THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
Report of the 94th

National Conference

on Weights and Measures

San Antonio, Texas – July 12 through 16, 2009 

as adopted by the 94th National Conference on Weights and Measures 2009

Editors:

Linda Crown

and

Technical Advisors to the Standing Committees

Carol Hockert, Chief

Weights and Measures Division

National Institute of Standards and Technology

Weights and Measures Division

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2600

U.S. Department of Commerce

Gary Locke, Secretary

National Institute of

Standards and Technology

Patrick D. Gallagher, Director

NIST Special Publication 1099

November 2009

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

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

industry, and consumer organizations.
Abstract

The 94th Annual Meeting of the National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM) was held 

July 12 - 16, 2009, at the Marriott Plaza Hotel, San Antonio, Texas. The theme of the meeting was “Getting 

Involved, Making a Difference.”

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

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

from government and industry.

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

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

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

Committee.

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

evaluation; uniform laws; weights and measures.

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 26-27766.

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

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

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

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

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

responsible for the content and quality of their material.

Natl. Inst. Stand. Technol. Spec. Pub. 1099, 858 Pages (November 2009) CODEN: NSPUE2

WASHINGTON: 2009
iii

Table of Contents

Page

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

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

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

General Session

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

Chairman’s Address – Jack Kane, Montana Business Standards Division........................................................... GS - 9

New Chairman’s Address – Randy Jennings, Tennessee Department of Agriculture........................................ GS - 11

2009 Annual Meeting Honor Award Recipients ................................................................................................ GS - 15

Standing Committee Reports

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

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

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

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

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

Appendix A. GAO-08 1114 Motor Fuels: Stakeholder Views on Compensating for the Effects of 

Gasoline Temperature on Volume at the Pump (September 2008) ................................................ L&R - A1

Appendix B. Alaska Fuel Metering Project..........................................................................................L&R - B1

Appendix C. Method of Sale Regulation: Automatic Temperature Compensation (Items 232-1 and 

232-2) – Letters...............................................................................................................................L&R - C1

Appendix D. An Economic Analysis of the CEC Staff’s Fuel Delivery Temperature Study and the

“Hot Fuel” Allegations.................................................................................................................. L&R - D1

Appendix E. Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants and Inspection Regulation:

Section 2.1. Gasoline and Gasoline Oxygenate Blends (Item 237-1) – Letters...............................L&R - E1

Appendix F. Table of Amendments and Editorial Changes for Handbook 133, Checking the Net

Contents of Packaged Goods, Fourth Edition ................................................................................ L&R - F1

Appendix G. Handbook 133, Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods, Fourth Edition –

Proposed Amendments and Editorial Changes............................................................................... L&R - G1

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

Administration................................................................................................................................ L&R - H1
iv

Appendix I. FDA Decision on Pelletized Ice Cream ...........................................................................L&R - I1

Appendix J. A Proposed Method of Sale and Quality Specifications for Hydrogen Vehicle Fuel.......L&R - J1

Appendix K. Briefing by the Better Seafood Bureau........................................................................... L&R - K1

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

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

Appendix B. Comments from the NCWM ATC Steering Committee.................................................. S&T - B1

Appendix C. Water Meter Correspondence.......................................................................................... S&T - C1

Appendix D. Jeff Humphrey’s Letter and Comments...........................................................................S&T - D1

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

Appendix A. NCWM Curriculum Work Plan.......................................................................................PDC - A1

Appendix B. Model Professional Development Training and Certification Standards Statute for Inspectors 

and Sealers of Weights and Measures (Legislative Model)............................................................. PDC - B1

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

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

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

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

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

Appendix E. Verified Conformity Assessment Program (VCAP) FAQs........................................... NTEP - E1

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

2009 Annual Meeting Attendees.............................................................................................................ATTEND - 1
v

Past Chairmen of the Conference

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

68th 1983 Charles H. Greene, NM 93rd 2008 Judy Cardin, WI
vi

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Organization Chart

vii

National Conference on Weights and Measures, Inc. (NCWM)

Organization Chart

2008/2009

NCWM Board of Directors

Office Representation Name/Affiliation Term Expires

Chairman: Jack Kane, MT* 2009

Chairman-Elect: Randy Jennings, TN* 2009

NTEP Committee Chair: Judy Cardin, WI* 2009

Treasurer: Will Wotthlie, MD 2009

Active Membership/Northeastern: Charles Carroll, MA* 2009

Active Membership/Central: Steven Malone, NE* 2010

Active Membership/Southern: Stephen Benjamin, NC 2013

Active Membership/Western: Kirk Robinson, WA 2012

At-Large: Stephen Langford, Cardinal Scale 2013

At-Large: Tim Tyson, KS 2011

Associate Membership: Robert Murnane, Seraphin Test 

Measure

2012

*National Type Evaluation Program (NTEP) Committee Member

Honorary NCWM President:

NCWM Executive Secretary:

NCWM Executive Director:

BOD Advisor:

NTEP Administrator:

Dr. Patrick D. Gallagher, NIST Deputy Director

Carol Hockert, Chief, NIST W&M Division

Don Onwiler, NCWM Headquarters

Gilles Vinet, Measurement Canada

Jim Truex, NCWM Headquarters*

NCWM Committees

Laws & Regulations Committee Specifications & Tolerances Committee

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

Chair: Joe Gomez, NM (2009) Chair: Todd Lucas, OH (2009)

Members: Joe Benavides, TX (2011)

Terence McBride, Memphis, TN (2010)

John Gaccione, Westchester County, NY 

(2012)

Jonelle Brent, IL (2013)

Members: Brett Saum, CA (2010)

Kristin Macey, CO (2011)

Steve Giguere, ME (2012)

Ken Ramsburg, MD (2013)

Associate 

Member Rep:

Rob Underwood, Petroleum Marketers 

Association (2013)

Canadian 

Tech Advisor:

Doug Hutchinson Canadian 

Tech

Advisor:

Ted Kingsbury

NIST Tech. 

Advisors:

Kenneth Butcher

Lisa Warfield

NIST Tech. 

Advisors:

Tina Butcher

Steven Cook

Fuels and

Lubricants 

Subcommittee: Ron Hayes, Chairman, MO
Organization Chart

viii

NCWM Committees

(continued)

Professional Development Committee Nominating Committee

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

Chair: Ross Andersen, NY (2010) Chair: Judy Cardin, WI

Members:

Tech Advisor:

Safety Liaison:

Richard Cote, NH (2009)

John Sullivan, MS (2011)

Stacy Carlsen, CA (2012)

Julie Quinn, MN (2013)

Vacant

TBD

Members: Ross Andersen, NY

Dennis Ehrhart, AZ

Thomas Geiler, MA

Joe Gomez, NM

Maxwell Gray, FL

Steve Malone, NE

Associate Member 

Rep:

Steven Grabski, Walmart 

Stores, Inc. (2013)

Credentials Committee Appointed Officers

Chair: Raymond Johnson, NM (2009) Parliamentarian: Lou Straub, Fairbanks Scales

Members: Dave Pfahler, SD (2010)

Kim Connor, Barnstable, MA 

(2011)

Chaplain: Stephen Langford, Cardinal Scale 

Manufacturing Company

Coordinator: Thomas Geiler, Barnstable, MA Sergeants-atArms:

Dudley Allen, TX

Sterling Smith, TX

Presiding 

Officers:

Tim Chesser, AR

Ivan Hankins, IA

Kirk Robinson, WA

Jack Walsh, Framingham, MA

Associate Membership Committee

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

Vice Chair: Michael Gaspers, Farmland Foods, Inc. (2013)

Secretary/Treasurer: TBD

Members: Christopher Guay, Procter and Gamble (2010)

Rob Underwood, Petroleum Marketers (2009)

Thomas Herrington, Nestle USA (2010)

Doug Biette, Sartorius North America (2012)

Paul Hoffman, Kraft (2013)

Darrell Flocken, Mettler-Toledo (2013)
Organization Chart

ix

National Type Evaluation Technical Committees (NTETC)

NTETC Weighing Sector NTETC Measuring Sector

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

Flowtec AG

Technical 

Advisor:

Steven Cook, NIST/WMD Technical 

Advisor:

Tina Butcher, NIST/WMD

Public 

Sector 

Members:

Cary Ainsworth, GIPSA

Ross Andersen, NY

William Bates, GIPSA

Luciano Burtini, Measurement Canada

Tina Butcher, NIST/WMD

Dan Reiswig, CA

Terry Davis, KS

Ken Jones, CA

Jack Kane, MT

Todd Lucas, OH

Ronald Rigdon, MN

Juana Williams, NIST/WMD

Public 

Sector 

Members:

Ross Andersen, NY

Jerry Butler, NC

Mike Frailer, MD

Steve Hadder, FL

Dennis Beattie, Measurement Canada

Todd Lucas, OH

John Makin, Measurement Canada

Dan Reiswig, CA

Richard Wotthlie, MD

Private 

Sector 

Members:

Marc Buttler, Emerson Process 

Management - Micro Motion

Joe Buxton, Daniel Measurement & 

Control

Rodney Cooper, Actaris Neptune

Maurice Forkert, Tuthill Transfer Systems

Mike Gallo, Clean Fueling Technologies

Paul Glowacki, Murray Equipment

Alex Gutierrez, MEGGITT Fueling 

Products, Whittaker Controls

Gordon Johnson, Gilbarco, Inc.

Yefim Katselnik, Dresser Wayne, Inc.

Douglas Long, RDM Industrial 

Electronics

Wade Mattar, Invensys/Foxboro

Daniel Maslowski, LTS Sales

Richard Miller, FMC Measurement

Solution

Andre Noel, Neptune Technology

Charlene Numrych, Liquid Controls

Johnny Parrish, Brodie Meter Company, 

LLC

Stephen Patoray, Consultants on 

Certification, LLC

David Rajala, Veeder-Root Company

Richard L.Tucker, RL Tucker Consulting

Private 

Sector 

Members:

Steven Beitzel, Systems Associates, Inc.

Doug Biette, Sartorius North America

Neil Copley, Thurman Scale Co.

Mitchell Eyles, Flintec, Inc.

Robert Feezor, Norfolk Southern Corp.

Scott Henry, NCR

John C. Hughes, Avery Weigh-Tronix

Rafael Jimenez, Association of American 

Railroads

Stephen Langford, Cardinal Scale Mfg.

Paul Lewis, Rice Lake Weighing Systems

Thomas Luna, Scales Unlimited, Inc.

L. Edward Luthy, Brechbuhler Scales, Inc.

Nigel Mills, Hobart Corporation

Stephen Patoray, Consultants on 

Certification, LLC

Louis Straub, Fairbanks Scales, Inc.

Jerry Wang, A&D Engineering, Inc.

William West, Consultant

Nathaniel Wieselquist, Sick, Inc.

Walter Young, Emery Winslow Scale
Organization Chart

x

National Type Evaluation Technical Committees (NTETC)

(continued)

NTETC Software Sector NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector

Co-Chairs: Norm Ingram, CA

James Pettinato, FMC Technologies

Chair: Cassie Eigenmann, DICKEY-john Corp.

Technical

Advisor:

Doug Bliss, Mettler-Toledo Technical 

Advisors:

G. Diane. Lee, NIST/WMD

John Barber, J. B. Associates

Secretary: Teri Gulke, Liquid Controls LLC Public 

Sector 

Members:

Randy Burns, AR

Tina Butcher, NIST/WMD

Karl Cunningham, IL

Todd Lucas, OH

Richard Pierce, GIPSA

Edward Szesnat, Jr., NY

Cheryl Tew, NC

Public Sector 

Members:

Dennis Beattie, MC

Bill Fishman, NY

Mike Frailer, MD

Todd Lucas, OH

John Roach, CA

Ambler Thompson, NIST/WMD

Private Sector 

Members:

John Atwood, Tyson Foods

Cassie Eigenmann, DICKEY-john Corp.

André Elle, Endress & Hauser Flowtec 

AG

Travis Gibson, Rice Lake Weighing 

Systems

Keith Harper, Gencor Industries, Inc.

Tony Herrin, Cardinal Scale Mfgr. Co.

Robert Hoblit, IBM

Gordon Johnson, Gilbarco, Inc.

Paul Lewis, Rice Lake Weighing 

Systems

Mike McGhee, Actaris US Liquid

Measurement

Richard Miller, FMC Measurement 

Solutions

Charlene Numrych, Liquid 

Controls, LLC

Michael Parks, Vulcan Materials Co.

Stephen Patoray, Consultants on 

Certification, LLC

Steve J. Pollmann, Tyson Foods

Mike Roach, Verifone

Robin Sax, CompuWeigh Corp.

Mark Schwartz, Accu-Sort

Scott Szurek, Emerson Process 

Management

David Vande Berg, Vande Berg Scales

Roland Wagner, Flow Measurements & 

Engineering GmbH

Nathaniel Wieselquist, Sick, Inc.

Private 

Sector 

Members:

James Bair, NA Miller’s Association

Martin Clements, The Steinlite Corp.

Victor Gates, Shore Sales Company

Andrew Gell, Foss North America

Charles Hurburgh, Jr., Iowa State 

University

David Krejci, Grain Elevator & 

Processing Society

Jess McCluer, National Grain & Feed 

Association

Thomas Runyon, Seedboro Equipment
Organization Chart

xi

National Type Evaluation Technical Committees (NTETC)

(continued)

NTETC Belt Conveyor Sector

Chair: Bill Ripka, Thermo Electron

Technical Advisor: John Barton, NIST/WMD

Public Sector Members: Tina Butcher, NIST/WMD

Ken Jones, CA

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

L. Marmsater, Merrick Industries

S. Patoray, Consultants on Certification, LLC

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

T. Vormittag, Sr., SGS Minerals Services

Regional Weights and Measures Associations

Regional Weights and Measures Contacts

Northeastern Weights and Measures Association (NEWMA):

Annual Meeting 2009: May 11 - 14

Wyndham Portland Airport Hotel

Portland, Maine

Interim Meeting 2009: October 14 - 15

Location TBD

James Cassidy

(617) 349-6133

jcassidy@cambridgema.gov

Charles Carroll

(617) 727-3480 ext. 21131

Charles.Carroll@state.ma.us

Southern Weights and Measures Association (SWMA):

Annual Meeting 2009: October 4 - 7

Hilton Clearwater Beach Resort

Clearwater, Florida

Steve Hadder

Florida Department of Agriculture & 

Consumer Services

(850) 487-2634

hadders@doacs.state.fl.us

Central Weights and Measures Association (CWMA):

Annual Meeting 2009: May 3 - 6

Millennium Hotel St. Louis

St. Louis, Missouri

Interim Meeting 2009: September 13 - 16

Holiday Inn

Rock Island, Illinois

Steve Gill

Missouri Department of Agriculture

(573) 751-4278

steve.gill@mda.mo.gov

Western Weights and Measures Association (WWMA):

Annual Meeting 2009: September 20 - 24

Hotel Encanto de Las Cruces

Las Cruces, New Mexico

Joe Gomez

New Mexico Department of Agriculture

(575) 646-1616

jgomez@nmda.nmsu.edu
Organization Chart

xii

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
General - 2009 Final Report

GS - 1

President’s Address

National Conference on Weights and Measures

San Antonio, Texas

July 14, 2009

Dr. Belinda Collins

NIST, Technology Services Director

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

San Antonio, Texas, on July 14, 2009. Her presentation which touched on the National Institute of Standards and 

Technology’s (NIST’s) mission to promote U.S. innovation and industrial competitiveness by advancing 

measurement science, standards, and technology in ways that enhance economic security and improve our quality of 

life. The presentation gave an overview of the services that Technology Services (TS) provides, and TS’s 

commitment to advancing standards and supporting the U.S. commercial measurement system. Dr. Collins

concluded by stating that it is “essential for NIST and NCWM to work together in these difficult times in 

complementing each other’s work, working towards securing uniformity in weights and measures, and seeking 

creative ideas for supporting the whole weights and measures infrastructure.”

You are invited to review the following slide presentation, which was used at the Annual Meeting.
General - 2009 Final Report

GS - 2

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
General - 2009 Final Report

GS - 3
General - 2009 Final Report

GS - 4
General - 2009 Final Report

GS - 5
General - 2009 Final Report

GS - 6
General - 2009 Final Report

GS - 7
General - 2009 Final Report

GS - 8

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
General - 2009 Final Report

GS - 9

Chairman’s Address

94th National Conference on Weights and Measures

San Antonio, Texas

July 14, 2009

Jack Kane

Montana Business Standards Division

Good morning. On behalf of NCWM, Inc., I’d like to welcome you to the 94th Annual Meeting of the National 

Conference on Weights and Measures.

It’s been quite a year. As a board, we wrapped up several issues and began exploring options for several new ones, 

all with the end result of making NCWM a stronger, more viable, and more responsive organization. As I’m sure 

you all know, one of our larger projects was that of transitioning from utilizing the services of a management 

company to assuming the responsibility of hiring our own Executive Director to manage the affairs of the 

Conference including meetings, membership, and the NTEP program. I am glad to report that the transition went 

well; actually, much better than some on the Board of Directors thought it would.

As of today, the Conference has a permanent address in Lincoln, Nebraska. Don Onwiler, a past NCWM Chairman, 

has contracted with NCWM to serve as Executive Director and currently has a staff of three very capable folks 

including another of our own, Jim Truex, who is serving as the NTEP Administrator. My thanks to them and past 

chairman Judy Cardin for their hard work in making the transition as seamless as it was.

While the transition was a large project and consumed quite a bit of time, it was, as I mentioned, not the only project 

the Board took up this year. The Board has been involved in a review and overhaul of the NCWM strategic plan. 

The plan we had in place was developed several years ago, and upon review, it was felt that the goals needed to be 

revised to reflect where we wanted to be in the future. As developed, this is not a static document, rather, I hope you 

will view it and use it as it was designed, as a living document rigid enough to provide direction and guidance, yet 

constructed to be adaptable to the changing needs of this group.

The board also is reviewing NCWM’s policies to ensure that they reflect the current needs of the organization, 

investigating alternative methods to increase member involvement in the standards development process, and 

implementing the first portion of the inspector training program. For all of their hard work, I compliment the entire 

Board of Directors and especially Randy Jennings the Chair-Elect for getting involved and making a difference. 

You are being well served by this group of folks. Which brings us to my theme for the year, “Get Involved, Make a 

Difference.” The weights and measures community, like many others, is experiencing change; tough economic 

times have resulted in all jurisdictions having to tighten their belts to some extent. For the more fortunate among us, 

this has simply meant making do with a little less. For others, it has meant making do with a lot less; some even 

face severe curtailment of their programs.

We’ve also seen changes in the way state legislatures view our participation in the regulatory process with some 

states’ lawmakers restricting the historical enforcement of equity issues we hold tight to, such as split weighing and 

privatization of Weights and Measures services. While changes such as these are difficult to deal with, in the short 

term, they are not insurmountable and the pendulum will swing; better times will come. Our programs will continue 

to be recognized for the value they have to offer. However, one change that I do not see going away is one of 

position longevity; when I began with weights and measures at the national level back in 1995, almost all of the 

various state administrators that I knew had been with weights and measures for years, often starting out as I did, 

packing cans and fifties and working ourselves up the ladder. While the majority of the state directors still come up 

through the ranks, other individuals who are recognized by their respective jurisdictions as extremely competent 

employees are being selected to run Weights and Measures programs in several states and jurisdictions, and, that’s a 

good thing. I have long been an advocate that an infusion of outside people into a managerial unit provides a fresh 

perspective to that unit. While competent outsiders should be a welcome addition, we also need to insure that they 
General - 2009 Final Report

GS - 10

are well grounded in weights and measures issues in the event they are called upon to assume a leadership position. 

With that said, I’d like to re-issue to all of you the challenge to get involved and make a difference by recognizing 

the potential leaders in your jurisdictions, your different regions, and here at the national level, mentoring them and 

tasking them with progressive assignments to enable them to develop the skills necessary to someday lead the 

Conference.

As I’ve said in the past, and I think I can speak for all past chairmen, none of us made it here by ourselves. While 

we all possessed a desire to succeed, there was always a Sid Colebrook looking for volunteers for a committee, a 

Lou Straub appointing standing committee members, or an Aves Thompson shuffling the deck. For every Sid, Lou, 

or Aves looking for good solid people to select, there’s a Jackie Walsh, a Kim Connor, or an Ivan Hankins who is

willing to take that first step by accepting their first appointment to an NCWM committee and making a difference.

To paraphrase John Donne, as “no man is an island,” neither is an organization unto itself. The strength and validity 

of NCWM lies not just with its members but with its partners as well. Our partners to the north, Measurement 

Canada, attend both the Annual and the Interim meetings, graciously providing competent, knowledgeable folks to 

help staff the standing committees; an arrangement that I hope continues for a long time. Our industry members 

also contribute immeasurably to this Conference through the work they do both here at the meetings and also back at 

their corporate offices. And, believe me, after working with Chris Guay, Darrel Flocken, Steve Lankford, and Bob 

Murnane on the Board of Directors, these folks put in a lot of time and a lot of effort helping NCWM achieve its 

goals.

And, last but not least, NIST, truly our partner since inception, provides technical resources beyond simply staffing 

the standing committees. The good folks at NIST have always been a huge asset to the weights and measures 

community. From sponsoring the Conference for those many years to providing instructor training, from lab quality 

standards to hydrogen standards, NIST has always been a solid ally of the Conference and a staunch supporter of 

weights and measures issues. To all of these folks and the many others who support the Conference, I offer my 

sincere thank you for getting involved and making a difference.

It’s been a long year, and I feel as if we’ve accomplished quite a bit. For this I thank the Board of Directors, the 

standing committees, and Don Onwiler and his staff for their hard work and dedication.

For these last 15 years, weights and measures and the Conference has been a large part of my life. Thanks to all of 

you for the privilege and honor of serving as your Chairman.
General - 2009 Final Report

GS - 11

New Chairman’s Address

94th National Conference on Weights and Measures

San Antonio, Texas

July 14, 2009

Randy Jennings

Tennessee Department of Agriculture

Good Morning.

It is truly my pleasure to be standing here before the members of this organization as the person who will represent 

the NCWM as Chairman for the coming year. I want to thank each of you for trusting me with this responsibility. I 

also want to say a special “thanks” to each of the board of directors members that I have had the opportunity to work 

with over the past few years, and, in particular, Jack Kane and Judy Cardin, both who have served as Chairs over the 

past two years, and Carol Hockert, as the NCWM Executive Secretary. It has been a true learning experience 

working closely with this dynamic set of individuals, and without that experience I would not be nearly as prepared 

to assume this position at this time. Thank you, Judy, Jack, Carol, all the board members, and Don Onwiler and his 

staff at NCWM Headquarters.

The National Conference on Weights and Measures has made great strides both administratively and technically 

with standards development and revisions since I attended my first Annual Meeting in Little Rock, Arkansas in 

1987. At that meeting, the most important item on the agenda for me was a proposed change in the Liquid 

Measuring Device (LMD) code for the tolerance values on wholesale meters. The proposal was to set a tolerance 

based on percent meter error. The new tolerance proposed for maintenance tests was three-tenths percent of the 

indicated volume. The current code was “fifty cubic inches for the first fifty gallons, and one-half cubic inch for 

each gallon in excess of fifty gallons.” On a one thousand gallon test draft, that was moving from about a 2.2 gallon 

tolerance to a 3 gallon tolerance. I considered this an unnecessary relaxation of the code and was passionately 

opposed to the change. However, the consensus of the voting body was that the change was appropriate and the 

item was adopted, so I went home still in my box, feeling like the process was flawed. Nevertheless, we 

implemented the revised tolerance into our inspection program, and I continued to come back in order to participate 

in the process, providing input where I could, and soon realized that what I had experienced at my first meeting was 

the nature of an organization that seeks consensus. As an individual, you don’t always get exactly what you want in 

a process such as ours, but at the end of the day, I do believe that in most cases, the final result is what is best for the 

majority of stakeholders. And I use the word “final” very loosely, as we know that our standards are continually 

being reviewed for possible revisions that may be appropriate in order to keep us on pace with time.

So with that, I’ll introduce my theme for the following year, “Breaking Molds to Shape the Future.” Just as I had to 

get out of my box after losing a campaign at my first meeting, I believe that we are at a point in time where we have 

to challenge ourselves as an organization to “think out of the box.” I say this in terms of administrative procedures 

for managing the NCWM process, in our pursuit for standards development and training materials, and in our 

management of the National Type Evaluation Program.

Technology available now and in the future will be affecting our organization in many ways. The newly developed 

strategic plan being put forth by the Board of Directors for your review and comment leans heavily on that fact. The 

revised plan seeks to make this organization more effective in the development of our standards and to offer a return 

to all of our members that represent the foundation of this organization. We are working to offer on-line testing for 

the emerging National Certification Program, creation of an e-library of training materials, and exploring the 

construction of an on-line comment system that would provide the opportunity for all 2300 NCWM members to 

conveniently submit their position on Conference items and upload attachments for committee review.

From an administrative standpoint, we should further investigate how we can use e-services to be more efficient in 

our processes and at the same time provide our members with a more convenient path to be a part of that process. 

We are beginning to explore how we can effectively use Web meeting software for administrative meetings and 
General - 2009 Final Report

GS - 12

potentially for use by the technical standing committees; hopefully, providing for a more efficient path for 

development of items under each committee’s jurisdiction.

Thinking out of the box is also important for our technical committees. In the course of our standards development 

process, it is important to be “looking around the corner” for the best emerging technology that can take us where 

we need to be. There may be times when we find it prudent to pass on a currently available option in favor of a long 

term solution with promising technology that could potentially serve us better in the future.

The Specifications and Tolerances Committee (S&T) has historically had an agenda that, due to both the number of 

items and scope of items, has been difficult to manage. I feel that it is time for us to begin discussing some possible 

alternative approaches as to how we can best deal with the volume of items that fall within the jurisdiction of the 

S&T Committee.

It is also our responsibility to review the structure of the National Type Evaluation Program and be willing to adapt 

and develop a strategic plan that ensures the long term success of this vital component of the NCWM.

These are a few examples of what I mean by “breaking molds to shape the future.” We are in the process of 

completing our 94th Annual Meeting. This body is steeped in tradition, yet we have shown that we are capable of 

change. I want us to continue to operate with an open mind and be willing to discuss new ideas that may make us an 

even stronger organization and possibly lead to more traditions. In order to most effectively do that, the individuals 

serving in leadership positions are in need of feedback and ideas from every member of this organization. I want to 

encourage every stakeholder in this group to come forward with your ideas or suggestion as to how the NCWM can 

better serve the standards development process. I will always make myself available to members, so please feel free 

to contact me at any time. And, I know that Don Onwiler will always take time out to talk with anyone about the 

National Conference on Weights and Measures, no matter what the issue may be.

So with that, I will end by announcing the following appointments:

Board of Directors

To the Board of Directors, to fill the At-Large Director vacancy created with the advancement of Tim Tyson as 

Chairman-Elect, I have recommended to the Board and all have voted affirmatively for Mark Coyne, City of 

Brockton, Massachusetts.

Laws and Regulations Committee

 Raymond Johnson, New Mexico, for a five-year term replacing Joe Gomez, New Mexico

Specifications and Tolerances Committee

 Paul Moyer, State of Nebraska, for a five-year term replacing Todd Lucas, Ohio

Professional Development Committee

 Dale Saunders, State of Virginia, for a five-year term replacing Richard Cote, New Hampshire

Credentials Committee

 Kevin Upschulte, State of Missouri, for a three-year term replacing Raymond Johnson, New Mexico

 Tom Geiler – Coordinator, has agreed to serve one more year

Chaplain

 Stephen Langford, Cardinal Scale Manufacturing Company
General - 2009 Final Report

GS - 13

Parliamentarian

 Louis Straub, Fairbanks Scales, Inc.

Presiding Officers

 Doug Deiman, State of Alaska

 Tim Chesser, State of Arkansas

 Maureen Henzler, State of Kansas

 Kim Connors, Barnstable, Massachusetts

Nomination Committee

 Jack Kane, Chair

 Judy Cardin

 Dennis Ehrhart

 Ross Andersen

 Thomas Geiler

 Maxwell Gray

 Steve Malone

Sergeants-at-Arms

 Richard Tredder, Minnesota

 Kathleen Sundt, Minnesota

Again, thank you for the opportunity to serve as Chairman for this coming year.
General - 2009 Final Report

GS - 14

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
General - 2009 Final Report

GS - 15

NCWM 2009 Annual Meeting Honor Award Recipients

For Years of Attendance of NCWM Annual Meetings

Full Name Organization State No. of Years

Joseph Silvestro Retired Weights & Measures Official NJ 40

Robert Reinfried Scale Manufacturers Association FL 25

Mark Coyne City of Brockton MA 20

Christopher Guay Procter & Gamble OH 20

Maxwell Gray Florida Department of Agriculture & Consumer 

Services FL 20

Ronald Hayes Missouri Department of Agriculture MO 20

Richard Tucker RL Tucker Consulting IN 20

Celeste Bennett Michigan Department of Agriculture MI 15

Darrell Flocken Mettler-Toledo, Inc OH 15

Stephen Langford Cardinal Scale Manufacturing MO 15

Juana Williams NIST, Weights & Measures Division MD 15

Michael Cleary California Department of Food & Agriculture CA 10

Nigel Mills Hobart Corporation OH 10

Ralph Richter NIST, Weights & Measures Division MD 10

Michael Sikula New York Bureau of Weights & Measures NY 10

Steven Steinborn Hogan & Hartson, LLP DC 10

Curtis Williams Georgia Department of Agriculture GA 10
General - 2009 Final Report

GS - 16

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
BOD 2009 Final Report

BOD - 1

Report of the Board of Directors

Jack Kane

Deputy Administrator

Business Standards Division – Montana Department of Labor and Industry

Reference

Key Number

100 INTRODUCTION

The Board held its quarterly Board of Directors (BOD) meeting on Saturday, July 11, 2009, and continued that 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

voting items.

Table A

Table of Contents

Reference Key

Number Title of Item Page

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

1. I NCWM Automatic Temperature Compensation (ATC) Steering Committee ............................................3

2. W Marketplace Surveys Update ......................................................................................................................3

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

4. I NCWM Newsletter and Website .................................................................................................................4

5. W Members-Only Access to NTEP Database ..................................................................................................4

6. I Meetings Update..........................................................................................................................................5

7. I Participation in International Standard Setting ............................................................................................5

8. I Efficiency and Effectiveness .......................................................................................................................5

9. W Bylaws Amendment: Article IX, Section 4 – Ad Hoc Committees, Subcommittees, Task Forces, and 

Study Groups...............................................................................................................................................7

10. I Strategic Planning........................................................................................................................................7

11. I Financial Report...........................................................................................................................................8
BOD 2009 Final Report

BOD - 2

Table B

Appendices

Appendix Title Page

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

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

B Associate Membership Committee (AMC) Agenda and Meeting Minutes......................................................... B1

Table C

Voting Results

Reference Key Number

House of State Representatives House of Delegates

Results

Yeas Nays Yeas

Adopt the Report 

Nays

(voice) Adopted
BOD 2009 Final Report

BOD - 3

Details of all Items

(In order by Reference Key Number)

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

The ATC Steering Committee was formed in 2007 to assist NCWM in forming a consensus on issues before the 

Specifications and Tolerances Committee and the Laws and Regulations Committee. The Board receives quarterly 

activity reports from the Chair of the ATC Steering Committee. In addition, they review future Steering Committee 

activities and related NCWM work on this issue.

To date, the Steering Committee has forwarded numerous recommendations to the standing committees to assist 

them in the development of their respective agenda items. Following the 2008 Annual Meeting, the Steering 

Committee was asked to provide responses to comments and questions that were received by the Specifications and 

Tolerances Committee during its open hearings. The responses were provided to the Specifications and Tolerances 

Committee for consideration at the January 2009 NCWM Interim Meeting.

The Board of Directors will reassess the future of the ATC Steering Committee at the fall 2009 board meeting based 

on the outcome of temperature compensation issues in July 2009.

2. W Marketplace Surveys Update

This item was withdrawn.

At the 2009 Interim Meeting, the Board of Directors had selected a subject for a new marketplace survey. During 

the planning stages, it was determined that the survey would no longer take place.

This item is withdrawn until such time as the Board of Directors determines a survey will be done and a subject for 

the survey has been determined.

Any surveys conducted by NCWM will be in accordance with the survey protocol adopted by NCWM in 1999.

3. I Membership and Meeting Attendance

The Board continues to assess avenues for improving membership and participation at Interim and Annual 

Meetings. Membership and attendance are driven to some degree by the items on the agendas and by the economy. 

It is important that NCWM be active in notifying potential stakeholders of agenda items that may be of interest and 

warrant their attention. This effort will have an impact on both membership and attendance.

The following is a comparison of NCWM membership levels for the past 6 years.
BOD 2009 Final Report

BOD - 4

NCWM Membership Report

June 2009 June 2008 June 2007 June 2006 June 2005 June 2004

Associate 822 848 863 837 828 837

Foreign Assc 53 56 53 61 41 42

Federal Gov’t 10 9 9 13 12 18

NIST 14 15 14 12 9 18

State Gov’t 696 831 825 847 828 890

Local Gov’t 558 554 565 492 490 527

Int’l Gov’t 24 22 31 23 31 21

Retired 196 232 221 215 225 225

Total 2373 2567 2581 2465 2483 2516

4. I NCWM Newsletter and Website

The Board is continuing to look for ways to monitor and improve the content of the newsletter and website. The 

first issue of the newsletter for 2009 was published in February rather than January. This allowed timelier reporting 

from the Board and Standing Committee Chairs on progress made on various agenda items during the January 

Interim Meeting. Members are encouraged to bring ideas and articles forward for inclusion in newsletters. Of 

particular interest are articles that would strike a chord with field inspectors and service industry.

Lindsay Hier, Project Coordinator for NCWM, is our webmaster. She has the expertise to make some 

improvements and enhancements to the website, some of which have already taken place. Approved meeting 

minutes from the Board of Directors quarterly meetings have been added to the “Members Only” portion of our 

website. This will allow membership insight into the work of the Board and its decision making. Soon, NCWM 

will be including the NCWM Policy Manual on its website.

Comments and suggestions for improvements to our newsletters and website should be directed to NCWM 

Headquarters at (402) 434-4880 or via e-mail at info@ncwm.net.

5. W Members-Only Access to NTEP Database

This item was withdrawn.

The Board is considering ways to add value to the NCWM membership. One proposal under consideration was to 

limit access to the searchable NTEP database to members only. Non-members would still be able to download PDF 

listings of certificate holders, certificate numbers, and models covered, but they would not be able to enter the 

searchable Certificates of Conformance database to view the certificates.

During the 2009 Interim Meeting, several concerns were brought to the Board. Manufacturers currently have the 

ability to direct customers to the NCWM website to view certificates. If the general public no longer has access, 

manufacturers may choose to post searchable NTEP databases on their own websites. The effect would be less 

exposure for NCWM as fewer people visit our website. Another concern was for companies who employ large 

numbers of service agents or inspectors. The cost of providing that many memberships can be prohibitive, but those 

individuals need access to the certificates. One suggestion is to create corporate or organizational memberships, but 

the Board will be cautious of any policy that could actually reduce membership.

The item was withdrawn from consideration following open hearings of the 2009 Annual Meeting in response to 

continued concerns consistent with those the Board received at the Interim Meeting.
BOD 2009 Final Report

BOD - 5

6. I Meetings Update

Interim Meetings

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

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

January 2012 To be determined

Annual Meetings

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

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

July 10 - 14, 2011 Holiday Inn Downtown at the Park, Missoula, Montana

July 2012 To be held in the Northeastern Region

After receiving recommendations from the Western Region for a location to conduct the 2011 Annual Meeting, the 

Board of Directors has selected the Holiday Inn Downtown in Missoula, Montana. The hotel is adjacent to the Clark 

Fork River and within easy walking distance to the downtown district, where one can enjoy food and entertainment 

that caters to tourists, the college crowd, and locals.

The 2012 Annual Meeting will be in the Northeast Region. The Board of Directors asks that members of NEWMA 

submit proposals to the Board of Directors for consideration. It is not necessary for members to enter into 

negotiation with hotels. Members may obtain site selection criteria from Don Onwiler, Executive Director, at 

(402) 434-4880 or e-mail to don.onwiler@ncwm.net.

NCWM is currently researching locations for the 2012 Interim Meeting.

7. I Participation in International Standard Setting

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

members on key activities of OIML and regional legal metrology organizations during our open hearings (see 

Appendix A).

Of particular interest is the CIML Meeting to be held at the Doubletree Hotel in Orlando, Florida, 

September 20 - 24, 2010. Those interested in attending should contact Charles Ehrlich, NIST at (301) 975-4834 or 

Lisa Warfield, NIST at (301) 975-3308 for more information. Interested vendors should contact Bob Murnane, 

Seraphin Test Measure at (609) 267-0922.

8. I Efficiency and Effectiveness

The Board is examining cost efficiency measures to control meeting and administrative costs. We welcome member 

feedback on this topic and any ideas to increase the effectiveness of the Conference.

Website

Regional Website Hosting: Two regional association websites are hosted through the NCWM website. In the 

past, regional associations have paid NCWM for updates to these websites on an hourly rate. This has caused 

the regional associations to economize by requesting updates to information posted on their sites only once or 

twice per year. The Board of Directors has considered a new plan for hosting that would require a reasonable 

flat rate annual fee to NCWM for hosting and updating regional websites. The purpose would be to keep the 

service affordable for the regions and promote keeping the information on the regional sites up to date.

At the May 2009 Board Meeting, the Board adopted the following policy for hosting regional websites:

1. NCWM will invoice the Treasurers of participating regional associations annually during the month of 

January in the amount of $200.00 for hosting and maintenance of regional association websites.
BOD 2009 Final Report

BOD - 6

2. Hosting fees will pertain to any routine website maintenance and updates that are performed in-house.

3. A bid will be provided to the regional association for any requested services that would involve fees outside 

the scope of normal maintenance. Additional costs for these services will be assessed to the regional 

association.

4. NCWM will contact the regional representative for each participating regional association on a quarterly 

basis requesting any updates to their respective web pages.

2009 Interim Meeting: The SWMA and the CWMA have expressed interest in the new flat-rate annual fee 

approach. The Board further developed a proposed policy for this approach. It is important to include a system 

of periodic reminders to regional associations. The Board is reviewing fees assessed to the SWMA and CWMA 

over the past couple of years. This information, in combination with input from the regions, will be used to 

establish an annual fee.

Proposal: Implement a policy for the NCWM hosting of regional websites to include the following elements:

1. NCWM will invoice the Treasurers of participating regional associations annually on January 1 in the 

amount of $XXX for hosting and maintaining regional association websites.

2. Hosting fees will pertain to any website maintenance and updates that are performed in-house by NCWM 

staff.

3. Additional costs for services from NCWM’s web host will be assessed to the regional association.

4. NCWM will contact the Chair for each participating regional association on a quarterly basis requesting 

any updates to their respective web pages.

Staffing

NCWM Staff: The recent transition in NCWM management has provided an opportunity for significant cost 

savings to NCWM. However, this transition must not sacrifice service to the NCWM stakeholders or our 

mission. It is the hope of the Board of Directors that, in fact, the cost savings will enable NCWM to enhance its 

level of service and effectiveness.

Meetings: The Board is implementing a plan whereby members may volunteer for meeting staffing. This will 

reduce meeting staffing costs and possibly provide local officials, who may not otherwise be able to attend, the 

opportunity to participate. Staffing needs will be assessed on an ongoing basis to ensure successful events for 

our members.

2009 Interim Meeting: All four members of NCWM staff attended the 2009 Interim Meeting. Vicky 

Dempsey, Montgomery County, Ohio, provided volunteer assistance for a portion of the week. NCWM staff 

also attended the 2009 Annual Meeting in San Antonio, Texas. An invitation was extended to the Texas 

Department of Agriculture to provide one or two volunteers that week. The level of attendance by NCWM staff 

for future meetings will be determined by the Board based on cost and necessity.

Specifications and Tolerances Committee: The Board is exploring the possibility of splitting the 

Specifications and Tolerances Committee into two separate standing committees – one for measuring 

instruments and one for weighing instruments. Historically, the agenda of the S&T Committee has been very 

demanding. By dividing the committee into more specialized scopes, it would:

• Effectively reduce the number of agenda items for a standing committee,

• Allow the committees to give more attention to the items that are on their respective agendas,

• Provide specialized expertise to each standing committee, and

• Expedite the standards development process.
BOD 2009 Final Report

BOD - 7

The Board envisions that General Code items and codes that do not fall clearly into “weighing” or “measuring” 

would be addressed by some form of joint committee.

Travel

Travel Policy: The NCWM Travel Policy applies to any person traveling at NCWM expense. The policy will 

be amended to clarify that meals occurring before departure on the first day of travel and after return on the last 

day of travel do not qualify for reimbursement.

2009 Interim Meeting: The Board reviewed the NCWM Travel Policy and made the following amendments to 

take affect at the conclusion of that meeting.

Approved Travel Policy Changes:

• Maintain $45 per day for meals and clarify that this includes tips,

• Reimburse breakfast if departing before 6 a.m. and lunch if departing before 11 a.m.,

• Reimburse lunch if returning after 2 p.m. and dinner if returning after 7 p.m.

• Reference “current” federal per diem for mileage and provide the website for accessing the rate, and

• Note on the expense form that there are no reimbursements for additional tips or phone calls.

9. W Bylaws Amendment: Article IX, Section 4 – Ad Hoc Committees, Subcommittees, 

Task Forces, and Study Groups

This item was withdrawn following the 2009 Interim Meeting.

Proposal: Amend Article IX, Section 4 as follows:

Ad hoc committees, subcommittees, task forces, and study groups are appointed by the Corporation Chairman 

from the active, advisory, or associate membership, or NCWM staff in any combination, as the need arises or 

the Corporation requests. All committees are subject to an annual review by the Board.

Discussion: The Board recognizes that full-time staff dedicated to NCWM could provide beneficial support and 

participation in the activities of special work groups. Currently, the bylaws may not provide the flexibility for use of 

NCWM staff in this manner.

2009 Interim Meeting: Comments from the open hearings did not support this item. Members deemed it 

unnecessary, stating that the current bylaws do not prohibit the Chairman from appointing NCWM staff to ad hoc

committees, subcommittees, task forces, and study groups. The Board discussed potential future conflicts with 

current bylaws beyond the possibility of using NCWM staff. For example, there might be an opportunity to utilize 

the expertise of a person who is not a member of NCWM. An example might be legal support from our law firm.

The Board withdrew the proposal recognizing that there is a lot of talent in our membership, and we can draw on 

that.

10. I Strategic Planning

Now that the management transition to NCWM employees is complete, the Board of Directors is reassessing its 

short-term and long-term goals. The Board has developed a new strategic plan that will be updated and revised on a 

continual basis as goals are met, changed, or added. The purpose of the Strategic Plan is to ensure the organization 

is moving forward and in the right direction. Members may view the new and exciting Strategic Plan on the website 

at www.ncwm.net/members/.
BOD 2009 Final Report

BOD - 8

Background

The Board dedicated the first day of its quarterly meeting to strategic planning, resulting in a new plan in the draft 

and development stage. The plan consisted of six primary goals with numerous strategies for achieving them. The 

work to further develop and refine the plan was continued at the May and July 2009 Board meetings. In July, the 

Board combined two of the goals, reducing the total to the five goals shown below.

1. Enhance the National Conference on Weights and Measures as a national and international resource for 

measurement standards development.

2. Promote uniform training for individuals involved in weights and measures.

3. Continue to improve the National Type Evaluation Program (NTEP).

4. Expand the role of the National Conference on Weights on Measures as a resource for state and local 

weights and measures programs.

5. Ensure financial stability of the NCWM.

The Board is continuing to refine the strategies and measurements for meeting these goals. One of the strategies for 

the second goal is the implementation of a National Certification Program for weights and measures officials. This 

strategy has been placed as a top priority. The Board is working closely with the Professional Development 

Committee (PDC) to achieve implementation in the very near future. More details are available in the PDC report.

Another strategy of high priority is to maintain viable support for NTEP laboratories under the third goal. The 

Board will be monitoring the number of full-time employees associated with the authorized laboratories and will 

continue to track evaluation time and backlog statistics to ensure that NTEP evaluations can be completed in a 

timely manner.

11. I Financial Report

The NCWM operates on a fiscal year of October 1 through September 30. Last year, NCWM underwent a 

management transition from contracting professional association management services to opening its own office 

with fulltime employees. This transition was complete as of October 1, 2008. The cost of the management 

transition as of September 30, 2008, was approximately $155,000. This cost included obtaining office space, 

furniture, computers and other equipment, office supplies, salaries, etc. Anticipating cost savings going into the new 

fiscal year, the budget for October 1, 2008, through September 30, 2009, projects net revenue of approximately 

$102,000. This budget included funding for five staff positions but only four have been necessary. Based on this, it 

is quite possible that NCWM can recover the total cost of transition in its first year under the new management 

structure. This ongoing cost savings should provide exciting opportunities for enhancing service and effectiveness 

in the near future.
BOD 2009 Final Report

BOD - 9

The following is the balance statement as of June 30, 2009.

ASSETS June 30, 2009

Current Assets $

Checking/Savings

Associate Member Fund 4,478.14

Certificates of Deposit 619,115.50

Checking 37,513.43

Savings 169,903.70

Total Checking/Savings 831,010.77

Accounts Receivable -500.00

Other Current Assets 66,741.11

TOTAL ASSETS 897,251.88

LIABILITIES & EQUITY

Liabilities

Other Current Liabilities 5,466.64

Total Liabilities 5,466.64

Equity

Unrestricted Net Assets -19,348.05

Opening Balance Equity -92,738.10

Retained Earnings 688,607.06

Net Income 315,264.33

Total Equity 891,785.24

TOTAL LIABILITIES & EQUITY $ 897,251.88

Jack Kane, Montana, NCWM Chairman

Randy Jennings, Tennessee, Chairman-Elect

Judy Cardin, Wisconsin, NTEP Chairman

Will Wotthlie, Maryland, Treasurer

Charles Carroll, Massachusetts, Northeastern Regional Representative

Steven Malone, Nebraska, Central Regional Representative

Stephen Benjamin, North Carolina, Southern Regional Representative

Kirk Robinson, Washington, Western Regional Representative

Stephen Langford, Cardinal Scale, At-Large

Tim Tyson, Kansas, At-Large

Robert Murnane, Seraphine Test Measure, Associate Membership

Don Onwiler, NCWM, Executive Director

Jim Truex, NTEP, Administrator

Carol Hockert, Chief, NIST, Weights and Measures Division, Executive Secretary

Board of Directors
BOD 2009 Final Report

BOD - 10

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
BOD 2009 Final Report

Appendix A – Report on Activities of OIML

BOD - A1

Appendix A

Report on the Activities of the

International Organization of Legal Metrology (OIML)

and Regional Legal Metrology Organizations

Weights and Measures Division, NIST

INTRODUCTION

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please note:

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

• The United States will host the annual meeting of the International Committee of Legal Metrology (CIML) 

in Orlando, Florida, September 20 - 24, 2010.

Table A

Table of Contents

Reference Key

Number Title of Item Page

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

II. Report on the 43rd CIML Meeting in Sydney, Australia, October 2008 ..........................................................A5

III. Report on the 13th International Conference on Legal Metrology in Sydney, Australia, October 2008 ..........A8

IV. Future OIML Meetings..................................................................................................................................A10

V. Regional Legal Metrology Organizations......................................................................................................A10
BOD 2009 Final Report

Appendix A – Report on Activities of OIML

BOD - A2

Table B

Glossary of Acronyms

BIML International Bureau of Legal Metrology IR International Recommendation

B Basic Publication IWG International Work Group

CD Committee Draft MAA 1 Mutual Acceptance Arrangement

CIML International Committee of Legal Metrology MC Measurement Canada

CPR Committee on Participation Review OIML International Organization of Legal 

Metrology

D Document R Recommendation

DD Draft Document SC 2 Technical Subcommittee

DR Draft Recommendation TC 2 Technical Committee

DoMC Declaration of Mutual Confidence WD Working Draft

DV

3

Draft Vocabulary USNWG 2 U.S. National Work Group

ILMG International Legal Metrology Group

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

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

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

and sent to BIML for approval by CIML.

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

Details of All Items

(In Order by Reference Key Number)

I. Report on the Activities of the OIML Technical Committees

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

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

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

committees and subcommittees.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

contact Dr. Ambler Thompson at (301) 975-2333 or at ambler@nist.gov.
BOD 2009 Final Report

Appendix A – Report on Activities of OIML

BOD - A3

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

The Subcommittee held a meeting in May 2008 to discuss the revision of the documents B 3 (Certificate System) 

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

measurement uncertainty into conformity assessment decisions in legal metrology. In April 2009, the Secretariat 

distributed the 1CD of a new document entitled “The role of measurement uncertainty in conformity assessment 

decisions in legal metrology.” International comments on this document are requested by September 2009. For 

more information on the activities of this subcommittee, please contact Dr. Charles Ehrlich at (301) 975-4834 or at 

charles.ehrlich@nist.gov.

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

The new OIML Document D 31 “General requirements for software-controlled measuring instruments” was 

approved by the CIML in October 2008 and will serve as guidance for software requirements in International 

Recommendations by OIML technical committees. The United States participated in the technical work on this 

document and submitted votes and comments on several drafts of the document. A new project on software 

verification was also approved by the CIML in October 2008. The ILMG participated in NCWM Software Sector 

meetings in Columbus, Ohio, in March 2009. Please contact Dr. Ambler Thompson at (301) 975-2333 or at 

ambler@nist.gov if you would like to discuss OIML software efforts.

TC 6 “Prepackaged products” (South Africa)

NIST hosted the OIML TC 6 in Gaithersburg, Maryland to continue discussion on the issue of an OIML 

International Quantity Mark, referred to as an IQ Mark. The IQ Mark, designed to eliminate trade barriers, would be 

a program that would allow for an international system of acceptance of prepackaged goods. Receiving countries 

want imported packages to meet all requirements and packers in exporting countries want to ensure prepackages will 

not be rejected after arriving in the destination country. Such a program would also require that participants meet 

specific requirements in order to participate in a program for quantity control and marking of prepackaged goods.

The United States is participating in a work group that is developing guidelines on good manufacturing practices and 

additional documentation for selected criteria that would be used in the IQ Mark’s accreditation programs. It was 

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

and federal and state agencies seeking input to specific questions. NIST WMD surveyed U.S. industry, including 

the largest manufacturers of packaged goods, in April 2008 and found no support for the IQ Mark effort. The 

United States believes the effort to manage and certify quality control systems will add costs to all participating 

suppliers. Even though there is significant opposition to the IQ Mark effort from several countries (including the 

United States), the technical committee continues to move forward with this project. A TC 6 meeting was held in 

March 2009 in South Africa. Please contact Ken Butcher at (301) 975-4859 or at kenneth.butcher@nist.gov if you 

would like more information about the work of this subcommittee or to participate in any of these projects.

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

Two revised Recommendations, OIML R 71 “Fixed storage tanks” and R 85 “Automatic level gages for measuring 

the level of liquid in fixed storage tanks,” received final approval in October 2008. The United States, however, had 

serious opposition to the inclusion of specialized tanks (including pressurized tanks and non-vertical tanks) in the 

scope statements of both R 71 and R 85 because the requirements in the Recommendations did not fully reflect this 

inclusion. The United States now chairs a working group that is drafting the separate sections of R 71 and R 85 that 

will include the specific requirements for specialized tanks. The postal ballot review period for OIML R 80-1 “Road 

and rail tankers” was completed in January 2009, and the document was published in May 2009. Please contact 

Ralph Richter at (301) 975-3997 or at ralph.richter@nist.gov if you would like copies of the documents or to 

participate in any of these projects.

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

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

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

and final CIML approval in October 2007 and was published in March 2008. The revision incorporates new 

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

“Mass flowmeters.” The ILMG has worked closely with the USNWG, Germany, and the Netherlands on this effort. 

Meetings of the USNWG on flowmeters were held during the NCWM Annual Meeting in July 2008 in Burlington, 

Vermont, and the NCWM Annual Meeting in July 2009 in San Antonio, Texas. Measurement Canada has also been 
BOD 2009 Final Report

Appendix A – Report on Activities of OIML

BOD - A4

a strong contributor to this effort. Subcommittee work is continuing on the development of R 117-2 “Test methods” 

and R 117-3 “Test report format.” Meetings of the IWG for R 117-2 were held in Paris in November 2008 and 

Vienna, Austria, in April 2009. If you have any questions or would like to participate in the next phases of this 

project, please contact Ralph Richter at (301) 975-3997 or ralph.richter@nist.gov.

TC 8/SC 5 “Water Meters” (UK)

OIML, ISO, and CEN are working together to harmonize requirements for water meters, using OIML R 49 “Water 

meters intended for the metering of cold potable water and hot water” parts 1, 2, and 3 as the base document. A 

working draft was distributed in January 2009, and a joint meeting of the three organizations was held in May 2009 

in Ottawa, Canada. The joint working group is now developing a new committee draft based on submitted 

comments and decisions made in Ottawa. Please contact Ralph Richter at (301) 975-3997 or at 

ralph.richter@nist.gov if you would like copies to participate in this project.

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

The Secretariat (United States) requested that Participating Members and U.S. stakeholders decide if there was 

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

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

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

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

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

format to recently-developed OIML Recommendations. The Secretariat will ask members of TC 8/SC 6 to review 

and formally comment on R 81. The Secretariat is also forming a national work group to establish a U.S. position 

on the appropriate updates to the document. To obtain more information or to participate in this project, please 

contact Juana Williams at (301) 975-3989 or juana.williams@nist.gov.

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

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

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

newly merged technical subcommittee. In October 2007, the CIML approved a new Recommendation R 139 

“Compressed gaseous fuel measuring systems for vehicles.” The United States voted “no” on this document at the 

CIML meeting because some of the systems testing requirements were considered to be excessive and very 

expensive, and there are presently no testing facilities anywhere in the world that can fully perform all of the tests. 

The Recommendation and the excessive testing requirements are currently being reviewed by the new Secretariat 

and TC 8/SC 7. A request for comments from interested parties in the United States concerning the revision of 

R 139 was sent out in January 2009. Another new Recommendation R 140, “Measuring systems for gaseous fuel” 

has also received CIML approval and was published in June 2008. This Recommendation is intended for large 

pipelines with large flow rates and high operating pressures.

OIML R 137-1 “Gas meters” was published in 2007. It combines and replaces three old Recommendations: R 6 

“General provisions for gas volume meters,” R 31 “Diaphragm gas meters,” and R 32 “Rotary piston gas meters and 

turbine gas meters.” Development of R 137-2 “Test methods” is now underway. Please contact Ralph Richter at 

(301) 975-3997 or ralph.richter@nist.gov if you would like to obtain a copy of any of these gas measurement 

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

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

At the 43rd CIML meeting in October 2008, the CIML approved a new work item to begin revision of OIML 

R 60:2000 “Metrological regulation for load cells.” It is anticipated that this revision will cover everything from the 

basic principles of R 60 (e.g., tolerances and accuracy classes) to exploring the addition of new requirements. For 

more information on these efforts, please contact John Barton at (301) 975-4002 or john.barton@nist.gov.

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

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

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

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

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

metrological software. The USNWG was consulted concerning proposals to harmonize NIST Handbook 44 and 
BOD 2009 Final Report

Appendix A – Report on Activities of OIML

BOD - A5

R 76. Most recently, the United States voted “yes” on R 76-2 “Test report format;” and this Recommendation has 

now been published. For more information on these efforts, please contact Steve Cook at (301) 975-4003 or 

steven.cook@nist.gov.

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

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

weighing” has been approved by CIML and published. U.S. comments concerning terminology and document 

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

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

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

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

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

2 CD. Comments and a U.S. “yes” vote on the 4 CD of R 106-1 were sent in July 2008, and it is anticipated that this 

document will receive final CIML approval in 2009.

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

(totalizing hopper weighers),” and final approval was granted by the CIML, and the document was published in July 

2008. The Secretariat accommodated U.S. concerns on this document by inserting a statement that national 

legislation will dictate whether the automatic zero-tracking feature is allowed in a country. If you would like to 

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

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

TC 17/SC 1 “Humidity” (China and United States)

The Co-secretariats (China and the United States) are working with a small IWG to revise OIML R 59 “Moisture 

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

subset of the NTEP Grain Sector. A TC 17/SC 1 meeting was hosted by NIST in September 2007 to discuss the 

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

harmonization of the Recommendation for moisture with the TC 17/SC 8’s Recommendation for protein. In 

October 2008, the Secretariat of TC 17/SC 1 was jointly allocated to China and the United States. The 5 CD of 

OIML R 59 was distributed to the Subcommittee in February 2009. Please contact Diane Lee at (301) 975-4405 or 

at diane.lee@nist.gov if you would like to participate in this work group.

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

This subcommittee was formed to study the issues and write a working draft document “Measuring instruments for 

protein determination in grains.” Australia is the Secretariat. A work group meeting was held in Ottawa, Canada, to 

discuss comments on the 1 CD, and a TC 17/SC 8 meeting was hosted by NIST to discuss the 2 CD. At the NIST 

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

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

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

group.

OIML Mutual Acceptance Arrangement (MAA)

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

NTEP section of this document. For further information on the MAA and its implementation, please contact 

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

II. Report on the 43rd CIML Meeting in Sydney, Australia, October 2008

The International Committee of Legal Metrology (CIML) opened with addresses given by Mr. Alan E. Johnston, 

CIML President.

The Committee welcomed Montenegro as a new Corresponding Member and expressed its appreciation for the 

growing interest shown by many countries in joining the OIML. The Committee instructed its President and the 

Bureau to continue to raise the level of awareness of the advantages of OIML membership in order to encourage the 

widest possible participation in the International Legal Metrology System.
BOD 2009 Final Report

Appendix A – Report on Activities of OIML

BOD - A6

The Committee took note of the ongoing work on the revision of the MoUs with ISO and the IEC and instructed the 

Bureau to pursue this revision, taking into consideration the specific aspects of importance to legal metrology and to 

the OIML.

The Committee noted the importance given to OIML publications and conformity assessment and certification 

systems in the implementation of the World Trade Organization/Technical Barriers to Trade (WTO/TBT) 

Agreement. It instructed the CIML President and the BIML Director to continue to cooperate with the WTO and to 

promote the OIML as an organization facilitating compliance with the WTO/TBT Agreement.

The Committee emphasized the importance of maintaining close relations with organizations representing legal 

metrology stakeholders and encouraged them to participate in OIML work. It instructed the CIML President and the 

BIML Director to continue to identify such stakeholder organizations and to raise their awareness of OIML work.

The CIML decided that a new or revised draft OIML document or recommendation that has received CIML 

approval shall be available on the OIML website immediately after approval. This will allow manufacturers and 

OIML issuing authorities to begin preparing to issue Certificates before the document completes the final editing 

process and is actually published. However, OIML Basic Certificates will not be allowed until the date of final 

publication. The date from which an OIML MAA Certificate can be issued is specified in the corresponding DoMC.

As soon as an OIML Recommendation including the Test Report Format is published, the relevant OIML 

Recommendation is automatically included in the OIML Basic Certificate System. The Bureau will publish the 

appropriate information on the website. If a new version of an OIML Recommendation is published, the earlier 

version is maintained in the OIML Basic Certificate System or in the relevant OIML DoMC together with the new 

version.

The CIML discussed several issues concerning the OIML Mutual Acceptance Arrangement (MAA); information 

concerning these discussions and the committee’s resolutions can be found in the NTEP section of Publication 16.

The Committee expressed its appreciation to the BIML staff for providing the first training session to TC/SC 

Secretariats in April 2008 and instructed the BIML to extend and update this training to those Secretariats that did 

not participate in the first session.

The CIML approved the following publications in Australia:

• R 85-3:2008 “Automatic level gauges for measuring the level of liquid in stationary storage tanks, 

Part 3: Report format for type evaluation,”

• R 99-3:2008 “Instruments for measuring vehicle exhaust emissions, Part 3: Report Format,”

• D 29:2008 “Guide for the application of ISO/IEC Guide 65 to assessment of measuring instrument 

certification bodies in legal metrology,”

• D 30:2008 “Guide for the application of ISO/IEC 17025 to the assessment of testing laboratories involved 

in legal metrology testing,” and

• D 31:2008 “General requirements for software controlled measuring instruments.”

The CIML decided to disband OIML TC 10/SC 5 “Hardness standardized blocks and hardness testing machines” (in 

favor of using ISO hardness standards) and approved the withdrawal of the following OIML hardness publications:

• V 3 “Hardness testing dictionary (quadrilingual),”

• R 9 “Verification and calibration of Brinell hardness standardized blocks,”
BOD 2009 Final Report

Appendix A – Report on Activities of OIML

BOD - A7

• R 10 “Verification and calibration of Vickers hardness standardized blocks,”

• R 11 “Verification and calibration of Rockwell B hardness standardized blocks,”

• R 12 “Verification and calibration of Rockwell C hardness standardized blocks,”

• R 36 “Verification of indenters for hardness testing machines,”

• R 37 “Verification of hardness testing machines (Brinell system),”

• R 38 “Verification of hardness testing machines (Vickers system),” and

• R 39 “Rockwell hardness machines.”

The CIML also approved the withdrawal of the following publications:

• R 121 “The scale of relative humidity of air certified against saturated salt solutions,” and

• D 15 “Principles of selection of characteristics for the examination of measuring instruments.”

The CIML approved the following new work items:

• Revision of V 1:2000 “International Vocabulary of Legal Metrology,”

• Revision of R 16:2002 “Mechanical non-invasive sphygmomanometers,”

• Revision of R 18:1989 “Visual disappearing filament pyrometers,”

• Revision of R 49:2006 “Water meters intended for the metering of cold potable water and hot water,”

• Revision of R 60:2000 “Metrological regulation for load cells,”

• Revision of R 91:1990 “Radar equipment for the measurement of the speed of vehicles,”

• Revision of the requirements in R 138 on measuring container bottles by TC 6,

• Revision of D 1:2004 “Elements for a Law on Metrology,”

• Revision of D 11:2004 “General requirements for electronic measuring instruments,” and

• New project: Document “Software – Methods and means of verification.”

The Committee allocated the Secretariats of the following Technical Committee and Subcommittees:

• TC 7/SC 4 “Measuring instruments for road traffic” allocated to the United States,

• TC 12 “Instruments for measuring electrical quantities” allocated to Australia, and

• TC 17/SC 1 “Humidity” allocated jointly to China and the United States.

The Committee voted to renew the contract of Mr. Ian Dunmill, Assistant Director of the Bureau.
BOD 2009 Final Report

Appendix A – Report on Activities of OIML

BOD - A8

III. Report on the 13th International Conference on Legal Metrology in Sydney, Australia, 

October 2008

The Conference made the recommendation that CIML members make their regulatory requirements available to the 

public on the Internet and that they update their Member State data on the OIML website with links to these national 

websites.

The Conference made the recommendation that CIML members complete the inquiry on the implementation of 

OIML Recommendations as accurately as possible and as soon as possible and further made the recommendation 

that Member States update it each time a new or revised national regulation is adopted.

The Conference made the recommendation to CIML members to keep their other governmental agencies informed 

of OIML work and invite them to contribute to this work.

In order to better assist developing countries, the Conference considered it important that OIML D 1 “Elements for a 

law on metrology” be revised to take account of the latest developments in world trade, such as conformity 

assessment, certification, and globalization. The Conference instructed the CIML to start a revision of OIML D 1.

The Conference sanctioned the following publications previously approved by the Committee and made the 

recommendation that Member States use them as the basis for their national regulations as far as possible:

• R 21:2007 “Taximeters,”

• R 35-1:2007 “Material measures of length for general use, Part 1: Metrological and technical 

requirements,”

• R 49-1:2006 “Water meters intended for the metering of cold potable water and hot water, 

Part 1: Metrological and technical requirements,”

• R 49-2:2006 “Water meters intended for the metering of cold potable water and hot water, Part 2: Test 

methods,”

• R 51-1:2006 “Automatic catchweighing instruments, Part 1: Metrological and technical requirements, 

Tests,”

• R 65:2006 “Force measuring system of uniaxial material testing machines,”

• R 76-1:2006 “Non-automatic weighing instruments, Part 1: Metrological and technical requirements, 

Tests,”

• R 82:2006 “Gas chromatographic systems for measuring the pollution from pesticides and other toxic 

substances,”

• R 83:2006 “Gas chromatograph/mass spectrometer systems for the analysis of organic pollutants in water,”

• R 107-1:2007 “Discontinuous totalizing automatic weighing instruments (totalizing hopper weighers), 

Part 1: Metrological and technical requirements – Tests,”

• R 116:2006 “Inductively coupled plasma atomic emission spectrometers for the measurement of metal 

pollutants in water,”

• R 117-1:2007 “Dynamic measuring systems for liquids other than water,”

• R 134-1:2006 “Automatic instruments for weighing road vehicles in motion and axle-load measuring, 

Part 1: Metrological and technical requirements – Tests,”
BOD 2009 Final Report

Appendix A – Report on Activities of OIML

BOD - A9

• R 137-1:2006 “Gas Meters, Part 1: Requirements,”

• R 138:2007 “Vessels for commercial transactions,”

• R 139:2007 “Compressed gaseous fuel measuring systems for vehicles,” and

• R 140:2007 “Measuring systems for gaseous fuel.”

The Conference directly sanctioned the following publications (without prior CIML approval) and made the 

recommendation that Member States use them as the basis for their national regulations as far as possible:

• R 56:2008 “Standard solutions reproducing the electrolytic conductivity,”

• R 71:2008 “Fixed storage tanks, General requirements,”

• R 85:2008 “Automatic level gauges for measuring the level of liquid in stationary storage tanks,”

• R 99-1:2008 “Instruments for measuring vehicle exhaust emissions, Part 1: Metrological and technical 

requirements,”

• R 99-2:2008 “Instruments for measuring vehicle exhaust emissions, Part 2: Metrological controls and 

performance tests,”

• R 141:2008 “Procedure for calibration and verification of the main characteristics of thermographic 

instruments,” and

• R 142:2008 “Automated refractometers: Methods and means of verification.”

The Conference took note of the comments made by some Member States regarding the necessity of revising the 

following publications as soon as possible:

• R 71:2008 “Fixed storage tanks, General requirements,”

• R 85:2008 “Automatic level gauges for measuring the level of liquid in stationary storage tanks,” and

• R 139:2007 “Compressed gaseous fuel measuring systems for vehicles.”

The Conference sanctioned the withdrawal of the OIML hardness publications listed in the CIML section of this 

report and also the following publications:

• R 74 “Electronic weighing instruments,” and

• R 121 “The scale of relative humidity of air certified against saturated salt solutions”

The Conference encouraged Member States to actively participate in the development and revision of OIML mutual 

acceptance and recognition systems. Member States were encouraged to participate in these systems, to actively 

promote them to all concerned parties, and to help make them acceptable in their countries.

The Conference approved the latest draft of the OIML Strategic Plan and instructed the CIML to implement it and to 

report on the progress in its implementation at the 14th Conference.
BOD 2009 Final Report

Appendix A – Report on Activities of OIML

BOD - A10

IV. Future OIML Meetings

The 44th CIML meeting will be held in Kenya in October 2009. The Committee thanked the United States for 

inviting the CIML to hold its 45th meeting in the United States in 2010 and accepted this invitation.

V. Regional Legal Metrology Organizations

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

The SIM General Assembly was held in San Pedro, Honduras during the first week of October 2008. 

Dr. Humberto S. Brandi, Director of Scientific and Industrial Metrology (SIM) at INMETRO Brazil, is the SIM 

President (elected last year). Marcos Senna (senna@inmetro.rs.gov.br), also of INMETRO in Brazil serves as the 

new Chairman of the SIM Legal Metrology Work Group (LMWG). A meeting of the SIM LMWG was held in 

March 2008. Topics that were discussed at the meeting included composition of the SIM Legal Metrology Work 

Group, SIM Legal Metrology directory, survey on training needs and their implementation, events organization 

costs (translation, mikes, data-show, etc.), events calendar (dates, venue, organization committee, instructors, etc.), 

budget for 2008 - 2009, and correspondence/communications in LMWG. Please contact Dr. Ambler Thompson at 

(301) 975-2333 or at ambler@nist.gov for more information.

Asia-Pacific Legal Metrology Forum (APLMF) Meeting

The 15th APLMF meeting was held October 22 - 24, 2008, in the Hunter Valley, Australia (two hours north of 

Sydney). The Peoples Republic of China holds the Presidency and Secretariat of the APLMF. The United States 

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

Recognition Arrangements. APLMF activities are facilitated through its seven work groups. The most active is the 

work group on Training Coordination, chaired by Australia. There were three training courses and a workshop 

given by APLMF this year. The training courses were offered primarily to assist the developing countries in 

APLMF, covering requirements in the following OIML Recommendations: automated sphygmomanometers (blood 

pressure instruments), water meters, and a train-the-trainer course on scales. The workshop was on Metrology in 

Food Safety, Agricultural Products, and Product Safety. Future priorities for APLMF training courses were 

identified as OIML R 117 (flowmeters for liquids other than water, for which the United States is now 

Co-secretariat), OIML R 46 (Electricity Meters), and Traffic Safety OIML R 126 (Breathalyzers) and R 91 (Radar 

Devices). The next meeting of the APLMF will be in Thailand (date and venue are yet to be decided).
BOD 2009 Final Report

Appendix B – Agenda and Meeting Minutes of the AMC

BOD - B1

Appendix B

Final Report of the

NCWM Associate Member Committee (AMC)

San Antonio, Texas

Minutes, July 13, 2009

CALL TO ORDER:

Chairman Paul Lewis called the meeting to order at 12:15 p.m.

MINUTES:

A copy of the January 2009 meeting minutes was distributed. These minutes were reviewed and one change was 

made; under AMC FUND DISBURSEMENT REPORTS, the following was added to the third paragraph: “This 

motion was seconded and approved.” Alex Schuettenberg made a motion to approve the minutes with the changes 

and Steven Grabski seconded it. With no further discussion, the minutes were approved.

FINANCIAL CONDITION:

A copy of the financial report was distributed. Chairman Lewis reviewed the deposit/disbursements and reported a 

current balance of $4,205.36 as of July 1, 2009. Steve Grabski made a motion to accept the Financial Reports and 

Al Schuettenberg seconded it. With no other discussion the Financial Report was accepted.

BOARD OF DIRECTORS REPORT:

Robert Murnane, the Associate Membership Representative on the NCWM Board of Directors, gave a report about 

board activities.

• The Total Transition Expense to transfer the NCWM office from Rockville, Maryland, to Lincoln, 

Nebraska, was $184,000.

• There is a projected net income of $185,000 by the end of fiscal year 2009.

• There is a projected surplus of $42,000 for the 2010 budget.

• The website needs to be converted to a different platform. The hourly cost will go from $150/hour to 

$85/hour. Current annual hosting cost is $6,600 vs. $350 with the new host.

• At last count, there were 36 State Representatives at this meeting.

• Bob reported that there were discussions about splitting the S&T Committee into two groups: Weighing 

and Measuring. The reasons given were to improve quality and expedite workload.

• It was mentioned that the committee reports will no longer contain any written testimony in the hard copy 

of Pub 16; however, these testimonies will be on-line and in the CD version of Pub 16.

• The BOD strategic plans:

− Investigating the possibility of opening a NCWM brick & mortar NTEP lab.

(Some tests will be performed at the manufacturer’s facility)

− Update contact information of Certificates of Conformance (CC) at no charge (changes will be made 

when the annual maintenance fees are paid).

− Steve Langford discussed the proposed Verified Conformity Assessment Program (VCAP) checklist.

− Still talking about moving the NTEP CC database to the members only website.

• The 2011 NCWM Annual Meeting will be in Missoula, Montana.
BOD 2009Final Report

Appendix B – Agenda and Meeting Minutes of the AMC

BOD - B2

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT REPORT:

Steve Grabski, the Associate Membership Representative on the PDC, gave a report about the Committee’s 

activities.

• A national training program is being created and a Beta exam will be ready by the end of the year.

• Tests will be given on-line with random questions.

• One re-test will be allowed if the initial test is failed.

• The Beta test will be free.

• There will be a fee to take the actual test.

LAWS & REGULATIONS REPORT:

Rob Underwood, the Associate Membership Representative on the L&R Committee, gave a report about the 

Committee’s activities. The Committee will be hearing comments on the “Guidance on Allowing for Moisture Loss 

and Other Revisions” Section 260-1. Members of the AMC should highlight their questions and concerns during the 

open hearings because of the number of revisions to that section.

AMC FUND DISBURSEMENT REPORT:

Chairman Lewis reported on the disbursement:

• $1,000 was requested by Charles Carroll from the State of Massachusetts for training but as of today 

Mr. Carroll has not submitted an Expense Reimbursement Form for AMC Training Funds.

• Kenneth Ramsburg from Maryland Weights and Measures requested $1,500 for training. This request was 

at first denied because it was to reimburse a trainer of a single private company to come to Maryland to 

train inspectors on their equipment. Upon further questioning, it was revealed that several companies were 

asked to come and train; however, only one company accepted this request. With this information the 

request for $1,500 was approved. Will Wotthlie was notified that the request for these funds was approved;

Mr. Wotthlie recalled the request for the $1,500.

• Steve Bommann from Colorado Weights and Measures requested $1,000 for books, DVDs and CDs for 

training, and Jonathan Handy, also from the Colorado Weights and Measures, submitted an Expense 

Reimbursement Form for AMC Training Funds for $272.78. A check was written for this amount to 

Colorado Weights and Measures.

• At the Interim Meeting in January, it was voted to give each of the four regions $2,000 for training. 

Chairman Lewis reported that these funds were dispersed and read the letter that accompanied these 

disbursements. A thank you letter from NEWMA was also read.

FILLING VACANT POSITIONS:

• Steve Grabski accepted another one-year position on the PDC.

• Rob Underwood accepted another five-year position on the L&R Committee.

• Darrell Flocken accepted the Secretary/Treasurer position.

• Robert Murnane accepted the Vice Chair position.

• Paul Lewis accepted another five-year term on the AMC.

• Rob Underwood accepted another one-year term on the AMC.

• Steven Grabski accepted another two-year term on the AMC.

• Kathleen Madaras accepted another two-year term on the AMC.
BOD 2009 Final Report

Appendix B – Agenda and Meeting Minutes of the AMC

BOD - B3

OLD BUSINESS:

Proposed changes to the by-laws and training fund guidelines were presented by Steve Patoray and Bob Murnane 

and discussed.

NEW BUSINESS:

The PDC requested $1,000 to purchase video equipment to record training seminars. Bob Murnane made a motion 

to give the PDC up to $1,000 to purchase video equipment for training. Steve Grabski seconded the motion, and 

with no further discussion this motion was approved.

ADJOURNMENT:

With no further new business, Chairman Lewis adjourned the meeting at 1:55 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Paul Lewis, Chairman, AMC

The following individuals were in attendance:

Darrell Flocken – Mettler Toledo

Steven Grabski – Walmart

Christopher Guay – Procter and Gamble

Krister Hard af Segerstad – IKEA North America 

Services, LLC

James Hewston – Scale Source

Paul Hoar – Agri Fuels, LLC/NBB

Paul Hoffman – Kraft Foods Global, Inc

Zina Juroch – Pier 1 Imports

Katherine Kirk – PETCO Animal Supplies Stores Inc.

Dennis Kolsun – H.J. Heinz, Co.

Robert Lagg – Southwest Research Institute

Steve Langford – Cardinal Scale Manufacturing Co.

Paul Lewis – Rice Lake Weighing Systems

Kathleen Madaras – Fuel Merchants Association of 

New Jersey

Kevin Mikoski – Irving Oil Terminals, Inc

Robert Murnane – Seraphin Test Measure

Pete O’Bryan – Foster Farms

Stephen Patoray – Consultants on Certification, LLC

Rebecca Richardson – MARC IV Consulting

Alexander Schuettenberg – ConocoPhillips

Steve Steinborn – Hogan & Harson LLP

Rob Underwood – Petroleum Marketers

Sayandro Versteylen – PPI

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

Michael Gaspers, Farmland Foods, Inc, Vice Chair (2013)

Tom Herrington, Nestlé Foods, Secretary/Treasurer (2010)

Rob Underwood, Petroleum Marketer’s Assoc. (2009)

Chris Guay, Procter & Gamble, Chair (2010)

Dave Wankowski, Kraft Foods (2012)

Doug Biette, Sartorius North America (2012)

Darrell Flocken, Mettler-Toledo (2013)

Paul Hoffman, Kraft Foods (2013)

Associate Membership Committee
BOD 2009Final Report

Appendix B – Agenda and Meeting Minutes of the AMC

BOD - B4

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

L&R - 1

Report of the

Laws and Regulations Committee

Joe Gomez, Chairman

Las Cruces, New Mexico

Reference

Key Number

200 INTRODUCTION

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

94th Annual Meeting of the National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM). It is based on the Interim 

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

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

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

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

Table A identifies the agenda items in the report by reference key number, title, and page number. The first three 

digits of the reference key numbers of the items are assigned from the subject series listed below. Voting items are 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Handbook 130, 2009 Edition, “Uniform Laws and Regulations,” or NIST Handbook 133, “Checking the Net 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Subject Series

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Open Dating Regulation (ODR)....................................................................................................... 235 Series
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

L&R - 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

Table A

Index to Reference Key Items

Reference

Key Number Title of Item Page

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

232 METHOD OF SALE REGULATION ............................................................................................................3

232-1 W ATC Method of Sale Proposal Developed by the NCWM ATCSC............................................6

232-2 W Original Recommendation for a Method of Sale Proposal for ATC Developed by the 

2007 Committee ..........................................................................................................................9

232-3 V Method of Sale for Fireplace and Stove Wood, Flavoring Chips and Packaged Natural 

Wood .........................................................................................................................................18

237 ENGINE FUELS AND AUTOMOTIVE LUBRICANTS INSPECTION REGULATION .....................19

237-1 V Revise Section 2.1. Gasoline and Gasoline-Oxygenate Blends.................................................19

260 NIST HANDBOOK 133 .................................................................................................................................22

260-1 D Guidance on Allowing for Moisture Loss and Other Revisions................................................22

270 OTHER ITEMS – DEVELOPING ITEMS..................................................................................................23

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

Diesel Lubricity .........................................................................................................................24

270-2 D Fuels and Lubricants Subcommittee (FALS) ............................................................................25

270-3 I Pelletized Ice Cream..................................................................................................................26

270-4 D Method of Sale and Engine Fuel Quality Requirements for Hydrogen .....................................26

270-5 I National Fisheries Institute – Net Weight Issues.......................................................................29
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

L&R - 3

Table B

Appendices

Appendix Title Page

A GAO-08 1114 Motor Fuels: Stakeholder Views on Compensating for the Effects of Gasoline Temperature 

on Volume at the Pump (September 2008)..........................................................................................................A1

B Alaska Fuel Metering Project.............................................................................................................................. B1

C Method of Sale Regulation: Automatic Temperature Compensation (Item 232-1 and Item 232-2) – Letters ... C1

D An Economic Analysis of the CEC Staff’s Fuel Delivery Temperature Study and the “Hot Fuel” 

Allegations...........................................................................................................................................................D1

E Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants Inspection Regulation: Section 2.1. Gasoline and Gasoline 

Oxygenate Blends (Item 237-1) – Letter............................................................................................................. E1

F Table of Amendments and Editorial changes for Handbook 133, Checking the Net Contents of Package

Goods, Fourth Edition ..........................................................................................................................................F1

G Handbook 133, Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods, Fourth Edition – Proposed Amendments and 

Editorial Changes ................................................................................................................................................G1

H Letter Submitted from the International Ice Cream Association to the Food and Drug Administration .............H1

I FDA Decision on Pelletized Ice Cream.................................................................................................................I1

J A Proposed Method of Sale and Quality Specification for Hydrogen Vehicle Fuel ............................................ J1

K Briefing by the Better Seafood Bureau................................................................................................................K1

Table C

Voting Results

Reference Key 

Number

House of State 

Representatives House of Delegates

Results

Yeas Nays Yeas Nays

232-3 15 19 24 9 Failed

237-1 32 3 33 2 Passed

Details of all Items

(In order by Reference Key Number)

232 METHOD OF SALE REGULATION

Background and Discussion for Items 232-1 and 232-2 Method of Sale Regulation

(Items 232-1 and 232-2 were withdrawn)

Note: This or similar proposals, which have been on the Committee’s agenda for several years, were reviewed by 

each of the regional weights and measures associations. The review process resulted in the submission of several 

different proposals and numerous comments and suggestions for the Committee to consider. Everyone expressed 

concern over the scope, cost, and impact of establishing a method of sale for petroleum products which required 

temperature compensation. This subject was widely discussed by the NCWM at public forums dating back more 

than 30 years. A similar proposal was made by NEWMA as recently as 2000, but the Committee withdrew it in 

2001. NEWMA noted at that time that Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Maine, and Canada permit temperature-
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

L&R - 4

compensated sales of products like home heating fuel and retail gasoline. Additional historic and background 

information is available in previous editions of the Committee’s agenda. For recent discussions on this subject, see 

Item 232-1 in the report of the 93rd NCWM Annual Meeting (2008) (also available at www.nist.gov/owm). This 

information is also available from NIST WMD on a searchable DVD, NIST Special Publication 979 “Reports 

of the National Conference on Weights and Measures 1905 to 2008,” (Spring 2009).

Background/Discussion: At the 2007 Annual Meeting, the Committee received 18 comments regarding this 

proposal requesting it to be made Informational to allow the Committee time for additional study and deliberation. 

The Committee believed the concerns of the commentators were valid, but these issues needed to be addressed by 

the S&T and NTEP Committees. Additional studies of the method of sale proposal would not bring anything new to 

the current recommendation that could not be addressed through further revisions next year. The Committee 

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

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

state laws or their policies prohibited ATC would not be affected by the adoption of this method of sale. The 

implementation of temperature compensation will be a slow process primarily because there is not an existing 

nationally approved temperature-compensation device, and NIST HB 44 must be revised to set forth the 

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

this work, where needed. The Committee acknowledged that some states may move ahead with their own type 

approvals (i.e., California) to allow for temperature compensation. The majority of the Committee believed the 

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

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

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

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

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

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

committee.

2008 Activities, Interim and Annual Meeting

At the 2008 Interim Meeting in Albuquerque, New Mexico, the Committee considered the recommendations and 

comments received from the consumer groups, petroleum marketers associations, and independent business 

operators on this issue. The Committee received numerous written comments (refer to L&R Appendix A within the 

report of the 93rd NCWM Annual Meeting [2008]). During the open hearings, the Committee received comments, 

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

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

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

these consumers would receive no benefit from the change in methods of sale. The comments also expressed 

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

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

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

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

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

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

they pay for when they purchase fuel. A few jurisdictions requested that the NCWM act to provide a uniform 

national standard should retailers begin selling on the basis of temperature compensated deliveries in states where 

the practice is permissive. Concern was voiced over the possibility that national uniformity in the method of sale of 

fuels at retail will diminish if some jurisdictions allow temperature compensation at retail stations while others do 

not. It was decided to make this item Informational, so that additional information and data could be received.

At the 2008 Annual Meeting in Burlington, Vermont, it was reported that the California Energy Commission (CEC) 

is conducting a study entitled “AB868 Fuel Delivery Temperature Study.” One of the goals of this study will be to 

determine what impact ATC will have on consumers, businesses, agencies, and the marketplace within the State of 

California. The CEC advisory panel held three public meetings prior to the NCWM Annual Meeting in July.
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

L&R - 5

In September 2008, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) published a report to the Chairman of the 

Committee on Science and Technology; House of Representatives on Motor Fuels “Stakeholder Views on 

Compensating for the Effects of Gasoline Temperature on Volume at the Pump” (refer to Appendix A of this report 

or view online at www.gao.gov/new.items/d081114.pdf). The GAO report summarizes that there is technology 

available to compensate for the effects of temperature on gas volume but the costs to implement ATC remains 

unclear. Benefits of ATC reflect improved measurement accuracy and greater equity between retailers and 

consumers. For those that oppose ATC it is argued that the cost to upgrade existing equipment would pose an 

economic hardship on retailers and there would be an increase in inspection and maintenance costs.

2009 Activities, Interim and Annual Meeting

During open hearings at the 2009 Interim Meeting in Daytona Beach, Florida, a trade association expressed concern 

that the cost estimates in the CEC report are grossly understated. A California Agriculture Commissioner clarified 

that within the CEC report there is no reference to the “hot fuel myth.” A weights and measures official commented 

that temperatures do vary in regards to distribution points and refinery locations. A member of the Meter 

Manufacturing Association recommended to the Committee that the reference to 15.56 °C be removed or revised for 

technical reasons. The Committee believes that the U.S. petroleum industry will continue to use 60 °F for the 

foreseeable future and that if it changes to SI, that it will likely follow the international practice of using temperature 

adjustment tables based on 15 °C.

The AB868 Fuel Delivery Temperature Study report was completed on March 12, 2009. The report can be viewed 

at www.energy.ca.gov/2009publications/CEC-600-2009-002/CEC-600-2009-002-CMF.PDF.

The State of Alaska commissioned an independent ATC cost/benefit study. The final study was released on 

July 5, 2009, and can be viewed at www.alaskafuelproject.com (refer to Appendix C for a summary of the study). 

This study consisted of two surveys regarding a comparative analysis of the costs and benefits of selecting a gross 

gallon versus a net gallon.

This item has been on the agenda for several years and deserves reconsideration by the full membership of the 

NCWM. The Committee members reviewed available information and testimony and decided that the NCWM was 

now in a position to make an informed decision on this issue. This is also a decision on which the entire 

membership must have an opportunity to vote. The Committee decided that NCWM should provide a model law to 

the states that allow ATC under existing laws. The Committee felt that presenting both the ATC Steering 

Committee (ATCSC) proposal and the original 2007 proposal to the states was the best way to move forward. There 

was limited attendance of fewer than 25 state representatives at the 2009 Interim Meeting. The Committee felt 

strongly that each state should be involved with any action or vote taken on this proposal.

The Committee is recommending adoption of one of the proposals presented below. If Item 232-1 is adopted then 

Item 232-2 will be withdrawn by the Committee. If Item 232-1 is not adopted, then Item 232-2 will be 

recommended for adoption.

The first proposal is Item 232-1, which is the proposed method of sale, developed by the ATCSC (refer to L&R 

pages 6 and 8 for additional background/discussion) and modified by the Committee. This proposal will permit the 

use of ATC on a voluntary basis for 10 years and impose specific requirements on sellers who choose that option. 

At the end of 10 years the proposal will require ATC to be used in all transactions. The 10-year delay will allow 

industry flexibility in obtaining and using the equipment. This could potentially allow for a lower cost technology to 

be introduced.

The second proposal, Item 232-2, which is the original proposal (refer to L&R pages 9 and 11 for additional 

background and discussion), was first voted on in July 2007. This proposal will permit the use of ATC on a 

voluntary basis if permitted by existing state laws and does not include any mandatory deadline.

The Committee learned from its Canadian Technical Advisor that international petroleum measurement is typically 

conducted using 15 °C. The Committee believes that the U.S. Petroleum industry will continue to use 60 °F for the 

foreseeable future, and, if the U.S. Petroleum industry changes to SI, it will follow the international practice of using 

temperature adjustment tables based on 15 °C, so the SI values have been changed to 15 °C. In the following 
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

L&R - 6

proposals, values are given at 15 °C and the customary units are given at 60 °F to recognize current practices in the 

sale of petroleum. The word “permissive” was also stricken from the second proposal.

At the 2009 Annual Meeting in San Antonio, Texas, the Committee reviewed the data, reports and comments 

received (refer to Appendix D for letters submitted). The Committee withdrew both Items 232-1 and 232-2 in their 

entirety. Neither of these items will appear on future agendas unless a proposal is submitted by a Regional 

Association. It was voted by the Conference that the following language appear as presented and no changes be 

made after the Conference. The Conference adopted the following summary of the Committee’s assessment of the 

comments received on these items and also agreed not to allow the Secretary editorial privilege.

The Committee heard over 45 comments during the open hearings on both 232-1 and 232-2. The 

Committee reviewed all testimony, studies, letters, and past conference reports in making their decision.

There were very few proponents to ATC under 232-2. There were comments from State officials that they 

would not support mandatory ATC but would consider supporting permissive ATC. A major reason to 

have ATC would be to provide a model law for uniformity amongst the states. Those states that do not 

want ATC could prohibit through law or regulation. A majority of the comments indicated that there 

needed to be a way to make transactions transparent to consumers. A county sealer stated that the CEC 

recommended that more research is needed and that temperature differences exist for retailers that are in 

the same marketplace. A few comments were made that having temperature compensation would be the 

most fair and equitable means for selling fuels.

The overwhelming majority of comments were opposing ATC. Primary reasons for the Committee’s 

decision were conference consensus against ATC, economic cost factors, lack of benefit to consumers, 

absence of uniformity in the marketplace, and the additional cost to Weights and Measures officials and 

service companies. Due to the current economic situation, States currently have decreasing budgets which 

limits their resources for additional testing time and equipment. Consumers may have to incur the cost for 

the implementation of ATC and would have to deal with the possibility of fewer retailers in the 

marketplace. There was also concern with retailers in rural areas and how this additional burden would be 

a financial and economic hardship. Two studies, the California Energy Commission (CEC) study titled

“Fuel Delivery Temperature Study” and the “Alaska Fuel Metering Project,” were submitted. With the 

release of the CEC study, it was documented that it was not cost beneficial for either consumer or industry. 

A few stakeholders expressed that making it permissive and or mandatory would be anti-competitive. 

There was concern about educating consumers on ATC. Consumers would have to know the difference 

between purchasing gas in today’s market and an ATC market in order to make a value comparison.

232-1 W ATC Method of Sale Proposal Developed by the NCWM ATCSC

(This item was withdrawn)

Committee Recommendation: Amend the Method of Sale of Commodities Regulation in HB 130 by adding a new 

Section 2.32. Engine Fuels and Non-Engine Fuels (refer to L&R pages 5 and 9 for background/discussion).

2.32. Engine Fuels and Non-Engine Fuels.

2.32.1. Definitions.

2.32.1.1. Engine fuel – any liquid or gaseous matter used for the generation of power in an internal 

combustion engine.

2.32.1.2. Non-engine fuel. – any liquid or gaseous matter used for the generation of heat, power, or 

similar uses.

2.32.1.3. Temperature correction. – the process of correcting volume measurements at any 

temperature to an equivalent volume at a reference temperature.
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

L&R - 7

2.32.1.4. Net volume. – the volume after temperature correction.

2.32.1.5. Gross volume. – a volume measurement that has not been subject to temperature 

correction.

2.32.2. Quantity.

2.32.2.1. Quantity, Wholesale Transactions.

(a) Effective January 1, 2010, where not in conflict with other statutes or regulations all engine 

fuels and non-engine fuels shall may be sold, offered, or exposed for sale to wholesale 

customers either in terms of liquid volume in liters or gallons or barrels, or in terms of liquid 

volume automatically temperature corrected to 15 °C (60 °F) (15.56 °C) in liters or gallons 

or barrels.

(b) Effective January 1, 2020, where not in conflict with other statutes or regulations all engine 

fuels and non-engine fuels shall be sold, offered, or exposed for sale to wholesale customers 

in terms of liquid volume automatically temperature corrected to 15 °C (60 °F) (15.56 °C) in 

liters or gallons or barrels.

(c) When engine fuels and non-engine fuels are sold temperature corrected to wholesale 

customers:

(1) Correction shall be made automatically for the fuel temperature either based on the fuel 

standard density and reference tables specified in Table 2.32.1. or based on the actual 

measured density of the fuel and using reference tables specified in Table 2.32.1.

(2) If using a measured density, the seller shall maintain records of the density 

determination for one year and shall make those records available for inspection by a 

weights and measures official on request during normal business hours.

(3) All primary indications of net volume quantities on measuring devices and all receipts, 

invoices, bills of lading, and other transfer documents shall clearly and conspicuously 

identify net volume quantities with the unit of measure and the terms “Volume 

corrected to 15 °C” (60 °F).or “Volume corrected to 15.56 °C.”

(4) Unless otherwise agreed to by both the buyer and seller in writing, engine fuels and nonengine fuels sold temperature corrected shall be sold in that manner over at least a 

consecutive 12-month period.

2.32.2.2. Quantity, Retail Transactions.

(a) Effective January 1, 2010, where not in conflict with other statutes or regulations, all engine 

fuels and non-engine fuels identified in Table 2.32.1. may shall be sold, offered, or exposed 

for sale to retail customers either in terms of liquid volume in liters or gallons, or in terms of 

liquid volume automatically temperature corrected to 15 °C (60 °F) (15.56 °C) in liters or 

gallons.

(b) Effective January 1, 2020, where not in conflict with other statutes or regulations, all engine 

fuels and non-engine fuels identified in Table 2.32.1. shall be sold, offered, or exposed for 

sale to retail customers in terms of liquid volume automatically temperature corrected to 

15 °C (60 °F) (15.56 °C) in liters or gallons.

(c) When engine fuels and non-engine fuels are sold temperature corrected to retail customers:
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

L&R - 8

(1) Correction shall be made automatically for the fuel temperature based on the fuel 

standard density and reference table in Table 2.32.1.

(2) All primary indications on measuring devices and all receipts, invoices, and other 

transfer documents shall clearly and conspicuously identify net volume quantities with 

the unit of measure and the terms “Volume corrected to 15 °C” or “Volume corrected to 

60 °F.” or “Volume corrected to 15.56 °C.”

(3) If a fuel is sold temperature corrected from a measuring device at a business or fleet 

location, all sales of the same fuel from that business or fleet location shall be sold 

temperature corrected over at least a consecutive 12-month period.

(4) All unit price advertisements shall be clearly and conspicuously marked with the term 

“ATC.”

Table 2.32.1. Reference Tables and Fuel Densities for Temperature Correction

Fuel

Reference Table for Wholesale 

or Retail Temperature 

Correction

Standard Fuel Density for 

Retail Transactions

(optional density for 

wholesale transactions)

Gasoline, gasolineoxygenate blends 

(3.7 mass percent oxygen, 

maximum), gasoline 

ethanol blends (10 volume 

percent maximum)

API Table 6b 62 API (730 kg/m3)

Diesel Fuel (grade 2-D),

biodiesel blends (20 volume 

percent biodiesel, 

maximum)

API Table 6b 37 API (840 kg/m3)

Other fuels TBD _ _

(Added 2009)

Discussion/Background for 232-1 Automatic Temperature Compensation Steering Committee (ATCSC) 

Background and Recommended Method of Sale

Background: The ATCSC held a meeting August 27 - 29, 2007, in Chicago, Illinois, to address issues associated 

with potential implementation of ATC for retail motor fuel. Valuable input was received during that meeting from 

marketers, manufacturers, consumers, and regulatory officials. Following the meeting, the ATCSC continued to 

receive input from the four regional weights and measures associations.

It is not the charge of the ATCSC to endorse or oppose the implementation of ATC at retail. The ATCSC is tasked 

with addressing issues associated with the implementation of ATC to assist the NCWM membership in coming to a 

consensus on the issue. The proposals of the ATCSC reflect the Committee’s opinion on the best approach to ATC 

if NCWM votes to implement it.

The ATCSC developed discussion points in forming a proposal for the Method of Sale Regulation. The discussion 

points are documented in the report of the 93rd Annual Meeting (2008).
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

L&R - 9

Discussion (ATCSC): The ATCSC believes that if temperature compensation is adopted for the retail sales of 

refined petroleum products, then the ultimate goal is to have mandatory use of ATC to provide a single method of 

sale. The time period before the mandatory use of ATC is a debatable point. The ATCSC recommends that 

10 years after the adoption of an ATC method of sale, using temperature compensation should be mandatory. 

During the first seven years after adoption, the use of ATC should be controlled by the individual states based upon 

existing state laws and regulations. A relatively short period of time (two years) is suggested during which new 

dispensers must be equipped with ATC capability before permissive use of ATC would be permitted. This will 

allow station owners to decide, based on their business needs and plans, when to buy dispensers equipped with ATC 

and this limits the time period during which they could not use the feature after being purchased. This requirement 

should be placed in NIST HB 44, as a nonretroactive requirement, to address this design requirement.

The time period for the permissive use of ATC should be kept reasonably short to reduce the potential confusion that 

may exist in the marketplace when both compensated and uncompensated sales occur. One year is a recommended 

time period for the permissive use of ATC. The ATCSC discussed whether to have different implementation dates 

for large and small service stations based upon throughput. The ATCSC recommends a single implementation date 

for all service stations to reduce the time period during which gasoline and diesel fuel will be sold in compensated 

and uncompensated volumes. A short time period must be provided for the permissive use of ATC, since time is 

needed to activate the ATC equipped dispensers and to allow service companies and weights and measures officials 

to test the accuracy of ATC dispensers.

Under this implementation plan, there will be a seven-year period of continued uncertainty regarding the legal 

method of sale of these products. Some have argued that the lack of definitive language in setting a method of sale 

means that any volume unit is acceptable, compensated or uncompensated. This is based on the principle that laws 

proscribe activity. All other activities, not proscribed, are legal. Another interpretation is the broad policy change 

made by the NCWM in 1969 and 1970 in adopting specific language on ATC use. Language in NIST HB 44 was 

clear and directed specifically, and solely, to wholesale sales of petroleum products and for both wholesale and retail 

sales of LPG products. The ATCSC believes that inevitably each state will have to resolve this issue, unless it is 

resolved for us through currently pending federal class action suits.

10 Years from Date of Adoption by NCWM

Implementation Option:

NTEP 

approval

Status quo; companies may 

purchase dispensers with ATC, but 

use of the ATC feature is 

controlled by individual states

 all new retail fuel 

dispensers must be 

equipped with ATC

Permissive 

ATC Use 

Phase

 effective date; 

mandatory use of 

ATC

232-2 W Original Recommendation for a Method of Sale Proposal for ATC Developed by the 

2007 Committee

(This item was withdrawn)

Committee Recommendation: Amend the Method of Sale of Commodities Regulation in HB 130 by adding a new 

Section 2.32. Refined Petroleum Products (refer to L&R pages 4 and 10 for background/discussion).

2.32. Refined Petroleum Products – Permissive Temperature Compensation.

2.32.1. Where not in conflict with other statutes or regulations, these products may be sold on the basis 

of temperature-compensated volume.

7 years from date of adoption by NCWM 2 years 1 year
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

L&R - 10

2.32.2. When products are sold on the basis of temperature-compensated volume:

(a) All sales shall be in terms of liters or gallons with the delivered volume adjusted to 15 °C or of 

liter s or gallons with the delivered volume adjusted to 15 °C (60 °F);

(b) Temperature compensation must be accomplished through automatic means.

2.32.3. Full Disclosure Requirements.

2.32.3.1. The primary indicating elements of measuring devices, recording elements, and all 

recorded or display representations (e.g., receipts, invoices, bills of lading, etc.) shall be clearly and 

conspicuously marked to show that the product was delivered on the basis of temperaturecompensated volume;

2.32.3.2. When a product is offered for sale on the basis of temperature-compensated volume, street 

signs or other advertisements of its unit price must clearly and conspicuously indicate that the 

volume is temperature compensated.

2.32.4. Other Provisions.

2.32.4.1. At a business location all sales on a temperature-compensated basis shall be made 

continuously and for a period of not less than 12 months (e.g., a person may not engage the automatic 

temperature compensator on a device only during certain times of the year to prevent the person 

from taking advantage of temperature compensation).

2.32.4.2. At a business location which offers products for sale on the basis of a temperaturecompensated volume, all measuring devices shall dispense on the basis of temperature-compensated 

volume (e.g., a person must not operate some devices at a location with automatic temperature 

compensators and others without compensators to prevent them from taking advantage of 

temperature variations).

Annotations:

1. As defined in Handbook 130 Engine Fuels, Petroleum Products, and Automotive Lubricants 

Inspection Law, refined petroleum products are products obtained from distilling and processing of 

petroleum (crude oil), unfinished oils, recycled oils, natural gas liquids, refinery blend stocks, and 

other miscellaneous hydrocarbon compounds as well as biofuels such as E85 and biodiesel at various 

blends.

2. A temperature-compensated liter is defined as having a reference temperature of 15 °C and A

temperature compensated gallon is defined as 231 in3 at a reference temperature of 15 °C (60 °F).

3. When a product is sold on the basis of a temperature-compensated volume, it is typically called “net” 

or “net volume,” whereas the volume before compensation is called the “gross” or “gross volume.”

4. The metric units are shown solely for the purpose of showing metric equivalents in this uniform 

regulation in this NIST handbook. There is no requirement that dual units be shown in any full 

disclosure information required under this section.

5. Temperature Compensation may be abbreviated (e.g., “Temp Comp,” or “Compensated to 60 °F”) 

in the interest of space as long as its meaning is clear.

6. The seller is not prohibited from providing both gross and net gallons on receipts, invoices, bills of 

lading or other documentation as long as it is not misleading or deceptive.
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

L&R - 11

7. A “business location” means a single outlet and should not be interpreted to mean all of the outlets or 

locations that a business or company operates in a jurisdiction.

Discussion/Background for 232-2: Temperature Compensation for Refined Petroleum Products and Other 

Fuels Background and Discussion

Sources: The Southern Weights and Measures Association (SWMA), the Western Weights and Measures 

Association (WWMA), and the Central Weights and Measures Association (CWMA).

Background: At its 2007 Interim Meeting, the Committee received correspondence from consumer groups and 

other organizations and heard testimony from weights and measures officials, the petroleum industry (including the 

American Petroleum Institute (API)), consumers and others regarding temperature compensation of refined 

petroleum products. The Committee appreciates all of the data, discussion, and especially the high level of interest. 

The Committee acknowledges the media attention this item has drawn, and the members were pleased to learn that 

some agricultural commissioners and other policy makers, as well as some governors and state attorneys general, 

have expressed interest in temperature compensation.

Proponents for the item spoke for a need to improve the accuracy of measurements of petroleum products because of 

their cost and of the need to improve accountability. Opponents spoke to the cost of implementing temperature 

compensation and the potential for confusion in the marketplace. The Committee was made aware of legislation 

under consideration in Missouri and Texas that would establish different definitions for a gallon based on the 

ambient temperature in various areas of their states. The Committee was especially sensitive to concerns expressed 

by weights and measures inspectors about the potential cost and increased inspection time they may expend if 

temperature compensation is allowed in all applications, especially at the retail level.

Comments Reviewed by the Committee at the 2007 Annual Meeting

a. The Committee noted if the temperature compensation proposal was adopted at the 2007 Annual Meeting, 

it would go into effect January 1, 2008, in the 18 jurisdictions that indicated they automatically adopt that 

regulation by reference or citation (see 2008 Edition of NIST HB 130, “Uniformity of Laws and 

Regulations” (page 9) for a list of those states). The Committee recognized that if the recommendation was 

adopted in July 2007, some jurisdictions might want to delay its implementation or exempt that particular 

section from being automatically adopted. Since typically, rulemaking takes longer than six months to 

complete, the Committee debated whether or not it should include a delayed effective date of July 1, 2009, 

for this regulation but took no action on this issue.

b. The Committee discussed the subject of unscrupulous retailers artificially heating fuels and that this 

deceptive practice has occurred from time to time. The State of Arizona actually forbids the practice; 

however, the Committee did not address that issue in the following recommendation. The Committee 

considered if a prohibition on the artificial heating of fuels for the purpose of increasing volume at the time 

of sale should be added to the recommendation but no action was taken on this issue.

c. The Committee asked to receive comments on whether or not the recommendation should allow the state 

director to grant (and, when justified, revoke) written waivers to some provisions if sufficient justification 

was provided by the business owner. The Committee discussed whether or not the requirement that all 

devices that dispense product at a single location might result in a hardship for some retailers or difficulties 

in implementing the new method of sale for specific customers (e.g., over-the-road truckers). For example, 

if a station decided to sell gasoline and diesel fuel on a temperature-compensated basis but also had a 

dispenser for K-1 Kerosene, from which limited sales were made, a waiver from the temperaturecompensation requirement on all dispensers could be justified. Likewise, if a chain of truck stops decided 

to sell diesel fuel on a temperature-compensated basis through its high-output dispensers to truckers 

(e.g., its prime customers), but did not want to implement temperature-compensated sales through its 

gasoline dispensers, a waiver could also be justified. The purpose of the requirement that all devices at a 

single location be temperature compensated or not was to prevent a retailer from selling through the 

compensated or uncompensated dispensers when it benefited the seller. The Committee agreed flexibility 
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

L&R - 12

was warranted and could make acceptance of the method of sale easier to implement but took no action on 

this issue.

The Committee duly considered the presentations, discussions, letters, data, media stories, comments received at 

public hearings and in hallways, and the proposed legislation. The NCWM has posted this information and 

information on the activities of its ATCSC at www.ncwm.net.

Following is a list of justifications for adopting a standard that will facilitate the implementation of an orderly yet 

permissive approach to allowing broader use of temperature compensation in the marketplace:

• Cost of fuel has led to increased consumer and business interest in better methods of measurement, 

inventory control, and accountability. By now, everyone has realized or should realize that ambient 

temperatures are but one factor which impacts the volume of any liquid. Thus, basing a state’s 

temperature-compensation program on regional ambient temperatures is not a technically valid approach to 

addressing the issue.

• The use of dual-wall storage tanks and deliveries of fuel directly from refineries result in higher 

temperature product.

• Awareness and concerns over the impact of temperature on the cost of fuel has come about at the same time 

advances in technology such as electronics and software have made compensation possible in both new and 

existing measuring devices at lower costs.

• Increased consumer requests that temperature compensation be used, especially in high volume deliveries, 

for improved measurement accuracy.

• The dramatic growth of public interest in recent years is evidenced by articles in many newspapers and 

widely-read magazines such as Scientific America. This national conversation about energy has led to 

greater consumer awareness, as well as interest on the part of political leaders, of energy issues and has 

contributed to creating an opportunity for change.

After a thorough discussion and polling by its chairman, the Committee was unanimous that it would recommend to 

the NCWM the adoption of a method of sale for refined petroleum products and other fuels. This would allow 

industry the option of selling these products on the basis of temperature-compensated sales. The decision to submit 

the permissive temperature-compensated method of sale for NCWM consideration was unanimous, the 

representative from the CWMA supported going forward with the recommendation but did not agree with including 

retail sales in the scope of the regulation. The Committee ultimately decided it was in the best interest of the U.S. 

commercial measurement system if the NCWM adopted a standard that would provide guidance to states 

considering legislation in this area; thus, supporting the work of the Specifications and Tolerances Committee, the 

National Type Evaluation Program (NTEP), and others to develop technical requirements and test procedures for 

both type approval and field testing for devices equipped with temperature compensation. The Committee believed 

those efforts were critical to facilitating the introduction of temperature compensation to the marketplace, especially 

in NTEP states as the NCWM learned there were no retail motor-fuel dispensers available with Certificates of 

Conformance that included temperature compensation functions.

At the 2009 Interim Meeting the L&R Committee dealt with various topics and considerations when addressing the 

development of this proposal. These items are documented in the 93rd Annual Meeting Publication 16 (2008). The 

Committee agreed that the metric equivalent reference temperature of 15.56 °C would be changed to 15 °C and the 

word “permissive” would be stricken from the proposal.

Information on the consideration of this item by the Regional Associations is presented below. Items are broken out 

by region with the earliest information appearing first in the report.

Central Weights and Measures Association (CWMA): This is an excerpt from the report of the CWMA’s Laws 

and Regulations Committee, which considered this item at its 2007 Interim Meeting in Bettendorf, Iowa, on

September 16 - 19, 2007. (Full report is available at www.ncwm.net/central/lr/lr_2007_interim.doc.)
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

L&R - 13

The CWMA L&R Committee reported that it received:

...considerable testimony both in support and opposition of the Temperature Compensation 

proposal during the open hearings. Many industry representatives opposed the item due to the 

anticipated cost of equipment and the lack of data that supports whether a better system of 

measurement is worth the cost. The CWMA L&R Committee cannot support the item as 

proposed due to the considerable opposition to the permissive language. Several state regulators 

feel that if permissive is adopted, it will be implemented in the northern states, not in the southern 

states where there appears to be more pressure to implement temperature compensation. A good 

example of this was given that in Canada where temperature compensation is allowed, it is not 

widely used in areas west of the Rockies where the climate is more temperate. The Committee 

further feels that making the item “Informational” will not resolve the issue. The most requested 

information of a cost-benefit analysis is not currently being conducted by any organization. 

Although several statements were made that temperature compensation may be a more equitable 

method of sale, many stated that it is not “perfect” nor will it resolve current issues of fraud such 

as artificial heating of fuel. To address the concern of “hot spots,” the Committee discussed the 

option of amending the proposal to exclude sales at retail based upon the flow rate of dispensers as 

previously proposed. The Committee feels that another potential solution for a more equitable 

method of sale is to formulate an alternate proposal to change the method of sale to mass. 

Technology exists to sell motor fuel through mass flow meters. This method of sale would be 

more equitable for all types of fuel including alternative fuels, which would allow consumers to 

make value comparisons. The Committee expects that the ATC Steering Committee will provide 

more information which will provide direction to the conference on this issue. We look forward to 

their information that will provide answers to many questions. Based upon the testimony heard, 

the Committee recommends that the item be Withdrawn. Note: In response to the ATC Steering 

Committee request, the CWMA L&R Committee suggests that if this proposal goes forward as a 

Voting item, that there be a mandatory implementation date with little to no permissive period as a 

transition.

At the CWMA 2008 Annual Meeting, the L&R Committee recommended that this item continue to remain 

Informational. They heard from an industry representative that this item does not resolve the issue of consumers 

being shorted at the pump. This representative further commented that there are alternative methods for measuring 

BTU contents, but does not support these alternative methods. A regulatory official opposed the word “permissive.”

At the CWMA Interim Meeting held September 14 - 17, 2008, in Rock Island, Illinois, the CWMA L&R Committee 

continued to oppose the word “permissive” in the current language of this proposal. In addition, they would like to 

review the GAO and CEC reports to assess their relevance.

At the CWMA 2009 Annual Meeting held May 2 - 6, 2009, in St. Louis, Missouri, the Committee recommended 

that both 232-1 and 232-2 be opposed based upon extensive comments from petroleum marketers and state officials 

heard in their open hearings. There were two concerns that were specifically discussed in 232-2; the first concern 

was the removal of the word “permissive” from the title while the proposal states that “products may be sold on the 

basis of temperature-compensated volume.” The second concern was the lack of density values for the products in 

the proposal.

Statements were made that permissive ATC would prevent uniformity in the sale of engine fuels and non-engine 

fuels. ATC would not provide transparency in retail transactions and may cause consumer confusion. An industry 

representative commented that the science of temperature compensation is not relevant to the discrepancy of energy 

content caused by the varying concentrations of ethanol. There were comments made in support of this item. 

Members feel that the NCWM is the appropriate place to make decisions regarding ATC rather than it being 

mandated by either Congress or individual state legislatures.
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

L&R - 14

Northeastern Weights and Measures Association (NEWMA): This is an excerpt from the report of the Laws and 

Regulations Committee meeting held at that association’s 2007 Interim Meeting in Springfield, Massachusetts, on

October 9 - 10, 2007.

It is clear from the majority of comments received (both in written and oral form) that strong 

opposition exists to the item as proposed, especially the inclusion of permissive ATC sales. 

NEWMA could not support an item that allowed for two methods of sale. Confusion would be 

widespread. Additionally, the item raises far too many questions and uncertainties that to date 

have not been answered. Further research must be conducted to answer those questions. The 

National Conference on Weights and Measures is an organization made up of weights and 

measures officials and industry representatives that consistently over the years has worked as a 

consensus organization. A consensus on this item does not exist and the item should be 

withdrawn. Making the item “Informational” would not bring us to the needed consensus.

At the 2008 NEWMA Annual Meeting this issue was discussed extensively. NEWMA would like to see wording 

developed in the method of sale to assist states where ATC is prohibited by state law or regulation. In the past, 

NEWMA had recommended a method of sale of gross gallons at retail only. They would like to have further 

development of the method of sale of gross gallons at retail. This could possibly be reviewed as a separate item.

NEWMA held their 2008 Interim Meeting October 15 - 16 in Springfield, Massachusetts. Members discussed the 

viability of submitting a proposal to NCWM to mandate that all sales of retail motor fuel be sold by “gross gallons” 

(ambient temperature). This would counter the argument “if it is not prohibited, then it is permitted.” Also, it would 

exempt states which choose to permit ATC. The consensus of NEWMA is that ATC should be a “state issue.” 

Although the majority of members would be comfortable with this, it was debated whether the “timing” of such a 

proposal may be premature. The debate resulted with a consensus to develop the proposal and postpone any action 

with it until the California (CEC) study is complete.

The GAO report was released in October 2008, and after reviewing this report, NEWMA members were 

disappointed by its conclusion. Comments within the report included “the continued uncertainties outlined by the 

GAO support the argument that no action be taken to adopt Automatic Temperature Compensation.” NEWMA 

recommends that this item remain Informational.

At the 2009 NEWMA Annual Meeting, May 11 - 14, 2009 the regional members opposed both Items 232-1 

and 232-2. A recommendation was made by the Committee that both items be withdrawn. The Committee 

discussed the CEC report which concluded that “ATC should not be required since the results of the cost benefit 

analysis show a net cost for consumers.” A state official commented that the L&R has not demonstrated how the 

marketplace will be different with ATC. An industry representative commented that new gasolines will have 

varying BTU’s and mandating ATC will not balance out the BTU difference.

A recommendation was made by the Committee that both 232-1 and 232-2 be withdrawn and replaced with the 

attached language prepared by Ross Andersen, NewYork, (see proposal below). This proposal will create a method 

of sale for motor engine fuels and heating fuels that will require all retail sales be measured in gross gallons.

Proposal to amend NIST Handbook 130, Method of Sale Regulation to create a method of sale for fuels.

2.XX. Engine Fuels and Heating Fuels

2.XX.1. Definitions.

2.XX.1.1. Engine Fuel. – any liquid used for the generation of power in an internal combustion engine. 

This does not include any substance that must be kept under pressure or maintained at cryogenic 

temperatures to remain in the liquid state.

2.XX.1.2. Non-engine Fuel. – any liquid matter used for the generation of heat, power, or similar uses. 

This does not include any substance that must be kept under pressure or maintained at cryogenic 

temperatures to remain in the liquid state.
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

L&R - 15

2.XX.1.3. Gross Volume. – the volume of a liquid at the conditions at the time of sale.

2.XX.1.4. Net Volume. – the volume of a liquid after correction for temperature expansion/contraction to 

the reference temperature. 

2.XX.2. Declaration of Quantity.

2.XX.2.1. Retail Transactions. – Engine fuels and non-engine fuels shall be sold or offered for sale at 

retail in units of gross volume, except for individual transactions of 6000 liters (1500 gallons) or 

more where the buyer may request to purchase in units of volume corrected to 15.56 °C (60 °F).

2.XX.2.2. Wholesale Transactions. – Engine fuels and non-engine fuels shall be sold or offered for sale 

in units of gross volume or in units of volume automatically corrected to 15.56 °C (60 °F). 

Factors for correction shall be those in ASTM D1250 Table 6b or other suitable reference 

source.

2.XX.2.X. (Optional permissive use of temperature correction) Specific Retail Transactions. –

(Describe the specific product or type of retail transaction here) shall be sold or offered for sale 

in units of gross volume or in units of net volume automatically corrected to 15.56 °C (60 °F). 

The following density factors shall be used in automatic temperature compensating equipment 

for all transactions under this subsection:

(a) (Name or type of fuel for each fuel) and (density factor in API gravity, kg/m3, or g/cm3). 

(Add additional items (b), (c), etc. to this list as necessary.)

2.XX.2.Y. (Optional mandatory use of temperature correction) Specific Retail Transactions. –

(Describe the specific product or type of retail transaction here) shall be sold or offered for sale 

in units of volume automatically corrected to 15.56 °C (60 °F). The following density factors 

shall be used in automatic temperature compensating equipment for all transactions under this 

subsection:

(a) (Name or type of fuel for each fuel) and (density factor in API gravity, kg/m3, or g/cm3). 

(Add additional items (b), (c), etc. to this list as necessary.)

2.XX.3. Receipt, ticket, or sales invoice.

2.XX.3.1. Retail transactions, gross volume. – If the seller provides the buyer a receipt, ticket or sales 

invoice, it shall declare the gross volume delivered and the appropriate unit of volumetric 

measure used (liter, gallon, barrel, etc).

2.XX.3.2. Retail transactions, net volume. – If the seller provides the buyer a receipt, ticket or sales 

invoice, it shall declare the net volume delivered with the appropriate unit of volumetric 

measure (liter, gallon, barrel, etc), and the statement “volume corrected to ___” with the blank 

being filled in with the reference temperature, e.g. “volume corrected to 60 °F”. In the case of a 

single transaction exceeding 6,000 liters (1,500 gallons) being sold on a net basis as provided in 

subsection 2.XX.2.1., the seller shall provide a receipt, ticket or sales invoice as described in 

this section, and the seller shall also declare the density of the fuel, the fuel temperature at time 

of sale, and the gross volume with appropriate unit of measure.

2.XX.3.3. Wholesale transactions, gross volume. – The seller shall provide a delivery receipt, ticket or 

sales invoice to the buyer declaring the volume delivered and the appropriate unit of volumetric 

measure used.

2.XX.3.4. Wholesale transactions, net volume. – The seller shall provide a receipt, ticket or sales invoice 

to the buyer declaring the net volume delivered with appropriate unit of measure, the density of 
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

L&R - 16

the fuel, the fuel temperature at time of sale, and the gross volume with appropriate unit of 

measure. The net volume shall be clearly designated either “net at ___” or “volume corrected 

to ___” with the blank filled in with the reference temperature.

2.XX.4. Additional requirements.

2.XX.4.1. All transactions, gross volume. – The seller shall not use external sources of heat to expand the 

volume of fuels sold on a gross volume basis. This includes any application of heat to the 

product, using dark colors on above-ground storage tanks to increase absorption of solar energy, 

or similar acts.

2.XX.4.2. Retail transactions, net volume.

(a) All sales at a business location shall be in net volume units on a continuous basis. A 

“business location” means a single outlet and should not be interpreted to mean all of the 

outlets or locations that a business or company operates in a jurisdiction.

(b) The seller shall clearly and conspicuously indicate “ATC” in association with unit price 

advertisements to indicate that the sales are being made on a net volume basis.

2.XX.4.3. Wholesale transactions, net volume. – All sales to a particular buyer in net volume units shall 

be in those units for a continuous 12-month period unless otherwise agreed to by the parties in 

writing.

Justification for the proposal: The California Energy Commission (CEC) Fuel Delivery Temperature Study has 

shown that mandatory ATC for RMFDs is an overwhelming net negative for consumers. In keeping with that 

reality, their fourth recommendation to the California Legislature suggests clarifying the statute. The obvious 

interpretation of that recommendation would mean mandating gross gallon sales. The proposal above is one attempt 

to do that in the form of a Method of Sale Regulation.

Because of the number of combinations involved, the regulation is fairly complicated. There are definitions in the 

first section, methods of sale in the second, and requirements for receipts in the third and general requirements for 

gross and net sales in the fourth. This section includes prohibition on artificially heating product to expand volume 

when using gross volume sales.

The proposal includes two optional sections in 2.XX.2. that permit states to either permit net sales at retail, or 

mandate it, for specific types of fuels or applications. This provides flexibility to states that already permit net sales 

for some products or applications. As the state adopts the optional section of their choice, they fill in the blanks 

accordingly. For example, if a state wanted to permit net sales of home heating fuels delivered from a vehicle tank 

meter, they could add that as 2.XX.2.3. to do that and specify product densities for #1 oil or kerosene, #2 oil and 

#4 oil. They may also wish to include densities for B100 and various biodiesel blends or include them under other 

product densities.

NEWMA believes this proposal would:

• Offer clarity of the statue as the CEC recommended

• Retain voluntary ATC usage at wholesale

• Retain mandatory gross retail sales and prohibit artificial heating

• Provide options for an individual state to specifically mandate or permit ATC for specific applications

• Permit the S&T Committee to complete its work on ATC specifications and tolerances

• Eliminate the apprehension that NCWM members have towards adopting S&T ATC items because of the 

concern that their inclusion into HB 44 would constitute a “method of sale”

• Permit NTEP to develop test criteria and checklists, and start certifying ATC devices

• Erase the void that exists in states that neither allow nor prohibit ATC.
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

L&R - 17

NEWMA also believes the proposal does not close the door on ATC. NEWMA projects that it would facilitate ATC 

upgrades if and when the economics are feasible to consider ATC. It also would permit manufacturers to include 

ATC options to NTEP CC’s in anticipation of future regulatory changes.

Western Weights and Measures Association (WWMA): The WWMA had an Annual Meeting 

September 9 - 13, 2007, in Lake Tahoe, Nevada. It voted to recommend that the Committee move a modified 

version of the original proposal forward as a Voting item at the 2008 NCWM Annual Meeting. The WWMA 

recommended removal of the term “Permissive” from the title in Section 2.30. Refined Petroleum 

Products - Temperature Compensation. The full report is available from NIST WMD.

The WWMA held their Annual Meeting in Anchorage, Alaska, September 7 - 11, 2008. It was recommended that 

this item continue to remain Informational. The WWMA would like to review the CEC report upon completion. It 

was requested from an industry representative that NCWM work on developing a temperature statistical analysis and 

to define “what is the problem” and “what is the solution” to this issue. Industry voiced concern on the cost of 

implementing ATC and how it will affect the retailers and consumers. On the other hand, a state W&M official 

expressed that something should be in place for when ATC does become available and used in the marketplace.

Southern Weights and Measures Association (SWMA): The SWMA held its Annual Meeting 

October 21 - 24, 2007, in Little Rock, Arkansas. It voted to recommend that the Committee move a modified 

version of the original proposal forward as a Voting item at the 2008 NCWM Annual Meeting. The amendments 

and other changes proposed by the SWMA are presented below. (The full report is available from the NIST L&R 

Technical Advisor.)

The SWMA L&R Committee heard opposition to permissive temperature compensation for retail 

and other meters during the open hearing primarily from industry representatives many of whom 

suggested that further study was needed to determine if the cost versus benefit justified adoption 

of the original proposal. The Committee agrees that more information would be helpful in 

determining the value of using ATC on retail motor-fuel dispensers that are marked to deliver less 

than 30 gal per minute. Several comments called for the withdrawal of the item but the 

Committee recognized that the item will be on the NCWM L&R Interim agenda in 2008 because 

it was carried over from the 2007 Annual Meeting and because the Western Weights and 

Measures Association supported adoption of the original item at its recent meeting. The 

Committee also believes that withdrawing this item as some regions have suggested would only 

delay consideration of this issue, which has been on the NCWM agenda in one form or another for 

almost a decade, because the item would likely be resubmitted by a regional association. There 

were other comments recommending that no further action be taken on this item or that it be 

tabled. One comment suggested that the original proposal be amended to limit the method of sale 

to Loading-Rack Meters, Vehicle-Tank Meters and Retail Dispensers which are marked to deliver 

30 gal per minute or more (which are typically used in making larger quantity deliveries at truck 

stops). The Committee believes that separating large flow meters (some of which are already 

equipped with ATC) from the proposal may reduce the opposition to the proposed method of sale 

for ATC. A majority of the Committee recommends the following to the SWMA for adoption.

SWMA recommendation to the NCWM L&R Committee:

1. Remove the word “Permissive” from the title of the proposed method of sale for ATC.

2. Divide the item into two separate proposals.

a. For retail motor-fuel dispensers marked to deliver less than 30 gal/min, make it Developmental and 

recommend that the NCWM ATC Steering Committee lead or coordinate a study to determine if the 

cost/benefit justifies the implementation of ATC.

b. For retail motor-fuel dispensers marked to deliver 30 gal/min or more, amend the method of sale 

proposal and establish a mandatory implementation date. The SWMA recommends that the NCWM 
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

L&R - 18

L&R Committee move this item for adoption at the 2008 Annual Meeting with the following 

amendments:

i. Amend Section 2.30.2. to read: When products are sold on the basis of temperature-compensated 

volume through Loading-Rack Meters, Vehicle-Tank Meters and Retail Motor-Fuel Dispensers 

marked to deliver 30 gal/min or more.

ii. Add an implementation date of 10 years from date of adoption.

The SWMA held its Annual Meeting in Atlanta, Georgia, October 5 - 8, 2008. The SWMA Committee supports this 

item to remain Informational until they can review the CEC report that is to be released.

232-3 V Method of Sale for Fireplace and Stove Wood, Flavoring Chips and Packaged Natural Wood

(This item neither passed or failed and was returned to Committee)

Source: Southern Weights and Measures Association (SWMA)

Background: A state cited a company in violation of their net quantity contents labeling for flavoring chips. This 

citation also led to this company’s product being removed from sale. The company was also advised to review all 

its packaging and labeling for compliance with NIST HB 130 regulations. The company requested assistance from

NIST WMD on the appropriate unit of metric measure for their flavoring chip packaging. Upon review it became 

apparent that the regulation lacked clarity for the proper unit use of metric measure by volume. When a quantity 

statement for cubic meter is carried out to three decimal points, it has limited meaning and is likely not useful in 

making value comparisons.

In HB 130, Method of Sale Regulation, Section 2.4.3.(d) states that flavoring chips shall be sold by volume, but it 

falls short of saying which volume units are required. Most packers also refer to Section 2.4.3. Quantity; where the 

guidance implies that it must be sold by the cubic meter. This permits the Method of Sale to be in conflict with 

Uniform Packaging and Labeling Regulation (UPLR) Declaration of Quantity for Consumer Packages Rule of 1000. 

Using cubic centimeters puts packers in conflict as well. Most states, if not all, give precedent to UPLR over the 

Method of Sale.

This item was presented at NCWM 2008 Annual Meeting and at all of the regional meetings.

At the 2009 Interim Meeting it was requested to add the words “up to one cubic foot” after the words cubic inches. 

The Committee agreed to modify the proposal and move it forward for a vote at the 2009 Annual Meeting.

At the CWMA 2009 Annual Meeting held in St. Louis, Missouri, on May 3 - 6, 2009, the NIST Technical Advisor 

recommended that the proposal be changed in Section 2.4.3.(a) to read as ...fractions of liters cubic meters. A state 

regulator stated that the proposal conflicts with HB 44 “Units of Measures” and believes that liters should only be 

used for fluid measurements. After review of HB 44, Appendix C (pgs C-2 and C-8), the L&R Committee did not 

feel that there is a conflict. The Committee supports this item for the following reasons: “A precedent has been 

established for use of liters in dry measure (e.g., mulch), traditional industry practices utilize liters as their method of 

sale, it provides a better value comparison, and it would remove the current conflict with violation of the 

Rule of 1000 when cubic meters are used.”

At the 2009 NEWMA Annual Meeting held in South Portland, Maine, May 11 - 14, 2009, the Committee supported 

this item along with the recommended changes from the NIST Technical Advisor. The NIST Technical Advisor 

recommended that the proposal be change in Section 2.4.3.(a) to read as ...fractions of liters cubic meters. A state 

official stated that the changes to this section are being made to correct a technical error with the use of metric 

measure and that customary units will not change. An industry representative questioned whether liters would be 

the correct metric measure and suggested decimeters. It was noted that decimeters and liters are equivalent.
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

L&R - 19

At the 2009 Annual Meeting in San Antonio, Texas, there was discussion that this proposal needs additional review 

by the Committee for editorial changes. The proposal is not clear and precise as presently submitted. It was 

recommended that the term “fraction of liters and cubic feet” be given consideration. This proposal is being 

returned to the Committee for additional clarification.

Committee Recommendation: Amend Section 2.4.3. as follows:

2.4.3. Quantity. – Fireplace and stove wood – Shall be advertised, offered for sale, and sold only by measure, 

using the term “cord” and fractional parts of a cord or the cubic meter, except that:

(a) Packaged natural wood. – Natural wood offered for sale in packaged form in quantities less than 

0.45 m3 (

1

/8 cord or 16 ft3) shall display the quantity in terms of cubic meters liters, to include decimal

fractions of cubic meters; or cubic feet cubic inches up to one cubic foot, to include fractions of a

cubic feet foot.

(A mended 200X )

(b) Artificial compressed or processed logs. – A single fireplace log shall be sold by weight, and packages 

of such individual logs shall be sold by weight plus count.

(c) Stove wood pellets or chips. – Pellets or chips not greater than 15 cm (6 in) in any dimension shall be 

sold by weight. This requirement does not apply to flavoring chips.

(Amended 1976 and 1991)

(d) Flavoring chips. – Flavoring chips shall be sold by volume. Flavoring chips offered for sale in 

packaged form in quantities less than 0.45 m3 (

1

/8 cord or 16 ft3) shall display the quantity in 

terms of liters, to include fractions of liters, cubic feet, or cubic inches up to one cubic foot, to 

include fractions of a cubic foot.

(Added 1998) (A mended 200X )

Note: In determining the appropriate Method of Sale, a clear distinction must be made as to whether the 

wood is being sold primarily as fuel (some wood is sold as fuel but flavoring is a byproduct) or strictly a 

wood flavoring.

(A dded 200X )

237 ENGINE FUELS AND AUTOMOTIVE LUBRICANTS INSPECTION 

REGULATION

237-1 V Revise Section 2.1. Gasoline and Gasoline-Oxygenate Blends

(This item was adopted)

Source: Chairman, Fuels and Lubricants Subcommittee (FALS)/NIST Technical Advisor

Background: The original proposal of changes for Section 2.1. of the regulation was based on the belief by some 

members of the Subcommittee that there is ambiguity in the current regulation and a lack of acceptance of the 

current requirements by some states (refer to Item 237-2 in the report of the 93rd Annual Meeting in 2008). Some 

members of the Subcommittee believed that a uniform regulation should include a set of enforceable limits that 

provide consumer protection, yet build a bridge to the future predominance of blend stock use.

Discussion: The Fuel and Lubricants Subcommittee had met at the 2007 Interim Meeting in Jacksonville, Florida, 

to undertake a review of a number of significant issues related to fuel standards. One of their projects was to review 

and update the Uniform Engine Fuels, Petroleum Products, and Automotive Lubricants Regulation in NIST HB 130. 
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

L&R - 20

The Subcommittee met at the 2007 NCWM Annual Meeting and continued its work on a number of items including 

a substantive revision of the fuel ethanol labeling requirement that the NCWM adopted at that meeting.

The Subcommittee met again on December 5, 2007, at the ASTM International (ASTM) meeting in Phoenix, 

Arizona, and considered proposed amendments to Section 2.1. as shown below but a consensus agreement could not 

be reached at that meeting. The Subcommittee held a conference call on January 15, 2008, to complete its work on 

the draft revisions of the law and regulation and to consider the proposed revisions to Section 2.1. After extensive 

deliberations, a consensus agreement on the proposed revisions to Section 2.1. could not be obtained.

At the 2008 Interim Meeting, comments were made during the open hearings where stakeholders voiced their 

concerns that this item is not ready to move forward. Stakeholders would like this item to go back to FALS for 

additional work on the language. The L&R Committee voted to make this item Informational and requested that the 

Fuel and Lubricants Subcommittee reconsider this issue. If the Subcommittee can resolve its differences on the 

proposal, it can submit amendments to this section as part of the revision to the Engine Fuels and Automotive 

Lubricants regulation under Item 237-1 above (refer to L&R Appendix B from the report of the 93rd NCWM Annual 

Meeting (2008) for written comments received on this item). This item was sent to the full Laws and Regulations 

Committee for consideration at the 2008 Interim Meeting on the recommendation of NIST’s Technical Advisor and 

with the agreement of the FALS Chairman. The section must be reviewed by the NCWM because the current 

language may be in conflict with federal fuel waiver provisions.

At the 2008 Annual Meeting in Burlington, Vermont, the Committee received one written comment (refer to L&R 

Appendix B from the report of the 93rd NCWM Annual Meeting (2008) for the written comment received on this 

item). This section will continue to remain Informational until additional information is received from the FALS.

At the CWMA 2008 Interim Meeting it was commented that the proposal needs clarification to identify that the 

regulation applies to blends containing up to 10 volume percent ethanol. They voiced this concern due to the 

emerging use of ethanol blends between 10 % and 70 %. The CWMA L&R Committee recommends this item 

remain Informational until the FALS can reach consensus.

At the 2009 Interim Meeting in Daytona Beach, Florida, Ron Hayes, the FALS Chairperson, provided a new 

proposal that was developed by the FALS. The differences in the proposal from that published in Publication 15 

(2009) and the new proposal included in this publication are stated below:

• Incorporates the language provided by Lew Gibbs in order to remove any ambiguity regarding the 

applicability of the permanent 1 psi vapor pressure allowances for ethanol blends.

• Explicitly restricts this section to sub-similar fuels and existing EPA waivered blends.

• Modifies Classes 1 - 5 minimum V/L values except for high elevation areas. High elevation areas are 

based on ASTM D4814 FIG. X1.2 Reduction in Vehicle Antiknock Requirements for Altitude.

• Provides the T50 and V/L offsets to all fuels containing ethanol, including refinery blends, CBOB, and 

sub-octanes. Note that the Class 5 minimum was raised from the previously published values of 37.0 °C 

(99 °F) to a more strict value of 39 oC (102 oF) as a compromise to negative votes.

• Sets a termination date of May 1, 2012, or when ASTM D4814 Distillation 50 % and V/L limits are 

amended to account for the volatility effects of up to 10 volume percent ethanol, whichever comes first, 

whereby all fuels must meet ASTM D4814 except the 1 psi additional vapor pressure allowance for ethanol 

blends will continue to be allowed.

• Places the emphasis on the finished blend rather than the gasoline portion of the blending materials. This 

preserves the current model regulation option of utilizing a blending stock material that does not meet 

ASTM D4814, e.g., a high T50, as long as the final blend parameters meet the requirements of the rule.

• Editorial work to remove redundancies and all ambiguity from the rule.

Comments were heard at the 2009 Interim Meeting that supported the proposal submitted by FALS. Many attendees 

commended Ron Hayes (Missouri) and Randy Jennings (Tennessee) for their hard work in preparing this proposal. 

Randy noted that this proposal is less ambiguous and it provides consumer protection and a bridge to the future. A 

state expressed concern for blends in the 30 % to 40 % range. However, this proposal is only for blends up to 10 %.
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

L&R - 21

At the 2009 CWMA and NEWMA Annual Meetings both regions fully supported this item.

The Committee received no opposition to the item prior to or at the 2009 Annual Meeting (refer to Appendix E for 

comments submitted).

Committee Recommendation: Amend Section 2.1. of the Uniform Engine Fuel, Petroleum Products, and 

Automotive Lubricants Regulation by replacing the current text with the following:

Section 2. Standard Fuel Specifications (See NIST Handbook 130, 2009 Edition, page 172)

2.1. G asoline and G asoline-Oxygenate B lends

2.1.1. G asoline and G asoline-Oxygenate B lends (as defined in this r egulation). – shall meet the most 

r ecent ver sion of A ST M D4814 “ Standar d Specification for A utomotive Spar k-I gnition E ngine F uel” 

except for the per missible offsets for ethanol blends as pr ovided in Section 2.1.3. G asoline-E thanol 

B lends.

2.1.2. G asoline-Oxygenate B lends. – shall contain no mor e than 10 volume per cent ethanol. F or other 

oxygenates, blends shall contain no mor e than 2.0 mass per cent oxygen except fuels containing aliphatic 

ether s and/or alcohols (excluding methanol) shall contain no mor e than 2.7 mass per cent oxygen.

2.1.3. G asoline-E thanol B lends. – W hen gasoline is blended with 1 to 10 volume per cent ethanol, the 

ethanol shall meet the r equir ements of A ST M D4806 and the blend shall meet A ST M D4814 with the 

following per missible exceptions:

2.1.3.1. (a) T he maximum vapor pr essur e shall not exceed the A ST M D4814 limits by mor e than

1.0 psi for :

2.1.3.1.1. (1) Only 9 to 10 volume per cent ethanol blends fr om J une 1 thr ough September 15.

2.1.3.1.2. (2) A ll blends of 1 to 10 volume per cent ethanol fr om September 16 thr ough 

M ay 31.

2.1.3.2. (b) Until M ay 1, 2012, or until A ST M D4814 incor por ates changes to the 50 volume 

per cent evapor ated point to account for the volatility effects of up to 10 volume per cent 

ethanol, whichever occur s ear lier , the distillation minimum temper atur e at the 

50 volume per cent evapor ated point shall not be less than 66 °C (150 °F ) (see Notes 1 

and 2).

2.1.3.3. (c) Until M ay 1, 2012, or until A ST M D4814 incor por ates changes to the vapor lock 

pr otection minimum temper atur e for C lasses 1 - 5 to account for the volatility effects of

up to 10 volume per cent ethanol, whichever occur s ear lier , the minimum temper atur e

for a V apor-L iquid R atio of 20 for the applicable vapor lock pr otection class for 

gasoline-ethanol blends shall be as follows (see Notes 1 and 2):

(1) C lass 1 shall be 51.5 54 °C (125 129 °F)

(2) C lass 2 shall be 49.0 50. °C (120 122 °F)

(3) C lass 3 shall be 45.0 47 °C (113 116 °F)

(4) C lass 4 shall be 41.5 °C (107 °F)

(5) C lass 5 shall be 39.0 °C (102 °F)

(6) C lass 6 shall be 35.0 °C (95 °F)
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

L&R - 22

A ll gasoline and gasoline-ethanol blends sold in A r ea V (as shown in A ST M D4814 

A ppendix F ig. X 1.2) shall meet the vapor lock pr otection minimum temper atur es in 

ASTM D4814.

NOTE 1: The value for the 50 volume percent evaporated point noted in Section 2.1.3.(b) and the values for 

Classes 1, 2, and 3 for the minimum temperature for a Vapor-Liquid Ratio of 20 in Section 2.1.3.(c) are now 

aligned and identical to those that are being published in ASTM D4814-09b and apply equally to gasoline and 

gasoline-ethanol blends. In future editions of NIST Handbook 130, Section 2.1.3.(b) will be removed editorially 

and the reference to Classes 1, 2, and 3 in Section 2.1.3.(c) will be removed editorially.

NOTE 2: The temperature values (e.g., 54 °C, 50. °C, 41.5 °C) are presented in the format prescribed in 

ASTM E29 “Standard Practice for Using Significant Digits in Test Data to Determine Conformance with 

Specifications.”

For additional information contact: Ron Hayes, Chairperson FALS, phone: (573) 751-2922 or e-mail: 

ron.hayes@mda.mo.gov.

260 NIST HANDBOOK 133

260-1 D Guidance on Allowing for Moisture Loss and Other Revisions

(See Item 270-2 and 270-3 in the Report of the 93rd Annual NCWM Meeting in 2008)

Background: At the 2009 Interim Meeting in Daytona Beach, Florida, the NIST Technical Advisor gave a 

presentation to the moisture loss work group (MLWG) titled “NIST Handbook 133 Checking the Net Contents of 

Packaged Goods – An explanation of its statistical requirements and approaches to allowing for moisture loss from 

packaged goods.”

The MLWG also reviewed draft changes it has developed to revise and update the 4th Edition of NIST 

Handbook 133 “Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods” 2005. Some of the changes were developed to 

improve the guidance on making moisture allowances. Listed below is a table of proposed corrections and revisions 

for review. It was requested that comments or concerns regarding the draft changes be submitted into the NIST 

Technical Advisor. It was recommended that the states distribute this document to interested parties within their 

state for comment. The MLWG will meet Sunday, July 12, 2009, at the Annual Meeting in San Antonio, Texas, to 

consider any comments received prior to the meeting.

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) issued a final 

ruling on 9 CFR parts, 317, 381, and 442 (refer to Table B, Appendix B) “Determining Net Weight Compliance for 

Meat and Poultry Products” which state the procedures set forth for determining “net weight compliance.” This rule 

which requires the use of the 4th Edition of NIST HB 133 “Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods” for use 

in all inspections of packages of meat and poultry products subject to federal law and USDA regulations effective 

October 9, 2008. Therefore, the incorporated provisions of NIST Handbook 133 do not serve merely as compliance 

guidance, but are a part of the meat and poultry products inspection regulations.

To be consistent with this final rule, state and local officials must determine net weight compliance for meat and 

poultry products, including single-ingredient, raw poultry, in a manner that includes the free-flowing liquids as part 

of the product and not part of the tare weight.

The MLWG updated NIST HB 133 Section 2.3. “Basic Test Procedure” to be consistent with 9 CFR parts, 317, 381, 

and 442. That means removing any reference to the “wet tare” method for determining net weight of USDA 

restricted products, since FSIS considers free-flowing liquid to be part of the product.

At the CWMA 2009 Annual Meeting held May 3 - 6 in St. Louis, Missouri, the Committee recommended support of 

this item after reviewing the current proposed revisions to HB 133.. Comments documented during open hearings 

included the following recommendations from an industry representative: Chapter 1-3 – add “compliance” to the 

reasons listed since manufacturers “overpack” to meet current regulations; Chapter 1-2 – “moisture” should be 
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

L&R - 23

inserted in front of allowance (last paragraph of L&R - C5; there is a need to recognize that other products may be 

subject to moisture loss for which allowances have not been established; Chapter 2-3 and Chapter 2-5 – the dates 

referenced can be removed since they are already in the past. The representative cautioned that this proposal does 

not “finish” the issue with moisture loss. There are two questions which remain: 1) What guidance can be provided 

for manufacturers with products other than those listed for moisture loss? and 2) What methodology is necessary for 

manufacturers to demonstrate the data needed for a moisture allowance?

A state regulator objected to this proposal as a voting item and stated that members cannot vote on this item since 

the information will not be available until the July meeting. He recommended that the proposal be moved to 

Informational. He acknowledged that Handbook 133 is a NIST publication but stated that due process must be 

provided since the NCWM does vote to adopt the changes in this handbook.

At the CWMA voting session, the membership voted not to accept the recommendation of the Committee and 

recommended the item be made Informational.

At the 2009 NEWMA Annual Meeting, held May 11 - 14, 2009, in South Portland, Maine, the Committee 

recommended support of this item. The group discussed the meaning of “editorial” and agreed that due to the 

volume of changes being recommended, the correct process is to review all comments received, and then have a 

vote on them by NCWM. A state official suggested that the document be distributed over the NIST Commodities 

Server List. A recommended change to HB 133 Chapter 3, Section 2.6. specifically references the use of glaze with 

frozen seafood products. It was suggested that wording include other glazed products such as frozen chicken 

(i.e., glazed chicken wings).

At the NCWM 2009 Annual Meeting in San Antonio, Texas, the MLWG met on July 12. The NIST Technical 

Advisor informed the Committee and the MLWG that the draft HB 133 was sent out mid-May 2009 on the Weights 

and Measures Directors, NCWM HB 44 and Commodities list servers, and e-mailed to interested stakeholders, 

MLWG attendees, and trade associations. Additional comments and recommendations received were distributed to 

the Committee.

Handbook 133 was reviewed in its entirety by the MLWG. Current changes and recommendations to HB 133 are 

reflected in Appendix F. State Directors voiced concern that they had not had ample time to thoroughly review and 

evaluate the changes. A working draft document of Handbook 133 is located in Appendix G.

Committee recommendation is to keep this item Informational. NIST will incorporate changes from the July 12 

MLWG meeting. NIST will disseminate this information to all stakeholders using their contact point information 

system and list servers (W&M Directors and the NCWM HB 44 and Commodities list server).

270 OTHER ITEMS – DEVELOPING ITEMS

INTRODUCTION

The NCWM established a mechanism to disseminate information about emerging issues which have merit and are of 

national interest. Developing items have not received sufficient review by all parties affected by the proposals or 

may be insufficiently developed to warrant review by the NCWM L&R Committee. The Developing items listed 

are currently under review by at least one regional association, subcommittee, or work group (WG).

The Developing items are marked according to the specific NIST handbook into which they fall – HB 130 or 

HB 133. The Committee encourages interested parties to examine the proposals included in the appendices and to 

send their comments to the contact listed in each part.

The Committee asks that the regional weights and measures associations, subcommittees, and WGs continue their 

work to fully develop each proposal. Should an association, subcommittee, or WG decide to discontinue work on a 

Developing item, the Committee asks that it be notified. When the status of an item changes because the submitter 

withdraws the item, the item will be listed in a table below. For more details on items moved from the Developing 

items list to the Committee’s main agenda, refer to the new reference number in the main agenda.
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

L&R - 24

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

Lubricity

Source: Southern Weights and Measures Association (SWMA) (See Item 270-5 in the Report of the 92nd Annual 

NCWM Meeting in 2006)

Background/ Discussion: (Refer to the NCWM 93rd Annual Meeting (2008) for background information on this 

Item.) A member of the petroleum industry believed the test and associated tolerances for lubricity on premium 

diesel specified in Section 2.2.1.(d) were inconsistent with that for regular diesel. Effective January 1, 2005, the test 

tolerance for regular diesel lubricity was the ASTM D6079 reproducibility of 136 μm (see ASTM D975-04b). The 

NCWM chose to accept the ASTM reproducibility limits for all diesel (D975) and gasoline (D4814) properties (see 

Section 7.2.2. Reproducibility), but chose a different reproducibility limit for premium diesel lubricity without 

providing any explanation as to why the ASTM reproducibility limit was insufficient. If the NCWM intended to 

impose a stricter lubricity requirement for premium diesel, it should have designated a tighter specification for this 

property, not a different test tolerance (e.g., for regular and premium gasoline, premium has a different octane 

specification than for regular, but the test tolerance is the same). ASTM reproducibility limits were, by definition, 

based on establishing a 95 % probability that product that should pass, will pass. Applying an average test as 

specified in Section 2.2.1.(d) reduced that probability to 80 %.

At the WWMA 2006 Annual Meeting, the WWMA L&R Committee received only one comment regarding this 

item, acknowledging the ongoing review by the Fuels and Lubricants Subcommittee (FALS). The WWMA noted 

that the NCWM L&R Committee forwarded the proposal for review by the Subcommittee and agreed this item 

should remain Developmental pending its recommendation.

At its 2006 Interim Meeting, the CWMA indicated the NCWM Fuel and Lubricant Subcommittee would make 

recommendations after ASTM improved the test method’s precision and after the conclusion of other tests. The 

CWMA L&R Committee was awaiting the recommendation from the Subcommittee.

During the 2007 Interim Meeting, the Committee carried this item over as an Informational item. The Committee 

sent this proposal to FALS and requested its recommendation on how to proceed with the issue. The FALS 

suggested this item remain on the agenda as an Informational item until further notice and reported that the activities 

of ASTM International and the Coordinating Research Council were continuing.

At the 2008 Interim Meeting in Albuquerque, New Mexico, and the 2008 Annual Meeting in Burlington, Vermont, 

the Committee carried this item over as a Developing item. This proposal was sent to FALS for its recommendation 

on how to proceed with the issue. FALS suggested this item remain on the agenda as a Developmental item.

At the CWMA 2008 Interim Meeting the Committee requested that this item remain Informational pending release 

of the FALS recommendation, Coordinating Research council study and the ASTM Lubricity Test Method Task 

Force reports. At the NEWMA, WWMA and SWMA 2008 Annual Meetings the Committees recommended that 

this item remain Informational from FALS.

NEWMA held their Interim Meeting in October 2008 where they heard from a representative of the bio-diesel 

industry who briefed members on the newly adopted FTC standards regarding bio-diesel products, including the 

labeling of B-5, B-20, and B-100. One member expressed a concern regarding the “field testing” of bio-fuel blends 

and quality. This member also expressed that not enough testing occurs with regard to “octane quality” and that bioblend testing would probably be conducted even less.

At the 2009 Interim Meeting in Daytona Beach, Florida, FALS reported to the Committee that they are awaiting 

development of items from ASTM.

At the CWMA 2009 Annual Meeting, the Committee recommended that this item remain informational. The 

Chairman of the Fuels and Lubricants Subcommittee provided an update on the work being done at ASTM. ASTM 

conducted a round robin to develop better precision for measuring lubricity. There is a Coordinating Research 

Council study to determine whether the wear scar limit is adequate to provide protection.
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

L&R - 25

At the 2009 NEWMA Annual Meeting, the Committee recommended that this item remain Informational. The 

Chairman of the Fuels and Lubricants Subcommittee stated the committee is continuing to work on this item.

At the 2009 Annual Meeting held in San Antonio, Texas, the FALS Chairperson gave an update that ASTM is still 

working on improving the precision of the test method. This should go to ballot at ASTM this semester and be final 

in December. The Committee recommends that this item remain Informationalal until ASTM adopts a revision to 

its standard.

Proposal: Amend Section 2.2.1. Premium Diesel Fuel in Handbook 130 Uniform Engine Fuels and Automotive 

Lubricants Regulation. The following reflects the current text as it was modified in 2003.

2.2.1. Premium Diesel Fuel. – All diesel fuels identified on retail dispensers, bills of lading, invoices, shipping 

papers, or other documentation with terms such a premium, super, supreme, plus, or premier must conform to 

the following requirements:

(a) Cetane Number. – A minimum cetane number of 47.0 as determined by ASTM Standard Test 

Method D613.

(b) Low Temperature Operability. – A cold flow performance measurement which meets the

ASTM D975 tenth percentile minimum ambient air temperature charts and maps by either ASTM 

Standard Test Method D2500 (Cloud Point) or ASTM Standard Test Method D4539 (Low 

Temperature Flow Test, LTFT). Low temperature operability is only applicable October 1 - March 31 

of each year.

(c) Thermal Stability. – A minimum reflectance measurement of 80 % as determined by ASTM Standard 

Test Method D6468 (180 min, 150 °C).

(d) Lubricity. – A maximum wear scar diameter of 520 μm as determined by ASTM D6079. If an 

enforcement jurisdiction’s single test of more than 560 μm is determined, a second test shall be 

conducted. If the average of the two tests is more than 560 μm, the sample does not conform to the 

requirements of this part.

(Amended 2003)

For additional information, please contact Ron Hayes, FALS Chairman, (573) 751-2922 or ron.hayes@mda.mo.gov

by e-mail.

270-2 D Fuels and Lubricants Subcommittee (FALS)

Background: The Subcommittee had met on January 24, 2007, at the 2007 NCWM Interim Meeting to undertake a 

review of a number of significant issues related to fuel standards. Their first project was to undertake a major 

review and update of the Uniform Engine Fuels, Petroleum Products, and Automotive Lubricants Regulation in 

HB 130. The Subcommittee also met at the 2007 Annual Meeting and continued its work on a number of items in 

addition to preparing a major revision of the Fuel Ethanol Specifications.

An additional project will be to update and possibly expand the Basic Engine Fuels, Petroleum Products, and 

Lubricants Laboratory Publication. The Subcommittee will undertake other projects as time and resources permit.

At the 2009 Interim Meeting and Annual Meeting, the FALS Chairperson informed the Committee that FALS is 

working toward getting changes made to the language within the document.

If you would like to participate in this Subcommittee, contact Ron Hayes, Chairperson Fuels and Lubricants 

Subcommittee, at (573) 751-2922, e-mail: ron.hayes@mda.mo.gov or Ken Butcher at (301) 975-4859, e-mail: 

kbutcher@nist.gov.
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

L&R - 26

270-3 I Pelletized Ice Cream

Background: At the 2008 Annual Meeting open hearings, Cary Frye from the International Ice Cream Association 

(IICA), gave a briefing on behalf of industry on pelletized ice cream. Ms. Frye gave a briefing on the product, 

standard of identity, test method procedures and several other key points. Ms. Frye informed that conference that 

additional assistance would be required from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (refer to Appendix H). 

Once FDA has addressed the issues and concerns, NIST will host a second meeting at NIST in Gaithersburg, 

Maryland, to follow up and seek resolution on the outstanding concerns. NIST will send out a meeting 

announcement to all state Directors and all other interested parties via the NIST W&M list server.

The NIST Weights and Measures Division submitted to the Committee detailed minutes pertaining to the 

June 27, 2008, meeting held at NIST in Gaithersburg, Maryland, concerning issues and concerns with the pelletized 

ice cream product. The minutes (refer to Table B Appendix E refer to Item 237-2 in the report of the 94th Interim 

Meeting in 2009) provide great detail of the current issue, background information, representatives and 

manufacturers, method of sale, and test method procedure.

This item has been presented at the WWMA and SWMA Annual Meeting and at the NEWMA and CWMA Interim 

Meetings. NEWMA discussed this issue, including the FDA’s role and their impact on the NCWM process. One 

member stated that the FDA may be slow to reach a decision because of an impending change in leadership. 

Another member expressed the difficulty (practical experience) of testing this product.

All regions are in agreement that this item should remain Developmental until further information is received from 

FDA. At the 2009 Interim Meeting, it was reported by the NIST Technical Advisor that FDA is actively working on 

this item.

At the 2009 Annual Meeting in San Antonio, Texas, the NIST Technical Advisor presented a letter dated 

April 17, 2009, (see Appendix I) from the FDA regarding their decision regarding the method of sale for pelletized 

ice cream. The FDA declared that pelletized ice cream is a semisolid food, in accordance with 21 CFR 101.105(a), 

the appropriate net quantity of content declaration for this type of product is net weight. An FDA official attending 

the Annual Meeting stated that manufacturers have until April 2010 to modify their labels with a net weight 

declaration. Manufacturers that are unable to meet this deadline will need to contact the FDA. The FDA will look 

at each extension request on a case-by-case basis only.

270-4 D Method of Sale and Engine Fuel Quality Requirements for Hydrogen

Source: Western Weights and Measures Association (WWMA)

Proposal: The proposal is to add a Informational item to the 2008 - 2009 L&R agenda for method of sale and 

engine fuel quality requirements for hydrogen in NIST Handbook 130 (HB 130) to address gaseous hydrogen 

refueling applications. Note: There is a corresponding proposal to add a draft Hydrogen Gas Measuring Devices 

Code in NIST HB 44 to address requirements for hydrogen gas refueling equipment.

Background: Twenty-four states have hydrogen refueling dispensers in operation. Hydrogen stations using 

permanent and mobile refueling systems for automobiles, fleet vehicles (buses), forklifts, airport totes, are 

increasing and may go unnoticed. Many stakeholders who are not familiar with the weights and measures standards 

process will need to participate at this stage rather than after this is a commercial application. This effort by the U.S. 

National Work Group (USNWG) for the Development of Commercial Hydrogen Measurement Standards is to 

ensure there are appropriate standards and test procedures in place in time for dispenser manufacturers, service 

agencies, and officials, and to educate the general public, not if, but when retail hydrogen applications become 

commercially available.

Existing codes do not fully address hydrogen refueling applications because of hydrogen’s properties and other 

technical differences in the setup and operations of dispensing systems. The development of legal metrology 

standards for newly emerging hydrogen technology is a necessary component of the hydrogen infrastructure. The 
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

L&R - 27

weights and measures community must have time to consider requirements for hydrogen-refueling systems before 

this application is available for public access at corner service stations.

The USNWG is bringing the proposal before the weights and measures community to share this information about 

upcoming standards for an emerging technology. The simultaneous development of the code and corresponding test 

procedures will allow for input from the W&M and hydrogen communities, appropriate trials of the standards, and 

to address all areas of concerns early in the standards development process.

This item was reviewed at the WWMA and SWMA 2008 Annual Meeting and at the NEWMA 2008 Interim 

Meeting. NEWMA members generally discussed the “hydrogen issue” and its usage in the marketplace. It is 

anticipated that hydrogen at first will be relegated to “fleet vehicles” (such as CNG), and that retail sales will be 

slow in coming to the marketplace. NEWMA recommends that this item remain a Developing item.

At the 2009 Interim and Annual Meetings, the NIST Technical Advisor briefed the Committee on work that the 

USNWG Fuels Specifications Subcommittee (FSS) has done to date (refer to Appendix J).

Recommendation: The USNWG FSS presented the following December 2008 recommendation for consideration 

by the 2009 NCWM Laws and Regulations Committee.

Section 2. Non-food Products[Note 1, page 103]

2.XX. Retail Sales – Hydrogen Fuel (H).

2.XX.1. Definitions – Hydrogen Fuel (H).

2.XX.1.1. Hydrogen Fuel. – A fuel composed of the chemical hydrogen intended for consumption in 

an internal combustion engine or fuel cell.

The symbol for hydrogen vehicle fuel shall be the capital letter “H” (the word Hydrogen may also be used.)

2.XX.2. Method of Retail Sale and Dispenser Labeling. – All hydrogen fuel kept, offered, or exposed for 

sale and sold at retail shall be in terms of the kilogram.

2.XX.3. Retail Dispenser Labeling.

2.XX.3.1. A computing dispenser must display the unit price in whole cents on the basis of price per 

kilogram.

2.XX.3.2. The service pressure(s) of the dispenser must be conspicuously shown on the user interface 

in bar or the SI Unit of Pascal (Pa) (e.g., MPa).

2.XX.3.3. The product identity must be shown in a conspicuous location on the dispenser.

2.XX.3.4. National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) labeling requirements also apply.

2.XX.3.5. Hydrogen shall be labeled in accordance with 16 CFR 309 – FTC Labeling Alternative 

Fuels.

2.XX.4. Street Sign Prices and Advertisements.

2.XX.4.1. The unit price must be in terms of price per kilogram in whole cents (e.g., $3.49 per kg, not 

$3.499 per kg).

2.XX.4.2. The sign or advertisement must include the service pressure(s) at which the dispenser(s) 

delivers hydrogen fuel (e.g., H35 or H70MPa).
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

L&R - 28

FSS supports the proposed new definitions to address gaseous hydrogen refueling applications.

1. Specification for Hydrogen Fuel for Internal Combustion Engines and Fuel Cells

2. Definitions

1.XX. Fuel Cell. – an electrochemical device used to convert hydrogen and oxygen into electrical energy 

to power a motor vehicle.

1.XX. Hydrogen Fuel. – a fuel composed of the chemical hydrogen intended for consumption in an 

internal combustion engine or fuel cell.

1.XX. Internal Combustion Engine. – a device used to ignite hydrogen in a confined space to crate 

mechanical energy to power a motor vehicle.

Proposed Specification for Hydrogen Fuel

The FSS identified several quality criteria where there was tentative agreement with their associated values (see 

properties 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 14, and 16 which are highlighted in green) in the proposed Table 1. Hydrogen Fuel Quality 

Specification. When a quality property and numerical value (defining a maximum or minimum limit) is added to 

the specification, appropriate test methods must then be identified. As test methods are identified and adopted by 

the FSS they will be added to column 6 in Table 1. The FSS did not agree on all of the properties contained in the 

DMS proposal because there was either not enough research data or test methods available to support a decision (see 

properties 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 11, 13, and 15 which are highlighted in yellow) in Table 1 below. These and perhaps 

other properties will receive further consideration by the FSS and may be added to the quality standard in the future 

when such action is supported by research.
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

L&R - 29

Table 1. Hydrogen Fuel Quality Specification*

Property Value Unit Limit Test Method(s)

1 Ammonia 0.1 ppm v/v Maximum to be specified

2 Carbon Dioxide 2 ppm v/v Maximum to be specified

3 Carbon Monoxide 0.2 ppm v/v Maximum to be specified

4 Formaldehyde 0.01 ppm v/v Maximum to be specified

5 Formic Acid 0.2 ppm v/v Maximum to be specified

6 Helium 300 ppm v/v Maximum to be specified

7 Hydrogen Fuel Index 99.97 % (a) Minimum to be specified

8 Nitrogen and Argon 100 ppm v/v Maximum to be specified

9 Oxygen 5 ppm v/v Maximum to be specified

10 Particulate Concentration 1 μg/L@NTP (b) Maximum to be specified

11 Particulates Size 10 μm Maximum to be specified

12 Total Gases 300 ppm v/v (c) Maximum to be specified

13 Total Halogenated Compounds 0.05 ppm v/v Maximum to be specified

14 Total Hydrocarbons 2 ppm v/v (d) Maximum to be specified

15 Total Sulfur Compounds 0.004 ppm v/v Maximum to be specified

16 Water 5 ppm v/v Maximum to be specified

Footnotes to Table 1 –

a. Hydrogen fuel index is the value obtained with the value of total gases (%) subtracted from 100 %.

b. Particulate Concentration is stated as μg/L@NTP = micrograms per liter of hydrogen fuel at 0 °C and at 

one atmosphere pressure (1 bar).

c. Total Gases = Sum of all impurities listed on the table except particulates.

d. Total Hydrocarbons may exceed 2 ppm v/v only due to the presence of methane, provided that the total gases do 

not exceed 300 ppm v/v.

*The FTC’s Fuel Rating Rule (16 CFR Part 309) see the requirements in “Labeling of Alternative Fuels” at 

www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/business/autos/bus29.shtm requires dispensers to bear an declaration of minimum 

percent of hydrogen determined according to test methods described in “Standard Test Method for Analysis of 

Natural Gas by Gas Chromatography” (ASTM D1946).

Additional information on this hydrogen proposal and the corresponding hydrogen gas measuring devices code can 

be found at ts.nist.gov/WeightsAndMeasures/Developing-Commercial-Hydrogen-Measurement-Standards.cfm. For 

additional information on this item, contact Lisa Warfield at lisa.warfield@nist.gov or (301) 975-3308.

270-5 I National Fisheries Institute – Net Weight Issues

Discussion/Background: Lisa Weddig, Director of Regulatory and Technical Affairs at the National Fisheries 

Institute (NFI) gave a presentation (see Appendix K) to the Committee and at the open hearings at the 2009 Interim 

Meeting in Daytona, Florida. NFI is a trade association representing the seafood industry. Their membership 

consists of the industry from harvesters, U.S. processors, importers, to retail and food service operations. In 2006 

their members voted to start an initiative called the Better Seafood Bureau. The mission of the Bureau is to address 

the growing problem in the industry of economic fraud. There are areas that have been identified as being 

particularly egregious and harmful to those in the industry trying to do the right thing. The three identified areas are 

species substitution, avoiding duties in the transshipment of product from one country to another, and inaccurate net 

weight and counts.
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

L&R - 30

NFI would like to find a feasible and efficient manner to interact with the state weights and measures programs to 

address the net weight issue. It was suggested by the states that NFI notify the state Directors when an issue arises 

in their state. NFI was also encouraged to work with NCWM to further develop this item.

At the 2009 Annual Meeting in San Antonio, Texas, the Technical Advisor announced that NIST held a Seafood 

Forum meeting on May 28, 2009, in Gaithersburg, Maryland, to discuss the problem and solutions to short net 

weight fraud occurring in the seafood industry. The meeting was a collaborative effort attended by 30 participants 

representing federal agencies, state weights and measures officials, trade associations and industry representatives. 

The purpose of the meeting was to achieve three primary objectives: 1) to clearly define the problem and economic 

impact from short net weight fraud, 2) to provide understanding of each agency’s role, responsibility, authority, 

enforcement, and oversight of seafood and net content compliance, and 3) to develop a plan for clear and immediate 

action and solutions to slow down and stop the problem of short weighing and to maintain the public’s trust in the 

regulatory system.

Judy Cardin, Wisconsin, will be taking the lead on coordinating follow-up meetings with state and federal agencies 

to discuss enforcement issues.

_________________________

Joe Gomez, New Mexico, Chairman

Joe Benavides, Texas

Jonelle Brent, Illinois

John Gaccione, New York

Terence McBride, Tennessee

Ron Hayes, Missouri, Chairman FALS

Doug Hutchinson, Canada, Technical Advisor

Rob L. Underwood, Associate Member Representative

Ken Butcher, NIST Technical Advisor: e-mail: kenneth.butcher@nist.gov

Lisa Warfield, NIST Technical Advisor: e-mail: lisa.warfield@nist.gov

Laws and Regulations Committee
L&R Committee 2009 Interim Report

Appendix A – GAO-08-1114 Motor Fuels

L&R - A1

Appendix A

GAO-08-1114 Motor Fuels:

Stakeholder Views on Compensating for the Effects of

Gasoline Temperature on Volume at the Pump
L&R Committee 2009 Interim Report

Appendix A – GAO-08-1114 Motor Fuels

L&R - A2

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
L&R Committee 2009 Interim Report

Appendix A – GAO-08-1114 Motor Fuels

L&R - A3
L&R Committee 2009 Interim Report

Appendix A – GAO-08-1114 Motor Fuels

L&R - A4
L&R Committee 2009 Interim Report

Appendix A – GAO-08-1114 Motor Fuels

L&R - A5
L&R Committee 2009 Interim Report

Appendix A – GAO-08-1114 Motor Fuels

L&R - A6
L&R Committee 2009 Interim Report

Appendix A – GAO-08-1114 Motor Fuels

L&R - A7
L&R Committee 2009 Interim Report

Appendix A – GAO-08-1114 Motor Fuels

L&R - A8
L&R Committee 2009 Interim Report

Appendix A – GAO-08-1114 Motor Fuels

L&R - A9
L&R Committee 2009 Interim Report

Appendix A – GAO-08-1114 Motor Fuels

L&R - A10
L&R Committee 2009 Interim Report

Appendix A – GAO-08-1114 Motor Fuels

L&R - A11
L&R Committee 2009 Interim Report

Appendix A – GAO-08-1114 Motor Fuels

L&R - A12
L&R Committee 2009 Interim Report

Appendix A – GAO-08-1114 Motor Fuels

L&R - A13
L&R Committee 2009 Interim Report

Appendix A – GAO-08-1114 Motor Fuels

L&R - A14
L&R Committee 2009 Interim Report

Appendix A – GAO-08-1114 Motor Fuels

L&R - A15
L&R Committee 2009 Interim Report

Appendix A – GAO-08-1114 Motor Fuels

L&R - A16
L&R Committee 2009 Interim Report

Appendix A – GAO-08-1114 Motor Fuels

L&R - A17
L&R Committee 2009 Interim Report

Appendix A – GAO-08-1114 Motor Fuels

L&R - A18
L&R Committee 2009 Interim Report

Appendix A – GAO-08-1114 Motor Fuels

L&R - A19
L&R Committee 2009 Interim Report

Appendix A – GAO-08-1114 Motor Fuels

L&R - A20
L&R Committee 2009 Interim Report

Appendix A – GAO-08-1114 Motor Fuels

L&R - A21
L&R Committee 2009 Interim Report

Appendix A – GAO-08-1114 Motor Fuels

L&R - A22
L&R Committee 2009 Interim Report

Appendix A – GAO-08-1114 Motor Fuels

L&R - A23
L&R Committee 2009 Interim Report

Appendix A – GAO-08-1114 Motor Fuels

L&R - A24
L&R Committee 2009 Interim Report

Appendix A – GAO-08-1114 Motor Fuels

L&R - A25
L&R Committee 2009 Interim Report

Appendix A – GAO-08-1114 Motor Fuels

L&R - A26
L&R Committee 2009 Interim Report

Appendix A – GAO-08-1114 Motor Fuels

L&R - A27
L&R Committee 2009 Interim Report

Appendix A – GAO-08-1114 Motor Fuels

L&R - A28
L&R Committee – 2009 Final Report

Appendix B – Alaska Fuel Metering Project

L&R – B1

Appendix B

Alaska Fuel Metering Project
L&R Committee – 2009 Final Report

Appendix B – Alaska Fuel Metering Project

L&R - B2

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
L&R Committee – 2009 Final Report

Appendix B – Alaska Fuel Metering Project

L&R - B3

Alaska Fuel Metering Project

Final Report

7/5/2009

Prepared by:

Northern Economic Research Associates

7300 Chena Hot Springs Rd. Fairbanks Alaska 99712

for

State of Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities

Measurement Standards and Commercial Vehicle Enforcement
L&R Committee – 2009 Final Report

Appendix B – Alaska Fuel Metering Project

L&R - B4

Table of Contents

Executive Summary.....................................................................................................................................B7

The Crux of the Issue...............................................................................................................................B7

Markets Affected.....................................................................................................................................B7

Gross vs. Net Gallons...............................................................................................................................B8

Cost Benefit Results.................................................................................................................................B9

Introduction and Literature Review......................................................................................................... B10

Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... B10

Impetus for Study................................................................................................................................. B12

Temperature Compensation at Wholesale vs. Retail........................................................................... B12

Interest Groups and Media Coverage .................................................................................................. B14

California’s Study and Application to Alaska........................................................................................ B15

Canada and Permissive ATC ................................................................................................................. B16

Hawaii and Redefining the Fixed Volume Standard............................................................................. B18

Belgium Adopts Mandatory ATC at Retail............................................................................................ B19

Professional Literature Review ............................................................................................................ B20

California Study .................................................................................................................................... B22

Recent National and Federal Government Actions and Studies.......................................................... B25

Market Adjustments to Changes in Supply .......................................................................................... B27

Petroleum Production, Consumption, and Sales in Alaska...................................................................... B33

Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... B33

Refining in Alaska ................................................................................................................................. B35

Flint Hills North Pole............................................................................................................................. B36

Tesoro Nikiski ....................................................................................................................................... B37

Petro Star – North Pole and Valdez...................................................................................................... B38

BP Prudhoe Bay and Conoco-Phillips Kuparuk..................................................................................... B38

Total Production................................................................................................................................... B39

Alaska Prime Suppliers Sales Volumes (US EIA)................................................................................... B39

Alaska Division of Tax Annual Reports................................................................................................. B40

ISER Reports......................................................................................................................................... B42
L&R Committee – 2009 Final Report

Appendix B – Alaska Fuel Metering Project

L&R - B5

Components of Delivered Fuel Prices 2008 (ISER)........................................................................... B42

Barged Fuel and Remote Alaska Communities................................................................................ B43

Alaska Community Fuel Use 2008 (ISER).......................................................................................... B44

Reconciling Fuel Reports...................................................................................................................... B45

Temperature Data Analysis...................................................................................................................... B46

Benefits of Temperature Compensation.................................................................................................. B48

Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... B48

Seasonal Transparency and the Murphy-Topel Approach................................................................... B49

Transparency Across Suppliers............................................................................................................. B51

Comparing Variances in Gallons Across Regimes................................................................................. B52

Sources of Temperature Variance Amongst Gross Retailers............................................................... B52

Case Study ............................................................................................................................................ B56

Consumer Loss calculations from Temperature Variations................................................................. B59

Costs of Conversion to ATC ...................................................................................................................... B61

Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... B61

Retrofit Kit Component Costs .............................................................................................................. B62

Dispenser/Meter Data Sets: Number of Conversions.......................................................................... B64

Cost to Convert..................................................................................................................................... B67

Calibration and Inspection/Certification.............................................................................................. B69

Recurring Annual Costs........................................................................................................................ B70

Effect of Temperature Changes on Volume or Price per Gallon.............................................................. B73

Method of Volume Adjustment........................................................................................................... B73

Consumer Awareness, Product Labeling, Signage and Invoicing............................................................. B78

Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... B78

Existing Regulations Governing ATC in Canada and the NIST .............................................................. B79

Conclusion............................................................................................................................................ B82

Inventory Control ..................................................................................................................................... B83

Accounting of Inventory Control.......................................................................................................... B84

Profit and Loss Accounting................................................................................................................... B86

Real Inventory Losses from Temperature Changes ............................................................................. B91

Summary .............................................................................................................................................. B93
L&R Committee – 2009 Final Report

Appendix B – Alaska Fuel Metering Project

L&R - B6

Tax Implications of Gross vs. Net Gallons ................................................................................................ B94

Economics of ATC Devices for the Individual Firm................................................................................... B95

Price Rigidity in Remote Barge Communities........................................................................................... B98

Bibliography ........................................................................................................................................... B100

Appendix 1.............................................................................................................................................. B103

Temperature Data Analysis for Refineries, Tank Farms and Underground Tanks PLEASE REFER 

TO FILE Appendix 1 Alaska Fuel Metering Project...................................................................... B103

Appendix 2.............................................................................................................................................. B103

Benefits Computations for ATC Regulatory Regimes PLEASE REFER TO FILE Appendix 2 

Alaska Fuel Metering Project......................................................................................................... B103

Appendix 3.............................................................................................................................................. B103

Estimated Fuel Use for Heating and Electricity Production PLEASE REFER TO FILE Appendix 3 

Alaska Fuel Metering Project......................................................................................................... B103
L&R Committee – 2009 Final Report

Appendix B – Alaska Fuel Metering Project

L&R - B7

Executive Summary

The Crux of the Issue

It comes as a surprise to Alaska consumers that there are two different kinds of gallons being 

sold in certain retail petroleum markets. To a layman, a “gallon” means the standard U.S. 

gallon, ( 231 cu. inches). That gallon will have to be called a “gross” gallon in this report 

because there is another kind of gallon being sold too. It is well known to petroleum 

professionals, and is called a “net” gallon.

For the layman, it is really not useful to go beyond the fact that a net gallon is smaller in Alaska. 

So we have smaller gallons being sold alongside larger gallons. With two different gallons 

being sold, consumers cannot make meaningful price comparisons. They can very well be 

buying the more expensive gallon when they think they are buying the less expensive gallon.

The purpose of this report was to determine what definition of “gallon” should prevail in Alaska 

petroleum retail markets. The conclusion of the report is that given present technology, there 

should be one retail petroleum gallon in Alaska – and it should be the standard “gross” gallon 

already familiar to consumers. A requirement to sell “net” gallons would force the statewide 

adoption of more expensive dispensing equipment, and the costs would outweigh the benefits.

Comment on the draft report suggested that the study may have pursued the objective of 

choosing the retail gallon that was the least expensive for the consumer. But that was not the 

objective of the study. It is tantamount to saying benefits were not considered. They were. But 

benefits did not justify the costs vis-à-vis a gross gallon standard.

Markets Affected

In Alaska, retail fuel is sold either at gas stations (land and marine) through gas pumps, or it is 

delivered by fuel trucks. Gasoline stations sell both gasoline and diesel to cars and trucks, and 

at marine stations fuel is sold to vessels. Fuel trucks on the other hand deliver fuel oil to homes 

and businesses for heat, to electrical plants, and also to aircraft at airports. There is also some 

off-road diesel delivered for heavy equipment by fuel trucks.

States have different rules governing gas pumps and fuel truck deliveries. In Alaska, gas 

station pumps sell gross gallons. There are no net gallon gas station pumps in Alaska. There 

are none in the USA although certain groups are pushing for it. But fuel trucks can deliver either 

gross gallons or net gallons in Alaska. So it is in fuel truck deliveries only where both gross and 

net gallons are being sold – not in gasoline stations.

Home heating oil, fuel oil for electricity production, aviation gasoline – these are the markets 

where retail customers might be buying net gallons and might be buying gross gallons, 

depending on the method of delivery selected by the retailer. If your invoice reads “volume 

adjusted to 60 F” it means you have bought net gallons.
L&R Committee – 2009 Final Report

Appendix B – Alaska Fuel Metering Project

L&R - B8

It is quite possible that in the future gasoline stations will be able to sell either net or gross 

gallons unless regulations are established by Alaska that choose one or the other. This has 

occurred in Canada already. Part of the study purpose is to determine whether net gallons 

should be sold through gas pumps at gasoline stations like in Canada.

Gross vs. Net Gallons

Fuel expands as it warms and contracts as it cools. The idea of a “net” gallon is to adjust the 

size of the gallon as fuel either expands or contracts. As stated earlier, a gross gallon is 

231 cubic inches. It does not vary with temperature. The volume of a net gallon depends on 

temperature. At 60 F a net gallon is the same volume as a gross gallon. Below 60 F, which is 

the majority of the time across Alaska, the net gallon is smaller than the gross gallon (see 

figure E1):

Figure E1

A rule of thumb for gasoline is that for every 15 degree drop in temperature, the net gallon is 1% 

smaller. At thirty below zero the net gallon is about 6% smaller than the gross gallon. It is also 

true that at temperatures above 60 F, the net gallon is larger than the gross gallon. But as a 

practical matter for Alaska net gallons are smaller, particularly when we understand that the 

major fuel oil season is in the winter when temperatures are extremely cold.
L&R Committee – 2009 Final Report

Appendix B – Alaska Fuel Metering Project

L&R - B9

It is more expensive to meter net gallons because it requires taking the temperature of the fuel 

and adjusting the size of the gallon, depending on that temperature. Ultimately, the cost of 

doing so will be borne by the consumer.

In the language of the layman, should Alaska allow the smaller gallon and the larger gallon to be 

sold alongside one another when consumers do not know the difference? Should the smaller 

gallon be the standard? Should the larger gallon be the standard?

Draft comment from industry representatives that purchased ATC devices suggest the use of 

“smaller” and “larger” gallon is inflammatory and should not be used. But obscuring that fact to 

consumers deprives them of the most important thing for them to understand.

Cost Benefit Results

The objectives of weights and measures standards are price transparency, equity, and of 

course economy. In this report we consider both net and gross gallon sales in gasoline station 

and fuel truck markets. It is clear that allowing both is the worst case scenario for consumers. 

Allowing either net or gross gallon sales at the same time introduces what is probably the 

largest discrepancy in gallon sizes from retailer to retailer in the entire nation.

It is fairly clear that the net gallon standard is more ideal from an engineer’s perspective. But it 

requires more sophisticated equipment to meter fuel this way. The temperature of the fuel must 

be measured, and the size of the gallon must be either increased or decreased accordingly.

It would cost millions to outfit either fuel trucks or gasoline stations in Alaska this way, and the 

cost would be relatively more onerous for bush Alaska than for communities along the road 

system. Installation of retrofits for dispensers or trucks in remote sites are in the ten thousand 

dollar range, and the benefits of doing so are so small as to be essentially nil.

It is true that the additional cost of ATC equipment is small on a per gallon basis. But a small 

inefficiency is not a net benefit.

The gross gallon standard is not a perfect way of metering fuel, but it is the most economical. In 

all of the studies that were reviewed where gross gallon vs. net gallon standards were studied 

from a cost/benefit standard, the gross gallon proved to be superior. So it should not come as a 

surprise to find the same thing in Alaska.
L&R Committee – 2009 Final Report

Appendix B – Alaska Fuel Metering Project

L&R - B10

Introduction and Literature Review

Introduction

“...good, open measurement leads to fair, honest and just trade.”1

This sums up one of the main motivations for studies on temperature-adjusted vs. absolute 

volumetric measuring of fuel sales at retail. Is the gross gallon better, the net gallon, or should it 

be permissive, where either method is used at the discretion of willing buyers and sellers? Yet 

another approach is to redefine the volume standard for a gallon, which is an approach Hawaii 

took.

Measuring by volume has historically been the least-costly method of dispensing fuel at the 

retail pump. It is extremely simple and reliable. A meter is merely a device that spins as fuel 

moves, and it drives another device that registers the quantity of fuel metered. There is very 

little that can go wrong mechanically. Weights and Measures departments of state 

governments have for many decades accepted and presided over their use as efficient and 

equitable.

If fuel could be sold by weight, there would be no temperature adjustment controversy. But 

selling by weight is much less practical than metering in the customary manner.2

Changes in technology over time, such as the adoption of digital registers in fuel dispensers, 

have made it less expensive to adopt temperature compensation at retail. It is still more 

expensive than gross gallon metering, but in part the reduction in expense has caused some 

consideration for whether it should be utilized as a universal method of sale.

 Temperature 

adjustment can be thought of as a way to approximate selling fuel by weight instead of by 

volume. But it is a more expensive means of doing so.

For lack of a better word, automatic temperature compensation (ATC) has “crept” into some 

markets such as Canada and Alaska without prior economic analysis of its costs and benefits. 

This literature review shows that in general where ATC has been practiced at retail it has not 

been studied from a cost/benefit perspective – and where it has, ATC has not been adopted.

Definitions:

U.S. Gallon or Gross Gallon = 231 cu. in. (regardless of temperature)

Petroleum Gallon or Net gallon = Temperature Corrected Gallon (231 cu in. @ 600

F)

The effect of temperature on fuel volume has been known for a very long time. A given gasoline 

or fuel oil volume increases with temperature. A widely cited rule of thumb for gasoline is that 

 1 Paton, R. and Boam, D. UK National Weights and Measures (1999), p 2.

2 There is a method of metering (mass flow metering) that is technically capable of determining the weight of fuel 

delivered – but it is much more expensive per unit.
L&R Committee – 2009 Final Report

Appendix B – Alaska Fuel Metering Project

L&R - B11

there is one percent fuel volume expansion for each fifteen degree temperature increase. The 

expansion is a little less for fuel oil or diesel. The warmer the fuel, the less energy and fewer 

miles to the gallon a vehicle will receive – or the less heat it will produce per unit volume.

If one wants to standardize by weight or energy content, a reference temperature has to be 

selected. For the U.S. that reference temperature is 60 F. A petroleum gallon or net gallon is 

the same volume and weight as a gross gallon at 60 F. At temperatures above 60 F the net 

gallon is larger in volume than 231 cu. Inches, but it has the same weight and energy content as 

it did at 60 F. At temperatures less than 60 F the net gallon has smaller volume, but again the 

same weight and energy content as it did at 60 F.

In Alaska we would be speaking about fuel contraction rather than expansion – as fuel cools it 

becomes denser and has more energy per unit volume. Using our rule of thumb, a net gallon of 

gasoline at -60 F has about 8% smaller volume than it does at 60 F. A net gallon would be 

about 214 cu. inches at – 60 F. The total energy in the smaller, net gallon stays the same, but, 

since the volume is smaller, the energy per cubic inch (or whatever volumetric unit is used) 

would be greater. Please refer to Figure 1.

Figure 1

As we can see from the figure, a gross gallon in Alaska at – 60 F is considerably larger 

(231 cubic inches) than the net gallon (214 cubic inches). The gross gallon has about 8% more 

energy content in total than the net gallon. It would be true to say that a net gallon more or less 

guarantees the same energy content every time. But it is a guarantee that energy content is 

lower than that provided by a gross gallon at the temperatures of retailed fuels in Alaska.
L&R Committee – 2009 Final Report

Appendix B – Alaska Fuel Metering Project

L&R - B12

Impetus for Study

Trade is facilitated by universally accepted standards of measure, and impeded when standards 

differ, or where they are not enforced. What is meant by “price” is not transparent when the unit 

of measure differs across retailers. Equity amongst retailers / suppliers and amongst customers 

will not prevail when there are different measures meted by one supplier vs. another. 

Differences in temperatures of fuel between suppliers introduces a potential lack of 

transparency and equity in the marketplace. It raises the question whether net gallon sales 

should be adopted at retail.

So generally the question for researchers in the net gallon vs. gross gallon debate has been 

which gallon to adopt at retail – gross or net. In this study however we are beginning with a 

situation in which both net and gross gallons are being sold in the marketplace, specifically for 

fuel metered from vehicle tanks. , and therefore whether elimination of one of them passes a 

cost/benefit test.

Because Alaska has had a permissive approach to fuels delivered by vehicle tanks, there are 

differences in gallon contents across suppliers that may very well exceed those for any other 

jurisdiction in the nation. Under the permissive standard, delivering fuel on a net gallon basis is 

essentially the same as delivering fuel at 60 F. We cannot say with very much precision what 

the average temperature difference is between gross gallon retailers, but the temperature data 

collected indicates it would be an order of magnitude less than what is possible between net 

and gross retailers.

During the winter the average effective difference between a gross gallon supplier and a net 

gallon supplier can exceed sixty degrees. This is the primary heating oil season. When gross 

gallon retailers are storing and transporting their fuel in a similar manner, the temperature of the 

fuel is going to be similar with both following the ambient much more closely than 60 F.

Whatever differences there are between gross gallon suppliers, and whatever lack of 

transparency or equity exists under a gross gallon standard – the permissive standard 

introduces an order of magnitude more problems in transparency and equity.

Regardless of whether the gross gallon standard or the net gallon standard is more efficient in a 

cost-benefit setting, it is abundantly clear that the permissive standard is inferior to either one. 

The permissive standard introduces an order of magnitude more differential between retailers 

than weather or refining or delivery schedules can on their own. Also, the permissive standard 

has some costs associated with it that the gross gallon standard does not (more expensive 

metering and calibrating on the net gallons). So if we were to rank legal regimes, the 

permissive standard is the worst due to cost, lack of transparency and inequity to the consumer. 

The public policy question becomes whether the net or gross standard is more efficient.

Temperature Compensation at Wholesale vs. Retail

For a refinery purchasing at wholesale, temperature is important because the warmer the crude 

oil it is purchasing, the fewer gallons of product that will be produced at the end of processing 
L&R Committee – 2009 Final Report

Appendix B – Alaska Fuel Metering Project

L&R - B13

(warmer gallons contain less energy). When you are processing millions of barrels and profit 

margins are small percentages, it makes enough difference to matter. So in the early part of the 

last century the method of temperature correction was developed, a reference temperature 

selected, and tables produced where anyone could compute the net gallon content given a 

product density, temperature, and volume.

The petroleum industry has generally relied on temperature-adjusted gallons for these large 

wholesale transactions for an additional reason. It is economical to perform temperature 

adjustment in large quantities. If you are offloading a ship with millions of gallons, then 

measuring temperature, measuring gross volume, and calculating the net gallon content is 

essentially costless on a per gallon basis. If there is any benefit at all in taking such a measure, 

it will be worth it.

The smaller the transaction, the more costly is the attempt to measure accurately. When we 

move from millions of gallons to thousands to mere gallons in a transaction, any additional 

measuring cost starts to become significant. In comments before the California Commission, 

the Chief of New York State Weights and Measures estimated that in moving from wholesale to 

retail fuel transactions, there were about fifty times the number of meters measuring the fuel 

(fifty retail meters per wholesale meter)3

Increased “accuracy” does not even make sense from a technical perspective when the 

transactions become small enough. Observe the tolerance specifications in the National 

Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Handbook 44 when we move from larger retail 

sales to smaller retail sales

. What makes sense at ten thousand gallon 

transactions does not necessarily make sense at ten gallons when you are multiplying that cost 

by fifty times.

4

Tolerance by Flow Rates - Temperature Compensation

:

Flow Rate Tolerance Degrees

Over 30 gpm 0.15% 2.25

>1-30 gpm 0.30% 4.5

1 gpm 0.75% 11.25

Figure 2

The published tolerances are in percentage errors. We can convert those into degrees 

Fahrenheit to ask essentially the same question – how much can temperature be misjudged 

 3 http://www.energy.ca.gov/transportation/fuel_delivery_temperature_study/documents/2008-12-

09_workshop/comments/Ross_J_Anderson_TN-49465.PDF

4 The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) produces regulatory language for states that is often 

adopted (Alaska is one of those). Handbook 44 contains provisions pertaining to liquid measures of concern in this 

report.
L&R Committee – 2009 Final Report

Appendix B – Alaska Fuel Metering Project

L&R - B14

before the meter is no longer within acceptable tolerances?5

It isn’t even technically feasible as a practical matter to temperature compensate a cup or even 

a quart of fuel given that some initial flow is required to stabilize a temperature reading. There 

isn’t any cost that is justified once the transactions become small enough, regardless of whether 

in theory temperature compensation is superior.

 For flow rates above 30 gallons 

per minute (such as many home heating oil deliveries), the meter can be off by two degrees and 

it is still within tolerance. At flow rates of 1-30 gallons per minute (gasoline station dispensers) it 

can be off by four degrees and still be within tolerance. And for very small transactions of 

1 gallons per minute or less – the meter can be off by over ten degrees.

The issue is not whether temperature compensation of fuels makes “academic” sense at retail. 

The question is whether it is practical. Do the benefits outweigh the costs? When we are 

speaking about retail transactions, the variation in temperatures amongst retailers has to 

become fairly significant before temperature compensation meters can even “tell the difference” 

– meaning discriminate with an accuracy greater than tolerance specifications.

The required discrimination is not between the delivered temperature and 60 F. The 

discrimination must be between suppliers essentially across the street from one another – ones 

that are competing for the same customers. It makes no difference to temperature compensate 

fuels when temperature fluctuations are minimal between suppliers. It does not make sense to 

bear the cost of adjusting for something that as a practical matter makes no difference.

We are not concerned whether delivered fuel temperatures vary from 60 F. We are concerned 

with how much temperatures variation there can be between retailers essentially across the 

street from one another and competing for the same customers. It makes no difference to 

temperature compensate fuels when temperature fluctuations are minimal between suppliers. It 

does not make sense to bear the cost of adjusting for something that as a practical matter 

makes no difference.

Interest Groups and Media Coverage

In reviewing literature on this matter, it is clear that consumer and supplier groups have different 

motivations driving their opinion about net vs. gross gallons, depending on what side of 60 F 

fuel temperatures we are speaking of. These differing motivations cloud public policy debates 

because interest groups push agendas that suit their objectives, and their ideas work their way 

into the popular media.

All else the same, consumers would like to buy the larger gallon whereas retailers / suppliers 

would like to provide the smaller one. In cold states retailers have an incentive to sell petroleum 

gallons, or net gallons, because they are smaller. In warm states, they would like to sell gross 

gallons because those are the smaller gallons above 60 F. But consumer groups have the 

 5 Comment on the draft report questioned how tolerances specified in volume can be translated into temperature 

differences. It is through the temperature-volume expansion coefficient.
L&R Committee – 2009 Final Report

Appendix B – Alaska Fuel Metering Project

L&R - B15

opposite incentive, and make efforts towards requiring suppliers to sell net gallons in warm 

states. However, consumer groups have not yet been active in requiring gross gallon sales in 

cold states.

Some of the arguments made for public consumption by various interest groups are significant 

nuisances to decision making. For example, it is somewhat easy to manipulate consumers into 

thinking they will get larger gallons at the same price if the retailers are forced to sell larger 

gallons – as if doubling the size of a gallon will result in half the cost to consumers. This is a 

fallacy of the free lunch.

It is also somewhat easy to manipulate consumers into thinking that there is some kind of fraud 

going on with suppliers when they are “buying net and selling gross” in warm states. There is a 

belief by somewhat misguided consumer groups that inventory is created out of thin air in this 

manner because the retailer is purchasing larger (net) gallons, but selling smaller (gross) 

gallons. However, there simply is no principle that retailers are obligated to sell products in 

exactly the same units or content that they were purchased in. More will be said on this 

presently.

California’s Study and Application to Alaska

California undertook the most extensive study to date, and the results were recently published. 

It is a “warm fuel” state where temperatures are above the 60 F standard. It is quite important to 

understand that one significant impetus for that study was very different from Alaska’s 

motivation. We are referring to the persistent assertion by many groups that retailers were 

purchasing fuel on a net gallon basis, but delivering on a gross gallon basis (buying large 

gallons and selling small ones) – thereby profiting from the creation of inventory gallons by 

sleight of hand.

That assertion (creation of inventory by buying net and selling gross) turns out to not only be 

untrue, but also irrelevant to transparency and equity. What is important is whether fuel varies 

in temperature across suppliers – not whether fuel from all suppliers varies from 60 F. Whether 

they all sell fuel at 120 F or they all sell fuel at -30 F, there is no lack of transparency and no 

lack of equity. Everyone is selling the same gallon.

There are two red herrings in this arena of “buy net and sell gross” that need to be eliminated in 

the public policy debate. The California study did address these, but we wish to make the 

points more direct and forceful. First, there is no relation whatsoever between “buying net” (at 

60 F reference) and the actual temperature of the fuel. The fuel might be 100 F, and it might be 

– 20 F when purchased by a retailer. The reference temperature is not the temperature of the 

fuel. In November through February of 2008, for example, the average temperature of 

#1 heating oil at the North Pole Flint Hills rack was in the 20’s. It was invoiced to retailers at the 

reference temperature of 60 F. Whatever shrinkage occurred was not relative to 60 F, but to 

20 F, an average of about forty degrees less.

Secondly, it is not a given that changing the method of delivery from gross to net, or vice-versa, 

will allow consumers to extract from suppliers a bigger gallon at the same price. Hawaii tried to 

accomplish this extraction in its conversion of a gallon from 231 cubic inches to 233 cubic 
L&R Committee – 2009 Final Report

Appendix B – Alaska Fuel Metering Project

L&R - B16

inches. The law might just as well define a gallon to be a thousand cubic inches. If all suppliers 

are selling in the same unit of measure, it does not matter what that unit is; 233 cubic inches or 

1000 cubic inches. There is nothing to be gained in transfers between consumers and suppliers 

when we only change the unit of measure. We must retain focus on the objectives of 

transparency and equity, which has to do with variations in content between suppliers.

California’s study in the end hinged on whether small (10 F), random differences in the 

temperatures of delivered fuel from retailer to retailer were worth the cost of imposing net gallon 

metering. The costs were well over a hundred million dollars (more expensive meters and more 

expensive ongoing maintenance and calibration) and the benefits were estimated at around two 

hundred thousand dollars (half from eliminating seasonal variations in the energy content of a 

gallon and the remainder from eliminating retailer to retailer fluctuations) - net gallon metering 

did not pass the cost-benefit test. This 10 degree temperature differential (between suppliers on 

a given day) was not established by the temperature study itself, but was the maximum 

proposed in theory.

In view of the California study, in order for Alaska to pass a cost-benefit test for a net gallon 

standard the temperature differentials amongst suppliers would have to be extreme – so 

extreme that it is impossible to come up with a scenario where such differentials could be 

sustained. Moreover, since Alaska has such a low volume of fuel turnover in remote locations, 

and a much higher cost of installation, the costs are even more onerous by comparison.

Canada and Permissive ATC

It has been observed that Canada has permissive temperature compensation for motor fuels at 

retail, and over 90% of Canadian retailers have adopted temperature compensation. The 

reason for this conversion is perfectly straightforward: Selling the smaller liters, when 

consumers don’t know the difference, makes the best economic sense to an individual retailer, 

although not necessarily to society as a whole. Canada is a “cold fuel” state where net liters are 

smaller than gross liters.

The Canadian government has itself not produced a report explaining with clarity how ATC 

devices came to be used in their country, nor evaluated the costs and benefits. This is partly 

because their introduction was not the result of legislative or executive branch inquiry into the 

temperature-corrected fuels issue in the first place. What we can find instead is interesting for 

what it lacks in particulars. This is from Measurement Canada in a recent information bulletin 

pertaining to temperature compensation6

Is Temperature Compensation New?

:

Temperature compensation has been used in applications such as pipelines, 

ship-loading and tank farm transfers for decades and for the retail sale of 

gasoline for the past 20 years. Prior to the advent of modern electronics, there 

 6 http://www.ic.gc.ca/epic/site/mc-mc.nsf/en/lm01094e.html Note: Between the time of initial literature review 

and final drafting of this report the information bulletin appears to have been superceded by a Policy Statement.
L&R Committee – 2009 Final Report

Appendix B – Alaska Fuel Metering Project

L&R - B17

was no way to perform this function accurately in retail dispensers. In 1984, a 

Canadian electronics manufacturer designed a device which could readily 

measure the temperature of liquids and perform the necessary calculations. 

Now, the vast majority of gasoline pumps in Canada are equipped with automatic 

temperature compensating equipment.

The passage makes it seem as though the change in technology was enough of a breakthrough 

that both sides of the market (consumers and retailers) adopted a more mutually agreeable 

system of dispensing.

We have to look a little harder for the history. Testimony before Congress in 2007 by Hugh 

Cooley of Shell oil is quoted extensively here7

Number 4: Why is automatic temperature adjustment used for retail sales in 

Canada? 

:

My understanding is that the government of Canada approved temperature 

adjustment for retail gasoline fifteen years ago at the urging of the manufacturer 

of a temperature adjustment device. A few years later, some retailers began to 

temperature adjust, presumably to obtain a competitive advantage over other 

retailers as a result of their lowered unit cost. Once the trend became apparent, 

other retailers followed to avoid a competitive disadvantage.

Similar testimony in later passages:

My current understanding is as follows: The Canadian government made 

automatic temperature adjustment permissive at the retail level approximately 

fifteen years ago. Media reports indicate that a manufacturer of automatic 

temperature adjustment devices first proposed that Canadian regulators allow 

automatic temperature adjustment and then marketed the device after the law 

was changed. We also understand that few, if any, retailers installed automatic 

temperature adjustment devices in Canada for the first few years after it was 

allowed. Apparently some retailers started to install automatic temperature 

adjusting devices, which allowed them in a cold climate to sell smaller volumetric 

gallons than their non-adjusting competitors, giving them a potential competitive 

advantage over other retailers because they had a lower effective unit price. 

Once a number of retailers had installed automatic temperature adjustment 

devices, other retailers appear to have followed suit to avoid being competitively 

disadvantaged. Shell Canada apparently followed those retailers that started the

trend to convert to automatic temperature adjustment. After most stations had

converted and the market essentially had transitioned to automatic temperature 

adjustment, basic economics leads us to believe that prices at the street level 

would have adjusted to take into account the new temperature adjusted unit of 

measure.

What is meant by “lowered unit cost”? This is a device that costs money to install. But if you 

are selling a smaller liter than your competition, then on an equivalent basis it is indeed a lower 

cost.

 7 It is noted by Northern Economic Research Associates (NERA) that this witness did make generalizations that 

were untrue about the status of state laws and that the testimony of the NIST was more accurate on that subject.
L&R Committee – 2009 Final Report

Appendix B – Alaska Fuel Metering Project

L&R - B18

The introduction of the temperature compensating devices took place exactly in the manner one 

would expect from a profit-maximizing perspective: where the devices paid for themselves most 

handsomely first: that is, where the volumes were highest8

One of the very interesting responses of the Canadian government to their use was a regulation 

prohibiting the intentional switching on-and-off of ATC devices: turning them on in the winter 

and off in the summer.

. Regular no-lead occurred first, 

followed by premium and blended fuels. This is not to say there is anything untoward or shady 

in their use. It was a legal method of sale, and it was introduced where it was most profitable 

first.

9

It is acknowledged that a stated rationale for their use was to ameliorate inventory losses from 

fuel shrinkage in the cold. That is a similar argument made by proponents of their use in 

Alaska.

 The intentions to use them in this way demonstrates what was stated 

earlier – the incentive is simply to sell the smaller gallon at all times.

But selling a smaller gallon against competition selling a larger gallon (or liter) is profitable 

whether there is shrinkage, no shrinkage, or expansion of inventory. It is profitable regardless 

of what is happening to inventory. If all retailers are in the aggregate losing inventory in the 

winter months, basic economics dictates that market price adjusts to a higher level from the loss 

in supply regardless of whether individual retailers even consciously acknowledge this 

themselves.

Moreover, inventory loss from handling, from vaporization, from sump drainage, from theft, 

spills, etc. all occurs. The answer to these problems is not to sell smaller gallons, but rather to 

factor such losses into the price. Additionally, the amount of inventory shrinkage bears no 

relation to the 60 F or 15 C temperature reference. There is no reason to temperature 

compensate to 60 F if the fuel was purchased at 20 F.

Hawaii and Redefining the Fixed Volume Standard

Hawaii is the only case we can find where a change in the legal volume standard was put into 

effect in order to “correct” in some way for fuel expansion or contraction. A “Hawaii gallon” is 

233.8 cubic inches rather than 231 cubic inches because it is based upon a reference 

temperature of around 80 F10

The drive behind changing the Hawaii volume standard was Mr. George Mattimoe, who was 

previously the Deputy Director, Division of Weights and Measures, Department of Agriculture, 

State of Hawaii, and former chair of the National Conference of Weights and Measures.

. Hawaii is a hot fuel state where fuel is retailed consistently 

above 60 F.

 8 http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/mc-mc.nsf/eng/lm00106.html 9 Ibid – See section 3.0 “Background”. 10 This seems to be an ambient average rather than the underground fuel temperature average, which can be 

deduced by comparing the California section pertaining to Hawaii and the submission by Mr. Mattimoe.
L&R Committee – 2009 Final Report

Appendix B – Alaska Fuel Metering Project

L&R - B19

The motivation is supplied in a paper Mr. Mattimoe submitted to the California Commission in 

January of 2009.11

The logic simply does not follow. There need be no relation whatsoever between what the units 

of measure are at wholesale and what they are at retail. In virtually all markets, wholesalers 

purchase in different units than they sell at retail. Purchases might be in metric tons, and sales 

in pounds or ounces. Purchases might be in concentrations of product vastly exceeding the 

concentrations at retail – in the cases of drugs, demanding they be equivalent would result in 

injury or death.

 On page 9 the crux of the matter is identified: that retailers “short” 

consumers about 3.1 cubic inches of gasoline by selling a 231 cubic inch gallon when, on 

average, the temperatures of retailed fuels in Hawaii would result in 234.1 cubic inches if sold 

as net gallons. This number is based on the average temperature of fuel stored in underground 

service station tanks.

In the case of juices, soft drinks, and a host of other commodities it would preclude their sale 

altogether because people would not buy them if the ingredient quantities or concentrations 

purchased were required to be retailed in their wholesale form or quantity. This idea is some 

kind of fictional concept of business – that whatever is purchased by a vendor must be passed 

on precisely in the same form and content to consumers. The most basic premise of retailing is 

to purchase in larger quantities than are sold – so it very nearly turns the entire retailing 

principle on its head when applied elsewhere.

Rather than imposing sales of net gallons at retail though, the approach in the case of Hawaii 

was to fix the volume of the gross gallon to its net gallon equivalent on average. That strategy 

seems to be one of imposing recalibration costs without the benefits cited by the NCWM for 

ATC. Hawaii is still selling a gross gallon. So it does not eliminate retailer-to-retailer 

fluctuations in temperatures.

Every retailer was selling the same sized gallon at 231 cu. inches before. Every retailer is 

selling the same sized gallon now at 233.8 cu. inches. It could just as easily be 235 or 300 or 

500 cubic inches, and price transparency or equity would not change in the least.

Redefining the volume standard for a gallon is not under consideration in this study. Doing so 

seems to reflect a lack of understanding in basic economics. As long as the units of volume for 

sales are the same across retailers, it simply does not matter what that standard is.

Belgium Adopts Mandatory ATC at Retail

This leaves us at one significant case to study where mandatory ATC has been adopted at 

retail: Belgium. It is difficult to find technical analysis underlying the Belgian decision, but the 

GAO did interview Belgian officials directly regarding their rationale:

 11 http://www.energy.ca.gov/transportation/fuel_delivery_temperature_study/documents/comments/2009-01-

13_George_Mattimoe-Intellectually_Dishonest_Myth_Re_Accurate_Deliver_of_a_Gallon_of_Gas_TN-49799.PDF
L&R Committee – 2009 Final Report

Appendix B – Alaska Fuel Metering Project

L&R - B20

Belgium adopted temperature compensation for retail sales, in part, because 

some retailers were artificially heating fuel, and the government sought 

greater consistency in the energy content of the fuel sold to consumers, 

according to a weights and measures official12

As the GAO notes later in their report, the costs and benefits of ATC have not actually been 

formally studied for Belgium. We have a rationale here that is familiar amongst ATC advocates, 

and that is the intention to provide consistency in the content of fuel sold to consumers. But the 

costs and benefits have not actually been measured.

The statement above though does point to something that is of interest – the idea of retailers 

profiting from, and consumers being harmed by artificially heating fuel. We might remark that 

the least expensive way of effectively doing that in a “cold fuel” state is to temperature

compensate fuels when competitors are not – because temperature compensating gallons to 

60 F is effectively the same thing as heating fuel to 60 F.

Nobody in this arena seems to have noticed that permissive ATC provides, essentially, the 

cheapest and most reliable manner of heating fuel to 60 F in cold environments, and that 

permissive ATC is induces essentially the exact opposite effect intended by mandatory ATC 

advocates: consistency in the energy content of fuel sold to consumers.

Professional Literature Review

We shall review a variety of professional literature on temperature compensation at retail. In 

general, it has not done very well under scrutiny. The most recent report of value to us was 

performed by California (2009). Given what preceded it, the results should not really be 

surprising.

Dickerman and Radian Corp (1982) prepared a report for the American Petroleum Institute. 

They stated that

“The principle argument against requiring temperature adjustment at the retail 

service station level is that it could impose hundreds of millions of dollars in 

capital for retrofit and new installations without commensurate benefits. The 

costs of purchasing and maintaining automatic temperature compensators would 

be passed on to the consumer; the increased costs of regulating this practice 

would be passed on to the taxpayer ... all without increasing the supply of 

product.

To the extent that the petroleum product market is competitive and that all outlets 

in a given market area are similarly affected by temperature changes, there 

should be little or no gain or loss to the consumer from the effects of product 

 12 http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d081114.pdf
L&R Committee – 2009 Final Report

Appendix B – Alaska Fuel Metering Project

L&R - B21

shrinkage or expansion ... In this way the market itself serves to remove 

inequities within a market area – assuming a high degree of competition.”13

A number of useful studies have been done in Australia. The Australian Institute of Petroleum 

(1996) report, the Industry Commission Report into Petroleum Products (1994), and the Access 

Economics (1992) report all agreed that mandatory temperature corrections were not justified in 

there. From Access Economics:

“The central argument for temperature correction is an equity argument: that is, 

the “benefits” of temperature correction are essentially distributional benefits. 

The case for correction is not intrinsically an efficiency argument at all: gross 

costs of temperature correction are a quantifiable drain on scarce resources, but 

the gross benefits are gains to some at the expense of others within the 

economy.

In net terms, from a national economic perspective, temperature correction by 

definition is a negative-sum proposal. The economy as a whole must lose if 

temperature correction is costly, with the distribution of that loss depending on 

the temperature at which sales are made.”14

The Australian Institute of Petroleum (1996) report pointed out the use of a 15°C reference 

temperature for the collection of excise ensures that there is consistency in the taxation base. 

This excise is imposed directly on the refiner marketer companies, not the motorists. It is 

unrelated to issues of equity between consumers.15

This report estimated capital costs of $300 million and annual operating costs of $50 million for 

a change to mandatory correction. For perspective, an additional capital cost of $300 million 

represented nearly total annual profits of all four refiner marketer companies in the Australian 

downstream oil industry at the time. These costs would simply be passed on to consumers.

 (The 15°C number does not represent the 

average temperature of fuel). The net loss from mandatory temperature correction per motorist 

was estimated to be between $5 to $24 per year depending on location.

The Industry Commission Report (1994) flatly stated there were no economic efficiency 

arguments for requiring temperature adjustment. It cited self-adjusting market behavior and 

“When trialled in several Canadian provinces, temperature correction did not lower prices or 

otherwise win consumer favour.”16

The last Australian report reviewed was the Victoria Consumer and Business Affairs (2001) 

study. This report recommended that wholesale transactions at refineries/terminals be 

temperature adjusted. It again cited numerous authorities pointing to the cost-inefficiency of 

requiring so for retail sales at the pump. An increasing problem with “hot fuel” sales to retailers, 

 13 Passages from Dickerman and Radian (1982) p 6-15. 14 Access Economics (1992), p 4. 15 AIP(1996), p 1. 16 Industry Commission; (1994) p.243
L&R Committee – 2009 Final Report

Appendix B – Alaska Fuel Metering Project

L&R - B22

the complexity resulting from taxes being assessed on petroleum gallons and some concern 

over transparency and relative market power resulted in this wholesale rule.

In the UK Temperature Compensation Study (1999) the main focus was the apparent volume 

losses of product due to temperature changes within the distribution chain. At the time, the

petroleum gallon system was used throughout the UK industry for bulk transfers and for duties 

on fuels. Stable retail temperatures, as well as high capital and labor expense involved in 

correction made the temperature-adjusted concept cost-inefficient when applied to either 

retailers or final customers.

But by 1999 in the UK, the move to sealing road tankers due to environmental regulations 

eliminated the enforcement powers (dipping for volume) of the Trading Standards Officer or 

customers. Fuel shrinkage from cooling in transport or storage would imply “losses” into the 

environment unless volumes were temperature-adjusted. So multiagency regulation interaction 

was occurring in the UK that partly drove the ATC fuel discussion.

Ultimately the UK report recommended that as changing technology brought capital and labor 

retrofit costs down that Standard Temperature Accounting be adopted but should be voluntary 

and based on contract negotiation. At this time there are no temperature-compensation meters 

at retail gas pumps in the UK. Oil companies still use voluntary temperature-adjusted exchange 

agreements within the industry.

California Study

California is being looked to by a number of states. In 2007 AB 868 directed the California 

Energy Commission to conduct a Fuel Delivery Temperature Study. That study has now been 

completed and the upshot is that temperature compensation costs are not worth the limited and 

unclear benefits.

The amounts are instructive. The initial costs were estimated to be at least $110,000,000, along 

with increased annual costs in the $7 million dollar range; the benefits were on the order of 

$200,000 per year. This was under the best case scenario for temperature compensation.

There are a number of reasons why benefits are probably overstated. One is the lack of 

recognition that temperature compensated sales themselves still vary from retailer to retailer 

because of the tolerances mentioned earlier. The assumption in the California study was that 

every gallon of temperature compensated sales was perfectly measured. Correspondence with 

Murphy and Topel17 also pointed out an additional analytical reason benefits are overstated, but 

it simply is not worth quibbling over details when the results are so overwhelming.18

 17 Correspondence with Kevin Murphy March 13, 2009 18 Their analysis assumed for example that in the summertime people overestimated the energy content of 

gasoline. But an automobile cannot misperceive energy content. So regardless of what consumers perceive, the 

car cannot go further than the gasoline allows. So consumers must either adjust their perceptions about fuel 

content, or else budget constraints force them to curtail expenditures on all things, including gasoline (referred to 
L&R Committee – 2009 Final Report

Appendix B – Alaska Fuel Metering Project

L&R - B23

The California result can be summarized fairly succinctly by saying that in the long run the costs 

are on the order of a thousand times more than the benefits. The costs are not large when 

brought to a per gallon figure, but nevertheless are an inefficiency and essentially a nuisance.

There are a few very important observations about the initial motivations behind the California 

study that ultimately were not clearly addressed in the final report, yet were absolutely central to 

its conclusions.

Ultimately, it boils down to the fallacy of the free lunch, but it begins with a myth about inventory 

“fraud”. As mentioned earlier, there has been a misguided consumer advocacy theory that 

retailers are “buying net and selling gross” and that in a hot fuel state this means they are 

profiting from the purchase of larger gallons than they are selling. To address this problem, 

retailers ought to be forced into selling larger gallons.

Computing benefits in such a scenario is straightforward. The California Study was at the 

county level. They had proposed measuring temperatures in every county, along with sales, to 

estimate benefits per county in accordance with the following formula19

County Benefits = (fuel volume) x (fuel price) x (volume correction factor)

:

As the logic of the California study initially went, since different counties have different average 

temperatures and sales, the benefits will vary across counties. But in all cases, since the 

gallons sold after ATC implementation will be larger, the benefits will be positive. Requiring 

temperature controlled sales in this framework fosters the illusion that consumers will recapture

gains the industry allegedly makes with this shady practice of selling warmer (lower BTU) U.S. 

gallons instead of the temperature-adjusted gallons that they are buying.

In the end, this methodology was dropped after economists from Chicago (Murphy and Topel, 

2009) intervened with what is conceptually a fairly simple idea, but analytically difficult to

estimate. The upshot is that Murphy and Topel forced a focus on what the NCWM articulated 

about transparency and equity. It is the temperature differences between retailers that is of 

concern, and not the difference between retail temperatures and the 60 F reference 

temperature.

We had thought that the California temperature study would provide data on the differences in 

temperature from retailer to retailer on any given day, and that this information could be 

correlated with other information, such as refinery production schedules or storage practices. 

This information would be useful in adapting results elsewhere, including Alaska.

But because the methodology of that study was directed towards comparing prices on average 

to the 60 F reference, the temperature variations that turn out to be the most important for costbenefit analysis were not derived. In the Murphy-Topel analysis it was assumed, and 

 

as an “income effect”). So to the extent we claim gasoline is “overpurchased” with incorrect perceptions, reality 

nevertheless ameliorates those incorrect perceptions in some way. 19 AB 868 Fuel Delivery Temperature Study Staff Workshop California Energy Commission June 5, 2008 Gordon 

Schremp Fuels and Transportation Division pg 39
L&R Committee – 2009 Final Report

Appendix B – Alaska Fuel Metering Project

L&R - B24

reasonably so, that the differences amongst suppliers on any given day would not exceed ten 

degrees.

Testimony during the course of the study directed attention to the manner in which inventories 

are actually calculated by service stations in order to address what is best termed a myth about 

the creation of inventory out of nothing when retailers “buy net and sell gross”.

Ample professional testimony demonstrated that retail fuel stations are within 0.1 or 0.2 percent 

accuracy over the year in inventory control. It is a myth that there are extra gallons being sold.20

In California, inventories enter the retail station books as gross gallons, even though the total 

cost is determined by a net gallon price.

 

This was not clearly demonstrated in the final report. The “extra gallon” myth is worthwhile to 

explore because there is a corollary on the other side of 60 F – that there is inventory loss 

necessitating the sale of smaller gallons when fuel is cold.

“There are bills of lading that are produced when the wholesale transaction is 

consummated. And that bill of lading information... has both net, gross, temperature, 

even density information on the bill of lading, as well as the date, obviously”.21

“But the gross gallon figure on the bill of lading is the one that went into the inventory 

record. And that's how they run their business. Even though they may pay on a net 

gallon calculation of price, the number that they take into their inventory is a gross gallon 

figure. And that's the only way they can make their inventory balance at the end of the 

year.”22

We are hearing the same observation from retailers in Alaska: they clearly recognize and are 

concerned with shrinkage of fuel as ambient air temperatures fall from the 70’s and 80’s in the 

summertime to -30’s and -40’s in the wintertime. It is a legitimate concern.

Any fuel to a remote location and stored over the wintertime will shrink. We have to ask the 

question then, what happens when a fuel supply is lost for any reason – whether it is a 

hurricane, war in the Middle East, the depletion of reserves, or what have you.

