Nisr

ISUST RESEARCH united states

I IDOADV Department of LIbHAHY Commerce

FEB 1 1 1993

Technology

Administration

National

Institute of

Standards and

Technology

REPORT OF THE 82ND

NATIONAL CONFERENCE

ON WEIGHTS AND

MEASURES

as adopted by the 82nd

National Conference on

Weights and Measures 1997

NIST Specia

Publication 920

1997

Report of the 82nd

National Conference

on Weights and

Measures

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

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

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

Chicago, Illinois - July 20-24, 1 997

Editors:

Gilbert M. Ugiansky, Ph.D.

Joan A. Koenig

NIST Office of Weights & Measures

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

U.S. Department of Commerce

William M. Daley, Secretary

Technology Administration

Gary R. Bachula, Acting Under

Secretary for Technology

National Institute of Standards and

Technology

Raymond G. Kammer, Director

Special Publication y

November 1997
Abstract

The 82nd Annual Meeting of the National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM) was held July 20 through 24, 1997,

at the Swissotel in Chicago, Illinois. The theme of the meeting was "Fostering International Harmony in Legal Metrology."

Reports by the standing and annual committees of the Conference constitute the major portion of the publication, along with the addresses delivered by Conference officials and other authorities from government and industry.

Special meetings included those ofthe Metrology Subcommittee, the Associate Membership Committee, the Meter Manufacturers

Association, the Gasoline Pump Manufacturers Association, the National Industrial Scale Association, and the National

Association of State Departments of Agriculture Weights and Measures Division.

Key words: grain moisture; legal metrology; meters; scales; specifications and tolerances; training; type evaluation; uniform laws

and regulations; weights and measures.

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 26-27766.

Note: The policy of the National Institute of Standards and Technology is to use metric units of measurement in all of its publications; in this publication, however, recommendations received by the NCWM technical committees have been printed as they were submitted and, therefore, may contain references to inch-pound units. Opinions expressed in non-NIST papers are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the National Institute of Standards and Technology. Non-NIST speakers are solely

responsible for the content and quality of their material.

Nat. Inst. Stand. Technol. Spec. Publ. 920, 350 Pages (Nov. 1997)

CODEN: NSPUE2

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON: 1997

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402-9325
Contents

Page

Abstract ii Past Chairmen of the Conference iv State Voting Representatives ; 1 Organization Chart 3

General Session

Special Address 9 Mr. Alan E. Johnston, President, Measurement Canada _

President's Address 11 Dr. Robert E. Hebner, Acting Director, National Institute of Standards and Technology

Chairman's Address 17 Barbara J. Bloch, Assistant Director, California Division of Measurement Standards

Honor Award Presentations 19

Special Recognition Awards 19

President's Award 20

President's Certificate 22

Standing Committee Reports

Report of the Executive Committee 23

Report of the Laws and Regulations Committee 191

Report of the Committee on Specifications and Tolerances 217

Report of the Committee on Administration and Public Affairs 263

Metrology Report 299

Annual Committee Reports

Report of the Resolutions Committee 331

Report of the Nominating Committee 333

Report of the Auditing Committee 334

Treasurer's Report 335

New Chairman's Address 341

Steven A. Malone, Administrator, Nebraska Weights and Measures Division

List of Participants 347

iii
Past Chairmen of the Conference

Conference Year Chairman

43 rd 1958 J. P. McBride, MA

44th 1959 C. M. Fuller, CA

45th 1960 H. E. Crawford, FL

46th 1961 R. E. Meek, IN

47th 1962 Robert Williams, NY

48th 1963 C. H. Stender, SC

49th 1964 D. M. TumbuU, WA

50th 1965 V. D. Campbell, OH

51st 1966 J. F. True, KS

52nd 1967 J. E. Bowen, MA

53rd 1968 C. C. Morgan, IN

54th 1969 S. H. Christie, NJ

55th 1970 R. W. Searles, OH

56th 1971 M. Jennings, TN

57th 1972 E. H. Black, CA

58th 1973 George L. Johnson, KY

59th 1974 John H. Lewis, WA

60th 1975 Sydney D. Andrews, FL

61st 1976 Richard L. Thompson, MD

62nd 1977 Earl Prideaux, CO

63rd 1978 James F. Lyles, VA

64th 1979 Kendrick J. Simila, OR

65th 1980 Charles H. Vincent, TX

66th 1981 Edward H. Stadolnik, MA

67th 1982 Edward C. Heffron, MI

68th 1983 Charles H. Greene, NM

69th 1984 Sam F. Hindsman, AR

70th 1985 Ezio F. Delfmo, CA

71st 1986 George E. Mattimoe, HI

72nd 1987 Frank C. Nagele, MI

73 rd 1988 Darrell A. Guensler, CA

74th 1989 John J. Bartfai, NY

75th 1990 Fred A. Gerk, NM

76th 1991 N. David Smith, NC

77th 1992 Sidney A. Colbrook, IL

78th 1993 Allan M. Nelson, CT

79th 1994 Thomas F. Geiler, MA

80th 1995 James C. Truex, OH

81st 1996 Charles A. Gardner, Suffolk Co., NY
State Voting Representatives

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

1997 STATE VOTING REPRESENTATIVES AND ALTERNATES

State Representative Alternate

Alabama Larry Turberville Charles A. Bums, Jr.

Alaska Aves Thompson None

American Samoa None None

Arizona Dennis Ehrhart None

Arkansas Mike Hile Billy W. Sullivant

California Barbara J. Bloch Darrell A. Guensler

Colorado David R. Wallace None

Connecticut Allan M. Nelson None

Delaware William Lagemann None

District of Columbia Jeffrey Mason Katherine A. Williams

Florida Maxwell H. Gray Jack Y. Jeffries

Georgia Jerry Flanders Curtis Williams

Guam None None

Hawaii None None

Idaho James Boatman None

Illinois Sid Colbrook Rich Philmon

Indiana Larry J. Stump Loretta Townsend

Iowa Darryl L. Brown None

Kansas Constantine V. Cotsoradis None

Kentucky None None

Louisiana None None

Maine David E. Gagnon Stanley K. Miliary

Maryland Louis E. Straub Richard W. Wotthlie

Massachusetts Charles H. Carroll None

Michigan Patrick J. Mercer Mike Pinagel

Minnesota Peter Campbell Mark Buccelli

Mississippi John M. Till son Sammy Lang

Missouri Roy Humphreys None

Montana Jack Kane None

Nebraska Steve Malone Richard Suiter

Nevada None None

New Hampshire Michael Grenier None

1
State Voting Representatives

1997 STATE VOTING REPRESENTATIVES AND ALTERNATES

State A Itprnsitp

New Jersey Pasquale Derrico None

New Mexico Gary D. West None

New York Ross J. Andersen None

North Carolina N. David Smith kon Murdock

North Dakota Alan Moch W. F. Bianco

Ohio Lewis R. Jones James C. Truex

Oklahoma Charles Carter None

Oregon Kendrick Simila George Shefcheck

Pennsylvania Charles M. Bruckner A. Courtney Yelle

Puerto Rico Otilio Rodriguez Col6n None

Rhode Island None None

South Carolina Carol P. Fulmer None

South Dakota Dick Bowman Renee Osterkamp

Tennessee Robert G. Williams Randy F. Jennings

Texas Ed Price James H. Eskew

Utah Kyle R. Stephens David 0. McKay

Vermont None None

Virginia J. Alan Rogers G. Wes Diggs

Virgin Islands None None

Washington None None

West Virginia Karl Angell Chris Quasebarth

Wisconsin Kathryn M. Dresser Cynthia Anderson

Wyoming Victor L. Gerber None

2
Organization Chart

National Conference on Weights and Measures Organization Chart

1996-1997

Executive Committee and NTEP Board of Governors (BoG)

• Chairman: B. Bloch, CA

Chairman-Elect: S. Malone, NE

Past Chair/BoG: C. Gardner, Suffolk Co., NY

Treasurer: J. A. Rogers, VA

Members: B. Adams, MN(1)

C. Carroll, MA (1) M. Gray, FL (2) R. Suiter, NE (2) A. Thompson, AK (3) G. West, NM (3) President: A. Prabhakar, NIST Director

Executive Secretary: G. Ugiansky, NIST Office of Weights and Measures

Technical Advisors: J. Koenig, NIST

S. Roussy, Canada

Associate Member

Representative: R. Davis, James River Corporation

Conference

Coordinator: A. Turner, NIST

See Working Groups, Subcommittees, and Annual Committees of the Executive Committee after the Standing Committees.

Laws & Regulations Committee Specifications & Tolerances Committee

Chairman: S. Millay, ME(1) Chairman: R. Murdock, NC (2) Members: K. Angell, WV (3) Members: D. Brov^^n, lA (3)

S. Morrison, San Luis Obispo Co., CA M. Hopper, Kern Co.,CA (4)

(4) A. Nelson, CT(1)

M. Pinagel, MI (2) G. Shefcheck, OR (5) R. Williams, TN (5) NIST Technical

NIST Technical Advisors: T. Butcher

Advisors: K. Butcher J. Williams

T. Coleman Canadian Tech.

Canadian Tech. Advisor: R. Marceau

Advisor: G. Jorowski

Multiple Dimension Measuring Devices

Associate Working Group

Member Rep.: C. Regan, Grocery Manufacturers of Chair: C. Skonberg, United Parcel Service

America Technical

Advisor: N. Dupuis-Desormeaux, Canada

Petroleum Subcommittee

Chairman &

Technical

Advisor: R. Jennings, TN

NIST Handbook 133 Working Group

Chairman: B. Bloch, CA

Technical

Advisor: K. Butcher, NIST

3
Organization Chart

Administration & Public Affairs Committee

Chairman: E. Price, TX (1) Members: R. Greek, San Luis Obispo Co., CA (3) N. Kranker, Dutchess Co., NY (4) B. Martell, VT (2) R. Philmon, IL (5) NIST Technical

Advisors: J. Mindte

T. Coleman

Associate

Member Rep.: C. Guay, Procter & Gamble

NCWM Safety

Liaison: C. Gardner, Suffolk Co., NY

Program Evaluation Work Group

Chairman: D. Guensler, CA

Members: M. Belue, Belue Associates A. Nelson, CT

W. Corey, Am. Frozen Foods E. Price, TX

S. Colbrook, IL R. St. John, PA Food Merchants Assoc

K. Fraley, OK G. Vinet, Canada

S. Malone, NE R. Williams, TN

Technical

Advisor: D. Ripley, NIST

Strategic Planning Subcommittee

T. Geiler, Barnstable, MA

N. D. Smith, NC

Nominating Committee

Chairman: C. Gardner, Suffolk Co., NY

Members: S. Colbrook, IL

T. Geiler, MA

D. Guensler, CA

A. Nelson, CT

N. David Smith, NC

J. Truex, OH

Metrology Subcommittee

Chairman: L. F. Eason, NC

Members:

R. Balaze, MI S. McGuire, IL

R. Calkins, Rice Lake J. Rothleder, CA

Weighing Systems J. Torres, PR

H. Eskew, TX

Technical Advisor: G. Harris, NIST

Finance/Budget Review Committee

Chairman: B. Bloch, CA

Members: W. Corey, Jr., American Frozen Foods (4) H. Lodge, Cargotec, Inc. (2) D. Guensler, CA(1)

S. Malone, NE (3)

Exec. Secy.: G. Ugiansky, NIST

Treasurer: J.A. Rogers, VA

Coordinator: A. Turner, NIST

Auditing Committee

Chairman: M. Hopper, Kern Co., CA (1) Members: R. Philmon, IL (2) R. Williams, TN (2)

Coordinator: A. Turner, NIST

4
Organization Chart

Credentials Committee

Chairman: C. Insalaco, Fresno Co., CA (1) Members: A. McCoy, OH (1) M.Coyne, Brockton, MA (2)

Coordinator: J. Mindte, NIST

Chairman:

Members:

Resolutions Committee

D. Wallace, C0(1)

J. Hile, AR (2) V. Massey, Shelby Co., TN (2) C. Pittman, TN (2)

J. Silvestro, Gloucester, NJ (2)

Coordinator: J. Mindte, NIST

Other Appointed Officers

Parliamentarian: K. Simila, OR

Chaplain: M. Hile, AR

Assistant Treasurer: F. Clem, Columbus, OH

Sergeants-At-Arms: Dan Downing, City of

Chicago, IL

Paul King, City of Chicago, IL

Vice

Chairmen:

Other Elected Officers

M. Pinagel, MI

L. Straub, MD

A. Thompson, AK

C. Yelle, Bucks Co., PA

Associate Membership Committee

Chairman: P. Zalon, Nestle

Vice Chair: R. Fuehne, Ralston Purina

Secretary/ Treasurer: F. Holland, Schlumberger Technologies

Members: W. Braun, WHB Resources

J. Colman, Idaho Retail Grocers Assn. W. Corey, Jr., American Frozen Foods

R. Davis, James River Corporation

C. Guay, Procter & Gamble

G. Prince, The Kroger Company

D. Quinn, Fairbanks Scales

Regional Weights and Measures Association Contacts

for Membership Information

Northeastern Weights and Measures Assn.(NEWMA): William Wilson, Clinton Co., NY, Secretary

Southern Weights and Measures Assn. (SWMA): N. David Smith, NC, Secretary/Treasurer

Central Weights and Measures Assn. (CWMA): Renee Osterkamp, SD, Executive Secretary

Western Weights and Measures Assn. (WWMA): Kendrick Simila, OR, Secretary/Treasurer

5
Organization Chart

National Type Evaluation Program

Technical Committee

W/Aifrliinn C^d^i'nt* IVf psiciirincF ^ppirki*

rhair- ^ l\/fills Hohflrt (^omorpition Chair: R Tucker Tokheim CorDoration

1 ^ 11 1 1 Well Technical

AHvisor* T. Butcher, NIST Advisor: J. Williams, NIST

Public Sector Public Sector Members* R. Andersen NY Members: R. Andersen, NY

A. Buie, MD T. Butcher, NIST

C. Carter, OK D. Guensler, CA

G. W. Diggs, VA J. Jeffries, FL

D. Guensler, CA S. Malone, NE

R. Marceau, Canada R. Marceau, Canada

P Peterson GIPSA R. Murdock, NC

R Pforr GIPSA W. West, OH

G. Shefcheck, OR R. Wotthlie, MD

R. Suiter, NE Private Sector

J. Truex, OH Members: F. M. Belue, Belue Associates

L. Turberville, AL R. Cooper, Schlumberger (Neptune)

K Yee NIST R. Fonger, Bennett Pump Co.

Private Sector M. Hankel, MCH Engineering

Members' 1 1 Wl 1 1 Wl • M. Adams Fairbanks Scales Associates Inc.

J. Antkowiak, Hettinger Baldwin K. Hoffer, Hoffer Flow Controls, Inc. \4pasiirpmpnts iVl&Cli3Ul W111W111>3 P HnllanH Schliimhpropr

Tx^. Riuuiiv^w, irrow Spnsortrnn o&iioul 11 v/1 1 iPs 1 wo Tpchtinlooips 1 &WI11 lUlV/gl&3 L. Cemy, Association of American R. Huff, Universal Epsco, Inc. Railroads F) loines Dresser ^Vav^e

J.T PIpnao J_flWlIgUj r^ontractor V^Ullll ClWtV.'l CiVJ . JTnhnson V-f 1 lll^Wll, riilbarcn VJ 1 1 l^dl v\./, Tnc lliw. O Flocken Mettler-Toledo Tnc M. Keilty, Micro Motion, Inc.

TV . ripK'fpinpr VJ ViVl V 11 IWI ) ITnion \-<'lll\Jll Parifir 1 ClWlllW IVlV RR D Krueeer AT&T GIS

W. Goodpaster, Cardinal/Detecto C. Mohr, Shell Oil Company/API

K Haker Rl H Flectronics A N^oel Schliimbero'er TnHiistries

Y) • Hawkins 1 1C4 W IVlllO^ Xhiirman J. IIUIII IQl 1 Scale Wulw JI t Skiice L^rvLxVw^ Smith kJiiiiiii Meter iVA^tWl ) Inc xi 1 w<

J. Hughes, Weigh-Tronix Inc. D. Smith, Gasboy International, Inc. D. Krueger, AT&T R. Traettino, Liquid Controls Corp.

Ci T ameris Hobart (^ornoration Ot \Varnlnf YV Cll 1 1 IWl, (""nnsiiltant \^VJlldUl ICUll H. Lockery, Lockery Assoc. K. White, Brooks Instrument Div.

T. Luna, Scales Unlimited, Inc. M. Woiton, Endress & Hauser

V. Pandit, Allegany Technology, Inc. D. Tonini, Scale Manufacturers

Association

J. Wang, A&D Engineering, Inc. 0. Wamlof, Consultant

6
Organization Chart

rfeit t-onveyor scales aecior Grain Moisture Meter Sector and Near Infrared

Protein Analyzer Sector

L/nair. IN. jonnson, ivierriL-K v^uipuiaiiuii

Technical Chair: R.W. Wotthlie, MD

/\uvis»or T Riitrhpr NI^JT Technical

r UDllL' OCClUr Advisor: J. W. Barber, J B Associates

ivicmQcra, Public Sector C Tnnk CA Members: Canadian Grain Commission

iv. iviiiicr, R. Bums, AR

T ' 1 "i if*not*i/i 1 1^ A T D. Funk, GIPSA

r riVaie occior G. D. Lee, NIST

Members: Iv. /YlcXcll, olOL-K Ijt|UipiIlClll D. Onwiler, NE

\\J VV . Rrnchpr Uloollwl, ^niithpm k3\_f UlllV'l 11 Po R. Pierce, GIPSA

J. Rothleder, CA

Ci Riiraer Consultant C. Tew, NC

T, Rurrow Sensortronics R. Wittenberger, MO

ivi, V-^addllU Va, ivcuiiaw^ i ^t^iiiiwiwgjr Private Sector

T Cf^mv A<5<;nciation of Members: J. Bair, Millers National Federation

American Railroads C. Eigenmann, DICKEY-john Corp.

P Chase Chase Technoloev Inc M. Emori, Kett Electric Laboratory*

D Porkrpll ConMiltant M. Hall, Sartorius Instruments RIx. Dp^ollar i./vOl-'llcU , Central \_'t'iiiic*i Tllinoi*; miiivi3 C. Hurburgh, Jr., Iowa State Pnhlir Service Comnanv University R. Dietrich, Kaskaskia Valley Scale K. Locklin, Grain Elevator & Processing Society

S Hawkins ABC Scale J. McClenethan, Growmark, Inc. TX • JWllllSv^ll) Tnhnsnn Sensortronics LIVllOWl 11 ^.rillVO J. Miller, CSC Scientific Company, Inc.

XV* \C ICnann XVIICIL/L/) Milltronics lVXllll.1V/lIIVi3 T. O'Connor, National Grain &

XF• Jviw Toe Ti^\jy\x^ ovfl CS\^ v^kjyv Transnortation X 1 cuik3L/wi LC(ii%-'ii Feed Association

(1* T Oliver v-riiv&ij Virginia V iigiiim Power X V/ VV VI T. Runyon, Seedboro Equipment

N. Ortyl, III, Dresser Industries F. Seeber, Shore Sales Co., Grain

P Sanford Thaver Scale Elevator & Processors Society D. Tonini, Scale Manufacturers C. Watson, Consultant

Association H. Yamahira, Kett Electric Laboratory

T. Vormittag, Sr, Commercial Testing &

Engineering Co. *(Grain Moisture Meter Sector only) O. Wamlof, Consultant

7

Special Address

Special Address

"Measurement Canada - 1997 and Beyond"

Presented by Alan E. Johnston, President, Measurement Canada

[Mr. Johnston addressed the NCWM at the General Session on Tuesday, July 22, 1997. The text of the slides he used during his presentation is provided below.]

SLIDE 1:

Presentation to NCWMJanuary 1997

Highlights included:

1. Integration of Weights and Measures and Electricity and Gas activities

2. Special Operating Agency Status

3. Mission, Vision, and Values

4. Strategic Direction

SLIDE 2:

Where is Measurement Canada Today?

Focusing on innovation and improved service delivery

Focusing limited resources on areas where there is the greatest return to Canadians

Using the Mission, Vision and Values as the foundation for decision-making at the Agency

Implementing the Strategic Direction through leadership teams

SLIDE 3:

The General Themes ofMeasurement Canada's Strategic Direction Are...

Identification of the core services Measurement Canada will provide directly (establishing rules, monitoring

the marketplace, taking action where necessary, and resolving complaints)

Increased client service and marketplace presence through alternative service delivery and private sector partnerships

Innovative, client-oriented, and business-like program delivery with an increased emphasis on service,

quality and accountability for results Increased marketing/communication of Measurement Canada's contribution to a fair, efficient and

competitive marketplace

Development of a knowledgeable and professional workforce capable of assuming new roles critical to the success of Measurement Canada

SLIDE 4:

Strategiesfor Success - Business Scope

Develop a marketplace intervention model for trade meeisurement to address the following issues:

is intervention required in a particular trade sector, i.e., water metering?

is intervention required in the trade sector beyond that currently provided?

what is the level of intervention required by Measurement Canada?

draft criteria include economic risk, trade sector compliance, consumer confidence and stakeholders' informed views

9
Special Address

SLIDE 5:

Strategiesfor Success - Alternate Service Delivery

Analysis of Alternate Service Delivery (ASD) options:

determine which options can be used while ensuring the mission and mandate are met

develop minimum criteria to be met by potential partners for selected ASD options, including non- performance sanctions

identify incentives and possible barriers consult stakeholders and potential clients

SLIDE 6:

Strategiesfor Success - Service Excellence

Service excellence will be achieved by:

setting measurable service standards developing a systematic approach to information gathering and establishing results-oriented performance measures

consulting with clients and understanding their expectations

recognizing that service excellence is an ongoing process

SLIDE 7:

Strategies for Success - Marketing and Communications

Measurement Canada will market the opportunities presented by its Strategic Direction, and the value of its contribution to

fair and efficient marketplace by:

demonstrating the benefits of marketing to our colleagues within the Agency

creating a marketing plan

using visibility, resources and skills to keep the momentum going

SLIDE 8:

Strategiesfor Success - Quality Assurance

Quality assurance will become an integral part of Measurement Canada's programs and services by:

identifying the elements of quality assurance to be used in Agency activities developing an implementation plan to phase in quality assurance in the various activities

SLIDE 9:

Strategies for Success - Work Environment, Skills and Knowledge

The value of employees will be supported by:

training strategies enabling staff to adopt to changing roles in the future consistent application of training throughout the Agency

mechanism to ensure future skills and knowledge requirements are identified and acted upon for all levels of staff

10
President's Address

President's Address

Presented by Dr. Robert E. Hebner, Acting Director

National Institute of Standards and Technology

Good afternoon. It is especially rewarding to be able to speak with you today. I have spent most of my career working in laboratory-based research focusing on measurements and standards, and I have long understood their importance to the development and commercialization of new technologies. Even in my formative years, I had significant exposure to weights and

measures.

I grew up on the Texas coastal plain at a time when cotton was king. My first salaried job was in a cotton gin, a small belt-driven factory that separated the cotton from its seed and compressed the cotton into bales. At that time, cotton was still picked by hand

largely by crews of migrant workers augmented by locals with a little spare time.

The pickers were paid by the pound ofcotton that they picked. Those ofus who have ever done it appreciate how much work goes

into picking a pound of cotton. The cotton was put into bags and when your picking sack was fiill, you took it to the trailer parked

at the edge of the field. Attached to the side ofthe trailer was a rudimentary balance. You would weigh your sack, the farmer

would record your name and how much you picked.

It is easy to imagine how either the farmers or the pickers could cheat using this system, and even when I'm in my most nostalgic

mood, I know that people were not fundamentally more honest back in those days. So a system ofchecks involving the cotton gin evolved.

The farmer and one or more pickers would bring the trailer to the cotton gin. I would weigh the trailer, vacuum the cotton out of

the trailer, reweigh the trailer to determine the tare, and calculate the weight of cotton. I would then calculate the total weight as determined by totaling each picker's weight as measured in the field. I would then use my determination ofthe total weight to re- calculate each picker's fair share. This was a weights and measures check and correction, done with pencil and paper, leaning

against a tractor, with every step being checked in real time by both concerned parties. Thus, I have great empathy for inspectors

who can't hide behind an anonymous letter, but who look people in the eye and say based on my measurements and calculations, there is a problem here and corrective action must be taken.

While it's a long way from the cotton fields of Texas, working as NIST's senior manager for the past 6 months has given me an even greater appreciation for the vital nature of our work in measurements and standards, especially as it relates to trends in trade, technology and international competitiveness.

I also have had the opportunity to do a bit of preaching about how the weights and measures function is crucial to equity in the marketplace and to consumer and indusfrial confidence in our system of trade. The reaction I usually get when I start spouting

off on this subject is one of polite but sometimes feigned interest ~ until I hit on a weights and measures issue that's really close

to home.

The new study of milk and dairy product packaging that several of you in this room took part in is a perfect case in point. It's exactly the kind ofv/eights and measures issue that everyone can relate to. I'll have a few words to say about that study a bit later.

Technology and Trade Changes

While touring the museum of the Patent and Trademark Office, like NIST another agency in the Department of Commerce, I recently learned that in 1266, England passed a law that required all bakers to put a distinguishing mark on each loaf of bread that they baked. This is considered to be an early use of a trademark. The purpose of this trademark was not advertising, however.

It was to identify bakers who were making loaves that were too light. Clearly, what was important in the 13th centur>' remains

critical for trade as we enter the 21st century. I suppose this supports the old axiom that the more things change, the more they

remain the same. But there's obviously much that has changed in the world of weights and measures and the marketplace, and

I think it is critical that this community both reflect on those changes and anticipate what the future may bring.

There are two major themes to these changes: advances in technology and expanding global trade and competition. Clearly, the two are related.

11
President's Address

Let's take a look back. Twenty years ago, how many among us would have predicted that the marketplace would be populated

with digital weighing devices, that everything from bunches of grapes to truckloads of asphalt and concrete would be weighed by

electronic scales? Twenty years ago, how many among us would have predicted that electronic scanners would be ubiquitous in the marketplace, that they would become the way of doing business not just in supermarkets but in nearly every kind of retail operation?

It's fair to say that the speed and market penetration ofthese technologies took most of us by surprise. But fortunately, I think we

can point to these changes with some pride, because this community has done amazingly well in coping with these changes, in adapting to them, and in making them work for consumers, industry and regulatory officials alike.

Does that mean that there haven't been some pretty annoying bumps in the road? Of course not. There is plenty of work to do

as we deal with these two electronic-based technology applications. A federal report that NIST was involved with last year reminded us that nothing is magic about price scanners, and that regulatory officials and businesses need to be vigilant to ensure

that consumers receive what they pay for and that there is equity in the marketplace.

The electronics revolution is dramatically changing the environment for weights and measures in the U.S. But digital scales and

price scanners are minor innovations compared with the headlong rush that we are experiencing with new modes of electronic commerce and the expanding potential of the Internet.

Along with all ofthe promise ~ and the considerable hype ~ there are plenty ofbarriers to making electronic commerce a seamless

vehicle for conducting business, for exchanging goods and services.

NIST worries about this a lot. We are answering three key questions about what the United States needs to do to enable electronic commerce ~ and then to address these needs. First, what are the measurement and standards needs? Next, what are the technology

development needs? And third, how can we get the needed technology to our smaller businesses?

The weights and measures community needs to be asking questions also. What are the implications of the digital marketplace on

the weights and measures infrastructure? How will the roles of the weights and measures officials and the industry weights and

measures expert change? And perhaps the most intriguing question that needs to be answered: how can the weights and measures community take better advantage ofelectronic commerce and the Internet? At NIST we've got some ideas about that last question,

and I will share them with you shortly.

For all ofthe changes that technology is bringing, they may be dwarfed by the changes that are occurring in our increasingly global

marketplace. Gone are the days when most companies' customers were down the road or across the country. Competitors and

customers may be located on the opposite side of the world, and U.S. firms that fail to recognize this change and respond to it promptly run the risk of a much greater failure as they see their business evaporate. A question of particular importance to this group is "What is the role of a state-based weights and measures program?" If we do our job well, it will be more important in a global market.

Specifically, as global market competition becomes more technology intensive and as trade becomes a more significant

determinant of the health of the U.S. economy, the nation's measurement and standards infrastructure grows in economic

importance and strategic value.

But even as global trade takes greater hold, it is being restrained by technical barriers to trade that are related to measurements,

conformity assurance, and standards. NIST is assigned as the federal agency that should worry and help do something about those

barriers, working with other agencies, state and local governments, and the private sector. I would like to review with you some

of our responsibilities here. We know that greater acceptance ofuniform measurement, test and evaluation methods, and standards on a worldwide basis would

make global commerce more efficient and less costly for the private sector. Recognizing the importance of standards in enhancing

global commerce, other countries and trading regions aggressively advance their standards in the international arena in hopes of

achieving a competitive advantage. The well organized efforts of the European Union, in particular, pose technical barriers to trade for U.S. industry.

NIST believes that if there is fair and open competition, U.S. companies can and will do well. Thus, the NIST approach is to reduce the measurement and standards-based technical barriers to trade faced by U.S. industry as follows:

12
President's Address

Develop the required measurements and standards infrastructure to support international trade. We are responsible for taking the lead in setting the nation's measurements and standards agenda for the future;

Promote the harmonization of standards, codes and regulations; and assist industry in the cooperative development and

acceptance of international standards;

Assist our trading partners in converting to international or American standards;

Promote the adoption of American standards as international standards, where appropriate;.

Promote international acceptance of U.S. measurement and accreditation systems;

Provide training in measurements and standards; and

Work with U.S. industry to overcome specific technical trade barriers. _

For NIST, this means that we need to work with a variety of overseas and domestic organizations and individuals ~ including

NCWM — to tackle these problems.

For the weights and measures experts, it means that we all must invest greater resources in learning about overseas requirements

and restrictions on trade. These trade barriers are real — and you know they are real if you find your goods barred from being

unloaded at a foreign port.

If we are to level the international playing field, if we are to ensure that U.S. companies can compete on a fair basis, the weights

and measures officials can and must help. As a first step, you must make learning more about international requirements an action item on your agenda. Ignorance is never good business, and ignorance about these changing requirements for product labeling,

for instance, can do great harm to our U.S. businesses. Uniformity in the marketplace is a goal to strive for both here and overseas. Today, NIST is working so that U.S. package labeling practices are recognized worldwide. Your work to ensure NCWM

requirements are technically rigorous and objectively based makes worldwide acceptance easier.

As a community, we have made much progress but there is still room for improvement in fostering marketplace uniformity. That's why I think the National Conference on Weights and Measures Chairman's theme for the next year is particularly appropriate:

"Working Together for Equity." In the next few moments, I'd like to review some of our accomplishments and the goals which

remain before us.

FDA Proposed Regulation

As many of you know, the Food and Drug Administration has proposed adopting NIST Handbook 133, "Checking the Net

Contents of Packaged Goods." This action will establish a national standard for testing the net contents of packaged foods based on NIST Handbook 133. The proposed rule is a result of 5 years of hard work by the National Conference on Weights and Measures and the FDA. The FDA will be accepting public comments on the proposed rule until September 2.

Although some of us may disagree with some of the details in the proposed rule, having a standard is very important. Once the standard is in place, we will have a level playing field. Without one, the discrepancies among state regulations will only add

confiision to the marketplace.

Although most states have adopted Handbook 133, many have not adopted the most current edition or the newest supplement.

Adopting Handbook 133 as our national standard will even out the marketplace for industries in all 50 states. It also will help to ensure that packagers from state to state are using the same rules for compliance in packaging.

Adopting this rule and the inspection procedures laid out in Handbook 1 33 takes us a step closer toward equity in the marketplace.

It also assists in leveling the competitive playing field for industry. This is of utmost importance as it will codify inspection

procedures for all packaged foods in the United States.

Industry will be sure that from state to state, its products will be assessed by inspectors using the same procedures with the same

training and education offered through NIST's Office of Weights and Measures. Consumers will have assurance that inspectors

are using the most technically accurate and up-to-date methods for determining net content.

13
President's Address

A consistent approach to the inspection of packaged goods will better position the United States to modify the procedures, if necessary, to stimulate the export of U.S. made products.

Milk Example

Let me give you an example ofhow Handbook 1 33 is being used to level the playing field in the dairy industry. A new federal/state study of short-filling of milk, other dairy products and juice found that over 40 percent of the groups of packages inspected

contained less product than stated on their labels ~ between 1 and 6 percent less.

This study, coordinated by the Federal Trade Commission, the NIST Office of Weights and Measures, the U.S. Department of

Agriculture, and the Food and Drug Administration, was carried out by weights and measures personnel in 20 states chosen for broad geographic distribution. This study could not have been accomplished without this exemplary cooperation among the states and federal agencies.

A detailed report, "Milk: Does it Measure Up?" covers the study findings as well as steps already underway to prevent short-filling

of milk and juice containers. State inspectors checked 1,638 lots of milk, other dairy products and juice in dairies, packaging

plants, retailers, universities, schools and hospitals.

Just over 40 percent ofthe lots were rejected based on the inspection criteria. Results varied widely from state to state, dairy to dairy and even among carton sizes. The report concludes that "inadequate quality control in the packaging plants and a lack of

strict oversight by manufacturers and distributors is the cause of many short-filling problems."

This study also points to the need for a uniform national standard for inspecting net contents. When the study results were released, one dairy in one state expressed concern about whether it failed based on the larger of its labeled net contents given in milliliters and ounces. The dairy in question had apparently misinterpreted labeling requirements and labeled with a higher metric volume

than the equivalent fluid ounces. While the dairy's lots failed based on either the metric or English net content, industry and

weights and measures officials would all benefit by having a uniform national inspection procedure.

As a result ofthe milk study, the NIST Office of Weights and Measures will provide training for dairy industry representatives

in several locations around the United States in the coming months. We already have strong public statements fi-om the dairy

industry pledging that they are committed to solving this problem, and that's a welcome response for consumers, weights and

measures officials, and competitors alike. This study should serve both as an incentive and a warning sign that we need to pay more attention to weights and measures in all parts of our community.

Weights and measures work is important to consumers to maintain confidence in an efficient system ofcommerce. It is important

to companies to assure that their competitors play by the same rules they do. This story drives home the point that what you are doing is critically important to the economy.

Training

Another important aspect to this story is that we are trying to eliminate any future problems through training.

Training to address a specific problem, such as under-filling of milk, is just one ofthe training and education services offered by

NIST's Office of Weights and Measures. NIST and the National Conference on Weights and Measures began the Instructor Training Program in 1995. Without this training, national studies, such as the milk survey, would not be possible.

To date, the Office of Weights and Measures has held 24 Instructor Training Schools for weights and measures officials and

industry combined on NIST Handbook 133 "Checking the Net Content of Packaged Goods" and other topics.

The students trained in these courses agreed to implement Handbook 133 in their field inspection activities, to train other weights

and measures inspectors within their states, and to serve as trainers for Office of Weights and Measures courses in other regions

of the country. From the core of 40 students who completed Handbook 133 instructor training in 1995, more than 1,200 other

officials have been trained.

I would like to emphasize just what an important link these trained weights and measures officials are in our efforts to work

together for equity in the marketplace. Consumers in each state rely on them. Industry in each state relies on them. Fair and

equitable trade across the entire country rests on their shoulders.

14
President's Address

Just as a baseball game requires an umpire, trade requires weights and measures officials. Thus, weights and measures officials must be people ofrecognized integrity and people ofrecognized competence. Education at the state and national level are availaible to strengthen this link.

We have made training a top priority for NIST. It enables us to be a leader in solving equity problems quickly. It enables us to participate in national surveys in a potential problem area, rather than seeing only isolated symptoms of a problem in a single

geographic area.

National Studies and National Database

The milk study was the fourth which we ~ that is, NIST and the states — have conducted in response to marketplace equity

problems that have been called to our attention. Last fall the Federal Trade Commission released ourjoint price verification report on electronic scanner accuracy. We've also addressed equity in net content labeling in mulch and ketchup.

In each ofthese cases, we responded to problems or concerns presented to us by industry, by consumers and by the media. I would

like to propose a new mode, a pro-active mode, for alerting us to potential maricetplace equity problems. A nationally-accessible

database of weights and measures inspections would be a new and improved way to do our jobs. A database like that could

potentially flag a problem with a particular commodity early on.

Here's how it would work. The database could be maintained by the National Conference on Weights and Measures or the NIST

Office of Weights and Measures. All states would be welcome to participate and participation would be completely voluntary,

The database would keep records of inspection results for various products by state. The database also would include routines for randomly selecting products or devices for inspection. For example, if inspectors in Kansas found problems with short-weighting

of beans, they would enter their findings in the database. Other states then could be asked to conduct inspections. If a widespread

problem is uncovered, it could be addressed with a coordinated effort and fixed rapidly.

The database could help us further our pursuit of equity by stimulating the conduct of inspections on a truly random basis. It could

help us to identify and correct problems swiftly. This is important since those who are properly filling their packages suffer an

unfair disadvantage when others short-weight theirs. The database would improve the effectiveness of weights and measures

insp>ection programs as inspectors across the country could rapidly share information, and it could save considerable resources

that could be put to use improving other aspects of the weights and measures system.

As I mentioned before, we need to take advantage of Internet capabilities. The potential for augmenting training by up-to-date

information and individualized distance learning is tremendous. Improved information technology could stimulate national and

regional cooperation that will make our local efforts better focused and more effective.

Equipment Loan Program

The success of our Instructor Training Schools has called to our attention another problem that we would like to help solve. There

is a shortage or total lack of basic equipment and standards in many jurisdictions.

To address this need, the Office of Weights and Measures is sponsoring an equipment loan program. Glassware, thermometers

and weight kits, for example, are available on a limited basis. You are eligible to receive equipment or standards ifyou or someone

fi-om your jurisdiction has attended the appropriate Instructor Training School.

Our approach is based on the assumption that if we lend you the tools you need, you can demonstrate the benefit to your

jurisdiction. This should allow you to purchase the equipment that you need to do your jobs.

I regret that we do not have enough equipment for everyone. Equipment will be lent on a first come/most needed basis. Ifthe need

is greater than we anticipate, the Office of Weights and Measures will make every effort to obtain additional standards. All we ask

is that you maintain the equipment and standards in proper working condition.

1525 Agreement

Another matter I'd like to call to your attention is the so-called "1 525 Agreement" which will clarify and formalize the relationship

between NIST and the National Conference on Weights and Measures.

15
President's Address

Under paragraph 1 525 of Title 1 5 of the U.S. Code, the Commerce Department, of which NIST is a part, has authority to enter

into agreements with nonprofit organizations to carry out programs of mutual benefit.

In a strategic planning meeting in June, National Conference of Weights and Measures officers decided to go forward with a memorandum of understanding between the NCWM and NIST. Historically, no such agreement has existed since NCWM was

formed in 1905. The agreement will acknowledge the relationship between NIST and the NCWM. This agreement won't improve

the technical quality of what we do together. It will, however, tidy up a detail which was heretofore, overlooked.

Conclusion

I said earlier that it's hard to get the general public's attention for weights and measures matters unless you can give them an example that hits home ~ and often that means something that hits them in their wallets or pocketbooks. I want to encourage each

ofyou to carry some basic figures around with you in vour wallets and pocketbooks, and to use these figures as frequently as you

can.

Weights and measures regulations involve a large segment of our economy ~ a huge segment, in fact. Last year, weights and measures regulations impacted on transactions of more than $4.13 trillion, or 54.5 percent of the $7.57 trillion U.S. Gross Domestic Product. That's plenty of reason for everyone to take the weights and measures function more seriously, and to give

it the support that is so sorely needed.

Let me end by commending you for setting high goals and for doing good work. During the discussions with the Senate staff on

the milk short-filling issue, the Federal Trade Commission representative called the state weights and measures officials the "unsung heros offair trade." American industry and consumers owe you a debt ofgratitude for your continued diligence in working

together for equity.

I also want to extend my thanks and congratulations to those ofyou from industry who are working hard to deal with weights and measures issues every day ~ and to urge you to work even harder to improve our system.

Thank you.

16
Chairman's Address

Chairman's Address to the 82nd Annual Meeting 1997

Presented by Barbara J. Bloch, Assistant Director

California Division of Measurement Standards

Honored guests, fellow members, friends, it is my pleasure to welcome you to the 82nd Annual National Conference on Weights

and Measures.

First of all, let me say what an honor and a privilege it is to represent the National Conference as Chairman. I have had a tremendous year, due to the great support I've had from so many of you. 1 really believe the Conference is a world class organiiation, and what makes it so is the quality and professionalism of the membership. We have all the necessary ingredients; the commitment of our industry partners and the weights and measures community; and the support and assistance of NIST and

OWM. We have had great success in our partnership between industry and the weights and measures community, which could

serve as a model to many organizations. Sometimes the process gets a little rocky, but we seem to be able to put the welfzire of

the Conference ahead of any personal agendas. 1 am very proud to be associated with the National Conference on Weights and

Measures. We have had many issues before us this year, and have been faced with some difficult decisions with respect to resource

allocations. As with any organization that has limited fiinds and multiple projects, it is never easy to set priorities. More than two

years ago, Dave Edgerly ofNIST, came to the Executive Committee and not only recommended, but supplied the initial funding,

for the development ofa strategic plan to guide Conference decisions. In looking back now, that may be one ofthe most important

recommendations we have ever received. We believe that planning for the fiiture is our most important task and in restarting our

strategic planning efforts, we've made a significant commitment towards that goal. We've taken every possible opportunity this year to earnestly work on our plan, and met as recently as last Saturday. There are no shortcuts to strategic planning, but without

this effort, we will just continue to drift along, dealing with the immediate issues, but not charting a course to deal effectively with our future.

I've been extremely fortunate to have the support of such a great Executive Committee~we have really worked as a team, and I believe, accomplished a lot this year. Much of the credit goes to Alan Rogers, our Treasurer, who has taken the initiative to implement many of the business decisions we've made.

To give you an update on our strategic planning efforts: to date we've published a draft of the mission, vision, values and goals

for comments; and have identified 12 major objectives under those goals. Work groups have been established on several of the

objectives, and we are focusing on three major areas to establish models for the other groups to follow.

We've also been aided in our process by Measurement Canada, who under Alan Johnston's direction are fiilly committed to their strategic planning project. While their weights and measures structure is different from ours, they have produced some model

documents that we are looking at closely. We also had the opportunity to send Aves Thompson to one oftheir planning meetings

which he found very valuable.

Some of the recent developments from our strategic planning efforts are:

Retained an attorney to represent the Conference and to advise and assist us in several areas:

* exploring incorporation of the Conference to provide more structure and to minimize personal liability of members;

* securing critical liability insurance; something we haven't had in the past

* developing a memorandum of understanding between NIST/OWM and the Conference that more clearly defines our roles

* researching employee contracts for the future if the Conference becomes an employer

** Enhanced the business aspects of the Conference by:

* establishing a line of credit for purchasing

* acquiring credit card acceptance for registrations, and for ordering handbooks

17
Chairman's Address

* certifying the NTEP logo to provide for its continued use

* working with the Regionals to be able to accept dues from members for one or all Regionals along with Conference membership

* developing an Internet Homepage in conjunction with OWM

* with Gil's help, looking at copyrighting the Handbooks

** Other areas of activity:

* Expanding the training efforts-again NIST has played a major role in providing "train the trainer" classes, which have been

outstanding. We extend our thanks to Gil for his efforts. There are several classes still planned, and the Conference has additional grant funds which will be used for training that the A«&P Committee is managing.

* Supporting the work ofthe Program Evaluation Work Group, which had planned to pilot a data management project for package

inspection and retail motor fuel dispensers. Many of us see this as a high priority, but the necessary resource commitment must

be part of our long range planning decisions.

* Recognizing the work of the FDA for its proposal to adopt regulations consistent with Handbook 133— I believe that the Conference has made a significant step forward towards one uniform national standard through this proposal. We've waited a

long time for this, and without the work that Ken Butcher has done in developing the proposal with FDA, it would not have been

accomplished. I know we have some differences, particularly in the tare procedures, but hope we can work through those and

support the basic proposal.

I owe many thank you's—to Darrell and Lynne Guensler, who's support over the years has been unflagging.

To our California staff, who have handled my responsibilities during the many weeks I've been traveling.

To Steve Malone, who has been great to work with—and I know the Conference is in great hands for the next two years with Steve and Aves Thompson. I know you will give them the same level of support you've provided to me.

To Gil Ugiansky and his fine staff—the technical support you provide makes the Conference effective; we could not make the progress we do without you.

To our friends and associates in the Central Region; Sid Colbrook and his Illinois State staff; and Caroline Shoenberger and her City of Chicago staff, who have been such gracious hosts and helped to make this meeting such a success.

To our Associate members, who provide the balance we need to develop reasonable requirements we can all live with; and of

course to the regulatory community who have made such a strong commitment to national uniformity.

To all the members ofthe various Committees and working groups for their hard work. I know first hand how difficult it is to juggle jurisdictional workloads with Conference business, so I greatly appreciate these extra efforts.

And last but not at all least—to our neighbors to the north; our Canadian colleagues, who contribute so much to this Conference

and have been so willing to share information with us.

In closing, I just want you to know how much your confidence and trust has meant to me this year—thank you.

18
Honor Awards

HONOR AWARDS

10 YEARS

Charles A. Bums, Jr. Tina Butcher

Victor Gerber

Richard Greek

Michael Grenier

Ronald Hayes

David Heck

Jack Jefferies Mark Joelson

Ted F. Johnson

Gerry Jorowski

Patrick Marino

Stan Millay

Edwin Price

J. Alan Rogers

Ed Romano

Louis Straub

15 YEARS

Wes Diggs

L. F. Eason

Vernon Massey

Steve McGuire

Dennis Schaffer

20 YEARS

Harold Bradshaw John Pugh

Mike Belue Robert Williams

Ann Turner

Special Recognition Awards

The success of this Conference is the result of the dedication and hard work of many individual members. The work of the following members was recognized at the general session for their contributions over the past years within their respective

committees and for their contributions to the National Conference in general.

Executive Committee

Bruce Adams, State of Minnesota

Charles Carroll, State of Massachusetts

Laws and Regulations Committee

Stan Millay, State of Maine

Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Allan Nelson, State of Connecticut

Administration and Public Affairs Committee

Ed Price, State of Texas

Vice-Chairmen

Michael Pinagel, State of Michigan

Lou Straub, State of Maryland

Aves Thompson, State of Alaska

Courtney Yelle, Bucks County, Pennsylvania

19
Honor Awards

Sergeants-at-Arms

Dan Downing, City of Chicago, IL Paul King, City of Chicago, IL

Metrology Subcommittee

Richard Calkins, Rice Lake Weighing Systems

Special Service Awards

Dave Edgeriy, NIST

Otto Warnlof, NIST

Associate Membership Committee

The associate members have contributed immeasurably to the many achievements of the Conference, most notably the development and widespread acceptance of the National Type Evaluation Program, the National Training Program, and

Handbooks 44, 130, and 133. Today, we have even more involvement with our business partners in such activities as the Type Evaluation Technical Committee Sectors, Handbook 133 Working Group, Petroleum Subcommittee, and

MuhipleDimension Measuring Devices Working Group. A Certificate of Appreciation was presented to the Associate

Membership from the NCWM.

Annual Committees

Budget Review Committee

Darrell Guensler, State of California

Auditing Committee

Monty Hopper, Kern County, California

Credentials Committee

Comes Insalaca, Fresno County, California

Angelique McCoy, State of Ohio

Nominating Committee

Charles Gardner, Suffolk County, New York

Sidney Colbrook, State of Illinois Thomas Geiler, Barnstable County, MA

Darrell Guensler, State of California

Allan Nelson, State of Connecticut N. David Smith, State of North Carolina

James Truex, State of Ohio

Resolutions Committee

Cathryn Pittman, State of Tennesse David Wallace, State of Colorado

President's Award

This was the twelfth annual presentation of the President's Award. This award is given for two levels of achievement:

1) A banner presented to those directors representing States that have 100 percent membership, both State and local weights and measures officials, in the National Conference on Weights and Measures for the first time in the

20
Honor Awards

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

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

Awards For First Year Banner

The State of Louisiana received a banner for first year membership of all State weights and measures officials.

Streamer Awards for the Second Year

The State of Texas

Streamer Awards for the Fourth Year

The State of Nevada

The State of Tennessee -

Streamer Awards For The Fifth Year

The Territory of The Virgin Islands The State of West Virginia

Streamer Awards For The Sixth Year

The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico

Streamer Awards for the Seventh Year

The State of Colorado

Streamer Awards for the Eighth Year

The State of Montana

The State of Oregon

The State of Utah

The State of Vermont

The State of Wyoming

Streamer Awards For The Ninth Year

The State of Arizona

The State of Michigan

The State of New Hampshire

Streamer Awards for the Eleventh Year

The State of Alaska

The State of Delaware

The State of Idaho

The State of Kansas The State of New Mexico

The State of South Dakota

Streamer Awards for the Twelfth Year

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

The State of Arkansas

and

The State of Nebraska

21
Honor Awards

President's Certificate

Eight States qualified for the President's Certificate with 100 percent of their State office staff members for the 1996-97

Conference year:

Third Year Award

State of Missouri

Fourth Year Award

State of Connecticut

Fifth Year Award

State of Massachusetts

Sixth Year Awards

State of Illinois State of Indiana

Eighth Year Awards

State of Maine

State of New York

State of Wisconsin

22
Executive Committee

Report of the Executive Committee and

National Type Evaluation Program Board of Governors

Barbara J. Bloch, Chairman

Director

California Division of Measurement Standards

Charles A. Gardner, Chairman of the NTEP Board of Governors

Director, Weights and Measures

Suffolk Co., NY

100 Introduction

This is the Report ofthe Executive Committee and the National Type Evaluation Program (NTEP) Board of Governors for the 82nd Annual Meeting ofthe National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM). The Report is based on the Interim Report

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

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

The Report is divided into two parts: (1) management of the National Conference on Weights and Measures (items in the 101

Series) and (2) management ofNTEP (items in the 102 Series), as addressed by the Committee in its role as the NTEP Board of

Governors. Table A, which is an index ofreference key items included in the report, lists the reference key number, title, and page number for each item. Voting items are indicated with a "V" after the item number. An "1" denotes issues that are reported for information. Items marked with a "W" have been withdrawn. Table B lists the Appendices to the report, and Table C provides

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

Table A

Index to Reference Key Items

Reference

Key No. Title of Item Page

Part I - Executive Committee 25

101-1 I Constitution and Bylaws: Strategic Planning 25

101-2A I Constitution and Bylaws: Revision 26

101-2B I Constitution and Bylaws: Revision, Addition of Policy Section 27

101-3 I Associate Membership Committee Bylaws 27

101-4 I Finances, Treasurer's Report 27

101-5 I Finances, Auditing Committee 27

101-6 I Finances, Associate Membership Committee 27

101-7 I Organization, Appointments, and Assignments, Status Report 28

101-8 I Organization, Establishment of an Internet Home Page Subcommittee 29

101-9 I Publications, Status Report 29

101-10 I Membership, Status Report 32

101-11 1 Meetings, Networking with Other Associations 32

n)l-12 I Meetings, Annual and Interim, Future 33

101-13 W Meetings, Elimination of Conference Outing 33

101-14 I Program, OWM and NIST 34

101-15 I Program, International Organization of Legal Metrology 34

101-16 I U.S. - Canada Mutual Recognition of Type Evaluation Program Report 37

23
Executive Committee

Table A (Continued)

Index to Reference Key Items

Reference

Key No. Title of Item Page

101-17 I Strategic Planning in Canada 39

101- 18 I Metrology Subcommittee Report 39

Part II - NTEP Board of Governors 39

102- 1 I OIML Certificate Project 39

102-2 I Test Data Exchange Agreements (formerly called "Mutual Recognition") 41

102-3 I Adoption of Uniform Regulation for National Type Evaluation by the States 42

102-4 I NTEP Policy: Separate CCs for Software 44

102-5 I NTEP Participating Laboratories and Evaluations Report 45

102-6 I NTETC Weighing, Measuring, and Belt-Conveyor Scale Sector Reports 45

102-7 I NTETC Grain Moisture Meter and Near-Infrared Protein Analyzer Sector Reports 46

102-8 V Certificate of Conformance Status: New Definition for "Effective" and Modifications to the Definitions for "Active" and "Inactive" 46

Table B

Appendices

Appendix Title Reference Key No. Page

A Strategic Planning Goals, Ojectives, and Work Groups 101-1 49

B Proposed Changes to the NCWM Constitution and

Bylaws 101 -2A 51 C Proposed New Section on Policies for the NCWM

Constitution and Bylaws 101-2B 67

D Bylaws of the Associate Membership Committee 101-3 75

E Composition ofthe NCWM Mailing List 101-10 79

F Report on OIML 101-15 81 G Summary APLMF/OIML Meeting Report 101-15 87

H Measurement Canada Presentation to the NCWM 101-17 91

I Metrology Subcommittee Reports for January

and July 1997 101-18 97

J NTEP Participating Laboratories Report 102-5 104

K NTETC Weighing Sector Meeting Summary 102-6 105

L NTETC Measuring Sector Meeting Summary 102-6 121 M NTETC Grain Moisture Sector Meeting Summary 102-7 139

N NTETC Near-Infrared Grain Analyzer Meter

Sector Meeting Summary 102-7 147

O NCWM Budget for FY 1998 101-4 183

24
Executive Committee

Table C

Voting Results

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

Yes No Yes No

Executive Committee 43 0

(Report in its Entirety)

102-8 42 0

NTEP Board of Governors 42 0

(BOG Report in its Entirety)

65 0 Passed

62 0 Passed

59 0 Passed

Detail of Items

Part I - Executive Committee

101-1 I Constitution and Bylaws: Strategic Planning

This item was carried over from Item 101-4 of the Report of the 80th NCWM, 1995, and Item 101-2 of the Report of the 81st NCWM, 1996. See those reports for background information.

As part of its ongoing effort to develop and maintain a strategic plan for the NCWM, the Executive Committee and the Strategic

Planning Subcommittee held a special planning meeting October 6 to 8, 1996, in Gaithersburg, MD. During the meeting, the

vision, values, mission, and goals statements were revised as follows:

Vision

The National Conference on Weights and Measures will be the national and international leader in measurement standards development and legal metrology training. The Conference will be the focus

for the collection, retrieval, and dissemination of information related to weights and measures.

Values

The National Conference on Weights and Measures is dedicated to a fair and equitable marketplace

free from trade barriers and is committed to maintaining the highest ethical standards. The National

Conference on Weights and Measures stands for leadership in weights and measures issues, quality

service to its members, and quality weights and measures education. The Conference is dedicated to providing a forum for all points of view and to ensuring open communications.

Mission

The National Conference on Weights and Measures is a measurement standards development

organization comprised of individuals and associations representing government, industry, and

consumer interests. The Conference provides a forum to promote a fair and equitable marketplace for anyone involved in buying and selling goods or services by weight, measure, or count.

25
Executive Committee

Goals

I. Enhance the National Conference on Weights and Measures as a national and international resource for measurement standards development.

II. Provide uniform training programs for industry and government individuals involved in legal

metrology.

III. Continue to develop new or alternative methods for improved delivery of weights and

measures programs.

IV. Continue to expand the Conference role in national and international legal metrology.

The meeting participants also began developing a list of objectives for meeting the goals.

Just prior to the 1997 NCWM Interim Meeting, another planning meeting was held to further discuss the objectives, begin

developing model work plans and form working groups to develop action plans for meeting the objectives. The planning process continued throughout the week ofthe Interim Meeting. Comments received on the vision, values, mission, or goals statements were reviewed and new working groups were formed. The resulting list of objectives and the working groups that have been

formed to date are shown in Appendix A.

At the 1 997 Annual Meeting, the Mission Statement was further revised to include a reference to uniformity (the underlined words were added):

Mission

The National Conference on Weights and Measures is a measurement standards development organization comprised

of individuals and associations representing government, industry, and consumer interests. The Conference provides

a forum to promote uniformity in weights and measures laws, standards, and practices and to foster a fair and equitable

marketplace for anyone involved in buying and selling goods or services by weight, measure, or count.

101-2A I Constitution and Bylaws: Revision

This item was carried over from Item 101-5 of the Report of the 80th NCWM, 1995, and Item 101-3 of the Report of the 81st NCWM, 1996.

In 1 995, some ofthe members ofthe Executive Committee expressed concern that the NCWM Constitution and Bylaws (NCWM

Publication 1) did not contain all of the policies for managing the Conference that had been adopted by the membership. The

Committee's Technical Advisor was asked to do a search of the Reports of the Conference over the preceding 10-year period to

identify policies related to the management ofthe NCWM that had been adopted by the Conference but had not been incorporated

in Publication 1

The policies found by the Technical Advisor were compiled into a proposed new section of Publication 1 and presented to the Committee for consideration at the 1996 Interim Meeting. Some of the policies had been reprinted in NCWM Publication 3, NCWM Policy, Interpretations, and Guidelines, but others had only been published in the Conference reports. During the review

of the proposed addition. Committee members pointed out other changes that were needed to Publication 1 ; consequently, the Committee's Technical Advisor was asked to prepare a comprehensive revision of Publication 1 that would bring the document

up to date and include the changes noted by the Committee.

At the 1997 Interim Meeting, the draft revision was reviewed and modified. The Committee decided to split Item 101-2 into two

parts: 101-2A on the proposed changes to the existing Constitution and Bylaws and 101 -2B on the proposed new policy section and to publish both parts for comment. The proposed changes to the existing Constitution and Bylaws and the rationale for the changes are contained in Appendix B.

As part ofthe Strategic Planning process, the Committee plans to look at the composition and terms ofthe Executive Committee

and the Board of Governors. Additional changes may be proposed as a result of that review.

26
Executive Committee

101-2B I Constitution and Bylaws: Revision, Addition of Policy Section

See Item 101-2A above for background information. The Committee is planning to add a new section to the Constitution and

Bylaws that would contain selected policies related to the management ofthe NCWM that have been adopted by the Conference.

A draft of the proposed new section is provided in Appendix C for comment.

101-3 I Associate Membership Committee Bylaws

The Associate Membership Committee (AMC) ofthe NCWM is a committee organized to represent the interests ofthe associate membership of the NCWM pursuant to the Constitution (Article V, Section 2) and Bylaws (Article V, Sections ID and 5K) of

the NCWM (NCWM Publication 1). In the Report ofthe 63rd National Conference on Weights and Measures (1978), a proposed

Charter defining the flinction ofthe AMC was included for informational purposes. In recognition of changes within the NCWM,

as well as with the role ofthe associate membership, the AMC determined that its existing Charter should be reviewed and, where

necessary, revised. A draft of proposed Bylaws was published in the Agenda for the Interim Meeting. Minor changes to the Bylaws were made at the Interim Meeting.

At the 1997 Annual Meeting, the Associate Membership Committee made additional changes to its Bylaws and then approved

the document. The revised Bylaws, which replace the existing Charter, are attached to this report as Appendix D.

101-4 I Finances, Treasurer's Report

NCWM Treasurer J. Alan Rogers presented a report on the Conference's finances to the Executive Committee at the Interim

Meeting. (For more information, see: 1) the separate Treasurer's Report in this publication for the Fiscal Year 1996 Report and

2) the Report of the 81st NCWM 1996 for the 1997 NCWM and NTEP budgets.)

Mr. Rogers raised a question about the status ofthe ftinds collected from industry for participation in the metrology seminarsjointly

sponsored by NIST and NCWM. He suggested that guidelines are needed regarding who determines how the money is spent and

how the fiinds should be entered in the NCWM accounting system. The Executive Committee will ask Budget Review Committee

members to develop recommendations concerning the metrology funds at their meeting in June 1997.

At the Annual Meeting, the Executive Committee reviewed recommendations made by the Budget Review Committee regarding

the 1998 budget. The Committee adopted the BRC's recommendation to increase the registration fees for the Annual Meeting

by $50 beginning in July 1998; as a result, the registration fee for members will increase to $200. The fee was increased to ensure

that the registration fees would fiilly cover the costs of the meeting. The Committee also adopted a recommendation to establish a $25 registration fee for first-time weights and measures attendees of the NCWM Annual and Interim Meetings from the host region to help offset the costs of the meetings. The Executive Committee reduced the BRC's proposed budget for NTEP by

$10,000. A copy of the 1998 budget adopted by the Executive Committee is attached to this Report as Appendix O.

101-5 I Finances, Auditing Committee

The actual income and expenses for 1 996 were reviewed by the Auditing Committee at the Interim Meeting. Auditing Committee

Chairman Monty Hopper reported that the Conference's books were in good order. (See the Auditing Committee's report.)

Mr. Hopper recommended that the Executive Committee consider getting an independent audit ofthe Conference's books because

it has been about 10 years since the last one. Questions were raised about the cost of an audit, the recommended frequency of

such audits, and the form they should take (e.g., written or oral or both). The Committee asked the Strategic Planning Work Group

concerned with developing the NCWM business plan to take up the issue of getting an independent audit of the Conference's

finances and make recommendations to the Executive Committee.

At the Annual Meeting, the Executive Committee agreed to obtain an independent audit of the Conference's finances. The

Conference Treasurer was asked to make arrangements for the audit by July 1998.

101-6 I Finances, Associate Membership Committee

A status report was given by AMC Chairman Richard L. Davis. He said that the AMC is committed to using its excess ftinds to support Conference objectives. Recently the fiinding has been used to provide grants for field inspector training and public

27
Executive Committee

relations training. (See the Administration and Public Affairs Committee report for the status of the AMC grants awarded in 1996/1997.) Mr. Davis said the AMC would appreciate suggestions from the NCWM membership on innovative ways in which

the excess AMC money could be used.

The AMC reported at the 1 997 Annual Meeting that, for the time period between August 1 , 1 997, and July 31,1 998, it will again

be happy to provide a total of 52 $500 scholarships to be administered by the A&P Committee for field inspector training. From

that total, the AMC instructs the A&P Committee to allow one $500 scholarship for each regional weights and measures

association for the purpose of publishing their newsletter if they issue a request for this purpose.

101-7 I Organization, Appointments, and Assignments, Status Report

The following is a summary of Chairman Bloch's appointments as of the 1997 Interim Meeting:

To the Executive Committee:

Aves Thompson, AK, 3 years (replacing Sharon

Rhoades, AZ)

To the Metrology Subcommittee:

Steve McGuire, IL (replacing Jim Akey, WI)

To the Laws and Regulations Committee:

Robert Williams, TN, 5 years

Claire Regan, Grocery Manufacturers of America,

Associate Member Representative

To the Specifications and Tolerances Committee:

George Shefcheck, OR, 5 years

To the Administration and Public Affairs Committee:

Richard Philmon, IL, 5 years

To the Nominating Committee:

Sidney Colbrook, IL, 1 year Thomas Geiler, Barnstable, MA, 1 year

Darrell Guensler, CA, 1 year Allan Nelson, CT, 1 year N. David Smith, NC, 1 year James Truex, OH, 1 year

To the Budget Review Committee:

William Corey, American Frozen Foods, 4 years

To the NTETC Weighing Sector: John Hughes, Weigh-Tronix, Inc. Larry Turberville, AL (public sector rep.)

Charles Carter, OK (public sector rep.)

George Shefcheck, OR (public sector rep.)

Richard Suiter, NE (public sector rep.)

To the NTETC Belt Conveyor Sector: Tom Vormittag, Sr., Commercial Testing &

Engineering Co.

To the NTETC Grain Moisture Meter and Near-Infrared Protein

Analyzer Sectors: John Miller, CSC Scientific Company, Inc.

Chaplain: J. Michael Hile, AR, 1 year

Assistant Treasurer: Fred Clem, Columbus, OH, 1 year

Four public sector representatives (see the list above) were added to the NTETC Weighing Sector at the request of the Sector's Technical Advisor to improve the balance between public and private sector interests.

At the Interim Meeting, the Chairman also established a number of Work Groups to assist in the Executive Committee's Strategic

Planning Effort. See Appendix A for a list of the Work Groups established and the individuals appointed to serve on them.

Between the Interim and the Annual Meetings, Chairman Bloch made the following appointments:

To the Handbook 133 Working Group:

Dennis Johannes, CA (replacing Aves Thompson)

To the Petroleum Subcommittee:

Bob Dinneen, Renewable Fuels Association

Marilyn Herman, Herman & Associates

To the Budget Review Committee:

Harvey Lodge, Cargotec, Inc. (replacing David

English)

Sergeants-At-Arms:

Dan Downing, City of Chicago, IL

Paul King, City of Chicago, IL

To the NTETC Weighing Sector: David Hawkins, Fancor, Inc. (replacing Michael

Adams)

To the NTETC Grain Moisture Meter/Near-Infi^ed Protein Analyzer Sectors: Tim Conwell, CSC Scientific Company, Inc.

28
Executive Committee

Martin J. Clements, The Steinlite Corporation

Cassie Eigenmann, DICKEY-john Corp.

Keith Locklin, Grain Elevator & Processing Soc. Raymond Oberg, Zeltex, Inc. Clifford Watson, Consultant

Hiro Yamahira, Kett Electric Laboratory

Additionally, the Metrology Subcommittee is being restructured to include public member representation only, continuing with an open meeting format to encourage all interested industry members to participate.

101-8 I Organization, Establishment of an Internet Home Page Subcommittee

The Southern Weights and Measures Association (SWMA) proposed that the NCWM Executive Committee appoint a subcommittee, with representatives from all regions, to study the feasibility of establishing an Internet Home Page that would be

owned and operated by the NCWM. SWMA suggested that the subcommittee could formulate the content ofthe Home Page and

develop a plan for establishing and maintaining it.

SWMA'sjustification for the proposal was that the current Home Page used by the NCWM, which is operated by NIST, is limited

in scope due to personnel limitations md Federal access guidelines. They believe the Home Page should contain, for example,

all NIST Handbooks adopted by the NCWM, Conference Reports, NTEP Certificates of Conformance, and Annual Meeting

agendas. In addition, they would like each regional weights and measures association to use and maintain a sub-Home Page, which

would reflect the activities of that association.

The Committee decided that, instead of appointing a separate subcommittee to address this issue, it would ask the Strategic

Planning Work Group concerned with developing a plan for improving information dissemination to look into the feasibility of

developing an NCWM Internet Home Page. The Committee also authorized the Treasurer to: 1) make arrangements for the NCWM to begin processing credit cards and 2) proceed with domain name registration to establish the NCWM on the Internet. The acceptance of credit cards is seen as a first step toward eventually selling NCWM memberships and publications over the

Internet. Domain name registration would allow the Conference to reserve a specific domain name (e.g., "www.NCWM.org")

for possible use in the future.

At the strategic planning meeting held in June 1997, Conference officers accepted an offer from the NIST Office of Weights and Measures (OWM) to establish an NCWM Home Page on the Internet server at NIST. The Internet address for the Home Page

is: http://www.nist.gov/ncwm; the Home Page currently contains an introductory graphic that was provided by OWM and

information on the NCWMthat was included on the OWM Home Page. Karl Angell, WV, has volunteered to plan and implement

the Home Page. The Executive Committee has asked the Administration and Public Affairs Committee to work with Mr. Angell on this project.

101-9 I Publications, Status Report

The NIST Office of Weights and Measures (OWM) reported to the Committee on the status of NIST and NCWM publications

and provided a summary of the distribution level and costs of the publications. OWM noted that Handbook 44, Specifications,

Tolerances, and Other Technical Requirements for Weighing and Measuring Devices, and Handbook 130, Uniform Laws and

Regulations, had been completed along with the Report of the 81st NCWM, 1996.

At the 1997 Annual Meeting, OWM distributed an updated summary ofthe distribution level, income, and costs of selected NIST

and NCWM publications as of June 30, 1997, and a revised publication calendar for Fiscal Year 1997 (see the Publications Cost

Estimates table and Publications Calendar on the next two pages).

29
Executive Committee

1997 NIST and NCWM Publication Summary

(As of June 30, 1997)

NIST Publications

NIST

Publication Title

Quantity Total Printing Costs Total Postage

(NIST)

Total Printing

& Postage

Handbook 44 1996 edition 3,500 $9,000.00 $6,090.00 $15,090.00

SP 906 Report of 80th NCWM 5,225 11,000.00 6,950.00 17,950.00

Handbook 130 1996 edition 3,500 6,900.00 5,355.00 12,255.00

Totals (All NIST Expense) 12,225 $26,900.00 $18,395.00 $45,295.00

NCWM Publications and Membership Mailing

(Printed at Conference Expense)

Publications Mailed at NIST Expense)

1997 Pub 2 Membership Directory 2,190 $9,500.00

(NCWM)

$3,810.00 $13,310.00

Pub 5 Index of Device Evaluations,

9th Edition 400 $3,410.00(NTEP)

612.00 4,011.00

Pub 15 Interim Agenda 3,355 3,976.00

(NCWM)

6,307.00

(First Class)

10,283.00

Pub 16 Program & Committee

Reports (Announcement Book)

3,500 7,800.00 5,075.00 12,875.00

Totals 9445 $21,276.00

(NCWM)

$3,410.00

(NTEP)

$15,804.00 $40,479. 00

1996-1997 NCWM Membership Renewals and Invitations to Join

Renewals and Invitations

(printing at NCWM expense

postage & mailing service paid

by NIST)

Quantity Printing

(NCWM)

Mailing

Service

(NIST)

Total Postage Total Printing,

Postage &

Mailing Service

Totals 17,200 $1,533.00 $524.00 $5,504.00 $7,561.00

Summary

Total Printing at NIST Expense Total Postage/Mailing Service at NIST Expense

NIST Grand Total (Postage and

Printing)

$26,900.00 $40,227.00 $67,127.00

Total NCWM Printing Costs NTEP

(Printing Only Applicable)

$22,809.00 $3,410.00

30
Executive Committee

Fiscal Year 1997 OWM Publications Calendar

Status as of 6/3 0/97

Month Publication Comments

October Report of the 81st NCWM

TT 11 1 A A 1 /\ Handbook 44 - 1997

Handbook 130- 1997

NCWM Pub 9 - Norn Comm Rpt

Completed

Completed

Completed

Just for Nominating Comm - Completed

November W&M Today Newsletter Contains information on

Interim Mtg. - Completed

December NCWM Pub 15 - Interim Agenda Completed

January NCWM Pub 5, 9th ed. NTEP CCs Completed

February W&M Today Newsletter Completed

May NCWM Pub 1 NCWM Bylaws

NCWM Pub 2 NCWM Directory

NCWM Pub 16 Prog & Comm Rpt

NCWM Pub ^ Sunn 1 NTFP CPs

W&M Today Newsletter

NCWM Pub 14 NTEP Admin.

No new edition was published

because there were no changes

to the document.

Completed

Completed

Completed

Completed

June NCWM Pub 10 Conduct of Annual Meeting

NTST HanHhnnk lOS-"? NIST Handbook 105-4

NIST Handbook 105-7

Handbook 143 State Lab Handbook Revision

Completed

Completed

Completed

Completed

July NIST Handbook 105-5

NISI Handbook 105-6

Going through the NIST

editorial review process. Oomg through the NIST

editorial review process.

August W&M Today Newsletter

NCWM Publication 21 Petroleum Safety Manual Revision

To contain Annual Mtg.

summaries.

September Module 24 Revision

NCWM Pub 5, Supp 2, NTEP CCs

31
Executive Committee

101-10 Membership, Status Report

The total membership of the NCWM as of January 1 , 1997, was 3,085, which is 8.4 percent less than the total at the same time

last year (3,371). Although 614 new members joined during the year (19.9% of the total), this is the second year in a row that overall membership has declined. The Committee asked OWM to obtain information on members who did not renew their memberships in 1996 from the NCWM database and analyze it to determine if any particular patterns are apparent.

As of June 30, 1997, the total membership of the NCWM was 3,284. The total number of members is down from the previous year for the second year in a row. The membership breakdown by category is as follows:

State County

City

U.S. Industry

964 (29%)

380 (12%)

183 (6%)

1,594(49%)

Foreign Industry U.S. Government

Foreign Government

State/local, not w&m

45 (1%)

43 (1%)

35 (1%)

40 (1%)

OWM reported that its review ofthe individuals who did not renew their memberships indicated that industry membership is often

issue driven; that is, individuals join the NCWM to work on a particular issue and drop their memberships once the issue has been

resolved.

See Appendix E for a breakdown of the composition of the NCWM mailing list from 1995-1997.

101-11 I Meetings, Networking with Other Associations

Chairman Bloch reported on the numerous meetings that she and other NCWM officers had attended since taking office in July

1996, including regional weights and measures association meetings, industry association meetings, and international meetings.

The Committee reviewed the status of its efforts to assist the regional weights and measures associations in increasing their membership (see Item 101-11 in the Committee's report to the 8 1st NCWM for more information). Actions taken since the 1996

Interim Meeting include inviting the regional associations to set up displays at the 1996 Annual Meeting and requesting them to send association information to NIST/0WMfor distribution through the Weights and Measures Fax-Line. In addition, the NCWM

membership renewal forms were modified to include a box that could be used to request information on the regional associations; however, as ofthe 1997 Interim Meeting, only the Westem Weights and Measures Association (WWMA) had supplied all ofthe information needed to respond to these requests.

The Committee decided to take the following additional actions to help the regional groups during the next year :

- Invite the regional groups to set up displays at the Annual Meeting in Chicago.

- Make the WWMA's membership materials available to the other regions so that they can use them as a model to develop their own materials.

- Ask OWM to put the regional membership information in the:

1. NCWM Organization Chart

2. Conference meeting agendas

3. OWM Internet Home Page and the Weights and Measures Fax-Line

- Include a box to check for regional information on NCWM membership forms.

In the discussion of this item, several NCWM Associate Members mentioned that the cost of cutting checks these days is quite

high in relation to the cost of the individual regional membership fees. They stated that the cost savings resulting from being able

to pay for the NCWM membership and regional association membership at the same time with one check might encourage more

companies to join one or more regional associations. Consequently, the Committee asked the NCWM Treasurer to work with

OWM and representatives ofthe regional associations to develop a plan to collect fees for membership in the regional associations along with the NCWM membership fees.

During the 1 997 Interim Meeting, the Executive Committee met with each ofthe other NCWM Standing Committees to hear about

their major issues and any concerns they had. The meetings were felt to be helpful in keeping the lines of communication open

within the Conference.

At the Annual Meeting, it was reported that OWM had received membership materials from all four ofthe regional weights and

measures associations. The membership materials were added to the Weights and Measures Fax-Line, and a list of the

32
Executive Committee

membership contacts was added to the NCWM organizational chart and the NCWM newsletter; the materials will be added to the NCWM Home Page in the future.

According to the NCWM Treasurer, plans to enable members to pay regional weights and measures association dues at the same

time as NCWM dues with only one check are underway.

101-12 I Meetings, Annual and Interim, Future

1998 Interim Meeting

The 1998 Interim Meeting will be in San Antonio, TX, at the St. Anthony Hotel from January 11 to 15.

1998 Annual Meeting

The 1998 Annual Meeting will be in Portland, OR, at the Hilton Hotel from July 12 to 16.

1999 Interim Meeting

The Committee is considering going back to San Antonio for this meeting. The Conference Coordinator has been asked to also look at other possible locations in the South.

1999 Annual Meeting

Burlington, VT, has been selected as the site of this meeting.

Future Meetings

The year 2001 marks 100 years since the founding of the NCWM's parent organization, the National Institute of Standards and

Technology (NIST) in 1901 . NIST plans to celebrate its Centennial with special events throughout the year. In recognition of

NIST's Centennial, it was proposed that the NCWM's 86th Annual Meeting in 2001 be held in the Washington, DC, area and

that special commemorative activities be planned for that meeting to recognize NIST for its role in promoting uniformity in weights and measures laws, standards, and practices. The Executive Committee agreed with the proposal and selected the Washington, DC, area as the site for the NCWM's 86th Annual Meeting in 2001 . It is the intention of the Committee to adhere

to the following schedule for fiiture Annual Meetings ofthe Conference: 1999 - Northeast region; 2000 - Southern region; 2002-

Central region; 2003 - Western region.

The Committee is now considering sites for the Annual Meetings through 2003. The regional weights and measures associations have been asked to submit proposals for two or three sites (in priority order) for upcoming meetings in their areas.

Canada has volunteered to host a Conference meeting sometime in the fiiture. Although it may not be possible to hold an Annual

Meeting in Canada, the Executive Committee will explore the possibility of holding other smaller NCWM meetings in Canada.

The idea of holding the NCWM Interim Meeting later in January or early in February was discussed. When the meeting is scheduled in early January, the holiday season can make meeting preparations difficult; for example, it is harder to get Agenda

materials printed and delivered in a timely manner. Many people take leave during the holidays and may not be in their offices

to receive and review meeting materials or develop comments for the Standing Committees. Meetings held out of town are

particularly difficult to organize because materials and equipment must be shipped to the meeting site well in advance of the meeting. A change in date would give OWM staff, NCWM Officers and Standing Committee members, and Associate Members

more time to get ready for the meeting.

101-13 W Meetings, Elimination of Conference Outing

(This item was withdrawn.)

A member of the Central Weights and Measures Association proposed that the Executive Committee and the Associate

Membership Committee eliminate the Conference Outing at the NCWM Annual Meeting, which is jointly sponsored by industry

and the NCWM.

The proposal stated that the money spent on the outing could be used to support training and other high priority AMC/NCWM

projects. Last year, $18,554 was spent on the outing: $1 1,132 from Associate Membership funds and $7,421 from NCWM fiinds. The proposal said it was difficult to justify this type of cost for an outing, especially when some of the fimds come from industry

33
Executive Committee

dues. In addition, it was mentioned that an increase in NCWM dues is being discussed, and the individual making the proposal

felt that before any increases are implemented, consideration should be given to making better use of existing fijnds.

The proposal indicated that one of the reasons for an industry night (which later evolved into the joint outing) was to eliminate

individual hospitality rooms; however, hospitality rooms are still used by groups that have specific issues before the Conference.

It was noted that the outing enables attendees to socialize with other Conference members; however, the Chairman's reception

serves the same purpose. As an additional consideration, the proposal says that government officials should not permit industry

to pay most of the costs for a social outing.

This item was withdrawn by the Executive Committee at the Interim Meeting. There was unanimous support for maintaining the Conference Outing and sharing expenses for the Outing with the Associate membership. Members ofthe Committee feel that the Outing makes an important contribution to the success of the Conference.

101-14 I Program, OWM and NIST

The NCWM Executive Secretary and Chief ofthe NIST Office of Weights and Measures (OWM), Dr. Gilbert M. Ugiansky, gave

a status report on OWM activities. He described the success of the instructor training program being conducted by NIST/OWM

in cooperation with the NCWM. He said that NIST management felt the training program was an example ofa program that could

really make a difference; consequently, OWM was given additional funding specifically to support the training effort. Some of

this additional flinding ($75,000) was added last year to the NIST grant to NCWM for the development oftraining materials and

presentation of training for State and local weights and measures officials. The fijnds were also used to cover the costs of

individuals attending the instructor training seminars.

Dr. Ugiansky announced that Tom Coleman has been designated as the lead person for training in OWM. In addition, he indicated

that a contractor was being sought to assist Mr. Coleman in planning and presenting training programs for NCWM members.

Debbie Ripley is leaving OWM to work with Sam Chappell in the NIST Technical Standards Activities Program, which is responsible for NIST interactions with the Organization of Legal Metrology (OIML). OWM now has two vacant slots in its Device Technology Group, which coordinates the National Type Evaluation Program and provides technical assistance to a number of NCWM committees including the Specifications and Tolerances Committee.

OWM is planning to contract with Ann Turner to continue providing Conference planning and financial services after she retires fi-om OWM this year.

At the Annual Meeting, Dr. Ugiansky provided a status report on the NIST Office of Weights and Measures since the Interim

Meeting. He announced that OWM had recently hired two new staff members, Tom Ahrens and Dick Suiter.

101-15 I Program, International Organization of Legal Metrology (OIML)

David E. Edgerly, Deputy Director ofNIST's Technology Services, addressed the Executive Committee on the importance of

NCWM participation in OEML. Mr. Edgerly, who managed the OIML program at NIST from 1975 to 1988 before assuming his present position, said that OIML has grown in importance over the last 10 years. He noted that there is a growing interest on the

part of U.S. industries in marketing their products overseas; however, they are finding that, in order to do so, they must comply

with OIML and other international standards that are not necessarily compatible with U.S. standards. Some foreign regional

organizations, such as the European Union, have been working very hard at promoting the adoption of their standards as OIML

standards. The United States usually does not have any input into the development ofthese regional standards, which sometimes

contain requirements that can cause problems for U.S. manufacturers; consequently, participation by U.S. interests in international standardization activities is essential to reduce trade barriers.

The United States is a member of OIML and thus has a moral obligation to adopt OIML standards, according to Mr. Edgerly;

consequently, we should do more to ensure that the standards are not detrimental to U.S. interests. He encouraged members of

the NCWM to actively participate in OIML and try to get NIST Handbook 44 requirements incorporated in OIML standeirds. He

noted that NCWM technical experts should participate at the Committee and Subcommittee levels within OIML, rather than at the Plenary Sessions because that is where they could have the greatest impact.

Mr. Edgerly said that U.S. industry has been playing a more active role in OIML, but U.S. regulatory interests have not been

adequately represented. He suggested that representatives of weights and measures regulators with the appropriate skills and

knowledge be selected to participate for an extended period of time (2 or 3 years) on selected U.S. Technical Advisory Groups

34
Executive Committee

that develop the U.S. positions on OIML documents. Such participation does not have to mean attendance at a lot of meetings,

he noted; it could be limited to providing comments on documents by mail or over the Internet.

Dr. Sam Chappell, Chief ofthe NIST Technical Standards Activities Program, reported on U.S. participation in OIML standards development activities in legal metrology.

Dr. Chappell agreed with Mr. Edgerly on the need for greater involvement by NCWM members in the OIML process. He said that participation in OIML activities would not only help U.S. industry but could be beneficial to the work of the NCWM

Specifications and Tolerances Committee and Laws and Regulations Committee. He volunteered to work with the NCWM to identify the specific OIML activities in which NCWM representatives should participate. He noted that Central and South

America and Pacific rim countries are becoming important markets for the United States; therefore, participation in the standardization activities of these regions would also be beneficial.

In 1995, Darrell A. Guensler, Director, Division of Measurement Standards, CA Department of Food and Agriculture, attended

the Second Asia-Pacific Legal Metrology Forum (APLMF), the OIML Developmental Council Meeting and Symposium, and a meeting ofthe International Committee of Legal Metrology (CIML) in Beijing, People's Republic of China, with Dr. Chappell.

Based on his participation in the APLMF meeting, Mr. Guensler made the following recommendations to the NCWM:

1) Continue active participation in the Forum. Its objectives are consistent with other APECforums

and should help promote the elimination ofnon-tariff trade barriers in the Asia-Pacific region.

2) Participate in the intercomparison on pattern approval testing of nonautomatic weighing

instruments. This study will help to evaluate the possibility ofexpanding the U.S.-Canada Mutual

Recognition Agreement on Pattern Approval to other regional countries.

3) Urge NIST to become a participant in the "Mutual Recognition Agreement" working party and

volunteer to assist NIST in this endeavor. This working party will perform an important role in identifying appropriate legal metrology links between economies in many areas important to NCWM.

Mr. Guensler made the following recommendations to the NCWM based on his participation in the OIML/CIML meetings:

1) Continue active participation in OIML at this level. This will allow the NCWMto be more aware

of and influential in the policy decisions and resolutions of OIML. Our interests in reciprocal

pattern approval systems, production meets type issues, and the general globalization of legal

metrology demand that we have a say in our own destiny.

2) Develop a relationship with other regional metrology groups such as the Western European Legal

Metrology Cooperation (WELMEC). WELMEC is quite similar to NCWM in that it serves as a

collaborating body between legal metrology authorities in Western Europe much the way NCWM

serves the United States. WELMEC 's principal aim of establishing harmony and a consistent

approach to legal metrology in Europe is in concert with NCWMaimsfor the United States. There

is an obvious advantage to comparable organizations such as NCWM and WELMEC working

together to share knowledge and develop consistent resolution to similar problems. Additionally,

such a relationship can further the development of harmonized requirements and mutual

recognition agreements.

3) Consider establishing a program for developing countries that includes sponsoring first time

attendance at NCWM conferences for a delegate from such a country. This recommendation is prompted by a suggestionfrom Mr. K. Ramful, Controller of Weights and Measures for Mauritius.

Mauritius is a small island country in the Indian Ocean with a population of approximately 1.2

million. Mr. Ramful informed me that they use Handbook 44 as their guide for device regulation.

Such a program could further the interests of the NCWM in providing needed information,

harmonization, and trainingfor constituents outside our borders but within our scope ofinfluence.

In partial response to Mr. Guensler's recommendations, NCWM Chairman Barbara Bloch and NTEP Board of Governors

Chairman Charles Gardner attended the Third APLMF Meeting in Vancouver, Canada, on November 1 and 3, 1996, and the 10th

35
Executive Committee

International Conference of Legal Metrology (OEML) and the 31st meeting of the International Committee of Legal Metrology

(CIML) on November 4 through 8, 1996. A copy of their report of the meetings can be found in Appendix G.

Their recommendations to the NCWM with regard to APLMF are:

/. Support the active participation of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in the APLMF. As the United States has a well-developed legal metrology program, we are in a position to influence the standards development ofthe APLMF, who are major trading partners ofthe United States. Further, the objectives ofthe APLMF are consistent with other Asia -Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC)

forums, and U.S. participation should help to promote the elimination of non-tariff trade barriers in the Asia-Pacific region.

2. Determine the appropriate level ofNCWMinvolvement in the APLMF. Certainly, the NCWMshould be a resource for NIST in developing U.S. positions on issues before the APLMF, but the issue of active participation in the APLMF should be a subject in our Strategic Planning project.

3. Continue participation in the intercomparison on pattern approval by agreeing to become part ofthe load

cell intercomparison working group. This series of intercomparisons will help to evaluate the possibility

ofexpanding the U.S.-Canada Mutual Recognition Agreement on Pattern Approval to other countries.

4. Request NIST (OWM) input on the feasibility ofparticipation in the intercomparison ofmass standards

in order to notijy the Convenor of U.S. intentions in this area.

Their recommendations to the NCWM with regard to OIML are:

1. Support the active participation ofNIST in OIML, particularly at the Working Party levels and offer to serve as a resource to NIST on OIML issues. We believe that it is criticalfor the NIST representatives who

are presenting the U.S. positions at OIML to be knowledgeable as to the workings ofthe NCWMand ofthe requirements ofthe Handbooks. Without this continued involvement and knowledge, the United States will find it difficult, ifnot impossible, to influence international standards. We wouldfurther recommend that a cooperative dialogue be established with NIST, OWM, and the Conference to determine how this could be

accomplished.

2. Determine the appropriate level ofNCWMinvolvement in OIML as part ofthe Strategic Planning Project.

Our interests in mutual recognition ofpattern approval systems, production meets type issues, and the world

marketplace make it imperative that we participate in OIML at some level.

3. Support the recommendation made last year by Darrell Guensler to develop a relationship with other

regional metrology groups such as the Western European Legal Metrology Cooperation (WELMEC). In

addition to the similarities described in the previous recommendation, WELMEC is very active in the area ofcomputer software approvals, which could assist the NCWM in making a decision in this area.

4. Mr. Guensler recommended consideration of establishing a program for developing countries that includes sponsoringfirst-time attendance at NCWM Conferences for a delegate from such a country. We

respectfully recommend that such consideration become a part of the Conference 's Strategic Planning

Project, to be included in the development ofthe NCWM business plan.

The Committee took the following actions with respect to the recommendations received (actions taken in response to a recommendation from Mr. Guensler are indicated by the initials "DG" below, and those taken in response to a recommendation

from Ms. Bloch and Mr. Gardner are indicated by the initials "G/B"):

Committee Actions Concerning APLMF:

1 . The Committee supports the active participation of NIST in the APLMF and requests that the Executive

Secretary transmit this support to the appropriate officials in NIST. (G/B) The Committee also supports

determining the appropriate level of NCWM involvement in APLMF via the Strategic Planning project and

36
Executive Committee

authorizes Dick Suiter, Chairman of the Working Group on the development of the NTEP Business Plan to contact Sam Chappell's office to begin work on this issue. (G/B/DG)

2. The Committee supports NCWM participation in the intercomparison on pattern approval of testing of

nonautomatic weighing instruments and has authorized the necessary funds for testing by the Ohio and

California NTEP laboratories. (DG)

3. The Committee supports continued participation in the intercomparison on pattern approval in load cell testing and requests the Executive Secretary to transmit this support to the appropriate office within NIST. The

load cell intercomparison project would need to be handled by the NIST Force Group as the sizes to be tested are beyond the capability of the State NTEP laboratories. (G/B)

4. The Committee supports NIST participation in the intercomparison of mass standards and requests that the Executive Secretary transmit this support to the appropriate office within NIST. (G/B) -

5. The Committee supports the active participation ofNIST in the "Mutual Recognition Agreement" working

party and requests the Executive Secretary to transmit this support to the appropriate officials within NIST.

The Committee would further support determining how the NCWM could be of assistance to NIST in this endeavor. (DG)

Committee Actions Concerning OIML:

1 . The Committee supports the active participation ofNIST in OIML, particularly at the Working Party level for the reasons stated in the recommendation, and requests that the Executive Secretary transmit this support

to the appropriate officials at NIST. (G/B) Further, the Committee supports determining the appropriate level of NCWM participation in OIML via the Strategic Planning project and authorizes Dick Suiter, Chairman of

the Working Group on development of the NTEP Business Plan, to contact Sam Chappell's office to begin

work on this issue. (G/B/DG)

2. The Committee supports developing a relationship with other regional metrology groups and has directed Barbara Bloch to prepare a letter to WELMAC Chairman, Seton Bennett, indicating the Conference's interest

in initiating such a relationship; in addition, it requests that Dick Suiter, Chairman of the Working Group on development of the NTEP Business Plan, add this item to that agenda for ftirther discussion. (G/B/DG)

3. The Committee supports consideration of sponsoring first-time attendance of delegates from other countries via the Strategic Planning project and requests that Aves Thompson, Chairman of the Working Group on development of the NCWM Business Plan, add this item to that agenda for further discussion. (G/B/DG)

The Committee thanks Mr. Guensler, Ms. Bloch, and Mr. Gardner for their participation in the 1995 and 1996 APLMF/OIML

meetings and for their recommendations.

At the 1997 NCWM Annual Meeting, the Executive Committee received an updated report from Dr. Chappell on U.S.

participation in OIML standards development activities in legal metrology, a copy of which is included in Appendix F.

101-16 I U.S. - Canada Mutual Recognition of Type Evaluation Program Report

This item was carried over from Item 101-7 of the Report of the 79th NCWM, 1994, Item 102-2 of the Report of the 80th

NCWM, 1995, and Item 101-3 of the Report of the 81st NCWM, 1996.

The U.S./Canada Mutual Recognition of Type Evaluation Program, implemented in April 1994, allows staff of the U.S. National

Type Evaluation Program and the Approval Services Laboratory of Measurement Canada to perform type approvals of weighing

devices to the common and unique requirements of both countries. As a result, a single type evaluation and series oftests satisfies the evaluation requirements of both countries, eliminating the duplication of approval work. Each country continues to issue its own Certificate of Conformance (United States) or Notice of Approval (Canada) on the basis of the evaluation and test results

In 1996 the Mutual Recognition Program was expanded to include computing scales, complex indicators, and mechanical scales. The Program now covers:

37
Executive Committee

1) electronic computing and non-computing bench and floor scales up to 1000-kg or 2000-lb capacity;

2) separate weighing/load-receiving elements up to 1000-kg or 2000-lb capacity;

3) separate electronic weight-indicating elements (except those that are "software-based"; i.e., programmed by

downloading parameters); and

4) mechanical scales up to 10 000-kg or 20 000-lb capacity.

A draft letter ftjrmally announcing the expanded program to U.S. manufacturers was reviewed by the Committee at the 1997

Interim Meeting. Copies of a Measurement Canada Bulletin announcing the expanded program were also provided to the Committee.

A question was raised concerning the ftiture expansion of the program to cover liquid-measuring devices. The response was that work in this area has been constrained by a lack of resources in OWM. Ms. Roussy noted that Canada has offered the use of its Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) testing facilities for NTEP testing of LPG liquid-measuring devices. She was asked if Measurement Canada would be willing to do NTEP tests on other types of liquid-measuring devices and indicated that she would

explore the possibility. The Committee agreed that expansion of the Mutual Recognition Program to include liquid-measuring

devices should be considered during its strategic planning process.

Ms. Roussy reported on an agreement between the United States and Canada on the mutual recognition of railway scale test car

calibrations. Under the agreement, the National Research Council of Canada (NRC) and its U.S. counterpart, the National

Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), will mutually recognize the equivalence and accuracy of their respective national

standards. Measurement Canada has agreed to issue calibration certificates for railway scale test cars calibrated and certified by

NIST or under its authority. The United States has already been, for some time, accepting the use of Canadian calibrated and

certified railway test cars for inspection purposes. Ms. Roussy said that a meeting is scheduled for March 1997 to make plans

for a round robin to check the calibration procedures ofthe two countries. In the meantime, she said, the recognition program will proceed.

At the Annual Meeting Tina Butcher of OWM provided the Committee with an update on this item. Her remarks are summarized

below:

Weighing Devices. A memorandum was distributed April 25, 1997 to "Holders of NTEP Certificates of

Conformance (CCs) for Weighing and Related Devices, Manufacturers of Weighing Devices, and Other

Interested Parties." This memorandum announced the expansion of the program to include the evaluation of

different device types [see paragraph 3 of this item for a list of the devices currently covered under the program].

The joint application for submitting devices has been updated to reflect the expanded areas and is available through the NCWM fax-on-demand system. The U.S./CD Applicant's Guide was also updated and is also available through the fax-on-demand system.

A joint meeting of the Canadian and U.S. laboratory personnel was held in conjunction with the combined

NTEP Laboratory meeting in San Diego, CA, in May 1997.

Last year Canada advised NTEP of plans to effect major revisions to their scales requirements. After going

through various legislative phases, the proposed changes have been published in the Canada Gazette (similar

to the U.S.' Federal Register) for comments and, if all goes well, may be effective by September 1997.

Measuring Devices. No additional progress has been made in this area due to a limitation of resources. Consideration should be given in the strategic plan to expanding the program to include measuring devices. As with all activities, this must be weighed against other critical NTEP and device activities.

At BOG Chairman Charles Gardner's request, a draft response to Sonia Roussy, Measurement Canada, has

been prepared which responds favorably to Canada's offer to use their LPG facilities for NTEP evaluations and

revisits the possibility of using Canada's other metering facilities for NTEP tests with the idea of establishing the groundwork for mutual recognition in this area as well.

38
Executive Committee

The Committee adopted Mrs. Butcher's recommendation to give consideration in the strategic plan to expanding the Mutual

Recognition Program to include measuring devices. The Committee also reviewed and approved the letter she had drafted for Sonia Roussy.

101-17 I Strategic Planning in Canada

Sonia Roussy, Vice President Policy, Measurement Canada, who serves as the Canadian Technical Advisor to the Executive

Committee, reported on the the strategic planning activities of her organization, a newly formed agency of Industry Canada that has responsibility for the country's weights and measures program. Copies ofthe overheads that she used in her presentation are

in Appendix H.

At the Interim Meeting, Ms. Roussy, who has been an active participant in the Executive Committee's strategic planning effort, issued an invitation to Executive Committee members to participate in the Canadian strategic planning process. Plans are being

made for a member of the Committee to attend the next Canadian planning meeting. -

101-18 I Metrology Subcommittee Report

L. F. Eason, Chairman of the Metrology Subcommittee reported to the Executive Committee on a meeting he attended for the Conference on the formation ofthe National Council for Laboratory Accreditation (NACLA), a proposed public/private entity that will work toward: I) developing uniform, national procedures for accrediting U.S. testing and calibration laboratories; 2) creating an infrastructure in which accreditors recognized as competent by NACLA can be considered for acceptance for both domestic

and international requirements; 3) establishing a truly North American System for laboratory accreditation; and 4) serving as the primary U.S. signatory on behalfofNACLA members for new international laboratory accreditation agreements. Mr. Eason said

that he believed the goals of the organization were worthwhile, and he recommended that the Executive Committee nominate an NCWM representative to serve on the Interim Board ofNACLA. [Shortly after the Interim Meeting, the Committee pursued the

possibility of having a representative on the Board, but it was determined that the cost in time and funding required to serve on

the Board was more of a commitment than had been anticipated; consequently, alternative roles in NACLA are being evaluated.]

Mr. Eason also reported on the activities of the Metrology Subcommittee. A copy of his report is included in Appendix I.

The Metrology Subcommittee met with the Executive Committee at the 1997 Annual Meeting and provided a verbal update on

its activities. The Subcommittee presented revised recommendations for action to the Executive Committee (see the Subcommittee's July Report in Appendix I). The Executive Committee addressed the Subcommittee's recommendation

concerning accreditation of the State legal metrology laboratories; it plans to consider the other revised recommendations at the

1 998 Interim Meeting. The Executive Committee believes that the State laboratories are the cornerstone of our national measurement system. The Committee encourages NIST management to provide the resources necessary for the State laboratories

to achieve NVLAP accreditation.

Part n - NTEP Board of Governors

102-1 I OIML Certificate Project

This item was carried over from Item 102-6 of the Report of the 79th NCWM, 1994, Item 102-1 of the Report of the 80th NCWM, 1995, and Item 102-1 A of the Report of the 81st NCWM, 1996.

In 1995, the NIST/NCWM National Type Evaluation Program was named as the U.S. Issuing Authority for non-automatic

weighing devices (OIML R76) and load cells (OEML R60). NTEP's efforts in this area have been in response to requests from

industry for assistance in eliminating frade barriers for U.S. manufacturers exporting products.

Tina Butcher ofNIST reported at the 1 997 Interim Meeting that the arrangements to begin issuing OIML R60 certificates for load

cells were just about complete. She said the NIST Force Group and the Office of Weights and Measures had worked with a

contractor to develop the software needed to automate the presentation of test data in the R60 Annex A format and was in the process of making some minor modifications. She stated that NTEP would go forward with an announcement of the initiation of

the R60 program. According to Mrs. Butcher, the initial scope ofthe program would be limited to those cqsacities that are tested by the Force Group; however, plans are being made to expand the program to include capacities tested by the California NTEP

Participating Laboratory as well.

39
Executive Committee

At the Annual Meeting, Tina Butcher of OWM provided the Board of Governors (BOG) with an update on this item, which

summarized below (Mrs. Butcher's recommendations to the BOG are shown in italics):

R60 Load Cells. A memorandum was distributed April 25, 1997, to "Holders of NTEP CCs for Load Cells and Weighing

Devices, Manufacturers of Weighing Devices, and Other Interested Parties." This memorandum announced

that NTEP is now accepting applications for evaluation of certain capacities of load cells to OIML R60

requirements. Applicants can choose to have an OIML test performed, an NTEP test, or both tests by

indicating their choice at the time of application. Costs for the evaluation are:

OIML test OR NTEP test only: $4,000 for first cell and $2,000 for second cell (of the same model)

submitted at the same time

combined OIML/NTEP test: $6,000 for first cell and $2,000 for second cell (of the same model)

submitted at the same time

At present, the capacities of cells accepted under the program are limited to those tested by the NIST Force

Group. NTEP plans to expand OIML test capability to include testing ofthose capacities ofcells tested by CA

in the future.

Successfijl evaluation to both NTEP and R60 requirements will result in an NTEP CC and (after required

registration of the OIML Certificate) a U.S. OIML R60 Certificate. A revised load cell checklist is available through the NCWM fax-on-demand system.

To date, no requests have been received to evaluate load cells to R60 requirements.

Recommendation: It is recommended that the BOG authorize participation ofa representative from the NIST Force Group and/or the CA lab in the meetings of the U.S. National Working Group for R60 (or

possibly some international working group [IWG] meetings ifthe need arises). Shouldparticipation in the IWG meetings be deemed necessary, the BOG would be asked to review and authorize such participation.

Tofacilitate this participation, the BOG should ask that Sam Chappell 's office schedule NWG meetings in conjunction with other weights and measures related meetings as much as possible.

R76 Non-Automatic Weighing Instruments. The Ohio and California laboratories participated in a round robin test of an R76 device; the round robin or intercomparison was sponsored by the Asia Pacific Legal Metrology Forum. Both laboratories report that the experience was very beneficial in preparing to begin offering R76 tests through NTEP.

Both labs have been polled to ask when they might be ready to begin offering R76 tests in addition to NTEP

tests on a routine basis. While both labs indicate a readiness from a technical standpoint to begin testing in the near future (OH and CA can be ready by September 1 ; OWM can complete the administrative preparations by

Oct 1), some reservations were expressed about the additional work load and its impact on the current NTEP

testing. (R76 tests are anticipated to double the length of time for the evaluation of the scale; this affects not only the scale being evaluated, but devices in line behind it in the OH and CA labs.) A particular area of

concern for one lab is the development of R76-2 in an electronic form which would enable electronic entry of

data from R76 tests; the lab noted that the paperwork requirements for completing this form manually were

significant.

OWM shares the concerns expressed by the labs about the impact ofthe additional work load, particularly since one NTEP lab is currently accepting no new work until their backlog is eliminated and industry continues to express concern about the length of NTEP evaluations. In addition, participation of an NTEP representative

in at least the U.S. National Working Group Meetings for R76 (and possible International Working Group

Meetings) is essential.

Recommendation: The BOG is asked to consider the following to keep the project moving and minimize

impact on the program:

40
Executive Committee

1) ask for volunteers from industry to develop electronic data entry forms in the R76-2 format

(alternatively, the BOG might consider contractingfor someone to develop these forms);

2) announce acceptance ofR-76 tests by October 1 or upon completion ofelectronicforms, whichever comesfirst;

2) authorize participation of an OH or CA lab representative in R76 National Working Group

Meetings (the BOG would be consulted ifparticipation in an International Working Group Meeting

is deemed necessary); and

4) revisit this issue at the January 1998 Interim Meeting to discuss the status and impact of this project.

The BOG took the following actions on Mrs. Butcher's recommendations:

• Authorized the Chairman of the BOG to write Jim Truex, OH, and Steve Cook, CA, and request their participation in the R60 and R76 National Working Group Meetings respectively.

• Authorized the Chairman ofthe BOG to contact Sam Chappell ofthe OIML program at NIST and discuss the continued

scheduling ofNational Working Group meetings in conjunction with other weights and measures meetings as much as

possible.

• Authorized the Chairman of the BOG to ask for volunteers from industry to develop electronic data entry forms in the R76-2 format.

• Agreed to revisit this issue at the January 1998 Interim Meeting to discuss the status and impact of this project.

102-2 I Test Data Exchange Agreements (formerly called "Mutual Recognition")

This item was carried over from Item 102- IB of the Report of the 81st NCWM, 1996.

At the July 1995 Annual Meeting, the NTEP Board of Governors reviewed draft language for an agreement between the NCWM

and the Nederlands Meetinstituut (NMi) that would establish mutual recognition of tests performed on load cells in accordance

with OIML Recommendation R60 as part of the process of issuing an OIML Certificate. Based upon comments from industry, the BOG asked that the language be revised to indicate that NMi would recognize testing performed by NTEP laboratories for use in issuing a European Community (EC) Certificate.

The draft language was presented to NMi during a visit to NMi by NTEP representatives in September 1995. During the visit, NMi representatives advised that EC Certificates are not presently issued for components such as load cells; however, a report

oftest could be issued by an EC country for reference in an EC Certificate. NMi returned the draft to NTEP with some additional changes suggested by their legal staff. The draft was updated to indicate the changes suggested by NMi. The revised draft language was presented to the Weighing Sector of the National Type Evaluation Technical Committee for review and comment

at the Sector's Fall 1995 meeting. It was also discussed at the Fall 1995 meeting ofthe Scale Manufacturers Association (SMA).

At the 1996 Interim Meeting, SMA said that it would support going forward with the agreement. It was reported, however, that NTEP wanted an agreement that did not require official signatures whereas NMi wanted a signed agreement. David Edgerly,

Deputy Director, NIST Technology Services, told the BOG that NIST had said it would no longer sign bilateral agreements,

preferring instead to participate in regional international agreements; therefore, NIST might not support NTEP going forward with

the agreement. Since other countries had expressed an interest in developing agreements with NTEP that were similar to the NMi

agreement, some NCWM Associate members felt there was a need to clarify the policy on these agreements with NIST

management.

SMA staff discussed the policy on bilateral agreements with NIST officials at the 1996 Annual Meeting and were informed that NIST had been instructed by its parent agency, the U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC), not to be a party to bilateral agreements. It was agreed, however, that SMA could make its case to Commerce officials for agreements on the exchange of test data packages.

41
Executive Committee

At a meeting with a DOC representative, SMA was told that the agency would have no objection to NIST proceeding with the data exchange agreements provided that they did not in any way bind the parties to accept any approvals granted by the other party. Since there was no intent to do so, SMA concluded that the plans to enter into the NMi agreement and similar agreements with

other countries could go forward. Daryl Tonini of SMA reported the results of the meeting to NIST officials who said the way

appeared clear to continue with the agreements but referred the decision to do so to the NCWM BOG. Mr. Edgerly agreed to develop guidelines for executing bilateral agreements at NIST; the guidelines were published prior to the 1997 Interim Meeting.

SMA recommended to the BOG: that it go ahead with the agreements, that the agreements should be nonexclusive (not limited

to any one country), and that the agreement with NMi on load cells (R60) should be the first priority. No objections to the recommendations were raised by BOG members. OWM was asked to proceed with the agreements as time and resources permit,

beginning with the NMi agreement.

At the 1997 Annual Meeting, the BOG agreed to pursue the agreement with NMi as resources permit.

102-3 I Adoption of Uniform Regulation for National Type Evaluation by the States

Daryl Tonini, Scale Manufacturers Association (SMA), updated the Board of Governors on the status of SMA's drive to assist States to adopt the Uniform Regulation for National Type Evaluation (URNTE) and the Uniform Regulation for the Voluntary

Registration of Servicepersons and Service Agencies (VRR). Mr. Tonini said that the NTEP requirements should be implemented

in Alaska by the end of June 1997. He also stated that a meeting was planned with the Secretary of Agriculture in Vermont in February to discuss NTEP.

Mr. Tonini said that while most of the States have now adopted the NTEP requirements, there are still concerns on the part of

industry about uniformity because the NTEP requirements are being interpreted differently by the States. He commended the OWM Instructor Training program for promoting uniformity.

An update was given by Mr. Tonini at the 1997 Annual Meeting. He announced that the States ofTennessee and Washington had

adopted the Uniform Regulation for National Type Evaluation. (See the map on the next page for the updated status of State adoption of the URNTE and VRR.)

42
Executive Committee

s5

a: q; C ^

cr > 5 -5 2

> -5, -

W « ^ lO

0

0

0

go:

3 >

43
Executive Committee

102-4 I NTEP Policy: Separate CCs for Software

(This item was changed from a voting item to an information item.)

This item was carried over from Item 102-9 of the Report of the 80th NCWM, 1995, and Item 102-5 of the Report of the 81st NCWM, 1996.

The Scale Manufacturers Association asked the NTEP Board of Governors (BOG) talooknattheissue^of software as it applies

to NTEP. Concern has been expressed over the NTEP policy of issuing separate CCs for software. Although the issue was

initiated by SMA's request, it applies to all types of devices. ,

In its 1995 Report, the BOG recommended that NTEP continue, for the present, to evaluate stand-alone software with the same

procedures used to evaluate software that is part of a measuring or weighing system; however, it endorsed the establishment of

a Software Work Group, composed of volunteers from weighing, measuring, and other sectors, as well as participants from the NTEP Participating Laboratories, the S&T Committee, and Canada, to study this issue.

In December 1994, the Work Group was formed. It had its initial meeting in April 1995 and a second meeting during the 1995

Annual Meeting. At the 1996 Interim Meeting, Work Group Chairman Michael Adams of Fairbanks Scales said that the Group

members supported NTEP continuing to issue separate CCs for software. He stated that the Group believed that there was more

to accomplish in such areas as revision of the type evaluation checklists to cover software, development of a definition for "metrologically significant software," and education; therefore, they recommended that the Work Group be continued through the next Interim Meeting.

The Executive Committee agreed to continue the Work Group through the 1997 Interim Meeting so that members could complete

their evaluations of NTEP checklists and make recommendations to the appropriate NTETC Sectors.

At the Annual Meeting of the Southern Weights and Measures Association (SWMA) in October 1996, the following proposal was adopted and forwarded to the NTEP BOG for consideration at the 1997 NCWM Interim Meeting:

"Given the complexities of subjecting software associated with weighing and measuring devices to NTEP

approval and the diflFiculties weights and measures field inspectors encounter in their field tests of such

software, the Southern Weights and Measures Association requests a suspension ofNTEP stand-alone software

evaluation activities until the NCWM adopts an NTEP policy addressing the evaluation of software associated with weighing and measuring devices."

The BOG considered SWMA's proposal at the 1997 Interim Meeting. They also heard concerns raised about possible charges

ofrestriction oftrade as a result ofno longer issuing CCs for software. For example, it was suggested that software manufacturers

might complain that their businesses were negatively impacted because they could no longer receive NTEP CCs for their software while manufacturers of weighing and measuring systems that included software could. On the other hand, manufacturers of

complete devices that have been issued a CC might claim that they were put at a competitive disadvantage because they had to go to expense of getting NTEP approval each time a change was made to the device's software while manufacturers of software

did not. The BOG concluded that a legal opinion on this issue was needed. OWMwas asked to pursue this matter and report back

to the BOG before the 1997 Annual Meeting.

In a joint session with the S&T Committee, the Board witnessed a special demonstration showing the problems associated with

software that had not been approved by NTEP. The demonstration was presented by members of the Software Work Group.

Individuals participating in the demonstration were Jeff Bell of NCR, Darrell Flocken and Sonia Rarey of Mettler-Toledo, and

Larry Martins of Unibridge. Examples of what can happen when software is not evaluated included noncomplying software that allows customers to readily change metrological parameters and software that ignored motion detection and thus permitted

incorrect weights to be recorded.

In the discussion following the demonstration, some NCWM members expressed concern that even software that had gone through

the type evaluation process could be tampered with and changed to give incorrect information. Others responded that if people

really want to perpetrate fraud, they will find a way to do so; NTEP does, however, provide the States with a tool to prevent

potentially fraudulent devices from entering the marketplace and to remove these devices if the software no longer complies with

or is no longer supported by the original CC. In addition, it was noted that the type evaluation process helps manufacturers identify

and correct areas of noncompliance before their software is installed in devices at many different field sites and is then more

difficult to correct.

44
Executive Committee

Based on the possible legal implications of halting the issuance of CCs for software and the demonstrated benefits of having

software go through the NTEP process, the BOG decided to continue to permit software to be evaluated by NTEP for the time

being and to put the issue to a vote of the NCWM membership in July. Depending on the outcome of the vote, a decision would

be made on the ftiture of the Software Work Group.

Recommendation: Continue to permit separate NTEP Certificates of Conformance to be issued for software for weighing or measuring devices.

At the 1997 Annual Meeting, the BOG decided to make this an information item because of a number of unresolved issues that were identified at the meeting. The Board agreed to re-form the Software Work Group under its direction, and, in the interim, any

submissions of software for evaluation must be evaluated as a part of a complete system to ensure compliance with Handbook 44

requirements. In addition, the evaluation must include at least one field test.

102-5 I NTEP Participating Laboratories and Evaluations Report

The NTEP Participating Laboratories report prepared by the NIST Office of Weights and Measures (OWM) indicates that both

the number of applications for type evaluations and the number of Certificates of Conformance issued increased in 1996 (see the

table in Appendix J for a summary ofthe report). OWM staff announced that the Oklahoma State metrology laboratory has been

added as an NTEP laboratory for field performance testing of vehicle scales. They also reported that efforts to reduce the time

it takes to issue CCs are continuing. Various processes within the office are being studied to determine how to make the whole

system work more efficiently. One problem that has been identified as a part of this effort involves manufacturers who take their devices directly to one ofthe NTEP Participating Laboratories rather than going through the NTEP office at NIST. This disrupts the NTEP process and unfairly impacts manufacturers who follow the procedures. The BOG asked OWM to bring the problem

to the attention of the various NTETC Sectors and ask for recommendations.

The NTEP Board of Governors (BOG) has been monitoring the situation regarding the late payment ofNTEP maintenance fees over the last several years. Delays in fee payments cause a number of problems including delays in the publication of NCWM

Publication 5, NTEP Index of Device Evaluations. While there has been some improvement over the last 2 years, the number of

manufacturers who do not meet the initial OWM deadline for payment of fees is still too large; consequently, the BOG has approved the establishment of a progressive system of late fees to go into effect in the fall of 1997. Manufacturers who still had

not paid their 1997 fees by the time ofthe Interim Meeting, were given a one-time opportunity to pay their fees with a penalty of

$100 per certificate before the certificates became inactive.

