S&T Committee Final Reports, and the 2000 NTETC Weighing Sector Final Report discussing the original 

NTEP - C6 
NTEP Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix C – NTETC Weighing Sector

justification and history on the development of CLC and section capacity and the ranges covered on the CC for 

scales with a capacity greater than 200 000 lb. 

Conclusion/Discussion: The Sector reviewed the background information in the agenda and agreed there is no 

value in conducting an additional evaluation to increase the section and nominal capacity of a railway track scale CC 

since there is no difference in the tests to be conducted on the scale with increased capacities. The Sector 

recommended the NTEP director review the application under question to verify the request to amend the CC is 

consistent with existing CCs with similar parameters. 

The Sector also agreed there is a loophole in the existing policies for RR track scales with a capacity greater than 

200 000 lb. The SMA and AREMA Committee 34 volunteered to work on the testing requirements for vehicle and 

railway track scales with capacities greater than 200 000 lb and provide to the NTEP director and NIST technical 

advisor an update on developing a proposal for consideration by the Weighing Sector prior to the 2008 NCWM 

Interim Meeting. 

Carryover Items 

4. Recommended Changes to Publication 14 Based on Actions at the 2007 NCWM Annual 

Meeting 

The NIST technical advisor, Steve Cook, provided the Sector with specific recommendations for incorporating test 

procedures and checklist language based upon actions of the 2007 Annual Meeting of the 92nd NCWM. The Sector 

was asked to briefly discuss each item and, if appropriate, provide general input on the technical aspects of the 

issues. 

4.(a) G-S.2. Facilitation of Fraud 

Background: See the Annual Report of the 2007 NCWM S&T Committee Agenda Item 310-1 for additional 

background information regarding the discussions to amend HB 44 General Code paragraph G-S.2. During its 2007 

Annual Meeting, the NCWM agreed to amend HB 44 1.10. General Code G-S.2. in the 2008 Edition of HB 44 to 

clarify that the prohibition against facilitating fraud applies to electronic manipulation or alteration of electronically 

programmed and coded components of weighing and measuring devices. 

Conclusion: The Sector agreed with the NIST technical advisor that no changes to Publication 14 are required to 

reflect the amended language in HB 44 paragraph G-S.2. 

4.(b) G-S.5.6.1. Indicated and Recorded Representation of Units – Appropriate Abbreviations and 

Table 1. Recorded Representation of SI Units on Equipment with Limited Character Sets 

Background: See the Annual Report of the 2007 NCWM S&T Committee Agenda Item 310-2 for additional 

background information regarding discussions to amend the 2008 Edition of Handbook 44 General Code 

paragraph G-S.5.6.1. and Table 1. to require abbreviations for SI units as specified in NIST Special Publication 811 

“Guide for the Use of International System of Units (SI)” and HB 44 Appendix C – General Tables of Units of 

Measurement for both indications and recorded representations on new technology. The amendment would also 

continue to permit exceptions to those guidelines for older equipment with limited character sets. 

Discussion: The Sector reviewed the changes to HB 44, Publication 14 DES Section 76, and HB 44 Appendix C 

page C-4 and noted that Publication 14 may be in conflict with HB 44 since Appendix C (page C-4) lists the 

abbreviation for “grain” (gr) and Publication 14 DES Section 76 List of Acceptable Abbreviations/Symbols lists 

different abbreviations for the word grain as “GRN,” “grn,” or “GN.” 

Conclusion: The Sector reviewed HB 44 Appendix C – General Tables of Units of Measurement and agreed the 

exceptions in Publication 14 Section 76 are appropriate since they are widely used in the marketplace and cannot be 

confused with other abbreviations in HB 44. 

NTEP - C7 
NTEP Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix C – NTETC Weighing Sector

The Sector also agreed to recommend the changes to DES Section 12 and 76 as proposed by the NIST technical 

advisor as shown in Appendix A – Recommendations to Publication 14 – Agenda Item 4.(b). 

4.(c) G-S.8.1. Multiple Weighing or Measuring Elements that Share a Common Provision for Sealing 

Background: See the Final Report of the 2007 NCWM S&T Committee Agenda Item 310-3 for additional 

background information to add paragraph G-S.8.1. to the General Code of the 2008 Edition of Handbook 44. 

General Code Paragraph G-S.8.1 regarding the identification of adjustments to individual weighing or measuring 

elements is required when systems have multiple weighing or measuring elements with a single provision for 

sealing. 

Conclusion: The Sector agreed to recommend the addition of new language to DES-10 in Pub 14 as proposed by 

the NIST technical advisor, which is shown in Appendix C (Agenda Item 4.(c). 

4.(d) S.1.1.(c) Zero Indication (Marking Requirements) 

Source: 2004 Weighing Sector Agenda Item 4 – S.1.1.(c) Zero Indication (Marking Requirements). 

Background: See the Annual Report of the 2007 NCWM S&T Committee Agenda Item 320-1 for additional 

background information regarding the justifications for and against the proposed language to amend Scales Code 

paragraph S.1.1.(c) Zero Indication (Marking Requirements). 

Discussion/Conclusion: The Sector reviewed the proposed amendments to Publication 14 to verify that automatic 

means are provided to inhibit a weighing operation or to return to a continuous digital indication when the scale is in 

an out-of-balance condition according to the requirement in paragraph S.1.1.(c) Zero Indication. The NIST 

technical advisor used the requirements and procedures from Measurement Canada’s laboratory and field manuals to 

develop the proposed changes to Publication 14. 

The Sector agreed the proposed amendments to Publication 14 deleted the references to requiring additional 

markings when a scale is capable of displaying other than a digital zero indication when the scale is in a zero 

balance condition. The Sector also discussed the proposed terms and definitions and agreed that the definitions for 

screen saver and sleep modes could be combined since the only difference between the two features was what was 

or was not displayed. The Sector also agreed to modify the proposed definition for the power save mode to clarify 

that it requires operator intervention in order to bring the scale back to normal operation. 

The Sector noted the proposed amendment to the checklist did not identify all the ways a scales could automatically 

enter or exit these modes. Therefore, the Sector developed the following table to summarize when a scale can 

automatically enter the screen saver and power save modes and what was required by either the operator or the scale 

to exit the screen saver and power save modes to assure automatic means are provided to inhibit a weighing 

operation or return to a continuous digital indication when the scale is in an out-of-balance condition. 

The Sector also recommended that the NIST technical advisor revise the proposed amendment to Publication 14 to 

address the conditions under which a scale goes into and comes out of one of these modes. The revised proposal 

will be balloted to the Sector and the final recommendation will be presented to the NTEP Committee prior to their 

meeting during the January 2008 NCWM Interim Meeting. 

NTEP - C8 
NTEP Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix C – NTETC Weighing Sector

Summary of Screen Saver/Sleep and Power Save Mode of Operation 

Mode Display Activated by Exited by Verified by 

Period of time 

at gross load 

center of zero 

Change in weight, i.e., 

no longer at gross 

load zero 

Accurate weights are displayed when: 

 - weight is added to the LRE 

 - weight is removed from the LRE, and 

Screen - the LRE is disturbed by hand 

Saver/Sleep 

i.e., Scrolling 

or other non 

metrological 

information, 

blank, or 

annunciator, 

Period of time 

with a non 

changing load 

on the scale 

Deliberate operator 

action (remove load 

off scale and rezero if 

necessary) 

No weights are displayed when: 

 - weight is added to the LRE 

 - weight is removed from the LRE, and 

 - the LRE is disturbed by hand 

Power save Off/Blank 

Period of time 

with no activity 

on the LRE 

(loaded or 

unloaded) 

Pressing a button, or 

other deliberate 

operator action (e.g., 

turn on the scale, etc.) 

Accurate weights are displayed

according to Publication 14 Section 53. 

Values Displayed, Temperature 

Conditions (Warm-up) Test Procedure 1 

or 2 

4.(e) Bench/Counter Scale Shift Test and Definitions 

Source: 2006 NTETC Weighing Sector Item 3 (Carryover Item) 

Background: See the 2006 Summary of the Weighing Sector Agenda Item 3 and the Annual Report of the 2007 

NCWM S&T Committee Agenda Item 320-6 for additional background information regarding proposed language to 

amend Scales Code shift test definitions and procedures. 

At the 2007 NCWM Annual Meeting, the S&T Committee believed there was sufficient support for this item with 

the correction of the references to Figures 1 and 2 in proposed paragraphs. Consequently, the Committee agreed to 

present the item for a vote and the item was adopted. 

These adopted changes apply to all types of platform scales with fewer than three sections except for livestock, 

vehicle, and railway track scales, vehicle on-board weighing systems, and other scales listed as exceptions in Scales 

Code paragraph N.3.8. These changes include: 

1. deleting paragraph N.1.3.1. Bench and Counter Scales and renumbering subsequent paragraphs; 

2. changing the test load for the shift test from 50 % to a range of 30 % to 35 % of the scale capacity; 

3. changing the shift test pattern for bench and counter scales to be the same as the current test pattern for the 

other scales listed in paragraph N.3.7. (formerly N.3.8.); and 

4. providing guidance to the application of standards in a manner that is safe for the weights and measures 

inspector and will not over-concentrate the test load on the load-receiving element. 

The major revision to the shift test procedures were made to shift test paragraph N.3.8 which was been renumbered 

to N.3.7. 

Discussion/Conclusion: The Sector reviewed the background information and discussed the revisions to 

Publication 14 developed by the NIST technical advisor to amend shift test loads from one-half scale capacity to a 

range of 30 % to 35 % of the scale capacity, including a recommendation to “editorially” amend the references 

“bench and counter scales” to “platform scales with four or less load supports.” 

The Sector agreed with the proposed editorial changes throughout the Digital Electronic Scales checklist, changes to 

Section 31. Multi-Interval Scales and Sections 63 and 64 as shown in Appendix A – Recommendations to 

Publication 14 – Agenda Item 4(e) and recommends that they be incorporated into Publication 14. 

NTEP - C9 
NTEP Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix C – NTETC Weighing Sector

5. Publication 14 Force Transducer (Load Cell) Family and Selection Criteria – Report of 

the Load Cell Work Group (WG) 

Background: During its 2006 Annual Meeting, the Sector agreed with the suggestion for the NTEP Director to 

forward the proposal to change the Publication 14 Force Transducer (Load Cell) Family and Selection Criteria to 

holders of NTEP CCs for review and comment by December 1, 2006. 

Discussion/Conclusion: The NTEP Director provided the Sector with an update to the status of this item. He 

reported that he had not received any objections or alternate recommendations on the proposed OIML R 60-based 

selection criteria (see Appendix C – Attachment to Agenda Item 5 for a copy of the OIML R 60-based load cell 

selection criteria) and that NTEP will soon receive load cell applications requesting NTEP CCs based on the 

evaluation of test data from international government laboratories certified to issue test data under the Mutual 

Acceptance Arrangement (MAA). Additionally, the Publication 14 language on the “selection of load cells” was not 

identified as an additional national requirement during the “Committee on Participation Review” process since the 

language in R 60 was developed by the United States; therefore, the load cells submitted for evaluation by the 

international laboratories will be selected using selection criteria in OIML R 60. 

The Sector discussed options for establishing different load cell selection criteria for U.S. and international 

manufacturers (Publication 14–based criteria for U.S. manufacturers and OIML R 60-based criteria for international 

manufacturers). However, it was pointed out that this proposal would not be compatible with an existing load cell 

CC when there is a request to amend the CC. There was also a suggestion for a five-year “phase-in period” after 

which time existing CCs could no longer be updated using the 2007 Publication 14-based criteria. 

Since there were only two load cell manufacturers at the Sector meeting, Darrell Flocken and Stephen Langford 

stated they would bring this issue before the SMA technical committee during their November 2007 meeting to 

discuss possible recommendations. Additionally, they will provide the NTEP director and NTEP Committee a 

report of the discussion and possible recommendation prior to the January 2008 NCWM Interim Meeting.

6. Report of the Tare Work Group 

Source: NTEP Participating Laboratories (Carryover Item):

Background: See the 2006 NTETC Weighing Sector Meeting Summary Agenda Item 5, Tare on Multiple Range 

Scales, for additional background information on the earlier Sector discussions and WG developing items and 

recommendations. 

During its 2006 Annual Meeting, the Sector further recommended the NIST technical advisor submit the Tare Work 

Group recommendations to the SWMA S&T Committee. These items were considered by the 2006 NCWM S&T 

Committee. Following is a brief recap of the recommendations and actions by the NCWM. Note there is additional 

background information available in the 2007 Final Report of the 92nd NCWM S&T Committee. 

6.(a) Add New and Amended Tare Definitions and Tare Requirements 

2006 Sector Recommendation: Add new and amended definitions to facilitate a uniform understanding of the 

terms already used in Handbook 44 (e.g., “tare mechanism,” “tare,” “net,” etc.) in Handbook 44 Appendix D – 

Definitions. 

NCWM Recommendation/Action: This item became 2007 NCWM S&T Committee Agenda Item 320-9 and was 

given “informational” status. The S&T Committee agreed that lengthy discussions on all of the tare proposals 

demonstrate that, although it is necessary to address tare, the matter is too complex to move forward without a more 

thorough review of all related proposals by the Weighing Sector and jurisdictions. Consequently, the Committee 

recommended this proposal and other related proposals intended to address tare features remain as Information 

Items for further review and development. The Committee also agreed that all tare-related items, when ready, 

should be presented for voting as a block. 

NTEP - C10 
NTEP Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix C – NTETC Weighing Sector

Discussion: The NIST technical advisor has incorporated the changes to proposed definition of “tare mechanism” 

as recommended by the S&T Committee and updated the Tare Work Group Handbook 44 “Tare” recommendations 

based on its August 7, 2007, conference call. The Sector was asked to review the Handbook 44 “tare” 

recommendations and provide the Tare Work Group and the S&T Committee any comment or suggestions (see 

Appendix C – Attachment to Agenda Item 6 for a copy of the Tare Work Group recommendations). 

Conclusion: The Tare WG has completed its work. The Sector agrees the majority of the proposed language is 

currently verified in Publication 14 with G-S.2. Facilitation of Fraud, S.2.1.6. Combined Zero/Tare(0/T) Key and 

S.2.3. Tare listed as the HB 44 code references. The WG did not change any existing HB 44 Tare requirements and 

recommended an amended definition for “Tare mechanism.” The Sector also agreed with the WG that the 

highlighted items for calculated weights and the identification of preset tare weights go beyond what is currently 

evaluated by NTEP and recommends these items be split into 320-3B and 320-3C. 

6.(b) Amend Scales Code and AWS Code Paragraph S.1.1.1. Digital Indicating Elements 

2006 Sector Recommendation: Amend Scales Code and AWS Code paragraph S.1.1.1. Digital Indicating 

Elements to clarify that a scale can display a “center-of-zero” indication with a load on the platform, provided the 

indication has been zeroed by a tare mechanism while the scale is in the net mode of operation. 

NCWM Recommendation/Action: This item became 2007 NCWM S&T Agenda Item 320-2 and was given 

“informational” status. This proposal was amended after the 2007 NCWM Interim Meeting to include language 

addressing the “center-of-zero” requirements to coincide with 2007 NCWM S&T Agenda Item 320-1, S.1.1.(c) Zero 

Indication; requirements for markings of indications for other than digital zero indications. Item 320-1 was 

withdrawn from the agenda making the changes to S.1.1.1.(a) no longer necessary. 

At the 2007 NCWM Annual Meeting, the Committee heard testimony from the CWMA, NEWMA, WMD, and 

SMA stating that this item has changed from the original intent to verify that zero tracking could be operable in the 

net mode, to now include the addition of other language which alters the requirement even more. For example, in 

paragraph S.1.1.1.(a), stating “and” instead of “or” would make both requirements mandatory. Also, if “or” is used 

instead of “and,” then this proposal lowers the current requirement of 1⁄2 e to 1⁄4 e. The SMA further stated that the 

wording in the proposed paragraph (a) adds a dual requirement inconsistent with Canadian and OIML requirements. 

Therefore, the CWMA, NEWMA, and SMA recommended the proposal be moved back to informational for further 

consideration. 

The Committee agreed with comments that the modifications to the originally proposed language in Publication 15 

that now appears in Publication 16 significantly changed the original intent of the proposal. Additionally, the 

changes to the center-of-zero indication requirements are in conflict with OIML recommendations and Canadian 

requirements. 

The Committee recommends the alternate proposal from the WMD in the Committee’s Annual Report become a 

carryover item for the 2008 Committee agenda since that text is consistent with the intent of the original proposal 

from the NTETC Weighing Sector. 

Discussion/Conclusion: The Sector reviewed the above information and agreed to support the WMD language as 

recommended in the 2007 NCWM S&T Committee Final Report on Agenda Item 320-2. 

6.(c) Amend Scales Code Paragraph S.1.2.1. Weight Units

2006 Sector Recommendation: Amend Scales Code paragraph S.1.2.1. Weight Units and AWS Code 

paragraph S.2.1. Value of Division Units by adding a note that permits calculated net weights from multi-interval 

and multiple range scales to be in units other than 0, 1, 2, and 5 in order to maintain the accuracy of tare weights 

when the gross weights are in a weighing range with a larger scale division. 

NCWM Recommendation/Action: This item became 2007 NCWM S&T Committee Agenda Item 320-3. During 

the 2007 NCWM Annual Meeting, the Committee heard comments from the CWMA and NEWMA supporting this 

NTEP - C11 
NTEP Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix C – NTETC Weighing Sector

item with recommendations to change the word “value” to “division” and incorporating the SWMA 

recommendation to modify paragraph S.2.3. 

NEWMA pointed out that the proposed amendment to S.1.2.1. appears to be permissive and not a requirement and 

asked if the intent was to prohibit multi-interval and multiple range scales from rounding indicating calculated net 

weights in scale divisions to only 1, 2, or 5 when appropriate or is rounding the scale divisions of 1, 2, or 5 still 

allowed? The WMD representative to the NCWM Tare Work Group stated that the intent was for the language to 

be permissive because there are a significant number of NTEP-certified devices in the marketplace that round tare 

values before calculating net weights. 

The S&T Committee made several modifications to the proposal: 

- to clarify the examples in the proposed note to paragraph S.1.2.1., and 

- to clarify the SWMA proposed modification to the language in S.2.3. for an exception for multi-interval 

and multiple range scales only applies to the requirement that the value of tare shall be equal the value of 

the scale division. 

The Committee also agreed that the words “scale value” should be changed to “scale division” and recommended 

the NIST technical advisor forward the amended proposal to the Tare Work Group and NTETC Weighing Sector for 

their consideration and comment. 

During their August 7, 2007, conference call, the Tare Work Group agreed with the recommendations of the S&T 

Committee. The group also recognized that the proposed note in S.2.1. is inconsistent with OIML R 76. The Group 

also noted that the R 76 solution to similar examples is to indicate and record net weight calculations where that 

would be mathematically incorrect since the net weight display would be rounded to the value of d based on the 

internal resolution of the gross and tare weights. 

Discussion/Conclusion: The Sector reviewed the above information and provided the S&T Committee with the 

following comments: 

The Sector supports the item, however it believes there is insufficient information in the example. The example in 

the note for paragraph S.1.2.1. should provide the values for d or e for each weighing range or segment. 

Additionally, the second example should come up with a net value that is different than the first example. 

The Sector did not have time to provide alternate examples. However, the NIST technical advisor agreed to work 

with the WWMA S&T Committee during their annual technical conference that immediately followed the meeting 

of the Weighing Sector. 

6.(d) Amend Scales Code Tolerance Paragraph T.N.2.1. General 

2006 Sector Recommendation: Amend Scales Code paragraph T.N.2.1. General and AWS Codes paragraph T.2.1. 

General to clarify that tolerances are also applied to net weight indications from a net indication of zero using any 

possible tare load. 

NCWM Recommendation/Action: This item also became 2007 NCWM S&T Committee Agenda Item 320-3. 

The S&T Committee further modified the proposed formula for subtractive tare in subparagraph 1 that appears in 

the definition of “tare mechanism” to clarify that the combined net and tare net weight value should not exceed the 

permissible gross weight capacity. 

The S&T Committee agreed that lengthy discussions on all of the tare proposals demonstrate that, although it is 

necessary to address tare, the matter is too complex to move forward without a more thorough review of all related 

proposals by the Weighing Sector and jurisdictions. Consequently, the S&T Committee recommended this proposal 

and other related proposals intended to address tare features remain as Information items for further review and 

development. The Committee also agreed that all tare related items, when ready, should be presented for voting as a 

block. 

NTEP - C12 
NTEP Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix C – NTETC Weighing Sector

Discussion/Conclusion: The Sector reviewed the proposal to amend Scales Code paragraph T.N.2.1. and AWS 

Code paragraph T.2.1. and agreed that it has no additional comments to forward to the NCWM S&T Committee. 

7. Minimum Size of Weight and Units Indications 

Source: 2006 Weighing Sector Item 6 (Carryover Item) 

Background: See the 2007 NCWM Specifications and Tolerance Committee Annual Report Item 320-4 “S.1.4.6. 

Height., Definition of Minimum Reading Distance, UR.2.10. Primary Indicating Elements Provided by the User and 

Definition of Primary Indications,” and the 2006 Weighing Sector Summary Item 6 for additional background 

information. 

This proposal was originally developed to address a growing problem with the readability of weight indications and 

the values that define transaction information. Field and laboratory officials indicate both are becoming increasingly 

smaller, as demonstrated in the 2006 Weighing Sector (Item 6) example of a weight display where the actual size of 

the weight values are 23 mm in height, but the unit of measurement (g) is 4 mm in height. 

The status of this item was changed to Developing during the January 2007 NCWM Interim Meeting and was 

moved to Appendix A as Item 360-2: Developing Items Part 1, Item 1 Scales. During the 2007 NCWM Annual 

Meeting, the Committee was informed that the NTETC Weighing Sector will continue to develop this item. 

At its 2007 NTEP Participating Laboratory meeting, the weighing device labs discussed this item and reviewed the 

equivalent recommendations in OIML R 76. It was noted that the minimum height requirement for the weight 

display applied to scales used in direct sale applications with a capacity of 100 kg or less. Additionally, it was noted 

that R 76 was written to apply to weighing devices that indicated primarily in SI units and that U.S. scales are 

frequently configured with both SI and inch-pound units. The labs agreed with the suggestion that the proposed 

language for the minimum height of the weight display be limited to scales used in direct sales with a capacity of 

100 kg or less. The minimum height of the “units” indication only would be applicable to devices with external 

lb/kg switching capability since there would be no chance of facilitating fraud using the lb/kg switching capability. 

The NIST technical advisor contacted a manufacturer about the labs’ recommendation to revise proposed S.1.4.6. 

The manufacturer believed most products could comply; however, he could not speak for other manufacturers. He 

also stated that this did not address questions about the minimum size of an annunciator that points to a unit legend 

silkscreen on the scale next to the annunciator. 

WMD believes there has been too little discussion on the clarity of the displays and annunciators and perhaps the 

proposal should include language similar to the following Handbook 130 Packaging and Labeling Regulation 

paragraphs: 

- 8.1.2. Style of Type or Lettering states that the “declaration or declarations of quantity shall be in such a 

style of type or lettering as to be boldly, clearly, and conspicuously presented with respect to other type, 

lettering, or graphic material on the package, except that . . .,” and 

- 8.1.3. Color Contrast states that the “declaration of quantity shall be in a color that contrasts conspicuously 

with its background . . .” 