We of course accept the premise that market supply is reduced from temperature induced 

shrinkage. What is true for any one retailer must be true for the market as a whole. In the 

aggregate losses are a summation across supply losses for each retailer. We are compelled by 

basic economics to conclude that the price increases accordingly, as shown in Figure 3. Supply 

shifts from S1 to S2 and price increases from P1 to P2.

 20 Transcripts from Staff Workshop before the California Energy Resources Conservation and Development 

Commission in then matter of: Implementation of Assembly Bill 868 Docket No. pg 130 onward 21 Ibid pg 8. 22 Ibid pg 146.
L&R Committee – 2009 Final Report

Appendix B – Alaska Fuel Metering Project

L&R - B25

Recent National and Federal Government Actions and Studies

There are two sources of information we have found that converge in Hearings before 

Congressman Kucinich in June of 2007. Certain consumer advocacy groups were lobbying for 

ATC requirements under the theory consumers were being shorted with “hot gallons”. 

Numerous private lawsuits had accumulated by this time and more attention was being brought 

to the issue because of high fuel prices. The National Institute of Standards and Technology 

(NIST) had been debating the issue for decades and Richard Suitor spoke on behalf of the NIST 

before Kucinich’s committee23

For over 30 years, temperature compensation has been discussed and debated 

in the weights and measures community. NIST has been in the middle of the 

discussion, providing technical advice and information as evidenced by the 

1979 publication of our report: "Symposium on Temperature Compensated 

Volumes in the Sale of Petroleum Products."

:

So what is temperature compensation? Temperature compensation as it relates 

to the sale of petroleum is an adjustment made that assures that each gallon of 

fuel sold contains the same energy content. To put it simply, energy per unit

of fuel is measured at 60 degrees Fahrenheit and when the external temperature 

is warmer it causes the fuel to expand. A warm gallon of gas does not provide as 

much energy as a cold one. That is because when that cold gallon of gas is 

warmed, its volume expands.

We have placed emphasis here on the assertion about energy content because although that 

may be the intent, it is not strictly true. It assures sales by weight instead of by volume, and the 

intention is fulfilled only when everyone sells the same product. There will also still be 

differences in additives for boutique mixes by region and season as well as other inherent 

qualities of the oil being refined that differ across gasoline sold at different stations.

It is also the case that variation amongst retailers will occur because, under ATC, tolerances are 

provided that clearly allow such variation. If temperatures only vary a couple of degrees 

between retailers there is essentially no benefit provided by temperature compensation; 

measurement tolerances for ATC allow for about that much variation in the first place.

A good summary of the situation across states was given in this testimony:

In some states, compensating for the temperature of refined petroleum products 

being sold has taken place at the wholesale level – but not at the retail gas pump 

(diesel included) or for deliveries of home heating fuel. Some states prohibit 

temperature compensation at retail and some states prohibit temperature 

compensation anywhere in the petroleum distribution chain. Most states require 

temperature compensation for certain products, such as for liquefied petroleum 

 23 http://www.nist.gov/testimony/2007/rsuiter%20hover-govt%20subc%20dom%20pol%206-8-07.htm
L&R Committee – 2009 Final Report

Appendix B – Alaska Fuel Metering Project

L&R - B26

gas (LPG) sales, or propane for home heating, but not necessarily for other 

products24

In 2000 a delegate from the State of Oregon, through the Western Weights and 

Measures Association, submitted an item to the NCWM Specifications and 

Tolerances Committee to recognize temperature compensation in NIST 

Handbook 44 for vehicle-tank meter applications. These include meters installed 

on home heating fuel delivery trucks. The Specifications and Tolerances 

committee is made up of weights and measures officials with some expertise in 

the design and operation of commercial devices. As mentioned earlier 

NIST/WMD serves as technical advisor to the Specifications and Tolerances 

committee.

.

After two years of committee development, the issue became a voting item on 

the Committee's agenda in 2002. At the NCWM Annual Meeting, the conference 

could not reach an agreement during the voting process. Because the NCWM is 

a consensus organization, the item was returned to the Specifications and 

Tolerances Committee for further development. The same result occurred at the 

conference the following two years. The item has remained as an information 

item on the Committee's Agenda since that time. In 2004, an item was submitted 

to the NCWM Laws and Regulations Committee proposing a change to the 

Uniform Regulation for the Method of Sale of Commodities to require 

temperature compensation in certain applications such as heating oil tanker 

trucks, loading rack meters at wholesale gasoline, diesel or even ethanol tank 

farms, and high volume (truck stop) dispensers. The proposal was modified in 

January 2007 to recognize voluntary temperature compensation at all levels and 

is currently a voting item on the committee agenda that is expected to be taken 

up in July 2007. If adopted this would permit temperature compensation 

adjustment at additional levels of the distribution chain, but not mandate it.

A steering committee of the NCWM was formed and met through 2008, producing literature that 

demonstrates we are no further along than we have been before. It is acknowledged that in 

theory, temperature compensated fuels could provide greater price transparency and equity 

when we assume there are temperature variations across retailers. The steering committee did 

not take a position pro or anti-ATC.

The council steering committee recommended that if ATC were adopted at all that it be 

mandatory. It recommended a phase-in period of one year that includes permissive use should 

be followed by full conversion to mandatory ATC.

In late 2008, the GAO released a report on temperature compensation, and a couple of 

summary comments are worth noting here:

...the two governments with the longest experience in temperature compensation 

of retail fuel sales (Hawaii and Canada) have not studied the effect of their 

policies. As a result, a policy debate is being played out without good information

about the potential costs and benefits...

 24 The expansion coefficients for these products are an order of magnitude more than that for gasoline or fuel oil. 

In such cases temperature compensation has a much more pronounced effect in moderating variation amongst 

retailers when temperatures vary.
L&R Committee – 2009 Final Report

Appendix B – Alaska Fuel Metering Project

L&R - B27

In Belgium, temperature compensation has been implemented too recently to 

study its effects.

What we can say in having scrutinized the literature regarding temperature compensation is that 

where ATC has been implemented, there is an absence of preliminary cost/benefit analysis and 

instead we are still waiting on some kind of professional analysis regarding its effects. 

Wherever it has been studied carefully in a cost/benefit framework, it has not been 

implemented.

To be fair to industry that has invested in ATC in Alaska, and since these hearings have been 

cited, it bears commenting on Representative Kucinich’s statement on ATC in those hearings 

Representative Kucinich had the impression in calling the hearings that the industry was 

operating under some “double standards”.25

Representative Kucinich relies on the premise that if industry does it at wholesale, the default 

position is that it must be the appropriate retail too. Otherwise it is a “double standard”. In the 

first place this is again the fallacy that whatever form the wholesaler purchases the commodity 

in must be preserved in retailing. There simply is no such principle.

 After the June 12 Alaska Fuel Project meeting, that 

testimony was submitted for consideration.

The premise also ignores the basic diminishing returns economics to ATC. When there are fifty 

times the number of meters at retail vs. wholesale, the benefits have to be vastly greater to pass 

a cost-benefit test. It does not follow that what is economical at wholesale is economical at 

retail.

Kucinich furthermore argues the nearly universal adoption in Canada under a permissive 

standard proves something is amiss in the USA. He does not understand the smaller gallon is 

sold in each respective market – cold vs. warm. Finally, Representative Kucinich observes that 

LP gas is sold with ATC making another “double standard”. That ignores the much higher 

temperature expansion coefficient for LP gas which absolutely does work in favor of ATC 

vis-à-vis fuel oil or gasoline.

Market Adjustments to Changes in Supply

It might be a mystery how the market adjusts for temperature when it actually matters. But this 

point is absolutely essential to a cost/benefit study. It is something that we do not see 

recognized anywhere in the professional literature. Carl Boyett, representing the Society of 

Independent Gasoline Marketers of America provided, revealing testimony in the California 

study that is relevant to Alaska:

“We operated a station in South Lake Tahoe for ten years roughly. And during 

the winter I know we lost thousands of gallons of gasoline. And so, you know, 

that probably was partly due to temperature, with snow on the ground and 

 25 See Kucinich’s June 25 testimony: http://domesticpolicy.oversight.house.gov/documents/20070725132158.pdf
L&R Committee – 2009 Final Report

Appendix B – Alaska Fuel Metering Project

L&R - B28

whatever. So we consciously raised prices to try to compensate for that during 

that period of time26

We are hearing the same observation from retailers in Alaska: they clearly recognize and are 

concerned with shrinkage of fuel as ambient air temperatures fall from the 70’s and 80’s in the 

summertime to -30’s and -40’s in the wintertime. It is a legitimate concern.

.”

Any fuel to a remote location and stored over the wintertime will shrink. We have to ask the 

question then, what happens when a fuel supply is lost for any reason – whether it is a 

hurricane, war in the Middle East, the depletion of reserves, or what have you.

We of course accept the premise that market supply is reduced from temperature induced 

shrinkage. What is true for any one retailer must be true for the market as a whole. In the 

aggregate losses are a summation across supply losses for each retailer. We are compelled by 

basic economics to conclude that the price increases accordingly, as shown in Figure 3. Supply 

shifts from S1 to S2 and price increases from P1 to P2.

Figure 3

To deny that this is the case is to assert that markets do not work. It really isn’t even necessary 

to introduce testimony that specific retailers are acknowledging supply losses by factoring it into 

price. The way markets generally work is that retailers notice that at the current price, sales 

indicate the market will bear a higher price. Alternatively, if sales become sluggish at the 

current price, it indicates the market is signaling a lower equilibrium price is required.

We are surprised that this basic lesson has not been introduced anywhere that we have seen. 

Generally the temperature compensation issue has been “hottest” in warm fuel states where it is 

asserted supplies are increasing from fuel expansion. One cannot simultaneously assert, 

however, that supply is expanding while at the same time price is not adjusting (falling). 

Whatever gains are had from fuel expansion by any individual retailer are reduced on a net 

basis by the fact price is falling at the same time.

 26 Ibid Pg 55, 56
L&R Committee – 2009 Final Report

Appendix B – Alaska Fuel Metering Project

L&R - B29

We do agree that it is beyond the power of any individual retailer to arbitrarily increase his price 

independent of other retailers. Instead it is market forces working in the aggregate that cause 

prices to adjust whether or not any individual retailer acknowledges that is the underlying 

reason.
L&R Committee – 2009 Final Report

Appendix B – Alaska Fuel Metering Project

L&R - B30

Contents

Executive Summary.......................................................................................................................................7

The Crux of the Issue.................................................................................................................................7

Markets Affected ......................................................................................................................................7

Gross vs. Net Gallons ................................................................................................................................8

Cost Benefit Results..................................................................................................................................9

Introduction and Literature Review............................................................................................................10

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................10

Impetus for Study....................................................................................................................................12

Temperature Compensation at Wholesale vs. Retail .............................................................................12

Interest Groups and Media Coverage.....................................................................................................14

California’s Study and Application to Alaska ..........................................................................................15

Canada and Permissive ATC....................................................................................................................16

Hawaii and Redefining the Fixed Volume Standard ...............................................................................18

Belgium Adopts Mandatory ATC at Retail ..............................................................................................19

Professional Literature Review ...............................................................................................................20

California Study.......................................................................................................................................22

Recent National and Federal Government Actions and Studies.............................................................25

Market Adjustments to Changes in Supply.............................................................................................27

Petroleum Production, Consumption, and Sales in Alaska.........................................................................33

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................33

Refining in Alaska....................................................................................................................................35

Flint Hills North Pole ...............................................................................................................................36

Tesoro Nikiski..........................................................................................................................................37

Petro Star – North Pole and Valdez........................................................................................................38

BP Prudhoe Bay and Conoco-Phillips Kuparuk........................................................................................38

Total Production .....................................................................................................................................39

Alaska Prime Suppliers Sales Volumes (US EIA)......................................................................................39

Alaska Division of Tax Annual Reports....................................................................................................40

ISER Reports............................................................................................................................................42

Components of Delivered Fuel Prices 2008 (ISER)..............................................................................42
L&R Committee – 2009 Final Report

Appendix B – Alaska Fuel Metering Project

L&R - B31

Barged Fuel and Remote Alaska Communities...................................................................................43

Alaska Community Fuel Use 2008 (ISER) ............................................................................................44

Reconciling Fuel Reports.........................................................................................................................45

Temperature Data Analysis.........................................................................................................................46

Benefits of Temperature Compensation ....................................................................................................48

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................48

Seasonal Transparency and the Murphy-Topel Approach .....................................................................49

Transparency Across Suppliers...............................................................................................................51

Comparing Variances in Gallons Across Regimes...................................................................................52

Sources of Temperature Variance Amongst Gross Retailers..................................................................52

Case Study...............................................................................................................................................56

Consumer Loss calculations from Temperature Variations....................................................................59

Costs of Conversion to ATC.........................................................................................................................61

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................61

Retrofit Kit Component Costs.................................................................................................................62

Dispenser/Meter Data Sets: Number of Conversions.............................................................................64

Cost to Convert .......................................................................................................................................67

Calibration and Inspection/Certification.................................................................................................69

Recurring Annual Costs...........................................................................................................................70

Effect of Temperature Changes on Volume or Price per Gallon.................................................................73

Method of Volume Adjustment..............................................................................................................73

Consumer Awareness, Product Labeling, Signage and Invoicing................................................................78

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................78

Existing Regulations Governing ATC in Canada and the NIST.................................................................79

Conclusion...............................................................................................................................................82

Inventory Control........................................................................................................................................83

Accounting of Inventory Control.............................................................................................................84

Profit and Loss Accounting......................................................................................................................86

Real Inventory Losses from Temperature Changes................................................................................91

Summary .................................................................................................................................................93

Tax Implications of Gross vs. Net Gallons...................................................................................................94

Bibliography ..............................................................................................................................................100
L&R Committee – 2009 Final Report

Appendix B – Alaska Fuel Metering Project

L&R - B32

Appendix 1 ................................................................................................................................................103

Temperature Data Analysis for Refineries, Tank Farms and Underground Tanks PLEASE REFER TO FILE 

Appendix 1 Alaska Fuel Metering Project .....................................................................................103

Appendix 2 ................................................................................................................................................103

Benefits Computations for ATC Regulatory Regimes PLEASE REFER TO FILE Appendix 2 Alaska Fuel 

Metering Project .................................................................................................................................103

Appendix 3 ................................................................................................................................................103

Estimated Fuel Use for Heating and Electricity Production PLEASE REFER TO FILE Appendix 3 

Alaska Fuel Metering Project ...........................................................................................................103
L&R Committee – 2009 Final Report

Appendix B – Alaska Fuel Metering Project

L&R - B33

Petroleum Production, Consumption, and Sales in Alaska

Introduction

There are a number of sources from the federal and state government pertaining to the fuel 

industry in Alaska. The full statewide scope and regional details are not accounted for in any 

one place. Their objectives and authorities are all different. We cannot speak with a lot of 

precision except in the case of taxed fuels, but we can form a pretty good idea of relative 

magnitudes overall. Jet fuel production and consumption leads the list; for international flight 

refueling. Highway fuels subject to motor fuels taxation would be a pretty distant second, then 

heating fuel. Fuel for production of electric power would be close behind heating fuel, and then 

marine fuel.

We don’t have independent reports with comprehensive and complete data either, but some 

good efforts under the circumstances of so few firms and the associated privacy restrictions on 

reporting data. What material we do have from federal and state sources seems inconsistent in 

some ways, and to some degree that is expected because the data collection methodologies 

and categorizations of fuel are different. Some data are from tax reporting requirements and 

are therefore quite complete and reliable. Voluntary surveys are just that – voluntary.

Fuel sales data are proprietary and it is understandable why, in a small retail market – possibly 

with only one or two suppliers – information is not reported, even when it has been collected. 

When there are many firms, private information is not being given out because only category 

totals are given, and not assigned to any particular firm. Not so in a one or two-firm market 

such in rural Alaska. Because of this, there is a degree of uncertainty in the completeness and 

accuracy of what data we have.

It is a bit difficult to reconcile the different sources with one another. Nevertheless we will 

review and compare these sources in order to formulate an idea about the fuel industry in 

Alaska:

1) Refineries in Alaska (Division of Oil and Gas Annual Report (2007) Section Five 

(Refining)

2) Alaska Prime Suppliers Sales Volumes (U.S. Energy Information Agency)

3) Alaska Division of Tax Annual Reports

4) Institute of Social and Economic Research (ISER) Reports

a) Institute for Social and Economic Research, Components of Delivered Fuel Prices in 

Alaska prepared for the Alaska Energy Authority June 2008

b) Institute for Social and Economic Research, Alaska Community Fuel Use prepared 

for the Alaska Energy Authority October 2008.

But first, we discuss a schematic overview of the Alaska Petroleum industry in Alaska. This is 

accomplished in Figure 4.
L&R Committee – 2009 Final Report

Appendix B – Alaska Fuel Metering Project

L&R - B34

Alaska Crude oil is produced in two places – the North Slope and Cook Inlet. The North Slope 

oil is delivered by pipeline to Valdez, through North Pole. There are two refineries in North Pole 

and one in Valdez. Cook Inlet oil production is exclusively refined at the Tesoro facility in 

Nikiski.

There are three refineries that process oil from the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS). 

Finished product is distilled from a crude stream, and a residual of up to 75% may be re-injected 

into the pipeline. There are also a couple of refineries on the North Slope for production of 

Arctic Heating Oil. This production is strictly in association with oil field operations and is not 

marketed south of the Brooks Range.

The refineries in North Pole produce finished products such as jet fuel, gasoline, diesel, and 

heating oil that are distributed by road, rail, and air. The railroad delivers fuel from North Pole to 

an Anchorage terminal and from there by pipeline to the Anchorage Port. From the Anchorage 

“rack” and the Port it is further distributed by barge, road, and rail throughout Alaska. Fuel is 

also trucked by road to Nenana, where it is barged throughout Interior Alaska on the Tanana 

and Yukon River to local village tank farms.

Cook Inlet oil processed at the Nikiski Refinery is distributed by pipeline to the Anchorage Port, 

and also by spur line to the Anchorage International Airport. Fuel is also distributed by barge 

and by road from the Nikiski Tesoro facility. Refinery output in Valdez is distributed by barge 

and road. Of course, the majority of crude oil is being exported by tanker out of Valdez.

Finally, we have barged fuel both arriving to Alaska from Northwest U.S., (occasionally foreign) 

and some refined products being shipped south. Heavy oils and seasonal gasoline go south 

from the Nikiski refinery along with the crude oil from the pipeline terminus in Valdez. Refined 

jet fuel, diesel, marine fuel, gasoline and aviation gasoline come up from Puget Sound largely to 

Southeast Alaska, but also further north.

The refinery data appearing on Figure 4 refers to throughput capacity. Finished products are 

varying proportions of throughput that may be as low as 25%. The refineries are not all 

operating at capacity, but it is the relative sizes of the refineries that are important here. The 

capacity data sometimes disagrees across sources, but the magnitudes are close enough.

The Flint Hills refinery is the largest by far, located in North Pole at 210,000 barrels per day. It 

is followed by Tesoro’s Nikiski refinery at 72,000. Petro Star has a combined capacity in Valdez 

and North Pole that is close behind at 65,500. The North Slope refineries are a combined 

17,500 barrel per day capacity.

Barged fuel from Puget Sound is delivered throughout Southeast, but potentially as far as Dutch 

Harbor. At Haines it can be delivered to the interior by road. The Port of Anchorage also 

receives refined fuels distributed from there throughout Alaska
L&R Committee – 2009 Final Report

Appendix B – Alaska Fuel Metering Project

L&R - B35

Figure 4

Refining in Alaska

This section will discuss the refining industry in Alaska, for the most part following the Alaska 

Department of Oil and Gas 2007 Annual Report – the most recent available. There are some 

small discrepancies with US EIA (Energy Information Administration) numbers on capacity but 

nothing major. The discrepancies in fuel produced or sold however, are substantial.27

A few words on refining first:

 We will 

illustrate where.

Final products from refining include these major groups:

Motor Gasoline – for vehicles with reciprocating engines

 27 The State DOG report, p 5-6, discusses the major discrepancy between state tax sources and federal data –

international flight refueling. But there is clearly more than this. 
L&R Committee – 2009 Final Report

Appendix B – Alaska Fuel Metering Project

L&R - B36

Aviation Gasoline – For aircraft with reciprocating engines

Jet Fuel – kerosene based fuel for aircraft with turbine engines

Distillates

#1 – Fuel oil, heating oil or diesel fuel

#2 – Fuel oil, heating oil or diesel fuel

There are a number of different potential products, some of which are made in Alaska. For 

example naphtha is similar to gasoline or white gas, at the lighter end. Golden Valley uses it in 

turbines for electrical production for example. At the other end are heavier oils and asphalts. 

These are produced in Nikiski and marketed in Alaska and exported. Aviation gasoline (100 low 

lead) is imported.

According to ISER, the estimated combined production from the four refineries in Alaska was 

about 127,000 barrels per day in 200828. In the sections that follow from the DOG report, data 

are not all from the same year, and are expressed as ranges.29, but roughly agree with this 

figure. The total throughput potential is about three times that much. Refineries do not operate 

at full capacity in Alaska and moreover only a portion of the stream taken off the Trans-Alaska 

Pipeline System is refined. The remainder is returned to the pipeline.

Flint Hills North Pole

The Flint Hills Resources Refinery in North Pole is the largest in Alaska. The refinery receives 

Alaska North Slope crude oil from the Trans Alaska Pipeline. According to the Alaska State 

Division of Oil and Gas, it has throughput of about 226,500 barrels per day30

Flint Hills produces mostly jet fuel and #1 fuel oil as can be seen in Figure 5. The State DOG 

indicates about 60% of Flint Hills production serves the aviation market. It does so primarily in 

Anchorage, where the bulk of international flight refueling takes place at the Anchorage 

International Airport. One source of fuel they do not produce is ultra-low sulfur diesel. It is 

imported from elsewhere and distributed by Flint Hills.

. Of that, about 

60,000 barrels per day of refined products are produced and sold. That’s about 911 million 

gallons per year. The remainder is injected back into the TAPS and sent on to Valdez.

 28 ISER Fuel Price Components p 15. 29 The amount of finished product is not quite clear in the State DOG report 30 Elsewhere, including the report being referred to, a 210,000 barrel per day capacity is cited.
L&R Committee – 2009 Final Report

Appendix B – Alaska Fuel Metering Project

L&R - B37

Flint Hills Production

Gasoline & Naptha 10%

Jet Fuel #1 Fuel Oil 77%

#2 Diesel 8%

Gas Oil 4%

Asphalt 1%

Figure 5

The company owns two large terminals (racks) in Fairbanks and Anchorage that store and 

distribute asphalt, diesel, jet fuel, and gasoline. There is a also a Fairbanks terminal located at 

the International Airport. It stores fuel that has been delivered by tanker truck from the refinery. 

From there, jet fuel is loaded from tanks into 10,000 gallon aircraft refueling trucks. Between 18 

and 24 flights a day are refueled.

The Anchorage terminal storage facility has 700,000 gallons of capacity. Fuel is delivered by 

rail in tanker cars to this facility where it is further distributed by truck, rail, and pipeline. The 

pipeline delivers fuel about half a mile away to the Port of Anchorage terminal where 

60-80 vessels a year are loaded for bulk deliveries to other Alaska locations.

The State Division of Oil and Gas reports over 577.5 million gallons a year delivered to the 

Anchorage terminal for 200631.

Tesoro Nikiski

Tesoro operates the oldest refinery in Alaska at Nikiski, which refines all of the oil produced in 

Cook Inlet. It also refines Alaska North Slope oil and imported foreign crude oil. The refinery 

has a capacity throughput of 72,000 barrels a day. About 55,000 barrels a day are produced for 

distribution to its 125 Tesoro retail stations and other retailers across Alaska.

Tesoro Production

Gasoline & Naphtha 28%

Jet Fuel

Diesel 45-55%

Gas Oil

Bottoms/Resid (Asphalt) 22%

Figure 6

 31 P 5-2 Alaska Refining. Alaska State DOG 2007 Annual Report
L&R Committee – 2009 Final Report

Appendix B – Alaska Fuel Metering Project

L&R - B38

The company operates a 75-mile multi-product pipeline northward across Cook Inlet to the Port 

of Anchorage where its terminal facility is located. A spur-line to the Anchorage International 

Airport delivers to the airport tank farm. It is estimated that Tesoro supplies about 40% of the 

monthly jet fuel demand.

The residuals are sold to Alaska markets (Asphalts), but largely these are heavy oils exported to 

states in the Lower ’48. Gasoline produced in the summertime is all marketed in Alaska, 

whereas in the winter both gasoline and diesel are exported to the Pacific Northwest.

Petro Star – North Pole and Valdez

Petro Star owns refineries extracting throughput from TAPS in both North Pole and Valdez. 

They operate similarly to Flint Hills, refining a portion of throughput (about 25%) and returning 

the rest to the pipeline. The larger and newer of the two facilities is in Valdez, processing about 

48,000 barrels per day, with jet fuel as the primary refined product. The North Pole facility has a 

capacity of about 18,000 barrels per day. It was established primarily for producing and 

distributing light fuels for heat.

Petro Star N. Pole + Valdez 

Production

Jet Fuel/Fuel Oil 68%

Diesel/#2 Heating Oil 32%

Figure 7

Petro Star owns Sourdough Fuels, a primary fuel oil distributor in Interior Alaska, along with a 

lubricant distribution concern. Both military and commercial air customers are served in 

Anchorage. It distributes fuels in western Alaska through companies such as Kodiak Oil sales 

and North Pacific Fuel. The Valdez petroleum terminal is owned by Tesoro.

BP Prudhoe Bay and Conoco-Phillips Kuparuk

The Prudhoe Bay facility processes crude from a North Slope oil transit line and is for the 

purpose of refining arctic heating fuel. It returns the remainder to the transit line. The fuel is 

strictly for heating North Slope operations.

Two plants are capable of processing about 7-8,000 barrels per day, with 1,200 to 1,400 barrels 

of arctic heating fuel as finished product. The remainder is reinjected into the transit line. 

Occasional batches of jet fuel are run, but 97% of the finished production is heating fuel.

The Conoco-Phillips Topping Plant also processes crude for arctic heating fuel in support of 

various oil company operations in the area. The plant processes about 14,500 barrels per day 

in order to produce 1,700 to 2,400 barrels of finished product. The amount depends on end use 

requirements.
L&R Committee – 2009 Final Report

Appendix B – Alaska Fuel Metering Project

L&R - B39

Total Production

If we take the data from the DOG report and summarize it, we have an approximate total output 

statewide of around 131,000 barrels per day, close to the ISER estimate for 2008 at 127,000. 

That works out to about 2 billion gallons a year, or 2.1 if we include refined heating product for 

oilfield operations.

Approximate Capacity and Production - Alaska Refineries

Commercial Sales vs. Oilfield Operations

Refining Barrels Gallons per

Capacity Daily 

Production

Year

Flint Hills, N. Pole 226,500 60,000 919,800,000

Tesoro, Nikiski 72,000 55,000 843,150,000

Petro Star, N. Pole Plus Valdez 66,000 16,500 252,945,000

sum 131,500 2,015,895,000

BP, Prudhoe Bay 15,000 2,500 38,325,000

Conoco-Phillips, Kuparuk 14,500 2,050 31,426,500

Sum 2,085,646,500

Figure 8

Alaska Prime Suppliers Sales Volumes (US EIA)

The Energy Information Agency (EIA) has produced source data in tables that titled “Prime 

Supplier Sales for Alaska”.32

Figure 9 produces the Energy Information Agency data on Alaska Prime Suppliers. Their 

original tables are in thousands of gallons per day, whereas we have multiplied by 365, and 

again by 1,000 in order to arrive at annual gallon amounts. We can see that sales of motor 

gasoline are just less than 268 million gallons. Diesel is included in the category “Total Distillate 

and Kerosene, confidentiality requirements preclude us from seeing diesel separately.

 This data incorporates estimated sales of fuel produced in Alaska 

as well as imports into Alaska from outside. Derivations from these tables have been 

reproduced elsewhere, including the State Division of Oil and Gas publications. These figures 

are sometimes referred to as Alaska’s consumption of petroleum. This data is the result of 

surveys the Energy Information Administration sends to refiners and to distributors of fuel.

 32 http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_cons_prim_dcu_sak_a.htm
L&R Committee – 2009 Final Report

Appendix B – Alaska Fuel Metering Project

L&R - B40

Alaska Prime Supplier Sales Volumes

(in Gallons 2007)

Motor Gasoline 267,545,000

Kerosene type Jet Fuel 1,055,142,000

Total Distillate and Kerosene 310,505,500

Sum 1,633,192,500

Figure 9

The data reported in the federal estimate of motor gasoline and total distillates above are 

substantial underestimates, as we shall see. We can establish this by looking at the state 

highway fuel tax data, and the estimates of fuel used for electricity production and building heat 

provided by ISER in the following sections. The total supplier sales estimate of 1.6 billion is less 

than the refined product estimate in the previous section. It should be the other way around if 

primary fuel supplier data includes imports. (Unless Alaska exports from the lone refinery at 

Nikiski exceed imports by hundreds of millions of gallons).

Alaska Division of Tax Annual Reports

The state of Alaska produces data on fuel sales that are taxed. We can be confident that the 

data will be complete because it is not a voluntary survey. However, the largest sector in the 

retail fuel industry is not taxed – sales to international flights. The taxed fuel number is still 

necessary when we address question of the effect of fuel delivery methods on state taxes. As 

indicated earlier there is a disagreement between federal and state sources on the size of taxed 

fuel sales. We will present the state data now, and give the presumption of accuracy to the 

state where possible insofar as it is the closest to the subject matter and has the highest 

incentive for accuracy.

Figure 10 shows the list of motor fuels subject to tax that are reported by the State of Alaska 

Division of Tax in its annual report. The data are for fiscal year 2008, which runs from July of 

2007 through June of 2008.
L&R Committee – 2009 Final Report

Appendix B – Alaska Fuel Metering Project

L&R - B41

Taxed Fuels in Alaska FY 2008

Motor Fuel Type Gallons

Highway 369,568,110

Marine Fuel 115,536,050

Jet Fuel 142,874,628

Aviation Gasoline 14,822,878

Gasohol 388,300

Figure 10

In terms of taxed fuels, the highway fuels dominate the list at about 370 million gallons. It 

includes gasoline for automobiles and diesel for trucks – all highway use. Jet fuels subject to 

tax are second with about 143 million gallons, used in domestic flights. Marine fuels are third 

with 116 million gallons. Aviation gas, used by small single-engine piston aircraft is small by 

comparison but nearly 15 million gallons. Gasohol is 0.4 million gallons.33

Fuel sales not subject to tax are shown on Figure 11. These non-taxable sales indicate where 

the data on taxed fuels might not represent the industry as a whole.

Exempt from Tax

Heating Fuel

Federal, State, Local Government

International Flights (Jet fuel)

Exports

Power Plants and Utilities

Charitable Institutions

Bunker Fuel (#6 Fuel Oil

Figure 11

Aviation fuel sold to international carriers is by far the most important fuel industry component 

not included in the tax summary, and we know it to be a minimum of a billion gallons a year. 

Sales of fuel for heating oil and for electric power production are the next most important 

nontaxed components. We have a very rough estimate of 600 million gallons extrapolated from 

ISER work presented in the next section.

Military fuel use is also excluded. As an example, Eielson was quoted to have spent 

$12.5 million at $2.20 per gallon in the last fiscal year.34

 33The division did not report quantity of tax receipts nor imputed quantity of off-road diesel sales in the annual report. The tax is 

2 cents per gallon.

 That works out to about 5.7 million 

34General Howie Chandler, Commander of Pacific Air Forces, quoted in Fairbanks Daily News Miner July 19, 2008

http://newsminer.com/news/2008/jul/19/funding-biomass-fuels-may-be-hurdle/
L&R Committee – 2009 Final Report

Appendix B – Alaska Fuel Metering Project

L&R - B42

gallons. A full military survey was beyond the scope of this study. But the major Army bases 

are at Ft. Wainwright in Fairbanks and Ft. Richardson in Anchorage. The Air Force is 

represented at Elmendorf in Anchorage and Eielson at North Pole.

ISER Reports

The most recent ISER research pertaining to fuels has to do with pricing and community fuel 

use (ISER’s Components of Delivered Fuel Prices 2008 and Alaska Community Fuel Use 

2008). These reports cite Energy Information Agency data we have also cited here. Some is 

not in the form we seek because it includes all forms of energy.

Components of Delivered Fuel Prices 2008 (ISER)

This report cites a figure of 1,186 million BTUs of energy consumption per capita in Alaska35

ISER correctly infers international flight refueling is the main reason for Alaska fuel consumption 

being on the order of three times the national average (pg 3). That can be seen from our look at 

the Prime Suppliers data. For purposes of this study, the section of this report that is of most 

interest to us is the discussion of Alaska barge districts.

, for 

example. The most recent EIA report has data for 2005 and the figure is 1,193.9 million BTUs 

per person.

The road system logistics of retail fuel sales are fairly straightforward, similar to elsewhere in the 

U.S. Trucks deliver to gasoline stations and to local tank farms. Local trucks deliver fuel oil to 

retail consumers of fuel oil/diesel. We have rail delivery from North Pole to Anchorage and 

Nenana terminals. There is a pipeline from Nikiski to the Anchorage port, with a spur line to the 

International Airport. We have an additional pipeline from the Anchorage port to the Anchorage 

International Airport. However, we do not have a complete description of the industry off-road.

This ISER report does address the off-road petroleum industry, with an eye towards the high 

expense of retailing fuel in the bush. It does not detail two areas of interest though. The first is 

the far North Arctic region. The study was directed at regions with at least one Power Cost 

Equalization community.

The second area is flown fuel. Communities off the major waterways, with no road access, 

must fly fuel in. The largest statewide supplier is Evert’s Air Fuel, and a brief overview of that 

industry was provided by interview36

Evert’s Air Fuel is a wholesaler. It flies fuel to tank farms from the arctic coast at Pt. Barrow all 

the way south to Cape Yakutaga. It supplies fuel not only to landlocked villages off the road 

.

 35 This figure includes energy from all sources including hydro and natural gas, but even accounting for that seems 

to indicate this figure is high relative to the Alaska Prime Suppliers EIA data. The BTU figure cited there is actually 

for the fiscal year 2004

36 Interview with Dave Adam, Evert’s Air Fuel Feb 24, 2009.
L&R Committee – 2009 Final Report

Appendix B – Alaska Fuel Metering Project

L&R - B43

system like Anaktuvik and Nuixit, but also to villages that have access to barged fuel such as 

Ft. Yukon, when deliveries are made when the water is too low, or because the price was too 

high during the barge season.

The company distributes fuel in the range of 9-11 million gallons per year. It is an industry in the 

aggregate in the tens of millions of gallons per year.

Barged Fuel and Remote Alaska Communities

ISER divided Alaska into five barge regions: The Ice Free Southern Coast, the Kuskokwim 

River, the Yukon River, the Northwest and Kobuk, and the Arctic. Barging is a difficult and 

costly endeavor in Arctic conditions. Fuel to remote locations is often lightered off a larger ship 

into a smaller one before delivery to a local tank farm. Barges lying idle during freeze-up must 

have capital recovered in very short seasons. It is expensive and risky – this year for example 

distributors who bought and barged during high fuel prices are competing with flown fuel today 

paying much lower costs at current refinery prices.

The regions and descriptions are as follows:

Ice Free Southern Coast:

From Southeast Alaska, along the Gulf of Alaska and out along the Aleutian 

Island chain. Year-round delivery of fuel. Crowley, Delta Western, and Petro 

Marine Services deliver fuel in this region.

Fuel for this region may be shipped from refineries in Valdez or Nikiski; from the 

fuel terminal at the Port of Anchorage; or from refineries in Washington or 

California. It is either shipped directly to communities or to larger hub 

communities, where it is reloaded onto smaller barges. Sometimes fuel will be 

lightered directly off the barge into a smaller barge for delivery to a community, 

thus bypassing the fuel hub.

Kuskokwim River

The Kuskokwim River Region includes all the communities on the Kuskokwim 

River and its tributaries, as well as coastal communities near the mouth of the 

river. Bethel serves as the regional hub, and almost all fuel delivered to the 

region is at least temporarily stored in Bethel. Fuel from Bethel storage tanks 

must be loaded into smaller barges to navigate the Kuskokwim River upstream of 

Bethel. Approximately four million gallons of fuel are shipped out of Bethel each 

year.

Fuel for this region is transported from Anchorage on large barges and must be 

lightered before being unloaded at the Bethel fuel depot. Once at the Bethel 

depot, the fuel is loaded onto barges for delivery upstream or to surrounding 

coastal communities. Both Crowley and Delta Western have tank farms in Bethel 

and deliver fuel to the surrounding areas.
L&R Committee – 2009 Final Report

Appendix B – Alaska Fuel Metering Project

L&R - B44

Yukon River

Nenana serves as the fuel hub for the Yukon River. Fuel arrives at the Nenana 

hub from refineries in North Pole, or is carried from Anchorage on the Alaska 

Railroad or by truck. From Nenana, fuel is barged both upstream as far as Fort 

Yukon and downstream to the mouth of the Yukon River. Crowley is the 

dominant fuel transporter in the region. Recently, Ruby Marine started 

competing on a small scale with Crowley.

Occasionally fuel is shipped from the mouth of the Yukon from the Bethel or 

Nome fuel hubs. Generally the more direct route from the Nenana fuel terminal 

is less costly, even for communities near the mouth of the Yukon.

Northwest and Kobuk

This region is defined as the area served by fuel hubs in Kotzebue and Nome 

and consists of Norton Sound, Kotzebue Sound and the Kobuk River. Nome’s 

port can accommodate large barges and does not require lighterage, while 

Kotzebue’s port is shallow and does require fuel lightering.

Kotzebue is the fuel hub for communities on the Kobuk River. The cost of 

barging fuel on the Kobuk is high because of difficult navigation and hazards. 

Most other communities in the Northwest region are coastal and present less 

navigational difficulty but have shallow ports.

Arctic

The Arctic Region was not studied by ISER. Fuel is subsidized by the Borough, 

and it is not a Power Cost Equalization community, the original focus of 

estimating community fuel use. But Crowley and Evert’s Air fuel are the major 

distributors.

Alaska Community Fuel Use 2008 (ISER)

The methodology in the Community Fuel Use project was to survey. The project sent surveys 

to 30 communities that qualified for the Power Cost Equalization (PCE) program. Twenty three 

of the surveys provided complete information. On that basis, fuel consumption was estimated 

for 14 of Alaska’s 27 census areas. (The ones containing at least one PCE community.)

This represents the best available data we have for diesel consumption by community, yet it 

leaves out Fairbanks, Anchorage, and Juneau. That would be the great majority of the 

population, and the relatively wealthier portion. We would expect fuel consumption to be higher 

both because income is higher and fuel less expensive. The 14 census areas included in the 

ISER study accounted for only 64.6 million gallons of fuel consumption. International flight 

refueling and road system use are not included in the Community Fuel Use Estimate due to the 
L&R Committee – 2009 Final Report

Appendix B – Alaska Fuel Metering Project

L&R - B45

location of the 14 census areas. The data collected is therefore more easily correlated to 

heating and electricity.

As we look at those communities, they ranged from about 1,500 gallons per household in outer 

Ketchikan where hydro is available and other fuel use is modest, all the way up to over 

6,000 gallons per household in Aleutians West where there are no alternatives to fuel oil for 

either heating or electric, the environment is harsh, etc. Something on the order of 

2,800 gallons annual usage per household looks to be an average in these PCE communities. 

Appendix 3 takes the Community Fuel Use estimates from this survey and attempts to 

extrapolate from it a statewide estimate, and it is discussed further below.

Reconciling Fuel Reports

Northern Economic Research Associates (NERA) conducted a proprietary survey of non-taxed 

jet fuel sales and estimated them at just over 1 billion gallons. We will set that as a minimum 

and interpret the above data under that criteria. The jet fuel component for international flights 

alone is on the order of a billion gallons for 2007, and the state’s estimate of taxed jet fuel is 

143 million gallons per year. So 1.2 billion gallons would be a conservative estimate for total jet 

fuels in 2007. (At the moment sales are off by 30% in comparison to last year due to the 

contraction of international flights.

We will also look more closely at the Motor Gasoline and Total Distillate and Kerosene 

categories from the Prime Supplier’s report. We should combine these two and discuss total 

Alaska non-jet fuel production, but we want to understand what we are combining.

“Motor Gasoline” encompasses automobile gasoline (services snow machines, 4-wheelers, 

generators, and other small engines as well as cars), aviation gasoline (small airplane fuel) and 

marine gas. “Total Distillate and Kerosene” includes diesel for electricity production, fuel oil 

used in heating buildings, and diesel fuel used on highways, and for heavy equipment.

According to EIA’s Alaska Prime Supplier Sales Volume data, the non-jet fuel sales in 2007 

were about 577.5 million gallons. That is the estimated total for taxed automotive and highway 

diesel, plus building heat and electricity, electric power generation, military usage, etc. from the 

nontaxed sector.

From the state tax division data we can estimate total taxed fuel other than jet fuel at 500 million 

gallons in FY 200837

 37 The state data is for FY 2008 whereas the federal data are for calendar year 2007. So they overlap by six months 

and there can’t be this much difference.

. The state data does not include nontaxed fuels; most importantly building 

heat and electricity. Seventy-seven million gallons for heating and electricity (577 million total 

less 500 million estimated taxed fuels) appears to be low. It seems we have a lot of product not 

accounted for. 77 million gallons is clearly not enough to produce the heating and electrical 

needs for all of Alaska outside the Southcentral natural gas region.
L&R Committee – 2009 Final Report

Appendix B – Alaska Fuel Metering Project

L&R - B46

Since 77 million gallons is clearly not enough to produce the heating and electrical needs of 

Alaska consumers, the question is how much is it in actuality. We could extrapolate a statewide 

estimate of fuel use for production of electricity and building heat from the ISER community fuel 

use data. In the communities they surveyed the average was about 2,130 gallons per 

household after we subtract fuel use for transportation. We can try to project from this a 

statewide fuel use estimate by extending it to all populations not served by natural gas.

That attempt is made in Appendix 3, and it also requires consideration for the differences 

between demographics of households in the ISER survey vs. those that are not. Although some 

real caution needs to be used in this estimate, it is on the order of 300 million gallons. If we add 

that to highway fuels we are approaching a billion gallons of non-jet fuel.

If we add Highway fuel of 379 million gallons to 300 million gallons of heating/electrical fuel, 

along with 115 million gallons of marine fuel, 15 million of aviation gas, and finally the 1.2 billion 

in jet fuel sales – we have about a 2 billion dollar retail petroleum fuel industry in Alaska.

Temperature Data Analysis 

What have we learned from studying the relationship between ambient air temperatures and 

fuel in this project? We did not have the choice of what data to analyze, as it was a matter of 

voluntary submissions kindly given by firms that had no obligation to do so. The most ideal data 

to collect would have been extremely expensive. It would have required taking temperature 

readings from dispensed fuel at locations all over the state over the period of a year.

Moreover, this temperature data collection would have to be taken simultaneously across 

suppliers at each point in time – a very costly enterprise. We are concerned ultimately with how 

retail temperatures might vary from supplier to supplier in ways that make price comparisons 

non-transparent for consumers. Prices are adjusting in less than a week’s time to market 

conditions. The most level playing field in terms of gallon content is when temperatures are the 

same from supplier to supplier within the period of time for which prices are stable enough to be 

compared.

One of the study assignments was to determine the effect of temperature on gallon content as 

fuel moves from production to final retail sale. It is more complicated than “fuel cools from the 

refinery to retail end use”. In the most general terms that is true, as fuels exit the refinery run at 

temperatures in the 90’s or even over 100 degrees, but by the time fuels are being dispensed at 

retail they are generally below the sixty degree reference and in some cases dispensed at 

below – 30 F.

The main distinction it seems for fuel temperatures is whether they are stored above-ground vs. 

below-ground. Above ground tanks are exposed to ambient temperatures as low as -60 F, 

whereas below-ground tanks may see temperatures below freezing, but not anywhere near the 

extremes of above-ground tanks. Hence, motor fuels stored in below-ground tanks can actually 

warm compared to their state when stored in the larger above-ground tanks in the extreme cold. 
L&R Committee – 2009 Final Report

Appendix B – Alaska Fuel Metering Project

L&R - B47

But since motor fuels are stored similarly across retailers, it isn’t much of an issue for price 

transparency.

Once fuels are in an above-ground storage tank, and given the manner of distribution in Alaska, 

they follow ambient air temperatures patterns so closely we can generally predict fuel 

temperatures with over 90% accuracy knowing nothing but ambient temperatures. In the 

above-ground storage tanks studied, when we have data on daily temperatures, we can see 

that the tanks have a “memory” of about a week – meaning a week’s worth of temperatures 

influence the fuel. In the case of below-ground storage tanks, it is more on the order of a 

month.

When tanks have a “memory” of about a week, we are not going to see day-to-day variations of 

much significance unless there is some kind of coincidental convergence of events, and it would 

have to be at the refinery itself. For example, a storage tank at a refinery is nearly empty and at 

or near ambient in the extreme cold. A load is picked up by a truck and delivered. During the 

day the refinery is producing fuel that is added to the storage tank at the same time a Chinook 

wind brings extremely warm ambient temperatures. Trucks loaded later in the day could be 

expected to have somewhat warmer temperatures.

A truck could be left inside a heated facility overnight. In the extreme cold of the winter the fuel 

would have time to rise above that of fuel in an above-ground storage tank loading trucks the 

next morning. The more empty the truck, the faster the fuel would warm. Alternatively, fuel left 

in a truck overnight outside will have a chance to settle to ambient whereas that at the refinery 

will be somewhat warmer than ambient as newly produced (warmer) fuel is added to that stored. 

So we can envision temperature differentials in this way.

But what quantity of fuel could we possibly be talking about? It is a random affair as opposed to 

an individual supplier trying to systematically exploit temperature as a competitive advantage. It 

would require a heated facility large enough to park a fleet of trucks, or heating a fuel storage 

tank in order to systematically exploit a temperature advantage in this way – and we are aware 

of no circumstance like this. The only way to effectively accomplish this is to sell temperature 

compensated fuel when the competition is not.

Instead, the great bulk of fuel is produced, transported, stored, and distributed in the same 

manner from supplier to supplier. The further we get from the refinery, the less opportunity 

there is for temperatures to vary across suppliers. Outside Fairbanks and Valdez, there simply 

is not much opportunity for this. As we looked across correlations from different fuels stored by 

the same supplier in remote communities (the only data we had) – they were above 90%, and 

generally approaching near-perfection. Fuel temperatures were generally the same as a 

practical matter.38

 38 It should be remembered that the tolerance specifications for temperature compensation mean in effect we 

cannot even measure differences in fuel temperatures accurately enough at delivery to make a practical difference 

until fuels vary by more than a few degrees.

 It is hard to imagine how temperatures can vary significantly and 

systematically across suppliers at retail.
L&R Committee – 2009 Final Report

Appendix B – Alaska Fuel Metering Project

L&R - B48

We did see some temperature variations in remote storage locations that were either 

significantly different from the other fuels, or from ambient by less than ten degrees. (There was 

one Jet Fuel reading in Dillingham that was more than ten degrees warmer than the other two 

fuels stored there). These again are not retail differences, and after the next stage in delivery 

these differentials would be moderated further due to the relentless impact of ambient 

temperatures on all fuels, ever more significant as it is transported and dispensed in smaller 

quantities.

We did see that both ambient air temperatures and stored fuel can have very large variation 

within a month – fifty degrees or more in the case of Flint Hills refinery truck rack loadings in 

some winter months (a fraction of that variation at the Anchorage rack as compared with the 

interior). But all retailers are facing the same temperatures. Since prices are also adjusting 

faster than the fuel can adjust to temperature we cannot say there is a lack of price 

transparency due to temperature variations.

We also saw significant variations in temperatures loaded at refineries in Cook Inlet vs. Puget 

Sound. But after a week or more of transporting by barge, lightering (if applicable), and 

placement into above-ground storage tanks subject to ambient – the result is the same as a 

practical matter. It is very difficult to conceive of a scenario where it leads to systematic 

differences in gallon contents when subsequently delivered by either vehicle tanker truck to end 

user, or to an underground tank and dispensed as motor fuel.

Benefits of Temperature Compensation

Introduction

The National Conference on Weights and Measures ATC Steering Committee has pointed to 

this primary benefit of automatic temperature compensation:

ATC would provide transparency in unit price vs. volume39

Further:

Each of us must decide for ourselves if the benefit of transparency in the 

measurement system is worth the cost of implementation to the retailers and 

consumers.

It isn’t just that perfect transparency is the most desirable outcome. Because measurement 

accuracy is subject to diminishing returns – the more accurate we wish to be, the higher the cost 

of any transaction. The smaller the transaction, the larger is this cost of accuracy. In a large 

wholesale transaction it is clearly worth the cost of one ATC meter. A 2% difference in volume 

 39 http://www.ncwm.net/ppt/steering_committee_interim_report_2008.ppt
L&R Committee – 2009 Final Report

Appendix B – Alaska Fuel Metering Project

L&R - B49

across ten thousand gallons is two hundred gallons, and the cost of one meter is being defrayed 

across two hundred gallon differences in each ten thousand gallon transaction.

In moving from wholesale transactions to retail transactions, there is an order of magnitude 

more meters dispensing ten gallons at a time rather than ten thousand and the cost of each 

meter is being defrayed across 2/10ths of a gallon differences. It can make sense – when fuel 

is extremely valuable, or when the difference in volumes is large.

We should probably adopt differential terminology for the two types of transparency. The first is 

transparency across seasons. The second is transparency across suppliers. The best 

exposition of these two types of transparency, but in a very technical economic fashion, was 

provided by Murphy and White (2009) in their contribution to the California study. The entire 

scope of estimated benefits to ATC in the California study were dependent upon that analysis. 

Each type of transparency (seasonality and supplier) was estimated to contribute about a 

hundred thousand dollars in benefits, in comparison to the millions of dollars in costs to 

accomplish temperature compensation at retail.

We should note here that if fuel were sold by weight instead of by volume, there would be no 

differences across seasons nor across suppliers on any given day in terms of the unit of sale. If 

everyone transacts in pounds of fuel, then it does not matter what the temperature of the fuel is. 

A pound is a pound no matter what the season is or the supplier providing it. But it is too 

impractical (costly) to sell fuel by weight.

Seasonal Transparency and the Murphy-Topel Approach

There were two benefits in the improvement of information to consumers from ATC in the 

Murphy-Topel analysis. The first was eliminating a lack of seasonal transparency – that when 

there is seasonal variation in fuel temperatures, consumers are led to either over-estimate or 

under-estimate the value of the fuel. When it is colder, the fuel has higher energy content and 

its value is underestimated. When it is warmer the fuel has lower energy content and the fuel is 

overvalued.

So consumers buy “too much” fuel in the summertime, and “too little” fuel in the wintertime 

(p 10). Also, in the summertime there is a transfer from the consumer to the supplier, but in the 

winter there is a transfer from suppliers to consumers. But on average, consumers do not 

misperceive the energy content of a gallon of fuel, even if the average temperature is 

substantially different from 60 F.

In the language of the layman, a consumer knows what kind of miles per gallon to expect out of 

his gallon of gas regardless of the average temperature of his environment. He may be 

incorrect about the wintertime vs. summertime mileage because fuel is hotter in the summer 

and colder in the winter, and therefore energy content is different. But on average there is no 

misperception.
L&R Committee – 2009 Final Report

Appendix B – Alaska Fuel Metering Project

L&R - B50

It is argued that ATC would remove misperceptions about the energy content of the fuel the 

consumers are using.

The authors urged an understanding that this was a best case scenario. ATC may actually lead 

to a degradation of information content by causing consumers to misperceive that ATC 

guarantees the same energy content in all seasons. That is not true by virtue of the change in 

additives or refining characteristics over the course of a year. In places where gasohol is used 

as a winter mix, mileage is decreased, for example.

However, even in the best case scenario for ATC the authors estimated the benefits of 

eliminating a lack of seasonal transparency at about $89,000 per year for the entire state of 

California. This is an industry that is more than a hundred times larger than Alaska’s. A 

proportional figure for Alaska would be less than a thousand dollars. The methodology could be 

adapted to Alaska, with larger potential variations in fuel temperatures – especially for those 

stored above ground and subject to much greater variations from ambient temperatures. If we 

do so the best case scenario for ATC benefits for highway fuels in Alaska is about $1,343.40 

For fuel oil it is about $5,37741

These numbers depend on an analytical framework that is a “best case” scenario for ATC as 

discussed in their paper. The fuel oil number for Alaska also relies on combining #1 and #2 fuel 

oil sales and using the seasonal difference in temperatures for #1 fuel oil, which are 

considerably larger than for those of #2. It also assumes zero variation amongst ATC fuel 

retailers, which is not exactly true due to calibration differences within legal tolerance limits. We 

should not place a lot of emphasis on the exact amounts, but rather note their magnitudes. 

They are indeed “vanishingly small” as noted in the Murphy-Topel work.

In terms of the layman, is the adoption of ATC going to eliminate any social problems that have 

arisen from gallons of gasoline having higher energy content in the winter rather than summer? 

Even for order of magnitude underestimates to the value of ATC, the answer is no. If the 

differences are so small that consumers are ignorant of it in the first place, it comes as no 

surprise that highly analytical mathematics bears that out.

This analysis ignores something important about the physics of fuel combustion: that 

regardless of whether consumers correctly perceive the energy content of fuel – internal 

combustion engines do not misperceive energy content. And if the consumer is buying fuel that 

does not get him as far as he thought, then his money does not go as far as he thought, and he 

will have less of it. Expenditures will have to be curtailed when money does not go as far as we 

think. Likewise, when fuel gets us further than we expect, we have more money on our hands 

than we planned. So there is actually another force at work ameliorating these numbers for 

 40 See Appendix 2 for derivations 41 See Appendix 2
L&R Committee – 2009 Final Report

Appendix B – Alaska Fuel Metering Project

L&R - B51

social losses estimated by Murphy-Topel42

Lastly, it was not recognized in the Murphy-Topel approach that there is actually some variation 

amongst net gallon retailers by virtue of differences in calibrations. ATC metering is calibrated 

within tolerances that allow for variations that depend on the flow rate of delivery. For example, 

the flow rates associated with motor fuel stations and home heating oil allow for variations that 

amount to the equivalent of around two degrees. In the California case this is 20% of the 

variation assumed between retailers under gross gallon delivery. Suffice it to say that this 

calibration difference makes the best case Murphy-Topel scenario of around $100,000 in 

benefits to California overstated.

. But the difficulty of estimating this adjustment to 

their approach when the numbers are so small to begin with is not worth the cost of inquiry.

Transparency Across Suppliers

Seasonal variation in “gallon” content under a gross gallon standard is an insignificant social 

problem. But a potentially significant problem for Alaska where ATC might make a difference is 

in transparency across suppliers at any given point in time. 

The California study detailed this concern as follows:

Energy Commission staff acknowledges that having no knowledge of fuel 

temperature at the time of a transaction creates a problem because retail fuel 

consumers cannot adequately compare the benefits or value of fuel prices 

advertised by two competing retail stations. If consumers seek the lowest priced 

fuel and if temperature variation is not taken into account in the advertised price 

per gallon, a consumer could potentially buy a higher priced gallon when they 

could have received a better value if they had knowledge of the net price of that 

gallon.

The central feature of any calculation of benefit in such a question is how much difference can 

be expected from one retailer to another in the temperature of fuel. If there is zero variation in 

fuel temperatures between retailers, then price transparency is by definition perfect. There is 

zero benefit to temperature compensation of fuels in terms of transparency across suppliers.

California, despite a great deal of resources dedicated to its temperature study and collection of 

data, never answered the essential question: how much different are temperatures likely to be 

for gasoline stations across the street from one another on any given day? We know how 

temperatures vary over the seasons, but price transparency across suppliers requires 

measuring actual temperature differences across suppliers on the same day at the point of the 

retail transaction. It does not matter whether these temperatures differ from 60 F. What matters 

 42 This phenomenon is called an “income” effect. It causes demand to shift right in their analysis in the wintertime, 

and demand to shift left in the summertime, working against the underconsumption in winter and 

overconsumption in summer. The magnitude of the effect depends on the size of fuel purchases in the budget of 

consumers.
L&R Committee – 2009 Final Report

Appendix B – Alaska Fuel Metering Project

L&R - B52

is whether they vary from each other. Moreover, although distant counties differed in average 

fuel temperature in a given month, it is stations convenient to one another that matter for 

competition in the marketplace.

We cannot answer this question with precision because we simply do not have the data to do it. 

But what we can do is compare in a general way what the difference is between the net gallon 

standard (no variance) and the gross standard vs. the permissive standard Alaska has at

present. That is, we can compare legal regimes in a proximate way.

Comparing Variances in Gallons Across Regimes

There are three legal regimes possible with gross and net gallon retailing. The first is 

mandatory automatic temperature compensation. The second is a gross gallon standard. The 

third is a permissive regime where either temperature compensation or gross gallon retailing is 

permissible, although not at the immediate discretion of the retailer. Under the NIST 

Handbook 44 standard for example, once a vehicle tank meter is set to ATC, it must remain so 

for a full year.

With a net gallon standard, there are very small variations in the size of “gallons” between 

suppliers, strictly those within calibration tolerance. Gallons vary in volume, but not by weight 

(again, within tolerances). There are potential variations in density of fuel, and in additives, but 

these are going to be present no matter what standard exists. The question that needs to be 

addressed in deciding whether mandatory ATC is worth the costs is whether variations in gross 

gallon deliveries across suppliers on a given day are significant enough to warrant encumbering 

mandatory ATC costs. The question for a permissive standard is whether it is superior to either 

one of these, in terms of transparency and equity.

Earlier the NCWM recommendation was mentioned – that If an ATC regime were adopted, it 

should be mandatory. A one-year phase in period of permissive should precede the final 

mandatory state. Alaska is simply out of line with what the NCWM would recommend were ATC 

to be used here. It should be going one way or the other, not continuously permissive.

Sources of Temperature Variance Amongst Gross Retailers

The temperature differences between fuels from different suppliers on any given day is 

unknown. Yet it remains the principle claim to the benefits of temperature compensation. The 

California study posed this as a benefit to temperature compensation but collected no data to 

establish the degree to which temperatures varied amongst suppliers on a given day. Murphy 

and Topel (2009) made a reasonable inference that temperature variations among suppliers on 

a given day would probably not exceed temperature variation through the season in California.
L&R Committee – 2009 Final Report

Appendix B – Alaska Fuel Metering Project

L&R - B53

Their analysis then involved an analytical derivation for the loss in “consumer surplus” due to 

consumers’ misallocating spending when they do not know the energy content of gallons varies 

from supplier to supplier.43

But since consumers are merely shopping on the basis of price comparisons and are unaware 

of the differences in energy content, they are sometimes led to buying fuel that is warmer than 

average. So they suffer a loss in value relative to the case when they have perfect knowledge.

 In that analysis, consumers have an idea about the energy content 

of a gallon on average. But from supplier to supplier, temperatures can vary. A supplier with 

hotter fuel than average is supplying a lower value to consumers. The consumer would not 

normally purchase this lower valued item at the prevailing price.

This half of the analysis was originally posed in the California study, and it was amended 

through the work of Murphy and Topel (2009) to recognize the corollary: there are also firms 

that are supplying colder fuel than average, and these represent a better value than the 

consumer expects on average. If the consumer had perfect information he would be willing to 

transact at a higher price for these gallons, and this is a gain in consumer surplus relative to the 

average.

So these gains and losses are offsetting to a degree, but there is still some inefficiency in 

market transactions. Temperature compensation would remove that inefficiency. But it turns 

out to be so small (in their words “vanishingly small”) that almost no cost is worth bearing such 

an insignificant gain. In their case, temperature differences were assumed to follow a uniform 

distribution with a total range of ten degrees variation across suppliers (plus or minus five 

degrees from an average).

In their analysis they were considering ATC for gasoline stations. In that case, fuel is stored 

underground and the temperature variations are small over the course of a year – twenty two 

degrees or so the entire year. By comparison, Alaska underground storage tank temperatures 

varied by thirty degrees over the course of two years in the NCWM data set. But in the case of 

above-ground storage tanks in Alaska, the variation can be more on the order of a hundred 

degrees from the absolute minimum to maximum over the year, although differences in average 

monthly rack temperature are more like forty degrees.

Even within a month, fuel temperature variations can be extreme in Alaska. The largest 

difference between any minimum and maximum #1 fuel oil temperature at the North Pole Flint 

Hills rack in any particular month was in February of 2008, and it was an eighty degree 

difference. But ambient temperatures also varied by 116 degrees. Prices move in less than a 

week’s time, so in order to make price per gallon measures meaningful, and speak about 

differences in value we need to be discussing temperature variations in fuel across suppliers on 

the same day.

 43 Consumer surplus is the idea that consumers receive more in value from the purchase of a product than they 

pay in price. People understand that when a good is put on sale they receive an extra benefit if they would have 

purchased the item at the old price anyway: consumer surplus is larger. On the other hand if the price increases 

from its previous level they may still purchase the good, but they are not as well off as before on balance. 

Consumer surplus is lower.
L&R Committee – 2009 Final Report

Appendix B – Alaska Fuel Metering Project

L&R - B54

It is also relevant whether these differences are random. When differences are random then on 

average there is no difference between particular suppliers. Sometimes one is higher in 

temperature, sometimes the other, but usually close to one another or no difference at all. If 

some retailer are systematically above the others (if he heats his fuel somehow for example), 

then there are always consumers getting lower value from these specific suppliers, and firms 

that are providing that lower value are gaining a competitive edge. The market is working in the 

opposite direction from what society desires. We desire market forces working to encourage 

higher value, not lower value.

In this case, where the lower value is provided and consumers do not know the difference, the 

market result is that firms providing the higher value either adopt the same approach, or they 

are competed out of existence. This is what happened in Canada. Nearly all retail gasoline 

stations eventually adopted temperature compensation. The long run result was essentially the 

same level playing field as prior to the ATC innovation, but at a slightly higher cost per gallon. 

(Bearing in mind the slight benefits to temperature compensation suggested in the MurphyTopel analysis)

Where fuel is stored differently – (e.g. above vs. below ground), and where ambient 

temperatures are most different from refined temperatures we will find the largest temperature 

spreads from supplier to supplier. For example, the Petro Star refinery has underground 

storage in Fairbanks at the Sourdough facility, whereas fuels can be drawn from the Flint Hills 

rack, which is above ground storage. We know from the NCWM data and straightforward 

physics that fuel stored underground, although it follows a seasonal pattern, is moderated 

relative to ambient.

In Alaska we have learned that fuels adjust very quickly to ambient air temperatures. It is in fact 

a problem for #2 diesel and #4 bunker fuel – they need to be delivered before gelling44

For those fuels with a greater variation in temperatures, what we do know is that fuel 

temperatures from suppliers purchasing from the same source and stored in the same manner 

will for practical purposes be the same. The largest potential differences are in wintertime when 

some suppliers draw fuel from a recent refinery run that is significantly above ambient and 

others have stored fuel in a truck or tank that is at or near ambient. There are refineries in North 

Pole, Valdez, and Nikiski. So these are the limited places where the largest temperature 

differentials between retailers could occur. We do not expect such differentials in places distant 

from refineries. The Anchorage/Wasilla area (largest population center by far), all of Southeast, 

and all of remote Alaska is not subject to this kind of differential.

, and 

stored below ground or heated above ambient at their final destination. As we look at refinery 

rack temperatures we do see that #2 diesel and #4 bunker fuel are exceptions to the very low 

winter temperatures for gasolines and #1 fuel oil. The lowest temperature seen for #2 fuel oil in 

the sample was 32 degrees, whereas other fuels were seen in the -20’s or even -30’s. Bunker 

fuel (#4) was never cooler than 84 degrees. For these fuels there will be much less variation 

amongst suppliers than for gasoline or #1 fuel oil.

 44 In the case of #2 fuel oil there are additives that help prevent gelling at low temperatures. The problem is 

apparently more significant in the dispensing mechanism rather than in the tank itself.
L&R Committee – 2009 Final Report

Appendix B – Alaska Fuel Metering Project

L&R - B55

How maximal could these differences be as a practical matter? We cannot go by the difference 

between the rack temperature and ambient because the moment a truck leaves the rack, the 

temperature of the fuel is adjusting to ambient in accordance with some established heat 

transfer equations:

Q = [1/(1/h1 + Rw + 1/h2)] A(Delta T)

Where Q = total cooling power in watts

h1 = heat transfer coefficient of the fuel

h2 = heat transfer coefficient of air

Rw = thermal resistance of tank wall

A = surface area of tank

Delta T = temperature difference between ambient and fuel

We can see that the cooling power is proportional to the difference in temperatures, which 

means that the larger the differential we would like to pose, the faster the fuel is cooling. A fuel 

truck carrying from a few thousand to ten thousand gallons has a large surface area relative to 

volume by comparison to the tank farms considered in the statistical work. As volume 

diminishes, surface area becomes proportionately larger. So we have to conclude that fuel in a 

local truck is responding even more quickly to ambient temperatures than what we see in tank 

farms.

Heat transfer formulas also incorporate circulation and fouling – the more the fluid is moving, the 

faster the transfer of heat. Fouling of the wall surface impedes heat transfer. A truck moving in 

traffic will cool its fuel faster than one at rest. Once the truck starts delivering loads, the volume 

diminishes relative to surface area and the amount of circulation also increases. Even if a fuel 

truck begins the day at relatively warm temperatures, by the end of the day after a number of 

loads have been delivered, the residual fuel should rapidly be approaching ambient.

Some trucks are being emptied every few hours, if they are servicing school buildings or a hotel, 

whereas other trucks may take all day or into the next if servicing 100 gallon to 300 gallon loads. 

So temperature can vary for an individual supplier, not just between suppliers. One large 

delivery taken straight from the refinery storage tank will have a warmer average temperature 

than the last load of twenty 200 gallon deliveries.

Wintertime temperature variations work both ways: ambient temperatures can rise above the 

temperature in a tank holding hundreds of thousands of gallons. The temperature of the fuel in 

a truck with a partial load – or one parked inside a shop for the night - can be above the 

temperature of fuel currently being loaded at the refinery rack. This is especially true when the 

refinery has produced a large volume of fuel in the weeks before and stored it above ground, as 

opposed to having a short lead time between refining and distribution.
L&R Committee – 2009 Final Report

Appendix B – Alaska Fuel Metering Project

L&R - B56

What we have to pose in order for temperature differentials to be significant between suppliers 

is a situation that is not sustainable for any length of time unless there is something 

fundamentally different about the way a supplier is moving fuel from the refinery to the end user. 

It would be very difficult if not impossible to plan so perfectly that weather, loading and delivery, 

the refining schedule, etc. were all incorporated into planning in a way that made fuel 

temperatures for one firm significantly higher than another throughout the year.

The least expensive way to accomplish such a thing is to deliver temperature compensated fuel. 

It is equivalent to warming fuel to 60 F, but far cheaper. That is not to say this is the intent of 

those practicing it. Nevertheless it is equivalent to doing so under a permissive standard. We 

might remark that one of the claims in support of temperature compensated fuels is to eliminate 

the potential for firms to warm their fuel by leaving trucks indoors overnight. But temperature 

compensation is a more efficient means of accomplishing the same thing when net gallons are 

sold alongside gross gallons in the marketplace. 

Case Study

The only data set we have that provides daily temperature observations on fuel is the Doyle 

sample, and for purposes here is quite valuable. We do have to take care with generalizing too 

much with the sample and will treat it as a case study. Because the data set has various fuel 

temperatures on given dates we can compare the fuel temperatures to ambient and also to the 

60 F standard. These are bulk fuel deliveries of jet, unleaded regular, unleaded supreme, and 

diesel.

The Murphy-Topel analysis can be utilized to compare the loss in consumer surplus either way 

vis-à-vis a net gallon standard where there is no variation in energy content of gallons. We are 

proposing in so doing that variations amongst suppliers in a gross gallon standard are no more 

than the variation we observe between the refinery rack and ambient. We are also proposing 

that the variation between a 60 F net gallon retailer and a gross gallon retailer is no more than 

the difference between 60 F and ambient.

First, we look graphically at the loaded fuel temperatures vs. same-day ambient minimums and 

maximums. Note that for the most part the fuel temperatures are within this range, with the 

exception of the most extreme cold ambient temperatures in the sample, occurring in January 

and February. Note the sixty degree reference temperature horizontal as well: it is clear that 

the variations of fuel temperature from the sixty degree reference are a lot larger than the 

variation from ambient temperatures.
L&R Committee – 2009 Final Report

Appendix B – Alaska Fuel Metering Project

L&R - B57

Figure 12

Figure 13
L&R Committee – 2009 Final Report

Appendix B – Alaska Fuel Metering Project

L&R - B58

Figure 14

Figure 15
L&R Committee – 2009 Final Report

Appendix B – Alaska Fuel Metering Project

L&R - B59

If we look at the distribution of temperature variations from ambient, we see that on average, 

fuel in this sample is about five degrees warmer than ambient, and the majority of loadings were 

within a five degree deviation from that mean difference. If we look at how loadings differ from 

the sixty degree reference temperature, we see that the majority were more than five degree 

difference, and the maximal differences were considerably larger.

What we can see from this is the extent to which the energy content of a gallon can differ from 

supplier to supplier when we have a gross gallon standard vs. a permissive standard (with some 

retailers delivering net gallons). Under a gross gallon standard, random events such as the 

refinery production schedule, the profile of the firm’s deliveries, etc. make for differences in retail 

gallon energy content that are not large on average. But we guarantee large variations amongst 

suppliers under a permissive standard, and it is one that is not random. It is one that will drive 

the market towards long run net gallon equilibrium whether it is efficient or not.

Consumer Loss calculations from Temperature Variations

We can do a little better than the Murphy-Topel methodology to arrive at the “social cost” of 

having a gross gallon standard vs. a permissive standard for fuel oil sales. They took a shot in 

the dark at what the fuel temperatures would be across stations at any time whereas we actually 

know the temperatures of the loaded fuel each day in this case study, along with ambient 

temperatures. We also know that the temperatures measured in the sample were loadings 

received by a retailer, not delivered to the consumer. So in the case of above-ground storage 

prior to retailing, they will settle closer to retail. This also means that the retail temperature will 

be even further from the 60 F standard on average because fuel is about five degrees warmer 

than ambient when purchased wholesale in this sample.
L&R Committee – 2009 Final Report

Appendix B – Alaska Fuel Metering Project

L&R - B60

Figure 16

Figure 16 is reproduced from Appendix 2 in order to illustrate calculated consumer losses from 

effective variations in temperatures of fuel and energy content across suppliers. The 

calculations are based upon a $.75 billion dollar industry and would increase or decrease 

proportionately with the price of fuel. Note that for the kinds of maximum temperature spreads 

reasonably expected given our data, benefits from mandatory temperature compensation are in 

the thousands or tens of thousands.45

These calculations also assume that the temperature differences are random between retailers 

and that there are no systematic differences in their gallon contents. More will be said on this 

presently, because if there is a systematic difference between retailers there is another transfer 

or consumer loss that becomes important to measure.

The temperature variation in a permissive regime increases dramatically. For example, the fuel 

in two separate vehicle tank trucks may measure 20 degrees and 25 degrees respectively, a 

difference of only five degrees. A separate truck delivering a net gallon would have the 

temperature of the fuel set at 60 degrees, a much larger difference. That increased variation 

increases the losses, and since they are nonlinear in temperature spread, the amounts quickly 

rise above $50K. For temperatures seen at the Flint Hills rack in North Pole, variations are 

potentially as large as 90 degrees (rack temperature of -30 F versus the net standard of 60 F). 

Consumer surplus losses are on the order of $140,000 for this kind of variation.

 45 The assumption of uniform distribution for temperature variations is also clearly a best case for ATC since we can 

see that temperature variations are more likely to follow a bell-shaped curve about the mean. Small variations are 

much more likely than large variations from the mean.
L&R Committee – 2009 Final Report

Appendix B – Alaska Fuel Metering Project

L&R - B61

A great deal of caution needs to be taken here, in understanding that the numbers are for 

illustrative purposes only. There are a number of factors that would make a difference. We 

have not actually sampled the differences in temperatures between deliveries. There will be 

differences between the interior of Alaska and the Kenai peninsula. We have applied the 

methodology to the entire fuel oil sales estimate for Alaska, and in many areas differences 

amongst gross gallon suppliers will be insignificant – at any distance from refineries.

What we draw from this example is that the benefits of temperature compensation in terms of 

reducing market inefficiencies are still very small to begin with. (Alternatively that the costs of 

not having temperature compensation at retail are low). Secondarily, whatever benefits there 

are to temperature compensation occur under a mandatory regime, not a permissive one. The 

introduction of permissive ATC at retail actually introduces the largest possible differences 

between the “gallons” of various retailers. Thus, between the three possibilities – mandatory net 

gallon, mandatory gross gallon, permissive – the worst case scenario is the permissive 

standard, by a considerable margin.

In Appendix 2 we work out a much more significant issue that was mentioned earlier – that 

when temperature variations are not random, there is an additional measure of consumer loss 

that is important. This measure is something that is most significant in the initial introduction of 

permissive ATC in a cold state: a transfer from consumers to ATC retailers that is potentially in 

the millions of dollars. It is something that ultimately vanishes in the long run as all retailers as a 

whole adopt temperature compensation.

The size of this transfer depends on the industry size itself, the amount of fuel dispensed net vs. 

gross, the pass-through rate, the adjustment of consumer perceptions, and the elasticity of 

demand. But this transfer is far more important, by order of magnitude, than the inefficiency 

from random variations in fuel temperatures across suppliers. It becomes an equity and 

transparency issue because under random variations amongst suppliers there is still a level 

playing field across all retailers and consumers. Nobody can exploit random differences. But 

when there are systematic differences amongst retailers then equity and transparency are 

diminished.

Costs of Conversion to ATC

Introduction

Calculating the costs of conversion in Alaska presents some real challenges. The methodology 

is straightforward conceptually but there are a number of unknowns that make estimation 

difficult. The costs depend highly on what kinds of assumptions one makes about these 

unknowns as well as the manner in which conversion takes place. The least costly is gradually 

over a long period of time and in conjunction with the existing inspection schedule and 

maintenance/operations schedules of firms in the industry. The most expensive is a short 

conversion schedule requiring more labor and travel, and less ability to fit retrofitting and 

calibration into the existing inspection route schedule.
L&R Committee – 2009 Final Report

Appendix B – Alaska Fuel Metering Project

L&R - B62

There are one-time costs of conversion associated with retrofitting dispensers at gasoline 

stations or vehicle tank meters. There are initial calibration and inspection/certification costs. 

There are also annual costs in the future for maintenance and inspection. We can adapt 

numbers from the recent California study to the retrofits, and these numbers were also verified 

with more than one supplier. But the retail fuel industry in Alaska is very different from that of 

California, especially in bush Alaska.

Alaska has a higher proportion of older equipment that is more costly to retrofit. In fact, the 

more remote the location and the smaller the throughput, the more likely we are to encounter 

both “informal” fuel transactions and unregistered devices. Transportation and lodging costs for 

labor doing retrofits are also much higher. Many remote locations require airfare or ferry 

transportation to do a retrofit on just one or two dispensers rather than fifty or more.

Initial calibration and certification of newly installed meters must be performed before they can 

be placed into service. At present the State of Alaska is the only one doing calibration and 

certification although they can be done by an independent firm that owns the proper equipment. 

The tests can be done at a regularly scheduled inspection, and there are routes that are 

designed for economy of inspections. Requesting a calibration test outside of this schedule can 

be extraordinarily expensive in Alaska. ATC meter calibration testing requires a great deal more 

equipment, necessitating a truck and trailer being shipped to locations off the road system.

In remote locations, the cost of adopting the more sophisticated ATC metering can be 

prohibitively expensive. In addition, there is the problem of the downtime associated with 

equipment failure or the inability to comply. In the California study this was recognized and 

about 200 locations were identified where the adoption of mandatory ATC essentially 

threatened the supply of fuel for the area. Their proposal was to place a tax on the urban fuel 

sales in order to finance the adoption of ATC in these more remote areas. But it begs the 

question of how much effort it is worth to impose mandatory ATC in the first place if 

extraordinary means are required to accomplish it.

Retrofit Kit Component Costs

There are a range of ATC options from a minimalist retrofit doing no more than that required to 

fulfill the law, through units with components that track point-of-sale transactions, inventory, and 

invoicing on-board a tanker truck or inside the store.

Before discussion of the variation in these costs we introduce a simple diagram of a fuel 

dispenser and its components (Figure 17). The entire unit is referred to as a dispenser. Inside 

the cabinet of the dispenser are meters that spin as fuel flows through system piping. The 

meter is connected to a register that displays the quantity of fuel metered. The register might be 

electronic (digital), and it might be mechanical (analog).

The illustration shown appears more like a gasoline station dispenser, referred to as an “RD”, or 

retail device, in the industry nomenclature. But the principle components are essentially the 

same for a truck mounted measuring and dispensing unit; there will be a meter that spins as fuel 
L&R Committee – 2009 Final Report

Appendix B – Alaska Fuel Metering Project

L&R - B63

moves through it, and this will in turn engage the register. What temperature compensation 

does is change the ratio of turns or spins per unit movement of the register.

Figure 17

Retrofits vary in cost depending on the number of products, the capacity to blend mid-grade 

fuels, and in the case of mechanical dispensers the number of nozzles. It appears that retrofits 

of mechanical registers require replacement with digital registers for RD motor fuel dispensers. 

In the case of vehicle tank meters, they are not required, but in the long run it appears the more 

cost-effective solution is conversion to electronic registers.

Retrofit costs for gasoline station (motor fuel) dispensers according to various specifications are 

illustrated in Figure 18. As can be seen, the kit costs vary from a low of about $1,400 for a 

dispenser that already has an electronic register up to a high of about $4,000 for a dispenser 

with a mechanical register and two fuel types. (Mechanical registers must be replaced with 

electronic registers for RD units). These costs were obtained from the California study.
L&R Committee – 2009 Final Report

Appendix B – Alaska Fuel Metering Project

L&R - B64

Automotive ATC Retrofit Kit Costs 

by Dispenser Attributes

Mid-Grade Electronic

Blending or Estimated

Fuel Types Capability Mechanical Nozzles Costs

one no Electronic NA $1,422

two no Electronic NA $1,700

three no Electronic NA $2,042

three yes Electronic NA $1,700

four yes Electronic NA $2,426

one no Mechanical one $3,183

two no Mechanical two $3,997

Source: California Energy Commission (2009) p 60

Figure 18

In the case of vehicle tank meters, price quotes were obtained from several sources (IDEX, 

Alaska Petroleum Equipment, Midwest Meter). In discussions with both suppliers of metering 

equipment and those with experience in their application, it appears that conversion of 

mechanical systems is problematic for a number of reasons. If the mechanical temperature 

volume compensator (TVC) fails, there is no field repair, and it will have to be replaced. The 

electronic TVC and register are both field repairable. The electronic register should require less 

maintenance. Although the mechanical system may be less expensive to retrofit initially, it is 

the higher cost in the long run.

It appears that the minimalist conversion kit for a vehicle tank dispenser is about $1,725, 

excluding labor, shipping, and calibration, but can vary up to about $3,725. Replacing an 

existing system that has a mechanical register with an electronic register and temperature 

compensating capability begins at about $4,200. The high end units with the capability of 

metering several products and on-board invoicing can cost an additional $4,000. Simply 

purchasing a new meter with electronic register and printer will run about $6,500 to $7,000.

Dispenser/Meter Data Sets: Number of Conversions

There are two data sets we have available for estimating costs of conversion. The first is the 

route list for “RD” (retail devices) that dispense fuel at automotive gasoline stations or marine 

fuel locations. The second data set is the list of vehicle tank registrations. In the case of the RD 

data set, we do know if the register is mechanical or electronic. We also know that 100% of 

them will have to be converted. There appear to be 375 locations, and something on the order 

of 1500 dispensers to convert. In the case of vehicle tank meters, there are about 486 meters 
L&R Committee – 2009 Final Report

Appendix B – Alaska Fuel Metering Project

L&R - B65

of which only 53 are ATC. So the majority (433) will have to be converted under mandatory 

ATC.

We do not know the profiles of RD dispensers in terms of the number of products per dispenser 

at any location, the capability for blending, or the number of hoses per dispenser. What we 

know is the total number of “product lines” at each location. If a dispenser has two registers 

(one on each side) and three grades of unleaded available to the customer on each side, then it 

has six product lines. If it is an older dispenser with one mechanical register and one grade of 

unleaded plus diesel, it has two product lines.

Reasonable approximations may be made in most cases – for example if it is a Tesoro station in 

downtown Anchorage with 36 product lines then we are speaking about a case of most 

dispensers at that location having three products per side of the cabinet and electronic registers 

in each dispenser. There might be four meters and there might be six depending on whether 

there is midgrade product blending.

On the other hand, if there is one product line in one location then there is obviously only one 

dispenser. If it is a mechanical dispenser at one location on a road system with two products, 

then it is most likely still one dispenser. Generally speaking when we are in an urban 

environment the number of product lines per dispenser is higher, and in rural areas it is lower. 

We know that dispensers with mechanical registers have at most two product lines, so when 

there is a mix of mechanical and analog meters at a location we can infer the number of 

dispensers when the total number of product lines at a location is low.

In the case of vehicle tank meters we have a mixture of temperature compensated and nontemperature compensated, as the law presently allows for voluntary temperature compensation. 

As of October 2008 the profile by region is shown in Figure 19. In total, about 85% of the 

meters were non-temperature compensated. Slightly more of the medium meters were 

temperature compensated (86%) than the larger meters (81%).

We cannot say what volumes of fuel are moving through either one despite knowing the 

proportions of registered meters. The jet fuel metered by International Aviation Services, Inc. 

(IAS) at the Anchorage International Airport alone (close to a billion gallons in 2008) was 

delivered net. Additionally, before January 1 of 2009 the practice of distributing fuel through 

gross meters but invoicing net was practiced by at least one firm in the interior. Moreover, firms 

with some trucks having gross meters and some net can choose which trucks deliver the higher 

volume deliveries or which trucks deliver in the coldest time of the year.
L&R Committee – 2009 Final Report

Appendix B – Alaska Fuel Metering Project

L&R - B66

Figure 19

The differences in regional proportions of gross vs. net are significant. The Far North has the 

highest percentage of gross meters whereas the Southwest has the lowest. The Interior again 

has one firm metering gross but delivering net, and if the 21 gross meters for that firm were put 

into the category of net, then prior to 2009 the Interior would have had the lowest proportion of 

gross meters at about 60%.

Area

Percent 

Gross

Far North 94.4%

Interior 82.5%

Southcentral 80.8%

Southeast 95.9%

Southwest 69.8%

Figure 20
L&R Committee – 2009 Final Report

Appendix B – Alaska Fuel Metering Project

L&R - B67

Cost to Convert 

In converting Retail Devices (RD) units to temperature compensated devices, a simple and 

economical approach was developed. There are really three classes of costs. The first is the 

cost of the components involved in the conversion, such as the TVC unit and certain adaptors. 

The second is the labor involved in the on-site field work. The third is transportation, lodging, 

incidentals, and mobilization between locations. All three of these have variation depending on 

assumptions that are made.

In more remote Southeast Alaska the conversion concept involved the use of a two-man team 

traveling with truck and equipment via ferry, working systematically between locations, 

beginning in Bellingham and working north. The ferry trips between locations such as 

Ketchikan, Kake, Sitka, Hoohah, and Wrangell, Haines, and Glacier Bay area consist of shorter 

legs between locations instead of multiple longer trips from any point of origin.

In the case of Juneau-Douglass there are enough conversions to support a separate team 

staying longer term, and possibly Ketchikan as well. But any individual trips beyond these 

involves less than ten dispensers in a single location, and in some cases just one. Separate 

trips would raise costs considerably. Although they do not add a great deal to the Alaska total 

proportionately, they can in some cases double the cost of conversion per dispenser in a remote 

location.

The use of ferry transportation was assumed for the continuation on out to Dutch Harbor, 

including Yakutat, Cordova, and Kodiak, except that the point of origin was assumed to be 

Whittier. Other remote locations such as Barrow, Ft. Yukon, Nome-Teller, Kotzebue, and Bethel 

have no choice but airline transportation. Both ferry and airline rates were quoted, but ferry 

rates differ according to season.

In the case of the major population center for the state – Anchorage and the road system 

through the interior and Kenai Peninsula – we do not have ferry or airline transportation. But all 

locations including the road system and the Southeast/Southwest areas already discussed have 

mobilization expenses between locations.

It was decided that a fixed amount per location would be used, with additional amounts where 

logistics warranted – greater distances between locations, the absence of a truck, etc. 

Mobilization between locations of $50 was assumed in the low cost scenario. Road system 

mileage was considered separately.

In the California analysis the source of variation between the low and high scenarios was a 

combination of two forces – the wage rate and the hours per conversion. Due to the technical 

nature of ATC dispenser conversions, a high wage rate was assumed there. The “fully loaded” 

wage rates of between $60 and $70 per hour were assumed for the low and high end, 

respectively. The hours per conversion were estimated between 1.5 and 4 hours for the low 

and high end scenarios. It resulted in an estimated range of $9.0 million to $27.9 million for 

installation.
L&R Committee – 2009 Final Report

Appendix B – Alaska Fuel Metering Project

L&R - B68

For Alaska we need to make some adjustment for a higher wage rate, and also the recognition 

that there will probably be more overtime. In looking at the remote areas in particular, there is 

either going to be more overtime or more lodging expense because at the median number of 

hours per dispenser suggested by the California study, a small amount of overtime per day is 

required just to achieve three dispensers per day.

According to the most recent Bureau of Labor Statistics data, the wage rates in Alaska for 

Installation and repair technicians are about 18%-21% higher than California, measured at the 

median and mean, respectively46

Logistically, mistakes in Alaska are far more expensive than in typical urban settings. You don’t 

have choices of spare parts on shelves or tools convenient to where you are working. Ordering 

items is expensive and can take days or more. A truck broken down on Prince of Wales Island 

logging roads or a part that does not work in Unalaska is a completely different situation. The 

seasons for working outside are short, and productivity in the cold is lower, even when it is not 

extreme cold. Coastal areas have rain. The interior has snow.

. So whereas California was assuming “fully loaded” wage 

rates ranging from $60 to $70, Alaska’s numbers adjusted for this wage differential would be 

somewhere between $70 and $85. California did make a generous assumption about the wage 

rate relative to the California average so there is not much worry this is an understatement.

For purposes of this study we will adopt a $75 per hour wage rate but it is probably not wise to 

adopt the low value of 1.5 hours per conversion and work; it is more like 2 hours at the minimum 

end. At the maximum end the 4 hours per dispenser was retained.

An equation was developed that linked average RD retrofit costs from the California study.

Cost = $2,000 + $1750 additional for mechanical + labor, room, and board

A “fully loaded” labor rate of $75 per hour was used here in the minimum scenario. A two-hour 

conversion minimum was assumed. A total of $182 per day for lodging, meals, and incidentals 

was used based on a survey of room rates and on the state employee per diem rate. 

Mobilization between locations has to be factored in, and an average of $50 was used. In the 

high end scenario, a four hour conversion was assumed, with the $85 “fully loaded” labor rate. 

Also, an $85 mobilization cost was used. In both cases airline and ferry prices were used. But 

the total travel costs were doubled in the high end.

The results were a cost range of $4.3 million to $5 million to convert existing RD units to 

temperature compensated units. But there were substantial differences by location, of course. 

Costs ranged from about $2500 per dispenser to over $6,000 depending on location under the 

lower scenario, and as much as $6500 per dispenser in the high scenario.

In the case of vehicle tank meters, each company contacted provided different kinds of data. 

For example, Alaska Petroleum equipment gave some examples of conversion parts, but does 

 46 http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oessrcst.htm
L&R Committee – 2009 Final Report

Appendix B – Alaska Fuel Metering Project

L&R - B69

not do installations. IDEX provided some rough retrofit component costs. EEI in Canada 

provided initial calibration and inspection fees, which they are certified for in Canada. Midwest 

Meter provided low and high retrofits components and since it does installation and calibration 

simultaneously at its facility, provided those costs as well.

Estimating the low and high scenarios is not a matter of assuming all conversions are the least 

expensive components on the low end and the most expensive on the high end. It is going to 

be a mix, and companies will decide on the type of conversion to choose. More than one 

method of computing costs was undertaken, and the results were similar. Each assumed 

though that the travel expenses are duplicated as opposed to having the same team convert 

both vehicle tank meters and motor fuel dispensers.

The estimates for conversion of the non-temperature compensated vehicle tank meters to 

temperature compensation-capable meters is $2 to $3 million dollars, exclusive of calibration 

testing. It is assumed for this study that the retrofits are introduced in a schedule that is 

consistent with the current route calendar, which is the most conservative cost assumption one 

can make. That is, no special trips are made for calibration and testing of an isolated set of 

dispensers. Alternatively, the installation is performed by companies that have the capacity to 

calibrate, inspect, and certify.

Estimates for RD (gasoline station) dispensers vs. vehicle tank meters retrofits in Alaska are 

presented in Figure 21.

Estimated Retrofit Costs for RD vs. Vehicle Tank Meters

RD Low RD High Vehicle Low Vehicle High

Retrofit Costs $4,272,519 $4,995,833 $2,072,750 $3,137,867

Figure 21

Calibration and Inspection/Certification

Before a meter is placed into service it must be calibrated to certified standards either by the 

State, or by someone with the proper equipment and qualifications. From discussions with the 

state weights and measures staff, and with a Canadian corporation performing tests, non-ATC 

calibration tests can be done with as little as a 1-5 gallon draw whereas calibration tests for ATC 

require a minimum of 20 gallons. The fuel temperature must be stabilized first in order to obtain 

an accuracy measure.47

As a consequence the testing equipment leaps from a hand-held 5 gallon test measure to much 

larger devices, such as a slide-in unit that fits into a pickup truck for $15,000. Several more of 

 47 This seems to raise the question about the variability of ATC deliveries in small retail quantities – whether it is 

slightly beyond that of the tolerance specifications mentioned elsewhere in this report. For if satisfying those 

tolerance specifications requires a preliminary flow of fuel this large first, then it seems logical that without the 

preliminary flow the delivery would be a slightly different quantity.
L&R Committee – 2009 Final Report

Appendix B – Alaska Fuel Metering Project

L&R - B70

these units would need to be purchased by the State for initial certifications and subsequent 

inspections. So there are some additional capital costs for the state whether they are doing the 

initial calibrations, or whether it is a consequence of subsequent inspections.

It is not clear if the California study addressed the initial calibration/inspection or certification in 

their report. Inspections thereafter were certainly addressed in the “recurring annual costs” 

discussion as an increment on top of non-ATC costs. When a new meter is installed, 100% of 

the costs for calibration/inspection/certification are incurred. If the installation is coincidentally at 

the time of a periodic inspection for the existing meter, then there would have been an 

inspection anyway. So the only increment to cost is whatever an ATC inspection and calibration 

would cost over and above the existing meter.

But if the meter is installed and inspected/calibrated/certified outside the periodic inspection 

schedule, then the entire cost must be counted, not just the increment for ATC vis-à-vis a nonATC meter.

In the case of vehicle tank meters, estimates were obtained for both installation and initial 

calibration/certification as well as costs of complete post-installment inspections and 

certifications. These can be accomplished for around $300 - $400 per meter. Installation and 

calibration/certification would add from $130,000 to $173,000 to the equipment costs for 

retrofitting the existing non-ATC vehicle tank meters.

Recurring Annual Costs

The California Study provided some estimates of recurring annual costs due to adoption of 

automatic temperature control devices in gasoline service stations. We can adapt these to 

Alaska with some reservations. First, the kinds of costs were from increased maintenance 

expenditures on ATC devices vis-à-vis non-ATC. The second was that replacement of some 

portion of dispensers occurs naturally in the industry, and this will continue except at somewhat 

higher costs due to ATC dispensers being more expensive. Finally, there are increases in 

periodic inspection costs.

Additional maintenance costs for ATC devices were estimated, at the low end, to require a 

service technician spending 8 hours of time at 10% of service stations replacing 25% of the 

initial costs of ATC components at each of these stations. (An estimate of 20% more cost for 

rural locations). This estimate was based on a 2.5% failure rate for ATC related equipment.

The higher maintenance scenario assumed 20% of the retail stations requiring a service 

technician spending 16 hours of field time replacing 50% of the initial costs of ATC components 

at those stations. The implied average failure rate was 10% per year for ATC related 

equipment. The fully-loaded wage rate was also assumed to be $70 rather than the $60 

assumed in the lower maintenance scenario.

The assumptions above were the best the staff could do without data from Canada where ATC 

devices are nearly universally deployed. What is probably the most straightforward thing to do 
L&R Committee – 2009 Final Report

Appendix B – Alaska Fuel Metering Project

L&R - B71

is see what proportion of initial retrofit costs these amount to and adapt them to Alaska. The 

low cost scenario looked to be about 3% of initial retrofit costs, and the higher about 9% in the 

case of California. In very rough terms the estimates adapted to Alaska look to be about 

$128,000 to $450,000 per year in the case of RD units and $62,000 to $188,000 in the case of 

vehicle tank meters.

In the California study (pg 68) the implications for failure of ATC components was discussed. It 

is somewhat unclear exactly which types of problems result in “error” being displayed on the 

register resulting in the dispenser being incapable of functioning until a successful power-cycle 

is achieved vs. errors where the dispenser continues to operate, but as a gross gallon meter. In 

short, which ones end fuel dispensing altogether vs. which end net gallon metering and return to 

gross.

The costs of dispensers being inoperable becomes a more important social burden than the 

direct costs of maintenance as we move further into bush Alaska. In some places, there is 

actually only one dispenser. Inoperability means no fuel. So the cost is whatever economic 

activity cannot take place, which is an order of magnitude more important. Where there are a 

limited number of dispensers, inoperable dispensers are an inconvenience and there are 

additional costs from inefficiency of economic activity (longer travel to dispenser, more 

time, etc).

The second category of cost we can adapt numbers to is the ongoing replacement of existing 

dispensers. Each year, some portion of dispensers is replaced due to age and wear. ATC 

devices add incremental costs on top of existing replacement costs. In the case of California 

these amounted to 4% to 6% of the original retrofit costs. If we simply adapt these numbers to 

Alaska, we have estimates that range from $170,000 to $300,000 in the case of RDs and 

$83,000 to $188,000 in the case of vehicle tank meters.

Appendix 2 to this report explains the calculations in greater detail.
L&R Committee – 2009 Final Report

Appendix B – Alaska Fuel Metering Project

L&R - B72

Recurring Maintenance & Replacement Estimates

RD Low RD High Vehicle Low Vehicle High

Retrofit Costs -> $4,272,519 $4,995,833 $2,072,750 $3,137,867

Maintenance 3% $128,176 $149,875 $62,182 $94,136

Maintenance 9% $384,527 $449,625 $186,547 $282,408

Replacement 4% $170,901 $199,833 $82,910 $125,515

Replacement 6% $256,351 $299,750 $124,365 $188,272

Total 7% $299,076.35 $349,708.31 $145,092.49 $219,650.71

Total 15% $640,877.90 $749,374.95 $310,912.48 $470,680.10

Figure 22

The last category of recurring costs associated with ATC metering is the incremental costs of 

periodic inspections undertaken as a regular part of state weights and measures duties. It is 

clear this was adequately addressed in the California study, and their discussion matches the 

estimated incremental time required for testing ATC vs. non-ATC from discussion with Alaska 

weights and measures staff.

In the California study, the amounts were given on a per-station basis: about 10% to 20% per 

station. Since the maximum registration fee is $1,000 in California, the recommendation was to 

increase that amount to $1,200 in anticipation of higher inspection costs. In their case, these 

are county-level costs incurred by inspection agencies that must justify their inspection fees on 

the basis of costs incurred.48

In the case of vehicle tank meters, the same 10% to 20% would result in about $34-$68 added 

to average inspection costs, using data from Canada. This would add some $15,000 to $30,000 

in periodic inspection costs, excluding higher transportation costs. So the upper end is more 

likely.

 The amount of time required for each test presently was 

estimated at 12 minutes, and expected to approximately double. We adopt the same increment 

to costs as far as time is concerned. But given the increased requirements for equipment, we 

should also expect higher transportation costs off the road system in Alaska. The amounts 

range from $37,500 to $75,000, but we should expect the upper end.

 48 Alaska charges a registration fee of $19 per retail device whereas in California it is determined by counties, with 

a maximum of $1,000 under state law. Only one California county example was given at $100 per station plus $20 

per dispenser. Discussions with Alaska Weights and Measures Staff indicates Alaska fees do not cover expenses 

fully as in the case of California counties.
L&R Committee – 2009 Final Report

Appendix B – Alaska Fuel Metering Project

L&R - B73

Effect of Temperature Changes on Volume or Price per Gallon

In studying the effects of temperature on fuel we are led to an understanding of how quickly fuel 

adjusts to the temperature of its environment before it is retailed. We also can see that it is 

more complicated than fuel cooling from the refinery to the end user in Alaska. In the case of 

underground storage of highway fuels for example, fuel that has adjusted to an extremely cold 

ambient air temperature, when placed in underground storage, has a chance to warm up some 

before delivery to the consumer.

We can see that all refineries do not operate with the same lead time between production and 

the loading rack. A short enough lead time will result in temperatures that have not completely 

adjusted to ambient air at the time the truck has been loaded. In the case of #2 fuel oil 

produced in the interior at Petro Star, the fuel rarely leaves the refinery at less than 60 F, 

whereas subzero temperatures for automotive fuels at the Flint Hills loading rack are not 

unusual in the winter.

Fuel that has been delivered by rail to the Anchorage rack from Fairbanks has already adjusted 

to ambient air temperature before it is further distributed. Fuel that has been delivered to 

remote tank farms by barge will have adjusted to ambient air temperature before it is retailed –

but the temperature at purchase will vary depending on whether it was loaded at the Port of 

Anchorage, the Nikiski refinery, the Petro Star Refineries or Puget Sound.

Method of Volume Adjustment

The most precise method of volume correction for temperature according to fuel type involves 

more than one step. ASTM International (originally known as the American Society for Testing 

and Materials) produces convenient tables that may be used to first convert an observed 

American Petroleum Institute (API) gravity measurement at a given temperature to “API Gravity 

at 60 F”.49

API gravity is a measure of how heavy petroleum if relative to water. If it floats on top of water 

then it is lighter, and has a higher API gravity. In wholesale transactions, both gravity and 

temperature are given, along with the gross and net gallon readings. The calculations can thus 

be verified using the petroleum measurement tables.

 From there the volume correction is established with a second table given the 

temperature and API gravity at 60 F. (There are computer programs based on the ASTM tables 

as well).

There are less exact means of correcting volume to 60 F that rely on assumed API values for 

various products. There are “Coefficients of Expansion” (CoE) that appear in various trade or 

government publications that may be used as approximations. For example Butcher (2006) 

cites CoE values of gasoline at 0.00069/°F and diesel at 0.00050/°F. That is to say, each one 

degree reduction in the temperature of gasoline results in a change of volume by a factor 

of 0.0007.

 49 ASTM-IP Petroleum Measurement Tables 5 and 6 are described here.
L&R Committee – 2009 Final Report

Appendix B – Alaska Fuel Metering Project

L&R - B74

What is usually cited more often is that as gasoline cools by 15 degrees, it shrinks by about 1%. 

This can be seen by multiplying 15 times 0.00069, which is equal to 0.0103 (about 1%). We 

may use these for illustrative purposes to produce some simple charts or tables demonstrating 

the effect of temperature on volume, and therefore price per gallon.

Since data was obtained from various Alaska sources, and some of it included actual API 

values50

Figure 23 illustrates the volume correction factors for the two major types of fuels – diesel #1 (or 

jet fuel or heating oil) and gasoline. These factors have again been calculated for observed 

gravities of fuel produced in Alaska. At 60 F there is no volume correction factor for either. For 

diesel, it reaches a 0.99 correction factor (shrinks by 1%) at about 41 degrees. For gasoline it 

occurs sooner, at about 45 degrees. Diesel reaches a 0.98 correction factor (shrinks by 2%) at 

about 22 degrees. For gasoline the 0.98 correction factor is reached at 28 degrees. At forty 

below zero they are roughly five and six percent smaller in volume than gross gallons 

respectively.

, they can be used to obtain actual CoE figures derived from the Petroleum 

Measurement Table calculations. These were 0.00052 for Jet Fuel/#1 Diesel, 0.00048 for 

#2 diesel and 0.00062 for gasoline.

 50 These were from the Doyle data set. It contained invoices with API values from the Nikiski refinery
L&R Committee – 2009 Final Report

Appendix B – Alaska Fuel Metering Project

L&R - B75

Figure 23

For any given “price per gallon” we can see what happens to the effective price on an equivalent 

basis when we change from gross to net gallons. This is more in line with the way consumers 

are shopping for something like fuel oil. They simply compare prices. It is the same information 

as in the previous figure, but consumers are confused by the difference between gross and net 

gallons. There is only one “gallon” in the minds of the vast majority of consumers.

In Figure 24 we show the effective price differential when switching between gross and net 

gallons in the case of diesel, or fuel oil. At sixty degrees the prices are the same. At about 

41 degrees the net gallon is 1% more expensive. At 23 degrees it is about 2% more expensive. 

At 4 degrees it is 3% more expensive, etc. At the very lowest temperatures observed in the 

data set for fuel sales at the “rack” (-36.2 F) the difference is 5.3%. At the very highest 

temperature observed for fuel oil at the rack (83 F), net gallons are about 1.2% cheaper. In 

bush Alaska, sales metered from small above ground tanks can conceivably be as low as -40 F 

or lower, in which case the difference would be about 5.5% or more.
L&R Committee – 2009 Final Report

Appendix B – Alaska Fuel Metering Project

L&R - B76

Figure 24
L&R Committee – 2009 Final Report

Appendix B – Alaska Fuel Metering Project

L&R - B77

For gasoline, which responds more readily to temperature, the results are a little stronger, and 

are shown in Figure 25. By 44 degrees the price difference is 1%. By 27 degrees it is 2%. It 

reaches 3% at 12 degrees and 4% by -4 degrees. The lowest “rack” temperature observed was 

-34 F and at that temperature the difference was 5.8%. At forty below and colder, the difference 

is 6.2% or more.

Figure 25

A retailer may look at this in a somewhat different way, but it is nevertheless the same 

proportion. Retailers are generally buying on a net basis at wholesale. If the temperature of the 

fuel is – 20 F when they purchase it and also – 20 F when they sell it, then there is a 5% 

difference between “gallons sold” (gross) and “gallons purchased” (net). Not because the 

temperature of the fuel has changed, but because the units of sale are different from the units of 

purchase.

With these kinds of differentials it is clearly a significant matter for both consumers and retailers. 

We do not have survey results for fuel oil distributors in Alaska, but the lessons from gasoline 

marketers nationwide is instructive. Convenience stores are the largest distributor of gasoline in 

the U.S. The National Association of Convenience Stores (NACS) in a 2008 survey found that 

32% of consumers would go out of their way in some minor manner to save a penny a gallon, 
L&R Committee – 2009 Final Report

Appendix B – Alaska Fuel Metering Project

L&R - B78

and about a third would travel more than ten minutes out of their way to save three cents per 

gallon51

Retail margins on gasoline have been steadily declining over the last decade, and are around 

two cents per gallon in the 2008 National Association of Convenience Store survey.

. Price was the most important factor for 73% of respondents.

52

We do not have survey results for fuel oil firms in Alaska, and the most recent comprehensive 

study by ISER (2008) was incapable of identifying retail margins on fuel. In the case of 

convenience stores the profit on food and beverages sustains them in a manner allowing for 

intense fuel price competition. So the NACS data are not applicable.

 So 

clearly even minor differences in temperature from the 60 F benchmark are going to be 

significant for retailing gasoline.

Nevertheless a 1% difference in price at $2.50 a gallon is 2.5 cents – enough to make a 

$7.50 difference in a 300 gallon tank delivery. At a temperature of -20 F and at a price of $2.50 

the difference is $32.50 in a 300 gallon fill-up. Fuel oil sales are primarily in the colder months 

so this is the kind of range that would be relevant.

In a survey of prices across six firms in Fairbanks on the same day of delivery on 

December 16 2008, the widest spread for five firms delivering net gallons was $2.28 to $2.32 for

a 300 gallon delivery. The sixth firm had the lowest price overall ($2.22) and was also a firm 

delivering gross rather than net gallons.

With a normal average December temperature of -6 F, the price differential is 8.2 cents on net 

vs. gross gallons. The price differential for the firm selling gross gallons is actually about twice 

that suggested by the posted price differential. Clearly, the difference between gross and net 

gallon invoicing to consumers is at a level in Alaska that matters to a great number of 

consumers – if they know what the difference is between a net and gross gallon. But in 

surveying consumers, as is discussed elsewhere in the report, consumers are nearly universally 

ignorant about the difference.

Consumer Awareness, Product Labeling, Signage and Invoicing

Introduction

One of the issues brought up in the NCWM debates, and in studies pertaining to temperature 

compensation, is the matter of labeling and consumer awareness. At the crux of this issue is 

the desire to ensure consumers are making fully-informed decisions about purchases when 

comparing products across retailers. It is our opinion that this is the most important, yet least 

explored matter in temperature compensation of fuels.

This is not an ancillary topic, but rather absolutely essential in computing the costs and benefits 

of legal regimes. There are three possibilities: mandatory net, mandatory gross, and 

 51 http://www.nacsonline.com/NACS/News/Campaigns/GasPrices_2008/Pages/TopEconomicConcern.aspx 52 http://www.nacsonline.com/NACS/News/FactSheets/Pages/MotorFuels.aspx
L&R Committee – 2009 Final Report

Appendix B – Alaska Fuel Metering Project

L&R - B79

permissive. The benefits and costs depend precisely upon the consumer’s awareness about 

what is most essential to them: the cost per gallon when measured on an equivalent basis.

Elsewhere we have discussed that the most important issue to consumers in the selection of a 

retailer for a fuel transaction is price per (equivalent) gallon. The impetus for this study was the 

lack of transparency in price per equivalent unit. Ostensibly the motivation of labeling, signage, 

and invoicing requirements is to effect transparency and full information for consumers. The 

energies put into the matter seem to have lost focus due to the physics involved. The moment 

attention is diverted from what consumers want (price per equivalent gallon), the objective is 

lost.

Consumers do not desire to know how gasoline or fuel oil is produced. They do not desire to 

know whether the fuel came from barrels on the North Slope, from Cook Inlet, or were produced 

and refined from out of state. They do not need a physics lesson when they are purchasing 

milk, bread, or fuel. What they need to know is price per equivalent gallon. They need the 

capacity to make comparisons across suppliers on this basis. None of the suggestions we have 

seen in the literature and in the regulatory or statutory environment seem to retain focus on this 

point.

To be fair, in large degree this is because requiring a posting of prices on an equivalent basis 

means that either gross gallon retailers must compute net gallon prices, or else net gallon 

retailers must post gross gallon prices. But because temperature varies nearly continuously, 

either one necessitates nearly a real-time variation in product pricing and display. If this cannot 

be done, then it points to the necessity of a single standard, and that labeling or signage or 

invoicing are all really red herrings in the objective of informing consumers.

In the case of the California (2009) study, we find the technical problem associated with the 

permissive approach (pg 94):

Any attempts to increase the level of information to include net and gross gallons 

would pose some difficult and problematic issues. Although the ATC retrofit kits 

possess electronics and software designed to monitor fuel temperature and 

adjust the volume dispensed to consumers, there is no current capability for 

this system to convey the two different forms of measurement to the cash 

register or POS equipment. It is possible that, over time, POS and ATC retrofit 

manufacturers could collaborate to enable this exchange of data, but the initial 

expense of this software and some electronic modifications is unknown.

This (price per equivalent gallon) is the only thing important to consumers – and it appears 

technically infeasible at present.

Existing Regulations Governing ATC in Canada and the NIST

In the case of Canada, it is a permissive regime. Retailers can dispense either gross or net 

gallons. Retail fuel dispensers have a label affixed: “Volume Corrected to 150 C”. Receipts do 

not appear to have a requirement. Does this labeling provide anything that allows a consumer 
L&R Committee – 2009 Final Report

Appendix B – Alaska Fuel Metering Project

L&R - B80

to compare prices across retailers? The answer is that it clearly does not. Because even if the 

consumer is a petroleum engineer with a calculator, the information necessary to compare 

prices on an equivalent basis for a gross vs. net retailer is the temperature of the fuels along 

with a fuel expansion coefficient.

A reasonable guess can be formed when ambient temperatures are at either extreme highs or 

extreme lows, but even perfect knowledge of the fuel temperatures is insufficient to make the 

pricing calculation. We must also consider that the posted price visible from the road does not 

indicate whether or not the volume has been adjusted, the consumer making a decision to pull 

into a station for a purchase would need to know by experience, or guess, whether two 

particular retailers are dealing in gross or net gallons. In short, the Canadian requirement does 

not serve the ostensible objective: to effect transparency in pricing.

Note that if Canada had a mandatory ATC retailing regime, the label on the dispenser would be 

irrelevant. There is no price-discriminatory consumer information gained in posting. Likewise if 

the legal requirement is for gross gallon delivery – there is nothing gained by posting that either.

In the NIST Handbook 44, 2009 version, there are two pertinent requirements regarding 

signage, labeling or invoicing, and they pertain to vehicle tank meters:

S.5.6. Temperature Compensation for Refined Petroleum Products. – If a 

device is equipped with an automatic temperature compensator, the primary 

indicating elements, recording elements, and recorded representations shall be 

clearly and conspicuously marked to show the volume delivered has been 

adjusted to the volume at 15 °C for liters or the volume at 60 °F for gallons and 

decimal subdivisions or fractional equivalents thereof.

UR.2.5.2. Invoices. – An invoice based on a reading of a device that is 

equipped with an automatic temperature compensator shall show that the volume 

delivered has been adjusted to the volume at 15 °C for liters or the volume at 

60 °F for gallons and decimal subdivisions or fractional equivalents thereof.

It is worth noting that for testing purposes there is a requirement that the retail device be able to 

show either gross or net readings, but not at the same time.

We have several observations regarding these requirements. First, consumers make their 

purchase decision for fuel oil based on a “price per gallon” quote prior to invoicing. For 

example, in the case of a home heating oil customer this is accomplished by phone. In the case 

of a school district or other large entity taking bids on a large delivery, it is based on the 

submitted bids.

Either way these NIST requirements provide nothing of value to the consumer. NERA 

conducted a survey of fuel oil retailers in December 2008 in Fairbanks. Of six retailers 

contacted, not one receptionist knew whether the firm sold gross or net gallons, and further 

inquiry with management was required to clarify. In one case, the telephone number was a cell 

phone exchange that reached a management level staff, and it was the only case the question 
L&R Committee – 2009 Final Report

Appendix B – Alaska Fuel Metering Project

L&R - B81

could be answered. Moreover, two of the receptionists volunteered that they had never heard 

the question before.

One of the alleged consumer benefits of temperature compensated gallons is that consumers 

are guaranteed the same energy content in every transaction. If that is a priority of consumers, 

then why has this question never been asked of a receptionist? Why is it that receptionists, 

whose primary responsibility is providing pricing information and arranging delivery, were not 

even aware their company was delivering net gallons? These are fair questions. Regardless of 

the answers though it is clear that the legal requirement for invoicing has had zero impact on the 

objective of price transparency.

A second small survey of consumers was conducted after newspaper, radio, and television 

coverage was conducted regarding this study. The coverage was in January and was not 

extensive, and the survey was conducted in March. Twenty random home fuel oil customers 

were reached. One question was asked, but phrased differently for two sets of ten respondents: 

did they know what the difference was between a gross and net gallon? Did they know what a 

temperature corrected gallon was? Not one in twenty knew. (One did guess that the answer 

had something to do with how much product is lost along the chain of production between 

bringing the oil out of the ground and final delivery of the refined product.)

Obviously these are very small samples, but there simply is no value in conducting large ones. 

It is of little value to determine precisely the amount of consumer ignorance – whether 80% or 

90% or 99% – when we are dealing with such high proportions.

NERA also interviewed two smaller air services in Fairbanks in December of 2008 – Warbelow’s 

and Guardian Flight. In the case of Warbelow’s, the owner indicated that he had been “fooled 

for years” on gross vs. net gallon pricing, despite having received invoices labeled under the 

NIST requirements. In the case of Guardian, the chief of flight operations had never heard of 

gross vs. net gallons. If individuals who are professionals in the industry do not know the 

difference between gross and net gallons – when it is the largest single component of their 

operations costs – then the invoicing is obviously useless in conveying anything of value to the 

common consumer.

When NERA interviewed the Manager of Policy Development and Promotion at the Alberta 

Motor Association in December of 2008, it was clear that the net effect of temperature 

compensated metering was not understood. The impression was that through the year there 

was no difference on average between gross and net gallons. Here again, if a professional 

motoring consumer advocacy group does not correctly understand the differential between net 

and gross gallon content in a cold climate, then how can common consumers be expected to 

understand?

One of the more revealing sets of interviews NERA conducted in December of 2008 was with 

the Alaska Airmen’s Association principals. Written comments to the State of Alaska by one of 

the fuel retailers had asserted that provision of net gallons to air customers was necessitated in 

order to properly compute weight and balance. Yet, these principals had never heard of a gross 

vs. net gallon. A notice was posted in their newsletter, which read in pertinent part:
L&R Committee – 2009 Final Report

Appendix B – Alaska Fuel Metering Project

L&R - B82

A study is being conducted on the effect of Automated Temperature 

Compensating Devices used for sale of refined petroleum retail products on all 

affected public entities. A public meeting is scheduled for January 12, 2009, 

Board Room, Dena'ina Convention Center, 600 West 7th Avenue, 2;00pm -

5:00pm. This is an independent study for the State of Alaska analyzing the cost 

and benefits of using gross gallon vs. a net gallon as the method of sale.

It was with some urging that NERA requested any language indicate directly that one “gallon” 

was generally smaller than the other, given Alaska temperatures. The response was that the 

Association had to be “careful” – that the primary fuel retailer was a corporate sponsor to the 

Airmen’s Association. Furthermore, although a price survey appears on their website, no 

acknowledgement of the distinction between gross or net gallons is made.

The result of this newsletter announcement was one contact to NERA – from a fuel retailer. We 

could draw different conclusions from this result, but there really is only one reasonable one: no 

information of value is transmitted to consumers when we skip what is important to them: price 

per gallon. When we begin discussing fuel expansion, temperature compensation, net vs. gross 

gallons – we are immediately lost in a maze of trade terms, physics, and potentially obfuscatory 

red herrings that the consumer is not going to be capable of condensing into the one thing he 

needs: price per gallon.

The State of Alaska has also undertaken major fuel price studies, e.g. ISER(2008), without 

acknowledgement of the distinction between gross vs. net gallons. Here again we have 

professional researchers in arguably the premier social research organization for the State of 

Alaska that are unaware there are different retail gallons in Alaska. Yet size of gallon and price 

per gallon are exactly the same thing – for example a 2% smaller gallon vs. a 2% higher price.

NERA furthermore conducted interviews of two school district purchasing agents (Gateway, and 

Fairbanks North Star Borough School districts); neither of them knew the distinction between 

net and gross gallons or alternatively the temperature compensation of fuels. Bidding 

documents did not specify which gallons to deliver, and as a consequence the invoicing 

requirements have no effect on pricing transparency precisely where it actually matters: when 

comparing bids.

Conclusion

Enough surveying and interviewing was done to establish decisively that existing invoicing 

requirements and labeling of dispensers do not fulfill the objective of price transparency – not in 

Canada, and not in Alaska, where permissive regimes exist. In either case sales have been 

ongoing for more than ten years.

Moreover it is logically inescapable that current or major proposed regulations governing 

labeling, invoicing, or signage are irrelevant when there is a single standard either way: gross 

vs. net. It is true that under a gross gallon standard, there are variations in temperature and 
L&R Committee – 2009 Final Report

Appendix B – Alaska Fuel Metering Project

L&R - B83

therefore content from one retailer to another. But the extent of this variation has never been 

documented anywhere in a way that lends itself to cost-benefit analysis.

Generally speaking, in social policy it is unwise to adopt known costs when benefits are unclear. 

The burden of proof in accepting costs is that the expected benefits must be larger. The one 

thing that has been demonstrated unequivocally in the case of temperature correction for fuels 

is that the permissive regime introduces insurmountable problems in price transparency 

amongst retailers in a way that is absent in either mandatory approach.

Without an effective capacity to simultaneously translate gross prices into net, or vice versa 

across retailers, consumers gain almost nothing through labeling, signage, or invoicing 

requirements. Pricing information on an equivalent basis has to be determined before the 

purchase decision has been made. It is for this reason that the State of Alaska is taking the 

correct approach to a single standard regardless of what that standard is, when the objective is 

price transparency and equity across the marketplace.

Inventory Control

One of the advantages or rationales for temperature compensated sales posed by suppliers is 

the amelioration of inventory loss from fuel shrinking in the cold. It is quite true that shrinkage 

introduces a problem of inventory tracking for suppliers that requires they monitor the 

temperature of their stored fuels. In Alaska, there is a requirement for reporting monthly 

inventory of taxed fuels, and indeed these are purchased on a net gallon basis and invoiced on 

a gross gallon basis through retail devices at automotive gasoline stations. A specific line item 

for fuel loss from temperature changes is provided in these tax forms for suppliers tracking 

inventory by gross gallons.

It is easily shown that the method of invoicing customers and the inventory control problem are 

independent. Fuel shrinks in the cold regardless of how you invoice it. Whether inventory is 

kept by gross gallon, or inventory is kept by net gallon, exactly the same information is needed 

to perform inventory reconciliation – the volume and temperature of the fuel. It is true that there 

are some small efficiency gains in tracking every single sale on a net gallon basis.

But the claim that net gallon sales of fuel are required in order to solve an inventory loss 

problem has no more merit than claiming losses from handling, vaporization, and fuel sump 

draining require sales of smaller gallons. They are all problems, yes – but not ones that 

necessitate selling smaller gallons. The price of the fuel must incorporate all costs to the 

retailer, and these are just some of them.

So long as suppliers face the same ambient temperatures, they face the same potential losses 

while fuel is stored or transported. The key advantage to selling on a net gallon basis is realized 

when competitors are selling on a gross gallon basis. It isn’t because fuel losses are minimized. 

This gain over competitors exists whether fuel expands, contracts, or stays at exactly the same 
L&R Committee – 2009 Final Report

Appendix B – Alaska Fuel Metering Project

L&R - B84

volume. The retailer selling the smaller volume gallon has the competitive edge in all three 

cases so long as the consumer does not know the difference.

It has been argued that although retailers can sell smaller volume gallons to rectify the problem 

of fuel shrinkage in the cold, charging a higher price is either not possible or will cost consumers 

too much. But isn’t selling more, smaller gallons the same as selling less, larger gallons at a 

higher price? All gasoline stations in the United States, including Alaska, have these exact 

inventory control problems and incorporate losses (or gains) into their pricing structure, 

consciously or not, through market forces. If the aggregate quantity of fuel is reduced from 

shrinkage in a marketplace, the market price rises whether a specific retailer is consciously 

factoring this in or not.

In this section we investigate the accounting of inventory control along with profit and loss 

accounting. It is important to do this to demonstrate that buying and selling on the same unit 

basis is not necessary to properly control inventory.

Accounting of Inventory Control

There are many reasons to monitor inventory. It is an indispensable planning tool for 

management. Inventory control detects and prevents, or allows for mitigation of, losses from 

theft, spills, etc. Firms that pay motor fuel taxes in Alaska are required to produce a monthly 

inventory reconciliation on the Alaska Motor Fuel Tax Return.

In order to do inventory accurately the operation needs to be shut down while the inventory is 

taking place. Fuel cannot be flowing while an inventory is being conducted. For example, it 

may be a monthly exercise on a Sunday at midnight or some routine that does not interfere in 

normal operations.

Whether inventory control is for a gasoline station or a fuel oil retailer with a tank farm the 

accounting methodology is basically the same. The inventory reconciliation form from the motor 

fuel tax return is shown here for illustration:

Inventory Reconciliation Gallons

1) Beginning Physical Inventory

2) Receipts

3) Disbursements

4) Gain (Loss)

5) Transfers

6) Ending Physical Inventory

Figure 26

Essentially the inventory control in short form is:

Ending inventory = Beginning Inventory + net gain (loss)
L&R Committee – 2009 Final Report

Appendix B – Alaska Fuel Metering Project

L&R - B85

Where items 2) through 5) above establish the net gain or loss in the case of a retail service 

station. One of the values of exploring this particular form is that retail gasoline stations in 

Alaska, as elsewhere in the U.S., are largely (but not exclusively) invoiced by suppliers on a net 

gallon basis, but retail on a gross gallon basis. To pose that this is an intractable problem when 

it is done monthly by every gasoline station in Alaska is untenable.

Receipts and disbursements are straightforward enough – and more will be said on them below. 

Losses occur during handling, transportation, and storage. The largest of these, according to 

the largest retail distributor of fuel in the state, is sump drain losses.53

15 AAC 40.310 (a)(5) “losses of volume due to temperature changes of fuel”.

 Transfers would be fuel 

acquired for one purpose but used for another (e.g. jet fuel sold as diesel). But one item in 

particular draws our attention, in 4, above: Gain (loss) that is specifically sanctioned by 

regulation:

Inventory can be calculated either way by a firm – gross or net. So long as both volume and 

temperature can be observed, all of the information necessary to make the calculation either 

way is known. Wholesale transactions are generally invoiced on a net basis, but both net and 

gross gallons are recorded with the transaction, so receipts are known either way. A retail 

service station can choose to enter inventory into its ledger as gross gallons, or as net gallons. 

But it makes no sense to enter receipts as net and disburse as gross or vice-versa. This was an 

important observation by Ross Anderson (2008, 2009) Director of Weights and Measures for the 

State of New York, along with retailers before the California Commission and in other hearings 

before Congress.

The context in which the comments arose is the near perennial accusation that service stations 

in warm states buy net gallons and sell gross as a means of profiting. Since warm states have 

temperatures greater than 60 F, the accusation amounts to saying gas stations are selling 

gallons that they did not purchase.

This is really a red herring in the first place, since it would be irrelevant whether gasoline

stations did this or not. If someone is selling a product they obtained by gift, by discovery, or as 

manna from heaven it is their right to sell it at whatever the market will bear. But it is somewhat 

odd that the myth persists despite being relatively easy to disprove in the inventory control 

context. It is also worth demonstrating that it reflects a complete lack of understanding of how 

businesses work and how profit and loss accounting is performed.

The easiest way to show this is to begin with zero inventory, and have the firm sell all of its 

inventory. Assume a retail station receives inventory of 10,000 net gallons delivered at 93 F, so 

that the gross gallon delivery is 10,200. The temperature stays constant at 93 F throughout this 

exercise. Let’s just try to do the monthly inventory in accordance with the logic of the hot fuel 

inventory fraud myth:

 53 International Aviation Services at the Anchorage International Airport – nearly a billion gallons in 2008.
L&R Committee – 2009 Final Report

Appendix B – Alaska Fuel Metering Project

L&R - B86

The Hot Fuel Inventory Fraud Myth

Initial Inventory 0

Receipts 10,000 gallons (net)

Disbursement 10,200 gallons (gross)

Ending Inventory -200

Figure 27

The firm enters into inventory the 10,000 net gallons as the theory goes, and then sells 

10,200 gallons gross, also in accord with the theory. All of the fuel bought has been sold. 

There is no gain or loss of fuel. No spills, no transfers in. If we follow the logic through to its 

implied result, at the end of the month the firm reports a -200 gallon balance to the state tax 

authority. Now, consider that this is actually a cumulative phenomenon, occurring every month. 

Firms across the U.S. in “hot fuel” states ought to have inventory balances in the high billions of 

gallons (negative) by now.54

Obviously, this is an impossible situation and defeats the purpose of doing inventory control in 

the first place. The units of measure for receipts and disbursements must be the same. 

According to the testimony referred to above, gasoline stations under the jurisdiction of the 

respondents do inventory on a gross gallon basis, but it could also be accomplished on a net 

gallon basis.

An alternative but equally ridiculous story is that firms enter into their monthly accounting filings 

with state tax authorities a gain in inventory from the clever trick of “net in gross out” accounting. 

The problem with this story is that, as we just showed for the state of Alaska, it is permissible to 

enter gains or losses due to temperature changes – but there has been no temperature change. 

This is instead a change in the definition of units between lines in an accounting form for the 

same month, which is impermissible.

Profit and Loss Accounting

It is also worth dispensing with additional myths in this arena, pertaining to the way businesses 

do their accounting, and how inventory control is in reality separated from the accounting of 

profits and losses. When a retail firm receives a delivery of fuel it will have a truck manifest, and 

an invoice seen in simplified form on Figure 28.

 54 Because Mr. Anderson in his comments above to the California Commission did not work out an example, he 

deduced that “if retailers were buying net and selling gross they would be amassing surpluses.” It was correct to 

deduce that inventory reconciliation would be a problem, but did not have the direction correct.
L&R Committee – 2009 Final Report

Appendix B – Alaska Fuel Metering Project

L&R - B87

Truck Manifest Invoice

Gross Temp Net Net Unit Total

Gallons Gallons Gallons Price Due

10,200 93 F 10,000 10,000 $2.00 $20,000 

Figure 28

The firm knows what it has received in both gross and net delivery, but it is invoiced in net 

gallons. The firm has an accounting of all the costs that go into the sale of this fuel, and a 

simplified cost of goods sold is illustrated with a profit and loss statement here:

Cost of Goods Sold Profit/Loss Statement

Fuel $20,000 Revenue (P = $2.75) $28,050

Labor $5,000 Costs $27,000 

Etc. $2,000 

Total $27,000 Gross Profit $1,050

Taxes $150 

# Units 10,200

Cost/unit $2.65 Net Profit $900 

Figure 29

The firm has paid $20,000 for the fuel it purchased, and has additional costs for labor and other 

items as shown. Total costs are $27,000. Since 10,200 units have been sold, the cost of goods 

sold is $2.65. The fact the firm bought on a net basis and sold on a gross basis is completely 

irrelevant to the cost of goods sold. The only thing that matters is the number of units sold and 

whatever expenses were incurred in achieving those sales.

In the profit/loss statement, we show a price per unit of $2.75, (which compares to a cost per 

unit of $2.65), and results in total revenues of $28,050. The total costs are again $27,000, 

resulting in a gross profit of $1050. After tax the firm shows a profit of $900.

There are some important lessons in showing this accounting, and it was something missing in 

the California study and in studies on hot fuel/cold fuel in general. The first is that there is a 

separation between the inventory control problem and the cost of goods sold, unit pricing, and 

profit/loss accounting. The hot fuel inventory fraud myth relies on an audience that understands 

neither inventory control nor basic accounting.

Firms in hot fuel states do not invoice customers in net gallons and do not temperature 

compensate gallons because it is less profitable to do so, but the inventory fraud myth misleads 
L&R Committee – 2009 Final Report

Appendix B – Alaska Fuel Metering Project

L&R - B88

us. In terms of inventory control, there is no benefit to invoicing in net gallons in a hot fuel state. 

Monthly reports are correctly filed with taxing authorities despite fuel being sold at temperatures 

significantly higher than the 60 F net gallon reference temperature they are invoiced at 

themselves.

In Alaska, the problem is the reverse, where fuel is colder than the 60 F standard. We can 

construct examples in the opposite direction that serve the same point. Let us consider a 

situation in which fuel is purchased at -20 F, but is invoiced to the retailer at the 60 F reference 

temperature. We are going to leave the fuel at -20 F throughout this discussion to clarify a point 

obfuscated by changing it. A simplified truck manifest and invoice is shown on Figure 30.

Truck Manifest Invoice

Gross Temp Net Net Unit Total

Gallons Gallons Gallons Price Due

10,000 - 20 F 10,500 10,500 $2.00 $21,000 

Figure 30

Observe again that the retailer knows both the net and gross gallon quantities of the fuel. It can 

enter into inventory either way. We recognize that there may be time enough for the fuel to 

have changed temperature between the loading rack at the refinery or tank farm and the time 

the full load of fuel is received. We will discuss that situation separately in order to clarify the 

difference between the reference temperature and the temperature of the fuel. If we tried to do 

inventory reconciliation with buying net and selling gross, then we would have something that 

looked like Figure 31 it were done incorrectly:

Cold Fuel Inventory - Incorrectly

Initial Inventory 0

Receipts 10,500 gallons (net)

Disbursement 10,000 gallons (gross)

Ending Inventory 500

Figure 31

Of course, the firm cannot end up with 500 gallons of inventory if it has sold all of the fuel that it 

purchased, and it started with no fuel in the first place. So it has to do its inventory on either a 

net gallon basis or a gross gallon basis.55

 55 The comment was made to the draft report that notwithstanding the accounting clarifications here, firms lost 

money by “buying net and selling gross. At the risk of being repetitive, this position requires nonsensical 

Moreover, this inventory can proceed on either basis 
L&R Committee – 2009 Final Report

Appendix B – Alaska Fuel Metering Project

L&R - B89

without regard to how the firm is making its pricing and profit/loss accounting. That is, assume 

the firm has an ending inventory of zero in either net or gross gallons for simplicity, but it is 

selling its fuel on a gross gallon basis. (Because retail gasoline stations in Alaska sell on a 

gross gallon basis). The inventory statement will look like either of the tables in Figure 32:

Cold Fuel Inventory - Correctly (net)

Initial Inventory 0

Receipts 10,500 gallons (net)

Disbursement 10,500 gallons (net)

Ending Inventory 0

Cold Fuel Inventory - Correctly (gross)

Initial Inventory 0

Receipts 10,000 gallons (gross)

Disbursement 10,000 gallons (gross)

Ending Inventory 0

Figure 32

This is again fuel that was brought into inventory at -20 F. It is important to remember that the 

60 F reference is not the temperature of the fuel. Inventory loss from fuel shrinkage has nothing 

to do with the reference temperature of the fuel. The reference temperature could be a 

thousand degrees and it is irrelevant to inventory loss. Since the fuel came in at -20 F and left 

at -20 F there has been no inventory loss.

In the next frames we show the cost of goods sold accounting. The fuel invoice is for $21,000, 

and is entered along with $5,000 labor and $2,000 in other costs as before. Total cost of goods 

sold is $28,000, and since 10,000 gross gallons are sold, it results in a unit cost of $2.80. It is 

irrelevant whether inventory was done on a gross or net basis for this accounting.

In the profit and loss accounting we show a unit price of $2.90, and thus total revenues of 

$29,000. With costs of $28,000, we have a gross profit of $1,000. Taxes are shown as $100, 

leaving a net profit of $100. Note that it is irrelevant that every customer at the gasoline station 

bought on a gross gallon basis, but inventory was done on a net gallon basis (or gross, as the 

case may be). The retail dispenser is metering in gross gallons and reporting to the cashier or 

internal accounting system the amount of the sale, and printing a receipt in gross gallons. But 

 

accounting. If this argument is to be made coherently it has to demonstrate its merit with a month-to-month 

inventory reconciliation example, as here.
L&R Committee – 2009 Final Report

Appendix B – Alaska Fuel Metering Project

L&R - B90

the inventory tracking system is separate from the “point of sale” transaction data. Software can 

be acquired that can do either or both, but it is important to understand that the consumer 

invoicing and inventory tracking systems are not the same thing.

Cost of Goods Sold Profit/Loss Statement

Fuel $21,000 Revenue (P = $2.90) $29,000

Labor $5,000 Costs $28,000 

Etc. $2,000 

Total $28,000 Gross Profit $1,000

Taxes $100 

# Units 10,000

cost/unit $2.80 Net Profit $900 

Figure 33

We are about to close in now on what is an advantage to selling net gallons. The advantage is 

in a market where some firms are selling gross and other firms are selling net – and consumers 

do not know the difference. So assume now that the price is still $2.90 but the firm is now 

selling 10,500 net gallons instead of 10,000 gross gallons. The cost of goods sold is the same. 

The inventory reconciliation is the same. It is irrelevant whether inventory is kept in gross or net 

gallons. But now revenue is $30,450 instead of $29,000. Profits are $2,350 instead of $900.

Clearly, selling smaller gallons when your competitors are selling larger gallons results in an 

extra profit margin that has nothing to do with stemming losses from fuel shrinking in the cold. 

This is not to imply inventory loss doesn’t happen. Rather, it is to demonstrate that there is a 

conflation of two separate advantages to selling net gallons – and the temperature data from 

Flint Hills makes clear that fuel is loaded at the rack at temperatures far below the reference 

standard. It is irrelevant that you “bought” the fuel at a reference temperature of 60 F. That 

does not mean one has purchased warm fuel and sold cold fuel.
L&R Committee – 2009 Final Report

Appendix B – Alaska Fuel Metering Project

L&R - B91

Cost of Goods Sold Profit/Loss Statement

Fuel $21,000 Revenue (P = $2.90) $30,450

Labor $5,000 Costs $28,000 

Etc. $2,000 

Total $28,000 Gross Profit $2,450

Taxes $100 

# Units 10,000

cost/unit $2.80 Net Profit $2,350 

Figure 34

Real Inventory Losses from Temperature Changes

We have glossed over in this example what happens when fuel temperatures change over the 

course of purchase and delivery. But it was important to first dispense with any confusion over 

inventory losses being associated with the reference temperature of 60 F. Inventory “losses” 

occur in one situation only: when inventory is kept on a gross gallon basis and the fuel has 

cooled while it is in inventory.

The most radical changes that will occur in temperature for a retailer purchasing wholesale in 

Alaska are in three different potential situations. One is when fuel is transported over a long 

distance and conditions change in the interim, such as a barge loading fuel in Washington State 

and then delivering in Unalaska – or a barge loading at the Nikiski refinery before it has adjusted 

to ambient completely and delivering to a remote location such as Bethel many days later.

Another is when there is a short lead time between a refinery run and rack loading in the 

extreme cold of the winter. There can be a seventy degree difference between minimum and 

maximum loading temperatures in February at the Flint Hills North Pole rack, given the right 

combination of lead time and ambient temperatures. The last situation is when, regardless of 

source, fuel in a remote location such as Kotzebue, Bethel, Ft. Yukon, etc. is delivered in the 

short barge season and stored for the entire winter at a tank farm.

In a study of barge service from Anchorage vs. Washington State, NERA (2006) gave 

distances, barge speeds, and travel time estimates. The distance between Anchorage and 

False Pass is 688 nautical miles (NM), while the distance between Seattle and False Pass 

across the Gulf of Alaska is 1,643 nautical miles. At a barge speed of 8 NM per hour, the 

minimum conceivable time just for this leg of the journey is either four days or nine days with no 

additional stops56

But the fuel can be entered into inventory on either a gross or net basis at the time of offloading 

or at the time of the next inventory reconciliation. All that is necessary to know is the 

. This is plenty of time for fuel to change temperature in a significant way.

 56 One of the notable observations in that report is that barge costs are about the same between a place such as 

Unalaska and Seattle vs. Unalaska and Cook Inlet, despite the difference in distance and time. The deciding factor 

is not shipping costs, but rather the price of fuel.
L&R Committee – 2009 Final Report

Appendix B – Alaska Fuel Metering Project

L&R - B92

temperature of the fuel placed into inventory. In some states this is actually done as fuel is 

received. In others it is done at the next regular inventory accounting.

Temperature changes in fuel stored above-ground over the course of the long winter months 

are potentially very significant as we have seen in our temperature study (Appendix 1). This is 

the worst case scenario insofar as cooling and inventory losses, so we will construct an extreme 

example for illustration. Suppose a fuel vendor purchases fuel on a net gallon basis, but from a 

refinery such as Nikiski at 80 F. The fuel is sent in a company barge to Kotzebue or some 

distant place where it cools to -40 F in the winter.

In our example to simplify things we will have a 10,000 gallon load that is purchased and none 

of it is sold the entire time it is in inventory. It is simply stored and an inventory reconciliation is 

performed. (In reality, the inventory reconciliation would be performed multiple times and the 

numbers would not be so extreme, but we wish to make a point by having the example be a 

worst-case scenario.) Regardless of whether we are keeping inventory on a net basis or a 

gross basis, we need to know the temperature of the fuel or we cannot perform an inventory 

reconciliation either way. The following information is based on the Coefficient of Expansion 

0.00052 for #1 heating oil:

Temperature Net Gross

80 F 10,000 10,104

-40 F 10,000 9,450

Figure 35

If the inventory is kept in net gallons, what is the inventory loss? The answer is zero. If the 

inventory is kept in gross gallons, then what is the inventory loss? The answer is 554 gallons. 

Both methods of inventory reconciliation are shown below. Exactly the same information is 

required to do either one of them. A temperature reading and a volume reading on the tank 

level:

Inventory Reconciliation (net) Inventory Reconciliation (gross)

Beginning Inventory 10,000 Beginning Inventory 10,104

Receipts 0 Receipts 0

Disbursements 0 Disbursements 0

Inventory Loss 0 Inventory Loss -554

Ending Inventory 10,000 Ending Inventory 9,450

Figure 36

Does it matter what the units of sale are? No. There have been no sales. The inventory loss is 

strictly due to the manner in which inventory is being kept. That may seem counterintuitive, 

which is why it is so important to work through these examples. We are on the cusp now of 
L&R Committee – 2009 Final Report

Appendix B – Alaska Fuel Metering Project

L&R - B93

making a very important observation about the equivalency of either adjusting price or the units 

of sale to result in exactly the same outcome.

Assume now for simplicity the entire load of fuel is sold to one customer. This is not necessary 

for any purpose but making the math easier. It could just as easily be ten thousand customers 

getting a gallon each. Let us also assume that regardless of how we invoice that the fair return 

on our purchase requires $30,000 in revenue from the customer. It is exactly the same load of 

fuel, at exactly the same temperature, so either of two manners is exactly equivalent:

Gallons Price Invoice

Net 10,000 $3.00 $30,000

Gross 9,450 $3.17 $30,000

Figure 37

If we are invoicing in gross gallons then the price has to be $3.17. If we are invoicing in net 

gallons the price is $3.00. It cannot be argued that the firm can sell smaller gallons at a lower 

price, but it cannot sell larger gallons at a higher price. This is exactly the same load of fuel –

the same volume, the same temperature, and the same invoice regardless of which way it is 

handled. It is the same information required to do either transaction.

Finally, it doesn’t matter how inventory is kept. It can be kept in net gallons and the sales 

transacted in gross. It can be kept in gross gallons and the sale transacted in net. What is 

important either way is that the firm keep track of both inventory temperature and tank level. 

Approved Alaska Division of Environmental Conservation (DEC) automatic tank gauging 

systems can provide daily reports with the necessary information, or for that matter manual tank 

gauging can as well.

Summary

To summarize, the inventory control and invoicing or financial accounting systems are separate 

concerns. Inventory must be performed either one way or the other, but the fact inventory is 

kept one way does not interfere in invoicing and financial accounting in the other. There is a 

myth or hoax that has been propagated in “hot fuel” states that pretends firms are capable of 

creating inventory out of accounting trickery and profiting from it.

There is somewhat of a corollary in cold fuel states. It is quite true that fuel is much colder in 

Alaska than the 60 F benchmark. But this does not mean firms are buying fuel at 60 F and 

selling at -20 F. Secondly, inventory “loss” only occurs by definition when fuel cools while in 

inventory, and when inventory is kept in a gross gallon basis.

Firms lose inventory from draining sumps, from vapor loss, spillage, or other reasons. These 

are costs of doing business in much the same way hiring labor is. Firms do not, however, 

compensate for these losses by selling smaller gallons. While we do not minimize the problem 

of fuel loss from cooling while in inventory, selling smaller gallons is not necessary to 
L&R Committee – 2009 Final Report

Appendix B – Alaska Fuel Metering Project

L&R - B94

compensate for those losses either. We need to point out the equivalency between 

compensating by selling smaller gallons and raising price.

What advantage is there to doing one vs. the other? The answer is that there is only a potential 

advantage when some firms are invoicing net and some are invoicing gross – and consumers 

are ignorant about the difference. Clearly, a fully aware consumer can see the equivalency 

between the two. It is $30,000 for the same load of fuel at the same temperature and therefore 

they are equivalent.

When consumers do not know the difference between net and gross gallons, then the 

advantage goes to the person who is selling smaller gallons. In a cold fuel state that would be 

net gallons. But it is not because invoicing by net gallons makes up for inventory loss. It is 

because selling a smaller gallon gives rise to a competitive margin no matter what the 

temperature of the fuel is. It is for the same reason a gross gallon is preferable to the retailer in 

a warm fuel state. It is the smaller gallon.

Tax Implications of Gross vs. Net Gallons

Taxes on fuels in Alaska are levied on “gallons” without regard to gross vs. net definitions. 

Chapter 43.40 (Motor Fuel Tax) of the Alaska Statutes sets forth taxes by type of fuel. If we 

change the method of sale from one to the other, then the number of total gallons sold changes. 

Metering by net gallon results in a larger number of gallons when the average temperature is 

less than 60F. So the amount of tax revenues for the State of Alaska increases when gallons 

are metered on a net basis.

The amount of the differential depends on season, but we will work with averages just to have a 

rough idea of the magnitudes involved. Figure 38 reproduces data from the 2008 Annual 

Report, Division of Tax.57

 57 Pg 47 and pg 49. Note that the amount of taxes collected are in reality slightly different from the number of 

gallons times the tax rates. This is because refunds from a previous period are being received as taxes are remitted 

for a current period.

 The table begins with the relevant tax rate, and the number of gallons 

subject to each tax. Temperature differentials were calculated relative to the 60F benchmark. 

Fuels sold from underground tanks are on average warmer, and for highway fuels the data from 

the NIST survey was used. For the remainder, Anchorage and Fairbanks rack temperatures 

were averaged from the Flint Hills data base.
L&R Committee – 2009 Final Report

Appendix B – Alaska Fuel Metering Project

L&R - B95

Tax Differentials: Gross vs Net Gallons

Avg Temp Avg Volume Revenue

Tax Rate Gallons Differential Differential Differential

Highway $0.08 369,568,110 13 0.00775 $229,132

Marine $0.05 115,536,050 22 0.013933333 $80,490

Aviation Gas $0.05 14,822,878 22 0.013933333 $9,707

Jet Fuel $0.03 142,874,628 21 0.008400 $38,405

Total $357,734

Figure 38

Volume differences were then calculated using specific gravity of 0.893 for fuel oil/jet fuel, and 

0.739 for gasoline. In the case of highway fuels these were averaged. Revenue differentials 

are then calculated based on multiplying three things: tax rate, gallons, and volume differential 

coefficient. The resulting revenue differentials are found in the last column.

The differentials are not that significant, totaling $357,734. Highway fuels comprise the largest 

component at $229,132. Marine fuels follow at $80,490, then jet fuel at $38,405. Aviation gas 

is a very small differential at $9,707. Revenue differentials are not a significant factor in the 

method of sale decision. (At present with the tax holiday on fuels, it is actually irrelevant 

altogether, but this is a temporary situation.)

Economics of ATC Devices for the Individual Firm

The economics of ATC devices are compelling for the individual firm. It is central to the analysis 

below that consumers do not know the difference between a gross and a net gallon. A simple 

question is asked: If an ATC device is installed at $7500 for this illustration, how many gallons 

must be sold in order for the device to pay for itself. (The break-even quantity.)

The break-even point depends on two factors: the price of fuel and the difference between net 

and gross gallons. In the illustration below there are two scenarios – one in which the volume 

difference is 1% and the other at 2%. The prices range from $1.00 to $4.00 per gallon in each 

scenario.

One can see with $4.00 per gallon fuel and a 2% smaller net gallon, an ATC device pays for 

itself with only 100,000 gallons. On the other hand, at $1.00 per gallon fuel and a 1% volume 

difference, an ATC device takes 500,000 gallons to pay for itself.

There are a number of reasons to illustrate this payback. First, the economics are so 

compelling at high prices of fuel and in temperature extremes like Alaska – firms “cannot afford 
L&R Committee – 2009 Final Report

Appendix B – Alaska Fuel Metering Project

L&R - B96

not to do it” as it has been put in comments to this study. We agree. It has never been a 

question of whether firms that install them can show they pay for themselves. They clearly do.

There are a couple of problems with using this firm perspective to decide on social policy. First, 

selling a smaller gallon is the same thing as charging a higher price, but the consumer is 

incapable of recognizing that. Because he doesn’t know it is a smaller gallon. It is not 

considered a “consumer benefit” when he is charged a higher price without realizing it.

But also what is true for one firm acting individually is not necessarily true for all firms acting 

collectively. Above we are asking what happens if one firm sells a smaller gallon, all else the 

same. It is better for the firm according to a degree set forth in the diagram. But if all firms 

simultaneously sell a smaller gallon then whatever individual benefits there might have been are 

completely eradicated by market price adjusting accordingly.

We are simply asking the reverse situation now as compared with a hot state. If Alaska 

suppliers all sell a gallon half as large tomorrow, what will the price be? The answer is of 

course twice as much. But in this case we have a higher cost now added on to the product as 

well.

The break-even diagram also gives a good indication of whether the three-year phase-out of 

permissive ATC in Alaska’s initial regulation prohibiting ATC was sufficient to allow for cost 

recovery. It appears to have been so.
L&R Committee – 2009 Final Report

Appendix B – Alaska Fuel Metering Project

L&R - B97

Figure 39 – Breakeven for ATC Devices
L&R Committee – 2009 Final Report

Appendix B – Alaska Fuel Metering Project

L&R - B98

Price Rigidity in Remote Barge Communities

Comment was made to the draft report that the remote and risky conditions of barge 

communities in Alaska deserved particular attention as it pertains to ATC. We observe first that 

in such a community there is a strong expectation that after the last barge of the season, the 

price will remain the same until the next barge season. (This period is roughly October through 

May in Western Alaska)

We accept that as a feature of Alaskan communities with one additional observation: We have 

to allow that fly-in fuel is available year-round. Although it is more expensive than barging in 

large quantities generally, under the right conditions flown fuel can be competitive. If wholesale 

prices drop significantly, fuel flown in December can undercut barged fuel that was stored in 

September.

In addition when a village really does find itself with a fuel shortage, when the barged fuel will be 

completely exhausted before break-up, more expensive fuel can be flown in. It is not that the 

village will have no fuel at all – just very expensive fuel compared to what was sold by barge 

distributors.

Having said that, a fuel retailer is faced with the following planning problem: there are a number 

of costs that must be covered through the season. This would include expected loss of every 

type – fuel handling, sumpage, shrinkage or vapor loss, theft, spills, etc.

The argument goes that a conservative position to take if expected shrinkage is being factored 

in is to assume a somewhat worse than average amount of shrinkage. So if the average 

shrinkage from the fuel cooling is 2%, then assume somewhat more than 2%. This results in 

“over-charging” for shrinkage due to uncertainty under gross gallon sales.

First of all with respect to the value of ATC devices in remote barge areas, note that retail fuel in 

such communities is at the expensive end of the spectrum. Regardless of the amount of 

shrinkage, an ATC device pays more quickly wherever price is high. On the other hand it is also 

more expensive to ship, install and maintain an ATC device in remote Alaska communities.

In the months of October through May we have of course the colder months of the year so the 

difference between the gross and net gallon is widest. We have a recipe for strong ATC 

economics as shown in figure 39, despite high installation costs, all things considered. (High 

prices and large difference between gross and net gallons makes up for higher installation 

costs). It is easy to see where a 20 cent per gallon margin (or more) to net gallons vs. gross 

gallons is possible. That is quite a lot in an industry relying on small margins.

Industry officials suggesting the argument did not give examples of what kind of price premium 

they were expecting to obviate with ATC. It certainly cannot be much relative to the main 
L&R Committee – 2009 Final Report

Appendix B – Alaska Fuel Metering Project

L&R - B99

benefit of selling the smaller gallon. ATC fuel at zero degrees has a 4% size margin advantage 

over gross gallons. At $7 per gallon the difference is 28 cents per gallon.

We point out that individual retailers do not set the market price. A firm cannot arbitrarily decide 

to be super-conservative and charge a high price in an environment where other firms are not. 

If ATC eliminates a risk it has to be something the market is doing as an equilibrium result as 

opposed to a firm “deciding” what his price will be. Perhaps so. But clearly the main motivation 

is the profitability of net gallons vis-à-vis gross gallons where consumers are ignorant to the 

difference.

Bush Alaska is where fuel is the most expensive to transport and where volumes are small. It is 

where installation of ATC is most costly. We have already observed that ATC devices can be 

individually profitable (meaning profits of the firm are higher with one than without one) but 

socially inefficient.

The first conversions to ATC earn a return from a margin gained against its competition not 

using them. That is true whether it is a Fairbanks heating oil delivery truck one in Unalaska. 

The last to convert is compelled to because everyone else in the industry is doing it to his 

disadvantage. Once ATC is universal the playing field is again level and the price is the same 

with the exception being the cost of the devices where ATC is sold. The consumer will bear that 

cost.
L&R Committee – 2009 Final Report

Appendix B – Alaska Fuel Metering Project

L&R - B100

Bibliography

Access Economics Temperature Correction Consumer Friendly or Consumer Hostile? Prepared for the 

Australian Institute of Petroleum (1992).

Alaska Department of Labor: Alaska Population By Age, Race Alone and Male/Female, 

July 1, 2005.Table 1.19 http://almis.labor.state.ak.us/?PAGEID=67&SUBID=171

Alaska Division of Oil and Gas: Annual Report (2007) Section Five, Alaska Refining Sales and 

Consumption http://www.dog.dnr.state.ak.us/oil/products/publications/annual/report.htm

Alaska State Division of Tax 2008 Annual Report pg 49.

American Society for Testing Materials: Petroleum Measurement Tables, 1952.

Anderson, Ross Director of Weights and Measures, State of New York Comments on Fuel Delivery 

Temperature Study, Dec 9 2008. 

http://www.energy.ca.gov/transportation/fuel_delivery_temperature_study/documents/2008-12-

09_workshop/comments/Ross_J_Anderson_TN-49465.PDF

Anderson, Ross, Director of Weights and Measures, State of New York. Understanding the Inventory 

Flow at the Retail Service Station. Jan 25 2009. 

http://www.energy.ca.gov/transportation/fuel_delivery_temperature_study/documents/2008-03-

04_workshop/2008-03-

06_ANDERSON_ROSS_UNDERSTANDING_INVENTORY_FLOW_RETAIL_STATION.PDF

Australian Industry Commission Petroleum Products Report No.40, 5 July 1994.

Australian Institute of Petroleum The Temperature Correction of Petrol. Australia 1996.

Butcher, Tina Meter Testing and Corrections – Corrections During Liquid Meter Testing National Institute 

for Standards and Testing 2006 http://ts.nist.gov/WeightsAndMeasures/upload/B-015.pdf

California Energy Commission: (Schremp and Janusch) Fuel Temperature Delivery Study. Transportation 

Committee Report. January 2009.

California Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission: Staff Workshop: 

Implementation of Assembly Bill 868 Docket No.07-HFS-1: Fuel Delivery Temperature Study Hearing 

Transcripts Thursday, June 5, 2008

California Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission Staff Workshop: 

Implementation of Assembly Bill 868 Fuel Delivery Temperature Study Schremp Presentation 

(March, 2008)

California Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission Staff Workshop: 

Implementation of Assembly Bill 868 Fuel Delivery Temperature Study Schremp Presentation 

(June 5, 2008)
L&R Committee – 2009 Final Report

Appendix B – Alaska Fuel Metering Project

L&R - B101

California Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission Staff Workshop: Hearing 

Transcripts (June 5, 2008)

Cleary, Michael (Chairman NCWM) Testimony Before the House Committee on Oversight and 

Government Reform Subcommittee Domestic Policy: “Hot Fuels – The Impact on Commercial 

Transactions of the Thermal Expansion of Gasoline. June 8 2007.

Cooley, Hugh V.P. and Gen Mgr Shell Oil Wholesale Division “Written Statement Before the 

Subcommittee on Domestic Policy of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. 

July 25, 2007.

Consumer Affairs Victoria Volume Correction of Petrol and Diesel Fuel (PW 21533-4257) Victoria 2002.

Davis R, Dickerman J and Radian Corporation, (Sep 1982); Temperature Adjustment of Petroleum 

Products: Analysis of Data and Issues; pp. 6-15. Prepared for the American Petroleum Institute (API)

Institute for Social and Economic Research, Components of Delivered Fuel Prices in Alaska prepared for 

the Alaska Energy Authority June 2008.

Institute for Social and Economic Research, Alaska Community Fuel Use prepared for the Alaska Energy 

Authority October 2008.

Lenard, Jeff “What Consumer Behavior?” NACS Magazine, March 2008, p 16-25: 

http://www.nationalpaymentcard.com/releases/03-08_NACS.pdf

Mattimoe, George: Intellectually Dishonest Myth Regarding Accurate Delivery of a Gallon of Gas. Paper 

submitted to the California Energy commission, Jan 2009. 

http://www.energy.ca.gov/transportation/fuel_delivery_temperature_study/documents/comments/2009-01-

13_George_Mattimoe-Intellectually_Dishonest_Myth_Re_Accurate_Deliver_of_a_Gallon_of_Gas_TN49799.PDF

Measurement Canada Information Bulletin – Automatic Temperature Compensation and the Retail Sale 

of Gasoline and Diesel Fuel http://www.cbc.ca/consumers/market/files/cars/gasprice/faq.html

Measurement Canada: Policy on Use of Automated Temperature Compensation. 12/15/2008. 

http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/mc-mc.nsf/eng/lm00106.html

Murphy, Kevin M., Topel, Robert H. White Paper: “Comments on the California Energy Commission’s 

Fuel Delivery Temperature Study.” University of Chicago, Jan 2009. 

http://www.energy.ca.gov/transportation/fuel_delivery_temperature_study/documents/comments/2009-01-

12_Kevin_Murphy+Robert_Topel-Comments_TN-49832.PDF

National Association of Convenience Stores: 2008 Gas Price Kit – “Gas Prices are Consumers’ Top 

Economic Concern” 

http://www.nacsonline.com/NACS/News/Campaigns/GasPrices_2008/Pages/TopEconomicConcern.aspx

National Association of Convenience Stores: Industry Resources – Motor Fuels Sales at Convenience 

Stores. http://www.nacsonline.com/NACS/News/FactSheets/Pages/MotorFuels.aspx

National Conference on Weights and Measures: Automatic Temperature Compensation Steering 

Committee Progress Report Albuquerque, NM. (Power Point) Jan 28, 2008.
L&R Committee – 2009 Final Report

Appendix B – Alaska Fuel Metering Project

L&R - B102

National Conference on Weights and Measures – State Survey on ATC 

http://www.ncwm.net/events/atc2007/States_Survey_On_ATC.doc

National Engineering Laboratory, Glasgow UK: Temperature Compensation of Liquid Fuels, a Study for 

the National Weights and Measures Laboratory, Teddington Middlesex, Project NWM006, July 1999.

Northern Economics Port of Anchorage Consolidation and Distribution Concept Feasibility Study 

prepared for Anchorage Economic Development Corporation, April 2006. 

http://www.muni.org/iceimages/port/AEDCBargeRepor4-20-06.pdf

Paton, R. and Boam, D. UK National Weights and Measures Temperature Compensation of Liquid Fuels

Project No: NWM006; Report No: 184/99). Teddington, Middlesex: United Kingdom. National Weights 

and Measures Laboratory. (1999).

Suiter, Richard: Weights and Measures Program Coordinator National Institute of Standards and 

Technology Testimony Before the House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government 

Reform Subcommittee on Domestic Policy “Hot Fuels – The Impact on Commercial Transactions of the 

Thermal Expanse of Gasoline. June 8, 2007.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics: State Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates 

http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oessrcst.htm

U.S. Census Bureau. Current Population survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 2005.

U.S. Energy Information Agency: Alaska Prime Suppliers Sales Volumes 

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_cons_prim_dcu_sak_a.htm

U.S. Energy Information Agency State-Level Energy Consumption, Expenditures, and Prices, 2005 

Table 1.6. Location: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/overview.html

U.S. Energy Information Agency: Petroleum Data Methodology 

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/petroleum_marketing_annual/current/pdf

/enote.pdf

U.S. Government Accounting Office Stakeholder Views on Compensating for the Effects of Gasoline 

Temperature on Volume at the Pump – Report to the Chairman, Committee on Science and Technology, 

House of Representatives. Sept, 2008. http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d081114.pdf

Victoria Consumer and Business Affairs: Regulatory Impact Statement – Temperature Compensation of 

Petrol and Diesel Fuel, Nov. 2001

Victoria Office of Regulation Reform Regulatory Impact Statement: Temperature Compensation of Petrol 

and Diesel Fuel Victoria 2001.
L&R Committee – 2009 Final Report

Appendix B – Alaska Fuel Metering Project

L&R - B103

Appendix 1

Temperature Data Analysis for Refineries, Tank Farms and Underground 

Tanks PLEASE REFER TO FILE Appendix 1 Alaska Fuel Metering Project

Appendix 2

Benefits Computations for ATC Regulatory Regimes PLEASE REFER TO FILE 

Appendix 2 Alaska Fuel Metering Project

Appendix 3

Estimated Fuel Use for Heating and Electricity Production PLEASE REFER TO 

FILE Appendix 3 Alaska Fuel Metering Project
L&R Committee 2009 Interim Report

Appendix C – Automatic Temperature Compensation

L&R - C1

Appendix C

Method of Sale Regulation:

Automatic Temperature Compensation – Letters

(Items 232-1 and 232-2)

Table of Content

Page

Overview of Alaska’s Permissive Automatic Temperature Compensation................................................................ C3

“Hot Fuel” Settlement Leaves Consumers Out in the Cold, says NATSO............................................................... C14

Arizona Petroleum Marketers Association (Letter to S. Gill, Central Weights and Measures Association)............ C15

American Trucking Associations ............................................................................................................................. C18

ATC as a Better, More Comprehensive Form of Measurement by Henry Opperrmann .......................................... C28

California Independent Oil Marketers Association (CIOMA) ................................................................................. C37

Commonwealth of Massachusetts Office of Consumer Affairs and Business Regulations/Division of 

Standards.................................................................................................................................................................. C41

Arizona Petroleum Marketers Association (Letter to J. Gomez, L&R Committee)................................................. C42

State of New York, Department of Agriculture and Markets................................................................................... C45

Petroleum Marketers Association of America.......................................................................................................... C53

API Comments on NCWM Laws and Regulations Committee 2009 Interim Report Items 232-1 and 232-2 ......... C55

Veeder-Root (Letter to J. Gomez, L&R Committee) ............................................................................................... C60

NOTE: Due to the amount of content in Appendix C, the content has been broken into three separate files. 

To view the content, click on the item in the “table of content” and the document should become visible for 

viewing or printing.
L&R Committee 2009 Interim Report

Appendix C – Automatic Temperature Compensation

L&R - C2

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
L&R Committee 2009 Interim Report

Appendix C – Automatic Temperature Compensation

L&R - C3
L&R Committee 2009 Interim Report

Appendix C – Automatic Temperature Compensation

L&R - C4
L&R Committee 2009 Interim Report

Appendix C – Automatic Temperature Compensation

L&R - C5
L&R Committee 2009 Interim Report

Appendix C – Automatic Temperature Compensation

L&R - C6
L&R Committee 2009 Interim Report

Appendix C – Automatic Temperature Compensation

L&R - C7
L&R Committee 2009 Interim Report

Appendix C – Automatic Temperature Compensation

L&R - C8
L&R Committee 2009 Interim Report

Appendix C – Automatic Temperature Compensation

L&R - C9
L&R Committee 2009 Interim Report

Appendix C – Automatic Temperature Compensation

L&R - C10
L&R Committee 2009 Interim Report

Appendix C – Automatic Temperature Compensation

L&R - C11
L&R Committee 2009 Interim Report

Appendix C – Automatic Temperature Compensation

L&R - C12
L&R Committee 2009 Interim Report

Appendix C – Automatic Temperature Compensation

L&R - C13
L&R Committee 2009 Interim Report

Appendix C – Automatic Temperature Compensation

L&R - C14
L&R Committee 2009 Interim Report

Appendix C – Automatic Temperature Compensation

L&R - C15
L&R Committee 2009 Interim Report

Appendix C – Automatic Temperature Compensation

L&R - C16
L&R Committee 2009 Interim Report

Appendix C – Automatic Temperature Compensation

L&R - C17
L&R Committee 2009 Interim Report

Appendix C – Automatic Temperature Compensation

L&R - C18
L&R Committee 2009 Interim Report

Appendix C – Automatic Temperature Compensation

L&R - C19
L&R Committee 2009 Interim Report

Appendix C – Automatic Temperature Compensation

L&R - C20
L&R Committee 2009 Interim Report

Appendix C – Automatic Temperature Compensation

L&R - C21
L&R Committee 2009 Interim Report

Appendix C – Automatic Temperature Compensation

L&R - C22
L&R Committee 2009 Interim Report

Appendix C – Automatic Temperature Compensation

L&R - C23
L&R Committee 2009 Interim Report

Appendix C – Automatic Temperature Compensation

L&R - C24
L&R Committee 2009 Interim Report

Appendix C – Automatic Temperature Compensation

L&R - C25
L&R Committee 2009 Interim Report

Appendix C – Automatic Temperature Compensation

L&R - C26
L&R Committee 2009 Interim Report

Appendix C – Automatic Temperature Compensation

L&R - C27
L&R Committee 2009 Interim Report

Appendix C – Automatic Temperature Compensation

L&R - C28

" 
L&R Committee 2009 Interim Report

Appendix C – Automatic Temperature Compensation

L&R - C29

June 14, 2009 

2. Several claims and conclusions contained in the report by Mr. Michael A. Flynn are 

challenged to address issues that are incorrect or not adequately substantiated. 

3. Does selling gasoline on the basis of average temperatures and not addressing product 

temperature in individual transactions a good business practice or good for consumers? 

4. Will service station owners achieve better inventory control by using temperature 

compensated dispensers? Most people recognize that inventory control will be improved 

by the use of temperature compensation. 

II. Oil Industry Justification for ATC at Wholesale 

The oil industry has justified the use and need for ATC at wholesale, because the shipment 

and delivery of fuel products occur at different times and locations in the country. In his 

testimony before the Subcommittee On Domestic Policy Of The Committee On Oversight 

And Government Reform Of The United States House Of Representatives on July 25, 2007, 

Mr. Hugh Cooley, Vice President and General Manager, National Wholesale and Joint 

Ventures, Shell Oil Company, stated the following. 

"Furthermore, the reasons that temperature adjustment makes sense for 

intercompany exchange transactions do not apply to retail sales: distance, 

time, quantity, and temperature. Gasoline marketers like Shell exchange 

large volumes of gasoline between terminals that are very far apart, often in 

markedly different climates, and at varying times of the year, all of which 

requires accounting for the impact of temperature variations. For example, 

Shell might deliver a specific number of gallons of gasoline to another 

company in Texas (where we have a refinery) in exchange for that company's 

near simultaneous delivery of gasoline in northern Minnesota (where we do 

not have a refinery). Similarly, in some instances a company may receive 

product in one season and repay the gallons at a later date when the weather 

is cooler or warmer. In contrast, retail gasoline sales occur at far smaller

quantities under highly competitive conditions in a specific place, at a 

specific time, under specific conditions, which include the ambient 

temperature and large signs visible from the street posting prices. Unlike the 

exchange context, consumers do not buy and sell gasoline over a huge 

geographic distance and climate difference - in fact, they cannot do so. 

Likewise, consumers do not receive product in one season and repay it in 

another — nor is that possible." 

In reality, the only justification for the use of temperature compensation at wholesale is to 

address temperature changes in the product. The locations and times of delivery are not 

important, except for the fact that the temperature of the product is different based upon 

location or the time of the transaction. The oil industry makes temperature corrections to 

the volumes, because the temperature of the petroleum products usually varies from the 

source to the destination of delivery. Temperature differences are large for consumers as 

well, so the same considerations apply at retail as they do at wholesale. Why is temperature 

compensation justified because millions of gallons of fuel are bought and sold between two 
L&R Committee 2009 Interim Report

Appendix C – Automatic Temperature Compensation

L&R - C30

2

June 14, 2009

large companies, but temperature compensation is not justified for millions of gallons of 

fuel sold to consumers? 

The fact is that the temperatures of retail gasoline and diesel fuel vary from station to station, 

from dispenser to dispenser within the same station, and may vary from transaction to transaction 

for the same dispenser. If the rationale of the oil industry to justify ATC at the wholesale level is 

essentially due to the fact that the product temperature changes, then the rationale and 

justification for the use of A TC applies equally well to retail deliveries of gasoline and diesel 

fuel at service stations. 

3
L&R Committee 2009 Interim Report

Appendix C – Automatic Temperature Compensation

L&R - C31

June 14, 2009

corrected at retail? The technology exists and is in widespread use in Canada. The California 

study showed that the cost of ATC equipment per gallon of fuel dispensed is relatively small. 

There is no technical obstacle to performing temperature compensation at retail. 

IV. Accuracy on the Average or Accuracy on Each Transaction 

Mr. Michael Flynn explained in his report how service station owners establish the unit price for 

gasoline and diesel fuel based upon the number of gross gallons received at the temperature of

the product as stated on the bill of lading. It is important to assess whether or not the stations 

actually sell the products at the temperatures for which the station owners compute the unit 

prices. Should product temperature variations be addressed in individual transactions or is the 

average of product temperatures over a year sufficient? 

Several weights and measures programs collected significant amounts of temperature data that 

allow the comparison of the temperature on the bill of lading (BOL) for deliveries to the 

temperatures of the products actually delivered from the retail fuel dispensers. If one looks only 

at the average difference between the BOL temperatures and the temperatures of the product 

delivered over a period of a year, the average differences are relatively small, often less than 

1.5 F. However, the temperature differences for individual transactions can cover the range 

from zero to over 20 °F. Below are histograms for the State of Missouri that show the variations 

in the product temperatures from the BOL for 15-gallon deliveries. The graph at the left is for 

deliveries from underground storage tanks and the graph to the right is from above ground 

storage tanks. Each value on the horizontal axis represents temperature differences that are 

±2.5 °F from the value on each axis (e.g., the column marked "5" is for temperatures from 2.5 to 

7.5 °F. 

4
L&R Committee 2009 Interim Report

Appendix C – Automatic Temperature Compensation

L&R - C32

June 14, 2009

change in volume of gasoline of about 0.33%. 

The "peak" of the distribution (30 instances or 31 %) is centered at 5 to 10°F, which includes all 

values from 7.5 OF ± 2.5 °F and represents a temperature effect of 0.5% on the volume of 

gasoline. Approximately, 14% (13 of 96) had a temperature effect greater than 15 °F, which is 

more than 1% of the volume of gasoline. 

Based on the information Mr. Flynn provided on how gas stations set the unit prices based on the 

gross gallons delivered to the station, that means the temperature effect on the unit price for 

gasoline causes the unit price to be in "error" by at least 0.5% from the target price in 63.5% of 

the transactions. Therefore, at a unit price of $2.00 per gallon, this means that the variation in 

product temperature within the same zip code area amounts to at least 15 to over 30 cents on a 

15-gallon delivery of $30. Thirteen of those 96 "deliveries" (13.5%) have temperature deviations 

of 15 or more degrees, which represents a temperature effect of 1 % of the volume (and the unit 

price) of 30 cents or more on a 15-gallon or $30 delivery. At $4 per gallon, the money values in 

all of the examples double. 

5
L&R Committee 2009 Interim Report

Appendix C – Automatic Temperature Compensation

L&R - C33

June 14, 2009

the net contents of packages. Again, why shouldn't the effect of temperature on the delivery of 

gasoline and fuel oil be addressed through ATC? 

V. The Average Approach to Temperature Variations 

Mr. Michael Flynn explained that the average of random purchases of gasoline and diesel fuel 

made throughout the year at different service stations (which also applies to random purchases 

throughout the year at the same service station) will result in the average temperature of 

purchases to be very close to the average temperatures for the stations. Is this good enough? 

Does this reflect good business practices? 

To illustrate this point, we can apply the random sampling concept to the purchase of hamburger 

from different supermarkets using an extreme example. Suppose that there are five supermarkets 

in an area and a consumer, using a random sampling plan, is going to pay for 1 lb of hamburger 

during each visit to these five supermarkets throughout the year. Suppose at Supermarket #1, the 

consumer pays for a package labeled as I lb of hamburger, but the consumer actually receives 

2 lb of hamburger. Suppose that at Supermarket #2, the consumer pays for l lb of hamburger, 

but receives 1.5 lb of hamburger. Continuing this example, at Supermarket #3, the consumer 

pays for l lb of hamburger and receives l lb of hamburger. At Supermarket #4, the consumer 

pays for 1 lb of hamburger, but receives 0.5 lb of hamburger. At Supermarket #5, the consumer 

pays for l lb of hamburger, but receives an empty package (0 lb) of hamburger. If the consumer 

makes 10,000 purchases of hamburger (and all of the packages are labeled with l Ib) at these 

supermarkets during the year using a random sampling plan, then the average net weight of the 

consumer's annual purchases will be l Ib. Are all of these transactions equitable? Are all five 

supermarkets following good business practices? The net content of packaged goods is based on 

both the average requirement and accuracy limits (maximum allowable variations) on individual 

packages. 

The temperature of the gasoline and diesel fuel at the gas pump cannot be controlled, but the 

effect of temperature on the volume of gasoline is often greater than the tolerance applied to 

retail fuel dispensers. Does the consumer deserve more comprehensive (temperature corrected) 

measurement in individual purchases of gasoline? This brings us back to the question, “Should 

the product temperature be addressed for purchases of gasoline and diesel fuel for individual 

transactions or only to the annual average?”

6
L&R Committee 2009 Interim Report

Appendix C – Automatic Temperature Compensation

L&R - C34

June 14, 2009 

7
L&R Committee 2009 Interim Report

Appendix C – Automatic Temperature Compensation

L&R - C35

June 14, 2009

In short, Mr. Flynn says that market competition automatically corrects for all factors that affect 

the price of gasoline and diesel fuel. Therefore, Mr. Flynn claims that whatever factors affect the 

fuel products that service stations sell, even the effect of temperature, have already been factored 

into the unit prices that stations have set in the past by virtue of the fact that the unit price is 

based upon the gross volume of fuel delivered to the station. However, the temperatures of the 

majority of fuel sold through the fuel dispensers are different from the temperature on which the 

station owner has set the price for selling the fuel. Some could argue that the multitude of 

pricing errors that occur, average out over the course of a year, so the cost of using ATC 

equipment is not justified. However, selling gasoline on a temperature compensated basis would 

provide a uniform and definite basis for service stations on which to set the unit price of gasoline 

and allow consumers to make better price comparisons, since temperature is no longer an 

unknown variable in the transaction. 

Regarding Mr. Flynn's approach that competition addresses all market factors that affect the 

price of gasoline at retail, another analogy can be provided from the net weight of packaged 

goods. If competition is the "cure all," then when the concept of competition is applied to the net 

weight of packaged commodities, then packagers could be allowed to sell packaged goods on the 

basis of gross weight, because competition would drive the unit prices down to the level where 

the tare weight is automatically considered in the (gross) weight and item price. Is this what 

weights and measures officials are willing to accept? 

VII. Inventory Control 

The variation in product inventory for service stations is affected to a significant extent by 

temperature changes in the gasoline and diesel fuel sold. The shrink of gasoline inventory is a 

problem that is pervasive in the industry. The study done for the for National Weights and 

Measures Laboratory (NWML) in the United Kingdom documented the extent of shrink and gain 

in inventory at service stations in their country. The amount of shrink varied depending upon the 

source of supply of the product. The report (which should not be interpreted as the position of 

the NWML) recommended that ATC at retail be allowed to improve inventory control. 

VIII. Net Versus Gross Volume Delivery Systems 

Mr. Flynn illustrates four relationships for how the price of fuel is expressed at retail and how the 

quantity of fuel is measured at retail (pages 9-14 of his report). Mr. Flynn states that Scenarios II 

and III are problematic, because the systems for pricing and measurement are different. Mr. 

Flynn states, “In particular, the total dollar cost to a motorist for a given quantum of fuel would 

be identical under either Scenario lor Scenario IV.”4 Scenarios I and IV have the pricing and 

measurement methods based on gross-to-gross gallons and net-to-net gallons, respectively. Mr. 

Flynn continues, “It is the core assumption of this paper that no dispute or problem arises as long 

4 An Economic Analysis of the California Energy Commission Staff's Fuel Delivery 

Temperature Study and the "Hot Fuel" Allegations, by Michael A. Flynn, page 10.

8
L&R Committee 2009 Interim Report

Appendix C – Automatic Temperature Compensation

L&R - C36

June 14, 2009

as retail fuel sales are conducted according to either Scenario I or Scenario IV.”5 However, 

Scenario I is valid only if the service stations are selling the products at the same temperatures at 

which they price the product. We know from the data collected by weights and measures 

programs that this is not the case, so the legitimacy of Scenario I is lost. Consequently, the only 

remaining and reliable approach to pricing and selling fuel at retail is Scenario IV, which is 

pricing and measuring retail fuel on the basis of net (temperature compensated) gallons. 

IX. More Accurate Field Tests of Dispensers 

When testing retail fuel dispensers without temperature compensation capability (gross volume), 

weights and measures officials and service company representatives do not correct for (1) the 

change in volume of the fuel due to any change in temperature of the product from the meter to 

the prover or (2) the capacity of the volume standard for the difference of the temperature of the 

standard at the time of test from its 60 OF reference temperature. It isn't possible to correct for a 

change in temperature from the meter to the standard when testing a temperature uncompensated 

dispenser, because there isn't a thermometer well adjacent to the meter to get the temperature of 

the product at the meter. The change in capacity of the volume standard is very much smaller 

than the temperature effect on the gasoline or diesel fuel during a test. 

If the proposed changes to Handbook 44 for temperature compensated fuel dispensers are 

adopted, then temperature compensated dispensers would indicate the temperature of the product 

passing through the meter during the tests of the meters, there would be a thermometer well at 

the meter and temperature corrections could be made to any temperature change from the meter 

to the standard and to the capacity of the standard. If these corrections would be made during a 

field test, then the accuracy of the field test would be increased. 

X. Conclusions 

Automatic temperature compensation provides a more comprehensive measurement at retail and 

therefore a more accurate and equitable measurement. Changes in the temperature of gasoline 

and diesel fuel have a greater impact on the volume of the fuel than does the Handbook 44 

tolerance allowed for retail fuel dispensers. Automatic temperature compensation would provide 

greater equity in retail fuel measurement. Hence, automatic temperature compensation should be 

used at the service station level for the retail sales of gasoline and diesel fuel. 

_______________________

5 An Economic Analysis of the California Energy Commission Staffs Fuel Delivery Temperature 

Study and the “Hot Fuel” Allegations, by Michael A. Flynn, page 10. 

9
L&R Committee 2009 Interim Report

Appendix C – Automatic Temperature Compensation

L&R - C37
L&R Committee 2009 Interim Report

Appendix C – Automatic Temperature Compensation

L&R - C38
L&R Committee 2009 Interim Report

Appendix C – Automatic Temperature Compensation

L&R - C39
L&R Committee 2009 Interim Report

Appendix C – Automatic Temperature Compensation

L&R - C40
L&R Committee 2009 Interim Report

Appendix C – Automatic Temperature Compensation

L&R - C41
L&R Committee 2009 Interim Report

Appendix C – Automatic Temperature Compensation

L&R - C42
L&R Committee 2009 Interim Report

Appendix C – Automatic Temperature Compensation

L&R - C43
L&R Committee 2009 Interim Report

Appendix C – Automatic Temperature Compensation

L&R - C44
L&R Committee 2009 Interim Report

Appendix C – Automatic Temperature Compensation

L&R - C45
L&R Committee 2009 Interim Report

Appendix C – Automatic Temperature Compensation

L&R - C46
L&R Committee 2009 Interim Report

Appendix C – Automatic Temperature Compensation

L&R - C47
L&R Committee 2009 Interim Report

Appendix C – Automatic Temperature Compensation

L&R - C48
L&R Committee 2009 Interim Report

Appendix C – Automatic Temperature Compensation

L&R - C49
L&R Committee 2009 Interim Report

Appendix C – Automatic Temperature Compensation

L&R - C50
L&R Committee 2009 Interim Report

Appendix C – Automatic Temperature Compensation

L&R - C51
L&R Committee 2009 Interim Report

Appendix C – Automatic Temperature Compensation

L&R - C52

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
L&R Committee 2009 Interim Report

Appendix C – Automatic Temperature Compensation

L&R - C53
L&R Committee 2009 Interim Report

Appendix C – Automatic Temperature Compensation

L&R - C54
L&R Committee 2009 Interim Report

Appendix C – Automatic Temperature Compensation

L&R - C55
L&R Committee 2009 Interim Report

Appendix C – Automatic Temperature Compensation

L&R - C56
L&R Committee 2009 Interim Report

Appendix C – Automatic Temperature Compensation

L&R - C57
L&R Committee 2009 Interim Report

Appendix C – Automatic Temperature Compensation

L&R - C58
L&R Committee 2009 Interim Report

Appendix C – Automatic Temperature Compensation

L&R - C59
L&R Committee 2009 Interim Report

Appendix C – Automatic Temperature Compensation

L&R - C60
L&R Committee 2009 Interim Report

Appendix C – Automatic Temperature Compensation

L&R - C61
L&R Committee 2009 Interim Report

Appendix C – Automatic Temperature Compensation

L&R - C62

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix D – Fuel Delivery Temperature Study

L&R - D1

Appendix D

An Economic Analysis of the California Energy Commission Staff’s 

Fuel Delivery Temperature Study

and

the “Hot Fuel” Allegations
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix D – Fuel Delivery Temperature Study

L&R - D2

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix D – Fuel Delivery Temperature Study

L&R - D3

An Economic Analysis of the

California Energy Commission Staff’s

Fuel Delivery Temperature Study

and

the “Hot Fuel” Allegations
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix D – Fuel Delivery Temperature Study

L&R - D4

An Economic Analysis of the

CEC Staff’s Fuel Delivery Temperature Study

and the “Hot Fuel” Allegations1

Michael A. Flynn2

Since competition and cost of doing business determine the price 

of [motor fuel] products in the marketplace, the pricing structure 

for retail sales reflects loss or gain of product [due to temperature 

variation].3

If you tell [retailers] that they now have to sell on a net basis, you 

cannot assume that the price per gallon is going to remain the 

same.

4

Introduction and summary

 The “hot fuel rip-off” is a myth, and to its credit, the Fuel Delivery Temperature Study: 

Staff Report (the “CEC Staff Report”) does not conclude otherwise. The “hot fuel” myth 

is based on the incorrect assumption that – in the absence of overt temperature 

compensation at the retail pump – retail prices are not adjusted for the effect of 

temperature on the volume of fuel sold to consumers. Retail competition and repeat 

 1 This study presents the results of the author’s independent economic analysis of proposals to 

require temperature compensation of retail sales of motor fuel in California, and more generally, of the 

national “hot fuel” controversy that gave rise to the California proposals. Preliminary versions of this 

study were presented informally to staff of the California Energy Commission on November 12, 2008, 

and to the Committee Workshop Regarding Staff Draft Report on Assembly Bill 868 Fuel Delivery 

Temperature Study on December 9, 2008. This study has been funded by a consortium of retail industry 

associations, including the National Association of Convenience Stores (NACS); NATSO, Inc.; the 

Petroleum Marketers Association of America (PMAA); and the Society of Independent Gasoline 

Marketers of America (SIGMA). However, the views expressed herein – as well as any errors – remain 

the responsibility of the author.

2 Principal, LECG, 2000 Powell Street, Suite 600, Emeryville, California 94608.

3 Presentation of Harold E. Harris, Engineering Coordinator, Exxon Company, “Temperature 

Correction of Petroleum Products at Retail”, Report of the 59th National Conference on Weights and 

Measures, July 11, 1974 at p. 195.

4 Remarks of Ross J. Andersen, Director of Weights and Measures, New York State Department of 

Agriculture and Markets, in the transcript of the CEC Staff Workshop re: AB 868 (Fuel Delivery 

Temperature Study), March 4, 2008, at p. 76.
L&R Committee 2009Final Report

Appendix D – Fuel Delivery Temperature Study

L&R - D5

purchasing already adequately protect consumers from any “hot fuel” overcharges. 

Mandating an overt system of temperature compensation in California – whether the ATC 

Retrofit5 or the imposition of a “new reference temperature”6 – would add to costs that 

would have to show up in the retail price of gasoline and diesel fuel, without any 

offsetting benefit whatever.

• The “hot fuel” adherents erroneously assume that retail sales of gasoline and 

diesel fuel are not adjusted for temperature-induced expansion if temperaturecompensation technology has not been explicitly incorporated into retail 

dispensers. They are wrong because they fail to realize that retail competition 

already leads dealers to take reductions in their target pump prices as fuel 

temperatures increase with warmer weather.

• The “hot fuel” allegations amount to nothing more than unsupported conjectures 

based on the physical properties of motor fuel. In any event, as a matter of 

economics, these alleged profits are fundamentally irreconcilable with both the 

“highly competitive business environment” within which retailers operate and the 

structure, conduct and profit performance of the U.S. retail motor fuel industry.

• These activists make no attempt to offer independent evidence that the “hot fuel 

rip-off” profits supposedly enjoyed by retailers in “warm” areas actually exist. To 

the contrary, the actual data on the profitability of U.S. retail stations completely 

refute the existence of the alleged “hot fuel profits” and effectively dispose of the 

“hot fuel” claims.

 Despite its many misapprehensions and economics errors, the CEC Staff Report should be 

commended for not endorsing the “hot fuel rip-off” allegations, for recognizing that 

California retailers operate in a “highly competitive business environment”, and generally 

for showing how difficult it is to make an economically credible cost-benefit case for the 

imposition of retail temperature compensation in California. But there are serious flaws 

in the CEC Staff Report, including:

• The claim that – at least in the short- and medium term – California consumers 

would enjoy “more fuel” worth $438 million annually following the proposed 

 5 In this paper, ATC Retrofit refers to the option analyzed by the CEC staff to fit all existing 

California retail fuel dispensers with automatic temperature compensation technology. See CEC Staff 

Report at Chapter 4, pp. 59-81.

6 Similarly, the “new reference temperature option” refers to the alternative to the ATC Retrofit

under which all retail pumps would be adjusted to dispense “gallons” that measured approximately 

232.7 cubic inches (the volume occupied by a net gallon at 71.1 oF), rather than standard U.S. gallons 

measuring 231.0 cubic inches. See CEC Staff Report at Chapter 5, pp. 86-88.
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix D – Fuel Delivery Temperature Study

L&R - D6

ATC Retrofit. This claim is wrong because the CEC Staff Report makes the same 

economics error that pervades the “hot fuel” allegations, namely that it would be 

possible to adjust the size of the quantity unit used to measure retail fuel 

transactions without causing any change in the retail price. In truth, California 

motorists would receive exactly the same amount of fuel at precisely the same 

total outlays after the ATC Retrofit as before.

• The claim that $438 million a year in consumer “savings” could be extracted from 

retailers’ revenue, even though these “savings” likely are greater than dealers’ 

total pre-tax profits. In truth, retailers would need to increase their retail prices 

immediately in proportion to the increased size of each “gallon” dispensed 

following the ATC Retrofit.

• The claim that only in “the long term” would California retailers succeed in 

“recapturing” the revenue lost as a result of the ATC Retrofit, and that in the 

interim, California motorists would benefit from “more fuel” at no increase in 

retail prices. In truth, this is economic nonsense; dealers would need to increase 

retail prices immediately or go out of business.

• The claim that the cost to dealers of the ATC Retrofit – including both the 

increased direct wholesale cost per unit of fuel as well as the indirect equipment 

and labor costs associated with the ATC Retrofit itself – could be absorbed out of 

retailers’ profits or shifted to purchasers of the non-fuel items sold by convenience 

stores. In truth, this also is economic nonsense; the only way retailers could 

“absorb” such costs would be to increase their pump prices proportionately.

• The claim that California motorists would enjoy “increased price transparency 

benefits” worth $3.2 million a year as the result of the ATC Retrofit. The CEC 

staff’s attempt to calculate these supposed benefits is based on an error-filled 

misapplication of the economic concept of deadweight loss. In truth, these 

“benefits” would be zero for California motorists as a group.

• The suggestion that Hawaii illustrates a successful early response by a state to the 

“hot fuel” issue. In truth, the switch to the larger “Hawaiian gallon” accomplished 

nothing; retail prices in Hawaii would have increased by the same percentage.

• The claim that the establishment of a “new reference temperature” in California 

also would save motorists $438 million a year, at least until retailers “recaptured” 

that revenue in “the long term”. In truth, the choice of a particular “reference 

temperature” is completely arbitrary. More importantly, there is no need to adopt 

any “reference temperature” in connection with retail fuel sales. Consumers 

would pay identically the same dollar amount for identically the same quantity of 

motor fuel, no matter what “reference temperature” – or no reference temperature 

at all – was mandated in California.
L&R Committee 2009Final Report

Appendix D – Fuel Delivery Temperature Study

L&R - D7

 But the most glaring problem with both the “hot fuel rip-off” allegations and the CEC 

Staff Report is their common failure to recognize that retail competition already fully 

protects consumers from any “hot fuel” overcharges and that, as a result, the 

“overcharges” and “hidden dealer profits” that supposedly result from the “hot fuel ripoff” never existed in the first place.

• Competition in retail fuel markets already adjusts pump prices to compensate for 

the seasonal effect of temperature on the volume of gasoline and diesel fuel.

• Repeated purchases by consumers are sufficient to insulate them from any crosssectional differences among dealers’ fuel temperatures in local competitive areas.

• Independent data on the profitability of retail stations – and in particular, on their 

profitability by U.S. region – show conclusively that there simply are no “hot 

fuel” profits.

 In summary, the supposed benefits claimed by temperature-compensation proponents are 

illusory, and spring from the same faulty logic that has given rise to the “hot fuel” 

allegations themselves. The only thing that the proposed ATC Retrofit would accomplish 

would be higher retail prices for gasoline and diesel fuel, owing to the costs of that 

retrofit itself. Emphatically, consumers would not enjoy “more fuel” as a result. Because 

competition already adjusts retail prices to compensate for seasonal temperature variation, 

there simply is no need to require an expensive, elaborate and likely confusing and 

disruptive system of automatic temperature compensation at the retail level in California.

Alternative systems for measuring retail motor fuel transactions

Quantity and price units

Every retail motor fuel transaction has two components: the quantity of fuel being 

purchased (measured in some standardized unit of physical volume) and the price per unit of that 

fuel (expressed in monetary units – such as U.S. dollars – for each quantity unit).

In retail transactions, there generally are alternative systems of weights and measures 

available for measuring the quantities and expressing the prices involved. For goods sold by 

weight, for example, transactions can be denominated in tons (both long and short), 

hundredweights, pounds or ounces, as well as in metric measures such as metric tons, kilograms, 

and grams. For goods sold by liquid volume, there are gallons, quarts, pints, fluid ounces, cubic 

inches, British imperial gallons and quarts, and so forth, along with metric alternatives such as 

cubic centimeters, liters, kiloliters and cubic meters.

Conversion between alternative quantity units

Any volume expressed in terms of one unit of measure can be easily and exactly 

converted into the equivalent volume measured in terms of any other unit of volume measure. 
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix D – Fuel Delivery Temperature Study

L&R - D8

For example, it is simple to convert quantities measured in U.S. pounds into the equivalent 

number of kilograms and – relevant to the present matter – quantities measured in U.S. gallons 

can be easily and accurately restated in terms of the equivalent number of liters.

At the same time, if one knows the competitively-determined price in dollars per unit for 

one volume unit of measure, simple arithmetic yields the competitive price if the good or 

commodity is instead measured in some other unit of volume. As one example (shown in 

Figure 1), if one knows the current retail price for a gallon of gasoline, it is straightforward to 

determine the equivalent price for a liter purchased at retail.

Figure 1.

Changing from gallons to liters affects only the price per unit, not total outlays.

Change from U.S. Gallons to Liters

Unit of 

measurement 

for quantity sold

Size of 

quantity 

unit (cubic 

inches)

Total 

quantity 

units 

available

for sale

Dealer's 

target total 

sales 

revenue

Resulting 

dealer target 

street price 

per unit

Total cost of 

100 US gallons 

(23,100 cubic 

inches)

Before U.S. Gallon 231.00 8,000.0

$24,000

$3.000 $300.00

After Liter 61.02 30,285.2 $0.792 $300.00

Change -73.58% -73.58% 0.00%

Since examples of this sort will be used repeatedly in this paper, it is useful to spend 

some time on how Figure 1 was constructed. It starts with the assumption that the retailer has 

8,000 U.S. gallons available for sale, for which he hopes to realize $24,000 in sales revenue.7 

This requires that he achieve a target street price of $3.000 per gallon. Now assume that his sales 

must henceforward be measured in liters (at 61.02 cubic inches per liter) instead of U.S. gallons 

(defined as 231.00 cubic inches). Simple arithmetic shows that the retailer would derive 

30,285.2 liters from the 8,000 U.S. gallons. But at what retail price would he seek to sell each 

liter? The answer – $0.792 – is gotten by dividing the $24,000 in target sales revenue by the 

30,285.2 liters available for sale.

There are several features of this example that should be noted. First, it is the retailer’s 

motivation to keep constant his total sales revenue – combined with the fact that he operates in a 

 7 At this point, it does not matter whether the 8,000 gallons have been measured in gross units 

(i.e., not compensated for temperature variation) or net (i.e., temperature-compensated) units. Similarly, 

it does not matter at this point how the dealer arrived at his target revenue of $24,000. In later variations 

on this basic illustration, it will be specifically assumed that the retailer’s wholesale cost per gallon is 

$2.875 (or $23,000 for 8,000 gallons) and that if his target margin per gallon is 12.5 cents, his target 

retail price per gallon should be $3.000. Selling 8,000 at $3.000 per gallon would generate $24,000 in 

sales revenue.
L&R Committee 2009Final Report

Appendix D – Fuel Delivery Temperature Study

L&R - D9

competitive business environment – that drives the result. He cannot hope to repeatedly achieve 

more than $24,000 in sales revenue because competition from his rivals would make that 

impossible. At the same time, he cannot repeatedly settle for less than $24,000 in sales revenue 

because this would mean that his return over time would be insufficient to sustain him in 

business.

Second, as this example shows clearly, it is easy to translate between any two units of 

measure when each can separately be expressed in terms of a specific number of cubic inches per 

unit.

Third, and most importantly, a change in the unit of measure by a particular percentage 

would result in a change in the retail price per unit by the same percentage. In this example –

going from U.S. gallons to liters – the volume of the unit of measurement declines by 

73.58 percent (from 231 to 61.02 cubic inches). Therefore, it should not be surprising that the 

dealer’s target street price per unit also falls by 73.58 percent (from $3.000 to $0.792).

Fourth, and last, this example makes clear that the change from U.S. gallons to liters did 

not give the consumer any “more” or “less” fuel than before. A retail customer who – prior to 

the change from gallons to liters – purchased 100 gallons (23,100 cubic inches) in a month for 

$300.00 now receives over 378 “units” for his $300.00. But it should be obvious that this does 

not mean that he got “more” fuel following the change from U.S. gallons to liters. If the retailer 

switched from liters back to U.S. gallons so that the consumer then received his 23,100 cubic 

inches in larger units of measure (namely, gallons), this also would not mean that he was getting 

“more” fuel after the switch.8

These four principles are again illustrated in Figure 2, in which the assumed change is 

from U.S. gallons (231 cubic inches) to imperial gallons (277.40 cubic inches).

Figure 2.

Changing to imperial gallons affects only the price per unit, not total outlays.

Change from U.S. Gallons to Imperial Gallons

Unit of 

measurement

for quantity sold

Size of 

quantity 

unit

(cubic

inches)

Total 

quantity 

units 

available 

for sale

Dealer's 

target total 

sales 

revenue

Resulting 

dealer 

target 

street 

price per 

unit

Total cost 

of 100 US 

gallons 

(23,100 

cubic 

inches)

Before U.S. Gallon 231.00 8,000.0

$24,000

$3.000 $300.00

After Imperial Gallon 277.40 6,661.8 $3.603 $300.00

Change 20.09% 20.09% 0.00%

 8 However, this seems to be the “logic” implicit in the CEC Staff Report.
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix D – Fuel Delivery Temperature Study

L&R - D10

Quantity units defined by temperature

Next, I extend these examples to deal with changes in fuel volume induced by changes in 

temperature. As is well-known to anyone familiar with the “hot fuel” allegations, the variation in 

the volumes occupied by gasoline and diesel fuel due to temperature variation has motivated the 

so-called net gallon, which (in the case of gasoline) occupies 231 cubic inches only at 60 F. At 

temperatures in excess of 60 F., a net gallon occupies more than 231 cubic inches, while at 

temperatures below 60 F., a net gallon is smaller than 231 cubic inches. So, in contrast to a gross

gallon – which always is 231 cubic inches, regardless of the fuel’s temperature – the volume (in 

cubic inches) of a net gallon of fuel varies directly with temperature.

But the key insight is that any “gallon” defined in terms of a reference temperature – such 

as the net gallon defined at 60 F. – corresponds to a known number of cubic inches at any other 

temperature, owing to the linear relationship between the temperature of a net gallon of motor 

fuel and its volume in cubic inches. This is illustrated in Figure 3, which shows the number of 

cubic inches occupied by a net gallon at temperatures from 30 to 100 F. Because of this simple 

linear relationship, at any particular temperature there is one – and only one – “size” of a net 

gallon of gasoline or diesel fuel, and knowing the temperature of the fuel is the same as knowing 

the size in cubic inches of a net gallon of that fuel.

Figure 3.

At each temperature, the volume of a net gallon is a known constant.
L&R Committee 2009Final Report

Appendix D – Fuel Delivery Temperature Study

L&R - D11

This means that fuel units defined in terms of temperature are no different than any other 

fuel units that are defined in terms of cubic inches, notwithstanding the CEC Staff Report’s

mistaken assertion to the contrary.9 The fact that the number of cubic inches varies as the 

temperature varies is a red herring. The important point is that at any particular temperature the 

number of cubic inches is a known constant, and retail competition can and will lead to the 

appropriate adjustment in the price per unit.

Next, consider a change in the quantity unit of measure from U.S. gallons to a 

hypothetical “75 F. reference temperature gallon”10 as shown in Figure 4, which is similar to 

Figures 1 and 2 already discussed. It should not be surprising that the retailer’s resulting 

target street price of $3.031 per “gallon” is 1.035 percent greater than the original $3.000 per 

gallon, because – at 233.39 cubic inches – the volume of this 75 F reference temperature gallon is 

1.035 percent greater than a 231-cubic inch U.S. gallon.

Figure 4.

Changing to "75° gallons" affects only the price per unit, not total outlays.

Change from U.S. Gallons to "75° F. Reference Standard Gallons"

Unit of 

measurement 

for quantity 

sold

Size of 

quantity 

unit

(cubic 

inches)

Total 

quantity 

units 

available 

for sale

Dealer's 

target total 

sales 

revenue

Resulting 

dealer 

target street

price per 

unit

Total cost 

of 100 US 

gallons 

(23,100 

cubic 

inches)

Before U.S. Gallon 231.00 8,000.0

$24,000

$3.000 $300.00

After 75° Gallon 233.39 7,918.0 $3.031 $300.00

Change 1.04% 1.04% 0.00%

Taken together, Figures 1, 2 and 4 illustrate an important principle: If retail sales of 

gasoline and diesel take place in a competitive market, that retail competition insures that any 

change in the size of the unit used to measure quantity would necessarily be accompanied by an 

equal change in the competitive price per “unit”. A consumer would never receive “more” or 

“less” fuel, and she would not pay “more” or “less” for that fuel. Her total dollar outlays for a 

specific quantum of fuel – such as 23,100 cubic inches or 100 U.S. gallons – would remain the 

 9 The CEC Staff Report incorrectly claims at p. 6 that “A change from gross to net gallons at retail 

stations in California would not be similar to a conversion to the metric system...because the cubic 

inches dispensed to retail motorists would vary according to temperature. The number of cubic inches 

dispensed to retail motorists if stations converted to liters would be fixed under varying temperature 

(emphasis in original).”

10 Defined as the volume – 233.39 cubic inches – occupied by a net gallon at 75 F.
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix D – Fuel Delivery Temperature Study

L&R - D12

same, regardless of which system of quantity units is used and regardless of the differences in the 

size of the particular units of measure.

“Net” and “gross” systems of measurement

Because volumes of motor fuel can be measured using any of several quantity units –

such as U.S. gallons, liters, net gallons, “reference temperature gallons”, and the like – it is 

necessary to insure that the physical unit used to measure quantity and the retail price per unit are 

based on the same unit of measurement.

The “hot fuel” controversy arises from the fact that quantities of fuel sold in the U.S. can 

be measured using either of two alternative systems, gross gallons or net gallons.11 As a result, 

the price of fuel can be denominated in dollars per gross gallon or in dollars per net gallon.

This is summarized in Figure 5, a simple diagram that illustrates four possible scenarios 

for measuring retail sales of motor fuel generated by forming the possible combinations of the 

two systems for measuring quantities with the two systems for measuring price per unit:

Figure 5.

Four possible scenarios for measuring retail fuel transactions.

How the QUANTITY of fuel 

is measured at retail

In GROSS 

gallons (no 

adjustment for 

temperature)

In NET gallons 

(temperaturecompensated)

How the 

PRICE of fuel 

is expressed 

at retail

In $ per GROSS 

gallon (no adjustment 

for temperature) I II

In $ per NET gallon 

(temperaturecompensated) III IV

 11 A net gallon of fuel is defined as the quantity of fuel (measured by weight) that would occupy 

231.0 cubic inches at 60 F. A gross gallon – alternatively, a U.S. gallon – of fuel occupies 231.0 cubic 

inches regardless of temperature.
L&R Committee 2009Final Report

Appendix D – Fuel Delivery Temperature Study

L&R - D13

Scenario I Retail sales are measured in gross gallons and priced in dollars per gross 

gallon.

Scenario II Retail sales are measured in net gallons but sold at the price per “unit” that 

would prevail if sales were measured in gross gallons.

Scenario III Retail gasoline sales are measured in gross gallons but priced at the same 

dollars per unit that would prevail if retail quantities were measured in net

gallons.

Scenario IV Retail gasoline sales are measured in net gallons and priced in dollars per 

net gallon.

Consumers’ interests are protected as long as retail fuel sales take place in a highly 

competitive market and the same system – it does not matter whether gross or net – is used when 

measuring both quantities and prices. In terms of Figure 5, if the assumptions of

Scenario I are met (in other words, in the absence of temperature compensation at the retail 

pump, the price is determined in a competitive retail market and denominated in terms of dollars 

per gross gallon), then consumers’ interests are as fully protected as they would be under 

Scenario IV, but without the costs generated by the implementation of automatic temperature 

compensation. It is the core assumption of this paper that no dispute or problem arises as long as 

retail fuel sales are conducted according to either Scenario I or Scenario IV. This is because, 

under either of these two scenarios, there is no conflict between the system for measuring 

quantities and the system for measuring prices.

But Scenarios II and III would be problematic, because each is predicated on a 

fundamental inconsistency between the system for measuring quantity and the system for 

measuring prices.12

 In any transaction, quantity and price must be measured in terms of units 

that are logically consistent with each other, or the result would be nonsensical. For example, no 

one would seriously maintain that the total amount of a retail gasoline sale should be calculated 

by measuring the quantity in liters and then multiplying that quantity by the price per unit that 

would emerge if quantities were measured in gallons. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect that 

the retail prices of gasoline and diesel fuel should be expressed in terms of the same physical unit 

that is used to measure the quantity of motor fuel being sold at retail.

 12 Whether retail transactions are based on the same system of measure as is used in connection 

with so-called “upstream” transactions is irrelevant. But there would be a problem if a mixed system 

(i.e., a combination of gross and net measures) were used at retail. Specifically, if net quantity units were 

required solely on the ground that net units also were employed in “upstream” transactions, while retail 

prices somehow continued to be expressed in dollars per gross gallon, the result would be economic 

chaos.
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix D – Fuel Delivery Temperature Study

L&R - D14

Net vs. gross systems in the “hot fuel” allegations

The only way to make logical sense of the claims of “hot fuel” activists is that they must 

think that fuel sales in California – and in the U.S. generally – currently take place according to 

Scenario III, in which it is assumed that retail prices are stated in dollars per net gallon without 

there being any adjustment for temperature-induced expansion when measuring quantities.

13

 13 For what else could these activists mean when they insist that consumers “aren’t getting what 

they paid for”? If this is not their assumption, then retail sales would be taking place under Scenario I

currently, effectively mooting the entire “hot fuel” controversy.

 

This is illustrated by Figure 6. Only by making such an assumption could these activists expect 

(as they do) that current retail prices per “unit” would remain the same even if the quantity unit 

was changed from gross gallons to net gallons. While temperature-compensation activists might 

believe they are pushing for Scenario IV, they would be wrong if retail prices actually are 

denominated in dollars per gross gallon. Put differently, this means that – as depicted in 

Figure 7 – these “hot fuel” activists really are demanding that retail sales be governed by 

Scenario II, which improperly mixes net quantity units with prices stated in terms of gross units.
L&R Committee 2009Final Report

Appendix D – Fuel Delivery Temperature Study

L&R - D15

Figure 6.

The status quo as seen by the “hot fuel” activists.

How the QUANTITY of fuel

is measured at retail

In GROSS 

gallons (no 

adjustment for 

temperature)

In NET gallons 

(temperaturecompensated)

How the 

PRICE of 

fuel is 

expressed 

at retail

In $ per GROSS 

gallon (no 

adjustment for 

temperature)

I II

In $ per NET 

gallon 

(temperaturecompensated)

III IV

Figure 7.

The scenario actually demanded by the “hot fuel” activists.

How the QUANTITY of fuel

is measured at retail

In GROSS 

gallons (no 

adjustment for 

temperature)

In NET gallons 

(temperaturecompensated)

How the 

PRICE of fuel 

is expressed 

at retail

In $ per GROSS 

gallon (no 

adjustment for 

temperature)

I II

In $ per NET gallon 

(temperaturecompensated) III IV

Net vs. gross systems in the CEC Staff Report

The CEC Staff Report appears to be predicated on different assumptions than those made 

by the “hot fuel” activists (Figures 6 and 7). Instead of assuming that retail fuel sales 

currently are measured in gross gallons but priced in terms of net gallons (Figure 6), the CEC 

Staff Report offers no explicit assumption at all. But the CEC staff appears to accept that 
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix D – Fuel Delivery Temperature Study

L&R - D16

retailers’ sales and prices are both measured in gross gallons (i.e., Scenario I as shown in 

Figure 5).14

But by claiming that – at least in the short – and medium term following the ATC Retrofit

– retailers could be expected to dispense temperature-compensated net gallons at their unchanged 

former prices for U.S. (or gross) gallons, the CEC Staff Report assumes that retail sales would 

follow Scenario II in Figure 8 during that interval.

Figure 8.

The CEC Staff Report’s “short- and medium-term” scenario.

How the QUANTITY of fuel

is measured at retail

In GROSS 

gallons (no 

adjustment for 

temperature)

In NET gallons 

(temperaturecompensated)

How the 

PRICE of fuel 

is expressed 

at retail

In $ per GROSS 

gallon (no 

adjustment for 

temperature)

I II

In $ per NET gallon 

(temperaturecompensated) III IV

Only in the long term does the CEC Staff Report concede that retailers would manage to 

recapture their previous revenue levels by achieving pump prices that are consistent with the 

temperature-compensated, net gallons they would be dispensing. This is illustrated by 

Scenario IV in Figure 9.

 14 It should be pointed out, however, that the CEC Staff Report makes a contradictory assumption in 

connection with its attempt to analyze the “information asymmetry” supposedly inherent in current retail 

fuel sales in California. There the CEC staff explicitly assumes that “Retailers price fuel on a net gallon 

basis and then sell the fuel on a gross gallon basis.” See CEC Staff Report at Appendix R, p. 149. In its 

body, the CEC Staff Report cannot be making this assumption (that retail prices currently are priced on a 

net gallon basis). If it did, the anticipated revenue “recapture” by retailers would lift pump prices to 

supracompetitive levels, something that is economically incompatible with the “highly competitive 

business environment” within which retailers are deemed to operate.
L&R Committee 2009Final Report

Appendix D – Fuel Delivery Temperature Study

L&R - D17

Figure 9.

The CEC Staff Report’s “long-term” scenario.

How the QUANTITY of fuel 

is measured at retail

In GROSS 

gallons (no 

adjustment for 

temperature)

In NET gallons 

(temperaturecompensated)

How the 

PRICE of fuel 

is expressed 

at retail

In $ per GROSS 

gallon (no adjustment 

for temperature) I II

In $ per NET gallon 

(temperaturecompensated) III IV

“Net” and “gross” systems are equally valid alternatives

The net and gross systems of measurement provide alternative depictions of the same 

objective facts, as is illustrated by Figure 10. So long as each is used independently and 

consistently, either system of measurement can be used in retail operations and transactions, 

because they are two different ways of measuring the same objective reality. As should be clear 

from the examples shown in Figures 1, 2 and 4, no objective aspect of that reality changes 

depending on which measurement system is employed. In particular, the total dollar cost to a 

motorist for a given quantum of fuel would be identical under either Scenario I or Scenario IV. 

A problem would arise only if one fails to use a particular system consistently by, for example, 

mixing quantity units from one system with price units from the other.

Figure 10.

Net and gross systems are equally valid alternatives for the same objective 

reality.

In "Cold" Climate (gasoline at 45° F.)

Total 

"gallons" 

delivered

Size of 

"gallon" 

(in 

cubic 

inches)

Dealer's 

cost of 

delivered 

fuel

Dealer's 

Implicit 

cost per 

"gallon"

Dealer's 

target 

gross 

margin

Dealer's 

target 

sales 

revenue

Dealer's 

target 

street 

price 

per 

"gallon"

Measured in NET Gallons* 8,082.8 228.61

$23,000

$2.846

$1,000 $24,000

$2.969

Measured in GROSS Gallons 8,000.0 231.00 $2.875 $3.000
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix D – Fuel Delivery Temperature Study

L&R - D18

In "Hot" Climate (gasoline at 75° F.)

Total 

"gallons" 

delivered

Size of 

"gallon" 

(in 

cubic 

inches)

Dealer's 

cost of 

delivered 

fuel

Dealer's 

Implicit 

cost per 

"gallon"

Dealer's 

target 

gross 

margin

Dealer's 

target 

sales 

revenue

Dealer's 

target 

street 

price 

per 

"gallon"

Measured in NET Gallons* 7,917.2 233.39

$23,000

$2.905

$1,000 $24,000

$3.031

Measured in GROSS Gallons 8,000.0 231.00 $2.875 $3.000

* "Net Gallons" are used in this and subsequent exhibits for illustrative purposes. In actuality, retailers receive only 

"Gross Gallons" but may be billed for "Net Gallon” equivalents.

Figure 10 illustrates how a dealer’s receipt and sale of the same physical quantity of 

gasoline can be accounted for using either of two systems: Scenario I (with prices and physical 

units expressed in gross gallons) or Scenario IV (with prices and physical units denominated in 

net gallons). The essential equivalence of these two alternative systems is the result of the 

competitive discipline that leads a retailer to seek to generate the same $24,000 in total revenue 

from an assumed wholesale delivery of gasoline, no matter whether he conducts his trade in gross 

units or in net units.

Figure 10 also illustrates the impact of temperature variation on these two alternative 

systems for measuring retail transactions in motor fuel. Obviously, temperature differences have 

no impact when both prices and quantities are measured using net units. But gross measurement 

systems are equally capable of adjusting for temperature variation, even though this can result in 

different numbers of gross gallons available for sale from the same physical quantum of gasoline 

as its temperature changes. Retail competition compensates for the varying number of available 

gallons by inducing the dealer to set target street prices that vary by the exact amount needed to 

insure that selling that fuel will generate the target $24,000, regardless of the temperature of the 

fuel at the time.

That a consumer would fare equally well under consistently-applied gross and net 

systems of measurement is demonstrated in Figure 11. In a “cold” climate, the dealer’s target 

sales revenue of $24,000 would lead him to seek a retail price of $2.969 per net gallon or $3.000 

per gross gallon. But the key point of Figure 11 is that it would cost a consumer $297 for 

100 net gallons of gasoline, no matter whether the retailer’s pump prices were stated in terms of 

net gallons or gross gallons.15

 15 This paper makes occasional reference to a particular “quantum of fuel”, meaning a fixed number 

of net gallons. The fact that the number of net gallons is invariant with respect to temperature is used 

only for convenience of exposition, and such usage should not be taken to mean that measuring retail 

transactions using net units is inherently superior to using gross gallons.

 Similarly, in a “warm” climate, the motorist’s cost for 100 net 
L&R Committee 2009Final Report

Appendix D – Fuel Delivery Temperature Study

L&R - D19

gallons of gasoline would be identically the same at $303, no matter whether the retailer 

dispensed fuel in net gallons or gross gallons.

Figure 11.

A consumer’s total outlay is identical using either the net or gross system.

In "Cold" Climate (gasoline at 45° F.)

Total 

"gallons" 

available 

for resale

Size of 

"gallon" (in 

cubic 

inches)

Dealer's 

Implicit 

cost per 

"gallon"

Dealer's 

target 

street price 

per 

"gallon"

Total retail 

cost of 100 

net 

gallons

Measured in NET Gallons* 8,082.8 228.61 $2.846 $2.969 $297

Measured in GROSS Gallons 8,000.0 231.00 $2.875 $3.000 $297

In "Hot" Climate (gasoline at 75° F.)

Total 

"gallons" 

available 

for resale

Size of 

"gallon" (in 

cubic 

inches)

Dealer's 

Implicit 

cost per 

"gallon"

Dealer's 

target 

street price 

per 

"gallon"

Total retail 

cost of 100 

net 

gallons

Measured in NET Gallons* 7,917.2 233.39 $2.905 $3.031 $303

Measured in GROSS Gallons 8,000.0 231.00 $2.875 $3.000 $303

The careful reader will notice that – for the purposes of Figures 10 and 11 – it was 

assumed that the dealer’s wholesale price was $2.875 per gross gallon and that he sought to 

achieve a retail margin of $0.125 per gross gallon. However, nothing of substance would change 

if it were assumed instead that the dealer paid a wholesale price of $2.875 per net gallon and 

sought a margin of $0.125 per net gallon, a fact demonstrated in Figures 12 and 13. In this 

alternative, a consumer would pay the identical amount – $300 – for the fixed quantum of 

gasoline (i.e., 100 net gallons), regardless whether the retail transaction itself were denominated 

in terms of gross gallons or net gallons.
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix D – Fuel Delivery Temperature Study

L&R - D20

Figure 12.

Nothing changes if the dealer’s targets are denominated in net gallons.

In "Cold" Climate (gasoline at 45° F.)

Total 

"gallons" 

delivered

Size of 

"gallon" 

(in cubic 

inches)

Dealer's 

cost of 

delivered 

fuel

Dealer's 

Implicit 

cost per 

"gallon"

Dealer's

target 

gross 

margin

Dealer's 

target 

sales 

revenue

Dealer's 

target 

street 

price per 

"gallon"

Measured in 

NET Gallons* 8,082.8 228.61

$23,238

$2.875

$1,010 $24,248

$3.000

Measured in 

GROSS Gallons 8,000.0 231.00 $2.905 $3.031

In "Hot" Climate (gasoline at 75° F.)

Total 

"gallons" 

delivered

Size of 

"gallon" 

(in cubic 

inches)

Dealer's 

cost of 

delivered 

fuel

Dealer's 

Implicit 

cost per 

"gallon"

Dealer's 

target 

gross 

margin

Dealer's 

target 

sales 

revenue

Dealer's 

target 

street 

price per 

"gallon"

Measured in 

NET Gallons* 7,917.2 233.39

$22,762

$2.875

$990 $23,752

$3.000

Measured in 

GROSS Gallons 8,000.0 231.00 $2.845 $2.969
L&R Committee 2009Final Report

Appendix D – Fuel Delivery Temperature Study

L&R - D21

Figure 13.

A consumer’s total outlays are the same under net and gross systems.

In "Cold" Climate (gasoline at 45° F.)

Total 

"gallons" 

available 

for resale

Size of 

"gallon" (in 

cubic 

inches)

Dealer's 

Implicit 

cost per 

"gallon"

Dealer's target 

street price per 

"gallon"

Total retail cost of 

100 net gallons

Measured in NET Gallons* 8,082.8 228.61 $2.875 $3.000 $300

Measured in GROSS

Gallons 8,000.0 231.00 $2.905 $3.031 $300

In "Hot" Climate (gasoline at 75° F.)

Total 

"gallons" 

available 

for resale

Size of 

"gallon" (in 

cubic 

inches)

Dealer's 

Implicit 

cost per 

"gallon"

Dealer's target 

street price per 

"gallon"

Total retail cost of 

100 net gallons

Measured in NET Gallons* 7,917.2 233.39 $2.875 $3.000 $300

Measured in GROSS

Gallons 8,000.0 231.00 $2.845 $2.969 $300

The inconsistency of the “hot fuel” activists

The “hot fuel” activists have what can only be described as a schizophrenic approach to 

the measurement issues presented by variations in fuel temperature, a fact illustrated in 

Figure 14. These activists prefer to overlook entirely the retail fuel transactions that occur in 

“cold” climates. This no doubt is due to the fact that – were they to apply the same “logic” they 

employ when analyzing transactions in “hot” climates – they would have to conclude that it is the 

consumers who are “ripping off” the retailers in these colder states.