At the Annual Meeting, the Board agreed to the following policy regarding the annual maintenance fees for NTEP Certificates of Conformance:

1. When a CC is issued, the device manufacturer will be given a copy of the payment schedule for maintenance fees.

2. Annually on September 1, invoices for CC maintenance fees will be sent to manufacturers along with a letter outlining the NTEP late fee policy as follows: Maintenance fees are due and payable and to be received at OWM no later than 10/31.

If paid after 1 1/30 and before January 1, the maintenance fee increases to $150 per certificate. If the fee is not paid by January 1, the Certificate of Conformance becomes inactive and will be listed as

inactive in NCWM Publication 5. Manufacturers who want to reactivate an inactive CC will be charged $550

per CC and a new CC number will be issued.

3. A second notice will be sent to all manufacturers who have not paid their fees by 10/31. The notice will be sent out as soon as possible after 10/31 and will remind manufacturers that they will have to pay a late fee if payment is not received before 12/1.

4. If the fees have not been paid by 1/1 , manufacturers will receive a notice that their certificates are inactive along with

procedures and fees associated with reactivating the CCs.

102-6 I NTETC Weighing, Measuring, and Belt-Conveyor Scale Sector Reports

The BOG received summaries of the decisions made at the National Type Evaluation Technical Committee (NTETC)Weighing

Sector meeting on November 14 and 15, 1996, in Albany, NY, (see Appendix K) and the Measuring Sector meeting held in October 1996 in conjunction with the Southern Weights and Measures Association Annual Conference in Charleston, WV, (see

Appendix L for an abbreviated summary; a more detailed summary is being developed and will be published later). The Belt45
Executive Committee

Conveyor Sector also met in November 1996 in Albany; however, at the time of the 1997 Interim Meeting, the summary of

decisions made at the meeting was being reviewed and was not yet available for distribution.

The next meeting of the Weighing and Belt-Conveyor Sectors will be in November 1997 in the Washington/Baltimore area, and

the next meeting of the Measuring Sector will be in conjunction with the Western Weights and Measures Association meeting in September 1997.

102-7 I NTETC Grain Moisture Meter and Near-Infrared Protein Analyzer Sector

Reports

A report of the progress of these Sectors was given at the Interim Meeting. See Appendices M and N for summaries of the September 1996 meetings of the Sectors.

102-8 V Certificate of Conformance Status: New Definition for "Effective" and

Modifications to the Definitions for "Active" and "Inactive"

(This item was adopted.)

A proposal to add and modify definitions of terms used in the National Type Evaluation Program (NTEP) was received by the NTEP Board of Governors from NTEP administrators. The administrators had found some discrepzincies between the terms used

to designate the status of Certificates of Conformance (CCs) in NCWM Publication 5, NTEP Index of Device Evaluations, and

NCWM Publication 14, Administrative Procedures, Technical Policy, Checklists, and Test Procedures. They concluded that neither document contains a complete definition for the terms in question; consequently, they are proposing changes to the

definitions in both documents.

The proposal was reviewed by the members of the NTEP Board of Governors at the 1997 Interim Meeting, and a decision was made to make the proposal a voting item.

Recommendation:

Modify the definition for "Active Status" in NCWM Publication 14, Administrative Procedures, Technical Policy, Checklists, and

Test Procedures, Section N, Status of Certificate of Conformance; Maintenance Fee, as follows:

2. Active Status

Devices are being manufactured or remanufactured for commercial applications under an NTEP Certificate of

Conformance. This means that the Certificate is in force with a hard copy of the Certificate issued and distributed.

Add a new definition for "effective status" to Publication 14, Section N, as follows:

3. Effective Status

Equivalent to ACTIVE status, but a hard copy of the Certificate of Conformance has not yet been issued and distributed. Therefore, a hard copy of the Certificate is not yet included in Publication 5.

Renumber and modify the definition for "inactive status" in Publication 14, Section N, as follows:

3:4. Inactive Status

An Inactive Certificate of Conformance is a Certificate which was previously Active, but the Bdevices are no longer being

manufactured or remanufactured for commercial applications. However, devices already manufactured, installed, or

in inventory, but not yet sold, may be used, sold, repaired, and resold, under an Inactive Certificate of Conformance.

Renumber the remaining paragraphs in Publication 14, Section N.

Modify the definitions in NCWM Publication 5, NTEP Index of Device Evaluations, so that they are consistent with the above

definitions.

46
B. Bloch, California, Chairman

C. Gardner, Suffolk County, NY, Chairman of the NTEP Board of Governors

S. Malone, Nebraska, Chairman-Elect

J. A. Rogers, Virginia, Treasurer

B. Adams, Minnesota

C. Carroll, Massachusetts

M. Gray, Florida R. Suiter, Nebraska

A. Thompson, Alaska

G. West, New Mexico

G. Ugiansky, NIST, Executive Secretary

Technical Advisors:

S. Roussy, Canada (Executive Committee only)

J. Koenig, NIST

Associate Member Representative: R. Davis, James River Corporation (Executive Committee only)

Executive Committee

47
i
Executive Committee

Appendix A

Strategic Planning Goals, Objectives, and Work Groups

Objectives for Goal I - Enhance the National Conference on Weights and Measures as a national and

international resource for measurement standards development.

1. To develop a long term business plan for Conference operations.

*Work Group Chairman: Aves Thompson, AK

Group Members: Richard Davis, James River Corp.; Gary West, NM; J. Alan Rogers, VA; Gil Ugiansky, NIST

2. To develop a "business plan" for NTEP management. _

*Work Group Chairman: Dick Suiter, NE

Group Members: Jim Truex, OH; Tina Butcher, NIST; Daryl Tonini, Scale Manufacturers Assn.; Gordon Johnson,

Gasoline Pump Manufacturers Assn.; Bob Traettino, Meter Manufacturers Assn.

3. To establish a protocol for maintaining ongoing Congressional liaison.

*Work Group Chairman: Tom Geiler, Barnstable, MA

Group Members: (To be named)

4. To develop a plan for improving information dissemination.

5. To establish a protocol for NCWM responding to State and local legislative initiatives.

6. To establish a protocol for individual jurisdictions to approach their legislative bodies.

Objectives for Goal II - Provide uniform training programs for industry and government individuals involved

in legal metrology.

7. To develop a training delivery plan in a 3-yr cycle.

*Work Group Chairman: Max Gray, FL

Group Members: Ed Price, TX; Tom Coleman, NIST

8. To develop a plan for increasing public awareness of NCWM through enhanced education and outreach.

Objectives for Goal III - Continue to develop new or alternative methods for improving delivery of weights

and measures programs.

9. To establish benchmarks for minimum W&M program standards.

*Work Group Chairman: Bruce Adams, MN

Group Members: Charles Carroll, MA; Tom Geiler, Barnstable, MA; Georgia Harris, NIST

10. To assess the work of the Program Evaluation Work Group for expansion into a national database system.

*Work Group Chairman: Steve Malone, NE

Group Members: Darrell Guensler, CA; Gil Ugiansky, NIST

11. To solicit, identify, encourage, and evaluate the development of new or alternative methods for improving weights and

measures programs.

49
Executive Committee

Objectives for Goal IV - Continue to expand the Conference role in national and international legal

metrology.

12. To develop a plan to evaluate and coordinate national surveys and inspections.

*Work Group Chairman: Charles Gardner, Suffolk Co., NY

Group Members: Tom Coleman, NIST

13. To develop a mechanism for responding to ongoing requests for assistance from other countries in establishing W&M

programs consistent with U.S. practices.

50
Constitution

Appendix B - Proposed Changes to the NCWM Constitution and Bylaws

Constitution

Article I - General

This Association shall be known as "The National Conference on Weights and Measures" and is sponsored by the National

Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) under the

authority of that portion of the Organic Act (U.S. Code, Title

15, Chapter 7, Section 272) authorizing the NIST to undertake

"cooperation with the States in securing uniformity in weights

and measures laws and methods of inspection."

Article II - Objectives

The objectives of The National Conference on Weights and

Measures are:

A. Forum. To provide a national forum for the discussion of

all questions related to weights and measures administration as carried on by officials of the Federal Government and regulatory officials of the States, Commonwealths, Territories, and Possessions of the United States, their political subdivisions, and the District of Columbia.

B. Mechanism. To provide a mechanism to establish policy

and coordinate activities within the Conference on matters of national and international significance pertaining to

legal metrology.

C. Consensus. To develop a consensus on uniform laws

and regulations, specifications, and tolerances for weighing and measuring devices, and on testing, enforce- ment, and administrative procedures.

D. Uniformity. To encourage and promote uniformity of

requirements and methods among jurisdictions.

E. Cooperation. To foster cooperation among regulatory

officers themselves and between them and all of the many

manufacturing, industrial, business, and consumer

interests affected by their official activities.

Article III - Membership

Membership consists of three classes: active, advisory, and associate.

Active Membership. - Active membership is limited to

weights and meaaui'cs or measurement officers actively

engaged in regulatory service and Applies to individuals in the employ of States, Commonwealths, Territories, or Possessions

of the United States, their political subdivisions, or the District

of Columbia who are actively engaged in the enforcement of

weights and measures laws and regulations.

Advisory Membership. - Advisory membership i s open

Applies to: (1) representatives of agencies of the Federal Government, (2) representatives of State and local governments other than those involved in the enforcement

of weights and measures officials laws and regulations, (3) foreign government officials, and (4) retired persons who

have ret i red from Federal, State, county, or city weights and measures employment who are concerned in any way with

regulatory weights and measures officers or the i r official activities or who are interested in the objectives and

activities of the Conference and who participate as individuals rather than as representatives of a particular

industry or interest group. (Amended 1990)

Associate Membership. - Associate membership compris - cs Applies to representatives of manufacturers, industry,

business, and consumers; and other persons who are

interested in the objectives and activities of the Conference

and who do not qualify as Active or Advisory members.

Article IV - Officers

Section 1 - Ex Offlcio Officers

A. President. - The Director of the National Institute of

Standards and Technology is, ex officio, the President of

the Conference.

B. Executive Secretary. - The Director of the National

Institute of Standards and Technology designates a

senior member of the Institute staff, who is thoroughly

conversant with weights and measures nationally, to serve the Conference as its Executive Secretary.

Section 2 - Elective Officers

The Elective Officers of the Conference shall be:

Chairman-Elect,

Four Vice-Chairmen,

Treasurer, and

Six members-at-large to serve on the Executive

Committee.

51
Constitution

The consecutive reelection of a Chairman-Elect is prohibited; the Chairman-Elect shall not serve on £iny standing committee

other than the Executive Committee. Should the ChairmanElect for any reason be unable or unwilling to be installed as Chairman, his/her successor shall be elected in the manner

prescribed. In this event, the newly elected Chairman-Elect

shall be installed as Chairman.

A. Eligibility

1. Any active member in good standing shall be eligible to hold any office provided that the individual meets the other requirements set forth in the Constitution and Bylaws.

2. The Chairman-Elect will be elected at the Annual Meeting

1 year prior to the term of service as Conference Chairman.

After serving 1 year as Chairman-Elect, the incumbent will succeed to the office of Conference Chairman.

B. Nominations and Elections

1. Nominating Committee

a. Each year prior to the Conference's Interim Meeting,

tThe Chairman shall appoint a Nominating Committee

consisting of the most recent active Past Chairman as Committee Cliairman and six active members, to include at l east one member representing each of the four Regions. (Amended 1986)

2. Nominations

a. The Nominating Committee shall submit one name for each elective office and present its recommendation as a slate in its report to the Conference.

b. Additional nominations for officers may be made from

the floor at the Annual Meeting provided that prior consent of the nominee has been obtained in writing

and presented to the presiding officer at the time of the nomination.

3. Elections

Officers shall be elected during a designated session of the Annual Meeting by a formal recorded vote of the members in attendance and eligible to vote on Conference motions.

See Bylaws, Article VI - Voting System

4. Terms of Office

a. The Chairman, Chairman-Elect, Past Chairmein, Vice

Chairmen, and Treasurer, shall serve for a term of 1

year or until their successors are respectively

elected or appointed and qualified.

b. The six Executive Committee members-at-large

shall serve for 3 5-year terms; two one elected each

year, except for every fifth year when two shall be

elected.

c. All officers shall take office immediately following

the close of the Annual Meeting at which they were

elected.

5. Filling Vacancies

In case of a vacancy in any of the elective offices, the Executive Committee Chairman (or, if the vacancy is for the Chairman's position, the Chairman of the National Type

Evaluation Program Board of Governors) shall nominate a

replacement, and that person shall be appointed to fill the

office if a majority of the members of the Executive

Committee approve the nomination shall fill the office by

appointment.

Article V - Appointive Officials

Section 1 - Officials, Specific

The Conference Chairman will aimually appoint the following

officials:

Chaplain

Parliamentarian

Assistant Treasurer

Two Sergeants-At-Arms

Section 2 - Officials, Other

A. Appointment

The Conference Chairman shall appoint other officials to conduct Conference activities. See Bylaws, Article FV - Duties

of the Officers, and Article V - Committees.

B. Assumption of Office

All appointive officials shall take office immediately

following appointment and will serve through the subsequent

Armual Meeting ofthe Conference unless otherwise specified

by the Conference Chairman.

52
Constitution

Article VI - Meetings of the Conference

A. Annual Meeting

The Annual Meeting of members shall be held each year at the Annual Conference. The agenda for this meeting shall include

the election ofofficers, reports from the various committees, task

forces, study groups, and treasurer, and other items pertinent to the Conference.

The Annual Meeting may include the presentation of technical papers, discussions, displays, entertainment, or other events at the discretion of the Executive Committee.

B. Interim Meetings

The Interim Meetings of the Executive Committee and those

Standing Committees designated by the Chairman shall be held

annually, approximately 6 months prior to the Annual Meeting in order to develop the agenda and committee recommendations to be presented to and acted on by the membership at the Annual

Meeting.

C. Special Meetings

1 . The Conference Chairman is authorized to order a meeting of

the Executive Committee at any time such a session is deemed

by the Chairman to be in the best interests of the Conference.

2. Other Committees of the Conference are authorized to hold

meetings at times other than the Annual Meeting or Interim

Meeting provided that:

a. such meeting or meetings have been provided for in the Conference budget approved by the Executive

Committee, or

b. such meeting or meetings are approved by the Chairman

and funding is available within the approved budget, or

c. such meeting or meetings are approved by the Chairman

and the Executive Committee including agreement to increase the budget to cover the cost of the meeting.

3. A quorum shall consist of a majority of the eligible voters.

D. Rules of Order

The rules contained in Robert's Rules of Order shall govern the Conference in all cases to which they are applicable, and in which they are not inconsistent with the Constitution or Bylaws

or the special rules of the Conference.

Article VII - Fees and Dues

The annual membership fees, registration fees for meetings,

and the maintenance fees for the National Type Evaluation

Program (NTEP) shall be established (and may be revised) by

a majority vote of the Executive Committee at any official meeting of that Committee.

(Revised 1993)

Article VIII - Amendments to the

Constitution

This Constitution may be amended, added to, or repealed at any Annual Meeting of the membership under normal

Conference procedures. Proposed changes must be included

in the Agenda of the Executive Committee for the Interim Meetings, published in the recommendations ofthe Executive

Committee in its Tentat ive Interim Report (contained in the Announcement Book of the Program and Committee Reports

for the Annual Meeting, NCWM Publication 16), and dis- cussed at the general session open hearing of the Executive

Committee at the Annual Meeting at which said changes will be voted on. Amendments to the Constitution must be

approved by a minimum of a two-thirds vote in both the House of State Representatives and the House of Delegates.

Article IX - Bylaws

Section 1 - Supplementation of Constitution

This Constitution shall be supplemented by Bylaws which

shall detail the methods of operation of the Conference. Such

Bylaws shall not be inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution.

Section 2 - Amendments, Additions, and Repeals

of Bylaws

The Bylaws may be amended, added to, or repealed in the same manner as prescribed for the Constitution (See Article

VIII).

Section 3 - Renumbering

The Executive Secretary is authorized to renumber the

Articles and Sections of the Constitution or Bylaws to accommodate any changes made.

53

Bylaws

Bylaws

Article I - Application for Membership

Section 1 - Form of Application

Each application for membership in this Conference shall be in the form prescribed by the Executive Committee.

Section 2 - Submission of Application

Each Aapplications for membership shall be submitted to the Executive Secretary.—Tlie app

lication shall be accompanied

Conference along with the appropriate by the membership fee. The membership will not be activated imtil the membership fee has been paid. Applications received by the Executive Secretary

will be processed. Tlie new app

licant's name will be added to the Conference membership mailing list .

Article II - Fees, Membership Records

Section 1 - Fee

The fee for annual membership, as well as the registration fees

for the Interim and Annual Meetings, are established and subject

to revision by the Executive Committee.

Section 2 - Membership Year

Annual membership shall be payable by July 1 of each year and

covers the period July 1 to June 30 of the following year.

Section 3 - Billing

The Executive Secretary shall bill each member for yearly dues

2 months prior to the expiration of the current membership year.

Section 4 - Evidence of Membership

Membership certificates and cards ofsuitable design, bearing the

seal of the Conference, shall be issued to members. The

Executive Secretary shall advise the Treasurer of the count of new members and will forward the membership monies for deposit in the Conference account.

Section 5 - Waiver of Registration and Membership Fees

Individuals who have retired after 10 or more years of weights

and measures employment in either the public or private sectors, and who have attended at least one Annual Meeting, shall not be

subject to the payment of the registration and membership fees.

The spouses of retired members shall enjoy the same

privileges as spouses of active members.

(Added 1986; Amended 1987)

Article III - Use of the Insignia

The insignia ofthe Conference may be used or displayed only

by members ofthe Conference, unless expressly authorized in writing by the Conference.

Article IV - Duties of the Officers and

Appointive Officials

Section 1 - Chairman

The Conference Chairman is the principal presiding officer at the meetings of the Conference and of the Executive

Committee, makes appointments to the several standing and

annual special purpose committees, and appoints other Conference officials to serve during his or her term of office.

Section 2 - Chairman-Elect

The Chairman-Elect will:

A. serve as acting Conference Chairman in the event that the Chairman is unable to carry out the duties of that office,

B. perform other duties assigned by the Conference

Chairman,

C. serve on the Executive Committee,

D. serve on the Budget Review Committee.

Section 3 - Vice Chairmen

The Conference Vice Chairmen preside over sessions of the meetings of the Conference as assigned by the Conference

Chairman and assist the Chairman in the discharge of his or

her duties.

Section 4 - Executive Secretary

The Executive Secretary acts as the executive officer of the Conference. , the secreteiry and executive offi cer of the Executive Committee, and the non-voting secretary to each

standing committee; handles As such, he or she is responsible

for all details in connection with the arrangements for and the programs of the meetings; keep

s the records the editorial review and publication ofthe proceedings ofthe meetings and

55
Bylaws

other Conference publications; manages the administration and

finances of the Conference administration and finances as prescr ibed in its Administrative Procedures; and certifies certification to the Treasurer that the correctness of bills submitted to the Conference for payment are correct.

Section 5 - Treasurer

The Treasurer receives and accounts for all monies collected and

pays all Conference bills certified by the Executive Secretary as

correct.

Section 6 - Chaplain

The Chaplain performs the customary duties of that office.

Section 7 - Assistant Treasurer

The Assistant Treasurer shall assist the Treasurer in the discharge of his or her duties.

Section 8 - Parliamentarian

The Parliamentarian shall assist in assuring meetings of the Conference are conducted according to Robert's Rules of Order

and any special rules adopted by the Conference.

Section 9 - Past Chairman

The most recent still-active Past Chairman will serve as: (1) Chairman of the Executive Committee when it sits as the Board

ofGovernors for the National Type Evaluation Program and also

as (2) Chairman of the Nominating Committee.

(Added 1991)

Section 10 - Sergeants-At-Arms

The Sergeants-At-Arms help preserve order during the public

sessions of the Conference Aimual Meeting. Their

responsibilities include ensuring that only registered delegates

are present and that individuals or groups appearing before the Conference are properly identified.

Article V - Committees

Section 1 - Annual Special Purpose Committees

The Annual Special Purpose Committees consist of the following:

A. Nominating Committee. The Nominating Committee

shall be appointed- annually and shall consist of seven members the most recent active Past Chairman of the Conference as Committee Chairman and six afctive members, to includ^^ least one member representing each

of the four regions.

B. Resolutions Committee. The Resolutions Committee

shall consist ofseven three members appointed for 3-year

staggered terms.

C. Auditing Committee. The Auditing Committee shall consist of three members appointed for 3-year staggered

terms.

D. Associate Membership Committee. The Associate

Membership Committee shall consist of not less than five nor more than 10 members, appointed by the Conference

Chairman from the associate membership. This Committee shall represent a cross-section of interests within

the associate membership.

E. Finance Budget Review Committee. The Finance

Budget Review Committee, which shall also serve as the Budget Review Committee, shall consist of the NCWM

Chairman, as Chairman of the Committee, and the

Treasurer, Chairman-Elect, nominee for Chairman-Elect,

and Executive Secretary as ex-officio voting members. In

addition, the Chairman shall appoint two Active and two

Associate members to serve on a rotating basis for 4-year

terms. (Amended 1995)

F. Credentials Committee. The Credentials Committee

shall consist ofthree members all of whom are appointed

by the Conference Chairman from the active membership,

and shall consist ofat least one member each from a State; county, and city jurisdiction and one member fi-om a city or county jurisdiction, serving on a rotating basis for 3-year terms (a new member appointed each year to replace the member whose term expires). The senior

member serves as Committee Chairman.

Section 2 - Standing Committees

The standing committees are:

Executive Committee;

Committee on Specifications and Tolerances;

Committee on Laws and Regulations; and

Committee on Administration and Public Affairst. Finance Committee; and

Credentials Committee. (Revised 1994, 1995)

A. Membership (other than Executive, Finance, and

Credentials Committees)

The membership of each of the standing committees ts-a nonnal complement consists offive members, at least one member from each of the four weights and measures

regions, appointed by the Conference Chairman from the

active membership on a rotating basis for 5-year terms, or

until a successor is appointed. In addition, every fifth year

the Conference Chairman shall ^point a nonvoting

56
Bylaws

Associate MemberRepresentative (AMR) to the Committee on Laws and Regulations and Committee on Administration

and Public Affairs. The AMR shall be nominated by the Associate Membership Committee and shall serve a 5-year

term, or until a successor is appointed.

When it is necessary to make an appointment to any of the standing committees to fill a vacancy caused by the death,

resignation, or retirement from active service by a committee member, the appointment is for the unexpired

portion of the member's term.

Except as noted, each standing committee annually selects one of its members, preferably its senior member, to serve

as its chairman.

At his or her option, the Chairman designates one or more advisory or associate members as consultants to a standing

committee. (Revised 1994)

B. Executive Committee

The Executive Committee consists of the President, Executive

Secretary, the Conference Chairman, the Chairman-Elect, the most recent still active Past Chairman, the Treasurer, and six members elected at large from the active membership, the latter to serve 35-year staggered terms. In addition, every fifth year the Conference Chairman shall appoint a nonvoting Associate

Member Representative (AMR) to the Executive Committee (the

AMR shall not be a member of the National Type Evaluation

Program Board ofGovernors). The AMR shall be nominated by

the Associate Membership Committee and shall serve a 5-year

term, or until a successor is appointed.

The President and Executive Secretary do not have votes on

matters before the Executive Committee.

Insofar as possible, the Nominating Committee, in recom- mending candidates for the Executive Committee, shall consider

regional representation.

The term ofthe Executive Committee runs from the adj ournment of the Annual Meeting at which its members are elected through

the succeeding Annual Meeting of the Conference.

Section 3 - Special Committees, Subcommittees,

Task Forces, and Study Groups

Special committees, task forces, and study groups are appointed

by the Conference Chairman from the active, advisory, or

associate membership, in any combination, as the need arises or

the Conference requests.

Section 4 - Subcommittees

Upon recommendation of a committee, the, Conference Chairman may appoint a subcommittee(i) to assist tli e committee in carrying out i ts respons i bili t ies.

Section 5 4 - Duties and Fields of Operation of

Committees

A. Executive Committee

The Executive Committee, subject to the overriding authority

of the Conference itself

1 . selects the place, dates, and headquarters, and fixes the

registration fee for each meeting of the Conference;

2. fixes the annual membership fee;

3-.—may, at its op

tion, fill any vacancy in any elective office of

the Conference caused by death, resignation, or ret i rement

from active official regulatory service; and

43. advises the Executive Secretary with respect to the programs for the meetings of the Conference and its committees, and makes recommendations to the Conference, the Conference officers, and the committee

chairmenr; and

54. fixes the annual maintenance fee for retaining a National

Type Evaluation Program Certificate of Conformance.

These fees will go solely for the NCWM support of the National Type Evaluation Program.

(Added 1993)

The Executive Committee, in the interval between meetings of

the Conference:

1 . authorizes Interim Meetings ofConference committees as needed;

2. authorizes committee and other contingent expenditures

(including travel and subsistence expenses of committee

members and the Conference Chairman), and

3. acts for the Conference in all routine or emergency

situations that may arise.

Each newly const ituted Executive Committee joins the new

chairmen of standing committees in a breakfast meet ing (as guests of the Conference) on the last day of t he Conference,

for general discussion and for transact i on of business by the Execut ive Committee.

Questions before the Executive Committee are decided,

whether by voice vote or ballot, on the basis ofthe majority of

votes cast.

57
Bylaws

The Executive Committee:

1 . serves as the Board of Governors for the National Type

Evaluation Program (NTEP);

2. utilizes the technical committees of the NCWM to resolve

technical issues regarding NTEP;

3. utilizes the industry members of the Technical Committee

on National Type Evaluation, who will comprise tlie NTEP

Advisory Conwiittee and who will represent the interest of

industry, in advising the Board of Governors.

The Committee serves as a policy and coordinating body in matters of national and international significance which may

include such areas as metrication, International Organization of

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

American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), National

Conference of Standards Laboratories (NCSL), and such internal matters as may be required, including, for example, the Retiree

Organization.

(Amended 1995)

The Committee annually presents a report to the for Conference on its activit ies, which are subject to Conference ratificati on

action.

B. Committee on Laws and Regulations

The Committee on Laws and Regulations annually presents a

report for Conference action.

Its scope embraces all matters within the area of weights and

measures supervision including:

1 . the development and interpretation of uniform laws and

regulations;

2. the study and analysis ofbills for legislative enactment; and

3. the establishment and maintenance of published guidelines

and other effective means of encouraging uniformity of

interpretation and application ofweights and measures laws

and regulations.

4. liaison with Federal agencies. State agencies, and other groups or organizations on issues within the purview ofthe Committee. This role entails explaining, advocating, and

coordinating Conference positions, recommendations, and

needs before Federal Government agencies, consumer

groups, the associate NCWM membership, domestic and

international standards organiscations, 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 ofthe NCWM.

C. Committee on Specifications and Tolerances

The Committee on Specifications and Tolerances annually

presents a report for Conference action.

Its scope embraces all matters dealing with:

1 . specifications, tolerances, and technical requirements of

any kind relating to scales, weights, measures, and

weighing and measuring devices and accessories, includ- ing interpretation of such material whenever necessary,

2 . standards and testing equipment for weights and measures

officials, and

3. procedures for testing commercial equipment.

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

the Committee. This role entails explaining, advocating,

and coordinating Conference positions, recommendations,

and needs before Federal Government agencies, consumer

groups, the associate NCWM membership, domestic and

international standards organizations, industry, trade

associations, and others. The goals are to provide and

solicit information, develop a spirit of cooperation, and

promote uniformity with the activities and standards ofthe NCWM.

D. Committee on Administration and Public Affairs

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 Affairs annually

presents a report for Conference action.

Its scope embraces all matters dealing with:

1. development and recommendation of administrative

procedures;

2. education and training of weights and measures officials;

3. promotion of weights and measures principles and

techniques among users ofweights 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

58
Bylaws

coordinating Conference positions, recommendations, and

needs before Federal Government agencies, consumer

groups, the Associate NCWM membership, domestic and

international standards organizations, industry, trade

associations, and others. The goals are to provide and

solicit information, develop a spirit of cooperation, and

promote uniformity with the activities and standards of the NCWM.

(Amended 1994, 1995)

E. Nominating Committee

The Nominating Committee annually presents a slate of nominees for all elective offices. The names of these nominees shall appear in the report of the Nominating Committee and be

published in NCWM Publication 16, Program and Committee

Reports.

F. Resolutions Committee

Each year at the Annual Meeting of the Conference, Tthe

Resolutions Committee annually presents for Conference action such resolutions as it has been directed by the Conference to prepare, and such additional resolutions as are deemed appropriate by the Committee.

G. Auditing Committee

The Auditing Committee annually audits the books of the Treasurer and reports its findings to the Conference.

H. Credentials Committee

The Credentials Committee administers the Conference voting

system, makes decisions concerning disputed rights ofdesignated

representatives, and approves or certifies representatives to the House of State Representatives.

I. Finance Budget Review Committee

The Finance Budget Review Committee oversees the financial

responsibilities of the Conference, ttrtd It annually reviews the budget ofthe Conference and develops a proposed budget for tiie next Conference fiscal year, which begins January 1 of the following year and runs through December 3 1 . The proposed

budget is submitted to tiie Executive Committee for approval at the Conference Annual Meeting along with any recommendations

for changes in the handling of Conference finances, serves aa the Budget Review Committee.

J. Associate Membership Committee

The Associate Membership Committee annually reports on its activities and makes recommendations to the Executive Committee.

The Committee provides coordination and participation of

associate members in all business and social affiairs of the Conference.

Article VI - Voting System

All questions before a meeting ofthe Conference that are to be

decided by a formal recorded vote of the active members are voted on in accordance with the following voting structures and procedures.

Section 1 - House of State Representatives

A. OfTicial Designation -

This body ofActive members who are officially designated by

their States and are present and registered at the Annual

Meeting officials shall be knowTi as the "House of State Representatives."

B. Composition

Each State is authorized one official to serve as its representative at the Annual Meeting of the NCWM. The State weights

and measures director, or his or her designee (State or local government official), is the State representative.

The District of Columbia, the Navajo Nation, and the U.S. Commonwealths and Territories that have weights and measures programs similar to those of the States (for example,

have followed the uniform laws and regulations and have

adopted Handbook 44) are also allowed representatives.

C. Method of Designation

Each representative is specified annually to the Credentials

Committee 30 days before the NCWM Annual Meeting.

Accommodation may be made for exceptions to this deadline. An alternate should be named prior to the NCWM Annual

Meeting in case the designated representative cannot attend.

Section 2 - House of Delegates

A. Designation

All other State and l ocal weights anA measures regulatory

officials Active members present and registered at the Annual

Meeting (those not sitting in the House of State Representatives) are grouped as a body known as the "House of Delegates."

B. Requirements

No other special requirements apply.

59
Bylaws

Section 3 - Minimum Votes

A. House of State Representatives

A minimum of 27 votes in favor of, or 27 votes in opposition to, an issue must be cast for the vote to be considered official. If 54

or more votes are cast in the House of State Representatives, a

majority ofthe total votes is required to pass (or defeat) the issue. (Amended 1992)

B. House of Delegates

A minimum of27 votes in favor of, or 27 votes in opposition to, an issue must be cast for the vote to be considered official. If more than 54 total votes are cast, a simple majority rules. Should

a tie vote occur, or ifthe minimum votes in support or opposition

are not cast, the issue is decided by the vote ofthe House of State Representatives.

(Revised 1992)

Section 4 - Voting Rules

A. Proxy Votes

Proxy votes are not permitted. Since issues and recommendations in the committees' interim reports are often modified and

amended at the Conference, the attendance of officials at the NCWM Annual Meeting and voting sessions is vital.

B. Method

All voting is by a show of hands, standing vote, or machine

(electronic). There shall be no voice voting. No abstentions are permitted recorded.

C. Timing

Voting by both Houses is simultaneous.

D. Recording

The voting system is designed to record the votes of the State

representatives whether an electronic system, show of hands, or standing vote is used.

E. Applicability

These procedures (rules) apply only to the plenary (general)

sessions of the NCWM.

Section 5 - Committee Reports

Alternatives that may be used in voting on the reports:

A. vote on the entire report,

B. vote on grouped items or sections, or

C. vote on individual items; according to

1 . committee discretion, or

2. on request by a voting delegate, with the support of

10 others.

Section 6 - Floor Amendments

A. Amendments

Committee chairmen are allowed to offer amendments on the day of voting to make editorial changes in their final reports.

B. Changes

Substantive changes can be made at the request ofweights and

measures officials only, and:

1 . a majority ofthe voting delegates ofeach House must vote

favorably before a proposed amendment can be accepted

for debate.

2. A two-thirds favorable vote of each House on the amendment is required for passage (the requirement for a minimum vote of 27 in both Houses also applies).

Section 7 - Seating

A. Arrangement

The seating arrangement for voting sessions is shown on page 62 in Figure 1

.

B. Supervision

The members ofthe Credentials Committee will count votes and control placement and movement of delegates.

Section 8 - Voting

At the conclusion of debate (if authorized) on a motion, there

shall be a call for the vote by a show of hands, standing, or

electronic count.

A. Motion Accepted If:

1 . a minimum of 27 members of the House of State Representatives votes Yea. And If

2. a majority ofthe members ofthe House of Delegates

votes Yea (a minimum of 27 Yea votes required);'

B. Motion Rejected If:

1. a minimum of 27 members of the House of State Representatives votes Nay

And If

2. a majority ofthe members ofthe House ofDelegates

votes Nay (a minimum of 27 Nay votes required);^

60
Bylaws

C. Split Vote:

When the two Houses split on an issue or the minimum number

of votes supporting or opposing an issue is not obtained in the House of State Representatives, the issue is returned to the standing committee for further consideration.

The committee may drop the issue or reconsider it for submission

the following year. The issue cannot be recalled for another vote

at the same Annual Meeting.

Section 9 - Procedures

The Conference officers and committees observe in all of their procedures the principles of due process ~ the protection of the

rights and interests of affected parties; specifically, they: (a) give

reasonable advance notice of contemplated committee studies,

items to be considered for committee action, and tentative or

definite recommendations for Conference action, for the information of all parties at interest, and (b) provide that all interested

parties have an opportunity to be heard by committees and by the Conference.

Section 10 - Changes in Organization and Proced- ure

Proposals for changes in organization or procedure of the Conference are not acted upon until the Annual Meeting of the Conference following the Annual Meeting at which such

proposals are made.

Ifthe minimum number of votes required to pass or fail an issue is not cast in the House of Delegates, the issue will be determined by the vote of the House of State Representatives.

Ifthe minimum number of votes required to pass or fail an issue is not cast in the House of Delegates, the issue will be determined by the vote of the House of State Representatives.

61
Bylaws

Front of Room

Committee

Credentials

Committee

House

of

Representatives

(State Designated

Representatives)

House

of

Delegates

(State and Local

Officials)

Non-Voting Delegates (Associate and Advisory Members)

Figure 1. Seating Arrangement

62
Executive Committee

Rationale for Major Changes

To the NCWM Constitution and Bylaws

Constitution

Article III - Membership

The definition of "Active Membership" was changed to make it clear that in States where responsibiUties for the enforcement of

weights and measures laws and regulations have been given to more than one organizational unit (for example, where a State has

a petroleum program with responsibility for checking retail motor-fuel dispensers that is separate from the rest of the weights and measures program) individuals in both groups may be considered "Active Members" and may vote at the Conference's Annual

Meeting. _

The definition of"Advisory Membership" was changed to: 1) more clearly state that this category ofmembership is limited to State

officials who do not have regulatory weights and measures responsibilities and 2) include all retirees, regardless of whether or not they have been weights and measures officials, in order to give them the benefit of lower membership fees (as long as they are participating as individuals and not as representatives of a specific interest group).

The definition of "Associate Membership" was changed to reflect the changes in the other categories of membership.

Article IV - Officers

Section 2 - Elective Officers

B. Nominations and Elections

1. Nominating Committee - The paragraph was changed to specify when the committee should be appointed. In addition, the information on the composition of the committee was moved to the Bylaws where other information of this type is provided.

4. Terms of Office - Paragraph b in this section was changed to specify a longer term for Executive Committee members. The

proposed 5-year term is the same as the terms for members of the other Standing Committees. It was believed that a longer term would enable Committee members to gain a better understanding of the issues facing the Conference and would facilitate the Committee's strategic planning efforts.

5. Filling Vacancies - The paragraph was changed to specifically give the Chairman (or Chairman of the NTEP BOG) the

responsibility of recommending individuals to fill vacancies in any of the elective offices, who would then have to be approved

by the Executive Committee. This change more closely reflects current practice.

Article V - Appointive Officials

Section 1 Officials, Specific - The term "annually" was added to indicate the length of the term of the officials. Reference to the two Sergeants-At-Arms who are appointed each year was added to reflect current practice.

Article VIII - Amendments to the Constitution - The references in this paragraph were updated.

Bylaws

Article I - Application for Membership

Section 2 - Submission of Application - The paragraph was revised to reflect current practices.

Article II - Fees, Membership Records

Section I - Fee - The paragraph was changed to reflect that registration fees are now charged for participation in the Interim

Meeting as well as the Annual Meeting.

63
Executive Committee

Article IV - Duties of the Officers - The title was changed to include "Appointive Officials" because the section addresses the

duties of these officials as well as the duties of the Officers.

Section 1 - Chairman - The term "annual" was changed to "special purpose" to reflect changes being proposed to the Bylaws,

Article V, Section 1 (see the rationale below).

Section 2 - Chairman-Elect - See the rationale for the change to Article V, Section 1, E, Budget Review Committee.

Section 4 - Executive Secretary - This section was revised to more accurately reflect the responsibilities of this position.

Section 10 - Sergeants-At-Arms - Ifthe proposal to add the Sergeants-At-Arms to the list ofappointive officials in the Constitution

is adopted, a paragraph such as this would be needed in the Bylaws to explain the duties of the position.

Article V - Committees

Section 1- Annual Committees - The members of the committees listed in this section used to be appointed annually to serve 1- year terms. In some cases, committee members are now appointed to 3-year terms; therefore, the title was changed because it is no longer accurate.

A. Nominating Committee - Information on the composition of the Nominating Committee was moved from the Constitution to the Bylaws because that is where similar information for the other committees ofthe Conference is found. The information on the term of the committee members was added for clarity.

B. Resolutions Committee - It was felt that the duties of this committee could be carried out by a smaller number of individuals. The information on terms was added to reflect current practice.

C. Auditing Committee - The information on terms was added to reflect current practice.

E. Budget Review Committee - This paragraph was moved from the section on Standing Committees to this section because the Budget Review Committee (BRC) is more appropriately classified as a "special purpose committee" than a "standing committee."

The change of the Conference fiscal year to a calendar year has resulted in a situation where decisions made by the BRC on a budget for any particular year impact the terms of two Conference chairmen not just one. Traditionally, the BRC meets in the

spring of the each year to develop the budget for the next fiscal/calendar year which begins January 1 of the following year. The

current NCWM Chairman serves as the Chairman ofthe BRC; however, that individual leaves office before the budget that he

or she helps develop actually goes into effect. Theoretically, that means that an incoming Chairman has only a limited opportunity

to influence the budget that he or she will have to follow. Recently, the Chairman-Elect has been invited to attend the BRC

meeting as an active, but unofficial participant. Consequently, he or she has had an opportunity to participate in the debate on the budget for at least the last half of his or her term. If both the Chairman-Elect and the individual nominated in January to become

Chairman-Elect at the July Annual Meeting were members of the BRC, they would have the opportunity to directly participate

in the development of both of the budgets that would be in effect during their term. Therefore, the BRC recommended that they

both be added to the official list of BRC members in the NCWM Bylaws as ex-officio voting members. They also recommended

that the name ofthe Committee be changed from "Finance Committee" to "Budget Review Committee" because the name better

reflects the responsibilities of the committee and the term "Finance Committee" is no longer used.

F. Credentials Committee - This paragraph was moved from the section on Standing Committees to this section because the

Credentials Committee is more appropriately classified as a "special purpose committee" thzin a "standing committee." As the number ofcity jurisdictions has decreased, it has become increasingly difficult to find individuals from these jurisdictions who are able to serve on the committee; consequently, the wording in this paragraph was changed to require at least one representative

from a State jurisdiction and one from either a city or county jurisdiction to ensure representation of local groups but not mandate

that one of the representatives be from a city jurisdiction.

Section 2 - Standing Committees - The Finance (Budget Review) Committee and the Credentials Committee were moved fi-om

this section because they are more accurately classified as "special purpose committees" rather than as "standing committees."

A. Membership - The paragraph was revised to reflect the current practice of requiring at least one member from each of the four weights and measures regions. In addition, wording was added to establish the Associate Member Representatives as permanent

members ofthe Committee on Laws and Regulations and the Committee on Administration and Public Affairs. The last sentence

64
Executive Committee

was deleted because Section 1 of Article IV of the Bylaws already gives the Conference Chairman broad authority to make

appointments to the Standing Committees.

B. Executive Committee - The length of term for Executive Committee members-at-large was changed from 3 to 5 years to be

consistent with the proposed change in Article IV, Section 2, Paragraph A, Number 4 b of the Constitution. Wording was added

to establish the Associate Member Representative as a permanent member of the Executive Committee. The last sentence was

deleted because it implies that the term of Executive Committee members is only 1 year.

Sections 3 & 4 - The scope of Section 3 was expanded to include "Subcommittees" and Section 4 was deleted because it was no

longer necessary. Section 5 w£is renumbered as Section 4.

Section 5 - Duties and Fields of Operation of Committees

A. Executive Committee - Paragraph 3 was deleted because the procedures for filling vacancies on the Executive Committee is addressed in the Constitution. The following paragraphs were renumbered. The paragraph concerning the breakfast meeting for the Executive Committee and new Standing Committee chairmen was deleted because it does not reflect current practice (recent

meetings of this type have been luncheon meetings) and it was felt that there was no longer any need to include such wording in the Bylaws. The reference to the "NTEP Advisory Committee" was deleted to be consistent with changes to NCWM Publication

14, NTEP Administrative Procedures, that were adopted by the 8 1 st NCWM (See Item 1 02-6 in the Executive Committee's 1 996

Report). The wording of the last sentence of this section was changed so that it would be consistent with similar wording in the

sections on the other Standing Committees.

F. Resolutions Committee - The first paragraph was changed to be more specific about when the Committee presents its report.

I. Budget Review Committee - The paragraph was expanded to better describe the current responsibilities of the committee.

Article VI - Voting System

Section 1 - House of State Representatives

A. Official Designation - This paragraph was changed to make it clear that State Representatives must be Active members ofthe Conference and must be present and registered at the Annual Meeting in order to vote.

B. Composition - Reference to "the Navajo Nation" was added because they also are allowed to have a representative in the House

of State Representatives.

Section 2 - House of Delegates

A. Designation - This was changed to make it clear that any Active members (see the proposed revision ofthe definition of"Active

Membership" in the Constitution) (e.g., petroleum officials as well as weights and measures officials) who are present and

registered at the Annual Meeting may vote as part of the House of Delegates.

Section 4 - Voting Rules

B. Method - The word "recorded" was substituted for "permitted" because it more accurately reflects current practice.

Policies

In 1995 the Executive Committee discussed the fact that there were policies adopted by the Conference for the operation of the NCWM that were not included in the Constitution and Bylaws. These policies appeared in the Conference Reports for the year

they were adopted and some of them appeared in NCWM Publication 3, NCWM Policy, Interpretations, and Guidelines, which

has not been updated since the portions of the document dealing with laws and regulations were added to NIST Handbook 130,

Uniform Laws and Regulations. The Committee felt it would be desirable to have all ofthese policies included in one document

along with the Constitution and Bylaws. Consequently, the Conference Reports from the last 10 years were reviewed and the

policies dealing with the operation ofthe Conference were identified for possible inclusion in Publication 1 as a new section. The

proposed Policies section, along with some suggested changes, is being published for information and comment at this time. It

is not being proposed for adoption by the Conference.

65

Policies

Appendix C - Proposed New Section on Policies for the NCWM Constitution and Bylaws

Policies

Introduction

The following policies adopted by the NCWM membership were

selected for inclusion in this document because they relate to the operation ofthe National Conference on Weights and Measures.

1.1. Special Recognition and Awards ( Exec, 1986,

p. 52) - Active and Associate Members having Individuals who

have 10 or more years of membership in the NCWM, and who

have rendered special service to the NCWM, may, at the time of

their retirement from active weights and measures employment,

be selected by the Executive Committee to receive an inscribed plaque attesting to that special service. The plaque will be

presented by the Chairman or designee at the appropriate time

and place.

Recommendations for this award may be made by (1) any

member of the Conference, or (2) the Regional Associations

through their Chairmen. Recommendations should be in writing

and addressed to the Executive Committee.

1.2. International Organization of Legal

Metrology, NCWM Participation (Exec, 1987, p.70;

1988, p. 54; 1989, p. 46)

PART I - GENERAL

A. It is the policy of the National Conference on Weights and

Measures (NCWM) to participate in U.S. activities related

to the International Organization of Legal Metrology

(OIML).

B. NCWM participation in U.S. activities is viewed as an

opportunity to introduce U.S. practices into international weights and measures requirements and also to enrich the U.S. system through adoption of international weights and

measures practices.

C. The NCWM is the principal organization through which the recommendations ofthe OIML can be introduced into State weights and measures laws and regulations in the United

States.

D. The Executive Committee will review the OIML Working

Program and decide which Pilot and Reporting Secretariats are of interest to the NCWM, and will promote participation of its members on the various U.S. National Working

Groups (USNWGs) overseeing these secretariats.

E. The Executive Committee will submit the name of the

individual serving as the NCWM Chairman at the time of

the Quadrennial OIML meeting to the Head of the U.S.

Delegation as its nominee to represent the NCWM at the Quadrennial Meeting. If the Chairman is unable to represent the NCWM, the name of the Chairman-Elect

will be submitted as its nominee.

PART II - NCWM REVIEW OF OIML RECOMMENDATIONS AND DOCUMENTS

PARTICIPATION ON OIML COMMITTEES

A. This part of the policy applies to selection of NCWM

members for OIML Pilot and Reporting Secretariats and

the USNWGs overseeing these Secretariats.

B. The Executive Committee will decide which Pilot and

Reporting Secretariats are of interest to the NCWM and

will promote participation of its members on the various

USNWGs overseeing these secretariats.

C. The NCWM Chairman and Executive Secretary shall jointly receive and coordinate invitations or requests for NCWM participation in these OIML activities.

D. Members selected for participation in the meetings of the OIML activities should be qualified to represent the NCWM to ensure close coordination of the work and

scope of the NCWM committees and of the OIML

organizations.

E. Selection of NCWM members for participation will be

determined as follows:

1 . Requests will normally be referred to the appropriate

NCWM Committee, in which case, the Committee

will recommend to the Chairman by letter the NCWM member believed to be ftilly qualified. The

Chairman may exercise the right to make the selection without reference to a Committee if the subject matter is not covered by the standing committee.

2. The NCWM Chairman, in consultation with the Executive Secretary, shall make the final NCWM

selection and forward the name ofthe nominee to the NIST Office of Standards Management. Technical

Standards Activities Program.

F. The role of the NCWM representative is of special

significance in that he or she may be the first NCWM

member having knowledge ofthe recommendations being

developed. As the NCWM representative, the member:

67
Policies

1. will keep the sponsoring standing committee

current on the progress ofthe OIML activity; and

2. will promote the policies of the NCWM, seeking

guidance through the Committee structure if a

question arises regarding the policy and/or position of the NCWM.

PART III - DEVELOPMENT OF NCWM POSITIONS

A. Formal processes are followed by the NCWM to review

OIML Recommendations and Documents, leading to and

including the development of official NCWM positions on

these papers and the forwarding of these positions to the U.S. Representative to OIML.

4. The NCWM will consider abstaining if the draft is considered to be outside the scope of the NCWM

interests or if a NCWM position on the draft can not be achieved.

PART rV- ADOPTION OF OIML RECOMMENDATIONS

A. Any OIML recommendation under consideration for adoption may be considered in whole or in part, or rejected. (NOTE: NCWM requirements may be less stringent and/or different from OIML requirements as long as they do not present a technical obstacle to the marketing of equipment in the United States.)

B. The OIML recommendation, or part thereof, may be

proposed for adoption by the NCWM provided that:

B. Recommendations and documents will be reviewed to determine if the draft material is equivalent to existing

NCWM codes, uniform laws and regulations.

1 . it was not opposed by the NCWM;

2. a need exists;

C. The NCWM Chairman and Executive Secretary or shall jointly receive and coordinate requests for review of draft OIML International Recommendations and Documents

which are to come before the International Committee of

Legal Metrology (CIML) and the International Conference

as follows:

1. The requests will be referred to the appropriate

NCWM Committee for review and development

of recommended NCWM position for submission

to the Executive Committee. (The Executive

Committee may decide to solicit comments from

other members of the NCWM through use of the mail ballot.)

2. The Executive Committee will review the comments received and will formulate a recommended

NCWM position on the OIML draft.

3. An affirmative position will be taken if the reviewers agree that the OIML draft is sufficiently beneficial and one ofthe following circumstances is met

(otherwise, a negative position will be taken):

a. The proposed OIML requirements are considered to be equivalent to existing or proposed

NCWM codes, and uniform regulations, and/or

laws;

b. Conflicts with existing or proposed NCWM

codes, uniform regulations, and/or laws can be

resolved without difficulty or losing equivalence;

or

c. No NCWM codes or uniform regulations exist and the draft OIML requirements could be consid- ered as the basis for such codes or regulations.

3. the OIML recommendation satisfies the need; and

4. it is considered beneficial to the U.S. marketplace.

PART V - FUNDING

A. The NCWM will annually budget to support OIML activities. The amount offiinding will be determined within the context of overall NCWM activities and will likely vary from year to year.

B. The representatives will be encouraged to arrange

ftjnding, either in fiill or partially, by their employer for

their participation.

1.3. Policy, Members' Expenses (Exec, 1991, p. 59)

Section 1 - Introduction

1.1. Background - As a legal metrology standards-developing

organization, the NCWM provides essential support to the various State and local weights and measures jurisdictions,

developing its products largely through the attendance and

participation of its active members, advisory members, and

associate members at a wide range of meeting, conferences,

and related forums.

1 .2. Purpose - It is the purpose ofthis policy to establish a fair and equitable procedure for the reimbursement of travel expenses for Conference members when on authorized

Conference business. Any traveler on official business is expected to exercise the same care in incurring expenses that a prudent person would exercise if traveling on personal

business and expending personal fijnds. Excess costs, circuitous routes, delays, or luxury accommodations and

services unnecessary or unjustified in the performance of

official business are not acceptable under this policy.

68
Policies

It is the intent ofthis policy to make the NCWM the "reimburser

of last resort." NCWM reimbursement is to be requested only

after it has been determined the traveler's organization can not reimburse the traveler fully or partially.

1.3. Persons Covered - This policy applies to NCWM Active

Members, Associate Members, and Advisory Members, and not

to non-members, invited observers. Federal agency personnel, or Conference guests including speakers.

1.4. Annual Meeting - Attendance at the NCWM's Annual

Conference is not a Conference reimbursable expense.

Section 2 - Definitions

2.1. Traveler - means any person authorized to be reimbursed.

2.2. Official Station - means the site (providing the lesser cost to the Conference)

1) at which a traveler is normally assigned by his/her

employer, or

2) which is officially recognized as the domicile of

the traveler.

2.3. Per Diem - means subsistence (meals and/or lodging)

reimbursement for a 24-hour period beginning with the traveler's time of departure.

2.4. Transportation Expenses - means:

a) commercial carrier fares; b) taxi, bus, van, airport limousine, or necessary

rental car charges*;

c) private car mileage allowance;

d) parking, garage, and toll charges;

e) other charges essential to the traveler while en

route; and

f) taxes for any of the above.

*RentJil cars are not an approved expense unless authorized by

the NCWM Treasurer in advance of travel.

Section 3 - Levels of Reimbursement

3.1. Full Reimbursement - Reimbursement is available for any

authorized travel when the traveler's parent organization cannot

provide funding.

3.2. Partial Reimbursement - Partial reimbursement is available when the traveler's parent organization partially funds the travel expenses.

Section 4 - Reimbursement Rates

4. 1 . Per Diem Expenses

4.1.1. Meals - except as stated in section 4.1.3., the NCWM's

meal per diem shall be that rate authorized by NIST for its employees' meals. For a portion of a day, dinner shall constitute 50 percent and breakfast and lunch 25 percent each. Actual meal expenses (documented by receipts) may be

authorized when necessary by the NCWM Executive Secretary and NCWM Chairman.

4.1.2. Lodging Expense - except as provided in section 4. 1 .3., expenses shall be reimbursed at no more than the minimum

rate at the meeting site hotel except when otherwise authorized in writing.

4.1.3. Lodging and Meals at an Interim Meeting -

a) When an authorized traveler shares a room, the NCWM will reimburse the traveler the cost of the room at the minimum single room rate plus up to 100 percent of the traveler's meal per diem allowance.

b) When an authorized traveler occupies a single room,

the NCWM will reimburse the traveler the cost of

the room at the minimum single room rate plus up to 60 percent of the traveler's meal per diem allowance.

4.2. Transportation Expenses

4.2.1. Airline travel shall be reimbursed at the most economical coach class (including economy or excursion or Saturday

fare) rate practical. Travelers shall utilize advance purchase

discounts.

4.2.2. Rental cars when authorized shall be reimbursed at the subcompact or compact rate.

4.2.3. Private car mileage reimbursement shall be the current NIST reimbursement rate, but not to exceed the round trip airfare, as provided in section 4.2.1., from the traveler's

official station.

4.2.4. Taxis, limos, shuttles, and other ground transportation

shall be reimbursed at the most economical rate.

4.2.5. Airport parking shall be reimbursed at the most

economical rate (i.e., satellite parking).

Section 5 - Travel Authorization

5.1 . Domestic Travel (within USA) - Travel to be reimbursed

fully or partially from NCWM sources must be authorized in writing (in advance of the travel commencing) by the Executive Secretary and the NCWM Chairman or NCWM

Chairman-Elect.

69
Policies

5.2. International Travel - An international traveler must have

been selected according to Conference international meeting

selection procedures. NCWM will reimburse a traveler to locations outside of the United States. Such travel shall be

undertaken only with advanced written authorization from the NCWM Executive Secretary and with the concurrence of the NCWM Chairman.

Section 6 - Vouchers

6.1. Authorized Forms - Requests for reimbursement of travel expenses shall be made on an NCWM Travel Voucher. NCWM

will provide a copy of this form, along with a summary of this policy to each traveler at the time such travel is authorized.

6.2. Receipts - Receipts for common carrier, lodging, and other expenses as required must accompany submitted travel vouchers.

6.3. Certification - NCWM Travel Vouchers shall include the

traveler's signature attesting the information is correct and that no other reimbursement has been or will be provided by any

other source.

Section 7 - Exceptions

7. 1 . Exceptions - The NCWM Chairman may grant exceptions

to this policy for good cause on a case by case basis.

1.4. Meetings, Annual and Interim, Work Schedule (Exec, 1991, p. 43) - All sessions of Conference meetings

are normally open to all members of the Conference. If the Chairman of a Committee recognizes an abnormal situation involving a proprietary issue (e.g., NTEP appeals) or sensitive

issue or other substantive need, that portion ofthe session dealing

with the abnormal issue may be closed provided that: (1) the Conference Chairman (or, in his or her absence, the ChairmanElect) approves, and (2) an announcement of the closed meeting

is posted on or near the door to the meeting session and on the announcement board at the registration desk. If at all possible, the posting should be done at least a day prior to the planned

closed session.

1.5. Procedures for Establishing the Budget and

Administering Funds of the NCWM (Exec, 1983, p. 77; 1985, p. 39; 1992, p. 64)

Purpose: To assure sufficient and accurately accounted fiinds for completion of objectives and activities, prioritized to attain the

benefits desired by the National Conference on Weights and

Measures (NCWM).

Policy:

(I) ESTABLISHING PRIORITIES

(A) A general set of priorities shall be established periodically,

annually at least, by the NCWM policy establishing group.

called the "Executive Committee," presided over by the Conference Chairman.

(II) BUDGET

(A) The Conference Chairman shall establish within 60 days

after the Annual Meet ing a Budget Review Committee

constituted as prescribed in the NCWM Bylaws (also called the Finance Committee) which shall:

(1) be presided over by the Conference Chairman,

(2) consist of two weights and measures officials as appointed voting members,

'^ one associate member as an appointed advisory non-voting member, the Treasurer as an ex'officio voting member, and the Executive Secretaiy as an cx-ofFieio voting member;

Note 1 : Terms for initially appointed voting members shall consist of 1 year for one member and 2 yeai's for the other member with subsequent annual

appointment of one member for a 2'year term.

(3) make necessary adjustments to the Executive Sccre-' tary 's prop

osal (see (II)(D)) by deliberation through

the use of correspondence, meetings, and/or conferenee calls.

(1) Develop a tentative budget for the following fiscal year' to include:

(a) Anticipated sources and quantities of revenue.

(b) Recommended ordinary and extraordinary

expenditures to be funded from the anticipated

budget.

(c) Prior year's estimated and final expenditures.

(d) Types of investments recommended for excess

funds.

^

(e) Anticipated need to draw on reserve funds or

abilities to provide additional funds to any existing reserve fund.

(f) Recommended dues and registration fee levels.

Note The fiscal year for the NCWM is from

January 1 through December 3 1

.

Note ^: Invested funds shall be Federally insured.

(2) Present a tentative budget at the Annual Meeting to the Executive Committee for acceptance. The

Executive Committee may return the tentative budget

to the Budget Review Committee for adjustment(s)

to enable acceptance by the Executive Committee.

Normally, these adjustments are expected to be

70
Policies

completed prior to conclusion ofthe Annual Meeting.

(B) The NCWM Exocutivo SccrotQr>' shall, within 120 days'

after tlie Interim Meet ing, propose a tentative budget for the following fiscal year* to include:

(i^ Anticip

ated sources and quant i t i es of revenue .

f2) Recommended—ordinary—and

extraordinaiy exp

enditures t o be funded from the anticipat ed

budget.

(3) Prior year's estimated and final expenditures.

(4^ Types of investments recommended for excess

funds.

'*

Note 2 : To permit study of the Treasurer's first quarter

report. Note 3 : The fiscal year for the NCWM is from January 1 through December 3 1

Note 4: Invested funds shall be Federally insured.

f6) Re commended dues and re gistrat ion fee l e ve ls.

i€)—The proposed tentative budget submitted by the Executive Secretary' witliin 120 days after the Interim Meet ing to the Conference Budget Revi ew Committee , as described in (IIXA) and (II)(D), shall use the same account receipts and

expenditures categories as described in (IV)(A).

(III) AUTHORITY

(A) Acceptance by the Executive Committee of the Budget

Review Committee's tentative budget constitutes acceptance

for the Conference.

(IV) ACCOUNTING

(A) See Chart of Accounts in the Report of the 76th NCWM,

1991, Executive Committee Report, page 62.

(V) PROCESSING PAYMENTS

(A) A bill or invoice submitted for payment shall be

processed as follows:

(1) It shall be certified by the Executive Secretary

to be properly payable.

(2) The Executive Secretary shall retain a copy of

the certified bill or invoice for his or her files,

send a copy to the Chairman for information, and

send the original to the Treasurer for payment.

(3) The Treasurer shall identify each certified bill or invoice with the number of the check issued.

(4) The Treasurer shall issue, sign, and send the check

to the Executive Secretary for countersigning and

mailing to the issuer of the bill or invoice.

(B) A file of all bills and invoices paid in both the current and

preceding fiscal years and the Treasurer's curtent interim and last annual reports, preferably placed in a loose-leaf

binder, shall be made available to the Chairman and

Executive Committee at the Interim Meetings and at the Annual Meeting for review.

(VI) TREASURER'S REPORT

(A) The Conference Treasurer shall issue an interim and annual report of receipts and expenditures.

The annual report shall be presented to the Conference membership.

AUDIT

An annual Auditing Committee shall:

( 1 ) Be appointed by the Conference Chairman within 60 days after the annual meet ing prior to the NCWM Interim Meeting.

(2) Consist of two members who servrd the previ ous year and one new member. One member is to be app

o i nted chaimian. Be constituted as prescribed

in the NCWM Bylaws.

(3) Conduct an audit and review of accounts to assure funds are received and disbursed in accordance

with these procedures. (It is recommended that the concluding audit be conducted within the fi rst 2 days of the Annual Meeting s o questi ons can be

re solved.)

(4) Issue a statement offindings in a committee report

at the time of the Annual Meeting.

1.6. Guideline - Site Selection Criteria (Exec,

1989, p. 39) - The following criteria are provided for selection of cities and hotels for the Annual Meeting of the NCWM held

in July:

1 . Large fiall-service hotel (500 rooms), minimum AAA 4- diamond or Mobil 4-star rating, with complete meeting room facilities, i.e.,

a. General Sessions set for 400 classroom style with

head podium for 12.

tf^ Anticipated need to draw on reserve funds or (VII)

abilities to provide additional funds to any existing

res erve fiind. (A)

71
Policies

b. Seven (7) breakout rooms for simultaneous

meetings throughout the week.

c. Four (4) additional breakout rooms for meetings

simultaneous with those required under para- graph 1 .b. above.

2. Active and supportive Convention Bureau.

3. Location safe for walking in the evening and with

ample restaurants.

4. Several printing firms, within three or four blocks

from the hotel, that will operate all night.

5. A variety of optional events and outings to choose

from.

6. Full-service airport for connections from all 50 States (small connector airlines not desirable). Transportation to and from the airport should be ample, either from host hotel or airport transportation system.

1.7. U.S. /Canada Mutual Recognition Agreement (Exec, 1994, p. 39)

1. Purpose - The Purpose ofthis Mutual Recognition Agreement

(MRA) is to set out a working relationship to implement applicable provisions of the Free Trade Agreement (FTA) by providing

for the mutual recognition ofthe device evaluations administered

and performed by the Legal Metrology Branch (LMD) Measure- ment Canada (MC), an agency of Industry and Science Canada,

and by the National Type Evaluation Program (NTEP) of the National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM) of the United States.

2. Background - The Government of the United States of

America and the government of Canada are parties to the FTA.

Chapter Six of the FTA applies to technical standards, and

Article 604 of this agreement provides in part 1 that:

To the greatest extent possible, and taking into account international standardization activities, each party shall make compatible its standards related measures and procedures for product

approval with those of the other party.

The LMB MC and NTEP operate ongoing type evaluation

systems for commercial measuring devices. Canada, many

States, and several U.S. Federal agencies require the evaluation

and approval ofthe design and performance of device prototypes

prior to their sale for commercial use.

Rather than submitting commercial devices for the United States market to NTEP laboratories and essentially the same devices for the Canadian market to fcMBMC's laboratory, manufacturers

requested that the United States and Canada (1) combine their evaluation tests and (2) recognize either NTEP laboratory or LMB laboratory results of the combined evaluation as the basis

upon which NTEP and fcMB MC would each issue their evaluation documents (either the NTEP Certificate of

Conformance or the Canadian Notice of Approval). Expected

benefits include: increased uniformity oftest methods reducing unnecessary differences, misunderstandings, and unnecessary

duplication; reduced costs and improved turn-around time by

accessing a single source for type evaluation for both nations; increased competitiveness for both U.S. and Canadian

manufacturers by speeding the time from design to the end

markets.

The following policy was adopted in January 1993 by the National Conference on Weights and Measures, in concert with Measurement Canada (formerly called the Legal Metrology Branch), Canada:

With respect to weights and measures devices, the parties agree that the most effective means to remove barriers to free trade is to achieve mutual recognition of device type evaluation testing. This will necessarily involve the comparative

analysis oftype evaluation codes and test procedures together

with the intent of streamlining and minimizing differences in so far as possible so as to enable efficient device evaluation

while preserving the technical capability and competence of

their mutual laboratories.

3. Agreement - The United States National Type Evaluation

Program (NTEP) and Canada's Legal Metrology Branch

(LMB) Measurement Canada (MC) agree to recognize each

other's type evaluation results:

NTEP will recognize the results of the tests performed by

the LMB MC for the purpose of issuing NTEP

Certificates ofConformance for the device types set out in the annex to this agreement. LMB MC will recognize the

results of the tests conducted by the NTEP Participating

Laboratories for the purpose of issuing a Canadian Notice

of Approval for the device types set out in the annex to

this agreement.

Each party will continue to issue its own document (either the NTEP Certificate of Conformance or the Canadian Notice of

Approval).

Each party will

make all information available to the other party, maintaining confidentiality of proprietary information;

collaborate in the development of additional areas of

mutual recognition;

collaborate in the development of requirements and test methods for commercial devices and systems;

collaborate in the development and maintenance of

proficiency and uniformity of evaluation;

72
collaborate to preserve the technical capability and competence of their mutual laboratories.

4. Collaboration - Both parties will collaborate to eliminate or minimize differences in requirements and test methods so as to enable efficient device evaluation.

5. Resolidion of Complaints - This MRA does not create

obligations binding under international law. However, each party

will investigate complaints that the other party brings forward,

and both parties will work together to seek satisfactory resolution of such complaints.

6. Duration and Termination - This MRA will become effective on April 1, 1994. It will remain in effect for a period of five (5) years and may be extended by mutual consent. This MRA may

be terminated at any time by either party upon six (6) months

written notice to the other party.

7. Application for Type Approval - Under this agreement, any

applicant for type approval is free to apply to either country when

requesting type approval in either Canada, the United States, or both countries.

Mutual Recognition Agreement

ANNEX

List of device types that are subject to provision of the Mutual

Recognition Agreement.

b.—Electronic noncomput ing bench and plat form scales or

separate weigliing elements with a capacity up to and

including 500 kilograms.

2:

Electronic indicators for uae with we igh scales.

(Copies of the current list of devices covered under the agreement are available from the NIST Office of Weights and

Measures.)

73

Executive Committee

Appendix D

Bylaws of the Associate Membership Committee

of the National Conference on Weights and Measures

ARTICLE I: Name and Relationship to the National

Conference on Weights and Measures

The name ofthis Committee is the Associate Membership Committee (Committee), an unincorporated committee representing

the associate membership ofthe National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM) organized and existing pursuant to the

Constitution and Bylaws of the NCWM (NCWM Publication 1). The associate membership of the NCWM comprises

representatives of manufacturers, industry, business, consumers, and other persons who are interested in the objectives and

activities of the NCWM. The NCWM is sponsored by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).

ARTICLE II: Members of Committee

The Committee shall consist of not less than 5 nor more thein 10 associate members of the NCWM nominated and elected by

the associate members in attendance at the Annual Meeting of the associate membership and appointed by the NCWM

Chairman. The Committee shall strive to be representative of the cross-section of interests within the associate membership.

The Associate Membership Committee Chairman shall provide the list of elected members to the NCWM Chairman for

appointment.

ARTICLE III: Objectives and Responsibilities

The following are, without limitation, the objectives and responsibilities of the Committee:

(a) to explain, advocate and coordinate associate membership positions, recommendations, concerns and needs as

they relate to issues of interest before the NCWM;

(b) to serve as a mechanism for dissemination of general and administrative information of interest to the associate

membership, including advising associate members with respect to the programs for meetings of the NCWM and its

Committees;

(c) to encourage the associate membership to participate in and otherwise assist in weights and measures

conferences, meetings, seminars, training programs;

(d) to recommend one or more associate members as representatives to the standing committees of the NCWM and,

when deemed appropriate, such other committees of the NCWM consistent with any policies, procedures and/or

guidelines adopted by the NCWM or the Committee regarding such representatives;

(e) to convene during the Annual and Interim Meetings of the NCWM, and at such other time as may be called by

the Committee Chairman or a majority of the members of the Committee;

(f) to approve and present to the Executive Committee of the NCWM, the Associate Membership Committee's

Annual Report for inclusion in the annual report of the NCWM;

75
Executive Committee

(g) to assist in planning and coordinating associate membership events at the NCWM;

(h) to adopt those procedures and policies the Committee deems appropriate to further the objectives and

responsibilities set forth herein.

(i) to create special committees as it deems necessary to promote the objectives and carry on the work of the Committee and the associate membership, and to appoint the members of those special committees.

(j) to promote weights and measures principles and techniques amongst the associate members of the NCWM and

the general public in conjunction with the efforts of the NCWM.

ARTICLE IV: Meetings

Section 1. Annual Meeting: The Annual Meeting of the associate membership and Associate Membership Committee shall

be conducted as one joint meeting to be held during the Annual Meeting of the NCWM and shall be open to all members of

the NCWM. Only associate members have voting rights on issues before the associate membership. The time and place of

the Annual Meeting shall be published in the NCWM Annual Meeting Program and shall be coordinated with the Executive

Secretary of the NCWM so as to avoid, as much as is possible, program and logistical conflicts with associate members.

The agenda for this Meeting shall include the election of officers, reports fi-om the Committee Chairman and

Secretary/Treasurer, and other items pertinent to the activities of the associate membership in the NCWM.

Section 2. Interim Meeting: The Interim Meeting of the associate membership and Associate Membership Committee shall

be conducted as one joint meeting to be held during the Interim Meeting of the NCWM and shall be open to all members of

the NCWM. Only associate members have voting rights on issues before the associate membership. The time and place of

the Interim Meeting shall be published in the NCWM Interim Meeting Program and shall be coordinated with the Executive

Secretary of the NCWM so as to avoid, as much as possible, program and logistical conflicts with associate members.

The agenda for this meeting shall include any items pertinent to the activities of the associate membership in the NCWM.

Section 3. Special Meetings: Special meetings of the Committee may be called at any other time deemed necessary by the

Committee Chairman or by a majority of the Committee. Such special meetings may be held by means of conference

telephone or similar communications equipment enabling all members in the meeting to hear one another, and participation in

a meeting pursuant to such means shall constitute presence in person at such meetings. Written or oral notice of the date, time

and place of all special meetings of the Committee shall be given to each member personally or mailed to his/her usual place

of business at least five (5) days prior to the date of the meeting, provided that any one or more Committee members, may

waive such notice in writing or by attendance without protest at such meeting.

Section 4. Quorum and Rules of Order: A quorum necessary for a meeting shall consist of a majority of the members of

the Committee. The rules contained in Robert's Rules of Order shall govern the Committee in all cases to which they are

applicable, and provided that they are not inconsistent with the Constitution or Bylaws or the Special Rules of the NCWM.

76
Executive Committee

Section 5. Voting: Each member of the Committee shall be entitled to one vote on each matter submitted to the Committee

for action during special meetings as defined in Article IV, Section 3.

ARTICLE V: Term

Section 1. Term: The term of the individual members of the Committee shall be for a period of five (5) years and shall run

from the adjournment of the Annual Meeting of the Committee at which a member is elected through the fifth Annual Meeting

thereafter. Individual members completing their term are eligible for renomination and reappointment subject to concurrence

of the associate membership at a duly scheduled meeting.

Section 2. Vacancies: In the event a Committee member is unable, for any reason, to ftilfill his/her appointed term, a

successor to serve the remainder of that term shall be nominated by the Associate Membership Committee for appointment by

the NCWM Chairman at the next regularly scheduled meeting.

ARTICLE VI: Officers

The associate members shall, at their Annual Meeting, elect a Committee Chairman, Vice Chairman, and Secretary/Treasurer

from their membership each to serve for a term of 1 year, which term shall run fi"om the adjournment of the Annual Meeting at

which the officers are elected through the succeeding Annual Meeting of the NCWM.

ARTICLE VII: Duties of Officers

Section 1. Chairman: The Chairman shall:

(a) preside at all meetings of the Committee;

(b) coordinate participation by the associate membership in NCWM program activities;

(c) plan activities and events sponsored by the Committee cooperatively with the NCWM Executive Secretary and

NCWM Chairman;

(d) request and obtain concurrence by the Associate Membership Committee relative to NCWM plans for

involvement of the associate membership;

(e) report informally to the associate members on the plans and activities of the Committee;

(f) perform such other duties as may be prescribed in this Charter or assigned by the Committee;

(g) submit annually to the NCWM Executive Committee a report concerning the program of the Committee, which

report is intended to be included in the final report of the Executive Committee to the NCWM;

(h) formally authorize or concur with all checks written on behalf of the Committee; and

(i) appoint, as necessary, associate members to assist in the planning and coordination of ftinctions to assure the

highest level of support to the NCWM.

Section 2. Vice Chairman: The Vice Chairman shall:

(a) assist the Committee Chairman in the planning and implementation of Committee programs;

77
Executive Committee

(b) act and serve on behalf of the Committee Chairman in the event that the Chairman is unable to carry out the

duties of that office;

(c) audit annually the Committee Treasurer's report;

(d) perform other duties as are assigned by the Committee Chairman.

Section 3. Secretary/Treasurer: The Secretary/Treasurer shall:

(a) record all proceedings of the meetings of the Committee in a book to be kept for that purpose;

(b) be custodian of the records of the Committee and see that the books, reports, statements, and all other documents

and records of the Committee are properly kept and filed;

(c) communicate with the NCWM Treasurer regarding monies collected and distributed on behalf of the associate

membership including authorizing, when necessary, checks v^Titten on behalf of the associate membership;

(d) submit an annual report at the time of the Annual Meeting of the Committee;

ARTICLE VH: Committees

The Committee, by resolution adopted by a majority of the Committee members at a meeting at which a quorum is present,

may designate two (2) or more associate members to constitute a Subcommittee, which Subcommittee shall have and may

exercise all such authority as may be provided in the resolution adopted by the Committee.

ARTICLE VIII: Amendments

The Bylaws of the Committee may be amended, added to, or repealed at any Annual Meeting of the membership provided that

any proposed changes must be included in the agenda of the Committee and discussed at the Annual Meeting of the

Committee at which said changes will be voted on. Amendments to the Bylaws must be approved by a minimum of 2/3 vote

of all associate members in attendance at said meeting.

78
Executive Committee EaEau

esoo o

SO

so

fix s s^ E ^ § U Z z co©s EVEBOZ o

Q.a< Ez

9\

0\ ^

1/1

in

O 9vV

w 2 " w 2

<M VO a IT) Ed 2 © o\

NO

•<1- On

ON

00

ON

OS

C/3 £ 3

•oB

Os

OS

NO

ON

1-^ >

01 5 2 S ^>

"75" 2 .I

IE

O ZJ o s S o ^

^1 s a £> C a V 3 Z B -a

•S 8

r-'S

c^ so Iia ^ r 1 '«* 2|O o ^ .S .2 S 2J S S u o. & " ^ o 5 4? c c o .2 = 2 s o I i.i-g 111 s s § "1

il " § S a ? .2 5 3 -o

— C9 ° io .t: « « « ^ "5 •= = U ,§ i2 S

-7 inu 4> £ o -g S ^ 2 E i

•= ^ S i2 1 ° I = o u a

US'?; §§) = c

•a

g

Co" o °1! ^ ? 2 & g s-i E J S -

!. ^ g c E 1 w jo I E I ; vj in g o 0 § j: 00 o 1 ^ „ jg 00

:*u "rt ' ^ -5 " • ^ E :S ^ i ^ =1

•S S 2 £ o e i2 o S •£ 4J " J2 c o .2 E= -a S s

t> ^ 2 "S S = c o u "a E S ; J" S 1 1 Si- E a 5 o -s - ^ :2 s -§1 gI- B — -o IB •5.2 E u o -S E a> "I o -

Executive Committee

Appendix F

Report on OIML

By

Samuel E. Chappell, Chief

Technical Standards Activities Program, NIST

10th International Conference of Legal Metrology

Canada hosted tiie 1 0th International Conference ofLegal Metrology and the 3 1 st meeting ofthe International Committee ofLegal

Metrology (CEVEL) ofthe International Organization ofLegal Metrology (OIML) from November 4 through 8, 1996. Dr. Collins,

Director of the Office of Standards Serviced at NIST, led the U.S. delegation to the Conference, and I represented the United

States at the meetings ofthe CIML. Representatives of41 of the 54 OIML member nations, 10 of the 42 corresponding member

nations, and 9 regional and international organizations attended. The U.S. delegation to the Conference consisted ofthe following persons including myself:

Dr. Belinda L. Collins

Director, Office of Standards Services, NIST

Mr. John B. Hitchcock

Scientific Programs, U.S. Department of State

Dr. Charles D. Ehrlich

Office of Standards Services, NIST

Ms. Barbara J. Bloch

Chair, National Conference on Weights and Measures

Assistant Director, California Measurement Standards

Mr. Charles A. Gardner

Chair, Board of Governors, National Type Evaluation

Program

Director, Suffolk County Weights and Measures, NY

Dr. Gilbert M. Ugiansky

Chief, Weights and Measures, Office of Measurement

Services, NIST

Mr. Daryl E. Tonini

Technical Director, Scale Manufacturers Association

Mr. Bob Traettino

Vice President of Quality, Liquid Controls Corporation

Chair, Meter Manufacturers Association

Mr. Gary Lameris

Hobart Corporation

The Conference meets every 4 years and has the main objectives of ratifying the work completed by CIML in the past 4 years and

approving a budget for the next 4 years.

The third meeting (November 4) and a Workshop (November 1) ofthe Asia-Pacific Legal Metrology Forum (APLMF) was also held in Vancouver prior to the Conference.

Significant decisions and reports at the Conference of particular interest to the NCWM included the following:

• Ratification of OIML Recommendations (of particular interest to NCWM) previously approved by CIML:

In 1993, six Recommendations were approved.

- Weights of Classes E,, Ej, F„ Fj, M,, M2, M3

- Continuous Totalizing Automatic Weighing Instruments(Belt Weighers) (Revision of R50)

In 1994, eleven Recommendations and Annexes for two others were approved.

- Pipe Provers for Testing Measuring Systems for Liquids

- Characteristics of Standard Capacity Measures and Test Methods for Measuring Systems

- Testing Procedures for Pattern Examination of Fuel Dispensers for Motor Vehicles

- Measuring Assemblies for Liquids Other Than Water

- Diaphragm Gas Meters (Revision of R31)

- Nonautomatic Weighing Instruments (Amendment to R76)

- Discontinuous Totalizing Automatic Weighing Instruments (Annex for test procedures- R107)

In 1995, three Recommendations and an Annex for another were approved.

81
Executive Committee

- "Automatic Catchweighing Instruments" (revision of OIML R51) developed by the United Kingdom.

- "Automatic Gravimetric Filling Instruments" (revision of OIML R61) developed by the United Kingdom

- "Automatic Rail-Weighbridges" Annexes on the test procedures and the test report format for OIML R106

developed by the United Kingdom

In 1996 at this Conference, four Recommendations and an Annex for another were submitted directly for

ratification.

- "Information on Labels of Prepackaged Products" (revision of R79)

- Annex on Testing Procedures, "Continuous Totalizing Automatic Weighing Instruments"

All 24 Recommendations and 4 Annexes for existing Recommendations were supported by the U.S.A. and

were ratified by the Conference. Two proposed Recommendations to be presented directly for ratification by

the Conference were not supported by the U.S.A. and some other member nations and were withdrawn. They

were revisions of OIML Recommendations on "The pH Scale" and "Water Meters."

• Report on the status of the work of the OIML technical committees and subcommittees was presented by myself I also mentioned the preparation of a report by BIML on a recent survey of the implementation of OIML

Recommendations and the identification of compatible regulations and voluntary standards with the Recommendations

in member countries. The Conference encouraged the committees to take any necessary steps that could possibly

accelerate and improve the quality of the work and urged OIML members to foster the implementation of the OIML

Recommendations in their national regulations or voluntary standards to the extent possible.

• Report on the status of the program of the OIML Certificate System was presented by Manfred Kochsiek, CIML

Member, Germany, and myself The advisory group on certification (TAG^^it) "^^t i" February 1 996 and identified efforts within various technical committees to further develop the work in addition to revising the publication on the "OIML

Certification System for Measuring Instruments." Of significance were the consideration of topics for certification on

application to modules of instruments, application to families of instruments, mutual recognition of certificates, and the

role for accreditation of testing laboratories. The Conference encouraged the expansion of the system to include all instruments addressed in the OIML work program to the extent possible.

• The long-range policy paper publication in 1995 was noted. The following topics were stressed for future activity: assistance to developing countties (Vice President Kochsiek was appointed Vice Chairman ofthe OIML Development

Council), closer cooperation with industry in the work including both producers and users of instruments, development

of a paper on the role of the "measurement system" on a regional and global scale, identifying the role of accreditation

in legal metrology, and strengthening and modernizing the OIML communication efforts.

• A proposed budget for 1997-2000 for the International Bureau of Legal Metrology (BIML) was presented by B. Athane, Director. The United States objected, as did Canada, to the proposed increases over the budget for the past four

years. The proposed overall increase in the budget was slightly less than 2 percent and was based on the anticipated

inflation rate in France. All other member nations present supported the proposed budget.

• The resolution taken by the 30th CIML meeting in Beijing regarding the French government proposal for rapprochement and possible merger of the treaties for OIML and the Mette Convention was discussed. The President

ofCIML reported on the results oftwo meetings ofthe Joint Working Group, with representatives from both sides, which

considered the proposal. A resolution on the subject was developed and stressed the importance of continuing

discussions to identify areas of mutual interest and cooperation with the Metre Convention and other international organizations having an interest and activities in metrology.

A report was presented by B. Athane on the activities of BIML over the last year. Reports were also presented on relevant

activities by representatives of liaison institutions including APLMF, BIPM, CECIP, CIMET, ILAC, and WELMEC.

It was decided that the 1 1th Conference would be held in Paris in 2000 unless special circumstances with regard to collaborations with other international organizations make it appropriate to consider another date. In such a case, CIML was instructed to make

the necessary decision at a future meeting.

82
Executive Committee

International Committee of Legal Metrology (CIML) Meeting

The CIML establishes the policy and approves the technical plans and work of the various OIML Technical Committees. It met

just before and immediately following the Conference. It took note of the decisions of the Conference particularly with regard to the work ofthe technical committees and subcommittees, the certificate system, the work ofthe development council, and the long range plans.

An Assistant to the Director, Mr. Attila Szilvassy of Hungary, was elected to replace Dr. A. Vichenkov of Russia.

The next meeting of CIML will be held in October 1997 in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. During the same period, meetings will also be held of the OIML Development Council and of the Sistema Interamericano de Metrologia (SIM). It was also confirmed that the 33rd meeting of CIML will be held in Seoul, Republic of Korea in November 1998. The 1999 meeting of CIML is expected

to be held in Paris, France. A meeting of the Presidential Council of CIML was scheduled for February 1 7 - 18, 1 997, in Paris.

Other Matters

A round table discussion on "accreditation in legal metrology" was held and led by P. van de Leemput of the Netherlands who

presented the global view from the point of view of ELAC. S. Bennett ofthe U.K. and J.-F. Magana of France presented views

from the perspective of legal metrology. The audience provided a lively discussion with questions and comments on the topic.

In response to a recommendation of the Presidential Council and in commemoration of the 40th anniversary of the First International Conference, the Conference sent letters of thanks and certificates of appreciation to previous participants who have

made significant contributions to the work ofOIML. Otto Wamlof, who recently retired from NIST, was among those so honored.

Presidential Council Meeting

A meeting of the CEML Presidential Council took place at BEML on February 1 7 and 1 8, 1 997. The following subjects were addressed:

• The technical activitv of the organization was reviewed including the annual reports prepared by the

Secretariats of the various technical committees and subcommittees on current projects and future plans.

• The President appointed a task group to study the need and role of accreditation in Legal Metrology. In

particular, the study will focus on how accreditation applies to the OIML "Certificate System for Measuring

Instruments" and its possibility of fostering mutual acceptance of Certificates. The task group included S. Chappell (Chair), S. Bennett, J. Birch, and B. Athane. Other experts could be invited to participate. The first meeting of this task group took place in May 1997 in Teddington, U.K.

• It was decided to develop a paper on Legal Metrology and Standardization for the Bulletin to explain why

OIML develops Recommendations on the performance requirements of legal measuring instruments instead of the task being carried out by other international standardization organizations such as ISO or lEC.

• It was decided that OIML policy should establish liaison with appropriate regional Legal Metrology

organizations and act as a coordinator when qjpropriate; however, regional activities should not interfere with

OIML members nations fiilfilling their OIML obligations.

• M. Kochsiek presented a report about discussions of developing countries with T.Quinn, Director of BIML

(International Bureau of Legal Metrology) and IMEKO (International Measurement Confederation). It was

decided to carry out cooperatively a study of the needs of developing countries in all fields of metrology that may assist in defining the role and actions for assistance by OIML.

• The President appointed a task group including himself, Kochsiek, and Athane to screen potential candidates

for the position Assistant Director ofBIML which will be open in January 1997 with the departure of Philippe

Degavre. A selection will be made by CIML at its next meeting.

83
Executive Committee

Meeting of the Joint Working Group (OIML and Metre Convention)

The meeting of the Joint Working Group took place at the International Bureau of Weights and Mezisures (BIPM) on February

19, 1997. The following persons participated: representing CIML - G. Faber (President, the Netherlands), S. Chappell (Vice

President, U.S.A.), M. Kochsiek (Vice President, Germany), J. Birch (Australia), and B. Athane (Director, BIML); representing

the Metre Convention (the International Committee of Weights and Measures - CIPM) - J. Kovalevsky (President, France), K.

lizuka (Vice President, Japan), K. Gebbie (Vice President, U.S.A.), W. Blevin (Secretary, Australia), and T. Quinn (Director,

BIPM); and invited guests: K. Birkeland (Past President - CIML, Norway)representing OIML; D. Kind (Past President - CIPM,

Germany); J. Gilmore representing the International Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation (ILAC); and R. Kaarls (the

Netherlands) representing ILAC and the European Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation (EAL).

The major topics discussed were as follows:

• Participation of BIPM in the OIML Development Council

• Report on the BIPM meeting with Directors of National Measurement Institutes

at which a program to establish "equivalence"of national standards was presented and generally accepted.

• Relations with ILAC were explained by J. Gilmore of Australia and President of ILAC along with Robert

Kaarls of the Netherlands and President of EAL. Accreditation of activities associated with metrology was

discussed especially with regards to traceability and mutual recognition of certificates of calibrations and of

conformance to performance requirements of measuring instruments.

• A report was presented on IS0/TAG4 "Metrology" that met at BIPM in November 1996. At that meeting, the "Joint Committee for Guides in Metrology" was established which will be responsible for maintaining the

"International Vocabulary for Metrology" and "Guide to the Expression of Measurement Uncertainty," and for developing similar guides of importance for metrologists.

• The opportunities for future cooperation included assistance to developing countries, cross referencing relevant

activities in OIML, the Metre Convention, and ILAC, and publication ofjoint, aperiodic newsletter.

It was agreed that the next Joint Working Group meeting would held In February 1998 to discuss progress In cooperation and

future activities.

Activities of OIML Secretariats

This part of the report provides: (1) an identification of work, either Recommendations (Rs) or Documents (Ds), being developed

in Technical Committees (TCs) and Technical Subcommittees (SCs) of specific interest to the NCWM and (2) a schedule of

activities of secretariats, the U.S. National Working Groups (NWGs), and the International Working Groups (IWGs) of

committees and subcommittees that have recently taken place or are planned for the near future. More details of these activities were reported by D. Ripley to the Specifications and Tolerances Committee of the NCWM.

• TCI Terminology (Poland)

A second committee draft (CD) revision of the "Vocabulary of Legal Metrology" (1978 Edition) has been distributed by the Secretariat for review and comment. This vocabulary will complement the "International Vocabulary ofBasic and

General Terms in Metrology" developed by BIPM, lEC, IFCC, ISO, lUPAC, lUPAP, and OIML (latest Edition 1993

published by ISO).

• TC7 Instruments for Measuring Length and Associated Quantities (United Kingdom)

- TC7/SC5 Multi-dimensional Measuring Instruments (Australia)

A third committee draft (CD) Recommendation on "Multi-dimensional Measuring Instruments" developed by the

Secretariat was discussed at an IWG meeting from October 28 - 30, 1996 at NIST. A forth CD Recommendation is under development by the Secretariat and will take into account the decisions at the IWG meeting.

• TC8 Instruments for Measuring Quantities of Fluids (Switzerland)

84
Executive Committee

- TC8/SC1 Static Volume Measurement (France)

The Secretariat submitted a draft revision for OIML R85 "Automatic Level Gauges for the Measurement of Liquid in Fixed Storage Tanks" to CIML for comment and vote by January 15, 1997. The U.S.A. voted yes.

- TC8/SC2 Static Mass Measurement (Australia)

The Secretariat submitted a draft OIML Recommendation "Measuring Systems for the Mass of Liquids in Tanks" to CIML for comment and vote by April 1, 1997. The U.S.A. voted no.

- TC8/SC6 Measurement of Cryogenic Liquids (U.S.A.)

A first draft revision of OIML R81 "Measuring Devices and Systems for Cryogenic Liquids" was developed by the

Secretariat on the basis of the decisions made at the last IWG meeting in Braunschweig, Germany in May 1996. It was

distributed to CIML for comment and vote by July 31, 1997. The U.S.A. voted yes.

• TC9 Instruments for Measuring Mass and Density (U.S.A.)

A questionnaire about proposals for a revision of R60 "Load Cells" was distributed by the Secretariat to collaborating

member nations. A NWG meeting was held to discuss the proposal in conjunction with the Interim Meeting of the NCWM and another at NIST in March 1997. These meetings were followed by a IWG meeting in Teddington, U.K. on July 7-8, 1997 to discuss responses to the questionnaire and more detailed plans for developing a first committee draft revision of R60.

- TC9/SC2 Automatic Weighing Instruments (United Kingdom)

A third CD draft Recommendation on "Automatic Road Weighbridges" has been developed and disttibuted for vote by

the Secretariat based on the decisions at the last IWG meeting in Braunschweig, Germany in May 1996. An IWG

meeting was held in Teddington, U.K., on July 7-8, 1997, to discuss the 3rd CD.

- TC9/SC3 Weights (U.S.A.)

Annexes on test procedures and the test report format for OIML Rl 1 1 "Weight Classes E, F, and M" were developed

by the Nordic Task Group and were discussed a Workshop held in Boras, Sweden in October 1996. These Annexes

were distributed by the Secretariat to collaborating member nations for comment and vote by June 1997.

Third Asia-Pacific Legal Metrology Forum (APLMF)

A 1-day meeting and a 1-day workshop were held for APLMF prior to the International Conference ofLegal Metrology and were

attended by representatives of 15 APLMF member economies and 1 observing international and 1 regional organization.

Australia, as Secretariat, developed and coordinated the agenda for the meeting and workshop. In addition to myself, B. Bloch

(NCWM), C. Gardner (NCWM), C. Ehrlich (NIST), and D. Tonini (SMA) represented the United States at the meetings.

The workshop was held first and focused on the results ofthe surveys ofmember nations on "Legislation" and "Training" with the aim of identifying needs for development and harmonization. I led the discussion on legislation, and Mr. Dai Runsheng of China

led the discussion on training during which a report was presented regarding a cooperative project between China and Australia on this subject. The plans for the on-going intercomparisons of "standard weights" (according to OEML Rill) and ofthe "pattern evaluation of non-automatic weighing instruments" (OIML R76) were reviewed. The U.S.A., namely through NIST (weights)

and the National Conference of Weights and Measures (non-automatic weighing instruments), is participating in both

intercomparisons. A plan for a future intercomparison of the "pattern evaluation of load cells" (OIML R60) was reviewed. A

planning session for this intercomparison was held in Teddington, U.K. on July 7, 1997, in conjunction with other meetings of

0IML/TC9 "Instruments for Measuring Mass and Density."

At the meeting of APLMF, the following items were discussed:

• a report on the results of the workshop.

85
Executive Committee

• a report on the other surveys conducted: "prepackaged products," "utility meters," "specialized legal metrology training

facilities," and "legal metrology industry consultive structures," including plans for action on the basis of the survey

results.

• a report by Dr. K. Birkeland on a survey of "legal metrology infrastructure needs of nine Asia-Pacific developing

economies" along with 15 recommendations for action.

• the establishment of working groups on instruments for "measurement of moisture in rice" and "medical measurements." A draft "Memorandum ofUnderstanding" was presented by the Secretariat that would have the effect of formalizing the structure of APLMF. Members were requested to review this MOU on which action may be taken at the next meeting.

A report was presented on the relationship APLMF with other specialist regional bodies in the Asia-Pacific region (APLAC,

APMP, PAC, PASC) and on the first APEC Conference on "Standards and Conformance."

Plans for the Fourth APLMF were presented.

86
Executive Committee

Appendix G

Summary APLMF/OIML Meeting Report

To: NCWM Executive Committee/NTEP Board of Governors

From: Charles Gardner, Cliairman, NTEP Board of Governors

Barbara Bioch, Chairman, NCWM

Meeting Location: Vancouver, Canada

Meeting Dates: November 1 and 3, 4 through 8

Purpose of Trip: Represent the NCWM at meetings of the Asia-Pacific Legal Metrology Forum (APLMF); the International Organization of Legal Metrology (OIML), and its Committees.

APLMF Report:

Participating Economies: Australia, Canada, People's Republic ofChina, Indonesia, Japan, Republic ofKorea, Malaysia, Mexico,

New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Russian Federation, Singapore, Chinese Taipei, Thailand, United States of America and

Vietnam.

Observers: International Organization of Legal Metrology (OIML), Western European Legal Metrology Co-operation

(WELMAC), and Dr. Knut Birkeland.

Absent Economies and Observers: Hong Kong, Mongolia, Phillippines and the Specialist Regional bodies of APLAC, APMP,

PAC, and PASC.

This was the third meeting of the APLMF, with one day devoted to consideration of the Working Parties on Legislation and

Administration, Intercomparison of Calibration & Pattern Approval Testing and Training. The second day covered the APLMF

agenda.

One project currently underway is the intercomparison and pattern approval testing of nonautomatic weighing instruments among

the participating economies of Australia, Canada, PR of China, Germany, Japan, Republic of Korea, Malaysia, New Zealand,

United Kingdom and the United States (the Board of Governor's approved NTEP's participation in this project last year). At this meeting, Russia submitted a request to be included in the intercomparison. This project is expected to be completed in June 1 997.

Training has been considered a very high priority need, and a joint Australia-China project on measurement skills and competency

based standards is currently being developed with the China State Bureau of Technical Supervision. The project aims to develop

a policy for harmonized measurement skills development in the Asia-Pacific region.

The formation of a Working Party to develop the framework for Mutual Recognition Agreements on legal metrology was also considered. In addition, the Forum adopted the following work program for 1996/97:

* Publication in 1997 of a "Handbook of Legal Metrology in the Asia Pacific."

* Information on specialized testing facilities be included in "A Directory of Specialized Testing Facilities" to be published

by the APLMF, or that this information could be included in the 1997 Handbook.

* A Working Group be established to study rice moisture meters. The Secretariat to circulate the scope and objectives of the WG

and seek interest from members.

* A Working Group on Medical Measurements with a project on Sphygmomanometers (blood pressure meters). The Secretariat to circulate the scope and objectives of this WG and seek interest from members.

* The Secretariat study the feasibility of establishing an Internet web site to facilitate and improve communication amongst Forum

members.

87
Executive Committee

* A follow-up survey on Utility Meters be conducted to obtain further information on a number of specific areas such as water

metering, telephone metering and gas metering, covering all areas of utility metering activity.

* That "model metrology legislation" would be developed in cooperation with OIML.

* A workshop/seminar on legislation and administration be organized in 1997.

* That translation ofthe legislation into English for those economies where their legislation is currently not in English, be pursued.

* That priority be placed on the harmonization of pre-packed goods and the Working Party meeting be held in association with

the Fourth Forum meeting.

* To establish a training program that is consistent with the processes and principles established in the APLMF Training Policy,

and to develop appropriate training strategies for the following priority areas:

-the mutual understanding and implementation of OIML Recommendations IR 76 and 60;

-high capacity fluid flow and automatic weighing instruments; and

-the verification of specific legal metrology instruments in accordance with OIML criteria

* A survey be conducted to determine the extent of involvement of consumers with the Forum and to examine ways in which they can participate in Forum activities.

* The Intercomparison on Load Cells and Mass to commence in 1997.

* That the APLMF support a proposal to hold the First APEC Round Table on Standards and conformance to discuss key issues

in Standards and Conformance.

* That the Secretariat will formalize the scope, objectives and target outcomes for establishing the Working Group on Mutual

Recognition Arrangements.

Further, the Forum endorsed the development of a "Memorandum of Understanding" in principle, to establish a more formal

structure while continuing to recognize that membership of the Forum is voluntary and has no binding effect.

Future Meetings: As the 1997 OIML meeting is to be held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, which is outside the Asia-Pacific region, a more appropriate site is being sought for the next APLMF. It was agreed that the fourth meeting be held between July to September 1997, in association with the workshops/seminars proposed earlier. OIML Report:

This was the 10th International Conference of Legal Metrology(OIML), and the 31st meeting of the International Committee of

Legal Metrology (CIML). The Conference is the plenary body established by the OIML Convention to set policy, to determine

the goals ofthe organization, to ratify the work output ofthe CIML and to approve the OIML's quadrennial budget. Each member

nation participates through its officially appointed delegation and votes in accordance with positions approved by its government.

It was a privilege to be a part of the U.S. delegation, with observer status.

The Conference agenda included reports on activities of the last four years with regard to the CIML, new member nations' accessions, activities of developing countries and liaison activities with other international institutions. Major focus of the Conference was the progress ofthe projects ofOIML's 1 8 technical committees and 45 subcommittees, as well as voting on formal

ratification of 29 Recommendations.

A major topic of interest for the United States is the OIML Certificate System, and the mutual recognition agreements needed for participation. The OIML Certificate System was established in 1991 to facilitate the activity of the national legal metrology

services of OIML member nations and to promote the use of measuring instruments that comply with OIML requirements. A

manufacturer of measuring instruments included in a category covered by the System many apply for an OIML certificate in a member nation that participates in the System. Tests are performed according to the relevant Recommendation and a certificate

88
Executive Committee

is issued if the pattern or type of the instrument complies with all requirements. The certificate may then be used by the manufacturer as proof of the conformit\' of the pattern of the instrument to OIML requirements.

OIML committees are looking at further development of the certificate System, which include establishing criteria for arrangements on the recognition agreements of OIML certificates and test results, organizing intercomparisons aimed at harmonization of national and international requirements and pattern evaluation procedures, and coordinating the development

of OIML certification with relevant activities performed by international and regional organizations concerned with testing,

certification, conformity assessment, accreditation and related subjects.

89

Executive Committee

Appendix H

Measurement Canada

Presentation to the National Conference on

Weights and Measures

January 1997

91
Executive Committee

Background - Budget Reductions

Over the past 5 years, Measurement Canada's financial resources have been reduced by 30%.

This has resulted in reductions to the number of Measurement Canada employees in the order of 20%.

For future years, we expect continued reductions.

Background - Amalgamation of

Two Activities

In June 1995, two closely related sub-activities of the former Legal Metrology Branch, namely Weights

and Measures and Electricity and Gas, were amalgamated into one.

The number of Regions increased from five to six.

The number of District Offices decreased from 35 to 18.

Background - Special Operating

Agency Status

A Special Operating Agency is a service delivery unit within a government department that is given more

direct authority and responsibility in return for commitments to improved service delivery and

performance:

A more business like environment

More emphasis on client service

Opportunities to better manage revenues

Measurement Canada became a Special Operating Agency of Industry Canada in August 1996.

The Challenge

To achieve our mission of ensuring equity and accuracy in the marketplace with reduced resources

while

creating a strong and positive corporate culture that instills pride and motivation in our staff.

92
Executive Committee

The Solution

• Development of a long term coqjorate Vision and non-negotiable Values that Measurement Canada

management and employees understand and believe in.

• Development of a Strategic Direction that will guide Measurement Canada toward its Vision.

• Participatory management principles used in the development of the Vision, Values, and Strategic

Direction:

1 4 Senior Managers participated in the exercise

on-going communication with all Measurement Canada staff throughout the exercise

Mandate

Measurement Canada administers and enforces the Electricity and Gas Inspection Act and the Weights and

Measures Act through the exclusive constitutional authority of the Government of Canada.

Credo

Fair Measurefor All

Mission

Our mission is to ensure equity and accuracy, where goods and services are bought and sold on the basis of

measurement, in order to contribute to a fair and competitive marketplace for Canadians.

Vision

1 . Our business is trade metrology.

2. We are the cornerstone of fairness in all trade measurement.

3. We make a difference; our contribution to a fair marketplace is recognized and valued.

4. We are committed to exceeding our clients' expectations at every opportunity.

5. We are evolving; we challenge the status quo; we seek out creative and innovative opportunities to maximize our effectiveness and efficiency.

6. We are committed to an environment that values teamwork, effective communication, and the pursuit

of knowledge and excellence.

93
Executive Committee

Values

1 . We deal with our clients and each other with HONESTY, INTEGRITY, RESPECT and FAIRNESS.

2. We RECOGNIZE and ACKNOWLEDGE EFFORTS that contribute to the success of our

organization.

3. We value one another; we are a team; we seek solutions through DIALOGUE and we WORK

TOGETHER to achieve our goals.

4. We encourage LEARNING and INNOVATION that results in better service to our clients.

5. We pride ourselves in taking OWNERSHIP of our work and RESPONSIBILITY for our actions and

decisions.

Strategic Direction

1. We will fulfill our mandate by periodically assessing measurement activities in all trade sectors and only intervening where necessary to ensure accuracy and equity in the marketplace as stated

in our mission.

Time Frame: We will exercise our mandate completely by 20 11

.

2. We will develop criteria for determining both our entry into and exit from trade sectors and our

level of intervention. Stakeholders' informed views will be a key element in our decisions.

Time Frame: We will develop this criteria by June 30, 1997.

3. Measurement Canada will provide the following services directly:

establishing rules and requirements;

resolving complaints and disputes; and

monitoring the marketplace.

Time Frame: On-going

4. Measurement Canada will use alternate service delivery mechanisms such as partnering for: device approvals;

calibrations; and

inspections.

Time Frame: This transition will be completed by 2007.

5. Measurement Canada will examine the use of alternate service delivery mechanisms, such as

partnering, for net quantity inspection and the following functions:

Finance;

Administration;

Training;

Engineering; and

Informatics.

Time Frame: This will be completed by 2002.

94
Executive Committee

Strategic Direction (cont'd)

6. Without compromising its overall strategic direction, Measurement Canada will fund its activities from its revenues.

Time Frame: This will be accomplished at the earliest opportunity but no later than April 1, 2000.

7. We will equip ourselves with the skills and knowledge we will need in order to respond to changing roles necessitated by the strategic direction.

Time Frame: On-going

8. We will implement strategies to ensure:

(a) Our employees understand and value our strategic direction and their contribution to its implementation;

(b) our Department and central agencies understand and support our Strategic Direction;

(c) existing and potential partners understand and value our Strategic Direction and the

business opportunities that it provides; and

(d) our beneficiaries recognize our contribution to a fair marketplace.

Time Frame: On-going

9. Measurement Canada will implement an on-going process to:

(a) obtain input from clients about our services;

(b) set service standards; and

(c) monitor our services in regards to client expectations and our service standards.

Time Frame: This process will be implemented by March 1998.

10. Measurement Canada will implement an on-going employee-driven process to obtain, evaluate and

respond to input and suggestions on improving our work environment.

Time Frame: This process will be implemented by March 1998.

11. In implementing its strategic direction, Measurement Canada will make use of quality assurance

principles.

Time Frame: Continuous

Implementing the Strategic Direction

Formation of nine Strategic Teams that will be responsible for ensuring that the Strategic Direction is met.

Teams to be made up of Measurement Canada staff from various regions and working levels.

Expert consultants to be utilized by Strategic Teams as needed.

95

Executive Committee

Appendix I

Metrology Subcommittee Report

January 1997

The information in this report was prepared by the Subcommittee Chairman, L.F. Eason, for presentation to the Executive

Committee at the January 1997 Interim Meeting. Several key activities took place in early January preventing the entire Subcommittee from discussing and providing input and comments prior to the Interim meeting and subsequent publication. A

number of critical issues are presented in this report that affect each State metrology laboratory; however, some ofthe background

information and controversial issues are not included since no consensus has been obtained from the Subcommittee or the NCWM. Key activities addressed at the last minute included: 1) a decision at NIST to cease formal accreditation of State

laboratories through the Office ofWeights and Measures; 2) an NCWM survey ofthe State laboratories to evaluate their workload;

and 3) a national forum held at NIST to discuss the formation of a National Council on Laboratory Accreditation (NACLA).

Laboratory Accreditation and State Laboratory Program (SLP) Workload

Dr. Peter Heydemann, Director of NIST Technology Services, announced major changes to the State Laboratory Program as described in a letter to State Weights and Measures directors in January 1997. A decision was made to cease providing

accreditation of State laboratories through the NIST Office of Weights and Measures. Changes in requirements for laboratory

audits make it impossible for OWM to both provide fraining and support and then audit the same laboratories. Basically, NIST

OWM has been supported to do what is needed to ensure that States are able to make accurate and traceable measurements. Each

jurisdiction can survey its clients and determine the need for accreditation. If accreditation is needed, the State can apply to NVLAP and pay fees according to their published schedule.

The letter from Dr. Heydemann indicates that the following decisions have been made:

1. The NIST Office of Weights and Measures (OWM) will continue to provide what is needed to assure that State Laboratories are able to make accurate measurements.

2. OWM will change the recognition of State Laboratories that comply program requirements from the current "Certificate of Accreditation" to a "Certificate of Traceability." 3 . State Laboratories requiring "Accreditation" may apply to the NIST National Voluntary Laboratory Program (NVLAP)

and be responsible for the associated fees.

4. The NIST Handbook 143 will be revised to reflect these decisions.

The letter provided background and perspective regarding the decisions yet left the following issues and concerns open to consideration:

1 . Effect on the system of accredited metrology laboratories and potential fragmentation the State laboratory program.

2. Dependance, in today's global economy, on laboratory "Accreditation" as the only generally accepted proof of

traceability.

3. Reduced State Laboratory recognition while meeting the same criteria required by NVLAP.

4. Unfunded cost of NVLAP accreditation for the State Laboratories.

The majority of the Metrology Subcommittee members feel strongly that the United States needs a healthy system of accredited

metrology laboratories across the country. Making accreditation dependent on a State's ability to find the funding could

significantly fragment the program. From its beginning, this program was envisioned as a system designed to change and adapt

as needed to serve the measurement needs of the State. In today's global economy, regardless of being right or wrong, trade

incentive or trade barrier, quality assurance or paper chase, industry often requires laboratory accreditation. Accreditation has become the international buzz word and a generally accepted path to prove traceability. The importance of accreditation is indicated in Dr. Heydemann's memorandum. He makes it clear that NVLAP will not accept an OWM recognized laboratory as capable of making traceable measurements unless they are also NVLAP accredited.

In Dr. Heydemann's memorandum, it was stated that "subsidizing the cost of accreditation is perceived as an 'unfair market

advantage' to State laboratories." Yet, based on the Articles of Confederation and the United States Constitution, the founding

fathers of the United States saw establishment and propagation of an unbiased standard of weights and measures exclusively as a government responsibility. Rather than being an 'unfair market advantage', a firm measurement foundation is essential to

97
Executive Committee

industrial competitiveness. In today's market place of ISO quality requirements, the convenient, cost effective availability of

accredited measurement services as historically provided by the State Laboratory Program is needed.

One oversight in the function ofthe State Laboratory Program, is that the impact of our program on the U.S. measurement system

has not been documented recently. Therefore, a survey was developed by the Metrology Subcommittee and faxed to all State Laboratory Program participants. Subcommittee chairman, L.F. Eason, has summarized the results of47 respondents. Based on

survey responses, the following observations can be made:

1 . The States have a large calibration workload, providing support for more than 390,000 weights, 12,500 test measures

and provers, 2,900 pieces of glassware, 2,500 length standards, 1,100 thermometers, 20,000 tuning forks (for police radar units), and 400 timing devices.

2. The State Laboratory Program has a large and diverse customer base with over 19,000 companies across the nation. Less than 8 percent of customers are weights and measures inspectors and approximately 52 percent of customers are weights and measures related (i.e., weights and measures inspectors and scale and petroleum service companies). It should be noted, however, that based on questioning 182 scale service companies that are customers of the SLP

laboratories, only about 63 percent oftheir workload is related to regulatory weights and measures activities. Therefore,

approximately 37 percent ofthe work State Laboratory Program laboratories perform for scale service companies serves industry, rather than the State's regulatory weights and measures program. Also, approximately 22 percent of the customer base is from general manufacturing and almost 9 percent is from quality of life industries (such as pharmaceutical and health service companies).

3. Average turn around times for SLP laboratories are reasonable. The time customers have to be without their standards averages only a few days.

4. A tremendous amount ofwork is being done by SLP metrologists for OWM. Respondents identified almost 5,700 hours

(2.8 person years) per year as time spent helping the Office of Weights and Measures in support of the State Laboratory

Program, which confirmed previous estimates made by OWM.

5. The State weights and measures programs are already leveraged and act in partnership with private service companies

and device technicians. W&M programs administer registered device technician programs that include nearly 5,500

registered service companies and more than 21,500 registered device technicians.

The survey verifies that there is a tremendous amount ofwork being done by the State Laboratory Program laboratories throughout

the United States. There is no private agency or company in place to take over this workload. For scale companies to ship large

weights to one of the NVLAP accredited private laboratories, they would be without the weights for more than 2 weeks for shipping alone. Shipping costs would be in the thousands of dollars. Finally, the potential for damage on return would render the

tests useless.

It is the perception that, contrary to assurances, services are being reduced. States are being given less recognition while striving to meet the same criteria. The State Laboratory Program is functioning as an efficient, integral part of the national measurement

system, supporting commerce and industry as it was originally intended. As indicated by the survey, 47 laboratories disseminate

NIST measurements to more than 19,000 companies for more than 400,000 standards of mass, volume, length, and temperature

throughout the United States. These companies use these measurements to verify the quantity or quality ofvirtually every product

and service produced. Everyone in the United States and many others internationally benefit from the work ofthe State Laboratory

Program. This is the type of efficiency that meets the Congressional mandate of the Technology Transfer Act of 1995. The

NCWM Metrology Subcommittee believes this program should be supported, not diminished. Failure to fund the accreditation of State laboratories may even provide a competitive market advantage to companies with laboratories that are accredited in similar measurement parameters (only three at this time), at the expense of creating a significant obstacle to several thousand

companies across the nation served by the State Laboratory Program.

National Council for Laboratory Accreditation (NACLA) Open Forum, January 7, 1997

At the request ofthe NCWM Chairman, L.F. Eason attended the January 7, 1997, National Council for Laboratory Accreditation

(NACLA) open forum at NIST in Gaithersburg, MD. A draft document, "Proposed Structure for the National Council for Laboratory Accreditation (NACLA)" was the primary focus of this meeting. Copies were distributed to Executive Committee

members during the Interim Meeting. NACLA was proposed by an informal Laboratory Accreditation Working Group (LAWG)

that has been meeting since 1994.

98
Executive Committee

The proposed organization includes a board of directors with a balanced representation from laboratories, assessors, users and

other stakeholders, including government regulators. Discussions identified many perceived benefits of the program, but also many obstacles that must be overcome. The common benefit stressed was reciprocity of accreditation, both domestically and

internationally. Without reciprocity, this will simply be another level of bureaucracy.

The primary obstacle to NACLA is the diversity of laboratories covered by ISO Guide 25. There was much discussion about how

such a diverse group could develop consensus standards. The structure of the NCWM was mentioned as a model to overcome

this obstacle.

What NACLA can mean to the NCWM should be evaluated further. Initial and long term representation could benefit our

laboratory programs. As the State Laboratory Program laboratories seek accreditation, NACLA could be influential in establishing the reciprocity for all of the accredited laboratories. The experience with accreditation processes could also have long range

benefits to the NTEP and Weights and Measures field enforcement programs as domestic and international reciprocity needs

increase. NACLA, if successful, will be a unified voice for domestic accreditation policy. NCWM, as a NACLA stakeholder,

will have a voice to express concerns and propose changes, solicit support, and evaluate the merits of international proposals.

The forum concluded with a strong show ofsupport for the formation ofNACLA. Based on this show of support, the LAWG will work to form an Interim Board of Directors for NACLA that will be charged with the responsibility of drafting a charter and

defining NACLA structure and policies. Four members ofthis interim board are to be government representatives. Nominations were accepted until February 7, 1997. Based on the history and organization of the NCWM and the potential stake our

laboratories hold in this process. Subcommittee Chair L.F. Eason recommended that the NCWM Executive Committee nominate

a member ofthis interim board of directors. With the concurrence ofthe Executive Committee, Bruce Adams was recommended

for nomination.