Discussion/Conclusion: The NIST technical advisor amended the proposal to address the concerns and suggestions 

from the manufacturers, NTEP labs, and WMD. The NIST technical advisor did not develop any changes to the 

proposed definition of “Primary Indications” or to the proposed User Requirements and associated definition for 

“Minimum Reading Distance.” 

Manufacturers stated they prefer the proposed paragraph be written so the requirements apply to new NTEP 

applications instead of all devices manufactured after the effective date. They state that the cost to modify the 

design of the scale displays is not justified considering they have not received comments from their customers 

stating consumers are complaining that the size of the displays are too small. Additionally, the majority of the 

NTEP - C13 
NTEP Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix C – NTETC Weighing Sector

Sector believed the current definition for “primary indications” in HB 44 is sufficient and that it be deleted from the 

proposal. 

The Sector agreed to submit the following revised language to the regional weights and measures associations and 

the NCWM S&T Committee. The Sector also recommends deleting the proposed amendment to the definition of 

primary indications. Additionally, the Sector did not discuss or make any recommendations on the proposed user 

requirements and definition for “minimum reading distance.” 

S.1.4. Indicators. 

S.1.4.6. Direct Sale Primary Indications – Size and Character. Scales designed for direct sale applications 

with a capacity of 100 kg (200 lb) or less shall comply with the following:

(a) All indications shall be indicated clearly and simultaneously.

(b) All indications and associated descriptive markings (e.g., lb, kg, gross, tare, net, etc.) shall be presented 

in such a style of type or lettering as to be boldly, clearly, and conspicuously presented with respect to 

other type, lettering, or graphics and shall be at least 2 mm ( 3/32 in) high.

(c) All indications and associated descriptive markings shall be in a color or shade that contrasts 

conspicuously with its background.

(d) All primary numeric indications displayed to the customer shall be at least 9.5 mm (0.4 in) high,

(e) All units and descriptors shall be at least 2 mm ( 3

/32 in) high.

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 200X]

(Added 200X)

New Items 

8. Level Indicating Means – Out-of-Level Test 

Source: Paul Lewis, Rice Lake Weighing Systems 

Background: Rice Lake Weighing Systems reported there appears to be some confusion within the weighing 

industry regarding the interpretation of the level requirements in Handbook 44 and Publication 14. Several 

individuals believe the reference to 5 % refers to 5 % of 90 degrees. This would make the angle for the 

requirements 4.5 degrees. Therefore, some manufacturers are stating that their devices are “certified” for use out-oflevel up to 4.5 degrees. 

Handbook 44 Scales Code paragraph S.2.4. Level-Indicating Means. states: 

Except for portable wheel-load weighers and portable axle-load scales, a portable scale shall be equipped 

with level indicating means if its weighing performance 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 % (approximately three degrees). The level-indicating means 

shall be readable without removing any scale parts requiring a tool. 

Rice Lake reports that the reference to 5 % infers this is based on a grade or slope on a 180 degree plane. However, 

HB 44 does not clearly state it. 

The NTEP director added that 5 % out of level means a rise of 5 % of a 100 % run or, in other words, the increase in 

height is 5 units for every 100 units of run. That means a 45 degree angle would be a 100 % slope. Using this you 

can calculate the angle by taking the arctangent of 5

/100 or 0.05 which is 2.86 degrees or, rounded off, 3 degrees. 

NTEP - C14 
NTEP Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix C – NTETC Weighing Sector

Rice Lake submitted a proposal to amend Publication 14 Digital Electronic Scales Sections 56. Level-Indicating 

Means – Portable Scales, 63.4. Out-of-Level Test (If Applicable), and 71 Performance and Permanence Tests for 

Type Evaluation of Electronic Vehicle-On-Board Weighing Systems by adding a new note to clarify the 

requirement. 

Sector members pointed out that the reference paragraph in HB 44 states that the scale’s weighing performance 

cannot shift by an amount greater than the appropriate acceptance tolerance when it is “placed out-of-level by 5 % 

(approximately three degrees).” The exact conversion of 5 % to degrees is 2.86 degrees. As a result, it is possible 

that a portable scale without a level indicating means may comply with paragraph S.2.4. when placed out-of-level by 

5 % and fail when placed out-of-level by 3°. Additionally, some Sector members believe this is more an 

interpretation issue that can be better addressed in EPOs, newsletters, etc., and that Publication 14 section 63.4. 

“Out-of-Level Test” uses the phrase “3° (or 5 percent)” instead of the language in HB 44 paragraph S.2.4. “5 % 

(approximately three degrees).” 

The Sector agreed to recommend the language in Publication 14 be amended to be consistent with HB 44 and that a 

note be added to clarify that “5 percent refers to a 5 percent slope/grade.” 

9. Wireless Communication Information on the Certificate of Conformance (CC) 

Source: Stephen Langford, Cardinal Scale Manufacturing Co./Detecto Scales Co. 

Background: The Sector was asked to review the 2006 Summary of the Weighing Sector Agenda Item 9 for 

additional background information regarding the development and subsequent recommendation of the type 

evaluation procedures for wireless communication for metrological information. 

Stephen Langford, Cardinal Scale Manufacturing Co./Detecto Scales Co. stated that in many instances the wireless 

component consists of a separate module connected to the serial port on the indicating device. This module is 

usually a purchased item although in some instances could be contained within the indicating device enclosure. 

Listing a specific make or model of the wireless module on the indicating device's NTEP Certificate of 

Conformance effectively limits the manufacturer to the use of that specific wireless module which was used in the 

original evaluation. This presents a problem when, the manufacturer is no longer able to purchase that particular 

device, a more cost-effective substitute is found, or a change is made in the module. In these instances, the 

manufacturer has no alternative but to have their device re-evaluated in order to maintain the wireless feature on the 

NTEP certificate. 

Cardinal/Detecto also recommended that the wireless feature should be listed simply as a “wireless interface” rather 

than listing a specific model of wireless interface module. This would allow other types of wireless modules to be 

substituted without having to submit the device for further examination. 

Cardinal/Detecto also stated that NTEP is concerned with the manner in which the indicating or transmitting device 

and the peripheral or receiving device respond to the loss or degradation of the wireless signal. NTEP is not 

concerned with the manner in which the data is transmitted or the frequency or type of modulation or encryption 

method. NTEP’s primary concern, however, is that an incorrect weight value is not displayed, recorded, or 

otherwise interpreted as a valid weight. This is a function of the indicating device and/or the receiving device and 

not that of the wireless module. Therefore, the characteristics of the wireless module itself are not metrologically 

significant and, hence, do not need to be listed on the NTEP certificate. 

Discussion: The Sector reviewed the background information and discussed the recommendation to amend the 

information on the NTEP CC to discontinue listing the specific model of the wireless interface and list the “wireless 

interface” as a feature or option on the NTEP CC. 

The Sector also discussed the value of listing the specific model of the wireless communication device(s) on the 

scale CC since the majority of the devices are added onto the device as opposed to being an integral part of the scale. 

An example of an integral wireless communication scale is a crane scale where the load-receiving element is 

NTEP - C15 
NTEP Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix C – NTETC Weighing Sector

remotely located from the user operator and indicating element. Alternatively, a crane scale can have wireless 

communication through a non-integral wireless device provided by the OEM or a third party supplier. 

Manufacturers stated that it would be difficult for the holder of a CC to keep the CC up-to-date due to the frequent 

turnover of suppliers and models of wireless communication devices. A participating laboratory stated that using a 

wireless device is equivalent to a cable that connects separable elements. Other manufacturers stated that the nonintegral devices not submitted for NTEP verification, including third party add-on devices, should be permitted 

provided the “wireless communication” of digital information was verified during type evaluation with a 

representative wireless communication device. The manufacturers also stated that this policy should not apply to 

wireless devices that transmit analog information from a W/LRE and the indicating element. 

Conclusion: Based on the above discussion, the Sector stated that it is not necessary to indicate the specific model 

of a wireless device on a CC. Additionally, it was noted that Publication 14 does not require the model designation 

of the wireless device be listed on the CC. The Sector recommended the term “wireless interface” be listed as a 

“Standard Feature or Option” on the CC rather than listing the specific model of the wireless device. The Sector 

also recommended that the manufacturer and model of the wireless device be included in the “Test Conditions” 

portion of the CC to be consistent with the technical policy in Publication 14 Section B. Certificate of Conformance 

Parameters which states that only the features and options evaluated will be included on the CC. 

During the development of the Sector summary, the NIST technical advisor reviewed Publication 14 to determine if 

changes were needed in case the Sector recommendation was in conflict with existing technical policies and 

checklist procedures. Although it appears there are no conflicts, the technical advisor recommended the following 

changes highlighted in underlined and shaded text to section 11.19 to facilitate consistent application of the Sector 

recommendation. The technical advisor believes that no changes to Publication 14 Section B. Certificate of 

Conformance Parameters and the procedures in sections 11.19.1 through 11.19.6 are required. 

11.19. As used in this section, a wireless communications device may include weighing elements, 

load-receiving elements, indicating elements, recording elements (output), etc., with integral 

or separate add-on communication devices capable of transmitting and/or receiving 

metrological information between elements. 

In order for the wireless communication capability to be listed on the CC, tThe following 

procedures shall be used to evaluate indicating elements that communicate digital weight and 

other information from separable load-receiving elements (LRE) or other peripheral 

equipment (i.e., PC or remote control) by means of a radio transmitter/receiver or other 

wireless communication devices. At least two (2) complete devices (e.g., crane scales), or a 

combination of separable indicating, LRE, and recording elements shall be evaluated to 

ensure: 

11.19.1. . . . 

10. Hopper Scale Design Parameters – Technical Policy 

Source: NTEP Participating Laboratories 

Background: Currently due to changes in some state requirements, hopper scales used in concrete batch plants 

need to be NTEP certified. This presents a concern as to what defines the “type” of hopper scales since there are a 

multitude of hopper scale variants in order to fit different installations and applications. Also, as the labs discussed, 

“What characterizes the parameters that will be covered on a single NTEP CC?” 

With concrete batch plants in particular, there can be several different shapes, capacities, numbers of supports, 

method of load application (tension/compression), and permanent/portable designs, etc., all at one installation site. 

No specific information is contained in Publication 14 regarding the tests required for these different parameters. 

NTEP - C16 
NTEP Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix C – NTETC Weighing Sector

This item was discussed at the May 2007 NTEP Lab meeting. The labs were not in agreement as to the parameters 

that would define the device type. The labs were also not in agreement as to whether or not these different 

parameters should be contained on a single NTEP CC or each different parameter should be on a separate NTEP 

CC. The only parameter listed in Publication 14 is rectangular or circular hopper. There is no mention of number of 

supports, supports above or below (tension or compression), or several other parameters in Publication 14. During 

the meeting, the labs discussed this issue and could not reach consensus. The labs did develop a list of possible 

parameters to consider. 

The following is a list of design (type) and installation parameters regarding Hopper Scales developed by the NTEP 

labs during their May 2007 Annual Meeting: 

1. Hopper shape (rectangular, round or oval) 

2. Load cell type (suspension vs. compression) 

3. Portable vs. permanent installation 

4. Mechanical 

5. Electronic 

6. Electro-mechanical 

7. Number of supports 

8. Material input and output mechanism 

9. Accuracy class, no. of divisions, (based on information provided by the applicant) 

10. Peripherals 

11. Tolerance values (Class III, Class III L, Grain, Construction Material, ABWS, etc.) 

Discussion: The NIST technical advisor reported on the NTEP laboratories’ discussion just prior to the Sector 

meeting and noted the following items that need to be reviewed or addressed: 

− Publication 14 only discusses some of the parameters for circular or rectangular designed hopper scales. 

− The list of design parameters started by the labs should be reviewed and discussed. 

− Publication 14 must cover the HB 44 differences between Class III, III L, and construction material hopper 

scales. 

− How should the multiple variations of hopper scales in an installation used for a single evaluation be 

treated? 

− How many certificates need to be issued if there are different types of scales in one installation? 

− What tests need to be done? 

− What can be covered in a single evaluation and CC? 

− “Modification of type” technical policies are needed since there are scale retrofits that convert mechanical 

scales to full electronic scales and hoppers to hopper scales. 

− How are current active CCs going to be treated when an application is received to revise the CC? 

− CCs for only lever systems without the tank/hopper. 

The Sector was asked to review and discuss these items (and others that may not be listed) and to provide some 

technical guidance to the NTEP director and the NTEP labs. The labs were asked to determine whether or not each 

parameter is a metrologically significant parameter and then develop recommendations to amend Publication 14, 

Section B.6. “Certificate of Conformance Parameters for Weighing Systems Using a Tank or Hopper LoadReceiving Element.” accordingly. 

NTEP - C17 
NTEP Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix C – NTETC Weighing Sector

The discussion was focused strictly on hopper scales since the parameters listed above are not common to other 

weighing devices. 

Don Onwiler indicated that an increasing number of NTEP applications for hopper scales are being received, 

particularly for hopper scales used in concrete batch plants. Designs of these scales vary greatly by geometric 

shape, number and type of load cells, methods of support, etc. Mr. Onwiler added that the term “hopper scale” is 

insufficient to describe the “type.” Publication 14 Administrative Policy states the definition of “type” as one that 

“positively identifies the design” and may vary in models and parameters. Publication 14 does not provide 

sufficient tests to address the various designs and fails to provide guidance on what needs to be tested. Additionally, 

questions arose regarding what information needs to be included on a CC. Mr. Onwiler is concerned that some CCs 

already issued have far too many things included based on the number devices submitted for evaluation. Many 

Sector members had strong opinions regarding different characteristics, e.g., number of supports, different shapes, 

etc. 

Publication 14 includes a definition of the word “type.” Don Onwiler interprets the definition to mean that each 

design is a type; for example, a rectangular hopper and a round hopper are different designs and therefore are also 

different types. The number of load cells and the kind of load cells used also affect design. Mr. Onwiler’s objective 

was to define design so we know how much to include on a single CC since the CC must be limited to a single 

design. 

Stephen Patoray agreed these different parameters mentioned by Mr. Onwiler need to be tested, yet Publication 14 

does not indicate this. If these examples are determined to be a different design or type, then a separate CC is 

needed for each. However, a single installation being evaluated can have several hopper scales that differ in many 

of the above parameters. NTEP needs guidance. Also, how many CCs are issued in this kind of example? 

No one disagreed about the test to be performed. However, there is no guidance on what is to be listed on the CC, 

what describes a family, and which sample in the family is selected for evaluation. 

Conclusion: Since there was no specific recommendation submitted on this agenda item, the Sector could not come 

to a consensus on the questions raised on this item and suggested that a hopper scale work group be established to 

(1) define what is a type, and (2) determine selection of device(s) to be submitted for evaluation, modifications that 

can be made to the type, and whether or not multiple types can be listed on a CC. Stephen Patoray and Don Onwiler 

volunteered to develop a specific proposal to be considered by the Sector during the 2008 NTETC Weighing Sector 

Annual Meeting. 

11. Method of Sealing – Set-up and Verification of Calibration/Configuration Access 

Source: NTEP Director 

Background: At the 2003 NTEP Participating Laboratory meeting, the participating labs reported examples where 

a device could be sealed with a physical security seal while the device had been configured with access to external 

means to change calibration and configuration parameters. The labs have been using HB 44 General Code 

paragraph G-S.2. Facilitation of Fraud to require the applicants to correct this problem. 

The discussion in 2003 was to address a specific deficiency that was found in several devices at that time. At least 

one device manufacturer attempted to address this deficiency with changes to the device function. This device was 

evaluated and based on the input from the NTEP lab, the NTEP Committee chair and the NTEP director; it was 

determined that this device met the requirements. Currently several NTEP labs do not believe that this “fix” is 

acceptable. 

It was requested that the Sector review the item from the NTETC Weighing Sector Annual Meeting 

September 11 - 13, 2003, in Fresno, California, Final Summary, Item 18. Physical Security Seals on Scales with 

External Calibration Capability. 

NTEP - C18 
NTEP Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix C – NTETC Weighing Sector

There is still disagreement among the NTEP labs on this topic. There may be a problem with Pub 14 since the 

current procedures and type evaluation requirements are not fully supported by HB 44 since the changes were made 

to Pub 14 in the anticipation of changes to HB 44 and the changes to HB 44 were never submitted. 

Discussion: There is disagreement among the NTEP labs on this topic. If you review the 2003 item from the 

Sector, changes were made to Pub 14 in the anticipation of changes to HB 44. The changes to HB 44 did not 

happen. There may be a problem with Pub 14 since the current procedures and type evaluation requirements are not 

fully supported by HB 44. 

Stephen Patoray described the issue and indicated there were numerous scales that NTEP had already evaluated with 

this feature (i.e., an internal jumper that if left installed after calibration would allow someone to go into a set-up 

mode whenever they desired). The devices in question had a “calibration” switch that enables external keyboard 

calibration and configuration adjustments. The operator’s manual clearly stated that the switch must be returned to 

its initial position to disable the external adjustment capability for “legal-for-trade” applications. The “fix” that was 

accepted required the person going into the set-up mode to answer the question “Is this a legal-for-trade device?” If 

answered “yes,” you had to flip a switch to get out. The only foolproof way was to make two different scales – one 

scale for legal-for-trade applications and one for non-legal-for-trade applications. Building two different scales was 

determined to be cost prohibitive. 

Some members of the 2007 Weighing Sector stated that the 2003 Weighing Sector changes to the 2004 Edition of 

Publication 14 sufficiently addressed this problem provided device owners and service agents configured the device 

according to setup and calibrations procedures published in the instruction manuals provided by the manufacturer. 

Allowing this feature permits an inspector to seal the device not knowing if it is in the setup mode because he may 

not have a copy of the CC that has instructions on how to verify the “legal-for-trade” status of the scale. 

The Sector considered amendments to the General Code User Requirements to include language that: 

1. A device shall “be installed and a security means enabled in accordance with the manufacturer's 

instructions” in paragraph G-UR.2.1. Installation. 

2. A device shall be located, or such facilities for normal access thereto shall be provided to permit inspecting 

and applying security seals according to the manufacturer’s instructions to the device in 

paragraph G-UR.2.3. Accessibility for Inspection, Testing, and Sealing Purposes. 

3. A security seal shall be appropriately affixed according to the manufacturer’s instructions to any 

adjustment mechanism designed to be sealed in paragraph G-UR.4.5. Security Seal. 

The Sector decided that changes to the User Requirements would not be suitable since users and officials may not 

always have access to the manufacturer’s instructions. The Sector, therefore, developed the following proposed 

amendment to General Code paragraph G-S.8. Provisions for Sealing Electronic Adjustable Components: 

G-S.8. Provision for Sealing Electronic Adjustable Components. - A device shall be designed with 

provision(s) for applying a security seal that must be broken, or for using other approved means of 

providing security (e.g., data change audit trail available at the time of inspection), before any change that 

detrimentally affects the metrological integrity of the device can be made to any electronic mechanism. 

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1990]

A device may be fitted with an automatic or a semi-automatic calibration mechanism. This mechanism 

shall be incorporated inside the device. After sealing, neither the mechanism nor the calibration process 

shall facilitate fraud. 

(Added 1985) (Amended 1989 and 1993) 

Conclusion: The Sector agreed to submit the proposed language to amend G-S.8. Provisions for Sealing Electronic 

Adjustable Components to the NCWM S&T Committee. 

NTEP - C19 
NTEP Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix C – NTETC Weighing Sector

NTEP - C20 

Next Sector Meeting 

Discussion/Conclusion: Measurement Canada (Ottawa) is the next laboratory location in the normal rotation of 

NTEP participating laboratories. 

The Sector was asked to discuss these and other locations and make a recommendation for the date and location of 

the 2008 Annual Meeting of the NTETC Weighing Sector. 

It was reported by some of the Sector members that several industry and weights and measures associations 

meetings and conferences are being held in September 2008, including the WWMA (Alaska), the CWMA 

(Oklahoma), and the American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association (Utah). A suggestion 

was made to have the Sector meet in conjunction with one of these associations since it would eliminate an extra trip 

for many Sector members attending one or more of these meeting. However, the Sector agreed to recommend that 

the next meeting of the NTETC Weighing Sector be held in Ottawa, Canada, and that consideration be given to 

schedule a date that does not conflict with the above-mentioned association meetings and conferences. 
NTEP Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix C – NTETC Weighing Sector – Appendix A – Recommendations for Amendments to Publication 14

Appendix A – Recommendations for Amendments to Publication 141

Agenda Item 1: CLC Type Evaluation Tests on Railway/Vehicle Scales – Technical Policy

E. Modification of Type (Digital Electronic Scales Checklist 12-13)

7. Adding a dump-through option/modification, without modifying the lever system or load cell placement, to

vehicles, railway track, or combination vehicle/railway track scales where the vehicle load support primarily 

comes from the beams and girders on a scale with a combination steel and concrete weighbridge or all steel 

weighbridge construction, does not require evaluation for an existing CC to apply, however, the modification 

option must be listed on the CC.

8. Adding a dump-through option/modification, to vehicle, railway track, or combination vehicle/railway track

scales with other than beam and girder design does requires an a full evaluation to be listed on a new or existing 

CC. 

9. Adding a rotary dump feature/option/modification to a railway track scale requires an a full evaluation to 

be listed on a new or existing CC.

10. Adding a vehicle scale feature or option to an active railway track scale CC does not require additional 

evaluation provided that:

b. The shift test data (located over the sections and mid span between sections) be used to demonstrate 

compliance with the CLC requirements for the vehicle portion of the scale.

c. The emin for the vehicle scale is the smallest emin value that was evaluated on the railway track scale 

certificate.

d. The CLC for the vehicle scale portion of the device must not exceed the maximum test weight used for the 

section test of the railway track scale. The CLC listed on the CC shall be no greater than what would be 

permitted in Section B. 8. d.

e. The design of the LRE is no wider than 12 ft (See footnote 3 in Section B. 8.1. c.).

The railway track scale is a beam and girder design.

Agenda Item 2: In-Motion Railway Track Scale Performance and Permanence – Technical Policy (Carryover) 

68. Performance Tests for Railway Track Scale Controllers Used to Weigh In-Motion 

Performance tests are conducted to determine compliance with the tolerances. The tests described here apply 

primarily to the indicating element, the in-motion system controller (which may include the indicating element), and 

recording element(s). 

The in-motion system controller performance tests are to be conducted with a railway track scale load-receiving 

element used in an “in-motion” railway track scale application without the use of simulation devices (e.g., load cells, 

sensors, and other digital inputs intended to simulate actual use).

It is assumed that the weighing/load-receiving element used during the test has already been examined and been 

found to comply with applicable requirements in Section 69. If the design and performance of the weighing/load-

 

1 Recommended changes to Publication 14 are indicated in shaded, strike out, and underlined text. 

NTEP - C21 
NTEP Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix C – NTETC Weighing Sector – Appendix A – Recommendations for Amendments to Publication 14

receiving element is to be determined during the same test, the applicable requirements for in Section 69. 

Performance and Permanence Tests for Railway Scales Used to Weigh Statically must also be referenced. 

The following checklist provides specific items to be checked on an in-motion railway track scale system controller.

68.1. Insure Assure that the in-motion controller scale will not indicate or record a 

weight when the train speed exceeds the manufacturer's declared allowable limit. 

Yes  No  N/A 

68.2. - 68.7. (no change) Yes  No  N/A 

68.8. On installations systems where cars are not to be coupled during in-motion 

weighing, (i.e., uncoupled-in-motion weighing systems) the in-motion controller

instrument must selectively prevent the weight of coupled cars from being 

recorded. 

Yes  No  N/A 

68.9. When the primary indication or recorded representation digitizer indicates zeros 

for the weight of a railcar, a message must be printed indicating the nature of the 

fault. 