Figure 14.

“Hot fuel” activists prefer to ignore retail transactions in “cold” climates.

In "Cold" Climate (gasoline at 45° F.)

Ignore Transactions

in "Cold" Climates

Dealer's 

cost of 

delivered 

fuel

Dealer's 

Implicit 

cost per 

"gallon"

Dealer's 

target 

gross 

margin

Dealer's 

target 

sales 

revenue

Dealer's 

target 

street price 

per 

"gallon"

Measured in NET

Gallons* 8,082.8 228.61

$23,238

$2.875

$1,010 $24,248

$3.000

Measured in GROSS

Gallons 8,000.0 231.00 $2.905 $3.031
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix D – Fuel Delivery Temperature Study

L&R - D22

In "Hot" Climate (gasoline at 75° F.)

Total 

"gallons" 

delivered

Size of 

"gallon" 

(in cubic 

inches)

Dealer's 

cost of 

delivered 

fuel

Dealer's 

Implicit 

cost per 

"gallon"

Dealer's 

target 

gross 

margin

Dealer's 

target 

sales 

revenue

Dealer's 

target 

street price 

per 

"gallon"

Measured in NET

Gallons* 7,917.2 233.39

$22,762

$2.875

$990 $23,752

$3.000

Measured in GROSS

Gallons 8,000.0 231.00 $2.845 $2.969

But there is another telling inconsistency even within their analysis of retail fuel 

transactions in “hot” climates. As was illustrated in Figure 7, temperature-compensation 

activists effectively are demanding that retail sales of “hot” fuel be measured using a mixed

system of measurement units – namely Scenario II – with quantities measured in net gallons but 

sold at unadjusted gross prices per unit.

Figure 15 shows the consequences that would result if a retailer actually attempted to 

conduct his business in the way demanded by the “hot fuel” activists (assuming a fuel 

temperature of 75 F.). Because these activists would expect the dealer to dispense larger 

(i.e., 233.39-cubic-inch) net gallons at this temperature – but at the same $3.000 target retail 

price the dealer previously sought on each gross gallon sold – this would result in an immediate 

and significant reduction in the dealer’s sales revenue and profitability. In the illustration in 

Figure 15, the dealer’s gross margin would decline by nearly 25 percent. Since the dealer’s 

other costs of doing business also must be covered by that gross margin and since his net profit is 

only a small fraction of the total gross margin, such a 25-percent reduction likely would erase his 

entire profit, and over time, would jeopardize the very existence of the retailer’s business.

Figure 15.

The effect of the “hot fuel” activists’ demands on a retailer’s gross margin.

In "Hot" Climate (gasoline at 75 °F.)

Size of 

"gallon"

(in 

cubic 

inches)

Total 

"gallons"

available 

for 

resale

Dealer's 

target 

sales 

revenue

Dealer's 

target 

street 

price 

per 

"gallon"

Actual 

sales 

revenue

Resulting 

dealer 

gross 

margin

Change in 

dealer's 

gross 

margin

What the CEC Staff 

Report advocates...

233.39 7,917.2 $24,000.00 $3.000 $23,751.60 $751.60 -$248.40

↑
L&R Committee 2009Final Report

Appendix D – Fuel Delivery Temperature Study

L&R - D23

...compared to 

current transactions 

using GROSS 

quantities and prices

231.00 8,000.0 $24,000.00 $3.000 $24,000.00 $1,000.00

The “hot fuel rip-off” controversy

The allegations themselves

Starting – and ending – with a few propositions, its adherents claim that the “hot fuel ripoff” is a proven scientific fact:

• Since the 1920s, most U.S. motor fuel transactions have been conducted on a 

“net” basis16 at all levels of distribution except retail sales to consumers.

• The volumetric expansion and contraction of gasoline and diesel fuel due to 

variations in temperature are well-established scientific facts.

• Consequently, a 231-cubic-inch gallon of fuel at 60 °F. contains more energy than 

does a 231-cubic-inch gallon measured at a warmer temperature.

• Most U.S. retail sales of motor fuel take place at temperatures that – on average –

exceed 60 °F.17

On the basis of these propositions – and nothing more – the “hot fuel” activists assert that 

motorists are not getting the fuel that they paid for because U.S. retailers sell fuel in 

volumetrically-measured, 231-cubic-inch gallons with no adjustment or compensation in price or 

volume to correct for differences in temperature or in energy content. By selling this “hot fuel”, 

gasoline retailers supposedly have been shorting consumers by about 800 million gallons of fuel 

annually and overcharging them by billions of dollars each year.18

 16 That is, denominated in gallons that are temperature-compensated to 60 °F.

 The “hot fuel” activists also 

charge that retailers collect approximately $350 million each year in state and federal fuel taxes 

on the so-called “phantom gallons” created by temperatures in excess of 60 F. that they keep for 

themselves rather than remitting to the government.

17 Taken over the entire U.S. and all seasons of the year, the temperature of gasoline sold at retail 

supposedly averages about 64.7° F. But this estimate is based on figures collected by an unnamed 

manufacturer of storage tank monitoring equipment, the sampling properties of which are unknown. 

(Testimony of Richard Suiter, National Institute of Standards and Technology, before the Domestic 

Policy Subcommittee of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, June 8, 2007 at p. 4.) The 

estimate supplied by this manufacturer for California (74.7 F.) has been shown by the California Fuel 

Temperature Survey – which yielded an average statewide temperature of 71.1 F. – to be not just 

“slightly” but significantly overstated. (CEC Staff Report at p. 25)

18 Statement of Joan Claybrook, President, Public Citizen, “Hot Fuel Means Big Rip-Off at 

Gasoline Pumps,” December 14, 2006 (“[in] a practice common in the gasoline retail industry...retailers 

have been ripping off consumers to the tune of an estimated 2 billion dollars a year.”)
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix D – Fuel Delivery Temperature Study

L&R - D24

The most recent “hot fuel” controversy was sparked by a series of articles that appeared in 

late 2006 and in 2007 in the Kansas City Star under the byline of Steve Everly that purported to 

document the supposedly decades-long practice by which U.S. retailers of gasoline and diesel 

fuel had been systematically shortchanging their customers.19 Using fuel storage tank 

temperature data, the impact of state-by-state average temperatures on fuel volume, and state-bystate motor fuel consumption data, the Star and Everly calculated that retail sales of “hot fuel” 

cost consumers approximately $2.3 billion annually.20

The charges in the Kansas City Star series were taken up, repeated and amplified by a 

number of advocates21 and journalists at other newspapers.22

 19 The “hot fuel” charges were initially laid out in two 2006 front-page articles by Steve Everly: 

“It’s Hot Fuel for You, Cold Cash for Big Oil,” Kansas City Star, August 27, 2006 at p. A1; and 

“Technology, New Rules Can Fix Hot-Fuel Issues,” Kansas City Star, August 28, 2006 at p. A1. These 

were followed by more than a half dozen additional articles written by Mr. Everly and published by the 

Star in 2006, 2007 and 2008.

 In 2007, the “hot fuel” allegations 

20 Everly’s and the Star’s methodology was sketched as follows:

The fuel temperature data was gathered by the National Institute of Standards 

and Technology from storage tanks at 1,000 gas stations and truck stops in 48 states and 

the District of Columbia during a period from 2002 to 2004.

The NIST data revealed that the average temperature of fuel across the country and yearround was 64.7 degrees Fahrenheit – almost 5 degrees higher than the government 

standard of 60 degrees.

...

The Star estimated how much fuel sales were affected in each state based on the 

state’s average fuel temperature and how much fuel volume would expand or contract 

under those conditions. In most states, consumers got less energy per gallon than they 

were paying for because fuel temperatures were hotter than the standard. That translates 

into lower gas mileage – and more fill-ups down the road. In some cold-weather states, 

drivers actually got a bit more energy per gallon because their gas was cooler than the 

standard.

The resulting state-by-state consumption change figures were then multiplied by 

the prevailing gas price in each state as reported during the last week of July by AAA. 

Those state-by-state gas figures were then combined with national figures for diesel 

consumption and price to arrive at the $2.3 billion nationwide estimate.

21 These include Joan Claybrook of Public Citizen, John Siebert of the Owner-Operator 

Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA), and Jamie Court and Judy Dugan of OilWatchdog (a project 

of Consumer Watchdog.org, formerly known as The Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights

(FTCR).

22 Including Elizabeth Douglass and Ronald D. White, Los Angeles Times, and David R. Baker, 

San Francisco Chronicle.
L&R Committee 2009Final Report

Appendix D – Fuel Delivery Temperature Study

L&R - D25

resulted in congressional hearings23 and formed the basis for a number of lawsuits brought on 

behalf of classes of retail customers that have named various motor fuel retailers as defendants.24

There are three important subtexts to the “hot fuel rip-off” allegations.

The first is that it is “Big Oil” – seeking to preserve its “hot fuel” profits by systematically 

shortchanging its retail customers – that has prevented the implementation of automatic 

temperature compensation at retail, while protecting its own interests by insisting on temperature 

compensation at all higher stages in the distribution chain from refinery to the corner gas station. 

In truth, not all “upstream” transactions are conducted on a temperature-compensated basis – a 

fact acknowledged by the CEC Staff Report – and there are economically reasonable explanations

for its actual occurrences that having nothing to do with avoiding “hot fuel rip-offs”. Further, 

“Big Oil” owns and operates fewer than 10 percent of gasoline retail facilities, therefore its 

influence over retail fuel pricing decisions throughout the nation is significantly limited.

The second is that “Big Oil’s” hypocrisy is demonstrated by its “rush” in the 1990s to 

adopt temperature compensation on retail sales in Canada, supposedly because the industry was 

losing money when it sold fuel to motorists at temperatures below 15 C.25

 Again, there is an 

economically rational explanation for the process by which temperature compensation was 

initially introduced in Canada and then spread to include the majority of retailers.

The third is that the state of Hawaii and George Mattimoe, its then Deputy Director of 

Weights and Measures, have shown that individual states can effectively end the “hot fuel ripoff” by requiring retailers to dispense larger “gallons” that – on average – compensate motorists 

for temperature-induced expansion. As is discussed at greater length below, the entire “HawaiiMattimoe” legend also is a myth. In particular, the introduction of the slightly larger “Hawaii 

gallon” did not “save” motorists anything. Because retail prices increased by the percentage

given by the ratio of the volume of the “Hawaii gallon” to the U.S. statutory gallon, Hawaiian 

consumers’ outlays for a given quantum of motor fuel were unchanged.

Not surprisingly, “hot fuel” advocates prefer to focus attention on just those states – like 

California – in which the average temperature of dispensed fuel exceeds 60° F. and, therefore, 

the “hot fuel” overcharges supposedly are greatest. These activists appear to have little to say 

about the significant number of “colder” states in which – by their logic – it is the retailers who 

have been “ripped off” by consumers.

 23 Hearings on Hot Fuels, Subcommittee on Domestic Policy of the Committee on Oversight and 

Government Reform, Rep. Dennis Kucinich, Chairman, June 8 and July 25, 2007.

24 These individual actions have been consolidated into the multi-district action captioned 

In re: Motor Fuel Temperature Sales Practices Litigation (MDL 1840) that has been assigned to the U.S.

District Court for the District of Kansas.

25 The Canadian reference temperature for motor fuel transactions that is roughly equivalent to 60 F.
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix D – Fuel Delivery Temperature Study

L&R - D26

The “hot fuel” allegations are unproven conjectures

But the ATC proponents’ conclusions are pure conjectures that have never been verified 

by independent data. The “hot fuel” adherents appear to take as given their assumption that 

actual retail prices reflect the true market price for temperature-compensated net gallons. That 

is, they assume that actual retail prices have not been adjusted in any way to account for the 

volumetric expansion that occurs when fuel is greater than 60° F. The “hot fuel” adherents 

maintain that – in the absence of direct evidence that each retailer consciously calculates the 

adjustment to his retail price required by the actual temperature of the fuel in his tanks – no such 

“adjustment” ever occurs.

Put it in terms of scientific analysis and hypothesis-testing, all that these activists offer is 

a hypothesis about retail profits that they derive from the fact of temperature expansion, 

measurement of retail sales in 231-cubic-inch gallons regardless of temperature, and the average 

retail price per gallon at which those sales were made. But this in no way proves that retailers 

have actually extracted and pocketed any “hot fuel” profits. A hypothesis may have been 

formulated, but it has not been subjected to confirmation using independent data.

In other words, these claims by temperature-compensation activists – like any conjectures 

– must be shown to be consistent with all the relevant facts before they should be accepted as 

true. To the extent there is any validity to these claims, it means that it is the retailers who are 

reaping these “hot fuel” profits, not upstream refiners and wholesale marketers (because, say the 

“hot fuel” activists, ATC governs transactions at these higher levels in the distribution chain). So 

it needs to be demonstrated that independent, direct measurements of actual retail store 

profitability confirm the existence of the supposed “hot fuel” profits. Similarly, it must be shown 

that the trends in the number and profitability of retail gasoline stores are consistent with the 

alleged decades-long existence of the supposedly massive “hot fuel” profits. If the actual data 

are inconsistent with these implications of the “hot fuel” allegations, then there ought to be 

considerable skepticism about the “hot fuel” claims.

Similarly, if it can be demonstrated that the retail prices posted for gasoline actually are 

the result of the competitive interactions of retailers and consumers, and that these prices do

reflect the effect of temperature on volume, then the entire edifice erected by the temperaturecompensation proponents simply collapses.

The economic flaw in the “hot fuel” activists’ argument is their assumption that prices 

currently charged at retail stations have not been adjusted for the effect of temperature because 

these activists see no evidence that each retailer makes the overt adjustments to his or her pump 

prices that would be required. In the absence of such explicit, overt adjustments by retailers, they 

argue that the street prices posted by retailers must be for the same temperature-compensated 

“net” gallons that they purchased at wholesale. Since retailers currently pump gross (or 

uncompensated) gallons, the “hot fuel” activists insist that motorists fail to receive “what they 

paid for.”
L&R Committee 2009Final Report

Appendix D – Fuel Delivery Temperature Study

L&R - D27

The “hot fuel” activists also insist that the “rip-off” exposed by the Kansas City Star has 

since been “proven” by the Kucinich hearings26 as well as by the CEC Staff Report itself.27

But nothing of the sort has occurred. The activists’ conclusions regarding the size and 

dollar value of the supposed “rip-off” really are nothing more than conjectures, based only on the 

physics of motor fuels subjected to temperature variation. The “hot fuel rip-off” allegations 

“predict” the accumulation of billions of dollars in ill-gotten “hot fuel” profits by retailers, but its 

adherents have done nothing to actually go out and directly measure these profits to see if they 

even exist and that their magnitude and geographic distribution are even consistent with the “hot 

fuel” rip-off hypothesis.

The CEC Staff Report and the “hot fuel” allegations

Pursuant to AB 86828 directing the California Energy Commission “to conduct a costbenefit analysis and make recommendations relative to the implementation of automatic 

temperature compensation devices at retail service stations,” the staff of the California Energy 

Commission conducted a nearly year-long series of workshops that culminated in late November 

with publication of the Fuel Delivery Temperature Study: Staff Report.

29

Yet even though the “hot fuel” allegations led directly to the CEC Staff Report, there is an 

unmistakable tension between the two. At no point does the CEC Staff Report discuss the “hot 

fuel” allegations, much less endorse them.

While the CEC Staff Report does not even refer to the “hot fuel” controversy, its 

derivation of the potential consumer benefits from the ATC Retrofit are similar in methodology 

and amount to the “hot fuel profits” calculated for California by the Kansas City Star.

30

 26 David Tanner, “BREAKING NEWS: U.S. House report validates “hot fuel” rip-off,” Land Line: 

The Business Magazine for Professional Truckers, June 7, 2007 (emphasis added) 

http://www.landlinemag.com/Special_Reports/2007/Jun07/060707_hotfuel.htm

 Unlike 

27 Judy Dugan, “CEC Deep Freeze On Hot Fuel,” OilWatchdog, December 4, 2008 (emphases 

added) http://www.oilwatchdog.org/articles/?storyId=24060&topicId=8072

“A California Energy Commission (CEC) draft report on the “hot fuel” 

ripoff proves beyond doubt that consumers are unfairly treated at the 

pump...

“The CEC draft...fully acknowledges that consumers suffer annual loss 

in the hundreds of millions of dollars statewide (emphases added).”

28 Davis, Chapter 398, Statutes of 2007.

29 CEC-600-2008-012-SF, Gordon Schremp, Principal Author, November 2008 (hereinafter 

referred to as the CEC Staff Report).

30 Everly and the Kansas City Star calculated that retail purchasers of gasoline in California were 

being “ripped off” by approximately $509 million per year, while the CEC Staff Report estimates that the 

annual benefit of the ATC Retrofit to California purchasers of retail gasoline would have amounted to 

$376 million during the April 2007 - March 2008 study period. The approximately $133 million annual 
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix D – Fuel Delivery Temperature Study

L&R - D28

the implicit charge of the “hot fuel activists”, the CEC Staff Report does not claim that retailers’ 

pump prices are denominated in dollars per net gallon while they sell temperature-expanded 

gross gallons to motorists. But the CEC Staff Report does insist that [F]uel sold at retail in 

California has not been volume-adjusted to compensate for variations in temperature, leading to 

concerns over potential inequities for retail motorists.31

At the same time, the CEC Staff Report concedes that retailers operate in a “highly 

competitive business environment.”32

 The CEC Staff does not realize that, as a matter of 

economics, this concession is sufficient to establish that retail competition must adjust retail 

prices to compensate for temperature variations. Otherwise, retailers would be earning 

supracompetitive (i.e., “hot fuel”) profits, which are economically incompatible with a “highly 

competitive” market. It seems not to have occurred to the authors of the CEC Staff Report that 

competition might cause the price of the gross gallons dispensed by retailers to vary inversely 

with the temperature of that fuel. Nor does the CEC Staff Report explain how the thousands of 

California retailers – who operate in a highly competitive business environment – would be able 

to restore and sustain the supracompetitive prices that would be needed to “recapture” their 

previous revenue levels.

As a result, the CEC Staff Report appears to view the proposed ATC Retrofit in a vacuum 

– as something that California could mandate – with the only important question being whether it 

would succeed in transferring the $438 million annually from retailers to motorists in the long 

term. The CEC Staff Report is interested only in whether that “consumer benefit” would be 

economically achievable and sustainable, and not in whether it is needed to correct the status 

quo. In short, the CEC Staff Report treats the ATC Retrofit as something akin to a “no fault” 

remedy for a nonexistent problem.

Consumers would not enjoy “more fuel” after the ATC Retrofit

The CEC staff appears to seriously believe that mandating the ATC Retrofit would result 

in “more fuel” for California motorists. How else can one interpret such statements as:

If Automatic Temperature Compensation (ATC) was required in 

California, [the] benefits would include more fuel for consumers 

(emphasis added).33

 

difference is explained by the fact that the Kansas City Star assumed the average annual temperature of 

gasoline sold at retail in California was 74.7 F., while the CEC Staff Report concludes that the correct 

figure was at 71.1 F., or 3.6 F cooler.

31 CEC Staff Report at p. 5.

32 CEC Staff Report at p. 72.

33 CEC Staff PowerPoint presentation at its June 5, 2008 workshop, Slide 6.
L&R Committee 2009Final Report

Appendix D – Fuel Delivery Temperature Study

L&R - D29

or the following:

Potential Consumer Benefits Resulting From ATC Retrofit

This section of the report details the staff efforts to properly 

characterize and quantify [the] potential benefits. It should first be 

noted that “consumer benefits” have been denoted as the monetary 

value of the additional transportation fuel that California motorists 

would have received if ATC devices had been in place during the 

study period of April 2007 through March 2008. The additional 

fuel would be in terms of slightly larger size gallons as measured in 

cubic inches that would occur under circumstances in which retail 

fuel temperatures are warmer than 60 degrees Fahrenheit.34

Not content to leave it at that, the CEC Staff Report continues:

It is understood that retail transactions transitioning from gross to 

net gallons will not alter the total demand for fuel consumed over 

the study period, but rather result in variable size gallons 

depending on temperature. The main question to address is 

whether consumers would retain the additional cubic inches 

dispensed from ATC fuel dispensers during warmer period [sic] of 

the year without any attempt by retail station owners to recapture 

this revenue by raising prices of fuel and non-fuel goods.35

One hardly knows where to begin. What “additional fuel” or “additional cubic inches” is 

the CEC Staff Report talking about, especially when any changes “will not alter the total demand 

for fuel”?36

All that would be accomplished by either the ATC Retrofit or the adoption of a “new 

reference temperature” would be to change the size (in cubic inches) of the “gallon” used to 

measure retail fuel transactions. Under the ATC Retrofit, the size of that “gallon” would vary 

throughout the calendar year as a function of the seasonal variation in fuel temperature. Under 

 34 CEC Staff Report at p. 75 (emphases added).

35 Id.

36 Assume that a consumer buys 20 gallons of gasoline at $3.00 per gallon, for a total outlay of 

$60.00. The “logic” implicit in the CEC Staff Report is best illustrated by a scam in which a confidence 

man promises to quadruple the amount of gasoline received by that consumer while at the same time 

reducing by half his cost per unit. Whereupon the scam artist switches from gallons to quarts to measure 

the quantity of fuel purchased while reducing the retail price “per unit” from $3.00 to $1.50. By the 

“logic” implicit in the CEC Staff Report, the consumer would be getting “more” fuel at a “lower” price 

per unit, but he would now have to pay $6.00 – or twice as much – for each gallon as was previously 

necessary.
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix D – Fuel Delivery Temperature Study

L&R - D30

the “new reference temperature” option, the size of that “new” gallon would be fixed at 

232.77 cubic inches.

Because the size of a “gallon” at each possible alternative temperature is fixed and known 

– owing to the linear relationship shown in Figure 3 – the changes following the ATC Retrofit

or the “new reference temperature” would be no different in principle than the hypothetical 

change from U.S. gallons to British imperial gallons that has already been shown in Figure 2. 

In that example, competition resulted in dealers’ target retail prices increasing from $3.000 to 

$3.603, or by the same percentage that a 231-cubic-inch volume must be increased in order to 

occupy 277.4 cubic inches. Also in that example, if a consumer had been purchasing 

23,100 cubic inches (or 100 U.S. gallons) at $300 before the change, she would receive the same 

23,100 cubic inches for the same $300 following the change. She definitely would not receive 

“more fuel” after the switch.

As already shown in Figure 4, the adoption of any particular “reference temperature” –

such at 75 F – has no effect on the total quantum of fuel received by a consumer or the total 

amount he pays at retail for it.

But as will be demonstrated in a later section of this paper, the same logic applies to 

“gallons” of fuel that vary in size (measured in cubic inches) due to seasonal changes in fuel 

temperature. At each possible temperature over the annual seasonal cycle, the volume occupied 

by a specific quantum of fuel (e.g., a specific number of net gallons) is fixed and known. More 

to the point, the number of gross gallons available to a retailer for sale to consumers also is fixed 

and known by him. In a competitive retail market, the retailer will aim for a target pump price 

that compensates him for the wholesale cost of that fuel while also allowing him to cover his 

other expenses and to earn a competitive return.

In other words, resorting to automatic temperature compensation to adjust for seasonal 

variations in temperature is, in principle, no different than mandating a sequence of changes in 

the applicable “reference temperature” throughout the calendar year. While each “gallon” may 

contain more (or fewer) cubic inches, this would not mean that motorists received “more” (or 

“less”) fuel. After all, the whole point of automatic temperature compensation is that it is 

supposed to ensure that consumers receive the same number of net gallons for a given outlay in 

dollars. 

Because motorists do not receive “more fuel” following a change from U.S. gallons to 

gallons defined by a “reference temperature” greater than 60 F., they similarly would not get 

“more fuel” following the proposed ATC Retrofit. Rather, they would continue to receive the 

same total number of net gallons at the same total cost.

Put succinctly, the CEC Staff Report tries to quantify the “potential consumer benefits 

resulting from the ATC Retrofit” by adding up the “additional cubic inches of fuel” that 

consumers would “receive” with each “gallon” purchased and then valuing these additional cubic 

inches at unchanged retail prices. But consumers would be equally well off if the price they must 

pay per U.S. gallon is reduced to account for temperature-induced expansion. This is exactly 
L&R Committee 2009Final Report

Appendix D – Fuel Delivery Temperature Study

L&R - D31

what is achieved currently by retail competition without the expense and disruption that would be 

occasioned by the ATC Retrofit.

The choice for retailers: increase price immediately or go out of business

The CEC Staff Report appears to be based on the assumption that only the costs of the 

ATC Retrofit itself might eventually lead retailers to successfully increase their street prices, but 

even here it expects that any such increases would be only partially successful and, in any event, 

would succeed only “in the long term”. The CEC Staff Report appears to liken retailers’ raising 

their pump prices in order to “recapture” their erstwhile revenue streams as an attempt to “get 

even” for the ATC Retrofit, rather than as critically necessary for them to remain economically 

viable.

Gasoline retailing is competitive, as economists – and, one hopes, the CEC staff – use 

that term. This means that industry participants enjoy on average only normal competitive profits

and that, at the margin, participants earn a return that is just sufficient to induce them to remain 

in business. Were retailers somehow required to pay for the costs of implementing temperature 

compensation at their stations out of their competitively-determined and -limited profits, this 

could reduce their profitability to a level below the minimum necessary to induce them to 

continue in operation.

The CEC Staff Report fails to recognize that – as a matter of elementary economics – the 

ATC Retrofit would necessarily result in an immediate increase in retail prices that exactly offsets 

the “benefits” it imagines consumers would enjoy as they received “more fuel” at unchanged 

retail prices.

Since retail competition already adjusts pump prices in response to temperature variation 

– thus insuring that the retail price of fuel remains constant when expressed in terms of net 

gallons – and dealers currently operate in a highly competitive environment, these dealers do not 

have any “hot fuel” profits out of which to absorb the increase in their wholesale cost per 

“gallon” that would be induced by either the ATC Retrofit or a new “reference temperature” for

California. Instead, the gross margins out of which they must pay their other expenses and earn a 

competitive profit would be immediately and substantially reduced.

The amount of this reduction would entirely eliminate retailers’ profits and leave them 

unable to fully cover their other costs of doing business. According to the CEC Staff Report, the 

ATC Retrofit would extract $438 million per year in revenue from fuel retailers, at least in the 

short- and medium term.37

 37 CEC Staff Report at p. 76.

 According to the most recent “station count” published by NPN 

News, there are approximately 9,700 such retailers in California. Simple arithmetic indicates that 

the average California motor fuel retailer would lose $45,155 in sales revenue each year 

following the ATC Retrofit. This greatly exceeds the $33,000 in annual pre-tax profits that the 

CEC Staff Report gives as the total profit earned by the average fuel-dispensing convenience 
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix D – Fuel Delivery Temperature Study

L&R - D32

store over the period from 1998 through 2007.38 The CEC Staff Report does not indicate how 

California dealers could absorb such a revenue loss and remain in business.

Instead, the CEC Staff Report opines that retail competition would make it difficult for 

dealers to increase their pump prices to compensate for the larger “gallons” they would dispense 

under either the ATC Retrofit or the switch to the “California reference temperature option”. 

This is exactly backwards, because it is that very competition that would force retailers to 

increase their pump prices immediately upon implementation of either option, or quickly go out 

of business.

In terms of economics, requiring retailers to dispense larger temperature-compensated 

gallons would be effectively the same as increasing their wholesale cost per “gallon”. Again in 

terms of elementary economics, this would amount to an increase in each retailer’s direct (or 

marginal) cost per unit sold. In a competitive market, if all firms are confronted with an 

identical increase in their direct cost per unit sold, the market-equilibrium price per “gallon” 

must go up by the amount of that increase in the cost per “gallon”. Competitors who fail to 

achieve this higher price would eventually go out of business.

In acknowledging that retailers operate in a highly competitive business environment, the 

CEC Staff Report takes this to mean that this “can, at times, create temporary difficulties and 

challenges with regard to recovering increased expenses” that depends on the “spheres of 

competition” within which each retailer operates.

But these “increased expenses” that the CEC staff has in mind appear to involve only the 

cost of the proposed ATC Retrofit itself. It is true that – for the most part – these would be onetime fixed expenses that would not vary directly with the number of gallons sold. Economists 

term these “indirect” or “fixed” expenses, and distinguish them from direct (or marginal) costs 

that do vary directly with the quantity of the product produced or sold. In general, it is true that 

competition does not guarantee that an individual seller or producer will be able to recover 

increases that he alone experiences in his indirect or fixed expenses by increasing his prices.

However, when all sellers incur the same expense – and consumers have no alternative 

sources for the product they sell – then there is little to restrain an attempt by individual sellers to 

increase retail prices in order to compensate for that increased expense.39

 38 CEC Staff Report at p. 83.

39 In principle, pump prices – on a cost per gallon basis – could increase by more than is needed to 

compensate for the average retailer’s cost to implement the ATC Retrofit. In a competitive market 

comprised of sellers with differing cost structures, the impact on the market equilibrium price of a cost 

increase incurred by all sellers is a function of its impact on the cost structure of the marginal (or least 

efficient) seller. In the present context, this is the “low monthly volume” retailer. Assuming that this 

retailer must expend the same total dollar amount to retrofit his pumps as a “high volume” retailer, he 

would sell fewer gallons per month over which he could hope to distribute these retrofit costs. This 

would require that – in order to successfully shift the cost of his ATC Retrofit to his customers – he 

would have to achieve a greater increase in his per-gallon pump prices than would be necessary for his 
L&R Committee 2009Final Report

Appendix D – Fuel Delivery Temperature Study

L&R - D33

The CEC Staff Report is wrong as a matter of economics when it suggests that retailers 

would respond to an immediate increase in their direct (marginal) cost per unit of gasoline only 

in the long term. The speed and extent by which increases in dealers’ marginal costs are 

transmitted to pump prices has been extensively studied by economists who generally have found 

that increases in retailers’ wholesale cost for fuel are substantially passed through to retail pump 

prices within about a week or two and in their entirety within at most a few weeks.40

The illusion of “increased prices on non-fuel items”

As a matter of economics, it is even more difficult to understand how the CEC Staff 

Report concludes that retailers would or could defray the cost of the ATC Retrofit or their 

increased wholesale cost per “gallon” by raising prices on the non-fuel items they sell.41, 42

First of all, such a shift – even assuming it were feasible – would in no way reduce the 

total cost ultimately born by consumers for the ATC Retrofit. It would merely shift some of that 

total cost to other items also purchased by motorists who patronize motor fuel retailers with 

convenience stores. Even if such a shift were feasible, it would be nonsensical as a matter of 

economics to pretend that the cost to Californians of the ATC retrofit is limited to just that 

portion that results in higher pump prices.

 

“high volume” rivals. Because of this, these rivals might be content to see retail prices per gallon 

increase by enough to allow their “low volume” competitor to recover his ATC Retrofit costs, even 

though such an increase would be more than enough to cover their own such costs. The result could be 

that retail prices increase by more than the aggregate cost of the ATC Retrofit, allowing the highervolume dealers to “over-recover” their own costs.

40 See (among other examples): Severin Borenstein, Colin Cameron and Richard Gilbert, "Do 

Gasoline Prices Respond Asymmetrically to Crude Oil Price Changes?", Quarterly Journal of 

Economics, 112 (February 1997); Energy Information Administration, “Price changes in the Gasoline 

Market,” February 1999; and Michael Burdette and John Zyren, Gasoline Price Pass-through, Energy 

Information Administration Petroleum Marketing Annual, 2003 at 

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/feature_articles/2003/gasolinepass/gasolinepass.htm.

41 CEC Staff Report at p. 68. (“[CEC] Staff assumes that retail station owners will attempt to 

recover these [ATC Retrofit] costs by raising prices on products that are sold at retail stations, both fuel 

and non-fuel commodities.”)

42 CEC Staff Report at p. 73. (“For example, retail stations that sell fuel and non-fuel commodities 

(such as convenience stores) have increased flexibility to attempt incremental expense recovery by 

increasing prices for multiple goods (gasoline and foodstuffs) and/or services (car washes). But a retail 

station that only sells transportation fuels has less flexibility and can only attempt to pass along increased 

expenses by raising the price of fuel they sell. These types of retail stations are estimated to account for 

less than 20 percent of the gasoline and diesel fuel sales.”)
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix D – Fuel Delivery Temperature Study

L&R - D34

But to the extent that motor fuel retailers – especially convenience stores – sell such 

items, they do so in competition with supermarkets, fast food outlets, non-fuel convenience 

stores, auto stores, drug and sundries stores, and the like. Therefore, to suggest that motor fuel 

retailers could profitably raise their prices on non-fuel items can mean only that – at present –

such retailers must be failing to maximize their profits. If station owners could simply increase 

prices on their non-fuel items to pay for the costs of the ATC Retrofit without harming their 

ability to compete with non-fuel retailers, then it would have been economically rational for them 

to have done so already. In other words, because of the competitive environment in which they

operate, it must be assumed that the prices at convenience stores for non-fuel items have been 

established at levels that maximize retailer profits, and that a further increase in these prices 

would only decrease those profits. It is not clear how the CEC staff has obtained the expertise to 

render such a judgment and to perceive an unexploited opportunity for increased profitability that 

apparently has eluded the owners and operators of the more than 100,000 fuel-selling 

convenience stores in the U.S.

It should be obvious that the other sellers of the non-fuel items that are also available at 

retail stations would incur no increased costs in connection with the ATC Retrofit because they 

have no fuel dispensers. But the CEC Staff Report does not explain how motor fuel retailers 

could successfully shift the increased capital costs of the ATC Retrofit itself and their higher per-

“gallon” wholesale fuel costs to the non-fuel items available in their convenience stores when 

none of the non-fuel retailers with whom they compete would have experienced similar cost 

increases.

Since motor fuel retailers have no latitude to shift the costs of the ATC retrofit and higher 

per-“gallon” wholesale costs to their sales of non-fuel items, this means that these costs must be 

shifted in their entirety to retail fuel prices. In particular, an increase in the per-“gallon” 

wholesale price – an increase in the retailer’s marginal cost – will necessarily be passed through 

in its entirety to pump prices.

But so too would be the cost of the ATC Retrofit itself, which cannot be shifted to nonfuel items because the competing non-fuel sellers of such items would not have to undertake any 

ATC Retrofit and incur similar fixed or indirect cost increases. And because all motor fuel 

retailers would face the same increased costs – and because consumers seeking to purchase 

gasoline or diesel fuel would have no alternative sources – it also is likely that retailers would be 

able to pass such costs through to their pump prices in their entirety.43

 43 A credible argument can be made that, in the new equilibrium, more than 100 percent of the ATC 

Retrofit costs could be passed through to retail customers. Here is how that might happen: In a 

competitive equilibrium, the market clearing price is determined by the costs of the least efficient 

producer. The indirect cost of the ATC Retrofit would loom larger for those retailers who sell relatively 

smaller fuel volumes per month. This is because they have fewer gallons of retail sales over which to 

distribute (or amortize) the fixed costs of the ATC Retrofit. If these low-volume retailers seek street 

prices that allow them to fully recapture their ATC Retrofit costs, and if it is their street prices that 

determine the market price, then all of the higher-volume, more efficient retailers would be content to 

match the pump prices of their less-efficient rivals, thus enabling them to “over-recover” their own ATC 

Retrofit costs.
L&R Committee 2009Final Report

Appendix D – Fuel Delivery Temperature Study

L&R - D35

The CEC Staff Report’s “increased price transparency benefit”

Because the CEC Staff Report ultimately concludes that neither the ATC Retrofit nor the 

“new reference temperature option” would yield measurable benefits in the form of “more fuel”

for California consumers in the long term, the only positive contribution to the “benefits” side of 

the cost-benefit analysis that the CEC staff has managed to identify comes from the so-called 

“increased price transparency benefit” of $3.2 million per year that supposedly would result from 

the ATC Retrofit.

44

The “logic” of CEC Staff Report’s Information Asymmetry Model is this: In the absence 

of the ATC Retrofit, consumers buy “more” gasoline at “higher” prices than they would if they 

had full information regarding the temperature of the fuel in a retailer’s tanks.45

 But in order to 

“find” and “monetize” this putative benefit, the CEC staff has resorted to a misguided attempt to 

force the “hot fuel” controversy and the proposed ATC Retrofit into the economic frameworks of 

deadweight loss and consumer surplus. As is shown below, this attempt fails as a matter of 

economics.

The main justification offered by the CEC Staff Report for the proposed ATC Retrofit is 

that it would enable consumers to enjoy “more fuel”. But in the context of the Information 

Asymmetry Model, motorists are better off if they buy “less fuel”; “more fuel” supposedly is the 

harm that arises in the absence of automatic temperature compensation.

Moreover – as demonstrated later in this paper – competition already leads to adjustments 

in retail prices in response to seasonal changes in the prevailing average fuel temperature in each 

local area, and each consumer’s repeated purchases are sufficient to protect against the possibility 

that the average temperature of a motorist’s fuel purchases might significantly exceed the 

prevailing average fuel temperature in the local area.

So what additional “increased price transparency benefit” potentially remains that can be 

realized only by implementing the ATC Retrofit? According to the CEC Staff Report, this 

supposed benefit comes from ending the danger that a consumer might “overpay” for fuel 

purchased from a particular retailer because the consumer does not realize how “warm” that 

retailer’s fuel is. In other words, this consumer would buy “too many” gross gallons because he 

does not realize that each such “gross” gallon contains marginally less energy. But following the 

 44 CEC Staff Report at pp. 76-78. Even if the CEC Staff Report’s analysis were otherwise 

unassailable – which it emphatically is not – it still would be the case that consumers would enjoy only 

half of that $3.2 million per year. As a matter of elementary economics, half of the benefit attributed by 

CEC staff to ending the supposed “deadweight loss” would be retained by retailers; consumers’ gain 

would be limited to the remaining half. See, for example, Robert S. Pindyck and Daniel L. Rubinfeld, 

Microeconomics (5th ed.), (Prentice Hall, 2001) at pp. 288-293.

45 CEC Staff Report at p. 149 (“The inefficiency occurs from consumers consuming more gallons 

than they would have if they had full information on the fuel temperature.”).
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix D – Fuel Delivery Temperature Study

L&R - D36

ATC Retrofit, the consumer would be assured that he is getting “identical” net gallons, no matter 

which station he patronizes.

This argument has a surface plausibility, except that it overlooks all those consumers who 

currently “underpay” for fuel because they do not realize how “cool” that fuel is relative to the 

prevailing average temperature. These consumers would be roughly equal in number to the 

consumers who “overpay” because of the same “information asymmetry”. So for all motorists in 

the aggregate, the “increased price transparency benefits” would be zero, because the positive 

benefits conferred on motorists who would otherwise “overpay” for “warmer-than-average” fuel 

are cancelled out by the negative benefits of those motorists who would otherwise “underpay” for 

“cooler-than-average” fuel.

According to the CEC Staff Report, the value of the supposed “increased price 

transparency benefit” is measured by the difference between the “larger” number of “higherpriced gallons” that consumers unwittingly buy (because they are unaware of actual fuel 

temperatures and cannot work out the “true” price per net gallon) and the “smaller” number of 

“lower-priced gallons” they would purchase after the ATC Retrofit. In the diagram that 

accompanies Appendix R, the “increased price transparency benefit” is gained by ending the total 

“deadweight loss” that arises because there are non-zero differences between the pre- and postATC Retrofit prices and quantities.

But the CEC Staff Report’s attempt to use the diagram in Appendix R to analyze the 

problem supposedly raised by the sale of “warmer than average” fuel to an unsuspecting 

consumer is problematic. In that scenario, either the dispensed quantum of fuel is too small or

the price per unit of fuel is too high, but not both simultaneously.

46

 The reason this is important 

is that the “deadweight loss” triangle in that diagram has nonzero area only if Pnone (the price per 

unit paid by consumers in the absence of ATC) is greater than Pfull (the price per unit that would 

prevail under ATC) and at the same time Qnone (the quantity of fuel purchased by consumers in 

the absence of ATC) exceeds Qfull (the quantity of fuel they would buy if they enjoyed the “price 

transparency” promised by ATC). Otherwise that triangle has zero area and there would be no 

deadweight loss.47

The only way that Qnone > Qfull can be satisfied is if the analysis is limited to transactions 

measured in gross gallons involving just those consumers purchasing at retailers whose fuel 

temperature exceeds the local cross-sectional average. Similarly, the only way that Pnone > Pfull

can be satisfied is if the analysis focuses on just those motorists who buy at stations whose fuel 

temperature exceeds the prevailing cross-sectional average.

 46 In other words, it cannot be the case that both the quantum of fuel is too small and at the same 

time the price charged for that quantum of fuel is too high.

47 There is another way to see that the diagram in Appendix R is wrong. In that diagram, Pnone > 

Pfull and Qnone > Qfull only because CEC Staff Report assumes an inward shift (i.e., toward origin) in the 

demand curve from Dno info to Dfull info, meaning that the consumer purchases less fuel at every possible 

price per unit. But how can this be, if consumers are supposed to be getting more fuel following the ATC 

Retrofit?
L&R Committee 2009Final Report

Appendix D – Fuel Delivery Temperature Study

L&R - D37

In other words, the only way that the CEC Staff Report can achieve its desired result is if 

it ignores those consumers who purchase at retailers with fuel temperatures that fall below the 

prevailing local average.

But measured over all California purchasers of motor fuel at retail, the putative 

“increased price transparency benefit” has got to be zero. Following the ATC Retrofit, all that 

would change is that market transactions – originally measured in gross gallons and proceeding 

at prices denominated in dollars per gross gallon – henceforward would be conducted using net 

gallons to measure quantity and priced in dollars per net gallon. But nothing real would change, 

only the units used to measure the transactions (and these have changed in compensatory ways, 

leaving total market quantities and dollar outlays absolutely unchanged).

But since California motorists in the aggregate would receive the same total quantity of 

fuel (measured in net gallons) for the same total dollar outlay following the ATC Retrofit as they 

did before, there would be no difference between Pnone and Pfull and no difference between 

Qnone and Qfull, the area shown in Appendix R as the total “deadweight loss” would disappear, 

and the “increased price transparency benefit” would be zero.

This means that the fact that the ATC Retrofit would enable some motorists to avoid 

“overpaying” for warmer-than-average fuel in particular transactions would be exactly offset by 

the negative “benefits” of those motorists who would lose the opportunity to “underpay” for 

cooler-than-average fuel.

Hawaii and the “New Reference Temperature Option” for California

The CEC Staff Report’s “new reference temperature option”

The possible adoption of a “new reference temperature option” is the fallback option 

favored by “hot fuel” activists in the event that full automatic temperature compensation is not 

mandated.48

The CEC Staff Report refers to the “new reference temperature option” as the “Hawaii 

example”4

 The CEC Staff Report also considered this option – with 71.1 F. selected as the 

reference temperature – as an alternative to the ATC Retrofit.

9

 48 See, for example, Letter of Judy Dugan of Consumer Watchdog to the California Energy 

Commission, December 3, 2008 (“If the CEC recommends a legislative prohibition [of any voluntary fuel 

temperature compensation]...it must recommend adoption of a cost-free but less accurate solution – a 

statewide reference temperature of 71 degrees [even though this] would offer less benefit to consumers in 

warmer parts of the state, and be a greater cost burden on retailers in colder parts of the state.”).

because it would result in the use of a larger “California gallon” to measure retail 

fuel quantities similar to the “Hawaii gallon” adopted by the State of Hawaii at the urging of 

49 CEC Staff Report at p. 14.
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix D – Fuel Delivery Temperature Study

L&R - D38

George Mattimoe.50 Advocates of the “reference temperature” option believe that the judicious 

choice of a particular reference temperature would save consumers money because retail sales 

would henceforward be measured using “larger gallons” that more nearly approximate the 

volume of a net gallon at prevailing local fuel temperatures. However, these same advocates are 

also fearful that some “inequities” would remain, because actual fuel temperatures could still 

vary from the adopted “reference temperature”. For example, these consumers become 

concerned if they think that the chosen reference temperature is not identically equal to the local 

average fuel temperature, or if the seasonal variation in fuel temperatures around that particular 

reference temperature is “too large”.

These beliefs – and concerns – are misplaced. No matter what specific reference 

temperature is selected, its imposition in a competitive market for retail motor fuel sales would 

have absolutely no effect whatever on the prices paid by consumers for a specified quantity of 

fuel. But worse, the adoption of a reference temperature conveys the erroneous impression to 

consumers that there is some significance to the particular reference temperature chosen, and that 

a different reference temperature would yield different results at the pump.

The CEC Staff Report succumbed to this mistaken view:

Energy Commission staff believes that a reference temperature is a 

more viable option in Hawaii because there is very little seasonal 

volatility in climate temperatures throughout the year, as well as 

very small geographic difference in temperature in areas dispensing 

gasoline on any given day. California, on the other hand, has many 

climate zones that have large variations in seasonal temperatures 

throughout the year. The existence of the diversity and range of 

temperatures at any given time in California would also make the 

reference temperature option not as preferable as it is in Hawaii.51

The particular reference temperature selected makes no difference

This finding shows that the CEC staff does not understand that – in a competitive market 

– redefining the “size” of the quantity unit used to measure retail sales of motor fuel would have 

no effect whatever on consumer outlays for fuel. Moreover, it simply would not matter whether 

that chosen reference temperature was exactly equal to the average temperature of fuel in the 

relevant geographic area, or indeed, whether it was even within the annual range of such 

temperatures. By extending Figure 4, these conclusions are demonstrated in Figures 16, 17 

and 18.

 50 The CEC staff interviewed Mr. Mattimoe in connection with its report. (CEC Staff Report at p. 13)

51 CEC Staff Report at p. 107.
L&R Committee 2009Final Report

Appendix D – Fuel Delivery Temperature Study

L&R - D39

Figure 16 is the same as Figure 4 except that it assumes that 50 F. (rather than 75) is 

the “reference temperature”.52 Since – at 229.41 cubic inches – this “50 F. reference temperature 

gallon” is 0.69 percent smaller than a U.S. gallon, it should not be surprising that the resulting 

target street price of $2.979 (obtained by dividing the target sales revenue of $24,000 by the 

8,055.6 available “50 gallons”) is 0.69 percent less than the target retail price of $3.000 for a U.S. 

gallon.

Figure 16.

Changing to "50° gallons" affects only the price per unit, not total outlays.

Change from U.S. Gallons to "50° F. Reference Standard Gallons"

Unit of 

measurement 

for quantity 

sold

Size of 

quantity 

unit

(cubic 

inches)

Total 

quantity 

units 

available 

for sale

Dealer's 

target total 

sales 

revenue

Resulting 

dealer 

target 

street price 

per unit

Total cost 

of 100 US 

gallons 

(23,100 

cubic 

inches)

Before U.S. Gallon 231.00 8,000.0

$24,000

$3.000 $300.00

After 50° Gallon 229.41 8,055.6 $2.979 $300.00

Change -0.69% -0.69% 0.00%

Next, consider Figure 17, which assumes that the “reference temperature” is 90 F. 

Because – at 235.78 cubic inches – this “90 gallon” is 2.07 percent larger than a 231-cubic inch 

U.S. gallon, the resulting target retail price per “gallon” is 2.07 percent greater than the target 

retail price of $3.000 per gross gallon, or $3.062.

Figure 17.

Changing to "90° gallons" affects only the price per unit, not total outlays.

Change from U.S. Gallons to "90° F. Reference Standard Gallons"

Unit of 

measurement 

for quantity 

sold

Size of 

quantity 

unit

(cubic 

inches)

Total 

quantity 

units 

available 

for sale

Dealer's 

target total 

sales 

revenue

Resulting 

dealer 

target street 

price per 

unit

Total cost 

of 100 US 

gallons 

(23,100 

cubic 

inches)

Before U.S. Gallon 231.00 8,000.0

$24,000

$3.000 $300.00

After 90° Gallon 235.78 7,837.8 $3.062 $300.00

Change 2.07% 2.07% 0.00%

 52 By design, this is more than 20 cooler than California’s actual average fuel temperature.
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix D – Fuel Delivery Temperature Study

L&R - D40

Finally, Figure 18 analyzes the change in the target retailer price per unit under the 

assumption that 71.1 F. is adopted as the “California reference temperature”. The resulting target 

street price of $3.023 is 0.77 percent greater than $3.000, which is to be expected since at 

232.77 cubic inches, the “California gallon” is 0.77 percent bigger than the 231 cubic inches 

occupied by a gross gallon.

Figure 18.

Changing to "71.1° gallons" affects only the price per unit, not total outlays.

Change from U.S. Gallons to "71.1° F. California Reference Temperature Gallons"

Unit of 

measurement 

for quantity 

sold

Size of

quantity 

unit

(cubic 

inches)

Total 

quantity 

units 

available 

for sale

Dealer's 

target total 

sales 

revenue

Resulting 

dealer 

target street

price per 

unit

Total cost 

of 100 US 

gallons 

(23,100 

cubic 

inches)

Before U.S. Gallon 231.00 8,000.0

$24,000

$3.000 $300.00

After 71.1° Gallon 232.77 7,939.2 $3.023 $300.00

Change 0.77% 0.77% 0.00%

Each of Figures 4 and 16 through 18 analyzes the effect on a retailer’s target price 

per unit assuming a switch from gross gallons as the unit of measure to each of four alternative 

“reference temperature gallons” where each “reference temperature gallon” is defined as the 

number of cubic inches occupied by a net gallon at the indicated temperature (respectively, 75, 

50, 90 or 71.1 F.). The key is that each of these “reference temperature gallons” actually is 

defined in terms of a specific number of cubic inches. In other words, in the case of each 

reference temperature, the number of cubic inches is constant and independent of the actual fuel 

temperature at the time of the transaction for which a particular “reference temperature gallon” is 

used as the quantity unit. For example, a “71.1 F. California gallon” will occupy identically 

232.77 cubic inches at every possible temperature from, say, 30 F. all the way up to 100 F. In 

other words, its volume in cubic inches does not vary as the fuel temperature varies.

But at any particular actual fuel temperature, a consumer would pay the same amount 

for a given quantum of fuel – measured in a fixed number of cubic inches – no matter which of 

these four “reference temperature gallons” actually is used. Suppose the actual fuel temperature 

is 82 F. and that competition has established $3.000 per U.S. gallon as the target retail price, 

meaning that it would cost a consumer $300 to purchase 100 U.S. gallons (or 23,100 cubic 

inches). As already demonstrated in Figures 4 and 16 through 18, it would cost the same 

$300 to purchase 23,100 cubic inches of gasoline no matter which of the four “reference 

temperature gallons” had been adopted at the time and no matter the actual temperature –

whether 30 F. or 100 F. or anywhere in between – of the fuel itself.
L&R Committee 2009Final Report

Appendix D – Fuel Delivery Temperature Study

L&R - D41

The “Hawaii example” and the “hot fuel” activists

It should not be surprising that Hawaii’s well-known switch to a “80 F. Hawaiian 

reference standard gallon” likely had absolutely no effect on retail consumers’ outlays for a given 

quantum of gasoline. As summarized in Figure 19, the 234.19 cubic inch “Hawaiian gallon” 

would have been about 1.38 percent larger than a U.S. gallon. Maintaining the current 

hypothetical (rather than the retail prices that prevailed at the time of the actual imposition of the 

“Hawaiian gallon”), and continuing to assume that retailers sought to generate the same target 

sales revenue of $24,000, Hawaiian dealers would have had to raise their target pump prices by 

the same 1.38 percent to $3.041 per “gallon”.

Figure 19.

A change to 80° "Hawaii gallons" affects the price per unit, not total outlays.

Change today from U.S. Gallons to 80° F. "Hawaii Gallons"

Unit of 

measurement 

for quantity 

sold

Size of 

quantity 

unit

(cubic 

inches)

Total 

quantity 

units 

available 

for sale

Dealer's 

target total 

sales 

revenue

Resulting 

dealer 

target street

price per 

unit

Total cost 

of 100 US 

gallons 

(23,100 

cubic 

inches)

Before U.S. Gallon 231.00 8,000.0

$24,000

$3.000 $300.00

After 80° Gallon 234.19 7,891.1 $3.041 $300.00

Change 1.38% 1.38% 0.00%

Nevertheless, the so-called “Hawaii example” remains a favorite of the “hot fuel” 

activists, having been prominently mentioned in the Kansas City Star series in late 200653

 53 Steve Everly, “Technology, New Rules Can Fix Hot-Fuel Issues,” Kansas City Star, 

August 28, 2006, p. A1:

and 

OAHU, Hawaii | Idyllic weather, pounding surf and a warm, welcoming

culture help make Hawaii unique in this nation.

So does its gallon of gas.

The Hawaiian gallon contains nearly 234 cubic inches of fuel – about 

three cubic inches more than is dispensed in the rest of the United States.

The extra volume, required by state law, helps offset the hotter

temperature in this tropical climate, which causes the gasoline to

expand. If the gallon wasn’t temperature-adjusted, Hawaiians would

receive less energy per gallon than called for under the government

standard. That’s because for nearly a century, gasoline and diesel have

been dispensed across America at a more-condensed 231 cubic inches –

based on the assumption of a fuel temperature of 60 degrees.

The larger Hawaiian gallon saves consumers in the state millions of

dollars a year. But across the rest of America, consumers will lose an
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix D – Fuel Delivery Temperature Study

L&R - D42

taken up subsequently by other “hot fuel” activists.54, 55 The CEC Staff Report cites the State of 

Hawaii and George Mattimoe – its then Deputy Director of the Division of Weights and 

Measures – as early pioneers in the campaign to end the “hot fuel rip-off.” This acclaim results 

from the belief that Hawaii and Mattimoe purportedly saved that state’s motorists “millions of 

dollars”56 by resetting retail pumps to dispense larger, “Hawaii gallons” of approximately 

234 cubic inches of gasoline rather than statutory U.S. gallons of 231 cubic inches.57

The CEC Staff Report appears to accept these claims regarding Hawaii:

 

estimated $2.3 billion this year because of “hot” fuel. No other state

adjusts for temperature fluctuations when dispensing fuel, including

warm-weather states such as California, Texas and Florida, where 

drivers lose hundreds of millions of dollars a year.

In fact, few consumers even realize that they’re not getting what they 

pay for when they fill up at the pump. That’s because no national law 

requires retail station owners to sell fuel at the government standard

of 60 degrees, or use pumps that adjust to reflect the hotter fuel.

That omission might seem odd, especially considering soaring gas prices 

and record oil industry profits. As Hawaii proved, states can take action 

to address the hot-fuel problem.

54 Judy Dugan, “Californians Say Aloha (in the Bye-Bye Sense) to Their Savings – State Gasoline 

Price Tops Hawaii,” OilWatchdog, March 17, 2008: 

http://www.oilwatchdog.org/articles/?storyId=19150

Hawaii’s retail gallon of gasoline is larger than in the rest of the U.S. 

because of the state’s “hot fuel” law. Hawaii is warm year-round, and so 

is gasoline sold in the state, averaging over 80 degrees. Gasoline 

expands and loses energy as it heats up. Hawaii requires a gallon 

slightly more than 1% larger than the U.S. standard, a hypothetical 

“60-degree” gallon.

“In reality, Hawaii’s gasoline is more than a nickel cheaper than 

California’s, because drivers are already getting four cents extra worth 

of gasoline in each gallon,” said Dugan. “No wonder oil companies and 

marketers are so opposed to giving motorists in California and other 

warm states a fair measure of fuel by compensating for fuel temperature 

on retail sales.”

55 Statement of Joan Claybrook, President, Public Citizen, “Hot Fuel Means Big Rip-Off at 

Gasoline Pumps”, December 14, 2006.

http://www.citizen.org/pressroom/print_release.cfm?ID=2337 (“Since the 1970s, Hawaii has adjusted 

the standard volume of a gallon of gasoline to account for its warmer temperatures.... Ultimately, 

Congress needs to step in to protect consumers nationwide against hot fuel overcharges.”)

56 Janos Gereben, “Technical Wizard Here Helps Us Save on Gas,” Honolulu Star-Bulletin, 

November 18, 1975, p. A1.

57 The size of this “Hawaii gallon” was determined to be the volume of a net gallon at the average 

year-round temperature in Hawaii, 80 F.
L&R Committee 2009Final Report

Appendix D – Fuel Delivery Temperature Study

L&R - D43

Hawaii is the only state in the nation that has adopted a form of 

temperature compensation at retail outlets. This occurred when the 

state increase the size of their gallon from the U.S. standard of 

231 cubic inches to a larger Hawaiian gallon of about 233 cubic 

inches.58

In implicit acknowledgment of the “Hawaii example”, AB 868 directed the CEC to 

conduct a cost-benefit analysis of the possible establishment of a “different statewide reference 

temperature” for use in California. Pursuant to that direction, CEC staff apparently interviewed 

Mr. Mattimoe in connection with its consideration of the option of establishing a “California 

reference temperature” to be used as the basis retail sales in the state.59

The CEC Staff Report acknowledges the “input and support in the production of this 

report” provided by Mr. Mattimoe and the Hawaii Department of Weights and Measures,60 and 

credits him for having spear-headed the campaign to have a standardized unit of measure adopted 

in Hawaii,61 and for reducing the cost of fuel to Hawaiian consumers.62

But the discussion in the CEC Staff Report also shows that the CEC staff failed to 

conduct an independent analysis of the historical record and data to verify the claims made by 

Mattimoe63 and the “hot fuel” activists regarding the practical effect of imposing the “Hawaii 

gallon”. Had it done so, the CEC staff would have discovered that the adoption of that unit of 

measure had no effect whatever on the retail cost of fuel to Hawaiian consumers.

What actually happened in Hawaii

The first thing that the CEC staff would have learned is that – rather than instituting the 

practice in 1974 as claimed by Mattimoe and others, “Hawaii has been making allowance for the 

 58 CEC Staff Report at p. 1.

59 CEC Staff Report at pp. 11, 13-14.

60 CEC Staff Report at pp. i-ii.

61 CEC Staff Report at p. 13.

62 CEC Staff Report at p. 14 (“Despite improving the situation and reportedly saving consumers 

money by having a higher reference temperature...”)

63 Presentation of George E. Mattimoe, “Temperature Correction of Petroleum Products at Retail,” 

Report of the 59th National Conference on Weights and Measures 1974 (July 7 - 12, 1974) at 

pp. 166-181.
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix D – Fuel Delivery Temperature Study

L&R - D44

expansion of gasoline in gasoline pumps since 1969,”64 a time when retail gasoline prices likely 

were less than about 43.9 cents per gallon.65

, 66

Figure 20 suggests that the adoption of the “Hawaii gallon” would have meant an 

increase of substantially less than one cent per gallon in 1969, given the prevailing retail price 

levels at the time. Figure 20 incorporates the approximate retail price level that prevailed in 

Hawaii in 1969, and shows that the resulting impact on retail prices of the 1969 imposition of the 

“Hawaii gallon” would have amounted to about six-tenths of one cent per gallon when retailers’ 

incorporated their higher wholesale cost per “gallon” into their pump prices.67

Figure 20.

Adoption of the "Hawaii gallon" in 1969 increased target retail prices by 0.6¢.

Change in 1969 from U.S. Gallons to 80° F. "Hawaii Gallons"

Unit of 

measurement 

for quantity 

sold

Size of 

quantity 

unit

(cubic 

inches)

Total 

quantity 

units 

available 

for sale

Dealer's

target total 

sales 

revenue

Resulting 

dealer 

target street 

price per 

unit

Total cost 

of 100 US 

gallons 

(23,100 

cubic 

inches)

Before U.S. Gallon 231.00 8,000.0

$3,500

$0.438 $43.75

After 80° Gallon 234.19 7,891.1 $0.444 $43.75

Change 1.38% 1.38% 0.00%

A reasonable inference is that the adoption of the “Hawaii gallon” did lead to an increase 

in contemporaneous retail prices, but because the amount of the implied increase was so small 

 64 Janos Gereben, “Technical Wizard Here Helps Us Save on Gas,” Honolulu Star-Bulletin, 

November 18, 1975, p. A1. Apparently, the 1969 change was implemented at the county (island) level 

by action of county commissioners. The effect of the 1974 action by the State of Hawaii was to codify 

the counties’ practice into state law.

65 Honolulu Star-Bulletin, “Local Gasoline Prices Vary,” May 19, 1968, p. D7.

66 Honolulu Star-Bulletin, “Third Firm Raises Price of Gasoline, April 23, 1970, p. A14.

67 While no specific reference to the impact of the 1969 adoption of the “Hawaii gallon” on retail 

prices can be located, it is reasonable to conclude that retailers did adjust their street prices to account for 

it. This inference is supported by the fact that retailers did raise their prices in response to other cost 

increases during the relevant period. See Honolulu Star-Bulletin, May 19, 1968 at p. D7 (“Local 

Gasoline Prices Vary”); April 1, 1970 at p. A5 (“Standard Hikes Price of Gasoline in Isles”); April 

23,1970 at p. A14 (“Third Firm Raises Price of Gasoline”); and November 23, 1970 at p. B3 (“Standard 

Oil Stations Boost Gasoline 1 Cent”).
L&R Committee 2009Final Report

Appendix D – Fuel Delivery Temperature Study

L&R - D45

and because it came at a time when Hawaiian retailers were increasing their pump prices in 

response to other cost increases, consumers did not take particular notice.68

Ironically, the best summary of the impact of adopting a new “reference temperature” is 

from Measurement Canada:

Why was 15°C chosen as the reference temperature for ATC?

The reference temperature of 15°C is a long-standing 

international standard used in most countries for the 

purchase and sale of petroleum products...

Would using a different reference temperature save me money?

No. The actual reference temperature used does not 

matter. In the sale of temperature compensated petroleum 

products, the volume is based on 15°C. This means that the 

consumer is paying for a 15°C litre at a 15°C price, no 

matter what the temperature of the product. If a different 

reference temperature were chosen, the purchaser would 

still receive consistent amounts of product. However, a 

different price per litre would possibly be charged if a 

different reference temperature were used.

69

The adoption of automatic temperature compensation by Canadian 

retailers

As the CEC Staff Report appears to acknowledge,70

 68 In an interesting side note, while Mattimoe went to some lengths to redefine the unit of measure 

for use in retail fuel sales, no similar change was imposed on wholesale transactions in Hawaii. This is 

significant because at the time, such transactions were not compensated for temperature in any way. 

Consequently, Hawaiian retailers publicly complained that they were being unfairly treated following 

Mattimoe’s initiative, because the gasoline they purchased at wholesale was not measured in “Hawaii 

gallons” or corrected in any way for expansion due to temperature, while at the same time they were 

required to dispense such gallons to their customers. See Honolulu Star-Bulletin, “Is Temperature Meter 

Necessary? Buying Gasoline a Heated Issue,” August 5, 1981 at p. A3.

the adoption in the mid-1990s of 

automatic temperature compensation by most Canadian retailers resulted from the particular 

circumstances in Canada at the time, and does not amount to “proof” of the “hypocrisy” of U.S. 

69 Measurement Canada, Information Bulletin - Automatic Temperature Compensation and the 

Retail Sale of Gasoline and Diesel Fuel, updated 2008-02-21 (emphases added). 

http://www.ic.gc.ca/epic/site/mc-mc.nsf/en/lm01094e.html.

70 CEC Staff Report at pp. 14-15.
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix D – Fuel Delivery Temperature Study

L&R - D46

retailers.71 Canadian consumers did not save – or lose – any money on their purchases of 

gasoline and diesel fuel following that change. But the Canadian adoption of automatic 

temperature compensation did generate considerable confusion and complaints that should serve 

as a cautionary warning to proponents of the ATC Retrofit in California.

The permissive legal framework and the specter of underground leaks

In the early and mid-1990s, Canadian retailers became particularly concerned about their 

liability for underground leaks from their storage tanks because their stations were not equipped 

with automatic tank monitoring systems that would enable them to track their inventories and to 

detect any leakage. A spate of negative coverage had appeared in the Canadian press at the 

time.72 This created an opportunity for automatic temperature compensation because that 

technology would – as a byproduct – enable retailers to better track their underground inventory 

and to detect leaks.

At the same time, Canadian law had been changed – at the urging of a would-be supplier 

of the necessary equipment – to allow individual retailers to voluntarily implement automatic 

temperature compensation in their dispensers.73

The temporary “first mover advantage” enjoyed by early adopters

More importantly, Canada's colder temperatures gave a "first mover advantage" to early 

adopters of ATC technology. This is illustrated by Figure 21, which demonstrates that a retailer 

with ATC would have a significant tactical advantage over rivals who had not adopted ATC. 

The “early adopter” either could gain additional sales revenue by posting the same apparent price 

per liter as his rivals, or he could appear to post a lower price per liter while keeping his total 

sales revenue unchanged.

 71 See John Siebert, OOIDA, “Temperature Compensation at the Retail Pump,” presentation before 

the Interim Meeting of the National Conference on Weights and Measures, January 22, 2007 (“I have two 

words for those who oppose temperature compensation at the retail pump: Canada... and CANADA!!!”)

72 Winnipeg Free Press, “Buried fuel tanks raise alarm,” July 12, 1993, A1; “Gas leaks [at 

Winnipeg service stations] spark merchants’ anger,” March 29, 1993, A1; “Gas stations clean 

contaminated soil,” March 29, 1993, B1. See also Halifax Chronicle Herald, “Leaking gas tanks 

retailers’ nightmare,” April 6, 1993, pp. B1-2; Calgary Herald, “Gasoline leaks contaminating well 

water,” April 22, 1994, A14; Daily Commercial News, “Buried gas tanks create quandary,” 

September 7, 1994, pp. 1, 3; Calgary Herald, “Court orders Shell to pay $430,000 penalty; fines, 

damages assessed after water contaminated at service station,” November 4, 1995, A3.

73 CEC Staff Report at p. 14.
L&R Committee 2009Final Report

Appendix D – Fuel Delivery Temperature Study

L&R - D47

Figure 21.

“First mover” advantage for early adopter of ATC in “cold” climate.

"First Mover" Local Rival

(Installs ATC equipment) (Does not install ATC)

Fuel temperature 

at 45° F.

Size of 

"gallon" 

(in cubic 

inches)

Total 

"gallons" 

available 

for sale

Target 

retail 

price 

per 

"gallon"

Resulting 

total 

sales 

revenue

Size of 

"gallon" 

(in 

cubic 

inches)

Total 

"gallons" 

available 

for sale

Target 

retail 

price 

per 

"gallon"

Resulting 

total sales 

revenue

Without ATC equipment 231.00 8,000.0 $3.000 $24,000 231.00 8,000.0 $3.000 $24,000

With ATC equipment

Option 1 (pump price 

"same" as Local Rival) 228.61 8,083.7 $3.000 $24,251

or

Option 2 (pump price 

"below" Local Rival) 228.61 8,083.7 $2.969 $24,000

That Canadian manufacturer of ATC equipment – Kraus Technology74 – seized the 

opportunity created by the “first mover” advantage and the prospect of improved leak detection 

to actively pitch its ATC products to Canadian retailers as a way to boost profits.75 Because of 

the competitive advantage gained by the first retailer to adopt ATC in a particular local area, 

rivals would be forced to follow suit or suffer competitively. When Kraus induced Texaco to 

implement it at all their stores, other retailers had no alternative but to follow suit.76

 74 Ironically, this is the same Kraus Technology on which the CEC staff relies for its estimates of 

the cost of the equipment needed to accomplish the ATC Retrofit.

75 Steve Everly, “Hot fuel for you means cold cash for big oil, retailers,” Kansas City Star, 

August 27, 2006 at p. A1.

Hans Kraus, who owned a company in Canada that supplied equipment to the 

petroleum industry, helped push the change [in Canadian law to permit voluntary 

adoption of automatic temperature compensation]. Kraus had produced a retrofit kit 

allowing temperature compensation at existing pumps, and he needed to market his 

gizmo. So he prepared a study showing that temperature compensation would make the 

industry money in Canada. The industry bought his pitch and pushed for a change in 

Canadian law.

Today, sales material used by Kraus Global Products in Canada asserts that using fuel 

dispensers that don’t adjust for temperature is an “inherently inaccurate” way to sell fuel. 

In one example, the sales material claims an Edmonton, Alberta, gas station could save 

$23,000 for every $1 million in fuel it sold.

76 Written statement of Hugh Cooley, Shell Oil Company, before the Subcommittee on Domestic 

Policy of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, July 25, 2007 at p. 3:

My understanding is that the government of Canada approved 

temperature adjustment for retail gasoline fifteen years ago at the urging 

of the manufacturer of a temperature adjustment device. A few years 

later, some retailers began to temperature adjust, presumably to obtain a 

competitive advantage over other retailers as a result of their lowered 
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix D – Fuel Delivery Temperature Study

L&R - D48

The resulting confusion and complaints among the Canadian public

As was explained and demonstrated earlier in this report, the adoption of automatic 

temperature compensation did not "save" Canadian consumers anything. But significantly, it 

actually generated a torrent of complaints and negative press accounts because the 15 C reference 

standard was warmer than the actual average Canadian temperature of 6 C, and in particular 

because motorists felt they were being "shorted" in cold weather.77

 

unit cost. Once the trend became apparent, other retailers followed to 

avoid a competitive disadvantage.

77 Montreal Globe, “Drivers will pay for unpumped gasoline,” September 15, 1994, D3; Toronto 

Star, “Drivers face new squeeze at pump; new meters means less in your tank in winter but more in 

summer,” September 15, 1994 at p. B1:

Drivers will be paying millions at the pump for gasoline they’re not getting. Service 

stations are installing sophisticated meters that apply a basic law of physics to your bill. 

Like all liquids and gases, gasoline expands when it’s hot and contracts when it’s cold. 

The new meters charge you as if the gasoline was at 15C, an international standard used 

for crude oil tanker loads. “That might be okay for South Carolina, but the average 

temperature here should be 5 degrees or less,” said Ron Chalmers, who has spent 

$200,000 installing meters on the tanker trucks he uses to deliver fuel to Imperial 

Oil Ltd. outlets.

See also The (Kitchener, Ontario) Record, “The federal government aids and abets oil cartel,” 

June 16, 1998, at p. A11:

The oil industry’s most eye-catching piece of robbery is the adjustment of gasoline 

pumps to take into account the fact that the volume of gasoline contracts as the 

temperature goes down. Unfortunately for consumers, the pumps are set to a 

temperature of 15 C, although the average temperature in Canada is only 6 C. The effect 

is that most of the year, drivers are actually getting less gas than the pump indicates.

See also: CBC Marketplace, “Are we getting hosed at the pumps?” February 16, 1999.

http://www.cbc.ca/consumers/market/files/cars/gasprice/index.html:

At pumps across Canada, the price isn’t always right.

Most of us don’t pay much attention when we’re filling up. We may check the pump to 

verify the price and the number of litre we’re paying for, but that’s about it. But the next 

time you fill up, look for a little black sticker that says “this register has been volume 

corrected to 15 degrees Celsius.”

What does that mean?

Well, the bottom line is, if it’s colder than 15 degrees, you’re getting less gas than you 

paid for.

...

Critics say there’s a problem with that method in Canada, because the 

temperature of gas is closer to the mean air temperature of our country, which is 

6 degrees. And because of that, they say for most of the year, you’re paying for gas 

you’re not getting.”
L&R Committee 2009Final Report

Appendix D – Fuel Delivery Temperature Study

L&R - D49

Once the other retailers in an area were forced to follow suit by acquiring automatic 

temperature compensation equipment themselves, the first mover’s competitive advantage would 

disappear. In the long run, the principal beneficiaries of the widespread adoption of ATC 

equipment were its manufacturers.

No savings by Canadian motorists after the adoption of ATC

Canadian motorists paid the same amount for a given quantity of fuel following the 

widespread adoption of automatic temperature compensation as they did prior to it, owing to the 

competitive market for retail fuel sales in Canada.

The CEC Staff Report’s underestimate of the true cost of the 

proposed ATC Retrofit

It is highly likely that the estimates of the total costs associated with retrofitting each 

California retailer’s dispensers to incorporate automatic temperature compensation are too low 

by a significant margin.

First, the CEC Staff Report has uncritically adopted cost estimates from Kraus Global, an 

obviously biased source with an apparent history of inducing governments to institute policy 

changes for which it turns out to be the principal beneficiary. Moreover, it does not appear that 

the Kraus estimates have been adjusted to reflect the price increases that likely would result if all 

California retailers tried to purchase and install retrofit kits simultaneously.

Nor is it obvious that individual retailers would be able to borrow the necessary capital at 

all, much less at the rates assumed by the CEC Staff Report.

As a matter of economics, it is unlikely that any retailers would want to “beat the rush” by 

implementing ATC ahead of any mandatory deadline. This is because – unlike the case in 

Canada with its colder temperatures – a California retailer who elected to be an “early adopter” 

of automatic temperature compensation would suffer a “first mover disadvantage”, as shown in 

Figure 22. This competitive disadvantage arises not just from the dealer’s need to pay for the 

ATC Retrofit equipment. The more important cost – and competitive disadvantage – would be 

caused by the fact that he would be dispensing “larger” gallons than those pumped by his 

competitors following the retrofit. Thus he would face a choice between posting higher apparent 

 

“I think it’s been a bit of a sneaky price increase by the major oil companies that’s been 

inflicted on consumers,” says Dave Collins of Wilsons Fuels, an independent retailer in 

Halifax, which operates 54 service stations Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. All but 

two of them sell gas which is not temperature compensated.

“As a consumer you don’t know that it’s temperature compensating,” Collins says. “The 

vast majority of Canadians can’t make an informed choice. They believe that a litre is a 

litre is a litre.”

Mike Budded, with the Independent Retail Gasoline Marketers Association of Canada, in 

Toronto, agrees, and adds that “the problem as we see it is that an inappropriate 

temperature has been picked for compensation.”
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix D – Fuel Delivery Temperature Study

L&R - D50

retail prices per “gallon” than his local rivals (in order to maintain his target retail sales revenue) 

or sacrificing revenue by posting per-“gallon” prices that matched his competitors’.

Figure 22.

“First mover” disadvantage for early adopter of ATC in “warm” climate.

"First Mover" Local Rival

(Installs ATC equipment) (Does not install ATC)

Fuel temperature 

at 75° F.

Size of 

"gallon" 

(in cubic 

inches)

Total 

"gallons" 

available 

for sale

Target 

retail 

price per 

"gallon"

Resulting 

total sales 

revenue

Size of 

"gallon" 

(in cubic 

inches)

Total 

"gallons" 

available 

for sale

Target 

retail 

price per 

"gallon"

Resulting 

total sales

revenue

Without ATC equipment 231.00 8,000.0 $3.000 $24,000 231.00 8,000.0 $3.000 $24,000

With ATC equipment

Option 1 (pump price 

"same" as Local Rival) 233.39 7,918.0 $3.000 $23,754

or

Option 2 (pump price 

"above" Local Rival) 233.39 7,918.0 $3.031 ???

Though it was available to the CEC staff, the CEC Staff Report takes no notice of the 

much higher estimate of the cost to implement automatic temperature compensation that was 

prepared by the State of Missouri.78

 If one scales the Missouri estimate of $341 million upward 

to reflect the ratio between the number of retail stores in California compared to Missouri, the 

result suggests that it would cost over $700 million – rather than the $102 to $123 million figure 

arrived at by the CEC staff79 – to accomplish the ATC Retrofit.

Nor does the CEC Staff Report recognize two additional respects in which it likely has 

overlooked the true financial cost of its proposed ATC Retrofit:

First, as discussed earlier in this paper, it is reasonable as a matter of economics to expect 

that retail prices could increase by more than average retailer’s costs associated with the ATC 

Retrofit, owing to the greater proportionate burden that such costs would represent for the 

smaller-volume retailers who would be the marginal retail suppliers following that retrofit.

Second, the CEC Staff Report underestimates the effect that the ATC Retrofit would have 

on retail prices if some retailers were forced to withdraw from the market rather than incur the 

expense needed to remain in business. The CEC staff appears to believe that such withdrawals 

would be of concern only if they occurred in “isolated communities”. As a matter of economics, 

 78 That 2006 estimate – $341 million – was reported by the U.S. Government Accountability Office 

in its September 2008 report Stakeholder Views on Compensating for the Effects of Gasoline 

Temperature in Volume at the Pump (GAO-08-1114) at p. 18. The State of Missouri has not offered any 

details about how that estimate was constructed.

79 CEC Staff Report at p. 4.
L&R Committee 2009Final Report

Appendix D – Fuel Delivery Temperature Study

L&R - D51

this is incorrect; economists have documented the fact that reductions in the density of retail 

stores lead to increased retail prices, all else constant, no matter where they occur.

How competition adjusts retail prices to account for seasonal 

temperature variation.

Like the “hot fuel” allegations themselves, the consumer benefits anticipated by the CEC 

Staff Report upon implementation of the ATC Retrofit evaporate if it should be the case that retail 

competition already adjusts retail prices for seasonal variations in fuel temperature. As 

demonstrated in this section, the discipline imposed on retailers by the need to be able to pay for 

their wholesale deliveries of fuel, to cover their other costs of doing business and to earn a 

competitive return – combined with unrelenting competition from rival retailers – forces price 

adjustments that compensate for the average temperature-induced expansion of motor fuel 

volumes in local competitive areas.

In short, the absence of overt temperature-compensation technology at the retail level 

does not mean that retail prices are not adjusted for the temperature-induced expansion (and 

contraction) in fuel volume. The fact that it is market competition from other retailers that forces 

the appropriate adjustment – and that dealers themselves do not consciously and explicitly 

change their pump prices to achieve this result – does not change the essential fact that retail 

pump prices already are adjusted for seasonal temperature variation.

Where the ATC Retrofit would compensate for the temperature-induced expansion in fuel 

volumes by, in effect, varying the size of each dispensed “gallon” as fuel temperatures vary, retail 

competition achieves equivalent compensation by adjusting the price of each 231-cubic-inch 

gross gallon dispensed by retail pumps.80

Because it is market competition, rather than explicit deliberation and calculation by each 

dealer that forces the necessary adjustments, anyone looking for the specific notes and 

calculations by which individual retailers determined the appropriate changes in their pump 

 The practical result is that a consumer’s total outlay 

for a specific quantum of fuel (measured, say, in net gallons) would be identical using either 

method. The important difference is that adjustment for temperature variation through retail 

competition is already in place and effective at zero incremental cost, compared to the hundreds 

of millions of dollars that would be required to accomplish the ATC Retrofit. Because of this, the 

imposition of the ATC Retrofit on California retailers would not generate any additional benefits 

for California motorists, even though it inevitably would saddle them with higher prices for 

gasoline and diesel fuel.

 80 Automatic temperature compensation explicitly varies the volume of each dispensed “gallon” in 

proportion to the expansion induced by temperature changes, while keeping constant the posted price per 

net gallon. Retail competition, on the other hand, keeps constant the volume of each gross gallon 

dispensed (at 231 cubic inches) but induces dealers to adjust their pump prices as average fuel 

temperatures vary with the seasons.
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix D – Fuel Delivery Temperature Study

L&R - D52

prices will do so in vain. This is because the mechanism at work is a practical illustration of 

Adam Smith’s “invisible hand”.81

So how does retail competition induce – indeed, force – retailers to adjust their pump 

prices to compensate for temperature-induced changes in fuel volume? The explanation – which 

requires only that the retailer operate in a competitive market82 with knowledge of how much 

sales revenue he needs to generate and how many (gross) gallons he has available to sell83 in 

order to try to achieve that target revenue – is illustrated in the following series of figures that are 

based on the monthly California-wide average retail gasoline temperatures shown in Figure 23

derived from the California Fuel Temperature Survey84 and on the assumption that the 

hypothetical retailer receives and sells a single load of 8,000 gallons of gasoline each month.

 81 Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations, Volume IV Chapter II, Modern Library edition, pp. 484-485 

(emphases added):

As every individual...endeavors as much he can both to employ his 

capital in the support of domestic industry, and so to direct that industry 

that its produce may be of greatest value; every individual necessarily 

labors to render the annual revenue of the society as great as he can. He 

generally...neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows 

how much he is promoting it....[B]y directing that industry in such a 

manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only own 

gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand 

to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always 

the worse for the society that it was not part of it. By pursuing his own 

interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than 

when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good 

done by those who affected to trade for the public good. It is an 

affectation...not very common among merchants, and very few words 

need to be employed in dissuading them from it.

82 CEC Staff Report at p. 72.

83 Dealers have access to this information through their tank monitoring systems. See California 

Fuel Temperature Survey, Presentation by Ken Lake, California Division of Measurement Standards, 

CEC Staff Workshop, March 4, 2008 at slides 3-4.

84 CEC Staff Report, Figure 10 at p. 37.
L&R Committee 2009Final Report

Appendix D – Fuel Delivery Temperature Study

L&R - D53

Figure 23.

Average gasoline temperature by month (California Fuel Temperature Survey).

Month-by-month illustration of how competition makes the adjustment

Start with Figure 24 that assumes that the retailer takes wholesale delivery of 

8,000 gallons of gasoline in January and that the temperature of that gasoline is 60 F. As a result, 

the delivery measures an identical 8,000 gallons, regardless of whether it is measured in net or

gross terms. Assume that the dealer paid $2.875 per net gallon, so that the total wholesale cost of 

the delivered fuel is $23,000. Assume further that the dealer’s target retail margin – from which 

he must pay the other expenses associated with his business and generate a profit sufficient to 

justify remaining in business – is $1,000 (or 12.5 cents per gross gallon). So in order to pay for 

the wholesale delivery of gasoline and achieve his target margin, he must try to generate total 

retail revenue of $24,000. Using simple arithmetic, it follows that he must try to achieve a 

(target) pump price of $3.000 per gallon (both net and gross).

Figure 24.

How retail competition adjusts for the effect of temperature on fuel volume—

JANUARY.

Month

Total 

GROSS

gallons 

received

Fuel 

temp 

(F.)

Total 

NET 

gallons 

available 

for 

resale

Wholesale 

price per 

NET

gallon

Cost to 

retailer 

of 

delivered 

fuel

Wholesale 

price per 

GROSS

gallon

Target 

dealer 

margin

Target 

sales 

revenue

Target 

retail 

price 

per 

NET

gallon

Target 

retail 

price 

per 

GROSS

gallon

Difference 

in target 

GROSS

price 

relative to 

January

January 8,000.0 60.0 8,000.0 $2.875 $23,000 $2.875 $1,000 $24,000 $3.000 $3.000

February

March
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix D – Fuel Delivery Temperature Study

L&R - D54

April

May

June

July

August

September

October

November

December

Next, consider the retailer’s situation in February upon receipt of another delivery of 

8,000 gross gallons of gasoline, shown in Figure 25. Since the temperature of this fuel is a 

somewhat warmer 62.5 F., that delivery yields only 7986.2 net gallons. At an unchanged 

wholesale price of $2.875 per net gallon, the wholesale cost of this delivery is $22,960.33. Add 

to that the dealer’s target margin of $1,000 (8,000 gross gallons x $0.125), and one determines 

that the dealer’s sales revenue target is $23,960. When the dealer divides this target sales 

revenue figure by the number of gross gallons he has in inventory and available for sale, he 

realizes that he can achieve his target revenue with a pump price of $2.995 per gallon, a decrease 

of half a cent per gallon from his target price in January. In other words, market competition 

has led the dealer to decrease his target retail price by 0.17 percent (or $.005) because

temperature-induced fuel expansion caused the volume occupied by net gallon to increase by the 

same 0.17 percent (or 0.398 cubic inches).

Figure 25.

How retail competition adjusts for the effect of temperature on fuel volume—

FEBRUARY.

Month

Total 

GROSS

gallons 

received

Fuel 

temp 

(F.)

Total 

NET 

gallons 

available 

for 

resale

Wholesale 

price per 

NET

gallon

Cost to 

retailer 

of 

delivered 

fuel

Wholesale 

price per 

GROSS

gallon

Target 

dealer 

margin

Target 

sales 

revenue

Target 

retail 

price 

per 

NET

gallon

Target 

retail 

price 

per 

GROSS

gallon

Difference 

in target 

GROSS

price 

relative to 

January

January 8,000.0 60.0 8,000.0 $2.875 $23,000 $2.875 $1,000 $24,000 $3.000 $3.000

February 8,000.0 62.5 7,986.2 $2.875 $22,960 $2.870 $1,000 $23,960 $3.000 $2.995 – 0.5¢

March

April

May

June

July

August

September

October

November

December

But notice that the dealer’s target retail price per net gallon did not change. In January, 

the target retail revenue of $24,000 was distributed over 8,000 net gallons, yielding a target retail 

price of $3.000 per net gallon. In February, the dealer’s target revenue of $23,958.60 was 

distributed over 7,986.2 net gallons, again resulting in a target pump price of $3.000 per net 

gallon.
L&R Committee 2009Final Report

Appendix D – Fuel Delivery Temperature Study

L&R - D55

Next (shown in Figure 26) comes March, with a still warmer fuel temperature of 66.0 F. 

Now the delivery of 8,000 gross gallons corresponds to just 7,966.9 net gallons, which – at an 

unchanged wholesale price of $2.875 per net gallon – costs the dealer $22,905 in total. When his 

target margin of $1,000 is added to the wholesale cost of the fuel itself, the dealer’s sales revenue 

target becomes $23,905. Dividing that figure by the 8,000 gross gallons available for sale from 

his inventory, the dealer determines that his target retail price per gross gallon needs to be 

$2.988, or 1.2 cents less per gallon than was his target in January.85

Figure 26.

How retail competition adjusts for the effect of temperature on fuel volume—

MARCH.

Month

Total 

GROSS

gallons 

received

Fuel 

temp 

(F.)

Total 

NET 

gallons 

available 

for 

resale

Wholesale 

price per

NET

gallon

Cost to 

retailer 

of 

delivered 

fuel

Wholesale 

price per 

GROSS

gallon

Target 

dealer 

margin

Target 

sales 

revenue

Target 

retail 

price 

per 

NET

gallon

Target 

retail 

price 

per 

GROSS

gallon

Difference 

in target 

GROSS

price 

relative to 

January

January 8,000.0 60.0 8,000.0 $2.875 $23,000 $2.875 $1,000 $24,000 $3.000 $3.000

February 8,000.0 62.5 7,986.2 $2.875 $22,960 $2.870 $1,000 $23,960 $3.000 $2.995 – 0.5¢

March 8,000.0 66.0 7,966.9 $2.875 $22,905 $2.863 $1,000 $23,905 $3.000 $2.988 – 1.2¢

April

May

June

July

August

September

October

November

December

Repeating this process for each of the remaining nine calendar months, as depicted in 

Figure 27, shows that as the fuel temperature continues to rise in the months from April through 

August, the dealer’s target retail price per gross gallon declines, reaching $2.956 in August when 

the fuel temperature reaches its maximum value of 82 F. This is a 4.4 cent per gallon reduction 

from the January target retail price of $3.000 per gross gallon. Thereafter, as fuel temperatures 

ebb with the cooling weather, the dealer’s target retail price per gallon increases, reaching $2.995 

per gross gallon in December. The month-by-month target retail prices that result from this 

process are shown in Figure 28.

 85 As a net gallon has expanded by 0.41 percent since January, the dealer’s target street price per 

gross gallon has fallen by 0.41 percent. However, his target retail price per net gallon remains constant 

at $3.000.
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix D – Fuel Delivery Temperature Study

L&R - D56

Figure 27.

How retail competition adjusts for the effect of temperature on fuel volume—

ENTIRE YEAR.

Month

Total 

GROSS

gallons 

received

Fuel 

temp 

(F.)

Total 

NET 

gallons 

available 

for 

resale

Wholesale 

price per 

NET

gallon

Cost to 

retailer 

of 

delivered 

fuel

Wholesale 

price per 

GROSS

gallon

Target 

dealer 

margin

Target 

sales 

revenue

Target 

retail 

price 

per 

NET

gallon

Target 

retail 

price 

per 

GROSS

gallon

Difference 

in target 

GROSS

price 

relative to 

January

January 8,000.0 60.0 8,000.0 $2.875 $23,000 $2.875 $1,000 $24,000 $3.000 $3.000

February 8,000.0 62.5 7,986.2 $2.875 $22,960 $2.870 $1,000 $23,960 $3.000 $2.995 – 0.5¢

March 8,000.0 66.0 7,966.9 $2.875 $22,905 $2.863 $1,000 $23,905 $3.000 $2.988 – 1.2¢

April 8,000.0 68.0 7,955.8 $2.875 $22,873 $2.859 $1,000 $23,873 $3.000 $2.984 – 1.6¢

May 8,000.0 72.0 7,933.8 $2.875 $22,810 $2.851 $1,000 $23,810 $3.000 $2.976 – 2.4¢

June 8,000.0 76.0 7,911.7 $2.875 $22,746 $2.843 $1,000 $23,746 $3.000 $2.968 – 3.2¢

July 8,000.0 80.0 7,889.6 $2.875 $22,683 $2.835 $1,000 $23,683 $3.000 $2.960 – 4.0¢

August 8,000.0 82.0 7,878.6 $2.875 $22,651 $2.831 $1,000 $23,651 $3.000 $2.956 – 4.4¢

September 8,000.0 79.0 7,895.1 $2.875 $22,698 $2.837 $1,000 $23,698 $3.000 $2.962 – 3.8¢

October 8,000.0 74.0 7,922.7 $2.875 $22,778 $2.847 $1,000 $23,778 $3.000 $2.972 – 2.8¢

November 8,000.0 70.0 7,944.8 $2.875 $22,841 $2.855 $1,000 $23,841 $3.000 $2.980 – 2.0¢

December 8,000.0 62.5 7,986.2 $2.875 $22,960 $2.870 $1,000 $23,960 $3.000 $2.995 – 0.5¢

The key result is this: Viewed over an entire year, in which monthly fuel temperatures 

vary as shown in Figure 23, retail competition leads to adjustments in dealers’ target pump 

prices per gross gallon (summarized in Figure 28) that exactly offset the temperature-induced 

expansion in fuel volume.

Figure 28.

Target retail prices per gallon fall as the fuel temperature increases.
L&R Committee 2009Final Report

Appendix D – Fuel Delivery Temperature Study

L&R - D57

Consequently, it makes no difference whether these transactions are conducted in terms 

of net gallons or gross gallons, insofar as a motorist’s total annual outlay for gasoline (measured 

in net gallons) is concerned. This is shown in Figure 29, which starts by assuming that a 

consumer purchases the equivalent of 100 net gallons each month, for an annual total of 

1,200 net gallons. At a retail price of $3.000 per net gallon, the consumer’s total annual outlay is 

$3,600. But as shown in Figure 29, as the fuel temperature and volume increase, it requires a 

greater number of gross gallons to deliver the same 100 net gallons each month. But Figure 29

also demonstrates that the consumer’s total outlay will not increase, because retail competition 

induces an exactly offsetting decrease in a retailer’s target pump price per gross gallon.

Figure 29.

A consumer’s outlay is the same no matter whether net or gross units are used.

Month

Fuel temp

(F.)

Total NET 

gallons 

purchased

Dealer's 

target 

retail 

price per 

NET

gallon

Total cost 

of 100 

NET

gallons to 

consumer

GROSS

equivalent 

of 100 NET

gallons

Dealer's 

target 

retail 

price per 

GROSS

gallon

Total cost 

of GROSS

equivalent 

of 100 NET

gallons

January 60.0 100.00 $3.00 $300 100.00 $3.000 $300

February 62.5 100.00 $3.00 $300 100.17 $2.995 $300

March 66.0 100.00 $3.00 $300 100.41 $2.988 $300

April 68.0 100.00 $3.00 $300 100.55 $2.984 $300

May 72.0 100.00 $3.00 $300 100.83 $2.976 $300

June 76.0 100.00 $3.00 $300 101.10 $2.968 $300

July 80.0 100.00 $3.00 $300 101.38 $2.960 $300

August 82.0 100.00 $3.00 $300 101.52 $2.956 $300

September 79.0 100.00 $3.00 $300 101.31 $2.962 $300

October 74.0 100.00 $3.00 $300 100.97 $2.972 $300

November 70.0 100.00 $3.00 $300 100.69 $2.980 $300

December 62.5 100.00 $3.00 $300 100.17 $2.995 $300

TOTAL 1,200.00 $3,600 1209.11 $3,600

The preceding illustrations are based on the assumption that the retailer takes delivery of 

8,000 gross gallons each month. However, as shown in Figure 30, nothing of substance would 

change if it were assumed instead that these wholesale deliveries consist of 8,000 net gallons at 

$2.875 per net gallon and that the dealer’s target margin is $0.125 per net gallon. The dealer’s 

target retail price per gross gallon would still vary inversely with the average fuel temperature.
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix D – Fuel Delivery Temperature Study

L&R - D58

Figure 30.

Nothing changes if it is assumed that wholesale deliveries and dealer margins 

are in net gallons.

Month

Total 

GROSS

gallons 

received

Fuel 

temp 

(F.)

Total 

NET 

gallons 

available 

for 

resale

Wholesale

price per 

NET

gallon

Cost to 

retailer 

of 

delivere

d fuel

Wholesale

price per 

GROSS

gallon

Target 

dealer 

margin 

per NET

gallon

Target 

sales 

revenue

Target 

retail 

price per 

NET

gallon

Target 

retail 

price per 

GROSS

gallon

Difference 

in target 

GROSS

price 

relative to 

January

January 8,000.0 60.0 8,000 $2.875 $23,000 $2.875 $1,000 $24,000 $3.000 $3.000

February 8,013.8 62.5 8,000 $2.875 $23,000 $2.870 $1,000 $24,000 $3.000 $2.995 – 0.5¢

March 8,033.1 66.0 8,000 $2.875 $23,000 $2.863 $1,000 $24,000 $3.000 $2.988 – 1.2¢

April 8,044.2 68.0 8,000 $2.875 $23,000 $2.859 $1,000 $24,000 $3.000 $2.984 – 1.6¢

May 8,066.2 72.0 8,000 $2.875 $23,000 $2.851 $1,000 $24,000 $3.000 $2.975 – 2.5¢

June 8,088.3 76.0 8,000 $2.875 $23,000 $2.844 $1,000 $24,000 $3.000 $2.967 – 3.3¢

July 8,110.4 80.0 8,000 $2.875 $23,000 $2.836 $1,000 $24,000 $3.000 $2.959 – 4.1¢

August 8,121.4 82.0 8,000 $2.875 $23,000 $2.832 $1,000 $24,000 $3.000 $2.955 – 4.5¢

September 8,104.9 79.0 8,000 $2.875 $23,000 $2.838 $1,000 $24,000 $3.000 $2.961 – 3.9¢

October 8,077.3 74.0 8,000 $2.875 $23,000 $2.847 $1,000 $24,000 $3.000 $2.971 – 2.9¢

November 8,055.2 70.0 8,000 $2.875 $23,000 $2.855 $1,000 $24,000 $3.000 $2.979 – 2.1¢

December 8,013.8 62.5 8,000 $2.875 $23,000 $2.870 $1,000 $24,000 $3.000 $2.995 – 0.5¢

It also is important to notice what was not required in these illustrations. In particular, it 

was not required that a retailer start with a target pump price per net gallon (presumably, some 

markup over his wholesale price per net gallon), then measure the actual temperature of the fuel 

in his inventory, next perform the calculations to determine the increased volume of his net 

gallons beyond 231 cubic inches, and finally make the appropriate arithmetic adjustment to his 

preliminary target street price per net gallon, all in order to arrive at the actual price per gross 

gallon to be posted on his pumps. All the retailer actually needed to know was how many gross 

gallons he had in inventory, how much he paid for that inventory, and what gross margin he 

needed to seek in order to cover his other costs of doing business and to earn a competitive 

profit. Retail competition then led the retailer to make the appropriate adjustments to his target 

street price.

No “excess federal and state motor fuel taxes” are collected

Using this same analytical approach, it is straightforward to dispose of the charge by “hot 

fuel” activists that dealers “generate hidden profits” by overcharging their retail customers for 

federal and state motor vehicle fuel taxes.86

 86 Kansas City Star, “Loophole enhances ‘hot fuel’ profits,” November 12, 2006 

 The activists’ argument goes like this: Retailers 

purchase wholesale inventory – and pay applicable federal and state motor vehicle fuel taxes – on 

the basis of the net gallons delivered by the supplier. However, when these same retailers sell 

that fuel to their retail customers at higher temperatures, they sell more gallons than they 

purchased at wholesale and on which their own federal and state fuel tax liabilities were 

calculated. Yet retailers require consumers to pay motor vehicle fuel taxes on these extra 

gallons, even though this results in more tax revenue than the retailers had to pay at the time of 

their wholesale purchases. The difference is undeserved profit to these retailers.

http://www.kansascity.com/128/v-print/story/38819.html; “Second Consolidated Amended Complaint, In 

re: Motor Fuel Temperature Sales Practices Litigation, filed December 1, 2008 in U.S. District Court 

for the District of Kansas at pp. 4, 19-22, 32-33; and Public Citizen, “Fact Sheet on Hot Fuel”, 

December 14, 2006. 

http://www.citizen.org/cmep/energy_enviro_nuclear/electricity/Oil_and_Gas/articles.cfm?ID=16025
L&R Committee 2009Final Report

Appendix D – Fuel Delivery Temperature Study

L&R - D59

Figure 31.

Competition also adjusts the fuel taxes collected per gross gallon as the 

temperature changes.

Month

Total 

GROSS

gallons 

received

Fuel 

temp 

(F.)

Total NET 

gallons 

purchased 

by retailer

Motor 

fuel 

taxes 

paid per 

NET

gallon 

by 

dealer

Wholesale 

price per 

NET

gallon 

less fuel 

taxes

Cost to 

retailer 

of 

delivered 

fuel

Target

sales 

revenue

Target 

retail 

price 

per 

GROSS

gallon 

(total)

Target 

retail 

price 

per 

GROSS

gallon 

(net of 

fuel 

taxes)

Target 

fuel 

taxes 

per 

GROSS

gallon

Difference 

in fuel 

taxes per 

GROSS

gallon 

relative to 

January

January 8,000.0 60.0 8,000.0 $0.378 $2.497 $23,000 $24,000 $3.000 $2.622 $0.378

February 8,000.0 62.5 7,986.2 $0.378 $2.497 $22,960 $23,960 $2.995 $2.618 $0.377 – 0.1¢

March 8,000.0 66.0 7,966.9 $0.378 $2.497 $22,905 $23,905 $2.988 $2.612 $0.376 – 0.2¢

April 8,000.0 68.0 7,955.8 $0.378 $2.497 $22,873 $23,873 $2.984 $2.608 $0.376 – 0.2¢

May 8,000.0 72.0 7,933.8 $0.378 $2.497 $22,810 $23,810 $2.976 $2.601 $0.375 – 0.3¢

June 8,000.0 76.0 7,911.7 $0.378 $2.497 $22,746 $23,746 $2.968 $2.594 $0.374 – 0.4¢

July 8,000.0 80.0 7,889.6 $0.378 $2.497 $22,683 $23,683 $2.960 $2.588 $0.373 – 0.5¢

August 8,000.0 82.0 7,878.6 $0.378 $2.497 $22,651 $23,651 $2.956 $2.584 $0.372 – 0.6¢

September 8,000.0 79.0 7,895.1 $0.378 $2.497 $22,698 $23,698 $2.962 $2.589 $0.373 – 0.5¢

October 8,000.0 74.0 7,922.7 $0.378 $2.497 $22,778 $23,778 $2.972 $2.598 $0.374 – 0.4¢

November 8,000.0 70.0 7,944.8 $0.378 $2.497 $22,841 $23,841 $2.980 $2.605 $0.375 – 0.3¢

December 8,000.0 62.5 7,986.2 $0.378 $2.497 $22,960 $23,960 $2.995 $2.618 $0.377 – 0.1¢

Figure 31 is the same as earlier Figure 27, except that it explicitly breaks out the 

$0.378 in motor fuel taxes per net gallon87

month in federal and state fuel taxes, regardless of the fuel temperature. This is shown in 

that were included in the $2.875 per net gallon 

collected by the wholesale supplier. The key results are in the three rightmost columns: Just as 

before, the dealer’s target retail price per gross gallon decreases as the fuel temperature increases. 

But Figure 31 also shows that the dollar amount of the U.S. and California fuel taxes per gross 

gallon also declines as the fuel warms. In January – with the fuel temperature at 60 F. – the 

retailer’s target pump price of $3.000 per gross gallon includes 37.8 cents in taxes. But in each 

succeeding month, as the fuel temperature increases, the amount of fuel taxes collected with each 

gross gallon sold decreases, falling to 37.2 cents per gallon in August when the fuel temperature 

peaks at 82.0 F. If one assumes that a consumer purchases the equivalent of 100 net gallons per 

month, the adjustments to the dollar amount of fuel taxes collected per gross gallon that are 

summarized in Figure 31 insure that the consumer pays no more and no less than $37.80 each 

Figure 32.

 87 The sum of $0.180 federal, $0.183 California and $0.015 underground storage tank taxes per 

gallon.
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix D – Fuel Delivery Temperature Study

L&R - D60

Figure 32.

Fuel taxes paid by consumer per net gallon remain constant.

Month

Fuel 

temperature 

(F.)

Total NET 

gallons 

purchased

Fuel taxes 

paid by 

consumer per 

NET gallon

Total fuel 

taxes paid 

by 

consumer 

per 100 

NET

gallons

GROSS

equivalent 

of 100 NET

gallons

Dealer's 

target fuel 

taxes per 

GROSS

gallon

Total taxes 

collected 

per GROSS

equivalent 

of 100 NET

gallons

January 60.0 100.00 $0.378 $37.80 100.00 $0.378 $37.80

February 62.5 100.00 $0.378 $37.80 100.17 $0.377 $37.80

March 66.0 100.00 $0.378 $37.80 100.41 $0.376 $37.80

April 68.0 100.00 $0.378 $37.80 100.55 $0.376 $37.80

May 72.0 100.00 $0.378 $37.80 100.83 $0.375 $37.80

June 76.0 100.00 $0.378 $37.80 101.10 $0.374 $37.80

July 80.0 100.00 $0.378 $37.80 101.38 $0.373 $37.80

August 82.0 100.00 $0.378 $37.80 101.52 $0.372 $37.80

September 79.0 100.00 $0.378 $37.80 101.31 $0.373 $37.80

October 74.0 100.00 $0.378 $37.80 100.97 $0.374 $37.80

November 70.0 100.00 $0.378 $37.80 100.69 $0.375 $37.80

December 62.5 100.00 $0.378 $37.80 100.17 $0.377 $37.80

TOTAL 1,200.00 $453.60 1209.11 $453.60

Monte Carlo simulation of repeated retail purchases in the context of 

cross-sectional temperature variations.

The preceding section showed how retail competition adjusts pump prices for the 

expansion in fuel volumes induced by seasonal changes in average fuel temperatures. But “hot 

fuel” activists are also alarmed by temperature differences in the fuel being sold at the same point 

in time from different retailers in the same local area.88

In this section, I will show how a motorist’s repeated purchases – over, say, a calendar 

year – are sufficient to protect against what is termed cross-sectional variation in fuel 

temperature in that motorist’s local area.

 88 Letter to the California Energy Commission from Judy Dugan, The Foundation for Taxpayer and 

Consumer Rights (FTCR) and oilwatchdog.org, February 8, 2008 (“The presentation by Henry 

Opperman at the open meeting Jan. 28 showed that, even in a small sample, stations within blocks of one 

another had gasoline temperature variations of up to 10 degrees F.”); “Consumer’s View of Mr. Ross 

Anderson’s ‘Comments on Fuel Deliver and [sic] Temperature Study,” comments submitted to the 

California Energy Commission by John Siebert, Owner Operator independent Drivers Association, 

February 29, 2008 (“[T]he issue facing consumers is between buying only gross gallons in a market 

where fuel temperatures can vary 15 to 20 degrees within a five block area. Henry Opperman shared a 

fuel temperature map of Topeka, Kansas, at the NCWM interim meeting which illustrates this well.”)
L&R Committee 2009Final Report

Appendix D – Fuel Delivery Temperature Study

L&R - D61

Data on cross-sectional temperature variations.

Because of limitations in its design and execution, the California Fuel Temperature 

Survey did not gather the sort of data that would be needed to analyze this phenomenon in 

California. Consequently, the demonstration that follows is based on cross-sectional 

observations drawn from retailers located within approximately five miles of the center of 

Topeka, Kansas.89 These data, consisting of 48 observations gathered on four separate occasions 

in 2007 and presented to the National Conference on Weights and Measures in 2008,90 are 

summarized in Figure 33.

91

 For each observation, the statistic of interest is its deviation from 

the prevailing average (or mean) fuel temperature, because the possibility of such deviations are 

the basis for the concerns expressed by activists. When each actual observation is replaced by its 

deviation from the mean, it becomes feasible to aggregate all 48 observations into a single “metasample” of deviations from the mean of Topeka-area fuel temperatures.92

, 93

 89 Not “within blocks of one another” or “within a five block area”, as claimed by Ms. Dugan and 

Mr. Siebert respectively.

90 Henry Oppermann, “Temperature Data from Weights and Measures Programs,” Presentation at 

the NCWM Interim Meeting, January 28, 2008, slides 12-15.

91 Nineteen measurements with a mean temperature of 50.6 F. were obtained during the 

January 8 - 12, 2007 period, followed by six observations each on April 16 and April 23, 2007 (with 

mean temperatures of 54.4 and 59.0, respectively), and with seventeen more readings gathered during the 

December 4 - 8, 2007 interval (with a mean of 50.6 F.). One apparently anomalous observation taken in 

December 2007 (with a reported fuel temperature of 32.7 F.) was omitted from my analysis because it 

was nearly 10 degrees colder than the next coldest measurement. This omission had no material effect on

the results reported in this paper.

92 It should be noted that the range in fuel temperatures at one point in time (calculated as the 

arithmetic difference between the warmest and coldest measurements) is of less interest. A hypothetical 

consumer would not face a choice between only the warmest and coldest fuel in the area; she could also 

randomly select from among any of the intermediate fuel temperatures available at the time.

93 Since it is the deviations from the prevailing average fuel temperature – and not the temperatures 

themselves – that are of interest, it makes no particular difference that these 48 observations were 

recorded during relatively “cold” months.
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix D – Fuel Delivery Temperature Study

L&R - D62

Figure 33.

Fuel temperatures in the vicinity of Topeka, KS reported by Henry Oppermann.

January 8-12, 2007 April 16, 2007 April 23, 2007 December 4-8, 2007

(Mean = 50.6° F.) (Mean = 54.4° F.) (Mean = 59.0° F.) (Mean = 50.6° F.)

Obs 

no Temp Devn Obs no Temp Devn Obs no Temp Dev Obs no Temp Devn

1 58.8 8.2 20 59.5 5.1 26 66.0 7.0 32 55.9 5.3

2 55.4 4.8 21 58.8 4.4 27 61.2 2.2 33 54.9 4.3

3 54.7 4.1 22 54.5 0.1 28 59.9 0.9 34 54.9 4.3

4 54.1 3.5 23 53.6 -0.8 29 56.3 -2.7 35 54.9 4.3

5 53.2 2.6 24 52.2 -2.2 30 55.6 -3.4 36 54.1 3.5

6 53.1 2.5 25 48.0 -6.4 31 55.2 -3.8 37 53.8 3.2

7 52.3 1.7 38 52.5 1.9

8 52.0 1.4 39 51.6 1.0

9 51.3 0.7 40 51.4 0.8

10 51.1 0.5 41 50.5 -0.1

11 50.7 0.1 42 50.4 -0.2

12 50.2 -0.4 43 49.3 -1.3

13 48.7 -1.9 44 49.3 -1.3

14 46.8 -3.8 45 47.7 -2.9

15 46.6 -4.0 46 44.4 -6.2

16 46.4 -4.2 47 42.3 -8.3

17 46.4 -4.2 48 42.3 -8.3

18 45.9 -4.7

19 43.3 -7.3

This derived “meta-sample” can be interpreted in either of two ways: It can be thought of 

as the possible departures from the average fuel temperature in a local competitive area that a 

consumer might encounter as she chooses randomly among all of the stations available in that 

area in order to fuel her vehicle. Or it can be interpreted as the possible departures from the 

average fuel temperature prevailing in the local area that a motorist might encounter if she made 

all her purchases at the same station but at random amounts of time since the dealer received his

most recent wholesale delivery.94

 94 This interpretation is based on the fact that retail stores in a particular local area tend to be 

supplied from the same wholesale terminal. As a result, any cross-sectional differences in fuel 

temperature among these stores would mostly be due to differences in the amount of time that has 

elapsed since they received a wholesale delivery. See the Testimony of R. Timothy Columbus before the 

Subcommittee on Domestic Policy of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, 

June 8, 2007 at p. 3 (“[F]or the most part, all retailers in a particular market acquire product at a terminal 

facility which contains the co-mingled products of many manufacturers. The only “product 

differentiation” between products takes place as sellers inject different additives into the product as it is 

delivered from the terminal into a transport truck. In most metropolitan markets all retailers obtain their 

products from terminals supplied by the same common carrier pipeline, located in sufficiently close 

physical proximity as to experience the same ambient temperature, deliver them by trucks driving 

through the same ambient air temperature, and deliver this product into storage tanks surrounded by 

ground of the same ambient ground temperature.”).
L&R Committee 2009Final Report

Appendix D – Fuel Delivery Temperature Study

L&R - D63

The question of interest is this: What is the probability that a consumer – who either 

randomly chooses among all of the available dealers in the local area or chooses to purchase from 

a specific retailer at random times since its most recent delivery – might as a matter of chance (or 

bad luck) end up with aggregate annual fuel purchases whose average temperature significantly 

exceeded the prevailing average fuel temperature in that area?

Monte Carlo simulation

This question can be addressed using a standard statistical technique known as Monte 

Carlo simulation, in which a computer is instructed to generate a large number of independent 

random “samples” by drawing from the same specified “population”. Here the “population” 

consists of the 48 deviations summarized in Figure 33, and the computer was instructed to 

make 52 “purchases” of 20 gallons each at temperatures drawn randomly from the “population” 

in Figure 33 in order to simulate a consumer making weekly gasoline purchases totaling 

1,040 gallons over an entire year. Following this random sampling, the computer was instructed 

to calculate the average temperature deviation for these 52 weekly purchases and 1,040 gallons, 

in order to determine how much temperature-induced expansion (or contraction) had been 

encountered by the consumer. Finally, the computer was instructed to repeat this entire process 

10,000 times, in order to build up the database needed to determine how likely it was that a 

consumer might randomly wind up with annual fuel purchases whose average temperature 

significantly exceeded the prevailing average fuel temperature in the local area.
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix D – Fuel Delivery Temperature Study

L&R - D64

Resulting evidence on the effect of cross-sectional temperature variation.

Figure 34.

Distribution of outcomes from Monte Carlo simulation (52 x 20 gallons)

The results of the 10,000 Monte Carlo simulation trials are summarized in the histogram 

shown in Figure 34. The results are striking. In only one of the 10,000 trials – or one onehundredth of one percent – was the average temperature of the consumer’s purchased fuel even 

2.0 F. warmer than the prevailing average temperature. This means, for example, that a 

consumer who purchased 1,040 gallons at $3.00 per gallon over a year would face only one 

chance in 10,000 of “overpaying” by as much as $4.31 in total over that year,95 and no chance at 

all of paying more than that amount. Or, to select a different reference point, the probability is 

greater than 0.96 that the consumer’s total annual purchases are no more than 1 warmer or $2.15 

more expensive96 than would be the case if all his purchases were made precisely at the 

prevailing average fuel temperature. Figure 35 summarizes the probabilities that the average 

temperature of a consumer’s annual fuel purchases exceeds the average for the local area by 

particular deviations, measured in degrees, along with the additional costs these deviations would 

imply at various assumed gasoline prices.

 95 $4.31 = (.00069) x (2) x 1,040 x $3.00.

96 Again, assuming a retail price of $3.00 per gallon.
L&R Committee 2009Final Report

Appendix D – Fuel Delivery Temperature Study

L&R - D65

Figure 35.

Results of Monte Carlo simulation assuming 52 20-gallon purchases in a year.

Cost of "Hot Fuel" Overcharges Due to 

Cross-Sectional Temperature Differences 

Assuming Total Annual Purchases of 1,040 Gallons (52 x 20 gallons) 

Degrees 

above local 

average

Number of 

Outcomes Probability

Maximum 

gallons 

"lost"

Assumed Retail Price per Gallon

$2.00 $3.00 $4.00 $5.00

0.0 to 0.5 3,398 33.98% 0.18 $0.36 $0.54 $0.72 $0.90

0.5 to 1.0 1,801 18.01% 0.36 $0.72 $1.08 $1.44 $1.79

1.0 to 1.5 464 4.64% 0.54 $1.08 $1.61 $2.15 $2.69

1.5 to 2.0 60 0.60% 0.72 $1.44 $2.15 $2.87 $3.59

2.0 to 2.5 1 0.01% 0.90 $1.79 $2.69 $3.59 $4.49

2.5 to 3.0 0 0.00% 1.08 $2.15 $3.23 $4.31 $5.38

3.0 + 0 0.00% 1.26 $2.51 $3.77 $5.02 $6.28

The results are substantially the same if one were to posit either a consumer who makes 

only 26 biweekly purchases of 20 gallons in fuel (or 540 gallons in total) in a year (Figures 36) 

or a consumer who makes 104 (or twice-weekly) purchases (for 2,080 gallons) in a year 

(Figures 37).

Figure 36.

Results of Monte Carlo simulation assuming 26 20-gallon purchases in a year.

Cost of "Hot Fuel" Overcharges Due to 

Cross-Sectional Temperature Differences 

Assuming Total Annual Purchases of 520 Gallons (26 x 20 gallons) 

Degrees 

above local 

average

Number of 

Outcomes Probability

Maximum 

gallons 

"lost"

Assumed Retail Price per Gallon

$2.00 $3.00 $4.00 $5.00

0.0 to 0.5 2,506 25.06% 0.18 $0.36 $0.54 $0.72 $0.90

0.5 to 1.0 1,828 18.28% 0.36 $0.72 $1.08 $1.44 $1.79

1.0 to 1.5 934 9.34% 0.54 $1.08 $1.61 $2.15 $2.69

1.5 to 2.0 267 2.67% 0.72 $1.44 $2.15 $2.87 $3.59

2.0 to 2.5 55 0.55% 0.90 $1.79 $2.69 $3.59 $4.49

2.5 to 3.0 12 0.12% 1.08 $2.15 $3.23 $4.31 $5.38

3.0 + 0 0.00% 1.26 $2.51 $3.77 $5.02 $6.28
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix D – Fuel Delivery Temperature Study

L&R - D66

Figure 37.

Results of Monte Carlo simulation assuming 104 20-gallon purchases in a year.

Cost of "Hot Fuel" Overcharges Due to 

Cross-Sectional Temperature Differences 

Assuming Total Annual Purchases of 2,080 Gallons (104 x 20 gallons) 

Degrees 

above local 

average

Number of 

Outcomes Probability

Maximum 

gallons 

"lost"

Assumed Retail Price per Gallon

$2.00 $3.00 $4.00 $5.00

0.0 to 0.5 4,422 44.22% 0.18 $0.36 $0.54 $0.72 $0.90

0.5 to 1.0 1,429 14.29% 0.36 $0.72 $1.08 $1.44 $1.79

1.0 to 1.5 116 1.16% 0.54 $1.08 $1.61 $2.15 $2.69

1.5 to 2.0 2 0.02% 0.72 $1.44 $2.15 $2.87 $3.59

2.0 to 2.5 0 0.00% 0.90 $1.79 $2.69 $3.59 $4.49

2.5 to 3.0 0 0.00% 1.08 $2.15 $3.23 $4.31 $5.38

3.0 + 0 0.00% 1.26 $2.51 $3.77 $5.02 $6.28

The conclusion supported by these Monte Carlo simulations is that – because motorists 

make repeated fuel purchases over, say, a year – any cross-sectional variation in fuel temperature 

within a local competitive area that poses no significant issue.

Where are the supposed “hot fuel rip-off” profits?

The activists are unanimous in their assertions that U.S. retailers have been pocketing 

billions of dollars each year in hidden “hot fuel” profits, and that each year consumers are 

cheated of the same amounts.

This paper has shown how retail competition is sufficient to adjust dealer’s pump prices 

to compensate for the temperature-induced expansion of their fuel inventories. In the preceding 

section, this paper also has shown why consumers are not being “ripped off” by possible crosssectional differences among fuel temperatures in local areas.

In view of these two showings, it is highly unlikely that the supposed “hot fuel rip-off” 

profits even exist. More to the point, the “hot fuel” activists have never attempted to prove 

independently the actual existence of these supposed hidden profits.

If it turns out that the predicted “hot fuel rip-off” profits themselves do not actually exist, 

then this should be taken as dispositive proof that the entire “hot fuel” controversy is a sham.

Equivalence of the “hot fuel” allegations and tacit collusion

Before proceeding with an analysis of the profitability of U.S. retailers of motor fuel and 

of the state-by-state implications of the supposed “hot fuel rip-off”, it is important to realize that 

those allegations are tantamount to a claim that U.S. retailers of motor fuel have tacitly colluded 

with each other for eighty years to maintain their pump prices above competitive levels and to 

secretly retain the resulting “hot fuel” profits. As a matter of economics – both industrial 
L&R Committee 2009Final Report

Appendix D – Fuel Delivery Temperature Study

L&R - D67

organization and antitrust economics – the achievement and maintenance of such a collusive 

scheme is extraordinarily unlikely, because it would constitute the largest and longest-lived 

anticompetitive agreement ever achieved in the U.S. While it is not the purpose of this paper to 

offer a formal analysis and refutation of the collusive agreement implicit in the “hot fuel” 

allegations, there are several reasons to be highly skeptical that such an anticompetitive 

arrangement ever existed:97, 98

• Number and heterogeneity of the supposed participants. In 2007, there were 

approximately 164,300 retail sellers of motor fuel in the U.S.99

 As one example, at least 

tens of thousands of these dealers would have been the principal direct beneficiaries of 

the “hot fuel rip-off”, while the remainder would have had to participate in its cover-up, 

even though there are serious conflicts of interest among all these retailers. Dealers in 

“cold” parts of the U.S. supposedly have their profits “ripped off” by consumers as the 

result of the same physical properties of motor fuel that underpin the “hot fuel” 

allegations. Why would these “cold state” retailers keep silent about the “hot fuel ripoff”, when it is costing each of them thousands of dollars every year? There also is a 

diversity of interest between retailers who are employees of the integrated refinermarketers, on the one hand, and independent dealers, on the other. The employers of the 

former are motivated to minimize the profitability of the retail level, while independent 

dealers naturally would like to see that level be as profitable as possible.

• Frequent entry, exit and turnover among the supposed participants. No collusive 

agreement can simply be put on “autopilot” to continue indefinitely; for such an 

agreement to persist requires the active involvement of its participants to recruit and 

indoctrinate newcomers to the industry. The ownership and management of retail stores 

is in constant flux, with frequent entry, departures and turnover. The proponents of the 

“hot fuel” allegations never explain how the tacit collusion among retailers that is a 

necessary condition for the “success” of the “hot fuel rip-off” is maintained in the face of 

such turnover.

 97 The reader is referred to any of the several standard works on industrial organization and 

antitrust economics for a fuller discussion of these arguments and for citations to the primary literature. 

For example, see the following works and the citations: Dennis W. Carlton and Jeffrey M. Perloff, 

Modern Industrial Organization (3rd ed.), (Addison-Wesley, 2000) at pp. 121-150; W. Kip Viscusi, 

John M. Vernon and Joseph E. Harrington, Jr., Economics of Regulation and Antitrust (3rd ed.), (The 

MIT Press, 2001) at pp. 112-135; and Herbert Hovenkamp, Economics and Federal Antitrust Law, (West 

Publishing Co., 1985) at pp. 83-110.

98 Arthur G. Fraas and Douglas F. Greer, “Market Structure and Price Collusion: An Empirical 

Analysis,” 26 Journal of Industrial Economics (1977) at pp. 21-44; George A. Hay and Daniel Kelley, 

“An Empirical Survey of Price-Fixing Conspiracies,” 17 Journal of Law and Economics (1974) at 

pp. 13-38; Peter Asch and J. J. Seneca, “Is Collusion Profitable?,” 68 Review of Economics and Statistics

(1976) at pp. 1-12; and Valerie Y. Suslow, “Cartel contract duration: empirical evidence from inter-war 

international cartels,” Industrial and Corporate Change, 2005.

99 National Petroleum News, NPN Market facts 2008. <http://www.npnweb.com>
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix D – Fuel Delivery Temperature Study

L&R - D68

• The withdrawal of major refiner-marketers from the retail end of the distribution chain. 

The “hot fuel” activists are among the most vocal critics of so-called “Big Oil” and the 

latter’s supposed determination to squeeze the greatest possible profits out of consumers. 

At the same time, these activists claim that billions each year in “hot fuel” profits are 

being “ripped off” from motorists at the retail level. If this is the case, why would major 

refiner-marketers voluntarily seek to exit the retail end of the industry?100,

101

But there are other bodies of evidence that strongly suggest that retailers have been 

incapable of maintaining pump prices above the competitive levels at which they earn only 

normal, competitive profit. Chief among these are retail “price wars” among dealers, and the 

manifest inability of retailers to maintain high pump prices when their wholesale prices recede 

following “spikes”.

The frequency of localized “price wars” among retailers is strong evidence against the 

existence of “hot fuel” profits. Such “price wars” erupt because rival retailers are unable to 

maintain and stabilize their respective prices at levels that are acceptable to them. Price wars 

devastate the profitability of participants. If rival retailers in a local competitive area cannot 

manage to prevent such frequent and costly “misunderstandings”, how is it that they nevertheless 

have been able to sequester and preserve their supposed “hot fuel” profits – and to avoid 

dissipating these profits through price wars – for decades? If retailers have succeeded in forming 

and maintaining their collusive “hot fuel” agreement, why do these same retailers engage in price 

wars with each other? Their inability to prevent price wars speaks volumes about the likelihood 

that these same retailers have formed and successfully maintained an agreement to extract “hot 

fuel” profits from their customers.

If retailers really possessed the ability to collusively maintain their street prices above 

normal competitive levels – which, after all, is the essence of the “hot fuel rip-off” allegations –

then why do they not similarly maintain prices above competitive levels when presented with an 

opportunity to do so by sudden increases in their wholesale prices that later are followed by 

reductions in those same wholesale prices?

 100 Steve Everly, “There’s little gain in selling gas”, Kansas City Star, December 26, 2008: Gas 

retailing has long filled an awkward niche in the oil business. Federal lawyers compiling an antitrust 

case against Big Oil in the 1970s – a case that was eventually dropped by President Ronald Reagan –

were prepared to argue that the oil industry’s retail stations weren’t viewed as profit centers in 

themselves. Instead, they were needed to dispose of huge amounts of profitable Mideast oil that the 

companies owned before those supplies began to be nationalized in the early 1970s. The loss of the 

Mideast oil made all those gas stations less necessary to their corporate owners, who increasingly viewed 

them as financial albatrosses. Indeed, the total number of U.S. gas stations has shrunk from 216,000 in 

1970 to 162,000 today, even with three times as many vehicles on the road, according to NPN, a 

company that collects information on the industry. As the big oil companies lost interest in owning gas 

stations, they began to spin them off to independent operators.

101 Judy Dugan, OilWatchdog, “Greed for pennies,” June 13, 2008. (“Exxon is selling off its 

820 company-owned stations and 1,400 stations run by independent dealers on company-owned land.”) 

<http://www.oilwatchdog.org/articles/?storyId=20816>
L&R Committee 2009Final Report

Appendix D – Fuel Delivery Temperature Study

L&R - D69

A casual inspection of the recent history of California retail prices for regular unleaded 

gasoline shows a series of “spikes” – caused by such phenomena as international events, refinery 

incidents and shutdowns, weather, etc. – that regularly are followed by an easing of retail prices. 

See Figure 38.

Figure 38.

Average Price of Regular Unleaded Gasoline in California

2001 – 2008

Obviously, dealers would be far more profitable if they tacitly agreed not to let their retail 

prices subside following these episodes. For example – once such a spike in wholesale has given 

dealers the opportunity to raise their own prices – if retailers could maintain their higher pump 

prices at those levels even after their own wholesale prices have eased, the increase in their 

profitability would be enormous. This scenario is illustrated in Figure 39. The fact that this 

never happens speaks volumes about the supposed ability of California (and U.S.) dealers to 

successfully maintain their retail prices above competitive levels for decades.
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix D – Fuel Delivery Temperature Study

L&R - D70

Figure 39.

Hypothetical price of regular unleaded gasoline if retailers maintained higher 

prices.

Average Price of Regular Unleaded Gasoline in California

2001 – Present

The recent profitability of U.S. motor fuel retailers 

But the strongest evidence against the existence of the “hot fuel rip-off” is the generally 

modest profitability of U.S. motor fuel retailers. The plain fact is that retail motor fuel stores are 

not as profitable as the “hot fuel rip-off” allegations would suggest.

U.S. data on the profitability of gasoline stations summarized in Figure 40 support the 

conclusion that these retail businesses are not particularly profitable, regardless of whether they 

include convenience stores or not. Even the journalists most responsible for publicizing the 

supposed “hot fuel rip-off” acknowledge that retailers are not very profitable.102

, 103

 102 Steve Everly, “There’s little gain in selling gas”, Kansas City Star, December 26, 2008:

Raj Singh is serving a customer who stops for gas and a Coke at the Independence 

Conoco station he manages. The customer asks: What’s it like selling some of the 

cheapest fuel in the country?
L&R Committee 2009Final Report

Appendix D – Fuel Delivery Temperature Study

L&R - D71

 

“Dude, let me show you something,” Singh says, shoving a sheet of paper across the 

counter. Subtracting his wholesale gas costs and 36 cents in state and federal taxes from 

the pump price, his station makes about 2 cents a gallon.

But that’s before any other costs are subtracted. Figure in credit card fees, for example, 

and the station is losing money on every gallon sold.

“We are praying to God to help us any way he can,” he says.

103 Judy Dugan, “Not the Gas Station’s Fault,” OilWatchdog, April 21, 2008: 

http://www.oilwatchdog.org/articles/?storyId=19837

“I imagine a fair number of drivers think the guy at the corner gas station is raking it in, 

with the price at the pump getting near – or beyond – $4.00 a gallon. But it ain’t so. The 

Oil Express newsletter...which is aimed at fuel retailers, notes that the percentage of the 

sale price kept by gas station operators is down, not up:

When petroleum distributors and retailers talk about profit crunches, 

they often recollect 2002 as the worst of times, at least for the last fifteen 

years. But 2008 has brought the worst circumstances in a 

generation...At press time, year-to-date gross rack-to-retail margins for 

unleaded regular just slipped below 4% of the total sales price.... 

Taking into consideration higher overhead costs, and a larger percentage 

of gross margin eaten up by credit card fees, the first 105 days of 2008 

appear to have no misery equal.

“So it’s not the guy actually taking your money who’s getting filthy rich.” 

http://www.oilwatchdog.org/articles/?storyId=19837
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix D – Fuel Delivery Temperature Study

L&R - D72
L&R Committee 2009Final Report

Appendix D – Fuel Delivery Temperature Study

L&R - D73

Figure 40.

Summary data on the profitability of the U.S. gasoline retailers.

Apr 02 Apr 03 Apr 04 Apr 05 Apr 06 Five

thru thru thru thru thru Year

Mar 03 Mar 04 Mar 05 Mar 06 Mar 07 Average

Gasoline Stations with Convenience 

Stores

(NAICS 447110)

Operating Profit as % of Net Sales 1.0% 1.0% 0.7% 0.9% 0.8% 0.9%

Profit Before Taxes as % of Net Sales 1.2% 1.2% 0.9% 0.8% 0.8% 1.0%

Profit Before Taxes as % of Total Assets 3.5% 3.5% 3.9% 3.2% 4.5% 3.7%

Median 3.5% 3.5% 3.9% 3.2% 4.5% 3.7%

Lower -0.5% -0.3% 0.0% 0.3% -1.3% -0.4%

Other Gasoline Stations

(NAICS 447190)

Operating Profit as % of Net Sales 0.9% 1.2% 0.9% 1.6% 1.5% 1.2%

Profit Before Taxes as % of Net Sales 0.7% 1.1% 1.1% 1.4% 1.2% 1.1%

Profit Before Taxes as % of Total Assets 2.4% 3.9% 4.1% 5.2% 4.3% 4.0%

Median 2.4% 3.9% 4.1% 5.2% 4.3% 4.0%

Lower -2.2% 0.3% 0.4% 1.1% 0.2% 0.0%

Source: RMA (Risk Management Association) Annual Statement Studies
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix D – Fuel Delivery Temperature Study

L&R - D74

Figure 41.

Total “hot fuel” profits by state (Kansas City Star methodology).

TOTAL CONSUMER LOSSES AND GAINS IN 2006 DUE TO "HOT FUEL"

(STATES AS RANKED BY THE KANSAS CITY STAR)

STATE

AVERAGE 

FUEL TEMP (F.)

EFFECT ON 

RETAIL GAS 

CONSUMPTION 

IN MILLIONS 

OF GALLONS

2006 

CONSUMERS' 

GAIN OR LOSS 

IN MILLIONS 

OF DOLLARS STATE

AVERAGE 

FUEL TEMP 

(F.)

EFFECT ON 

RETAIL GAS 

CONSUMPTION 

IN MILLIONS 

OF GALLONS

2006 

CONSUMERS' 

GAIN OR 

LOSS IN 

MILLIONS OF 

DOLLARS

California 75 158 -$509 Rhode Island 59.8 -0.1 $0.1

Texas 78 143 -$416 West Virginia 59.6 -0.2 $0.6

Florida 82 122 -$367 Indiana 59.9 -0.3 $0.9

Georgia 72 41 -$123 Wyoming 55 -1.0 $3

Arizona 82 39 -$115 Washington 59.5 -1.0 $3

Louisiana 77 28 -$81 Montana 57 -0.9 $3

North Carolina 69 25 -$74 New Hampshire 58 -1.0 $4

Alabama 72 22 -$63 Vermont 54 -1.4 $4

South Carolina 73 22 -$61 South Dakota 54 -1.2 $4

Tennessee 70 21 -$60 North Dakota 53 -1.9 $6

Virginia 66 16 -$46 Alaska 47 -2.0 $7

Mississippi 74 16 -$46 Massachusetts 59 -2.0 $7

Arkansas 71 11 -$32 Maine 55 -2.5 $7

Nevada 75 10 -$31 Connecticut 59 -3.0 $8

Oklahoma 69 11 -$31 Nebraska 54 -3.0 $10

New Jersey 63 8 -$22 Iowa 57 -4.0 $11

Maryland 64 7 -$22 Ohio 59 -4.0 $12

New Mexico 69 6 -$17 Illinois 57 -9.0 $29

Missouri 62 5 -$15 Wisconsin 55 -9.3 $29

Kentucky 63 5 -$14 Michigan 57 -10.0 $29

Kansas 65 4 -$12 Minnesota 53 -13.0 $37

Oregon 63 3.5 -$10

New York 61 3.0 -$9

Utah 63 3.0 -$7 Summary:

Colorado 62 2.0 -$7

Hawaii * 86 2.0 -$6 Consumer Gains in "Cold States" ($ millions) $214

Delaware 64 1.0 -$3

Pennsylvania 60.3 1.0 -$3 Consumer Losses in "Hot States" ($ millions) -$2,205

Washington, DC 66 0.7 -$2

Idaho 60.5 0.2 -$0.6 Consumer Net Losses ($ millions) -$1,991
L&R Committee 2009Final Report

Appendix D – Fuel Delivery Temperature Study

L&R - D75

Figure 41 reproduces the data in the chart published by the Kansas City Star that 

“documented” its claims regarding the amount of the supposed “hot fuel rip-off”.104 For each 

state, Figure 41 shows:

• The (estimated) average annual fuel temperature,

• The supposed aggregate annual effect of temperature expansion (or contraction) on the 

gasoline sales made by retail stores (measured in millions of gallons), and

• The total consumer loss (or gain) in millions of dollars supposedly resulting from that 

temperature expansion.

The data in Figure 41 have been augmented (from the original chart published by the 

Kansas City Star) to include estimates for North Dakota105 and South Dakota,106 and to 

summarize the supposed aggregate “gains” and “losses” by U.S. consumers due to “hot fuel”. As 

shown by the summary in Figure 41, U.S. motor fuel retailers supposedly extracted 

$1.991 billion from consumers in net “hot fuel” profits.107 When this figure is divided by 

167,500 (the NPN Station Count for 2006), the implication is that the average U.S. dealer 

enjoyed nearly $12,000108 in net “hot fuel” profits in 2006.

Viewed from the perspective of the country as a whole, these implied “hot fuel” profits 

per store are implausibly large in comparison with the actual average profitability of retail stores 

in the U.S. According to the CEC Staff Report, the total annual pre-tax profits of U.S. 

convenience stores – generated by all sales, not just of gasoline and diesel fuel – during the 

period from 1998 through 2007, averaged less than $33,000.109

 104 Kansas City Star, “The Colder The Better – For The Consumer” (chart), August 27, 2006, p. A8.

 This means that – if one accepts 

the logic of the Kansas City Star and the “hot fuel” activists – in 2006 the average dealer’s 

hidden “hot fuel” profit was more than one-third as large as his total reported pre-tax profit. It is 

hard to imagine how this could go unnoticed by industry analysts and especially by tax 

authorities.

105 Assumed to have the same average fuel temperature as Minnesota. The calculated effect of “hot 

fuel” on retail gasoline consumption in North Dakota is based on total gasoline sales data for North 

Dakota published by the Energy Information Administration.

106 Assumed to have the same average fuel temperature as Iowa. The calculated effect of “hot fuel” 

on retail gasoline consumption in South Dakota is based on total gasoline sales data for South Dakota 

from the Energy Information Administration.

107 This is obtained by subtracting $214 million in “consumer gains” in the “cold” states from the 

total of $2.205 billion in supposed “consumer losses” in the “hot states” resulting from “hot fuel”.

108 The exact result is $11,887.

109 CEC Staff Report at p. 83.
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix D – Fuel Delivery Temperature Study

L&R - D76

Figure 42.

"Hot fuel" profits per retailer by state (Kansas City Star methodology)

STATE

2006 

CONSUMERS' 

GAIN OR LOSS 

IN MILLIONS OF 

DOLLARS

2006 

AVERAGE 

RETAILER 

GAIN OR 

LOSS PER 

STORE STATE

2006 

CONSUMERS' 

GAIN OR 

LOSS IN 

MILLIONS OF 

DOLLARS

2006 NPN 

STATION 

COUNT

2006 

AVERAGE 

RETAILER 

GAIN OR 

LOSS PER 

STORE 

California -$509 $51,638 Rhode Island $0.1 375 -$267

Texas -$416 $25,212 West Virginia $0.6 1,300 -$462

Florida -$367 $39,818 Indiana $0.9 1,684 -$534

Georgia -$123 $16,005 Wyoming $3 598 -$5,017

Arizona -$115 $52,511 Washington $3 3,228 -$929

Louisiana -$81 $19,843 Montana $3 900 -$3,333

North Carolina -$74 $10,493 New Hampshire $4 800 -$5,000

Alabama -$63 $11,455 Vermont $4 621 -$6,441

South Carolina -$61 $15,545 South Dakota $4 1,073 -$3,728

Tennessee -$60 $12,731 North Dakota $6 930 -$6,452

Virginia -$46 $9,892 Alaska $7 460 -$15,217

Mississippi -$46 $12,925 Massachusetts $7 2,700 -$2,593

Arkansas -$32 $9,697 Maine $7 1,436 -$4,875

Nevada -$31 $28,336 Connecticut $8 1,475 -$5,424

Oklahoma -$31 $8,857 Nebraska $10 1,542 -$6,485

New Jersey -$22 $6,665 Iowa $11 2,658 -$4,138

Maryland -$22 $9,378 Ohio $12 4,935 -$2,432

New Mexico -$17 $11,502 Illinois $29 5,100 -$5,686

Missouri -$15 $3,479 Wisconsin $29 4,126 -$7,029

Kentucky -$14 $3,992 Michigan $29 5,076 -$5,713

Kansas -$12 $4,800 Minnesota $37 3,656 -$10,120

Oregon -$10 $5,800

New York -$9 $1,277

Utah -$7 $6,341

Colorado -$7 $3,043

Hawaii * -$6 $18,293

Delaware -$3 $7,813

Pennsylvania -$3 $641

Washington, DC -$2 $16,529

Idaho -$0.6 $708

Figure 42 takes the results in Figure 41 one step farther by incorporating the NPN 

Station Counts for individual states and then calculating the “gain” or “loss” supposedly realized 

by the average retailer in each state due to “hot fuel”. According to the results reported in 

Figure 42, the average retailer in California and Arizona supposedly pocketed about $51,500 

and $52,500, respectively, in “hot fuel” profits in 2006. Dealers in Florida supposedly received 

an average of about $40,000 each, while Texas retailers averaged $25,000 in annual “hot fuel” 
L&R Committee 2009Final Report

Appendix D – Fuel Delivery Temperature Study

L&R - D77

profits.110

 These figures either significantly exceed – or are at least equivalent to – the average 

total pre-tax profits per convenience store noted in the CEC Staff Report. It strains credulity to 

think that no one – not the U.S. Commerce Department, the Internal Revenue Service or the 

retailers themselves – appears to have noticed these phenomenal results. At the same time, 

retailers in several states were significant “losers” as the result of the supposed tacit collusion 

among U.S. retailers to hide their “hot fuel” gains and losses. As shown in Figure 42, the 

average dealer in Minnesota suffered annual losses exceeding $10,000, while the typical Alaska 

retailer lost over $15,000 in 2006. It is difficult to understand how these retailers would have 

willingly accepted such losses – amounting to nearly one-third and one-half, respectively – of the 

typical convenience store’s total pre-tax profit – so that their brethren in warmer states could 

pocket their “hot fuel” profits.

The predicted geographic pattern of the “hot fuel rip-off” profits.

But an even more powerful test of the “hot fuel rip-off” allegations can be constructed -

based on the calculations in Figure 42 - by comparing the geographic differences in the average 

“hot fuel” profits per retail store to independent data on the actual profitability of retail gasoline 

stores by U.S. region. Such data are available from RMA (Risk Management Association) for 

the six regions of the U.S. shown in Figure 43. If these independent data do not reflect the 

regional differentials in per-station profitability that are predicted by the “hot fuel” allegations, 

this would raise particularly serious questions about the credibility of those allegations. On the 

other hand, if the state-by-state profitability patterns turn out to be consistent with the RMA data 

on retail store profitability by region of the U.S., this would tend to confirm the “hot fuel” 

allegations.

 110 It is important to keep in mind that the per-store average gain and loss figures in Figure 42 were 

constructed by assuming the truth of the “hot fuel” allegations; in no way do these figures prove that the 

“hot fuel rip-off” is a fact.
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix D – Fuel Delivery Temperature Study

L&R - D78

Figure 43.

Regions of the U.S. for which retailer profitability data are available. 

Since independent data on the profitability of retail gasoline stores are available for the 

six regions of the U.S. shown in Figure 43, one can aggregate the Kansas City Star estimates of 

state-by-state average retail gains (or losses) per store from Figure 42 into these same six 

regions, with the results that are depicted in Figure 44.

Figure 44.

Implied average retailer "hot fuel" profits by U.S. region.

AVERAGE FUEL 

TEMPERATURE 

(DEGREES F.)

EFFECT ON 

RETAIL GAS 

CONSUMPTION 

IN MILLIONS OF 

GALLONS

2006 

CONSUMERS' 

GAIN OR LOSS 

IN MILLIONS OF 

DOLLARS

2006 NPN 

STATION 

COUNT

2006 AVERAGE 

RETAILER GAIN 

OR LOSS PER 

STORE 

West 64 181.8 -$579 23,458 $24,665

South Central 76 209 -$606 30,941 $19,586

Southeast 72 277.5 -$820 46,892 $17,496

Northeast 60 2.05 -$4 22,436 $174

Central 59 -18.3 $57 20,302 -$2,803

North Central 67 -23.4 $70 20,797 -$3,366

The variation among U.S. regions shown in Figure 44 is particularly striking. If one 

accepts the truth of the “hot fuel” allegations and the calculations offered by the Kansas City 

Star, the unavoidable result is that the average retailer in the relatively-warmer West, South 

Avg

RMA Region Temp States Included

South Central 76 AR LA MS OK TX

Southeast 72 AL DC DE FL GA MD NC SC TN VA WV

West 64 AK AZ CA CO HI ID MT NM NV OR UT WA WY

Northeast 60 CT MA ME NH NJ NY PA RI VT

Central 59 IL IN KY MI OH

North Central 57 IA KS MN MO ND NE SD WI
L&R Committee 2009Final Report

Appendix D – Fuel Delivery Temperature Study

L&R - D79

Central and Southeast regions of the U.S. should be significantly more profitable – by amounts 

ranging from $17,000111 to $28,000112 per year – than his counterparts in the three “cooler” 

regions (North Central, Central and Northeast). The question, then, is whether these predicted

regional differences are consistent with the independent measures of gasoline station profitability 

in these same regions available from RMA.

Figure 45 facilitates this comparison by combining the average retailer gain or loss per 

store due to “hot fuel” (from Figure 44) to the profit rates reported by RMA for retailers in the 

same six regions. Figure 45 compels the conclusion that there is something seriously amiss 

with the “hidden profits” implied by the “hot fuel” allegations.113

 Measured by their profit 

before taxes (as a percent of sales) and by their median profit before taxes (as a percent of assets),

the retail stores in the “hot” parts of the U.S. actually are no more profitable than their 

counterparts in the “cold” regions. These independent data cannot be reconciled with the 

implications of the “hot fuel” allegations.

 111 Gotten by comparing the average retailer gain or loss per store in the Southeast to that in the 

Northeast.

112 The result of comparing the average retailer gain per store in the West to the average loss per 

store in the North Central region.

113 It should be added that only the transactions between retailers and consumers are at issue in the 

CEC study and in the “hot fuel” allegations, not the “upstream” sales from refiners to retail stations. In 

the U.S., there are approximately 168,000 retail stores (or stations) that are owned by over 

50,000 separate companies and individuals. Only a distinct minority – well below 10 percent – of retail 

stations remain under the ownership and operation of so-called “Big Oil”. Moreover, that percentage 

continues to decline, as the “majors” (i.e., the integrated refiner-marketers) continue to shed their 

“company-owned” stores, apparently due to the comparatively unattractive profit levels available at the 

retail level.

But it is important to dispose of one possible rejoinder to the showing that the actual geographic 

pattern of retail store profitability does not match the pattern implied by the predicted state-by-state 

distribution of “hot fuel” overcharges. It might be argued that the failure to find these “hot fuel” 

overcharge profits at the retail level could be due to the fact that these profits have been captured by the 

integrated refiner-marketers through the manipulation of their dealer tankwagon pricing to squeeze

retailers’ gross margins in warmer states.

However, a statistical test of the hypothesis that there is a systematic inverse relationship 

between each state’s average fuel temperature and its corresponding average retail margin (measured as 

the difference between average DTW prices and average retail prices) showed that there was no such 

relationship at all, much less one that was statistically significant.
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix D – Fuel Delivery Temperature Study

L&R - D80

Figure 45.

Implied average "hot fuel" profits vs. independent RMA data.

2006 AVERAGE 

RETAILER GAIN OR 

LOSS PER STORE DUE 

TO "HOT FUEL"

(Kansas City Star)

1998-2007 PROFIT 

BEFORE TAXES AS 

PERCENT OF SALES 

(RMA)

1998-2007 MEDIAN 

PROFIT BEFORE 

TAXES AS PERCENT 

OF ASSETS (RMA)

West $24,665 1.1% 4.1%

South Central $19,586 1.2% 4.8%

Southeast $17,496 1.3% 3.7%

Northeast $174 1.1% 5.0%

Central -$2,803 0.7% 4.0%

North Central -$3,366 1.0% 3.3%

So the question posed at the beginning of this section remains: What happened to the 

“hot fuel” profits? The only reasonable answer is that those “profits” never existed in the first 

place.

Concluding remarks

The “hot fuel” controversy and the CEC Staff Report should be seen as misguided 

attempts to lower the retail price of gasoline and diesel fuel by extracting revenue from dealers, 

without regard to the fact that – because of the highly competitive business environment within 

which they operate – these dealers’ margins already are razor thin, and in ignorance of the fact 

that the measures they urge would have no effect on consumers’ outlays for motor fuel.

Put differently, the CEC Staff Report evaluates possible solutions to a problem that never 

existed in the first place. The “hot fuel” controversy has been generated by activists’ claims that 

amount to nothing more than conjectures based on the thin foundation that motor fuel expands as 

its temperature increases. This has been combined with the erroneous assumption that all 

transactions involving motor fuel that are “upstream” from the consumer are conducted on a 

temperature-compensated basis.

In short, the “hot fuel allegations” are a myth, one that is readily apparent to anyone who 

seriously tries to investigate and test its implications. Retailers as a whole earn no more than 

normal competitive returns. There simply are no “hot fuel” profits to be recaptured and given to 

consumers via automatic temperature compensation. Given the structure and price and profit 

performance of the retail motor fuel industry, the “hot fuel” allegations are nonsensical as a 

matter of economics.

While the CEC Staff Report grudgingly comes to the correct conclusion that, overall, the 

net benefit of the proposed ATC Retrofit would be negative, it makes the question sound closer 
L&R Committee 2009Final Report

Appendix D – Fuel Delivery Temperature Study

L&R - D81

than it actually is.114 Because there would be no benefits whatever from the proposed ATC 

Retrofit – motorists would not enjoy “more fuel”, nor would they realize the supposed “increased 

price transparency benefits” – and because the CEC Staff Report has significantly underestimated 

its total cost, the economic case against the ATC Retrofit actually should be seen as 

overwhelming.115

This is not to say that adjusting retail prices for temperature-induced volume expansion is 

inappropriate. The point is that retail competition and repeated purchases by consumers already

accomplish what the ATC Retrofit proposes to do. The difference is that relying on retail 

competition and the effect of repeated purchases has already been shown to work efficiently at no 

incremental cost. The ATC Retrofit, on the other hand, would impose significant incremental 

costs while providing no incremental benefits. Indeed, following implementation of the 

proposed ATC Retrofit, the only real beneficiaries would be the vendors of the needed equipment 

and services.

Despite the costs and confusion that likely would attend its introduction, the new 

reference temperature option also would accomplish nothing. This is because retail competition 

would quickly result in new, higher prices per “gallon” that keep constant consumers’ outlays for 

a given quantum of fuel, no matter whether actual fuel temperatures were close to that new 

reference temperature or differed substantially from it.

The conclusions that retail competition already adjusts pump prices for temperature 

variation and that any attempt to enlarge the unit by which retail fuel sales are measured will 

necessarily result in higher pump prices per unit are not original contributions of this paper. As 

evidenced by the quotations at its beginning, these conclusions have been offered and accessible 

at least as far back as Hawaii’s misguided initiative nearly forty years ago and as recently as the 

public workshops that preceded the CEC Staff Report.

 114 CEC Staff Report at p. 3.

115 This point is important because some stakeholders suggest – notwithstanding the negative net 

benefits estimated by the CEC staff – that automatic temperature compensation nevertheless should be 

required in California, given the CEC Staff Report’s finding that the ATC Retrofit would impose 

increased costs of less than one cent per gallon. See letter to the California Energy Commission from 

Robert G. Harris, County of San Diego, December 19, 2008.
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix D – Fuel Delivery Temperature Study

L&R - D82

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
L&R Committee – 2009 Final Report

Appendix E – Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - E1
L&R Committee – 2009 Final Report

Appendix E – Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - E2
L&R Committee – 2009 Final Report

Appendix E – Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - E3
L&R Committee – 2009 Final Report

Appendix E – Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - E4

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix F – Handbook 133 Proposed Amendments and Editorial Changes

L&R - F1

Appendix F

Handbook 133, Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods, Fourth Edition

Proposed Amendments and Editorial Changes
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix F – Handbook 133 Proposed Amendments and Editorial Changes

L&R - F2

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix F – Handbook 133 Proposed Amendments and Editorial Changes

L&R - F3

Handbook 133, Fourth Edition

Proposed Amendments and Editorial Changes

The following table lists the amendments and editorial changes that are under consideration by the 

membership of the NCWM. As appropriate, the text on the cited pages indicates the changes to the 

section or paragraph as indicated in bold strikeout for deletions and bold underscore for insertions.

Line 

item 

#

Section 

&

Page 

Number

Title Action Comments

CHAPTER 1

General Information

1 1.1.

G9 Scope Replaced standards with laws and 

regulations”

2 1.1.a.

G9

When and where to 

use checking 

procedures?

a. When and where to use package checking 

procedures?

Package Requirements

3 1.2.(1)

G10 Inspection Lot Replaced this collection with the lot for clarification.

4 1.2.(3)

G11

Individual Package 

Requirement

Change the end of the last sentence.

This handbook does not specify limits of 

overfilling (with the exception of textiles), 

which is usually controlled by the packer

This is to provide an example of at least 

one of the factors that packers consider 

in setting their filling targets. Other 

reasons can be aversion to risk; concern 

over the accuracy of nutritional 

information. 

for 

economic, compliance and other reasons.

Packers of industrial packages are 

especially concerned with overfilling 

because their packaged goods may be 

used in the production of other products 

where they are added to the process 

based on the package’s labeled 

quantity.

5 1.2.(4)

G11

Maximum Allowable 

Variation

The limit of the “reasonable minus

variation” for an individual package is called 

a “Maximum Allowable Variation” (MAV). 

An MAV is a deviation from the labeled 

weight, measure, or count of an individual 

package beyond which the deficiency is 

considered an unreasonable minus error

Change sentence to improve clarity and 

to clarify that a package error that 

exceeds the Maximum Allowable 

Variation is an “unreasonable error.”

.

6 1.2.(5)a.

G11

Deviations Caused by 

Moisture Loss or Gain 

- Why do we allow for 

moisture loss or gain?

a. Why and when do we allow for moisture 

loss or gain?

7 1.2.(5)a.

G11

Deviations Caused by 

Moisture Loss or Gain 

- Why do we allow for 

moisture loss or gain?

Revise the first paragraph, second sentence.

The amount of lost moisture loss depends 

upon the nature of the product, the packaging 
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix F – Handbook 133 Proposed Amendments and Editorial Changes

L&R - F4

Line 

item 

#

Section 

&

Page 

Number

Title Action Comments

material, the length of time it is in 

distribution, environmental conditions, and 

other factors.

Revised the first paragraph, last sentence.

For loss or gain of moisture, apply the 

moisture allowances may be applied before 

or after the package errors are 

determined

8

.

1.2.(5)a.

G112

Deviations Caused by 

Moisture Loss or Gain 

- Why do we allow for 

moisture loss or gain?

For loss or gain of moisture, apply the 

moisture allowances after the package 

errors are determined. may be applied 

before or after the package errors are 

determined.

Recommendation from the WWMA

9 1.2.(5)a.

G12

Deviations Caused by 

Moisture Loss or Gain 

- Why do we allow for 

moisture loss or gain?

Added a paragraph explaining that moisture 

allowances can be made before or after 

determining package errors.

To apply an allowance before determining 

package errors, adjust the Nominal Gross 

Weight (see Section 2.3. “Basic Test 

Procedure”) – Determine Nominal Gross 

Weight and Package Errors for Tare 

Sample, so the package errors are increased 

by an amount equal to the moisture 

allowance. This approach is used to 

account for moisture loss in both the 

average and individual package errors.

It is also permissible to apply the moisture 

allowances after individual package errors 

and average errors are determined. For 

example, a sample of a product that could 

be subject to moisture loss might fail 

because the average error is minus or the 

error in several of the sample packages are 

found to be unreasonable errors (i.e., the 

package error is greater than the Maximum 

Allowable Variation permitted for the 

package’s labeled quantity). to both the 

maximum allowable variations permitted 

for individual packages and the average net 

quantity of contents before determining the 

conformance of a lot You can apply an 

allowance after determining the errors by 

adding an amount equal to the moisture 

allowance to adjust the average error so the 

adjusted average error and individual 

package errors. provide for loss of moisture 
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix F – Handbook 133 Proposed Amendments and Editorial Changes

L&R - F5

Line 

item 

#

Section 

&

Page 

Number

Title Action Comments

from the sample packages.

10 1.2.(5)a.

G12

Deviations Caused by 

Moisture Loss or Gain 

- Why do we allow for 

moisture loss or gain?

To apply an a moisture allowance before Recommendation by CWMA

determining package errors, adjust the 

Nominal Gross Weight (see 

Section 2.3. “Basic Test Procedure”)

11 1.2.(5)a.

G12

Deviations Caused by 

Moisture Loss or Gain 

- Why do we allow for 

moisture loss or gain?

We suggest removing the first paragraph 

(To apply an allowance...) and rewording 

the second paragraph (It is also permissible 

to apply...) and replace with the following 

wording:

Apply the moisture allowance after individual 

package and average errors are determined. 

For example, a sample of a product subject to 

moisture loss might fail because the errors in 

several of the sample packages are 

determined to be unreasonable (i.e., the 

package error is greater than the Maximum 

Allowable Variation permitted for the 

package’s labeled quantity) or the average 

error is minus and outside the Sample Error 

Limit. Adjust the MAV after the individual 

package errors are determined and adjust the 

SEL after aver age error is determined. 

Compare individual package errors to the 

adjusted MLA and the average error to the 

adjusted SEL.

Recommendation from WWMA

Note: California officials question the 

need for accommodating both methods 

(before or after). This only presents 

opportunities for confusion. Recorded 

package errors should be ACTUAL 

values. Adjusted package errors on an 

inspection report cause concern for 

prosecutors when presenting the report 

in evidence. The MLA should be 

applied to the MAV and the SEL only 

after determining package and average 

errors.

Chapter 2

Basic Inspection Procedure and 

Recordkeeping

12 2.3.3.d.

G24

How many MAVs are 

permitted in a sample?

d. How many MAVs unreasonable minus 

errors (UME’s) are permitted in a sample?

13 2.3.3.d.

G24

How many MAVs are 

permitted in a sample?

To find out how many minus package errors 

are permitted to exceed the MAV, (errors 

known as unreasonable minus errors or 

UME’s) (r efer to A ppendix A )see Column 4 

in either Table 2-1. “Sampling Plans for 

Category A” or Table 2-2. “Sampling Plans 

for Category B.” (refer to Appendix A) 

Record this number in Box 8.
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix F – Handbook 133 Proposed Amendments and Editorial Changes

L&R - F6

Line 

item 

#

Section 

&

Page 

Number

Title Action Comments

Tare Procedures

14 2.3.5.a.(1)

G24

What types of tare 

may be used to 

determine the net 

weight of packaged 

goods? - Used Dry 

Tare

WWMA recommends changing the note.

Note: When testing frozen foods with the 

Used Dry Tare approach, the frost found 

inside frozen food packages is included as 

part of the net contents, except in instances 

in which glazed or frozen foods are tested 

according to Section 2.6. Drained Weight 

for Glazed or Frozen Foods.

Note: from WWMA

There seems to be a conflict between 

this note and Section 2.6. Drained 

Weight for Glazed and frozen Food. If 

2.6. applies to frozen food, when would 

there be an instance to use used dry 

tare? Please see our comment on 

Section 2.6.

15 2.3.5.(3)

G25

What types of tare 

may be used to 

determine the net 

weight of packaged 

goods? - Wet Tare

Wet tare procedures must not be used to 

verify the labeled net weight of packages of 

meat and poultry packed at an official 

United States Department of Agriculture 

and bearing a USDA seal of inspection. 

The Food Safety and Inspection Service 

(FSIS) adopted specific sections of the 2005 

4th

Amended this section to reflect the 

USDA’s decision not to adopt the 

section on wet tare when it updated its 

regulations on net quantity of contents 

testing in September 2008.

Edition of NIST HB 133 by reference 

but not the “wet tare” method for 

determining net weight compliance. FSIS 

considers the free-flowing liquids in 

packages of meat and poultry products, 

including single-ingredient, raw poultry 

products, to be integral components of 

these products (see Federal Register, 

September 9, 2008 [Volume 73, 

Number 175] [Final Rule –

pages 52189-52193]).

16 2.3.5(3)

G25

What types of tare 

may be used to 

determine the net 

weight of packaged 

goods? - Wet Tare

Paragraph 2, sentence 2 change the 

following:

If Wet Tare is used to verify the net weight of 

packages of fresh poultry, hot dogs, and 

franks that are subject to the USDA 

regulations, the inspector must allow for 

moisture loss.

17

2.3.5.(3)

c & d

G26

How is Tare weight 

determined?

Does the inspection of aerosol containers 

require special procedures?

How is the tare of vacuum packed coffee 

determined?

WWMA recommends that the 

following two questions and answers 

appear out of place. We suggest 

moving them behind the next two 

questions (see line item 19 )
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix F – Handbook 133 Proposed Amendments and Editorial Changes

L&R - F7

Line 

item 

#

Section 

&

Page 

Number

Title Action Comments

18 2.3.5.(3)f.

G27

How are the tare 

sample and the tare 

weight of the 

packaging material 

determined?

Step 2:

For sample sizes of 12 or more, subtract the 

individual tare weights from the respective

package gross weights (Block a, minus 

Block b, on the report form) to obtain the net 

weight for each package and record these

each values in Block c, “Net Wt.,” on the 

report form.

19 2.3.5.(3)f.

G27

How are the tare 

sample and the tare 

weight of the 

packaging material 

determined? 

Place information from line item 17 in this 

section after Step 6.

Recommendation from WWMA

Determine Nominal Gross Weight and 

Package Errors for Tare Sample

20 2.3.6.a.

G28

What is a nominal 

gross weight?

a. What isHow do I compute a nominal 

gross weight?

21 2.3.6.a.

G28

What is nominal gross 

weight?

To compute the nominal gross weight, add 

the average tare weight (recorded in Box 13) 

to the labeled weight (recorded in Box 1). T o 

obtain the package er r or , subtr act a 

package’ s gr oss weight fr om the nominal 

gr oss weight. 

22 2.3.6.b.

G28

What is nominal gross 

weight?

Add the following:

How do I compute the package error?

To obtain the package error, subtract the 

nominal gross weight from each package’s 

gross weight. The package error is 

represented by the formula:

Package error = gross weight − nominal 

gross weight

23 2.3.6.d

G29

How is the total 

package error 

computed?

Be sure to subtract the minus package errors 

from the plus package errors and to record 

the total net error in Box 15, indicating the 

positive or negative value of the error 

Moisture Allowances

24 2.3.8.b.

G31

What are the moisture 

allowances for flour, 

and dry pet food?

What are the moisture allowances for flour,

and dry pet food and other products? (See 

Table 2-3. “Moisture Allowances.”)

Revised this section to include a table 

that collects the moisture allowances in 

one location in the handbook. Added 

guidance and examples explaining that 

allowances can be applied before or 

after the packages are tested.

25 2.3.8.b.

G31 – G32

What are the moisture 

allowances for flour, 

and dry pet food?

Have the Table title read as: 

Table 2-3. Moisture Allowances

Recommendation from WWMA

for Product 

in Distribution
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix F – Handbook 133 Proposed Amendments and Editorial Changes

L&R - F8

Line 

item 

#

Section 

&

Page 

Number

Title Action Comments

Table 2-3. Moisture Allowances

If you are verifying the labeled 

net weight of packages of: The Moisture Allowance is: Notes

Flour 3 %

Dry pet food 3 %

Dry pet food means all extruded dog and cat 

foods and baked treats packaged in Kraft 

paper bags and/or cardboard boxes with a 

moisture content of 13 % or less at time of 

pack.

Borax See Section 2.4.

Wet Tare Only

If you are using Wet Tare in 

verifying the net weight of 

packages of one of the 

products listed below:

The Moisture Allowance is:

Notice: Wet Tare must not be used in testing 

packages of meat and poultry subject to USDA 

regulations.

Fresh poultry 3 %

Fresh poultry is defined as poultry at a 

temperature of 3 °C (26 °F) that yields or gives 

when pushed with the thumb.

Franks or hot dogs 2.5 %

Bacon, fresh sausage, and 

luncheon meats 0 %

For packages of bacon, fresh sausage, and 

luncheon meats, there is no moisture allowance 

if there is no free-flowing liquid or absorbent 

materials in contact with the product and the 

package is cleaned of clinging material. 

Luncheon meats are any cooked sausage 

product, loaves, jellied products, cured 

products, and any sliced sandwich-style meat. 

This does not include whole hams, briskets, 

roasts, turkeys, or chickens requiring further 

preparation to be made into ready-to-eat sliced 

product. When there is no free-flowing liquid 

inside the package and there are no absorbent 

materials in contact with the product, Wet 

Tare and Used Dried Tare are equivalent.
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix F – Handbook 133 Proposed Amendments and Editorial Changes

L&R - F9

Line 

item 

#

Section 

&

Page 

Number

Title Action Comments

26 2.3.8.b.

G32

What are the moisture 

allowances for flour, 

and dry pet food?

Delete:

The moisture allowance for flour and dry 

pet food is 3 % of the labeled net weight.

Note: Dry pet food means all extruded dog 

and cat foods and baked treat products 

packaged in Kraft paper bags and/or 

cardboard boxes with a moisture content 

of 13 % or less at the time of pack.

27 2.3.8.d.

G33

What moisture 

allowance is used with 

wet tare when testing 

packages bearing a 

USDA seal of 

inspection?

d. What moisture allowance is used with wet 

tare? when testing packages bearing a 

USDA seal of inspection?

Wet tare procedures must not be used to 

verify the labeled net weight of packages of 

meat and poultry packed at an official 

United States Department of Agriculture 

and bearing a USDA seal of inspection. 

The Food Safety and Inspection Service 

(FSIS) adopted specific sections of the 2005 

4th

Comment from CWMA:

Edition of NIST HB 133 by reference 

but not the “wet tare” method for 

determining net weight compliance. FSIS 

considers the free-flowing liquids in 

packages of meat and poultry products, 

including single-ingredient, raw poultry 

products, to be integral components of 

these products (see Federal Register, 

September 9, 2008 [Volume 73, 

Number 175] [Final Rule –

pages 52189-52193]).

Two questions remain.

1. What guidance can be provided for 

manufacturers with products other than 

those listed for moisture loss?

2. What methodology is necessary for 

manufacturers to demonstrate the data 

needed for moisture allowance?

(see follow- up on line item 30)
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix F – Handbook 133 Proposed Amendments and Editorial Changes

L&R - F10

Line 

item 

#

Section 

&

Page 

Number

Title Action Comments

28 2.3.8.d.

G33

What moisture 

allowance is used with 

wet tare when testing 

packages bearing a 

USDA seal of 

inspection?

See Table 2-3 “Moisture Allowances – Wet 

Tare Only.”

• Use the following guideline when 

testing meat and poultry from any 

USDA inspected plant using Wet Tare 

and a Category A sampling plan.

•

•

For packages of fresh poultry that 

bear a USDA seal of inspection, the 

moisture allowance is

3 5 of the labeled net weight. For net 

weight determinations, only, fresh 

poultry is defined as poultry above –

3 oC (26 oF). This is a product that 

yields or gives when pushed with the 

thumb.

• For packages of franks or hotdogs that 

bear a USDA seal of inspection, the 

moisture allowance is 2.5 % of the 

labeled net weight.

For packages of bacon, fresh sausage, and 

luncheon meats that bear a USDA seal of 

inspection, there is no moisture allowance 

if there is no free-flowing liquid or 

absorbent materials in contact with the 

product and the package is cleaned of 

clinging material. Luncheon meats are 

any cooked sausage product, loaves, jellied 

products, cured products, and any sliced 

sandwich-style meat. This does not include 

whole hams, briskets, roasts, turkeys, or 

chickens requiring further preparation to 

be made into ready-to-eat sliced product. 

When there is no free-flowing liquid inside 

the package and there are no absorbent 

materials in contact with the product, Wet 

Tare and Dried Used Tare are equivalent.

29 2.3.8.d

G33

What moisture 

allowance is used with 

wet tare when testing 

packages bearing a 

USDA seal of 

inspection?

When there is free-flowing liquid and liquid

or absorbentabsorbed by packaging 

materials in contact with the product, all free 

liquid is part of the wet tare.

30 2.3.8.e

G33

How is moisture loss 

handled for products 

not listed in NIST 

Handbook 133?

How is moisture loss handled for products 

not listed in NIST Handbook 133?

 

Officials can test products for which no 
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix F – Handbook 133 Proposed Amendments and Editorial Changes

L&R - F11

Line 

item 

#

Section 

&

Page 

Number

Title Action Comments

moisture loss guidance has been provided. 

If studies are a necessity they should be a 

collaborative effort between officials and 

industry. Because of the potential impact 

on interstate commerce studies should be 

completed on a nationwide basis and not 

by individual jurisdictions unless 

circumstances justify only local 

consideration.

The amount of moisture loss from a 

package is a function of many factors not 

the least of which is the product itself 

(e.g., moisture content, texture and 

density), packaging, storage conditions 

(e.g., temperature, humidity, and air flow), 

time, handling and others. If a packaged 

product is subject to moisture loss officials 

must allow for “reasonable” variations 

caused by moisture either evaporating or 

draining from the product. Officials 

cannot set arbitrary moisture allowances 

based solely on their experience or 

intuition. Moisture allowances must be 

based on scientific data and must be 

“reasonable.” Reasonable does not mean 

that all of the weight loss caused by 

moisture evaporation or draining from the 

product must be allowed. As a result of 

product and moisture variability the 

approach used by an official must be 

developed on a case-by-case basis 

depending on many factors to include, but 

not be limited to, the manufacturing 

process, packaging materials, distribution, 

environmental influence and the 

anticipated shelf life of the product.

NIST Handbook 130 provides a starting 

point for developing a workable procedure 

in the Interpretation and Guideline 

Section 2.5.6. regarding “Resolution for 

Requests for Recognition of Moisture Loss 

in Other Packaged Products.” Most 

studies involving nationally distributed 

products will require that products be 

tested during different seasons of the year 

and in different geographic locations to 

develop a nationally recognized moisture 

allowance. Some studies may require the 

development of laboratory tests used for 

inter-laboratory comparisons to establish 
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix F – Handbook 133 Proposed Amendments and Editorial Changes

L&R - F12

Line 

item 

#

Section 

&

Page 

Number

Title Action Comments

moisture content in products at time of 

pack or at the time-of-inspection.

31

Moisture loss or gain is a critical 

consideration for any net content 

enforcement effort and one that, in most 

cases, cannot be addressed solely by a field 

official. If moisture loss issues are to be 

deliberated, it is the regulatory official’s 

responsibility to resolve the packers 

concern utilizing available resources and 

due process procedures. To fulfill this 

obligation the official may be required to 

utilize specialized test equipment and 

specific laboratory procedures. 

Additionally, the collection of adequate 

test data may require product examination 

over a broad geographical area and 

consideration of a wide range of 

environmental factors. If a national effort 

is required, a coordinated effort involving 

industry, trade associations, weights and 

measures officials, and federal agencies 

may be required. NIST will provide 

technical support upon request. If studies 

are a necessity they should be a 

collaborative effort between officials and 

industry and can be very time consuming 

depending on the product. Because of the 

potential impact on interstate commerce, 

studies must be completed on a nationwide 

basis and not by individual jurisdictions 

unless circumstances justify only local 

consideration.

2.3.8.e

G33

e. 

Recommend change from Paul 

Moisture loss must be considered even Hoffman, Kraft

when no formal allowance for the specific 

product is found in HB 133.

Calculations

32 2.3.9.a

G34

How is moisture 

allowance computed 

and applied to the 

average error?

a. How is moisture allowance computed and 

applied to the aver age er r or?

33 2.3.9.b

G35

How is a Moisture 

Allowance made 

prior to determining 

package errors?

b. How is a Moisture Allowance made 

prior to determining package errors?

Comment from WWMA:

If the Moisture Allowance is known in 

advance (e.g., flour and dry pet food) it can 

be applied by adjusting the Nominal Gross 

Based on previous comments we 

suggest entirely removing the 

question – 2.3.9.b

How is a Moisture Allowance made 
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix F – Handbook 133 Proposed Amendments and Editorial Changes

L&R - F13

Line 

item 

#

Section 

&

Page 

Number

Title Action Comments

Weight (NGW) used to determine the 

sample package errors. The Moisture 

Allowance (MA) in Box 13a is subtracted 

from the NGW. The NGW which is the 

sum of the Labeled Net Quantity of 

Contents (LNQC e.g., 907 g) and the 

Average Tare Weight from Box 13 (for this 

example use an ATW of 14 g (0.03 lb)) to 

obtain an Adjusted Nominal Gross Weight 

(ANGW) which is entered in Box 14.

The calculation is: LNQC 907 g (2 lb) + 

ATW 14 g (0.03 lb) = 921 g (2.03 lb) - MA

27 g (0.06 lb) = ANGW of 918 g (1.97 lb) 

which is entered in Box 14.

Package errors are determined by 

subtracting the ANGW from the Gross 

Weights of the Sample Packages (GWSP).

The calculation is:

GWSP – ANGW = Package Error.

Note: When the NGW is adjusted by 

subtracting the Moisture Allowance 

value(s) the Maximum Allowable 

Variation(s) is not changed. This is 

because the errors that will be found in the 

sample packages have been adjusted by 

subtracting the Moisture Allowance 

(e.g., 3 %) from the NGW. That increases 

the individual package errors by the 

amount of the moisture allowance 

(e.g., 3 %). If the value(s) of the MAV(s) 

were also adjusted it would result in 

doubling the allowance.

c. How is a Moisture Allowance made 

after determining package errors?

You can make adjustments when the value 

of the Moisture Allowance is determined 

following the test (e.g., after the sample 

fails or if a packer provides a reasonable a 

moisture allowance based on data obtained 

using a scientific method) using the 

following approach:

If the sample failed the Average and/or the 

Individual Package Requirements both of 

the following steps are applied.

prior to determining the package 

errors?
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix F – Handbook 133 Proposed Amendments and Editorial Changes

L&R - F14

Line 

item 

#

Section 

&

Page 

Number

Title Action Comments

If the sample failed the Average 

Requirement but has no unreasonable 

package errors only step 1 is used. If the 

sample passes the Average Requirement 

but fails because the sample included one 

or more Unreasonable Minus Errors 

(UMEs) only step 2 is used.

Step:

1. Use the following approach to 

apply a Moisture Allowance to the 

sample after the test is completed. 

The Moisture Allowance (MA) is 

computed (e.g., 3 % x 907 g (2 lb) 

= 27 g (0.06 lb) and added to the 

Sample Error Limit (e.g., if the 

SEL is 0.023 add 0.06 to obtain an 

Adjusted SEL of 0.083). The 

ASEL (Adjusted Sample Error 

Limit) is then compared to the 

Average Error of the Sample and:

• If the average error 

(disregarding sign) in 

Box 18 is smaller than 

the ASEL, the sample 

passes.

HOWEVER,

• If the average error 

(disregarding sign) in 

Box 18 is larger than the 

ASEL, the sample fails.

2. If a Moisture Allowance is to be 

applied to the Maximum 

Allowable Variation(s), the 

following method is 

recommended:

The Moisture Allowance (MA) is 

computed (e.g., 3 % x 907 g 

(2 lb) = 27 g (0.06 lb) and added 

to the value of the Maximum 

Allowable Variation(s) for the 

labeled net quantity of the 

package (e.g., MAV for 907 g 

(2 lb) is 31.7 g (0.07 lb) + 27 g 

(0.06 lb) = AMAV of 58.7 g). 

Compare each minus package 
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix F – Handbook 133 Proposed Amendments and Editorial Changes

L&R - F15

Line 

item 

#

Section 

&

Page 

Number

Title Action Comments

error to the AMAV. Mark 

package errors that exceed the 

AMAV and record the number 

of UME’s found in the sample. 

If this number exceeds the 

number of unreasonable errors 

allowed, the sample fails.

How is the Maximum Allowable Variation 

corrected for the moisture allowance?

• Adjust the MAV by adding the 

moisture allowance to the MAV.

Example: 907 g (2 lb) package 

of flour: moisture allowance 

added to the MAV = 31.7 g 

(0.07 lb) (MAV for 907 g [2 lb] 

package) + 27 g (0.06 lb) 

moisture allowance = a 

corrected MAV of 58.7 g 

(0.13 lb)

• Correct MAV in dimensionless 

units by converting the moisture 

allowance to dimensionless units = 

0.06 lb ÷ 0.001 lb = 60. Go to 

Box 4 and add the moisture 

allowance in dimensionless units 

to the MAV in dimensionless 

units.

Example: MAV = 70 (MAV 

for 2 lb where the unit of 

measure = 0.001 lb) + 60 

(moisture allowance in 

dimensionless units) = 130. 

Minus package errors must 

exceed the MAV ± gray area 

before they are declared 

“unreasonable errors.”

• If the number of unreasonable 

errors exceeds the allowed 

number (recorded in Box 8), the 

inspection lot fails.

How is the average error for the moisture 

allowance corrected?

If the minus average error (Box 18) is 
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix F – Handbook 133 Proposed Amendments and Editorial Changes

L&R - F16

Line 

item 

#

Section 

&

Page 

Number

Title Action Comments

larger (disregarding the sign) than the 

SEL (Box 23) and moisture loss applies, 

compare the difference between Box 18 

and Box 23 with the moisture allowance 

recorded in Box 13a. (Make sure that all 

the values are in units of weight or in 

dimensionless units before making this 

comparison.) If Box 13a is larger than the 

difference between Box 18 and 23, then the 

lot is considered to be in the gray area.

34

Example: Box 13a for 2 lb 

flour is 60 (dimensionless 

units); Box 18 is 2 

(dimensionless units); Box 23 is 

0.550 (dimensionless units). 

The difference between Box 18 

and Box 23 is 1.450 

(dimensionless units). Since 

Box 13a is 60 (dimensionless 

units), Box 13a is larger than 

the difference between Box 18 

and Box 23, the lot is 

considered to be in the gray 

area and further investigation is 

necessary before ruling out 

moisture loss as the reason for 

shortweight.

2.3.9.

G37

d.

What should you do 

when a sample is in 

the moisture allowance 

(gray) area?

Add the following title

d. What should you do when a sample is in 

the moisture allowance (gray) area?

When the average error of a lot of fresh 

poultry, franks, or hot dogs from a USDAinspected plant is minus, but does not 

exceed the established “moisture allowance” 

or “gray area,” contact the appropriate 

USDA official and/or packer or plant 

management personnel to determine what 

information is available on the lot in 

question. Questions to the USDA official 

and/or plant management representative

may include:

Change the note to read :

Note: If USDA or the plant management has 

data on the lot, such data may help to 

substantiate that the “lot” had met the net 

content requirements at the point of 

manufacture.
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix F – Handbook 133 Proposed Amendments and Editorial Changes

L&R - F17

Line 

item 

#

Section 

&

Page 

Number

Title Action Comments

35 2.3.9.

G37

What should you do 

when a sample is in 

the moisture allowance 

(gray) area?

Reasonable deviations from net quantity of 

contents caused by the loss or gain of 

moisture from the package are permitted 

when caused by ordinary and customary 

exposure to conditions that occur under good 

distribution practices.

Borax

36

2.4.b.

Step 3

G39

How is the volume 

determined?

Step 3.

Compare the net volume of the commodity in 

the package with the volume declared on the 

package. The volume declaration must not 

is not located appear on the principal 

display panel. Instead, it will appear on the 

back or side of the package and may 

appear as:

Deleted 2530 cm

 The following example is how 

the declaration of volume should appear.

3 

The Determination of Drained Weight

because that example 

caused confusion. The actual values on 

boxes of Borax vary with the package 

size, which may change frequently for 

marketing reasons.

37 2.5.

G39 Equipment

 For canned tomatoes a U.S. Standard 

Test Sieve with 11.2 mm (7/16 in) 

openings must be used

The AOAC (Association of Official 

Analytical Chemists) test procedure that 

FDA uses for drained weight 

determinations requires a different sieve 

size from what is required in the 

handbook to be used for canned 

tomatoes. A note was added to HB 133 

so that the requirement matches the 

sieve size for canned tomatoes in 

AOAC 968.30 “Canned Vegetables 

Drained Weight Procedure.”

Drained Weight for Glazed or Frozen 

Foods

38 2.6.

G41

Drained Weight for 

Glazed or Frozen 

Foods

2.6. Determining the net weight of iceencased frozen foods and ice glazed 

products. Drained Weight for Glazed or 

Frozen Foods

Comment from WWMA: We believe 

this procedure is truly intended for all 

frozen foods as indicated by the existing 

title. We have made extensive 

amendments to include additional foods 

and freezing methods and believe it 

more closely reflects the intent of the 

section and the current marketplace

39 2.6.

G41

Drained Weight for 

Glazed or Frozen 

Foods

Comment from NEWMA: Section 2.6. 

specifically references the use of glaze 

with frozen seafood. Glazed chicken 

wings are being seen in the 

marketplace. It was suggested that 

wording be added to include other 

glazed products such as frozen 

(glazed?) chicken.

40 2.6.a

G41

How is the drained 

weight of frozen 

shrimp and crabmeat 

determined?

a. How is the drained weight of frozen shrimp

(e.g., 2.27 kg (5 lb) frozen block of shrimp)

and crabmeat determined?
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix F – Handbook 133 Proposed Amendments and Editorial Changes

L&R - F18

Line 

item 

#

Section 

&

Page 

Number

Title Action Comments

41 2.6.a.

G41

How is the drained 

weight of frozen 

shrimp and crabmeat 

determined?

a. How isshould the drainednet weight of 

frozen shrimp (e.g., 2.27 kg (5 lb) block of 

shrimp), and crabmeat, meat or poultry, 

and similar products encased in ice and 

frozen into blocks or solid masses (i.e., not 

individually glazed) be

Comment from WWMA: Is this 

procedure truly intended for all frozen 

foods as indicated by the title or only 

SEAFOOD, as indicated by the 

example? We believe this section 

determined? needs clarification.

42 2.6.a

G41

How is the drained 

weight of frozen 

shrimp and crabmeat 

determined?

First paragraph, second sentence:

Immerse the product (e.g., a block of frozen 

shrimp) directly in water in a mesh basket or 

open container to thaw (e.g., it is not placed 

in a plastic bag).

43 2.6.a

G41

How is the drained 

weight of frozen 

shrimp and crabmeat 

determined?

When determining the net weight of frozen 

shrimp, crabmeat, meat or poultry 

products, or similar products that are 

encased in ice and frozen into blocks or 

solid masses

Recommendation from WWMA

, use the test equipment and 

procedure provided below.

44 2.6.a

G42

How is the drained 

weight of frozen 

shrimp and crabmeat 

determined? -

Equipment

• Water source and hose with an 

approximate flow rate of 4 L to 

15 L (1 gal to 4 gal) per minute for 

thawing blocks and other 

products flow rate

• Sink or other receptacle [i.e., bucket 

with a capacity of approximately

15 L (4 gal) bucket] for thawing 

blocks and other products

• A wire mesh basket (used for 

testing large frozen blocks of 

shrimp) or other container that is 

large enough to hold the contents of 

1 package (e.g., 2.27 kg or [5 lb] 

box of shrimp) and has openings 

small enough to retain all pieces of 

the product (e.g., an expanded metal 

test tube basket lined with standard 

16 mesh screen)

45 2.6.a

G42

How is the drained 

weight of frozen 

shrimp and crabmeat 

determined? -

Equipment

• A wire mesh basket (used for 

testing large frozen blocks of 

shrimp or other products)

Recommendation from WWMA

or other 

container that is large enough to 

hold the contents of 1 package 

(e.g., 2.27 kg or [5 lb] box of 

shrimp) and has openings small 

enough to retain all pieces of the 

product (e.g., an expanded metal test 

tube basket lined with standard 

16 mesh screen)
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix F – Handbook 133 Proposed Amendments and Editorial Changes

L&R - F19

Line 

item 

#

Section 

&

Page 

Number

Title Action Comments

46 2.6.a

G42

How is the drained 

weight of frozen 

shrimp and crabmeat 

determined? - Test 

Procedure

Step 1:

Place the unwrapped frozen shrimp, or

crabmeat, or meat, poultry, or seafood 

product

Recommendation from WWMA

in the wire mesh basket and 

immerse in a 15 L (4 gal) or larger container 

of fresh water at a temperature between 23 °C 

to 29 °C (75 °F to 85 °F)

47 2.6.b.

G43

How is the net weight 

of glazed raw seafood 

and fish determined?

b. How is the net weight of frozen, glazed

rawseafood, andfish, poultry, meat, or 

similar products determined?

48 2.6.b.

G43

How is the net weight 

of glazed raw seafood 

and fish determined?

Comment from NEWMA: Section 2.6. 

specifically references the use of glaze 

with frozen seafood. Glazed chicken 

wings are being seen in the 

marketplace. It was suggested that 

wording be added to include other 

glazed products such as frozen 

(glazed?) chicken.

49 2.6.b.

G43

How is the net weight 

of glazed raw seafood 

and fish determined?

For frozen, glazed seafood, and fish,

poultry, or meat products, or similar 

products,

Recommendation from WWMA

determine the net weight after 

removing the glaze using the following 

procedure.

50 2.6.b.

G43

How is the net weight 

of glazed raw seafood 

and fish determined? -

Equipment

Use the equipment listed in 

Section 2.6. “Determining the net weight of 

frozen, ice-glazed products

Recommendation from WWMA

Drained Weight

for Glazed or Frozen Foods”

Title change if agreed upon in 

Section 2.6.

51 2.6.b

G43

How is the net weight 

of glazed raw seafood 

and fish determined? -

Test procedures

Step 2:

Weigh sieve and receiving pan. Record this 

weight on a worksheet as “sievepan weight.”

52 2.6.b.

G44

How is the net weight 

of glazed raw seafood 

and fish determined? -

Test procedures

Step 3:

Remove each package from low 

temperature storage; open it immediately 

and place the contents under a gentle 

spray of cold water. Handle the product 

with care to avoid breakingbreakage.

the product. Continue the spraying

process until all ice glaze, that is seen or 

felt is removed. In general, the product 

should remain rigid; however, the ice 

glaze on certain products, usually smaller 

sized commodities, sometimes cannot be 

removed without defrosting partial 

thawing of the product. Nonetheless, 

remove all the ice glaze, because it may 

be is a substantial part of the package 

weight.
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix F – Handbook 133 Proposed Amendments and Editorial Changes

L&R - F20

Line 

item 

#

Section 

&

Page 

Number

Title Action Comments

53 2.6.b.

G44

How is the net weight 

of glazed raw seafood 

and fish determined? -

Test procedures

Step 4:

Transfer the product to the weighed sieve.

54 2.6.b.

G44

How is the net weight 

of glazed raw seafood 

and fish determined? -

Test procedures

Step 5:

At the end of the drain time immediately 

transfer the entire product to the tared 

pan for weighing to determine the net 

weight. Place the product and sievepan on

receiving panthe scale and weigh. Record 

this weight on a worksheet as the 

“sievepan + product weight.”

55 2.6.b.

G44

How is the net weight 

of glazed raw seafood 

and fish determined? -

Test procedures

Step 6:

The net weight of the product is equal to the 

weight of the panplus the sieve plus the 

product (record in step 5) minus the “sieve

pan weight” (recorded in step 2).

56 2.6.b.

G44

How is the net weight 

of glazed raw seafood 

and fish determined? -

Test procedures

Step 7:

Repeat steps 3 through 6 for each package in 

the sample, cleaning and dryingthe sieve and 

cleaning and drying the receiving pan 

between package measurements.

Chapter 3

Gravimetric Test Procedure for 

Liquids

57 3.2.

G48 Test Procedure

Step 4:

Tilt the flask gradually so the flask walls are 

splashed as little as possible as the flask is 

emptied.

Other Volumetric Test Procedures

58 3.4.a.

G51

What other methods

can be used to 

determine the net 

contents of packages 

labeled by volume? -

Test Equipment

Plastic disks... change the second to last 

sentence and add the last sentence.

• Each disk must have a 20 mm (3⁄4 in) 

diameter hole through its center and 

a series of 1.5 mm (1

/ 16 in) diameter 

holes 25 mm (1 in) apart around 

the periphery of the disk and 

3 mm (1/ 8 in) from the outer edge. 

All edges must be smooth.

59 3.4.b

G51

How is the volume of 

oils, syrups, and other 

viscous liquids that 

have smooth surfaces 

determined?

2. Bring the temperature of both the liquid 

and the water to be used to measure the 

volume of the liquid to the reference 

temperature specified in 

Table 3-1. “Reference Temperatures for 

Liquids.” Verify with a thermometer that 

product has maintained the reference 

temperature.
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix F – Handbook 133 Proposed Amendments and Editorial Changes

L&R - F21

Line 

item 

#

Section 

&

Page 

Number

Title Action Comments

Mayonnaise and Salad Dressing

60 3.5

G52 New

3.5 How is the volume of mayonnaise, salad 

dressing, and other water immiscible 

products that do not have smooth and level 

surfaces determined?

Peat Moss

61 3.10.(a)

G64

How are packages of 

peat and peat moss 

labeled by compressed 

volume testing?

Take three measurements (both ends and 

middle) of each dimension and calculation 

their average. Multiply the averages to 

obtain the compressed cubic volume.

Ice Cream Novelties

62 3.12

G68

Note: The following procedure can be 

used to test packaged products that are 

solid or semisolid and that will not dissolve 

in, mix with, absorb, or be absorbed by the 

fluid into which the product will be 

immersed. For example, ice cream labeled 

by volume can be tested using ice water or 

kerosene as the immersion fluid.

63 3.12.

G68

Exception – Pelletized ice cream are beads Recommendation from WWMA

of ice cream which are quick frozen with 

liquid nitrogen. The beads are relatively 

small, but can vary in shape and size. On 

April 17, 2009, the FDA issued a letter 

stating that this product is considered 

semisolid food, in accordance with 21 CFR 

101.105(a). The FDA also addresses that 

the appropriate net quantity of content 

declaration for pelletized ice cream 

products be in terms of net weight.

Fresh Oysters Labeled by Volume

64 3.13.a

G73

Equipment 

Area: 1935 cm2 (300 in2) or more for each 

3.78 L (1 gal) of oysters (Note: Strainers of 

smaller area dimensions are permitted to 

facilitate testing smaller containers.)
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix F – Handbook 133 Proposed Amendments and Editorial Changes

L&R - F22

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix F – Handbook 133 Proposed Amendments and Editorial Changes

L&R - F23

The following items are editorial errors made by NIST during editorial review of current published HB 133

Good Measurement Practices

1a 1.7.(2)

G15

Certification 

Requirements for 

Standards and Test 

Equipment

This must be done according to the calibration 

procedures and other instructions found on 

NIST’s Laboratory Metrology and Calibration 

Procedures website at 

http: //ts.nist.gov/W eightsAndM easures/C alibrationPr

ocedures .cfm in NIST Handbook 145, “Handbook 

for the Quality Assurance of Metrological 

Measurements,”or using other recognized 

procedures (e.g., those adopted for use by a state 

weights and measures laboratory).

Amended this section to refer 

users to NIST’s Calibration 

Procedures website which 

provides information on 

laboratory test procedures. Many 

of those on the website supersede 

those in NIST Handbook 145 

which is cited in current text. The 

information presented at this URL 

is regularly updated by the 

Weights and Measures Division 

Metrology Group. State 

laboratories use this as a primary 

source for calibration information.

Measurement Standards and Test 

Equipment

2a 2.2.f.(3)

G19

Which 

performance tests 

should be 

conducted to 

ensure the 

accuracy of a 

scale? – Shift Test

Bench Scales or Balance use a test load equal to 

one-halfthird of the “maximum test load” used for 

the “increasing-load test.” For bench scales (see 

Diagram 1. “Bench Scales or Balance”),place

apply the test load as nearly as possible at the 

center of each quadrant of the load receiving 

element as shown in Diagram 1. “Bench Scale or 

Balance.” in the center of four separate quadrants, 

equidistant between the center and edge of the loadreceiving element and

For Equal Arm Balances use a test load equal to 

one-half capacity centered successively at four 

points positioned equidistance between the center 

and the front, left, back, and right edges of each 

pan as shown. Determine the accuracy in each 

quadrant for (see Diagram 2. “Equal-Arm 

Balance).” For example, where the load-receiving 

element is a rectangular or circular shape, place the 

test load in the center of the area represented by the 

shaded boxes in the following diagrams

Amended this section to reflect 

the changes made in 2007 to the 

shift test procedures in NIST 

HB 44, Section 2.20. Scales 

under N.1.3.7. All Other 

Scales.... The change in HB 44 

reduced the test-load to 

.

1

/3 maximum nominal capacity 

and amended the requirement on 

placement of the test load on the 

load receiving element. The test 

pattern in Diagram 1 has been 

changed to reflect the new 

requirement.
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix F – Handbook 133 Proposed Amendments and Editorial Changes

L&R - F24

The following items are editorial errors made by NIST during editorial review of current published HB 133

Diagram 1. Bench Scales or Balance Diagram 2. Equal-Arm Balance

Measurement Standards and Test 

Equipment

3a 2.2.(3)g

G20

Which Standards 

Apply to Other test 

Equipment.

add the URL:

These publications may be obtained from the Office 

of Weights and Measures Division

(http://www.nist.gov/owm) or the U.S. Government 

Printing Office.

Basic Inspection Procedure and 

Recordkeeping

4a 2.3.3.d.

G24

Where are 

Maximum 

Allowable 

Variations found?

Added a missing ● and reference to “Table 2-9.”

● packages bearing a USDA seal of inspection –

Meat and Poultry “See Table 2-9.”

NIST in error missed this during 

editorial review of published 

HB 133

Tare Procedures

5a 2.3.5.a(1)

G25 Used Dry Tare

Note: When testing frozen foods with the Used Dry 

Tare approach, the frost found inside frozen food 

packages is included as part of the net contents.

Within HB 133 3rd Edition, 

Section 3.12. Frozen Food and 

Other Frozen Products the 

following note was omitted from 

the 4th

Moisture Allowances

Edition print.

6a 2.3.8.b.

G31

Table 2-3 Moisture 

Allowances

Corrected a misprint in the moisture allowance for 

packages of fresh poultry to read 3 %.

NIST in error missed this during 

editorial review of current 

published HB 133

Other Volumetric Test Procedures

7a 3.4.

G51

What other 

methods can be 

used to determine 

the net contents of 

packages labeled 

by volume?

Updated standards

 Class A 500 mL buret that conforms to 

ASTM E287 94 2(2007), “Standard 

Specification for Laboratory Glass 

Graduated Burets”

 Class A Pipets, calibrated “to deliver” that 

conform to ASTM E969 95-02(2007), 

“Standard Specification for Glass 

Volumetric (Transfer) Pipets”
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix F – Handbook 133 Proposed Amendments and Editorial Changes

L&R - F25

The following items are editorial errors made by NIST during editorial review of current published HB 133

Test Viscous Materials

8a 3.9

G63

Such as Caulking 

Compounds and 

Pastes

Update Standard:

Calibrate the density cup gravimetrically with respect 

to the contained volume using the procedure in 

ASTM E542 9401(2007)

Update standard

, “Standard Practice for 

Calibration of Laboratory Volumetric Apparatus.”

Peat Moss

9a 3.10.b.

G64

How are packages 

of pet and pet moss 

labeled by 

compressed 

volume tested?

Update the standard in the second question.

The procedure is based on ASTM D2978-9003

Update ASTM standard

, 

“Standard Method of Test for Volume of Processed 

Peat Materials.”

Mulch and Soils Labeled by Volume

10a 3.11.(b)

G66 – G67

Mulch and Soils 

Labeled by 

Volume

Modify table – The tables format was simplified and 

the SI units were changed to millimeters

Table 3-4. Specifications for Test Measures for Mulch and Soils

Nominal Volume of 

Test Measure Interior Wall Dimensions*

Marked 

Intervals on 

Interior

Walls ***

Volume 

Equivalent of 

Marked 

Intervals

Length Width Height**

30.2 L (1.07 ft3

testing packages that 

contain less than 28.3 L

) for

(1 ft3

203.2 mm (8 in)

or 25.7 dry qt)

736.6 mm

(29 in)

12.7 mm

524.3 mL

(1⁄2 in)

(32 in3

28.3 L (1 ft

)

3

)

1 179.8 mL

304.8 mm (12 in)

(72 in 56.6 L (2 ft 3)

3

) 406.4 mm

(16 in)

228.6 mm

(9 in)

1219.2 mm

84.9 L (3 ft (48 in) 3

Measures are typically constructed of 

)

12.7 mm1.27 cm (1⁄2 in) marine plywood. A transparent sidewall is useful for 

determining the level of fill, but must be reinforced if it is not thick enough to resist distortion. If the measure has a 

clear front, place the level gage at the back (inside) of the measure so that the markings are read over the top of the 

mulch.

11a 3.11.d.

G68

Mulch and Soils 

Labeled by 

Volume – “How 

are package errors 

determined?”

Package Error = Package Net Volume − Labeled 

volume

NIST in error left out the “-“ 

during the editorial review of the 

current published HB 133
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix F – Handbook 133 Proposed Amendments and Editorial Changes

L&R - F26

The following items are editorial errors made by NIST during editorial review of current published HB 133

Test Procedure for Cylinders 

Labeled by Volume

12a 3.14.2.a.

G78

How is it 

determined if the 

containers meet the 

package 

requirements using 

the volumetric test 

procedure?

Change #5 to read as follows:

Using NIST Technical Note 1079 “Tables of 

Industrial Gas Container Contents and Density for 

Oxygen, Argon, Nitrogen, Helium, and Hydrogen” 

(available on-line at (http://www.nist.gov/owm)

Added website information

determine the value (SCF/CF) from the content 

tables at the temperature and pressure of the cylinder 

under test

13a 3.15.

G79 Firewood Editorial: Make 3.15 Main Title, subtitle firewood categories

Chapter 4

Packages Labeled by Count of More 

than 50 Items

14a 4.4

G86

Packages Labeled 

by Count of More 

than 50 Items; 

Audit Procedure

Item 9:

Added a minus symbol to the equation between 

Actual Package Gross Weight and Nominal Gross 

Weight.

NIST in error left out the “-” 

during the editorial review of the 

current published HB 133

Special Test Requirements for 

Packages Labeled by Linear or 

Square Measure (Area)

15a 4.6

G90

Are there special 

measurement 

requirements for 

packages labeled 

by dimensions?

Updated Standard:

When testing yarn and thread apply tension and use 

the specialized equipment specified in ASTM 

D1907-907

Updated ASTM Standard

, “Standard Test Method for Linear 

Density of Yarn (Yarn Number) by the Skein 

Method,” in conjunction with the sampling plans and 

package requirements described in this handbook.

Polyethylene Sheeting

16a 4.7

G92

Which procedures 

are used to verify 

the declarations on 

polyethylene 

sheeting and bags?

Test Procedure

Updated the year (98) of approval referenced in 

ASTM Standard D 1505 98-03

Updated ASTM Standard

, “Standard Method of 

Test for Density of Plastics by the Density Gradient 

Technique.”

Packages Labeled by Linear or 

Square (Area) Measure

17a 4.8

G97

Packages Labeled 

by Linear or 

Square (Area) 

Measure. – Test 

Procedure

Item 11: Added a minus symbol to the equation 

between Package Gross Weight and Nominal Gross 

Weight.

NIST in error left out the “-” 

during the editorial review of the 

current published HB 133

Baler Twine - Test Procedure for 

Length

18a 4.9

G99 Equipment

Item 5: Added a minus symbol to the equation 

between Package Gross Weight and Nominal Gross 

Weight.

NIST in error left out the “-” 

during the editorial review of the 

current published HB 133
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix G – Handbook 133, Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods

L&R - G1

Appendix G

NIST Handbook 133

Checking the Net Contents of Package Goods
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix G – Handbook 133, Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods

L&R - G2

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix G – Handbook 133, Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods

L&R - G3

Table of Contents

CHAPTER 1. GENERAL INFORMATION ......................................................................... G9

1.1. Scope ............................................................................................................................................G9

a. When and where to use package checking procedures? ............................................................... G9

(1) Point-of-pack....................................................................................................................... G9

(2) Wholesale............................................................................................................................ G9

(3) Retail................................................................................................................................... G9

b. What products can be tested?...................................................................................................... G10

1.2. Package Requirements.............................................................................................................G10

(1) Inspection Lot ................................................................................................................... G10

(2) Average Requirement........................................................................................................ G11

(3) Individual Package Requirement ...................................................................................... G11

(4) Maximum Allowable Variation ........................................................................................ G11

(5) Deviations Caused by Moisture Loss or Gain................................................................... G11

a. Why and when do we allow for moisture loss or gain? .............................................................. G11

(6) Exceptions to the Average and Individual Package Requirements................................... G13

1.3. Sampling Plans..........................................................................................................................G13

a. Why is sampling used to test packages? ..................................................................................... G13

b. Why is the test acceptance criteria statistically corrected and what are the confidence levels

of the sampling plans? ............................................................................................................... G13

c. Why random samples?................................................................................................................ G14

d. May audit tests and other shortcuts be used to identify potentially violative lots?..................... G14

e. Can audit tests and other shortcuts be used to take enforcement action? ................................... G14

1.4. Other Regulatory Agencies Responsible for Package Regulations and Applicable 

Requirements ............................................................................................................................G14

1.5. Assistance in Testing Operations.............................................................................................G15

1.6. Health and Safety......................................................................................................................G15

1.7. Good Measurement Practices..................................................................................................G15

(1) Traceability Requirements for Measurement Standards and Test Equipment.................. G15

(2) Certification Requirements for Standards and Test Equipment........................................ G15

CHAPTER 2. BASIC TEST PROCEDURE – GRAVIMETRIC TESTING.................... G16

2.1. Gravimetric Test Procedure for Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods..............G16

2.2. Measurement Standards and Test Equipment.......................................................................G16

a. What type of scale is required to perform the gravimetric test method? .................................... G16

b. How often should I verify the accuracy of a scale? .................................................................... G16

c. Which accuracy requirements apply? ......................................................................................... G16

d. What considerations affect measurement accuracy?................................................................... G17

e. In testing, which tolerances apply to the scale?.......................................................................... G17

f. Which performance tests should be conducted to ensure the accuracy of a scale? .................... G19

(1) Increasing-Load Test......................................................................................................... G19

(2) Decreasing-Load Test ....................................................................................................... G19

(3) Shift Test........................................................................................................................... G19

(4) Return to Zero ................................................................................................................... G20
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix G – Handbook 133, Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods

L&R - G4

g. Which standards apply to other test equipment? ........................................................................ G20

2.3. Basic Test Procedure ................................................................................................................G21

2.3.1. Define the Inspection Lot .........................................................................................................G21

h. What is the difference between standard and random weight packages? ................................... G21

2.3.2. Sampling Plans......................................................................................................................... G22

a. Where are sampling plans located for “Category A” inspections?............................................. G22

b. Where are sampling plans located for “Category B” inspections? ............................................. G22

2.3.3. Basic Inspection Procedure and Recordkeeping....................................................................G22

a. How are the specific steps of the Basic Test Procedure documented? ....................................... G22

b. Where are Maximum Allowable Variations found? ................................................................... G23

c. How is the value of an MAV found? .......................................................................................... G23

d. How many M AV s unreasonable minus errors (UME’s) are permitted in a sample? ................. G24

2.3.4. Random Sample Selection........................................................................................................G24

a. How are sample packages selected? ........................................................................................... G24

b. How is the size of the “Lot” determined?................................................................................... G24

c. How is the sample size determined?........................................................................................... G24

2.3.5. Tare Procedures........................................................................................................................G24

a. What types of tare may be used to determine the net weight of package goods?....................... G24

(1) Used Dry Tare................................................................................................................... G24

(2) Unused Dry Tare............................................................................................................... G25

(3) Wet Tare............................................................................................................................ G25

b. How is a tare weight determined?............................................................................................... G25

c. Does the inspection of aerosol containers require special procedures? ...................................... G26

d. How is the tare of vacuum-packed coffee determined?.............................................................. G26

e. How is it determined how many packages to select for the initial tare sample?......................... G26

f. How are the tare sample and the tare weight of the packaging material determined?................ G27

g. When and where is unused dry tare used, and how is it used to determine an average tare weight?

................................................................................................................................................. G28

2.3.6. Determine Nominal Gross Weight and Package Errors for Tare Sample...........................G28

a. W hat is How do I compute a nominal gross weight?................................................................. G28

b. How do I compute the package error? ........................................................................................ G28

c. How are individual package errors determined for the tare sample packages? .......................... G28

d. How are individual package errors determined for the other packages in the sample? .............. G29

e. How is the total package error computed?.................................................................................. G29

2.3.7. Evaluating Results ....................................................................................................................G29

a. How is it determined if a sample passes or fails? ....................................................................... G29

b. How is it determined if packages exceed the Maximum Allowable Variation?......................... G29

c. How is it determined if the negative package errors in the sample exceed the number of MAVs 

allowed for the sample? .............................................................................................................. G29

d. How is the average error of the sample determined and does the inspected lot pass or fail the 

average requirement?.................................................................................................................. G30

2.3.8. Moisture Allowances.................................................................................................................G30

a. How is reasonable moisture loss allowed? ................................................................................. G30

b. What are the moisture allowances for flour, and dry pet food, and other products? 

(See Table 2-3. “Moisture Allowances.”)................................................................................... G31
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix G – Handbook 133, Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods

L&R - G5

c. What moisture allowance is used with Used Dry Tare when testing packages that bear a USDA 

Seal of Inspection?...................................................................................................................... G32

d. What moisture allowance is used with wet tare? when testing packages bearing a USDA 

seal of inspection?....................................................................................................................... G33

e. How is moisture loss handled for products not listed in NIST Handbook 133?......................... G33

2.3.9. Calculations...............................................................................................................................G34

a. How is moisture allowance computed and applied to the average error?................................... G34

b. How is a Moisture Allowance made prior to determining package errors?................................ G35

c. How is a Moisture Allowance made after determining package errors? .................................... G35

d. What should you do when a sample is in the moisture allowance (gray) area?.......................... G37

2.4. Borax..........................................................................................................................................G37

a. How is it determined if the net weight labeled on packages of borax is accurate?..................... G37

b. How is the volume determined? ................................................................................................. G39

c. What action can be taken based on the results of the density test?............................................. G39

2.5. The Determination of Drained Weight ...................................................................................G39

2.6. Drained Weight for Glazed or Frozen Foods.........................................................................G41

a. How is the drained weight of frozen shrimp (e.g., 2.27 kg (5 lb) block of shrimp) and 

crabmeat determined? ................................................................................................................ G41

b. How is the net weight of glazed raw seafood and fish determined?........................................... G43

CHAPTER 3. TEST PROCEDURES – FOR PACKAGES LABELED BY 

VOLUME.................................................................................................................................. G45

3.1. Scope ..........................................................................................................................................G45

a. What types of packaged goods can be tested using these procedures?....................................... G45

b. What types of packages are not covered by these procedures? .................................................. G45

c. When can the gravimetric test procedure be used to verify the net quantity of contents of 

packages labeled by volume?...................................................................................................... G45

d. What procedure is followed if the gravimetric test procedure cannot be used? ......................... G45

e. What considerations besides density affect measurement accuracy? ......................................... G45

f. What reference temperature should be used to determine the volume of a liquid? .................... G45

3.2. Gravimetric Test Procedure for Liquids................................................................................G46

a. How is “nominal gross weight “determined? ............................................................................. G49

b. How are the errors in the sample determined?............................................................................ G50

3.3. Volumetric Test Procedure for Liquids..................................................................................G50

a. How is the volume of liquid contained in a package determined volumetrically? ..................... G50

b. How are the errors in the sample determined?............................................................................ G50

3.4. Other Volumetric Test Procedures .........................................................................................G50

a. What other methods can be used to determine the net contents of packages labeled 

by volume?.................................................................................................................................. G50

b. How is the volume of oils, syrups, and other viscous liquids that have smooth surfaces 

determined?................................................................................................................................. G51

3.5. How is the volume of mayonnaise and salad dressing, and water immiscible products 

that do not have smooth and level surfaces determined?......................................................G52

(1) Volumetric Headspace Test Procedure ............................................................................. G52

3.6. Goods Labeled by Capacity – Volumetric Test Procedure ...................................................G53

a. What type of measurement equipment is needed to perform the headspace test procedures?.... G53
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix G – Handbook 133, Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods

L&R - G6

b. How is it determined if goods labeled by capacity meet the average and individual 

requirements?.............................................................................................................................. G53

3.7. Pressed and Blown Glass Tumblers and Stemware...............................................................G54

a. What requirements apply to pressed and blown glass tumblers and stemware?......................... G54

b. How is it determined if tumblers and stemware meet the individual package requirement?...... G55

c. What type of measuring equipment is needed to perform the test procedures?.......................... G55

d. What are the steps of the test procedure?.................................................................................... G55

e. How is it determined if the samples conform to the allowable difference?................................ G55

3.8. Volumetric Test Procedure for Paint, Varnish, and Lacquers – Non-aerosol ....................G56

a. How is the volume of paint, varnish, and lacquers contained in a package determined? ........... G56

b. What test procedure is used to conduct a retail audit test? ......................................................... G56

c. How accurate is the dimensional test procedure? ....................................................................... G57

d. What worksheets make data recording easier? ........................................................................... G57

e. How is a retail audit test performed? .......................................................................................... G58

f. How is an in-plant audit conducted?........................................................................................... G59

3.8.1. Violation Procedure..................................................................................................................G60

a. How is it determined if the containers meet the package requirements?.................................... G60

b. When can a gravimetric procedure be used? .............................................................................. G62

c. How is “nominal gross weight” determined? ............................................................................. G62

3.9. Testing Viscous Materials – Such As Caulking Compounds and Pastes.............................G62

a. How are viscous materials such as caulking compounds and paste tested? ............................... G62

b. What type of measurement equipment is needed to test packages of caulk, pastes, and 

glues? .......................................................................................................................................... G63

c. How is a pycnometer prepared for use?...................................................................................... G63

d. How is it determined if the containers meet the package requirements?.................................... G63

3.10. Peat Moss...................................................................................................................................G64

a. How are packages of peat and peat moss labeled by compressed volume tested? ..................... G64

b. How are packages of peat and peat moss labeled by uncompressed volume tested? ................. G64

c. How is it determined if the packages meet the requirements in this handbook? ........................ G65

3.11. Mulch and Soils Labeled by Volume.......................................................................................G66

a. What products are defined as mulch and soil?............................................................................ G66

b. What type of measurement equipment is needed to test packages of mulch and soil?............... G66

c. How is it determined if the packages meet the package requirements?...................................... G67

d. How are package errors determined?.......................................................................................... G68

3.12. Ice Cream Novelties..................................................................................................................G68

a. How are ice cream novelties inspected to see if the labeled volume meets the package 

requirements?.............................................................................................................................. G68

b. How is it determined if the ice cream novelty packages meet the requirements in this 

handbook?................................................................................................................................... G71

c. How is “nominal gross weight” determined?............................................................................. G72

d. How are the errors in the sample determined?............................................................................ G72

3.13. Fresh Oysters Labeled by Volume ..........................................................................................G73

a. What requirements apply to packages of fresh oysters labeled by volume?............................... G73

b. How is it determined if the containers meet the package requirements?.................................... G74

3.14. Determining the Net Contents of Compressed Gas in Cylinders .........................................G75

a. What type of compressed gases may be tested with these procedures?...................................... G75
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix G – Handbook 133, Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods

L&R - G7

b. What type of test procedures must be used?............................................................................... G75

c. Should any specific safety procedures be followed? .................................................................. G75

d. What type of measurement equipment is needed to test cylinders of compressed gas? ............. G76

3.14.1. Test Procedure for Cylinders Labeled by Weight .................................................................G77

a. How is it determined if the containers meet the package requirements using the 

gravimetric test procedure?......................................................................................................... G77

3.14.2 Test Procedure for Cylinders Labeled by Volume ................................................................G78

a. How is it determined if the containers meet the package requirements using the volumetric 

test procedure? ............................................................................................................................ G78

3.15. Firewood ....................................................................................................................................G79

3.15.1 Volumetric Test Procedure for Packaged Firewood with a Labeled Volume of 

113 L (4 ft3

) or Less...................................................................................................................G79

a. How are packages of firewood tested? ....................................................................................... G79

b. How is it determined if the containers meet the package requirements?.................................... G79

3.15.2. Boxed Firewood.........................................................................................................................G79

a. How is the volume of firewood contained in a box determined? ............................................... G79

3.15.3. Crosshatched Firewood............................................................................................................G80

a. How must the volume of stacked or crosshatched firewood be measured?................................ G80

3.15.4. Bundles and Bags of Firewood.................................................................................................G81

a. How is the volume of bundles and bags of firewood measured?................................................ G81

CHAPTER 4. TEST PROCEDURES – PACKAGES LABELED BY COUNT, LINEAR 

MEASURE, AREA, THICKNESS, AND COMBINATIONS OF QUANTITIES ............ G83

4.1. Scope ..........................................................................................................................................G83

a. What types of packaged goods can be tested using these procedures?....................................... G83

b. Can the gravimetric test procedure be used to verify the net quantity of contents of packages 

labeled by count and linear measure? ......................................................................................... G83

c. What procedures may be used if the gravimetric test procedure cannot be used?...................... G83

4.2 Packages Labeled by Count.....................................................................................................G83

a. How are packages labeled by count tested?................................................................................ G83

b. How to determine if a gravimetric test procedure may be used to verify the labeled count of a 

package?...................................................................................................................................... G83

4.3. Packages Labeled with 50 Items or Fewer..............................................................................G84

4.4. Packages Labeled by Count of More than 50 Items..............................................................G85

4.5. Paper Plates and Sanitary Paper Products.............................................................................G88

a. How are the labeled dimensions of paper plates and sanitary paper products verified?............. G88

b. How are paper products inspected? ............................................................................................ G89

c. How are paper products measured? ............................................................................................ G89

4.6. Special Test Requirements for Packages Labeled by Linear or Square Measure (Area)..G90

a. Are there special measurement requirements for packages labeled by dimensions?.................. G90

4.7. Polyethylene Sheeting ...............................................................................................................G90

a. Which procedures are used to verify the declarations on polyethylene sheeting and bags?....... G90
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix G – Handbook 133, Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods

L&R - G8

4.7.1. Evaluation of Results – Length, Width, and Net Weight ......................................................G94

4.7.2. Evaluation of Results – Individual Thickness........................................................................G94

4.7.3. Evaluation of Results – Average Thickness............................................................................G95

4.8. Packages Labeled by Linear or Square (Area) Measure ......................................................G95

4.9. Baler Twine – Test Procedure for Length ..............................................................................G97

4.10 Procedure for Checking the Area Measurement of Chamois...............................................G99

APPENDIX A. TABLES ...................................................................................................... G103

APPENDIX C. GLOSSARY................................................................................................ G117

APPENDIX E. MODEL INSPECTION REPORT FORMS ............................................ G123

*Appendices B and D, and the Index are not included in this draft copy of Handbook 133 as there are no 

pending changes at this time.
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix G – Handbook 133, Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods

L&R - G9

Chapter 1. General Information

1.1. Scope

Routine verification of the net contents of packages is an important part of any weights and measures 

program to facilitate value comparison and fair competition. Consumers have the right to expect 

packages to bear accurate net content information. Those manufacturers whose products are sold in such 

packages have the right to expect that their competitors will be required to adhere to the same laws and 

regulations.standards.

The procedures in this handbook are recommended for use to verify the net quantity of contents of 

packages kept, offered, or exposed for sale, or sold by weight, measure (including volume, and 

dimensions), or count at any location (e.g., at the point-of-pack, in storage warehouses, retail stores, and 

wholesale outlets).

a. When and where to use package checking procedures?

An effective program will typically include testing at each of the following levels.

(1) Point-of-pack

Testing packages at the “point-of-pack” has an immediate impact on the packaging process. Usually, a 

large number of packages of a single product are available for testing at one place. This allows the 

inspector to verify that the packer is following current good packaging practices. Inspection at the pointof-pack also provides the opportunity to educate the packer about the legal requirements that products

must meet and may permit resolution of any net content issues or other problems that arise during the 

testing. Point-of-pack testing is not always possible because packing locations can be in other states or 

countries. Work with other state, county, and city jurisdictions to encourage point-of-pack inspection on 

products manufactured in their geographic jurisdictions. Point-of-pack inspections cannot entirely replace 

testing at wholesale or retail outlets, because point-of-pack inspections do not include imported products 

or the possible effects of product distribution and moisture loss. Point-of-pack inspections only examine 

the manufacturing process. Therefore, an effective testing program will also include testing at wholesale 

and retail outlets.

(2) Wholesale

Testing packages at a distribution warehouse is an alternative to testing at the point-of-pack with respect 

to being able to test large quantities of and a variety of products. Wholesale testing is a very good way to 

monitor products imported from other countries and to follow up on products suspected of being underfilled 

based on consumer complaints or findings made during other inspections, including those done at retail 

outlets.