NCSL/USNMRC Survey of NIST Calibration Services

During the 1996 annual meeting of the National Conference on Weights and Measures in New Orleans, it was apparent that very few of the State Laboratory Program laboratories had received a copy of the NCSL/USNMRC (National Council of Standards

Laboratories /U.S. National Measurement Requirements Committee) survey of NIST calibration services distributed earlier in the year. The Subcommittee felt it was important for State Laboratory Program participants to be given a chance for input since

all are dependant on NIST calibrations and many have had recent calibrations.

The survey was faxed by the Subcommittee Chair to all State Laboratory Program participants on August 19, 1996. A request was made for responses to be sent to Mr. Laurie Baker who compiled the information for NCSL and L.F. Eason as chair of the NCWM Metrology Subcommittee. Twenty-five responses were received from State Laboratory Program participants. These

respondents represented nearly all of the State Laboratory Program labs with recent NIST calibrations.

Generally, respondents were very complimentary of the NIST personnel in all three of the calibration areas receiving responses.

Jerry Keller, Bill Crupe, John Houser, and Georgia Harris all received many positive comments on their courtesy, technical competence, and willingness to help. Since the disfribution of the survey John Houser, has received an award from NIST for making dramatic improvements in the uncertainty of volume calibrations.

However, there were several concerns raised about the calibration services, especially mass calibration. Sixteen responses dealt with the high cost of NIST mass calibration. These costs pose severe problems for state budgets. Twelve responses addressed

long turn around times. With the heavy workloads in the state laboratories, being without standards for months is a severe

hardship. Ofeven more serious concern, four responses detailed damage to mass standards during NIST calibration. Procedures

at the primary laboratory must ensure protection of State standards. Three responses described measurement discrepancies in mass calibration values. These were detected either by ongoing historical measurement surveillance or through round robin

participation.

Mass in the United States is defined by two platinum iridium kilogram weights housed at NIST. Every measurement States make

depends on the ability of NIST to transfer the mass value of those kilograms to our weights. Without accuracy and known

precision at this level, there is no way that we can guarantee our work. By design, the NIST mass group calibrates weights for very few customers. But, every customer that asks for a NIST traceable measurement from the State laboratories is a secondary

customer ofNIST. These measurements are used to verify the quantity or quality of virtually every product and service produced

in the United States. In the State Laboratory Program, we owe much to the mass group and would appreciate the opportunity to work with them to support whatever improvements they need.

99
Executive Committee

Railroad Issues NCWM Chairman Elect, Steve Malone asked the Subcommittee to evaluate transfer of custody issues with railroad test cars, especially in situations where calibration of track scales is being subcontracted to private vendors. The subcommittee asked for and received help on this issue from Jim Ross (OR), Bob Wittenberger (MO), Vic Gerber (WY), and Bruce Adams (MN). Mr. Ross and Mr. Gerber supplied data that shows that a significant amount ofmoney may be at stake, and that there is no quick, cheap

fix. They feel that there has been potential for problems and contractual agreement could make it worse. Industry and GIPSA

representatives have indicated willingness to work to identity the potential for error and solutions. They have also provided many

years of "as found" test car and scale test data for analysis. Steve Malone suggested that this issue will require work from W&M

inspectors, metrologists, GIPSA, and the railroad industry.

In addition to Mr. Malone's letter to the Subcommittee, Canada has requested that more formal mechanism be put in place to ensure traceability in the railroad test car calibration process. Round robin testing between the United States and Canada has been

proposed. To address these issues, a meeting has been scheduled in Chicago, March 20-21, 1997. Representatives from GIPSA,

the States, Canada, the railroads, and the major service contractors have been invited to attend. This issue will be pursued and

reported to the Executive Committee during the NCWM annual meeting in July.

Handbook 130 Wording

Revisions had been drafted and circulated for the sections ofthe Uniform Weights and Measures Law and Voluntary Registration

Regulation in NIST Handbook 130 that reference State Weights and Measures Laboratories to reference "NIST Accredited

Laboratories." If adopted by NCWM, this would have allowed NVLAP accredited laboratories (such as Troemner, Southern

California Edison, and Rice Lake) to provide class F weight certification for legal metrology applications. These revisions met

with nearly unanimous approval. However, with the current proposal to stop OWM accreditation of the state laboratories, these

revisions have been put on hold. The Subcommittee will revisit them when the accreditation issue is settled.

STR Viewpoint Response

Representing the subcommittee, L.F. Eason responded to Tom Stabler's November 1996, 577? Viewpoint newsletter article entitled "Certification ofState Laboratories." Ironically, much ofthis response referenced Tom's 1 966 address to the 5 1 st NCWM

annual meeting. The subcommittee encourages Mr. Stabler to visit our upgraded laboratories and discuss any problems he

perceives with the NCWM Mefrology Subcommittee or the Office of Weights and Measures, before publicly condemning the program.

Proposals for Action

1 . The Metrology Subcommittee encourages the Executive Committee to ask NIST management and OWM to clarify what

the lack of accreditation means to the State Laboratory Program participants. How can the perceived discrepancy

between OWM certifying the laboratories to be traceable and NVLAP reflising to accept this traceability be explained

and resolved? What international quality requirements will be satisfied by OWM certification of traceability? These

questions should be answered in a letter to all weights and measures directors and metrologists.

2. The Metrology Subcommittee requests that the NCWM Executive Committee support NIST in any initiative to:

• Ensure that all NIST primary measurement laboratories (especially mass, volume, and length) have

state-of-the-art facilities and equipment and meet ANSI/NCSL Z 540-1 requirements.

• Ensure the implementation of a NVLAP-accredited quality assurance program for the NIST primary

measurement laboratories.

• Support the State Laboratory Program by adding technical personnel or confracts (or other measures

as seen appropriate by OWM) to shorten review times, allow additional training opportunities,

improve coordination between State Laboratory Program and the NIST basic measurement groups, and strengthen the program.

3. The Metrology Subcommittee requests that the Executive Committee encourage NIST management to arrange for the Metrology Subcommittee to have the opportunity to present State Laboratory Program participant concerns from the NCSL survey to the NIST Laboratory Council or other NIST staff in a position to take action on our concerns. The

100
Executive Committee

Subcommittee welcomes the opportunity to work with the NIST basic measurement groups to identify and solve problems to our mutual benefit.

The Metrology Subcommittee requests that the Executive Committee continue to support the work of the weights and measures officials, metrologists, and railroad representatives from the United States and Canada, toward identification of problems and solutions concerning rail test car, master scale, and railroad track scale testing. After the scheduled

meeting in March, we will report to the Executive Committee with further recommendations on how this can best be

accomplished.

101
Executive Committee

Metrology Subcommittee Report

July 1997

Lab Accreditation Issues - It's been a busy year. A letter from Dr. Peter Heydemann dated January 8, 1997, stated that OWM could no longer accredit the State Laboratories. This

letter also stated that NIST would not ftind the NVLAP accreditation of SLP labs. The reason given for this decision was that "subsidizing the cost of accreditation is perceived as an 'unfair market advantage' to State laboratories." Much of the effort of

the subcommittee has addressed this issue.

Activites and Developments Since the Interim Report

Meeting with Mr. Wil Able of Troemner

L.F. Eason met with Mr. Wil Abele from Troemner on April 14, 1997, in the North Carolina metrology lab. Mr. Abele

stated that he felt that NIST OWM accreditation ofthe State laboratories created two tiers of accreditation within NIST

and that the ftinding of accreditation gave the SLP labs an unfair competitive market advantage. Mr. Abele said that he

and Mr. Tom Stabler had written and later met with Mr. David Edgerly ofNIST to express their concerns. Mr. Eason

and Mr. Abele agreed that there should not be two sources of accreditation from NIST, but Mr. Eason felt strongly that NVLAP accreditation of the SLP labs should be ftjnded by NIST. Mr. Eason pointed out that most of the State labs ultimately answer to their State legislatures and most are told to provide a service to industry, in many cases as an

incentive to atfract new industries to their State and enhance the quality of their established industries. Therefore, most

of the labs are not asked to be cost recuperative, much less forced to seek a profit. Mr. Eason suggested that if we were

unfairly competing with his company, he should speak to our legislature, rather than NIST management. Also Mr. Eason

expressed his concern that based on the NCWM workload survey, the SLP labs are testing many measurement standards

across the Nation that there is no other convenient source for the service. Failure to fiind the SLP NVLAP accreditation

will fragment and decrease the uniformity ofthe program. Neither Mr. Eason nor Mr. Abele could see the other's point

of view, but agreed that they should have a more open and honest dialog.

Meeting with Dr. Peter Heydemann and Dr. Gil Ugiansky

Dr. Peter Heydemann and Dr. Gil Ugiansky visited the North Carolina metrology laboratory on June 18*. They toured

the lab and discussed how the laboratory serves industries in North Carolina. Mr. Eason presented material collected from the NCWM SLP Workload survey to show the National scope and volume of the work performed by the SLP and

used this as an opportunity to discuss the need for NIST funding of SLP laboratory accreditation. Everyone agreed that the work done by SLP labs is critical to the dissemination of measurement standards and that NIST ftinding is important

to the uniformity of the program. The areas of concern we were left with were finding the ftinds and resolving the question of NIST ftinding giving the SLP labs an unfair market advantage. There have been very few complaints that the state laboratories are unfairly competing relative to the number of companies the SLP labs serve. Also, there does

not seem to be anybody else available to efficiently provide the service in most areas of the country, and to meet the mandate of the U.S. Constitution to fix the standards of weights and measures, therefore, the competition issue is not

legitimate. Dr. Heydemann stated that he plans to question the industries we serve at the NCSL meeting in Atlanta to see if they agree.

Also, the mefrologist in charge of the calibration lab at Glaxo Wellcome, the world's largest pharmaceutical company,

discussed how the pharmaceutical industry uses the calibrations provided by the NC laboratory and why they need such

a high level of accuracy.

Meeting with NIST Mass Group management - NCSL - USNMRC survey results

L. F. Eason and Ken Fraley discussed State Laboratory respondent results ofthe NCSL survey with the NIST mass group and their management in a meeting on May 20, 1997. The NIST mass group has made many improvements that respond

to many of the survey concerns. These include environmental controls in the mass lab, a new high precision mass lab

to house the national kilograms, the 1 kg mass comparator, and a new 10 kg mass comparator. This visit proved to be an excellent opportunity to explain to the mass group how the SLP diseminates NIST mass values across the United

States through presentation of the NCWM workload survey information, stressing that every measurement we make

102
Executive Committee

depends on their work. Though not all of questions were answered, much progress was made and will continue to be

made thanks to the new lines of communication that have opened.

Railroad update

Georgia Harris organized a meeting of government and industry officials from the United States and Canada in Chicago, March

20-21, 1997. Georgia reported on that meeting during the NCWM Monday afternoon railroad forum.

NCWM SLP workload survey results

L.F. Eason summarized the results of the NCWM SLP workload survey to the Executive committee on Sunday afternoon and to the NCWM during the Tuesday General Technical session on laboratory accreditation. A final report will be completed and

published this year. The following highlights of the data were presented:

• SLP laboratories serve 19,393 customers

• SLP laboratories test 339,054 measurement standards each year

• Only 5 1 percent is W&M related. Yet this part ofthe SLP workload is estimated to effect $4. 1 3 trillion ofthe 1 996 $7.57

trillion U.S. Gross Domestic Product.

• The other 49 percent of the SLP workload affects virtually all of the remainder of the GDP. The quality, efficiency,

safety, and competitiveness of US industrial production depends on these measurements.

• 1 89 scale companies questioned across the United States reported an average of 63 percent of their work affected commercial regulatory scales. They use the same weights for both. There is no way to separate commercial W&M from

industrial.

Budget Issues

The subcommittee appreciates the Executive committee decision to fiind a representative from the subcommittee attending the Interim meeting to present a report and answer questions.

An amended budget request was presented to the executive committee requesting the fiinding of travel expenses for an annual

NCWM metrology subcommittee and NIST management meeting for the Chair of the Metrology Subcommittee and up to two

other State mefrologists. The NCWM representatives would meet with representatives from NIST Technology Services (OWM

and the Calibration Program), Manufacturing Engineering (mass, force, and dimensional), and Chemical Sciences Technology

(fluid flow, volume, and temperature). This meeting would continue and expand the communication between the State Laboratory

Program labs and the NIST basic measurement groups that was initiated during the May 20, 1 997, meeting described above.

Updated Support Proposals

• Encourage NIST to provide accreditation for the State laboratories at no cost. This is necessary since the State laboratories

are an integral part of the National Measurement System.

• The Metrology Subcommittee requests that the NCWM Executive Committee express its support of the ongoing NIST

initiatives to:

Maintain the state-of-the art capabilities, facilities, and equipment of the NIST primary measurement laboratories

(especially, mass, volume, and length) consistent with international requirements.

Support the State Laboratory Program with improved document review time, fraining, and coordination between the SLP

and the NIST measurement groups.

Provide opportunity for the Metrology Subcommittee to express its concerns and work with NIST to help identify and

solve mutual problems.

• The Metrology Subcommittee requests that the Executive Committee continue to support the work of the weights and

measures officials, metrologists, and railroad representatives from the United States and Canada, toward identification of

problems and solutions concerning rail test car, master scale, and railroad track scale testing.

103
Executive Committee

Appendix J - NTEP Participating Laboratories Report

Participating Laboratories Evaluation July 3, 1997

All Labs 1995

01/01/97 - 06/30/97 1995 1996

I oiai I iiiS updates

Requests Assigned' 364 395 502 :iLj 1/j 50 US Mutual Recognition Requests Assigned 21 40 67 38 37 1

Certificates Effective^ 68 21 109 71 35 36

Certificates Issued 164 188 322 63 111 52

Average Time (wks) to Perform Activities for Successful Type Eva luations

TEs:

(CCs Issue TEs: TEs:'CCs Issued (CCs Issued TEsUpdates:

inn I A (CCs Issued (CCs Issued 1.06/30/97)

1 -06/30/97) d "o/ju/y/; 1994

)

1

1995) 1996)

"Date Assigned" to "Equipment Received" 7 7

"Equipment Received" to "Type Evaluation Comp!

"Type Evaluation Complete" to "CC Effective"

ete" 6

4

7 5

1 3

8

5

2 "CC Effective" to "Draft Certificate To NIST" 4 11 10 8

"Draft Certificate To NIST" to 6 10 9 9 7

"Certificate Issued"

"Date Assigned" to "Certificate Issued"'' 23 25 26 33 21

Activity CA MD NY OH NIST OTHER TOTAL

Number of Requests Assigned'

103 39 32 73 93 24 364

1995 64.5 68 44.5 75.5 142.5 22 395

1996 87 91 39 98 15;I 35 502

1997 (01/01/97-06/30/97) 36 26 20 61 66 16 225

Number of Certificates Effective^ 1994 14 4 2 23 22 3 68

1995 2 5 3 ~ 8 3 21 1996 14 11 4 25 43 12 109 1997(01/01/97- 06/30/97) 6 8 5 14 35. 5 2,5 71 Number of Certificates Issued 1994 42 9 19 21 71 2 164 1995 37 7.5 8.5 36 89. 5 9.5 188

1996 61 19 18 73 13:I 19 322

1997 (01/01/97-06/30/97) 19 11 9.5 42.5 65 16 163

' Beginning in 1994, if a device fails a type evaluation, it is then entered as a new request for a new type evaluation. Previous to 1994, multiple

failures of the same device were still considered as a single type evaluation.

^ "Effective" means the type evaluation is complete but the certificate has not yet been issued.

' "Successful" means the type evaluation did not fail at any stage.

Individual stages of type evaluation will not equal total for complete process due to intermediate rounding.

104
Executive Committee

Appendix K

National Type Evaluation Technical Committee

Weighing Sector

Meeting November 14-15, 1996

Summary of Decisions

1) Hopper Scale Criteria

Conclusion; The Sector agreed that the policy of evaluating hopper understructure for use with varying types of load receiving

elements should be continued.

The Sector developed guidelines to address various parameters of hopper scales on Certificates of Conformance (CC). The Sector

agreed to add a new section 6 as follows to Section B Certificate of Conformance Parameters of the NTEP Technical Policy for Scales ofNCWM Publication 14, and renumber the current section 6. Platform Material section under Section B. to address ranges of capacities, sizes, etc. of hopper scales.:

6. Weighing Systems Utilizing a Tank or Hopper Load Receiving Element.

A CC will applv to all models having:

a. For a cvlindrical cone bottom tank or hopper:

1. weighing capacities from 20% to 125% (approximately a 6:1 ratio') of the evaluated capacity;

2. tank or hopper height from 50 percent to 125 percent of the height of the evaluated device:

3. tank or hopper diameter from 50 percent to 1 10 percent of the diameter of the evaluated device:

4. platform construction and materials similar to that of the equipment evaluated:

(see also section titled "Platform Material" below"):

5. scale division values equal to or greater than the value of the scale division used

in the scale evaluated:

6. n^„ equal to or less than the value of the n^^^ used in the scale evaluated:

b. For a rectangular tank or hopper:

1

weighing capacities from 20 percent to 125 percent (approximately a 6: 1 ratio) of

the evaluated capacity:

2. tank or hopper height from 50 percent to 125 percent of the height of the evaluated device:

3. tank or hopper length from 50 percent to 110 percent of the length of the evaluated device:

4. tank or hopper width from 50 percent to 1 10 percent of the width of the evaluated

device:

105
Executive Committee

5. platform construction and materials similar to that of the equipment evaluated:

(see also section titled "Platform Material" below):

6. scale division values equal to or greater than the value of the scale division used

in the scale evaluated:

7. nn, „ equal to or less than the value of the nn, „ used in the scale evaluated.

The Sector agreed that tests can be conducted at the manufacturer's facilities using test weights.

To ensure consistency in testing levels during the permanence test period, the Sector agreed that thei following language should be

inserted into an appropriate section of Publication 14.

Permanence Test Use Requirements for Hopper Scales

A minimum of 300 weighing operations are required during the test period. The manufacturer

is to log the date, time, and weight. Each entry is to be initialed by the person conducting the weighing.

Only loads which have been applied using a method representative of the scales intended use can be counted.'

Test loads

50 percent of the loads must be above 50 percent of the scale capacity: and.

100 percent of the loads must be above 20 percent of the scale capacity.

The minimum number of days that a device is required to be in use is 20. A minimum number

of weighing operations to be conducted each day for the test period is not specified: however, the weighments

should be representative of the scale's normal in-service use.

-The scale may be used to weigh other loads, but only the loads identified are counted as part

of the permanence test.

2) Permanence of ID Badges on Load Cells

Conclusion; The Sector agreed that the permanence requirements for identification badges on scales should also be applied to load

cells and included in the load cell checklist. The Sector asked that this permanence criteria be presented to the other NTEP sectors

to encourage adoption of the same criteria for all devices.

The Sector examined the use of the term "badge" as it is defined in the Handbook 44. Since the definition appears to be oriented toward liquid-measuring devices (LMD), the Sector agreed that the S&T Committee should be asked to clarify the specific meaning

of the term "badge" as it relates to weighing devices. If the term badge is specific to LMD, the Scales Checklist of Publication 14, where the term "badge" is used, should be modified to remove any confiision.

3) Evaluation of Tare Features

Conclusion: Comments were heard suggesting that the issues seem to have been addressed by the latest revisions to the checklist. The NTEP laboratories will continue to work with Publication 14 as it is now written and return to the Sector if there are any

problems.

4) Modification of Type

a) Dump Option

Conclusion: The Sector heard arguments for and against for allowing the modification of an NTEP approved scale with a dumping

mechanism without additional testing. Some believed that this would be considered a modification of type and needed additional

testing; others were unsure what effect, if any, this would have on the scales performance; and, still others believed that this was not

106
Executive Committee

a modification of type and should be allowed. No clear agreement or disagreement was reached in the discussion. The Sector may

want to revisit this at a later date. The Sector also asked for input from Scale Manufacturers Association's (SMA) Technical

Committee.

b) Replacement of Concrete Decks with New Steel Decks

Conclusion: The Sector agreed that changing deck material (for example, concrete vs. steel) on a scale is a modification of type in some designs ofscales and, in those designs, both types of decks would have to be tested to include both types on the Certificate of

Conformance. The Sector noted that there are some designs where replacement ofthe deck material would not affect the performance

of the scale.

The Sector agreed to modify Part 6. Platform Material (pp. 1-12, NCWM Publication 14, 4* edition. May 1996) as follows:

6. Platform Material

In the case of a weighbridge design where the deck is integrated into the weighbridge so as to be structurally

significant bothr-econcrete and steel decks must be tested separately in order to cover both options on an NTEP

Certificate of Conformance; ftill NTEP tests are required on both options unless NTEP decides otherwise. A

composite scale consisting of a minimum oftwo decks, (i.e., two spans), one span deck being of steel construction and the other of concrete may be submitted and tested to include both types of decks. Concrete-deck and steel-deck

scales should be marked with unique model designations to indicate the difference in platform material.

The Sector agreed that examples are needed to describe how these criteria would be applied to ensure that the criteria are applied

uniformly to all device designs. Representatives from SMA's technical committee agreed to take the issue to their meeting during the week of November 19-23, 1996, and develop examples for applying the criteria along with diagrams. A letter ballot will be

distributed to the Sector for agreement on including the examples in the next edition of Publication 14.

c) Replacing a Lever System with Load Cells

Conclusion: The Sector maintained its position that changing from a lever system scale to a full electronic scale is a modification of

type and would require a complete NTEP evaluation.

The Sector agreed that going from mechanical to electro-mechanical (e.g. installation of a load cell into a steelyard rod) is not a modification of type and the electro-mechanical version can be covered on the CC without additional testing.

d) Conversion of Vehicle Scales to Livestock Scales

Conclusion: There were some concerns raised over whether or not the criteria in the checklist that addresses livestock scales should

be reviewed before recognizing a livestock application on a CC. In addition there was some question over whether or not the CC

should be modified to reflect the specific vehicle vs. livestock applications.

Based upon comments from Paul Peterson, GIPSA, the Sector concluded that there were differences between the two types of

applications, especially with the digital indicator portion of the checklist. Therefore, if a manufacturer wants to use a vehicle scale

as a livestock scale: (1) the request must be on the application when it is submitted for type evaluation, (2) the evaluation needs to include evaluation for livestock scales, and (3) the application as a livestock scale must be list on the CC.

e) Other Modifications?

Conclusion: Some examples of changes in material (e.g., carbon steel vs. stainless steel) were discussed and how NTEP laboratories would handle these changes. The Sector agreed that discussions need to take place between NTEP, NIST, and the manufacturers for specific examples of modifications and how they should be handled. The Sector asked that the NTEP laboratories meet to establish a standard operating procedure for addressing such modifications and applying them consistently.

107
Executive Committee

5) Test Procedures for Railroad Scales

Conclusion; The Sector agreed to the following changes to page 1-89 of the Scales Checklist to clarify the procedures to be used

for the testing of in-motion scales and the modes that could be covered on a Certificate based upon a specific test:

In the past, a ten car/ten time test was the standard. Now the type of test will vary on how the user intends to use the scale. When testing for type approval, the normal train length should not be exceeded as the performance ofthe system may be compromised by track conditions outside

ofthe normal weigh track. The minimum test will normally be no less than 10 cars run over the

scale five times in each mode of operation unless the type evaluation laboratory determines that "as-used" test procedures are warranted by the site conditions. If "as-used" test procedures are used, tests are performed in a manner that represents the normal method of operation and

lengthCs) of trains normally weighed. In this czise. the weighing systems may be tested using

either a consecutive-car test train or a distributed-car test train of a length typical of the trainfs") normally weighed.

The test types are generally referred to as modes. Modes consist of four variables: unit train or

individual car accuracy; loads or empties; pushing or pulling; and one or both directions. With

all combinations, this could result in sixteen independent tests of one scale system. With

practical combinations, there are often four or less tests to run. Typically, a test will be two

modes such as pushing empties and pulling loads.

If empty and loaded cars are to be covered on the Certificate of Conformance, testing must be

performed with both empty and loaded cars: use of a train with both empty and loaded cars mixed in the train would also serve to cover both empty and loaded modes. If both pushing and

pulling modes are to be covered on the Certificate of Conformance, testing must be performed

both pushing and pulling cars. Both one and two direction weighing can be covered on a

Certificate based upon testing of the scale used in one or two directions.

The Sector also agreed that clarification was needed for establishing the minimum criteria for conducting the strain load tests on static railway track scales, and noted that the procedures should include differentiation between two-module and full length design. Lou

Cemy, Association of American Railroads (AAR) and Bob Brumbaugh, System Associates, Inc. (SAI) , agreed to approach AAR

and ask for input on the criteria and bring back suggested clarifications to the Sector.

6) Clarification of Applying 0.7 Tolerances

Conclusion: The Sector reviewed three issues related to the proper application of tolerances to components:

a) Should the 0.7 percent tolerance be applied to all phases ofthe testing of a component, including the laboratory test and the permanence test?

b) Should the 0.7 tolerance apply in the manufacturer's facility when the test is conducted in a laboratory environment?

c) If a weighing element uses a digital load cell, should this change the tolerance (0.7 vs. 1.0) applied to the device?

The Sector did not reach an agreement on responses to all of the scenarios. The Sector did agree that the 0.7 tolerance should apply

for laboratory tests ofcomponents, both for influence factors testing and permanence testing, and that the current criteria on Page 1-7, which includes the following statement, is appropriate:

When main elements (indicating elements and weighing/load receiving elements) are tested separately, the tolerance applied to all laboratory tests (influence factors and permanence tests) are 0.7 times the acceptance

tolerance for complete scales.

The Sector asked that the NTEP laboratories to discuss this issue further, and, if there is concern that the wording is not appropriate,

then the labs should come back to the Sector to propose changes to the language.

In its discussion of issue (6c above), the Sector agreed to the following conditions concerning the replacement of an analog load cell with a digital load cell:

108
Executive Committee

In a system with multiple analog load cells, the replacement ofa single cell with an approved and compatible digital load cell is not ametrologically equivalent replacement. The replacement ofall analog load cells in the system with

approved and compatible digital load cells is considered a metrologically equivalent replacement.

7) Printing Calibration Values

Conclusion: The Sector agreed that an indicator should not print information that could be construed as valid weight information

when in the modes noted in Scales Checklist Section 11.10. The Sector discussed the possible need to be more general in Publication 14 checklist items rather than giving specific examples; however, it was noted that the NTEP laboratories find examples helpful to ensure consistent application of the criteria. In addition, the Sector has already specifically addressed other items and included

examples in the checklist for the benefit of consistent interpretation.

Add the following text in place of the current 11.10:

When the following is displayed bv an indicator (or a video display terminal getting weight

values from a separate primary indicator) the device shall either: (a) not print: or

(b) provide a clear and continuous indication on the printed representations that the displayed value is other than a valid weight representation.

An indicator shall not print, and a video disp

lay terminal getting we iglit values from a separate primar)-' indicator shall not indicate , when th e following information is disp

layed by the

indicator:

1. dead-load verification values;

2. electronic recalibration values other test values ; 3. electronic display verification sequences : or. 4. other test values.

8) Letter Ballot on "n„„ of Load Cells in Complete Scales"

Conclusion: There were no further comments on the letter ballot from the Sector.

9) Test Procedures for Livestock Scales

Conclusion: The Sector agreed to modify section 63 of the Scales Checklist as follows to specify test criteria for livestock scales including increasing and decreasing load tests, return to zero, and permanence criteria:

63. Sirift-Performance and Permanence Tests for Livestock Scales

Initial Type Evaluation (Field) Performance Tests

Performance tests are conducted to determine compliance with the tolerance and, in the case of

nonautomatic indicating scales, sensitivity requirements specified in NIST Handbook 44. The tests described here apply only to the weighing element. It is assumed that the indicating element used during

the test has already been examined and found to comply with the applicable requirements. If the performance of the indicating element is to be determined during the same examination, the applicable

requirements for weighbeams and poises, dials, electronic digital indicators, etc.. must be referenced. If the indicating element is a digital indicator, width-of-zero tests, zone of uncertainty tests, discrimination

tests, and appropriate tests for the automatic zero-setting mechanism (if so equipped) should be conducted

as indicated in other sections of this publication. Also. Section 35 entitled Livestock and Animal Scale Systems provides specific interpretations of NIST Handbook 44 applicable to animal and livestock auction scales.

63.1. Increasing and Decreasing Load and Shift Tests: Livestock seek a comer of the scale platform

or. in the case of multiple head weighments. bunch up on one of the end sections. It is preferable to perform a comer test on 2 section livestock scales and a section test on livestock

scales with more than 2 sections. Comer and/or section tests shall be conducted in accordance

with the procedures described below.

109
Executive Committee

63.1.1. Livestock scales with -hor 2 sections:

63.2.1.—Using Vi capacity test l oads in separate t ests, place the load in the center of each

quarter section of the load receiving e l ement and/or

63.2.2.—Using 1/4 cap

acity test loads, place the load in the center, as nearly as possible, successively ver each main load support

63.1.1.1 Conduct two sets of increasing load and shift tests over each comer

at 1/4 the nominal capacity of the scale. For the fi rst set, perform

this test on each corner, an d check zero balance before going on

to the next comer. For the second set, complete the increasing load

build up on one corner and move the weights to the next comer

without unloading the scale. Take several readings as the weights

are being removed. When all the weights are removed, record the

return to zero. The scale must return to zero within one-half of a

scale division. When analyzing the return to zero, consideration must be given for the length of time the load was on the scale and

for possible temperature changes that may have occurred during

the test. Next, conduct an increasing load test to the scale nominal

capacity or at least to the used capacity by distributing the test load over the platform in at least five equal intervals and record the

error for each interval. Be careful not to exceed the CLC of a

section when loading the weights. Record decreasing load

indications as you remove weights from the platfonn in at least five equal intervals.

Livestock scales with more than 2 sections: A shift test shall be conducted wi th at least two different test loads and may be perfomied anywhere on the load-^rcceiving element

using the prescr ibed test partem and maximum test load s pecified below:

63.1.1.

63.1.2.1. If the €fc6 capacity of the scale does not equal or exceed 1 10 lb per square foot, the scale is not suitable for weighing livestock (ref

Packers & Stockyards formula for determining the used capacity of

Livestock scales).

At least two complete sets of shift tests shall be conducted over

each section to at least 90 percent ofthe concentrated load cap

acity

(CLC) of the scale. This is to determine the repeatability of the

scale. Tlie scale error should be detemiined at a minimum of five equally spaced test loads. Each set must include determination of

error at a minimum of five equal intervals of test loads up to 90

percent of the CLC repeated over each section. For the first set, p

erform this test on each section, unloading the weights and

checking zero balance before going on to the next section. For the second set, complete the increasing load build up on one section and move the weights to the next section without unloadi ng the

settle: Take several readings as the weights are being removed.

When all the weights are removed, record the return to zero. The

scale must return to zero within one-half of a scale division. When

analyzing the return to zero, consideration must be given for the

length of time the load was on the scale and for possible

temperature changes that may have occurred during the test. Scale

errors may be determined at more points if desired. If two weight

63rh

63.1.2

110
Executive Committee

carts are used, they should t ravel al ong the pat l i s the, wliecla uf a vehicle would take when mov i ng across the seale. Decreasing load

tests are to be avoided when testing a section. A truck niav nut be backed ont o t he scal e in order to p

lace weights on the iiin ei sections. Next, conduct an increasing load test to the scale nominal

capacity or at least to the used capacity by distributing the test load over the platform in at least five intervals and record the error for each interval. Be careftil not to exceed the CLC of a section when

loading the weights and distribute loads across the section. Record decreasing load indications as vou remove weights from the platform in at least five intervals. Decreasing load tests shall be

conducted after the sections have been tested to their maximum

load and the weights are being removed from the scale. The l oad

is to be distr ibuted across the section. _ NOTE: Decreasing load tests are only applicable to automatic

indicating devices.

63.1.2.

63.1.2.2. At least one complete set of shift tests to at least 90 percent of the CLC shall be conducted at midspan between sections.

63.1.3.

63.1.2.3. If a scale consists of modules that are connected together to comprise the weighbridge, shift tests shall be conducted by placing

the load so that it straddles the connection between the modules.

Later, at least one shift test is to be conducted on the scale with the

test load is placed first on ore side ofthe connection line off-of the module, then on the other side of the connection line.

The results of shift tests are required to agree within the absolute

value ofthe applicable maintenance tolerances and must be within

acceptance tolerances.

63.2 Subsequent Type Evaluation Permanence Test

63.2.1 The device must be tested in the same manner as described in section 63.1 with the exception that only one set of section or shift tests is required and the test weights need

not be unloaded from the scale before moving to the next section. The requirements

for the increasing and decreasing load tests remain the same as described in section

63. L

63.2.2 The time between the initial field performance test and the subsequent field test will be 20-30 days. Performance during both tests must be within acceptance tolerances.

63.2.3 If a device fails subsequent permanence tests, the entire permanence test must be

repeated.

63.3 Permanence Test Use Requirements

See Sections 64.7.1.. 64.7.2.. 64.7.4.. 64.7.5 and 64.7.6

63.4 Motion Detection Tests

63.4.1 Perform a test of the motion detection circuitry as described in Section SO. Motion

Detection. Livestock scales are unique in that their loads are alive and moving on the

scale platform during weighing. Therefore, the motion detection function of the scale

111

637+T4:

63.1.2.4.
Executive Committee

is a critical element in obtaining a correct weight. Testing motion detection with a

static load and inducing motion as describe in Section 50. either manually or

electronically, may be the only available or practical method at a given situation and

time. However, the best method to check motion detection on a livestock scale is to use livestock that are kept moving on the scale which will provide a test incorporating the dynamics for which the system was designed to be used. Please contact the Packers & Stockyards Program (P&SP). Scales & Weighing Branch at 202-720-3140

for assistance and detailed instructions regarding dynamic testing of livestock scales.

63.4.2 The Packers & Stockyards Program recommends that a delayed print fiinction not be

incorporated into a livestock weighing system because the weighmaster would not always be able to obtain the most accurate weight when motion detection delays the

print. P&SP prefers that immediate printing be available to the weighmaster in order

that he/she is able to capture the most accurate weight. Ofcourse, immediate printing

will not occur when the motion detection circuit detects motion and the print button would then have to be reactivated when the weighmaster. again, attempts to select the most accurate weight.

It was agreed that the NTEP laboratories would work with the checklist criteria over the next year and report back to the Sector on how well it works. The Sector briefly discussed deleting the return to zero test between comers on 63. 1 . 1 . 1 . based upon comments

that the additional retum-to-zero test may not be necessary and not always practical; however, it was agreed to try the test procedures

for a while before making this decision.

10) Software Working Group Update

Background/Conclusion; Mike Adams, Fairbanks Scales, and Steve Cook, CA Division of Measurement Standards, updated the Sector on the work of Software Work Group. They reported that a draft letter has been prepared and is being circulated among the work group to respond to the NTEP Board of Governors' question of why CCs should be issued to software; once the letter is finalized, it will be sent to the Board of Governors. The Southern Weights and Measures Association (SWMA) passed a resolution

to discontinue issuing NTEP CCs until the NCWM has reached a position on this issue. Currently, there is disagreement amongst

the Executive Committee as to how the issue of software should be handled.

11) Automatic Weighing Systems (AWS) Update

Background/Conclusion: An update was given to the Sector on progress of the Work Group which last met in June 1996. A

proposal was made by the Work Group to address future AWS issues as part of the Weighing Sector regular meetings rather than as

part of a separate group meeting. The Weighing Sector agreed with this position and, consequently, fiiture AWS issues are to be

presented to the Weighing Sector.

12) Multiple Dimension Measuring Devices (MD^) Workgroup Update

Background/Conclusion: An update was given on the progress ofthe Work Group. An informal industry meeting was held in July

1996 to review draft type evaluation procedure criteria. The type evaluation test procedures were also circulated to the work group

and comments submitted to NIST at the end of July. It was noted that, early on, the draft requirements for OIML and the US were

very similar; however, since the last OIML International Work Group meeting some direct conflicts have been created beUveen the OIML draft and the tentative NIST Handbook 44 code.

The Sector agreed that participation and representation ofthe US (Handbook 44) position is important. While individual companies

have representation on both, the OEML Committee and the NCWM Multiple Dimension Measuring Device (MD^) Work Group, these members represent their own companies rather than a group position. Otto Wamloff, NIST, had been chair of the U. S. National

Working Group until his retirement this year. The Sector felt that this leaves a void which needs to be filled. In the past, a government

person had always filled this position. It was noted that discussions are currently underway with NIST management. Tina Butcher,

NIST/OWM noted that this does not necessarily ensure representation of the NCWM position. If the Sector feels that NCWM

representation on the International Working Group is important, this feedback should be presented to the Executive Committee along

with an indication of its relative priority to other weighing-related NCWM work.

112
Executive Committee

13) United States/Canadian (US/CD) Mutual Recognition Status

Background/Conclusion: The Sector was updated on progress in the area of US/CD Mutual Recognition.

Canada's Legal Metrology Branch (LMB) is in the process of revising their requirements for scales, and the new requirements may

be effective by March 1997. LMB has received approval from the Privy Council to publish the specifications for comments (60 days). If no comments or objections are received, the specifications will be published in part 2 of the Canada Gazette for adoption.

In June 1996, representatives from the Canadian's Legal Metrology Branch (LMB) and the NTEP Laboratories met in Annapolis,

MD at the Maryland Department of Agriculture Laboratory for a joint training session where the Canadian representatives provided

training in the new requirements. The laboratories will continue to apply the current requirements until notified by LMB that the new

requirements have been adopted.

The group also finalized plans to expand the current scope ofthe US/CD Mutual Recognition Program for scales. Early in September,

the program was expanded to include mechanical scales up to 10 000 kg (20 000 lb), computing scales up to 1000 kg (2000 lb), and

complex indicators excluding those that are software-based. Both laboratories agreed that the meeting last June was extremely

beneficial.

There has been no discussion to further expand the program, though is was noted that mutual recognition of load cell testing is probably the next logical step. Both U.S. and CD laboratory representatives noted that there is a lot of work required to maintain this program even at the current level.

Along this line, it was noted that the Executive Committee has undertaken a strategic planning process. It would be beneficial for the Sector to provide feedback to the Executive Committee on how high a priority the Sector places on this work. The Executive

Committee is faced with prioritizing the various NCWM projects and needs input on what projects are most important to members

and where resources should be concentrated.

14) NTEP issuance of R60 and R76 OIML Certificates and Mutual Recognition Work

Background/Conclusion: The Sector was updated as follows on work in the area ofmutual recognition agreements for R60 and R76

and also on the progress of NTEP's preparations for issuing OIML Certificates for R60 and R76.

Mutual Recognition Agreements with Other Countries ' Laboratories.

At the January 1996 NCWM Interim Meeting, NIST's upper management raised questions concerning NIST OWM's involvement

in mutual recognition agreements with other countries as related to NIST and U.S. Government policy. The Scale Manufacturer's

Association has been working with NIST upper management to address these concerns, and a position paper on the subject from the NIST OflTice ofTechnology Services is being finalized. It was noted that the concerns raised seemed to stem from the use ofthe term "mutual recognition agreement" as it is used in U.S. Government circles.

NTEP Issuance of OIML Certificates for R60 Load Cells. The NIST Force Group and OWM have worked with a contractor to develop a program to automate the collection of data from tests of load cells to R60 requirements. This program is similar to the automated program used for generating test reports from NTEP tests of load cells. The program generates a report in the format of R60 Annex A. The program is in the final phases of testing, and

revisions are being made based upon comments received on the report thus far. OWM has also developed a macro for generating

a U.S./OIML Certificate for R60 Load Cells.

Currently, California Division of Measurement Standards does not have an automated process for generating test reports for NTEP

tests of load cells. However, OWM has developed a macro which can be used to generate the R60 Annex A based upon manual input

of data. Additional work, training, and, possibly, equipment will be needed to prepare California for testing to R60 requirements

Tina Butcher, NIST OWM, Manager National Type Evaluation Program, will meet with Sam Chappell, NIST Technical Standards

Activities Program, U.S. Representative to OIML, to ask that the Annex A test report and OIML Certificate be reviewed for consistency with the OIML Certificate System for Measuring Instruments; also to be discussed is the technical support available for responding to technical questions on R60 from the U.S. evaluating laboratories. A meeting is also planned with the NIST Budget

Office to obtain authorization to bill for work done on OIML Certificates. NIST OWM will be coordinating revisions to the NTEP

database to accommodate the tracking of OIML project numbers and Certificate numbers.

113
Executive Committee

It is anticipated that NTEP will be able to offer OIML R60 testing by the NIST Force Group by the end of 1996. OIML testing of

lower capacity cells by California will be added at a later date once training and equipment requirements have been satisfied and the process for issuing OIML Certificates has been implemented.

NTEP Issuancefor OIML R76 Non-Automatic Weighing Instruments.

In preparation for issuing OIML Certificates for R76, the California and Ohio laboratories are participating in a round robin

coordinated by the Asia Pacific Legal Metrology Forum. A non-automatic weighing instrument is being circulated among participating laboratories for testing to R76 requirements. The NTEP Board of Governors authorized an expenditure of $5,000 to cover the fees ofoutside laboratories contracted to perform electrical tests which cannot be performed by the NTEP laboratories; the two laboratories participating in the round robin are providing their laboratory staff services at no charge. This effort should prove to be valuable experience for the two NTEP laboratories in this area of testing.

15) Administrative Issues

Conclusion: As past Chairman ofthe NTEP Board ofGovernors (BOG), Jim Truex, Ohio Weights and Measures, updated the Sector on the BOG's discussions on NTETC administrative issues. Discussions included size of the sectors, balance of public and private

members, voting status, etc. The Board did not want to dictate term lengths for members. The Board did say that NIST has only one

vote, each state has only one vote, and each company only has one vote; it is up to the organization or company to decide who is the voting member. NCWM members interested in becoming a member of the Committee must ask that the NCWM chairman to be

appointed. Manufacturers cannot also automatically appoint new members from their company; individuals are appointed, not companies.

16) Change in NTEP Administrative Fee Structures

Conclusion; The Sector was updated on the changes in the NTEP administrative fee structure. Copies of a memorandum distributed

in July when the fee structure was changed were mailed to Sector members with the attachments for this meeting. Sector members

were advised that a purchase order number for the application fee would be accepted to initiate processing ofthe application; the latest complete edition of Publication 14 (which was published in May 1996 before the fee structure was changed) does not note that a purchase order number can be accepted; however, the individual checklists have been revised to provide for a purchase order number.

17) Review of Changes to Publication 14 to Reflect July 1996 NCWM Changes to NIST Handbook 44

Conclusion; The Sector reviewed and agreed to the following proposed changes to Publication 14 based upon changes made by the NCWM to Handbook 44 in July 1996. No additional comments were received on this issue.

a.) Concentrated Load Capacity; Declaration of Other Than Dual-Axle Configurations

Code Reference: UR-3.2.1

Add UR.3.2.1. and the accompany Table (See Appendix A) to NCWM Publication 14 as follows to enable the type evaluation

laboratory to assess the appropriateness of the markings.

UR.3.2.1. Maximum Loading for Vehicle Scales. - A vehicle scale shall not be used to weigh loads exceeding the maximum load capacity of its span as specified in Table

UR.3.2.1.

b.) Relationship of v„i„ to d

Code Reference; S.5.4

Amend Section 22 ofthe Scales Checklist, Section S.5.4. Relationship ofLoad Cell Verification Interval Value to the Scale Division,

as follows:

114
Executive Committee

22. Relationship of v^i„ to d

Code Reference: S.5.4.

Ifthe scale uses an NTEP load cell, the load cell verification interval must satisfy one ofthe following relationships

(When the value of the scale division, d, is different than the verification scale division, e, for the scale, the value of e must be used in the formula below.)

22. 1 . V , where N is the number of load cells in the scale without lever systems - ^

22.2. V s for scales with lever systems.

( scale multiple

This requirement does not apply to complete scales and weighing elements which satisfy the following

criteria:

CI) The device has been evaluated for compliance with T.N.8.1 . Temperature under the National Type

Evaluation Program fNTEP):

(2) The device has received an NTEP Certificate of Conformance; and

(3) The device must be equipped with an automatic zero-setting mechanism which cannot be made

inoperative in the normal weighing mode. (A test mode which permits the disabling of the automatic

zero-setting mechanism is permissible, provided the scale cannot function normally while in this mode.)

18) Operation of the Repeat Key

Conclusion: The Sector feh that this issue would best be addressed first by the NTEP Laboratories to determine whether or not there

is a problem with the existing language. Ifthe laboratories feel after discussion that changes are needed to the checklist, they are asked

to submit a proposal to the Sector.

19) Model Designation for Weight Classifiers

Conclusion: The Sector believes that NTEP's interpretation is appropriate at the present time; a separate model designation should

not be required to differentiate weight classifiers from non-weight classifiers, but the device must be appropriately marked as required

for special applications. The Sector acknowledged the concerns of having a device set up in the field and used inappropriately in a weight classifying mode. Several suggestions were made for possible future Handbook 44 requirements which would automatically ensure that the device is identified as a weight classifier in the final setup. It was suggested that this might also be an issue that the Scale Manufacturer's Technical Committee could review and develop a proposal to address. Concern was also expressed over whether or not the field official can perform an adequate test to determine that a device is in a weight classifying mode.

20) Requirements for Power Loss

Part A: "Voluntary" vs "Involuntary" Power Loss

Conclusion: The Sector agreed that the original intent of "power loss" was not intended to allow the user to selectively interrupt

communication for the purposes of circumventing the requirement which prohibits use of manual weight entries on vehicle scales.

It was also agreed that the phrase "loss of communication" and "power loss" or "loss of power" do not have the same meaning. It was acknowledged by the Sector that Handbook 44 prohibits the use of manual weight entries on vehicle scales; however, the Sector could not reach a conclusion on what changes, if any, were needed to the existing language. Some concerns were expressed that the manual weight feature should not be allowed in sofbA^are for vehicle scale systems at all. It was noted, however, that like a typewriter,

if the computer system is not connected to the scale, the computer is no longer part of the weighing system. The NTEP laboratories agreed to discuss this issue ftirther to see if they might be able to develop a recommendation for addressing these concerns.

115
Executive Committee

Part B: Entries of Tare

Part B ofthis item had to do with entries oftare when power loss occurs. Due to time constraints this item was not considered by the

Sector.

21) Self-Checkout Scale Systems

Conclusion; The Sector agreed that the systems would be subject to type evaluation. The criteria to be applied would be the same

as in the checklist for ECR's interfaced with scales combined with facilitation of fraud criteria. The Sector agreed that, if a video

display were the primary indicator, it would not have to be tested for influence factors requirements unless the A/D converter were

located in the display.

22) Provisional Certificates — Wheel Load Weighers

Conclusion: The Sector agreed that issuance of provisional CCs for wheel load weighers and portable axle load weighers is still appropriate. However, should they elect to do so, manufacturers should be able to get a full CC by following the policy stated under

Section 4. Influence Factors Testing of Larger Scales Not Using NTEP Load Cells (and the Load Cells Cannot be Tested

Separately) of Publication 14 (pp. 1-10 of the 1996 edition of Publication 14).

It was agreed that the wording in the policy be changed to reflect these positions. The wording will be modified as follows:

4. Influence Factors Testing of Larger Scales Not Using NTEP Load Cells (and the Load Cells Cannot be

Tested Separately)

In November 1996. the Weighing Sector agreed that wheel load weighers and portable axle load scales which are not equipped with NTEP approved load cells and which do not lend themselves to being tested in NTEP

environmental chambers would not be required to comply with the following policy: these devices may continue

to receive provisional Certificates of Conformance based upon influence factor data collected bv the manufacturer

and testing performed bv an NTEP laboratorv. However, should a manufacturer of such a device wish to obtain a fiill Certificate of Conformance, the policy outlined below can be followed to satisfy the influence factors requirements to obtain a full Certificate.

In December 1 992 the Technical Committee Weighing Sector voted and established the following technical policy

for devices which are not equipped with NTEP approved load cells and which do not lend themselves to being

tested in NTEP environmental chambers, (e.g., some wheel load weighers and crane scales).

116
Executive Committee

CN (N m o

•<T in oo <N VO m m <3- r~ O O

o O o (N (N fN VO

1 m 1 \o

1 O

1 oo OO Os On

(N (N fN (N (N

0\

1 1 r1 00 (N1 CM

1 1 in 00

I 00 m o VO \o o o o O O (N m NO ON Ov

OOONNOOt^OOvOON

tN-^ — '^^or-ir~oorsi m'^fNVO(N0O'^r<-ivO I I I I I 1 I I I cNmiri>nomr-~ — 00 mr-t^r-vooomtNCM r^ONO^ONt^'^'^mr^ I 1 ] I I I I I I r<-i — — —•moooom'^ r~-oooo — — o —

ooomcNvoovfNm

OnOnV-) — Ovt~-(N —

I I I I I I I I I oo — OnOn — vO(N(NrO (N'^tNtNt~~OOm>n(N r~~O0(NfNrtr~-CNON^O

I I I I I I I I I _ — — — OO — — r-~ vO'^cvON'^oovovor^

OOOnOOOO — — — (-<1 ro m 00 (N t-~- m — m ON •^O — — — vO — (N(-<-i n-ivOCNOOOTiriO-^ I I I t I I I I I vNt^Ov - — r-iOO — 00

< I f^r~-(Nm'or-- — vo'^ Otto - — — o — —

(NOOfNOOCNTTOOOOvO

r^O — ^ — O^OMVO v-iTrr-~ON^r--or<-)0 O — — fNTj-omflO r^mONOoor-~'^inm I I I I I I I I I fSOTl-OOV-iO-^rorI I I I I I I I I t~-(Nmr~-oo(^ooooo

ON(Nt^mfNr^irirj-iri mo — ooooo<N

>

o

O f

^®

s -i a. .9- ® J

en o -— ^ 5 « c -a

§3 op

c

xic

<u I c w

E E

(§)(§) E E

t/J Cfl >^c c

9 O 3 OB

i2 li -o d

iS 13 E H

« „•; ,«

4> "t-

(§)"8

«5 (U

E E

- o O

;z: 2: o o

2 Z

d .Si 2eacu

3

cav

(J

caE

E ^ O (U

c « ® t3 ^ c

" o E 3

o

X)

z z

-^Z Z

•7^ O

M) U W W W

= z z z z

-|_o o o o

« z z z z

00 3 U W W W UQ o z z z z z

E O O O O O

« z z z z z

z >.z

o to

Z Z

cao

Q

00 ^

M O

O DC .00

C3 J2

Q

3

00 00 <U (U 3

?2 ^

3 U

£ z Z 2

O u.

•7 ° ^ ca 3

CUW

Z

<

>^ o

c c x:

ca ca ca £ £ 12 < < O

o o

o o

C3 C3

a. cu w w

z z

:^ >

z z

CO CO -a -o o 111

« 0) 5

cti <

o 2

la 2

< <

U U

0" o" c cE

ca

o o

w w

z z

O O

0^ Pi

0 0 0 « ca

u« 0 0 0

X)

ca ca ca -J J -J cu a. a. w w

E- H

Z Z Z

< <

u U z

ca t;c

ca 55

c

T3O

ca ca •a T3

ca ca U U

03 03 U 00

•5)2 ^ p

ca U ca 03 U

oU

d(JU 5 00 on « 15 la

ca cj o

o 00 00

<^ « CO Sec 3 ca ca XI X

o

o

T3

COu2 2

E

CO 00

00c

-'e 3 .3

-o -o -ti " ca ca U tt« tL,

. <

a.^ Cu u a

1 Q

o 00 X D

op 'S

ca

.2P ^ < 'S ca ;> 00 00

03 <y I <

<

N4-' C

00B

cH

."2 "ou

E

E

oU

o U

U2 ^ .« ja Z Q H

I-^ I/}

ca •- U CQ

t—

(U

c

Cart ex

i

to

Buie ook 1

Szes ries Tru We rea 0

ca •0 >

-a j= E 3

U U <

C 00 3 3 ao ca

ca S3 - «

^ -IS Q CJ 00c

3

caEk.oZ

c ca .3 I S S ''^ -r-l —

00

<u

< cu

o ^

g-l

s

03X

o

QQ

0- O O

O

3o

-J

00 o

S to

cao. -a 0 §

1

=

^ i

3

(U 3

C "

3 _0 ^ J :s s-'S >

55 S Q

k.

k.

ca Q

EJ ^ w

o <2 S

-3 ca 00 c X J

—1 r"

00 X «

3 c: ^ ^ '5

-a c c ^ ^ >

£'fc- ^ E k- s

4) (U O —1 I—> r" 117
Executive Committee

Appendix A to Weighing Sector Meeting Summary

Table UR.3.2.1 Span Maximum Load

Distance in feet l>etween the extremes of any group of 2 or more consecutive axles

Ratio of CLC to maximum load ("r" factor) carried on any group of 2 or more consecutive axles

2 axles 3 axles 4 axles 5 axles 6 axles 7 axles 8 axles 9 axles

4 1.000

5 1.000 6 1.000 INSTRUCTIONS:

1. Determine the scale's CLC

2. Count the number of axles on the v

span and determine the distance in

first and last axle in the span.

7 1.000

ehicle in a given

feet between the

8 and less 1.000 1.000

More than 8 1.118 1.235

i. Muluply the CLC by the correspondmg multiplier m

the table* ,

9 1.147 4. The resulting number is the scale's maximum

concentrated load for a single span based on the

vphi/*l*» rnnfimirati/in 10 1.176 1.279

11 1.294

12 1.324 1.471

13 1.338 1.485

14 1.368 1.515

15 1.382 1.529

16 1.412 1.544 1.706

17 1.426 1.574 1.721

18 1.456 1.588 1.735

19 1.471 1.603 1.765 20 1.500 1.632 1.779 1.941 21 1.515 1.647 1.794 1.956 22 1.544 1.662 1.809 1.956 23 1.559 1.691 1.838 2.000 24 1.588 1.706 1.853 2.015 2.176 25 1.603 1.721 1.868 2.029 2.191 26 1.632 1.750 1.882 2.044 2.206 27 1.647 1.765 1.912 2.059 2.221 28 1.676 1.779 1.927 2.088 2.250 2.412 29 1.691 1.809 1.941 2.103 2.265 2.426 30 1.721 1.824 1.956 2.118 2.279 2.441

3

1

1.735 1.838 1.985 2.132 2.294 2.456 32 1.765 1.868 2.000 2.147 2.309 2.485 2.647 33 1.882 2.015 2.176 2.324 2.500 2.662

J** 1.897 2.029 2.191 2.353 2.515 2.676

JJ 1.926 2.059 2.206 2.368 2.529 2.691 36 1.941 2.074 2.221 2.382 2.544 2.706

J 1 1.956 2.088 2.235 2.397 2.559 2.735 38 1.985 2.103 2.265 2.412 2.574 2.750 39 2.000 2.132 2.279 2.427 2.603 2.765 40 2.015 2.147 2.294 2.456 2.618 2.779

41 2.044 2.162 2.309 2.471 2.632 2.794 42 2.059 2.176 2.324 2.485 2.647 2.809

43 2.074 2.206 2.353 2.500 2.662 2.824 44 2.103 2.221 2.368 2.515 2.676 2.838 45 2.118 2.235 2.382 2.529 2.691 2.868 46 2.132 2.250 2.397 2.559 2.721 2.882 47 2.162 2.279 2.412 2.574 2.735 2.897 48 2.176 2.294 2.441 2.588 2.750 2.912 49 2.191 2.309 2.456 2.603 2.765 2.926 50 2.221 2.324 2.471 2.618 2.779 2.941

51 2.235 2.353 2.485 2.632 2.794 2.956 52 2.250 2.368 2.500 2.662 2.809 2.971 53 2.279 2.382 2.529 2.676 2.838 3.000 54 2.294 2.397 2.544 2691 2.853 3.015 55 2.309 2.426 2.559 2.706 2.868 3.029 56 2.338 2.441 2.574 2.721 2.882 3.044 57 2.353 2.456 2.588 2.735 2.897 3.059 58 2.471 2.618 2.765 2.912 3.074 59 2.500 2.632 2.779 2.926 3.088 60 2.515 2.647 2.794 2.956 3.103

118
Executive Committee

*Note: This table was developed based upon the following formula. Values may be rounded in some cases for ease of use.

W = / » 500 UN - 36

119

Executive Committee

Appendix L

National Type Evaluation Technical Committee (NTETC)

Measuring Sector Meeting

October 19-20, 1996, Charleston, West Virginia

Meeting Summary

Agenda Items

1) Update to NCWM Publication 14

2) Status of the Family of Products for Mass Flow Meters; Changes to the Tests for Mass Flow Meters

3) Changes to Section 3.37 Mass Flow Meters Section of NIST Handbook 44 _

4) Checklist for Mass Flow Meters

5) Clarification of the Language on the Allowable Tolerance Error Band for Permanence Tests for Mass Flow Meters

6) Status of the Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) Retail Motor-Fuel Dispenser Examination Procedure Outline (EPO) and

Checklist

7) Status of Mutual Recognition of Type Evaluation Between Canada and the United States

8) Status of the Cryogenic Liquid-Measuring Devices Checklist

9) NTETC Chairman Terms of Office

10) Unattended Cash-Activated Retail Motor-Fuel Dispensers

1 1) Cash-, Credit Card-, or Debit Card-Activated Devices Printed Ticket Information

12) NTEP Testing for Low Product Sensors/Indicators in Retail Motor-Fuel Dispensers with Blending Capability

13) Expanded Checklist Procedures for Testing with Small Volume Prover Standards

14) Changes to Section 3.37 Mass Flow Meters Section Paragraph S. 1.3.1. Handbook 44 to include Units of Volume

15) Changes to Section 3.30 Liquid-Measuring Devices Code to Require Full Computing-Type Retail Motor Fuel Device

16) Change in NTEP Administrative Fee Structure; Policy Concerning Reanalysis of Application

17) Definition of System Controller as Used in the Audit Trail Criteria

1) Update to NCWM Publication 14

Background: The following changes were adopted by the 81st National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM) and

will be reflected in the 1997 edition ofHandbook 44, Section 3.30. Liquid-Measuring Devices paragraph S.3. 1 .(b) and Publication

14. These items were included as part of the agenda to inform the Measuring Sector of the immediate changes that would take place in National Type Evaluation Program (NTEP) procedures as a result of NCWM actions.

a) S.3,1. Diversion Prohibited Liquid-Measuring Devices

Background: The NCWM adopted modifications to the language in paragraph S.3. 1 . of the Liquid-Measuring Devices Code.

The new language now permits manual diversion of product in the measuring system for agri-chemical applications under certain conditions and reads as follows:

S.3.1. Diversion of Measured Liquid. - No means shall be provided by which any measured liquid can be diverted from

the measuring chamber of the meter or its discharge line.

Two or more delivery outlets may be installed only if automatic means are provided to ensure that:

(a) liquid can flow from only one outlet at a time, and

(b) the direction of flow for which the mechanism may be set at any time is clearly and conspicuously indicated. A manually controlled outlet that may be opened for purging or draining the measuring system or for recirculating

product in suspension shall be permitted only when the system is measuring food products or agri-chemicals . EflFective means shall be provided to prevent passage of liquid through any such outlet during normal operation of the measuring

121
Executive Committee

system and to inhibit meter indications (or advancement of indications) and recorded representations while the outlet is in operation.

Conclusion: The Sector agreed to modify the 1997 edition of Publication 14, to correspond with changes made to NIST

Handbook 44 at the July 1996 Annual Meeting of the NCWM.

The modifications will appear under Sections 1 1 and 21 of the Liquid-Measuring Devices Code Checklist in Publication 14,

covering Discharge Lines and Discharge Line Valves of Retail Motor-Fuel Dispensers and Wholesale and Loading-Rack Meters

as follows:

11. Discharge Lines and Discharge Line Valve

1 1 .3. Except as identified above, a manually controlled outlet may be installed to be opened for purging or

draining the measuring chamber when the system is measuring food products or recirculating agrichemical products in suspension if suitable means are provided to ensure liquid cannot flow through

any such outlet during normal operation and to prevent advancement of meter indications and

recorded representations while the outlet is in use.

21. Discharge Lines and Discharge Line Valve

2 1 .2. Except as identified above, a manually controlled outlet may be installed to be opened for purging or draining the measuring chamber when the system is measuring food products or recirculating agrichemical products in suspension if suitable means are provided to ensure liquid cannot flow through

any such outlet during normal operation and to prevent advancement of meter indications and

recorded representations while the outlet is in use.

The Sector also recommends the NCWM Specifications and Tolerances (S&T) Committee continue in its work to develop a

definition for agri-chemicals.

b) Tentative Carbon Dioxide Liquid-Measuring Devices Code

Background: In July 1996, the NCWM adopted Tentative Code Section 3.38 for Carbon Dioxide Liquid-Measuring Devices

to Handbook 44. Publication 14 does not include criteria or test procedures for this type of device.

Conclusion: The Sector agreed that Steve Cook (California) will head a sumcommittee for the continued development of a

Checklist for Carbon Dioxide Liquid-Measuring Devices, which is projected to be complete in 3-6 months. The checklist will be

based on California's Draft Examination Procedure Outline (EPO) for Carbon Dioxide Liquid-Measuring Devices. The

determination of the checklist criteria and procedures will be the result of a collaborative effort among Mr. Cook, Charlie Nelson

(California) and Ken Hoffer (Hoflfer Flow Controls). Upon completion, the final draft of the checklist will be presented to the Sector for review.

2) Status of The Family of Products for Mass Flow Meters; Changes to the Tests for Mass Flow Meters

Background: Originally, NTEP Certificates of Conformance (CCs) issued for metering devices covered applications for those

products which were used during type evaluation. Manufacturers found it difficult to predict every product these meters might

be used to dispense. Testing a meter with every possible product would be too costly to the manufacturer and place a strain on NTEP resources. In 1991 the Sector adopted a policy for positive displacement meters to alleviate the need for extensive testing

by grouping products into families, based on their commercial use, the similarities in their viscosities, specific gravities, and other

related properties. The policy was agreed to and based on the demonstrated performance of positive displacement meters, which

is fairly predictable with changes in viscosities. Although NTEP routinely tests other types of metering technology, there is no

policy established for covering ranges of specific product types metered by these devices. There are also inconsistencies in how

NTEP currently lists products covered on mass flow meter CCs; a CC may list a range of specific gravities, but does not address

other differences in product properties, such as extreme temperature or pressure, which might influence meter performance.

At the October 1994 Sector meeting, discussion began to address the development of a policy or family product list, which would

reduce the amount of testing and is representative of mass flow meter performance over a range of products. The 1994 meeting

concluded with the formation of a subgroup to address this issue; the subgroup included the following associate members: Norm

Alston (Daniel Flow Products), Mike Keilty (Micro Motion), Tim Scott (Brooks Instrument), John Skuce (Smith Meter), and

122
Executive Committee

Randy Smith (Schlumberger Industries). The mass flow meter manufacturers were approached at that time and more recently by

Mike Keilty through a June 1996 letter ballot requesting their input to help establish specific performance parameters for these

devices.

Schlumberger Industries submitted a proposal which recommended changes to the existing testing procedures to reduce the cost and requirement for additional testing on multiple products types. The Sector was asked to determine if the proposed changes

to existing test procedures for permanence tests and the addition of new product groups and meter sizes are acceptable for mass

flow meter testing. The major differences between the proposal and existing procedures in Publication 14 are outlined in the table below:

1996 Publication 14 Test Procedure Proposed Test Procedure

Initial Test and Permanence Test (60 days or 2000 x max. flow)

5 Tests (o) 4 Flow Rates

Conduct Initial Full Set of Tests ( 5 Tests @ 4 Flow Rates) in Laboratory

with Specific Product with NO subsequent Permanence Test

New Products - Initial and Permanence Tests for each Product Type

5 Tests @ 4 Flow Rates (Initial Tests)

5 Tests @ 4 Flow Rates (Permanence Tests)

New Products (Initial Test Only)

3 Tests @ 3 Flow Rates (meter min. flow - site max. flow) Multiple Products (test two products w/widest s.g. range)

Repeatability - Suggested Method

Calculate Standard Deviation (s) for flow data Determine if Range of the Errors is within the Allowable

Error Band (X ± 2s)

Repeatability - Do not apply Standard Deviation

Permissible Meter Family Flow Rates CC covers 50-200% of Meter Flow Rate Tested

Permissible Meter Family Flow Rates

If 50-200% of the Meter Flow Rate Tested is greater than 50% of

the Flow Rate of the next Smallest or Largest Meter; CC covers 101 range of meter sizes

Permissible Meter Family Size CC covers 50-200% of Meter Flow Rate Tested OR Must test New Size 5 Tests @ 4 Flow Rates

(Initial/Permanence)

Permissible Meter Family Size (Not covered by above application)

3 Tests @ 3 Flow Rates Must Attain 80% Max Flow Rate Any Product as Test Medium

The lack of a policy continues to raise the question of how NTEP will proceed on verifying claims on a product type application.

Existing policy for cryogenic and LPG meters are not based on specific gravity, thus making it difficult to derive guidelines based on observations of meter performance in those areas. Another important issue which continues to be raised by manufacturers is the unfair competitive advantage given to companies with unconditional CCs and the burden imposed by additional restrictions

to evaluate new product applications.

Discussion: A justification was provided for some of the NTEP inconsistencies in product applications covered on CCs. It was

determined that the limitations placed on specific product application were the result ofmeter failures which occurred during actual

testing. Other product applications were limited because ofvast differences in product properties and for the remainder of product

applications there did not appear to be any logic. It was stressed that there was a need for information fi^om the experts on this technology and it was felt that the Sector was an ideal forum for the best assembly of that expertise. There is a sense of urgency

to reach closure on this issue because of the likelihood that impending challenges on the validity of existing CCs may force the modification of existing CCs to cover only those products which were tested.

A key point which was repeated throughout the meeting is that if product type was not a factor affecting meter performance, then

this must be demonstrated. Comments indicate there may be several influences on meter performance such as design, ambient

temperature, and densities depending on the system design. Another possible variable which entered into the discussion was that the performance of the Coriolis meter's less linear in the lower flow ranges. The group was reminded that there are five separate accuracy classes which clearly make a distinction in the product application.

The theory behind performing permanence tests was discussed at length. It was suggested to the Sector that the American

Petroleum Institute (API) may have data which demonstrates mass flow meter performance over time. Canada indicated it has performed extensive permanence testing, however, it does not feel comfortable with grouping products into classes based solely on this information. Several mass flow meter manufacturers noted that there have been instances where corrosion of the meter

tubes has resulted in catastrophic failure of the system; however, they also noted the corrosion process took place due to the improper selection ofthe tubing materials. Additional comments heard indicate that there is no data which demonstrates whether

rezeroing or flucuations in flow rate have any influence on mass flow meter performance.

123
Executive Committee

Current standards for the minimum amount of test data were established to provide the participating laboratory with a sufficient number of data points to ensure confidence in the meter's performance over its range of flow rates which is also critical when

looking at meter error based on standard deviation. It was suggested that the number of test runs somehow correlate to the turndown ratio for the meter.

Schlumberger indicated that it is difficult and costly to obtain adequate field test sites where it is possible to operate mass flow

meters over the flill range of flow rates. It was asked if there were some minimum criteria which would be acceptable to remedy

that situation. Other areas of concern which were expressed by Schlumberger is that NTEP policy limits CC coverage to meter

sizes which are 50 percent smaller and 200 percent larger than the meter tested. Schlumberger indicated that mass flow meters have a ratio of maximum to minimum flow rate which is much larger than other meters; therefore, this policy often eliminates the next meter size within a family ofmeters from being covered without additional testing ofthat meter. Schlumberger recommended

that it be sufficient to reach 50 percent ofthe next largest meter's flow rate. The question was asked if this became policy would

it apply to other meter technology.

It was recommended that the proposal might be more palatable if it were divided into individual proposals rather than asking the Sector to accept a complete revision of existing procedures.

Conclusion: The Sector discussed the proposal submitted by Schlumberger to modify the mass flow meter test procedures and

product evaluation criteria at length; however, the Sector voted 1 1 to 4 not adopt the proposal.

A subcommittee consisting of Eric Kappelt (Smith Meter)(to replace John SKuce), Mike Keilty (Micro Motion), Andre Noel

(Schlumberger)(to replace Randy Smith), Johnny Parrish (Brooks Instrument)(to replace Tim Scott), and Will Wotthlie

(Maryland) will develop a questionnaire asking for input on which variables, (e.g., flow rate, product, meter size, testing

procedure, etc.) may influence mass flow meter performance. The questionnaire will be distributed to selected weights and

measures jurisdictions for input. Based on input from Steve Malone (Nebraska) and time permitting, the Sector will ask if Dick

Suiter (Nebraska) will consider reviewing the data, for his input on the survey findings. The group plans to distribute the questionnaire by December 1 and have the results analyzed by the 1997 NCWM Interim Meeting. Based upon information

collected from the survey, the Sector will develop an approach to address the issues surrounding mass flow meter testing.

The Sector also recognized the need to develop criteria which will address the various types of mass flow meter technologies

available.

3) Changes to Section 3.37 Mass Flow Meters Code Section of NIST Handbook 44

Background: At the 1995 meeting, proposed changes to the Mass Flow Meter Code were submitted to the Sector by California. The modifications were to be reviewed concurrently with the proposed Compressed Natural Gas Retail Motor-Fuel Dispenser

Checklist. The subgroup (see Item 6), which had also agreed to review the CNG Checklist, was to study the proposed code

sections, then refine and submit them to the NCWM S&T Committee for the 1996 Interim Meeting. These modifications are proposed as changes to NIST Handbook 44 Mass Flow Meters Code section.

Comments received after the 1996 Sector meeting indicate the requirement proposed in paragraph UR. 1.1.1. should be

harmonized with the Canadian requirement of 15 feet, also the mast support for the CNG hose necessitates a longer hose than the permissible 12 foot length. Similar recommendations were made at the June 1996 meeting of the CNG Retail Motor-Fuel

Dispenser working group.

Conclusion: The Sector recommended that the NCWM S&T Committee add the following proposed specifications and user requirements to the Mass Flow Meters Code section in Handbook 44. The group felt that changes should be made in paragraph

UR. 1.1.1. Length (c) to indicate that the length of the discharge hose shall not exceed 4.6 m (15 ft), thus to align U.S. and

Canadian requirements. It was also recommended that the nonretroactive dates be removed from the requirements.

S.1.6.1. Indication of Delivery. - The device shall automatically show on its face the initial zero condition and the quantity delivered (up to the nominal capacity).

However, the first 0.03 L (0.009 gal) of a delivery and its associated total sales price need not be indicated.

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), 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

124
Executive Committee

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. [Effective and nonretroactive as of January 1, 1991]

S.1.6.6. Agreement Between Indications. - When a quantity value indicated or recorded by an auxiliary element is a derived or computed value based on data received from a retail motor-fuel dispenser, the value may differ from the quantity value displayed on the dispenser, provided the following conditions are met:

(a) all total money values for an individual sale that are indicated or recorded by the system agree, and

(b) within each element, the values indicated or recorded meet the formula (quantity x unit price = total sales price) to the closest cent, p^onretroactive as of January 1, 1988.]

S.2.5. Zero-Set-Back Interlock, Retail Motor-Fuel Devices. - A device shall be constructed so that:

(a) after a delivery cycle has been completed by moving the starting lever to any position that shuts off the device, an

automatic interlock prevents a subsequent delivery until the indicating elements, and recording elements if the device

is equipped and activated to record, have been returned to their zero positions;

(b) the discharge nozzle cannot be returned to its designed hanging position (that is, any position where the tip of the nozzle is placed in its designed receptacle and the lock can be inserted) until the starting lever is in its designed shut-off position and the zero-set-back interlock has been engaged; and

(c) in a system with more than one dispenser supplied by a single pump, an effective automatic control valve in each

dispenser prevents product from being delivered until the indicating elements on that dispenser are in a correct zero

position.

S.5.1. Totalizers for Retail Motor-Fuel Dispensers Devices. - Retail motor-fijel dispensers shall be equipped with

a nonresettable totalizer for the quantity delivered through the metering device. [Nonretroactive as of January 1 , 1995.]

UR-1.1.1. Length

(c) shall not exceed 5.5 m (18 ft) 3.6 m (12 ft) 4.6 m (15 ft) unless it can be demonstrated that a longer hose is essential to permit deliveries to be made to receiving vehicles or vessels.

UR.2.1. Manufacturer's Instructions. - A device shall be installed in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions,

and the installation shall be sufficiently secure and rigid to maintain this condition.

UR.2.2. Discharge Rate. - A device shall be installed so that the actual maximum discharge rate will not exceed the

rated maximum discharge rate. Automatic means for flow regulation shall be incorporated in the installation if necessary.

lJR-3.1. Return of Indicating and Recording Elements to Zero. - On any dispenser used in making retail deliveries, the primary indicating element, and recording element if so equipped, shall be returned to zero before each delivery.

Exceptions to this requirement are totalizers on key-lock-operated or other self-operated dispensers and the primary

recording element if the device is equipped to record.

4) Checklist for Mass Flow Meters

Background: Publication 14 includes a section entitled "Additional Checklist and Test Procedures for Mass Flow Meters" which

briefly details the test procedures for these devices. Unlike other metering devices which undergo NTEP testing, there are no

separate procedures, which elaborate on mass flow meter testing, listed under the Liquid-Measuring Devices Criteria in Publication 14. NTEP continues to get requests for type evaluation of Mass Flow Meters and must be able to provide guidance

to the manufacturers on what testing of these devices will entail.

At the October 1995 meeting a subgroup was appointed to develop a draft checklist for Mass Flow Meters. The subgroup

consisted of Pat Hardock (Canada LMB), Monty Hopper (Kem County Weights and Measures, California), Eric Kappelt (Smith

Meter Inc.), Mike Keilty (Micro Motion Inc.), Kelly White (Brooks Instrument), and Will Wotthlie (Maryland Weights and

125
Executive Committee

Measures) and an undetermined representative from Schlumberger Industries. At the 1996 meeting, the Sector asked the subgroup for an update on the checklist status.

It was noted that code references within Publication 14 still reflect various code sections that applied prior to the adoption of the mass flow meter code. Mr.Keilty recommended that the Sector contract with a party that is familiar with mass flow meter

technology and the NCWM Examination Procedure Outlines to create a checklist for mass flow meters. Tina Butcher (NIST)

suggested the chair list the Sector's requests for funding the contract in its list of priorities.

Conclusion: The Sector believes that the project to develop a mass flow meter NTEP checklist is a priority item and should be

completed in conjunction with an Examination Procedure Outline for mass flow meters by a contractor. The Chairman will assign

this proposal a priority status and forward it to the Executive Committee for consideration as part of their strategic plan for the committee.

5) Clarification of the Language on the Allowable Tolerance Error Band for Permanence Tests for Mass Flow

Meters

Background: The suggested method for type evaluation testing of mass flow meters as specified in Publication 14 (May 1996),

Page 10-75, Field Evaluation and Permanence Tests for Meters, Liquid-Measuring Devices, Repeatability for Mass Flow Meters

reads as follows:

1 . Using known weight (primary standard), determine the error present in the weighing instrument over the weighing range

that will be used in the test. The inherent error, if present, is to be factored out of the measurement. The scale will then be used as a transfer standard.

2. Establish proper flowmeter calibration conditions ~ steady state conditions at each flow rate. Collect the test data for the selected flow rates. The indication shall be on the basis of apparent mass.

3. Calculate the mean error (x) and the standard deviation(s) for the data collected at each flow rate.

4. Calculate the error band for each flow rate using the following equation: x ± 2s.

5. The difference between the most significant error in the positive direction and the most significant error in the negative

direction should not exceed the tolerance error band to be applied.

When volumetric delivery from the flowmeter is the basis for evaluating performance, the above mass determination must be

converted to volume through the meter using the fluid density at the meter location (this assumes that no leaks exist between the meter and the collection vessel).

There appears to be some disagreement over how paragraphs 3-5 are to be applied. The Sector was asked to review this criteria and add language and possibly an example to clarify how the criteria are to be applied.

Conclusion: This item was tabled due to lack of time.

6) Status of the Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) Retail Motor-Fuel Dispenser Examination Procedure Outline

(EPO) and Checklist

Background: During the October 1993 meeting the Sector established a subgroup to work with the Natural Gas Vehicle

Coalition (NGVC) to develop an examination procedure outline (EPO) for use in field testing of compressed natural gas (CNG)

retail motor-fuel dispensers. The group was provided with draft test procedures from Jim Akey (WI) developed on behalf of the NCWM Metrologist Group, Nebraska Weights and Measures, California Division of Measurement Standards, and additional guidelines based on the Office of Weights and Measure's (OWM's) work with Maryland Weights and Measures.

At the October 1995 meeting California distributed a revised version of its 1993 EPO to the Sector. A group of representatives

from the associate membership and NTEP laboratories which were affected by the procedure were to review the EPO and provide

input to Mike Keilty. Sector members comprising this group were Ross Andersen (New York Weights and Measures), Richard

Huff (Universel Epsco), Gordon Johnson (Gilbarco), Mike Keilty (Micro Motion), Dick Shockley (Maryland Weights and

Measures), Bob Traettino (Liquid Confrols Corp.), and Rich Tucker (Tokheim).

126
Executive Committee

A group of representatives from the NGVC, device manufacturers, NTEP, and NIST met on June 13-14, 1996. The group

reviewed a draft EPO consolidated from the three earlier EPOs drafted in 1993. The meeting concluded with plans to conduct

additional testing to refine and determine test procedures which were most applicable to this technology. The NGV4

Subcommittee, which met in late July, was tasked to establish guidelines for a safe protocol and discharge of product after testing.

The group had projected the third quarter 1996 for the completion of a final draft of the EPO.

Discussion: At the 1996 meeting, Mike Keilty reported for the group tasked in 1995 to develop the EPO, that the return of

product issue has continues to be an informational item on the NCWM S&T Committee agenda. Mr. Keilty also indicated that the status of the EPO was dependent on the findings of the NGV4 Subcommittee. In response to a comment that the Liquid

Measuring Devices Codes would apply to CNG retail motor-fiiel dispensers, Mr. Keilty noted that prior to the adoption ofthe mass

flow meter code a number of other code sections were applicable to and did reference mass flow meters, however they were not covered during the June 13-14 meeting.

Some concern was expressed over the ability of a 100-pound capacity scale to achieve the necessary resolution for a transfer standard. The group discussed the hose length requirement in paragraph UR. 1.1.1. California indicated some dispensers have

problems meeting accuracy requirements when they exceed 12 feet. One jurisdiction noted that hose length is properly

determined by the manufacturer. The group was reminded that the original 1 8 foot hose length established for retail motor-ftiel dispensers was established to prevent damage to the hose from station traffic.

Conclusion: Sector members were tasked to evaluate and comment on the latest draft version ofthe EPO that had been included

with the meeting agenda. Sector comments, findings from the NGV4.9 Subcommittee on return of product and other safety issues,

in conjunction with data from tests being conducted on the east and west coast by the June 1996 working group, will be

incorporated into the final EPO. Requirements that are part of the Liquid-Measuring Devices Code, which have been proposed

to the NCWM S&T Committee for incorporation into the Mass Flow Meters Code Section of Handbook 44, will also be evaluated

in anticipation of their eventual adoption by the NCWM in July 1997.

Sector members are to review the draft checklist developed by California and forward comments to Juana Williams (NIST) by

January 1, 1997. The checklist will be revised in accordance with feedback from the Sector and other interested parties. A letter ballot will be circulated to members asking that Sector members approve the final document for inclusion in the next edition of

NCWM Publication 14.

7) Status of Mutual Recognition of Type Evaluation Between Canada and the United States

Background: In the fall of 1992, initial dialogue on the harmonization of U.S. and Canada weights and measures requirements

for type evaluation began in an effort to reduce existing trade barriers. Members of the National Conference on Weights and

Measures and representatives from Canada's Legal Metrology Branch (LMB) agreed that the groups's first priority would be to establish mutual recognition of type evaluation of weighing devices, for testing performed by either the United States or Canada.

By April 1993, the work group formulated a plan to eliminate the need to complete testing in both countries. The group focused on type evaluation processes similarities and differences. Their efforts resulted in a unified set of testing procedures, checklist,

application form and applicant's guide which met the requirements for both the United States and Canada. In April 1994, the U.S./Canada Mutual Recognition of Type Evaluation Program accepted its first application. Devices which were successftjl in completing all test criteria were issued certification in both countries.

The NCWM began to explore the possibility of a similar mutual recognition program for liquid-measuring devices (LMD). The

Conference later recommended that this issue be brought before the Measuring Sector.

At the October of 1994 Sector meeting discussions began on mutual recognition of type evaluation for LMD's. Associate

members agreed this work should be ajoint effort ofrepresentatives from both the wholesale and retail manufacturers. In addition,

NCWM Chairman Jim Truex recommended that the mutual recognition group be kept manageable in size and consist of a minimum of two representatives from both associate areas, Canada and the U.S. participating laboratories. Following those recommendations a work group was formed consisting of representatives from the Meter Manufacturers Association and Gasoline

Pump Manufacturers Association, as well as representatives from both participating laboratories. The members of the subgroup

are Norm Alston, (Daniel Flow Products Inc.), Charlie Gardner (Suffolk County Weights and Measures, New York), Mel Hankel

(Liquid Controls), Mike Keilty (Micro Motion), Grant Obermeier (Irving Oil Limited), Johnny Parrish (Brooks Instrument), Bill Raymond (Accurate Metering), Tim Scott (Brooks Instrument), John Skuce (Smith Meter Inc.), Randy Smith (Schlumberger),

Jim Truex (Ohio Weights and Measures), Tina Butcher (NIST) and Juana Williams (NIST). The subgroup met on October 23,

1994, to discuss some preliminary details necessary to establish an evaluation process, and to agree on a time frame. Initially the

127
Executive Committee

group decided to examine the dissimilarities in the U.S./LMB procedures, but later agreed that a review of the processes which

permitted the success in mutual recognition of weighing devices seemed to be the best course of action. It appeared that the

greatest barrier to that success was the differences in tolerances. This obstacle was resolved by applying the most stringent of the requirements and focusing the program on smaller capacity devices, thus moving away from harmonization and more in the

direction of mutual recognition.

The major differences noted between U.S./Canada LMD type evaluation were as follows: 1) LMB laboratory testing is over a temperature range of 0 °C to 40 °C, which is noted on the Notice of Approval, 2) LMB laboratory and field testing for radio

frequency interference, and 3) LMB laboratory's capability to test both retail and wholesale meters that range in size from 0-4

inches. The group concluded the LMB test procedures reveal more information about the meter performance under varying

conditions than U.S. field tests.

The enormity of the differences prompted the group to take a new approach and examine the areas of commonality. The

possibility of locating a U.S. laboratory with temperature capability appears to be remote. Some indicated there would be no point

in pursuing mutual recognition if there is no U.S. laboratory available. Some suggested solutions to that predicament were to: 1) secure a government facility, or 2) conduct parts of the evaluation in Canada and the remaining portion in the United States.

The Sector was aware ofthe current restructuring within the fritemational Organization ofLegal Metrology (OIML), and indicated

that consistency with the OIML procedures should be considered in the creation of this process.

NIST provided the LMB with electronic files of Handbook 44, Publication 14 and the OIML standards documents in preparation

for the inaugural meeting of the subgroup that was held April 10-12, 1995, in Ottawa, Ontario Canada. The group's discussions on the differences, such as the U.S. requirement for submitting specific products, were facilitated by a matrix created by the LMB,

which permitted a line by line comparison of U.S./Canada test requirements.

Initially the first devices targeted for LMD mutual recognition will be elecfronic controllers and stand-alone dispensers in which

the measuring element and indicator have already been evaluated for temperature effects. The next level would be to move on

to evaluate a retail dispenser in Canada. Canada expressed an interest in mutual type evaluation of associated equipment such

as remote indicators and consoles. Both Canada and NIST felt budgetary limitations and the restructuring within both offices would not permit a second meeting until Spring 1996.

Conclusion: At the 1996 meeting, the Sector was updated on the work of the NCWM Executive Committee in developing a

Strategic Plan for the NCWM. The Sector was encouraged to provide feedback to the Executive Committee which would help

them to prioritize measuring-related issues.

The Sector Chairman and Technical Advisor are tasked to create a list of priority items for the Sector, which are to include the goals ofthe Mutual Recognition Working Group; this list will be circulated to the Sector for input on the relative priority of these

items. The Sector felt completion ofmutual recognition in the Liquid-Measuring Devices area should be pursued before attempting

recognition or harmonization with the OIML requirements in other device areas. Both the U.S. and Canada indicated that resources were not available to pursue this item. The manufacturers were encouraged to communicate their preference to see this item

receive a high priority in the hierarchy of the Executive Committee Strategic Plan and the Legal Metrology Branch.

In addition, the Sector agreed that a high priority should be placed on establishing and maintaining the EPOs and training.

8) Status of the Cryogenic Liquid-Measuring Devices Checklist

Background: Publication 14 contains some references to the type evaluation ofcryogenic meters in the test procedures; however,

this checklist is not all inclusive of Handbook 44 code requirements specifically for this device type. NTEP continues to get

increasing numbers of inquiries about the requirements and test procedures for devices which meter cryogenic liquid products.

A recognized procedure for type evaluation of devices which meter cryogenic liquids will provide the necessary information to manufacturers seeking type evaluation.

At the 1995 meeting, California submitted a proposed Checklist for Cryogenic Liquid-Measuring Devices. A working group was

formed to review and refine the checklist. The working group consisted of Associate Members John DeFeo (Hoffer Flow

Controls), John Skuce (Smith Meter Inc.), and Bob Traettino (Liquid Controls Corp.) and would report their findings to California.

128
Executive Committee

The Sector asked for an update from the working group.

Conclusion: This item was tabled due to lack of time.

9) NTETC Chairman Terms of Office

Background: The National Type Evaluation Technical Committee (NTETC) Measuring Sector Chairman's duties are performed

by a volunteer. However, the terms of office for this position are not governed by the NCWM Constitution and Bylaws. The

selection, election or appointment process, in addition to the terms of office are stipulated in NCWM Publication 1 for the chairman

position within other committees. The sole requirement that is shared by NTETC chairmen and other chairmen positions is that

all are members in good standing with the NCWM.

The Sector recommended the Chairman serve a 2- year term; the Vice-Chairman shall be appointed in the second year ofthat term. The Board of Governors (BOG) asked for recommendations on the establishment of formal procedures for appointment of the chairman, if a lack of procedures have precipitated some difficulties.

The Sector was advised that NTETC Measuring Sector Chairman Norm Alston tendered his resignation just prior to the 1996

meeting, the Sector subsequently selected a new Chairman. Similar events within the NTETC Grain Moisture Meter and Near

Infrared Protein Analyzer (GMM'TsflR) Sector have resulted in the creation of a set of bylaws for that Committee's Chairman

position (see attachment). The GMM^IR Sector developed guidelines which determine the eligibility, duties, term of office,

nomination and election for their chairman. Additionally, they have extended those guidelines to cover the duties of the sector

technical advisor. Recommendations have been made to alternately select a Chairman from the associate and public membership,

with no two consecutive terms of office or concurrently held positions being occupied by a representative from the same

membership and/or association representative.

Conclusion: The Sector agreed that a chairman will be elected for a 3-year term, and the position will be reexamined after that time. Rich Tucker (Tokheim) has been selected as Sector Chairman for the initial 3-year term of office. Part of his duties will be

to develop and circulate to Sector members for their review and comment, a set of criteria or bylaws by which the Sector will operate. The Sector will consider the criteria developed by the Grain Moisture Meter/Near-Infrared Grain Analyzer Sectors as a possible model for these criteria.

The Sector also agreed that an associate chairman should be elected to serve in the event that the chairman is unable to serve at a particular meeting. The Sector did not elect an Associate Chairman at this meeting.

10) Unattended Cash-Activated Retail Motor-Fuel Dispensers

Background: At its 1992 meeting, the Sector reviewed a proposed checklist along with several questions related to the operation

of retail motor-fuel dispensers equipped with the cash acceptor option at attended locations. The Sector addressed the possible means of retrieving transaction information in the event of a power loss. A printed receipt must be made available to the customer

at the device; in addition, the device must have some form of low paper sensor. The cash acceptor should automatically issue a

receipt; 1) if the amount dispensed is less than the total money inserted and 2) print the amount of change due. However, there

are no requirements for these devices to display the information once deliver*' had started. There were additional concerns over

the large denomination of bills which might be used in these transactions and the ability to refund monies if product was not

delivered. Instructions must be provided to the customer on how to operate the cash acceptor, although there is no designated

format for this information. A proposed checklist was distributed to the Sector members by letter ballot. At that time the Sector

anticipated the development of technolog>- for the cash acceptor option on dispensers at unattended locations. A subcommittee was established to address the need for a checklist for cash acceptors at unattended operations. The subcommittee consisted of

associate members Gordon Johnson (Gilbarco), Debbie Joines (Wayne Dresser), Larry Murray (Wayne Dresser), and Rich Tucker

(Tokheim).

Discussions at the 1993 Sector meeting focused on alternative methods to ensure the cash acceptors in operations at attended

locations would continue to operate in the event of power loss. The Sector acknowledged that there were limited requests for cash

acceptor options at unattended locations and expressed some concerns over fire codes prohibiting unattended installations. Members present representing GPMA agreed to address the need for additional checklist criteria for these installations in the event

the need presented itself in the future.

129
Executive Committee

Recent input to Office of Weights and Measures (OWM) indicated a need to develop specific procedures for cash-activated retail motor-fuel dispensers at unattended locations. Comments to OWM indicate that cash acceptors installed in unattended operations

may be appropriate ifthey meet the requirements ofHandbook 44, paragraph G-UR.3.4. Responsibility, Money-Operated Devices;

if there is adequate display of information detailing the method for the return of monies paid when the product or service cannot be obtained. The Sector will be asked to examine the need for additional criteria which would address unattended applications.

Discussion: It was noted by one manufacturer that there are already cash activated dispensers in operation at unattended sites.

Initially, the Sector had decided to delineate between attended and unattended sites because they felt there were differences in the

application. Specific issues such as power loss, low paper sensor, bills stuck in the cash acceptor before their monetary value is verified were discussed. It was noted that devices equipped with uninterruptable power source would provide a means to complete

any transaction in progress at the time ofa power loss. The final decision to accept these devices in opferation at unattended location

is ultimately left to each jurisdiction. It was pointed out that, due to security, a station attendant may not respond immediately if there are monetary discrepancies to be resolved. The group felt that there did not need to be additional requirements placed on

devices intended to operate at unattended locations and they would be held to all the criteria that currently apply to attended

locations. Each manufacturer will have to ensure dispensers which are intended to operate at unattended sites meet the criteria established in the checklist and those with Certificates of Conformance will need to notify NTEP of the change in application. It was agreed that posting in accordance with G-UR.3.4. Responsibility, Money-Operated Devices would apply to those devices and

must be on the device. Additional instructional information may be placed on the device or the receipt.

Conclusion: The current checklist criteria will be applied to all installations regardless ofwhether they are unattended or attended

operations. All references to "attended" will be removed from the existing checklists in Publication 14. The Sector recognized

that the decision to accept these operations will be decided by the presiding weights and measures authority. NIST will send a letter to all State Directors and to manufacturers who hold Certificates of Conformance (CCs) on these devices. The letter will indicate

that NTEP recognizes both attended and unattended operations under the same criteria, but unattended locations must comply with

G-UR.3.4. Manufacturers who hold CCs with the cash acceptor option and wish to have the unattended application covered will contact NIST to request that unattended application be added to the CC.

11) Cash-, Credit Card-, or Debit Card-Activated Devices Printed Ticket Information

Background: At the 1996 NCWM Annual Meeting the S&T Committee considered adding the following paragraph to Handbook

44. The NTETC Measuring Sector has required a receipt for some time for card- and cash-activated retail motor-fiael dispensers,

however, current Publication 14 checklist procedures require more information on printed tickets than is required by Handbook

44. Additionally, the existing criteria in Publication 14 for evaluation of cash-operated systems addresses attended locations only. In the event of a cash transaction the consumer is left with no record to verify any portion of the transaction. Comments received

during the 1996 NCWM Interim Meeting from GPMA and a weights and measures representative, indicate that this requirement

should apply to all installations regardless of whether the payment acceptor location is attended or unattended.

UR.3.4.1. Ticket Requirement. - A device which is card and/or cash-activated shall be equipped with a ticket printer. Except for

fleet sales and other price contract sales, a printed receipt providing the following information shall be available for all transactions:

(a) the total volume/quantity of the delivery.

(b) the unit price.

(c) the total computed price.

(d) the product identity by name, svmbol. abbreviation, or code number.

(e) the date of the transaction.

(f) the identity of the seller, and

{g) except for cash-activated sales, the identity of the purchaser

This proposal would establish requirements for a recording element and the specific transaction information to be recorded by retail motor-fuel dispensers which accept cash, credit cards and debit cards.

130
Executive Committee

Industry expressed concern that the proposed language might be interpreted as requiring each device to be equipped with a separate

ticket printer. However, a clear consensus could not reached on the appropriate language which would clarify the exemptions to the requirement. Consequently, the S&T Committee changed the item to informational status to allow additional study ofthe item.

Comments from the NCWM S&T Committee at the Annual Meeting indicate a desire to see that the requirements in UR.3.4. 1

be consistent with the criteria in NCWM Publication 14. Further discussions at the Annual Meeting indicate the possibility of

addressing these issues by modifying S.1.6.7. rather than UR.3.4.1., thus making it a design requirement.

The Sector was asked to review this issue so that its comments could be forwarded to the S&T Committee for consideration.

Discussion: The Sector recognized that the customer and seller identification and date are already mandated by federal and banking

regulations. There was concern that the wording in Handbook 44 Section 3.30 paragraph S.l .6.7. applies only to electronic cash

registers and should be modified to apply to cash activated systems. Additional concern was expressed that if UR.3.4. 1 . is adopted

as a user requirement it may not cover NTEP devices. The Sector agreed that NTEP criteria should reflect Handbook 44

requirements, and the Sector decided to recommend to the S&T Committee that the recorded transaction information apply at all points where dispenser transactions are activated.

Conclusion: The Sector agreed to modify the current checklist, Section 8.22, by deleting any additional items that are not part of

the required information covered in Handbook 44 paragraph S.1.6.7. (S.1.6.7. requires total volume, unit price, total computed

price, and product identity on the printed ticket.) In addition language from Section 8.22 of the Liquid-Measuring Devices Retail Motor-Fuel Dispensers regarding customer receipt information should be added to Section 1 8 the Cash-Acceptor Checklist.

The Sector recommends that the NCWM S&T Committee modify S. 1 .6.7. to clarify that point-of-sale system requirements apply

to receipts printed by cash-, credit card-, and debit card-activated systems. The Sector also recommends the S&T Committee amend

UR.3.4. so that it is consistent with S.1.6.7. However, the Sector asks that consideration be given to the impact of such a change

on older equipment since S. 1 .6.7. is nonrefroactive. The Sector notes that if the S&T Committee should consider deleting UR.3.4.

then this action may not ensure that the customer is provided with printed receipts on older equipment because ofthe nonrefroactive

status of S.1.6.7.

The Sector supports the proposal submitted by the Western Weights and Measures Association to the NCWM to modify S.1.6.7.

to make an exclusion for fleet sales and other price contract sales; to include cash- and card- activated devices in the requirement;

and to add specific device number(s) to the information if applicable.

12) NTEP Testing for Low Product Sensors/Indicators in Retail Motor-Fuel Dispensers with Blending Capability

Bacl^round: When one of the component grades of fuel necessary for a blended-product retail motor-fuel dispenser to produce

an intermediate grade of product is not available, then the dispenser should not deliver a single grade product.

It is possible that in the past NTEP participating laboratories performed specific test procedures designed to evaluate whether retail motor-fuel dispensers clearly indicate during delivery that the proper blend was not possible. However, these procedures were

never incorporated into a checklist procedure in Publication 14.

The Sector was asked to consider an additional test procedure to verify that retail motor-fuel dispensers with blending capability

indicate low or insufficient product to complete a transaction. A possible procedure the Sector may wish to consider is:

X. Retail Motor-Fuel Dispensers with Blending Capabilities

In addition to the Common and General Code Criteria and applicable sections of the Retail Motor-Fuel Dispensers and

other Checklists, the following applies to tests of Retail Motor-Fuel Dispensers with Blending Capabilities.

When the blend selector is activated and the customer has started dispensing product, if one or more grades of product

are not available to provide sufficient product to complete any portion of the transaction the device should indicate this condition. To determine if the device is capable of the appropriate response, an attempt should be made to restrict the flow of a product grade. In the event that one of the product grade components is not available the dispenser one or more

of the following must occur:

131
Executive Committee

1. Product dispensed from the nozzle may be reduced in flow rate (i.e., less than one gallon per minute).

2. Retail Motor-Fuel Dispenser Display shall clearly indicate low product.

3. Retail Motor-Fuel Dispenser shall not operate until product storage has been returned to sufficient levels.

Discussion: It was noted that the problem with dispensers which continued to deliver a single product instead of the selected intermediate grade occurred only sporadically in the past and was associated with fixed blenders. Participating NTEP laboratories have conducted tests to detect this problem and to verify the correct product ratio; however, no testing was performed to determine

product quality. It was noted that not all jurisdictions conduct tests on blend valves. Several manufacturers present indicated they no longer manufacturer mechanical blend valves and the electronic blend valves are capable of monitoring and adjusting the product ratio; however, once the ratio is outside of the adjustable range, the dispenser shuts off.

Conclusion: After being advised by manufacturers present that mechanical blend valves are not offered on new devices, the Sector decided to remove this item from its agenda. NTEP will revisit this issue if it continues to receive reports of problems with devices

that have blending capability which deliver a single product grade instead of the intermediate grade that has been selected or if NTEP receives submissions of devices using mechanical blend valves.

13) Expanded Checklist Procedures for Testing with Small Volume Prover Standards

Background: NTEP permits evaluation of device performance with small volume prover standards. Publications are being

finalized to address small volume prover use as a standard. Because of the complexity of this equipment and the importance of

the operational procedures to be followed the Sector was asked to consider incorporating specific test criteria (e.g., minimum runs

for each flow rate) in Publication 14 checklist procedures.

The Sector considered the following proposal for conducting type evaluation tests ofdevices with a small volume prover reference standard.

X. Evaluation with Small Volume Prover Standards

The following tests are considered to be appropriate when using a small volume prover standard:

Test Drafts. The delivered quantity should be equal to at least the quantity that is delivered by the device in one minute at the maximum flow rate and shall not be less that 50 gallons.

Test Data. A minimum of five consecutive proving runs with a maximum deviation of 0.05 percent in repeatability should be performed for each ofthe minimum recommended tests at each different flow rate across the range of flow of the meter.

All data points must fall within the maximum permissible error limits.

Discussion: Publication 14 does not currently have any established test procedures (such as specified test runs or methods of use)

when a small volume prover is the reference standard to ensure consistency in the type evaluation process. In addition, there are some terms that may need to be clearly defined in the publication; for instance, what is meant by "test run" and "test draft." Discussions by the group indicate that it is not the size of the draft but the initial stabilization of the pulse signal, flow rate and

temperature prior to starting a test run that is most important. Canada noted that it considers the design and type of meter under

evaluation in determining the appropriate number of test runs. It was noted that the operation of the small volume prover is operator dependent. One caution from Canada is that there is a point where the number of passes tends to cancel the effect of error

in the meter because the errors average out in the data analysis. Additionally, a large number of runs may not be appropriate to determine meter repeatability. Also discussed was whether or not the data used is from consecutive runs or randomly sampled.

Canada, in working with a small volume prover manufacturer, has developed a table of the minimum and maximum number of

passes to be run on a given meter type. Canada also noted that there are special issues that need to be addressed with respect to the method of averaging data that are dependent on the particular meter type when using the small volume prover as a reference

standard.

Conclusion: The Sector will consider the Canadian and API recommended test procedures for the use of small volume provers. NTEP laboratories will try the Canadian and API criteria on an ad hoc basis and report on their findings at the next Sector meeting.

John Skuce (Smith Meters) and Johnny Parrish (Brooks Instrument) will review the NTEP criteria once it is established.

132
Executive Committee

14) Changes to Section 3.37 Mass Flow Meters Section Paragraphs A.I. and S.1.3,1. Handbook 44 to Include Units

of Volume

Background: Schlumberger Industries has noted that the CorioHs mass flow meter has been accepted for both mass and volume

indication in other countries and has submitted a proposal to the regional Weights and Measures Associations to consider this proposal for recognition in Handbook 44. They indicate that a mass flow meter determines volume measurement from the mass

measurement, after factoring in product density. In addition, volume measurements determined by the device are not affected by

product viscosity or temperature, because the mass flow meter does not contain any moving parts, thus eliminating the slippage

that occurs in other types of meters. They have proposed the following changes to Handbook 44:

A. 1 . Liquids. - This code applies to devices that are designed to dynamically measure the mass or volume of liquids. It also specifies the relevant examination and tests that are to be conducted.

S.1.3. Units.

S. 1.3.1. Units of Measurement. - Deliveries shall be indicated and recorded in grams, kilograms, metric tons, pounds,

tJt tons, or liters, gallons, quarts, pints, and decimal subdivisions thereof The indication ofa delivery shall be on the basis of apparent mass versus a density of 8.0 g/cm\

Discussion: During discussions at the Sector meeting, some concerns were expressed over whether the mass flow meter would

display in gross or net volume. Canada indicated it felt that if the volume measurement is influenced by the meter conditions then any changes in product density should be compensated for automatically. This process would not preclude a net volume indication and could be done through the controllers which are capable of performing automatic density compensation. One manufacturer

indicated that the they did not intend to indicate in net gallons because that function would be performed by other manufacturer's

associated equipment.

Comments on testing of these device indicate that the method of calibration may dictate which mode is appropriate for testing.

Canada indicates that the accuracy of indications may be affected if the densitometer is incorrectly calibrated; therefore, it would

be desirable to verify that parameter. In addition, density is affected by the temperature, which should be referenced when verifying the density reading. The Sector was asked what equipment is necessary to perform a field test of the device. One device

manufacturer recommended a scale and pycnometer; however, it was pointed out that this would require obtaining a product sample

and that may be difficult and impractical to accomplish in field applications. It was therefore recommended that volume may be

the preferred method of testing. It was suggested that for NTEP, mass, density, volume and temperature should be verified for devices capable of mass and volume indication.

The group was advised that the Western had left this item informational because of the lack of information on the indications on

the automatic densitometer and net volume.

Conclusion: The Sector supports the following proposed changes to the Mass Flow Meters Code Section of Handbook 44

submitted by Micro Motion:

A,l. Liquids. - This code applies to devices that are designed to dynamically measure the mass or mass and density of

liquids. It also specifies the relevant examination and tests that are to be conducted.

S.1.3. Units. -

S.1.3.1. Units of Measurement. - Deliveries shall be indicated and recorded in grams, kilograms, metric tons, pounds,

or tons, and/or liters, gallons, quarts, pints, and decimal subdivisions thereof The indication of a delivery shall be on the

basis of apparent mass versus a density of 8.0 g/cm'. The volume indication shall be based on the mass measurement

and an automatic means to determine and correct for changes in product density.

(Amended 1993 and 1997)

The Sector recommends the NCWM S&T Committee examine the impact that the proposed changes will have on field test procedures and make necessary provisions to ensure that the field official has adequate information to perform testing on these

devices.

133
Executive Committee

15) Changes to Section 3.30 Liquid-Measuring Devices Code to Require Full Computing-Type Retail Motor Fuel

Devices

Background: Proposed changes are being recommended to the regional weights and measures associations by California to require that retail motor-fuel devices (except fleet sales and other price contract sales) be of the computing type.

California has noted a number of inquiries as to the suitability of volume-only dispensers in direct sale applications. In those

installations it appears to be unreasonable to expect the retail customer, who usually purchases a predetermined monetary amount,

to calculate the quantity-value which should be delivered for each transaction. Additionally this type of installation might require the owner/operator to perform similar calculations, thus further increasing the potential for mathematical errors.

Initially retail motor-fuel dispensers did not have the capability to compute the total price for all sales, when cash/credit pricing,

multi-tier pricing and motor-fuel prices above $1.00 per gallon were first introduced. These situations resulted in a number of

complaints being lodged with weights and measures officials. California has further concerns with customer delays, confusion and

their inability to verify billing information. Currently station owners in direct sales application have full computing type dispensers

in operation. To permit the installation of noncomputing dispensers in direct sales applications would create a competitive

disadvantage to station operators who have invested in and are maintaining computing type devices.

California is recommending the following requirement be included in other code sections where there are retail motor fuel applications, such as LPG.

S. 1 .2. 1 . Retail Motor-Fuel Dispensers. - Except for fleet sales and other price contract sales, retail motor-fiiel devices

shall be of the fiill computing type and shall indicate the quantity, the unit price, and the total price of each delivery.

Deliveries shall be indicated and recorded, if the device is equipped to record, in liters or gallons and decimal

subdivisions or fractional equivalents thereof

The Office of Weights and Measures has periodically received inquires as to the suitability of noncomputing retail motor-fiiel dispensers for use in which sales are offered to the general public. OWM's response has been and continues to be that dispensers

in an application for sales to the general public should be equipped with computing capability.

The rationale for the OWM position is consistent with that of California and reflects its concerns in the following areas: 1) suitability of equipment which require the user/customer to determine the correct quantity of product for the price charged; 2)

facilitation offi-aud through the use noncomputing devices in sales to the general public may introduce errors into sales transactions when calculations must be performed to verify the quantity of product; that error increases with the use of analog devices,

historically with prices over $1.00 per gallon and in instances where there are products offered at more than one price; 3) the

specific information which is now required fosters customer understanding of the conditions of the sales transaction (e.g., cash/credit applications), thus resulting in better value comparison; and 4) the deviation from customary practice to allow volume

only dispenser would accommodate a small segment of the market, however, there is a significant sector that has strived to meet

current Handbook 44 requirements that would now be placed at a competitive disadvantage.

This proposal was recommended to the regional weights and measures associations to change Handbook 44 to require computing

type devices for direct sale applications, with an exclusion from the requirement for fleet sales and other price contract sales operations. The Sector is being asked to review the proposal for its recommendation on the requirement to the S&T Committee.

Conclusion: This item was tabled due to lack of time.

16) Change in NTEP Administrative Fee Structure; Policy Concerning Reanalysis of Application

Background: These items are included to update the Sector on changes to the Administrative Process under NTEP. No action

is required on the part of the Sector.

a) Change in NTEP Administrative Fee Structure

NTEP processing fees have been restructured to better reflect the actual administrative costs for processing applications submitted

to NTEP and for processing Certificates of Conformance (CC). The overall administrative cost for obtaining an NTEP CC has

not increased, but have been itemized to now include an application fee. This fee is assessed from all applicants to cover the initial costs incurred in processing and analyzing application information. An additional fee is assessed upon successful completion of

testing and/or analysis to recover costs for the labor required to issue certificates for devices which complete the NTEP process.

134
Executive Committee

The new fee structure which became effective July 15, 1996 is outlined below:

Non-Reflindable Application Fee $175

CCs Drafted and Processed by NIST $ 375

CC Processing Only (for CCs Drafted by a Participating NTEP lab) $ 125

*NOTE: Laboratory labor is billed separately by Participating NTEP labs and some labs may charge a CC drafting fee.

• Application Fees must be submitted with the application in order to begin processing. Checks should be made

payable to DOC/NIST.

• The Application Fee is non-refundable should a manufacturer decide to withdraw the application at any point

in the process for whatever reason.

• If an open file has no activity within 90 days, the application will be withdrawn; the Application Fee is nonreftindable. Once the application is withdrawn and the file is closed, the manufacturer must reapply and submit

another Application Fee in order to pursue a Certificate of Conformance for the device.

• Note that there is no overall change in cost from the previous fee structure to manufacturers who ultimately

receive a CC for their device (e.g., the $175 application fee plus the $375 drafting and processing fee is equivalent to the previous fee structure charge of $550 for the same services).

• Fees assessed by the participating NTEP laboratories still apply.

b) Policy Concerning Reanalysis of Application

New guidelines have been established to curb the high incidence of cases in which manufacturers change device parameters after completion of the testing process. These changes create delays for other manufacturers who are in the queue waiting their respective evaluation and incur additional labor costs which cannot easily and fairly be recovered. The following policies became effective July 15, 1996:

• The manufacturer is to indicate on the application at the time of submission all ofthe 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 and an "Effective" CC number

has been assigned, 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 and submit a new application requesting the additional testing. A new application

fee must be submitted with the application. OR (2) Relinquish the CC number assigned to the original

application. A new CC number will be assigned upon completion of the additional testing or

reanalysis.

• For requests to add parameters which do not require additional testing or reanalysis and which are allowed

within the NTEP technical policies, the additional parameters can be covered on the CC at the time that the draft

is prepared.

Conclusion: This item was tabled due to lack of time.

17) Definition of System Controller as Used in the Audit Trail Criteria

Background: Effective January 1, 1996, devices with remote configuration capability (Category 2) may provide access to the event counters for sealable parameters through the individual device or through the system confroUer, as noted in the table below. There are many devices in which a physical seal must be broken at one component while actual changes to a sealable parameter

are performed at a separate component. The advent ofnew technology has created unlimited possibilities in remote communication

from modems, laptops and handheld units, which may conceivably be configured as the system controller. It may be more

appropriate to consider the inherent differences of how system confrollers are interfaced with the different types of device

technology rather than use a standardized or generic approach on how they are to operate.

Although the "system controller" is a component which may undergo type evaluation and subsequently receive a Certificate of

Conformance (CC); there is no established policy addressing how it shall function nor has it been defined. There are installations which do not permit access to all sealable parameters either at the device or system controller. For instance, the adjustments to a retail motor-fiiel dispenser measuring element are performed at the dispenser, while changes in the units of measurement are made at the console, which is usually a permanent on-site fixture and has been considered a "system controller."

135
Executive Committee

Table S.2.2. Categories of Device and Methods of Sealing

Categories ofDevice Method of Sealing

Category 1: No remote configuration capability Seal by physical seal or two event counters: one for calibration parameters and one for configuration parameters.

Category 2: Remote configuration capability,

but access is controlled by physical hardware.

Device shall clearly indicate that it is in the remote configuration mode and record such

message if capable ofprinting in this mode or

shall not operate while in this mode.

[The hardware enabling access for remote communication must be

on-site. The hardware must be sealed using a physical seal and

an event counterfor calibration parameters and an event counter for configuration parameters. The event counters may be located

either at the individual measuring device or at the system

controller; however, an adequate number of counters must be

provided to monitor the calibration and configuration parameters

of the individual devices at a location. If the counters are located

in the system controller rather than at the individual device, means must be provided to generate a hard copy of the information through an on-site device.]*

f*Nonretroactive as ofJanuary 1, 1996]

Category 3: Remote configuration capability access may be unlimited or controlled through a

software switch (e.g., password)

An event logger is required in the device; it must include an event counter (000 to 999), the parameter ID, the date and time of the change, and the new value of the parameter. A printed copy of

the information must be available through the device or through

another on-site device. The event logger shall have a capacity to

retain records equal to ten times the number of scalable parameters in the device, but not more than 1000 records are

required. (Note: Does not require 1000 changes to be stored for each parameter.

)

[Nonretroactive and enforceable as of January 1, 1995.]

(Table added 1993) (Amended 1995)

A specific example was presented to NTEP in which a motor-fuel dispenser could be configured remotely using a laptop computer,

but access to remote configuration was enabled through hardware on the device. Consequently, the device falls under Category

2 sealing requirements. As noted above, for Category 2 devices, the event counters may be located at the individual device or

through a system controller. Locating the event counters in the system controller was permitted to recognize that service station consoles and other system controllers such as loading rack meter controllers may be used to configure multiple devices and locating the information in one central location was desirable.

In the example presented, the company elected not to enable access to the event counters at the individual device, but rather through

the laptop computer. Since personal computers are often used as service station consoles, this approach was not inconsistent with

other devices that have been evaluated by NTEP. However, in this specific example, the laptop computer was not interfaced with

all of the other dispensers at the site. In order to view the audit trail information, it would be necessary to physically connect the laptop to each individual dispenser.

NTEP does not believe that this approach meets the intent of the S&T Committee when the Committee allowed the use of the system controller for maintaining the counters for Category 2 devices. It was not intended that an inspector would have to physically plug a laptop into individual devices in a station. There is also concern over the possibility that the inspector might

damage the equipment if the connections are not made correctly.

The S&T Committee was polled to determine whether or not NTEP's interpretation was correct. The Committee agreed with the

interpretation. During the course of evaluating this issue, however, there has been some question raised as to what constitutes a "system controller", and it has been suggested that consideration be given to proposing a definition for "system controller."

The Sector reviewed this issue to provide input on whether or not a definition might be needed and whether or not any changes

might be needed to the current criteria for sealing.