Yes  No  N/A 

(editorial)

Handbook Compliance 

Appropriate lLaboratory tests of the indicating element must be completed prior to the field performance and 

permanence testing to assure compliance with the applicable requirements of Handbook 44. 

If the WIM Controller to be tested incorporates an indicating element with NTEP approval and the indicating 

element to be tested processes only digital information ("indicators"), then the laboratory test for Influence Factors 

may be waived.

Test Standards (no change) 

Performance Test (no change)

Permanence Test

The permanence test shall be conducted after a minimum of 20 days after successful completion of the initial 

performance test. It is recommended that the performance tests described above be repeated. However, if the 

original test car is not available, the static test may be conducted with a composite test car. The results of this test 

must be within the in-motion tolerances specified in Handbook 44. If the device does not meet these tolerance 

limits, the entire test must be repeated, including successful initial performance testing and a subsequent test after a 

minimum of 20 days.

Determine the Type of Test: (no change)

Rail Scale Testing (no change)

Inspect the Scale (no change)

The Static Test (no change)

The In-Motion Test 

Recording Results, Coupled-In-Motion Test Individual Car: (no change)

Agenda Item 4.(b): G-S.5.6.1. Indicated and Recorded Representation of Units – Appropriate Abbreviations and 

Table 1. Recorded Representation of SI Units on Equipment with Limited Character Sets 

12. Values Defined 

Code References: G-S.5.2.4., G-S.5.3.1., G-S.5.6., and G-S.5.6.1. 

Graduations, indications, and recorded values that are intended to have specific values shall be adequately identified 

by a sufficient number of figures, words, and symbols. These defining terms shall be uniformly placed relative to 

NTEP - C22 
NTEP Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix C – NTETC Weighing Sector – Appendix A – Recommendations for Amendments to Publication 14

the graduations, indications, and recorded values and as close as practical to them without interfering with their 

readability. When SI units are used, the symbols shall comply with those given in Table 1 of the General Code 

(Section 1.10 of Handbook 44). Other symbols shall comply with the abbreviations given in Appendix C (General 

Tables of Units of Measurement) in Handbook 44 or NIST Special Publication SP 811 “Guide for the Use of 

International System of Units (SI).” Other symbols shall comply with the abbreviations given in Appendix C 

(General Tables of Units of Measurement) in Handbook 44. Exceptions are the abbreviations for “carat” (c or ct), 

U.S. short ton (ton or TN), and U.S. “long ton” (LT), and the “grain” in Publication 14 DES Section 76.

76. List of Acceptable Abbreviations/Symbols 

Device Application Term Acceptable Not Acceptable

SI Units Table 1 of the General 

Code NIST Special 

Publication 811 – “Guide 

for the Use of International

System of Units (SI).”

Notes on SI Units: 

• lower case “kg” on display panels & keys 

• lower case “kg” shall should be used for printing 

when possible; upper case “KG” is acceptable only 

if lower case “kg” cannot be printed

upper case “KG”

Values Defined: 

Other symbols HB 44 Appendix C –

General Tables of Units of 

Measurement General 

Table of Weights and 

Measures, HB 44* 

Agenda Item 4.(c): G-S.8.1. Multiple Weighing or Measuring Elements that Share a Common Provision for 

Sealing

10. Provision For Metrological Sealing of Adjustable Components or Audit Trail 

Code References: G-S.8.1. and S.1.11. 

10.11 A change to a sealable metrological parameter (calibration or configuration) of 

any element shall be individually identified. (Note: Compliance with this 

section is required on devices submitted for evaluation and manufactured on or 

after January 1, 2010).

Yes  No  N/A 

Examples of acceptable identification of a change to a metrological parameter of an 

element include but are not limited to: (Check which solution is used on the device.)

 A broken, missing, or replaced physical seal on an individual element.

 A change in a calibration factor or configuration setting for each 

element.

 Display of the date of or the number of days since the last calibration 

event for each element.

 A counter indicating the number of calibration and/or configuration 

events per element.

 Other. (Describe the solution to identify the method of sealing for 

each individual element.)

NTEP - C23 
NTEP Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix C – NTETC Weighing Sector – Appendix A – Recommendations for Amendments to Publication 14

Agenda Item 4.(e): Bench/Counter Scale Shift Test and Definitions 

31. Multi-Interval Scales 

A multi-interval scale is an instrument having one weighing range that is divided into partial weighing ranges 

(segments). Each weighing range (segment) is defined by its division size, its minimum capacity, and its maximum 

capacity. The selection of the appropriate weighing range (segment) is determined automatically according to the 

load applied, both on increasing and decreasing loads. The shift test shall be conducted at 30 % to 35 % ofone-half

the capacity of the scale. Corner tests, if appropriate, shall be run at one-quarter of the scale capacity. The number 

of scale divisions, n, for each weighing range (segment) is determined by dividing the maximum capacity of the 

weighing range (segment) by e of the same weighing range (segment). In the case of multi-interval scales, e must be 

equal to d (see NIST Handbook 44 Scales section S.5.3.). 

63. Performance and Permanence Tests for Platform Scales With Four or Fewer Load Supports Counter 

(Bench) Scales (Including Computing Platform Scales with Computing Capability) page DES-90. 

63.3. Shift Test 

Test with test loads equal to 30 % to 35 % ofone-half capacity as specified in N.1.3.17. and at test positions 

as illustrated below. 

63.7. Field Permanence Tests 

Review performance of the width of zero, zone of uncertainty, sensitivity, and discrimination near zero and at or 

near capacity. 

Make certain that movement of the load cell cable does not affect the “live” load. 

A minimum of four sets of increasing-load, decreasing-load, and shift tests are to be conducted at the evaluation 

installation at the start of the field permanence test. The scales are to be tested to capacity using certified test 

weights. The results of all increasing-load, decreasing-load, and shift tests conducted during the initial tests must be 

within acceptance tolerances. If scale repeatability is very good (e.g., <0.5d) the fourth test may be waived. 

• 

• On the first increasing-load test, when 30 % to 35 % of one-half capacity is reached, perform a shift 

test with the 30 % to 35 % one-half capacity load located in each quadrant. (Be careful to avoid backweighing.) 

Bench, Counter, Hanging, and 

Platform Scales with one Single Load 

Cell.

A B 

D C 

Bench, Counter and Platform Scales 

with More Four or Fewer Than one 

Load Supports.

A

D B

C

NTEP - C24 
NTEP Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix C – NTETC Weighing Sector – Appendix A – Recommendations for Amendments to Publication 14

• 

• On the third increasing-load test, perform a shift test at 30 % to 35 % one-half capacity with the load 

located in each quadrant. 

64. Performance and Permanence Tests For Platform Scales With No More Than Four Load Supports (Field 

Permanence Tests) Floor Scales page DES-93. 

64.1. Initial Type Evaluation Performance Test 

Initial Review 

•

A minimum of four sets of increasing-load, decreasing-load, and shift tests are to be conducted at the evaluation 

installation as the start of the field permanence test. The scales are to be tested to capacity using certified test 

weights. The results of all increasing-load, decreasing-load, and shift tests conducted during the initial permanence 

tests must be within acceptance tolerances. If scale repeatability is very good (e.g., <0.5 d), the fourth test may be 

waived. 

• . . . 

• On the first increasing-load test, when 30 % to 35 % one-half capacity is reached, perform a shift test 

with the 30 % to 35 % one-half capacity load located in each quadrant. (Be careful to avoid backweighing.) 

• On the second increasing-load test, perform a corner test at 1⁄4 capacity. 

• On the third increasing-load test, perform a shift test at 30 % to 35 % one-half with test load located in 

each quadrant. 

Agenda Item 8: Level Indicating Means – Out-of-Level Test 

56. Level-Indicating Means – Portable Scales 

Code Reference: S.2.4. 

Portable wheel-load weighers and portable axle-load scales intended for law enforcement must weigh accurately 

when placed out-of-level by 5 percent* (approximately 3 degrees). 

A portable scale which is intended to be moved must either be equipped with a readily observable level-indicating 

means (typically a bubble level) or the scale must still weigh accurately when placed out-of-level by 5 percent 

(approximately 3 degrees). Weighing accurately means the results must be within acceptance tolerance. 

*Note: 5 percent refers to 5 percent slope/grade

63.4. Out-of-Level Tests (If Applicable) 

If the scale is not equipped with a level-indicating means, it must be tested in an out-of-level condition to 

determine compliance with paragraph S.4. Leveling-Indicating Means. 

63.4.1. Place one side of the scale 5 percent* (approximately 3 degrees)3 degrees (or 5 percent) out-of-level 

with respect to the width axis of the scale. Zero the scale. Conduct a shift test1

 and increasing and 

decreasing load tests. 

63.4.2. Place the opposite side or the scale out-of-level, zero, and repeat tests. 

63.4.3. Place the front of the scale 5 percent* (approximately 3 degrees)3 degrees (or 5 percent) out-oflevel with respect to the length axis of the scale. Zero the scale and conduct the shift, increasing, 

and decreasing load tests. 

NTEP - C25 
NTEP Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix C – NTETC Weighing Sector – Appendix A – Recommendations for Amendments to Publication 14

NTEP - C26 

63.4.4. Place back of scale out-of-level, zero the scale, and repeat tests. All test results must be within 

acceptance tolerances. If the scale fails any of these tests, a level-indicating means is needed. 

*Note: 5 percent refers to 5 percent slope/grade.

71. Performance and Permanence Tests for Type Evaluation of Electronic Vehicle On-Board Weighing Systems 

Out-of-Level Tests 

A vehicle on-board weighing system shall operate within tolerance when the weighing system is out-of-level up to 

5 percent (approximately 3 degrees). Note that 5 percent refers to 5 percent slope/grade. However, beyond the 

3 degrees or 5 percent, if the accuracy is affected by out-of-level conditions normal to the use of the device, the 

system shall be equipped with an out-of-level sensor that inhibits the weighing operation when the system is out-oflevel to the extent that the accuracy limits are exceeded. 
NTEP Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix C – NTETC Weighing Sector – Appendix B – 2007 Weighing Sector Meeting Attendees

Appendix B – Meeting Attendees 

2007 Weighing Sector Meeting Attendees 

Marriott Rancho Cordova – Sacramento, California 

September 6 - 8, 2007

Steven Beitzel 

Systems Associates, Inc. 

1932 Industrial Drive 

Libertyville, IL 60048 

(847) 367-6650, Fax: (847) 367-6960 

E-mail: sjbeitze1@systemsassoc.com 

Steven E. Cook 

NIST, Weights & Measures Division 100 

Bureau Drive MS 2600 

Building 820/Rm 223 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2600 

(301) 975-4003, Fax: (301) 926-0647 

E-mail: stevenc@nist.gov 

Scott Henry 

NCR Corporation 

2651 Satellite Boulevard 

Duluth, GA 30096 

(770) 623-7543, Fax: (770) 479-1174 

E-mail: scott.henry@ncr.com 

 

Sam Boyd 

California Division of Measurement 

Standards 

6790 Florin Perkins Road, Suite 100 

Sacramento, CA 95828 

(916) 229-3021, Fax: (916) 229-3015 

E-mail: sboyd@cdfa.ca.gov 

Scott Davidson 

Mettler-Toledo, Inc. 

1150 Dearborn Drive 

Worthington, OH 43085 

(614) 438-4387, Fax: (614) 781-7484 

E-mail: scott.davidson@.mt.com 

Ken Jones 

Califol1lia Division of Measurement 

Standards 

6790 Florin Perkins Road, Suite 100 

Sacramento, CA 95828 

(916) 229-3052, Fax: (916) 229-3015 

E-mail: kjones@cdfa.ca.gov 

Luciano Burtini 

Measurement Canada 

2008 Matera Avenue 

Kelowna, BC V1V 1W9 

CANADA 

(250) 862-6557, Fax: (250) 712-4215 

E-mail: burtini.luciano@ic.gc.ca 

Darrell E. Flocken 

Mettler-Toledo, Inc. 

1150 Dearborn Drive 

Worthington, OH 43085 

(614)438-4393, Fax: (614) 438-4355 

E-mail: darrell.flocken@mt.com 

Stephen Langford 

Cardinal Scale Manufacturing Co. 

203 East Daugherty, P.O. Box 151 

Webb City, MO 64870 

(417) 673-4631, Fax: (417) 673-5001 

E-mail: slangford@cardet.com 

Judy Cardin 

Wisconsin Dept. of Ag & Consumer 

Protection 

PO Box 8911, 2811 Agriculture Drive 

Madison, WI 53708-8911 

(608) 224-4945, Fax: (608) 224 4939 

E-mail: judy.cardin@datcp.state.wi.us 

Nathan Gardner 

Oregon Department of Agriculture 

635 Capitol Street NE 

Salem, OR 97301 

(503) 986-4764, Fax: (503) 986-4784 

E-mail: ngardner@oda.state.or.us 

Jean Lemay 

Measurement Canada 

151Tunney's Pasture Driveway 

Ottawa, Ontario KIA OC9 

CANADA 

(613) 948-7279, Fax: (613) 952-7331 

E-mail: lemay.jean@ic.gc.ca 

Milton Carlin 

Kansas Department of Agriculture, 

Weights & Measures Division 

PO Box 19282/Forbes Field Building 282 

Topeka, KS 66619-0282 

(785) 862-2415, Fax: (785) 862-2460 

E-mail: mcarlin@kda.state.ks.us 

William G. GeMeiner 

Union Pacific Railroad 

1400 Douglas Street, Stop 0910 

Omaha, NE 68179-0910 

(402) 544-6248, Fax: (402) 501-0478 

E-mail: wgemeiner@up.com 

Paul A. Lewis, Sr. 

Rice Lake Weighing Systems 

230 West Coleman Street 

PO Box 272 

Rice Lake, WI 54868-2404 

(715) 234-9171, Fax: (715) 234-6967 

E-mail: plewis@ricelake.com 

Gary Castro 

California Division of Measurement 

Standards 

6790 Florin Perkins Road, Suite 100 

Sacramento, CA 95828 

(916) 229-3049, Fax: (916) 229-3015 

Emai1: gcastro@cdfa.ca.gov 

Rick Harshman 

NIST 

Building 820, 100 Bureau Drive MS 2600 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2600 

(301) 975-3989, Fax: (301) 926-0647 

E-mail: richard.harshman@nist.gov 

Todd R. Lucas 

Ohio Dept. of Agriculture 

8995 East Main Street, Building 5 

Reynoldsburg, OH 43068 

(614) 728-6290, Fax: (614) 728-6424 

E-mail: lucas@mail.agri.state.oh.us 

NTEP - C27 
NTEP Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix C – NTETC Weighing Sector – Appendix B – 2007 Weighing Sector Meeting Attendees

NTEP - C28 

2007 Weighing Sector Meeting Attendees 

Marriott Rancho Cordova – Sacramento, California 

September 6 - 8, 2007

L. Edward Luthy 

Brechbuhler Scales, Inc. 

1424 Scale Street SW 

Canton, OH 44706 

(330) 458-2424, Fax: (330) 471-8909 

E-mail: eluthy@bsscales.com 

Louis E. Straub 

Fairbanks Scales, Inc. 

3056 Irwin Drive SE 

Southport, NC 28461 

(910) 253-3250, Fax: (910) 253-3250 

E-mai1: strauble@yahoo.com 

 

Sonia Munoz 

California Division of Measurement 

Standards 

6790 Florin Perkins Road, Suite 100 

Sacramento, CA 95828-1812 

(916) 229-3017, Fax: (916) 229-3015 

E-mail: smunoz@cdfa.ca.gov 

Russ Wyckoff 

Oregon Dept. of Agriculture 

635 Capitol Street, N.E. 

Salem, OR 97301-2532 

(503) 986-4767, Fax: (503) 986-4784 

E-mail: rwyckoff@oda.state.or.us 

Don Onwiler 

Nebraska Division of Weights & Measures 

301 Centennial Mall South, Box 94757 

Lincoln, NE 68509 

(402) 471-4292, Fax: (402) 471-2759 

E-mail: donwiler@agr.ne.gov 

Jesus Zapien 

A&D Engineering, Inc. 

1756 Automation Parkway 

San Jose, CA 95131 

(408) 518-5114. Fax: (408) 635-2314 

E-mai1: jzapien@andweighing.com 

Dan Parks 

California Division of Measurement 

Standards 

6790 Florin Perkins Road, Suite 100 

Sacramento, CA 95828 

(916) 229-3018, Fax: (916) 229-3015 

E-mail: dparks@cdfa.ca.gov 

Stephen Patoray, CAE 

NCWM 

1239 Carolina Drive 

Tryon, NC 28782 

(828) 859-6178, Fax: (828) 859-6180 

E-mail: spatoray@mgmtsol.com 
NTEP Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix C – NTETC Weighing Sector – Appendix C – Attachments

Appendix C – Attachments 

Attachment for Agenda Item 5 

D. Force Transducers (load cells) to be Submitted for Evaluation 

Force transducers (load cells) of essentially the same design may be considered to form a family that can be listed on 

an NTEP CC. If force transducers (load cells) within a family are made from different materials, such as aluminum, 

alloy steel, or stainless steel, then all material types must be submitted for evaluation. If the force transducers (load 

cells) within a family are available in either a 4-wire or 6-wire version, then at least one 4-wire version and one 

6-wire version must be evaluated. This policy applies to all applications for new or amended NTEP Certificates of 

Conformance received after January 31, 2007. This policy is non-retroactive for NTEP Certificates of Conformance 

issued prior to February 1, 2007. 

Under the Mutual Acceptance Arrangement (MAA) for the International Organization of Legal Metrology (OIML), 

it is possible to obtain either an NTEP CC or an OIML R 60 Certificate or both with a single evaluation. NCWM is 

a utilizing participant under the MAA and as such will accept test data from issuing participants within the MAA. 

Evaluations performed by NTEP laboratories can only result in an NTEP CC. These certificates can cover a family 

of force transducers (load cells) based on the evaluation of representative samples from the family. In order to 

determine which specific models of force transducers (load cells) are to be used for evaluation, the following 

selection criterion shall be used: 

1. Evaluation of New Force Transducers (load cells) for NTEP Certificates Only

Required Information 

The following information is required from the manufacturer for review and selection of sample force transducers 

(load cells): 

a. Properly completed request for evaluation 

b. A drawing of each capacity force transducer (load cell) within the family to substantiate that they are 

of the same basic design 

c. A determination of quality or accuracy class 

d. Maximum number of scale divisions requested (n-max) 

e. Minimum verification scale division requested (V-min) 

f. Force transducer (load cell) capacities 

g. The type(s) of material from which the force transducers (load cells) are made 

h. As applicable, outline dimensions and general description illustration of any special equipment 

(loading fixtures, interconnection boxes, etc.) intended to accompany the force transducers (load cells) 

submitted 

i. A complete set of test data on the force transducers (load cells) submitted for evaluation. (Test data is 

only required for those force transducers (load cells) submitted for type evaluation; test data for each 

capacity model in the family is not required.) 

j. The technology employed by the force transducer (load cell); e.g. strain gage (analog or digital), 

hydraulic, vibrating wire, piezoelectric, or other. Applicants for analog strain gage force transducers 

NTEP - C29 
NTEP Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix C – NTETC Weighing Sector – Appendix C – Attachments

(load cells) must indicate on the application whether 4-wire or 6-wire (or both) design force 

transducers (load cells) are included in the family. 

Note: The manufacturer may market force transducers (load cells) with a smaller number of scale divisions (n-max) 

and/or with a larger V-min value than those listed on the approval certificate; however, the force transducer (load 

cell) or accompanying documentation must be marked with the appropriate n-max and V-min for which the force 

transducer (load cell) may be used. 

Selection Criteria 

A. Selection of force transducers (load cells) from the family shall be based on the following considerations: 

1. The selection of force transducers (load cells) shall be such that the number of force transducers (load cells) 

to be evaluated is minimized. 

2. Where force transducers (load cells) of the same capacity belong to different groups within the family, 

approval of the force transducer (load cell) with the best metrological characteristics (greatest nmax, smallest 

vmin) implies approval of the force transducers (load cells) with the lesser metrological characteristics. 

When a choice exists, the force transducers (load cells) with the best metrological characteristics shall be 

selected for the evaluation. 

3. Force transducers (load cells) with a capacity in between the capacities evaluated, as well as those with a 

capacity greater than the largest capacity model tested, but not over five times the largest capacity 

evaluated, are deemed to be certified. 

4. For any family of force transducers (load cells), the model with a capacity nearest the center of the range of 

capacities and with the best metrological characteristics shall be selected for evaluation. When the ratio of 

the largest capacity force transducer (load cell) within the group or family to the smallest capacity force 

transducer in the same group or family is 10:1 or less, a cell with a capacity nearest the center of the range 

shall be selected. The capacity of the selected cell shall not have a ratio greater than 5:1 in regard to the 

capacity of the force transducers (load cells) at the each extreme of the capacity range. If this is not 

possible, a second force transducer (load cell) must be selected for evaluation (see Item 5 below). If the 

selected mid-range capacity cell cannot be evaluated due to laboratory limitations, the NTEP representative 

should be contacted to select the specific model for evaluation. 

5. When the ratio of the largest capacity force transducer (load cell) within the group to the smallest capacity 

force transducer (load cell) within the same group or family significantly exceeds 10:1, then another force 

transducer (load cell) shall be selected for evaluation. The selected force transducer (load cell) shall have a 

capacity between 5 and 10 times that of the first force transducer (load cell) that was selected for 

evaluation. When no capacity meets this criteria, the selected force transducer (load cell) shall be that 

having the smallest capacity that exceeds 10 times that of the nearest smaller capacity force transducer 

(load cell) that has been selected for evaluation. Should the capacity of the selected cell exceed the 

capacity of the greatest capacity model in the family or group by a ratio greater than 10:1, an additional 

model must be selected for evaluation. 

6. If both 4-wire and 6-wire designs of force transducers (load cells) are included in the family, then at least 

one of the selected models for evaluation shall be of the 4-wire design and at least one of the remaining 

models shall be of the 6-wire design. 

7. If the family of force transducers (load cells) includes two or more types of material used for construction 

of the device, then at least one of the selected models for evaluation shall be of each type of material used 

for construction. 

8. If the family of force transducers (load cells) includes two or more means of environmental sealing 

(potting, welded cups, etc.), then at least one model using each sealing means shall be selected for 

evaluation. 

NTEP - C30 
NTEP Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix C – NTETC Weighing Sector – Appendix C – Attachments

9. If the family of force transducers (load cells) includes two or more output levels (2 or 3 mV/V), then at 

least one model with each output level shall be selected for evaluation. 

B. Examples of force transducer (load cell) model selection for evaluation: 

a. Force Transducer (load cell) Family A characteristics: 

1. Both stainless steel and alloy steel models 

2. 2 mV/V and 3 mV/V outputs 

3. Bending beams in smaller capacities and shear beams in larger capacities 

4. 4-wire and 6-wire designs 

5. nmax is 5000 on all models 

6. Potting or welded metal cup sealing variations 

7. All vmin values equal to 0.015 % of cell capacity 

8. All capacities in pounds: 

500, 1000, 2000, 2500, 4000, 5000, 7500, 10 000, 15 000, 20 000 

The following cell models would be selected for evaluation: 

• One - 500 lb stainless steel, potted, 3 mV/V, 4-wire bending beam cell 

• One - 2500 lb alloy steel, potted, 2 mV/V, 4-wire shear beam cell 

• One - 15 000 lb stainless steel, welded, 3 mV/V, 6-wire shear beam cell 

Note that Item 2 in Part A above is not applicable in this situation since the metrological characteristics (nmax and 

vmin for all of the models are equivalent. 