(3) Retail

Testing packages at retail outlets evaluates the soundness of the manufacturing, distributing, and retailing 

processes of the widest variety of goods at a single location. It is an easily accessible, practical means for 

state, county and city jurisdictions to monitor packaging procedures and to detect present or potential 
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix G – Handbook 133, Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods

L&R - G10

problems. Generally, retail package testing is not conducive to checking large quantities of individual 

products of any single production lot. Therefore, follow-up inspections of a particular brand or lot code 

number at a number of retail and wholesale outlets, and ultimately at the point-of-pack are extremely 

important aspects in any package-checking scheme. After the evaluation of an inspection lot is 

completed, the jurisdiction should consider what, if any, further investigation or follow-up is warranted. 

At the point-of-sale, a large number of processes may affect the quality or quantity of the product. 

Therefore, there may be many reasons for any inspection lot being out of compliance. A shortage in 

weight or measure may result from mishandling the product in the store, or the retailer’s failure to rotate 

stock. Shortages may also be caused through mishandling by a distributor, or failure of some part of the 

packaging process. Shortages may also be caused by moisture loss (desiccation) if the product is 

packaged in permeable media. Therefore, being able to determine the cause of an error in order to correct 

defects is more difficult when retail testing is used.

(Amended 2002)

b. What products can be tested?

Any commodity sold by weight, measure, or count may be tested. The product to be tested may be chosen 

in several ways. The decision may be based on different factors, such as (1) marketplace surveys 

(e.g., jurisdiction-wide surveys of all soft drinks or breads), (2) surveys based on sales volume, or (3) audit 

testing (see Section 1.3. “Sampling Plans”) to cover as large a product variety as possible at food, farm, 

drug, hardware stores, or specialty outlets, discount and department stores. Follow-up of possible problems 

detected in audit testing or in review of past performance tends to concentrate inspection resources on 

particular commodity types, brand names, retail or wholesale locations, or even particular neighborhoods. 

The expected benefits for the public must be balanced against the cost of testing. Expensive products 

should be tested because of their cost per unit. However, inexpensive items should also be tested because 

the overall cost to individual purchasers may be considerable over an extended period. Store packaged 

items, which are usually perishable and not subject to other official monitoring, should be routinely tested 

because they are offered for sale where they are packed. Products on sale and special products produced for 

local consumption should not be overlooked because these items sell quickly in large amounts.

Regardless of where the test occurs, remember that it is the inspector’s presence in the marketplace through 

routine unannounced testing that ensures equity and fair competition in the manufacturing and distribution 

process. Finally, always follow up on testing to ensure that the problems are corrected; otherwise, the initial 

testing may be ineffective.

1.2. Package Requirements

The net quantity of content statement must be “accurate,” but reasonable variations are permitted. 

Variations in package contents may be a result of deviations in filling. The limits for acceptable variation 

are based on current good manufacturing practices in the weighing, measuring, and packaging process. 

The first requirement is that accuracy is applied to the average net contents of the packages in the lot. 

The second requirement is applied to negative errors in individual packages. These requirements apply 

simultaneously to the inspection of all lots of packages except as specified in “Exceptions to the Average

and Individual Package Requirements” in this section.

(1) Inspection Lot

An “inspection lot” (called a “lot” in this handbook) is defined as a collection of identically labeled (except 

for quantity or identity in the case of random packages) packages available for inspection at one time. 

The collection of packages will pass or fail as a whole based on the results of tests on a sample drawn 
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix G – Handbook 133, Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods

L&R - G11

from this collectionthe lot. This handbook describes procedures to determine if the packages in an 

“inspection lot” contain the declared net quantity of contents and if the individual packages’ variations are 

within acceptable limits.

(2) Average Requirement

In general, the average net quantity of contents of packages in a lot must at least equal the net quantity of 

contents declared on the label. Plus or minus variations from the declared net weight, measure, or count 

are permitted when they are caused by unavoidable variations in weighing, measuring, or counting the 

contents of individual packages that occur in current good manufacturing practice. Such variations must 

not be permitted to the extent that the average of the quantities in the packages of a particular commodity 

or a lot of the commodity that is kept, offered, exposed for sale, or sold, is below the stated quantity. (See 

Section 3.7. “Pressed and Blown Glass Tumblers and Stemware” and Section 4.3. “Packages Labeled by 

Count of 50 Items or Fewer” for exceptions to this requirement.)

(3) Individual Package Requirement

The variation of individual package contents from the labeled quantity must not be “unreasonably large.” 

In this handbook, packages that are underfilled by more than the Maximum Allowable Variation specified 

for the package are considered unreasonable errors. Unreasonable shortages are not generally permitted, 

even when overages in other packages in the same lot, shipment or delivery compensate for such 

shortage. This handbook does not specify limits of overfilling (with the exception of textiles), which is 

usually controlled by the packer for economic, compliance, and other reasons.

(4) Maximum Allowable Variation

The limit of the “reasonable minus variation” for an individual package is called a “Maximum Allowable 

Variation” (MAV). An MAV is a deviation from the labeled weight, measure, or count of an individual 

package beyond which the deficiency is considered an unreasonable minus error. Each sampling plan 

limits the number of negative package errors permitted to be greater than the MAV.

(5) Deviations Caused by Moisture Loss or Gain

Deviations from the net quantity of contents caused by the loss or gain of moisture from the package are 

permitted when they are caused by ordinary and customary exposure to conditions that normally occur in 

good distribution practice and that unavoidably result in change of weight or measure. According to 

regulations adopted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, no moisture loss is recognized on 

pesticides. (See Code of Federal Regulations 40 CFR Part 156.10.)

a. Why and when do we allow for moisture loss or gain?

Some packaged products may lose or gain moisture and, therefore, lose or gain weight or volume after 

packaging. The amount of lost moisture loss depends upon the nature of the product, the packaging 

material, the length of time it is in distribution, environmental conditions, and other factors. Moisture 

loss may occur even when manufacturers follow good distribution practices. Loss of weight “due to 

exposure” may include solvent evaporation, not just loss of water. For loss or gain of moisture,apply the 

moisture allowances may be applied before or after the package errors are determined.
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix G – Handbook 133, Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods

L&R - G12

WWMA Change last sentence above to read as follows

For loss or gain of moisture, apply the moisture allowances after the package errors are 

determined.may be applied before or after the package errors are determined.

To apply an allowance before determining package errors, adjust the Nominal Gross Weight (see 

Section 2.3. “Basic Test Procedure”) – Determine Nominal Gross Weight and Package Errors for 

Tare Sample, so the package errors are increased by an amount equal to the moisture allowance. 

This approach is used to account for moisture loss in both the average and individual package 

errors.

CWMA Change paragraph above, first sentence

To apply ana moisture allowance before determining package errors, adjust the Nominal 

Gross Weight. (See Section 2.3. “Basic Test Procedure”)

WWMA

Note: California officials question the need for accommodating both methods (before or after). 

This only presents opportunities for confusion. Recorded package errors should be ACTUAL 

values. Adjusted package errors on an inspection report cause concern for prosecutors when 

presenting the report in evidence. The MLA should be applied to the MAV and the SEL only 

after determining package and average errors.

We suggest removing the first paragraph (To apply an allowance...) and rewording the 

second paragraph (It is also permissible to apply...) as follows:

Apply the moisture allowance after individual package and average errors are determined. For 

example, a sample of a product subject to moisture loss might fail because the errors in 

several of the sample packages are determined to be unreasonable (i.e., the package error is 

greater than the Maximum Allowable Variation permitted for the package’s labeled quantity) or 

the average error is minus and outside the Sample Error Limit. Adjust the MAV after the 

individual package errors are determined and adjust the SEL after average error is determined. 

Compare individual package errors to the adjusted MLA and the average error to the adjusted 

SEL.

It is also permissible to apply the moisture allowances after individual package errors and average 

errors are determined. For example, a sample of a product that could be subject to moisture loss 

might fail because the average error is minus or the error in several of the sample packages are 

found to be unreasonable errors (i.e., the package error is greater than the Maximum Allowable 

Variation permitted for the package’s labeled quantity).to both the maximum allowable variations 

permitted for individual packages and the average net quantity of contents before determining the 

conformance of a lot You can apply an allowance after determining the errors by adding an 

amount equal to the moisture allowance to adjust the average error so the adjusted aver age er r or

and individual package errors. pr ovide for loss of moistur e fr om the sample packages.

This handbook provides “moisture allowances” for some meat and poultry products, flour, and dry pet 

food. (See Chapter 2, Table 2-3. “Moisture Allowances”) These allowances are based on the premise 

that when the average net weight of a sample is found to be less than the labeled weight, but not by an 

amount that exceeds the allowable limit, either the lot is declared to be within the moisture allowance or 

more information must be collected before deciding lot compliance or noncompliance.
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix G – Handbook 133, Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods

L&R - G13

Test procedures for flour, some meat, and poultry are based on the concept of a “moisture allowance” also 

known as a “gray area” or “no decision” area. (See Section 2.3, “Basic Test Procedure – Calculations”) 

When the average net weight of a sample is found to be less than the labeled weight, but not more than 

the boundary of the “gray area,” the lot is said to be in the “gray” or “no decision” area. The gray area is 

not a tolerance. More information must be collected before lot compliance or noncompliance can be 

decided. Appropriate enforcement should be taken on packages found short weight and outside of the 

“moisture allowance” or “gray area.”

(Amended 2002)

(6) Exceptions to the Average and Individual Package Requirements

There is an exemption from the average requirement for packages labeled by count of 50 or fewer items. 

The reason for this exemption is that the package count does not follow a “normal” distribution even if 

the package is designed to hold the maximum count indicated by the label declaration (e.g., egg cartons 

and packages of chewing gum). Another exception permits an “allowable difference” in the capacity of 

glass tumblers and stemware because mold capacity doesn’t follow a normal distribution.

1.3. Sampling Plans

This handbook contains two sampling plans to use to inspect packages: “Category A” and “Category B.” 

Use the “Category B” Sampling Plans to test meat and poultry products at point-of-pack locations that are 

subject to U.S. Department of Agriculture Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) requirements. 

When testing all other packages, use the “Category A” Sampling Plan.

a. Why is sampling used to test packages?

Inspections by weights and measures officials must provide the public with the greatest benefit at the 

lowest possible cost. Sampling reduces the time to inspect a lot of packages, so a greater number of items 

can be inspected. Net content inspection, using sampling plans for marketplace surveillance, protects 

consumers who cannot verify the net quantity of contents. This ensures fair trade practices and maintains 

a competitive marketplace. It also encourages manufacturers, distributors, and retailers to follow good 

manufacturing and distribution practices.

b. Why is the test acceptance criteria statistically corrected and what are the confidence levels 

of the sampling plans?

Testing a “sample” of packages from a lot instead of every package is efficient, but the test results have a 

“sampling variability” that must be corrected before determining if the lot passes or fails. The 

“Category A” sampling plans give acceptable lots a 97 % or better probability of passing. An 

“acceptable” lot is defined as one in which the “average” net quantity of contents of the packages equals 

or exceeds the labeled quantity. The “Category B” sampling plans give acceptable lots at least a 50 % 

probability of passing. The sampling plans used in this handbook are statistically valid. That means the 

test acceptance criteria are statistically adjusted, so they are both valid and legally defensible. This 

handbook does not discuss the statistical basis, risk factors, or provide the operating characteristic curves 

for the sampling plans. For information on these subjects, see explanations on “acceptance sampling” in 

statistical reference books.
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix G – Handbook 133, Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods

L&R - G14

c. Why random samples?

A randomly selected sample is necessary to ensure statistical validity and reliable data. This is 

accomplished by using random numbers to determine which packages are chosen for inspection. 

Improper collection of sample packages can lead to bias and unreliable results.

d. May audit tests and other shortcuts be used to identify potentially violative lots?

Shortcuts may be used to speed the process of detecting possible net content violations. These audit 

procedures may include the following: using smaller sample sizes, spot checks using tare lists provided 

by manufacturers, selecting samples without collecting a random sample. These and other shortcuts allow 

spot checking of more products than is possible with the more structured techniques, but do not take the 

place of “Category A” or “Category B” testing.

e. Can audit tests and other shortcuts be used to take enforcement action?

No. Do not take enforcement action using audit test results.

If, after an audit test, there is suspicion that a lot of packages is not in compliance, use the appropriate 

“Category A” or “Category B” sampling plan to determine if the lot complies with the package 

requirements.

1.4. Other Regulatory Agencies Responsible for Package Regulations and Applicable 

Requirements

In the United States, several federal agencies issue regulations regarding package labeling and net contents. 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture regulates meat and poultry. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 

regulates food, drugs, cosmetic products, and medical devices under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act 

(FDCA) and the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act (FPLA). The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) regulates 

most non-food consumer packaged products as part of the agency’s responsibility under the FPLA. The 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulates pesticides. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and 

Firearms (ATF) in the U.S. Department of the Treasury promulgates regulations for packaged tobacco and 

alcoholic beverages as part of its responsibility under the Federal Alcohol Administration Act.

Packaged goods produced for distribution and sale also come under the jurisdiction of state and local 

weights and measures agencies that adopt their own legal requirements for packaged goods. Federal statutes 

set requirements that pre-empt state and local regulations that are or may be less stringent or not identical to 

federal regulation depending on the federal law that authorizes the federal regulation. The application of 

Handbook 133 procedures occurs in the context of the concurrent jurisdiction among federal, state, and local 

authorities. Therefore, all agencies using this handbook should keep abreast of the revisions to federal 

agency regulations that may contain sampling or testing information not in the regulations at the time of 

publication of this handbook. See Appendix A, Table 1-1. “Agencies Responsible for Package Regulations 

and Applicable Requirements” for information on the responsible agencies for package regulations and the 

requirements of this handbook must be used when testing products concurrently subject to pre-emptive 

federal regulations.
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix G – Handbook 133, Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods

L&R - G15

1.5. Assistance in Testing Operations

If the storage, display, or location of any lot of packages requires special equipment or an abnormal 

amount of labor for inspection, the owner or the operator of the business must supply the equipment 

and/or labor as required by the weights and measures official.

1.6. Health and Safety

This handbook cannot address all of the health and safety issues associated with its use. The inspector is 

responsible for determining the appropriate safety and health practices and procedures before starting an 

inspection (e.g., contact the establishment’s health and safety official). Comply with all handling, health, 

and safety warnings on package labels and those contained in any associated material safety data sheets. 

The inspector must also comply with federal, state, or local health and safety laws or other appropriate 

requirements in effect at the time and location of the inspection. Contact your supervisor to obtain 

information regarding your agency’s health and safety policies and to obtain appropriate safety 

equipment.

1.7. Good Measurement Practices

The procedures in this handbook are designed to be technically sound and represent good measurement 

practices. To assist in documenting tests, we have included “model” inspection report forms designed to 

record the information.

(1) Traceability Requirements for Measurement Standards and Test Equipment

Each test procedure presented in this handbook includes a list of the equipment needed to perform the 

inspection. The scales and other measurement standards used (e.g., balances, mass standards, volumetric, 

and linear measures) to conduct any test must be traceable to the National Institute of Standards and 

Technology (NIST). Standards must be used in the manner in which they were designed and calibrated 

for use.

(2) Certification Requirements for Standards and Test Equipment

All measurement standards and test equipment identified in this handbook or associated with the test 

procedures must be calibrated or standardized before initial use. This must be done according to the 

calibration procedures and other instructions found on NIST’s Laboratory Metrology and Calibration 

Procedures website at http://ts.nist.gov/WeightsAndMeasures/CalibrationProcedures.cfm or using 

other recognized procedures (e.g., those adopted for use by a state weights and measures laboratory). 

After initial certification, the standards must be routinely recertified according to your agency’s 

measurement assurance policies.
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix G – Handbook 133, Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods

L&R - G16

Chapter 2. Basic Test Procedure – Gravimetric Testing

2.1. Gravimetric Test Procedure for Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods

The gravimetric test method uses weight measurement to determine the net quantity of contents of 

packaged goods. This handbook includes general test methods to determine the net quantity of contents 

of packages labeled in terms of weight and special test methods for packages labeled in terms of fluid 

measure or count. Gravimetric testing is the preferred method of testing most products because it reduces 

destructive testing while maximizing inspection resources.

2.2. Measurement Standards and Test Equipment

a. What type of scale is required to perform the gravimetric test method?

Use a scale (for this handbook the term “scale” includes balances) that has at least 100 scale divisions. It 

must have a load-receiving element of sufficient size and capacity to hold the packages during weighing. 

It also requires a scale division no larger than 1

/6 of the Maximum Allowable Variation (MAV) for the 

package size being weighed. The MAV/6 requirement is crucial to ensure that the scale has adequate 

resolution to determine the net contents of the packages. Subsequent references to product test criteria 

agreeing within one scale division are based on scale divisions that are equal to or only slightly smaller 

than the MAV/6.

Example: The MAV for packages labeled 113 g (0.25 lb) is 7.2 g (0.016 lb)

(See Appendix A, Table 2-5. “Maximum Allowable Variations (MAVs) for Packages Labeled by 

Weight.”)

MAV/6 is 1.2 g (0.002 lb). In this example, a 1 g (0.002 lb) scale division would be the 

largest unit of measure appropriate for weighing these packages.

b. How often should I verify the accuracy of a scale?

Verify the accuracy of a scale before each initial daily use, each use at a new location, or when there is 

any indication of abnormal equipment performance (e.g., erratic indications). Recheck the scale accuracy 

if it is found that the lot does not pass, so there can be confidence that the test equipment is not at fault.

c. Which accuracy requirements apply?

Scales used to check packages must meet the acceptance tolerances specified for their accuracy class in 

the current edition of NIST Handbook 44 (HB 44) “Specifications, Tolerances, and Other Technical 

Requirements for Weighing and Measuring Devices.” The tolerances for Class II and Class III digital 

scales are presented in HB 44, Section 2.20. “Scales.”

Note: If the package checking scale is not marked with a “class” designation, use Table 2-1. “Class of 

Scale” to determine the applicable tolerance.
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix G – Handbook 133, Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods

L&R - G17

d. What considerations affect measurement accuracy?

Always use good weighing and measuring practices. For example, be sure to use weighing and 

measuring equipment according to the manufacturer’s instructions and make sure the environment is 

suitable. Place scales and other measuring equipment (e.g., flasks and volumetric measures) on a rigid 

support and maintain them in a level condition if being level is a requirement to ensure accuracy.

e. In testing, which tolerances apply to the scale?

Do not use a scale if it has an error that exceeds the specified tolerance in any of the performance tests 

described in the following section.

Step:

1. Determine the total number of divisions (i.e., the minimum increment or graduation 

indicated by the scale) of the scale by dividing the scale’s capacity by the minimum 

division.

Example: A scale with a capacity of 5000 g and a minimum division of 0.1 g has 

50 000 divisions.

2. From Table 2-1. “Class of Scale”, determine the class of the scale using the minimum 

scale division and the total number of scale divisions.

Example: On a scale with a minimum division of 0.1 g and 50 000 total scale 

divisions the appropriate class of scale is “II.”

Note: If a scale is used where the number of scale divisions is between 5001 and 10 000 and the division 

size is 0.1 g or greater and is not marked with an accuracy Class II marking, Class III scale tolerances 

apply.
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix G – Handbook 133, Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods

L&R - G18

Table 2-1. Class of Scale

Value of Scale Division Minimum and Total Number of Divisions 1 Class of Scale

1 mg to 0.05 g At least 100, but not more than 100 000 II

0.1 g or more More than 5000, but not more than 100 000 II

0.1 g to 2 g

0.000 2 lb to 0.005 lb

0.005 oz to 0.125 oz

More than 100, but not more than 10 000 III

5 g or more

0.01 lb or more

0.25 oz or more

More than 500, but not more than 10 000 III

1

On some scales, manufacturers designated and marked the scale with a verification division (e) for 

testing purposes (e = 1 g and d = 0.1 g). For scales marked Class II, the verification division is larger 

than the minimum displayed division. The minimum displayed division must be differentiated from the 

verification scale division by an auxiliary reading means such as a vernier, rider, or at least significant 

digit that is differentiated by size, shape, or color. Where the verification division is less than or equal 

to the minimum division, use the verification division instead of the minimum division. Where scales 

are made for use with mass standards (e.g., an equal arm balance without graduations on the indicator), 

the smallest mass standard used for the measurement is the minimum division.

Step:

3. Determine the tolerance from Table 2-2. “Acceptance Tolerances for Class of Scale 

based on Test Load in Divisions” in divisions appropriate for the test load and class of 

scale.

Example: Determine the number of divisions for any test load by dividing the value 

of the mass standard being applied by the minimum division indicated by the scale. 

For example, if the scale has a minimum division of 0.1 g and a 1500 g mass 

standard is applied, the test load is equal to 15 000 divisions (1500/0.1). On a 

Class II scale with a test load between 10 000 and 20 000 divisions, Table 2-2. 

“Acceptance Tolerances for Class of Scale Based on Test Load in Divisions” 

indicates the tolerance is plus or minus one division.

Table 2-2. Acceptance Tolerances for Class of Scale Based on Test Load in Divisions

Test Load in Divisions

Class II Scale Class III Scale Tolerance

0 to 5000 0 to 500 Plus or Minus 0.5 Division

5001 to 20 000 501 to 2 000 Plus or Minus 1 Division

20 001 or more 2001 to 4000 Plus or Minus 1.5 Divisions

Not Applicable 4001 or more Plus or Minus 2.5 Divisions
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix G – Handbook 133, Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods

L&R - G19

f. Which performance tests should be conducted to ensure the accuracy of a scale?

Use the following procedures to verify the scale. The following procedures, based on those required in 

NIST Handbook 44, have been modified to reduce the amount of time required for testing scales in field 

situations.

(1) Increasing-Load Test

Use certified mass standards to conduct an “increasing-load test” with all test loads centered on the loadreceiving element. Start the test with the device on zero and progress with increasing test loads to a 

“maximum test load” of at least 10 percent more than the gross weight of the packages to be tested. Use 

at least three different test loads of approximately equal value to test the device up to the “maximum test 

load.” Verify the accuracy of the device at each test load. Include the package tare weight as one of the 

test points.

(2) Decreasing-Load Test

For all types of scales, other than one with a beam indicator or equal-arm balance, conduct a “decreasingload test” with all test loads centered on the load-receiving element. Use the same test loads used in the 

“increasing-load test” of this section, and start at the “maximum test load.” Remove the test loads in the 

reverse order of the increasing-load test until all test loads are removed. Verify the accuracy of the scale 

at each test load.

(3) Shift Test

Bench Scales or Balance use a test load equal to one-half third of the “maximum test load” used for the 

“increasing-load test.” For bench scales (see Diagram 1. “Bench Scales or Balance”), place apply the 

test load as nearly as possible at the center of each quadrant of the load-receiving element as shown 

in Diagram 1. “Bench Scale or Balance.” in the center of four separate quadrants, equidistant 

between the center and edge of the load-receiving element and

For Equal Arm Balances use a test load equal to one-half capacity centered successively at four 

points positioned equidistance between the center and the front, left, back, and right edges of each 

pan as shown determine the accuracy in each quadrant for(see Diagram 2. “Equal-Arm Balance).” For 

example, where the load-receiving element is a rectangular or circular shape, place the test load in the 

center of the area represented by the shaded boxes in the following diagrams.
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix G – Handbook 133, Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods

L&R - G20

Diagram 1. Bench Scales or Balance Diagram 2. Equal-Arm Balance

(4) Return to Zero

Conduct the return to zero test whenever all the test weights from the scale are removed; check to ensure 

that it returns to a zero indication.

g. Which standards apply to other test equipment?

Specifications, tolerances, and other technical requirements for the other measurement standards and test 

equipment cited in this handbook are specified in the following NIST publications. These publications 

may be obtained from the Office of Weights and Measures Division (http://www.nist.gov/owm) or the 

U.S. Government Printing Office.

• Mass Standards – Use NIST Handbook 105-1, “Specifications and Tolerances for Reference 

Standards and Field Standard Weights and Measures – Field Standard Weights (NIST Class F)” 

(1990)

• Volumetric Flasks and Cylinders – Use NIST Handbook 105-2, “Specifications and Tolerances 

for Reference Standards and Field Standard Weights and Measures – Field Standard Measuring 

Flasks” (1996)

• Stopwatches – Use NIST Handbook 105-5, “Specifications and Tolerances for Reference 

Standards and Field Standard Weights and Measures – Field Standard Stopwatches” (1997)

• Thermometers – Use NIST Handbook 105-6, “Specifications and Tolerances for Reference 

Standards and Field Standard Weights and Measures – Specifications and Tolerances for 

Thermometers” (1997)
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix G – Handbook 133, Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods

L&R - G21

2.3. Basic Test Procedure

The following steps apply when gravimetrically testing any type of packaged product except Borax and 

glazed or frozen foods. If the tested products contain Borax, refer to Section 2.4, “Borax.” If glazed or 

frozen food is tested, refer to Section 2.6. “Drained Weight for Glazed or Frozen Foods.”

Step:

1. Identify and define the inspection lot.

2. Select the sampling plan.

3. Select the random sample.

4. Measure the net contents of the packages in the sample.

5. Evaluate compliance with the Maximum Allowable Variation (MAV) requirement.

6. Evaluate compliance with the average requirement.

2.3.1. Define the Inspection Lot

The official defines which packages are to be tested and the size of the inspection lot. The lot may be 

smaller or larger than the production lot defined by the packer. Only take action on the packages 

contained in the lot that has been defined.

Note: Normally, there will never be access to the entire “production lot” from a manufacturer. The 

“inspection lot” is selected from packages that are available for inspection/test at any location in the 

distribution chain.

Example: An inspection lot should consist of all of the cans of a single brand of peach 

halves, labeled with a net quantity of 453 g (1 lb). When packages are tested in retail 

stores, it is not necessary to sort by lot code. If lot codes are mixed during retail testing, 

be sure to record the lot codes for all of the packages included in the sample so that the 

inspector and other interested parties can follow up on the information. For special 

reasons, such as a large number of packages or the prior history of problems with the 

product or store, the inspector may choose to define a lot as only one type of packaged 

product (e.g., ground beef). Another reason to narrowly define the lot is if the results of 

an audit test indicate the possibility of a shortage in one particular lot code within a 

particular product.

h. What is the difference between standard and random weight packages?

Standard packages are those with identical net content declarations such as containers of soda in 2 L 

bottles and 2.26 kg (5 lb) packages of flour. “Random packages” are those with differing or no fixed 

patterns of weight, such as packages of meat, poultry, fish, or cheese.
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix G – Handbook 133, Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods

L&R - G22

2.3.2. Sampling Plans

a. Where are sampling plans located for “Category A” inspections?

Use Appendix A, Table 2-1. “Sampling Plans for Category A,” to conduct “Category A” inspections.

b. Where are sampling plans located for “Category B” inspections?

Use Appendix A, Table 2-2. “Sampling Plans for Category B,” to conduct “Category B” inspections.

2.3.3. Basic Inspection Procedure and Recordkeeping

a. How are the specific steps of the Basic Test Procedure documented?

Use an official inspection report to record the inspection information. Attach additional worksheets, test 

notes, and other information as needed. This handbook provides random and standard packaged products 

model inspection report forms in Appendix E, “Model Inspection Report Forms.” Refer to Appendix E 

for sample instructions to the complete the forms box numbers. Modify the model reports and the box 

numbers to meet your agency’s needs. Other formats that contain more or less information may be 

acceptable.

Note: Inspection reports should be legible and complete. Good recordkeeping practices typically include 

record retention for a specified period of time (e.g., 1 to 3 years).

Step:

1. Record the product identity, packaging description, lot code, location of test, and other 

pertinent data.

2. Record the labeled net quantity of contents in Box 1. Record both metric and inchpound declarations if they are provided on the package label.

Example: If the labeled weight is 453 g (1 lb), record this in Box 1.

3. When the declaration of net quantity on the package includes both the International 

System of Units (SI) (metric) and inch-pound units, the larger of the two declarations 

must be verified. The rounding rules in NIST Handbook 130, “Uniform Packaging and 

Labeling Regulations” permit packers to round declarations up or down based on their 

knowledge of their package filling targets and the accuracy of packaging equipment.

Determine the larger of the values by converting the SI declaration to inch-pound units, 

or vice versa, using conversion factors that are accurate to at least six places. Compare 

the values, and use the larger value in computing the nominal gross weight (see later 

steps). Indicate on the report which of the declarations is being verified when packages 

labeled with two units of measure are encountered.

Example: If the net weight declared on a package is 1 lb, the metric 

equivalent (accurate to six significant digits) is 453.592 g. Do not round 

down or truncate values in the calculations until the nominal gross weight is 

determined and recorded. If the package is also labeled 454 g, then the 
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix G – Handbook 133, Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods

L&R - G23

Step:

metric declaration is larger than the inch-pound declaration and should be 

used to verify the net contents of the package. The Basic Test Procedure 

does not prohibit the use of units of weight instead of dimensionless units 

when recording package errors, nor does it prohibit the use of net content 

computer programs to determine product compliance. Record the unit of 

measure in Box 2. The unit of measure is the minimum division of the unit 

of measurement used to conduct the test. If a scale is used that reads to 

thousandths of a pound, the unit of measure is 0.001 lb even if the scale 

division is 0.002 lb or 0.005 lb.

Example: If the scale has a scale division of 0.5 g, the unit of measure is 

0.1 g. If a weighed package that has an error of “-0.5 g,” record the error as 

“-5” using “dimensionless units.” If the scale indicates in increments of 

0.002 lb, the unit of measure is 0.001 lb. If a weighed package has an error 

of “+0.016,” record the error as “+16” using “dimensionless units.” When 

using dimensionless units, multiply package errors by the unit of measure to 

obtain the package error in weight.

4. Enter the appropriate MAV value in Box 3 for the type of package (weight, 

volume, etc.), the labeled net contents, and the unit of measure.

b. Where are Maximum Allowable Variations found?

Find the MAV values for packages labeled by weight, volume, count, and measure in the tables listed 

below in Appendix A.

• packages labeled by weight See Table 2-5.

• packages labeled by volume, liquid or dry See Table 2-6.

• packages labeled by count See Table 2-7.

• packages labeled by length, (width), or area See Table 2-8.

• packages bearing a USDA seal of inspection – Meat and Poultry See Table 2-9.

• textiles, polyethylene sheeting and film, mulch and soil labeled by volume, 

packaged firewood, and packages labeled by count with fewer than 

50 items

See Table 2-10.

c. How is the value of an MAV found?

Refer to the appropriate table of MAVs and locate the declared quantity that is on the package label in the 

column marked “Labeled Quantity.” Read across the table to find the value in the column titled 

“Maximum Allowable Variation.” Record this number in Box 3. Determine the MAV in dimensionless 

units and record in Box 4 on the Standard Package Report Form (a dimensionless unit is obtained by 

dividing the MAV recorded in Box 3 by the unit of measure recorded in Box 2). Refer to Appendix C. 

“Glossary,” for the definition of dimensionless units.
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix G – Handbook 133, Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods

L&R - G24

d. How many M AV s unreasonable minus errors (UME’s) are permitted in a sample?

To find out how many minus package errors are permitted to exceed the MAV, (errors known as 

unreasonable minus errors or UME’s), (r efer to Appendix A) see Column 4 in either Table 2-1. 

“Sampling Plans for Category A” or Table 2-2. “Sampling Plans for Category B.” (refer to Appendix A) 

Record this number in Box 8.

2.3.4. Random Sample Selection

a. How are sample packages selected?

Randomly select a sample from the inspection lot. Random number tables (see Appendix B. “Random 

Number Tables”) or a calculator that is able to generate random numbers may be used to identify the 

sample. If the packages for the sample are not randomly selected, the test results may not be statistically 

valid.

Note: If the inspector and the party that is ultimately responsible for the packing and declaration of net 

weight for the product agree to an alternative method of sample selection, document how the sample 

packages were selected as part of the inspection record.

b. How is the size of the “Lot” determined?

Count the number of packages comprising the inspection lot or estimate the size to within 5 % and record 

the inspection lot size in Box 5.

c. How is the sample size determined?

Refer to Appendix A. Table 2-1. “Sampling Plans for Category A” or Table 2-2. “Sampling Plans for 

Category B” to determine the sample size. In Column 1, find the size of the inspection lot (the number 

recorded in Box 5 of the report form). Read across from Column 1 to find the appropriate sample size in 

Column 2 and record this number in Box 6 of the report form.

2.3.5. Tare Procedures

a. What types of tare may be used to determine the net weight of package goods?

This handbook defines three types of tare for the inspection of packaged goods. The tare weight may 

vary considerably from package to package as compared with the variability of the package net contents, 

even for packages in the same production lot. Although this is not common for most packaging, the basic 

test procedure in this handbook considers the variation for all tare materials.

(1) Used Dry Tare

Used Dry Tare is defined as follows: Used tare material that has been air dried, or dried in some manner 

to simulate the unused tare weight. It includes all packaging materials that can be separated from the 

packaged product, either readily (e.g., by shaking) or by washing, scraping, ambient air drying, or other 

techniques involving more than “normal” household recovery procedures, but not including laboratory 

procedures like oven drying. Labels, wire closures, staples, prizes, decorations, and such are considered 
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix G – Handbook 133, Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods

L&R - G25

tare. Used Dry Tare is available regardless of where the packages are tested. The net content procedures 

described in this handbook reference Used Dry Tare.

Note: When testing frozen foods with the Used Dry Tare approach, the frost found inside frozen food 

packages is included as part of the net contents.

WWMA Change note above

Note: When testing frozen foods with the Used Dry Tare approach, the frost found inside 

frozen food packages is included as part of the net contents, excepting instances in which 

glazed or frozen foods are tested according to Section 2.6. Drained Weight for Glazed or 

Frozen Foods.

Note from California: There seems to be a conflict between this note and Section 2.6. Drained 

Weight for Glazed and frozen Food. If 2.6. applies to frozen food, when would there be an 

instance to use used dry tare? Please see our comment on Section 2.6.

(2) Unused Dry Tare

If testing packages in retail store locations where they are packaged, and sold in small quantities to the 

ultimate consumers, the basic test procedure may be modified by using samples of the packaging material 

available in the store. Unused dry tare is defined as:

All unused packaging materials (including glue, labels, ties, etc.) that contain or enclose a product. It 

includes prizes, gifts, coupons, or decorations that are not part of the product.

(3) Wet Tare

Wet tare procedures must not be used to verify the labeled net weight of packages of meat and 

poultr y packed at an official United States Depar tment of Agr icultur e (USDA) facility and bear ing 

a USDA seal of inspection. The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) adopted specific sections 

of the 2005 4th Edition of NIST HB 133 by reference but not the “wet tare” method for determining 

net weight compliance. FSIS considers the free-flowing liquids in packages of meat and poultry 

products, including single-ingredient, raw poultry products, to be integral components of these 

products (see Federal Register, September 9, 2008 [Volume 73, Number 175] [Final Rule –

pages 52189-52193]).

If the jurisdiction uses wet tare to determine net weight, follow the procedures described below that 

reference Used Dry Tare, except make no effort to dry the tare material. If Wet Tare is used to verify the 

net weight of packages of fresh poultry, hot dogs, and franks that are subject to the USDA 

regulations, the inspector must allow for moisture loss. Wet Tare is defined as: Used tare material 

where no effort is made to dry the tare material. Free-flowing liquids are considered part of the tare 

weight.

b. How is a tare weight determined?

Except in the instance of applying unused dry tare, select the packages for the initial tare sample from the 

sample packages. Mark the first two (three or five) packages in the order the random numbers were 

selected; these packages provide the initial tare sample. Determine the gross weight of each package and 

record it in Block a, “Gross Wt,” under the headings “Pkg. 1,” “Pkg. 2,” “Pkg. 3,” etc. on the report form. 
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix G – Handbook 133, Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods

L&R - G26

Except for aerosol or other pressurized packages, open the sample packages, empty, clean, and dry them 

as appropriate for the packaging material.

WWMA The following two questions and answers appear out of place. 

We suggest moving them behind the next two questions.

The following two questions and answers appear out of place. We suggest moving them 

behind the two questions (shown below).

Does the inspection of aerosol containers require special procedures?

How is the tare of vacuum-packed coffee determined?

c. Does the inspection of aerosol containers require special procedures?

Yes, aerosol containers are handled differently for two reasons. First, regulations under the Uniform 

Packaging and Labeling Regulation (UPLR) in NIST HB 130 require that packages designed “to deliver” 

the product under pressure, “must state the net quantity of the contents that will be expelled when the 

instructions for use as shown on the container are followed.” This means that any product retained in 

aerosol containers after full dispersion is included in the tare weight. Second, aerosol containers must not 

be opened because they are pressurized; for safety reasons they should not be punctured or opened. When 

emptying aerosol containers to determine a tare weight, exhaust them in a well-ventilated area (e.g., under 

an exhaust hood or outdoors) at least 15 m (50 ft) from any source of open flame or spark.

To ensure that the container properly dispenses the product, read and follow any dispensing instructions 

on the package. If shaking during use is specified in the instructions, periodically shake (at least two or 

three times during expulsion of the product). If directions are not given, shake the container five times 

with a brisk wrist twisting motion. If the container has a ball agitator, continue the shaking procedure for 

one minute after the ball has shaken loose.

d. How is the tare of vacuum-packed coffee determined?

The gross weight of a can of vacuum-packed coffee will be more after the seal is broken and air enters the 

can. In the procedure to determine the tare weight of the packaging material, correct the gross weight 

determined for unopened cans as follows. Use the initial tare sample packages, weigh, and record the 

gross weight of the product-filled cans before and after breaking the vacuum seal. Compute the average 

gross weight difference (open weight minus sealed weight) and record this in Box 13a of the report form. 

The nominal gross weight equals the average tare weight minus the average difference in gross weights 

plus the labeled weight (Box 14): Box 13 – Box 13a + Box 1.

e. How is it determined how many packages to select for the initial tare sample?

For the initial tare sample size, see Column 5 under initial tare sample size in Appendix A. Table 2-1. 

“Sampling Plans for Category A” or Column 3 under initial tare sample size in Appendix A, Table 2-2. 

“Sampling Plans for Category B.” Record the initial tare sample size in Box 7 on the report form.

Note: The initial tare sample size is considered the total tare sample size when the sample size is less 

than 12.
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix G – Handbook 133, Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods

L&R - G27

f. How are the tare sample and the tare weight of the packaging material determined?

Step:

1. Except for unused dry tare at the point-of-pack, first determine the tare weight for each 

package in the initial tare sample and record the value in Row b, “Tare Wt.” under the 

appropriate package number column.

2. For sample sizes of 12 or more, subtract the individual tare weights from the respective 

package gross weights (Block a, minus Block b, on the report form) to obtain the net 

weight for each package and record these each values in Block c, “Net Wt.,” on the 

report form.

Determine and record the “range of package errors” (called Rc) for the initial tare sample 

in Box 9 on the report form. (The range is the difference between the package errors.)

(Amended 2002)

3. Determine and record the “range of tare weights” (called Rt) in Box 10.

4. Compute the ratio Rc/Rt by dividing the value in Box 9 by the value in Box 10. Record 

the resulting value in Box 11. (Rc and Rt must both be in the same unit of measure or 

both in dimensionless units.)

5. Determine and record in Box 12 the total number of packages to be opened for the tare 

determination from either Appendix A. Table 2-3. “Category A – Total Number of 

Packages to be Opened for or Table 2-4. “Determination – Number Include those 

Packages Opened for Initial Tare Sample.”

 In the first column (titled Ratio of Rc/Rt), locate the range in which the 

computed Rc/Rt falls. Then, read across to the column headed with the 

appropriate sample size.

 If the total number of packages to open equals the number already opened, go to 

step 6.

 If the total number of packages to open is greater than the number of packages 

already opened, compute the number of additional packages to open for the tare 

determination and go to step 6. Enter the total number of tare samples in 

Box 12.

6. Determine the average tare weight using the tare weight values for all the packages 

opened and record the average tare weight in Box 13.

WWMA

The following two questions and answers that appear above should be placed here.

{Does the inspection of aerosol containers require special procedures?

How is the tare of vacuum-packed coffee determined?}
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix G – Handbook 133, Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods

L&R - G28

g. When and where is unused dry tare used, and how is it used to determine an average tare 

weight?

You may determine the average tare weight using samples of unused dry tare when testing meat, poultry, 

or any other products that are not subject to regulation of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). You 

may use unused dry tare samples when conducting inspections at locations where the point-of-pack and 

sale are identical (e.g., store-packed products in a supermarket meat case). To determine unused dry tare 

at the point-of-sale, randomly select two (2) samples of unused dry tare, and weigh each separately. If 

there is no measurable variation in weight between the samples, proceed with the test using the weight of 

one of the samples. If the weight of the two (2) initial samples, randomly select three (3) additional tare 

samples and determine the average weight of all five (5) samples. Use this value as the average tare 

weight.

(Amended 2002)

2.3.6. Determine Nominal Gross Weight and Package Errors for Tare Sample

a. W hat is How do I compute a nominal gross weight?

A nominal gross weight is used to simplify the calculation of package errors. To compute the nominal 

gross weight, add the average tare weight (recorded in Box 13) to the labeled weight (recorded in Box 1). 

T o obtain the package er r or , subtr act a package’ s gr oss weight fr om the nominal gr oss weight.

The nominal gross weight is represented by the formula:

Nominal gross weight = average tare + labeled weight

b. How do I compute the package error?

To obtain the package error, subtract the nominal gross weight from each package’s gross weight. 

The package error is represented by the formula:

Package error = gross weight – nominal gross weight

c. How are individual package errors determined for the tare sample packages?

Determine the errors of the packages opened for tare by subtracting the nominal gross weight recorded in 

Box 14 from the individual package gross weights recorded for each package (Pkg 1, Pkg 2, etc.) in 

Block a, “Gross Wt.” The nominal gross weight must be used, rather than the actual net weight, for each 

package to determine the package error. This ensures that the same average tare weight is used to 

determine the error for every package in the sample, not just the unopened packages.

• Standard Packages. – Record the package error in the appropriate plus or minus column on the 

report form for each package opened for tare.

• Random Packages. – Determine the package error for the tare sample using a nominal gross 

weight for each package so that all of the package errors are determined with the same tare 

weight value. Record the package error on the Random Package Report Form in the appropriate 

plus or minus column under Package Errors.
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix G – Handbook 133, Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods

L&R - G29

Note: Converting the package error to dimensionless units allows the inspector to record the 

package errors as whole numbers disregarding decimal points and zeroes in front and unit of 

measure after the number.

Example: If weighing in 0.001 lb increments, the unit of measure is also 0.001 lb. If the 

package error for the first package opened for tare is +0.008 lb, instead of recording 

0.008 lb in the plus column, record the error as “8” in the plus column. If the second 

package error is +0.060 lb, record the package error as “60” in the plus column, and so 

on. (This section does not prohibit the use of units of weight or computer programs 

instead of dimensionless units.)

d. How are individual package errors determined for the other packages in the sample?

Compare the gross weight of each of the unopened sample packages with the nominal gross weight

(Box 14). Record the package errors in the “Package Errors” section of the report form using either units 

of weight (lb or g) or dimensionless units.

e. How is the total package error computed?

Add all the package errors for the packages in the sample. Be sure to subtract the minus package errors 

from the plus package errors and to record the total net error in Box 15, indicating the positive or 

negative value of the error.

2.3.7. Evaluating Results

a. How is it determined if a sample passes or fails?

The following steps lead the inspector through the process to determine if a sample passes or fails. If the 

product is subject to moisture allowance, follow the procedures under “Moisture Allowances” in this 

chapter to correct the MAV.

b. How is it determined if packages exceed the Maximum Allowable Variation?

Compare each minus package error with the MAV recorded in Box 3 or Box 4 (if using dimensionless 

units). Circle the package errors that exceed the MAV. These are “unreasonable errors.” Record the 

number of unreasonable minus errors found in the sample in Box 16.

c. How is it determined if the negative package errors in the sample exceed the number of 

MAVs allowed for the sample?

Compare the number in Box 16 with the number of unreasonable errors allowed (recorded in Box 8). If 

the number found exceeds the allowed number, the lot fails. Record in Box 17 whether the number of 

unreasonable errors found is less or more than allowed.

Note: If the total error recorded in Box 15 is a plus value and Box 17 is “No,” then the number of 

unreasonable errors is equal to or less than the number allowed (recorded in Box 8) and the lot passes.
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix G – Handbook 133, Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods

L&R - G30

d. How is the average error of the sample determined and does the inspected lot pass or fail 

the average requirement?

Determine the average error by dividing the total error recorded in Box 15 by the sample size recorded in 

Box 6. Record the average error in Box 18 if using dimensionless units or in Box 19 if using units of 

weight. Compute the average error in terms of weight (if working in dimensionless units up to this time) 

by multiplying the average error in dimensionless units by the unit of measure and record the value in 

Box 19.

Step:

1. If the average error is positive, the inspection lot passes the average requirement.

2. If the average error is negative, the inspection lot fails under a “Category B” test. 

Record in Box 20.

3. If the average error is a negative value when testing under the Sampling Plans for 

“Category A,” compute the Sample Error Limit (SEL) as follows:

 Compute the Sample Standard Deviation and record it in Box 21.

 Obtain the Sample Correction Factor from Column 3 of Appendix A. Table 2-1. 

“Sampling Plans for Category A” test. Record this value in Box 22.

 Compute the Sample Error Limit using the formula:

Sample Error Limit (Box 23)

= Sample Standard Deviation (Box 21) x Sample Correction Factor (Box 22)

4. Compliance Evaluation of the Average Error:

 If the value of the Average Error (Box 18) is smaller than the SEL (Box 23), the 

inspection lot passes.

 If the value of the Average Error (disregarding the sign) (Box 18) is larger than 

the SEL (Box 23), the inspection lot fails. However, if the product is subject to 

moisture loss, the lot does not necessarily fail. Follow the procedures under 

“Moisture Allowances” in this chapter.

2.3.8. Moisture Allowances

a. How is reasonable moisture loss allowed?

If the product tested is subject to moisture loss, provide for the moisture allowance by following the steps 

listed below.

Determine the value of the moisture allowance if the product is listed below.
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix G – Handbook 133, Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods

L&R - G31

b. What are the moisture allowances for flour, and dry pet food, and other products? (See 

Table 2-3. “Moisture Allowances.”)

WWMA Change the title of Table 2-3.

Table 2-3. Moisture Allowances for Product in Distribution

If you are verifying the 

labeled net weight of 

packages of:

Table 2-3. Moisture Allowances

The Moisture Allowance 

is: Notes

Flour 3 %

Dry pet food 3 %

Dry pet food means all extruded dog and 

cat foods and baked treats packaged in 

Kraft paper bags and/or cardboard boxes 

with a moisture content of 13 % or less at 

time of pack.

Borax See Section 2.4.
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix G – Handbook 133, Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods

L&R - G32

Wet Tare Only

Table 2-3. Moisture Allowances

If you are using Wet Tare 

in verifying the net 

weight of packages of one 

of the products listed 

below:

The Moisture Allowance 

is:

Notice: Wet Tare must not be used in 

testing packages of meat and poultry 

subject to USDA regulations.

Fresh poultry 3 %

Fresh poultry is defined as poultry at a 

temperature of 3 °C (26 °F) that yields or 

gives when pushed with the thumb.

Franks or hot dogs 2.5 %

Bacon, fresh sausage, and 

luncheon meats 0 %

For packages of bacon, fresh sausage, and 

luncheon meats, there is no moisture 

allowance if there is no free-flowing liquid 

or absorbent materials in contact with the 

product and the package is cleaned of 

clinging material. Luncheon meats are 

any cooked sausage product, loaves, jellied 

products, cured products, and any sliced 

sandwich-style meat. This does not 

include whole hams, briskets, roasts, 

turkeys, or chickens requiring further 

preparation to be made into ready-to-eat 

sliced product. When there is no freeflowing liquid inside the package and there 

are no absorbent materials in contact with 

the product, Wet Tare and Used Dried 

Tare are equivalent.

The moisture allowance for flour and dry pet food is 3 % of the labeled net weight.

Note: Dry pet food means all extruded dog and cat foods and baked treat products packaged in 

Kraft paper bags and/or cardboard boxes with a moisture content of 13 % or less at the time of 

pack.

c. What moisture allowance is used with Used Dry Tare when testing packages that bear a 

USDA Seal of Inspection?

There is no moisture allowance when inspecting meat and poultry from a USDA inspected plant when 

Used Dry Tare and a “Category A” sampling plan are used.
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix G – Handbook 133, Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods

L&R - G33

d. What moisture allowance is used with wet tare? when testing packages bearing a USDA seal 

of inspection?

Wet tare procedures must not be used to verify the labeled net weight of packages of meat and 

poultry packed at an official United States Department of Agriculture and bearing a USDA seal of 

inspection. The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) adopted specific sections of the 2005 

4th Edition of NIST HB 133 by reference but not the “wet tare” method for determining net weight 

compliance. FSIS considers the free-flowing liquids in packages of meat and poultry products, 

including single-ingredient, raw poultry products, to be integral components of these products (see 

Federal Register, September 9, 2008 [Volume 73, Number 175] [Final Rule – pages 52189-52193]).

See Table 2-3. “Moisture Allowances – Wet Tare Only.”

• Use the following guideline when testing meat and poultry from any USDA inspected plant 

using Wet Tare and a Category A sampling plan.

• For packages of fresh poultry that bear a USDA seal of inspection, the moisture allowance is

• 3 5 of the labeled net weight. For net weight determinations, only, fresh poultry is defined as 

poultry above –3 oC (26 oF). This is a product that yields or gives when pushed with the thumb.

• For packages of franks or hotdogs that bear a USDA seal of inspection, the moisture allowance 

is 2.5 % of the labeled net weight.

• For packages of bacon, fresh sausage, and luncheon meats that bear a USDA seal of inspection, 

there is no moisture allowance if there is no free-flowing liquid or absorbent materials in 

contact with the product and the package is cleaned of clinging material. Luncheon meats are 

any cooked sausage product, loaves, jellied products, cured products, and any sliced sandwichstyle meat. This does not include whole hams, briskets, roasts, turkeys, or chickens requiring 

further preparation to be made into ready-to-eat sliced product. When there is no free-flowing 

liquid inside the package and there are no absorbent materials in contact with the product, Wet 

Tare and Dried Used Tare are equivalent.

When there is free-flowing liquid and liquid or absor bent absorbed by packaging materials in contact 

with the product, all free liquid is part of the wet tare.

e. How is moisture loss handled for products not listed in NIST Handbook 133?

Kraft: Paul Hoffman (7/09) Change the title to read as follows:

e. How is moisture loss...

"Moisture loss must be considered even when no formal allowance for the specific product is 

found in HB 133."

Officials can test products for which no moisture loss guidance has been provided. If studies are a 

necessity they should be a collaborative effort between officials and industry. Because of the 

potential impact on interstate commerce, studies should be completed on a nationwide basis and 

not by individual jurisdictions unless circumstances justify only local consideration.

The amount of moisture loss from a package is a function of many factors, not the least of which is 

the product itself (e.g., moisture content, texture and density), packaging, storage conditions 
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix G – Handbook 133, Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods

L&R - G34

(e.g., temperature, humidity, and air flow), time, handling and others. If a packaged product is 

subject to moisture loss, officials must allow for “reasonable” variations caused by moisture either 

evaporating or draining from the product. Officials cannot set arbitrary moisture allowances 

based solely on their experience or intuition. Moisture allowances must be based on scientific data 

and must be “reasonable.” Reasonable does not mean that all of the weight loss caused by 

moisture evaporation or draining from the product must be allowed. As a result of product and 

moisture variability, the approach used by an official must be developed on a case-by-case basis 

depending on many factors to include, but not be limited to, the manufacturing process, packaging 

materials, distribution, environmental influence and the anticipated shelf life of the product.

NIST Handbook 130 provides a starting point for developing a workable procedure in the 

Interpretation and Guideline Section 2.5.6. regarding “Resolution for Requests for Recognition of 

Moisture Loss in Other Packaged Products.” Most studies involving nationally distributed 

products will require that products be tested during different seasons of the year and in different 

geographic locations to develop a nationally recognized moisture allowance. Some studies may 

require the development of laboratory tests used for inter-laboratory comparisons to establish 

moisture content in products at time of pack or at the time of inspection.

Moisture loss or gain is a critical consideration for any net content enforcement effort and one 

that, in most cases, cannot be addressed solely by a field official. If moisture loss issues are to be 

deliberated, it is the regulatory official’s responsibility to resolve the packer’s concern utilizing 

available resources and due process procedures. To fulfill this obligation the official may be 

required to utilize specialized test equipment and specific laboratory procedures. Additionally, the 

collection of adequate test data may require product examination over a broad geographical area 

and consideration of a wide range of environmental factors. If a national effort is required, a 

coordinated effort involving industry, trade associations, weights and measures officials, and 

federal agencies may be required. NIST will provide technical support upon request. If studies 

are a necessity, they should be a collaborative effort between officials and industry and can be very 

time consuming depending on the product. Because of the potential impact on interstate 

commerce, studies must be completed on a nationwide basis and not by individual jurisdictions 

unless circumstances justify only local consideration.

2.3.9. Calculations

a. How is moisture allowance computed and applied to the average error?

To compute moisture allowance, multiply the labeled quantity by the decimal percent value of the 

allowance.

Example: Labeled net quantity of flour is 907 g (2 lb)

Moisture Allowance is 3 % (0.03)

Moisture Allowance = 907 g (2 lb) x 0.03 = 27 g (0.06 lb)

Record this value in Box 13a.

WWMA Based on previous comments, we suggest removing the 

question and answer below.

{How is a Moisture Allowance made prior to determining the package errors?}
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix G – Handbook 133, Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods

L&R - G35

b. How is a Moisture Allowance made prior to determining package errors?

If the Moisture Allowance is known in advance (e.g., flour and dry pet food), it can be applied by 

adjusting the Nominal Gross Weight (NGW) used to determine the sample package errors. The 

Moisture Allowance (MA) in Box 13a is subtracted from the NGW. The NGW which is the sum of 

the Labeled Net Quantity of Contents (LNQC e.g., 907 g) and the Average Tare Weight from 

Box 13 (for this example use an ATW of 14 g (0.03 lb)) to obtain an Adjusted Nominal Gross 

Weight (ANGW) which is entered in Box 14.

The calculation is:

LNQC 907 g (2 lb) + ATW 14 g (0.03 lb)

= 921 g (2.03 lb) - MA 27 g (0.06 lb)

= ANGW of 918 g (1.97 lb)

which is entered in Box 14.

Package errors are determined by subtracting the ANGW from the Gross Weights of the Sample 

Packages (GWSP).

The calculation is:

GWSP – ANGW = Package Error

Note: When the NGW is adjusted by subtracting the Moisture Allowance value(s) the Maximum 

Allowable Variation(s) is not changed. This is because the errors that will be found in the sample 

packages have been adjusted by subtracting the Moisture Allowance (e.g., 3 %) from the NGW. 

That increases the individual package errors by the amount of the moisture allowance (e.g., 3 %). 

If the value(s) of the MAV(s) were also adjusted it would result in doubling the allowance.

c. How is a Moisture Allowance made after determining package errors?

You can make adjustments when the value of the Moisture Allowance is determined following the 

test (e.g., after the sample fails or if a packer provides a reasonable moisture allowance based on 

data obtained using a scientific method) using the following approach:

If the sample fails the Average and/or the Individual Package Requirements, both of the following 

steps are applied.

If the sample fails the Average Requirement but has no unreasonable package errors, only step 1 is 

used. If the sample passes the Average Requirement but fails because the sample included one or 

more Unreasonable Minus Errors (UMEs), only step 2 is used.
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix G – Handbook 133, Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods

L&R - G36

Step:

1. Use the following approach to apply a Moisture Allowance to the sample after the 

test is completed. The Moisture Allowance (MA) is computed (e.g., 3 % x 907 g 

(2 lb) = 27 g (0.06 lb) and added to the Sample Error Limit (e.g., if the SEL is 0.023 

add 0.06 to obtain an Adjusted SEL of 0.083). The ASEL (Adjusted Sample Error 

Limit) is then compared to the Average Error of the Sample and:

 If the average error (disregarding sign) in Box 18 is smaller than the ASEL, 

the sample passes.

HOWEVER,

 If the average error (disregarding sign) in Box 18 is larger than the ASEL, 

the sample fails.

2. If a Moisture Allowance is to be applied to the Maximum Allowable Variation(s), 

the following method is recommended:

The Moisture Allowance (MA) is computed (e.g., 3 % x 907 g (2 lb) = 27 g (0.06 lb) and 

added to the value of the Maximum Allowable Variation(s) for the labeled net quantity 

of the package (e.g., MAV for 907 g (2 lb) is 31.7 g (0.07 lb) + 27 g (0.06 lb) = AMAV of 

58.7 g). Compare each minus package error to the AMAV. Mark package errors that 

exceed the AMAV and record the number of UME’s found in the sample. If this 

number exceeds the number of unreasonable errors allowed, the sample fails.

How is the Maximum Allowable Variation corrected for the moisture allowance?

• Adjust the MAV by adding the moisture allowance to the MAV.

Example: 907 g (2 lb) package of flour: moisture allowance added to the MAV = 

31.7 g (0.07 lb) (MAV for 907 g [2 lb] package) + 27 g (0.06 lb) moisture allowance = 

a corrected MAV of 58.7 g (0.13 lb)

• Correct MAV in dimensionless units by converting the moisture allowance to dimensionless 

units = 0.06 lb ÷ 0.001 lb = 60. Go to Box 4 and add the moisture allowance in 

dimensionless units to the MAV in dimensionless units.

Example: MAV = 70 (MAV for 2 lb where the unit of measure = 0.001 lb) + 60 

(moisture allowance in dimensionless units) = 130. Minus package errors must 

exceed the MAV ± gray area before they are declared “unreasonable errors.”

• If the number of unreasonable errors exceeds the allowed number (recorded in Box 8), the 

inspection lot fails.

How is the average error for the moisture allowance corrected?

If the minus average error (Box 18) is larger (disregarding the sign) than the SEL (Box 23) and 

moisture loss applies, compare the difference between Box 18 and Box 23 with the moisture 

allowance recorded in Box 13a. (Make sure that all the values are in units of weight or in 

dimensionless units before making this comparison.) If Box 13a is larger than the difference 

between Box 18 and 23, then the lot is considered to be in the gray area.
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix G – Handbook 133, Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods

L&R - G37

Example: Box 13a for 2 lb flour is 60 (dimensionless units); Box 18 is 

2 (dimensionless units); Box 23 is 0.550 (dimensionless units). The difference 

between Box 18 and Box 23 is 1.450 (dimensionless units). Since Box 13a is 

60 (dimensionless units), Box 13a is larger than the difference between Box 18 and 

Box 23, the lot is considered to be in the gray area and further investigation is 

necessary before ruling out moisture loss as the reason for shortweight.

d. What should you do when a sample is in the moisture allowance (gray) area?

When the average error of a lot of fresh poultry, franks, or hot dogs from a USDA-inspected plant is 

minus, but does not exceed the established “moisture allowance” or “gray area,” contact the appropriate 

USDA official and/or packer or plant management personnel to determine what information is available 

on the lot in question. Questions to the USDA official and/or plant management r epr esentative may 

include:

• Is a quality control program in place?

• What information is available concerning the lot in question?

• If net weight checks were completed, what were the results of those checks?

• What adjustments, if any, were made to the target weight?

Note: If USDA or the plant management has data on the lot, such data may help to substantiate that 

the “lot” had met the net content requirements at the point of manufacture.

This handbook provides “moisture allowances” for some meat and poultry products, flour, and dry pet 

food. These allowances are based on the premise that when the average net weight of a sample is found 

to be less than the labeled weight, but not by an amount that exceeds the allowable limit, either the lot is 

declared to be within the moisture allowance or further investigation can be conducted.

Reasonable deviations from net quantity of contents caused by the loss or gain of moisture from the 

package are permitted when caused by ordinary and customary exposure to conditions that occur under 

good distribution practices. If evidence is obtained and documented to prove that the lot was shipped 

from the packaging plant in a short-weight condition or was distributed under inappropriate or damaging 

distribution practices, appropriate enforcement action should be taken.

(Amended 2002)

2.4. Borax

a. How is it determined if the net weight labeled on packages of borax is accurate?

Use the following procedures to determine if packages of borax are labeled correctly. This procedure 

applies to packages of powdered or granular products consisting predominantly (more than 50 %) of 

borax. Such commodities are labeled by weight, but borax can lose more than 23 % of its weight due to 

moisture loss. However, it does not lose volume upon moisture loss, and this property makes possible a 

method of volume testing based on a density determination in the event that the net weight of the product 

does not meet the average or individual package requirements. This method may be used for audit testing 
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix G – Handbook 133, Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods

L&R - G38

to identify possible short-filling by weight at point-of-pack. Since the density of these commodities can 

vary at point-of-pack, further investigation is required to determine whether, such short-filling has 

occurred.

Test Equipment

• Metal density cup with a capacity of 550.6 mL or (1 dry pint)

• Metal density funnel with slide-gate and stand

• Scale or balance having a scale division not larger than 1 g or (0.002 lb)

• Rigid straightedge or ruler

• Pan suitable for holding overflow of density cup

Test Procedure

Follow Section 2.3. “Basic Test Procedures – Define the Inspection Lot.” Use a “Category A” sampling 

plan in the inspection; select a random sample; then use the following test procedure to determine product 

compliance.

Step:

1. If the lot does not comply by weight with the sampling plan requirements (either the 

average or individual package requirements), select the lightest package and record the 

net weight of this package.

2. Determine the weight of the density cup.

3. Place the density cup in the pan and put the funnel on top of the density cup. Close the 

funnel slide-gate.

4. Pour sufficient commodity into the funnel so that the density cup can be filled to 

overflowing.

5. Quickly remove the slide-gate from the funnel, allowing the commodity to flow into the 

density cup.

6. Carefully, without agitating the density cup, remove the funnel and level off the 

commodity with the ruler or straightedge. Hold the ruler or straightedge at a right angle 

to the rim of the cup, and carefully draw it back across the top of the density cup to leave 

an even surface.

7. Weigh the filled density cup. Subtract the weight of the density cup from the gross 

weight of the commodity plus the density cup to obtain the net weight of commodity in 

the cup.
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix G – Handbook 133, Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods

L&R - G39

b. How is the volume determined?

Step:

1. Multiply the net weight (in pounds) as found for the package under test by 550.6.

2. Divide the answer just obtained by the weight of the commodity in the density cup, 

step 7. The result is the net volume of commodity in the package in milliliters.

3. Compare the net volume of the commodity in the package with the volume declared on 

the package. The volume declaration must not is not located appear on the principal 

display panel. Instead, it will appear on the back or side of the package and may 

appear as: The following example is how the declaration of volume should appear.

Volume ____ cm3

Handbook 133

per NIST

Note: (1 mL = 1 cm3)

c. What action can be taken based on the results of the density test?

If the net volume of commodity in the lightest package equals or exceeds the declared volume on the 

package, treat the lot as being in compliance based on volume and take no further action. If the net 

volume of borax in the lightest package is less than the declared volume on the package, further 

compliance testing will be necessary. Take further steps to determine if the lot was in compliance with 

net weight requirements at point-of-pack or was short-filled by weight. To determine this, perform a 

laboratory moisture loss analysis to ascertain the weight of the original borax product when it was fully 

hydrated; obtain additional data at the location of the packager; and/or investigate the problem with the 

packager of the commodity.

2.5. The Determination of Drained Weight

Since the weight per unit volume of a drained product is of the same order of magnitude as that of the 

packaging liquid that is drained off, an “average nominal gross weight” cannot be used in checking 

packages of this type. The entire sample must be opened. The procedure is based upon a test method 

accepted by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

A tare sample is not needed because all the packages in the sample will be opened and measured.

The weight of the container plus drained-away liquid is determined. This weight is then subtracted from 

the gross weight to determine the package error.
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix G – Handbook 133, Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods

L&R - G40

Test Equipment

• Scales and weights recommended in Section 2.2. “Measurement Standards and Test Equipment” 

are suitable for the determination of drained weight.

• Sieves

 For drained weight of 1.36 kg or (3 lb) or less, one 20 cm or (8 in) No. 8 mesh U.S. Standard 

Series sieve, receiving pan, and cover

HOWEVER

 For drained weight greater than 1.36 kg or (3 lb), one 30 cm or (12 in) sieve, with same 

specifications as above

 For canned tomatoes a U.S. Standard test sieve with 11.2 mm (7/16 in) openings must be 

used

• Stopwatch

Test Procedure

Follow the Section 2.3. “Basic Test Procedure – Define the Inspection Lot.” Use a “Category A” or a 

“Category B” sampling plan in the inspection (depending on the location of test); select a random sample; 

then use the following test procedure to determine lot compliance.

Step:

1. Use Appendix E. “Standard Pack Inspection Report.” Fill out Boxes 1 through 8. Select 

the random sample. Determine and record on a worksheet the weight of the receiving 

pan.

2. Determine and record on a worksheet the gross weight of each individual package 

comprising the sample.

3. Pour the contents of the first package into the dry sieve with the receiving pan beneath it, 

incline sieve to an angle between 17°to 20° from horizontal to facilitate drainage, and 

allow the liquid from the product to drain into receiving pan for 2 minutes. (Do not 

shake or shift material on the sieve.) Remove sieve and product.

4. Weigh the receiving pan, liquid, wet container, and any other tare material. (Do not 

include sieve and product.) Record this weight as tare and receiving pan.

5. Subtract the weight of the receiving pan, determined in step 1, from the weight obtained 

in step 4 to obtain the package tare weight (which includes the weight of the liquid).

6. Subtract the tare weight, found in step 5, from the corresponding package gross weight 

determined in step 2 to obtain the drained weight of that package. Determine the 

package error (drained weight - labeled drained weight).

7. Repeat steps 3 through 6 for the remaining packages in the sample, cleaning and drying 

the sieve and receiving pan between measurements of individual packages.
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix G – Handbook 133, Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods

L&R - G41

Step:

8. Transfer the individual package errors to the Standard Pack Report form.

9. To determine lot conformance, return to Section 2.3. “Basic Test Procedures –

Evaluating Results.”

2.6. Drained Weight for Glazed or Frozen Foods

WWMA

2.6. Determining the net weight of ice-encased frozen foods and ice glazed 

productsDrained Weight for Glazed or Frozen Foods

a. How is the drained weight of frozen shrimp (e.g., 2.27 kg (5 lb) block of shrimp) and 

crabmeat determined?

WWMA Change the above question to read:

a. How is should the drained net weight of frozen shrimp (e.g., 2.27 kg (5 lb) block of 

shrimp), and crabmeat, meat or poultry, and similar products encased in ice and frozen 

into blocks or solid masses (i.e., not individually glazed) be determined?

When determining the net weight of frozen shrimp and crabmeat, use the test equipment and procedure 

provided below.

Step:

1. Immerse the product (e.g., a block of frozen shrimp) directly in water in a mesh basket 

or open container to thaw (e.g., it is not placed in a plastic bag).

Direct immersion does not result in the product absorbing moisture because the freezing 

process causes the tissue to lose its ability to hold water.

2. Maintain the water temperature between 23 °C to 29 °C (75 °F to 85 °F).

This is accomplished by maintaining a constant flow of warm water into the container 

holding the product (e.g., place a bucket in a sink to catch the overflow, and feed warm 

water into the bottom of the bucket through a hose).

3. After thawing, drain the product on a sieve for 2 minutes and then weigh it.

WWMA Change above paragraph, first two sentences:

When determining the net weight of frozen shrimp, crabmeat, meat or poultry products, or 

similar products that are encased in ice and frozen into blocks or solid masses, use the 

test equipment and procedure provided below. 
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix G – Handbook 133, Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods

L&R - G42

Test Equipment

• Partial immersion thermometer or equivalent with 1 °C (2 °F) graduations and a -35 °C to +50 °C 

(-30 °F to +120 °F) accurate to ±1 °C (±2 °F)

• Water source and hose with an approximate flow rate of 4 L to 15 L (1 gal to 4 gal) per minute 

for thawing blocks and other products flow rate

• Sink or other receptacle [i.e., bucket with a capacity of approximately 15 L (4 gal) bucket] for 

thawing blocks and other products

• A wire mesh basket (used for testing large frozen blocks of shrimp) or other container that is 

large enough to hold the contents of 1 package (e.g., 2.27 kg or [5 lb] box of shrimp) and has 

openings small enough to retain all pieces of the product (e.g., an expanded metal test tube basket 

lined with standard 16-mesh screen)

WWMA Change above item, first sentence

(used for testing large frozen blocks of shrimp or other products)

• Number 8 mesh, 20 cm (8 in) or 30 cm (12 in) sieve

• Stopwatch

Test Procedure

Follow Section 2.3. “Basic Test Procedure – Define the Inspection Lot.” Use a “Category A” or a 

“Category B” sampling plan in the inspection (depending on the location of test); select a random sample; 

then use the following test procedure to determine lot compliance.

Step:

1. Place the unwrapped frozen shrimp or crabmeat in the wire mesh basket and immerse in 

a 15 L (4 gal) or larger container of fresh water at a temperature between 23 °C to 29 °C 

(75 °F to 85 °F). Submerge the basket so that the top of the basket extends above the 

water level.

WWMA Change the above 1st

Place the unwrapped frozen shrimp, 

sentence to read:

or crabmeat, or meat, poultry, or seafood product in 

the wire mesh basket and immerse in a 15 L (4 gal) or larger container of fresh water at a 

temperature between 23 °C to 29 °C (75 °F to 85 °F).

Step:

2. Maintain a continuous flow of water into the bottom of the container to keep the 

temperature within the specified range.

3. As soon as the product thaws, determined by loss of rigidity, transfer all material to a 

sieve (20 cm [8 in] for packages less than 453 g [1 lb] or 30 cm [12 in] for packages 

weighing more than 453 g [1 lb]) and distribute it evenly over the sieve.
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix G – Handbook 133, Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods

L&R - G43

Step:

4. Without shifting the product, incline the sieve 30° from the horizontal position to 

facilitate drainage, and drain for 2 minutes.

5. At the end of the drain time, immediately transfer the product to a tared pan for weighing 

to determine the net weight.

b. How is the net weight of glazed raw seafood and fish determined?

WWMA Change the above question to read:

How is the net weight of frozen, glazed raw seafood, and fish, poultry, meat, or similar 

products determined?

NEWMA Comment

Section 2.6. specifically references the use of glaze with frozen seafood. Glazed chicken 

wings are being seen in the marketplace. It was suggested that wording be added to include 

other glazed products such as frozen (glazed?) chicken.

For glazed seafood and fish, determine the net weight after removing the glaze using the following 

procedure. Use this method for any frozen glazed food product.

WWMA Change the above sentence to read:

For frozen, glazed seafood, and fish, poultry or meat products, or similar products,

determine the net weight after removing the glaze using the following procedure.

Test Equipment

Use the equipment listed in Section 2.6. “Drained Weight for Glazed or Frozen Foods.”

WWMA Change the above sentence to read:

Use the equipment listed in Section 2.6. Determining the net weight of frozen, ice-glazed 

products Drained Weight for Glazed or Frozen Foods

Test Procedures

Follow Section 2.3. “Basic Test Procedure – Define the Inspection Lot.” Use a “Category A” sampling 

plan in the inspection; select a random sample; and use the following test procedure to determine lot 

compliance.

Step:

1. Fill out a report form and select the random sample. A tare sample is not needed.

2. Weigh sieve and receiving pan. Record this weight on a worksheet as “sieve pan

weight.”
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix G – Handbook 133, Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods

L&R - G44

Step:

3. Remove each package from low temperature storage; open it immediately and place the 

contents under a gentle spray of cold water. Handle the product with care to avoid 

breakingbreakage. the product. Continue the spraying process until all ice glaze, that 

is seen or felt is removed. In general, the product should remain rigid; however, the ice 

glaze on certain products, usually smaller sized commodities, sometimes cannot be 

removed without defr ostingpartial thawing of the product. Nonetheless, remove all 

theice glaze, because it may be is 

(Amended 2002)

a substantial part of the package weight.

4. T r ansfer the pr oduct to the weighed sieve. Without shifting the product, incline the 

sieve to an angle of 17° to 20° to facilitate drainage and drain (into waste receptacle or 

sink) for exactly 2 minutes.

5. At the end of the drain time immediately transfer the entire product to the tared 

pan for weighing to determine the net weight. Place the product and sieve pan on the 

r eceiving pan scale and weigh. Record this weight on a worksheet as the 

“sievepan + product weight.”

6. The net weight of product is equal to the weight of the pan plus the sieve plus the 

product (recorded in step 5) minus the “sieve pan weight” (recorded in step 2). Record 

the product net weight on the worksheet. The package error is equal to the net weight of 

the product as measured minus the labeled weight. Record the package error on the 

worksheet and transfer it to the report form.

7. Repeat steps 3 through 6 for each package in the sample, cleaning and dr ying the sieve 

and cleaning and drying the receiving pan between package measurements.

Evaluation of Results

Follow the procedures in Section 2.3. “Basic Test Procedure – Evaluating Results.”
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix G – Handbook 133, Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods

L&R - G45

Chapter 3. Test Procedures – For Packages Labeled by Volume

3.1. Scope

a. What types of packaged goods can be tested using these procedures?

Use this procedure to determine the net contents of packaged goods labeled in fluid volume such as milk, 

water, beer, oil, paint, distilled spirits, soft drinks, juices, liquid cleaning supplies, or liquid chemicals. 

This chapter also includes procedures for testing the capacities of containers such as paper cups, bowls, 

glass tumblers, and stemware.

b. What types of packages are not covered by these procedures?

These procedures do not cover berry baskets and rigid-dry measures that are covered by specific code 

requirements in NIST Handbook 44. “Specifications, Tolerances, and Other Technical Requirements for 

Weighing and Measuring Devices.”

c. When can the gravimetric test procedure be used to verify the net quantity of contents of 

packages labeled by volume?

The gravimetric procedure may be used to verify the net quantity of contents of packages labeled in 

volume when the density (density means the weight of a specific volume of liquid determined at a 

reference temperature) of the product being tested does not vary excessively from one package to another.

d. What procedure is followed if the gravimetric test procedure cannot be used?

Test each package as described in Section 3.3. “Volumetric Test Procedure for Liquids.”

e. What considerations besides density affect measurement accuracy?

In addition to possible package-to-package variations in product density, the temperature of the liquid will 

affect the volume of product. The product will expand or contract based on a rise or fall in product 

temperature.

Example: The volume of a liquid cleaning product might be 5 L (1.32 gal) at 20 °C 

(68 °F) and 5.12 L (1.35 gal) at 25 °C (77 °F), which represents a 2.2 % change in 

volume.

Note: This extreme example is for illustrative purposes, a 2.2 % volume change will not 

occur in normal testing.

f. What reference temperature should be used to determine the volume of a liquid?

Use the reference temperature specified in Table 3-1. “Reference Temperatures for Liquids” to determine 

volume. When checking liquid products labeled by volume using the gravimetric procedure, maintain the 
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix G – Handbook 133, Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods

L&R - G46

packages used to determine product densities at reference temperatures. If testing the packages in a 

sample volumetrically, each package in the sample must be maintained at or corrected to the reference 

temperature when its volume is determined.

Note: When checking liquid products using a volumetric or gravimetric procedure, the temperature of the 

samples must be maintained at the reference temperature ±2 °C (±5 °F).

Table 3-1. Reference Temperatures for Liquids

If the Liquid Commodity is Then, the reference temperature is

Frozen food labeled by volume (e.g., fruit juice) -18 °C (0 °F)

Beer 3.9 °C (39.1 °F)

Food that must be kept refrigerated (e.g., milk 

and other dairy products. Usually labeled 

“Keep Refrigerated”)

4.4 °C (40 °F)

Distilled spirits or petroleum 15 °C (60 °F)

Unrefrigerated products (e.g., includes liquids 

sold un-chilled, such as soft-drinks and wine) 20 °C (68 °F)

3.2. Gravimetric Test Procedure for Liquids

Test Equipment

• A scale that meets the requirements in Chapter 2, Section 2.2. “Measurement Standards and Test 

Equipment.”

Note: To verify that the scale has adequate resolution for use, it is first necessary to determine 

the density of the liquid; next verify that the scale division is no larger than MAV/6 for the 

package size under test. The smallest graduation on the scale must not exceed the weight value 

for MAV/6.

Example: Assume the inspector is using a scale with 1 g (0.002 lb) increments to 

test packages labeled 1 L (33.8 fl oz) that have an MAV of 29 mL (1 fl oz). Also, 

assume the inspector finds that the weight of 1 L of the liquid is 943 g (2.078 lb). 

This will result in an MAV/6 value in weight of 4.715 g (0.010 lb):

29 mL/6 = 4.8 mL (1 fl oz/6 = 0.166 6 fl oz)

943 g/1000 mL= 0.943 g/mL (2.07 8 lb/33.6 fl oz = 0.061 8 lb/fl oz)

4.8 mL x 0.943 g/mL = 4.5264 g (0.166 6 fl oz x 0.061 8 lb/fl oz = 0.010 lb)

In this example, the 1 g (0.002 lb) scale division is smaller than the MAV/6 value of 4.5264 g 

(0.10 lb) so the scale is suitable for making a density determination.

• A partial immersion thermometer (or equivalent) with a range of –35 °C to +50 °C (30 °F to 

120 °F), at least 1 °C (1 °F) graduations, and with a tolerance of ±1 °C (±2 °F)
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix G – Handbook 133, Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods

L&R - G47

• Volumetric measures

Example: When checking packages labeled in SI units, flask sizes of 100 mL, 

200 mL, 500 mL, 1 L, 2 L, 4 L, and 5 L and a 50 mL cylindrical graduate with 1 mL 

divisions may be used. When checking packages labeled in inch-pound units the use 

of measuring flasks and graduates with capacities of gill, half-pint, pint, quart, halfgallon, gallon, and a 2 fl oz cylindrical graduate, graduated to 1⁄2 fl dr is 

recommended.

• Defoaming agents may be necessary for testing liquids such as beer and soft drinks that 

effervesce or are carbonated. Two such products are Hexanol or Octanol (Capryl Alcohol).

Note: The mention of trade or brand names does not imply that these products are endorsed or 

recommended by the U.S. Department of Commerce over similar products commercially 

available from other manufacturers.

• Bubble level at least 15.24 cm (6 in) in length

• Stopwatch

Test Procedure

Follow Section 2.3. “Basic Test Procedure – Define the Inspection Lot.” Use a “Category A” sampling 

plan in the inspection. Select a random sample; then use the following procedure to determine lot 

compliance.

Step:

1. Bring the sample packages and their contents to the reference temperature as specified in 

Table 3-1. “Reference Temperatures for Liquids.” To determine if the liquid is at its 

reference temperature, immerse the thermometer in the liquid before starting the test. 

Verify the temperature again immediately after the flask and liquid is weighed. If the 

product requires mixing for uniformity, mix it before opening in accordance with any 

instructions specified on the package label. Shaking liquids, such as flavored milk, often 

entraps air that will affect volume measurements, so use caution when testing these 

products. Often, less air is entrapped if the package is gently rolled to mix the contents.

2. For milk, select a volumetric measure equal to or one size smaller than the label 

declaration. For all other products, select a volumetric measure that is one size smaller 

than the label declaration. For example, if testing a 1 L bottle of juice or a soft drink, 

select a 500 mL volumetric measure.

(Amended 2004)

Note: When determining the density of milk, if the product from the first container does 

not fill the volumetric measure to the nominal capacity graduation, product may be 

added from another container as long as product integrity is maintained (i.e., brand, 

identity, lot code, and temperature).
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix G – Handbook 133, Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods

L&R - G48

Step:

3. Prepare a clean volumetric measure to use according to the following procedures:

 Because flasks are ordinarily calibrated on a “to deliver” basis, they must be 

“wet down” before using. Immediately before use, fill the volumetric flask(s) or 

graduate with water. The water should be at the reference temperature of the 

product being tested. Fill the flask(s) with water to a point slightly below the top 

graduation on the neck. The flask should be emptied in 30 seconds 

(± 5 seconds). Tilt the flask gradually so the flask walls are splashed as little as 

possible as the flask is emptied. When the main flow stops, the flask should be 

nearly inverted. Hold the flask in this position for 10 seconds more and touch 

off the drop of water that adheres to the tip. If necessary, dry the outside of the 

flask. The flask or graduate is then ready to fill with liquid from a package. 

This is called the “wet down” condition.

Note: When using a volumetric measure that is calibrated “to contain,” the measure must be 

dry before each measurement.

 If the liquid effervesces or foams when opened or poured (such as carbonated 

beverages), add two drops of a defoaming agent to the bottom of the volumetric 

measure before filling with the liquid. If working with a carbonated beverage, 

make all density determinations immediately upon placing the product into the 

standard. This reduces the chance of volume changes occurring from the loss of 

carbonization.

 Before making additional measurements of a liquid, use water to wash or rinse 

and prepare the volumetric measure. Between each two measurements of liquid 

from the sample packages, prepare the volumetric measure as described above, 

dry the outside of the flask, and drain the volumetric measure as described in 

earlier paragraphs of this section, as appropriate.

4. If the flask capacity is equal to the labeled volume, pour the liquid into the volumetric 

measure tilting the package to a nearly vertical position. If the flask capacity is smaller 

than the package’s labeled volume, fill the flask to its nominal capacity graduation. If 

conducting a volumetric test, drain the container into the volumetric measure for 

1 minute after the stream of liquid breaks into drops.

5. Position the volumetric measure on a level surface at eye level. For clear liquids, place a 

material of some dark color outside the flask immediately below the level of the 

meniscus. Read the volume from the lowest point of the meniscus. For opaque liquids, 

read volume from the center top rim of the liquid surface.

6. Use the gravimetric procedure to determine the volume if the limit specified for the 

difference in density is not exceeded.

 Select a volumetric measure equal to or one size smaller than the labeled volume 

(depending on the product) and prepare it as described in step 4 of this section. 

Then determine and record its empty weight.
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix G – Handbook 133, Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods

L&R - G49

Step:

 Determine acceptability of the liquid density variation, using two packages 

selected for tare according to Section 2.3. “Basic Test Procedure – Tare 

Procedures” as follows:

• Determine the gross weight of the first package.

• Pour the liquid from the first package into a volumetric measure exactly to 

the nominal capacity marked on the neck of the measure.

• Weigh the filled volumetric measure and subtract its empty weight to obtain 

the weight of the liquid. Determine density by dividing the weight of the 

liquid by the capacity of the volumetric measure.

• Determine the weight of the liquid from a second package using the same 

procedure.

• If the difference between the densities of the two packages exceeds one 

division, use the volumetric procedure in Section 3.3. “Volumetric Test 

Procedure for Liquids.”

a. How is “nominal gross weight “determined?

Determine the “nominal gross weight” as follows:

Step:

1. Determine the Average Used Dry Tare Weight of the sample according to provisions of 

Section 2.3. “Basic Test Procedure – Tare Procedures.”

2. Calculate the Average Product Density by adding the densities of the liquid from the two 

packages and dividing the sum by two.

3. Calculate the “nominal gross weight” using the following formula if the flask capacity is 

equal to the labeled volume:

Nominal Gross Weight = (Average Product Density [in weight units]) +

(Average Used Dry Tare Weight)

Note: If the flask size is smaller than the labeled volume, the following formula is used:

Nominal Gross Weight = (Average Product Density x

[Labeled Volume/Flask Capacity]) + (Average Used Dry Tare Weight)
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix G – Handbook 133, Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods

L&R - G50

b. How are the errors in the sample determined?

Step:

1. Weigh the remaining packages in the sample.

2. Subtract the nominal gross weight from the gross weight of each package to obtain 

package errors in terms of weight. All sample packages are compared to the nominal

gross weight.

3. To convert the average error or package error from weight to volume, use the following 

formula:

Package Error in Volume = Package Error in Weight/Average Product Density

Per Volume Unit of Measure

Evaluation of Results

Follow the procedures in Chapter 2, Section 2.3. “Basic Test Procedure – Evaluating Results” to 

determine lot conformance.

3.3. Volumetric Test Procedure for Liquids

a. How is the volume of liquid contained in a package determined volumetrically?

Follow steps 1 through 6 in Section 3.2. “Gravimetric Test Procedure for Liquids” for each package in the 

sample.

b. How are the errors in the sample determined?

Read the package errors directly from the graduations on the measure. The reference temperature must be 

maintained within ± 2 °C (± 5 °F) for the entire sample.

Evaluation of Results

Follow the procedures in Chapter 2, Section 2.3. “Basic Test Procedure – Evaluating Results” to 

determine lot conformance.

3.4. Other Volumetric Test Procedures

a. What other methods can be used to determine the net contents of packages labeled by 

volume?

Depending on how level the surface of the commodity is, use one of two headspace test procedures. Use 

the first headspace test procedure to determine volume where the liquid has a smooth surface (e.g., oils, 

syrups, and other viscous liquids). Use the second procedure to determine volume where the commodity 

does not have a smooth surface (e.g., mayonnaise and salad dressing).
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix G – Handbook 133, Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods

L&R - G51

Test Procedure

Before conducting any of the following volumetric test procedures follow Section 2.3. “Basic Test 

Procedure – Define the Inspection Lot.” Use a “Category A” sampling plan in the inspection; select a 

random sample; then use the following procedure to determine lot compliance.

Test Equipment

• Micrometer depth gage (ends of rods fully rounded) 0 mm to 225 mm (0 in to 9 in) or longer

• Level (at least 15 cm (6 in) in length)

• Laboratory pipets and/or buret

 Class A 500 mL buret that conforms to ASTM E287-2(2007), “Standard Specification for 

Laboratory Glass Graduated Burets”

 Class A pipets, calibrated “to deliver” that conform to ASTM E969-02(2007), “Standard 

Specification for Glass Volumetric (Transfer) Pipets”

• Volumetric measures

• Water

• Rubber bulb syringe

• Plastic disks that are 3 mm (1

/8 in) thick with diameters equal to the seat diameter or larger than 

the brim diameter of each container to be tested. The diameter tolerance for the disks is 50 μm 

(± 0.05 mm [± 0.002 in]). The outer edge should be smooth and beveled at a 30° angle with the 

horizontal to 800 μm (0.8 mm [1

/32 in]) thick at the edge. Each disk must have a 20 mm (3⁄4 in) 

diameter hole through its center and a series of 1.5 mm (1

/16 in) diameter holes 25 mm (1 in) 

apart around the periphery of the disk and 3 mm (1

/8 in) from the outer edge. All edges must 

be smooth.

• Stopwatch

• Partial immersion thermometer (or equivalent) with a range of -35 °C to +50 °C (30 °F to 

120 °F), at least 1 °C (1 °F) graduations, and with a tolerance of ± 1 °C (± 2 °F)

b. How is the volume of oils, syrups, and other viscous liquids that have smooth surfaces 

determined?

Step:

1. Make all measurements on a level surface.

2. Bring the temperature of both the liquid and the water to be used to measure the volume 

of the liquid to the reference temperature specified in Table 3-1. “Reference 

Temperatures for Liquids.” Verify with a thermometer that product has maintained 

the reference temperature.
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix G – Handbook 133, Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods

L&R - G52

Step:

3. Measure the headspace of the package at the point of contact with the liquid using a 

depth gauge with a fully rounded, rather than a pointed, rod end. If necessary, support 

the package to prevent the bottom of the container from distorting.

4. Empty, clean, and dry the package.

5. Refill the container with water measured from a volumetric standard to the original 

liquid headspace level measured in step 3 of this section until the water touches the depth 

gauge.

6. Determine the amount of water used in step 5 of this section to obtain the volume of the 

liquid and calculate the “package error” based on that volume.

Evaluation of Results

Follow the procedures in Section 2.3. “Basic Test Procedure – Evaluating Results” to determine lot

conformance.

3.5. How is the volume of mayonnaise and salad dressing, and water immiscible products that 

do not have smooth and level surfaces determined?

(1) Volumetric Headspace Test Procedure

Use the volumetric headspace procedure described in this section to determine volume when the 

commodity does not have a smooth surface (e.g., mayonnaise, salad dressing, and other water immiscible 

products without a level liquid surface). The procedure guides the inspector to determine the amount of 

headspace above the product in the package and the volume of the container. Determine the product 

volume by subtracting the headspace volume from the container volume. Open every package in the 

sample.

Step:

1. Make all measurements on a level surface.

2. Bring the temperature of both the commodity and the water used to measure the volume 

to the appropriate temperature designated in Table 3-1. “Reference Temperatures for 

Liquids.”

3. Open the first package and place a disk larger than the package container opening over 

the opening.
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix G – Handbook 133, Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods

L&R - G53

Step:

4. Measurement Procedure

 Deliver water from a flask (or flasks), graduate, or buret, through the central hole 

in the disk onto the top of the product until the container is filled. If it appears 

that the contents of the flask may overfill the container, do not empty the flask. 

Add water until all of the air in the container has been displaced and the water 

begins to rise in the center hole of the disk. Stop the filling procedure when the 

water fills the center disk hole and domes up slightly due to the surface tension. 

Do not add additional water after the level of the water dome has dropped.

 If the water dome breaks on the surface of the disk, the container has been 

overfilled and the test is void; dry the container and start over.

5. To obtain the headspace capacity, record the volume of water used to fill the container 

and subtract 1 mL (0.03 fl oz), which is the amount of water held in the hole in the disk 

specified.

6. Empty, clean, and dry the package container.

7. Repeat steps 4 and 5 of this section. Refill the package container with water measured 

from a volumetric measure to the maximum capacity of the package, subtract 1 mL 

(0.03 fl oz), and record the amount of water used as the container volume; and

8. From the container volume determined in step 7 of this section, subtract the headspace 

capacity in step 5 of this section to obtain the measured volume of the product and 

calculate the “package error” for that volume where “package error” equals labeled 

volume minus the measured volume of the product.

Evaluation of Results

Follow the procedures in Section 2.3. “Basic Test Procedure – Evaluating Results” to determine lot 

conformance.”

3.6. Goods Labeled by Capacity – Volumetric Test Procedure

a. What type of measurement equipment is needed to perform the headspace test procedures?

Use the test equipment in Section 3.4. “Other Volumetric Test Procedures” (except for the micrometer 

depth gage) to perform these test procedures.

b. How is it determined if goods labeled by capacity meet the average and individual 

requirements?

Before conducting any of the following volumetric test procedures, refer to Section 2.3. “Basic Test 

Procedure – Define the Inspection Lot.” Use a “Category A” sampling plan in the inspection; select a 

random sample; then use the following test procedure to determine lot compliance.
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix G – Handbook 133, Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods

L&R - G54

Step:

1. Make all measurements on a level surface.

2. When testing goods labeled by capacity, use water at a reference temperature of 

20 °C ± 2 °C (68 °F ± 5 °F).

3. Select a sample container and place a disk larger than the container opening over the 

opening.

4. Measurement Procedure

 Add water to the container using flask (or flasks), graduate, or buret 

corresponding to labeled capacity of the container. If it appears that the contents 

of the flask may overfill the container, do not empty the flask. Add water until 

all of the air in the container has been displaced and the water begins to rise in 

the center hole of the disk. Stop filling the container when the water fills the 

center disk hole and domes up slightly due to the surface tension.

 If the water dome breaks on the surface of the disk, the container has been 

overfilled and the test is void; dry the container and start over.

 Record the amount of water used to fill the container and subtract 1 mL 

(0.03 fl oz) (this is the amount of water held in the hole in the disk specified) to 

obtain the total container volume.

5. Test the other containers in the sample according to the procedures in step 4 of this 

section.

6. To determine package errors, subtract the total container volume obtained in steps 4 

and 5 of this section from the labeled capacity of the container.

Evaluation of Results

Follow the procedures in Section 2.3. “Basic Test Procedure – Evaluating Results” to determine lot 

compliance.

3.7. Pressed and Blown Glass Tumblers and Stemware

a. What requirements apply to pressed and blown glass tumblers and stemware?

This handbook provides a tolerance to the labeled capacity of glass tumblers and stemware. The average 

requirement does not apply to the capacity of these products. See Table 3-2. “Allowable Differences for 

Pressed and Blown Glass Tumblers and Stemware.”
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix G – Handbook 133, Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods

L&R - G55

b. How is it determined if tumblers and stemware meet the individual package requirement?

Follow Section 2.3. “Basic Test Procedure – Define the Inspection Lot” and determine which sampling 

plan to use in the inspection, select a random sample, and then use the following volumetric test 

procedure to determine container capacity and volume errors.

c. What type of measuring equipment is needed to perform the test procedures?

Use the equipment specified in Section 3.4. “Other Volumetric Test Procedures,” (except for the 

micrometer depth gage) to perform these test procedures.

d. What are the steps of the test procedure?

Follow steps 1 through 6 in Section 3.6. “Goods Labeled by Capacity – Volumetric Test Procedure.”

e. How is it determined if the samples conform to the allowable difference?

Compare the individual container error with the allowable difference that applies in Table 3-2. 

“Allowable Differences for Pressed and Blown Glass Tumblers and Stemware.” If a package contains 

more than one container, all of the containers in the package must meet the allowable difference 

requirements in order for the package to pass.

Table 3-2. Allowable Differences for Pressed and Blown Glass Tumblers and Stemware

Unit of measure

If the capacity in metric units is: Then the allowable difference is:

200 mL or less ± 10 mL

More than 200 mL ± 5 % of the labeled capacity

If the capacity in inch-pound units is: Then the allowable difference is:

5 fl oz or less ± 1⁄4 fl oz

More than 5 fl oz ± 5 % of the labeled capacity

Evaluation of Results

Count the packages in the sample with volume errors greater than the allowable difference and compare 

the resulting number with the number given in Column 3.

• If the number of containers in the sample with errors exceeding the allowable difference exceeds 

the number allowed in Column 3, the lot fails.

HOWEVER

• If the number of packages with errors exceeding the allowable difference is less than or equal to 

the number in Column 3, the lot passes.

Note: The average capacity error is not calculated because the lot passes or fails based on the individual 

volume errors. Act on the individual units containing errors exceeding the allowable difference 

individually even though the lot passes the requirement.
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix G – Handbook 133, Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods

L&R - G56

3.8. Volumetric Test Procedure for Paint, Varnish, and Lacquers – Non-aerosol

a. How is the volume of paint, varnish, and lacquers contained in a package determined?

Use one of three different test methods depending upon the required degree of accuracy and the location 

of the inspection. The procedures include both retail and in-plant audits and a “possible violation” 

method, which is designed, for laboratory or in plant use because of cleanup and product collection 

requirements. The procedures are suitable to use with products labeled by volume and packaged in 

cylindrical containers with separate lids that can be resealed.

Test Equipment

• A scale that meets the requirements in Section 2.2. “Measurement Standards and Test Equipment”

• Volumetric measures

• Micrometer depth gage (ends of rods fully rounded), 0 mm to 225 mm (0 in to 9 in)

• Diameter (Pi) tape measure, 5 cm to 30 cm (2 in to 12 in)

• Spanning bar, 2.5 cm by 2.5 cm by 30 cm or (1 in by 1 in by 12 in)

• Rule, 30 cm (12 in)

• Paint solvent or other solvent suitable for the product being tested

• Cloth, 30 cm (12 in) square

• Wood, 5 cm (2 in) thick, by 15 cm (6 in) wide, by 30 cm (12 in) long

• Rubber mallet

• Metal disk, 6.4 mm (1⁄4 in) thick and slightly smaller than the diameter of package container bottom

• Rubber spatula

• Level at least 15 cm (6 in) in length

• Micrometer (optional)

• Stopwatch

b. What test procedure is used to conduct a retail audit test?

Conduct a retail audit using the following test procedure that is suitable for checking cylindrical 

containers up to 4 L (1 gal) in capacity. Use step 2 in the retail audit test procedure with any size 

container, but step 3 must be used for containers with capacities of 4 L (1 gal). The method determines 
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix G – Handbook 133, Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods

L&R - G57

the volume of a single can in the sample selected as most likely to contain the smallest volume of product. 

Do not empty any containers because only their critical dimensions are being measured.

c. How accurate is the dimensional test procedure?

The configuration of the bottom of the can, paint clinging to the lid, and slight variations in the wall and 

label thicknesses of the paint container may produce an uncertainty estimated to be at least 0.6 % in this 

auditing procedure. Therefore, this method is recommended solely to eliminate from more rigorous 

testing those packages that appear to be full measure. Use the violation procedures when the volume 

determined in step 10 is less than the labeled volume or in any case where short measure is suspected.

d. What worksheets make data recording easier?

Use the following format to develop worksheets to perform audits and determine the volume when 

checking paint. Follow the procedure and it will indicate the column in which the various measurements 

made can be recorded.

Example: Audit Worksheet for Checking Paint (add additional rows as needed)

1. Can 

Height

Can Diameter

6. Avg 

Liquid 

Diameter

7. Avg 

Liquid 

Level

8. Avg 

Container 

Depth

9. Avg 

Liquid 

Depth

10. 

Volume*

2. Top 3. Middle 4. Bottom 5. Average

*10. Volume = 0.7854 x 6 x 6 x 9

Note: When the following instructions require recording a measurement, refer to the numbered columns 

in the “Audit Worksheet for Checking Paint” shown above.
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix G – Handbook 133, Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods

L&R - G58

e. How is a retail audit test performed?

Step:

1. Select a random sample. A tare sample is not needed.

2. For containers less than 4 L or (1 gal):

 Measure the outside diameter of each container near its middle to the closest 

0.02 mm (0.001 in).

 Use a diameter tape measure to record the measurements in Column 3.

 Place the containers on a level surface and using the micrometer depth gage, 

record their heights in Column 1 on the worksheet.

 If the range of outside diameters exceeds 0.125 mm (0.005 in) or the range in 

heights exceeds 1.58 mm (0.062 5 in), do not use this procedure. If the ranges 

are within the specified limits, weigh all cans in the sample, select the container 

with the lightest gross weight, and remove its lid. Continue with step 4 below.

3. For 4 L (1 gal) containers:

 Gross weigh each package in the sample.

 Select the package with the lightest gross weight and remove its lid.

4. Use a direct reading diameter tape measure to measure the outside diameter of the 

selected container near its top, middle (already measured if step 2 was followed), and 

bottom to the closest 0.02 mm (0.001 in). Record these measurements in Columns 2, 3, 

and 4. Add the three diameter values and divide by three to obtain the average diameter 

and record this value in Column 5.

5. If a micrometer is available, measure the wall and the paper label thickness of the 

container; otherwise, assume the wall and label thicknesses given in Table 3-3. 

“Thickness of Paint Can Walls and Labels” below:

Table 3-3. Thickness of Paint Can Walls and Labels

Can Size Wall Thickness

4 L (1 gal) 250 μm (0.25 mm) [0.010 in]

2 L (1⁄2 gal) 250 μm (0.25 mm) [0.010 in]

1 L (1 qt) 230 μm (0.23 mm) [0.009 in]

500 mL (1 pt) 230 μm (0.23 mm) [0.009 in]

250 mL 200 μm (0.20 mm) [0.008 in]

Label Thickness* for all can sizes: 100 μm (0.10 mm) [0.004 in]

(*Paper only – ignore labels lithographed directly onto the container)
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix G – Handbook 133, Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods

L&R - G59

Step:

Subtract twice the thickness of the wall of the can and paper label from the average can 

diameter (step 4) to obtain the average liquid diameter. Record the liquid diameter in 

Column 6.

6. On a level surface, place the container on the circular metal disk that is slightly smaller in 

diameter than the lower rim of the can so the bottom of the container nests on the disk to 

eliminate any “sag” in the bottom of the container.

7. Place the spanning bar and depth gage across the top of the paint can and mark the 

location of the spanning bar on the rim of the paint container. Measure the distance to 

the liquid level, to the nearest 20 μm (0.02 mm) (0.001 in), at three points in a straight 

line. Take measurements at points approximately 1 cm (3

/8 in) from the inner rim for 

cans 12.5 cm (5 in) in diameter or less (and at 1.5 cm [1⁄2 in] from the rim for cans 

exceeding 12.5 cm [5 in]) in diameter and at the center of the can. Add the three 

readings and divide by three to obtain the average distance to the liquid level in the 

container. Record the average distance to the liquid level in Column 7.

8. Measure the distance to the bottom of the container at three points in a straight line in the 

same manner as outlined in step 7. Add the three readings and divide by three to obtain 

the average height of the container and record it in Column 8.

9. Subtract the average distance to the liquid level (Column 7) from the average height of 

the container (Column 8) to obtain the average height of the liquid column and record it 

in Column 9.

10. Determine the volume of paint in the container by using the following formula:

Volume = 0.7854 D2

H

Where D = average liquid diameter (Column 6) and

H = average liquid height (Column 9)

11. Record this value in Column 10. If the calculated volume is less than labeled volume, go 

to the Violation Procedure.

f. How is an in-plant audit conducted?

Use the following procedures to conduct an in-plant audit inspection. This method applies to a container 

that probably contains the smallest volume of product. Duplicate the level of fill with water in a can of 

the same dimensions as the one under test. Use this method to check any size of package if the liquid 

level is within the measuring range of the depth gage. If any paint is clinging to the sidewall or lid, 

carefully scrape the paint into the container using a rubber spatula.

Step:

1. Follow steps 1 through 6 of the retail audit test.

2. Place the spanning bar and depth gage across the top of the paint can. Measure the liquid 

level at the center of the surface and record the level in Column 7.
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix G – Handbook 133, Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods

L&R - G60

Step:

3. Select an empty can with the same bottom configuration as the container under test and 

with a diameter and height equal to that of the container under test within plus or minus 

the following tolerances:

a. For 500 mL or (1 pt) cans – within 25 μm (0.025 mm) (0.001 in)

b. For 1 L or (1 qt) cans – within 50 μm (0.05 mm) (0.002 in)

c. For 2 L or (1⁄2 gal) cans – within 75 μm (0.075 mm) (0.003 in)

d. For 4 L or (1 gal) cans – within 100 μm (0.1 mm) (0.004 in)

4. Set the empty can on a level work surface with a circular metal disk that is slightly 

smaller in diameter than the bottom can rim underneath the can to eliminate sag. Set up 

the spanning bar and depth gage as in step 2 above. Fill the container with water from a 

volumetric measure of the same volume as the labeled volume. Measure the distance to 

the liquid level at the center of the container and record this level in Column 7 below the 

reading recorded in step 2. If this distance is equal to or greater than the distance 

determined in step 2, assume that the package is satisfactory. If the distance is less than 

the distance determined in step 2, the product may be short measure. Use the “Violation 

Procedure” in the next section when the audit test indicates that short measure is 

possible.

3.8.1. Violation Procedure

a. How is it determined if the containers meet the package requirements?

Use the following method if the liquid level is within the measuring range of the micrometer. The first 

step is to follow the “Basic Test Procedure” in Section 2.3. Define the inspection lot to determine which 

“Category A” sampling plan to use; select a random sample; and then use the following procedure. The 

steps noted with an (*) are required if there is paint adhering to the lid and it cannot removed by scraping 

into the can.

Step:

1. Do not shake or invert the containers selected as the sample. Determine the gross weight 

of these packages and record in Column 2 of the “Example Worksheet for Possible 

Violation in Checking Paint” below.

Example Worksheet for Possible Violation in Checking Paint (add additional rows as needed)

1. Labeled 

Volume

2. Gross 

Weight

3. Lid Paint

Weight

(Wet - Dry)

4. 

Liquid 

Level

5. Tare 6. Water 

Volume

7. Net 

Wt. = 

2 - 5

8. Weight of 

Labeled Volume 

= 7 x 1 ÷ 6

9. Package 

Volume =

6 + [(3 ÷ 7) 

x 6)]

Step:

Record the labeled volume of the first tare sample package in Column 1 of the 

worksheet. Use a circular metal disk to eliminate can “sag” and remove the lid. If paint 

clings to the lid of the container, scrape it off with a spatula.
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix G – Handbook 133, Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods

L&R - G61

Step:

2.* If paint that adheres to the lid cannot be completely removed by scraping the paint into 

the can, determine the weight of the lid plus any adhering paint. Clean the paint lid with 

solvent and weigh again. Subtract the clean lid weight from the lid weight with paint to 

determine the weight of the paint adhering to the lid. Record this weight in Column 3.

3. Place the spanning bar and depth gage across the top of the paint can. Mark the location 

of the spanning bar on the rim of the paint container. Measure the distance to the liquid 

level at the center of the container to the nearest 20 μm (0.02 mm) (0.001 in). Record 

the distance in Column 4.

4. Empty and clean the sample container and lid with solvent; dry and weigh the container 

and lid. Record the tare weight in Column 5.

5. Set up the container in the same manner as in step 1.

6. Place the spanning bar at the same location on the rim of the paint container as marked in 

step 3. With the depth gage set as described in step 3, deliver water into the container in 

known amounts until the water reaches the same level occupied by the paint as indicated 

by the depth gage. Record this volume of water (in mL or fl oz) in Column 6 of the 

worksheet. This is the volume occupied by the paint in the container. Follow 

steps, 7a, 8a, and 9a if scraping does not remove the paint from the lid. In order to 

determine if gravimetric testing can be used to test the other packages in the sample, 

follow only steps 7, 8, and 9 when no paint adheres to the lid.

7. Subtract the weight of the container (Column 5) from the gross weight (Column 2) to 

arrive at the net weight of paint in the selected container. Record the net weight in 

Column 7 of the worksheet.

7a.* Subtract the weight of the container (Column 5) and the weight of product on the 

lid (Column 3) from the gross weight (Column 2) to arrive at the net weight of 

paint in the container. Record in Column 7 (excluding the weight of the paint on 

the lid).

8. Calculate the weight of the labeled volume of paint (for the first package opened for tare 

= on the lid).

net weight (Column 7) x labeled volume (Column 1) ÷ volume of paint in can (Column 6)

Record this value in Column 8.

8a.* Calculate the package volume = 

volume in can (Column 6) + (lid paint weight [Column 3] x

volume in can [Column 6] / net weight [Column 7]]

Record it in Column 9 of the worksheet.
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix G – Handbook 133, Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods

L&R - G62

Step:

9. Calculate the package error. Use the following formula if paint does not adhere to the 

lid:

Package error = (Column 6 value) - (labeled volume)

9a.* Use the following formula if paint does adhere to the lid and will not come off by 

scraping.

Package error = (Column 9 value) - (labeled volume)

10. Repeat steps 1 through 9 for the second package chosen for tare.

b. When can a gravimetric procedure be used?

A gravimetric procedure is used if the weights of the labeled volume for the first two packages do not 

differ from each other by more than one division on the scale (if they meet this criterion, check the rest of 

the sample gravimetrically and record in Column 8).

c. How is “nominal gross weight” determined?

Determine the “Nominal Gross Weight” for use with Chapter 2, Section 2.3. “Basic Test Procedure” as 

follows:

The nominal gross weight equals the sum of the average weight of the labeled volume (average of values 

recorded in Column 8) plus the average tare (average of values recorded in Column 3) for the packages 

selected for tare. Note that the weight of a given volume of paint often varies considerably from 

container to container; therefore, volumetric measurements may prove necessary for the entire sample.

Evaluation of Results

Follow the procedures in Section 2.3. “Basic Test Procedures – Evaluating Results” to determine lot 

conformance.

3.9. Testing Viscous Materials – Such As Caulking Compounds and Pastes

a. How are viscous materials such as caulking compounds and paste tested?

Use the following procedure for any package of viscous material labeled by volume. It is suitable for 

very viscous materials such as cartridge-packed caulking compounds, glues, pastes, and other similar 

products. It is best to conduct this procedure in a laboratory using a hood to ventilate solvent fumes. If 

used in the field, use in a well ventilated area. Except for the special measurement procedures to 

determine the weight of the labeled volume, this procedure follows the basic test procedure. For each 

weight of a known volume determination, pack a portion of the packaged product into a pre-weighed cup 

of known volume (called a “density cup” or “pycnometer”) and weigh. From the weight of the known 

volume, determine the weight of the labeled volume. Compare the nominal gross weight with the gross 

weight to determine the package error.
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix G – Handbook 133, Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods

L&R - G63

b. What type of measurement equipment is needed to test packages of caulk, pastes, and 

glues?

• A scale that meets the requirements in Section 2.2. “Measurement Standards and Test 

Equipment.”

• Pycnometer, a vessel of known volume used for weighing semifluids. The pycnometer can be 

bought or made. If it is made, refer to it as a “density cup.” To make a 150 mL or 5 fl oz density 

cup, cut off the lip of a 150 mL beaker with an abrasive saw and grind the lip flat on a lap wheel. 

The slicker plate is available commercially. Calibrate the density cup gravimetrically with 

respect to the contained volume using the procedure in ASTM E542-01(2007), “Standard Practice 

for Calibration of Laboratory Volumetric Apparatus.”

• Appropriate solvents (water, Stoddard solvent, kerosene, alcohol, etc.)

• Caulking gun (for cartridge packed products)

c. How is a pycnometer prepared for use?

Before using, weigh and calibrate the pycnometer (or the density cup and slicker plate) with respect to 

volume (mL or fl oz). If applicable, comply with any special instructions furnished by the manufacturer 

to calibrate a pycnometer that has not been calibrated. It is not necessary to reweigh or recalibrate for 

each test; however, mark the pieces of each unit to prevent interchange of cups and slicker plates.

d. How is it determined if the containers meet the package requirements?

First, Follow the “Basic Test Procedure” in Section 2.3. “Basic Test Procedure – Define the Inspection 

Lot.” Use a “Category A” sampling plan in the inspection; select a random sample; then, use the 

following procedure to determine lot compliance.

Step:

1. Weigh a calibrated pycnometer and slicker plate and record as “pycnometer weight” and 

record this weight and the volume of the pycnometer.

2. Determine the gross weight of the first package and record the weight value. Open the 

package and transfer the product to the pycnometer by filling it to excess. Use a 

caulking gun to transfer product from the caulking cartridges. If using a pycnometer, 

cover it with a lid and screw the cap down tightly. Excess material will be forced out 

through the hole in the lid, so the lid must be clean. If using a density cup, place the 

slicker plate over 3⁄4 of the cup mouth, press down and slowly move the plate across the 

remainder of the opening. With the slicker plate in place, clean all the exterior surfaces 

with solvent and dry.

3. Completely remove the product from the package container; clean the package container 

with solvent; dry and weigh it to determine the tare weight.

4. Weigh the filled pycnometer or filled density cup with slicker plate and record this 

weight. Subtract the weight of the empty pycnometer from the filled weight to determine 

the net weight of the product contained in the pycnometer and record this weight.
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix G – Handbook 133, Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods

L&R - G64

Step:

5. Clean the pycnometer and repeat steps 2, 3, and 4 for the second package in the tare 

sample.

Determine acceptability of the density variation on the two packages selected for tare. If 

the difference between the densities of both packages exceeds one division of the scale, 

do not use the gravimetric procedure to determine the net quantity of contents. Instead, 

use the procedure in steps 8 and 9.

Note: If the gravimetric procedure can be used, perform steps 7 and 9.

6. Calculate the weight of product corresponding to the labeled volume of product 

according to the following formula:

Weight of Product in Pycnometer ÷ Pycnometer Volume = Product Density

7. Test each package individually by determining the product density in each package using 

the pycnometer and record the gross, tare, and net weight of each package. Subtract the 

weight of the labeled volume (determined for each package) from the net weight of 

product to arrive at each individual package error in units of weight.

8. Convert the package errors to units of volume using the following formula:

Package Error (volume) =

(Package Error [weight] x Pycnometer Volume) ÷ (Weight of Product in Pycnometer)

9. Record the package errors on the report form using an appropriate unit of measure.

Evaluation of Results

Follow the procedures in Section 2.3. “Basic Test Procedure – Evaluation Results” to determine lot 

conformance.

3.10. Peat Moss

a. How are packages of peat and peat moss labeled by compressed volume tested?

Measure the dimensions of the compressed material to determine if it contains the labeled quantity. Take 

three measurements (both ends and middle) of each dimension and calculate their average. 

Multiply the averages to obtain the compressed cubic volume.

b. How are packages of peat and peat moss labeled by uncompressed volume tested?

Use the following method to test peat moss sold using an uncompressed volume as the declaration of 

content. The procedure is based on ASTM D2978-90 03, “Standard Method of Test for Volume of 

Processed Peat Materials.”
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix G – Handbook 133, Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods

L&R - G65

Test Equipment

• 12.7 mm (or 1⁄2 in) sieve

• Use one of the following measures as appropriate for the package size. (Refer to Table 3-4. 

“Specifications for Test Measures for Mulch and Soils” for additional information on test 

measure construction.)

 28.3 L (1 ft3

) measure with inside dimensions of 30.4 cm (12 in) by 30.4 cm (12 in) by 

30.4 cm (12 in). Mark the inside of the measure with horizontal lines every 1.2 cm (1⁄2 in) so 

that package errors can be directly determined

 100 L (3.5 ft3

) measure with inside dimensions of 50 cm (19.68 in) by 50 cm (19.68 in) by 

40 cm (15.74 in). The inside of the measure should be marked with horizontal lines every 

1.2 cm (1⁄2 in) so that package errors can be directly determined

• Straightedge, 50.8 cm (20 in) in length

• Sheet for catching overflow of material

• Level (at least 15.24 cm (6 in) in length)

c. How is it determined if the packages meet the requirements in this handbook?

Follow Section 2.3. “Basic Test Procedure – Define the Inspection Lot.” Use a “Category A” sampling 

plan in the inspection; select a random sample; then, use the following procedure to determine lot 

compliance.

Step:

1. Open each package in turn, remove the contents, and pass them through the sieve directly 

into the measuring container (overfilling it). Use this method for particulate solids (such 

as soils or other garden materials) labeled in cubic dimensions or dry volume. Some 

materials may not pass through the sieve for peat moss; in these instances, separate the 

materials by hand (to compensate for packing and settling of the product after packaging) 

before filling the measure.

Note: Separated material (product not passing through the sieve) must be included in the 

product volume.

2. Shake the measuring container with a rotary motion at one rotation per second for 

5 seconds. Do not lift the measuring container when rotating it. If the package contents 

are greater than the measuring container capacity, level the measuring container with a 

straightedge using a zigzag motion across the top of the container.

3. Empty the container. Repeat the filling operations as many times as necessary, noting 

the partial fill of the container for the last quantity delivered using the interior horizontal 

markings as a guide.
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix G – Handbook 133, Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods

L&R - G66

Step:

4. Record the total volume.

5. To compute each package error, subtract the labeled quantity from the total volume and 

record it.

Evaluation of Results

Follow the procedures in Section 2.3. “Basic Test Procedure – Evaluating Results” to determine lot 

conformance.

3.11. Mulch and Soils Labeled by Volume

a. What products are defined as mulch and soil?

• Mulch is defined as “any product or material except peat or peat moss that is advertised, offered 

for sale, or sold for primary use as a horticultural, above-ground dressing, for decoration, 

moisture control, weed control, erosion control, temperature control, or other similar purposes.”

• Soil is defined as “any product or material, except peat or peat moss that is advertised or offered 

for sale, or sold for primary use as a horticultural growing media, soil amendment, and/or soil 

replacement.”

b. What type of measurement equipment is needed to test packages of mulch and soil?

• A test measure appropriate for the package size that meets the specifications for test measures in 

Table 3-4. “Specifications for Test Measures for Mulch and Soils”
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix G – Handbook 133, Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods

L&R - G67

Table 3-4. Specifications for Test Measures for Mulch and Soils

Nominal Volume of 

Test Measure Interior Wall Dimensions *

Marked 

Intervals on 

Interior

Walls ***

Volume 

Equivalent of 

Marked 

Intervals

Length Width Height **

30.2 L (1.07 ft3

testing packages that 

contain less than 

28.3 L

) for

(1 ft3

203.2 mm (8 in)

or 25.7 dry qt)

736.6 mm

(29 in)

12.7 mm

(1⁄2 in)

524.3 mL

(32 in3

28.3 L (1 ft

)

3

) 304.8 mm (12 in)

1 179.8 mL

(72 in 56.6 L (2 ft 3

)

3

) 406.4 mm

(16 in)

228.6 mm

(9 in)

1219.2 mm

(48 in) 84.9 L (3 ft3

Measures are typically constructed of 12.7 mm (1⁄2 in) marine plywood. A transparent sidewall is useful 

for determining the level of fill, but must be reinforced if it is not thick enough to resist distortion. If the 

measure has a clear front, place the level gage at the back (inside) of the measure so that the markings are 

read over the top of the mulch.

)

Notes:

* Other interior dimensions are acceptable if the test measure approximates the configuration of the 

package under test and does not exceed a base configuration of the package cross-section.

** The height of the test measure may be reduced, but this will limit the volume of the package that can be 

tested.

*** When lines are marked in boxes, they should extend to all four sides of the measure if possible to 

improve readability. It is recommended that a line indicating the MAV level also be marked to reduce the 

possibility of reading errors when the level of the mulch is at or near the MAV.

• Dropcloth/polyethylene sheeting for catching overflow of material

• Level (at least 15 cm [6 in] in length)

c. How is it determined if the packages meet the package requirements?

Use the following procedure:

Step:

1. Follow the Section 2.3. “Basic Test Procedure – Define the Inspection Lot.” Use a 

“Category A” sampling plan in the inspection, select a random sample, then use the 

following procedure to determine lot conformance.

2. Open each package in turn. Empty the contents of the package into a test measure and 

level the contents by hand. Do not rock, shake, drop, rotate, or tamp the test measure. 

Read the horizontal marks to determine package net volume.
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix G – Handbook 133, Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods

L&R - G68

Step:

Note: Some types of mulch are susceptible to clumping and compacting. Take steps to 

ensure that the material is loose and free flowing when placed into the test measure. Gently 

roll the bag before opening to reduce the clumping and compaction of material.

3. Exercise care in leveling the surface of the mulch/soil and determine the volume reading 

from a position that minimizes errors caused by parallax.

d. How are package errors determined?

Determine package errors by subtracting the labeled volume from the package net volume in the measure. 

Record each package error.

Package Error = Package Net Volume − Labeled Volume

Evaluation of Results

Follow the procedures in Section 2.3. “Basic Test Procedure – Evaluating Results” to determine lot 

conformance.

Note: In accordance with Appendix A, Table 2-10. Exceptions to the Maximum Allowable Variations 

for Textiles, Polyethylene Sheeting and Film, Mulch and Soil Labeled by Volume, Packaged Firewood 

and Packages Labeled by Count with Fewer than 50 Items, apply an MAV of 5 % of the declared quantity 

to mulch and soil sold by volume. When testing mulch and soil with a net quantity in terms of volume, 

one package out of every 12 in the sample may exceed the 5 % MAV (e.g., one in a sample of 

12 packages; two in a sample of 24 packages; four in a sample of 48 packages). However, the sample 

must meet the average requirement of the “Category A” Sampling Plan.

3.12. Ice Cream Novelties

Note: The following procedure can be used to test packaged products that are solid or semisolid 

and that will not dissolve in, mix with, absorb, or be absorbed by the fluid into which the product 

will be immersed. For example, ice cream labeled by volume can be tested using ice water or 

kerosene as the immersion fluid.

WWMA Add in a statement regarding pelletized ice cream

Exception – Pelletized ice cream are beads of ice cream which are quick frozen with 

liquid nitrogen. The beads are relatively small, but can vary in shape and size. On 

April 17, 2009 the FDA issued a letter stating that this product is considered semisolid 

food, in accordance with 21 CFR 101.105(a). The FDA also addresses that the 

appropriate net quantity of content declaration for pelletized ice cream products be in 

terms of net weight.

a. How are ice cream novelties inspected to see if the labeled volume meets the package 

requirements?

Use the following volume displacement procedure that uses a displacement vessel specifically designed 

for ice cream novelties such as ice cream bars, ice cream sandwiches, or cones. The procedure 

determines the volume of the novelty by measuring the amount of water displaced when the novelty is 
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix G – Handbook 133, Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods

L&R - G69

submerged in the vessel. Two displacements per sample are required to subtract the volume of sticks or 

cups.

The procedure first determines if the densities of the novelties are the same from package to package (in 

the same lot) so that a gravimetric test can be used to verify the labeled volume. If a gravimetric 

procedure is used, compute an average weight for the declared volume from the first two packages and 

weigh the remainder of the sample. If the gravimetric procedure cannot be used, use the volume 

displacement procedure for all of the packages in the sample.

Test Equipment

• A scale that meets the requirements in Section 2.2. “Measurement Standards and Test 

Equipment”

• Volumetric measures

• Displacement vessel with dimensions that is appropriate for the size of novelties being tested. 

Figure 3-1. Example of a Displacement Vessel shows an example of a displacement vessel. It 

includes an interior baffle that reduces wave action when the novelty is inserted and the 

downward angle of the overflow spout reduces dripping. Other designs may be used.

Figure 3-1. Example of a Displacement Vessel

Note: This displacement vessel can be constructed or similar devices may be obtained from any 

Laboratory Equipment or Science Education suppliers. The U.S. Department of Commerce does 

not endorse or recommend any particular device over similar commercially available products 

from other manufacturers.

• Thin wire, clamp, or tongs

• Freezer or ice chest and dry ice

• Single-edged razor or sharp knife (for sandwiches only)

• Ice water/kerosene maintained at 1 °C (33 °F) or below
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix G – Handbook 133, Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods

L&R - G70

• Indelible marker (for ice pops only)

• Level, at least 15.24 cm (6 in) in length

• A partial immersion thermometer (or equivalent) with a range of -1 °C to +50 °C (30 °F to 

120 °F), at least 1 °C (1 °F) graduations, and with a tolerance of ± 1 °C (± 2 °F)

• A table-top, laboratory-type jack of sufficient size to hold the displacement vessel

• Stopwatch

Test Procedure

Follow the procedures in Section 2.3. “Basic Test Procedure – Define the Inspection Lot.” Use a 

“Category A” sampling plan in the inspection; select a random sample; then use the following steps to 

determine lot compliance.

Step:

1. Maintain the samples at the reference temperature for frozen products that is specified in 

Table 3-1. “Reference Temperatures for Liquids” (i.e., -18 °C [0 °F]). Place the samples 

in the freezer or ice chest until they are ready to be tested, and then remove packages 

from the freezer one at a time.

2. According to the type of novelty, prepare the sample products as follows:

 Ice-pop. Mark on the stick(s) with the indelible marker the point to which the 

pop will be submerged in the ice water. (After the ice-pop contents have been 

submerged, remove the novelty to determine the volume of the stick.)

 Cone. Make a small hole in the cone below the ice cream portion to allow air to 

escape.

 Sandwich. Determine whether the declared volume is (a) the total volume of the 

novelty (that is, including the cookie portion) or (b) the volume of the ice-creamlike portion only. If the declared volume is the volume of only the ice-creamlike portion, shave off the cookie with a razor or knife, leaving some remnants of 

cookie to ensure that no ice cream is accidentally shaved off. Work quickly, and 

return the novelty to the freezer before the sandwich softens.

 Cup. Remove the cap from the cup. (After the cup and novelty contents have 

been submerged, remove the novelty from the cup to determine the volume of 

the cup.)
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix G – Handbook 133, Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods

L&R - G71

b. How is it determined if the ice cream novelty packages meet the requirements in this 

handbook?

Step:

1. Follow Section 2.3. “Basic Test Procedure – Define the Inspection Lot.” Use a 

“Category A” sampling plan in the inspection; select a random sample; then use the 

following procedure to determine lot compliance.

2. Fill the displacement vessel with ice water until it overflows the spout. Allow it to sit 

until dripping stops. Raise the displacement vessel as necessary and place the graduate 

beneath the spout.

3. Remove a package from the freezer, determine its gross weight and record it.

4. Submerge the novelty as suggested until it is below the surface level of the water.

 Ice-pop. Use a clamp, tongs, or your fingers to hold the stick(s) and submerge 

the pop to the level marked in step 2 of the Test Procedures.

 Cone. Shape the wire into a loop, and use it to push the cone, headfirst (ice 

cream portion first) into the ice water. Do not completely submerge the cone 

immediately: let water fill the cone through the hole made in step 2 of the Test 

Procedures before completely submerging the novelty.

 Sandwich or cup. Skewer the novelty with the thin wire or form a loop on the 

end of the wire to push the sandwich or ice-cream portion or cup completely 

below the liquid level.

5. Record the total water volume in the graduate. For a cone or sandwich, record the water 

volume as the net volume and go to step 7. For ice-pops or cups, record the water 

volume in the graduate as the gross volume and go to step 6.

6. Refill the displacement vessel with water to overflowing and reposition the empty 

graduate under the spout.

 Ice-pop. Melt the ice pop off the stick or sticks. Submerge the stick or sticks to 

the line marked in step 4. Record the volume of tare material (i.e., stick) by 

measuring the water displaced into the graduate. The net volume for the ice-pop 

is the gross volume recorded in step 5 minus the volume of the tare materials in 

this step. Record this volume as the “volume of novelty.” To determine the 

error in the package, subtract the labeled quantity from the volume of novelty.

 Cup. Remove the novelty from the cup. Rinse the cup, and then submerge it in 

the displacement vessel. Small pinholes in the base of the cup can be made to 

make submersion easier. Record the volume of water displaced into the graduate 

by the cup as the volume of tare material. The net volume for the novelty is the 

gross volume determined in step 5 minus the volume of the tare materials 

determined in this step. Record this as the net volume of the novelty. To 

determine the error in the package, subtract the labeled quantity from the volume 

of novelty.
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix G – Handbook 133, Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods

L&R - G72

Step:

7. Clean and air-dry the tare materials (sticks, wrappers, cup, lid, etc.). Weigh and record 

the weight of these materials for the package.

8. Subtract the tare weight from the gross weight to obtain the net weight and record this 

value.

9. Compute the weight of the labeled volume for the package using the following formula 

and then record the weight:

Product Density = (weight in item 3) ÷ (the total water volume in step 5)

Weight of labeled volume = (labeled volume) x (Product Density)

10. Repeat steps 3 through 9 for a second package.

11. If the weight of the labeled volume in steps 9 and step 10 differ from each other by more 

than one division on the scale, the gravimetric test procedure cannot be used to test the

sample for compliance. If this is the case, steps 2 through 6 for each of the remaining 

packages in the sample must be used to determine their net volumes and package errors. 

Then go to evaluation of results.

c. How is “nominal gross weight” determined?

Step:

1. Use Section 2.3. “Basic Test Procedure – Tare Procedure” to determine the Average 

Used Dry tare Weight of the sample.

2. Using the weights determined in step 11 calculate the Average Product Weight by adding 

the densities of the liquid from the two packages and dividing the sum by two.

3. Calculate the “nominal gross weight“ using the formula:

Nominal Gross Weight = Average Product Weight + Average Used Dry Tare Weight

d. How are the errors in the sample determined?

Step:

1. Weigh the remaining packages in the sample.

2. Subtract the nominal gross weight from the gross weight of each package to obtain 

package errors in terms of weight.

Note: Compare the sample packages to the nominal gross weight.
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix G – Handbook 133, Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods

L&R - G73

Step:

3. Follow Section 2.3. “Basic Test Procedure.”

To convert the average error or package error from weight to volume, use the following 

formula:

Package Error in Volume = (Package Error in Weight) ÷ (Product Density)

Evaluation of Results

Follow the procedures in Section 2.3. “Basic Test Procedure – Evaluating Results” to determine lot 

conformance.

3.13. Fresh Oysters Labeled by Volume

a. What requirements apply to packages of fresh oysters labeled by volume?

Packaged fresh oysters removed from the shell must be labeled by volume. The maximum amount of 

permitted free liquid is limited to 15 % by weight. Testing the quantity of contents of fresh oysters 

requires the inspector to determine total volume, total weight of solids and liquid, and the weight of the 

free liquid.

Test Equipment

• A scale that meets the requirements in Section 2.2. “Measurement Standards and Test 

Equipment”

• Volumetric measures

• Micrometer depth gage (ends of rods fully rounded), 0 mm to 228 mm (0 in to 9 in)

• Strainer for determining the amount of drained liquid from shucked oysters. Use as a strainer a 

flat bottom metal pan or tray constructed to the following specifications:

 Sides: 5.08 cm (2 in)

 Area: 1935 cm2 (300 in2

) or more for each 3.78 L (1 gal) of oysters (Note: Strainers of 

smaller area dimensions are permitted to facilitate testing smaller containers.)

 Perforations:

Diameter: 6.35 mm (1⁄4 in)

Location: 3.17 cm (11⁄4 in) apart in a square pattern, or perforations of equivalent area 

and distribution.

• Spanning bar, 2.54 cm by 2.54 cm by 30.48 cm (1 in by 1 in by 12 in)

• Rubber spatula
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix G – Handbook 133, Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods

L&R - G74

• Level, at least 15.24 cm (6 in) in length

• Stopwatch

b. How is it determined if the containers meet the package requirements?

Follow the Section 2.3. “Basic Test Procedure – Define the Inspection Lot.” Use a “Category A” 

sampling plan in the inspection; select a random sample; then, use the following test procedure to 

determine lot compliance.

Step:

1. Determine and record the gross weight of a sample package.

2. Set the container on a level surface and open it. Use a depth gage to determine the level 

of fill. Lock the depth gauge. Mark the location of the gauge on the package.

3. Weigh a dry 20.32 cm or 30.48 cm (8 in or 12 in) receiving pan and record the weight. 

Set strainer over the receiving pan.

4. Pour the contents from the container onto the strainer without shaking it. Tip the strainer 

slightly and let it drain for 2 minutes. Remove strainer with oysters. It is normal for 

oysters to include mucous (which is part of the product) that will not pass through the 

strainer, so do not force it.

5. Weigh the receiving pan and liquid and record the weight. Subtract the weight of the dry 

receiving pan from the weight of pan and liquid to obtain the weight of free liquid and 

record the value.

6. Clean, dry, and weigh the container and record the tare weight. Subtract the tare weight 

from the gross weight to obtain the total weight of the oysters and liquid and record this 

value.

7. Determine and record the percent of free liquid by weight as follows:

Percent of free liquid by weight = [(weight of free liquid) ÷

(weight of oysters + liquid)] x 100.

8. Set up the depth gauge on the dry package container as in step 2. Pour water from the 

flasks and graduate as needed to re-establish the level of fill obtained in step 2. Add the 

volumes delivered as the actual net volume for the container and record the value.

Note: Some containers will hold the declared volume only when filled to the brim; they may have been 

designed for other products, rather than for oysters. If the net volume is short measure (per step 8), 

determine if the container will reach the declared volume only if filled to the brim. Under such 

circumstance, the package net volumes will all be short measure because the container cannot be filled to 

the brim with a solid and liquid mixture. A small headspace is required in order to get the lid into the 

container without losing any liquid.
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix G – Handbook 133, Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods

L&R - G75

Evaluation of Results

Follow the procedures in Section 2.3. “Basic Test Procedure” Evaluating Results to determine lot 

conformance.

3.14. Determining the Net Contents of Compressed Gas in Cylinders

a. What type of compressed gases may be tested with these procedures?

These procedures are for industrial compressed gas. Compressed gas may be labeled by weight (for 

example, Liquefied Petroleum [LP] gas, or carbon dioxide) or by volume. Acetylene, liquid; oxygen, 

nitrogen, nitrous oxide, and argon are all filled by weight. Acetylene is sold by liters or by cubic feet. 

Helium, gaseous oxygen, nitrogen, air, and argon are filled according to pressure and temperature tables.

b. What type of test procedures must be used?

Checking the net contents of compressed gas cylinders depends on the method of labeling; those labeled 

by weight are generally checked by weight. Cylinders filled by using pressure and temperature charts 

must be tested using a pressure gauge that is connected to the cylinder. Determine the volume using the 

pressure and temperature of the cylinder.

c. Should any specific safety procedures be followed?

Yes, be aware of the hazards of the high pressure found in cylinders of compressed gas. An inspector 

should handle compressed gas only if the inspector has been trained and is knowledgeable regarding the 

product, cylinder, fittings, and proper procedures (see Compressed Gas Association [CGA] pamphlet P-1, 

“Safe Handling of Compressed Gases in Containers,” for additional information). Additional precautions 

that are necessary for personal safety are described in the CGA Handbook of Compressed Gases. All 

personnel testing compressed gases should have this manual for reference and be familiar with its 

contents. It is essential that the inspector be certain of the contents before connecting to the cylinder. 

Discharging a gas or cryogenic liquid through a system for which the material is not intended could result 

in a fire and/or explosion or property damage due to the incompatibility of the system and the product. 

Before connecting a cylinder to anything, be certain of the following:

Step:

1. Always wear safety glasses.

2. The cylinder is clearly marked or labeled with the correct name of the contents and that 

no conflicting marks or labels are present. Do not rely on the color of the cylinder to 

identify the contents of a cylinder. Be extremely careful with all gases because some 

react violently when mixed or when coming in contact with other substances. For 

example, oxygen reacts violently when it comes in contact with hydrocarbons.
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix G – Handbook 133, Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods

L&R - G76

Step:

3. The cylinder is provided with the correct Compressed Gas Association (CGA) 

connection(s) for the product. A proper connection will go together smoothly; so 

excessive force should not be used. Do not use an adapter to connect oxygen to nonoxygen cleaned equipment. When a cylinder valve is opened to measure the internal 

pressure, position the body away from the pressure gauge blowout plug or in front of the 

gauge if the gauge has a solid cast front case. If the bourdon tube should rupture, do not 

be in a position to suffer serious injuries from gas pressure or fragments of metal.

4. Thoroughly know the procedure and place emphasis on safety precautions before 

attempting any tests. Do not use charts referred to in the procedure until the necessary 

training has been completed. When moving a cylinder, always place the protective cap 

on the cylinder. Do not leave spaces between cylinders when moving them. This can 

lead to a “domino” effect if one cylinder is pushed over.

5. Open all valves slowly. A failure of the gauge or other ancillary equipment can result in 

injuries to nearby persons. Remember that high gas pressure can propel objects with 

great force. Gas ejected under pressure can also cause serious bodily injuries if someone 

is too close during release of pressure.

6. One of the gauges will be reserved for testing oxygen only and will be prominently 

labeled “For Oxygen Use Only.” This gauge must be cleaned for oxygen service and 

maintained in that “clean” condition. The other gauge(s) may be used for testing a 

variety of gases if they are compatible with one another.

7. Observe special precautions with flammable gas in cylinders in addition to the several 

precautions necessary for the safe handling of any compressed gas in cylinders. Do not 

“crack” cylinder valves of flammable gas before connecting them to a regulator or test 

gauge. This is extremely important for hydrogen or acetylene.

d. What type of measurement equipment is needed to test cylinders of compressed gas?

Test Equipment

• Use a scale that meets the requirements in Section 2.2. “Measurement Standards and Test 

Equipment.” Use a wooden or non-sparking metal ramp to roll the cylinders on the scale to 

reduce shock loading.

• Two calibrated precision bourdon tube gauges or any other approved laboratory-type pressuremeasuring device that can be accurately read within plus or minus 40 kPa (5 psi). A gauge 

having scale increments of 200 kPa (25 psi) or smaller shall be considered as satisfactory for 

reading within plus or minus 40 kPa (5 psi). The range of both gauges shall be a minimum of 

0 kPa to 23 MPa (0 psi to 5000 psi) when testing cylinders using standard industrial cylinder 

valve connections. These standardized connections are listed in “CGA Standard V-1, Standard 

for Compressed Gas Cylinder Valve Outlet and Inlet for use with Gas Pressures up to 21 MPa 

(3000 psi).” For testing cylinders with cylinder valve connections rated for over 21 MPa 

(3000 psi), the test gauge and its inlet connection must be rated at 14 MPa (2000 psi) over the 

maximum pressure that the connection is rated for in CGA V-1. Note: There are standard highpressure industrial connections on the market that are being used up to their maximum pressure of 

52 MPa (7500 psi).
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix G – Handbook 133, Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods

L&R - G77

Note: Any gauge or connectors used with oxygen cylinders must be cleaned for oxygen service, 

transported in a manner which will keep them clean, and never used for any other gas including 

air or oxygen mixtures. Oxygen will react with hydrocarbons and many foreign materials that 

may cause a fire or explosion.

• An approved and calibrated electronic temperature measuring device or three calibrated mercuryin-glass thermometers having either a digital readout or scale division of no more than 1 °F 

(0.5 °C). The electronic device equipped with a surface temperature sensor is preferred over a 

mercury-in-glass thermometer because of its shorter response time.

• Two box-end wrenches of 29 mm (11

/8 in) for oxygen, nitrogen, carbon dioxide, argon, helium, 

and hydrogen and 22 mm (7

/8 in) for some sizes of propane. All industrial CGA connections are 

limited to these two hex sizes. Avoid using an adjustable wrench because of the tendency to 

round the edges of the fittings, which can lead to connections not being tightened properly.

• Use a separate gauge and fitting for each gas to be tested. If adapters must be used, do not use on 

oxygen systems.

3.14.1. Test Procedure for Cylinders Labeled by Weight

a. How is it determined if the containers meet the package requirements using the gravimetric 

test procedure?

Step:

1. Follow Section 2.3. “Basic Test Procedure – Define the Inspection Lot.” Use a 

“Category A” sampling plan in the inspection; select a random sample; then use the 

following test procedure to determine lot compliance.

2. The cylinder should be marked or stenciled with a tare weight. The marked value may or 

may not be used by the filling plant when determining the net weight of those cylinders 

sold or filled by weight. If there is a tare weight marked on the net contents tag or 

directly on the cylinder, then an actual tare weight was determined at the time of fill. If 

there is no tare weight marked on a tag or on the cylinder, then the stamped or stenciled 

tare weight is presumed to have been used to determine the net contents.

Note: Check the accuracy of the stamped tare weights on empty cylinders whenever 

possible. The actual tare weight must be within (a) 1⁄2 % of the stamped tare weight for 

9.07 kg (20 lb) tare weights or less or (b) 1⁄4 % of the stamped tare weight for greater than 

9.07 kg (20 lb) tare weights. (See NIST Handbook 130, “Method of Sale Regulation.”)

3. Place cylinder on scale and remove protective cap. The cap is not included in the tare 

weight. Weigh the cylinder and determine net weight, using either the stamped or 

stenciled tare weight, or the tare weight marked on the tag. Compare actual net weight 

with labeled net weight, or use the actual net weight to look up the correct volume 

declaration (for Acetylene Gas), and compare that with the labeled volume.

Note: The acetone in acetylene cylinders is included in the tare weight of the cylinder. 

Therefore, as acetylene is withdrawn from the cylinder, some acetone will also be 

withdrawn, changing the tare weight.
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix G – Handbook 133, Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods

L&R - G78

Step:

Most producers will replace acetone in the cylinder before the cylinder is refilled, filling

the cylinder with acetone to the stamped tare weight. Other producers, although not 

following recommended procedures, do not replace the acetone until it drops to a 

predetermined weight. In the latter situation, the refilling plant must note the actual tare 

weight of the cylinder and show it on the tag containing the net content statement or on 

the cylinder itself. Refer to tables for acetylene if necessary (if the acetylene is labeled 

by volume).

3.14.2 Test Procedure for Cylinders Labeled by Volume

a. How is it determined if the containers meet the package requirements using the volumetric 

test procedure?

Follow Section 2.3. “Basic Test Procedure – Define the Inspection Lot.” Use a “Category A” sampling 

plan in the inspection; select a random sample; then use the following test procedure to determine lot 

compliance.

Step:

1. Determine the temperature of the cylinders in the sample. Place the thermometer 

approximately halfway up a cylinder in contact with the outside surface. Take the 

temperature of three cylinders selected at random and use the average temperature of the 

three values.

2. Using the appropriate pressure gauge, measure the pressure of each cylinder in the 

sample.

3. Determine the cylinder nominal capacity from cylinder data tables or from the 

manufacturer. (These tables must be obtained in advance of testing.)

4. Using NIST Technical Note 1079 “Tables of Industrial Gas Container Contents and 

Density for Oxygen, Argon, Nitrogen, Helium, and Hydrogen” (available on-line at 

(http://www.nist.gov/owm), determine the value (SCF/CF) from the content tables at the 

temperature and pressure of the cylinder under test.

5. Multiply the cylinder nominal capacity by the value (SCF/CF) obtained from the content 

tables. This is the actual net quantity of gas.

6. Subtract the labeled net quantity from the actual net quantity to determine the error.

Evaluation of Results

Follow Section 2.3. “Basic Test Procedures – Evaluating Results” to determine lot conformance.
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix G – Handbook 133, Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods

L&R - G79

3.15. Firewood

3.15.1 Volumetric Test Procedure for Packaged Firewood with a Labeled Volume of 113 L (4 ft3

) 

or Less

a. How are packages of firewood tested?

Follow Section 2.3. “Basic Test Procedure – Define the Inspection Lot.” Use a “Category A” sampling 

plan in the inspection; select a random sample, then use the test procedure provided in Section 3.17. 

“Crosshatched Firewood” to determine lot compliance.

Test Equipment

• Linear Measure. Take all measurements in increments of 0.5 cm (3

/16 in) or less and round up.

• Binding Straps. Binding straps are used to hold wood bundles together if the bundles need to be 

removed from the package/wrapping material.

b. How is it determined if the containers meet the package requirements?

Unless otherwise indicated, take all measurements without rearranging the wood or removing it from the 

package. If the layers of wood are crosshatched or not ranked in discrete sections in the package, remove 

the wood from the package, re-stack, and measure accordingly.

3.15.2. Boxed Firewood

a. How is the volume of firewood contained in a box determined?

Follow Section 2.3. “Basic Test Procedure – Define the Inspection Lot.” Use a “Category A” sampling 

plan in the inspection; select a random sample; then use the following test procedure to determine lot 

conformance.

Step:

1. Open the box to determine the average height of wood within the box; measure the 

internal height of the box. Take three measurements (record as “d1, d2...etc.”) along 

each end of the stack. Measure from the bottom of a straightedge placed across the top 

of the box to the highest point on the two outermost top pieces of wood and the centermost top piece of wood. Round measurements down to the nearest 0.5 cm (1

/8 in). If 

pieces are obviously missing from the top layer of wood, take additional height 

measurements at the highest point of the uppermost pieces of wood located at the 

midpoints between the three measurements on each end of the stack. Calculate the 

average height of the stack by averaging these measurements and subtracting from the 

internal height of the box according to the following formula.

Average Height of Stack =

(Internal Height of Box) – (sum of measurements) ÷ (number of measurements)
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix G – Handbook 133, Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods

L&R - G80

Step:

2. Determine the average width of the stack of wood in the box by taking measurements at 

three places along the top of the stack. Measure the inside distance from one side of the 

box to the other on both ends and in the middle of the box. Calculate the average width.

Average Width = (W1 + W2 + W3) ÷ (3)

3. To determine the average length of the pieces of wood, remove the wood from the box 

and select the five pieces with the greatest girth. Measure the length of each of the five 

pieces from center-to-center. Calculate the average length of the five pieces.

Average Length = (L1 + L2 + L3 + L4 + L5) ÷ (5)

4. Calculate the volume of the wood within the box. Use dimensions for height, width, and 

length.

Volume in liters = (height in cm x width in cm x length in cm) ÷ (1000)

Volume in cubic feet = (height in inches x width in inches x length in inches) ÷ (1728)

5. For boxes of wood that are packed with the wood ranked in two discrete sections 

perpendicular to each other, calculate the volume of wood in the box as follows: 

(1) determine the average height, width, and length as in 1, 2 and 3 above for each 

discrete section, compute total volume, and (2) total the calculated volumes of the two 

sections. Take the width measurement for Volume 2 (V2) from the inside edge of the 

box adjacent to V2 to the plane separating V1 and V2. Compute total volume by adding 

Volume 1 (V1) and V2 according to the following formula.

Total Volume = V1 + V2

6. Follow Section 2.3. “Basic Test Procedure – Evaluating Results” to determine lot 

conformance.

3.15.3. Crosshatched Firewood

a. How must the volume of stacked or crosshatched firewood be measured?

Follow Section 2.3. “Basic Test Procedure – Define the Inspection Lot.” Use a “Category A” sampling 

plan in the inspection; select a random sample; and use the following test procedure to determine lot 

compliance.

Step:

1. Stack the firewood in a ranked and well-stowed geometrical shape that facilitates volume 

calculations (i.e., rectangular). The number of measurements for each dimension given 

below is the minimum that should be taken.
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix G – Handbook 133, Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods

L&R - G81

Step:

2. Determine the average measurements of the stack:

 Height: Start at one end of the stack; measure the height of the stack on both 

sides at four equal intervals. Calculate and record the average height.

 Length: Start at the base of the stack; Measure the length of the stack in four 

equal intervals. Calculate and record the average length.

 Width: Select the five pieces with the greatest girth. Measure the length of the 

pieces, calculate and record the average piece length.

3. Calculate Volume:

Volume in liters = (Avg. Height [cm] x Avg. Width [cm] x Avg. Length in [cm]) ÷ 1000

Volume in cubic feet = (Avg. Height [in] x Avg. Width [in] x Avg. Length [in]) ÷ 1728

4. Follow Section 2.3. “Basic Test Procedure – Evaluating Results” to determine lot 

conformance.

3.15.4. Bundles and Bags of Firewood

a. How is the volume of bundles and bags of firewood measured?

Follow Section 2.3. “Basic Test Procedure – Define the Inspection Lot.” Use a “Category A” sampling 

plan in the inspection; select a random sample; then use the following test procedure to determine lot 

compliance.

Step:

1. Average area of ends: secure a strap around each end of the bundle or bag of wood to 

prevent movement during testing and to provide a definite perimeter. Use two or more 

straps to secure the wood.

2. Set one end of the bundle or bag on tracing paper large enough to cover the end 

completely. Draw a line around the perimeter of the bundle or bag on the tracing paper.

3. Transfer the tracing paper to a template graduated in square centimeters or square inches. 

Count the number of square centimeters or square inches that are enclosed within the 

perimeter line. Estimate portions of square centimeters or square inches not completely 

within the perimeter line to the nearest one-quarter square inch.

4. Repeat this process on the opposite end of the bundle or bag.

5. Calculate the Average Area:

Average Area = (Area 1 + Area 2) ÷ 2
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix G – Handbook 133, Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods

L&R - G82

Step:

6. Average length of the pieces of wood – select the five pieces with the greatest girth and 

measure the length of the pieces. Calculate the average length of the pieces of wood:

Average Length = (L1 + L2 + L3 + L4 + L5) ÷ 5

7. Calculate Volume:

Volume in liters = (Average Area [cm2

] x Average Length [cm]) ÷ 1000

Volume in cubic feet = (Average Area [in2

] x Average Length [in]) ÷ 1728

Evaluation of Results

Follow Section 2.3. “Basic Test Procedure – Evaluating Results” to determine lot conformance.

Note: Specified in Appendix A, Table 2-10. “Exceptions to the Maximum Allowable Variations for 

Textiles, Polyethylene Sheeting and Film, Mulch and Soil Labeled by Volume, Packaged Firewood, and 

Packages Labeled by Count with Fewer than 50 Items.” – Maximum allowable variations for individual 

packages are not applied to packages of firewood.
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix G – Handbook 133, Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods

L&R - G83

Chapter 4. Test Procedures – Packages Labeled by Count, Linear Measure, 

Area, Thickness, and Combinations of Quantities

4.1. Scope

a. What types of packaged goods can be tested using these procedures?

Use these procedures to determine the net contents of products sold by count, area, thickness, and linear 

measure. If a package includes more than one declaration of quantity, each declaration must meet the 

package requirements.

b. Can the gravimetric test procedure be used to verify the net quantity of contents of 

packages labeled by count and linear measure?

Use the gravimetric procedure (below) to test products sold by measure or count if the density of the 

product does not vary excessively from one package to another.

c. What procedures may be used if the gravimetric test procedure cannot be used?

Open each package in the sample and measure or count the items.

4.2 Packages Labeled by Count

a. How are packages labeled by count tested?

If the labeled count is 50 items or fewer, use Section 4.3. “Packages Labeled with 50 Items or Fewer.” If 

the labeled count is more than 50 items, see Section 4.4. “Packages Labeled by Count of More than 

50 Items.”

b. How to determine if a gravimetric test procedure may be used to verify the labeled count of 

a package?

Yes, if the scale being used is sensitive enough to determine the weight of individual items. Use the 

following procedures to determine if the sample packages can be tested gravimetrically.

Step:

1. For packages labeled with a count of 84 or higher, calculate the weight equivalent for the 

MAV/6 for the labeled count of the package. MAV/6 must be at least equal to one-half 

scale division on a mechanical scale or one division on a digital scale.

2. For packages with a labeled count of 83 or fewer, when each unit weighs at least 2 scale 

divisions, consider the scale acceptable.
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix G – Handbook 133, Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods

L&R - G84

Step:

Example: According to Appendix A, Table 2-7. Maximum Allowable 

Variations (MAVs) for Packages Labeled by Count, the MAV is 7 for a 

package labeled with a count of 250 items. The scale should be capable of 

measuring differences corresponding to MAV/6 or, in this example, the 

weight of one item.

 If the scale meets the appropriate requirement, gravimetric testing can be used to 

determine package count or,

 If the scale does not meet the criteria, count the content in each package in the 

sample.

4.3. Packages Labeled with 50 Items or Fewer

Test Procedure

Step:

1. Follow Section 2.3. “Basic Test Procedure – Define the Inspection Lot.” Use a 

“Category A” sampling plan in the inspection; select a random sample; then use the 

following test procedure to determine lot compliance.

2. Open the packages and count the number of items in each. Record the number of 

packages that contain fewer than the labeled count.

Evaluation of Results

1. For the sample size indicated in Column 1 of Appendix A, Table 2-11. “Accuracy Requirements 

for Packages Labeled by Low Count of (50 or fewer) and Packages Given Tolerance (Glass and 

Stemware),” refer to Column 2 to determine the number of packages that are allowed to contain 

fewer than the labeled count.

2. If the number of packages in the sample that contain fewer than the labeled count exceeds the 

number permitted in Column 2, the sample and the lot fail to meet the package requirement.

Note: For statistical reasons, the average requirement does not apply to packages labeled by count of 

50 or fewer items, and the MAV does not apply to the lot. It only applies to the packages in the 

sample.

3. Maximum Allowable Variations: The MAVs listed in Appendix A, Table 2-7. “Maximum 

Allowable Variations (MAVs) for Packages Labeled by Count” define the limits of reasonable 

variation for an individual package even though the MAV is not directly used in the sampling 

plan. Individual packages that are undercount by more than the MAV are considered defective. 

Even if the sample passes, these should be repacked, relabeled, or otherwise handled.

Example: If testing a lot of 160 packages of pencils labeled “50 pencils,” 

choose a random sample of 12 packages from the lot. If the scale cannot 

discriminate between differences in count, open every package and count the 

pencils. For example, assume the 12 package counts are: 50, 52, 50, 50, 51, 53, 

52, 50, 50, 50, 47, and 50.
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix G – Handbook 133, Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods

L&R - G85

Because only one package contains fewer than 50 pencils, the sample passes the 

test (refer to Appendix A. Table 2-11. “Accuracy Requirements for Packages 

Labeled by Low Count [50 or Fewer] and Packages Given Tolerances [Glass and 

Stemware]”). However, the package containing 47 pencils should not be 

introduced into commerce even though the lot complies with the package 

requirements because it is undercount by more than the MAV (1 item) permitted 

in Appendix A, Table 2-7. “Maximum Allowable Variations (MAVs) for 

Packages Labeled by Count.”

4.4. Packages Labeled by Count of More than 50 Items

Test Procedures

There are two procedures to determine count without opening all packages in the sample. Both use the 

weight of a counted number of items in the package. If the weight of discrete items or numbers of items 

in a package varies, the packaged items must be counted rather than weighed.

Test Equipment

Use a scale that meets the requirements in Section 2.2. “Measurement Standards and Test Equipment.”

Audit Procedure

Use this procedure to audit lots of packages labeled by count of more than 50 items, but the precision of 

this procedure is only ± 1 %. Determine the lot compliance based on actual count or the violation 

procedure.

Step:

1. Follow Section 2.3. “Basic Test Procedure – Define the Inspection Lot.” Use a 

“Category A” sampling plan in the inspection; select a random sample; then use the 

following test procedure to determine lot compliance.

2. Select an initial tare sample according to Section 2.3. “Basic Test Procedure – Tare 

Procedures.”

3. Gross weigh the first package in the tare sample and record this weight.

4. Select the number of items from the first tare package that weighs the greater:

 10 % of the labeled count; or

 a quantity equal to at least 50 minimum divisions on the scale.

Example: Using a scale with 1 g divisions, the selected count must 

weigh at least 50 grams. If a scale with 0.001 lb divisions is used, the 

selected count must weigh at least 0.05 lb. Record the count and weight.
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix G – Handbook 133, Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods

L&R - G86

Step:

5. Calculate the weight of the labeled count using the following formula:

Weight of the Labeled Count =

(labeled count x weight of items in step 4) ÷ (Count of items in step 4)

Record the result as “labeled count weight.”

6. Gross weigh the remaining packages of the tare sample and keep contents of opened 

packages separated in case all of the items must be counted.

7. Determine the Average Used Dry Tare Weight of the sample according to Section 2.3. 

“Basic Test Procedure – Tare Procedures.”

8. The weight of the labeled count plus the average tare weight represents the “nominal 

gross weight.”

9. Subtract the nominal gross weight from the gross weight of the individual packages and 

record the errors.

(Package error [weight]) =

(actual package gross weight) − (nominal gross weight)

10. Convert the package errors in units of weight to count:

Package error (count) = (Package error [weight] x labeled count) ÷ (labeled count weight)

Round any fractional counts up to whole items in favor of the packager. Record the 

package error in units of count. Compute the average error.

 If the average error is minus, go to the “procedure to use if the inspector suspects 

the lot violates the package requirements” below.

 If the average error is zero or positive, the sample is presumed to conform to the 

package requirements.

Procedures to use if the inspector suspects the lot violates the package requirements

If possible, use the gravimetric procedure to determine compliance. To minimize the number of packages 

to be opened, combine the measurement of the weight of the number of units in the package with the 

determination of tare. Therefore, it will not be necessary to open more packages than the tare sample. If 

the audit procedure in this section has been used, the possible violation procedure below can be followed 

with the same sample if package contents have been kept separate and can still be counted. Use the 

following steps to determine if the sample passes or fails.

Step:

1. Follow Section 2.3. “Basic Test Procedure – Define the Inspection Lot.” Use a 

“Category A” sampling plan in the inspection; select a random sample; then use the 

following test procedure to determine lot compliance. Use a scale that meets the criteria 

specified in 4.2. “Packages Labeled by Count.”
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix G – Handbook 133, Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods

L&R - G87

Step:

2. Select an initial tare sample according to Section 2.3. “Basic Test Procedure – Tare 

Procedures.”

3. Gross weigh the packages selected for the tare sample and record these weights. Open 

these packages and determine the tare and net weights of the contents, and count the 

exact number of items in the packages. Record this information.

4. Calculate and record the weights of the labeled counts for the first two packages using 

the formula:

Weight of labeled count = (labeled count) x (contents weight ÷ contents count)

To avoid round off errors, carry at least two extra decimal places in the calculation until 

the weight of the labeled count is obtained. To use the gravimetric procedure, the 

difference in weights of the labeled counts of the two packages must not exceed one 

scale division.

 If the difference in weights exceeds this criterion, determine the actual count 

per package for every package in the sample recording plus and minus 

errors. Then, follow the procedures in Section 2.3. “Basic Test Procedure –

Evaluating Results” to determine lot conformance.

 If the difference is within the criterion, average the weights of the labeled 

count and go on to step 5.

5. Determine the Average Used Dry Tare Weight of the sample according to provisions in 

Section 2.3. “Basic Test Procedure – Tare Procedures.”

6. Determine and record the nominal gross weight by adding the average weight of the 

labeled count of items in the package step 4 to the average tare weight step 5.

7. Weigh the remaining packages in the sample, subtract the nominal gross weight from the 

gross weight of the individual packages, and record the errors.

Package Error (weight) = (Actual Package Gross Weight) - (Nominal Gross Weight)

8. Look up the MAV for the package size from Appendix A, Table 2-7. “Maximum 

Allowable Variations (MAVs) for Packages Labeled by Count” and convert it to weight 

using the formula:

MAV (weight) =

(MAV (count) x Avg. Wt. of Labeled Count [from step 4]) ÷ (Labeled Count)

Convert the MAV to dimensionless units by dividing the MAV (weight) by the unit of 

measure and record.
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix G – Handbook 133, Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods

L&R - G88

Evaluation of Results

Follow the procedures in Section 2.3. “Basic Test Procedure – Evaluation Results” to determine lot 

conformance.

Convert back to count when completing the report form using the following formula:

Avg. Pkg. Error (count) = (Avg. Pkg. Error [dimensionless units]) x (Unit of Measure) x

(Labeled Count) ÷ (Avg. Weight of Labeled Count)

4.5. Paper Plates and Sanitary Paper Products

a. How are the labeled dimensions of paper plates and sanitary paper products verified?

Follow Section 2.3. “Basic Test Procedure – Define the Inspection Lot.” Use a “Category A” sampling 

plan in the inspection; select a random sample; then use the following procedure to determine lot 

compliance.

The following procedures are used to verify the size of paper plates and other products. The following 

procedure may be used to verify the size declarations of other disposable dinnerware.

Note: Do not distort the item’s shape during measurement.

The count of sanitary paper products cannot be adequately determined by weighing. Variability in sheet 

weight and core weight requires that official tests be conducted by actual count. However, weighing can 

be a useful audit method. These products often declare total area as well as unit count and sheet size. If 

the actual sheet size measurements and the actual count comply with the average requirements, the total 

area declaration is assumed correct.

Equipment

• Steel tapes and rules. Determine measurements of length to the nearest division of the 

appropriate tape or rule.

 Metric Units:

For labeled dimensions 40 cm or less, linear measure: 30 cm in length, 1 mm divisions; or a 

1 m rule with 0.1 mm divisions, overall length tolerance of 0.4 mm.

For labeled dimensions greater than 40 cm, 30 m tape with 1 mm divisions.

 Inch-pound Units:

For labeled dimensions 25 in or less, use a 36 in rule with 1

/64 in or 1/100 in divisions and an 

overall length tolerance of 1

/64 in.

For dimensions greater than 25 in, use a 100 ft tape with 1

/16 in divisions and an overall 

length tolerance of 0.1 in.
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix G – Handbook 133, Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods

L&R - G89

• Measuring Base

Note: A measuring base may be made of any flat, sturdy material approximately 38 cm (15 in) 

square. Two vertical side pieces approximately 3 cm (1 in) high and the same length as the sides 

of the measuring base are attached along two adjoining edges of the measuring base to form a 

90° corner. Trim all white borders from two or more sheets of graph paper (10 divisions per

centimeter or 20 divisions per inch). Place one sheet on the measuring base and position it so that 

one corner of graph paper is snug in the corner of the measuring base and vertical sides. Tape the 

sheet to the measuring base. Overlap other sheets on the first sheet so that the lines of top and 

bottom sheet coincide, expanding the graph area to a size bigger than plates to be measured; tape 

these sheets to the measuring base. Number each line from the top and left side of base 

plates: 1, 2, 3, etc.

b. How are paper products inspected?

Step:

1. Follow Section 2.3. “Basic Test Procedure – Define the Inspection Lot.” Use a 

“Category A” sampling plan in the inspection; select a random sample; then use the 

following test procedure to determine lot compliance.

2. Select an initial tare sample according to Section 2.3. “Basic Test Procedure – Tare 

Procedure.”

3. Open each package and select one item from each.

Note: Some packages of plates contain a combination of different-sized plates. In this instance, take 

a plate of each declared size from the package to represent all the plates of that size in the package. 

For example, if three sizes are declared, select three different plates from each package.

c. How are paper products measured?

Note: Occasionally, packages of plates declared to be one size contain plates that can be seen by 

inspection to be of different sizes in the same package. In this instance, select the smallest plate and use 

the methods below to determine the package error. If the smallest plate is not short measure by more than 

the MAV, measure each size of plate in the package and calculate the average dimensions.

Example: If 5 plates measure 21.41 cm (8.43 in) and 15 measure 21.74 cm (8.56 in), the 

average dimension for this package of 20 plates is 21.66 cm (8.53 in).

Step:

1. For paper plates: Place each item on the measuring base plate (or use the linear measure) 

with the eating surface down so two sides of the plate touch the sides of the measuring 

base. For other products, use either the measuring base or a linear measure to determine 

actual labeled dimensions (e.g., packages of napkins, rolls of paper towels). If testing 

folded products, be sure that the folds are pressed flat so that the measurement is 

accurate.
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix G – Handbook 133, Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods

L&R - G90

Step:

2. If the measurements reveal that the dimensions of the individual items vary, select at 

least 10 items from each package. Measure and average these dimensions. Use the 

average dimensions to determine package error in step 5 below.

3. The package error equals the actual dimensions minus the labeled dimensions.

Evaluation of Results

Follow the procedures in Section 2.3. “Basic Test Procedure – Evaluating Results” to determine lot 

conformance.

4.6. Special Test Requirements for Packages Labeled by Linear or Square Measure (Area)

a. Are there special measurement requirements for packages labeled by dimensions?

Yes, products labeled by length (such as yarn) or area, often requires the application of tension to the ends 

of the product in order to straighten the product before measuring. When testing yarn and thread, apply 

tension and use the specialized equipment specified in ASTM D1907-07, “Standard Test Method for 

Linear Density of Yarn (Yarn Number) by the Skein Method,” in conjunction with the sampling plans and 

package requirements described in this handbook.

Evaluation of Results

Follow the procedures in Section 2.3. “Basic Test Procedure – Evaluating Results” to determine lot 

conformance.

4.7. Polyethylene Sheeting

a. Which procedures are used to verify the declarations on polyethylene sheeting and bags?

Follow Section 2.3. “Basic Test Procedure – Define the Inspection Lot.” Use a “Category A” sampling 

plan in the inspection; select a random sample; then use the following test procedure to determine lot 

compliance.

Note: Most polyethylene products are sold by length, width, thickness, area, and net weight.

Test Equipment

• A scale that meets the requirements in Section 2.2. “Measurement Standards and Test 

Equipment.”
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix G – Handbook 133, Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods

L&R - G91

• Steel tapes and rules determine measurements of length to the nearest division of the appropriate 

tape or rule.

 Metric Units:

For labeled dimensions 40 cm or less, linear measure: 30 cm in length, 1 mm divisions; or a 

1 m rule with 0.1 mm divisions, overall length tolerance of 0.4 mm.

For labeled dimensions greater than 40 cm, 30 m tape with 1 mm divisions.

 Inch-pound Units:

For labeled dimensions 25 in or less, use a 36 in rule with 1

/64 in or 1/100 in divisions and an 

overall length tolerance of 1

/64 in.

For dimensions greater than 25 in, use a 100 ft tape with 1

/16 in divisions and an overall 

length tolerance of 0.1 in.

• Deadweight dial micrometer (or equal) equipped with a flat anvil, 6.35 mm or (1⁄4 in) diameter or 

larger, and a 4.75 mm (3

/16 in) diameter flat surface on the head of the spindle. The anvil and 

spindle head surfaces should be ground and lapped, parallel to within 0.002 mm (0.0001 in), and 

should move on an axis perpendicular to their surfaces. The dial spindle should be vertical, and 

the dial should be at least 50.8 mm (2 in) in diameter. The dial indicator should be continuously 

graduated to read directly to 0.002 mm (0.0001 in) and should be capable of making more than 

one revolution. It must be equipped with a separate indicator to indicate the number of complete 

revolutions. The dial indicator mechanism should be fully jeweled. The frame should be of 

sufficient rigidity that a load of 1.36 kg (3 lb) applied to the dial housing, exclusive of the weight 

or spindle presser foot, will not cause a change in indication on the dial of more than 0.02 mm 

(0.001 in). The indicator reading must be repeatable to 0.001 2 mm (0.000 05 in) at zero. The 

mass of the probe head (total of anvil, weight 102 g or [3.6 oz], spindle, etc.) must be 113.4 g 

(4 oz). The micrometer should be operated in an atmosphere free from drafts and fluctuating 

temperature and should be stabilized at ambient room temperature before use.

• Gage blocks covering the range of thicknesses to be tested should be used to check the accuracy 

of the micrometer

• T-square

Test Procedure

Step:

1. Follow Section 2.3. “Basic Test Procedure – Define the Inspection Lot.” Use a 

“Category A” sampling plan in the inspection; select a random sample; then use the 

following test procedure to determine lot compliance.
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix G – Handbook 133, Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods

L&R - G92

Step:

2. Be sure the product is not mislabeled. Check the label declaration to confirm that all of 

the declared dimensions are consistent with the required standards. The declaration on 

sheeting, film, and bags shall be equal to or greater than the weight calculated by using 

the formulas below. Calculate the final value to four digits and declare to three digits 

dropping the final digit (e.g., if the calculated value is 2.078 lb, then the declared net 

weight is truncated to 2.07 lb).

Example Label:

Step:

3. Use the following formulas to compute a target net weight. The labeled weight should 

equal or exceed the target net weight or the package is not in compliance.

 For metric dimensions:

Target Mass in Kilograms = (T x A x D) ÷ 1 000

Where: T = nominal thickness in centimeters

A = nominal length in centimeters x nominal width (the nominal width for 

bags is twice the labeled width) in centimeters

D = density in grams per cubic centimeter*

 For inch-pound dimensions:

Target Weight in Pounds = T x A x D x 0.036 13

Where: T = nominal thickness in inches;

A = nominal area; that is the nominal length in inches x nominal width (the 

nominal width for bags is twice the labeled width) in inches;

D = density in grams per cubic centimeter; 0.036 13 is a factor for 

converting g/cm3 to lb/i n 3 .

*Determined by ASTM Standard D1505-03, “Standard Method of Test for Density of 

Plastics by the Density Gradient Technique.” For the purpose of this handbook, the 

minimum density shall be 0.92 g/cm3 when the actual density is not known.

Polyethylene Sheeting

1.82 m (6 ft) x 30.48 m (100 ft)

101.6 μm (4 mil)

 
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix G – Handbook 133, Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods

L&R - G93

Evaluation

Step:

1. Perform the calculations as shown in the following samples. If the product complies 

with the label declaration, go to step 2.

Sample Calculations

 For metric units:

(0.010 16 cm x [(1.82 m x 100 cm/m ) x (30.48 m x 100 cm/m )] x 0.92 g

/c m 3 ) ÷ 1000 g/

= a target net mass of 5.18 kg

k g

In this example, the labeled net mass of 5.03 kg does not meet the target net mass, so the 

product is not in compliance.

 For inch-pound units:

(0.004 in) x [(6 ft x 12 in/ft) x (100 ft x 12 in/f t)] x 0.92 g/c m 3

= a target net weight of 11.48 lb

x 0.03613

In this example, the labeled net weight of 11.1 lb does not meet the target net weight, so 

the product is not in compliance.

2. Select packages for tare samples. Determine and record the gross weights of the initial 

tare sample.

3. Extend the product in the sample packages to their full dimensions and remove by hand 

all creases and folds.

4. Measure the length and width of the product to the closest 3 mm (1/8 in). Make all 

measurements at intervals uniformly distributed along the length and width of the sample 

and record the results. Compute the average length and width, and record.

 With rolls of product, measure the length of the roll at three points along the 

width of each roll and measure the width at a minimum of 10 points along the 

length of each roll.

 For folded products, such as dropcloths or tarpaulins, make three length 

measurements along the width of the sample and three width measurements 

along the length of the sample.

5. Determine and record the average tare weight according to Section 2.3. “Basic Test 

Procedures – Tare Procedures.”
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix G – Handbook 133, Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods

L&R - G94

4.7.1. Evaluation of Results – Length, Width, and Net Weight

Follow the procedures in Section 2.3. “Basic Test Procedure – Evaluating Results” to determine the lot 

conformance requirements for length, width, and weight.

• If the sample fails to meet the package requirements for any of these declarations, no further 

measurements are necessary. The lot fails to conform.

• If the sample meets the package requirements for the declarations of length, widths, and weight, 

go to step 6 to verify the thickness declaration.

Measure the thickness of the plastic sheet with a micrometer using the following guide. Place the 

micrometer on a solid level surface. If the dial does not read zero with nothing between the anvil and the 

spindle head, set it at zero. Raise and lower the spindle head or probe several times; it should indicate 

zero each time. If it does not, find and correct the cause before proceeding.

• Take measurements at five uniformly distributed locations across the width at each end and five 

locations along each side of each roll in the sample. If this is not possible, take measurements at 

five uniformly distributed locations across the width product for each package in the sample.

When measuring the thickness, place the sample between the micrometer surfaces and lower the spindle 

head or probe near, but outside, the area where the measurement will be made. Raise the spindle head or 

probe a distance of 0.008 mm to 0.01 mm (0.000 3 in to 0.000 4 in) and move the sheet to the 

measurement position. Drop the spindle head onto the test area of the sheet.

Read the dial thickness two seconds or more after the drop, or when the dial hand or digital readout 

becomes stationary. This procedure minimizes small errors that may occur when the spindle head or 

probe is lowered slowly onto the test area.

For succeeding measurements, raise the spindle head 0.008 mm to 0.01 mm (0.000 3 in to 0.000 4 in) 

above the rest position on the test surface, move to the next measurement location, and drop the spindle 

head onto the test area. Do not raise the spindle head more than 0.01 mm (0.000 4 in) above its rest 

position on the test area. Take measurements at least 6 mm (1⁄4 in) or more from the edge of the sheet.

• Repeat step 6 above on the remaining packages in the sample and record all thickness 

measurements. Compute and record the average thickness for the individual package and apply 

the following MAV requirements.

4.7.2. Evaluation of Results – Individual Thickness

• No measured thickness of polyethylene labeled 25 μm (1 mil) or greater should be less than 80 % 

of the labeled thickness.

• No measured thickness of polyethylene labeled less than 25 μm (1 mil) should be less than 65 % 

of the labeled thickness.

Count the number of values that are smaller than specified MAVs (0.8 x labeled thickness if 25 μm 

[1 mil] or greater or 0.65 x labeled thickness, if less than 25 μm [1 mil]). If the number of values that fail 

to meet the thickness requirement exceeds the number of MAVs permitted for the sample size, the lot 

fails to conform to requirements. No further testing of the lot is necessary. If the number of MAVs for 
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix G – Handbook 133, Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods

L&R - G95

thickness measurements is less than or equal to the number permitted for the sample size, go on to 

Evaluation of Results – Average Thickness.

4.7.3. Evaluation of Results – Average Thickness

The average thickness for any single package should be at least 96 % of the labeled thickness. This is an 

MAV of 4 %. Circle and count the number of package average thickness values that are smaller than 

0.96 x labeled thickness. If the number of package average thicknesses circled exceeds the number of 

MAVs permitted for the sample size, the lot fails to conform to requirements. No further testing of the lot 

is necessary. If the number of MAVs for package average thickness is less than or equal to the number of 

MAVs permitted for the sample size, proceed to Section 2.3. “Basic Test Procedure – Evaluating Results”

to determine if the lot meets the package requirements for average thickness.

4.8. Packages Labeled by Linear or Square (Area) Measure

Test Equipment

• Use a scale that meets the requirements in Section 2.2. “Measurement Standards and Test 

Equipment.” Calculate the length or area of packaged product corresponding to MAV/6. If there 

is no suitable weighing device, all of the packages in the sample must be opened and measured.

• Steel tapes and rules – determine measurements of length to the nearest division of the 

appropriate tape or rule.

 Metric Units:

For labeled dimensions 40 cm or less, linear measure: 30 cm in length, 1 mm divisions; or a 

1 m rule with 0.1 mm divisions, overall length tolerance of 0.4 mm.

For labeled dimensions greater than 40 cm, 30 m tape with 1 mm divisions.

 Inch-pound Units:

For labeled dimensions 25 in or less, use a 36 in rule with 1

/64 in or 1/100 in divisions and an 

overall length tolerance of 1

/64 in.

For dimensions greater than 25 in, use a 100 ft tape with 1

/16 in divisions and an overall 

length tolerance of 0.1 in.

• T-square

Test Procedure

Step:

1. Follow Section 2.3. “Basic Test Procedure – Define the Inspection Lot.” Use a 

“Category A” sampling plan in the inspection; select a random sample; then use the 

following test procedure to determine lot compliance.

2. Select an initial tare sample according to Section 2.3. “Basic Test Procedure – Tare 

Procedures.”
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix G – Handbook 133, Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods

L&R - G96

Step:

3. Gross weigh the first package in the tare sample and record this weight.

4. Determine and record the measurements (to the nearest division of the appropriate tape 

or rule) of the packaged goods (length, width, area; depending upon which dimensions 

are declared on the label) and weigh the goods from the first package opened for tare 

determination.

 Calculate and record the weight of the labeled measurements using the following 

formula:

Weight of the labeled measurement =

(labeled measurement) x (contents weight) ÷ (contents measurement)

 Look up and record the MAV in units of length or area measure (given in 

Appendix A, Table 2-8. “Maximum Allowable Variations for Packages Labeled 

by Length, (Width) or Area”

Note: See Appendix A, Table 2-10. “Exceptions to the MAVs for Textiles, and 

Polyethylene Sheeting and Film.

5. Determine and record the tare weight of the first package opened.

6. Determine and record the measurements (length, width, area; depending upon which 

dimensions are declared on the label) of the product in the second package chosen for 

tare determination (to the nearest division of the appropriate tape or rule). Determine 

and record the tare weight of this package.

7. Calculate and record the weight of the labeled measurement for the second package 

using the following formula:

Weight of the labeled measurement =

(labeled measurement) x (contents weight ÷ contents measurement)

The weights of the labeled measurement for two packages must not differ by more than 

one division on the scale. If they do, open all packages in the sample, measure 

individually, and compare them against the labeled measure to determine the package 

errors. If the criterion is met, go to step 8.

8. Calculate the average weight of the labeled measurement and record.

9. Determine and record the average tare weight according to Section 2.3. “Basic Test 

Procedure – Tare Procedures.”

10. Compute and record the nominal gross weight by adding the average weight of the 

labeled measurements to the average tare weight.
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix G – Handbook 133, Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods

L&R - G97

Step:

11. Compute package errors according to the following formula:

Package error (weight) =

(actual package gross weight) − (nominal gross weight)

12. Convert the MAV to units of weight using the following formula:

MAV (weight) =

(avg. wt. of label measurements x MAV [length]) ÷ (labeled measurements)

Convert the MAV to dimensionless units by dividing the MAV (weight) by the unit of 

measure and record.

Evaluation of Results

Follow the procedure in Section 2.3. “Basic Test Procedure – Evaluating Results” to determine lot 

conformance.

Convert back to dimensions when completing the report form using following the formula:

Avg. Pkg. Error (dimension) = (Avg. Pkg. Error [dimensionless units]) x (Unit of Measure) x

(Labeled unit of measure) ÷ (Avg. Weight of Labeled dimension)

4.9. Baler Twine – Test Procedure for Length

Test Equipment

• A scale that meets the requirements in Section 2.2. “Measurement Standards and Test 

Equipment,” except a scale with 0.1 g (0.000 2 lb) increments must be used for weighing twine 

samples. The recommended minimum load for weighing samples is 20 divisions.

• Steel tapes and rules – Determine measurements of length to the nearest division of the 

appropriate tape or rule.

 Metric Units:

For labeled dimensions 40 cm or less, linear measure: 30 cm in length, 1 mm divisions; or a 

1 m rule with 0.1 mm divisions, overall length tolerance of 0.4 mm.

For labeled dimensions greater than 40 cm, 30 m tape with 1 mm divisions.

 Inch-pound Units:

For labeled dimensions 25 in or less, use a 36 in rule with 1

/64 in or 1/100 in divisions and an 

overall length tolerance of 1

/64 in.

For dimensions greater than 25 in, use a 100 ft tape with 1

/16 in divisions and an overall 

length tolerance of 0.1 in.
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix G – Handbook 133, Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods

L&R - G98

• A hand-held straight-face spring scale of at least 4.53 kg (10 lb) capacity or a cordage-testing 

device that applies the specified tension to the twine being measured. When measuring twine 

samples or total roll length, apply 4.53 kg (10 lb) of tension to the twine.

Test Procedure

Follow Section 2.3. “Basic Test Procedure – Define the Inspection Lot.” Use a “Category A” sampling 

plan in the inspection; select a random sample; then use the following test procedure to determine lot 

compliance.

Step:

1. Select packages for tare samples. Determine gross weights of the initial tare sample and 

record. Open the tare samples. Use the procedures for tare determination in Section 2.3. 

“Basic Test Procedure – Tare Procedures” to compute the average tare weight and record 

this value.

2. Procedure for obtaining twine samples: Randomly select four balls of twine from the 

packages that were opened for tare.

From each of the four balls of twine:

 Measure and discard the first 10.05 m (33 ft) of twine from each roll. Accurate 

measurement requires applying tension to the ends of the twine before measuring 

in order to straighten the product.

 Take two 30.48 m (100 ft) lengths of twine from inside each roll.

 Weigh and record the weight of each piece separately and record the values. 

Compare the weight values to determine the variability of the samples. If the 

individual weights of the eight twine samples vary by more than one division on 

the scale, use one of the following steps: If the lot is short, determine the actual 

length of the lightest-weight roll found in the lightest-weight package of the lot 

to confirm that the weight shortages reflect the shortages in the length of the 

rolls; or, determine the average weight-per-unit of measure by taking ten 

30.48 m (100 ft) lengths from inside the lightest weight package. Use this value 

to recalculate its length and determine lot compliance.

3. Weigh all of the sample lengths together and record the total value. Determine the total 

length of the samples (243.8 m or 800 ft, unless more than eight sample-lengths were 

taken) and record the value. Compute the average weight-per-unit-of-length by dividing 

the total weight by the total length of the pieces.

4. Determine the MAV for a package of twine (refer to Appendix A, Table 2-8. “Maximum 

Allowable Variations for Packages Labeled by Length, Width, or Area”).

 Record the total declared package length.

 Multiply the MAV from Appendix A, Table 2-8. “Maximum Allowable 

Variations for Packages Labeled by Length, (Width), or Area,” times the total 

package length to obtain the MAV for length and record this value.
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix G – Handbook 133, Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods

L&R - G99

Step:

 Multiply the weight per unit of length (from step 3) times the MAV for the total 

declared package length to obtain the MAV by weight and record this value.

 Convert the MAV to dimensionless units and record.

5. Calculate the nominal gross weight and record.

Follow Section 2.3. “Basic Test Procedure – Determine Nominal Gross Weight and 

Package Errors for Sample Tare” to determine individual package errors. Determine 

errors using the following formula:

Package error (weight) = (package gross weight) − (nominal gross weight)

 To convert the Package error in weight back to length, divide the weight by the 

average weight-per-unit-of-length.

Evaluation of Results

Follow the procedures in Section 2.3. “Basic Test Procedure – Evaluating Results” to determine lot 

compliance.

4.10 Procedure for Checking the Area Measurement of Chamois

Chamois is natural leather made from skins of sheep and lambs that have been oil-tanned. Chamois are 

irregularly shaped, which makes area measurement difficult. Because of these characteristics, an accurate 

area determination can only be made using an internationally recognized method of conditioning 

(rehydrating) and measurement. Chamois is produced in a wet manufacturing process, so it has high 

moisture content at time of measurement. Chamois is hydroscopic; therefore, its dimensions and total 

area change as it loses or absorbs moisture. It is also subject to wrinkling. Because of the variation of the 

thickness and density, and therefore the weight per unit area of chamois, an estimated gross weight 

procedure cannot be used to verify the labeled area declaration.

Standard Test Conditions: As with all hydroscopic products, reasonable variations in measure must be 

allowed if caused by ordinary and customary exposure to atmospheric conditions that normally occur in 

good distribution practice. Both federal and international standards specify procedures to restore the 

moisture content of chamois so that tests to verify dimensions and area can be conducted.

Federal Test Method Standard 311, “Leather, Methods of Sampling and Testing,” (January 15, 1969) 

defines the standard atmospheric condition for chamois as 50 ± 4 % relative humidity and 23 ± 2 °C 

(73.4 ± 3.6 °F). The chamois is considered to be at equilibrium moisture when the difference in two 

successive weighings, made at 1 hr intervals, is no greater than 0.25 % (e.g., the maximum change in 

weight on a 100 g sample in two successive weighings is less than 0.25 g (250 mg).

Test Procedures

The area of chamois is verified using a two-stage test procedure. The first stage is a field audit using the 

template test procedure. This test is used for field audits because it is simpler to perform and does not 

require the chamois to be conditioned. The field audit is used to identify chamois that are potentially 
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix G – Handbook 133, Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods

L&R - G100

under measure. It is not as accurate as the gravimetric procedure because some error results from reading 

the area from the template. The gravimetric procedure should be used for compliance testing because it 

includes conditioning (rehydrating) the chamois.

Template Test Method (for field audits)

Select a random sample of chamois and use the Template Procedure (below) to determine the area of each 

sample. Chamois is labeled in uniform sizes in terms of square decimeters and square feet, and are sized

in increments of 1⁄4 ft2 (e.g., 1 ft2

, 11⁄4 ft2, and 11⁄2 ft2

). Separate the chamois into different sizes and define 

the inspection lot by specific sizes.

Test Equipment

Use a transparent, flexible template that is graduated in square centimeters or square inches and that has 

been verified for accuracy. The template must be large enough to completely cover the chamois under 

test.

Template Procedures

Step:

1. Template Procedure

Place the template over the chamois specimen on a smooth surface. Determine the area 

by counting the number of squares that cover the surface of the chamois. Estimate parts 

of the template that do not completely cover the chamois by adding the number of 

partially covered blocks. (See Figure 1.) Compute the total area and go to Evaluation to 

determine if further action is necessary.

Figure 1.
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix G – Handbook 133, Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods

L&R - G101

Step:

First Stage – Decision Criteria

If the average minus error exceeds 3 % of the labeled area, the chamois may not be 

labeled accurately. To confirm the finding, the sample must be taken to a laboratory for 

conditioning and testing using the gravimetric test procedure.

2. Gravimetric Procedure for Area Measurement

This test cannot be performed in the field because the samples must be conditioned with 

water before testing. This method is intended for use in checking full or cut skins, or 

pattern shapes. Open and condition all of the packages in the sample before determining 

their area on the recommended paper. Conditioning and verifying chamois can be 

accomplished without destroying the product. When successful tests are completed, the 

chamois may be repackaged for sale, so do not destroy the packaging material.

Test Equipment

• Scale with a capacity of 1 kg that is accurate to at least ± 0.01 g and a load-receiving element of 

adequate size to properly hold the chamois

• Atomizer or trigger-type sprayer and sealable, airtight polyethylene bags

• Medium weight drawing paper (e.g., drawing paper, medium weight (100 lb), regular surface or 

comparable)

• Household iron with low temperature settings 30 °C to 40 °C (86 °F to 104 °F)

• Rule or tape that is graduated in centimeters or inches

• Instrument for cutting paper (razor blade, scissors, or cutting board)

Sample Conditioning

Step:

1. Remove each sample from its package and weigh and record each weight. Using an 

atomizer-type sprayer, spray water in the amount of 25 % of the weight of each skin 

uniformly over its area. Place wetted chamois in an airtight polyethylene bag; seal the 

bag, and leave it in this condition at room temperature for 24 hours.

2. Open the bag, remove the chamois, and reweigh the chamois to confirm that it retained 

maximum moisture. (This is done by confirming that the difference in the two 

consecutive weighings conducted an hour apart does not exceed 0.25 %).

3. Place the chamois flat on a continuous piece of drawing paper. To remove wrinkles and 

make the chamois lie flat, use a normal domestic iron that is heated to a maximum of 

30 °C to 40 °C (86 °F to 104 °F). Place the iron on the bottom of the skin, and iron the 

skin up from the center to the top. Then, iron the skin from the center out to each side. 

Iron until the skin is fully extended and perfectly flat.
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix G – Handbook 133, Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods

L&R - G102

Measurement

Step:

1. Immediately after ironing, carefully draw around the outline of the skin on the paper. 

Remove the skin; carefully cut along the outline of the skin; weigh the cutout pattern, 

and record to the nearest 0.1 g as Sample Weight 1 (W1).

2. Lay out the pattern and cut an accurately measured rectangle of a size not less than onehalf the area of the pattern. Weigh the cutout rectangle and record the weight to the 

nearest 0.1 g as Sample Weight 2 (W2). Calculate the area of the rectangle cut from the 

patterns by multiplying length by width and record as Area (A) in centimeters or square 

inches.

 For metric units – calculate the area of the original skin being checked as 

follows:

W1/W2 x A = Skin Area in cm2

/100 = Area in dm2

 For inch-pound units – calculate the area of the original skin being checked as 

follows:

W1/W2 x A = Skin Area in in2/144 = Area ft2

Evaluation of Results

Compute the average error for the sample and follow the procedures in Section 2.3. “Basic Test 

Procedure – Evaluating Results” to determine lot conformance.

The MAV for area declarations on chamois is 3 % of the labeled area as specified in Appendix A, 

Table 2-8. “Maximum Allowable Variations for Packages Labeled by Length, (Width), or Area”.
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix G – Handbook 133, Appendix A. Tables

L&R - G103

Appendix A. Tables

Table 1-1. Agencies Responsible for Package Regulations and Applicable Requirements

Commodity Responsible Agency NIST Handbook 133 

Sampling Plans

Table of Maximum 

Allowable Variations

Meat and Poultry

U.S. Department of 

Agriculture/Food Safety 

and Inspection Service 

and state and local 

weights and measures.

1. Use Table 2-1. 

Sampling Plans for 

Category A to test 

packages at other than 

point of pack.

2. Use Table 2-2. 

Sampling Plans for 

Category B to test 

packages in federally 

inspected meat and 

poultry plants.

Table 2-9. U.S. 

Department of 

Agriculture, Meat and 

Poultry, Groups and 

Lower Limits for 

Individual Packages

Foods, drugs, and 

cosmetics subject to the 

Food, Drug, and 

Cosmetic Act including 

those packaged at the 

retail store level that have 

been in interstate 

commerce (e.g., seafood) 

or those made with 

ingredients that have 

been in interstate 

commerce

U.S. Food and Drug 

Administration and state 

and local weights and 

measures

http://www.fda.gov

Use Table 2-1. Sampling 

Plans for Category A to 

test packages at all 

locations.

Table 2-5. MAVs for 

Packages Labeled by 

Weight

Table 2-6. MAVs for 

Packages Labeled by 

Liquid or Dry Volume

Table 2-7. MAVs for 

Packages Labeled by 

Count

Table 2-8. MAVs for 

Packages Labeled by 

Length (Width) or 

Area

Table 2-10. Exceptions 

to the MAVs for 

Textiles, Polyethylene 

Sheeting and Film, 

Mulch and Soil 

Labeled by Volume, 

Packaged Firewood, 

and Packages Labeled 

Food products not subject 

to the Federal Food, 

Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 

including meat and 

poultry products 

packaged at the retail 

store level

State and local weights 

and measures

http://www.nist.gov/owm

Non-food Consumer 

Products

Federal Trade 

Commission

http://www.ftc.gov

Non-food Consumer and 

Non-consumer Products

State and local weights 

and measures
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix G – Handbook 133, Appendix A. Tables

L&R - G104

Table 1-1. Agencies Responsible for Package Regulations and Applicable Requirements

Commodity Responsible Agency NIST Handbook 133 

Sampling Plans

Table of Maximum 

Allowable Variations

Alcohol and Tobacco 

Products

U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, 

Tobacco, and Firearms 

and state and local 

weights and measures

http://www.atf.treas.gov

by Count with Less 

than 50 Items

Pesticides

U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency and 

state and local weights 

and measures

http://www.epa.gov
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix G – Handbook 133, Appendix A. Tables

L&R - G105

Table 2-1. Sampling Plans for Category A

1 2 3 4 5 6

Inspection Lot

Size

Sample

Size

Sample 

Correction

Factor

Number of 

Minus Package 

Errors Allowed 

to Exceed the 

MAV *

Initial Tare Sample Size **

Glass and 

Aerosol 

Packages

All Other 

Packages

1 1 Apply MAV

0* 2 2

2 2 8.984

3

5

3 2.484

4 4 1.591

5 5 1.241

6

2

6 1.050

7

49

7 0.925

8 8 0.836

9 9 0.769

10 10 0.715

11 11 0.672

12 to 250 12 0.635

251 to 3 200 24 0.422 3 More than 3 200 48 0.2910 1*

* For mulch and soils packaged by volume, see Table 2-10. Exceptions to the Maximum Allowable 

Variations – 1 package may exceed the MAV for every 12 packages in the sample.

** If sample size is 11 or fewer, the initial tare sample size and the total tare sample size is 2 samples.

(Amended 2001)

Table 2-2. Sampling Plans for Category B

For Use In USDA-Inspected Meat and Poultry Plants Only

1 2 3 4

Inspection Lot Size Sample Size Initial Tare Sample 

Size

Number of Packages 

Allowed to Exceed the MAVs 

in Table 2-9

250 or Fewer 10 2 0 251 or More 30 5
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix G – Handbook 133, Appendix A. Tables

L&R - G106

Table 2-3. Category A – Total Number of Packages to be Opened for Tare Determination

Numbers Include those Packages Opened for Initial Tare Sample

Ratio of Rc/Rt Total Number of Packages in Tare Sample

Sample Size 12 24 48

Initial Tare Sample Size 2 2 3 2 3

If range of tare equals “zero,” use 

Initial Tare Sample Size.

If the ratio is “zero” based on a 

“zero” range of net weight, open 

all of the packages in the sample.

2 2 3 2 3

If the ratio is greater than 0 but 

less than or equal to 0.2 12 24 24 48 48

0.21 to 0.60 12 24 24 48 48

0.61 to 0.70 12 24 24 47 47

0.71 to 0.80 12 23 23 47 47

0.81 to 1.00 12 23 23 46 46

1.01 to 1.10 11 23 23 46 46

1.11 to 1.20 11 23 23 45 45

1.21 to 1.30 11 22 22 45 45

1.31 to 1.50 11 22 22 44 44

1.51 to 1.60 11 22 22 43 43

1.61 to 1.70 11 21 21 42 42

1.71 to 1.80 10 21 21 42 42

1.81 to 1.90 10 21 21 41 41

1.91 to 2.00 10 20 20 41 41

2.01 to 2.10 10 20 20 40 40

2.11 to 2.20 10 20 20 39 39

2.21 to 2.30 10 19 19 39 39

2.31 to 2.40 9 19 19 38 38

2.41 to 2.50 9 19 19 37 37

2.51 to 2.60 9 18 18 37 37

2.61 to 2.70 9 18 18 36 36

2.71 to 2.80 9 18 18 35 35

2.81 to 2.90 9 17 17 34 34

2.91 to 3.00 8 17 17 34 34

3.01 to 3.10 8 17 17 33 33

3.11 to 3.30 8 16 16 32 32

3.31 to 3.40 8 16 16 31 31

3.41 to 3.50 8 15 15 30 30

3.51 to 3.60 7 15 15 30 30

3.61 to 3.70 7 15 15 29 29

3.71 to 3.90 7 14 14 28 28

3.91 to 4.00 7 14 14 27 27

4.01 to 4.10 7 13 13 27 27

4.11 to 4.20 7 13 13 26 26

4.21 to 4.30 6 13 13 25 25
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix G – Handbook 133, Appendix A. Tables

L&R - G107

Table 2-3. Category A – Total Number of Packages to be Opened for Tare Determination

Numbers Include those Packages Opened for Initial Tare Sample

Ratio of Rc/Rt Total Number of Packages in Tare Sample

Sample Size 12 24 48

Initial Tare Sample Size 2 2 3 2 3

4.31 to 4.40 6 12 12 25 25

4.41 to 4.60 6 12 12 24 24

4.61 to 4.70 6 12 12 23 23

4.71 to 4.80 6 11 11 23 23

4.81 to 4.90 6 11 11 22 22

4.91 to 5.00 5 11 11 22 22

5.01 to 5.10 5 11 11 21 21

5.01 to 5.10 5 11 11 21 21

5.11 to 5.20 5 10 10 21 21

5.21 to 5.40 5 10 10 20 20

5.41 to 5.60 5 10 10 19 19

5.61 to 5.70 5 9 9 19 19

5.71 to 5.80 5 9 9 18 18

5.81 to 5.90 4 9 9 18 18

5.91 to 6.10 4 9 9 17 17

6.11 to 6.20 4 8 8 17 17

6.21 to 6.50 4 8 8 16 16

6.51 to 6.70 4 8 8 15 15

6.71 to 6.80 4 7 7 15 15

6.81 to 7.00 4 7 7 14 14

7.01 to 7.20 3 7 7 14 14

7.21 to 7.40 3 7 7 13 13

7.41 to 7.60 3 6 6 13 13

7.61 to 8.00 3 6 6 12 12

8.01 to 8.20 3 6 6 11 11

8.21 to 8.50 3 5 5 11 11

8.51 to 8.80 3 5 5 10 10

8.81 to 9.00 2 5 5 10 10

9.01 to 9.30 2 5 5 9 9

9.31 to 9.70 2 4 4 9 9

9.71 to 10.40 2 4 4 8 8

10.41 to 10.90 2 4 4 7 7

10.91 to 11.30 2 3 3 7 7

11.31 to 12.50 2 3 3 6 6

12.51 to 13.20 2 3 3 5 5

13.21 to 13.90 2 2 3 5 5

13.91 to 16.00 2 2 3 4 4

16.01 to 19.10 2 2 3 3 3

19.11 to 19.20 2 2 3 2 3

Initial Tare Sample Size 2 2 3 2 3
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix G – Handbook 133, Appendix A. Tables

L&R - G108

Table 2-4. Category B – Total Number of Packages to be Opened for Tare Determination

Numbers Include those Packages Opened for Initial Tare Sample

Ratio of Rc/Rt Total Number of Packages in Tare Sample

Sample Size 10 30

Initial Tare Sample Size 2 5

If the ratio is zero, based on a 

“zero” range of tare, use Initial 

Tare

Sample Size.

If the ratio is “zero” based on a 

“zero” range of net weight, open 

all the packages in the sample.

2 5

If the ratio is greater than 0 but 

less than or equal to 0.2 10 30

0.21 to 0.40 10 29

0.41 to 0.60 10 28

0.61 to 0.80 9 26

0.81 to 1.00 8 24

1.01 to 1.20 8 23

1.21 to 1.40 7 21

1.41 to 1.60 7 19

1.61 to 1.80 6 17

1.81 to 2.00 5 15

2.01 to 2.20 5 14

2.21 to 2.40 5 13

2.41 to 2.60 4 12

2.61 to 2.80 4 11

2.81 to 3.00 4 10

3.01 to 3.20 3 9

3.21 to 3.60 3 8

3.61 to 3.80 3 7

3.81 to 4.40 2 6

If the ratio is greater than 4.40, 

use the Initial Tare Sample Size 2 5
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix G – Handbook 133, Appendix A. Tables

L&R - G109

Table 2-5. Maximum Allowable Variations (MAVs) for Packages Labeled by Weight

Do Not Use this Table for Meat and Poultry Products subject to USDA Regulations – Use Table 2-9.

For Polyethylene Sheeting and Film, see Table 2-10. Exceptions to the MAVs.

Labeled Quantity Maximum Allowable Variations

Less than 36 g, 0.08 lb, or 1.28 oz 10 % of labeled quantity

36 g or more to 54 g

0.08 lb or more to 0.12 lb

1.28 oz or more to 1.92 oz

3.6 g

0.008 lb

1

More than 54 g to 81 g

/8 oz

More than 0.12 lb to 0.18 lb

More than 1.92 oz to 2.88 oz

5.4 g

0.012 lb

3

More than 81 g to 117 g

/16 oz

More than 0.18 lb to 0.26 lb

More than 2.88 oz to 4.16 oz

7.2 g

0.016 lb

1⁄4 oz

More than 117 g to 154 g

More than 0.26 lb to 0.34 lb

More than 4.16 oz to 5.44 oz

9.0 g

0.020 lb

5

More than 154 g to 208 g

/16 oz

More than 0.34 lb to 0.46 lb

More than 5.44 oz to 7.36 oz

10.8 g

0.024 lb

3

More than 208 g to 263 g

/8 oz

More than 0.46 lb to 0.58 lb

More than 7.36 oz to 9.28 oz

12.7 g

0.028 lb

7

More than 263 g to 317 g

/16 oz

More than 0.58 lb to 0.70 lb

More than 9.28 oz to 11.20 oz

14.5 g

0.032 lb

1⁄2 oz

More than 317 g to 381 g

More than 0.70 lb to 0.84 lb

More than 11.20 oz to 13.44 oz

16.3 g

0.036 lb

9

More than 381 g to 426 g

/16 oz

More than 0.84 lb to 0.94 lb

More than 13.44 oz to 15.04 oz

18.1 g

0.040 lb

5

More than 426 g to 489 g

/8 oz

More than 0.94 lb to 1.08 lb

More than 15.04 oz to 17.28 oz

19.9 g

0.044 lb

11

More than 489 g to 571 g

/16 oz

More than 1.08 lb to 1.26 lb

21.7 g

0.048 lb

More than 571 g to 635 g

More than 1.26 lb to 1.40 lb

23.5 g

0.052 lb

More than 635 g to 698 g

More than 1.40 lb to 1.54 lb

25.4 g

0.056 lb

More than 698 g to 771 g

More than 1.54 lb to 1.70 lb

27.2 g

0.060 lb

More than 771 g to 852 g

More than 1.70 lb to 1.88 lb

29.0 g

0.064 lb

More than 852 g to 970 g

More than 1.88 lb to 2.14 lb

31.7 g

0.070 lb
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix G – Handbook 133, Appendix A. Tables

L&R - G110

Table 2-5. Maximum Allowable Variations (MAVs) for Packages Labeled by Weight

Do Not Use this Table for Meat and Poultry Products subject to USDA Regulations – Use Table 2-9.

For Polyethylene Sheeting and Film, see Table 2-10. Exceptions to the MAVs.

Labeled Quantity Maximum Allowable Variations

More than 970 g to 1.12 kg

More than 2.14 lb to 2.48 lb

35.3 g

0.078 lb

More than 1.12 kg to 1.25 kg

More than 2.48 lb to 2.76 lb

39.0 g

0.086 lb

More than 1.25 kg to 1.45 kg

More than 2.76 lb to 3.20 lb

42.6 g

0.094 lb

More than 1.45 kg to 1.76 kg

More than 3.20 lb to 3.90 lb

49 g

0.11 lb

More than 1.76 kg to 2.13 kg

More than 3.90 lb to 4.70 lb

54 g

0.12 lb

More than 2.13 kg to 2.63 kg

More than 4.70 lb to 5.80 lb

63 g

0.14 lb

More than 2.63 kg to 3.08 kg

More than 5.80 lb to 6.80 lb

68 g

0.15 lb

More than 3.08 kg to 3.58 kg

More than 6.80 lb to 7.90 lb

77 g

0.17 lb

More than 3.58 kg to 4.26 kg

More than 7.90 lb to 9.40 lb

86 g

0.19 lb

More than 4.26 kg to 5.30 kg

More than 9.40 lb to 11.70 lb

99 g

0.22 lb

More than 5.30 kg to 6.48 kg

More than 11.70 lb to 14.30 lb

113 g

0.25 lb

More than 6.48 kg to 8.02 kg

More than 14.30 lb to 17.70 lb

127 g

0.28 lb

More than 8.02 kg to 10.52 kg

More than 17.70 lb to 23.20 lb

140 g

0.31 lb

More than 10.52 kg to 14.33 kg

More than 23.20 lb to 31.60 lb

167 g

0.37 lb

More than 14.33 kg to 19.23 kg

More than 31.60 lb to 42.40 lb

199 g

0.44 lb

More than 19.23 kg to 24.67 kg

More than 42.40 lb to 54.40 lb

226 g

0.50 lb

More than 24.67 kg

More than 54.40 lb 2 % of labeled quantity

(Amended 2004)
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix G – Handbook 133, Appendix A. Tables

L&R - G111

Table 2-6. Maximum Allowable Variations for Packages Labeled by Liquid and Dry Volume

Do Not Use this Table for Meat and Poultry Products Subject to USDA Regulations

For Mulch, see Table 2-10. Exceptions to the Maximum Allowable Variations

Use Table 2-9 for USDA –Regulated Products.

Labeled Quantity Maximum Allowable Variations (MAVs)

3 mL or less

0.50 fl oz or less

0.18 in3

0.5 mL

or less

0.02 fl oz

0.03 in

More than 3 mL to 8 mL

3

More than 0.18 in3 to 0.49 in

1.0 mL

3 0.06 in

More than 8 mL to 14 mL

3

More than 0.49 in3 to 0.92 in

1.5 mL

3 0.09 in

More than 14 mL to 22 mL

3

More than 0.50 fl oz to 0.75 fl oz

More than 0.92 in3 to 1.35 in

1.7 mL

3

0.06 fl oz

0.10 in

More than 22 mL to 66 mL

3

More than 0.75 fl oz to 2.25 fl oz

More than 1.35 in3 to 4.06 in

3.8 mL

3

0.13 fl oz

0.23 in

More than 66 mL to 125 mL

3

More than 2.25 fl oz to 4.25 fl oz

More than 4.06 in3 to 7.66 in

5.6 mL

3

0.19 fl oz

0.34 in

More than 125 mL to 170 mL

3

More than 4.25 fl oz to 5.75 fl oz

More than 7.66 in3 to 10.37 in

7.3 mL

3

0.25 fl oz

0.45 in

More than 170 mL to 221 mL

3

More than 5.75 fl oz to 7.50 fl oz

More than 10.37 in3 to 13.53 in

9.1 mL

3

0.31 fl oz

0.55 in

More than 221 mL to 347 mL

3

More than 7.50 fl oz to 11.75 fl oz

More than 13.53 in3 to 21.20 in

11.2 mL

3

0.38 fl oz

0.68 in

More than 347 mL to 502 mL

3

More than 11.75 fl oz to 17.00 fl oz

More than 21.20 in3 to 30.67 in

14.7 mL

3

0.5 fl oz

0.90 in

More than 502 mL to 621 mL

3

More than 17 fl oz to 21 fl oz

More than 30.67 in3 to 37.89 in

18.6 mL

3

0.63 fl oz

1.13 in

More than 621 mL to 798 mL

3

More than 21 fl oz to 27 fl oz

More than 37.89 in3 to 48.72 in

22.1 mL

3

0.75 fl oz

1.35 in

More than 798 mL to 916 mL

3

More than 27 fl oz to 31 fl oz

More than 48.72 in3 to 55.94 in

26.0 mL

3

0.88 fl oz

1.58 in

More than 916 mL to 1.15 L

3

More than 31 fl oz to 39 fl oz

More than 55.94 in3 to 70.38 in

29 mL

3

1 fl oz

1.80 in

More than 1.15 L to 1.62 L

3

More than 39 fl oz to 55 fl oz

More than 70.38 in3 to 99.25 in

36 mL

3

1.25 fl oz

2.25 in3
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix G – Handbook 133, Appendix A. Tables

L&R - G112

Table 2-6. Maximum Allowable Variations for Packages Labeled by Liquid and Dry Volume

Do Not Use this Table for Meat and Poultry Products Subject to USDA Regulations

For Mulch, see Table 2-10. Exceptions to the Maximum Allowable Variations

Use Table 2-9 for USDA –Regulated Products.

Labeled Quantity Maximum Allowable Variations (MAVs)

More than 1.62 L to 2.04 L

More than 55 fl oz to 69 fl oz

More than 99.25 in3 to 124.5 in

44 mL

3

1.5 fl oz

2.70 in

More than 2.04 L to 2.51 L

3

More than 69 fl oz to 85 fl oz

More than 124.5 in3 to 153.3 in

51 mL

3

1.75 fl oz

3.1 in

More than 2.51 L to 3.04 L

3

More than 85 fl oz to 103 fl oz

More than 153.3 in3 to 185.8 in

59 mL

3

2 fl oz

3.6 in

More than 3.04 L to 4.73 L

3

More than 103 fl oz to 160 fl oz

More than 185.8 in3 to 288.7 in

73 mL

3

2.5 fl oz

4.5 in

More than 4.73 L to 5.48 L

3

More than 160 fl oz to 185.6 fl oz

More than 288.7 in3 to 334.9 in

88 mL

3

3 fl oz

5.4 in

More than 5.48 L to 7.09 L

3

More than 185.6 fl oz to 240 fl oz

More than 334.9 in3 to 443.1 in

103 mL

3

3.5 fl oz

6.3 in

More than 7.09 L to 8.04 L

3

More than 240 fl oz to 272 fl oz

More than 443.1 in3 to 490.8 in

118 mL

3

4 fl oz

7.2 in

More than 8.04 L to 10.17 L

3

More than 272 fl oz to 344 fl oz

More than 490.8 in3 to 620.8 in

133 mL

3

4.5 fl oz

8.1 in

More than 10.17 L to 11.59 L

3

More than 344 fl oz to 392 fl oz

More than 620.8 in3 to 707.4 in

147 mL

3

5 fl oz

9.0 in

More than 11.59 L to 16.56 L

3

More than 392 fl oz to 560 fl oz

More than 707.4 in3 to 1 010 in

177 mL

3

6 fl oz

10.8 in

More than 16.56 L to 18.92 L

3

More than 560 fl oz to 640 fl oz (5 gal)

More than 1 010 in3 into 1 155 in

207 mL

3

7 fl oz

12.6 in

More than 18.92 L to 23.65 L

3

More than 640 fl oz to 800 fl oz

More than 1 155 in3 to 1 443 in

236 mL

3

8 fl oz

14.4 in

More than 23.65 L to 26.73 L

3

More than 800 fl oz to 904 fl oz

More than 1 443 in3 to 1 631 in

266 mL

3

9 fl oz

16.2 in

More than 26.73 L

3

More than 904 fl oz

More than 1 631 in

1 % of labeled quantity

3

(Amended 2004)
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix G – Handbook 133, Appendix A. Tables

L&R - G113

Table 2-7. Maximum Allowable Variations (MAVs) for Packages Labeled by Count

Labeled Quantity Maximum Allowable Variations (MAVs)

17 or less 0

18 to 50 1

51 to 83 2

84 to 116 3

117 to 150 4

151 to 200 5

201 to 240 6

241 to 290 7

291 to 345 8

346 to 400 9

401 to 465 10

466 to 540 11

541 to 625 12

626 to 725 13

726 to 815 14

816 to 900 15

901 to 990 16

991 to 1 075 17

1 076 to 1 165 18

1 166 to 1 250 19

1 251 to 1 333 20

1 334 or more 1.5 % of labeled count rounded off to the nearest 

whole number
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix G – Handbook 133, Appendix A. Tables

L&R - G114

Table 2-8. Maximum Allowable Variations for Packages Labeled by Length, (Width), or Area

For Textiles, Polyethylene Sheeting and Film – Use Table 2-10.

Labeled Quantity Maximum Allowable Variations (MAVs)

1 m or less

1 yd or less 3 % of labeled quantity

More than 1 m to 43 m

More than 1 yd to 48 yd 1.5 % of labeled quantity

More than 43 m to 87 m

More than 48 yd to 96 yd 2 % of labeled quantity

More than 87 m to 140 m

More than 96 yd to 154 yd 2.5 % of labeled quantity

More than 140 m to 301 m

More than 154 yd to 330 yd 3 % of labeled quantity

More than 301 m to 1 005 m

More than 330 yd to 1 100 yd 4 % of labeled quantity

More than 1 005 m or 1 100 yd 5 % of labeled quantity

Maximum Allowable Variations for Packages Labeled by Area

The MAV for packages labeled by area is 3 % of labeled quantity.

For Textiles, Polyethylene Sheeting and Film, see Table 2-10. Exceptions to the MAVs.

(Amended 2004)

Table 2-9. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Meat and Poultry

Groups and Lower Limits for Individual Packages (Maximum Allowable Variations)

Definition of Group and Labeled Quantity

Lower Limit for Individual Weights 

(MAVs)

Homogenous Fluid

When Filled

(e.g., baby food or 

containers of lard)

All Other Products

Less than 85 g or 3 oz 10 % of labeled quantity

85 g or more to 453 g

3 oz or more to 16 oz

7.1 g

0.016 lb (0.25 oz)

More than 453 g

More than 16 oz

85 g or more to 198 g

3 oz to 7 oz

14.2 g

0.031 lb (0.5 oz)

More than 198 g to 1.36 kg

7 oz to 48 oz

28.3 g

0.062 lb (1 oz)

More than 1.36 kg to 4.53 kg

More than 48 oz to 160 oz

42.5 g

0.094 lb (1.5 oz)

More than 4.53 kg

More than 160 oz 1 % of labeled quantity
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix G – Handbook 133, Appendix A. Tables

L&R - G115

Table 2-10. Exceptions to the Maximum Allowable Variations for

Textiles, Polyethylene Sheeting and Film, Mulch and Soil Labeled by Volume, Packaged 

Firewood, and Packages Labeled by Count with Fewer than 50 Items

Maximum Allowable Variations (MAVs)

Polyethylene Sheeting 

and Film

Thickness

When the labeled thickness is 25 μm (1 mil or 0.001 in) or less, any 

individual thickness measurement of polyethylene film may be up to 35 % 

below the labeled thickness.

When the labeled thickness is greater than 25 μm (1 mil or 0.001 in), 

individual thickness measurements of polyethylene sheeting may be up to 

20 % less than the labeled thickness.

The average thickness of a single package of polyethylene sheeting may be 

up to 4 % less than the labeled thickness.

Weight

The MAV for individual packages of polyethylene sheeting and film shall 

be 4 % of the labeled quantity.

Textiles

The MAVs are:

For packages labeled with dimensions of 60 cm (24 in) or more:

Three percent of the labeled quantity for negative errors and 6 % of the 

labeled quantity for plus errors.

For packages labeled with dimensions less than 60 cm (24 in):

6 % of the labeled quantity for negative errors and 12 % for plus errors.

M ulch A nd Soil 

L abeled B y V olume

The MAVs are:

For individual packages: 5 % of the labeled volume.

For example: One package may exceed the MAV for every 12 packages in 

the sample (e.g., when the sample size is 12 or fewer, 1 package may 

exceed the MAV and when the sample size is 48 packages, 4 packages may 

exceed the MAV).

Packaged Firewood 

and Packages Labeled 

by Count with Fewer 

than 50 Items

MAVs are not applied to these packages.

(Amended 2004)
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix G – Handbook 133, Appendix A. Tables

L&R - G116

Table 2-11. Accuracy Requirements for Packages Labeled by Low Count (50 or Fewer) and

Packages Given Tolerances (Glass and Stemware)

1 2 3

Inspection Lot

Size

Sample 

Size

For Packages 

Labeled by Low 

Count

(50 or Fewer)

For Packages Given Tolerances

(Glasses and Stemware)

Number of 

Packages Allowed 

to Contain Less 

than the Labeled 

Count

Number of Package Errors that May Exceed 

the Allowable Difference

1 - 11 1-11 1 0

12 - 250 12 1 0

251 - 3 200 24 2 1

More than 3 200 48 3 2

(Amended 2004)
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report 

Appendix G – Handbook 133, Appendix C. Glossary

L&R - G117

Appendix C. Glossary

A

allowable difference. The amount by which the actual quantity in the package may differ from the declared 

quantity. Pressed and blown tumblers and stemware labeled by count and capacity are assigned an 

allowable difference in capacity. This is also called a tolerance.

audit testing. Preliminary tests designed to quickly identify potential noncompliance units.

average. The sum of a number of individual measurement values divided by the number of values. For 

example, the sum of the individual weights of 12 packages divided by 12 would be the average weight of 

those packages.

average error. The sum of the individual “package errors” (defined) (considering their arithmetic sign) 

divided by the number of packages comprising the sample.

average requirement. A requirement that the average net quantity of contents of packages in a “lot” equals 

the net quantity of contents printed on the label.

average tare. The sum of the weights of individual package containers (or wrappers, etc.) divided by the 

number of containers or wrappers weighed.

B

berry baskets and boxes. Disposable containers in capacities of 1 dry quart or less for berries and small 

fruits. See Section 4.46. in NIST Handbook 44.

C

Category A (Category B). A set of sampling plans provided in this handbook to use in checking packages 

that must (except when exempted) meet the “average requirement” (defined).

chamois. A natural leather made from skins of sheep and lambs that have been oil-tanned.

combination quantity declarations. A package label that contains the count of items in the package as 

well as one or more of the following: weight, measure, or size.

compliance testing. Determining package conformance using specified legal requirements.

D

decision criteria. The rules for deciding whether or not a lot conforms to package requirements based on 

the results of checking the packages in the sample.

delivery. A quantity of identically labeled product received at one time by a buyer.

dimensionless units. The integers in terms of which the official records package errors. The dimensionless 

units must be multiplied by the “unit of measure” to obtain package errors in terms of weight, length, etc.
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix G – Handbook 133, Appendix C. Glossary

L&R - G118

division, value of (d). The value of the scale division, expressed in units of mass, is the smallest 

subdivision of the scale for analog indication or the difference between two consecutively indicated or 

printed values for digital indication or printing. See NIST Handbook 44.

drained weight. The weight of solid or semisolid product representing the contents of a package obtained 

after a prescribed method for removal of the liquid has been employed.

dry measure. Rigid containers designed for general and repeated use in the volume measurement of 

particulate solids. See Section 4.45. Dry Measures in NIST Handbook 44.

dry pet food. All extruded dog and cat foods and baked treats packaged in Kraft paper bags and cardboard 

boxes that have a moisture content of 13 % or less at the time of packaging.

dry tare. See UNUSED DRY TARE.

E

error. See PACKAGE ERROR.

G

gravimetric test procedure. An analytical procedure that involves measurement by mass or weight.

gross weight. The weight of the package including contents, packing material, labels.