136
Executive Committee

Conclusion: This item was tabled due to lack of time, however it was forwarded to the NCWM Specifications and Tolerances

Committee for an interpretation of system controller.

ADDITIONAL DISCUSSIONS:

Future Meetings

A recommendation was made that an additional sector meeting be held in conjunction with one other regional weights and measures

association meeting because of the length and complexity of the issues on this year's agenda.

Sector Issues The Sector is sometimes asked to address NCWM-related issues which are not under the direct purview of the Sector, but the development ofwhich would benefit from input from the Sector. For example, an issue which appears on the NCWM S&T agenda.

These items are prefaced with a notation that they are being addressed by a separate committee and are only intended to be

addressed by the Sector if time permits. These issues are brought to the Sector for discussion because it appears to be the best means to optimize the expertise of an assembly of both the private and public Conference membership who are impacted by and

have knowledge ofthe technical aspects surrounding these issues. The Sector chairman has the final responsibility to decide which

items on the tentative agenda are to appear in the Sector's final agenda.

137
Executive Committee

NTETC MEETING PARTICIPANTS

Measuring Sector - October 19-20, 1996

NAME ORGANIZATION TELEPHONE

Ross Andersen New York Weights & Measures 518-457-3146

Mike Belue Belue Associates 903-583-9082

Tina Butcher National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) 301-975-2196

Doug Carlton Micro Motion 901-751-8360

Charles Carter Oklahoma Dept. of Agriculture 405-521-3864

Steve Cook California Measurement Standards 916-229-3050

Olenn VJ 1 Willi Davis L^t* VlJ Schlumberger - Neptune 864-942-2238

CXI CI VJU£<1IV American Petroleum Institute (API) 202-682-8227

Patrick TTardock Legal Metrology Branch (LMB) [Canada] 613-952-0669

Ken HofTer Hoffer XXV/XXWX Flow X l\J W Controls ^^\JHKt \J kjy Inc XIlWi 919-331-1997

±France^; 1 C4l IWwiJ Holland 1. 1 ICU lU Schlumberger - RPS 804-366-4162 \J V/ 1 ^ \J\J I 1

Jack Jeffries Florida Dept. of Agriculture 904-487-2634

Gordon Johnson Gilbarco, Inc. 910-547-5375

Debbie Joines Wayne Dresser 410-546-6699

Eric Kappelt Smith Meter, Inc. 814-898-5105

Michael Keilty Micro Motion 303-530-8231

Steve Malone Nebraska Weights & Measures 402-471-4292

Renald Marceau LMB (Canada) 613-952-2629

XVUlldlU Ronald Miirdock iVXUI VXv'V/IV North Carolina Dent Agriculture 919-733-3313

f^harles V^llCXl IWO Nelson i^V'li3\-'Il California Measurement Standards 916-229-3016 y X \j y ^y \j x \j

Andrp Nof*l ^f*hliimhf*rcyf*r kJwlllUlllU&l - Npnfiinp i^^L/lUllV

TnHn ^kiipp Smith Olllltll T^pfpr IVXblWl 814-898-5405

rJOD 1 racuino i^i(|Uiu v_-unirois v^orp.

RXVlWIIdlU irhard Xnrkpr X IXwIVVl f^hairmfln J ICllI IllCUl Tokheim Com 219-470-4610 ^ X y r / \j r \j x \j

William D. West Ohio Weights & Measures 614-728-6290

Juana Williams NIST 301-975-3989

Marcel Woiton Endress & Hauser 317-535-1393

Will Wotthlie Maryland Dept. of Agriculture 410-841-5790

138
Executive Committee

Appendix M

National Type Evaluation Technical Committee

Near-Infrared Grain Analyzer Meter Sector

September 9, 1996, Kansas City, MO

Meeting Summary

Agenda Items

1 . Update on National Type Evaluation Testing Schedule

2a. Proposed Change to Publication 14 - Sample Temperature Sensitivity 2b. Proposed Change to Publication 14 - Instrument Temperature Sensitivity

3. Proposed Change to Publication 14 - Power Supply Test

4. Report on Field Survey

5a. Phase II Testing - On-going Calibration Review, Proposed Addition to Publication 14

5b. Phase II Testing - Validation of Calibration Changes

*6. Report on NCWM Annual Meeting

*7. Proposed Change to H44 - S.2.6. Provisions for Sealing

*8. Review of Sector Membership

*9. Time and place for next meeting

Note: Because ofcommon interest, items marked with an asterisk (*) were considered in joint session ofthe NIR Grain Analyzer

and the Grain Moisture Meter Sectors.

1. Update on National Type Evaluation Testing Schedule

Dr. Richard Pierce, Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA), formerly FGIS, reported that the GIPSA

Laboratory in Kansas City has not yet been certified as the NTEP participating laboratory for near-infrared grain analyzers. The

certification process is on hold pending retrieval ofall samples required for type evaluation testing from GIPSA's vast sample base. Formal certification is now expected in early 1997. In anticipation of certification, the GIPSA Laboratory sent a letter to NIR

instrument manufacturers soliciting interest in a pre-evaluation calibration data collection program Ofthe five manufacturers

responding, three indicated that they might be interested in participating in such a program this fall. Dr. Pierce explained that the main sample base for this program would include samples which GIPSA had used in calibrating the official instruments. These

samples would be supplemented with high moisture samples obtained from the moisture meter program. He anticipated that each

wheat class would be represented by approximately 100 samples. Manufacturers (not already enrolled in the NTEP moisture meter program) wishing to participate in the pre-evaluation program this fall were urged to submit instruments now so that lab technicians could become familiar with their operation.

2a. Proposed Change to Publication 14 - Sample Temperature Sensitivity

Discussion: The first paragraph under heading II. Sample Temperature Sensitivity of the Near-Infrared Grain Analyzer Check

List of Publication 14 states that the tests will be conducted using HRW wheat samples. This is in conflict with the second

paragraph which calls for testing using two sample sets from each of the six wheat classes representing low (10-1 1%) and high

(13-14%) moisture ranges with each set consisting ofthree samples, one from each of three protein ranges (the upper third, middle

third, and lower third ofthe protein range for the class). Because sample temperature sensitivity is calibration dependent, this test must be conducted using each class for which certification is being sought.

The necessity for testing using each of up to six wheat classes is not without problems, however. The NTEP Lab applicant has experienced difficulty in obtaining complete sets of high moisture samples for those classes of wheat less frequently traded and

those grown in more zirid regions. The Lab had asked the Sector to consider if tempered samples might be used for this test. Ole

Rasmussen, Foss Food Technology, presented data supporting the use oftempered samples. For the sample temperature sensitivity

test this data (see attachment) showed that biases using tempered samples were 0. 1 greater at cold temperatures and 0.09 less at hot temperatures compared to biases measured before the samples were tempered. The Sector discussed concerns raised by

Richard Gonzales, Oklahoma Bureau of Standards, in a memo sent to G. Diane Lee, NIST/OWM. Mr. Gonzales had experienced

problems with stability and spoilage when using tempered samples for testing devices. The Sector noted that in the case of the Sample Temperature Sensitivity Tests, the maximum moisture required is only 14 percent, while the dry samples are typically 8-9

percent. Sector members with experience in tempering were of the opinion that stability and spoilage would not be problems if

139
Executive Committee

the samples were properly tempered and properly stored. It was also noted that these samples would be used only for the Sample

Temperature Sensitivity type approval test and not for field testing where proper storage of samples could be a problem. The Lab

explained that the majority of samples used for this test would be naturally moistened. Considering that this test is applicable only

to differences in NIR protein measurements (cold-room temperature and hot-room temperature), the Sector approved the use of

tempered samples where naturally moistened samples were not available. The Sector requested the Lab to document the tempering

procedure which would be used. [Note: The Sector does NOT approve the use of tempered samples for field testing.]

Also, as published (May 1 996), this test specifies a single value for AT, implying symmetrical differences about room temperature.

This issue was addressed by the Grain Moisture Meter Sector in their September 1995 meeting, at which time the corresponding

paragraph in the GMM check list was modified to permit non-symmetrical temperature differences. At that same meeting, noting

the diflficulty in obtaining meaningful test results at temperatures in excess of 45 °C, the GMM Sector agreed that the maximum

test temperature involving grain would be 45 °C.

Decided: The Sector approved the following changes to the Sample Temperature Sensitivity test of Publication 14, Chapter 7, to address the various issues noted above and to bring the NIR Check List into closer agreement with the GMM Check List.:

IL Sample Temperature Sensitivity

Testing is required to verify that accurate results are provided when the sample and instrument are at different temperatures. This will be referred to as the sample temperature sensitivity test. The sample temperature sensitivity test will be conducted using IIRW wheat samples. Tests will be conducted with the instrument at room temperature and the sample temperature varying from room temperature-i-AT ±ATh to room temperature-AT - AT^ , where AT is the maximum allowable difference between instrument and sample temp

eratures specified bv the manufacturer , where AT^

is the manufacturer specified difference for grain above room temperature, and AT^ is the manufacturer specified

difference for grain below room temperature. In no case will room temperature +ATh be allowed to exceed 45 °C. but ATh need not equal AT^ .

Testing will be conducted using two sample sets from each of the six wheat classes representing low (10-11%) and high

(13-14%) moisture rzinges. Each set will consist ofthree samples, one from each ofthree protein ranges (the upper third, the middle third, and the lower third of the protein range for the class). Separate bias analyses will be made for the low

and high moisture sets. When high moisture samples are not available for anv protein range in anv class, testing may be

conducted using tempered (artificially moistened") samples. Three analyses will be made for each sample at room

temperature, the hot temperature extreme, and the cold temperature extreme. The average protein for the 9 observations

in each moisture set (1 moisture level x 3 protein levels x 3 replicates) run at each temperature extreme must agree with

the average protein obtained for the room temperature runs within ± 0.35.

Sample Temperature Sensitivity tests will not be conducted for ground-grain NIR instruments. For whole-grain

instruments, sample presentation must be the same as that which will be used in the field. Sealed cells cannot be used for the Sample Temperature Sensitivity tests.

2b. Proposed Change to Publication 14 - Instrument Temperature Sensitivity

Decided: The Sector also agreed that the section on Instrument Temperature Sensitivity in Publication 14, Chapter 7, should

be modified to reflect the 45 °C limit discussed in agenda item 2a. above. The modification to the affected paragraph is shown

below:

The "hot" temperature is defined as the upper operating limit claimed by the manufacturer. (Note: The maximum "hot" temperature claimed cannot exceed 45 "C) The "cold" temperature is defined as the lower operating limit claimed by the manufacturer. To facilitate testing of instrument temperature sensitivity, manufacturers shall provide a means of disabling the instrument feature for suppressing the display of protein results when temperature ranges are exceeded.

3. Proposed Change to Publication 14 - Power Supply Test

Background: Following a discussion of this issue at its March 1994 meeting, the Sector agreed to change the type evaluation

power supply range for NIR grain analyzers of 100 V to 130 V to the slightly narrower range of 105 V to 129 V. As a resuh of

this recommendation. Publication 14 was changed to the narrower range, but the NIR Code of Handbook 44 was not changed.

Noting this oversight, the NTEP Laboratory suggested that the Code should be brought into agreement with the Sector's recommendation. This issue was placed on the 1995 Southern Weights and Measures Association S&T Committee agenda. The

Southern supported the change and the item was placed on the NCWM S&T Committee agenda for the 81st Annual meeting as item 357-1 . Subsequently, the Central Weights and Measures Association requested information about this issue from the Sector's

140
Executive Committee

Technical Advisor. His response was that the issue may have arisen from the request of a meter manufacturer who had older ground grain instruments in use in the field that may not meet the 100 V to 130 V range requirements. He also noted that all NIR

instruments which had gone through NTEP evaluation had been submitted as moisture meters which were required to meet the wider voltage range of 100 V-130 V. The Central S&T Committee took the position that NIR grain analyzers are used in the same environment as moisture meters and therefore opposed the change. In light of this opposition by the Central, a mail ballot was sent to Sector members asking if they wished to withdraw their support for the item. By a vote of 1 3 to 2 (with 2 abstentions)

the Sector voted to request the NCWM S&T Committee to remove the item as a voting item from the Annual Meeting Agenda.

The S&T Committee acted accordingly, and the issue was removed as a voting item. As a result, the Code now specifies a voltage range of 100 V-130 V while Publication 14 specifies a voltage range of 105 V-129,V.

Decided: To bring Publication 14 into agreement with Handbook 44, the Sector approved the following change to the Power

Supply Test of Publication 14:

Power Supply. A single HRW wheat sample will be analyzed 10 times with the instrument operating at a nominal voltage

of 1 17 V. The voltage will be adjusted to +05 100 V, and after 30 minutes, the HRW sample will be analyzed 10 times. The voltage level will then be increased to +29 130 V, and after 30 minutes, the sample will be analyzed 10 more times.

Changes in bias and precision will be checked. Bias is defined as the change in the average protein for 10 analyses made

at both the reference and the respective test voltages.

The maximum allowable bias change from the reference is ±0.10. The maximum allowable standard deviation of 10 analyses (precision), at any of the three voltage levels, is 0.10.

4. Report on Field Survey

To find out what might be expected when the NIR Code is enforced, Don Onwiler, Nebraska Public Service Commission, field tested 29 devices using three standard reference wheat samples provided by GIPSA/FGIS. Don reported on the results of this survey and the reaction ofthe participants, all of whom took part on a volunteer basis (see Attachment). Of the 29 devices tested, only 41.4 percent successfijlly passed all three required tests (accuracy on individual samples, average for all three samples, and

range for five retests on the same sample.) Don attributes most failures to users who have not maintained their instrument, have

not monitored its operation with check samples, or have no knowledge of proper calibration procedures.

5a. Phase II Testing - On-going Calibration Review, Proposed Addition to Publication 14 Background: This item first appeared on the Sector's agenda for its September, 1 994 meeting. It was discussed again at length

at their two meetings in 1995, and again at the March 1996 meeting. Although agreeing that participation in a monitoring program

of some sort should be mandatory for NTEP instruments, the Sector has had difficulty in reaching a consensus on the exact details of such a program. The Sector was able to agree that whatever program is finally decided upon, it should be reviewed at the end

of each year to assess its value and to determine if it should be continued, modified, or abandoned.

Although originally recommending that recalibration ofNTEP instruments be done using (as a minimum) data obtained on samples

selected from the same sample pool from which GIPSA/FGIS selected samples for calibrating the Official instrument, it has since been determined that this will not be possible in cases where GIPSA has used "historical" samples which exist only as specfral data (obtained on the GIPSA Official insfrument) and not as physical samples.

[Note: As used above, "monitoring" applies to tests performed on the instruments in the NTEP lab and not to devices in thefield. "Recalibration" means derivation of a new set of calibration coefficients. Slope and bias adjustments are not considered

"recalibration".]

To minimize annual costs to manufacturers, an on-going monitoring program which, to the greatest extent practical, takes advantage of GIPSA/FGIS's current procedures for monitoring the official system's performance over time has been proposed.

The cost for collecting and analyzing NTEP calibration performance data for all six classes of wheat has been estimated at approximately $1750 per year per instrument model for whole grain instruments (costs will be higher on instruments requiring

grinding of samples).

If manufacturers submit additional samples for CNA analysis (moisture analysis will also be required to report protein on a 12%

moisture basis) and collection of optical data on their instruments. Dr. Richard Pierce, GIPSA/FGIS estimated that CNA analysis

would run about $15-$25 per dual analysis, with the collection of optical data an additional $3 per sample. He had no oven141
Executive Committee

moisture cost figures at the time. He emphasized that the costs he had cited were preliminary estimates as GIPSA was presently

developing a fee schedule for these types oftests. Any data paid for by a manufacturer would be proprietary to the manufacturer.

Decided: The Sector approved the addition of the following paragraph to Publication 14, Chapter 7, at the end of part

rV. Tolerances for Calibration Performance:

For the on-going review of calibrations, instrument protein results and calibration data will be collected on 100 samples

per class each year on each model in the NTEP program. Eighty of these samples will be selected from the 100

calibration verification (CA^) samples on which GIPSA has obtained spectral data. The additional twenty will be selected from moisture survey samples. Existing CNA protein values will be used for the 80 CA^ samples. CNA analysis will be obtained for the 20 moisture survey samples. Instruments will be required to simultaneously provide predicted proteins

and spectral data. The required data will be collected over time as samples, instruments, and operators become available with the goal of providing optical and chemical data, along with a summary report comparing predicted protein values

to the CNA reference analyses, to manufacturers by January 1 of each year.

5b. Phase II Testing - Validation of Calibration Changes

Background: At the Sector's previous meeting in March 1966, some Sector members were of the opinion that if a performance

problem is addressed through a calibration change, a common, independent validation set (not part of the calibration set) should

be available to verify that the desired objective has been achieved. One Sector member had suggested that manufacturers be

allowed to contribute "golden" samples to the validation set. Another suggested that the validation set contain samples which had

historically shown poor agreement with the CNA protein values. It was also suggested that it would be useful if validation samples could be identified with the residual values obtained on each model.

Discussion: After considering the practical aspects of obtaining the necessary samples and the cost of a validation program to manufacturers the Sector distilled the issue to the simple question of, "How should the NTEP lab evaluate a calibration change?"

Decided: The Sector then agreed that the answer was simply, "The same way they evaluated the calibration initially." The Sector

also agreed that spectral and CNA data would be made available to manufacturers for re-predicting the results of calibration changes.

6. Report on NCWM Annual Meeting

The NCWM Annual Meeting was held July 21-25, 1996 in New Orleans, LA. Diane Lee, NIST/OWM, reported on action taken by the Conference on issues of interest to the Sector:

357-1 S.2.2.1 Power Supply, Voltage and Frequency

At the request of the Sector, this proposal to modify the power supply voltage range from 100V-130V to the narrower

range of 105V- 129V was withdrawn from consideration as a voting item. [Note: for further discussion of this issue see Sector agenda item 3.]

7. Proposed Change to H44 - S.2.6. Provisions for Sealing

Discussion: This became an NIR Analyzer agenda item, because the Grain Moisture Meter Sector was considering changes to the Handbook 44 paragraph dealing with Provisions for Sealing [Note: for additional discussion on this subject, see GMMSector Agenda Item 2]. Because several of the devices holding Certificates of Compliance (CC's) under the GMM Code will also be

submitted for evaluation under the NIR Code, it is desirable to keep corresponding provisions ofthe two Codes in agreement to the greatest extent possible. The Sector recognized that bias changes were likely to be more frequent during the year with NIR

Grain Analyzers than with moisture meters (regardless of technology); thus, it was not reasonable to assume that the sealing

requirements for Category 1 and Category 2 devices, as defined by the GMM Sector, would provide adequate security for NIR

Grain Analyzers.

Decided: The Sector agreed that all NIR Grain Analyzers (measuring constituents other than moisture) should comply with the

audit trail requirements for Category 3, 3a, and 3b devices as adopted by the GMM Sector. This decision results in the following

changes to the NIR Code in Handbook 44:

S.2.6. Provisionfor Sealing.

a. Provision shall be madefor applying a security seal in a manner that requires the security seal to be broken, or for using other approved means ofproviding security (e.g.. The device shall incorporate an audit trail available

142
Executive Committee

ut the twie of itispection as defined in part (b)), before atry change that affects the metrologiccil integi ity ufthe device can be made to any mechanism.

b. If the operator is able to make changes that affect the metrological integrity ofthe device (e.g., slope, bius. eti,) in normal operation, the device shall use an audit trail. The minimum form ofthe audit trail shall be an event logger and shall include:

= an event counter (000 to 999),

= the parameter ID,

= the date and time ofthe change, and ——the new value of the parameter (for calibration changes consisting ofmultiple calibration comtants,

the calibration version number is to be used rather than the calibration constants).

An event logger is required in the device: it must include an event counter (OOP to 999). the parameter ID. the date and time ofthe change . and the new value ofthe parameter (for calibration changes consisting ofmultiple constants, the calibration version number may be used rather than the calibration constants).

A printed copy ofthe information must be available through the device or through another on-site device. The event logger shall have a capacity to retain records equal to twenty-five (25) times the number ofscalable parameters in the device, but not more than 1000 records are required. (Note: Does not require 1000 changes to be storedfor each

parameter.)

8. Sector Membership

In January at the Interim NCWM Meeting, members ofthe NTEP Board of Governors (BOG) addressed questions which had

been raised concerning membership and appointment to National Type Evaluation Technical Committee (NTETC) Sectors. They

agreed that membership is conferred on individuals, not companies; therefore, the resignation of an individual from a Sector does

not automatically entitle the individual's company to continue Sector membership. The company may, however, nominate another

individual for consideration by the NCWM Chairman, who makes all appointments to the Sectors. Although membership is conferred on individuals, the BOG reaffirmed that each individual does not necessarily have a separate vote. Only one vote per company or agency is permitted. [Note: for additional discussion on this subject, see Publication 16, April 1966, item 102-6.]

Subsequently, at the recent Annual Meeting, the Conference agreed to the following modification in the rule governing designation

of alternate representatives at Sector meetings:

Although the [NCWM] Chairperson will appoint members [on the advice of the Sector chairman and technical advisor], an

appointed representative may designate an alternate with fiill voting rights for an individual meeting whenever necessary.

It has been brought to the attention of the Sector's NIST member that there have been several changes in representation which

have not been appointed officially by the NCWM Chairperson. The membership status of those attending the Sector meeting, as well as those listed officially as members, was reviewed. This time only, Diane Lee will send, to the NCWM Chairperson, a single

letter with the names ofthose desiring appointment to the Sector as voting members (if they have not previously been appointed.)

Attendees were reminded that maintaining NCWM membership was a requirement for Sector membership.

The BOG had also solicited comments from the Sectors on the need for establishing criteria for the removal of Sector members

who never attend Sector meetings or contribute to the activities of the Sector. The Sector did not agree on a single criteria for removal of inactive Sector members, but did suggest that a letter be sent to those who had not participated actively in Sector

activities notifying them that unless they assumed an active role in Sector matters, they would lose their voting status on the Sector. The letter was also to point out that even without voting status as a Sector member, the individual could still remain on the Sector mailing list to receive Meeting Notices, Agendas, and Meeting Summaries and would always be welcome to attend the meetings.

9. Date and Site for Next Meeting

A 2-day and 1/2 day meeting (about 3/4 of a day for the NIR Protein Sector with the remaining time for the Grain Moisture Meter

Sector) is planned for March 10-12, 1997, in Atlanta, GA.

[See Appendix N for the attendance list for the September 9, 1996, meeting.]

143
Executive Committee

National Type Evaluation Technical Committee

Near Infrared Grain Analyzer Sector

March 10, 1997, Atlanta, GA

Meeting Summary

Agenda Items

1 . Update on National Type Evaluation Testing Schedule

2. Publication 14 - Sample Temperature Sensitivity - the Use of Tempered Samples

*3. Report on NCWM Interim Meeting

*4. Changes in Sector Membership

*5. Time and place for next meeting

Note: Because ofcommon interest, items marked with an asterisk (*) were considered in joint session ofthe NIR Grain Analyzer

and the Grain Moisture Meter Sectors.

1. Update on National Type Evaluation Testing Schedule

Dr. Richard Pierce, Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration/Inspection Systems Engineering (GIPSA), reported

that the GIPSA Laboratory in Kansas City had not completed the work necessary to obtain certification as the NTEP participating

laboratory for near infrared grain analyzers. With limited resources, priority has been given to tasks related to maintaining the NTEP Grain Moisture Meter Program. Dr. Pierce noted that grain moisture activities peak in the Spring ofthe year when the data from the previous season becomes available for review. Review of the data must be accomplished in a timely manner so manufacturers have time to develop and issue revised calibrations, if needed, prior to the coming harvest. He indicated that there was no possibility of resuming work on certification and starting work on the pre-evaluation criteria before August 1997.

2. Publication 14 - Sample Temperature Sensitivity - the Use of Tempered Samples

Background: To check instruments for sensitivity to variations in sample temperature, the NIR Grain Analyzer Check List of

Publication 14 calls for testing using two sample sets from each ofthe six wheat classes representing low (10-11%) and high (13-

14%) moisture ranges with each set consisting of three samples, one from each of three protein ranges (the upper third, middle

third, and lower third ofthe protein range for the class). Because sample temperature sensitivity is calibration dependent, this test must be conducted using each class for which certification is being sought. The NTEP Lab applicant anticipated having difficulty

obtaining complete sets of high moisture samples for classes of wheat less frequently traded and those classes grown in more arid regions and had requested that the Sector approve the use of tempered samples if necessary. At the Sector's September 1996

meeting, Ole Rasmussen, Foss Food Technology, presented data supporting the use oftempered samples for this test. The Sector subsequently approved the addition of the following sentence to the Sample Temperature Sensitivity Test of Publication 14: "When high moisture samples are not available for any protein range in any class, testing may be conducted using tempered

(artificially moistened) samples." In response to the Sector's request for the Lab to document the tempering procedure which

would be used, tests were run at GIPSA to determine the minimum acceptable procedure for tempering samples. Rich Pierce,

GIPSA, reported that the test involved splitting naturally moist samples into two portions. One portion was dried down by two

percentage points, then re-wetted to the original moisture. To re-wet the dried portion, a sufficient amount of water (determined

by weight calculation) was added all at one time. The re-wetted sample was mixed until all the added water had been adsorbed,

then allowed to stabilize for a period. (This was thought to represent a more extreme case than misting the sample with water over

a long period of time until the desired moisture was reached.) The two portions (naturally moist and re-wetted) were then to be

submitted to the Sample Temperature Sensitivity Test so results could be compared. Dr. Pierce was unable to report any results because the integrity of the re-wetted samples was questionable (possible spoilage). The experiment will be repeated and results will be reported at a future meeting. [Note: The Sector does NOT approve the use of tempered samples for field testing.

Tempered samples will be used ONLY for the Sample Temperature Sensitivity Test.]

3. Report on NCWM Interim Meeting

Diane Lee, NIST/OWM, reported on actions taken on NIR Grain Analyzer issues by the Specifications and Tolerances (S&T)

Committee at the NCWM Interim Meeting held January 12-16, 1997, in Rockville, MD. [Note: The Item number and heading

shown below correspond to the item number and heading in the Interim Meeting Agenda, NCWM Publication 15, dated December

1996. Additional discussion of these issues can be found in that publication.]

144
Executive Committee

357-1 S.2.6. Provision for Sealing Because of the possible need for user bias adjustments for NIR Grain Analyzers (measuring constituents other than moisture) the Sector had agreed that the only sealing category appropriate for NIR Grain Analyzers was one which

corresponded to the audit trail requirements for Category 3, 3a, and 3b devices as proposed for Grain Moisture Meters. The Sector had recommended changes to S.2.6. to make the method ofsealing for NIR Grain Analyzes correspond as closely

as possible to that specified for Grain Moisture Meter Category 3. [See Interim Meeting Agenda item 356-1 for a further discussion of this issue.] The S&T Committee agreed to make the Sector's recommendations a voting issue at the National

Conference in July. The Sector's recommendations are shown below:

S.2.6. Provision for Sealing.

a. Provision sitall be madefor applying a security seal in a manner that requires the security seal to be broken, or for using other approved means ofproviding security (e.g., The device shall incorporate an audit trail available

at the time of inspection as defined in part (b)), before any change that affects the metrological integrity ofthe device can be made to any mechanism.

b. If the operator is able to make changes that affect the metrological integrity ofthe device (e.g., slope, bias, etc) in normal operation, the device shall use an audit trail. The minimum form ofthe audit trail shall be an event logger and shall include:

= an event counter (000 to 999),

= the parameter ID,

= the date and time ofthe change, and ——the new value ofthe parameter (for calibration changes consisting of multiple calibration constants,

the calibration version number is to be used rather than the calibration constants).

An event logger is required in the device: it must include an event counter (000 to 999). the parameter ID. the date and time ofthe change . and the new value ofthe parameter (for calibration changes consisting ofmultiple constants,

the calibration version number may be used rather than the calibration constants).

A printed copy ofthe information must be available through the device or through another on-site device. The event logger shall have a capacity to retain records equal to twenty-frve (25) times the number ofsealable parameters in the device, but not more than 1000 records are required. (Note: Does not require 1000 changes to be storedfor each

parameter.)

Diane also related that the Scale Manufacturer's Association (SMA) had presented a report, at the Executive Committee Meeting, on the status of States which have adopted or are considering adoption of uniform regulations regarding the use ofNTEP devices. Ofthe Continental U.S. States, only 1 1 have not adopted regulations regarding the use of NTEP devices. In 8 of the 11 , NTEP

regulations are under consideration. She noted that the SMA's primary focus is on the States which have adopted NTEP for weighing devices, so the SMA figures do not necessarily indicate the number of States which will apply NTEP regulations to NIR

Grain Analyzers (when the tentative code becomes permanent) or the number of States which now apply NTEP regulations to Grain Moisture Meters.

4. Changes in Sector Membership

During the GMM/NIR Sector Meeting in Kansas City, MO September 9-1 1, 1996, a membership status report was distributed.

It was noted that many individuals who have actively participated in Sector activities had not been formally appointed to the

Sectors by the NCWM Chairman. (NTEP policy requires that all persons seeking appointment to the NTETC GMM/NIR Sectors send individual letters on company letterhead to the NCWM Chairman requesting membership on the Sectors.) In early January

1997, Diane Lee, NIST/OWM, sent out a letter urging anyone interested in becoming a voting member of the Sectors to submit

the required letter.

Barbara Bloch, the current NCWM Chairman, has received letters from the following individuals. At the recommendation ofthe Sector Chairman and the Sector Technical Advisor, these individuals have been appointed as Sector members:

145
Executive Committee

Cassie Eigenmann

Keitli Lochlin

John Miller*

Ray Oberg

Hiro Yamahira

DICKEY-john Corp.

Conagra Com Processing (representing GEAPS)

CSC Scientific (replacing Allison Pflug)

Zeltex Inc. Kett Electric Laboratory (replacing M. Emori)

* Subsequent to his appointment, John Miller left CSC. CSC will request the appointment of Tim Conwell to replace John

Miller.

In response to a question about inactive members, Ms. Lee indicated that a letter would be sent to members who have not attended Sector meetings in recent years to determine ifthey plan to continue their participation in the Sector as voting members. This will be done in sufficient time to allow the membership list to be updated before the Conference's Annual Meeting in July.

9. Date and Site for Next Meeting

A two-day or two and one-half day meeting (one and one-half or two days for the Grain Moisture Meter Sector and one-half day

for the NIR Protein Sector) is planned for September 10-12, 1997, in the Chicago area.

[See Appendix N for the attendance list for the March 10, 1997, meeting.]

146
Executive Committee

Appendix N

National Type Evaluation Technical Committee

Grain Moisture Meter Sector

September 9-11, 1996, Kansas City, MO

Meeting Summary

Agenda Items

* 1 . Report on NCWM Annual Meeting

*2. Proposed Change to H44 - S. 2. 3. Provisions for Sealing

*3. Review of Sector Membership

*4. Time and place for next meeting

5. Update on Type Evaluation and Phase II Testing -

6. Proposed Addition to Publication 14 - Criteria for NTEP Calibration Review

7. Proposed Change to Publication 14 - Tolerances for Calibration Performance

8. Test Weight per Bushel Indications/Larry Engebretson, GIPSA

9. Progress Report on Compilation of Baseline Performance Data

10. Proposed Change to Publication 14 - Sample Temperature Sensitivity

1 1 . Proposed Revision to H44 Sec. 5.56(a) -S.2.4.3. Calibration Transfer

12. Standardization of Instruments

Note: Because of common interest, item.s marked with an asterisk (*) will be considered in joint session of the NIR Grain

Analyzer and the Grain Moisture Meter Sectors.

1. Report on NCWM Annual Meeting

The NCWM Annual Meeting was held July 21-25, 1996, in New Orleans, LA. Diane Lee, NIST/OWM, reported on action taken by the Conference on issues of interest to the Sector [Note: For additional discussion on the issues listed below refer to NCWM

Publication 16, April 1996; and to "Addendum Sheets to the Interim Report ofthe Committee on Specifications and Tolerances"

for the 8 1 st Annual Meeting]

356-1 Elimination of Retroactive Dates; Effective for Devices Placed into Service after January 1, 1998

This item was the Sector's recommendation that the code be reorganized into two parts to address: (1) NTEP meters and

any meters manufactured or placed into service after January 1, 1998; and (2) all non-NTEP meters manufactured or placed into service prior to January 1, 1998. The conference adopted the Sector's recommendations with one exception.

The Sector had recommended changing the wording ofthe sentence "The minimum temperature difference shall be 1 0 °C

(degree Celsius)" to "The minimum temperature difference shall be 10 Celsius degrees." The S&T Committee's decision not to make this change was based on ( 1 ) NIST Special Publication 811, "Guide for the Use of the International System

of Units (SI)," which recommends the use of degree Celsius (°C) for a temperature interval or a temperature difference; and (2) to remain consistent withe existing NIST HB 44 language. The new two-part code will appear in the 1997

edition of HB 44.

356-2 S.1.10 (New Section S.1.5.) Operating Temperature

The conference adopted the Sector's recommendation to modify S. 1 . 1 0 to clarify that paragraph (a) applied to the Warmup Period; and (2) that the temperature range need not be marked on the device. This paragraph will be re-numbered

and will appear as S.1.5. in Part (a) of the re-organized code.

102-4 NTEP Policy: Examples of Appropriate Language to Use in Conjunction with the NTEP Name and Logo in Advertising and Brochures

The Conference approved the NTEP Board of Governors recommendation to include examples of Language to Use in Conjunction with the NTEP Name and Logo in Advertising and Brochures in Part I of Publication 14. Included in the examples is the Sector recommendation for Grain Moisture Meters shown below:

147
Executive Committee

Grain Moisture Meter

The [Model XXXX] meets or exceeds the accuracy and performance requirements for Grain Moisture Meters

as detailed in National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Handbook 44. A Certificate of

Conformance, Number XX-XXX, was issued under the National Type Evaluation Program (NTEP) of the National Conference on Weights and Measures, approving this model for commercial use on the following

grains: (append list of grains for which NTEP approval has been granted for this model.)

2. Proposed Change to H44 Sec. 5.56(a) - S.2.5. Provisions for Sealing:

[Note: Paragraph S.2.3., Provisions for Sealing, of the old Code became Paragraph S.2.5. in Section 5.56(a) of the re- organized Code adopted at the NCWM81st Annual Meeting.]

Background: When originally considering provisions for sealing grain moisture meters, the Sector concluded that physical seals would not constitute a meaningfiil security measure if frequent bias adjustments were required (as might be the case with multi- constituent NIR meters) and that event counters alone would not provide meaningfiil information on the appropriateness of the adjustment. The Sector agreed that sealing requirements for NIR based instruments should equal or exceed those specified for Category 3 devices in the Scales Code. The Sector decided that devices should either be sealed by a physical seal or , if the operator is able to make changes affecting the metrological integrity of the device, should use an audit trail consisting of an event

logger which included an event counter, the parameter ID, the date and time of change, and the new value of the parameter (or the new calibration version number if the change consisted of multiple constants). At the 1995 Annual Meeting of the NCWM,

H44 paragraph S.2.3., Provision for Sealing, was amended to specify the minimum information which must be contained in the

audit trail. As S.2.5. is presently worded, however, the case of a device with remote configuration capability is not covered. At

their March 1996 meeting, the Sector was asked to consider a change to S.2.3. [Now S.2.5. in the revised code] which would

require any device with remote configuration capability to have an audit trail. One manufacturer objected strongly to this proposal on the basis that there was no difference, from an enforcement point of view, from breaking a seal to allow a change to be made

via a device's keyboard and breaking a seal to allow a change to be made from a remote site (e.g., via modem or acoustic coupler.)

It was also pointed out that there was an economic consideration in choosing a physical seal vs incorporating sufficient memory

for an audit trail incorporating an event logger (memory being more expensive than a physical seal.) Several other Sector members favored requiring audit trails for devices with remote configuration capability, whether or not a seal had to be broken

to enable the device to be remotely configured. At that time the Sector was unable to reach consensus on the issue.

Discussion: The Scales and Liquid Measuring Devices Codes have categorized devices and methods of sealing. The Sector

considered adopting similar categories for grain moisture meters to address the issues raised at the previous Sector meeting. The

distinction between a Category 1 device and a Category 2 device (as applied to moisture meters) was not immediately clear. One

member suggested that it seemed to be a matter of accountability, with a Category 1 device, the user has direct knowledge of the information being keyed into the device once a seal is broken. With a Category 2 device, however, once the seal is broken the user may only know that "some information was sent to the device by modem (or computer)." There was substantial discussion

as to whether a Category 2 device should require both a physical seal and event counters or either a physical seal or event

counters. There were those who felt that event counters were preferable to a physical seal for moisture meters which might be

inspected before calibrations were available for the coming harvest. In which case, it would be a full year before that meter was

inspected again. With a physical seal as the only security, the meter might go un-sealed for the entire time with no record of what

changes may have been made. A poll of W&M members showed that very few jurisdictions were actually applying tamper proof

physical seals. The Sector decided to follow the lead of the Scales code and allow either a physical seal or event counters for Category 2 devices.

Decided: The Sector recommends the following changes to H44 - Sec. 5.56(a). Grain Moisture Meters including the addition

ofTable S.2.5. [Editor's note: To ensure legibility, the text in table S.2.5. has not been underlined to indicate it is an addition. The

entire table is to be treated as an "addition.")

S.2.5. Provision for Sealing

Provision shall be made for applying a security seal in a manner that requires the security seal to be broken,

or for using other approved means of providing security (e.g., audit trail available at the time of inspection as defined in part b Table S.2.5.). before any change that affects the metrological integrity of the device can be

made to any mechanism.

(b) If the operator is able to make changes that affect the metrological integri ty ofthe device (e.g., slope, bias, etc.)

in nonnal operation, the device shall use an audit trail. The minimum form of the audit trail shall be ein event

logger and shall include :

148
Executive Committee

• All event counter (000 to 999) • t he parameter ID,

• the date and time of t he change, and

• the new value of t he paramet er (for calibrat i on changes consist ing of mult i p le const ants, tli e

calibrat i on version number is to be used rather than the calibration constant s.)

Tlie device is not required to display this infonnat ion, but a printed copy of t he information must be avai labl e

through another on- site device. Tlie event l ogger shall have a capacity to retain records equal to twenty

- fi ve (25) times the number of scalable parameters in the device, but not more than 1000 records are req

u ired. (Note: Does not require 1000 changes to be stored for each paramet er.)

[Note: Zero-setting and test point adjustments are considered to affect metrological characteristics and must

be sealed.]

Table S.2.5. Categories ofDevice and Methods of Sealing

Categories of Device Method of Sealing

Category 1: No remote configuration capability Seal by physical seal.

Category 2: Remote configuration capability, but access is controlled by physical hardware

Device shall clearly indicate that it is in the remote configuration mode and shall not be

capable of operating in the measure mode while

enabled for remote configuration.

The hardware enabling access for remote communication must be

at the device and sealed using a physical seal or two event coumers; one for calibration parameters and one for configuration

parameters. If equipped with event counters, the device must be

capable of displaying, or printing through another on-site device, the contents of the counters.

Category 3: Remote configuration capability access may be unlimited or controlled through a

software switch (e.g., password)

An event logger is required in the device; it must include an event counter (000 to 999). the parameter ID, the date and time of the change , and the new value of the parameter (for calibration changes consisting of multiple constants, the calibration version

number may be used rather than the calibration constants). A

printed copy of the information must be available through the device or through another on-site device. The event logger shall have a capacity to retain records equal to twenty-five (25) times

the number of sealable parameters in the device, but not more

than 1000 records are required. (Note: Does not require 1000

changes to be stored for each parameter.)

Category 3a: No remote capability, but operator

is able to make changes that affect the metrological integrity of the device {e.g., slope,

bias, etc.) in normal operation

Same as Category 3

Category 3b: No remote capability, but access

to metrological parameters is controlled through a software switch (e.g., password)

Same as Category 3

3. Review of Sector Membership

In January at the Interim NCWM Meeting, members of the NTEP Board of Governors (BOG) addressed questions which had

been raised concerning membership and appointment to National Type Evaluation Technical Committee (NTETC) Sectors. They

agreed that membership is conferred on individuals, not companies; therefore, the resignation of an individual from a Sector does

149
Executive Committee

not automatically entitle the individual's company to continue Sector membership. The company may, however, nominate another

individual for consideration by the NCWM Chairman, who makes all appointments to the Sectors. Although membership is conferred on individuals, the BOG reaffirmed that each individual does not necessarily have a separate vote. Only one vote per company or agency is permitted. [Note: for additional discussion on this subject, see Publication 16, April 1966, item 102-6.]

Subsequently, at the recent Annual Meeting, the Conference agreed to the following modification in the rule governing designation

of alternate representatives at Sector meetings:

Although the [NCWM] Chairperson will appoint members [on the advice ofthe Sector chairman and technical advisor], an appointed representative may designate an alternate with full voting rights for an individual meeting whenever

necessary.

It has been brought to the attention of the Sector's NIST member that there have been several changes in representation which

have not been appointed officially by the NCWM Chairperson. The membership status ofthose attending the Sector meeting, as well as those listed officially as members, was reviewed. This time only, Diane Lee, NIST/OWM will send to the NCWM

Chairperson, a single letter with the names of those desiring appointment to the Sector as voting members (if they have not previously been appointed.) Attendees were reminded that maintaining NCWM membership was a requirement for Sector membership.

The BOG had also solicited comments from the Sectors on the need for establishing criteria for the removal of Sector members

who never attend Sector meetings or contribute to the activities of the Sector. The Sector did not agree on a single criteria for removal of inactive Sector members, but did suggest that a letter be sent to those who had not participated actively in Sector

activities notifying them that unless they assumed an active role in Sector matters, they would lose their voting status on the Sector. The letter was also to point out that even without voting status as a Sector member, the individual could still remain on the Sector mailing list to receive Meeting Notices, Agendas, and Meeting Summaries and would always be welcome to attend the meetings.

4. Time and place for next meeting

A two-day and one-halfday meeting (about three fourths of a day for the NIR Protein Sector with the remaining time for the Grain

Moisture Meter Sector) is planned for March 10-12, 1997 in Atlanta, GA.

5. Update on Type Evaluation and Phase II Testing

Rich Pierce ofthe Grain Inspection, Processors and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA, formerly FGIS), the NTEP laboratory

for Grain Moisture Meters, reported that a Certificate of Conformance (CC) number had been issued for the Motomco 919E,

bringing the total number of instruments in the Phase II Calibration Review program to six. One Sector member complained that CC's had not been printed for devices which had been granted CC numbers some time ago. Dr. Pierce acknowledged that the NTEP lab was overdue in forwarding the necessary final reports to NIST. Several device manufacturers noted that this situation gave a marketing advantage to those companies fortunate enough to have printed CC's available for their devices.

Regarding the collection of Phase II data on 1996 crop. Dr. Pierce reported that a late wheat season with fewer samples than

normal had delayed collection of data until well into July. The lab's goal for releasing wheat data to manufacturers is November

30.

6. Proposed Addition to Publication 14 - Criteria for NTEP Calibration Review

Background: In connection with annual review of calibrations, the NTEP laboratory has noted that additional criteria are required

to assist in evaluating calibrations when there is an insufficient number of samples in any two-percent range and when

manufacturer supplied data is involved. To address these issues, criteria were developed on May 31, 1996 by Rich Pierce, Jim

Rampton, and Dave Funk, all of GIPSA. These criteria (except for Case VII. B.) were applied along with criteria listed in Publication 14 to determine "approved" and "pending approval" moisture ranges for the 1996 calibration review and certificate update. The proposed Appendix C defines the "Standard data format" specified in the criteria.

Discussion: Questions were raised regarding Case I-A which would seem to imply that a calibration could be classified as "not approved" based on the results of a single sample. It was pointed out that this criteria applied only to the end 2 percent intervals.

It was further noted that Phase II data: (1) is cumulative from year to year; and (2) for calibrations already classified as "pending"

includes manufacturer supplied data (subject to the conditions ofCase VII for that range, and, therefore, is not subject to conditions ofCase I-A. The main purpose ofCase I-A is to make it clear that moisture ranges will not be extended (even as "pending") based on data obtained on a single sample.

150
Executive Committee

Decided: The Sector approved the addition of the following criteria and Appendix C to the Grain Moisture Meter Check List of

Publication 14, Chapter 6.

V. Criteria for NTEP Moisture Calibration Review

The following criteria are to be applied along with criteria listed in Part IV, above, to determine "approved" and

"pending approval" moisture ranges.

Special Cases Dealing with Inadequately Represented Moisture Intervals:

Case I. A single sample appears in a 2 percent moisture interval that is at the end of the calibration data range.

A. If the sample bias is outside the approval tolerance, the calibration is "not approved" in that moisture

interval.

B. If the sample bias is within the approval tolerance, the calibration is "pending approval" in that moisture interval.

Case II. The samples in a 2 percent moisture interval at the end ofthe calibration data range do not represent at least onefourth of the moisture range. For example, there are no samples with a moisture content greater than or equal

to 18.5 percent in the 18 percent to 20 percent moisture interval.

A. If the average bias for the samples is outside the approval tolerance, the calibration is "not approved" in that moisture interval.

B. Ifthe average bias for the samples is within the approval tolerance, the calibration is "pending approval" in that moisture interval.

Case III. There are two or more consecutive 2 percent moisture intervals at the end ofthe calibration data range that each

contain only one sample. (Similar to Case I.)

A. If the bias for each 2 percent interval is within the approval tolerance, the calibration is "pending

approval" for those moisture ranges.

B. If the bias for any ofthe inner intervals is within the approval tolerance, apply the criteria for Case I to successive intervals working in from the ends of the calibration range.

C. Ifthe bias for the outer interval is within the approval tolerance but the bias for an inner interval is not, the calibration is "not approved" beyond (and including) the innermost interval that is determined to be "not approved" when applying the criteria for Case I.

Case IV. A 2 percent moisture interval that contains no data points is bordered by intervals with data points.

A. The calibration approval status for the empty interval is the same as that for the outer bordering

interval.

Case V. A 2 percent moisture interval that contains one data point is bordered by intervals with more than one data

point.

A. Ifthe bias for the single point is within the approval tolerance and the bias for samples in the adjoining

outer interval is within the approval tolerance, the calibration is "approved" for the interval with the

single sample.

B. Ifthe bias for the single point is within the approval tolerance and the bias for samples in the adjoining

outer interval is within the pending approval tolerance, the calibration is "pending approval" for the

interval with the single sample.

151
Executive Committee

C. Ifthe bias for the single point is within the approval tolerance and the bias for samples in the adjoining

outer interval is outside the pending approval tolerance, the calibration is "pending approval" for the

interval with the single sample.

D. If the bias for the single point is within the pending approval tolerance and the bias for samples in the adjoining outer interval is within the pending approval tolerance, the calibration is "pending approval"

for the interval with the single sample.

E. If the bias for the single point is outside the approval tolerance and the bias for samples in the adjoining outer interval is outside the pending approval tolerance, the calibration is "not approved" for the interval with the single sample.

General Considerations

Case VI. All "approved" and "pending approval" calibration ranges listed on certificates of conformance will begin and

end with even numbers.

Case VII. Manufacturers may submit supplementary data to extend calibration "pending approval" ranges beyond

available NTEP moisture ranges; however, beginning with the 1997 calibration review and certificate update, only manufacturer data supplied in the standard data format, as defined in Appendix D,

will be considered when determining calibration ranges and pending approval status.

A. Calibration status for any range can be no better than "pending approval" when based solely on

manufacturer data.

B. Manufacturer data supplied earlier in graphical or non-standard format must be re-submitted in standard data format. Failure to supply data in standard format may result in withdrawal of "pending"

status if data collected by the NTEP lab is not sufficient to support use ofthe calibration for the range

claimed.

Appendix C - Standard Data Format

for Submitting NTEP Meter Data for Calibration Review

1. Data fields:

Sample Meter A.O. Meter Meter Calibration Grain Crop

I.D. Moist. Moist. Model S.N. I.D. Tvpe Year

2. Description of data fields.

- Sample I.D. The unique sample number assigned by FGIS.

- Meter Moist. The meter-predicted moisture.

- A.O. Moist. The FGIS air oven moisture result.

- Meter Model. The name of the model submitted by the manufacturer.

- Meter S.N. The instrument serial number assigned by the manufacturer.

- Calibration I.D. The unique name or number of the calibration used to predict the moisture value.

- Grain Type. The abbreviated name of the grain type (see accompanying table).

- Crop Year. The crop year in which the sample was received.

152
Executive Committee

3. Instructions for submitting.

Submit as flat ASCII files (see note below) on 3.5" diskettes, one diskette for each instrument, with each grain in a separate

file. Name the files using the abbreviations in the accompanying table and report each observation as a single record on a

single line. Package the disks in protecti\ e mailers and mail to the NTEP Laboratory.

Note: The print files generated b\ today's popular spreadsheets are flat ASCII text files; that is, the contents are in one

continuous string with each field delimited by one space (or a comma) with each record delimited by a carriage return line and a line feed.

File Names

for Submitting NTEP Meter Data

for Calibration Review

Grain Type File Name

Durum DU

Hard Red Spring Wheat HRS

Hard White Wheat HDWH

Soft White Wheat SWH

Hard Red Winter Wheat HRW

Soft Red Winter Wheat SRW

Six-Rowed Barley SRB

Two-Rowed Barley TRB

Com CORN

Oats OATS

Long Grain Rough Rice LGRR

Medium Grain Rough Rice MGRR

Sorghum SORG

Soybeans SOY

Sunflower Seeds (Oil Type) SFS

7. Proposed Change to Publication 14 - Tolerances for Calibration Performance

Backgroimd: The present organization, wording, and a typographical error of this part of the GMM Check List have made it

difficult to understand and have led to misinterpretations ofthe Sector's original intent. Further, the paragraph referring to annual meetings of a committee to assist in making determinations regarding which calibrations need to be updated is no longer

representative of the way changes are being administrated.

153
Executive Committee

Decided: The Sector approved the changes shown below to address these problems:

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 percent moisture range for com, HRW wheat and

soybeans (accuracy test discussed earlier).

3. Initial calibration approval for grains other than com, HRW wheat, and soybeans.

4. Review of on-going calibration data collected as part of the national calibration program.

Calibrations for com, HRW wheat and soybeans will be approved based upon type evaluation testing over a 6 percent

moisture range and manufacturer supplied data over the remainder of the calibration range (See Part V. Criteria for NTEP

Moisture Calibration Review.) The bias of all samples in a 2 percent moisture interval may not exceed one-half of the Handbook 44 acceptance tolerance.

Calibrations for other grains will be approved based upon data collected as part ofthe on-going national calibration program. Approval tolerances will again be one-half of the Handbook 44 acceptance tolerance, and will be applied in 2 percent

intervals over the range of available data. An overall bias may be applied to the calibration in making approval decisions.

Tolerances used to require a change in "approved" calibrations will include the application of a 95 percent confidence interval to the maximum tolerance for each 2 percent moisture interval. The intent of applying the confidence interval is to avoid

forcing a calibration change based upon insufficient data. After only 1 year ofdata collection, the number ofsamples 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 instmment 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 3 years of data will be used to make decisions regarding the need to make a

calibration update.

The status of all calibrations will be listed on the certificate of conformance. The categories are (1) approved, (2) pending,

and (3) not available. The categories can be described as follows:

Approved: Com, HRW wheat, and soybean calibrations will be approved based upon performance over the 6 percent

type evaluation moisture range and manufacturer supplied data. Continued approval requires acceptable

performance as part of the ongoing national calibration effort.

Calibration data, collected as part of the national calibration program, must indicate that calibration performance meets the tolerances for each 2 percent moisture interval before

additional grains will be approved. Continued approval again requires acceptable performance

as part of the national calibration effort, i.e., none of the average differences between predicted

and reference values for the respective 2 percent moisture intervals exceed one-halfthe Handbook

44 acceptance tolerance plus a 95 percent confidence interval.

Pending: A new calibration will automatically be placed in this category.

This category also includes calibrations that have not yet met the criteria for approval, but that also have not performed badly enough to be listed as not approved. Such calibrations may be

used on NTEP-approved meters.

Not Available: A calibration is not available for this grain included in the national calibration program. A

calibration for this grain tvpe shall not be used on NTEP approved meters.

154
Executive Committee

For grains other than com, soybeans and hard red winter wheat, a calibration should will not be listed on the Certificate of Conformance until it has had its calibration bias checked using a set of 10 to 12 samples referenced to the FGIS air oven laboratory and the FGIS official meter.

For this bias check the maximum allowable overall bias between Meter under test and air oven is: ± OA.

During bias testing of such pending provi si onal calibrations, jf. biases are detected which exceed the limits shown

above below, the Type Evaluation Laboratory shall immediately notify the Manufacturer. The Manufacturer shall then make changes or adjustments to the calibration which, in the Manufacturer's best judgement, minimize the differences between the Manufacturer's meter and the official air oven.

In support of such changes, the Manufacturer shall forward to the Type Evaluation Laboratory:

1 . Detailed descriptions of the changes,

2. an explanation of how the changes affect the previous test results, -

3. the calibration coefficients for the revised calibration, and

4. the unique identifier of the revised calibration.

The Type Evaluation Laboratory shall not forward a recommendation for certification to NIST until the Manufacturer

supplies this information or notifies the Type Evaluation Laboratory that it wishes to amend the application for type

approval to show the calibration in question as "NOT AVAILABLE." Testing of the revised calibration by the Type

Evaluation Laboratory will not be required.

The Maximum allowable overall bias between Meter under test and air oven is: J- 0.4.

Not Available: A calibration is not available for th i s grain i ncluded in the national calibrat ion program. A

calibration for this grain type shall not be used on NTEP approved meters. A committee, perhaps the Moisture Meter Sector, shall meet each year to help make determinat ions regarding which

calibrations need to be updated. This committee will take into consideration unusual growi ng conditions when making

decisions related to calibrat ion adequacy.

8. Test Weight per Bushel Indications

Background: The Grain Moisture Meter Code in H44 contains the following field test requirement for Test Weight per Bushel

Indications:

T.3. For Test Weight Per Bushel Indications or Recorded Representations. The maintenance and

acceptance tolerances on test weight per bushel indications or recorded representations shall be

0.193 kg/hL or 0.15 Ib/bu. The test methods used shall be those specified by the USDA FGIS.

(Amended 1992)

Some time ago, when the Sector was discussing this requirement, the reasonableness of the tolerance, was questioned, especially

as it applied to the test weight ofcom. It was pointed out that the tolerance was taken from FGIS (now GIPSA) procedures which

used only dockage-free dry hard red winter wheat. The Sector was in general agreement that the test was not realistic for assessing

the performance ofthe various types of devices in commercial use, and that a different tolerance should be considered for each

grain type. The Sector considered dropping this section from the Moisture Meter Code, reasoning that it would be more

appropriate to include it in a separate chapter of H44 devoted specifically to the requirements for test weight per bushel devices. Several members of the Weights and Measures Community objected, however, stating that deletion of this section, prior to the development of a separate code chapter, would leave them without inspection and enforcement authority over these devices.

There are now at least two NTEP Grain Moisture Meters which have the capability to automatically provide an indication and

recorded representation of test weight per bushel. Because of the unrealistic tolerances in the existing Code, however, the test weight capability of these meters was disabled for the NTEP tests. Some State W&M Officials are permitting these devices to

155
Executive Committee

display and print the test weight information provided that some disclaimer appears on the printed ticket (e.g. the words

"approximate" next to the test weight result) or that a warning against use of the information for commercial purposes is posted

prominently on the device.

As early as 1986, the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) had adopted a "reference method," utilizing a complicated apparatus with a 20 liter container, for determining grain bulk density (mass per hectoliter). This reference method

is detailed in International Standard ISO 7971 . Recently, ISO approved a "routine method" (ISO 7971-2), using a one-liter device

(sometimes referred to as a chondrometer). In this method, a pre-measured volume of grain is dropped, under controlled

conditions, into a tall cylinder. A blade, manually pushed through a slot in the cylinder, separates one liter ofgrain from the excess. The one liter portion is then weighed and a kilogram per hectoliter figure is calculated (applying a slope and bias correction for differences between the one-liter device and the reference method). The method specified in ISO 7971-2 has become the recognized international standard for test weight. Because the straight conversion factor of 1 .287 used in the United States to change pounds per bushel (measured with the quart test kettle) to kilograms per hectoliter considers only the relationship between

volume and weight between English and metric systems, and does not take into account packing differences caused by the two

different methods, measurements made using the two methods do not agree. GIPSA has been gathering data comparing test weight measurements obtained with GIPSA's 1 -quart test kettle method and the internationally used 1 -liter chondrometer to determine

what should be done to eliminate problems caused by differences between the two procedures.

To provide the Sector with additional background on this subject, Larry Engebretson, GIPSA Technical Center, briefed the Sector on the differences between the official U.S. procedure for determining test weight for wheat and the method specified in ISO

7971-2 . The official U.S. procedure is described in GIPSA's Grain Inspection Handbook, Book II, Chapter 1. Apparatus

specifications are contained in GIPSA's Equipment Handbook, Chapter 5. At present, there is no standard reference method

for the U.S. procedure. New kettles (or kettles producing questionable results) are water volume tested (weight of water in kettle must be 1,098.08 grams ± Igram). Complete apparatus is check tested by comparing it with a like "master unit" using samples

of hard red winter wheat. Check tests are performed initially and periodically. The apparatus under test must agree with the "master" unit within ±0.15 Ibs/bu (based on five replicates per sample with the highest and lowest result discarded before

calculating an average). Tests using three replicates of some 600 wheat samples show a variability of 0.074 Ib/bu for the U.S. method. This compares with an average standard deviation equivalent to 0.089 Ib/bu for the ISO routine method. Reproducibility

figures were not available for the ISO method. The major source of variability for the U.S. method is an abnormal sfroker while

the major source of variability for the ISO method is inappropriate pouring rate. Converting Ib/bu tests made using the U.S. method to the equivalent Kg/hi result with the ISO method involves adding a bias (ranging from 1 .8 kg/hi for durum to 2.6 kg/hi for hard red wheat) to the value obtained by straight units conversion (multiply ib/bu by 1.287).

To acquaint the Sector with various devices being used commercially for test weight measurement, Tom Runyon, Seedburo

Equipment Company, demonstrated some of the equipment currently available.

Discussion: This issue was reviewed at the Sector's March 1996 meeting. The Sector was in general agreement that Test Weight

per Bushel devices (Grain Bulk Density Apparatus) should be addressed in Code separate from the Grain Moisture Meter Code.

At that meeting all Sector members present expressed an interest in working on this new code, noting that the measurement of

Test Weight was next in priority behind moisture and protein measurement when the Grain Quality Incentives Act of 1990

authorized GIPSA to work with NIST and NCWM to standardize commercial inspections. Time limitations prevented the Sector from addressing the following questions at the September 1996 meeting. They will be considered at the March 1997 meeting.

1 . What is the appropriate Reference Method or National Standard?

2. The characteristics of known test weight measuring devices are tabulated below. Is the Sector aware of any

additional types? Should the proposed Code cover all types and variations shown?

a. Test Kettle with manual strike-off Kettle Size: pint

quart

1 iter half-liter Scale Type: Beam balance (calibrated in mass units, chart or calculation required)

Electronic scale (calibrated in mass units, chart or calculation required)

Electronic scale (calibrated directly in test weight)

156
Executive Committee

b. Chondrometer

Volume: one-fourth liter half liter

liter Scale Type: Beam balance (calibrated in mass units, chart or calculation required) Electronic scale (calibrated in mass units, chart or calculation required)

Electronic scale (calibrated directly in test weight for selected grain type)

c. Other (incorporated into grain moisture meters or other grain measuring devices or constructed specifically as a test weight device not classified above)

Volume: Various (device dependent)

Operation: Fully automatic (with internal weighing device and direct display of test weight for selected grain type)

Manual filling and manual volume isolation (with internal weighing device calibrated

directly in test weight for selected grain type)

3. Is the chondrometer practical for use with large kernels and seeds such as com, soybeans, and sunflower seed?

4. Should further action on this item be postponed until GIPSA has decided whether to adopt ISO 7971 as a reference method?

9. Progress Report on Compilation of Baseline Performance Data

The objective of the NTEP Moisture Meter Program is to bring interstate and intermeter comparisons closer together. To

determine if this objective is being met, data has been compiled fi-om State Weights and Measures existing field test reports to establish a "pre-NTEP" performance baseline which can be compared to data compiled from field tests made after the NTEP

program has been in effect for several years. Dr. Thomas Brumm, Composition Systems division of MBS Incorporated, reported on results compiled by Joy M. Irlbeck and Dr. Charles R. Hurburgh, both of Iowa State University, (See Attachment). It was noted

that three ofthe major grain states (Illinois, Iowa, and Indiana) did not supply the requested field test data. It was also noted that Arkansas had submitted data but was not mentioned in the report. From the data supplied, the report concluded that states are doing a good job of maximizing the performance of existing meters. Estimates of current performance, measured by standard

deviation relative to the oven are: Com: ±0.45% pts Soybeans: ±0.30% pts Soft Wheat: ±0.35% pts The report recommends: (1) that the earlier oven-meter collaborative study be repeated; (2) that attempts be made to obtain data

fi"om additional states; and (3) that Handbook 44 be revised to allow for method-specific tolerance. [Editor's note: Handbook

55 already contains the note: "These tolerances do not apply to tests in which grain moisture meters are the transfer standard."]

The Sector endorsed the recommendation to repeat the earlier collaborative study. Dr. Hurburgh had sent word that ISU would

distribute the samples if the earlier participants would agree to repeat the study. He indicated that participant oven data would

be optional as the earlier study had shown good stability of samples for the moisture ranges involved. Some Sector members were

ofthe opinion that some ofthe earlier results, represented as being obtained on NTEP meters, did not, in fact, use the final NTEP

approved calibration or were obtained on older models which did not have characteristics identical the NTEP versions. The Sector urged the organizer to insist that each collaborator provide, along with their meter results, a copy of the calibrations actually used.

10. Proposed Change to Publication 14 - Sample Temperature Sensitivity

[Note: Because of time limitations, action on this item was postponed until the next Sector meeting. The following Background

and Proposal are repeated in fiill in this Meeting Summary to remind Sector Members that this issue will be on the agenda for the Sector's March 1977 meeting and to allow manufacturers time to assess the impact of this proposal.]

Background: In some instruments, temperature compensation is accomplished by including, in the calibration set, data obtained on samples at various temperatures. For these instruments, calibration updates may affect the temperature compensation and thus

affect performance over temperature. At an earlier meeting, the Sector was reminded that temperature studies were not included

in Phase II of the NTEP moisture program and that no temperature testing had been performed by the NTEP Laboratory' on the "other 13" NTEP grains [i.e., grains other than com, soybeans, and hard red winter wheat]. One manufacturer expressed the opinion that manufacturers should be required to submit temperature data for the "other 13" grains and also for any grain when

157
Executive Committee

a calibration change is made. Another suggested that calibration changes for a given meter model could be evaluated based on

spectral or "raw" data if it is available for the moisture and temperature ranges involved. It was also suggested that moisture data be collected on one or two samples at both extremes of temperature in each 2 percent interval of moisture over the desired

moisture range. Though discussed at length, the Sector failed to reach a consensus on detailed rules and procedures for obtaining

objective evidence that temperature performance was acceptable for calibrations for the "other 13" grains and for any calibration changes made on any grain subsequent to NTEP testing. The Sector Technical Advisor and the NTEP laboratory representative were asked to propose minimum data requirements and a detailed procedure for collecting temperature data on: 1) the "other 13"

grains and 2) the "standard 3" grains for extended moisture ranges.

Proposed: The Sector is asked to approve changes to the first paragraph of the Sample Temperature Sensitivity Test of

Publication 14 for Grain Moisture Meters to correct typographical errors and to set the upper test temperature limit to 45 °C to agree with the upper limit of 45 °C in the test on Instrument Temperature Sensitivity. [Note: For additional discussion on this upper temperature limit, see the September 1995 Meeting Summary.] The Sector is also asked to approve the addition of a note

to the end ofthe Sample Temperature Sensitivity test to address the requirement for manufacturers to provide objective evidence

of satisfactory performance for grain calibrations not tested by the NTEP laboratory over the range of specified sample

temperatures, and to approve the addition of Appendix D which specifies the procedure for conducting the test and defines the requirements for manufacturer provided data.

II. Sample Temperature Sensitivity:

Additional testing is required to verify that accurate results are provided when the sample and instrument are at different temperatures. This will be referred to as the sample temperature sensitivity test. The purpose ofthis test is to verify that the instrument provides accurate results when the difference in temperature between the sample and the instrument is at the manufacturer specified, difference (a minimum A of 10 °C is required). The sample temperature sensitivity test will be conducted using com, HRW wheat, and soybean samples. Tests will be conducted with the instrument at room

temperature and the sample temperature varying from room temperature i AT to room temperature +ATh to room

temperature zALc- (where AT^ is the manufacturer specified difference for grain above room temperature, and

the ATc is the manufacturer specified difference for grain below room temperature. In no case will room temperature

+ATh be allowed to exceed 32 45 °C, but the two differences need not be equal.)

Note: For any NTEP approved or pending calibration not previously tested by the NTEP Laboratory for Sample

Temperature Sensitivity, manufacturers are required to provide objective evidence that those calibrations will perform

satisfactorily over the range of temperatures specified by the manufacturer. This includes calibrations for any of the

"other 13" NTEP grains [i.e.. grains other than com, soybeans, and hard red winter wheat] as well as any calibrations (including com, soybeans and hard red winter wheat) which have been changed or modified subsequent to either NTEP

testing or submission of manufacturer's data. Performance limits, test methods, and data to be submitted are specified

in Appendix D.

Appendix D - Sample Temperature Sensitivity

Manufacturer Provided Data

The sample temperature sensitivity test is required to verify that accurate results will be provided when the sample and instrument

are at different temperatures. This Appendix specifies the procedure for conducting the test and defines the requirements for manufacturer provided data. Tests will be conducted with the instmment at room temperature and sample temperature varying

from room temperature AT^ to room temperature - AT^. (where ATh is the manufacturer specified difference for grain above room temperature, and ATc is the manufacturer specified difference for grain below room temperature.)

Two (2) samples are to be selected from each ofthree 2 percent moisture intervals for each grain type for which

data is to be provided. Two analyses will be made for each grain sample at each ofthe three test temperatures.

The overall bias for the 12 observations (2 samples x 3 moisture intervals x 2 replicates) run at the temperature extremes must agree with the room temperature results within the tolerances listed in the accompanying table.

158
Executive Committee

Test Procedure:

1 . Analyze the room temperature samples on the test instrument (Room 1 ).

2. Condition samples to the cold temperature and run on the instrument under test (Cold).

Note: Each sample is to be checkedfor temperature before it is analyzed. Samples must be within 0.5 °C of the desired test temperature at time ofanalysis, and samples are to be reconditioned to the test temperature after each

analysis. The sample cell on the instrument under test is to be given a minimum of 10 minutes to equilibrate to room

conditions between sample analyses.

3. Bring the samples to room temperature, and run the samples on the instrument under test (Room 2).

4. Condition the samples to the hot temperature and run on the instrument under test (Hot), observing the precautions in the note following step 2.

5. Repeat step 3 to obtain another set of room temperature results (Room 3). COLD BIAS = Cold- ((Roorh 1 + Room 2) / 2)

HOT BIAS = Hot- ((Room 2 + Room 3) / 2)

Note: As an alternative to repeating actual temperature tests for calibration changes made after manufacturer data has been

provided, subsequent results may be predicted using the new calibration and previously collected spectral or other "raw " data.

Manufacturer (or Applicant) Data to be supplied:

1 . Name of applying organization.

2. Manufacturer (if different from Applicant.)

3. Model and serial number

4. Source of moisture results (actual test or predictions using existing spectral or other "raw" data) and date(s) original

spectral or "raw" data was obtained.

5. For each grain type, specify type and show moisture results vs air-oven values on each individual sample at each

temperature.

6. Calculate and show averages for Hot moistures. Cold moistures. Room 1 moistures. Room 2 moistures and Room

3 moistures.

7. For each grain type calculate and shov/ cold and hot bias.

Moisture Ranges and Tolerances for Sample Temperature Sensitivity

Manufacturer Supplied Data

Grain Type Moisture Range for Test Tolerance Limit

(Bias at Temperature Extremes)

Com 12-18% 0.45

Durum Wheat 10-16% 0.35

Eastern White Wheat 10-16% 0.35

Western White Wheat 10-16% 0.35

Hard Red Spring Wheat 10-16% 0.35

Hard Red Winter Wheat 10-16% 0.35

Soft Red Winter Wheat 10-16% 0.35

Hard White Wheat 10-16% 0.35

159
Executive Committee

Sunflower seed (Oil) 6-12% 0.45

Grain Sorghum 10-16% 0.45

Soybeans 10-16% 0.35

Two-rowed Barley 10-16% 0.35

Six-rowed Barley 10-16% 0.35

Oats 10-16% 0.45

Long Grain Rough Rice 10-16% 0.45

Medium Grain Rough Rice 10-16% 0.45

11. Proposed Revision to H44 Sec. 5.56(a) -S.2.4.3. Calibration Transfer

[This item was not included in the Agenda distributed in August. It was added to the agenda at the meeting by consensus of the Sector.]

Background: The requirements for calibration transfer between moisture meters of like model are specified in the Grain Moisture

Code of Handbook 44:

Calibration Transfer. - The instrument hardware/software design and calibration procedures shall permit calibration development and the mathematical transfer of calibrations between instruments of like models.

Note: Only the manufacturer or the manufacturer's designated service agency may make calibration transfer adjustments on moisture meters and, except for instrument failure and repair, only at a prescribed period of time during the year. This

does not preclude the possibility ofthe operator installing the manufacturer-specified calibration constants or standardization parameters under the instructions of the manufacturer or his designated service agency.

Early in the development of the NTEP program for moisture meters, the suitability of NIR instruments for use in a regulated

commercial environment was questioned. When it became clear that the industry was strongly in favor of permitting NIR

instruments to be used for commercial moisture measurements, the Sector agreed that any modifications to the Moisture Meter

Code to permit the use ofNIR instruments should not compromise the enforcement controls then in effect for meters using other

technologies. Thus, the requirement for calibration transfer was adopted. The intent was to require identical calibrations in meters of like type so field inspectors could verify that correct calibrations had been installed in the instrument. Calibration adjustments

(for moisture) were not expected to require change for at least a 12-month period (except in cases of device repair).

The Code provision allowing the operator to install manufacturer-specified calibration constants or standardization parameters

(under the instructions of the manufacturer or his designated service agency) originally had two objectives:

1 . To allow the user to install a new calibration without having to retum the instrument to the manufacturer or a service agency.

and 2. To allow the user to install new standardization parameters (calibration transfer adjustments) if required by the field replacement of certain components (provided that the manufacturer has the means to determine the appropriate

standardization parameters without having the instrument in the shop).

Most NIR instruments are "multi-constituent" devices capable ofmeasuring moisture, protein, etc. For commercial use, they must

meet the requirements of both the Grain Moisture Meter Code and the Near-Infrared Grain Analyzer Code (NIR Code). Early

in the development of the NIR Grain Analyzer Code, the NIR Sector recognized that provisions would have to be made for frequent user adjustments of bias in NIR protein calibrations (user determined slope adjustments are not permitted). To provide

the necessary security, the NIR Code stipulates that user bias adjustments can be made only on the basis oftests run on a current

set of Standard Reference Samples (SRS) traceable to FGIS Master Instruments, and the user is required to keep a log (Calibration

Adjustment Data Sheet) which field inspectors can check against the device's event logger, also required by the NIR Code. The

GMM Code presently has the same Calibration Transfer wording as the NIR Code. The GMM Code contains no user requirement

regarding bias adjustments because most GMM Sector members had believed that user determined bias adjustments would not be required. [Earlier GMM Code had not permitted such adjustments.]

160
Executive Committee

Because later versions of the GMM Code did not specifically require the same bias values for a given grain moisture calibration

in all instruments of like type, some manufacturers of multi-constituent devices have used bias terms to standardize readings

between individual instruments of like type. In these instances, for a given grain, the same calibration constants and the same slope value are used in all instruments, but bias values differ from instrument to instrument. When these instruments were submitted

for type evaluation, the NTEP laboratory did not consider bias terms part of the calibration constants. As a result, bias terms do

not appear on the CC's for these instruments. Without suitable standards, or a known "good" device to compare against, field inspection has no way of knowing if the bias value installed in an instrument is the correct one. Because moisture bias is a user accessible parameter in currently approved multi-constituent devices, the possibility for fraud exists (even within maintenance

tolerance limits).

Proposed: The Sector was asked to consider modifying the Calibration Transfer paragraph (and the Note following) to further

resfrict the kind ofchanges which a user may make to grain moisture meters and to clarify the difference between standardization adjustments (or parameters) and grain calibration coefficients. The proposed changes are shown below.

S.2.4.3. Calibration Transfer. - The instrument hardware/software design and calibration procedures shall permit

calibration development and the mathemat ical transfer of calibrations between instruments of like models without

requiring user slope or bias adjustments. .

Note: Only the manufacturer or the manufacturer's designated service agency may make calibrati on transfei standardization adjustments on moisture meters, and, except for i nstrument failure and repai r, only at a p

rescribed peri od oftime during the year. This does not preclude the possibility ofthe operator installing the manufacturer-specified

calibration constants or standardization parameters under the instructions of the manufacturer or his designated service agency. Standardization adjustments (not to be confused with grain calibrations) are those phvsical adjustments or software parameters which make meters of like type respond identically to the grain(s) being measured.

Discussion: The Sector was divided on this issue. NIR multi-constituent device manufacturers objected to the proposed change

and were ofthe opinion that the event logger in the audit trail provided the necessary security. Manufacturers ofdielectric moisture meters (in which bias terms are either coded into one of the calibration coefficients or listed explicitly as bias values on CC's)

favored the change, supporting those Weights and Measures members who didn't want to see users making adjustments in an unconfrolled manner. Some members were concerned that allowing bias adjustments in this manner would ultimately defeat the

Sector's goal of uniformity between instruments. One Sector member wondered how field inspection would know the difference between an old NTEP calibration and a new NTEP calibration if the only change required was a bias change which was different

in each instrument of that type. Another suggested that a table of manufacturer approved moisture biases be posted on the

individual instruments. It was pointed out that this table would have to be revised whenever a calibration change was made.

Multi-constituent device manufacturers were asked if it was possible to resfrict user bias adjustment on moisture calibrations and

still allow user bias adjustment on protein. Manufacturers indicated that this would require a software (or firmware) change.

Decided: The Sector was unable to reach a consensus on this issue. Further discussion was postponed to the Sector's March 1997

meeting. To assist the Sector in assessing how adequate an event logger is for providing security in this case, manufacturers were

asked to provide copies of sample audit frails illusfrating both calibration changes (installation of a new calibration) and several user bias adjustments to an existing calibration for their instruments. [Editor's note: If reproducible copies of the audit trails can be forwarded to Diane Lee at NIST/OWM by February 3, these will be duplicated and disfributed with the agenda for the March

meeting.]

12. Standardization of Instruments

[This item was not included in the Agenda disfributed in August. It was added to the agenda at the meeting by consensus of the

Sector.]

Background: Preliminary data compiled by Dr. Hurburgh suggested that instruments in the field (or in State Moisture Labs) are not closely aligned with instruments of like type in the NTEP lab. Thus, Phase II data collected on the NTEP lab instruments may

not be truly representative of what can be expected in the field. Manufacturers typically maintain a "standard" instrument (or instruments) against which production units are tested and adjusted to be within the manufacturer's acceptable tolerance limits. At the present time, there are no requirements for the NTEP lab instruments to be periodically compared with manufacturer's

standard(s) or adjusted to agree with the manufacturer's "standard(s)." Thus, any change in performance over time in either the NTEP lab units or the manufacturer's "standard" units can result in a corresponding loss of accuracy (compared to air oven) in production units. Procedures are needed to assure that manufacturer's standards and NTEP lab instruments are closely aligned.

The Sector was asked to consider the following alternatives for establishing fraceability between manufacturer's standards and

the NTEP lab instruments:

161
Executive Committee

1 . Require NTEP lab instruments to be returned to the manufacturer annually for comparison with the manufacturer's standards. NTEP lab instruments to be re-standardized if comparisons are not within established limits (to be

determined). Manufacturer to supply NTEP lab with a certificate of trac6ability (showing known errors) for each grain

type.

2. At a designated time of year, require manufacturer to send a selected group of grain samples to NTEP lab after first running the samples on manufacturer's "standard" unit(s). NTEP lab then runs submitted samples on manufacturer's NTEP lab unit and returns samples and "raw" data to manufacturer. Manufacturer re-runs samples (to verify that samples

have not changed), and uses "raw" data to determine if NTEP lab instruments need adjustment of standardization

parameters. Adjustments are transmitted either by modem or disk and the sample exchange is repeated. When a sample

exchange indicates that comparisons are within established limits, manufacturer supplies NTEP lab with a certificate of traceability (showing known errors) for each grain type.

3. Like "2" above, except manufacturer brings standard instrument (or pretested samples) to NTEP lab, runs the samples

and makes needed adjustments on site. Manufacturer subsequently supplies NTEP lab with a certificate of traceability

(showing known errors) for each grain type.

Discussion: Except for one manufacturer, who was concerned about possible shipping damage, alternative 1 was thought to be

the most practical approach. Alternative 2 was eliminated from consideration, because differences in environmental conditions

(temperature and humidity) between the two locations would add an additional source of possible variance which would not be

desirable when attempting to achieve error limits of 0.1 percent or less. Alternative 3 was discarded because manufacturers were

reluctant to have their "master" units leave their lab or factory. The Sector agreed that the specific alignment details (e.g., what

instrument parameters to measure, what adjustments to make, etc.) would vary with the technology involved and the manner in which that technology had been implemented. The Sector was in agreement that the NTEP units should be standardized against manufacturers' master units annually (typically between March 1 and April 30). It was suggested that manufacturers should also be required to demonstrate that their methods for standardizing units in production provide reasonable assurance that units "as shipped" will agree with the NTEP units within acceptable tolerances. The Technical Advisor and the NTEP Lab representative were requested to suggest wording and error limits for these requirements which could be considered by the Sector at its next meeting for addition to the GMM Checklist in Publication 14.

162
Executive Committee

Attendance List - Sector Meetings September 9-11, 1996, Kansas City, MO

NAME AFFILIATION SEPTEMBER

9 10 11

Jack Barber JB Associates X X X

Sean Bauer Steinlite Corporation X

Connie Brown DlCKEY-john Corp. X X X

Randy Bums Arkansas Bureau of Standards X X X Tom Brumm MBS, Incorporated (Alt. for C. Hurburgh, ISU) X X

Marty Clements Steinlite Corporation X

Bob Davis Illinois Department of Agriculture X

Cassie Eigenmann DICKEY-john Corp. X X X

Larry Engebretson USDA-GIPSA-TSD '/2

David Funk USDA-GIPSA-TSD X X

David Krejci GEAPS X X

Diane Lee NIST/Office of Weights and Measures X X X

Keith Locklin ConAgra Com Processing (representing GEAPS) X X X

Don Muller Bran+Luebbe X X

Pontus Norbreus Perstorp Analytical X X

Ray Oberg Zeltex, Inc X X Tom O'Connor National Grain & Feed Association X X

Don Onwiler Nebraska Public Service Commission X X X

Allison Pflug CSC Scientific X X

Richard Pierce USDA-GIPSA-TSD X X X

James Rampton USDA-GIPSA-TSD X

Ole Rasmussen Foss Food Technology X X X

Joe Rothleder California Dept. of Food & Agriculture X X X Tom Runyon Seedburo Equipment Co. X X X

Fred Seeber Shore Sales X X X

Cheryl Tew North Carolina Dept. Of Agriculture X X X

Cliff Watson Consultant X X X

Diane Wise Colorado Dept. of Agriculture, Meas. & Stds. X X X

Robert Wittenberger Missouri Dept. of Agriculture, Div. Weights & Meas. X X X

Richard Wotthlie State of Maryland X X X

163
Executive Conunittee

National Type Evaluation Technical Committee

Grain Moisture Meter Sector

March 10-12, 1997, Atlanta, GA

Meeting Summary

Agenda Items

* 1 . Report on NCWM Interim Meeting

*2. Changes in Sector Membership

*3. Time and place for next meeting

4. Update on Type Evaluation and Phase II Testing

5. Review of NTEP Processes: Phase I and II Application Process and Fees

6. Collaborative Study: Progress Report and Funding Issues

7. Proposed Change to H44 Sec. 5.56(a) - S.2.5. Provisions for Sealing

8. Proposed Change to Publication 14 - Sample Temperature Sensitivity

9. Proposed Revision to H44 Sec. 5.56(a) -S. 2. 4. 3. Calibration Transfer

10. Proposed Addition to Publication 14 - V. Standardization of Instruments

1 1 . Test Weight per Bushel Indications NOTE: The following three items did not appear on the Sector agenda as originally published. The Sector agreed,

however, to consider them as discidssion items at the present meeting.

12. Phase II Funding

13. Mission of the Sector

14. GIPSA Response to NTEP Needs

Note: Because ofcommon interest, items marked with an asterisk (*) were considered in joint session ofthe NIR Grain Analyzer

and the Grain Moisture Meter Sectors.

I. Report on NCWM Interim Meeting

The National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM) Interim Meeting was held January 12-16, 1997, in Rockville, MD.

Diane Lee, NIST/OWM, reported on actions taken by the Specifications and Tolerances (S&T)Committee on issues of interest to the Sector. [Note: Item numbers and headings shown below correspond to the item numbers and headings of the Interim

Meeting Agenda, NCWM Publication 15 dated December 1996. Additional discussion of these issues can be found in that publication.]

356-1 S.2.5. Provision for Sealing

At its September 1996 meeting the Sector recommended modifications to S.2.5. to categorize devices and methods of

sealing in a manner similar to the categorization of devices in the Scales and Liquid Measuring Devices Code. Further

modifications were approved by letter ballot January 2, 1997. A ballot comment from one Sector member suggested that the Category 1 sealing method should also be accompanied by the sentence: "If equipped with event counters, the device

must be capable of displaying or printing through another on-site device, the contents of the counters." The S&T

Committee agreed to forward the item to the Conference as a voting item but asked the Sector to consider if the added

sentence should be included in the recommendation. [See GMM Sector Agenda Item 7 for additional discussion and the

Sector's final recommendations.]

Ms. Lee also related that the Scale Manufacturer's Association (SMA) had presented a report, at the Executive Committee

Meeting, on the status of States which have adopted or are considering adoption ofuniform regulations regarding the use ofNTEP

devices. Ofthe Continental U.S. States, only 1 1 have not adopted regulations regarding the use ofNTEP devices. In eight of the

I I , NTEP regulations are under consideration. She noted that the SMA's primary focus is on the States which have adopted NTEP

for weighing devices, so the SMA figures do not necessarily indicate the number of States which will apply NTEP regulations to NIR Grain Analyzers (when the tentative code becomes permanent) or the number of States which now apply NTEP regulations

to Grain Moisture Meters.

164
Executive Committee

2. Changes in Sector Membership

During the GMM/NIR Sector Meeting in Kansas City, MO September 9-11, 1996, a membership status report was distributed.

It was noted that many individuals who have actively participated in Sector activities had not been formally appointed to the Sectors by the the NCWM Chairman. (NTEP policy requires that all persons seeking appointment to the NTETC GMM/NIR

Sectors send individual letters on company letterhead to the NCWM Chairman requesting membership on the Sectors.) In early

January 1997, Diane Lee, NIST/OWM, sent out a letter urging anyone interested in becoming a voting member of the Sectors to submit the required letter.

As ofthe date of this meeting, Barbara Bloch, the current NCWM Chairman, had received letters fi-om the following individuals. At the recommendation ofthe Sector Chairman and the Sector Technical Advisor, these individuals have been appointed as Sector members:

Cassie Eigenmann DICKEY-John Corp.

Keith Lochlin Conagra Com Processing (representing GEAPS)

John Miller* CSC Scientific (replacing Allison Pflug)

Ray Oberg Zeltex Inc. Hiro Yamahira Kett Electric Laboratory (replacing M. Emori)

* Subsequent to his appointment, John Miller left CSC. CSC will request the appointment of Tim Conwell to replace John

Miller.

In response to a question about inactive members, Ms. Lee indicated that a letter would be sent to members who have not attended Sector meetings in recent years to determine if they plan to continue their participation in the Sector as voting members. This will be done in sufficient time to allow the membership list to be updated prior to the Conference's Annual Meeting in July.

3. Date and Site for Next Meeting

A two-day or two and one-half day meeting (one and one-half or two days for the Grain Moisture Meter Sector and one-half day

for the NIR Protein Sector) is planned for September 10-12, 1997, in the Chicago area.

4. Update on Type Evaluation and Phase II Testing

Rich Pierce ofthe Grain Inspection, Processors and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA, formerly FGIS), the NTEP Participating

Laboratory for Grain Moisture Meters, reported on the progress of Type Evaluations and the collection and analysis of Phase II data on 1996 crop.

As ofMarch 10, two applications for Type Evaluation were open. Testing had been completed on one device, and test results were

being reviewed. Testing had not begun on the other device.

Certificate of Conformance (CC) numbers have been issued for six device types:

Device Manufacturer Model(s) Years in Phase II DICKEY-john GAC 2000NTEP and GAC 2 1 00 2

Sinar Model 6310 Grain Pro 2

Seedburo GMA 128 2

Perstorp Infratec Model 1227 2

Foss Grainspec A 2

Motomco 919E 1

Certificates have been published for the DICKEY-john and Sinar devices. Final Drafts of CC's for the remaining devices were

given to those manufacturers present at the Sector meeting (and mailed to those not present) for final review before publication.

Data for the 1 996 crop year has been collected on all NTEP instruments enrolled in Phase II. The data and a summarizing report

for all grains except com and soybeans has been sent to manufacturers. Dr. Pierce noted that procedures were being changed so

that data and summarizing reports for any grain or class of grain would be sent to all manufacturers simultaneously. Previously,

the data and individual reports were sent out as each was completed, so that manufacturer "A" might receive hard red winter wheat

data several weeks before data was sent to manufacturer "B."

165
Executive Committee

Dr. Pierce anticipated that some calibration changes would be required, but at this point did not know how extensive the changes

would be. He reminded device manufacturers that a change in calibration requires that moisture data for both 1996 and 1995

crop years be re-predicted using the new calibration. The re-predicted data must be returned to the Lab in standard data format. [See September 9-11, 1996 GMM Sector Meeting Summary for a definition of the standard data format.]

5, Review of NTEP Processes: Phase I and II Application Process and Fees

For the benefit of new members, Diane Lee, NIST, reviewed the process for submitting an application for device type evaluation. She also reviewed the procedures associated with maintaining a current Certificate ofConformance under Phase II ofthe moisture meter program. These are summarized below:

Phase I (New Device Testing)

1) Manufacturer submits application for Phase I Type Evaluation Testing of a "New" device. The deadline for applications is January 1 if the device is to be included in Phase II for the coming season. Note: Applicants for Phase I testing must apply for Phase II testing at the same time. The

application fee for new devices is $175. The cost of Phase I testing will vary according to device

type and the hourly fee charged by the testing laboratory. Typical Phase I costs have ranged from

$6000 to $9000 per device type. Through the 1999 crop year, a fee of $3500 per device type

will be levied each year for collection and analysis ofPhase II data. The cost to the Manufacturer

for Phase II testing after 1999 has not been determined.

2) NIST assigns a control number to the application.

This allows NIST to track the application until a CC number is assigned.

3) NTEP Lab performs tests. A minimum of 2 months are required for testing. If problems are encountered, they must be

resolved before Phase II testing begins for the season; otherwise, participation in Phase II (and

issuance ofa CC) will be delayed to the following season. Partial Season testing is NOT allowed. 4) If testing is successfial, CC number is assigned by May 1

.

5) Certificate is issued by May 3 1

.

Phase 11 (applicant's second and following years in the program)

1) The deadline for a manufacturer to submit an application for continuing participation in Phase II is May 1

.

(e.g., May 1996) Note: To maintain an active or effective CC, manufacturers must participate in the on-going

Phase II calibration maintenance program. The manufacturer must submit a new application for Phase II Testing every year. Through the 1999 crop year, a fee of $3500 per device type will be

levied each year for collection and analysis of Phase II data. The cost to the Manufacturer for Phase II testing after 1 999 has not been determined.

2) NIST assigns a control number to the application.

3) Approved application is sent to NTEP Lab.

4) Data collection for current crop year is initiated, (e.g., 1996)

5) NTEP Lab provides manufacturer the last ofthe summary reports and data by March 1 . (e.g., March 1, 1997)

6) Manufacturer makes any required calibration changes and provides NTEP Lab with re-predicted data by April

15. (e.g., April 1997)

7) NTEP Lab reviews manufacturer's data, validates change, and forwards information for revising CC to NIST

by May 1. (e.g.. May 1997)

8) NIST issues updated CCs by June 1. (e.g., June 1997)

Diane pointed out that the NTEP Application Form for Grain Moisture Meters is available on NIST's 24-hour fax-line (1-800-

925-2453, request Document #410).

In the ensuing discussion, several members asked what would happen to NTEP meters already in use if a manufacturer decided

to no longer participate in Phase II testing. One Weights and Measures (W&M) representative indicated that once a device's CC

has expired, that device can no longer be used commercially in his state. Grain representatives were quick to point out that this was of great concern to their industry. They did not want to risk purchasing a device which could no longer be used after a few

years. It was stated that this was one reason the industry was eager for GIPSA to choose an official meter from the list ofNTEP

meters. By purchasing the same model as the official meter, they reasoned that they could be assured of continued support. It was

suggested that one ofthe reasons that some states didn't want to adopt NTEP procedures for moisture meters was the because of

the politics of the issue; State Department of Agriculture Officials (responsible for Weights and Measures issues) in major grain

states didn't want to be placed in the position ofhaving to tell grain elevator operators that they could no longer use a device which

166
Executive Committee

had been purchased recently. There was concern that not all states will enforce the program uniformly. In some states, non-NTEP

meters will be allowed to be sold. The same thing is likely to happen to NTEP devices of manufacturers who elect not to continue

to participate. Manufacturers were in general agreement that the decision whether or not to continue to support a specific model

would be an economic one. If sales to the grain industry are important to a company, a company would be foolish to withdraw

support of a device, even if newer models are introduced. Some manufacturers have gone to great lengths to ensure that calibrations from newer instruments can be used on discontinued models. There is a marketing advantage to keeping a meter in a program whose purpose is minimizing differences between official and commercial moisture measurements. It was pointed

out that non-NTEP meters manufactured or placed in service before January 1, 1998 may continue to be used until they no longer can be repaired to pass field tests. A similar status was suggested for NTEP meters no longer supported by manufacturers. Such

meters could continue to be listed in Publication 5, but the status could be shown as "inactive" or "unsupported." The problem,

as viewed by W&M member, was one of confidence. When a manufacturer withdraws a meter from the program, confidence is lost in the calibrations and the ability of that device to remain aligned with the official system. Field tests may detect bias

differences, but they don't tell you anything about performance at temperature or moisture exfremes. After lengthy discussion, the Sector agreed that a subcommittee should be formed to address the concerns of users, manufacturers, and regulators on this issue. The Subcommittee was charged with producing a report, addressing these issues, for presentation to the Sector at its September

meeting. The subcommittee is composed of the following members:

Dr. Charles R. Hurburgh, Iowa State University - Organizer G. Diane Lee, NIST

Tom O'Connor, NGFA

Tom Runyon, Seedburo

Cheryl Tew, NC Dept. of Agriculture

Ray Oberg, Zeltex

Randy Bums, AR Dept. of Agriculture

Tim Conwell, CSC Scientific Don Onwiler, NE Public Service Comm. [if he agrees to serve]

Jack Barber, JB Associates

6. Collaborative Study: Progress Report and Funding Issues The objective of the NTEB Moisture Meter Program is to bring interstate and intermeter comparisons closer together. Progress

toward these objectives has been measured by oven-meter and meter-meter collaborative studies. Results ofan earlier study were

questionable, seeming to indicate that agreement of devices of like type within those thought to be NTEP meters was not as good

as expected. Some Sector members were of the opinion that the earlier results, represented as being obtained on NTEP meters,

did not, in fact, use the final NTEP approved calibration or had been obtained on older models which did not have characteristics

identical to the NTEP versions. The collaborative study was repeated early this year. Special care was taken to ensure that devices were using the most recent NTEP calibrations. Because the number of true "NTEP" devices in the field is somewhat limited. Some judgement was used on the part ofthe organizer in classifying instruments as "NTEP" or "non-NTEP." Devices of recent manufacture which were of like design to NTEP meters but not truly "NTEP", were classified as "NTEP" devices. Dr. Charles

Hurburgh, Iowa State University (ISU), presented the results of the most recent study in which three com samples (1 6 to 1 8.2%

moisture) and three soybean samples (10.2% to 17.8% moisture) from 1996 crop were sent to collaborators. Oven moisture

results were provided by 15 laboratories. Meter results were obtained on instruments representing 12 brands (six NTEP and six "other"). A total of 142 meters were tested, 91 NTEP and 51 other. Test results are summarized below:

Oven Results (15 labs)

Grain Type Sample Average Range

Com

CI 17.82 17.5-18.0

C2 18.22 18.1-18.4

C3 15.98 15.8-16.2

Soybeans

SI 10.20 10.0-10.3

82 12.47 12.4-12.6

S3 17.79 17.3-18.1

167
Executive Committee

Summary for Data Received to 3/7/97

Grain Type Group Range of Averages(l) Avg. Std. Dev. (Between Like Units)

Com

NTEP Meters(2) 16.9-17.3 0.19

Other Meters 16.9-17.2 0.28

GIPSA Oven 17.51

All Ovens 17.34

Soybeans

NTEP Meters(2) 13.1 - 13.4 0.18

Other Meters 13.1 - 13.7 0.20

GIPSA Oven 13.51

All Ovens 13.49

(1) Average of all readings on all samples for a brand.

(2) Meters using NTEP calibrations.

Although pleased that the data seemed to indicate improvement compared to the previous study, some Sector members were

concerned that the data might again be taken out of context by the grain press and used to make widespread conclusions about the

relative performance ofNTEP meters. It was stressed that the objective ofthe study was to establish a performance baseline, and

that the data collected is not sufficient to draw valid conclusions about manufacturers' products. One member suggested that the Sector (or NIST) should write its own news release describing the study, its objectives, and what the results indicated. That way,

industry could be kept informed about what is going on without risking that the information would be used to draw negative

conclusions on just a limited amount of information.

The latest collaborative study was partially funded by NIST (with the balance of costs to be absorbed by ISU). On the subject

of possible funding sources for fiiture collaborative studies, grain association representatives expressed the belief that their members would not approve an increase in dues for this purpose. Device manufacturers, were reluctant to commit to an additional

fee, already faced with significant fees for annual testing. Dr. Hurburgh raised the possibility of a grant from one of USDA's

Federal/State Marketing Improvement Programs. He will send information on these programs to Diane Lee. Also mentioned was the possibility of assessing a "registration fee" for Sector meetings. Further discussion on the subject was tabled until the next meeting when the feasibility of obtaining a grant will have been investigated.

7. Proposed Change to H44 Sec. 5.56(a) - S.2.5. Provisions for Sealing:

[Note: Paragraph S.2.3., Provisions for Sealing, of the old Code became Paragraph S.2.5. in Section 5.56(a) of the re- organized Code adopted at the NCWM81st Annual Meeting.]

Background: At the 1995 Annual Meeting of the NCWM, H44 paragraph S.2.3., Provision for Sealing, (later Section S.2.5 of

GMM Code 5.56(a)) was amended to specify the minimum information which must be contained in the audit trail. At that time,

however, no provision was made for devices capable of remote configuration. At their March 1996 meeting, the Sector discussed an audit trail requirement for devices capable of remote configuration. The Sector heard comments from one device manufacturer

stating that there was no difference, from an enforcement stance between devices which required a seal to be broken at the device

to allow changes at the keypad and a device which required a seal to be broken at the device to enable a change to be made from

a remote site (e.g., via modem or acoustic coupler.) One consideration noted was the significant cost difference between

implementing a physical seal and incorporating sufficient memory to implement an audit trail. At that time the Sector was unable

to reach consensus on audit trail requirements for devices with remote configuration capability regardless of the need to break a

physical seal prior to remote configuration. Further consideration of the issue was postponed to the Sector's September 1996

meeting.

Discussion: At its September 1996 meeting, the Sector recommended categorizing devices and methods of sealing in a manner

similar to the categorization of devices in the Scales and Liquid Measuring Devices Code. Following that meeting, it was

discovered that Category 1 ofthe Scales Code allows either a physical seal or two event counters: one for calibration parameters

168
Executive Committee

and one for configuration parameters. The sealing method originally proposed by the GMM Sector for Category 1 devices allowed

only a physical seal. The Sector had also failed to recommend an effective date for their recommended changes. To remedy these oversights, a letter (fax) ballot was sent to Sector members on January 2, 1997 soliciting their vote on two proposals:

(1) Add "or two event counters: one for calibration parameters and one for configuration parameters" to the proposed

Category 1 Method of Sealing for the GMM Code 5.56(a)

and (2) Select a non-retroactive date of January 1, 1999 for the proposed change

Both proposals were approved and were forwarded to the Specifications and Tolerances Committee (S&T) for consideration as a National Conference voting issue. A ballot comment from one Sector member suggested that the Category 1 sealing method

should also be accompanied by the sentence: "Ifequipped with event counters, the device must be capable ofdisplaying or printing

through another on-site device, the contents of the counters." The member reasoned that this was an explicit requirement for Category 2 devices, and that it should apply equally to Category 1 devices. If it were to be omitted from the requirements for Category 1 devices, the obvious assumption would be that the requirement did not apply. The S&T requested clarification from

the Sector as to whether or not the suggested wording was their intent , noting that other codes require display and allow printing

in addition.

Decided: Noting that the code already required devices to have provisions for providing a print out of measurement results, the Sector had no objection to allowing counter information to be either printed or displayed, and recommended the addition of the above wording (and a specification of counter sizes for both Category 1 and Category 2 devices) to the changes previously

submitted to the S&T Committee. All changes (including those recommended at the September 1996 meeting and by the January 2, 1997 letter ballot) are shown below. [Editor's note: For clarity, in table S.2.5. only the wording considered by the Sector at this meeting has been underlined to indicate added text. The entire table is an "addition" to S.2.5.]

S.2.5. Provision for Sealing

fc^ Provision shall be madefor applying a security seal in a manner that requires the security seal to be broken, orfor

using other approved means ofproviding security (e.g., audit trail available at the time of inspection as defined in part b Table S.2.5.). before any change that affects the metrological integrity of the device can be made to any

mechanism.

(b) Ifthe operator is able to make changes that affect the metrological integrity ofthe device (e.g., slope, bias, etc.) in normal

operation, the device shall use an audit trail. The minimum form of the audit trail shall be an event logger and shall include:

• An event counter (000 to 999)

• the parameter ID,

• the date and time of the change, and

• the new value ofthe parameter (for calibration changes consisting of multip

le constants, the calibration version number

is to be used rather than the calibration constants.)

Tlie device is not required to display this infonnat ion, but a printed copy ofthe information must be available through another on-site device. The event logger shall have a capacity to retain records equal to twentyfive (25) times the number of scalable

pai-ameters in the device, but not more than 1000 records are required. (Note: Does not require 1000 changes t o be stored

for each parameter.)

[Note: Zero-setting and test point adjustments are considered to affect metrological characteristics and must be sealed.]

169
Executive Committee

Table S. 2. 5. Categories ofDevice and Methods of Sealing

Categories ofDevice Method of dealing

Category 1: No remote configuration capability Seal by physical seal or two event counters: one for calibration parameters (000 to 999) and one for configuration parnmptprs

(000 to 999). If equipped with event counters, the device must be

capable of displaying. or printing through another on-site device. the contents of the counters.

Category 2: Remote configuration capability, O y JO r J ' but access is controlled by physical hardware

Device shall clearly indicate that it is in the remote configuration mode and shall not be

capable of operating in the measure mode while

enabledfor remote configuration.

The hardware enabling access for remote communication must be

at the device and sealed using a physical seal or two event

counters: one for calibration parameters (000 to 999) and one for configuration parameters (000 to 999). If equipped with event

counters, the device must be capable of displaying, or printing

through another on-site device, the contents of the counters.

Category 3: Remote configuration capability access may be unlimited or controlled through a

software switch (e.g., password)

An event logger is required in the device; it must include an event counter ((XX) to 999), the parameter ID, the date and time of the change , and the new value of the parameter (for calibration changes consisting of multiple constants, the calibration version

number may be used rather than the calibration constants). A

printed copy of the information must be available through the device or through another on-site device. The event logger shall have a capacity to retain records equal to twenty-five (25) times

the number of sealable parameters in the device, but not more

than 1000 records are required. (Note: Does not require 1000

changes to be storedfor each parameter.)

Category 3a: No remote capability, but operator

is able to make changes that affect the metrological integrity of the device (e.g., slope,

bias, etc.) in normal operation

Same as Category 3

Category 3b: No remote capability, but access

to metrological parameters is controlled through a software switch (e.g., password)

Same as Category 3

- -

8. Proposed Change to Publication 14 - Sample Temperature Sensitivity

Background: In some instruments, temperature compensation is accomplislied by including, in the calibration set, data obtained on samples at various temperatures. For these instruments, calibration updates may affect the temperature compensation and thus

affect performance over temperature. At an earlier meeting, the Sector was reminded that temperature studies were not included

in Phase II of the NTEP moisture program and that no temperature testing had been performed by the NTEP Laboratory on the "other 13" NTEP grains [i.e., grains other than com, soybeans, and hard red winter wheat]. One manufacturer expressed the opinion that manufacturers should be required to submit temperature data for the "other 13" grains and also for any grain

whenever a calibration change is made. Another suggested that calibration changes for a given meter model could be evaluated based on spectral or "raw" data if it is available for the moisture and temperature ranges involved. It was proposed that moisture

data be collected on one or two samples at both extremes of temperature in each 2 percent interval of moisture over the desired

moisture range. Though discussed at length, the Sector failed to reach a consensus on detailed rules and procedures for obtaining

objective evidence The the Sector Technical Advisor and the NTEP laboratory representative were charged with drafting a proposal for consideration at the March 1977 meeting. This proposal is shown below.

Proposed: The Sector is asked to approve changes to the first paragraph of the Sample Temperature Sensitivity Test of

Publication 14 for Grain Moisture Meters to correct typographical errors and the addition of a note to the end of the Sample

170
Executive Committee

Temperature Sensitivity test to address the requirement for manufacturers to provide objective evidence of satisfactory

performance for grain calibrations not tested by the NTEP laboratory over the range ofspecified sample temperatures. The Sector

is also asked to approve the addition of Appendix D which specifies the procedure for conducting the test and defines the requirements for manufacturer provided data.

II. Sample Temperature Sensitivity:

Additional testing is required to verify that accurate results are provided when the sample and instrument are at different temperatures. This will be referred to as the sample temperature sensitivity test. The purpose of this test is to verify that the instrument provides accurate results when the difference in temperature between the sample and the instrument is at the manufacturer specified, difference (a minimum A of 10 °C is required). The sample temperature sensitivity test will be

conducted using com, HRW wheat, and soybean samples. Tests will be conducted with the instrument at room temperature

and the sample temperature varying from room temperature +AT to room temperature +A^^^ to room temperature -AT^^ . (where AT^ is the manufacturer specified difference for grain above room temperature, and-the AT,, is the manufacturer

specified difference for grain below room temperature. In no case will ATh be allowed to exceed 32 °C, but the two

differences need not be equal.)

Note: For anv NTEP approved or pending calibration not previously tested by the NTEP Laboratory for Sample Temperature

Sensitivitv. manufacturers are required to provide objective evidence that those calibrations will perform satisfactorily over the range of temperatures specified by the manufacturer. This includes calibrations for any of the "other 1 3" NTEP grains [i.e.. grains other than com, soybeans, and hard red winter wheat] as well as any calibrations (including com, soybeans and hard red winter wheat") which have been changed or modified subsequent to either NTEP testing or submission of manufacturer's data. Performance limits, test methods, and data to be submitted are specified in Appendix D.

Appendix D - Sample Temperature Sensitivity

Manufacturer Provided Data

The sample temperature sensitivity test is required to verify that accurate results will be provided when the sample and instrument

are at different temperatures. This Appendix specifies the procedure for conducting the test and defines the requirements for manufacturer provided data. Tests will be conducted with the instmment at room temperature and sample temperature varying

from room temperature +ATh to room temperature - AT,-, (where AT^ is the manufacturer specified difference for grain above room temperature, and AT^. is the manufacturer specified difference for grain below room temperature.)

Two (2) samples are to be selected from each of three 2 percent moisture intervals for each grain type for which data

is to be provided. Two analyses will be made for each grain sample at each of the three test temperatures. The overall bias for the 12 observations (2 samples x 3 moisture intervals x 2 replicates) run at the temperature extremes must

agree with the room temperature results within the tolerances listed in the accompanying table.

Test Procedure:

1 . Analyze the room temperature samples on the test instrument (Room 1).

2. Condition samples to the cold temperature and run them on the instrument under test (Cold).

Note: Each sample is to be checkedfor temperature before it is analyzed. Samples must be within 0.5 °C ofthe desired test temperature at time ofanalysis, and samples are to be reconditioned to the test temperature after each analysis. The sample cell on the instrument under test is to be given a minimum of 10 minutes to equilibrate to room conditions between sample analyses.

3. Bring the samples to room temperature, and run the samples on the instrument under test (Room 2).

4. Condition the samples to the hot temperature and run them on the instrument under test (Hot),

observing the precautions in the note following step 2.

171
Executive Committee

5. Repeat step 3 to obtain another set of room temperature results (Room 3). COLD BIAS = Cold- ((Room 1 + Room 2) / 2)

HOT BIAS = Hot- ((Room 2 + Room 3) / 2)

Note: As an alternative to repeating actual temperature tests for calibration changes made after manufacturer

data has been provided, subsequent results may be predicted using the new calibration and previously collected spectral or other "raw" data.

Moisture Ranges and Tolerances for Sample Temperature Sensitivity

Manufacturer Supplied Data

Grain Type Moisture Range for Test Tolerance Limit

(Bias at Temperature Extremes)

Com 12-18% 0.45

Durum Wheat 10-16% 0.35

Eastern White Wheat 10-16% 0.35

Western White Wheat 10-16% 0.35

Hard Red Spring Wheat 10-16% 0.35

Hard Red Winter Wheat 10-16% 0.35

Soft Red Winter Wheat 10-16% 0.35

Hard White Wheat 10-16% 0.35

Sunflower seed (Oil) 6-12% 0.45

Grain Sorghum 10-16% 0.45

Soybeans 10-16% 0.35

Two-rowed Barley 10-16% 0.35

Six-rowed Barley 10-16% 0.35

Oats 10-16% 0.45

Long Grain Rough Rice 10-16% 0.45

Medium Grain Rough Rice 10-16% 0.45

Manufacturer (or Applicant) Data to be supplied:

1 . Name of applying organization.

2. Manufacturer (if different from Applicant.)

3. Model and serial number

4. Source of moisture results (actual test or predictions using existing spectral or other "raw" data) and date(s)

original spectral or "raw" data was obtained.

5 . For each grain type, specify type and show moisture results vs air-oven values on each individual sample at room

temperature.

6. Calculate and show averages for Hot moistures. Cold moistures. Room 1 moistures. Room 2 moistures and

Room 3 moistures.

7. For each grain type calculate and show cold and hot bias.

Decided: By a vote of 1 1 to 4, the Sector rejected the proposed changes citing several reasons: 1) the data which manufacturers

of dielectric type instruments used to determine coefficients for temperature correction and to validate performance over a range

172
Executive Committee

of sample temperatures had been recorded on now-obsolete media (e.g., tape cassettes for HP 98 1 5 Computers) and was no longer

retrievable; 2) the cost ofTemperature Sensitivity Testing (even in the proposed "abbreviated" form) 13 grains is prohibitive and

might result in manufacturers deciding to drop those grains from their CC's; 3) it is very difficult to obtain samples for some of

the less widely grown grains.

To provide a method for selectively verifying temperature performance on a grain by grain basis, and to supply potential

purchasers and W&M officials with information regarding the integrity of calibrations for each of "the other 1 3 grains", the Sector unanimously agreed that the CC shall indicate those grains for which temperature performance has not been verified by

the NTEP process.

The Sector was unable to reach a consensus on the motion: "A manufacturer may submit data for other grain types to demonstrate

compliance with temperature sensitivity requirements; the NTEP lab may ask for additional tests." Several members thought that some minimal amount oftesting should be performed by the NTEP lab on any grain, believing that without NTEP lab testing, the whole NTEP process would be compromised. The NTEP lab representative indicated that even with the "abbreviated" tests originally proposed, the lab would not be able to respond to requests for tests this Spring. The Sector TechnicaLAdvisor was

directed to consult with the NTEP lab representative and propose a revised "minimal" test procedure taking into account the

difficulty of obtaining a range of moistures for some samples. The revised procedure will be submitted to the Sector for a vote

at the September meeting or for letter ballot if available earlier.

One member asked if the grain temperature differences (ATh and AT^ , above and below room temperature) for the "other 13" grains had to be the same as the differences the manufacturer had specified for corn, soybeans, and hard red winter wheat. Although there didn't seem to be objections to allowing a different AT^ and AT,, to be specified for each grain, the Sector did not formally decide on this issue. CC's list a single ambient temperature operating range, a single grain temperature operating

range, and a single ATh and AT^. . The NTEP lab representative indicated that , until the Sector agreed otherwise, sample

temperature sensitivity tests would be performed using the same temperature differences (AT„ and AT^ ) which the manufacturer

had previously specified.

9, Proposed Revision to H44 Sec. 5.56(a) -S.2.4.3. Calibration Transfer

Background: The requirements for calibration transfer between moisture meters of like model are specified in the Grain Moisture

Code of Handbook 44:

Calibration Transfer. - The instrument hardware/software design and calibration procedures shall permit calibration development and the mathematical transfer of calibrations between instruments of like models.

Note: Only the manufacmrer or the manufacturer's designated service agency may make calibration transfer adjustments on moismre meters and, except for instrument failure and repair, only at a prescribed period of time

diaring the year. This does not preclude the possibihty of the operator installing the manufacturer-specified cahbration

constants or standardization parameters under the instructions of the manufacturer or his designated service agency.

Early in the development of the NTEP program for moisture meters, the suitability of NIR instruments for use in a regulated

commercial environment was questioned. When it became clear that the industry was strongly in favor of permitting NIR

instruments to be used for commercial moisture measurements, the Sector agreed that any modifications to the Moisture Meter Code to permit the use ofNIR instruments should not compromise the enforcement controls then in effect for meters using other

technologies. Thus, the requirement for calibration transfer was adopted. The intent was to require identical calibrations in meters of like type so field inspectors could verify that correct calibrations had been installed in the instrument. Calibration adjustments

(for moisture) were not expected to require change for at least a 12-month period (except in cases of device repair.)

The Code provision allowing the operator to install manufacturer-specified calibration constants or standardization parameters

(under the instructions of the manufacturer or his designated service agency) originally had two objectives:

1 . To allow the user to install a new calibration without having to return the instrument to the manufacturer or a service agency.

and 2. To allow the user to install new standardization parameters (calibration transfer adjustments) if required by the field replacement of certain components (provided that the manufacturer has the means to determine the appropriate

standardization parameters without having the instrument in the shop.)

173
Executive Committee

Most NIR instruments are "multi-constituent" devices capable ofmeasuring moisture, protein, etc. For commercial use, they must meet the requirements of both the Grain Moisture Meter Code and the Near Infrared Grain Analyzer Code (NIR Code). Early

in the development of the NIR Grain Analyzer Code, the NIR Sector recognized that provisions would have to be made for frequent user adjustments of bias in NIRprotein calibrations (user determined slope adjustments are not permitted). To provide

the necessary security, the NIR Code stipulates that user bias adjustments can be made only on the basis of tests run on a current

set of Standard Reference Samples (SRS) traceable to GIPSA Master Instruments, and the user is required to keep a log

(Calibration Adjustment Data Sheet) which field inspectors can check against the device's event logger, also required by the NIR

Code. The GMM Code presently has the same Calibration Transfer wording as the NIR Code. The GMM Code, however,

contains no user requirement regarding bias adjustments, because most GMM Sector members had believed that user determined

bias adjustments would not be required for moisture calibrations. [Earlier GMM Code had not permitted such adjustments.]

Because later versions ofthe GMM Code did not specifically require the same bias values for a given grain moisture calibration

in all instruments of like type, some manufacturers of multi-constituent devices have used a bias term for each grain calibration

to standardize readings among individual instruments. In these instances, for a given grain, the same calibration constants and

the same slope value are used in all instruments, but bias values differ from instrument to instrument. This has led to several problems:

1 . Bias terms for these instruments do not appear on the CC's, so field enforcement personnel are unable to determine

if the moisture bias term used in an individual grain calibration is correct.