Note that Item 3 in Part A above is met since the 20 000 lb model is less than five times the capacity of the greatest 

capacity model selected for evaluation (15 000 lb). 

Note that Item 4 in Part A above is met since the 2500 lb capacity model of force transducer (load cell) is the closest 

to the center and is able to meet the requirements in both Item 4 and 5 and therefore was selected for evaluation. 

Note that Item 5 in Part A above is met since the ratio between the capacities of the models selected for evaluation 

does not exceed five. 

Note that Item 6 in Part A above is met by having at least one of the models selected of a 4-wire design and at least 

one of the models selected of a 6-wire design. 

Note that Item 7 in Part A above is met by having at least one of the models constructed from each type of materials 

used. 

Note that Item 8 in Part A above is met by having at least one of the selected models with each environmental 

sealing method employed within the family. 

Note that Item 9 in Part A above is met by having at least one of the selected models with a 3 mV/V output and at 

least one with a 2 mV/V output. 

NTEP - C31 
NTEP Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix C – NTETC Weighing Sector – Appendix C – Attachments

b. Force Transducer (load cell) Family B characteristics: 

1. Compression cells constructed from either alloy steel or stainless steel 

2. All cells are Class III L 

3. Cells from 10 000 lb to 75 000 lb have an n-max of 7500 and cells from 50 000 lb to 200 000 lb have 

an nmax of 10 000 

4. All cells are 2 mV/V 

5. All cells have the same environmental sealing 

6. All cells have vmin values equal to 0.018 % of their capacity 

7. All cells are of 6-wire design 

8. Cell capacities are: 

10 000; 25 000; 50 000; 75 000; 100 000; 200 000 

 The following models would be submitted for evaluation: 

• One - 50 000 lb with an n-max of 10 000 in stainless steel 

• One - 10 000 lb in alloy steel 

Note that Item 2 in Part A above is met with the selection of the 50 000 lb model with an nmax of 10 000 since it has 

the best metrological characteristics. 

Note that Item 3 in Part A above is met with the selection of the 10 000 lb model. Selection of the 200 000 lb model 

could have taken place but the 10 000 lb model was chosen because of the ease of testing. 

Note that Item 4 in Part A above is met with the selection of the 10 000 lb model since it is within the 5:1 capacity 

ratio of the 50 000 lb model initially selected. 

Note that Item 5 in Part A above is met with the selection of the 10 000 lb model since the ratio of its capacity to 

that of the 50 000 lb model does not exceed 5:1. 

Note that Item 6 in Part A above does not apply since all models are of 6-wire design. 

Note that Item 7 in Part A above is met with the selection of the 10 000 lb model in stainless steel and the 50 000 lb 

model in alloy steel thus covering both types of material used for construction of the force transducers (load cells) in 

the family. 

Note that Item 8 in Part A above does not apply since all models use the same means of environmental sealing. 

Note that Item 9 in Part A above does not apply since all models use the same output level of 2 mV/V. 

2. Evaluation of New Force Transducers (load cells) for OIML R 60 Certificate or OIML R 60 Certificate and 

NTEP Certificate of Conformance under the DoMC

Required Information 

The information needed for an OIML R 60 evaluation is listed in OIML Recommendation 60. If the manufacturer is 

seeking an NTEP Certificate of Conformance for the force transducer (load cell) family or individual model, the 

information shown in Section 1 above shall also be provided along with a properly completed application for NTEP 

evaluation. All NTEP requirements are to be met in this type of evaluation. The manufacturer must make certain 

NTEP - C32 
NTEP Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix C – NTETC Weighing Sector – Appendix C – Attachments

the issuing participant selected for the evaluation of the force transducer(s) (load cell(s)) is aware that the submittal 

is for both NTEP and OIML R 60. A completed application and copies of all submitted data must be sent to NTEP. 

Once the evaluation has been successfully completed, the issuing authority will provide an OIML Evaluation Report 

that may then be used to secure an OIML R 60 Certificate. This report is also sent to NTEP. NTEP will evaluate 

the OIML Evaluation Report and issue an NTEP Certificate of Conformance based on this evaluation. Note that 

issuance of an NTEP Certificate of Conformance may require the conduct of other tests not performed by the issuing 

participant. If this happens, the costs of these tests are the responsibility of the applicant. 

Note: Should the force transducers (load cells) submitted fail to comply with all OIML R 60 requirements and the 

manufacturer then seeks to secure an NTEP Certificate of Conformance based on the OIML Evaluation Report, 

additional testing may be required in order to fully determine compliance of the device(s) with NTEP requirements. 

The costs for any additional testing deemed necessary for completion of the NTEP review will be the responsibility 

of the applicant. 

Selection Criteria 

Selection of the force transducers (load cells) for evaluation shall be based on the OIML R 60 selection criteria as 

described in OIML Recommendation 60. 

3. Amendment of an Existing NTEP Certificate of Conformance to Add Capacities and/or Change 

Metrological Characteristics in Conjunction with an OIML R 60 Evaluation Under the DoMC

Required Information 

The information needed for an OIML R 60 evaluation is listed in OIML Recommendation 60. If the manufacturer is 

seeking to amend an existing NTEP Certificate of Conformance for the force transducer (load cell) family or 

individual model, the information shown in Section 1 above shall also be provided along with a properly completed 

application for NTEP evaluation. All NTEP requirements are to be met in this type of evaluation. 

Successfully completed, this type of evaluation will result in a test report and test certificate that may be used to 

secure an amended OIML R 60 Certificate. The test report will be reviewed by NTEP and, if the appropriate criteria 

are met, a NEW NTEP Certificate of Conformance will be issued. Note that the original NTEP Certificate of 

Conformance will remain active and will not be amended. The new NTEP Certificate of Conformance resulting 

from this evaluation will list the new capacities added and/or the change in metrological characteristics. Note that 

the appropriate NTEP Certificate of Conformance number must be marked on the device in compliance with 

G-S.1. Marking Requirements of NIST Handbook 44. 

Note: Should the force transducers (load cells) submitted fail to comply with all OIML R 60 requirements and the 

manufacturer then seeks to only amend the existing NTEP Certificate of Conformance based on the test report, 

additional testing may be required in order to fully determine compliance of the device(s) with NTEP requirements. 

The costs for any additional testing deemed necessary for completion of the NTEP review will be the responsibility 

of the applicant. 

Selection Criteria 

The proper models for evaluation will depend upon the nature of the change or addition to be made. Because of this, 

NTEP personnel shall be contacted and shall determine which model or models of force transducer (load cell) are to 

be submitted. 

4. Amendment of an Existing NTEP Certificate of Conformance ONLY

Required Information 

The required information will depend upon the nature of the change being made. If additional models of force 

transducers (load cells) are being added to a family, then the same information and selection criteria as listed in 

NTEP - C33 
NTEP Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix C – NTETC Weighing Sector – Appendix C – Attachments

Section 1 above apply. If the change is to add another version of the force transducer (load cell) listed on the current 

NTEP Certificate of Conformance the nature of the change or addition must be fully disclosed in the application. 

Selection Criteria 

The necessity of an evaluation to implement the requested change will depend upon the nature of the change. In 

general, addition of new models of force transducers (load cells) with capacities outside the 5:1 ratio of those 

previously evaluated will require additional evaluation. Addition of a 4-wire design with no change in capacity will 

require an evaluation while the addition of a 6-wire design with no change in capacity will not. The addition of 

models constructed from a different material will require the evaluation of at least one model constructed of the new 

material. NTEP personnel will inform you of what models, if any, require evaluation after review of the application. 

Attachment for Agenda Item 6 

The Tare Work Group recommended adding the following definitions to the Definitions (as amended by the 

S&T Committee) already in 2007 S&T Agenda Item 320-9 

Calculated weight (gross or tare*) value. Calculated sum or difference of more than one measured weight value 

and/or calculated net value. (* TARE WG Comment – This new HB definition is from the revised version of R 76 

and is beyond what is currently required by NTEP.) 

Tare-balancing mechanism. A tare mechanism with an indication that tare has been taken and without an 

indication of the tare value (weight) when the instrument is loaded. A negative net weight is assumed to be the tare 

value when the weighing instrument is unloaded.

Tare-weighing mechanism. A tare-balancing mechanism that stores the tare value and is capable of displaying 

(continuously or upon command) or printing the value whether or not the instrument is loaded.

Preset Tare. A numerical value, representing a weight that is entered into a weighing device (e.g., keyboard, 

recalling from stored data, or entered through an interface) and is intended to be applied to weighings without 

determining individual tares.

Preset Tare Mechanism. A part of a weighing system for subtracting a preset tare value from a gross or net weight 

value and indicating the result of the calculation as a net weight. The weighing range for net loads is reduced 

accordingly.

Types of preset tare mechanisms include:

- Keyboard Tare. The operation of keys on a keyboard; e.g., with a typical 10-key keyboard with values 

0 through 9, by the pushing of a key numbered 5, the number 5 is entered as a tare value.

- Digital Tare. By the repeated operation of a particular key, tare values are entered in amounts equal to the 

value of a scale division. For example, on a 25 lb x 0.01 lb scale, each time a specifically marked key is 

depressed; a tare is entered equal to 0.01 lb. If that key were depressed five times, the tare value would be 

equal to 0.05 lb.

- Programmable Tare. Preset (predetermined) tare values that are stored in memory for multiple 

transactions. They may be part of the product information on PLU (product look-up), preset product, or 

tare keys.

- Stored Tare. Preset (predetermined) tare values that are stored in memory for multiple transactions and 

are used predominately in vehicle scale applications.

- Percentage Tare. A preset tare value, expressed as a percentage (i.e., 5.6 %), that represents the 

percentage of tare material compared to the gross or net weight of the commodity. A percentage tare is one 

form of proportional tare.

NTEP - C34 
NTEP Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix C – NTETC Weighing Sector – Appendix C – Attachments

- Proportional Tare. A preset tare value, automatically calculated by the scale, proportional to the gross 

weight indicated by the scale. A proportional tare can be a percentage tare or a fixed tare value 

proportional to a range of gross weights (i.e., a 10 g tare for gross weights between 0 and 2 kg, a 20 g tare 

for gross weights between 2 and 4 kg, etc.). A proportional tare is, therefore, not limited to being a 

percentage tare.

The Tare Work Group recommends the following changes to Scales Code. 

S.2. Design of Balance, Tare, Level, Damping, and Arresting Mechanisms.

S.2.3. Tare Value of Tare Indication and Recorded Representations:

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. A device 

designed to automatically clear any tare value shall also be designed to prevent the automatic clearing of tare 

until a complete transaction has been indicated.* 

(Amended 1985) 

[Note: On a computing scale, this requires the input of a unit price, the display of the unit price, and a 

computed positive total price at a readable equilibrium. Other devices require a complete weighing operation, 

including tare, net, and gross weight determination]* 

[*Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1983] 

S.2.3.1 Scale Interval. – The interval of a tare weighing mechanism shall be equal to the scale interval of the

weighing device for any given load.

(a) On any scale (except a monorail scale equipped with digital indications and multi-interval scales or 

multiple range scales when the value of tare is determined in a lower range), the value of the tare 

division shall be equal to the value of the scale division.*

 [*Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1983] 

(b) S.2.3.1. Monorail Scales Equipped with Digital Indications. – On a static monorail weighing system 

equipped with digital indications, means shall be provided for setting any tare value of less than 5 % of 

the scale capacity to within 0.02 % of scale capacity. On a dynamic monorail weighing system, means 

shall be provided to automatically maintain this condition. 

 (Amended 1999) 

(Renumbered 200X)

S.2.3.2. Accuracy. – A tare weighing or balancing mechanism shall permit setting the indication to zero with 

an accuracy equal to or better than:

± 0.25 d for electronic weighing devices and any weighing device with an analog indication,

± 0.5 d for mechanical weighing devices with a digital indication (e.g., weighbeams with only notched 

poises and no sliding poises).

On a multi-interval scale, d shall be replaced by d1 (division value of the first weighing segment).

S.2.3.3. Operating Range. – The tare mechanism shall be such that it cannot be used at or below its zero 

effect or above its maximum indicated effect.

On a single or multiple range scale, the maximum tare capacity can not exceed that maximum capacity 

of the highest weighing range.

NTEP - C35 
NTEP Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix C – NTETC Weighing Sector – Appendix C – Attachments

On a multi-interval scale, the maximum tare capacity can not exceed that maximum capacity of the first 

weighing segment.

S.2.3.4. Visibility of Operation. – Operation of the tare mechanism shall be visibly indicated on the 

instrument. In the case of instruments with digital indication, this shall be done by marking the indicated 

net value with the word “NET” or the symbol “N.”

Note: NET may be displayed as “NET,” “Net,” or “net.”

Note: If a scale is equipped with an indicator that allows the gross value to be displayed temporarily while a 

tare mechanism is in operation, the “NET” symbol shall disappear while the gross value is displayed.

S.2.3.5. Subtractive Tare Mechanism. – After any tare operation and while tare is in effect, an indicating 

or recording element shall not display nor record any values when the gross load (not counting the initial 

dead load that has been canceled by an initial zero-setting mechanism) is in excess of 105 % of scale 

capacity after tare has been taken.

(Tare WG Recommenation: Insert into paragraph S.1.7. (a) Capacity Indication “Flashing weight values are 

not acceptable as and overload indication.” 

S.2.3.6. Semi-automatic or Automatic Tare* Balancing or Weighing Mechanisms. – These mechanisms 

shall be operable or accessible only by a tool outside of and separate from this mechanism or it shall be 

enclosed in a cabinet, or it shall be operable only when the indication is stable within:

(a) ± 3 scale divisions for scales of more than 2000 kg (5000 lb) capacity in service prior to 

January 1, 1981, and for all axle load, railway track, and vehicle scales; or

(b) ± 1 scale division for all other scales.

* Automatic Tare Mechanisms are not permitted for direct sales to the public.

S.2.3.7. Combined Zero-setting and Tare-balancing Mechanisms (0/T Key). – (TWG recommends 

deleting S.2.1.6. Combined Zero-setting and Tare-balancing Mechanisms (0/T Key) in order to keep all 

tare requirements together). Scales not intended to be used in direct sales to the public may be equipped 

with a combined zero and tare function key, provided that the device is clearly marked as to how the key 

functions. If the semi-automatic zero-setting mechanism and the semi-automatic tare-balancing 

mechanism are operated by the same key, the following apply at any load:

1) After zero/tare setting the effect of accuracy of the zero setting shall be not more than ± 0.25 d.

2) A “center-of-zero” condition shall either automatically be maintained to ± 0.25 scale division or 

less, or have an auxiliary or supplemental “center-of-zero” indicator that defines a zero-balance 

condition to ± 0.25 of a scale division or less.

3) A zero-tracking mechanism, if equipped, shall operate only when:

- the indication is at zero, or at a negative net value equivalent to gross zero, and

- the weight indication is stable.

4) The scale must also be clearly marked on or adjacent to the weight display with the statement 

“Not for Direct Sales.”

S.2.3.8. Consecutive Tare Operations. – Repeated operation of a tare mechanism (including preset tare) 

is permitted. If more than one tare mechanism is operative at the same time, tare weight values shall be 

clearly designated when indicated or printed.

NTEP - C36 
NTEP Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix C – NTETC Weighing Sector – Appendix C – Attachments

S.2.3.9. Indication and Printing of Weighing Results.

a) Gross weight values may be printed without any designation or by complete word or symbol. 

For a designation by a symbol, only “G” is permitted.

b) If only net weight values are printed without corresponding gross or tare values, they may be 

printed without any designation or by a complete word or symbol. The complete word or 

symbol “N” shall be used to designate a net weight. This applies also where semi-automatic zerosetting and semi-automatic tare balancing are initiated by the same key.

c) Gross, net, or tare values determined by a multiple range instrument or by a multi-interval 

instrument need not be marked by a special designation referring to the (partial) weighing 

range.

d) If net weight values are printed together with the corresponding gross and/or tare values, the net 

and tare values shall be identified at least by the corresponding symbols “N” and “T” or by 

complete words.

e) If net weight values and tare values determined by different tare mechanisms are printed 

separately, they shall be suitably identified.

f) When gross, net, and tare values are printed together, one of these values may be calculated 

from two actual determinations of mass. In the case of a multi-interval device the calculated 

weight gross or tare value may be printed with a smaller scale interval.

g) The printout of a calculated gross or tare weight value shall be clearly identified. This should be 

done by the symbol “C” in addition to the symbols mentioned above, if applicable, or by 

complete words.

TARE WG Comment: The requirements in f) and g) are from the revised version of R 76 and is beyond 

what is currently required by HB 44 and NTEP.

S.2.4. Preset Tare Mechanism.

S.2.4.1. Modes of Operation. – A preset tare mechanism may be operated together with one or more 

tare devices provided that:

- the preset tare mechanism complies with paragraph S.2.3.8. Consecutive Tare Operations., 

and

- a preset tare operation cannot be modified or cancelled as long as any tare mechanism 

operated after the preset tare operation is still in use.

- a preset tare associated with a price look-up (PLU) shall be automatically cancelled at the 

same time a PLU is cancelled.

Preset tare may operate automatically only if the preset tare value is clearly identified with the load 

to be measured (e.g., part of the product look-up information).

S.2.4.2 Indication of Operation. – Operation of the preset tare device shall be visibly indicated on the 

instrument. In the case of instruments with digital indication, this shall be done by marking the 

indicated net value with the sign “NET,” “Net,” or “net.” If an instrument is equipped with a device 

that allows the gross value to be displayed temporarily while a tare device is in operation, the “NET” 

symbol shall disappear while the gross value is displayed. It shall be possible to temporarily indicate 

the preset tare value.

NTEP - C37 
NTEP Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix C – NTETC Weighing Sector – Appendix C – Attachments

NTEP - C38 

Paragraph S.2.3.9. Indication and Printing of Weighing Results. applies accordingly provided that 

the calculated net value is printed and at least the preset tare value is printed, with the exception of:

1. a class II, or a class III instrument with a maximum capacity not greater than 100 kg used in 

direct sales to the public, or

2. including price computing scales, or

3. nonautomatic weigh/price labeling scales.

- preset tare values are designated by the symbol “PT”; however, it is permitted to replace the 

symbol “PT” with complete words. (TARE WG Comment – This requirement is from the revised 

version of R 76 and is beyond what is currently required by HB 44 and NTEP. The Tare WG added 

the class and capacity exception since they felt that the need for providing the additional type of tare 

information is greater for larger capacity scales and for vehicle scale applications where preset tares 

are not allowed by some jurisdictions.)

Note: Paragraph 2.4.2. also applies to weighing devices with a combined semi-automatic zero-setting device 

and a semi-automatic tare-balancing device operated by the same key.
NTEP Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix D – NTETC Software Sector

Appendix D 

National Type Evaluation Technical Committee 

Software Sector 

October 17 - 18, 2007 – Little Rock, Arkansas 

Meeting Summary 

Agenda Items 

Carryover Items........................................................................................................................................................D2

1.a. NTETC Software Sector Mission.................................................................................................................D2

1.b. NCWM/NTEP Policies – Issuing CCs for Software ....................................................................................D2

2. Definitions for Software-Based Devices......................................................................................................D4

3. Software Identification / Markings...............................................................................................................D6

4. Identification of Certified Software..............................................................................................................D7

5. Software Protection / Security......................................................................................................................D8

6. Software Maintenance and Reconfiguration ..............................................................................................D16

7. Verification in the Field, By the W&M Inspector......................................................................................D19

8. NTEP Application......................................................................................................................................D19 

New Items................................................................................................................................................................D20

9. Next Meeting..............................................................................................................................................D20

NTEP - D1 
NTEP Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix D – NTETC Software Sector

Meeting Minutes 

Jim Truex called the meeting to order at 8:00 on October 17, 2007. All registered participants attended. Jim 

explained that the Sector attempts to build consensus and then explained the voting procedures, if needed. He asked 

everyone to introduce himself or herself. 

Carryover Items 

1.a. NTETC Software Sector Mission 

Source: NCWM Board of Directors 

Background: In 2005 the Board of Directors established a National Type Evaluation Technical Committee 

(NTETC) Software Sector. A mission statement for the Sector was developed at that time. 

Mission of the Software Sector: 

• Develop a clear understanding of the use of software in today’s weighing and measuring instruments. 

• Develop NIST Handbook 44 specifications and requirements, as needed, for software incorporated into 

weighing and measuring devices. This may include tools for field verification, security requirements, 

identification, etc. 

• Develop NCWM Publication 14 checklist criteria, as needed, for the evaluation of software incorporated 

into weighing and measuring devices, including marking, security, metrologically significant functions, etc. 

• Assist in the development of training guidelines for W&M officials in verifying software as compliant to 

applicable requirements and traceable to a NTEP Certificate. Training aids to educate manufacturers, 

designers, service technicians and end users may also be considered. 

From previous meeting: 

Discussion: The Chair asked the question: Is the Sector comfortable with the Mission Statement? 

The Sector discussed the process of other NTETC sectors, the NCWM structure and how/why, the Software Sector 

was developed. After some lengthy discussion by the Sector, there was consensus among the Sector members that 

the Mission Statement is correct. However, the Sector noted that there is a very broad range of items listed in the 

Statement. The Sector agreed that the steps in the Mission Statement are correct. The steps appear to build on each 

other in an orderly progression. It was further agreed that whenever possible items will be addressed in the 

sequence of the Mission Statement. 

The Chair noted that the scope of this Sector is somewhat broader than some other sectors. The work of this Sector 

is more closely aligned to that of the Grain Analyzer Sector in that focus is on development of possible language for: 

- NIST Handbook 44, 

- checklist criteria for NCWM Publication 14, and 

- appropriate field guidelines. 

Comments from October meeting:

Jim Truex noted there would be an attempt to follow the four bullet items above in order from the top down when 

discussing agenda items. Focus should begin with any possible impact on NIST Handbook 44. 

1.b. NCWM/NTEP Policies – Issuing CCs for Software 

Source: NCWM Reports 

NTEP - D2
NTEP Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix D – NTETC Software Sector

Background: Excerpts of reports from the 1995-1998 Executive Committee were provided to NTETC Software 

Sector members at their April 2006 meeting. The chair asked the Sector to review the following NTEP policy 

decision adopted by the NCWM in 1998 relative to the issuance of a separate Certificate of Conformance (CC) for 

software. 

The NCWM has struggled with software issues for many years. Prior to 1995, NTEP had 

evaluated stand alone software (e.g., weigh-in/weigh-out, POS, and batch controller software) and, 

in some cases, had issued CCs for stand alone software. The Board established a software work 

group to study the issues and make recommendations. 

Many issues were discussed by the work group, including: first indication of the final quantity, 

metrologically significant software, definitions, software marking, software checklist evaluation, a 

software EPO for the field inspector, user programmable software, and third party software. 

According to conference reports, it seems in 1997 some concerns were raised about the direction 

of the work group. In 1997, after the Annual Meeting, a new Software Work Group was 

appointed by the NCWM chair. 

During the 1998 NCWM, the following recommendation was adopted as NTEP policy: 

- “Software, regardless of its form, shall not be subject to evaluation for the purpose of 

receiving a separate, software Certificate of Conformance from the National Type 

Evaluation Program.” 

- “Remove all of the software categories from the index of NCWM Publication 5, NTEP 

Index of Device Evaluations.” 

- “Reclassify all existing software CCs according to their applicable device categories.” 

The policy is still in effect today. 