H

headspace. The container volume not occupied by product.

I

inch-pound units. Units based upon the yard, gallon, and the pound commonly used in the United States of 

America. Some of these units have the same name as similar units in the United Kingdom (British, English, 

or Imperial units), but they are not necessarily equal to them.

initial tare sample. The first packages (either two or five) selected from the sample to be opened for tare 

determination in the tare procedure. Depending upon the variability of these individual tare weights as 

compared with the variability of the net contents, this initial tare sample may be sufficient or more packages 

may be needed to determine the tare.

inspection lot. The collection of identically labeled (random packages, in some cases, are exempt from 

identity and labeled quantity when determining the inspection lot) packages available for inspection at one 

time. This collection will pass or fail as a whole based on the results of tests on a sample drawn from this 

collection.

L

label. Any written, printed, or graphic matter affixed to, applied to, attached to, blown into, formed, molded 

into, embossed on, or appearing upon or adjacent to a consumer commodity or a package containing any 

consumer commodity, for purposes of branding, identifying, or giving any information with respect to the 

commodity or to the contents of the package, except that an inspector’s tag or other non-promotional matter 
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report 

Appendix G – Handbook 133, Appendix C. Glossary

L&R - G119

affixed to or appearing upon a consumer commodity is not a label. See Section 2.5 in the Uniform 

Packaging and Labeling Regulation in NIST Handbook 130.

linear measures. Rulers and tape measures.

location of test. The place where the package will be examined. This is broadly defined as one of three 

general locations: (1) where the commodity was packaged, (2) a warehouse or storage location, or (3) a 

retail outlet.

lot. See INSPECTION LOT.

lot code. A series of identifying numbers and/or letters on the outside of a package designed to provide 

information such as the date and location of packaging or the expiration date.

lot size. The number of packages in the “inspection lot”.

M

MAV. See MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE VARIATION

maximum allowable variation (MAV). A deficiency in the weight, measure, or count of an individual 

package beyond which the deficiency is considered to be an “unreasonable error”. The number of packages 

with deficiencies that are greater than the MAV is controlled by the sampling procedure.

measure containers. Containers whose capacities are used to determine quantity. They are of two basic 

types: (a) retail and (b) prepackaged. Retail containers are packaged at the time of retail sale, and 

prepackaged containers are packaged in advance of sale. An example of a prepackaged measure container is 

an ice cream package.

metric or SI units. Units of the International System of Units as established in 1960 by the General 

Conference on Weights and Measures and interpreted or modified for the United States by the Secretary of 

Commerce. (See NIST Special Publication 814 – Metric System of Measurement; Interpretation of the SI 

for the United States and Federal Government Metric Conversion Policy)

minus or plus errors. Negative or positive deviations from the labeled quantity of the actual package 

quantities as measured. See PACKAGE ERROR.

moisture allowance. That variation in weight of a packaged product permitted in order to account for loss 

of weight due to loss of moisture during good package distribution practices. For packaged goods subject to 

moisture loss, when the average net weight of a sample is found between the labeled weight and the 

boundary of the moisture allowance, the lot is said to be in a no-decision area. Further information is 

required to determine lot compliance or noncompliance.

mulch. Any product or material other than peat or peat moss for sale, or sold for primary use as a 

horticultural, above-ground dressing for decoration, moisture control, weed control, erosion control, 

temperature control, or other similar purposes.

N

net quantity or net contents. That quantity of packaged product remaining after all necessary deductions 

for tare (defined) have been made.
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix G – Handbook 133, Appendix C. Glossary

L&R - G120

nominal. A designated or theoretical size that may vary from the actual.

nominal gross weight. The sum of the nominal tare weight (defined) plus the declared or labeled weight 

(or other labeled quantity converted to a weight basis).

P

package error. The difference between the actual net contents of an individual package as measured and 

the declared net contents on the package label; minus (-) for less than the label and plus (+) for more than 

the label.

packaged goods. Product or commodity put up in any manner in advance of sale suitable for either 

wholesale or retail sale.

petroleum products. Gasoline, diesel fuel, kerosene, or any product (whether or not such a product is 

actually derived from naturally occurring hydro-carbon mixtures known as “petroleum”) commonly used in 

powering, lubricating, or idling engines or other devices, or labeled as fuel to power camping stoves or 

lights. Sewing machine lubricant, camping fuels, and synthetic motor oil are “petroleum products” for the 

purposes of this regulation. The following products are not “petroleum products”: brake fluid, copier 

machine dispersant, antifreeze, cleaning solvents, and alcohol.

plus errors. See MINUS OR PLUS ERRORS

principal display panel or panels. Part(s) of a label that are designed to be displayed, presented, shown, or 

examined under normal and customary conditions of display and purchase. Wherever a principal display 

panel appears more than once on a package, all requirements pertaining to the “principal display panel” shall 

pertain to all such “principal display panels.” See Section 2.7 in the Uniform Packaging and Labeling 

Regulation in NIST Handbook 130.

production lot. The total collection of packages defined by the packager, usually consisting of those 

packages produced within a given unit of time and coded identically.

pycnometer. A container of known volume used to contain material for weighing so that the weight of a 

known volume may be determined for the material. If it is constructed, it is called a density cup.

R

random pack. The term “random package” shall be construed to mean a package that is one of a lot, 

shipment, or delivery of packages of the same consumer commodity with varying weights which means, 

packages of the same consumer commodity with no fixed pattern of weight.

random sampling. The process of selecting sample packages such that all packages under consideration 

have the same probability of being selected. An acceptable method of random selection is to use a table of 

random numbers.

range. The difference between the largest and the smallest of a set of measured values.

reasonable variation. An amount by which individual package net contents are allowed to vary from the 

labeled net contents. This term is found in most federal and state laws and regulations governing packaged 
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report 

Appendix G – Handbook 133, Appendix C. Glossary

L&R - G121

goods. Reasonable variations from the labeled declaration are recognized for (1) unavoidable deviations in 

good manufacturing practice, and (2) loss or gain of moisture in good distribution practice.

rounding. The process of omitting some of the end digits of a numerical value and adjusting the last 

retained digit so that the resulting number is as near as possible to the original number.

S

sample. A group of packages taken from a larger collection of packages and providing information that can 

be used to make a decision concerning the larger collection of packages or of the package production 

process. A sample provides a valid basis for decision only when it is a random sample (defined).

sample correction factor. Students' " t" value for a one sided test at the 3 % confidence level and n is 

the sample size. The factor as computed is the ratio of the 97.5th quantile of the student’s 

t-distribution with (n-1) degrees of freedom and the square root of n where n is the sample size.

sample error limit (SEL). A statistical value computed by multiplying the sample standard deviation times 

the sample correction factor from Column 3 of Table 2-1. Category A – Sampling Plans for the appropriate 

sample size. The SEL value allows for the uncertainty between the average error of the sample and the 

average error of the inspection lot with an approximately 97.5 % level of confidence.

sample size (n). The number of packages in a sample.

sampling plan. A specific plan that states the number of packages to be checked and the associated 

decision criteria.

scale tolerance. The official value fixing the limit of allowable error for weighing equipment as defined in 

NIST Handbook 44.

seat. (as in “seat diameter” or “seated capacity”). The projection or shoulder near the upper rim of a cup or 

container that is designed to serve as the support for a lid or cover.

seated capacity. The capacity of a cup, container, or bottle, as defined by the volume contained by them 

when the lid or a flat disc is inserted into the lid groove that is located inside and near the upper rim of the 

cup, container, or bottle.

SEL. See SAMPLE ERROR LIMIT.

shipment. A quantity of identically labeled product (except for lot code) sent at one time to a single 

location.

slicker plate. A flat plate, usually of glass or clear plastic composition, used to determine the “level full” 

condition of a capacity (volumetric) measure.

standard deviation. A measure to describe the scatter of the individual package contents around the mean 

contents.

standard pack. That type of package in which a commodity is put up with identical labels and only in 

certain specific quantity sizes. Examples of goods so packed are canned, boxed, bottled and bagged foods, 

and over-the-counter drugs.
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix G – Handbook 133, Appendix C. Glossary

L&R - G122

supplementary quantity declarations. The required quantity declaration may be supplemented by one or 

more declarations of weight, measure, or count, such declaration appearing other than on a principal display 

panel. Such supplemental statement of quantity of contents shall not include any terms qualifying a unit of 

weight, measure, or count that tends to exaggerate the amount of commodity contained in the package 

(e.g., “giant” quart, “full” gallon, “when packed,” “minimum,” or words of similar import). See 

Section 6.12 in the Uniform Packaging and Labeling Regulation in NIST Handbook 130.

T

tare sample. The packages or packaging material used to determine the average tare weight.

tare sample size. The number of packages or packaging material units used to determine the average tare 

weight.

tare weight. The weight of a container, wrapper, or other material that is deducted from the gross weight to 

obtain the net weight.

tolerance. A value fixing the limit of allowed departure from the labeled contents; usually presented as a 

plus (+) and minus (-) value.

U

unit of measure. An increment of weight, length, or volume so that an inspector may record package errors 

in terms of small integers. (The package errors are actually the integers multiplied by the unit of measure.)

unreasonable errors. Minus package errors that exceed the MAV (defined). The number of unreasonable 

errors permitted in a sample is specified by the sampling plan.

unused dry tare. All unused packaging materials (including glue, labels, ties, etc.) that contain or enclose a 

product. It includes prizes, gifts, coupons, or decorations that are not part of the product.

used dry tare. Used tare material that has been air dried, or dried in some manner to simulate the unused 

tare weight. It includes all packaging materials that can be separated from the packaged product, either 

readily (e.g., by shaking) or by washing, scraping, ambient air drying, or other techniques involving more 

than “normal” household recovery procedures, but not including laboratory procedures like oven drying. 

Labels, wire closures, staples, prizes, decorations, and such are considered tare. It is not the same as “wet 

tare.” See also “wet tare.”

V

volumetric measures. Standard measuring flasks, graduates, cylinders, for use in measuring volumes of 

liquids.

W

wet tare. Used packaging materials when no effort is made to reconstruct unused tare weight by drying out 

the absorbent portion (if any) of the tare.
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report 

Appendix G – Handbook 133, Appendix E. Model Inspection Report Forms

L&R - G123

Appendix E. Model Inspection Report Forms

Report Form Page

Random Inspection Report E-2

Random Package Inspection Report - Example E-3

Standard Package Inspection Report E-4

Standard Inspection Report - Example E-5
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix G – Handbook 133, Appendix E. Model Inspection Report Forms

L&R - G124

Date

Random Package Report Sampling Plan  A  B Report Number

Location (name, address) Product/Brand Identity Manufacturer Container Description

Lot Codes

1. Labeled Quantity –

enter weight for each 

package in column 1 

below.

2. Unit of Measure 3. MAV – look up the MAV for each package with a 

minus error, convert it to dimensionless units

and enter this value in Column 4 below.

5. Inspection Lot 

Size 

6. Sample Size (n)

7. Initial Tare Sample 

Size

8. No. of MAVs Allowed 9. Range of Package 

Errors (Rc)

10. Range of Tare Weights 

(Rt)

11. Rc/Rt (9)10 = ) 12. Total No. of Tare 

Samples

13. Avg. Tare Wt  Used Dry Tare  Wet Tare  Unused Dry Tare 13a.  Tare Correction

  Moisture Allowance

14. Nominal Gross Wt

(Labeled Wt + 13 – 13a)

Pkg 1 Pkg 2 Pkg 3 Pkg 4 Pkg 5 Pkg 6 Pkg 7 Pkg 8 Pkg 9 Pkg 10

a. Gross Wt

b. Tare Wt

 c. Net Wt

d. Package Error

 Product Description, Lot Code, Unit Price Money Errors 1. Labeled Net Weight Package Errors 4. MAV - + - +

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

Totals

15. Total Error 16. No. of unreasonable minus errors 

(compare each package error with the 

MAV in Col 4)

17. Is 16 greater than 8?

 Yes, Lot Fails 

 No, go to 18

18. Avg. error in 

dimensionless units 

(15 ) 6 =) 

19. Avg. error in labeled 

units (18 x 2 =)

20. Is 18 Zero or Plus?

 Yes, lot passes, go to 25 

 No, go to 21

21. Compute Sample 

Standard Deviation

22. Sample Correction Factor 23. Compute Sample Error Limit (21 x 22 =)

24. Disregarding the signs, is 18 larger than 23?

  Yes, Lot Fails, go to 25  No, Lot Passes, go to 25

 

25. Disposition of Inspection Lot

  Approved  Rejected 

 

Comments Official’s Signature

Acknowledgement of Report
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report 

Appendix G – Handbook 133 – Appendix E – Model Inspection Reports

L&R - G125

Date

September 16, 1999 Random Package Report - Example Form Sampling Plan  A  B Report Number 17

Location (name, address)

L&O Market

MacCorkle Ave

Charleston, WV 25177

Product/Brand Identity

 Ground Chuck

Manufacturer

Meat Department – L&O Market

Container Description

2S Tray with soaker and 

plastic wrap Lot Codes

 1, 19, 99

1. Labeled Quantityenter weight for each 

package in the column 1 

below. 

2. Unit of Measure

 

 0.001 lb

3. MAV – look up the MAV for each package with a 

minus error, convert it to dimensionless units

and enter this value in Column 4 below.

5. Inspection Lot 

Size 

 23

6. Sample Size (n)

 12

7. Initial Tare Sample 

Size

 2 

8. No. of MAVs Allowed

 0

9. Range of Package 

Errors (Rc)

 10

10. Range of Tare Weights 

(Rt)

 1

11. Rc/Rt (9)10 = )

 10

12. Total No. of Tare 

Samples

 2

13. Avg. Tare Wt  Used Dry Tare  Wet Tare  Unused Dry Tare

 0.0205 lb

13a.  Tare Correction 

  Moisture Allowance N/A

14. Nominal Gross Wt

(Labeled Wt + 13 – 13a)

Label Wt + 0.020 lb 

Pkg 1 Pkg 2 Pkg 3 Pkg 4 Pkg 5 Pkg 6 Pkg 7 Pkg 8 Pkg 9 Pkg 10

a. Gross Wt 1.852 lb 1.223 lb

b. Tare Wt

 

0 .020 lb 0 .021 lb

c. Net Wt 1.832 lb 1.202 lb

d. Package Error

 (a – 14 = ) -18 -8

Product Description, Lot Code, Unit Price Money Errors 1. Labeled Net Weight Package Errors 4. MAV 

- + - +

1. Ground Chuck - 1, 19, 99 - $1.79 per lb 1.85 lb 18

2. 1.21 lb 7

3. 1.56 lb 8

4. 1.98 lb 14

5. $ 0.04 1.07 lb 23 44

6. 1.55 lb 16

7. 1.02 lb 2

8. $ 0.04 1.44 lb 25 56

9. 1.33 lb 16

10. 2.03 lb 20 70

11. 1.73 lb 14

12. 1.16 lb 11

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

 Totals 174

15. Total Error

 - 174

16. No. of unreasonable minus errors 

(compare each package error with 4)

 0

17. Is 16 greater than 8?

 Yes, Lot Fails 

 No, go to 18

18. Avg. error in 

dimensionless units 

(15 ) 6 =) - 14.5

19. Avg. error in labeled 

units (18 x 2 =) 

 - 0.014 lb

20. Is 18 = Zero or Plus? 

 Yes, lot passes, go to 25 

 No, go to 21

21. Compute Sample 

Standard Deviation

 

 6.721

22. Sample Correction Factor

 

 

 0.635

23. Compute Sample Error Limit (21 x 22 =)

 

 4.267

24. Disregarding the signs, is 18 larger than 23?

  Yes, Lot Fails, go to 25  No, Lot Passes, go to 25

25. Disposition of Inspection Lot

  Approved  Rejected

Comments: 

Product found to contain less than the stated net contents

Official’s Signature

Acknowledgement of Report
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix G – Handbook 133, Appendix E. Model Inspection Report Forms

L&R - G126

Date Standard Package Report Sampling Plan  A  B Report Number

Location (name, address) Product/Brand Identity Manufacturer Container Description

Lot Codes

1. Labeled Quantity 2. Unit of Measure 3. MAV 4. MAV (dimensionless units) (3 ) 2 =) 5. Inspection Lot 

Size 

6. Sample Size (n)

7. Initial Tare Sample 

Size

8. No. of MAVs Allowed 9. Range of Package 

Errors (Rc)

10. Range of Tare Weights 

(Rt)

11. Rc/Rt (9)10 =) 12. Total No. of Tare 

Samples

13. Avg. Tare Wt  Used Dry Tare Wet Tare  Unused Dry Tare 13a.  Tare Correction 

  Moisture Allowance 

  Vacuum Pack

14. Nominal Gross Wt 

(1 + 13 – 13 a =)

Pkg 1 Pkg 2 Pkg 3 Pkg 4 Pkg 5 Pkg 6 Pkg 7 Pkg 8 Pkg 9 Pkg 10

a. Gross Wt

b. Tare Wt

 c. Net Wt

- + - + - + - +

1. 13. 25. 37.

2. 14. 26. 38.

3. 15. 27. 39.

4. 16. 28. 40.

5. 17. 29. 41.

6. 18. 30. 42.

7. 19. 31. 43.

8. 20. 32. 44.

9. 21. 33. 45.

10. 22. 34. 46.

11. 23. 35. 47.

12. 24. 36. 48.

Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total

15. Total Error 16. No. of unreasonable minus errors (compare each 

package error with 4) 

17. Is 16 greater than 8?

 Yes, lot fails

 No, go to 18 

18. Avg. error in 

dimensionless units 

(15 ) 6 =) 

19. Avg. error in labeled 

units (18 x 2 =)

20. Is 18 = Zero or Plus?

 Yes, lot passes, go to 25 

 No, go to 21

21. Compute Sample 

Standard Deviation

22. Sample Correction Factor 23. Compute Sample Error Limit (21 x 22 =)

24. Disregarding the signs, is 18 larger than 23?

  Yes, lot fails, go to 25  No, lot passes, go to 25

25. Disposition of Inspection Lot

  Approved  Rejected

Comments: Official’s Signature

Acknowledgement of Report
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report 

Appendix G – Handbook 133 – Appendix E – Model Inspection Reports

L&R - G127

Date 

January 20, 1999 Standard Package Report - Sample 

Form

Sampling Plan:  A  B Report Number

 16

Location (name, address)

Volunteer Market

18765 Alcoa Highway

Knoxville, Tennessee 

37920

Product/Brand Identity

Community Group Cookies (Thin Mints)

Manufacturer

ABC Cookies Inc

1069 Capitol Avenue

Nashville, Tennessee 37204

Container Description

Cardboard Box / Plastic Liner

Lot Codes

 April 1998 A&B

1. Labeled Quantity

 453 g (1 lb)

2. Unit of Measure

 0.001 lb

3. MAV

 0 .044 lb

4. MAV (dimensionless units) 

(3 ) 2 =)

 44

5. Inspection Lot 

Size

 172

6. Sample Size (n)

 12

7. Initial Tare 

Sample Size

 2

8. No. of MAVs Allowed 

 0

9. Range of Package 

Errors (Rc)

 24

10. Range of Tare 

Weights (Rt)

 2

11. Rc/Rt 

(9)10 = )

 12

12. Total No. of Tare Samples

 2

13. Avg. Tare Wt  Used Dry Tare  Wet Tare  Unused Dry Tare 

 0 .014 lb

13a.  Tare Correction

  Moisture Allowance

  Vacuum Pack N/A

14. Nominal Gross Wt

(1 + 13 – 13 a =)

 1.014 lb

Pkg 1 Pkg 2 Pkg 3 Pkg 4 Pkg 5 Pkg 6 Pkg 7 Pkg 8 Pkg 9 Pkg 10

a. Gross Wt 1.052 lb 1.026 lb

b. Tare Wt

 

0.015 lb .013 lb

c. Net Wt 1.037 lb 1.013 lb

- + - + - + - +

1. 38 13. 25. 37.

2. 12 14. 26. 38.

3. 8 15. 27. 39.

4. 4 16. 28. 40.

5. 3 17. 29. 41.

6. 2 18. 30. 42.

7. 12 19. 31. 43.

8. 3 20. 32. 44.

9. 4 21. 33. 45.

10. 1 22. 34. 46.

11. 0 23. 35. 47.

12. 6 24. 36. 48.

Total 9

 

Total 84 Total Total Total Total Total Total

15. Total Error

 

 + 75

16. No. of unreasonable minus errors (compare 

each package error with 4) 

 0

17. Is 16 greater than 8?

 Yes, lot fails

 No, go to 18

18. Avg. error in 

dimensionless units. 

(15 ) 6 =)

 + 6.25

19. Avg. error in 

labeled units (18 x 2 =)

 + 0.006 lb

20. Is 18 = Zero or Plus?

 Yes, lot passes, go to 25 

 No, go to 21

21. Compute Sample 

Standard Deviation

22. Sample Correction Factor 23. Compute Sample Error Limit (21 x 22 =)

24. Disregarding the signs, is 18 larger than 23?

  Yes, lot fails, go to 25  No, lot passes

25. Disposition of Inspection Lot

  Approved  Rejected

Comments:

Lot Passes

Official’s Signature

Acknowledgement of Report
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix G – Handbook 133, Appendix E. Model Inspection Report Forms

L&R - G128

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix H – Letter from International Ice Cream Association

L&R - H1

Appendix H

Letter Submitted from the International Ice Cream Association to the

Food and Drug Administration
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix H – Letter from International Ice Cream Association

L&R - H2

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix H – Letter from International Ice Cream Association

L&R - H3
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix H – Letter from International Ice Cream Association

L&R - H4
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix I – FDA Decision on Pelletized Ice Cream

L&R - I1

Appendix I

FDA Decision on Pelletized Ice Cream

(Letter Dated April 17, 2009)
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix I – FDA Decision on Pelletized Ice Cream

L&R - I2

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix I – FDA Decision on Pelletized Ice Cream

L&R - I3
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix I – FDA Decision on Pelletized Ice Cream

L&R - I4
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix I – FDA Decision on Pelletized Ice Cream

L&R - I5
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix I – FDA Decision on Pelletized Ice Cream

L&R - I6
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix J – A Proposed Method of Sale and Quality Specification for Hydrogen Vehicle Fuel

L&R - J1

Appendix J

U.S. National Work Group for the

Development of Commercial Hydrogen Measurement Standards

Fuel Specifications Subcommittee (FSS)

A Proposed Method of Sale and Quality Specification

for Hydrogen Vehicle Fuel
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix J – A Proposed Method of Sale and Quality Specification for Hydrogen Vehicle Fuel

L&R – J2

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix J – A Proposed Method of Sale and Quality Specification for Hydrogen Vehicle Fuel

L&R - J3

U.S. National Work Group for the

Development of Commercial Hydrogen Measurement Standards

Fuel Specifications Subcommittee (FSS)

A Proposed Method of Sale and Quality Specification

for Hydrogen Vehicle Fuel

Summary of Current Information

The Chairman of the FSS is: Robert W. Boyd

Linde North American, Inc.

a. Initially the proposed method of sale and quality specification for hydrogen vehicle fuel was 

presented at the Western (WWMA) and Southern (SWMA) Weights and Measures Association 

Annual Meetings in the fall of 2008. The proposal was adopted with a recommendation that it be 

submitted as an Informational item on the National Conference of Weights and Measures 

(NCWM) Laws and Regulations agenda at the 2009 Interim Meeting which was held 

January 11 - 14, 2009 in Daytona Beach, Florida. This item was also presented at the two 

remaining regions, the Central (CWMA) and Northeastern (NEWMA), Annual Conferences in 

the spring of 2009. The proposal was again presented at the 2009 NCWM Annual Conference, 

held July 12 - 16, 2009 in San Antonio, Texas.

b. The recommendations of the FSS based on the subcommittee’s April 2009 review of the proposed 

method of sale for hydrogen engine fuel are:

i. The FSS agreed to use the current proposal as a foundation for the fuel quality standard 

for hydrogen. The FSS will continue to consider further refinement of the definitions for 

hydrogen vehicle fuel based on input from SAE should they be deemed necessary to 

finalize the standard.

The FSS noted that FTC’s Fuel Rating Rule (16 CFR Part 309) see the requirements in “Labeling of 

Alternative Fuels” (http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/business/autos/bus29.shtm) requires dispensers to bear a 

declaration of minimum hydrogen content determined according to the test methods described in 

“Standard Test Method for Analysis of Natural Gas by Gas Chromatography (ASTM D1946-90).

ii. The FSS further modified the proposed HB 130 language to recognize the language in 

16 CFR Part 309.15 Posting of non-liquid alternative vehicle fuel rating.

Section I. Prologue

The discussion paper that follows “The Starting Point: A Discussion Paper Describing a Proposed 

Method of Sale and Quality Specification for Hydrogen Vehicle Fuel originally published in June 2008. 

The corresponding proposals are for the method of sale and fuel quality.

This paper describes proposals for a uniform method of sale and fuel quality specifications on hydrogen 

vehicle fuels that are under development by the USNWG Fuel Specifications Subcommittee (FSS). The 

purpose of this document is to organize, focus, and record the work of the FSS. Participation in the work 

of the subcommittee is open to anyone intending to make a positive contribution to the process.
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix J – A Proposed Method of Sale and Quality Specification for Hydrogen Vehicle Fuel

L&R - J4

The States have always had a leadership role in establishing and enforcing the laws and regulations for 

legal metrology and fuel quality in the United States. The goal of this effort is to develop proposals for 

inclusion in NIST Handbook 130 “Uniform Laws and Regulations in the areas of Legal Metrology and 

Engine Fuel Quality”1 which is a source for model laws that the States use in developing their legal 

requirements. Some states adopt the regulations in that handbook by reference or citation in law, and this 

approach has provided national uniformity in regulation of a number of significant issues including 

packaging and labeling, net quantity of contents, and fuel quality.

The FSS includes hydrogen producers, dispenser and component manufacturers, weights and measures, 

air resource, and fuel quality officials and other interested parties. This document is presented to invite 

comments from automotive and fuel cell manufacturers, marketers, weights and measures and other state 

officials and other experts who certainly will have questions, concerns, and suggestions as these proposals 

are developed in the National Conference of Weights and Measures – Laws and Regulations Committee.

The members of the FSS recognize that when small groups develop standards for emerging technologies 

it is impossible to be knowledgeable about all aspects of a subject which is, by its nature, changing even 

as a meeting takes place or a report of its progress is being composed. With this in mind please review 

this document and contribute your knowledge, understanding, and ideas to this effort.

Section II. Method of Sale and Fuel Quality Standard

Participants at the first FSS meeting in March 2008 considered a proposal for a Method of Sale for 

Hydrogen Fuel that was prepared by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Recent 

FSS work to update the proposed Method of Sale requirements are presented in Section 2. below. Also 

discussed was the need for a quality standard. The basis for that discussion was the proposed Hydrogen 

Fuel Standard developed by the California Department of Food and Agriculture; Division of 

Measurement Standards (CDFA/DMS) contained in a March 3, 2008, regulatory notice.2

 The FSS 

recognizes and commends the State of California for sharing its knowledge and experience in providing a 

starting point for a national standard for hydrogen fuel. This document should be interpreted as neither an 

endorsement nor criticism of the CDFA/DMS proposal by either the FSS or NIST unless otherwise stated. 

For the most recent FSS updates on the fuel quality proposal refer to Section III.

Uniform Method of Sale for Hydrogen Vehicle Fuel

Defining a legal requirement for a uniform method of sale for commodities is the most practical and 

efficient way that weights and measures uses to ensure that consumers can make value comparisons 

between competing sellers of the same commodity. The purpose is to ensure that their purchasing 

decisions enable them to obtain the greatest value for their money. A uniform method of sale also ensures 

that sellers advertise and deliver a commodity using a single unit of measurement so comparisons can be 

quick and simple. Typically commodities (e.g., gasoline, diesel fuel, food, milk, wine, sand and gravel, 

and others) are sold by weight, measure (volume or dimensions, including area), or count.

Establishing a method of sale for any product is a critical first step in the development of a fair and 

competitive marketplace for any commodity especially one that is just emerging and for which there is 

not a traditional method of sale for the commodity on which to build. History has shown that when 

 1 See the 2009 Edition of NIST HB 130 at http://www.nist.gov/owm

2 Available at http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/dms/hydrogenfuel/hydrogenfuel.html
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix J – A Proposed Method of Sale and Quality Specification for Hydrogen Vehicle Fuel

L&R - J5

products are introduced into the marketplace without a legally defined standard, confusion and unfair 

competitive practices can quickly evolve and potentially harm the consumer’s perception of the product 

and business reputation of the seller.

The need for a method of sale was stated in the 2005 “Hydrogen Delivery Technology Roadmap”3 which 

called on retailers and appropriate government agencies to establish a legal unit of measurement for 

hydrogen (see endnotei

The FSS recommends that all retail sales of hydrogen vehicle fuel be by mass using the 

kilogram as the unit of measurement.

for more discussion).

The industry’s pre-market practice has been to dispense hydrogen using the kilogram as the unit of 

measurement. The use of mass was strongly favored by the FSS participants who agreed that it should be 

the basis for retail commercial transactions. By requiring use of the kilogram as the unit of measurement 

for all retail dispensers consumers can make value comparisons between competing retailers. Dispensing 

hydrogen by mass using the kilogram is specified in Section 2.4.2. Indications of OIML R 139 

“Compressed Gaseous Fuel Measuring Systems for Vehicles” (Edition 2007) and is the method of sale 

used in other countries so the U.S. method of sale will be consistent with that used in the global 

marketplace. As this fuel becomes fully commercialized, consumers considering the lease or purchase of 

a hydrogen vehicle will need to learn the fueling process for their hydrogen vehicle and be educated that 

their fuel purchases will be made on the basis of mass using the kilogram. The FSS considered, but does 

not support a gasoline gallon equivalent (GGE) units for use in retail commercial sales (see endnote ii).

This proposal presents the kilogram as the unit of measurement to be used in commercial sales. (See 

Figure 1 [pg 5] for an example of how the unit measurement may appear on the dispenser, and see 

Figure 2 [pg 7] on how the street signs will display the unit price). The unit can be shown using the term 

“kilogram” or by use of its accepted abbreviation “kg,” which is its prescribed symbol in NIST Special 

Publication 330 – “The International System of Units (SI).”4

Nothing in the proposal should be interpreted as prohibiting the use of a Hydrogen GGE for information 

purposes to facilitate general comparisons with other fuels in advertisements and other literature. 

Consumers who are considering the lease or purchase of a hydrogen vehicle should be informed that they 

will be purchasing fuel by the kilogram and that they can make reliable value comparisons using that 

method of sale.

The FSS recommends that in retail sales “HXX” be used to represent Hydrogen vehicle fuel and the 

capital “H” precede the “XX” which represents the service pressure of the hydrogen fuel offered 

for sale (expressed in the SI unit megapascal [MPa]).

 3 Available at http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels on the Internet 4 See NIST Special Publication 330 – 2008 “The International System of Units (SI).” Ambler Thompson, Editor.
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix J – A Proposed Method of Sale and Quality Specification for Hydrogen Vehicle Fuel

L&R - J6

Product Identity

The FSS agreed to support the use of the capital letter “H” as the symbol for hydrogen instead of H2 to 

simplify product identification of Hydrogen Vehicle Fuel sold at the retail level.

Service Pressures shall be shown in the SI Unit Pascal (MPa)

Knowing the service pressure of the dispenser is a critical factor for consumers as the storage tanks on 

their vehicle is designed to be filled at one of those pressures. In addition to needing this information for 

safety and vehicle filling purposes participants at the March 2008 FSS meeting indicated that retailers 

may charge different prices depending on the delivery pressure at which the fuel is dispensed. Some 

dispensers currently are marked with service pressures in units of bar5 (e.g., 350 bar and 700 bar) or 

megapascals (MPa) which are the pressures available to service hydrogen vehicles. A few dispenser 

manufacturers use megapascal (MPa) in trade publications and in declaring dispenser delivery pressures. 

The FSS agreed that the service pressure at which the product is dispensed must be posted on the user’s 

interface of all dispensers.

While the bar is accepted for use with the International System of Units (SI), the metric system, the 

primary SI unit for pressure is the pascal (international symbol – Pa). Typical values encountered for 

dispenser of service pressures in pascals, bar and pounds are 35 MPa (350o bar) (approximately 

equivalent to 5 000 psi) and 70 MPa (700 bar) (approximately equivalent to 10 000 psi). The FSS agreed 

that in using the SI unit for pressure, the pascal would standardize industry practice and enable it to easily 

present this information in a consistent manner. It will also simplify the manner used to declare service 

pressures on dispensers, street signs, and in advertisements.

Unit Pricing in Whole Cents

The FSS also agreed that the conditions for sale, when unit pricing is based on features such as operation 

pressure, should be stated with the unit price in whole cents per kilogram in street signage to inform 

drivers of hydrogen vehicles of the service pressures available at the retailer’s fueling facility. The 

proposal does not mandate street signs, but will require that when street signs are available they must 

display the unit price and service pressure of the dispensers. The requirement is only applicable when 

retailers voluntarily post or present the price of fuel in advertisements and on street signs.

The FSS agreed the traditional practice of using decimal fractions of a cent in unit pricing in 

advertisements, the unit price, or in the calculation of total price should not be extended to sales of 

hydrogen fuel. Under the proposed method of sale that practice is prohibited (e.g., “$3.499 per kg” would 

not be permitted but “$3.49” per kg would be permitted).

 5 A bar is an atmospheric pressure defined as 100 kilopascals. See NIST Special Publication 330 – 2008 “The

International System of Units (SI).” Ambler Thompson, Editor.
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix J – A Proposed Method of Sale and Quality Specification for Hydrogen Vehicle Fuel

L&R - J7

Figure 1. Examples of the Product Identity, Measurement Unit, Unit Price, and Service Pressure on the User’s 

Interface of a Hydrogen Fuel Dispenser

Total Sale

Delivered 

Quantity 

H35

$3.70 per kg

8.635 kg

$31.95

Unit Price

35 MPa

Total Sale

Delivered 

Quantity 

H70

$3.70 per kg

8.635 kg

$31.95

Unit Price

70 MPa Service Pressure
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix J – A Proposed Method of Sale and Quality Specification for Hydrogen Vehicle Fuel

L&R - J8

A Competitive Marketplace

Figure 2 depicts how a fueling station in the marketplace might display required information. The 

purpose of the graphic is to illustrate that a uniform method of sale in a single unit of measurement and 

other requirements for posting of service delivery information will facilitate value comparison in a 

competitive marketplace and provide users with critical information. The graphics of the signage shows 

how posting the unit of measurement and service pressure provides drivers with information to permit 

them to make product and service pressure value comparisons between retailers.

H70

$3.50 kg

H35

$3.25 kg

H70

$3.70 kg

H35

$3.25 kg

H35

$3.20 kg 

Figure 2. Showing the use of the Uniform Unit of Measurement and Posting of Product Identity, and Service 

Pressure to Enable Value Comparison 

One alternative to the posting of service pressures (perhaps even unit prices) may be found in the growing 

prevalence of vehicle navigation systems and satellite information services. If drivers of hydrogen 

vehicles have access to real-time price and service pressure information through those systems and use 

them to make their purchasing decisions the current approach of using street sign pricing may not 

continue in this marketplace.
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix J – A Proposed Method of Sale and Quality Specification for Hydrogen Vehicle Fuel

L&R - J9

The FSS supports the following method of sale for petroleum:

Recommendation: The FSS supports the proposal to be included in NIST Handbook 130: Section IV: 

Uniform Regulation for Method of Sale of Commodities. The FSS presented the following 

recommendation for consideration by the 2009 NCWM Laws and Regulations Committee. This modified 

version includes a change to paragraph 2.XX.4.2 to include the units of megapascals.

Section 2. Non-food Products[Note 1, page 103]

2.XX. Retail Sales. – Hydrogen Fuel (H).

2.XX.1. Definitions – Hydrogen Fuel (H).

2.XX.1.1. Hydrogen Fuel. – A fuel composed of the chemical hydrogen intended for 

consumption in an internal combustion engine or fuel cell.

The symbol for hydrogen vehicle fuel shall be the capital letter "H" (the word 

Hydrogen may also be used.)

2.XX.2. Method of Retail Sale and Dispenser Labeling. – All hydrogen fuel kept, offered, or 

exposed for sale and sold at retail shall be in terms of the kilogram.

2.XX.3. Retail Dispenser Labeling.

2.XX.3.1. A computing dispenser must display the unit price in whole cents on the basis 

of price per kilogram.

2.XX.3.2. The service pressure(s) of the dispenser must be conspicuously shown on the 

user interface in bar or the SI Unit of Pascal (Pa) (e.g., MPa).

2.XX.3.3. The product identity must be shown in a conspicuous location on the 

dispenser.

2.XX.3.4. National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) labeling requirements also 

apply.

2.XX.3.5. Hydrogen shall be labeled in accordance with 16 CFR 309 – FTC Labeling 

Alternative Fuels.

2.XX.4. Street Sign Prices and Advertisements.

2.XX.4.1. The unit price must be in terms of price per kilogram in whole cents 

(e.g., “$3.49 per kg” not $3.499 per kg).

2.XX.4.2. The sign or advertisement must include the service pressure(s) (expressed in 

megapascals) at which the dispenser(s) delivers hydrogen fuel (e.g., H35 or H70).
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix J – A Proposed Method of Sale and Quality Specification for Hydrogen Vehicle Fuel

L&R - J10

Section III. Hydrogen Vehicle Fuel Quality Specification

The FSS will continue to develop a model regulation to specify the quality requirements for hydrogen 

vehicle fuel for addition to the Uniform Fuels and Lubricants Regulation (UFLR) in NIST Handbook 130. 

The UFLR cites ASTM International and SAE International standards for gasoline, diesel and other fuels. 

At least 11 states use that model regulation as a basis for their rules on fuel quality. As with other fuels 

the regulations in Handbook 130 will reference standards from appropriate standards organization and 

utilize the test methods authorized and referenced by those standards. The proposed regulation will likely 

include standards developed by ASTM International, SAE International, and the International 

Organization for Standardization (ISO) or other American National Standards Institute (ANSI) accredited 

organization.

The State of California is at the forefront in establishing a fuel quality standard for Hydrogen to meet a 

legislative mandate.6

 At its first meeting in March 2008, the FSS participants reviewed the 

March 3, 2008 draft developed by the California Department of Food and Agriculture’s/Division of 

Measurement Standards (CDFA/DMS) so that it could be used as a starting point in the development 

process for a national standard. This approach takes advantage of California’s expertise and because it 

has been published for comment as part of that state’s rulemaking process which means that it has 

received public review. The CDFA/DMS proposal provides an interim standard for hydrogen fuel.

Once ANSI has adopted fuel standard the CDFA/DMS is required by law to adopt that standard by 

reference. Since test procedures have not yet been finalized to measure the properties specified in the 

CDFA/DMS interim standard, that agency will adopt sampling and test procedures in regulation as they 

are developed. The agency will begin enforcement of its regulations and require compliance once sample 

and test procedures have been adopted by an accredited organization and its regulation are finalized. 

Several FSS participants reminded the group that the higher the quality of the fuel the higher its cost may 

be so the approach taken in the United States must be practical and cost effective if the commercialization 

of hydrogen vehicle fuel is to be successful.

 6 See http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/dms/hydrogenfuel/hydrogenfuel.html for more information on the California Division 

of Measurement Standards Hydrogen Fuel Program. (Viewed 4/11/08)
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix J – A Proposed Method of Sale and Quality Specification for Hydrogen Vehicle Fuel

L&R - J11

Proposed Specification for Hydrogen Fuel

The FSS identified several quality criteria where there was tentative agreement with their associated 

values and the ability to test to those values with current technology available today (see properties 6, 7, 

8, 9, 12, 14, and 16 which are highlighted in green) in the proposed Table 1. Hydrogen Fuel Quality 

Specification.

The FSS did not agree on all of the properties contained in the DMS proposal because there was either not 

enough research data or test methods available to support a decision (see properties 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 11, 

13, and 15 which are highlighted in yellow) in Table 1 below. These and perhaps other properties will 

receive further consideration by the FSS and may be added to the quality standard in the future when such 

action is supported by research.

FSS supports the proposed new definitions to be included in NIST Handbook 130 Section IV. Uniform 

Regulations Part G. Uniform Engine Fuels, Petroleum Products, and Automotive Lubricants Regulations 

Section 2. Standard Fuel Specifications to address gaseous hydrogen refueling applications.

1. Specification for Hydrogen Fuel for Internal Combustion Engines and Fuel Cells

2. Definitions

1.XX. Fuel Cell. – an electrochemical energy conversion device in which fuel and an oxidant 

react to generate energy without consumption of its electrodes or electrolyte.

1.XX. Hydrogen Fuel. – a fuel composed of the chemical hydrogen intended for consumption in 

a surface vehicle with an internal combustion engine or fuel cell.

1.XX. Internal Combustion Engine. – a device used to generate power by converting chemical 

energy bound in the fuel into mechanical work to power a vehicle.

Cite the appropriate reference for the hydrogen fuel quality standard below that was developed by the 

California Division of Measurement Standards in NIST Handbook 130 Section IV. Uniform Regulations 

Part G. Uniform Engine Fuels, Petroleum Products, and Automotive Lubricants Regulations 

Section 2. Standard Fuel Specifications as follows:
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix J – A Proposed Method of Sale and Quality Specification for Hydrogen Vehicle Fuel

L&R - J12

Table 1. Hydrogen Fuel Quality Specification*

Property Value Unit Limit Test Method(s)

1 Ammonia 0.1 ppm v/v Maximum to be specified

2 Carbon Dioxide 2 ppm v/v Maximum to be specified

3 Carbon Monoxide 0.2 ppm v/v Maximum to be specified

4 Formaldehyde 0.01 ppm v/v Maximum to be specified

5 Formic Acid 0.2 ppm v/v Maximum to be specified

6 Helium 300 ppm v/v Maximum to be specified

7 Hydrogen Fuel Index 99.97 % (a) Minimum to be specified

8 Nitrogen and Argon 100 ppm v/v Maximum to be specified

9 Oxygen 5 ppm v/v Maximum to be specified

10 Particulate Concentration 1 mg/kg Maximum to be specified

11

Total Allowable NonHydrogen, Non-Helium, 

Non-particulate constituents

100 ppm v/v Maximum to be specified

12 Total Non-Hydrogen Gases 300 ppm v/v (c) Maximum to be specified

13 Total Halogenated 

Compounds 0.05 ppm v/v Maximum to be specified

14 Total Hydrocarbons 2 ppm v/v (d) Maximum to be specified

15 Total Sulfur Compounds 0.004 ppm v/v Maximum to be specified

16 Water 5 ppm v/v Maximum to be specified

Footnotes to Table 1 –

a. Hydrogen fuel index is the value obtained with the value of total gases (%) subtracted from 100%.

b. Total Gases = Sum of all impurities listed on the table except particulates. 

c. Total Hydrocarbons may exceed 2 ppm v/v only due to the presence of methane, provided that the 

total gases do not exceed 300 ppm v/v.

* The FTC’s Fuel Rating Rule (16 CFR Part 309) see the requirements in “Labeling of Alternative Fuels” 

at http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/business/autos/bus29.shtm requires dispensers to bear an declaration 

of minimum percent of hydrogen determined according to test methods described in “Standard Test 

Method for Analysis of Natural Gas by Gas Chromatography (ASTM D1946)

The FSS will monitor national and international standard activities, research, and other programs to avoid 

duplication of effort and ensure that its work provides a fuel specification for hydrogen vehicle fuel that 

serves the needs of the this emerging marketplace. Quality standards are currently under development in 

SAE International (e.g., SAE J2719 “Hydrogen Specification Guideline for Fuel Cell Vehicles”) and in 

ASTM International (e.g., see www.astm.org for a list of the work underway in its Committee D03.14 on 

Hydrogen and Fuel Cells and that organizations other committees).

Quality standards are under consideration around the world including the European Union, Japan and 

other countries. Also of interest are the efforts of Working Group 12 of ISO’s Technical Committee 197 
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix J – A Proposed Method of Sale and Quality Specification for Hydrogen Vehicle Fuel

L&R - J13

on Hydrogen which is very active in this area.7

 ISO’s website indicates that its fuel quality standard will 

be finalized within a few years.

When a quality property and numerical value (defining a maximum or minimum limit) is added to the 

specification appropriate test methods must then be identified. As test methods are identified and adopted 

by the FSS they will be added to Column 6 in Table 1.

Future work of the FSS may include the development of recommendations for field sampling equipment 

and handling procedures, along with suggestions about what type of test equipment is appropriate for 

establishing a hydrogen vehicle fuel quality laboratory.

For Further Information or to Comment Contact:

Please send comments and suggestions concerning the proposals presented in this document to Lisa 

Warfield or Ken Butcher, Technical Advisors to the USNWG Fuel Specifications Subcommittee at 

lisa.warfield@nist.gov or (301) 975-3308 or kbutcher@nist.gov or at (301) 975-4859. Faxes may be sent 

to (301) 975-8091.

Fuel Specifications Subcommittee

U.S. National Work Group for the

Development of Commercial Hydrogen Measurement Standards

NIST Weights and Measures Division

Laws and Metric Group

100 Bureau Drive, MS 2600

Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899

 7 

http://www.iso.org/iso/standards_development/technical_committees/list_of_iso_technical_committees/iso_technica

l_committee.htm?commid=54560. (Viewed 9/2/09)
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix J – A Proposed Method of Sale and Quality Specification for Hydrogen Vehicle Fuel

L&R - J14

End Notes

 i Additional Information on the Importance of a Method of Sale – Establishing a uniform method of sale ensures 

marketplace integrity and increases consumer confidence while ensuring fair trade practice in a competitive 

marketplace. In past experience, the lack of a legal standard of sale has resulted in sellers establishing different 

methods of sale for the same product. This resulted in investments in weighing and measuring equipment and 

spending on packaging and marketing programs only to find that the units of measurement used were not 

appropriate for the commodity. Once a new standard was established existing measuring equipment, labeling, and 

sales literature had to be retrofitted or discarded. Establishing a method of sale early in the process informs the 

designers of weighing and measuring devices about how they are to design the device and the user interface. It also 

enables marketers to create sales and promotional programs for the product using a consistent unit of measurement 

throughout the system. Past experience with conflicting methods of sale has taught weights and measures and 

sellers many valuable lessons over the years. One of the most important lessons is that consumers are intelligent and 

willing to learn new methods of sale and readily accept products and services, if the information they receive from 

different sellers is informative, uniform, and accurate. Establishing a uniform method of sale will also inform 

automobile and fuel cell manufacturers about how they will need to educate consumers in sales literature and 

owners’ manuals about the fuel and how it will be measured for dispensing into the vehicles and other refueling 

applications. Decisions are needed so that as marketing and promotional ideas are being considered and developed 

the uniqueness of the fuel and dispensers can be addressed using a single unit of measurement.

ii Additional Information on the Gasoline Gallon Equivalent – A question at the FSS March 2008 meeting was 

whether the marketing of hydrogen vehicles against those that use fuels sold on the basis of a gallon would benefit 

from the establishment of a gasoline gallon equivalent (GGE). GGEs are based on energy content of fuels. GGE for 

hydrogen is mentioned in the media and government literature as 1 kg = 119,823 kilojoules (kJ) (113,571 BTU 

(lower heating value). GGE is used to compare the fuel in terms of price per gallon and to introduce hydrogen as a 

commercial vehicle fuel. This approach facilitates those comparisons as long as it is also understood that the energy 

content in a gallon of fuel varies widely with the fuel. When the GGE for Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) was 

developed as a legally defined value in the 1990’s, one reason for its adoption was to allow consumers to compare 

the cost of competing fuels on street signs and on dispensers in a unit of measurement that was comparable among 

fuels such as gasoline. Thus, consumers could determine the potential savings when choosing a vehicle capable of 

using one type of fuel over another. In 1994 the GGE was set at 2.567 kg for CNG by NCWM using the lower 

heating value of gasoline which was then given at 120,401.7 kJ (114,118.8 BTU). It should be noted that the 

adoption of the GGE for CNG was somewhat contentious. A proposal to add a Diesel Gallon Equivalent (DGE) for 

CNG is expected to be on the NCWM’s agenda in 2009.

It is difficult to make accurate comparisons between fuels because energy content varies by fuel, by region, and 

season for gasoline. Currently the Transportation Energy Data Book lists the net energy of a gallon of gasoline at 

121,753.4 kJ (115,400 BTU) and diesel as 135,785.7 kJ (128,700 BTU). Variations in energy content increase when 

gasoline is blended with Ethanol (E10 or E20) and E85 (15 % gasoline + 85 % ethanol) which contains only 

89,679.76 kJ (85,000 BTUs) according to the National Ethanol Vehicle Coalition. Hydrogen fuel, which is expected 

to come into the marketplace as a commercial fuel within the next ten years, will be competing for customers who 

have far more fuel choices than are currently available. If a GGE is considered for hydrogen the question that 

should be asked is “Would a GGE based on today’s net energy content for Hydrogen be a valid tool 10 years from 

now to compare it against gasoline, CNG, E85, diesel, and other fuels and the new electric cars expected from 

automobile manufacturers?”

Because of constant changes in energy policies and environmental concerns new fuels and blends will continue to 

emerge in the marketplace. This constant state of change impacts the validity of GGEs. One question that must be 

raised if a GGE for hydrogen is proposed is will these artificial comparison tools be periodically reviewed to ensure 

they provide an equitable means of ensuring reasonable and reliable comparisons between fuels.
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix K – Briefing by the Better Seafood Bureau

L&R - K1

Appendix K

Briefing by the Better Seafood Bureau
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix K – Briefing by the Better Seafood Bureau

L&R - K2

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix K – Briefing by the Better Seafood Bureau

L&R - K3
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix K – Briefing by the Better Seafood Bureau

L&R - K4
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix K – Briefing by the Better Seafood Bureau

L&R - K5
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix K – Briefing by the Better Seafood Bureau

L&R - K6
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix K – Briefing by the Better Seafood Bureau

L&R - K7
L&R Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix K – Briefing by the Better Seafood Bureau

L&R - K8
S&T Committee 2009 Final Report

S&T - 1 

Report of the 

Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Todd Lucas, Chairman

Ohio Department of Agriculture

Weights and Measures

Reference

Key Number

300 INTRODUCTION

This is the final report of the Committee on Specifications and Tolerances (S&T) (hereinafter referred to as the 

“Committee”) for the 94th Annual Meeting of the National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM). The 

report is based on the Interim Report offered in the NCWM Publication 16, “Committee Reports,” testimony at 

public hearings, comments received from the regional weights and measures associations and other parties, the 

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

Annual Meeting.

Table A identifies the agenda items in the report by Reference Key Number, Item Title, and Page Number. The item 

numbers are those assigned in the Interim Meeting agenda. Voting items are indicated with a “V,” or if the item was 

part of the Voting Consent calendar by the suffix “VC” after the item number. Items marked with an “I” after the 

reference key numbers are Information items. Items marked with a “D” after the key numbers are Developing 

items. The Developing designation indicates that an item, while it has merit, may not be adequately developed for 

action at the national level. Items marked “W” have been withdrawn from consideration. Items marked with a “W” 

will generally be referred to the regional weights and measures associations because they either need additional 

development, analysis, and input or did not have sufficient Committee support to bring them before NCWM. 

Table B lists the appendices to the report, Table C identifies the acronyms for organizations and technical terms used 

throughout the report, and Table D provides a summary of the results of the voting on the Committee’s items and the 

report in entirety.

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

Handbook 44, 2009 Edition, “Specifications, Tolerances, and Other Technical Requirements for Weighing and 

Measuring Devices.” Proposed revisions to the handbook are shown in bold face print by striking out information 

to be deleted and underlining information to be added. New items proposed for the handbook are designated as 

such and shown in bold face print.

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

recommendations received by the NCWM technical committees have been printed in this publication as submitted. 

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

Table A 

Index to Reference Key Items

Reference

Key Number Title of Item Page

300 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................ 1

310 GENERAL CODE............................................................................................................................................ 4

310-1 I G-S.8. Provision for Sealing Electronic Adjustable Components, G-S.8.1. Access to Calibration 

and Configuration Adjustments, and G-S.8.2. Automatic or Semi-automatic Calibration 

Mechanism........................................................................................................................................ 4

310-2 I Appendix D – Definition of Electronic Devices, Software-Based and Built-For-Purpose Device . 10

310-3 I G-S.1. Identification. – (Software)..................................................................................................12
S&T Committee 2009 Final Report

S&T - 2

310-4 W G-N.3. Verification of Testing Standards .......................................................................................21

310-5 W G-T.1. Acceptance Tolerances........................................................................................................24

320 SCALES...........................................................................................................................................................25

320-1A V S.2.1.6. Combined Zero-Tare (“0/T”) Key, Appendix D – Definitions for Tare Mechanism, and 

Tare Balancing Mechanism.............................................................................................................25

320-1B V S.2.3. Design of Balance, Tare, Level, Damping, Arresting Mechanisms, and Appendix D –

Tare-weighing Mechanism..............................................................................................................30

320-1C I S.2.3.4. through S.2.3.7. Value of Tare Indication and Recorded Representations, and 

Appendix D. Definitions for Gross Weight Value, Net Weight Value, Net Weight, Tare, and Tare 

Weight Value ..................................................................................................................................32

320-1D I S.2.4. Preset Tare Mechanism and Appendix D – Definitions for Preset Tare ..............................34

320-2 V T.N.4.6. Time Dependence (Creep) for Load Cells During Type Evaluation.................................36

320-3 I S.2.1.7. Automatic Zero-Setting Mechanism..................................................................................38

321 BELT-CONVEYOR SCALE SYSTEMS .....................................................................................................42

321-1 V UR.3.2.(c) Maintenance; Zero-Load Tests......................................................................................42

321-2 I N.3.1.4. Check for Consistency of the Conveyor Belt Along Its Entire Length .............................45

321-3 V S.1.3.1. For Scales Installed After January 1, 1986 (Value of the Scale Division).........................46

321-4 W S.1.6.1 Zero-load Indicator .............................................................................................................46

321-5 V N.2. Conditions of Tests, N.2.1. Initial Verification and N.3.2. Material Tests..............................48

321-6 V T.1.1. Tolerance Values – Test of Zero Stability ............................................................................50

321-7 V N.3.1.2. Initial Stable Zero, N.3.1.3. Test of Zero Stability and S.3.1.1. Automatic Zero-Setting 

Mechanism......................................................................................................................................52

322 AUTOMATIC BULK-WEIGHING SYSTEMS ..........................................................................................53

322-1 I S.2.1. Zero-Load Adjustment..........................................................................................................53

324 AUTOMATIC WEIGHING SYSTEMS.......................................................................................................54

324-1 I S.2.1.3. Automatic Zero-Setting Mechanism..................................................................................54

324-2A W S.2.2. Tare, S.2.2.1. Scale Interval and Capacity, S.2.2.2. Accuracy, and S.2.2.3. Damping .........55

324-2B W S.2.2.4. Combined Zero-setting and Tare-balancing Mechanisms (0/T Key).................................56

324-2C I S.2.2.4. Visibility of Operation and S.2.2.5. Subtractive Tare Mechanism ....................................57

324-2D I S.2.2.6. Consecutive Tare Operations and S.2.2.7. Indication and Printing of Weighing Results..58

324-2E I S.2.3. Preset Tare Mechanism and S.2.3.1. Indication of Operation...............................................59

330 LIQUID-MEASURING DEVICES...............................................................................................................60

330-1 I Temperature Compensation for Liquid-Measuring Devices Code..................................................60

330-2 V N.4.4. Pour and Drain Times for Hand-held Test Measures...........................................................69

330-3 I Price Posting and Computing Capability and Requirements for a Retail Motor-Fuel Dispenser 

(RMFD) ..........................................................................................................................................71

330-4 W T.5. Predominance – Retail Motor-Fuel Devices............................................................................76

331 VEHICLE-TANK METERS .........................................................................................................................79

331-1 I T.2.1. Automatic Temperature-Compensating Systems..................................................................79

331-2 V UR.2.5. Automatic Temperature Compensation for Refined Petroleum Products, UR.2.5.1. Use of 

Temperature Compensation System................................................................................................81

331-3 I UR.2.5.2.1. Automatic Temperature Compensation for Refined Petroleum Products....................85

336 WATER METERS .........................................................................................................................................86

336-1 VC S.1.1.3. Value of Smallest Unit and S.1.1.6. Proving Indicator......................................................86

336-2 W T.1.1. Repeatability.........................................................................................................................88

336-3 I N.3. Test Drafts and N.4. Testing Procedures.................................................................................91

360 OTHER ITEMS ..............................................................................................................................................97

360-1 I International Organization of Legal Metrology (OIML) Report.....................................................97

360-2 Developing Items............................................................................................................................99
S&T Committee 2009 Final Report

S&T - 3

Table B

Appendices

Appendix Title Page

A Item 360-2: Developing Items.......................................................................................................................... A1

Part 1, Item 1 Scales: S.1.4.6. Height and Definition of Minimum Reading Distance, UR.2.10. Primary 

Indicating Elements Provided by the User, UR.2.11. Minimum Reading Distance and 

Definitions of Minimum Reading Distance and Primary Indications............................................A1

Part 2, Item 1 Belt-Conveyor Scale Systems: UR.3.2.(c) Maintenance; Zero Load Tests.................................A1

Part 2, Item 2 Belt-Conveyor Scale Systems: N.3.1.4. Check for Consistency of the Conveyor Belt Along 

Its Entire Length ............................................................................................................................A1

Part 3, Item 1 Vehicle Tank Meters: T.4. Product Depletion Test .....................................................................A2

Part 4, Item 1 Farm Milk Tanks: N.5.1. Verification of Master Metering Systems ...........................................A5

Part 5, Item 1 Hydrogen: New Code: 3.3X. Draft Hydrogen Gas-Measuring Devices.....................................A6

B Comments from the NCWM ATC Steering Committee .................................................................................B1

C Water Meter Correspondence.......................................................................................................................... C1

D Jeff Humphrey’s Letter and Comments.......................................................................................................... D1

Table C

Glossary of Acronyms

AWS Automatic Weighing Systems NEWMA Northeastern Weights and Measures Association

AWWA American Water Works Association NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology

BCS Belt-Conveyor Scales NTEP National Type Evaluation Program

CC Certificate of Conformance NTETC National Type Evaluation Technical Committee

CWMA Central Weights and Measures Association NW&SA National Weighing and Sampling Association

EPO Examination Procedure Outline OEM Original Equipment Manufacturer

GS NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector Pub 14 NCWM Publication 14

GMM Grain Moisture Meters RMFD Retail Motor-Fuel Dispenser

GPMA Gasoline Pump Manufacturers Association SI International System of Units

HB 44 NIST Handbook 44 SMA Scale Manufacturers Association

HB 130 NIST Handbook 130 SWMA Southern Weights and Measures Association

LMD Liquid-Measuring Device WG Work Group

LPG Liquefied Petroleum Gas WMD NIST Weights and Measures Division

MDMD Multiple Dimension Measuring Devices WS NTETC Weighing Sector

MFM Mass Flow Meter WWMA Western Weights and Measures Association

MMA Meter Manufacturers Association USNWG NIST/OIML U.S. National Working Group

MS NTETC Measuring Sector VTM Vehicle-tank Meters

NCWM National Conference on Weights and 

Measures, Inc.

“Handbook 44” (HB 44) means the 2009 Edition of NIST Handbook 44 “Specifications, Tolerances, and Other 

Technical Requirements for Weighing and Measuring Devices”

“Handbook 130” (HB 130) means the 2009 Edition of NIST Handbook 130 “Uniform Laws and Regulations in the 

Areas of Legal Metrology and Fuel Quality”

Note: NIST does not imply that these acronyms are used solely to identify these organizations or technical topics.
S&T Committee 2009 Final Report

S&T - 4

Table D

Voting Results

Reference Key 

Number

House of State 

Representatives House of Delegates

Results

Yeas Nays Yeas Nays

Consent Calendar 38 0 41 0 Adopted

320-1A 2 37 1 30 Failed

320-1-B 0 37 1 30 Failed

330-2 38 0 32 0 Adopted

331-2 29 8 33 7 Adopted

300

(Report on its Entirety

Voice Vote)

38 0 38 0 Adopted

Details of All Items

(In Order by Reference Key Number)

310 GENERAL CODE

310-1 I G-S.8. Provision for Sealing Electronic Adjustable Components, G-S.8.1. Access to Calibration 

and Configuration Adjustments, and G-S.8.2. Automatic or Semi-automatic Calibration 

Mechanism

Source: 2008 Carryover Item 310-1. This item originated from the SWMA Committee and first appeared on the 

Committee’s 2008 agenda.

Recommendation: Amend General Code paragraph G-S.8. to clarify what is considered an effective method of 

sealing, and requirements for indicating and recording appropriate information when a device is in a metrological 

adjustment mode.

After the 2009 Interim Meeting, the Committee agreed that the proposal was not ready for a vote and consequently 

did not include proposed language in its Interim and Annual Reports. However, the Committee agreed to keep this 

item on its agenda with the expectation that proposed languages will be submitted for the 2010 Interim Meeting.

Background/Discussion: At its 2007 Annual Meeting, the SWMA received a proposal to add requirements to 

G-S.8. to assure that a device could not be sealed in the configuration mode and continue to operate normally. Such 

a condition could facilitate fraud. The proposal as submitted required that a device continuously indicate when 

access to the set-up mode was not disabled.

The changes to the original proposal made a distinction between configuring a device to either enable or disable 

external or remote access to the calibration and configuration modes and taking the device out of a normal mode of 

operation and putting it into a special mode of operation where adjustments are made to calibration and 

configuration parameters. In other words, if the internal position of a switch or jumper enables external access to the 

calibration and configuration modes, the device will operate normally until an operator takes action such as entering 

a pass code, depressing and holding down a specific key, or uses other means to enter a special operating mode to 

make adjustments to calibration and configuration parameters. The device must be equipped with an approved audit 

trail, or that a physical seal is required to be broken before any metrological adjustments to comply G-S.8. The 
S&T Committee 2009 Final Report

S&T - 5

Committee also believes that an indication for the adjustment mode of operation is only necessary for devices with 

approved category 1, 2, or 3 audit trails and that it not be operable in normal weighing or measuring operation.

The proposal as revised in 2008 stated that:

• In the case of a device with a physical security seal, the application of the seal means that the external or 

remote access that enables the calibration and configuration modes is automatically disabled.

• In the case where a device has an approved audit trail, the device would be required to clearly and 

continuously indicate on the display (and printed if equipped with a printer) that it is in a calibration mode 

and not the normal operating mode.

At the 2008 Annual Meeting, the Committee heard comments from WMD which noted that the alternate language 

submitted by SMA would require that all devices provide the operator with indications in the calibration mode. This 

would encompass mechanical and electronic devices and devices that use category 1 physical seals. Additionally, 

WMD believes that a device does not need indications that it is in a calibration or configuration mode if it is 

incapable of providing indications that can be interpreted, printed, or transmitted to a memory device as a correct 

measurement value. WMD suggested that the Committee amend the recommendation to address some of the 

concerns noted by the Central Weights and Measures Association (CWMA), NTEP participating laboratories, and 

WMD since the 2008 Interim Meeting.

The Committee agreed with the comments from the CWMA and WMD and amended paragraph G-S.8.1. to:

• delete the references to the sealing categories of device,

• clarify printing requirements, and

• include an option that the device not operate or provide metrological indications that can be interpreted, or 

transmitted into memory or to recording elements while in this mode.

Just prior to the 2008 voting session, the Committee noted that the revised language in G-S.8.1.(a) was inadvertently 

changed to where it could be literally read that the physical seal itself disabled access to the adjustment mechanisms 

instead of preventing access to the mechanism. Consequently, the Committee changed the status of the item from 

Voting to “Informational.” The Committee believed that the intent of the recommendation is to ensure that the 

access to the calibration and configuration modes is disabled.

The Committee redrafted the language in paragraph G-S.8.1. and submitted the following revised language for 

G-S.8.1. to the regional weights and measures associations for further review and consideration.

G-S.8.1. Access To Calibration and Configuration Adjustments - Electronic Devices. – An electronic device 

shall be so designed that access to calibration and configuration modes, including external and remote 

access, are only permitted when:

(a) the application of the physical security seal shall ensure that the access to the calibration and 

configuration modes is disabled, or

(b) the calibration and configuration adjustments are protected by an approved category 1, 2, or 3 audit 

trail, and the device shall clearly and continuously indicate and print, if equipped with a printer, 

that the calibration and configuration adjustment modes are enabled.

During the calibration and configuration adjustment mode, electronic devices shall either;

- not provide metrological indications that can be interpreted, or transmitted into memory, or printed 

while it is in the calibration and/or configuration adjustment mode as a correct measurement value, 

or
S&T Committee 2009 Final Report

S&T - 6

- clearly and continuously indicate that it is in the calibration and/or configuration adjustment mode 

and record such message if capable of printing in this mode.

(Nonretroactive as of January 1, 201X)

At its 2008 fall meeting, the SMA supported the intent of the item and recommends the following language:

G-S.8.1. Access to Calibration and Configuration Adjustments. – A device shall be so designed that:

(a) The application of the physical security seal shall ensure that the calibration and configuration 

modes are disabled, or

(b) The calibration and configuration adjustments are protected by an approved category 1, 2, or 3 

method of sealing, and the device shall clearly and continuously indicate and print, if equipped with 

a printer, that the calibration and configuration adjustment modes are enabled.

During the calibration and configuration adjustment mode, electronic devices shall either;

- The device shall not provide metrological indications that can be interpreted, or transmitted into 

memory, or printed while it is in the calibration and/or configuration adjustment mode as a correct 

measurement value, or

- The device shall clearly and continuously indicate that it is in the calibration and/or configuration 

adjustment mode and record such message if capable of printing in this mode.

Nonretroactive as of January 1, 201X)

(Added 201X)

During the 2009 NCWM Interim Meeting open hearing, the committee reviewed comments from the fall 2008 

Western Weights and Measures Association (WWMA), CWMA, and Northeastern Weights and Measures 

Association (NEWMA) meetings that supported the language in the Committee’s Interim Agenda and recommended 

that this item move forward as an Informational item to allow further review, comments and recommendations by 

the other regional associations, and other interested parties. 

The SWMA heard no specific recommendations for change to the proposal during its 2008 Annual Meeting open 

hearings. The SWMA heard that the SMA plans to further review the item and may have additional 

recommendations to propose for consideration. The Committee supported the changes proposed by the NCWM 

S&T Committee at the July 2008 Annual Meeting, noting that there were some comments regarding portions of the 

language that may need to be addressed. If an agreement cannot be reached on proposed changes to these 

paragraphs, the SWMA recommended that additional work is needed before the item is ready for a vote and that the 

NCWM S&T Committee may wish to consider at least incorporating interpretations and guidelines for the existing 

language in its reports. Consequently, the SWMA recommended maintaining this as an Informational item on its 

agenda.

At its 2008 fall meeting, the SMA supported the intent of the item and suggested an alternate proposal for 

consideration.

At the 2009 Interim Meeting, WMD added that it had received comments questioning how the application of a 

physical seal (as recommended by the manufacturer and listed on the Certificate of Conformance [CC]) ensures that 

the calibration and configuration modes are disabled. Specifically, what does that presence of the physical seal 

(pressure sensitive or lock and wire) do to the device that disables the calibration and configuration modes?

In considering these comments, WMD suggested that the Committee consider the following changes:

• Modify G-S.8. Provision for Sealing Electronic Adjustable Components to clarify the differences in 

requirements between physical seals and electronic seals (audit trails);
S&T Committee 2009 Final Report

S&T - 7

• Add new specifications for externally and remotely configurable devices;

• Amend G-UR.4.5. Security Seal to require the user to verify that the device is correctly configured to 

disable external configuration;

• Add definitions from the white paper on the “Metrological Requirements for Audit Trails” adopted by 

NCWM in July 1993; and

• Add a new definition for externally configurable devices.

Stephen Patoray, Consultants on Certification (CoC), LLC, related discussions from the NTETC Weighing Sector 

where it was reported that service agents were leaving scales configured with external calibration capability and then 

applying a security seal, which did not follow the manufacturer’s instructions. He also expressed concerns that the 

language proposed in the 2009 Interim Agenda would require a manufacturer to design a device where the 

application of the physical seal (e.g., lock and wire, pressure sensitive, etc.) would disable external access to the 

configuration mode. Currently, all that a physical seal does is provide an indication that the seal has been broken 

and thus leave a device subject to adjustment. He believes that the language in the proposal would force the 

manufacturer to redesign access covers to devices so that the cover disables the external adjustment capability. 

Consequently, the application of the security seal secures the cover in place and then, if broken, provides an 

indication that the device may have been adjusted.

The Committee also received a comment from Will Wotthlie, Maryland, stating that he was concerned with the 

language that requires that the physical seal “shall ensure” that external access to the configuration mode is disabled. 

He provided examples of mechanical automatic temperature compensation (ATC) element where a specially 

designed sealing pin had to be installed before the physical seal could be applied and where electronic motor-fuel 

devices have a specially designed cover plate where the closing of the cover plate disables the electronic 

configuration. The manufacturer has the option under this proposal to either specially design the device with a 

physical seal as a method of sealing (e.g., a specially designed sealing pin on the aforementioned mechanical ATC 

element) or design the device with an electronic method of sealing (i.e., an approved audit trail).

Several manufacturers stated that this proposal was not ready and that designs for the method of providing security 

to the metrological adjustments should be left to the manufacturers. Darrell Flocken, Mettler-Toledo, added that the 

intent of the proposal is that the manufacturer can either design a device so that a security seal cannot be applied 

without placing the device into the proper mode or, design the device so that it has an approved audit trail.

The Committee agreed with the comments that the proposal is not ready to become a Voting item and suggested that 

further development to the proposal address the following concerns:

1. Avoid language that allows the indication of usable metrological values while a device is in the adjustment 

mode for devices that do not have an event logger.

2. Recognize that more than one method of sealing is acceptable on a single device; for example, using a lock 

and wire seal for the mechanical adjustments and an audit trail for electronic adjustments.

3. Recognize that some specific codes in HB 44 do not have language for device categories and corresponding 

methods of sealing.

4. Require an obvious indication when a device is being adjusted if its method of sealing is a physical security 

seal.

5. Clarify that the application of a physical security seal to a specially designed and sealable plate or cover 

that disables external access to the configuration and adjustment mode is not the only method to seal 

adjustable components.

Consequently, the Committee recommended that this item remain Informational. See the 2008 NCWM Annual 

Report for additional background information.
S&T Committee 2009 Final Report

S&T - 8

After the 2009 Interim Meeting, the NIST technical advisor developed language that could be further developed by 

the regional weights and measures associations, National Type Evaluation Technical Committee (NTETC) sectors, 

and other interested parties with the intent that a revised proposal can be forwarded to the Committee for 

consideration at the 2010 NCWM Interim Meeting. The NIST WMD proposal would reformat G-S.8.1. for easier 

reading, recommended language for device indications and recorded representations while in the adjustment mode, 

and proposed language to recognize that devices may have both audit trails and physical seals for different 

components of a device (e.g., a physical seal for meter adjustments and an event counter for blend settings).

G-S.8. Provision for Sealing Electronic Adjustable Components. – A device shall be designed with 

provision(s) for: .

(a) applying a physical security seal that must be broken, or

(b) using other approved means of providing security (e.g., data change audit trail available at the time of 

inspection)

before any change that detrimentally affects the metrological integrity of the device can be made to any 

electronic mechanism.

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1990]

(Amended 201X)

A device may be fitted with an automatic or a semi-automatic calibration mechanism. This mechanism shall be 

incorporated inside the device. After sealing, neither the mechanism nor the calibration process shall facilitate 

fraud.

(Added 1985) (Amended 1989 and 1993)

G-S.8.1. Multiple Weighing or Measuring Elements that Share a Common Provision for 

Sealing. - (Unchanged)

G-S.8.2. Multiple Sealing Methods. – Weighing and measuring devices may be approved for use with 

multiple methods for sealing adjustable components such as physical seals for calibration adjustment 

(e.g., load cells, meters, etc.) and event counters or event logger for the configuration parameters 

(e.g., capacity, interval size, octane blend settings, etc.).

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 201X]

(Added 201X)

G-S.8.3. Adjustment Mode Indications. – During the calibration and configuration adjustment mode, 

the device shall:

(a) Not provide metrological indications that can be interpreted, or transmitted into memory, or 

printed while it is in the calibration and/or configuration adjustment mode as a correct 

measurement value, or

(b) Clearly and continuously indicate that it is in the calibration and/or configuration adjustment 

mode, and record such message if capable of printing in this mode.

Nonretroactive as of January 1, 201X)

(Added 201X)

At its 2009 Annual Meeting, the CWMA supported the intent of the SMA proposed language from its 2009 spring 

meeting and believed that the specific wording should be thoroughly reviewed and that the terms “calibration and 

configurations modes” are not widely understood. The CWMA suggested that the definitions for the word 

“adjustment” and “adjustment mode” from the 1993 white paper on Audit Trails be included in HB 44 so that the 

proposed SMA language might read “. . . the calibration and/or configuration adjustment modes . . .”
S&T Committee 2009 Final Report

S&T - 9

At its 2009 Annual Meeting, NEWMA supported the intent of this item. However, NEWMA is concerned that this 

item is getting over-complicated and asks the Committee to consider requiring that a simple enunciator indicating 

the device is in “cal mode” might be sufficient.

At the 2009 Annual Meeting, the Committee reviewed comments from the SMA 2009 spring meeting supporting the 

intent of the items submitted the revised proposal to the Committee. Stephen Patoray, Consultants on Certification 

(CoC) submitted comments and additional background information on how some devices can have external access 

to the adjustment mode after the application of a physical seal (and is not equipped with an audit trail). In his letter 

to the Committee, he states that some devices are designed with a switch (not momentary) or jumper inside the case 

(that enables or disables external access to the adjustment mode). This switch or jumper has two positions, on or 

off. When the switch is in the off position, the device cannot be put into a calibration or configuration adjustment 

mode and is in the normal weighing mode. When the switch is in the on position, the device shows no apparent 

indication of being in anything other than the normal weighing mode. However, with a certain sequence of 

keyboard entries, and possibly a password from the keyboard, the indicating element can be placed into calibration 

or configuration adjustment mode. After the steps are completed from the keyboard and the operator is done with 

whatever adjustments in calibration or configuration are needed, the device will return to normal weighing mode. 

The switch is still on. The instructions say (or the design provisions state) that the switch is to be turned off before 

the case is put back together and the device is sealed. In jurisdictions where a registered service technician is able to 

seal a device, he/she can decide not to turn the switch off. The device works normally. However, upon his/her 

return, the service technician does not need to break the seal on the case to enter the calibration/configuration mode; 

they only need to enter the keystroke sequence (or possibly the password) from the keyboard. This saves them time 

by not having to remove the seal and the case to flip the switch or set the switch to on position. This is not how the 

device was “designed” to work, but this is a method that has been in use in many indicating elements for many 

years. One could argue this is an enforcement issue.

CoC added that the NTEP labs were and still are in a bad position. If an applicant for an NTEP CC describes the 

method of how the device is to be sealed, this is what the lab evaluator is going to evaluate. While in some cases, 

the lab evaluator may attempt to simulate other scenarios, it is not possible to ask the lab evaluator to attempt to 

evaluate all possible scenarios that could happen with a device in the field. Also, it was/is the opinion of some of 

the lab evaluators that they have no clear method or description in HB 44 to not allow a design as described above. 

However, all lab evaluators believe that the method described above does not provide a truly “effective method of 

sealing.” That is why several years ago the NTEP labs asked for clarification of G-S.8. To date there has been 

much work on this item, with several failed attempts to rewrite this section, but at this time, this is still an 

Informational item and there are still indicating elements out in the field with this ineffective method of sealing. 

There is the appearance that the device is sealed with a physical seal that must be broken; however, the device can 

be calibrated or configured from the keyboard because the proper method of sealing has not been followed by 

registered service technicians. 

CoC believes there may be nothing wrong with the current G-S.8. wording, as part of the general code. However, 

this issue does need to be addressed in each of the individual or specific codes. There may be several solutions for 

newly designed devices, but it is not the role of HB 44 to attempt to actually put design constraints on manufacturers 

only to place requirements that must be met by some type of design solution.

During the 2009 NCWM Annual Meeting, the Committee received comments during the open hearing that no action 

may be needed and that the existing language in HB 44 is sufficient. Additional comments indicated that other 

proposals are overly complex. Oregon and Maryland believe that amended requirements for sealing are needed by 

the NTEP labs and field officials in order to consistently interpret and apply sealing requirements. 

The Committee believes that all parties agree with the intent of the proposal. Both the WMD and SMA proposals 

include language that restates the existing language in G-S.8. but is essentially reformatted for clarification. 

Additionally, both proposals include new requirements for providing indications when a device is in adjustment 

mode. WMD included further language to address devices that may have more than one method of sealing. 

The Committee recommended that this item remain “Informational.” 
S&T Committee 2009 Final Report

S&T - 10

See the 2008 NCWM Annual and 2009 Interim Reports for additional background information.

310-2 I Appendix D – Definition of Electronic Devices, Software-Based and Built-For-Purpose Device

Source: 2008 Carryover Item. This item originated from the NTETC Software Sector and first appeared on the 

Committee’s 2007 agenda as Developing Item Part 1, Item 2.

Recommendation: Delete the current definition of built-for-purpose device as follows:

built-for-purpose device. Any main device or element which was manufactured with the intent that it be 

used as, or part of, a weighing or measuring device or system. [1.10]

(Added 2003)

Add a new definition and a cross-reference to Appendix D in HB 44 for “Electronic devices, software-based” as 

follows to replace the current definition of “built-for-purpose device:”

Electronic devices, software-based. – Weighing and measuring devices or systems that use metrological 

software to facilitate compliance with Handbook 44. This includes:

(a) Embedded software devices (Type P), aka built-for-purpose. – A device or element with software 

used in a fixed hardware and software environment that cannot be modified or uploaded via any 

interface without breaking a security seal or other approved means for providing security, and 

will be called a “P,” or

(b) Programmable or loadable metrological software devices (Type U), aka not-built-for-purpose. –

A personal computer or other device and/or element with PC components with programmable or 

loadable metrological software, and will be called “U.” A “U” is assumed if the conditions for 

embedded software devices are not met.

Software-based devices – See Electronic devices, software-based.

Background/Discussion: In 2005, the Board of Directors established an NTETC Software Sector. One of the tasks 

of the Sector is to develop a clear understanding of the use of software in today’s weighing and measuring 

instruments.

At the Software Sector’s October 2007 meeting, it was initially suggested that the term “not-built-for-purpose” be 

removed from the wording in NIST HB 44 paragraph G-S.1.1. since there is no definition for a not-built-for-purpose 

device in HB 44. After a lengthy discussion related to the terms “built-for-purpose” and “not-built-for-purpose,” the 

Sector agreed these terms were not clear and should be replaced with the terminology proposed above. The 

proposed definitions are based on the revision of OIML R 76 Non-automatic weighing instruments 

Subsections 5.5.1. (Type P) and 5.5.2. (Type U).

At the 2008 Annual Meeting, the Committee heard comments from the former Software Sector Chairman indicating 

that the Sector had completed its review of this item and could not develop it any further. The Chairman requested 

that the Committee consider moving the item from the Developing items section of the agenda and at least make it 

an Informational item to facilitate discussion and comment on the proposed language. Consequently, the Committee 

agreed to change the status of the item from Developing to Informational in its agenda.

At its 2008 Annual Meeting, the WWMA agreed to propose this item remain Informational, based on comments 

heard supporting the item, until other interested parties had the opportunity to provide comments.

At its 2008 Interim Meeting, the CWMA heard comments during their open hearings in favor of the item and no 

comments were made in opposition. The CWMA recommends this item go forward as a Voting item.

At its 2008 Interim Meeting, NEWMA discussed how this item would affect field examination and verification of 

software. NEWMA recommends this item move forward as Informational.
S&T Committee 2009 Final Report

S&T - 11

At its 2008 Annual Meeting, the SWMA heard comments indicating that the Software Sector is seeking additional 

input on the proposed definitions and views the proposed changes as a first step in developing wider changes to the 

General Code and Definitions to better accommodate software-based devices. The SWMA agrees that additional 

review and study is needed before the proposal can be forwarded as a Voting item and therefore, is maintaining this 

item as an Informational item on its agenda. The SWMA encourages people to review this proposal and the 

proposal in Item 310-3 and provide input to the NCWM S&T Committee and the Software Sector. The SWMA is 

interested in comments from other organizations, including SMA. In the meantime, the Committee also offers the 

following comments for consideration:

• The term “software-based electronic devices” is not currently included in NIST Handbook 44. The 

Committee acknowledges that this proposal is a step toward a broader proposal; however, it believes it is 

inappropriate to include a definition for a term that isn’t currently used in the handbook.

• There needs to be a definition and/or cross-reference for the terms “Type P” and “Type U.” A better 

approach might be to add a reference for “not-built-for-purpose;” include cross-references for terms 

“Type P” and “Type U” to the terms “built-for-purpose” and “not-built-for purpose;” and develop proposed 

changes to the General Code to incorporate the new terms “Type P” and “Type U.” This would ensure 

references to terminology that is being used in Handbook 44.

At the 2009 NCWM Interim Meeting, the Committee received comments from the SMA stating that it now opposes 

this item since there is no technological justification for making a distinction in software-based device types. 

Darrell Flocken, Mettler-Toledo speaking on behalf of the added that the SMA can only provide limited responses.

The SMA continues to support the efforts of the Software Sector and the SMA response is based on the concern that 

the proposed definitions in this recommendation and the marking requirements proposed in agenda Item 310-3 will 

make a weighing device more complex than what is currently produced. The Meter Manufacturers Association 

(MMA) indicated that it supports the item as written in the recommendation.

Will Wotthlie, Maryland, does not agree with the SMA position that there are no technological differences between 

the types of software-based devices. He added that Type P devices and separable elements have limited flexibility 

in changing software and indications and frequently include the sensing elements necessary for the measurement 

(e.g., load cells, meters, etc.), whereas Type U devices and separable elements are typically devices that: 

1. do not contain measuring elements; 

2. can be replaced with compatible equipment and display devices purchased from any number of sources; 

and 

3. only process metrological information received from measuring and other sensing elements.

Stephen Patoray, Consultants in Certification, LLC, agrees with the SMA that there are few differences between 

Type P and U software-based devices. However, there are significant differences between Type P and U devices in 

that a Type P device is defined as an instrument that requires a security means since the instrument has fixed 

hardware (including sensing components), where the metrological software is embedded into the instrument. 

Type U devices do not include fixed components, and metrological software cannot be sealed using physical 

security seals or the minimum form of an audit trail (i.e., two event counters).

Software Sector Co-chair Jim Pettinato (FMC Technologies) added that international recommendations recognize 

the differences between embedded software and programmable/loadable software. Additionally, the Software 

Sector recommends that this item remain Informational to allow conference members to further study the proposed 

definitions.

The Committee agreed with the comments received during the open hearing and the request from the Co-chairman 

of the Software Sector and agreed that this item should remain an Informational item for further review.
S&T Committee 2009 Final Report

S&T - 12

At its 2009 Spring Meeting, the SMA opposed this item restating its point that there is no longer a technological 

basis for making this distinction in device types.

At its 2009 Spring Meeting, the Software Sector stated that it seems resistance to this item stems not from a 

disagreement with the intention, but from either a misunderstanding of the applicability or unrelated concerns over 

marking requirements. Further discussion was related to how to best present the opinion/goals of the Sector to the 

interested external parties, such as the NCWM standing committees and the individual states. Some discussion on 

the wording of the definitions took place as well, with the slightly modified version being discussed. However, no 

consensus was reached on any language change. The Sector did agree that including the reason(s) for proposing 

these definitions as part of the effort to educate/promote external parties would be beneficial; and that the Sector will

attempt to explain the reasoning/intent of the proposed definitions together with/as part of the action items from its 

2009 meeting.

At their 2009 spring meetings, the CWMA and NEWMA supported this item as being Informational and 

understands a report is coming from the Software Sector, which should be reviewed prior to any further 

recommendations. The CWMA heard comments from SMA in opposition of this item. Additionally, Stephen 

Patoray, Consultants on Certification (CoC), strongly supported the proposed definitions and stated the Sector 

needed to continue to work on this item. 

During the 2009 NCWM Annual Meeting, the Committee considered the comments from the SMA on the language 

in the Committee’s Interim Report and the report from Stephen Patoray responding to the Software article in the 

Spring NCWM newsletter. The Committee agreed to keep this item Informational to allow updated comments from 

the regional weights and measures associations and other interested parties based on information in the summary of 

the March 2009 meeting of the Software Sector.

Additional background information on this item can be reviewed in the 2008 Final Report of the Committee.

310-3 I G-S.1. Identification. – (Software)

Source: 2008 Carryover Item. This item originated from the NTETC Software Sector and first appeared on the 

Committee’s 2007 agenda as Developing Item Part 1, Item 1.

Recommendation: Amend G-S.1. and G-S.1.1. as follows:

G-S.1. Identification. – For the purposes of identification, all equipment, except weights and separate 

parts necessary to the measurement process but not having any metrological effect and manufactured on 

or after January 1, 201X, shall be clearly marked as specified in Table G-S.1. Identification and 

explained in the accompanying notes in Table G-S.1. Notes:

All equipment, except weights and separate parts necessary to the measurement process but not having any 

metrological effect and manufactured prior to January 1, 201X, shall be clearly and permanently marked for 

the purposes of identification with the following information:

(a) the name, initials, or trademark of the manufacturer or distributor;

(b) a model identifier that positively identifies the pattern or design of the device;

(1) The model identifier shall be prefaced by the word “Model,” “Type,” or “Pattern.” These terms may 

be followed by the word “Number” or an abbreviation of that word. The abbreviation for the word 

“Number” shall, as a minimum, begin with the letter “N” (e.g., No or No.). The abbreviation for the 

word “Model” shall be “Mod” or “Mod.” Prefix lettering may be initial capitals, all capitals, or all 

lowercase.

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2003]

(Added 2000) (Amended 2001)
S&T Committee 2009 Final Report

S&T - 13

(c) a nonrepetitive serial number, except for equipment with no moving or electronic component parts and

Type U (not-built-for-purpose) software-based devices;

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1968]

(Amended 2003 and 201X)

(1) The serial number shall be prefaced by words, an abbreviation, or a symbol, that clearly identifies the 

number as the required serial number.

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1986]

(2) Abbreviations for the word “Serial” shall, as a minimum, begin with the letter “S,” and abbreviations 

for the word “Number” shall, as a minimum, begin with the letter “N” (e.g., S/N, SN, Ser. No., and 

S. No.).

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2001]

(d) the current software version or revision identifier for Type U (not-built-for-purpose) software-based

devices;

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2004]

(Added 2003) (Amended 201X)

(1) The version or revision identifier shall be prefaced by words, an abbreviation, or a symbol, that 

clearly identifies the number as the required version or revision.

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2007]

(Added 2006)

(2) Abbreviations for the word “Version” shall, as a minimum, begin with the letter “V” and may be 

followed by the word “Number.” Abbreviations for the word “Revision” shall, as a minimum, begin 

with the letter “R” and may be followed by the word “Number.” The abbreviation for the word 

“Number” shall, as a minimum, begin with the letter “N” (e.g., No or No.).

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2007]

(Added 2006)

(e) an NTEP Certificate of Conformance (CC) number or a corresponding CC Addendum Number for devices 

that have a CC. The CC Number or a corresponding CC Addendum Number shall be prefaced by the terms 

“NTEP CC,” “CC,” or “Approval.” These terms may be followed by the word “Number” or an 

abbreviation of that word. The abbreviation for the word “Number” shall, as a minimum, begin with the 

letter “N” (e.g., No or No.)

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2003]

The required information shall be so located that it is readily observable without the necessity of the disassembly of 

a part requiring the use of any means separate from the device.

(Amended 1985, 1991, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2003, and, 2006, and 201X)

G-S.1.1. Location of Marking Information for Type U (Not-Built-For-Purpose), Software-Based Devices. –

For Type U not-built-for-purpose, software-based devices manufactured prior to January 1, 201X, either:

(a) The required information in G-S.1. Identification. (a), (b), (d), and (e) shall be permanently marked or 

continuously displayed on the device; or

(b) The Certificate of Conformance (CC) Number shall be:

(1) permanently marked on the device;

(2) continuously displayed; or
S&T Committee 2009 Final Report

S&T - 14

(3) accessible through an easily recognized menu and, if necessary, a submenu. Examples of menu 

and submenu identification include, but are not limited to, “Help,” “System Identification,” 

“G-S.1. Identification,” or “Weights and Measures Identification.”

Note: For (b), clear instructions for accessing the information required in G-S.1.(a), (b), and (d) shall be 

listed on the CC, including information necessary to identify that the software in the device is the same type 

that was evaluated.

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2004]

(Added 2003) (Amended 2006 and 201X)

Table G-S.1. Identification

for Devices Manufactured on or after January 1, 201X

(For applicable notes, see Table G-S.1. Notes on Identification)

Required Marking

Full Mechanical 

Devices and 

Separable 

Mechanical 

Elements

Type P Electronic Devices

and Separable Elements

Type U Electronic Devices 

and Separable Elements

Name, initials, or 

trademark of the 

manufacturer or CC holder

Hard-Marked Hard-Marked or

Continuously Displayed

Hard-Marked, 

Continuously Displayed, or 

Via Menu (display) or 

Print Option (8)

Model identification 

information that positively 

identifies the pattern or 

design of the device (1)

Hard-Marked Hard-Marked or

Continuously Displayed

Hard-Marked, 

Continuously Displayed, or 

Via Menu (display) or 

Print Option (8)

Non-repetitive serial 

number (2) Hard-Marked Hard-Marked orContinuously Displayed Not Acceptable

Software version or revision 

(3) Not Applicable

Hard Marked (5),

Continuously Displayed, or

by Command (operator action) 

(6)

Continuously Displayed or 

Via Menu (display) or 

Print Option (8)

Certificate of Conformance 

number or corresponding 

CC Addendum (4)

Hard-Marked Hard-Marked

or Continuously Displayed

Hard-Marked (7) or 

Continuously Displayed

The required information shall be so located that it is readily observable without the necessity of the 

disassembly of a part requiring the use of any means separate from the device.

(Added 201X)
S&T Committee 2009 Final Report

S&T - 15

Table G-S.1. Notes on Identification

For Devices Manufactured on or after January 1, 201X

1. The model identifier shall be prefaced by the word “Model,” “Type,” or “Pattern.” These terms may be 

followed by the word “Number” or an abbreviation of that word.

- The abbreviation for the word “Number” shall, as a minimum, begin with the letter “N” (e.g., No or 

No.).

- The abbreviation for the word “Model” shall be “Mod” or “Mod.” Prefix lettering may be initial 

capitals, all capitals, or all lowercase.

2. Except for equipment with no moving or electronic parts, the serial number shall be prefaced by words, 

an abbreviation, or a symbol, that clearly identifies the number as the required serial number.

- Abbreviations for the word “Serial” shall, as a minimum, begin with the letter “S,” and 

abbreviations for the word “Number” shall, as a minimum, begin with the letter “N” (e.g., S/N, SN, 

Ser. No., and S. No.).

3. Metrologically significant software shall be clearly identified with the software version. The 

identification may consist of more than one part but one part shall be dedicated to the metrologically 

significant portion.

- The version or revision identifier shall be prefaced by words, an abbreviation, or a symbol, that 

clearly identifies the number as the required version or revision.

- Abbreviations for the word “Version” shall, as a minimum, begin with the letter “V” and may be 

followed by the word “Number.”

- Abbreviations for the word “Revision” shall, as a minimum, begin with the letter “R” and may be 

followed by the word “Number.”

- The abbreviation for the word “Number” shall, as a minimum, begin with the letter “N” (e.g., No or 

No.).

4. An NTEP Certificate of Conformance (CC) number or a corresponding CC Addendum Number for 

devices that have a CC. The CC Number or a corresponding CC Addendum Number shall be prefaced 

by the terms “NTEP CC,” “CC,” or “Approval.”

- These terms may be followed by the word “Number” or an abbreviation of that word.

- The abbreviation for the word “Number” shall, as a minimum, begin with the letter “N” (e.g., No or 

No.).

5. If the manufacturer declares that the primary sensing element “software” is integral, has no end user 

interface and no print capability, the version/revision shall be hard-marked on the device. Example: 

Primary sensing element may be Positive Displacement (P.D.) meter with integral correction, digital load 

cell (only for reference, not limiting).

6. Information on how to obtain the Version/Revision shall be included on the NTEP CC.

7. Hard-marking of the CC Number is permitted if no means of displaying this information is available.

8. Information on how to obtain the name, initials, or trademark of the manufacturer or CC holder, model 

designation, and software version/revision information shall be included on the NTEP CC.

(Added 201X)

Background/Discussion: In 2005 the Board of Directors established an NTETC Software Sector. One of the

Sector’s tasks is to develop a clear understanding of the use of software in today’s weighing and measuring 

instruments.

During its October 2007 meeting, the Sector discussed the value and merits of required markings for software. This 

included the possible differences in some types of devices and marking requirements. After hearing several 

proposals, the Sector agreed to the following technical requirements applicable to the marking of software.
S&T Committee 2009 Final Report

S&T - 16

1. The NTEP CC Number must be continuously displayed or hard-marked;

2. The version must be software-generated and shall not be hard-marked;

3. The version is required for embedded (Type P) software;

4. Printing the required identification information can be an option;

5. Command or operator action can be considered as an option in lieu of a continuous display of the required 

information; and

6. Devices with Type P (embedded) software must display or hard-mark make, model, S.N. to comply with 

G-S.1. Identification.

At the 2008 NCWM Annual Meeting, the Committee heard comments from the former NTETC Software Sector 

Chairman indicating that the Sector had completed its review of this item and could not develop it any further during 

its May 2008 Sector meeting. He requested that the Committee consider moving the item from the Developing 

section of the agenda and make it an Informational item on the Committee’s agenda to facilitate discussion and 

comment on the proposed language. Consequently, the Committee agreed to forward the item to the regional 

weights and measures associations for consideration and included this item on its 2009 Interim Agenda.

After the 2008 Annual Meeting, WMD reviewed the following Software Sector Proposal to amend G-S.1. 

Identification and/or G-S.1.1. Location of Marking Information for Not-Built-for-Purpose, Software-Based Devices

in the Committee’s 2008 Interim Report:

Method NTEP CC No. Make/Model/Serial No. Software 

Version/Revision

TYPE P electronic devices shall meet at least one of the methods in each column:

Hard-Marked X X Not Acceptable1

Continuously Displayed X X X

By command or operator action Not Acceptable Not Acceptable X2

1 If the manufacturer declares that the primary sensing element “software” is integral, has no end user interface and 

no print capability, the version/revision shall be hard marked on the device. Example: Primary sensing element 

may be Positive Displacement (P.D.) meter with integral correction, digital load cell (only for reference, not 

limiting).

2 Information on how to obtain the Version/Revision shall be included on the NTEP CC.

Metrologically significant software shall be clearly identified with the software version. The identification may 

consist of more than one part but one part shall be only dedicated for the metrologically significant portion.

Method NTEP CC No. Make/Model Software 

Version/Revision

TYPE U electronic devices shall meet at least one of the methods in each column:

Hard-Marked X3 X Not Acceptable

Continuously Displayed X X X

Via Menu (display) or Print Option Not Acceptable X4 X4

3 Only if no means of displaying this information is available.

4 Information on how to obtain Make/Model, Version/Revision shall be included on the NTEP CC.

Metrologically significant software shall be clearly identified with the software version. The identification may 

consist of more than one part but one part shall be only dedicated for the metrologically significant portion.
S&T Committee 2009 Final Report

S&T - 17

WMD agreed that the proposed language has merit. However, the Software Sector did not include a 

recommendation on how to incorporate the proposal into existing G-S.1. and G-S.1.1. language. WMD studied the 

current and proposed language and was not sure how to address the various existing requirements and multiple nonretroactive dates. Consequently, WMD suggested changes to the General Code language on Identification be 

considered in the further review of this item by the Committee. In brief, the WMD proposed language separates the 

identification and marking location requirements for all devices and separable elements manufactured prior to and 

after a date adopted by the Conference. WMD developed two versions of proposed Table G-S.1. (with the only 

difference being that the rows and columns are reversed as shown in the Committee’s 2008 Annual Report) for 

consideration by the Conference and forwarded these to the regional weights and measures associations.

At their September 2008 meetings, the WWMA and CWMA reviewed the WMD suggested changes for G-S.1. and 

Tables G-S.1.a. and G-S.1.b. and supported the proposal to amend G-S.1. and to include the marking requirements 

in a table format similar to other specific device codes. The WWMA also expressed a preference for the alternate 

Table G-S.1.a. and recommends that this item remain Informational for further review and discussion.

At their October 2008 Interim Meeting, NEWMA also recommended this item move forward as Informational.

At its 2008 Annual Meeting, the SWMA heard comments during its open hearings from Gordon Johnson, Gilbarco, 

proposing that the words “not acceptable” in the third column for the entry “By command or operator action” be 

replaced with an “X” and a reference to footnote 2. Will Wotthlie, Maryland, stated that he would support the 

change to an “X,” but that a new footnote should be created; Will noted that, if the information is not going to be 

physically marked on a plate, the inspector would need a means to find the information without having to go to a CC 

to find out how to call it up. The SWMA acknowledged that this variation is already permitted for computer-based 

systems, but acknowledged that additional review is needed before proposing such a change. The SWMA believes 

that additional input is needed on this issue before it is ready to move forward as a Voting item. The SWMA S&T 

Committee is interested in comments from other organizations, including SMA on this issue. Consequently, the 

SWMA made this an Informational item on its agenda.

At the 2009 Interim Meeting, SMA commented that it has consistently opposed having different requirements 

between embedded and downloadable/programmable software-based devices and added that it continues to support 

the intent of the proposal and will continue to participate in the Software Sector discussions to develop alternate 

proposals for the marking of software-based devices. Several weights and measures officials expressed concerns 

that the proposed language does not specify how the identification information is to be retrieved if it is not 

continuously displayed noting this could result in several ways to access the information (e.g., passwords, display 

checks, dropdown menus, etc.). SMA added that the identification location information on the NTEP CC will 

become outdated anytime a manufacturer changes the way the information can be retrieved. They suggested that a 

limited number of methods to access the identification information be developed and specified as the only 

acceptable methods to retrieve identification information. This would make it easier for the inspector to verify the 

required identification information.

WMD noted that in 1992, the NCWM adopted S&T Committee agenda Item 320-6, S.6.3. Marking Requirements; 

Capacity by Division and recommended that Tables S.6.3.a. and S.6.3.b. (note 3) be interpreted to permit the 

required capacity and scale division markings to be presented as part of the scale display (e.g., displayed on a video 

terminal or in a liquid crystal display), rather than be physically marked on the device. WMD agrees with the 

interpretation and suggests that this interpretation could be expanded to other marking requirements (e.g., flow rates 

capacity, interval, etc.,) and codes on a case-by-case basis, and that specific language (based on the above 

interpretation) be added to the applicable sections in HB 44.

Software Sector Co-chairman Jim Pettinato (FMC Technologies) stated that the Software Sector recommends that 

this item remain Informational to allow conference members to further study the proposal in order to develop a 

consensus on the format for Table G-S.1. Identification.

The Committee agreed with the format of the first version of Table G-S.1. Identification since the format matches 

the style of similar tables in HB 44. Consequently, the Committee agreed that this item should remain an 

Informational item for further review. 
S&T Committee 2009 Final Report

S&T - 18

At the 2009 spring Software Sector Meeting, it was noted by several Sector members that the perceived scope of the 

original proposal has been extended by the modifications made by WMD and now appears to exceed both the 

purview and the intent of the Sector, and it has become difficult to discern its intentions. Based on the fact that the 

proposed table seems to have actually made the Sector’s intent less clear, it was proposed by the chair to revisit this 

item in relation to the current text of G-S.1. to clarify exactly what real changes to Handbook 44 would be required 

to achieve the intent of the Sector. It was also noted that there was some validity to the SMA argument that there is 

no justification for differentiation of marking requirements based on device type (P or U). After additional lengthy 

discussions, the following modified versions of G-S.1 and or G-S.1.1 were drafted:

G-S.1. Identification. – All equipment, except weights and separate parts necessary to the measurement 

process but not having any metrological effect and manufactured after January 1, 201X, shall be clearly and 

permanently marked for the purposes of identification with the following information:

(a) the name, initials, or trademark of the manufacturer or distributor;

(b) a model identifier that positively identifies the pattern or design of the device;

(1) The model identifier shall be prefaced by the word “Model,” “Type,” or “Pattern.” These terms may 

be followed by the word “Number” or an abbreviation of that word. The abbreviation for the word 

“Number” shall, as a minimum, begin with the letter “N” (e.g., No or No.). The abbreviation for the 

word “Model” shall be “Mod” or “Mod.” Prefix lettering may be initial capitals, all capitals, or all 

lowercase.

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2003]

(Added 2000) (Amended 2001)

(c) a nonrepetitive serial number, except for equipment with no moving or electronic component parts and

not-built-for-purpose software-based software that is not part of a Type P (built-for-purpose) device.;

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1968]

(Amended 2003 and 201X)

(1) The serial number shall be prefaced by words, an abbreviation, or a symbol, that clearly identifies the 

number as the required serial number.

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1986]

(2) Abbreviations for the word “Serial” shall, as a minimum, begin with the letter “S,” and abbreviations 

for the word “Number” shall, as a minimum, begin with the letter “N” (e.g., S/N, SN, Ser. No., and 

S. No.).

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2001]

(d) the current software version or revision identifier for not-built-for-purpose software-based electronic

devices;

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2004]

(Added 2003) (Amended 201X)

(1) The version or revision identifier shall be prefaced by words, an abbreviation, or a symbol, that 

clearly identifies the number as the required version or revision.

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2007]

(Added 2006)

(2) Abbreviations for the word “Version” shall, as a minimum, begin with the letter “V” and may be 

followed by the word “Number.” Abbreviations for the word “Revision” shall, as a minimum, begin 

with the letter “R” and may be followed by the word “Number.” The abbreviation for the word 

“Number” shall, as a minimum, begin with the letter “N” (e.g., No or No.).

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2007]

(Added 2006)
S&T Committee 2009 Final Report

S&T - 19

(e) an NTEP Certificate of Conformance (CC) number or a corresponding CC Addendum Number for devices 

that have a CC. The CC Number or a corresponding CC Addendum Number shall be prefaced by the terms 

“NTEP CC,” “CC,” or “Approval.” These terms may be followed by the word “Number” or an 

abbreviation of that word. The abbreviation for the word “Number” shall, as a minimum, begin with the 

letter “N” (e.g., No or No.)

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2003]

The required information shall be so located that it is readily observable without the necessity of the 

disassembly of a part requiring the use of any means separate from the device.

(Amended 1985, 1991, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2003, and, 2006 and 201X)

G-S.1.1. Location Method of Marking Information for Not-Built-For-Purpose all Software-Based Devices. –

For not-built-for-purpose, software-based devices manufactured after January 1, 201X, either:

(a) The required information in G-S.1. Identification. (a), (b), (d), and (e) shall be permanently marked or 

continuously displayed on the device; or

(d) The Certificate of Conformance (CC) Number shall be:

(1) permanently marked on the device;

(2) continuously displayed; or

(3) accessible through an easily recognized menu and, if necessary, a submenu. Examples of menu 

and submenu identification include, but are not limited to, “Help,” “System Identification,” 

“G-S.1. Identification,” or “Weights and Measures Identification.”

Note: For (b), clear instructions for accessing the information required in G-S.1. (a), (b), and (d) shall be 

listed on the CC, including information necessary to identify that the software in the device is the same type 

that was evaluated.

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2004]

(Added 2003) (Amended 2006 and 201X)

The Sector noted that though currently it is allowable to display the CC number via a menu, there has been some 

challenges locating this information in the field due to the vagueness of the term “easily recognized.” Hence, since 

it is left to the interpretation of the NTEP laboratory to ascertain whether a device’s method for displaying the CC 

number meets the requirements, this vagueness has not been addressed in this new recommendation.

John Roach (California NTEP Lab) indicated that if the proposed table, or some version thereof, is not eventually 

included as part of G-S.1. that it may be useful to incorporate a suitable table into Publication 14.

The Software Sector concluded that it does not wish to debate the merits of general marking requirements beyond 

that related to software identification and wishes only to address concerns related specifically to software. The 

Sector feels its proposed changes above better reflect the Sector’s position. The Sector suggests that the following 

simplified version may better suit the purpose if WMD, and the Committee believes a table outlining general 

marking requirements would clarify the intent of paragraph G-S.1. 
S&T Committee 2009 Final Report

S&T - 20

Table G-S.1.a Identification

for Devices Manufactured on or after January 1, 201X

Required Marking

Full Mechanical Devices 

and Separable Mechanical 

Elements

Electronic Devices,

Software Based

Manufacturer or CC holder ID Hard Marked

Hard Marked, Continuously Displayed, or 

Via Menu (display) or by command or 

operator action

Model identification Hard Marked

Hard Marked, Continuously Displayed, or 

Via Menu (display) or by command (operator 

action)

Serial number Hard Marked Hard Marked, Continuously Displayed 1

Metrologically Significant 

Software version Not Applicable Continuously Displayed, Via Menu (display) or by command (operator action) 2

Certificate of Conformance 

number Hard Marked

Hard Marked or Continuously Displayed, or 

Via Menu (display) or by command (operator 

action)3

1

Type ‘U’ devices need not have a non-repetitive serial number.

2

If the manufacturer declares that the primary sensing element “software” is integral, has no end user 

interface and no print capability, the version/revision shall be hard marked on the device. Example: 

Primary sensing element may be Positive Displacement (P.D.) meter with integral correction, digital load cell 

(only for reference, not limiting).

3

If the Certificate of Conformance number is to be displayed via menu and/or submenu, the means of access 

must be easily recognizable. In addition, instructions on how to obtain the remaining required information 

not hard-marked or continuously displayed shall be included on the NTEP CC.

(Added 201X)

Note that this new version of the table reflects the aforementioned changes proposed for the language in paragraph 

G-S.1. as well, homogenizing Type P and Type U requirements, with the exception of the serial number requirement 

being waived for standalone software. It was also noted that much of the information previously included in the 

separate proposed “Table G-S.1. “Notes on Identification For Devices Manufactured on or after January 1, 201X”

was redundant as it is already stated verbatim in the text of G-S.1; hence the Sector questions the benefit of the 

WMD - proposed separate Table G-S.1.

In an April 2009 letter to the Committee, Stephen Patoray, CoC agrees with the recommendation of the Software 

Sector. In order for CoC to fully endorse this recommendation, CoC suggests one change for the NOTE in G-S.1.1. 

to read as follows:

Note: For (b), clear instructions for accessing the information required in G-S.1. (a), (b),

and (d) shall be listed on the CC, including information necessary to identify that the 

software in the device is the same type that was evaluated.

In the “Note” for paragraph G-S.1.1., there remains one item that is inconsistent with all other requirements for 

marking. It is noted that it indicates only the information in G-S.1. (a), (b), and (d) which intentionally leaves out 

information in G-S.1. (c) Serial Number. It is the position of CoC that there should be NO limitation, which is any 

different from other markings, on the marking of the serial number of a device in the General Code. As written, it 

would require only the serial number to be permanently marked or continuously displayed. Since this is the General 
S&T Committee 2009 Final Report

S&T - 21

Code Section of HB 44, CoC sees no reason to create this limitation. CoC recommends that this can be handled in 

the device specific code if there are any issues that might arise with allowing the serial number to be display via 

menu. CoC stated that is could fully support this item incorporating the above change.

At its 2009 Annual Meeting, the CWMA agreed with comments from weights and measures officials that there is a 

need to easily identify the software for the proposed software-based devices, especially during field inspections for 

“Type U” devices. They believe that a uniform or standard method for easily accessing identification information is 

needed to aid field inspections. The SMA stated there is no distinction between the proposed Type P and Type U 

devices and marking requirements should be the same for both devices. It was reported that the Software Sector had 

met a few weeks before the CWMA Annual meeting and that the Sector recommendations would be submitted to 

the committee and its report posted on the NCWM web site prior to the NCWM Annual Meeting. Consequently, the 

CWMA recommends this item remain Informational. 

At the 2009 NEWMA Annual Meeting, the members received similar comments from SMA and the Software Sector 

and took no position on this item pending its member review of the Software Sector’s report.

At the 2009 NCWM Annual Meeting, the Committee reviewed the recommendations in the previous paragraphs 

from:

• the 2009 meeting of the Software Sector, 

• a report of the 2009 spring meeting of the SMA opposing the marking requirement differences for “Type 

P” and “Type U” devices, and 

• comments from Stephen Patoray, CoC, supporting the Software Sector’s position with his suggested 

changes. 

During the open hearings, the Committee received comments from the SMA, Stephen Patoray, and the Chairman of 

the Software Sector restating their previous positions and recommendations. 

NIST WMD commented that some terminology in both the Software Sector’s proposed “Table G-S.1. 

Identification” may need to be further defined. For example, what is meant by the term “hard-marked?” WMD 

believes that “hard marked” is the same as “permanently marked,” which is already used in other sections of HB 44. 

If Committee believes a table outlining general marking requirements would clarify the intent of G-S.1., WMD 

recommends that the words “hard marked” be replaced by “permanently marked”. 

Consequently, the Committee agreed that this item remain Informational and that the regional weights and measures 

associations review the above information and provides the Committee with comments and recommendations.

Additional background information on this item can be reviewed in the Committee’s 2008 Final Report.

310-4 W G-N.3. Verification of Testing Standards

(This item was withdrawn)

Source: 2008 Carryover S&T Item 310-4. This item arose as a result of a proposal submitted by the CWMA. See 

also the note in the Background/Discussion regarding the origin of this item.

Recommendation: Add the following paragraph G-N.3. to the General Code:

G-N.3. Testing Apparatus. – Testing Apparatus, including field standards, used to verify compliance of 

weighing and measuring devices with National Institure of Standards and Technology (NIST) 

Handbook 44 will meet the specifications of the NIST Handbook 105-Series standards (or other suitable 

and designated standards). This section shall not preclude the use of additional field standards and/or 

equipment, as approved by the Director, for uniform evaluation of device performance. In all cases 
S&T Committee 2009 Final Report

S&T - 22

where the standard is used without correction, its combined error and uncertainty must be less than 

one-third of the applicable device tolerance (See Appendix A. Fundamental Considerations).

(Added 2009)

Delete corresponding paragraphs in the Scales Code, Automatic Bulk-Weighing Systems Code, and the Automatic 

Weighing Systems Code (N.1.3.)..as follows:

Scales Code:

N.2. Verification (Testing) Standards. – Field standard weights used in verifying weighing devices shall 

comply with requirements of NIST Handbook 105-Series standards (or other suitable and designated 

standards) or the tolerances expressed in Fundamental Considerations, paragraph 3.2. (i.e., one-third of 

the smallest tolerance applied).

(Amended 1986)

Automatic Bulk Weighing Systems Code:

N.2. Verification (Testing) Standards. – Standard weights and masses used in verifying weighing devices 

shall comply with requirements of NIST Handbook 105-1 (Class F) or the tolerances expressed in 

Appendix A, Fundamental Considerations, paragraph 3.2. (i.e., one-third of the smallest tolerance 

applied).

Automatic Weighing Systems Code:

N.1.3. Verification (Testing) Standards. – Field standard weights shall comply with requirements of 

NIST Handbook 105-1 (Class F) or the tolerances expressed in Fundamental Considerations, 

paragraph 3.2. (i.e., one-third of the smallest tolerance applied).

Background/Discussion: This item was originally addressed under Item 330-2 in the Committee’s 2008 Interim 

agenda. As a result of deliberations at the 2008 Interim Meeting, the Committee decided to delete Item 330-2 and to 

address the issue in this new Item 310-4, which proposes adding a paragraph to the General Code to designate 

general requirements for all field standards. At the 2008 NCWM Annual Meeting, the Committee decided (as a 

result of comments received following the Interim Meeting) to reinstate Item 330-2 (which proposes an addition to 

the Liquid-Measuring Devices Code to specify pour and drain times for measuring device test standards) as an 

Informational item; the Committee’s rationale for this decision is outlined in Item 330-2. Note that the Committee 

retained Item 310-4 and presented that item as a Voting item at the Annual Meeting; however, the item did not 

receive sufficient votes to pass or fail and, therefore, was returned to the Committee. See the Committee’s 2008 

Final Report for additional background information.

The CWMA noted that HB 44 does not address pour or drain times for 5-gallon test measures used to test retail 

motor-fuel devices. However, the pour and drain time requirements are in HB 112 Examination Procedure Outline 

Numbers 21 and 22 for Retail Motor-fuel Dispensers in Test Notes paragraph 2. They are also referenced in NIST 

HB 105-3 Specifications and Tolerances for Graduated Neck-Type Volumetric Field Standards Section 7. Test 

Methods and References.

Metrology labs are not routinely requiring that hand-held test measures be labeled with this information when the 

information is missing. Additionally, many hand-held test measures used by service agents and agencies do not 

specify drain times. As a result, service agents, are using incorrect pour and drain times.

At the 2008 Interim Meeting, the Committee agreed that rather than putting a requirement in HB 44 stipulating pour 

and drain times for provers and test measures, it is preferable to reference the requirements in NIST 

Handbook 105-3.

The Committee received comments from WMD indicating that, since pour and drain times are published in the 

EPOs and taught in WMD training, a reference to the 105 series in the General Code is more appropriate; 
S&T Committee 2009 Final Report

S&T - 23

particularly since NIST Handbook 105-3 Section 4.5.10.1. requires the marking of drain and delivery times on 

handheld test measures. With regard to concerns raised by some about update intervals for a particular 105 series 

handbook, WMD pointed out that the 105 series are already referenced in the Fundamental Considerations and have 

been for some time, and periods during which a handbook is being updated have apparently not posed any 

significant problems in the past. WMD also raised a concern over whether a trend for inclusion of references such 

as this in many individual codes might ultimately discourage the inspector and service company from referencing 

the Fundamental Considerations where other important information about necessary equipment and practices are 

found.

At the 2008 NCWM Annual Meeting, the proposed change to the General Code was adopted. The language in 

paragraph G-N.3. Verification of Standards will provide guidance for device codes that do not specify the suitability 

and use of standards in the specific codes.

At the 2009 NCWM Interim Meeting, the Committee heard comments form Ross Andersen, New York, stating that 

the proposed addition of the words “or other suitable standards” raises the question of how the suitability of the 

standards are determined. Steve Malone, Nebraska, supported the addition of the language “the most current” when 

referring to the 105 Series documents; he stated that older versions of theses standards may no longer be sufficient 

and, therefore, conflict with the Fundamental Consideration Section 3 Testing Apparatus. The SMA supported the 

original language proposed by the Committee stating that it had concerns about the impact of the words “the most 

current” in the proposal in the 2008 Annual Report.

Ross Andersen submitted the following alternate proposal to the Committee that he believes addresses the CWMA’s 

and SWMA’s concerns:

G-N.3. Verification (Testing) Standards. – Where practical, field standards conforming to the specifications 

and tolerances in the NIST 105 Series, recommendations of the OIML or other designated standards shall be 

used for official tests. The requirements of Fundamental Considerations paragraph 3.2 (i.e., one-third of the 

smallest tolerance applied) shall apply to all standards used in official tests.

The Committee reviewed the requirements in Fundamental Considerations Section 3. The Committee reworded the 

proposal as shown in the Committee’s recommendation so that the words are consistent with the language in 

footnote 2 of that section, and addresses the suitability concerns expressed by the comments received during the 

open hearing. The Committee agreed to present the revised proposal for a Vote at the 2009 Annual Meeting.

At their 2009 Annual Meetings, the CWMA supported this item and recommended striking the word “additional”

since it is redundant in the sentence. NEWMA opposed this item stating that: 

• Some of the NIST Handbook 105 Series are out-of-date,

• There are concerns that the State Director must “approve” all standards not covered in the Handbook 105 

series (including OIML and ASTM weights for Class I and II scales) and is concerned that it may have far 

reaching legal ramifications, 

• The language should not conflict with the language on Appendix A - “Fundamental Considerations,” and

• There is a lack of a justification for the proposed language in the General Code when the same information 

is located in the “Fundamental Considerations.” 

At the 2009 NCWM Annual Meeting, the Committee heard some comments in opposition to referencing the NIST 

105-Series Handbooks, with those members citing concerns that the NCWM does not control development of those 

documents and questioning whether “due process” is provided in their update. One member in opposition also 

indicated concerns that some of the NIST 105-Series Handbooks may at times be in need of updating. The CWMA 

also suggested eliminating the word “additional” from the proposed language.
S&T Committee 2009 Final Report

S&T - 24

NIST WMD clarified that the process for developing and updating the NIST 105-Series Handbooks allows for any 

interested party to participate. NIST WMD noted that the basis for “due process” is to ensure that affected parties 

receive adequate notification and have opportunity to comment on proposed changes. The current process to 

develop the 105-Series Handbooks provides for this. Participants in revisions to various NIST 105-Series 

Handbooks have historically included representatives from weights and measures regulatory agencies, industry, and 

users and have included NCWM members in these groups. The process is an open one in which all affected parties 

are notified and invited to participate; diverse interest categories are solicited and sought to achieve balance; 

notification of the project, updates, and comments are distributed through multiple mechanisms such as the NIST 

Website, newsletters, meetings, and direct mailings. Views, comments, and objections are collected, compiled, 

addressed, and circulated. The final technical and editorial decisions rest with NIST to resolve conflict and ensure 

technical accuracy. The consensus process is used throughout the development process and comments and 

publications can be submitted at any time. There is also a precedent for referencing other standards such as ASTM 

standards. In considering whether or not to delete the term “additional,” WMD also suggested that the language 

remain consistent with corresponding references in the Fundamental Considerations.

There will be times in which changes will need to be made to a NIST 105-Series Handbook in order to bring it up to 

date. A lag between the time when the need for update is recognized and the time when the update is completed is 

common to most standards, including HB 44.

In response to a question regarding the reference to who can approve “other suitable and designated standards,” the 

Committee confirmed that the “Director” does refer to the weights and measures director in a jurisdiction as 

referenced in NIST Handbook 130.

The Committee noted that the NIST Handbook 105-Series Handbooks are referenced in Appendix A - Fundamental 

Considerations; therefore, including the reference to the NIST 105-Series in the proposed G-N.3. is consistent with 

the other references in HB 44. Consequently, the Committee modified the proposal as outlined in the 

recommendation.

During the voting session, the Committee continued to receive comments opposing the need for this proposal and 

when this item was brought up for discussion. The Committee responded that similar language is already in several 

HB 44 weighing codes. The Committee recognized that there was insufficient support for this item and withdrew it 

from its agenda prior to asking for a vote.

310-5 W G-T.1. Acceptance Tolerances

(This item was withdrawn)

Source: Central Weights and Measures Association

Recommendation: Amend General Code paragraph G-T.1. Acceptance Tolerances as follows:

G-T.1. Acceptance Tolerances. – Acceptance tolerances shall apply to:

(a) equipment to be put into commercial use for the first time;

(b) equipment that has been placed in commercial service within the preceding 30 days and is being officially 

tested for the first time;

(c) equipment that has been returned to commercial service following official rejection for failure to conform 

to performance requirements and is being officially tested for the first time within 30 days after corrective 

service;
S&T Committee 2009 Final Report

S&T - 25

(d) equipment that is being officially tested for the first time within 30 days after metrological adjustment or 

major reconditioning or overhaul; and

(Amended 201X)

(e) equipment undergoing type evaluation.

(Amended 1989)

Background/Discussion: At its 2008 Interim Meeting, the CWMA received comments that there are differences in 

how jurisdictions interpret G-T.1. Acceptance Tolerances. Several jurisdictions feel that when a seal on commercial 

equipment is broken by other than a regulatory official, this action constitutes taking the device out of service. 

Furthermore, if metrological adjustments are made and the equipment was resealed, this would constitute placing the 

equipment back into service. It is believed that the 30-day window for applying acceptance tolerance would apply 

to this scenario.

The CWMA also noted that equipment that “is adjusted” would require the application of acceptance tolerance 

according to HB 44 Appendix A – Fundamental Considerations in the second paragraph of Section 2.1. Tolerances 

for Commercial Equipment – Acceptance and Maintenance Tolerances.

During the open hearing at the 2009 NCWM Interim Meeting, the Committee received several comments opposing 

this item. Some comments indicated that the proposed language may deter routine maintenance to bring a device 

that was already in maintenance tolerance into acceptance tolerance. For example, device owners may have service 

contracts for verifying the accuracy of their equipment between official inspections and as part of the routine 

service, break the security seal to adjust the equipment as close to zero as possible. As a result of the adjustment and 

subsequent “placed in service report,” an official inspection may be conducted resulting in the potential that the 

equipment may be rejected even if it repeats with maintenance tolerances. The device would not have been rejected 

if the owner did not attempt to maintain their equipment. Other comments indicated that devices may no longer be 

capable of being adjusted to acceptance tolerances but still maintain maintenance tolerances. SMA stated that a 

“metrological adjustment” does not have the same significance as a “major reconditioning or overhaul” in G-T.1., 

and that the implication of failing a test using acceptance tolerances may create an unnecessary economic burden on 

the device owner. The MMA commented that normal deterioration in repeatability may cause rejection even though 

the device is capable of performing within applicable maintenance and repeatability tolerances. The CWMA noted 

that Appendix A – Fundamental Considerations Section 2.1. Acceptance and Maintenance Tolerances states that 

acceptance tolerances are applied to new, newly reconditioned, or adjusted equipment.

The Committee reviewed past conference reports that indicated that a similar proposal was considered by the 

NCWM in the Committee’s 1990 agenda Item 310-5. The proposal would have required acceptance tolerances to 

apply whenever the security seal has been changed. The proposal was ultimately Withdrawn since the possible 

ramifications of this proposal had not been sufficiently developed to evaluate the proposal.

The Committee agreed to withdraw this item because of the lack of support from industry and weights and measures 

officials and because it believes that equipment which performs within maintenance tolerances poses “no serious 

injury” to either the buyer or seller of commodities (See 2009 NIST Handbook 44 Appendix A – Fundamental 

Considerations Section 2.2. Theory of Tolerances).

320 SCALES

320-1A V S.2.1.6. Combined Zero-Tare (“0/T”) Key, Appendix D – Definitions for Tare Mechanism, and 

Tare Balancing Mechanism

(This item was not adopted)

Source: Carryover Item 320-6. (This item originated from the NTETC WS and first appeared on the Committee’s 

2007 agenda.) This item will be considered jointly along with the similar Item 324-2A. It should also be noted that 

the proposed tare definitions can be found in Item 320-1A.
S&T Committee 2009 Final Report

S&T - 26

Recommendation: The recommendations in Items 320-1A through 320-1D are intended to clarify the requirements 

for metrological tare (e.g., tare objects weighed or balanced off at the time of the transaction), tare accuracy, 

operating range, visibility, and preset tares (e.g., manually entered or stored tares for multiple transactions) as 

outlined in the recommendation below by modifying the definition for “tare mechanism” and adding new definitions 

for “gross weight value,” “net weight,” “net weight value,” “tare,” and “tare weight value” to Appendix D, and 

amending paragraphs S.2.3. and S.2.3.1. and adding new paragraphs S.2.3.2. through S.2.3.8. and S.2.4. through 

S.2.4.3. to provide new requirements for tare accuracy, operating range, and visibility.

Amend paragraph S.2.1.6. as follows:

S.2.1.6. Combined Zero-setting and Tare-balancing Mechanisms (“0/T”) Key. – Scales not intended to 

be used in direct sales to the public applications may be equipped with a combined zero-setting and tarebalancing function key, provided that the device is clearly marked as to how the key functions. The device 

must also be clearly marked on or adjacent to the weight display with the statement “ Not for Direct 

Sales.” The following apply to the zero-setting mechanism and the tare-balancing mechanism at any load:

(a) After zero/tare setting, the accuracy of the zero/tare setting shall be not more than ± 0.25 d.

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2010]

(b) A “center-of-zero” condition shall either automatically be maintained to ± 0.25 d or less or have an 

auxiliary or supplemental “center-of-zero” indicator that defines a zero-balance condition to 

± 0.25 d or less.

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2010]

(c) A zero-tracking mechanism, if equipped, shall operate only when:

(1) the indication is at zero, or at a negative net value equivalent to gross zero, and

(2) the weight indication is stable.

(d) The scale must also be clearly marked on or adjacent to the weight display with the statement 

“Not for Direct Sales.”

(Added 1998)

(Amended 2009)

Amend the following definition for “tare mechanism:”

tare mechanism. A tare-weighing or tare-balancing mechanism (including a tare bar) designed for 

determining the value of, or balancing out the weight of packaging material, containers, vehicles, or other 

materials that are not intended to be included in net weight determinations and for setting the net indication to 

zero when the tare object is on the load-receiving element (See also “preset tare,” “tare-weighing 

mechanism” and “tare-balancing mechanism”).

Notes:

1. Reducing the weighing range for net loads is known as subtractive tare (e.g., Net Weight + Tare 

Weight ≤ Gross Weight Capacity).

2. Increasing the weighing range for gross loads without altering the weighing range for net loads 

on mechanical scales is known as additive tare (e.g., a tare bar on a mechanical scale with a beam 

indicator where Net Weight + Tare Weight ≥ Gross Weight Capacity).

The tare mechanism may function as:

1. a non-automatic mechanism (load balanced or weighed by an operator),
S&T Committee 2009 Final Report

S&T - 27

2. a semi-automatic mechanism (load balanced or weighed automatically following a single manual 

command), or

3. an automatic mechanism where the load is balanced or weighed automatically without the 

intervention of an operator. An automatic tare mechanism is only suitable for indirect sales to 

the customer (e.g., prepackaging scales).

[2.20, 2.24]

(Amended 2009)

Add a new definition for tare-balancing mechanism in Appendix D.

tare-balancing mechanism. A tare mechanism with an indication that tare has been taken either 

semiautomatically or automatically and without an indication of the tare value (weight) when the 

instrument is loaded. A negative net weight is assumed to be the tare value when the weighing 

instrument is unloaded. [2.20, 2.24]

(Added 2009)

Background/Discussion: The WS proposal is one of several proposed modifications to HB 44 requirements 

intended to clarify the acceptable tare features already recognized for use in commercial applications. Scales Code 

requirements do not include sufficiently detailed language to identify all types of tare, define how tare features must 

operate, or specify the net and tare values a scale must indicate and record. Current HB 44 requirements that 

address tare include paragraphs S.2.1.6. Combined Zero-Tare (“0/T”) Key; S.2.3. Tare; S.2.3.1. Monorail Scales 

Equipped with Digital Indications; and T.N.2.1. General (Tolerances).

The WS developed criteria used to type evaluate tare features based on General Code paragraph G-S.2. Facilitation 

of Fraud and other requirements that apply to indicating and recording elements and recorded representations. 

NTEP laboratories find it has become increasingly difficult to base compliance decisions solely on paragraph G-S.2. 

because the general nature of the language results in multiple interpretations. Type evaluation criteria are published 

in NCWM Publication 14; however, this document is not in wide distribution in the weights and measures 

community. Additionally, only a limited number of weights and measures officials, device manufacturers, and 

device owners and operators are regular participants in WS meetings where tare evaluation criteria are developed 

and discussed. It is difficult for parties responsible for the design, use, and test of the tare feature to interpret and 

apply technical requirements published in Publication 14. This results in differing interpretations of HB 44 

requirements.

In 2006 the NTETC WS formed a Tare WG to review existing tare requirements and make recommendations as to 

how tare should operate on a single range scale, a multiple range scale, and a multi-interval scale. The WG was 

asked to develop, where necessary, recommendations for changes to Publication 14, HB 44, and HB 130 and to 

provide guidance to the WS on type evaluation requirements.

The WG developed proposals to amend HB 44 requirements to:

1. ensure a tare feature operates in a manner that increases the accuracy of net weight determinations,

2. state clearly what information and values are permitted and required for indicated and recorded 

representations of net weight and tare weight, and

3. identify the types (e.g., semiautomatic and stored) of tare weight values determined at the time objects are 

weighed or tare weight values are determined prior to the time objects are weighed.

At its 2007 Annual Meeting, the WS reviewed the final recommendation of the Tare WG and recommended that the 

NIST technical advisor submit a number of these recommendations to the weights and measures regional association 

and the NCWM S&T Committees.
S&T Committee 2009 Final Report

S&T - 28

Comments from all the 2007 regional weights and measures associations indicated general support for the 

recommendations and clarification of the tare definitions and that this item be broken up into several parts in order 

to provide additional clarification.

During the 2008 NCWM Interim Meeting Committee discussions on this item, the following clarifications for 

“consecutive tare operations” and “transactions using different tare mechanisms” were provided by Mettler-Toledo.

“Consecutive tare operations” in proposed paragraph S.2.3.5. are described as a single transaction with one 

gross, one net, and multiple tare values. Examples include but are not limited to:

1. The sales of wrapped candy sold in bulk where a metrological tare (weighed) for a bag and a preset 

(percentage) tare for the candy wrappers are used to determine the net weight of the candy.

2. The loading of a vehicle with bins of products (where the preset tare weight for the bins was 

predetermined). If indicated and/or printed, the representation of tare would include the value of the 

metrological tare (T) and the summed values of the preset tare (PT).

“Net weight values and tare values determined by different tare mechanisms” in proposed 

paragraph 2.3.6.(e) include single transactions with multiple gross, tare, and net determinations. For example, 

an unloaded vehicle would first be weighed to determine tare, loaded with a commodity, and reweighed to 

determine the gross weight and the net weight for that commodity. The vehicle would then be loaded with a 

different commodity and reweighed to determine a new gross weight. The second gross weight would be used 

to calculate the net weight of the second commodity by taking the difference between the second “tare” weight 

(gross weight of the first commodity) and the second gross weight (total weight of unloaded vehicle and both 

commodities).

At the 2009 NCWM Interim Meeting, the SMA suggested that the proposal be Withdrawn since the item began with 

a NTETC WS item dealing with the proper rounding of a tare value, on multiple range devices, when changing 

ranges. This discussion led to the development of the “mathematically correct” item (See Item 320-2 in the 2008 

S&T agenda which was subsequently adopted) and the creation of the Tare Work Group. They believe that this 

proposal goes beyond the original scope of the WG since its focus was to determine if any similar situation exists in 

HB 44 that would not be addressed with the “mathematically correct” agenda item. The work group expanded its 

efforts to include harmonization to OIML R 76 requirements related to tare. It is SMA’s feeling that these changes 

do not address any problem and can only lead to confusion in the current regulatory and product development fields.

NIST technical advisor Steven Cook gave a presentation on this item describing the background and answered 

questions regarding the specific language in the proposal in response to the suggestions from the CWMA. The 

Committee decided to break the item into multiple parts to make it easier for people to address and analyze as 

follows:

320-1A is the proposal to amend (and renumber depending if other items are adopted) paragraph S.2.1.6. 

regarding scales with a combination “zero/tare” key.

320-1B is the proposal to amend paragraph S.2.3. by:

• reorganizing the separate subjects in the existing paragraph,

• specifying that tare cannot operate above the tare capacity of the device,

• adding tare division and capacity requirements for multi-interval and multiple range scales, and

• adding new language for tare accuracy.

320-1C is the proposal to add new language for visibility of tare and net indications, printing of weighing 

results for net and tare, motion detection for tare, and requirements for consecutive tare operations.
S&T Committee 2009 Final Report

S&T - 29

320-1D is the proposal to add new language for preset tares, which are also known as stored tare, predetermined 

tare, programmable tare, etc.

The proposal to amend the definition of tare mechanism and add new terms and definitions for the terms used in 

the above proposals were incorporated in the individual items where the terms first appear.

Item 320-1A in the Committee recommendation addresses the proposed amendment to paragraph S.2.1.6. for scales 

that have a combined zero/tare key. The Committee agreed to move this item and the applicable definitions for 

tare-balancing mechanism and tare-weighing mechanism forward as a Voting item. Note that the Committee 

recommends that subparagraphs c and d be given retroactive status since these requirements have been verified by 

NTEP since the 0/T feature was included into HB 44.

At its 2009 SMA Spring Meeting, the SMA recommended the item be withdrawn. The SMA added that the item 

began with an NTETC WS item dealing with the proper rounding of a tare value, on multiple range devices, when 

changing ranges. The WS discussions lead to the development of the “mathematically correct” item 320-2 in the 

2008 S&T Agenda that was subsequently adopted and the creation of the Tare Work Group. The work group’s 

focus was to determine if any similar situation exists in HB 44 that would not be addressed with the “mathematically 

correct” agenda item. The work group expanded their efforts to include harmonization to OIML R76 requirements 

related to tare. SMA stated that these changes do not address any problem and can only lead to confusion in the 

current regulatory and product development fields.

At its 2009 Annual Meeting, the CWMA supported this as a Voting item. During the CWMA discussions of this 

item, statements were made that HB 44 is supposed to be a field manual for officials, users and service agents. The 

CWMA S&T Committee responded that the introduction in Handbook 44, Part S states, “Handbook 44 is designed 

to be a working tool for federal, state, and local weights and measures officials, the equipment manufacturers, 

installers and service agencies/agents.” Therefore the recommendation for S.2.1.6 would benefit the enforcement 

community and manufacturers by providing additional guidance in the design of these devices. Existing paragraph 

S.2.1.6 does not specify that motion detection and zero setting requirements are applicable when using scales with 

combined zero/tare key. Additionally the purposed amendment for “tare-balancing mechanism” clarifies that the 

manually entered tare weights (preset tares) should not be confused with tare values determined by a weighing 

device.

During its 2009 Annual Meeting, NEWMA supported this item and recognizes that it is a complicated and important 

issue and agreed that it is important that HB 44 supports the testing being performed by the NTEP labs.

During the 2009 Annual meeting, SMA restated its opposition to this item. WMD restated its support the tare 

proposals submitted by the Tare Work Group on the NTETC Weighing Sector and agrees that all proposals for tare 

and applicable definitions provide the following benefits:

• Ensures that tare operates in a manner that increases the accuracy of net weight determinations,

• Clarifies the definitions for the various terms that are currently used for tare,

• Identifies and formalizes the definitions for the different types of tare weight values whether they are 

determined at the time objects are weighed (i.e., tare) or tare weight values are determined prior to the time 

objects are weighed (i.e., preset tare),

• Reduces the possibility of multiple and incorrect interpretations of General Code paragraphs G-S.2 

Facilitation of Fraud and G-S.5.1. General (which states “ Primary indications and recorded representations 

shall be clear, definite, accurate, and easily read under any conditions of normal operations of the device”) 

by clearly stating what information and values are permitted and required for indicated and recorded 

representations of net, tare, and preset tare weight, and 

• Provides additional support for the requirements for the operation of tare and preset tare, indications 

recorded representation of tare during NTEP evaluation that are currently based on interpretations of 
S&T Committee 2009 Final Report

S&T - 30

General Code requirements and NCWM Report of the 65th Committee on Specifications and Tolerances 

agenda item 320-1 Tare (Pages 246-218).

The Committee considered the positions of the CWMA, SMA, and NEWMA, and the comment from Ed Williams, 

California Division of Measurement Standards, proposing deleting the words “to the public” since “direct sale is 

adequately defined in Appendix D-Definitions. The Committee agreed that NTEP needs additional support from 

HB 44 in evaluating tare features, and decided to keep the item as Voting, and delete the words “to the public” in the 

proposal. Replace the recommendation shown in the Committee’s recommendation. No changes were proposed to 

the remaining language in the Committee recommendation.

During the discussion of this item during the voting session, Darrell Flocken, Mettler-Toledo, expressed his 

opposition to all of the tare proposals and supports the SMA position that the tare proposals are not needed for 

HB 44. He added that much of the language is still confusing and not well understood by Conference members and 

cited examples in the above proposal. For example, what is meant by “the accuracy of the zero/tare setting shall be 

not more than ± 0.25 d,” and “a center-of-zero condition shall either automatically be maintained to ± 0.25 d or less 

or have an. . . .”

Items 320-1A and 320-1B were not adopted and consequently, the Committee recommends that the NTETC WS, at 

its August 2009 meeting, discuss and provide the Committee with an update on the WS position on the remaining 

Tare Informational proposals for the Committee’s 2010 Interim Agenda. 

For additional background information, refer to the Committee’s 2008 Annual Report.

320-1B V S.2.3. Design of Balance, Tare, Level, Damping, Arresting Mechanisms, and Appendix D –

Tare-weighing Mechanism.

(This item was not adopted)

Source: Carryover Item 320-6. (This item originated from the NTETC WS and first appeared on the Committee’s 

2007 agenda.)

Recommendations: Amend paragraphs S.2.3. and S.2.3.1. as follows font represents the “strikeout language” 

moved from S.2.3. to S.2.3.1.):

S.2. Design of Balance, Tare, Level, Damping, and Arresting Mechanisms.

S.2.3. Tare. – On any scale (except a monorail scale equipped with digital indications, and multiinterval scales and multiple range scales when the value of tare is determined in a lower weighing 

segment or weighing range), the value of the tare division shall be equal to the value of the scale 

division.* The tare-weighing and tare-balancing mechanism shall operate only in a backward direction 

(that is, in a direction of underregistration) with respect to the zero-load balance condition of the scale. A 

device designed to automatically clear any tare value shall also be designed to prevent the automatic 

clearing of tare until a complete transaction has been indicated.*

(Amended 1985 and 2009)

[Note: On a computing scale, this requires the input of a unit price, the display of the unit price, and a 

computed positive total price at a readable equilibrium. Other devices require a complete weighing 

operation, including tare, net, and gross weight determination.]*

[*Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1983]
S&T Committee 2009 Final Report

S&T - 31

S.2.3.1. Scale Interval (Division) and Capacity. – On any scale (except a monor ail scale equipped 

with digital indications, multi-inter val scales and multiple r ange scales when the value of tar e is 

deter mined in a lower weighing segment or weighing r ange), the value of the tar e-weighing 

division shall be equal to the value of the scale division for any given load and shall not be 

operable above its maximum capacity.

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1983]

(Added 2009)

S.2.3.1.1. Monorail Scales Equipped with Digital Indications. – On a static monorail weighing 

system equipped with digital indications, means shall be provided for setting any tare value of less 

than 5 % of the scale capacity to within 0.02 % of scale capacity. On a dynamic monorail 

weighing system, means shall be provided to automatically maintain this condition.

(Amended 1999)

Add new paragraphs S.2.3.1.2., S.2.3.1.3., S.2.3.2. and S.2.3.3. as follows:

S.2.3.1.2. Multi-interval Scales. – On multi-interval scales, the tare capacity is limited to the 

capacity of the first weighing segment and the value of the tare division shall be equal to the 

value of the scale division from the first weighing segment.

(Added 2009)

S.2.3.1.3. Multiple Range Scales. – On multiple range scales, the tare capacity may be

operable in the greater weighing ranges if it is possible to switch to a greater weighing range 

with a load on the scale. The value of the tare division shall be equal to the value of the scale 

division from the weighing range where the tare was determined.

(Added 2009)

S.2.3.2. Accuracy. – A tare-weighing or -balancing mechanism shall permit setting the net indication to 

zero with an accuracy equal to or better than:

(a) ± 0.25 d for electronic weighing devices and any weighing device with an analog indication, and

(b) ± 0.5 d for mechanical weighing devices with a digital indication (e.g., weighbeams with only 

notched poises and no sliding poises).

On a multi-interval scale, d shall be replaced by d1 (division value of the first weighing segment).

(Added 2009)

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2010]

S.2.3.3. Damping - Semi-automatic or Automatic* Tare-Balancing or Tare-Weighing Mechanisms. –

These mechanisms shall be operable or accessible only by a tool outside of and separate from this 

mechanism or they shall be enclosed in a cabinet, or they shall be operable only when the indication 

is stable within:

(a) ± 3 scale divisions for scales of more than 2000 kg (5000 lb) capacity in service prior to 

January 1, 1981, and for all axle-load, railway track, and vehicle scales; or

(b) ± 1 scale division for all other scales.

*Automatic tare mechanisms are not permitted for direct sales to the public.

(Added 2009)
S&T Committee 2009 Final Report

S&T - 32

Add a new definition for tare-weighing mechanism in Appendix D:

tare-weighing mechanism. A tare mechanism that stores a tare value that has been taken either semiautomatically or automatically and is capable of displaying (continuously or upon command) or printing 

the value whether or not the instrument is loaded. [2.20, 2.24]

(Added 201X)

Background/Discussion: Background information on this item, can be found in Item 320-1A.

After the NIST presentation on Tare during the 2009 Interim Meeting and considering that very few questions were 

raised during the discussion of the paragraphs in the recommendation, the Committee agreed to move this item and 

applicable definition for a tare-weighing mechanism forward as a Voting item. Note that the Committee 

recommends that language in paragraphs S.2.3.1.2., and S.2.3.1.3., be given retroactive status since these 

requirements have been verified by NTEP and since these types of weighing devices were included into HB 44 

Appendix D.

During the 2009 Annual Meeting, the Committee received no additional comments on this proposal. However, 

“Tare: Items 320-1A and 320-1B were not adopted and consequently, the Committee recommended that the NTETC 

WS, at its August 2009 meeting, discuss and provide the Committee with an update on the WS position on the 

remaining Tare Informational proposals for the Committee’s 2010 Interim Agenda.

320-1C I S.2.3.4. through S.2.3.7. Value of Tare Indication and Recorded Representations, and 

Appendix D. Definitions for Gross Weight Value, Net Weight Value, Net Weight, Tare, and 

Tare Weight Value

Source: Carryover Item 320-6. (This item originated from the NTETC WS and first appeared on the Committee’s 

2007 agenda.)

Recommendation: Add new paragraphs S.2.3.2. through S.2.3.6. as follows:

S.2.3.4. Visibility of Operation. – Operation of the tare mechanism shall be visibly indicated on the 

instrument. In the case of instruments with digital indications, this shall be done by marking the 

indicated net value with the word “NET” or the symbol “N.” “NET” may be displayed as “NET,” 

“Net,” or “net.” If a scale is equipped with an indicator that allows the gross value to be displayed 

temporarily while a tare mechanism is in operation, the “NET” symbol shall disappear while the 

gross value is displayed.

(Added 201X)

S.2.3.5. Subtractive Tare Mechanism. – After any tare operation and while tare is in effect, an 

indicating or recording element shall not display nor record any values when the gross load (not 

counting the initial dead load that has been canceled by an initial zero-setting mechanism) is in excess 

of 105 % of scale capacity after tare has been taken.

(Added 201X)

S.2.3.6. Consecutive Tare Operations. – Repeated operation of a tare mechanism (including preset 

tare) is permitted for single transactions with one gross, one net, and multiple tare values. If more 

than one tare mechanism is operative at the same time, tare weight values shall be clearly designated 

(identified) with either “T” for tare or “PT” for preset tare, as appropriate, when indicated or 

printed.

(Added 201X)

S.2.3.7. Indication and Printing of Weighing Results.

(a) Gross weight values may be printed without any designation or by using a complete word or 

symbol. For a designation by a symbol, only uppercase “G” is permitted.
S&T Committee 2009 Final Report

S&T - 33

(b) If only net weight values are printed without corresponding gross or tare values, they may 

be printed without any designation or by using a complete word or symbol. The complete 

word “Net” or symbol “N” shall be used to designate a net weight as shown in S.2.3.3. 

Visibility of Operation. This applies also where semi-automatic zero-setting and semiautomatic tare balancing are initiated by the same key.

(c) Gross, net, or tare values determined by a multiple range instrument or by a multi-interval 

instrument need not be marked by a special designation referring to the (partial) weighing 

range.

(d) If net weight values are printed together with the corresponding gross and/or tare values, the 

net and tare values shall be identified at least by the corresponding symbols “N” and “T” or 

by complete words using all upper-case letters, all lower-case letters, or a combination of 

upper- and lower-case letters.

(e) If net weight values and tare values determined by different tare mechanisms are printed 

separately for single transactions with multiple gross, tare, and net values, they shall be 

suitably identified (e.g., vehicle sequentially loaded with mixed commodities).

(Added 201X)

Add the following new definitions to Appendix D:

gross weight value. Indication or recorded representation of the weight of a load on a weighing device, 

with no tare mechanism in operation. [2.20, 2.24]

(Added 201X)

net weight (net mass). The weight of a commodity excluding any materials, substances, or items not 

considered to be part of the commodity. Materials, substances, or items not considered to be part of the 

commodity include, but are not limited to, containers, conveyances, bags, wrappers, packaging materials, 

labels, individual piece coverings, decorative accompaniments, and coupons, except that, depending on 

the type of service rendered, packaging materials may be considered to be part of the service. For 

example, the service of shipping includes the weight of packing materials. [2.20, 2.24]

(Added 201X)

net weight value. Indication or recorded representation of the weight of a load placed on a weighing 

device after the operation of a tare mechanism. [2.20, 2.24]

(Added 201X)

tare. The weight of packaging material, containers, vehicles, or other materials that are not intended to 

be part of the commodity included in net weight determinations. [2.20, 2.24]

(Added 201X)

tare weight value. The weight value of a load determined by a tare mechanism. [2.20, 2.24]

(Added 201X)

Background/Discussion: Background information on this item can be found in the Background/Discussion 

paragraphs on agenda Item 320-1A.

During the NIST presentation on Tare during the 2009 Interim Meeting, the Committee heard several questions that 

indicated the need for additional clarification on:

• the value of specifying acceptable words and abbreviations for Gross, Tare, Preset Tare, and Net;
S&T Committee 2009 Final Report

S&T - 34

• what is meant by consecutive tare operations;

• whether itemized indications and recorded representations are required for each tare; and

• whether different indications and recorded representations are required for each tare value when tare and 

preset tare are used in the same transaction.

Consequently, the Committee recommended that this proposal remain an Informational item in its Interim Report 

and suggested that the WS further clarify the proposed language and consider providing examples of; 1) indications 

and recorded representations of tare and preset tare in consecutive tare transactions, and 2) indications and recorded 

representations when multiple tares and preset tares are used to determine net weights.

During the 2009 Annual Meeting, the Committee received no additional comments on this proposal. However, 

“Tare” items 320-1A and 320-1B were not adopted and consequently, the Committee recommended that the NTETC 

WS, at its August 2009 meeting, discuss and provide the Committee with an update on the WS position on the 

remaining Tare Informational proposals for the Committee’s 2010 Interim Agenda.

320-1D I S.2.4. Preset Tare Mechanism and Appendix D – Definitions for Preset Tare

Source: Carryover Item 320-6. (This item originated from the NTETC WS and first appeared on the Committee’s 

2007 agenda.)

Recommendations: Add new paragraphs S.2.4. to address preset tare as follows:

S.2.4. Preset Tare Mechanism, Operation. – In addition to the provisions of paragraphs S.2.3. Tare 

and S.2.3.1. Scale Interval, a preset tare mechanism may be operated together with one or more tare 

devices provided:

(a) the preset tare mechanism complies with paragraph S.2.3.6. Consecutive Tare Operations,

(b) the preset tare operation cannot be modified or cancelled as long as any tare mechanism 

operated after the preset tare operation is still in use,

(c) the preset tare associated with a price look-up (PLU) shall be automatically cancelled at the same 

time a PLU is cancelled, and

(d) the preset tare values are designated by the symbol “PT”; however, it is permitted to replace the 

symbol “PT” with complete words.

A preset tare may operate automatically only if the preset tare value is clearly identified with the load to 

be measured (e.g., part of the product look-up information).

(Added 201X)

S.2.4.1. Indication of Operation. – It shall be possible to temporarily indicate the preset tare value 

(e.g., pressing a tare display button or by indicating a negative net weight with no load on the loadreceiving element). In addition to the provisions of paragraph S.2.3.7. Indication and Printing of 

Weighing Results, the net value and at least the preset tare value is printed, with the exception of:

(a) a Class II or a Class III instrument and point-of-sale systems with a maximum capacity not 

greater than 100 kg (200 lb) used in direct sales to the public,
S&T Committee 2009 Final Report

S&T - 35

(b) price computing scales, and

(c) nonautomatic weigh/price labeling scales.

(Added 201X)

Add new preset tare definitions to Appendix D as follows:

preset tare. A numerical value, representing a weight that is entered into a weighing device (e.g., via 

keyboard entry, recalling from stored data, or entered through an interface) and is intended to be applied 

to weighings without determining individual tares.

(Added 201X)

preset tare mechanism. A part of a weighing system for subtracting a preset tare value from a gross or 

net weight value and indicating the result of the calculation as a net weight. The weighing range for net 

loads is reduced accordingly.

Types of preset tare mechanisms include:

keyboard tare. The operation of keys on a keyboard. For example: On a scale where d = 0.01 

with a typical 10-key keyboard with values 0 through 9, pushing numbered key 5, or pressing 

the 0 then 5 keys results in a 0.05 tare value.

digital tare. By the repeated operation of a particular key, tare values are entered in amounts 

equal to the value of a scale division. For example, on a 25 lb x 0.01 lb scale, each time a 

specifically marked key is depressed, a tare is entered equal to 0.01 lb. If that key were 

depressed five times, the tare value would be equal to 0.05 lb.

programmable tare. Preset (predetermined) tare values that are stored in memory for multiple 

transactions. They may be part of the product information on PLU (product look-up), preset 

product, or tare keys.

stored tare. Preset (predetermined) tare values that are stored in memory for multiple 

transactions and are used predominately in vehicle scale applications.

percentage tare. A preset tare value, expressed as a percentage (i.e., 5.6 %), that represents the 

percentage of tare material compared to the gross or net weight of the commodity. A percentage 

tare is one form of proportional tare.

proportional tare. A preset tare value, automatically calculated by the scale, proportional to the 

gross weight indicated by the scale. A proportional tare can be a percentage tare or a fixed tare 

value relative to a range of gross weights (i.e., a 10 g tare for gross weights between 0 and 2 kg, a 

20 g tare for gross weights from 2 and 4 kg, etc.). A proportional tare is, therefore, not limited to 

being a percentage tare.

[2.20, 2.24]

(Added 201X)

Background/Discussion: Background information on this item can be found in the Background/Discussion 

paragraphs on agenda Item 320-1A.

During the NIST presentation on Tare during the 2009 Interim Meeting, the Committee heard several questions that 

indicated the need for additional clarification on the value of specifying acceptable words and abbreviations for 

Gross, Tare, Preset Tare, and Net.

Consequently, the Committee recommended that this proposal remain an Informational item in its Interim Report.
S&T Committee 2009 Final Report

S&T - 36

During the 2009 Annual Meeting, the Committee received no additional comments on this proposal. However, 

“Tare” items 320-1A and 320-1B were not adopted and consequently, the Committee recommended that the NTETC 

WS, at its August 2009 meeting, discuss and provide the Committee with an update on the WS position on the 

remaining Tare Informational proposals for the Committee’s 2010 Interim Agenda.

320-2 V T.N.4.6. Time Dependence (Creep) for Load Cells During Type Evaluation

(This item was adopted)

Source: 2008 S&T Committee

Recommendation: Amend T.N.4.7. as follows:

T.N.4.7. Creep Recovery for Load Cells During Type Evaluation. – The difference between the initial 

reading of the minimum load of the measuring range (Dmin) and the reading after returning to minimum load 

subsequent to the maximum load (Dmax) having been applied for 30 minutes shall not exceed:

(a) 0.5 times the value of the load cell verification interval (0.5 v) for Class I, II, and IIII load cells 

(b) 0.5 times the value of the load cell verification interval (0.5 v) for Class III load cells with 4000 or 

fewer divisions,

(c) 0.83 times the value of the load cell verification interval (0.83 v) for Class III load cells with more 

than 4000 divisions, or

(d) 1.5 times the value of the load cell verification interval (1.5 v) for Class III L load cells.

(Added 2006) (Amended 2009)

Background/Discussion: The current tolerance of 0.5 times the load cell verification interval comes from OIML 

R 60 and was adopted in an attempt at harmonization. Because of the difference between the United States and 

European marketplace, a Class III scale with 5000 divisions is more common in the U.S. whereas a 3000 division 

Class III scale is more common in the international marketplace. The U.S. load cell manufacturers have stated that 

the OIML tolerance should be multiplied by 5

/3 to maintain consistency in the level of performance between the 

United States and international marketplace equivalent devices. For example, a HB 44 5000 lb device with a load 

cell where v = 1 lb would have a maintenance tolerance of ± 5 lb with a creep recovery tolerance of 0.5 lb. An 

equivalent capacity OIML 3000 kg scale with an equivalent load cell where v = 1 kg would have a maintenance 

tolerance at a capacity of 2 kg (approximately 4.4 lb) and a creep recovery of 0.5 kg (1.1 lb). The proposal would 

increase the HB 44 creep recovery tolerance by 5

/3 to 0.83 lb.

A few weeks prior to the 2008 Annual Meeting, the Committee received a “priority” request to add a proposal as a 

Voting item to the Committee’s agenda and was prompted by a significant increase in the failure rate for load cells 

submitted to NTEP since creep recovery tolerances were adopted into HB 44. The request to add the item as a 

Voting item was not approved according to criteria in HB 44 Introduction Section H(c) Exceptions to Policy for 

Submission of Items to a Committee Agenda; Submission of Priority Items. However, the Committee agreed to 

discuss this item during the Annual Meeting. As a result of these discussions, the Committee added this item to its 

list of carryover items as an Informational item and recommended that the NIST technical advisor work with the 

submitter of the item to develop a proposal to amend Table T.N.4.6. and add a table for designating loading and 

unloading times for consideration by the regional weights and measures associations to the 2009 NCWM Interim 

Meeting.

During their 2008 fall meetings, WWMA, CWMA, SWMA, and NEWMA heard from representatives of the SMA 

stating that additional load cell manufacturers will discuss this issue at the November 2008 SMA meeting and expect 

to have a proposal that the NCWM S&T Committee can consider at the 2009 Interim Meeting. Until such time that 

an alternate proposal is developed for consideration, the regional weights and measures associations recommend 

maintaining this item as an Informational item on its agenda. The regional associations encourage the load cell 

manufacturers and SMA in their efforts to develop a proposal that can be considered for voting at the 2009 NCWM 

Annual Meeting.
S&T Committee 2009 Final Report

S&T - 37

During the 2008 NCWM Interim Meeting, the Committee received comments during the open hearing on whether 

this proposed language should be reviewed by the Weighing Sector (WS). The WS chairman (Darrell Flocken) 

replied that this was not reviewed by the WS since it is a tolerance issue for HB 44 and not the test procedures in 

Publication 14. Darrell stated that the 2008 WS did provide recommendations to amend Publication 14 based on 

some of the issues identified during the discussions of the priority item submitted to the Committee at the 2008 

Annual Meeting.

At the 2009 Interim Meeting, WMD stated that the proposed tolerance deviates from the recommendations in 

OIML R 60. WMD believes that, in most cases, this proposed tolerance does not present a technical barrier to trade 

since an equivalent OIML Class C load cell with 3000 v will likely pass HB 44 Class III S 5000 v requirement 

because of the extra tolerance step in Table 6 and proposed increase in the creep recovery tolerance. Stephen 

Patoray, Consultants on Certification, LLC, cautioned the Committee that there is a similar creep recovery tolerance 

for scales and separable weighing/load-receiving elements, and he suggested that the Committee consider the 

potential impact the increase in tolerance for load cells will have on these devices. Darrel Flocken suggested that 

the Committee consider developing a similar proposal for scales. However, the Committee would like to determine 

if there are similar creep recovery problems before recommending increasing the tolerances in 

paragraph T.N.4.5.1.(c) Time Dependence.

The Committee agreed to move this item forward as a Voting item and requests that the NTEP weighing labs be 

queried to see if there is a similar increase in device failures due to the new requirements for creep recovery on 

scales.

After the 2009 Interim Meeting, the NIST Force Group provided a set of compliance data for load cells submitted to 

NTEP since November 2007 where the creep recovery compliance results were recalculated using the proposed 

tolerance. The compliance rate increased to 58 % passing, which is up from 29 % passing.

At its 2009 Spring Meeting, the SMA restated its support for this item.

After the 2009 Interim Meeting, the Committee received written comments on this item from Stephen Patoray, 

Consultants on Certification (CoC). CoC stated that it does not support this change. The main reason is there has 

been significant effort by many members of NCWM (e.g. industry, regulators and NIST) to support harmonization 

with OIML Recommendations and make changes to HB 44 to harmonize when they made sense. The words found 

in T.N.4.7. and T.N.4.7.(a) currently match those found in OIML R 60 load cells. These changes were well 

discussed before they were adopted. CoC asks, what has changed now, that requires this change in T.N.4.7 (a)? Is 

there no longer support for harmonization with international recommendations? 

CoC suggested that the Committee must also make changes in other places in HB 44 which were also recently 

harmonized with OIML Recommendations, so as not to create conflicts with the Committee recommendation. 

Paragraph T.N.4.5.1. (c) states that the complete scale must not exceed 0.5 e after a load has been on the scale for 30 

minutes. Since ALL creep comes from the load cell, if the requirement in T.N.4.7. (a) is changed to 0.83 v, then the 

requirement in T.N.4.5.1. (c) will also need to be changed to 0.83 e. 

Also, HB 44 recently changed S.2.1.3.2. (b) AZT for all scales other than III L devices. This too was an attempt to 

harmonize with international recommendations. CoC stated that there is no coincidence with the 0.5 v in creep on a 

load cell, the 0.5 e in creep for a scale and the 0.5 e (scale division) for AZT. With AZT active, it ensures that an 

indication will return to zero if a load is left on a scale for 30 minutes or less and will automatically track the zero. If 

T.N.4.7. (a) is changed to 0.83 v, then the requirement in S.2.1.3.2. (b) will also need to be changed to 0.83 e.

At their 2009 Annual Meetings, both CWMA and NEWMA reviewed the comments from SMA and CoC and 

supported the Committee recommendation. The associations also agreed that the specifications for zero-tracking 

and tolerance for creep recovery in the scale code may also need to be looked at for alignment with this item.

In his May 2009 letter to the Committee, John Elengo stated that this proposal will relax the performance 

requirements of devices of all accuracy classes and resolutions across the board in order to address the specific 

shortfall of certain manufacturers to achieve NTEP Certification for their Class III, 5000d devices. This is supported 
S&T Committee 2009 Final Report

S&T - 38

by the preponderance of NTEP Certificates for Class III, 3000d devices and questions the need to relax tolerances 

for 3000d scales. John Elengo is concerned that to do so may open the U.S. market to dumping by others.

John added that the proposed relaxation will also remove the competitive advantage that exists for those 

manufacturers who already have NTEP Certificates for Class III, 5000d devices. From a historical perspective, 

high-resolution devices are a carry-over from the days when accuracy classes were tied to a percent of load 

tolerance. The user was convinced that, for example, it was better to purchase a scale with a 1-pound graduation to 

measure a 5000 pound load than to buy a scale with a 2-pound graduation; yet the tolerance requirement for each 

was identical at 5 pounds. For that reason, in attempting to harmonize with internationally accepted step tolerances 

the U.S. added a fourth step to the Class III tolerance and also created Class IIIL. Should a relaxation be allowed, it 

should only be specific to Class III, 5000d and up devices and not be applied across the board.

During the 2009 Annual Meeting, the Committee considered the positions of the SMA, CoC, Mettler-Toledo, and 

John Elengo. The Committee concurred with the concerns in John Elengo’s letter that loosening the creep recovery 

tolerance across the board may open the U.S. market to dumping by other load cell manufacturers. 

The Committee is sensitive to statements from the load cell manufacturers stating that they did not recognize the full 

impact on load cell compliance during type evaluation testing based on the language that was adopted in 2006. The 

manufacturers have also stated that the current tolerance places new load cells at a competitive disadvantage with 

load cells that were evaluated prior to the adoption of this tolerance and are not required to be resubmitted for 

reevaluation to compliance with the new tolerances. 

NIST WMD and SMA restated their comments that there were no creep recovery requirements prior to the language 

that was adopted in 2006. The Committee agreed that the proposed increase in the creep recovery tolerance is more 

acceptable than the load cell manufacturers’ 2008 request for an emergency item that would have removed the creep 

recovery tolerance from HB 44 for both scales and load cells. WMD added that load cell test data used in the 

determination of compliance rates discussed in the Interim Report was collected by NIST, which is one of the two 

laboratories utilized by NTEP to certify load cell compliance with performance requirements.

The Committee agrees with the comments that the relaxation of tolerances may impact existing zero-tracking and 

creep recovery requirements for scales and may result in increased rejection rates unless the language is amended. 

The Committee encourages the NTETC WS or other interested parties to submit proposals that address areas 

affected by this change.

The Committee amended the proposal to read as shown in the above recommendation to limit the range of load cells 

in the proposed change in creep recovery tolerances. The Committee selected the 4000 division breakpoint 4000 

scale divisions is the point where HB 44 deviates from OIML R 76 and R 60 tolerances.

320-3 I S.2.1.7. Automatic Zero-Setting Mechanism

Source: 2008 NTETC Weighing Sector and S&T Committee

Recommendation: Add a new paragraph S.2.1.7. and definition for Automatic Zero-Setting Mechanism as follows:

S.2.1.7. Automatic Zero-Setting Mechanism. – If equipped, an automatic zero-setting mechanism shall 

operate only when the indication has remained;

(a) stable according to S.2.5. Damping Means, and

(b) below zero for at least 5 seconds.

The maximum effect of automatic zero-setting mechanism is limited to 4 % of the nominal capacity of the 

scale and is a sealable parameter.

(Added 201X)
S&T Committee 2009 Final Report

S&T - 39

Amend paragraph S.2.1.3.3. as follows:

S.2.1.3.3. Means to Disable Automatic Zero-Tracking and Automatic Zero-Setting Mechanisms on 

Class III L Devices. – Class III L devices equipped with an automatic zero-tracking and automatic zero-setting 

mechanisms shall be designed with a sealable means that would allow automatic zero-tracking and automatic

zero-setting to be disabled during the inspection and test of the device.

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2001]

(Amended 201X)

Amend HB 44 Appendix D by adding a new definition for automatic zero-setting mechanism, move the 

current definition for initial zero-setting mechanism under the broad heading of type of zero-setting 

mechanism, and move the definition for automatic zero-tracking mechanism to a stand-alone definition as 

follows:

automatic zero-tracking mechanism. Automatic means provided to maintain the zero balance indication, 

within certain limits, without the intervention of an operator. See “automatic zero-tracking mechanism” 

under “zero-setting mechanism.”[2.20, 2.22, 2.24]

(Amended 2010)

zero-setting mechanism. Means provided to attain a zero balance indication with no load on the 

load-receiving element. Four Three types of these mechanisms are: [2.20]

automatic zero-setting mechanism. Automatic means provided to maintain the zero balance 

indication without the intervention of an operator. [2.20, 2.22, 2.24]

(Added 201X)

automatic zero-tracking mechanism. Automatic means provided to maintain the zero balance indication, 

within certain limits, without the intervention of an operator. [2.20, 2.22, 2.24]

initial zero-setting mechanism. Automatic means provided to set the indication to zero at the time the 

instrument is switched on and before it is ready for use. [2.20]

(Added 1990)

manual zero-setting mechanism. Nonautomatic means provided to attain a zero balance indication by the 

direct operation of a control. [2.20]

semiautomatic zero-setting mechanism. Automatic means provided to attain a direct zero balance 

indication requiring a single initiation by an operator. [2.20]

(Amended 2010)

Background/Discussion: At its 2008 Annual Meeting, the NTETC WS discussed an issue on an increasing number 

of scales submitted for NTEP evaluations that include an “automatic zero-setting” feature not addressed in NIST 

HB 44. It has been noted that many devices are built for a global marketplace and that the operation of this

“automatic zero-setting” device may be functional on the device when installed in the United States. Currently, 

HB 44 does not define this function and NCWM Publication 14 has no test to determine if the device submitted for 

evaluation has such a function, or if it is sealable. Additionally, NTEP reported that, on a scanner/scale that had 

been submitted for NTEP evaluation, the automatic zero-setting feature was discovered and found to work in both 

the positive and negative directions and could be activated or deactivated without breaking a security seal or 

changing the audit trail information. The operation of the feature in the positive direction does not even comply 

with R 76. Competitors have also commented to NTEP that they had to disable this feature because it was not 

allowed by other NTEP weighing labs.

In the past, several of the NTEP labs, when asked about this “feature,” have indicated that since it does not meet the 

definition of an “automatic zero-tracking mechanism,” it is not allowed. Additionally, the NTETC WS agreed that 

HB 44 does not clearly state that this function is not allowed. This led to incorrect interpretations of Section 2.20. 
S&T Committee 2009 Final Report

S&T - 40

Scales paragraphs S.1.1.(c) (Zero Indication – “. . . return to a continuous zero indication”) and S.1.1.1.(b) (Digital 

Indicating Elements – “a device shall either automatically maintain a “center-of-zero” condition. . .”) and could 

also be interpreted to allow the automatic zero-setting device as described in R 76. This interpretation was not the 

intent of the HB 44 requirements referenced above.

The WS concluded the following:

1. There is a problem that needs to be solved, based on the current information or lack of information in 

HB 44.

2. There are no technical reasons why the feature automatic zero-setting as described in OIML R 76 should 

not be included in HB 44.

3. The feature may not be suitable for all applications if it is allowed to function with both positive and 

negative weight indications.

4. Language will need to be developed for NCWM Publication 14 to either test for the correct function of 

“automatic zero-setting” or test to determine that the device does not have “automatic zero-setting” and it is 

a sealable parameter.

The WS established a small WG to develop language to be submitted to the NCWM S&T Committee and to make a 

recommendation addressing the suitability of scales with the capability to automatically set a positive weight 

indication to zero. This group, which included Scott Davidson (Mettler-Toledo), Scott Henry (NCR), Steve Cook 

(NIST technical advisor), and Stephen Patoray (Consultants on Certification, LLC), volunteered to develop a 

proposal for the S&T Committee. (Todd Lucas, Ohio NTEP laboratory, and Jim Truex, NTEP Administrator, also 

contributed to the discussions and subsequent proposal.) Additionally, the WS agreed to review the language 

developed by the WG to confirm its support of the proposed language.

In the process of developing the proposal, the WG recommended the following:

1. Make the proposal to add automatic zero-setting “retroactive” since the group is aware that the feature has 

been included on several scales for nearly 20 years and may not have been activated. The group considered 

alternate retroactive dates, but felt that the proposed requirements for the feature should be applicable to all 

scales incorporating this feature. Additionally, NCWM Publication 14 NTEP technical policies state that 

only the standard features and options that have been evaluated will be included on the CC. As a result, an 

NTEP applicant will have to submit an application to NTEP in order to have the automatic zero-setting 

feature listed on an existing CC.

2. The automatic zero-setting mechanism shall be limited to operating only when the scale indication is below 

zero. The group discussed allowing the feature to operate in both directions. Although there may be valid 

reasons for allowing it in the positive direction, the group felt that legitimate objects on a scale could be 

inadvertently (or intentionally) zeroed without an obvious indication to the customer or operator when the 

scale was indicating zero at the start of a transaction.

3. The automatic zero-setting mechanism should be considered as a “sealable parameter” since there are 

applications where it is required to be disabled, or scale parameters such as the time before initiating 

automatic zero-setting, motion detection, and capacity limitations can be adjusted beyond the requirements 

in the proposal.

4. Publication 14 evaluation and field examination procedures should be amended to verify that the automatic 

zero-setting mechanism cannot set the scale to a zero indication in less than five seconds; it can only 

operate if it complies with motion detection requirements, and its effect on the nominal scale capacity is no 

larger than 4 %.

5. The automatic zero-setting mechanism should be capable of being disabled for testing purposes for the 

same reasons that zero-tracking is capable of being disabled for Scales Code Class III L devices.
S&T Committee 2009 Final Report

S&T - 41

6. The group noted the current definition for initial zero-setting mechanism as a type of zero mechanism and 

should be included with the definition on zero-setting mechanism as shown in the recommendation.

7. The Committee is asked to consider recommending changing “automatic zero-tracking” to “zero-tracking” 

throughout the weighing codes in order to reduce confusion with the term and definition for “automatic 

zero-setting.” Additionally, the word “automatic” is redundant for zero-tracking since it is used in its 

definition.

The WG did not have sufficient time to both develop the proposal and ballot the NTETC WS prior to the cutoff date

for submitting items to the Committee. The responses to the ballot indicated that eight WS members responded to 

the ballot of which six voted in favor of the proposed language. It should be noted that two of the affirmative votes 

stated that their vote was provisional on the basis that the reference to the 4 % of scale capacity limitation be 

removed from the proposal. Two members opposed that item stating that the language should not be rushed through 

the S&T Committee and that the feature should operate with either negative or positive weight indications.

At the 2009 NCWM Interim Meeting, the Committee heard comments from the SMA stating that it was in favor of 

the proposal, provided the reference to the 4 % of scale capacity limitation is removed from the proposal. Paul 

Lewis, Rice Lake Weighing, recommended that the proposal be discussed by the regional weights and measures 

associations before it is ready for a vote. Ted Kingsbury, Measurement Canada (MC), stated that the language in the 

proposal is identical to Canadian requirements and that it is consistent with the recommendations in R 76. Any 

changes to the proposal involving the 4 % capacity limitation and the ability to operate in the positive direction 

would require that MC perform additional testing for devices submitted under the United States/Canada Mutual 

Recognition Agreement. Darrell Flocken, Mettler-Toledo, also pointed out the inclusion of the term and definition 

for “automatic zero-tracking mechanism” should stand-alone and not be included as a type of zero-setting 

mechanism in order to be consistent with OIML R 76. Steve Cook, NIST technical advisor, added that he had 

received an earlier comment that the word “automatic” should be deleted from the term since the word is used in the 

definition and that it is not used in the corresponding term in R 76 and suggested that the Committee consider 

developing a proposal to delete the word “automatic” in the term “automatic zero-tracking” throughout HB 44.

The Committee reviewed the WS ballot results and comments it received during the open hearing. The Committee 

agreed that there was no clear consensus among the WS members and recommended that this proposal remain an 

Informational item. The Committee agreed with Darrell Flocken to move the definition of “automatic zerotracking.” The Committee also asked that the NTEP labs and the WS further discuss this item, develop a consensus 

position, and forward its recommendations to the Committee and that they also consider the suggestion from Steve 

Cook to amend the term “automatic-zero tracking.”

At its 2009 Spring Meeting, SMA opposed the language in the Interim Report and took the position that to be fair to 

the buyer and seller, the recommendation should include the ability to zero the indication in both a positive and 

negative direction.

During their 2009 Annual Meetings, CWMA and NEWMA heard comments from SMA in opposition of this item. 

Other comments supporting the proposal indicated there is a potential to zero off a load intended to be weighed if 

the feature were allowed to be operate in the positive direction. It was also reported that test weights were 

inadvertently zeroed during a routine increasing-load by several NTEP certified scanner/scales that were configured 

with this feature (i.e., zero-setting was configured to operate in the positive direction). Consequently, the CWMA 

agreed that automatic zero-setting mechanism should operate only in a negative condition or that the feature be

prohibited, and they recommended the item stay “Informational.” NEWMA supports the continued review, 

comments, and work on this item.

During the 2009 NCWM Annual Meeting open hearing, the Committee heard support of the SMA position on this 

item from several scale manufacturers. WMD stated that if the Committee chooses to allow automatic zero-setting 

feature, the language should be consistent with R 76 in regards to the stipulation that only the negative weight 

indication permitted to automatically rezero and added that there is too great a potential for a load that is intended to 

be weighed to be unintentionally (or fraudulently) zeroed. Should the Committee choose to not allow this feature, 

WMD recommends that the Committee develop a proposal that expressly prohibits the automatic zero-setting 
S&T Committee 2009 Final Report

S&T - 42

feature. In either case, access to enable or disable the feature should be protected by an approved security means on 

any scale that can be configured with this feature. Additionally, the Committee agrees that the WS needs support 

from HB 44 in order to evaluate the feature if the requirement is adopted or verify that it can be disabled if the 

feature is to be prohibited on weighing devices.

The Committee agreed to leave this proposal on the agenda as an Informational item and requested that the NTETC 

WS discuss the comments and suggestions from the 2009 Interim and Annual Meetings and provide additional 

feedback to the Committee on the recommendation that either supports the proposal or recommends language for 

HB 44 prohibiting the feature.

321 BELT-CONVEYOR SCALE SYSTEMS

321-1 V UR.3.2.(c) Maintenance; Zero-Load Tests

(This item was adopted)

Source: 2008 Western Weights and Measures Association (WWMA) (This item previously appeared on the 2008 

Committee’s Developing agenda as Item 360-2 Part 3 Item 1.)

Recommendation: Modify UR.3.2.(c) as follows:

UR.3.2. Maintenance. – Belt-conveyor scales and idlers shall be maintained and serviced in accordance with 

manufacturer’s instructions and the following requirements:

(c) Zero-load and load (simulated or material) tests Ssimulated load tests, or material tests, and 

zero-load testsshall be conducted at periodic intervals between official tests and after a repair or 

mechanical adjustment to the conveyor system in order to provide reasonable assurance that the 

device is performing correctly. The minimum interval for periodic zero-load tests and simulated 

load tests shall be established by the official with statutory authority or according to 

manufacturer recommendations.

The actions to be taken as a result of the zero-load test is shown in the following table:

Change in Zero Reference Point (∆ 0) Action to be taken

If the change in zero is less than ± 0.25 %

(∆ 0 < 0.25%)*

Perform zero adjustment and proceed to simulated load 

test

If the change in zero is ± 0.25 % to ± 0.5 %

(0.25% ≤ ∆ 0 ≤ 0. 5%)*

Inspect the conveyor and weighing area for compliance 

with UR.2. Installation Requirements and repeat the 

zero-load test

If the change in zero is greater than ± 0.5 %

(∆ 0 > 0. 5%)

Inspect the conveyor and weighing area for compliance 

with UR.2. Installation Requirements, repeat the zeroload test, and reduce the interval between zero-load tests.

(Amended 2002 and 2009)

The action to be taken as a result of the simulated or material test or simulated load test is shown in the 

following table as follows:
S&T Committee 2009 Final Report

S&T - 43

Change in Reference Point established in 

N.3.3. (b) Action to be taken

If the error is less than 0.25 %

(∆ N.3.3. (b) < 0.25%) No Action

If the error is at least 0.25 % but not more than 

0.6 %

(0.25% ≤ ∆ N.3.3. (b) ≤ 0.6 %)

Inspect the conveyor and weighing area for compliance 

with UR.2. Installation Requirements and repeat the test.

If the result of tests, after compliance with UR.2. 

Installation Requirements is verified, remain greater than 

± 0.25 %, a span correction shall be made and the official 

with statutory authority notified..

(Amended 1991)

If the error is greater than 0.6 % but does not 

exceed 0.75 %

(0.6% < ∆ N.3.3. (b) ≤ 0.75%)*

Inspect the conveyor and weighing area for compliance 

with UR.2. Installation Requirements, and repeat the test. 

If the result of tests, after UR.2. Installation Requirements

compliance is verified, remains greater than ± 0.25 %, a

span correction shall be made, the official with statutory 

authority shall be notified, and an official test shall be 

conducted.

(Amended 1991)

If the error is greater than 0.75 %

(∆ N.3.3. (b) > 0.75%)

An official test is required.

(Amended 1987)

(Amended 1987 and 2009)

 

Background/Discussion: At its 2007 Annual Meeting, the WWMA received a proposal from the Belt-Conveyor 

Scale Work Group (BCS WG) to amend paragraph U.R.3.2. Maintenance. The BCS WG stated that HB 44 gives 

limited guidance on what to do with zero-load test results. Belt loss is not the only factor that may require the scale 

operator to make physical adjustments to the belt-conveyor system to correct for deficiencies. For example, a dirty 

scale structure or a worn belt scraper will increase the zero-reference number and the test results may exceed 

tolerances.

The scale user/owner has to protect his interest between weighing transactions. At present, some belt-conveyor 

systems may have errors greater than 0.5 % in zero reference over a 24-hour period. The belt is part of tare (net 

load) on any empty running system and the system must be maintained to within tolerance at all times.

During its 2006 meeting, the WWMA recommended the alternate industry proposal shown above. The WWMA 

also recommended the alternate proposal be considered at a future meeting of the USNWG on Belt-Conveyor Scale 

Systems. The WWMA recommended the alternate proposal remain a Developing item to allow sufficient time for a 

review by the WG. The CWMA and the SWMA concurred with the WWMA’s recommendation.

This WG agreed that there is a need to establish some zero-load test interval for the normal use of a belt-conveyor 

scale system and that there is also a need to vary the interval (longer interval if the scale is stable; shorter interval if 

the zero-load tests require frequent adjustment). The WG reviewed and discussed this item and submitted a revised 

proposal to the NIST technical advisor to the S&T Committee.

At its 2007 Annual Meeting, the WWMA believed this item was not sufficiently developed and did not have a 

consensus from the Belt-Conveyor Scales (BCS) and, therefore, recommended this remain a Developing item on the 

NCWM S&T Committee agenda.

At its 2007 Interim Meeting, the CWMA recommended this item be Withdrawn.
S&T Committee 2009 Final Report

S&T - 44

During the 2008 NCWM Interim Meeting, the Committee was informed that the USNWG on Belt-Conveyor Scales 

was planning to further develop the proposal during their next meeting on February 27 - 28, 2008, in St. Louis, 

Missouri. During that meeting, the WG further amended the proposal as shown in the above recommendation and 

believes that this item is sufficiently developed to be added to the NCWM S&T Committee Agenda as a Voting 

item.

At its 2008 Annual Technical Conference, the WWMA heard comments from the BCS USNWG that the item is 

sufficiently developed. The WWMA agreed with the comments and proposed change to add “and after a repair or 

mechanical adjustment to the conveyor system” in (c) as shown in the above proposal and recommends that this 

proposal move forward as a Voting item.

At the 2009 NCWM Interim Meeting, the Committee heard comments from Bill Ripka, Thermo Ramsey, who 

recommends that this item move forward as a Voting item since recent changes to the Belt-Conveyor Scale Systems 

Code have increased attention to the accuracy of the zero reference on belt-conveyor scales and raised questions on 

how frequently the zero reference and simulated tests should be conducted between official testing. The language in 

this proposal would require users to perform tests to monitor the scale’s performance at a frequency that would be 

established either by the official or by recommendations from the manufacturer. Jack Kane, Montana, was 

concerned that the proposed language appears to rely only on the official’s experience and expertise and suggested 

the scale manufacturer be able to provide input to the frequency of testing. Julie Quinn, Minnesota, stated that this 

language by itself would imply recordkeeping requirements. The NIST technical advisor stated that the 

requirements for recordkeeping are supported in paragraph UR.3.3. Retention of Maintenance, Test, and Analog or 

Digital Recorder Information. The NIST technical advisor stated all the belt-conveyor scale proposals will be 

reviewed by the BCS WG during their February 2009 meeting.

The Committee agreed with the comments from Jack Kane and amended the proposal as shown in the Committee’s 

recommendation to include the manufacturer’s recommendations in determining the frequency of zero and simulated 

tests between official tests and recommended this item move forward as a Voting item. The Committee also 

requests input from the BCS WG and other interested parties on the table format for the “actions to be taken as a 

result” of the zero or simulated tests.

After the Interim Meeting, the NIST technical advisor developed tables, which were based on a suggestion during 

the open hearing. The tables represent the bulleted language in UR.3.3.(c) and were submitted to the BCS WG for 

its recommendations and additional comments.

The CWMA and NEWMA heard no comments on this item at their 2009 Annual Meetings. Steve Cook, NIST 

stated the BCS WG had not yet completed its report to the NCWM S&T Committee and that it would be submitted 

prior to the 2009 NCWM annual meeting. The CWMA and NEWMA also received a comment from a 

representative of the WWMA (Jack Kane, MT) supporting of all voting items in the Belt-Conveyor Scale Systems 

Code. Having limited experience with these devices, the CWMA took no position on this and remaining beltconveyor scale items while NEWMA stated it would support the recommendations and comments from the experts 

in the WG.

At the 2009 Annual Meeting, the Committee reviewed the comments and recommendations from the February 2009 

meeting of the Belt-Conveyor Scale Work Group. The WG agreed with the revised recommendation and supported

the use of the tabular format as being easier to read. The WG also recommended combining the fourth and fifth

bulleted items for the actions to be taken “as a result of the simulated or material test” in the Committee’s Interim 

Report in the fourth row of the applicable table since both actions are based on the same test results (“If the error is 

greater than 0.6 % but does not exceed 0.75 %”). 

During the open hearing, the Committee heard from the State of Montana that it has an active participant in the 

Belt-Conveyor Scale WG and that it supports all the belt-conveyor scale items in the Interim Report. The 

Committee also received comments during the open hearing from Bill Ripka, Thermo Ramsey, supporting the 

proposal and the recommendations from the WG. The Committee agreed with the WG recommended changes and 

consequently amended the proposal as shown in the Committee recommendation.
S&T Committee 2009 Final Report

S&T - 45

(See also the Committee’s 2008 Annual Report for additional background information in Developing Item 360-2 

Part 3 Item 1.)

321-2 I N.3.1.4. Check for Consistency of the Conveyor Belt Along Its Entire Length

Source: 2008 Western Weights and Measures Association (WWMA) (This item last appeared on the 2008 

Committee’s Developing agenda as Item 360-2 Part 3 Item 2)

Recommendation: Amend NIST Handbook 44, Section 2.21. Belt Conveyor Scales (BCS) Systems Code, 

paragraph N.3.1.4. as follows:

N.3.1.4. Check for Consistency of the Conveyor Belt Along Its Entire Length. – During a zero-load test, 

the total change indicated in the totalizer during one revolution of the belt shall not exceed 0.18 % of the 

load that would be totalized at scale capacity for the duration of the test. The end value of the zero-load 

test must meet the ± 0.06 % requirement of paragraphs N.3.1.2. Initial Stable Zero and N.3.1.3. Test for 

Zero Stability. After a zero-load test with flow rate filtering disabled, the totalizer shall not change more 

than plus or minus (± 3 d) 3.0 scale divisions from its initial indication during one complete belt 

revolution.

(Added 2002) (Amended 2004 and 201X)

Background/Discussion: At its 2007 Annual Meeting, the WWMA received a proposal from the Belt-Conveyor 

Scale Work Group (BCS WG) to amend paragraph N.3.1.4. The BCS WG stated that existing language in N.3.1.4. 

results in an excessive allowance for the variation in a belt. However, for belt-conveyor scales that can benefit from 

a smaller minimum division, the three-division requirement can impose an excessively narrow restriction. It should 

be noted that variations in belt weight tend to be sinusoidal. In other words, the error caused by belt variations 

would be canceled if the material test were conducted using complete revolutions. The maximum belt variation 

would occur at 0.5, 1.5., 2.5, etc., revolutions. However, material tests are rarely conducted using complete 

revolutions of the belt.

During the 2008 NCWM Interim Meeting, the Committee was informed that the USNWG on Belt-Conveyor Scales 

was planning to further develop the proposal during their February 2008 meeting. During that meeting, the WG 

discussed this item and concluded that the language needs further development before a consensus can be reached 

and recommended this item remain as a Developing item.

At its 2008 Annual Meeting, the WWMA heard comments that the item is sufficiently developed and is an 

improvement over the existing language in HB 44. The Committee agreed and recommended that this proposal 

move forward as a Voting item.

During the 2009 NCWM Interim Meeting, the Committee heard a comment from Bill Ripka, Thermo Ramsey, 

supporting the proposal as written in the Committee’s recommendation and adding that the current language in 

HB 44 stating the current three scale interval deviation from an initial indication can lead to significant errors in 

scale accuracy. The Committee agreed with the comments from Bill Ripka and recommended this item move 

forward as a Voting item.

At the 2009 Annual Meeting, the Committee received comments and recommendations from the February 2009 

meeting of the BCS WG. The members of the WG came to general agreement that with regard to these systems, the 

conveyor belt needs to be uniform (minimum variations in the weight per unit of length of the belt), but the 

statement as it exists in the Committee’s Interim Report is not well understood. The variation during a revolution of 

the belt is most important and will exhibit the most impact for BCS applications that may use a portion of a belt 

revolution to deliver a weighment (e.g., 2.5 belt revolutions). This could occur when loading individual trucks or 

railcars or in some cases could occur with the quantity for verification testing. For large quantities such as loading a 

unit train the error becomes insignificant.
S&T Committee 2009 Final Report

S&T - 46

The BCS WG reported that, after their meeting adjourned, an extended session of the meeting took place with a 

smaller group. The smaller group developed an amended proposal. However, the smaller group recommended that 

this item not go forward as a Voting item, but be given Informational status to allow more time to consider 

developing a revised proposal and to conduct additional research the appropriate tolerance. The entire BCS WG 

was polled on the smaller group’s recommendation. Two responses agreed with the recommendation that this item 

needed further review and development and its status be made “Informational.”

During the open 2009 hearing, the Committee received comments from Bill Ripka, Thermo Ramsey and NIST 

WMD supporting the recommendation from the BCS WG. The Committee agreed that with the WG that this item 

needs more time to conduct additional research to determine the appropriate tolerance and revise the proposal and 

agreed to keep this item on its agenda as Informational. 

(See also the Committee’s 2008 Annual Report for additional background information in Developing Item 360-2 

Part 3 Item 2.)

321-3 V S.1.3.1. For Scales Installed After January 1, 1986 (Value of the Scale Division)

(This item was adopted)

Source: 2008 Western Weights and Measures Association (WWMA)

Recommendation: Amend HB 44 Section 2.21. paragraph S.1.3.1.

S.1.3.1. For Scales Installed After January 1, 1986. – The value of the scale division shall not be greater than 

0.125 % (1

/800) 0.1 % 1/1000 of the minimum totalized load.

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1986](Added 1985) (Amended 2010)

Background/Discussion: The USNWG on BCS recommended that the above change be made to reconcile the 

value of the minimum scale division (0.1 % of the minimum totalized load) with the value of the minimum test load 

(800 divisions) listed in paragraph N.2.3.(a).

At its 2008 Annual Technical Conference, the WWMA heard support for this item as written in its agenda and 

recommends that the proposal move forward as a Voting item.

During the 2009 NCWM Interim Meeting, the Committee heard support for this item from Bill Ripka, Thermo 

Ramsey, and recommended that this item move forward as a Voting item.

During the 2009 NCWM Annual Meeting, the Committee received comments from the February 2009 meeting of 

the meeting of the Belt-Conveyor Scale Work Group and Bill Ripka, Thermo Ramsey, expressing continued support 

of this item as presented in the Committee’s Interim Report and recommended this item proceed as a Voting item.

321-4 W S.1.6.1 Zero-load Indicator

(This item was withdrawn)

Source: 2008 Western Weights and Measures Association (WWMA)

Recommendation: Add new paragraph S.1.6.1. to HB 44 Section 2.21. as shown:
S&T Committee 2009 Final Report

S&T - 47

S.1.6.1. Zero-load indicator. – The integrator shall display an indication that defines a zero-balance 

condition when the unloaded condition of the belt over a unit revolution or revolutions is within ± 0.12 % of 

the rated scale capacity.

(Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2011)

(Added 201X)

Background/Discussion: It is apparent to owners, manufacturers, and service agents associated with belt-conveyor 

scale systems that on systems (particularly those equipped with automatic zero-mechanisms) running at a “no-load” 

level of operation, that a zero shift may occur and not be readily observed. At its February 2008 meeting, the 

USNWG on BCS recommended language that would require an indication be present which indicates a zero 

condition during these low-flow periods when no material is being totalized by an integrator. The recommended 

addition of the paragraph S.1.6.1. as shown above would require an indication that would notify an operator of an 

out-of-zero condition and also define the limit of the width of zero for that device.

At its 2008 Annual Technical Conference, the WWMA S&T Committee heard support for this item as written in the 

agenda along with a request to allow additional time for manufacturers to make necessary changes to hardware or 

software. The Committee agreed with the comments and request and recommends the proposal be amended and 

moved forward as a Voting item with a 2011 nonretroactive date as shown in the recommendation (effective 

18 months after adoption).

During the 2009 NCWM Interim Meeting, the Committee received written comments from Alabama Weights and 

Measures Division stating that an indicator should serve as a means to alert the operator that a zero condition during 

low-flow periods has occurred. However, if this indicator is activated, the operator and/or service person should 

make every effort to locate the possible zero change source before making a zero change/adjustment. The indicator 

could be indicating an electronic problem, a belt loss condition or another source of zero error. In many cases, 

problems of a mechanical or material handling nature occur that does affect the zero balance condition. In these 

cases, zero changes or adjustments must not be made until repairs, adjustments, or cleaning has been accomplished. 

It should also be understood that all conveyor belt scale operators be required to maintain a constant and thorough 

inspection process during operation of the scale conveyor system. This would help to reduce unwarranted electronic 

adjustments to the scale system.

The Committee agrees with the comments from Alabama Weights and Measures Division that any indications such 

as a change in the zero reference condition of the scale should be acted upon by the user. The Committee suggests 

that the Belt-Conveyor Scale WG or Alabama Weights and Measures Division develop a proposal for a separate 

user requirement similar to Scales Code paragraph UR.4.1. Balance Condition. The proposal should require the user 

to maintain the zero-balance condition when the belt is unloaded, and to include the inspections recommended in the 

Alabama comments. 

The Committee also heard support for this item from Bill Ripka, Thermo Ramsey, supporting the proposal as written 

in the Committee’s recommendation. The Committee agreed to recommend that this item move forward as a Voting 

item.

At the 2009 NCWM Annual Meeting, the Committee reviewed comments and recommendations from the February 

2009 meeting of the Belt-Conveyor Scale Work Group. The members of the WG initially supported the 

recommendation and discussed the need for an associated user requirement to be developed that would require that 

zero-balance condition be maintained during operation. Further discussion took place where it was stated that the 

+/- 0.12% of rated scale capacity specified in the proposal would occupy a large portion of the value of the tolerance 

applied to the device. Paul Chase, Consultant, pointed out that this value was twice the allowable tolerance applied 

during a zero test.

Alabama Weights and Measures questioned what would be required of the operator when the device indicated an 

out-of-zero balance condition prior to the weighing process, and they expressed their concerns about requiring the 

operator to maintain the device within limits of an established zero reference. Alabama Weights and Measures 

added that it is their belief that the owner/operator should be required to act upon a significant change of the zero 

reference in such a manner which would include an inspection of the device to determine the cause of the shift in 

zero.
S&T Committee 2009 Final Report

S&T - 48

Additional discussion included the possibility of requiring that there be some type of interlock mechanism to prevent 

the initiation of a transaction until the zero reference has been established and the scale is ready to deliver. The WG 

generally agreed that if the requirement included a mandatory interlock mechanism, which would prevent 

totalization at times when the zero reference was subject to a significant shift, then the development of any user 

requirement would be unnecessary. The question was then raised as to whether or not this would present 

manufacturers with a significant change in design to overcome; a number of the manufacturers present at the 

meeting felt that this would be a relatively simple change to make in software portion of their devices. 

Consequently, the WG recommended that this item be Withdrawn and formed a subgroup to further develop the 

proposal and an associated user requirement if necessary. 

During the open hearing, the Committee received comments from Bill Ripka, Thermo Ramsey, and WMD 

supporting the recommendation from the WG. The Committee agreed that with the WG and WMD 

recommendation that this item needs additional development and a consensus proposal from the WG and to 

Withdraw this item from the agenda.

321-5 V N.2. Conditions of Tests, N.2.1. Initial Verification and N.3.2. Material Tests

(This item was adopted)

Source: 2008 Western Weights and Measures Association (WWMA)

Recommendation: Amend NIST HB 44 Section 2.21. paragraph N.2., N.2.1., and N.3.2. as follows:

N.2. Conditions of Tests. – A belt-conveyor scale shall be tested after it is installed on the conveyor system 

with which it is to be used and under such environmental conditions as may normally be expected. Each test 

shall be conducted with test loads no less than the minimum test load. Before each test run, the inspector 

shall check the zero setting and adjust as necessary. 

(Amended 1986 and 2004 and 2009)

N.2.1. Initial Verification. – A belt-conveyor scale system shall be testedverified with a minimum of 

two test runs at each of the following flow rates:

(a) normal use flow rate, 

(b) 35 % of the maximum rated capacity, and 

(c) an intermediate flow rate between these two points. 

Test runs may also be conductedThe system may also be tested at any other rate of flow that may be 

used at the installation. I f theT he official with statutor y author ity may deter mine that Aa minimum of 

four test runs may be conducted at only one flow rate if evidence is provided that the systems is used 

to oper ates at a single flow rate and that rate does not vary by more than ± 10% 5% of the normal 

flow rate that can be developed at the installation for at least 80 % of the time.

(Added 2004) (Amended 2009)

N.3.2. Material Tests. – Material tests should be conducted using actual belt loading conditions. These 

belt loading conditions shall include, but are not limited to conducting materials tests using different belt 

loading points, all types and sizes of products weighed on the scale, at least one other belt speed, and in 

both directions of weighing.
S&T Committee 2009 Final Report

S&T - 49

On initial verification, at least three individual material tests shall be conducted. On subsequent 

verifications, at least two individual tests shall be conducted. The results of all these tests shall be within 

the tolerance limits.

Either pass a quantity of pre-weighed material . . .

(Amended 1986, 1989, 1998, 2000, 2002, and 2010)

Background/Discussion: NIST WMD has received inquiries and comments pertaining to whether or not rezeroing 

of the belt-conveyor scale under evaluation can be done between tests. There is inconsistency between jurisdictions 

in the way that tests are performed regarding these questions. Many hours are required to complete the initial 

verification testing due to the requirement in HB 44 Section 2.21. paragraph N.2.1. that states that tests (runs) are to 

be performed at three flow rates and that they must be of 10 minute durations. This presents problems determining 

if the BCS needs to be rezeroed after each test run regardless of the change in zero or if the BCS only needs to be 

rezeroed if the change exceeds the requirements in paragraph T.1.1. Tolerance Values – Zero Stability.

Paul Chase (member of the USNWG on Belt-Conveyor Scales) presented historical data on two belt-conveyor scale 

systems where temperature and zero information are available that show a clear trend with temperature. These data 

indicate that testing over a period of many hours can be affected by a zero shift that occurs during the testing. This 

could be a result of day-to-night temperature variation. A belt-conveyor scale that exhibits this property should be 

re-zeroed during normal operation as required to maintain the belt-conveyor scale within tolerance.

The expectation that a device will maintain a consistent zero under these conditions is considered by manufacturers 

and the BCS WG to be an unfair performance standard. At its February 2008 meeting, WG recommended that 

HB 44 be amended as shown in the Committee’s Interim Report.

NIST WMD has also received requests for clarification on the number of tests to be performed during initial 

verification. Paragraph N.2.1. Initial Verification, added in 2004, states that the scale be tested at three flow rates. 

Additionally, the second paragraph in N.3.2. Material Tests states that at least three individual material tests be 

conducted during initial verification, which was added prior to 1986. Officials and service agents were asking if the 

minimum number of tests were a total of three (one test run at each flow rate), or nine (three test runs at each flow 

rate) during initial verification. The WG confirmed that the language that was added in 2004 intended that at least 

two material tests at each flow rate were to be performed during an initial verification in order for the test to more 

closely align with international recommendations. Consequently, the WG recommended language to clarify the 

number of tests in N.2.1. and to delete the statement regarding the number of tests during initial verification N.3.2. 

since the language is already addressed in proposal to amend paragraph N.2.1.

At its 2008 Annual Technical Conference, the WWMA heard comments supporting this item along with a 

recommendation from Bill Ripka, Thermo Ramsey, to clarify when testing only at a single flow rate is permitted. 

The WWMA noted that the proposed change to the language is consistent with testing at different flow rates in 

paragraph N.2.2. Subsequent Verification. The WWMA agreed with the comments and recommends that this 

proposal move forward as a Voting item.

During the 2009 NCWM Interim Meeting, the Committee received written comments from Alabama Weights and 

Measures Division expressing their opposition to this proposal as recommended in the Interim agenda and stated 

that all conveyor-belt scales being tested for initial verification within the State of Alabama will be tested as follows:

Three (3) individual tests will be performed at each of the following:

• at normal use flow rate,

• 35 % of the maximum rated capacity, and

• at an intermediate flow rate between these points.

The total number of test runs for this initial verification will be nine (9). Alabama believes that in order to establish 

a pattern of repeatability upon initial verification that three (3) individual tests at each flow rate need to be 
S&T Committee 2009 Final Report

S&T - 50

performed. Alabama notes that the conduct of these tests are only a “snapshot in time,” indicating that the scale and 

scale system as a whole operated or failed to operate as required at that point. Therefore, Alabama believes that the 

requirement for strong repeatability testing must remain.

Bill Ripka, Thermo Ramsey, supported the item as written as it clarifies the number of tests at each flow rate. He 

added that language should be included to address the ramping up and down of flow rates on installations that run 

predominately at a single flow rate, and he suggested that the proposed last sentence in the paragraph could be 

amended similarly to current paragraph N.2.2. Subsequent Testing, which provides additional guidance on when 

testing at multiple flow rates may be waived.

The Committee reviewed and considered the comments from Alabama Weights and Measures Division and agreed 

that the proposed language is considered a minimum test and that additional testing may be required. Consequently, 

the Committee amended the proposal as shown in the Committee’s Interim Report to clarify that the pairs of tests at 

each flow rate are a minimum test and to provide additional guidance on proposed language in determining when 

testing at three flow rates may be waived. The Committee amended the proposal to delete the third sentence in 

paragraph N.3.2. Material Tests. since the sentence conflicts with the language in the current and proposed language 

in paragraph N.2.1. shown in the recommendation above.

The NIST Technical Advisor added that this amended proposal will be reviewed by Alabama and by the beltconveyor scale WG during their February 2009 meeting. The Committee recommends that the item move forward 

as a Voting item unless it receives information from the WG suggesting that the item is not ready for a vote.

During the 2009 NCWM Annual Meeting, the Committee received comments and recommendations from the 

February 2009 meeting of the Belt-Conveyor Scale Work Group. The WG recommended amending the language in 

N.2.1. to reflect wording similar to that found in N.2.2. Subsequent Verifications is used as shown below. The WG 

also recommended increasing the allowable variation in normal flow rate to coincide with a similar exception in 

OIML R 50. Also the group believes the reference to T.1.1. is unnecessary and recommends that the reference be 

removed.

During the open hearing, the Committee received a comment from Bill Ripka, Thermo Ramsey, supporting the 

amended recommendation from the WG and editorial suggestions from WMD. 

The Committee also heard a comment from Steve Malone stating that Nebraska could not support the proposal since 

only two test runs were required to verify that the scale could repeat within tolerances and is different than the 

current language in paragraph N.3.1. Materials Test. The NIST Technical Advisor reported to the Committee that 

this issue was discussed by the BCS WG. Similar comments were by Alabama Weights and Measures. 

Consequently, the WG recommended adding language to the proposal to require a minimum of two test runs during 

the initial verification since at total of six test runs are required if all three flow rates are verified. In the case where 

only one flow rate is tested, a minimum of four test runs are conducted. 

The Committee supported the recommendations from the WG and editorial suggestions from WMD and agreed to 

amend paragraphs N.2. and N.2.1. the proposal to read as shown in the Committee recommendation above.

The Committee made no changes to the proposal to amend paragraph N.3.2. Material Test.

321-6 V T.1.1. Tolerance Values – Test of Zero Stability

(This item was adopted)

Source: 2008 Western Weights and Measures Association (WWMA)

Recommendation: Amend HB 44 Section 2.21. (Belt Conveyor Scale Systems Code) paragraph T.1.1. to coincide 

with amendment recommended to paragraphs N.2. and N.2.1. in agenda Item 321-5 as follows:
S&T Committee 2009 Final Report

S&T - 51

T.1.1. Tolerance Values - Test of Zero Stability. – Immediately after material has been weighed over the 

belt-conveyor scale during the conduct of the any materials test run, the zero-load test shall be repeated. The 

change in the accumulated or subtracted weight on the Master Weight Totalizer during the zero test shall not 

exceed 0.12 % of the totalized load at full scale capacity for the duration of the zero-load test. If the total

range of zero adjustments during a complete (official) verification test exceeds 0.18 % of the totalized 

load at full scale capacity for the duration of the zero-load test, the official with statutory authority may 

establish an interval for zero-load testing during normal operation.

(Added 2004) (Amended 2009)

Background/Discussion: The recommendation to amend the paragraphs N.2. and N.2.1. would necessitate the 

amendments shown above to reflect the consideration of a tolerance associated with a zero shift in the scale. The 

U.S. National Work Group (USNWG) on BCS recognized the need and recommends the above wording changes.

At its 2008 Annual Technical Conference, the WWMA heard a comment from a jurisdiction that the proposal places 

an additional burden on the field inspector having to verify compliance with the frequency of zero and accuracy tests 

between official tests in order to monitor zero references and calibration stability. WMD noted that paragraph UR.4. 

Compliance already requires the user to retain records of these tests and that the proposal is only intended to give the 

inspector some guidance on establishing the frequency of these intermediate tests.

The WWMA considered the comments and recommends that this proposal move forward as a Voting item since it 

provides the regulatory official with guidance in determining the frequency for conducting zero-load tests between 

official tests.

During the 2009 NCWM Interim Meeting, the Committee received written comments from Alabama Weights and 

Measures Division stating that the proposed change from “the materials test run” to “a material test run” seems to 

indicate that only one material test run be required prior to performing a zero-load test. The State of Alabama 

requires that when performing initial and follow-up verification tests that three separate material test runs be 

performed and recommends that the current wording should remain “as is” in order to be able to establish a pattern 

of repeatability and to insure that the scale is weighing with as much accuracy as possible.

The NIST technical advisor reviewed the summary of the May 2001 Belt-Conveyor Scale Seminar where the 

original language was developed. The discussions indicated that the participants believed that the zero-load 

reference be verified after any material test run and developed the language to coincide with language for UR.3.2. 

Maintenance subparagraph (c) Zero-Load Reference Information that the zero-load test be conducted immediately 

before and after a delivery when the zero-load information is recorded as part of a delivery.

Bill Ripka, Thermo Ramsey, supports the item as written in the Interim agenda and does not have a problem with 

the restrictions, but stated that he believes the zero reference should be allowed to drift provided the material test 

accuracy repeats within tolerances.

The Committee considered the comments and agreed to amend the proposal to clarify that the zero-load test is to be 

conducted after any material test run and recommended that this item move forward as a Voting item.

During the 2009 NCWM Annual Meeting, the Committee reviewed comments and recommendations from the 

February 2009 meeting of the Belt-Conveyor Scale Work Group. During the meeting, the belt-conveyor scale 

manufacturers commented that the Master Weight Totalizer (MWT) is typically disabled during the zero-load test 

and recommended that the reference to MWT be deleted since there are other indicating devices (e.g., before and 

after zero reference numbers) that will display the change in zero. The WG agreed that the current language in 

HB 44 should be modified to allow other types of indicating devices to verify compliance and submitted a proposal 

recommending that the reference to the MWT be deleted. 

During the open hearing, WMD agreed with the WG recommendation and offered some editorial suggestions to the 

proposal to clarify that the reference to the total range of adjustments to zero applies to any two zero-load test results 

conducted during an official test and that the 0.18 % tolerance is also based on the totalized load at full scale 
S&T Committee 2009 Final Report

S&T - 52

capacity for the duration of the zero-load test. Bill Ripka, Thermo Ramsey, stated that he supported the 

recommendations from the WG and WMD.

The Committee agreed with the WG and WMD comments and suggestions, and amended proposal shown in the 

Committee’s recommendation.

321-7 V N.3.1.2. Initial Stable Zero, N.3.1.3. Test of Zero Stability and S.3.1.1. Automatic Zero-Setting 

Mechanism

(This item was adopted)

Source: 2008 Western Weights and Measures Association (WWMA)

Recommendation: Combine paragraphs N.3.1.2. and N.3.1.3. in HB 44 Section 2.21. resulting in one 

paragraph N.3.1.2. Test of Zero Stability.

Delete N.3.1.2. and amend N.3.1.3. as follows:

N.3.1.2. Initial Stable Zero. – The conveyor system shall be run to warm up the belt and the belt 

scale shall be zero adjusted as required. A series of zero-load tests shall be carried out until three 

consecutive zero-load tests each indicate an error which does not exceed ± 0.06 % of the totalized 

load at full scale capacity for the duration of the test. No adjustments can be made during the three 

consecutive zero-load test readings.

(Added 2002) (Amended 2004)

N.3.1.23. Test of Zero Stability. – The conveyor system shall be run to warm up the belt and the belt 

scale shall be zero adjusted as required. A series of zero-load tests shall be carried out immediately before 

conducting the simulated-load or materials test until three consecutive zero-load tests each indicate an 

error which does not exceed ± 0.06 % of the totalized load at full scale capacity for the duration of the test.

No adjustments can be made during the three consecutive zero-load test readings. 

(Added 2002) (Amended 2004 and 2009)

N.3.1.34. Check For Consistency of the Conveyor Belt Along Its Entire Length. – After a zero-load 

test with flow rate filtering disabled, the totalizer shall not change more than plus or minus 3.0 scale 

divisions (± 3 d) from its initial indication during one complete belt revolution.

(Added 2002) (Amended 2004)

Add new paragraph S.3.1.1. as shown below:

S.3.1.1. Automatic Zero-Setting Mechanism. The automatic zero-setting mechanism shall indicate or 

record any change in the zero reference.

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2010]

(Added 2009)

Background/Discussion: At its 2008 Annual Technical Conference, the WWMA reviewed a proposal from the 

USNWG on Belt Conveyor Scale Systems recommending that paragraphs N.3.1.2. and N.3.1.3. be combined since 

they are nearly identical in language and to reduce redundant language and to clarify that any change in zero is to be 

indicated to verify that the total range of zero adjustment during an official test complied with paragraph T.1.1. This 

combination would result in one paragraph identified as “N.3.1.2. Test of Zero Stability.” The group also 

recommends that paragraph S.3.1.1. be added so that specification requirements within the code coincide with the 

amendments to paragraph N.3.1.2. The WWMA heard support for the item and recommends that the proposal 

moves forward as a Voting item.
S&T Committee 2009 Final Report

S&T - 53

During the 2009 NCWM Interim Meeting, the Committee heard from Bill Ripka, Thermo Ramsey, in support of the 

item as written in the Committee’s recommendation since it eliminates redundant language in HB 44. The 

Committee agreed to recommend that this item move forward as a Voting item.

During the 2009 NCWM Annual Meeting, the Committee received comments and recommendations from the 

February 2009 meeting of the Belt-Conveyor Scale Work Group. The WG agreed the language regarding obscuring 

any change in zero by the automatic zero setting mechanism in the proposed paragraphs S.3.1.1 and N.3.1.2 is 

confusing and not necessary. The WG recommended that the last sentence in N.3.1.2. be deleted and that paragraph 

S.3.1.1. be amended since all the manufacturers that currently hold NTEP Certificates of Conformance stated that 

the zero reference is always recorded into memory as part of the audit trail information or indicated by the 

integrator. 

The Committee agreed that S.3.1.1. should be formatted consistent with other HB 44 nonretroactive requirements 

rather than referencing a specific date in the WG’s proposed language. Additionally, the Committee agreed with the 

comments and recommendation from the WG and amended the proposal to read as shown in the Committee’s 

recommendation.

322 AUTOMATIC BULK-WEIGHING SYSTEMS

322-1 I S.2.1. Zero-Load Adjustment

Source: NTETC Weighing Sector

Recommendation: Amend HB 44 Section 2.22. Automatic Bulk-Weighing Systems by amending 

paragraph S.2.1.3.3. as follows:

S.2.1. Zero-Load Adjustment. – The weighing system shall be equipped with manual or semiautomatic means 

by which the zero-load balance or no-load reference value indication may be adjusted. An aAutomatic zerotracking and automatic zero-setting mechanisms isare prohibited.

(Amended 201X)

Background/Discussion: At its 2008 Annual Meeting, the NTETC Weighing Sector held a discussion about the 

increasing number of scales submitted for NTEP evaluations that include an “automatic zero-setting” feature, which 

is not addressed in NIST HB 44. It has been noted that many devices are built for a global marketplace and that the 

operation of this “automatic zero-setting” device may be functional on the device when installed in the United 

States. Currently, HB 44 does not define this function. NCWM Publication 14 has no test to determine if the device 

submitted for evaluation has such a function, or if it is sealable. Additionally, NTEP reported that, on a 

scanner/scale that had been submitted for NTEP evaluation, the automatic zero-setting feature was discovered and 

found to work in both the positive and negative directions and could be activated or deactivated without breaking a 

security seal or changing the audit trail information. 

The 2008 NTETC WS established a small WG to develop language to be submitted to the NCWM S&T Committee 

and make recommendations addressing the suitability of scales with the capability to automatically set a positive 

weight indication to zero. The group, which included Scott Davidson (Mettler-Toledo), Scott Henry (NCR), Steve 

Cook (NIST technical advisor), and Stephen Patoray (Consultant on Certification, LLC), volunteered to develop a 

proposal for the S&T Committee. (Todd Lucas, Ohio NTEP laboratory and Jim Truex, NTEP Administrator, also 

contributed to the discussions and subsequent proposal.) Additionally, the WS agreed to review the language 

developed by the WG to confirm its support of the proposed language.

In the process of developing the proposal, the WG recommended that the automatic zero-setting mechanism be 

prohibited for devices covered by Section 2.22. Automatic Bulk-Weighing Systems for the same reasons that zerotracking is prohibited (incorrect net weight determinations may occur when unintentional and unobserved zeroing or 

tracking off of material retained in a hopper between drafts).
S&T Committee 2009 Final Report

S&T - 54

At the 2009 NCWM Interim Meeting, the Committee agreed that this item should remain as an Informational item 

pending the development of the proposal to add the term “automatic zero-setting mechanism” in agenda Item 320-2.

See agenda Item 320-3 for additional discussions and background information on the development of this proposal.

324 AUTOMATIC WEIGHING SYSTEMS

324-1 I S.2.1.3. Automatic Zero-Setting Mechanism

Source: 2008 NTETC Weighing Sector

Recommendation: Amend HB 44 Section 2.24. Automatic Weighing Systems by adding new paragraph S.2.1.3. as 

follows:

S.2.1.3. Automatic Zero-Setting Mechanism – If equipped, an automatic zero-setting mechanism shall 

operate only when the indication has remained:

(a) stable according to paragraph S.4.2. Damping, and

(b) below zero for at least 5 seconds.

The maximum effect of automatic zero-setting mechanism is limited to 4 % of the nominal capacity of the 

scale and is a sealable parameter.

(Added 201X)

Background/Discussion: At it 2008 Annual Meeting, the NTETC Weighing Sector discussed an issue about the 

increasing number of scales submitted for NTEP evaluations that include an “automatic zero-setting” feature not 

addressed in NIST HB 44. It has been noted that many devices are built for a global marketplace and that the 

operation of this “automatic zero-setting” device may be functional on the device when installed in the United 

States. Currently, HB 44 does not define this function. NCWM Pub 14 has no test to determine if the device 

submitted for evaluation has such a function, or if it is sealable. The automatic zero-setting mechanism on a 

scanner/scale submitted to NTEP could be enabled and disabled by means of a barcode read by the scanner.

The NTETC WS established a small WG to develop language to be submitted to the NCWM S&T Committee and 

make recommendations addressing the suitability of scales with the capability to automatically set a positive weight 

indication to zero. The group (Scott Davidson, Mettler-Toledo; Scott Henry, NCR; Steve Cook, NIST technical 

advisor; and Stephen Patoray, Consultants on Certification, LLC) volunteered to develop a proposal for the S&T 

Committee. (Todd Lucas, Ohio NTEP laboratory, and Jim Truex, NTEP Administrator, also contributed to the 

discussions and subsequent proposal.) Additionally, the WS agreed to review the language developed by the WG to 

confirm its support of the proposed language.

In the process of developing the proposal, the WG recommended that the automatic zero-setting mechanism should 

be permitted for devices covered by Section 2.24. Automatic Weighing Systems since equivalent requirements can 

be found in OIML R 51 Recommendation for Automatic Catchweighing Instruments.

The Committee agreed that this item should remain as an Informational item pending the development of the 

proposal to add the term “automatic zero-setting mechanism” in agenda Item 320-3.
S&T Committee 2009 Final Report

S&T - 55

324-2A W S.2.2. Tare, S.2.2.1. Scale Interval and Capacity, S.2.2.2. Accuracy, and S.2.2.3. Damping

(This item was withdrawn) 

Source: 2008 Carryover Item 324-2. (This item originated from the S&T Committee and first appeared on the 

Committee’s 2007 agenda.)

Recommendation: This recommendation clarifies the requirements for tare by modifying paragraph S.2.2. and 

adding new paragraphs S.2.2.1. through S.2.2.3. that provide new requirements for metrological tare (e.g., tare 

objects weighed or balanced off at the time of the transaction), and tare accuracy into HB 44 that supports the type 

evaluation procedures in NCWM Publication 14 and are consistent with OIML R 51 for automatic Catch-weighing 

Instruments.

Amend paragraph S.2.2. as follows:

S.2.2. Tare. – The tare-weighing and tare-balancing mechanism shall operate only in a backward direction 

(that is, in a direction of underregistration) with respect to the zero-load balance condition of the scale. A 

device designed to automatically clear any tare value shall also be designed to prevent the automatic clearing of 

tare until a complete transaction has been indicated.