2. Instrument standardization must be repeated each time a calibration is changed. Without fraceable standards to determine new bias values, there can be no traceability of the device to the NTEP standard units unless this standardization is performed "side-by-side" with the manufacturer's master instruments.

3 . When the only difference between calibrations for two successive years is a bias change (which is different in every device of like type). Weights and Measures (W&M) officials cannot differentiate between a legitimate bias change

and one made arbitrarily by the user. In either case, because moisture bias is a user accessible parameter in currently approved multi-constituent devices, the possibility for fraud exists (even within maintenance tolerance limits).

Discussion: At their September 1997 meeting, the Sector was divided on this issue. NIR muhi-constituent device manufacturers

objected to a proposal which would have prohibited user adjustments of bias on moisture calibrations, arguing that the audit trail event logger provided the necessary security. Manufacturers ofdielectric moisture meters (in which bias terms have been identical for any given grain calibration in devices of like type) favored the proposed change, supporting those Weights and Measures

members who didn't want to see users making adjustments in an un-controlled manner (even within maintenance tolerance limits). Some members were concerned that allowing bias adjustments in this manner would uhimately defeat the Sector's goal of

uniformity between instruments. Multi-constituent device manufacturers were asked if it would be possible to restrict user bias adjustment on moisture calibrations and still allow user bias adjustment on protein. Manufacturers indicated that this was possible but would require a software (or firmware) change. Further discussion was postponed to the Sector's March 1997 meeting. To

assist the Sector in assessing how adequate an event logger might be for providing security in this case, several manufacturers

provided sample copies of audit trails illustrating both calibration changes (installation of a new calibration) and several user bias adjustments to an existing calibration for their instruments.)

Decided: The Sector agreed that, although informative, audit trails did not fiilly eliminate the problems cited in the above

Background. The Sector adopted by consensus the following revisions to the H44 Calibration Transfer paragraph (and the Note

following) to ftirther restrict the kind of changes which a user may make to grain moisture meters, and to clarify the difference between standardization adjustments (or parameters) and grain calibration coefficients. The Sector agreed to a nonretroactive and

effective date of January 1, 1999 for these changes:

S.2.4.3. Calibration Transfer. - The instrument hardware/software design and calibration procedures shall permit

calibration development and the mathematical transfer of calibrations between instruments of like models without

requiring user slope or bias adjustments.

Note: Only the manufacturer or the manufacturer's designated service agency may make calibration transfer standardization adjustments on moisture meters, and, except for instrumentfailure and repair, only at a prescribed

period of time during the year. This does not preclude the possibility of the operator installing the manufacturerspecified calibration constants or standardization parameters under the instructions of the manufacturer or its designated service agency. Standardization adjustments (not to be confused with grain calibrations) are those physical adjustments or software parameters which make meters oflike type respond identically to the grain(s) being

measured. [Nonretroactive and effective as ofJanuary 1, 1999.]

174
Executive Committee

10. Proposed Addition to Publication 14 - V. Standardization of Instruments

Discussion: Earlier data compiled by Dr. Hurburgh suggested that instruments in the field (or in State Moisture Labs) may not be closely aligned with instruments of like type in the NTEP lab. The NTEP Laboratory has also seen unexplained differences between moisture results (using the same calibration and correcting for air oven differences) obtained on the same set of samples

at 12-month intervals. In such cases, Phase II data collected on the NTEP lab instruments may not be useful in maintaining

NTEP LAB

METERS'

MANUFACTURER'S

LABORATORY

STANDARD

METERS

B

MANUFACTURER'S

PRODUCTION

MASTER METER

C

D

"AS SHIPPED"

METERS

calibrations and may not be representative of what can be expected with devices in the field. Manufacturers typically maintain

a "standard" instrument (or instruments) against which production units are tested and adjusted to be within the manufacturer's acceptable tolerance limits. At the present time, there are no requirements for the NTEP lab instruments to be periodically

compared with manufacturer's standard(s) or adjusted to agree with the manufacturer's "standard(s)." Thus, any change in performance over time in either the NTEP lab units or the manufacturer's "standard" units can result in a corresponding loss of

accuracy (compared to air oven) in production units. The Sector has agreed that the NTEP units should be standardized against manufacturers' master units annually (typically between March 1 and May 30). The Sector has also agreed that the specific

alignment details (e.g. what instrument parameters to measure, what adjustments to make, etc.) would vary with the technology

involved and the manner in which that technology had been implemented, and that manufacturers should also be required to demonstrate that their methods for standardizing production units provide assurance that units "as shipped" will agree with the NTEP units within acceptable tolerances.

Decided: The Sector was in general agreement that Publication 14 should contain a section dealing with instrument

standardization (such as the draft shown below); however, device manufacturers requested that a vote on adoption of the draft be

delayed until the Sector's September 1997 meeting so they would have additional time to review the proposed tolerance limits.

V. Standardization of Instruments

Continuing participation in the on-going data collection and calibration review program (Phase II) is mandatory for all grain

moisture meters. Annually, prior to Phase II data collection, device manufacturers are required to make a side-by-side

comparison between their reference standard instruments and instruments of like type in the NTEP Participating Laboratory.

The specific details of the comparison tests will vary with the technology involved, but manufacturers will be required to provide details of their test procedures to the NTEP Participating Laboratory and will be required to show that the mean

moisture difference between Manufacturer's Laboratory Standard Meters and the corresponding NTEP Lab Meters (path A

in figure below) does not exceed ± 0.2 x the maximum Handbook 44 acceptance tolerance. Manufacturers must also demonstrate that their methods for standardizing units in production result in "as shipped" units which agree with the corresponding NTEP Lab units (path D in figure below) within ± 0.3 x the maximum Handbook 44 acceptance tolerance.

11. Test Weight per Bushel Indications

Background: The Grain Moisture Meter Code in H44 contains the following field test requirement for Test Weight per Bushel

Indications:

175
Executive Committee

T.3. For Test Weight Per Bushel Indications or Recorded Representations. The maintenance and

acceptance tolerances on test weight per bushel indications or recorded representations shall be

0.193 kg/hL or 0.15 Ib/bu. The test methods used shall be those specified by the USDA FGIS.

(Amended 1992)

Some time ago, when the Sector was discussing this requirement, the reasonableness of the tolerance, was questioned, especially

as it applied to the test weight of com. It was pointed out that the tolerance was taken from FGIS (now GIPSA) procedures using

three samples of dockage-free dry hard red winter wheat and comparing the average of five replicate measurements (with the

highest and lowest resuhs discarded before averaging) on each sample using the "standard" quart container to a like average

obtained with the container under test. The Sector agreed that the test was not realistic for assessing the performance of the

various types of devices in commercial use and that a different tolerance should be considered for each grain type. The Sector

considered dropping this section from the Moisture Meter Code, reasoning that it would be more appropriate to include it in a

separate chapter of H44 devoted specifically to the requirements for test weight per bushel devices. Several members of the Weights and Measures Community objected, however, stating that deletion ofthis section, prior to the development of a separate

code chapter, would leave them without inspection and enforcement authority over test weight devices.

There are now at least two NTEP Grain Moisture Meters which have the capability to automatically provide an indication and

recorded representation of test weight per bushel. Because of the unrealistic tolerances in the existing Code, however, the test weight capability of these meters was disabled for the NTEP tests. Some State W&M Officials are permitting these devices to display and print the test weight information provided that some disclaimer appears on the printed ticket (e.g., the words

"approximate" next to the test weight result) or that a warning against use of the information for commercial purposes is posted

prominently on the device.

The issue was reviewed again at the Sector's March 1996 and September 1996 meetings. The Sector was in general agreement

that Test Weight per Bushel devices (Grain Bulk Density Apparatus) should be addressed in Code separate from the Grain

Moisture Meter Code (even for those grain moisture meters which were capable of providing a bulk density measurement).

Discussion: Grain industry representatives were concerned that the Sector might be "trying to invent a new method". They

stressed the importance ofachieving and maintaining uniformity with the official system. Toward that end, they wanted assurance

that the reference method should be whatever GIPSA was using. GIPSA's volume reference is a "standard" one-quart kettle with

loading- ftinnel, stand and hard maple strike-off stick. "Working" kettles are compared against the "standard" with a grain test (described above) and a water test. Suitably accurate scales determine the weight.

One grain industry member suggested that the Sector develop a mission statement on Test Weight. Other Sector members thought

this was unnecessary as the Sector had already been charged with developing NTEP test procedures and recommending changes

to H44 with the objective of aligning commercial devices with those used in the official system. Citing the wide range of devices now in commercial use (some of which are of questionable accuracy and permanence), one device manufacturer felt that development of H44 Code (and a corresponding Publication 14 check list) for Test Weight apparatus was needed to show what

apparatus should be disallowed for commercial use. This view was supported by W&M members. One Sector member suggested

that an "environmental scan" be conducted to determine what devices are actually in use in the field. The Sector Technical Advisor was of the belief that the list of devices characterized in the Sector's agenda (and reproduced below) was a good representation

of the range of device types now in use (or under consideration for use) in the commercial system. Sector W&M representatives were asked to review this list and to be prepared to report, at the next Sector meeting, which of the device types listed are in commercial use in their respective jurisdictions. Lack of time prevented the Sector from discussing whether the proposed Code

should cover all types and variations shovm. This will be an agenda item for the next meeting.

a. Test Kettle with manual sfrike-off Kettle Size:

Scale Type:

b. Chondrometer

Volume:

pint

quart

liter half-liter Beam balance (calibrated in mass units, chart or calculation required)

Electronic scale (calibrated in mass units, chart or calculation required)

Electronic scale (calibrated directly in test weight)

one-fourth liter half liter

liter

176
Executive Committee

Scale Type: Beam balance (calibrated in mass units, chart or calculation required) Electronic scale (calibrated in mass units, chart or calculation required)

Electronic scale (calibrated directly in test weight for selected grain type)

c. Other (incorporated into grain moisture meters or other grain measuring devices or constructed specifically as a test weight device not classified above)

Volume: Various (device dependent)

Operation: Fully automatic (with internal weighing device and direct display of test weight for selected grain type)

Manual filling and manual volume isolation (with internal weighing device calibrated

directly in test weight for selected grain type)

12. Phase II Funding

Under a five year agreement, funding for Phase II (Calibration Maintenance) testing comes from cooperative agreements between

NIST, GIPSA, and participating device manufacturers. NIST and GIPSA contribute $36,000 per year, and each participating

manufacturer contributes $3,500 per meter type per year. With 3 years remaining under this agreement, Tina Butcher, NIST,

suggested that the Sector might want to locate alternate funding sources before the agreement expires. Sector members were

pessimistic about obtaining funds from the obvious sources. With GIPSA and NIST being asked to cut expenses, the likelihood

that they will be able to continue to support the program at current levels is slim. From previous attempts to obtain fijnding, it appears highly unlikely that Congress would appropriate anything for this program as a separate item. Although the most

equitable way to obtain ftinds seems to be a "tax" or annual fee assessed against each commercial moisture tester in use commercially, administrative problems (as well as the problems of obtaining participation from every state) rule out this approach.

Grower check-off programs fall into the same category. At the present time, there are only six devices holding CC's. If device

manufacturers were asked to bear the ftill cost of Phase II (for Grain Moisture Meters only), each manufacturer would have to pay

about $15,000 to $17,000 annually. Grain Moisture Meters are not sold in huge quantities. If the manufacturer were to recover

this amount on current sales of 300 units per year, this would translate into a price increase of $50 to $56 per meter. It is doubtful

that anyone selling less than 100 units per year would want to remain in the program. The situation becomes worse if the number

of manufacturers participating drops from its present number. One member questioned the benefit of continuing to participate

in the program for more than 5 years. At that point, he suggested, the meters should be well aligned and further changes should

only be incremental. Recalling that commercial meters were poorly aligned in 1980 until meter manufacturers re-adjusted

calibrations based on data collected Iowa State University and the University of Illinois, another member pointed out that the Sector wouldn't be having this discussion if those one-time adjustments had kept meters aligned. He maintained that without an on-going monitoring program, meters would eventually drift apart again.

A three-pronged approach to funding was suggested:

1) Prepare a report to the House Agriculture Committee which: a) outlines our goals; b) explains what has been

accomplished; c) makes a strong case for continuing the on-going calibration maintenance program, stressing the economic value to producers and grain trade alike; and d) shows the potential loss to producers and the grain trade when meters within the commercial system drift apart from each other. 2) Prepare a report for presentation to the NTEP Board of Governors (BOG) which shows: a) the benefits of the on- going calibration maintenance program; b) what sources have been considered for funding; and c) why these sources don't work.

3) Ask the BOG and the NCWM to petition NIST for fiinds.

Cliff Watson, Consultant, offered to assist in the preparation of these reports, with the goal of having a draft report available for approval by Sector voting members prior to the NCWM Annual Meeting in July. Although the discussion had focused on fiinding

for the Grain Moisture Meter program, it was suggested that the reports should also include reference to the NIR program which

will also need fiinding for an on-going monitoring program.

13. Mission of the Sector

Cliff Watson, Independent Consultant, reported that the GEAPS Grades and Weights Committee had discussed the NTEP moisture meter program at the annual GEAPS (Grain Elevator and Processor Society) meeting in Minneapolis. At this meeting, some

members ofthe committee expressed the belief that the NTEP Grain Moisture Meter Sector had lost sight of its mission and that

it was more concerned about regulations and reduction of fraud than achieving uniformity in grain inspection. As a result of the discussion, the Grades and Weights chairman stated that he would contact NGFA and others to see about having this matter

included in the Grain Quality Workshop agenda for discussion and action.

177
Executive Committee

Cliffrecommended that the Sector give assurance to all concemed that uniformity ofgrain moisture measurements between official and commercial systems and within the commercial system is the primary mission and objective of the Sector. The regulations

recommended by the Sector are the means by which uniformity will be achieved and maintained.

In the discussion which followed, one Grain Industry representative commented that the Sector spent a lot of time on Publication 14 and Handbook 44 rather than talking about the strategic direction their programs should take and how these programs might

work in the field; especially in states like Illinois. He believed that some of the Handbook 44 requirements were a disincentive

for states to adopt an NTEP program for moisture meters. For the program to succeed, he stressed that it must be as regulatory

simple as possible. Another Grain Industry representative cited the needs of the industry: 1) meters that agree with the official system; 2) affordable meters; 3) reasonable assurance that any meter purchased [under the program] can be used for a number

ofyears; and 4) uniformity between states. At the same time, citing the competitiveness ofthe industry, he pointed out that industry was always seeking to reduce costs and did not want to "freeze" technology; larger, progressive operations wanted multiconstituent meters.

Responding to some ofthese comments, other Sector members pointed out that the Sector was a technical sector. As such, it was

appropriate for the Sector to deal primarily with technical issues related to its objectives of: (I) developing type evaluation

criteria, test procedures, and data analysis criteria; (2) recommending changes to Handbook 44 to update the code to accommodate

the latest technology; (3) improving {and maintaining) the uniformity of grain moisture measurement between the official and

commercial systems and within the commercial system; (4) setting up a type evaluation program toward the accomplishment of

(3); and (5) providing assistance to regulatory officials by defining an infrastructure to support testing and inspection of grain

moisture meters and associated equipment. Strategic direction for the Sector comes from the NTEP Board of Governors. Input on how the Sector's proposals might work in the field comes from the active participation of Device Manufacturers, Weights and Measures officials, and Grain Industry representatives in Sector activities. Additional review ofthe Sector's proposals comes from

NCWM Regional Committees, from the NCWM S&T Committee, and from Delegates to the NCWM Annual Meeting.

The Sector was in agreement that much of the negative opinion expressed regarding Sector activities and the resulting programs was due to misunderstandings and unreasonable expectations about the programs. Some ofthe misunderstandings were believed

to have their roots in Grain Press articles which had taken information out ofcontext or which played to the fears and sensitivities of the industry. It was suggested that a news release from NIST, in the form of frequently asked questions, might be a good way

to clear up some of the misunderstandings.

In conjunction with this discussion, the Sector reviewed a Memorandum, dated February 27, 1997, sent to the Sector by Sid

Colbrook, Illinois Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Weights and Measures (See Attachment). The Sector had the following

comments:

Regarding the question of enforcement, while NIST, OWM and the National Conference on Weights and Measures encourages

uniformity through the adoption of NIST Handbook 44, enforcement of the code depends on the provisions that are within the

individual State laws. The Code does not prohibit the continued use of non-NTEP devices which were manufactured or in service

prior to the non-retroactive (and effective) date. GIPSA has announced that it will be choosing a new meter for official inspection

in June of 1997 and expects to put the new meters into service on some grains in May of 1998. The non-retroactive provisions

ofthe Code do not become effective until January 1 , 1998. Noting that almost every elevator in the State of Illinois presently have

at least one Motomco 919 (the current meter used in official inspection) some Sector members wondered how many new Motomcos would be expected to be put into service in Illinois in 1998 should GIPSA not adopt a new meter as scheduled.

Because the Sector is not qualified to give legal advice, the Sector suggests that Mr. Colbrook consult his States Attorney's Office

for advice on the matter of whether or not a regulatory agency can be held financially accountable if a terminal or elevator purchases an NTEP approved device later found to be inaccurate. One Sector member offered the opinion that to establish liability on the part ofthe regulatory agency in such a case, the elevator or terminal would have to prove that the condition (the inaccuracy)

existed at the time the agency's inspector approved the device. When GIPSA adopts a new meter for official use, the Motomco

919 will no longer be the device which establishes the official grade.

Regarding the question of accuracy, many participants in the grain industry have indicated that their primary interest is in uniformity (agreement with the official system). Accuracy (agreement with the standard air oven) is of secondary interest. The

matter of uniformity relates to improving overall system performance. In that regard, uniformity might be considered "system

accuracy." There are a number of reasons that NTEP meters will improve uniformity or "system accuracy." A few of these are: (I) the automatic features of NTEP meters take the operator out of the process, eliminating possible human errors (GIPSA field experience has shov^n substantial improvement in system performance when the operator was removed from the grain protein

measurement process); (2) NTEP devices have been tested for stability and permanence over a range of operating voltages,

178
Executive Committee

temperatures, and humidity; (3) NTEP devices provide error messages when operating ranges have been exceeded, preventing

unintentional errors; (4) NTEP meters are subject to an annual on-going calibration review and maintenance program to keep their Certificates of Conformance active; and (5) NTEP device manufacturers are provided with calibration data collected on the same

sample set used by GIPSA for calibrating the official meters. Grain handlers have acknowledged that automatic features contribute

to improved efficiency, allowing the operator to perform other tasks at the same time moisture measurements are being made.

NTEP meters will not display (nor print) a result in either of the following situations: (1) the device is outside its operating

temperature range; (2) the temperature of the grain exceeds the range specified; or (3) the temperature difference between grain

and meter exceeds the specified difference.

The NTEP meters will display a result if (4) the grain moisture value is outside the moisture range listed on the CC, but it must

be accompanied by a clear indication that the moisture range has been exceeded [H44, Sec. 5. 56. (a), S.l .3. Operating Range].

The Sector established these requirements to ensure that measurements would be made under the same conditions which the NTEP

lab used to evaluate device performance.

In the case of grain moisture value being outside the moisture range on the CC, the Sector reasoned that a moisture reading at in this case was, better than no reading at all, because there was little that the buyer or seller could do to remedy the situation at that time. Requiring a clear indication of "moisture limit exceeded" alerts both buyer and seller that the measurement may not be within H44 tolerances. Fortunately, most ofthe grain an elevator receives will be within the moisture range for which meters have been

calibrated.

As to inhibiting measurements when any of the temperature conditions are not within limits, the Sector reasoned that the two

conditions most likely to be encountered were: grain temperature exceeds limits (most likely frozen grain) and difference between

grain temperature and device temperature exceeds limits. In the first instance, elevators have already developed a strategy to handle this condition. They seal the grain sample in a pint jar marked with the producer's code and hold it for later determination

of the moisture which will appear on the settlement sheet. It is not often that this strategy has to be employed during harvest in

Illinois. When the difference between grain temperature and device temperature exceeds limits, the operator has only to run the sample a second time. This is normally sufficient to allow the sample to warm up (or cool down) to an acceptable range. Running

the sample a second time takes only 30 to 45 seconds for most NTEP meters. This seems a small penalty to pay for a more

accurate measurement. The frequency with which a second measurement will have to be taken depends on the maximum

allowable difference between grain and meter specified by the manufacturer. This varies from a minimum of ±10 °C to about

±20 °C depending on the device. The moisture ranges and grains for which a meter has been calibrated also vary depending on

the device. A potential purchaser should carefiilly review the CC ofthe device to be purchased to make certain it has the desired

characteristics.

In developing Code for Grain Moisture Meters, the Sector was careful not to make the Code technology specific. To the best of

the Sector's knowledge, there is nothing in the Code that restricts the development or introduction ofmeters using new technolog>'.

Accuracy (air oven vs. meter) will always be limited by the fact that grain is a biological product whose characteristics change

over time. All of the present technologies use indirect methods of measuring the moisture content of the grain. Dielectric type

meters use the relationship between the bulk capacitance of a grain sample and moisture as the basis for their measurements. Near

Infrared Instruments measure the energy absorbed by water molecules within the sample at specific wavelengths of near infrared

light. Each of these technologies has its advantages and disadvantages. Both are affected in varying degrees by characteristics of grain which vary with variety, growing conditions, temperature, kernel size, shape, density, etc. The greatest potential for immediate improvement in perceived accuracy will be found in things which promote uniformity within the system. The Sector

is actively involved in looking at ways to ensure that meters, as shipped, and in the field will remain closely aligned with like meters in the NTEP laboratory. The Sector will continue to seek additional means of bringing all NTEP meters into the closest alignment possible with the technologies involved. A positive attitude toward the moisture program by W&M officials in existing

NTEP states and their assistance in urging other grain states to adopt an NTEP moisture program will also help in achieving

nation-wide system uniformity.

14. GIPSA Response to NTEP Needs

Citing unusually long delays in getting CC's issued for devices which been approved over a year ago and delays in getting the NTEP program up and running for NIR protein analyzers (NIR), Cliff Watson, Consultant, recommended that the Sector ask GIPSA to respond in a more timely manner to the needs of manufacturers with regards to the NTEP program. Diane Lee, NIST,

noted that the process for drafting CC's had recently been changed to make it possible to publish CC's in a more timely fashion. She repwrted that draft CC's were now available for manufacturers to review. These would be published as soon as manufacturers

responded. Mr. Watson was concerned that support would be lost for the NIR program if something couldn't be done to get it

179
Executive Committee

priority be assigned to setting up the NIR program. Dr. Pierce related some of the staffing problems he had experienced and

explained that his responsibilities at GIPSA extended well beyond those associated with running the NTEP grain moisture meter (GMM) program and setting up the NIR program. He believed that a letter would not produce additional resources and noted

that getting the NIR program started would take a lot more resources than keeping the GMM program going. Any resource

diverted to setting up the NIR program would jeopardize the GMM program. The Sector was in general agreement that the NIR

program should not be implemented at the expense ofthe GMM program. It was recognized that because many states had formal

regulatory programs for moisture meters, priority must be given to moisture issues. Dr. Pierce expressed the belief that once the GMM program had been "de-bugged" and was functioning as expected, the effort to keep it going would not be as great as it presently was. At that point work on the NIR program could be resumed.

180
Executive Committee

Attendance List - Sector Meetings March 10-12, 1997, Atlanta, GA

Name Affiliation March

19 11

Jack Barber JB Associates X X X

Connie Brown uiOK,bT-jonn oorp. X X X

Randy Burns Arkansas Bureau of Standards X X X

Tina Butclier NlbT/OWM X X

Marty Clements Steinlite Corporation X X X

Tim Conwell C/oC bcientitic X X X

Cassie Eigenmann DICKEY-john Corp. X X X

Rich riaugn Cjor, Inc. X X

David Hopl<in Sinar Technology X X X

Charles R. Hurburgh Jr. Iowa State University X X

David Krejci cr A DO X X X

G. Diane Lee Nioi/Ottice OT Weights and Measures X X X

Keith Locklin ConAgra Corn Processing (representing GEAPS) X X X

Chuck Lowden Foss Food Technology X X X

Pontus Nobreus Perstorp Analytical X X X

Ray Oberg Zeltex, Inc X X X Tom O'Connor National Grain & Feed Association X X X

Caria Pesce Georgia Weights & Measures X X

Richard Pierce UoDA-GIPoA-TSD X X X

Neal Rooks Georgia Weights & Measures X X X

Joe Rothleder California Dept. of Food & Agnculture X X X Tom Runyon Seedburo Equipment Co. X X X

Cheryl Tew North Carolina Dept. Of Agriculture X X X

Cliff Watson Consultant X X X

Robert Wittenberger Missouri Dept. of Agriculture, Div. Weights & Meas. X X X

Richard (Will) Wotthlie State of Maryland X X X

181

Executive Committee

Appendix O

NCWM Budget for FY 1998

GENERAL ACCOUNT

Cafegoty

Number Account Descriptfon

Income

Proposed i

FY 98 Budget

410 General Revenues

411 Registration Fees $70,000.00

411.1 Annual Meeting $55,00().00

411.2 Interim Meeting $15,00C).00

412 Membership Fees $115,000.00

413 Interest $2,500.00

416 Other Income $400.00

^Ar\/i^A i?A\/om IOC OciVIQ/C rxcVcilUco

481 Special Events $1,000.00

482 Publications $4,500.00

NTEP Administrative Fee $21,000.00

485 Promotional $2,000.00

rOTAi INCOME $216,400-00

EXPENSES

510 General Expenses

511 Annual Meeting

511.1 Hotel and Meeting Space $21,000.00

Chairman's Reception $7,500. 00

Breakfast 8,400. 00

Luncheon 2,000. DO

Souvenirs 2,500. 00

Chairman's Suite 600. 00

183
Executive Committee

Category

Number

511.2 AV

Account Description

Equipment

Propc^ed

FY 00 Budget

$1,000.00

511.3 Extra Personnel and Photographer $2,000.00

511.4 Printing and Copying $2,500.00

511.5 Awa rds $3,000.00

511.6 Treeisurer/Committee Expenses $1,000.00

Conference Outing $7,500.00

Prejjident's Dinner Meeting $1,500.00

Mis(;ellaneous $2,500.00

Totili Annual Meeting $42,000.00

512 Inte rim Meeting

512.1 Hot(5l and Meeting Space $8,000.00

Breakfast and Reception $8,000.

(

DO

A\/ Equipment $1,000.00

Printing $2,000.00

M scellaneous $1,000.00

TotJil Interim Meeting $12,000.00

513 Corrimittee Meetings

513.1 Executive Committee $10,000.00

513.2 L & R Committee $4,000.00

513.3 S & T Committee $4,000.00

S&T Chair travel to SMA $2,000.00

513.4 A & P Committee $4,000.00

513.7 Annual Committees $3,000.00

0ther Committee Meetings $12,000.00

TotJil Committee Meetings $39,000.00

514 TasI< Forces & Special Committees

Procjram Evaluation (Reports to A&P) $6,000.00

HB 133 Handbook (Reports to L&R) $4,000.00

184
Executive Committee

Category

Number Account Oescnption

Proposed 1 FY 98 Budget

Legislative Liaison (Reports to

Executive)

$4,000.00

Metrology (Reports to Executive) $1,500.00

Strategic Plan (Reports to Executive) $10,000.00

Total Task Forces & Special

Committees $25,500.00

515 Chairman/Chairman Elect

Chairman $10,000.00

Chairman-Elect $10,000.00

Total Chairman/Chairman Elect $20,000.00

516 Administration

516.1 Equipment/suppiies/stationery $2,500.00

516.2 Contract Personnel $18,000.00

516.3 Mail/ PO Box $300.00

516.4 Treasurer's Bond $500.00

516.5 Interest Expense/Bank Charges $1,200.00

516.6 NTP $2,000.00

Legal Services $2,500.00

Insurance $1,500.00

Auditing Services $5,000.00

516.9 Miscellaneous $500.00

Total Administration $34,000.00

517 Printing and Publications

Annual Agenda $7,500.00

Interim Agenda $4,000.00

Membership $3,000.00

Membership Publications $10,000.00

Total Printing and Publications $24,500.00

185
Executive Committee

Hiiml>0r Acoqiint

..<:::>:->>?::-:-.- ——--- '1

Budget

581 Special Events $1,500.00

585 Promotional Items

TOT/O. INCOME

TOTAL EXPENSE

$500.00

$216,400.00

$ $100,000.00

186

Li
Executive Committee

Appendix O (Continued)

NCWM Budget for FY 1998

NTEP ACCOUNT

Category

Number 1 account u

600 GENERAL REVENU

- •>>-•- Proposed

escription FY 98 Budget ...........-.-.-.w.w.-.w.............. — ..M^,.-...-^^^^y.Y/^^m^Y(''if E

600.1 Maintenance Fees $140,000.00

660 SALES

661 Publications

661.1 Publication 14 $5,000.00

661.2 Publication 13 $5,000.00

Total Sales $10,000.00

665 NTEP LOGO

665.1 Seals $1,000.00

670 INTEREST INCOME $6,000.00

680 MISCELLANEOUS II^COME $3,000.00

TOTAL INCOME

700 ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

701 Administration (15% Maintenance Fee) $21,000.00

702 Personal Services $30,000.00

Legal Services $2,500.00

Insurance $1,500.00

Auditing Services $5,000.00

187
Executive Committee

1 Category

Number

705 c>upplies

rfoposea

FY 9$ Budget

$5,000.00

1 otai Administrative Expenses $65,000.00

710 EJoard of Governors

710.4 /appeal Hearing $10,000.00

710.5 ^"echnical Committee Meeting $10,000.00

c)ther Special Meetings $8,000.00

otal Board of Governors $28,000.00

715 FPARTICIPATING LABORATORIES

715.1 hJTEP Laboratory Training $12,000.00

^ 720 II^TERNATIONAL MEETINGS

721 C)IML $10,000.00

722 L

1 A f 1 t A f 1 JSA/Canada Work Group $12,000.00

T otal International Meetings $22,000.00

725 S>PECIAL COMMITTEES

725.1 S>oftware Group $3,500.00

730 T

c ECHNICAL COMMITTEE - WEIGHING

lECTOR

730.1 T echnical Committee Meeting $21,000.00

730.3 K/lultiple Dimensional Devices $3,500.00

7 otal Weighing Sector $24,500.00

188
Executive Committee

Category

Number

731 TECr

CON

Account uoscnption

HNICAL COMMITTEE - BELT

VEYOR

Proposed

Ft m Budget

731.1 Technical Committee Meeting $5,000.00

Total Belt Conveyor Sector $5,000.00

740 TECIMEAiNICAL COMMITTEE - SURING SECTOR

741.1 Tech nical Committee Meeting $14,000.00

Sub(Committee $8,000.00

Total Measuring Sector $22,000.00

750 EXPE

m 1 K 1 r FUNL

ENDITURE OF DEDICATED

JiNG

750.1 Gram

Comr

Equipment Cooperative Agreement

nittee $14,000.00

760 SALE:s $16,000.00

761 Public:ations

761.1 Publici^ation 14

761.2 Public:ation 5

765 NTEF>LOGO

765.1 Seals $1,000.00

770 INTEIREST EXPENSE/BANK CHARGES $500.00

780 MISC

tNCOME

ELLANEOUS EXPENSE $1,000.00

S^- $160,000,00

$114,500.00

189

Laws and Regulations Committee

Report of the Laws and Regulations Committee

Stanley K. Millay

Weights and Measures Supervisor

Maine Department of Agriculture

Reference

Key Number

200 Introduction

This is the Report of the Laws and Regulations Committee (Committee) for the 82"'' Annual Meeting of the National

Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM.) It is based on the Interim Report offered in the Conference "Program and

Committee Reports" (NCWM Publication 16), 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 the Committee's report was approved.

Table A identifies agenda items 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. Consent calendar items are marked with a "VC." Items marked with an "I" after the item number are for information. 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, 1997 edition, "Uniform Laws and Regulations," or NIST Handbook 133, "Checking

the Net Contents of Packaged Goods," Third Edition and Supplements 1 ( 1 990), 2 ( 199 1 ), 3 ( 1 992), and 4 ( 1 994). Revisions

proposed by the Committee are shown in bold face print by crossing out what is to be deleted and underlining what is to be

added. New items proposed for the handbooks are designated as such and shown in bold face print. Proposals presented

for information are shown in italic type unless identified as informational. The section mark, "§," is used in most references

in the text and is followed by the section number and title, (for example, § 1.2. Weight.) When used in this report the term

"weight" means "mass."

Subject Series

Handbook 130 - General

Uniform Laws

Weights and Measures Law (WML)

Weighmaster Law (WL)

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

Uniform Regulations

Packaging and Labeling Regulation (PLR)

Method of Sale of Commodities Regulation (MSCR)

Unit Pricing Regulation (UPR)

Voluntary Registration of Servicepersons and Service Agencies

for Commercial Weighing and Measuring Devices Regulation (VREG)

Open Dating Regulation (ODR)

National Type Evaluation Regulation (NTER)

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

Interpretations and Guidelines

Price Verification

NIST Handbook 133

Other Items

210 Series 220 Series 221 Series 222 Series 223 Series 230 Series 231 Series 232 Series 233 Series

234 Series 235 Series 236 Series 237 Series 238 Series 239 Series 250 Series 260 Senes

191
Laws and Regulations Committee

Table A Index to Reference Key Items

Reference

Key No. Title of Item Page

210 NIST Handbook 130 - General 194

210-1 I Ensuring the Uniform Packaging and Labeling Regulation (PLR) is Identical to Federal Regulations 1 94

231 Packaging and Labeling Regulation 194

231- 1 I Declaration of Responsibility on Imported Products 194

232 Method of Sale of Commodities Regulation 195

232- 1 I 2.4 Fireplace and Stove Wood 195

232-2 VC 2.5. Peat and Peat Moss 195

233 Uniform Unit Pricing Regulation 196

233- 1 VC Regulation Update and Revision 196

237 Uniform Engine Fuels, Petroleum Products, and Automotive Lubricants

Regulation 196

237-1 1 Define Grades for Diesel Fuel Based on Cetane Rating 196

237-2 V Nozzle Requirements for Diesel Fuel Dispensers 198

237-3 V 3.2.5. Prohibition of Terms 198

250 NIST Handbook 133 "Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods" 199

250-1 I Status of NIST Handbook 133 199

250-2 NIST Handbook 133 Working Group Proposals 199

250-2A VC Good Quantity Control Practices 200

250-2B VC Point-of-Pack Inspection Guidelines 200

250-2C VC Model Guidelines for Administrative Review Process 200

250-3 I Moisture Loss for Pasta and Rice 201

250-4 I Moisture Loss for Meat and Poultry Products 201

250-5 I Maximum Allowable Variations for Count Declarations on Seed 201

250-6 I Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) Packaged in Cylinders 201

250-7 I Test Procedure for Verifying the Basis Weight of Commimication Paper 202

260 Other Items 203

260- 1 I Committee Policy and Procedures 203

192
Laws and Regulations Committee

Table B

Appendices

Appendix Title Reference Key No. Page

Appendix A: Draft Revision of the Uniform Unit Pricing Regulation 233-1 205

Appendix B: Good Quantity Control Practices 250-1 A 207

Appendix C: Point-of-Pack Inspection Guidelines 250-lB 209

Appendix D: Model Guidelines for the Administrative Review Process 250- IC 211

Appendix E: Basis Weight Test Procedure for Communication and Other Paper 250-7 213

Table C

Voting Results

Reference Key No.

House of State Representatives

House of Delegates

Results Yes No Yes No

200 (Consent Calendar) 58 0 41 0 Passed

237-2 22 17 33 25 Failed

237-3 (Motion to Hear Amendment) 34 0 34 0 Passed

237-3 (Motion to Amend) 1 37 3 47 Failed

237-3 (No Change) 34 1 50 5 Passed

200 (Report in its Entirety) 38 0 63 0 Passed

193
Laws and Regulations Committee

Details of All Items

(In order by Reference Key Number)

210 NIST Handbook 130 - General

210-1 I Ensuring the Uniform Packaging and Labeling Regulation (PLR) is Identical to Federal Regulations

As of the Annual Meeting, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had not issued final regulations to implement the metric

revisions made to the Federal Fair Packaging and Labeling Act in 1992. The Committee will contact FDA to request that

final regulations be issued before the 1998 Interim Meetings so any changes needed in the handbook can be developed for NCWM consideration at the 83rd Armual Meeting.

231 Packaging and Labeling Regulation

231-1 I Declaration of Responsibility on Imported Products

Source: Western Weights and Measures Association

Discussion: Many imported products do not conform to the requirements ofthe Uniform Packaging and Labeling Regulation

(PLR) and the Federal Fair Packaging and Labeling Act (FPLA). Typically, packages manufactured in the United States are brought into compliance by contacting the U.S. based responsible party stated on the package. The move to a global economy

has reduced the consumer and industry protections provided by FPLA when the responsible party for the non-compliance

package is located outside of the United States. Factors that contribute to this are: increased investigation time, cost, distance,

language barriers, etc. These factors limit the ability of weights and measures officials to obtain corrective action and to prosecute repeat or non-compliant foreign based firms. Without these tools, there are few economic incentives for the manufacturer to comply with the requirements of the United States. The Western Weights and Measures Association

recommended that NCWM support amendments to the FPLA that require the name and address of a U.S. based responsible

party on all packaged products sold or offered for sale in this country.

The Committee received comments indicating that widespread labeling violations have existed for years and that the packages originate from both domestic and foreign firms. The National Association of Consumer Agency Administrators

(NACAA) submitted written comments supporting the Western's proposal to require a United States based resident agent for

all consumer commodities. NACAA is concerned about a variety of violations including, but not limited to, short fill, mislabeled product, defective materials and especially unsafe product, all ofwhich can only be resolved through contact with

a responsible party. However, it was pointed out that additional information is required, from both industry and government

officials, in order to effect an appropriate solution. The Industry Committee on Packaging and Labeling (ICPL) has agreed

to ask its membership to recommend possible solutions which would not impede on free trade. The ICPL recommended that the Committee contact the appropriate Federal Agencies (e.g., Customs, Federal Trade Commission, and the Food and Drug

Administration) requesting information on existing laws dealing with the traceability (i.e., relation to the source of

production, and accountability for the product) in order to obtain corrective action or taking enforcement action against

foreign manufacturers or distributors.

The Committee supports additional study of the issue and will forward it to the regional associations for comment. The

Committee did agree that one tool available to weights and measures officials in resolving problems with violative packages

is to hold retailers responsible for the packages. The Committee and the ICPL take the position that retailers should be held

responsible for offering mislabeled or otherwise violative packages for sale in their stores. This approach may well be one

of the most effective means for correcting the problem since retailers can work with their suppliers to make sure that the products they purchase are in compliance with weights and measures laws.

194
Laws and Regulations Committee

232 Method of Sale of Commodities Regulation

232-1 I 2.4 Fireplace and Stove Wood

Source: Central and Southern Regional Associations

Discussion: The Central Weights and Measures Association submitted a proposal to amend §2.4 to establish a method of sale

for flavoring chips. The Southern Weights and Measures Association amended the Central proposal by specifying that flavoring chips be sold by weight instead of volume. Comments received by the Committee at the Interim Meeting indicated

i that there were still issues to be resolved regarding this proposal. Concern was raised that the definition as proposed was

unclear and might conflict with the proposed method of sale due to unspecified quantity limitations. Comments were also received which indicated that the industry involved prefers that the method of sale be by volume. The Committee also feels that moisture loss needs to be considered before a method of sale by weight is considered. The Committee believes that wood

flavoring chips may already be effectively addressed in Section 2.4. 3. (a) - Packaged Natural Wood, but this section includes

requirements that may not be appropriate for small packages. Given the comments received, the Committee feels that the item should be returned to the regional associations for further study and comment. -

Alternate Proposal: The Committee is presenting the following amendments to the method ofsale ofcommodities regulation

for consideration by the regional associations:

Amend Section 2.4. Fireplace and Stove Wood, to include flavoring chips:

2.4. Fireplace and Stove Wood. — For the purpose of this regulation, this section shall apply to the sale of

all wood, natural and processed, for use as fuel or flavoring.

Amend Section 2.4.1. Definitions, by adding the following definition for flavoring chips:

2.4.1. Definitions. ~

2.4.1.4. Flavoring Chips. — Any wood, natural or processed, advertised, offered for sale or sold for flavoring

smoked or barbequed foods.

Amend Section 2.4.3. Quantity, by adding a new Section d. Flavoring Chips to require them to be sold by volume:

d. Flavoring Chips. —Natural or processed wood offered for sale in packages in quantities less than 85 L (3 cu ft) shall be sold by volume.

Source: Canadian Sphagnum Peat Moss Association

Recommendation: Amend Section 2.5.2.2. Cubic Measure by deleting the struck-through material as follows:

2.5.2.2. Cubic Measure. — Peat and peat moss sold in terms of cubic measures shall be offered and exposed

for sale only in liters and/or cubic feet. If the commodity is labeled in terms of compressed cubic

measurement, the quantity declaration shall represent the quantity in the compressed state, and the quantity

from which the final product was compressed (the latter declaration not exceeding the actual amount of

material that can be recovered.

Discussion: The current wording in §2.5.2.2. in the Method of Sale Regulation requires peat producers to estimate what

quantity each bale will yield. Producers ability to accurately identify the recoverable product is dependent on many variables such as: (1) variability of weather (dry and sunny conditions versus wet) can affect product to impact yields (2) moisture

content of the product when baled (3) yield will vary fi-om region to region and from bog to bog based on decomposition,

depth from which harvested and degree of fiber (4) bales stored over a winter result in different yields than if opened soon

232-2 VC 2.5. Peat and Peat Moss

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

195
Laws and Regulations Committee

after packing. At the Interim Meeting the Committee received numerous comments in support of this amendment and

therefore recommends adoption of this item.

233 Uniform Unit Pricing Regulation

233-1 VC Regulation Update and Revision

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

Source: Laws and Regulations Committee

Recommendation: Adopt the Uniform Unit Pricing Regulation as presented in Appendix A.

Discussion : In 1 993 the Committee was contacted by several weights and measures jurisdictions and retail trade associations requesting that the Uniform Unit Pricing Regulation (UPR) be updated to add new commodity groups and pricing

requirements. The comments indicated that many commodity groups for nonfood products were not included in the table and that some of the required units may not be appropriate for many of the new products being sold in stores. Another

concern was that the UPR specified pricing only on the basis of price per pound on most products sold by weight. This has

resulted in some jurisdictions not enforcing the requirements on stores that volxmtarily unit price on the basis of price per ounce instead of price per poimd. The Committee believes that the UPR should be revised to encourage wider adoption and

use of the uniform regulation and that provisions for unit pricing in metric units should be included.

At the 1996 Interim Meeting the Committee drafted a revision of the regulation (see Appendix A) to permit retail stores that voluntarily provide unit pricing to present prices using various units of measure. The Committee eliminated the table of

product groupings because it is difficult to keep it up to date and it was not all inclusive so some newer products were not

included under the uniform requirements. The table was replaced with requirements that specify that the unit price is to be

based on price per 1 00 grams or price per kilogram, or price per ounce or pound if the package is labeled by weight. For

example, the proposed revisions would require the unit price for soft drinks sold in various package sizes (e.g., 12 fl. oz. cans through 2-liter bottles) to be imiformly and consistently displayed in terms of either price per fluid oimce, or price per quart, or price per liter. The Coirmiittee also increased the price of commodities exempted from unit pricing from 10 cents to 50

cents. The Committee believes these revisions will ensure that unit pricing information facilitates value comparison between

different package sizes and/or brands offered for sale in a store.

The Committee also considered several comments on this item from members ofthe U.S. Metric Association (USMA). Most

of these comments suggested that the UPR be amended to require unit pricing in metric units and permit inch-pound unit pricing to be provided voluntarily. In response to this request, the Committee included guidelines for imit pricing in both

metric and inch-pound imits in its revision. The Committee would like to make it clear that the UPR applies only when stores voluntarily provide unit pricing information. Its purpose is to provide a standard that retailers must follow to ensure that consumers will have pricing information to help them make value comparisons. The decision to provide unit price

information in metric or inch-pound units rests with retailers who will respond to consumer preference. The Committee

believes that consumer preference will be the deciding factor as to when and how quickly metric unit pricing is used in the marketplace. Therefore, the Committee does not support amendments to include mandatory provisions in the UPR as these provisions would take the decision to go to metric unit pricing out of the hands of consumers and retailers. Finally, the Committee does not want to include any requirement that may discourage retailers from voluntarily providing unit price

information.

237 Uniform Engine Fuels, Petroleum Products, and

Automotive Lubricants Regulation

237-1 I Define Grades for Diesel Fuel Based on Cetane Rating

Source: Southern Weights and Measures Association (SWMA)

The SWMA requested that the NCWM adopt a definition of "regular" diesel fuel (e.g., a cetane rating below 45) and

"premium" diesel fiiels (e.g., a cetane rating of 45 or more) so that these fuels can be accurately and clearly identified.

196
Laws and Regulations Committee

Refiners have requested product registration from State Motor Fuel programs for diesel fuels that have been formulated to provide cleaner emissions or higher performance. Several refiners and marketers want to differentiate these grades of diesel

fuels in the marketing process. A cetane rating could be an indicator of fuel quality similar (but not equal to) to the octane

rating used for gasolines, and could serve to aid motorists in comparing the value and cost of the different "grades" of diesel

fuels. The Petroleum Subcommittee was charged with investigating the means of defining these fuels. A Premium Diesel

Work Group was formed and a work plan developed to address this issue. The work group consists of representatives of State petroleum programs, fiiel producers, the fuel additive industry, and a representative from the Engine Manufacturer's

Association (EMA).

Summary of Premium Diesel Work Group Report to the Laws and Regulations Committee

The Premium Diesel Work Group submitted a detailed diesel report to the Committee at the January 1997 Interim Meeting

in Rockville, Maryland. The report outlined the group's progress and the technical considerations being exammed for premium diesel. Additionally, the views of state regulators, the perspectives of the chemical manufacturers industry, the engine manufacturers, and the petroleum industry, along with individual letters submitted fi-om Citgo and Mobil, are presented

in the report. The initial work group report identifies five properties of diesel; cetane number, lubricity, detergency, API

Gravity, and low temperature properties. The criterion for including each characteristic was based on a function benefit to the user at higher levels of enhancement than required by ASTM D 975 Standard Specification For Diesel Fuel Oils, and the

availability of a test method.

Cetane: Cetane Number is a measure of the ignition quality of diesel fuel. Higher cetane number fuels result in a shorter

ignition delay period, lower combustion noise, improved combustion control, easier starting, faster warmups, and reduced

white smoke.

Lubricity: Fuels with enhanced lubricity minimize friction between, and damage to, surfaces in relative motion under a load. In particular, diesel fuel provides lubrication in certain parts of fuel injection equipment, such as rotary distributor pumps and

injectors. Reduced wear can extend the life of some components.

Detergency: Detergent additives are useful in preventing carbon deposits on fuel injectors that interfere with fueling and fuel spray patterns. The formation of lacquer and carbon deposits also cause injector needles and pump plungers to stick resulting

in a loss of power and fuel economy while increasing exhaust emission and smoke. Deposits on injector tips can affect fuel flow and atomization which also affect power, fuel economy, and emissions.

API Gravity: API (American Petroleum Institute) gravity is a measure ofspecific gravity or density (weight per unit volume)

for petroleum fuel. As API gravity increases, the thermal energy content of the fuel is decreased. Therefore, a maximum

API gravity or a minimum BTU content for premium diesel could assist in maintaining engine power and minimizmg fuel consumption.

Low Temperature Properties: While adequate low temperature properties are essential for all diesel fuels, this area is of

such wide concern and interest to the user segment of the industry, it is not bemg precluded from consideration as part of a premium diesel specification. Under low temperature conditions, paraffinic compounds of diesel may precipitate as wax,

causing engines to malfimction or stall fi-om blocked fuel system lines and filters.

With diverse views presented to the work group on the subject, the group concluded that a recommendation should be

developed in cooperation with ASTM. This suggestion has led to the formation of a joint NCWM/ASTM Premium Diesel

Task Force. The membership of this task force was formed at the December 1 996 ASTM D 2 meetings, and the first working

session was held at the offices of the PMAA during the week of the NCWM Interim meetings. The continuing objective of

this joint work group is to develop a recommendation for incorporation in the Uniform Engine Fuels, Petroluem Product, and

Automotive Lubricants Law and Regulation concerning "regular" and "premiimi" diesel so that these fuels can be accurately

and clearly identified through dispenser labeling or other means. In response to the SWMA request for the NCWM to adopt

a definition for "premium" diesel fuel, the petroleum subcommittee's premium diesel work group has continued to pursue

this issue. The work group provided a progress update to the Laws and Regulations Committee at the 82nd aimual meeting

which indicated that a recommendation would be submitted to the L & R committee in time for discussion at the January 1 998

NCWM Interim Meeting.

197
Laws and Regulations Committee

Status Report as of the 82"'' Annual Meeting

The premium diesel work group has had four meetings since the January 1997 NCWM Interim meeting, including a work

group assembly the week of the 82nd Annual NCWM. The work group is focusing on formulating qualifying parameters

for "premium" diesel based on properties that provided a functional benefit to the user. The properties selected and limits chosen are being derived from available research data. Six Action Teams formed in January 1997 have made initial recommendations to the work group based on the fiinctionality and practicality of six diesel fiiel properties. Properties under

review include cetane number, lubricity detergency, BTU content, low temperature operabilit/, and thermal stability.

The work is striving for a manageable alternative that will allow marketers to choose a minimum number of qualifying

properties a particular fuel would posses and post the values on a uniform labels. Petroleum quality enforcement would be

based on the properties declared on the dispenser label.

237-2 V Nozzle Requirements for Diesel Fuel Dispensers

(This item was not adopted.)

Source: Southern Weights and Measures Association

Recommendation: Amend Section 3.3. Diesel Fuel by adding a new Section 3.3.3. Nozzle Requirements for Diesel Fuels,

as presented below.

3.3.3. Nozzle Requirements for Diesel. - Within 12 months of the effective date of tiiis section. each dispensing device from which 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 inch.)

Discussion: This requirement will prevent consumers from inadvertently filling their vehicle gasoline tank with diesel fuel. The American Automobile Manufacturer's Association (AAMA) reported that the recommended fill pipe diameter is compatible with current diesel powered vehicles and those on the drawing board for the future. The AAMA and several

jurisdictions expressed support for this item at the Interim Meeting.

At the Annual Meeting the Committee received comments indicating that this requirement may be widely supported if amended to permit industry time to replace diesel dispenser nozzles as they wear out or are broken. The Committee agreed

that implementing the requirement over a year would give the industry the opportunity to replace existing equipment on a routine basis and thus reduce the economic impact of the requirement. Hence, it revised its original recommendation by

adding a provision to allow the industry 1 year from the effective date of the requirement to install the larger nozzle required

by the proposed regulation but the item was not adopted. The revised proposal is presented above; if it had been adopted to go into effect on January 1, 1998, would have allowed industry until January 1, 1999, to install the required nozzles.

237-3 V 3.2.5. Prohibition of Terms

(This item was adopted.)

Source: Southern Weights and Measures Association

Recommendation: Amend §3.2.5. by adding the term "Economy" and a reference to 86 octane product to clarify that sales of this fuel are permitted under the requirements specified in Table 1

.

198
Laws and Regulations Committee

Table 1. Minimum Antiknock Index Requirements

Terms 1 ivi u tom /\iiiiuuc iveuuciion

Areas IV and V

All tf^i-K A** A CnPA/i T\ AO 1 A A ^ All utner AallVi u 4ol4 Areas

Premium, Super, Supreme, High

Test

90 91

Midgrade, Plus 87 89

Regular Leaded 86 88

Regular, Unleaded (alone) 85 87

Economv 86

Discussion: This amendment would recognize and allow for the term "Economy" to be used to describe gasoline or gasoline

oxygenate blends with an antiknock index of 86. The Committee recommends adoption of this proposal. At the Annual

Meeting comments were received which expressed concern over the addition of the term "Economy" but motions to amend

the term to "Low Grade" or similar words were defeated.

250 NIST Handbook 133 "Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods"

250-1 I Status ofNIST Handbook 133

Background: This was Item 240-2 in the Report of the 78th NCWM, 1993, (page 236) and Item 250-1 in the Report of the 79th NCWM, 1994 (page 222). In the NCWM's petition to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on November 9, 1992,

States requested an exemption from preemption under Section 403 A(b) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to permit continued use ofNIST Handbook 133, "Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods," for testing foods for the accuracy of their quantity declarations. Extensive revisions were made to the handbook at the 79th NCWM Annual Meetmg,

and were published in November 1994 in a 4th supplement to the handbook. The Office of Weights and Measures has provided several successful training classes on the 4th supplement since its adoption, and its acceptance and implementation

are ahready underway in many States.

On March 4, 1997, FDA published its proposal to adopt NIST Handbook 133 in the Federal Register. The proposal begins

at page 9825 in Volume 62 No. 42 of the Register. This is the result of almost 5 years of work with that agency and will

result in a national standard for testing the net contents of packaged goods based on NIST Handbook 133. FDA is proposing

to revise its human and animal food labeling regulations that pertain to declarations of net quantity of contents on food

packages. This action would establish specific procedures for checking conformance to net contents labeling requirements

nationwide, and provide consumers with information that accurately reflects the actual contents of the package. These

procedures include analytical methods for evaluating declarations in terms ofmass or weight, volmne, and count. FDA is also proposing to require that food packed in a pressurized container bear a declaration of the net mass or weight of the contents expelled when the instructions for use are followed (the NCWM petitioned FDA to adopt this method of sale in 1979), and

to clarify when net content declarations expressed in terms of mass or weight are to be based on the contents without the packing medium (i.e., drained weight). Further, the agency is proposing to revise the standard of identity for fresh oysters

to incorporate the NCWM limit of 1 5 percent free liquid.

250-2 NIST Handbook 133 Working Group Proposals

The NIST Handbook 133 Working Group (Working Group) developed guidelines assist officials and industry in conducting

point ofpack inspections and in developing an administrative review process. The Committee distributed these as information

items for review at the regional meetings. Based on the comments received from the regional associations and at the Interim

Meeting the Committee recommended adoption of the items for inclusion in the Interpretations and Guidelines section of

NIST Handbook 130.

199
Laws and Regulations Committee

250-2A VC Good Quantity Control Practices

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

Recommendation: Adopt the Good Quantity Control Practices and add to the Interpretations and Guidelines section of

NIST Handbook 130.

Discussion: In Section 1 2. 1 . 1 . of the UPR, variations from declared net quantity are permitted when caused by unavoidable

deviations in weighing, measuring, or counting the contents of individual packages that occur in current good manufacturing

practice. Up to now the term "good" has not been defined. In Appendix B, the Committee is presenting guidelines that will help weights and measures officials and industry define what procedures constitute "good" manufacturing practices related

to net quantity. These guidelines will clarify that "variations" from the declared net quantity of contents are only permitted

in circumstances where the packer has "good" quantity control practices.

250-2B VC Point-of-Pack Inspection Guidelines

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

Recommendation: Adopt the Point-of-Pack Inspection Guidelines presented in Appendix C and add to the Interpretations

and Guidelines section of NIST Handbook 130.

Discussion: The Working Group explored the potential benefits of conducting net quantity of contents inspections at the point-of-pack. Several jurisdictions have requested guidance on how to conduct this type of inspection. In response to these requests the Working Group developed the outline presented in Appendix C. The outline provides guidance in opening,

conducting, and closing inspections and includes tips on how to conduct a thorough inspection. Recommended procedures

for plant personnel are also provided. The Committee supports the Working Group's goal of increasing the use of point-ofpack inspections to improve the effectiveness of net quantity of contents enforcement and recommends NCWM adoption of

the guidelines.

250-2C VC Model Guidelines for Administrative Review Process

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

Recommendation: Adopt the Model Guidelines for Administrative Review Process presented in Appendix D and add them

to the Interpretations and Guidelines section of NIST Handbook 130.

Discussion: Officials often take enforcement actions to prohibit the use ofdevices or sale ofpackaged 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 test procedures, misapplying labeling requirements, or incorrectly citing someone for a "violation") place the

official, or the jurisdiction in the position of being liable for the action if it results in lost business, or if it is found that the

action was "illegal." In some cases, a jurisdiction could be ordered to pay monetary damages to compensate the affected party

for the improper action. Recognizing these concerns, the Working Group developed an outline of an administrative review

procedure that is intended to ensure that persons affected by certain "inspection findings" (e.g., price misrepresentations or shortweight packages), or who are deprived ofthe use oftheir property (devices or packages placed under "stop" or "off-sale" order), have access to a timely independent review of the action. The guidelines are based on New York State procedures that were implemented in 1990 following settlement of a case regarding "due process" in the U.S. District Court of New York.

The guidelines will assist affected persons in providing information that could be relevant in determining whether the action was proper and ensure that their ability to conduct business is not hindered by improper enforcement actions. These

guidelines are provided to help jurisdictions develop their own administrative procedures and are intended for use independently of any other action (e.g., administrative penalty actions) that may be taken by an enforcement agency. The

Committee made several editorial revisions to this guideline in response to the comments received during the public hearing

at the Annual Meeting. These revisions are presented in Appendix D.

200
Laws and Regulations Committee

250-3 I Moisture Loss for Pasta and Rice

The Committee is delaying action on these items until the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issues a final regulation

regardmg net quantity of contents testing. See Item 250-1 for details on FDA's proposal to adopt NIST Handbook 133.

Background for Pasta: See Item 240-5 in the Report of the 75th NCWM, 1990 (page 107); Item 240-4 in the Report of the 76th NCWM, 1991 (page 219); Item 240-4 in the Report of the 77th NCWM, 1992 (page 154); Item 240-3 m the Report of

the 78th NCWM, 1993 (page 237); and Item 250-2 in the Report of the 79th NCWM, 1994, (page 225) for background. A

field study protocol has been developed by the National Pasta Association (NPA) for nationwide study to determme the moisture losses on various pasta products in different packaging materials. The study will be used to develop a gray area proposal for pasta products which lose moisture to the atmosphere.

Background for Rice: This was Item 240-7 m the Report of the 76th NCWM, 1991, (pages 221-222); Item 240-5 in the Report ofthe 77th NCWM, 1992 (page 154); and Item 250-3 in the Report of the 79th NCWM, 1994 (page 225). TheU.S.A.

Rice Federation (Federation) has requested that the Conference address the moisture loss ofpackaged rice in a manner similar

to that used for flour, namely, to establish a gray area for packaged rice. A field study protocol has been developed by the Federation for a nationwide study to determine the moisture losses of various rices in different packaging matenals.

250-4 I Moisture Loss for Meat and Poultry Products

Background: See Item 240-7 on page 239 in the Report of the 78th NCWM for background on this issue. The Committee w ill develop a workplan to implement studies on ice packed poultry for the spring of 1997. The Committee would like to recruit someone to coordinate one or more ofthese projects. Persons interested in participating in these studies should contact

the Committee's Technical Advisor. The Committee decided to provide support and resources to develop a gray area for ice- packed poultry since this commodity continues to be the subject of complaints about underweights fi-om small retailers. The

Committee will consider work in the other categories when resources permit.

1. Ice-packed bulk poultry

2. Raw meat products (chopped beef, ground beef, hamburger, and beef patties)

3. Cured pork products (hams, shoulders, and loins)

4. Cured beef products (corned beef, corned beef brisket, and tongues)

5. Ham patties, chopped ham, pressed ham, and similar products

6. Dry salami and other meat or poultry products that lose moisture to the atmosphere

250-5 I Maximum Allowable Variations for Count Declarations on Seed

This issue relates to the values ofthe Maximum Allowable Variations (MAVs) appropriate for count declarations on packages

of agricultural seed. The Committee has assigned this issue to the NIST Handbook 133 Working Group. The Working Group

will cooperate with mdustry, trade associations, and other interested parties to develop a proposal for consideration by the NCWM at the appropriate time. The American Seed Trade Association (ASTA) has established a work group comprised of

industry and government representatives to study this issue so that recommendations can be developed for consideration at the 1998 Interim Meeting. At the Aimual Meeting, Leslie Cahill, Vice President, Government Affairs, of the ASTA updated

the Committee on the association's work with the United States Department ofAgriculture to develop data to justify a revision

to the MAVs for items that include a declaration of count. The ASTA work is focusing on standardizing the procedures used

to insure the accuracy of electronic seed counters, and on developing uniform operational procedures for their use. Another

issue is the need to identify the impact of moismre loss on the accuracy of seed counts. The Committee received additional comments on this item regarding current NIST Handbook 133 test procedures for items labeled by count and the use of

supplementary declarations of count from the Central Weights and Measures Association. These questions will be considered

at die 1998 Interim Meeting.

250-6 I Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) Packaged in Cylinders

Background: The National Propane Gas Association (NPGA) made a presentation during the Interim Meeting conceming

the national implementation ofnew regulations and standards for small cylinders (i.e., those with a water capacity of between

4 and 40 pounds) used to deliver packaged LPG to consumers. The new safety regulations require that more than 60 million small LPG cylinders currently in use be modified to include a new Overfill Prevention Device (OPD) by 2002. These new

201
Laws and Regulations Committee

OPDs prevent cylinders from being filled to more than 80 percent of capacity. The purpose of the requirement is to ensure

that cylinders have room for product expansion if temperature increase. In most areas of the country the OPDs will restrict packers to filling a "20-pound" cylinder with no more than 1 8 pounds of LPG for home use, such as for barbecue grills, heating units, and recreational vehicles. However, when ambient temperatures are moderate, packers can put more than 1

8

pounds of LPG in the cylinder while in higher temperatures not more than 18 pounds can be put into cylinders. The actual amount of LPG any container will hold will vary, so sellers must inform consumers about the net quantity of contents of the cylinders they sell. The Conmiittee does not believe any changes are needed to NIST Handbook 130 or to Handbook 133. The Committee agreed to work with the NPGA to develop an educational effort to help to disseminate information on the new safety device and how its implementation will affect the display of net weight declarations in sales ofpropane cylinders.

250-7 I Test Procedure for Verifying the Basis Weight of Communication Paper

Source: Western Weights and Measures Association

Discussion: In response to complamts from paper converters (firms which convert bulk paper into smaller sizes and forms),

officials in the Western Weights and Measures Association (WWMA) have been verifying the identity and net quantity statements on a wide variety of paper. According to the WWMA inspectors have found that some converters, in an effort

to gain a competitive advantage, have resorted to misrepresenting the basis weight of paper. In 1 994, NCWM adopted a method of sale for packaged paper that requires that converters declare a basis weight that corresponds to the basis weight

declared by the original paper manufacturer. When it adopted the method of sale the NCWM recommended that officials work with industry to develop a test method for use in verifying the declared basis weight for all types ofpaper (see item 232-

6, page 217 in the Report of the 79* NCWM, 1994) Officials from Los Angeles County and the State of California worked

with representatives ofthe paper industry to develop a gravimetric testing procedure. Unlike other test procedures the NCWM

has considered, this procedure is not to be used for verifying the net quantity of contents of packaged paper which is labeled with dimensions (e.g., length and width) and count. Rather, the procedure is for use in verifying that the basis weight included

in a statement of identity is not misleading or deceptive. The Committee would like to point out that the procedure is for field surveillance work. It is not intended to be used as the fmal criterion on which enforcement action is taken. Instead, the test procedure is only used to identify potentially violative lots. There are two alternative actions that can be taken if the test results indicate that a lot is potentially violative. The first is to review the documentation supplied by the original

manufacturer to the converter to determine if any misrepresentation has occurred. The second is to collect samples of the paper and test them according to the latest version of American Society of Testing and Materials Standard Method D 646 for "Grammage of Paper and Paperboard."

The Committee received comments on the proposal that indicated that the implications ofthis issue are not widely understood

by NCWM members. While the Committee recognizes that only a fewjurisdictions have entered into this new area of weight

and measures enforcement, it is important that the NCWM support these jurisdictions in their efforts to develop test procedures and gain a base of experience in conducting investigations in new areas. The NCWM's assistance on this issue

is especially important to these jurisdictions since they are responding to requests for assistance from both consumers and

reputable converters, who find themselves at a competitive disadvantage when they bid on public and private paper purchasing contracts. The Committee is presenting the test procedure in Appendix E as an information item so it can be

considered at the other regional association meetings. It is presented as an amendment to Chapter 5 in NIST Handbook 133. However; since the procedure is not used for net quantity determinations the Committee is reluctant to include it in NIST

Handbook 133. Instead, the Committee is considering recommending that the test procedure be added to the Interpretations

and Guidelines Section of NIST Handbook 130. The Committee requests comments on this suggestion. The Committee

urges other jurisdictions to use the draft of the proposed test procedure, as presented in Appendix E to (1), determine if the procedure provides usefiil and accurate information, and (2) assess whether some converters in other regions of the country

are not providing accurate declarations of basis weight. The definition of communication paper may be found in Handbook

130, page 97, Section 2.28. At the Annual Meeting an official of Los Angeles County Weights and Measures submitted a revised Table 1 . Common Types of Paper to replace the one presented on page 1 57. The Committee supported the proposed

revision and presents the revised table below. The Committee requests that jurisdictions volunteer to try out the procedures

and submit comments and test results at the next Interim Meeting. Jurisdictions interested in using this test procedure can

obtain information and assistance from Robert Atkins, Los Angeles County Weights and Measures at 562-940-8941.

202
Laws and Regulations Committee

260 Other Items

260-1 I Committee Policy and Procedures

Source Laws and Regulations Committee

Proposal: The Committee proposes to clarify the methods by which items may be placed on the agenda. Methods proposed

include the following:

Agenda items passed through a minimum of one regional;

Committee chairman approval for items submitted by industry, OWM and other groups;

Provisions for "emergency" NCWM action.

An additional proposal to improve the flow of information from the NCWM Laws and Regulations Committee to regional

L&R committees (and vice versa) is to encourage the regional committees to place their NCWM committee representatives on the respective regional committees, either as regular members or as non-voting "ex officio" members.

Discussion: The Committee believes there is widespread confusion over the protocol that must be followed for placing items on the agenda. One of the main issues is whether items must be reported out of all ofthe regional meetings prior to placement on the agenda, or if action by one region is sufficient. The Committee feels that action by one regional association automatically qualifies an item for agenda placement. One reason for this is that issues submitted at the Southern Weights

and Measures Association would be delayed an entire year if approval from more than one association were required.

Another justification for the "one region" requirement is that there is no way to ensure that an item approved by the Western

or other associations will be placed on the agenda of the Southern or any of the other regional meetings.

The Committee also feels that provisions for extra-regional action should be made to allow interim agenda access. These

circumstances would include exercising the Committee Chairman's prerogative with regard to issues brought forward by

industry associations, individual industry, the NIST Handbook 133 Working Group, the Petroleum Subcommittee, and the Office of Weights and Measures. The Committee feels that allowing the Chairman prudent discretion in placing items on

the agenda outside the regional channels is appropriate and preserves the spirit of access to the conference. The Committee

also believes that items from other standing committees, subcommittees, or NCWM working groups can be placed on the interim agenda at the discretion of the Committee Chairman. This allows for the consideration of "emergency" items not discussed at the regional level prior to the agenda-setting meeting. It is suggested that a "flow chart" on agenda procedures

be adopted by the NCWM for use by all standing committees.

The Committee also recognized that there is often a communication gap between the workings of the NCWM Laws and

Regulations Committee and the L&R Committees established at the regional level. This can result in misinterpretations of

the NCWM L&R Committee's positions and incomplete or late regional reports. This results in the region missing the cutoff

for agenda consideration at the NCWM Interim Meeting. The Committee feels that this problem could largely be eliminated

by ensuring that the regional NCWM L&R member be maintained on the regional committee itself This member could be

voting or non-voting (ex officio), with the idea that the national committee representative could effectively represent the national committee's positions and, in turn, communicate the regional concems back to the national committee.

Guidelines for Submitting Proposed Amendments to the Laws and Regulations Committee

The Committee has updated its guidelines for submitting proposed amendments for consideration at the Interim Meetmgs

and is presenting them in their entirety for the information of the membership.

The NCWM Committee on Laws and Regulations provides the mechanism for consideration of amendments or additions to the Uniform Laws and Regulations. Recommendations for changes should be directed to the Committee on Laws and

Regulations, National Conference on Weights and Measures, P.O. Box 4025, Gaithersburg, MD, 20885 (with a copy to the Executive Secretary at the same address). Recommendations and comments on agenda items can be submitted by E-mail

through Ken Butcher, the Committee's Technical Advisor, at kbutcher@nist.gov or by Fax at 301-926-0647.

203
Laws and Regulations Committee

• Your proposal should address problems or issues that are national or regional in scope. Proposals should contain

a concise statement ofthe problem and clearly outline the purpose and national or regional need for its consideration.

• Proposals should be accompanied by adequate background material, including test data, analysis oftest data, or other appropriately researched and documented material. This material will allow the Committee to either make a suitable recommendation for NCWM action or consider the need for further study. When possible, solutions to problems

should be proposed and stated in specific language and format in amendment form to Conference documents.

• To be considered by the Committee for action during the upcoming Conference, your proposal must be presented

in writmg to the Committee by November 1 prior to the Interim Meetings (in January of each year). Whenever

possible, an electronic copy of the background material and proposed amendment(s) should be submitted on a 3 .5 inch computer disk or via e-mail (OWM is currently using Wordperfect 7.0 for Windows 95. This program can

convert most other word processing files for use so it is not necessary for you to only use Wordperfect.

)

• NCWM members should utilize their regional associations for initial exploration of issues and to use the resources of all member States within that regional association to assist in the development of well documented proposals

where applicable. Please note that proposals submitted directly to the Committee without regional association

consideration may be carried over as information items on the Committee's Interim Report which may delay NCWM

action on the issue for an additional year. In its consideration of any issue the Committee may decline to take action on a recommendation, make it an informational item and send it to a subcommittee or working group for study or send it to the regional associations for review.

• If a proposal involves a new field of weights and measures control, inspection, or activity, please make

recommendations for both Uniform Regulations and test methods to provide for uniform enforcement.

Additionally, when a proposal that would modify or add to Handbook 1 30 is presented to the Committee, the proposal should:

• Identify the pertinent portion, section, and paragraph of the existing publication (e.g.. Uniform Regulation for the Method of Sale of Commodities, §

2.8.).

• Where applicable, provide evidence of consistency with other portions of NCWM publications (such as with other Uniform Laws and Regulations).

• Where applicable, provide evidence of being identical to Federal laws and regulations (such as Food and Drug

Administration, U. S. Department of Agriculture, or Federal Trade Commission regulations).

The Committee recommends that the Executive Committee use the policies and procedures presented in this item and by the Specification and Tolerances Committee to develop a single set of guidelines for submitting items for NCWM consideration.

S. MiUay, Maine, Chairman

K. Angell, West Virginia

S. Morrison, San Luis Obispo County, California

M. Pinagel, Michigan

R. Williams, Tennessee

Industry Representative: Claire Regan, Grocery Manufacturers of America

NIST Handbook 133 Working Group: B. Bloch, California, Chairman

Petroleum Subcommittee: Randy Jennings, Termessee, Chairman

Canadian Technical Advisor: G. Jorowski and J. Watters NIST Technical Advisors: K. Butcher and T. Coleman

Committee on Laws and Regulations

204
Laws and Regulations Committee

Appendix A

Uniform Unit Pricing Regulation

Section 1. Application

\ Except for random and uniform weight packages that

j, clearly state the unit price in accord with existing

' regulations, any retail establishment providing unit price information for packaged commodities, in

) addition to the total price, shall provide the unit price

information in the manner prescribed herein.

Section 2. Terms for Unit Pricing

The declaration of the unit price of a particular

commodity in all package sizes offered for sale in a

retail establishment shall be uniformly and consistently

expressed in terms of:

1. Price per kilogram or 1 00 grams, or price per pound

or ounce if the net quantity of contents of the commodity is in terms of weight.

I 2. Price per liter or 1 00 milliliters, or price per dry

j quart or dry pint if the net quantity of contents of the

I commodity is in terms of dry measure or volume.

3. Price per liter or 100 milliliters, or price per gallon,

quart, pint, or fluid ounce if the net quantity of contents of the commodity is in terms of liquid volume.

4. Price per individual unit or multiple units, if the net

quantity of contents of the commodity is in terms of

count.

5. Price per square meter, square decimeter, or square

centimeter, or price per square yard, square foot, or square inch if the net quantity of contents of the commodity is in terms of area.

Section 3. Exemptions

1. Small Packages. - Commodities shall be exempt

from these provisions when packaged in quantities of

less than 28 g (1 ounce) or 29 ml (1 fluid ounce) or when the total retail price is 50 cents or less.

2. Single Items. - Commodities shall be exempt from

these provisions when there is only one brand in only one size offered for sale in particular retail establishment.

3. Infant Formula. - For "infant formula" unit price

information may be expressed based on the

reconstituted volume. "Infant formula" means a food

that is represented for special dietary use solely as a food for infants by reasons of its simulation of human

milk or suitability as a complete or partial substitute for human milk.

4. Variety and Combination Packages. - Variety and

Combination Packages as defined in §2.9 and §2.10 in the Uniform Packaging and LabelingRegulation'^" "^"'^

shall be exempt from these provisions.

Note 1: See NIST Handbook 130 "Uniform Packaging

and Labeling Regulation. " __

Section 4. Pricing

1. The unit price shall be to the nearest cent when a dollar or more.

2. If the unit price is under a dollar, it shall be listed:

a. to the tenth of a cent, or

b. to the whole cent.

c. the retail establishment shall have the option of using

2(a) or (b) but shall not implement both methods.

d. the retail establishment shall accurately and

consistently use the same method of rounding up or down to compute the price to the whole cent.

Section 5. Presentation of Price

1. In any retail establishment in which the unit price

information is provided in accordance with the provisions of this regulation, that information may be

displayed by means of a sign that offers the unit price for one or more brands and/or sizes of a given

commodity, by means of a sticker, stamp, sign, label, or tag affixed to the shelf upon which the commodity

is displayed, or by means of a sticker, stamp, sign, able, or tag affixed to the consumer commodity.

2. Where a sign providing imit price information for one or more sizes or brands of a given commodity is used, that sign shall be clearly and in a nondeceptive manner in a central location as close as practical to all items to which the sign refers.

3. If a single sign or tag includes the unit price

information for more than one brand or size of a given

205
Laws and Regulations Committee

commodity, then the following information shall be

provided:

(a) The identity and the brand name of the commodity.

(b) The quantity of the packaged commodity if more

than one package size per brand is displayed.

(c) The total retail sales price.

(d) The price per appropriate unit, in accordance with

Section 2. Terms for Unit Pricing.

Section 6. Uniformity

1. If different brands or package sizes of the same

consumer commodity are expressed in more than one

unit of measure (e.g., soft drinks are offered for sale in 2 liter bottles and 12 fl. oz. cans), the retail establishment shall unit price the items consistently.

2. When metric units appear on the consumer

commodity, in addition to the other units of measure,

the retail establishment may include both units of measure on any stamps, tags, labels, signs, or lists.

Section 7. Effective Date

This regulation shall become effective on 199_. Given under my hand and the seal of my office in the City of , on this day of , 199_.

206
Laws and Regulations Committee

Appendix B

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.

11. Controls over automated data systems and software used in quantity control ensures 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. 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. Persoimel 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.

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.

207
Laws and Regulations Committee

Appendix C

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 to product packed

on premise or stored in warehouse areas.

4. Obtain permission from a plant representative prior to using a tape recorder or camera.

5. Conduct inspection related activities in a professional

and appropriate manner. 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 traceable to NIST used by the firm to verify device accuracy?

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 is any

question regarding tare determination, weigh a representative number of tare and/or filled packages.

(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

MaximumAllowable 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. Closing 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.

208
Laws and Regulations Committee

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 or if is the result of a consumer complaint. If it is for a complaint, obtain as much information as possible concerning the nature of the complaint so that the firm can respond appropriately.

4. The plant manager, quality assurance manager, or any

designated representative should accompany the inspector.

5. Plant personnel should take note of the inspectors

comments during the inspection and prepare a detailed writeup 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

mspection/test.

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 ofshipping 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 ofthe 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 dehvery 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 a problem lots including names of customers.

209
Laws and Regulations Committee

Appendix D

Model Guidelines for the Administrative Review Bue Process Procedures

A. Purpose.- These guidelines are provided for weights

and measures programs who choose to establish an

administrative review process. They are not intended to be

the only process an agency may use. Nor are they

intended to supersede any jurisdiction's existing process.

Prior to implementing ANY process legal counsel should

be consulted.

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 administrative review process

enables affected persons to provide evidence which could

be relevant in determining whether an 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. aetiotts) that may be taken by

the enforcement agency.

B. 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 ofthe impact that such actions may have on the ability of a business to operate, and in cases where

perishable products may be lost.

C. Due Process Review Provisions. - Parties affected by

enforcement actions must be given the opportunity to appeal enforcement actions.

- Inspectors make primary, contact with firms and are in the best position to ensure the enforcement actions 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 which 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 strict 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 the firm's representative may provide

information to the inspector which may resolve any issues or concerns before enforcement action is taken. In some

cases, relevant information may be provided which may

not persuade the inspector to forego action. In other cases business representative may not understand the circumstances surrounding the violations, or there may be

a conflict between the parties that they caimot resolve. In other cases, the owner, or manufacturer may leam that an enforcement action has occurred after the inspector has

left the establishment.

210
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:

- 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 timelv within three (3) business days ofthe date of receipt of a written request for review of such

order, to a prompt, impartial, administrative review of

such off-sale order or finding.

The following 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 boA the retailer responsible firm (e.g.. person or firm

identified on the product label):

Laws and Regulations Committee

Sample Notice

You have the right to Administrative Review of this order or flnding. 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 Offlcial)

Your request should reference any information that you

believe supports the withdrawal or modification of the order or finding.

-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.

- No fees should be imposed for the administrative review

process.

- The firm responsible for the product or the retailer may

introduce any record or other relevant evidence.

including, but not limited: 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.

- The reviewer must consider the inspector's report, findings, and actions as well as any evidence introduced

by the owner, distributer, packager, or retailer as part of

the review process.

211
Laws and Regulations Committee

- The reviewer must provide a timely written

recommendation within five business days of the following review unless additional time is agreed to by the department and the petitioner.

- 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.

- 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.

212
Laws and Regulations Committee

Appendix E

Basis Weight Test Procedure for Communication and Other Paper

5.8. Test Procedure for Verifying the Basis

Weight of Communication Paper

5.8.1. Equipment

• Linear measure as recommended in Section 5.3.

Equipment.

• Scale with a minimum division of 0.5 g (0.001 lb) or

less.

• Scientific calculator with a sample standard deviation

function (On-1) key.

5.8.2. Scope and Recommended Enforcement

Approach. - Paper is manufactured in various basis weights for use in different applications (e.g., copy paper

can have a basis weight of 1 8 or 20 lbs.) Basis weight is part of the product identity and not a declaration of net

contents. This procedure is used to verify the basis weight

declared on package labels. If the tested packages in a sample do not have an average basis weight equal to or

greater than the labeled basis weight, the inspection lot may be violative. A potentially violative lot should be

placed "off-sale" until the owner provides documentation

to confirm that the labeled basis weight corresponds to the

basis weight declared by the original manufacturer. If documentation is not provided, the inspection lot should

remain "off-sale" until the basis weight declaration is corrected.

5.8.3. Basis Weight. - The basis weight of paper is the designated fixed weight (measured in grams or pounds per

specified area) of one ream in basic sheet size fi-om which

the paper was made. This permits the confirmation of

basis weight by linear measurement and gravimetric

testing. This procedure is designed to test the various

types, size, count, and basis weights of packaged paper

currently in the marketplace. Table 1 lists the basic size for common types of paper. A "ream" is 500 sheets of

basic size paper, but a ream of tissue paper is 480 sheets. Each of the categories of paper products shown in Table

1 has a different standard size for an individual sheet of

paper, hence a different square area. If the paper product

of concern does not appear in Table 1 , refer to Section

5.8.4.2. Although there are basic sizes, paper is packaged,

and marketed in various sizes and counts. The net weight

of packaged paper can be determined from the label information using the General Formula for Sheet Paper. For roll paper, use one (1) for the sheet count.

General Formula for Sheet Paper

PA X BW SC

X = TNW

BSS 500

Where:

PA = area of one sheet of paper BW = labeled basis weight

BSS = area of basis sheet size from

Table 1. SC = package sheet count TNW = target net weight of paper

5.8.4. Test Procedure. - The following gravimetric,

measuring, and counting procedures shall be used to determine if packages are accurately labeled. Procedures

are also provided for verifying net quantity of content

declarations for count and dimensions (e.g., length and

width.)

5.8.4.1. Sample Selection. - Select a sample from an

inspection lot using Table 2- 1 Sampling Plans ofCategory

A (page B-2.) Determine an average tare weight in accordance with 4. Tare Procedures in Section 3 Core

Method for Checking the Net Contents of Packaged

Goods in the 4"" Supplement.

5.8.4.2 Determine Net Weight of Non-Basic Size

Paper.-Verify the basis weight declared on a package

using the following gravimetric procedure:

a. Record the following information from the package

label on a worksheet (See Figure 1 for a sample label.)

1. Type of Paper (TP)

2. Length (L)

3. Width (W)

4. Package Sheet Count (PSC)

5. Basis Weight (BW)

6. Basis Size Sheet (BSS)

213
Laws and Regulations Committee

Example

White Copy Paper

75 g/m^ (20 lb) Bond

Size: 216 mm x 279 mm (8V2 in x 11 in)

Basis Size: 43.1 cm x 55.8 cm (17 in x 22 in)

Count: 500 sheets

Figure 1 . Sample Label

b. Compute the Target Net Weight (TNW) for the sample

packages using the General Formula for Sheet Paper.

Basis Weight Worksheet (see Figure 1)

Type of Paper (TP): Copy Paper

Length (L): 11 in Width (W): S'A in Area of Sheet (LxW) : 93.5 in^ Package Sheet Count (PSC): 500

Basis Weight (BW): 20 lb Basis Size Sheet (BSS) : 17 in x 22 in Area for BSS from Table 1 : 374 in^

Use the General Formula to compute Target Net Weight (TNW):

93.5 X 20 500 ^ ,^ X = 5 lb 374 500

Target Net Weight (TNW) = 5 lb

c. Determine the average net weight of the sample

packages (do not use sample error limit calculations.) If the average net weight is not equal to or more than the Target Net Weight go to Section 5.8.4.3. to determine if the labeled basis weight (BW) is correct. If the average net weight is equal to or more than the labeled basis weight the sample passes.

5.8.4.3. Determine Basis Weight. - This procedure is used

to identify potentially violative packages. If the Average

Basis Weight (ABW) for the sample determined by this procedure is not equal to or greater than the labeled basis

weight other steps must be taken. Moisture affects the weight of paper but the moisture content of paper only be

determined in a measurement laboratory according to

American Society of Testing and Materials D 646 - 95,

"Standard Test Method for Grammage of Paper and

Paperboard (Weight Per Area Unit)."

a. Verify basis weight according to the following steps:

i. Identify the paper type from Column 1 in Table 1 and

record the area for the paper type from Column 3.

ii. Select a sample of paper from each of the tare sample

packages. Use a sample of exact count to eliminate the

possibility that the packages are short count.

- For packages with sheet count of 500 or more, use 100

sheets.

- For packages with less than 500 sheets, use 20 percent of

label sheet count.

iii. Use a basis weight work sheet and determine the number of basic size sheets the paper sample represents

with the following formula:

AREA

X EC = ENBSS

Where:

A = area of basic sheet size from Table 1 AREA = area (1 x w) of one sheet of paper

EC = exact sheet count of sample

ENBSS = equivalent number of basis size sheets

iv. Determine the actual basis weight:

NWx RC

ENBSS

= BW

Where:

ABW

ENBSS

NW

RC

= basis weight = equivalent number of basis size sheets from

step iii. = net weight of sample = Ream Count (500; for tissue paper use 480)

214
Laws and Regulations Committee

Table 1. Common Types of Paper

Paner Xvne Area Square Units

Bond, Ledger, Thin, and Writing 2412 cm (374 in)

Manuscript Cover 3599 cm (558 in)

Blotting 2941 cm (456 in)

Cover 3354 cm (520 m)

Blanks 3974 cm (616 m)

Printing Bristols 4135 cm (641 m)

Wrapping, Tissue, Waxed, Newsprint and Tag Stock 5574 cm (864 in)

Book, Offset, and Text 6129 cm (950 in)

Index Bristol 5019 cm (778 m)

V. Repeat this step for each paper sample and average the

basis weights from each package to obtain an Average

Basis Weight (ABW.) If the ABW is less than the labeled

basis weight or if the difference between the basis weight

of the sample packages is more than 1 scale division, take

a sample of paper from each of the remaining and follow

step a.

vi. Weigh each sub-sample. If the basis weight from step

iv is different from the labeled basis weight, re-calculate

the target net weight using the general formula for sheet paper using the BW computed for the sample packages in steps iii and iv.

vii. Use the target net weight computed in viii and re- weigh the inspection samples using Section 3. Core

Method for Checking the Net Contents of Packaged

Goods. If inspection sample weights differ from the target net weight computed using the basis weight determined in

viii. it is likely the label sheet count is inaccurate.

b. Confirm the label sheet count. Count the number of

sheets in each package or determine conformance using the gravimetric procedure in Section 5.1.3. of Handbook 133.

c. Verify dimensions (length x width) on paper from each

package of the sample. If actual measurements do not meet

label claims, follow steps 4 through 12 of Section 5.3.2. of

Handbook 133 to determine conformance.

5.8.4.3. L Other Types of Paper

1 . Roll Paper.- When testing rolled paper cut a length off

the roll equal to 9,350 divided by the width. For example,

{9350 in/8.5 in = 813.043 inches). Make sure the ends of

this length of paper are square. Proceed to section 5.8.4.3

step a. Disregard the exact sheet count in step iii.

i. Count out a sample of 100 sheets from each tare sample

package of the inspection lot.

ii. Weigh each 100 sheet sample and record the weights.

iii. Calculate an average weight.

iv. Remove printer tractor feed strips.

V. Re-weigh sample and record the weights.

vi. Calculate an average weight.

vii. Calculate percentage (%) difference in average

weights.

viii. Subtract the average weight in step ii. from the average weight in step vi.

ix. Divide the difference by average weight in step i.

X. Using the samples after the track segments have been

removed, verify the basis weight for the packages of the inspection lot using the formulas in 5.8.4.2. If the basis weight differs from the label basis weight, go to step

c.viii.

xi. Increase the re-calculated weight of the General

Formula by the percentage (%) in step viii.

xii. Go to step C(ix).

2. Continuous Track Feed Printer Paper:

215
I

i
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Report of the Committee on

Specifications and Tolerances

Ronald D. Murdock, Chainnan

Measurement Section Standards Division

North Carolina

Introduction

This is the Final Report of the Committee on Specifications and Tolerances for the 82nd Armual Meeting of the National

Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM). This report is based on the Interim Report offered in the Conference

"Program and Committee Reports" (NCWM Publication 16), the Addendum Sheets issued at the Annual Meeting, and

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

Table A identifies the items in the Report by Reference Key Niunber, Item Titie, and Page Number. The item numbers are those assigned in the Interim Meeting Agenda. Voting, items are indicated with a "V" after the item number. Consent

calendar items are marked with a "VC." Items marked with an "I" after the reference key number are information items. The items marked with a "W" were withdrawn by the Committee. Items marked with a "W" generally will be referred back

to the regional weights and measures associations because they either need additional development, analysis, and input, or did not have sufficient support of the Committee to bring them before the NCWM.

The attached Report contains many recommendations to revise or amend National Institute of Standards and Technology

(NIST) Handbook 44, 1998 Edition, "Specifications, Tolerances, and other Technical Requirements for Weighing and

Measuring Devices." Proposed revisions to the handbook are shown in bold face print by crossing out what is to be deleted,

and underlining what is to be added. Requirements that are proposed to be noiu-etioactive are printed in italics. Entirely new paragraphs or sections proposed for addition to the handbook are designated as such and shown in bold face print.

Note: The policy of the National Institute of Standards and Technology is to use metric units of measurement in all of its pubUcations; however, recommendations received by the NCWM technical committees have been printed in this publication

as they were submitted and may therefore contain references to inch-pound units.

Agenda Items

Reference

Key No. Title of Item Page

General Code

310-1 I G-S. 1. Identification and Appendix D, Definitions for Manufactured and Remanufactured

Devices 220

Scales Code

320-1 W S.2.3.X. Dump-Through Vehicle Scales 222

320-2 V Table 3 Parameters for Accuracy Classes; Multiple-Range and Multi-Interval Scales 223

320-3 VC N. 1.3.4. Shift Test for Vehicle Scales, Axle-Load Scales and Livestock Scales v^ith More Than

Two Sections; Definition for "r" Factor 225

320-4 W N. 1.5. Discrimination Test 226

320-5 VC T.N. 9. Radio Frequency Interference (RFI) and Other Electromagnetic Interference SusceptibiUty 227

217
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Agenda Items (Continued)

Reference

Key No. Title of Item Page

320-6 VC UR.2.9. Provision for Testing In-Motion Monorail Scales 228

320-7 W UR.3.1. Recommended Minimum Load and Table 8. Recommended Minimum Load 228

320-8 VC Definitions for Maximum Number of Scale Divisions (n^„) and Minimuip Verification Scale

Division (e^J 229

Belt-Conveyor Scale Systems Code

321- 1 A I UR.2.2.1. (c) for Scales not Installed by the Manufacturer 230

321- lB I UR.2.2.1. (g) for Scales not Installed by the Manufacnirer 231

Automatic Bulk Weighing Systems Code

322- 1 VC S.3.3. Overfill Sensor 232

Automatic Weighing Systems - Tentative Code

324-1 VC Recognition of Shipping Applications; Clarification of Code Requirements 233

Liquid-Measuring Devices Code

330-1 V S. 1.6.4.1. Unit Price; Exclusions for Fleet Sales, Other Price Contract Sales and Truck

Refueling Dispensers 236

330-2 VC S. 1.6.7. Recorded Representations, Point of Sale Systems and Appendix D, Definition for Point

of Sale System 237

330-3 W S.2.2. Provision for Sealing; Definition of System Controller as Used in the Audit Trail Criteria 238

330-4 W S.X for Retail Motor-Fuel Dispensers; Use of Full Computing Dispensers 240

330-5 W Nozzle Requirements for Diesel Fuel Dispensers 242

330-6 W U. 3.4.x. Printed Ticket; Cash-, Credit Card- or Debit Card-Activated Retail Motor-Fuel

Dispenser 242

Vehicle-Tank Meters Code

331- 1 W S.3.6. Antidrain Valve 243

Liquefled Petroleum Gas and Anhydrous Ammonia

Liquid-Measuring Devices Code

332- 1 I N.4.1. Normal Tests 244

332-2 W N.4.2.2. Retail Motor-Fuel Devices (a) and (b) 245

332-3 VC T.3. Repeatability 245

332-4 V T.4. Automatic Temperature-Compensating Systems 248

Mass Flow Meters Code

337-1 VC A.l. Application - Liquids and S. 1.3.1. Units of Measurement; Volume Units of Measure .... 249

337-2 VC S.3.6.(b) Automatic Density Correction; Volume-Measuring Devices 250

218
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Agenda Items (Continued)

Reference

Key No. Title of Item

\ Page

337-3 I UR.3.7. Renim of Product to Storage - Compressed Natural Gas Dispensers 251

337-4 VC Changes to Section 3.37 to Correspond to Liquid-Measuring Devices Code 253

Berry Baskets and Boxes Code

346-1 W Changes to Recognize Use of Nonrigid Containers 255

5.56(a) Grain Moisture Meters Code

356- 1 VC S.2.5. Provision for Sealing 256

Near-Infrared Grain Analyzers Code

357- 1 VC S.2.6. Provision for Sealing 259

Other Items

360-1 W Identification of Code Sections Not Designed for Field Application 260

360-2 I OIMLRepon 260

360-3 I Committee Policy and Procedures 262

Table C

Voting Results

Reference Key No.

House of State Representatives

House of Delegates

Results Yes No Yes No

300 (Consent Calendar) 40 0 51 0 Passed

320-2 42 0 60 0 Passed

330-1 39 1 58 0 Passed

332-4 30 8 33 23 Passed

Report in its Entirety 42 0 64 0 Passed

219
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Details of All Items

General Code

310-1 I G-S.l. Identification and Appendix D, Definitions; for Manufactured and

Remanufactured Devices

Source: Central Weights and Measures Association

Discussion: In response to the Committee's request for language to describe remanufactured equipment applications,

industry representatives presented the following language during the Annual Meeting.

The Gasoline Pump Manufacturers Association (GPMA), working closely with equipment remanufacturers, proposed the following new paragraph for inclusion in the Liquid-Measuring Device Code:

S.4.5. Additional Labeling for Retail Motor Fuel Dispensers. Any retail motor fuel dispenser other than new, when resold for placement into service, must be marked (name, address, phone nimiber') to identify the source . [Nonretroactive as of January 1. 199X1

The Scale Manufacturers Association (SMA) proposed the following definitions for Remanufactured Device, Reconditioned

Device, and Repaired Device be added to the Scales Code to aid the National Conference on Weights and Measures

(NCWM) in its discussions and to further clarify the issues.

Remanufactured Device. A device which had been remmed to a like new operating condition by the

ori gmal equipment manufacturer or manufacturer's agent.

Reconditioned Device. A device which has been returned to operating condition by other than the

original manufacturer or manufacturer's agent by use of the original equipment manufacmrer's approved

components.

Repaired Device. A device which has been returned to operating condition after having undergone

metrologically significant repair.

The SMA notes that similar efforts should be made to ensure that uniform definitions are eventually incorporated into other

related publications, such as, NIST Handbook 130 and NCWM Publication 14.

The Committee encourages the associate membership to continue to work to reach a consensus on appropriate language

which describes labeling requirements for non-original manufacturer equipment.

Background: During the 1997 Interim Meeting, a special meeting was held in conjunction with the Committee's Agenda

Review session to allow for additional comments from interested parties on the subject of remanufactured equipment and to give further consideration to the following proposal:

G-S . 1 . Identification.

(e) Remanufacturer: In addition to the markings required in paragraphs (a) through (d). a device that has been substantially altered, remanufactured or removed from the location must be labeled with the "Remanufacturer's" name or logo and month and year of remanufacture.

(Added 1997)

Modify the definition for "manufactured device" and add a definition for remanufactured device to Handbook 44 Appendix

D as follows:

manufactured device. Any new device or any other device that has been removed from service and

...i- «n .. H;. iiy il l i- A .i r rchiiiU as shipped from the original manufacmrer .il. 101

220
specifications and Tolerances Committee

remanufactured device. Any device that has been substantially altered, remanufactured or removed from

the location.

Based on input at the special meeting and other comments, the Committee decided to make the item informational to allow

additional time for industry to resolve differences on the proposed language. It was noted that the Committee is also allowing

additional time so that language may be developed and submitted to the regional weights and measures associations for study,

because the Committee is intent on moving this forward as a voting item in 1998. The Committee also asked that the new

language should contain specific examples of how this requirement applies and what effect these changes have on the

Certificate of Conformance issued to a device. During the special meeting, participants with similar views were encouraged

to present their positions jointly. Comments were heard from George Anderson (DurEquip), Mike Futral and Rod Smith

(Tronitec, Incorporated), Dan Graff (Graffco, Incorporated), Doug and Rick Long (RDM Electronics), Gordon Johnson

(GPMA), Tom McGee (PMP Corporation), Mark Morgan (Petroleum Transportation and Storage Association), Dave Quinn

(Fairbanks), Paul Peterson (USDA-GIPSA), Bob Traettino (Meter Manufacturers Association), and Daryl Tonini (Scale

Manufacturers Association). At the conclusion of the Interim Meeting, the GPMA worked with some of the remanufacturers

to develop some revisions to its origmal proposal for paragraph G-S. 1 .(e) which read as follows:

(e) In addition to the markings required in paragraphs (a) and (d). any commercial weighing and

measuring devices, other than a device that is new from the manufacturer, must be marked fin addition to the original equipment manufacturer's markings') to identify the source of the device. The source may be either the remanufacturer. rebuilder. or refiirbisher of the device.

This revised proposal received support from some of the remanufacturers present; however, a general consensus on the language was not reached.

Prior to the Interim Meeting the Committee received numerous comments from the retail motor-fuel dispenser service industry indicating its opposition to the proposal as stated. The Committee received petitions from the owners of retail motor-fuel installations which stated that the proposal as written 1) inadequately defmed remanufacmred and

remanufacturer, 2) addressed a problem already controlled by existing regulation, 3) did not recognize that used/rebuilt

retail motor-fuel equipment is economically and environmentally a sound practice, and 4) would lead to restrictions on the buying, selling and reuse of remanufactured devices.

While remanufacturers did not appear to object to the concept of identifying remanufactured devices they did express concerns over the restrictions which might be placed on the use of remanufactured devices and how they conduct business. Some remanufacturers present at the special meeting mdicated that they routinely relabel devices, although it appears that there is some inconsistency in the information placed on those labels.

Comments to the Committee prior to die Interim Meeting indicated that the term "remanufactured" was vague, unreliable,

unrealistic, undefmable, and too broad to address the specific circumstances surrounding each technology. It was clear from

the many comments received that there is a genuine concern over whedier the proposed code should apply to all classes of devices or specific device types. Representatives from the scale industry indicated that this requirement might be more

appropriate if it were placed in the Liquid-Measurmg Devices Code. GPMA indicated they proposed that the requirement

become part of the General Code at the suggestion of weights and measures officials. Comments from GPMA indicate that

its original intent was not to require a device which is moved from one location to another to be relabelled. GPMA also noted that at the first indication of a problem with a retail motor-fuel dispenser, the original equipment manufacturer (OEM)

is frequentiy contacted by the device owner. In response, the OEM sends an engineer to investigate the problem only to discover that the nonoperational components were not factory parts nor were they installed by the OEM's authorized

representative.

In reviewing the original proposal, the Western and Northeastern Weights and Measures Associations considered a remanufactured device one which was removed from service and substantially altered or rebuilt. The Western felt use of

the term "removed from the location" in defining a remanufacmrer might be interpreted to apply to devices temporarily

installed in a location. The Northeastern supported die intent of the proposal with the suggestion that "offered for sale" be

incorporated into the G-S.l. description of a remanufacturer. The Western did not incorporate the date of remanufacture

as part of the identification requirements. The Western also felt that the definition of "remanufactured" needed further

clarification and study so it gave this proposal informational status. The Southern Weights and Measures Association

supported the intent of the proposal and encouraged the NCWM S«&T Committee to address the issue; however, it believed

221
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

the definitions warranted further clarification and study before recommending the proposal for a vote. Particular areas of concern include multiple interpretations of the terms "removed from service," "repaired," "refurbished," "reconditioned,"

"resold," etc., as used in die definition and in context with various types of technology. The Southern noted that additional input may be needed from all manufacturers who might be impacted by the addition of this requirement to the General

Code. The Southern also indicated that once a definition is established, consideration must be given to how the field official will enforce the requirement.

The Scale Manufacturers Association (SMA) indicated that it appreciates GPMA's concern, but does not feel that this situation should be addressed in the General Code Section of Handbook 44. It was noted that the proposed language might

be applicable in at least eight measuring device code sections. An alternative suggestion was to place the requirement in the general code with some indication that it applies only to the measuring devices.

Consideration was also given to existing NTEP policy, which states that changes to the original equipment manufacturer's

design require the remanufacturer to obtain a separate Certificate of Conformance for the device. It was pointed out that

it is difficult for field officials to determine whether design changes have occurred which are no longer consistent with the

original manufacturer's design. One remanufacturer present noted that it was not the intent of remanufacturers to change

time-proven designs. Many comments were expressed on the need to know exactly when a device is no longer traceable

to the original equipment manufacturer once the original components are replaced with equivalent parts. Additional concerns centered on the inability of a new owner to determine who is responsible for equipment after a change in ownership or when multiple repairs have been made to an individual device. Also questioned was the number of labels that could be placed on one device; the concern was raised that this may add to the confusion over who is responsible for a

device, thus undermining the whole purpose of relabelling with the remanufacnirer information. Otiier comments indicated

that this may be a jurisdictional problem because some weights and measures offices do not receive adequate notification of work performed by registered servicepersons and agencies.

The Meter Manufactiu-ers Association (MMA) indicated its support for requiring a remanufacturer 's label and a separate

certificate due to safety and performance issues that may surface when specific components, such as the metal

specifications, are altered on a device. It was noted that NTEP policy does address replacement parts and substitution of

load cells for NTEP scales. Additionally, scale systems and components, unlike other devices, are also evaluated for influence factors, such as temperature.

The GPMA believes that identification of remanufactured equipment would be beneficial to weights and measures officials and equipment purchasers. GPMA felt that this information ensures the traceability of equipment by providing the information necessary to determine the party responsible for a device which may lay beyond the original manufacturer.

The Central Weights and Measures Association supports the proposal as written from the GPMA.

Scales Code

320-1 W S.2.3.X. Dump-Through Vehicle Scales

(This item was withdrawn.)

Source: Central Weights and Measures Association

Discussion: The Committee reviewed a proposal to add the following paragraph to the Scales Code of Handbook 44:

S.2.3.X. Dump-Through Vehicle Scales. - On a dump-through vehicle scale, if the receiving hopper is attached to the load receiving or weighing element. Provisions shall be made to inhibit the printing of

a tare weight until the receiving hopper is completely empty.

(Added 1997)

The Central Weights and Measures Association had encountered dump-through scales being used in grain weighing

operations. Inspectors observed installations where the scale operator obtains a tare weight for the truck while unaware

that grain remains in the hopper. The system design is such that the operator is unable to determine that grain is still present in the hopper. Additionally, it is possible for grain to continue to move through the system without detection. The

222
specifications and Tolerances Committee

movement of the imdetected grain in the system results in inaccurate net weights, which have generated subsequent

complaints

The proposed Handbook requirement was recommended to prevent the premature determination of tare weights before the hopper is empty. The Central recommended that this requirement also be applied to railway track scales used for similar weighment, and recommended that the requirement be nonretroactive as of January 1, 1998.

The Committee observed a video in which weighings were performed at a dump-dirough vehicle scale. The Committee

acknowledged a possible problem in determining tare weights; however, it had concerns about a requirement being added

to the Specifications section, rather than to the User Requirement Section. The Committee heard comments from the Scale Manufacturer's Association (SMA) mdicating that the various manufacturers of weighing system components are not able

to control how the device is assembled and that this might be more appropriately remedied as a user requirement. The

Committee considered adding a user requirement; however, further discussion indicated that there are already sections of the General Code such as "G-S.2. Facilitation of Fraud" and "G-UR.3.2 Associated and Nonassociated Equipment" which may

adequately address the situation. These code requirements already require that equipment be constructed, assembled, and

installed for use so that it does not facilitate fraud and require the device to meet performance requirements when any

associated equipment is operated in its usual manner and location. The Committee did not receive additional comments on

this proposal from other jurisdictions encountering similar problems. Because the Committee felt that the General Code

paragraphs noted above already address this issue, the creation of a separate Handbook 44 Code requirement did not seem

warranted at this time. Consequently, the Committee has withdrawn this issue from its agenda.

320-2 V Table 3 Parameters for Accuracy Classes; Multiple Range and MultiInterval Scales

(This item was adopted.)

Source: Central Weights and Measures Association

Recommendation: Add a footoote to Table 3 to address the accuracy class of multiple range and multi-interval scales as follows:

223
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Table 3

Parameters for Accuracy Classes

Number of scale Class Value of the verification divisions (n) scale division (d or e') Minimum MaximumSI Units

I equal to or greater than 1 mg 50 000

II 1 to SO mg, inclusive 100 100 000

equal to or greater than 100 mg 5 000 100 000 IIP O.I to 2 g, inclusive 100 10 000

IIIL^

nil

equal to or greater than 5 g 500 10 000

equal to or greater that 2 kg 2 000 10 000

equal to or greater than 5 g 100 1200

INCH-POUND UnUs

III 0.0002 lb to 0.005 lb, inclusive 100 10 000

0.005 oz to 0.125 oz, inclusive 100 10 000

equal to or greater than 0.01 lb 500 10 000

equal to or greater than 0.25 oz 500 10 000

IIIL^ equal to or greater than 5 lb 2 000 10 000

ini greater than 0.01 lb 100 1200

greater than 0.25 oz 100 1200

'For Class I and II devices equipped with auxiliary reading means (i.e., a rider, a vernier, or a least significant decimal

differentiated by size, shape or color), the value of the verification scale division "e "is the value of the scale division immediately preceding the auxiliary means. For Class III and IIII devices, the value of "e "is specified by the manufacturer as marked on the device; "e "must be less than or equal to "d. "

^ A scale marked 'For prescription weighing only "may have a scale division not less than 0.01 g. (Added 1986)

^ The value of a scale division for crane and hopper (other than grain hopper) scales shall be not less than 0.2 kg (0.5 lb). The minimum number of scale divisions shall be not less than 1 000.

-On a multiple range or multi-interval scale, the number of divisions for each range independently shall not exceed the maximum specified for the accuracy class. The number of scale divisions, n. for each weighing range is determined bv dividing

the scale capacity for each range by the verification scale division, e. for each range. On a scale system with multiple load

receiving elements and multiple indications each element considered shall not independently exceed the maximum specified for

the accuracy class. If the system has a summing indicator, the for the summed element shall not exceed the maximum

specified for the accuracy class. (Added 1997)

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1986.]

(Amended 1986^ and 1987 and 1997)

Discussion: The Central Weights and Measures Association reported that questions are frequently asked about the maximum number of scale divisions (n) allowable for scales equipped with either the multiple range or multi-interval

feature. It is believed that the addition of a foomote describing how the maximum number of divisions is to be calculated

for scales with these features will address questions which may arise from the field official and device manufacturer.

The proposal originally submitted by the Central included a reference to a maximum of 10 000 divisions. The Committee

heard comments expressing concern that the language appeared to limit Class I and II devices to a maximum of 10 000

divisions; however, the Committee did not believe that this was the original intent of the proposal. Consequently, the Committee removed the reference to "10 000 divisions" from the proposal.

The Committee believes the proposed foomote will help to eliminate confusion about how to correcdy calculate the number

of divisions for scales with multiple range and multi-interval features.

224
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Based on comments reviewed at the 1997 Annual Meeting, the Committee made further modifications to the original

footnote, to clarify that the maximum permissible values are specific to each particular accuracy class. The Scale Manufacturers Association supported the modifications to the original proposal which are intended to clarify the requirement.

320-3 VC N. 1.3.4. Shift Test for Vehicle Scales, Axle-Load Scales and Livestock

Scales with More Than Two Sections; Definition for "r" Factor

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

Source: Southern Weights and Measures Association

Recommendation: Modify N. 1.3.4. as follows:

N.1.3.4. Vehicle Scales, Axle-Load Scales, and Livestock Scales With More Than Two Sections. - A shift test shall be conducted with at least two different test loads and may be performed anywhere on the load-receiving element using the prescribed test patterns and maximum test loads specified

below. (Two-section livestock scales shall be tested consistent with N.1.3.8.)

(Amended 1991

)

(a) Prescribed Test Pattern. The normal prescribed test pattern shall be an area at least of 1.2 m (4 ft) lottg in length and as wide as the scale platform. Multiple test patterns may be

utilized when loaded in accordance with Paragraph (b).

fAmended 1997)

(b) Maximum Loading. When loading the scale for testing, one side of the test pattern shall be

loaded to no more than one quarter half of the concentrated load capacity (CLO or test load

before loading the other side. The area covered bv the test load mav be less than 1.2 m f4

ft) X the width of the scale: for test patterns less than 1.2 m (4 ft) in length, the maximum

loading shall meet the formula (wheel base of test cart or length of test load divided by 48

in) X 0.9 X CLC. The maximum test load applied to the prescribed each test pattern shall not exceed the concentrated load capacity or; of the scale. When the test pattern exceeds 1.2 m

(4 ft), the maximum test load applied shall not exceed the concentrated load capacity times

the largest "r" factor in Table UR.3.2.1. for the length of the area covered by the test load. For seates weighing elements installed prior to January 1, 1989, the rated section capacity

may be substituted for concentrated load capacity to determine maximum loading. An

example of a possible test pattern is shown below:

(Amended 1997)

4' 4' 4' 4*

^ I

4'

Section

1 Midway

between

sections

1 and 2

Section

2

Midway

between

sections 2 and 3

Section

3

Add a definition to Appendix D, Definitions of Handbook 44 to read as follows:

"r" factor. A computation for determining the suitability of a vehicle scale for weighing vehicles

with varving axle configurations. The factor was derived by dividing the weights in FHWA Federal

225
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Highway Bridge Gross Weight Table B by 34 OOP lbs. (The resultant factors contained in Table

Discussion: At its 1996 Annual Meeting, the NCWM adopted changes to Handbook 44 which recognized the relationship

between the Federal Highway Administration Bridge Gross Weight Formula and the "r" factor. A user requirement,

UR.3.2.1. and accompanying Table UR.3.2.1. were added to the Scales Code to specify the maximum loading of a vehicle

scale for a given vehicle based upon the axle configuration of the vehicle and the scale's concentrated load capacity (CLC).

At the 1996 Annual Meeting, the S&T Committee was also asked to consider the changes outlined m the above

reconmiendation; however, the Conraiittee felt that these changes were too significant to propose without due smdy and

consideration by full membership of the NCWM. Consequently, the Committee suggested that proposed changes be

submitted for consideration at a later time.

The recommended changes proposed in this item modify paragraph N. 1.3.4. to recognize that testing equipment does not always fit within the 4-foot long spacing specified in the paragraph. The proposed modifications specify that, if a longer

testing pattern is used, the spacing should correspond to the values specified in Table UR.3.2. 1 . The recommended changes

also included the proposed addition of a definition to explain the term "r factor" which currently appears in Table UR.3.2. 1.

During the 1997 Interim Meeting, the Committee heard comments that restricting one side of the test pattern to one quarter

of the test load may create difficulty for agencies which must align motorized tests carts to achieve the proper test pattern.

The Committee reviewed past conference reports to determine whether or not there were any conflicts with modifying the maximum loading pattern to one half the test load. It was felt that the original restriction may have been designed to prevent damage to the scale deck and possibly the load cell; however, discussions with large scale manufacturers indicate

that loading a scale with such a pattern would not create problems. Therefore, the Committee recommends changing the requirement to permit the loading of one side of the test pattern to one half the test load before loading the other side.

Based on comments, heard during the Annual Meeting Open Hearing, fi-om the Scale Manufactiu-ers Association in support

of the language proposed by the Central, the Committee modified the original proposal to include provisions for test equipment which may be less than 1.2 m (4 ft) in length. The Committee believes the modifications to the proposal allows a shift test to be conducted with all possible configurations of testing equipment.

320-4 W N.1.5. Discrimination Test

(This item was withdrawn.)

Source: Central Weights and Measures Association

Discussion: The Committee considered the following recommendation:

N.1.5. Discrimination Test. - A discrimination test sftaii may be conducted on all automatic indicating

scales with the weighing device in equilibrium at zero load and at maximum test load, and under

controlled conditions in which environmentalfactors are reduced to the extent that they will not affect the

results obtained.

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1986.J (Added 1985) (Amended 1997^

The Central reported difficulties in performing discrimination tests on both automatic and nonautomatic indicating scales during field testing. The Central believes that environmental conditions are sometimes so adverse that they prevent the performance of a discrimination test. Additionally, it felt that discrimination tests are more appropriate as part of the type

evaluation process or initial inspection by weights and measures officials. Several jurisdictions indicate that they do not conduct discrimination tests. The Central believes that the change in the wording from "shall," which is mandatory, to "may," which is permissive, still allows jurisdictions to continue to conduct discrimination tests when environmental factors are favorable and take action on devices which do not meet compliance.

The Committee recognizes that the discrimination test is intended to be performed only if the environmental factors can be

reduced to the extent that they do not affect the accuracy of the results. The Committee also considered alternate language

which might clarify when this test should be performed; however, the Committee believes that the language added to the

226
specifications and Tolerances Committee

Introduction Section of Handbook 44 as a result of a 1996 emergency item on this issue addresses this situation. The

Committee was concerned that changing the requirement to include the word "may" could result in the interpretation that the

test is optional even in applications where the environmental conditions are well-controlled. Consequently, it is does not believe that modifications should be made to N. 1.5. at this time and has withdrawn this item from its agenda.

320-5 VC T.N.9. Radio Frequency Interference (RFI) and Other Electromagnetic

Interference Susceptibility

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

Source: Central Weights and Measures Association

Recommendation: Amend paragraph T.N. 9. as follows:

T.N.9. Radio Frequency Interference (RFI) and Other Electromagnetic

Interference Susceptibility. - The difference between the weight indication with

due to the disturbance and the weight indication without the disturbance shall not exceed one scale division (d) or the equipment shall: (Amended 1997)

(a) blank the indication, or

(b) provide an error message, or

(c) the indication shall be so completely unstable that it could not be

interpreted, or transmitted into memory or to a recording element, as a

correct measurement value.

(Added 1986)

The tolerance in T.N.9. is to be applied independently of other tolerances. For example, if indications are at the allowable basic tolerance error limits when disturbances occur then it is acceptable that the indication mav exceed the applicable basic tolerances during the disturbance.

(Added 1997)

Note: During the editorial review after the 1997 NCWM Annual Meeting, the text in the footnote was revised to clarify the intent of when tolerances are applied and acceptable, in concurrence with the NCWM S&T Committee.

Discussion: The Central recommended additional language to clarify the intent of the applicable tolerance in T.N. 9. It is noted that there is currently a misunderstanding about the correct way to apply this paragraph. An example given of how

this tolerance may be misinterpreted is that of a 30-lb capacity scale with 0.01 divisions, under a test load of 6 lbs, that is reading 6.02 lbs. As T.N. 9. now reads, it appears an additional 0.01 lb (1 d) error would be permissible; thus, a scale reading of 6.03 lbs would be an acceptable change in indication for a 6 lb test load when subjected to RFI. This 0.03 lb error is outside of the allowable tolerance for the device based on Table 6. The confusion arises in determining how

paragraph T.N. 2. 3. is to be applied. Paragraph T.N.2. 3. states that the basic tolerances of Table 6 apply regardless of the influence factors in effect at the time of the conduct of the examination.

During the Interim Meeting Open Session, comments from officials and industry indicated that the focus should be on

defining disturbances with significant fault and which tolerances apply when a device is subjected to influence factors.

The Committee agrees that paragraph T.N. 9. is meant to limit only the variation in a scale's indication when the scale is subjected to RFI and other influences, and it is intended to be applied independent of paragraph T.N. 2. 3. However, the Committee acknowledges that T.N. 9. may appear to conflict with paragraph T.N. 2. 3. and proposes the addition of a

footnote to eliminate confusion.

227
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

The Committee received comments at the Annual Meeting which indicate a need for additional clarification of how the tolerances are applied due to and without the influence factor; so the original proposal was further modified to clarily those

areas.

320-6 VC UR.2.9. Provision for Testing In-Motion Monorail Scales

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

Source: Central Weights and Measures Association

Recommendation: Add a new paragraph UR.2.9. Provision for Testing In-Motion Monorail Scales to the User

Requirements in Handbook 44 as follows:

UR.2.9. Provision for Testing In-Motion Monorail Scales. - Provisions shall be made at the time of

installation of an in-motion monorail scale for testing in accordance with N. 1.3. 6.1. (a rail around or

other means for returning the test carcasses to the scale being tested). [Nonretroactive as of January 1. 19981

(Added 1997)

Discussion: During the 1996 NCWM Annual Meeting, the Conference adopted N. 1.3.6.1. In-Motion Monorail Scales. - Dynamic Tests with Livestock Carcasses as a test procedure that assesses the dynamic effects of a weighing-in-motion

monorail scale. The Central felt that the proposed User Requirement in the above recommendation is needed to facilitate testing of the device with carcasses under conditions which reflect actual use.

The Committee received comments expressing concern that pulling carcasses into a rail around area might result in health and safety violations because the carcass is being handled more and is not processed as quickly. The Committee

acknowledges and appreciates the health and safety regulations which apply to these plants; however, comments submitted

indicate that use of rail around areas during testing might actually lessen the handling time of the carcasses compared with

conventional test methods.

Comments from Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyard Administration (GIPSA) indicate that an as-used test is essential for these devices since static tests with test weights do not duplicate the dynamic effects of a carcass on the weighing

operation. It was also noted that most plants conduct their own accuracy tests several times a day due to their concern over

the economic impact of an inaccurate scale. These same plants perform large numbers of weighings where they typically

have incorporated a rail around design into these new installations.

The Committee also heard concerns over the expense of modifying existing plants to meet the new user requirement;

however, it should be noted that the requirements are intended to be applied only to new scale installations.

The Committee believes that the proposed requirement for a rail around area would help to facilitate testing, decrease

handling time, and provide an indication of the dynamic performance of the scale as it is used.

320-7 W U.R.3.1. Recommended Minimum Load and Table 8 Recommended

Minimum Load

(This item was withdrawn.)

Source: Northeastern Weights and Measures Association (NEWMA)

Discussion: The Committee considered the following proposal to remove the term "recommended" from paragraph

UR.3.1 and Table 8:

UR.3. 1 Recommended Minimum Load. -A recommended The load is specified in Table 8 since the use of a device to weigh light loads is likely to result in relatively large errors.

228
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

1 aoie o Recommended Minimum Load

Class Value of scale division Rccommendc-d

(d or e*) minimum load

(d or e*)

I equal to or greater than 0.001 g 100

II 0.001 to 0.05 g, inclusive 20

equal to or greater than 0.1 g 50

III All** 20

IIIL All 50

IIII All 10

*For Class I and II devices equipped with auxiliary reading means (i.e., a rider, a vernier, or a least significant decimal

differentiated by size, shape or color), the value of the verification scale division "e" is the value of the scale division immediately preceding the auxiliary means. For Class III and IIII devices the value of "e" is specified by the manufacturer as marked on the device; "e" must be less than or equal to "d."

**A The minimum load of 10 d is recommended for a weight classifier marked in accordance with a statement identifying its use for special applications.

(Amended 1990 and 1997)

Comments from the Western Weights and Measures Association indicate that the removal of the word "recommended" from

paragraph UR.3.1. and Table 8 would create a mandatory minimum load requirement for all transactions that would be

difficuh to enforce. The Southern Weights and Measures concurred with the Western's position. The Southern recognizes

that the NCWM has made this proposal in the past; however, while it appreciates the intent of the proposal and agrees with

it in principle, the Southern also felt it unrealistic to enforce. In considering past recommendations, the NCWM was unable

to develop a proposal which adequately addressed the concerns of suitability for all types of devices. During its open hearing

session, the Southern heard comments that it might be appropriate to clarify the intended application of the requirement.

Consequently the Southern recommended keeping all reference to "recommended" in paragraph UR.3. 1 . and Table 8. and

to insert the term "net" prior to the term "load."

Committee discussions during the Interim Meeting, acknowledged that confusion sometimes arises over whether this table

is intended to specify minimum net load or gross load. The Committee noted that the correct interpretation of this paragraph is that the term "minimum load" refers to the "net" load. The Committee considered adding the term "net" to the

table to eliminate this confusion; however, the Committee did not feel that removal of the term "recommended" or addition

of the term "net" is appropriate at this time because of the difficulty m consistently enforcing the criteria without additional guidelines for the field official. For example, a 30 lb x 0.01-lb deli scale is not suitable for use under 20 d on a regular

basis; however, preventing occasional use below the minimum is unrealistic. Consequently, the Committee has withdrawn

this item from its agenda.

320-8 VC Definitions for Maximum Number of Scale Divisions (n^^x) Minimum

Verification Scale Division (en^J

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

Source: Western Weights and Measures Association

Recommendation: Add definitions for n „^ (maximum number of scale divisions) and e^i^ (minimum verification scale division) to Appendix D the Definitions section of NIST Handbook 44 as follows:

229
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

n„„ (maximum number of scale divisions). The maximum number of scale divisions for which a main element or load cell complies with the applicable requirements. The maximum number of scale divisions permitted for an installation is limited to the lowest n ^„ marked on the scale indicating

element, weighing element, or load cell.[2.20. 2.21)

e„i„ (minimum verification scale division). The smallest scale division for which a weighing element

complies with the applicable requirements.[2.20. 2.21]

Discussion: During its 1996 Annual Meeting, the NCWM added a definition for Load Cell Verification Division (v to NIST Handbook 44. It was noted during discussion at the 1996 Interim Meeting that there was an absence of terms to define other parameters which are used to describe accuracy and other requirements for weighing elements. The S&T Committee

indicated its belief that future consideration should be given to including the definitions in Handbook 44 for Maximum

Number of Scale Divisions and Minimum Verification Scale Division. Additionally, it was noted that the appropriate

references to scale division (d), verification scale interval (e), and number of scale divisions (n) should be part of these

definitions.

The Committee supported the proposed definition for n^„ and continued to encourage any additional input which further provides defmitive language for these terms. During the open hearing, the Committee heard comments that e^,„ is most

accurately described by not limiting the defmition to the effects on the weighing element when subjected to influence factors alone, but should recognize the smallest scale division at which the weighing element is able to comply with all the applicable

requirements.

The Scale Manufacturer's Association indicated support for the proposal's intent to defme the maximum number of scale

divisions; however, it favors the defmition of minimum verification scale division as it applies to the full range of applicable

requirements.

The Southern Weights and Measures Association supported the Western's proposed defmition for n „^and e„i„.

At the Annual Meeting, the Committee heard comments that the definition of en,in should be expanded to include other components in a weighing system.

Belt-Conveyor Scale Systems Code

321-lA I UR.2.2.1. (c) for Scales not Installed by the Manufacturer

(Item 321-1 was separated into two parts 321-1 A and 321 -IB during the 1997 Interim Meeting to facilitate review of the

issues involved.)

Source: Central Weights and Measures Association; Item 321-1

Recommendation: Modify paragraph UR.2.2.1.(c) as follows:

UR.2.2.1. For Scales not Installed by the Manufacturer. - Unless the scale is installed in a short

conveyor designed and furnished by the scale manufacturer or built to the scale manufacturer's

specifications, the conveyor shall comply with the following minimum requirements:

(c) If there is a concave curve in the conveyor between before or after the scale and the loading

point, the scale shall be installed so that the belt is in contact with aU the idlers rollers at

all times for at least 6 m (20 ft) or 5 idler spaces, whichever is greater, before and after the

scale.^ A concave curve beyond the scale shall start no closer than 12 m (40 ft) from the

scale to the tangent point of the concave curve. (Amended 1997)

230
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Discussion: This item was originally presented as a single proposal with the proposal in 321- IB. This pan of the proposal was subsequently presented as a separate item because the Committee felt that further study was warranted to define the term "scale quality type idlers." The Committee agreed that the proposed changes to UR.2.2.1.(c) for the location of a concave curve in the conveyor and the contact points of the belt with the idler rollers was a separate issue from the determination of whether the scale systems idlers are "scale quality type idlers" as proposed in paragraph UR.2.2.1.(g).

Consequently, paragraph UR.2.2.1.(g) was moved from item 321-1 until such time that work could be completed on a

definition of "scale quality type idlers."

The Belt Conveyor Sector supports the recommended proposal by the National Coal Weighing and Sampling Association

(NCW&SA). The NCW&SA believes that it is important to give equal consideration to a' concave curve in the conveyor

belt before and after the scale and that it should be mandated that all rollers be in contact with the belt in order for the

installation to meet the accuracy and repeatability requirements in Handbook 44.

The Central supported this proposal.

The Committee heard comments at the Aimual Meeting which indicate that the proposal is unclear in the reference to the position of the curve and its relation to the tangent point of the curve. The Committee agrees that there is some ambiguity

about the term "short conveyor"; therefore, it has removed this item from the voting calendar and given it informational

status until the text is expanded to add clarification in those areas.

321-lB I UR.2.2.1. (g) for Scales not Installed by the Manufacturer

(This item was added to the Committee's agenda as a result of discussions during the Interim Meeting.)

Source: Central Weights and Measures Association; Item 321-1

Discussion: This item was originally presented as single proposal (321-1) combined with the proposal in 321-1 A. This

part of the proposal was subsequently presented as a separate item because the Committee felt that further study was

warranted to defme the term "scale quality type idlers." The Committee agreed that the proposed changes to UR.2.2. l.(c) for the location of a concave curve in the conveyor and the contact points of the belt with the idler rollers was a separate

issue from the determination of whether the scale systems idlers are "scale quality type idlers" as proposed in paragraph

UR.2.2. l.(g). Consequently, paragraph UR.2.2. l.(g) was moved from item 321-1 until such time that work could be

completed on a definition of "scale quality type idlers."

In 1995, the Conveyor Equipment Manufacturers Association (CEMA) adopted a voluntary standard for "Scale Quality

Idlers". The new standard requires idlers to be designed to ensure minimum deflection under load and includes other alignment criteria necessary to ensure an accurate weighment. The National Coal Weighing and Sampling Association

(NCW&SA) has determined that idlers which do not meet these established standards have been known to deflect imder

load, thus causing nonlinearity in belt-conveyor scale systems. The Central Weights and Measures Association supported

this proposal and has asked that the S&T Committee consider the following modifications to UR.2.2.1.:

UR.2.2.1. For Scales not Installed by the Manufacturer. - Unless the scale is installed in a short

conveyor designed and furnished by the scale manufacturer or built to the scale manufacturer's

speciHcations, the conveyor shall comply with the following minimum requirements:

(g) The scale area and 4 idlers on both ends of the scale shall be of a contrasting color, or other

suitable means shall be used to distinguish the scale from the remainder of the conveyor

installation, and the scale shall be readily accessible. The scale area and 4 idlers on both

ends of the scale shall be scale quality type idlers.

The Committee believes that further definition of the term "scale quality idlers" is needed before the Committee can make

a decision on whether or not this change is appropriate. The Committee acknowledges that scale quality idlers will create a level playing field; however, without additional information on the use of the term, the Committee is not certain if is

realistic to expect a field official to identify an idler as "scale quality." The Committee was made aware of the Conveyor

Equipment Manufacturers Association (CEMA) Standard Niunber 502 which contains belt scale idler standards and a copy

of this standard was provided to the Committee following the meeting. The Committee is interested in determining whether

231
Speciflcations and Tolerances Committee

or not these standards have been uniformly adopted industry-wide. Additionally, the Committee believes that any standards which are to be recognized must be assimilated into a format that is easily interpreted and unplemented in field applications.

The Committee has requested input from the NCW&SA and other interested parties on this issue. The Committee has made

this item mformational to enable additional information to be provided. The Committee also noted that the use of the term

"short" in the existing paragraph without further qualification is unclear. The Committee also asks for input on possible

changes or qualifications to ensure uniform interpretation and application of the term "short."

During the Annual Meeting, the Committee restated its request for input from the belt conveyor industry in establishing

clarification of the term "scale quality idlers" and how they will be determined during field examination of these devices.

Automatic Bulk Weighing System Code

322-1 VC S.3.3. Overfill Sensor

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

Source: Central Weights and Measures Association

Recommendation: Modify paragraph S.3.3. Overfill Sensor to read as follows:

S.3.3. Overfill Sensor. - The weigh hopper shall be equipped with an overfill sensor which will cause the feed gate to close, activate an alaim, and inhibit weighing until the overfill condition has

been corrected. (Added 1993)

(a) The weigh hopper shall be equipped with an overfill sensor which will cause the feed gate

to close, activate an alarm, and inhibit weighing until the overfill condition has been

corrected.

(Added 1993)

(b) If the system is equipped with a lower gamer or surge bin, that gamer shall also be equipped

with an overfill sensor which will cause the gate of the weigh hopper to remain open, activate an alarm, and inhibit weighing until the overfill condition has been corrected. [Nonretroactive as of January 1. 19981

(Amended 1997)

Discussion: Comments received from the Central indicate that a condition sometimes occurs in automatic bulk weighing

systems during the filling operation of multi-car trains where the weigh hopper may continue to deliver drafts into the lower

gamer while the cars are in motion. When the lower gamer is overfilled, the grain will contact with the weigh hopper,

resulting in an inaccurate weighment. The Central believes that the addition of a requirement for an overfill sensor on the lower gamer or surge bin will prevent inaccurate weighments; however, the Central felt the requirement should be

nonretroactive as of January 1, 1998.

The Committee did not receive any unfavorable comments on this proposal. One suggestion made to the Committee was

to include definitions of the terms "gamer" and "surge bin"; however, no specific proposals were submitted for consideration.

During the Annual Meeting, the Committee heard a recommendation from Cargill, Incorporated to modify the proposal.

Based on those comments, the Committee modified paragraph (b) of the original proposal to require the gamer to be

equipped with an overfill sensor which will cause the gate of the weigh hopper to remain open until the hopper has been

completely emptied. The Committee believes that this change meets the intent of the proposed requirement, to prevent an

inaccurate weighing operation, and aligns the requirement with current Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyard

Administration (GIPSA) regulations.

232
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Automatic Weighing Systems - Tentative Code

324-1 VC Recognition of Shipping Applications; Clariflcation of Code Requirements

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

Source: Automatic Weighing Systems (AWS) Work GroupAVestem Weights and Measures Association

Recommendations: The AWS Work Group proposes the following changes to the AWS Code.

Modify Paragraph A.l. as follows to expand the application of the code to other than just food products:

A.l. - This code applies to devices used to weigh packages of food products or to fill packages while

the object is in motion.

This includes:

(a) Weigh-labelers

G>) Automatic checkweighers

Add a new accuracy class IIIS and tolerance to table S.6. to recognize tolerances for shipping applications as shown in the

table below:

Table S.6. Parameters for Accuracy Classes Number of

divisions (n)

Class Value of the verification division (d or e) Minimum Maximum

SI Units

m

0.1 to 2 g inclusive 100 10 000

equal to or greater than 5 g 500 10 000

Inch-Pound Units

m 0.0002 lb to 0.005 lb, mclusive 100 10 000

0.005 oz to 0.125 oz, inclusive 100 10 000

equal to or greater than 0.01 lbs 500 10 000

equal to or greater than 0.25 oz 500 10 000

ms greater than 0.01 lb 100 1000

greater than 0.25 oz 100 1000

For Class HI devices, the value of "e" is specified by the manufacturer as marked on the device; "d" shall not be

smaller than 0.1 "e." "e" shall be differentiated from "d" by size, shape, or color.

Modify paragraph S.5.1. to recognize Class IIIS applications to correspond with the proposed changes to Table S.6. as follows:

233
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

S.5.1. Marking. - Weigh-labelers and automatic clieckweighers sliall be Class m devices and sliall be marked accordingly, except that a weigh-labeler marked Class HIS mav be used in package

shipping applications.

Modify N.1.1. as follows:

N.1.1. Test Pucks and Packages. - Test pucks and packages shall be ;

<a) Representative of the type, size, and weight ranges to be weighed on the device; constructed of a solid, constant mass, nonhygroscopic, nonclectrostatic, and

nonmagnetic type of material.

fb) Constructed so that metal-to-metal contact is avoided.

fc) Stable while in motion, hence the l ength and width of a puck or package should

be greater than its height.

fd) Supplied by the manufacturer for type evaluation purposes for each weight range of testing.

(a) Test pucks and packages shall be;

(D representative of the type, size, and weight ranges to be weighed on a

device.

(ii) be stable while in motion, hence the length and width of a puck or package should be greater than its height.

(b) For type evaluation the manufacturer shall supply the test pucks or packages for

each range of test loads.

Modify the title of paragraph T.3.1. as follows to clarify its application:

T.3.1. Tolerance Values - Class m Weigh Labeler (See T.3.2. for Class ms Weigh-Labelers) .

Add a new T.3.2. as follows, and renumber old paragraph T.3.2. to T.3.3.:

T.3.2. Tolerance Values - Class IIIS Weigh-labelers in Package Shipping Applications.

T.3.2.1. Static Tests - Tolerance values shall be as specified in Table T.3.2.1. Static

Tolerances for Class IIIS Weigh-labelers.

Table T.3.2.1. Static Tolerance for Class IIIS Weigh-labelers

Test Load in Divisions Tolerance in Divisions

Class IIIS Acceptance Maintenance

0-50 + 0.5

51-200 ±2

201 - 1000 + 1.5

T.3.2.2. Dynamic Tests - Tolerance values specified in Table T.3.2.2. Dynamic Tolerances

for Class MS Weigh-labelers shall be applied.

234
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Table T.3.2.2. Dvnamic Tolerance for Class HIS Weiph-labelers

Test Load in Divisions Tolerance in Divisions

Class Ills Acceptance Maintenance

0-50 t 1.5 ±2

51-200 + 2

201 - 1000 + 2.5 + 4

Add a new paragraph UR.3.1.1. to apply to Class IIIS Weigh-labelers:

UR.3.1.1. Minimum Load for Class MS Weigh-labelers . - The minimum load as specified by the

manufacturer, but not less than 10 divisions since the use of a device to weigh light loads is likely to result in relatively large errors.

Modify the text of the definition for random error(s) to specify sample standard deviation. Replace the existing formula

with the formula for sample standard deviation so that the paragraph and formula read as follows.

random error(s). - The sample standard deviation of the error (of indication indicated values) for a number of consecutive automatic weighings of a load, or loads, passed over the load receptor,

shall be expressed mathematically as:

n - 1

X

During the Conference, it was suggested that the following alternative formula may also be used to determine sample standard

deviation, because it is better suited to situations where it is necessary to perform calculations by hand.

N n-l

X

n

Where;

X, = error of a load indication n = the number of loads

Discussion: The proposed changes outlined above are based upon review of the existing code and proposals made by the Automatic Weighing Systems (AWS) Work Group at its last meeting. The proposed changes expand the code to include other than just food products, specify a tolerance for shipping applications, and eliminate unnecessary restrictions to the

testing materials. Although the code has tentative status and is not currently being enforced, the requirements apply

immediately to type evaluation. Consequently, the Work Group felt that these changes should be made without waiting for the code to attain permanent statiis.

The Western Weights and Measures Association supports the proposal as written, including the changes to recognize

shipping applications. The Central Weights and Measures Association notes that expansion of the code to include a separate tolerance for shipping applications is appropriate based upon the recommendations of the AWS Working Group. The

Committee also supports the proposal as written.

235
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

At the request of OWM, Dr. Lynne Hare of the NIST (Statistical Engineering Division) provided comments indicating that

it was more appropriate to apply sample standard deviation in determining the random error in device performance. During

its review, the Committee was informed that the number of error points is randomly determined and represents only a

limited number of possible data over the lifetime of the device; therefore, the random error formula was changed to reflect sample standard deviation instead of population standard deviation.

Liquid-Measuring Devices Code

330-1 V S. 1.6.4.1. Unit Price; Exclusions for Fleet Sales, Other Price Contract Sales

and Truck Refueling Dispensers

(This item was adopted.)

Source: Carryover Item 330-3

Recommendation: Amend paragraph S. 1.6. 4.1. as follows to correct inconsistencies between the exclusion of fleet and

price contract sales in the unit price posting requirements and other requirements in the Liquid-Measuring Devices Code:

S. 1.6.4.1. Unit Price. -

(b) if Whenever a grade, brand, blend or mixture is offered for sale from a device at more

than one unit price, then ail of the unit prices at wtiich 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 tfaat-to display 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 (e.g.. sales from dispensers used to refuel trucks).

(Effective and nonretroactive as of January 1, 1991.)

(Amended 1989 and 1997)

Discussion: Comments received during the 1996 Annual Meeting suggested that the addition of an exemption to "truck

refueling" in paragraph S. 1.6.4. l.(b) would conflict with intent of paragraph UR.3.3.(d). Paragraph UR.3.3.(d) requires

that a truck stop dispenser used exclusively for refueling trucks either comply with the requirements of paragraph S. 1.6. 4.1. or post the highest price on the dispenser. The Committee was not able to reach a clear consensus at that time on whether

or not a conflict actually exists and whether or not an exemption from both S. 1 .6.4. 1 .(b) and UR.3.3.(d) should be given

to truck stop dispensers used exclusively for refueling trucks.

Since the NCWM specifically voted in 1993 to add paragraph UR.3.3.(d) to Handbook 44, the Committee was reluctant

to add language to S. 1.6.4. l.(b) which might create a conflict. (See NIST Special Publication 906, 1996 NCWM S&T

Committee Report Item 330-3 for additional discussion on the origins of paragraph S. 1.6. 4.1.) Therefore, the Committee

recommended that the item be given "Informational" status imtil further study of the issue be made and additional input

obtained from NCWM members on whether or not such an exemption would be appropriate. The Committee encouraged

input on this issue from the regional associations and from manufacturers and users of the equipment.

The Northeastern Weights and Measures Association supported the original proposal which proposed an exemption from

imit price posting for dispensers used exclusively for fleet sales, other price contract sales, or truck refueling.

The Western Weights and Measures Association received input from the County of San Diego indicating that there appears

to be a conflict or, at the minimum, an ambiguity would exist between S. 1.6.4. l.(b) and UR.3.3.(d) if the proposal were

adopted. The Western recommended that if the Committee wishes to amend S.6.4.1.(b), then UR.3.3.(d) should also be

amended to exempt fleet sales, other price contract sales, and truck refueling operations from the requirement to be

computing devices.

The Southern Weights and Measures Association, while acknowledging the efforts to ascertain whether or not there were

conflicts between S. 1.6. 4.1. and UR.3.3.(d), maintained its support of the original proposal and did not believe the proposed language created a problem.

236
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

During the open session of the Interim Meeting, the Committee heard comments from industry representatives supporting

the proposed changes to S. 1.6. 4.1. and the suggested modifications to UR.3.3. (d). The Committee received additional comments from weights and measures officials indicating there did not appear to be any conflict between the two code

requirements. The Committee believes that modifying paragraph S. 1.6. 4.1. to include an exemption for fleet and price contract sales in imit price posting requirements will clarify any inconsistencies which now exist over unit price posting.

The Committee felt that the modification of S. 1.6. 4.1. does not create a conflict with UR.3.3, therefore it recommends

that no changes be made to UR.3.3. at this time.

The Committee heard comments that there was concern over language in the original proposal, which exclusively limited

the use of dispensers to a single market. Additional comments from industry and weights and measures officials indicated

that an alternate proposal would allow use of the dispensers for sales to the general public, fleet sales, other contract sales, or sales for truck refueling, while providing the necessary imit price information to the general public. The Committee

heard numerous comments in supports of the modified original proposal. The original proposal was modified to include

the alternate language.

330-2 VC S. 1.6.7. Recorded Representations, Point-of-Sale Systems and Appendix D,

Deflnition for Point-of-Sale System

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

Source: Western Weights and Measures Association

Recommendation: Amend S. 1.6.7. Recorded Representations, Point-of-sale Systems as follows:

S.1.6. 7. Recorded Representations, Point-of-sale Systems, - The sales infoniiation recorded by cash

registers when interfaced with a retail motor-fuel dispenser shall contain the following information for

products delivered by the dispenser - 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 b\ 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 19Sm

Modify the definition for Point-of-sale System in Appendix D of Handbook 44 to read as follows:

point-of-sale system. An assembly of elements including a weighing or measuring element, an

indicating element, and a recording element, (and may be equipped with a "scanner") used to complete a direct sales transaction. 12.20. 3.30. 3.32. 3.371 (Added 1986) (Amended 1997)

Discussion: The Western Weights and Measures Association presented this proposal to establish requirements for a recording element and the specific recorded sales information for retail motor-fuel dispenser transactions completed through

cash, credit card and debit card acceptors. It was also noted that the requirement for specific device identification information should be applicable at installations where more than one dispenser offers the same grade of product, for cash/credit card sales, or at other multiple imit prices. The individual dispenser information was determined to be useful

in response to consxmier complaints. The Western also recommended that the Committee consider amending the Liquefied

Petroleum Gas Liquid-Measuring Devices and Mass Flow Meters Codes to include similar requirements for retail motor237
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

fuel applications. The Western noted that the original proposal making this information solely a user requirement would

not be consistent with other code sections, where it is also a specification; Examples include: Vehicle Tank Meters

paragraph S. 1.4.2.; Cryogenic Liquid-Measuring Devices paragraph S. 1.4.1.; Milk Meters paragraph S. 1.4.2.; Mass Flow

Meters paragraph S.2.7.; and Belt-Conveyor Scale Systems paragraph S.1.4. The Western also noted that the additional items specified in the NTEP checklist for transaction information are already covered by federal banking regulations and

credit card companies that require the seller and purchaser identity on sales receipts.

The Office of Weights and Measures has been advised that non-NTEP jurisdictions have difficulty enforcing S. 1.6.7. as

it is currently written, in part because they do not require these devices to imdergo NTEP evaluation and because the code

specifically addresses cash registers, not other equipment interfaced with retail motor-fuel dispensers.

The Measuring Sector of the National Type Evaluation Technical Committee and the Southern Weights and Measures

Association concurred that the scope of paragraph S.1.6.7. should be expanded to cover receipts issued by other equipment

that is interfaced with retail motor-fuel dispensers. The Southern acknowledged the need to retain a recorded representation

of transaction information and feels that this is most appropriately addressed by modifying S.1.6.7. This proposal, as submitted to the Committee, also suggested changes to UR.3.4.; however, the Southern expressed concern that older equipment might be adversely impacted by changes to UR.3.4. Consequendy, it supported the expansion of S.1.6.7 rather than the changes to UR.3.4. (Also see the discussion in Item 330-6.)

The Committee acknowledges that the proposal does not contain langtiage to address specific information which must be

provided on receipts when a transaction conducted at a cash-activated dispenser requires a refund. The Committee

recognized that the requirement for this information is already addressed under General Code Section G-S.2. Facilitation of Fraud and during NTEP evaluations. It was noted that specific dispenser identification information assists weights and measures officials in responding to consumer complaints. However, much of this information already appears on most

receipts due to requirements created by federal banking regulations and as part of the agreements that exist between credit card companies and vendors. Therefore, the Committee did not include the requirement for this additional information in

its proposal for S.1.6.7. The Committee agreed with the Sector's reconmiendation that the scope of S.1.6.7. be expanded

to cover receipts issued by other equipment interfaced with retail motor-fuel dispensers and recommends adding the appropriate references to the definition of Point-of- Sale System.

During the NCWM Annual Meeting, there was one editorial change of "separable" to "separate."

330-3 W S.2.2. Provision for Sealing; Definition of System Controller as Used in the

Audit Trail Criteria

(This item was withdrawn.)

Source: National Type Evaluation Technical Committee Measuring Sector

Discussion: The Committee was asked by the Measuring Sector of the National Type Evaluation Technical Committee

to provide an interpretation of the term "system controller" as it is used in defining sealing requirements for a measuring

device. There appear to be three areas which may need to be addressed: 1) a definition of system controller as used in the

audit trail criteria, 2) clarification of what the wording "necessary to the operation of the device" represents in the definition of remote configuration capability, and 3) the term remote may not be clearly perceived in how it relates to communication

between device components. The capability to remotely configure scalable parameters was permitted as an option to enable

manufacturers to offer this feature to their customers. These devices were determined to be Category 2 Devices, which

historically has meant that a central on-site console (service station or loading rack) is interfaced with multiple devices to retrieve information from separate devices through a hardware switch rather than a physical connection to each device.

Additionally, when S.2.2. Provision for Sealing was established, concern was expressed over the facilitation of fraud when

adjustments are no longer at the device; however, minimal information is provided (e.g., coimters only) to track changes

to the device.

The Committee recognized that there are multiple types of applications which utilize system controllers, however, it agreed

with the recommendation of the Gasoline Pimip Manufacturer's Association (GPMA), the Chairman of the National Type

Evaluation Technical Committee (NTETC), Measuring Sector and Mike Keilty (Micro Motion) that the best forum to address this issue is the NTETC Measuring Sector. It was noted that several areas should be addressed, including but, not

238
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

limited to, the availability of equipment with remote communication capability and determining whether the maimer in which this equipment interfaces with devices constitutes a system controller. Based on comments from manufacturers

present, it appears that the mass flow meter is the specific device type which has generated a majority of these questions on the audit trail criteria. It was felt that this technology wananted a more in depth examination to determine the necessary forms and the minimum criteria for audit trails which are applicable to these devices. It was agreed that this process

requires a level of technical expertise that is found in the membership of the Measurmg Sector; therefore, the Committee

withdrew this item from its agenda with the recommendation that it be sent back to the Sector for additional smdy.

The following is excerpted from the October 1996 Meeting Agenda of the National Type Evaluation Technical Committee,

Measuring Sector and is provided as background information.

Background: Effective January 1, 1996, devices with remote configuration capability (Category 2) may provide access

to the event counters for scalable parameters through the mdividual device or through the system controller, as noted in the table below. There are many devices in which a physical seal must be broken to access one component while actual changes to a scalable parameter are performed at a separate component. The advent of new technology has created unlimited possibilities in remote communication from modems, laptops and handheld units, some of which may conceivably

be configured as the system controller. It may be more appropriate to consider the inherent differences of how system

controllers are interfaced with the different types of device technology rather than use a standardized or generic approach on how they are to operate.

Although the "system controller" is a component which may undergo type evaluation and subsequently receive a Certificate of Conformance (CC), there is no established definition of what comprises the controller. There are installations which

do not permit access to all scalable parameters either at the device or system controller. For instance, the adjustments to a retail motor-fuel dispenser measuring element are performed at the dispenser, while changes in the units of measurement

are made at the console; in such cases, the console is usually a permanent on-site fixture^and has been considered a "system

controller."

Table S.2.2. Categories of Device and Methods of Sealing

Categories of Device Method of Sealing

Category 1: No remote configuration capability Seal by physical seal or two event counters: one for calibration parameters and one for configuration parameters.

Category 2: Remote configuration capability, but access is controlled by physical hardware.

Device shall clearly indicate that it is in the remote

configuration mode and record such message if capable ofprinting in this mode or shall not operate

while in this mode.

[The hardware enabling access for remote communication must be onsite. The hardware must be sealed using a physical seal and an event counter for calibration parameters and an event counter for

configuration parameters. The event counters may be located either at the individual measuring device or at the system controller; however, an adequate number of counters must be provided to monitor the

calibration and configuration parameters of the individual devices at a

location. If the counters are located in the system controller rather than at the individual device, means must be provided to generate a hard copy of the information through an on-site device.]* f*Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1996]

Category 3: Remote configuration capability access may be unlimited or controlled through a software

switch (e.g., password)

An event logger is required in the device; it must include an event counter (000 to 999), the parameter ID, the date and time of the change, and the new value of the parameter. A printed copy of the information must be available through the device or through another

on-site device. The event logger shall have a capacity to retain records equal to ten times the number of sealable parameters in the device, but

not more than 1000 records are required. (Note: Does not require

1000 changes to be stored for each parameter. ) [Nonretroactive and enforceable as of January 1, 1995.]

(Table added 1993) (Amended 1995)

A specific example was presented to NTEP in which a motor-fuel dispenser could be configured remotely using a laptop

computer, but access to remote configuration was enabled through hardware on the device. Consequently, the device falls

239
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

under Category 2 sealing requirements. As noted above, for Category 2 devices, the event counters may be located at the individual device or through a system controller. Locating the event counters in the system controller was permitted to recognize that service station consoles and other system controllers (such as loading rack meter controllers) may be used

to configure multiple devices and locating the information in one central location was desirable.

In the example presented, the company elected not to enable access to die event counters at the individual device, but rather through the laptop computer. Since personal computers are often used as service station consoles, this approach was not

inconsistent with other devices that have been evaluated by NTEP. However, in this specific example, the laptop computer was not interfaced with all of the other dispensers at the site and it was questionable whether or not the laptop computer

would remain on site all times. In order to view the audit trail information, it would be necessary to physically connect

the laptop to each individual dispenser.

NTEP does not believe that this approach meets the intent of the S&T Committee's proposal in 1993 to allow the use of

the system controller for maintaining the counters for Category 2 devices. It was not intended that an inspector would have

to physically plug a laptop into individual devices in a station. There is also concern over the possibility that the inspector

might damage the equipment if the connections are not made correctly.

The S&T Committee was polled to determine whether or not NTEP's interpretation was correct. The Committee agreed

with NTEP's interpretation.

330-4 W S.X. for Retail Motor-Fuel Dispensers; Use of Full Computing Dispensers

(This item was withdrawn.)

Source: Western Weights and Measures Association/California Agricultural Commissioners and Sealers Association

Discussion: To address the use of full-computing retail motor-fuel dispensers the Committee considered a proposal to add

a new Handbook 44 paragraph UR.3.3.1. and renumber and retitle UR.3.3. (a) through (d) to UR.3.3.2. Total Price

Calculation, parts (a) through (d) to read as follows:

UR.3.3. Computing Device Capability.

UR.3.3.1.. Use of Computing Devices. - Except for fleet sales, other price contract sales,

marinas, and airports, retail motor-fuel devices shall be of the full computing type and shall

indicate the quantity, the unit price, and the total price ofeach delivery.

[Nonretroactive as ofJanuary 1, 1999f

(Added 1997)

UR.3.3.2. Total Price Calculation.

(a) Any computing device placed into service after January 1, 1990, in an application

where a product or grade is offered for sale at more than one unit price (excluding

fleet sales and other price contract sales), shall be used only for sales for which the

device computes and displays the sales price for the selected transaction.

Individual single unit-price computing devices installed to replace existing devices or to add to station capacity are exempt from this requirement.

(Added 1989) (Amended 1992)

(b) A computing device shall be used only for sales for which the device computes and

displays the sales price for the transaction.

(Added 1990)

(c) A truck stop dispenser used exclusively for refueling trucks is exempt from the

requirements in (a) and (b) if all purchases of fuel are accompanied by a printed

receipt of the transaction containing the applicable price per gallon, the total gallon

delivered, and the total price of the sale. (Added 1993)

240
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

(d) Unless a truck stop dispenser used exclusively for refueling trucks 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)

California has noted a number of inquiries as to the suitability of volume only dispensers in direct sale applications. In those installations it appears to be unreasonable to expect the retail customer, who usually purchases a predetermined

monetary amount, to calculate the quantity-value which should be delivered for each transaction. Additionally this type of

installation might require the owner/operator to perform similar calculations, thus further increasing the potential for mathematical errors.

When cash/credit pricing, multi-tier pricing, and motor-fuel prices above $1.00 per gallon were first introduced, retail motor-fuel dispensers did not have adequate capability to compute the total price for all sales. These situations resulted

in a number of complaints being lodged with weights and measures officials. California has further concerns with customer

delays, confusion, and the customer's inability to verify billing information. Currently station owners in direct sales applications have full computing type dispensers in operation. To permit the installation of noncomputing dispensers in direct sales applications would create a competitive disadvantage to station operators who have invested in and are maintaining computing type devices.

The California Agricultural Commissioners and Sealers Association recommended this requirement be included in other code sections where there are retail motor fuel applications, such as LPG.

The Office of Weights and Measures (OWM) has periodically received inquiries about the suitability of noncomputing retail motor-fuel dispensers for use in sales to the general public. OWM's response has been and continues to be that dispensers

in an application for sales to the general public should be equipped with computing capability.

The rationale for the OWM position is consistent with that of California and reflects its concerns in the following areas:

1) suitable equipment to enable the user/customer to quickly determine the correct quantity and total price that is charged

for the product; 2) facilitation of fraud through die use of noncomputmg devices in sales to the general public may introduce

errors into sales transactions when calculations must be manually performed to verify the total price of the product; these errors increase with the use of analog devices when the quantity must sometimes be estimated and in applications where

the product is offered for sale at more than one imit price; and 3) the deviation from customary practice to allow volume

only dispensers would accommodate a small segment of the market; however, a significant sector that has strived to provide

suitable equipment would now be placed at a competitive disadvantage.

The Western felt that this proposal is more appropriate as a user requirement; however, there was also concern that this might

create a conflict with UR.3.2.(a)(1) and (2), which appear to address noncomputing devices. Consequently, the Western

moved this item to informational status on its agenda until further study could be conducted on the issue.

The Committee was persuaded that this was more of a user requirement than a specification based on comments from

California and die Gasoline Pump Manufacturers Association (GPMA) concerning the inability of manufacturers to control

the end use of a device. Comments from industry and field officials during the Committees deliberations indicate that volume only dispensers are already in operation at many marinas, airports, and liquified petroleum gas applications; there was opposition from weights and measures officials and industry to requiring fiill computing type devices in these locations. The Committee noted die effective dates for similar device applications, such as found in paragraph UR.3.3.(b) (which

states that a computing device shall be used only for sales for which it can compute and display the unit price). The

Committee believes that it is appropriate to align the effective dates of the proposal with these requirements.

After extensive review of the issue, the Committee is withdrawing this item because it believes that this is a jurisdictional

problem which should be addressed at the local level. Additionally, the Committee heard comments from industry and

weights and measures official expressing concerns about including specific exemptions for marinas and airports, since these businesses are considered direct sales applications and are using fiill computing dispenser in many jurisdictions. There was

concern that the list of exemptions may be expanded based on the justification heard to exempt marinas and airports.

241
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

330-5 W Nozzle Requirements for Diesel Fuel Dispensers

(This item was withdrawn.)

Source: Southern Weights and Measures Association

Discussion: Florida has recorded numerous complaints from consumers who inadvertently have delivered diesel fiiel into

their gasoline fuel tanks. In response to these complaints a proposal was made to the Laws and Regulations Committee (see

agenda item 237-2) to require the terminal end of a diesel fuel nozzle spout to have an outside diameter of not less than 0.93

inches. The Southern Weights and Measures Association recommended that the NCWM contact automobile manufacturers

to determine if all diesel fueled vehicles have storage tanks which could accommodate a 0.93 inch nozzle spout. Additionally,

it was recommended that to ensure compliance at the retail station, where normal maintenance may result in many changes

to a hose nozzle, this requirement should be included in Handbook 44. No specific language was recommended.

It was noted that the concept of a nozzle size requirement originated with earlier Handbook 130 requirements for leaded fuel nozzles. As noted in the Introduction Section of Handbook 44, the technical requirements within Handbook 44 are to eliminate from use devices: that give false reading; are of such construction that equipment is not reasonably permanent

in adjustment; will not repeat their indications correctly; or facilitate fraud. There were numerous comments that the proposed requirement is not an accuracy or device performance issue, which are appropriately addressed in Handbook 44.

Some concern was expressed that there is no equivalent requirement to prevent delivery of gasoline into vehicular diesel fuel tanks. Florida indicated that it had conducted a study and foimd that a nozzle size requirement would not have an

adverse impact on the automotive industry. The Gasoline Pump Manufacturers Association (GPMA) indicated that it would

not have a problem with a larger nozzle requirement; however, it believes that, from a manufacturer's standpoint, it would

be difficult to control nozzle maintenance at the field level, so this would be more appropriately addressed as a user requirement. It was also noted that customers often incorrectly select grades of product even when the product identity is conspicuously displayed or posted on the dispenser. Based on these discussions, the Committee believes that this issue is not within the scope of Handbook 44 and has withdrawn this item.

Representatives from SIGMA and API supported this item being withdrawn provided that this issue is addressed by the Laws and Regulations Committee; however, the recommendation from both groups is to permit a period of transition to meet the nozzle size requirements if this proposal is adopted by the Conference.

330-6 W UR.3.4.X. Printed Ticket; Cash-, Credit Card-, or Debit CardActivated Retail Motor-Fuel Dispenser

(This item was withdrawn.)

Source: Carryover Item 330-5

Discussion: The Committee considered the following recommendation to establish requirements for a recording element and

the specific transaction information to be recorded by retail motor-fiiel dispensers which accept cash, credit cards and debit cards. The NTETC Measuring Sector has required a receipt for some time for card- and cash-activated retail motor-fuel

dispensers. The existing criteria in Publication 14 for evaluation of cash-operated systems addressed attended locations only.

UR.3.4.X. Ticket Requirement. - A device which is activated by accepting bank cards and/or cash shall be equipped with a ticket printer. Except for fleet sales and other price contract sales, a printed receipt

providing the following information shall be available for all transactions:

{a} the total volume/quantity of the delivery.

(b) the unit price.

(c) the total computed price.

£d} the product identity by name, symbol, abbreviation, or code number.

{e} the date of the transaction.

242
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Is)

the identity of the seller, and

except for cash-activated sales, the identity of the purchaser

Weights and Measures officials indicate that consumer complaints result when there is no record of the transaction to compare

with the credit card company billing statement. In the event of a cash transaction, the consumer has no record to verify any

portion of the transaction.

The S&T Committee acknowledged that the requirement for a record of sales information at card-activated dispensers

installed at unattended locations had not been addressed. The absence of an operator in unattended locations hinders the

resolution of monetary discrepancies for the customer. It was suggested that the proposed requirements be incorporated into paragraph S. 1.6.7.; however, it was pointed out that other codes such as the Vehicle-Tank Meters Code, include similar ticket requirements for tickets and mvoices in the "User Requirements."

Comments received during the 1996 NCWM Interim Meeting from GPMA and a weights and measures representative,

indicate that this requirement should apply to all installations regardless of whether the acceptor is attended or unattended. The Committee also heard a recommendation to include an additional requirement to identify the specific dispenser in the recorded information. Based upon suggestions made at the Interim Meeting, proposed modifications to paragraph (a) should cover any quantity of product delivered in alternative fueling operations.

Based upon its review of this issue at the 1996 Annual Meeting, the Committee considered that the requirements in UR.3.4.1. should be consistent with the criteria in NCWM Publication 14 (NTEP Checklist). Consequently the list of

parameters required to be printed were expanded to include date, identity of the seller, and in the case of credit sales, the purchaser. The Committee also discussed the possibility of addressing these issues by modifying S. 1.6.7. rather than

UR.3.4.X.; however, the Committee did not believe that it was appropriate to modify a different section of Handbook 44

without circulating the issue before the regional weights and measures associations and industry. Discussions during the Aimual Meeting concluded without a clear consensus on the wording in the paragraph and the item was given

"Informational" status. The Committee encouraged input on this issue from the regional associations and from

manufacturers and users of the equipment.

The Northeastern Weights and Measures Association supported the proposal as written.

The Southern Weights and Measures S«&T Committee believes that it is appropriate that the Conference address the concerns over the lack of transaction information. However, it feels that modifications to UR.3.4. may impact older devices and consequently withdrew this item from its agenda. The Southern recommended that this issue be addressed

separately as part of paragraph S. 1.6.7 as suggested by the Western; however, it feels that only the four original

requirements, (a) through (d), for the sales information should be retained.

The Gasoline Pump Manufacturers Association (GPMA) concurred with the recommendation from the National Type

Evaluation Technical Committee (NTETC) Measuring Sector that the issue of receipt information be addressed as a

specification. Consequently, it asked that this item be withdrawn. It was also noted that banking guidelines and federal

regulations for credit card and debit card purchases require buyer information and date of the transaction on the recorded

receipt, therefore (e), (f), and (g) should not be included the paragraph. Some concern was expressed over the availability

of paper for receipts; however, it was felt that G-UR.3.2. Associated and Nonassociated Equipment addresses the performance of this equipment. The Committee also agreed with the NTETC interpretation that cash acceptors are required

to provide information regarding the monetary amoimts tendered or returned when a transaction is terminated. The

Committee felt that the proposed changes to address recorded receipt information are more appropriately addressed as a

specification code not a user requirement under Item 330-2, therefore, the Committee is withdrawing this item.

Vehicle-Tank Meters Code

331-1 W S.3.6. Antidrain Valve

(This item was withdrawn.)

Source: Northeastern Weights and Measures Association

243
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Discussion: The Committee considered the following recommendation:

S.3.6. Antidrain Valve. - In a wet-hose, pressure-type device, an effective antidrain valve shall be

incorporated in the discharge valve or immediately adjacent thereto. The antidrain valve shall function so

as to prevent the drainage of the discharge hose. However, a device used exclusively for both fuelmg and

deftieling aircraft may be of the pressure type without an antidrain valve.

The Northeastern believes that the proposed change to paragraph S.3.6. will clarify that a device used for fueling only, must

have an antidrain valve, whereas a device which operates to both fiiel and defiiel aircraft is not required to have an antidrain valve.

Initially the Committee heard recommendations to further modify the proposal by changing the term "valve" to "means" to

reflect the current Handbook 44 terminology, and to remove the word "exclusively" fi-om the requirement because it created confusion over which operation was granted an exemption.

Comments heard during the Annual Meeting from one weights and measures jurisdiction indicate that the paragraph is ambiguous without clarification that the exemption from the required antidrain valve applies only to operations which both

fuel and defuel aircraft. This jurisdiction asked that the item be given informational status due to ongoing legal proceedings

which may cause them to revisit this issue.

While the Committee appreciates the concerns raised, the Committee feels that the existing language is adequate and has been

fairly well understood. The Committee does not feel that adequate justification has been provided for modifying the paragraph, consequently, it is withdrawing this item from its agenda.

Liquefied Petroleum Gas and Anhydrous Ammonia Liquid-Measuring Devices Code

332-1 I N.4.1. Normal Tests

Source: Cenfral Weights and Measures Association

Discussion: The Committee recommends that the following proposal be given informational status:

N.4. 1 . Normal Tests. - The "normal" test of a device shall be made at the maximum discharge flow rate

that may be anticipated developed under the condition of installafion. Any additional tests conducted at flow rates down to and including one-half the sum of the maximum discharge flow rate and the rated minimum discharge flow rate shall be considered normal tests.

The Central notes that the current language in paragraph N.4.1. generates confusion over which device flow rate is necessary to perform a "special" test, thus causing a lack of uniformity in the performance of test procedures. The changes

to paragraph N.4.1. make the test procedure more consistent with similar Handbook 44 test procedures, such as paragraph

N.4.1. Normal Tests in the Liquid-Measuring Devices Code.

The comments received by the Committee indicate limited private and public sector support for this proposal. This proposal

also generated 1) questions about the flow rates which appear to be affected by the size of the discharge hoses when there are two or more delivery outlets; 2) additional comments concerning confusion over the wording and inconsistencies with

other code requirements; 3) cautions over installation-dependent factors which may cause devices to operate below the manufacturer's intended minimimi flow rate; and 4) whether or not there should be some clarification or a definition for the terms "Slow Flow" and "Special Test" in the Liquefied Pefroleum Gas and other code sections.

It was noted that the paragraph should contain language to describe where the minimum flow rate starts. Based on the comments received and the questions raised, the Committee believes that this proposal needs further study to determine if

it can be demonstrated that there are widespread inconsistencies in how this requirement is being applied. Consequently,

the Committee is maintaining this item on its agenda to allow for further smdy.

244
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

332-2 W N.4.2.2. Retail Motor-Fuel Devices (a) and (b)

(This item was withdrawn.)

Source: Central Weights and Measures Association

Discussion: The Committee has given the following proposal informational status:

N.4.2.2. For Other Retail Devices. - A retail device other than a motor-fuel device shall be tested at a the mmimum discharge rate ofi

fa) the minimum discharge rate that can be deve loped under the condit i on of installati ons, or

fb) the minimum dischai'ge rate marked on the device, whichever is greater, marked on the device. The device shall not operate below the marked minimum discharge rate. (Amended 1973 and 1997)

The Central believes the language in N.4.2.2. is ambiguous, thus creating confiision and nonuniformity in the determination

of whether it is necessary to perform tests at or below the stated minimum discharge rate and if it is permissible to allow a device to operate below the stated minimum discharge rate. The Central cites that in 1973 the NCWM, in response to devices

which under certain conditions of installation were capable of operating below the marked minimum flow rate, adopted

N.4.2.2. to address this issue. The NCWM noted that installations which permitted these devices to operate at rates below

the manufacturer's marked minimum discharge did not meet G-URl . 1 . Suitability of Equipment requirements. The Central

also recommends that if it was the intent of the NCWM to require testing at the marked minimum discharge rate then the S&T

Committee should fiirther clarify this requirement.

The Committee received a variety of comments on this proposal; most indicated that it was too restrictive and difficult to enforce, and would be more appropriately addressed as a user requirement. The Natural Propane Gas Association indicated

that it is uncertain if the manufacturer is capable of ensuring that a device will not operate below its marked minimum flow

rate. At this time, the Committee believes there is insufficient information to support this proposal. The Committee concurs

with the 1973 Conference opinion that a device should not be tested at a flow rate less than the minimum marked on the meter and that if the conditions of installation are such that the meter is operated at a lower rate, then the meter, under G-UR. 1 . 1

Suitability of Equipment, is not suitable for that use. The Committee encourages the regions to conduct further study to determine if they are encountering problems with this issue, which warrant modification to paragraph N.4.2.2.

332-3 VC T.3. Repeatability

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

Source: Central Weights and Measures Association

Recommendation: The Committee recommends the following proposal for a vote:

T.3. Repeatability. - When multiple tests are conducted at approximately the same flow rate, the

range of the test results for the flow rate shall not exceed 40 percent of the applicable tolerance absolute value of the maintenance tolerance and the results of each test shall be within applicable

tolerance. This tolerance does not apply to the test of the automatic temperature compensating

system.

(Added 1992) (Amended 1997)

Discussion: The Central noted that the current language in paragraph T.3. Repeatability does not give a clear indication of

how to apply this tolerance to the individual tests results. The intent of the proposed wording is to clarify the application of

the tolerance and to change the basis of the tolerance application from "applicable tolerance" to "absolute value" of the applicable tolerance. The Central believes that this change would ensure uniformity in the application of tolerances to test

results. Additionally, the Central recommends that this modification be made to paragraph T.4. in the Vehicle-Tank Meter

Code Section.

245
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

The Committee received no unfavorable comments on the proposed code and supports this item.

The Committee was asked to provide an example of how this paragraph would apply to test results. This example is based on meter indications of a 100 gallon delivery for each of three test runs taken at approximately the same flow rate and a maintenance tolerance of one percent with the following results:

TEST METER

INDICATION

ERROR MAINTENANCE

TOLERANCE

In % (percent)

MAINTENANCE

TOLERANCE

In Gallons

1 100.0 gal + 0.2 gal ± 1.0% ± 1.0 gal

2 100.0 gal + 1.0 gal ± 1.0% ± 1.0 gal

3 100.0 gal - 0.6 gal ± 1.0% ± 1.0 gal

Calculation ofthe "Applicable Tolerance":

The applicable tolerance for the individual results is the whole range of plus or minus one percent (± 1.0 %) which is equivalent to plus or minus one gallon (plus or minus 23 1 cubic inches) and is depicted in the diagram below. (Tests 1, 2, and 3 are designated as T„ T2, and T3, respectively.)

- 1 gallon

Applicable Maintenance Tolerance

0 1 gallon

All of the individual test results are within the applicable tolerance.

The "applicable tolerance" allows indications from - 1 gallon to +1 gallon for a total range of 2 gallons. In some codes (e.g., Section 3.30 paragraph T.2.3.3., and Section 3.31 paragraph T.4.,) the repeatability tolerance is based on the "applicable

tolerance" as calculated above; in such a case the results of the individual tests could differ by the amount of the "applicable

tolerance." In the case of paragraph T.3., however, the repeatability tolerance is 40 percent of the absolute value of the "maintenance tolerzmce" as shown in the calculations below.

Applying the "Repeatability Tolerance" T.3.: As stated in T.3. the range of the test results shall not exceed 40 percent of the absolute value of the maintenance tolerance. The maintenance tolerance is ± 1% based on paragraph T.2. Tolerance Values. The absolute value of a number is equal to that number without the "+" or "-" signs; hence the absolute value of maintenance tolerance in this case is 1 percent. Thus,

40 percent of the absolute value of maintenance tolerance is 40 percent of 1 percent. In our example of a test draft of 100

gallons, the repeatability tolerance is calculated as follows:

0.40 X 0.01 = 0.004 or 0.4 percent of the indicated 100 gallons delivered

So the allowable range is 0.4 gallons or 92.4 cubic inches

0

-0.6 +0.2 +1.0

T3 T,

The range between Test Run 1 and Test Run 2 (T, to Tj) results is 0.8 gallons or 184.8 cubic inches

The range between Test Run 2 and Test Run 3 (T3 to Tj) results is 1.6 gallons or 369.6 cubic inches

The range between Test Run 1 and Test Run 3 (T3 to T,) results is 0.8 gallons or 184.8 cubic inches

246
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Although the individual test results are within applicable tolerances, the range of the multiple test results exceeds the allowable repeatability tolerance limits in all three comparisons noted above.

If we consider an example of how to apply T.3. when the acceptance tolerance is applicable for the individual results; however, the allowable range of the test results for multiple tests conducted at approximately the same flow rate shall not exceed 40 percent of the absolute value of the maintenance tolerance.

TEST METER

INDICATION

ERROR ACCEPTANCE

TOLERANCE

In % (percent)

ACCEPTANCE

TOLERANCE

In Gallons

1 100.0 ga! + 0.2 gal ± 0.5 % ± 0.5 gal

2 100.0 gal + 1.0 gal ±0.5% ± 0.5 gal

3 100.0 gal - 0.6 gal ± 0.5% ±0.5 gal

Calculation ofthe "Applicable Tolerance":

The applicable tolerance for the individual results is the whole range of plus or minus one half-percent (± 0.5 %) which is equivalent to plus or minus one half-gallon (plus or minus 0.5 gallons or 1 15.5 cubic inches) and is depicted in the diagram

below. (Tests 1, 2, and 3 are designated as T,, Tj, and T3, respectively.)

Applicable Acceptance Tolerance

- 0. 5 gallon 0 +0.5 gallon

Only individual test result T, is within the applicable tolerance.

The "applicable tolerance" allows indications from - 0.5 gallon to + 0.5 gallon for a total range of 1 gallon. In some codes

(e.g., Section 3.30 paragraph T.2.3.3., and Section 3.3 1 paragraph T.4.,) the repeatability tolerance is based on the "applicable

tolerance" as calculated above; in such a case the results of the individual tests could differ by the amount of the "applicable

tolerance." In the case of paragraph T.3., however, the repeatability tolerance is 40 percent of the absolute value of the "maintenance tolerance" as shown in the calculations below.

Applying the "Repeatability Tolerance" T.3.: As stated in revised paragraph T.3. the range of the test results shall not exceed 40 percent of the absolute value of the maintenance tolerance. The maintenance tolerance is ± 1% based on paragraph T.2. Tolerance Values. The absolute value

of a number is equal to that number without the "+" or "-" signs; the absolute value of maintenance tolerance in this case

is 1 percent. Thus, 40 percent of the absolute value of maintenance tolerance is 40 percent of I percent. In our example of

a test draft of 100 gallons, the repeatability tolerance is calculated as follows:

0.40 X 0.01 = 0.004 or 0.4 percent of the indicated 100 gallons delivered

So the allowable range is 0.4 gallons or 92.4 cubic inches

247
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

0 T

-0.6 +0.2 +1.0

T, T,

T3

T3 T,

The range between Test Run 1 and Test Run 2 (T, to Tj) results is 0.8 gallons or 184.8 cubic inches

The range between Test Run 2 and Test Run 3 (T3 to Tj) results is 1.6 gallons or 369.6 cubic inches

The range between Test Run 1 and Test Run 3 (T3 to T,) results is 0.8 gallons or 1 84.8 cubic inches

Although the range of the multiple test results is held to 40 percent of a larger tolerance, maintenance tolerance (based on

revised paragraph T. 3.), the error for the range for all three test runs exceeds the allowable limits.

During the Open Hearing at the 1997 Annual Meeting, the Committee heard comments that the proposed repeatability tolerance is too restrictive in some cases. The Committee modified the proposal to indicate that the range of the test results

shall not exceed 40 percent of the absolute value of the maintenance tolerance, not the applicable tolerance.

332-4 V T.4. Automatic Temperature-Compensating Systems

(This item was adopted.)

Source: Carryover Item 332-2

Recommendation: Modify paragraph T.4. to change the difference between the meter error from 0.5 and 0.25 percent

to 1.0 and 0.5 percent, respectively, for mechanical and electronic automatic temperature-compensating systems.

T.4. 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) 0:5 LO percent for mechanical automatic temperature compensating systems; and

(b) ^:i5 0^ percent 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 . (Added 1991) (Amended 1992, amU996 and 1997^

Discussion: In the past, the NCWM adjusted the tolerances proportionately relative to the meter tolerances for both

compensated and uncompensated types of applications. The original intent was to limit the amount of error in an automatic

temperature compensating system without creating a separate test on the temperature probe. This established error was

equivalent to an acceptable corresponding temperature error in the temperature probe. In 1992 the Committee adopted

tolerances which aligned Handbook 44 with Canadian and OIML requirements. These new tolerances were tighter, reflecting the more strmgent Canada/OIML requirements for temperature sensors.

Comments submitted to the Committee at the July 1996 Annual Meeting by weights and measures officials did not indicate a clear consensus on the ability of these devices to attain the tolerances in T.4. In its review of this item the Committee

considered the device performance characteristics and that the performance of the device is operator-dependent. The

248
I Specifications and Tolerances Committee

I Committee also discussed a suggestion made at the 1996 Interim Meeting to use a single, tighter tolerance for both mechanical

and electronic automatic temperature compensating systems. However, the Committee anticipates that mechanical devices

may have difficulty in meeting the tighter tolerances, and a single tolerance for all devices would, therefore, not be practical.

I During the 1996 NCWM Annual Meeting, Maryland Weights and Measures reported that its records indicate a 100 percent

j increase in the failure rate for liquefied petroleum gas liquid-measuring devices after the implementation of the 0.5 and 0.25

I percent requirement. In addition, Maryland noted that the unstable nature of the product propane and the inherent

lj uncertainties within the testing procedure make these tolerances too stringent. The example cited was a test using a 100-

j gallon standard with meter errors of -t-0.3 gallons and -0.3 gallons for temperature-compensated tests; these nms would

meet the acceptance tolerance for a normal test (±0.6 percent or ±0.6 gallons), but would fail T.4.

The Committee had moved this item to "Informational" status in its 1996 Report based on the lack of consensus at the Annual

j Meeting and on the commitment of Maryland, California, and other participating states to determine what factors contribute

! to higher rates of noncompliance with paragraph T.4..

The Northeastern Weights and Measures Association proposed withdrawing this item pending further evidence which

demonstrates that devices are unable to meet the existing tolerances. The Western Weights and Measures Association gave

the item informational status.

During the 1997 NCWM Interim Meeting, Maryland indicated that additional study and testing completed since it last reported to the NCWM in July 1996 indicates a 59 percent increase in the noncompliance rate of devices which continue

to be held to the more stringent tolerances. Based upon the additional data submitted by Maryland, the Southern noted that some additional work may be done in conjunction with this proposal, and it is amenable to considering this new data; however, the Southern emphasized a desire to bring this issue to a quick resolution. Therefore, the Southern believes that

this item should be given voting status while the additional study is being completed.

At the 1997 Interim Meeting Maryland and California reported recently completed additional study and testing on the performance of the Automatic Temperature Compensating Systems. Both states endorse the proposal as written based on

the results of those studies, which indicate that the earlier tolerances should be reinstated. The Committee heard further support for this proposal fi-om industry. Given the most recent support for this proposal the Committee recommends it move

forward as a voting item.

At the 1997 Annual Meeting, the Committee again heard a recommendation to specify a tolerance of 0.5 percent error for both mechanical and electronic systems; however, based on information obtained in the study conducted by Maryland and

California, the Committee believes that the proposal is appropriate as presented, and that devices should not all be held to a single tolerance.

Mass Flow Meters Code

337-1 VC A.l. Application - Liquids and S.1.3.1 Units of Measurement; Volume Units

of Measure

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

Source: Southern Weights and Measures Association

Recommendation: Amend A.l Liquids and S.1.3.1 Units of Measurement to read as follows:

A.l. Liquids.- This code applies to devices that are designed to dynamically measure the mass or_ mass and density of liquids. It also specifies the relevant examinations and tests that are to be

conducted.

S.L3.1. Units of Measurement. Deliveries shall be indicated and recorded in grams, kilograms,

metric tons, pounds, tons, and/or liters, gallons, quarts, pints and decimal subdivisions thereof. The

indication of a delivery shall be on the basis of apparent mass versus a density of 8.0 g/cm3. The

249
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

volume indication shall be based on the mass measurement and an automatic means to determine

and correct for changes in product density.

(Amended 1993 and 1997^

Discussion: Schlumberger Industries and Micro Motion Incorporated submitted proposals to the Southern Weights and

Measures Association to amend paragraph A. 1 . and S. 1 .3 . 1 . to include volume units of measurement. Schlumberger proposed

that the application include language which covered "volume," whereas Micro Motion indicated that it was appropriate to address "mass and density." The Southern Weights and Measures Association supports the concept of permitting volume

units to be displayed on mass flow meters and the Micro Motion proposed modification to paragraph A.l; however, the Southern is concerned that adequate displays be required to enable the weights and measures officials to perform testing on

these devices. Consequently the Southern recommends that additional steps be taken concurrently by the S&T Committee

to propose further changes to Handbook 44 which would require appropriate displays for use during test.

Schlumberger indicates the Coriolis mass flow meter is an accurate densitometer and temperature measuring device. The

device determines the volumetric m.easurement by dividing the mass measurement by the density measurement. Additionally,

Schlumberger notes that the volume measurement is not affected by product viscosity or temperature because there are no

internal moving parts, thus eliminating slippage. Schlumberger has indicated that the determination of volume with the mass

flow meter is a concept that has been recognized and approved for LPG, anhydrous ammonia, refined petroleum products,

aviation fuels, liquid fertilizer, and lube oil in other countries.

Prior to the Interim Meeting, the Committee heard opposition to the proposal based on concern about the ability of the apparent mass density of 8.0 g/cm^ to yield the correct inferred volume at elevations other than sea level without the

application of correction factors. It was noted that metering occurs in true mass; however, volume is indicated in apparent mass which results in a bias of approximately 0. 1 percent.

Micro Motion believed that a means should be made available to determine density if these devices operate only in the volume

mode. Discussions indicate that mass flow meters are calibrated with air and water as the test medium. Density is then

determined by using specific calibration factors based on an established density curve for these two mediums. Additionally,

it was noted that mass flow meter technology monitors density through the effects of temperature on volume in a fashion

similar to that of a turbine or positive displacement meter. It was noted that mass flow meter technology operates on an

inverse relationship of density to the frequency of the sinoidal waves created in the oscillation of the product flow past the tube sensors.

Other discussions focused on concern over the status of devices with current National Type Evaluation Program (NTEP)

Certificates of Conformance and a verification process to ensure their accuracy and repeatability if they are permitted to indicate in volume units of measurement. The Committee heard questions concerning whether or not it could be demonstrated

at the field level that Coriolis type mass flow meters accurately measure in units of volume.

Measurement Canada reported these devices are tested in Canada in both the mass and volume mode when a system is capable of indicating in both mass and volume units of measure.

At the Interim Meeting, the Committee heard presentations on mass flow system indication in volume units of measurement

from Mike Keilty (Micro Motion) and Andre Noel (Schlumberger). Based upon comments heard at the Interim Meeting,

which indicate that volume measurement is dependent on product density, the Committee agreed to continue in its support

for the Micro Motion proposal, which includes product density.

The Committee asks that the Measuring Sector of the National Type Evaluation Technical Committee work to develop

guidelines for field officials to use in testing mass flow meters with volume indications and those with dual (mass and

volume) indications. These guidelines should address the type of standard and mode of indication that should be used during

the testing of these devices.

337-2 VC S.3.6.(b) Automatic Density Correction; Volume-Measuring Devices

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

Source: Southern Weights and Measures Association

250
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Recommendation: Modify S.3.6.(b) Automatic Density Correction on Volume-Measuring Devices as follows:

S.3.6. Automatic Density Correction

(b) Volume-measuring devices with automatic temperature compensation used to measure natural

gas as a motor vehicle enginefuel shall be equipped with an automatic means to determine and

correctfor changes in product density, both for due to changes in the temperature, pressure. and composition ofthe product

[Nonretroactive as ofJanuary 1, 1995. To become retroactive as ofJanuary 1, 1999.1

(Amended 1994 and 199T)

Discussion: The Southern Weights and Measures Association submitted this proposal after reviewing a proposal from Hoffer

Flow Controls to delete S.3.6. Automatic Density Correction on Volume-Measuring Devices from Handbook 44. Hoffer

Flow Control's position was that neither a direct mass flow meter or an inferred mass flow meter is capable of determining

composition of a gas without the use of a gas chromatograph or similar type of analytical equipment which can make

qualitative and quantitative determinations of the components that makeup a gas.

The Southern believes that there are some misinterpretations of this paragraph relating to the use of the term "composition."

The Southern noted that paragraph S.3.6. recognizes that product density can vary with changes in product composition and

with changes in product temperature. Any changes in product density can affect the accuracy of the meter, thus these devices

must be equipped with a means to automatically correct for changes in product density. Manual entries of product density

are not sufficient to compensate for changes in density which may vary with changes in the supply of product. Based on its review of past NCWM S&T reports the Southern believes the use of the term "composition" was not intended to require a device to automatically monitor changes in the qualitative properties of the gas; the requirement for monitoring changes in product density relates only to the subsequent impact on the measurement determination. Therefore, the Southern does not

believe it is appropriate to delete the word "composition" and recommends as an alternative that the focus of the changes to

S.3.6. should be to clarify the concerns which have been raised. The Southern notes that it heard additional comments that pressure may also affect product density and recommended that the S&T Committee study whether or not the term "pressure"

should be added to S.3.6.

During the open hearing session at the Interim Meeting, comjnents were heard that indicate other influence factors (in addition

to temperature and composition) may affect product density. Based on this information, the Committee recommends that the term "pressure" be added to paragraph S.3.6. to require that these systems have an automatic means to determine and correct

for changes in product density due to changes in "pressure." The Committee recommends that this requirement be revisited

as new technologies are developed that indicate other influence factors affect product measurement in these systems.

The Committee heard comments from one manufacturer of an indirect mass flow meter that this item should be made

informational until it completes research on these measuring systems. The Committee acknowledged that the study in progress and noted that it may revisit this issue when the study is complete on the effects of product composition.

337-3 I IJR.3.7. Return of Product to Storage - Compressed Natural Gas Dispensers

Source: Carryover Item 337-1

Discussion: The Committee is considering the addition of a user requirement for CNG dispensers as shown below:

UR.3.7. Return of Product to Storage. Retail Compressed Natural Gas Dispensers.- Provisions shall be

made for returning product to storage during testing operations.

At the 1997 Annual Meeting, it was noted that the Committee awaits direction from the CNG industry on the handling of

product after testing. Concern was expressed over who will be the responsible party in handling this product, especially in the event of a mishap. It was suggested the possible focus of this issue should be to safely dispose of the product.

The Committee is maintaining this item as informational with the understanding that the Natural Gas Vehicle Coalition

(NGVC) will come back to the S&T committee with a definitive proposal by the end of July 1997. The Committee expressed

its intention to move the item to voting status on its 1998 agenda based upon its continued concerns over the safe disposal

251
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

of product after testing and the need to enable testing to facilitate use and implementation of these alternative ftieling devices. Background information on this issue is listed below for reference.

Background: In 1994, the NCWM adopted requirements to address the sale and delivery of compressed naUiral gas (CNG).

At that time the Laws and Regulation Committee suggested diat a user requirement be added to Handbook to include

provisions for remming product used in testing to storage at all retail CNG locations. Weights and measures officials now

encounter installations without a way to return product to storage once cylinders have been filled during the testing process.

In some cases, device owners and service persons vent the product into the atmosphere to empty the cylinder used in the

testing process. Weights and measures officials have expressed concern over the safety and environmental impact of the

practice; however, there are no Handbook 44 requirements to address return of product to storage. The L&R Committee

noted that the Environmental Protection Agency has no specific regulation requiring the r6tum of CNG test product to storage, although air quality can be preserved only by eliminating venting to the atmosphere. Initial discussions with the Natural Gas Vehicle Coalition indicates that similar concerns may be shared by their members and that no significant

opposition to such a proposal is anticipated.

At the 1995 Annual Meeting, the Committee recognized that the return of CNG to storage is a safety concern to weights

and measures officials and industry representatives, therefore, the Committee felt this issue should receive priority status.

It also felt that technology already exists to permit return of CNG product after completion of the testing process. The

method for reuim of product should be determined by the user. Because the Committee was unanimous in its concern for

this requirement, it recommended this become a retroactive requirement.

The 1995 NCWM Annual Meeting concluded with recommendations from industry and weights & measures officials that additional study was needed to identily how the product will be returned to storage and what restrictions, such as pressure, might create problems in returning product to storage.

During the 1996 Interim Meetings, the Committee was advised that a subgroup from the NTETC Measuring Sector was

reviewing a proposed procedure to address the remm of product during the testing of compressed natural gas meters.

In June 1996, the Natural Gas Vehicle Coalition (NGVC) sponsored a meeting to develop field test procedures for compressed natural gas dispensers and to discuss Item 337-1 on the S&T Committee's agenda. The meeting was attended by

the Chairman of the S&T Committee, weights and measures officials, members of industry, and users of compressed natural gas dispensers. At that meeting, a consensus was not reached on how to address the issue of returning product to storage. It was noted that a number of possible methods exist and that different methods may be used at different installations. The group

expressed particular concern about the safety issues surrounding this issue and emphasized the importance of establishing

procedures which will not create environmental issues. Industry representatives in the group noted the importance of ensuring

that each site is evaluated by a regulatory agency, such as the Fire Marshall's office, to ensure that all safety issues have been

addressed for the specific installation. Weights and measures officials expressed concern that safety evaluations of these

installations by such agencies are often delayed well past the time the devices are placed into service because of the heavy

workload of these agencies. Since the NGVC's Technical Committee NGV4 had planned to meet at the end of July 1996, it was suggested that this group might be better able to refine the possible approaches to safely discharge the product after testing; since the group is very familiar with the technology and the restrictions to be addressed when working with the product.

The Committee received a letter fi-om the NGVC in July 1996 confirming that the Coalition's Technical Subcommittee NGV4

would discuss the return to storage issue at its meeting at the end of July 1996. The NGVC committee asked the Committee

to consider returning the issue to an "Informational" status pending this meeting. The NGVC believed that they could develop

safe, cost-effective, and technically sound solutions for dealing with this issue fi-om a systems approach.

The S&T Committee heard testimony fi"om several weights and measures jurisdictions emphasizing the safety concerns

surrounding this issue and the jurisdictions voiced the need to move forward as quickly as possible to prevent injury to field officials. While the Committee was reluctant to delay the issue fiirther, the Committee was uncertain whether or not the proposed change to UR.3.7. would fully address the safety concerns as it is currently written. Consequently, the Committee

decided to return the item to "Informational" status to allow the NGVC Subcommittee additional time to develop an alternate proposal. The Committee took this action with the understanding that the Subcommittee would return to the NCWM soon

after their July 1996 meeting with possible solutions to be circulated among the regional weights and measures associations

and possibly be included in a draft examination procedure outline for trial use by field staff

252
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

The Northeastern and Western Weights and Measures Associations continue to support the proposal as written. The Western

has kept this item as informational. The Southern Weights and Measures Association heard a presentation from Jim Pekor,

Equitable Gas Company, speaking on behalf of the Natural Gas Vehicle Coalition (NGVC) concerning the work being

conducted by the NGVC Technical Committee 4.9 on this issue. Mr. Pekor reported that based on work to be performed over

the next several months, the Technical Committee will make recommendations to the regional weights and measures

associations and the NCWM S&T Committee concerning this issue. The report was to be provided to the Committee by the 1997 NCWM Interim Meeting.

During discussions at the 1997 Interim Meeting, the Committee acknowledged the NGVC concern that the wording in the proposed paragraph UR.3.7. might be interpreted as strictly requiring CNG products to be returned to storage. The NGVC

believes the proposal as written limits device operators to the most complex and expensive option for emptying test cylinders

after testing has been completed. The Committee considered alternative language developed by the NGVC and one dispenser

manufacturer; however, comments received during its deliberations indicate that the alternate language does not address

several issues of concern, such as accessibility (operator providing special labor and equipment), responsibility, and definitive guidelines on safe discharge of product given the restrictions on venting product to atmosphere that may exist in many

jurisdictions. The NGVC also suggested returning product to a vehicle; however. Weights and Measures officials noted that

their internal policy and procedures prevent them from returning product to an official vehicle.

It was agreed that this issue was not fiilly understood during the initial phases of the Conference work on compressed natural gas retail motor-fuel dispensers. The Committee reiterates its concern over the safe discharge of CNG products and

recognizes that the growth continues in the number of these installation which fall under the jurisdiction of the local weights

and measures authority.

337-4 VC Changes to Section 3.37 to Correspond to Liquid-Measuring Devices Code

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

Source: National Type Evaluation Technical Committee (NTETC) Measuring Sector

Recommendation: Add new requirements as follows to Secfion 3.37 Mass Flow Meters Code Section of Handbook 44 to correspond to the code sections from the Liquid-Measuring Devices Code (LMD.) The proposed requirement for hose length

will be aligned with the Canadian requirement and, thus, will differ from that in the LMD Code.

5.2.5.3. 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), 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 a

product.

(Added 1997)

[Nonretroactive as of January 1. 1998

J

5.2.5.4. Agreement Between Indications. - When a quantity value indicated or recorded by an

auxiliary element is a derived or computed value based on data received from a retail motor fuel

dispenser, the value may differ from the quantity value displayed on the dispenser, provided the following conditions are met:

(a) all total money values for an individual sale that are indicated or recorded by the system agree, and

(b) within each element the values indicated or recorded meet the formula (quantity x unit price = total sales price) to the closest cent. (Added 1997)

[Nonretroactive as of January 1. 19981

253
SpeciHcations and Tolerances Committee

S.2.8. Indication of Delivery. - The device shall automatically show on its face the initial zero

condition and the quantity delivered (up to the nominal capacity). However, the first 0.03 L (0.009 gali

of a delivery and its associated total sales price need not be indicated. (Added 1997)

[Nonretroactive as of January 1. 19981

S.7. Totalizers.

S.7.1. Totalizers for Retail Motor-Fuel Devices.- Retail motor-fuel dispensers shall be

equipped with a nonresettable totalizer for the quantity delivered through the metering device.

(Added 1997)

[Nonretroactive as of January 1. 19987

UR.3.8. Return of Indicating and Recording Elements to Zero.- On any dispenser used in making

retail deliveries, the primary indicating element, and recording element if so equipped will be returned

to zero before each delivery. Exceptions to this requirement are totalizers on key-lock-operated or other

self-operated dispensers and the primary recording element if the device is equipped to record. (Added 1997)

[Nonretroactive as of January 1. 19981

UR.4. Selection Requirements.

UR.4.1. Discharge Hose.

UR.4. 1.1. Length - The length ofthe discharge hose on a retail-motorfuel device:

(a) shall not exceed 4.6 m (15 ft) unless it can be demonstrated that a longer hose is essential to permit deliveries to be made to receiving vehicles or vessels. (Added 1997)

[Nonretroactive as of January 1. 1998

J

UR.5. Installation Requirements.

UR.5.1. Manufacturer's Instructions.-A device shall be installed in accordance with the manufacturer's

instructions, and the installation shall be sufficiently secure and rigid to maintain this condition.

(Added 1997)

[Nonretroactive as of January 1. 1998]

UR.5.2. Discharge Rate. -A device shall be installed so that the actual maximum discharge rate will not exceed the rated maximum discharge rate. Automatic means offlow regulation shall be incorporated

in the installation if necessary. (Added 1997)

fNonretroactive as ofJanuary 1. 1998}

Discussion: At the 1995 meeting of the National Type Evaluation Technical Committee Measuring Sector, the Sector heard

proposed changes to the Mass Flow Meter Code which were submitted by California. The modifications were to be reviewed

concurrently with the proposed Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) Retail Motor-Fuel Dispenser Checklist. A subgroup which

has also agreed to review the CNG Checklist, was to study the proposed code sections, then refine and submit them to the Sector for further review and action. Based upon its review of these proposed changes at its October 1996 Meeting, the Measuring Sector supports incorporating the above code requirements as they relate to Mass Flow Meters into Handbook

44. The Sector believes that it is appropriate to include these paragraphs because they are applicable to mass flow meters used

to dispense compressed natural gas as an engine fiiel. The Sector acknowledged that there may be some concerns over the length of the discharge hose on these dispensers; however, it agreed that the hose length should be 1 5 fifteen feet, thus aligning U.S. and Canada requirements.

Comments received at the October 1996 Sector meeting indicate that the requirement proposed in paragraph UR. 1.1.1. should be harmonized with the Canadian requirement of 15 feet. It was noted that the "mast-type" support for a CNG hose

254
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

necessitates a longer hose than the permissible 12-foot length. Similar reconmiendations were made at the June 1996

meeting of the CNG Retail Motor-Fuel Dispenser working group.

At the Aimual Meeting, the Gasoline Pump Manufacturers Association (GPMA) indicated that the requirements for CNG

retail motor-fuel dispensers should agree with all the operating requirements in Section 3.30 of Handbook 44 for other retail devices. It was questioned whether or not the suppression of the fu-st 0.009 gallons of product in a delivery is acceptable

for this type of dispenser. The explanation given for that practice indicates that this figure was selected because it is equivalent to the whole revolution of the least significant decade for the gallon indication. Micro Motion recommended that

this requirement be stated in mass units. The Committee received a limited number of responses to the proposal and

recommends inclusion of the proposal in the Mass Flow Meter Code.

Each requirement was given the appropriate paragraph designation for the applicable code section in which it is to appear. Additionally, it was recommended these new paragraphs become nonretroactive requirements.

Berry Baskets and Boxes Code

346-1 W Changes to Recognize Use of Nonrigid Containers

(This item was withdrawn.)

Source: Central Weights and Measures Association (CWMA)

Discussion: The Committee considered the following proposal to recognize the use of non-rigid contamers in the Berry

Basket and Boxes Code.

A.l. - This code applies to baskets and boxes for berries and small fruits in capacities of 1 dry quart and

less. This code also applies to nonrigid (paper, and plastic) containers used for the sale of fruits and

vegetables with a capacity of Vi bushel and less.

S. 1 . Units. - The capacity of a beny basket or box shall be '/^ dry pint, 1 pint, or 1 dry quart.

5.1.1. The capacity of a berry basket or box shall be V2 dry pint, 1 pint, or 1 dry quart.

5.1.2. The capacity of nonrigid containers shall be % peck. V2 peck. 1 peck or '/2 bushel.

S.3. Capacity Point. The capacity of a berry basket,-or box, or nonrigid container shall be determined

by its top edges.

N. 1 . 1 . Method of Test. - A berry basket or box may be tested either volumetrically, using rape seed as the testing medium, or geometrically through accurate inside dimension measurement and

calculation.

N.1.1 . A berry basket or box may be tested either volumetrically, using rape seed as the testing

medium, or geometrically through accurate inside dimension measurement and calculation.

N.1.2. A nonrigid container may be tested geometrically through accurate inside dimension

measurements and calculations.

255
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Table 1. Maintenance and Acceptance Tolerances

in Excess and in Deficiency

Nominal

Capacity

Tolerance

In excess

cubic inches

In deficiency cubic inches

Vi pint 1.0 0.5

1 pint 2.0 1.0

1 quart 3.0 1.5 % peck 10 15

'/2 peck 10.0 10

1 peck 16.0

Vi bushel 30.0 15.0

Ohio has determined that, in response to a consumer complaint on short volume of bagged produce, that bags used to package

produce are short on capacity. Ohio has noted that there is no applicable code requirement for this type of container. Ohio

also reports that the manufacturer of 80 percent of the paper containers advises that the deficiency is an acceptable industry

standard; testing indicates as much as a 16-20 percent shortage on one-peck paper bags.

The inner dimensions of a paper bag or other non-rigid container can usually be verified fairly accurately through dimensional

measurements when the container is empty. A bag deforms at varying degrees when it is used to package products such as apples or other large produce items,.

The Committee noted that bags of produce should be treated as packages; the packages must contain the declared quantity

within the requirements of NIST Handbook 133. The Committee noted that items with large amounts of air space are customarily sold by heaped measure. The Committee also noted that labeling requirements within Handbook 130 state that containers shall contain their stated quantity of a commodity.

The Committee received a limited number of responses from weights and measure jurisdictions on the extent of short measure

produce bags. A number of recommendations noted that metric units of measurement should be added to this code section. One area of concern is that testing "geometrically" may not result in an accurate determination of the capacity of these bags.

Additionally, it was pointed out that testing of this type of container with standard testing materials may subject the bags to

distortion and, thus, may not yield consistent, accurate findings during repeated dimensional measurements.

While the Committee acknowledged and appreciated the concerns presented in this item, the Committee does not believe that

it is appropriate to recognize non-rigid containers as standard measures. The Committee believes that commodities packaged

in non-rigid containers, such as those described in the proposal, should be tested as packages and, as packages, should be

labeled and packaged as specified in Handbook 130 and 133.

During the 1997 NCWM Annual Meeting, Ohio indicated that it believes this is a regional problem and it plans to revisit this issue.

5.56(a) Grain Moisture Meters Code

356-1 VC S.2.5. Provision for Sealing

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

Source: Grain Moisture Meter (GMM) and Near-Infrared Protein (NIR) Analyzer Sectors

Recommendation: Change the Provisions for Sealing for Section 5.56(a) Grain Moisture Meters as follows: [NOTE: Section S.2.5. was previously Section S.2.3. prior to 1996 with the reorganization of the Grain Moisture Meters Code]

256
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

S.2.5. Provisionfor Sealing

fa) Provision shall be madefor applying a security seal in a manner that requires the security seal

to be broken, orfor using other approved means ofproviding security (e.g., audit trail available

at the time ofinspection as defined in part-t Table S.2.5.^) before any change that affects the

metrological integrity of the device can be made to any mechanisnt [Nonretroactive as of

January 1, 1998]

fb)- If t he operator is able to make changes t hat affect t he i ntegrity of t he device (e.g., slope, bias, etc.) In normal operation, the device shall use an audit tail. The mini mum foi ni of the audit t rail shall be an event logger and shall i nclude :

An event counter (000 to 999), the parameter ID,

the date and time of t he change, and

t he new value of the parameter (for calibrat ion changes consist ing of multi ple

constants, the calibration version number is to be used rather than t he calibrati on constants.)

The device is not required to display t his information, but a printed copy of the information must be available t hrough another on-site device. The event logger shall have a capac ity

to retain records equal to twenty-five (25) times the number of scalable param ete rs in t h e device, but not more than 1000 records are required. (Note: Does not require 1000 changes to be sto red for each parameter.)

[Note: Zero-setting and test point adjustments are considered to affect metrological

characteristics and must be sealed.]

257
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Table S.2.5. Categories ofDevice and Methods ofSealing

Categories ofDevice Method ofSealing

Categorv I: No remote configuration capabilitv. Seal bv ohvsical seal or two event counters: one for calibration parameters (000 to 999) and one for configuration parameters (000 to 999). Ifequipped with event counters, the device must be capable of

displaving. or printing through the device or through another on-site

device, the contents ofthe counters.

/^fwtdjn^wxt J?tfM#/i/£r r*ftn/iotMr/tfi/iM /^nnnhStStxt hut MmH^fiK iiururvurt: n/if/hty/BF/f /ftt/thilHO criuuiin^ /l/^/*^cc ucccjA lur r/>P rcrnuit^ Tomnio f*fmtn9ii currtiriumcuiiun ttt^ntw^tt M<rjc*^ t\a n4 FnUSl oe ul access is controlled bv physical hardware. the device and sealed using a physical seal or two event counters: one

Device shall clearlv indicate that it is in the remote

for calibration parameters (000 to 999) and one for configuration

parameters (000 to 999.) Ifequipped with event counters, the device configuration mode and shall not be capable of must be capable ofdisplaving. or printing through the device or

operating in the measure mode while enabled for remote configuration.

through another on-site device, the contents ofthe counters.

Categorv 3: Remote configuration capabilitv access An event logger is required ... in the device: it must include an event mav be unlimited or controlled through a software

switch (e.g.. password)

counter (uuv to yyy), tne parameter lU. tne date ana time of the change, and the new value ofthe parameter (for calibration changes

consisting ofmultiple constants, the calibration version number mav

be used rather than the calibration constants.) A printed copv ofthe information must be available through the device or through another

on-site device. The event logger shall have a capacity to retain records equal to twentv-five (25) times the number ofsealable parameters in the device, but not more than 1000 records are required (Note: Does

not require 1000 changes to be stored for each parameter.)

x^uicgurv ja. jju rcrnvic Lupuonfiv* out upcruior is able to make changes that affect the metrological

integritv ofthe device (e.g., slope, bias, etc.) in normal operation.

Same as Categorv 3.

Categorv 3b: No remote capabilitv. but access to metrological parameters is controlled through a Same as Categorv 3.

software switch (e.g.. password.)

[Table Nonretroactive as of January 1. 1999. J

Discussion: During the 1995 NCWM Annual Meeting the provisions for sealing in S.2.5. were renumbered and modified

to include a list of the specific minimum audit trail information; this change did not address devices with remote

configuration. At its March 1996 Meeting, the Grain Moisture Meter Sector discussed an audit trail requirement for devices

capable of remote configuration. The Sector heard comments from one device manufacturer stating that, from an enforcement

stance, there is no difference between devices which require a seal to be broken at the device keypad and devices which can be accessed remotely without breaking a seal (e.g., via a modem or acoustic coupler) prior to changing a parameter. One

consideration that was noted was the significant difference in the economics involved in choosing a device with a physical

seal versus one that has sufficient memory to incorporate an audit trail. The Sector was not able to reach a consensus at its March 1996 meeting on an audit trail requirement for devices with remote configuration capability regardless of the need to break a physical seal prior to remote configuration.

The Sector discussed the methods of sealing scales and liquid-measuring devices and their possible application to grain

moisture meters. It was noted that grain moisture meters may be inspected before calibration is completed for the coming

harvest, thus leaving the device unsealed with no record of the changes to parameters for more than a year. A poll of the weights and measures membership on the Sector indicated a preference for sealing Category 2 devices with a physical seal or event counters.

At its September 1996 meeting, the Sector acknowledged that physical seals would not constitute a meaningftil form of

security on grain moisture meters if frequent bias adjustments were required, and event counters alone would not provide

substantial information on the appropriateness of the adjustment. The Sector believes that grain moisture meters should either be sealed by a physical seal, or if the operator is able to make changes affecting the metrological integrity of the device.

258
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

should use an audit trail consisting of an event logger which includes an event counter, the parameter ID, the date and time

of change, and the new value of the parameter (or the new calibration version number if the change consisted of multiple

constants.)

The S&T Committee received additional recommendations from the Sector to modify the requirements for Category 1 from

the original proposal, which did not recognize the use of an audit trail. The Committee agreed with the proposed changes

and incorporated them into the recommendation as shown.

The Committee noted that the requirements for Category 2 devices allow for either displaying or printing event counter

information. The Committee acknowledged that this is different from audit trail criteria for other types of devices. Comments

indicated that this provision to display or print audit trail information might also be appropriate to add to Category 1 of Table

S.2.5. The Committee asked that the GMM Sector review this issue and provide feedback to the Committee. Based upon

input from the GMM Sector, the Committee may add language to the provisions of Category 1 to recognize either display

or printing of the audit frail information.

Editorial Note: At the March 1997 meeting, the Grain Moisture Meter Sector decided to recommend to the S&T Committee

that additional language be added to the method of sealing Category 1 devices of Table S.2.5. and also specify that the event

counters for Category 1 and 2 devices be able to record from 000 to 999 events for both calibration and configuration

parameters. The additional language the S&T Committee will be asked to consider for Category 1 devices reads as follows: Ifequipped with event counters, the device must be capable ofdisplaying, or printing through another on-site device, the contents ofthe counters."

At the 1997 NCWM Annual Meeting, the S&T Committee supported the additional changes proposed by the Sector in its March 1997 meeting. In addition, the Committee supported a recommendation for further modifications to the language to allow that event counter information be displayed or printed through the device or another on-site device for Category 1 and

2 devices. It was also noted that it was the Sector's intent for Category 3 devices to have a capacity to retain records 25 times

the number of sealable parameters.

Near-Infrared Grain Analyzers Code

357-1 VC S.2.6. Provision for Sealing

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

Source: Near-Infrared Protein Analyzer (NIR) Sector

Recommendation: Modify S.2.6. Provision for Sealing as follows:

S.2.6. Provision for Sealing. -

fa^ Provision shall be madefar applying a security seal in a manner tliat requires tiie security seal

to be broken, orfor usitig otlier approved means ofproviding security (e.g., audit trail available

at the time ofmspection as defined in part (b),) before any change tliat affects the metrological

integrity ofthe device can be made to any mechanism.

fbf- Ifthe operator a able to make changes tliat affect the metrological integrity of the device fe.g., slope, bias, etc) In normal operation, the device shall use an audit tail The mininmmform

ofthe audit trail shall be an event logger and shall include:

An event counter (000 to 999),

the parameter ID,

the date and time ofthe change, and

the new value of the parameter (far calibration changes consistmg of nmltiple

constants, the calibration version number is to be used rather than the calibration

constants.)

259
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

An event logger is required in the device: it must include an event counter (OOP to 999). the

parameter ID. the date and time of the change, and the new value of the parameter (for

calibration changes consisting ofmultiple constants, the calibration version number may be

used rather than the calibration constants).

A printed copy ofthe information must be available through the device or through another onsite device. The event logger shall have a capacity to retain records equal to twenty-five (25)

times the number of scalable parameters in the device, but not more than 1000 records are

required. (Note: Does not require 1000 changes to be storedfor each parameter.)

Discussion: The NIR Sector believes that changes to the method of sealing for NIR grain analyzers should correspond as closely as possible with those for grain moisture meters, since a device may be submitted for use in both applications. The

Sector agreed that the sealing requirements for near infrared-type instruments should equal or exceed those specified for Category 3 devices in the Scales Code. Specifically, the Sector agreed that all NIR grain analyzers (measurmg constituents other than moisture) should comply with the audit trail requirements for Category 3, 3a and 3b devices consistent with that which was proposed for Grain Moisture Meters. See agenda item 356-1 for a detailed discussion of this issue.

The Committee has received no unfavorable comments on this proposal, therefore it supports the recommendation as presented.

Other Items

360-1 W Identification of Code Sections Not Designed for Field Application

(This item was withdrawn.)

Source: Central Weights and Measures Association

Discussion: During the 1996 NCWM Annual Meeting, an emergency issue was brought before the NCWM. That issue deaU

with a legal challenge to a weights and measures jurisdiction as a result of how it enforced portions of Handbook 44 intended

primarily for laboratory applications and other tests to be conducted under controlled conditions. To help address this challenge, the NCWM added new wording to the Introduction, Section 6. Using the Handbook in Handbook 44; this wording

acknowledges that some equipment design features may lend themselves only to testing m a laboratory or controlled environment, and that not all tests described in the Notes Section of Handbook 44 are requu^ed to be performed in the field as an official test.

To prevent further challenges and to clarify the optimum environment to field officials attempting to conduct inspections on

the various types of device technology in commercial use, the Central believes that the appropriate code sections should

contain language which declares the intended environment under which to perform tests.

No specific recommendations were submitted.

Based upon comments heard on this issue and discussion during the Interim Meetings, the Committee does not believe that the identification of code requirements for use in "laboratory" or "field" is appropriate at this time. The Committee believes

that the language added in July 1996 to the Introduction to NIST Handbook 44 under Section 6. Using the Handbook as a

result of an emergency item adequately addresses this issue. There is concern that specifically designating a test or

specification as a "laboratory" or "field" test might imply that the test cannot be applied in the field or that the device is exempt

from the requirement in a field installation. The Committee is also concerned that this differentiation may lead to difficulties in enforcing requirements when the specifications can realistically be applied or tests performed in the field.

360-2 I OIML Report

Prior to the 1997 Interim Meeting information was provided by Otto. K. Wamlof, Standards Management Program, NIST

on OIML activities of significant importance to the NCWM. The following information is an update which was provided

by Deborah M. Ripley, Standards Management Program, NIST, on OIML activities of significant importance to the NCWM.

This report contains a list of the International Working Group Meetings (IWG), National Working Group Meetings (NWG),

260
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

work in process, and the Asian-Pacific Legal Metrology Forum (APLMF) activities that are of interest to NCWM members

and are generally within the purview of the S&T Committee.

OIML Report

NCWM Annual Meeting - July, 1997

International Working Group Meetings

TC 9 "Instruments for Measuring Mass and Density" (responsibility U.S.), July 7-9, 1997 United Kingdom,

1" Committee Draft (CD) Revision of R 60 "Metrological regulation for load cells."

TC 9/SC 2 "Automatic Weighing Instruments" (responsibility U.K.), July 9-11, 1997 United Kingdom

2nd CD R "Automatic Road Weighbridges."

TC 8/SC 7 "Gas metering" (responsibility Belgium), January 26-28, 1998, Brussels

TC 8/SC 5 Revision of R 49 "Water Meters Intended for the Metering of Cold Water." Withdrawn in November

1996. October 1-3, 1997, Vienna, to determine direction.

OIML 32TM' CIML Meeting. October 27-31, 1997, Rio, Brazil

National Working Group Meetings - 1997

TC 9 "Instruments for Measuring Mass and Density" (responsibility U.S.), March 25-26, 1997

1" CD Revision of R 60 "Metrological Regulation for Load Cells."

TC 9/SC 3 Weights (responsibility U.S.), to be annoimced.

Work in Process - 1997

TC 9 CD Revision of R 60 to be circulated to NWG by September 1997.

l"* CD Revision of Annex-A to be circulated to NWG by September 1997.

TC 9/SC 3 Proposed Draft R 1 11-2 Part 1 : Testing Procedures For Weights and

Proposed Draft R 111-2 Part 2: Pattern Evaluation Report circulate to NWG and IWG for vote and

comment.

TC 9/SC 2 3"^ CD R "Automatic Instruments for Weighing Road Vehicles in Motion." to be circulated by fall 1997.

TC 8/SC 5 Revision of R 49 Water Meters Intended for the Metering of Cold Water. Withdrawn November 1996.

TC 8/SC 5/"WG 1 "Electronic Water Meters" has been put on hold imtil R 49 issues are resolved.

TC 8/SC 2 "Static Mass Measurement" (responsibility Australia). CD to be circulated to NWG for review.

TC 8\SC 6 "Measurement of Cryogenic Liquids" (responsibility U.S.), Draft Revision R 81 "Measuring Systems

for Cryogenic Liquids." CD circulated to NWG for comment. Draft submitted to CIML Members for vote.

"Measurement of Cryogenic Liquids" (responsibility U.S.), Draft R 81 "Measuring Systems for Cryogenic Liquids. Part 2: Test Report Format" (in development).

TC 7/SC 5 "Dimensional Measuring Instnmients" (responsibility Australia). 3rd CD due for circulation in fall of

1997.

261
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

APLMF

Load Cell Intercomparison of Load Cell Testing, Working Group Meeting (responsibility Australia), July 7, 1997, United Kingdom

4"" Forum Meeting, September 22 - October 5, 1997, Tsukuba, Japan

Topics: High capacity flow meters; utility meters; prepackaged articles & mutual recognition; "Train the Trainer" on OIML R 76 Non-Automatic Weighing Instruments.

Intercomparisons: Non-automatic weighing instruments

Load Cells (to be announced)

Mass standards (to be announced)

Rice-moisture (formation of working group)

360-3 I Committee Policy and Procedures

(This item was added to the Committee 's agenda as a result ofdiscussions at the Interim Meeting.)

Source: Specifications and Tolerances (S&T) Committee

Recommendation: The Committee recommends that a policy and procedures be established for placing items on the NCWM

S&T Committee agenda. The Committee is working to complete a trifold brochure and submittal form which includes

information on how to introduce an agenda item to the S&T Committee; the Committee also plans to make this information

available on the NCWM Fax-on-Demand System. The Committee believes this work will clearly document and expedite the process by which amendments or new provisions are added to NIST Handbook 44.

Discussion: Discussions at the Interim Meeting, by Committee members indicate a pressing need to establish some guidelines on how the Committee should accept and process items submitted for its agenda. The Committee has heard comments which

indicate that many proposals on the S&T agenda may not have been fully explored to ascertain if there is a need to address

those changes at a national level. Additionally, items may be presented to the Committee prior to an item undergoing all of

the developmental procedures that are outlined in NIST Handbook 44 Introduction 3. Handbook Amendments. Based on

these comments and the number of proposals it receives annually, the Committee is working to develop a policy and

procedures to ensure that members of the NCWM are receiving the maximum benefits of the mechanism in place for addressing weights and measures issues and enacting changes to Handbook 44.

Ronald D. Murdock, North Carolina, Chairman

Darryl L. Brown, Iowa

Monty H. Hopper, Kern County, California

Allan Nelson, Connecticut

George Shefcheck, Oregon

Renald Marceau, Canada, Technical Advisor

Tina Butcher, NIST, Technical Advisor

Juana Williams, NIST, Technical Advisor

Committee on Specifications and Tolerances

262
Administration and Public Affairs Committee

Report of the Committee on

Administration and Public Affairs

Edwin J. Price, Chairman

Director for Consumer Programs

Texas Department of Agriculture

400 Introduction

This Report of the Committee on Administration and Public Affairs (A&P) for the 82nd Aimual Meeting of the National

Conference on Weights and Meastires consists of the Interim Report offered in the NCWM Publication 16, "Program and

Committee Reports," as amended by the Addendimi Sheets issued during the Aimual Meeting.

Table A identifies all of the issues contained in the Report by Reference Key Nimiber, Item Title, and Page Number. All items are informational and are indicated by the suffix I.

Table B lists the appendices to the report, and Table C provides a summary of the results of the voting on the Committee's

report in its entirety.

Table A

Index to Reference Key Items

Reference

Key No. Title of Item Page

401 I Regional Weights and Measures Activities 265

402 I Program Evaluation Work Group 265

403 National Training Program (NTP) 266

403-1 I Associate Membership Scholarship Fund-Training Delivery 266

403-2 I NCWM Training Courses Update and Maintenance 267

403-3 I Organization and Utilization of Certified Trainers 269

403-4 I Industry Training 269

403-5 I Instructor Training 269

403-6 I Continuing Education Units (CEUs) 269

404 I Legislative Strategy 270

405 I Weights and Measures Round Tables 270

406 I Public Affairs 270

406-1 I Public Relations 271

406-2 I Weights and Measures Week Theme 1998 271

406-3 I Advertisement of the 82nd NCWM 1997 - Chicago, Illinois 272

263
Administration and Public Affairs Committee

Table A (Continued)

Index to Reference Key Items

Reference

Key No. Title of Item Page

407 I Administrative Priorities and Budget 272

408 I Safety Information Clearinghouse 272

In addition, the Report contains several appendices that are related to specific Reference Key Numbers as follows:

Table B

Appendices

Appendix Title Reference Key No. Page

A. Program Evaluation Work Group Meeting Report 402 273

B. NTP Certification Summary 403 275

C. NTP Registry Summary of Activity 403 276

D. Associate Membership Grant/Training

Scholarship Funds Activity 403-1 286

E. NIST/NCWM Instructor Training

by State 403-5 292

F. Accident/Incident Report Summary and

Accident/Incident Report Form 408 295

Table C

Voting Results

Reference Key No.

House of State Representatives

House of Delegates

Results Yes No Yes No

400 (Report in its Entirety) 41 0 58 0 Passed

264
Administration and Public Affairs Committee

Details of All Items

(In order of Reference Key Number)

401 I Regional Weights and Measures Activities

The Committee reviewed and discussed the following:

1. The fmal report of the Interim Meeting of the Central Weights and Measures Association (September 1996).

2. The fmal report of the Annual Meeting of the Northeastern Weights and Measures Association (May 1997).

3. The fmal report of the Administration and Public Affairs Committee to the 39th Annual Technical Meeting of the Western Weights and Measures Association Conference (September 1996).

4. The fmal report of the Administration and Public Affairs Committee to the 51st Annual Southern Weights and

Measures Association Conference (October 1996).

5. Committee responsibilities to the regional associations were discussed.

The positions taken by the regional associations on specific items appearing in this report are noted as part of the discussion

of the items. The Committee would like to thank all of the regional associations for their invaluable input and expressions

of support for the work of this Committee.

402 I Program Evaluation Work Group

This working group of the A&P Committee is responsible for identifying and defming critical information that weights and measures jurisdictions should collect to show the impact of their programs and make decisions about the allocation of

resources. Another objective is to achieve imiformity in data collection and inspection activities dirough the electronic media, allowing jurisdictions to share information through a national database. Darrell Guensler, Chairman of the PEWG,

delivered a report to the Committee during the 1997 Interim Meeting. (See Appendix A for a summary of the August 1996

meeting of the PEWG.)

The PEWG has determined that the efforts of the work group cannot progress or be successful unless proper resources are made available. The resources required to support this effort exceed the amount originally estimated for the project, and

NIST is unable to devote the necessary resources from its current staff.

It has been requested by the A&P Chairman that the Executive Committee take steps to secure the funding needed for this effort, using one of the following approaches:

(1) Hire a Computer Analyst/Database Administrator, under the direction of the NIST Technical Advisor,

at a salary of $50,000 - $60,000 per year (this translates to an annual expenditure of $100,0(X) - $120,000, including benefits);

(2) Another possibility would be to hire an outside vendor. As an example, the Food and Drug

Administration (FDA) has contracted with a small firm in Rockville, Maryland, to develop, house, and

maintain a similar database. The fnst year development cost to the FDA was approximately $175,000-

The yearly maintenance has been approximately $10,000 - $13,000 per year for the last 5 years.

It appears that the Executive Committee has three options available for addressing this issue:

(1) Approach NIST for a grant to provide the necessary resources;

(2) Approve the expenditure of resources by the NCWM; or

265
Administration and Public Affairs Committee

(3) Since the opportunity for success is limited without the necessary resources, the working group should

be disbanded imtil additional resources can be devoted to the project.

The preferred option is to ask NIST to fund this effort for as long as possible. However, the National Conference on

Weights and Measures should be prepared to undertake financial responsibility at some point in the future.

Further hindering the work of the group is the announcement that OWM Technical Advisor, Deborah Ripley, has been

reassigned to another area within NIST. At the present time, no one on the OWM staff is available to take over the work

ofthePEWG.

Concluding his report, PEWG Chairman Darrell Guensler indicated his continuing commitment to the success of this project

if adequate resources are provided. The State of California will proceed with implementation of a State program even if the project does not proceed on a national basis.

Going beyond automation of a national database, the A&P Committee will work with the PEWG to identify work efforts that the group can and should realistically continue in promoting uniformity in various areas, with a focus on managing

barriers to developing uniformity at the local level.

403 I National Training Program (NTP)

A summary of current participation by individual jurisdictions in the NTP Certification Program is provided in Appendix

B. Appendix C contains a simmiary of activity and information in the NTP Registry fi-om 1985 through June 1997.

In September 1996, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Office of Weights and Measures (OWM)

added $75,(XX) to the remaining funds in the second training grant to the NCWM, which originally totaled $180,000. The

status of the funds remaining under the second grant provided by NIST to the NCWM for the development of training

materials and delivery of instructor training for weights and measures officials is as follows (as of Jime 30, 1997):

Net outlays to date: $ 124,137.22

Total unliquidated obligations 14,630.00

(money committed to contractors):

Total grant funds authorized ($180,000.00

plus 9/15/96 addition of $75,000.00): 255,000.00

Unobligated balance of funds: 116,232.78

(Money available for development

of training materials and delivery

of instructor training)

During the 1997 Interim Meeting, Gilbert M. Ugiansky, Ph.D., Chief of the NIST Office of Weights and Measures and

Executive Secretary of the NCWM, participated in a discussion regarding the status of carryover grant funds. The

Committee is investigating options available for the most effective use of remaining grant funds. Areas under consideration

include: redesign of NTP's training on scales (see Item 403-2); development of short courses, correspondence courses,

interactive videos, and CD-ROMs; maintenance and updating of existing training materials; updating NCWM Publication

12, Examination Procedure Oudines (EPOs) (a contract for which is in progress); sponsoring additional instructor training courses (see Item 403-5).

403-1 I Associate Membership Scholarship Fmid-Training Delivery

The Committee received a report covering the awarding of 52 $500 scholarships provided by the Associate Membership

Committee (AMC) to U.S. weights and measures officials. The scholarships were authorized for use during the period

August 1, 1996, through July 31, 1997. A summary of that activity is shown in Appendix D. All scholarship fimds for

this period were committed.

With participation from the Associate Membership Committee, the A«&P Committee discussed the success of the scholarship

program and explored avenues for continuing the project. The Committee expressed appreciation to the Associate

266
Administration and Public Affairs Committee

Membership Committee, as well as gratitude to all industry members for their support of the scholarship program.

The Associate Membership Committee (AMC) clearly demonstrated its commitment to the training of weights and measures

personnel. During the 82"^ Annual Meeting, the Associate Membership annoimced that it will provide 52 $500 scholarships

for field training of weights and measures personnel. One $500 scholarship per weights and measures region may be used

to support the publication of the association's newsletter. All undertakings must be completed and funds paid out by

July 31, 1998.

A standard Application for Scholarship Funds, Request for Disbursement, and Reimbursement Voucher have been

developed by the Committee and are in Appendix E.

403-2 I NCWM Training Courses Update and Maintenance

The Committee has adopted a plan to utilize the skills of NCWM Certified Trainers as well as outside vendors to develop,

update, and perform any necessary maintenance of all NTP Training Courses and Examination Procedure Outlines (EPO's).

A major revision of existing course materials is necessary to make them consistent with the 1997 Edition of Handbook 44

and current NCWM formats and policies. The NCWM Committee on Administration and Public Affairs is now seeking

proposals from individuals qualified to update these materials. The objective of this project is to revise the Inspector's

(student's) Manuals and to develop the course outlines and lesson plans necessary for the guidance of instructors.

The Committee reviewed the progress made under two contracts awarded in this area. Work is currently in progress on

the revision of Course No. 302, Retail Motor-Fuel Dispensers and Consoles, and EPO No. 1 on Small Scales. Proposals

are sought for the update of the following courses:

Course No. 103, Introduction to Electronic Weighing and Measuring Systems,

Course No. 203, Medium-Capacity Scales,

Course No. 206, Vehicle and Axle-Load Scales,

Course No. 303, Vehicle-Tank Meters,

Course No. 304, Loading-Rack Meters,

Course No. 601, Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods, and

Course No. 602, Commodity Regulations.

The A&P Committee is also seeking to identify individuals qualified to develop the following new courses:

Course No. 201, Introduction to the Handbook 44 Scales Code,

Course No. 301, Introduction to Handbook 44 Liquid-Measuring Devices Code, and

Course Level No. 500 on "Other Devices" which will include linear devices, taximeters, etc.

Respondents will be asked to submit examples of their writings and illustrate their technical abilities. Interested parties

should contact Joan Mindte, A&P Technical Advisor (301) 975-4003, e-mail: joan.mindte@nist.gov.

To date of this report, there has been NO response to the A&P's request for proposals from individuals interested in either updating existing courses or developing new training materials.

The chart which follows presents a simimary of the revision status of all published NCWM course materials.

267
Administration and Public Affairs Committee

Revision Status of NCWM Training Materials

(Asof June 30, 1997)

New Course Numbers (Module

Numbers Appear in Parentheses)

Date of

Publication

Date of

Liast Revision

Revision

atatus*

Comments

103-Intro to Electronic Weighing and Measuring

Systems (27)

1/28/85 5/95 N Revision has been completed and copies

sent to the States on 5/1/95.

601 -Checking the Net

Contents of Packaged

Goods (10)

11/29/85 9/90 R The Committee is planning to split the course into two segments. The NCWM

NIST Handbook 133 Work Group will

assist in the revision of the training materials.

202-Retail Computing Scales- Electronic (1 and 2)2/26/86 5/94 U K. Butcher, OWM, is finalizing the update of the Inspector's Manual for changes to Handbook 44

302-Retail Motor-Fuel Dispensers

and Consoles (8)

7/14/86 9/90 U Mike Belue has been awarded the contract to update these materials.

206-Vehicle and Axle-Load Scales

(5)

10/17/86 12/91 u OWM has updated the Inspector's Manual for changes to Handbook 44. Comments are being reviewed.

303-Vehicle-Tank Meters (20) 10/31/86 12/91 N J. Williams of OWM has completed an

update of the Inspector's Manual.

205-Meat Beams and Monorail

Scales (6)

4/3/87 U Revision is underway by Jim

Vanderwielen, USDA/GIPSA.

jLi\J*^ iwlvcslv^L'K ivPQtnpV aliu nnH /vllilllal Animal OUalCo ^oqIac (n\ \l

)

jl L 1 10

1

TI\J Paul Peterson, USDA/GIPSA, has

submitted a second draft of the

TncTv^ptnr'c ^^nniml

30S-Lic]uefied Petroleum Gas Liquid-Measuring Devices (21)

8/5/87 u T. Butcher & J. Williams, OWM, have

completed an update of the Inspector's Manual for changes.

203-Medium-Capacity Scales (4) 6/22/88 10/92 N

102-Introduction to NIST Handbook

44 (24)

5/18/89 6/93 U J. Mindte, OWM, is updating the materials for changes to Handbook 44, 1998, edition.

602-Commodity Regulations (22) 6/8/90 N

304-Loading-Rack Meters (19) 7/18/90 N

101-W & M Regulation in the U.S.

(23)

6/14/93 N

*Key to revision status abbreviations: N = No revision planned in 1997 R = Revision is planned for 1997 U = Revision is underway

268

A
Administration and Public Affairs Committee

403-3 I Organization and Utilization of Certifled Trainers

As of June 30, 1997, 11 individuals have attained the status of NTP Certified Trainers: Ken Butcher, NIST/OWM; Barbara

J. DeSalvo, Ohio; Frank W. Forrest, Connecticut; Paul Peterson, USDA/GIPSA; Richard L. Philmon, Illinois; Thomas

M. Stabler, STR, Inc; Richard C. Suiter, Nebraska; Jose A. Torres, Puerto Rico; James A. Vanderwielen, USDA/GIPSA;

and Kenneth A. Wheeler, Ohio. On January 16, 1997, during the NCWM Interim Meeting, Darryl L. Brown, Iowa, was

presented with a certificate recognizing him as an NTP Certified Trainer.

The A&P Committee is considering an additional candidate for Certified Trainer. This will bring the total of Certified

Trainers to 12.

An educational trainer presentation videotape series consisting of four tapes and a workbook, produced by Creative Training

Techniques, is available for loan on a fu-st-come-first served basis to the NCWM Certified Trainers, and then to any

trainers in the weights and measures community, again, on a first request basis. Contact Joan Mindte, (301) 975-4003,

to arrange to receive the program.

403-4 I Industry Training

The Committee has identified that training is needed by industry in the areas of NIST Handbooks 133 and 44 and die NCWM Price Verification Procedure. Implementation of the NIST Instructor Training Program has provided a basis for

national uniformity in these areas. The A&P Committee has been and will continue to examine the types and availability

of current weights and measures courses that will meet the needs of industry. To date, more than 100 companies have

participated in NIST/NCWM training in: Price Verification and Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods.

Organizations participating in this training include: the Pet Food Institute and The National Bark and Soil Producers

Association, whose members have participated in multiple sessions of Instructional Training for Plant Managers. Eight

additional classes have been requested for late 1997/early 1998. Requests have been received from the International Dairy

Foods Association, the Pet Food Institute, and the American Society for Quality Control.

The Associate Membership Committee (AMC) representative will develop a process for assessing the training needs of the associate membership. The A&P Committee supports this approach and will work with the AMC in this process.

403-5 I Instructor Training

The Committee identified this method of training delivery as exceptionally successful in providing a core group of

instructors capable of mentoring others. The Committee discussed the means by which this training can be provided for

all areas of weights and measures activities. The individual Committee members will elicit input from each regional

association in an effort to identify the specific weights and measures subject areas in which training is most needed. Classes

are scheduled in the upcoming months to include: Retail Computing Scales, National Type Evaluation Program, Retail Motor-Fuel Dispensers and Consoles, NIST Handbook 133, and Price Verification. (Appendix E gives a summary of the

Instructor Training activity to date.)

A secondary issue has been identified as a result of the Instructor Training Courses. There is a shortage and/or total lack of basic equipment and standards in many jurisdictions. To address this need, the NIST Office of Weights and Measures

(OWM) is sponsoring an eqtiipment/standards loan program. Equipment/standards are available on a limited basis. Jurisdictions are eligible to receive equipment/standards if at least one staff member has attended an Instructor Training

Course relative to the requested equipment. The jurisdiction must agree to maintain the items in proper working condition; equipment is available on a first come/need basis. Contact Tom Coleman (301) 975-4868, e-mail t.coleman@mst.gov.

403-6 I Continuing Education Units (CEUs)

Since its inception in 1985, the NCWM National Training Program has offered Continuing Education Units (CEU's) to individuals successfully completing NTP training modules (now "courses"). One CEU is awarded for each 10 contact hours

of classroom training. To date, the tracking and documentation of NTP CEU activity have been administered by the

269
Administration and Public Affairs Committee

American College Testing (ACT) Registry Service, Des Moines, Iowa. The A&P Technical Advisors have been informed

that ACT will discontinue this service effective August 1, 1997.

The Committee assessed the value of the service during die 1997 Interim Meetmg and explored the available options and

alternatives in its discussions of the merits of continuing the CEU program. It was the consensus that there is only a limited number of weights and measures jurisdictions which award promotions and salary increases, as examples, based upon the number of CEU's attained by their staff.

Following the 1997 Interim Meeting, The American College Testing (ACT) Registry Service advised it will accept class entries up to August 31, 1997. The Committee decided not to request the funding required to acquire another outside

service to track and document the award of Continuing Education Units (CEUs) to the weights and measures community.

In the near future, NIST/OWM will upgrade its databases to Microsoft Access. Using this program and with the assistance of temporary staff as available, it will be possible for OWM to provide the necessary documentation to track the award of

NCWM Educational Units, following the criteria of one (1) NCWM Educational Unit for each 10 hours of contact training.

404 I Legislative Strategy

During the 82"** Annual Meeting, the A&P distributed a draft of the NCWM Legislative Guideline. The document is a

collaborative project of the Administration and Public Affairs and the Associate Membership Committees. The guide is designed to create a proactive presence in the minds of government leaders, is not jurisdictionally specific, and can serve

as a model that can be modified by individual jurisdictions. Comments and ideas regarding the document are welcomed by

the A&P. Depending upon the demonstrated value of the publication, a final version is planned for distribution during the 83rd NCWM. As a result, all State, regional, and local persons in leadership roles in weights and measures will have a

tool to assist in working with legislators at all levels.

The A&P is asking for comments and ideas for improving the Legislative Guideline. Copies of the document (in limited

quantity) are available on request to Joan Mindte (telephone (301) 975-4003, e-mail joan.mindte@nist.gov). Please call or write with your comments.

405 I Weights and Measures Round Tables

The individual Committee members will work with die chair of each regional weights and measures associations to assess

the feasibility of conducting Round Table sessions for Weights and Measures Administrators in conjunction with regional,

interim, and national conferences. A goal of the Round Table discussions is the sharing of information among the

jurisdictions regarding various programs and problem-solving approaches, providing a forum for all to be heard. Once the regional has identified a possible solution to any particular problem, that approach may be shared and advanced to the national level, thus allowing for a national, uniform approach to be adopted.

406 I Public Affairs

The U.S. Constitution under the Amendment states: "No State shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,

without due process of law." The very namre of due process negates any concept of inflexible procedures universally

applicable to every imaginable situation.

In the course of tiieir work, weights and measures officials often take enforcement actions that prohibit the use of devices

or sale of packaged goods (e.g., "stop 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 or the jurisdiction in the position of being liable for the action if it results in lost business, or if it is found that the action was "illegal." In some cases the weights and measures

jurisdiction can be ordered to pay monetary damages to compensate the affected party for the improper action.

Due process ensures that affected persons, against whom a finding is made or an order issued, have the opportunity to present to an independent party evidence which may be relevant in determining whether the order or finding was properly

made. Due process also 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 costly litigation. This approach also provides

270

A t
Administration and Public Affairs Committee

for timely review, which is essential because of the impact that such actions may have on the ability of a business to operate, and/or in cases where perishable products may be lost.

During the 82"* Aimual Meeting General Session, the Committee on Administration and Public Affairs provided an

educational presentation not only to explain the legal requirements of "Due Process" but to help regulatory officials with

the practical application. The presentation was arranged by William J. Corey, Jr., American Frozen Foods, and given by

Douglas C. Carlson, Chicago attorney with the firm of Wildman, Farrell, Allen, and Dixon. Copies of Mr. Carlson's

material are available from Joan Mindte.

406-1 I Public Relations

The Committee discussed the comments and requests received for the items made available to attendees during the 81st NCWM, namely: three trifold brochures, "How to Avoid Getting Burned," "Providing Quality Services to Consumers,"

and "Quality Weights and Measures for Industry," as well as "Measurement in the Classroom, an Elementary School

Curriculum." The regional weights and measures associations have requested that both hard copy and electronic versions

of these brochures be made available to the NCWM membership.

In Chicago, during the 82"* Annual Meeting, the A&P discussed several possibilities for development into a trifold pamphlet

to provide consumer information suitable as a handout or mailer. The initial title for the brochure is "Fuel for Thought,

Getting What You Pay For at the Gas Station." NCWM Executive Secretary, Gil Ugiansky, agreed to provide funding for

the services of a graphics expert in the design of the brochure. The A&P Committee will develop the text for the brochure.

The stock and printmg costs of the pamphlet will be paid by the NCWM.

During the Interim Meeting, Dave Frieders, San Francisco City/County, made a presentation to the A«&P regarding his jurisdiction's Internet Home Page. Mr. Frieders also delivered an educational presentation to the 82"^ Annual Meeting

during the General Session which was well received. Mr. Frieder's Home Page is an interactive web site where constmiers can actually lodge a complaint, secure weights and measures information, and have their individual questions answered.

It is suggested that NCWM members visit the site (http://www.ci. sf.ca.us:80/ag/) and consider developing their own

jurisdictional sites.

The Committee is seeking the assistance of the weights and measures community in the development of weights and

measures informational and promotional documents. The Committee is attempting to collect a sample of every

informational item that has been developed by weights and measures State and local jurisdictions. Samples requested

include all items, from the elaborate annual report to the modest trifold pamphlet. By "cutting and pasting" from among

these samples, the A&P Committee will develop a template format that speaks to all or parts of a weights and measures

program. The items will be used by the A&P in the design of a prototype weights and measures brochure for the use of

State and local jurisdictions in providing information about their programs and services. These materials will then be made

available to individual jurisdictions for tailoring to their requirements.

NCWM members are asked to send copies of promotional and/or informational items to Joan Mindte, NCWM, P.O. Box

4025, Gaithersburg, MD 20885 (electronic versions may be sent via e-mail tojoan.mindte@nist.gov).

406-2 I Weights and Measures Week 1998

The A&P reviewed the 1997 Weights and Measures Week activities submitted by various jurisdictions during its discussions about a theme for Weights and Measures Week 1998.

As one of its major responsibilities, the Committee will make plans for celebrating the Weights and Measures Week March

1-7, 1998. Prior to the 82"^ Annual Meeting, the Committee had solicited recommendations for the 1998 theme from the individual regional associations and the weights and measures community.

After reviewing several suggestions, the theme agreed upon was: "Working Together: A Common Goal."

271
Administration and Public Affairs Committee

406-3 I Advertisement of the 82"'' NCWM 1997 - Chicago, Illinois

The Committee asked each Standing Committee to submit its highest priority items prior to the ST^ Aimual Meeting for circulation to industry and other interested parties. The Committee explored methods of publicizing these items by the creation of articles strategically placed in trade and other publications, as well as issuance of regional and national news

releases. This coverage was designed to generate greater participation in this national forum on issues that are of a critical nature and which have a substantial impact on the marketplace, all of which is intended to market the leadership role of

weights and measures.

The A&P discussed avenues available for the promotion of the S3"^ NCWM in Portland, Oregon, July 12-16, 1997.

407 I Administrative Priorities and Budget

The Committee met with NCWM Treasurer, J. Alan Rogers, to discuss Committee budgetary plans for 1998 and beyond.

The A&P expressed unanimous support for continuation of the instructor and industry training effort, as well as the equipment loan program, recognizing the progress toward imiformity which results from these efforts. Committee members

remain united in their support of the work of the Program Evaluation Work Group. The Committee will identify additional administrative issues and plan for prioritizing and incorporating those items into its structured work plan.

Items which have been identified by the NCWM Executive Committee as appropriate for possible inclusion in the work

of the A&P Committee are:

• Establishment of an Internet Home Page Subcommittee;

NIST/NCWM Publications Status Report;

• Membership Stams Report;

• Meetings, Networking with Other Associations; and

• Participation in NIST's celebration of its 100"' Anniversary in the year 2001.

During the Annual Meeting, the A&P continued discussion and formulation of its long-range plan and proposed budget.

408 I Safety Information Clearing House

The Committee discussed the Incident/Accident Summaries received to date and explored the feasibility of making this information part of the national database which has been under development by the Program Evaluation Working Group

(please see Item No. 402 of this report). At the present time, this information will not be mcluded in a national listing;

however, the Office of Weights and Measures will maintain an independent database of this information. Committee

members continue to reinforce with their regional associations the need for placing the Incident/Accident Report form (see

Appendix G of this Report) in each jurisdiction's safety reporting system, to complete this form as appropriate, and forward

the information to the A&P Technical Advisors.

Edwin J. Price, Texas, Chairman

R. Greek, San Luis Obispo Coimty, California

N. Kranker, Dutchess County, New York

B. Martell, Vermont

R. Philmon, Illinois

Industry Representative: Chris Guay, Procter and Gamble

C. Gardner, Suffolk County, New York, Safety Liaison

T. Coleman, NIST, Technical Advisor

J. Mindte, NIST, Technical Advisor

Committee on Administration and Public Affairs

272
Administration and Public Affairs Committee

Appendix A

NCWM Program Evaluation Work Group

Meeting Summary Report to the

Committee on Administration and Public Affairs

Darrell Guensler, Chairman

August 19-21,1996

National Institute of Standards and Technology

NIST North, Bldg. 820

Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899

The fourth meeting was held on August 19-21, 1996, at the National Institute of Standards and Technology, Office of

Weights and Measures (OWM), in Gaithersburg, Maryland.

The attendees:

Mike Belue, Belue Associates

Tina Butcher, Office of Weights & Measures, NIST

Sid Colbrook, Illinois

Bill Corey, American Frozen Foods

Karen Dacres, Director's Office, NIST

Darrell Guensler, California (Chairman)

Dr. Lynne Hare, Statistical Engineering Division, NIST

Steve Malone, Nebraska

Allan Nelson, Connecticut

Ed Price, Texas

Debbie Ripley, Office of Weights & Measures, NIST

Claire Regan, Grocery Manufacturers of America (GMA)

Mike Saling, California

Randy St. John, Pennsylvania Food Merchants Association

Daryl Tonini, Scale Manufacturers' Association (SMA)

Dr. Gil Ugiansky, Office of Weights & Measures, NIST

Gilles Vinet, Industry Canada

Attachments

(Copies are available from the Office of Weights and Measures upon request)

• Listing of Members & Attendees with E-mail Address, Phone No., and Fax No. • July 23, 1996 Letter from Industry Committee on Packaging and Labeling. • August 8, 1996 Letter from Belue Associates. • September 3, 1996 Memorandum from Ed Price to the NCWM Chairman. • Copy of Federal Register Notice Requesting Public Comment on the Pilot Inspection Database Program. • User's Guide to the Pilot Inspection Database Program. • Response from the Food Industry Weights and Measures Task Force to the Federal Register Notice Requesting

Public Comment on Pilot Inspection Database.

INDUSTRY CONCERNS

The concerns expressed by industry in the attached July 23, 1996, letter from the Industry Committee on Packaging and

Labeling were discussed. The work group acknowledged the dangers of collecting biased data that may be misused.

Freedom of Information Request requirements must also be considered with any data gathering projects. As the pilot

proceeds, the group will work on ways to protect against improper use of the database.

273
Administration and Public Affairs Committee

MARKETPLACE EVALUATIONS

The work group agreed to conduct three evaluations over the next year to evaluate the appropriateness of conducting

marketplace evaluations as part of the PEWG study. It was agreed that a retail motor-fuel device survey will be conducted

before the NCWM Interim Meeting. The other two (fresh meat and fluid milk) will be done after the interim but before

the annual meeting. The participating States agreed to give Debbie Ripley their station and meter populations as soon as possible. Dr. Lyim Hare (NIST) will review population coimts and determine the appropriate sample size per State. SCALE MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION PROPOSAL

Daryl Tonini presented a proposal from the Scale Manufacturers Association (SMA) to form a scale information database

working group that would parallel the current efforts of the PEWG. SMA would like to begin by developing a data

collection process for scales similar to the retail motor-fuel device data collection process.

Sid Colbrook (Illinois) and Mike Saling (California) agreed to work with SMA to develop scale criteria for the collection of data suitable for weighing devices. This will include how to handle scales with multiple components and those used for both buying and selling. A copy of the pilot retail meter criteria will be given to SMA to use as a template in developing

data fields. ROLE OF NIST

NIST's legal counsel has expressed concern regarding custodianship and administration of this activity by NIST personnel.

No final decision has been rendered at this time. The work group discussed various alternatives, including NCWM hiring a Research Assistant and mamtaming the database under the admmistration of NCWM or contracting with a third party to maintain a database management system. The FDA currently maintains a similar database system where data is collected by States and entered into a database management system nm by a third party. More information will be gathered on this subject.

RESOURCES

NIST informed the work group that they do not have a sufficient number of personnel to adequately support the PEWG

activity and also maintain the very important activities currently devoted to NTEP and training of weights and measures

officials. In response, the group requested Ed Price to communicate with the NCWM Executive Committee via the A&P Committee regarding possible alternatives. (See attached September 3, 1996 memorandum to the NCWM

Chairman.) The work group concluded that if adequate resources cannot be allocated from some source, the project

should be put on hold and the work group disbanded.

NIST UPDATE ON SERVER

Tom Kiuihara of NIST gave an update on the status of a server proposed to house the pilot program. The server has been

ordered; however, OWM Technical Advisor's system will act as a server until all "ownership" details are worked out. DATA COLLECTION

Because of the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, a Federal Register notice was published

regarding the PEWG proposal to collect data. Until that process is complete and until the NIST legal concerns are

resolved, OWM cannot officially collect any data. Some data has been sent to test the system but no collection is taking

place at this time. Discussions at this meeting led to some modifications of the data fields. The need for a tare description field was also identified.

274
Administration and Public Affairs Committee

Appendix B

Certification Summary

(As of June 30, 1997)

State Total No.

of Certif.

Total No.

of People Course No.

Mod r Mod 2 Mod 4 Mod 7

OAR Modeone Mods Mods

303 Mod 20 304 Mod 19 305 Mod 21 601 Mod 10 AL 43 24 14 12 5 12

AK 23 13 7 1

1 10 eo AZ 28 28 28

AR 129 42 20 19 Q 10 40 1f^ o

£. 19IZ CO 7 7 7

CT 86 30 19 19 2 "JO

cDoZ 1 f\ DE 5 5 c3

DC 4 3 w

•1

1 FL 100 81 6 8 3 2 7 45 7 w GA 29 24 4 8 17

HI 98 12 11 12 10 10 11 QW 111 1 1

1 1 Q9

lA 1 1

1

1 ID 8 8 8

IL 17 17 8 QW

IN 67 44 171 f 29 21

KS 28 15 7 7 4 1 q

LA 9 9 8 11 MD 70 37 w 97 oo ME 2 3

0c 11 MA 1 1 11 Ml 42 14 1 id. Q%/ 141 *T 7

MN 15 15 1 ^ MO 42 39 IQ

MT 7 7 7

NE 42 19 o 71 7 1 <i

1 O 1 1 NV 13 11 1 11

•1

1 Q I NH 32 8 co

c\J c

\J c. D

QO

NM 32 22 Q0 1 O 10

NC 39 35 OCi IQ

ND 3 3 o OH 285 96 <3 \ ou OO 99 H<a 7

OR 54 18 1 o

c 10 1 1 RU

PA 108 56 A 71 QO 97 1ft 1 o 1ft 1 o PR 91 49 33 33 25

SD 28 13 7 12 8 1 TN 40 29 6 5 29

UT 71 17 16 17 4 6 15 2 11 VT 24 9 4 2 3 6 8 1 1 VI o 6

VA 3 3 1 2

WA 21 16 5 15 1 Wl 4 4 4

Other

GIPSA** 48 41 29 15 6

Totals 1857 933 75 286 97 180 26 190 529 185 37

1 39 215

* NTP Module 1 was incorporated in Module 2, now Course No. 202 (May 1994)

USDA Grain Inspection/Packers and Stockyards Administration

275

Administration and Public Affairs Committee oooz H>HUO< <HZoH<Z cU

"2

a rt

OSoenc3< C U. = c =

4)

y JJ

J £ &5 >

'5

3" 3 S I -a

-.5 "y ^ 3. -J J

fs

m in o o o o o cn m c". m m

4J

•a

•s

COcc a

'•fi

IKU

enUscU

C JS. 3 5 '-J - I 2 Ou

<do

on ooO

•oy

50 ^y

t3 CU

<Mocy ^ I -i U J o y Si ^ Z u - y ^ -5 ^ g^'l

.. '-i ^

uiy E « J= C SOU ISos

r9

O

O (J cy3 2 y y r5 •5 "« •5

y

>• :3

V. « y _y « ri « £^ '= !^ - y ^ c i V J] 1 3 y y

.-= 1 i ^ y > y S J s

CO ^ ~ My 2 «O<

•ac> sc « — ts f*^ Tj- in o y o o o o o o C/5 fS CS (N <S (S CS 3Oo

>. n

"D

93C

re

k. Ij/j m3>c

E.3z«

123o 

o

_5j2 reo o

5I|

CM 2 °l

in

CM

5ilo -g e CM • « o c i " = o d1 O Z S

qj <0 10

in o e I = o 61 u z s o o O Z I C S - o 6 1 u z s

.0

O -O

go, 0 Z o E ? • o z 5

(O

on* e o c E <^ 3 CM o dl ^ U Z S

CO

CM

CO

CM

in

01

CO

CM

CM

CO o

re CO

-I ^ N < < < K < < O

O

H

O

O

UJQ

O _l < = Q U. O ^

277
Administration and Public Affairs Committee

0)3

oo

a

C

I-w

(03

>

TO

Totals CO0T

CN m 0 in C7> 0 0

T

S

in

CN

CO 00 CO CO

<7> 00

T

mCO 5CMO)

in

1^ in CN

Oi

CM

r>- CNm

in

CO

T

m

0m

' • 5 o o ^ O Z s

^

CN CN T

m CO CN CM

T

C7> T

« J.? eg*

oof w ^ 2

CM CNCO

CO CO o>

CN CN 00 mCM

CD COm

CN

CN CD 00in CN

oil

CM CN CO t CO CM CM CN CO CO 0 a>

CN T

o o 'S u z|

CM CM CO T—

« « 8

i^l o o 3! u z 1

CN COCO (O

CN

CN CO

Oi0^

s

CO

CN

W (M «

C 2 -S § 61 U Z S

0 CO

CM 0 CO

^

CO

CN

r>- CN CO CN

CN CO0 CMCO

X

CO 0CO in CN

^

COCO

mber

a (0 <o

to o • o 61 O Z 3E

CO cn CN

T

in in CO

CO CO 0 0CO CO COm CO CO

Durse

Nui • in • no*

i

«^ 3 o 61 uzs

00 1

CN O « ^ r> 3o o 1 ozl

0T0CN CO CO CN (O cn CO CN r>- CO CN in

««• CO

E «^ 3 o 61 UZS

CO CO CN CO tn r- CM CN

1

in

« cs »« M O • 3 3 o o 5 uzs

CD 00 CO

<J- 0 00 o>

CN COCM 0in T

T

in CM 0CN T CO

CO

o> CN

CO

• S «5 CO CO 00 CN CO

in

CN

CN CO CN 00 CO

CN

T

CN r-0 CN CO CMCO 0CM

« N S

12 o , 3 ^ 3 u z 1

CO CO CO COCOh~

T

CO

CN

t-~ CN CO

CO

• T- a

c s • 3 . 3 0 0 "9 u z 1

CO

<* COCO

0

S

<J> 00 <o 00—

<3- CO

B(Q

4-1 (0 Q Z < (0 >- 5 S Q

S

<

S 1

z

s

(0s SH

s

UJz

>

z

X

Z

1

-5z

s

z

>-z

0

z

Q

z

X

0 0 0

<

0.

ac

a.

278
Administration and Public Affairs Committee

o

3

O

u

>> n

o

«c

S

I-mm

3

T3>5

Totals CO ID

oo

<o (O

h- CO CMm CO COCM o>

CM

CM o CO

in

in oCO CO lO

6644 r-CM

Course

No.

602

Modula

22 o CM at <

Z

Course

No.

601

Modula

10 o oCM <o

CO

CO

CO o COo a>

CM

Course

No.

305

Modula

21

CM CM CO o o CO

o> CO

CM

Course

No.

304

Modula

19

00 LO CO

Course

No.

303

Modula

20

CM

CO

CM eo cn

CO

Course

No.

302

Modula

8

00

CM oo CM

CO T

T

(O <o

CM (O

T

o CO CO 1256 6^

CM

Course

No.

206

Modula

5

CM

T

(O CM CNJ cn (O CO GO CM

CM 5

Course

No.

205

Modula

6

CM

^

to 55

Course

No.

204

Modula

7

CM o (O OO m CO m CO 00

CM to 00^

Course

No.

203

Modula

4

CO

•«* CM

lOCO 55

Ui

CM

Course

No.

202

Modula

2

m r-CN mCM

CM

CM oo to

eo

eo S5

CM

CO

Course

No.

103

Modula

27 o m ix- to CO (O in

CO CO CO CO ^

CO

N/A

Course

No.102

Modula

24 in CO Oi CM mCM T— CO

CO

lO

N/A

Course

No.

101

Modula

23

CO in O)

CO

COo N/A

Module 1- CO CO

in oCM 55

CO

State s

u

(0 o(0 zH

1-3 > % WA other Asaociata Mambara FGIS* GIPSA

Total

Trained Percent Of

Total

Certified^

e

\^atM

*Ss<

u

es

e

es

cj u

r «

I"

Uie

2

<3

c^ «C

•gU

cuH

2

u

•S

U[u

c3

11

wo

<

Q

3

_c

CO

OS Tt 2 o\

2 c

•T3 —

Ss <^ > o

« h « ^

% .s

s s s &

CJ .S

o « —i 3

I?

279
Administration and Public Affairs Committee

NATIONAL TRAINING PROGRAM REGISTRY

SUMMARY OF METROLOGY SEMINAR ACTIVITY

(As of June 30, 1997)

Courses Listed in the NTP Registry:

No. 201, Basic Metrology I No. 202, Basic Metrology II No. 203, Intermediate Metrology

No. 204, Advanced Metrology

Individuals Trained by Course

Course No.

State 201 202 203 204 Totals

AL 1 1 AK 1 2 1 4

AZ 3 3 3 1 10 CA 2 1 o CO 2 2 1

(; w 1 2

o

Utl 1 1 2 1 4 4

QO

Van 1 1 1 Oo

Ulni 2 2

lu 1 1 1 o

5 4 1 10

IN 1 1 2 4

lA 1 1 1 3

KS 2 2 2 1 7 KY 2 2 4

ME 2 2 1 5 MD 6 6 8 20

MA 1 1 2

Ml 1 1 3 5 MN 1 2 1 4

MS 2 2 3 7 MO 1 1 1 3 NE 2 2 NV 1 1 2 NH 1 1 1 3 NJ 1 1

280
Administration and Public Affairs Committee

Individuals Trained by Course

Course No.

state 201 202 203 204 Totals

NY 2 2 2 6

NC 7 7 4 2. 20

ND 2 2 2 6

OH 2 2 1 5 OK 1 2 3 OR 1 1 1 3 PA 1 1 2 4 PR 3 3 5 12

Rl 1 3 4

SC 1 1 2 SD 1 1 2 TN 3 3 1 7 TX 3 3 2 8 UT 1 1 VT 1 1 VA 3 3 3 9

WA 1 1 wv 2 2 1 5 Wl 2 2

Other

Canada 2 2

Associate

Members

71 18 24 22 135

GIPSA 6 1 7

Totals 151 96 94 34 375

281
Administration and Public Affairs Committee

ooooooooo oooooooo

282
Administration and Public Affairs Committee

ooooooooo oooooooo

283
Administration and Public Affairs Committee

Grand Total

632.40 2665.20 1088.10 1421.00 158.10 995.10 3516.80 1968.90 189.00 1254.40 626.50 438.55 105.00 859.60 960.30 16878.95

1997 Total 31.00 6.20 80.60 37.20 3.10 89.60 19.60 3.50 2.80 oin

<T> in

2.00 9.00 2.20 346.30

1996 Total

24.80 75.60 99.20

215.60 39.20 17.50 14.00 om

CO

4.00 oinCM

CM

15.40

531.30

1995 Total

164.30 74.40 89.90 31.00

179.80 170.80 16.80 o

q

CM

176.40

3.50

14.70 6.00

93.10 1.10

1042.8

1994 Total

12.40 55.80 43.40 50.40 27.70

254.80 52.50 36.00 84.00 16.50

633.50

1993 Total

3,10 3.10

52.70 6.20

130.20 252.00 177.20 42,00 57.00 oin

CO

53.90

811.90

1992 Total

3.10

297.60 18.60 15.50 0908

156.80 123.20 38.50 2.45

34.50 24.20

795.05

1991 Total

31.00

145.70 220.10 09

09

112.00 148.40 49.00 92.40 31.50

191.10 156.00

1257.80

1990 Total

24.80

244.90 170.50 217.00 55.80

117.80 324.80 120.40 59.50338.80 52.50

230.30 402.00 22.00

2381.10

1989 Total

99.20

173.60 198.40 381.30 248.00 739.20 417.20 109.20 147.00 15.00 36.30

2564.40

1988 Total

117.80 759.50 492.90 133.30 260.40 128.80 109.20 129.50 66.00

2197.40

1987 Total

77.50

857.90 96.10 12.40 12.40

856.80 302.40 156.80 105.00 165.00

2642.30

1986 Total 306.90 65.10

288.40 372.40 402.60

1435.40

1985 Total

75.60

155.10 230.70

No.

of

Partici pants ^ro

CM

(O

r-- 00

o> (O

CO a>

CO oCM

CO

1224 COoo

CO

CO

in ?

CM

(O

O)

r—

COo

(O

COin 00

6525

CEU's CO m

c6 CO CO <d

CO

CM

CO

CM m

co' 00CM

in

CO

2.45 o

q

in

Totals

Module Number T— CM •A u> 00 o a> OCM CM CM

CM COCM CM

r»

CM

cs

•ao

c

u

>

(AI

ex

t;

CQ

s

U

cs

Ji

u

co

284
Administration and Public Affairs Committee

9iu

3

c

o

0^c

u

C

s

o

W3S

E

e

3

o

= i

S u

c c

o

s

9

5 <5; e

o

03 z uo

Grand Totals 543.10 336.00 291.80 85.00 1,255.90

1997 Total 39.60 37.50 77.10

1996 Total 72.00 10.50 31.00 113.50

1995

Total

244.30 129.50 127.10 42.50 543.40

1994

Total None

1993 Total 28.80 28.00 6.20 5.00 68.00

1992 Total 7.20 14.00 37.60 58.80

1991 Total 54.00 52.50 40.30 146.80

1990 Total 97.20 101.50 49.60 248.30

Participants o

T

CO

O) cn

cn

CO

No.

of

CEUs** oCO oto o om

CO CO CO «S

Course No.* ocs

CMocsCOoOI oCM

Tol

« = i .2 2 § « ^

£ 2 -S ^

•s 2 ^ "2

« « fc, es

pa oa £ <

r< fo ^

o o o o

(S (S «s <s dodo

z z z z

V «) V VI v> y>

Urn Ut 3 S 3 3

O O O O

U U U U

38

.a o

C U

O vi o c ti

o a1 I

O. L> 'u "-a C u

1^ o. o «

a c

2 2

o O O Q. O 4J

ST -a

3 i

285
Administration and Public Affairs Committee o

0\VCSo ow

(0

a> •a

1^ £

<n o

o>

_c

T- «

>».£ 3 «3 -J 3

>, o A 0) •o 12 a> 3

I. " o2 £

o>^

ll^ o — a « &

(A ^ Oo *- - ti Q $3 « ^=o 12 c c

(0 .2 O 0) o >- o o m •=

«/> X)

L. 3 3 Q. P L.

*»- o

a> .2 o -a > s Q c

4>o

t:1Eooos< 2

0)

0) <

•a2_$ 2 w

*- H

..la

w. .E

w

a> 1= Q.

.E « S 2 E 2 o ^ "5 sl « O 0)0

Q- to >«.E C t- (A

(0 Q. (0

O

U.x>

w =5. « <

a>cc

cs a.

0)

(A 3

reo

0)Q. Z CO (A

(A

«A ^ a Si c (A

0)3

CP

a> - 0£

(A3 Q,

0) re a: o

u.co

'5)

TM •£ ^

•o "o 3 2 <u O Q.

(0 - O S

<U c ^ ^ ro « t-= « o *J > K i.J2

_c 3 ro

n>E

T3

QJC

(U

OT0.0)

0) ^ J3 (N 2 w

(0 00

cr ^ o >,

"8

T5>o

Q.

CL

CO b

(0O)

_ooI0)E

CO

CD

CO

<uQ.X

lU

COco

<u

0) . ti O

CO c o o

CO < O TO O CO

oS cd" E9>

^°c

CD>«

O)

_opo

COz

a> 0) <o

COQ.

O (0 o

CO

(UCO

c:

0)Q.X

<uc

CD T3w^ "CO

O i o

£t est O

ino

in

9?

CM

LUz

CO £ 35 Q T3 ^ ^ = 3 S « c SI 5"!

CO

CO

2?

(U Q.

•3? Eoo oooo

CO

O)

CM

LU<

0.

T3C I- "•2 -^o

CO 0> CD 1 "

.£ Q)

CO Q.X

CD

COEop •; a 2« = To

a> is

CO t- O J3 o c CD o "ip ~

CO* CO 8 « ^ ~ ."2 c > 5 0) ^ Q. O P

O) = CD

C .£

CO D)

—

0) c <o W CO CJ)

.E " CM

*i ' CO CO o> * 3

C3)^ CO .E CO c C C (U

CO oj'S

ill f- 2 o «8

•c§? , Q. M o

inooin

CO

O)

00

CM

LU

CO £ o

T3 T3 ^ Q) flj CO ^ S c iO m O

CO

(U

CO

c:cua.

•ao£

O)c

O)

"Oo

CO o oo in> CO C ® CO 1 - ^

'co C3>«n b.Er') co1

CO o

CO

I—

— ^ o c 8 « V

CO -c ^ Q.

CO CO o

inom

CO

9?oCO

00

CD ==

CO I CO •

CD q:

CO

(0

CO ^ 8 p -p P oj ~ p « !2 c

'C3> T3P

<U (0 SiE cC CO

=» So x» 3 O

ES

CD

CD

CP

cSop

CO

CO •p<

CO S CD oO 5 E

7= CD P 3

I- P 1CD CO

O

COE

CO 00 c

ID

O E^ CO M C

r«r CO

.E To Q.W

CO ^- o> « •i" E CO a Ll S I ^p I

T3C

CO X o

in oom

CO

O)

O)

CO

CM5)

CO CO <

CO

286
Administration and Public Affairs Committee

Use

Planned

Status

*Not

Applied

For

Conducted

&

approved

for

payment

5/14/97

$494.55

Conducted

an

approved

for

payment

6/22/97 o o

Approved

Conducted

and

approved

for

payment

5/14/97

Conducted

and

approved

for

payment

2/5/97

Conducted

and

approved

for

payment

Conducted

and

approved

for

payment

Conducted

and

approved

for

payment

6/22/97

Conducted

and

approved

for

payment

6/22/97

Approved Approved

Instructor

fee,

travel,

lodging,

and

meals

Instructor

fees,

travel,

lodging,

meals

Expenses Expenses

Reproduction

costs

Student

travel/meals/lodging

Student

travel/meals/lodging

(actual

expenses

$2,153.60) Student

travel/meals/lodging

Student

travel/meals/lodging

Printing

materials,

student

travel/meals/lodging

Printing

materials,

student

travel/meals/lodging

Partial

reimbursement

travel,

lodging,

meals

Partial

reimbursement

travel,

lodging,

meals

f arType

of

Training

Course

No.

206,

Vehicle

and

/^le-Load

Scales,

April;

7-11,

1997;

instructor:

Jim

Vanderwielen

Course

No.

302,

Retail

Motor-Fuel

Dispensers

&

Consoles,

June

2-6,

1997;

instructor:

Tom

Stabler,

30-40

inspectors

to

be

determined

-

training

at

least

14

field

staff

to

be

determined

-

training

at

least

14

field

staff

Costs

re

public

awareness

program

to

promote

w&m

by

providing

A&P

consumer

and

industry

brochures.

Measurement

in

the

Classroom

Expenses

of1

staff

member

to

attend

Course

no.

206,

Vehicle

and

Axle-Load

Scales,

4/07-1

1/96

sponsored

by

State

of

Indiana

Retail

Price

Computing

Scales

training

for

9-10

field

inspectors

12/96,

Ray

Waylett

instructor

(9

students)

Retail

Price

Computing

Scales

training

for

9-10

field

inspectors

12/96

Retail

Price

Computing

Scales

training

for

9-10

field

inspectors

12/96

General

Review

of

Course

302,

RMFD.

and

Publication

19,

31

students.

Curt

Williams,

instructor.

4/21-22/97

General

Review

of

Courses

203

and

206;

US

Scales,

23

students.

Jerry

Flanders

and

Oris

Taylor,

Jr.,

instructors

Expenses

associated

with

Retail

Computing

Scales

class,

1

1/06-

08/96;

Jerry

Butler

instructor;

30

students

Training

on

"Truck

Mounted

Rack

Meters,'

spring,

1997,

18

students,

including

city

jurisdictions

No.o Schol ships — X

T— X

T— T

State/

Region

Request

Funds

Funds

Region

Date

Requested

Paid Out 494.55 o

in o

in

OOS oomOOS oom

OOS

o

m

o

m

o

m

oomo

in o

m

o

om

OOS oos o

m

o

in o

oin o

oin

923/96 9/23/96 9/23/96 9/23/96 9/26/96 10/01/96 10/01/96 10/01/96 10/01/96 10/02/96 10/02/96 10/02/96 10/04/96

O O w w O CO CO CO

z z < < MO

CA

(Kern

Co) MT MT MT GA GA NC WA

287
Administration and Public Affairs Committee oa> = Q. « <

CO "S

•o

TO -O C (0 oO 8 8 ^ o oO S-TO

1^

_ CD - Q.

0) <^

T, >2 °

7« -I^

— <^ ^2|8

(0

T3

0) t3ocoO

T3

(0

CO

Q) <2X

O

ofl 9? D £2

0) (O 3 Q) •O > C O

<3&

CO

to in T3 c\l O 0) 3 >

T3

O § 9-

O

Mg

(0 -

TJcc

(0

a>(A 3

O)c

CD

T3

— o D «J CO I

a>>

00

C

(U T33

(A OT <U (U

(/) T3 </> C c c

0) TO 0) Q. I Q. X O X

LU ts3t00c c

0) T3

(0

(U

(/) c

0)Q.X

LU

T3C

TOWc^3 O « O O i:

0) .E

(0c

0)CLX

111

Dc

(0wc

(/) 0)

10c

(UQ.X

LU

M

0)

inc

0)Q.X

LU

(U

10c

0)Q.K

LU

T3

C O)

W o 3 .E > E o S "S

LU ro I— E 2 0)

O)c

H-o

0)Q. <

LLI Z

a)c

'l.

C 3 (U T3

pn

Co "w

ts CO

conjun c

eeti c E

ing i

O)

CD c

toI CT) c

spri COX

TJc

(0

ra TJ

a> Z (0 W

(A O *i c w 3 «§ - a:

(A

0>

*-« a: Q c2 S'

0) a:

TJ

0)

O)

CJJ

•<-

W

00 (u ^1

CNJ

W

^CD

(0E o

0) 3

U. i: . w « c

>»

—

""I CO >

.E c c OJ |<^ 5 «

.9 iS

CO o> Is0) >

T3c

COw

!sj

o"I o

(0 in"

ro «N

CO ^ -

in

CD'S

-E 3 E i=

TO «

<o CO o «^ ^ o oodo — . i^J ^ .- OJ X 0) < S

TJ I- i E O — > 3w

ro x:o

q:

0>

w II

ro 5 2 «- o racM c — 12

"53 c w w

OJ I-8w

0)o

OJ >

CJJ cnO

slJQ "to i2;n

cn ^

•i o I?

g, «

ro

— I 8

CO ro

<0 (U |Soo

CO

COmX

If

Tj' O -D o 2

CD «

"O CO

ro tio ^ o O 3

ro i: Q. CO o -

i2 ^ c c

5i 3 H . CD

:5 ^ c

io" co

TJ

CO3 O ^83

CMI « B c c ro ro c a oE opc I-

.E t.- ro <u 3 o

CO

COX z ooin ooo

cm"

(O

CO

in o

in o

in

co"

0? 0) CO X) CO -o

ro 3 c c o ^

=) -2 >»- 8 o ro

CJJ CO

cnI cm oCO

cjj

cxj ooin o

c\f o o

in ooin o oco oCO T-"S^ 5 o ro

ro 3

CD

CD COCD CD

9?CN

CM

CDgj

00

CNo

(D

cnCOo

<D

CJi 00

CN

CDg>oCO

?^ i CD b cn

ro CD Q 0 O o

CD

LUzlUz

LU CO CO

Xz <a:< <

288
o

o

4A-

(ft o

(ft (Uc

0)

w .E » I

q: <

0 w

0) oa: o

^ w

1

«2 E J2 5 o

CO JCu

CO

0)E

z

O

o

o

o_

o

<

$

CO

9 c

o o

o E

< I-o

0)

<

LUZ

o

o

o

o_

csT

4-1c

05 <

LU

o

d

c

is: <

o

o

d

o

o

o

d

o

o

<

oo

d

o

o

do

c

O

o

0)

1 <

o

o

d

oiti COc

(0

L_ <

o

o o

o E

> w

3

O -Q

Z .!2 o

a

too

3

CT

0)o

c

o o

p p d d

o o

£•3

i'i

o

d

oU7

CO

Io

o

doin

o

d

o

CO<

CL

Oo

doIt)

CM<§

COD

o

lU

-Im

<

O w

0) -fi = .12 W o

c

3

o

p

d

o

o

CO

cvi CD

c3

I-3

0)

c

d

U)

4-' c

n] 3

<

o

do

o

> 0) CO %

c

Administration and Public Affairs Committee

oo

d

o

o

in

o

o

d

oo

iXi

o00

O)

4-> o

o

d

o

u><^

"«5

4-1 o

289
Administration and Public Affairs Committee

i

Application for Associate Membership Scholarship Funds

The Associate Membership Committee (AMC) continues its commitment to training of weights and measures personnel. During the 82nd Annual Meeting, the Associate Membership provided 52

$500 scholarships, for the following purposes, all undertakings to be completed and funds paid out

by July 31, 1998:

• As $500 scholarships for training of weights and measures field persoimel,

• One $500 scholarship per region may be used to support publication of the

weights and measures association's newsletter.

Purpose of request:

Proposed dates of event:

Instructor(s) if appropriate:

Total number to be trained:

Estimate of Expenses

Instructor Fee(s)

Travel Lodging Meals Other

( identify)

Total

$ $ $ $ $ $

/Signed: Date:

Applicant

(Please print or type)

Name/Title:

Agency/Organization:

Mailing Address:

City/State/Zip:

Telephone: Fax: E-Mail:

Please mail completed form to: Tom Coleman/Joan Mindte

NCWM

Post Office Box 4025

Gaithersburg, MD 20885

(301) 975-4868 - (301) 975-4003

All activities must be completed and funds paid out by July 31, 1998

290
Administration and Public Affairs Committee

Associate Membership Scholarship Fund

Request for Disbursement of Scholarship Funds

Please provide the following information upon completion of the training:

Type/Title of Training

Dates

Location

Instructor(s)

SjiAal # in the Class

Summary

Date Instructor

Fee(s)

$

Travel

$

Lodging

$

Meals

$

Total i

Note: Scholarship is limited to $500

(Receipts are required for all items claimed)

One $500 scholarship per weights and measures region may be used to support the publication of

the association's newsletter. ALL activities must be completed and funds paid out by July 31, 1998.

$

I hereby certify that the expenses listed are true and accurate.

Sigi^:

Claimant

Approved:

Date:

Date: NCWM Executive Secretary

Make check payable to:

Mail to: Please mail completed form and receipts to: Tom Coleman/Joan Mindte

NCWM, Post Office Box 4025

Gaithersburg, MD 20885

Telephone 301-975-4868 / 301-975-4003

291
Administration and Public Affairs Committee

Appendix E

NIST/NCWM Instructor Training by State

(As of June 30, 1997)

ALABAMA

Steadman Hollis

Frank Gissendanner

FLORIDA

Handbook 133

Price Verification

Handbook 133

Carlos D'Arcy

Fred Derby

Bob Garris

Bryan Yongue

Handbook 133

Handbook 133

Price Verification

Handbook 133

ARIZONA

Sheryl Walls Handbook 133

Price Verification

HAWAII

Earl Payanal Retail Computing Scales

Dianne Yamamoto Price Verification

ARKANSAS

Tim Chesser

CALIFORNIA

Steve Clay

Dennis Johannes

ILLINOIS

Handbook 133

Handbook 133

Handbook 133

Price Verification

James Delperdang

Retail Computing Scales

Marianne Delperdang Price Verification

Roger Macey Handbook 133

Brett Saum LPG

COLORADO

Bob Athem

Howard Nobel

CONNECTICUT

Bill Donahoe

Frank Forrest Thomas Phelps

Peter Wilson

DELAWARE

Steve Connors

Tony Deserto

William Lageman

Stephen Nickerson

Handbook 133

Price Verification

Handbook 133

Handbook 133

Retail Computing Scales

LPG

Handbook 133

Handbook 133

LPG

Price Verification

Price Verification

Handbook 133

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Jeff Mason Handbook 133

Price Verification

Retail Computing Scales

Richard Philmon Handbook 133

Greg Plym LPG

Kyran Wagenecht

Retail Computing Scales

INDIANA

Mike Horan Handbook 133

IOWA

Darryl Brown Retail Computing Scales

Price Verification

Handbook 133

LPG

Handbook 133

Handbook 133

Ralph Venticher

Ivan Hankins

Arlyn Oman

KANSAS

Lewis Hutfles

Maureen Henzler

KENTUCKY

Randy Wise

LOUISIANA

Isiah Lawson

LPG

Handbook 133

- Price Verification

- Retail Computing Scales

Handbook 133

Price Verification

MAINE

Handbook 133

Price Verification

Danny McCartney

Retail Computing Scales

Handbook 133

John Cunningham

292
Administration and Public Affairs Committee

Retail Computing Scales

Danny Newcombe Price Verification

MASSACHUSETTS

Stephen Agostinelli Handbook 133

Stephen Berard Handbook 133

Mark Coyne (Brockton)

Retail Computing Scales

Robert McGrath (Boston) Handbook 133

Harvey Paclat (Boston) Handbook 133

MONTANA

Jack Kane Handbook 133 - LPG

Alfred Page LPG

H. Ray Waylett Retail Computing Scales

NORTH CAROLINA

Gerald Brown Price Verification

Jerry Butler Retail Computing Scales

William Nelson

Donnie Perry

Handbook 133

Handbook 133

MARYLAND

Gene Baumann

Bob Eaves

Tom Pagan

Michael Frailer

Lisa Griffith

William Hall

Mark Lambert

Donald Mason

Barbara Miller

Edward Payne, Jr. Handbook 133

Price Verification

Retail Computing Scales

Jim Price Handbook 133

Kenneth Ramsburg Handbook 133

Price Verification - LPG

Retail Computing Scales

Richard Wotthlie LPG

Handbook 133

Handbook 133

Price Verification

Handbook 133

Handbook 133

Handbook 133

Handbook 133

Handbook 133

Handbook 133

Price Verification - LPG

Handbook 133

MICHIGAN

Dan Dickerson

Terry Gawel

Ed Paladi

Mike Pinagel

MINNESOTA

Roger Menk

Price Verification

Price Verification

Handbook 133

Handbook 133

Price Verification - LPG

Retail Computing Scales

Handbook 133

NEBRASKA

Scott Amer

Richard Suiter

NEW HAMPSHIRE

Richard Cote

LPG

Handbook 133

Price Verification

Handbook 133

Retail Computing Scales

Jeff Wentworth Price Verification

Kevin Young LPG

NEW MEXICO

Joe Gomez

Wilfred Mendoza

NEW JERSEY

Robert Alviene

NEW YORK

Michael Sikula

Price Verification

LPG

Handbook 133

Handbook 133

OHIO

Barbara DeSalvo Handbook 133

Kenneth Wheeler

Retail Computing Scales

Jeffrey Yankosky (Cinciimati)

Handbook 133

OKLAHOMA

Charles Carter Handbook 133

Retail Computing Scales

Price Verification

MISSISSIPPI

Herald Baughman

Ralph Blake

Gerald Broom

Sammy Lang

Price Verification

Handbook 133

Price Verification

Retail Computing Scales

LPG

Handbook 133

OREGON

Clark Cooney LPG

PENNSYLVANIA

Michele DeMarshall (Philadelphia)

Handbook 133

Price Verification

Retail Computing Scales

Dean Ely LPG

293
Administration and Public Affairs Committee

Rick Fogal Handbook 133

Steven Reiily (Bucks County)

Handbook 133

SOUTH CAROLINA

David EUisor

TENNESSEE

Charles E. Coleman

Dale Drinnon

Rickey Freeman

Randy Jennings

Danny Ray Scott

Price Verificatioon

Handbook 133

Price Verification

Handbook 133

Handbook 133

LPG

Retail Computing Scales

Handbook 133

James Thompson Handbook 133

Clyde E. Woods Handbook 133

WEST VIRGINIA

Steve Casto LPG

Retail Computing Scales

William A. Cobb Handbook 133

Price Verification

WYOMING

Ron Weber Handbook 133

States that have requested and have received

individual training:

South Carolina - Handbook 133

Louisiana - Handbook 133

Washington - Handbook 133

West Virginia - Handbook 133

TEXAS

Harvey Fischer Handbook 133

Sally Preston Handbook 133

Edwin J, Price Price Verification

Handbook 133

Richard Rendon Retail Computing Scales

Damon Slaydon Handbook 133

Jim Wiechkoske LPG

UTAH

Brett Gumey

VIRGINIA

Wes Diggs

VERMONT

Ray Cioffi

Handbook 133

Handbook 133

Handbook 133

WASHINGTON

John Allen Handbook 133 - LPG

Tim Douglass (Seattle)

Price Verification

Bruce Feagan (Seattle) Handbook 133

Retail Computing Scales

Arthur Fluharty Price Verification

Rick Mulcahy Retail Computing Scales

WISCONSIN

Kathryn Dresser Price Verification

Handbook 133

Retail Computing Scales

294
Administration and Public Affairs Committee

Appendix F

Incident/Accident Report Summary

(The following reports have been completed and received as of June 30, 1997)

The purpose of this form is accident prevention. Please incorporate this summary into your safety program

documentation procedures. Completing this brief report will allow NCWM to alert other organizations and

jurisdictions of hazards and possible corrective actions.

1. What weights and measures function was the employee perfonning, where, and when?

Responses:

a. Routine small scale inspection in grocery store.

b. Using bottle cage & bottle to retrieve tank samples at coastal fuel facility.

c. Employee was exiting K-Mart following package inspection.

d. Inspector opened lower cabinet panel to inspect security seals, etc.; gust of wind blew dirt particles into eye.

e. Cleaning the floor drain in calibration bay in metrology lab.

f-1 Testing gas pumps.

f-2 Testing gas pumps.

f-3 Testing livestock scale - with cart.

f-4 Testing bulk oil meter.

g. Driving weight tnjck.

h. Personal injury in perfonnance of employee's job.

i. Two employees were inspecting marina gasoline pumps.

j. Employee involved in vehicle accident resulting in personal injury,

k. Performing calibration test at A&M Food Mart's gasoline pumps

I. Employee testing and inspecting petroleum dispenser, m. Inspection of vehicle scale at co-generation plant

2. Briefly describe the incident.

a. Carried 30 lb. Weight kit, slipped on a wet surface (did not fall). b. Employee extended arms & equipment in front of himself to lower into tank opening. The

fuel terminal policy requires inspector to stand on walkway above the tank opening and not on the floating tank top.

c. Inspector stepped off curb, twisted ankle, landed on right knee.

d. Gasoline pump inspection at oil company.

e. Employee was picking up debris covering floor drain to allow water used in prover

calibration to drain out of area.

f-1 Carrying 2 five-gallon test measures over uneven terrain; strained neck.

f-2 Carrying 2 empty five-gallon test measures down incline; severe ankle sprain.

f-3 Moving weight cart with handle in folded position; hand cut when cart whipped.

f-4 After weighing full 55 gallon barrel of oil, moving off scale, barrel slipped; employee

grabbed it to keep from falling and strained sphincter muscle.

g. Rounded bend in road on foggy day; 500 lb. weight slid out of carrying compartment and

fell off tnjck, bouncing on pavement into oncoming lane and across (no cars were in opposite lane).

h. Slipped on wet spot on floor while wearing steel-toed safety shoes.

i. Flash fire of gas vapor at fill box and opening of 6000 gallon fiberglass tank reported to fire marshal, who stated there was no fire; that a vapor fire extinguished itself. Ignition sources

sought.

j. Employee was using seat belts; there was no mechanical or system failure.

k. Gasoline sprayed back into inspector's face and under left eye.

1. Inspector was kneeling while reading from test measure; lady in car moving in reverse backed into employee. Rear bumper struck employee on left side of fact, pushing him

forward, scraping right knee, m. After inspector made adjustment under the scale platform, the inspector was guiding the

295
Administration and Public Affairs Committee

weight truck onto the scale and he fell through the open access panel.

Contributing factors (check ail that are appropriate):

inexperience

lack of training

f-3 employee error

f-4 insufficient personnel m. haste

d. g. weather conditions

equipment failure

failure to follow procedures

job fatigue

a. f-1 f-2 i. environmental conditions

improper equipment

e. lack of protective gear

i. hazardous materials

c. unsafe work surface

e. housekeeping

b.d.k. other

Comments:

c. Crack and hole in the road.

d. Incident could occur in number of outdoor work environments; employee wears corrective

glasses; short of wearing safety shield, accident was unavoidable.

g. Installed a better compartment for carrying weights.

i. Potential of static ignition present when: low humidity, static charge potential on one or two

surfaces, spark discharge of adequate energy, ignitable vapor to air mixtures, and means

to generate static charge,

j. No preventive action taken, planned, or needed to prevent recurrence,

k. This type of incident occurs from time to time in calibration work and drawing samples of

product, the result of sudden pressure from the hose nozzle

I. Employee was observing safety procedures, using safety cones and barricade at time of accident.

4. Recommendations for corrective action:

a. Use non-skid shoes, watch for wet areas.

b. Request assistance when sampling this type of tank.

0. Get in shape and start a daily exercise routine.

d. None at this time.

e. Employees will be advised to wear protective gloves when picking up debris

f. In testing gas pumps, if uneven surface, only carry one (1) can at a time; only move weight

cart with handle extended; directive to staff: companies are to provide personnel to handle

55 gallon dmms.

g. Install better compartments for can7ing weights; possible regulation for canving mass

standards on highways (i.e., chaining in).

1. Investigate for potential source(s) of ignition of gasoline vapor; full inspection by gasoline

pump service organization for electrical connections to tank and dispenser; fire marshal

suggests bond and ground wires from funnel to gasoline container, and the funnel to available ground. m. All access plates must be securely closed before any inspection work is to be performed on

a scale.

296
Administration and Public Affairs Committee

Incident/Accident Report

(To be completed & submitted unsigned, anonymously)

The purpose of this form is accident prevention. Please incorporate this summary into your safety

program documentation procedures. Completing this brief report will allow NCWM to alert other

organizations andjurisdictions of hazards and possible corrective actions.

1. What weights & measures function was the employee performing, where, and when?

2. Briefly describe the incident.

3. Contributing factors (check all that are appropriate);

inexpenence

lack of training

employee error

insufficient personnel

haste

Comments:

weather conditions

equipment failure

failure to follow procedures

job fatigue

environmental conditions

other

improper equipment

lack of protective gear

hazardous materials

unsafe work surface

housekeeping

4. Recommendations for corrective action:

You may continue your comments on the back of this sheet

Please mail completed form to: Tom Coleman, NCWM,

Post Office Box 4025, Gaithersburg, MD 20855

(telephone: 301-975-4868)

297
Administration and Public Affairs Committee

Continuation of Comments on Numbered Items

Miscellaneous remarks:

The NCWM Committee on Education, Administration, and Consumer Affairs greatly

appreciates your making the effort to complete and return this information for inclusion in the planned Safety Information Clearinghouse.

298
Metrology Subcommittee Report

Metrology Subcommittee & Metrology Meetings

L.F. Eason, Chairman

North Carolina

Subcommittee Survey Results and Ongoing Efforts - L. F. Eason

L.F. Eason presented the 1996 NCWM State Laboratory Program workload survey results to the Executive Committee, the Metrology Subcommittee and during the General Session. Results have been and are being presented at all regional metrology

meetings during 1997. Survey results were also presented to the NIST Calibration Program and Mass Group during a joint

meeting with the NCSL United States National Measurements Requirements Committee on May 20, 1997. L.F. Eason (NC) and

Ken Fraley (OK) attended that meeting on behalfofthe State Laboratory Program. It is anticipated that a paper and survey results will be formally published during 1998.

Summary statistics and highlights are as follows: Nearly 340,000 standards are calibrated each year by the State laboratories in the areas of mass (88 %), volume (3 %),

tuning forks used to calibrate radar guns (4 %), wheel-load weighers used in highway weight enforcement (2 %), and

all other tests including thermometers, length standards, and timing devices (3 %).

• Mass measurement is the predominant workload for the SLP. Ten percent of the total workload consists of precision mass calibrations for verification of State primary or working standards and calibrations for customers. Seventy-eight

percent consists of tolerance testing level calibrations performed for enforcement staff, service companies, general

manufacturing, and other companies.

• There are nearly 19,400 customers of State laboratories. Of these, 51 percent are weights and measures related (including the 8 % who are actual W&M enforcement staff). Based on responses from 1 89 scale service companies,

only 63 percent of the work done by scale service companies directly affects regulatory Weights and Measures. The

remainder of the SLP customers are in the following categories: general manufacturing (23 %); quality of life such as biomedical and pharmaceutical (9 %); defense, energy, and aerospace (2 %); other government agencies and service companies not related to enforcement (15 %).

• The average turn around time for calibrations performed in State laboratories is less than 1 week.

• State laboratory personnel contribute effort estimated to be equivalent to three full-time staffmembers to the NIST Office

of Weights and Measures, State Laboratory Program, through such activities as: coordinating meetings and

interlaboratory comparisons, data analysis, document preparation and review, training, laboratory assessments, and

technical assistance. NCWM Executive Committee Proposals

Updated proposals from the Metrology Subcommittee were presented to the Executive committee and are included in an Appendix

to the Executive Committee report.

Forum for Railroad Issues: International Traceability and Custody Transfer

A meeting was held March 20 and 21, 1997, in Chicago, IL, to discuss concerns raised to the metrology subcommittee by Steve Malone (NE) and a request from Canada regarding mutual recognition of railroad test car calibrations performed in the United

States and Canada. The report ofthat meeting is attached as Appendix B and provides background information for this topic.

A forum was held during the NCWM general technical session to present information, data analysis, and to answer questions

regarding railroad test car calibration and the railroad scale system. The following topics were presented by speakers noted:

• "Current Status of Canada's Request for Intercomparisons," Renald Marceau, Measurement Canada;

• "Summary of Railroad and Contractor 'Controls' for Handling and Tracking of Railroad Test Cars Used as Standards,"

Bob Feezor, Norfolk Southern;

• "Evaluation of Master Scale Data, Test Car Data, Round Robin Data," Georgia Harris, NIST Office of Weights and

Measures.

From the evaluation of data, the following recommendations were made:

Affected/involved participants:

• Continue test car calibration intercomparisons and dialog among: USDA, States, Railroads, Canada, and Mexico;

• Standardize calibration and verification procedures (in process);

• Continue data collection for master scales and test cars; improve detail and consistency of comments and maintenance

records; collect real as found data.

299
Metrology Subcommittee Report

Weights and measures officials:

• Jurisdictions with oversight for scales should witness tests and evaluate data;

• Registration programs should include placing track scales into service, test car equipment maintenance and calibration,

with reports submitted to the State for oversight; and

• Specific problems that are observed in the system should be communicated and corrected as soon as possible (keep open

communications.)

Data that was reviewed included the following:

• Data for 13 Master Track Scales was submitted by USDA/GIPSA.

• Data for 230 Railroad Test Cars and 824 tests (average 105 tests per year) was submitted by: USDA/GEPSA, railroads,

Oregon, Minnesota, and Canada (20 cars.)

The summary of the data analysis indicated that:

• Master scales are relatively stable over time with the mean of all scale values being 0.2 pound and standard deviations

less than 3 pounds.

• Railroad test cars are fairly stable considering 60 percent are found out of tolerance (0.01%, Class F) at the time of test. But, 80 percent ofthe errors are less than 50 pounds, only 10 percent ofthe errors are greater than 100 pounds, and very

little of the data is real as found data since calibrations are performed after repair and/or maintenance.

Additional work is ongoing in the intercomparisons of railroad test car calibration between the United States and Canada.

Acronyms International - Future Directions in Metrology - Sharrill Dittmann, NIST Calibration

Program

Sharrill Dittmann of the NIST Calibration Program presented an overview of the various organizations involved in coordination

of international activities in metrology, calibration, legal metrology, and laboratory accreditation. A handout showing a world

map and the acronyms of various organizations is included as Appendix C.

Life After Accreditation - Impact of Changes in the State Laboratory Program - Georgia Harris,

NIST OWM

Recent changes in the NIST Office of Weights and Measures State Laboratory Program were addressed along with many of the questions which have been raised by the States in response to changes identified at the 1997 NCWM Interim Meeting. A

memorandum from Peter Heydemann and Metrology's Top Questions & Answers About "Accreditation" from the NIST/OWM

Web site were distributed during the meeting and are attached as Appedices D and E. NCSL United States National Measurements Requirements Committee Results and Report - L.F.

Eason, NC

Information regarding the NCSL Survey ofNIST customers and the separate analysis of State respondents was presented to the Metrology Subcommittee and to NIST during a meeting on May 20, 1997.

Metrological Timelines - Chuck Ehrlich, NIST Office of Standards Services

Chuck Ehrlich presented a paper on using metrological timelines to track the traceability of standards. A copy of this paper is included as Appendix A to this report.

Software Demonstrations

Laboratory software demonstrations were presented during one ofthe Mefrology Subcommittee sessions by Georgia Harris, NIST,

and by Frank Wieszek, Mettler.

Regional Reports

Informal reports summarizing meeting and/or current activities were presented by each of the representatives to the Metrology

Subcommittee. Based on decisions made by the Executive Committee, the Subcommittee will only have public representatives

in the ftiture, although all meetings are open. Updates were provided regarding meeting dates, locations, topics, and current round

robin activities. Some regional groups provided specific laboratory updates as well.

300
Metrology Subcommittee Report

Appendix A

[Presented at the 1997 Measurement Science Conference, Pasadena, California, January 24, 1997. A new version of this paper is in process. Interested parties may contact the first author listed below.]

Metrological Timelines in Traceability

Charles D. Ehrlich and Stanley D. Rasberry

Technology Services

National Institute of Standards and Technology

Technology Administration

United States Department of Commerce

ABSTRACT

There is a growing requirement for an internationally accepted system ofrecognition ofmeasurement capabilities and relationships within and among countries, to facilitate seamless global commerce and trade. As a result, metrologists worldwide have recently

developed increased interest in the concept and definition of traceability. Classically, traceability provides a way of relating the

results of a measurement (or value of a standard) to higher level standards. Such standards are usually national or international

standards, and the comparisons used to provide the traceability must have well-understood uncertainties. An additional complexity

arises because all instruments and standards are subject to change, however slight, over time. This paper develops approaches

for dealing with the effects of such time-dependent changes as a part of traceability statements. The use of roadmaps in time, or

metrological timelines, greatly facilitates visualizing these relationships in a statement of traceability. When the rate of change in the measurement process is sufficiently small, the approaches proposed here will be less important. However, documented

measurement assurance procedures are required at all levels to estimate confidently the appropriate uncertainties. When laboratory

or national boundaries are crossed in the traceability process, other factors may come into play, and the original concept of

traceabilit> can become obscure. For this reason, it may prove practical to use other words or phrases, such as "equivalency,"

to describe these more complex measurement relationships.

INTRODUCTION

World-wide commerce requires a coherent measurement system within which the consistency of measurements is easily

maintained and demonstrated. Buyers and sellers have needed such a system in order to evolve ft-om barter to patterns of trade which use specifications for such things as size or performance. Classically, traceability [1] provides a way of relating the results ofa measurement (or value of a standard) to higher level standards. Such standards are usually national or international standards,

and the comparisons used to provide the traceability must have well-understood uncertainties. There is growing interest in the

practical use of traceability to demonstrate the integrity of the various comparisons, or for that matter, just what it is that should

be compared. Since all instruments and standards are subject to changes, however slight, over time, the use of roadmaps in time, or metrological timelines, greatly facilitates visualizing measurement relationships in a statement of traceability. This paper will discuss these issues, as well as address the need for the use of other terms to describe the variety of additional concepts usually

associated with traceability.

The approach taken here to understanding metrological timelines in traceability is still under consideration and discussion at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). This paper is motivated primarily out of expressed interest in this topic

by industrial-based organizations such as the National Conference of Standards Laboratories and the Measurement Science

Conference. Comments are welcomed by the authors.

Requirements for Traceability

Depending on the measurement requirements and the resources available, the need for traceability and the form it takes may vary

considerably. Manufacturers want the benefits of traceability so that customers will know the available level of performance for instruments and materials. Regulators demand traceability to ensure that public safety requirements are met. The military uses

traceability to provide a coherent measurement system for protecting lives, including their own, and providing national security.

301
Metrology Subcommittee Report

Common to all ofthese requirements is a need to know the results and uncertainties of measurements: the more consistent that

all measurements of a particular kind of quantity are throughout a society, the more consistent and compatible are the products

and services based on those measurements. This in turn leads to more equitable trade and more efficient economies.

It is typically the responsibility of a national metrology institute (NMI) to provide the nation's measurement infrastructure with

access to accurate measurement capability. The comparability of measurement values and associated uncertainties with those of

other nations is determined through a variety of mechanisms, including bilateral intercomparisons and international measurement

round robins. As will be discussed later, such comparability does not necessarily constitute traceability.

Requirements for accuracy in measurements translate into a need to know both the results of measurements and the uncertainties associated with these results. If it were practical, for the sake of coherence and consistency, all measurements of a given type in a country would be made using the same national standard in every laboratory in which the measurements are made. However,

this is clearly impractical for several reasons, primarily because the volume of measurements makes this impossible. Therefore,

it is necessary to establish the relationship of the result of a measurement made using an industrial instrument with that which

would have been obtained using the corresponding national standard.

The formalism of traceability is the tool that provides these measurement relationships. It is the process by which acceptable measurements with well-understood uncertainties can be documented to the degree required by interested parties. At its root, the primary use of traceability is to answer the questions (of auditors, regulators, those with a need for the "right" answer, ...): "By

how much should the measurement result that I obtain today, using my instrument, be corrected so that it is consistent with the measurement result that I would have obtained today if I could have used the instrument (standard) to which I want my

measurement to be traceable? What is the uncertainty of this corrected measurement result?"

It should be noted that the result of a measurement, and its traceability, may be useful even when the measurement uncertainty is relatively large. It is incumbent upon the user of the measurement to state the allowable magnitude of uncertainty for specific

measurement applications.

Current Definitions of Traceability

Probably the most widely-used and accepted definition oftraceability is given in the 1 993 International Vocabulary ofBasic and

General Terms in Metrology (VIM) [1], published by ISO, as: "property ofthe result of a measurement or the value of a standard whereby it can be related to stated references, usually national or international standards, through an unbroken chain of

comparisons all having stated uncertainties." There are variations ofthis definition, as covered in reference [2], including at least one that introduces the important additional requirement that quality assurance systems be in place. However, while possibly

implied, there seems to have been no discussion until recently of the need to explicitly consider the role that time plays in the

definition of traceability.

New Definitions of Traceability

In his presentation at the 5* U.S. - Italy Bilateral Seminar [3], Robert Hebner, the Acting Deputy Director ofNIST, presented the following definition oftraceability: "property ofthe result of a measurement or the value of a standard whereby it can be related to stated references, usually national or international standards, through an unbroken chain of comparisons all having stated uncertainties. It is noted that traceability only exists when scientifically rigorous evidence is collected on a continuing basis showing that the measurement is producing documented results for which the total measurement uncertainty is quantified." Note

that the first sentence repeats the VIM definition. The second sentence is new, and was meant to emphasize that a single

measurement result is insufficient to establish the uncertainty relationships required over time to achieve meaningful traceability,

and that, rather, direct periodic comparisons are required. In accordance with this principle, we show here that internal measurement assurance, using control (check) standards [1], is required to fiilly demonstrate that uncertainties remain within

acceptable levels when establishing traceability relationships. The rigor and level of detail of the measurement assurance procedures required will depend on the relative level of uncertainty of the systems of standards involved.

The next section details how such traceability can be achieved. In particular, it shows why it is important to explicitly include the timeline of all relevant measurement events (the "metrological timeline") that supports and constitutes the chain of comparisons

in a "statement of traceability."

Note that in these definitions, it is the result ofa measurement or value ofa standard that possesses traceability. Strictly speaking,

then, traceability is not a property of an instrument or a laboratory, but of course includes the properties of instruments and

laboratories. Such shorthand designations are frequently used, however, and so it is important in such cases to specify the covered range ofoperation ofthe instrument, or the applicable metrological variables and ranges for the laboratory, for which the traceable condition applies. Since an instrument is required to obtain the result of a measurement, the VIM definition oftraceability should

302
Metrology Subcommittee Report

probably be modified to explicitly accommodate the concept of traceability of an instrument. However, verification that the instrument is performing as expected must be part of the expanded definition. METROLOGICAL TIMELINES

The most important aspect of a measurement process is to "get the measurement right" to some level. However, defining what

"getting the measurement right" means is not always clear or straightforward. This is especially true if what is being measured

is changing significantly with time, if the instrument being used to make the measurement is changing significantly with time (e.g., drifting), or if the reference standard to which the measurement is to be traceable is changing significantly with time. A rigorous,

comprehensive statement of traceability must be capable of defining the measurement process and the associated measurement

uncertainties clearly enough that the relatively "instantaneous" measurement can be "gotten right," even when things are changing

with time, as they frequently are. The use of metrological timelines greatly facilitates dealing with time variations in quantities

(that are meant to be stable) when documenting traceability.

Measurement Uncertainty

Assessing measurement uncertainty is at the core ofestablishing traceability of a measurement result, and so it is important to have

an accepted, well-established technique for assessing measurement uncertainty under a variety of measurement conditions. The

1993 Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement [4], published by ISO, and the 1994 Edition of NIST Technical Note 1297 [4a] nicely address the questions of how to assess and express measurement uncertainty, especially if what is being

measured is not changing with time. In its scope, the Guide states that it "is primarily concemed with the expression of uncertainty

in the measurement ofa well-defined physical quantity -the measurand - that can be characterized by an essentially unique value." For purposes of demonstrating traceability, the principles of the Guide can be used for assessing individual uncertainties at "discrete measurement events", defined here as those covering time periods that are relatively short in comparison with the time

period over which the measurand might be changing. For those cases where there is a known, systematic error (such as a documented drift over time in the use of an instrument), a simple way of incorporating such a known, uncorrected error into uncertainty considerations has been suggested by Phillips and Eberhardt [5]. Note, however, that the Guide recommends

correcting for such systematic errors whenever possible, and including a component of uncertainty for this correction.

What follows in this section is a description of the key elements of measurement assurance systems and metrological timelines used to develop rigorous yet practical statements of traceability. The measurement assurance system in an NMI is used as an example to develop the concept of the metrological timeline. Monitoring stability of the national standards is essential, but is usually maintained at a level to be of minimal concern to those wishing to demonstrate traceability to national standards. This means that it is not ordinarily necessary to consider stability of the national standards when demonstrating traceability from lower

levels. In fact, quite the opposite is true, and only in rare cases, such as development of a new International Temperature Scale,

and only when the very best uncertainties are required, is it necessary to consider such changes. Laboratories below the national

level need to document the measurement assurance they use to demonstrate traceability from their levels to the national level. The

techniques demonstrated here for the national level can be used at lower levels for this purpose.

Metrological Timelines for Measurement Assurance

Figure I is a simple metrological timeline, illustrating one of several possible internal measurement assurance systems for a primary measurement standard (denoted by the box containing the letter P) in an NMI. The time axis is shown along the top of

the figure, with time increasing from left to right. Three "metrological events" are indicated on the time axis (by the ticks at times

to, and t.^. The time axis is not to scale, but rather depicts schematically the time-order of events. Similarly, the "time duration"

of an event under any of the ticks, which could be indicated schematically by the width of the set of boxes and arrows "under" a

tick, is also not to scale. Each event is roughly centered under the appropriate tick on the time axis at which the event takes place. Note that the actual time duration for a particular event will depend on the nature ofthe event, and supporting documentation can be used to provide such details when necessary.

The first metrological event, represented by the box under the time t^ is the initial characterization of P by the NMI. That is, t^

is the time that P is first considered available for use. The primary measurement standard P could be a measuring instrument, a

reference material, a material measure or a measuring system [1]. For purposes of discussion here, P will be taken to be the most

general type of measurement standard, a measuring system. The same basic principles concerning traceability would apply if P

were any of these other types, although the details might be different. The initial characterization of the primary measurement

system P is based on first-principles, "without reference to other standards of the same quantity," by definition [1]. Such a

characterization also involves evaluating the uncertainties associated with using P to make measurements of the quantity that P

is designed to measure. Further discussion of special considerations associated with characterization of a primary measurement

system will be presented later.

303
Metrology Subcommittee Report

Once the primary measurement system P has been characterized, to be useful in the future its metrological characteristics must

be "conserved" [1]. The second metrological event in Figure 1, represented by the two boxes connected by an arrow under the time is the calibration ofan ensemble ofcontrol standards using P. The control standards must be ofsufficient quality (stability, repeatability, resolution, etc.) that they can be used to detect changes in behavior or performance of P, using traditional measurement assurance techniques, at a level commensurate with that which P is to be used. Control standards with such

properties can exist even when the standards cannot be characterized from first-principles and hence cannot be used as primary

measurement standards themselves. Calibrations over time ofthe ensemble ofcontrol standards by P form the basis ofa long-term

internal measurement assurance system to conserve P.

The third metrological event, represented by the boxes under the time is a subsequent calibration of the same set of control standards using the same primary measurement system P. By plotting a set of measurement results obtained at times and t^, a measurement assurance chart (or measurement control chart) for the entire system of standards is begun. By again repeating the same measurements and monitoring the variation in the measurement results over time, an estimate of the long term stability and

repeatability ofthe system, and in particular ofP, can be formulated. This entire system ofstandards can also be used at some later point in time to validate the immediate operational integrity ofP. As will be discussed further below, the stability and repeatability

of the entire system of standards become important components of uncertainty in a final statement of traceability. Note that the measurement assurance method described here may not always be applicable to a primary measurement system, but related methods that accomplish the goal of monitoring the integrity of the system over time must be developed and used.

Simple Metrological Timelines for Traceability

Figure 2a illustrates a slightly more complicated metrological system than that in Figure 1. In this case, a measurement artifact

is shown explicitly as part ofthe internal measurement assurance system used to monitor the stability ofthe primary measurement

system P. The measurement artifact (or "material measure" [1]), belonging to the NMI, is a "device intended to reproduce or supply, in a permanent manner during its use, one or more known values of a given quantity". This timeline introduces the measurement artifact to provide explicit reference to measurement results and measurement uncertainties. As indicated at time

/„ P is used to perform a measurement of the quantity A' on the measurement artifact, with the measurement result v

' having

"expanded uncertainty" [4] u ^ . AX about the same time /„ the ensemble of confrol standards (N; , where / is an index representing

the number ofcontrol standards in the ensemble) is used to make measurements ofthe same quantity A', with measurement results v

^ having expanded uncertainties i

, . Similarly, at time t^, P is again used to perform a measurement of the same quantity A' on

the same measurement artifact, with the measurement result v I having expanded uncertainty (/ 1, and the same set of control standards (N) are used to make measurements ofthe quantity X, with measurement results x having expanded uncertainties

An illusttative measurement assurance (conttol) chart of the type described above is presented in Figure 3a. This simple chart records measurement results {X, indicated by the dots) and expanded uncertainties {U, indicated by the error bars) for the primary

measurement system P and two different control standards (N, and Nj) at the two times /, and /j- Such data demonstrate the

fijnctional integrity ofthe full system of instruments (which includes P, the confrol standards and the measurement artifact), within

the scatter of the data and their uncertainties, over the time period covered by the chart. Note that in order for such a system to work most effectively, the confrol standards should be ofdiffering designs from each other and from P whenever possible, making

it less likely that changes in their individual performances over time would be correlated with each other's, or with possible

changes in the primary measurement system. However, in many cases a single confrol standard is sufficient to demonstrate

whether or not the measurement system is under confrol. Also note that while the simple, illusfrative chart in Figure 3a contains

data for only two times, charts used in practice will usually contain data at numerous times to allow long-term monitoring of the system.

While the example in Figure 2a and Figure 3a is given for a primary measurement standard in an NMI, there is also a need for the same type of internal measurement assurance system for the standards used by other laboratories, such as a calibration laboratory that is a customer of the NMI, as indicated in Figure 2b, and the control chart in Figure 3b.

The measurement results indicated in Figure 2b can be used to illustrate an example of traceability for internal measurement

assurance. The measurement result v is directly fraceable to the calibration laboratory's reference standard C, in its state at time

/i, through documentation of all relevant aspects of the measurement procedure, including the expanded uncertainty '

. Sometime later, the measurement result v is directly traceable to C, in its state at time t^, through documentation of all relevant aspects of the measurement procedure, including the expanded uncertainty u ^ . While this example is not the most customary

use of the concept oftraceability, which is to have measurement results related to national or international standards, it serves to demonstrate that traceability can occur at any level. In this example, traceability ofthe measurement results .v ^ and .v ^ to national standards could be achieved if C were calibrated by the NMI.

304
Metrology Subcommittee Report

Note that while traceability is usually regarded as relating measurement results to specific standards (e.g., instruments or systems),

the relationship must also include the many aspects of the entire measurement process (such as environmental conditions) that affect the overall measurement uncertaint\'. In future discussion in this paper, the shorthand notation of saying that a measurement result is traceable to a standard implies that the entire measurement process is being considered.

The simple example in Figijre 2b contains an aspect of traceabilit\' that is frequently ignored but must always be considered: the possible time dependence of the performance of the reference standard C when claiming traceability. Strictly speaking, the measurement result .v is traceable to the standard C as it existed at the time r^, but not necessarily as it existed at the time . As

an example of why such distinction is necessary, if in the period between times r, and t. the reference standard C was somehow

modified (e.g., damaged), or the uncertaint>' associated with its use was somehow changed, then the measurement result >.

' and

the expanded uncertainty t / may not be related to the state of C at time in a known or well-understood way. Under such

circumstances, it would not be reasonable to claim traceabilit>' of the measurement result v ; to C as it existed at the time

Data of the kind shown in Figure 3c would indicate that the performance of the reference standard C had changed between times

r, and /j- That is, the value of the measurement result x

' obtained at time is significantly above the values of all of the other measurement results. In this case C has shifted by an amount 6 .v

' = •.

. - v . In order to claim traceability of the measurement

result -v obtained at time tj to the reference standard C as it existed at time , the calibration laboratory would have to incorporate

4 -v

'

, preferably as a correction to the measured value in the statement of traceabilitv', or as an additional component of

uncertainty- {i r 'J associated ^vith the statement of traceability. Note that if the calibration laboratory had not performed the measurements and displayed the results in Figure 3c, it would have remained unknown that a change in the performance of C had

taken place, and subsequent claims of measurement values or uncertainties in statements of traceabilit>' would be in error.

More Complex Metrological Timelines for Traceability

Figure 4 is a metrological timeline depicting the relevant metrological events for traceabilit>' of a measurement performed by a

calibration laboratory' to an NMI. As indicated in the figure, the calibration laborator>' wishes to establish traceabilitv' of a measurement result .v J , obtained while using the calibration laborator\''s reference standard C at the time t^, to the primary measurement system P belonging to the NMI. As also indicated in the figure, relevant metrological events for the traceability- of

the measurement result obtained at time t^ have already taken place at the earlier times t^ , and t^. The time t. is the time when

the NTvn calibrates C using P. The time /(, is a time prior to time t^ when C has been characterized in the calibration laboratory

as part of an internal measurement assurance process that incorporates the calibration laboratory's measurement artifact and

control standards, as described above. This step at time t^ is extremely important in establishing confidence in the integrity' of the

traceability statement, since it allows the calibration laboratory to verify and demonstrate that C is not damaged or otherwise

adversely affected beyond acceptable limits during its journey to and from the NMI. Such verification is accomplished by using

C at time t^, after it is returned to the calibration laboratory, to calibrate the same measurement artifact, along with the same set of control standards, as was done at time t^, as illustrated in the figure. The thin dashed arrows in the figure are to aid in following

the sequential use of C along the timeline.

In Figure 4, the traceability is indicated schematically, by the heavy arrow, as relating the measurement result x [ , obtained at time

to the standard P as it existed at the time For simplicity in the figure, the traceable measurement result ,v is shown being

obtained during the course of taking data for internal measurement assurance purposes. If instead, the reference standard C had

been used to perform some other measurement at time t^ for which traceability to P was desired, then it would have been important

to perform yet another internal measurement assurance operation (i.e.. taking m.ore data) afterwards, using the same measurement

artifact and control standards. This last step would be to verify' that C was still performing within acceptable limits after the

traceable measurement at time t^, and hence was likely doing so at the time t^ as well.

A metrological timeline highlights the key elements of a traceability relationship. For more complicated traceability relationships, the utility of a metrological timeline to provide a "traceability roadmap" becomes even more apparent, as illustrated in Figure 5. This figure depicts a generic "lower-level" laboraton, sending its reference standard L to a generic "higher-level" laboratory for

calibration against the higher-level laboratory's reference standard H. The measurement assurance systems of both the lower-level laboratory and the higher-level laboratory are explicitly indicated, although explicit use of measurement artifacts in either laboratory is suppressed in the figure for simplicity'. Depending upon the likelihood that the calibration of H has changed

significantly between times t^ and t^, for reasons discussed earlier, the lower-level laboratory might wish to demonstrate

traceability of the measurement result to H as it existed at the time t^ (indicated schematically by the heavy arrow). Howe\'er,

the calibration laboratory may also desire a traceability statement relating the measurement result to H as it existed at time t^, since

that is when the lower-level laboratory's reference standard L was actually calibrated against H. Either of these traceability statements is possible; however, both the measurement values and the uncertainties associated with the traceability' statements may

be different for the different cases, as discussed earlier. Having a metrological timeline like that shown in Figure 6, where both

305
Metrology Subcommittee Report

traceability paths are indicated on the same page (as Traceability, and Traceabilityj), could aid greatly in assisting someone, such

as a measurement auditor, to visualize the difference between the two possible traceability statements. STATEMENTS OF TRACEABILITY

As discussed in the introduction, the use of traceability is primarily to answer the questions: "By how much should the measurement result that I obtain today, using my instrument, be corrected so that it is consistent with the measurement result that

I would have obtained today if I could have used the instrument (standard) to which I want my measurement to be traceable? What

is the uncertainty of this corrected measurement result?"

The examples given in earlier sections demonstrate how the clear and rigorous identifications of metrological events and

measurement relationships help, for even the simplest traceability statements, to answer these questions. One must define and

describe all of the parameters needed to demonstrate the unbroken chain of measurement and uncertainty relationships between

the measurement for which traceability is claimed and the standard to which traceability is claimed. Metrological timelines,

measurement assurance (control) charts, and records detailing all relevant metrological parameters associated with the instruments or standards involved at each step along the way are important tools required to describe unambiguously how the calculated uncertainty associated with the measurement for which traceability is claimed has been evaluated.

On the practical side, while it is important to address the issues discussed above, the degree to which measurements and

relationships must be documented may vary considerably. For instance, less attention can be given to a standard's instability if the changes are small when compared to the uncertainty of the measurement. However, it is not wise to totally ignore the performance of the reference standard, since it may have undergone a serious change in performance if it was inadvertently

damaged.

Components of a Practical, Rigorous Statement of ''Simple^' Traceability

While practical considerations cannot be disregarded, it is always useful for completeness, and to make sure that nothing has been

overlooked, to at least list all of the metrological events and other issues that must be considered at some level in documenting

the traceability ofa measurement result. The key elements of a general statement oftraceability for the relatively simple examples

that have been presented above can be summarized as follows:

A full statement of traceability of a measurement result will contain components of the following kind:

1) Provision of a complete metrological timeline (similar to those in Figures 4-6, with accompanying descriptive text) illustrating and identifying all of the relevant physical components, including control standards, and measurement

assurance measures used to demonstrate the traceability of the measurement result and the integrity of its estimated

uncertainty. The metrological timeline serves as a visual roadmap to help follow the narrative statement of traceability.

Note: It is important to document how control standards are used to ensure that no instruments or systems, especially those that are moved or transported, experience a significant shift in their performance over time. In particular it must

be demonstrated, using the same control standards both before and after an instrument or system is shipped, that it performs in essentially the same manner after it is received as before it was shipped. For completeness, acceptable

performance of the instrument or system should be verified following a measurement for which traceability is being

demonstrated. Usually, this is done by comparison with control standards, documenting the procedure and result.

2) Description of all ofthe metrological details associated with the measurement, including what was measured, the result ofthe measurement, the instrument(s) or system(s) used, when and where the measurement took place, the measurement

environment, the results of all ancillary measurements and their estimated uncertainties, who performed and who was

responsible for the measurement, what calculations, models or analyses were used to obtain the measurement result, and

the uncertainty of the measurement result.

3) Definition ofthe standard to which the measurement result is to be traceable, including the point in time in the existence ofthe standard at which the traceability is being established, and all metrological details (as described above in 2) ofthe standard that influence the uncertainty of the measurement result.

Note: Ifthe uncertainty, and any change in uncertainty, associated with the standard are much smaller than the uncertainty

ofthe measurement result for which traceability is being documented, then only a brief description of the measurement

306
Metrology Subcommittee Report

history of the standard is needed as long as the standard performed within expected limits when the lower-level

laboratory's standard was compared to it.

4) Provision of the uncertainty analysis, including supporting documentation, such as test results and measurement

assurance (control) charts, used to calculate the estimated uncertainty of the measurement result for which traceability

is being demonstrated. If there is an "additional" component of uncertainty (such as « ;/

' above) associated with the point in time that the traceability to a higher-level standard is being established, this uncertainty must be clearly

identified, and its incorporation into the overall statement of uncertainty described.

As discussed above, depending on specific requirements, statements of traceability may not need to contain all of these components. However, if a statement oftraceability omits one or more ofthe components, it should be noted in the statement what

components have been omitted, and why. In general, there is no such thing as "partial traceability." If any aspect of the measurement chain is not given due consideration and reported appropriately, then the credibility of the reported uncertainty of

the measurement result in the statement of traceability is suspect.

Components of a Practical, Rigorous Statement of More Complex Traceability

The principles of measurement traceability discussed thus far can be applied fairly straightforwardly to situations where the measurement result is not directly traceable to the desired standard. This most commonly occurs when there are intermediate

laboratories in the chain of comparisons used to demonstrate traceability. The added complexity gives rise to several new issues.

Perhaps the most important of these has to do with responsibilities of record keeping and providing information, as can be

demonstrated with the aid of the metrological timeline shown in Figure 7. Pictorially, in the center of this figure, a testing

laboratory obtains a calibration of its standard T from the lower-level laboratory at time The testing laboratory subsequently

performs a measurement using the standard T at time and wishes to demonstrate traceability of that measurement result to the standard H of the higher-level laboratory.

In order for the testing laboratory to assess the measurement uncertainty associated with the measurement result at time t^, the

uncertainty ((/ / ) associated with the standard T at time must be knovm. This latter uncertainty can be evaluated in the testing

laboratory from the control charts maintained on the standard T during the time period from /„ when the standard T was calibrated by the lower-level laboratory's standard L and then returned to the testing laboratory, to the time t^. If the time-average of the measurement quantity v

' (denoted v ^ ), used in the control chart as a control parameter, changes (e.g. drifts) by an amount s v

J_ between /, and t^, then the testing laboratory can either "adjusf' the values assigned to measurements made using T, or adjust the uncertainty assigned to T [5]. The original uncertainty associated with the standard T at the time /, can be ascertained in the testing

laboratory from the calibration report corresponding to calibration of the standard T against the lower-level laboratory's standard L at the time This calibration report should be provided to the testing laboratory from the calibration laboratory around the time

/,. The method used to incorporate 6 v ^ into an overall uncertainty of the measurement result for which traceability is being

established, whether it is the root-sum-square method [4] or another method (e.g., [5]), needs to be specified to avoid conftision.

The uncertainty associated with the lower-level laboratory's standard L at the time can be assessed in a similar manner by the

lower-level laboratory. This uncertainty can be estimated from the control charts maintained on the standard L during the time

period from when the standard L was calibrated against the higher-level laboratory's reference standard H and then returned

to the lower-level laboratory, to the time The original uncertainty associated with the standard L at the time can be derived

from the calibration report, issued by the higher-level laboratory, corresponding to calibration of the standard L against the standard H at the time t^. Similarly to the case above for the testing laboratory, ifthe time-average ofthe measurement quantity v

'

(denoted v

_^ ), used in the control chart as a control parameter, changes by an amount « v ^ between and t„ then the lower-level

laboratory can either adjust the values assigned to measurements made using L, or adjust the uncertainty assigned to L, when it

is used to calibrate T. A comprehensive statement of traceability of the measurement result at the time thus requires, in principle, documentation of

the performance history ofthe test standard T, the lower-level laboratory's standard L and, possibly, the higher-level laboratory's standard H. If the traceability of the measurement result is to be to H as it exists at the time t^, then the quantity i \ ^ , characterizing any change between the times and in the time-average of the measurement quantity v

" (denoted v ^ ), used

in the control chart as a control parameter for H, must be accounted for as an additional component of uncertainty associated with

the measurement result in the statement of traceability. The testing laboratory's difficulty in assembling such a comprehensive

statement of traceability is then twofold. First, the lower-level laboratory does not typically provide the relevant performance

history of the standard L in its calibration report, but only the uncertainty associated with the standard L at the time However,

better laboratories (especially those that have undergone an accreditation process) will be able to provide such information,

covering a reasonable period of time, upon request. Second, for a system of standards only slightly more complex than that

307
Metrology Subcommittee Report

indicated in Figure 7, or for traceability paths covering a span of several years, it could prove difficult to identify the standard H

in the higher-level laboratory, especially if it has undergone modification, and harder yet to obtain access to the quantity 6 v

"

thus adding to the difficulty of assembling a comprehensive statement of traceability.

Fortunately, in many cases requiring traceability, these issues do not materialize due to the increasing levels of acceptable

uncertainty as one descends the laboratory hierarchy. For example, if the testing laboratory in Figure 7 only requires modest

uncertainties when using the reference standard T, whereas the typical variation « v I

in the reference standard L in the lowerlevel laboratory is significantly less than this uncertainty over a time period greater than (/, - Q, and the typical variation « v

"

in the reference standard H in the higher-level laboratory is even much smaller over a time period greater than (r„ - t^), then the

testing laboratory probably does not need to incorporate either of these variations into the uncertainty associated with the

traceability of the measurement result using T at time /„. However, if either « v ^ or * v ^ are similar in magnitude to the

uncertainty associated with using T, then they must be incorporated into the final uncertainty of the measurement result using T

at time in the statement of traceability.

The hierarchy of measurement and testing laboratories (national lab, secondary labs, tertiary, etc.) is such that, ordinarily, a

laboratory needs to go only one level up to get the necessary calibration uncertainty, but usually will need to have traceability to more than one level up. For instance, in the example of Figure 7, the testing laboratory should only have to go to the lower-level laboratory to get the calibration uncertainties it needs, but will have to obtain information fi-om the higher-level laboratories to have traceability to national standards.

Ifthe testing laboratory had needed to obtain a smaller uncertainty, however, it could have sent its standard T directly to the higherlevel laboratory for direct calibration against the standard H shortly before the measurement result required at the time was

obtained. This is frequently not possible for reasons of cost and time. When possible, however, such a procedure would allow

the testing laboratory to assess how closely the measurement results agree for the two traceability paths, as well as how realistically the uncertainty evaluation ofthe measurement result at the time was carried out using the original traceability path. This would

be useful in lending credence to using the longer traceability path in the future. The use of "blind" measurement assurance

programs, where the laboratory being evaluated carries out test calibrations without being told anything special in advance in order

to assess the capabilities of the laboratory's entire measurement assurance process, accomplishes similar objectives.

OTHER ISSUES CONCERNING STATEMENTS OF TRACEABILITY

Traceability when more than one Standard is used for a Calibration

Sometimes a lower-level laboratory's measurement standard L sent to a higher-level laboratory for calibration requires that more

than one reference standard H be used by the higher-level laboratory to perform the calibration adequately. The reference standard H is taken here to be a measuring instrument. Such is the case, for example, when the operating range of L does not overlap well with any ofthe standards H in the higher-level lab. Ehrlich, Eberhardt et. al. [6] have described a statistical algorithm for deriving

the measurement uncertainty in such a situation for pressure standards. Under these circumstances the traceability of a measurement result is not to an individual instrument, but rather to a complex measurement system as discussed earlier, consisting

ofthe measurement instruments that are used, combined with whatever analysis is used to derive the uncertainty statement in the

calibration report associated with the lower-level laboratory's standard L. Care must be taken to properly develop and document

the measurement assurance (control) charts associated with these measurement systems for purposes of traceability statements

associated with subsequent use of the lower-level laboratory's reference standard L.

Intrinsic Standards and Traceability

Another complex issue concerning traceability is the use of intrinsic standards. The ANSUNCSL Z540-1-1994, American

National Standardfor Calibration - Calibration Laboratories and Measuring and Test Equipment - General requirements [7], says that intrinsic standards are "based on well-characterized laws of physics, fundamental constants of nature, or invariant

properties of materials and make ideal stable, precise, and accurate measurement standards if properly designed, characterized,

operated, monitored and maintained." While many people tend to think of intrinsic standards as stand-alone, turn-key systems

that require no prior comparisons while still providing inherent traceability, the ANSI/NCSL Z540-1 states otherwise: "Where

intrinsic standards are used, the laboratory should demonstrate by measurement assurance techniques, interlaboratory comparisons,

or other suitable means that its intrinsic standard measurement results are correlated with those of national or international standards." In other words, intrinsic standards are different than ordinary transfer standards in that they may be characterized in much the same way as primary standards. However, in order for a measurement result using an intrinsic standard to be traceable

to a national standard, the intrinsic standard must still be compared with the national standard, and appropriate measurement

assurance techniques must still be implemented.

308
Metrology Subcommittee Report

Multiple Routes to Traceabilit>

When a calibration Laboraion. requires direa traceabilit> of a measurement result to a reference standard in an NMI for one of

the SI base quantities (mass, length, time. etc.). the calibration laboraior> must go directly to the organization in the NMI that provides such ineasurement services. But if a calibration laboratorv requires direa traceabilit\ to an NMI for a measurement result ofa denved quantit>' fe.g^ pressure :-.r- the calibration laboraton- can follow tv,o basic pathways. One is to have a standard

cablirated a^mst a refoence standara :c: ±e derived quantitv maintained at the NMI. The other is to obtain calibrations from

tbe NMI fiarlhe base quantrries needed to suppon development of a primary standard themselves.

The first, most 5iraightfor.va.'d :r:::r.. is gc to the organization in the WSU. that provides measurement services for the derived

quantity. This organizat; : n :: ::e; s-::. :;p2bilit\' by developing primary standards based on measurement results that are dienisetvestraceabletorere.-e' tr srandanis, maintained b> other organizations in theN^MI, that are representations of the SI base

units. These represenlati ; i i:e ;n turn based on realizations of the definitions of these units. Note that w hile traceabilit> to a re&rence standard that is a .-er reientation of an SI unit is possible, it is not appropriate to refer to traceabilitv to the SI unit itself, except possibb. for mass wiiere me SI unit is defined in terms of an anifect standard. The teiro "expressibiJit>'" of a measurement

result in terms of SI units is preferred [8].

Thesecood option mentioned is to characterize a primar. standard in-houseatthe calibration laboratory' by obtaining measurement

services for the base quantities direcil> from the N"ML AltemaD\ ely, the calibration laboratory could obtain a primarv standard

that another laboratory has diaracterized using measurement services obtained directly from the organizations in the NMI that develop and chatacCoTZB reference standards that ire rec-esentations ofthe SI base units. Examples of both of these options can be found in practice.

^liile these options va^ both satisfy the requirement fliat a measurement result be directly traceable to an NMI, it is important

to note th^ the final measurement results and assocmted uncertainties may difio" for these options. This is because the primary

standanl developed by the calibration laboratory mav' be different from the primary standard developed by the NMI. Even if the primaiy standards are of idmtical design, the implementations or models used for assessment of the final measurement results might dififer.

The use of comprehensive statemaots oftraceability that contain metrological timelines of the types described above should

provide ample opportunitytounderstaidwhicfatraceabiliiy padi is being used by the calibration laboratory , and what assumptions

are being made.

Recalibration Intervals

Reiate-d to the issue of traceability is the question of the frequency with which uistruments should be recalibrated. Natural wear

:r. 2s. instrdment due to the "hardness" and frequency of use, mishandling, environmental factors such as corrosion, and even the

• • ir, instrument is used all have a bearii^ on instiument performance. A significant change in instrument performance, or an

-r.: er.ainty not within desirable limits, will typically warrant recalibration of the instrument. Howev er, as discussed at length in reference [9], the cost of frequent recalibration balances the economic (and other) adv antages of keeping an instrument w ithin desirable limits of uncertainty

.An appropriate recah"bTation interval can be established by reference to the control chart wliich results from routine comparison

with control standards. Furthermore, abnormalities can be quickly spotted and corrected by means of repair and recalibration. Detennioing wiien to recalibrate an instrument by using control standards usually results in less frequent recalibrations, saving

time and mon^. Ofcourse, the cost ofpurchasing and or de\ eloping, using and maintaining control standards must be considered

in the cost accounting, but wtien traceability is required, the control standards must be used and become jjart of the cost of doing

business anyway.

CONSn)ER.\TIONS AT THE rsTERNATION.\L LE\TL

The explicit examples presented above using metrological timelines to portray the unbroken chain of comparisons in traceability

relationships apply specifically within a nation. In the growing global economy , the questions posed earlier at the root of domestic

traceability requirements, namely "By how much should the measurement result that I obtain today, using my instrument, be

conected so that it is consistent with the measurement resuh that I w ould have obtained today if I could have used the instrument

(standard) to which I v\ant my measurement to be traceable? ViTiai is the uncertainty of this correaed measurement result?", also apply to measurement relationships that cross national boundaries. That is, someone performing a meastirement in one country

309
Metrology Subcommittee Report

may need to know or demonstrate how the result ofthat measurement relates to what the result of that measurement would be if carried out by the NMI (or a calibration laboratory) of another country. While the concepts of traceability discussed above may

sometimes be applicable to this situation, this is frequently not the case since NMIs do not typically calibrate each other's instruments, but rather compare measurement capabilities through international intercomparisons or round robins using

intermediate or transfer standards. Depending upon the details, results from such intercomparisons could sometimes be used to establish traceability to another nation.

It is becoming more common to hear the terms "equivalency" and "horizontal traceability" being used to describe the metrological

relationships when national boundaries are crossed, since the measurement capabilities ofthe various NMIs are presumed to be

at a more-or-less equal (or horizontal) level. The term "vertical traceability" is then usually reserved for the more common usage of domestic traceability described in the main text above. While the concept of horizontal traceability is not developed ftirther here, it can be noted that metrological timelines to describe horizontal traceability will be qualitatively different than those for vertical traceability. This is because for vertical fraceability the results of measurements, as well as the uncertainties, are forwarded from one calibration level to the next. For horizontal traceability the results of measurements are typically not forwarded as a calibration. Rather, the results of measurements are forwarded as being unchanged from one NMI to the next, and

an "international comparison uncertainty," representing the "degree of equivalence" of the national laboratories involved, is included in the statement of traceability. Another factor that limits the potential usefiilness of horizontal traceability is the level of acceptance of the measurement results and uncertainties by the various participants.

A point mentioned earlier, but worth reemphasizing here, is that, strictly speaking, in the VIM definition, traceability is the property of the result of a measurement or the value of a standard, but not the property of an instrument or a laboratory. Thus,

within this conventional definition, it is not proper to think of an NMI being traceable to another NMI, even though measurement

results could, in some cases, be established as traceable to another NMI. From this perspective, the term "equivalence" ofnational laboratories in particular metrological areas is preferred.

As noted earlier, it is not within the scope of this paper to develop a formalism using mefrological timelines for describing the metrological relationships corresponding to traceability across national boundaries. To minimize conftjsion, words other than

traceability should probably be used to describe the relationship between the result of a measurement in one country's NMI and

the corresponding (hypothetical) result of the same measurement carried out by the NMI of another country if a direct link of

calibrations (or equivalent for chemical or other standards) cannot be demonstrated. The International Bureau of Weights and

Measures (BIPM) is in the process of developing a mechanism by which nations' abilities to perform nominally identical measurements can be compared, and the results published [10].

310
Metrology Subcommittee Report

REFERENCES

[1] International Vocabulary ofBasic and General Terms in Metrology, second edition, 1993, BIPM, lEC, IFCC, ISO,

lUPAC, lUPAP, and OIML, © International Organization for Standardization, Geneva (1993).

[2] Gamer, E.L. and Raspberry, S.D., What 's New in Traceability, Journal of Testing and Evaluation, JTEVA, Vol. 2 1

, No.

6, November 1993, pp. 505-509.

i [3] Hebner, R.E., Calibration Traceability: A Summary ofNIST's View, Feb. 26, 1996, Gaithersburg, Maryland

[4] Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement, first edition, 1993, BIPM, lEC, IFCC, ISO, lUPAC, lUPAP,

and OIML, © International Organization for Standardization, Geneva (1993).

[4a] Taylor, B.N. and Kuyatt, C.E., NIST Technical Note 1297, 1994 Edition, Guidelinesfor Evaluating and Expressing

the Uncertainty ofNIST Measurement Results, 20 pages. Note that NIST policy in Technical Note 1297 is completely

consistent with the Gw/i/e [4]. _

[5] Phillips, S.D. and Eberhardt, K.R., Guidelines for Expressing the Uncertainty ofMeasurement Results Containing

Uncorrected Bias, in preparation.

[6] Ehrlich, CD., Eberhardt, K.R., Houck, J.C. and Ward, D.B., Uncertainties Using Multiple (Piston Gauge) Instruments, presented at the 1995 Measurement Science Conference, Anaheim, California.

[7] National Conference of Standards Laboratories (NCSL), ANSI/NCSL Z540-1-1994, American National Standardfor

Calibration - Calibration Laboratories and Measuring and Test Equipment - General requirements. First Edition - August 1994, p. 7

[8] Taylor, B., Private communication.

[9] National Conference of Standards Laboratories (NCSL), RP-1, Establishment andAdjustment ofCalibration Intervals,

Third Edition, January 1 996

[10] Blevin, W., Bureau International des Poids et Measures (BIPM), in preparation.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors would like to thank N. Belecki, S. Carpenter, S. Chappell, G. Harris, R. Hebner, C. Kuyatt, W. Leight, S. Morris, H.

Semerjian, and B. Taylor for their useflil comments concerning this paper.

311
Metrology Subcommittee Report

Figures

METROLOGICAL TIMELINE

H > Time

National

Metrology

Institute

Control

p —

>

Standards

Control

P —> Standards

Figure 1

METROLOGICAL TIMELINE

H > Time

National

Metrology

Institute

Internal

Measurement

Assurance

System

Control

Standards

(N.)

Ni Measurement

Results

Measurement

Uncertainties

Measurement

Artifact

Control

Standards

Measurement

Artifact

Figure 2a

312
Metrology Subcommittee Report

METROLOGICAL TIMELINE

Time

Calibration

Laboratory

Internal

Measurement

Assurance

System

Figure 2b

Control

Standards

(Mi) ^ Mi Measurement

Results

Measurement

U' Uncertainties

Measurement

Artifact

Control

Standards

Measurement

Artifact

COU

w

m

CO<

MEASUREMENT ASSURANCE (CONTROL) CHART

National Metrology Institute

REF

LEGEND

Primary Standard (P) Control Standard (N,) Control Standard (Nj)

11

1

i 1

! 1

1

> 1

1 1 I

1 r

1

1

T 1

; 1

Figure 3a

TIME

313
Metrology Subcommittee Report

H

o

w

H

W

D

<

MEASUREMENT ASSURANCE (CONTROL) CHART

Calibration Laboratory

REF

LEGEND

Cal. Lab. Standard (C)

Cal. Lab. Control Standard (M,) CaL Lab. Control Standard (Mj)

1

1

1

1

1tl

1

ii

!

1

1

1

1

Figure 3b

TIME

D

u

H

PQ

O

<

ULl

MEASUREMENT ASSURANCE (CONTROL) CHART

Calibration Laboratory

REF

LEGEND

Cal. Lab. Standard (C) CaL Lab. Control Standard (M,)

Cal. Lab. Control Standard (M^

* 1

! 1

f

1

1

1

1

1

it

: 1

1

1

Figure 3 c TIME

314
Metrology Subcommittee Report

METROLOGICAL TIMELINE

^Time

National

Metrology

Institute

Calibration

Laboratory

Internal Measurement

Assurance

Control Control c Standards c Standards

Measurement

Artifact Measurement

Artifact

Control Standards

Measurement

Artifact

Figure 4

METROLOGICAL TIMELINE

-+- *Time

HigherLevel

Laboratory

H

-> Control H —> Control

Standards Standards

Internal Measurement

Assurance

H — Traceability S

LowerLevel

L

Measurement

Result

Laboratory L —> Control Standards

Control Standards

Internal Measurement

Assurance

Figure 5

315
Metrology Subcommittee Report

HigherLevel

Laboratory

H — Control Standards —> Control H Standards

Intemal Measurement

Assurance

H

^^''^^i^ TraceabilitvT

Traceability, S

LowerLevel

Measurement

L —>

Result

Laboratory L — Control Standards L —> Control Standards

Internal Measurement

Assurance

Figure 6

METROLOGICAL TIMELINE

U

Time

H —* Control —H

'

— Control Standards Standards

H L —

Control — Control L Standards L Standards

H — Control Standards

y.

\ Higher-Level

Traceability^ Laboratory

^ Lower-Level ^

Laboratory

Testing

Laboratory

Figure 7

— Control T Standards

T — Measurement

Result T — Control Standards

316
Metrology Subcommittee Report

Appendix B

Railroad Test Car Calibration, Intercomparisons, and Custody Transfer

Meeting Summary Report, March 20-21, 1997

Prepared by: Georgia Harris, NIST

(with input from notes from Tina Butcher, Diane Lee, and editorial comments from L.F. Eason)

Overview of Meeting Objectives and Outcomes

The development of an intercomparison of railroad test car calibrations between the United States and Canada was requested of

NIST staff Tina Butcher, G. Diane Lee, and Georgia Harris by Renald Marceau and Sonja Roussy, both of Measurements Canada

at the 1997 Interim Meeting of the National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM).

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in the United States and the National Research Council (NRC) in Canada have an agreement of measurement equivalency at the kilogram level which was signed in 1991. Issues regarding

traceability to NIST and NRC have been raised in the past where State laws require traceability to NIST and test car calibrations have been conducted by Canada. Some States already recognize tests conducted in Canada. Canada is now proposing to gather

data to be used in the support of a mutual recognition agreement. The duplication of calibrations of railroad test cars being done

in both Canada and the United States could be eliminated once Canada and the United States have a mutual recognition agreement

regarding the equivalency of the test car calibrations. In addition to the previous request, Steve Malone, Director of Weights and Measures in Nebraska sent a letter to L.F. Eason (NC)

as Chair of the Metrology Subcommittee of the NCWM regarding the control of standards used in testing railroad scales dated November 26, 1996. The standards in this case are railroad test cars, some of which belong to the United States Department of

Agriculture (USDA) Grain Inspection and Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA), some belong to the States of

Minnesota, Oregon, and Washington, with the rest belonging to independent railroads or contractors. The concern of control and

verification of calibration was specifically identified, particularly in the case of routine repairs and modifications, and in the case of contractors handling the process rather than railroad officials.

A meeting was scheduled for March 20-21, 1997, to discuss the following:

• the potential for a round robin;

• discussion of calibration procedures in use;

• investigate how the systems of traceability operate in the United States and Canada from the national laboratory down

to the railroad scales; and

• the control of railroad test cars between calibrations and reciprocal acceptance of calibration certificates.

The major difference in the calibration of railroad test cars between Canada and the United States is that Canada performs a

substitution test with known weights on an acceptable railroad scale under specified environmental conditions. The United States uses a system where 13 Master Scales, which are in enclosed facilities, and are calibrated by the USDA on an annual basis. The

Master Scales are then used in a direct reading method for the calibration of railroad test cars. In Canada, regulatory authority

is maintained by Measurements Canada. A clearer picture ofthe distribution of authority within the United States was developed

through discussion among the parties present at the meeting. Much remains to be clarified regarding State and local regulatory

responsibilities as raised and discussed at this meeting. Regulatory authority and responsibilities for measurement traceability

and uncertainty in the United States are distributed among NIST, USDA, States, AAR, Railroads, and independent contractors.

A number of action items were assigned to the participants attending the meeting with the following next steps:

• the round robin was begun March 21, 1997, at the USDA Master Scale Depot;

• additional documentary materials will be gathered, evaluated, and circulated;

• data regarding the Master Scale and test car calibrations will be evaluated;

• a forum has been scheduled for the NCWM Meeting on July 21, in Chicago, to inform attendees of how the system

currently works, what conttols are in place, and to discuss the data from the Master Scales, test cars, and round robin

if it has proceeded quickly enough.

317
Metrology Subcommittee Report

Detailed Meeting Summary

March 20-21, 1997

General Topics

• Test Car Calibration

• Calibration Procedures

• Tour of Master Track Facility and Demonstration of Calibration

• Custody Transfer - Control of Standards

Materials Distributed

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Grain Inspection and Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA)

• Background of Program - History

• Program Operation; Field Calibration and Scale Tests

• Master Scale List (showing locations and owners of the scales)

• AAR Handbook Part 4, recommended corrections/additions

• GIPSA Weighing Handbook, Test Car Calibration, Field Calibration of Test Cars, 3-1 Weighing Design, Report of

Calibration (has been updated). Report of Test

• Test Record and Report of Test for Master Track Scale

• Master Scale Depot - Test Car Data (as received and as released) (1989 to date) Master Scale Test Results (1989 to date)

• Draft Letter from Vic Gerber, WY

National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)

• Likely Participant List

• Interested Parties List

• Measurements Canada Bulletin M-19-E Draft

• Equivalence of Standards Agreement between U.S. and Canada for Mass at 1 kilogram, signed June 11, 1990

• Certificate of Calibrations - Canada, MN (has been updated)

• Miscellaneous Correspondence

• SOP 27, 3, 4, and 29 (Calibration of Railroad Test Cars, Double Substitution on Equal Arm Balance, Double

Substitution on [other] Balance, Assignment of Uncertainty)

Overview of Meeting and Purpose - Reviewed agenda items and requests from Canada to NIST and Steve Malone (NE) to the National Conference on Weights and Measures, NCWM.

Overview of System in the United States (Input from G. Harris, Dick Pforr, and group)

The system in the United States involves NIST, USDA/GIPSA, some States, Railroads, and some contractors.

USDA/GIPSA - Background information in handout materials. NBS/OWM maintained the Master Scale Program and USDA

took it over in joint cooperation with the American Association of Railroads (AAR) in 1981. USDA has 2) 10,000 lb standards sent to NIST every 5 years (SSI, SS2) which are used with a platform scale at the Master Scale Depot to check annually all of the remaining 10,000 lb block standards loaded into the 3) USDA test cars (which are then used

to test the 13 Master Scales on an annual basis). USDA primary responsibility is to test railroad ttack scales used to measure

grain; also has responsibilities for testing master scales and completes other tasks on a cost-recovery basis..

As found and as left data is available for all 13 Master Scales and Test Cars that USDA has tested since 1989. However, as found

data on the test cars is usually after repair if it has been done (i.e., data is really as received). USDA does not test cars between

December and March 1

.

Master Scales are enclosed facilities in the United States and Canada uses exposed scales and limits acceptable environmental

conditions.

The USDA and the railroads have gotten together on a regular basis - but these meetings typically have not included NIST,

NCWM, or the States.

318
Metrology Subcommittee Report

Overview of System in Canada (Nathalie Dupuis-Desormeaux, Renald Marceau, Jeff Watters)

Hierarchy oftraceability in Canada drawing/overhead showed system from 1 kg at NRC to the Regional Offices of Measurements Canada and down to test car level with estimates of uncertainty at each level. OIML Rill (test weights) and R 106 (railroad

scales) applicable. Current tolerance 0.005 percent but specifications would allow up to 0.05 percent.

Certified test cars are required to inspect railroad scales in both Canada and the United States; some test cars are used in both

countries. Mutual recognition of calibration results is desired. Determination of equivalency of results is needed. Request from

CP Rail prompted request to NIST by Canada. Some States have recognized Canadian tests but Caneida has not yet recognized

test car calibrations done in the United States. One test previously compared tests between Chicago, Master Scale Depot, and

Winnipeg with an agreement of 1.7 pounds.

BIPM

Unit of Mass

kilogram

United States NIST

K20

Canada

NRC

Measurements Canada

i

NRC/NIST

Equivalency Agreement

USDA GIPSA

SSI, SS2

1 0,000 lb cast standards

Measurements Canada

working standards

USDA GIPSA

10,000 lb cast standards

for 3 test cars

Measurements Canada

500 kg cast blocks

1 3 Master Track Scales GIPSA/MN/OR/Railroads

Railroad Scale selected for calibration of cars

450 Test Cars 20 Test Cars

5000 Rail scales Rail scales

Figure 11 Draft Traceability Hierarchy.

Issues: duplication of calibration work (is a burden for test car owners)

knowledge ofwho has authority for issuing calibration reports in the United States (in Canada, all reports are generated

by Measurements Cjinada) [There is not one official certifying authority for the calibration of test cars in the United

States.] evaluate intercomparison data between Canada and the United States for consistency and liability evaluate long-term stability of test car calibrations, stability, uncertainty, and procedural errors - data to determine

uncertainties and errors have not been kept/evaluated

fraceability is legally required in both Canada and in each of the States

319
Metrology Subcommittee Report

• mutual recognition is the goal

Overview of System in Mexico

(material from Henry Oppermann, U.S. Embassy, Mexico)

Canada and the United States would like to see Mexico involved in this process but do not want to hold up the comparisons and

agreements. NORAMET and NACC involvement in the areas of national metrology and accreditation include Canada, United

States, and Mexico. AAR - Louis Cemy completed a study of Mexican system but safety of overweight cars on bridges was the primary issue.

Overview of System Table

United States Canada Mexico

Traceability NIST -» USDA/GIPSA NRC/MC CENAM

Master Scales 13 (owned by USDA, MN, OR Railroads) none 1

Test Cars 450 (tested by USDA, States, Railroads)

USDA owns 3, MN, OR, WA own test cars; remainder

owned by railroads

20 (tested by

MC)

Railroad Scales 5000 83 to 110

Test Car Calibration Procedures

Canada - Eric Klawis. Measurements Canada

Document in draft form - to be circulated Using definitions from AAR. Tolerances on cars 0.005 percent to 0.01 percent.

Locations: Calgary - January; Winnipeg - MayJune

Standards: 500 kg blocks taken to scale after calibration and adjustment to zero error (using equal arm balance)

Procedure: Comparison with mass standards

Scale: Using an acceptable scale, do have preferences; 2 section beam scale; live rail, rigid platform; low usage; Ogden yards, 12 cars done all at once; environmental conditions have to be right - no wind, rain, snow; Scale evaluation: repeatability within

2/5 ofthe applicable tolerances to evaluate the scale and its ability to function as a null indicator (not to determine the uncertainties

for the process)

Calculated Rest Point (CRP) is used rather than a sum of turning points (results have been equivalent in other applications).

Car condition: free from moisture, clean, good condition (mechanical and visible condition);

Control of cars by owners: CP, CN, CANAC; Repairs are reported to Measurements Canada but it is at a policy level (not

regulated)

Two cars are required to place a railroad scale into service CN and CP are signatories to the AAR Canadian Grain Commission requires annual test (prefers every six months).

Question: pt loading of weights vs car; simulation of a "car" and testing as used; e.g., flat car to stack weights on with the same

wheel base would be ideal but not available Using wood ties to stack weights and perform a zero test. Question was raised regarding stability of wood during test. Canada requires two test cars to be at each railroad scale to place it in service. Only Measurements Canada can issue calibration reports. They can/will reissue official reports for tests/data/reports prepared

in the United States.

320
Metrology Subcommittee Report

NIST SOP 27 - Bruce Adams. MN

Basically a direct reading using a calibrated Master Scale.

1 pound per 1,000 x 100,000 = 100 pounds (1/3 HB 44 requirements for a standard) vs 0.005 percent x 100,000 = 5 pounds

Why not Class F tolerances? Weaknesses in program - 1 test being done; 2 tests would allow an "r" chart and evaluation of process repeatability.

Input to SOP 27 from industry? This procedure is not adopted as a regulation and there is no formal process to solicit input. If people have comments on the SOP 27, they should be submitted to Georgia Harris (this year).

AARAJSDA-GIPSA - Dick Pforr GIPSA Procedures, Section 5 - essentially the same as SOP 27 except for tolerances (NIST to resolve differences in the SOP).

R 106 and R 1 11 to be evaluated against this section as well. United States requires only one car to be present at a railroad scale when placing it in service.

Custody Transfer - Control of Standards

Only MN and OR have active Master Scales and programs. WA also has test car for checking rail scales. There has been an

increase in requests from companies wanting traceability history for ISO 9000 purposes. Some railroads assign each car to 1 person, but not all have the staffing. Not all States are going to be interested in witnessing tests of cars and/or scales. The question

of adequate oversight ofthe fraceability and the level of uncertainties is being raised as we evaluate the entire system. A number

of States have programs to place devices into official service and this is similar. When evaluating data for the test cars, the "as found" data that is significantly in error is usually the result of problems, suspected problems, or repairs which necessitate immediate recalibration.

Car recalibration practices vary on an organizational basis and no standards have been established. No AAR procedures or guidelines exist. (No annual requirement in handbook?) Whether maintenance procedures are established and documented for

railroad test cars is unclear. Industry procedure for repair/replacement ofparts is that the old and the new parts can be individually

weighed and the car adjusted accordingly. The general feeling of weights and measures officials is that it would create an

uncertainty that is too large and the car should be recalibrated. (Review AAR Handbook for details/evaluation).

Questions:

• What are States doing with respect to acceptance ofcalibration reports from other jurisdictions? (e.g., Oregon will accept a calibration report from a "certified lab" such as USDA/GIPSA or MN only - not a railroad.)

• How many States will, or want to, witness tests when the railroads are calibrating test cars and/or placing scales into service? (e.g., W^ witnesses test car calibrations)

• Who will accept tests performed by the railroads when State staff are present to witness the test?

• Do States have staffing necessary to witness all tests and do they want to?

• What are the differences between regulatory oversight in the States regarding calibration oftest cars and railroad scales?

• Should a training module be developed to ensure that the proper procedures are used for calibrating railroad test cars. Should some level of training and oversight be placed over the railroads in calibrating test cars used for testing and

placing railroad scales into service?

• Are the States accepting calibrations of standards from other private companies?

• After evaluation of the data - is the information provided by Vic Gerber typical or exceptional?

• Who is "liable" for costs when errors are introduced into the system?

Tour of Master Scale Depot and Demonstration of Calibration

A tour of the Master Scale Depot was held on Friday, March 21, 1997. Dick Pforr, Paul Hadyka, and Fred Anderson (all USDA/GIPSA) provided the tour and answers to numerous questions. The CP Rail composite car that will be used in the comparison was tested and witnessed by those present.

321
Metrology Subcommittee Report

Details of Round Robin Intercomparison

• CP Rail car at GIPSA - will go from GIPSA, MN, Winnipeg, MN and back to GIPSA; CP rail will coordinate transport

and scheduling; composite car (30 mph)

• NIST/MC will perform the data analysis

• Each facility uses their own procedure; uncertainties to ISO Guide, k=2; 4 measurements, 1st one used as the result - and other 3 used to evaluate process variance

• Calibration reports to be submitted to: NIST, Georgia Harris

• Initial run to be completed by July

• continue on a 2-year cycle

• E„ used as evaluation criteria; mean is accepted value (disregard values in excess of 2 sd)

[ X - acvepled value

| E -- I 1

Accepted value determination - to be determined based on data. Mean of 3 sites or investigation into differences. Process

variability to be evaluated by standard deviation of 4 runs. Additional sites suggested: Centralia, IL; Sedalia, MO; Oregon. An interest was expressed to get railroad data and additional

State sites.

Follow Up Action Items Send Handbook 145 to Jeff Walters GHarris (NIST)

Send Z 540- 1 - 1 994 to Gerald Davis Diane Lee (NIST)

Modify SOP 27 tolerances GHarris (NIST)

Circulate Meeting Summary GHarris (NIST)

Send Updated Participant & Interested Party List (attends.wpd, interest.wpd) GHarris (NIST)

Send "Railroad Weighing in Mexico" by Henry Oppermann GHarris (NIST)

Circulate OIML R106 Procedure GHarris (NIST)

Send slides from Nathalie Dupuis-Desormeaux, Renald Marceau, Eric Klawis, and Jeff Watters, and draft calibration procedure for railroad test cars Canada (MC)

Contact Mexico through Henry Oppermann GHarris (NIST)

Document "Traceability" in the United States for July NCWM Meeting including identification of regulatory authority

Diane Lee/Paul Hadyka (NIST/GIPSA)

Document "Traceability" in Canada for July NCWM Meeting Nathalie Dupuis-Desormeaux (MC)

Summary of Railroad and Contractor "controls" for handling and tracking of railroad test cars used as standards for July

NCWM Bob Feezor (AREA)

Evaluate Test Car Data - as received and as left GHarris/Nathalie Dupuis-Desormeaux (NIST/MC)

Evaluate round robin data GHarris/Nathalie Dupuis-Desormeaux (NIST/MC)

CP Rail Coordinate round robin between U.S. and Canada Brian Kotylak (CP Rail)

Review Procedures and Calibration Reports against Z 540-1-1994 Guidelines (Collect Calibration Reports and

Procedures) Gerald Davis (AREA)

• Investigate potential use of St. Louis Refrigerator Car Company test car for an additional round robin to the same sites and extended sites in the United States (on an AAR Circular)

George Becht (SLRC)

NCWM Annual Meeting - Railroad Forum Agenda

Swissotel, Chicago, IL Monday, July 2 1 General Session 4:00 p.m. - 6:00 p.m.

Forum for Railroad Issues: International Traceability and Custody Transfer

Topics/Speakers

• Overview of the Railroad System of Measurement Traceability in the United States Dick Pforr

• Summary of Railroad and Contractor "Controls" for Handling and Tracking of Railroad Test Cars Used as Standards

Bob Feezor

• Evaluation of Master Scale Data, Test Car Data, Round Robin Data GHarris

322
Metrology Subcommittee Report

Additional question raised at end of the meeting by Sid Colbrook (IL): What is the process/system for putting scales into commercial service throughout the United States? What controls are in place for scales in each of the States? This question was

not addressed by the group during the meeting.

323
Metrology Subcommittee Report

Appendix C - International Acronym Map

BIPM International Bureau of Weights and Measures SURAMET

ILAC International Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation EUROMET

OIML International Organization for Legal Metrology EAL

ISO International Standards Organization

NORAMET North American Metrology Cooperation WELMEC

NRC National Research Council

NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology COOMET

CENAM Centro National de Metrologia APMP

NACC North American Calibration Cooperation APLAC

sec Standards Council of Canada

NVLAP National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation APLMF

Program SADCMET

DON Director General de Normas

NCWM National Conference on Weights and Measures SARAC

OWM Office of Weights and Measures (NIST)

MEAS CAN Measurements Canada SALMEC

SIM Interamerican Metrology System

CAMET Central American Metrology Cooperation

CARIMET Caribbean Metrology Cooperation

ANDIMET Andean Metrology Cooperation

South American Metrology Cooperation

European Metrology Cooperation

European Cooperation for Accreditation of

Laboratories Western European Legal Metrology

Cooperation

Cooperation for Metrology

Asia-Pacific Metrology Programme

Asia-Pacific Laboratory Accreditation

Cooperation

Asia-Pacific Legal Metrology Forum

South African Development Community

Metrology Cooperation

South African Regional Accreditation

Cooperation

South African Legal Metrology

Cooperation

324
Metrology Subcommittee Report

Appendix D

January 8, 1997

MEMORANDUM FOR State Weights and Measures Directors

From: Dr. Peter L. M. Heydemann, Director

Technology Services

Subject: State Weights and Measures Laboratory Program

Because of the overlap with the NIST National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NVLAP) which provides the only formal NIST laboratory accreditation, we recently made the decision that the Office of Weights and Measures will not provide accreditation to State Weights and Measures Laboratories but will rename its service. Although this decision may

seem like services are being reduced, I want to reassure you that they are not. OWM will continue to provide oversight and

support for the national measurement system in legal metrology and will recognize State Laboratories that comply with

program requirements by issuing "Certificates of Traceability" to meet needs for accurate and traceable measurements. This

decision was made for the following reasons:

• OWM does not comply with ISO Guide 58 as an accrediting body and thus may not officially grant accreditation to State Weights and Measures Laboratories; and

• NIST will provide only one program of accreditation and that is the National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation

Program, NVLAP.

Any State Weights and Measures Laboratory requiring accreditation may apply to NVLAP for accreditation and pay the usual accompanying fees. Initial tentative cost estimates from NVLAP are: first year $8,500, and subsequent years alternating

between $2,600 and $5,300. These estimates are based on the current NVLAP fee schedule and full participation by States

in the OWM Program. Fees include a two-person, two-day audit in alternating years. NIST will not subsidize the costs of

NVLAP accreditation of State Weights and Measures Laboratories because:

• NVLAP is required by Federal law to recover fees from calibration laboratories for their services; and

• subsidizing the cost of accreditation is perceived as an "unfair market advantage" to State laboratories that compete with

commercial firms providing comparable calibration services.

Please keep in mind that we will continue to support the Office of Weights and Measures and do not expect the State laboratory

program to be diminished by these decisions. Handbook 143, Program Handbook will be revised to reflect an OWM Measurement

Assurance Program (MAP) rather than accreditation. All other criteria in the program will remain the same (i.e., ISO/IEC Guide

25 will be used, technical criteria will remain the same, quality manual requirements will remain the same, etc.). OWM services

will continue to include:

• a "Certificate of Traceability" and letters of conformance, as needed, to recognize a laboratory's capability of providing

traceable measurements as needed for weights and measures enforcement action required by Statelaws. Note: NVLAP

will not recognize the ability of State laboratories with these certificates to provide accredited traceable measurements

unless they have NVLAP accreditation;

• technical assistance and support through training, publications, guidance, statistical analysis, and consultation; technical support through Regional Measurement Assurance Programs that include training and interlaboratory comparisons (which

will be accepted as proficiency tests by NVLAP if the laboratory applies for accreditation); and

• laboratory assessments and evaluation to criteria published in Handbook 143, Program Handbook as needed to ensure

oversight ofthe standards, facilities, equipment, and staff"needed to provide accurate and traceable measurements for legal

metrology.

OWM services will continue to be provided to industry and foreign governments as staff and resources are available. However,

since it is beyond the scope of Federal weights and measures obligations to provide these services and measurement oversight for industry, fees will be charged for participation as is the case for all other NIST MAP services.

If you have additional questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me at 301-975-4500.

cc: Dr. Gilbert M. Ugiansky, Chief, OWM

325
Metrology Subcommittee Report

Georgia L. Harris, Manager State Laboratory Program, OWM

State Weights and Measures Laboratory Metrologists

'

326
Appendix E

Metrology Subcommittee Report

Metrology's Top Questions & Answers About "Accreditation"

Based on recent changes in accreditation activities at NIST, a number of people have been asking questions about OWM's

State Laboratory Program. The primary change is that OWM will no longer call its recognition of the State laboratories

accreditation. The most frequently asked questions follow.

If OWM is not providing accreditation, what will OWM provide?

OWM will continue providing all services to the State labs except an accreditation certificate. We will now issue a Certificate of Traceability and a detailed letter of each laboratory's participation in the State Laboratory Program. All criteria in Handbook

143, Program Handbook, remain the same and nothing else in the program for the States is changed.

Will a "Certificate of Traceability" be adequate for the State labs?

Unless your laboratory clients require formal accreditation, the Certificate of Traceability and the accompanying letter detailing

quality activities should be adequate. In cases where the Certificate is not adequate, laboratory clients should be requested to send

a letter to NIST/OWM detailing their concerns.

Who determined HB 143 criteria?

; The process of updating Handbook 143, State Weights and Measures Laboratory Program Handbook, was started in 1991

In accordance with recommendations of the NCWM ISO 9000 Task Force, OWM pursued adopting national and international

criteria for quality in calibration laboratories. The process started with ISO Guide 25 and eventually ended with ANSI/NCSL Z

540-1-1994, which incorporates ISO Guide 25 and Mil-Std-45662A. The task force also developed the technical criteria for mass

and volume for the draft NIST Handbook 1 50-2, NVLAP Technical Guide. The final draft copy of Handbook 143 was circulated

for comment to all directors and metrologists twice, discussed at all regional metrology meetings in 1995, and was discussed at the NCWM Annual Meetings in 1994 and 1995.

Will State labs still submit annual material to OWM?

Yes. Even though OWMwill not formally accredit laboratories, there is still an oversight responsibility needed to ensure uniformity

and continued traceability of measurement standards used for weights and measures. If a laboratory gains accreditation, material should still be submitted as requested to receive recognition from OWM and to ensure uniformity.

What criteria will be used for assessing and/or accrediting the laboratory?

NIST Handbook 143, is being revised to change "accreditation" to "recognition" and "Certificate of Accreditation" to "Certificate of Traceability." It will be circulated prior to this year's NCWM Annual Meeting. All else in the Handbook remains the same for OWM applications. NVLAP will use the criteria in NIST Handbook 150 and 150-2, Technical Guide for accrediting laboratories. Criteria in Handbook 150 and draft Handbook 150-2 are the same as criteria in Handbook 143, although OWM is not authorized

to act as an accrediting body.

Can States claim compliance to quality standards?

If a laboratory complies with a quality standard such as Z 540-1-1994, ISO Guide 25, or NIST handbooks, and has done internal auditing to verify compliance, the laboratory may make such claims. Laboratories have historically made claims of compliance

to standards such as Mil-Std-45662A or NRC 10 CFR 50. Laboratories continue to claim traceability to NIST without formal

accreditation. It is up to laboratory clients or a third-party auditor to verify the claims. Laboratories should avoid generic claims

such as "complies to NVLAP" or "complies to OWM."

Will OWM continue providing training?

Yes. OWM Basic, Intermediate, and Advanced seminars as well as training at the Regional Measurement Assurance Program

meetings will all continue. If you have suggestions for new mefrology training, submit your ideas to Georgia Harris by e-mail: gharris@nist.gov or by fax: 301/926-0647.

327
Metrology Subcommittee Report

Will OWM continue participation in the regional metrology groups?

Yes. As noted in Peter Heydemann's January 1997 memo, all functions of the State Laboratory Program will be continued. The

only change has been the deletion ofthe term "accreditation" from any ofOWM's activities. There are currently six regional groups and we have begun planning for training in 1998.

What training is being planned for the regional metrology meetings?

During 1997, training is being provided on the changes in the State Laboratory Program; to assist laboratories in complying with

Handbook 143 training is being provided on: administrative procedures, calibration reports. Handbook 143 and the Z540-1-1994

Interpretive Handbook; and training will be conducted on round robin data. We are also holding a Train-the-Trainer seminar for PMAP in June. In 1998, PMAP training will be provided at all of the regional metrology meetings. Send additional ideas and

suggestions for metrology training at the RMAPs to Georgia Harris or your current RMAP chair. Who pays for NIST calibration of primary standards?

Whoever sends standards to NIST pays for calibration. NIST publishes SP 250, Calibration Services Guide and its corresponding

fee schedule with calibration fees. OWM pays for calibration of artifacts used in the interlaboratory comparisons in the RMAPs.

Will OWM conduct regular on-site assessments?

Based on the changes in program focus, OWM will continue on-site assessments on an as-needed basis and as travel plans allow.

If a State submits a special request for an assessment, or has a new or renovated laboratory, or if OWM receives complaints, an

on-site assessment will be scheduled. The purpose will be to verify compliance to Handbook 143 criteria - to ensure that accurate and traceable measurements are provided by the laboratory and will not be considered a pre-assessment for accreditation purposes. Who can provide formal accreditation?

Currently NISPs National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NVLAP) and the American Association for Laboratory

Accreditation (A2LA) are recognized by the calibration community as being able to provide these services.

What will accreditation cost?

Estimates from NVLAP and A2LA for the first 5 years are about $25,000 and $17,000 respectively. Actual fees per year vary between $2,600 and $8,500 for NVLAP and between $1,100 and $4,900 for A2LA, but these are the estimated totals and will vary depending on the actual number of measurement parameters and general level of participation in OWM's measurement assurance program activities (training, regional meetings, round robins).

How often will on-site assessments be conducted for accredited laboratories?

On-site assessments will be determined by the accrediting bodies (NVLAP or A2LA). It is a requirement for accrediting bodies

to assess the laboratories at least every 2 years, and they have the option for interim monitoring assessments. OWM will conduct

on-site assessments as requested and as time, travel, and resources permit.

What is ISO Guide 58 and why doesn't OWM meet it?

ISO Guide 58 is the quality standard with which accrediting bodies must comply. The primary obstacle that OWM faces in trying

to meet the criteria in this Guide is that its training/consulting functions are not independent of its assessment/recognition fiinctions. Specifically, the same staffwho teach quality procedures to State metrologists are also evaluating how well they are implementing

the procedures. Consequently, OWM would either have to give up its training functions in order to meet the Guide 58 or would

have to hire more staff in order to separate the fraining fiinction from the assessment function. Since NIST management has decided

that there will only be one accreditation program for laboratories operated by NIST, neither of these options will be considered.

Does accreditation provide product certification?

No. As the old saying goes, a company could be registered to ISO 9001 and still be making cement life jackets (although with

a good auditor and good registrar that would not happen). Accreditation criteria specifically indicate that accreditation does not cover product quality - it only evaluates the capability of a laboratory to make measurements. Why is this important for weights

328
Metrology Subcommittee Report

and measures? Regulatory agencies are given the responsibility and authority to ensure that appropriate standards, that meet

specifications with valid calibration data, are used for inspection and enforcement activities. Accreditation only verifies that the laboratory has the ability to make adequate measurements and does not evaluate whether products meet specifications.

I

329

Resolutions Committee

Report of the Resolutions Committee

David A. Wallace, Chairman

Director, Measurement Standards

State of Colorado

Reference

Key No.

700

GENERAL

The Resolutions Committee wishes to express the appreciation of the members of the National Conference on Weights and

Measures to those who contributed their time and talents toward the arrangements for the conduct and success of this 82nd

Annual Meeting. Special votes of thanks are extended:

(1) to Caroline Schoenberger, Commissioner, Department of Consumer Service, City of Chicago, IlUnois, for her

welcoming remarks during which she outlined the administrative law systems of the City of Chicago; to Commissioner Schoenberger and her staff for all assistance and courtesies extended prior to and during this 82"* Annual Meeting;

(2) to the Illinois Department of Agrictilttire Weights and Measures, particularly Sid Colbrook, Director of Weights

and Measures and his staff for the hospitality extended to the Conference and assistance in preparation for and

conduct of this Annual Meeting;

(3) to Sergeants-at-Arms, Dan Dowling and Paul King, Chicago Department of Consumer Service, for their assistance during Conference sessions;

(4) to Alan Johnston, President of Measiurement Canada, for his address concerning the major changes underway in Canada relative to weights and measures;

(5) to Dr. Robert M. Hebner, Acting Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), for his remarks to the membership indicating continuation of the NIST partnership widi NCWM; to Dr. Hebner for

outlining the NIST approach to reducing the barriers to global trade; to Dr. Hebner for his comments on the Food

and Drug Administration (FDA) proposed rule, the milk study conducted by the Federal Trade Commission

(FTC), NIST/OWM, U.S. Department of Agric\ilture (USDA), and the FDA, and his remarks regarding ways

in which national studies and estabhshment and maintenance of a national database could potentially help in die ongoing pursuit of equity;

(6) to Barbara J. Bloch, Chairman, and the officers and appointed officials of the National Conference on Weights

and Measures for their assistance and service toward progress on national issues;

(7) to committee members for their efforts throughout the past year preparing and presenting their reports; to the subconmiittees and work groups for their discerning and appropriate recommendations;

(8) to regulatory officials of State and local jurisdictions for the advice, interest, and support of weights and measures

administration in the United States;

331
Resolutions Committee

(9) to representatives of business and industry for their cooperation and assistance in committee and Conference work,

most especially the continuing siq)port as demonstrated by the granting of scholarships for training; to the associate

membership organization for the hospitality exhibited in sponsored social functions; particularly to Paul Zalon,

Nesde Company, for his efforts in arranging the outstanding excursion to Sportsman's Park for the enjoyment of

Conference members and their guests;

(10) to the staff of the SwissStel for their assistance and courtesies, all of which contributed to the enjoyment and

comfort of the delegates within their outstanding facilities; and

(11) to the National Institute of Standards and Technology and its Office of Weights and Measures for their dedicated

assistance in planning and conducting the work and program of the National Conference on Weights and Measures,

especially to Ann Turner, Phillip Bryson, and Michele Krebs for their professional and hospitable conduct of die administrative operations of tbe meeting; to Dr. Gil Ugiansky for his participation and for his continued support,

most especially for his efforts in ensuring continuation of the effective instructor training and equipment loan

programs;

On this occasion of the 82nd Annual Meeting of the National Conference on Weights and Measures, the committee wishes

to recognize and express its appreciation to the following individuals:

• to Mayor Richard M. Daley for his proclamation welcoming the NCWM to the City of Chicago and

declaring the period of July 20-24, 1997, Chicago Weights and Measures Days;

• to Ken Butcher, NIST Office of Weights an Measures, for his diligence and dedication in working with

the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to obtain cooperation on their proposed rule to adopt NTST

Handbook 133, "Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods."

D. Wallace, Colorado, Chairman

M. HUe, AR

V. Massey, Shelby Co., TN

J. Silvestro, Gloucester, NJ

J. Mindte, NIST, Coordinator

Resolutions Committee

332
Nominating Committee

Report of the Nominating Committee

Charles A. Gardner, Chairman

Director of Weights and Measures

Suffolk County, New York

Reference

Key No.

800

The Nominating Conamittee met during the Interim Meeting at the DoubleTree Hotel, Rockville, Maryland, at which time

the Committee nominated the persons listed below to be officers of the 83rd National Conference on Weights and Measures.

In the selection of nominees from active membership, consideration was given to professional experience, qualifications

of individuals. Conference attendance and participation, and other factors considered to be important.

Two members of the committee were lanable to be present during the meeting: members N. David Smith and James C. Truex were consulted by way of telephone in reaching consensus. The following slate of officers was selected by the Nominating Committee and was adopted by unanimous vote of the Conference:

CHAIRMAN-ELECT: Aves D. Thompson, Alaska

VICE-CHAIRMEN: Mark Buccelli, Minnesota*

Mark P. Coyne, Brockton, Massachusetts

G. Wes Diggs, Virginia

David R. Wallace, Colorado

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE: Stanley K. MiUay, Maine

Louis E. Straub, Maryland

TREASURER: J. Alan Rogers, Virginia

* During the 82°" Annual Meeting, the Committee named Mark Buccelli to replace Michael Blacik.

C. Gardner, Suffolk County, New York, Chairman

S. Colbrook, Illinois T. Geiler, Barnstable, Massachusetts D. Guensler, California A. Nelson, Connecticut

N. David Smith, North Carolina

J. Truex, Ohio

Nominating Committee

333
Auditing Committee

Report of the Auditing Committee

Monty H. Hopper, Chairman

Director of Weights and Measures

Kern County, California

Reference

Key No.

900

The Auditing Committee met on Monday, January 13, 1997, during the NCWM Interim Meeting in Rockville, Maryland.

The purpose of the meeting was to review the financial reports of the Conference Treasurer.

The following person was also in attendance:

J. Alan Rogers, Treasurer

The Auditing Committee finds the financial reports of the Conference Treasurer to be in order and correct, according to Conference procedure.

M. Hopper, Chairman, Kern County, California

R. Philmon, Illinois R. Williams, Tennessee

A. Turner, NIST, Technical Coordinator

Auditing Committee

334
Treasurer's Report

TREASURER'S REPORT

NCWM GENERAL ACCOUNT

FISCAL YEAR REPORT

1/1/96 - 12/31/96

Category Description

INCOME/EXPENSE

INCOME

Income Accounts:

Earned Interest

Membership Fees: Associate Membership Fees Govenmient Membership Fees

Total Membership Fees

NTEP Seminars:

Metrology Seminars

Total NTEP Seminars:

Other Income:

Miscellaneous

Other Income - Other

Total Other Income

Promotions

2.716.57

57,555.00

58.100.00

31.069.47'

335.85

103.02

2.340.00

2,716.57

115,655.00

31,069.47

438.87

2,340.00

Publications:

HB-133 Third Edition Sales NCWM Publications Sales NTP Training Module Sales Videos Sales Total Publications

Registration Fees: Annual Meeting

Interim Meeting

Total Registration Fees

Services Revenues: Annual Mtg. Opt. Evening

Total Services Revenues

Total Income Accounts

TOTAL INCOME

1,710.00

2,542.25

525.00

21.95

40,215.00

15.775.00

888.00^

4,799.20

55,990.00

888.00

213,897.11

213,897.11

335
Treasurer's Report

EXPENSES

Expense Accounts:

Administration:

Bank Charges

Contracts/Personnel

Equipment/Supplies/Stationary

Mailing/PO Box

Miscellaneous

NTP/CEU/Copyright/Equipment

Treasurer Bond

Total Administration

82.12

14,526.70

5,326.42

268.00

200.00

848.00

441.00

21,692.74

Chairman/Chairman Elect

NCWM Aimual Meeting Expenses.:

17.433.99

17,433.99

Awards

Hotel/Food Service

Joint Outing

Personnel/Photo

Printing/Copying

Miscellaneous

Total NCWM Annual Meeting

2,584.47

38,101.45

7,601.71-'

676.84

2,334.83

8.826.83'

60,126.13

NCWM Interim Meeting Expenses:

Hotel/Food Service

Print Agenda

S & T Committee

L & R Committee

A & P Committee

Other Committees/TF's

Printing/Personnel/Equipment/Misc.

Executive Committee

Total NCWM Interim Meeting

23,947.96

3,535.00

2,791.55

2,020.21

2,041.85

2,717.38

184.00

4.170.03

41,407.98

NTP Seminars:

Metrology Seminars

Total NTP Seminars

33.847.36'

33,847.36

Other Meetings-Committees

Total Other Meetings-Committees

22.731.59

22,731.59

Printing:

Membership

NCWM Pubs for Members

2,528.00

7.688.30

Total Printing 10,216.30

Publication Reimbursement

Special Events Task Force & Special Meetings

Training

5,305.00

2,200.00

12,748.44

8.703.33

28.956.77

336
Treasurer's Report

TOTAL INCOME/EXPENSES (22,515.75)

Carryover 12/31/95 148,544.19

Year Ending Balance 12/3 1/96 126,028.44

Account Balance 12/31/96 126,028.44

Difference -0-

Year Ending Adjusted Balance 126,028.44

1. Balances include money collected from industry participants in NCWM/NIST metrology training seminars that was

set aside for additional metrology training activities.

Fiscal Year Income Expenses Balance

1993 -0- -0- -0-

1994 3,800.00 3,371.30 428.70

1995 25,260.00 9,686.92 15,573.08

1996 31,069.47 33,847.36 (2,777.89)

Totals 60,129.47 46,905.58 13,223,89

2. Fees collected at the Aimual Meeting for the joint Conference outing were distributed to the Associate Account on a 60 percent basis and to the NCWM Accoimt on a 40 percent basis. 3 . Conference provided 40 percent of the total cost of the joint outing.

4. This ejqjense includes $7,923.83 for souvenir items given at the Aimual Meeting.

337
Treasurer's Report

NCWM NTEP ACCOUNT

FISCAL YEAR REPORT

1/1/96 - 12/31/96

Category Description

INCOME/EXPENSE

INCOME

Income Accounts: Grant-Grain Equipment 4,232.00

Earned Interest 5,085.32

NTEP Operations

CoC Maintenance Fees 13 1,980.00'

Publications 5 & 14 Sales 8,937.75

Sales of NTEP Sales 2.575.00

Total NTEP Operations 152.810.07

Total Income Accounts 152.810.07

TOTAL INCOME 152,810.07

338
Treasurer's

EXPENSES

Expense Accounts:

Personal Services

Miscellaneous

Bank Charges

Total Administration

Grain Moisture Task Force

Total Grant

NTEP Operations:

Board of Governors

NTEP Publication 5 and 14 NTETC Belt Conveyor Scale

NTETC Measuring Sector Software Work Group

Automatic Weighing System

US/Canada Work Group

Total NTEP Operations

NTEP Logo:

NTEP Seals Total NTEP Logo

Total Expense Accounts

TOTAL EXPENSES

18,660.88

200.00

15.65

7.967.34

2,634.00

14,548.00

8,356.09

4,704.91

3,032.41

5,595.76

7.285.33

555.32

18,876.53

7,967:34

46,156.50

555.32

73,555.69

73,555.69

TOTAL INCOME/EXPENSE

Carryover 12/31/95

Year Ending Balance 12/31/96

Account Balance 12/31/96

Difference

Year Ending Adjusted Balance

79,254.38

270,307.16

349,561.54

349,561.54

-0-

349,561.54

1 . Total of $20.00 in bank charges

deducted from maintenance fees paid by

foreign companies.

339
Treasurer's Report

NCWM GRANT ACCOUNT

FISCAL YEAR REPORT

1/1/96 - 12/31/96

Category Description

INCOME/EXPENSE

INCOME

Income Accounts: Grants Received 8.461.72

Total Income Accounts 8.461.72

TOTAL INCOME 8,461.72

EXPENSES

Expense Accounts:

Interest Transfer 103.02

Grands Awarded 8.470.00

Total Expense Accounts 8.573.02

TOTAL EXPENSES 8,573.02

TOTAL INCOME/EXPENSE (111.30)

Carryover 12/31/95 3,111.30

Year Ending Balance 12/3 1/96 3,000.00

Account Balance 12/31/96 3,000.00

Difiference -0-

Year Ending Adjusted Balance 3.000.00

340
New Chairman's Address

New Chairman's Address

Steven A. Malone

Administrator, Weights and Measures Division

Nebraska Department of Agriculture

Lincoln, Nebraska

Thank you Barbara. I appreciate your icind remarks. Will you please remain at the podium?

I would like to take this opportunity to let the Conference know, from my first-hand experience, how much work Barbara Bloch

has put forth for this organization.

You've heard the old saying, "Leave the wood pile higher than you found it"? Well, Barbara has certainly accomplished that, and

her mark will be recognized for many years to come. Her most notable achievements will be her efforts in developing the

conference's Strategic Plan. The Plan's concepts have already started to take shape and will continue to develop for many years

to come. We now have documented Conference direction and vision.

Barbara would be the first to tell you she did not conceive these concepts on her own, but I will tell you, she has been the force

that has kept this process going. Without her efforts this important fiinction may have failed.

In the year ahead, I look forward to continuing to work with Barbara on the Strategic Plan and to assist her in her role as Chairman

of the NTEP Board of Governors.

Barbara, on behalfofthe membership ofthe National Conference on Weights and Measures, it is my great pleasure to present you

with this plaque in recognition of your service to the Conference. Thank you!

Would Aves Thompson and Bob Fuehne please join us at the podium?

Aves Thompson is our new Chairman-Elect. He is the Chief of the Alaska Division of Measurement Standards. Bob Fuehne is the new Chairman of the Associate Membership Committee. Bob is QA Manager of Pet Foods for Ralston Purina Company in

St. Louis, Missouri. Both are very active members of the Conference and it is my pleasure to serve with both of them. The four of us serve the Conference on your behalf We take on our responsibilities in partnership with the staff of the office of Weights

and Measures. I would like for Dr. Gil Ugainsky and his staffto rise and be recognized for their efforts on behalfofthe Conference

and the weights and measures community as a whole.

It is with pride, I begin my responsibilities as Chairman ofthe National Conference on Weights and Measures. The activities of

the weights and measures community have a tremendous impact, daily, on each and every individual in this country. What is amazing to me, is how so few people realize what weights and measures does in providing equity for the millions of transactions which take place each day. Most people have this uncanny level of trust, in each of their daily purchases, not realizing Weights

and Measures plays a part in each one. This level of trust is the mark left by our Weights and Measures predecessors. It is our

responsibility to ensure that this trust remains intact.

To ensure this trust, we, as individuals and organizations, must WORK TOGETHER to meet the challenges which will come

before us in the fiiture. Today, more than ever, we need to bring back the "WE" concept. The theory of "I" doesn't get the job

done. There is only one way to accomplish most tasks and that is when PEOPLE WORK TOGETHER.

I believe that when PEOPLE WORK TOGETHER they can accomplish anything. Based on this belief, I have chosen "WORKING

TOGETHER FOR EQUITY" as my Conference theme.

In keeping with this theme, and to preserve the public trust, we must develop and improve our relationships with the National

Institute of Standards and Technology, the Department of Commerce, and various segments of Congress. By developing and

improving these relationships, we will demonstrate the importance of the work done by this Conference and the weights and

measures community.

341
New Chairman's Address

To initiate this effort, I am appointing a Special Committee for Legislative Liaison. This committee's primary responsibility will be to build upon and renew our relationships with Congress, the Department of Commerce and the National Institute of Standards and Technology. In the past, the Conference has visited various Congressional Representatives with success. These meetings

have not been regularly scheduled however, thus we have not been able to build upon these relationships. The objective of the Committee will be to achieve continuity in our liaison activities.

I have asked Tom Geiler, of Barnstable, Massachusetts to serve as Chairman with N. David Smith, ofNorth Carolina and William

Corey, of American Frozen Foods to serve as committee members. This is a small, but effective, committee with the ability to

call upon other members to assist.

The committee will report to the Chairman, Executive Committee, and the Conference membership regarding their progress in meeting the following charges:

1. Develop an action plan for review by the Executive Committee.

2. Develop and improve relationships with National Institute of Standards and Technology, the Department of

Commerce and other Federal Agencies to provide a better understanding of the National Conference on Weights and

Measures and the activities of state and local Weights and Measures Programs.

3. Develop relationships with select Committees ofCongress, individual Congressional Representatives, and their staff.

4. Assess the value of designating this Special Committee as a standing committee of the Conference.

To assist in support of the Committee, I am requesting the Office of Weights and Measures to:

1 . Design a graphic presentation to illustrate the economic impact basic measurement has upon our country's economy.

2. Provide several examples which will demonstrate how basic measurement impacts advanced technology.

The Conference must take the lead in this area, if we are to remain a viable organization in the future. With Tom's,

and the other committee members' strong interest and leadership, the Conference will see the benefits from these liaison activities.

One of the important responsibilities of the Conference Chairman is to appoint members to serve on the Annual and standing

committees. The dedication of the committee members and the many other volunteers, is what makes this organization so

successful.

In my office I have a sign that reads:

*There are three kinds of People*

Those Who MAKE things Happen,

Those who WATCH things happen,

and Those Who WONDER What Happened.

The individuals I am about to appoint are among those who "Make Things Happen."

I have selected members to serve who will compliment the committees, understand the commitments required of time and effort, and demonstrate their enthusiasm for weights and measures. Members ofthe various committees are the future ofthis Conference.

Therefore, I am proud to announce the following appointments:

Specification and Tolerance Committee: Mark Coyne, Brockton, Massachusetts (5)

Laws and Regulations Committee:

Ross Andersen, New York (5)

342
New Chairman's Address

Administration & Public Affairs: Chris Quasebarth, West Virginia(5)

Nominating Committee:

Tom Geiler, Barnstable, Massachusetts

Charles Gardner, Suffolk Co, New York

N. David Smith, North Carolina

Alan Rogers, Virginia

Sidney Colbrook, Illinois Jim Truex, Ohio

Auditing Committee:

Don Onwiler, Nebraska (3)

Credentials Committee:

Jack Kane, Montana (2) Herman Hochstetler, Elkhart County, Indiana (3)

Resolution Committee:

Lewis Jones, Ohio (1)

Parliamentarian: Ken S imila,Oregon ( 1

)

Chaplain:

Mike Hile, Arkansas (1)

Assistant Treasurer: Fred Clem, Columbus, Ohio (I)

Sergeants-at-Arms:

Clark Cooney, Oregon (1) Russ Wyckoff, Oregon (I)

Associate Membership Committee:

Chairman: Bob Fuehne

Executive Committee Replacements:

Barbara Desalvo, Ohio (2) Charles Carroll, Massachusetts (1)

Each one of these appointees and the other committee members will give their utmost to the Conference. The committees and

the leadership of the Conference, place high expectations upon themselves to do their best. We are, however, merely your

representatives. We need your commitment, your participation and your help to be successful.

The year ahead will require more from each of us. A few of the many challenges we will face include:

1 . The Executive Committee will continue to develop the Conference's Strategic Plan. One of the components currently

being worked on is the NCWM business plan. Work on our business plan has already led to changes in the Conference. We are incorporating, and this is a major step in taking the Conference to the next level. More changes

in how the Conference operates will be forthcoming.

2. The Strategic Plan also speaks to the development of a business plan for the National Type Evaluation Program. One

segment of the NTEP Business Plan will include a method to verify that production devices are meeting the same

standards applied to the NTEP evaluated device. Serious concerns have been raised from both regulators and

manufacturers, regarding the ability of production devices to meet Type. I will be placing a great deal of emphasis on this issue. The weighing and measuring sectors will be asked to assist the NTEP Business Plan working group

to develop specific procedures to reduce the likelihood a manufacturer will produce a golden device. The procedures

343
New Chairman's Address

also must deal with complaints to ensure valid complaints are heard and frivolous complaints are discouraged. We

must establish these mechanisms if National Type Evaluation Program is to remain effective. Our failure to address

these issues will erode confidence in this Program.

3. The Conference and the Office of Weights and Measures need a comprehensive training plan that includes the basic elements of instructor training, printed instruction materials, training standards, and evaluation procedures. The

Administration and Public Affairs Committee will assist in the development of the training delivery plan outlined in our Strategic Plan. This effort will encompass the work of the Program Evaluation Working Group as well. This

group is currently at a stand still. However, I am asking the group to renew their efforts and focus on helping

jurisdictions, by developing criteria which can be used for self evaluation. This means developing procedures for

internal surveying and for determining compliance levels. These levels will be used as bench marks for program

performance and for fiiture evaluations.

4. The Conference must strike a balance between the need for international involvement while meeting our domestic

needs. The limitations on Conference resources weigh heavily on our ability to participate in all areas. There is a

need, however, to participate in the international arena. We need to set our priorities, keeping in mind that we are

part of the global market. This balance must also incorporate the needs of the various industries of the Conference.

5. The Conference and the Metrology Subcommittee will continue their efforts to illustrate the state laboratories are in a partnership with the National Institute of Standards and Technology in bringing about standard's assurance. Without

the state laboratories, basic measurement can not be maintained.

These and many other issues will come before the Conference in the next year. It is up to us to deal with each issue.

In closing, I would propose we keep in mind and follow these concepts:

DO A FEW THINGS WELL.

MASTER THE BASICS.

GET THE RIGHT PERSON FOR THE JOB.

BE TENACIOUS, WHILE UNDERSTANDING THE NEED FOR CHANGE.

BE A GOOD LISTENER.

BE FIRM, BUT FAIR, WHILE ENFORCING THE REQUIREMENTS WE PASS.

LEAD WITH YOUR PHILOSOPHIES.

DO NOT WORRY ABOUT WHO GETS THE CREDIT.

BE WILLING TO ROLL UP YOUR SLEEVES AND GET DIRTY.

GET OUT OF YOUR OFFICE AND VISIT THE REAL WORLD.

KNOW THEIR BUSINESS (THE PEOPLE WE REGULATE AND WHO WE SERVE).

IT'S OK TO MAKE MISTAKES. ADMIT THEM, MAKE CHANGES, AND MOVE FORWARD.

THENGS DON'T HAVE TO BE PERFECT TO BEGIN. JUST START AND IMPROVE.

We can accomplish anything we set out to do if we WORK TOGETHER.

Finally let me take this opportunity to thank a few people who, without their support, I could not take on this responsibility. To

Joyce Luther and Cheryl Collier, my administrative staff, and to each member of my inspection staff for their support and efforts.

344
New Chairman's Address

A special thanic you to Dick Suiter for his help and assistance over the many years. There are many others to thank, but none more

important than my wife Marcia. Thank you, honey.

Thank all of you for this opportunity to serve the National Conference on Weights and Measures. I will do my best.

345

List of Participants

Deidre Adams Member 700

Staff Product Planner IBM Corp

5505 Six Forks Rd Dept DDV

Raleigh, NC 27609

Telephone: 919-301-5810 FAX: 919-301-5521

Tom Ahrens Member 955

Mechanical Engineer

MST

820 W Diamond Ave Rm 227

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

Telephone: 301-975-4013 FAX: 301-975-926-0647

Robert Alviene Member24249

Assistant Superintendent

Morris Co Wghts & Meas

PO Box 900 Wghts & Meas Dept

Morristown, NJ 07963-0900

Telephone: 201-285-2955

FAX: 201-285-6075

Gregory E. Amestoy Member 25898

Vice President Marketing

Pricer Inc 101 Merritt 7 Fifth Floor Norwalk, CT 06851

Telephone: 203-846-6800

FAX: 203-486-6966

NCWM 82nd Annual Meeting

Chicago, Illinois

July 20-24, 1997

List of Participants

Larry R. Anderson Member 2557

Inspector Skokie Weights & Measures 5127 Oakton St Skokie, IL 60076

Telephone: 708-673-0500 x307

FAX: 708-673-0525

Karl H. Angell, Jr. Member 9698

Director WV Weights & Measures

570 MacCorkle Ave West

St Albans, WV 25177

Telephone: 304-722-0602 FAX: 304-722-0605

E-mail: angelk@mail.wvnet.edu

Harry Armstrong Member 367

Chicago Dept Consumer Service

121 N La Salle St Rm 808

Chicago, IL 60602

Telephone: 312-744-4006 FAX: 312-744-9089

Robert Atkins Member 28799

Deputy Director Los Angeles Co Wghts & Meas

11012 S Garfield Avenue

South Gate, CA 90280

Telephone: 562-940-8922 FAX: 562-861-0278

Ron Balaze Member 8988

Metrologist

MI Dept of Agriculture

940 Venture Lane

Williamston, MI 48895

Telephone: 517-655-8202 FAX: 517-655-8303

Grace Barrett-Smit Member 31213

Staff Loss Control

Shell Oil Co

PO Box 2099 ISP 1257

Houston, TX 77252

Telephone: 713-241-0455 FAX: 713-241-3984

E-mail: gbarrettsmith@shelius.com

Steve Barsaloux Member 9720

Wghts & Meas Inspector IL Dept of Agriculture

5219 W Cuyler Ave #2

Chicago, IL 60641-1462

Telephone: 217-782-3817

David Bash Member 1031 CIO/VP Information Services Conagra

2000 S Batavia Rd

Geneva, IL 60134

Telephone: 630-262-090 FAX: 630-262-4005

Ross J. Andersen Member 2994

Acting Director NY Bureau of Wghts & Meas

1 Winners Circle Albany, NY 12235

Telephone: 518-457-3452 FAX: 518-457-5693

E-mail: nysagmk@emi.com

Cjnthia Anderson Member 3117

Weights & Measures Inspector WI Dept Agr Trade & Cons Prot 4149 Vilas Hope Rd

Cottage Grove, WI 53527-9452

Telephone: 608-222-5193

George Anderson Member 26192

President DurEquip

3125 101st AveNE

Blaine, MN 55449

Telephone: 800-521-0951 FAX: 612-785-7095

E-mail: george@durequip.com

John Atwood Member 87

Project Engineer IBP Inc PO Box 515

Dakota City, NE 68731-0515

Telephone: 402-241-3059 FAX: 402-241-3317

John A. Baker Member 1195 Merchandise Admin Manager

Pier 1 Imports

301 Commerce Suite 600

Fort Worth, TX 76161-0020

Telephone: 817-878-8306 FAX: 817-332-5727

E-mail: vjlocker@pierl.com

Raymond Balandis Member 368

Chicago Dept Consumer Service

121 N LaSalle St Rm 808

Chicago, IL 60602

Telephone: 312-744-4006 FAX: 312-744-9089

Byron Beerbower Member 11195

Inspector Reg 5 MI Dept of Agriculture

4032 M-139 Bldg 116

St Joseph, MI 49085-9647

Telephone: 616428-2546

E-mail: beerbowerB@state.mi.com

Irving Bell Member 4473

Sr Executive Staff Rep

Coca-Cola Company

One Coca-Cola PI PO Drawer 1734

Atlanta, GA 30301

Telephone: 404-676-2623 FAX: 404-676-8265

F. Michael Belue Member 691

President Belue Associates 1319 Knight Drive

Murfreesboro, TN 37128

Telephone: 615-867-1010 FAX: 615-867-0609

347
List of Participants

Roger Bender Member25022

Weights & Measures Inspector

WI Dept of Agr Trade Cons Prot 419 W Main St Sparta, WI 54656

Telephone: 608-869-4448

Celeste Bennett Member 9286

MFQ Investigations Food Div

MI Dept of Agriculture

940 Venture Lane

Williamston, MI 48895

Telephone: 517-655-8202

FAX: 517-655-8303

E-mail: bennettc@state.mi.us

Ron Berg Member 4154

Metrologist Associate IL Dept of Agriculture 801 E Sangamon

Springfield, IL 62794

Telephone: 217-782-3817

FAX: 217-524-7801

Ina Rae Berry Member 504

Chicago Dept Consumer Service

121 N LaSalle St Rm 808

Chicago, IL 60602

Telephone: 312-744-4006

FAX: 312-744-9089

William Bianco, Jr Member 10129

Chief Insp Testing & Safety

ND Public Service Commission

State Capitol 12th Floor Bismarck, ND 58505-0480

Telephone: 701-328-3337

FAX: 701-328-2410

E-mail : msmail . wfb@oracle.psc . state . n

d.us

Barbara J. Bloch Member 7004

Director CA Measurement Standards Div

8500 Fruitridge Rd

Sacramento, CA 95826

Telephone: 916-229-3007

FAX: 916-229-3026

E-mail: BBloch@smtpl.cdfa.ca.gov

James Boatman Member 7148

Chief ID Bureau of Wghts & Meas

2216 Kellogg Lane

Boise, ID 83712-8245

Telephone: 208-332-8690

FAX: 203-334-2170

Dick Bowman Member 15346

Director Div Comm Insp & Reg

SD Weights & Measures

118 West Capitol

Pierre, SD 57501-2080

Telephone: 605-773-3697

FAX: 605-773-6631

Harold D. Bradshaw Member 2738

Inspector Clark Co Wghts & Meas

City County Bldg Room 314

Jeffersonville, IN 47130

Telephone: 812-283-6289

William D. Brasher Member 4417

Production Support Specialist Southern Co Services Inc PO Box 2625 Mail Bin: 14N 8163

Birmingham, AL 35202

Telephone: 205-877-7653

FAX: 205-877-7288

William H. Braun Member 2983

Sole Proprietor

W H B Resources 5743 Jeffrey Place

Fairfield, OH 45014-3524

Telephone: 513-829-2106

FAX: 513-829-9892

Darryl L. Brovm Member 1 1437 Chief Wghts & Meas

lA Dept of Agriculture

H A Wallace Building Des Moines, lA 50319

Telephone: 515-281-5716

FAX: 515-281-6800

Norman R. Brucker Member 9192

Regional Scale Inspector

Burlington Northern Railroad 80 44th Ave NE

Minneapolis, MN 55421-2599

Telephone: 612-490-6090

FAX: 612-782-3061

Charles M. Bruckner Member 8876

Director Bur of Ride Meas Stds PA Dept of Agriculture 2301 N Cameron St Harrisburg, PA 17110

Telephone: 717-787-9089

FAX: 717-783-4158

Robert T. Brumbaugh Member 297

President Systems Associates Inc 1932 Industrial Dr

Libertyville, IL 60048

Telephone: 847-367-6650

FAX: 847-367-6960

Phillip Bryson Member 30881

Secretary

NIST

Bldg 820 Rm 223

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

Telephone: 301-975-4004

F.^: 301-926-0647

E-mail: phillip.bryson@nist.gov

Mark Buccelli Member 8926

Regional Supervisor

MN Dept Public Service/W&M Div

2277 Highway 36

St Paul, MN 55113-3800

Telephone: 612-639-4010

FAX: 612-639-4014

E-mail : ebuccelli@dpsv . state. mn.us

Arthur Buchanan Member 10300

Inspector

Noble Co Weights & Measures

5582 W 500 N

Ligonier, IN 46767

Telephone: 219-635-2317

Lisa Bulinski Member 960

Wghts & Meas Office Adm

IL Dept of Agriculture

PO Box 19281

Springfield, IL 62794-9281

Telephone: 217-782-3817

Charles A. Burns, Jr. Member 7575

Chief Inspector

Birmingham Wghts & Meas

City Hall Rm 207 710 N 20th St Birmingham, AL 35203

Telephone: 205-254-2246

FAX: 205-254-2925

Michele Buscemi Member 15819 Weights & Measures Inspector IL Dept of Agriculture 1424 Phoenix Lane

Joliet, IL 60431

Ken Butcher Member 2512

Weights & Measures Coordinator

NIST

Bldg 820 Rm 223

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

Telephone: 301-975-3991

FAX: 301-926-0647

E-mail: kbutcher@nist.gov

Tina G. Butcher Member 8236

Physical Scientist NIST

Bldg 820 Rm 223

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

Telephone: 301-975-2196

FAX: 301-926-0647

E-mail: tina.butcher@nist.gov

Leslie Cahill Member 2694

VP Government Affairs American Seed Trade Assn

601 13th St NW Suite 570 South Washington, DC 20005

Telephone: 202-638-3128

FAX: 202-638-3171

348
List of Participants

Richard Calkins Member 9100

Senior Metrologist & Manager

Rice Lake Weighing Systems

230 West Coleman St Rice Lake, WI 54868

Telephone: 715-234-9171 xll

FAX: 715-234-6967

Pete Campbell Member 753

Director Weights & Measures MN Dept of Public Service 2277 Highway 36

Roseville, MN 55113

Telephone: 612-639-4010 FAX: 612-639-4014

E-mail : pcampbell@dpsv . state . mn.us

Loretta A. Carey Member 6874

Consumer Safety Officer FDA-Office of Food Labeling

200 C Street SW HFS-158

Washington, DC 20204

Telephone: 202-205-5099

FAX: 202-205-4594

E-mail: lab@vm.cfsan.fda.gov

Stacy K. Carlsen Member 105

Director Marin Co Weights & Measures

1682 Novato Blvd Ste 150-A

Novato, CA 94947-7021

Telephone: 415-899-8601

FAX: 415-899-8605

Doug Carlton Member 20539

Sales Representative

Micro Motion Inc 595 Nantucket Pointe Dr

Wildwood, MO 63040

Telephone: 901-751-8360

FAX: 901-757-8386

E-mail: dougc@micromotion.com

Charles H. CarroU Member 4393

Assistant Director MA Division of Standards One Ashburton Place

Boston, MA 02108

Telephone: 617-727-3480

FAX: 617-727-5705

Charles D. Carter Member 9838

Prog Adm Agr Resources PICS

OK Dept of Agriculture

2800 N Lincoln Blvd

Oklahoma City, OK 73105-4298

Telephone: 405-521-3864 x261

FAX: 405-522-4584

E-mail: charlessc/okagri@mail.okag.state.ok.us

Max C. Casanova Member 362

Mgr Cust Serv Ramsey Products Ramsey Technology Inc 501 -90th Avenue NW

Minneapolis, MN 55433-8006

Telephone: 612-783-2659

FAX: 612-783-2525

H. Penny Causgrove Member 3847

Retired Sealer of Wts & Meas

18 Davis St New Haven, CT 06515

Telephone: 203-387-4913

Louis T. Cerny Member30640

Railroad Consultant

Consultant 310 Summit Hall Rd

Gaithersburg, MD 20877

Telephone: 301-947-0208 FAX: 301-947-1296

Samuel E. Chappell Member 10610

Chief Standards Management

NISI

Bldg 820 Rm 162

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

Telephone: 301-975-4024

FAX: 301-926-1559

E-mail: schappell@nist.gov

Ray Ciger Member 516

Chicago Dept Consumer Service

121 N LaSalle St Rm 808

Chicago, IL 60602

Telephone: 312-7444006

FAX: 312-744-9089

Buddy Clark Member 1865

Inspector Hamilton Co Wghts & Meas

101 Monticello Court

Noblesville, IN 46060-5442

Telephone: 317-896-9001

Greg R. Clark Member 291 Agr Comm/Sealer Wghts & Meas

Stanislaus Co Wghts & Meas

725 County Center III Court Modesto, CA 95355

Telephone: 209-525-4610 FAX: 209-525-4619

Richard H. Claussen Member 103

Inspector Porter Co Weights & Measures

155 Indiana Ave Adm Bldg

Valpariso, IN 46383-5555

Telephone: 219-465-3585

Fred P. Clem Member 169

City Sealer Columbus Weights & Measures

240 Greenlawn Ave

Columbus, OH 43223

Telephone: 614-645-7397

FAX: 614-645-3994

Sidney A. Colbrook Member 47 Wghts & Meas Bureau Manager

IL Dept of Agriculture

PO Box 19281 801 E Sangamon Ave

Springfield, IL 62794-9281 Telephone: 217-782-3817 FAX: 217-524-7801

E-mail: scolbroo@agr084rl .state.il. us

Billy Cole Member 18969

Service Manager

Precision Weight Scale Co Inc 33 Highview Rd

Sellersville, PA 18960

Telephone: 215-723-9523 FAX: 215-723-7727

Thomas Coleman Member 8246

Weights & Measures Coordinator

NISI

Bldg 820 Rm 223

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

Telephone: 301-975-4868

FAX: 301-926-0647

E-mail: t.coleman@nist.gov

Alan W. Conway Member 5996

Regional Vehicle Scale Manager

Mettler-Toledo Inc 1153 N Main St Lombard, IL 60148

Telephone: 630-889-8050

FAX: 630-889-8070

David A. Cook Member 21724

Functional Quality Manager

Kraft Foods Inc Three Lakes Dr

Northfield, IL 60093-2753

Telephone: 847-646-4406

FAX: 847-646-7130

Rodney Cooper Member 8850

Product Engineer

Schlumberger Industries 1310 Emerald

Greenwood, SC 29646

Telephone: 864-942-2226

FAX: 864-223-0341

William J. Corey, Jr . Member 16337

Secretary

American Frozen Foods

355 Benton Street

Stratford, CT 06497

Telephone: 203-378-7900 X3405

FAX: 203-386-8683

349
List of Participants

Constantine Cotsoradis Member 8232

Director KS Weights and Measures 2016 SW 37th Street Topeka, KS 66611-2570

Telephone: 785-267-4641

FAX: 785-267-2518

E-mail: cotsora@kda.state. ks. us

Pat Cowan Member 8097

Wghts & Meas Inspector IL Dept of Agriculture

7740 Lloyd Drive

Cherry Valley, IL 61016

Telephone: 217-782-3817

Mark P. Coyne Member 220

City Sealer Brockton Weights & Measures

City Hall Rm B12 45 School St Brockton, MA 02401

Telephone: 508-580-7120

FAX: 508-559-7960

E-mail: Measures@aol.com

Anyce Cullars Member 519

Chicago Dept Consumer Service

121 N LaSalle St Rm 808

Chicago, IL 60602

Telephone: 312-744-4006

FAX: 312-744-9089

Karl Cunningham Member 4893

Wghts & Meas Inspector IL Dept of Agriculture

PO Box 257

Industry, IL 61440

Pasquale D'Errico Member 6046

Chief Supervisor

NJ Weights & Measures

1261 US Route 1 & 9 South

Avenel, NJ 07001

Telephone: 908-815-4840

Peter Dabertin Member 1387 Fisher-Rosemount Petroleum

1441 Coventry Ct

Darien, IL 60561

A. Raymond Daniels Member 343

184 Freyn Dr

Centerville, OH 45458-2235

Telephone: 513-433-8435

Charles R. Davis Member 4761

Wghts & Meas Inspector IL Dept of Agriculture

8188 Rochester New City Rd

Rochester, IL 62563

Telephone: 217-782-3817

Gerald E. Davis Member 968

System Supvr Scale Insp Conrail 2001 Market St #10 B

Philadelphia, PA 19101-1410

Telephone: 215-209-1620

FAX: 215-209-4943

Richard L. Davis Member 3806

Mgr Product Safety&Compliance James River Corp

1915 Marathon Ave PO Box 899

Neenah, WI 54956-0899

Telephone: 414-729-8174

FAX: 414-729-8089

E-mail: rdavis@email.jrc.com

MaryDeChow Member 31225

Government Relations Manager

Spartan Stores Inc PO Box 8700

Ada, MI 49518

Telephone: 616-682-0119

FAX: 616-682-1328

E-mail: Mary.dechow@spartanstores.com

Bill F. Dennis Member 2264

Regulatory Affairs Advisor

American Meat Institute 1700 N Moore St Ste 1600

Arlington, VA 22209

Telephone: 703-841-2400

FAX: 703-527-0938

E-mail: ami@mindspring.com

Robert DeRubeis Member 11198

Inspector Reg 7 MI Dept of Agriculture

26400 Lahser Rd Ste 220

Southfield, MI 48034-2451

Telephone: 810-356-1700

Barbara J. DeSalvo Member 3842

Supervisor Weights & Measures OH Dept of Agriculture

8995 East Main St Bldg #5

Reynoldsburg. OH 43068-3399

Telephone: 614-728-6290

FAX: 614-728-6424

E-mail : desalvo@odant. agri . state . oh. us

Ronald P. Dietrich Member 12937

President Kaskaskia Valley Scale Co

2154 Beckman Road

Lenzburg, IL 62255

Telephone: 618-295-3331 FAX: 618-295-3331

G.W. (Wes) Diggs Member 9034

Supervisor

VA Products & Industry Stds PO Box 1163 Room 402

Richmond, VA 23218

Telephone: 804-786-2476

FAX: 804-786-1571

Sharrill Dittman Member 1200

Chief Calibration Program

NIST

NIST Bldg 820/RM235

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

Telephonic: 301-975-2005

FAX: 301-869-3548

E-mail: Dittmann@nist.gov

Bruce Dobrinska Member 31 12 Weights & Measures Inspector

WI Dept Agr Trade & Cons Prot 4931 S 31st Street Greenfield, WI 53221

Telephone: 414-282-0635

Dan Downing Member 428

Chicago Dept Consumer Service

121 N LaSalle St Rm 808

Chicago, IL 60602

Telephone: 312-744-4006

FAX: 312-744-9089

Kathryn M. Dresser Member 58

Tech Specialist/Safety

WI Dept Agr Trade & Cons Prot PO Box 891 1 281 1 Agriculture Dr

Madison, WI 53708-8911

Telephone: 608-224-4938

FAX: 608-224-4939

E-mail: dresskm@wheel . datcp . state . wi . us

Melinda DuFauchard Member 451

Chicago Dept Consumer Service

121 N LaSalle St Rm 808

Chicago, IL 60602

Telephone: 312-744-4006

FAX: 312-744-9089

Dave Dziuraviiec Member 1211

Business Analyst IBP Inc PO Box 515

Dakota City, NE 68731

Telephone: 402-241-2089

FAX: 402-241-2686

L.F. Eason Member 3886

Metrologist Standards Division NC Dept of Agriculture

4040 District Dr

Raleigh, NC 27607

Telephone: 919-733-4411

FAX: 919-733-8804

E-mail: lf_eason@ncdamail.agr.state.nc.us

350
List of Participants

Dennis Ehrhart Member 13484

Chief Enforcement Officer AZ Dept of Weights & Measures

9535 E Doubletree Ranch Rd

Scottsdale, AZ 85258-5539

Telephone: 602-255-5211

FAX: 602-255-1950

Chuck Ehrlich Member 855

Deputy Chief Tech Stds Act Prg

NIST

820 W Diamond Ave Rm 269

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

Telephone: 301-975-4834

FAX: 301-926-1559

E-mail: charles.ehrlich@nist.gov

Dean F. Ely Member 9648

District Supervisor

PA Dept of Agriculture

332 Washington Avenue

Jersey Shore, PA 17740-1419

Telephone: 717-433-3833 x214

FAX: 717-433-4770

Mark A. Erickson Member 22638

Approvals Engineer

Rice Lake Weighing Systems

230 West Coleman Street Rice Lake, WI 54868

Telephone: 715-234-9171 Ext322

FAX: 715-234-6967

Doug Eshelman Member 25077

Inspector Mercer Co Weights & Measures

5364 Shore Drive

Celina, OH 45822

Telephone: 419-586-6402

FAX: 419-586-1714

James H. Eskew Member 3435

Coord for Metrology/Wts & Meas

TX Dept of Agriculture 119 Cumberland Rd

Austin, TX 78704

Telephone: 512-462-1441

FAX: 512-475-1642

E-mail: heskew@agr.state.tx.us

Isabel R. Esparza Member 13552

Assistant Commissioner

Chicago Consumer Services

121 North LaSalle Rm 808

Chicago, IL 60602

Telephone: 312-744-3247

FAX: 312-744-9089

Robert K. Feezor Member 1 1200

Superintendent Scales Norfolk Southern Corp

Building Box 142 99 Spring Street Atlanta, GA 30303

Telephone: 404-527-2537

FAX: 404-527-2769

E-mail: rkfeezor@nscorp.com

Kelly C. Fisher Member 25532

Asst Mgr Food Tech & Nutrition

Internatl Dairy Foods Assn 1250HStNW Suite 900

Washington, DC 20005

Telephone: 202-737-4332

FAX: 202-331-7820

Jerry Flanders Member 8129

Division Director Fuel & Meas

GA Dept of Agriculture

Agric Bldg 19 MLK Drive Room 321

Atlanta, GA 30334

Telephone: 404-656-3605

FAX: 404-656^9380

E-mail: jflanders@agr.state.ga.us

Darrell E. Flocken Member 30642

Mgr Internat'l Wghts & Meas

Mettler-Toledo Inc

1 150 Dearborn Drive

Worthington, OH 43085

Telephone: 614-438-4393 FAX: 614-438-4355

E-mail: flocken@mtwt.mt.com

Delbert Ford Member 8105

Wghts & Meas Inspector IL Dept of Agriculture

319 Ward Drive PO Box 58

Elkhart, IL 62634-9281 Telephone: 217-782-3817

Ken L. Fraley Member 4148

State Metrologist

OK Bureau of Standards 2800 N Lincoln Blvd

Oklahoma City, OK 73105

Telephone: 405-521-3864 x370

FAX: 405-521-4912

E-mail : kfraley@odagis . oklaosf. state . ok

us

David Frieders Member 30012

Director of Weights & Measures

San Francisco County

501 Cesar Chaves #109A

San Francisco, CA 94124

Telephone: 415-285-5012 FAX: 415-285-8776

Bob Fuehne Member 10443 Manager QA Pet Foods

Ralston Purina Co

Checkerboard Square - 4RN

St Louis. MO 63164

Telephone: 314-982-2916 FAX: 314-982-4240

Carol P. Fuhner Member 4463

Assistant Commissioner

SC Dept of Agriculture

PO Box 11280

Columbia, SC 29211

Telephone: 803-737-9690 FAX: 803-737-9703

David E, Gagnon Member 30890

Director ME Quality Assurance and Regs

28 State House Station _

Augusta, ME 04333

Telephone: 207-287-2161 FAX: 207-287-5576

E-mail: davis.gagnon@state.me.us

Mike GaUo Member 30912

Sr Prod Support Engineer

Wayne Div-Dresser Industries 124 W College Ave PO Box 1859

Salisbury, MD 21802-1859

Telephone: 410-546-6859

FAX: 410-548-6913

Michel Garand Member 855 Measurement Canada

5 Place Ville-Marie Montreal Quebec H,

Telephone: 514-283-7201 FAX: 514-283-7230

Charles A. Gardner Member 3438

Director

Suffolk Co Wghts & Meas

County Center N Bldg 340

Hauppauge, NY 11788

Telephone: 516-853-4621 X20

FAX: 516-853-4578

Thomas F. Geiler Member 219

Director Health Safety & Env

Barnstable Consumer Affairs PO Box 2430 230 South Street Hyannis, MA 02601

Telephone: 508-790-6251 FAX: 508-778-2412

Victor L. Gerber Member 2455

Metrologist/W & M Coordinator

WY Dept of Agriculture

2219 Carey Ave

Cheyenne. WY 82002

Telephone: 307-777-6586

FAX: 307-635-8327

E-mail: vgerbe@missc.state.wy.us

351
List of Participants

Karen Glover Member 31109

Approvals Coordinator

Pennsylvania Scale Co

21 Graybill Road PO 566

Leola, PA 17540

Telephone: 717-656-2653

FAX: 717-656-3216

E-mail: klg@redrose.net

Gene Gray Member 4760

Wghts & Meas Inspector IL Dept of Agriculture

632 North 11th Street Murphysboro, IL 62966

Telephone: 217-782-3817

Maxwell H. Gray Member 7991

Chief Weights & Measures FL Dept of Agr & Cons Services 3125 Conner Blvd Lab 2

Tallahassee, FL 32399-1650

Telephone: 904-488-9140

FAX: 904-922-6064

Richard D. Greek Member 2875

Agr Commissioner Sealer San Luis Obispo Co Wghts Meas

2156 Sierra Way Suite A

San Luis Obispo, CA 93401

Telephone: 805-781-5910

FAX: 805-781-1035

E-mail: SluisOA@smtpl.cdfa.cago

Larry Gregory Member 28607

Design Engineer

Mobil Oil Corp

3225 Gallows Road Rm 7W323

Fairfax, VA 22037-0001

Telephone: 703-849-6206

FAX: 703-849-5645

Michael F. Grenier Member 77

Supervisor II NH Dept of Agr Markets & Food

PO Box 2042

Concord, NH 03302-2042

Telephone: 603-271-3709

FAX: 603-271-1109

Christopher Guay Member 840

Principal Reg Affairs Procter & Gamble Co

8700 Mason-Montgomery Rd

Mason, OH 45040

Telephone: 513-622-2222

FAX: 513-622-0521

Darrell A. Guensler Member 38

Acting Deputy Secretary

CA Department of Food & Agric

8500 Fruitridge Rd

Sacramento, CA 95826

Telephone: 916-229-3000

FAX: 916-229-3026

E-mail: dguensle@smtpl .cdfa.ca.gov

CaraGuzik Member 30851

Marketing Associate American Petroleum Institute 1220 L Street NW

Washington, DC 20005

Telephone: 202-682-8227

FAX: 202-682-8222

E-mail: guzik@api.org

Melvin C. Hankel Member9094

Consulting Engineer

MCH Engineering Associates Inc 6926 Balmoral Drive

Fort Wayne, IN 46804-1442

Telephone: 219-436-9234

Philip G. Hannigan Member 25712

Technical Assistant Scale Manufacturers Assn

9384 D Forestwood Lane

Manassas, VA 20110-4702

Telephone: 703-330-7079

FAX: 703-330-7984

Georgia Harris Member 9324

Metrologist Office Wts & Meas

NIST

Bldg 820 Rm 223

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

Telephone: 301-975-4014

FAX: 301-926-0647

E-mail: g.harris@nist.gov

Jack Harshman Member 4358

Donoval Industries 5821 Westview

Houston, TX 77055

Telephone: 713-681-4455

FAX: 713-681-8630

E-mail: Dononvan.Ind@Juno.com

Frank Hauch Member 15279

Sales Representative

O Berk International Inc 777 Jefferson Ave

Union, NJ 07083

Telephone: 908-687-7720

FAX: 908-687-5157

James R. Hayes Member 4843

Inspector

Gibson Co Wghts & Meas

Courthouse Annex 800 S Prince St Princeton, IN 47670

Telephone: 812-385-2426

Robert E. Hebner Member 31076

NIST

Admin/A1134

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

Telephone: 301-975-2300

E-mail: robert.hebner@nist.gov

David K. Heck Member 1 1242 i Mgr Mkt Legislation & Regs I Chevron USA Products Co I 6001 Bollinger Canyon Rd Bldg L i San Ramon, CA 94583-2348 i Telephone: 510-842-6033 I FAX: 510-842-8710

E-mail: dkhe@chevron.com i

I Dr. Peter L. Heydemann Member i 30180

\ Director Technology Services I NIST i Bldg 820 Rm 312 i Gaithersburg, MD 20899 I Telephone: 301-975-4502 ; E-mail: pheydemann@nist.gov 1

Mike Hile Member 7153

{ Director AR Bureau of Standards ' 4608 West 61st St

Little Rock, AR 72209

Telephone: 501-225-1598

FAX: 501-562-7605

Herman R. Hochstetler Member

5855

Inspector Elkhart Co Wghts & Meas

117 N 2nd Room 107 Goshen, IN 46526-3231

Telephone: 219-535-6472

FAX: 219-535-6622 '

E-mail: elwtmeaf@npcc.net

Kenneth R. Hoffer Member 7 1 92

President Hoffer Flow Controls Inc 107 Kitty Hawk Lane PO Box 21

Elizabeth City, NC 27909

Telephone: 919-331-1997

FAX: 919-331-2886

Frances P. Holland Member 15654

Regulatory Affairs Schlumberger Technologies

825 Greenbriar Circle #M

Chesapeake, VA 23320-2638

Telephone: 804-366-4400 xl62

FAX: 804-424-2746

Gerry O. Hood Member 6254

President Canadian Sphagnum Peat Moss An

4 Wycliff Place

St Albert Alberta,

Telephone: 403-460-8280

FAX: 403-459-0939

E-mail: ghood@peatmoss.com

352
List of Participants

Monty H. Hopper Member 11132

Director Kern Co Weights & Measures

1116 East California Avenue

Bakersfield. CA 93307

Telephone: 805-861-2418

FAX: 805-324-0668

John C. Hughes Member 12036

Engineering Manager

Weigh-Tronix Inc 1000 Armstrong Drive

Fairmont, MN 56031

Telephone: 507-238-8294

FAX: 707-527-5517

Roy Humphreys Member 30272

Director MO Dept of Agriculture 1616 Missouri Blvd

Jefferson City, MO 65102-0281

Telephone: 573-751-4316

FAX: 573-751-0281

Cosmo C. Insalaco Member 107 Agr Commissioner/Sealer

Fresno Co Wghts & Meas

1730 South Maple

Fresno, CA 93702

Telephone: 209-456-7510

FAX: 209-456-7379

E-mail: FresnoAG@mtpl .cdfa.ca.gov

Jack Y. Jeffries Member 2199

Consumer Protection Adm

FL Division of Standards 3125 Conner Blvd Room 133

Tallahassee, FL 32399-1650

Telephone: 904-487-2634

FAX: 904-922-8971

Randy F. Jennings Member 10648

Petroleum Administrator TN Dept of Agriculture

PO Box 40627 Melrose Station Nashville, TN 37204

Telephone: 615-360-0147

FAX: 615-360-0335

Malcolm Jessup Member 9000

Inspector Reg 7 MI Dept of Agriculture

26400 Lahser Rd Ste 220

Southfield, MI 48034-2451

Telephone: 810-356-1700

FAX: 810-356-0374

Mark R. Joelson Member 4238

General Counsel

Gasoline Pump Mfg Assn

1800 M Street N W

Washington, DC 20036

Telephone: 202-467-7240

FAX: 202-467-7176

Gordon W. Johnson Member 3351 Manager Regulatory Affairs Giibarco Inc 7300 West Friendly Avenue

Greensboro, NC 27420

Telephone: 910-547-5375 FAX: 910-547-5516

E-mail: Gordon_Johnson@Gilbarco.Com

Alan E. Johnston Member 41

President Measurement Canada Measurement Canada

Standards Bldg Tunney's Pasture Ottawa Ontario Kl,

Telephone: 613-952-0655 FAX: 613-957-1265

E-mail: Johnston. alan@ic.gc.ca

Debbie A. Joines Member 1 1709

Sr Design Engineer

Wayne Div-Dresser Industries 124 College Ave PO Box 1859

Salisbury, MD 21802-1859

Telephone: 410-546-6699 FAX: 410-548-6913

E-mail: daj@wayne.com

Lewis R. Jones Member 30860

Chief Weights and Measures Ohio Dept of Agriculture 8995 East Main Street Bldg #5

Reynoldsburg, OH 43068-3399

Telephone: 614-728-6290 FAX: 614-728-6424

E-mail : jones@odant. agri . state . oh. us

Gerry A. Jorowski Member 9396

Program Officer Consumer Products Directorate Place du Portage I 50 Victoria St Hull Quebec, KIA 0C9

Telephone: 819-953-3645 FAX: 819-953-2931

E-mail: jorowski. gerry@ic.gc.ca

Linda S. Joy Member 1193

Public Affairs NIST

NIST/A903

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-0001 Telephone: 301-975-4403 FAX: 301-926-1630

E-mail: joy@nist.gov

Louise R. Jung Member 26295

Bureau of Consumer Protection Div of Enforcement FTC

6th & Pennsylvania Ave NW

Washington, DC 20580

Telephone: 202-326-2989/2982

FAX: 202-326-3259

Jack Kane Member 13470 Bureau Chief

MT Bur of Weights & Measures

Capitol Station Helena, MT 59620

Telephone: 406-444-3934

FAX: 406-444-4305

E-mail: jkane@mt.gov

Michael J. Keilty Member 1 1672

Industrial Marketing Manager

Micro Motion Inc 7070 Winchester Circle Boulder, CO 80301 Telephone: 303-530-8231 FAX: 303-530-8459

E-mail: mikek@micromotion.com

Jeffrey A. Kelly Member 30649

International Sales Manager

Hoffer Flow Controls Inc PO Box 2145 107 Kitty Hawk Lane

Elizabeth City, NC 27909

Telephone: 919-331-1997 FAX: 919-331-2886

Thomas W. Kelly Member 5892

Retired 737 Evergreen Parkway

Union, NJ 07083

Telephone: 908-686-2960

Rickie Keyser Member 969

Weights & Measures Inspector IL Dept of Agriculture

PO Box 56 RR 1 Goldengate, IL 62843

Telephone: 217-782-3817

Paul King Member 319

Chicago Dept Consumer Service

121 N LaSalle St Rm 808

Chicago, IL 60602

Telephone: 312-744-4006

FAX: 312-744-9089

Chip Kloos Member 3453 Assoc Dir Technical Statistics Colgate-Palmolive Company

POBox 1343 909 River Rd

Piscataway, NJ 08855-1343

Telephone: 908-878-7101 FAX: 908-878-7844

E-mail: chip_kloos@colpal.com

Dennis Koelling Member 1024 Weights & Measures Inspector IL Dept of Agriculture

209 Wilshire Dr

Bartelso, IL 62218

Telephone: 217-782-3817

353
List of Participants

Joan A. Koenig Member 9036

Weights & Measures Coordinator

NIST

Bldg820 Rm223

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

Telephone: 301-975-4007

FAX: 301-926-0647

E-mail: jkoenig@nist.gov

Dennis J. Kolsun Member 20 157 Manager Govt & Cons Affairs H J Heinz Co

1062 Progress Street Pittsburgh, PA 15212

Telephone: 412-237-5379

FAX: 412-237-5922

Brian A. Kotylak Member 1 Manager Scale Operations

Canadian Pacific Railway

200 Granville St #1100

Vancouver British Co, V6C 2R3

Telephone: 604-220-6618

FAX: 604-643-3697

E-mail: kotylak@sprynet.com

Nelson Kranker Member 9394

Director Dutchess Co Dept of Cons Affrs 94 A Peach Road

Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 Telephone: 914-486-2949

FAX: 914-486-2947

Michele Krebs Member 23997

NCWM

PO Box 4025

Gaithersburg, MD 20885

Telephone: 301-975-4093

FAX: 301-926-0647

E-mail: michele.krebs@nist.gov

Dennis Krueger Member 4898

Weights & Measures Coordinator

NCR Corporation

2651 Satellite Boulevard

Duluth, GA 30136-5810

Telephone: 770-623-7743

FAX: 770-623-7827

E-mail: dennis.krueger@atlantaga.ncr.com

Greg Kunkiewicz Member 25816

Colgate-Palmolive Company

300 Park Avenue

New York, NY 10022

Dan Kushnir Member 9902

Sales Manager

Seraphin Test Measure PO Box 227

Rancocas, NJ 08073-0227

Telephone: 800-573-6322

FAX: 800-373-6322

William Lagemann Member 7976

Wghts & Measures Inspector DF. Dept of Agriculture

2320 S Dupont Hwy

Dover, DE 19901 Telephone: 302-739-4811 x37

FAX: 302-697-6287

Gary Lameris Member 14148

Design Engineer & NTEP Rep

Hobart Corp

Executive Offices 701 Ridge Avenue

Troy, OH 45374

Telephone: 937-332-3053 FAX: 937-332-3007

E-mail: lamergj@pmifeg.com

Leon Lammers Member 28830

Chief Engineer

Weigh-Tronix Inc 1000 Armstrong Dr PO Box 1000

Fairmont, MN 56031

Telephone: 800-533-0456

FAX: 517-238-4195

Robert L. Land Member 187

Inspector

Anderson Weights & Measures PO Box 2100 120 E 8th St Anderson, IN 46011

Telephone: 317-646-9839

FAX: 317-646-9886

Sammy L. Lang Member 1 1557

Supervisor Reg Services/W&M

MS Dept of Agr & Commerce

1043 Hillside Dr

Magnolia, MS 39652

Telephone: 601-783-2350

Stephen Langford Member 14657

Cardinal Scale Mfg Co

203 East Daugherty PO Box 151 Webb City, MO 64870

Telephone: 417-673-4631 FAX: 417-673-5001

E-mail: SLANGF0RD@CARDET.COM

Kent Larsen Member 9717

Wghts & Meas Inspector IL Dept of Agriculture

39310 Meadow Lane

Wadswordi, IL 60083

Telephone: 217-782-3817

Kelleen K. Larson Member 10960

Metrologist

AZ Dept of Weights & Measures

9545 E Doubletree Ranch Rd

Scottsdale, AZ 85258-5539

Telephone: 602-451-2972

FAX: 602-661-6688

G. Diane Lee Member 30662

Physical Scientist NIST

Bldg 820 Rm 223

Gaithersburg. MD 20899

Telephone: 301-975-4405

FAX: 301-926-0647

E-mail: diane.lee@nist.gov

Robert Lennie Member 455

Chicago Dept Consumer Service

121 N LaSalle St Rm 808

Chicago, IL 60602

Telephone: 312-744-4006

FAX: 312-744-9089

Harvey M. Lodge Member 355

Product Manager

Cargotec Inc 307 Broadway

Swanton, OH 43558

Telephone: 419-825-2331

FAX: 419-826-8439

Arleen Lopez Member 535

Chicago Dept Consumer Service

121 N LaSalle St Rm 808

Chicago, IL 60602

Telephone: 312-744-4006

FAX: 312-744-9089

Anthony Lori Member 3160

Superintendent

Morris Co Wghts & Meas

PO Box 900

Morristown, NJ 07963

Telephone: 201-285-2957

FAX: 201-285-6075

David Lmiceford Member 94 Area Lab Manager ITS

Caleb Brett 3009 Vanguard Building C

Memphis, TN 38131

Telephone: 901-398-3711

FAX: 901-398-3949

L. Edward Lathy Member 253 1

3

Branch Manager

Brechbuhler Scales Inc 1424 Scale St SW

Canton, OH 44706

Telephone: 216-661-2660

FAX: 216-661-3688

Duncan Steve MacLaren Member 10852

Inspector Reg 1 MI Dept of Agriculture 9831 County Rd 51 3T

Rapid River, MI 49878

Telephone: 906-474-9551 FAX: 906-786-7261

354
List of Participants

Steven A. Malone Member 554

Director NE Div of Wghts & Meas

Box 94757/301 Centennial Mall South

Lincoln, NE 68509-4757

Telephone: 402-471-4292 FAX: 402-471-3252

E-mail: stevenam@agr. state. ne. us

Renald Marceau Member 10211

Senior Program Officer LML

Legal Metrology Branch

110 O'Connor St 2nd Floor Ottawa, KIA 0C9

Telephone: 613-952-2629 FAX: 613-952-1736

E-mail: marceau. renald@ic.gc.ca

Sheryl A. Marcouiller Member 6244

Senior Food & Drug Counsel

Kraft Foods Inc Three Lakes Drive N4F

Northfield, IL 60093-2758

Telephone: 708-646-4206

FAX: 708-646-4431

Jeffrey X. Mason Member 10874

Chief

DC GVT Wghts & Meas & Mkts

1110 U Street SE

Washington, DC 20020

Telephone: 202-645-6706

FAX: 202-645-6705

Vernon Lee Massey Member 3634

Sealer Shelby Co Weights & Measures

157 Poplar Suite 402

Memphis, IN 38103

Telephone: 901-576-3920

FAX: 901-576-3796

Richard Mathre Member 9719

Wghts & Meas Inspector IL Dept of Agriculture

32750 N Twin Bridge Rd

Avon, IL 61415-9441

Telephone: 217-782-3817

Martin J. Matzinger Member 6959

Statistician Kraft Foods Inc 910 Mayer Ave

Madison, WI 53704

Telephone: 608-285-4071 FAX: 608-285-6288

Mel Maxson Member 9858

Regulatory Agency Coordinator

Berkel Inc

1 Berkel Dr

La Porte, IN 46350

Telephone: 219-326-7000

FAX: 219-324-2928

Gloria McGowan Member 536

Chicago Dept Consumer Service

121 N LaSaile St Rm 808

Chicago, IL 60602

Telephone: 312-744-4006 FAX: 312-744-9089

Robert McGrath Member 10683

Asst Commissioner/Sealer Boston ISD Weights & Measures

1010 Massachusetts Ave

Boston, MA 02118-2606

Telephone: 617-635-5328 FAX: 617-635-5383

Stephen E. McGuire Member 4000

Metrologist Wghts & Meas

IL Dept of Agriculture

POBox 19281

Springfield, IL 62794-9281 Telephone: 217-785-8480 FAX: 217-524-7801

David O. McKay Member 8438

Supervisor Weights & Measures UT Dept of Agriculture

PO Box 146500

Salt Lake City, UT 84114-6500

Telephone: 801-538-7158 FAX: 801-538-7126

William R. McKinney Member 2286

Manager Marketing & Tech Serv UEC Fuels & Lubricant Labs

4000 Tech Center Drive

Monroeville, PA 15146

Telephone: 412-825-2930 FAX: 412-825-2937

Richard McMurry Member 30374

Inspector Monroe Co Wghts & Meas

119 W 7th St Bloomington, IN 47404

Telephone: 812-349-2566 FAX: 812-339-6481

Tom McRoberts Member 6492

Engineer Clean Fueling Technologies Inc 40227 A Industrial Park Circle Georgetown, TX 78626

Telephone: 512-869-8737 FAX: 512-869-8840

Eugene A. Mechtly Member 23530

Retired University of Illinois 1289 CR2125E

St Joseph, IL 61873

Telephone: 217-333-0207

FAX: 217-333-7427

E-mail: mechtly@uiuc.edu

Patrick Mercer Member 8991 Dir Motor Fuel Qua! Wghts&Meas

MI Dept of Agriculture

940 Venture Lane

Williamston, MI 48895

Telephone: 517-655-8202 FAX: 517-655-8303

E-mail: mercerp@staie.mi.us

Stanley K. Millay Member 74 Weights & Measures Supervisor

ME Dept Agriculture MDA

State House Station 28

Augusta, ME 04333

Telephone: 207-287-7517 FAX: 207-287-5576

E-mail: stan.millay@state.me.us

Nigel G. Mills Member 25005

Sr Consulting Engineer

Hobart Corp

701 Ridge Avenue

Troy, OH 45374-0001

Telephone: 513-332-3205

FAX: 513-332-3007

Joan Mindte Member 12500

Training Coordinator

NIST

Bldg 820 Rm 223

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

Telephone: 301-975-4003

FAX: 301-926-0647

E-mail: joan.mindte@nist.gov

Armin Mittermaier Member 25605

Representative Data Action 3401 Kirkwood Drive

Ft Wayne, IN 46805

Telephone: 219-484-8827

FAX: 219-484-8827

E-mail: aol.genem. 83285

Alan Moch Member 6371

Dir Testing & Safety Div

ND Public Service Commission

State Capitol 12th Floor Bismarck, ND 58505-0480

Telephone: 701-328-2413

FAX: 701-328-2410

Charles W. Moore Member 2739

Retired Inspector

PO Box 84

Lapel, IN 46051-0084

Telephone: 317-534-3328

355
List of Participants

Stephen F. Morrison Member 7853

Chief Deputy Sealer San Luis Obispo Co Wghts Meas

2156 Sierra Way

San Luis Obispo, CA 93401

Telephone: 805-781-5910

FAX: 805-781-1035

E-mail: SluisOAg@smtpl.cdfa.cago

MichaelJ. Munoz Member 138 NIST

820 Diamond Ave

Gaithrsburg, MD 20899

Telephone: 301-975-4143

Norman Murdent Member 8122

Wghts & Meas Inspector IL Dept of Agriculture

2006 Cynthia Drive

Champaign, IL 61820

Telephone: 217-782-3817

Ronald D. Murdock Member 8366

Program Mgr Meas Sec Stds Div

NC Dept of Agriculture

PO Box 27647 Dept SD 2 W Edenton St Raleigh, NC 27602

Telephone: 919-733-3313

FAX: 919-715-0524

E-mail:

ron_niurdock@ncdamail . agr. state . nc .us

Allan M. Nelson Member 2515

President NW Associates 23 Garden Gate Rd

Southington, CT 06489

Telephone: 860-628-4144

Patrick E. Nichols Member 1 10 PO Box 688

Jacksonville, TX 75766

Telephone: 903-589-0337

Mark Nickel Member 14763 Weights & Measures Inspector

WI Dept Agr Trade & Cons Prot 517 South Madison Street Waupun, WI 53963

Telephone: 414-324-9699

J.W. Nix Member 310

Field Representative Southern Company Services 2550 Goodsprings Rd

Parrish, AL 35501

Telephone: 205-257-7910

FAX: 205-257-7216

Andre K. Noel Member 3043

Industrial Product Manager

Schlumberger Industries 1310 Emerald Road

Greenwood, SC 29646

Telephone: 864-223-1212 X2247

FAX: 864-223-0341

Neal J. Nover Member 15476 VP Marketing

Nover-Engelstein & Assc Inc 100 Springdale Rd Bldg A3 Ste 226

Cherry Hill, NJ 08003-3360

Telephone: 609-489-1817

FAX: 609-489-0559

E-mail: nealnov@aol.com

Charlene Numrych Member 1181 Compliance/Quality Engineer

Liquid Controls

105 Albrecht Dr

Lake Bluff, IL 60044

Telephone: 847-295-1056

FAX: 847-295-1057

E-mail: cnumrych@lcmeter.com

Don Onwiler Member 25584

Agr Inspector Supervisor

NE Division of Weights & Meas

PO Box 94757/301 Centennial Mall S

Lincoln, NE 68509-4757

Telephone: 402-471-4297

FAX: 402-471-3252

E-mail: NPSC1@NPSC.STATE.NE.US

Henry V. Oppermann Member 3389

Standards Attache US Embassy Mexico Cty

Commercial Section PO Box 3087

Laredo, TX 78044-3087

Telephone: 52-5-211-0042 X4718

FAX: 52-5-207-883

E-mail: hopperml@doc.gov

Javier Ortiz Member 502

Chicago Dept Consumer Service

121 N LaSalle St Rm 808

Chicago, IL 60602

Telephone: 312-744-4006

FAX: 312-744-9089

Gregory Otradovec Member 12858 Weights & Measures Inspector WI Dept Agr Trade & Cons Prot Route 1 Box 407C

Gillett, WI 54124

Telephone: 715-799-4532

Jeffrey B. Otto Member 30703

Metrology Lab

3M Corporation

3M Center Building 544-1-02

St Paul, MN 55144-1000

Telephone: 612-733-9029

FAX: 612-736-7325

Alex Owoyemi Member 474

Chicago Dept Consumer Service 121 N LaSalle St Rm 808

Chicago, IL 60602

Telephone: 312-744-4006

FAX: 312-744-9089

Paula L. Pacheco Member 7889

Development & Design Manager

Fabricantes De Basculas Torrey

Av Los Andes 605 Coyoacan

Monterrey NL CP 64,

Telephone: 8-379-1534 FAX: 8-377-9103

E-mail: ipfbtor@infosel.net.mx

Johnny Parrish Member 28288

Engineering Group Manager

Fisher-Rosemount Petroleum

Hwy 301 North PO Box 450

Statesboro, GA 30458

Telephone: 912-489-0303

FAX: 912-489-0410

Hasit Patel Member 1004 Marketing Specialist

Fisher-Rosemount Petroleum 4910 Wright Rd #100

Stafford, TX 77477

Telephone: 281-274-9856

FAX: 281-274-988

Anthony Perkins Member 499

Chicago Dept Consumer Service

121 N LaSalle St Rm 808

Chicago, IL 60602

Telephone: 312-744-4006

FAX: 312-744-9089

Paul L. Peterson Member 248

Chief

USDA GIPSA Packers & Stockyard

14th & Independence SW Rm 3414 S Washington, DC 20250

Telephone: 202-720-3140

FAX: 202-690-1506

E-mail: paul_l.peterson@usda.gov

Mary Pfeiffer Member 13498

Sealer Shasta Co Weights & Measures

3179 Bechelli Lane Suite 210

Redding, CA 96002

Telephone: 916-224-4949

FAX: 916-224-4951

Jim Phillips Member 28854

Deputy Inspector

Delaware Co Weights & Measures

County Bldg 100 West Main Room 20

Muncie, IN 47305

Telephone: 317-747-7714

Michelle I. Phillips Member 9076

Assistant Administrator

Indianapolis Wghts & Meas

200 E Washington St Ste 1 142

Indianapolis, IN 46204-3325

Telephone: 317-327-4272

FAX: 317-327-4291

356
List of Participants

Richard L. Philmon Member 9168

Program Coordinator

IL Dept of Agriculture

801 E Sangamon Ave

Springfield, IL 62794-9281

Telephone: 217-782-3817 RAX: 217-524-7801

Richard Pierce Member 13794

Leader Type Approval Group

USDA GIPSA

10383 N Executive Hills Blvd

Kansas Cit>-. MO 64153

Telephone: 816-891-0449 FAX: 816-891-8070

Michael S. Pinagel Member 22299

Wghts & Meas Spec Food Div

MI Dept of Agriculture 940 Venture Lane

Williamston. MI 48895

Telephone: 517-655-8202

F.\X: 517-655-8303

E-mail: pinagelm@state.mi.us

Dail Pittman Member 8671 Branch Manager

SOS Control Services Inc 5209 Linbar Drive Suite 600

Nashville, TN 37211

Telephone: 615-831-1044

FAX: 615-831-1236

Greg Phm Member 8126

Wghts & Meas Inspector IL Dept of Agriculture

PO Box 3 300 North Center

Seatonville. IL 61359

Telephone: 217-782-3817

Ed^^in J. Price Member 2434

Director for Consumer Programs

TX Dept of Agriculture

PO Box 12847 1700 Congress Ave

Austin, TX 78711

Telephone: 512-463-7607

FAX: 512-463-7643

E-mail: eprice@agr. state. tx. us

Gale Prince Member 10651

Director Regulatory Compliance

Kroger Co

1014 Vine St Cincinnati, OH 45202-1100

Telephone: 513-762-4209

FAX: 513-762-4372

E-mail: gprince@Kroger.com

Chris Quasebarth Member 25228

Assistant Prosecuting Attorney

Berkeley Co Prosecuting Atty

100 West King Street Maninsburg, WV 25401

Telephone: 304-284-1971 FAX: 304-283-8092

David W. Quinn Member 11509 V P Service Operations Fairbanks Scales 821 Locust Kansas City, MO 64106

Telephone: 816-471-0231 FAX: 816-471-5951

Louis Rascona Member 1012

Plant Systems ADM

Perdue Inc PO Box 1537

Salisbury, MD 21801 Telephone: 410-543-3078 FAX: 410-543-3159

E-mail: rascona@DMV.com

William J. Rajmond Member 10871

Director of Operations

Liberty Systems

185 Old Mill Rd

Barrington, IL 60010

Telephone: 847-381-1677 FAX: 847-882-2695

Claire Regan Member 26003

Director Scientific Affairs Grocer}' Manufacturers America

1010 Wisconsin NW Suite 900

Washington, DC 20007

Telephone: 202-337-9400 FAX: 202-337-4508

E-mail: crr@gmabrands.com

Bruce J. Reierson Member 21805

Product Manager

Mettier-Toledo Inc 6600 Huntley Road

Columbus, OH 43229

Telephone: 614-841-7300 FAX: 614-841-7295

Robert A. Remfried Member 9388

Executive Director

Scale Manufacturers Assn

9384 D Forestwood Lane

Manassas, VA 20110

Telephone: 703-330-7079 FAX: 703-330-7984

E-mail: scalemanufacturers.org

Robert E, Rejuolds Member 10653

President Downstream Alternatives Inc PO Box 190 Bremen, IN 46506-0190

Telephone: 219-546-4204 FAX: 219-546-5845

James L. Richter Member 195

City Sealer of Wghts & Meas

Appieton Health Department

100 N Appieton Street Appieton, WI 54911-4799

Telephone: 414-832-6429

FAX: 414-832-5853

Debbie Ripley Member 10028 NIST

Bldg 820 Rm 121 Gaithersburg, MD 20899

Telephone: 301-975-4859 FAX: 301-926-0647

E-mail: deborah.ripley@nist.gov

Mike Rockford Member 3937

Metrologist Associate IL Dept of Agriculture

PO Box 19281

Springfield, IL 62794-9281 Telephone: 217-782-3817 FAX: 217-524-7801

Lorena Rodriguez Member 541 Chicago Dept Consumer Service

121 N LaSalle St Rm 808

Chicago, EL 60602

Telephone: 312-744-4006

FAX: 312-744-9089

J. Alan Rogers Member 9374

Program Manager

VA Product & Industry Stds POBox 1163 Rm402

Richmond, VA 23218

Telephone: 804-786-2476 FAX: 804-786-1571

Paula Rosenfeld Member 23615

Senior Statistician Pillsbury Co

737 Pelham Blvd MS/TE12

St Paul, MN 55114

Telephone: 612-917-5850 FAX: 612-917-5873

James Rosenthal, I Member 30183

City Sealer Fond Du Lac Wghts & Meas

PO Box 150 Fond Du Lac, WI 54936-0150

Telephone: 414-929-7521 FAX: 414-929-7523

Joseph Rothleder Member 3495

Principal State Metrologist

CA Measurement Standards 8500 Fruitridge Rd

Sacramento, CA 95826

Telephone: 916-229-3022 FAX: 916-229-3026

357
List of Participants

Sonia Roussy Member 12899

Vice President Policy Measurement Canada

110 O'Connor St 2nd Fl Ottawa Ontario, KIA 0C9

Canada

Telephone: 613-952-4285

FAX: 613-952-1736

Dale Sanow Member 28349

Wghts & Meas Inspector IL Dept of Agriculture

385 East Irving Park

Streamwood, IL 60107

Telephone: 217-782-3817

Jerome R. Schindler Member 675

Attorney at Law

404 S Harding Rd

Columbus, OH 43209-1949

Telephone: 614-239-9980

FAX: 614-239-9981

Fred Schuster Member 850

Hunt-Wesson Inc 1645 W Valencia Dr

Fullerton, CA 92833

Telephone: 714-680-1259

FAX: 714-449-5123

Gregory M. Scott Member 12572

Counsel Soc Ind Gas Marketers of Amer

3050KStNW #400

Washington, DC 20007

Telephone: 202-342-8646

FAX: 202-342-8451

Lynn Sebring Member 23996

Office of Wghts & Meas NIST

Bldg 820 Rm223

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

Telephone: 301-975-4006

FAX: 301-926-0647

E-mail: lynn.sebring@nist.gov

William Sechrest Member 30186

City Sealer Madison Weights & Measures

4602 Sycamore Avenue

Madison, WI 53704

Telephone: 608-246-4515

FAX: 608-266-6377

Chris Seested Member 25547

Lab Manager

SGS Control Services Inc 20 Lafayette Street Carteret, NJ 07008

Telephone: 908-541-7200

FAX: 908-541-1336

Lorraine Sergent Member 28350

Wghts & Meas Office Adm

IL Dept of Agriculture

PO Box 19281

Springfield, IL 62794-9281

Telephone: 217-782-3817

Katie Sevems Member 4783

Wghts & Meas Office Adm

IL Dept of Agriculture

PO Box 19281

Springfield, IL 62794-9281

Telephone: 217-782-3817

George S. Shefcheck Member 6241

Field Op Mgr Measurement Stds OR Dept of Agriculture

635 Capitol St NE

Salem, OR 97310-0110

Telephone: 503-986-4668

FAX: 503-986-4784

E-mail: gshefche@oda.state.or.us

Joseph Silvestro Member 2809

Superintendent

Consumer Protection/ Wgts & Msr

152 N Broad St Box 337

Woodbury, NJ 08096

Telephone: 609-853-3358

FAX: 609-853-2770

Kendrick J. Simila Member 2510

Adm Meas Stds Div

OR Dept of Agriculture

635 Capitol St NE

Salem, OR 97310-0110

Telephone: 503-551-0469

FAX: 503-986-4784

E-mail: ksimila@oda. state. or.us

Curtis E. Simpkins Member 2632

Inspector Grant Co Wghts & Meas

401 S Adams St Grant Co Complex

Marion, IN 46953

Telephone: 317-668-8871 xl70

John C. Skuce Member 10442

Mgr Tech Services/Mech Product Smith Meter Inc PO Box 10428

Erie, PA 16514-0428 Telephone: 814-898-5405

FAX: 814-899-3414

Damon G, Slaydon Member 6340

Regulatory Program Specialist

TX Dept of Agriculture

PO Box 12847

Austin, TX 78711

Telephone: 512-463-7659

FAX: 512-463-7643

N. David Smith Member 2391

Director Standards Division NC Dept of Agriculture

PO Box 27647 Dept SD

Raleigh, NC 27611

Telephone: 919-733-3313

FAX: 919-715-0524

E-mail: david_smith@ncdamail . agr . state . nc . us

William Snyder Member 30380

Director of Engineering Doran Scales Inc 1315 Paramount Pkwy

Batavia, IL 60510

Telephone: 630-879-1200

FAX: 603-879-0073

Peter J. Stadlck Member 18857

Engineer-Instrumentation

Cargill Inc Grain Division 12800 Whitewater Dr

Minnetonka, MN 55343

Telephone: 612-984-0575

FAX: 612-984-0306

E-mail: pete_stadick@cargill.com

Martin Stoll Member 4503

Manager Metrology

Mettler-Toledo AG

PO Box MT-100

IMLangacher Greifens,

Telephone: 1-944-3344 FAX: 1-944-3170

E-mail: mstoll@mtlab.mt.com

Louis E. Straub Member 6248

Chief Weights & Measures MD Dept of Agriculmre

50 Harry S Truman Parkway

Annapolis, MD 21401

Telephone: 410-841-5790

FAX: 410-841-2765

Lavtrence J. Stmnp Member 13717

Director IN Weights & Measures

1330 West Michigan St Indianapolis, IN 46206

Telephone: 317-233-8134

FAX: 317-233-8131

Richard C. Suiter Member 2368

Weights & Measures Coordinator

NIST

820 W. Diamond Suite 223

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-0001

Telephone: 301-975-4406

FAX: 301-926-0647

E-mail: richard.suiter@nist.gov

358
List of Participants

Billy W. Suilivant Member 2466

Laboratory Supervisor

AR Bureau of Standards 4608 West 61 St

Little Rock, AR 72209

Telephone: 501-225-1598

FAX: 501-562-7605

David Swogger Member 108

Inspector Dekalb Co Wghts & Meas

1390 County Road #5

Corunna, IN 46730

Telephone: 219-281-2047

FAX: 219-281-2747

Chester Szyndrowskl Member 10302

Inspector East Chicago Wghts & Meas

628 Rescobie Ln

Schererville, IN 46375

Telephone: 219-397-3409

Elizabeth Tansing Member 896

Food Marketing Institute 800 Connecticut Ave NW

Washington, DC 20006

Telephone: 202-429-8296

FAX: 202-429-4549

Donald Taylor Member 1030 Perdue Farms Inc PO Box 1537

Salisbury, MD 21804

Telephone: 410-543-3801

Aves D. Thompson Member 10201 Chief

AK Div of Measurement Stds 12050 Industry Way Bldg 0

Anchorage, AK 99515

Telephone: 907-345-7750

FAX: 907-345-6835

E-mail: aves_thompson@commerce. state . ak . us

Michael Thrallkill Member 918

Gold Kist Inc 244 Perimeter Center Pkwy

Atlanta, GA 30338

Telephone: 771-393-5474

FAX: 771-393-5385

E-mail : Mike.Thrailkill@goldkist . com

Carole M. Throssell Member 30856

Manager State Gov't Relations Food Marketing Institute 800 Connecticut Ave NW

Washington, DC 20006

Telephone: 202-429-8296

FAX: 202-429-4549

E-mail: cthrossell@fmi.org

Kathleen A. Thuner Member 5869

Agr Comm Sealer Wghts & Meas

San Diego Co Dept of Agr

5555 Overland Ave Bldg 3 San Diego, CA 92123-1292

Telephone: 619-694-2741 FAX: 619-565-7046

John M. Tillson Member 10945

Director Consumer Prot Div

MS Dept of Agr & Commerce

812 Lakeshore Dr

Brandon, MS 39042-6025

Telephone: 601-967-2366 FAX: 601-354-6502

Daryl E. Tonini Member 1336

Technical Director

Scale Manufacturers Assn 9384-D Forestwood Lane

Manassas, VA 20110

Telephone: 703-330-7079

FAX: 703-330-7984

E-mail: cema@cemanet.org

Loretta I. Townsend Member 3125

Director-Chief Inspector Vanderburgh Co Wghts & Meas

204 S E 6th Street Evansville, IN 47713

Telephone: 812-435-5745 FAX: 812-435-5077

Robert M. Traettino Member 8923

Vice President of Quality

Liquid Controls LLC

105 Albrecht Drive

Lake Bluff, IL 60044-9951 Telephone: 847-295-1056 x300

FAX: 847-295-1057

E-mail: jazzrobt@aol.com

James C. Truex Member 2178

W&M Inspection Manager

OH Dept of Agriculture 8995 E Main St Bldg #5

Reynoldsburg, OH 43068-3399

Telephone: 614-728-6290 FAX: 614-728-6424

E-mail: truex@odant.agri. state. oh.us

Tom Tschanz Member 1330

Director of Marketing

Liquid Controls LLC

105 Albrecht Dr

Lake Bluff, IL 60044

Telephone: 847-292-1050 FAX: 847-295-1057

Richard L. Tucker Member 9070

Manager Dept of Authorities Tokheim Corporation

PO Box 360

Ft Wayne, IN 46801

Telephone: 219-470-4610

FAX: 219-470-4720

Larry M. Turberville Member 15341

Inspector Wghts & Meas Div

AL Dept of Agr & Industry

PO Box 346

Cherokee, AL 35616

Telephone: 205-360-2609 FAX: 205-360-2453

Ann H. Turner Member 236

Weights & Measures Coordinator

NCWM

PO Box 4025

Gaithersburg. MD 20885

Telephone: 301-975-4012 FAX: 301-926-0647

E-mail: ann.mmer@nist.gov

Gilbert M. Ugiansky Member 30690

Chief OWM

NIST

Building 820 Room 223

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

Telephone: 301-975-4005

FAX: 301-926-0647

E-mail: g.ugiansky@nist.gov

David Vande Berg Member 3555

Vande Berg Scale Inc 770 7th St NW

Sioux Center, lA 51250-1918

Telephone: 712-722-1181 FAX: 712-722-0900

Thomas Vormittag Member 13774 Lab Manager Black Mesa

Commercial Testing & Eng Co

PO Box 474

Kayenta, AZ 86033

Telephone: 520-677-5006

Kyran Wagenecht Member 31044

Inspector IL Department of Agriculture

304 Tree Lane

Prophetstown, IL 61277

Telephone: 815-537-5270

David R. Wallace Member 4475

Chief Meas Standards Section CO Dept of Agriculmre

3125 Wyandot St Denver, CO 80211 Telephone: 303^77^220

FAX: 303-477-4248

359
List of Participants

Rodney Wallace Member 9715

Wghts & Meas Inspector IL Dept of Agriculture

RR 1 Dahlgreen, IL 62828

Telephone: 217-782-3817

Jeff Warner Member 16480

Wghts & Meas Inspector IL Dept of Agriculture 221 W Ferdon St

Litchfield, IL 62056-1419

Telephone: 217-782-3817

Jeffrey Walters Member 6998 Measurement Canada

123 Labelle Blvd Suite 101 Rosemere Quebec, J7A 2G9

Telephone: 514-434-7434

FAX: 514-434-9735

E-mail: watters.jeffrey@ic.gc.ca

Raymond R. Wells Member 3484

President

Sensitive Measurement Inc 200 S Westhampton St PO Box 72

Pemberton, NJ 08068

Telephone: 609-894-2292

FAX: 609-894-0387

Gary D. West Member 8345

Director Stds & Consumer Serv NM Dept of Agriculture

PO Box 30005 MSC 3170

Las Cruces, NM 88003-8005

Telephone: 505-646-1616

FAX: 505-646-3303

E-mail: GDW@NMDA.NMSU.EDU

Timothy White Member 4415

MFQ Staff Specialist Food Div

MI Dept of Agriculture

940 Venture Lane

Williamston, MI 48895

Telephone: 517-655-8202

FAX: 517-655-8303

Frank J. Wieszczek Member 21727

Sales Support Specialist Mettler-Toledo Inc PO Box 71 Hightstown, NJ 08520-0071

Telephone: 609-448-3000 X6873

FAX: 609-448-4949

E-mail: f.wieszczek@mico.mt.com

Curtis Williams Member 4524

Director Fuel Oil Laboratory

GA Dept of Agriculture

State Oil Lab 5235 Kennedy Rd

Forest Park, GA 30050

Telephone: 404-363-7597

FAX: 404-363-7694

Juana Williams Member 10827

Physical Scientist NISI

Bldg 820 Rm 223

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

Telephone: 301-975-3989

FAX: 301-926-0647

E-mail: juana.williams@nist.gov

Larry E. Williams Member 31124

Instrument Technician Lockheed Martin Engineer Sys

PO Box 2003

Oak Ridge, TN 37831-7219

Telephone: 423-574-8353 FAX: 423-574-5037

Robert G. Williams Member 8797

Standards Administrator TN Dept of Agr Wghts & Meas

PO Box 40627 Melrose Station Nashville, TN 37204

Telephone: 615-360-0109

FAX: 615-360-0608

Dean Wilson Member 30838

Calibration A Technician Troemner Inc 6825 Greenway Ave

Philadelphia, PA 19142 Telephone: 215-724-0800 FAX: 215-724-9663

Jackie Wollner Member 2401

1

Director QA

Nestle USA

800 North Brand Blvd

Glendale, CA 91203

Telephone: 818-549-6315 FAX: 815-549-6908

Cary Woodward Member 497

Deputy Inspector Hamilton Co Weights & Measures 2224 W 186th St Westfield, IN 46074

Telephone: 317-896-5700

Will Wotthlie Member 8257

Program Mgr Weights & Measures MD Dept of Agriculture

50 Harry S Truman Parkway

Annapolis, MD 21401

Telephone: 410-841-5790

FAX: 410-841-2765

E-mail: wotthlrw@mda. state. md.us

A. Courtney Yelle Member 16354

Chief Sealer Bucks Co Wghts & Meas

50 North Main Street Doylestown, PA 18901 Telephone: 215-348-7442

FAX: 215-348-4570

Paul Zaion Member 7312

Director Regulatory Affairs Nestle USA

100 Manhattanville Rd

Purchase, NY 10577 Telephone: 914-251-3487

FAX: 914-251-3600

E-mail: PAUL.ZALON@US.NESTLE. COM

Andrew A. Zards Member 1344

Engineering Manager

Amoco Corp

200 Eas; Randolph Drive

Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: 312-856-4073

FAX: 312-856-3401

Eldar Zulfugarzade Member 25766

Guest Researcher NIST

Bldg 820 Rm 282

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

Telephone: 301-975-4412

FAX: 301-963-2871

E-mail: ezulfugarzade@nist.gov

360

SPECIAL STANDARD MAIL

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

NIST

PERMIT NO. G195

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

ADDRESS CORRECTION REQUESTED

U.S. Department of Commerce

National Institute of Standards & Technology

Gaithersburg, MD 20899