Also noteworthy is a statement in Section C of NCWM Publication 14, Administrative Policy. It states: “In 

general, type evaluations will be conducted on all equipment that affect the measurement process or the validity of 

the transaction (e.g., electronic cash registers interfaced with scales and service station consoles interfaced with 

retail fuel dispensers); and all equipment to the point of the first indicated or recorded representation of the final 

quantity on which the transaction will be based.” 

Discussion: At this point in time, NTEP evaluates a “software-based device” as a functional device. The 

performance of the device is evaluated. 

There was a suggestion from the floor that the 1998 policy be amended. If this is done, then the Sector can move 

toward the other steps in the process. 

Discussion from the floor is on how to or if there needs to be a change to the device type in the FOR box. 

The consensus of the Sector is that the current NCWM/NTEP policy should be changed. 

From previous meeting: 

Software Requiring a Separate CC: Software which is implemented as an add-on to other NTEP Certified main 

elements to create a weighing or measuring system and its metrological functions are significant in determining the 

first indication of the final quantity. Such software is considered to be a main element of the system requiring a 

separate CC. (traceability to an NTEP CC) 

NOTE: OEM software may be added to an existing CC or have a stand-alone CC with applicable applications (e.g., 

a manufacturer adding a software upgrade to their ECR or point-of-sale system, vehicle scale weigh-in/weigh-out 

software added as a feature to an indicating element, automatic bulk weighing, liquid-measuring device loading 

racks, etc.) and minimum system requirements for “type P” devices (see proposed software definition below). It 

NTEP - D3 
NTEP Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix D – NTETC Software Sector

may be possible for a manufacturer to submit a single application for both hardware and software contained in the 

same device. A single CC would be issued. 

In this instance, OEM refers to a 3rd party. The request to add software could be made by the original CC holder on 

behalf of the 3rd party. Alternatively, a new CC could be created that refers to the original CC and simply lists the 

new portions that were examined. 

The Sector recommendation will be submitted to the NTEP Committee. 

This item has not yet been submitted to the NTEP Committee for review. It is planned for this to happen during the 

NCWM Interim Meeting in January 2008. 

October Meeting Discussion: 

Some concerns were raised by the California laboratory regarding this recommendation. During the course of the 

discussion, these concerns were addressed and resolved. 

Don Onwiler indicated that this may be a technical policy that needs to be inserted into each different volume or 

chapter of NCWM Publication 14 or it may need to be placed in the Administrative Policy volume. 

It was agreed that overall, there would be no change to what is currently being done by NTEP and the labs to certify 

devices, however; the device type or name of the device certified would be changed. 

Recommendation from the Sector to the NTEP Committee:

The Sector recommended the following language to be submitted to the NTEP Committee as a policy change. 

Software Requiring a Separate CC: Software, which is implemented as an add-on to other NTEP Certified main 

elements to create a weighing or measuring system and its metrological functions, are significant in determining the 

first indication of the final quantity. Such software is considered a main element of the system requiring traceability 

to an NTEP CC. 

NOTE: OEM software may be added to an existing CC or have a stand-alone CC with applicable applications (e.g., 

a manufacturer adding a software upgrade to their ECR or point-of-sale system, vehicle scale weigh-in/weigh-out 

software added as a feature to an indicating element, automatic bulk weighing, liquid-measuring device loading 

racks, etc.) and minimum system requirements for “type P” devices (see proposed software definition below). It 

may be possible for a manufacturer to submit a single application for both hardware and software contained in the 

same device. A single CC would be issued. 

In this instance, OEM refers to a 3rd party. The request to add software could be made by the original CC holder on 

behalf of the 3rd party. Alternatively, a new CC could be created that refers to the original CC and simply lists the 

new portions that were examined. 

2. Definitions for Software-Based Devices 

Source: NTETC Software Sector 

Background: Discussed was marking and G-S.1.1. It was initially suggested that “not built-for-purpose” be 

removed from the wording in NIST HB 44 G-S.1.1. However, after further discussion this may not be the correct or 

final decision. There is no definition for a not built-for-purpose device in HB 44. The current HB 44 definition for 

a built-for-purpose device reads: 

Built-for-purpose device: Any main device or element which was manufactured with the intent that it be used 

as, or part of, a weighing or measuring device or system. [1.10] (Added 2003) 

There was also the suggestion to use the definitions from the WELMEC document for Type P and Type U 

instruments. They were modified by the Sector. It was also suggested that a list of examples be provided. 

NTEP - D4
NTEP Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix D – NTETC Software Sector

Draft definitions for consideration: 

Built-for-purpose weighing or measuring instrument (device) (type P): A weighing or measuring 

Instrument (device) designed and built specially for the task in-hand. Accordingly the embedded software is 

assumed to be designed for the specific task. It may contain many components also used in PCs, e.g., 

motherboard, memory card, etc. 

A weighing or measuring instrument (device) using a universal Computer (type U): A weighing or measuring 

Instrument (device) that uses a general-purpose computer, usually a PC-based system, for performing 

metrologically significant functions. 

Examples: 

Type U 

Weigh-in, Weigh-out 

Open Architecture 

Discussion: The Sector agrees that the NTEP CC should reflect “software” is a separate main element. If this is 

true then there needs to be definition. 

The Sector agrees that this change in policy and appearance on CC’s does not have a major impact on our current 

type evaluation process. 

MC cites three main areas of software: sensing physical phenomena (mass or volume), computational, controlling 

the system. 

After a lengthy discussion related to the terms “built-for-purpose” and “not-built-for-purpose”, the Sector agreed 

that these terms were not clear and should be replaced with the terminology proposed below. 

A main reference point that the Sector used in this discussion was OIML R 76 Non-automatic weighing instruments

sub-sections 5.5.1. (Type P) and 5.5.2. (Type U). 

New Definition: 

Electronic devices, software-based. Weighing and measuring devices or systems that use metrological 

software to facilitate compliance with Handbook 44. This includes:

(a) Embedded software devices (Type P). A device or element with software used in a fixed hardware 

and software environment that cannot be modified or uploaded via any interface without breaking a 

security seal or other approved means for providing security, and will be called a “P”, or

(b) Programmable or loadable metrological software devices (Type U). A personal computer or other 

device and/or element with PC components with programmable or loadable metrological software, and 

will be called “U”. A “U” is assumed if the conditions for embedded software devices are not met.

October Meeting Discussion: 

After some discussion on this item the Sector agreed to forward the recommendation to the S&T Committee. 

Recommendation from the Sector to the S&T Committee:

The Sector recommended that the following definitions be submitted to the S&T Committee as a developing 

item and be considered for inclusion in NIST Handbook 44. 

Electronic devices, software-based. Weighing and measuring devices or systems that use metrological 

software to facilitate compliance with Handbook 44. This includes:

NTEP - D5 
NTEP Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix D – NTETC Software Sector

(c) Embedded software devices (Type P) aka built for purpose. A device or element with software 

used in a fixed hardware and software environment that cannot be modified or uploaded via any 

interface without breaking a security seal or other approved means for providing security, and will be 

called a “P”, or

(d) Programmable or loadable metrological software devices (Type U) aka not built for purpose. A 

personal computer or other device and/or element with PC components with programmable or loadable 

metrological software, and will be called “U”. A “U” is assumed if the conditions for embedded 

software devices are not met.

3. Software Identification/Markings 

Source: NTETC Software Sector

Background: At the last meeting there was discussion on specific sections of the WELMEC document that deal 

with TYPE P and TYPE U requirements. The comments and recommendations under consideration are contained in 

the following. 

Discussion: There was lengthy discussion on the value and merits of markings. This included the possible 

differences in some types of devices and marking requirements. After hearing several proposals the Sector agreed to 

the following recommendation. 

Technical changes represented below: 

1. CC No. must be continuously displayed or marked, 

2. Version must be software generated, not hard marked, 

3. Version required for embedded (Type P), 

4. Print option created, 

5. Command or operator action option created, 

6. Type P must display or hard mark make, model, S.N. 

From Previous Meeting:

The Sector will forward these items, when completed, to the Regional S&T committees for consideration. 

October Meeting Comments: 

This section needs to be completed with the actual changes to HB 44 sections. There is some concern with the note 

that is contained below Type P device. 

There may be the need to have a delineation of devices with “firmware.” An exception may need to be made for a 

device that is “integral and blind.” It is possible that NTEP needs to determine if the “software” is integral and does 

not need to be identified. Need to know the rules up front. 

Metrologically significant software shall be clearly identified with the software version. The identification may 

consist of more than one part but one part shall be only dedicated for the metrologically significant portion. 

Measurement Canada commented on “primary sensing elements” and exemption from certain requirements (digital 

load cells and devices with correction methods). This is needed to prevent a “black box” which could be added in 

between other main elements and then be exempt from certain requirements. 

NTEP - D6
NTEP Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix D – NTETC Software Sector

Difference may be that the Digital Load Cell has been evaluated integral, while the digital J-Box can be modified or 

built with various components and characterized in the field. 

One manufacturer still has a problem with the exemption, (footnote 3 below) and as an example used a smart J-box. 

The “Via Menu (display) or Print option” may be supplemental for devices that use the hard-marked or continuously 

displayed identification method for the NTEP CC Make/Model, Serial No. information. 

Metrologically Significant software shall be clearly identified with the software version. The identification may 

consist of more than one part but one part shall be only dedicated for the metrologically significant portion. 

Currently there is no specification for permanence of the marking for software (the CC No. on the screen). This will 

need to be addressed by the Sector. 

Developing Recommendation from the Sector to the S&T Committee:

The Sector recommended that the following marking information be submitted to the S&T Committee as a 

developing item and be considered for inclusion in NIST Handbook 44. 

TYPE P shall meet at least one of the methods in each column: 

Method NTEP CC No. Make/Model/Serial 

No. 

Software 

Version/Revision3

Hard-Marked X X Not Acceptable 

Continuously Displayed X X X 

By Command or Operator Action Not Acceptable Not Acceptable X4

3

 If the manufacture declares that the primary sensing element “software” is integral, has no end user interface and no print 

capability, the element may be considered exempt from the marking requirement for version/revision. 

Example: primary sensing element may be P.D. meter with correction, digital load cell. (only for reference, not 

limiting) 

4

 Information on how to obtain the Version/Revision shall be included on the NTEP CC. 

TYPE U shall meet at least one of the methods in each column: 

Method NTEP CC No. Make/Model Software 

Version/Revision 

Hard-Marked X1 X Not Acceptable 

Continuously Displayed X X X 

Via Menu (Display) or Print Option Not Acceptable X2 X2

1

 Only if no means of displaying this information is available. 

2

 Information on how to obtain Make/Model, Version/Revision shall be included on the NTEP CC. 

4. Identification of Certified Software 

Source: NTETC Software Sector 

Previous meeting notes: 

Separation of software 

Separation of metrological and application software as described in the OIML documents is maintained. 

NTEP - D7 
NTEP Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix D – NTETC Software Sector

5.2.1.2. Separation of software parts 

Requirement (a): All software modules (programs, subroutines, objects etc.) that perform metrologically 

significant functions or that contain metrologically significant data domains form the metrologically significant 

software part of a measuring instrument (device or sub-assembly). The conformity requirement applies to this 

part (see 5.2.5.) and it shall be made identifiable as described in 5.1.1. 

If the separation of the software is not possible or needed, the software is metrologically significant as a whole. 

Segregation of parameters is currently allowed. (see table of sealable parameters) 

October Meeting Discussion: 

The sector agreed that the title of this item needs to be changed to “Identification of Certified Software. Currently, 

used are version no., ID no., and serial no. However; there is no physical tie to the actual software. Some 

international documents, like the WELMEC document tell how to tie the ID to the software. These include: 

Possible methods: (not limited to) 

CRC (cyclical redundancy check) 

Checksum 

Inextricably Linked version no. 

Encryption 

The question remains is there some method to give the W&M inspector information that something has 

changed? How can the W&M inspector easily identify an NTEP Certified version? 

Required Documentation:

The documentation shall list the software identifications and describe how the software identification is created, how 

it is inextricably linked to the software itself, how it may be accessed for viewing and how it is structured in order to 

differentiate between version changes with and without requiring a type approval.

NTEP strongly recommends that metrological software be separated from non-metrological software for ease 

of identification and evaluation. 

Separation of software parts 

All software modules (programs, subroutines, objects etc.) that perform metrologically significant functions or that 

contain metrologically significant data domains form the metrologically significant software part of a measuring 

instrument (device or sub-assembly). The conformity requirement applies to all parts and parts shall be marked 

according to Section G-S.X.X. 

If the separation of the software is not possible or needed, then the software is metrologically significant as a whole. 

Segregation of parameters is currently allowed. (see table of sealable parameters) 

Conclusion from the October Meeting: The Sector will continue to develop this item. 

5. Software Protection/Security 

The Sector spent a significant amount of time reviewing and revamping previous work. OIML and 

WELMEC documents were researched. The following are draft Publication 14 checklist criteria for 

consideration at the next meeting. 

Building Publication 14 Checklist information: 

(Reference Information taken from OIML R 76-2 Draft Document) 

NTEP - D8
NTEP Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix D – NTETC Software Sector

Section YY: Additional requirements for software-controlled electronic devices 

YY.1. Devices with embedded software: Type P (Built for purpose) 

For instruments and modules with embedded software, the manufacturer shall describe or declare that the software 

of the instrument or module is embedded, i.e., it is used in a fixed hardware and software environment and cannot be 

modified or uploaded via any interface or by other means after securing and/or verification.

In addition to all other required documentation the manufacturer shall submit the following documentation: 

- description of the metrologically significant functions, 

- software identification that is clearly assigned to the metrologically significant functions, and 

- securing measures foreseen to provide for evidence of an intervention. 

The software identification shall be provided by the instrument and listed in the NTEP Certificate of Conformance. 

Acceptable solution: 

The software identification is provided by either: 

- in the normal operation mode a clearly identified operation of a physical or soft key, button, or switch, 

or 

- in the normal operation mode a continuously displayed version number or checksum, etc., 

accompanied in both cases by clear instructions how to check the actual software identification against 

the reference number (as listed in the NTEP CC) marked on or displayed by the instrument. 

YY.2. Personal computers, instruments with PC components, and other instruments, devices, modules, and 

elements with programmable or loadable metrologically significant software: Type U (not built for purpose) 

Personal computers and other instruments/devices with programmable or loadable software may be used as 

indicators, terminals, data storage devices, peripheral devices, etc. if the following additional requirements are met. 

Note: Although these devices may be complete weighing instruments with loadable software or PC-based modules 

and components, etc. they will in the following simply be called “PC”. A “PC” is always assumed if the conditions 

for embedded software are not fulfilled. 

YY.2.1. Hardware requirements 

PCs as modules incorporating the metrologically relevant analogue component(s) shall be treated according to 

Table ZZ, categories 1 and 2. 

PCs acting as a purely digital module without incorporating metrologically relevant analogue components (e.g., 

used as terminals or price-computing point-of-sale devices) shall be treated according to Table ZZ, categories 3 

and 4. 

PCs used as purely digital peripheral devices shall be treated according to Table ZZ, category 5. 

Table ZZ also specifies how detailed the documentation to be submitted for both analogue and digital 

components of the PC shall be depending on the respective category (description of power supply, type of 

interfaces, motherboard, housing, etc.). 

Table ZZ: Tests and required documentation for PCs used as modules or peripheral devices 

NTEP - D9 
NTEP Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix D – NTETC Software Sector

Table ZZ. Tests and Required Documentation 

for PCs Used as Modules or Peripheral Devices

Category Necessary Tests Documentation Remarks

No. Description Hardware Components

1 PC as a module, primary 

indications on the 

monitor, PC incorporates 

the metrologically 

relevant analogue 

components (ADC) on a 

slot mounted circuit print 

board that is not shielded 

(“open device”), power 

supply device for the 

ADC from the PC or PCbus system 

ADC and PC tested as 

unit: tests as for 

indicators according to 

Annex C; the pattern shall 

be equipped with the 

maximum possible 

configuration (maximum 

power consumption) 

ADC: detailed as for 

instruments and modules 

(circuit diagrams, layouts, 

descriptions etc.) 

PC: detailed as for 

instruments and modules 

(manufacturer, type of PC, 

type of housing, types of all 

modules, electronic devices 

and components including 

power supply device, data 

sheets, manuals, etc.) 

Influences on the ADC from 

the PC possible 

(temperature, 

electromagnetic interference 

(EMC)) 

2 PC as a module, primary 

indications on the 

monitor, PC incorporates 

the ADC, but the built-in 

ADC has a shielded 

housing (“closed device”), 

power supply device for 

the ADC from the PC, but 

not via the PC-bus system 

ADC and PC as unit: tests 

as for indicators according 

to Annex C; the pattern 

shall be equipped with the 

maximum possible 

configuration (maximum 

power consumption) 

ADC: detailed as for 

instruments and modules 

(circuit diagrams, layouts, 

descriptions etc.) 

PC: Power supply device: 

detailed as for instruments and 

modules (manufacturer, type, 

data sheet) 

Other parts: only general 

description or information 

necessary concerning the form 

of housing, motherboard, 

processor type, RAM, floppy 

and hard disk drives, 

controller boards, video 

controller, interfaces, monitor, 

keyboard, etc. 

Influences on the ADC from 

the power supply device of 

the PC possible 

(temperature, EMC), other 

influences from the PC not 

critical, new EMC tests (PC) 

necessary if the power 

supply device is changed 

3 PC as purely digital 

module, primary 

indications on the 

monitor, ADC outside the 

PC in a separate housing, 

power supply device for 

the ADC from the PC 

ADC: tests as for 

indicators according to 

Annex C using the 

monitor of the PC for the 

primary indications 

PC: according to 3.10.2 

ADC: as for category 2 

PC: Power supply device as 

for category 2, other parts as 

for category 4 

Influence (only EMC) on the 

ADC from the power supply 

device of the PC possible 

Other influences from the PC 

not possible or not critical 

New EMC tests (PC) 

necessary if the power 

supply device is changed 

4 PC as purely digital 

module, primary 

indication on the monitor, 

ADC outside the PC in a 

separate housing having 

its own power supply 

device 

ADC: as for category 3 

PC: as for category 3 

ADC: as for category 2 

PC: Only general description 

or information necessary, e.g., 

concerning type of 

motherboard, processor type, 

RAM, floppy and hard disk 

drives, controller boards, 

video controller, interfaces, 

monitor, keyboard 

Influences (temperature, 

EMC) on the ADC from the 

PC not possible 

5 PC as purely digital 

peripheral device 

PC: according to 3.10.3 PC: as for category 4 

Meaning of the abbreviations used in Table ZZ: PC – Personal Computer, ADC – Relevant analogue 

component(s), including Analogue/Digital-Converter (see Figure 1), EMC – Electromagnetic Compatibility. 

NTEP - D10
NTEP Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix D – NTETC Software Sector

YY.2.2. Software requirements 

The metrologically significant software of a PC, i.e., the software that is critical for measurement 

characteristics, measurement data and metrologically important parameters stored or transmitted, is considered 

as an essential part of a weighing instrument and shall be examined according to Annex G.2. The 

metrologically significant software shall meet the following requirements. 

a. The metrologically significant software shall be adequately protected against accidental or intentional 

changes. Evidence of an intervention such as changing, uploading or circumventing the metrologically 

significant software shall be available until the next verification or comparable official inspection. 

This requirement implies that: 

The protection against intentional changes with special software tools is not the object of these 

requirements, because this is considered as criminal action. It can normally be assumed that it is 

not possible to influence metrologically significant parameters and data – especially processed 

variable values – as long as they are processed by a program which fulfils these requirements. 

However, if metrologically significant parameters and data – especially final variable values – will 

be transmitted out of the protected software part for applications or functions subject to legal 

control, they shall be secured to meet the requirements of 5.3.6.3. 

The metrologically significant software with all data, parameters, variable values, etc., will be regarded 

as sufficiently protected, if they cannot be changed with common software tools. At the moment, for 

example, all kinds of text editors are regarded as common software tools. 

Acceptable solution: 

After program start automatic calculation of a checksum over the machine code of the complete 

metrologically significant software (at least a CRC-16 checksum with hidden polynomial) and 

comparison of the result with a stored fixed value. No start if the machine code is falsified. 

b. When there is associated software which provides other functions besides the measuring function(s), 

the metrologically significant software shall be identifiable and shall not be inadmissibly influenced by 

the associated software. 

This requirement implies that: 

Associated software is separated from the metrologically significant software in a sense that they 

communicate via a software interface. 

A software interface is regarded as being protective if: 

- in accordance with 5.3.6.1 only a defined and allowed set of parameters, functions and data 

can be exchanged via this interface, and 

- if both parts cannot exchange information via any other link. 

Software interfaces are part of the metrologically significant software. Circumventing the protective 

interface by the user is considered as a criminal action. 

Acceptable solution: 

Definition of all functions, commands, data, etc., which are exchanged via the protective interface 

from the metrologically significant software to all other connected software or hardware parts. 

Checking whether all functions, commands and data are allowed. 

NTEP - D11 
NTEP Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix D – NTETC Software Sector

c. Metrologically significant software shall be identified as such and shall be secured. Its identification 

shall be easily provided by the device for metrological controls or inspections. 

This requirement implies that: 

The operating system or similar auxiliary standard software, such as video drivers, printer drivers 

or hard disk drivers, need not be included in the software identification. 

Acceptable solution: 

Calculation of a checksum over the machine code of the metrologically significant software at 

runtime and indication on manual command. This checksum represents the metrologically 

significant software and can be compared to the checksum defined at type approval. 

d. In addition to all other required documentation, the special software documentation shall include: 

- A description of the system hardware, e.g., block diagram, type of computer(s), type of network, if 

not described in the operating manual (see also Table ZZ) 

- A description of the software environment for the metrologically significant software, e.g., the 

operating system, required drivers, etc. 

- A description of all metrologically significant software functions, metrologically significant 

parameters, switches and keys that determine the functionality of the instrument, including a 

declaration of the completeness of this description 

- A description of the relevant measuring algorithms (e.g., stable equilibrium, price calculation, 

rounding algorithms) 

- A description of the relevant menus and dialogues 

- The securing measures foreseen (e.g., checksum, signature, audit trail) 

- The complete set of commands and parameters – including a short description of each command 

and parameter – that can be exchanged between the metrologically significant software and the 

associated software via the protective software interface, including a declaration of the 

completeness of the list 

- The software identification foreseen for the metrologically significant software 

- If downloading of software via modem or internet is foreseen: a detailed description of the 

loading procedure and the securing measures against accidental or intentional changes 

- If downloading of software via modem or internet is not foreseen: a description of the measures 

taken to prevent inadmissible uploading of metrologically significant software 

- In case of long-term storage or transmission of data via networks: a description of the data sets 

and protection measures (see 5.5.3) 

YY.3. Data storage devices (DSD). 

If there is a device, whether incorporated in the instrument or being part of the instrument as software solution or 

connected to it externally, that is intended to be used for long-term storage of weighing data (in the sense of T.2.8.5), 

the following additional requirements apply. 

YY.3.1. The DSD must have a storage capacity which is sufficient for the intended purpose. 

Note: The regulation concerning the minimum duration for keeping information is outside the requirements 

concerning instruments and probably left to national rules concerning trade. It is the responsibility of the owner 

of the instrument to have an instrument that has sufficient capacity of storage to fulfill the requirements 

applicable to his activity. At type examination it will only be checked that the data are stored and given back 

correctly, and that there are adequate means foreseen to prevent the loss of data if the storage capacity is 

exhausted before the duration foreseen. 

YY.3.2. The metrologically significant data stored must include all relevant information necessary to 

reconstruct an earlier weighing. 

Note: Metrologically significant data are (see also T.2.8.1): gross or net values and tare values (if applicable, 

together with a distinction of tare and preset tare), the decimal sign(s), the unit(s) (may be encoded), the 

NTEP - D12
NTEP Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix D – NTETC Software Sector

identification of the data stored, the identification number of the instrument or load receptor if several 

instruments or load receptors are connected to the data storage device, and a checksum or other signature of the 

data stored. 

YY.3.3. The metrologically significant data stored shall be adequately protected against accidental or 

intentional changes. 

Examples of acceptable solutions: 

a. A simple parity check is considered sufficient in order to protect the data against accidental changes 

during transmission. 

b. The data storage device may be realized as an external software-controlled device using, for instance, 

the hard disk of a PC as the storage medium. In this case the respective software shall meet the 

software requirements in 5.5.2.2. If the stored data are either encrypted or secured by a signature (at 

least 2 bytes, e.g., a CRC-16 checksum with hidden polynomial) this will be considered sufficient in 

order to protect the data against intentional changes. 

YY.3.4. The metrologically significant data stored shall be capable of being identified and displayed, 

where the identification number(s) shall be stored for later use and recorded on the official transaction 

medium. In case of a printout the identification number(s) shall be printed. 

Example of an acceptable solution: 

The identification may be realized as consecutive numbers or as the respective date and time 

(mm:dd:hh:mm:ss) of the transaction. 

YY.3.5. The metrologically significant data shall be stored automatically. 

Note: This requirement means that the storing function must not depend on the decision of the operating 

person. It is accepted, however, if intermediate weighings that are not used for the transaction are not stored. 

YY.3.6. Stored metrologically significant data sets which are to be verified by means of the identification 

must be displayed or printed on a device subject to legal control. 

YY.3.7. Data Storage Devices are identified as a feature, option, or parameter on an NTEP CC if they 

are incorporated in the instrument or form part of the instrument as software solution. 

October Meeting Discussion: 

The Sector agreed that Handbook 44 already has audit trail and physical seal, but these may need to be enhanced. 

From WELMEC document: 

Protection against accidental or unintentional changes. 

Metrologically significant software and measurement data shall be protected against accidental or unintentional 

changes. 

Specifying Notes: 

Possible reasons for accidental changes and faults are: unpredictable physical influences, effects caused by user 

functions and residual defects of the software even though state-of-the-art development techniques have been 

applied. 

This requirement includes: 

a. Physical influences: Stored measurement data shall be protected against corruption or deletion when a fault 

occurs or, alternatively, the fault shall be detectable. 

b. User functions: Confirmation shall be demanded before deleting or changing data. 

c. Software defects: Appropriate measures shall be taken to protect data from unintentional changes that 

could occur through incorrect program design or programming errors, e.g., plausibility checks. 

NTEP - D13 
NTEP Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix D – NTETC Software Sector

Required Documentation: 

The documentation should show the measures that have been taken to protect the software and data against 

unintentional changes. 

Example of an Acceptable Solution: 

- The accidental modification of software and measurement data may be checked by calculating a checksum 

over the relevant parts, comparing it with the nominal value and stopping if anything has been modified. 

- Measurement data are not deleted without prior authorization, e.g., a dialogue statement or window asking 

for confirmation of deletion. 

- For fault detection see also Extension I. 

Proposed checklist for Publication 14 numbering will still need to be added. This is based roughly on R 76 – 2 

checklist and discussion at October Sector Meeting. 

Devices with Embedded Software TYPE P (built-for-purpose)

Declaration of the manufacturer that the software- is used in a fixed hardware and 

software environment, and 

Yes  No  N/A 

cannot be modified or uploaded by any means after securing/verification Yes  No  N/A 

Note: It is acceptable to break the “seal” and load new software, audit trail is also 

a sufficient seal. 

The software documentation contains: 

description of the metrologically significant functions Yes  No  N/A 

description of the securing means (evidence of an intervention) Yes  No  N/A 

software identification Yes  No  N/A 

description of how to check the actual software identification Yes  No  N/A 

The software identification is: 

clearly assigned to the metrologically significant software and functions Yes  No  N/A 

provided by the device as documented Yes  No  N/A 

Personal Computers, Instruments with PC Components, and Other Instruments, 

Devices, Modules, and Elements with Programmable or Loadable Metrologically 

Significant Software TYPE U (not built-for-purpose)

The metrologically significant software is: 

documented with all relevant information Yes  No  N/A 

protected against accidental or intentional changes Yes  No  N/A 

Evidence of intervention (such as, changes, uploads, circumvention) is 

available until the next verification / inspection (means of security) 

Yes  No  N/A 

Software with Closed Shell (no access to the operating system and/or programs 

possible for the user) 

Check whether there is a complete set of commands (e.g., function keys or 

commands via external interfaces) supplied and accompanied by short descriptions 

Yes  No  N/A 

Check whether the manufacturer has submitted a written declaration of the 

completeness of the set of commands 

Yes  No  N/A 

Operating System and/or Program(s) Accessible for the User: 

Check whether a checksum or equivalent signature is generated over the machine 

code of the metrologically significant software (program module(s) subject to legal 

control and type-specific parameters) 

Yes  No  N/A 

NTEP - D14
NTEP Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix D – NTETC Software Sector

Check whether the metrologically significant software will detect and act upon any 

unauthorized alteration of the metrologically significant software using simple 

software tools, e.g., text editor. 

Yes  No  N/A 

Software Interface(s) 

Verify the manufacturer has documented: 

the program modules of the metrologically significant software are 

defined and separated 

Yes  No  N/A 

the protective software interface itself is part of the metrologically 

significant software 

Yes  No  N/A 

the functions of the metrologically significant software that can be 

accessed via the protective software interface 

Yes  No  N/A 

the parameters that may be exchanged via the protective software 

interface are defined 

Yes  No  N/A 

the description of the functions and parameters are conclusive and 

complete 

Yes  No  N/A 

there are software interface instructions for the third party (external) 

application programmer. 

Yes  No  N/A 

From previous notes this may be part of another section in the publication. 

Software Identification

The metrologically significant software is identified by a software identification Yes  No  N/A 

The software identification: 

covers all program modules of the metrologically significant software 

and the type-specific parameters at runtime of the instrument 

Yes  No  N/A 

is easily provided by the instrument Yes  No  N/A 

can be compared with the reference identification fixed at type 

approval 

Yes  No  N/A 

spot checks whether the checksums (signatures) are generated and 

work as documented 

Yes  No  N/A 

there exists an effective audit trail Yes  No  N/A 

NTEP - D15 
NTEP Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix D – NTETC Software Sector

Data Storage Devices (DSD) 

From the previous meeting, this was tabled (This checklist was not reworked at this time)

5.5.3 G.3.1 DSD realised with embedded software (examine software acc. to G.1) Yes No 

DSD realised with programmable/loadable software (examine software 

acc. to G.1) 

Yes No 

documentation with all relevant information Yes No 

5.5.3.1 G.3.2 sufficient storage capacity for the intended purpose 

data are stored and given back correctly 

sufficient description of measures to prevent data loss 

5.5.3.2 G.3.3 storage of all relevant information necessary to reconstruct an earlier 

weighing, i.e., gross, net, tare values, decimal signs, units, identifications 

of the data set, instrument number, load receptor, (if applicable), 

checksum/signature of the data set stored. 

5.5.3.3 G.3.4 protection of the stored metrologically significant data against accidental 

or intentional changes 

protection of the stored metrologically significant data at least with a 

parity check during transmission to the storage device 

protection of the stored metrologically significant data at least with a 

parity check of a storage device with embedded software (5.5.1) 

protection of the stored metrologically significant data by an adequate 

checksum or of a storage device with programmable or loadable software 

(5.5.2) 

identification and indication of the stored metrologically significant data 

with an identification number 

5.5.3.4 G.3.5 

record of the identification number on the official transaction medium, 

i.e., on the print-out 

5.5.3.5 G.3.6 automatic storage of the metrologically significant data 

5.5.3.6 G.3.7 a device subject to legal control prints or displays the stored 

metrologically significant data for verifying 

6. Software Maintenance and Reconfiguration 

After the software is completed, what do the manufacturers use to secure their software? 

Source: NTETC Software Sector 

From Previous Meeting: 

Traced means audit trail record – requires Category 3 audit trail. 

Verified means evaluator verified – requires breaking a seal and placing back into service by registered agent or 

W&M official. (D-SW requires agent to be present to verify the update.) It was noted that in some jurisdiction, this 

role may be performed by a registered service agent. 

October Meeting discussion: 

(This section taken from Document OIML D-SW Working Draft 1 WD and provided as background.) 

Maintenance and re-configuration 

Only versions of metrologically significant software that conform with the approved type are allowed for use. 

NTEP - D16
NTEP Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix D – NTETC Software Sector

Verified update 

The software to be updated can be loaded locally (e.g., directly) on the weighing or measuring device or remotely 

via a network. Loading and installation may be two different steps (as shown in Fig. 5.1) or combined to one, 

depending on the needs of the technical solution. After update of the metrologically significant software of a 

weighing or measuring device (exchange with another approved version or re-installation), the weighing or 

measuring device is not allowed to be used for legal purposes before a (subsequent) verification of the instrument 

has been performed and the securing means have been renewed. A person responsible for verification must be at 

place. (NOTE: This may need to be in the HB under user requirement.) 

Traced update 

The software is implemented into the instrument according to the requirements for traced update. Traced update is 

the procedure of changing software in a verified instrument or device after which the subsequent verification by a 

responsible person at place is not necessary. The software to be updated can be loaded locally (e.g., directly) on the 

weighing or measuring device or remotely via a network. The software update is recorded in an audit trail. The 

procedure of a traced update comprises several steps: loading, integrity checking, checking of the origin 

(authentication), installation, logging and activation. 

Traced update of software shall be automatic. On completion of the update procedure the software protection 

environment shall be at the same level as required by the type approval. 

The target measuring instrument (device, sub-assembly) shall have fixed metrologically significant software that 

cannot be updated and that contains all of the checking functions necessary for fulfilling traced update requirements. 

Technical means shall be employed to guarantee the authenticity of the loaded software i.e., that it originates from 

the owner of the type approval certificate. This can be accomplished, e.g., by cryptographic means like signing. 

The signature is checked during loading. If the loaded software fails this test, the instrument shall discard it and use 

the previous version of the software or become inoperative. 

Technical means shall be employed to guarantee the integrity of the loaded software, i.e., that it has not been 

inadmissibly changed before loading. This can be accomplished by adding a checksum or hash code of the loaded 

software and verifying it during the loading procedure. If the loaded software fails this test, the instrument shall 

discard it and use the previous version of the software or become inoperative.

It shall be guaranteed by technical means that software may only be updated with the explicit consent of the user or 

owner of the measuring instrument.

If the requirements above cannot be fulfilled, it is still possible to update the legally non-relevant software part. In 

this case the following requirements shall be met: 

- There is a distinct separation between the metrologically significant and non-relevant software. 

- The whole metrologically significant software part cannot be updated without breaking a seal. 

- It is stated in the type approval certificate that updating of the legally non-relevant part is acceptable. 

NTEP - D17 
NTEP Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix D – NTETC Software Sector

Request for 

update? 

Verified Update 

Normal 

operating mode 

Loading of updated 

files (Note 2) 

Installation and 

activation of 

updated files (Note 

2)

Apply verification 

mark 

Restart 

Verification 

successful? 

(Subsequent) 

verification by a 

person at place 

YES

YES 

NO

NO

(Note 3)

Request for 

update? 

Traced Update 

Normal 

operating mode 

Loading of updated 

files (Note 1) 

Is integrity 

valid? 

Is 

authenticity 

valid?

Installation and 

activation of 

updated files (Note 

1)

Discard loaded files, 

keep old version 

active 

Record 

information 

about update to 

Restart 

YES 

YES 

YES 

NO 

NO 

NO 

Figure 5-1: Software Update Procedures 

Notes to 

Figure 5-1:

1. In case of Traced update, updating is separated into the steps: “loading” and “installing/activating”. This 

implies that the software is temporarily stored after loading without being activated because it must be possible 

to discard the loaded software and fall back to the old version, if the checks fail or become inoperative.

2. In case of Verified update, the software may also be loaded and temporarily stored before installation but 

depending on the technical solution loading and installation may also be accomplished in one step. 

NTEP - D18
NTEP Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix D – NTETC Software Sector

3. Here only failing of the verification because of the software update is considered. Failing because of other 

reasons doesn’t require re-loading and re-installing of the software, symbolised by the NO-branch. 

End of background information 

Conclusions from October meeting discussion: 

These four items are the accepted checklist questions: 

1. Verify that the update process is documented 

2. Software to be installed is authenticated and checked for integrity 

3. Verify that the sealing requirements are met 

4. Verify that if the upgrade process fails, the device is inoperable or the original software is restored 

The manufacturer shall ensure by appropriate technical means (e.g., an audit trail) that traced updates of 

metrologically significant software are adequately traceable within the instrument for subsequent verification and 

surveillance or inspection. This requirement enables inspection authorities, which are responsible for the 

metrological surveillance of legally controlled instruments, to back-trace traced updates of metrologically significant 

software over an adequate period of time (that depends on national legislation). 

An entry is generated for each update. 

The audit trail shall contain the following information: 

- notification of the update procedure, 

- software identification of the installed version, 

- time stamp of the event, 

- identification of the downloading party. 

The traceability means and records are part of the metrologically significant software and should be protected as 

such. The software used for displaying the audit trail belongs to the fixed metrologically significant software. Note: 

This needs to be discussed further due to some manufacturers’ concerns about where the software that displays 

the audit trail information is located and who has access if this feature is provided. 

The Sector will continue to develop this item. 

7. Verification in the Field, by the W&M Inspector 

Source: NTETC Software Sector 

October Meeting Comments: 

Question: What tools does the field inspector need? 

Possible Answers: 

- Have NTEP CC No. continuously displayed (needs some type of protection) during the normal weighing or 

measuring operation 

- Clear and simple instructions on NTEP CC to get to the other Inspection Information 

- The CRC, checksum, version no. etc., needs to be easily accessible from operator console. 

- How to access audit trail 

- System information is easily accessible (RAM, OS, etc.) 

- System parameters are easily accessible (AZT, motion, time outs, etc.) 

Conclusion from the October meeting: 

The Sector will continue to develop this item. 

8. NTEP Application 

Source: NTETC Software Sector 

NTEP - D19 
NTEP Committee 2008 Final Report 

Appendix D – NTETC Software Sector

NTEP - D20

Conclusion from the October meeting: 

No direct discussion on this item took place at the October 2007 meeting. 

New Items 

9. Next Meeting 

Conclusion from the October meeting: 

The next meeting could be scheduled in conjunction with the NTEP Lab Meeting which is planned for Ottawa, 

Canada toward the end of April. Information regarding dates and location is now being gathered. The Sector will 

be notified as soon as additional information is available. 
Nominating Committee 2008 Final Report 

Report of the Nominating Committee 

Don Onwiler, Chairman 

Program Manager, Division of Weights and Measures 

Nebraska Department of Agriculture 

Reference 

Key Number 

800 INTRODUCTION 

The Nominating Committee met during the Interim Meeting at the Hyatt Regency Hotel, Albuquerque, New 

Mexico, at which time the Committee nominated the persons listed below to be officers of the 94th National 

Conference on Weights and Measures. In the selection of nominees from the active membership, consideration was 

given to professional experience, qualifications of individuals, Conference attendance and participation, and other 

factors considered to be important. 

The following slate of officers was selected by unanimous vote of the Nominating Committee: 

CHAIRMAN-ELECT: Randy Jennings, State of Tennessee 

BOARD OF DIRECTORS 

SOUTHERN REGION: Stephen Benjamin, State of North Carolina 

BOARD OF DIRECTORS 

AT LARGE: Stephen Langford, Cardinal Scale Manufacturing Co. 

TREASURER: Will Wotthlie, State of Maryland 

Don Onwiler, Nebraska, Chairman 

Ross Andersen, New York 

Dennis Ehrhart, Arizona 

Tom Geiler, Barnstable, Massachusetts 

Max Gray, Florida 

Steve Malone, Nebraska, Chairman 

Jim Truex, Ohio 

Nominating Committee

NOM - 1 
Nominating Committee 2008 Final Report 

NOM - 2

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
NCWM 93rd Annual Meeting 

July 13 - 17, 2008 

Sheraton Burlington Hotel • Burlington, VT 

Attendee List 

L. Cary Ainsworth 

USDA GIPSA 

75 Spring Street 

Suite 230 

Atlanta, GA 30303-3309 

Ph: (404) 562-5426 

Fax: (404) 562-5848 

E-mail: 

L.Cary.Ainsworth@usda.gov

S. Chris Anders 

Zeltex, Inc. 

130 Western Maryland Parkway 

Hagerstown, MD 21740 

Ph: (301) 791-7080 

Fax: (301) 733-9398 

E-mail: canders@zeltex.com 

Michael Bails 

FedEx Ground 

1000 FedEx Drive 

Moon Township, PA 15108 

Ph: (412) 859-2108 

Fax: (412) 262-6271 

E-mail: michael.bails@fedex.com 

John Albert 

Missouri Department of Agriculture 

P.O. Box 630 

Jefferson City, MO 65102-0630 

Ph: (573) 751-4278 

Fax: (573) 751-0281 

E-mail: John.Albert@mda.mo.gov 

Ross Andersen 

NY Bureau of Weights & 

Measures 

10B Airline Drive 

Albany, NY 12235 

Ph: (518) 457-3146 

Fax: (518) 457-5693 

E-mail: 

ross.andersen@agmkt.state.ny.us 

Edmund Baniak 

American Petroleum Institution 

1220 L Street, N.W. 

Washington, DC 20005 

Ph: (202) 682-8135 

Fax: (202) 962-4797 

E-mail: baniake@api.org 

Mahesh Albuquerque 

Division of Oil and Public Safety 

633 17th Street 

Suite 500 

Denver, CO 80202 

Ph: (303) 318-8533 

Fax: (303) 318-8488 

E-mail: 

mahesh.albuquerque@state.co.us 

Ruben Arroyo 

Kern County Department of 

Agriculture and Measurement 

Standards 

1001 So. Mt. Vernon Avenue 

Bakersfield, CA 93307 

Ph: (661) 868-6300 

Fax: 

E-mail: arroyor@co.kern.ca.us 

Joe Benavides 

Texas Department of Agriculture 

1700 North Congress Avenue 

Stephen F. Austin Building, 11th Floor 

Austin, TX 78701 

Ph: (512) 463-5706 

Fax: (888) 205-7224 

E-mail: joe.benavides@tda.state.tx.us 

Holly Alfano 

NATSO, Inc. 

1737 King Street 

Suite 200 

Alexanderia, VA 22314 

Ph: (703) 739-8566 

Fax: (703) 684-4525 

E-mail: halfano@natso.com 

Robert Bailey 

Virginia Department of 

Agriculture & Consumer 

Services 

P.O. Box 1163 

Richmond, VA 23218 

Ph: (804) 786-2476 

Fax: (804) 786-1571 

E-mail: 

robert.bailey@vdacs.virginia.gov 

Stephen Benjamin 

North Carolina Department of 

Agriculture 

1050 Mail Service Center 

Raleigh, NC 27699-1050 

Ph: (919) 733-3313 

Fax: (919) 715-0524 

E-mail: steve.benjamin@ncmail.net 

ATTEND - 1 
NCWM 93rd Annual Meeting 

July 13 - 17, 2008 

Sheraton Burlington Hotel • Burlington, VT 

Attendee List 

Matthew Berardi 

FedEx Ground 

1000 FedEx Drive 

Moon Township, PA 15108 

Ph: (412) 262-7639 

Fax: (412) 262-6271 

E-mail: 

matthew.berardi@fedex.com 

Christopher Bradley 

Seraphin Test Measure 

P.O. Box 227 

30 Indel Avenue 

Rancocas, NJ 08073 

Ph: (609) 267-0922 

Fax: (609) 261-2546 

E-mail: cparker@pemfab.com 

Norman Brucker 

Precision Measurement Standards, Inc. 

1665 Bonaire Path 

Rosemount, MN 55068 

Ph: (651) 423-3241 

Fax: (651) 322-7938 

E-mail: sharnoma@fontiernet.net 

Daniel Bernaciak 

Stanislaus County Department of 

Agriculture Weights & Measures 

3800 Cornucopia Way, Suite B 

Modesto, CA 95358 

Ph: (209) 525-4730 

Fax: (209) 525-4790 

E-mail: 

danielb@mail.co.stanislaus.ca.us 

Dennis Bray 

Alameda County Dept. of 

Weights & Measures 

224 West Winton Avenue 

Room 184 

Hayward, CA 94544 

Ph: (510) 670-5232 

Fax: (510) 783-3928 

E-mail: dennis.bray@acgov.org 

Mark Buccelli 

State of MN Dept. of Commerce 

W&M Division 

South Cross Commerce Center III 

14035 South Cross Drive, Suite 150 

Burnsville, MN 55306 

Ph: (507) 215-5821 

Fax: (952) 435-4040 

E-mail: mark.buccelli@state.mn.us 

Linda Bernetich 

NCWM 

15245 Shady Grove Road 

Suite 130 

Rockville, MD 20850 

Ph: (240) 632-9454 

Fax: (301) 990-9771 

E-mail: lbernetich@mgmtsol.com 

Jonelle Brent 

Illinois Department of 

Agriculture 

PO Box 19281 

Springfield, IL 62794-9281 

Ph: (217) 785-8301 

Fax: (217) 524-7801 

E-mail: 

jonelle.brent@illinois.gov 

Kenneth Butcher 

NIST, Weights & Measures Division 

100 Bureau Drive 

MS 2600 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2600 

Ph: (301) 975-4859 

Fax: (301) 975-8091 

E-mail: kenneth.butcher@nist.gov 

Doug Biette 

Sartorius North America 

6542 Fig Street 

Arvada, CO 80004 

Ph: (303) 403-4690 

Fax: (303) 423-4540 

E-mail: doug.biette@sartorius.com 

Mark Brown 

Sutter County Weights & 

Measures 

142 Garden Highway 

Yuba City, CA 95991 

Ph: (530) 822-7500 

Fax: (530) 822-7510 

E-mail: mbrown@co.sutter.ca.us 

Tina Butcher 

NIST, Weights & Measures Division 

100 Bureau Drive 

MS 2600 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2600 

Ph: (301) 975-2196 

Fax: (301) 975-8091 

E-mail: tina.butcher@nist.gov 

ATTEND - 2 
NCWM 93rd Annual Meeting 

July 13 - 17, 2008 

Sheraton Burlington Hotel • Burlington, VT 

Attendee List 

Marc Buttler 

Emerson Process Management, 

Micro Motion 

7070 Winchester Circle 

Boulder, CO 80301 

Ph: (303) 530-8562 

Fax: (303) 530-8459 

E-mail: 

marc.buttler@emersonprocess.com 

Stacy Carlsen 

Marin County Weights & 

Measures 

1682 Novato Boulevard 

Suite 150-A 

Novato, CA 94947-7021 

Ph: (415) 499-6700 

Fax: (415) 499-7543 

E-mail: scarlsen@co.marin.ca.us 

Tim Chesser 

Arkansas Bureau of Standards 

4608 West 61st Street 

Little Rock, AR 72209 

Ph: (501) 570-1159 

Fax: (501) 562-7605 

E-mail: tim.chesser@aspb.ar.gov 

Joe Buxton 

Daniel Measurement & Control, Inc. 