[Note: On a computing scale, this requires the input of a unit price, the display of the unit price, and a 

computed positive total price at a readable equilibrium. Other devices require a complete weighing operation, 

including tare, net, and gross weight determination.]

(Amended 2004 and 2008)

Add new paragraphs S.2.2.1. through S.2.2.3. as follows:

S.2.2.1. Scale Interval (Division) and Capacity. – On any scale (except multi-interval scales when the 

value of tare is determined in the first weighing segment), the value of the tare division shall be equal 

to the value of the scale division for any given load and shall not operate above its maximum 

capacity.

S.2.2.1.1. Multi-interval Scales. – On multi-interval scales, the tare capacity is limited to the 

capacity of the first weighing segment and the value of the tare division shall be equal to the 

value of the scale division from the first weighing segment.

S.2.2.1.2. Multiple Range Scales. – On multiple range scales, the value of the tare division shall 

be equal to the value of the scale division from the weighing range where the tare was 

determined.

(Added 201X)

S.2.2.2. Accuracy. – A tare-weighing or tare-balancing mechanism shall permit setting the net 

indication to zero with an accuracy equal to or better than:

(a) ± 0.25 d for electronic weighing devices and any weighing device with an analog indication, 

and

(b) ± 0.5 d for mechanical weighing devices with a digital indication (e.g., weighbeams with only 

notched poises and no sliding poises).

On a multi-interval scale, d shall be replaced by d1 (division value of the first weighing segment).

(Added 201X)
S&T Committee 2009 Final Report

S&T - 56

S.2.2.3. Damping for Semi-automatic or Automatic Tare* Balancing or Weighing Mechanisms. –

These mechanisms shall be operable or accessible only by a tool outside of and separate from this 

mechanism or it shall be enclosed in a cabinet, or it shall be operable only when the indication is 

stable within ± 1 scale division.

*Automatic tare mechanisms are not permitted for direct sales to the public.

(Added 201X)

Background/Discussion: At the 2007 Interim Meeting, the Committee agreed that for procedural reasons a 

separate corresponding proposal should have appeared on its 2007 S&T agenda in Section 324 for Automatic 

Weighing Systems. Therefore, the Committee developed a separate proposal for automatic weighing systems that 

now appears in this agenda item. The Committee recommended that new S&T Item 324-2, along with a 

corresponding proposal to apply these definitions to devices that fall under the Scales Code S&T Item 320-1, be 

discussed and considered jointly during all deliberations and voting procedures. In the interest of brevity, the 

Committee placed all recommendations, discussion, and background information for this proposal in S&T 

Item 320-1 because the proposed definitions apply to both applications; this ensures both proposals are addressed 

collectively.

At their fall 2007 meetings, the CWMA, NTETC WS, and the WWMA supported this item. See additional 

comments and recommendations from agenda Item 320-1A through Item 3201D.

The Committee did not receive any comments opposing this item and made this a Voting item.

At the 2008 NCWM Annual Meeting, the Committee agreed with the comments that this item needs additional time 

for review and analysis and that the item be given Informational status. The NIST technical advisor will develop a 

1- to 2-hour technical presentation on the proposed tare requirements that will be available to the regional weights 

and measures associations, the NTETC Weighing Sector, and posted on the WMD website.

During the 2009 Annual Meeting, the Committee received no additional comments on this proposal. However, 

“Tare: items 320-1A and 320-1B were not adopted. Consequently, the Committee Withdrew the corresponding 

items in 324 Series Voting items” and recommended that the NTETC WS discuss and provide the Committee with 

an update on the WS position on the remaining Tare Informational proposals at its August 2009 meeting for the 

Committee’s 2010 Interim Agenda.

324-2B W S.2.2.4. Combined Zero-setting and Tare-balancing Mechanisms (0/T Key)

(This item was withdrawn)

Source: 2008 Carryover Item 324-2. (This item originated from the S&T Committee and first appeared on the 

Committee’s 2007 agenda.)

Recommendation: (NOTE: This item will be considered jointly with Item 320-1A.) This recommendation 

clarifies the requirements for tare by adding a new paragraph S.2.2.4. that provides identical requirements for 

accuracy, center-of-zero, and zero tracking on Automatic Weighing Systems (AWS) that use a combined zero/tare 

key as recommended in the Committee’s agenda Item 320-1A.

Add paragraph S.2.2.3. as follows:

S.2.2.4. Combined Zero-setting and Tare-balancing Mechanisms (0/T Key). – Automatic weighing 

systems may be equipped with a combined zero and tare function key. If the semi-automatic zerosetting mechanism and the semi-automatic tare-balancing mechanism are operated by the same key, 

the following apply at any load:

(a) After zero/tare-setting, the effect of accuracy of the zero-setting shall be not more than 

± 0.25 d.
S&T Committee 2009 Final Report

S&T - 57

(b) A “center-of-zero” condition shall either automatically be maintained to ± 0.25 scale division or 

less, or have an auxiliary or supplemental “center-of-zero” indicator that defines a zero-balance 

condition to ± 0.25 scale division or less.

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2010]

(c) A zero-tracking mechanism, if equipped, shall operate only when:

(1) the indication is at zero, or at a negative net value equivalent to gross zero, and

(2) the weight indication is stable.

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2010]

(d) The scale must also be clearly marked on or adjacent to the weight display with the 

statement “Not for Direct Sales.”

(Added 201X)

Background/Discussion: Background information on this item can be found in the Background/Discussion 

paragraphs on agenda Item 324-2A.

After the NIST presentation on Tare during the 2009 Interim Meeting and considering that very few questions were 

raised during the discussion on the proposal for scales that have a combined zero/tare key, the Committee agreed to 

forward the item as a Voting item. Note that the Committee recommends that subparagraphs (a) and (d) be given 

retroactive status since these requirements have been verified by NTEP since the 0/T feature was included into 

HB 44 Scales Code.

During the 2009 Annual Meeting, the Committee received no additional comments on this proposal. However, 

“Tare: items 320-1A and 320-1B were not adopted. Consequently, the Committee Withdrew the corresponding 

items in 324 Series Voting items” and recommended that the NTETC WS discuss and provide the Committee with 

an update on the WS position on the remaining Tare “Information” proposals at its August 2009 meeting for the 

Committee’s 2010 Interim Agenda.

324-2C I S.2.2.4. Visibility of Operation and S.2.2.5. Subtractive Tare Mechanism

Source: 2008 Carryover Item 324-2. (This item originated from the S&T Committee and first appeared on the 

Committee’s 2007 agenda.)

Recommendation: This recommendation clarifies the requirements for tare by adding new paragraphs S.2.2.4. and 

S.2.2.5. that provide new requirements for visibility and subtractive tare (i.e., balancing off tare objects does not 

increase the nominal scale capacity).

S.2.2.4. Visibility of Operation. – Operation of the tare mechanism shall be visibly indicated on the 

instrument. In the case of instruments with digital indications, this shall be done by marking the 

indicated net value with the word “NET” or the symbol “N”. “NET” may be displayed as “NET”, 

“Net” or “net”. If a scale is equipped with an indicator that allows the gross value to be displayed 

temporarily while a tare mechanism is in operation, the “NET” symbol shall disappear while the 

gross value is displayed.

(Added 201X)

S.2.2.5. Subtractive Tare Mechanism. – After any tare operation and while subtractive tare is in 

effect, an indicating or recording element shall not display nor record any values when the gross load 

(not counting the initial dead load that has been canceled by an initial zero-setting mechanism) is in 

excess of 105 % of scale capacity after tare has been taken.

(Added 201X)
S&T Committee 2009 Final Report

S&T - 58

Background/Discussion: Additional background information on this item can be found in the 

Background/Discussion paragraphs on agenda Item 320-1 in the 2009 Committee’s Interim and Annual Reports.

After the NIST presentation on Tare during the 2009 Interim Meeting, several questions were asked that indicated 

the need for additional clarification on the indications. Consequently, the Committee recommended that this 

proposal remain an Informational item and suggested that the WS clarify the proposed language and consider 

providing examples of indications and recorded representations when multiple tares are used to determine net 

weights and provide the justification for limiting the acceptable words and abbreviations for the word “Net.”

During the 2009 Annual Meeting, the Committee received no additional comments on this proposal. However, 

“Tare: Items 320-1A and 320-1B were not adopted in the Committee’s 2009. Consequently, the Committee 

Withdrew the corresponding items in 324 Series Voting items” and recommended that the NTETC WS discuss and 

provide the Committee with an update on the WS position on the remaining Tare Information proposals for the 

Committee’s 2010 Interim Agenda.

324-2D I S.2.2.6. Consecutive Tare Operations and S.2.2.7. Indication and Printing of Weighing Results

Source: 2008 Carryover Item 324-2. (This item originated from the S&T Committee and first appeared on the 

Committee’s 2007 agenda.)

Recommendation: (NOTE: This item will be considered jointly with Item 320-1C.) This recommendation 

clarifies the requirements for tare by adding new paragraphs S.2.2.6. and S.2.2.7. that clarify the requirements for 

transactions that use multiple tare, tare mechanisms, and the indications and recording of weighing results.

S.2.2.6. Consecutive Tare Operations. – Repeated operation of a tare mechanism (including preset 

tare) is permitted for single transactions with one gross, one net, and multiple tare values. If more 

than one tare mechanism is operative at the same time, tare weight values shall be clearly designated 

(identified) with either “T” for tare or “PT” for preset tare, as appropriate, when indicated or 

printed.

(Added 201X)

S.2.2.7. Indication and Printing of Weighing Results.

(a) Gross weight values may be printed without any designation or by using a complete word or 

symbol. For a designation by a symbol, only uppercase “G” is permitted.

(b) If only net weight values are printed without corresponding gross or tare values, they may 

be printed without any designation or by using a complete word or symbol. The complete 

word (as shown in S.2.2.3. Visibility of Operation) or symbol “N” shall be used to designate a 

net weight. This applies also where semi-automatic zero-setting and semi-automatic tare 

balancing are initiated by the same key.

(c) Gross, net, or tare values determined by a multiple range instrument or by a multi-interval 

instrument need not be marked by a special designation referring to the (partial) weighing 

range.

(d) If net weight values are printed together with the corresponding gross and/or tare values, the 

net and tare values shall be identified at least by the corresponding symbols “N” and “T” or 

by complete words using all upper-case letters, all lower-case letters, or a combination of 

upper- and lower-case letters.

(e) If net weight values and tare values determined by different tare mechanisms are printed 

separately for single transactions with multiple gross, tare, and net values, they shall be 

suitably identified (e.g., vehicle sequentially loaded with mixed commodities).

(Added 201X)
S&T Committee 2009 Final Report

S&T - 59

Background/Discussion: Additional background information on this item can be found in the 

Background/Discussion paragraphs on agenda Item 320-1A.

During the NIST presentation on Tare during the 2009 Interim Meeting, the Committee heard several questions that 

indicated the need for additional clarification on the value of specifying acceptable words and abbreviations for 

Gross, Tare, Preset Tare, and Net and what constitutes “consecutive tare operations.” Consequently, the Committee 

recommended that this proposal remain an Informational item and suggested that the WS further clarify the 

proposed language and consider providing examples of: 1) indications and recorded representations of tare and 

preset tare in consecutive tare transactions; and 2) indications and recorded representations when multiple tares and 

preset tares are used to determine net weights.

During the 2009 Annual Meeting, the Committee received no additional comments on this proposal. However, 

“Tare: Items 320-1A and 320-1B in the Committee’s 2009 agenda were not adopted. Consequently, the Committee 

Withdrew the corresponding items in 324 Series Voting items” and recommended that the NTETC WS discuss and 

provide the Committee with an update on the WS position on the remaining Tare “Information” proposals for the 

Committee’s 2010 Interim Agenda.

324-2E I S.2.3. Preset Tare Mechanism and S.2.3.1. Indication of Operation

Source: 2008 Carryover Item 324-2. (This item originated from the S&T Committee and first appeared on the 

Committee’s 2007 agenda.)

Recommendation: (NOTE: This item will be considered jointly with Item 320-1D.) This recommendation 

clarifies the requirements for tare by adding new paragraphs S.2.3. and S.2.3.1. that provide new requirements for 

metrological tare (e.g., tare objects weighed or balanced off at the time of the transaction), tare accuracy, operating 

range, visibility, and preset tares (e.g., manually entered or stored tares for multiple transactions).

Add new paragraphs S.2.3. and S.2.3.1. as follows:

S.2.3. Preset Tare Mechanism, Operation. – In addition to the provisions of paragraphs S.2.2. Tare 

and S.2.2.1. Scale Interval, a preset tare may be operated together with one or more tare devices 

provided:

(a) the preset tare mechanism complies with paragraph S.2.2.6. Consecutive Tare Operations,

(b) the preset tare operation cannot be modified or cancelled as long as any tare mechanism 

operated after the preset tare operation is still in use,

(c) the preset tare associated with a price look-up (PLU) shall be automatically cancelled at the same 

time a PLU is cancelled, and

(d) the preset tare values are designated by the symbol “PT”; however, it is permitted to replace the 

symbol “PT” with complete words.

A preset tare may operate automatically only if the preset tare value is clearly identified with the 

load to be measured (e.g., part of the product look-up information).
S&T Committee 2009 Final Report

S&T - 60

S.2.3.1. Indication of Operation. – It shall be possible to temporarily indicate the preset tare value 

(e.g., pressing a tare display button or a negative net weight indication with no load on the 

load-receiving element). Additionally, paragraph S.2.2.7. Indication and Printing of Weighing 

Results applies accordingly, provided the calculated net value is printed and at least the preset tare 

value is printed, with the exception of:

(a) a Class II or a Class III automatic weighing system with a maximum capacity not greater 

than 100 kg (200 lb) used in direct sales to the public, and

(b) automatic weigh/price labeling systems.

(Added 201X)

Background/Discussion: Background information on this item can be found in the Background/Discussion 

paragraphs on agenda Item 320-1A.

During the NIST presentation on Tare during the 2009 Interim Meeting, the Committee heard several questions that 

indicated the need for additional clarification on:

• whether or not itemized indications and recorded representations and required for each tare; and

• whether or not different indications and recorded representations are required for each tare value when tare 

and preset tare are used in the same transaction.

Consequently, the Committee recommended that this proposal remain an Informational item and suggested that the 

WS further clarify the proposed language and consider providing examples of indications and recorded 

representations of preset tare in consecutive tare transactions and provide the justification for limiting the acceptable 

words and abbreviations for the words “Preset Tare.”

During the 2009 Annual Meeting, the Committee received no additional comments on this proposal. However, 

“Tare: Items 320-1A and 320-1B were not adopted in the Committee’s 2009. Consequently, the Committee 

Wwithdrew the corresponding items in 324 Series Voting items” and recommended that the NTETC WS discuss 

and provide the Committee with an update on the WS position on the remaining Tare “Information” for the 

Committee’s 2010 Interim Agenda.

330 LIQUID-MEASURING DEVICES

330-1 I Temperature Compensation for Liquid-Measuring Devices Code

Source: 2008 Carryover Item 330-1. This item originated from the NCWM S&T Committee and first appeared on 

the Committee’s 2007 agenda.

Recommendation: The Committee is considering a proposal to make the following modifications to Section 3.30. 

Liquid-Measuring Devices (LMD) Code to recognize temperature compensation for retail devices. The Committee 

has modified the proposal based on comments received as of the 2009 NCWM Interim Meeting.

S.1.6.8. Recorded Representations from Devices with Temperature Compensation. – Receipts issued 

from devices or systems with activated automatic temperature compensation must include a statement 

that the volume of the product has been adjusted to the volume at 15 °C for liters or the volume at 60 °F 

for gallons.

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 201X]

(Added 201X)

Renumber existing S.1.6.8. Lubricant Devices, Travel of Indicator to S.1.6.9., accordingly.
S&T Committee 2009 Final Report

S&T - 61

S.2.7. Wholesale Devices Equipped with Automatic Temperature Compensators.

S.2.7.1. Automatic Temperature Compensation. – A device may be equipped with an automatic means 

for adjustingconversion of the indication and registration of the measured volume of product to the 

volume at 15 °C for liters or (60 °F) for gallons.

S.2.7.2. Display of Temperature. – For test purposes, on a device equipped with active automatic 

temperature compensation, means shall be provided to indicate or record the temperature determined by 

the system sensor to an a resolution of no greater than 0.2 °F.

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 201X]

S.2.7.23. Display of Net and Gross Quantity and Provision for Deactivating. – A device or system 

equipped with an active electronic automatic temperature-compensating mechanism shall indicate or 

record both the gross (uncompensated) and net (compensated) volume for testing purposes. On a 

device or system equipped with an mechanical automatic temperature-compensating mechanism that will 

indicate or record only in terms of gallonsliters compensated to 15 °C or gallons compensated to (60 °F), 

provision shall be made for deactivating the automatic temperature-compensating mechanism so that the 

meter can indicate, and record if it is equipped toor record, in terms of the uncompensated volume. It is 

not necessary that both net and gross volume be displayed simultaneously on a device or system 

equipped with either mechanical or electronic temperature-compensating mechanisms.

(Amended 1972 and 201X)

S.2.7.34. Provision for Sealing Automatic Temperature-Compensating Systems. – Provision shall be 

made for applying security seals in such a manner that an automatic temperature-compensating system 

cannot be disconnected and that no adjustment that detrimentally affects the metrological integrity of 

the device may be made to the system without breaking the seal or automatically providing a record 

(e.g., audit trail) of the action.

(Amended 201X)

S.2.7.4.1. Provision for Sealing the Temperature Sensor. – Provision shall be made for applying 

security seals in such a manner that the temperature sensor cannot be removed or disabled without 

breaking the seal or providing a record (e.g., audit trail) of the action.

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 201X]

S.2.7.4.5. Temperature Determination with Automatic Temperature Compensation. – For test 

purposes, means shall be provided (e.g., thermometer well) to determine the temperature of the liquid 

either:

(a) in the liquid chamber of the meter, or

(b) immediately adjacent to the meter in the meter inlet or discharge line.

(Amended 1987)

S.4.3.2. Temperature Compensation. – If a device or system is equipped with active automatic temperature 

compensation, the primary indicating elements, recording elements, orand recorded representation shall be 

clearly and conspicuously marked to show that the volume delivered has been adjusted to the volume at 15 °C 

for liters or (60 °F) for gallons.

(Amended 201X)

Renumber existing paragraphs and subparagraphs S.4.3. Wholesale Devices, Discharge Rates and S.4.4. 

Retail Devices accordingly.
S&T Committee 2009 Final Report

S&T - 62

N.4.1.1. Wholesale Devices Equipped with Automatic Temperature-Compensating Systems. – On 

wholesale devices equipped with active automatic temperature-compensating systems, normal tests shall 

be conducted:

(a) by comparing the net (compensated) volume indicated or recorded to the actual delivered volume 

corrected adjusted to 15 °C for liters or (60 °F) for gallons, and

(b) with the temperature-compensating system deactivated, comparing the gross (uncompensated)

volume indicated or recorded to the actual delivered volume. (For some devices this may 

require that the temperature compensator be deactivated.)

The first test shall be performed with the automatic temperature-compensating system operating in the “as 

found” condition. On devices that indicate or record both the compensated and uncompensated volume for 

each delivery, the tests in (a) and (b) may be performed as a single test.

(Amended 1987 and 201X)

N.5. Change in Product Temperature Correction on Wholesale Devices. – Corrections Adjustments shall be 

made for any changes in volume resulting from the differences in liquid temperatures between time of passage 

through the meter and time of volumetric determination in the prover or test measure. When adjustments are 

necessary, appropriate petroleum measurement tables should shall be used.

(Amended 1974 and 201X)

UR.3.6. Temperature Compensation, Wholesale.

UR.3.6.1. Automatic.

UR.3.6.1.1. When to be Used of Automatic Temperature Compensation. – If a device is equipped 

with a mechanical active automatic temperature compensator compensation, it shall be connected, 

operable, and in use at all times. An electronic or mechanical automatic temperature-compensating 

system may not be removed, nor may a compensated device be replaced with an uncompensated 

device, without the written approval of the responsible weights and measures jurisdiction with 

statutory authority over the device.

[Note: This requirement does not specify the method of sale for product measured through a meter.]

(Amended 1989 and 201X)

OR

UR.3.6.1.1. When to be Used of Automatic Temperature Compensation. – If a device is equipped 

with a mechanical automatic temperature compensator, it shall be connected, operable, and in use at all 

times. Once used, Aan electronic or mechanical automatic temperature-compensating system may not 

be removed nor deactivated, nor may a compensated device be replaced with an uncompensated 

device, without the written approval of the responsible weights and measures jurisdiction with 

statutory authority over the device.

[Note: This requirement does not specify the method of sale for product measured through a meter.]

(Amended 1989 and 201X)

UR.3.6.1.2. Condition of Use. – At a business location which offers fuel products for retail sale 

on the basis of a temperature-compensated volume, all devices used for retail sales shall have 

active automatic temperature compensation and all fuel products offered for retail sale shall be 

dispensed on the basis of temperature-compensated volume.
S&T Committee 2009 Final Report

S&T - 63

UR.3.6.1.23. Recorded Representations (Invoices, Receipts, and Bills of Lading).

(a) An written invoice based on a reading of a device or recorded representation issued by a 

device or system that is equipped with an active automatic temperature compensator shall 

show that the volume delivered has been adjusted to the volume at 15 °C for liters or (60 °F)

for gallons and decimal subdivisions or fractional equivalents thereof.

(b) The invoice issued from an electronic wholesale device equipped with an automatic 

temperature-compensating system shall also indicate:

(1) the API gravity, specific gravity or coefficient of expansion for the product;

(2) product temperature; and

(3) gross reading.

(Amended 1987 and 201X)

UR.3.6.1.4. Temperature Determination. – The means for determining the temperature of 

measured liquid in a device with an activated automatic temperature-compensating system shall 

be so located and designed that, in any “usual and customary” use of the system, the resulting 

indications and/or recorded representations are within applicable tolerances.

(Added 201X)

UR.3.6.4. Temperature-Compensated Sale. – All sales of products, when the quantity is determined 

by an approved measuring system with temperature compensation, shall be in terms of the liter at 

15 °C or the U.S. gallon of 231 in3 at 60 °F.

(Added 201X)

Background/Discussion: Prior to the 2007 NCWM Interim Meeting, the Committee recognized, via reports from 

the regional L&R Committees and other sources, that there was increasing support within the weights and measures 

community to address temperature compensation features for the retail sale of petroleum products in the 

Liquid-Measuring Devices Code. In response to these concerns and to encourage uniformity in applications where 

temperature compensation is being used, the Committee developed a proposal to provide design, performance 

requirements, and testing criteria for retail metering systems that incorporate temperature compensation capability. 

The Committee was also concerned that if the current L&R Committee-proposed language for the Method of Sale of 

Commodities in NIST HB 130 is adopted, retail motor-fuel devices could be placed in service with no guidelines in 

NIST HB 44 for type approval and field testing. The language proposed by the L&R Committee at that time would 

permit the temperature-compensated sale of petroleum products at all levels of distribution.

At the 2007 Interim Meeting, the Committee considered moving the proposal forward as a priority Voting item. 

However, the Board instructed the Committee to retain the item as Informational and established a steering 

committee to provide the S&T and L&R Committees with guidance on temperature compensation issues.

As of the 2008 Interim Meeting, the Committee received comments from the WWMA supporting the use of 

15.56 °C and presenting the item for a vote and from the CWMA supporting 15 °C and retaining the item as 

Informational. NEWMA proposed the inclusion of proving equations based on OIML R 120. The SWMA 

forwarded comments about the printing of a statement regarding the temperature-compensated values.

At the 2008 Interim Meeting, the Committee made some additional modifications to the proposal, including 

changing the reference to metric units to 15.56 °C based on the ATC Steering Committee recommendation. The 

Committee did not believe Handbook 44 was the appropriate place to add proving equations based on OIML R 120, 

noting that, if needed, these would be more appropriately addressed as an example in the EPOs. At that point, the 

Committee believed the proposal to be essentially complete and, after considerable deliberations and based on 

urging from officials who anticipated installation of ATC equipment in their jurisdictions, the Committee agreed to 

designate Item 310-1 as a Voting item on its agenda for the 2008 Annual Meeting.
S&T Committee 2009 Final Report

S&T - 64

In its spring 2008 meeting report, the CWMA S&T Committee stated that it heard comments that this item should 

not move forward for a vote at that time due to the lack of a method of sale regulation. The report also noted that 

some jurisdictions adopt NIST HB 44 in its entirety and do not have a law that prohibits ATC, and inclusion of ATC 

criteria in this case could make ATC permissible.

NEWMA reported discussing this item at length during its spring 2008 meeting. Initially it was suggested that this 

item go back to Informational status but an attendee suggested that it should either be withdrawn or put up for a 

vote. Another attendee suggested making this item Informational until the report on ATC from the California 

Energy Commission is released. NEWMA submitted the following concerns and recommended that the item remain 

Informational:

• A statement similar to the one in the Vehicle Tank Meter (VTM) code which addresses states that prohibit 

ATC by state law should appear in the text of this item.

• One member referenced the 1978 S&T Committee report which discussed a cost benefit consideration and 

the desire that the S&T and L&R move forward in unison. The NEWMA membership generally agreed 

with these points.

• NEWMA continues to believe that it is appropriate to place in HB 44 reference calculations for 

determining volume at 60 oF. It is also appropriate to reference the specific API tables including version 

and date. Placing this information in publications such as EPOs would have no legal standing if we were 

challenged in the future.

At the 2008 NCWM Annual Meeting, the Committee heard numerous comments on the proposed changes to include 

specifications, test procedures, and user requirements for devices equipped with automatic temperature 

compensation systems.

Comments/questions were raised about specific items in the proposed language, including:

• The term “active” is not used consistently in all references to “automatic temperature compensation.” For 

example, it appears in paragraph S.2.7.2., but it does not appear in paragraph S.1.6.8.

• There is a reference to the accuracy requirements for the temperature sensor in paragraph S.2.7.3.; 

however, there is not a requirement specifying the division size of the temperature sensor.

• Should a corresponding reference to the accuracy requirements for the temperature sensor be included in 

the “Tolerances” section of the code?

• Is there an expectation that there will be a field test of the temperature sensor? If so, there is not a 

corresponding test note to indicate this, nor is it clear how the test will be done in the field.

• A user requirement is needed to specify that, if a single business offers product for sale on the basis of a 

temperature-compensated volume, all devices in that business shall be equipped with automatic 

temperature-compensating systems. [Note: During the Committee’s work discussions, it was noted that 

Canada permitted a phase-in period based on product or product grades.]

• There is concern about using 15.56 oC rather than 15 oC. In addition to being different from use in 

international arenas, including Canada, the bulk of the devices in the field, including the retail motor fuel 

dispensers and the temperature standards used by field officials, do not have the capability to display 

temperature to two decimal places.

• Devices currently in the field may not have the capability to automatically sense when the device is or is 

not in the automatic temperature-compensating mode with respect to the requirement to identify volumes as 

“corrected” volumes on printed indications.
S&T Committee 2009 Final Report

S&T - 65

• Although a corresponding paragraph already appears in Section 3.32. LPG and Anhydrous Ammonia 

Liquid-Measuring Devices Code, the language in paragraph UR.3.6.1.3. needs clarification.

The Committee asked that the NCWM Automatic Temperature Compensation Steering Committee assist in 

addressing these issues and encourages interested parties to submit comments to the Steering Committee or provide 

additional comments to the S&T Committee.

The Committee heard numerous comments encouraging the Committee to delay a vote on this issue while the 

corresponding method of sale and related requirements are being further developed by the L&R Committee and 

while other studies in the community are being completed. Comments were also received that cost-benefit analysis 

of equipment implementation needs to be considered.

Although the Committee did hear opposition to moving forward on this item, the Committee also heard comments in 

support of moving the item forward for a vote. Some members commented that, if this proposal were adopted, the 

proposed specifications, tolerances, notes, and user requirements would be available for use in a timelier manner by 

jurisdictions that do not specifically prohibit the use of temperature compensation. This would encourage 

uniformity in the implementation of such requirements among those jurisdictions and prevent inconsistencies for 

consumers doing business in various jurisdictions.

Based on the many suggestions that it heard between the 2008 Interim and Annual Meetings to allow time for 

additional study and development of the related method of sale requirements, the Committee decided to change the 

status of this item from Voting to Informational at the 2008 Annual Meeting.

During the 2008 WWMA Annual Technical Conference an update on the California Energy Commission (CEC) 

cost benefit analysis was given. The WWMA was told that the study is being delayed due to difficulty in obtaining 

device information. The CEC report to the California legislature, due December 2008, was granted an extension 

until February 2009, after the NCWM Interim Meeting. Several industry members and weights and measures 

officials stated that the S&T and L&R Committees needed to work in concert; therefore, this item should remain 

Informational until the CEC and GAO reports are completed.

One jurisdiction stated during the WWMA meeting that they would like to see technically sound language in HB 44 

in the event that temperature-compensated devices are installed and activated. No jurisdictions reported ATC 

devices in operation at this time. However, one jurisdiction stated that California type approved devices have been 

installed but the ATC feature has not been activated. Another jurisdiction stated that a company informed them they 

were considering ATC but would not take action until after the NCWM had made their decision on the L&R and 

S&T proposals. For these reasons, the WWMA agreed this item should remain “Informational.”

At its 2008 Interim Meeting, the CWMA took the position that having guidelines in Handbook 44 does have a value 

in the event that a model law is passed. However, the CWMA believes that until a model law is passed, the 

guidelines cannot be fully drafted for this item. Therefore, the CWMA recommends this item be a Developing item.

At its 2008 Interim Meeting, NEWMA discussed the following points related to this item:

1. waiting for GAO and California study;

2. financial impact to consumer and retail station owners;

3. extra time for testing and cost of additional equipment;

4. several problems with language of item (e.g., 15.56 oC vs. 15 oC, gravity to be used?);

5. connection to L&R item; and

6. possible perpetuation of fraud.
S&T Committee 2009 Final Report

S&T - 66

NEWMA recommends this item be made a Developing item.

The SWMA heard comments during the open hearings at its 2008 Annual Meeting that the item should remain 

Informational to allow time for additional information to be gathered. The SWMA also heard that there may be 

additional information provided from the California Energy Commission study (due to be completed in 

February 2009, with a possible draft available in December 2008) and the GAO study (due to be completed in the 

fall of 2008. With regard to the proposed changes to the LMD Code, the SWMA heard suggestions that the 

requirements for indicating temperature-compensated deliveries be examined to ensure that existing equipment can 

meet the requirements, particularly with regard to the service station consoles. The SWMA also heard a suggestion 

that action on the proposed changes to the LMD Code be held off until the NCWM L&R Committee completes its 

deliberations on the method of sale issue. The SWMA noted the NCWM S&T Committee raised a number of 

questions during its deliberations in July and asks that, in addition to the NCWM ATC Steering Committee, people 

provide input to assist the national S&T Committee in its deliberations on this issue. Because of the comments 

received and the number of outstanding issues, the SWMA decided to maintain this item as Informational on its 

agenda.

The Committee received copies of the GAO study (available on the GAO website at www.gao.gov) as well as a 

draft of the California Energy Commission study. (Technical Advisor’s Note: A final version of this report is now 

available from the CEC at www.energy.ca.gov.)

The Committee received comments from several members of the ATC Steering Committee in response to the 

questions it raised in July. A copy of these comments is included in Appendix B of the Committee’s Interim Report.

Based on input from these Steering Committee members and the regional weights and measures associations, 

comments received at the 2009 Interim Meeting, and the Committee’s deliberations at the 2009 Interim, the 

Committee addressed the points it raised in its 2008 Final Report as follows:

• The reference to the word “active.” The Committee reviewed the paragraphs and inserted the word as 

appropriate. The Committee noted that the original intent of paragraph UR.3.6.1.1. was that mechanical 

compensators should be activated and in use at all times.

• Division size of temperature sensor. The Committee changed the reference to “resolution” rather than 

accuracy. (See S.2.7.3. below.)

• Should there be a corresponding reference to the accuracy requirements for the temperature sensor 

in the Tolerances section? The Committee changed the reference to “resolution” rather than accuracy. 

(See S.2.7.3. below.)

• Should inspector test accuracy of temperature sensor? There is no intention for an inspector to test the 

temperature sensor in the field. The proposed requirements will be patterned after other NIST 

Handbook 44 code references in which the results of gross and net test drafts are compared against a 

specified tolerance.

• A User Requirement is needed to specify that, if a single business offers products for sale on the basis 

of a temperature-compensated volume, all devices in that business shall be equipped with active 

automatic temperature compensation systems. The Committee agreed that a similar paragraph to that 

being considered in agenda Item 331-2 should be included in the LMD Code. The proposed paragraph is 

included as UR.3.6.1.2. as outlined in the recommendation above.

• Reference to 15.56 oC. The Committee agreed to change the reference to 15 oC.

• Ability to sense when a device is in the ATC mode. The Committee heard mixed opinions on this issue, 

with some manufacturers and officials commenting that equipment should be able to automatically detect 

when in the ATC mode and print and display accordingly and some officials stating that equipment should 

not be required to automatically detect this. The Committee also noted that a longer lead time could be 
S&T Committee 2009 Final Report

S&T - 67

given on the non-retroactive status of the requirement. The Committee is interested in comments on how 

this point should be addressed.

• UR.3.6.1.3. needs clarification. The Committee made some changes to the language to improve the 

clarity of the paragraph, including clarifying that this requirement applies to systems with activated ATC.

At the 2009 NCWM Interim Meeting, the Committee heard a number of suggestions for changes to specific portions 

of the recommendation and addressed these comments in its recommendation as follows:

• S.1.6.8. Recorded Representations from Devices with Temperature Compensation

- Question/Comment: Depending upon method of sale requirements adopted in a given 

jurisdiction, devices equipped with electronic temperature compensation systems may not be 

required to have the ATC feature activated. Shouldn’t the provision of S.1.6.8. only apply to 

systems with activated ATC?

- Conclusion: The Committee agrees and added the word “activated” to clarify that the paragraph 

only applies to systems with the feature activated.

• S.2.6. Temperature Determination

- Question/Comment: Should the term wholesale be deleted? If so, this will require a 

thermometer well even on non-ATC RMFDs.

- Conclusion: The Committee agreed that the intent was not to require the installation of 

thermometer wells on existing RMFDs that are not equipped with ATC. Since S.2.7. includes 

provisions for a thermometer well or other means for determining the temperature at the meter on 

liquid-measuring devices equipped with ATCs, the Committee deleted the proposed change to 

S.2.6. and has eliminated the proposed change from the recommendation above.

• S.7.2. Display of Net and Gross Quantity and S.2.7.4. Display and Provision to Deactivate

- Question/Comment: Is it necessary to have both paragraphs S.7.2. and S.2.7.4. as shown in the 

Publication 15 proposal? Could these paragraphs be combined?

- Conclusion: The Committee agreed that the paragraphs can be combined, noting that the 

language needs to reflect the differences between provisions for mechanical and electronic ATC 

mechanisms. The proposed paragraph numbered S.2.7.2. in the Committee’s Interim agenda has 

been deleted and its provisions incorporated into the existing S.2.7.2. In making these revisions, 

the Committee also noted that existing User Requirement paragraph UR.3.6.1.1. requires a 

mechanical compensator to be activated and in use at all times.

• S.2.7.3. Display of Temperature

- Question/Comment: Is this paragraph intended to specify a tolerance for the temperature sensor? 

If so, will this be a field test?

- Conclusion: Based on guidance provided by the ATC Steering Committee, the Committee agreed 

to change “accuracy” to “a resolution of no greater than” in proposed paragraph S.2.7.2. (shown as 

S.2.7.3. in the Committee’s Interim agenda). The Committee also agreed that the intent was not to 

test the accuracy of the system’s temperature sensor in the field. The approach for testing devices 

with ATCs will continue to be a comparison between compensated and non-compensated test 

drafts.
S&T Committee 2009 Final Report

S&T - 68

• UR.3.6.1.1. Use of Automatic Temperature Compensation

- Question/Comment: Should the words “once used” be inserted prior to “it shall be connected” to 

clarify that some systems may be equipped with the feature, but the feature may not be activated.

- Conclusion: The Committee notes that the intent of the original User Requirement 

paragraph UR.3.6.1.1. was that mechanical compensators should be activated and in use at all times.

• References to 15.56 oC:

- The Committee changed all references to 15 oC to correspond with the proposals on the L&R 

Committee’s agenda for method of sale. The Committee acknowledged that 15.56 oC is an exact 

conversion for 60 °F. However, the Committee agreed that 15 oC is more appropriate since this is the 

value used internationally and in light of comments from industry questioning whether or not existing 

equipment can display values to two decimal places.

• The Committee also made the following editorial corrections/changes based on comments received:

- UR.3.6. Temperature Compensation. – The word “wholesale” should appear at the end of the title as 

struck since it is currently in the code.

- S.4.3. Temperature Compensation. – The word “active” should not be in italics.

The Committee discussed whether or not this item is ready to move forward for a vote at the 2009 Annual Meeting. 

The Committee recognizes the need for standards to be in place to encourage uniform evaluation of RMFDs 

equipped with ATC, and acknowledges that some jurisdictions are already facing the imminent possibility of such 

equipment in their jurisdictions. While the Committee believes that these standards are necessary whether or not the 

issue of a model method sale regulation has been resolved, based on the number of comments received on the 

proposed changes to the LMD code, the Committee believes that the item should be retained as an Informational

item until the changes outlined above have been studied by interested stakeholders. The Committee also 

acknowledged that the General Code paragraph G-A.3. Special and Unclassified Equipment coupled with relevant 

provisions in existing code paragraphs can be used by jurisdictions to address equipment with ATC features in the 

meantime. The Committee also does not believe that delaying the revisions to the LMD code should delay a 

decision on the method of sale item before the L&R Committee.

(See also the Committee’s 2007 and 2008 Final Reports for additional background information on this issue.)

Based on comments heard from the floor during the 2009 Annual Meeting, the Committee acknowledged that 

additional work may be needed to specific sections of the proposed changes to the code. Points raised and discussed 

by the Committee include the following:

• There was a question of whether to reference “15 °C” or “15.56 °C.” The Committee agreed that industry 

practice has been to use “15 °C” and that this is the reference used internationally; consequently, they 

believe it should be kept as “15 °C.” This is also supported by the L&R Committee’s 2009 Interim Report 

which references a statement by the Meter Manufacturers’ Association indicating that 15 °C is used 

internationally and industry would likely follow that convention should SI units be used.

• Clarification is needed for the differences between wholesale devices and systems. Specific paragraphs in 

question were S.1.6.8. and S.2.7.2.

• Clarification is needed for how S.2.7.2. applies to electronic registers that can only indicate in terms of 

compensated quantities when the compensator is activated; the compensator would need to be activated and 

an additional run completed in order to view an uncompensated reading.
S&T Committee 2009 Final Report

S&T - 69

• Review the use of the term “invoice” and consider if the term is well understood for retail transactions 

which have typically used terminology such as “printed receipt” or recorded representation.

• Review the language in the VTM code under Item 331-2 and consider where changes might be needed to 

ensure consistency.

The Committee decided to keep the status of this item as an Informational item and acknowledges that some 

jurisdictions are already facing the imminent possibility of such equipment in their jurisdictions. The Committee 

believes that these standards are necessary whether or not the issue of a model method sale regulation is adopted in 

NIST Handbook 130 since weights and measures jurisdictions may decide to permit this equipment based upon their 

individual State laws or regulations.

330-2 V N.4.4. Pour and Drain Times for Hand-held Test Measures

(This item was adopted.)

Source: 2008 Carryover Item 330-2. This item originated from the CWMA and first appeared on the Committee’s 

2008 agenda. See also note in Background/Discussion section below regarding the origin of this item.

Recommendation: The Committee is considering a proposal to add a new paragraph N.4.4. Field Standards to 

address the selection and use of field standards for inspecting and testing liquid-measuring devices covered under 

the Liquid-Measuring Devices Code.

N.4.4. Pour and Drain Times.

N.4.4.1. Pour and Drain Times for Hand-held Test Measures. – Hand-held test measures require a 

30-second (± 5 seconds) pour followed by a 10-second drain with the measure held at a 10-degree to 

15-degree angle from vertical.

N.4.4.2. Drain Times for Bottom Drain Test Measures or Provers. – Bottom drain field standard 

provers require a 30-second drain time after main flow cessation.

(Added 2009)

Background/Discussion: Following deliberations at the 2008 NCWM Interim Meeting, Item 330-2 was deleted 

from the Committee’s agenda and the issue addressed under new Item 310-4 as a proposal to add a paragraph to the 

General Code to designate general requirements for all field standards. At the 2008 NCWM Annual Meeting, the 

Committee decided (as a result of comments received following the Interim Meeting) to reinstate Item 330-2 (which 

proposes an addition to the Liquid-Measuring Devices Code to specify pour and drain times for measuring device 

test standards) as an Informational item based upon the rationale described below. Note that the Committee retained 

Item 310-4 and presented that item as a Voting item at the Annual Meeting, but that item did not receive sufficient 

votes either in support or opposition for further action, so the item was returned to the Committee. See Item 310-4 

for the Committee’s original recommendation and background information and the outcome of that discussion.

The Committee received comments from the CWMA and heard comments during the 2008 NCWM Annual Meeting 

open hearing that specific hand-held test measure use requirements are still needed in the LMD Code for weights 

and measures officials and service agents. The Committee also heard comments that key elements for the use of test 

measures and provers should be included in the Notes section of the LMD Code. In response to the comments, the 

Committee expanded the proposal to include drain requirements for bottom drain provers and test measures.

The Committee agreed to amend the original proposal to cite the specific document in addition to the test measure 

use requirements to read as shown in the recommendation above.

At its 2008 Annual Technical Conference, the WWMA supported this companion item to Item 310-4 and 

recommended it be a Voting item. To be consistent with other codes in HB 44 and to make the information more 

prominent, the WWMA believes the item deserves its own paragraph and supports it as a Voting item.
S&T Committee 2009 Final Report

S&T - 70

N.6. Field Standards. – Field standards shall be certified to meet the accuracy requirements of NIST 

Handbook 105-3, Specifications and Tolerances for Graduated Neck-Type Volumetric Field Standards (or 

other suitable and designated standards) or the accuracy requirements expressed in Fundamental 

Considerations, paragraph 3.2. (i.e., one-third of the smallest tolerance applied).

N.6.1. Pour and Drain Times for Hand-held Test Measures. – Hand-held test measures require a 

30-second (± 5 seconds) pour followed by a 10-second drain, with the measure held at a 10-degree to 

15-degree angle from vertical during use.

N.6.2. Drain Times for Bottom Drain Test Measures or Provers. – Bottom drain field standard provers 

require a 30-second drain time after main flow cessation.

(Added 200X)

At its 2008 Interim Meeting, the CWMA recommended this item move forward as a Voting item.

At its 2008 Interim Meeting, NEWMA heard discussion that this item is more suitable for EPOs. Therefore, 

NEWMA recommends this item be Withdrawn.

The SWMA received no comments on this item during the open hearings at its 2008 Annual Meeting. During its 

work sessions, the SWMA S&T Committee was unable to reach a consensus on this item. Some Committee 

members questioned the need for the proposal at all given the current references in the Fundamental Considerations 

and the corresponding proposal to include a reference in the General Code. One Committee member questioned 

whether or not the 30-second drain time for the bottom drain provers was necessary and questioned if any study of 

the time was being done by any metrology labs. One Committee member supported the proposal as written. Some 

Committee members commented that having something specific regarding pour and drain times would be helpful in 

getting service technicians as well as weights and measures officials to use the proper procedures, whereas other 

Committee members acknowledged that even specifying such procedures would not produce a change in the actual 

practices in the field.

Because of the range of positions among its members, the SWMA S&T Committee did not believe it would reach a 

consensus on the item. Rather than holding the item up for those who felt the proposal had benefit, the Committee 

decided to forward the item to the NCWM S&T Committee with a recommendation that it be made a Voting item.

At the 2009 NCWM Interim Meeting, the Committee heard additional support regarding the need for a reference in 

the LMD Code in addition to any reference in the General Code. Judy Cardin, Wisconsin Weights and Measures, 

reported that service companies are not able to work with the Fundamental considerations and they are finding many 

different drain times and procedures in use. Steve Malone, Nebraska Weights and Measures, encouraged the 

Committee to make the references to the NIST Handbook 105 series identical to that used in the Scales and other 

codes.

Based on comments received and its deliberations during the Interim Meeting, the Committee agreed that the 

general references to the NIST Handbook 105 series are adequately addressed in the proposed language in 

corresponding General Code Item 310-4. The Committee also agreed to modify this text by extracting references 

from existing language in the Fundamental Considerations rather than modifying the original proposed N.4.4. 

Consequently, the Committee deleted the reference in the LMD code and retained only the references to pour and 

drain time as shown in the recommendation above. With these changes, the Committee believes that the remaining 

proposed paragraphs are most appropriately placed as a subparagraph under N.4. Testing Procedures.

The Committee agreed to recommend this item for a Vote at the 2009 Annual Meeting.

At the 2009 Annual Meeting, the Committee reported that it had heard continued concerns from CWMA members 

that service companies frequently do not use proper drain procedures for hand-held test measures. Additionally, 

Steve Malone, NE, noted that most service agents do not have a copy of the NIST 105-Series Handbooks. NIST 

WMD pointed out that HB 105-3 requires marking of pour and drain times and noted that other NIST Handbooks 
S&T Committee 2009 Final Report

S&T - 71

and test procedures already include these references, including the NIST Examination Procedure Outlines and 

training materials. Other CWMA members cited problems getting service companies to consistently use these 

procedures and some noted that inclusion of the paragraphs would further encourage new inspectors to follow 

proper procedures. NEWMA does not support this item. Ross Andersen, New York, stated that he had initially 

objected to this item, noting that he might choose to reference a standard with a different drain time; however, since 

the proposal is now to reference specific pour and drain times he can support it. In response to comments from 

CWMA and NEWMA, the Committee agreed to strike the phrase “during use” from the end of N.4.4.1. in its 

original proposal as reflected in the modified proposal in the recommendation above.

330-3 I Price Posting and Computing Capability and Requirements for a Retail Motor-Fuel Dispenser 

(RMFD)

Source: 2008 Carryover Item 330-3. This item originated from WMD and the regional associations and first 

appeared on the Committee’s 2007 agenda. This item was previously a Developing item under 360-2, Part 3, 

Item 2.

Recommendation: The Committee is considering a proposal to make the following modifications to Section 3.30. 

Liquid-Measuring Devices (LMD) Code to address price posting and computing capability for retail motor-fuel 

dispensers as follows:

S.1.6.4. Display of Unit Price and Product Identity.

S.1.6.4.1. Unit Price.

(a) A computing or money-operated device shall be able to display on each face the unit price at 

which the device is set to compute or to dispense.

(b) Whenever a grade, brand, blend, or mixture is offered for sale from a device at more than one unit 

price, then all of the unit prices at which that product is offered for sale shall be displayed or shall 

be capable of being displayed on the dispenser using controls available to the customer prior to 

the delivery of the product. It is not necessary that all of the unit prices for all grades, brands, 

blends, or mixtures be simultaneously displayed prior to the delivery of the product. This 

subsection shall not apply to fleet sales, other contract sales, or truck refueling sales, or all 

purchases of fuel accompanied by an automatically printed receipt of the transaction 

containing the discount unit price, the total gallons delivered, and total price of the sale.

[Effective and nonretroactive as of January 1, 1991]

(Amended 1989, and 1997, and 201X)

S.1.6.5.4. Selection of Unit Price. – Except for dispensers used exclusively for fleet sales, other price 

contract sales, and truck refueling (e.g., truck stop dispensers used only to refuel trucks), and purchases 

where an automatic printed receipt of the transaction containing the discount unit price, the total 

gallons delivered, and total price of the sale, when a product or grade is offered for sale at more than one 

unit price through a computing device, the selection of the unit price shall be made prior to delivery using 

controls on the device or other customer-activated controls. A system shall not permit a change to the unit 

price during delivery of product.

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1991]

(Added 1989) (Amended 1991, 1992, 1993, and 1996, and 201X)

S.1.6.7. Recorded Representations. – Except for fleet sales and other price contract sales, a printed receipt 

providing the following information shall be available through a built-in or separate recording element for all 

transactions conducted with point-of-sale systems or devices activated by debit cards, credit cards, and/or cash:

(a) the total volume of the delivery,

(b) the unit price,
S&T Committee 2009 Final Report

S&T - 72

(c) the total computed price, and

(d) the product identity by name, symbol, abbreviation, or code number.

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1986]

(Added 1985) (Amended 1997)

UR.3. Use of Device.

UR.3.2. Unit Price and Product Identity.

(a) The following information shall be conspicuously displayed or posted on the face of a retail dispenser 

used in direct sale:

(1) except for dispensers used exclusively for fleet sales, other price contract sales, and truck refueling 

(e.g., truck stop dispensers used only to refuel trucks), all of the unit prices at which the product is 

offered for sale; and

(2) in the case of a computing type or money-operated type, the unit price at which the dispenser is set 

to compute.

Provided that the dispenser complies with S.1.6.4.1. Display of Unit Price, it is not necessary that all the 

unit prices for all grades, brands, blends, or mixtures be simultaneously displayed or posted.

(b) The following information shall be conspicuously displayed or posted on each side of a retail dispenser 

used in direct sale:

(1) the identity of the product in descriptive commercial terms, and

(2) the identity of the grade, brand, blend, or mixture that a multi-product dispenser is set to deliver.

(Amended 1972, 1983, 1987, 1989, 1992, and 1993)

UR.3.3. Computing Device. – Any computing device used in an application where a product or grade is 

offered for sale at one or more unit prices shall be used only for sales for which the device computes and 

displays the sales price for the selected transaction.

(Added 1989) (Amended 1992)

The following exceptions apply:

(a) Fleet sales and other price contract sales are exempt from this requirement.

(b) A truck stop dispenser used exclusively for refueling trucks is exempt from this requirement provided 

that:

(1) all purchases of fuel are accompanied by a printed receipt of the transaction containing the 

applicable price per gallon, the total gallons delivered, and the total price of the sale; and

(Added 1993)

(2) unless a dispenser complies with S.1.6.4.1. Display of Unit Price, the price posted on the dispenser 

and the price at which the dispenser is set to compute shall be the highest price for any transaction 

which may be conducted.

(Added 1993)
S&T Committee 2009 Final Report

S&T - 73

(c) All purchases of fuel accompanied by an automatically printed receipt of the transaction 

containing the discount unit price, the total gallons delivered, and total price of the sale.

(Added 201X)

UR.3.4. Printed Ticket Receipt. – Except for purchases conducted under UR.3.3(c) (*see note below), 

Tthe total price, the total volume of the delivery, and the price per unit liter or gallon shall be shown, on a 

receipt by either being automatically printed or printed in clear hand script, on any printed ticket issued by 

a device and containing any one of these values.

*Note: Purchases conducted under UR.3.3(c) shall only be automatically printed, containing at minimum

the total price, the total volume of the delivery, and the discount price per unit.

(Amended 2001 and 201X)

Background/Discussion: In the early 1990s, various sections of the Liquid-Measuring Devices Code in HB 44 

(including paragraphs S.1.6.4. Display of Unit Price and Product Identity, S.1.6.5.4. Selection of Unit Price, UR.3.2. 

Unit Price and Product Identity, and UR.3.3. Computing Device) were modified to address multi-tier pricing 

applications such as cash or credit. Since that time, marketing practices have evolved to include the addition of new 

practices such as frequent shopper discounts and club member discounts. Numerous questions have been posed to 

WMD regarding the requirements for posting unit prices, calculation of total price, customer-operated controls, and 

other related topics such as the definitions for associated terminology.

It is clear from these questions that changes are needed to HB 44 to ensure the requirements adequately address 

current marketplace conditions and practices. WMD has raised this issue with the Committee and has also discussed 

a variety of pricing practices with individual state and local weights and measures jurisdictions.

The WMD reviewed the existing requirements and their application to current market practices and collected 

information on a number of scenarios, including the following:

The WMD expressed an interest in receiving input from the weights and measures community about the various 

practices and pricing structures in use, and indicated it welcomed opportunities to discuss this item at regional 

weights and measures associations to ensure the item is adequately addressed.

The WWMA acknowledged that marketing practices change on a daily basis and the task to ensure HB 44 codes 

address each scenario is monumental. However, the WWMA encouraged NIST in its efforts to tackle this ongoing 

issue. Therefore, the WWMA recommended this item be considered and move forward to the national level as a 

Developing item as did the SWMA and NEWMA.

At its 2007 Annual Meeting the SWMA was informed that the National Association of Convenience Stores 

recognized a problem with the current price posting and computing capability requirements in HB 44 and was 

currently working on information on this item to provide to the NCWM S&T Committee.

(1) Frequent shopper discounts

(2) Club member discounts

(3) Discount for prepaying cash (to prevent “driveoffs”)

(4) Prepay at the cashier for credit sales

(5) Discounts for purchasing store products

(6) Discounts for purchasing a service 

(e.g., carwash)

(7) Targeted group discounts (e.g., Tuesday – ladies 

5 cents off per gallon)

(8) Full service

(9) Self service

(10) Progressive discounts based on volume of motorfuel purchased

(11) Coupons for discounts on immediate or future 

purchases

(12) Rebates (e.g., use of oil company credit card)

(13) Day-of-the-week discounts

Note: The conditions under some of these scenarios may not typically fall under the authority of weights and 

measures jurisdictions.
S&T Committee 2009 Final Report

S&T - 74

At the 2008 Interim Meeting, Ohio Weights and Measures submitted a proposal to the Committee that included 

specific language for modifying Section 3.30. to address the various pricing and marketing structures being used in 

retail motor-fuel applications. Based on its review of that proposal, the fact that a specific proposal has now been 

developed and presented, and the number of jurisdictions reporting a need to move forward with this item, the 

Committee decided to elevate the status of this item from a status of Developing to an Informational status. 

Consequently, the Committee is considering the specific language submitted by Ohio and encourages the weights 

and measures community to review the proposal and submit comments on this item.

At its spring 2008 meeting, the CWMA S&T Committee reported hearing comments that current language does not 

meet the needs of what is actually happening in the marketplace. Currently, there are economic issues dealing with 

fair competition, and there are numerous marketing techniques that the language in NIST HB 44 cannot address. 

The CWMA S&T Committee believes the item as proposed is a good start on addressing this issue, but it does not 

entirely provide adequate language to aid in enforcement. The CWMA S&T recommended that a WG be formed to 

further evaluate this item. Some examples of the panel discussion were, but not limited to:

1. discounts calculated at the pump and other at the counter,

2. level of consumer responsibility,

3. can the dispensers do tier pricing,

4. competitors complaining about non-uniformity of enforcement,

5. discounts should be done electronically, and

6. all is okay as long as the receipt explains the transaction.

NEWMA’s spring 2008 meeting report stated that this is a very important item and NEWMA supports continued 

work on it as an Informational item. One member suggested that at the next NEWMA Interim Meeting a WG spend 

some time coming up with suggestions for this item.

At the 2008 Annual Meeting, the Committee heard comments on the proposed changes to the Liquid-Measuring 

Devices Code. Several weights and measures officials expressed concern about the provision in the proposed 

language that would allow discounts to be calculated at the console after the customer has dispensed product. These 

officials felt that devices should be able to compute the total sales price at the unit price at which the product is 

offered for sale. Several industry members expressed support of the proposed language. One member stated that it 

is important for retailers with mechanical dispensers to be able to offer their customers a cash discount.

Current NIST Handbook 44 requirements state that the selection of the unit price must be made by the customer 

using controls on the device or other customer-activated controls. One industry member questioned whether making 

arrangements for a given method of payment at the console might be considered as satisfying that requirement since 

the customer is initiating the sale and the conditions of payment prior to the transaction. Weights and measures 

officials acknowledged the comment, but emphasized the need for the customer to retain control over the selection 

of the price, preferably by making a selection at the dispenser or using customer controls.

The Committee expressed appreciation for the work that had been done thus far, acknowledging that additional work 

is needed on this item and noted that a WG is being formed to develop this item. The Committee looks forward to 

receiving input and suggestions from the WG and encourages interested parties to participate in the WG and/or 

forward comments to the Committee.

A meeting was held on July 15, 2008, (in conjunction with the NCWM Annual Meeting) of individuals interested in 

the issue of pricing requirements for retail motor-fuel dispensers. Participants in the meeting included weights and 

measures officials, gasoline pump manufacturers, and other interested parties. The purpose of the meeting was to 

establish an informal WG to review the issue of price posting and computing capability for retail motor-fuel 

dispensers. The WG will focus on the development of proposed changes to NIST Handbook 44 necessary to 

provide flexibility to marketers while ensuring that the buyer and seller have adequate information about all aspects 

of the transaction with respect to the pricing and method of payment. The CWMA had suggested the formation of 

this small WG to study this issue with the idea that the issue could be more thoroughly developed than could be 

done in the limited time available during the NCWM Interim and Annual Meetings. Note that this work does not 

replace the discussion of this issue at the NCWM Interim and Annual Meetings, but rather is intended to supplement 

the work and provide the S&T Committee with some proposals to consider.
S&T Committee 2009 Final Report

S&T - 75

Participants at that meeting were asked to indicate their interest in the work as either “work group participants” 

(expected to regularly participate and contribute to the work) or “observers” (will be kept abreast of WG activities, 

including meeting agendas and summaries). Because there is no budget to support the cost of regular face-to-face 

meetings, the WG will attempt to accomplish its objectives through e-mail and other electronic communication. 

Anyone interested in the details of this work should contact Tina Butcher (NIST WMD) by e-mail at 

tbutcher@nist.gov or by telephone at (301) 975-2196.

During the open hearings at its 2008 Annual Technical Conference, the WWMA received comments that the 

Committee wait until a national WG is established to develop this item further. The WWMA agreed that the item 

should be “Informational.”

During its 2008 Interim Meeting, the CWMA heard the following comments during discussions of this item:

• Lighten the rules of dispensing so consumer can see the actual sale – transparency in the marketplace

• Not enough room on marquee or on pump for posting all prices

• What will appear on customer receipt or final receipt

The CWMA agrees that the item should be Informational until more information is obtained from the national work 

group.

At its 2008 Interim Meeting, NEWMA supported work on this item and looks forward to information from the WG.

At its 2008 Annual Meeting, the SWMA acknowledged the need to review and revise the requirements in the 

Liquid-Measuring Devices Code regarding price posting and computing capability. However, the SWMA does not 

support the proposed language as written. The SWMA heard comments in opposition to the proposed changes to the 

LMD Code. The SWMA S&T Committee noted that it is important for consumers to have full information about 

the purchase price of the product before they dispense the fuel and to be able to follow all aspects of the transaction. 

Also, the Committee is concerned that the proposed language does not provide for this.

The SWMA heard from Tina Butcher, NIST, that a WG has been established to study this issue. The group met in 

conjunction with the NCWM Annual Meeting in July, and anyone interested in participating in the work should 

contact Tina. The SWMA supports the continued efforts of the WG and encourages interested parties to provide 

comments to the WG. Because of the ongoing efforts to develop this item, the SWMA agrees that this item should 

remain an Informational item and encourages people to study the proposal that has been presented thus far.

At the 2009 NCWM Interim Meeting, the Committee heard from Tina Butcher, NIST WMD, who indicated that, 

due to staff shortages, she has not been able to devote time to work on this issue further. Several NCWM members 

offered help in continuing the work, including John Eichberger, National Association of Convenience Stores, who 

indicated he could coordinate assistance from some of the association’s interested members.

The Committee also heard some specific comments on the proposed language from Will Wotthlie, Maryland 

Weights and Measures, who noted that, should the Committee proceed with its consideration of the proposed 

changes in the recommendation; the following issues should be addressed:

• Paragraphs S.1.6.4.1.(a); UR.3.2.(a)(1); UR.3.2.(b)(1) and (2) are already in the handbook and should not 

be underlined. (Technical Advisor’s Note: These corrections have been made in the report.)

• Where did the printed receipt referenced in S.1.6.4.1.(b) and in UR.3.3.(c) originate?

• Could the references to “computing or money-operated devices” currently found in paragraph S.1.6.4.1. be 

carried over into paragraph UR.3.3. in the lead statement: “Any computing or money-operated device...”?
S&T Committee 2009 Final Report

S&T - 76

• In the proposed changes to UR.3.4., should the reference to “printed” in the phrase “or printed in clear hand

script” be “written” instead?

• Does the note under UR.3.4. Printed Ticket infer that all computing devices will be required to have a 

printer?

The Committee believes that additional work is required on this proposal before it is ready to move forward for a 

Vote and the Committee supports continued work by the WG. The Committee agreed to maintain this item as an 

Informational item.

330-4 W T.5. Predominance – Retail Motor-Fuel Devices

(This item was withdrawn.)

Source: Central Weights and Measures Association (CWMA). This item appeared on the Committee’s 2008 

agenda as Developing Item Part 4, Item 1.

Recommendation: The CWMA recommends the following new proposal developed by the Nebraska Weights and 

Measures Division to add a new paragraph T.5. to HB 44 Section 3.30. as follows:

T.5. Predominance - Retail Motor-Fuel Devices. – The retail motor-fuel devices in service at a single 

place of business shall be considered maintained in proper operating condition when evaluation of 

normal test results indicate the following parameters are met:

(a) The number of meters with minus test errors in excess of one-half maintenance tolerance shall be 

less than 60 % of the meters at the location, and

(b) When there are three or more meters of a single grade or type of fuel, the average error of the 

meters shall not be a minus value exceeding one-half maintenance tolerance. Meter test results 

that exceed maintenance tolerance shall not be included in determining the average meter error 

of a single grade or type of fuel.

(Added 200X)

Background/Discussion: In 1991 this same topic was brought before the NCWM as an Informational item. The 

intent of the proposal at that time was to provide guidance to states in the interpretation of General Code 

paragraph G-UR.4.1. Maintenance of Equipment. In 1993 the State of Wisconsin adopted a policy that defined 

“predominance” as shown in the proposal. That policy was similar to the one proposed in 1991, except Wisconsin 

felt that one-third acceptance tolerance was too stringent because there was a need to take into account normal 

variability in testing procedures, equipment, and environmental conditions found in the field. Wisconsin, therefore, 

adopted a “greater than one-third” maintenance tolerance guideline. In 2003 the Wisconsin policy was further 

refined by deleting the language “all devices are found to be in error in a direction favorable to the device user.” 

The new guideline for permissible errors was “60 % or more of the devices are found to be in error in favor of the 

device owner/user by more than one-third of the maintenance tolerance.” Both of these criteria were seldom used in 

the field because they made the policy confusing.

Just prior to 2005, NIST conducted a national survey of retail motor-fuel dispenser testing, and the results pointed to 

a need to gain more uniformity in the application of tolerances. The CWMA noted there is a wide variation in how 

different states handle the “predominance” question. Strides should be continually made to gain uniformity. 

Adoption of the proposed new paragraph G-UR.4.1.1. would be one step toward gaining greater uniformity. With 

more than five years of history using the proposed criteria, Wisconsin saw a relatively low number of devices 

rejected on the basis of “predominance,” and most station owners and all service companies have a working 

understanding of predominance.

In 2005 the CWMA agreed to submit the modified proposal to the NCWM S&T Committee with a recommendation 

that it be placed on the Committee’s agenda as a Developing item.
S&T Committee 2009 Final Report

S&T - 77

At their fall 2006 meetings, NEWMA, the SWMA, and the WWMA considered an earlier CWMA proposal to 

modify a General Code requirement and set limits on how to determine predominance in favor of the device 

operator. NEWMA believed the item was addressed adequately in HB 44 and recommended it be withdrawn from 

the NCWM S&T Committee’s 2007 agenda. The SWMA recommended this item remain a Developing item as a 

user requirement in the General Code. The SWMA encouraged the jurisdictions to review the proposed policy and 

try it out. The WWMA considered the limits in the proposal too stringent given the effects of temperature and other 

uncertainties. The WWMA was concerned dispensers would be set to the limits in the proposal rather than as close 

as practical to zero error. Since the current General Code adequately addresses predominance, jurisdictions may 

establish policy to gain uniformity in determining predominance. Consequently, the WWMA recommended this 

proposal be withdrawn from the agenda.

At the 2007 NCWM Interim Meeting, the Committee considered proposals to withdraw this item from its agenda. 

However, because a jurisdiction involved in developing the current proposal indicated their intention to provide the 

Committee with considerable data and continue further development of the item, the Committee agreed to keep the 

item on its agenda as a Developing item through 2007.

At its 2007 Annual Meeting, the WWMA heard comments from state and local jurisdictions stating they have been 

able to enforce G-UR.4.3. Predominance through administrative policies and rules.

The WWMA believed that:

• existing language in NIST HB 44 was sufficient,

• the definition of predominance is anything over 50 %,

• a potential conflict exists with paragraph G-UR.4.3. Use of Adjustments,

• the CWMA proposal addressed only retail motor-fuel devices and a review should also be considered for 

other weighing and measuring devices, e.g., point-of-sale scales and vapor meters,

• the proposed language did not take into account devices that were clearly out of tolerance, and

• the proposed language did not take into account the uncertainty of the test equipment, reading errors, and 

temperature changes between device calibration and official test.

The WWMA recommended the CWMA proposal to add paragraph T.5. Predominance to Section 3.30. be 

withdrawn. The WWMA further recommended the following alternate proposal to address some of the WWMA 

concerns listed above:

G-UR.4.1. Maintenance of Equipment. – All weighing and measuring equipment in service and all 

mechanisms and devices attached thereto or used in connection therewith shall be continuously maintained in 

proper operating condition throughout the period of such service. Equipment in service, by group or entirety, 

at a single place of business found to be in error predominantly in a direction favorable to the device owner or 

user shall not be considered “maintained in a proper operating condition.”

(Amended 1973, and1991, and 200X)

For measuring devices, the term “predominantly” applies to any single product, grade, service level, or 

payment method, with errors in favor of the device owner or user.

(Added 200X)

At its 2007 Interim Meeting, the CWMA heard comments in favor of this item and from state and local jurisdictions 

that they have been able to enforce G-UR.4.3. Predominance through administrative policies and rules. However, 

there was some concern that the proposed tolerance was not stringent enough and allowed meters to be set at 

acceptance tolerance values. By adding part (c), the concern of misuse of tolerance was adequately addressed.
S&T Committee 2009 Final Report

S&T - 78

The CWMA supported the following language as proposed.

T.5. Predominance - Retail Motor-Fuel Devices. – The retail motor-fuel devices in service at a single 

place of business shall be considered maintained in proper operating condition when evaluation of 

normal test results indicate the following parameters are met:

(a) The number of meters with minus test errors in excess of one-half maintenance tolerance shall be 

less than 60 % of the meters at the location, and

(b) When there are three or more meters of a single grade or type of fuel, the average error of the 

meters shall not be a minus value exceeding one-half maintenance tolerance. Meter test results 

that exceed maintenance tolerance shall not be included in determining the average meter error 

of a single grade or type of fuel.

(c) Upon initial verification or re-inspection of devices rejected for predominance, the criteria for 

acceptance using paragraphs (a) and (b) shall be based on minus errors greater than 2 in3 rather 

than 3 in3.

(Added 200X)

G-UR.4.1. Maintenance of Equipment. – All weighing and measuring equipment in service and all 

mechanisms and devices attached thereto or used in connection therewith shall be continuously maintained in 

proper operating condition throughout the period of such service. Equipment in service, by group or entirety, 

at a single place of business found to be in error predominantly in a direction favorable to the device owner or 

user shall not be considered “maintained in a proper operating condition.”

For measuring devices, the term “predominantly” applies to any single product, grade, service level, or 

payment method, with errors in favor of the device owner or user.

At its 2007 Interim Meeting, NEWMA stated that they continue to oppose this item and recommended it be 

withdrawn as it was already adequately addressed in the General Code.

At its 2008 Annual Meeting, the CWMA recommended the item be Withdrawn. At its 2008 Interim Meeting, the 

CWMA recommended this item go forward as a Voting item.

The WWMA received no comments on this Developing item during its 2008 Annual Technical Conference open 

hearings. The WWMA made no changes to the proposal and recommends the item remain a Developing item.

At the 2009 Interim Meeting, the Committee heard comments supporting the proposal from Judy Cardin, Wisconsin, 

who indicated that some states are finding it difficult to enforce the general requirement for maintenance of 

equipment in G-UR.4.1. and citing concerns about lack of uniformity in how the paragraph is enforced. Steve 

Malone, Nebraska, also supported the proposal, noting his belief that it is being left up to the individual inspector to 

decide on compliance with the current G-UR.4.1. Julie Quinn, Minnesota, supported the need for a standard 

interpretation, but supported only paragraph (b) of the proposal. Will Wotthlie, Maryland, opposed the proposal, 

expressing concern that consideration had not been given for other device types that weights and measures officials 

inspect. Will also had concern about specifying a specific percentage value since companies may target these 

values, further noting that, if service companies are not adjusting as close to zero as practical, then the provisions of 

G-UR.4.3. Use of Adjustments can be used to address the problem. Bob Atkins, San Diego County, California, also 

expressed concern about specific percentage values and thresholds, noting that this gives the appearance of 

establishing a tolerance within a tolerance and may encourage adjustments to those thresholds; he also emphasized 

that the burden of proof is on the inspector to prove predominance, using judgment, information, and an individual 

assessment of each situation. Mike Cleary, speaking on his own behalf, noted that it is inappropriate to quantify 

intent with a percentage value. He believes the current paragraph is clear and echoed Bob’s concerns that making 

changes as outlined in the proposal will encourage companies to target these numbers in their adjustments.

While the Committee recognizes the need to encourage uniformity in implementation of handbook paragraphs, the 

Committee believes that existing General Code requirements, including G-UR.4.1. Maintenance of Equipment, 
S&T Committee 2009 Final Report

S&T - 79

G-UR.4.3. Use of Adjustments, and other handbook provisions are adequate to address the concerns raised. There 

are other similarly broad paragraphs in the General Code and in the specific codes that are designed to allow for 

interpretation by the jurisdiction and assessment of individual situations. In addition, the Committee recognized that 

many jurisdictions have implemented policies to help encourage uniformity among their inspectors and service 

companies. This allows jurisdictions to retain the flexibility to use other information such as service records and 

compliance history to more properly assess intent with regard to equipment maintenance and use of adjustments. 

After reviewing the history of this item, input from the regions, and comments from the Interim Meeting, and after 

discussing these points, the Committee concluded that there is not enough support for this item to move forward for 

a vote. Consequently, the Committee withdrew this item from its agenda.

331 VEHICLE-TANK METERS

331-1 I T.2.1. Automatic Temperature-Compensating Systems

Source: 2008 Carryover Item 331-2. This item originated from the Western Weights and Measures Association 

(WWMA) and first appeared on the Committee’s 2008 agenda.

Recommendation: Amend paragraph T.2.1. as follows:

T.2.1. Automatic Temperature-Compensating Systems. – The difference between the meter error (expressed 

as a percentage) for results determined with and without the automatic temperature-compensating system 

activated shall not exceed:

(a) 0.40.2 % for mechanical automatic temperature-compensating systems; and

(b) 0.20.1 % for electronic automatic temperature-compensating systems.

The delivered quantities for each test shall be approximately the same size. The results of each test shall be 

within the applicable acceptance or maintenance tolerance.

(Amended 201X)

Background/Discussion: For more than 13 years, Alaska has been testing mechanical and electronic temperaturecompensating vehicle-tank meters with flow rates ranging from 100 gal/min to 300 gal/min. They have applied the 

tolerances of 0.2 % for mechanical and 0.1 % for electronic wholesale meters as specified in the LMD Code, and 

have found that the devices are fully capable of meeting these tolerances. When devices are found out of tolerance, 

it is usually because of a broken cable at the probe for the mechanical devices, an electrical fault at the probe on 

electronic devices, or an incorrect API setting. By keeping the current tolerances that are double the equivalent 

tolerances in the LMD Code, there is a risk these problems will be missed.

To illustrate how the current tolerances may mask problems such as broken temperature probes or incorrect settings, 

consider the following example:

1000 gal prover

Diesel #2

API 34.5

Temperature 60 °F

Mechanical compensated VTM

• A net test draw is run and the result is + 2.0 gal or + 0.2 %. This meets the maintenance tolerance of 0.3 % 

or 3.0 gal.

• A gross draw is run and the result is – 2.0 gal or – 0.2 %. This still meets the tolerance and the difference 

between the two runs is 0.4 %.

• With the temperature of the fuel at 60 °F, both of these runs should have been equal.

• If an inspector used the system indication of temperature rather than using a certified thermometer in the 

meter temperature well, calculations show that the current tolerance of 0.4 % for a mechanical automatic 
S&T Committee 2009 Final Report

S&T - 80

temperature-compensating system could allow a system malfunction that provided a temperature error of 

up to 9 °F difference from the actual temperature taken in the prover and not be recognized as being caused 

by a faulty system.

At its 2007 Annual Meeting, the WWMA recommended that the item move forward for a Vote. The WWMA was 

presented with a letter from a meter manufacturer in support of the proposal based on a request from Alaska Weights 

and Measures for input from manufacturers of the mechanical and electronic compensators. The letter states that the 

proposed changes will align the VTM tolerances for the difference between meter error for results determined with 

and without the automatic temperature-compensating system activated with the LMD Code. Current NIST HB 44 

language will require this manufacturer to produce different stationary and vehicle-mounted meters; the proposed 

change will align the United States with Canada and OIML, who currently do not have different standards for these 

meters.

At the 2008 Interim Meeting, the Meter Manufacturers Association (MMA) and some individual manufacturers 

opposed this proposal. While they were comfortable with a tighter tolerance being used during type evaluation they 

were concerned with the impact of a tighter tolerance during routine field examinations. During routine field 

evaluations, it becomes more difficult to control the influence factors that impact the measurement process leading 

to higher uncertainty in the accuracy of the test results. The Committee agreed with comments from the CWMA’s 

2007 Interim Meeting that more information is needed before moving the item forward and, consequently, made 

Item 331-2 an Informational item on its 2008 agenda.

In their spring 2008 meeting reports, the CWMA and NEWMA stated that there is not enough data to support the 

proposed changes in tolerance and recommended that the item remain an Informational item. WMD submitted 

comments supporting the collection of additional data, and suggested that the tolerances for stationary and vehiclemounted meters be re-examined and compared to ensure consistency across codes for the same meter type. 

Additionally, WMD noted that as the use of VTMs with ATC increase, there may be a period of transition as 

jurisdictions and companies become accustomed to the test procedures and application of tolerances for these 

systems, and this experience may provide a good indication of how the uncertainties involved in the test process will 

impact the proposed tolerance change.

At the 2008 NCWM Annual Meeting, the Committee reported that it has not received additional data from other 

jurisdictions on the impact of this proposal on existing devices. The Committee also heard comments that the 

tolerances in the VTM code need to be less stringent than equivalent tolerances in the LMD code since VTM meters 

and accessories are mobile devices that are subject to road vibrations and other environmental factors. The 

Committee does not understand the rationale for the comment since the tolerances for Accuracy Class 0.3 in 

Table T.1. for VTMs are tighter than Accuracy Class 0.3 devices in the LMD code.

The Committee is interested in receiving compliance data from jurisdictions that are enforcing ATC tolerance 

requirements on VTMs. If no information is received, the Committee will consider recommending that this item 

move forward as a Voting item in 2009.

No comments were received during the WWMA 2008 Annual Technical Conference open hearing. The WWMA 

recommends this item remain Informational pending receipt of data from other jurisdictions. At its 2008 Interim 

Meeting, the CWMA and NEWMA recommended waiting for more information to be submitted before the NCWM 

Interim Meeting in January 2009. If no more information is received the CWMA and WWMA recommends the 

item be moved forward as a Voting item.

During open hearings at its 2008 Annual Meeting, the SWMA heard concerns about whether or not existing 

equipment, particularly electronic equipment can meet the proposed smaller tolerances. The Committee heard that 

the harsher environment of the vehicle-mounted application may make it difficult for devices to meet the tolerances. 

The SWMA agreed with the NCWM S&T Committee that additional data is needed prior to making a decision 

about the proposed tolerance change. Consequently, the SWMA maintained this as an Informational item on its 

agenda. The SWMA encourages jurisdictions that have VTMs equipped with automatic temperature compensating 

systems in their jurisdictions to forward compliance data to the NCWM S&T Committee so that a better assessment 

can be made about the proposed tolerances.
S&T Committee 2009 Final Report

S&T - 81

At the 2009 Interim Meeting, the Committee heard from the MMA in opposition to the proposal, citing the need for 

additional data prior to moving the item for a Vote. Steve Malone, Nebraska, urged caution prior to making the 

proposed changes noting that inspection procedures such as how the temperature probes are read can have a 

significant impact on the decision to tighten a tolerance. Juana Williams, NIST WMD, presented technical input 

noting concerns that have been raised by some members of the community regarding the importance of using NIST 

HB 105-compliant and traceable standards such as thermometers and following appropriate test procedures for 

assessing compliance with ATC tolerances. Juana also noted the importance of data supporting the proposed 

changes and commented on WMD’s concern over the continued disparity between the tighter VTM tolerances for 

normal and special tests and the less stringent tolerances for identical meters used in stationary applications. Ross 

Andersen, New York, noted that some have questioned whether or not we should be establishing tolerances and test 

procedures for checking the accuracy of the probe; however, the approach we have taken is to establish a tolerance 

for both the temperature probe and the algorithm used to calculate net values.

Committee technical advisor, Tina Butcher, noted that supporting data has been received from only one source. No 

data has been submitted to indicate that the proposed change is not appropriate. Tina reported distributing a note to 

the NIST WMD Weights and Measures Directors’ list serve asking for input. She also contacted by telephone the 

majority of northern tier states who might be likely to have experience testing VTMs with ATC systems. Tina was 

unable to obtain any additional data, noting that many jurisdictions reported not having VTMs equipped with active 

ATC systems. Some jurisdictions that do have such systems in their jurisdictions do not have specific data on the 

compliance of the device with the ATC tolerances. Several states offered to attempt to collect additional data over 

the next six months and provide any input available to the Committee.

After considering the comments from the open hearings and the regions, the Committee decided to retain this as an 

Informational item on its agenda. While no data has been provided to support the opposing comments on this item, 

the Committee is reluctant to propose a change as significant as that of changing a tolerance based upon data from a 

single source. The Committee appreciates the data provided by Alaska and emphasizes that this position should not 

be taken to imply that the Committee questions the validity of the data or procedures used in collecting it.

Following the 2009 Interim Meeting, the Committee reiterated its request for jurisdictions to supply test data in 

support or opposition of the proposal to assist the Committee in making a decision on the item. The Committee also 

invites input of data from equipment manufacturers.

At the 2009 NCWM Annual Meeting, the Committee reported receiving additional VTM test data from the State of 

Maine. This data supports the proposed change to the tolerances; the change would not impact the compliance rate 

for the devices included in these tests. The Committee noted that to date it has received only data in support of the 

proposed change.

The Committee heard opposition from the Meter Manufacturers Association and received a letter from David Rajala 

(Veeder-Root) expressing similar concerns over the proposed change to the tolerances. Both expressed concerns 

over the test procedures and test equipment that might be used by some jurisdictions, noting that, should non-NIST 

traceable thermometers or improper test procedures be used, the proposed tolerances would be too small.

As noted in its Interim Report, the Committee has received only data in support of the proposed change. The 

Committee has not received any data indicating that the proposed change would pose a compliance problem. Given 

the comments received at the Annual Meeting, the Committee decided to maintain this as an Informational item to 

allow for the submission of additional input and data. Once again, the Committee also invites input of data from 

equipment manufacturers.

331-2 V UR.2.5. Automatic Temperature Compensation for Refined Petroleum Products, UR.2.5.1. Use 

of Temperature Compensation System

(This item was adopted.)

Source: 2008 Carryover Item 331-3. This item originated from the Southern Weights and Measures Association 

(SWMA) and first appeared on the Committee’s 2008 agenda.
S&T Committee 2009 Final Report

S&T - 82

Recommendation: Add the following subparagraphs to the Vehicle-Tank Meters Code:

UR.2.5. Automatic Temperature Compensation for Refined Petroleum Products.

UR.2.5.1. Use of Temperature Compensation System.

UR.2.5.1.1. When to be Used. – In a state that does not prohibit, by law or regulation, the sale of 

temperature-compensated product, a device equipped with an operable activated automatic-temperature 

compensator shall be connected, operable, and in use at all times. An electronic or mechanical automatic 

temperature-compensating system may not be removed or deactivated, nor may a compensated device be 

replaced with an uncompensated device or system, without the written approval of the responsible weights 

and measures jurisdiction.

Note: This requirement does not specify the method of sale for products measured through a meter.

UR.2.5.1.2. Period of Use. – When fuel is bought or sold on an automatic temperature compensation 

basis, it shall be bought or sold using this basis over at least a consecutive 12-month period unless 

otherwise agreed to by both the buyer and seller in writing.

Discussion: Currently there are no published guidelines for how a company has to use or operate their VTM with or 

without temperature compensation. They could choose to operate only part of their fleet with ATC or use ATC only 

part of the year when it is to their benefit. They may choose to use ATC only on certain products such as home 

heating oil and not use ATC with diesel, kerosene, or gasoline.

The Committee was originally asked by the SWMA to consider adding two paragraphs intended to help (1) to 

eliminate the potential for facilitation of fraud with ATC; and (2) to eliminate consumer confusion regarding why 

certain products are currently sold using ATC and others are not.

The Committee considered several iterations of the original proposal based on the following points raised in open 

hearings and regional associations in 2008. Details can be found in the Committee’s 2008 Final Report.

• The proposal should only apply to fuel products.

• A number of people voiced concern over the possibility of consumers (who generally are not educated 

regarding the import of compensated versus uncompensated deliveries) unwittingly signing contracts 

agreeing to gross or net deliveries that may put them at a disadvantage.

• Questions were raised over uniformity between buyer and seller agreements at the retail level.

• The numbering of the proposals is not consistent with current code format.

• Would the language inappropriately allow a seller to include a shorter time period than 12 months 

facilitating use of the system when it is of most advantage to the business?

Based on the comments received, the Committee decided to change the status of this item from Voting to 

Informational at the 2008 NCWM Annual Meeting and sent the proposal in the following form to the regional 

associations for review.

During open hearings at its 2008 Annual Technical Conference, the WWMA heard comments from one jurisdiction 

questioning why this item is proposed in HB 44 and suggesting that a more appropriate place might be HB 130 since 

it relates to method of sale. The WWMA noted that similar language exists in another HB 44 Code (LMD 

Code UR.3.6.1.1.).

The WWMA reviewed the alternative language developed by the Committee at the 2008 NCWM Annual Meeting, 

and noted that it recommended strikethrough of “unless otherwise agreed to by both the buyer and seller in writing.” 
S&T Committee 2009 Final Report

S&T - 83

This would be inconsistent with LMD Code UR.3.6.1.1., and the WWMA recommended this item remain 

Informational to allow for further discussion.

During the 2008 CWMA Interim Meetings, one jurisdiction stated they would not support this item with UR.2.5.2.2. 

Condition of Use. This jurisdiction believes that all VTMs at a location should not be made to be temperaturecompensate at a given facility. Other jurisdictions attending the meeting supported the item. For clarification 

purposes, the CWMA recommends the words “through a vehicle-tank meter” (see italics type below) be inserted 

after the words “offered for sale...” in UR.2.5.2.2. Condition of Use.

The CWMA recommended this item be moved to a Voting item with the following changes.

UR.2.5.2.1. Period of Use. – When fuel is bought or sold on an automatic temperature compensation 

basis, it shall be bought or sold using this basis over at least a consecutive 12-month period unless 

otherwise agreed to by both the buyer and seller in writing.

UR.2.5.2.2. Condition of Use. – At a business location, which offers fuel products for sale on the basis of a 

temperature-compensated volume, all vehicle-tank meters shall have active automatic temperature 

compensation and all fuel products offered for sale through a vehicle-tank meter shall be dispensed on the 

basis of temperature-compensated volume.

At its 2008 Interim Meeting, NEWMA heard discussion that allowing uncompensated sales when agreed to by both 

parties could result in consumers getting sales contracts that contained this language, and consumers may not 

understand fully what this means. When the phrase “unless otherwise agreed to by both the buyer and seller in 

writing” language is removed, it appears that UR.2.5.1. already addresses this issue.

Consequently, NEWMA recommends the following changes:

UR .2.5.2.1. Per iod of Use. – W hen fuel is bought or sold on an automatic temper atur e compensation 

basis, it shall be bought or sold using this basis over at least a consecutive 12-month per iod unless 

other wise agr eed to by both the buyer and seller in wr iting.

UR.2.5.2.21. Condition of Use. – At a business location which offers fuel products for sale on the basis of 

a temperature-compensated volume, all vehicle-tank meters shall have active automatic temperature 

compensation and all fuel products offered for sale shall be dispensed on the basis of 

temperature-compensated volume.

NEWMA recommends this item be made “Informational.”

At its 2008 Annual Meeting, the SWMA raised the following concerns and questions about the proposal:

• The SWMA questioned the need for the new proposed paragraph UR.2.5.1. since the VTM Code currently 

includes a paragraph (also numbered UR.2.5.1.) that appears to cover similar criteria.

• The SWMA heard a suggestion to eliminate the phrase “unless otherwise agreed to by both the buyer and 

the seller” from the proposed UR.2.5.1. The Committee noted that the same language is already included 

in the Liquid-Measuring Devices Code; however, the references in that code are to wholesale meters and 

the buyer and seller are fully educated and understand the ramification of a temperature-compensated vs. 

non-temperature-compensated sale.

• The SWMA questioned how the proposed paragraph UR.2.5.2.2. is intended to apply to metering devices at 

a single location. Does the reference to “all fuel products” in this paragraph refer to all vehicle-tank 

meters? Or does it refer to vehicle-tank meters as well as RMFDs at a single location?

• The SWMA questions the proposed numbering of the paragraphs and whether or not the proposed 

paragraphs should be included under the section of “invoices” or in another section.
S&T Committee 2009 Final Report

S&T - 84

The SWMA also considered a suggestion to split the item into two parts in order to facilitate addressing these and 

other concerns. While the SWMA is amenable to this approach, it believes the above concerns and questions should 

be addressed prior to taking additional action.

The SWMA believes that additional work is needed on this item to resolve the above and other concerns. 

Consequently, the SWMA maintained this as an Informational item on its agenda.

At the 2009 Interim Meeting, Joe Buxton, stated that the MMA supports the proposal with the changes suggested by 

the CWMA. Bob Atkins, San Diego County, California, expressed support for the item, noting that when ATC is 

used, it should be used consistently. Tim Tyson, Kansas, opposed the item, noting that there are a few applications 

in which a company has a VTM dedicated to serving only one business; forcing ATC for all VTMs in the company 

would be a problem. Ross Andersen, New York, agreed with the first paragraph.

Based on comments received on this issue, the Committee felt that there was general support for 

paragraph UR.2.5.2.1. Period of Use, but additional work would be needed before paragraph UR.2.5.2.2. Condition 

of Use is ready for further action. Rather than delay action on the “Period of Use” requirement, which some 

comments indicate are needed by officials more immediately, the Committee decided to propose UR.2.5.2.1. (as 

renumbered in the recommendation above) for a Vote. The Committee agreed to create a new item (Item 331-3) 

under which the originally proposed paragraph UR.2.5.2.2. Condition of Use can be further refined to best meet the 

needs of the weights and measures community.

At the 2009 NCWM Annual Meeting, the Committee reported that it heard a question regarding whether or not nonautomatic means of temperature compensation was permitted. The Committee noted that when the code was 

modified to include references to temperature compensation, the original intent was to require that compensation be 

done automatically. The original proposal to add requirements for automatic temperature compensation to the VTM 

code was modeled after corresponding requirements for wholesale meters in the Liquid-Measuring Devices code. 

The 2000 NCWM S&T Final Report indicates that reference to a proposed paragraph on “invoices” and a paragraph 

related to “nonautomatic” temperature compensation were intentionally removed from the original proposal(s)

which added temperature compensation requirements to the VTM code.

The Committee heard questions in the open hearings regarding metering systems that can be set up to deliver a 

single product in either a compensated or non-compensated mode; for example, when one product code is selected, 

the system operates in a compensated mode and when another code for the same product is selected, the system 

operates in a non-compensated mode. Such equipment might be used to serve multiple jurisdictions with differing 

temperature compensation requirements. The Committee received similar comments in a letter from Dave Rajala, 

Veeder-Root, who outlined several scenarios and raised concerns about how any proposed requirements would 

affect companies using such equipment. The Committee felt that a key issue is ensuring that displayed and printed 

indications clearly indicate whether or not a given quantity is temperature compensated. Based on comments heard 

in past testimony and Committee discussions, the Committee believes that jurisdictions are able to handle differing 

temperature compensation requirements in neighboring jurisdictions on a case-by-case basis.

The Committee also heard comments that the reference requiring a compensator to be connected and operable at all 

times appeared to conflict with the proposed UR.2.5.1.2. (which include provisions for a compensator to be 

deactivated at the end of a 12-month period). Consequently, the Committee agreed to modify the proposal as 

outlined in the Recommendation and recommended this item move forward as a Voting item as amended. The 

Committee plans to address the comments regarding the sales of temperature compensated volumes in one 

jurisdiction and non-compensated volumes in a neighboring jurisdiction in the continued development of item 331-3 

(which is a proposal to add new paragraph UR.2.5.1.X. Condition of Use).
S&T Committee 2009 Final Report

S&T - 85

331-3 I UR.2.5.2.1. Automatic Temperature Compensation for Refined Petroleum Products

Source: 2008 Carryover Item 331-3. This item originated as a companion proposal to 2009 Interim agenda 

Item 331-2.

Recommendation: Add the following subparagraphs to the Vehicle-Tank Meters Code:

UR.2.5.1.X. Condition of Use. – At a business location which offers fuel products for sale on the basis of a 

temperature-compensated volume, all vehicle-tank meters shall have active automatic temperature 

compensation and all fuel products offered for sale shall be dispensed on the basis of 

temperature-compensated volume.

Note: If the proposed changes in Item 331-2 are adopted, the above paragraph will be numbered UR.2.5.1.3.

Discussion: Currently there are no published guidelines for how a company has to use or operate their VTM with or 

without temperature compensation. They could choose to operate only part of their fleet with ATC or use ATC only 

part of the year when it is to their benefit. They may choose to use ATC only on certain products such as home 

heating oil and not use ATC with diesel, kerosene, or gasoline.

The Committee was originally asked by the SWMA to consider adding two paragraphs intended to help (1) to 

eliminate the potential for facilitation of fraud with ATC; and (2) to eliminate consumer confusion regarding why 

certain products are currently sold using ATC and others are not. The Committee was able reach agreement on a 

proposal to address the “Period of Use” as outlined in Item 331-2; if adopted these changes will address restrictions 

on the time period for use of ATC systems. The Committee was not, however, able to reach agreement on the 

“Conditions of Use” for ATC systems; that is, criteria for stipulating how ATC is used to sell similar products 

within a single company. Consequently, the Committee created this item at the 2009 Interim Meeting as a 

companion to Item 331-2 to enable further review and discussion of the proposed criteria.

Concerns were expressed that the language in the recommendation may not allow a business that has a VTM 

dedicated to serving a single customer to have the option of providing the sale on an uncompensated basis. 

Comments in support of the language indicate that this will prevent business owners from selectively using a VTM 

without ATC to serve retail customers (who are not generally well educated with respect to the distinction between 

compensated and non-compensated deliveries) when a non-compensated sale would be disadvantageous to the 

customer. The CWMA has proposed alternative language as shown in Item 331-2 to emphasize that the paragraph 

applies only to VTM sales by a business, not all of the business’ fuel sales (for example, fuel sales made through 

loading-rack meters also operated by the business).

The Committee invites additional comments and suggestions on how to modify the proposed language to address the 

concerns raised. The Committee is also interested in comments on how the issue of a meter that can be programmed 

with multiple products should be addressed; specifically, whether such a meter should be permitted to be 

programmed to offer compensated and non-compensated sales through the same meter and, if so, what language is 

needed to address its use. The Committee agreed to keep this proposal on its agenda as an Informational item.

See Item 331-2 for additional background information and a summary of comments on the proposed UR.2.5.1.X. 

Condition of Use.
S&T Committee 2009 Final Report

S&T - 86

336 WATER METERS

336-1 VC S.1.1.3. Value of Smallest Unit and S.1.1.6. Proving Indicator

(This item was adopted.)

Source: Western Weights and Measures Association (WWMA). This item appeared as Part 5, Item 1 on the 

Committee’s 2008 agenda as a Developing item under consideration by the SWMA.

Proposal: Harmonize HB 44 value of the smallest unit requirements and indicator specifications with American 

Water Works Association (AWWA) standards by amending paragraph S.1.1.3. subsection (a) and adding a new 

paragraph S.1.1.6. Proving Indicator as follows:

S.1.1.3. Value of Smallest Unit. – The value of the smallest unit of indicated delivery and recorded delivery, if 

the device is equipped to record, shall not exceed the equivalent of:

(a) 50 L (10 gal, 1 ft3) on utility-type meters, sizes 1 in and smaller, or

(b) 500 L (100 gal, 10 ft3) on utility-type meters, sizes 11⁄2 in and 2 in, or

(c) 0.2 L (1/10 gal, 1/100 ft3) on batching meters delivering less than 375 L/min (100 gal/min, 13 ft3/min), or

(d) 5 L (1 gal, 1/10 ft3) on batching meters delivering 375 L/min (100 gal/min, 13 ft3/min) or more.

Add new paragraph S.1.1.6. as follows:

S.1.1.6. Proving indicator. – Utility-type meters shall be equipped with a proving indicator. The 

individual graduations on a mechanical (analog) proving indicator shall indicate volumes no larger than 1

/100 of the value of the smallest unit of indicated delivery required in S.1.1.3. F or electr onic (digital)

proving indications, the smallest unit of volume displayed shall be no larger than 1

/1000 of the value of the 

smallest unit of indicated delivery required in S.1.1.3.

Add a reference to Code Section 3.36. to the definition for “Proving Indicator” in Appendix D as follows:

proving indicator. The test hand or pointer of the proving or leak-test circle on the meter register or index. 

[3.33, 3.36]

Background/Discussion: At its 2007 Annual Meeting, the SWMA received a request from a meter manufacturer 

for clarification of the intent of S.1.1.3. Along with the request, the manufacturer stated that, “our assumption is that 

this refers to the value of each graduation of the primary indicating element.” If this is indeed the intention of 

S.1.1.3., then the S.1.1.3.(a) requirement of 10 gal would pose no problem for utility-type meters. However, this 

would represent very poor resolution for smaller water meters. Again, if S.1.1. is indeed referring to the values for 

individual graduations, values for utility-type meters under S.1.1.3. should instead be separated into three cateogries: 

0.1 gal for meters 1 in and smaller, 1.0 gal for meters 11⁄2 in through 3 in, and 10 gal for meters 4 in and larger. 

Similarly, metric “smallest unit” values would also be in three categories: 1 L for meters 1 in and smaller, 10 L for 

meters 11⁄2 in through 3 in, and 100 L for meters 4 in and larger.

For meters indicating in inch-pound units, utility-type water meters 1 in and smaller have 10 gal test circles with 

100 graduations (i.e., 0.1 gal increments). Utility-type meters 11⁄2 in through 3 in have 100 gal test circles with 

100 graduations (i.e., 1 gal increments), and utility-type meters 4 in and larger have 1000 gal test circles with 

100 graduations (i.e., 10 gal increments). Comparable registration details are available in metric offerings (with 

0.1 m3

, 1.0 m3, and 10 m3 test circle offerings for progressively larger meter sizes).

The SWMA also heard comments from the manufacturer that several other water meter manufacturers were having 

difficulty meeting HB 44 requirements for repeatability that were added in 2002. Additionally part of the problem 

was the determination of what constitutes the smallest unit of measure for various sizes of their utility meters. The 
S&T Committee 2009 Final Report

S&T - 87

manufacturer is requesting a change to the test draft requirements and/or smallest unit of measure requirements to be 

more appropriate for the meters they and others manufacture. The SWMA agreed to forward the proposal to the 

NCWM S&T Committee for consideration.

Just prior to the 2008 NCWM Annual Meeting, the NCWM S&T Committee received a proposal from Scott 

Swanson, with Sensus Metering Systems, on behalf of five water meter manufacturers, including Badger 

Meter, Inc., Elster Metering, Master Meter, Neptune Metering, and Sensus Metering to modify the proposed 

language as outlined in the recommendation above. During the Committee’s open hearings, the S&T Chairman 

notified NCWM members that copies of this information were available to interested parties and noted that the 

above proposal will be included in the Committee’s final report.

The five water meter manufacturers state that the vast majority of utility-type water meters sold in the United States 

are designed to comply with ANSI/AWWA meter standards. All AWWA utility-type meter designs share a 

common meter proving resolution of 100 scale divisions per revolution of the pointer to verify meter accuracy. All 

utilities use the odometer indicating device on the dial face of the meter for billing purposes. These utility-type 

meter designs are quite different from those used for batching-type meters. HB 44 currently addresses the value of 

the smallest unit for utility-type meters as being 50 L regardless of the size of the meter. As a result, larger 

utility-type meters are required to be more sensitive than smaller utility-type meters.

For utility-type meters 1 in and smaller, meter registration test hands (proving indicators) have graduations with 

resolution down to 0.1 gal or 0.01 ft3

. For meters 11⁄2 in and 2 in, test hands have graduations with resolution down 

to 1.0 gal or 0.1 ft3

. The smallest unit of indicated delivery is then given by one full revolution of the test hand 

(amounting to 100 graduations).

During open hearings at the WWMA 2008 Annual Technical Conference, the water meter manufacturers gave a 

presentation on their justification for the proposed changes which included reducing the uncertainty in testing 

procedures by increasing the test draft size; clarifying the values for the smallest unit of measure based on utilitytype meter size; and limiting the number of graduations of the sweep hand to ≥100 graduations. Additionally, the 

proposals are intended to align HB 44 test requirements with AWWA standards and test criteria.

The WWMA discussed the difference between the smallest unit and the value of the proving indication. The intent 

is that the proving indicator only be used in the verification of the device and the “Value of the Smallest Unit” 

applies to the meter reading for billing purposes (e.g., beginning and ending readings on a utility bill). This would 

be analogous to Scales Code verification division sizes where d (smallest division that can be indicated) can be 

different from e (verification scale division by which tolerance values apply). It was noted that similar language and 

terminology for “Values of the Smallest Unit” and “Proving Indicator” exists in Section 3.33. Hydrocarbon Gas 

Vapor-Measuring Devices Code (see paragraphs S.1.1.3. and S.1.1.5. in that code).

The WWMA recommended that this item be forwarded to the NCWM S&T Committee as a Voting item.

At its 2008 Interim Meeting, NEWMA heard a presentation from Andre Noel, Neptune. NEWMA has limited 

experience testing water meters but recognizes the logic of this item. NEWMA has no position at this time.

CWMA heard no comments on this item at its 2008 Interim Meeting and took no position on this item.

The SWMA S&T Committee heard no comments on this item. Because the SWMA S&T Committee members have 

little experience with water meters, the Committee took no position on the item and the SWMA agreed the item 

should remain Developing until additional support is heard.

At the 2009 Interim Meeting, the Committee heard comments in support of this item from water meter 

manufacturers’ representatives George DeJarlais (Badger), Andre Noel (Neptune), and Alex Watson (Elster Amco 

Water). The Committee also received letters of support from Ron Koch (Master Meter, Inc.) and Scott Swanson 

(Sensus Metering Systems) (see Appendix C, Written Comments Received by the Committee). The Committee also 

heard support of this issue from members of WWMA. Hearing no opposition to this issue, the Committee decided 

to recommend this item for a Vote.
S&T Committee 2009 Final Report

S&T - 88

After deliberations during the 2009 NCWM Annual Meeting, the Committee agreed to maintain the proposed 

changes to paragraph S.1.1.3. as originally shown in NCWM Publication 16 and as reflected in the 

Recommendation.

However, based on a suggestion from California Division of Measurement Standards, the Committee agreed to 

delete the references in paragraph S.1.1.6. to digital and mechanical type indicators from its original proposal. 

Consequently, the Committee deleted the originally proposed S.1.1.6. and replaced it with the language shown in the 

Recommendation above. 

The Committee made no change to the proposed change to the definition for “proving indicator” from the proposal 

shown in its Interim Report.

The Committee acknowledged concerns raised by Mike Sikula, representing NEWMA, over references to specific 

indicator sizes and comments from Juana Williams, NIST WMD, encouraging a review of terms used in the code to 

determine if additional definitions might be needed to promote clarity and understanding of the terminology. The 

Committee concurred with these comments, noting that a review of terminology to ensure consistency and 

understanding might be needed. The Committee noted that its proposal to expand the definition of “proving 

indicator” to include a reference to the Water Meters Code might help in this regard and is open to additional 

suggestions to improve understanding and use of the code.

336-2 W T.1.1. Repeatability

(This item was withdrawn.)

Source: Western Weights and Measures Association (WWMA)

Recommendation: Amend T.1.1. Repeatability and add new Tables T.1.1. and T.1.2. in HB 44 Section 3.36.

T.1.1. Repeatability. – When multiple tests are conducted at approximately the same flow rate, the range of 

the test results shall not exceed 0.6 % for tests performed at the normal and intermediate flow rates, and 1.3 % 

for tests performed at the minimum flow rate, and each test shall be within the applicable tolerances. When 

repeatability tests are performed, test draft sizes shall comply with Tables T.1.1. and T.1.2. Repeatability 

Testing for Utility-Type Water Meters. Repeatability tests shall be conducted during type evaluation 

testing.

(Amended 200X)

Table T.1.1. Flow Rate and Draft Size for Utility-Type Water Meters

Normal Tests for Repeatability

Meter Size

(inches)

Rate of Flow

(gal/min)

Maximum Rate

Meter Indication/Test Draft

gal ft3

Less than 5/8 8 100 10 5

/8 15 100 10 5

/8 x 3⁄4 15 100 10

3⁄4 25 100 10

1 40 100 10

11⁄2 50 400 40

2 100 500 40

(Table Added 200X)
S&T Committee 2009 Final Report

S&T - 89

Table T.1.2. Flow Rate and Draft Size for Utility-Type Water Meters

Special Tests for Repeatability

Meter Size

(inches)

Intermediate Rate Minimum Rate

Rate of Flow

(gal/min)

Meter Indication/Test Draft Rate of Flow

(gal/min)

Meter Indication/Test Draft

gal ft3 gal ft3

Less than 5/8 2 40 4 1⁄4 20 2 5

/8 2 40 4 1⁄4 20 2 5

/8 x 3⁄4 2 40 4 1⁄4 20 2

3⁄4 3 40 4 1⁄2 20 2

1 4 40 4 3⁄4 20 2

11⁄2 8 400 40 11⁄2 200 20

2 15 500 40 2 200 20

(Table Added 200X)

Background/Discussion: This proposal was originally included with Developing Item Part 4, Item 1 (now 

Item 336-3) Water Meters. Scott Swanson, with Sensus Metering Systems, on behalf of five water meter 

manufacturers including Badger Meter, Inc., Elster Metering, Master Meter, Neptune Metering, and Sensus 

Metering, submitted a proposal to the WWMA suggesting that the proposed changes to paragraph T.1.1. 

Repeatability in that Developing item be addressed separately. A copy of this proposal was also provided to the 

NCWM S&T Committee in July 2008 and appears as an Appendix to the Committee’s 2008 Final Report.

Mr. Swanson and the other meter manufacturers provided the following justification for the proposed change to the 

repeatability requirements:

When agencies use inadequate test draft quantities, erroneous test results can be produced. These 

erroneous test results have and are continuing to have serious financial consequences to manufacturers and 

distributors.

The vast majority of utility-type water meters sold in the United States is designed to comply with 

ANSI/AWWA meter standards. Coupled with actual utility metering practices in the field, the result is 

meter designs sharing common meter reading resolution. These designs are quite different from those used 

for batching-type meters.

For utility-type meters 1 in and smaller, meter registration test hands (proving indicators) have graduations 

with resolution down to 0.1 gal or 0.01 ft3

. For meters 11⁄2 in and 2 in, test hands have graduations with 

resolution down to 1.0 gal or 0.1 ft3

. In visually reading the test hand position relative to these graduations, 

resolution is limited to a range of roughly 1⁄3 or 1⁄2 of an individual graduation (at both the start of each test 

and at then at the end of each test).

A test draft equal to only 100 graduations, while adequate for accuracy testing, will be insufficient when 

testing for repeatability (given the five-fold tighter tolerance for meter repeatability, compared to the 

tolerance for meter accuracy). For example, an uncertainty of 1⁄3 graduation at the initial meter reading, and 

an additional reading uncertainty of 1⁄3 graduation at the end of the test, would result in a cumulative meter 

reading uncertainty of 0.67 %, for such a 100-graduation test. Test draft sizes need to be increased, so that 

meter reading uncertainties do not consume more that 1⁄4 of the total allowable tolerances for this testing. 

For a repeatability range requirement of 0.6 %, test draft size should equal 400 graduations of the test index 

in order to have acceptable meter reading resolution. Similarly, for a repeatability range requirement of 

1.3 %, test draft size should be equal to 200 graduations of the test index.

In its review of this issue and 2008 Developing item Part 4, Item 1, Water Meters, N.3. Test Drafts and N.4. Testing 

Procedures at its 2008 Annual Technical Conference, the WWMA agreed to address this issue separately and agreed 

to forward this item to the NCWM S&T Committee with a proposal that the item be made a Voting item on the 

Committee’s 2009 Interim agenda. The WWMA noted that repeatability tests of utility-type meters are currently 

being conducted during the type evaluation process, but are seldom performed in field tests.
S&T Committee 2009 Final Report

S&T - 90

The SWMA heard no comments on this item at its 2008 Annual Meeting. In its review of the item, the SWMA S&T 

Committee raised the questions and concerns outlined below.

• The table is specifying test draft criteria rather than tolerances and, consequently, should appear in the 

Notes section rather than in the Tolerances section.

• The table is confusing as currently presented. Although the table is patterned after similar paragraphs in 

the Notes section of the water meters code, there is explanatory text in those paragraphs which assists the 

user in understanding how the table is to be applied. Such text is missing from the proposed changes to 

paragraph T.1.1.

• The SWMA S&T Committee believes that the option of running the repeatability test in the field should be 

retained. While the proposed language does not prohibit conducting a repeatability test in the field, a 

statement should be included to note that it is permissible to conduct a repeatability test in field.

• The SWMA S&T Committee is concerned about the difference in draft sizes for normal and special tests 

and repeatability tests. If an inspector conducts a normal test and suspects a problem with repeatability, the 

inspector is forced to obtain a different test measure/prover in order to conduct the repeatability tests. This 

does not seem technically logical.

Because of these concerns, the SWMA could not support the proposal as written. The SWMA believes that this 

item should be made a Developing item until additional input is provided.

At the 2009 NCWM Interim Meeting, the Committee heard support for this proposal from representatives of several 

water meter manufacturers, including George DeJarlais, Badger Meter; Andre Noel, Neptune; and Alex Watson, 

Elster Amco Water. In addition, Mr. DeJarlais presented letters from Ron Koch, Master Meter, Inc., and Scott 

Swanson, Sensus Metering Systems, supporting the proposal (see Appendix C, Written Comments Received by the 

Committee). Comments from the manufacturers present also indicated that failure to harmonize test draft sizes for 

water meter tests with current American Water Works Association (AWWA) standards will result in economic harm 

to U.S. water meter manufacturers. The Committee heard opposition to the proposal from Ed Williams, Director, 

California Division of Measurement Standards, who commented that there is no justification for increasing test 

drafts for type evaluation testing and that repeatability test drafts should be the same size as those for normal and 

special test drafts. Mr. Williams also cited a NIST WMD quarterly newsletter article on “repeatability” by Juana 

Williams, which described the purpose of repeatability tests, noting that while the purpose of repeatability tests and 

normal and slow tests are different, it is necessary to have a means for comparing the results from those tests. Juana 

Williams, commented on behalf of NIST WMD, that the General Code requires that a device be capable of repeating 

its indications, including normal and slow flow test drafts; it is technically inconsistent to require an inspector to 

change the size of the test draft in order to compare the results of consecutive tests run under the same conditions.

The Committee acknowledged the concerns expressed by the water meter manufacturers regarding the importance 

of selecting an appropriate size test draft as one means of reducing uncertainties in the test process. Based on input 

from the manufacturers and from some weights and measures officials, the Committee believes there may be merit 

to linking the test draft size to at least the quantity indicated in one revolution of the dial on a mechanical water 

meter as a means to reduce uncertainties. However, the Committee believes that, if the current test draft size is 

contributing a significant uncertainty to the test process, this concern would apply equally to all accuracy tests, not 

just repeatability tests. The Committee also had remaining questions about how one might define the test draft size 

relative to the indications on a dial, given the wide variety of indicator types in use in the marketplace.

Because members of the WWMA were not convinced at the WWMA’s September 2008 meeting that the 

contribution of errors from the existing test draft size warranted a change in the test draft size for normal and slow 

flow tests, the Committee was reluctant to support the proposed change in test draft size for repeatability tests alone. 

The Committee heard that the California Division of Measurement Standards will be working with jurisdictions in 

California to collect additional data in conjunction with the Developing item on normal and special test draft sizes, 

and this information may provide a better indication of which proposal will be acceptable to the weights and 

measures community. The Committee also noted that some of the proposed changes to test draft size in this item 

and in a corresponding Developing item (previously designated Item 360-2, Part 4, Item 1; now Item 336-3) are
S&T Committee 2009 Final Report

S&T - 91

larger than current AWWA standards. The Committee believes that the issue of test draft size must be considered 

jointly for all accuracy tests to ensure consistent application of these principles. Consequently, the Committee 

withdrew this item from its agenda and suggested that the idea of increased test drafts for repeatability tests be 

considered in conjunction with Item 336-3, N.3. Test Drafts and N.4. Testing Procedures.

336-3 I N.3. Test Drafts and N.4. Testing Procedures

Source: Southern and Western Weights and Measures Associations (SWMA and WWMA); this item originally 

appeared as Part 4, Item 1 on the Committee’s 2009 Interim agenda.

Recommendation: The Committee is studying the following recommendation and encourages input from 

interested parties.

Amend requirements in paragraphs N.3. Test Drafts and N.4. Testing Procedures Section 3.36. Water Meters as 

follows by changing the test draft quantities of Tables N.4.1. and N.4.2. of HB 44 as follows:

N.3. Test Drafts. – The normal test of a meter shall be made at the maximum discharge rate developed by the 

installation. Meters with maximum gallon per minute ratings higher than the values specified in Table N.4.1. 

Flow Rate and Draft Size for Water Meters Normal Tests may be tested up to the meter rating, with meter 

indications no less than those shown.

(Amended 1990, 2002, and 2003)

(a) Non Utility-Type Water Meters. – Test drafts should be equal to at least the amount delivered by the 

device in 2 minutes and in no case less than the amount delivered by the device in 1 minute at the 

actual maximum flow rate developed by the installation. The test draft sizes shown in Table N.4.1. 

Flow Rate and Draft Size for Non Utility-Type Water Meters Normal Tests, and in Table N.4.2. Flow 

Rate and Draft Size for Non Utility-Type Water Meters Special Tests, shall be followed as closely as 

possible.

(b) Utility-Type Water Meters. – The test draft sizes shown in Table N.4.X. and N.4.Y. shall be followed 

as closely as possible. Testing shall be done in like volumes (meters with gallon registration tested in 

gallon volumes, meters with cubic feet registration tested in cubic feet volumes).

Table N.4.1. Flow Rate and Draft Size for Non Utility-T ype Water Meters

Nor mal T ests

Meter Size

(inches)

Rate of Flow

(gal/min)

Maximum Rate

Meter Indication/Test Draft

 gal ft3

Less than 5/8 8 50 5

5

/8 15 50 5

3⁄4 25 50 5

1 40 100 10

11⁄2 80 300 40

2 120 500 40

3 250 500 50

4 350 1000 100

6 700 1000 100

(Table Added 2003) (Amended 201X)
S&T Committee 2009 Final Report

S&T - 92

Table N.4.X. Flow Rate and Draft Size for Utility-T ype Water Meters

Normal Tests

Meter Size

(inches)

Rate of Flow

(gal/min)

Maximum Rate

Meter Indication/Test Draft

gal ft3

Less than 5/8 8 100 10

5

/8 15 100 10 5

/8 x 3⁄4 15 100 10

3⁄4 25 100 10

1 40 100 10

11⁄2 50 300 40

2 100 500 40

(Table Added 201X)

Table N.4.2. Flow Rate and Draft Size for Non Utility-T ype Water Meters

Special Tests

Meter Size

(inches)

Intermediate Rate Minimum Rate

Rate of Flow 

(gal/min)

Meter Indication/Test Draft Rate of Flow

(gal/min)

Meter Indication/Test Draft

gal ft3 gal ft3

Less than or 

equal to 5/8 2 10 1 1/4 5 1

3⁄4 3 10 1 1/2 5 1

1 4 10 1 3/4 5 1

11⁄2 8 50 5 11⁄2 10 1 

2 15 50 5 2 10 1

3 20 50 5 4 10 1

4 40 100 10 7 50 5

6 60 100 10 12 50 5

(Table Added 2003) (Amended 201X)

Table N.4.Y. Flow Rate and Draft Size for Utility-T ype Water Meters

Special Tests

Meter Size

(inches)

Intermediate Rate Minimum Rate

Rate of Flow

(gal/min)

Meter Indication/Test Draft Rate of Flow

(gal/min)

Meter Indication/Test Draft

gal ft3 gal ft3

Less than 5/8 2 10 1 1⁄4 10 1 5

/8 2 10 1 1⁄4 10 1 5

/8 x 3⁄4 2 10 1 1⁄4 10 1

3⁄4 3 10 1 1⁄2 10 1

1 4 10 1 3⁄4 10 1

11⁄2 8 100 10 11⁄2 100 10

2 15 100 10 2 100 10

(Table Added 201X)
S&T Committee 2009 Final Report

S&T - 93

Background/Discussion: At its 2007 Annual Meeting, the SWMA received a proposal from a meter manufacturer 

with two options for modifying Section 3.36. as shown above. The manufacturer provided the following 

justification for the modification:

For proposal A: Water meter “transaction” volumes are based on billing cycles of monthly or quarterly “reads.” As 

such, each transaction for a residential meter may be on the order of 3000 gal to 30 000 gal. Commercial/industrial 

accounts with larger meters may have transaction volumes that are one or two orders-of-magnitude larger than this. 

Meter repeatability over the course of a pattern approval test volume (currently as little as 5 gal for a residential 

meter, for example) is, therefore, not relevant. Utility-type water meters are not designed to provide the resolution 

required to meet the Section 3.36. repeatability requirements under typical test drafts.

For Proposal B: The graduations on the primary indicating element for the meter under test can normally be read 

within an uncertainty of roughly 1⁄3 of a graduation. This is the result of limits in optical discernment, minor 

parallax, minor asymmetries in mechanical gear trains, minor asymmetries in graduation printing, etc. Combining 

the meter’s reading uncertainty at the start of any single test run with the uncertainty at the end of this same test run, 

total meter reading uncertainty is, therefore, roughly 2⁄3 of a graduation. Keeping in mind there are other 

resolution/repeatability concerns for any given test series (resolution in reading the reference volume/mass, ability to 

duplicate parameters such as flow rate, water temperature, water pressure, evaporative losses, etc.), the uncertainty 

limitations for reading the meter under test should not “consume” more than 1⁄4 of the total repeatability requirement. 

For the 1.3 % repeatability requirement at the minimum flow rate, this corresponds to a test draft equal to roughly 

200 graduations of the primary element. For the 0.6 % repeatability requirement at the intermediate rate, this 

corresponds to a test draft equal to roughly 400 or 450 graduations of the primary element. Test draft volumes for 

the maximum flow rate must be even larger since these drafts must address other sources of error unique to testing at 

higher flow rates (for example, errors due to ramping up and ramping down the flow rates at the beginning and end 

of the test, which must be done slowly enough so as to not cause water hammer, or mechanical impulse loading of 

the meter registration device).

The SWMA also heard comments from the manufacturer that several other water meter manufacturers were having 

difficulty meeting HB 44 requirements for repeatability that were added in 2002. Additionally part of the problem 

was the determination of what constituted the smallest unit of measure for various sizes of their utility meters. The 

manufacturer is requesting a change to the test draft requirements and/or smallest unit of measure requirements to be 

more appropriate for the meters they and others manufacture. The SWMA agreed to forward the proposal to the 

NCWM S&T Committee for consideration.

Just prior to the 2008 NCWM Annual Meeting, the Committee received a proposal for changes to this item from 

Scott Swanson, with Sensus Metering Systems, on behalf of five water meter manufacturers, including Badger 

Meter, Inc., Elster Metering, Master Meter, Neptune Metering, and Sensus Metering. During the Committee’s open 

hearings, the S&T Chairman notified NCWM members that copies of this information were available to interested 

parties and noted that a copy of the following three proposals will be included in the Committee’s final report.

The five water meter manufacturers recommend that the tables in paragraph N.4. Testing Procedures be amended (as 

outlined in the proposal above) to address specific issues related to utility-type water meters. The three related 

proposals are to add subsections under paragraph N.3., change the title of Tables N.4.1. and N.4.2., and to 

incorporate two new tables to N.4. that speak directly to utility-type water meters.

1. The first part of this proposal is to amend paragraph N.3.

2. The second part of this proposal is to amend the titles of Table N.4.1. and Table N.4.2., changing the words 

“for Water Meters” to read “for Non Utility-Type Water Meters.”

3. The third part of this proposal is to include in Sections N.4.1. and N.4.2. two new tables that harmonize test 

flow rates and draft sizes listed in Section 3.36. with that of the AWWA specification found in the AWWA 

M6 Manual, Table 5.3.

Note that Mr. Swanson, on behalf of the five water meter manufacturers, further suggested that the proposed 

changes to T.1.1. Repeatability and its associated tables that were outlined in the original recommendation be 
S&T Committee 2009 Final Report

S&T - 94

separated from this item and addressed as an independent issue. A separate proposal was submitted to reflect this 

suggestion.

The submitter provided the following justification for the proposed changes to paragraphs N.3., N.4., and associated 

tables:

Erroneous test results can be produced when agencies use inadequate test draft quantities. These erroneous test 

results have and are continuing to have serious financial consequences to manufacturers and distributors.

The vast majority of utility-type water meters sold in the United States are designed to comply with ANSI/AWWA 

meter standards. All AWWA utility-type meter designs share a common meter proving resolution of 100 scale 

divisions per revolution of the pointer to verify meter accuracy. All utilities use the odometer indicating device on 

the dial face of the meter for billing purposes. These utility-type meter designs are quite different from those used 

for batching-type meters.

For utility-type meters 1 in and smaller, meter registration test hands (proving indicators) have graduations with 

resolution down to 0.1 gal or 0.01 ft3

. For meters 11⁄2 in and 2 in, test hands have graduations with resolution down 

to 1.0 gal or 0.1 ft3

. In visually reading the test hand position relative to these graduations, resolution is limited to a 

range of roughly 1⁄3 or 1⁄2 of an individual graduation (at both the start of each test and at then at the end of each test).

As a result, a test draft equal to only 50 graduations will result in large meter reading uncertainties (cumulative 

uncertainty range on the order of 1.2 % or worse). Compared to the accuracy tolerances for water meters, this level 

of reading uncertainty is unacceptable, and larger test drafts must be used. See AWWA M6 for examples of the 

larger test drafts that are required, given these reading resolution limitations.

During the Committee’s open hearings at the 2008 Annual Meeting, Jeff Humphreys, Los Angeles County, 

California, provided a letter and some additional data to consider in conjunction with this item. This information 

was included in the Committee’s final report and is also included in Appendix D in this report. Additionally, 

concerns were expressed regarding whether or not the size of the test draft for larger meters is realistic. A 

manufacturer of test equipment noted that the largest prover being manufactured at present is 2000 gal.

During the open hearings at the 2008 WWMA Annual Technical Conference, water meter manufacturers gave a 

presentation on the justification for the proposed changes which included reducing the uncertainty in testing 

procedures by increasing the test draft size, clarifying the values for the smallest unit of measure based on utilitytype meter size, and limiting the number of graduations of the sweep hand to 100 graduations or more. 

Additionally, the manufacturers reiterated that the proposals are intended to align HB 44 test requirements with 

AWWA standards and test criteria.

The WWMA S&T Committee also reviewed the letter and test data submitted by Los Angeles County Weights and 

Measures about the comparison of failure rates for utility-type meters between current test of 5 gal draft size and a 

test draft of 20 gal for 5

/8 in utility-type meters. They summarized their results as follows:

“The enclosed information also shows that very few positive displacement meters fail tolerance tests at any 

of the current HB 44 flow rates. The claim has been made that the tests as currently being conducted have 

seriously impacted meter sales for several water meter manufacturers. Our tests show that manufacturers 

of positive displacement meters should not be negatively impacted by being tested at the current established 

flow rates.”

According to the data from Los Angeles County, the average error for the 28 new meters that failed the test using 

the 5 gal test draft was −4.45 %, and −4.32 % for the 10 gal test draft. There was no data for repeatability in this 

series of data.

The WWMA S&T Committee also received two letters in support of the items from water manufacturers that were 

not in attendance.
S&T Committee 2009 Final Report

S&T - 95

The WWMA acknowledged that there is an increased potential for uncertainty with the current test draft. 

Manufacturers state that the test should include at least one complete revolution of the dial indicator. However, the

data submitted by Los Angeles County suggested that the increase in the test draft size is not justified.

One meter manufacturer submitted test data to the Committee for five new 5

/8 in positive displacement meters. 

Results showed that three tests out of fifteen failed the accuracy test with a 5 gal test draft size for low flow. When 

draft size was increased to 10 gal, all meters passed and the range of results decreased by a factor of two. When 

testing repeatability at low flow, two out of five failed with a 5 gal draft; none failed with a 10 gal draft. At 

intermediate flow, fifteen out of fifteen passed at 10 gal draft size for accuracy, and four out of five meters failed 

repeatability at the current 10 gal draft size.

Another meter manufacturer submitted test data for four new 5

/8in positive displacement meters. Results showed 

that three out of eight failed the accuracy test with a 5 gal test draft size for low flow. When draft size was increased 

to 10 gal, all meters passed and the range of results decreased dramatically. When testing repeatability at low flow, 

four out of four failed with a 5 gal draft; zero failed with a 10 gal draft. At intermediate flow, eight out of eight 

passed at 10 gal draft size for accuracy, and one out of four meters failed repeatability at the current 10 gal draft 

size.

The WWMA recommended renaming the item to “N.4. Testing Procedures.” It further recommends the item be 

given Developing status and requests additional data from industry, California DMS, and other jurisdictions 

comparing test results between the current and proposed test draft sizes. Data submitted should include information 

on the proving methods (e.g., narrow neck prover, gravimetric, etc). Additionally, the Committee is interested in the 

requirements and test methods used by Measurement Canada and additional information on International Activities. 

It should be noted that the AWWA M-6 Manual has guidelines for accuracy testing but no guidance on repeatability.

The Committee also recommends that the proposed language for paragraph N.3. and Tables N.4.1., N.4.X., and 

N.4.Y. remain Developing due to insufficient test data to justify the proposed change. Additionally, the Committee 

recommends that the repeatability and test draft sizes in tolerance paragraph in T.1.1. and Tables T.1.1. and T.1.2. be 

separated as an independent item (see Committee agenda Item 336-2) since the data submitted by the California 

CTEP lab indicates a high failure rate with the current tests for repeatability.

At its 2008 Interim Meeting, NEWMA heard a presentation from Andre Noel, Neptune. NEWMA has limited 

experience testing water meters but recognizes the logic of this item. NEWMA has no position at this time.

At their fall 2008 meetings, the CWMA and SWMA heard no comments and took no position on this item.

At the 2009 NCWM Interim Meeting, the Committee heard comments from Andre Noel, Neptune, indicating that 

failure to harmonize test draft sizes for water meter tests with current AWWA standards will result in economic 

harm to U.S. water meter manufacturers. Mr. Noel also noted that AWWA standards are used by over 

60 000 utilities. George DeJarlais, Badger Meter, asked the Committee to consider moving this item from 

Developing status to Voting and provided letters (see Appendix C, Written Comments Received by the Committee) 

from Ron Koch, Master Meter, and Scott Swanson, Sensus Metering Systems, voicing support for this item as well. 

Alex Watson, Elster Amco Water, provided similar comments of support for moving the item to a Voting status. 

Kurt Floren, Los Angeles County Weights and Measures, noted that the data provided by their jurisdiction indicates 

that two thirds of the meters tested would continue to fail even with larger test draft sizes. Thus, he believes that the 

increased test time to 90 minutes with the larger test draft sizes is not justified. Ed Williams, Director, California 

Division of Measurement Standards, indicated his jurisdiction intends to collect additional data, which could be 

available as early as May 2009.

Given the possibility of additional data, the Committee discussed whether or not sufficient information and 

justification had been provided to support moving this item from a Developing status to an Informational or Voting

status. The Committee acknowledges concerns on both sides of this issue and is particularly sensitive to the 

reported potential for economic impact of delays to change this standard; however, the Committee did not feel 

elevating the status of the item to Voting was appropriate without additional support from the region that presented 

the item as a Developing item (the WWMA). The Committee’s chief concern on this point was that the WWMA did 

not, as of its fall 2008 meeting, support elevating the item to either an Informational or Voting status, and its 
S&T Committee 2009 Final Report

S&T - 96

members did not agree to accept the proposed changes without additional work. While some WWMA members 

present at the 2009 NCWM Interim Meeting indicated support for elevating the item to a Voting status, the 

Committee was concerned that other WWMA members who had expressed concerns about the proposal thus far 

were not present at the NCWM Interim Meeting to provide comment. Because the other regional associations have 

essentially deferred to the WWMA’s position and the WWMA’s support in the event of a vote is questionable, the 

Committee did not feel it was appropriate to advance this item to a Voting status. However, given the possibility of 

additional data prior to the 2009 Annual Meeting, the Committee did agree that the item could be elevated to an 

Informational status; this would allow a higher degree of visibility for an issue which is of evident concern to the 

manufacturers without compromising the due process for issue development.

At the 2009 Annual Meeting, Tina Butcher, NIST Technical Advisor, reported that the Committee received 

additional information on this item. These items are available from the Committee upon request and include the 

following:

• Spreadsheet with data submitted by five water meter manufacturers on December 17, 2008 (inadvertently 

excluded from the supplemental information published in Publication 16)

• February 12, 2009, Letter from Five Water Meter Manufacturers to Todd Lucas & Ed Williams

- Including 3 Addendum Sections

• February 23, 2009, Letter from Five Water Meter Manufacturers to Todd Lucas & Ed Williams

- Including Spreadsheet Attachment with “February” “Manu C Data”

• March 5, 2009, Letter from Todd Lucas & Ed Williams Responding to February 12, 2009, Mfg Letter

• March 19, 2009, Letter from Five Water Meter Manufacturers to Todd Lucas & Ed Williams

- Including March 19, 2009, Spreadsheet with “March” PD Meter Data

- Including March 19, 2009,Spreadsheet with “March” Multi-Jet Meter Data

• May 5, 2009 Letter from Five Water Meter Manufacturers to Todd Lucas & Ed Williams

- Including May 5, 2009, Spreadsheet with “April/May” PD Meter Data

• June 23, 2009, Letter from Five Water Meter Manufacturers to Todd Lucas & Ed Williams

• Current HB 44, AWWA, and Proposed Changes – Comparison from NIST Technical Advisor, Tina 

Butcher (Note: An update to Table N.4.Y, Intermediate Flow Rates was made on June 25, 2009, to correct 

the entry for the test draft size of the 1 in meter.)

• Comments from NIST Technical Advisor, Tina Butcher – Submitted to Participants for Consideration at 

the May 14, 2009, Meeting of CA DMS, S&T Representatives Kristin Macey and Brett Saum, and Water 

Meter Manufacturers

• Excerpts from draft revisions to ISO/CD 4064 which is being revised to incorporate certain provisions of 

OIML R 49 in an effort to promote harmonization of those documents – per Ralph Richter, NIST WMD

During its agenda review, the Committee heard a report from Kristin Macey, California Division of Measurement 

Standards (DMS), on an intercomparison conducted by DMS since the 2009 NCWM Interim Meeting involving 

18 California counties. Kristin provided summaries of the data collected during the inter-comparison; this data is 

available upon request from the Committee and will be included in the Committee’s final report. Kristin also 

reported that California DMS and several California counties met with representatives of several water meter 

manufacturers on May 14, 2009, in an effort to further review and discuss concerns of both manufacturers and 

regulators regarding water meter testing requirements. 

The Committee heard comments from George DeJarlais, Badger Meter, who indicated that Item 336-3 addresses 

issues with basic accuracy tests; however, water meter manufacturers have more pressing concerns with the 

requirements for repeatability requirements. The Committee also heard comments from Andre Noel, Neptune, who 

echoed George’s comments and expressed concern that meters 1 in and smaller are having difficulty meeting the 

current requirements. He also stated that 11⁄2 in and 2 in meters will not meet the type approval requirements. 

Andre noted that his comments represent the views of five water meter manufacturers, including (in addition to 

Neptune) Badger, Elster Amco, Master Meter, and Sensus. He also stated that water meter manufacturers are 
S&T Committee 2009 Final Report

S&T - 97

excluded from participating in their own code. Both manufacturers who were present reported disappointment that 

Item 336-2 was withdrawn and noted that they are still studying the data from California, which they received 

during the Committee’s agenda review session.

Jeff Humphreys, Los Angeles (LA) County, California, acknowledged problems with testing at the lower flow rates. 

He went on to express concern about the quality of multi-jet meters they are encountering. The positive 

displacement meters that they are testing appear to meet the needs of the marketplace with a good compliance rate. 

Jeff also provided additional data to the Committee that was collected by LA County over the period of January to 

June 2009; this information will be included in the Committee’s final report. 

Ed Williams, California DMS, indicated that in its review of the data collected, California has observed some 

validity to the concerns over the requirements for repeatability tests. Both Jeff and Ed encouraged the Committee to 

do a thorough review of the full range of test requirements for these meters, including not only basic accuracy tests, 

but also repeatability test requirements.

During the Committee’s work session, Kristin Macey (representing California DMS) and the water meter 

manufacturers present agreed to work to further review requirements for water meter testing with the goal of 

identifying changes or modifications to the scope of this item (336-1) in time for review by one or more of the fall 

2009 regional weights and measures associations.

360 OTHER ITEMS

360-1 I International Organization of Legal Metrology (OIML) Report

Many issues before the OIML, the Asian-Pacific Legal Metrology Forum (APLMF), and other international groups 

are within the purview of the Committee. Additional information on OIML activities will appear in the Board of 

Directors agenda and Interim and Final Reports and on the OIML website at http://www.oiml.org. NIST WMD 

staff will provide the latest updates on OIML activities during the open hearing sessions at NCWM meetings. For 

more information on specific OIML-related device activities, contact the WMD staff listed in the table below. The 

OIML projects listed below represent only currently active projects. For additional information on other OIML 

device activities that involve WMD staff, please contact WMD using the information listed below:

NIST Weights and Measures Division (WMD)

Contact List for International Activities

Contact Information Responsibilities

Postal Mail and Fax for All 

Contacts:

NIST WMD

100 Bureau Drive MS 2600

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2600

Tel: (301) 975-4004 Fax: (301) 975-8091

Mr. John Barton (LMDG)

(301) 975-4002

john.barton@nist.gov

•R 21 “Taximeters”

•R 50 “Continuous Totalizing Automatic Weighing Instruments (Belt Weighers)”

•R 60 “Metrological Regulations for Load Cells” (jointly with Ken Butcher)

•R 106 “Automatic Rail-weighbridges”

Mr. Kenneth Butcher (LMG)

(301) 975-4859

kenneth.butcher@nist.gov

•D 1 “Elements for a Law on Metrology”

•TC 3 “Metrological Control”

•TC 3/SC 1 “Pattern Approval and Verification”

•TC 3/SC 2 “Metrological Supervision”

•TC 6 “Prepackaged Products”

•R 60 “Metrological Regulations for Load Cells” (jointly with John Barton)
S&T Committee 2009 Final Report

S&T - 98

NIST Weights and Measures Division (WMD)

Contact List for International Activities

Contact Information Responsibilities

Mr. Steven Cook (LMDG)

(301) 975-4003

steven.cook@nist.gov

•R 76 “Non-automatic Weighing Instruments”

Dr. Charles Ehrlich (ILMG)

(301) 975-4834

charles.ehrlich@nist.gov

•CIML Member

•B3 “OIML Certificate System for Measuring Instruments”

•B6 “OIML Directives for the Technical Work”

•B 10 “Framework for a Mutual Acceptance Arrangement (MAA) on OIML Type 

Evaluations”

•TC 3/SC 5 “Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement in Legal Metrology 

Applications,” “Guidelines for the Application of ISO/IEC 17025 to the 

Assessment of Laboratories Performing Type Evaluation Tests”

•TC 3 “Metrological Control”

Mr. Richard Harshman 

(LMDG)

(301) 975-8107

richard.harshman@nist.gov

•R 51 “Automatic Catchweighing Instruments”

•R 61 “Automatic Gravimetric Filling Instruments”

•R 107 “Discontinuous Totalizing Automatic Weighing Instruments” (totalizing 

hopper weighers)

•R 134 “Automatic Instruments for Weighing Road Vehicles In-Motion and 

Measuring Axle Loads”

Ms. Diane Lee (LMDG)

(301) 975-4405

diane.lee@nist.gov

•R 59 “Moisture Meters for Cereal Grains and Oilseeds”

•R 92 “Wood Moisture Meters – Verification Methods and Equipment”

•R 121 “The Scale of Relative Humidity of Air Certified Against Saturated Salt 

Solution”

•TC 17/SC 8 “Measuring Instruments for Protein Determination in Grains”

Mr. Ralph Richter (ILMG)

(301) 975-3997

ralph.richter@nist.gov

•R 35 “Material Measures of Length for General Use”

•R 49 “Water Meters” (Cold Potable Water & Hot Water Meters)

•R 71 “Fixed Storage Tanks”

•R 80 “Road and Rail Tankers”

•R 85 “Automatic Level Gauges for Measuring the Level of Liquid in Fixed Storage 

Tanks”

•R 105 & R 117 “Measuring Systems for Liquids Other Than Water” (all measuring 

technologies)

•R 118 “Testing Procedures and Test Report Format for Pattern Examination of Fuel 

Dispensers for Motor Vehicles”

•TC 3/SC 4 “Verification Period of Utility Meters Using Sampling Inspections”

•R 137 “Gas Meters” (Diaphragm, Rotary Piston, & Turbine Gas Meters)

•R 140 “Measuring Systems for Gaseous Fuel” (i.e., large pipelines)

Dr. Ambler Thompson 

(ILMG)

(301) 975-2333

ambler@nist.gov

•D 11 “General Requirements for Electronic Measuring Instruments”

•D 16 “Principles of Assurance of Metrological Control”

•D 19 “Pattern Evaluation and Pattern Approval”

•D 20 “Initial and Subsequent Verification of Measuring Instruments and Processes”

•D 27 “Initial Verification of Measuring Instruments Using the Manufacturer’s 

Quality Management System”

•R 34 “Accuracy Classes of Measuring Instruments”

•R 46 “Active Electrical Energy Meters for Direct Connection of Class 2”

•TC 5/SC 2 “General Requirements for Software Controlled Measuring Instruments”

Ms. Juana Williams 

(LMDG)

(301) 975-3989

juana.williams@nist.gov

•R 81 “Dynamic Measuring Devices and Systems for Cryogenic Liquids”

•R 139 “Compressed Gaseous Fuels Measuring Systems for Vehicles”
S&T Committee 2009 Final Report

S&T - 99

NIST Weights and Measures Division (WMD)

Contact List for International Activities

Contact Information Responsibilities

LIST OF ACRONYMS

B Basic Publication LMDG Legal Metrology Devices Group

CIML International Committee of Legal Metrology P Project

D Document R Recommendation

ILMG International Legal Metrology Group SC Subcommittee 

LMG Laws and Metrics Group TC Technical Committee

The WWMA and the SWMA support these issues and the related device activities as an Informational item.

360-2 Developing Items

The NCWM established a category of items called Developing items as a mechanism to share information about 

emerging issues which have merit and are of national interest, but have not received sufficient review by all parties 

affected by the proposal or that may be insufficiently developed to warrant review by the Committee. The 

Developing items are currently under review by at least one regional association, technical committee, or 

organization.

Developing items are listed in Appendix A according to the specific HB 44 code section under which they fall. 

Periodically, proposals will be removed from the Developing item agenda without further action because the 

submitter recommends it be withdrawn. Any remaining proposals will be renumbered accordingly.

The Committee encourages interested parties to examine the proposals included in Appendix A and send their 

comments to the contact listed in each item. The Committee asks that the regional associations and NTETC sectors 

continue their work to develop each proposal fully. Should an association or sector decide to discontinue work on 

an item, the Committee asks that it be notified.

Todd Lucas, Ohio, Chairman1

Brett Saum, San Luis Obispo County, California

Kristin Macey, California

Steve Giguere, Maine

Kenneth Ramsburg, Maryland

Vicky Dempsey, Montgomery County, OH2

Ted Kingsbury, Measurement Canada, Technical Advisor

Steven Cook, NIST, Technical Advisor

Tina Butcher, NIST, Technical Advisor

Specifications and Tolerances Committee

 1 Todd Lucas was unable to attend the July 2009 Annual Meeting. The senior Committee member, Brett Saum 

served as Chairman in his absence.

2 Vicky Dempsey served on the Committee at the July 2009 Annual Meeting filling in for Todd Lucas, OH as the 

representative for the CWMA
S&T Committee 2009 Final Report

S&T - 100

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
S&T Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix A – Item 360-2: Developing Items

S&T - A1

Appendix A

Item 360-2: Developing Items

Part 1, Item 1 Scales: S.1.4.6. Height and Definition of Minimum Reading Distance, UR.2.10. Primary 

Indicating Elements Provided by the User, UR.2.11. Minimum Reading Distance and Definitions of Minimum 

Reading Distance and Primary Indications

Source: NTETC WS

Note: This proposal was Carryover Item 320-2 which first appeared in the Committee’s 2006 agenda and again on 

the Committee’s 2007 agenda as Item 320-4. (This item originated from the 2005 NTETC WS.) The Committee 

believes that although the proposal has merit there does not appear to be a consensus on the size and quality of 

primary indication information on devices used in direct and indirect sales transactions or an enforcement date for 

such requirements. Therefore, the Committee removed Item 320-4 from its agenda and made it a Developing item 

to allow sufficient time for the community to fully develop requirements acceptable to those affected.

At its 2008 September meeting, the NTETC Weighing Sector discussed the NTEP labs’ recommended changes to 

the proposal along with the labs’ recommendation to move forward with this proposal as a Voting item for the S&T 

Committee. It was noted that the CWMA and WWMA recommended that the proposal be withdrawn unless it 

received additional support from the industry. Measurement Canada added that they do not have the 9.5 mm 

requirement in their laws and regulations.

During the WS discussions, a vote to forward the NTEP labs’ proposal to the S&T Committee was conducted. 

Seven members voted in favor and nine members voted against forwarding the NTEP labs’ alternate proposal to the 

S&T Committee. The NIST technical advisor to the WS believes that the results of the vote indicated that there is 

no consensus between the NTEP labs’ and device manufacturers and agreed to forward the WS discussions to the 

S&T Committee.

The Committee agreed to remove the Developing agenda item from Appendix A since the CWMA and WWMA 

recommended that the proposal be Withdrawn and that the proposal cannot be further developed due to a lack of 

consensus in the WS.

Part 2, Item 1 Belt-Conveyor Scale Systems: UR.3.2.(c) Maintenance; Zero Load Tests

Source: 2005 Western Weights and Measures Association (WWMA)

Recommendation: Modify UR.3.2.(c)

During the 2008 NCWM Interim Meeting, the Committee was informed that the USNWG on Belt-Conveyor Scales 

was going to further develop the proposal during their next meeting on February 27 - 28, 2008, in St. Louis, 

Missouri. During that meeting, the WG further amended the proposal as shown in the above recommendation and 

believes that this item is sufficiently developed to be added to the NCWM S&T Committee agenda as a Voting item. 

At its 2008 meeting, the WWMA agreed with the WG. The proposal can be found on the Committee’s agenda as 

Item 321-1.

Part 2, Item 2 Belt-Conveyor Scale Systems: N.3.1.4. Check for Consistency of the Conveyor Belt Along Its 

Entire Length

Source: 2005 Western Weights and Measures Association (WWMA)

Recommendation: Amend NIST Handbook 44, Section 2.21. Belt Conveyor Scales (BCS) Systems Code, 

paragraph N.3.1.4.
S&T Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix A – Item 360-2: Developing Items

S&T - A2

During the 2008 NCWM Interim Meeting, the Committee was informed that the USNWG on Belt-Conveyor Scales 

was going to further develop the proposal during their next meeting on February 27 - 28, 2008, in St. Louis, 

Missouri. During that meeting, the WG further amended the proposal as shown in the above recommendation and 

believes that this item is sufficiently developed to be added to the NCWM S&T Committee agenda as a Voting item. 

At its 2008 meeting, the WWMA agreed with the WG. The proposal can be found on the Committee’s agenda as 

Item 321-2.

Part 3, Item 1 Vehicle-Tank Meters: T.4. Product Depletion Test

Source: Northeast Weights and Measures Association (NEWMA)

Proposal: Amend paragraph T.4. as follows:

T.4. Product Depletion Test. – The difference between the test result for any normal test and the product 

depletion test shall not exceed one-half (0.5 %) percent of the volume delivered in one minute at the 

maximum flow rate marked on the meter. Tolerances for typical meters are tolerance shown in Table T.4. 

Test drafts shall be of the same size and run at approximately the same flow rate.

[Note: The result of the product depletion test may fall outside of the applicable test tolerance as specified in 

Table 1.]

Table T.4. Tolerances for Typical Vehicle-Tank Meters

on Product Depletion Tests, Except Milk Meters

Refer to T.4. for meters with maximum flow rates not listed.

Meter Size Maximum Flow Rate Maintenance and Acceptance Tolerances

Up to, but not including, 50 mm (2 in)

114 LPM (30 GPM)

1.70 L (104 in3)

1

0.57 L (0.15 gal) (34.6 in3)

1

From 50 mm (2 in) up to, but not including, 75 mm (3 in)

225 LPM (60 GPM)

2.25 L (137 in3)

1

1.1 L (0.30 gal) (69.3 in3)

1

75 mm (3 in) or larger

378 LPM (100 GPM)

3.75 L (229 in3)

1

1.9 L (0.5 gal) (115 in3)

1

758 LPM (200 GPM) 3.8 L (1.0 gal) (231 in3)

1

1 Based on a test volume of at least the amount specified in N.3.

(Table Added 2005) (Amended 201X)

Alternative language for T.4. with larger tolerance for smaller meters.

T.4. Product Depletion Test. – The difference between the test result for any normal test and the product depletion 

test shall not exceed one-half (0.5 %) percent of the volume delivered in one minute at the maximum flow rate

marked on the meter for meters rated higher than 378 LPM (100 GPM), or six-tenths (0.6 %) percent of the 

volume delivered in one minute at the maximum flow rate marked on the meter for meters rated 378 LPM 

(100 GPM) or lower. Tolerances for typical meters are tolerance shown in Table T.4. Test drafts shall be of the 

same size and run at approximately the same flow rate.

[Note: The result of the product depletion test may fall outside of the applicable test tolerance as specified in 

Table 1.]
S&T Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix A – Item 360-2: Developing Items

S&T - A3

Table T.4. Tolerances for Typical Vehicle-Tank Meters

on Product Depletion Tests, Except Milk Meters

Refer to T.4 for meters with flow rates not listed.

Meter Size Maximum Flow Rate Maintenance and Acceptance Tolerances

Up to, but not including, 50 mm (2 in)

114 LPM (30 GPM)

1.70 L (104 in3)

1

0.57 L (0.18 gal) (41.6 in3)

1

From 50 mm (2 in) up to, but not including, 75 mm (3 in)

225 LPM (60 GPM)

2.25 L (137 in3)

1

1.1 L (0.36 gal) (83.2 in3)

1

75 mm (3 in) or larger

378 LPM (100 GPM)

3.75 L (229 in3)

1

1.9 L (0.6 gal) (139 in3)

1

758 LPM (200 GPM) 3.8 L (1.0 gal) (231 in3)

1

1 Based on a test volume of at least the amount specified in N.3.

(Table Added 2005) (Amended 201X)

Background/Discussion: This item was submitted to NEWMA at its 2008 Interim Meeting as an alternative to 

Item 331-1 (S.5.7. Meter Size) in 2008 Publication 16. It would base the tolerances for the product depletion test on 

a percentage of the maximum flow rate rather than meter size. Justification provided to NEWMA by the submitter 

is as follows:

The S&T Committee received a proposal to add new marking requirements to provide inspectors with a basis 

on which to assess tolerances since the meter size in inches is not currently marked on meters used in VTM 

systems. This solution would add a new marking requirement non-retroactively which will not solve the 

problem until the entire fleet of meters presently in use are replaced with new meters. This could take a very 

long time since VTMs can see many years of service. In addition, the compromise made when this item 

originally passed did not address the possibility that smaller meters, e.g., down to 1⁄4 in could be mounted on a 

vehicle and thus subject to these tolerances. Allowing the smallest current tolerance (104 in3

) on a 1⁄4-in meter 

delivering 2 gpm would be 22.5 % relative error for one minute of flow due to air passing through the meter. 

Even at 20 gpm for a 1 in meter, the relative error only drops to 2.25 %. That seems unconscionable. 

New York recommends going back to the 0.5 % of 1 minute of flow at the maximum rated flow rate for the 

meter that was part of the original proposal. The max flow rate must be marked on every meter under current 

HB 44 requirements and thus the inspector will have the information necessary to correctly apply the tolerance. 

We further recommend that the table provide tolerances for the common meter sizes which will handle most 

cases encountered in the field (i.e., 11⁄4 in, 11⁄2 in, 2 in and 3 in meters with 30, 60, 100 and 200 gpm

respectively).

There may be concern that users will move to larger meter sizes to take advantage of the larger tolerances. We 

do not think that will happen since these systems cannot deliver much over 100 gpm without damaging storage 

tanks. In fact most systems we have seen delivering heating oil are actually delivering at less than 80 gpm. If 

they move to a 200 gpm, 3 in meter, rated at 40 gpm to 200 gpm, they will then have to meet acceptance 

tolerances all the way down to 60 gpm which we don’t think they can do on a consistent basis. We believe the 

typical 2 in system will remain the mainstay of the industry.

Graphs of the relationship of typical meter ratings to pipe cross section area show that PD flow rates are clearly 

a function of pipe size. Any tolerance that does not reflect that relationship is fundamentally flawed in our 

view. For comparison, we have included a graphic comparison of the proposed tolerances.
S&T Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix A – Item 360-2: Developing Items

S&T - A4

The submitter also noted the following:

We recognize that the tolerances proposed will reduce the tolerances for meter sizes 2 in and under. We could 

support some compromise to recognize diminishing returns on smaller meters and thus allow a slightly larger

tolerance (e.g., 0.6 %) at or below 100 gpm rated flow rate. At 0.6 for a 2 in (100 gpm) meter the tolerance 

would be 139 in3

, virtually identical to the existing tolerance.

The submitter also provided the following supporting graphics:

Option 1 – 0.5 % across the board:
S&T Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix A – Item 360-2: Developing Items

S&T - A5

Option 2 – 0.6 % up to and including 100 gpm and 0.5 % thereafter:

In reviewing this item at its 2008 Interim Meeting, some NEWMA members felt that what is currently in HB 44 is 

sufficient and did not feel there was a problem determining meter size. Until NEWMA hears further about problems 

determining meter size from other states it recommends this item be made Informational.

Part 4, Item 1 Farm Milk Tanks: N.5.1. Verification of Master Metering Systems

Source: Central Weights and Measures Association (CWMA)

Recommendation: Amend paragraph N.5.1. as follows:

N.5.1. Verification of Master Metering Systems. – A master metering system used to gauge a milk tank shall 

be verified before and after the gauging process. A master metering system used to calibrate a milk tank shall 

be verified before starting the calibration and reverified every quarter of the tank capacity or every 2000 L 

(500 gal), whichever is greater. A master metering system capable of operating within 25 % of the 

applicable tolerance in T.3. Basic Tolerance Values needs only be verified before and after the gauging 

process.

(Added 201X)

Background/Discussion: The CWMA received a proposal at its fall 2008 Interim Meeting to modify 

paragraph N.5.1. Verification of Master Metering Systems in NIST Handbook 44 Section 4.42. Farm Milk Tanks. 

USDA provided data suggesting that mass flow meters currently used to test milk tanks would not have to be 

verified every quarter of the tank capacity, or every 2000 L (500 gal), whichever is greater. The CWMA does not 

have data that supports that all mass flow meters will perform to the same standard. Based on this information the 

CWMA recommends this proposal be Informational and is considering the proposal outlined in the recommendation 

above.

At its fall 2008 Interim Meeting, NEWMA recommended this proposal be Informational. NEWMA forwarded the 

following additional justification for the proposed change from Mr. Richard Koeberle, Federal Milk Market 

Administrator:

The use of a mass flow meter has eliminated the variations seen in other types of meters used to calibrate or 

check farm bulk milk tanks. The reverification of the meter at every quarter of tank capacity adds time and 

potentially introduces errors by requiring the hose or valves to be moved before the tank is totally filled. 
S&T Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix A – Item 360-2: Developing Items

S&T - A6

This proposal originated by Tom MacNish from the Cleveland Market Administrator and was presented to 

the CWMA in September. Mass flow meters have been used extensively in their market with excellent 

results.

Data submitted with this item is posted on the S&T Committee’s web page on the Members Only section of the 

NCWM website at:

http://www.ncwm.net/members/index.cfm?fuseaction=st

Part 5, Item 1 Hydrogen: New Code: 3.3X. Draft Hydrogen Gas-Measuring Devices

Source: U.S. National Work Group for the Development of Commercial Hydrogen Measurement Standards

Recommendation: Review and comment on a DRAFT Hydrogen Gas Measuring Devices Code and modifications 

to relevant Appendix D – Definitions in NIST Handbook 44 (HB 44) (as outlined in the current USNWG draft found 

on the USNWG website at www.nist.gov/owm) to address gaseous hydrogen refueling applications.

Discussion: Currently, the U.S. National Work Group (USNWG) for the Development of Commercial Hydrogen 

Measurement Standards is working to draft a new Hydrogen Gas-Measuring Devices Code and add new and modify 

existing definitions in Appendix D of NIST Handbook 44. The work to develop the code is an ongoing effort and 

the USNWG will submit a final draft of the code as soon as its work is complete. The draft code and definitions 

address legal metrology requirements for the newly emerging hydrogen refueling technology. The USNWG 

believes the code has merit and wants to provide the weights and measures community with this information since 

18 states now have hydrogen refueling stations in operation. The weights and measures community must have time 

to consider requirements for hydrogen-refueling dispensers before this application is available for public access at 

corner service stations. The USNWG began work on this project in October 2007, although a draft code was 

distributed to the community in February 2005. Version 3.1 is provided with this proposal and will receive further 

review at the August 2008 USNWG meeting. The USNWG is also submitting a corresponding proposal to the L&R 

Committee that addresses method of sale and engine fuel quality requirements for hydrogen in NIST Handbook 130 

(HB 130).

At its 2008 Annual Technical Conference, the WWMA heard comments supporting the work of the USNWG. The 

WWMA also heard from Kristin Macey (CA DMS) that the draft code has been further amended at the recent 

meeting of the USNWG. The WWMA agrees that the item remain Developing.

At the 2009 NCWM Interim Meeting, the Committee heard comments from Ed Williams, Director California 

Division of Measurement Standards supporting this item as a Developing item. The Committee also heard from 

Kristin Macey, Chairman of the USNWG on Hydrogen Devices Subcommittee, who encouraged those eighteen 

states who have hydrogen dispensers installed in their jurisdictions to become more actively involved in the 

USNWG and/or provide input on the draft code. Juana Williams, USNWG technical advisor, thanked those who 

have participated in the work group’s efforts and other NIST-DOE workshops and encouraged participation from the 

community. Juana also provided an updated copy of the draft code to the Committee and reminded Interim Meeting 

participants that current information can be found on the NIST WMD website as described below. A copy of the 

version (“Draft 3.3”) provided to the Committee can be found on the Committee’s website at: 

http://www.ncwm.net/members/index.cfm?fuseaction=st. Note that the USNWG is actively working on this code 

and posts updated drafts to their website as they are issued; therefore, readers are encouraged to consult the 

USNWG’s website (see below) for current versions.

More information on the work by the USNWG is available on the NIST WMD website at www.nist.gov/owm under 

the W&M Resources link to “Developing Commercial Hydrogen Measurement Standards.” To comment on this 

proposal, contact Juana Williams, NIST WMD, at juana.williams@nist.gov, by telephone at (301) 975-3989, by fax 

at (301) 975-8091 or by postal mail at NIST WMD, 100 Bureau Drive, MS 2600, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2600.
S&T Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix B – Comments from the NCWM ATC Steering Committee

S&T - B1

Appendix B

Comments from the NCWM ATC Steering Committee Members

Ross Andersen, Don Onwiler, and Henry Oppermann

to the S&T Committee on

330-1 Temperature Compensation for Liquid-Measuring Devices Code

August 2008

COMMENT 1: The term “active” is not used consistently in all references to “automatic temperature 

compensation.” For example, it appears in paragraph S.2.7.2., but does not appear in paragraph S.1.6.8.

S.1.6.8. Recorded Representations from Devices with Temperature Compensation. – Receipts issued 

from devices or systems with automatic temperature compensation must include a statement that the 

volume of the product has been adjusted to the volume in liters at 15.56 °C for liters or the volume in 

gallons at 60 °F for gallons.

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 200X]

(Added 200X)

S.2.7.2. Display of Net and Gross Quantity. – A device equipped with active automatic temperature 

compensation shall indicate or record, both the gross (uncompensated) and net (compensated) volume 

for testing purposes. It is not necessary that both net and gross volume be displayed simultaneously.

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 200X]

Don’s Comments: It is reasonable to assume that there may be devices in commerce at some point that have 

ATC capability, but not activated. The term “active” is used in recognition of this possibility. I suggest 

amending S.1.6.8. as follows to address the concern raised in this comment.

S.1.6.8. Recorded Representations from Devices with Temperature Compensation. – Receipts issued 

from devices or systems with automatic temperature compensation activated must include a statement 

that the volume of the product has been adjusted to the volume in liters at 15.56 °C for liters or the 

volume in gallons at 60 °F for gallons.

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 200X]

(Added 200X)

ATC Committee Member Feedback:

Ross’s Comments: I like Don’s wording of S.1.6.8. but that is not going to solve the underlying problem. This 

requirement is borderline between Specification and User Requirement. Note that the dispenser manufacturer 

usually provides two face plates where units of measure may differ, since the units are hard printed on firmware 

and not software selectable. NTEP simply looks at the two face plates and if they comply, the manufacturer has 

met the requirement. That of course does not mean the device will comply in the field. It remains up to the 

installer and/or the user to select the right one for their application. My recommendation would be to duplicate 

the requirement in the UR section, particularly since the use of ATC will be selectable. Otherwise, we are 

forcing the dispenser manufacturer to build in alpha displays and software control, at considerable cost. How 

about broadening UR.3.6.1.2. to include indications as follows?

UR.3.6.1.2. Indications, Recorded Representations, Receipts and Bills of Lading

(a) Indications of volume delivered on a device that is equipped with an active automatic temperature 

compensator shall be marked with a statement that the volume of the product has been adjusted to 

the volume in liters at 15.56 °C for liters or the volume in gallons at 60 °F for gallons.
S&T Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix B – Comments from the NCWM ATC Steering Committee

S&T - B2

Renumber original (a) and (b) to (b) and (c), respectively.

Henry’s Comments: I suggest that we consider the language and approach used in the LPG Code and for 

wholesale meters in the LMD Code that already address this point. I agree with Ross that user requirements are 

needed to clarify this situation because RMFDs may be equipped with ATC capability, but it may not be 

operating in all cases. Hence, the language will have to be modified to address this situation, since both the 

LPG and LMD codes assume that if a meter is equipped with ATC, then it must be used. Both codes have user 

requirements that state, “If a device is equipped with a mechanical automatic temperature compensator, ... it 

shall be connected, operable, and in use at all times.” We may have to add the words “once used, it shall be 

...”. For reference, in the LMD Code, see the paragraphs under S.2.7. and UR.3.6.1.; in the LPG Code see 

S.2.6., S.4.4., and the paragraphs under UR.2.4.

COMMENT 2: There is a reference to the accuracy requirements for the temperature sensor in paragraph S.2.7.3.; 

however, there is not a requirement specifying the division size of the temperature sensor.

S.2.7.3. Display of Temperature. – For test purposes, on a device equipped with active automatic 

temperature compensation, means shall be provided to indicate or record the temperature determined by 

the system sensor to an accuracy of 0.2 °F.

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 200X]

Don’s Comments: We do not put accuracy requirements in specifications. I wonder if the intent was for a 

resolution requirement instead of an accuracy requirement. That would make sense to me. Maybe Tina will 

have some S&T Committee documentation that would disclose the intent. I propose amending the paragraph as 

follows.

S.2.7.3. Display of Temperature. – For test purposes, on a device equipped with active automatic 

temperature compensation, means shall be provided to indicate or record the temperature determined by 

the system sensor to an accuracy of a resolution no greater than 0.2 °F.

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 200X]

ATC Committee Member Feedback:

Ross’s Comments: Don is right on target here. The issue is resolution of the sensor and not the accuracy. I 

strongly urge the S&T Committee to work on clarifying that the net/gross agreement tolerance is the HB 44 

means of ensuring accuracy of the temperature sensor. I was on the S&T Committee when that requirement 

was added for other ATC systems and that was indeed the purpose. That decision was made on the basis of two 

important issues. First, verifying the accuracy of a temperature probe installed in a dispenser to accuracy better 

than 0.5 F is almost impossible. That’s tough enough in a lab environment. Second, the temperature probe is 

only one part of the compensation process. By validating the outcome, we have not only verified the probe 

accuracy but also verified that the API gravity or CoE is correctly programmed and the software program 

making the correction is functioning correctly. At the Type Evaluation level this may pose some interesting 

problems. NTEP will have to evaluate over temperature ranges large enough to cover reasonable use. That 

includes Arizona and Alaska. Measurement Canada used a probe simulator to do that. The other issue is 

response time and personally I think this is only a minor issue. Because the system is typically pulsing 

0.001 gallons for RMFDs and the system can poll the temperature system several times a second, the probe 

need only react reasonably fast to still maintain 0.1 % agreement gross/net.

Henry’s Comments: I agree with Don and Ross; the reference should be to resolution. I agree with Ross that 

the sensor is part of the ATC system and should not be tested separately.

COMMENT 3: Should a corresponding reference to the accuracy requirement for the temperature sensor be 

included in the “Tolerances” section of the code?

Don’s Comments: It is the responsibility of the inspector to determine if the system provides measurements 

within performance tolerances. If the device fails to do that, it may be because the temperature sensor in the 
S&T Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix B – Comments from the NCWM ATC Steering Committee

S&T - B3

delivery system is faulty, but it is not the inspector’s responsibility to determine cause of failure. By modifying 

S.2.7.3. as recommended above, I think this question is no longer relevant.

ATC Committee Member Feedback:

Ross’s Comments: I agree 100 % with Don. The issue is moot when you change accuracy to resolution. 

NTEP can deal with this within the 0.1 % agreement tolerance and the specific test methods they choose.

Henry’s Comments: I agree with Don and Ross.

COMMENT 4: Is there an expectation that there will be a field test of the temperature sensor? If so, there is not a 

corresponding test note to indicate this, nor is it clear how the test will be done in the field.

Don’s Comments: I do not foresee inspectors testing the accuracy of the temperature sensor in the delivery 

system. If the sensor is faulty, it should be reflected in the results of the test of the measuring system.

ATC Committee Member Feedback:

Ross’s Comments: See Comment 1. Inspectors should not be even thinking about verifying probe accuracy.

Henry’s Comments: I agree with Don and Ross.

COMMENT 5: A user requirement is needed to specify that, if a single business offers products for sale on the 

basis of a temperature-compensated volume, all devices in that business shall be equipped with automatic 

temperature-compensating systems. [Note: During the Committee’s work discussions, it was noted that Canada 

permitted a phase-in period based on product or product grades.]

Don’s Comments: While this is really a method of sale issue, it may be important to provide such guidance in 

HB 44 as well as HB 130. All states adopt HB 44 in one form or another, but not all adopt the HB 130 Method 

of Sale Regulation. Still, I think it is best to let the L&R Committee agenda item make the determinations on 

this matter and then amend HB 44 to reflect a uniform requirement.

ATC Committee Member Feedback:

Ross’s Comments: I agree that this needs to be worked out with L&R, particularly in terms of a phase-in 

process. I do think it is an important concern when we are looking at dispensers within the single station.

Henry’s Comments: I agree with Don and Ross. A consistent approach across the country is needed. I 

believe that if a station uses ATC on some dispensers, it should be required to be used on all of the dispensers 

within the station to reduce the potential for confusion.

COMMENT 6: There is concern about using 15.56 °C rather than 15 °C. In addition to being different from use in 

international arenas, including Canada, the bulk of the devices in the field, including the retail motor fuel dispensers 

and the temperature standards used by field officials, do not have the capability to display temperature to two 

decimal places.

Don’s Comments: When the Committee deliberated on this item, we noted three things that I believe are 

critical in the decision. 1) The wholesale system in the U.S. uses 60 °F. 2) Gallon provers/test measures are 

calibrated to 60 °F. 3) 60 °F and 15 °C are not equivalent. The difference is significant and it was necessary to 

carry the conversion out two decimal places to ensure clarity that 15 °C is not acceptable.

Our intent was to set the U.S. standard temperature. Our intent was not for 15.56 °C to be used. Manufacturers 

will use 60 °F. Including the metric equivalent is consistent with the practice implemented by NIST years ago 

to always do so in our model standards. I recommend we stay the course on this one and recognize 15.56 °C as 

the metric equivalent to the U.S. standard of 60 °F.
S&T Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix B – Comments from the NCWM ATC Steering Committee

S&T - B4

ATC Committee Member Feedback:

Ross’s Comments: I agree with Don. The issue here is that 1 gallon at 60 °F has to equal 3.785412 liters at 

15.56 °C in order to maintain the relative size of units. That will not be true if we use 15 °C for liters because 

the reference will be different. I believe the Steering Committee considered the enormous cost to change the 

entire U.S. infrastructure to a 15 °C (59 °F) reference as the alternative and found that that was not feasible.

Henry’s Comments: I have to disagree with Don and Ross on this point. If the United States were using the 

metric system, we should and would use 15 °C. Due to the coefficients of expansion of steel and stainless steel, 

there is not much difference in the capacity of metal volume standards whether the reference temperature is 

60 °F or 15 °C. There is a difference of 0.07 % in the volume of gasoline based upon 60 °F or 15 °C. If the 

volume measurement is expressed in gallons, then businesses should use 60 °F as the reference temperature. If 

the volume measurement is in liters, then the reference temperature should be 15 °C. I don’t think that we want 

the United States to be out of step with the rest of the world if and when we change to the SI. This is a point on 

which we should get input from the manufacturers and oil companies, who routinely deal in the international 

market.

Ross’s Counterargument: The 15 oC vs. 60 oF issue is going to be difficult. Henry makes some very valid 

points but I think misses the most important. We have a significant infrastructure that is tied to gallon units and 

a 60 oF reference. I find it highly unlikely that this will change in our lifetimes. In addition, if I understand it 

correctly, using the 15 oC would require anyone who wishes to change to liters at 15 oC to deliver 0.07 % more 

product for the equivalent volume in gallons at 60 oF. That is simply the physics, because 15 oC is 0.56 oC 

colder than 60 oF. All of a sudden you have lost equivalency that 3.785412 liter = 1 gallon and replaced it with 

a new factor that ~3.788 liters of gasoline = 1 gallon when both are at 60 oF (15.56 oC). Until the U.S. is willing 

to change its entire infrastructure to liters and retool the equipment for a 15 oC reference, I cannot support that 

move as cost beneficial in any sense. It just doesn’t make any sense. Also consider that choosing the 15 oC 

reference actually discourages conversion to liters since in the conversion you would be placed at a competitive 

disadvantage to those selling in gallons. That 0.07 % increased delivery is certainly not trivial in this largevolume business. It’s more than the typical 0.05 % accuracy target at terminal meters. I like liters and don’t 

think we should enact laws and regulations that put conversion at a competitive disadvantage. I welcome 

additional input from the industry on this subject and thought that we got that at the Chicago meeting before 

making the decisions to stay with 15.56 oC as the reference.

COMMENT 7: Devices currently in the field may not have the capability to automatically sense when the device 

is or is not in the automatic temperature-compensating mode with respect to the requirement to identify volumes as 

“corrected” volumes on printed indications.

Don’s Comments: It is my understanding that no devices have been installed in the U.S. marketplace with 

ATC capability. This is at least true with Gilbarco according to Gordon Johnson. Even if this is incorrect, I 

believe it is imperative to require this disclosure to the consumer, especially if there is a temporary or 

permanent permissive method of sale. I think the requirement should remain.

ATC Committee Member Feedback:

Ross’s Comments: This goes back to the user requirement UR.3.6.1.2. That requirement already exists for 

wholesale devices and should absolutely be extended to retail. Since it is a user requirement, the manufacturer 

may help meet it, but third party consoles and registers are dominant in the market and thus it must remain at 

the user level. I am not too concerned about the manual nature of this process since it will typically not happen 

more than once. It will happen when the system is initially changed from gross to net. After that we should not 

see any further changes back to gross.

Henry’s Comments: While printed receipts should (must) identify when the volume is temperature-corrected, 

I don’t believe that it is necessary to require the dispenser or metering system to automatically detect when the 

ATC is operating or not. There are many meter parameters in Handbook 44 that must be selected at the time of 

installation. Selecting the proper message for printers with ATC operating and use is just one more 

metrological parameter. Neither the LPG nor LMD (wholesale meter) Codes require that the operating 
S&T Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix B – Comments from the NCWM ATC Steering Committee

S&T - B5

condition of the ATC be automatically detected for printing. We allow decals to be applied to the display panel 

of the dispenser, which requires a “mechanical” action. We should not require that the printer automatically 

detect the operating status of the ATC.

COMMENT 8: Although a corresponding paragraph already appears in Section 3.32. LPG and Anhydrous

Ammonia Liquid-Measuring Devices Code, the language in paragraph UR.3.6.1.3. needs clarification.

UR.3.6.1.3. Temperature Determination. – Means for determining the temperature of measured 

liquid in an automatic temperature-compensating system shall be so designed and located that, 

in any “usual and customary” use of the system, the resulting indications and/or recorded 

representations are within applicable tolerances.

(Added 200X)

Don’s Comments: I can only speculate that the intent was to have the thermometer well located in a position 

to ensure there is not a significant difference in product temperature at the thermometer well versus the 

metering chamber. Otherwise, the net indicated or recorded delivery may fall outside the tolerances. I agree 

that, whether I interpreted this correctly or not, it is poorly worded and can be improved upon – any 

suggestions?

ATC Committee Member Feedback:

Ross’s Comments: I believe that Measurement Canada specified a fixed distance along the flow path either 

before or after the measuring element. The approach taken here is to leave that to the manufacturer to ensure 

the system can maintain compliance with tolerances. I am okay with this since the manufacturers have already 

dealt with it under the Canadian system and it works. I can’t imagine they will use some other system here.

Henry’s Comments: I don’t see a need to clarify UR.3.6.1.3. Ross probably remembers as he refers to the 

S&T discussions in his remarks under Comment 2 that the S&T purposely chose not to specify the distance 

between the thermometer well and the meter temperature sensor. The device manufacturer had to pass the 

performance requirement on the ATC system regardless of where the thermometer well is installed. We should 

state this simply as a performance requirement and allow the manufacturers to decide how best to meet the 

requirement. Whenever possible, W&M should not tell manufacturers how to design their equipment.
S&T Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix B – Comments from the NCWM ATC Steering Committee

S&T - B6

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
S&T Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix C – Water Meter Correspondence

S&T - C1

Appendix C

Water Meter Correspondence
S&T Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix C – Water Meter Correspondence

S&T - C2
S&T Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix D – Jeff Humphrey’s Letter and Comments

S&T - D1

Appendix D

Jeff Humphrey’s Letter and Comments

on

2008 Developing Item Part 4, Item 1 Water Meters

September 2, 2008

TO: Steven Cook, NIST, Technical Advisor

Specifications and Tolerances Committee

National Conference on Weights and Measures

FROM: Jeff Humphreys

Deputy Director – Weights and Measures Bureau

SUBJECT: S&T Committee 2008 Report, Specifically Item 360-2, Part 5, Item 3: Water Meters

This letter is intended to clarify comments made concerning water meter tolerances during the NCWM 

2008 meeting open hearing regarding a proposal to amend HB 44 Section 3.36. T.1. Appendix A, Part 5, 

Item 3, in the S&T Committee report describes a Developing Item proposal to either eliminate HB 44 

repeatability requirements, or amend HB 44 Section 3.36., Tables N.4.1. and N.4.2. by increasing test 

draft sizes. We believe that the results of numerous water meter tolerance tests conducted on this 

Department’s test bench at our South Gate facility will show that the proposed increases in test draft sizes 

are unnecessary, and could result in substantial increases in costs to jurisdictions performing these tests.

In the “Background/Discussion” section, the proponents argue that due to uncertainties associated with 

reading individual graduations, additional water volume is required to be run through the meters in order 

to obtain a fair test of their accuracy. In order to determine the truth to this claim, especially to the tests 

conducted at the minimum flow rate, the Department conducted tests at both the 5 gallon test draft size, 

and at the 10 gallon draft size for those 5/8” meters that failed to meet tolerance at 5 gallons. The 

accompanying chart summarizing our tests show that substantial numbers of multi-jet water meters that 

failed their 5 gallon slow-flow tests continued to fail the 3 % tolerance requirement when tested again at 

10 gallons.

The enclosed information also shows that very few positive displacement meters fail tolerance tests at any 

of the current HB 44 flow rates. The claim has been made that the tests as currently being conducted 

have seriously impacted meter sales for several water meter manufacturers. Our tests show that 

manufacturers of positive displacement meters should not be negatively impacted by being tested at the 

current established flow rates.

The Department has received a large number of 5/8” meters for testing over the last several years. The 

proposed requirement to increase test draft sizes would substantially increase the amount of time 

necessary to test these meters at the three flow rates (from approx. 30 minutes to approx. 90 minutes). If 

evidence supported the necessity to conduct these tests, the Department would certainly adopt these larger 

draft sizes. We believe however, that the evidence shows that larger draft sizes are unnecessary. Such 

tests would increase costs to the Department, and these increased costs would ultimately have to be borne 

by all owners of water sub-meters.
S&T Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix D – Jeff Humphrey’s Letter and Comments

S&T - D2

The proposal appears to be advanced by a manufacturer of multi-jet meters. Our suggestion to that 

manufacturer of these meters would be to look to improve the quality of their product.

KEF:RKI:JNH:jh

Enclosure
S&T Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix D – Jeff Humphrey’s Letter and Comments

S&T - D3

Water Meter Test Results

January 2008 - June 2008

Minimum Flow Rate (1⁄4 GPM) – 5 Gallon vs. 10 Gallon

5

/8 in Positive Displacement Meters

Minimum Rate Tolerances: 1.5 % Overregistration, 5 % Underregistration

Failure Percentages

5 Gallon 10 Gallon

Meter #1 –13.0 % –13.0 %

Meter #2 –6.6 % –7.1 %

Meter #3 –83.6 % –87.7 %

(“–” indicates underregistration, “+” indicates overregistration)

*All three meters failed by underregistration on both 5 gallon and 10 gallon tests.
S&T Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix D – Jeff Humphrey’s Letter and Comments

S&T - D4

Water Meter Test Results

January 2008 - July 2008

Minimum Flow Rate (1⁄4 GPM) – 5 Gallon vs. 10 Gallon

5

/8 in Multi-Jet Meters

Minimum Flow Rate Tolerances: 3 % Overregistration, 3 % Underregistration

*Meters #3, #9, #10, #19, #21, #22, #23, #26, and #27 failed on the 5 gallon test and passed on the 10 gallon test.

The rest of the meters failed both 5 gallon and 10 gallon tests. All meters except two (#21 and #27) were 

underregistering.

Failure Percentages

“–” indicates underregistration, “+” indicates overregistration

Error 5 gal Error 10 gal % Difference

Meter #1 –3.78 % –3.38 % –0.40 %

Meter #2 –3.92 % –3.30 % –0.62 %

Meter #3 –3.06 % –2.98 % –0.08 %

Meter #4 –3.80 % –3.71 % –0.09 %

Meter #5 –3.44 % –3.47 % 0.03 %

Meter #6 –4.28 % –3.73 % –0.55 %

Meter #7 –4.80 % –4.28 % –0.52 %

Meter #8 –5.20 % –4.60 % –0.60 %

Meter #9 –3.54 % –3.00 % –0.54 %

Meter #10 –3.30 % –2.49 % –0.81 %

Meter #11 –4.48 % –3.49 % –0.99 %

Meter #12 –3.88 % –4.08 % 0.20 %

Meter #13 –3.32 % –3.26 % –0.06 %

Meter #14 –7.34 % –5.87 % –1.47 %

Meter #15 –4.10 % –3.13 % –0.97 %

Meter #16 –4.38 % –3.61 % –0.77 %

Meter #17 –6.34 % –5.57 % –0.77 %

Meter #18 –4.78 % –4.05 % –0.73 %

Meter #19 –3.50 % –2.73 % –0.77 %

Meter #20 –4.34 % –3.65 % –0.69 %

Meter #21 3.20 % 0.82 % 2.38 %

Meter #22 –17.40 % –1.78 % –15.62 %

Meter #23 –3.80 % –2.20 % –1.60 %

Meter #24 –10.20 % –26.68 % 16.48 %

Meter #25 –3.68 % –3.54 % –0.14 %

Meter #26 –3.12 % –0.92 % –2.20 %

Meter #27 3.60 % 0.81 % 2.79 %

Meter #28 –7.68 % –12.95 % 5.27 %

Average –4.45 % –4.32 % –0.14 %

Std Dev 0.036461744 0.049867807 0.0460693
S&T Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix D – Jeff Humphrey’s Letter and Comments

S&T - D5

WATER METER TEST RESULTS: JANUARY > 08 - JULY > 08

Meters Failing 

Tolerances within Passed 

Lots

Meters Failing 

Tolerances within Failed 

Lots

Make Model Size Lots Meters 

Tested

Meters 

Passed

Min. 

Flow

Int. 

Flow

Max. 

Flow

Total 

Fails

Misc. 

Fails

Min. 

Flow

Int. 

Flow

Max. 

Flow

Total 

Fails

Misc 

Fails

Arad 5

/8 in 1 2 0 2 2

Amco C-700 5

/8 in 16 183 174 9 9

Amco C-700 3⁄4 in 3 22 22

Amco C-700 1 in 3 42 42

Badger RCDL 25 5

/8 in 21 171 165 6 6

Kent C-700 5

/8 in 1 2 1 1 1

Neptune T-10 5

/8 in 65 749 655 26 9 1 42 6 mech 

fails 4 52 34 mech fails

Master Meter

USA

140 F

5

/8 in

USG

HOT

51 875 765 5 4 8 19 2 11 37 91 7 NoS/N

Master Meter MM3C 5

/8 in 3 39 26 13

Master Meter MM4 3⁄4 in 3 28 23 1 4

Master Meter MM5C

1 in

USG

COLD

12 337 262 5 6 53 1 21 22

Master Meter FAM

5

/8 in

USG

COLD

29 575 466 3 15 21 17 1 88

Master Meter FAM 3⁄4 in 1 14 3 11 11

Performance PPD 5

/8 in 1 1 1

PASSING RATES FOR METERS TESTED: JANUARY > 08 - JULY > 08

Arad

Amco

C-700 5

/8 in

Amco

C-700

3⁄4 in

Amco

C-700

1 in

Badger 

RCDL25 5

/8 in

Kent

C-700 5

/8 in

Neptune

T-10 5

/8 in

USA

140_F 5

/8 in

Master 

Meter

MM3C

5

/8 in

Master 

Meter 

MM4

3⁄4 in

Master 

Meter 

MM5 C

1 in

USG

Master 

Meter 

FAM 

5

/8 in

USG

Master 

Meter 

FAM

3⁄4 in

Performance 

PPD

5

/8 in

% passed of 

total tested 

for each 

model

0 95 100 100 96 50 87 87 67 82 78 81 21 100

Lots passed 0 13 3 3 21 1 59 27 0 2 7 14 0 1

Lots failed 1 3 0 0 0 0 6 24 3 1 5 15 1 0
S&T Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix D – Jeff Humphrey’s Letter and Comments

S&T - D6
S&T Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix D – Jeff Humphrey’s Letter and Comments

S&T - D7
S&T Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix D – Jeff Humphrey’s Letter and Comments

S&T - D8
S&T Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix D – Jeff Humphrey’s Letter and Comments

S&T - D9
S&T Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix D – Jeff Humphrey’s Letter and Comments

S&T - D10
PDC 2009 Final Report

PDC - 1

Report of the

Professional Development Committee (PDC)

Ross Andersen, Chairman

New York Weights and Measures

Albany, New York

Reference

Key Number

400 INTRODUCTION

This is the report of the Professional Development Committee (hereinafter referred to as the “Committee” or PDC) 

for the 94th Annual Meeting of the National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM). This report is based 

on the Interim Report offered in NCWM Publication 16, testimony heard at public hearings, comments received 

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

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

items presented below were adopted as presented when the Committee’s report was approved.

Table A identifies the agenda items in the report by reference key number, item title, and page number. Item numbers are 

those assigned in the Interim Meeting agenda. A voting item is indicated with a “V” after the item number. An item 

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

key number is a developing item. The developing designation indicates an item has merit; however, the item was returned 

to the submitter for further development before any action can be taken at the national level. Table B lists the appendices 

to the report.

Table A

Index to Reference Key Items

Reference

Key Number Title of Item Page

400 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................1

401 EDUCATION....................................................................................................................................................2

401-1 I National Certification Program (NCP) ........................................................................................2

401-2 I Create a Curriculum Plan.............................................................................................................5

401-3 D Instructor Improvement ...............................................................................................................7

401-4 D Certification.................................................................................................................................7

401-5 D Recommended Topics for Conference Training........................................................................10

402 PROGRAM MANAGEMENT ......................................................................................................................11

402-1 I Safety Awareness ......................................................................................................................11

402-2 D PDC Publication ........................................................................................................................12

Table B

Appendices

Appendix Title Page

A NCWM Curriculum Work Plan..........................................................................................................................A1

B Model Professional Development Training and Certification Standards Statute for Inspectors and Sealers 

of Weights and Measures (Legislative Model)................................................................................................... B1
PDC 2009 Final Report

PDC - 2

Table C

Voting Results

Reference Key Number House of State Representatives House of Delegates

Results

Yeas Nays Yeas Nays

No Voting Items

Details of All Items

(In Order by Reference Key Number)

401 EDUCATION

401-1 I National Certification Program (NCP)

Source: Carryover Item 401-1 (This item originated from the Committee and first appeared on its agenda in 2003.)

Background: For complete background information, see the PDC page of the NCWM website, 

www.ncwm.net/members.

Discussion: The PDC encourages each regional association to dedicate a portion of their Annual Meeting to the 

National Certification Program (NCP).

During the 2008 Interim Meeting, the Committee discussed the Western Weights and Measures Association’s 

(WWMA) suggestion to establish an action plan and timeline. The Committee has developed an NCP, Critical 

Component Analysis, and an action plan of the components of the NCP. The Committee presents a draft of this 

document below.

National Conference on Weights and Measures

National Certification Program

Critical Component Analysis

DRAFT, February 21, 2008

The Committee has begun a comprehensive effort to identify critical resources and tasks necessary for the 

project, and the logical sequence in which those tasks must be performed, including the possible use of 

parallel activities.

Critical path analysis techniques were developed to manage complex projects just like the National 

Certification Program. The Committee is planning to use those techniques to the extent possible to plan 

our future activities as we work toward a certification program.
PDC 2009 Final Report

PDC - 3

The Committee sees its task as one of managing four critical elements that come together as a certification 

program (as depicted above). Each bubble in the figure represents a milestone that must be reached in 

order to complete the objective. Those four main elements are:

Budget – involves tasks to secure necessary funding from the Board and other sources to undertake and 

complete all the other tasks.

Engage Stakeholders – involves tasks necessary to identify stakeholders and the resources they can bring 

to the project, encourage them to participate at all levels, and particularly to incorporate the professional 

standards in their training programs and to eventually take part in the certification program. The 

stakeholders, not the NCWM, will conduct the training. The NCWM will only be coordinating the 

professional standards and administering the certifications.

Manage Professional Standards – involves tasks necessary to create and manage a set of standards for the 

profession. The Committee has identified the creation of professional standards (i.e., the Curriculum) as 

the first task in the process. The completion of the curriculum plan, the curriculum template, the guide to 

preparing curriculum segments, and the guide to preparing test questions are some of those important steps 

toward that goal. The work groups are now finalizing the first seven curriculum segments and 

corresponding test questions. This is a great start and there still is a significant amount of additional work 

necessary in this area.
PDC 2009 Final Report

PDC - 4

Administer Certification – involves tasks necessary to create certification exams, administer those exams, 

and issue certifications to those who qualify. The Committee will manage staffing, both paid and 

volunteer, and physical resources to secure the exams and record and issue the certificates.

As the necessary curriculum segments are completed and test questions prepared, we may begin to embark 

on some of the steps toward certification. Over the coming months, the Committee will continue to 

elaborate on the details in this project and keep refining it as we move forward.

The Central Weights and Measures Association (CWMA) PDC Committee at their 2008 fall meeting 

proposed changing the name of the program to the National Certification Program. They further made 

recommendations regarding the creation of a standard like HB 130 or HB 44 that might be the mechanism 

to document the work on the curriculum and the certification program. (Also, see Item 402-2 for more on 

PDC publications.)

The PDC had learned that the Associate Membership Committee might be interested in funding the work 

on the curriculum and the certification package. The Committee will consider suitable projects that might 

make good use of that funding.

At the 2009 NCWM Interim Meeting, the PDC developed an action plan based upon the critical path 

analysis already completed. In this plan, responsibilities will be divided between the NCWM Board of 

Directors and the PDC. The PDC will develop and maintain the curricula and test questions. The Board 

will provide physical resources and staffing to compile the exams, issue certificates, and maintain records.

A goal was set to have all the elements in place to begin beta-testing a certification examination in one 

competency area by November 2009, and in three more competency areas by 2010. The initial plans are to 

target retail motor fuel devices (RMFDs), small capacity Class III scales, package checking, and VTMs. 

See Item 401-4 for details of the proposed certification program. The plan below shows action items and 

target dates for the first certification area (tentatively RMFDs).
PDC 2009 Final Report

PDC - 5

Discussion: The Committee received compliments on its work thus far and a suggestion that the Central Weights 

and Measures Association (CWMA) might be willing to share the exams member states use for testing service 

agents. The Committee was asked to share its work with the regions in order to receive feedback on whether the 

PDC is on the right track. California indicated it has certification experience and extensive testing materials already 

developed for review. California also has curriculum material available on Investigative Techniques.

At the 2009 Annual Meeting, the Committee formally changed the name of the program to the National Certification 

Program (NCP) to reflect that the program offers certification and not training.

The steps outlined in the timeline developed at the 2009 Interim Meeting are being implemented. The Board of 

Directors has contracted with an online testing company. The format of the test and the details of test-result 

reporting are being worked out. Development of test questions is slightly behind schedule. The guide to writing test 

questions required revision to accommodate the format needed for an online test. The anticipated beta testing for the 

retail motor fuel device (RMFD) curriculum will be ready for evaluation in November 2009. This item received no 

comments.

401-2 I Create a Curriculum Plan

Source: Carryover Item 401-2 (This item originated from the Committee and first appeared on its agenda in 2003.)

Background: For complete background information, see the PDC page of the NCWM website 

www.ncwm.net/members.

Prior to the 2007 Annual Meeting, the Committee reviewed the curriculum segments submitted thus far. At the 

2007 Annual Meeting, the Committee decided, based on comments from several of the regions and its own 

assessment, it was essential to have a standardized format to ensure uniformity. Based on a collective review of 

curriculum plans received, the Committee created a sample template and example for regions to use in developing 

other curricula. The Committee updated its curriculum (Curriculum Package) to include the NCWM Core 

Competency Model, which provides a model for improving the quality of education in a select discipline. The 

Committee included this information as a general guideline for the regions to use as they develop other curriculum 

topics. In addition, the Committee revisited the original “National Training Curriculum Outline” from its 2004 

NCWM Annual Report (Final Report). The Committee prepared an accompanying “NCWM Curriculum Work 

Plan,” which is intended to assist in the management of curriculum development. The Committee also revised the 

original curriculum outline to match the Work Plan see Appendix A. (This was Appendix H from the 2008 Final 

Report.)

The Committee updated the Curriculum Package as shown below, which is accessible from the NCWM website 

members’ page at www.ncwm.net.

• Cover Memorandum (guide to curriculum development),

• NCWM Core Competency Model,
PDC 2009 Final Report

PDC - 6

• NCWM Curriculum Template (curriculum guideline),

• NCWM Sample Curriculum (examples of desired format),

• Guide for Writing Test Questions (including examples),

• National Training Curriculum Outline,

• NCWM Curriculum Work Plan.

The Committee has received the following curriculum drafts (region responsible):

• 4.2 NIST Handbook 44 – Introduction to Device Control, (NEWMA);

• 4.3.1 Static Electronic Weighing Systems, General, (NEWMA);

• 4.3.5 Small Capacity Weighing Systems, Class III, (NEWMA);

• 4.3.7 Vehicle Class III or III L, (SWMA);

• 4.4.1 Retail Motor Fuel Dispensers, (WWMA); and

• 5.3.1 Commodities, General, (CWMA).

The Committee will return the curriculum drafts received, along with the newly revised curriculum package to the 

development team in each region to make revisions based on the Committee’s recommendations and continue work 

on preparing test questions related to each segment.

The Committee will also be requesting that each region set aside time for a presentation of the new curriculum 

package at their upcoming Annual or Interim Meeting. In addition, the Committee is requesting volunteers develop 

additional segments. The Committee acknowledges that the CWMA volunteered to sponsor the first training session 

on the use of the completed curriculum.

Mike Cleary, California, contacted the PDC in October concerning training on Investigative Techniques. California 

has developed a course and expressed willingness to share that with the Committee.

The CWMA PDC Committee at its 2008 fall meeting asked to get feedback on the segment they prepared. They 

also expressed interest in seeing what the other work groups had done on their segments and associated test 

questions.

At the Interim Meetings, the Committee will review progress on the curriculum including the feedback to the 

regional work groups. It will then establish priorities for preparing the next segments and search for volunteers to 

begin the work.

At the 2009 Interim Meeting, the PDC reaffirmed its commitment to completing all the curriculum items, but 

recognized the need to prioritize the completion of those curriculum items necessary for the four competency areas, 

which are to be beta-tested by the end of 2010. (See PERT Diagram in Item 401-1 for timeline on completion.)

At the 2009 Annual Meeting the Committee reported it considers the curriculum segments to be the critical element 

of the certification program. They set the standards to which the candidate will be tested. The National Training 

Curriculum Outline is already available online on the NCWM website. The actual curricula for 

Segment 4.2 Introduction to Device Control, Segment 4.4 Dynamic Liquid Measuring Systems – General, and 

Segment 4.4.1 Retail Motor Fuel Dispensers (RMFD) will be posted as soon as possible. Using these three 

documents plus the table found on page PDC–8 of Publication 16, jurisdictions would be able to prepare their staff 

to take the RMFD test and/or evaluate the strengths and weakness of their training programs based upon those 

curricula. In addition, the Committee will be developing the segments for small capacity class III scales, package 

checking, and vehicle tank meters. These segments will be posted online as they are developed.

Discussion: The significance of the levels outlined in Appendix A was explained in response to a question from the 

floor. No other comments were received on this item.
PDC 2009 Final Report

PDC - 7

401-3 D Instructor Improvement

Source: Carryover Item 401-3 (This item originated from the Committee and first appeared on its agenda in 2003.)

Background: The Committee is charged with the coordination of activities to improve the competence of 

instructors and the uniformity of delivery of the curriculum. For complete background information, see the PDC 

pages of the NCWM website www.ncwm.net/members. After logging in under the members’ area, look under the 

PDC Legacy Documents for the PDC Formal Scope.

Industry has continued to support and sponsor training on their new technology for weighing and measuring devices. 

NIST has assured the Committee they will continue their work towards providing technical training for the trainers. 

The Committee supports the recommendation from the Western Weights and Measures Association (WWMA) to 

encourage jurisdictions to participate in the NIST, WMD Instructor Training program as those classes become 

available.

At the NCWM 2009 Interim Meeting, a work group from the NCWM BOD provided information to the Committee 

on initiatives it was considering to use the NCWM website to provide training materials and other trainer aids, such 

as presentations, videos, etc. The Committee applauds these efforts by the Board and will support the NCWM 

efforts. However, the Committee will continue to maintain this item as low priority until other parts of the 

certification program are completed.

At the 2009 Annual Meeting the Committee reported that no action is being taken on this item while the Committee 

concentrates on curriculum development and the establishment of the certification program.

Discussion: No comments were heard on this item.

401-4 D Certification

Source: Carryover Item 401-4 (This item originated from the Committee and first appeared on its agenda in 2003.)

Background: For complete background information, please see the PDC page of the NCWM website 

www.ncwm.net/members.

Subsequent to the 2006 NCWM Annual Meeting, all states not previously contacted received a letter requesting the 

name of their State Certification Coordinator (SCC). The state director becomes the default SCC in the absence of a 

designated contact. The SCC contact list is available on the PDC page of the NCWM website 

(www.ncwm.net/members).

The Committee continues to hear support from the regions concerning the establishment of a certification program.

The Committee has contacted the SCC of each state to gather information on its current training and certification 

programs. The Committee will be reviewing the Model Professional Development Training and Certification 

Standards Statute for Inspectors and Sealers of Weights and Measures (Appendix B) that was submitted by 

NEWMA. The Committee will study the sample with the possibility that it might ultimately be used to establish 

model criteria for a certification program.

The Committee has created a Guide for Developing Test Questions in the curriculum package referenced in 

Item 401-2. At the 2008 Interim Meeting, the Committee brought forth two options for building the bank of 

questions for certification. The first option was to build one large bank of questions developed for use in training 

and during the certification exam. The second option would be to develop two banks of questions using one bank of 

questions for training and the second bank of protected questions used for certification.

Recommendations during the open hearing included having jurisdictions take the lead on developing the questions, 

administering the examination, and grading. The NCWM would issue certificates based on the jurisdictions’ 

reported results.
PDC 2009 Final Report

PDC - 8

Pursuant to the recommendations from the WWMA and the CWMA, the Committee is in the process of developing 

a model for the infrastructure of the program. The Committee believes that a model is necessary to determine what 

the program will look like and what the roles of the states and the NCWM should be.

The CWMA PDC Committee at their 2008 fall meeting proposed changing the name of the program to the National 

Certification Program. They further made recommendations regarding the creation of a standard like HB 130, 

Uniform Laws and Regulations in the Areas of Legal Metrology and Engine Fuel Quality or HB 44, Specifications, 

Tolerances and Other Technical Requirements for Weighing and Measuring Devices, that might be the mechanism 

to document the work on the curriculum and the certification program. (Also, see Item 402-2 for more on PDC 

publications.)

At the 2009 Interim Meeting, the PDC set a goal of being ready to start beta testing a component of a certification 

program for at least one competency area by November 2009, with the intention of having four areas completed by 

the end of 2010. The basic elements of the proposed program are:

• The PDC will develop curricula, which will be published in second section of the NCWM National 

Certification Guide (see also Item 402-2). Until that Guide is created, completed curriculum sections will 

be posted on the NCWM website (PDC files section under Members Only Section).

• The PDC will develop Certification Disciplines that outline which curriculum segments and objectives will 

be covered under each certificate, and how they will be weighted on the exam. Those Certification 

Disciplines will be published in the third section of the NCWM National Certification Guide (see also 

Item 402-2). Until that Guide is created, completed Certification Disciplines will be posted on the NCWM 

website.

The PDC will provide the NCWM BOD with a pool of test questions for each curriculum segment and objective. 

Pool size will be proportional to the assigned weight of each curriculum item.

• It will be the BOD’s responsibility to develop and administer a testing program. NCWM staff will compile 

the exam from the questions pools, issue certificates, and maintain records.

The first draft of a Certification Discipline for RMFDs is presented below. The Discipline outlines which curriculum 

segments and objectives must be mastered, what percentage of the test will be devoted to each item, and how many 

questions will be included from each area on a typical exam. The Committee is considering a fifty-question test 

format with a two-hour test time limit in the beta-test phase. Refer to the Curriculum Outline published on the 

NCWM website or the Curriculum Workplan in Appendix A for an overview of curriculum areas. The Committee is 

interested in feedback on the percentage weighting of the various curriculum areas.

Curriculum Discipline for RMFD Certificate

Curriculum Areas (RMFD Certificate) # Quest/50 Quest Exam Approx %

1.0 Fundamentals of Weights & Measures 7 14

4.2 NIST Handbook 44 – Introduction to Device Control 8 16

4.4 Dynamic Measuring Systems - General

4.4(1) Technology and Terminology 3 6

4.4(2) Device Operations & Functionality 3 6

4.4(3) Technical Requirements 3 6

4.4(4) User Requirements 3 6

4.4(5) Test Methods 3 6

4.4.1 Retail Motor Fuel Dispensers

4.4.1(1) Technology and Terminology 4 8

4.4.1(2) Device Operations & Functionality 4 8

4.4.1(3) Technical Requirements 4 8

4.4.1(4) User Requirements 4 8

4.4.1(5) Test Methods 4 8
PDC 2009 Final Report

PDC - 9

At the 2009 Interim Meetings, the AMC offered financial assistance to support development of the certification 

program. The AMC will consider effective ways to utilize such support in the coming months. The Committee 

recognizes that certification will initially be developed for regulatory inspectors, but they would like to quickly 

extend the program to the private sector as well.

At the 2009 Annual Meeting, the Committee identified three pieces critical to the Certification Program:

• Standards as defined by the curriculum

• Certification Discipline - weighting of the curriculum segments (see example on page PDC-9)

• Evaluation of competence - the test

The first two steps are completed for the retail motor fuel devices (RMFDs) test, and the Committee is busy 

developing the actual test. The Committee asked State Directors for test questions and would like to thank 

California, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, New York, and the Central Weights and Measures Association for their 

assistance in providing questions. The questions must now be evaluated, assigned to the relevant curriculum 

segments, and formatted according to the requirements of the online testing company.

The first test on RMFDs will be a beta test. The purpose of the beta test is to introduce online testing procedures, to 

troubleshoot any possible difficulties, and to help the Committee evaluate test questions in terms of weighting them 

for difficulty and curriculum coverage. The initial plan is to require a passing score of 85 % on a two hour, 

50-question test. In answer to the question from the floor on whether there would be a time-out function, the answer 

is “no.” The test-taker must commit two hours to taking the test in one session. However, the results will be 

informational, and no certificates will be issued based upon the results of the beta test.

There was a question from the floor on whether it would be better to concentrate on core competencies rather than 

developing difficulty levels. The Committee responded that the overall objective is to develop an exam that 

challenges the test taker with reasonable and fair questions so that a passing score is truly indicative of competence 

in the respective discipline. The goal is not to have overly difficult questions but to have questions that cover the 

breadth of issues included in the curricula.

The look and feel of the first test were demonstrated at the open hearing by presenting attendees with samples of test 

questions. Typical questions will be a multiple choice, fill-in-the-blank, and situational questions where the answer 

is either “Yes” (if the device is in compliance as described) or a citation of the section of the handbook being 

violated (if the device is not in compliance in the situation described.)

A question was asked about the fees for the test. There will be no fee for the beta test. The Board will make the 

decision regarding the cost of testing, and whether the fees will vary for members vs. non-members, service people 

vs. regulatory personnel when the certification program is operational.

The Committee is working with the test company to develop a report that can be provided to both the test taker and a 

designated other such as the state certification coordinator or state director. The report would detail the score for 

each segment of the test as well as the over-all test score. The report will not identify specific questions that were 

missed within any given segment, nor will correct answers be provided.

The integrity of the test questions is going to be protected by blocking screen prints and copy functions during the 

administration of the test. A recommendation was made to have at least three versions of the test available to allow

for retests. Randomizing the selection of test questions will ensure that no one takes the same test twice and 

eliminate the need for creating multiple versions of the same test.

Jurisdictions and service companies will be encouraged to participate in the beta test within the limits of 

participation set by the board. The Committee will make an announcement when the Committee is ready to accept 

volunteers for the beta test.
PDC 2009 Final Report

PDC - 10

Although no certificates will be issued based upon the test results, the Committee feels that participating 

jurisdictions will benefit by being able to evaluate the success of their training programs, and by having the 

opportunity to familiarize their staff with the experience of online testing. The Committee will benefit by using the 

evaluation programs of the testing service to evaluate the difficulty and appropriateness of each test question as well 

as the overall effectiveness of the test and the testing process.

Interest was expressed from the floor in having state-specific testing. The Committee feels that questions on State 

Program Scope and Overview will necessarily be state-specific. However, that is a refinement that needs to be 

addressed by the Committee and the Board at a later date.

A comment was received from the floor that if the PDC Committee still needs additional questions, a request could 

be put out on the various NIST and NCWM list serves.

Finally, the Committee appreciates the many positive comments received on the progress of the Certification 

Program.

401-5 D Recommended Topics for Conference Training

Source: Carryover Item 401-5 (This item originated from the Committee and first appeared on its agenda in 2003.)

Background: The Board has charged the Committee with responsibility for selecting appropriate topics for the 

technical sessions at future Annual Meetings. The Board asked that the Committee review and prioritize possible 

presentations and submit those to the Chairman. The Chairman would then work with NCWM staff to make the 

arrangements and schedule the sessions.

The Committee continues to carry the following list and recommends these topics for possible training seminars, 

roundtables, or symposia for presentation at the NCWM meetings:

(a) Risk-based Inspections (Robert Williams, Tennessee, volunteered to present his state’s Retail Motor-Fuel 

Device (RMFD) testing program);

(b) Marketplace Surveys;

(c) Auditing the Performance of Field Staff (Will Wotthlie, Maryland, volunteered to lead the session);

(d) Alternative Fuels (including motor-fuel trends and technology updates);

(e) Device Inspections Using a Sampling Model;

(f) Emerging Issues;

(g) Proper Lifting Techniques (recommended by Ken Deitzer, Pennsylvania);

(h) Overview of OIML and its Relationship to Standards Development (recommended by Julie Quinn, 

Minnesota);

(i) Back and Stress Techniques (recommended by Don Onwiler);

(j) Public Relations, specifically dealing with aggressive/angry people (recommended by the SWMA);

(k) Inspector Investigative Procedures (recommended by the SWMA);

(l) General Safety Issues (recommended by the WWMA);

(m) Defensive Driving (recommended by the WWMA);

(n) Administrative Civil Penalty Process (recommended by the WWMA);

(o) Price Verification (recommended by the WWMA);

(p) Customer Service (recommended by the WWMA);

(q) Ethics (recommended by the CWMA);

(r) Automatic Temperature Compensation (ATC) testing for field inspectors;

(s) Hydrogen Measuring Systems; and

(t) OSHA Safety.

For the 2008 NCWM Annual Meeting Technical Education Sessions, the Committee recommended Automatic 

Temperature Compensation (ATC) testing for field inspectors and OSHA Safety. The Board accepted these topics 

and presentations on both were made during the 2008 Annual Meeting. The Committee will be considering topics 

for the 2009 Annual Meeting and welcomes suggestions from everyone.
PDC 2009 Final Report

PDC - 11

For the 2009 NCWM Annual Meeting Technical Education Sessions, the Committee recommended seven possible 

topics for consideration of the NCWM Chairman:

1. Investigative Techniques (offered by Michael Cleary)

2. Handbook 44 Scale Code Tare Changes

3. Wet Tare/USDA Issues

4. Automatic Temperature Compensation (ATC)

5. Moisture Loss

6. Fuel Volatility Issues and Ethanol Blending

7. Ergonomic Lifting Techniques

The Committee believes that the training sessions at the NCWM could be taped and the video materials made 

available on the website to start building a library. The Committee plans to approach the AMC for funding for video 

equipment expressly for this purpose.

At the 2009 NCWM Annual Meeting, technical sessions were presented on Investigative Techniques, Fuel 

Volatility, and on Diesel Emission Fluid (DEF). The Committee solicited the body for suggestions for next year’s 

presentations.

Just prior to the 2009 Annual Meeting, the Committee sent a letter asking the Associate Membership Committee 

(AMC) for video equipment funding to record future technical presentations. The intention is to provide an online 

library.

Discussion: The AMC announced from the floor that they had approved the request for funding at their meeting.

402 PROGRAM MANAGEMENT

402-1 I Safety Awareness

Source: Carryover Item 402-1 (This item originated from the Committee and first appeared on its agenda in 2003.)

Background: In the past, the Committee’s responsibility extended to the identification of safety issues in the 

weights and measures field and included efforts to increase safety awareness.

At the 2005 Annual Meeting, Past-Chairman Dennis Ehrhart recommended the Committee make training its highest 

priority. The Voluntary Quality Assurance Assessment program, NCWM Associate Membership Scholarships, and 

safety awareness efforts were carryover items from the Committee on Administration and Public Affairs (A&P) and 

not PDC items.

Jurisdictions should send their safety reports and issues to their regional safety liaison, who in turn will forward 

them to Charles Gardner, the NCWM Safety Coordinator. Charles recommends the reports or report summaries be 

published in the NCWM newsletter. At the 2005 Interim Meeting, a CD-ROM on safety produced for the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency was available for review. The Committee believes safety awareness should be a 

part of every aspect of training for NCWM stakeholders. Below is a list of the regional safety liaisons.

SWMA Steve Hadder, Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services

WWMA Dennis Ehrhart, Arizona Department of Weights and Measures

CWMA Julie Quinn, Minnesota Department of Commerce

NEWMA Michael Sikula, New York Bureau of Weights & Measures

At the 2007 Interim Meeting, the Committee decided to reach out to the regional safety liaisons and ask that they 

write newsletter articles designed to raise safety awareness and provide safety tips to the weights and measures 

community. These archived articles are on the PDC page of the NCWM website. The NCWM newsletter is 

published three times a year and all articles should be e-mailed to the NCWM headquarters at info@ncwm.net.
PDC 2009 Final Report

PDC - 12

Association Issue Article Deadline

WWMA 2008, Issue 2 March 15, 2008

CWMA 2008, Issue 3 July 15, 2008

NEWMA 2009, Issue 1 November 15, 2008

SWMA 2009, Issue 2 March 15, 2009

Discussion: The Committee is sad to hear that Charles Gardner, our long-standing Safety Liaison has retired. The 

PDC would like to thank Mr. Gardner for his many years of service to this project, which he initiated. At the 

Interim Meetings, the Committee will consider how we move forward from here, either seeking a new liaison or 

changing how it will handle future safety issues.

The Committee will also continue to ask the regions to prepare articles for the NCWM newsletter and will be 

extending the schedule to cover the next year. At the 2009 NCWM Interim Meeting, the PDC noted that WWMA, 

and CWMA submitted safety articles per the schedule above. The PDC thanks Kirk Robinson (Washington State 

Department of Agriculture Weights and Measures Program) and the National Propane Gas Association for their 

contributions. The NCWM newsletter changed its publication schedule, and, consequently, there will not be a safety 

article in 2009, Issue 1. The Committee revised the schedule as follows for future issues. The Committee plans to 

notify the regional safety coordinators as their assignment date approaches.

Association Issue Publication Date Article Deadline

NEWMA 2009, Issue 2 June April 15, 2009

SWMA 2009, Issue 3 September July 15, 2009

WWMA 2010, Issue 1 February January 15, 2010

CWMA 2010, Issue 2 June April 15, 2010

All articles should be e-mailed to the NCWM headquarters at info@ncwm.net.

The Committee wants to make sure that regions remember to submit safety articles to the NCWM staff by the dates 

listed on page PDC-12 so that the articles can be included in the newsletter.

The Committee also urges people to continue to submit incident reports to their regional safety coordinators.

Discussion: The Committee received no comments on this item.

402-2 D PDC Publication

This item originally served to record the development of various documents prepared in pursuit of our training and 

certification programs. These are available on the members section of the NCWM website at www.ncwm.net. At 

the 2008 Annual Meeting, the Committee indicated its desire to eliminate this item from the agenda. However, in 

the report from the CWMA PDC Committee, the Committee received a proposal to create a standard like HB 130 or 

HB 44 to serve as the work product of the Committee. This standard could be reviewed, amended, and adopted by 

the NCWM to make it a living document. The Committee will consider this proposal in discussions at the 2009 

Interim Meetings.

Based on feedback at the 2009 NCWM Interim Meeting, the PDC decided to move forward on the new publication 

to be titled NCWM Publication XX National Certification Program Guide. This publication will serve to document 

the details of the Certification Program.
PDC 2009 Final Report

PDC - 13

The guide will remain under control of the PDC Committee but will not require formal NCWM vote to add new 

sections or revise existing sections. The Committee will add and modify sections continuously to meet its priority 

objectives with a concerted effort to respond to feedback from program users and the NCWM membership. The 

three main sections of the Guide would include:

1. Program Administration – combines historical documentation (curriculum outline and work plan, etc.) 

with administrative procedures on administering exams and records of certifications,

2. Competency Standards – includes the curriculum segments that describe the objectives and measurable 

competencies that will be used in certification, and

3. Certification Disciplines – includes one document per certification area delineating the standards from the 

curricula that will be covered in the exam and the weighting of the competencies.

All segments of the PDC publication will be posted online as they are developed. New pages within the NCWM 

website will be created for the curriculum disciplines and segments so that interested parties can easily find and 

utilize this material.

Guidelines for operation of the Certification Program still need to be developed and will be posted online when they 

are completed.

DISCUSSION: No comments were received on this item.

Ross Andersen, Chair, New York

John Sullivan, Mississippi

Richard Cote, New Hampshire

Stacy Carlsen, Marin County, California

Julie Quinn, Minnesota

Steve Grabski, Walmart

Tina Butcher, NIST, Weights and Measures Division

Professional Development Committee
PDC 2009 Final Report

PDC - 14

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
PDC 2009 Final Report

Appendix A – NCWM Curriculum Work Plan 

PDC - A1

Appendix A

National Conference on Weights & Measures

National Certification Program

NCWM CURRICULUM WORK PLAN

Revised January 2009

Segment/Subject

Level 1/Level 2/Level 3

1. Fundamentals of Weights and Measures

1.1. Introduction to W&M Programs

1.2. W&M Laws and Regulations

1.3. Field Standards & Test Equipment

1.4. State Program Scope and Overview

1.5. Enforcement Powers

2. W&M Administration

2.1. Fundamentals of W&M Administration (Commercial System, Powers & Duties, etc.)

2.2. Administration Functions (Personnel, Management, Budget, Safety, etc.)

2.3. Legislation and Regulations (Legal Considerations, Interaction with Legislature, Stakeholders, 

Industry, etc.)

2.4. Regulatory Control (Device inspection, commodities, complaints)

2.5. Laboratory Metrology Administration (Purpose of Laboratory, Responsibilities of Metrologist, NIST 

Expectations for Recognition of Laboratory, Quality System, Training Requirements, etc.)

2.6. Public Relations & Communications (Publicity, Public Relations, Communications)

3. Laboratory Metrology

3.1. NIST Basic Metrology

3.2. NIST Intermediate Metrology

3.3. NIST Advanced Metrology

4. Device Control Program

4.1. Safety Considerations

4.2. NIST Handbook 44 – Introduction to Device Control

4.3. Weighing Systems, General

4.3.1. Precision Weighing Systems Class I and II

4.3.2. Small Capacity Weighing Systems Class III

4.3.3. Medium Capacity Weighing Systems Class III

4.3.4. Vehicle Scale Class III or III L

4.3.5. Vehicle Scale Class III or III L – Advanced

4.3.6. Railroad Track Scales

4.3.7. In-Motion Railroad Track Scales

4.3.8. Hopper Scale Systems

4.3.9. Automatic Bulk Weighing Systems

4.3.10. Automatic Weighing Systems
PDC 2009 Final Report

Appendix A – NCWM Curriculum Work Plan

PDC - A2

4.3.11. Belt Conveyor Weighing Systems

4.3.12. In-Motion Monorail Scales

4.3.13. Point-of-Sale Scale Systems

4.3.14. Other Specialty Weighing Systems

4.4. Dynamic Measuring Systems – General

4.4.1. Retail Motor Fuel Dispensers

4.4.2. Loading Rack and Other Stationary Metering Systems

4.4.3. Loading Rack & Other Stationary Metering Systems – Advanced

4.4.4. Vehicle-Tank Meter Systems

4.4.5. Vehicle-Tank Meter Systems – Advanced

4.4.6. Milk Metering Systems

4.4.7. Water Meters

4.4.8. LPG/Anhydrous Ammonia Liquid Metering Systems

4.4.9. LPG/Anhydrous Ammonia Liquid-Metering Systems – Advanced

4.4.10. LPG Vapor Meter Systems

4.4.11. Mass Flow Metering Systems

4.4.12. Other Metering Systems (Cryogenics, Carbon Dioxide, etc.)

4.5. Static Volume Measuring Systems – General

4.5.1. Liquid Measures

4.5.2. Farm Milk Tanks

4.5.3. Dry Measures

4.6. Other Measuring Systems

4.6.1. Taximeters and Odometers

4.6.2. Wire and Cordage Measuring Systems

4.6.3. Linear Measures

4.6.4. Timing Devices

4.6.5. Weights

4.6.6. Multiple Dimension Measuring Systems

4.7. Quality Measuring Systems

4.7.1. Grain Moisture Meters

4.7.2. NIR Grain Analyzers

4.7.3. Carcass Evaluation Systems

5. Market Practices, Laws and Regulations (NIST HB 130), & Commodities (NIST HB 133)

5.1. Safety Considerations – Market Practices, NIST Handbook 130, NIST Handbook 133

5.2. NIST Handbook 130 – Laws & Regulations

5.2.1. NIST Handbook 130 – General Provisions

5.2.2. Packaging and Labeling Regulations

5.2.3. Method of Sale Regulations

5.2.4. Quality of Automotive Fuels and Lubricants

5.2.5. Price Verification

5.3. NIST Handbook 133 – Package Net Contents Control

5.3.1. Commodities – General

5.3.2. Packages Labeled by Weight, Standard and Random

5.3.3. Packages Labeled by Weight, Special Commodities

5.3.4. Packages Labeled by Volume (Volumetric and Gravimetric Testing)

5.3.5. Packages Labeled by Volume, Special

5.3.6. Packages Labeled by Length/Area/Thickness

5.3.7. Packages Labeled by Count

5.3.8. Other Package Types

5.4. Test Purchases

5.5. E-Commerce

Note: Initial Verification has been intentionally been left off this listing and will be addressed later.
PDC 2009 Final Report

Appendix B – Draft Certification Statute 

PDC - B1

Appendix B

Model Professional Development Training and Certification

Standards Statute for Inspectors and Sealers of Weights and Measures

Submitted by NEWMA, October 2007

DRAFT

1. Definition of Terms: Unless defined otherwise by statute, the definitions contained herein shall apply to this 

statute.

1.1 Commission: The permanent advisory Commission appointed pursuant to this statute to develop, plan, 

and certify training standards, certification, and continuing education.

1.2 Director [Commissioner or other senior state official]: Charged by statute to administer, guide, or direct 

weights and measures activities within the state at state, county, or municipal level.

1.3 Sealers and Inspectors of Weights and Measures: Those public officials appointed pursuant to existing 

law to inspect, approve, or condemn weighing and measuring devices or perform other activities as directed 

by statute or regulation. This definition shall also apply to deputy, assistant, or associate sealers and 

inspectors of weights and measures.

1.4 Industry Specialists: Those individuals approved and/or licensed by the State Director to inspect, 

approve, or condemn specific classes or types of weighing and measuring devices.

2. Certification and Standards Commission

2.1 Appointment: There shall be a permanent standing advisory Commission comprised of the Director of the 

state weights and measures department or his designee, and a designee from each of the following 

organizations: the State Weights and Measures Association, the various Regional Weights and Measures 

Associations, and one individual representing industry specialists. Members of said Commission shall 

serve without compensation. Said Commission shall be chaired by the Director or Deputy Director of 

weights and measures.

2.2 Rule Making Authority: The Commission shall promulgate rules and regulations necessary to implement 

and maintain this statute consistent with existing rule-making state legislation.

2.3 Duties: The Commission shall develop, and from time to time, revise the certification and continuing 

education requirements that are established by the Department of Weights and Measures with the advice 

and consent of the Commission. The Commission shall certify all inspectors, sealers and deputies and 

industry specialists in accordance with sections [insert specific statue citation covering the appointment of 

these officials] and regulations promulgated by the Commission including, but not limited to, regulations 

covering initial written certification testing for inspectors, sealers and deputies and industry specialists as 

well as mandatory continuing education programs for inspectors, sealers and deputies, and industry 

specialists to maintain their certifications. Every store, retail establishment, food store or food department 

and all merchants within the jurisdiction of the state department of weights and measures shall provide 

adequate space for the display of information relative to how the state inspector, local sealer or inspector or 

the department of weights and measures can be contacted as provided in regulations to be promulgated by 

the Commission. Notwithstanding any certification exemption, all sealers, inspectors, deputy sealers, 

deputy inspectors, and industry specialists shall participate in continuing education programs. The 

Commission shall establish a training and education fee to be paid by the state, county, municipality, or 

industry specialist’s organization, which employs such sealer, inspector, deputy sealer and deputy 

inspector, or industry specialist sufficient to offset the cost of providing such training and education.
PDC 2009 Final Report

Appendix B – Draft Certification Statute

PDC - B2

2.4 Fees: There shall be a revolving account established into which shall be deposited any training and 

education fees paid by the state, county, municipality, or industry specialist. These fees shall be used to 

offset any cost associated with providing such training and education mandated by the Commission.

3. Appointment of Sealers, Inspectors, Deputy Sealers

3.1 Appointment: The sealer, inspector, and all deputies shall be certified by the Commission within one year 

after assuming their powers and duties. Failure to become certified within one year shall be cause for 

termination; provided, however, sealers, inspectors or deputy sealers or deputy inspectors, employed by the 

state, county, or a municipality upon the effective date of this paragraph, shall become certified within two 

years. Sealers, inspectors or deputy sealers or deputy inspectors who pass a civil service exam for a 

position as a sealer, inspector or deputy sealer or deputy inspector of weights and measures, shall be 

exempt from initial certification requirements provided that said civil service exam contains questions 

and/or practices consistent with initial certification requirements.

3.2 Continuing Education: Notwithstanding any certification exemption, all sealers, inspectors and deputy 

sealers and deputy inspectors shall participate in continuing education programs. The Commission shall 

establish a training and education fee to be paid by the county or municipality which employs such sealer, 

inspector, deputy sealer and deputy inspector sufficient to offset the cost of providing such training and 

education.

4. Appointment of Industry Specialists

4.1 Appointment: All industry specialists shall be certified by the Commission prior to assuming their powers 

and duties as licensed industry specialists; provided, however, industry specialists performing such duties 

shall become certified within one year from the effective date of this statute. Failure to become certified 

prior to assuming their powers and duties as industry specialists shall render any inspections conducted null 

and void and such individuals shall be barred from further inspections for a period of not less than one year.

4.2 Continuing Education: Notwithstanding the appointment of industry specialists, they shall participate in 

continuing education programs approved by the Commission. The Commission shall establish a training 

and education fee to be paid by the business or organization employing industry specialists sufficient to 

offset the cost of providing such training and education.

5. Conflict with other Laws: Whenever the application of any provision of any other law of this state conflict 

with the application of any provision of sections one through four, inclusive, said sections shall prevail.

6. Partial Invalidity: If any provision of said sections one to four, inclusive, or the application of said sections 

shall be held invalid, the remainder of said sections, or the application of such provision to any person or 

circumstance other than that as to which it is invalid, shall not be affected thereby.
NTEP Committee 2009 Final Report

NTEP - 1

Report of the

National Type Evaluation Program (NTEP) Committee

Judy Cardin, Chairman

Chief

Wisconsin, Weights and Measures

Reference

Key Number

500 INTRODUCTION

The National Type Evaluation Program (NTEP) Committee (hereinafter referred to as “Committee”) submits its 

report for consideration by the 94th National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM). This consists of the 

Interim Report presented in NCWM Publication 16 as amended in the Addendum Sheets issued during the Annual 

Meeting that was held July 12 - 16, 2009, in San Antonio, Texas. The Committee considered communications 

received prior to and during the 94th Annual Meeting that are noted in this report.

Table A identifies the agenda items in the report by Reference Key Number, Item Title, and Page Number. The item 

numbers are those assigned in the Committee’s Interim Meeting Agenda. A voting item is indicated with a “V”

after the item number or, if the item was part of the consent calendar, by the suffix “VC.” An item marked with an 

“I” after the reference key number is an information item. An item marked with a “W” was withdrawn by the 

Committee and generally will be referred to the regional weights and measures associations because it either needs 

additional development, analysis, and input or does not have sufficient Committee support to bring it before the 

NCWM. Table B lists the appendices to the report, and Table C provides a summary of the results of the voting on 

the Committee’s items and the report in entirety.

This report contains many recommendations to revise or amend National Conference on Weights and Measures 

(NCWM) Publication 14, Administrative Procedures, Technical Policy, Checklists, and Test Procedures or other 

documents. Proposed revisions to the publication(s) are shown in bold face print by striking out information to be 

deleted and underlining information to be added. Requirements that are proposed to be nonretroactive are printed 

in italics.

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

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

submitted and may, therefore, contain references to inch-pound units.

Table A

Index to Reference Key Items

Reference

Key Number Title of Item Page

500 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................1

1. I Mutual Recognition Arrangement (MRA)......................................................................................................3

2. I Mutual Acceptance Arrangement (MAA) ......................................................................................................3

3. I NTEP Participating Laboratories and Evaluations Reports............................................................................4

4. I NTETC Sector Reports...................................................................................................................................5

5. I NTEP Participation in U.S. National Work Group (USNWG) on Harmonization of NIST Handbook 44, 

NCWM Publication 14 and OIML R 76 and R 60......................................................................................6

6. I Conformity Assessment Program ...................................................................................................................6

7. I NCWM Publication 14, NTEP Administrative Policy, Section S.1.c. (VCAP) .............................................8

8. V NTEP Policy for Issuing Certificates of Conformance (CC) for Software ...................................................14
NTEP Committee 2009 Final Report

NTEP - 2

Table B

Appendices

Appendix Title Page

A NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector Meeting Summary.............................................................................................A1

B NTETC Measuring Sector Meeting Summary ................................................................................................... B1

C NTETC Weighing Sector Meeting Summary..................................................................................................... C1

D NTETC Software Sector Meeting Summary......................................................................................................D1

E Verified Conformity Assessment Program (VCAP) FAQs................................................................................. E1

Table C

Voting Results

Table D

Glossary of Acronyms*

BIML Bureau of International Legal Metrology IR International Recommendation

CD Committee Draft1 MAA Mutual Acceptance Arrangement

CIML International Committee of Legal 

Metrology

OIML International Organization of Legal 

Metrology

CPR Committee on Participation Review R Recommendation

DD Draft Document2 SC Subcommittee

DR Draft Recommendation2 TC Technical Committee

DV Draft Vocabulary2 UT Utilizing Participant

DoMC Declarations of Mutual Confidence WD Working Document3

IP Issuing Participant

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

drafts are numbered 1 CD, 2 CD, etc.

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

sent to BIML for approval by CIML.

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

* Explanation of acronyms provided by OIML.

Reference 

Key 

Number

House of State 

Representatives House of Delegates Results

Yeas Nays Yeas Nays

Item 8 34 0 19 0 Passed
NTEP Committee 2009 Final Report

NTEP - 3

Details of All Items

(In Order by Reference Key Number)

1. I Mutual Recognition Arrangement (MRA)

Background: Both Measurement Canada and the NTEP labs continue striving to improve the data exchange under 

the Mutual Recognition Arrangement (MRA). During the 2008 NTEP labs meeting, an entire day was spent 

exchanging information regarding the current MRA for weighing devices. Several areas of improvement were 

identified including an initial review of new applications to establish an agreed-upon test plan for the evaluation. In 

addition, a training session was conducted to improve the consistency of data collected by the labs. Consistency in 

data collection will help to improve the ability of the various labs to exchange data. Measurement Canada has also 

supplied the U.S. NTEP labs with an updated version of an Excel spreadsheet program to standardize the test report 

forms for devices that fall under the MRA. This updated version of the spreadsheet checklist has been well received 

by the labs and is now in use for evaluations conducted by the labs.

Current Comment: NTEP will continue to review progress and work on improvements during the NTEP lab 

meetings. The Committee was asked to consider expanding the MRA to higher capacity scales. The NTEP 

weighing labs agreed that expanding the MRA should be considered and Measurement Canada expressed 

willingness to consider a proposal from NCWM. The NTEP Administrator will ask for additional input during the 

2009 meetings of the NTETC Weighing and Measuring Sectors.

2. I Mutual Acceptance Arrangement (MAA)

Background: Information regarding the OIML MAA can be found at www.oiml.org/maa. NCWM has signed the 

OIML MAA Declaration of Mutual Confidence (DoMC) for R 60 Load Cells as a utilizing participant.

The 2008 Annual Meeting of the CIML was held in October in Sydney, Australia. Four resolutions pertaining to the 

OIML MAA were adopted there. These resolutions were the outcome of a May 2008 meeting of the OIML 

TC 3/SC 5 on conformity assessment, which oversees the following OIML B documents that are classified as Basic 

Publications:

• OIML B 3 OIML Certificate System for Measuring Instruments, identified as project p7,

• OIML B 10-1 Framework for a Mutual Acceptance Arrangement on OIML Type Evaluations, identified as 

project p8, and

• OIML B 10-2 Checklists for Issuing Authorities and Testing Laboratories carrying out OIML Type 

Evaluations, identified as project p9.

The key resolution of most significance to the NCWM is that the ending date for OIML issuing authorities 

(including NTEP) to be able to issue what are now being referred to as OIML “Basic” Certificates (as distinguished 

from OIML “MAA” Certificates) for R 60 and R 76 has been extended indefinitely, which means that, in principle, 

NTEP can continue to issue such Basic Certificates (although it has not done so for many years). The reason for this 

extension is to provide time for those countries that utilize manufacturers’ test data (under not-completelysupervised conditions) when issuing OIML Basic Certificates to convince other countries that this practice can be 

carried out successfully if proper safeguards are put in place. In the meantime, it was agreed that manufacturers’ test 

data cannot be used as the basis of issuing an OIML MAA Certificate. The objective of this delay is to eventually 

allow manufacturers’ test data to be used as part of the MAA system in a natural progression, rather than artificially 

and possibly prematurely ending the Basic Certificate System for any category of instrument. The CIML will 

monitor this situation.

The other resolutions dealt with the time when OIML Recommendations can become part of the OIML Certificate 

System, maintenance of earlier versions of revised recommendations, and revisions of OIML Basic Certificates.
NTEP Committee 2009 Final Report

NTEP - 4

Details of all four resolutions can be found in the Resolutions of the 43rd CIML Meeting on the OIML website. It is 

the intention of TC 3/SC 5 to begin revision of the B 3 and B 10 documents to incorporate these resolutions along 

with earlier, related CIML decisions.

A meeting of the MAA Committee on Participation Review (CPR) was held on June 17 – 19, 2009, in Berne, 

Switzerland. Major topics included whether to allow data from manufacturers’ test laboratories (obtained under 

“unsupervised” conditions) as part of the MAA process, and whether to accept laboratories in three countries into 

the MAA program for OIML R 76 (nonautomatic weighing instruments) and OIML R 60 (load cells). While the 

manufacturers’ test data issue was not resolved at the CPR meeting, a way of possibly moving forward was 

developed, which is to poll CPR members to better understand the minimum requirements they would have for

assessing the impartiality of manufacturers’ test labs (MTLs), as well as the minimum requirements that an MTL 

must meet so that those MTLs that were excluded would not have a basis for complaint. CPR members will also be 

polled on their view of a possible compromise, where a minimum requirement on “frequency of supervision” of an 

MTL could be established. The three countries that had applied for admission into the MAA were approved, which 

is anticipated to soon lead to a large increase in the number of OIML MAA Certificates that are issued. NCWM 

was represented at the CPR meeting by Jim Truex. John Barton and Charles Ehrlich of NIST also attended as 

Secretariats of OIML TC 9 and TC 3/SC 5 respectively.

3. I NTEP Participating Laboratories and Evaluations Reports

Background: At the 2008 NCWM Annual Meeting, Stephen Patoray, NTEP Director, updated the Committee on 

NTEP laboratory and administrative activities since October 1, 2007.

The NTEP weighing and measuring laboratories held a joint meeting in April 2008 in Ottawa, Canada. The NTEP 

weighing laboratories also met in September 2008 before the meeting of the Weighing Sector in St. Louis, Missouri. 

The NTEP measuring laboratories met again in October 2008 prior to the Measuring Sector meeting in Atlanta, 

Georgia.

Current Comment: The NTEP Committee discussed contingency planning for continuity of NTEP operations. 

With the state of today’s economy, what if NTEP lost a lab? How will NTEP maintain workflow? Are there 

additional states interested in applying to become an NTEP field lab or an NTEP brick-and-mortar lab? The NTEP 

Committee will further discuss the issues during a long-range planning session and welcomes comments from the 

membership.

The NCWM Board discussed a strategic plan for NTEP as part of the NCWM Strategic Plan. The Board is working 

on a strategy to ensure NTEP services are available at an adequate level. The Board is seeking input from State 

Directors with NTEP labs, NTEP labs and manufacturers that utilize NTEP.

NTEP Administrator, Jim Truex, reported that incoming applications remain strong and all labs are busy. He 

reported there is no backlog concern for measuring devices but the brick and mortar weighing labs still report about 

a three-month backlog.

2009 NTEP Meetings Remaining:

• NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector August 19 - 20, 2009 Kansas City, Missouri

• NTETC Weighing Sector August 25 - 27, 2009 Columbus, Ohio

• NTETC Measuring Sector October 2 - 3, 2009 Clearwater Beach, Florida
NTEP Committee 2009 Final Report

NTEP - 5

4. I NTETC Sector Reports

Background:

Grain Moisture Meter and NIR Protein Analyzer Sectors: The NTETC Grain Moisture Meter and NIR Protein 

Analyzer Sectors held a joint meeting in Kansas City, Missouri, August 20 - 21, 2008. A draft of the final summary 

was provided to the Committee prior to the 2009 NCWM Interim Meeting for review and approval.

The next meeting of the Grain Moisture Meter and NIR Protein Analyzer Sectors was scheduled for 

August 19 - 20, 2009, in Kansas City, Missouri. For questions on the current status of sector work or to propose 

items for a future meeting, please contact the sector technical advisors:

Diane Lee Jack Barber

NIST WMD J.B. Associates

100 Bureau Drive, Stop 2600 10349 Old Indian Trail

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2600 Glenarm, IL 62536

Phone: (301) 975-4405 Phone: (217) 483-4232

Fax: (301) 975-8091

e-mail: diane.lee@nist.gov e-mail: barber.jw@comcast.net

Measuring Sector: The NTETC Measuring Sector met October 3 - 4, 2008, in Atlanta, Georgia. A draft of the final 

summary was provided to the NTEP Committee prior to the 2009 NCWM Interim Meeting for review and approval.

The next meeting of the Measuring Sector is scheduled for October 2 - 3, 2009, in conjunction with the Southern 

Weights and Measures Association’s Annual Meeting. For questions on the current status of sector work or to 

propose items for a future meeting, please contact the sector technical advisor:

Software Sector: The NTETC Software Sector met May 20 - 21, 2008, in Columbus, Ohio. A final draft of the 

meeting summary was provided to the Committee prior to the 2009 NCWM Interim Meeting for review and 

approval.

The 2009 Software Sector meeting was held March 11 - 12, 2009, in Reynoldsburg, Ohio. For questions on the 

current status of sector work or to propose items for a future meeting, please contact the sector chairs and NTEP 

Administrator:

Jim Pettinato Norm Ingram Jim Truex

Sector Chair Sector Chair NTEP Administrator

FMC Technologies CA Div. of Measurement Standards NCWM

1602 Wagner Avenue 6790 Florin Perkins Road, Suite 100 1135 M Street, Suite 110

Erie, PA 16510 Sacramento, CA 95828 Lincoln, NE 68508

Phone: (814) 898-5250 Phone: (916) 229-3016 Phone: (740) 919-4350

Fax: (814) 899-3414 Fax: (916) 229-3026 Fax: (740) 919-4348

e-mail: jim.pettinato@fmcti.com e-mail: ningram@cdfa.ca.gov e-mail: jim.truex@ncwm.net

Weighing Sector: The NTETC Weighing Sector met September 23 - 25, 2008, in St. Louis, Missouri. A final draft 

of the meeting summary was provided to the Committee prior to the 2009 NCWM Interim Meeting for review and 

approval.

Tina Butcher Phone: (301) 975-2196

NIST WMD Fax: (301) 975-8091

100 Bureau Drive, Stop 2600 e-mail: tbutcher@nist.gov

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2600
NTEP Committee 2009 Final Report

NTEP - 6

The next Weighing Sector meeting was scheduled for August 25 - 27, 2009, in Columbus, Ohio. For questions on 

the current status of sector work or to propose items for a future meeting, please contact the sector technical advisor:

Steven Cook Phone: (301) 975-4003

NIST WMD Fax: (301) 975-8091

100 Bureau Drive, Stop 2600 e-mail: steven.cook@nist.gov

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2600

Current Comment: During the Interim Meeting, the NTEP Committee approved the 2008 reports of the NTETC 

Sectors. The NTEP Committee is working to correct the sector report process to ensure the reports are posted for 

members on the NCWM website prior to the Interim Meeting.

5. I NTEP Participation in U.S. National Work Group (USNWG) on Harmonization of 

NIST Handbook 44, NCWM Publication 14 and OIML R 76 and R 60

Background: At its October 2006 meeting in Cape Town, South Africa, the 41st CIML approved DR 7: R 76-1 

Non-automatic weighing instruments, Part 1: Metrological and technical requirements – Tests. The DoMC for R 76 

was updated at the end of September 2008. Steve Cook, NIST WMD, will provide the current status of activities in 

these areas to the Committee during the 2009 NCWM Interim Meeting.

Current Comment: Steven Cook reported that the revision of R 76 “Non-automatic Weighing Instruments” is of 

major importance to U.S. interests because the Recommendation serves as the foundation for a majority of the laws 

and regulations governing weighing instruments around the world. The revision includes new language addressing 

metrological controls for type evaluations, conformity, initial and subsequent inspections, suitability of separable 

components and requirements for metrological software. The USNWG was consulted concerning proposals to 

harmonize Handbook 44 and R 76. As reported at the 2007 NCWM Interim Meeting, the DR of R 76-1 was 

approved by the CIML in October 2006. Most recently, the United States voted “yes” on the DR of R 76-2 “Test 

Report Format.” The Secretariat (United States) to OIML R 60 – “Metrological regulation for load cells” plans to 

send an inquiry to OIML Participating members about starting a revision of R 60. The questionnaire will ask for 

feedback on a broad scope of topics from the basic principles of R 60 (e.g., tolerances and accuracy classes) to 

exploring the addition of new requirements. For more information on these efforts, please contact Steve Cook at 

(301) 975-4003 or steven.cook@nist.gov.

There was no new information for this item during the Interim or Annual Meetings. The NTEP Committee plans to 

move this item to be included with the report of other OIML activities.

6. I Conformity Assessment Program

Background: The Conformity Assessment Program was established to ensure devices produced after the device 

has been type evaluated and certified by NTEP continue to meet the same requirements. This program has three 

major elements: (1) Certificate Review (administrative); (2) Initial Verification (inspection and performance 

testing); and (3) Verified Conformity Assessment (influence factors). This item is included on the Committee’s 

agenda to provide an update on these elements.

Certificate Review: The question addresses how this would be accomplished given the limited resources of 

NCWM. It was suggested this item may need to continue on a “back burner” until resources can be clearly 

identified to proceed with the project in an efficient, thorough, and accurate manner.

During the 92nd NCWM, it was reported that this item continues on the “back burner” until funding can be identified 

for this project. The NTEP Committee considered the fact that continuing improvement is occurring on Certificates 

of Conformance and the improvements are making it easier for inspectors to verify. Therefore, for the time being, 

the NTEP Committee plans to discontinue reporting on this portion of Conformity Assessment in future NTEP 

reports.
NTEP Committee 2009 Final Report

NTEP - 7

Initial Verification (IV): Work group (WG) chair, Lou Straub, reported that Initial Verification checklists have 

been developed for small scales, vehicle scales, and retail motor fuel dispensers. Data has been received from 

several states on small-capacity price computing scales, and the pilot of Initial Verification for small-capacity scales 

has been completed. All data has been forwarded to NCWM staff for safekeeping.

The WG asked for direction from the NTEP Committee on how to proceed to the next step. Mr. Straub clarified that 

not all states or jurisdictions need to participate in submitting information to NCWM on Initial Verification. A 

subset of states would be sufficient. The NTEP Committee instructed the WG to proceed with development of 

additional checklists but there was a sense that the WG was reluctant until they know how states will react and use 

the developed checklists. The NTEP Committee also noted the need to decide how to process the data generated 

from Initial Verification. The Committee acknowledges that VCAP is the priority and thinks IV is a very important 

element of conformity assessment but may need to rest until the states are ready to act.

Verified Conformity Assessment Program (VCAP): The National Conference on Weights and Measures 

(NCWM) and National Type Evaluation Program (NTEP) have been concerned about production meeting type, 

protecting the integrity of the NTEP Certificate of Conformance (CC) since the inception of NTEP. A WG was 

developed to assist the NCWM with this effort, which has provided feedback and recommendations to the 

conference. The NCWM Board of Directors thinks it has reached a point that the Verified Conformity Assessment 

Program can be launched. Load cells traceable to NTEP certificates have been selected for the initial effort. All 

holders of NTEP Certificates of Conformance for load cells have been notified. The following timeline for load cell 

certificate holders has been established and published.

NTEP VCAP Timeline – Load Cells

Jul 2008 - Dec 2008 Jan 2009 - Dec 2009 Jan 2010 - Mar 2010 Apr 2010 - Nov 2010 Nov 2010

Refine VCAP 

procedures

LC manufacturers to 

put VCAP QM 

system in place

NTEP to evaluate 

incoming Certification 

Body audit reports

NTEP to contact 

manufacturers not 

meeting VCAP and 

encourage compliance 

before annual 

maintenance fee is due 

in Nov.

CCs declared 

inactive if CC 

holder fails to 

meet VCAP

Answer incoming 

questions

Conduct audit by 

Certified Body

Continue to evaluate 

incoming audit reports

Refine/develop 

appeals process

Submit audit report to 

NCWM/NTEP

Notify all CC holders 

of updated plan, 

Q&A, etc.

Current Comment: The NTEP Committee has been asked to announce which device(s) will be next after load 

cells. The NTEP Committee wants some additional time to see what issues and concerns come to light with the load 

cell effort before making a decision.

See Appendix E – VCAP Frequently Asked Questions. This document is considered a living document subject to 

frequent updates as questions continue to be asked.

Jim Truex updated the NTEP Committee and the NCWM Board regarding progress of Conformity Assessment 

issues. The VCAP/Load Cell Project is progressing. The NTEP Administrator attended the fall SMA meeting to 

explain the details of the project. At this point in time, it appears the primary issue facing manufacturers is 

identifying certified registrars and auditors. The NTEP Administrator is expecting a large volume of contacts 

(e-mail, phone, fax) in 2009 pertaining to VCAP load cell requirements and certified bodies (registrars). It is 

anticipated many questions may come from the certified bodies and their auditors.

The NTEP Committee has decided to use the current process in Publication 14, Administrative Policy, Section T, 

“Appeal and Review Process” for all VCAP appeals. To make it clear, the NTEP Committee plans to add a bullet to 
NTEP Committee 2009 Final Report

NTEP - 8

Section T to read: “A certificate holder may appeal a certificate made inactive due to non-compliance with VCAP. 

However, the decision of the Certification Body or VCAP auditor cannot be appealed to the NCWM.”

During the Annual Meeting a decision was made to keep the timeline above for load cell manufacturers with NTEP 

certificates but to delay the timeline by six months for “private label” load cell certificate holders. The following 

timeline was developed.

NTEP VCAP Timeline – Load Cell Private Label Certificate Holders

Jul 2008 - Dec 2008 Jan 2009 - Jun 2010 Jun 2010 - Sept 2010 Jun 2010 - Nov 2010 Nov 2010

Refine VCAP 

procedures

CC holders to put 

VCAP QM system in 

place

NTEP to evaluate 

incoming Certification 

Body audit reports

NTEP to contact 

manufacturers not 

meeting VCAP and 

encourage 

compliance before 

annual maintenance 

fee is due in Nov.

CCs declared 

inactive if CC 

holder fails to 

meet VCAP

Answer incoming 

questions

Ensure audit by 

Certified Body

Continue to evaluate 

incoming audit 

reports

Refine/develop 

appeals process

Submit audit report to 

NCWM/NTEP

Notify all CC holders 

of updated plan, 

Q&A, etc.

7. I NCWM Publication 14, NTEP Administrative Policy, Section S.1.c. (VCAP)

Source: Load Cell VCAP WG

Background: During discussions the VCAP WG identified sections of the VCAP section of NCWM Publication 14 

that needed to be addressed. Based upon decisions of the WG, recommendations were forwarded to the NTEP 

Committee. Based on feedback at the Interim Meeting open hearings, the NTEP Committee is striking the language 

published in Publication 15 and inserting the language submitted by the load cell WG. The intent of the Committee 

is not to change the proposal from the WG, but rather to make it clear and understandable, as it appears the format 

used in Publication 15 confused many members. The proposal below will be voted on by the Board after open 

hearings conclude at the July 2009 NCWM Annual Meeting.

Proposal to change NCWM Publication 14, NTEP Administrative Policy, Section S.1.c. as follows:

NTEP Verified Conformity Assessment Program Procedures:

Introduction

Many NTEP Certified devices must meet NIST Handbook 44 requirements for influence factors. It is not possible 

to verify these requirements during the Initial Verification in the field. Therefore, manufacturers of metrological 

devices (instruments) and/or components (modules) which are subject to influence factors, as defined in NIST 

Handbook 44, must have a Verified Conformity Assessment Program (VCAP) in place to ensure that these 

metrological devices and/or components are produced to perform at a level consistent with that of the device and/or 

component previously certified.

The Verified Conformity Assessment Program audit will be a site specific verification that will focus on the site 

that controls testing of the device at one or more sites as required to verify compliance.
NTEP Committee 2009 Final Report

NTEP - 9

For weighing devices that are subject to influence factors, NTEP will require an initial on-site audit of the 

manufacturer’s quality system and on-site random testing and/or review of a production device(s) (instrument(s)) by 

the Registrar to verify that all items listed below are currently implemented and functioning to verify compliance to 

the appropriate sections of NIST Handbook 44.

Devices that must meet this requirement are limited to the list below:

1. Load Cell (T.N.8.)

2. Indicating elements (T.N.8.)

3. Weighing/Load Receiving elements with non-NTEP load cells (T.N.8.)

4. Complete Scales (T.N.8.)

5. Automatic Weighing Systems (T.7.)

6. Belt-Conveyor Scales (T.3)

7. Automatic Bulk Weighing Systems (T.7.)

Requirements:

1. The NTEP CC Holder’s Control Facility Responsibilities:

1.1 A documented Quality Management System governing the design and manufacture of the device.

1.1.1. The NTEP CC holder shall prepare documentation of its various quality activities and practices 

required by this document and by the NCWM’s Verified Conformity Assessment Program 

policy and procedures; and shall demonstrate the effective implementation of those activities 

and practices. This should include (and/or reference) the manufacturer’s quality manual, written 

procedures and work instructions, flowcharts, diagrams, drawings, etc., as appropriate.

1.1.2. The NTEP CC holder shall have appropriate testing facilities and equipment necessary to verify 

Influence Factor compliance. Note: See also 1.14.

1.1.3. The NTEP CC holder shall utilize testing facilities and equipment to ensure that certified 

devices meet the influence factors appropriate for the device type as designated in NIST 

Handbook 44.

1.1.4. The NTEP CC holder shall ensure that test equipment used either to: 1) directly perform 

influence factor testing or 2) calibrate other equipment that may be used to directly perform 

influence factor testing; is controlled.

1.1.4.1. Such control shall include calibration using nationally traceable standards, and shall 

extend to equipment calibrated internally, and/or to equipment calibrated by an 

external service provider.

1.1.5. The NTEP CC holder shall ensure that all applicable equipment shall have appropriate operating 

procedures and shall be accurate and repeatable to a degree sufficient to ensure credible 

influence factor testing and results.

1.1.6. The NTEP CC holder shall ensure that results of calibration activity shall be recorded and shall 

be made available to the VCAP auditor.

1.2. Identify the applicable Metrologically Significant Components (MSCs) of the device.

1.2.1. The NTEP CC holder shall ensure that there are processes in place for identification of those 

components, materials, parts, or assemblies that affect the device’s response to the influence 

factors appropriate to the device type (MSC’s).
NTEP Committee 2009 Final Report

NTEP - 10

1.2.2. A metrologically significant component is a part, assembly, material, design or procedure that 

has a direct influence on the performance or operation of a device or component thereof as 

identified by the device manufacturer.

1.2.3. Metrological integrity is maintained by verification that the applicable characteristics of those 

components identified as metrologically significant are unchanged from those used in the device 

certified. Verification can also take place by testing of the finished device to verify that it is 

unchanged from the device certified.

1.2.4. The following list contains components that may or may not be identified by the device 

manufacturer as metrologically significant. This list shall not be considered exhaustive and is 

included as examples.

1.2.4.1. Load Cell, Analog – Sensor spring element design, sensor material and heat treat, 

strain gauge, temperature compensating means, environment sealing design

1.2.4.2. Load Cell, Digital – Components listed in load cell, analog, bridge excitation 

voltage regulation components, temperature sensitive components used to establish 

gain of amplification stage or reference voltage(s), metrologically significant 

embedded software, temperature sensing component, analog to digital converter type

1.2.4.3. Weighing/Load-Receiving Element, Electronic – Suspension type, restraint 

system, bearing design, weighbridge construction load cell type, load application to 

load cell

1.2.4.4. Indicating Element, Electronic – Excitation voltage regulation components, 

temperature sensing elements, metrologically significant embedded software, 

reference voltage components, analog to digital converter, temperature sensitive 

components in amplification stage used to establish gain or offset, active filter 

components, some clock components

1.3. Appropriate statistical methods are implemented to ensure that the process is in control as defined by the 

NTEP CC holder’s Quality Management System.

1.4. An appropriate sampling plan, and acceptance criteria is in place and operating.

1.4.1. The NTEP CC holder shall establish a random sampling plan appropriate for the production 

quantity of the device that is traceable to a nationally recognized quality standard, 

i.e., Acceptable Quality Level AQL or equivalent, or meet the minimum requirements as 

defined in Appendix ASection 4 of this document.

1.4.2. Devices shall be selected and tested in accordance to NCWM Publication 14 as designated by 

the established sampling plan.

1.4.3. Results of the testing, along with values of pertinent control parameters (e.g., time, temperature, 

humidity, etc.), shall be recorded and shall clearly identify whether the test passed or failed.

1.4.4. Records shall be made available to the VCAP auditor of test results since the last VCAP audit.

1.5. Required operator’s manuals and calibration procedures or other controlled documentation for all 

appropriate devices and components (either manufactured or purchased).

1.6. A Nonconforming Material system to control non/conforming/non-compliant devices and components 

(either manufactured or purchased).
NTEP Committee 2009 Final Report

NTEP - 11

1.6.1. The NTEP CC holder shall control devices that do not meet specified requirements 

(i.e., nonconforming) to prevent their unintended use.

1.6.2. This control shall include (as a minimum): identification, recording, segregation or isolation (as 

practicable), review, disposition approval, and notification to appropriate personnel at the 

manufacturing site(s).

1.6.3. Review of non-conforming VCAP devices, and disposition approval, shall be performed by 

authorized and qualified personnel.

1.6.4. Records shall be made available to the VCAP auditor.

1.7. Adequate control over subcontractors and sub-tier suppliers that supply metrologically significant 

components.

1.7.1. Control over subcontractors and sub-tier suppliers shall be defined in the NTEP CC holder’s 

Quality Management System.

1.7.2. Records of such control shall be made available to the VCAP auditor.

1.8. Appropriate Corrective Action system to deal with nonconforming/non-compliant devices.

1.8.1. The NTEP CC holder shall identify, implement and record corrective actions needed to remedy 

the cause(s) of nonconformities and problems as a result of influence factor testing, and to 

prevent their recurrence.

1.8.2. Corrective actions shall include objective evidence that the action was taken and effective.

1.8.3. Corrective actions shall be reviewed and approved by authorized, qualified personnel.

1.8.4. Results of corrective actions shall be retained and be readily available and easily retrievable by 

testing facility personnel. Records shall be made available to the VCAP auditor.

1.9. An Engineering Change system to control engineering/design changes affecting any MSCs.

1.9.1. An engineering change system to control engineering/design changes affecting any MSCs 

including appropriate methods to ensure changes are released to production.

1.9.2. Records shall be made available to the VCAP auditor of engineering changes since the last 

VCAP audit.

1.10. A Document and Data Control (including software and firmware) system to control changes affecting 

any MSCs or components of the VCAP program. Such controls shall include (at a minimum):

1.10.1. review and approval for accuracy, completeness and adequacy prior to release,

1.10.2. identification and availability of current/appropriate version levels,

1.10.3. obsolete/superseded versions are prevented from unintended uses (unless otherwise approved),

1.10.4. records of document changes shall be maintained and made available to the VCAP auditor.

1.11. A production control system to control changes affecting any MSCs.

1.11.1. The NTEP CC holder’s Quality Management System shall identify the processes necessary to 

ensure that engineering changes are properly implemented throughout production.
NTEP Committee 2009 Final Report

NTEP - 12

1.12. An Identification and Traceability System (including serialization and lot/batch control as applicable) 

applied, as a minimum, to MSCs.

1.13. Documentation that personnel have been properly trained.

1.13.1. The NTEP CC holder shall identify training needs, and provide training for personnel whose 

functions/activities affect the VCAP and particularly for those personnel performing influence 

factor testing.

1.13.2. Training records shall ensure that personnel are qualified to perform their respective functions.

1.13.3. Training shall be performed by authorized and qualified instructors (either internal to the 

manufacturer, or external by a service provider).

1.13.4. Training needs and activity shall be recorded and shall be made available to the VCAP auditor.

1.14. If the NTEP CC holder contracts with an outside testing facility to conduct the influence factor testing, 

that facility will be subject to all pertinent VCAP requirements.

1.15. The NTEP CC holder shall plan and implement a program of internal self-assessment.

1.15.1. The self-assessment shall be conducted at established intervals, not to exceed one year.

1.15.2. The self-assessment shall evaluate the NTEP CC holder’s own VCAP and their associated 

quality system procedures, practices, activities, and controls.

1.15.3. The self-assessment shall demonstrate effective and compliant operation of the manufacturer’s 

own VCAP.

1.15.4. Results of the self-assessment shall be recorded.

1.15.5. Records shall be made available to the VCAP auditor of self-assessments conducted since the 

last VCAP audit.

1.16. Subsequent audits will be held on-site to verify conformance to these standards. Subsequent audits will 

be conducted every three years until objective evidence is obtained to move to a maximum of every five 

years.

1.16.1. Audits shall be scheduled as a stand-alone audit; not part of ISO, FM, UL, etc. The audit may 

be in conjunction with but not part of these audits.

1.16.2. Audits shall be scheduled during testing to ensure that the VCAP auditor witnesses devices 

being tested, data being recorded, actions being taken, etc.

1.16.3. An audit report shall be provided by the Certification Body as defined in the VCAP 

Administrative Policy, Section S.1.c.

1.16.43. The NTEP CC holder has the right to appeal to NCWM if a VCAP certificate has been 

withdrawn due to the results of the on-site audit.

1.16.54. The NTEP CC holder shall take corrective action within 90 days of non-conformances sited 

during the on-site audit. It shall be determined during the audit whether a follow-up audit is 

needed or a review of objective evidence is necessary to close any non-conformances.
NTEP Committee 2009 Final Report

NTEP - 13

2. Certification Body’s Responsibilities:

2.1. The selected Certification Body is to be accredited by ANSI-ASQ National Accreditation Board (ANAB)

The ANSI-ASQ National Accreditation Board is the U.S. accreditation body for management systems. 

ANAB accredits certification bodies (CBs) for ISO 9001 quality management systems (QMS) and 

ISO 14001 environmental management systems (EMS), as well as a number of industry-specific 

requirements, or equivalent.

2.2. With accreditation to Standard Industry Classification (SIC) codes (3596/3821) or

Sequence 

Number

2007 NAICS, 

U.S. Code

2007 North American Industry Classification 

System (NAICS) U.S. Title

847 333997 Scale and Balance Manufacturing

or equivalent.

2.3. The selected Certification Body shall have international auditors available.

2.4. The Certification Body is required to notify NCWM when a major breakdown of the NTEP CC holder’s 

VCAP program is found.

2.5. The Certification Body shall submit an audit reporta completed “Systems Audit Checklist” to 

NCWM., as defined in the VCAP Administrative Policy, Section S.1.c. This reportSubmitted 

documents must contain a clear statement of compliance as a result of the VCAP audit.

3. NCWM Responsibilities:

3.1. For new certificate holders, Eensure that VCAP certification has been metcompleted, within a one year 

cycle of the first maintenance fee, but not to exceed 18 months (example: if VCAPNTEP certified in 

July 2011, VCAP certification would be required by November of the following year 2012).

3.2. Verify that new customer/new certificate have process capability audit successfully completed 

prior to receiving certificate from NTEP.

3.32. As part of annual maintenance, NCWM shall ensure that VCAP audit reports are on file, current, and that 

all non-conformances have been addressed.

3.43. Ensure that an appeals process is in place and made available to Certificate holders.

4. Sample Sizes:

4.1 The following sample sizes are to be used based on annual production.

Units per Year Minimum Number (Total of Samples Production) per Year

2 - 50 2

51 - 500 3

501 - 35,000 5

35,001+ 8

Definition:

Control Facility: The control facility is the facility that is in control of the product before it goes into the 

marketplace, which could be one or more sites.
NTEP Committee 2009 Final Report

NTEP - 14

At the 2009 Annual Meeting the Committee agreed with suggestions to change several sections of NCWM 

Publication 14, NTEP Administrative Policy, Section S.1.3., VCAP procedures. Please take note that this replaces 

early versions of the VCAP requirements distributed by NCWM and contained in Publications 15 and 16. The 

Introduction, Sections 1.2.3., 1.4.1., 1.4.2., 2.5., 3.1. and the Definition were all amended. Sections 1.16.3. and 3.2. 

were deleted from previous documents and subsequent sections were renumbered. The text above indicates the 

changes made to the version shown in NCWM Pub 16.

8. V NTEP Policy for Issuing Certificates of Conformance (CC) for Software

Source: NTETC Software Sector

(This item was adopted.)

Proposal: Change current NCWM/NTEP policy applicable to software.

Software Requiring a Separate CC: Software, which is implemented as an add-on to other NTEP-Certified 

main elements to create a weighing or measuring system and its metrological functions, are significant in 

determining the first indication of the final quantity. Such software is considered a main element of the 

system requiring traceability to an NTEP CC.

NOTE: OEM software may be added to an existing CC or have a standalone CC with applicable applications 

(e.g., a manufacturer adding a software upgrade to their ECR or point-of-sale system, vehicle scale weighin/weigh-out software added as a feature to an indicating element, automatic bulk weighing, liquid-measuring 

device loading racks, etc.) and minimum system requirements for “type P” (built-for-purpose) devices (see 

proposed software definition below). It may be possible for a manufacturer to submit a single application for 

both hardware and software contained in the same device. A single CC would be issued.

In this instance, OEM refers to a third party. The request to add software could be made by the original CC 

holder on behalf of the third party. Alternatively, a new CC could be created that refers to the original CC 

and simply lists the new portions that were examined.

Background: Excerpts of reports from the 1995 - 1998 Executive Committees were provided to NTETC Software 

Sector members at their April 2006 meeting. The chair asked the Sector to review the following NTEP policy 

decision adopted by the NCWM in 1998 relative to the issuance of a separate CC for software.

During the 1998 NCWM, the following recommendation was adopted as NTEP policy:

• “Software, regardless of its form, shall not be subject to evaluation for the purpose of receiving a separate, 

software CC from the National Type Evaluation Program.”

• “Remove all of the software categories from the index of NCWM Publication 5, NTEP Index of Device 

Evaluations.”

• “Reclassify all existing software CCs according to their applicable device categories.”

The policy is still in effect today.

Also noteworthy is a statement in Section C of NCWM Publication 14, Administrative Policy. It states:

In general, type evaluations will be conducted on all equipment that affect the measurement process or the 

validity of the transaction (e.g., electronic cash registers interfaced with scales and service station consoles 

interfaced with retail fuel dispensers); and all equipment to the point of the first indicated or recorded 

representation of the final quantity on which the transaction will be based.
NTEP Committee 2009 Final Report

NTEP - 15

Software which is implemented as an add-on to other NTEP-certified main elements to create a weighing or 

measuring system and its metrological functions are significant in determining the first indication of the final 

quantity. Such software is considered to be a main element of the system requiring traceability to a CC. Current 

policy, however, prohibits NTEP from issuing a separate certificate just for the software. The certificate must be 

issued on the entire system.

The Software Sector considered the possibility of amending the 1998 policy to allow NTEP to issue separate 

Certificates of Conformance for software. This new policy would not change how NTEP evaluates software; it 

would simply change how the software is represented on the certificate. For example, software designed to act as a 

point-of-sale would be represented on the certificate as “Software” with further description as “Point-of-Sale 

System.” The certificate would allow this software to be implemented as a main element of a weighing system 

using compatible hardware including scanner/scale, cash register, printer, computer processor, etc. If this 

fundamental approach is taken, it will allow the Software Sector to move toward the other steps in the process.

The consensus of the Sector is that the current NCWM/NTEP policy should be changed.

As further background, the proposed definitions forwarded to the S&T Committee from the Software Sector are 

printed below.

Electronic devices, software-based. Weighing and measuring devices or systems that use metrological software to 

facilitate compliance with Handbook 44. This includes:

(a) Embedded software devices (Type P), aka built-for-purpose. A device or element with software used in 

a fixed hardware and software environment that cannot be modified or uploaded via any interface without 

breaking a security seal or other approved means for providing security, and will be called a “P”, or

(b) Programmable or loadable metrological software devices (Type U), aka not built-for-purpose. A 

personal computer or other device and/or element with PC components with programmable or loadable 

metrological software, and will be called “U.” A “U” is assumed if the conditions for embedded software 

devices are not met.

Software-based devices – See Electronic devices, software-based.

Judy Cardin, Wisconsin, NTEP Committee Chair

Jack Kane, Montana, NCWM Chair

Randy Jennings, Tennessee, NCWM Chair-Elect

Charles Carroll, Massachusetts

Steve Malone, Nebraska

NTEP Technical Advisor: Jim Truex, NTEP Administrator

National Type Evaluation Program Committee
NTEP Committee 2009 Final Report

NTEP - 16

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
NTEP Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix A – NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector

NTEP - A1

Appendix A

National Type Evaluation Technical Committee

Grain Analyzer Sector

August 20, 2008 – Kansas City, Missouri

Meeting Summary

Agenda Items Page

1. Report on NCWM Administrative Staff Changes .............................................................................................A1

2. Report on the 2008 NCWM Interim and Annual Meetings...............................................................................A2

3. Report on NTEP Type Evaluations and OCP (Phase II) Testing.......................................................................A3

4. Review of Ongoing Calibration Program (Phase II) Performance Data ............................................................A3

5. Report on GIPSA/NIST Interagency Agreement Renewal................................................................................A3

5.5. Air-Oven Collaborative Study...........................................................................................................................A4

6. Proposed Change to Handbook 44, Section 5.57, Paragraph N.1.2. To Modify Tolerances on Standard 

Reference Samples ............................................................................................................................................A5

7. Proposed Changes to the GMM Chapter of Publication 14 to Address Multi-Class Test Weight per Bushel 

Type Evaluations...............................................................................................................................................A7

8. Proposed Changes to the GMM Chapter of Publication 14 to Limit the Moisture Content of Samples Used 

To Evaluate Test Weight per Bushel Performance and to Add Special Considerations for Multi-Class 

Calibrations......................................................................................................................................................A11

9. Proposed Changes to Appendix C of the GMM Chapter of Publication 14 to Add Data Fields for Test 

Weight per Bushel and to Modify Instructions for Submitting to Reflect Current Technology......................A14

10. Editorial Correction to the GMM Chapter of Publication 14 § IV. Tolerances for Calibration 

Performance ....................................................................................................................................................A15

11. Report on OIML TC 17/SC 1 IR 59 “Moisture Meters for Cereal Grains and Oilseeds” ...............................A15

12. Report on OIML TC 17/SC 8 Draft IR “Protein Measuring Instruments for Cereal Grain” ...........................A16

13. Marking Requirements for Type P Devices.....................................................................................................A16

14. Time and Place for Next Meeting....................................................................................................................A19

1. Report on NCWM Administrative Staff Changes

Effective October 1, 2008, NCWM, Inc. will have a new management structure. The first step in this transition has 

been completed with the hiring of Don Onwiler as the new NCWM Executive Director and Jim Truex as NTEP 

Administrator. Don will work out of the Lincoln, Nebraska, office and Jim will operate from a home office in Ohio. 

The transition of duties from Management Solutions in Rockville, Maryland, to the new NCWM Headquarters in 

Lincoln will occur gradually over the coming weeks and will be completed by October 1, 2008. Contact 

information for the new offices is shown below:
NTEP Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix A – NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector

NTEP - A2

NCWM

1135 M Street, Ste. 110

Lincoln, NE 68508

Phone: (402) 434-4880

Fax: (402) 434-4878

Website: http://www.ncwm.net

Don Onwiler

Executive Director

Phone: (402) 434-4871

E-mail: don.onwiler@ncwm.net

Jim Truex

NTEP Administrator

Phone: (740) 919-4350

Fax: (740) 919-4348

E-mail: jim.truex@ncwm.net

2. Report on the 2008 NCWM Interim and Annual Meetings

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

January 27 - 30, 2008, in Albuquerque, New Mexico. At that meeting the NTEP Committee accepted the Sector’s 

recommended amendments and changes to the 2007 Edition of NCWM Publication 14. These changes appear in the 

2008 Edition (see also ADDENDUM SHEET Pub 14, Grain Analyzers 2008 Edition ISSUED April 24, 2008 for 

changes not included in the original 2008 Edition). For additional background refer to Committee Reports for the 

93rd Annual Meeting, NCWM Publication 16 – April 2008.

Amendments/Changes to the Grain Moisture Meters Chapter

in the

2007 Edition of NCWM Publication 14

Section Number Amendment/Change Page Source

IV. Tolerances for 

Calibration 

Performance

Delete all text relating to “Approved” and 

“Pending” categories. Amend/modify to show 

the revised criteria for calibration approval.

GMM-5

through

GMM-7

08/07

Grain Moisture 

Meter Sector 

Agenda Item 4

V. Criteria for NTEP 

Moisture Calibration 

Review

Add table specifying “Basic 6-Percent 

Moisture Interval,” “Standard Moisture 

Range,” and “Maximum Upper Limit” for each 

grain type or class. Delete Cases I through VII 

dealing with inadequately represented moisture 

intervals. Modify “Special Considerations for 

‘Multi-Class’ Calibrations.”

GMM-7

through

GMM-10

08/07

Grain Moisture 

Meter Sector 

Agenda Item 4

VII.B. Accuracy, Precision, 

and Reproducibility

Change Oats moisture range from 10 - 16 % to 

8 - 14 % in table.

GMM-13 08/07

Grain Moisture 

Meter Sector 

Agenda Item 4

Appendix D – Sample 

Temperature Sensitivity

(For grains/oil seeds 

other than corn, 

soybeans, & hard red 

winter wheat)

Change Oats moisture range from 10 - 16 % to 

8 - 14 % in table titled “Moisture Ranges and 

Tolerance for Sample Temperature 

Sensitivity.”

GMM-44 08/07

Grain Moisture 

Meter Sector 

Agenda Item 4

The 93rd Annual Meeting of the NCWM was held July 13 - 17, 2008, in Burlington, Vermont. No Grain Moisture 

Meter (GMM) or Near Infrared (NIR) Grain Analyzer items were presented for consideration by the NCWM at the 

2008 Annual Meeting.
NTEP Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix A – NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector

NTEP - A3

3. Report on NTEP Type Evaluations and OCP (Phase II) Testing

Cathy Brenner of the Grain Inspection, Packers, and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA), the NTEP Participating 

Laboratory for Grain Analyzers, briefed the Sector on NTEP Type Evaluation activity. No new devices had been 

submitted for evaluation since the Sector’s 2007 meeting. Annual GMM calibration reviews were completed on 

schedule and updated Certificates of Conformance (CCs) were issued for six device types. She reported that the 

following device types are enrolled in the OCP (Phase II) for the 2007 harvest:

[Note: Models listed on a single line are considered to be of the same “type.”]

DICKEY-john Corporation GAC2000 NTEP, GAC2100, GAC2100a, GAC2100b

Foss North America Infratec 1241

Foss North America Infratec 1227, Infratec 1229

Perten Instruments AM5100

The Steinlite Corporation SL95

Ms. Brenner explained that although the CC for DICKEY-john’s OmegAnalyzer G does not expire until 

July 1, 2009, DICKEY-john has elected not to enroll in Phase II for the 2008 harvest. Because there are now only 

five devices in the program, the cost to manufacturers for Phase II drops from $7,730 to $5,300 per meter type.

4. Review of Ongoing Calibration Program (Phase II) Performance Data

At their August 2005 meeting, the Sector agreed that comparative OCP data identifying the Official Meter and 

listing the average bias for each NTEP meter type should be available for annual review by the Sector. Accordingly, 

Cathy Brenner, representing GIPSA, the NTEP Participating Laboratory for Grain Analyzers, presented data 

showing the performance of NTEP meters compared to the air oven based on the last three crop years (2005–2007) 

using calibrations updated for use during the 2008 harvest season.

Ms. Brenner pointed out that data on the DICKEY-john OmegAnalyzer G and Perten’s AM5100 were not included 

in the comparisons because they have not been in the program for three full years. Comparisons of GMMs with less 

than three years of data against GMMs with the full three years of data are not meaningful as they may be unduly 

influenced by a single unusual crop year. Also, to preserve confidentiality sunflower results were not included 

because only two meters were approved for sunflowers and one of them was the Official Meter.

Dr. Richard Pierce, GIPSA, explained that GIPSA, to avoid making calibration changes that might be unduly 

influenced by unusual growing conditions in a single year, looks at both the most recent three years and the most 

recent five years of data before making decisions on changes. This year, as a matter of curiosity, results based on 

13 years of Official Meter Phase II data were also reviewed and were found to be quite different from results based 

on data from the last three years. Some Sector members speculated that advancements in genetic engineering have 

led to accelerated introduction of new plant varieties resulting in a different overall genetic population for the most 

recent three years when compared to the previous 13 years. Grain moisture meters (GMMs) may respond 

differently to grains of different genotypes.

Dr. Charles Hurburgh, Iowa State University, remarked that with the increase in grain prices, moisture 

measurements have a greater economic impact (one percentage point difference in moisture is worth 25 cents for 

soybeans and 12 cents for corn). As a result, he has received phone calls concerning moisture meter alignments. He 

was of the opinion that the comparison data looked very good for corn and soybeans, and that it may not be possible 

to be any better. He cautioned that state weights and measures personnel may see an increasing number of 

complaints at harvest due to corn and soybeans sold earlier at very high prices for fall delivery.

5. Report on GIPSA/NIST Interagency Agreement Renewal

The present five-year Interagency Agreement that provides funding for the Grain Moisture Meter On-going 

Calibration Program (OCP) will expire at the conclusion of data collection for crop year 2009. Renewal of the 

Agreement is subject to an annual review to determine if changes should be made. Under the terms of the present 
NTEP Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix A – NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector

NTEP - A4

agreement NIST and GIPSA each contribute one third of the cost of the program subject to an annual maximum of 

$26,500 each. The balance of costs is borne by manufacturers and depends on the number of meter models in the 

NTEP “pool” according to a fee schedule (see table below). NIST and GIPSA are currently reviewing costs 

associated with the program to determine what changes should be made to the funding arrangements and fee 

schedule.

NTEP On-going Calibration Program Fee Schedule

For Fiscal Years 2005 - 2009

(1)

Total Meters

(including 

Official Meter)

(2)

Meters in 

NTEP 

Pool

(3)

Cost per 

NTEP Pool 

Meter

(4)

Total 

Program 

Cost

Funding Contribution from Participants

(5)

NIST

(6)

GIPSA

(7)

Manufacturers

(total funding from 

manufacturers)

(8)

Cost per 

Meter Type

2 1 $ 19,875 $ 19,875 $ 6,625 $ 6,625 $ 6,625 $ 3,315

3 2 19,875 39,750 13,250 13,250 13,250 4,415

4 3 19,875 59,625 19,875 19,875 19,875 4,970

5 4 19,875 79,500 26,500 26,500 26,500 5,300

6 5 19,875 99,375 26,500 26,500 46,375 7,730

7 6 19,875 119,250 26,500 26,500 66,250 9,465

8 7 19,875 139,125 26,500 26,500 86,125 10,765

9 8 19,875 159,000 26,500 26,500 106,000 11,775

Dr. Pierce, representing GIPSA, reported that there is no agreement yet on the funding arrangements or on the 

duration of the program. GIPSA may consider transferring a greater portion of the program cost to the 

manufacturers. If the program is approved for a 5-year period, it is possible there will be an inflationary factor built 

in for each year of the program. The program currently appears to be carrying its weight, but it did better at the 

beginning of the period. There have been questions as to whether all the time of NTEP laboratory staff has been 

considered in reporting program costs.

Dr. Pierce believes that USDA will participate in the program, but questions how long it will remain feasible to 

continue the program. If the present Official Meter is replaced by a meter utilizing a very high frequency (VHF) 

universal moisture algorithm there would be no need for the OCP. Meters could be aligned by other less expensive 

means and calibrations could be transferrable between different models designed to use that algorithm. Dr. Pierce 

cited GIPSA’s goal to ultimately approve multiple models for use in the Grain Inspection System and suggested that 

the Sector may need to look ahead if GIPSA drops their existing calibration maintenance program.

Diane Lee, representing NIST, stated that NIST recognizes the value of keeping meters aligned with the standard 

reference method and would continue to contribute to the support of appropriate means to do so.

5.5. Air-Oven Collaborative Study

Submitted by: Karl Cunningham, Illinois Department of Agriculture. [Note: This item was received after the 

Sector agenda had been published. Because of the importance of this issue the Sector agreed to include this issue on 

the agenda at its August 2008 meeting.]

Background: Under the NTEP program for grain moisture meters, calibrations are based on USDA/GIPSA air 

ovens while field inspection is based on state air ovens. For the program to be effective, procedures must be in place 

to assure that state oven results (and manufacturers’ oven results) agree with the USDA/GIPSA air oven, which is 

considered the standard. NIST-WMD’s laboratory measurement traceability program requires that laboratories 

participate in interlaboratory and other collaborative experiments. This requirement has been met by one of two 

methods: 1) individual laboratories independently send samples to GIPSA for air oven analysis, and subsequently 

compare their results to those obtained by GIPSA; or 2) a structured collaborative study where every lab, including 

GIPSA, measure the same sample. A structured collaborative air oven study was last conducted following the 2000 

harvest. Results of that study were reported at the Sector’s August 2001 meeting.
NTEP Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix A – NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector

NTEP - A5

Discussion/Recommendation: A structured collaborative study has at least two advantages over independent 

submission of samples to GIPSA by individual laboratories: 1) in addition to a check against the “standard,” it 

provides information on how individual labs compare with each other; 2) it allows GIPSA to plan for a known work 

load. The Sector agreed that a collaborative study was long overdue. It was also noted that such a study addresses 

the measurement traceability requirements of ISO 17025. Two manufacturers, Dr. Hurburgh of Iowa State 

University, and the two state weights and measures representatives present expressed a desire to participate in the 

study. Although Karl Cunningham was not present, it was suggested that Illinois serve as the “pivot” laboratory. 

Diane Lee, NIST, will write up the procedures to be followed and will send out a memo soliciting additional 

participants to all states with a grain moisture program. GIPSA will be the reference laboratory.

6. Proposed Change to Handbook 44, Section 5.57, Paragraph N.1.2. To Modify 

Tolerances on Standard Reference Samples

Background: This is a carryover item from the Sector’s August 2007 meeting. During that meeting a question was 

raised regarding how the standard reference samples needed for field testing would be provided to the states. It was 

pointed out that, at present, states must provide the samples. Paragraph N.1.2. of the NIR Grain Analyzer Code of 

NIST Handbook 44 stipulates:

N.1.2. Standard Reference Samples. – Reference samples used for field inspection purposes 

shall be clean and selected to reasonably represent the constituent range. These samples shall be 

selected such that the difference between constituent values obtained using the GIPSA standard 

reference method and an official GIPSA NIR grain analyzer does not exceed one-half of the 

acceptance tolerance shown in Table T.2. for individual test samples or 0.375 times the acceptance 

tolerance shown for the average of five samples.

(Amended 2001and 2003)

At that time Dr. Richard Pierce, GIPSA, did not immediately recall the origin of the traceability numbers, but 

suspected they came from the original Tentative Code that covered only wheat protein. He noted that they would 

not apply to soybeans.

A table showing the acceptance tolerance from Table T.2. and the resulting tolerances for standard reference 

samples, calculated using the current multipliers (0.50 and 0.375) from paragraph N.1.2., has been reproduced below 

for convenience.
NTEP Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix A – NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector

NTEP - A6

Tolerances for Standard Reference Samples

(GIPSA Reference Method Minus GIPSA Official NIR Grain Analyzer)

Type of Grain Constituent

Acceptance 

Tolerance

Individual 

Samples 

(percent)

Tolerance

for

Standard 

Reference 

Samples 

(percent)

Acceptance 

Tolerance

Average for 

Five Samples 

(percent)

Tolerance

for

Standard 

Reference 

Samples

Average for

Five Samples 

(percent)

All Wheats

(including Durum) protein 0.60 0.30 0.40 0.15

Soybeans protein 0.80 0.40 0.60 0.23

oil 0.70 0.35 0.50 0.19

All Barleys protein 0.70 0.35 0.50 0.19

Corn

protein 0.80 0.40 0.60 0.23

oil 0.70 0.35 0.50 0.19

starch 1.00 0.50 0.80 0.30

Discussion/Recommendation: The Sector was asked to consider making this issue an item for further study. 

Additional data and actual field experience are needed before an intelligent recommendation can be made on 

tolerances for standard reference samples.

Commenting on the tolerances shown in the above table, Dr. Pierce, GIPSA, noted that with current technology the 

reference standard tolerances shown for wheat may be too wide. On the other hand, for corn and soybeans he was 

concerned that the standard reference method may use up most of the tolerance making sample selection very 

difficult if not impossible. Dr. Hurburgh noted that the reproducibility error standard deviation for the standard 

reference method for oil testing was 0.25.

Several questions were raised regarding the possible use of grain samples as “transfer standards.”

1. Can we establish traceability using GIPSA field office instrument results?

2. How important is sample selection if we use meter-assigned values?

3. Do meter-assigned values have to be device-type specific?

In partial answer to questions 2 and 3, above, Dr. Hurburgh replied, “If all [instruments] are transmittance using 

18 mm path length, sample selection is not important, but if reflectance instruments are involved results are often 

diametrically opposed.”

It was suggested that this issue might best be handled by a subcommittee charged with determining:

1. How should samples be selected for field testing?

2. Who will assign the official value of the sample used?

One Sector member pointed out that a method for selecting samples and assigning official values had already been 

specified. Members were generally reluctant to commit to expending extra effort because of lack of interest from 

the states. Significant effort had been expended in developing the original Handbook 44 specifications and the 

corresponding tests/check lists in Publication 14. As far as the Sector has been able to determine, not a single state 

has a program for inspecting NIR Grain Analyzers for anything other than moisture. Developing revised procedures 

for selecting field samples will require active participation not only by manufacturers and GIPSA but also by 

interested state weights and measures personnel to provide feedback during method development and to provide 

field test results and additional feedback using proposed methods.
NTEP Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix A – NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector

NTEP - A7

Diane Lee, NIST, has agreed to send a memo to states to determine if there is a true need for revising the existing 

method and if so, to see if they are willing to actively participate.

7. Proposed Changes to the GMM Chapter of Publication 14 to Address Multi-Class Test 

Weight per Bushel Type Evaluations

Background/Discussion: The GMM Chapter of NCWM Publication 14 was amended in 2006 to allow multi-class 

moisture calibrations. Since that time devices have become available with the potential for using multi-class 

calibrations for both moisture and test weight per bushel (TW). The current edition of the GMM chapter of 

Publication 14 provides procedures and tolerances for addressing multi-class calibrations for moisture but not 

for TW.

The Sector agreed by consensus to recommend changes to the 2008 Edition of Publication 14 to address devices 

with multi-class calibrations for TW and to forward the recommendation below to the NTEP Committee for 

consideration.

Recommendation: Amend § VII. Additional Type Evaluation Test Procedures and Tolerances for Grain Moisture 

Meters incorporating an automatic test weight per bushel measuring feature, Subsection B. Accuracy, Precision, and 

Reproducibility of the GMM chapter of Publication 14 to address multi-class type evaluations for TW.

VII. Additional Type Evaluation Test Procedures and Tolerances for Grain Moisture Meters Incorporating 

an Automatic Test Weight per Bushel Measuring Feature

B. Accuracy, Precision, and Reproducibility:

The automatic test weight per bushel measuring feature of grain moisture meters will be tested for accuracy, 

repeatability (precision), and reproducibility with 12 samples of each grain type for which the meter has an approved 

moisture calibration. Samples will be chosen to represent the moistures and test weights per bushel shown in the 

following table. The reference method for test weight per bushel is the quart kettle test weight per bushel apparatus 

as specified by the USDA GIPSA. The reference value will be the average of 3 replicates. Samples will be dropped 

three times through each of two meters. The reference value will be re-checked after the meters have been tested. 

The average of the initial and final reference values shall be used as the reference value in calculations of meter 

performance.

Three replicates will be run on each instrument for each sample, resulting in a total of 72 observations of test weight 

per bushel per grain type (2 instruments x 12 samples x 3 replicates).
NTEP Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix A – NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector

NTEP - A8

Type of Grain Moisture Range Minimum Test 

Weight per Bushel 

Range

Criteria for Sample Selection

Corn 12 - 18 % 54 - 58 a) No less than 8 samples 

should come from the 

lowest two-thirds of the 

6 % moisture range.

b) No less than 2 samples 

should come from the 

highest one-third of the 

6 % moisture range.

c) Samples should 

represent a distribution 

of test weights per 

Bushel (TW) that 

minimizes the 

correlation between TW 

and moisture.

Soybeans 10 - 16 % 55 - 59

Hard Red Winter Wheat 10 - 16 % 59 - 63

Durum Wheat 10 - 16 % 59 - 63

Soft White Wheat (except 

White Club)

10 - 16 % 58 - 62

Hard Red Spring Wheat (and 

White Club)

10 - 16 % 58 - 61

Soft Red Winter Wheat 10 - 16 % 56 - 60

Hard White Wheat 8 - 14 % 60 - 64

All-class wheat* 10 - 16 % 56 - 63

Wheat Excluding Durum* 10 - 16 % 56 - 63

Two-Row Barley 10 - 16 % 47 - 51

Six-Row Barley 10 - 16 % 43 - 47

All-class Barley* 10 - 16 % 43 - 51

Oats 8 - 14 % 33 - 39

Sunflower Seed (Oil Type) 6 - 12 % 28 - 31

Long Grain Rough Rice 10 - 16 % 43 - 47

Medium Grain Rough Rice 10 - 16 % 44 - 48

All-class Rough Rice* 10 - 16 % 43 - 48

Grain Sorghum or Milo 10 - 16 % 58 - 62

Note: Calibrations marked with an asterisk (*) are “multi-class” calibrations
NTEP Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix A – NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector

NTEP - A9

Accuracy. The two tests for accuracy are bias (meter versus the standard reference method) and the Standard 

Deviation of the Differences (SDD) between the meter and the standard reference method. Each instrument will be 

tested individually.

where,

i x = average predicted test weight per bushel for sample i (3 replicates)

ir = reference test weight per bushel for sample i

n = number of samples (n = 12, see Note 1 below regarding “multi-class” calibrations.)

where,

i y = i i x − r (see above)

y = average of the i y

n = number of samples (n = 12, see Note 1 below regarding “multi-class” calibrations.)

Tolerances for bias and SDD tests are one-half the absolute value of the NIST Handbook 44 acceptance tolerance. 

Specific tolerances are:

Grain Type Tolerance

Corn, oats 0.4 pounds per bushel

All wheat classes 0.25 pounds per bushel

Soybeans, barley, rice, sunflower, sorghum 0.35 pounds per bushel

The manufacturer may adjust the calibration bias to compensate for differences from the type evaluation laboratory 

in reference methods or sample sets.

Note 1: “Multi-class” calibrations will be tested using full test sets for all included classes (12 x number of 

classes). In addition to meeting accuracy requirements (bias and SDD) for the tests sets of each individual class, 

“multi-class” calibrations must meet the accuracy requirements (bias and SDD) when the data from all included 

classes is pooled.

Note 2: A single slope and bias will be used for “multi-class” calibrations.

n

x r

Bias

n

i

∑ i i

=

−

= 1

( )

1

( )

1

2

−

−

=

∑=

n

y y

SDD

n

i

i
NTEP Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix A – NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector

NTEP - A10

Repeatability. The Standard Deviation (SD) of the three test weight per bushel replicates will be calculated for 

each sample and pooled across samples. Each instrument will be tested individually. The equation used to calculate 

SD is:

where,

Pij = predicted test weight per bushel for sample i and replicate j

Pi = average of the three predicted test weight per bushel values for sample i

n = number of samples (n = 12, see note below regarding “multi-class” calibrations.)

Tolerances for repeatability for all grain types except corn and oats are 0.4 x the absolute value of the Handbook 44 

acceptance tolerance. The tolerance for repeatability for corn and oats is 0.5 x the absolute value of the NIST 

Handbook 44 acceptance tolerance. Specific tolerances are:

Grain Type Tolerance

Corn, oats 0.40 pounds per bushel

All wheat classes 0.20 pounds per bushel

Soybeans, barley, rice, sunflower, sorghum 0.28 pounds per bushel

Note: “Multi-class” calibrations will be tested using full test sets for all included classes. “Multi-class” 

calibrations must meet the repeatability requirements (SD) for the test sets of each individual class.

n

P P

SD

n

i j

ij i

2

( )

1

3

1

2

∑∑= =

−

=
NTEP Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix A – NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector

NTEP - A11

Reproducibility. The results for each of the three test weight per bushel replicates will be averaged for each 

instrument, and the Standard Deviation of the Differences (SDD) between instruments will be calculated using the 

following equation:

where,

i d = P1i − P2i

P1i = average of three replicates for sample i on instrument 1

P2i = average of three replicates for sample i on instrument 2

d = average of the di

n = number of samples (n = 12, see note below regarding “multi-class” calibrations.)

Tolerances for reproducibility are 0.5 x the absolute value of the Handbook 44 acceptance tolerance. Specific 

tolerances are:

Grain Type Tolerance

Corn, oats 0.40 pounds per bushel

All wheat classes 0.25 pounds per bushel

Soybeans, barley, rice, sunflower, sorghum 0.35 pounds per bushel

Note: “Multi-class” calibrations will be tested using full test sets for all included classes. “Multi-class” 

calibrations must meet the reproducibility requirements (SDD) for the test sets of each individual class.

8. Proposed Changes to the GMM Chapter of Publication 14 to Limit the Moisture 

Content of Samples Used To Evaluate Test Weight per Bushel Performance and to 

Add Special Considerations for Multi-Class Calibrations

Background/Discussion: During the August 2006 Sector meeting, a consensus was reached to require monitoring 

test weight per bushel (TW) calibration performance using data collected as part of the on-going moisture 

calibration program (Phase II).

Cathy Brenner, representing GIPSA, the NTEP participating laboratory for Grain Analyzers, has compiled a table 

showing the composition of TW samples for the three most recent years of Phase II data (see Table 1, below). 

Table 1 data indicate that several grains besides corn can have samples with moistures greater than 20 %. Also of 

interest is the fact that a surprising number of Phase II samples have not been of sufficient size to obtain a reference 

TW measurement using the quart kettle method.

1

( )

1

2

−

−

=

∑=

n

d d

SDD

n

i

i
NTEP Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix A – NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector

NTEP - A12

Table 1. Yearly TW Sample Set Composition

Grain Year N -

Moisture N - TW %N - TW Moisture Range TW Range

Corn

2005 141 140 99.3 9.1 - 19.9 53.5 - 61.8

2006 189 174 92.1 9.5 - 20.0 50.1 - 62.7

2007 151 139 92.1 11.8 - 19.9 54.5 - 61.1

Durum

2005 30 10 33.3 7.9 - 20.3 47.8 - 62.9

2006 24 9 37.5 7.4 - 13.7 56.9 - 63.6

2007 70 44 62.9 8.0 - 16.3 56.7 - 63.7

Grain Sorghum

2005 38 31 81.6 11.8 - 17.7 57.8 - 61.6

2006 45 18 40.0 12.5 - 18.3 54.5 - 61.6

2007 18 18 100.0 10.8 - 19.5 54.3 - 62.1

Hard White 

Wheat

2005 31 23 74.2 7.2 - 15.4 54.9 - 65.7

2006 39 9 23.1 8.6 - 14.9 57.4 - 64.1

2007 27 20 74.1 7.7 - 15.0 57.8 - 64.8

Hard Red 

Spring Wheat

2005 51 31 60.8 7.5 - 26.9 36.6 - 62.9

2006 67 45 67.2 7.1 - 17.3 51.0 - 64.1

2007 55 37 67.3 6.9 - 22.2 57.5 - 64.7

Hard Red 

Winter Wheat

2005 89 76 85.4 7.7 - 23.1 45.6 - 65.1

2006 79 70 88.6 7.3 - 19.7 51.8 - 64.0

2007 98 77 78.6 8.1 - 20.0 50.9 - 64.5

Long Grain 

Rough Rice

2005 36 36 100.0 8.0 - 22.5 42.6 - 47.5

2006 55 55 100.0 10.0 - 27.1 41.7 - 48.2

2007 71 71 100.0 10.8 - 26.1 41.6 - 48.3

Medium Grain 

Rough Rice

2005 57 57 100.0 8.1 - 29.7 43.8 - 49.6

2006 53 53 100.0 11.6 - 25.6 42.1 - 50.3

2007 61 61 100.0 11.0 - 28.0 41.3 - 50.1

Oats

2005 17 11 64.7 9.8 - 12.1 36.8 - 41.4

2006 22 20 90.9 8.3 - 15.3 30.0 - 44.6

2007 26 17 65.4 10.0 - 14.7 35.0 - 43.6

Six-Row Barley

2005 28 23 82.1 7.8 - 16.8 41.7 - 51.8

2006 42 34 81.0 7.6 - 14.4 40.8 - 51.8

2007 36 28 77.8 7.9 - 20.6 43.5 - 51.9

Soft Red Winter 

Wheat

2005 34 34 100.0 7.2 - 20.2 54.8 - 64.6

2006 65 63 96.9 10.2 - 20.2 55.4 - 63.4

2007 88 87 98.9 9.0 - 28.0 52.4 - 64.1

Soft White 

Wheat

2005 24 24 100.0 7.8 - 15.4 57.6 - 63.6

2006 35 33 94.3 7.1 - 15.3 57.7 - 63.0

2007 51 42 82.4 7.5 - 18.3 57.5 - 62.7

Soybeans

2005 161 141 87.6 7.7 - 19.8 51.7 - 58.5

2006 221 214 96.8 7.9 - 24.5 48.7 - 59.3

2007 246 225 91.5 7.1 - 20.5 52.3 - 59.3

Sunflower 

Seeds

2005 66 62 93.9 4.8 - 18.2 24.5 - 35.7

2006 56 55 98.2 5.7 - 20.7 22.7 - 36.2

2007 48 38 79.2 6.3 - 18.5 24.7 - 34.1

Two-Row 

Barley

2005 17 17 100.0 7.1 - 19.3 45.5 - 55.6

2006 41 31 75.6 8.0 - 14.2 43.6 - 53.7

2007 27 26 96.3 8.3 - 15.0 42.8 - 53.8

The NTEP Laboratory has suggested that the moisture content of samples used to evaluate Phase II TW performance 

be limited to 20 % for all grains. Also suggested was adding criteria for evaluating Phase II multi-class TW 

calibration results that was similar to the criteria used for reviewing the performance of multi-class moisture 

calibrations.
NTEP Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix A – NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector

NTEP - A13

The Sector agreed by consensus to accept the recommendation below incorporating changes suggested by the NTEP 

laboratory and to forward it to the NTEP Committee for consideration.

Recommendation: Amend § VII. Additional Type Evaluation Test Procedures and Tolerances for Grain Moisture 

Meters incorporating an automatic test weight per bushel measuring feature, Subsection C. Tolerances for Test 

Weight per Bushel Calibration Performance of the GMM chapter of Publication 14 to limit the moisture content of 

samples used to evaluate test weight per bushel performance and to add special considerations for multi-class 

calibrations for TW as shown below:

VII. Additional Type Evaluation Test Procedures and Tolerances for Grain Moisture Meters Incorporating 

an Automatic Test Weight per Bushel Measuring Feature

.

.

.

.

C. Tolerances for Test Weight per Bushel Calibration Performance:

In addition to the Basic Instrument Tests and the Accuracy, Precision, and Reproducibility Tests cited previously, 

test weight per bushel calibration performance will be monitored using test weight per bushel data collected as part 

of the on-going national moisture calibration program (Phase II). Evaluation of test weight per bushel performance 

for all grains will be limited to data collected on samples with moisture content not exceeding 20 % as determined 

by the USDA air-oven reference method.

For up to three years of available test weight per bushel data:

a. The difference between the average bias to quart kettle for all samples in a given year and the average bias 

to quart kettle for any other year shall not exceed: 0.80 for corn and oats; 0.50 for wheat; and 0.70 for all 

other grains.

b. The average calibration bias with respect to quart kettle shall not exceed: 0.40 for corn and oats; 0.25 for 

wheat; and 0.35 for all other grains calculated using the most recent calibration and all available raw data 

collected within the last three years for samples with moisture content not exceeding 20 %.

Failure to meet the requirements in either item a. or b. above will cause removal of test weight per bushel approval 

status for the affected grain type(s) on the NTEP Certificate of Conformance (CC) for that instrument.

Test weight per bushel data from Phase II may be used at the manufacturer’s discretion to support a grain-specific 

bias adjustment change in a test weight per bushel calibration. A repeat of the Basic Instrument Tests and the 

Accuracy, Precision, and Reproducibility Tests cited previously is not required for a grain-specific bias-adjustment 

change in a test weight per bushel calibration supported by Phase II data.

Any change in a grain-specific test weight per bushel calibration (including changes in grain-specific bias 

adjustments) must be reflected on the CC in a manner obvious to field inspection personnel.

Special Considerations for “Multi-Class” Calibrations.

For Phase II, data for each individual grain class included in a “multi-class” calibration will be reviewed to 

determine what adjustments, if any, are needed.

Data for each individual grain class and the combined data for all grain classes included in the “multi-class” 

calibration will be reviewed to verify calibration performance for each individual grain class and the combined 

data.
NTEP Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix A – NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector

NTEP - A14

9. Proposed Changes to Appendix C of the GMM Chapter of Publication 14 to Add Data 

Fields for Test Weight per Bushel and to Modify Instructions for Submitting to Reflect 

Current Technology

Background/Discussion: Several changes are required to Appendix C, Standard Data Format, of the GMM 

chapter of Publication 14 to bring Appendix C up to date with current practice:

1. Recent changes to the GMM chapter of Publication 14 stipulating the monitoring of Phase II TW data will 

require manufacturers to submit re-predicted TW data for review in the event that changes are made in TW 

calibrations. Data fields for TW are not defined in the current issue of Publication 14.

2. The instructions for submitting re-predicted data for calibration review require updating to reflect current 

technology.

3. The table of file names to be used in submitting re-predicted data requires amending to specify file names 

for multi-class calibrations.

Because multi-class calibrations are evaluated using full test sets for all included classes and must meet the 

requirements for the test sets of each individual class, the Sector decided that the table File Names for Submitting 

NTEP Meter Data for Calibration Review should not be modified to specify file names for multi-class 

calibrations. The Sector agreed by consensus to recommend amending/modifying Appendix C in the 2008 Edition 

of the GMM chapter of Publication 14 to add additional data fields for TW data and to update instructions for 

submitting data to reflect current practice. The Sector’s recommendation, below, will be forwarded to the NTEP 

Committee for consideration.

Recommendation: Amend/modify Appendix C of the GMM chapter of Publication 14 as shown below to address 

these issues:

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 Reference Meter

I.D. Moist Moist Model S.N. I.D. Type Year T.W. T.W.

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.
NTEP Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix A – NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector

NTEP - A15

− Reference T.W. The FGIS test weight apparatus result.

− Meter T.W. The meter-predicted test weight per bushel.

3. Instructions for submitting:

E-mail as a Microsoft Excel

® file or as a comma-separated text file 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.

.

.

.

10. Editorial Correction to the GMM Chapter of Publication 14 § IV. Tolerances for 

Calibration Performance

Background: At its August 23, 2007 meeting the Sector recommended that the portion of § IV. specifying the 

categories of calibrations that will be listed on a Certificate of Conformance would be removed from Publication 14. 

This recommendation was subsequently approved by the NTEP Committee in January 2008. When the 

2008 Edition of the Grain Analyzer Book of Publication 14 was issued, the paragraphs regarding Approved, 

Pending, and Not Available had not been removed from the GMM chapter. When this oversight was discovered, an 

addendum sheet dated April 24, 2008, was included with the Grain Analyzer Book of Publication 14 instructing 

readers to strike through the portions of what should have been deleted.

The Sector agreed to re-submit the changes to ensure that they won’t be over looked when the 2009 Edition of 

Publication 14 is published.

Recommendation: In the 2008 Edition of the Grain Analyzer Book of Publication 14, pages GMM-6 and GMM-7, 

delete the portion of § IV. specifying the categories of calibrations to be listed on a Certificate of Conformance. 

Details are shown below:

IV. Tolerances for Calibration Performance

.

.

.

.

Until calibrations for NTEP grains have been evaluated successfully they shall not be used on NTEP instruments. 

Calibrations for any of the NTEP grain types that have not been evaluated (or that a manufacturer chooses not to 

provide) will be listed on the CC as “Not Available.”

11. Report on OIML TC 17/SC 1 IR 59 “Moisture Meters for Cereal Grains and Oilseeds”

Background: This item was included on the Sector’s agenda to provide a summary of the activities of OIML 

TC 17/SC 1. The Secretariat (China) is working closely with the United States and a small IWG to revise OIML 

R 59 “Moisture meters for cereal grains and oilseeds.” All drafts have been distributed to the USNWG, which for 

the most part is a subset of the NTEP Grain Sector. A 4 CD was circulated to the IWG in August 2006. U.S. 

comments on the 4 CD were returned to the Secretariat in November 2006. A TC 17/SC 1 meeting was hosted by 

NIST in September 2007 to address comments received on 4 CD.

Discussion: Diane Lee, NIST/WMD, reported that the U.S. delegation to the September 2007 meeting included the 

following Sector members: Diane Lee, NIST; Rich Pierce, GIPSA; Cathy Brenner, GIPSA; and Cassie Eigenmann, 

DICKEY-john. The subcommittee reached decisions on several issues of interest to the Sector.

The reference method for determining grain moisture content will be defined by the national responsible bodies. In 

re-affirming this decision (originally agreed to at the June 2001 meeting of TC 17/SC 1) the subcommittee noted 
NTEP Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix A – NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector

NTEP - A16

that because different reference methods may be used in each country, accuracy may have to be tested in each 

country. It was also likely that the grain samples used for testing would have to be country specific unless a globally 

acceptable sample set could be agreed upon.

During a discussion of how maximum permissible errors (MPEs) would be presented in R 59, the U.S. delegation 

had the opportunity to explain in detail how grain moisture meters are evaluated in the U.S. NTEP program. The 

subcommittee subsequently agreed that while acceptable results of some evaluation tests would best be specified by 

MPEs, the acceptability of other test results would more suitably be specified by error shifts and error limits. A 

table will be added to R 59 that includes MPEs, error shifts, and error limits for accuracy and repeatability.

The subcommittee also agreed that a test for reproducibility was necessary for grain moisture meters. Consequently 

the type evaluation laboratory must receive two instruments for testing.

Ms. Lee noted that the format of 5 CD has been revised to meet the guidelines of the document Format for OIML 

Recommendations that was provided to participants in the April 2008 OIML Secretariat Training Session in Paris. 

The 5 CD of R 59 is expected to be distributed for review sometime in September 2008. A final date for USNWG

comments will be specified when 5 CD has been distributed. The Secretariat expects to submit the final version of 

5 CD to CIML for consideration at their meeting scheduled for early 2009.

12. Report on OIML TC 17/SC 8 Draft IR “Protein Measuring Instruments for Cereal 

Grain”

Background: This item was included on the Sector’s agenda to provide a summary of the activities of OIML 

TC 17/SC 8. A new subcommittee has been formed to study the issues and write a working draft document 

“Measuring instruments for protein determination in grains.” Australia is the Secretariat for this new subcommittee. 

A work group meeting was held in September 2006 in Ottawa, Canada, to discuss comments on the 1 CD. A 

TC 17/SC 8 meeting was hosted by NIST in September 2007 to discuss 2 CD.

Discussion: Diane Lee, NIST/WMD, reported that discussions on 2 CD dealt mostly with maximum permissible 

errors (MPEs) and harmonization of the TC 17/SC 8 Recommendation for protein with the TC 17/SC 1 

Recommendation for moisture. It is unlikely that 3 CD will be ready for submission to CIML in time for their 

January 2009 meeting.

13. Marking Requirements for Type P Devices

Background: This item was included on the Sector’s agenda to provide information on the activities of the 

NTEPTC Software Sector that may have an impact on Grain Moisture Meters (GMMs) and Near Infrared (NIR) 

Grain Analyzers.

Two NTEPTC Software Sector items were accepted as developing items by the Specifications and Tolerances 

(S&T) Committee for inclusion in the Committee Reports for the NCWM 93rd Annual Meeting. A developing item 

has merit, but has been returned to the submitter for further development before any action can be taken at the 

national level. The Software Sector is interested in receiving input from the weights and measures community about 

these items. Working with input from the weights and measures community, the Software Sector plans to introduce 

proposed modifications to current requirements through the regional weights and measures associations and other 

technical committees. In the meantime, the Software Sector welcomes opportunities to discuss these items at 

regional weights and measures associations to ensure the items are adequately addressed.
NTEP Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix A – NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector

NTEP - A17

The two developing items are shown below:

1) Item 360-2: Developing Items, Part 1, Item 2 – Add a new definition and cross-reference term to 

Appendix D in HB 44 for “Electronic devices, software-based” as follows:

Electronic devices, software-based. Weighing and measuring devices or systems that use metrological 

software to facilitate compliance with Handbook 44. This includes:

(a) Embedded software devices (Type P), aka built-for-purpose. A device or element with software used 

in a fixed hardware and software environment that cannot be modified or uploaded via any interface 

without breaking a security seal or other approved means for providing security, and will be called a 

“P,” or

(b) Programmable or loadable metrological software devices (Type U), aka not-built-for-purpose. A 

personal computer or other device and/or element with PC components with programmable or 

loadable metrological software, and will be called “U.” A “U” is assumed if the conditions for 

embedded software devices are not met.

Software-based devices – See Electronic devices, software-based.

2) Item 360-2: Developing Items, Part 1, Item 1 – Amend HB 44 General Code G-S.1. and/or G-S.1.1. to 

include the following:

Method NTEP CC 

No.

Make/Model/Serial 

No.

Software 

Version/Revision

TYPE P electronic devices shall meet at least one of the methods in each column:

1

Hard-Marked X X Not Acceptable

Continuously Displayed X X X

By command or operator action Not Acceptable Not Acceptable X2

TYPE U electronic devices shall meet at least one of the methods in each column:

Hard-Marked X X 3 Not Acceptable

Continuously Displayed X X X

Via Menu (display) or Print 

Option Not Acceptable X X 4 4

1 If the manufacturer declares that the primary sensing element “software” is integral, has no end user interface and 

no print capability, the element may be considered exempt from the marking requirement for version/revision. 

Example: Primary sensing element may be Positive Displacement (P.D.) meter with integral correction, digital load 

cell (only for reference, not limiting).

2 Information on how to obtain the Version/Revision shall be included on the NTEP CC. 3 Only if no means of displaying this information is available.

4 Information on how to obtain Make/Model, Version/Revision shall be included on the NTEP CC.

Metrologically significant software shall be clearly identified with the software version. The identification may 

consist of more than one part but one part shall be only dedicated for the metrologically significant portion.

At their May 2008 meeting, the Software Sector reviewed the above table and made both corrections and further 

clarifications. The table was split into two separate tables, one for Type P devices and one for Type U devices, to 

make it clear that although there are similarities between the two types, they are unique and must be treated 

separately.

[Editor’s Note: At the 93rd NCWM Annual Meeting held July 13 - 17, 2008, the Software Sector Chairman advised 

the Specifications and Tolerances Committee (S&T) that the Sector had gone as far as they could go in developing 

the criteria listed under S&T Item 360-2: Developing Items, Part 1, Items 1 & 2. He asked that these be moved up 

to Informational items on the S&T agenda. Grain Analyzer Sector members should review the Informational items 
NTEP Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix A – NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector

NTEP - A18

in the S&T Committee 2008 Final Report in the Report of the 93rd Conference on Weights and Measures when it is 

published.]

The table for Type P devices proposed by the Software Sector at their May 2008 meeting is shown below:

Method NTEP CC 

No. Make/Model/Serial No. Software Version/Revision

TYPE P electronic devices shall meet at least one of the methods in each column:

1

Hard-Marked X X Not Acceptable

Continuously Displayed

1 

X X X

By command or 

operator action Not Acceptable Not Acceptable X2

1 If the manufacturer declares that the primary sensing element “software” is integral, has no end user interface and no print 

capability, the element may be considered exempt from the marking requirement for version/revision. the version/revision 

shall be hard marked on the device. Example: Primary sensing element may be Positive Displacement (P.D.) meter with 

integral correction, digital load cell (only for reference, not limiting).

2 Information on how to obtain the Version/Revision shall be included on the NTEP CC.

Metrologically significant software shall be clearly identified with the software version. The identification may consist of 

more than one part but one part shall be only dedicated for the metrologically significant portion.

[Editor’s Note: The Software Sector has considered alternate versions of the “Marking” tables. For the latest 

version of these tables, Grain Analyzer Sector members should review the Informational items in the S&T 

Committee 2008 Final Report in the Report of the 93rd Conference on Weights and Measures when it is published.]

Discussion: All GMMs and NIR Grain Analyzers currently holding active CCs are of Type P. For these devices it 

would appear that the requirement for marking the Software Version/Revision of the metrologically significant 

portion might be the only change required to comply with the proposed marking for Type P devices.

Concern was expressed that the “NTEP CC No.” marking requirement might require marking with the base CC 

number plus the addendum number. GMM manufacturers have strong objections to requiring the addendum number 

to be marked or displayed on the device. GMM CCs automatically expire on June 30 of each year. To maintain a 

current GMM CC, the manufacturer must participate in the NTEP on-going calibration program (OCP). Data 

collected in the OCP are used to determine if existing (or revised) calibrations meet specified tolerances. If 

tolerances are met, the CC is re-issued with a new effective and expiration date and a new addendum number.

The Sector also had questions regarding interpretation of the second sentence of the note:

Metrologically significant software shall be clearly identified with the software version. The 

identification may consist of more than one part but one part shall be only dedicated for the 

metrologically significant portion.

What was not clear to the Sector was whether there could be several metrologically significant portions, each having 

a separate (and unique) identification. This is of particular concern to the Grain Analyzer Sector because of the way 

grain calibrations (very significant metrologically significant portions) are currently handled. For both GMMs and 

NIR Grain Analyzers, grain calibrations are individually identified and are required to be “self-checking” against 

data corruption or alteration (see paragraphs S.2.4.1. Calibration Version and S.2.4.2. Calibration Corruption in

HB 44, § 5.56.(a) and paragraphs S.2.5.2. Calibration Version and S.2.5.3. Calibration Corruption in HB 44, 

§ 5.56.). Considering that procedures are already in place to control (and verify) changes in individual grain 

calibrations, and that changes in grain calibrations are likely to be more frequent than changes in other 

metrologically significant software modules, Sector members doubted that assigning a single identification to all 

metrologically significant software (including grain calibrations) is practical for GMMs and NIR Grain Analyzers.
NTEP Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix A – NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector

NTEP - A19

For additional information on Software Sector activities that may affect GMMs and NIR Grain Analyzers, 

manufacturers are encouraged to review Appendix A, Item 360-2: Developing Items, Part 1, Items 1 and 2 of the 

S&T Committee Interim Reports in NCWM Publication 16 dated April 2008 and the Summary of the Software 

Sector’s May 2008 meeting. These documents are available online at:

http://ts.nist.gov/WeightsAndMeasures/Publications/upload/11-ST-08-Pub16-Final.pdf

http://www.ncwm.net/ntep/pdf/software_sector_summary_05_08.pdf

The WELMEC software document referenced in the Software Sector’s Meeting Summary is available online at 

http://www.welmec.org/publications/7-2en.pdf. The second committee draft of General Requirements for Software 

Controlled Measuring Instruments (TC 5/SC 2 CD2-N12, dated January 24, 2008), referred to in the Sector’s 

Meeting Summary as “OIML DSW-2 CD” can be found at http://www.oiml.org/download/cds.html.

14. Time and Place for Next Meeting

The next meeting is tentatively planned for Wednesday, August 19 and Thursday, August 20, 2009, at the Chase 

Suites Hotel in Kansas City, Missouri. Sector members are asked to hold these days open pending determination of 

agenda items, exact meeting times, and meeting duration. Final meeting details will be announced by early 

June 2009.

If you would like to submit an agenda item for the 2009 meeting, please contact any of the following persons by 

May 1, 2009:

Jim Truex NTEP Administrator jim.truex@ncwm.net

G. Diane Lee NIST Technical Advisor diane.lee@nist.gov

Jack Barber Technical Advisor barber.jw@comcast.net
NTEP Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix A – NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector

NTEP - A20

Change Summary

Recommended Amendments/Changes to the Grain Moisture Meters Chapter

in the

2008 Edition of NCWM Publication 14

Section Number Amendment/Change Page Source

VII.B. Accuracy, 

Precision, and 

Reproducibility

Amend to address multi-class type evaluations for 

TW.

GMM-11

through

GMM-15

08/08

GMM Sector 

Agenda Item 7

VII.C. Tolerances for Test 

Weight per Bushel 

Calibration 

Performance

Amend to limit the moisture content of samples 

used in evaluating TW performance and to add 

special considerations for multi-class calibrations

GMM-15

.

08/08

GMM Sector 

Agenda Item 8

Appendix C Amend to add additional data fields for TW data 

and to update instructions for submitting data to 

reflect current practice.

GMM-41 08/08

GMM Sector 

Agenda Item 9

IV. Tolerances for 

Calibration 

Performance

Delete the portion of § IV. specifying the 

categories of calibrations to be listed on a 

Certificate of Conformance.

GMM-6 

and

GMM-7

08/08

Grain Moisture 

Meter Sector

Agenda Item 10
NTEP Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix B – NTETC Measuring Sector

NTEP - B1

Appendix B

National Type Evaluation Technical Committee

Measuring Sector

October 3 - 4, 2008 – Atlanta, Georgia

Annual Meeting Summary

C arryover I tems........................................................................................................................................................ B2

1. Table of Key Characteristics of Products in Product Families for Meters Table ......................................... B2

2. NTEP Checklist for Hydrocarbon Gas Vapor Meters in Sub-metering Applications.................................. B5

3. Testing Meters Made of Different Materials................................................................................................ B6

4. Add Testing Criteria to NTEP Policy U “Evaluating Electronic Indicators Submitted Separately from 

a Measuring Element” ................................................................................................................................ B11

New I tems13

5. Recommendations to Update to NCWM Publication 14 to Reflect Changes to NIST Handbook 44 ........ B13

6. G-S.8.1. Access to Calibration and Configuration Adjustments, Proposed Changes to Language ........... B14

7. Product Families for Meters Table, Categorization of Liquid CO2 ........................................................... B17

8. Product Families for Meters Table, Inclusion of Milk and Dairy Products................................................ B18

9. Next Meeting.............................................................................................................................................. B20

A dditional I tems as T ime A llows........................................................................................................................... B20

10. Temperature Compensation for Liquid Measuring Devices Code ............................................................. B20

11. Water Meters – S.1.1.3. Value of the Smallest Unit................................................................................... B20

12. Water Meters – N.4.1.1. Repeatability Tests and T.1. Tolerance Values................................................... B21

13. Water Meters T.1.1. Repeatability, Tables T.1.1. and T.1.2. ..................................................................... B21

14. Draft Code Section 3.3X. Hydrogen Gas-Measuring Devices................................................................... B21

A ppendix 1 – A ttachment #1 fr om 2008 M easur ing Sector A genda .................................................................. B23

A ppendix 2 – A ttachment #2 fr om 2008 M easur ing Sector A genda .................................................................. B27

A ppendix 3 – A ttachment #3 fr om 2008 M easur ing Sector A genda .................................................................. B29

A ppendix 4 – 2008 M easur ing Sector M eeting Attendees................................................................................... B37
NTEP Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix B – NTETC Measuring Sector

NTEP - B2

National Type Evaluation Technical Committee

Measuring Sector Annual Meeting Summary

October 3 - 4, 2008

Atlanta, Georgia

Carryover Items

1. Table of Key Characteristics of Products in Product Families for Meters Table

Source: Carryover Item – 2007 Measuring Sector Agenda

Background: At its 2006 Annual Meeting, then-NTEP Director Steve Patoray submitted a number of comments 

concerning the Product Families for Meters Table in NCWM Publication 14. Steve noted that, while improvements 

had been made to the table in past years, there were still a number of areas where additional improvements are 

needed to ensure consistent application of the table. For example, the basis for viscosity values are not clear, there is 

a lack of reference temperatures for viscosity values, and when possible source documents are consulted for these 

values, there are differences in viscosity values listed for the same product. In addition, Steve noted that the 

numerous special notes and separate product categories make the table difficult to follow. As a result of discussions 

at its 2006 meeting, the Measuring Sector tasked a small work group (WG) to address these issues and report back to 

the Sector.

At its 2007 Annual Meeting, the work group gave a progress report to the Sector and presented a number of 

proposed revisions that were being considered (see the 2007 Final Summary of the Measuring Sector for details of 

that proposal). The WG noted that additional work was needed to list the various liquids, describing the viscosity, 

specific gravity, and conductance. After hearing comments on the proposed changes, the Sector agreed that the WG 

should continue developing this item and present its recommendations for discussion at the 2008 Measuring Sector 

meeting.

Recommendation: The Sector was asked to consider the latest proposal from the WG, which was distributed in 

two attachments: (1) Attachment #1: a proposed a table listing product families/groups along with typical product 

names and their corresponding viscosities and specific gravities (shown in Appendix 1 to this meeting summary); 

and (2) Attachment #2: a proposed revision to the Product Families Table outlining test requirements for different 

meter types within each product family (shown as Appendix 2 to this meeting summary).

Note: See also agenda Items 7 (Categorization of Liquid CO2 in the Product Families for Meters Table) 

and 8 (Product Families for Meters Table, Inclusion of Milk and Dairy Products), both of which which address 

topics related to the Product Families Table.

Discussion: Mike Keilty (Endress and Hauser), Sector Chairman, explained that the WG took the approach of 

separating the test requirements and product characteristics, including viscosity and specific gravity, into two 

separate tables. The proposed revisions were not intended to change what is currently in Publication 14, but rather 

to make the information more usable. The group did note that there may be a need to discuss the category of 

compressed liquids in greater detail once the general approach for revising the tables is agreed upon; beyond this, 

they did not identify a need to change any of the proposed test criteria. With regard to product characteristics, Mike 

indicated that the WG was unable to find a single definitive source for the values listed in that table, but was able to 

gather representative values from published sources, including product manufacturers, application guides, and other 

industry sources, for most of the products; there are a few products for which values must still be identified. The 

WG also found information indicating that some of the trade names listed in the original tables under the 

agrichemicals section are no longer relevant; thus, these names were deleted from the proposed revision. Mike 

noted that the WG had difficulty determining how to address conductance of products in the criteria and decided to 

first focus efforts on viscosity values. The WG wanted to see if the NTEP measuring laboratories would find the 

approach of separating the information into two easier to follow and apply tables.
NTEP Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix B – NTETC Measuring Sector

NTEP - B3

The Sector acknowledged that there are currently differences in the way that CCs state what is covered and Sector 

members share the common goal of improving consistency in the CCs. The Sector recognized that the tables 

respond to the Sector’s 2007 discussions regarding the need to improve references to product characteristics in the 

Product Families Table. Sector members, particularly the NTEP laboratories, generally expressed appreciation for 

the more detailed information on product viscosities and specific gravities provided in Attachment #1. The Sector 

also recognized that the list of products is not an all-inclusive list, but rather an attempt to identify some common 

products in each category in an attempt to assist laboratories and manufacturers in identifying typical products for a 

particular category.

The Sector spent considerable time during the first day of its meeting debating the merits of the proposed revisions 

and the format of the two tables. There were some questions about the “Normal Liquids” category and testing with 

low and high viscosity products. Some commented that the two attachments don’t appear to correlate because one 

attachment has five categories, whereas the other attachment has many more. The Sector considered combining the 

two tables by adding columns to list typical products and associated characteristics, but felt that this would add 

significant length to the basic table and may make it more difficult to follow. Based on the comments made during 

the first day of the meeting, Marc Buttler (Emerson) and Mike Keilty agreed to work on the tables during the 

evening and invited participation by others. The Sector agreed that the footnotes in the current table need to remain 

in any revision, including the statement regarding temperature references. The Sector also noted that better 

information is needed for product conductivities for magnetic flow meters, particularly since conductivity may vary 

for different batches of product. The Sector agreed that this should be addressed separately as a future effort.

On the second day of its meeting, the Sector members present received a hardcopy of revisions prepared by Mike 

Keilty, Marc Buttler, Dmitri Karimov (Liquid Controls), and Tina Butcher (NIST Weights and Measures Division, 

Sector technical advisor) with input from several others overnight. The revisions proposed reorganizing the 

information to create three tables: Table C.1. Tests to be Conducted (identifying tests to be conducted); Table C.2. 

Product Families Table (outlining product families broken down by meter technology and referencing tests from 

Table C.1.); and Table C.3. Typical Product Family Characteristics (listing typical products in each product family 

and the viscosity and specific gravity of each, taken from agenda Attachment #1). The group had discussed various 

approaches, including combining the tables, but felt that maintaining separate tables would allow more flexibility to 

add new “typical” products at a later date.

The Sector reviewed these revisions and made multiple changes to the draft in “real-time” by viewing the changes 

on a projected screen as the technical advisor made participants’ suggested modifications. Key changes included 

reversing the order of Tables C.1. and C.2.; re-inserting a note regarding LPG and NH3 under the PD meter and 

turbine meter columns (previously, these references were in a single cell); reinstating the footnotes in the Product 

Families Table; deleting the reference to “centistokes;” and correcting the abbreviation for “centipoise.”

Maurice Forkert (Tuthill Transfer Systems) noted that the original table in Pub 14 includes a viscosity range for 

“Fungicides;” however, there is no value listed in the new table for Fungicides. He also suggested including crop 

chemicals after water for better flow of information. Mike Keilty observed that additional input is needed from 

those with expertise in agrichemicals; in the meantime, he noted this should not create any conflicts since there are 

presently no values listed for many of these products. Dmitri Karimov suggested working toward combining “crop 

chemicals” into a single category for simplification. In the meantime, the Sector agreed to differentiate groups as 

Crop Chemicals 1, 2, 3, and 4 to provide a correlation with the old table.

The Sector identified other editorial and content changes to be addressed or considered:

• Flowables is missing from the table.

• Suggest putting crop chemicals after water to make the table flow better.

• The terms in Table C.2. and Table C.3. should match for the various product families.

• Listing the items in order from lowest to highest viscosity would make the table easier to follow.

Though acknowledging the need for revision to some sections of the table (for example, improving the 

categorization of crop chemicals), the NTEP laboratories indicated that the changes thus far represent major 

progress. They noted that they will need to try using the new format to assess how well it will work, but anticipated 

that it should be much easier to use. Other Sector members agreed that the proposed revisions are an improvement 

over the current version, even if there remain areas requiring additional work.
NTEP Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix B – NTETC Measuring Sector

NTEP - B4

Dmitri Karimov stated that the note for a single test to cover NH3 and LPG should apply to turbine meters as well as 

PD meters, commenting that the original table did not specify that the note applied to PD meters only and noting that 

he has found CCs for turbine meters on which both products were covered based upon a single test. Other 

manufacturers agreed with this point of view. The labs believe that the original table had a note requiring only one 

test and that the note was not specific as to either technology. However, the criteria in “Test A” require a test for 

each product. By virtue of this point, the labs have raised the point that the note would not apply. Several of the 

labs further noted that they don’t have a lot of experience with turbines and are not certain whether it is appropriate 

to include both based on a single test. They feel they would need additional information to make that assessment.

After the morning’s discussion, the Sector agreed that they have reached a consensus on the layout of the table, but 

acknowledged there are still some content and editorial changes that need to be made as described above. During 

lunch, Mike Keilty and Tina Butcher worked on revisions to the table based on the Sector’s morning comments and 

presented the revisions to the Sector. In addition to minor refinements based on the Sector’s morning discussions, 

key changes made or still needing to be addressed include the following:

• The original table in Pub 14 includes a viscosity range for fungicides; however, there is no value listed in 

the new table for fungicides. Until specific values can be included, these are to be identified as crop 

chemicals 1, 2, 3, and 4.

Summary of Key Changes Made or Needed:

• “Flowables” is missing from the table.

• Consider putting crop chemicals after water and other changes to make the table flow better.

• The order of the tables originally numbered C.1. and C.2. was reversed for better flow.

• The note for a single test to cover NH3

• The terms in Table C.2. and Table C.3. (original numbers) should match for the various product families.

and LPG should also apply to turbine meters. The original table did 

not specify that the note applied to PD meters only. (Note: This was a point of contention that was not 

resolved during the meeting, as referenced earlier.)

• The term for “centipoise” needs to be consistent.

• The term “centistokes” was deleted from the headers.

• The footnotes from the original Product Families Table were pulled back into Table C.2. (original number).

The following “maintenance” issues requiring further work and development were also identified:

• Start to combine the “crop chemicals” into a single category.

Maintenance Issues:

• There is no reference to heated products below 50 °C.

• If you list the items in order from lowest to highest viscosity, it would make the table easier to follow. By 

viscosity? By specific gravity? Alphabetically by name?

• Need to include references to the footnotes included in Table C.1.

The Sector reviewed these changes and made a few additional modifications. The latest version of the table as of 

the end of the Sector meeting appears in Appendix 3 to the Sector Summary.

The labs indicated they welcome any additions to Table C.3. However, with regard to the combination of some of 

the categories, they expressed a desire to see the information before it becomes final. Paul Glowacki (Murray 

Equipment) proposed eliminating from the table those products that are no longer used. Dmitri Karimov reported 

difficulty locating information for some of the products listed in the current table. Several Sector members noted 

that some crop chemicals may still be used; however, they may be labeled under a different name. Dmitri 

volunteered to assist in obtaining information on crop chemicals, noting that he had previously contacted the 

Fertilizer Association of America and they promised to send additional information. Jim Truex (NTEP Director) 

also suggested contacting NCWM members representing Dow Chemical, Cargill, and other chemical manufacturers 

to see if they can assist in providing information.

Rich Tucker (RL Tucker Consulting) asked about the “juices and beverages” category, noting that it was not 

referenced in the new Table C.3., though it is referenced in the current Product Families Table for magnetic flow 
NTEP Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix B – NTETC Measuring Sector

NTEP - B5

meters. The Sector discussed how to handle this category and agreed that “juices and beverages” can be added to 

the “water/milk” category for other meter technologies. Tina Butcher noted that an additional maintenance issue to 

consider is how to handle other food products such as corn syrup, etc. since these are not presently referenced in the 

table. The Sector agreed that this could be handled as a maintenance issue.

At the conclusion of the meeting, the Sector once again agreed that a consensus had been reached on the general 

revisions to the format, but that additional content changes are needed. The Sector recognized the amount of work 

put into developing the revised format and identifying corrections needed to improve consistent application of the 

criteria. Sector members present expressed a reluctance to wait an entire year to implement these corrections. Some 

members noted that ballots on more complicated topics have been successfully distributed in the past and suggested 

that changes identified at the meeting be made and the Sector balloted. The Sector agreed that the best approach to 

ensuring continuity of the work would be to have a small number of people work to make editorial corrections in the 

areas identified and distribute it to the entire Sector via letter ballot in the hopes of getting sufficient consensus to 

move the revisions into the 2009 Edition of NCWM Publication 14. Mike Keilty and Dmitri Karimov agreed to take 

on the task of following up on these changes, preparing a revised version, and forwarding it to the technical advisor 

for balloting of the Sector members.

The Sector agreed that maintenance issues can be addressed at a future point following additional research and 

discussion.

Conclusions:

• The Sector agreed on the revised format, noting that it is an improvement over the current version. 

However, there is additional work to be done. Mike Keilty and Dmitri Karimov will work together to 

better define the crop chemicals category. They will do a search of existing CCs for the specific product 

names and determine if these names are still used. They will also go to product manufacturers who have 

products listed and ask for information on the products. They will also add the category for “water, milk, 

juices, and beverages” to Table C.3. The proposed revisions are to be sent to the Sector technical advisor 

by November 24, and the Sector will be balloted with a response requested by December 12. Comments 

will be incorporated and, assuming Sector agreement, submitted to the NTEP Committee by the NCWM 

Interim Meeting for proposed incorporation into the 2009 Edition of NCWM Publication 14.

[Note from Technical Advisor: The Sector was balloted prior to the NCWM Interim Meeting on 

additional proposed changes to the criteria; however, the results of the vote (8 affirmative, 6 negative, and 

4 abstain) indicated a lack of consensus to support these additional changes. Consequently, while the 

Sector supported the revised format, there was not support for the additional changes without further 

review and discussion.]

• The Sector agreed to add “juices and beverages” to the “water/milk” category for other product types (PD 

and turbine).

• The Sector agreed to address other food products like corn syrup, etc. for the next Sector meeting as a 

maintenance/updating issue.

2. NTEP Checklist for Hydrocarbon Gas Vapor Meters in Sub-metering Applications

Source: NTEP Director

Background: At its 2006 meeting, the Measuring Sector was asked by the NTEP Committee to consider and 

develop a checklist for residential hydrocarbon gas vapor meters. These devices will most likely be used for 

submetering. At that meeting, the Sector heard that several states had recently contacted NTEP regarding these 

devices. California already has evaluation and certification of these devices in their state. The Sector was asked to 

review the procedures used by California (which were included as Appendix D of the 2006 meeting agenda) and 

rework them into a format acceptable for NCWM Publication 14. At its 2006 meeting, the Sector agreed the best 

approach for developing a Publication 14 checklist for LPG vapor meters would be the utilization of a WG made up 

of technical experts and other interested parties. Dan Reiswig, California NTEP laboratory, was to provide a list of 

vapor meter manufacturers to be contacted for participation in the WG.
NTEP Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix B – NTETC Measuring Sector

NTEP - B6

At the time of development of the 2007 meeting agenda no information had been received from the WG. At the 

meeting, the Sector reviewed a recommendation and considered changes to Publication 14 deemed appropriate. 

After reviewing a draft presented by the California NTEP laboratory, the Sector agreed that “LPG” in the title 

should be changed to “Hydrocarbon Gas” so that the measurement of natural gas would be included. The California 

NTEP laboratory and the NTEP Director were to continue to develop this checklist for presentation and discussion 

at the next Sector meeting.

Recommendation: The Sector was to hear an update at the Sector’s 2008 meeting from from the California NTEP 

laboratory and the NTEP Director on the progress on this issue.

Discussion: Steve Patoray (Consultants on Certification), past NTEP Director, indicated that this issue originally 

arose because some states indicated an interest in having NTEP conduct evaluations on these devices as a result of 

pending legislation in some of those states to put sub-meters under weights and measures’ authority. In the NTEP 

laboratory discussion of this issue, the labs asked the Sector to raise the question to manufacturers of whether or not 

there is interest in developing this checklist; the California laboratory representatives noted that they receive only 

one or two requests per year for this type of evaluation. From an NTEP management perspective, Jim Truex 

questioned whether it is necessary for NTEP to address these devices given the small number of devices submitted 

for evaluation over the last five years and the fact that states may be willing to accept California’s Certificate of 

Approval in lieu of an NTEP CC.

Dan Reiswig (California) reported that the draft checklist was given to members of industry to review and the 

feedback was positive; however, the manufacturers who commented indicated that they did not have any products 

affected by the proposed checklist. Steve Patoray noted that, should the work continue, a decision must be made 

regarding the placement of the criteria into Publication 14; for example, should it be placed into a new section or 

incorporated into the LMD chapter.

Ralph Richter (NIST, WMD) reported that the American Gas Association is revising the ANSI standard for all of 

the natural gas distribution system, though he noted that the proposed revisions should only affect utility-type 

meters, not sub-meters. Ralph indicated that he believes that the issue of hydrocarbon gas vapor sub-meters is very 

much like that for water sub-meters in that there are numerous meters in use in landlord-tenant applications 

including residential as well as commercial, such as strip malls; however, the bulk of weights and measures 

inspections in the country as a whole are limited primarily to complaints rather than routine inspection. Jim Truex 

noted that some weights and measures authorities may not have jurisdiction over some of these meters.

There was little discussion of the proposed checklist among Sector members during the meeting. Mike Keilty 

suggested that, because of the limited interest, the Sector should consider removing the item from its agenda as a 

carryover item if no progress to finalize a checklist is made within the next year.

Jim Truex reported that he received an e-mail from Maurice Van Puten, PhD, whose company manufactures a 

digital hydrocarbon vapor meter recently approved by California and Massachusetts. Dr. Van Puten offered his help 

and indicated an interest in becoming a member of the Sector. Dan Reiswig indicated that the bulk of the remaining 

work is in reformatting the checklist to fit within the Publication 14 structure and stated the California laboratory 

could look at this over the next year.

Conclusion: The Sector agreed that the California NTEP laboratory will work to reformat the checklist into a 

Publication 14 format. Norma Ingram (California) agreed to coordinate with Maurice Van Puten and Jim Truex to 

work on this issue between now and the next Sector meeting.

3. Testing Meters Made of Different Materials

Source: California NTEP Laboratory – Carryover from 2007 Measuring Sector Agenda

Background: The Sector reviewed this issue at its 2007 meeting, but was unable to reach a consensus on the item. 

Consequently, the item was carried over for review at the 2008 Sector meeting. The Sector was asked to revisit this 

issue and interested parties to report on any updates or new information that might assist the Sector in bringing this 
NTEP Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix B – NTETC Measuring Sector

NTEP - B7

issue to a resolution. The background information and discussion from the Sector’s 2007 Final Meeting Summary is 

included below for reference.

Excerpt from Item 5 of the 2007 Measuring Sector Final Meeting Summary:

Background/Discussion: The California NTEP laboratory is conducting an NTEP evaluation of a family of 

meters using multiple products in different product families. The meter family includes meters made of 

aluminum and stainless steel. Because Publication 14 does not specifically address this scenario, the laboratory is 

asking for input from the Sector before testing starts.

At the 2006 meeting the Sector discussed the scenario described above. The following proposal was offered as a 

possible solution. The Sector reviewed the proposal for possible forwarding to the NTEP Committee for 

inclusion in Publication 14.

Proposal: Add a new Section F. to the Publication 14 Technical Policy as follows and renumber subsequent 

sections:

U. Meters Made of Different Materials within the Same Family

When multiple meters made of different materials within a meter family are submitted for evaluation all 

meters will be tested with at least one product from each product family to be included on the CC and at 

least one meter will be tested with the range of products required in the Product Families Table for the 

meter type (e.g., positive displacement, turbine, mass meter, etc.) submitted for evaluation.

The MMA provided the following white paper for Sector consideration during the discussion:

Meter Manufacturers Association

Speaking as experienced manufacturers of PD Meters, Turbine Meters, and Mass Meters, it is our experience that 

the materials of construction do not affect the quality of measurement over the specified operating range of a 

particular metering technology, as these have been considered and accounted for during the design phase of the 

meter.

It is the manufacturer’s responsibility to ensure that the meter meets type; additionally, material selection is the 

manufacturer’s responsibility and is typically driven by the requirements of chemical compatibility with the liquid 

products that are being measured or by industry regulations (e.g., non-ferrous meters for aircraft refueling).

Materials are not selected or modified for reasons of accuracy. The market does identify and eliminate the 

inferior products through the normal surveillance process as well as the manufacturer’s warranty process.

It is normal industry practice to include material varieties such as stainless steel, aluminum, cast iron, plastic, etc., 

into one meter; for example, some of our PD meters have cast steel outer housings, stainless steel bearings, cast 

iron rotors, anodized aluminum blades or cast iron blades or plastic blades. Non-ferrous aircraft meters will 

utilize aluminum cast components and SS bearings. We manufacture turbine meters with stainless steel housings 

and aluminum rotors. The point being the measurement accuracy is a function of the manufacturing process, not 

the materials used.

It is not the intent of HB 44 to differentiate between measurement technologies, only the intended application.

Doesn’t material selection fall under measurement technology?

Where do you draw the line on NTEP lab decisions on the materials of construction?

The manufacturers believe that the answer to the question is in the LONG history of meters themselves. There 

are hundreds of thousands of meters in service in the United States used for direct sales (e.g., home heating oil 

delivery, loading rack wholesale deliveries, aircraft refueling, agriculture chemical deliveries, etc.). These meters 
NTEP Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix B – NTETC Measuring Sector

NTEP - B8

are verified routinely by the local W&M agencies, and if problems are detected (accuracy out of range) then they 

are taken out of service.

Summary: The meter manufacturers make determination of materials of construction. Meter manufacturers 

make the determination of what particular attributes of a meter enable it to be considered as part of a family.

Questions that need to be answered in order to make an informed decision:

1.) Is there a real world problem that requires a solution by the inclusion of a new section specifically aimed at 

materials in Pub 14?

2.) Is there an inequity in the market, facilitation of fraud?

One of the NTEP laboratories stated that during an evaluation of a mass flow meter the performance was different 

for two meters with different “tube” materials. Two mass flow meter manufacturers stated that if both meters 

were calibrated for the product being measured there should be no difference in performance due to “tube” 

material. Another laboratory stated that the permanence test of a meter conducted after 30 days is not a true 

indicator of long-term permanence. Another member stated that NTEP should be interested in testing key 

characteristics and metrologically significant components.

After further discussion at the 2006 meeting, the Sector agreed that the best approach for resolving the issue of 

what components are “metrologically significant” and require additional evaluation was to include the discussion 

and development of a proposal for Sector consideration in the tasks of the WG formed to develop a new Family 

Product Table approach, as discussed in agenda Item 5.

Recommendation/Discussion: At the time of development of the 2007 meeting agenda no information had been 

received from the WG nor was any formal update presented at the meeting. One industry member suggested the 

item be withdrawn. The Sector technical advisor cautioned the group that withdrawing the item would not 

resolve the question as to whether or not a change in material used in the construction of a meter would require 

that the model be resubmitted for NTEP evaluation in order to maintain a valid CC. The manufacturers present at 

the meeting met following the conclusion of the first day’s agenda and came back with some suggestions for 

resolving the problem. One suggestion was for the manufacturer to submit a drawing listing material used, 

similar to what is done with Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. (UL), who evaluates or tests what they consider to be 

the worst case. Another suggestion was to include ASTM specifications for the original material and any 

replacement material. Some of the NTEP laboratories believed that changing material constitutes a change of 

design and, therefore, requires a new model designation.

Discussion: Steve Patoray described (from his perspective as past NTEP Director) the scenario discussed at the 

2006 and 2007 Sector meetings. He noted that materials used in devices are considered metrologically significant 

for weighing applications and questions were raised about whether or not materials are metrologically significant for 

metering applications. Some had suggested that using criteria similar to that used by Underwriters Laboratories 

might be considered. He indicated that many were uncomfortable with the concept of defining a “worst case” 

scenario for particular materials. He further noted that the question was raised of where to stop in the examination 

of device components: the body of the meter, or the seals, or other location? Manufacturers indicate that these 

questions are all part of the design process and inherent with assembling a device intended for a given application. 

Steve concluded his overview by noting that a key question is whether or not additional testing is needed based on 

variations in the materials used in the metering system and further commented that it is not likely that a field official 

will be able to determine these differences by visual examination. The inspector just needs to have confidence that 

the meter they are examining is covered by the CC. An overriding concern of NTEP is to ensure that the evaluation 

is fair and that the requirements are being applied consistently to all manufacturers. At present, NTEP has no 

guidance on how to handle these different scenarios.

Allen Katalinic (North Carolina) commented that while changes to significant components of a meter will make a 

difference, there are many parts in a meter where changes will not have any metrological impact. Mike Frailer 

(Maryland) noted that a key difficulty on the part of the evaluator is in assessing how to consistently assess whether 

a given change is metrologically significant, and Jim Truex noted that this depends on how one defines 
NTEP Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix B – NTETC Measuring Sector

NTEP - B9

“metrologically significant.” Paul Glowacki commented that Jim’s point touches on the basic issue, which is how to 

define what changes can be made without re-evaluation. A manufacturer may be confident that a change in material 

will not affect a meter’s performance; however, an evaluator may not agree and may require re-evaluation. There 

have to be some guidelines because, at present, Paul feels as if every CC is a negotiation and what is applied to one 

company may be different than what is applied to another company. Tina Butcher commented that the technical 

policies in Publication 14 strive to minimize the amount of testing required for a manufacturer to list the maximum 

number of devices on a CC. She stated that, for the NTEP laboratories, key questions are: (1) whether the 

laboratories and NTEP management have adequate information to enable them to assess when additional testing is 

needed in order to list particular variations on the CC, and (2) how they can make that assessment consistently from 

manufacturer to manufacturer and from laboratory to laboratory. NTEP has developed experience with some basic 

types of changes to devices through trial and error and in consulting with manufacturers; the laboratories are asking 

for specific guidelines with regard to materials variation. Mike Keilty noted that manufacturers submit a sample(s) 

of a device in good faith and expect a rigorous evaluation; however, manufacturers are concerned that the amount of 

testing not be expanded beyond what is economically feasible.

Relaying discussions from the NTEP laboratory meeting prior to the Sector meeting, Jim Truex commented that the 

laboratories also have a dilemma in assessing how to avoid “horror stories” such as experiences with E85 while 

establishing reasonable guidelines. Jerry Butler (North Carolina) also noted that, while many manufacturers such as 

those who have long participated in NTEP Sector meetings and evaluations, are conscientious and laboratories may 

trust their judgment, laboratories are seeing an influx of equipment from sources (sometimes off-shore) with which 

they have had little experience and whose manufacturers sometimes have little if any experience with legal 

metrology requirements, let alone U.S. requirements. This concern was echoed by other laboratories who also noted 

confidence in manufacturers participating in this discussion, but recognized that policies must be in place to ensure 

fair treatment. Several manufacturers commented that the industry will take care of substandard products produced 

by competitors by bringing such instances to NTEP’s attention; reputable manufacturers cannot afford to allow 

substandard products to undercut the market when they themselves are expending the resources needed to comply.

The Sector also had some discussions about replacement parts and how these affect metrological integrity, with 

some members noting that field officials are unable to determine when non-metrologically equivalent or inferior 

components are used by visual examination. Several members commented that this is not something that can be 

prevented by increased evaluation at the type evaluation level, but is rather addressed by performance testing in 

initial and subsequent verification. In addition, the manufacturer is equally concerned about unauthorized 

substitutions since this can affect the reputation of their product. In that same vein, a manufacturer would not make 

a change in materials unless he is confident that the change would not affect the performance of the device in his 

customer’s application. Rodney Cooper (Actaris) pointed out that reputable manufacturers police themselves to 

ensure their customers’ continued confidence. Norm Ingram pointed out that manufacturers have designed these 

products and know from experience what will work, so perhaps the best approach is to allow them to make these 

changes and allow the marketplace to take care of itself. Norm did note, however, as did Dan Reiswig (California), 

that even if the issue is tabled, the laboratories still need guidance on how to consistently approach proposed 

changes with regard to issuing CCs.

Dmitri Karimov and others pointed out that NTEP has largely relied on the integrity of the manufacturer in reporting 

changes to devices and that, in many cases, NTEP or a field official would never be able to tell the difference. For 

example, if a rotor is changed, there is no reasonable way that weights and measures officials can determine that the 

clearances are different. In addition, NTEP has also relied primarily on the manufacturer to provide guidance on 

when a particular change is metrologically significant. With regard to material, the manufacturer’s concern is in 

making sure that the materials are compatible with the product being measured in the application. Mike Keilty 

questioned how conformity assessment might factor into this issue and contribute to resolving some of these 

questions.

Rich Tucker echoed an earlier comment by Norm Ingram, noting that most manufacturers change materials because 

of the products with which the meter will be used. When a manufacturer finds through experience that a particular 

change creates problems, manufacturers make adjustments accordingly to ensure continued performance. Rich even 

noted there were instances when NTEP passed a material in an evaluation and that material later proved to be 

problematic. The majority of the time, materials issues will resolve themselves and most of the testing requirements 

imposed by the Product Families Table are going to address any question about materials.
NTEP Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix B – NTETC Measuring Sector

NTEP - B10

The Sector also discussed numerous examples of specific materials and their effect on metering of different product 

types; however, these discussions provided no insight on how to best address the materials issue. Steve Patoray 

reminded the Sector that its purpose is to advise the NTEP administrator, and Publication 14 will only be changed if 

the NTEP Committee agrees with the Sector’s recommendations.

Will Wotthlie (Maryland) commented that the laboratories are putting their reputation on the line by issuing a CC 

and saying that it covers everything listed on the CC; the laboratories want to have confidence that the devices will 

work and field officials are, in turn, relying on that assurance. Will also questioned why NTEP is needed if the 

feeling is that everything in the field will take care of itself. Mike Keilty noted that a balance needs to be achieved 

between a system that can be practically executed and one that will still provide confidence; manufacturers are 

concerned about expanding testing beyond what is economically feasible.

Will Wotthlie suggested that an alternative is for the labs to simply list what is tested on the CC under the testing 

conditions section; however, some manufacturers indicated they want to continue to list materials of construction on 

the CC under the “Standard Features and Options” section. Jim Truex noted that a CC is not meant to be a 

marketing tool. Tina Butcher commented that, in its early days, NTEP decided that only metrologically significant 

things should be listed on the CC. If this position is to be maintained, then the Sector needs to decide whether or not 

to include the materials on the CC if all options are covered. If the Sector concludes that the material is not 

significant, then perhaps a statement needs to be included in Publication 14 to that effect. She also reminded the 

Sector that the laboratories are not only trying to assess whether or not a new variation in material can be covered on 

the CC, but also how to determine which of two meters to select for testing when they are made of different 

materials.

Some members, including NTEP laboratory representatives as well as manufacturers, stated that if the materials 

feature or attribute is not metrologically significant, it doesn’t belong on the CC; the information can be listed in the 

test conditions, but not on the front of the CC under the “Standard Features and Options.” Dmitri Karimov 

questioned why the information would be listed in the test conditions if it isn’t metrologically significant. Others 

noted that this record may eliminate the need for additional testing should policies change at a later date. Jim Truex 

also pointed out that if the information is to be listed on the front of the CC, it will be necessary for the laboratory to 

determine the “worst case” scenario with regard to materials.

At present there is a great variation among existing CCs with regard to how materials are referenced. Steve Patoray

noted that there are differences in how manufacturers request this information be reflected on their CCs; some want 

various model numbers listed, including different materials. Some believe that the only thing that should be listed 

on the CC is the product application for which the meter is approved, not the materials. Jerry Butler questioned why 

the manufacturers want to list all of these different products on the CC, commenting that it is up to the manufacturer 

and the customer to make sure the meter is right for the application. He further noted it would be helpful to have 

materials construction identified through the model designation.

Questions were raised by the manufacturers and laboratories about how CCs will be handled until the Sector can 

reach an agreement with regard to testing requirements for materials variations. Jim Truex reiterated that the 

purpose of a CC is not a marketing tool. Jim indicated that, as NTEP Director, he is not comfortable with listing all 

these different features unless the laboratory has tested them. Without taking a position on whether or not 

“materials” are considered a metrologically significant feature, Jim indicated that, for consistency purposes, NTEP 

will not list materials in the standard features and options; however, the information will be listed in the test 

conditions for the meter(s) tested during the NTEP evaluation(s). He noted this will be an administrative decision to 

ensure consistency. In response to a question about whether eliminating the reference to materials of construction in 

the “standard features and options” section would affect existing CCs that presently list this information, Jim stated 

that no changes would be made until the CC is being revised for other reasons.

After extensive debate on the first day of the meeting without resolution, the Sector returned to the discussion the 

following day with little additional progress. At that point, Mike Keilty noted that there are manufacturers who have 

product materials listed on their CCs and those who do not have the materials listed. He commented that, in 

establishing guidelines, the Sector has tended to draw a broad brush across metering technologies and, in many 

instances, treated them as the same even though people know they are not made the same way. Manufacturers 
NTEP Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix B – NTETC Measuring Sector

NTEP - B11

generally make the materials of the meter to be compatible with the product to be measured and manufacturers may 

take different approaches in ensuring this compatibility. Andre Noel (Neptune) pointed out that some meters are 

made of different materials for different product applications, and the change in product necessitates an additional 

evaluation. Andre noted that a manufacturer can’t make a meter out of bronze, for example, and use it to meter a 

caustic material because it will fail. Manufacturers take the product application and other application details into 

account when designing and choosing a meter for a given application base and will relay this information to the 

customer with regard to where the meter can be used. Andre further noted that this becomes a question of liability 

for the manufacturer since the customer will hold the manufacturer accountable. Some members also made note that 

the materials may be more significant for some meter technologies than for others.

The NTEP laboratories are asking for guidance to ensure consistency, but the Sector seems to be at an impasse with 

regard to how to provide that guidance. The Sector was not able to agree upon any general guidance that would 

assist the laboratories in understanding material construction and its impact on device performance. The 

laboratories need to be comfortable that the testing they have conducted supports the variations listed on the CC. 

Dennis Beattie (Measurement Canada) observed that the issue seems to focus on the question of how the materials 

affect the definition of what constitutes a “family” of devices. He also pointed out, in response to an example of a 

manufacturer choosing a lighter material for a vehicle-mounted than a stationary application, that some materials 

such as aluminum respond differently to changes in temperature.

Conclusion: The Sector had extensive discussion on both the first and second days of the meeting over specific 

examples of meter sizes, product applications, and component materials. There were clearly divided opinions 

regarding how these combinations should be addressed. Manufacturers generally seemed to feel that component 

materials relative to the intended meter application are a design issue and should be left to the manufacturer to 

address, particularly since they will ultimately be responsible for ensuring that the meters work accurately and their 

customers are satisfied. Some NTEP laboratory representatives were comfortable with the idea of allowing the

marketplace to take care of this issue, whereas others were not, particularly citing their feeling of responsibility in 

attesting to the accuracy of what is listed on a CC. However, it was clear that all laboratories felt the need for 

additional guidance in how to handle variations with regard to the amount of testing required and on how to handle 

listing materials information on the CC to ensure consistency among all of the laboratories.

The Sector was unable to reach any consensus on this issue; however, the Sector acknowledged that the issue is not 

going to be eliminated from the Sector’s agenda. Criteria (whatever that may be) regarding how to address materials 

must be included in Publication 14, and guidance needs to be given to the NTEP laboratories to ensure this issue is 

consistently addressed for all evaluations.

4. Add Testing Criteria to NTEP Policy U “Evaluating Electronic Indicators Submitted Separately from a 

Measuring Element”

Source: California NTEP Lab

Background: At its 2007 meeting, the Measuring Sector heard that Section U. of the NTEP Policy in NCWM 

Publication 14 allows for testing an indicator separately from a measuring element. However, specific test criteria 

had not been developed for this section. The Sector heard a recommendation to develop and add specific criteria for 

testing an indicator separately from a measuring element for this section. The California NTEP laboratory 

recommended using Canada’s test criteria as a guideline to develop the tests outlined in that meeting agenda’s 

Appendices A, B, and C.

The Sector agreed the California NTEP laboratory should lead a WG to develop a specific test procedure for review 

at the next Sector meeting. Members of the WG selected at the 2007 meeting are Dave Rajala (Veeder-Root 

Company), Rich Miller (FMC Technologies), Maurice Forkert (Tuthill Transfer Systems), Dmitri Karimov (Liquid 

Controls), Rodney Cooper (Actaris Neptune), and Ralph Richter (NIST WMD).

Recommendation: The Sector will hear an update on the progress of this work from the work group.
NTEP Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix B – NTETC Measuring Sector

NTEP - B12

Discussion: Manufacturers want to be able to submit an indicating device separately and, while there is a checklist 

for meters in Publication 14, there are currently no similar provisions for electronic indicators. Currently, 

Publication 14 only includes criteria for addressing mechanical indicators.

Dan Reiswig reported that he has developed an initial draft of criteria for separate indicators. He emphasized that 

indicator manufacturers and people in the work group have provided a lot of help on the development of test criteria 

for these indicators thus far, particularly Rich Miller and Dmitri Karimov. Dan reported that the work group has 

also been fortunate to be able to consult with Canada’s type evaluation laboratory staff, noting that the Canadian 

document for evaluating these devices is written more for people who regularly work in the lab and continually 

work with electronics.

Dan encountered some challenges in addressing variations with regard to amending CCs for previously approved 

indicators. One example given was how to address an indicator that has been approved for use with a positive 

displacement meter, but is to be used at a later point for mass flow applications. The “modularization” that has been 

done in the past has typically been done with the same technology, thus, Dan has expressed some uncertainty about 

how to handle such variations, noting the need for the criteria to address different technologies. Dan noted that the 

entire process is very complex, as he has learned from Measurement Canada’s experiences.

An additional area that has posed some challenges is in addressing features such as multi-point calibration capability 

and how to define “approved and compatible” for an indicator with specific features. Dan raised the general 

question of whether or not we should be developing testing criteria for indicators alone and how extensive 

associated laboratory testing should be. He commented that putting an indicator on a meter and testing it in a field 

environment may not provide the best indication of the indicator’s capabilities. The Sector must determine whether 

a laboratory and a field test are both needed or if one alone is sufficient.

Dan explained that the overarching goal of developing these criteria is to help ensure that the manufacturers and 

laboratories are all looking at the evaluation of indicators and their corresponding coverage on CCs from the same 

perspective. Rich Miller also noted the goal of establishing criteria that would allow modifications to be made to 

indicating elements, but not require unnecessary re-evaluations in the field for every modification.

He has distributed the checklist to some members of the work group, but has not received a response. General 

comments on the checklist from the Sector members at the meeting were favorable, with most, including Dan, 

noting that more work is needed with regard to test procedures and test equipment. The Sector had some limited 

discussion of specific aspects of possible test criteria before concluding that this conversation was best left to the 

work group to develop an initial proposal.

Steve Patoray noted that the material developed thus far has addressed technical policy issues related to the 

evaluation of separate indicators and also includes an initial start on a checklist; the next step is to develop detailed 

procedures regarding what the laboratories need to do to conduct a test on these components and what test 

equipment is required.

Dan reported including generic material from the General Code in the draft, but noted that these references need 

review from interested parties to ensure that the material is appropriate for these components. With regard to this 

point Steve Patoray noted that consideration needs to be given to the organization of the LMD checklist since the 

intent was to group General Code requirements together rather than repeating them to help ensure consistency in 

updating the criteria.

On the general issue of addressing separate components, Dennis Beattie suggested that, if the NCWM ultimately 

adopts criteria for temperature-compensated retail motor-fuel dispensers the Sector should consider addressing the 

automatic temperature compensation components separately. He noted that Measurement Canada was inundated 

with ATC kits and had to determine how to best address them in the type evaluation process.

Dan Reiswig commented that it is important to ensure a good cross section of the industry is represented in the work 

group, noting that this may not be the case with the current work group and encouraging participation from other 

segments of the industry, particularly from other device technologies such as mass flow meters and magnetic flow 

meters.
NTEP Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix B – NTETC Measuring Sector

NTEP - B13

Dennis Beattie suggested that the work group concentrate more on the technology of the indicator rather than on the 

meter with which the indicator will be interfaced. He noted that referencing these other technologies may add 

unnecessary complexity, and he further noted that indicators are just devices that receive pulses. He pointed out that 

Canada’s requirements are actually different from the U.S. requirements in that Canada requires dual pulses whereas 

the U.S. does not. Thus, the evaluation procedures and associated equipment used in Canada are not necessary.

Mike Keilty asked for a renewed commitment from the people who have volunteered for the work group and asked 

if others are interested in participating. He asked if the work group could have something concrete by the beginning 

of January so that the members of the work group who happen to be at the Interim Meeting can go through it, 

recognizing that not all members may be able to attend, but at least those who are there (and are perhaps at the 

Annual Meeting) can use the opportunity to continue the work. He also noted that the Meter Manufacturers’ 

Association has met fairly regularly with each NCWM meeting and part of their allotted meeting time might be used 

to review the group’s progress.

Conclusion: The work group will meet briefly at the conclusion of the 2008 Sector meeting and will begin working 

via e-mail and telephone calls. The work group established a goal of having an updated draft by the beginning of 

January 2009. Work group members who are able to attend the NCWM Interim Meeting and the Annual Meeting 

can meet to work further on the draft.

Dennis Beattie and Mike Keilty volunteered to join the work group. Sector technical advisor Tina Butcher asked to 

be copied on any correspondence so that she is kept abreast of the status of the work.

New Items

5. Recommendations to Update to NCWM Publication 14 to Reflect Changes to NIST Handbook 44

Source: NIST/WMD

Background: The 93rd National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM) adopted the following item that 

will be reflected in the 2009 Edition of NIST Handbook 44 and NCWM Publication 14. This item is part of the 

agenda to inform the Measuring Sector of the NCWM actions and recommend changes to NCWM Publication 14.

Recommendation: The Sector was asked to review and, if acceptable, recommend to the NTEP Committee 

adoption of the following changes to Publication 14 based on changes to NIST Handbook 44:

A. Checklist for Specific Criteria for Vehicle-Tank Meters, Section 28. Marking Requirements, Code 

Reference S.5.7. (LMD-49)

Add the following new code reference to Section 28. Marking Requirements:

Code Reference: S.5.7. Meter Size

28.5. Except for milk meters, if the meter model identifier does not provide a Yes No N/A 

link to the meter size (in terms of pipe diameter) on an NTEP 

Certificate of Conformance, the meter shall be marked to show meter 

size.

Discussion: The Sector recognized that the decision to add paragraph S.5.7. to NIST Handbook 44 has already been 

made; however, there was some discussion regarding the technical aspects of the requirement during the meeting. 

Mike Keilty commented that, in a discussion of this item just prior to the Sector meeting, the manufacturers 

acknowledged that the markings are required only if other conditions are not met. Many companies correlate meter 

models to the size, and this relationship is explained in the CC for the meter. For those who choose not to make this 

link, the marking requirement would apply.
NTEP Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix B – NTETC Measuring Sector

NTEP - B14

Will Wotthlie pointed out that historically many people have associated a given meter size with a general flow 

range. He gave the example of a 2-inch meter being associated with a minimum and maximum flow range of 

20 gpm and 100 gpm, noting that the flow rate is what is of most significance when considering the product 

depletion test. This was echoed by several other Sector members. The Sector also discussed the variations that may 

exist among manufacturers in designating meter size and corresponding flow rates as well as the use of flanges and 

how this might impact the designation of meter size.

Tina Butcher noted that NEWMA has indicated it plans to develop a proposal to further modify Handbook 44 to 

base the tolerance on meter flow rate rather than on meter size, an approach supported by NIST WMD; however, no 

proposal has been developed to this point. Some members also commented on concerns that have been raised about 

inspectors having regular access to CCs.

The Sector briefly discussed the idea of developing a proposal that might be submitted to the SWMA for 

recommending revisions to the code to base the tolerance ranges on flow rates. However, while the Sector would 

support further development of a proposal by NEWMA, the Sector was not interested in taking on this task. Some 

members also noted that they would like to see any such proposal circulated among the regions and reviewed at a 

subsequent Sector meeting prior to it being presented for a vote.

There was some discussion about the merits of using meter size versus flow rate. Dennis Beattie noted that 

Measurement Canada bases their requirements on meter size and that the current tolerance based on size was 

patterned after Canada’s criteria. He also noted that the break points also correlate to when a different size prover is 

needed for a test.

Conclusion: The Sector agreed to recommend to the NTEP Committee that the proposed language be included in 

Publication 14.

6. G-S.8.1. Access to Calibration and Configuration Adjustments, Proposed Changes to Language

Source: Marc Buttler, Emerson Process Management

Background: In the 2008 NCWM Publication 16, the NCWM S&T Committee considered a new 

paragraph G-S.8.1. as shown below.

Original Proposed Language for G-S.8.1. from 2008 NCWM Publication 16:

(a)

G-S.8.1. Access To Calibration and Configuration Adjustments. – A device shall be so designed that 

access to calibration and configuration modes, including external and remote access, are only permitted 

when:

The application of the physical security seal shall ensure that the access to the calibration and 

configuration modes is disabled, or

(b) The calibration and configuration adjustments are protected by an approved category 1, 2, or 3 

audit trail, and the device shall clearly and continuously indicate and print, if equipped with a 

printer, that the calibration and configuration adjustment modes are enabled.

(Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2009)

(Added 2008)

In the addendum sheets published by the NCWM S&T Committee at the 2008 Annual Meeting, changes were made 

to the proposed revisions to G-S.8. Provision for Sealing Electronic Adjustable Components, G-S.8.1. Access to 

Calibration and Configuration Adjustments. The submitter expressed concern that the revised paragraph would 

create a new requirement such that any device that does not automatically disable calibration and configuration 

mode when the physical security seal is applied must be a category 3 sealing device by requiring the device to have 

an approved audit trail. He further noted that there are currently approved devices, which are not category 3, but 
NTEP Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix B – NTETC Measuring Sector

NTEP - B15

that continuously indicate configuration mode is active or do not function, when the device is in configuration and 

calibration mode, preventing the accidental sealing of the device while still in configuration and calibration mode. 

These devices would no longer be allowed under the new wording.

At the 2008 NCWM Annual Meeting, the S&T Committee revised the proposed change to G-S.8.1. in its addendum 

sheets as follows (see the S&T Committee’s addendum sheets for a complete summary of related changes to 

G-S.8.):

(a) The application of the physical security seal automatically disables the access, including external 

and remote access, to the calibration and configuration mode, or

G-S.8.1. Access To Calibration and Configuration Adjustments. – A device shall be so designed that:

(b) The

-

calibration and configuration adjustments, including external and remote access, are 

protected by an approved audit trail, and in addition:

-

The device shall not provide metrological indications that can be interpreted, or transmitted 

into memory, or printed while it is in the calibration and/or configuration adjustment mode 

as a correct measurement value, or

The device shall clearly and continuously indicate that it is in the calibration and/or 

configuration adjustment mode and record such message if capable of printing in this 

mode.

(Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2009)

(Added 2008)

Recommendation: The Sector was asked to consider submitting a proposal to request that the S&T Committee 

reinstate the previous wording from the original item in Pub 16 (2008) that also allows category 1 and 2 devices as 

long as they continuously and clearly indicate that the device is in calibration and configuration mode or do not 

provide a measurement value.

The S&T Committee, by their comments on this item in the addendum sheets, seemed to be trying to eliminate 

references to sealing categories of the device. If the purpose of this was to reduce language, the references could 

still be removed as long as the additional reference to an approved audit trail is also removed, because this reference 

is specifically requiring a category 3 sealing device, whether intentional or not.

Discussion: The Sector discussed some of the questions that had been posed about the current language in G-S.8. 

by various members of the weights and measures community. Steve Patoray described (from his perspective as past 

NTEP Director) the scenario which prompted questions to be raised about this paragraph among the NTEP 

laboratories, noting that he believes this issue is really a weighing issue. He stated that some weighing devices are 

equipped with a jumper located inside the case; the jumper is engaged and the calibration mode can then be entered 

via use of a password. The manual to the device would specify that you should disengage the jumper before putting 

the case back on the device. If the technician neglects to disengage the jumper, a physical security seal could be 

affixed to the device without putting the jumper in the “on” position.

Rich Miller commented that this method of operation is different from how his company’s devices work, noting that 

the device could not be used in normal operation without first taking it out of the calibration mode. Others echoed 

Rich’s comments regarding how other measuring devices work and some commented that the method of operation 

described by Steve Patoray should never have been approved.

Will Wotthlie noted that the NTEP measuring laboratories have historically applied the criteria to require the 

method of operation that Rich Miller described, commenting also that the labs also considered requirements for 

“facilitation of fraud” in their assessments. While this interpretation is consistent with the existing language in 

G-S.8., he doesn’t believe that this is strictly a concern for the weighing laboratories. Will noted that, if the 

weighing laboratories are interpreting the criteria differently, manufacturers for new measuring applications may 

question those interpretations. Dan Reiswig noted that Publication 14 supports Will’s statements.
NTEP Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix B – NTETC Measuring Sector

NTEP - B16

Tina Butcher noted that the NIST Weights and Measures division believes that the existing language is clear and the 

interpretation used by the measuring laboratories is correct; however, there are people who are interpreting it 

differently. She pointed out that the current language states that a security seal must be broken before any 

metrologically significant change can be made. Tina further commented that the S&T Committee has struggled to 

find language that does not change the intent of the requirement. She and others noted that the NTEP laboratories 

have also had extensive discussions about this language and the labs and the S&T Committee would appreciate 

additional input from the Sector on a proposed approach.

The Sector returned to the more immediate issue before the Measuring Sector, which is the proposal to recommend 

that the S&T Committee reinstate the language originally printed in the 2008 Edition of NCWM Publication 16. 

Steve Patoray noted that the S&T Committee had pulled the item back from a Voting status at the 2008 NCWM 

Annual Meeting because of questions regarding the proposed wording, noting that the key issue is really how to 

address the application of the physical seal relative to the device being in the adjustment mode. He further stated 

that, for some weighing devices, the application of the physical seal does not do anything except give a visual 

indication of whether or not there is access to calibration. Marc Buttler noted that his concern regarding the 

implication that the device be able to sense that it has been left in the adjustment mode and the potential impact on 

existing devices. He noted that there are also many devices that simply won’t function normally if left in the 

calibration mode. Dave Rajala and Rich Miller echoed this comment and suggested that the recommendation state 

that the device must not provide a measurement value while in the adjustment mode. Rodney Cooper also noted that 

his company’s devices are designed such that it is necessary to exit the calibration mode before using it in normal 

operation. Dave supports maintaining the current language, noting that his company’s equipment complies with it 

and suggesting that, if weighing applications have not been interpreting it this way, these applications should be 

fixed. However, he further noted that he would support the proposed language with the removal of the word 

“automatic.”

The Sector also discussed the definition of an “audit trail” and the differences among various methods of sealing. 

Tina Butcher noted that the S&T Committee removed the reference to specific categories of audit trails because not 

all specific device codes use these same numerical references. She suggested that an alternative approach would be 

to say “an electronic means of sealing.” She also directed the Sector to the audit trail criteria that was originally 

developed by Claude Bertrand and others at Measurement Canada and Henry Oppermann at NIST WMD and 

ultimately incorporated into NCWM Publication 14. Marc Buttler stated that this information helps to clarify the 

language used in G-S.8., and some members of the Sector observed that field inspectors may benefit from additional 

information regarding the criteria for an “approved” audit trail. Marc further suggested that perhaps the Sector 

should consider proposing amendments to bullet (b) in the proposal.

Multiple different options for modifying G-S.8.1. were considered, including replacing the text in the proposed (a) 

with the following and modifying (b) to include a generic reference to different device categories:

(a) Before the application of the physical security seal, means shall be taken to disable the access, 

including external and remote access to the calibration and configuration mode. (Rich Miller)

G-S.8.1. Access To Calibration and Configuration Adjustments. – A device shall be so designed that:

OR

Before the application of the physical security seal, the access, including external and remote 

access, to the calibration and configuration mode shall be disabled, or

OR

 (Dmitri Karimov)

The access, including external and remote access, to the calibration and configuration mode 

must be disabled before the application of a physical security seal, or (Maurice Forkert)
NTEP Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix B – NTETC Measuring Sector

NTEP - B17

(b) The

-

calibration and configuration adjustments, including external and remote access, are 

protected by an approved audit trail for the category of device, and in addition:

-

The device shall not provide metrological indications that can be interpreted, or transmitted 

into memory, or printed while it is in the calibration and/or configuration adjustment mode 

as a correct measurement value, or

The device shall clearly and continuously indicate that it is in the calibration and/or 

configuration adjustment mode and record such message if capable of printing in this 

mode.

(Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2009)

(Added 2008)

After extensive discussion by the Sector regarding possible alternatives, Judy Cardin (Wisconsin), NTEP Committee 

Chair, suggested that the Sector just communicate its concerns over the use of the word “automatically.” Mike 

Keilty concurred, noting that many different alternatives could be written, but since the basic concern seems to stem 

from the use of the word “automatically,” just noting the Sector’s concern might be helpful to the S&T Committee 

in assessing alternatives.

Conclusion: The Sector is concerned that the term “automatically” may be misinterpreted. The Sector did not 

agree upon specific language to suggest, but encourages the S&T to find alternative language for this term.

7. Pr oduct F amilies for M eter s T able, Categorization of Liquid CO2

Source: Marc Buttler, Emerson Process Management

Background: Liquid carbon dioxide is not clearly addressed in the Product Families for Meters Table in NCWM 

Publication 14 (see Technical Policy, Section C, LMD-3). Clarification is required regarding the correct product 

family for liquid CO2 in order to guide correct certification for liquid CO2. Categorizing liquid CO2 in the family of 

cryogenic products was considered, but the typical temperature of liquid CO2 is above the defined maximum 

temperature for cryogenic fluids of 120 Kelvin as defined in NIST Handbook 44.

Recommendation: The Sector was asked to consider including liquid CO2 as a compressed liquid and to increase 

the maximum density for compressed liquids to 1.1 to include the typical density of liquid CO2.

Discussion: Marc Buttler summarized the history of the issue, noting that there is currently nothing in the Product 

Families Table to address CO2. Marc also noted that he had checked with Dick Suiter (who was the Sector’s 

technical advisor prior to his retirement in 2008) regarding categorization of CO2 and Dick had suggested that it be 

addressed as a compressed liquid. Marc noted that CO2 exists at temperatures well above the threshold specified in 

NIST Handbook 44 for “cryogenics,” citing typical temperature ranges of –50 oC to –30 oC. The Sector discussed 

typical temperature and pressure ranges for liquid CO2 and generally concurred that it does not fall into the category 

of a cryogenic based upon the definition referenced above.

The California laboratory has the most experience testing CO2 meters; however, Dan Reiswig noted California’s 

experience is primarily limited to tests of turbine meters rather than mass flow meters. With regard to categories 

currently included in the table, Norm Ingram expressed the opinion that CO2 belongs in the compressed liquids 

category; however, he noted that there is no specific gravity listed for either compressed gases or cryogenic liquids 

and the specific gravity for carbon dioxide is not within the range currently listed in the compressed liquids 

category.

The Sector discussed the relative tolerances specified in NIST Handbook 44 for cryogenic liquids, mass flow 

meters, and LPG and NH3 and considered how this might impact the inclusion of CO2 in an existing product family. 

If CO2 is included in a family which is subject to different tolerances, the Sector will need to assess how to apply 

tolerances in testing. For example, would the most stringent tolerance be used to cover all products in the family? 

The Sector also discussed the fact that Section 3.34. in the Cryogenics Code does not apply to meters dispensing 

liquefied natural gas.
NTEP Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix B – NTETC Measuring Sector

NTEP - B18

The Sector also discussed the question of what testing would need to be done to get the products listed under the 

family. Test D is specified for both the compressed liquids family and cryogenic liquids family. Mike Frailer noted 

that if you test with one product from the family, Test D would require testing with only one product from the 

family. This needs to be considered in conjunction with the issue of tolerances to be applied. Dan Reiswig noted 

that historically tests conducted by the California laboratory of turbine meters included separate tests for cryogenics 

and CO2. Will Wotthlie pointed out that CO2 has not previously been included in the Product Families Table and 

suggested an alternative might be to create a separate category for CO2 with a Test D specified.

Related to the issue of the test specified in the Product Families Table is the question of specific test procedures. 

Because product is transferred through these meters via gravity discharge, Will Wotthlie noted that the testing is 

more complex; one must take great care to ensure that pressures are consistent and other parameters are monitored. 

The uncertainty in the testing process is one reason that a larger tolerance is allowed. While expressing a desire to 

avoid more testing than is absolutely necessary, Dan Reiswig and others laboratories noted that experience testing 

meters using gravity discharge in NTEP is rather limited. Dan expressed concern about including CO2 in an 

existing product family category and, thereby, “grandfathering” it into an existing CC because of this limited 

experience and the lack of data to support doing so.

Jim Truex asked if Measurement Canada had experience with these meters and Dennis Beattie indicated they do not 

have any data to share. Marc Buttler reported that no tests have yet been conducted in the field, which led to the 

conclusion that more data is needed. Marc reported having a customer waiting for a resolution of this issue, and 

Dan Reiswig offered to work with Marc to look at a device near the California laboratory for the purposes of 

collecting additional data. Since limited or no data seems to be available, Jim Truex, noted that a test case is needed 

in order to collect data that will enable the Sector to assess what changes to the table can be supported. Marc 

suggested the Sector table the issue until additional data is collected and examined. The Sector agreed that 

additional data is needed to make an assessment of any proposed changes to the table with respect to CO2.

Conclusion: The Sector agreed to table the issue until more data is available to suggest the best approach to use for 

including CO2 in the Product Families Table and for defining the test criteria.

8. Product Families for Meters Table, Inclusion of Milk and Dairy Products

Background: The product family for milk is not clearly identified in the Product Table in Pub 14. HB 44 and 

Pub 14 have specific sections regarding milk meters, but it is unclear what the product family and test requirements 

are for milk.

The following points were offered for the Sector to consider in its discussion of this issue:

• The “Mass Flow Meters” category in the current table does not include any additional guidance regarding 

“milk and dairy products” or any other food-grade products.

• Milk and dairy products would presumably fall under the test requirements category of “Normal Liquids” 

for mass flow meters since the remaining categories of “Heated Products,” “Compressed Liquids,” 

“Compressed Gases,” and “Cryogenic Liquids and LNG” would clearly not include milk and dairy 

products.

• The majority of mass flow meters with NTEP CCs for dairy applications were tested with milk.

• Past Sector summaries and discussions do not appear to have any reference to discussions of how milk and 

other dairy products would fit into the Product Families Table for MFMs or for any other meter 

technologies. Milk does not appear to be discussed in any recent discussions (in the past few years) on the 

Product Families Table categories for MFMs.
NTEP Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix B – NTETC Measuring Sector

NTEP - B19

• There is reference to various food-grade oils and there are subcategories for Magnetic Flow, PD, and 

Turbine meters that include reference to “industrial and food-grade liquid oils.” However, no other 

reference is made in the table to other types of food products.

• The LMD checklist is very sketchy on evaluation criteria for milk metering applications in general. So, a 

related Sector issue may be the need to strengthen the checklist criteria on milk meters. This point could be 

addressed with this agenda item or as part of a separate effort.

• A related issue (more for HB 44 than for NTEP) is that the MFM Code in HB 44 includes few references to 

milk meter applications. The MFM Code may need to be reviewed to determine if any additional 

requirements for milk meter applications from the NIST Handbook 44 Milk Meters Code might need to be 

proposed for inclusion in the MFM Code. It is questionable if this was done when the MFM Code was 

added to HB 44.

• Where does a food product such as high fructose corn syrup (which may sometimes be heated) fit in the 

existing table? There is a category for liquid feeds such as molasses, but not for corn syrup.

Recommendation: Identify clearly which product family milk falls into for each metering technology. 

Alternatively, the Sector might consider creating a separate product family just for milk and dairy products.

Discussion: Dmitri Karimov reported that one reference to milk that he observed on the internet cites an 

approximate 87.7 % water content. Thus, milk is most appropriately included in the “water” product category. For 

reference, Rich Miller also noted that R 117 has a section that addresses beer and other foaming liquids (which 

includes milk) under a single category for liquid foods.

Will Wotthlie agreed with Dmitri’s assessment, noting that he is also speaking for Ross Andersen (New York) who 

asked Will to relay his point of view. Will went on to comment, that with regard to test liquid, he believes that 

testing done in the laboratory with water is adequate to cover applications for either water or milk. Additionally, a 

test with water in a field application is appropriate to cover either water or milk applications on the CC. Will also 

commented that, because of the need to test complete systems, including any peripheral equipment typically 

associated with milk meters, if a manufacturer selects a field site that is normally used to meter milk, then milk must 

be used as the test liquid for the evaluation.

The Sector generally agreed that testing in a laboratory with water is adequate to cover both milk and water 

applications. Dennis Beattie noted that even if milk was brought into a lab, problems would likely arise because of 

product foaming. Dennis also commented that Measurement Canada doesn’t approve a meter alone, rather they 

approve systems, which includes an evaluation of the control components of the system. The Sector acknowledged 

that milk metering systems include peripheral equipment that is essential to ensuring accurate metering and that 

testing in a laboratory environment with water may not include testing with this peripheral equipment. However, 

several members made the point that initial and subsequent verification tests in the field will be conducted with all 

peripheral equipment that is necessary to ensure accurate measurement and further commented that milk must be 

used for the test liquid in such tests. The Sector also briefly discussed how CCs reflect associated peripheral 

equipment in milk metering systems, with some comments that there may be some inconsistency in previously 

issued CCs.

The Sector then went on to discuss the merits of NTEP testing with water versus milk in field applications. Echoing 

Will’s comments, the Sector agreed that NTEP tests in field applications can be conducted with either water or milk 

to cover both applications. However, when the field site selected is an application that is normally used to meter 

milk (for example an installation at a farm site), then the Sector believes that, whether the test is an NTEP test or an 

initial or subsequent verification, the test liquid must be milk and all associated peripheral equipment must be 

included for the test.

There was some additional discussion regarding whether or not milk should be included in the category with water 

for all metering technologies. The Sector agreed that milk can be included in the same category as water for all 

technologies; however, because of the issue of conductivity, the Sector agreed that, for magnetic flow meters, milk 

should be included in the category with tap water rather than deionized water.
NTEP Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix B – NTETC Measuring Sector

NTEP - B20

Conclusion: The Sector agreed on the following points:

• Add milk to the “water” product categories in the table. However, because of the issue of conductivity, for 

magnetic flow meters where there are two categories for water, add milk to the “tap water” category.

• A manufacturer can select a field site for either a water meter application or a milk meter application and 

have both products covered on the certificate. If the site selected is a site intended to meter milk, then milk 

must be used for the test liquid.

9. Next Meeting

Recommendation: The Sector was asked to develop a proposed date and location for the next meeting.

Discussion: The Sector discussed several options for the 2009 and future meetings, including options of holding 

Sector meetings in conjunction with the SWMA, the WWMA, and the CWMA Interim Meetings as well as holding 

Sector meetings separately. Because more NTEP measuring laboratory personnel routinely attend the SWMA, 

holding the meetings in conjunction with the SWMA would be more cost effective to those laboratories. Thus, the 

Sector agreed that the Sector meetings should continue to be held in conjunction with the SWMA as a general 

practice.

Conclusion: The Sector agreed to recommend that the next meeting be held in conjunction with the SWMA in 

2009.

Additional Items as Time Allows

10. Temperature Compensation for Liquid Measuring Devices Code

Source: NCWM S&T Committee

Background and Recommendation: The NCWM S&T Committee is considering a proposal to modify 

Section 3.30. Liquid-Measuring Devices (LMD) Code by modifying paragraphs S.2.6., S.2.7.1., S.2.7.3., N.4.1.1.(a) 

and (b), N.5., UR.3.6.1.1., and UR.3.6.1.2., to add new paragraphs S.1.6.8., S.2.7.2., S.4.3., UR.3.6.1.3., and 

UR.3.6.4., and to renumber other existing paragraphs as appropriate to recognize temperature compensation for 

retail devices. The Sector was asked to provide input to the S&T Committee on these proposed changes if time 

permitted. The proposed changes were included in the Sector’s 2008 agenda and can be found in the NCWM S&T 

Committee’s 2009 Interim agenda and 2009 Interim Report under Item 330-1.

Conclusion: Time did not permit the Sector to discuss the proposed changes. Consequently, the Sector took no 

position on these proposals.

11. Water Meters – S.1.1.3. Value of the Smallest Unit

Source: Western Weights and Measures Association (WWMA)

Background and Recommendation: The NCWM S&T Committee is being asked to consider a proposal from the 

WWMA to modify paragraph S.1.1.3. Value of the Smallest Unit in Section 3.36. Water Meters in NIST 

Handbook 44 to harmonize with American Water Works Association (AWWA) standards. The Sector was asked to 

provide input to the S&T Committee on these proposed changes if time permitted. The proposed changes were 

included in the Sector’s 2008 agenda and can be found in the NCWM S&T Committee’s 2009 Interim agenda and 

2009 Interim Report under Item 336-1.

Conclusion: Time did not permit the Sector to discuss the proposed changes. Consequently, the Sector took no 

position on these proposals.
NTEP Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix B – NTETC Measuring Sector

NTEP - B21

12. Water Meters – N.4.1.1. Repeatability Tests and T.1. Tolerance Values

Source: Southern Weights and Measures Association (SWMA)

Background and Recommendation: The Southern Weights and Measures Association is developing a proposal to 

change requirements for test draft sizes specified in NIST Handbook 44 Section 3.36. Water Meters. The proposal 

recommends modifications to paragraph N.3., Tables N.4.1. and N.4.2., and paragraph T.1.1.; as well as the addition 

of several new tables in the Notes and Tolerances sections specifying separate requirements for utility and nonutility meters.

The Sector was asked to provide input to the S&T Committee on these proposed changes if time permitted. The 

proposed changes were included in the Sector’s 2008 agenda and can be found in the NCWM S&T Committee’s 

2009 Interim agenda on the Developing Items agenda and in the 2009 Interim Report under Item 336-3.

Conclusion: Time did not permit the Sector to discuss the proposed changes. Consequently, the Sector took no 

position on these proposals.

13. Water Meters T.1.1. Repeatability, Tables T.1.1. and T.1.2.

Source: Western Weights and Measures Association (WWMA)

Background and Recommendation: The WWMA submitted a proposal to amend Table T.1.1. Repeatability and 

add new Tables T.1.1. and T.1.2. in NIST Handbook 44 Section 3.36. to specify test draft sizes for tests of water 

meters. A copy of the proposal was included in the Sector’s agenda with the request that the Sector review the 

proposal and provide any comments and recommended changes to the NCWM S&T Committee.

Conclusion: Time did not permit the Sector to discuss the proposed changes. Consequently, the Sector took no 

position on these proposals.

[Technical Advisor’s Note: This proposal can be found in the 2009 Interim agenda of the S&T Committee under 

Item 336-2. This item was subsequently withdrawn by the S&T Committee as reflected in its 2009 Interim Report, 

with the recommendation that the WWMA address the issue in conjunction with the WWMA’s continued work on a 

related S&T Committee Developing item, Part 4, Item 1.]

14. Draft Code Section 3.3X. Hydrogen Gas-Measuring Devices

Source: NCWM S&T Committee

Background: The NCWM S&T Committee’s agenda added a new item to its Developing Items to recognize work 

being done to develop a code for commercial hydrogen gas-measuring devices by the U.S. National Work Group for 

the Development of Commercial Hydrogen Measurement Standards. The work group, which presently includes 

weights and measures officials, manufacturers and users of hydrogen measuring devices, and federal agency 

representatives, is looking for input and participation from the weights and measures community in the development 

of the code and associated test procedures. The most current version of the draft code can be found on NIST 

WMD’s home page at http://ts.nist.gov/WeightsAndMeasures/Developing-Commercial-Hydrogen-MeasurementStandards.cfm.

This web page will be the U.S. weights and measures and hydrogen communities’ source for the latest information 

and status of ongoing work to develop uniform and appropriate legal metrology standards for commercial hydrogen 

measurements.

Conclusion: The Sector took no action on this item. This item was included on the Sector’s agenda to make the 

Sector aware of the work and to encourage input and participation from Sector members.
NTEP Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix B – NTETC Measuring Sector

NTEP - B22

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
NTEP Committee 2009 Interim Report

Appendix B – NTETC Measuring Sector; Appendix 1 – Attachment #1 from 2008 Measuring Sector Agenda

NTEP - B23

Appendix 1 – Attachment #1 from 2008 Measuring Sector Agenda

Proposed Product Families and Typical Product Characteristics

Table X.X.X. Product Families and Typical Product Characteristics

Product Group Liquid Name Viscosity (60 oF)

Centipoises/Centistokes

Specific Gravity 

(60 oF)

Normal Liquids

Fuels, Lubricants, 

Industrial and 

Food-Grade 

Liquid Oils

Diesel Fuel 10 cps 0.72

Distillate

Gasoline 0.28 cps 0.72

Fuel Oil (#1, #2, #3, #4) 8 to 88 cPs 0.9

Kerosene 1.94 cps 0.75

Light Oil 13.47 cps 0.86

Spindle Oil

Lubricating Oils 20 to 1000 cPs 0.80 to 0.90

SAE Grades 192 to 3626 cps 0.9

Bunker Oil 11 200 cps 0.99

6 Oil (#5, #6) 66 to 13 000 cPs 0.9

Crude Oil 3 to 1783 cps 0.79 to 0.97

Asphalt 100 to 5000 cPs

Vegetable Oil 133 cps 0.92

Biodiesel above B20 10.12 cps 0.86

Avgas 1.5 to 6 cPs

Jet A 1.5 to 6 cPs

Jet A-1 1.36 cps 0.76

Jet B 1.5 to 6 cPs

JP4 1.02 cps 0.76

JP5 1.94 cps 0.76

JP7

JP8

1.82 cps 0.76

Cooking Oils 9.93 cps 0.92

Sunflower Oil 90.1 cps 0.93

Soy Oil 90.6 cps 0.93

Peanut Oil 11 cPs to 110 cPs 0.9 to 1.0

Olive Oil 116.8 cps 0.92

Corn Oil 4.0 cps 0.91

Normal Liquids

Solvents General Acetates 0.44 cps 0.93

Acetone 0.34 cps 0.8

Esters

Ethylacetate 1.36 cps 0.96

Hexane 0.34 cps 0.66

MEK 0.45 cps 0.81

Toluene 0.62 cps 0.87

Xylene 0.86 cps 0.89

Normal Liquids

Solvents 

Chlorinated

Carbon Tetra-Chloride 0.99 cps 1.6

Methylene-Chloride 0.46 cps 1.34

Perchloro-Ethylene 1 1.6

Trichloro-Ethylene 0.6 cps 1.47
NTEP Committee 2009 Interim Report

Appendix B – NTETC Measuring Sector; Appendix 1 – Attachment #1 from 2008 Measuring Sector Agenda

NTEP - B24

Table X.X.X. Product Families and Typical Product Characteristics

Product Group Liquid Name Viscosity (60 oF)

Centipoises/Centistokes

Specific Gravity 

(60 oF)

Normal Liquids

Alcohols, Glycols 

& Water Mixes 

Thereof

Ethanol 1.29 cps 0.79

Methanol 0.64 cps 0.80

Butanol 3.34 cps 0.81

Isopropyl 2.78 cps 0.79

Isobutyl 4.54 cps 0.81

Ethylene glycol 25.5 cps 1.19

Propylene glycol 54 cps 1.04

Normal Liquids

Water Tap Water 1.0 cPs 1.0

Deionized 1.0 cPs 1.0

Demineralized 1.0 cPs 1.0

Potable 1.0 cPs 1.0

Nonpotable 1.0 cPs 1.0

Normal Liquids

Clear Liquid 

Fertilizers

Nitrogen Solution

28 %, 30 % or 32 %

20 % Aqua-Ammonia

Urea 1.0 cps 1.89

Ammonia Nitrate 11.22 cps 1.16 to 1.37

N-P-K solutions

10-34-0 48 cps 1.39

9-18-9 1.32

Normal Liquids

Crop Chemicals Herbicides

Round-up 1.0 1.01

Touchdown 1.4

Banvel 1.19

Treflan 1.12

Paraquat 1.12

Prowl 1.06

Normal Liquids

Crop Chemicals Fungicides

Insecticides

Adjuvants

Fumigants

Dual 1.11

Bicep 1.11

Marksman 1.16

Broadstrike 1.12

Doubleplay

Topnotch 140 to 400 cps 1.16

Guardsman 1.12

Harness 1.11
NTEP Committee 2009 Interim Report

Appendix B – NTETC Measuring Sector; Appendix 1 – Attachment #1 from 2008 Measuring Sector Agenda

NTEP - B25

Table X.X.X. Product Families and Typical Product Characteristics

Product Group Liquid Name Viscosity (60 oF)

Centipoises/Centistokes

Specific Gravity 

(60 oF)

Normal Liquids

Crop Chemicals Fungicides

Normal Liquids

Crop Chemicals Micronutrients

Normal Liquids

Suspension 

Fertilizers

3-10-30

4-4-27

Normal Liquids

Liquid Feeds Liquid Molasses 8640 cps 1.25

Molasses plus Phos Acid 

and/or Urea (Treacle)

2882 cps 1.1 to 1.3

Normal Liquids

Chemicals Sulfuric Acid 1.49 cps 1.83

Hydrochloric Acid 1.0 to 0.80 cps 1.1

Phosphoric Acid 161 cps 1.87

Heated Products

Bunker C 11 200 cps 1.99

Asphalt 100 to 5000 cPs

Compressed Liquids

Fuels and 

Refrigerants

LPG

Propane 0.098 cps 0.504

Butane 0.19 cps 0.595

Ethane

Freon 11 0.313 cps 1.49

Freon 12 0.359 cps 1.33

Freon 22 1.99 cps 1.37

Compressed Liquids

NH3 Anhydrous Ammonia 0.188 cps 0.61

Compressed Gases

Compressed Natural Gas 

(CNG)

0.6 to 0.8 (1=Air)

Cryogenic Liquids and Liquefied Natural Gas

Liquefied Oxygen 0.038 cps 0.66

Nitrogen 1.07 cps 0.31

Liquefied Natural Gas
NTEP Committee 2009 Interim Report

Appendix B – NTETC Measuring Sector; Appendix 1 – Attachment #1 from 2008 Measuring Sector Agenda

NTEP - B26

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
NTEP Committee 2009 Interim Report

Appendix B – NTETC Measuring Sector; Appendix 2 – Attachment #2 from 2008 Measuring Sector Agenda

NTEP - B27

Appendix 2 – Attachment #2 from 2008 Measuring Sector Agenda

Test Requirements for Product Families

Table X.X.X. Test Requirements for Product Families

Product Family Flowmeter Test Requirements

Normal Liquids Magnetic Flowmeters – Use Test F for Fuels, Lubricants, Industrial and Food-Grade 

Liquid Oils, Solvents General, Solvents Chlorinated, Pure Alcohols & Glycols, Water 

(De-mineralized & De-ionized), Heated Products (above 50 oC);

Magnetic Flowmeters – Use Test D for Water (Tap, Potable & Non-potable), Water 

Mixes of Alcohols & Glycols, Juices, Beverages, Clear Liquid Fertilizers, Crop 

Chemicals, Suspensions Fertilizers, Liquid Feeds, Chemicals

Mass Flowmeters – Use Test B

Positive Displacement Flowmeters – Use Test C

Turbine Flowmeters – Use Test E

Other Flowmeter Types – Use Test A 

Heated Products 

(above 50 °C)

Magnetic Flowmeters – Use Test F

Mass Flowmeters – Use Test D

Positive Displacement Flowmeters – Use Test D

Other Flowmeter Types – Use Test A

Compressed 

Liquids

Mass Flowmeters – Use Test D

Positive Displacement Flowmeters – Use Test D

Turbine flowmeters – Use Test E

Other Flowmeter Types – Use Test A

Cryogenic Liquids 

and

Liquefied Natural 

Gas

Mass Flowmeters – Use Test D

Turbine flowmeters – Use Test D

Other Flowmeter Types – Use Test A

Compressed Gases

Mass Flowmeters – Use Test D

Other Flowmeter Types – Use Test A

Note: CNG is only included in Section 3.37. Mass Flow Meters of Handbook 44.
NTEP Committee 2009 Interim Report

Appendix B – NTETC Measuring Sector; Appendix 2 – Attachment #2 from 2008 Measuring Sector Agenda

NTEP - B28

Tests to be Conducted:

Test A Products must be individually tested and noted on the Certificate of Conformance.

Test B To obtain coverage for a range of products within a family: Test with one product having a low 

specific gravity; test with a second product having a high specific gravity. The Certificate of 

Conformance will cover all products in the family within the specific gravity range tested.

Test C To obtain coverage for a range of products within a family: Test with one product having a low 

viscosity; test with a second product having a high viscosity. The Certificate of Conformance 

will cover all products in the family within the viscosity range tested.

Test D To obtain coverage for a product family: Test with one product in the product family. The 

Certificate of Conformance will cover all products in the family.

Test E To obtain coverage for a range of products within a family: Test with one product having a low 

kinematic viscosity; test with a second product having a high kinematic viscosity. The 

Certificate of Conformance will cover all products in the family within the kinematic viscosity 

range tested.

Test F To obtain coverage for a range of products within a family: Test with one product having a 

specified conductivity. The Certificate of Conformance will cover all products in the family with 

conductivity equal to or above the conductivity of the tested liquid.
NTEP Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix B – NTETC Measuring Sector; Appendix 3 – Attachment #3 from 2008 Measuring Sector Agenda

NTEP - B29

Appendix 3 – Attachment #3 from 2008 Measuring Sector Agenda

Revisions to NCWM Publication 14 LMD Checklist

Technical Policy Part C – Product Families for Meters

Discussed by the Sector at its October 2008 Meeting

C. Product Families for Meters

When submitting a meter for evaluation, the manufacturer must specify the product family and critical parameters 

for which the meter is being submitted.

The product family and the specific product subgroup covered by the Certificate are to be identified on page 1 of the 

Certificate of Conformance. More detailed information, including the typical product types found in the subgroup, 

is to be included in the application section of the Certificate.

Tests are to be conducted as described in Table C.1. Tests to Be Conducted. Testing must be completed for each 

product family in order for that product family to be covered on the Certificate. Table C.21. Product Families 

Table identifies which of these tests apply to various metering technologies and product families. For meter 

technologies not already specified in Table C.2., use “Test A.” Tests are to be conducted as described in 

Table C.2. Tests to Be Conducted. For meter technologies not already specified in Table C.2., use Test A. 

Table C.3. Typical Product Family Characteristics gives viscosity and specific gravity values for typical products in 

each product family.

The “Application” section of the Certificate of Conformance will identify product families or specific products 

covered under the Certificate.

Mass 

Table C.1. Product Families and Test Requirements

Flow Meters

Product Family & Test 

Requirements

Magnetic Flow Meters

(Test B unless otherwise 

noted)

Product

Family & Test 

Requirements

P

(Test D unless otherwise 

noted)

ositive Displacement

Product

Family & Test 

RequirementsMeters

Turbine

(Test C unless otherwise 

noted)

Meters

Product

Family & Test 

Requirements (Test A 

unless otherwise noted)

Test B

Normal Liquids

Includes the following for 

Mass Flow Meters:

Fuels, Lubricants, 

Industrial and Food-Grade 

Liquid Oils,

Solvents

General,

Solvents

Chlorinated,

Alcohols, Glycols, and 

Water Mixes Thereof,

Test F

Water,

Fuels, Lubricants, 

Industrial and Food-Grade 

Liquid Oils,

permitted

Solvents

General,

Solvents

Chlorinated,

Pure Alcohols & Glycols,

Water (De-mineralized & 

de-ionized),

Heated Products

(above 50 °C)*

Test C

Fuels, Lubricants, 

Industrial and Food-Grade 

Liquid Oils

Test E

Fuels, Lubricants, 

Industrial and Food-Grade 

Liquid Oils

permitted

Test C

Solvents

General

Test E

Solvents

permitted

General

Test C

Solvents

Chlorinated

Test A

Solvents

Chlorinated

Test C

Alcohols, Glycols, & 

Water Mixes Thereof

Test E

Alcohols, Glycols, & 

Water Mixes Thereof

permitted

Test D

Water (Tap, Potable & 

Nonpotable), Water Mixes 

of Alcohols & Glycols, Test D

Water

permitted Test D

Water

permitted
NTEP Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix B – NTETC Measuring Sector; Appendix 3 – Attachment #3 from 2008 Measuring Sector Agenda

NTEP - B30

Mass 

Table C.1. Product Families and Test Requirements

Flow Meters

Product Family & Test 

Requirements

Magnetic Flow Meters

(Test B unless otherwise 

noted)

Product

Family & Test 

Requirements

P

(Test D unless otherwise 

noted)

ositive Displacement

Product

Family & Test 

RequirementsMeters

Turbine

(Test C unless otherwise 

noted)

Meters

Product

Family & Test 

Requirements (Test A 

unless otherwise noted)

(continued)

Juices, Beverages,

Clear Liquid Fertilizers,

Crop Chemicals,

Flowables

Suspensions Fertilizers,

Liquid Feeds,

Chemicals

(continued)

Glycols, and Water Mixes 

Thereof,

Juices, Beverages,

Clear Liquid Fertilizers,

Crop Chemicals,

Suspensions Fertilizers,

Liquid Feeds,

Chemicals

Test C

Clear Liquid

Fertilizers

Test A

Clear Liquid

Fertilizers

Test C

Crop Chemicals

Test A

1 Crop Chemicals

Test C

1

Crop Chemicals

Test A

2 Crop Chemicals

Test C

2

Flowables

Test A

Flowables

Test C

Crop Chemicals

Test A

3 Crop Chemicals

Test C

3

Crop Chemicals

Test A

4 Crop Chemicals

Test C

4

Suspensions

Fertilizers

Test A

Suspensions

Fertilizers

Test C

Liquid Feeds

Test A

Liquid Feeds

Test C

Chemicals

Test A

Chemicals

Test B

Heated Products

(above 50 °C)

*See above

(for heated products

Test C

above 50 °C)

Heated Products

(above 50 °C)

Test A

Heated Products

(above 50 °C)

Test D

Compressed Liquids,

Fuels and Refrigerants,

NH

Not Applicable

3

(conductivity too low)

Test C

Fuels and Refrigerants

Compressed Liquids,

Test E

Fuels and Refrigerants

Compressed Liquids,

Test C

NH3

Anhydrous Ammonia

Test A

Note: If a meter is 

certified for anhydrous 

ammonia the same meter 

type may also be certified 

for LPG without further 

testing.

NH3

Anhydrous Ammonia

Test D

Note: If a meter is 

certified for anhydrous 

ammonia the same meter 

type may also be certified 

for LPG without further 

testing.

Compressed Gases

Note: CNG is only included in Section 3.37. Mass Flow Meters of Handbook 44.

CNG
NTEP Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix B – NTETC Measuring Sector; Appendix 3 – Attachment #3 from 2008 Measuring Sector Agenda

NTEP - B31

Mass 

Table C.1. Product Families and Test Requirements

Flow Meters

Product Family & Test 

Requirements

Magnetic Flow Meters

(Test B unless otherwise 

noted)

Product

Family & Test 

Requirements

P

(Test D unless otherwise 

noted)

ositive Displacement

Product

Family & Test 

RequirementsMeters

Turbine

(Test C unless otherwise 

noted)

Meters

Product

Test D

Family & Test 

Requirements (Test A 

unless otherwise noted)

Cryogenic Liquids and

Liquefied Natural Gas

Not Applicable

(conductivity too low)

Test A

Cryogenic Liquids and

Liquefied Natural Gas 

Test D

Cryogenic Liquids and

permitted

Liquefied Natural Gas 

1 Note: The Typical Products listed in this table are not limiting or all-inclusive; there may be other products and 

product trade names, which fall into a product family. Water and a product such as stoddard solvent or mineral 

spirits may be used as test products in the fuels, lubricants, industrial, and food-grade liquid oils product family.

2 The specific gravity of a liquid is the ratio of its density to that of water at standard conditions, usually 4 °C (or 

40 °F) and 1 atm. The density of water at standard conditions is approximately 1000 kg/m3 (or 998 kg/m3)

3 Diesel fuel blends (biodiesel) with up to 20 % vegetable or animal fat/oil.

4

 

Gasoline includes oxygenated fuel blends with up to 15 % oxygenate.

Centipoise

Centistokes = ---------------------

Specific Gravity 5 Kinematic viscosity is measured in centistokes (cSt).

Source for some of the viscosity value information is in the Industry Canada – Measurement Canada “Liquid 

Products Group, Bulletin V-16-E (rev. 1), August 3, 1999.”

Table C.2. Tests to be Conducted

Test A – Products must be individually tested and noted on the Certificate of Conformance.

Test B – To obtain coverage for a range of products within a family: Test with one product having a low specific 

gravity; test with a second product having a high specific gravity. The Certificate of Conformance will 

cover all products in the product family within the specific gravity range tested.

Test C – To obtain coverage for a range of products within a family: Test with one product having a low viscosity; 

test with a second product having a high viscosity. The Certificate of Conformance will cover all products 

in the product family within the viscosity range tested.

Test D – To obtain coverage for a product family: Test with one product in the product family. The Certificate of 

Conformance will cover all products in the family.

Test E – To obtain coverage for a range of products within a family: Test with one product having a low kinematic 

viscosity; test with a second product having a high kinematic viscosity. The Certificate of Conformance 

will note coverage for all products in the family within the kinematic viscosity range tested.

Test F – To obtain coverage for a range of products within a family: Test with one product having a specified 

conductivity. The Certificate of Conformance will note coverage for all products in both of the families 

with conductivity equal to or above the conductivity of the tested liquid.
NTEP Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix B – NTETC Measuring Sector; Appendix 3 – Attachment #3 from 2008 Measuring Sector Agenda

NTEP - B32

Table C.3. Typical Product Family Characteristics

Product Families Typical Products

Reference Viscosity* 

(60  ̊F)

Centipoise/Centistokes

Reference

(cP)

Specific Gravity* 

(60  ̊F) (1 = water, 

except where noted)

Normal Liquids, Diesel Fuel

Fuels, Lubricants, 

Industrial and 

Food-Grade 

Liquid Oils

10 cPcps 0.72

Distillate

Gasoline 0.28 cPcps 0.72

Fuel Oil (#1, #2, #3, #4) 8 to 88 cPcPs. 0.9

Kerosene 1.94 cPcps 0.75

Light Oil 13.47 cPcps 0.86

Spindle Oil

Lubricating Oils 20 to 1000 cPcPs. 0.80 to 0.90

SAE Grades 192 to 3626 cPcps 0.9

Bunker Oil 11 200 cPcps 0.99

6 Oil (#5, #6) 66 to 13 000 cPcPs. 0.9

Crude Oil 3 to 1783 cPcps 0.79 to 0.97

Asphalt 100 to 5000 cPcPs

Vegetable Oil 133 cPcps 0.92

Biodiesel above B20 10.12 cPcps 0.86

Avgas 1.5 to 6 cPcPs.

Jet A 1.5 to 6 cPcPs.

Jet A-1 1.36 cPcps 0.76

Jet B 1.5 to 6 cPcPs.

JP4 1.02 cPcps 0.76

JP5 1.94 cPcps 0.76

JP7

JP8

1.82 cPcps 0.76

Cooking Oils 9.93 cPcps 0.92

Sunflower Oil 90.1 cPcps 0.93

Soy Oil 90.6 cPcps 0.93

Peanut Oil 11 cPcPs. to 110 cPcPs 0.9 to 1.0

Olive Oil 116.8 cPcps 0.92

Corn Oil 4.0 cPcps 0.91

Normal Liquids, Acetates

Solvents General

0.44 cPcps 0.93

Acetone 0.34 cPcps 0.8

Esters

Ethylacetate 1.36 cPcps 0.96

Hexane 0.34 cPcps 0.66

MEK 0.45 cPcps 0.81

Toluene 0.62 cPcps 0.87

Xylene 0.86 cPcps 0.89
NTEP Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix B – NTETC Measuring Sector; Appendix 3 – Attachment #3 from 2008 Measuring Sector Agenda

NTEP - B33

Table C.3. Typical Product Family Characteristics

Product Families Typical Products

Reference Viscosity* 

(60  ̊F)

Centipoise/Centistokes

Reference

(cP)

Specific Gravity* 

(60  ̊F) (1 = water, 

except where noted)

Normal Liquids, Carbon Tetra-Chloride

Solvents 

Chlorinated

0.99 cPcps 1.6

Methylene-Chloride 0.46 cPcps 1.34

Perchloro-Ethylene 1.0 1.6

Trichloro-Ethylene 0.6 cPcps 1.47

Normal Liquids,

Pure Alcohols,

Alcohols,

Ethanol

Glycols 

& Water Mixes 

Thereof

1.29 cPcps 0.79

Methanol 0.64 cPcps 0.80

Butanol 3.34 cPcps 0.81

Isopropyl 2.78 cPcps 0.79

Isobutyl 4.54 cPcps 0.81

Ethylene glycol 25.5 cPcps 1.19

Propylene glycol 54 cPcps 1.04

Water

Normal Liquids, Tap Water 1.0 cPcps 1.0

Deionized 1.0 cPcps 1.0

Demineralized 1.0 cPcps 1.0

Potable 1.0 cPcps 1.0

Nonpotable 1.0 cPcps 1.0

Clear Liquid 

Fertilizers

Normal Liquids, Nitrogen Solution

28 %, 30 % or 32 %

20 % Aqua-Ammonia

Urea 1.0 cPcps 1.89

Ammonia Nitrate 11.22 cPcps 1.16 to 1.37

N-P-K solutions

10-34-0 48 cPcps 1.39

9-18-9 1.32

Crop Chemicals

Normal Liquids, Herbicides

1 Round-up 1.0 cP 1.01

Touchdown 1.4

Banvel 1.19

Treflan 1.12

Paraquat 1.12

Prowl 1.06

Crop Chemicals

Normal Liquids, Fungicides

2 Insecticides

Adjuvants

Fumigants

Normal Liquids,

Crop Chemicals 3

Fungicides

Normal Liquids,

Crop Chemicals 4

Micronutrients

Normal Liquids, Dual

Flowables

1.11

Bicep 1.11

Marksman 1.16

Broadstrike 1.12

Doubleplay

Topnotch 140 to 400 cPcps 1.16

Guardsman 1.12

Harness 1.11
NTEP Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix B – NTETC Measuring Sector; Appendix 3 – Attachment #3 from 2008 Measuring Sector Agenda

NTEP - B34

Table C.3. Typical Product Family Characteristics

Product Families Typical Products

Reference Viscosity* 

(60  ̊F)

Centipoise/Centistokes

Reference

(cP)

Specific Gravity* 

(60  ̊F) (1 = water, 

except where noted)

Normal Liquids

Crop Chemicals

Fungicides

Normal Liquids 

Crop Chemicals

Micronutrients

Normal Liquids, 3-10-30

Suspension 

Fertilizers

4-4-27

Liquid Feeds

Normal Liquids, Liquid Molasses 8640 cPcps 1.25

Molasses plus Phos Acid 

and/or Urea (Treacle)

2882 cPcps 1.1 to 1.3

Normal Liquids, Sulfuric Acid

Chemicals

1.49 cPcps 1.83

Hydrochloric Acid 1.0 to 0.80 cPcps 1.1

Phosphoric Acid 161 cPcps 1.87

Asphalt 100 to 5000 cPcPs

Compressed 

Liquids,

Fuels and 

Refrigerants,

NH

LPG

3

Propane 0.098 cPcps 0.504

Butane 0.19 cPcps 0.595

Ethane

Freon 11 0.313 cPcps 1.49

Freon 12 0.359 cPcps 1.33

Freon 22 1.99 cPcps 1.37

Anhydrous Ammonia 0.188 cPcps 0.61

Compressed Gases Compressed Natural Gas 

(CNG)

0.6 to 0.8 (1 = Air)

Cryogenic Liquids 

and Liquefied 

Natural Gas

Liquefied Oxygen 0.038 cPcps 0.66

Liquefied Nitrogen 1.07 cPcps 0.31

Liquefied Natural Gas

*Reference Fluid properties are not all inclusive and are representative examples only.

• The original table in Pub 14 includes a viscosity range for fungicides; however, there is no value listed in 

the new table for fungicides. In the meantime identify these as crop chemicals 1, 2, 3, and 4.

Summary of Key Changes:

• “Flowables” is missing from the table.

• Suggest putting crop chemicals after water and other changes to make the table flow better.

• The order of the tables originally numbered C.1. and C.2. was reversed for better flow.

• The note for a single test to cover NH3

• Terms in Table C.2. and Table C.3. (original numbers) should match for the various product families.

and LPG should also apply to turbine meters. The original table did 

not specify that the note applied to PD meters only. (Note: This was a point of contention that was not 

resolved during the meeting, as referenced earlier.)

• The term for centipoise needs to be consistent.

• The term centistokes was deleted from the headers.

• The footnotes from the original Product Families Table were pulled back into Table C.2. (original number).

• Start to combine the “crop chemicals” into a single category.

Maintenance Issues:

• For magnetic flow meters we talk about beverages. However, we don’t talk about it for other technologies.
NTEP Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix B – NTETC Measuring Sector; Appendix 3 – Attachment #3 from 2008 Measuring Sector Agenda

NTEP - B35

• There is no reference to heated products below 50 oC.

• If you list the items in order from lowest to highest viscosity, it would make the table easier to follow. By 

viscosity? By Specific gravity? Alphabetically by name?

• Need to include references to the footnotes included in Table C.1.
NTEP Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix B – NTETC Measuring Sector; Appendix 3 – Attachment #3 from 2008 Measuring Sector Agenda

NTEP - B36

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
NTEP Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix B – NTETC Measuring Sector; Appendix 4 – 2008 Measuring Sector Meeting Attendees

NTEP - B37

Appendix 4 – 2008 Measuring Sector Meeting Attendees

Dennis A. Beattie

Measurement Canada

400 St. Mary Avenue, 4th

Winnipeg, Manitoba R3C 4K5

Floor

(204) 983-8910 Fax (204) 983-5511

Beattie.dennis@ic.gc.ca

Tina Butcher

NIST/Weights & Measures Division

100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 2600

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2600

(301) 975-2196 Fax (301) 975-8091

tbutcher@nist.gov

Jerry W. Butler

North Carolina

Deptartment of Agriculture

1050 Mail Service Center

Raleigh, NC 27699-1050

(919) 733-3313 Fax (919) 715-0524

jerry.butler@ncagr.gov

Marc Buttler

Emerson – Micro Motion

7070 Winchester Circle

Boulder, CO 80301

(303) 530-8562 Fax (303) 530-8459

Marc.buttler@emerson.com

Joe Buxton

Daniel Measurement & Control, Inc.

1161 Sarahlyn Lane, Suite B

Statesboro, GA 30461

(912) 489-2383 Fax (912) 489-2390

joe.buxton@emersonprocess.com

Judy Cardin

Wisconsin Dept. of Agriculture

Trade and Consumer Protection

PO Box 8911

Madison, WI 53713

(608) 224-4945 Fax (608) 224-4939

judy.cardin@wi.gov

Rodney Cooper

Actaris Neptune

1310 Emerald Road

Greenwood, SC 29646

(864) 942-2226 Fax (864) 223-0341

rcooper@greenwood.actaris.com

Maurice J. Forkert

Tuthill Transfer Systems

8825 Aviation Drive

Fort Wayne, IN 46809

(260) 747-7529 Fax (260) 747-7064

mforkert@tuthill.com

Michael Frailer

Maryland Department of Agriculture

50 Harry S. Truman Parkway

Annapolis, MD 21401

(410) 841-5790

FraileML@mda.state.md.us

Mike Gallo

Cleanfuel USA

116 Halmar Cove

Georgetown, TX 78628

(512) 942-8300 Fax (512) 942-8311

mikegallo@cleanfuelusa.com

Paul Glowacki

Murray Equipment, Inc.

2515 Charleston Place

Fort Wayne, IN 46808

(260) 480-1352 Fax (260) 480-1377

pglowacki@murrayequipment.com

Norman Ingram

California Division

of Measurement Standards

6790 Florin Perkins Road, Suite 100

Sacramento, CA 95828

(916) 229-3016 Fax (916) 229-3026

ningram@cdfa.ca.gov

Gordon W. Johnson

Gilbarco, Inc.

7300 West Friendly Avenue

Greensboro, NC 27420

(336) 547-5375 Fax (336) 547-5079

Gordon.Johnson@gilbarco.com

Dmitri Karimov

Liquid Controls

105 Albrecht Drive

Lake Bluff, IL 60044

(847) 283-8317

dkarimov@idexcorp.com

Allen Katalinic

North Carolina

Department of Agriculture

1050 Mail Service Center

Raleigh, NC 27699-1050

(919) 733-3313 Fax (919) 715-0524

merleallen1234@aol.com

Michael J. Keilty

Endress + Hauser Flowtec AG

211 Pinewood Drive

Lyons, CO 80540

(303) 823-5796 Fax (317) 701-0823

michael.keilty@us.endress.com

Douglas Long

RDM Industrial Electronics

850 Harmony Grove Road

Nebo, NC 28761

(828) 652-8346 Fax (828) 652-2697

doug@rdm.net

Richard Miller

FMC Technologies

Measurement Solutions, Inc.

1602 Wagner Avenue

Erie, PA 16514

(814) 898-5286 Fax (814) 899-3414

rich.miller@fmcti.com

Robert Murnane, Jr.

Seraphin Test Measure/Pemberton

30 Indel Avenue

P.O. Box 227

Rancocas, NJ 08073-0227

(609) 267-0922 Fax (609) 261-2546

rmurnane@pemfab.com

Andre K. Noel

Neptune Technology Group, Inc.

1600 Alabama Highway #229

Tallassee, AL 36078

(334) 283-7298 Fax (334) 283-7299

anoel@neptunetg.com

’08 Measuring Sector Meeting Attendees

DoubleTree Club Hotel Atlanta – Atlanta, Georgia October 3 - 4
NTEP Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix B – NTETC Measuring Sector; Appendix 4 – 2008 Measuring Sector Meeting Attendees

NTEP - B38

Stephen Patoray, CAE

Consultants on Certification, LLC

1239 Carolina Drive

Tryon, NC 28782

(828) 859-6178 Fax (828) 859-6180

steve@consultoncert.com

David Rajala

Veeter-Root Co.

P.O. Box 1673

Altoona, PA 16603-1673

(814) 696-8125 Fax (814) 695-7605

drajala@veeder.com

Dan Reiswig

California Division of

Measurement Standards

6790 Florin Perkins Road, Suite 100

Sacramento, CA 95828

(916) 229-3023 Fax (916) 229-3015

DReiswig@cdfa.ca.gov

Ralph Richter

NIST

100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 2600

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2600

(301) 975-3997 Fax (301) 975-8091

ralph.richter@nist.gov

Kenneth Smith

Meggitt/Whittaker Controls

24325 W. 55th

Shawnee, KS 66266

Street

(913) 422-0716 Fax (913) 422-0721

kenny.smith@meggitt.com

James C. Truex

NCWM

88 Carryback Drive

Pataskala, OH 43062

(740) 919-4350 Fax (740) 919-4348

jim.truex@ncwm.net

Richard L. Tucker

RL Tucker Consulting, LLC

605 Bittersweet Lane

Ossian, IN 46777

(260) 622-4243 Fax (260) 622-4243

rtucker83@comcast.net

Richard W. Wotthlie

Maryland Department of Agriculture

50 Harry S Truman Parkway

Annapolis, MD 21401

(410) 841-5790 Fax (410) 841-2765

wotthlrw@mda.state.md.us

’08 Measuring Sector Meeting Attendees

DoubleTree Club Hotel Atlanta – Atlanta, Georgia October 3 - 4
NTEP Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix C – NTETC 2008 Weighing Sector

NTEP - C1

Appendix C

National Type Evaluation Technical Committee

Weighing Sector

September 23 - 25, 2008 – St. Louis, Missouri

Meeting Summary

Agenda Items

Load Cell Items.........................................................................................................................................................C3

1. Publication 14 Force Transducer (Load Cell) Family and Selection Criteria ........................................... C3

2. Load Cell Creep and Creep Tests and (Pub 14)........................................................................................ C4

2.(a) Pub 14 Force Transducers Table 5. Loading Times, Reduction Factors, and Force 

Transducers Section II, Item 5....................................................................................................... C4

2.(b) Pub 14 Force Transducers Section II, Item 3 and Table 5. Loading Times................................... C5

Carryover Items........................................................................................................................................................C6

3. In-Motion Railway Track Scale................................................................................................................ C6

4. Recommended Changes to Publication 14 Based on Actions at the 2008 NCWM Annual Meeting ....... C6

4.(a) G-A.1. and Appendix D – Definition of Equipment ...................................................................... C7

4.(b) Scales Code S.1.1.1.(b) Digital Indicating Elements..................................................................... C7

4.(c) Scales Code S.1.2.1., S.2.3., T.N.2.1., and AWS Code S.1.1.1. .................................................... C7

4.(d) Scales Code S.2.1.5. Initial Zero-Setting Mechanism.................................................................... C7

4.(e) Scales Code S.2.4. Level-Indicating Means and S.2.4.1. Vehicle On-Board Weighing 

Systems.......................................................................................................................................... C8

5. Add New and Amended Tare Definitions and Tare Requirements........................................................... C8

6. Minimum Size of Weight and Units Indications ...................................................................................... C8

7. Hopper Scale Design Parameters – Technical Policy............................................................................... C9

8. Method of Sealing – Setup and Verification of Calibration/Configuration Access................................ C10

9. S.1.1.(c) Zero Indication (Sleep/Screen Saver/Power Save Modes)....................................................... C11

10. Vehicle and Railway Track Scales ......................................................................................................... C11

New Items................................................................................................................................................................C17

11.(a) Publication 14 Clarification on Section 66.(c) Permanence Tests.......................................................... C17

11.(b) Publication 14 Clarification on Section 66.(c) Waiving of Permanence Tests....................................... C17

12. Correction to Scale Tickets..................................................................................................................... C18

13. Stored Tare for “Weigh-in/Weigh-out” Applications............................................................................. C19

14. Money Values in Other Than 1-Cent Intervals....................................................................................... C19

15. Suitability of Pressure Sensitive Security Seals...................................................................................... C19

16. Identification of ECRS............................................................................................................................ C20

17. Automatic Zero-Tracking vs. Automatic Zero-Setting........................................................................... C20

18. Capacity – Markings and Display........................................................................................................... C23

Part 1 – Capacity x Division, Multiple Units of Measure....................................................................... C24

Part 2 – Minimum Piece Weight and Sample Size ................................................................................. C24

Next Sector Meeting ...............................................................................................................................................C25
NTEP Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix C – NTETC 2008 Weighing Sector

NTEP - C2

Table B

Appendices

Appendix Title Page

A – Recommendations for Amendments to Publication 14.................................................................................C27

Agenda Item 1. Force Transducer (Load Cell) Family and Selection Criteria............................................ C27

Agenda Item 2. Force Transducer............................................................................................................... C28

Agenda Item 4.(c) Scales Code Paragraphs S.1.2.1., S.2.3., and T.N.2.1. and AWS Code 

Paragraph S.1.1.1.................................................................................................................................... C29

Agenda Item 4.(e) Amend Level-Indicating Means........................................................................................ C30

Agenda Item 8. Method of Sealing ............................................................................................................. C31

Agenda Item 9. S.1.1.(c) Zero Indication (Sleep/Screen Saver/Power Save Modes) ................................. C31

Agenda Item 11.(a) Clarification on Section 66.(c) Performance and Permanence Tests................................. C36

Agenda Item 11.(b) Clarification of Section 66.(c) Waiving of Permanence Tests .......................................... C37

Agenda Item 13. Stored Tare for “Weigh-in/Weigh-out” Applications........................................................ C37

Agenda Item 14. Money Values in Other Than 1-Cent Intervals ................................................................. C38

Agenda Item 18. Capacity – Markings and Display: Part 1 (Clarification of Cap x d): ............................. C38

Agenda Item 18. Capacity – Markings and Display: Part 2 (MSS and MPW):........................................... C39

B – Attachments......................................................................................................................................................C41

Attachment for Agenda Item 2 .......................................................................................................................... C41

Attachment for Agenda Item 17 ........................................................................................................................ C48

C – Attendees ..........................................................................................................................................................C50

Table C

Glossary of Acronyms

AWS Automatic Weighing Systems NTEP National Type Evaluation Program

CC NTEP Certificate of Conformance NTETC National Type Evaluation Technical 

Committee

CIM Coupled-in-Motion (Railway Track Scales) OIML International Organization of Legal 

Metrology

CLC Concentrated Load Capacity S&T NCWM Specifications and Tolerances 

Committee

DUT Device Under Test SWMA Southern Weights and Measures 

Association

EPO Examination Procedure Outline W/LRE Weighing/Load-receiving Element

GIPSA Grain Inspection Packers and Stockyards 

Administration WG Work Group

NCWM National Conference on Weights and Measures WMD NIST Weights and Measures Division

NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology WWMA Western Weights and Measures 

Association

Unless otherwise stated:

- “Handbook 44” (HB 44) means the 2008 Edition of NIST Handbook 44 “Specifications Tolerances, and Other Technical 

Requirements for Weighing and Measuring Devices.”

- “Handbook 130” (HB 130) means the 2009 Edition of NIST Handbook 130 “Uniform Laws and Regulations in the areas of 

legal metrology and fuel quality.”

- “Publication 14” (Pub 14) means the 2008 Edition of NCWM Publication 14 – Weighing Devices – Technical Policy 

• Checklists • Test Procedures.

- “Sector” means the NTETC Weighing Sector.

Note: NIST does not imply that these acronyms are used solely to identify these organizations or technical topics.
NTEP Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix C – NTETC 2008 Weighing Sector

NTEP - C3

Details of all Items

(In order by Reference Key Number)

Load Cell Items

1. Publication 14 F or ce T r ansducer (L oad C ell) F amily and Selection C r iter ia

Background: See the NTETC Weighing Sector 2007 Meeting Summary – agenda Item 5 for additional background 

information and the reasons that the OIML Mutual Acceptance Arrangement (MAA) prompted the proposed 

changes to the selection criteria.

Discussion: The NTEP Director provided the Sector with an update to the status of this item. The main issue was 

to develop a policy for amendments to existing load cell Certificates of Conformance (CC). The policy would 

determine which load cell needs to be submitted to expand the CC based upon what has already been tested and 

what is being proposed for the selections criteria. The Sector discussed a suggestion from Stephen Langford that 

cut-off dates be established where an existing CC could no longer use the current selection criteria and that until 

then, an applicant be given a choice between the proposed and existing criteria to amend an existing CC. It was also 

stated that either selection criteria should be included with the test conditions of the CC. Kevin Fruechte stated that 

there should only be one selection criteria since having multiple selection criteria makes it difficult to design load 

cells based on the desires of the marketplace. The Sector responded favorably to a suggestion to just add a simple 

statement to indicate that a cell submitted under the MAA would follow the selection criteria of R 60.

Tom Bartel of the NIST force group reminded the Sector that the NIST and California NTEP laboratory testing 

capabilities do not cover test loads from 250 kg to 1000 kg and that that has to be kept in mind when selecting the 

load cell to be submitted for test. It was also noted that the Netherlands (NMI) has a similar gap in testing 

capabilities but at higher capacities. In both situations, alternate capacities of load cells were submitted based upon 

agreements by the applicants with either the NTEP Director for NTEP evaluation and the Netherland laboratory 

authorities or R 60 evaluations. Darrell Flocken suggested that adding language to Publication 14 to recognize that 

the deviations to the selection criteria are unavoidable due to test capability and manufacturing product line.

Discussion/Conclusion: The Sector agreed to recommend that Publication 14 Force Transducers Section D be 

amended to state that:

1. The selection criteria and family characteristics in R 60 will be used for any load cell submitted under the 

MAA including load cell test data used for subsequent applications to amend the CC.

2. The criteria (NTEP or OIML) will be listed on all future CCs and amendments.

3. The selection criteria will be based on the original load cell manufacturer’s CC for load cell CCs issued 

under a private label CC.

4. A statement will be added to Publication 14 stating that the deviations to the selection criteria may be 

unavoidable due to test capability and manufacturing product line and that any such deviations may be 

approved by NTEP after consulting with the applicant.

Note: See Appendix A, Agenda Item 1 for the specific recommendation to amend Publication 14 Force 

Transducers Section D.
NTEP Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix C – NTETC 2008 Weighing Sector

NTEP - C4

2. L oad C ell C r eep and C r eep T ests and (Pub 14)

2.(a) Pub 14 Force Transducers Table 5. Loading Times, Reduction Factors, and Force Transducers 

Section II, Item 5

Source: Stephen Patoray, NTEP Director

Background: At the 2008 NCWM Annual Meeting, several industry members asked the S&T Committee to 

consider a priority item that relates to Section T.N.4.6 and T.N.4.7 of NIST Handbook 44 Section 2.20. Scales. 

They also mentioned related sections of NCWM Publication 14, load cells. The argument presented was that the 

items in the handbook failed to harmonize with international standards (OIML R 60) since the information in the 

handbook did not include instructions on the process or timing for the creep and creep return tests indicated in these 

two sections. It was further stated that the timing for the creep test in Pub 14 was not consistent with the 

international Recommendation R 60.

The three items that are currently different between the OIML Recommendation R 60 and Publication 14 Force 

Transducers requirements are loading times, reduction factors, and differences between the Pub 14 Section 5. test 

procedure and HB 44. I have only highlighted the differences between the two documents. (Note: Differences with 

Class III L in HB 44 or Pub 14 and OIML R 60 have not been included with this item.)

Item 2.(a), Part 1 – Loading Times

The issue was the load/unload plus stabilization time differences between OIML and Pub 14 was the focus of 

the request for a priority item at the 2008 Annual Meeting. OIML R 60 Section 5.2.3. states clearly that during 

the conduct of the tests, the initial reading shall be taken at a time interval after the initiation of loading or 

unloading, whichever is applicable, as specified in Table 6. In Section 5.3.2.1., the loading or unloading times 

shall be approximately half the time specified. The remaining time shall be utilized for stabilization. 

OIML R 60 does go on further in Section 5.2.3.2. Loading/unloading times impracticable and indicates if this 

timing cannot be achieved that some consideration must be made in the specification. (This is currently limited 

to the unloading time in Subsection a.). It is not clear what to do if loading times cannot be achieved, other than 

record the actual times. The NIST FG performs the NTEP testing for load cells and reports that load and unload 

times are nearly instant, or less than 1 second, then they wait 20 seconds as per the written instruction in Pub 14 

above. Currently the times in Pub 14 Table 5 are not used.

The submitter of this item requested that sector to consider:

1. Amend Table 5 in Pub 14 to match the capacity ranges and times in OIML R 60 Table 6,

2. Amend the wording regarding the timing for load and unload in Pub 14 to match the wording in R 60, 

and

3. Add the exception found in OIML R 60 for loading times that are impractical to Pub 14.

Discussion: This discussion of this part of the agenda was combined with agenda Item 2.(b) since they both 

address the same issues.

Item 2.(a), Part 2 – Reduction Factors for Creep (at load) tolerance (Class III only)

Currently OIML R 60 has a requirement that Creep is 0.7 x mpe and mpe is defined as plc x 1.5 v (at 90 to 

100 % capacity). Further plc for creep is defined as 0.7. Therefore, the tolerance for creep is 

(1.5 v) x (0.7) x (0.7) = 0.735 v. However, Publication 14 has a tolerance value which uses either a reduction 

factor of 1.0 (for multiple) or 0.7 (for single) x 1.5 v. Therefore the tolerance for creep is 1.5 x 1.0 = 1.5 v, or 

1.5 x 0.7 = 1.05 v.

Discussion: This was presented as an information item and no further action is needed by the Sector at this 

time.
NTEP Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix C – NTETC 2008 Weighing Sector

NTEP - C5

Item 2.(a), Part 3 – Differences Between Pub 14 Section 5. Test Procedures and HB 44:

Currently the procedure for conducting the minimum dead load output return (MDLOR) in OIML R 60 is 

different from the procedure for creep return in Pub 14. Also it appears that the method in Pub 14 is not 

consistent and may be in conflict with the information in NIST Handbook 44 T.N.4.7.

Discussion/Conclusion (Item 2.(a), Part 3): The Sector discussed this item and agreed to recommend that 

Publication 14 Forte Transducers Section be amended to delete the last sentence in Section L, II, paragraph 5a as 

shown in Appendix A, Agenda Item 2.

2.(b) Pub 14 Force Transducers Section II, Item 3 and Table 5. Loading Times

Source: Stephen Langford, Cardinal/Detecto

Background: Publication 14, in its current form does not address times allowed for unloading and stabilization for 

conducting creep and creep recovery tests. Only Table 5 is included in Publication 14 and that table deals only with 

loading times. In order to more closely harmonize NTEP evaluation tests of force transducers with those tests 

performed under OIML R 60, additional information regarding these times for load application and removal need to 

be added to Publication 14.

Discussion/Conclusion: The discussion of this item was combined with the first part of agenda Item 2.(a)-1 

“Loading Times” submitted by Stephen Patoray since it addressed the same issue. After lengthy discussions and 

reviewing both proposals to add OIML Table 6 and applicable OIML language, the Sector developed a third 

proposal that seemed to be a suitable alternative to provide an exception for tests where the test load is removed too 

fast. Kevin Fruechte, Steven Cook, Tom Bartel, Kevin Chestnutwood, and Stephen Patoray agreed to develop a 

ballot item for consideration by the Sector on a conference call October 1, 2008. Additionally, the load cell 

manufacturers were requested to review their recent load cell test data for creep recovery to determine if the 

proposed variation to the tolerance is acceptable. Upon agreement on a suitable variation to the tolerance, the Sector 

requested that its recommendation be considered by the NTEP Committee as soon as possible due to the importance 

of this item to load cell manufacturers.

The result of the ballot was: Seven members voted in favor of the proposal, five members opposed the proposal and 

three members voted to abstain. In summary, the comments indicated that two public sector members (NTEP labs) 

supported the intent of the proposal, but voted negative since they had concerns regarding the clarity of the proposal. 

Two other members, who initially supported the recommendation during the Sector meeting, changed their position 

and voted negative on the ballot language. Those members (NIST and 1 private) stated that they believed that the 

intent of the proposal was to apply a “correction factor” to the creep recovery tolerance in HB 44 (and R 60) since 

the NIST test equipment loaded and unloaded weights faster than the procedures prescribed in OIML R 60. 

However, they became aware of additional information and test data after the Sector meeting that seemed to indicate 

that a few other international labs use similar equipment with similar loading and unloading characteristics and did 

not apply any correction factors. As a result of this information, those members believed that the proposed 

“correction factor” could be interpreted as a tolerance value, which conflicts with the creep recovery tolerance value 

in HB 44 and is different from the equivalent tolerance recommended in OIML R 60. A third private sector member 

voted negative and provided additional background information about the development of the R 60 requirements and 

test procedures and noted that the loading/unloading and stabilization times in R 60 were established to take into 

account existing test equipment without requiring significant modifications or replacement.

The result of the ballot and summary of all submitted comments were forwarded to the NTEP Committee. At its fall 

2008 meeting, the NTEP Committee considered the ballot results and comments and decided not to accept the 

recommendation from the Sector. A copy of the proposed ballot language, voting results and comments can be 

found in Appendix B, Agenda Item 2.

In January 2009, a revised proposal was developed by the small work group that addressed the concern that the 

proposed correction factor could be interpreted as a tolerance that was not supported in HB 44. The originally 

proposed correction factor was replaced by the tolerances in the 2009 Edition of HB 44 Scales Code 
NTEP Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix C – NTETC 2008 Weighing Sector

NTEP - C6

paragraph T.N.4.7. The revised proposal was sent to the Sector as a revised ballot item. The result of the ballot and 

summary of all submitted comments (12 affirmative, 0 negative and 1 abstain) were forwarded to the NTEP 

Committee. The NTEP Committee considered the ballot results and comments during its meeting at the 2009 

NCWM Interim Meeting and agreed to accept the recommendation. The recommended changes to Publication 14 

and the revised ballot have been added to the previous recommendation in Appendix A, Agenda Item 2.

Carryover Items

3. I n-M otion R ailway T r ack Scale

Source: 2007 NTETC Weighing Sector Meeting Summary – Agenda Item 2

Background: During the 2007 Sector discussion of agenda Item 2 regarding the performance and permanence 

requirements for in-motion railway track scales, the Sector asked the NIST technical advisor to develop a 

Publication 14 definition of the term “in-motion” weighing device. The NIST technical advisor was to investigate 

the possibility of making the definition broad enough to include controllers for other “in-motion” weighing devices 

such as dynamic monorail scales. The proposed language will be voted on by the Sector in a letter ballot prior to the 

2008 NCWM Interim Meeting.

The technical advisor did not have sufficient time to develop a proposed definition for “in-motion” weighing devices 

in time for consideration by the Sector prior to the 2008 NCWM Interim Meeting.

Discussion: The Sector reviewed the following proposed definition for “in-motion weighing device” developed by 

the technical advisor which is based on an international definition founding OIML R 51 for automatic weighing 

instruments.

In-motion weighing device: A complete weighing system, separable indicating element, or controller that 

follows a predetermined program of automatic processes for objects while in motion without the 

intervention of an operator on the load-receptor of a complete weighing device or separable 

weighing/load-receiving element.

Mettler Toledo submitted the following alternate definition:

In-motion weighing device: An instrument capable of weighing objects in motion without the intervention 

of an operator and follow a predetermined program of automatic process characteristics of the instrument. 

The instrument can be a complete weighing system, a separable controller or a separable 

weighing/load-receiving element.

Conclusion: The Sector recommended that both versions be presented to the representative of the railroad weighing 

industry attending the fall meeting of AREMA Committee 34 and the SMA and that this item be placed on the 

Sector’s 2009 agenda.

The members of AREMA Committee 34 reviewed the proposed definitions for Publication 14 and stated no 

preference for either recommendation. This item was also discussed by the SMA at their fall 2008 meeting where 

Darrell Flocken reported on discussions at the NTETC Weighing Sector meeting and that feedback on the In-Motion 

Railway Track Scales item is being requested. Any comments should be submitted to Darrell Flocken or Steve 

Cook by August 2009.

4. R ecommended C hanges to Publication 14 B ased on A ctions at the 2008 NC W M A nnual 

M eeting

The NIST Technical Advisor, Steve Cook, has provided the Sector with specific recommendations for incorporating 

test procedures and checklist language based upon actions of the 2008 Annual Meeting of the 93rd NCWM. The 

Sector was asked to briefly discuss each item and, if appropriate, provide general input on the technical aspects of 

the issues.
NTEP Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix C – NTETC 2008 Weighing Sector

NTEP - C7

4.(a) G-A.1. and Appendix D – Definition of Equipment

Source: See the Annual Report of the 2008 NCWM S&T Committee agenda Item 310-4 for additional background 

information to amend HB 44 General Code paragraph G-A.1. Commercial and Law Enforcement Equipment and 

definition of Equipment and the adopted language. During the Annual Meeting, the NCWM agreed to add a new 

definition of equipment and amend General Code paragraph G-A.

Discussion/Conclusion: The Sector reviewed the language adopted by the NCWM and agreed with the NIST 

technical advisor recommendation that no further action by the Sector is required since the revised paragraph and 

new definition is intended to provide clarification of commercial devices and does not impact type evaluation 

procedures and technical policies in NCWM Publication 14.

4.(b) Scales Code S.1.1.1.(b) Digital Indicating Elements

Background: See the Annual Report of the 2008 NCWM S&T Committee Agenda Item 320-1 for additional 

background information and the language adopted to amend S.1.1.1.(b) Digital Indicating Elements to clarify that 

the requirements for the operation of a center-of-zero indication applies to the gross and net load indication of zero.

Discussion/Conclusion: This item was submitted to the NCWM by the Sector to provide a HB 44 reference for 

Publication 14 DES Section 41. The Sector reviewed the language adopted by the NCWM and agreed with the 

NIST technical advisor recommendation that no additional action is required by the Sector.

4.(c) Scales Code S.1.2.1., S.2.3., T.N.2.1., and AWS Code S.1.1.1.