1161 Sarahlyn Lane 

Suite B 

Statesboro, GA 30461 

Ph: (912) 489-2383 

Fax: (912) 489-2390 

E-mail: 

joe.buxton@emersonprocess.com 

Charles Carroll 

Massachusetts Division of 

Standards 

One Ashburton Place 

Room 1115 

Boston, MA 02108 

Ph: (617) 727-3480, Ext. 21131 

Fax: (617) 727-5705 

E-mail: 

Charles.Carroll@state.ma.us 

Alan Christian 

USDA, GIPSA Packers & 

Stockyards Program 

1400 Independence Avenue SW 

Stop 3601 

Washington, DC 20250-3641 

Ph: (202) 720-7051 

Fax: (202) 205-9237 

E-mail: alan.r.christian@usda.gov 

James Byers 

San Diego County Dept. of 

Agriculture, Weights & Measures 

5555 Overland Avenue 

Suite 3101 

San Diego, CA 92123-1256 

Ph: (858) 694-3577 

Fax: (858) 505-6484 

E-mail: 

james.byers@sdcounty.ca.gov 

James Cassidy, Jr. 

Cambridge Weights & Measures 

831 Massachusetts Avenue 

Cambridge, MA 02139 

Ph: (617) 349-6133 

Fax: (617) 349-6134 

E-mail: 

jcassidy@CambridgeMA.gov 

Raymond Cioffi 

VT Agency of Agriculture, Food & 

Markets 

116 State Street 

Montpelier, VT 05620 

Ph: (802) 828-2436 

Fax: (802) 828-5983 

E-mail: raycioffi1@yahoo.com 

Judy Cardin 

Wisconsin Department of 

Agriculture & Consumer Protection 

P.O. Box 8911 

2811 Agriculture Drive 

Madison, WI 53708-8911 

Ph: (608) 224-4945 

Fax: (608) 224-4939 

E-mail: judy.cardin@wisconsin.gov 

Phillip Chase 

AssetSmart 

2800 28th Street 

Suite 109 

Santa Monica, CA 90405 

Ph: (310) 450-2566 

Fax: (310) 450-1311 

E-mail: pc@assetsmart.com 

James Coffman 

Integrated Sensing Systems 

391 Airport Industrial Drive 

Ypsilanti, MI 49198 

Ph: (734) 547-9896 ext. 127 

Fax: (734) 574-9964 

E-mail: jcoffman@mems-issys.com 

ATTEND - 3 
NCWM 93rd Annual Meeting 

July 13 - 17, 2008 

Sheraton Burlington Hotel • Burlington, VT 

Attendee List 

Dr. Belinda Collins 

NIST 

100 Bureau Drive 

MS 2000 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899 

Ph: (301) 975-4500 

Fax: (301) 975-2183 

E-mail: belinda.collins@nist.gov 

Charles Corr 

Archer Daniels Midland, Co. 

1251 Beaver Channel Parkway 

Clinton, IA 52732 

Ph: (563) 244-5208 

Fax: 

E-mail: corr@admworld.com 

Jim Delperdang 

Ventura County Weights & Measures 

800 South Victoria Avenue 

Suite 1750 

Ventura, CA 93009 

Ph: (805) 654-2446 

Fax: (805) 654-5177 

E-mail: jim.delperdang@ventura.org 

Kim Connors 

Barnstable Weights & Measures 

200 Main Street 

Hyannis, MA 02601 

Ph: (508) 862-4671 

Fax: (508) 778-2412 

E-mail: 

kim.connors@town.barnstable.ma.us 

Richard Cote 

New Hampshire Division of 

Weights & Measures 

P.O. Box 2042 

Concord, NH 03302-2042 

Ph: (603) 271-3700 

Fax: (603) 271-1109 

E-mail: rcote@agr.state.nh.us 

Vicky Dempsey 

Montgomery County Weights & 

Measures 

451 West Third Street 

P.O. Box 972 

Dayton, OH 45422-1027 

Ph: (937) 225-6309 

Fax: (937) 224-3927 

E-mail: dempseyv@mcohio.org 

Steven Cook 

NIST, Weights & Measures Division 

100 Bureau Drive 

MS 2600 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2600 

Ph: (301) 975-4003 

Fax: (301) 975-8091 

E-mail: steven.cook@nist.gov 

Mark Coyne 

Brockton Weights & Measures 

45 School Street 

City Hall 

Brockton, MA 02301-9927 

Ph: (508) 580-7120 

Fax: (508) 580-7173 

E-mail: measures@verizon.net 

Phillip DePriest 

Marathon Petroleum Company, LLC 

539 South Main Street 

Findlay, OH 45840 

Ph: (419) 421-4637 

Fax: (419) 429-5370 

E-mail: phdepriest@marathon.com 

William Cooper 

Actaris Liquid Measurement, LLC 

1310 Emerald Road 

Greenwood, SC 29646 

Ph: (864) 942-2226 

Fax: (864) 223-0341 

E-mail: 

rodney.cooper@actaris.itron.com 

Douglas Deiman 

Alaska Division of Measurement 

Standards/CVE 

12050 Industry Way 

Building O 

Anchorage, AK 99515 

Ph: (907) 365-1222 

Fax: (907) 345-2313 

E-mail: 

doug.deiman@alaska.gov 

John Dillabaugh 

Pennsylvania Department of 

Agriculture, Bureau of Ride & 

Measurement Standards 

2301 North Cameron Street 

Harrisburg, PA 17110 

Ph: (717) 787-9089 

Fax: (717) 783-4158 

E-mail: jdillabaug@state.pa.us 

ATTEND - 4 
NCWM 93rd Annual Meeting 

July 13 - 17, 2008 

Sheraton Burlington Hotel • Burlington, VT 

Attendee List 

Christopher Drews 

Texas Department of Agriculture 

P.O. Box 12847 

Austin, TX 78711 

Ph: (512) 463-6477 

Fax: (888) 205-7224 

E-mail: 

christopher.drews@tda.state.tx.us 

Crescentia Erukpeme 

Federal Ministry of Commerce & 

Industry 

Weights & Measures Division 

Abuja, Federal Capital Area 

Nigeria 

Ph: 

Fax: 

E-mail: 

Kurt Floren 

Los Angeles County Weights & 

Measures 

12300 Lower Azusa Road 

Arcadia, CA 91006 

Ph: (626) 575-5451 

Fax: (626) 575-5451 

E-mail: kfloren@acwm.lacounty.gov 

Charles Ehrlich 

NIST, Weights & Measures Division 

100 Bureau Drive 

MS 2600 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2600 

Ph: (301) 975-4834 

Fax: (301) 975-8091 

E-mail: charles.ehrlich@nist.gov 

Patrick Evers 

NCR 

200 Highway 74 South 

Peachtree City, GA 30269 

Ph: (770) 487-7129 

Fax: 

E-mail: patrick.evers@ncr.com 

Maurice Forkert 

Tuthill Transfer Systems 

8825 Aviation Drive 

Fort Wayne, IN 46809 

Ph: (260) 747-7529 x1332 

Fax: (260) 747-7064 

E-mail: Mforkert@tuthill.com 

John Eichberger 

NACS 

1600 Duke Street 

Alexanderia, VA 22314 

Ph: (703) 518-4247 

Fax: 

E-mail: 

jeichberger@nacsonline.com 

Robert Feezor 

Scales Consulting and Testing 

35 Stonington 

Marietta, GA 30068 

Ph: (770) 971-7454 

Fax: 

E-mail: rkfeezor@bellsouth.net 

Cary Frye 

International Dairy Foods Association 

1250 H Street NW 

Suite 900 

Washington, DC 20005 

Ph: (202) 737-4332 

Fax: (202) 331-7820 

E-mail: cfrye@idfa.org 

Fran Elson-Houston 

Ohio Department of Agriculture 

8995 East Main Street 

Reynoldsburg, OH 43068 

Ph: (614) 728-6290 

Fax: (614) 728-6424 

E-mail: houston@agri.ohio.gov 

Darrell Flocken 

Mettler-Toledo, Inc. 

1150 Dearborn Drive 

Worthington, OH 43085 

Ph: (614) 438-4393 

Fax: (614) 438-4355 

E-mail: darrell.flocken@mt.com 

Carol Fulmer 

South Carolina Department of 

Agriculture 

P.O. Box 11280 

Columbia, SC 29211 

Ph: (803) 737-9690 

Fax: (803) 737-9703 

E-mail: cfulmer@scda.sc.gov 

ATTEND - 5 
NCWM 93rd Annual Meeting 

July 13 - 17, 2008 

Sheraton Burlington Hotel • Burlington, VT 

Attendee List 

John Gaccione 

Westchester County Weights & 

Measures 

112 East Post Road 

4th Floor 

White Plains, NY 10601 

Ph: (914) 995-2160 

Fax: (914) 995-3115 

E-mail: jpg4@westchestergov.com 

Edward Gentili 

Framingham Weights & 

Measures 

150 Concord Street 

Framingham, MA 01702 

Ph: (508) 532-5480 

Fax: (508) 626-8991 

E-mail: 

erg@framinghamma.gov 

Paul Glowacki 

Murray Equipment, Inc. 

2515 Charleston Place 

Fort Wayne, IN 46808 

Ph: (260) 484-0382 

Fax: (260) 484-9230 

E-mail: 

pglowacki@murrayequipment.com 

Michael Gaspers 

Farmland Foods, Inc. 

800 Industrial Drive 

P.O. Box 490 

Denison, IA 51442 

Ph: (712) 263-7384 

Fax: (712) 263-7354 

E-mail: mpgaspers@farmland.com 

Steve Giguere 

Maine Department of Agriculture 

28 State House Station 

Augusta, ME 04333 

Ph: (207) 287-4456 

Fax: (207) 287-5576 

E-mail: 

steve.giguere@maine.gov 

Joe Gomez 

New Mexico Department of Agriculture 

MSC 3170 

P.O. Box 30005 

Las Cruces, NM 88003-8005 

Ph: (505) 646-1616 

Fax: (505) 646-2361 

E-mail: jgomez@nmda.nmsu.edu 

Regine Gaucher 

OIML 

11 Rue Turgot 

Paris, 75009 France 

Ph: +33 1 48 75 12 82 

Fax: +33 1 42 82 17 27 

E-mail: regine.gaucher@oiml.org 

Steve Gill 

Missouri Department of 

Agriculture 

P.O. Box 630 

Jefferson City, MO 65102-0630 

Ph: (573) 751-4278 

Fax: (573) 751-0281 

E-mail: steve.gill@mda.mo.gov 

Steven Grabski 

Division of Measurement Standards 

2150 Frazer Avenue 

Sparks, NV 89431 

Ph: (775) 688-1166 x222 

Fax: (775) 688-2533 

E-mail: sgrabski@agri.state.nv.us 

Thomas Geiler 

Barnstable Weights & Measures 

200 Main Street 

Hyannis, MA 02601 

Ph: (508) 862-4670 

Fax: (508) 778-2412 

E-mail: 

tom.geiler@town.barnstable.ma.us 

Jason Glass 

Kentucky Department of 

Agriculture 

107 Corporate Drive 

Frankfort, KY 40601 

Ph: (502) 573-0282 

Fax: (502) 573-0303 

E-mail: jason.glass@ky.gov 

Maxwell Gray 

Florida Department of Agriculture & 

Consumer Services 

3125 Conner Boulevard 

Lab 2 

Tallahassee, FL 32399-1650 

Ph: (850) 488-9140 

Fax: (850) 922-6064 

E-mail: graym@doacs.state.fl.us 

ATTEND - 6 
NCWM 93rd Annual Meeting 

July 13 - 17, 2008 

Sheraton Burlington Hotel • Burlington, VT 

Attendee List 

Christopher Guay 

Procter & Gamble, Co. 

8579 Charleston Woods Drive 

Mason, OH 45040 

Ph: (513) 983-0530 

Fax: (513) 983-8984 

E-mail: guay.cb@pg.com 

Ivan Hankins, III 

Iowa Weights & Measures 

Bureau 

Iowa Department of Agriculture 

& Land Stewardship 

2230 S. Ankeny Boulevard 

Ankeny, IA 50023-9093 

Ph: (515) 725-1493 

Fax: (515) 725-1459 

E-mail: 

ivan.brown@iowaagriculture.gov 

Stephen Henry 

FedEx Ground 

1000 FedEx Drive 

Moon Township, PA 15108 

Ph: (412) 859-2726 

Fax: (412) 262-6271 

E-mail: stephen.henry@fedex.com 

Brett Gurney 

Utah Department of Agriculture & 

Food 

P.O. Box 146500 

Salt Lake City, UT 84114-6500 

Ph: (801) 538-7158 

Fax: (801) 538-4949 

E-mail: bgurney@utah.gov 

Ronald Hasemeyer 

Alameda County Department of 

Agriculture, 

Weights & Measures 

333 5th Street 

Oakland, CA 94607 

Ph: (510) 268-7343 

Fax: (501) 444-3879 

E-mail: 

ron.hasemeyer@acgov.org 

James Hewston 

Scale Source 

1621 South 35 Street 

Council Bluff, IA 51501 

Ph: (402) 455-2143 

Fax: (402) 455-2146 

E-mail: jhewston@scalesource.com 

James Hadder 

Florida Department of Agriculture & 

Consumer Services 

3125 Conner Boulevard 

Building 1 

Tallahassee, FL 32399-1650 

Ph: (850) 487-2634 

Fax: (850) 922-6655 

E-mail: hadders@doacs.state.fl.us 

Ronald Hayes 

Missouri Department of 

Agriculture 

P.O. Box 630 

Jefferson City, MO 65102-0630 

Ph: (573) 751-4316 

Fax: (573) 751-0281 

E-mail: 

Ron.Hayes@mda.mo.gov 

Ann Hines 

Arkansas Oil Marketers Association 

P.O. Box 229 

Little Rock, AR 72203 

Ph: (501) 374-6293 

Fax: (501) 374-7351 

E-mail: ann@aoma.org 

James Hale 

Southern Company Services, Inc. 

366 Three Oaks Subdivision Road 

Langley, KY 41645 

Ph: (606) 285-3635 

Fax: 

E-mail: jahale@southernco.com 

Scott Henry 

NCR Corporation 

2651 Satellite Boulevard 

Duluth, GA 30096 

Ph: (770) 623-7543 

Fax: (404) 479-1170 

E-mail: scott.henry@ncr.com 

Paul Hoar 

AgriFuels, LLC 

73 Dayton Road 

South Glastonbury, CT 06073 

Ph: (860) 633-9811 

Fax: (866) 466-2764 

E-mail: paulhoar@agrifuels.com 

ATTEND - 7 
NCWM 93rd Annual Meeting 

July 13 - 17, 2008 

Sheraton Burlington Hotel • Burlington, VT 

Attendee List 

Carol Hockert 

NIST, Weights & Measures Division 

100 Bureau Drive 

MS 2600 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2600 

Ph: (301) 975-5507 

Fax: (301) 975-8091 

E-mail: carol.hockert@nist.gov 

Kristen Hossler 

NCWM 

15245 Shady Grove Road 

Suite 130 

Rockville, MD 20850 

Ph: (240) 632-9454 

Fax: (301) 990-9771 

E-mail: khossler@mgmtsol.com

Grace Jan, CAE, CMP 

NCWM 

15245 Shady Grove Road 

Suite 130 

Rockville, MD 20850 

Ph: (240) 632-9454 

Fax: (301) 990-9771 

E-mail: gjan@mgmtsol.com 

Paul Hoffman 

Kraft Foods Global, Inc. 

801 Waukegan Road 

Glenview, IL 60025 

Ph: (847) 646-2759 

Fax: (847) 646-2759 

E-mail: phoffman@kraft.com 

Jeff Humphreys 

Los Angeles County Weights & 

Measures 

11012 Garfield Avenue 

South Gate, CA 90280 

Ph: (562) 940-8922 

Fax: (562) 861-0278 

E-mail: 

jhumphreys@acwm.lacounty.gov 

Randy Jennings 

Tennessee Department of Agriculture 

P.O. Box 40627 

Melrose Station 

Nashville, TN 37204 

Ph: (615) 837-5147 

Fax: (615) 837-5335 

E-mail: randy.jennings@state.tn.us 

Rainer Holmberg 

Emery Winslow Product 

Development 

73 Cogwheel Lane 

Seymour, CT 06483 

Ph: (203) 881-9333 

Fax: (203) 881-9477 

E-mail: 

rholmberg@emerywinslow.com 

Doug Hutchinson 

Measurement Canada 

232 Yorktech Drive 

Markham, Ontario L6G 1A6 

Canada 

Ph: (905) 943-8732 

Fax: (905) 943-8738 

E-mail: 

hutchinson.doug@ic.gc.ca 

Rafael Jimenez 

Transportation Technology Center, Inc. 

P.O. Box 11130 

55500 D.O.T. Road 

Pueblo, CO 81001 

Ph: (719) 584-0691 

Fax: (719) 584-0770 

E-mail: rafael_jimenez@ttci.aar.com 

William Hornbach 

Chevron 

6001 Bollinger Canyon Road 

Room T4334 

San Ramon, CA 94583 

Ph: (925) 842-3484 

Fax: (925) 942-6197 

E-mail: billhornbach@chevron.com 

Gene Inglesby 

Western Petroleum Marketers 

Association 

P.O. Box 571500 

Salt Lake City, UT 84157 

Ph: (801) 263-9762 

Fax: (801) 262-9413 

E-mail: genei@wpma.com 

Gordon Johnson 

Gilbarco, Inc. 

7300 West Friendly Avenue 

Greensboro, NC 27420 

Ph: (336) 547-5375 

Fax: (336) 547-5079 

E-mail: 

Gordon.Johnson@gilbarco.com 

ATTEND - 8 
NCWM 93rd Annual Meeting 

July 13 - 17, 2008 

Sheraton Burlington Hotel • Burlington, VT 

Attendee List 

Raymond Johnson, Jr. 

New Mexico Department of 

Agriculture 

MSC 3170 

P.O. Box 30005 

Las Cruces, NM 88003-8005 

Ph: (505) 646-1616 

Fax: (505) 646-2361 

E-mail: rjohnson@nmda.nmsu.edu 

Jack Kane 

Montana Bureau of Building & 

Measurement Standards 

P.O. Box 200516 

Helena, MT 59620-0516 

Ph: (406) 841-2240 

Fax: (406) 841-2060 

E-mail: jkane@mt.gov 

Michael Keilty 

Endress & Hauser Flowtec AG USA 

211 Pinewood Drive 

Lyons, CO 80540 

Ph: (303) 823-5796 

Fax: (317) 701-0823 

E-mail: michael.keilty@us.endress.com 

Alan Johnston 

Measurement Canada 

151 Tunney’s Pasture Driveway 

Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0C9 Canada 

Ph: (613) 952-0655 

Fax: (613) 957-1265 

E-mail: johnston.alan@ic.gc.ca 

Yefim Katselnik 

Dresser Wayne 

3814 Jarrett Way 

Austin, TX 78728 

Ph: (512) 388-8763 

Fax: (512) 388-8456 

E-mail: 

phil.katselnik@wayne.com 

Henry Kellogg 

NCR Corporation 

1510 N. Walton Boulevard 

Bentonville, AR 72712 

Ph: (479) 271-5515 

Fax: (479) 271-2795 

E-mail: henry.kellogg@ncr.com 

Mark Jordan 

Wallis Corporation 

106 E. Washington 

Cuba, MO 65453 

Ph: (314) 709-5534 

Fax: 

E-mail: 

Kerry Kaullen 

Missouri Department of 

Agriculture 

P.O. Box 630 

Jefferson City, MO 65102-0630 

Ph: (573) 751-4278 

Fax: (573) 751-0281 

E-mail: 

kerry.kaullen@mda.mo.gov 

Robert Kennington 

Quantronix, Inc. 

380 South 200 W. 

P.O. Box 929 

Farmington, UT 84025-0929 

Ph: (801) 451-7000 

Fax: (801) 451-0502 

E-mail: rkennington@cubiscan.com 

Robert Kaehler 

AssetSmart 

2800 28th Street 

Santa Monica, CA 90405 

Ph: (310) 450-2566 

Fax: (310) 450-1311 

E-mail: 

robert.kaehler@assetsmart.com 

Timothy Keigher 

Nebraska Petroleum Marketers & 

Convenience Store Association 

1320 Lincoln Mall 

Suite 100 

Lincoln, NE 68508 

Ph: (402) 474-6691 

Fax: 

E-mail: tkeigher@npcainc.com 

Ted Kingsbury 

Measurement Canada 

151 Tunney’s Pasture Driveway 

Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0C9 Canada 

Ph: (613) 941-8919 

Fax: (613) 952-1736 

E-mail: kingsbury.ted@ic.gc.ca 

ATTEND - 9 
NCWM 93rd Annual Meeting 

July 13 - 17, 2008 

Sheraton Burlington Hotel • Burlington, VT 

Attendee List 

John Kolenski 

The Kroger Company 

1014 Vine Street 

Cincinnati, OH 45202 

Ph: (513) 762-4041 

Fax: 

E-mail: john.kolenski@kroger.com 

Leon Lammers 

Avery Weigh-Tronix 

1000 Armstrong Drive 

Fairmont, MN 56031-1439 

Ph: (800) 533-0456 

Fax: (507) 238-8255 

E-mail: 

llammers@awtxglobal.com 

Richard Lewis 

Georgia Department of Agriculture 

Agriculture Building 

19 MLK Drive, Rm 321 

Atlanta, GA 30334 

Ph: (404) 656-3605 

Fax: (404) 656-9648 

E-mail: rlewis@agr.state.ga.us 

Dennis Kolsun 

H.J. Heinz, Co. 

357 6th Avenue 

Pittsburgh, PA 15222 

Ph: (724) 778-4503 

Fax: (412) 658-1158 

E-mail: 

dennis.kolsun@us.hjheinz.com 

Stephen Langford 

Cardinal Scale Manufacturing, 

Co. 

203 East Daugherty 

P.O. Box 151 

Webb City, MO 64870 

Ph: (417) 673-4631 

Fax: (417) 673-5001 

E-mail: slangford@cardet.com 

Paul Lewis, Sr. 

Rice Lake Weighing Systems, Inc. 

230 West Coleman Street 

P.O. Box 272 

Rice Lake, WI 54868-2404 

Ph: (715) 234-9171 

Fax: (715) 234-6967 

E-mail: plewis@ricelake.com 

Thomas Konst 

Carroll County Auditor 

108 East Main Street 

Carrollton, OH 44615 

Ph: (330) 627-2250 

Fax: (330) 627-7555 

E-mail: tfkonst@hotmail.com 

Timothy Laughlin 

NCPCM 

7300 Glenwood Avenue 

Raleigh, NC 27612 

Ph: (919) 782-4411 

Fax: (919) 782-4414 

E-mail: tlaughlin@ncpcm.org 

Todd Lucas 

Ohio Department of Agriculture 

8995 East Main Street 

Building 5 

Reynoldsburg, OH 43068 

Ph: (614) 728-6290 

Fax: (614) 728-6424 

E-mail: lucas@agri.ohio.gov 

Jay Labecki 

City of Milwaukee Weights & 

Measures 

3256 S. 10th Street 

Milwaukee, WI 53215 

Ph: (414) 744-6401 

Fax: 

E-mail: jlabec@milwaukee.gov 

Ronald Leone,Esq. 

Missouri Petroleum Marketers 

and Convenience Store 

Association 

205 East Capital Avenue 

Suite 200 

Jefferson City, MO 65101 

Ph: (573) 635-7117 

Fax: (573) 635-3675 

E-mail: ron@mpca.org 

Girard Lukowiak 

City of East Orange 

143 New Street 

East Orange, NJ 07017 

Ph: (973) 677-8923 

Fax: (973) 266-5402 

E-mail: girardluke@yahoo.com 

ATTEND - 10
NCWM 93rd Annual Meeting 

July 13 - 17, 2008 

Sheraton Burlington Hotel • Burlington, VT 

Attendee List 

Hugh Lund 

VT Agency of Agriculture, Food & 

Markets 

116 State Street 

Montpelier, VT 05620-2901 

Ph: (802) 828-2436 

Fax: (802) 828-2361 

E-mail: hugh.lund@state.vt.us 

Kathleen Madaras 

Fuel Merchants Association of 

New Jersey 

66 Morris Avenue 

Springfield, NJ 07081 

Ph: (973) 467-1400 

Fax: (973) 467-4066 

E-mail: kmadaras@fmanj.org 

James McEnerney 

Connecticut Department of Consumer 

Protection 

165 Capitol Avenue 

Hartford, CT 06106 

Ph: (860) 713-6160 

Fax: (860) 713-7237 

E-mail: jsmcenerney@sbcglobal.net 

L. Edward Luthy 

Brechbuhler Scales, Inc 

1510 Metric Avenue, S.W. 

Canton, OH 44706 

Ph: (330) 458-2424 

Fax: (330) 471-8909 

E-mail: eluthy@bscales.com 

Steven Malone 

NE-mail: Division of Weights & 

Measures 

301 Centennial Mall South 

Box 94757 

Lincoln, NE 68509-4757 

Ph: (402) 471-4292 

Fax: (402) 471-2759 

E-mail: 

steve.malone@nebraska.gov 

Thomas McGee 

PMPh: Corporation 

P.O. Box 422 

25 Security Drive 

Avon, CT 06001-0422 

Ph: (860) 677-9656 

Fax: (860) 674-0196 

E-mail: tmcgee@pmp-corp.com 

Kristin Macey 

CA Division of Food and Agriculture 

6790 Florin Perkins Road 

Suite 100 

Sacramento, CA 95828 

Ph: (916) 229-3044 

Fax: (916) 229-3064 

E-mail: kmacey@cdfa.ca.gov 

Henry Marckres 

VT Agency of Agriculture, Food 

& Markets 

116 State Street 

Montpelier, VT 05620-2901 

Ph: (802) 828-3458 

Fax: (802) 828-2361 

E-mail: henry@agr.state.vt.us 

Robert McGrath 

Boston ISD Weights & Measures 

1010 Massachusetts Avenue 

Boston, MA 02118-2606 

Ph: (617) 961-3376 

Fax: (617) 635-5383 

E-mail: 

robert.mcgrath@CityofBoston.Gov 

Roger Macey 

California Division of Measurement 

Standards 

6790 Florin Perkins Road 

Suite 100 

Sacramento, CA 95828 

Ph: (916) 229-3043 

Fax: (916) 229-3026 

E-mail: rmacey@cdfa.ca.gov 

Andrea Martincic 

Arizona Petroleum Marketers 

Association 

P.O. Box 93426 

Phoenix, AZ 85070 

Ph: (480) 460-1561 

Fax: (480) 460-9016 

E-mail: apma@cox.net 

Kevin Mikoski 

Irving Oil Terminals, Inc. 

190 Commerce Way 

Portsmouth, NH 03801 

Ph: (603) 559-8755 

Fax: 

E-mail: kevin.mikoski@irvingoil.com 

ATTEND - 11
NCWM 93rd Annual Meeting 

July 13 - 17, 2008 

Sheraton Burlington Hotel • Burlington, VT 

Attendee List 

Charlie Mitchell 

Total Petrochemicals, Inc. 

P.O. Box 849 

Port Arthur, TX 77641-0849 

Ph: (409) 963-6885 

Fax: (409) 962-3458 

E-mail: charlie.mitchell@total.com

John Douglas Myers 

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 

1025 Hillside Drive 

Webb City, MO 64870 

Ph: (479) 277-7084 

Fax: (479) 277-5844 

E-mail: 

doug.myers@wal-mart.com 

O.R. “Pete” O’Bryan 

Foster Farms 

P.O. Box 457 

Livingston, CA 95334-9900 

Ph: (209) 765-4978 

Fax: (209) 398-6742 

E-mail: obryanp@fosterfarms.com 

Elaine Morash 

Boston ISD Weights & Measures 

1010 Massachusetts Avenue 

Boston, MA 02118-2606 

Ph: (617) 635-5328 

Fax: (617) 635-5383 

E-mail: 

robert.mcgrath@cityofboston.gov 

Neal Nover 

Nover Engelstein & Associates, 

Inc. 

WinWam Software 

Atrium Executive Suites 

3000 Atrium Way, Suite 2203 

Mt. Laurel, NJ 08054-3910 

Ph: (856) 273-6988 

Fax: (856) 751-0559 

E-mail: NealNov@winwam.com 

Michael O’Connor 

Virginia Petroleum, Convenience and 

Grocery Association, Inc. 

6716 Patterson Avenue 

Suite 100 

Richmond, VA 23226 

Ph: (804) 282-7534 

Fax: 

E-mail: mike@vpcga.com 

Lynn Morrissette 

American Meat Institute 

1150 Connecticut Avenue, NW 

Suite 1200 

Washington, DC 20036 

Ph: (202) 587-4200 

Fax: (202) 587-4300 

E-mail: lmorrissette@meatami.com 

Jack Nowicki 

Seraphin Test 

Measure/Pemberton 

P.O. Box 227 

30 Indel Avenue 

Rancocas, NJ 08073-0227 

Ph: (609) 267-0922 

Fax: (609) 261-2546 

E-mail: rmurnane@pemfab.com 

Tom O’Connor 

H2OC Engineering 

2401 Tahoe Court 

Columbia, MO 65203-1444 

Ph: (573) 289-2153 

Fax: 

E-mail: spam@h2oc.com 

Robert Murnane, Jr. 

Seraphin Test Measure/Pemberton 

P.O. Box 227 

30 Indel Avenue 

Rancocas, NJ 08073-0227 

Ph: (609) 267-0922 

Fax: (609) 261-2546 

E-mail: rmurnane@pemfab.com 

Jennifer Nuckolls 

Siemens Energy & Automation, 

Inc. 

One Internet Plaza 

Johnson City, TN 37602 

Ph: (423) 262-2909 

Fax: (423) 262-2231 

E-mail: 

jennifer.nuckolls@siemens.com 

Don Onwiler 

NCWM 

P.O. Box 155 

Panama, NE 68419 

Ph: (402) 788-2822 

Fax: 

E-mail: sixhuskers@alltel.net 

ATTEND - 12
NCWM 93rd Annual Meeting 

July 13 - 17, 2008 

Sheraton Burlington Hotel • Burlington, VT 

Attendee List 

Henry Oppermann 

Weights & Measures Consulting, 

LLC 

15141 Bankfield Drive 

Waterford, VA 20197 

Ph: (540) 882-3862 

Fax: (540) 882-3862 

E-mail: 

wmconsulting@loudounwireless.com 

Stephen Patoray,CAE 

NCWM 

1239 Carolina Drive 

Tryon, NC 28782 

Ph: (828) 859-6178 

Fax: (828) 859-6180 

E-mail: spatoray@mgmtsol.com 

Marvin Pound 

Georgia Department of Agriculture 

19 Martin Luther King Jr. Drive 

Devereux, GA 31087 

Ph: (404) 656-3605 

Fax: (404) 656-9648 

E-mail: mpound@agr.state.ga.us 

Thomas Palace 

PMCA of Kansas 

P.O. Box 678 

Topeka, KS 66601 

Ph: (785) 233-9655 

Fax: (785) 354-4374 

E-mail: tom@pmcaofks.org 

David Pfahler 

South Dakota Weights & 

Measures 

118 West Capitol Avenue 

Pierre, SD 57501-2080 

Ph: (605) 773-4091 

Fax: (605) 773-6631 

E-mail: 

david.pfahler@state.sd.us 

Harold Prince 

Maine Department of Agriculture 

28 State House Station 

Augusta, ME 04333 

Ph: (207) 287-3841 

Fax: (207) 287-5576 

E-mail: hal.prince@maine.gov 

Beth Palys,CAE 

NCWM 

15245 Shady Grove Road 

Suite 130 

Rockville, MD 20850 

Ph: (240) 632-9454 

Fax: (301) 990-9771 

E-mail: bpalys@mgmtsol.com

Randall Phillips 

Southern Company 

2550 Goodsprings Road 

Parrish, AL 35580 

Ph: (205) 257-7910 

Fax: (205) 257-7246 

E-mail: 

rmphilli@southernco.com 

Tom Pugh 

Arkansas Bureau of Standards 

4608 West 61st Street 

Little Rock, AR 72209 

Ph: (501) 570-1159 

Fax: (501) 562-7605 

E-mail: tom.pugh@aspb.ar.gov 

Marc Paquette 

VT Agency of Agriculture, Food & 

Markets 

116 State Street 

Montpelier, VT 05620-2901 

Ph: (802) 828-2436 

Fax: (802) 828-2361 

E-mail: marc@agr.state.vt.us 

Michael Pinagel 

Michigan Department of 

Agriculture 

940 Venture Lane 

Williamston, MI 48895-2451 

Ph: (517) 655-8202 Ext 301 

Fax: (517) 655-8303 

E-mail: 

PinagelM@michigan.gov 

Tal Rahav 

Vishay Tranducers, Ltd. 

8A Hazoran Street 

Netanya, Netanya 42506 Isreal 

Ph: 972-986-388-66 

Fax: 972-986-388-00 

E-mail: tal.rahav@vishay.com 

ATTEND - 13
NCWM 93rd Annual Meeting 

July 13 - 17, 2008 

Sheraton Burlington Hotel • Burlington, VT 

Attendee List 

David Rajala 

Veeder-Root Company 

P.O. Box 1673 

Altoona, PA 16603-1673 

Ph: (814) 696-8125 

Fax: (814) 695-7605 

E-mail: rajala@veeder.com 

Bill Ripka 

Thermo Fisher Scientific 

501 90th Avenue N.W. 

Minneapolis, MN 55433 

Ph: (763) 783-2664 

Fax: (763) 780-1537 

E-mail: 

bill.ripka@thermofisher.com 

Carolyn Rushlow 

NWML 

41000 W. 7 Mile Road 

Northville, MI 48167 

Ph: (248) 468-0151 

Fax: (248) 349-9261 

E-mail: c.rushlow@vcana.com 

Kenneth Ramsburg 

Maryland Department of Agriculture 

50 Harry S. Truman Parkway 

Annapolis, MD 21401 

Ph: (410) 841-5790 

Fax: (410) 841-2765 

E-mail: ramsbukr@mda.state.md.us

Kirk Robinson 

Washington Department of 

Agriculture 

1111 Washington NRB 

2nd Floor 

Olympia, WA 98504-2560 

Ph: (360) 902-1856 

Fax: (360) 902-2086 

E-mail: krobinson@agr.wa.gov 

Brett Saum 

San Luis Obispo County Weights & 

Measures 

2156 Sierra Way 

Suite A 

San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-4556 

Ph: (805) 781-5922 

Fax: (805) 781-1035 

E-mail: bsaum@co.slo.ca.us 

Robert Reinfried 

Scale Manufacturers Association 

6724 Lone Oak Boulevard 

Naples, FL 34109 

Ph: (239) 514-3441 

Fax: (239) 514-3470 

E-mail: 

bob@scalemanufacturers.org 

Anthony Romeo 

Accu-Sort Systems, Inc. 

511 School House Road 

Telford, PA 18969 

Ph: (215) 721-5113 

Fax: (215) 723-1515 

E-mail: 

anthony.romeo@accusort.com 

Dale Saunders 

Virginia Department of Agriculture & 

Consumer Services 

P.O. Box 1163 

Room 135 

Richmond, VA 23218 

Ph: (804) 786-2476 

Fax: (804) 786-1571 

E-mail: 

dale.saunders@vdacs.virginia.gov 

Ralph Richter 

NIST, Weights & Measures Division 

100 Bureau Drive 

MS 2600 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2600 

Ph: (301) 975-4025 

Fax: (301) 975-8091 

E-mail: ralph.richter@nist.gov 

Michael Rude 

Norac, Inc. 

1290 Osborne Road NE 

Fridley, MN 55432 

Ph: (763) 786-3080 

Fax: (763) 786-3101 

E-mail: mike@norac.ca 

Alex Schuettenberg 

ConocoPhillips Petroleum 

148 AL 

Bartlesville Tech Center 

Bartlesville, OK 74004 

Ph: (918) 661-3563 

Fax: (918) 661-8060 

E-mail: 

alex.schuettenberg@conocophillips.com 

ATTEND - 14
NCWM 93rd Annual Meeting 

July 13 - 17, 2008 

Sheraton Burlington Hotel • Burlington, VT 

Attendee List 

Rebecca Schwartz 

Shook, Hardy & Bacon, LLP 

2555 Grand Boulevard 

Kansas City, MO 64108 

Ph: (816) 474-6550 

Fax: (816) 421-2708 

E-mail: rschwartz@shb.com 

Michael Sikula 

New York Bureau of Weights & 

Measures 

Building 7A State Campus 

Albany, NY 12235 

Ph: (518) 457-3452 

Fax: (518) 457-2552 

E-mail: 

mike.sikula@agmkt.state.ny.us 

Donald Stechschulte 

Marathon Petroleum Company 

Findlay, OH 45840 

Ph: 

Fax: 

E-mail: 

Donald Scott 

National Biodiesel Board 

P.O. Box 104898 

Jefferson, MO 65110 

Ph: (800) 841-5849 

Fax: (573) 635-7913 

E-mail: dscott@biodiesel.com 

Raphael Obofoni Simire 

Federal Ministry of Commerce, 

W&M Division 

P. M. B. 88 Garki-Abuja, F.C.T. 

Nigeria 

Abuja, Federal Capital Territory, 

Federal Capital Area NIGERIA 

Ph: 234-9-234-1105 

Fax: 234-9-234-1541 

E-mail: 

raphaelsimire@netscape.net 

Steven Steinborn 

Hogan & Hartson, LLP 

555 13th Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20004 

Ph: (202) 637-5969 

Fax: (202) 637-5910 

E-mail: sbsteinborn@hhlaw.com 

Prentiss Searles 

American Petroleum Institute 

1220 L Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20005 

Ph: (202) 682-8227 

Fax: 

E-mail: searlesp@api.org 

Vijay Srinivasan 

Balcrank Products, Inc. 

90 East Haqlsey Road 

Parsippany, NJ 07054 

Ph: (973) 515-1971 

Fax: 

E-mail: 

vsrinivasan@balcrank.com 

Louis Straub 

Fairbanks Scales, Inc. 

3056 Irwin Drive S.E. 

Southport, NC 28461 

Ph: (910) 253-3250 

Fax: (910) 253-3250 

E-mail: strauble@yahoo.com 

David Sefcik 

NIST, Weights & Measures Division 

100 Bureau Drive 

MS 2600 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2600 

Ph: (301) 975-4868 

Fax: (301) 975-8091 

E-mail: david.sefcik@nist.gov 

Todd St. Romain 

St. Romain Oil 

P.O. Box 98 

Mansura, LA 71350 

Ph: (318) 964-2424 

Fax: (318) 964-2823 

E-mail: 

tstromain98@yahoo.com 

Lawrence Stump 

Indiana Weights & Measures 

2525 N. Shadeland Avenue, #03 

Indianapolis, IN 46219-1791 

Ph: (317) 356-7078 

Fax: (317) 351-2877 

E-mail: lstump@isdh.state.in.us 

ATTEND - 15
NCWM 93rd Annual Meeting 

July 13 - 17, 2008 

Sheraton Burlington Hotel • Burlington, VT 

Attendee List 

Michael Stutler 

United Parcel Service 

55 Glenlake Parkway 

Building 1 Floor 7 

Atlanta, GA 30328 

Ph: (404) 828-7282 

Fax: 

E-mail: mstutler@ups.com 

James Truex 

NCWM 

88 Carryback Drive 

Pataskala, OH 43062 

Ph: (614) 728-6290 

Fax: (614) 728-6424 

E-mail: truex@agri.ohio.gov 

Rob Underwood 

Petroleum Marketers Assn. of America 

1901 N. Fort Myer Drive 

Suite 500 

Arlington, VA 22201 

Ph: (703) 351-8000 

Fax: 

E-mail: runderwood@pmaa.org 

Rich Sulinski 

AgriFuels, LLC 

450 Dunbar Hill Road 

Hamden, CT 06514 

Ph: (203) 288-5872 

Fax: 

E-mail: rich@agrifuels.com 

Richard Tucker 

RL Tucker Consulting, LLC 

605 Bittersweet Lane 

Ossian, IN 46777 

Ph: (260) 622-4243 

Fax: (260) 622-4243 

E-mail: rtucker83@comcast.net 

Robert Upright, Jr. 

Vishay Transducers 

42 Countryside Road 

North Grafton, MA 01536 

Ph: (508) 615-1185 

Fax: (508) 839-5429 

E-mail: rob.upright@vishay.com 

Michael Thomas 

Hamilton County Weights & 

Measures 

Hamilton County Judical Center 

One Hamilton County Square 

Suite 181 

Noblesville, IN 46060 

Ph: (317) 403-0639 

Fax: (317) 776-8525 

E-mail: 

Pete Turner 

APS Petroleum Equipment 

2800 Hiway 431 N 

P.O. Box 1198 

Anniston, AL 36202 

Ph: (256) 820-2980 

Fax: (256) 820-2981 

E-mail: pete@apspetro.com 

Manuel Villicana 

Kern County Department of Agriculture 

and Measurement Standards 

1001 So. Mt. Vernon Avenue 

Bakersfield, CA 93307 

Ph: (661) 868-6300 

Fax: (661) 868-6301 

E-mail: villicam@co.kern.ca.us 

Michael Timmons 

City of Medford 

85 George P. Hassett Drive 

Medford, MA 02155 

Ph: (781) 393-2463 

Fax: (781) 393-2415 

E-mail: mwtimmons@medford.org 

Tim Tyson 

Kansas Department of 

Agriculture 

Weights & Measures Division 

P.O. Box 19282 

Forbes Field Building 282 

Topeka, KS 66619-0282 

Ph: (785) 862-2415 

Fax: (785) 862-2460 

E-mail: ttyson@kda.state.ks.us 

Gilles Vinet 

Measurement Canada 

151 Tunney’s Pasture Driveway 

Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0C9 Canada 

Ph: (613) 952-0657 

Fax: (613) 952-1736 

E-mail: vinet.gilles@ic.gc.ca 

ATTEND - 16
NCWM 93rd Annual Meeting 

July 13 - 17, 2008 

Sheraton Burlington Hotel • Burlington, VT 

Attendee List 

John Walsh 

Framingham Weights & Measures 

150 Concord Street 

Framingham, MA 01702 

Ph: (508) 532-5480 

Fax: (508) 626-8991 

E-mail: jbw@framinghamma.org 

Nathaniel Wieselquist 

Sick, Inc. 

800 Technology Drive 

Suite 6 

Stoughton, MA 02072 

Ph: (781) 302-2553 

Fax: 

E-mail: 

nate.wieselquist@sick.com 

Ed Williams 

California Division of Measurement 

Standards 

6790 Florin Perkins Road 

Suite 100 

Sacramento, CA 95828 

Ph: (916) 229-3000 

Fax: (916) 229-3026 

E-mail: ewilliams@cdfa.ca.gov 

Lisa Warfield 

NIST, Weights & Measures Division 

100 Bureau Drive 

MS 2600 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2600 

Ph: (301) 975-3308 

Fax: (301) 975-8091 

E-mail: lisa.warfield@nist.gov 

Scott Wigginton 

United Parcel Service 

55 Glenlake Parkway,NE #B1F7 

Atlanta, GA 30097 

Ph: (404) 828-8173 

Fax: 

E-mail: swigginton@ups.com 

Juana Williams 

NIST, Weights & Measures Division 

100 Bureau Drive 

MS 2600 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2600 

Ph: (301) 975-3989 

Fax: (301) 975-8091 

E-mail: juana.williams@nist.gov 

Daniel Whipple 

Vermont Department of Labor 

VOSHA Compliance Assisstance 

Specialist (CAS), Green Mountain 

VPP Coordinator 

100 Main Street, Suite 230 

Newport, VT 05855 

Ph: (802) 334-4367 

Fax: (802) 334-3371 

E-mail: dan.whipple@state.vt.us 

Bryice Wilke 

USDA, GIPSA 

210 Walnut Street 

Suite 317 

Des Moines, IA 50309 

Ph: (515) 323-2579 

Fax: (515) 323-2590 

E-mail: 

bryice.a.wilke@usda.gov 

Kirby Kyle Woodruff 

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 

508 SW 8th Street 

Bentonville, AR 72716 

Ph: (479) 204-8413 

Fax: (479) 277-5844 

E-mail: k.woodr@wal-mart.com 

Blythe Whitehead 

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 

508 S.W. 8th Street 

Bentonville, AR 72716-0505 

Ph: (479) 277-9739 

Fax: (479) 277-5844 

E-mail: 

blythe.whitehead@wal-mart.com 

Dylan Wilks 

Wilks Enterprise, Inc. 

140 Water Street 

South Norwalk, CT 06854 

Ph: (831) 338-7459 

Fax: 

E-mail: dwilks@wilksir.com 

Cary Woodward 

Hamilton County Weights & Measures 

Hamilton County Judical Center 

One Hamilton County Square 

Suite 181 

Noblesville, IN 46060 

Ph: (317) 403-0639 

Fax: (317) 776-8525 

E-mail: caw@co.hamilton.in.us 

ATTEND - 17
ATTEND - 18

NCWM 93rd Annual Meeting 

July 13 - 17, 2008 

Sheraton Burlington Hotel • Burlington, VT 

Attendee List 

Richard Wotthlie 

Maryland Department of Agriculture 

50 Harry S. Truman Parkway 

Annapolis, MD 21401 

Ph: (410) 841-5790 

Fax: (410) 841-2765 

E-mail: wotthlrw@mda.state.md.us 

Russ Wyckoff 

Oregon Department of 

Agriculture 

635 Capitol Street, N.E. 

Salem, OR 97301-2532 

Ph: (503) 986-4767 

Fax: (503) 986-4784 

E-mail: 

rwyckoff@oda.state.or.us 

Steve Zylkowski 

APA- The Engineered Wood 

Association 

7011 South 19th Street 

Tacoma, WA 98466 

Ph: (253) 620-7420 

Fax: 

E-mail: steve.zylkowski@apawood.org 
NCWM 93rd Annual Meeting 

July 13 - 17, 2008 

Sheraton Burlington Hotel • Burlington, VT 

Guest Attendees 

Corinna Brown 

Wendy Bukowski 

Judy Chase 

CJ DeLeo 

Craig DeLeo 

Kristen DeLeo 

Nadia DeLeo 

Danielle Deville 

Carrie Gartner 

Karin Gentili 

Karen Gill 

Carolyn Hale 

Deana Johnson 

Carol Johnston 

Kim Kaehler 

Klara Katselnik 

Judith Kingsbury 

Rose Marie Lammers 

Marsha Malone 

Madeline McAnnally 

Bonnie Mikoski 

Geraldine Mitchell 

Sonja Patoray 

Terry Pfahler 

Susan Pound 

Nell Pounders 

Peggy Saum 

Deborah Straub 

Margaret Turner 

Ellen Walsh 

Stephanie Wilks 

Julie Williams 

Lauren Young 

ATTEND - 19
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 

ATTEND - 20