Background: See the Annual Report of the 2008 NCWM S&T Committee Agenda Items 320-2 and 324-1 for 

additional background information to amend HB 44 by:

1. Adding a note clarifying that the requirement that a net weight division on multiple range and 

multi-interval scales is not required to be expressed as 1, 2, or 5, or a decimal multiple or submultiples of 

1, 2, or 5, where the scale division of the tare weight is different from the scale division of the gross weight,

2. Adding a similar exception to paragraph S.2.3., and

3. Adding language that clarifies that scale tolerances apply to net weight using any tare load.

Discussion/Conclusion: This item was submitted to the NCWM by the Sector to provide a HB 44 reference for 

Publication 14 DES Section 41. The Sector reviewed the language adopted by the NCWM and agreed with the 

NIST technical advisor recommendation to amend Publication 14 DES Sections 1.11., 31., and 32. This 

recommendation can be found in Appendix A, Agenda Item 4.(c).

The Sector also recommended that the NIST technical advisor develop similar amendments for Publication 14 for 

Automatic Weighing Systems, ballot the AWS work group on the proposed changes, and report the ballot results to 

the NTEP Committee.

4.(d) Scales Code S.2.1.5. Initial Zero-Setting Mechanism

Background: See the Annual Report of the 2008 NCWM S&T Committee agenda Item 320-4 for additional 

background information to amend S.2.1.5. to clarify IZSM for separable indicating elements.

Discussion/Conclusion: This item was submitted to the NCWM by the Sector to clarify HB 44 language as a result 

of amending Publication 14 DES Section 41.2. for the verification of IZSM requirements on separable electronic 

indicating elements in 2007. The Sector reviewed the language adopted by the NCWM and agreed with the NIST 

technical advisor recommendation that no additional action is required by the Sector.
NTEP Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix C – NTETC 2008 Weighing Sector

NTEP - C8

4.(e) Scales Code S.2.4. Level-Indicating Means and S.2.4.1. Vehicle On-Board Weighing Systems

Background: See the Annual Report of the 2008 NCWM S&T Committee agenda Item 320-5 for additional 

background information and the specific language to amend S.2.4. and S.2.4.1. to clarify the requirements for level 

indication means.

Discussion/Conclusion: The Sector reviewed the language adopted by the NCWM and agreed with the NIST 

technical advisor recommendation to amend Publication 14 DES Sections 55. and 56. as shown in Appendix A, 

Agenda Item 4.(e).

5. A dd New and A mended T ar e Definitions and T ar e R equir ements

Source: NTEP Participating Laboratories (Carryover Item)

Background: See the Annual Report of the 2008 NCWM S&T Committee agenda Item 320-6 for additional 

background information.

During its 2008 Annual Meeting, the NCWM agreed with the comments that this item needed additional time for 

review and analysis and that the item be given “information” status. The NIST technical advisor will develop a oneto two-hour technical presentation on the proposed tare requirements that will be available to the regional weights 

and measures associations, and posted on the WMD website.

Discussion/Conclusion: The NIST technical advisor provided the Sector with an update on the status of the 

technical presentations and reported that this item is now on the NCWM agenda. Additionally, he reported that he 

has developed a one-hour presentation on this item and has written a series of articles for the Weights and Measures 

Quarterly newsletter.

The Sector agreed with comments from the regional weights and measures association and recommended that the 

S&T Committee technical advisor split the agent item into three sub-proposals. The Sector offered that the item 

could be separated into the following three subjects:

1. Tare weighing/balancing with applicable definitions,

2. Tare requirements for multi-interval and multiple range scales, and

3. Preset tare with applicable definitions.

6. M inimum Size of W eight and Units I ndications

Source: 2007 Weighing Sector Item 7 (Carryover Item)

Background: See the 2008 NCWM Specifications and Tolerance Committee Annual Report Developing Item 

Part 2, Item 1 “S.1.4.6. Height, Definition of Minimum Reading Distance, UR.2.10. Primary Indicating Elements 

Provided by the User and Definition of Primary Indications,” and the 2006 Weighing Sector Summary Item 6 for 

additional background information.

At the 2008 NTEP Participating Laboratory meeting in Ottawa, Canada, the weighing laboratories discussed this

item and recommended that the Sector consider amending the proposal as follows by deleting the proposed 2 mm 

minimum height for all units and descriptors in S.1.4.6.(e) and proposed user requirement paragraph UR.2.10. as 

follows since the labs believe that General Code paragraph G-UR. 3.3. Position of Equipment addresses the position 

of a device so that its indications can be accurately read.

Discussion: The Sector discussed the NTEP labs’ recommended changes to the proposal along with the labs’ 

recommendation to move forward with this proposal as a voting item for the S&T Committee. Darrell Flocken 

noted that the numbering of the proposed specification should be changed from S.1.4.6. since it appears that all of 
NTEP Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix C – NTETC 2008 Weighing Sector

NTEP - C9

the S.1.4. paragraphs are applicable to mechanical indicators and that the proposed language is applicable to 

electronic scales with digital indication. It was also noted that the CWMA and WWMA recommended that the 

proposal be withdrawn unless it received additional support from the industry. Measurement Canada added that 

they do not have the 9.5 mm requirement in their laws and regulations.

Conclusion: During the discussions, a vote was held on whether to forward the NTEP labs’ proposal to the S&T 

Committee. Seven members voted in favor and nine members voted against forwarding the NTEP lab alternate 

proposal to the S&T Committee. The results of the vote indicated that there is no consensus between the NTEP labs 

and device manufacturers. The Sector also recommended that the discussion and conclusion be forwarded to the 

WWMA and NCWM S&T Committees.

7. H opper Scale Design Par ameter s – T echnical Policy

Source: 2007 Weighing Sector (WS) Agenda Item 10 (Carryover Item)

Background: See the 2007 NTETC Weighing Sector Meeting Summary for additional background information. 

During the 2007 Weighing Sector meeting, the Sector could not come to a consensus on the questions raised on this 

item and suggested that a hopper scale work group be established to:

1. Define a type, and

2. Determine selection of device(s) to be submitted for evaluation, modifications that can be made to the type, 

and whether or not multiple types can be listed on a CC.

Stephen Patoray and Don Onwiler volunteered to develop a specific proposal to be considered by the Sector during 

the 2008 NTETC Weighing Sector Annual Meeting.

This item was further discussed during the 2008 NTEP Participating Laboratory meeting, including reviewing that

the following definition of type is from the NCWM Publication 14 Administrative Policy definition section as it 

applies to hopper scales and other device types (A.19. Type).

There seems to be agreement among the labs on what constitutes type. However, variations to the type that might be 

considered as sub-types or OIML families have been put on the same CC. The weighing labs reviewed the OIML 

term and examples of types and families. The OIML R 76 terminology and definitions (T.3.4. Type and 

T.3.5. Family) tend to make sure that the type and families (sub-types) are sufficiently defined on the certificate.

Discussions included evaluating new features to be added on older electronic devices and whether the entire 

evaluation checklist should be reviewed when an amendment is requested to add or change a feature. Two NTEP 

lab sector members stated that they go through the entire checklist (except for influence factor testing) to verify that 

the change does not impact an unrelated feature, e.g., adding a lb/kg switch impacted the overcapacity blanking and 

accuracy in one of the units. MC is also concerned about older (10 year) certificates on electronic devices.

The labs also support the concept of adding multiple types on a single CC provided the content and clarity of the 

types are suitably defined on the CC. There are distinct models and tests for the different designs (hanging vs. 

compression).

At the end of the discussion:

- Ron Rigdon agreed to develop a template CC for hopper scales to be submitted to the Weighing Sector.

- Steve Patoray agreed to submit a recommendation to the NTEP Committee to amend the title of Pub 14 

Admin Policy Section L. What Constitutes a “Different” Type since the subject of the title does not 

agree with the content of the subsections.

- Steve Cook and Steve Patoray will update the Weighing Sector on the position of the labs regarding the 

Weighing Sector carryover item on hopper scales.

- The NTEP participating laboratories will verify that a device submitted for evaluation to add a new feature 

or variation complies with the entire checklist. The exception to the evaluation would be influence factor 

and permanence testing unless requested by the applicant or required by NTEP (e.g., modifications to the 

load-sensing element, A/D converters, mechanical design changes to the load-receiving element, etc.).
NTEP Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix C – NTETC 2008 Weighing Sector

NTEP - C10

After the lab meeting, Steve Cook noted the following list of device metrologically relevant features and functions 

in OIML R 76 that the Weighing Sector and NTEP may consider in making a determination of tests to be performed 

to update a CC.

- housings; - instrument functions;

- temperature and humidity ranges; - highest number of verification scale intervals;

- indications; - verification scale interval, emin;

- nmax; - accuracy classes;

- lowest input signal, μV/e (analog strain gauge load cells); - single range, multiple range or multi-interval instrument;

- temperature ranges; - maximum number of instrument functions;

- maximum size of load receptor, if significant; - maximum number of peripheral devices connected;

- maximum number of indications; - maximum number of analog and digital interfaces;

- maximum number of implemented digital devices; - different types of power supply (mains and/or batteries);

- several load receptors, if connectable to the indicator; - etc.

- load receptors;

Discussion/Conclusion: The Sector reviewed the background information. The NTEP Director reported that there 

has been little agreement on what constitutes a different type or can be considered as a variation of the design and 

how many certificates are required.

The Sector recommended that this item be carried over for the 2009 NTEP lab and NTETC Weighing Sector 

meetings to allow for additional work and development of a proposal.

8. M ethod of Sealing – Setup and V er ification of C alibr ation/C onfigur ation A ccess

Source: NTEP Director

Background: The Sector was requested to review the report of the NTETC Weighing Sector Annual Meeting 

September 11 - 13, 2003 Fresno, California, FINAL Summary, Item 18. Physical Security Seals on Scales with 

External Calibration Capability regarding previous interpretations of HB 44 General Code paragraphs G-S.2. 

Facilitation of Fraud, G-S.8. Provision for Sealing Adjustable Components, and Scale Code paragraph S.1.11. 

Provision for Sealing.

It was reported that there is still disagreement among the NTEP labs on this topic. It was also noted that changes 

were made to Publication 14 in 2004 in anticipation of changes to HB 44; however, the changes to HB 44 did not 

happen and that there may be a problem with Pub 14 since the current procedures and type evaluation requirements 

are not fully supported by HB 44.

The discussion in 2003 was to address a specific deficiency that was found in several devices at that time. At least 

one device manufacturer attempted to address this deficiency with changes to the device function. This device was 

evaluated, and based on input from the NTEP lab, the NTEP Committee Chair and the NTEP Director, it was 

determined that this device did meet the requirements. That is, the device would (upon command) display or print 

the external calibration status that was configured in the setup mode, (e.g., “not sealed,” “not legal for trade,” 

“HB 44,” etc.). Currently several NTEP labs do not believe that this “fix” is acceptable.

The NTEP Director provided additional observations based on a series of e-mail exchanges on this item.

1. Such discussions are healthy for NTEP, as long as they are kept positive and productive and focus on 

objective facts.

2. Acknowledged the contributions from Andrea Buie in providing background information.

3. Restated that Publication 14 is not a standard or a regulation; it is a checklist to determine if a device is 

capable of meeting the applicable requirements of HB 44. It is also not design-based; it is performancebased.

4. In this particular case, Publication 14 was changed (with good intentions) in anticipation of similar changes 

being made to HB 44. In hindsight that was an error on the part of the Sector to recommend such a change. 

Currently Pub 14 is not in line with HB 44. Or, it is not being interpreted in line with HB 44.
NTEP Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix C – NTETC 2008 Weighing Sector

NTEP - C11

Discussion/Conclusion: Darrell Flocken suggested that DES Section 10.12.9. should be deleted since it was not 

supported by HB 44. The Sector also discussed amending DES Section 10.12.4. to provide guidance to the 

evaluator to make sure that adjustments cannot be made to sealable parameters. However the Sector could not come 

up with a consensus to amending DES Section 10.12.4.

The Sector agreed to recommend that DES Section 10.12.9. be removed from Publication 14 since the language is 

not supported by requirements in HB 44 as shown in Appendix A, Agenda Item 8. The Sector also recognized that 

additional language may need to be added at a later date pending action of the NCWM on a proposal to add new 

language to G-S.8.

9. S.1.1.(c) Z er o I ndication (Sleep/Scr een Saver /Power Save M odes)

Source: Weighing Sector Carryover Agenda Item 4.(d)

Background: See the 2007 NTETC Weighing Sector Meeting Summary for additional background information. 

The NIST technical advisor revised the ballot proposal and submitted it to the NTEP Participating laboratories 

during the 2008 Annual Meeting. The labs agreed with the revised language. The NIST technical advisor 

developed a table for review by the Sector that compared the original and revised versions of the ballot language.

Discussion/Conclusion: The Sector reviewed the revised ballot language and agreed to recommend that 

Publication 14 be amended to clarify the evaluation procedures for verifying that “sleep/screen saver/power save” 

features comply with paragraph S.1.1.(c) and do not conflict with other HB 44 requirements. The recommended 

language can be viewed in Appendix A, Agenda Item 9.

10. V ehicle and R ailway T rack Scales

Source: 2007 Weighing Sector Carryover Agenda Item 3

Background: During the 2007 meeting of the Weighing Sector, the Sector agreed there is a loophole in the existing 

policies for RR track scales with a capacity greater than 200 000 lb. The SMA and AREMA Committee 34 

volunteered to work on the testing requirements for vehicle and railway track scales with capacities greater than 

200 000 lb and provide to the NTEP Director and NIST technical advisor an update on developing a proposal for 

consideration by the Weighing Sector prior to the 2008 NCWM Interim Meeting.

AREMA Committee 34 Ad hoc Subcommittee submitted proposed changes to Publication 69 as shown below. 

However, the SMA was not able to address this item during their November meeting and therefore this item will be 

carried over to the 2008 meeting of the Weighing Sector.

Discussion/Conclusion: During the discussion on this item, the NTEP labs noted a couple of places where 

clarification may be needed regarding the terms used in the railroad industry. The labs believed that the referenced 

sections of the AAR Handbook should be included in Publication 14 (with proper citation).

The Sector recommended that this item be carried over until the 2009 meeting of the Sector to await final approval 

by AREMA Committee 34.

At their October 2008 fall meeting, the Chairman of Committee 34 stated that Committee 34 could not further 

develop this item without specific input from the Weighing Sector. Additionally, permission to reprint sections of 

the AAR Handbook is possible by submitting a request in writing to Raphael Jimenez requesting the specific 

definitions and other language to be reprinted in Publication 14.
NTEP Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix C – NTETC 2008 Weighing Sector

NTEP - C12

Edited by AREMA Committee 34 Ad hoc Subcommittee on 11/27/07

69. Performance and Permanence Tests for Railway Track Scales Used to Weigh Statically

(NOTE: For combination vehicle/railway track scales, see also additional test considerations under “Test 

Considerations for Other Scales” in the application.)

It is desirable, but not required that a new installation should be calibrated by a railroad test car after a representative 

of the railroad has inspected the installation for compliance with railroad design and construction specifications.

The Performance Test (69.1 thru 69.6) is conducted to determine compliance with the tolerances and, in the case of 

nonautomatic indicating scales, the sensitivity requirements specified in NIST Handbook 44. The tests described 

here apply primarily to the weighing/load-receiving element. It is assumed that the indicating element used during 

the test has already been examined and found to comply with applicable requirements. If the design and 

performance of the indicating element is to be determined during the same test, the applicable requirements for 

weighbeams, poses, dials, electronic digital indications, etc., must also be referenced. A 100 000 lb field standard 

weight cart, or a combination of field standard weights safely added to a field standard weight cart in 10 000 lb 

increments for a total of 100 000 lb will be used to conduct the Performance Test.

The Permanence Test (69.7) shall not be conducted sooner than thirty (30) days after the Performance Test. If a 

100 000 lb field standard weight cart, or a combination of field standard weights safely added to a field standard 

weight cart for a total of 100 000 lb, is not available for the Permanence Test, a 100 000 lb Test Weight Railcar may 

be used.

NOTE: A field standard Test Weight Railcar and Test Weight Railcart shall have a footprint no greater than 7 ft. 

The Association of American Railroads, AAR Scale Handbook Section 1.5. “Specifications for Railway Track Scale 

Test Weight Loads” defines the requirements for test weight loads including Test Weight Railcarts and Test Weight 

Railcars. A standard railcar, as described in AAR Scale Handbook Section 1.5.7., is not suitable for use during 

NTEP evaluations.
NTEP Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix C – NTETC 2008 Weighing Sector

NTEP - C13

The following definitions from the AAR Safety and Operations Scale Handbook ©2009 Edition Section 1.5 Specifications for 

Railway Track Scale Test Weigh Cars and have been reprinted with the permission of the AAR.

1.5.5. TEST WEIGHT RAILCAR

Test weight load designed as a certified mass standard supported by two-axle trucks, built for AAR interchange service, with the following 

design characteristics:

a. All metal construction except ballast. Ballast material must be stable.

b. Loading points must not exceed 7 ft (2.2 m) and have uniform load distribution.

c. No unnecessary equipment.

d. A minimum of ledges, cavities, or projections that hold dirt, water, or other foreign matter.

e. The calibration cavities, capable if holding at least 1,000 lb (500 kg), must be waterproof and sealable.

f. Operational controls functional from both sides of the railcar.

g. Drive system, when used, shall be adequate to propel the railcar on a 3 % grade.

h. Smooth and sloped top to ensure drainage.

i. Accessibility of all parts for inspection.

j. Ruggedness and durability in order to minimize repairs,

k. Overall truck centers shall not exceed 50 ft (15 m).

l. Side-mounted hand brake accessible from the ground.

m. Fuel tank, when used, must be attached and not exceed 16 lb (7 kg) capacity or 2 gal (8 L).

n. Lifting system must be adequate to lift all wheels a minimum of 2 in. (5 cm) above the rail.

o. Hydraulic oil tank, when used, must be equipped with a sight gauge or other means to indicate proper amount of oil to 

maintain calibration.

1.5.6. TEST WEIGHT RAILCART

Test weight load designed as a certified mass standard supported by two-axles on steel wheels, with the following design characteristics:

a. All metal construction.

b. Loading points must not exceed 7 ft (2.2 m) and have uniform load distribution.

c. No unnecessary equipment.

d. A minimum of ledges, cavities, or projections that hold dirt, water, or other foreign matter.

e. The calibration cavities, capable if holding at least 1,000 lb (500 kg), must be waterproof and sealable.

f. Minimum surface area with smooth and sloped top to ensure drainage.

g. Accessibility of all parts for inspection.

h. Ruggedness and durability in order to minimize repairs,

i. Fuel tank, when used, must be attached and not exceed 16 lb (7 kg) capacity or 2 gal (8 L).

j. Hydraulic oil tank, when used, must be equipped with a sight gauge or other means to indicate the proper amount of oil to 

maintain calibration.

k. The weight cart, as well as the separable weights, must be traceable.

1.5.7. STANDARD RAIL CAR

Standard rail car converted to a certified mass standard supported by 2-axle trucks, built for AAR interchange service, with the following 

design characteristics.

a. All metal construction except ballast. Ballast material must be stable.

b. Load uniformly distributed over trucks.

c. No unnecessary equipment.

d. A minimum of ledges, cavities, or projections that hold dirt, water, or other foreign matter.

e. The calibration cavity must be waterproof and sealable.

f. Smooth and sloped top to ensure drainage.

g. Accessibility of all parts for inspection.

h. Ruggedness and durability in order to minimize repairs.

© 2009, American Association of Railroads
NTEP Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix C – NTETC 2008 Weighing Sector

NTEP - C14

69.1. Influence Factors

If tests are necessary to determine compliance with influence factors, individual main elements and components 

tests must be conducted according to NTEP policy that is outlined in NCWM Publication 14, Section B.1. 

Influence Factor Requirements.

69.2. Test Standards

A 100 000 lb field standard weight cart or a 100 000 lb combination of field standard weights safely added to a 

field standard weight cart shall be used for the Performance Test. Weights must be incremented by 10 000 lb 

from 30 000 lb to 100 000 lb. A test weight railcar shall not be used for the Performance Test.

69.3. Sensitivity and Discrimination Tests

69.3.1. Weighbeams

The Sensitivity Test is conducted at zero load and at maximum load for mechanical railway track scales 

with non-automatic indicating elements. The Sensitivity Test is conducted by determining the actual test 

weight value necessary to bring the beam from a rest point at the center of the trig loop to rest points at the 

top and bottom of the trig loop. The maximum load at which the Sensitivity Test is conducted need not be 

comprised of known test weight.

69.3.2. Automatic Digital Indicating Elements

The Discrimination Test is conducted at zero load and at maximum load for railway track scales with 

indicating elements (e.g., electronic digital indicating elements, mechanical dials). See also DES 

Section 54. regarding the specific procedures for the Discrimination Test. (Technical Advisor Note: The 

above language is recommended to match the title of DES Section 69.3.)

69.4. Digital Indications

Width-of-zero, zone of uncertainty and, if so equipped, automatic-zero-setting mechanism tests shall be 

conducted as specified in other sections of NCWM Publication 14.
NTEP Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix C – NTETC 2008 Weighing Sector

NTEP - C15

69.5. Increasing Load/Shift Tests

69.5.1. Conduct increasing load tests in 10 000 lb load increments up to 100 000 lb. Conduct shift tests over 

each section at 50 000 lb and 100 000 lb, testing all sections and midspans between sections in both 

directions with each load. The scale shall be capable of returning to a no-load indication within 

prescribed limits [3 d per 5 °C change in temperature] and within 15 minutes after increasing or shift 

test load is removed. Zero balance change is limited to acceptance tolerance (1⁄2 d). The indication 

may be re-zeroed before the start of any increasing load or shift test, but not during any sequence.

(a) Begin increasing-load test by placing 30 000 lb on one end section. Record error.

(b) Remove test load and record balance change. Do not reset zero.

(c) Increase to 40 000 lb on end section and record error.

(d) Remove test load and record balance change. Do not reset zero.

(e) Repeat this process, incrementing to 50 000 lb.

(f) After 50 000 lb is removed and balance change is recorded, reset zero.

(g) Begin the shift test by loading one end section with 50 000 lb and record the error.

(h) Move the test load to the midspan and to the left and right of each section so that one set of the 

test cart wheels are spotted over the load cell or lever-bearing points. Record errors at each test 

position.

(i) Remove load from opposite end of scale. Record balance change and reset zero.

(j) Repeat shift test in opposite direction according to steps (g) through (i).

(k) Continue with increasing load test following the procedures in steps (a) through (e) for test loads 

from 60 000 lb to 100 000 lb.

(l) After 100 000 lb is removed and balance change is recorded, reset zero.

(m) Conduct shift test in each direction using 100 000 lb following the procedures in steps (g) 

through (j).

69.5.2. Results shall be within acceptance tolerance as specified in Handbook 44, Section 2.20. Scales 

Code, T.N.4.4.
NTEP Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix C – NTETC 2008 Weighing Sector

NTEP - C16

69.6. Strain Load Tests

69.6.1. The minimum test for a strain load test for single-load receiving element scales greater than 35 ft and 

for multiple load receiving element scale systems designed to weigh railroad cars in a single draft is 

200 000 lb, or if practicable, at least 80 % of scale capacity.

(a) Load one end of the scale with a strain load.

(b) Record the “reference point” for the start of the strain load test.

(c) Add 100 000 lb of test weight to the opposite end of the scale. The target strain load is the sum 

of the unknown weight and the test weights.

(d) Record the indicated strain-load value after the maximum amount of test weights have been 

added and calculate the strain load test error. The scale shall perform within prescribed 

tolerances based upon tolerance for the known test weights.

(e) Remove the test weights from the end of the scale without conducting a decreasing load test.

(f) If a higher strain load value is desired, increase the strain load at this time before proceeding 

with next step.

(g) Record the new strain load reference value and reapply the test weights.

(h) Record the indicated strain load value and calculate the strain load test error. The scale shall 

perform within prescribed tolerances based upon the known test weights.

(i) Evaluate repeatability of results in test weight values obtained in step (d) and step (g) to agree 

within the absolute value of maintenance tolerances.

(j) Remove the strain load (railcar or material of unknown weight) from the scale, decreasing to 

100 000 lb of known test weights.

(k) Record error based on a decreasing load test to 100 000 lb.

(l) Remove weights from scale.

(m) Record zero balance change.

69.6.2. The results of all observations shall be within acceptance tolerance.

69.7. Permanence Test

69.7.1. Minimum Use Requirements for the Field Permanence Test

69.7.1.1. There must be at least 300 weighing operations executed over the scale prior to conducting the 

type evaluation Permanence Test. The entire NTEP evaluation should be performed at a 

customer location to facilitate “normal” use during the permanence period.

69.7.1.2. There must be at least 30 days between the Performance Test and the Permanence Test. If the 

prescribed weighments have not been completed, the time between tests shall be extended. 

Acceptance tolerances apply regardless of the time between Performance Test and the 

Permanence Test.

69.7.1.3. Only loads, which reflect “normal” use, will be counted during the permanence-testing period.

• 100 % of the loads must be above 20 % of scale capacity; and

• 50 % of the loads must be above 50 % of scale capacity.

The scale may be used to weigh other loads, but only the loads specified above are counted as part of the 

Permanence Test.
NTEP Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix C – NTETC 2008 Weighing Sector

NTEP - C17

69.7.2. Subsequent Type Evaluation (Field) Permanence Test

69.7.2.1. It is recommended that the Performance Test procedure as described above be repeated for the 

Permanence Test. However, if the original test equipment is not available, the test may be 

conducted to the extent possible with a Test Weight Railcar with at least a 100 000 lb capacity 

and a suitable and current calibration report.

69.7.2.2. Repeat width-of-zero, zone of uncertainty, sensitivity, and discrimination tests near zero 

(outside the range of the AZSM) and at or near capacity on the subsequent tests.

The results of these tests must be within acceptance tolerance. If the device does not meet these tolerance limits the 

scale will be rejected and the entire test must be repeated, including successful performance testing and a subsequent 

test after a minimum of 30 days.

New Items

11.(a) Publication 14 C lar ification on Section 66.(c) Per manence T ests

Submitted by: Ed Luthy

Background: Current wording in Publication 14 Section 66.(c) is unclear as to whether “Subsequent Type 

Evaluation (Field) Permanence Tests” are required. It was understood at the time that the language was written that 

subsequent testing would be required and there has been at least one “double wide” feature added to an existing CC 

that included a subsequent test. However, the language that was added to Publication 14 did not clearly state that. 

As a result, manufacturer representatives and Sector members may not recall the specific discussions at the 2001 

meeting of the Weighing Sector. Additionally, other applicants and new Sector members will have trouble 

concluding that a subsequent test is required since the language does not clearly state that the test needs to be 

repeated to add this option/feature to an existing CC. The NIST Technical Advisor recommends that the language 

be amended and clarified as shown in the following recommendation.

Discussion/Conclusion: The Sector reviewed the item in the agenda and agreed with the proposed changes to 

Publication 14 DES Section 66.(c) to clarify that subsequent permanence tests are required and suggested other 

editorial amendments and shown in Appendix A, Agenda Item 11.(a).

11.(b) Publication 14 C lar ification on Section 66.(c) W aiving of Per manence T ests

Submitted by: Ed Luthy

Recommendation: During the 2008 meeting of the NTETC Weighing Sector, Ed Luthy requested that DES 

Section 66.(c) be deleted from Publication 14. He stated that in these applications individual weighing/loadreceiving elements have already passed all applicable tests in order for the NTEP CC to be issued and that the added 

costs to repeat tests for side-by-side applications is not justified.

Discussion: There was a lengthy discussion on this item. Section 66.(c) was originally added to Publication 14 in 

2002 to address the concerns of the NTEP labs who stated that the original testing for a vehicle scale weighing/loadreceiving element did not anticipate scales being used in side-by-side applications where the wheels of the vehicles 

would travel longitudinally down the center of the scales. The NTEP labs stated that they believed that many scales 

are not designed to accurately determine weight with heavy loads concentrated in the center portion of the scale. 

These concerns were repeated at this meeting. The Ohio NTEP laboratory related past failures of three different 

evaluations where the scales failed being tested with test loads applied down the middle of the scale or the scales 

failed the stain-load tests.

Several manufacturers supported deleting the permanence tests for side-by-side applications if the permanence test 

was conducted on the single weighing/load-receiving element. Another manufacturer stated that they have several 
NTEP Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix C – NTETC 2008 Weighing Sector

NTEP - C18

extra wide and side-by-side vehicle scale CCs and they have never questioned permanence test on a “new design.” 

It the case of the side-by-side with a CC, this manufacturer believes that the permanence test should not required. 

This manufacturer added that they question the value of permanence testing on anything and that permanence is part 

of the quality of the scale.

Stephen Patoray noted that Publication 14 allows for some judgment in other areas of the publication. However, 

Section DES 66.(c) allows no variances. He suggested that the permanence test be waived depending upon the 

performance of the scale on the initial test. If, during the initial test, the scale demonstrated good repeatability and 

accuracy, then the permanence test should be waived. If it barely passes the initial test then the permanence test will 

be performed. In the past, the evaluator has consulted with the NTEP Director to confirm waiving the permanence 

test.

The Sector considered an example of such language in DES Section 63. Performance and Permanence Tests for 

Platform Scales with Less than Four Load Supports (63.7).

“The results of all increasing-load, decreasing-load, and shift tests conducted during the initial tests must be 

within acceptance tolerances. If scale repeatability is very good, (e.g., 0.5 d) the fourth test may be 

waived.”

The Sector also considered the following example in Publication 14 LMD Section F. where variations to the 

evaluation may be permitted:

“If the product being added is from a family of products that has been previously subjected to the 

permanence test, then the requirement for a permanence test may be waived provided the initial test of the 

product being added meets following conditions:

a) the results of the initial test were not questionable; and

b) multi-point calibration may not be used to add the new product.”

Conclusion: The Sector supports adding the following note to DES Section 66.(c)4. to allow discretion if the initial 

test results are well within tolerance as shown in Appendix A, Agenda Item 11.(b).

12. C or r ection to Scale T ickets

Source: Maryland NTEP Lab

Background: At its 2008 NTEP Participating Laboratory meeting, the NTEP labs discussed a proposal from the 

Maryland NTEP lab to amend Section 35. which is for weigh in/out applications.

The proposal recommended amending DES Section 35. to specify the requirements for devices that print scale 

tickets with corrected weight information. Several of the labs believed that the subject may be more appropriate for 

Section 13. Recorded Representations and limited to indirect sale applications. Steve Cook was able to verify that 

HB 130 Weighmaster Regulations do not address correcting erroneous tickets similar to California Weighmaster 

Regulations.

After the meeting, Steve Cook reviewed the California Business and Professions Code, Weighmaster Law to 

investigate those requirements for voided and duplicate tickets in its weighmaster program. The California Law 

(B&P Code Section 12716.5) does not specify additional requirements for a correction or duplicate certificate.

Discussion/Conclusion: The Sector reviewed the item that was submitted to the NTEP labs. There were concerns 

that the proposal is intended to address the application described in Scales Code UR.3.9. However, other members 

of the Sector supported the intent for weigh-in/weigh-out vehicle scales applications. The Sector agrees that 

clarification of erroneous tickets is needed; however it could not come to a conclusion since the Sector did not have 

a developed recommendation to review. There were also discussions about the appropriate location for the 

requirements. For example, Section 35. applied to weigh-in/weigh-out applications where the publication states that 

manual weight entries are not permitted.
NTEP Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix C – NTETC 2008 Weighing Sector

NTEP - C19

The Sector recommends that a specific recommendation be developed for this item and carried over until the 2009 

meeting of the Weighing Sector.

13. Stor ed T ar e for “ W eigh-in/W eigh-out” A pplications

Source: Ohio NTEP Lab

Background: At its 2008 NTEP Participating Laboratory meeting, the NTEP labs discussed another proposal to 

amend Section 35. for weigh-in/out applications and storing in lieu of printing the first weight in weigh-in/out 

applications. The labs agreed that the scale’s first weight, stored in a “temporary memory” that is automatically 

deleted from memory after the net weight is determined, is not considered a stored tare and suggested that DES 

Section 35. be further developed and submitted this to the Sector for additional discussion and recommendations.

Discussion/Conclusion: The Sector believes the language from the NTEP lab meeting did not need additional 

development (except to change the word “tare” to “weighment” to address a potential conflict if the tare proposals 

are adopted by the NCWM) and recommends that DES Section 35. be amended as shown in Appendix A, Agenda 

Item 13.

14. M oney V alues in Other T han 1-C ent I nter vals

Source: NTEP Participating Laboratories

Background: At its 2008 NTEP Participating Laboratory meeting, WMD stated that they received a phone inquiry 

from an inspector who came across a computing scale with total price indications with $0.05 increments. The 

inspector stated that the scale owner configured that scale this way in order not to deal with pennies. The inspector 

had no problem getting the owner to re-configure the scale to $0.01 increments according to General Code G-S.5.5. 

Money Values, Mathematical Agreement. (Note that exceptions are permitted for scales and retail motor fuel

devices with analog indications.)

The labs discussed a proposal from Steve Cook to add “minimum value of currency” to the list of sealable 

parameters to all Pub 14 checklists since the feature could facilitate fraud if the minimum money value can be 

changed without an obvious indication to the customer. The labs recommended that Steve submit an item to the 

Weighing Sector to amend the table of sealable parameters by adding check boxes to the individual features to make 

it less likely to overlook a specific sealable parameter.

The labs agreed with WMD and agreed to submit a proposal to amend Publication 14 to the Sector.

Discussion/Conclusion: The Sector agreed with the proposed changes to Publication 14 DES Section 10.1. from 

the NIST technical advisor as shown in Appendix A, Agenda Item 14.

15. Suitability of Pr essur e Sensitive Secur ity Seals

Source: Ohio Participating Laboratory

Background: At its 2008 NTEP Participating Laboratory meeting, the weighing labs reviewed a proposal to amend 

Publication 14 DES Section 10. The lab reported that the current evaluation procedures in Publication 14 

Section 10.12.1. Physical Seals appears to be written only for wire lock security seals and not pressure sensitive 

seals. Pressure sensitive seals are acceptable under certain conditions. If they cover a hole (e.g., through which a 

“calibration enable” switch would be activated), that hole must be covered with a suitable rigid plug. Additionally;

1. The pressure sensitive seal must not bridge so as to leave cavities or air pockets under the seal,

2. Pressure sensitive seals are not to be used in an adverse environment (seal is destroyed by rain, cold, 

washdown, etc.), and
NTEP Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix C – NTETC 2008 Weighing Sector

NTEP - C20

3. Pressure sensitive seals must be durable (difficult to remove at all temperatures, and if tampered with must 

show void or be self destructive.

The labs reviewed the HB 44 definition of security seals and discussed the applications where pressure sensitive, 

self-destructive would and would not be suitable to seal weighing and measuring devices.

The labs agreed to forward this discussion and recommendation to amend Publication 14 Section 10.12. Physical 

seals to add new evaluation criteria and checkboxes specifically for pressure sensitive self-destructive security seals.

Discussion: The Sector reviewed and discussed the proposal to amend Publication 14 and whether or not these 

proposed requirements are needed. There was little support for the item for the following reasons:

- HB 44 only requires that provision be made to apply a security seal; the definition only defines a seal as 

being “sufficiently permanent.”

- The proposed evaluation criteria would require that the states have to obtain different types of pressure 

sensitive seals that are suitable for different types of environments.

- A “NEMA 4 enclosure” was the only type of enclosure addressed in the proposal and is rarely used. 

Additionally, there are numerous types of other enclosures designed for different types of environments.

- The proposed evaluation criteria would create an additional test for devices evaluated under the 

U.S./Canada Mutual Recognition Agreement since Measurement Canada stated that they only request that 

the manufacturer provide samples demonstrating compliance with G-S.8.

- Standards for security seals would have to be established and test methods developed (or referenced if 

already developed by another standards development organization).

- Some states still do not accept pressure sensitive seals as a method of sealing.

The manufacturers do not agree with the proposal for the reasons listed in the discussion and stated that they are able 

to demonstrate that pressure sensitive seals are available that meet the durability requirements due to adverse 

environments. Additionally, the manufacturers have no control over the requirements the states and service agencies 

use in procuring these seals.

Conclusion: The Sector agreed with the concerns listed above from the manufacturers and recommends that no 

action be taken on this item.

16. I dentification of E C R S

Source: NTEP Participating Laboratories

Background: At its 2008 NTEP Participating Laboratory meeting, discussion on marking requirements for self 

checkout ECRS systems, the Maryland NTEP lab stated that inconsistencies in marking requirements were found 

between the description of modular markings and the pictures of examples (page ECRS 4 and 8). Steve Cook and 

Stephen Patoray agreed to develop a Weighing Sector item addressing the differences and provide a proposal to 

clarify the differences.

Discussion/Conclusion: No revised proposal to amend the evaluation criteria for ECRS was received for the Sector 

to consider. The Sector recommends no further action be taken on this item until a specific proposal has been 

submitted to the Sector.

17. A utomatic Z er o-T r acking vs. A utomatic Z er o-Setting

Source: Stephen Patoray, NTEP Director

Background: This item relates to changes to NIST Handbook 44 in 2005. The agenda item is Item 320-4 from the 

2005 NCWM Annual Report and is included below as reference.
NTEP Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix C – NTETC 2008 Weighing Sector

NTEP - C21

Currently, HB 44 Scales Code and OIML R 76 for Nonautomatic Weighing Instruments (NAWI) are not 

harmonized regarding automatic zero-tracking mechanism and setting mechanisms.

- OIML R 76 uses the term zero-tracking device; HB 44 uses automatic zero-tracking mechanism.

- OIML R 76 uses the term automatic zero-setting device; there is no equivalent to this term in either HB 44 

or NCWM Publication 14.

It has been reported that the operation of an automatic zero-setting device may be functional on a device installed in 

the United States since many devices are built for the global marketplace. Currently, NIST HB 44 does not define 

this function and NCWM Pub 14 has no test to determine if the device under test (DUT) has such a function, or if it 

is sealable.

In the past, several of the NTEP labs have stated that they have not accepted the automatic zero-setting mechanism 

because its operation is similar to an automatic zero-tracking mechanism and thus does not comply with the 

requirements specified in HB 44 paragraph S.2.1.1. Automatic Zero-Tracking Mechanism.

HB 44 does not clearly state that this function is not allowed and Scale Code paragraphs S.1.1.(c) and S.1.1.1.(b) 

could be interpreted to allow the automatic zero-setting device as described in OIML R 76. That may not be a 

universal interpretation.

Also (a minor point), Section 43. in NCWM Publication 14 Weighing Devices, Digital Electronic Scales needs its 

title corrected by replacing the word “setting” with the word “tracking.”

Stephen Patoray recommends that the Sector review the information regarding automatic zero-tracking and 

automatic zero-setting. The items to be addressed in order are:

(a) Consensus that there is a problem that needs to be solved based on the current information or lack of 

information in NIST Handbook 44.

(b) Determine if there are or are not technical reasons why the feature automatic zero-setting as described in 

OIML R 76 should or should not be included in NIST Handbook 44.

In either case, language will need to be developed for NCWM Publication 14 to either test for the correct function of 

automatic zero-setting or test to determine that the device does not have automatic zero-setting and it is a sealable 

parameter.

Discussion: The Sector discussed the comments that an increasing number of scales submitted for NTEP 

evaluations include an “automatic zero-setting” feature, which is not addressed in HB 44. It has been noted that 

many devices are built for a global marketplace and that the operation of this automatic zero-setting device may be 

functional on the device when installed in the United States. Currently, HB 44 does not define this function. 

NCWM Pub 14 has no test to determine if the device submitted for evaluation has such a function, or if it is 

sealable. The automatic zero-setting mechanism on a scanner/scale submitted to NTEP could be enabled and 

disabled by means of a barcode read by the scanner.

In the past, several of the NTEP labs, when asked about this “feature,” have indicated that since it does not meet the 

definition of automatic zero-tracking mechanism, it is not allowed. Additionally, the Sector agreed that HB 44 

does not clearly state that this function is not allowed which may lead to inconsistent interpretations of Section 2.20. 

Scale paragraphs S.1.1.(c) (Zero Indication – “. . . return to a continuous zero indication”) and S.1.1.1.(b) Digital 

Indicating Elements – “a device shall either automatically maintain a “center-of-zero” condition. . . .” could be 

interpreted to allow the automatic zero-setting device as described in OIML R 76. That may not be a universal 

interpretation.
NTEP Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix C – NTETC 2008 Weighing Sector

NTEP - C22

The Sector concluded that:

(a) There is a problem that needs to be solved, based on the current information or lack of information in 

HB 44.

(b) There are no technical reasons why the automatic zero-setting feature, as described in OIML R 76, should 

not be included in NIST Handbook 44.

(c) The feature may not be suitable for all applications (e.g., balancing off a stable partial load) if the feature 

can function with both positive and negative weight indications.

(d) Language will need to be developed for NCWM Publication 14 to either test for the correct function of 

automatic zero-setting or test to determine that the device does not have automatic zero-setting and it is a 

sealable parameter.

The Sector established a small work group (Scott Davidson, Scott Henry, Steve Cook, and Stephen Patoray) to 

develop language to be submitted the NCWM S&T Committee and make a recommendation addressing the 

suitability of scales with the capability to automatically set a positive weight indication to zero. Additionally, the 

Sector agreed to review the language developed by the work group to confirm its support of the proposed language. 

(Todd Lucas and Jim Truex also contributed to the discussions and subsequent proposal.)

In the process of developing the proposal, the WG considered the following points:

1. Making the proposal to add automatic zero-setting “retroactive” since the group is aware that the feature 

has been included on several scales for nearly 20 years and may not have been activated. The WG 

considered alternate retroactive dates, but felt that the proposed requirements for the feature should be 

applicable to all scales incorporating this feature. Additionally, NCWM Publication 14 NTEP technical 

policies state that only the standard features and options that have been evaluated will be included on the 

CC. As a result, an NTEP applicant will have to submit an application to NTEP in order to have the 

automatic zero-setting feature listed on an existing CC.

2. The automatic zero-setting mechanism shall be limited to operating only when the scale indication is below 

zero. The group discussed allowing the feature to operate in both directions. Although there may be valid 

reasons for allowing it in the positive direction, the group felt that legitimate objects on a scale could be 

inadvertently (or intentionally) zeroed without an obvious indication to the customer or operator when the 

scale was indicating zero at the start of a transaction.

3. The automatic zero-setting mechanism should be considered as a “sealable parameter” since there are 

applications where it is required to be disabled, and if the time, stability, and capacity parameters can be 

adjusted beyond the limitations in the proposal.

4. Publication 14 evaluation and field examination procedures should be amended to verify that the automatic 

zero-setting mechanism cannot set the scale to a zero indication in less than five seconds and that it can 

only operate if it complies with motion detection requirements and its effect is no larger that 4 % on the 

nominal scale capacity.

5. The automatic zero-setting mechanism is permitted for devices covered by Section 2.24. Automatic 

Weighing Systems.

6. The automatic zero-setting mechanism is prohibited for automatic bulk-weighing systems for the same 

reasons that zero-tracking is prohibited (unintentional and unobserved zeroing or tracking of material that 

may be retained in a hopper resulting in incorrect weight determinations).

7. The automatic zero-setting mechanism should be capable of being disabled for testing purposes for the 

same reasons that zero-tracking is capable of being disabled for Scales Code Class III L devices.

8. The group believes that the current definition for initial zero-setting mechanism is a type of zero-setting 

mechanism and should be included with the definition on zero-setting mechanism as shown in the 

recommendation.

9. The Sector should consider recommending changing the term “automatic zero-tracking” to “zero-tracking” 

throughout the weighing codes in order to reduce the confusion with the term “automatic zero-setting.” 

The word “automatic” is redundant for zero-tacking since it is included in the definition of “automatic zerotracking.”

The WG did not have sufficient time to both develop the proposal and ballot the Sector prior to the 

November 1, 2008 cutoff date for submitting new items to the Committee. Therefore, the group agreed to submit 
NTEP Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix C – NTETC 2008 Weighing Sector

NTEP - C23

the proposal to the Committee and ballot the Sector members. (Note: The ballot will also ask the Sector if it agrees 

with submitting a recommendation to the NTEP Committee that an existing CC may be amended upon a successful 

review on an application and documentation.) The results of the ballot and all comments will be summarized and 

forwarded to the Committee prior to the 2009 NCWM Interim Meeting.

Conclusion: Eight Sector members responded to the ballot of which six voted in favor of the proposed language. It 

should be noted that two of the affirmative votes stated that their vote was provisional provided the reference to the

4 % of scale capacity limitation is removed from the proposal. Two members opposed that item stating that the 

language should not be rushed through the S&T Committee and that the feature should operate with either negative 

or positive weight indications.

The NIST technical advisor has forwarded the ballot results and comments to the S&T Committee for its 

consideration at the 2009 NCWM Interim Meeting. A copy of the ballot summary can be viewed in Appendix C, 

attachment to Agenda Item 17.

18. C apacity – M ar kings and Display

Source: Stephen Patoray, NTEP Director

Background: There has been a question asked by a current NTEP CC holder regarding marking of the capacity x 

division statement. This CC holder wished to use a dot matrix display on their device. This happens to be a Class II 

non-computing scale with prescription counting capabilities, but the question could apply to just about any type of 

indicating element or scale display.

This CC holder wants to mark the capacity by division using the dot matrix display. They stated that the device 

could display different units of weight (lb, kg, etc). They stated that only one capacity by division would be 

displayed, based on the unit that was selected. It would be clear from this marking what the unit of measure was and 

what the capacity by division was set to.

They also stated that since this device had the prescription counting feature, they request that the requirements for 

marking in NIST HB 44 2.20. Scales, S.6.6. Counting Feature, Minimum Piece Weight (MPW) and Minimum 

Sample Size (MSS) be allowed on the dot matrix display, whenever the device is in the counting mode.

When the four NTEP brick and mortar labs were polled on this question, two of the labs indicated that they would 

not allow the marking of the capacity by division, or the markings for counting on a scale display. One lab indicated 

that this would be an acceptable method since the language in NCWM Publication 14, Weighing Devices, Digital 

Electronic Scales, Section K. Subsection 1. Item 1.14. is significant in that it mentions a “video terminal.” One lab 

did not respond. The Weighing Sector needs to discuss this issue and 1) clarify this issue for the NTEP labs, or 

2) recommend a clarification in HB 44, so that labs can consistently interpret the information found in both HB 44 

and NCWM Publication 14.

In 1992, the S&T Committee took on this topic and an Item (320-6) that was adopted by the NCWM. At that time, 

the Committee recommended that Tables S.6.3.a. and S.6.3.b. (note 3) be interpreted to permit the required 

capacity and scale division markings to be presented as part of the scale display (e.g., displayed on a video 

terminal or in a liquid crystal display), rather than be physically marked on the device. As part of the current 

language in the tables and this interpretation, the capacity by division statement must be adjacent to the weight 

display and continuously displayed when in the weighing mode. However, if the weighing mode of the scale 

permits different menus for selecting operations to be displayed, the weight information and capacity by division 

continuously displayed if this display is the customer’s only display. These requirements apply to all of the 

weighing modes that may be selected for commercial transactions. The statement does not have to be displayed 

when the indicating element operates in modes other than the weighing mode. This does not require a change to 

Handbook 44. This interpretation will be included in NCWM Publication 14.

It should be noted that there is a difference in the language of the S&T agenda item and that of Pub 14. The Final 

S&T Report uses “scale display” with video terminal as an example; however, Pub 14 uses “video terminal” with 

no example. While this may seem trivial, the information in Pub 14 is what the two labs were basing their decisions 
NTEP Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix C – NTETC 2008 Weighing Sector

NTEP - C24

on and did not consider a video terminal the same thing as a dot matrix scale display. The language in Pub 14 

should reflect the position of the S&T Committee and not limit the type of technology used for a scale display.

Part 1 – Capacity x Division, Multiple Units of Measure

With this information from 1992, the ability to display capacity by division on a dot matrix scale display should be 

allowed by this interpretation.

The next question is whether the capacity by division can change in relationship to the current unit of weight that the 

scale is using (instead of displaying all of the various capacities by division at one time, (like on a sticker) no matter 

what unit of weight is in use).

It is submitter’s position that the only useful information is that of the “unit of weight” that is in use at the time of 

the weighment, and that the other information for other units could add to confusion for everyone. The capacity by 

division statement is of no value and need not be displayed if the scale is in some other mode of operation (e.g. not a 

weighing mode).

Discussion/Conclusion (Part 1): The Sector supported the recommendation and agreed that NCWM 

Publication 14 DES Section 1.14. be clarified so that it is acceptable to display the capacity by division information 

for only the unit of weight that is currently in use and is only necessary for the capacity by division information to 

be displayed when the device is in the weighing mode as follows:

1.14. If the capacity by division statement is displayed as part of the scale display (e.g., displayed on a video 

terminal or in a liquid crystal display)on a video terminal

Part 2 – Minimum Piece Weight and Sample Size

with the weigh values, then the capacity by 

division statement must be indicated in a clear and conspicuous manner and be readily apparent when 

viewing the reading face of the scale indicator unless already apparent by the design of the device and 

displayed whenever the system is in the weighing mode.

The marking requirements for prescription counting were added to HB 44 in 2003, long after the clarification of 

capacity by division on a scale display in 1992 by the S&T.

In the 2003 NCWM Annual Report, the S&T Committee in part stated in agenda Item 320-2 (which was adopted) 

that the Committee agreed that the proposal should clarify when special application marking requirements are not 

required on scales equipped with the counting feature.

Based on the previous information in Part 1 regarding capacity by division that was clarified in 1992 by the S&T, 

and the statement in S.6.6. that the device has an operational counting feature, the Sector considered a proposal to 

allow the required markings of MSS and MPW to be displayed on the scale display, only when the device is in

prescription counting mode.

Discussion/Conclusion (Part 2): The Sector discussed the proposal to clarify NCWM Publication 14 to state that it 

is acceptable to display the HB 44 required marking for the Minimum Piece Weight (MPW) and the Minimum 

Sample Size (MSS) on the scale display, only when the device is in prescription counting mode. The Sector agrees 

that clarification in NCWM Publication 14 is needed and recommended that specific language needs to be 

developed by Steve Patoray and Steve Cook, and that the recommended language will be presented to the NTEP 

Committee prior to its January 2009 meeting.
NTEP Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix C – NTETC 2008 Weighing Sector

NTEP - C25

Next Sector Meeting

Discussion/Conclusion: The Sector discussed several possible options for the date and location for its 2008 

meeting. Suggestions included holding the meeting at NCWM headquarters in Lincoln, Nebraska, the Ohio NTEP 

laboratory, or to tie the Sector meeting with the 2009 Annual Technical Conference for the Western Weights and 

Measures Association in New Mexico.

The Sector made no recommendation for a date and location for its 2009 meeting.
NTEP Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix C – NTETC 2008 Weighing Sector

NTEP - C26

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
NTEP Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix C – NTETC 2008 Weighing Sector – Appendix A – Recommendations for Amendments

NTEP - C27

Appendix A – Recommendations for Amendments to Publication 141

Agenda Item 1. Force Transducer (Load Cell) Family and Selection Criteria

Amend Publication 14 Force Transducers Section D. as follows:

D. Force Transducers (Load Cells) to be Submitted for Test1

Editor’s Note: A modified Section D. is currently out for comment. This modification will attempt to align this 

section with OIML R 60 selection criteria. Additional work is needed by the Weighing Sector before this 

modification is completed.

In 2006, NCWM signed the OIML Declaration of Mutual Confidence (DoMC) as a utilizing participant in R 60

Load Cells. As part of this agreement, NCWM will accept the Test Report and test data that is generated by the 

Issuing Participant and laboratory who have also signed the DoMC. The selection process for load cell samples 

will be that described in OIML R 60 2000 Section 7.3 Selection of Load Cells Within a Family. No amendments to 

NTEP CCs will be allowed under the DoMC will be issued an NTEP CC.

-

-

The load cell(s) evaluated under the MAA will be issued a new NTEP CC.

-

Subsequent applications to amend the MAA-generated CCs will also use the selection criteria and family 

characteristics in R 60.

-

Amendments to NTEP CCs issued on or after XXXX XX, 2009, will use the family and selection criteria 

listed on the certificate.

NTEP CCs issued earlier than XXXX XX, 2009, will use the Publication 14 family and selection criteria.

Note: Use of either the NTEP or R 60 selection criteria will be listed in the CC test conditions.

(Effective with CCs issues after XXXX XX 2009)

Force transducers (load cells) with essentially the same design will be considered to be part of the same family on a 

CC. If force transducers (load cells) within a family are made from different materials, such as aluminum, alloy 

steel, or stainless steel, than all material types must be submitted for evaluation. The policy applies to all 

applications for new or amended Certificates of Conformance received after January 31, 2002. This policy is nonretroactive for Certificates issued prior to February 1, 2002.

.

.

1. The manufacturer must provide the following information with a request for evaluation:

.

.

2. The actual number of force transducers (load cells) and force transducer (load cell) capacities to be tested will 

be decided by NTEP in discussions with the manufacturer. The data are evaluated strictly on a pass/fail basis 

with respect to the NTEP requirements. However, if the test data is marginal, then NTEP may require that 

additional force transducers (load cells) be tested before an NTEP Certificate is issued. NTEP recognizes that 

deviations to the selection criteria may be unavoidable due to test capability and manufacturing product 

line and that any such deviations may be approved by NTEP after consulting with the applicant.

1 Holders of NTEP CCs that have private label agreements with the original load cell manufacturers (OEM) shall 

comply with Publication 14 Administrative Policy Section G.1. Private Label. 

 1 Recommended changes to Publication 14 are indicated in shaded, strike out, and underlined text.
NTEP Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix C – NTETC 2008 Weighing Sector – Appendix A – Recommendations for Amendments

NTEP - C28

Agenda Item 2. Force Transducer

Amend Publication 14 Force Transducers Section L as follows:

L. Procedures

II. Determination of Creep and Creep Recovery, Test Procedure and Permissible 

Variations

1. - 3. (no change)

4. Test for Creep:

a. Apply a load equal to 90 percent to 100 percent of the maximum capacity of the force transducer (load 

cell). and record the indication 20 seconds after reaching the load. The time to load test weights 

and read the indicator shall be as short as possible. and shall not exceed the time specified in 

Table 5. A portion of the time specified in Table 5 shall be used for loading. The remaining time 

specified in Table 5 shall be used for stabilization. The tests shall be conducted under constant 

conditions. Time shall be recorded in the test report in absolute (hh:mm:ss), not relative, units. 

The initial reading shall be taken at the applicable time indicated in Table 5. With the load 

remaining on the load cell, continue to record indications periodically, thereafter at time intervals over 

a 30 minute period. Be certain to obtain a reading at 20 minutes (8.b. below).

5. Test for Creep Recovery:

a. Remove a load equal to 90 percent to 100 percent of the maximum capacity of the force transducer 

(load cell) that has been applied for 30 minutes. Record the indication after 20 seconds.The time to 

unload test weights and read the indicator shall be as short as possible. and not exceed the time 

specified in Table 5. A portion of the time specified in Table 5 shall be used for unloading. The 

remaining time specified in Table 5 shall be used for stabilization. The tests shall be conducted 

under constant conditions. Time shall be recorded in the test report in absolute (hh:mm:ss), not 

relative, units. The initial reading shall be taken at the applicable time indicated in Table 5. 

Continue to record indications periodically thereafter at time intervals over a 30 minute period.

6. - 8. (no change)

9. Permissible Variations of Reading for Creep Recovery

a. (no change)

Table T.N.4.6. (no changes)

Table 5. LoadingInitial Reading 

Load

Times

Time

Greater than To and including

0 kg 10 kg 10 seconds

10 kg 100 kg 1520

100 kg

seconds

1000 kg 2030

1000 kg

seconds

10 000 kg 3040

10 000 kg

seconds

100 000 kg 50 seconds

100 000 kg ------------ 60 seconds
NTEP Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix C – NTETC 2008 Weighing Sector – Appendix A – Recommendations for Amendments

NTEP - C29

Agenda Item 4.(c) Scales Code Paragraphs S.1.2.1., S.2.3., and T.N.2.1. and AWS Code Paragraph S.1.1.1.

Recommendation 1: Amend Publication 14 DES Section 1.11. as follows:

11.1. Except for batching scales, the value of the scale division in all available weight 

units for both indicating and recording elements must be in values of 1, 2, or 5 

times 10k where k is an integer, e.g., 0.1, 0.2, or 0.5; 1, 2, or 5; 10, 20, or 50, 

etc.

Yes No N/A 

See additional exceptions in DES Sections 31. and 32. for multi-interval and 

multiple range scales.

Recommendation 2: Amend Publication 14 DES Section 31. as follows:

In applying these principles, it is acceptable to:

- round the indicated and printed tare values to the nearest appropriate net weight scale division,

- or display net weight values in scale divisions other than the scale division used in the display of gross 

weight, as when the gross and tare weights are in different ranges of the device. For example, a scale 

indicating in 2-lb divisions in the lower range and 5-lb divisions in the next higher range may result in net 

values ending in three or eight in the higher range. For example, a multi-interval scale may indicate and 

record tare weights in a lower weighing segment (WS) and net weights in the higher weighing segment as 

follows:

55 kg Gross Weight (WS2 d = 5 kg) 10.05 lb Gross Weight (WS2 d = 0.05 lb)

– 4 kg Tare Weight (WSR1 d = 2 kg) – 0.06 lb Tare Weight (WS1 d = 0.02 lb)

= 51 kg the Mathematically Correct Net Weight = 9.99 lb the Mathematically Correct Net Weight

In every case, it is required to maintain the mathematically correct equation:

net = gross – tare

Recommendation 3: Amend Publication 14 DES Section 32. as follows:

Whenever gross and tare weights fall in different weighing ranges so that the scale divisions for the gross and tare 

weights differ, the net weight must agree mathematically with the gross and tare weights that are indicated or 

recorded (i.e., net = gross - tare).

A multiple range scale may indicate and record tare weights in a lower weighing range (WR) and net weights in the 

higher weighing range. On a multiple range instrument, Alternatively, a tare value may only be transferred from 

one weighing range to another one with a larger verification scale interval and shall then be rounded to the nearest 

scale division of the latter verification interval For example: when displayed and/or printed as follows: *

Capacity x d: Displayed and/or Printed

WR1 = 0 - 4 kg x 2 g Preferred Acceptable

WR2 = 4 - 10 kg x 5 g Gross 13.380 kg 13.380 kg

WR3 = 10 - 20 kg x 10 g Tare -3.814 kg -3.810* kg

Net 9.566 kg 9.570 kg

* 3.814 tare in WR2 is rounded to the nearest scale division of WR3.
NTEP Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix C – NTETC 2008 Weighing Sector – Appendix A – Recommendations for Amendments

NTEP - C30

Recommendation 4: The NIST technical advisor recommends that the Sector consider developing equivalent 

amendments in the above recommendations to Publication 14 for AWS Sections 10., 19., and 20.

Agenda Item 4.(e) Amend Level-Indicating Means

Amend Publication 14 DES Sections 55. and 56. as follows:

55. Vehicle on-Board Weighing Systems

Code References: S.1.13., S.2.4.1., and N.1.3.7.

A vehicle on-board weighing system is defined as a weighing system designed as an integral part of or attached to 

the frame, chassis, lifting mechanism, or bed of a vehicle, trailer, industrial truck, industrial tractor, or forklift truck.

55.1. Verify that when the vehicle is in motion the on-board weighing system is either:

55.1.1. accurate or Yes No N/A 

55.1.2. the weighing operation is inhibited Yes No N/A 

55.2. The on-board weighing system operates within tolerance for out-of-level 

conditions up to and including 5 percent* 3 degrees

Yes No N/A 

.

55.2.1. A sensor detects and inhibits weighing when an out-of-level condition 

exists that will exceed the accuracy limits of the scale. Weighing is 

inhibited for out of level conditions of ________ degrees

Yes No N/A 

55.2.2. The system is accurate for the shift test when the vehicle is both level 

and out-of-level.

Yes No N/A 

*NOTE: 5 percent refers to 5 percent rise over run.slope/grade

56. Level-Indicating Means – Portable Scales

Code Reference: S.2.4.

Portable wheel-load weighers and portable axle-load scales intended for law enforcement must weigh accurately 

when placed out-of-level by 5 percent* (approximately 3 degrees).

A portable scale which is intended to be moved must either be equipped with a readily observable level-indicating 

means (typically a bubble level) or the scale must still weigh accurately when placed out-of-level by 5 percent*

(approximately 3 degrees). Weighing accurately means that the results must be within acceptance tolerance.

The level-indicating means shall be rigidly mounted, located where it will be protected from damage but still be 

easily read in normal use, mounted so that its reference point for level will not change when pressure is applied to 

the level-indicator, and sensitive enough to indicate an out-of-tolerance condition that might affect the accuracy of 

the scale. A bubble level mounted on a swing-out bracket is not adequate. Portable floor scales (generally with 

capacities of more than 500 lb) shall have the level-indicating means visible without removing any scale parts.

*NOTE: 5 percent refers to 5 percent rise over run.slope/grade

56.1. Scales (other than wheel-load weighers and portable axle-load scales) must 

meet one of the following conditions:

56.1.1. The device is equipped with a level indicator as standard 

equipment, or?

Yes No N/A 

56.1.2. The device complies with the provisions of S.2.4. The test 

procedure is given in “Performance Tests for Digital Counter 

(Bench) and Computing Scales”.

Yes No N/A 
NTEP Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix C – NTETC 2008 Weighing Sector – Appendix A – Recommendations for Amendments

NTEP - C31

56.2. If the scale is equipped with a level-indicating means, it must be readily 

observable without mechanical disassembly that requires the use of tools. A 

bubble level placed under the scale platform of a portable floor scale mounted 

on wheels is not practical for the user of the scale.

Yes No N/A

56.3. The level-indicating means is rigidly mounted, easily read, protected from 

damage, will not change its reference for level, and sufficiently sensitive.

Yes No N/A 

56.4. Wheel-load weighing and axle-load scales must weigh accurately when 

placed out-of-level by 5 percent* (approximately 3 degrees)

Yes No N/A 

.

Agenda Item 8. Method of Sealing

Delete DES Section 10.12.9. as follows:

10.12.9.

Agenda Item 9. S.1.1.(c) Zero Indication (Sleep/Screen Saver/Power Save Modes)

The scale shall clearly indicate it is in the set-up (calibration or configuration) mode, such as 

indicators, error message, or other means of indication that can not be interpreted as legal weight 

values (Effective January 1, 2005).

Amend Publication 14 – Digital Electronic Scales (DES) as follows:

Scale Features and Parameters (in DES Section 10.)

Typical Scale Features to be Sealed Typical Scale Features and Parameters

Not Required to be Sealed

.

.

.

Screen Saver/Sleep and/or Power Save mode not 

listed on the CC (enabled/disabled)

.

.

.

Screen Saver/Sleep and/or Power Save mode listed on the 

CC (enabled/disabled)

NOTE: The above examples of adjustments, parameters, and features to be sealed are to be considered “typical” 

or “normal.” This list may not be all inclusive . . .

11.8.4. Does the scale or indicating element have a:

 screen saver/sleep or 

 power save 

mode, or

mode?

Yes  No  N/A 

Note for Editor: Proposal deletes existing Pub 14 language in the NOTE and Sections 11.8.4.1. and 11.8.4.2. to 

be replaced by the following:

Manufacturers have been adding screen savers and sleep modes to scales for the purpose of prolonging the useful 

life of displays or provide promotional or other information on displays during periods of scale inactivity.

Additionally, some scales have automatic shut-off, or power (battery) save modes. These features promote energy 

conservation or prolong battery life in battery-operated scales. This feature either automatically turns off the scale 

after a period of inactivity or only turns off the display. If the power or battery save mode only turns off the display 

to save power, the feature is considered to be a sleep mode and should be evaluated using the screen saver/sleep 

mode criteria.

As used in Publication 14, the terms screen saver/sleep mode and power save mode are defined as follows:

screen saver/sleep mode. A function of a device that blanks the display or shows information other than 

weight indications after a defined period of non-use.

power save mode. A function of a device that automatically blanks indications and turns off or reduces power 
NTEP Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix C – NTETC 2008 Weighing Sector – Appendix A – Recommendations for Amendments

NTEP - C32

to the electronics after a defined period of non-use in order to save line or battery power. Operator intervention 

is required to restore operation (e.g., return the scale to zero, turn on the scale, etc.).

Summary of Screen Saver/Sleep and Power Save Mode of Operation

Mode Display Activated by Exited by Verified by

Screen 

Saver/Sleep

i.e., Scrolling 

or other non 

metrological 

information, 

blank, or 

annunciator

Period of time 

at gross load 

center of zero

Change in weight, 

i.e., no longer at 

gross load zero

Accurate weights are displayed under all 

the following conditions when:

- weight is added to the LRE,

- weight is removed from the LRE, and

- the LRE is disturbed by hand.

Period of time 

with a non 

changing load 

on the scale

Deliberate 

operator action 

(remove load off 

scale and rezero if 

necessary)

No weights are displayed under all the 

following conditions when:

- weight is added to the LRE,

- weight is removed from the LRE, and

- the LRE is disturbed by hand.

Power Save Off/Blank

Period of time 

with no activity 

on the LRE 

(loaded or 

unloaded)

Return the scale 

to a zero-balance 

indication with 

the automatic 

zero tracking or 

semi-automatic 

zero-setting 

mechanisms, or 

other deliberate 

operator action 

(e.g., turn on the 

scale, etc.)

No weights are displayed under all the 

following conditions when:

- weight is added to the LRE,

- weight is removed from the LRE,

- the LRE is disturbed by hand, and

- power is restored to the scale with 

weight on the LRE.

Accurate weights are displayed indicated 

or recorded according to Publication 14 

Section 53. Values Displayed, Temperature 

Conditions (Warm-up) Test Procedure 1 

or 2 since power may have been turned 

off or reduced to the electronics and load 

cell while in the power save mode.

11.8.4.1. If the scale can only enter a screen saver/sleep mode with no 

load on the LRE, perform the following steps to verify that 

automatic means are provided to inhibit a weighing operation 

unless the scale is at zero.

1. Add a load plus 20 d to the LRE and rezero the scale.

2. Observe the scale while indicating zero and note the 

amount of time taken to enter the screen saver/sleep 

mode. _______________

3. The scale shall exit the screen saver/sleep mode when the 

20 d is removed from the scale.

Yes  No 

4. Observe the scale indication for the amount of time taken 

to enter the screen saver/sleep mode noted in Step 2. 

The scale complies if it does not reenter the screen 

saver/sleep mode.

Yes  No 

5. Rezero the scale and allow the scale to enter the screen 

saver/sleep mode.

Yes  No  N/A 
NTEP Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix C – NTETC 2008 Weighing Sector – Appendix A – Recommendations for Amendments

NTEP - C33

6. The scale shall exit the screen saver/sleep mode when the 

20 d is now added to the LRE.

Yes  No 

7. Rezero the scale by removing the 20 d from the LRE to 

allow the scale to enter the screen saver/sleep mode.

8. The scale shall exit the screen saver/sleep mode when the 

LRE is momentarily disturbed by hand.

Yes  No 

11.8.4.2. If the scale can enter a screen saver/sleep mode with a load on 

the LRE, verify that automatic means are provided to inhibit a 

weighing operation when the scale is in an out-of-balance 

condition.

While in the screen saver/sleep mode and with a load on the 

LRE, the scale shall not indicate a weight under all the 

following conditions when;





an additional load is added to the LRE,



a partial load is removed from the LRE, and

the LRE is disturbed by hand.

The scale is permitted to return to a zero indication when the 

entire load is removed from the LRE (unloaded condition) or the 

operator is required to zero the scale.

Yes  No  N/A 

11.8.4.3. Does the scale have a power save mode feature?

Yes  No 

If yes, attempt to initiate a weighing transaction while the scale 

display is off or blank when:





an additional load is added to the LRE,

a partial load is removed from the LRE,



and



a load on the LRE is disturbed by hand, and

power is restored to the scale with weight on the scale.

Perform the tests described in Pub 14 Section 53. Values 

Displayed, Temperature Conditions (Warm-up) Test 

Procedure 1 or 2 as appropriate to verify the accuracy of the 

scale after its power has been lowered or turned off.

Yes  No  N/A 

11.8.4.3. Verify that recording and printing functions are inhibited when 

the device is in screen saver/sleep or power save mode.

Yes  No  N/A 

Publication 14 – Electronic Cash Registers Interfaced with Scales (ECRS) as follows:

1. Zero Indication

Code Reference: S.1.1., S.1.1.1., S.1.6.3., G-S.5.1.

A digital electronic scale must be capable of defining a zero-balance condition within 0.5 scale division (d) for all 

weight units and may be defined within ± 0.25 d. In If a point-of-sale system automatically monitors its zero 

balance condition and inhibits scale operation when an out-of-zero-balance condition is detected, a continuous 
NTEP Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix C – NTETC 2008 Weighing Sector – Appendix A – Recommendations for Amendments

NTEP - C34

digital zero balance indication is not required provided that automatic means is provided to inhibit a weighing

operation or to return to a continuous digital indication when the scale is in an out-of-balance condition.

Manufacturers of scales and point-of-sale systems have been adding screen savers and sleep modes to scales for the 

purpose of prolonging the useful life of displays or provide promotional or other information on displays during 

periods of scale inactivity.

Additionally, some scales and point-of-sale systems have automatic shut-off, or power (battery) save modes. These 

features promote energy conservation or prolong battery life in battery-operated scales. This feature either 

automatically turns off the scale after a period of inactivity or only turns off the display. If the power or battery save 

mode only turns off the display to save power, the feature is considered to be a sleep mode and should be evaluated 

using the screen saver/sleep mode criteria.

As used in Publication 14, the terms screen saver/sleep mode and power save mode are defined as follows:

screen saver/sleep mode. A function of a device that blanks the display or shows information other than 

weight indications after a defined period of non-use.

power save mode. A function of a device that automatically blanks indications and turns off or reduces 

power to the electronics after a defined period of non-use in order to save line or battery power. Operator 

intervention is required to restore operation (e.g., return the scale to zero, turn on the scale, etc.).

Summary of Screen Saver/Sleep and Power Save Mode of Operation

Mode Display Activated by Exited by Verified by

Screen 

Saver/Sleep

i.e., Scrolling or 

other non 

metrological 

information 

blank, or 

annunciator

Period of time at 

gross load center 

of zero

Change in 

weight, i.e., no 

longer at gross 

load zero

Accurate weights are displayed under 

all the following conditions when:

- weight is added to the LRE,

- weight is removed from the LRE, 

and

- the LRE is disturbed by hand.

Period of time 

with a non 

changing load on 

the scale

Deliberate 

operator action 

(remove load off 

scale and rezero 

if necessary)

No weights are displayed under all the 

following conditions when:

- weight is added to the LRE,

- weight is removed from the LRE, 

and

- the LRE is disturbed by hand.

Power Save Off/Blank

Period of time 

with no activity 

on the LRE 

(loaded or 

unloaded)

Return the scale 

to a zero-balance 

indication with 

the automatic 

zero tracking or 

semi-automatic 

zero-setting 

mechanisms, or 

No weights are displayed under all the 

following conditions when:

- weight is added to the LRE,

- weight is removed from the LRE,

- the LRE is disturbed by hand, 

and

- power is restored to the scale 

with weight on the LRE.
NTEP Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix C – NTETC 2008 Weighing Sector – Appendix A – Recommendations for Amendments

NTEP - C35

other deliberate 

operator action 

(e.g., turn on the 

scale, etc.)

Accurate weights aredisplayed 

indicated or recorded according to 

Publication 14 Section 53. Values 

Displayed, Temperature Conditions 

(Warm-up) Test Procedure 1 or 2 since 

power may have been turned off or 

reduced to the electronics and load 

cell while in the power save mode.

For all other systems, when an ECR is interfaced with a weighing/load receiving element, a continuous display of 

weight values and the digital zero balance indication must be provided. The continuous weight display must be 

visible to both the customer and cash register operator. A single weight display suffices so long as both the 

customer and cash register operator can easily see it. The operator’s zero balance indication may be an annunciator 

on the cash register display that is illuminated when the scale is in a zero balance condition.

The weight display may be integrated into the scale, may be a remote weight display, or may be integral with the 

cash register. If the weight display is in the ECR, it must be separate from other displayed information.

1.1. (No change) Yes  No  N/A 

1.2. (No change) Yes  No  N/A 

1.3. If the point-of-sale system automatically monitors the zero-balance condition of the scale, the system shall 

automatically prohibit scale operation when an out-of-zero balance condition is detected, or return to a 

continuous digital indication when the POS scale is in an out-of-balance condition.

Does the scale or indicating element have a:

screen saver/sleep mode? Yes  No 

power save mode? Yes  No 

1.3.1. If the scale and point-of-sale system (POS) can only enter a screen 

saver/sleep mode with no load on the LRE, perform the following steps to 

verify that automatic means are provided to inhibit a weighing operation 

unless the scale is at zero.

1. Add a load plus 20 d to the LRE and rezero the scale.

2. Observe the weight display while indicating zero and note the 

amount of time taken to enter the screen saver/sleep mode. 

_______________

3. The scale or POS shall exit the screen saver/sleep mode when the 

20 d is removed from the scale.

Yes  No 

4. Observe the weight indication for the amount of time taken to enter 

the screen saver/sleep mode noted in step 2. The scale complies if it 

does not reenter the screen saver/sleep mode.

Yes  No 

5. Rezero the scale and allow the scale to enter the screen saver/sleep 

mode.

6. The scale or POS shall exit the screen saver/sleep mode when the 

20 d is now added to the LRE.

Yes  No 

Yes  No  N/A 
NTEP Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix C – NTETC 2008 Weighing Sector – Appendix A – Recommendations for Amendments

NTEP - C36

7. Rezero the scale by removing the 20 d from the LRE to allow the 

scale to enter the screen saver/sleep mode.

8. The scale or POS shall exit the screen saver/sleep mode when the 

LRE is momentarily disturbed by hand.

Yes  No 

1.3.2. If the scale or POS can enter a screen saver/sleep mode with a load on the 

LRE, verify that automatic means are provided to inhibit a weighing 

operation when the scale is in an out-of-balance condition.

While in the screen saver/sleep mode with a load on the LRE, the scale or 

POS shall not indicate a weight under all the following conditions when;





an additional load is added to the LRE,



a partial load is removed from the LRE, and

the LRE is disturbed by hand.

The scale or POS is permitted to return to a zero indication when the entire 

load is removed from the LRE (unloaded condition) or the operator is 

required to zero the scale.

Yes  No  N/A 

1.3.3. Does the scale or POS have a power save mode feature?

Yes  No 

If yes, attempt to initiate a weighing transaction while the scale display is 

off or blank when:





an additional load is added to the LRE,

a partial load is removed from the LRE,



and



a load on the LRE is disturbed by hand, and

power is restored to the scale with weight on the scale.

Perform the tests described in Pub 14 DES Section 53. Values Displayed, 

Temperature Conditions (Warm-up) Test Procedure 1 or 2 as appropriate 

to verify the accuracy of the scale after its power has been lowered or 

turned off.

Yes  No  N/A 

1.3.4. Verify that recording and printing functions are inhibited when the scale or 

POS is in screen saver/sleep or power save mode.

Yes  No  N/A 

Agenda Item 11.(a) Clarification on Section 66.(c) Performance and Permanence Tests

Amend Publication 14 – Digital Electronic Scales (DES) Section 66.(c) as follows (Editor’s Note: Jim Truex and 

Steve Cook need to resolve conflict with minimum weight for subsequent test in Sections 66.(c)4.1. and 66.(c)6.6.):

Pub 14 Section 66.(c) (figures not included here)

Side-by-side scale vehicle applications are typically two 7- to 12-foot wide vehicle scales (load-receiving elements) 

placed side-by-side and may have a small area between each load-receiving element (LRE). Unless the “side-byside” scale has a single CLC rating for the complete scale, the section test-load shall not be greater CLC (for the 

single side) x 2 when both sides of the “side-by-side” scale are tested simultaneously.

If the load-receiving elements (LRE) used in the “side-by-side” application do not have a CC, then at least one of 

the load-receiving elements shall be tested as a “single” scale according to Section 66.(a) in addition to the 

following tests (CLC test load at least 90 percent).
NTEP Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix C – NTETC 2008 Weighing Sector – Appendix A – Recommendations for Amendments

NTEP - C37

If the LRE used for the “side-by-side” application are already covered by a CC for “single” scale applications, then 

only the following test loads and patterns need to be performed including strain-load and subsequent evaluation 

(field) permanence tests. If the “single” scale is too narrow for legal highway vehicles, testing as a “single” (one 

of the sides) scale does not have to be performed and the weighing/load-receiving element will be limited to “sideby-side” applications.

Side-by-side applications using LREs narrower than 8 ft wide should not be able to provide weight information 

from the individual scale since legal highway vehicles would always straddle both LREs to obtain a weight.

Section tests on “side-by-side” scales can be conducted with at least 75 percent CLC test loads in Prescribed Test 

Patterns (PTPs). Care shall be taken not to overload a Prescribed Test Pattern (PTP) during the strain-load test. 

Position tests will be conducted with loads no greater than 50 % CLC in a test pattern approximately 

4 ft (L) x 4 ft to 5 ft (W).

The evaluator is reminded to be aware of potential safety hazards prior to and during the evaluation. When test carts 

are not available, care should be taken when stacking 1000-lb weights on a scale platform. Extreme caution must be 

used when stacking 1000-lb weights higher than three levels. If a fourth level of test weight is required to reach the 

desired test load, weights should not be placed on the outer edge of the weight stack. The evaluator may request the 

assistance of the applicant, service agency, or device owner to help with the stacking of weights and to verify that 

the weights are safely stacked without the risk of falling and injuring people, and damaging property (General Code 

Section 1.10. G-UR.2.3. Accessibility for Inspection, Testing, and Sealing Purposes).

66.(c)1. Indicator Tests . . . 

Agenda Item 11.(b) Clarification of Section 66.(c)Waiving of Permanence Tests

Add the following note to DES Section 66.(c)4. as follows:

66.c.4. Subsequent Type Evaluation (Field) Permanence Tests

Note: The subsequent permanence test may be waived if the scale passes the initial test without significant 

performance issues and the NTEP Administrator approves the waiver based upon the report of the NTEP evaluator.

Agenda Item 13. Stored Tare for “Weigh-in/Weigh-out” Applications

Amend DES Section 35. as follows:

35. Weigh-In/Weigh-Out Systems

A weigh-in/weigh-out system is typically used in a vehicle scale and other applications that involve two weight 

determinations. in which an in-bound truck is weighed either loaded or empty; the inbound weight is stored; 

the truck is then emptied or loaded. The outbound truck is weighed, and the larger of the two weights 

(outbound or stored weight) is printed as the gross weight. The other weight is printed as the tare weight and the 

difference computed as the net weight. In-bound Weights, recalled weight values, and gross, tare, and net weights 

must be identified to clearly document the transaction. The storage, recalling, and printing actions are limited so 

they do not facilitate fraud.

35.1. Any weigh-in-bound weight values shall be recorded and automatically 

identified as such. If weigh-in-bound weights are not printed at the time 

the weigh-in operation is performed, then the weigh-in-bound

Yes No N/A 

weight 

information shall not be lost during a power interruption.
NTEP Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix C – NTETC 2008 Weighing Sector – Appendix A – Recommendations for Amendments

NTEP - C38

35.8. Keyboard tare entries or stored tare shall not be accepted into weighin/weigh-out memory.

Yes No N/A 

 A weight retained in memory that is 

automatically deleted from memory after the net weight is determined 

is not considered a stored weighment.

Agenda Item 14. Money Values in Other Than 1-Cent Intervals

Amend DES Section 10.1. as follows:

10.1 Verify that the following sealable parameters are secured by a Category method of sealing.

10.1.1 Coarse zero Yes No N/A 

Initial Zero-Setting Mechanism (IZSM) on separable indicating 

elements with limits that that can be adjusted more than 20 % beyond 

the maximum capacity of the load-receiving element

10.1.2 Yes No N/A 

10.1.3 Span Yes No N/A 

10.1.4 Linearity correction values Yes No N/A 

10.1.5 Motion detection (on/off) Yes No N/A 

10.1.6 Motion detection (number of divisions and speed of operation) Yes No N/A 

10.1.7 Number of samples averaged for weight readings Yes No N/A 

10.1.8 Averaging time for weight indications Yes No N/A 

Selection of measurement units (if internally switched and not 

automatically displayed on the indicator)

10.1.9 Yes No N/A 

10.1.10 Division value, d Yes No N/A 

10.1.11 Number of scale divisions, n Yes No N/A 

10.1.12 Minimum money value on electronic computing devices ($ 0.01) Yes No N/A 

Range of over capacity indications (if it can be set to extend beyond 

regulatory limits)

10.1.13 Yes No N/A 

Automatic zero-tracking mechanism (on/off) for bulk-weighers 

hopper scales and all Class III L devices

10.1.14 Yes No N/A 

10.1.15 Automatic zero-tracking mechanism (range of a single step) Yes No N/A 

10.1.16 1⁄4 and 1⁄2 lb pricing capability or multiplier keys Yes No N/A 

10.1.17 Weight Classifier mode (enabled/disabled) Yes No N/A 

Manual Gross Weight Entries (enabled/disabled) for applications 

where this feature is not permitted in Handbook 44

10.1.18 Yes No N/A 

Other: Describe the parameter and provide justification according to the 

“Principles for Determining Features to be Sealed.”

10.21 (Renumber remaining sections)

Agenda Item 18. Capacity – Markings and Display: Part 1 (Clarification of Cap x d):

Amend DES Section 1.14. as follows:

1.14. If the capacity by division statement is displayed as part of the scale display (e.g., displayed on a video 

terminal or in a liquid crystal display) on a video terminal with the weigh values, then the capacity by 

division statement must be indicated in a clear and conspicuous manner and be readily apparent when 

viewing the reading face of the scale indicator unless already apparent by the design of the device and 

displayed whenever the system is in the weighing mode.
NTEP Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix C – NTETC 2008 Weighing Sector – Appendix A – Recommendations for Amendments

NTEP - C39

Agenda Item 18. Capacity – Markings and Display: Part 2 (MSS and MPW):

1.17. If a Class I or Class II prescription scale complies with paragraphs S.1.2.3., S.2.5.3., and S.6.6., it shall 

be:

1.17.1. marked, “Counting Feature for Prescription Filling Only” (see test procedure in 

Section 58.);

1.17.2. marked with the minimum piece weight and minimum number of pieces used to establish 

an individual piece count.

1.17.3. If the minimum piece weight and/or minimum number of pieces is displayed with the 

count values on the counting display, then the minimum piece weight and minimum 

number of pieces must be indicated in a clear and conspicuous manner and be readily 

apparent when viewing the reading face of the counting indicator.
NTEP Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix C – NTETC 2008 Weighing Sector – Appendix A – Recommendations for Amendments

NTEP - C40

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
NTEP Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix C – NTETC 2008 Weighing Sector – Appendix B – Attachments

NTEP - C41

Appendix B – Attachments

Attachment for Agenda Item 2

National Conference on Weights and Measures / National Type Evaluation Program

NTETC Weighing Sector Ballot Summary 94-01

INFORMATION AND INSTRUCTIONS

Item No. Item Affirm. Negat. Abst.

1

Approve the revised Publication 14 Force Transducers 

Section “II. Determination of Creep and Creep Recovery, Test 

Procedures and Permissible Variations” which replaces and 

amends the 2008 language with the amended language as shown 

in the underlined language on the following pages.

7 5 3

Breakdown of votes →

6 private 

1 public 

2 private 

3 public 3 private

Comments

Two negative votes from NTEP participating labs had the same comments stating that they agreed with the 

intent of the proposal. However, the language in the proposal was confusing and difficult to follow.

Justification for Negative Response: WMD was initially in favor of this item until additional data and 

information was received after the distribution of the ballot proposal. After reviewing the data provided by the 

NIST Force Group and information from Stephen Langford and Stephen Patoray, WMD votes “negative” on this 

item. The proposal has become a significant deviation from R 60 tolerances when taking into account the different 

interpretations for (un)loading and stabilization times from the OIML testing labs and data submitted by Tom 

Bartel, NIST FG and are summarized as follows.

Additionally, a scale’s ability to maintain zero in actual field applications will be improved since the 0.5 v creep 

recovery tolerance for load cells (1.5 v for Class III L) is no larger than the scale specification for zero-tracking 

(0.5 d or 3 d for Class III L).

1. Stephen Langford and Steve Patoray contacted four OIML laboratories that perform type verifications on load 

cells according to the requirements on OIML R 60. They asked for information about their combined (un)load 

and stabilization times of their test equipment, how closely they complied with the times specified in OIML 

Table 6 (proposed Pub 14 Table 5), and their interpretations of the stabilizations times specified in R 60.

Three of the four labs responded to the request and stated that their test equipment loads and unloads weights 

similar to the equipment used by the NIST FG. Therefore they stated that they use the full time allotted in 

R 60 Table 6 for (un)load and stabilization time before taking the initial reading.

R 60 Table 6 indicates that the combination of (un)loading and stabilization is a certain time based on the 

change in the test load, for example 40 seconds for a load of 10 000 kg. So the described method in R 60 

would allow for a loading time of 20 seconds. The stabilization time is then also 20 seconds. However, the 

labs responded that from the meaning of the test, the stabilization time would be the most important factor. In 

this case, they load in 2 seconds and then stabilize for 38 seconds to keep the combined time to 40 seconds. 

This also complies with R 60 clause 5.2.3.2.(b) by recording the actual times in the Test Report.

The following is an overview of possible combinations at a combined (un)loading and stabilization time of 

40 seconds:
NTEP Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix C – NTETC 2008 Weighing Sector – Appendix B – Attachments

NTEP - C42

(un)loading time stabilization time

20 s 20 s

18 s 22 s

22 s 18 s

2 s 38 s

1 s 40 s

2. Tom Bartel, NIST Force Group provided a worksheet that summarizes the results of NIST creep recovery tests 

since October 1, 2007. According to Tom’s report, the summary includes tests conducted earlier this month. 

All tests were conducted with a recovery reading taken 20 seconds after unloading the creep load (which takes 

about one second). Since additional recovery readings are taken at 40 seconds and 60 seconds after unloading, 

these readings may be used to obtain the creep recovery at any other time (e.g., 30 seconds) – which 

correspond to appropriate lines in the new proposed Table 5 of unloading times for Pub 14. (The reading at 

30 seconds must be estimated by averaging the readings at 20 and 40 seconds, and likewise for the reading at 

50 seconds.)

The worksheet on the following page gives the recovery results obtained from NIST’s tests, for both a fixed 

“delay time after unloading” of 20 seconds (as has been specified in Pub 14 until now), and for other “delay 

times after unloading” as given in the new proposed Table 5. In addition, the percentage of entries that “pass” 

is given, for Class III using a fixed time of 20 seconds, for both the current tolerance (0.5 v) and the proposed 

increased tolerance of 0.75 v.

Tom reported “that while most load cells show a smaller recovery value for greater delay times, the difference 

is not enough to change the outcome of “pass” or “fail” for any of them. This is a bit surprising, but that is the 

way the numbers work out.”

Tom added that that occasionally a load cell shows a greater recovery value when using a longer delay time 

after unloading. This can occur if, for example, the creep recovery response curve makes an initial quick dip 

downward, then reverses sign and rises back toward its starting point. This behavior is not unusual. Tom has 

offered to show curves that illustrate this behavior if requested.

WMD has modified Tom Bartel’s worksheet to include the projected compliance rate of the submitted load 

cells if:

1. they were classified as Class III load cells, and

2. the compliance rate using the proposed exponential formula tolerance.

A copy of this table in located on the last page of this summary.

WMD has developed revised language based on the negative comments as a separate file to this summary.

From John Elengo (Consultant), October 28, 2008.

I have previously commented on the title in Table 5 of the proposal that is incorrect and the line that reads 

“Loading and Unloading Times” should be removed.

I believe the proposal is unacceptable in that it deviates significantly from R 60’s intent.

The proposal introduces a Tolerance Multipler based upon a time constant relationship:

Where: T M − =1.65∈

M = tolerance multipler

Table time

loadtime T

5 =

∈ = 2.7182818 = natural logarithm of 1 (ln 1)

M is dependent on the independent variable, time in Table 5, and the dependent variable, the time a load testing 

machine can load/unload a test load (that should be 90 % to 100 % of capacity). The value 1.65 is chosen to force 

M = 1 when the load/unload time is half of that in Table 5. The result is as follows:
NTEP Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix C – NTETC 2008 Weighing Sector – Appendix B – Attachments

NTEP - C43

Test Load --> 0 kg to

10 kg

10 kg to

100 kg

100 kg to

1 000 kg

1 000 kg to

10 000 kg

10 000 kg to

100 000 kg

Over 

100 000 kg

Table 5, seconds --> 10 20 30 40 50 60

Load/Unload Time,

seconds Tolerance Multiplier

Instantaneous 1.65 1.65 1.65 1.65 1.65 1.65

1 1.49 1.57 1.60 1.61 1.62 1.62

2 1.35 1.49 1.54 1.57 1.59 1.60

3 1.22 1.42 1.49 1.53 1.55 1.57

4 1.11 1.35 1.44 1.49 1.52 1.54

5 1.00 1.29 1.40 1.46 1.49 1.52

10 0.61 1.00 1.18 1.29 1.35 1.40

15 0.37 0.78 1.00 1.13 1.22 1.29

20 0.22 0.61 0.85 1.00 1.11 1.18

25 0.14 0.47 0.72 0.88 1.00 1.09

30 0.08 0.37 0.61 0.78 0.91 1.00

40 0.03 0.22 0.43 0.61 0.74 0.85

50 0.01 0.14 0.31 0.47 0.61 0.72

60 0.08 0.22 0.37 0.50 0.61

80 0.03 0.11 0.22 0.33 0.43

100 0.01 0.06 0.14 0.22 0.31

150 0.01 0.04 0.08 0.14

200 0.01 0.03 0.06

300 0.01

This relationship is analogous to the current versus time relationship when a voltage change is applied across a 

resistor and a capacitor that are connected in series. Specifically:

Where: ** RC

t

R

E i

−

= ∈

i = current E = voltage C = capacitance R = resistance t = time

RC = time constant ∈ = 2.7182818 = natural logarithm of 1 (ln 1)

When a voltage is suddenly applied, the current will increase with time according to the above relationship until it 

reaches its final level. The rate at which the system responds is dependent on the time constant that a designer 

chooses by selection of appropriate resistance and capacitance values. The time constant is the amount of time that 

passes from the moment a step change in voltage is applied to the time transient component will have decayed to 

36.8 % of its initial value.

Relating back to the proposal, the full time in Table 5 has been employed as the time constant. The factor 1.65 is 

employed to force the tolerance multiplier a value of 1.0 when the load/unload time is half that in Table 5. The 

interpretation that the tolerance should only be applicable at half the time in Table 5 has no basis. This was never

discussed, nor intended, at the time the Table 5 values were established. Further, the tolerance was to apply when 

the load is changed relatively instantaneously. The times in Table 5 represent solely a consensus of lab machine 

capabilities at the time the table was developed. It was recognized that pragmatically one lab’s capability might be 

more favorable to a device submitter than another lab’s, but all would recognize the pass/fail result as sufficient. 

Further, the actual times are to be recorded in order to portray the basis for the conclusion.

While a time constant method of interpolation might be appropriate, the proposed equation is arbitrary; further, it 

has shortcomings.
NTEP Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix C – NTETC 2008 Weighing Sector – Appendix B – Attachments

NTEP - C44

The weighing machine tolerance is based on that change in indication from the initial indication displayed once the 

load has been completely placed on the device or removed from it. There are no restrictions placed on the loading 

or unloading times and these times are set by the application conditions at the time of the device use.

The greatest change in indication with time occurs under the condition of a quick full step load change. If the load 

is changed in a more progressive manner, a lesser change in indication with time will occur from the time the load 

is fully applied. In the latter case, it might be appropriate to use a time constant relationship to reduce the allowable 

tolerance applied during a type evaluation, but in no case is an increase in tolerance justified.

Many scales are loaded or unloaded by directly placing or removing the load in one quick step. According to this 

proposal, a load cell that in turn is loaded or unloaded in one quick step during evaluation would be provided with a 

tolerance that is greater than the weighing machine’s allowance and much greater than that applicable under the 

load cell’s plc = 0.7 apportionment factor. Hence, this proposal is unacceptable.

I think the solution has to be a pragmatic one. We can’t dictate that new testing machines be acquired nor old ones 

modified to achieve exact loading/unloading times. Besides the time probably cannot be exactly measured either 

and a few seconds one way or the other is likely “in the noise.”

Again, it is ultimately the scale’s response under the conditions of use that counts and a 30-minute test in the field 

is not that impractical and you can get a hint in five minutes whether or not to continue with a full 30-minute test.

A bit of history relative to Table 6 in R 60.

I clearly remember chairing the IWG discussion at which the table was born. We were facing an impasse because 

it was recognized that some labs needed more time than others to load a device than to simply place a full load on 

as a single dead weight of the proper value and that this could affect the measurement of creep. What to do?

In order to defuse the impasse, I went to the blackboard and canvassed the participants asking what times could 

they meet. As we went around it became evident that the times given were also dependent on the load capacities of 

their testers. I decided to see if these times might fit a scheme by categorizing them according to the load being 

applied.

I decided to use loads of 10 raised to the nth power and wrote the columns 10, 100, 1000, 10 000, 100 000 kg on the 

board. I next organized the input received and the table began to take shape. We went around the room again and 

it fell into place and there was a comfortable feeling. We all recognized that a bit of “settling” time should be 

included before taking the initial reading so we decided on times in the table that were based on using half for 

loading and half for settling. It was clear that due to differing lab capabilities these times could not exactly be 

mandated, definitely a “should” and not “shall” basis, and that the competence of the evaluator should also be 

relied upon.

Comments from Stephen Patoray on Negative Vote: I originally supported this item as it was developed by the 

Weighing Sector in September 2008, however; there are six (6) main items that have made me change my mind and 

vote negative on this ballot.

1. Data was presented by the NIST Force Group after the Weighing Sector meeting which is not included with 

this ballot item. It shows clearly that the outcome (percentage of cells to pass) of the creep return test was 

NOT affected by increasing the time for the creep return value from 20 seconds to 40 seconds. All 

seventeen (17) load cells tested since October 1, 2007, were included in this analysis. Twenty-nine 

percent (29 %) passed at either 20 seconds or 40 seconds return. This is very strong evidence that the time at 

which this value is taken is not as critical as was originally believed (full data can be supplied if needed).

2. Responses from three OIML laboratories in Europe confirmed that they currently conduct tests for load cells 

with a nearly instant load/unload and they allow the remaining time in Table 6 of OIML R 60 for stabilization. 

In addition, an OIML lab in the Pacific Rim also would allow data to be taken in this manner. Initially, it was 

thought that the additional stabilization time allowed by these labs would significantly affect the results of the 
NTEP Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix C – NTETC 2008 Weighing Sector – Appendix B – Attachments

NTEP - C45

evaluation. The information from NIST FG mentioned in item 1 above indicates that this is not apparently the 

case.

3. The addition of the proposed formula to NCWM Publication 14 would add significant complexity to the 

evaluation of data. It is not consistent or in harmony with other requirements of either HB 44 or 

Publication 14.

4. The proposed formula is not in harmony with the requirements of OIML R 60. While it is a less strict 

requirement, this would be moving in a direction away from harmonization, not toward it.

5. Currently NCWM is a signatory to the DoMC as a utilizing participant in the MAA for OIML R 60. While the 

addition of the proposed formula is not in conflict with the arrangement, it does not move NTEP closer to 

harmonization with OIML R 60.

6. Currently there have been several NTEP CCs issued with current requirements being met, in some cases with 

retesting taking place to get the device to meet the current requirements. This cost these companies both time 

and money. While a much looser tolerance of 0.80 v might be easier to meet, it would potentially be a 

disservice to the companies that have already passed the evaluation and received an NTEP CC.

I therefore do not support the proposed formula and additional language. It is my belief that the information in 

Table 6 of OIML R 60 be brought into NCWM Publication 14, and that it be clarified with examples that the 

load/unload times should be no more than approximately 1⁄2 the time listed in the table. If it is less than 

approximately 1⁄2 the time, then the remaining time is used for stabilization. This would align with the test methods 

currently in use by the OIML labs.

Load/unload Stabilize Table value

20 20 40

18 22 40

22 18 40

2 38 40

1 39 40

For times longer than those specified, OIML R 60 provides a special case. This could also be incorporated into 

Publication 14.

Additional Information and Comments from and Tom Bartel:

Sent October 22, 2008:

As requested, I have attached an Excel worksheet that summarizes the results of NIST creep recovery tests since 

October 1, 2007. It includes tests conducted earlier this month (see table on the last page of this summary). All 

tests were conducted with a recovery reading taken 20 seconds after unloading the creep load (which takes about 

one second). Since additional recovery readings are taken at 40 seconds and 60 seconds after unloading, these 

readings may be used to obtain the creep recovery at 30 seconds, 40 seconds, and 50 seconds – which correspond to 

appropriate lines in the new proposed Table 5 of unloading times for Pub 14. (The reading at 30 seconds may be 

estimated by averaging the readings at 20 and 40 seconds, and likewise for the reading at 50 seconds.)

The worksheet gives the recovery results obtained from NIST’s tests, for both a fixed “delay time after unloading” 

of 20 seconds (as has been specified in Pub 14 until now), and for other “delay times after unloading” as given in 

the new Table 5. In addition, the percentage of entries that “pass” is given, for Class III using a fixed time of 

20 seconds, for both the current tolerance (0.5 v) and an increased tolerance of 0.75 v.

While most load cells show a smaller recovery value for greater delay times, the difference is not enough to change 

the outcome of “pass” or “fail” for any of them. This is a bit surprising, but that is the way the numbers work out.

Note that occasionally a load cell shows a greater recovery value when using a longer delay time after unloading. 

This can occur if, for example, the creep recovery response curve makes an initial quick dip downward, then 
NTEP Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix C – NTETC 2008 Weighing Sector – Appendix B – Attachments

NTEP - C46

reverses sign and rises back toward its starting point. This behavior is not unusual. I can show curves that illustrate 

it if you like.

Sent October 23, 2008:

I vote “yes” on the ballot; seeing as, technically, I am not a voting member, you can use this for “informational 

purposes”.

Let me make the following clarifications regarding the implementation of the language on the ballot.

1. The first sentence under II.4. reads “During the conduct of the tests, the initial reading shall be taken at a time 

interval after the initiation of loading or unloading, whichever is applicable, as specified in Table 5.” Since it 

takes us about one second to unload our creep test load, this sentence means that, after the unloading is 

finished, we will wait an additional 19 seconds before taking the first reading for capacities from 10 kg to 

100 kg; 29 seconds for capacities from 100 kg to 1000 kg; 39 seconds for capacities from 1000 kg to 

10 000 kg; and 49 seconds beyond that.

In other words, for a 2500 lb capacity load cell, our first reading would be 40 seconds after unloading begins, 

or, equivalently, 39 seconds after unloading is completed. For a 50 k lb capacity load cell, we would wait 

49 seconds after unloading is completed.

If, on the other hand, you intend to keep constant the time to be utilized for stabilization (half the time given in 

Table 5), regardless of a laboratory’s unloading time, then you would need to specify this in an explicit 

manner.

Note that we can accomplish the new requirements at the present time without making any changes to our 

instrumentation or machine controls.

2. For load cells that we test at NIST, the formula of 4.1.(a) will give a multiplier, M, of 1.57 for the lower end of 

our range (100 kg and below) and 1.62 for the upper end of our range (above 10 000 kg), which puts the creep 

recovery tolerance for Class III at 0.78 v to 0.81 v, depending on capacity.

3. While longer unloading times do not apply to NIST, for a laboratory that does, for example, require 50 % more 

time to unload than required in Table 5, the formula gives a multiplier, M, of 0.78. In other words, for a load 

cell capacity of 10 kg to 100 kg, Table 5 gives a (total) time of 20 seconds, of which 10 seconds should be used 

for actual unloading. If a laboratory requires 15 seconds to unload (i.e., 50 % more time than specified), the 

time ratio T in the formula is 0.75, giving M = 0.78, thus giving a reduction in the tolerance to 78 % of the 

nominal value.

Note that this is not nearly as severe as the requirement in OIML R 60, which states that “the time may be 

increased from 100 % to a limit of 150 % of the specified time provided that the permissible variation of the 

result is proportionally reduced from 100 % to 50 % of the allowable difference...”

4. The instructions in this ballot are applying the multiplier, M, to the creep tolerances as well as to the creep 

recovery tolerance. Note that, in OIML R 60, if the specified loading/unloading times cannot be achieved, an 

adjustment is made only to the tolerance for minimum dead load output return, not to the tolerances for creep. 

Since OIML’s language is not entirely consistent here, this may be an oversight on their part. In that case, we 

are correctly not making the same oversight here in Pub 14.

5. I do assume, however, that you have inadvertently left out of the ballot wording the paragraph giving the 

tolerance for creep between 20 minutes and 30 minutes (which is 0.15 times the tolerance for the allowed creep 

over 30 minutes).

None of the five points listed above constitute objections on my part. I am merely pointing them out so that you 

can make sure that what you intend agrees with what you say.

Tom Bartel, NIST Mass and Force Group
NTEP Committee 2009 Interim Report

Appendix C – NTETC 2008 Weighing Sector – Appendix B – Attachments

NTEP - C47

Creep Recovery History and Tolerance Scenario

NIST Tests 10/1/2007 - 10/20/2008 Current Pub 14/NIST Method Note 5 Current R 60 Method

(inc. lab interpretations for stabilization times) Note 6. Ballot Proposal

NCWM 

Control 

No.

Capacity Classification

Delay

Time

(seconds)

Measured 

Recovery 

(v)

5000 v 

Outcome for 

Tolerance of 

0.50 v

3000 v 

Outcome for 

Tolerance of 

0.50 v

Approximate

Delay Time

(seconds)

Measured 

Recovery

(v)

Outcome for 

Tolerance of 

0.50 v

Proposed 

Exponential 

Formula 

Tolerance

5000 v 

Outcome

5850 4 klb III M 5000 20 1.19 40 1.09 0.8

5850 4 klb III M 5000 20 1.14 40 0.95 0.8

5923 1000 kg III M 5000 20 0.58 pass 30 0.51 0.8 pass

5923 1000 kg III M 5000 20 0.83 pass 30 0.82 0.8

5936 5 klb III M 5000 20 1.55 40 1.56 0.8

5936 5 klb III M 5000 20 0.30 pass pass 40 0.17 pass 0.8 pass

5951 2000 kg III S 5000 20 0.26 pass pass 40 0.39 pass 0.8 pass

5951 2000 kg III S 5000 20 0.35 pass pass 40 0.16 pass 0.8 pass

5951 5 klb III S 5000 20 1.86 40 1.72 0.8

5951 1000 kg III S 5000 20 0.99 30 0.96 0.8

5951 200 lb III S 5000 20 1.51 20 1.51 0.8

5923 1000 kg III M 5000 20 0.53 pass 30 0.53 0.8 pass

5936 5 klb III M 5000 20 0.77 pass 40 0.60 0.8 pass

5936 5 klb III M 5000 20 0.48 pass pass 40 0.39 pass 0.8 pass

6078 10 klb III M 5000 20 0.86 40 0.66 0.8 pass

6127 4 klb III M 5000 20 0.90 40 0.75 0.8 pass

6127 4.4 klb III M 5000 20 0.48 pass pass 40 0.42 pass 0.8 pass

percent passing ==> 29 % 53 % percent passing ==> 29 % 59 %

NCWM 

Control 

No.

Capacity Classification

Delay

Time

(seconds)

Measured 

Recovery 

(v)

Outcome for 

Tolerance of 

1.50 v

Delay Time

(seconds)

Measured 

Recovery

(v)

Outcome for 

Tolerance of 

1.50 v

6067 30 t III L M 10000 20 0.56 pass 50 0.90 pass

6067 30 t III L M 10000 20 0.70 pass 50 0.80 pass

Note 1: Actual time for NIST unloading is on the order of 1 second, regardless of capacity.

Note 2: “Delay time” means the time between unloading and taking the first (reference) reading.

Note 3: NIST sampling begins after a “delay time” of 20 seconds; subsequent readings are taken at 40 seconds and 60 seconds after unloading.

Note 4: Recovery values for “delay times” of 30, 40, or 50 seconds are derived from the most appropriate readings.

Note 5: Steve Cook added this column showing compliance if data were evaluated as a Class III (300 v) load cell.

Note 6: Steve Cook added these columns that include the tolerances from the proposed formula and the proposed increase in the stabilization times for the NIST test equipment.
NTEP Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix C – NTETC 2008 Weighing Sector – Appendix B – Attachments

NTEP - C48

Attachment for Agenda Item 17

National Conference on Weights and Measures/National Type Evaluation Program

NTETC Weighing Sector Ballot Summary 94-02

Item

No. Item Affirm Negat Abst

1A Agree that the proposed language is sufficiently developed and recommend 

that this item move forward as a voting item on the NCWM S&T 2009 agenda. 4

NO COMMENTS

1B

Agree that the proposed language is not sufficiently developed and 

recommend that this item be given “Information” status on the NCWM S&T 

2009 agenda.

2

COMMENTS

1. Does not believe that the proposed change is fair to the buyer and seller. If the 

device can zero out a negative weight, then it must be allowed to zero out a 

positive weight as well.

2. This item should be given “developmental” status instead of “informational.” 

This feature appears on the surface to be OK in direct sale applications, but I 

would like to hear more discussion on the industrial/heavy capacity side. There is 

no need to rush this item into HB 44 and should be allowed additional time for the 

language to be further developed by the Weighing Sector.

1C

Agree (if amended) that the proposed language is sufficiently developed and 

recommend this item move forward as a voting item on the NCWM S&T 2009 

agenda. Please include your recommended changes with your ballot 

response.

COMMENTS 2

1. The maximum effect of automatic zero-setting should not be limited to 4 % of the 

nominal capacity since there are no limits on other zero-setting mechanisms in 

HB 44.

2. Same as above comment on 1C.

2

Forward a recommendation to the NTEP Committee that an existing CC may 

be amended upon a successful review on an application and documentation if 

the proposal is adopted by the NCWM.

4 3 1
NTEP Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix C – NTETC 2008 Weighing Sector – Appendix B – Attachments

NTEP - C49

National Conference on Weights and Measures/National Type Evaluation Program

NTETC Weighing Sector Ballot Summary 94-02

Item

No. Item Affirm Negat Abst

COMMENTS

1. The Weighing Sector should make the recommendation to the NTEP Committee 

after it has developed a consensus on the proposed requirements for automatic 

zero-setting.

2. The requirement of Pub 14 to list any standard feature or option on an NTEP CC is 

clearly stated. It indicates that an NTEP lab must evaluate any feature or option 

before it can be listed on an NTEP CC. The commenter voted negative for the 

following reasons.

- There are metrological ramifications to how the automatic zero-setting 

mechanism must function. These metrological features MUST be evaluated by 

an NTEP lab to ensure the ASZM meets all the requirements.

- Currently, there is no procedure developed in Pub 14 for evaluating AZSM. 

Therefore the NTEP Committee, the NTEP Committee chair, or the NTEP lab 

evaluators would not have uniform criteria to base their decision to amend an 

NTEP CC.

- It is premature to begin amending NTEP CCs until all due process has run its 

course, and proper procedures have been developed and reviewed by the 

Weighing Sector and approved by the NTEP Committee. This is an item that 

will go before the NCWM S&T Committee. It may or may not be accepted, 

and, if accepted, may not resemble the original proposal. Additionally, it may

or may not be approved by the NCWM representatives and delegates.

3

Recommend including the following note to clarify the differences between 

automatic zero-tracking and automatic zero-setting in the definitions stating:

Zero-tracking is functionally similar to automatic zero-setting. The 

differences are important in applying the applicable requirements to 

maintain and establish an accurate zero-balance condition.

- Automatic zero-setting is activated by an event, such as after a 

programmed time interval or part of every weighing cycle in an 

automatic weighing system;

- Automatic zero-tracking operates continuously (when the specified 

conditions are met) and is controlled by a rate of correction 

(e.g., 0.5 d/second) to prevent interaction with the normal weighing 

process.

5 3 0

COMMENTS

1. This proposed note should be reviewed and recommended by the Weighing Sector 

since the item was only discussed by the small work group and not the entire 

Sector.

2. It is not appropriate to include initial zero-setting mechanism under zero-setting 

mechanism. The feature is not intended to maintain the zero balance of a scale. It 

is intended to zero the scale upon power-up (of the device) with or without a load 

on the load-receiving element.

3. The commenter supports a definition of zero-tracking and automatic zero-setting 

(if adopted). The commenter understands the differences, but believes that the 

proposed language can be improved since there is little difference in wording 

between the two definitions.
NTEP Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix C – NTETC 2008 Weighing Sector – Appendix C – Attendees

NTEP - C50

Appendix C – Attendees

Tom Bartel

NIST, Mass & Force Group

100 Bureau Drive MS 8222

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8222

(301) 975-6461 Fax (301) 948-6474

twbartel@nist.gov

Andrea Buie

Maryland Department of Agriculture

50 Harry S. Truman Parkway

Annapolis, MD 21401

(410) 841-5790 Fax (410) 841-2765

buieap@mda.state.md.us

Luciano Burtini

Measurement Canada

2008 Matera Avenue

Kelowna, BC V1V 1W9

(250) 862-6557 Fax (250) 712-4215

burtini.luciano@ic.gc.ca

Judy Cardin

Wisconsin Department of Agriculture

Trade and Consumer Protection

PO Box 8911

Madison, WI 53708-8911

(608) 224-4945 Fax (608) 224-4939

judy.cardin@wi.gov

Kevin Chestnutwood

NIST, Mass & Force Group

100 Bureau Drive MS 8222

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8222

(301) 975-6653 Fax (301) 948-6474

Kevin.Chestnutwood@nist.gov

Steven Cook

NIST, Weights & Measures Division

100 Bureau Drive MS 2600

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2600

(301) 975-4003 Fax (301) 975-8091

stevenc@nist.gov

Scott Davidson

Mettler-Toledo, Inc.

1150 Dearborn Drive

Worthington, OH 43085

(614) 438-4387 Fax (614) 438-4355

scott.davidson@mt.com

Terry Davis

Kansas Dept. of Agriculture

Weights & Measures Division

PO Box 19282

Building 282 Forbes Field

Topeka, KS 66619-0282

Topeka Office (785) 862-2415 Fax (785) 862-2460

Field Office (785) 479-2193

tdavis@kda.state.ks.us

Mitchell Eyles

Flintec, Inc.

18 Kane Industrial Drive

Hudson, MA 01749

(978) 562-7800 Fax (978) 562-0008

meyles@flintec-us.com

William Fishman

New York Bureau of Weights & Measures

State Campus 1220 Washington Avenue

Albany, NY 12235

(518) 457-3452 Fax (518) 457-2552

bill.fishman@agmkt.state.ny.us

Darrell Flocken

Mettler-Toledo, Inc.

1150 Dearborn Drive

Worthington, OH 43085

(614) 438-4393 Fax (614) 438-4355

darrell.flocken@mt.com

Kevin Fruechte

Avery Weigh-Tronix

1000 Armstrong Drive

Fairmont, MN 56031

(507) 238-8267 Fax (507) 238-8255

kfruechte@awtxglobal.com

Scott Henry

NCR Corporation

2651 Satellite Boulevard

Duluth, GA 30096

(770) 623-7543 Fax (404) 479-1170

scott.henry@ncr.com

Rainer Holmberg

Emery Winslow Scale

73 Cogwheel Lane

Seymour, CT 06483

(203) 881-9333 Fax (203) 881-9477

rholmberg@emerywinslow.com
NTEP Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix C – NTETC 2008 Weighing Sector – Appendix C - Attendees

NTEP - C51

Ken Jones

California Division of Measurement-Standards

6790 Florin Perkins Road, Suite 100

Sacramento, CA 95828

(916) 229-3052 Fax (916) 229-3015

kjones@cdfa.ca.gov

Stephen Langford

Cardinal Scale Manufacturing Co.

203 East Daugherty Street

Webb City, MO 64870

(417) 673-4631 Fax (417) 673-5001

slangford@cardet.com

Jean Lemay

Measurement Canada

151 Tunney’s Pasture Driveway

Ottawa, Ontario KIA OC9

(613) 952-0612 Fax (613) 952-1754

Lemay.jean@ic.gc.ca

Paul A. Lewis, Sr.

Rice Lake Weighing Systems

230 West Coleman Street

Rice Lake, WI 54868-2404

(715) 434-4322 Fax (715) 234-6967

plewis@ricelake.com

Todd R. Lucas

Ohio Dept. of Agriculture

8995 East Main Street, Building 5

Reynoldsburg, OH 43068

(614) 728-6290 Fax (614) 728-6424

lucas@agri.ohio.gov

Edward Luthy

Brechbuhler Scales Inc

1424 Scale Street SW

Canton, OH 44706

(330) 453-2424 Fax (330) 471-8909

eluthy@bsscales.com

Jerry D. Meyer

Industrial Commerical Scales, LLC

2320 Air Park Road

North Charleston, SC 29406

(843) 278-0342 Fax (843) 329-1333

sales@icscales.com

Stephen Patoray, CAE

NCWM

1239 Carolina Drive

Tryon, NC 28782

(828) 859-6178 Fax (828) 859-6180

spatoray@mgmtsol.com

Dan Reiswig

California Division of Measurement Standards

6790 Florin Perkins Road, Suite 100

Sacramento, CA 95828

(916) 229-3023 Fax (916) 229-3015

dreiswig@cdfa.ca.gov

Louis Straub

Fairbanks Scales, Inc.

3056 Irwin Drive SE

Southport, NC 28461

(910) 253-3250 Fax (910) 253-3250

lstraub@fairbanks.com

Jim Truex

NCWM

88 Carryback Drive

Pataskala, OH 43062

(740) 919-4350 Fax (740) 919-4348

jim.truex@ncwm.net

Jesus Zapien

A&D Engineering Inc

1756 Automation Parkway

San Jose, CA 95131

(408) 518-5114 Fax (408) 635-2314

jzapien@andweighing.com
NTEP Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix D – NTETC Software Sector 

NTEP - D1

Appendix D

National Type Evaluation Technical Committee

Software Sector

May 20 - 21, 2008 – Reynoldsburg, Ohio

Meeting Summary

Agenda Items

Carryover Items........................................................................................................................................................D2

1.a. NTETC Software Sector Mission.................................................................................................................D2

1.b. NCWM/NTEP Policies – Issuing Certificates of Conformances (CC) for Software ...................................D2

1.c. Definitions for Software Based Devices ......................................................................................................D3

1.d. Software Identification/Markings.................................................................................................................D5

2. Identification of Certified Software..............................................................................................................D7

3. Software Protection/Security........................................................................................................................D9

4. Software Maintenance and Reconfiguration ..............................................................................................D16

5. Verification in the Field, by the Weights and Measures Inspector.............................................................D19

6. NTEP Application ......................................................................................................................................D19

New Items................................................................................................................................................................D19

7. Recommendation on Sector Chair and Technical Advisor.........................................................................D19

8. Next Meeting..............................................................................................................................................D20
NTEP Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix D – NTETC Software Sector

NTEP - D2

C ar r yover I tems

1.a. NT E T C Softwar e Sector M ission

Source: NCWM Board of Directors

Background: In 2005 the Board of Directors established a National Type Evaluation Technical Committee 

(NTETC) Software Sector. A mission statement for the Sector was developed at that time.

Mission of the Software Sector:

• Develop a clear understanding of the use of software in today’s weighing and measuring instruments.

• Develop NIST Handbook 44, Specifications, Tolerances, and other Technical Requirements for Weighing 

and Measuring Devices, specifications and requirements, as needed, for software incorporated into 

weighing and measuring devices. This may include tools for field verification, security requirements, 

identification, etc.

• Develop NCWM Publication 14 checklist criteria, as needed, for the evaluation of software incorporated 

into weighing and measuring devices, including marking, security, metrologically significant functions, etc.

• Assist in the development of training guidelines for weights and measures officials in verifying software as 

compliant to applicable requirements and traceable to a NTEP Certificate. Training aids to educate 

manufacturers, designers, service technicians and end users may also be considered.

Recommendation: There should be an attempt to follow the four bullet items above in order from the top down 

when discussing agenda items. Focus should begin with any possible impact on NIST Handbook 44.

1.b. NC W M /NT E P Policies – I ssuing C er tificates of C onfor mances (C C ) for Softwar e

Source: NCWM Reports

Background: Excerpts of reports from the 1995 - 1998 Executive Committees were provided to NTETC Software 

Sector members at their April 2006 meeting. The chair asked the Sector to review the following NTEP policy 

decision adopted by the NCWM in 1998 relative to the issuance of a separate Certificate of Conformance (CC) for 

software.

The NCWM has struggled with software issues for many years. Prior to 1995, NTEP had evaluated stand-alone 

software (e.g., weigh-in/weigh-out, point-of-sale (POS), and batch controller software) and, in some cases, had 

issued CCs for stand-alone software. The Board established a software work group (WG) to study the issues 

and make recommendations.

The WG discussed many issues including: first indication of the final quantity, metrologically significant 

software, definitions, software marking, software checklist evaluation, a software Examination Procedure 

Outline (EPO) for the field inspector, user programmable software, and third party software. According to 

Conference reports, it seems in 1997 some concerns were raised about the direction of the WG. In 1997 after 

the Annual Meeting, the NCWM chair appointed a new Software Work Group.

During the 1998 NCWM, the following recommendation was adopted as NTEP policy:

- Software, regardless of its form, shall not be subject to evaluation for the purpose of receiving a 

separate software CC from the National Type Evaluation Program.

- Remove all of the software categories from the index of NCWM Publication 5, NTEP Index of Device 

Evaluations.

- Reclassify all existing software CCs according to their applicable device categories.
NTEP Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix D – NTETC Software Sector 

NTEP - D3

The policy is still in effect today.

Also noteworthy is a statement in Section C of NCWM Publication 14, Administrative Policy. It states:

In general, type evaluations will be conducted on all equipment that affect the measurement 

process or the validity of the transaction (e.g., electronic cash registers interfaced with scales and 

service station consoles interfaced with retail fuel dispensers); and all equipment to the point of 

the first indicated or recorded representation of the final quantity on which the transaction will be 

based.

Discussion: The recommendation below was discussed. It was pointed out that this may be a technical policy that 

needs to be inserted into each different volume or chapter of NCWM Publication 14 or it may need to be placed in 

the Administrative Policy volume. The Sector agreed that overall there would be no change to what is currently 

being done by NTEP and the labs to certify devices; however; the device type or name of the device certified would 

be changed.

Recommendation from the Sector to the NTEP Committee: The Sector recommended the following language to 

be submitted to the NTEP Committee as a policy change. The Sector requests the NTEP Committee place this issue 

on their agenda.

Software Requiring a Separate CC: Software, which is implemented as an add-on to other NTEP Certified main 

elements to create a weighing or measuring system and its metrological functions, are significant in determining the 

first indication of the final quantity. Such software is considered a main element of the system requiring traceability 

to an NTEP CC.

NOTE: OEM software may be added to an existing CC or have a stand-alone CC with applicable applications 

(e.g., a manufacturer adding a software upgrade to their ECR or point-of-sale system, vehicle scale weigh-in/weighout software added as a feature to an indicating element, automatic-bulk weighing, liquid-measuring device loading 

racks, etc.) and minimum system requirements for “type P” devices (see proposed software definition below). It 

may be possible for a manufacturer to submit a single application for both hardware and software contained in the 

same device. A single CC would be issued.

In this instance, OEM refers to a third party. The request to add software could be made by the original CC holder 

on behalf of the third party. Alternatively, a new CC could be created that refers to the original CC and simply lists 

the new portions that were examined.

1.c. Definitions for Softwar e-B ased Devices

Source: NTETC Software Sector

Background: Discussed was marking and G-S.1.1. Location of Marking Information for Not-Built-for-Purpose, 

Software-Based Devices. It was initially suggested that “not-built-for-purpose” be removed from the wording in 

NIST HB 44 G-S.1.1. However, after further discussion this may not be the correct or final decision. Handbook 44 

does not have a definition for a not-built-for-purpose device. The current HB 44 definition for a built-for-purpose 

device reads:

Built-for-purpose device. Any main device or element, which was manufactured with the intent 

that it be used as, or part of, a weighing or measuring device or system. [1.10]

(Added 2003)

There was also the suggestion to use the definitions from the WELMEC document for Type P and Type U 

instruments. They were modified by the Sector. It was also suggested that a list of examples be provided.
NTEP Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix D – NTETC Software Sector

NTEP - D4

Draft definitions for consideration:

Built-for-purpose weighing or measuring instrument (device) (type P): A weighing or measuring instrument 

(device) designed and built specially for the task in-hand. Accordingly, the embedded software is assumed to be 

designed for the specific task. It may contain many components also used in PCs, e.g., motherboard, memory 

card, etc.

A weighing or measuring instrument (device) using a universal computer (type U): A weighing or measuring 

instrument (device) that uses a general-purpose computer, usually a PC-based system, for performing metrologically 

significant functions.

Examples:

Type U

Weigh-in/Weigh-out

Open Architecture

The Sector agreed to forward the recommendation to the S&T Committee.

Recommendation from the Sector to the S&T Committee:

The Sector recommended that the following definitions be submitted to the S&T Committee as an item and 

be considered for inclusion in NIST Handbook 44.

New Definition:

Electronic devices, software-based. Weighing and measuring devices or systems that use metrological software to 

facilitate compliance with Handbook 44. This includes:

(a) Embedded software devices (Type P). aka built-for-purpose. A device or element with software used in 

a fixed hardware and software environment that cannot be modified or uploaded via any interface without 

breaking a security seal or other approved means for providing security, and will be called a “P,” or

(b) Programmable or loadable metrological software devices (Type U). aka not-built-for-purpose. A 

personal computer or other device and/or element with PC components with programmable or loadable 

metrological software, and will be called “U.” A “U” is assumed if the conditions for embedded software 

devices are not met.

From NCWM Publication 16, 2008:

310-2 D Appendix D – Definition of Electronic Devices, Software-Based

Source: National Type Evaluation Technical Committee (NTETC) – Software Sector (This item was assigned 

developing status and moved to 360-2 Part 1, Item 2.)

Appendix A Part 1, Item 2 Appendix D – Definition of Electronic Devices, Software-Based

(This item first appeared on the 2008 S&T Committee Interim Agenda as Item 310-2)

Source: National Type Evaluation Technical Committee (NTETC) – Software Sector
NTEP Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix D – NTETC Software Sector 

NTEP - D5

Recommendation: Add a new definition and cross-reference term to Appendix D in HB 44 for “Electronic devices, 

software-based” as follows:

Electronic devices, software-based. Weighing and measuring devices or systems that use metrological 

software to facilitate compliance with Handbook 44. This includes:

(a) Embedded software devices (Type P), aka built-for-purpose. A device or element with software 

used in a fixed hardware and software environment that cannot be modified or uploaded via any 

interface without breaking a security seal or other approved means for providing security, and 

will be called a “P,” or

(b) Programmable or loadable metrological software devices (Type U), aka not-built-for-purpose. A 

personal computer or other device and/or element with PC components with programmable or 

loadable metrological software, and will be called “U.” A “U” is assumed if the conditions for 

embedded software devices are not met.

Software-based devices – See Electronic devices, software-based.

Background/Discussion: During the NTETC Software Sector discussion on marking requirements and G-S.1.1. 

Location of Identification Information, it was initially suggested that the term “not-built-for-purpose” be removed 

from the wording in NIST HB 44 paragraph G-S.1.1. since there is no definition for a not-built-for-purpose device in 

HB 44. After a lengthy discussion related to the terms “built-for-purpose” and “not-built-for-purpose,” the Sector 

agreed these terms were not clear and should be replaced with the terminology proposed above. The proposed 

definitions are based on the revision of OIML R 76 Non-automatic weighing instruments Subsections 5.5.1. 

(Type P) and 5.5.2. (Type U).

At the 2008 Interim Meeting, the SMA supported the intent of the item but stated that it is premature to place these 

definitions in HB 44. The SMA recommended that the status of the item be changed to Developing on the S&T 

Committee agenda. The Committee agreed to move Item 310-2 of the 2008 S&T Committee Interim agenda and 

assign Developing status as 360-2 Part 1, Item 2.

Conclusion: The Sector discussed why this item was moved to Developing by the S&T Committee. It seems that 

the only issue in question was the use of the “aka.” The Sector noted that it believes this item was already 

developed and should be placed on Informational status by the S&T so that additional discussion can be held on this 

item at open hearings.

The Sector again discussed “first final” and what is required. The NCWM Publication 14 states that first final is up 

to the first final indicated or recorded representation on which the transaction is based. NTEP only provides the 

guidelines for evaluation; it does not set regulations.

1.d. Softwar e I dentification/M ar kings

Source: NTETC Software Sector

Background/Discussion: During their October 2007 meeting, the Sector discussed the value and merits of required 

markings for software. This included the possible differences in some types of devices and marking requirements. 

After hearing several proposals, the Sector agreed to the following technical requirements applicable to the marking 

of software:

1. the NTEP CC Number must be continuously displayed or hard marked,

2. the version must be software-generated and shall not be hard marked,

3. the version is required for embedded (Type P) software,

4. printing the required identification information can be an option,
NTEP Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix D – NTETC Software Sector

NTEP - D6

5. command or operator action can be considered as an option in lieu of a continuous display of the required 

information, and

6. devices with Type P (embedded) software must display or hard mark make, model, S.N. to comply with 

G-S.1. Identification.

The Sector developed marking information requirements and submitted a proposal to the S&T Committee for 

considered inclusion in NIST Handbook 44. Unfortunately, some changes made to the table as the item was 

prepared for Publication 16, did not reflect the content of the table as it was submitted by the Sector.

The table as seen in NCWM Publication 16 2008 Agenda Item:

Appendix A Part 1, Item 1 General Code: G-S.1. Identification – (Software)

Source: National Type Evaluation Technical Committee – Software Sector

Recommendation: Amend G-S.1. and/or G-S.1.1. to include the following:

Method NTEP CC 

No.

Make/Model/Serial 

No.

Software 

Version/Revision1

TYPE P electronic devices shall meet at least one of the methods in each column:

Hard-Marked X X Not Acceptable

Continuously Displayed X X X

By Command or Operator Action Not Acceptable Not Acceptable X2

TYPE U electronic devices shall meet at least one of the methods in each column:

Hard-Marked X3 X Not Acceptable

Continuously Displayed X X X

Via Menu (display) or Print 

Option Not Acceptable X4 X4

1 If the manufacturer declares that the primary sensing element “software” is integral, has no end user 

interface and no print capability, the element may be considered exempt from the marking requirement for 

version/revision. Example: Primary sensing element may be Positive Displacement (P.D.) meter with 

integral correction, digital load cell (only for reference, not limiting). 2 Information on how to obtain the Version/Revision shall be included on the NTEP CC. 3 Only if no means of displaying this information is available.

4 Information on how to obtain Make/Model, Version/Revision shall be included on the NTEP CC.

Metrologically significant software shall be clearly identified with the software version. The identification 

may consist of more than one part but one part shall be only dedicated for the metrologically significant 

portion.

The Sector reviewed this table and made both corrections and further clarifications. The table as currently 

proposed by the Sector to the S&T Committee is as follows:

The table is split into Type P and Type U devices for clarity. While there are similarities between the Type P and 

Type U devices, they are unique and must be treated separately.
NTEP Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix D – NTETC Software Sector 

NTEP - D7

Method NTEP CC 

No.

Make/Model/Serial 

No.

Software 

Version/Revision

1

TYPE P electronic devices shall meet at least one of the methods in each column:

Hard-Marked X X Not Acceptable1

Continuously Displayed X X X

By Command or Operator Action Not Acceptable Not Acceptable X2

1 If the manufacturer declares that the primary sensing element “software” is integral, has no end user 

interface and no print capability, the element may be considered exempt from the marking requirement 

for version/revision. the version/revision shall be hard marked on the device. Example: Primary 

sensing element may be Positive Displacement (P.D.) meter with integral correction, digital load cell 

(only for reference, not limiting). 2 Information on how to obtain the Version/Revision shall be included on the NTEP CC.

Metrologically significant software shall be clearly identified with the software version. The 

identification may consist of more than one part but one part shall be only dedicated for the 

metrologically significant portion.

Method NTEP CC 

No.

Make/Model/Serial 

No.

Software 

Version/Revision

TYPE U electronic devices shall meet at least one of the methods in each column:

Hard-Marked X3 X Not Acceptable

Continuously Displayed X X X

Via Menu (display) or Print 

Option Not Acceptable X4 X4

3 Only if no means of displaying this information is available.

4 Information on how to obtain Make/Model, Version/Revision shall be included on the NTEP CC.

Metrologically significant software shall be clearly identified with the software version. The identification 

may consist of more than one part but one part shall be only dedicated for the metrologically significant 

portion.

Conclusion: Submitted to NCWM S&T Committee.

2. I dentification of C er tified Softwar e

Source: NTETC Software Sector

Discussion from Previous Meetings: The Sector agreed that the title of this item needs to be changed to 

“Identification of Certified Software.”

• Currently, use Version No., ID No., and Serial No.; however, there is no physical tie to the actual software.

• Some international documents, like the WELMEC document, tell how to do tie the ID to the software; 

these include:
NTEP Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix D – NTETC Software Sector

NTEP - D8

Possible methods: (not limited to)

CRC (cyclical redundancy check),

Checksum,

Inextricably Linked version no.,

Encryption, and

Digital Signature.

The question remains: Is there some method to give the weights and measures inspector information that something 

has changed?

How can the W&M inspector easily identify an NTEP Certified version?

Required Documentation:

The documentation shall list the software identifications and describe how the software identification is created, how 

it is inextricably linked to the software itself, how it may be accessed for viewing, and how it is structured in order 

to differentiate between version changes with and without requiring a type approval.

NTEP strongly recommends that metrological software be separated from non-metrological software for ease of 

identification and evaluation.

Separation of Software Parts: All software modules (programmes, subroutines, objects, etc.) that perform 

metrologically significant functions or that contain metrologically significant data domains form the metrologically 

significant software part of a measuring instrument (device or sub-assembly). The conformity requirement applies 

to all parts and parts shall be marked according to Section G-S-X.X.

If the separation of the software is not possible or needed, then the software is metrologically significant as a whole.

Segregation of parameters is currently allowed. (see table of sealable parameters)

May 2008 Meeting Discussion: The Sector discussed this item at great length. The following discussion points are 

suggestions under consideration by the Sector:

• The CC would have a list of functions.

• One suggestion is to have the manufacturer have “some number” that is “inextricably linked” to the 

software version; one method is CRC.

• There is the suggestion that information will be on the CC as to how the inspector can find the information 

on the “device” regarding the software version or other methods of identification.

• It seems the software developers in attendance do not have a problem with putting a statement in 

Publication 14 that if you have a CC, you have a version number. The inspector then can have a means of 

tying the version number that he/she sees when they walk up to the device to the information on the CC. 

The method to do this will be defined by the manufacturer and will be verified by the NTEP lab during 

evaluation of the device. The list of CRC, digital signature, inextricably linked, checksum are some 

possible methods to do this.

• Question: Is the checksum or CRC on the CC? There was a response that there needs to be information on 

the CC that would indicate the CRC or checksum, etc. One possibility is an “audit trail” of changes that is 

on the device.

• Fees may be an issue, but that does not need to be considered at this point.

• Timing and lab backlog must also be considered.
NTEP Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix D – NTETC Software Sector 

NTEP - D9

• In WELMEC, every change is reported, and they decide what is significant or not.

• In discussion on tare values, is there a need to ID the tares with a checksum? This seems to be too 

extreme;, this is auditable data. This must be accessed; this is like a unit price on a gas pump. Tare data is 

not included in the metrologically significant software part!

• A member stated perhaps there should only be one “metrologically significant software part” if we use the 

same terminology as the international community, hence the change in plurality here.

• How does a field inspector verify the proper tare was used if someone complains about a transaction a few 

days afterward (or a series of transactions)? Perhaps the tare data is being stored externally (e.g., a central 

host), so another question is how do you enforce proper Category III logging in a distributed system like 

that?

Example from DSW 2 CD:

The executable file “tt100_12.exe” is protected against modification by a checksum. The value of the 

checksum as determined by algorithm XYZ is 1A2B3C.

Possibly “parametric data” could be used.

• The Sector discussed the definition of an “enclosed system.” This means that the manufacturer has 

compiled their own software, and it is distributed to their own facilities or it runs on a server at a main 

location. There is “limited” access to the software from outside the “circle.”

Conclusion: The item needs additional discussion and development by the Sector.

3. Softwar e Pr otection/Secur ity

Source: NTETC Software Sector

Background from Previous Meetings: The Sector agreed that Handbook 44 already has audit trail and physical 

seal, but these may need to be enhanced.

From the WELMEC Document:

Protection Against Accidental or Unintentional Changes: Metrologically significant software and measurement 

data shall be protected against accidental or unintentional changes.

Specifying Notes: Possible reasons for accidental changes and faults are: unpredictable physical influences, effects 

caused by user functions and residual defects of the software even though state of the art development techniques 

have been applied.

This requirement includes:

(a) Physical influences: Stored measurement data shall be protected against corruption or deletion when a fault 

occurs or, alternatively, the fault shall be detectable.

(b) User functions: Confirmation shall be demanded before deleting or changing data.

(c) Software defects: Appropriate measures shall be taken to protect data from unintentional changes that 

could occur through incorrect program design or programming errors, e.g., plausibility checks.

Required Documentation: The documentation should show the measures that have been taken to protect the 

software and data against unintentional changes.
NTEP Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix D – NTETC Software Sector

NTEP - D10

Example of an Acceptable Solution:

- The accidental modification of software and measurement data may be checked by calculating a checksum 

over the relevant parts, comparing it with the nominal value, and stopping if anything has been modified.

- Measurement data are not deleted without prior authorization, e.g., a dialogue statement or window asking 

for confirmation of deletion.

- For fault detection see also Extension I.

The Sector continued to develop a proposed checklist for Publication 14. The numbering will still need to be added. 

This is roughly based on R 76-2 checklist and discussion from the October 2007 Sector meeting.

The NTEP labs have been asked by the Sector Chair to begin to use this checklist for new devices coming into the 

labs. The main purpose of this trial by the NTEP labs is to begin to gather information on any possible problems 

with the checklist. At this point, this is a draft only and has not been submitted for review by the NTEP Committee.

The information requested by this checklist is currently voluntary; however, it is recommended that applicants 

comply with these requests or provide specific information as to why they may not be able to comply. Based on this 

information, the checklist may be amended to better fit with NTEP’s need for information and the applicant’s ability 

to comply.

The California, Maryland, and Ohio labs agreed to use this checklist on one of the next devices they have in the lab 

and report back to the Sector on what the problems may be.

Devices with embedded software TYPE P (aka built-for-purpose)

Declaration of the manufacturer that the software is used in a fixed hardware 

and software environment, and

Yes  No  N/A 

cannot be modified or uploaded by any means after securing/verification Yes  No  N/A 

Note: It is acceptable to break the “seal” and load new software; audit 

trail is also a sufficient seal.

The software documentation contains:

description of the (all) metrologically significant functions

(OIML states that there shall be no undocumented functions)

Yes  No  N/A 

description of the securing means (evidence of an intervention) Yes  No  N/A 

software identification Yes  No  N/A 

description of how to check the actual software identification Yes  No  N/A 

The software identification is:

clearly assigned to the metrologically significant software and 

functions

Yes  No  N/A 

provided by the device as documented Yes  No  N/A 

Personal computers, instruments with PC components, and other instruments, 

devices, modules, and elements with programmable or loadable metrologically 

significant software TYPE U (aka not-built-for-purpose)

The metrologically significant software is:

documented with all relevant (see below for list of documents) 

information

Yes  No  N/A 

protected against accidental or intentional changes Yes  No  N/A 
NTEP Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix D – NTETC Software Sector 

NTEP - D11

Evidence of intervention (such as, changes, uploads, circumvention) is 

available until the next verification/inspection (e.g., physical seal, 

checksum, CRC, audit trail, etc., means of security)

Yes  No  N/A 

Software with closed shell (no access to the operating system and/or programs 

possible for the user)

Check whether there is a complete set of commands (e.g., function keys or 

commands via external interfaces) supplied and accompanied by short 

descriptions

Yes  No  N/A 

Check whether the manufacturer has submitted a written declaration of the 

completeness of the set of commands

Yes  No  N/A 

Operating system and/or program(s) accessible for the user:

Check whether a checksum or equivalent signature is generated over the 

machine code of the metrologically significant software (program module(s) 

subject to legal contro

Yes  No  N/A 

l W&M jurisdiction and type-specific parameters)

Check whether the metrologically significant software will detect and act 

upon any unauthorized alteration of the metrologically significant software 

using simple software tools e.g., text editor.

Yes  No  N/A 

Software interface(s)

Verify the manufacturer has documented:

the program modules of the metrologically significant software 

are defined and separated

Yes  No  N/A 

the protective software interface itself is part of the metrologically 

significant software

Yes  No  N/A 

the functions of the metrologically significant software that can be 

accessed via the protective software interface

Yes  No  N/A 

the parameters that may be exchanged via the protective software 

interface are defined

Yes  No  N/A 

the description of the functions and parameters are conclusive and 

complete

Yes  No  N/A 

there are software interface instructions for the third party 

(external) application programmer

Yes  No  N/A 

From OIML DSW-2 CD as a reference ONLY.

x.y.z. Typical Required

• A description of the 

Documentation (for each measuring instrument, electronic device, or sub-assembly) 

basically includes:

legally relevant 

- List of software modules that belong to metrologically significant part 

metrologically significant software and how the requirements are met;

(Annex B) 

- Description of the software interfaces of the metrologically significant software part and of the 

commands and data flows via this interface including a statement of completeness

including a 

declaration that all metrologically significant functions are included in the description;

(Annex B)

- Description of the generation of the software identification;

;

-

- List of parameters to be protected and description of protection means;

Depending on the validation method chosen in the relevant OIML Recommendation (see 6.4) the 

source code shall be made available to the testing authority if high conformity or strong protection is 

required by the relevant OIML Recommendation;
NTEP Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix D – NTETC Software Sector

NTEP - D12

• A description of suitable system configuration and minimal required resources (see 5.2.4);

• A description of security means of the operating system (password, ... if applicable); (who controls the 

system, and at what level);

• A description of the (software) sealing method(s) (what may be altered, and how to keep from being 

altered);

• An overview of the system hardware, e.g., topology block diagram, type of computer(s), type of 

network, etc. Where a hardware component is deemed legally relevant, metrologically significant (find and 

replace) or performs metrologically significant functions, this should also be identified;

• A description of the accuracy of the algorithms (like filtering of A/D conversion results, price calculation, 

rounding algorithms, ...);

• A description of the user interface, menus and dialogues;

• The software identification and instructions for obtaining it from an instrument in use;

• List of commands of each hardware interface of the measuring instrument/electronic device/sub-assembly 

including a statement of completeness;

• List of durability errors that are detected by the software and if necessary for understanding, a description 

of the detecting algorithms (we may not understand this one);

• A description of datasets stored or transmitted;

• If fault detection is realised in software, a list of faults that are detected and a description of the detecting 

algorithm;

• An overview of the system hardware, e.g., topology block diagram, type of computer(s), type of 

network, etc.;

• The operating manual.

This will go under a heading and be placed in a documentation paragraph.

From previous notes this may be part of another section in the publication.

Software Identification

The metrologically significant software is identified by a software 

identification

Yes  No  N/A 

The software identification:

covers all program modules of the metrologically significant 

software and the type-specific parameters at runtime of the 

instrument

Yes  No  N/A 

is easily provided by the instrument Yes  No  N/A 

can be compared with the reference identification fixed at type 

approval

Yes  No  N/A 

Spot check whether the checksums (signatures) are generated and means of Yes  No  N/A 

identifying the software works as documented
NTEP Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix D – NTETC Software Sector 

NTEP - D13

The audit trail (this needs to be changed to reflect a software update log)

shall update and display (show, indicate) when the software version has 

changed

An entry is generated for each software update.

The software log/audit trail shall contain the following information:

• notification of the update procedure,

• software identification of the installed version,

• time stamp of the event,

• identification of the downloading party.

Updates to software shall be either manually verified (Verified Update) or 

automatically performed and traced (Traced Update).

For a Traced Update, an event logger is required. An entry shall be 

generated for each software update and must include the following:

• an event logger (with a minimum of 10 updates),

• the parameter ID, which indicates the software update,

• the date and time of the change, and

• the new value of the parameter, which is the software identification 

of the installed version.

Yes  No  N/A 

This information may need to be included in HB 44. It may be possible to add this to the General Code section.

May need to define what a software update log is.

G-S.9. Verification of Software Update

Only versions of metrologically significant software that conform to the approved type are allowed for use.

Updates to software shall be either manually verified (Verified Update) or automatically performed and traced 

(Traced Update).

For a Traced Update, an event logger is required. An entry shall be generated for each software update and must 

include the following:

• an event logger (with a minimum of 10 updates),

• the parameter ID, which indicates the software update,

• the date and time of the change, and

• the new value of the parameter, which is the software identification of the installed version.

An entry is generated for each software update.

The software log/audit trail shall contain the following information:

• parameter ID; software update, etc,

• new value; software identification of the installed version,

• date and time of the change,

• identification of the downloading party. (considered this

The device shall clearly indicate that it is in the remote configuration mode and record such message if capable of 

printing in this mode or shall not operate while in this mode.

If the device continues to operate during a software update, then the metrological performance shall not be affected.
NTEP Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix D – NTETC Software Sector

NTEP - D14

The Maryland lab wanted it on record that they disagree with this statement and are striking the first sentence based 

on discussions within the Weighing Sector and the Measuring Sector and the NTEP lab meetings on the subject of 

calibration and configuration while in the normal weighing measuring mode. The sentence that has been stricken 

out was placed in the DES checklist years ago to address field concerns.

It was noted there is a statement in the WELMEC document that concurs with the statement above as stricken.

Use of a Category 3 audit trail is acceptable for the software update logger.

Definitions Recommendation:

Verified Update. A verified update is the process of installing new software where the security is broken and 

the device must be re-verified. Checking for authenticity and integrity is the responsibility of the owner/user.

Traced Update. A traced update is the process of installing new software where the software is automatically 

checked for authenticity and integrity, and the update is recorded in a software update log or audit trail.

Note: The Sector agreed that these two definitions directly above for Verified Update and Traced Update were 

acceptable.

Question: Do we need the definitions below any longer? Comment: There is text in these definitions that 

doesn’t belong in the definition, but may be applicable for other purposes, primarily the bit about the software 

protection environment being at the same level after upgrade when doing a traced update. The Sector has not 

addressed that yet and it is important.

Previous definitions:

Verified Update. The software to be updated can be loaded locally (e.g., directly) on the weighing or 

measuring device or remotely via a network. Loading and installation may be two different steps combined to 

one, depending on the needs of the technical solution. After update of the metrologically significant software of 

a weighing or measuring device, exchanged with another approved version or re-installation, the weighing or 

measuring device is not allowed to be used for legal purposes before a (subsequent) verification of the 

instrument has been performed, and the securing means has been renewed. A person responsible for 

verification must be at place. (NOTE: This may need to be in the handbook under user requirement.)

Traced Update. Traced update is the procedure of changing software in a weighing or measuring device after 

which the subsequent verification by a responsible person at place is not necessary. The software to be updated 

can be loaded locally (e.g., directly) on the weighing or measuring device or remotely via a network. The 

software update is recorded in a software log or audit trail.

Traced update of software shall be automatic. On completion of the update procedure, the software protection 

environment shall be at the same level as required by the type approval.

Comment: The data storage device does not appear to be appropriate for the U.S. weights and measures system.

A member provided an explanation of a Data Storage Device (DSD) explaining it is an EU requirement for “legal 

requirements.” This is the alibi memory that is a replacement for the paper printout that is required in EU. A Watt 

Meter will also act as DSD and store information on electricity usage over a long period of time.

The Sector agreed to delete the DSD checklist from future discussions of this Sector.
NTEP Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix D – NTETC Software Sector 

NTEP - D15

Data storage devices (DSD) 

From the previous meeting, this was tabled (This checklist was not reworked at this time)

5.5.3 G.3.1 DSD realised with embedded software (examine software acc. to G.1)

Yes No 

DSD realised with programmable/loadable software (examine software acc. to G.1) 

Yes No 

documentation with all relevant information

5.5.3.1 G.3.2 sufficient storage capacity for the intended purpose

data are stored and given back correctly

sufficient description of measures to prevent data loss

5.5.3.2 G.3.3 storage of all relevant information necessary to reconstruct an 

earlier weighing, i.e. gross, net, tare values, decimal signs, 

units, identifications of the data set, instrument number, load 

receptor, (if applicable), checksum / signature of the data set 

stored.

5.5.3.3 G.3.4 protection of the stored metrologically significant data 

against accidental or intentional changes

protection of the stored metrologically significant data at 

least with a parity check during transmission to the storage 

device

protection of the stored metrologically significant data at 

least with a parity check of a storage device with embedded 

software (5.5.1)

protection of the stored metrologically significant data by an 

adequate checksum or of a storage device with programmable 

or loadable software (5.5.2)

5.5.3.4 G.3.5 identification and indication of the stored metrologically 

significant data with an identification number

record of the identification number on the official transaction 

medium, i.e. on the print-out

5.5.3.5 G.3.6 automatic storage of the metrologically significant data

5.5.3.6 G.3.7 a device subject to legal control prints or displays the stored 

metrologically significant data for verifying

Conclusion: The Sector agreed to further develop a proposal to forward to the S&T Committee, adding a 

Section G-S.9. and two definitions to Handbook 44. It was agreed the Item G-S.9. would be sent out for ballot to the 

Sector members and meeting attendees.

[Note: In the summer of 2008, a ballot was sent to all members of the Sector. A majority of the members returning 

ballots voted in favor of the proposal (7 to 2). However, there were several comments received from both yea and 

nay voters regarding the proposal. After review of the comments, the Sector Chair decided that, considering all the 

circumstances, the Sector needed more discussion on the item before it is moved forward in the process and is 

submitted to the S&T Committee.]
NTEP Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix D – NTETC Software Sector

NTEP - D16

4. Softwar e M aintenance and R econfigur ation

Source: NTETC Software Sector

Background: After the software is completed, what do the manufacturers use to secure their software?

Discussion: The following items were reviewed by the Sector. Note that agenda Item 3 also contains information 

on Verified and Traced updates and Software Log.

a. Verify that the update process is documented (OK)

b. For traced updates, installed software is authenticated and checked for integrity

Technical means shall be employed to guarantee the authenticity of the loaded software i.e., that it 

originates from the owner of the type approval certificate. This can be accomplished e.g., by cryptographic 

means like signing. The signature is checked during loading. If the loaded software fails this test, the 

instrument shall discard it and either use the previous version of the software or become inoperative.

Technical means shall be employed to guarantee the integrity of the loaded software i.e., that it has not 

been inadmissibly changed before loading. This can be accomplished e.g., by adding a checksum or hash 

code of the loaded software and verifying it during the loading procedure. If the loaded software fails this 

test, the instrument shall discard it and either use the previous version of the software or become 

inoperative.

Examples are not limiting or exclusive.

c. Verify that the sealing requirements are met

The Sector asked, “What sealing requirements are we talking about?”

This item is only addressing the software update; it can be either verified or traced. It is possible that there 

are two different security means, one for protecting software updates (software log) and one for protecting 

the other metrological parameters (Category I, II, or III method of sealing).

Some examples provided by the Sector members include but are not limited to physical seal, software log, 

Category III method of sealing and can contain both means of security.

d. Verify that if the upgrade process fails, the device is inoperable or the original software is restored

The question before the group is, “Can this be made mandatory?”

The manufacturer shall ensure by appropriate technical means (e.g., an audit trail) that traced updates of 

metrologically significant software are adequately traceable within the instrument for subsequent verification and 

surveillance or inspection. This requirement enables inspection authorities, which are responsible for the 

metrological surveillance of legally controlled instruments, to back-trace traced updates of metrologically 

significant software over an adequate period of time (that depends on national legislation). The statement in italics 

will need to be reworded to comply with U.S. weights and measures requirements.

See agenda Item 3, G-S.9.

Only versions of metrologically significant software that conform to the approved type are allowed for use.

Updates to software shall be either manually verified (Verified Update) or automatically performed and traced 

(Traced Update).
NTEP Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix D – NTETC Software Sector 

NTEP - D17

For a Traced Update, an event logger is required. The logger shall be capable of storing a minimum of the 10 most 

recent updates. An entry shall be generated for each software update and must include the following:

• the event type/parameter ID, which indicates a software update event (if not using a dedicated update log),

• the date and time of the change, and

• the new value of the parameter, which is the software identification of the newly installed version.

The traceability means and records are part of the metrologically significant software and should be protected as 

such. The software used for displaying the audit trail belongs to the fixed metrologically significant software. 

Note: This requires further discussion due to some manufacturers’ concerns about where the software that displays 

the audit trail information is located, and who has access if this feature is provided. Manufacturers did indicate that 

there are methods available to encrypt the audit trail information; however, it cannot be protected from being 

deleted.

The following flowchart is sourced from OIML TC 5/SC 2, D-SW and is currently under revision.
NTEP Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix D – NTETC Software Sector

NTEP - D18

Figure 5-1: Software update procedures

Notes to Figure 5-1:

1) In case of Traced Update, updating is separated into the steps: “loading” and “installing/activating”. This 

implies that the software is temporarily stored after loading without being activated because it must be 

Request for 

update?

Verified Update

Normal operating 

mode

Loading of updated 

files (Note 2)

Installation and 

activation of updated 

files (Note 2)

Apply verification 

mark

Restart

Verification 

successful?

(Subsequent) 

verification by a 

person at place

YES

YES

NO

NO

(Note 3)

Request for 

update?

Traced Update

Normal operating 

mode

Loading of updated 

files (Note 1)

Is integrity 

valid?

Is

authenticity 

valid?

Installation and 

activation of updated 

files (Note 1)

Discard loaded files, 

keep old version 

active

Record 

information about 

update to audit 

Restart

YES

YES

YES

NO

NO

NO
NTEP Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix D – NTETC Software Sector 

NTEP - D19

possible to discard the loaded software if the checks fail, and either fall back to the old version, 

2) In case of Verified Update, the software may also be loaded and temporarily stored before installation but 

depending on the technical solution, loading and installation may also be accomplished in one step.

or become 

inoperative.

3) Here, only failing of the verification because of the software update is considered. Failing because of other 

reasons doesn’t require re-loading and re-installing of the software, symbolised by the “NO” branch.

Conclusion: This agenda item is closely tied to agenda Item 3, Software Protection/Security; in fact much of the 

content from previous Sector reports has been moved to Item 3. This item needs to be discussed further due to some 

manufacturers’ concerns about where the software that displays the audit trail information is located, and who has 

access if this feature is provided. The Sector will continue to develop this item.

5. V er ification in the F ield, by the W eights and M easur es I nspector

Source: NTETC Software Sector

Background Question: What tools does the field inspector need?

Possible Answers:

• NTEP CC number is continuously displayed (needs some type of protection) during the normal weighing or 

measuring operation.

• Clear and simple instructions on NTEP CC to get to the other inspection information.

• CRC, checksum, version number etc., needs to be easily accessible from operator console.

• Inspector needs to know how to access audit trail.

• System information is easily accessible (RAM, OS, etc).

• System parameters are easily accessible (AZT, motion, time-outs, etc.).

May 2008 Meeting: There was no additional discussion on this item. The Sector will continue to develop this 

item.

6. NT E P A pplication

Source: NTETC Software Sector

May 2008 Meeting: There was no additional discussion on this item by the Sector at this time.

New I tems

7. R ecommendation on Sector C hair and T echnical A dvisor

Source: NTEP Director

Background: With the changes to the management structure of NCWM, the Sector will need to discuss and make 

recommendations regarding persons to fill the roles of (NTETC) Sector Chair, and Technical Advisor to the Sector. 

Refer to NCWM Publication 14 Administrative Policy Section B. Administration, Subsection B.3. paragraph 2, 

page AP-4.
NTEP Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix D – NTETC Software Sector

NTEP - D20

Recommendation to NTEP Committee: The Sector discussed various options and candidates and now 

recommends the following Sector members for the described roles.

Documentation (scribe): Teri Gulke, Liquid Controls

Technical Advisor: Doug Bliss, Mettler-Toledo

Co-Sector Chairs: Norm Ingram, California Division of Measurement Standards

Jim Pettinato, FMC Technologies

8. Next M eeting

The Sector members were informed they are now on a yearly schedule for Sector meetings.

The Sector discussed the pros and cons of various meeting times and coordination with other NTEP or NCWM 

meetings. The NTEP Administrator will determine when the next meeting is possible.
NTEP Committee 2009 Finial Report

Appendix E – Verified Conformity Assessment Program (VCAP) FAQs

NTEP - E1

Appendix E

Verified Conformity Assessment Program (VCAP)

Frequently Asked Questions (Emphasis on Load Cells)

National Conference on Weights and Measures/National Type Evaluation Program

What is it?

The Verified Conformity Assessment Program, or VCAP, is a program proposed by the National Conference on 

Weights and Measures to ensure compliance of certain device types with environmental requirements. These device 

types are those devices whose performance can be affected by changes in their physical environment. The intent of 

the VCAP is to provide a level of assurance that these devices perform at a level equal to or better than the device 

that was evaluated by NTEP.

What devices fall under the VCAP?

Any device listed on a NTEP CC whose performance can be affected by changes in its operating environment. 

Generally, these include load cells, digital weight indicators, weighing and load-receiving elements using load cells 

that do not have an NTEP certificate, complete scales, automatic weighing systems, belt-conveyor scales, and 

automatic bulk weighing systems. The program will begin with load cells only.

Why is NTEP initiating this program now?

The National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM) and National Type Evaluation Program (NTEP) have 

been concerned about production meeting type, protecting the integrity of the NTEP CC since the inception of 

NTEP. A WG was developed to assist the NCWM with this effort, which has provided feedback and 

recommendations to the conference. The NCWM Board of Directors thinks it has reached a point that the Verified 

Conformity Assessment Program can be launched. Load cells traceable to NTEP certificates have been selected for 

the initial effort.

Who must comply with the VCAP?

Any holder of an NTEP CC for a device type listed above must comply with the program. Again the program will 

begin with load cells.

Why two programs, SMA/PMT and NCWM/VCAP? What’s different?

The PMT and VCAP are administered by two different organizations. Although similar, PMT is a manufacturer 

program developed by manufacturers, where VCAP is a regulatory requirement developed by the NCWM.

Is it enough for a manufacturer to submit a PMT compliance certificate?

No. The Certification Body report must state compliance with VCAP. The PMT and VCAP are similar but not 

identical.

Must I have my quality system ISO-certified to comply with VCAP?

No. While the ISO 9000 series quality standards and VCAP share a number of common features, ISO certification 

is not required.

Our company has an ISO-certified quality system. Isn’t that enough for compliance with VCAP?

No. Although there are some similarities, VCAP differs in its requirements so ISO certification alone is not an 

acceptable substitute.

Who is going to pay for this?

The CC holder is responsible for providing proof of VCAP certification, by a Certification Body, to NTEP. NTEP 

will not pay any costs associated with accreditation, audits, testing or certification.
NTEP Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix E – Verified Conformity Assessment Program (VCAP) FAQs

NTEP - E2

We do not produce any cells but we have private label agreements and certificates. Other than notifying the load 

cell manufacturers (vendors), do we need to do anything else? It appears the responsibility falls on the 

manufacturers.

In the eyes of NTEP, the CC holder is responsible for the product, including taking responsibility for assuring that 

production devices meet type. NTEP expects the CC holder to take responsibility for the integrity of the certificate 

and product (device, instrument, main element, component, etc.). NTEP is expecting private label certificate holders 

to verify with the manufacturer under contract that VCAP requirements are being met. It is expected CC holders 

will have QA procedures in place, including controls over the supplier, purchase and compliance of the product 

covered under the private label agreement.

How do I know whether my supplier complies with the VCAP or not?

You are responsible for making certain that your supplier complies with the VCAP program. If your supplier fails 

to conform, their NTEP CC will ultimately become inactive as well as your private label certificate (if you have 

one). One way to make sure your supplier complies is to ask that you receive a copy of the VCAP auditor’s report.

Does this mean that the NCWM/NTEP will notify CC holders, schedule a date for review, perform the initial 

review of the CC holder’s process, and perform the audit at the manufacturing site?

No. The CC holder is responsible for assuring a documented quality management system, meeting VCAP 

requirements, is in place and providing NTEP with a Certification Body audit report containing a clear statement of 

compliance with VCAP.

In general, what must I do to comply with VCAP?

If you are the manufacturer of the device, there are a number of requirements. You may already comply with most 

or all of them. They include:

a. A Quality Management System that governs the design and manufacture of the device. This Quality 

Management System must be documented in your Quality Manual.

b. Production and testing equipment and facilities necessary for the production and subsequent testing of the 

device.

c. You must identify those metrologically significant components (MSC) used in the device. These are the 

components, materials, processes, and software that have an effect on the performance of the device. It is 

up to you as a manufacturer to identify these items. To determine whether an item is metrologically 

significant or not you must ask whether a change in the characteristics of that item will affect the 

performance of the device. If the answer is yes, then the item is metrologically significant.

d. You must possess and use appropriate statistical tools or methods to ensure that the processes used to 

manufacture the device are in control. This is often referred to as statistical process control and is a means 

to determine whether your processes are consistent and repeatable.

e. An appropriate sampling plan along with the required acceptance criteria for testing of the device. The 

sampling plan that you choose must be traceable to a nationally recognized quality standard. Optionally, 

you may use the sampling plan that is presented in Appendix A of the VCAP program description.

f. Possess the required operators’ manual and calibration procedures for all appropriate production and testing 

equipment. Of course, you must not only possess these manuals, you must also ensure that your operators 

are familiar with them and follow the procedures contained within them.

g. A system to deal with nonconforming material and components, whether you purchase them or build them 

yourself. This system must deal with the identification, control, and disposition of these items.

h. Adequate controls over suppliers to ensure the material or components they supply meet the necessary 

requirements.

i. A corrective action system designed and implemented to handle noncompliant or nonconforming material 

and components.

j. An engineering change system to control engineering design changes that affect metrologically significant 

components.

k. A document and data control system to document, record, and distribute to affected parties changes 

affecting metrologically significant components.

l. A production control system that manages changes that affect metrologically significant components.
NTEP Committee 2009 Finial Report

Appendix E – Verified Conformity Assessment Program (VCAP) FAQs

NTEP - E3

m. A system that identifies and traces metrologically significant components.

n. A training system for personnel with documentation to verify that the appropriate training has taken place.

How can I show compliance with VCAP?

Compliance with the VCAP can be verified by submitting to a VCAP audit of your manufacturing/testing facility by 

a VCAP auditor. The auditor will verify that the previously mentioned quality and control elements exist, are 

documented, and that the appropriate procedures are being followed. The auditor also verifies that the proper 

equipment needed to test and calibrate the devices you manufacture are present, are sufficient for the task, and that 

they are being properly calibrated and operated. The audit may also include testing of a randomly selected device. 

For that reason, it is best to schedule the audit at a time when devices are available for testing.

Where do I find an auditor? Can any quality auditor perform the VCAP audit?

To perform a VCAP audit, the auditor must meet certain requirements. First, the auditor must be part of a 

Certification Body that is accredited by ANSI-ASQ National Accreditation Board (ANAB). The Certification Body 

must have accreditation to Standard Industry Classification (SIC) codes 3596 and 3821 or Sequence Number 847 

NAICS, U.S. Code 333997, Scale and Balance Manufacturing defined in the 2007 North American Industry 

Classification System or equivalent accreditation. There are several Certification Bodies that have auditors qualified 

to perform VCAP audits. We cannot make any specific recommendations.

What role does this Certification Body play in VCAP conformity?

The Certification Body is the organization that provides the auditor that actually performs the VCAP audit. It is the 

Certification Body that actually sends the auditor’s report to the NCWM to show compliance with the VCAP. The 

requirements for this report are listed in Section S.1.c. of the Administrative Policy as shown in NCWM 

Publication 14.

I have multiple manufacturing sites. Must each one of the sites undergo a VCAP audit?

The VCAP audit is site specific. If there is more than one site where the testing of the device takes place, then each 

site must be audited. If the site does not perform any activities that affect the performance of the device and does 

not perform any device testing, it does not need to be subjected to a VCAP audit.

Who or what organization is going to test NTEP devices in or from a manufacturing arena in a competent 

manner that confirms NTEP conformity and compatibility? This question centers specifically on the 

manufacturing or laboratory test equipment itself.

The basic concept of NTEP is that by accepting an NTEP Certificate of Conformance (CC), each NTEP CC holder 

agrees to continue to manufacture and sell devices that meet the current requirements of NIST Handbook 44 and the 

requirements described in the NTEP CC. Devices must show, by their markings, that they have an NTEP CC, and 

what tolerance values, class etc. the device meets. The NTEP CC holder has submitted a device which is typical of 

the production devices that will be manufactured and sold subsequent to the issuance of the NTEP CC. The intent of 

VCAP is to ensure that the NTEP CC holder has an acceptable Quality Management System in place for the 

requirements that must meet Influence Factors. In the case of load cells this is mainly temperature effects on 

linearity, hysteresis, span, repeatability, zero (vmin or MDLO), and creep. This can also include effects of 

barometric pressure and in the case of digital load cells, effects of variation in power supply parameters.

The simple answer is that the audit, by the Certification Body, which is based on the parameters described in the 

VCAP procedures, will be the basis of evidence that the NTEP CC holder is capable of meeting those requirements. 

The VCAP procedure is loosely based on ISO 9001:2000. The procedure describes an audit of the quality 

management system, with an addition of objective evidence, in the form of audits on devices that indicate the 

capability of the NTEP CC to meet the influence factor requirements. The audits of devices are conducted by the 

NTEP CC holder. If the auditor is convinced that the VCAP requirements are being met, then a certificate 

indicating compliance would be issued and submitted to NTEP for review.
NTEP Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix E – Verified Conformity Assessment Program (VCAP) FAQs

NTEP - E4

What test equipment accuracy do you need to test devices for NTEP compliance? For many companies, this will 

mean aggressive capital appropriations in order to replace old electronic indicators with resolutions of less than 

20,000 divisions, temperature chambers with internal thermal differentiations, and dead weights or hydraulic 

loading machines with unknown or inadequate accuracies. Not to mention the real-world headaches in 

achieving manufacturing repeatability less than 0.01 %, which subsequently slows down the product lines?

NCWM Publication 14, Weighing Devices, Load Cells describes the testing accuracy required in Section C. In part 

it states:

“The error in the test process for force transducer (load cell) evaluations may not exceed one-third of the 

tolerance applied at the force transducer (load cell) (0.7 times the tolerance for the weighing system). The 

important characteristics for the test process for force transducers (load cells) (and indicators) for 

compliance with the influence factors requirements is linearity and repeatability, not absolute accuracy. 

This means that the accuracy of the applied load is not critical, but the change in performance of output of 

the force transducer (load cell) (or indicator) under the same load but different environmental conditions is 

important. Consequently, the uncertainty in the reference standard may not be significant provided the 

uncertainty of the linearity of the total system is within one-third of the tolerance to be applied to the force 

transducer (load cell).”

So it is clear what the general requirements are for test equipment.

There are many different methods to achieve quality in a load cell. This could extend from testing each device to 

auditing one sample from a lot. This could also extend from following the test procedures described in 

Publication 14 for every load cell, to reducing the time and load to a minimum value to properly characterize the 

device under test. NTEP is not attempting to dictate the quality management system nor the testing or auditing 

methods used to ensure that devices meet the requirements. This will be up to each of the NTEP CC holders to 

determine. It will then be up to the auditors to determine that the VCAP requirements are being met. In some cases 

this may require some investment in equipment upgrades, calibrations, etc.; however; it is the belief of NTEP that 

this equipment and quality management system should already be in place, and should not present a significant 

burden on the NTEP CC holders.

Since there is no such thing as 100 % NTEP manufacturing first pass yields for anyone in the scale industry, 

then what do you do with the product that has larger metrological division errors?

If the product does not meet applicable Handbook 44 requirements, including tolerances, it cannot be sold for use in 

a commercial (legal for trade) application.

The VCAP program description makes it clear that the program is focused on the device’s response to 

environmental influences; primarily temperature but also including humidity, variations in the magnitude of the 

electrical supply voltage, RFI/EMI, and so on. Section 1.2. requires that the manufacturer have a documented 

procedure for the identification of metrologically significant components (MSCs). It is clear that there are some 

components that would be considered to be metrologically significant yet they are unaffected by the 

environmental influence factors. For example, software is unaffected by the physical environment yet it is 

metrologically significant. Further, some integrated circuits are metrologically significant but are not affected by 

changes in the environment over the operating range of the device. With this in mind, are the MSCs that are to 

be identified and controlled under the VCAP program ONLY those MSCs that are also affected by the physical 

environment or does it cover “every” MSC regardless of whether its operation is influenced by the environment 

or not?

VCAP does not cover every component of a device, only those that are metrologically significant and are 

susceptible to T.N.8. Influence Factors. A manufacturer can choose to consider the complete device or main 

element to be metrologically significant.

Some manufacturers may identify an assembly like a printed circuit board as being a metrologically significant 

component rather than the few components in the printed circuit board assembly that control the metrological 

function and are sensitive to changes in the environment. Is this practice acceptable? (It would certainly make 

the management and control of MSCs easier to accomplish.) Section 1.2.2. states that a metrologically 

significant component “is a part, assembly, material, design, or procedure that has a direct influence on the 

performance or operation of a device or component thereof as identified by the manufacturer.” It would seem 
NTEP Committee 2009 Finial Report

Appendix E – Verified Conformity Assessment Program (VCAP) FAQs

NTEP - E5

that the previously mentioned practice of identifying an assembly as a metrologically significant component 

rather than the individual components and/or materials comprising it that are metrologically significant 

components under the VCAP definition is in opposition to the intent of the program authors. Is that correct? 

Can we identify assemblies only as metrologically significant components rather than the components and 

materials that are used to construct them? Examples given in Section 1.2.4. seem to disallow that practice.

It is up to the manufacturer to declare a component an MSC. That could be an individual component or the 

assembly in which the component is used.

The VCAP plan states that 90 days will be given to address and correct any major nonconformity identified 

during the audit but how many major and/or minor nonconformities are allowed before it is concluded that you 

are not compliant?

Any nonconformities, be it major or minor, must have corrective action taken within 90 days. The difference 

between the two is that a minor can be verified by the auditor via paperwork and does not require a revisit by the 

auditor where a major does require a revisit. Each nonconformance is unique but this is a general understanding. At 

the time of the audit, the auditor may advise you of whether a follow-up audit is required or if only a review of 

objective evidence is required to show that the non-conformities have been addressed.

When checking the effect of temperature on load cell output (span TC) what, exactly, is the minimum load that 

must be applied to the load cell during testing to show compliance?

Compliance testing must represent the test requirements as shown in Publication 14.

We hold a number of NTEP Certificates of Conformance. Do we have to submit to a VCAP audit for each 

certificate?

No. For example, if your company manufactures five different families of load cells each with its own NTEP CC 

you must only submit to one VCAP audit. Successful completion of the VCAP audit will apply to all five NTEP 

Certificates of Conformance. During the audit, the auditor will know what NTEP Certificates of Conformance you 

are being audited to and will take the necessary steps to ensure that all are covered. If, for example, you make load 

cells of different capacities, the auditor will ensure that you have testing equipment sufficient to apply the 

appropriate test loads to each model of load cell that you manufacture.

What happens if the auditor identifies a non-conformity that is specific to one device type? Are all of our NTEP 

Certificates in jeopardy?

No. For example, if the auditor finds that you have sufficient production equipment to produce your full line of load 

cells but have testing equipment that can only test up to 5000 pounds, then only those load cells that require 

performance testing to loads greater than 5000 pounds will not comply. Failure to obtain the required testing 

equipment could ultimately result in the loss of the NTEP Certificate that covers the cells with capacities greater 

than 5000 pounds.

What happens if a CC holder fails to comply?

NCWM Publication 14, NTEP Administrative Policy, Section S.2. states the certificate(s) will be declared inactive. 

NTEP anticipates a certificate could also be withdrawn.
NTEP Committee 2009 Final Report

Appendix E – Verified Conformity Assessment Program (VCAP) FAQs

NTEP - E6

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Nominating Committee 2009 Final Report

NOM - 1

Report of the

Nominating Committee

Judy Cardin, Chairman

Chief, Weights and Measures

Wisconsin Department of Agriculture & Consumer Protection

The Nominating Committee met during the Interim Meeting at the Hilton Daytona Beach Hotel, Daytona Beach, 

Florida, at which time the Committee nominated the persons listed below to be officers of the 95th National 

Conference on Weights and Measures. In the selection of nominees from the active membership, consideration was 

given to professional experience, qualifications of individuals, Conference attendance and participation, and other 

factors considered to be important.

The following slate of officers was selected by unanimous vote of the Nominating Committee:

CHAIRMAN-ELECT: Tim Tyson, State of Kansas

BOARD OF DIRECTORS

NORTHEASTERN REGION: Michael Sikula, State of New York

TREASURER: Will Wotthlie, State of Maryland

Judy Cardin, Wisconsin, Chairman

Ross Andersen, New York

Dennis Ehrhart, Arizona

Tom Geiler, Barnstable, Massachusetts

Max Gray, Florida

Steve Malone, Nebraska,

Joe Gomez, New Mexico

Nominating Committee
Nominating Committee 2009 Final Report

NOM - 2

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
National Conference on Weights and Measures / National Type Evaluation Program

2009 Annual Meeting Attendee List

July 12-16, 2009 / San Antonio, Texas

ATTEND - 1

Attendee List

Mohamad Afshar

Dresser Wayne

3814 Jarrett Way

Austin, TX 78728

Phone: (512) 789-4309

E-mail: 

mohamad.afshar@dresser.com

Holly A. Alfano

NATSO, Inc.

1737 King Street, Suite 200

Alexandria, VA 22314

Phone: (703) 739-8501

E-mail: halfano@natso.com

Robert Atkins

County of San Diego, 

Department of Agriculture Weights 

& Measures

5555 Overland Avenue, Suite 3101

San Diego, CA 92123-1256

Phone: (858) 694-2741

E-mail: 

bob.atkins@sdcounty.ca.gov

L. Cary Ainsworth

USDA GIPSA

75 Spring Street, Suite 230

Atlanta, GA 30303-3309

Phone: (404) 562-5840

E-mail: l.cary.ainsworth@usda.gov

Dudley Allen

Texas Department of Agriculture

5425 Polk Street, Suite G20

Houston, TX 77054

Phone: (713) 921-8200

E-mail: 

dudley.allen8@texasagriculture.gov

Sam Bell

Echols Oil Company

PO Box 1477

Greenville, SC 29602-1477

Phone: (864) 233-6205

E-mail: info@scpma.com

Nick Albanese

E.J. Brooks Company

8 Microlab Road

Livingston, NJ 7039

Phone: (973) 597-2931

E-mail: 

nick.albanese@ejbrooks.com

S. Chris Anders

Zeltex, Inc.

130 Western Maryland Parkway

Hagerstown, MD 21740

Phone: (301) 791-7080

E-mail: canders@zeltex.com

Joe Benavides

Texas Department of Agriculture

1700 North Congress Avenue

Stephen F. Austin Building, 

11th Floor

Austin, TX 78701

Phone: (512) 463-5706

E-mail: 

joe.benavides@texasagriculture.gov

John Albert

Missouri Department of Agriculture

1616 Missouri Boulevard

PO Box 630

Jefferson City, MO 65102

Phone: (573) 751-4316

E-mail: John.Albert@mda.mo.gov

Ross J. Andersen

New York Bureau of Weights & 

Measures

10B Airline Drive

Albany, NY 12235

Phone: (518) 457-3146

E-mail: 

ross.andersen@agmkt.state.ny.us

Stephen Benjamin

North Carolina Department of 

Agriculture

1050 Mail Service Center

Raleigh, NC 27699-1050

Phone: (919) 733-3313

E-mail: steve.benjamin@ncagr.gov

Mahesh P. Albuquerque

CDLE-Oil & Public Safety

633 17th Street, Suite 500

Denver, CO 80202

Phone: (303) 318-8502

E-mail: 

mahesh.albuquerque@state.co.us

Ruben J. Arroyo

Kern County Weights and Measures

1001 S. Mt. Vernon Avenue

Bakersfield, CA 93307

Phone: (661) 868-6300

E-mail: arroyor@co.kern.ca.us

Celeste Bennett

Michigan Department of 

Agriculture

940 Venture Lane

Williamston, MI 48895-2451

Phone: (517) 655-8202

E-mail: bennettc9@michigan.gov
National Conference on Weights and Measures / National Type Evaluation Program

2009 Annual Meeting Attendee List

July 12-16, 2009 / San Antonio, Texas

ATTEND - 2

Attendee List

Mike E. Boitano

Amador County

12200 B Airport Road

Jackson, CA 95642

Phone: (209) 223-6481

E-mail: mboitano@co.amador.ca.us

Norman R. Brucker

Precision Measurement Standards, 

Inc.

1665 Bonaire Path West

Rosemount, MN 55068

Phone: (651) 423-3241

E-mail: sharnoma@frontiernet.net

David Calix

NCR Corporation

1510 North Walton Boulevard

Bentonville, AR 72712

Phone: (479) 271-5543

E-mail: david.calix@ncr.com

Nicholas A. Brechun

Colorado Department of Agriculture

3125 Wyandot Street

Denver, CO 80211

Phone: (303) 477-4220

E-mail: nick.brechun@ag.state.co.us

Tina G. Butcher

NIST, Weights & Measures Division

100 Bureau Drive, MS 2600

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2600

Phone: (301) 975-2196

E-mail: tbutcher@nist.gov

Judy Cardin

Wisconsin Weights and Measures

P.O. Box 8911

2811 Agriculture Drive

Madison, WI 53708-8911

Phone: (608) 224-4945

E-mail: judy.cardin@wi.gov

Greg Bredahl

Thermo Fisher Scientific

501 90th Avenue, NW

Coon Rapids, MN 55433

Phone: (763) 783-2690

E-mail: 

greg.bredahl@thermofisher.com

Kenneth Butcher

NIST, Weights & Measures Division

100 Bureau Drive, MS 2600

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2600

Phone: (301) 975-4859

E-mail: kbutcher@nist.gov

Loretta Carey

Food & Drug Administration

5100 Paint Branch Parkway

College Park, MD 20740

Phone: (301) 436-2371

E-mail: loretta.carey@fda.hhs.gov

Jonelle Brent

Illinois Department of Agriculture

801 Sangamon Avenue

PO Box 19281

Springfield, IL 62794-9281

Phone: (217) 785-8301

E-mail: jonelle.brent@illinois.gov

Marc Buttler

Emerson Process Management -

Micro Motion, Inc.

7070 Winchester Circle

Boulder, CO 80301

Phone: (303) 530-8562

E-mail: marc.buttler@emerson.com

Stacy K. Carlsen

Marin County Department of 

Agriculture, Weights & 

Measures

1682 Novato Boulevard,

Suite 150-A

Novato, CA 94947-7021

Phone: (415) 499-6700

E-mail: scarlsen@co.marin.ca.us

Rex Brown

Petroleum Equipment Institute

6514 E 69th Street

Tulsa, OK 74133

Phone: (918) 494-9696

E-mail: jrbrown@pei.org

Joe Buxton

Daniel Measurement and Control

5599 Five Chop Road

Statesboro, GA 30461

Phone: (912) 489-2383

E-mail: joe.buxton@emerson.com

Dawn Carlson

Petroleum Marketers & 

Convenience Stores of Iowa

10430 New Yourk Avenue, Suite F

Urbandale, IA 50322

Phone: (515) 224-7545 Ext 15

E-mail: dawn@pmcofiowa.com
National Conference on Weights and Measures / National Type Evaluation Program

2009 Annual Meeting Attendee List

July 12-16, 2009 / San Antonio, Texas

ATTEND - 3

Attendee List

Randy Carmichael

Carmichael Oil Co. of Walterboro, 

Inc

2138 Jefferies Boulevard

PO Box 950

Wallerboro, SC 29488-0950

Phone: (843) 538-5593

E-mail: info@scpma.com

Michael Cleary

California Department of Food and 

Agriculture

1220 N Street, Room 163

Sacramento, CA 95821

Phone: (916) 651-6517

E-mail: mcleary@cdfa.ca.gov

William R. Cooper

Itron

1310 Emerald Road

Greenwood, SC 29646

Phone: (864) 942-2226

E-mail: rodney.cooper@itron.com

Charles H. Carroll

Massachusetts Division of Standards

One Ashburton Place

Boston, MA 02108

Phone: (617) 727-3480, Ext. 21131

E-mail: Charles.Carroll@state.ma.us

Belinda Collins

National Institute of Standards and 

Technology

100 Bureau Drive, MS 2000

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

Phone: (301) 975-4500

E-mail: belinda.collins@nist.gov

Richard P. Cote

New Hampshire Division of 

Weights and Measures

25 Capitol Street

PO Box 2042

Concord, NH 03302-2042

Phone: (603) 271-3700

E-mail: rcote@agr.state.nh.us

James P. Cassidy

City of Cambridge

Weights and Measures Department

831 Massachusetts Avenue

Cambridge, MA 02139

Phone: (617) 349-6133

E-mail: jcassidy@cambridgema.gov

Tim Columbus

Steptoe & Johnson LLP

1330 Connecticut Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20036

Phone: (204) 429-6222

E-mail: tcolumbus@steptoe.com

Mark P. Coyne

City of Brockton

45 School Street

City Hall

Brockton, MA 02301-9927

Phone: (508) 580-7120

E-mail: 

mcoyne@ci.brockton.ma.us

Gary Castro

California Division of Measurement 

Standards

6790 Florin Perkins Road, Suite 100

Sacramento, CA 95828

Phone: (916) 229-3058

E-mail: gcastro@cdfa.ca.gov

Kim E. Connors

Town of Barnstable

200 Main Street

Hyannis, MA 02536

Phone: (508) 862-4778

E-mail: 

kim.connors@town.barnstable.ma.us

George H. De Jarlais

Badger Meter, Inc.

P.O. Box 245036

Milwaukee, WI 53224

Phone: (414) 371-5754

E-mail: 

gdejarlais@badgermeter.com

Tim Chesser

Arkansas Bureau of Standards

4608 West 61st Street

Little Rock, AR 72209

Phone: (501) 570-1159

E-mail: tim.chesser@aspb.ar.gov

Steven E. Cook

NIST, Weights & Measures Division

100 Bureau Drive, MS 2600

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2600

Phone: (301) 975-4003

E-mail: stevenc@nist.gov

Douglas J. Deiman

Alaska Division of Measurement 

Standards

12050 Industry Way

Building O

Anchorage, AK 99515

Phone: (907) 365-1222

E-mail: doug.deiman@alaska.gov
National Conference on Weights and Measures / National Type Evaluation Program

2009 Annual Meeting Attendee List

July 12-16, 2009 / San Antonio, Texas

ATTEND - 4

Attendee List

James Delperdang

Ventura County Weights & Measures

800 S. Victoria Avenue

Ventrua, CA 93009

Phone: (805) 654-2446

E-mail: jim.delperdang@ventura.org

Charles Ehrlich

NIST, Weights & Measures Division

100 Bureau Drive, MS 2600

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2600

Phone: (301) 975-4834

E-mail: charles.ehrlich@nist.gov

Scott Fisher

Texas Petroleum Marketers & 

Convenience Store Association

401 W 15th Street

Austin, TX 78701

Phone: (512) 476-9547

E-mail: sfisher@tpca.org

Vicky L. Dempsey

Montgomery County Weights & 

Measures

451 West Third Street

P.O. Box 972

Dayton, OH 45422-1027

Phone: (937) 225-6309

E-mail: dempseyv@mcohio.org

John Eichberger

National Association of Convenience 

Stores

1600 Duke Street

Alexanderia, VA 22314

Phone: (703) 518-4247

E-mail: jeichberger@nacsonline.com

Darrell E. Flocken

Mettler-Toledo, Inc.

1150 Dearborn Drive

Worthington, OH 43085

Phone: (614) 438-4393

E-mail: darrell.flocken@mt.com

Tom Duggan

USDA Packers and Stockyards 

Program

3950 Lewiston Street, Suite 200

Aurora, CO 80011

Phone: (303) 375-4263

E-mail: thomas.e.duggan@usda.gov

Fran Elson-Houston

Ohio Department of Agriculture

Division of Weights & Measures

8995 East Main Street

Reynoldsburg, OH 43068

Phone: (614) 728-6290

E-mail: houston@agri.ohio.gov

Kurt E. Floren

Los Angeles County Agricultural 

Commission

Weights & Measures

12300 Lower Azusa Road

Arcadia, CA 91006

Phone: (626) 575-5451

E-mail: 

kfloren@acwm.lacounty.gov

Tristan L. Duncan

Shook Hardy & Bacon, LLP

2555 Grand Boulevard

Kansas City, MO 64108

Phone: (816) 474-6550

E-mail: tlduncan@shb.com

Michael W. Fields

South Carolina Petroleum Marketers 

Association

1809 Gadsden Street

Columbia, SC 29201

Phone: (803) 765-9570

E-mail: michael@scpma.com

Maurice J. Forkert

Tuthill Transfer Systems

8825 Aviation Drive

Fort Wayne, IN 46809

Phone: (260) 747-7529 x1332

E-mail: mforkert@tuthill.com

Dennis Ehrhart

Arizona Department of Weights & 

Measures

4425 West Olive Avenue, Suite 134

Glendale, AZ 85302

Phone: (602) 771-4932

E-mail: dehrhart@azdwm.gov

Rob Fisher

Nevada Division of Measurement 

Standards

2150 Frazer Avenue

Sparks, NV 89421

Phone: (775) 688-1166

E-mail: rfisher@agri.state.nv.us

Carol P. Fulmer

South Carolina Department of 

Agriculture

PO Box 11280

Columbia, SC 29211

Phone: (803) 737-9690

E-mail: cfulmer@scda.sc.gov
National Conference on Weights and Measures / National Type Evaluation Program

2009 Annual Meeting Attendee List

July 12-16, 2009 / San Antonio, Texas

ATTEND - 5

Attendee List

John Gaccione

Westchester County New York 

Weights & Measures

112 East Post Road, 4th Floor

White Plains, NY 10601

Phone: (914) 995-2164

E-mail: jpg4@westchestergov.com

Paul Glowacki

Murray Equipment, Inc.

2515 Charleston Place

Fort Wayne, IN 46805

Phone: (260) 480-1352

E-mail: 

pglowacki@murrayequipment.com

Michael Guidry

Tuthill Transfer Systems

48513 Hwy 51

PO Box 400

Tickfaw, LA 70466

Phone: (985) 340-4224

E-mail: mguidry@tuthill.com

Steve Garcia

Dresser Wayne

3814 Jarrett Way

Austin, TX 78728

Phone: (512) 988-8490

E-mail: steve.garcia@dresser.com

Joe E. Gomez

New Mexico Department of 

Agriculture

MSC 3170

P.O. Box 30005

Las Cruces, NM 88003-8005

Phone: (575) 646-1616

E-mail: jgomez@nmda.nmsu.edu

Tyrone Gulley

City of Boston

1010 Massachusetts Avenue, ISD

Boston, MA 02118-2606

Phone: (617) 961-3397

E-mail: 

robert.mcgrath@cityofboston.gov

Thomas F. Geiler

Barnstable Regulatory Services

200 Main Street

Hyannis, MA 02601

Phone: (508) 862-4670

E-mail: 

tom.geiler@town.barnstable.ma.us

Steven T. Grabski

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

5016 Winston Court

Rogers, AR 72758

Phone: (479) 277-8005

E-mail: 

steven.grabski@wal-mart.com

Brett Gurney

Utah Department of Agriculture & 

Food

P.O. Box 146500

Salt Lake City, UT 84114-6500

Phone: (801) 538-7158

E-mail: bgurney@utah.gov

Steve Giguere

Maine Department of Agriculture

28 State House Station

Augusta, ME 04333

Phone: (207) 287-3841

E-mail: steve.giguere@maine.gov

Maxwell H. Gray

Florida Department of Agriculture

and Consumer Services

3125 Conner Boulevard

Lab 2, Mailstop L2

Tallahassee, FL 32399-1650

Phone: (850) 488-9140

E-mail: graym@doacs.state.fl.us

James S. Hadder

Florida Department of Agriculture 

and Consumer Services

3125 Conner Boulevard

Building 1 Mailstop L1

Tallahassee, FL 32399-1650

Phone: (850) 487-2634

E-mail: hadders@doacs.state.fl.us

Jason Glass

Kentucky Department of Agriculture

111 Corporate Drive

Frankfort, KY 40601

Phone: (502) 573-0282

E-mail: jason.glass@kyagr.com

Christopher B. Guay

Procter and Gamble, Co.

One Procter & Gamble Plaza

Cincinnati, OH 45202

Phone: (513) 983-0530

E-mail: guay.cb@pg.com

Jonathan Handy

Colorado Department of 

Agriculture

3125 Wyandot Street

Denver, CO 80211

Phone: (303) 477-4220

E-mail: 

jonathan.handy@ag.state.co.us
National Conference on Weights and Measures / National Type Evaluation Program

2009 Annual Meeting Attendee List

July 12-16, 2009 / San Antonio, Texas

ATTEND - 6

Attendee List

Ivan Hankins

State of Iowa

2230 S. Ankeny Boulevard

Ankeny, IA 50023

Phone: (515) 725-1493

E-mail: 

ivan.hankins@iowaagriculture.gov

James B. Hewston

Scale Source

1621 South 35th Street

Council Bluffs, IA 51501

Phone: (402) 455-2143

E-mail: jhewston@scalesource.com

Carol T. Hockert

NIST, Weights & Measures 

Division

100 Bureau Drive, MS 2600

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2600

Phone: (301) 975-4004

E-mail: carol.hockert@nist.gov

Krister K. Hard af Segerstad

IKEA North America Services, LLC

420 Alan Wood Road

Conshohocken, PA 19428

Phone: (610) 834-0180

E-mail: krister@memo.IKEA.com

Tyler Hicks

Oklahoma Dept. of Agriculture, Food 

& Forestry, Consumer Protection 

Services

2800 N. Lincoln Boulevard

Oklahoma City, OK 73152

Phone: (405) 522-5968

E-mail: tyler.hicks@oda.state.ok.us

Paul A. Hoffman

Kraft Foods Global, Inc.

801 Waukegan Road

Glenview, IL 60030

Phone: (847) 646-2759

E-mail: phoffman@kraft.com

Steven Harrington

Minnesota Dvision of Weights and 

Measures

14305 Southcross Drive #150

Burnsville, MN 55304

Phone: (651) 215-5821

E-mail: 

steven.harrington@state.mn.us

Lindsay Hier

National Conference on Weights & 

Measures, Inc.

1135 M Street, Suite 110

Lincoln, NE 68508

Phone: (402) 434-4880

E-mail: lindsay.hier@ncwm.net

Fran Elson-Houston

Ohio Department of Agriculture

Division of Weights & Measures

8995 East Main Street

Reynoldsburg, OH 43068

Phone: (614) 728-6290

E-mail: houston@agri.ohio.gov

Ronald G. Hayes

Missouri Department of Agriculture

1616 Missouri Boulevard

PO Box 630

Jefferson City, MO 65102

Phone: (573) 751-4316

E-mail: Ron.Hayes@mda.mo.gov

Ann Hines

Arkansas Oil Marketers Association, 

Inc.

P.O. Box 229

Little Rock, AR 72203

Phone: (501) 374-6293

E-mail: ann@aoma.org

Jeff N. Humphreys

Los Angeles County Department of 

Agriculture Commission Weights 

& Measures

11012 Garfield Avenue

South Gate, CA 90280

Phone: (562) 622-0404

E-mail: 

jhumphreys@acwm.lacounty.gov

Marilyn Herman

Herman and Associates

3730 Military Road, NW

Washington, DC 20015

Phone: (202) 362-9520

E-mail: mherman697@aol.com

Paul B. Hoar

AgriFuels, LLC/NBB

73 Dayton Road

South Glastonbury, CT 06073

Phone: (860) 633-9811

E-mail: paulhoar@agrifuels.com

Doug Hutchinson

Measurement Canada

232 Yorktech Drive

Markham, Ontario L6G 1A6

Phone: (905) 943-8732

E-mail: doug.hutchinson@ic.gc.ca
National Conference on Weights and Measures / National Type Evaluation Program

2009 Annual Meeting Attendee List

July 12-16, 2009 / San Antonio, Texas

ATTEND - 7

Attendee List

Gene Inglesby

Western Petroleum Marketers 

Association

4393 South Riverboat Road

P.O. Box 571500

Salt Lake City, UT 84157

Phone: (801) 263-9762

E-mail: genei@wpma.com

Raymond E. Johnson

New Mexico Department of 

Agriculture

MSC 3170, P.O. Box 30005

Las Cruces, NM 88003-8005

Phone: (575) 646-1616

E-mail: rjohnson@nmda.nmsu.edu

Yefim Katselnik

Dresser Wayne

3814 Jarrett Way

Austin, TX 78728

Phone: (512) 388-8763

E-mail: 

phil.katselnik@dresser.com

Norman Ingram

California Division of Measurement 

Standards

6790 Florin Perkins Road, Suite 100

Sacramento, CA 95828

Phone: (916) 229-3016

E-mail: ningram@cdfa.ca.gov

Alan Johnston

Measurement Canada

151 Tunney’s Pasture Driveway

Ottawa, Ontario K1B 4V3

Phone: (613) 952-0655

E-mail: alan.johnston@ic.gc.ca

Tim Keigher

Nebraska Petroleum Marketers 

Association

1320 Lincoln Mall

Lincoln, NE 68508

Randy F. Jennings

Tennessee Department of Agriculture

P.O. Box 40627

Melrose Station

Nashville, TN 37204

Phone: (615) 837-5150

E-mail: Randy.Jennings@tn.gov

Zina Juroch

Pier 1 Imports

100 Pier 1 Place

Fort Worth, TX 76102

Phone: (817) 252-8348

E-mail: zmjuroch@pier1.com

Michael J. Keilty

Endress + Hauser Flowtec AG USA

211 Pinewood Drive

Lyons, CO 80540

Phone: (303) 823-5796

E-mail: 

michael.keilty@us.endress.com

Rafael Jimenez

Association of American Railroads

Transportation Technology Center, 

Inc.

P.O. Box 11130

55500 D.O.T. Road

Pueblo, CO 81001

Phone: (719) 584-0691

E-mail: rafael_jimenez@ttci.aar.com

Jack Kane

Montana Department of Labor & 

Industry, Business Standards 

Division

301 South Park

P.O. Box 200517

Helena, MT 59620-0517

Phone: (406) 841-2243

E-mail: jkane@mt.gov

Henry A. Kellogg

NCR Corporation

1510 N. Walton Boulevard

Bentonville, AR 72712

Phone: (479) 271-5515

E-mail: henry.kellogg@ncr.com

Gordon W. Johnson

Gilbarco, Inc.

7300 West Friendly Avenue

Greensboro, NC 27420

Phone: (336) 547-5375

E-mail: 

Gordon.Johnson@gilbarco.com

Dmitri Karimov

Liquid Controls

105 Albrecht Drive

Lake Bluff, IL 60044

Phone: (847) 283-8317

E-mail: dkarimov@idexcorp.com

Michael L Kerr

Southern Company Services

111 Gator Drive

Somerset, KY 42501

Phone: (606) 303-2419

E-mail: mlkerr@southernco.com
National Conference on Weights and Measures / National Type Evaluation Program

2009 Annual Meeting Attendee List

July 12-16, 2009 / San Antonio, Texas

ATTEND - 8

Attendee List

Ted Kingsbury

Measurement Canada

151 Tunney’s Pasture Driveway

Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0C9

Phone: (613) 941-8919

E-mail: ted.kingsbury@ic.gc.ca

Stephen R. Langford

Cardinal Scale Manufacturing, Co.

203 East Daugherty Street

PO Box 151

Webb City, MO 64870

Phone: (417) 673-4631

E-mail: slangford@cardet.com

Paul A. Lewis

Rice Lake Weighing Systems, Inc.

230 West Coleman Street

Rice Lake, WI 54868-2404

Phone: (715) 434-5322

E-mail: plewis@ricelake.com

Katherine G Kirk

PETCO Animal Supplies Stores Inc.

9125 Rehco Road

San Diego, CA 92121

Phone: (858) 453-7845 ex 7807

E-mail: katherig@petco.com

Russell L. Langston

Ozark Meter Service, LLC

208 County Road, 912

Alpena, AR 72611

Phone: (870) 365-9316

E-mail: ozarkmeter@eritter.net

Rich Lewis

Georgia Department of Agriculture

Agriculture Building

19 MLK Drive, Room 321

Atlanta, GA 30334

Phone: (404) 656-3605

E-mail: rlewis@agr.state.ga.us

Brian Knapp

American Petroleum Institute

1220 L Street, NW

Washington, DC 20005

Phone: (202) 682-8172

E-mail: knappb@api.org

Scott Laviano

Wal-Mart Stores

157 Meadowbrook Road

Agawam, MA 01001

Phone: (479) 721-7062

E-mail: scott.laviano@wal-mart.com

Russ Lewis

Marathon Petroleum Company, 

LLC

11631 US Route 23

Catlettsburg, KY 41129

Phone: (606) 921-2009

E-mail: rplewis@marathonoil.com

Dennis J. Kolsun

H.J. Heinz, Co.

357 6th Avenue

Pittsburgh, PA 15222

Phone: (724) 778-4503

E-mail: 

dennis.kolsun@us.hjheinz.com

Janice Lease

Barilla America, Inc.

1200 Lakeside Drive

Bannockburn, IL 60015

Phone: (224) 595-1101

E-mail: jlease@barilla-usa.com

Frank Li

West-East International

1924 Slippery Rock Road

Naperville, IL 60565

Phone: (630) 364-2542

E-mail: 

frank@west-east-international.com

Robert Lagg

Southwest Research Institute

6220 Culebra Road

San Antonio, TX 78238

Phone: (210) 522-2071

E-mail: robert.lagg@swri.org

Ronald Leone

Missouri Petroleum Marketers and 

Convenience Store Association

205 East Capital Avenue, Suite 200

Jefferson City, MO 65101

Phone: (573) 635-7117

E-mail: ron@mpca.org

Tim Lloyd

Montana Weights & Measures 

Bureau

P.O. Box 200516

Helena, MT 59620-0516

Phone: (406) 443-3289

E-mail: tlloyd@mt.gov
National Conference on Weights and Measures / National Type Evaluation Program

2009 Annual Meeting Attendee List

July 12-16, 2009 / San Antonio, Texas

ATTEND - 9

Attendee List

Rick Long

PEI

6514 E. 69th Street

Tulsa, OK 74133

Phone: (918) 494-9696

E-mail: rlong@pei.org

Jean-Francois Magana

International Organization of Legal 

Metrology

11 Rue Turgot

Paris, France F-75009

Phone: +33 (0) 48 78 12 82

E-mail: magana@oiml.org

Terence McBride

Memphis Weights & Measures

590 Washington Street

Memphis, TN 38105

Phone: (901) 528-2904

E-mail: 

terence.mcbride@memphistn.gov

Girard Lukowiak

City of East Orange

143 New Street

East Orange, NJ 07017

Phone: (201) 953-4260

E-mail: girardluke@yahoo.com

Steven A. Malone

Nebraska Department of Agriculture

Weights & Measures

301 Centennial Mall South

Box 94757

Lincoln, NE 68509-4757

Phone: (402) 471-4292

E-mail: steve.malone@nebraska.gov

James McGetrick

BP Products

Mail Code J-8, 150 W. Warrenville 

Road

Naperville, IL 60563

Phone: (630) 420-4579

E-mail: james.mcgetrick@bp.com

L. Edward Luthy

Brecubuhler Scales Inc.

1424 Scale Street, SW

Canton, OH 44706

Phone: (330) 453-2424

E-mail: eluthy@bscales.com

Brian Marquis

Industrial Scale Company Inc.

P.O. Box 15457

Houston, TX 77220

Phone: (713) 672-8336

E-mail: bmarquis@iscscale.com

Robert McGrath

Boston ISD Weights & Measures

1010 Massachusetts Avenue

Boston, MA 02132

Phone: (617) 961-3376

E-mail: 

Robert.Mcgrath@CityofBoston.gov

Kristin J. Macey

California Department of Food & 

Agriculture

6790 Florin Perkins Road, Suite 100

Sacramento, CA 95828

Phone: (916) 229-3000

E-mail: kmacey@cdfa.ca.gov

Andrea M. Martincic

Arizona Petroleum Marketers 

Association

P.O. Box 93426

Phoenix, AZ 85070

Phone: (480) 460-1561

E-mail: apma@cox.net

Jay McKeeman

California Independent Oil 

Marketers Association

3831 North Freeway Boulevard, 

Suite 130

Sacramento, CA 95834

Phone: (916) 646-5999

E-mail: jaymck@cioma.com

Kathleen R. Madaras

Fuel Merchants Association of New 

Jersey

66 Morris Avenue

Springfield, NJ 07081

Phone: (973) 467-1400

E-mail: kmadaras@fmanj.org

John Maynes

PMCI

10430 New York Avenue, Suite F

Urbandale, IA 50322

Phone: (515) 224-7545

E-mail: john@pmcofiowa.com

Wendy Meyer

Oklahoma Department of 

Agriculture

2800 N. Lincoln Boulevard

Oklahoma City, OK 73105

Phone: (405) 522-5968

E-mail: 

wendy.meyer@oda.state.ok.us
National Conference on Weights and Measures / National Type Evaluation Program

2009 Annual Meeting Attendee List

July 12-16, 2009 / San Antonio, Texas

ATTEND - 10

Attendee List

Kevin Mikoski

Irving Oil Terminals, Inc.

190 Commerce Way

Portsmouth, NH 03801

Phone: (603) 559-8755

E-mail: 

kevin.mikoski@irvingoil.com

Paul Moyer

Nebraska Department of Agriculture

Weights & Measures

301 Centennial Mall South, 

Box 94757

Lincoln, NE 68509-4757

Phone: (402) 471-4292

E-mail: paul.moyer@nebraska.gov

O.R. “Pete” O’Bryan

Foster Farms

P.O. Box 457

Livingston, CA 95334-9900

Phone: (209) 765-4978

E-mail: 

pete.obryan@fosterfarms.com

Nigel G. Mills

Hobart Corporation

701 South Ridge Avenue

Troy, OH 45374-0001

Phone: (937) 332-3205

E-mail: nigel.mills@hobartcorp.com

Robert M Murnane

Seraphin Test Measure

30 Indel Avenue, PO Box 227

Rancocas, NJ 08073-0227

Phone: (609) 267-0922

E-mail: rmurnane@pemfab.com

Don Onwiler

National Conference on Weights & 

Measures, Inc.

1135 M Street, Suite 110

Lincoln, NE 68508

Phone: (402) 434-4871

E-mail: don.onwiler@ncwm.net

Charlie Mitchell

Total Petrochemical Inc.

2811 Eva Lane

Lake Charles, LA 70607

E-mail: charlie.mitchell@total.com

Daniel D. Neal

Coti Global Sensors

106 Yeager Court

Huntsville, AL 35806

Phone: (814) 504-1099

E-mail: dan@cotiglobal.com

Henry Oppermann

Weights & Measures Consulting, 

LLC

15141 Bankfield Drive

Waterford, VA 20197

Phone: (540) 882-3862

E-mail: wmconsulting@

loudounwireless.com

Kristin Moore

Renewable Fuels Association

One Massachusetts Avenue NW, 

Suite 820

Washington, DC 20001

Phone: (309) 830-6154

E-mail: kmoore@ethanolrfa.org

Andre K. Noel

Neptune Technology Group Inc.

1600 Alabama Highway #229

Tallassee, AL 36078

Phone: (334) 283-7298

E-mail: anoel@neptunetg.com

Thomas M. Palace

PMCA of Kansas

P.O. Box 678

Topeka, KS 66601

Phone: (785) 233-9655

E-mail: tom@pmcaofks.org

Randy Moses

Dresser Wayne

1000 East Walnut Street

Heritage Campus, Suite 404

Perkasie, PA 18944

Phone: (215) 257-2759

E-mail: randy.moses@dresser.com

Neal J. Nover

WinWam Software

3000 Atrium Way

Suite 2203

Mount Laurel, NJ 08054-3910

Phone: (856) 273-6988

E-mail: NealNov@winwam.com

Johnny Parrish

Brodie International

PO Box 450

Highway 301 North

Statesboro, GA 30461

Phone: (912) 489-0203

E-mail: 

johnny.parrish@brodieintl.com
National Conference on Weights and Measures / National Type Evaluation Program

2009 Annual Meeting Attendee List

July 12-16, 2009 / San Antonio, Texas

ATTEND - 11

Attendee List

Stephen A Patoray

Consultants on Certification, LLC

1239 Carolina Drive

Tryon, NC 28782

Phone: (828) 859-6178

E-mail: steve@consultoncert.com

Dan Peterson

Yokogawa Corporation of American

2 Dart Road

Newnan, GA 30265

Phone: (770) 254-0404 x2549

E-mail: 

dan.peterson@us.yokogawa.com

Mark Quisenberry

Sutter Co Weights & Measures

142 Garden Highway

Yuba City, CA 95991

Phone: (530) 822-7500

E-mail: mquis@co.sutter.ca.us

Jill Paxton

State of Iowa

E. 9th & Grand Wallace Building

Des Moines, IA 50309

Phone: (515) 281-7683

E-mail: 

jill.paxton@iowagriculture.gov

David Pfahler

South Dakota Department of Public 

Saftey

118 West Capitol Avenue

Pierre, SD 57501-2080

Phone: (605) 773-4091

E-mail: david.pfahler@state.sd.us

Kenneth R. Ramsburg

Maryland Department of 

Agriculture

50 Harry S Truman Parkway

Annapolis, MD 21401

Phone: (410) 841-5790

E-mail: 

RamsbuKR@mda.state.md.us

Andria Perales

Texas Department of Agriculture

1700 N. Congress Avenue

P.O. Box 12847

Austin, TX 78711

Phone: (512) 463-7401

E-mail: 

andria.perales@tda.state.tx.us

Marvin Pound

Georgia Department of Agriculture

Agriculture Building

19 MLK Drive, Room 321

Atlanta, GA 30334

Phone: (404) 656-3605

E-mail: mpound@agr.state.ga.us

Robert A. Reinfried

Scale Manufacturers Association

6724 Lone Oak Boulevard

Naples, FL 34109

Phone: (239) 514-3441

E-mail: 

bob@scalemanufacturers.org

Michael F Pereira

American Samoa Government

Pago Pago, Tutuila

American Somoa 96799

Harold Prince

Maine Department of Agriculture

28 State House Station

Augusta, ME 04333

Phone: (207) 287-3841

E-mail: hal.prince@maine.gov

Derek Regal

Tesoro

19100 Ridgewood Parkway

San Antonio, TX 78259

Phone: (210) 626-7317

E-mail: derek.b.regal@tsocorp.com

Eli Perkins

Seraphin Test Measure

30 Indel Avenue

Rancocas, NJ 08073

Phone: (609) 267-0922

E-mail: eperkins@seraphinusa.com

Julie Quinn

Minnesota Department of Commerce

14305 Southcross Drive, #150

Burnsville, MN 55306

Phone: (651) 215-5823

E-mail: julie.quinn@state.mn.us

Rebecca Richardson

MARC IV Consulting

2005 Tin Cup Road

Mahomet, IL 61853

Phone: (217) 586-2860

E-mail: rrichardson@marciv.com
National Conference on Weights and Measures / National Type Evaluation Program

2009 Annual Meeting Attendee List

July 12-16, 2009 / San Antonio, Texas

ATTEND - 12

Attendee List

Ralph A. Richter

NIST, Weights & Measures Division

100 Bureau Drive, MS 2600

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2600

Phone: (301) 975-4025

E-mail: ralph.richter@nist.gov

Alexander Schuettenberg

ConocoPhillips

148 Auto Lab

Bartlesville Technology Center

Bartlesville, OK 74004

Phone: (918) 661-3563

E-mail: alex.schuettenberg@

conocophillips.com

Michael J. Sikula

New York Bureau of Weights & 

Measures

10B Airline Drive

Albany, NY 12235

Phone: (518) 457-3452

E-mail: 

mike.sikula@agmkt.state.ny.us

Bill Ripka

Thermo Fisher Scientific

501 90th Avenue, N.W.

Minneapolis, MN 55433

Phone: (800) 445-3503

E-mail: bill.ripka@thermofisher.com

Prentiss E. Searles

American Petroleum Institute

1220 L Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20005

Phone: (202) 682-8166

E-mail: searlesp@api.org

Joseph Silvestro

Gloucester Co. New Jersey

64 Forage Drive

Mickleton, NJ 08056

Phone: (856) 423-5360

E-mail: silver7777@comcast.net

Kirk Robinson

Washington Department of 

Agriculture

Weights and Measures

1111 SE Washington Street, 2nd Floor

Olympia, WA 98501

Phone: (360) 902-1854

E-mail: KRobinson@agr.wa.gov

David Sefcik

NIST, Weights & Measures Division

100 Bureau Drive, MS 2600

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2600

Phone: (301) 975-4868

E-mail: david.sefcik@nist.gov

Dianne Singleton

Texas Department of Agriculture

1700 N. Congress Avenue

Austin, TX 78711

Phone: (512) 475-0154

E-mail: 

dianne.singleton@texasagriculture.

gov

Brett R . Saum

San Luis Obispo County Weights & 

Measures

2156 Sierra Way, Suite A

San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-4556

Phone: (805) 781-5922

E-mail: BSaum@co.slo.ca.us

Agatha Shields 

Franklin County Weights & Measures

373 South High Street, 21st Floor

Columbus, OH 43215-6310

Phone: (614) 774-9964

E-mail: 

aashield@franklincountyohio.gov

Sterling Smith

Texas Department of Agriculture

5425 Polk Street, Suite G20

Houston, TX 77054

Phone: (713) 921-8200

E-mail: 

sterling.smith@texasagriculture,gov

Dale Saunders

Virginia Department of Agriculture

and Consumer Services

102 Governor Street

Richmond, VA 23219

Phone: (804) 786-1610

E-mail: 

Dale.Saunders@vdacs.virginia.gov

Kenneth Smith

Whittaker Controls

24325 W. 55th Street

Shawnee, KS 66226

Phone: (913) 422-0716

E-mail: kenny.smith@meggitt.com
National Conference on Weights and Measures / National Type Evaluation Program

2009 Annual Meeting Attendee List

July 12-16, 2009 / San Antonio, Texas

ATTEND - 13

Attendee List

Bryan Snoddgrass

West Virginia Weights & Measures, 

Division of Labor

RR 1 Box 31-A2

Harrisville, WV 26362

Phone: (304) 643-4606

E-mail: browniebks@yahoo.com

Richard Suiter

Richard Suiter Consulting

9819 N. Anchor Bend

McCordsville, IN 46055

Phone: (317) 336-9819

E-mail: rsuiter700@aol.com

Richard L. Tucker

RL Tucker Consulting, LLC

605 Bittersweet Lane

Ossian, IN 46777

Phone: (260) 622-4243

E-mail: rtucker83@comcast.net

William Spitzley

Michigan Weights and Measures 

Association

940 Venture Lane

Williamston, MI 48895

Phone: (517) 655-8202

E-mail: spitzleyw@michigan.gov

John Sullivan

Mississippi Dept. of Agriculture

12575 River Road

Natchez, MS 39120

Phone: (601) 807-0332

E-mail: johns1@mdac.state.ms.us

Pete Turner

Anniston Pump Shop, Inc.

2800 Highway 431 N

Anniston, AL 36206

Phone: (256) 820-2980

E-mail: pete@apspetro.com

Steven B. Steinborn

Hogan & Harson LLP

555 Thirteenth Street, NW

Washington, DC 20004

Phone: (202) 637-5969

E-mail: sbsteinborn@hhlaw.com

Leo J Sweeney

Canadian Grain Commission

300-333 Seymour Street

Vancouver, BC V6B 5A6

Phone: (604) 666-6343

E-mail: 

leo.sweeney@grainscanada.gc.ca

Tim Tyson

Kansas Department of 

Agriculture/W&M Division

P.O. Box 19282

Forbes Field Building 282

Topeka, KS 66619-0282

Phone: (785) 862-2415

E-mail: tim.tyson@kda.ks.gov

Louis E. Straub

Fairbanks Scales, Inc.

3056 Irwin Drive S.E.

Southport, NC 28461

Phone: (910) 253-3250

E-mail: lstraub@fairbanks.com

Shari Tretheway

National Conference on Weights & 

Measures, Inc.

1135 M Street, Suite 110

Lincoln, NE 68508

Phone: (402) 434-4872

E-mail: shari.tretheway@ncwm.net

Rob L. Underwood

Petroleum Marketers Association of 

America

1901 N. Fort Myer Drive, Suite 500

Arlington, VA 22209

Phone: (703) 351-8000

E-mail: runderwood@pmaa.org

Lawrence J. Stump

Indiana State Department of Health

2525 N. Shadeland Avenue, #03

Indianapolis, IN 46219-1791

Phone: (317) 356-7078 x225

E-mail: lstump@isdh.in.gov

James C. Truex

National Conference on Weights & 

Measures, Inc.

88 Carryback Drive

Pataskala, OH 43062

Phone: (740) 919-4350

E-mail: jim.truex@ncwm.net

Kevin Upschulte

Missouri Department of Agriculture

1616 Missouri Boulevard

P.O. Box 630

Jefferson City, MO 65102

Phone: (573) 751-4316

E-mail: 

kevin.upschulte@mda.mo.gov
National Conference on Weights and Measures / National Type Evaluation Program

2009 Annual Meeting Attendee List

July 12-16, 2009 / San Antonio, Texas

ATTEND - 14

Attendee List

Sayandro Versteylen

PPI

1941 White Avenue

La Verne, CA 91750

Phone: (909) 392-1735

E-mail: sversteylen@

paperpakindustries.com

Dylan Wilks

Wilks Enterprise, Inc

140 Water Street

South Norwalk, CT 06854

Phone: (203) 855-9136

E-mail: dwilks@wilksir.com

Steven J. Wrigley

Brodie International

19267 Highway 301 North

Statesboro, GA 30459

Phone: (912) 489-0270

E-mail: 

steve.wrigley@brodiemeter.com

Gilles Vinet

Measurement Canada

151 Tunney’s Pasture Driveway

Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0C9

Phone: (613) 941-8918

E-mail: gilles.vinet@ic.gc.ca

Curtis Williams

Georgia Department of Agriculture

95 Roundtree Court

Stockbridge, GA 30281

Phone: (770) 957-6992

E-mail: curtiswilliams@aol.com

Russ M. Wyckoff

Oregon Department of Agriculture

635 Capitol Street, N.E.

Salem, OR 97301-2532

Phone: (503) 986-4767

E-mail: rwyckoff@oda.state.or.us

John B. Walsh

Town of Framingham

150 Concord Street

Framingham, MA 01702

Phone: (508) 532-5480

E-mail: jbw@framinghamma.gov

Juana Williams

NIST, Weights & Measures Division

100 Bureau Drive, MS 2600

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2600

Phone: (301) 975-3989

E-mail: juana.williams@nist.gov

James Yokum

West Virginia Weights & Measures, 

Division of Labor

570 McCorkle Avenue West

St. Albans, WV 25177

Phone: (304) 722-0602

E-mail: jamesyoukum@frontier.net

Lisa Warfield

NIST, Weights & Measures Division

100 Bureau Drive, MS 2600

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2600

Phone: (301) 975-3308

E-mail: lisa.warfield@nist.gov

Edmund Williams

California Division of Measurement 

Standards

6790 Florin Perkins Road

Sacramento, CA 95828

Phone: (916) 229-3000

E-mail: ewilliams@cdfa.ca.gov

Bryice Wilke

USDA/Packers & Stockyard

210 Walnut Street, Room 317

Des Moines, IA 50309

Phone: (515) 323-2579

E-mail: 

PSPDesMoinesIA.GIPSA.gov

Richard W. Wotthlie

Maryland Department of Agriculture

50 Harry S Truman Parkway

Annapolis, MD 21401

Phone: (410) 841-5790

E-mail: wotthlrw@mda.state.md.us
National Conference on Weights and Measures / National Type Evaluation Program

2009 Annual Meeting Attendee List

July 12-16, 2009 / San Antonio, Texas

ATTEND - 15

Guest List

Jeanne Langston

Eduviges Lopez

Elba Lukowiak

Bev Luthy

Andrew Macallister

Marcia Malone

Abbie Malone

John Martincic

Carol McGetrick

Bonnie Mikoski

Marissa Paltz

Sam Paltz

Sonja Patoray

Jan Quisenberry

Lori Silvestro

Deborah Straub

Margaret Turner

Ellen Walsh

Julie Williams

Pam Wooding

Becky Carlsen

Mary Ann Alvernaz

Debbie Silvestro

Wendy Bukowski

Sharon Brucker

Linda Forkert

Dawn Gokie
National Conference on Weights and Measures / National Type Evaluation Program

2009 Annual Meeting Attendee List

July 12-16, 2009 / San Antonio, Texas

ATTEND - 16

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK