Report of the 96th

National Conference

on Weights and Measures

Missoula, Montana – July 17 through 21, 2011 

as adopted by the 96th National Conference on Weights and Measures 2011 

Editors:

Linda Crown

and

Technical Advisors to the Standing Committees

Carol Hockert, Chief

Office of Weights and Measures 

National Institute of Standards and Technology

Weights and Measures Division

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2600

U.S. Department of Commerce 

John E.Bryson, Secretary

National Institute of

Standards and Technology 

Patrick D. Gallagher, Director

NIST Special Publication 1125 

November 2011 

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 96th Annual Meeting of the National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM) was held 

July 17 - 21, 2011, at the Holiday Inn Downtown at the Park, Missoula, Montana. The theme of the meeting was 

“Educating Today for Tomorrow.”

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, tand 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. 1125, 676 Pages (November 2011) CODEN: NSPUE2

WASHINGTON: 2011 
iii

National Conference on Weights and Measures

Annual Report of the 96th NCMW

Table of Contents 

Page

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

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

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

General Session

Welcoming Address – Jack Kane, Montana ........................................................................................................... GS-1 

President’s Address – Dr. Charles H. Romine, NIST, Acting Associate Director for Laboratory Programs/

Principle Deputy, NIST ................................................................................................................................ GS - 3 

Chairman’s Address – Tim Tyson, Montana........................................................................................................ GS - 5 

New Chairman’s Address – Kurt Floren, Los Angeles County, California.......................................................... GS - 7 

2011 Annual Meeting Honor Award Recipients ................................................................................................ GS - 11 

Standing Committee Reports

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

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

(OIML) and Regional Legal Metrology Organizations...................................................... BOD - A1

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

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

Appendix A. Item 231-2: Handbook 130, Packaging and Labeling Regulation, Sections 6.12.

Supplementary Quantity Declaration and 6.14. Qualification of Declaration Prohibited ............... L&R - A1

Appendix B. Item 232-1: Handbook 130, Method of Sale Regulation, Section 2.13.4. Declaration 

of Weight ...........................................................................................................................................L&R - B1

Appendix C. Item 232-2: Handbook 130, Method of Sale of Regulation, Section 2.13.4. 

Declaration of Weight Packaged Printer Ink and Toner Cartridges..................................................L&R - C1

Appendix D. Item 232-3: Handbook 130, Method of Sale Regulation, Section 1.7.1. Factory 

Packaged Ice Cream and Similar Frozen Products............................................................................L&R - D1

Appendix E. Item 237-3: Handbook 130, Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants Regulation, 

Section 3.15. Biodiesel and Biodiesel Blends..................................................................................L&R - E1

Appendix F. Item 237-4: Handbook 130, Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants Regulation, 

Section 2.1.2. Gasoline-Oxygenated Blends and Section 2.1.3. Gasoline-Ethanol Blends............... L&R - F1

Appendix G. Item 237-6: Handbook 130, Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants Regulation, 

Section 3.13. Oil............................................................................................................................... L&R - G1

Appendix H. Item 260-4: Handbook 133, Seed Count for Agriculture Seeds...................................... L&R - H1

Appendix I. Item 260-3: Handbook 133, Moisture Allowance for Pasta Products...............................L&R - I1

Appendix J. Item 270-1: Handbook 130, Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants Regulation, 

Motor Fuel Nozzle Color (Developing Item).....................................................................................L&R - J1

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

Appendix A. Developing Items ............................................................................................................S&T - A1

Part 2.20. Weigh-in-Motion Vehicle Scales for Law Enforcement – Work Group...........................S&T - A1

Part 3.30. Liquid Measuring Devices – Item 1: Price Posting and Computing Capability and 

Requirements for Retail Motor-Fuel Dispenser (RMFD) .................................................. S&T – A3 

Appendix B. Attachments..................................................................................................................... S&T - B1
iv

S&T Agenda Item 310-3: Nonretroactive Requirements (Remanufactured Equipment) – 

Examples of Repaired Devices/Repaired Elements............................................................ S&T - B1

S&T Agenda Item 310-3: Nonretroactive Requirements (Remanufactured Equipment) – 

Handbook 44 (2010), General and Scales Code List of Nonretroactive Requirements..... S&T – B9 

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

 S&T Agenda Item 310-3: Nonretroactive Requirements (Remanufactured Equipment) – 

Letter from PMP ................................................................................................................. S&T - C1

S&T Agenda Item 310-3: Nonretroactive Requirements (Remanufactured Equipment) – 

Stakeholders Letter from Graffco ....................................................................................... S&T - C3

S&T Agenda Item 310-3: Nonretroactive Requirements (Remanufactured Equipment) – 

Letter from Dresser Wayne (2011) .................................................................................... S&T – C7 

S&T Agenda Item 321-1: Belt-Conveyor Scale Systems – Letters from Thermo Fisher 

Scientific ............................................................................................................................ S&T – C9 

S&T Agenda Item 342-1: Data from Federal Milk Marketers Administration .............................. S&T - C13 

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

Appendix A. NCWM National Certification Program, NCWM Curriculum Work Plan......................PDC - A1

Appendix B. NCWM National Training Program, Certification Discipline for Retail Motor Fuel 

Devices Beta Exam – November 2009.............................................................................................. PDC - B1

Appendix C. Instructions for Online Certification Examinations (Beta Exam).................................... PDC - C1

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. NTETC Belt-Conveyor Sector Meeting Summary........................................................ NTEP - E1

Appendix F. Mutual Recognition Arrangement between Canada and NCWM ................................. NTEP - F1

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

2011 Annual Meeting Attendees................................................................................................................ATTEND - 1 
v

Past Chairmen of the Conference

44th 1959 C. M. Fuller, CA 70th 1985 Ezio F. Delfino, CA

45th 1960 H. E. Crawford, FL 71st 1986 George E. Mattimoe, HI

46th 1961 R. E. Meek, IN 72nd 1987 Frank C. Nagele, MI

47th 1962 Robert Williams, NY 73rd 1988 Darrell A. Guensler, CA

48th 1963 C. H. Stender, SC 74th 1989 John J. Bartfai, NY

49th 1964 D. M. Turnbull, WA 75th 1990 Fred A. Gerk, NM

50th 1965 V. D. Campbell, OH 76th 1991 N. David Smith, NC

51st 1966 J. F. True, KS 77th 1992 Sidney A. Colbrook, IL

52nd 1967 J. E. Bowen, MA 78th 1993 Allan M. Nelson, CT

53rd 1968 C. C. Morgan, IN 79th 1994 Thomas F. Geiler, MA

54th 1969 S. H. Christie, NJ 80th 1995 James C. Truex, OH

55th 1970 R. W. Searles, OH 81st 1996 Charles A. Gardner, NY

56th 1971 M. Jennings, TN 82nd 1997 Barbara J. Bloch, CA

57th 1972 E. H. Black, CA 83rd 1998 Steven A. Malone, NE

58th 1973 George L. Johnson, KY 84th 1999 Aves D. Thompson, AK

59th 1974 John H. Lewis, WA 85th 2000 G. Weston Diggs, VA

60th 1975 Sydney D. Andrews, FL 86th 2001 Lou Straub, MD

61st 1976 Richard L. Thompson, MD 87th 2002 Ron Murdock, NC

62nd 1977 Earl Prideaux, CO 88th 2003 Ross J. Andersen, NY

63rd 1978 James F. Lyles, VA 89th 2004 Dennis Ehrhart, AZ

64th 1979 Kendrick J. Simila, OR 90th 2005 G. Weston Diggs, VA

65th 1980 Charles H. Vincent, TX 91st 2006 Don Onwiler, NE

66th 1981 Edward H. Stadolnik, MA 92nd 2007 Michael Cleary, CA

67th 1982 Edward C. Heffron, MI 93rd 2008 Judy Cardin, WI

68th 1983 Charles H. Greene, NM 94th 2009 Jack Kane, MT

69th 1984 Sam F. Hindsman, AR 95th 2010 Randy Jennings, TN
vi

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
National Conference on Weights and Measures / National Type Evaluation Program

2010 - 2011 Organizational Chart

vii

NCWM Board of Directors

OFFICE NAME AFFILIATION TERM 

ENDS

Chairman Tim Tyson Kansas 2011

Chairman-Elect Kurt Floren Los Angeles County, California 2011

NTEP Committee Chair Randy Jennings Tennessee 2011

Treasurer Judy Cardin Wisconsin 2011

Active Membership - Western Brett Saum San Luis Obispo County, California 2012

Active Membership - Central Ronald Hayes Missouri 2015

Active Membership - Southern Stephen Benjamin North Carolina 2013

Active Membership - Northeastern Michael Sikula New York 2014

At-Large Mark Coyne City of Brockton, Massachusetts 2011

At-Large Stephen Langford Cardinal Scale Manufacturing, Co. 2013

Associate Membership Gordon Johnson Gilbarco, Inc. 2013

Honorary NCWM President Dr. Patrick D. Gallagher NIST, Director NA

Executive Secretary Carol Hockert NIST, Weights and Measures Division NA

Executive Director Don Onwiler NCWM Headquarters NA

Board of Directors Advisor Gilles Vinet Measurement Canada NA

NTEP Administrator Jim Truex NCWM Headquarters NA

National Type Evaluation Program Committee (NTEP) 

OFFICE NAME AFFILIATION TERM 

ENDS

Committee Chair Randy Jennings Tennessee 2011

Member Tim Tyson Kansas 2012

Member Brett Saum San Luis Obispo County, California 2012

Member Kurt Floren Los Angeles County, California 2013 

Member Michael Sikula New York 2014

NTEP Administrator Jim Truex NCWM Headquarters NA

Finance Committee

OFFICE NAME AFFILIATION TERM 

ENDS

Committee Chair Kurt Floren Los Angeles County, California 2012

Member Stephen Benjamin North Carolina 2013

Member Judy Cardin Wisconsin 2011

Member Gordon Johnson Gilbarco, Inc. 2013

Executive Director Don Onwiler NCWM Headquarters NA
2010 - 2011 Organizational Chart

viii

Laws and Regulations Committee (L&R)

OFFICE NAME AFFILIATION TERM 

ENDS

Committee Chair John Gaccione Westchester County, New York 2012 

Member Joe Benavides Texas 2011 

Member Jonelle Brent Illinois 2013 

Member Raymond Johnson New Mexico 2014 

Member Tim Lloyd Montana 2015 

Associate Membership Representative Rob Underwood Petroleum Marketers Association of 

America 2013

Canadian Technical Advisor Lance Robertson Measurement Canada NA

NIST Technical Advisor David Sefcik NIST, Weights and Measures Division NA

NIST Technical Advisor Lisa Warfield NIST, Weights and Measures Division NA

Professional Development Committee (PDC)

OFFICE NAME AFFILIATION TERM 

ENDS

Committee Chair Stacy Carlsen Marin County, California 2012 

Member Vacant 2011

Member Julie Quinn Minnesota 2013 

Member Dale Saunders Virginia 2014 

Member Cheryl Ayer New Hampshire 2015 

Associate Membership Representative Steven Grabski Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 2013

Safety Liaison Vacant

NIST Technical Advisor Vacant

Specifications and Tolerances Committee (S&T)

OFFICE NAME AFFILIATION TERM 

ENDS

Committee Chair Steve Giguere Maine 2012 

Member Douglas Deiman Alaska 2011

Member Kenneth Ramsburg Maryland 2013 

Member Paul Moyer Nebraska 2014 

Member Brett Gurney Utah 2015 

Canadian Technical Advisor Ted Kingsbury Measurement Canada NA

NIST Technical Advisor Tina Butcher NIST, Weights and Measures Division NA

NIST Technical Advisor Rick Harshman NIST, Weights and Measures Division NA
2010 - 2011 Organizational Chart

ix

Nominating Committee

OFFICE NAME AFFILIATION TERM 

ENDS

Committee Chair Randy Jennings Tennessee 2011

Member Judy Cardin Wisconsin 2011

Member Charles Carroll Massachusetts 2011

Member Thomas Geiler Barnstable Regulatory Services, 

Massachusetts 2011

Member Joe Gomez New Mexico 2011

Member Maxwell Gray Florida 2011

Member Steven Malone Nebraska 2011

Credentials Committee

OFFICE NAME AFFILIATION TERM 

ENDS

Committee Chair James (Steve) Hadder Florida 2011 

Member Richard Lewis Georgia 2012 

Member Mahesh Albuquerque Colorado 2013 

Coordinator Tom Geiler Barnstable Regulatory Services,, 

Massachusetts 2013 

Appointive Officials

OFFICE NAME AFFILIATION TERM 

ENDS

Chaplain Stephen Langford Cardinal Scale Manufacturing, Co. 2011

Parliamentarian Louis Straub Fairbanks Scale, Inc. 2011

Presiding Officer Nicholas Brechun Colorado 2011

Presiding Officer Tim Chesser Arkansas 2011

Presiding Officer Maureen Henzler Kansas 2011

Presiding Officer Jack Walsh Town of Wellesley, Massachusetts 2011

Sergeants-at-Arms Randy Jones Montana 2011

Sergeants-at-Arms Don Reimer Montana 2011

Associate Membership Committee

OFFICE NAME AFFILIATION TERM 

ENDS

Chair Robert Murnane, Jr. Seraphin Test Measure 2011 

Vice Chair Christopher Guay Procter and Gamble, Co. 2011 

Secretary / Treasurer Darrell Flocken Mettler-Toledo, Inc. 2011 

Member Kathleen Madaras Fuel Merchants Association of New Jersey 2011

Member Paul Hoar AgriFuels, LLC/NBB 2012 

Member Darrell Flocken Mettler-Toledo, Inc. 2013 

Member Michael Gaspers Farmland Foods, Inc. 2013

Member Paul A. Lewis, Sr. Rice Lake Weighing Systems, Inc. 2013 

Member Robert Murnane, Jr. Seraphin Test Measure 2014

Member Steven Grabski Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 2014 

Member Christopher Guay Procter and Gamble, Co. 2015

Member Thomas McGee PMP Corporation 2015

Member Rob Underwood Petroleum Marketers Association of America 2015
2010 - 2011 Organizational Chart

x 

NTETC Belt-Conveyor Sector

OFFICE NAME AFFILIATION

Chair Bill Ripka Thermo Fisher Scientific

Technical Advisor John Barton NIST, Weights and Measures Division

NTEP Administrator Jim Truex NCWM Headquarters

Public Sector Member Tina Butcher NIST, Weights and Measures Division

Public Sector Member Ken Jones California

Private Sector Member Rafael Jimenez Association of American Railroads

Transportation Technology Center, Inc.

Private Sector Member Lars Marmsater Merrick Industries, Inc.

Private Sector Member Peter Sirrico Thayer Scale/Hyer Industries

Private Sector Member Thomas Vormittag

NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector

OFFICE NAME AFFILIATION

Chair Cassie Eigenmann DICKEY-john Corporation

Technical Advisor John Barber J B Associates

Technical Advisor G. Diane Lee NIST, Weights and Measures Division

NTEP Administrator Jim Truex NCWM Headquarters

Public Sector Member Randall Burns Arkansas

Public Sector Member Tina Butcher NIST, Weights and Measures Division

Public Sector Member Karl Cunningham Illinois

Public Sector Member Thomas Hughes Missouri

Public Sector Member Richard Pierce USDA, GIPSA Technical Services Division

Public Sector Member Edward Szesnat New York

Public Sector Member Cheryl Tew North Carolina

Private Sector Member Jeffrey Adkisson Grain and Feed Association of Illinois

Private Sector Member James Bair North American Miller's Association

Private Sector Member Martin Clements The Steinlite Corporation

Private Sector Member Victor Gates Shore Sales Company

Private Sector Member Andrew Gell Foss North America

Private Sector Member Charles Hurburgh, Jr. Iowa State University

Private Sector Member David James Krejci Grain Elevator and Processing Society

Private Sector Member Jess McCluer National Grain and Feed Association

Private Sector Member Thomas Runyon Seedburo Equipment Co.
2010 - 2011 Organizational Chart

xi

NTETC Measuring Sector

OFFICE NAME AFFILIATION

Chair Michael Keilty Endress + Hauser Flowtec AG, USA

Technical Advisor Marc Buttler NIST, Weights and Measures Division

NTEP Administrator Jim Truex NCWM Headquarters

Public Sector Member Dennis Beattie Measurement Canada

Public Sector Member Jerry Butler North Carolina

Public Sector Member Tina Butcher NIST Weights and Measures Division

Public Sector Member Michael Frailer Maryland

Public Sector Member James (Steve) Hadder Florida

Public Sector Member Dan Reiswig California

Private Sector Member Steve Bar Bennett Pump Company

Private Sector Member William (Rodney) Cooper Tuthill Transfer Systems

Private Sector Member Mike Gallo Cleanfuel USA

Private Sector Member Paul Glowacki Murray Equipment, Inc.

Private Sector Member Gordon Johnson Gilbarco, Inc.

Private Sector Member Dmitri Karimov Liquid Controls

Private Sector Member Yefim Katselnik Dresser Wayne

Private Sector Member Douglas Long RDM Industrial Electronics

Private Sector Member Andrew MacAllister Daniel Measurement and Control

Private Sector Member Wade Mattar Invensys/Foxboro

Private Sector Member Richard Miller FMC Technologies Measurement Solutions, Inc.

Private Sector Member Andre Noel Neptune Technology Group, Inc.

Private Sector Member Henry Oppermann Weights & Measures Consulting, LLC

Private Sector Member Johnny Parrish Brodie International

Private Sector Member Richard Tucker RL Tucker Consulting, LLC

Private Sector Member Kelly White Itron, Inc.
2010 - 2011 Organizational Chart

xii

NTETC Software Sector

OFFICE NAME AFFILIATION

Co-Chair Norman Ingram California

Co-Chair James Pettinato FMC Technologies Measurement Solutions, Inc.

Technical Advisor Doug Bliss Mettler-Toledo, Inc.

Secretary Teri Gulke Liquid Controls, LLC

NTEP Administrator Jim Truex NCWM Headquarters

Public Sector Member Dennis Beattie Measurement Canada

Public Sector Member Michael Frailer Maryland

Public Sector Member Michael Kelley Ohio

Public Sector Member Edward Payne Maryland

Public Sector Member John Roach California

Public Sector Member Ambler Thompson NIST, Weights and Measures Division

Private Sector Member John Atwood Tyson Foods

Private Sector Member Kevin Detert Avery Weigh-Tronix

Private Sector Member Cassie Eigenmann DICKEY-john Corporation

Private Sector Member Andre Elle Endress + Hauser Flowtec AG

Private Sector Member Andrew Gell Foss North America

Private Sector Member Keith Harper Gencor Industries, Inc.

Private Sector Member Tony Herrin Cardinal Scale Manufacturing Co.

Private Sector Member Paul A. Lewis, Sr. Rice Lake Weighing Systems, Inc.

Private Sector Member Rick Lydon Sick, Inc.

Private Sector Member Michael McGhee Itron, Inc.

Private Sector Member Richard Miller FMC Technologies Measurement Solutions, Inc.

Private Sector Member Michael Parks Vulcan Materials Company

Private Sector Member Mike Roach VeriFone

Private Sector Member Robin Sax CompuWeigh Corporation

Private Sector Member Chris Scott Gilbarco, Inc.

Private Sector Member Scott Szurek Emerson Process Management

Private Sector Member David Vande Berg Vande Berg Scales
2010 - 2011 Organizational Chart

xiii

NTETC Weighing Sector

OFFICE NAME AFFILIATION

Chair Darrell Flocken Mettler-Toledo, Inc.

Technical Advisor Rick Harshman NIST, Weights and Measures Division

NTEP Administrator Jim Truex NCWM Headquarters

Public Sector Member L. Cary Ainsworth USDA, GIPSA

Public Sector Member William Bates USDA, GIPSA, FGIS

Public Sector Member Luciano Burtini Measurement Canada

Public Sector Member Tina Butcher NIST, Weights and Measures Division

Public Sector Member Terry Davis Kansas

Public Sector Member Fran Elson-Houston Ohio

Public Sector Member Ken Jones California

Public Sector Member Jack Kane Montana

Public Sector Member Edward Payne Maryland

Public Sector Member Dan Reiswig California

Public Sector Member Juana Williams NIST, Weights and Measures Division

Private Sector Member Steven Beitzel Systems Associates, Inc.

Private Sector Member Greg Bredahl Thermo Fisher Scientific

Private Sector Member Neil Copley Thurman Scale Co.

Private Sector Member Mitchell Eyles Flintec, Inc.

Private Sector Member Robert Feezor Scales Consulting and Testing

Private Sector Member Scott Henry NCR Corporation

Private Sector Member Sam Jalahej Totalcomp, Inc.

Private Sector Member Rafael Jimenez Association of American Railroads

Transportation Technology Center, Inc.

Private Sector Member Stephen Langford Cardinal Scale Manufacturing, Co.

Private Sector Member Paul A. Lewis, Sr. Rice Lake Weighing Systems, Inc.

Private Sector Member L. Edward Luthy Stock Equipment Company/Schenck Process 

Transport N.A.

Private Sector Member Nigel Mills Hobart Corporation

Private Sector Member Louis Straub Fairbanks Scales, Inc.

Private Sector Member Jerry Wang A&D Engineering, Inc.

Private Sector Member Walter Young Emery Winslow Scale Company
2010 - 2011 Organizational Chart

xiv

Western Weights and Measures Association (WWMA) www.westernwma.org

States 

Alaska

Arizona

California

Colorado 

Hawaii

Idaho

Montana

Nevada

New Mexico

Oregon

Utah

Washington

Wyoming

Contact Kristin Macey

California Department of Food and Agriculture

(916) 653-6649

kmacey@cdfa.ca.gov

Annual Meeting Date: September 25 - 29, 2011 San Luis Obispo, California

Central Weights and Measures Association (CWMA) www.cwma.net

States 

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Michigan

Minnesota

Missouri

Nebraska

North Dakota

Ohio

South Dakota

Wisconsin

Contact Vicky Dempsey

Montgomery County Weights and Measures

(937) 225-6309

dempseyv@mcohio.org

Annual Meeting May 16 - 19, 2011 Grand Rapids, Michigan

Interim Meeting September 12 - 15, 2011 Cedar Rapids, Iowa

Southern Weights and Measures Association (SWMA) www.swma.org

States 

Alabama

Arkansas

Delaware

District of Columbia

Florida

Georgia

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maryland

Mississippi

North Carolina

Oklahoma

South Carolina

Tennessee

Texas

U.S. Virgin Islands

Virginia

West Virginia

Contact Stephen Benjamin

North Carolina Department of Agriculture

(919) 733-3313

steve.benjamin@ncagr.gov

Annual Meeting Date: October 23 - 26, 2011 Norfolk, Virginia

Northeastern Weights and Measures Association (NWMA) www.newma.us

States 

Connecticut

Maine

Massachusetts

New Hampshire

New Jersey

New York

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

Vermont

Puerto Rico

Contact James Cassidy

City of Cambridge Weights and Measures Dept.

(617) 349-6133

jcassidy@cambridgema.gov

Annual Meeting May 9 - 12, 2011 Saratoga Springs, New York

Interim Meeting October 12 - 13, 2011 Norwich, Connecticut
General – 2011 Final Report

GS - 1

Welcoming Address

National Conference on Weights and Measures

Missoula, Montana 

July 19, 2011 

Jack Kane

Administrator, Montana Department of Labor and Industry, Business Standards Division

Helena, Montana

Good morning and welcome to Montana. 

For those of you who know me, that is something I’ve been wanting to say for quite some time. Since my first 

Conference in 1995, I have been very fortunate to have had the opportunity to attend conferences located throughout 

the United States; coast to coast, border to border and then some. And all along, I hoped that one year we would 

hold a conference in Montana so I could share my state with you, as so many of you have done when your state was 

chosen as the conference site.

In considering what I should address in this welcome speech, I turned to the Conference agenda and looked at the 

items on the agenda and wondered, “What were the issues of the day at those first Conferences held almost 100 

years ago?” For that matter, “Who was Montana’s representative, and, to what extent, did Weights and Measures 

even exist back in the “olden times” as my kids refer to anything that happened over 20 years ago?” 

Pulling out my copy of the NIST CD of Weights and Measures Conferences starting in 1905, I first found reference 

to a Mr. A.N. Yoder, Secretary of State and Deputy Sealer for the State of Montana in the Third Conference in 1907. 

During those first Conferences, the protocol was for the state sealers (all fourteen or fifteen of them in attendance) to 

make a report to the Chairman on their states’ involvement in weights and measures. 

A.N., being the new guy that year, got to go first, and I’m sure he really wowed them when he started his report by 

stating, “Montana has so far not paid attention to the standards of weights and measures and while we have laws on 

the books, they are not enforced.” 

Well, okay, I guess if you’re going to start a program, zero is as a good place to start as any! 

A.N. then went on to inform the Conference that Montana had no standards and wondered how to go about getting 

them. Mr. L.A. Fischer, Chief Weights and Measures Division, National Bureau of Standards assured him that they 

would be provided. A.N. apparently a man of few words then allowed he had spoken his piece and would prefer to 

listen and see what he could pick up in the forthcoming discussions. A.N. didn’t make it to the 1908 Conference, 

the Montana legislature met at the same time, and as Secretary of State, he was required to be in attendance. There 

was no Conference in 1909; however, he did make the 1910 Conference where he once again brought up the fact 

that he had no standards to work with, and in addition to a balance and mass standards, he would also like some 

liquid standards as he did not believe that “there is a milk bottle in the State of Montana that holds an honest quart or 

pint.”

At this Conference A.N. was also assigned to a committee to prepare a net weight packaging bill to present to 

Congress. Well, that’s one thing that hasn’t changed in this outfit, if you speak up on some subject, sure enough; 

you’re going to get appointed to a committee. How A.N.’s participation in this came out we don’t know as he died 

after returning from the Conference. We do know, however, that the state did receive the standards as they currently 

reside in our lab in Helena. 

Interesting aside, his replacement was named Swindlehorst. Reminds me of the Accounting firm of Dewey, 

Cheatem, and Howe.
General – 2011 Final Report

GS - 2

While some things, such as committee assignments and dedication to the cause, have been in place for years, other 

things change. For example, in the committee report under “answers to questions,” which I assume to be the 

precursor to our current standing committee agendas, the topics included; bottomless measures, counter tacks, 

wooden dishes, testing of railroad scales, and sale of ice. In the early part of the twentieth century, ice was used as 

the primary refrigerant in residential households, and I can imagine that getting the ice you paid for truly was a big 

issue. Do you suppose that using the concept of “moisture loss” to explain why the eight-pound chunk ordered was 

now a three-pound piece was effective when the deliveryman was confronted by an angry housewife?

Reviewing this Conference’s agenda items shows the same type of issues, net contents and scale testing, that those 

early Deputy Sealers dealt with, just at a different level. For example, in 1910 one of the items on the “answers to 

questions” agenda was promoting a uniform rail scale test. Here we are in 2011 still talking weighing systems but 

now it’s time dependence and creep of load cells. 

Some things have changed in Montana as well; from a population of 500 000 in A.N.’s day to almost a million 

today; from no program in 1910 to what I feel is a pretty darn effective program in 2011. We currently have nine 

field inspectors covering the entire state and specializing in all facets of inspection and testing. These nine 

inspectors test on an annual basis about 16 000 pumps and meters and around 7500 scales, over 500 of which are 

stock scales with quite a few truck, rail, and belt scales as befitting a state which produces timber, coal, cattle, and 

small grains. The average inspector (and ours are all above average) travels around 33 500 miles a year to get all of 

his inspections done. Now, I know some of you from more densely populated regions wonder what these guys do 

the other half of the year with only 16 000 pumps and meters. Well, when you consider that the inspection area for 

one inspector on the eastern border is over 50 000 square miles, perspectives change.

Holding the National Conference in Montana is a unique event and as such Tim Lloyd, the Bureau Chief, and I 

thought that it would be a good idea to invite the staff. At this time, I would like to introduce them and ask that they 

stand when their name is called out.

• Carol Larkin: Licensing technician and truly the person who makes things go so smoothly.

• Don Reimer: Inspector from Helena

• Fred Steinbacher: Inspector from Billings

• Rick Czech: Inspector from Great Falls

• Randy Griswold: Inspector from Kallispel

• Tim Stephens: Inspector from the Three Forks area

• Mike Kuntz: Inspector from Billings

• Randy Jones: Inspector from south of here in the Hamilton area

Additionally, I’d like to introduce a former inspector who is in attendance, Al Page from Billings. All of these folks 

are intimately knowledgeable about their areas and other parts of Montana; so, if you have any questions about 

things to see, or places to go, they would be a good source of information.

I know a lot of you have already taken some side trips around Missoula, up to Glacier, etc., and I sure hope you all 

take advantage of this location to get out and see some of Montana before you go home. 

With getting out in mind, I’d like to offer a few suggestions when hiking in bear country. Take a friend or two, if 

you get in a jam, it’s always nice to have someone along who can help out. Wear appropriate footwear. Forget 

about your big, waterproof, deep lugged heavy hiking boots. Think running shoes. When the bear is charging at 

you and your buddies, you need to move. I know, I know, you can’t outrun a bear, but you don’t have to as long as 

you can out run your ex-friends!

Again, welcome to Montana. Welcome to my home.
General – 2011 Final Report

GS - 3

President’s Address

National Conference on Weights and Measures

Missoula, Montana 

July 19, 2011 

Dr. Charles H. Romine

Acting Associate Director for Laboratory Programs/Principal Deputy, NIST

• Welcome and thank you for having me. 

• I would like to personally thank the NCWM Chairman, Tim Tyson, the Executive Director, Don Onwiler, 

and the Chair elect, Kurt Floren. 

• Also, thanks to those of you from Montana for hosting this meeting. 

• My first exposure to weights and measures came at an early age when my mother began selling milk paint 

in the 1950s. 

• For those of you who may have never heard of milk paint, it is, as its name suggests, a kind of paint that is

made with milk, as well as lime and earth pigments, such as crushed rock or clay . 

• Having been in use for more than 20,000 years, milk paint is the oldest paint known (cave paintings and 

Tutankhamen's tomb and the objects therein were painted with milk paint). 

• My mother got a call from a weights and measures official who came out to calibrate the antique scale that 

she was using to measure her milk paint, which she sold by weight.

• The official checked the scale using standard weights, tinkered with it for a bit, and certified it as accurate. 

• From then on, my mother could assure her customers that she was not shortchanging them, and she could 

assure herself that she wasn’t giving away her product. 

• This story illustrates the fact that both consumers and businesses benefit from accurate, uniform weights 

and measures. 

• Weights and measures are essential for fair commerce and securing uniformity in weights and measures 

laws and application is a core mission of NIST. 

• Ensuring uniformity of weights and measures in the United States is of course one of the primary reasons 

NIST was founded in the first place. 

• As you are no doubt aware, the weights and measures regulatory system suffers from a visibility problem. 

o So long as you are doing your job well, no one notices, and public support wanes. 

o Waning public support leads to cuts in funding. 

o Cuts in funding leads to lack of enforcement. 

o Lack of enforcement leads to degradation of uniformity at best, and thumbs on the scale at worst. 

o Eventually, this is discovered, funding follows public outcry, you do your jobs well, everyone 

forgets again, and the cycle repeats. 

• NIST knows this all too well, as we have a mission that few understand or appreciate until something goes 

wrong. 

• I am here, in part, to reconfirm our unwavering support of your work. 

• We cannot give you money to run your program, but we can work with the NCWM to help you devise 

methods for measuring the impact of your work. We commit to providing the training and technical 

expertise you need, and to delivering it by the means and methods that are most useful to you.

• We applaud NCWM on the development of its new certification program. 

• Such credentialing only serves to bolster the professionalism of weights and measures enforcement. 
General – 2011 Final Report

GS - 4

• We at NIST are devoting increased attention to our training program, and we believe the link between 

training and certification is critical to the success of either.

• Great opportunity between our organizations exists to further the missions of both. 

• And, we fully support NCWM on the recent decision to take over the responsibility for putting out 

Publications 15 and 16. 

o The successful transition of publication responsibility will be a result of the cooperative 

relationship that we have been building. 

o NCWM’s assumption of this responsibility will also give us at NIST more time to do the things 

that we do best: providing technical expertise and advice, training, and developing an ever 

expanding and accessible set of resources i.e., workshops, webinars, and other online training.

• Our recent reorganization served to put NIST back on a mission-focused footing. 

• Naturally, this means that weights and measures has risen to a place of prominence within the organization, 

and rightfully so. 

• In this time of tumultuous technological change, we must remember that weights and measures is not 

merely about maintaining uniformity, but about keeping things the same. 

o New technologies present us with a host of new challenges; device specifications, methods of sale 

of new products, maintaining and increasing needed skills. 

o The setting of the regulations debated on the floor of this Conference provides order and 

empowers consumers to make value comparisons. 

o For instance, at long last the electric car is a reality. 

o Charging stations are appearing on our streets and before too long they will likely be as common 

as parking meters. In fact, those two technologies may very well merge at some point. 

o But before that can happen, we have to decide how the electricity will be metered and sold

o Here, the efforts of NCWM, NIST, state weights and measures officials, and industry to come to a 

consensus that serves the interests of all is vital. 

• Likewise, so much commerce today relies on technologies that are hidden. 

o The gas pumps of yesterday were mechanical, they had mechanical flow meters that could be 

checked for accuracy quite easily. 

o The gas pumps of today are complicated computerized devices that perform dozens of functions 

from the dispensation of gas to the dispensation of free car washes. 

o Computerized control, of course, depends on software. 

o How do we ensure that the software is working properly and that it hasn’t been tampered with or 

programmed to overcharge, say, every third customer? 

We need new tools, new capabilities to cope with this onslaught of change if we are to maintain 

consumer confidence and prove true the boast that America is the best place in the world to do 

business. 

• Thank you for having me. 

• Questions from the audience? 

• Happy to talk with individuals during breaks, etc.
General – 2011 Final Report

GS - 5

Chairman’s Address

96th National Conference on Weights and Measures

Missoula, Montana 

July 19, 2011 

Mr. Tim Tyson

Director of Weights and Measures, Kansas Department of Agriculture

Topeka, Kansas

I hope everyone has been able to get out and see some of the beautiful sites around Missoula. Sunday evening my 

wife and niece talked me into hiking up the hill to the M. I don’t think what I did was considered hiking. I made it, 

and next week I may need by-pass surgery. I know Tim Chesser saw more sites than he wanted. Tim was able to 

safely elude a grizzly in Glacier Park. I have tried to find the YouTube video of Tim running from the bear, but 

haven’t found it yet; I even tried searching on “Arkansas Redneck mauls bear in Glacier Park.” If we find it, we will 

show it. On a serious note, we are thankful Tim survived. 

In the last newsletter, I talked about Weights and Measures being the silent third partner in every transaction. 

Everyday our inspectors go out and test scales and gas pumps; they test packages and do price verifications. They 

also may test propane meters, DEF dispensers, and mass flow meters that are measuring ag chemicals at the local 

co-op or they may be at pipeline testing meters. Whatever they are testing, our inspectors are ensuring that when a 

transaction occurs, the consumer and the device owner are both being treated equitably. Most of the time, no one 

notices. 

Also, in the article, I wrote about the need to acquire and assemble data to show the impact we have on the 

marketplace when we can perform our duties and when we cannot. Do we have this data? No. I can tell you that 

when the State of Kansas started testing VTM’s after a three-year layoff, that compliance rates were less than 50 %, 

and now, after two years they are at 90 % compliance. As an organization, we need to compile these instances and 

put dollar amounts to them.

I would like to share some analysis that I have done. I n Kansas, we produce about 224.4 million bushels of 

sorghum, 369.6 million bushels of wheat, 595.3 million bushels of corn, and 160.6 million bushels of soybeans. At 

current, cash grain prices are $6.50 for sorghum, $7 f or wheat, $7 f or corn, and $13.75 for soybeans; Kansas 

produces $10.4 billion worth of grain. That is just in those four grains. Now let’s assume that our analysis shows 

that after testing all of our grain scales that on a bell curve our median error is zero. If we change that bell curve and 

now our median is a −20 pounds, one division, we now have just reduced our economic value by $4.18 million 

dollars. That is $4.18 million dollars less that our producers don’t get paid for. 

Now let’s look at fuel sales. Kansas sells about 3.3 billion gallons of fuel each year. If we again look at our bell 

curve of errors and our average error is zero, that 3.3 million gallons is worth $11.5 billion at $3.50 per gallon. I 

have looked at our bell curve and it does indeed have a median of zero. Now, if we again shift that bell curve to the 

left and now have a − 1 cubic inch median error then consumers just lost $10 million. In your state, that could be 

less or more depending on fuel prices and the amount of gallons sold. 

These are the types of numbers that get people’s attention. However, we have to be able to say what our bell curves 

are, and how they are impacted by inspection or how they are impacted by no inspections. 

Every day we hear how the economy is getting better or not. The reality is that we all are struggling with budget 

cuts and reduced revenues. As states, we must find new ways of doing business and better ways of justifying our 

programs. 

I cannot tell you when we will have better analysis for our programs; I can only tell you we must. I can tell you that 

it has been a humbling experience being your chairman over the past year; I thank you.
General – 2011 Final Report

GS - 6

I now would like to call up Alan Johnston, President of Measurement Canada, for the signing of the Mutual 

Recognition Agreement (MRA) between our two Nations.
General – 2011 Final Report

GS - 7

New Chairman’s Address

96th National Conference on Weights and Measures

Missoula, Montana 

July 21, 2011 

Mr. Kurt Floren

Commissioner, Los Angeles County Department of Agriculture

Los Angeles, California

It is truly my honor to be entrusted with the role of Chairman of the National Conference on Weights and Measures. 

I'll admit, those words sound a bit odd to me as, with amazement, I think back twenty-six years, to 1985, when I first 

entered the field of weights and measures regulation as a new inspector, quickly finding that I did not have a clue of 

the vast array of issues that this work encompasses. I knew that gas pumps and grocery scales were regularly tested, 

but as fuel quality standards, scanner accuracy, package inspection, weighmaster enforcement, and all the, then, 

"new technology" of load cells and interfaced software programs came into view, I began to realize the immense 

diversity of this field and came to recognize the fact that weights and measures issues touch every consumer dozens, 

perhaps hundreds of times each day. 

Since then, I have been blessed with opportunities to experience a broad array of weights and measures activities, 

from all manner of device, package, and label inspections to involvement in many major investigations involving 

overcharges through price scanners, multi-million dollar cases regarding underweight packaged goods, investigation 

of gas station operators defrauding consumers through electronic manipulation of fuel dispensers, and a host of other 

matters. My fascination with what we do has only grown.

Through my early years, as a field inspector and, later, as a young supervisor, I would receive my new Handbooks 

44, 130, and 133, reading all of the amendments and, at times, wondering, "Who are the idiots who came up with 

this?" I attended my first NCWM meeting in 1994 in San Diego, catching my first glimpse of the incredible detail 

that was debated, the opposing views and opinions that were offered, and the dedication and passion of the 

stakeholders involved. That meeting quickly changed my opinions regarding any involvement of "idiocy" and 

opened my eyes to the many factors and considerations that go into developing such standards. 

We here, engaged in the work of the Conference and in our duties and activities back home, readily recognize the 

importance of what we do. That's what keeps us involved, keeps us striving to meet our motto, "That Equity May 

Prevail." As a national standard-setting body, the work and focus of NCWM has undergone incredible changes and 

addressed an ever-widening array of challenges. We have continually stepped up to meet those challenges.

As we have all witnessed in these challenging times, many are facing cutbacks, reductions, hiring freezes, and the 

like. Again, all of us here fully recognize the importance of what we do. It is evidenced by the fact that we are at 

this Conference, have struggled to justify the expense, to take the time from the workloads that await us back at our 

offices, to study the issues and present our views. However, neither the public nor our state or local government 

leaders know enough of what we do, why we do it, and why it is so critical to the marketplaces, the consumers, and 

the competing businesses and manufacturers that we devote ourselves to protecting.

With that realization, the theme I have chosen for the coming year is: "Taking Measure of Our Worth."

This Conference has tackled so many issues through just the years that I have witnessed:

• As fuel dispensers and scales evolved from mechanical to electronic systems, security seals evolved from 

lead and wire devices to audit trails....

- Yet, how many have the time and resources to regularly access and review audit trails? 
General – 2011 Final Report

GS - 8

• As price scanners grew in use, we developed the Examination Procedure for Price Verification... 

- But, how many jurisdictions have funding to routinely perform scanner inspections?

• We've developed standards and test procedures for Multiple Dimension Measuring Devices...

- But, how many have been able to secure the funds to acquire test standards?

• We've continually revised Handbook 133 and remain struggling to address moisture loss...

- Yet, how many jurisdictions daily, weekly, or monthly conduct package inspections?

• Now, we are witnessing the introduction of hydrogen fuel to the marketplace and have adopted a tentative 

code for testing dispensers with calibrated transfer standards...

- How many will have resources to acquire the test equipment?...To absorb the workload?

• NCWM recently adopted revisions to tolerances and test procedures for water sub-meters. As I stand here, 

in spite of strong efforts to defeat it, a bill is steadily proceeding through California's Legislature to exempt 

water sub-meters from inspection by weights and measures officials.

- One of the principal claims and arguments of the proponents, "Manufacturers do not face such 

regulation in most, if any, of the other 49 states." 

In many cases, resource limitations and resulting forced prioritization of only select duties prevent many of us from 

undertaking these and other regulatory activities. 

This body does great work, important work, and has done so for over 100 y ears. Together with our associate 

members, industry partners, and many stakeholders, we work diligently and passionately to develop appropriate, 

meaningful, effective standards and procedures for the benefit of all in the marketplace. But, if we don't have the 

resources to implement those procedures, to enforce the standards, and to monitor compliance in the marketplace, all 

the standards in the world have little meaning and limited impact. We need to do a better job in explaining our 

worth and that of the work we do.

All of us are pressed for time. No one wants more surveys to complete or data to process and report. But, as we 

address more emerging technologies, develop more and more standards, adopt ever more detailed procedures, we 

need to work together to ensure that we can carry them out, apply and enforce them in the field, and ensure the very 

uniformity that is NCWM's goal.

We need to tell our story – demonstrate the need – arm our legislators with the understanding and ammunition to go 

to battle for us, and secure the resources to sustain and enhance our work. We debate for hours over why certain 

requirements, tests, and standards are critical. But, few outside of those debates and discussions ever hear or ever 

have cause to know why it's all so important.

As regulatory officials, manufacturers, and retailers, our members measure a l ot of commodities. We concern 

ourselves with how those commodities are marketed, ensuring accuracy in measurement and in providing sufficient 

information to facilitate value comparison. 

The services that we provide to consumers, businesses, and device manufacturers, alike, are commodities...that 

must be marketed... that have a cost...that deserve to be invested in.

"That Equity May Prevail".... It is not prevailing in state budgets. It is not prevailing in the minds of our elected 

leaders. In this economy, it certainly should be prevailing in the minds of consumers and business operators. We 

need to provide the information for value comparison – comparing our value to that of our states' health service 

programs, law enforcement services; all the competing interests – to be in the minds of the key decision makers 

whose assistance and support we need in enhancing our programs. I look forward to working together and seeking 

your assistance in taking measure of our worth and advertising why we are worth investing in.
General – 2011 Final Report

GS - 9

I hope that, as your Chairman, over the next year, I can help in coordinating efforts to market ourselves, to tell our 

story, to compile the best of what many of you may have already developed, and to seek additional information to 

advertise our worth and that of our programs to the marketplace we serve and protect. "Taking Measure of Our 

Worth:" Let's work together!

In the spirit of working together, let's acknowledge all those who have taken an active role in serving on the many 

committees, task forces, and work groups to accomplish the goals of this Conference. To all of you, thank you.

In moving forward, I have a number of appointments to make, with acknowledgment that some additional 

appointments have yet to be finalized, and I will be making those announcements soon.

Laws and Regulations Committee:

• To Be Later Announced: One appointment for a one-year term. 

• Replacing John Gaccione, who has been appointed to the Board of Directors is Richard Lewis, Georgia, 

five-year term.

Specifications and Tolerances Committee: 

• To Be Later Announced, five-year term.

Professional Development Committee:

• Kristin Macey, California, five-year term.

Nominating Committee: 

• Chair, Tim Tyson, Kansas

• Judy Cardin, Wisconsin

• Charles Carroll, Massachusetts

• Thomas Geiler, Barnstable Regulatory Services, Massachusetts

• Joe Gomez, New Mexico

• Maxwell Gray, Florida

• Randy Jennings, Tennessee

Credentials Committee: 

• To Be Later Announced 

Presiding Officers:

• Mike Boitano, Amador County, California

• To Be Later Announced, three additional appointments

Parliamentarian: 

• Lou Straub, Fairbanks Scales, Inc.
General – 2011 Final Report

GS - 10

Chaplain: 

• Stephen Langford, Cardinal Scale Manufacturing Company

Sergeants-At-Arms: 

• I will be working with our host for the 2012 Annual to designate Sergeants-At-Arms.

Again, it is truly my honor and privilege to serve as your NCWM Chairman this year. I look forward to working 

with Chairman-Elect, Stephen Benjamin and all of you in continuing promoting and measuring the value of the 

important work of the National Conference on Weights and Measures.
General – 2011 Final Report

GS - 11

NCWM 2011 Annual Meeting Honor Award Recipients

2011 Lifetime Achievement Award: 

• Steven Malone, Retired, Nebraska Weights and Measures Division

2011 Distinguished Service Award:

• Ross Andersen, Retired Administrator, New York Bureau of Weights and Measures

• Bill Braun, Retired Consultant, formerly Procter and Gamble

• Judith Cardin, Chief, Wisconsin Weights and Measures

• Tom Geiler, Director of Regulatory Services, Barnstable Weights and Measures, Barnstable, 

Massachusetts

• Darrell Flocken, Manager of Compliance Services, Mettler Toledo

• Max Gray, Chief, Florida Bureau of Weights and Measures

• Robert Murnane, President, Seraphin Test Measure

• Henry Oppermann, Weights and Measures Consulting, LLC, formerly NIST

• Thomas Stabler, Retired, Stabler Training Services, formerly NIST

• Gilles Vinet, Vice President of Program Development, Measurement Canada

2011 Contributions Award:

• Jonelle Brent, Bureau Chief, Illinois Weights and Measures

• Vicky Dempsey, Chief Inspector, Montgomery County, Ohio

• Doug Hutchinson, Senior Program Officer, Program Development Directorate at Measurement Canada 

• Kristin Macey, Director, California Measurement Standards Division

Attendance Recognition: 

Full Name Organization State No. of Years

Tom Bloemer Department of Agriculture KY 5 

Tim Chesser Bureau of Standards AR 5 

Douglas Deiman Division of Measurement Standards/CVE AK 5 

James Hewston Scale Source NE 5 

Yefim Katselnik Dresser Wayne TX 5 

David Rajala Total Meter Services, Inc. PA 5 

Dale Saunders Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services VA 5 

John L. Sullivan Department of Agriculture and Commerce MS 5 

Elizabeth Tansing Food Marketing Institute VA 5 
General – 2011 Final Report

GS - 12

Full Name Organization State No. of Years

Lisa Warfield NIST Weights and Measures Division MD 5 

Loretta Carey U.S. Food and Drug Administration MD 10

Steven Grabski Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. AR 10

Jeff Humphreys Los Angeles Department of Agriculture CA 10

Paul A. Lewis, Sr. Rice Lake Weighing Systems WI 10

Terence McBride Memphis Weights and Measures TN 10

Steven Cook NIST Weights and Measures Division MD 15

William Cooper Tuthill Transfer Systems IN 15

Jack Kane Department of Labor and Industry Business 

Standards MT 15

Lawrence Stump Indiana State Department of Health IN 15

Tina Butcher NIST Weights and Measures Division MD 20

Gilles Vinet Measurement Canada ON 20

Charles Carroll Division of Standards MA 30
BOD 2011 Final Report 

BOD - 1 

Report of the 

Board of Directors 

Tim Tyson 

Director 

Kansas Department of Agriculture 

Weights and Measures Division 

Reference 

Key Number 

100 INTRODUCTION 

The Board held its quarterly Board of Directors (BOD) meeting on Saturday, July 16, 2011, and continued that 

meeting during work sessions throughout the remainder of the Annual Meeting. The BOD and the National Type 

Evaluation Program (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 and appendix items in the Report. Agenda items are 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 shows the results of voting items. 

Table A 

Table of Contents

Reference Key 

Number Title of Item Page 

100   INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ BOD - 1

100-1 I Membership and Meeting Attendance .................................................................................. BOD - 2

100-2 I NCWM Newsletter and Website ........................................................................................... BOD - 3

100-3 I Meetings Update ................................................................................................................... BOD - 4

100-4 I Participation in International Standard Setting ..................................................................... BOD - 4

100-5 I Efficiency and Effectiveness ................................................................................................. BOD - 5 

100-5A I Regional Support ........................................................................................................... BOD - 5 

100-5B I Standing Committees ..................................................................................................... BOD - 6 

100-5C I Meeting Format .............................................................................................................. BOD - 7 

100-6 V Bylaws Amendment: Article I, Section 2 – Tax Exempt Status .......................................... BOD - 8

100-7 V Bylaws Amendment: Article X, Section 6 – Committee Reports ........................................ BOD - 9

100-8 V Bylaws Amendment: Article X, Sections 9A and 9B – Voting ........................................... BOD - 9

100-9 I Strategic Planning ............................................................................................................... BOD - 11

100-10 I Financial Report .................................................................................................................. BOD - 11 

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

Regional Legal Metrology Organizations .................................................................................... A1 

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

II. Report on the 45th CIML Meeting in Orlando, Florida, in September 2010 ...................................... BOD - A5 

III. Future OIML Meetings ...................................................................................................................... BOD - A7

IV. Regional ............................................................................................................................................. BOD - A7

Appendix B – Associate Membership Committee (AMC)......................................................................... BOD - B1 

Interim Meeting Minutes ............................................................................................................................................ B1 
BOD 2011 Final Report

BOD - 2 

Table B

Voting Results

Reference Key 

Number

House of State 

Representatives House of Delegates Results

Yeas Nays Yeas Nays

Report All items adopted by voice vote

Details of all Items

(In order by Reference Key Number)

100-1 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. 

NCWM actively reaches out to potential stakeholders notifying them of agenda items that may be of interest and 

warrant their attention. T his effort is believed to have had a positive effect on both membership and meeting 

attendance in the past two years.

The attendance for Interim and Annual Meetings in 2010 were exceptional, exceeding 2009 attendance. The 2011 

Interim Meeting was also very well attended. The addition of technical sessions for task groups and subcommittees 

on Sunday afternoons, not only improves the standards development process, but also adds value for stakeholders 

who attend. 

Membership levels track closely with the economy as shown in the yearly comparison below. Just as membership 

was rebounding from the previous recession, the next one hit even harder in 2008, resulting in declines in 2008 and 

2009, especially in the public sector. It appears that membership has leveled out this year and is in good position to 

begin building again. 

The following is a comparison of NCWM membership levels for the past six years.

NCWM Membership Report

June

2011

June

2010

June

2009

June

2008

June

2007

June

2006

Associate 813 814 822 848 863 837

Foreign Assoc. 62 53 53 56 53 61

Federal Gov’t 11 12 10 9 9 13

NIST 11 12 10 9 9 13

State Gov’t 567 565 696 831 825 812

Local Gov’t 495 524 558 554 565 492

Int’l. Gov’t 14 12 24 22 31 23

Retired 202 196 196 232 221 215

Total 2180 2188 2,373 2,567 2,581 2,465
BOD 2011 Final Report

BOD - 3 

100-2 I NCWM Newsletter and Website

The Board continuously considers ways to monitor and improve the content of the newsletter and website. 

Members are encouraged to bring ideas and articles forward for inclusion in newsletters. Of particular interest are 

articles that would be pertinent to field inspectors and the service industry.

The new NCWM website has been very well received. The e-commerce feature with an online shopping cart has 

been a great success for fast and easy membership renewals, publication orders, meeting registrations, and the newly 

added payment of NTEP certificate maintenance fees. Improvements will continue as the website evolves to serve 

members and customers more effectively. T he following are descriptions of more recent additions and 

improvements on the NCWM website.

Online Position Forum: There was a live demonstration of this new comment and polling system at the 2011 

Interim Meeting. Another demonstration will be given at the 2011 Annual Meeting. The initial launch date for the 

Online Position Forum is May 2011. 

The Position Forum is not a voting system. It is simply a method to present positions, opinions, and supporting 

documents. During the month of May, all active, associate, and advisory members have the opportunity to login, 

view Committee agenda items, enter positions and comments, and even upload supporting PDF documents for each 

agenda item of standing committees or the Board of Directors. The options for each agenda item are: 

• Support

• Support with comments

• Oppose with comments

• Neutral

• Neutral with comments

During the month of June, members are able to view positions, comments, and supporting documents by others as a 

means of preparing for the deliberations and voting at the Annual Meeting in July 2011. This will give stakeholders 

the ability to come into the Annual Meeting more informed on the issues and with a better idea of positions others 

may have.

A suggestion was heard at the 2011 Interim Meeting to also give associations the ability to enter positions and 

comments, not just individuals. S ince the login is based on membership credentials for individuals rather than

organizations, this request cannot be accommodated.

Social Networking: Social networking has quickly expanded into business and customer networking as businesses 

reach out to the new generation of handheld devices and Internet networking to increase public awareness of their 

services and increase their customer base. In the fall of 2010, NCWM opened accounts in LinkedIn, Facebook, and 

Twitter to improve our outreach. By opening these accounts, NCWM is now more visible in Internet search engines 

and will be more identifiable to tech-savvy stakeholders. Those who follow NCWM on these networks will receive 

instant notifications from NCWM regarding meetings and announcements. 

E-Commerce for NTEP Maintenance Fees: As of October 1, 2010, holders of NTEP Certificates of Conformance 

can now pay their annual maintenance fees online. I t is quick, easy, and especially helpful to international 

customers who traditionally have suffered bank fees to wire funds electronically. A s with other e-commerce 

products offered on the NCWM website, this new offering has been very well received.

National Certification Program: Now that the National Certification Program has launched with its first exam, 

NCWM has created a fast and easy method to place orders to take the exam through our website. The exams are 

ordered through the online shopping cart at www.ncwm.net. Members who login will receive member pricing, 

which is currently set at no charge for taking the exam. Non-members will be assessed a fee of $75 per exam. As 

orders are received, NCWM sends an e-mail to the applicant providing them the credentials to log-in to the test site 

to take the exam online.
BOD 2011 Final Report

BOD - 4 

The NCWM website continues to be a work in progress. M any good suggestions have been offered and 

incorporated into the site and the regional sites that are hosted and maintained by NCWM. M s. Lindsay Hier, 

Project Coordinator for NCWM, serves as the Webmaster. Comments and suggestions for improvements to the 

newsletters and website should be directed to NCWM at (402) 434-4880 or via e-mail at info@ncwm.net. 

100-3 I Meetings Update

Interim Meetings

January 22 - 25, 2012 Monteleone, New Orleans, Louisiana

January 27 - 30, 2013 Charleston, South Carolina

January 2014 Staff will research options in Albuquerque, New Mexico.

Annual Meetings

July 17 - 21, 2011 Holiday Inn Downtown at the Park, Missoula, Montana

July 15 - 19, 2012 Holiday Inn by the Bay, Portland, Maine

July 2013 Seelbach Hilton Louisville, Louisville, Kentucky

NCWM meetings are known for long days filled with important business. NCWM strives to plan meetings in 

locations that offer comfortable rooms and a variety of entertainment and dining options close by, so our attendees 

can break away for a couple hours in the evening to relax and enjoy their surroundings. The following is a brief 

description of future planned events.

The 2012 Interim Meeting will be held at the Monteleone in New Orleans, Louisiana. The Monteleone is a member 

of Historic Hotels of America and rests within the New Orleans French Quarter offering something for everyone in 

the newly revitalized city. From there, we go to the Holiday Inn by the Bay in Portland, Maine, for the 2012 Annual 

Meeting. T his hotel has successfully hosted NCWM previously. It is within blocks of the charming Old Port, a 

working waterfront, and the Arts District.

The 2013 Interim Meeting will be at the Francis Marion Hotel in historic downtown Charleston, South Carolina. It 

is truly a beautiful hotel situated perfectly for attendees to get the full Charleston experience. The 2013 Annual 

Meeting will be held at a location to be determined in the Southern Region. 

The Board will work with the Central Weights and Measures Association (CWMA) for a host city for the 

2014 Annual Meeting. The region should provide two or three cities where they believe a successful meeting could 

be held, taking into consideration the location, ease and cost of air travel, a selection of hotels with sufficient rooms 

and meeting space, etc. Members are not asked to provide specific hotels and are not to enter into negotiations with 

the hotels, However, NCWM’s site selection criteria is available upon request from Ms. Shari Tretheway, NCWM 

Office Manager, at (402) 434-4880 or e-mail to shari.tretheway@ncwm.net. 

Looking down the road, the Board of Directors would like to make the 2015 Annual meeting a very special event. 

In addition to addressing the business of the organization, NCWM will be celebrating its 100th Annual Meeting 

110 years after our first meeting in 1905. Traditionally, NCWM rotates locations for its Annual Meetings among 

the four regions. T he normal rotation for 2015 would place this meeting in the western region, but the Board is 

considering a deviation in the normal rotation by holding this meeting in the Washington, DC area; the city that 

hosted the first meeting in 1905 and for many years thereafter. The Board of Directors has formed a small work 

group to develop plans for the 100th NCWM Annual Meeting. The group will consider locations and special events 

to commemorate and bring excitement to the occasion. 

100-4 I Participation in International Standard Setting

The International Committee of Legal Metrology (CIML) Meeting was held at the Doubletree Hotel in Orlando, 

Florida, September 20 - 24, 2010. Dr. Charles Ehrlich invited NCWM Chairman, Tim Tyson, to provide a keynote 

address on September 21 to welcome the assembly and on September 23, NCWM Executive Director, Don Onwiler, 
BOD 2011 Final Report

BOD - 5 

presented an overview of the U.S. legal metrology system. N TEP Administrator, Jim Truex, was also on hand 

throughout the week to answer questions and discuss issues with the various CIML members. The meeting was a 

valuable opportunity for NCWM to gain a fuller understanding of the CIML. 

An International Organization of Legal Metrology (OIML) Seminar on Conformity to Type (CTT) is planned for 

summer 2011. OIML is in the beginning stages of developing a CTT program. NCWM has been invited to share its 

experience with the NTEP Conformity Assessment Program, and in particular, the Verified Conformity Assessment 

Program (VCAP) that serves as a main element. NCWM is hopeful that the VCAP audit reports can also satisfy the 

needs of the OIML CTT at a significant savings to certificate holders. 

Dr. Charles Ehrlich provided an informative report on NIST WMD activities in international standards development. 

(see Appendix A). 

100-5 I Efficiency and Effectiveness

The Board is examining methods of efficient use of NCWM resources that will promote effective service to its 

members and stakeholders. The Board welcomes member feedback on ideas to increase the effectiveness of the 

Conference.

At the 2011 Annual Meeting, the Board received many comments from the public and private sectors for an effort to 

support adequate funding for weights and measures programs. Administrators need to be prepared to justify their 

programs to the people who control their future. Weights and measures programs can no longer quietly go about 

their business. One suggestion was for a concerted effort of NCWM and NIST to develop material that justifies 

weights and measures programs. Another suggestion was to seek federal funding by drawing attention to the 

importance of regulatory presence. One member suggested that weights and measures officials need to simply put 

themselves in the public eye by working with local media. NCWM could assist by developing a media packet for 

use locally. Many programs have found that the most effective way to get legislative support for funding is through 

support from the industries they regulate. 

The Board of Directors has spent much time discussing these concerns in recent months. Plans are being developed 

to address them in the coming year.

100-5A I Regional Support 

Regional Website Hosting and Maintenance: For several years, NCWM has hosted the websites for the Southern 

and Central regions. Recently, the Western and Northeastern regions accepted an offer from NCWM to host their 

websites as well, at a cost to NCWM of $4000 for each region. All four regional associations’ websites are now 

hosted through NCWM. While the regional sites are very similar in layout, each region has the ability to customize 

menu options and page content. 

NCWM absorbs the cost in hosting fees and assesses an annual charge of $200 per year to each region for unlimited 

staff time to update the content of the websites. This fee for unlimited updates replaces the previous method of 

hourly billing for staff time in hopes that regions will be more proactive in keeping information up to date on the 

sites. Each region has designated one person who is authorized to make requests to NCWM for updates and changes 

to their respective websites. Additionally, NCWM staff will contact these representatives each quarter as a reminder 

to review their web pages for necessary updates. This process is outlined in NCWM Policy 3.1.6. Regional Website 

Hosting and can be viewed or downloaded from the policy manual on the NCWM website.

Shopping Cart Service for Regional Websites: Last year, NCWM received bids from its web service provider to 

add shopping cart services to each of the regional websites for online membership dues and meeting registrations. 

The estimated cost was $3500 per region at the region’s expense. The Western region accepted this offer and the 

shopping cart was in place in time to receive registrations for the 2010 Western Weights and Measures Association 

(WWMA) Annual Meeting. The actual cost for implementation for the WWMA shopping cart services was only 

$1200; far less than the original estimate. Cost will vary according to the complexity of the project. 
BOD 2011 Final Report

BOD - 6 

WWMA reported to the NCWM Board of Directors that the online meeting registrations worked very well for them. 

It provides a means for WWMA members to pay dues and meeting registrations with credit cards. The transaction 

is processed through the NCWM PayPal account and NCWM transfers the funds to the region’s bank account, less 

credit card fees of about 3.5 %. 

If other regions are interested, please contact NCWM for details (info@ncwm.net or (402) 434-4880).

Administrative Support to the Regions: NCWM developed a f ee schedule that would apply to regions who 

request NCWM administrative services for membership invoicing, meeting registration, database maintenance, and 

monthly reporting. These services, including credit card processing, are available whether or not a region elects to 

add the shopping cart feature to their website as mentioned above. The shopping cart feature would simply be an 

added enhancement to the administrative process and customer convenience. At this time, none of the regions have 

requested additional administrative services using the new fee structure. F or more information, please contact 

Ms. Shari Tretheway, NCWM Office Manager, at (402) 434-4880 or e-mail to shari.tretheway@ncwm.net. 

100-5B I Standing Committees

At the fall 2009 Board Meeting, a small group was formed to review ideas and options on structure, in an effort to 

ease the workload and improve the process for developing difficult agenda items. This work group reported back to 

the Board at the 2010 Interim Meeting. The report included a review of the past Committee workload. The work 

group noted that the format of the Interim Meeting was modified in recent years to be a day shorter, and to have 

consecutive open hearings instead of concurrent open hearings. These format changes reduced the amount of time 

the Committees have to develop their agenda items. T he Board also discussed the use of Informational and 

Developing status for items, noting that it may be helpful to set out some guidelines in how these categories of items 

are applied. The Committee structure was left unchanged, but the following steps have been taken to assist and 

support the important work of Standing Committees. 

Committee Orientation: In September 2010, newly elected NCWM officers and directors were invited to NCWM 

headquarters for orientation into the Board of Directors. It proved to be a success and the concept was immediately 

expanded to include a separate orientation program for new committee chairs and new committee members. The 

first NCWM Committee Orientation took place in November 2010 at the National Institute of Standards and 

Technology (NIST) offices in Gaithersburg, Maryland, to facilitate participation of all NIST technical advisors. The 

program presented by NCWM Chairman, Tim Tyson and Executive Director, Don Onwiler included a half-day 

session for committee chairs followed by a full day for the new committee members. The focus included leadership, 

administrative processes, roles and responsibilities, and review of the NCWM Committee Member Handbook. 

Additionally, the Committee chairs and NIST technical advisors reviewed agenda items for the new members so that 

they would be prepared in advance for the technical discussions and open hearings. 

Status of Agenda Items: The Board of Directors has discussed a need for clarification and guidance regarding the 

status that committees assign to agenda items. The options are Voting, Informational, Developing, or Withdrawn. 

If not implemented properly, items may not receive the best due process and expedient development. After much 

discussion, the following clarification has been presented in the NCWM Committee Member Handbook to provide 

guidance and ensure proper handling of items so that they do not fall through the cracks. 

Voting: These are items that the Committee believes are fully developed and ready for final consideration of 

the voting membership. Each item has either received majority support from the Committee or the Committee 

has reached agreement that it is ready for voting status to let NCWM membership decide. The committee has 

the ability to remove items from the voting agenda at the Annual Meeting by changing the status prior to a vote 

of the NCWM membership. The Committee may amend voting items during the course of the Annual 

Meeting based on additional information received following the Interim Meeting and testimony received at the 

Annual Meeting. These items may also be amended by the voting membership during the voting session of the 

Annual Meeting following the procedures outlined in the NCWM Bylaws. 

Informational: These items are deemed by the committee to have merit. They contain a proposal to address 

the issue at hand and a meaningful background discussion for the proposal. However, the Committee wants to 
BOD 2011 Final Report

BOD - 7 

allow more time for review by stakeholders and possibly further development to address concerns. The 

Committee has taken the responsibility for any additional development of informational items. At the Annual 

Meeting, the Committee may change the status of the items, but not to voting status because the item has not 

been published as such in advance of the meeting. 

Developing: These items are deemed by the Committee to have merit, but are found to be lacking enough 

information for full consideration. Typically the item will have a good explanation of the issue, but a clear 

proposal has yet to be developed. By assigning developing status, the Committee has sent the item back to the 

source with the responsibility of further development. The Committee report will provide the source with 

clear indication of what is necessary to move the item forward for full consideration. The item will be carried 

in the committee agenda in bulletin board fashion with contact information for the person or organization that 

is responsible for the development. Since the Committee is not required to receive testimony on developing 

items, this status should be carefully implemented so as not to weaken the standards development process.

Withdrawn: These are items that the Committee has found to be without merit based on overwhelming lack 

of support by NCWM stakeholders. The Committee's determination to withdraw should not be based on the 

committee's opinion alone, but on the input received from stakeholders. The Committee's report will contain 

an explanation for the withdrawal of the item.

Task Groups and Subcommittees: Task groups have been used sparsely as a means of addressing particularly 

difficult issues. Sometimes these work groups have been more successful than others. The Board believes task 

groups can be a very effective tool for committees that are struggling with particularly difficult items on a 

committee agenda, so NCWM is becoming more proactive in creating and supporting the work of these task groups. 

Last year, two new task groups were created by then NCWM Chairman, Mr. Randy Jennings. H e appointed 

Mr. Jeff Humphreys, Los Angeles County, California, to chair the NCWM Task Group on Retail Motor Fuel Price 

Posting and Computing Capabilities. This task group reports directly to the Specifications and Tolerances (S&T) 

Committee. T he second is the NCWM Task Group on Packaged Printer Ink and Toner Cartridges, chaired by 

Ms. Maureen Henzler, Kansas. This task group reports directly to the Laws and Regulations (L&R) Committee.

This year, NCWM formed the new Packaging and Labeling Subcommittee which will report to the NCWM Laws 

and Regulations Committee. T his Subcommittee replaces the former Industry Committee on Packaging and 

Labeling and is open to active and associate members. NCWM Chairman, Mr. Tim Tyson, has appointed Mr. Chris 

Guay, Procter and Gamble, to chair the Subcommittee. The Subcommittee is charged to assist the Laws and 

Regulations committee in the development of agenda items and provide guidance to regulators and industry on 

packaging and labeling issues. N CWM hopes that federal agencies will also provide representation on this 

important new Subcommittee. Anyone interested in serving on the Packaging and Labeling Subcommittee may 

contact NCWM Chair, Tim Mr. Tyson.

Resources offered by NCWM to these task groups and subcommittees include meeting space at Interim and Annual 

Meetings, conference calling services, dedicated e-mail listservs, a dedicated web page for posting and archiving 

documents related to their work, and broadcast e-mail services to reach targeted audiences. Additionally, NIST has 

provided technical advisors and web meeting forums. All of these tools enable year-around progress of task group 

and subcommittee work. 

100-5C I Meeting Format

The formation of task groups creates a need for meeting space. It is best for task groups to have an opportunity to 

meet prior to open hearings of the Interim and Annual Meetings, so that they can present updated reports and 

recommendations to their respective Standing Committees during open hearings. Beginning with the 2011 NCWM 

Interim Meeting, the schedule for Sunday afternoon has been modified. Standing Committees are asked to complete 

their agenda review via conference call or web meeting in advance of traveling to the meeting. T his frees up 

meeting rooms on Sunday afternoon for task groups to meet and for stakeholders to observe and even participate in 

those meetings. NCWM has reserved the hour of 4:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. for standing committees to have the 
BOD 2011 Final Report

BOD - 8 

meeting space if they need additional agenda review before open hearings commence. If this need does not exist, 

the task groups will be allowed to extend the length of their meetings.

The Board of Directors envisions many opportunities for training and technical work on the Sunday afternoons 

preceding Interim and Annual Meetings using the space that was formerly occupied by Standing Committees for 

agenda review sessions.

100-6 V Bylaws Amendment: Article I, Section 2 – Tax Exempt Status

(This item was adopted)

Purpose: Update the NCWM Bylaws to recognize NTEP revenues as a significant source of revenue.

Item under Consideration: Amend NCWM Bylaws Article I, Section 2 as follows:

Section 2 - Tax Exempt Status

This Corporation is organized as a not-for-profit business league under section 501(c)(6) of the Internal 

Revenue Code exclusively for not-for-profit purposes, including but not limited to improvement of business 

conditions, higher business standards and better business methods; promotion of uniformity in weights and 

measures laws, regulations, and practices; and sponsorship of educational and scientific programs. Such 

purposes are described in the Article II, “Goals,” in these Bylaws. The Corporation is authorized, for not-forprofit purposes, to make distributions to organizations that qualify as exempt organizations under § 501(c) of 

the Internal Revenue Code, or the corresponding section of any future tax code. The Corporation is primarily 

supported by membership dues, and registration fees paid by members to attend meetings of the Corporation

and by fees for certification of weighing and measuring devices under the National Type Evaluation 

Program.

No part of the net earnings of the Corporation shall inure to the benefit of, or be distributed to its members, 

directors, officers, or other private persons, except that the Corporation shall be authorized and empowered to 

pay reasonable compensation for services rendered and to make payments and distributions in furtherance of 

the purposes set forth in the Articles of Incorporation. No substantial part of the activities of the Corporation 

shall be the carrying on of propaganda, or otherwise attempting to influence legislation, and the Corporation 

shall not participate in, or intervene in (including the publication or distribution of statements) any political 

campaign on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office. Notwithstanding any other provision 

of these Bylaws, and the Articles of Incorporation, the Corporation shall not carry on any other activities not 

permitted to be carried on (a) by a Corporation exempt from Federal income tax under section 501(c)(6) of the 

Internal Revenue Code, or the corresponding section of any future Federal tax code, or (b) by a corporation, 

contributions to which are deductible under the Internal Revenue Code as a trade or business expense ordinary 

and necessary in the conduct of the Corporation's business.

 

Discussion: In 1997, NCWM formed into a nonprofit corporation. At that time, NTEP was administered by NIST. 

In 2000, NCWM assumed administration of NTEP and, thus, began collecting fees for the program such as 

application fees and annual maintenance fees. Article I, Section 2 of the NCWM Bylaws defines the primary or 

significant revenue sources for NCWM under our tax exempt status with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). This 

amendment will update the bylaws to recognize revenues received from NTEP.
BOD 2011 Final Report

BOD - 9 

100-7 V Bylaws Amendment: Article X, Section 6 – Committee Reports

(This item was adopted)

Purpose: Simplify the procedures required in order to request removal of an item from the voting consent (VC) 

calendar of Committee reports at the Annual Meetings. 

Item under Consideration: Amend NCWM Bylaws Article X, Section 6 as follows:

Section 6 - Committee Reports

Alternatives that may be used in voting on the reports:

 

A. vote on the entire report; 

 

B. vote on grouped items or sections; or

 

C. vote on individual items; according to

 

1. committee discretion; or

 

2. on request by a voting delegate, with the support of 10 others registered attendee. 

Discussion: Each Standing Committee has the option of placing what they believe to be noncontroversial items on 

a voting consent calendar to expedite the voting process at the Annual Meeting. There are many reasons why a 

person in attendance may wish to have an item removed from the consent calendar. A person may wish to cast a 

vote in opposition to an item without opposing the other items on the consent calendar. A person may want an 

opportunity to comment on a specific item before a vote is cast. A person may simply want a separate vote tally for 

an individual item for the record. 

Current Bylaws require that the request come from a voting delegate, and that a minimum of 10 additional voting 

delegates support such a motion before an item may be removed from the consent calendar for individual 

consideration. However, this requirement has not been consistently enforced in past years. Committee chairs and 

NCWM parliamentarians have typically honored any request from the floor to remove items from the committee 

consent calendar. 

The original proposal struck the requirement for support of 10. Following the 2011 Interim Meeting, the Board 

further modified the proposal to reflect that any registered meeting attendee may request a separate vote of an item, 

instead of limiting the privilege to voting delegates. Members are asked to consider whether the Bylaws should be 

followed as written or modified as proposed in this item to reflect recent practice.

100-8 V Bylaws Amendment: Article X, Sections 9A and 9B – Voting

(This item was adopted)

Purpose: Provide clear definition of voting rights for the House of General Membership in accordance with Article 

X, Section 3 of the Bylaws.

Item under Consideration: Amend NCWM Bylaws Article X, Sections 9A and 9B as follows:

Section 9A -Voting - Technical Issues

At the conclusion of debate (if authorized) on a motion, there shall be a call for the vote by voice vote, a 

show of hands, standing, or electronic count.
BOD 2011 Final Report

BOD - 10

A. Motion Accepted If:

1. a minimum of 27 members of the House of State Representatives votes Yea.

And If

2. a majority of the members of the House of Delegates votes Yea (a minimum of 27 Yea votes 

required);1

And, in the case of motions relating to business items, If

3. a majority of the members of the House of General Membership votes Yea (a minimum of 27 

Yea votes required).1

B. Motion Rejected If:

1. a minimum of 27 members of the House of State Representatives votes Nay

And If

2. a majority of the members of the House of Delegates votes Nay (a minimum of 27 Nay votes 

required);1

And, in the case of motions relating to business items, If

3. a majority of the members of the House of General Membership votes Nay (a minimum of 27 

Nay votes required).1

C. Split Vote: 

When a split vote is recorded or the minimum number of votes supporting or opposing an issue is not 

obtained in the House of State Representatives, the issue is returned to the Standing Committee for 

further consideration,except when there is a split vote on approval of the biennial report for filing 

with the Nebraska Secretary of State. In the case of a split vote on the filing of the biennial 

report, the vote of the Chairman on the filing of the report shall prevail. 

Except for the biennial report, the The Committee may drop the issue or reconsider it for submission the 

following year. The issue cannot be recalled for another vote at the same Annual Meeting.

Section 9B - Voting - Business Issues

At the conclusion of debate (if authorized) on a motion, there shall be a call for the vote by voice vote. In 

the event that a voice vote is too close to be determined in the opinion of the Chairman, there shall be a 

show of hands, standing vote, or machine (electronic) vote count.

A. Motion Accepted If:

1. a majority of those members present and voting vote Yea.

B. Motion Rejected If:

1. a majority of those members present and voting vote Nay.

C. Tie Vote:

In the case of a tie vote, the vote of the Chairman shall prevail.

Discussion: Section 9A – Voting – Technical Issues makes several references to the vote in the House of General 

Membership. According to Article X, Section 3, this House cannot vote on technical items. Section 9A also makes 

reference to a split vote of the biennial report, which is the election of officers and directors. That is a business item 

and should not be referenced in Section 9A.

 

1 If the minimum number of votes required to pass or fail an issue is not cast in the House of Delegates or the House of General 

Membership, the issue will be determined by the vote of the House of State Representatives.
BOD 2011 Final Report

BOD - 11

The proposal strikes all references of the House of General Membership from Section 9A as well as references to 

approval of the biennial report. All business items are adequately addressed in Section 9B – Voting – Business 

Issues.

100-9 I Strategic Planning

The purpose of the strategic plan is to ensure the organization is moving forward and in the right direction. The 

strategic plan is available on the NCWM website at www.ncwm.net under the “Members Only” tab.

The Board of Directors will review the strategic plan at the January 2012 meeting. Members are asked to provide 

input before that meeting on the five current goals in the strategic plan and any other goals that they believe should 

be included. Mr. Steve Patoray, BIML Director, highlighted the first goal for NCWM, to enhance its role as a 

national and international resource for measurement standards development. He extended an offer to assist NCWM 

in this goal and to work effectively toward the mutual benefit of both organizations and their missions.

Five primary goals are contained in the strategic plan.

1. Enhance the NCWM 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 NCWM as a resource for state and local weights and measures programs.

5. Ensure financial stability of the NCWM.

National Certification Program: 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. In the fall of 2010, the Board 

received a p roposal from an individual, to contract services to NCWM as the Certification Exam Coordinator 

working with the Professional Development Committee (PDC). T he Board deliberated over the proposal in a 

conference call in October and is working out the details of a possible contract for services.

Viable Support for NTEP Laboratories: 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.

Online Position Forum: The project is completed for launch on May 1, 2011. A live demonstration was given at 

the 2011 Interim Meeting, and another is planned for the 2011 Annual Meeting. Please see agenda Item 100-2 for 

more details.

100-10 I Financial Report

NCWM operates on a fiscal year of October 1 through September 30. B udgets are set to be conservative on 

projected revenues and realistic on anticipated expenses. 

The Executive Director was asked to provide a graphic view of NCWM finances before and after NCWM hired its 

own staff and opened a headquarters office in 2008. P rior to that, NCWM contracted for the services of an 

association management company. Below is a graphic view of the past 10 fiscal years based on year-end audit 

reports. The spike in expenses in 2008 reflects the cost of the management transition. The management company 

was still under contract that year while NCWM hired employees and procured office space, furniture, computers, 

etc. The graph shows significant savings in the following years of 2009 and 2010 even though NCWM invested 

significantly in new initiatives during that time. Those initiatives of the past two years include the new website with 
BOD 2011 Final Report

BOD - 12

improved functionality, implementation of e-commerce, new regional association websites, the National 

Certification Program, and other improvements to services. 

10-Year Financial Analysis
BOD 2011 Final Report

BOD - 13

The following is the balance statement as of June 30, 2011, in comparison with the same time the previous year.

ASSETS June 30, 2010 June 30, 2011

Current Assets $ $

Checking/Savings

Associate Member Fund 6,614.23 18,425.73

Certificates of Deposit 792,770.96 954,265.98

Checking 39,083.40 -26,345.11

Savings 144,401.83 208,118.33

Total Checking/Savings $ 982,870.42 $ 1,154,464.93

Accounts Receivable 0.00 1,035.00

Other Current Assets 54,298.74 51,589.87

Other Assets 6,541.11 8,617.67

TOTAL ASSETS $ 1,043,710.27 $ 1,215,707.47

LIABILITIES & EQUITY

Liabilities

Current Liabilities 2,708.44 10,891.87

Total Liabilities $ 2,708.44 10,891.87

Equity

Unrestricted Net Assets 784,771.17 931,421.51

Net Income 256,230.66 273,394.09

Total Equity $ 1,041,001.83 1,204,815.60

TOTAL LIABILITIES & EQUITY $ 1,043,710.27 $ 1,215,707.47

Mr. Tim Tyson, Kansas, NCWM Chairman

Mr. Kurt Floren, Los Angeles, California, Chairman-Elect

Mr. Randy Jennings, Tennessee, NTEP Chairman

Ms. Judy Cardin, Wisconsin, Treasurer

Mr. Michael Sikula, New York, Northeastern Regional Representative

Mr. Ron Hayes, Missouri, Central Regional Representative

Mr. Stephen Benjamin, North Carolina, Southern Regional Representative

Mr. Brett Saum, San Luis Obispo, California, Western Regional Representative

Mr. Stephen Langford, Cardinal Scale, At-Large

Mr. Mark Coyne, Brockton, Massachusetts, At-Large

Mr. Gordon Johnson, Gilbarco, Associate Membership

Mr. Gilles Vinet, Measurement Canada, Advisory

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

Mr. Jim Truex, NTEP Administrator

Mr. Don Onwiler, NCWM, Executive Director

Board of Directors
BOD 2011 Final Report

BOD - 14

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
BOD 2011 Final Report

Appendix A – Report on the 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. 

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 45th CIML Meeting in Orlando, Florida, September 2010 ...................................................... A5

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

IV. Regional Legal Metrology Organizations...................................................................................................... A7
BOD 2011 Final Report

Appendix A – Report on the Activities of OIML

BOD - A2 

Table B

Glossary of Acronyms

BIML International Bureau of Legal Metrology ILMG International Legal Metrology Group

B Basic Publication IR International Recommendation

CD Committee Draft1 IWG International Work Group

CIML International Committee of Legal Metrology MAA Mutual Acceptance Arrangement

CPR Committee on Participation Review MC Measurement Canada

D Document OIML International Organization of Legal 

Metrology

DD Draft Document2 R Recommandation

DR Draft Recommendation2 SC Technical Subcommittee

DoMC Declaration of Mutual Confidence TC Technical Committee

DV Draft Vocabulary2 WD Working Draft3

IEC International Electrotechnical Commission USNWG U.S. National Work Group

1 CD: a draft at the stage of development within a T echnical 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 the OIML Technical Committees (TCs) and 

Technical Subcommittees (SCs) of specific interest to members of the NCWM. A lso 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 5 “Conformity assessment” (United States)

The Subcommittee held a meeting in Paris, France, in October 2010 to discuss the revision of the documents B 3 

(Certificate System) and B 10 (Mutual Acceptance Arrangement). The CIML Preliminary Ballot on B 3 and B 10 

closed in July 2011 without any negative votes and a final CIML vote will be held at the CIML Meeting in Prague in 

October 2011. I nternational comments on a new document entitled “The role of measurement uncertainty in 

conformity assessment decisions in legal metrology” have been received and are being used by the Secretariat to 

develop the 2 CD. P lease see the Mutual Acceptance Agreement (MAA) section in the NTEP report of this 

publication for more details on the activities of TC 3/SC 5. F or more information on the activities of this 

Subcommittee, please contact Dr. Charles Ehrlich at (301) 975-4834 or at charles.ehrlich@nist.gov. 
BOD 2011 Final Report

Appendix A – Report on the Activities of OIML

BOD - A3 

TC 5/SC 1 “Environmental conditions” (Netherlands)

The Secretariat distributed the 1 CD revision of D 11 “General requirements for electronic measuring instruments,” 

in February 2011. This is a very important document in the OIML system, and is used by all of the OIML TCs as a 

general reference for technical and testing requirements on all measuring instruments. The United States 

participated in a meeting of TC 5/SC 1 to discuss the D 11 document and international comments on the 1 CD in 

Utrecht, The Netherlands, in June 2011. The OIML Expert Report E 5 “Overview of the present status of the 

Standards referred to in OIML D 11 – General Requirements for Electronic Measuring Instruments” was recently 

published and updates all of the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) references for testing requirements 

in D 11. Please contact Mr. Ralph Richter at (301) 975-3997 or at ralph.richter@nist.gov, if you would like further 

information on this project.

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

The OIML Document D 31 “General requirements for software-controlled measuring instruments” has been 

published 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 approved by the 

CIML, and the United States is waiting for the first draft of this document. 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) 

A project to develop an OIML International Quantity Mark, referred to as an IQ Mark, is still ongoing. The IQ 

Mark is intended to eliminate the need for redundant inspections for compliance with legal metrology requirements 

for labeling and net contents. Receiving countries want imported packages to meet all of their legal metrology 

requirements, and packers in exporting countries want to ensure prepackages will not be rejected or require 

additional inspections after arriving in the destination country. The initial proposal for the program would require 

that participating packagers meet specific requirements in order to participate in a program for quantity control and 

labeling of prepackaged goods. The United States is participating in a WG that is developing guidelines on good 

manufacturing practices that would be used in the IQ Mark’s accreditation programs. The United States believes the 

effort to manage and certify quality control systems will add unnecessary extra costs to all participating suppliers. 

Even though there is significant opposition to the IQ Mark effort from several countries (including the United States, 

Denmark, Switzerland and Canada), TC 6 continues to move forward with this project under the premise that such a 

voluntary system would be of value to developing countries. The United States voted “no” on the 2 CD of the IQmark document in May 2010 and received the 3 CD from the Secretariat in August 2011.

NIST is assisting TC 6 in two other important projects: a revision of OIML R 87 "Quantity of Product in 

Prepackages" (the OIML equivalent to NIST Handbook 133 “Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods”) and a 

revision of OIML R 79 “Labeling requirements for prepackaged products.” 

NIST will host a meeting of TC 6 in Gaithersburg, Maryland September 26 - 30, 2011. Please contact Mr. 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 “Measurement of quantities of fluids” (Switzerland)

The CIML has approved projects to revise the following TC 8 documents: R 63 “Petroleum measurement tables” 

(1994) and R 119 “Pipe provers for testing of measuring systems for liquids other than water” (1996). Both of these 

documents are important for other OIML Recommendations involving liquid measurement. Please contact 

Mr. 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 1 “Static volume and mass measurement” (Austria and Germany)

The United States now chairs an International Work Group (IWG) that is drafting new sections of OIML R 71 

“Fixed storage tanks” and R 85 “Automatic level gages for measuring the level of liquid in fixed storage tanks” to 

add specific requirements for specialized tanks. O IML R 80-2, “Road and rail tankers, test methods,” is being 

developed. P lease contact Mr. 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.
BOD 2011 Final Report

Appendix A – Report on the Activities of OIML

BOD - A4 

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

Subcommittee work is continuing on the development of OIML R 117-2, “Dynamic measuring systems for liquids 

other than water, Part 2, Test methods,” and R 117-3 “Test report format.” M eetings of the IWG for the 

development of R 117 were held in Boras, Sweden, in January 2010; at NIST in Gaithersburg, Maryland, in 

May 2010; and in Paris, France, in November 2010. The USNWG also worked on this document in Dallas, Texas, 

in January 2011. The IWG for the development of R 117 has also held several international webinars to accelerate 

the work on this high priority document and has a meeting scheduled in Braunschweig, Germany in 

November 2011. The first committee draft of R 117-2 was distributed in March 2011. If you have any questions or 

would like to participate in the next phases of this project, please contact Mr. 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. The 

Joint Work Group of these three organizations distributed the 2 CD of the harmonized document in May 2011 with 

comments to be returned in August 2011. N IST is hosting a joint meeting of the three organizations in 

Gaithersburg, Maryland, in November 2011. T he American Water Works Association (AWWA) Committee on 

Water Meters is assisting in these efforts. P lease contact Mr. Ralph Richter at (301) 975-3997 or at 

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

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

Members of the Subcommittee and U.S. stakeholders decided that there is sufficient justification for revising R 81, 

“Dynamic measuring devices and systems for cryogenic liquids.” Responses 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 and the USNWG to review and formally comment on the first draft of the revised 

R 81 this spring. To obtain more information or to participate in this project, please contact Ms. Juana Williams at 

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

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

The Secretariat distributed the draft recommendation (DR) of OIML R 137-1 and R 137-2, “Gas meters; Part 1: 

Metrological and Technical Requirements, and Part 2: Metrological controls and performance tests” in May 2011. 

Extensive U.S. comments on both the 1 CD and the 2 CD were developed in cooperation with the measurement 

committees of the American Gas Association (AGA). The OIML R 137 document is especially important to U.S. 

interests because the ANSI B 109 Committee on gas measurement is using R 137 to create a new performance-based 

standard for gas meters in the United States. M eetings of the WG that is developing this new standard “ANSI 

B 109.zero” were held in Kansas City, Missouri, in September 2010 and in Savannah, Georgia, in February 2011. 

Final CIML approval of R 137 is expected in October 2011. Please contact Mr. Ralph Richter at (301) 975-3997 or 

ralph.richter@nist.gov, if you would like to participate in these efforts or obtain a copy of any of these gas 

measurement documents.

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

The CIML approved a new work item to revise OIML R 60:2000 “Metrological regulation for load cells.” This 

revision is planned to cover everything from the basic principles of R 60 (e.g., tolerances and accuracy classes) to 

exploring the addition of new requirements. T he United States distributed a first working draft revision of R 60, 

incorporating a major re-formatting of the document. U SNWG members and TC 9 Committee members were 

requested to return comments on R 60 by March 2011. A meeting will be held September 19 - 20, 2011, in 

Braunschweig, Germany, to discuss the 1 CD of R 60. For more information on these efforts, please contact 

Mr. John Barton at (301) 975-4002 or john.barton@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 the CIML and published. U.S. comments concerning terminology and document 

scope were incorporated in the document. T he test report format of this document, R 134-2, has also been 
BOD 2011 Final Report

Appendix A – Report on the Activities of OIML

BOD - A5 

published. Both OIML R 134 and an ASTM standard will be used to help develop a new section in NIST HB 44 on 

in-motion weighing systems for the pre-screening of road vehicles. To receive a copy of the OIML documents or to 

obtain more information on this work, please contact Mr. Richard Harshman at (301) 975-8107 or at 

harshman@nist.gov. 

The DR of OIML R 106 Parts 1 and 2, “Automatic rail-weighbridges,” is close to final approval. The DR of R 106 

is out for CIML postal ballot with vote and comments due back in April 2011. To receive copies of these 

documents or to obtain more information on the work of this Subcommittee, please contact Mr. John Barton at 

(301) 975-4002 or john.barton@nist.gov. 

The Secretariat is in the process of revising OIML R 50 “Continuous totalizing automatic weighing instruments (belt 

weighers).” T he United States returned comments on the 3 CD of this Recommendation in July 2010, and 

participated in a meeting on R 50 in Teddington, United Kingdom, in April 2011. For more information on this 

effort, please contact Mr. John Barton at (301) 975-4002 or john.barton@nist.gov. 

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

The Co-Secretariats 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. The 5 CD of OIML R 59 was distributed to the Subcommittee in February 2009. A preliminary 6 CD was 

developed based on international comments received on the 5 CD, and a meeting of TC 17/SC 1 was held in 

September 2010 in Orlando, Florida. Please contact Ms. Diane Lee at (301) 975-4405 or at diane.lee@nist.gov, if 

you would like to participate in this IWG.

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.” A ustralia is the Secretariat. A t a T C 17/SC 8 meeting hosted by NIST, the 

Subcommittee 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. The Secretariat 

distributed a 2 CD of the document in February 2010. I nternational comments on the 2 CD were received and 

compiled. These comments were discussed at a meeting of TC 17/SC 8 in September 2010 in Orlando, Florida. 

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

IWG.

OIML Mutual Acceptance Arrangement (MAA)

The report on the OIML MAA can 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 45th CIML Meeting in Orlando, Florida, in September 2010 

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

CIML President.

The Committee expressed its appreciation for the strong level of interaction and cooperation between the BIML and 

the International Bureau of Weights and Measures (BIPM). The Committee asked the Director of the BIML to 

prepare a report on the relationship between the two Organizations to be presented to the 46th CIML meeting with a 

view to making key decisions on the relationship with the BIPM at the 14th Conference in 2012. This report should 

be mainly strategic in nature and should consider the point of view of the stakeholders of both organizations.

The Committee expressed its appreciation for the continued cooperation with the International Laboratory 

Accreditation Cooperation (ILAC) and the International Accreditation Forum (IAF). The Committee instructed the 

Bureau to pursue the joint work with ILAC and the IAF, also considering the future needs related to OIML 

acceptance and certification systems.
BOD 2011 Final Report

Appendix A – Report on the Activities of OIML

BOD - A6 

The Committee noted the OIML liaison with ISO and the IEC. The Committee also instructed the Bureau to pursue 

cooperation with ISO, to set up similar working relations with the IEC, and to convey relevant information on these 

issues to CIML Members.

The Committee noted the report on the liaison with the Technical Barriers to Trade Committee (TBT) of the World 

Trade Organization (WTO) and instructed the Bureau to maintain appropriate contacts with this Organization, and to 

convey relevant information on TBT issues to OIML Members.

The Committee noted a report on the liaison with CODEX Alimentarius (the international food code) and instructed 

the Bureau to: (1) continue to work towards ensuring consistency of OIML publications with those of CODEX; 

(2) examine additional fields of cooperation with CODEX other than prepackages; and (3) consult CIML Members 

before submitting any proposals to CODEX.

The Committee supports the organization of a seminar on the subject of Conformity to Type (CTT) and strongly 

encourages all member nations to actively contribute to this seminar. The Bureau was instructed to facilitate an 

electronic WG, chaired by the Member for New Zealand, with the objective of preparing the program for that 

seminar, taking into account the issues raised and the comments received by member nations. The United States 

will serve on this WG. The CIML postponed a decision on a proposal for a new Subcommittee on Conformity to 

Type until after the conclusions of the seminar on CTT are made available. 

The Committee noted the re-confirmation of the following OIML Publications by their respective Technical

Committees and Subcommittees (the United States serves as Secretariat for all of the technical committees 

responsible for these Recommendations):

• OIML R 92:1989 Wood moisture meters – Verification methods and equipment: general provisions;

• OIML R 127:1999 Radiochromic film dosimetry system for ionizing radiation processing of materials and 

products; 

• OIML R 131:2001 Polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) dosimetry systems for ionizing radiation processing 

of materials and products;

• OIML R 132:2001 Alanine EPR dosimetry systems for ionizing radiation processing of materials and 

products; and

• OIML R 133:2002 Liquid-in-glass thermometers.

The Committee instructed the Bureau to submit the Draft Revision of R 100 “Atomic absorption spectrometers for 

measuring metal pollutants in water” to direct CIML online approval.

The Draft Revision of OIML D 16 “Principles of assurance of metrological control” was submitted to the CIML for 

online ballot, but it did not receive sufficient support to be approved. C onsidering the comments made by the 

Netherlands and Norway as part of the online voting, the CIML requested that OIML TC 3/SC 2 prepare a revised 

Draft Revision of OIML D 16 with the assistance of the Netherlands and Norway. The revised Draft Revision will 

then be submitted for direct CIML online approval.

The Committee approved the project to revise:

• OIML D 29 “Guide for the application of ISO/IEC Guide 65” for the assessment of measuring instrument 

certification bodies in legal metrology, to be undertaken by OIML TC 3/SC 5 following the publication of 

ISO 17065, superseding ISO/IEC Guide 65.

The Committee approved the withdrawal of the OIML TC 11/SC 2 project on standardized thermocouples.
BOD 2011 Final Report

Appendix A – Report on the Activities of OIML

BOD - A7 

The ad hoc WG for the revision of the Directives for the technical work (OIML B 6-1), after several meetings, has 

not been able to reach consensus on a number of key issues. Considering the negative comments made by some 

member nations (especially comments from the United States) on several drafts of the revision of OIML B 6-1, the 

CIML instructed the Bureau to consult all CIML Members by way of an inquiry on their position with regard to 

specific issues, such as: the structure of the technical work, the proposed Technical Management Committee, and 

the voting procedures for the adoption of OIML Publications. T he plan is that a new Draft Revision will be 

available to be considered for adoption by the CIML at its 46th Meeting.

The Committee took note of the information provided by the BIML Director concerning the report of the BIML 

financial and management audit that was done in February 2010 and the actions taken by the Bureau. T he 

Committee instructed its President to send the report of this audit and the BIML Director’s comments on that report 

to all CIML Members and to continue to follow up on this issue. The Committee instructed the Bureau to continue 

its efforts to increase the efficiency of its finances and management.

The Committee took note of the report on the pension system and of the comments made by Mr. Peter Mason,

United Kingdom, and Dr. Philippe Richard, Switzerland. The Committee noted that the re-evaluated assets of the 

BIML cover much more than the value of the pension rights acquired, and that there will be no need to call for any 

additional Member State contributions to face this liability.

The Committee elected Mr. Peter Mason as its new CIML President. His six-year term will start at the opening of 

the 46th CIML Meeting in October 2011.

The Committee elected Dr. Roman Schwartz, Germany, CIML second Vice-President for a s ix-year term. H is 

six-year term started immediately as the position was vacant

The Committee appointed Mr. Stephen Patoray, former NCWM NTEP Director, as the new BIML Director. The 

Committee confirmed its expectation that the commitment to be proficient in French will be a condition of 

Mr. Patoray’s employment contract.

For their outstanding contributions to the development of international legal metrology, the Committee awarded 

OIML Medals to:

• Dr. Nicolai Zhagora of Belarus;

• Dr. Heinz Wallerus of Germany; and

• Mr. Brian Beard of South Africa

III. Future OIML Meetings

The Czech Republic will host the 46th CIML Meeting in Prague, Czech Republic. The meeting is planned for 

October 9 - 14, 2011.

The Committee expressed its thanks to Romania for its offer to host the 14th OIML Conference and 47th CIML 

Meeting in 2012.

IV. Regional Legal Metrology Organizations 

Meeting of the Inter-American Metrology System (SIM), General Assembly, and the SIM Legal Metrology 

Work Group (LMWG)

The SIM General Assembly was held in Lima, Peru, during the last week of October 2009. Dr. Humberto S. Brandi, 

Director of Scientific and Industrial Metrology (SIM) at INMETRO Brazil, is the SIM President. Mr. Marcos Senna 
BOD 2011 Final Report

Appendix A – Report on the Activities of OIML

BOD - A8 

mjsenna@inmetro.gov.br, also of INMETRO in Brazil, serves as the Chairman of the SIM Legal Metrology Work 

Group (LMWG). The organization is working to build capacity in legal metrology for SIM member countries. 

Please contact Mr. Ralph Richter at (301) 975-3997 or at ralph.richter@nist.gov for more information.

Asia-Pacific Legal Metrology Forum (APLMF) 

The 17th Meeting of the Asia-Pacific Legal Metrology Forum (APLMF) was held September 13 - 16, 2010, in 

Victoria, British Columbia, Canada. The Peoples Republic of China holds the Presidency and Secretariat of the 

APLMF. Mr. Pu Changcheng, APLMF President and Vice-Minister of AQSIQ, chaired the meeting. The APLMF 

activities are facilitated through its seven work groups. The most active is the work group on Training Coordination 

chaired by Australia.

The main objectives of APLMF are to coordinate regional training courses in legal metrology and to provide a 

forum for exchange of information among legal metrology authorities. There were three training courses and one 

Workshop given by APLMF this year. T he training courses, covering requirements in select OIML 

Recommendations, and offered primarily to assist the developing countries in APLMF, were on gas meters, 

non-automatic weighing instruments (NAWIs) (weighbridges), and mass flow meters. There was also a workshop 

on Software Controlled Measuring Instruments. While feedback from the previously-held training courses has been 

positive, it is becoming clear that in order to continue to receive funding for the training, the APLMF needs to do a 

more thorough job of assessing and documenting the impact of the training courses on the economies that receive 

the training. 

In June 2011, APLMF obtained funding for a new multi-faceted pilot project to significantly improve the accuracy 

and processes for metering liquid petroleum products in the Asia-Pacific region.

The United States was represented at the meeting in Victoria, British Columbia, by Dr. Charles Ehrlich, who serves 

as Chairman of the APLMF WG on Mutual Recognition Arrangements, and by Mr. Ralph Richter. Dr. Ehrlich gave 

an extensive report and update on the OIML MAA. Mr. Richter prepared and presented the United States Country 

Report. T he 2011 APLMF meeting is scheduled to be held in Busan, South Korea, during the first week of 

September 2011.
BOD 2011 Final Report

Appendix B – AMC Meeting Minutes

BOD - B1 

Appendix B

Report of the 

NCWM Associate Member Committee

July 18, 2011

Missoula, Montana

CALL TO ORDER

Chairman Robert Murnane called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m.

MINUTES

A copy of the January 2011 meeting minutes was distributed. These minutes were reviewed and a motion was made 

by Mr. Tom McGee and seconded by Mr. Steve Langford to approve the minutes as written. W ith no further 

discussion, the minutes were approved.

FINANCIAL CONDITION

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

a current balance of $18,425.73 as of June 30, 2011. A motion was made and seconded to accept the Financial 

Report. With no other discussion, the Financial Report was accepted.

BOARD OF DIRECTORS REPORT

Gordon Johnson, the Associate Membership Representative on the NCWM Board of Directors (BOD) gave a report 

concerning BOD activities. A few of the items are repeated below.

• VCAP, it was reported that load cell manufacturers have completed their audits with a few manufacturers 

in the final stages, but on track. The BOD reported considering Load Receiving Elements of 2000 lb and 

under using non-NTEP approved load cells as the next focus area.

• The Treasurer’s report indicated that NCWM is in good financial condition and approved the 2012 budget 

as proposed.

• The BOD reported that the Online Forum was up and running in time for comments on the Annual Meeting 

agenda items. While the comments were light, there is no concern as this was the first year of the forum’s 

use.

Gordon mentioned that additional information on the activities of the BOD can be found in the final Conference 

report.
BOD 2011 Final Report

Appendix B – AMC Meeting Minutes

BOD - B2 

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE (PDC) REPORT

Mr. Steven Grabski, the Associate Membership Representative on the PDC gave a report about the Committee’s 

activities. P rogress continues on the online testing and the Committee is planning to work with the Regional 

Associations on the idea of having one registration test for service personnel that is accepted by all states.

LAWS & REGULATIONS (L&R) COMMITTEE REPORT

Due to conflicting committee meeting times, Rob Underwood, the Associate Membership Representative was not 

able to provide his report on L&R activities.

ASSOCIATE MEMBERSHIP COMMITTEE (AMC) FUND DISBURSEMENT REPORT

Chairman Murnane reported that no new funds requests have been received. Chairman Murnane sent out a reminder 

e-mail and did receive some feedback on possible future requests. 

FILLING VACANT POSITIONS

There were no vacant positions to fill; however, all members present were reminded that the position of the Chair, 

Vice Chair and the Secretary/Treasurer become vacant at the end of the 2012 Annual Meeting. These positions need 

to be filled during the AMC Meeting at the 2012 Interim Meeting 

See the updated AMC Members and Officers list, located at the end of this document, for a complete list of AMC 

members.

CURRENT STANDING COMMITTEE REPRESENTATIVES

• Mr. Gordon Johnson, Gilbarco, represents the AMC on the Board of Directors. His term expires July 2013. 

• Mr. Steven Grabski, Wal-Mart, represents the AMC on the Laws & Regulations Committee. His term

expires July 2013.

• Mr. Rob Underwood, Petroleum Marketers represents the AMC on the Professional Development 

Committee. His term expires July 2013.

Chairman Murnane will work with the NCWM staff to update the Committee’s information in the Conference 

report.

OLD BUSINESS

No old business to report.

NEW BUSINESS

Chairman Murnane proposed three changes to the Funds Request Approval Process document. The changes are 

proposed to better align the document with the AMC Bylaws. A copy of the proposed changes was distributed to 

members present for review. The proposed changes were:

1. Add the following sentence to the end of the “Procedure” paragraph. Training funds may also be approved 

throughout the year by using Article IV, Sections 3 and 4 of the Bylaws. 
BOD 2011 Final Report

Appendix B – AMC Meeting Minutes

BOD - B3 

2. Modify sentence five in the section titled “AMC Training Fund Request Selection Criteria.” Reasonable 

funding for travel and expenses will be considered, if it is necessary to acquire an “expert trainer” that 

would benefit a high number of weights and measures officials. 

3. Add the following to the end of sentence five in the section titled “AMC Training Fund Request Selection 

Criteria.” This would only be an option when qualified volunteers are not available.

These changes were reviewed, and a motion was made by Chairman Murnane and seconded by Mr. Tom McGee to 

accept the changes as written. With no further discussion, the changes were approved.

Richard Suiter commented on the struggling state budgets and how industry has more influence in this area than 

state personnel. Mr. Suiter suggested that the AMC consider helping in this area. Chairman Murnane suggested that 

the Committee could help in the development of a “Toolbox” containing various documents that weights and 

measures officials could pull from when meeting with their managers on budget issues. As this topic was also a 

discussion point with the BOD, it was suggested that Chairman Murnane present the AMC’s interest in participating 

and/or supporting this type of effort. 

ADJOURNMENT 

With no further new business, Chairman Murnane adjourned the meeting at 4:42 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Mr. Darrell Flocken

Secretary
BOD 2011 Final Report

Appendix B – AMC Meeting Minutes

BOD - B4 

AMC MEMBERS AND OFFICERS EFFECTIVE JULY 18, 2011 

Chair: Mr. Bob Murnane

Vice Chair: Mr. Chris Quay

Secretary/Treasurer: Mr. Darrell Flocken

MEMBERS

Mr. Pete O’Bryan 2017

Mr. Paul Hoar 2012

Mr. Darrell Flocken 2013

Mr. Michael Gaspers 2013

Mr. Paul Lewis 2014

Mr. Robert Murnane 2014

Mr. Chris Guay 2015

Mr. Rob Underwood 2015

Mr. Steven Grabski 2015

Mr. Tom McGee 2015

INDIVIDUALS IN ATTENDANCE

Mr. Darrell Flocken – Mettler Toledo

Mr. Steven Grabski – Wal-Mart

Mr. Tom McGee – PMP Corporation

Mr. Gordon Johnson – Gilbarco, Inc.

Mr. Richard Suiter – R. Suiter Consulting

Mr. Michael Kerr – Southern Company

Mr. Louis Straub – Fairbanks Scales

Mr. Chris Bradley – Seraphin Test Measure

Mr. Paul Lewis – Rice Lake Weighing Systems

Mr. Jim Hewston – Scale Source

Mr. Stephen Langford – Cardinal Scale Manufacturing Company

Mr. David Calix – NCR

Mr. Henry Oppermann – W&M Consulting

Mr. Michael Keilty – Endress & Houser Flowtec

ASSOCIATE MEMBERSHIP COMMITTEE
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

L&R - 1 

Report of the

Laws and Regulations (L&R) Committee

John Gaccione, Chairman

Westchester County, New York

Reference

Key Number

200 INTRODUCTION

This is the report of the Laws and Regulations Committee (hereinafter referred to as the “Committee”) for the 96th

Annual Meeting of the National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM). This 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 NCWM 2011 Online Position 

Forum, 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 shown below were adopted as presented when this report 

was approved.

Table A identifies the agenda items and appendix items. The agenda items in the Report are identified 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. I tems marked with a “ D” are Developing items. T he 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 provides a 

list of acronyms used in this report, and Table C provides a summary of the results of the voting on the Committee’s 

items and the report in its entirety. 

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

Handbook 130, 2011 Edition, “Uniform Laws and Regulations,” or NIST Handbook 133, “Checking the Net 

Contents of Packaged Goods,” Fourth Edition (January 2011). 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 List

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

NIST Handbook 130 (HB 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
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

L&R - 2 

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

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 (HB 133)..................................................................................................................... 260 Series

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

Table A 

Index to Reference Key Items

Reference

Key Number Title of Item Page

200 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................L&R - 1

231 UNIFORM PACKAGING AND LABELING REGULATION (UPLR) ........................................L&R - 5

231-1 W HB130, Packaging and Labeling Requirements, Section 6, Declaration of Quantity: Consumer 

Products........................................................................................................................... L&R - 5

231-2 I HB 130, Packaging and Labeling Requirements, 6.12. Supplementary Quantity Declarations 

and 6.14. Qualification of Declaration Prohibited. ......................................................... L&R - 8

231-3 W HB 130, Packaging and Labeling Requirements, Section 9. Prominence and Placement: NonConsumer Packages........................................................................................................ L&R - 9

231-4 W HB 130, Packaging and Labeling Requirements, 10.4. Multi-unit Packages...................... L&R - 10

232 METHOD OF SALE REGULATION .............................................................................................L&R - 12

232-1 I HB 130, Method of Sale Regulation, Section 2.13.4. Declaration of Weight..................... L&R - 12

232-2 I HB 130, Uniform Regulation for Method of Sale of Commodities – Packaged Printer Ink and 

Toner Cartridges............................................................................................................ L&R - 16

232-3 V HB 130, Method of Sale Regulation, Section 1.7.2. Pelletized Ice Cream ........................ L&R - 20

232-4 V HB 130, Method of Sale Regulation, Section 2.33. Vehicle Motor Oil.............................. L&R - 21

237 ENGINE FUELS AND AUTOMOTIVE LUBRICANTS REGULATION ..................................L&R - 23

237-1 I HB 130, Engine Fuel Quality Requirements for Hydrogen ................................................ L&R - 23

237-2 I HB 130, Definitions for Hydrogen Fuel for Internal Combustion Engines and Fuel Cell 

Vehicles......................................................................................................................... L&R - 28

237-3 I Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants Regulation, Section 3.15. Biodiesel and 

Biodiesel Blends............................................................................................................ L&R - 29

237-4 I HB 130, Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants Regulation, Section 2.1.2. GasolineOxygenated Blends........................................................................................................ L&R - 33

237-5 I HB 130, Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants Regulation, Section 2.1.4. Minimum 

Motor Octane Number................................................................................................... L&R - 36

237-6 V HB 130, Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants Regulation, Section 3.13.1. Labeling of 

Vehicle Motor Oil......................................................................................................... L&R - 37

260 NIST HANDBOOK 133.....................................................................................................................L&R - 42

260-1 I HB 133, Section 2.3.8. Moisture Allowance - Moisture Loss for Products Not Listed. ..... L&R - 42

260-2 I HB 133, Chapter 4.7. Polyethylene Sheeting - Test Procedure - Footnote Step 3 .............. L&R - 44

260-3 V HB 133, Section 2.3.8 Moisture Allowance - Pasta Products............................................. L&R - 46

260-4 W HB 133, Seed Count for Agriculture Seed.......................................................................... L&R - 49

270 OTHER ITEMS – DEVELOPING ITEMS.....................................................................................L&R - 51
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

L&R - 3 

270-1 D Fuels and Lubricants Subcommittee (FALS)...................................................................... L&R - 52

270-2 D Packaging and Labeling Subcommittee (PALS)................................................................. L&R - 53

Appendices

Appendix A. Item 231-2: HB 130, Packaging and Labeling Regulation, Sections 6.12. 

Supplementary Quantity Declaration and 6.14. Qualification of Declaration 

Prohibited........................................................................................................................... L&R - A1

Appendix B. Item 232-1: HB 130, Method of Sale Regulation, Section 2.13.4. Declaration 

of Weight ............................................................................................................................L&R - B1

Appendix C. Item 232-2: HB 130, Method of Sale Regulation, Section 2.13.4. Declaration of Weight, 

Packaged Printer Ink and Toner Cartridges ........................................................................L&R - C1

Appendix D. Item 232-3: HB 130, Method of Sale Regulation, Section 1.7.1. Factory Packaged Ice 

Cream and Similar Frozen Products....................................................................................L&R - D1

Appendix E. Item 237-3: HB 130, Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants Regulation, 

Section 3.15. Biodiesel and Biodiesel Blends.....................................................................L&R - E1

Appendix F. Item 237-4: HB 130, Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants Regulation, 

Section 2.1.2. Gasoline-Oxygenated Blends ...................................................................... L&R - F1

Appendix G. Item 237-6: HB 130, Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants Regulation, 

Section 3.13. Oil ................................................................................................................ L&R - G1

Appendix H. Item 260-4: HB 133, Seed Count for Agriculture Seeds ...................................................... L&R - H1

Appendix I. Item 260-3: HB 133, Moisture Allowance for Pasta Products................................................L&R - I1

Appendix J. Item 270-1: HB 130, Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants Regulation, 

Motor Fuel Nozzle Color (Developing Item).......................................................................L&R - J1
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

L&R - 4 

Table B 

Glossary of Acronyms and Terms

Acronym Term Acronym Term

AOSA Association of Official Seed 

Analyst NBB National Biodiesel Board

API American Petroleum Institute NCWM National Conference on Weights & Measures

ASTM American Society for Testing and 

Materials International NEWMA Northeastern Weights & Measures Association

CFR Code of Federal Regulations NIST National Institute of Standards & Technology

CNG Compressed Natural Gas OEM Original Equipment Manufacturer

CWMA Central Weights & Measures Assn. P&G Procter and Gamble

CRC Coordinating Research Council PALS Packaging and Labeling Subcommittee

FALS Fuels and Lubricants Subcommittee PDP Principal Display Panel

FDA Food and Drug Administration § Section Symbol

FD&C Act Food Drug and Cosmetic Act SAE Society of Automotive Engineers 

FPLA Fair Packaging and Labeling Act SI International System of Units

FSS Fuel Specifications Subcommittee SWMA Southern Weights & Measures Association

FTC Federal Trade Commission TG Task Group

HB 130

NIST Handbook 130, Uniform 

Laws and Regulations in the areas 

of Legal Metrology and Engine 

Fuel Quality

UPLR Uniform Packaging and Labeling Regulation

HB 133 NIST Handbook 133, Checking the 

Net Content of Packaged Goods U.S. EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

HDPE High Density Polyethylene USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture

ISO International Organization for 

Standardization USNWG U.S. National Work Group

L&R Laws and Regulations WG Work Group

LLPD Linear Low Density Polyethylene WMD NIST Weights & Measures Division

MLWG Moisture Loss Work Group WWMA Western Weights & Measures Association

Table C

Voting Results

Reference Key 

Number

House of State 

Representatives

House of 

Delegates Results

Yeas Nays Yeas Nays

232-3 31 0 32 0 Passed

232-4 22 7 23 9 Failed

237-6 22 8 22 10 Failed

260-3 17 11 26 5 Failed
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

L&R - 5 

Details of all Items

(In order by Reference Key Number)

231 UNIFORM PACKAGING AND LABELING REGULATION (UPLR)

231-1 W HB130, Packaging and Labeling Requirements, Section 6, Declaration of Quantity: Consumer 

Products 

(This item was Withdrawn.) 

Source: Northeastern Weights and Measures Association (NEWMA)

Purpose: To allow manufacturers to develop multilingual labels. This item would permit manufacturers to use 

approved symbols on consumer packages.

Item Under Consideration: Amend HB 130 Packaging and Labeling Regulations, Section 6: Declaration of 

Quantity: Consumer Packages, addition to 6.4.1. Combination Declaration:

Numerical Count

Numerical count can be expressed as either:

(a) alpha-numeric characters (Figure A); or

(b) alpha-numeric characters in conjunction with an approved symbol of the commodity from 

Section 6.7.1 (Figure B). 

3 Razors

(Figure A)

 

(Figure B)

Amend HB 130 Packaging and Labeling Regulations, Section 6: Declaration of Quantity: C onsumer Packages, 

Section 6.7.1., Symbols and Abbreviations (Figure C).

Disposable Razor

(Figure C)

Background/Discussion: A representative of Procter and Gamble (P&G) submitted a proposal at the 

2009 NEWMA Interim Meeting held in Springfield, Massachusetts. T his proposal is to amend the language in 

HB 130 Packaging and Labeling Regulation, Section 6 that will facilitate value comparisons for a diverse set of 

consumers. It is proposed to amend the net content declaration of content for consumer products labeled only with a 

count, to allow for the use of approved symbols. According to P&G, this will limit the language of net content 

information, especially products with multi-language declarations, making the statement more noticeable to the eye. 

In addition, labels that are intended towards consumers whose first language is not English will benefit from 

knowing the content visually versus by text. P&G states that by ensuring the net content information is more 

noticeable; consumers will be more likely to make value comparisons.

P&G cites 21CFR 201.15 (c)(2); this requirement formally applies to over the counter drug products, but absent 

guidance for other categories of products subject to the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) and Food 
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

L&R - 6 

Packaging and Labeling Act (FPLA). T his provides the best guidance principles for manufacturers to develop 

compliant multilingual labels. P&G states that net content translation and package size considerations can make a 

compliant statement difficult to understand. 

Language extracted from 21 CFR 201.15:

(c)(1) All words, statements, and other information required by or under authority of the act to appear 

on the label or labeling shall appear thereon in the English language: Provided, however, that in the 

case of articles distributed solely in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico or in a Territory where the

predominant language is one other than English, the predominant language may be substituted for 

English.

(2) If the label contains any representation in a foreign language, all words, statements, and other 

information required by or under authority of the act to appear on the label shall appear thereon in the 

foreign language.

(3) If the labeling contains any representation in a foreign language, all words, statements, and other 

information required by or under authority of the act to appear on the label or labeling shall appear on 

the labeling in the foreign language.

At the 2009 NEWMA Interim Meeting held October 12 - 15, 2009, in Springfield, Massachusetts, the NEWMA 

L&R Committee recommended this proposal be a Developing item.

At the 2010 NCWM Interim Meeting held in Nashville, Tennessee, Mr. Chris Guay, P&G, provided an explanation 

that in Europe, products sold by count are using pictograms in the net content declaration and the package could be 

considered multi-language. This system would allow for industry to develop one package that can be used in several 

different countries without having to develop packaging for one specific language. An official urged that this be a 

Developing item to see if pictograms could be acceptable.

The Committee would like to see this item go through all the regions (NEWMA, CWMA, WWMA, and SWMA) for 

review and comment. The Committee requested from Mr. Guay, an approved set of international pictograms and 

further information on the labeling requirements (FPLA). The NIST Technical Advisor will also research the 

pictograms for any conflicts with other Federal Laws and Regulations. The NIST Technical Advisor met with the 

Federal Trade Commission (FTC) on February 26, 2010, to seek their assistance in reviewing this proposal. The 

L&R Committee agreed that this should be a Developing item. 

At the 2010 NEWMA Annual Meeting held in Groton, Connecticut, in May 2010, there were no comments heard on 

this item. The NEWMA L&R Committee agreed that this item should remain as a Developing item until further 

information is made available. The NIST Technical Advisor has not heard back from FTC regarding this issue. 

At the 2010 C WMA Annual Meeting held in Springfield, Illinois, in May 2010, an industry representative 

mentioned that there are several issues with this proposal: the Federal Drug Administration (FDA) will need to 

update labeling regulations, changing demographics, and international marketing of products requiring information 

in several languages. Regulations need to be put in place to either prohibit this practice or to establish guidelines 

and regulations. An inspector commented that the use of pictographs is currently in the marketplace, and it is 

considered a violation in their jurisdiction. 

At the NCWM Annual Meeting held in St. Paul, Minnesota, on July 12 - 15, 2010, no comments were received on 

this item. 

At the 2010 C WMA Interim Meeting held in Rock Island, Illinois, an industry representative provided an 

explanation that the use of pictographs is already appearing in the marketplace. Due to limited space restrictions on 

packages, pictographs are preferred over the use of multiple languages. It was commented that this is an acceptable 

practice in Europe, where several languages may be required on products. T he CWMA L&R Committee 
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

L&R - 7 

recommends that the NCWM L&R seek further guidance from FDA and FTC, and that this be an Informational 

item. 

At the 2010 WWMA Annual Meeting held in Olympia, Washington, a manufacturer representative stated that 

several large manufacturers are currently using pictograms on packages. The representative is asking for guidance 

and language from the NCWM L&R as to the acceptable practice of using pictograms. A county and state official 

questioned how “acceptable” pictograms, if approved, would be controlled. Questions were raised on who would 

maintain, approve, and standardize these pictograms. They further stated that use of a pictogram should not replace 

current language for net quantity. The WWMA L&R Committee recommends that use of a p ictogram be 

supplemental, if used, and not part of the net quantity statement. The WWMA L&R Committee would like to see 

additional information on the international use of pictograms. The WWMA L&R Committee recommends that this

be a Developing item, in order for the NCWM L&R Committee to seek guidance from the FTC. 

At the 2010 SWMA Annual Meeting held in Columbia, South Carolina, there were no comments heard during open 

hearings. The SWMA L&R Committee would like to see a database of approved pictographs, and would also like to 

know who would be responsible for updating, maintaining, and disseminating this information to the states. T he

SWMA L&R Committee recommends that this item move forward as a Developing item. 

At the 2010 NEWMA Interim Meeting held in Norwich, Connecticut, there were no comments heard on this item. 

The NEWMA L&R Committee recommends that this be a Developing item. 

At the 2011 NCWM Interim Meeting held in Dallas, Texas, Mr. Chris Guay, P&G, stated that in Europe many 

products, sold by count, are using pictograms in the net content declaration. T his type of packaging could be 

considered multi-lingual. There are currently packages in the U.S. marketplace, from Fortune 500 companies, that 

are using only icons on their packages to declare net quantities and no action is taken against those in violation. 

Mr. Guay explained that acceptance of this proposal would enable industry to develop one package that could be 

used in several different countries. Companies are modifying their approach in packaging in order to meet 

consumer needs. Mr. Guay remarked that currently the law suggests that icons cannot be used. Several visuals were 

presented of icons found in the marketplace, and the Committee agreed that the symbols used on the samples would 

most likely not be understood by consumers and they are confusing to what they are, mean, and represent.

The NIST Technical Advisor stated that if voted on and approved, a request for an “icon” database along with an 

approval system would need to be developed. A state official reported that the NCWM Board of Directors formed a 

Subcommittee identified as the Packaging and Labeling Subcommittee (PALS) under the L&R to address these 

types of issues. Mr. Guay was nominated to Chair this Subcommittee. 

The L&R Committee believes the intent of the FPLA is to have the net contents statement on packing in the English 

language and does not allow for pictures, icons, and similar type declarations. The Committee recommends that the 

item be Withdrawn. The Committee further recommends that if Procter and Gamble decides to develop a similar

proposal in the future that it be considered by the Packaging and Labeling Subcommittee (PALS) to determine if 

there is industry wide support for the use of symbols in lieu of text for the quantity declaration statement.

At the 2011 NEWMA and CWMA Annual Meetings, there were no comments heard on this item. Both regions 

recommended that this item be Withdrawn.

At the 2011 NCWM National Meeting held in Missoula, Montana, there were no comments heard on this item. 
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

L&R - 8 

231-2 I HB 130, Packaging and Labeling Requirements, 6.12. Supplementary Quantity Declarations and 

6.14. Qualification of Declaration Prohibited. 

Source: Central Weights and Measures Association (CWMA)

Purpose: Provide clearer language to help guide industry and state officials when federal agencies are inconsistent

in their interpretations, and this proposal provides better guidance. 

Item Under Consideration: 

6.12. 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 term qualifying a unit 

of weight, measure, or count that tends to exaggerate the amount of commodity contained in the package 

(e.g., “giant” quart, “larger” liter, “full” gallon, “when packed,” “minimum,” “equivalent,” “lasts the same 

as,” or words of similar import).

6.14. Qualification of Declaration Prohibited. – In no case shall any declaration of quantity be qualified by 

the addition of the words “when packed,” “minimum,” or “not less than,” “equivalent,” or “lasts the same 

as,” or any words of similar import (e.g., “approximately”), nor shall any unit of weight, measure, or count be 

qualified by any term (such as “jumbo,” “giant,” “full,” or the like) that tends to exaggerate the amount of 

commodity.

(Amended 1998)

Background/Discussion: Manufacturers are using the terms “equivalent” or “lasts the same as” to qualify net 

weight statements. Clearer language is needed to provide consumers with better information. Industries and state 

officials need better guidance for product labeling. Currently FTC does not consider the terms “equivalent,” or 

“lasts the same as” exaggerated or misleading.

At the 2010 CWMA Interim Meeting, a state regulator presented an example of a label (refer to Appendix A) that 

was perceived as mislabeled. I t was agreed that no conflicting information regarding the net weight statement 

should be in the lower one-third of the principal display panel (PDP). The CWMA L&R Committee recommends 

that this move forward as a Voting item.

At the 2011 NCWM Interim Meeting held in Dallas, Texas, it was reported that this language was lifted straight out 

of the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act (FPLA), and if modified states could run into problems with their 

investigations. A NIST Technical Advisor stated that language “lasts the same as” or “equivalent” is in the 

marketplace, which may be misleading to consumers. The Committee was reminded that the lower 30 % should be 

free of supplementary quantity declarations as specified in Section 6.12 in the UPLR.

The Committee would like to see this issue go to all regions for comment. The NIST Technical Advisor remarked 

that the section was amended in 1998 to include the term “approximately” (which is not included in the Federal 

Regulations) as a prohibited term. There has been no indication that the differences between the UPLR and Federal 

Regulations are being challenged. It was also recommended that FTC be notified that this is an issue before the

Conference. The Committee recommends that the item under consideration be Informational.

At the 2011 NEWMA Annual Meeting held in Saratoga Springs, New York, there was a recommendation to obtain 

additional data from the submitter of the proposal along with clarification from the Federal Trade Commission on 

their letter dated November 4, 2010 (refer to the Report of the 96th Annual NCWM Conference [SP1125, 2012], 

Appendix A). No additional comments were heard on this item. The NEWMA L&R Committee recommended that 

this item be Informational. 

At the 2011 CWMA Annual Meeting held in Grand Rapids, Michigan, the submitter of the proposal commented that 

the terms “last the same as” and “equivalent to” are not quantity statements and should not be in the net quantity of 

the principle display panel area. The CWMA L&R Committee finds that this will be helpful for enforcement issues 

and recommended that this item be Informational.
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

L&R - 9 

At the 2011 NCWM National Meeting held in Missoula, Montana, there were no comments heard on this item. The 

Committee received a l etter (refer to Appendix A) from Clorox, stating the term “lasts the same as” is being 

removed from their packaging. The Committee would like to receive additional input from the fall 2011 Regional 

meetings on this item. 

231-3 W HB 130, Packaging and Labeling Requirements, Section 9. Prominence and Placement: N onConsumer Packages

(This item was Withdrawn.) 

Source: Western Weights and Measures Association

Purpose: Modify HB 130 – UPLR, Section 9.2. Prominence and Placement: Non-consumer packages, add a

minimum height requirement. 

Item Under Consideration: 

Section 9. Prominence and Placement: Non-consumer Packages

9.1. General. – All information required to appear on a non-consumer package shall be definitely and clearly 

stated thereon in the English language. Any required information that is either in hand lettering or hand script 

shall be entirely clear and equal to printing in legibility.

9.2. Minimum Height of Numbers and Letters. – The height of any letter or number in the quantity 

declaration on a non-consumer package shall not be less than that shown in Table 1 with respect to the 

area of the panel and the height of each number of a common fraction shall meet one-half the minimum 

height standards. When upper and lower case or all lowercase letters are used in SI symbols, it is the 

uppercase “L,” lowercase “d,” or their equivalent in the print or type that shall meet the minimum height 

requirement. However, no letter shall be less than 1.6 mm (1/16 in) in height. Other letters and exponents 

must be presented in the same type style and in proportion to the type size used. 

Background/Discussion: At the 2010 W WMA Annual Meeting, a county weights and measures official

commented that same requirement for consumer and non-consumer packages should exist. T hey have found 

quantity declarations on non-consumer packages that were in a font size that was so small, it was easily missed. By 

requiring a minimum font size for the quantity declaration on these packages, weights and measures officials will 

have an easier time being able to evaluate labels for FPLA requirements and follow-up on short measure packages. 

The NIST Technical Advisor noted that under the FPLA and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) regulations, 

there are no minimum height requirements for non-consumer packages; this proposal raises the potential for conflict, 

which may result in federal preemption. It was also noted that defining the term “definitely and clearly stated” by a 

qualifying statement that it b e a minimum 1.6 mm (1

/16 in) in height could nullify its meaning. I t was further 

mentioned that the term “definitely and clearly stated” affects free area, style of type or lettering, minimum height of 

letters and numbers, and proportion of numbers and letters for non-consumer packages. T he WWMA L&R

Committee recommends that this item move forward as a Voting item. 

At the 2011 NCWM Interim Meeting held in Dallas, Texas, the Committee agreed to withdraw this item over 

concern that its adoption would impose unjustified and costly new requirements on non-consumer packages. The 

new provisions would be in direct conflict with packaging and labeling regulations for non-consumer packages 

issued by the FTC, FDA, and USDA. 

At the 2011 NEWMA and CWMA Annual Meetings, there were no comments heard on this item. Both regions 

recommended this item be Withdrawn.

At the 2011 NCWM Annual Meeting held in Missoula, Montana, there were no comments heard on this item. 
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

L&R - 10

231-4 W HB 130, Packaging and Labeling Requirements, 10.4. Multi-unit Packages. 

(This item was Withdrawn.) 

Source: Central Weights and Measures and Procter and Gamble

Purpose: Provide specific language and more than one way in defining the labeled net contents for multi-packs. 

Item Under Consideration:

10.4. Multi-unit Packages. [NOTE 7, page 78] – Any package containing more than one individual “commodity in 

package form” (see Section 2.1. Package) of the same commodity shall bear on the outside of the package a 

declaration of:

(a) the number of individual units; 

(b) the quantity of each individual unit; and

(c) the total quantity of the contents of the multi-unit package.

Example: 

Soap bars, 6 Bars, Net Wt 100 g (3.53 oz) each

Total Net Wt 600 g (1.32 lb).

The term “total” or the phrase “total contents” may precede the quantity declaration.

A multi-unit package containing unlabeled individual packages which are not intended for retail sale separate 

from the multi-unit package, may contain, in lieu of the requirements of Section (a), a declaration of quantity of 

contents expressing the total quantity of the multi-unit package without regard for inner packaging. For such 

multi-unit packages, it shall be optional to include a statement of the number of individual packages when such 

a statement is not otherwise required by the regulations.

Examples: 

Deodorant Cakes:

5 Cakes, Net Wt 113 g (4 oz) each, Total Net Wt 566 g (1.25 lb); or

5 Cakes, Total Net Wt 566 g (1 lb 4 oz)

Soap Packets:

10 Packets, Net Wt 56.6 g (2 oz) each, Total Net Wt 566 g (1.25 lb); or Net Wt 566 g (1 lb 4 oz); or 

10 Packets, Total Net Wt 566 g (1 lb 4 oz)

(Amended 1993)

(d) The net content statement for a multi-unit package may have either metric or inch pounds 

appear first. Since the secondary unit on the primary package is often a rounded value, the 

difference between primary and secondary declaration is multiplied by the number of individual 

units in the multi-unit package. Multi-unit product net content declarations may either multiply 

both primary and secondary units by the number of units in the multi-unit package or multiply 

the primary declarations by the number of units and convert (and round) this quantity.

(Added 201X)

NOTE 7: For foods, a “multi-unit” package means a package containing two or more individually packaged 

units of the identical commodity in the same quantity, intended to be sold as part of the multi-unit package but 

labeled to be individually sold in full compliance with this regulation. Open multi-unit retail food packages

under the authority of the Food and Drug Administration or the U.S. Department of Agriculture that do not 

obscure the number of units or prevent examination of the labeling on each of the individual units are not 
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

L&R - 11

required to declare the number of individual units or the total quantity of contents of the multi-unit package if 

the labeling of each individual unit complies with requirements so that it is capable of being sold individually. 

(See also Section 11.11. Soft Drink Bottles and Section 11.12. Multi-Unit Soft-Drink Bottles.)

(Added 1984)

Background/Discussion: This proposal was submitted by Mr. Guay with P&G. Mr. Guay is requesting a valid 

way for defining the labeled net contents for a multi-pack (multiples of the same product, packaged together). One 

approach allows for the inch-pound units and metric units from a single package to be multiplied by the number of 

packages within the multi-pack. Multiplying both values by the number of units compounds the rounding error of a 

single package. This would cause the content/weight statement to be inaccurate. However, this would be a 

consumer-friendly approach. 

The second approach would allow the first declaration (either inch-pound units or metric units) from a single 

package to be multiplied by the number of packages in the multi-pack and the primary value is converted to the 

secondary unit. This approach is more accurate than the first approach. 

Example of the net contents for 15 pack of Tide: 

15 x 1.2 L =18.0 L =18000 mL 

15 x 40 FL OZ = 600 FL OZ

18 L (600 FL OZ)

Or

18000 mL x 1 FL OZ divided by 29.5735 mL = 608.653 FL OZ

18 L (608 FL OZ)

Compare the two: 18 L (608 FL OZ) vs. 18 L (600 FL OZ)

At the 2010 CWMA Interim Meeting, the submitter of this proposal submitted the language in the section “Item 

under Consideration.” He mentioned that they are being fined in some states for labeling issues. The CWMA L&R 

Committee recommends that the language submitted be considered by the NCWM L&R Committee.

At the 2010 WWMA Annual Meeting, a manufacturer stated that they have been fined by a s tate regarding the 

method used to calculate total net weight on multi-unit packages. T he manufacturer stated that one method is 

consumer-friendly while the other is more accurate. The manufacturer is seeking input on the merit of this item 

before submitting specific language. A county official explained that whatever method is used, neither may 

overstate the actual net content. T his historically has been the preferred method rather than requiring an exact 

conversion. T he WWMA L&R Committee agrees that this is clearly permitted based on HB 130, UPLR, 

Section 6.13. Rounding that states, “in no case shall rounded net content declarations overstate a quantity; the packer 

may round converted values down to avoid overstating the net contents.” T he WWMA L&R Committee 

recommends that this item be Withdrawn.

At the 2010 SWMA Annual Meeting and the 2010 NEWMA Interim Meeting, both of these member states voted to 

recommend that this item be Withdrawn because existing guidance in HB 130 Section 6.13. is deemed sufficient to 

address the issue raised.

At the 2011 NCWM Interim Meeting held in Dallas, Texas, Mr. Guay, P&G explained to the Committee that he

submitted this proposal because of citations that they were receiving from one state. That state claimed that the 

product is less accurate with the current practice that P&G uses on their labeling. Mr. Guay stated his proposal will 

add additional guidance to current regulations. The Fair Packaging and Labeling Act (FPLA) requires dual units to 

be in inch-pound and metric (SI). When rounding the numbers, there is a considerable difference on multi-pack 

units. This item was considered at the meetings of two regional associations. Both regions determined that the 
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

L&R - 12

current language in HB130, Section 6.13. is adequate to address this issue. The Committee concurs with the 

conclusion of the regional association and withdrew this item.

At the 2011 NEWMA Annual Meeting held in Saratoga Springs, New York, there were no comments heard on this 

item. T he NEWMA L&R Committee does not see a need to have such a proposal because there are regulations 

currently in place. NEWMA recommended that this item be Withdrawn.

At the 2011 CWMA Annual Meeting held in Grand Rapids, Michigan, there were no comments heard on this item. 

The CWMA L&R Committee recommended that this item be Withdrawn.

At the 2011 NCWM National Meeting held in Missoula, Montana, there were no comments heard on this item.

232 METHOD OF SALE REGULATION

232-1 I HB 130, Method of Sale Regulation, Section 2.13.4. Declaration of Weight 

(This item was removed from Voting status, and the Committee determined 

that additional work needs to be done, and returned it to Informational status.) 

Source: Western Weights and Measures Association (WWMA) 

Purpose: Update HB 130, Section 2.13.4. to provide new density values for heavier density plastics that are 

currently in the marketplace. 

Item under Consideration: Amend HB 130, Method of Sale Regulation, Section 2.13.4. as follows: 

2.13.4. Declaration of Weight. – The labeled statement of weight for polyethylene sheeting and film products 

under Sections 2.13.1.1. Sheeting and Film, and 2.13.3.1. Bags, shall be equal to or greater than the weight 

calculated by using the formula below. The final value shall be calculated to four digits, and declared to three 

digits, dropping the final digit as calculated (for example, if the calculated value is 2.078 lb, then the declared 

net weight shall be 2.07 lb).

For SI dimensions:

M = T x A x D/1000, where:

M = net mass in kilograms

T = nominal thickness in centimeters

A = nominal length in centimeters times nominal width [NOTE 6, page 122] in centimeters

D = density in grams per cubic centimeter as determined by ASTM Standard D1505 68, Standard 

Method of Test for Density of Plastics by the Density Gradient Technique (or latest issue)

For the purpose of this regulation, when D is not known, the minimum density (D) used to calculate the 

target net weight for linear low polyethylene products (LLPD) and products other than high density 

(HDPE) shall be 0.92 g/cm3 (when D is not known). 

For products labeled High Density (HDPE) or similar wording, the minimum density (D) used to 

calculate the target net weight shall be 0.95 g/cm3.
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

L&R - 13

For inch-pound dimensions:

W = T x A x 0.03613 x D, where:

W = net weight in pounds;

T = nominal thickness in inches;

A = nominal length in inches times nominal width [NOTE 6, page 122] in inches;

D = density in grams per cubic centimeter as determined by ASTM Standard D1505 68, Standard 

Method of Test for Density of Plastics by the Density Gradient Technique (or latest issue); 

and 0.03613 is a factor for converting g/cm3 to lb/in3

. 

For the purpose of this regulation, the minimum density shall be 0.92 g/cm3. 

(Added 1977) (Amended 1980, 1982, 1987, 1989, 1990, and 1993, and 201X) 

NOTE 6: The nominal width for bags in this calculation is twice the labeled width.

Background/Discussion: It was stated at the 2009 WWMA Annual Meeting in Los Cruces, New Mexico, that

manufacturers and distributors of polyethylene bags are using the calculated target weight identified in HB 130 

Section 2.13.4. to understate the net quantity of their labels. The polyethylene industry recognizes a density value of 

0.92 g/cm3 for linear low density polyethylene (LLDP) products. When 0.92 g/cm3 is used to calculate the target net 

weight of high density polyethylene (HDPE), the product may make the target net weight. However, when the 

appropriate density value of 0.95 g/cm3 is used to test HDPE, the product often fails to meet the calculated target net 

weight. Further testing reveals than one or more of the labeled width, thickness, or count statements are inaccurate. 

It appears that some manufacturers are aware that weights and measures officials are restricted to testing HDPE 

product using the 0.92 g/cm3 value, because the actual density value is not stated on the product label. Existing 

procedural guidelines do not address HDPE materials. When testing at manufacturing locations, weights and 

measures officials are able to obtain information regarding the density of the product directly from the manufacturer. 

However, at distributor locations density information is not available and officials must test using the 0.92 g/cm3 

value designated in HB 130 and HB 133 to verify the weight of the product. When the product has no net weight 

statement on the package, 0.92 g/cm3 is the only factor that the inspector may use to calculate the target net weight.

Initial proposal as submitted in 2009

Amend HB 130, Method of Sale Regulation, Section 2.13.4. as follows: 

2.13.4. Declaration of Weight. – The labeled statement of weight for polyethylene sheeting and film products 

under Sections 2.13.1.1. Sheeting and Film, and 2.13.3.1. Bags, shall be equal to or greater than the weight 

calculated by using the formula below. The final value shall be calculated to four digits, and declared to three 

digits, dropping the final digit as calculated (for example, if the calculated value is 2.078 lb, then the declared 

net weight shall be 2.07 lb).

For SI dimensions:

M = T x A x D/1000, where:

M = net mass in kilograms

T = nominal thickness in centimeters

A = nominal length in centimeters times nominal width [NOTE 6, page 122] in centimeters

D = density in grams per cubic centimeter as determined by ASTM Standard D1505 68, Standard 

Method of Test for Density of Plastics by the Density Gradient Technique (or latest issue)

For the purpose of this regulation, when D is not labeled on the package, known, the minimum density (D) 

used to calculate the target net weight for linear low density polyethylene products (LLPD) and products 

other than high density (HDPE) shall be 0.92 g/cm3 (when D is not known). For products labeled High 
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

L&R - 14

Density (HDPE) or similar wording, which does not specify the minimum density (D) on the package 

label, the minimum density (D) used to calculate the target net weight shall be 0.95 g/cm3.

For inch-pound dimensions:

W = T x A x 0.03613 x D, where:

W = net weight in pounds;

T = nominal thickness in inches;

A = nominal length in inches times nominal width [NOTE 6, page 122] in inches;

D = density in grams per cubic centimeter as determined by ASTM Standard D1505 68, Standard 

Method of Test for Density of Plastics by the Density Gradient Technique (or latest issue); 

and 0.03613 is a factor for converting g/cm3 to lb/in3

. 

For the purpose of this regulation, the minimum density shall be 0.92 g/cm3. 

(Added 1977) (Amended 1980, 1982, 1987, 1989, 1990, and 1993, and 201X) 

NOTE 6: The nominal width for bags in this calculation is twice the labeled width.

The 2009 WWMA Association supports the following item and recommends that it be a Voting item: 

2.13.4. Declaration of Weight. – The labeled statement ...

For the purpose of this regulation, the minimum density shall be 0.92 g/cm3 (when D is not known).

For the purpose of this regulation, the minimum density shall be 0.92 g/cm3.

Amend Section 2.13.4. Declaration of Weight as follows:

For the purpose of this regulation, when D is not known, the minimum density (D) used to calculate the 

target net weight for linear low polyethylene products (LLDP) and products other than high density 

(HDPE) shall be 0.92 g/cm3 (when D is not known). For products labeled “High Density,” HDPE, or 

similar wording, the minimum density (D) used to calculate the target net weight shall be 0.95 g/cm3.

The NEWMA L&R Committee reviewed this item at its 2009 Interim Meeting and recommends that this proposal 

be a Developing item.

At the 2010 NCWM Interim Meeting held in Nashville, Tennessee, the Committee heard support for the density 

factor changing from 0.92 g/cm3 to 0.95 g/cm3 on this item. A California county commissioner indicated that the 

information provided by the WWMA was data extracted from Internet searches. Manufacturers are complaining 

that under current practice they cannot compete fairly. 

Mr. Jackelen from Berry Plastics urged the Committee to reject this proposal. Mr. Jackelen stated that 0.92g/cm3 

density currently works for manufacturers and that changing it to 0.95 g/cm3 will cause undue cost and waste. Most 

manufacturers do not make high density (HD) bags, but are producing blends. According to Mr. Jackelen, another 

reason to reject the proposal is if the 0.95 g/cm3 bag is punctured, it continues to tear.

A state official commented that if you use the term HD, then you are bound by the 0.95 g/cm3. If you use the length 

x width x thickness x density to determine the net weight, then the density value needs to be added on the package 

labeling. A state official said that manufacturers should consider disclosing the density factor on every product as 

part of the labeling. It was voiced that if there are questions about an absolute 0.95 g/cm3 density, then there should 

be an alternative. 

Another state official commented that the 0.95 g/cm3 will be factored in only when the density is not known. The 

Committee received letters that were reviewed on this item. The Committee recommended moving the item under 

consideration forward as a Voting item.
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

L&R - 15

At the 2010 NEWMA Annual Meeting in Groton, Connecticut, there was concern that there appears to be a lack of 

data on this item. It was never reviewed by all regions and also not presented to industry to seek comments. The 

NEWMA L&R Committee felt that this item was not an emergency and would like to review comments received 

from all the regions and industry.

At the 2010 CWMA Annual Meeting in Springfield, Illinois, the CWMA L&R Committee heard no comments on 

this item and recommends moving it forward as a Voting item.

At the 2010 NCWM National Meeting in St. Paul, Minnesota, the Committee heard from Mr. Jackelen (refer to 

Appendix B) who opposed this item and requested that it be Withdrawn. Mr. Jackelen believes this proposal will 

have a d etrimental effect because can liners are made of natural gas and oil and the cost of these two items are 

increasing. Currently, the 0.92 g/cm3 is an established practice in industry and the marketplace, and is used to set 

the bottom weight Changing this density will cause confusion. Mr. Jackelen clarified that high density (HD) does 

not mean it is a better density. There are other linear bags that have higher quality than HD. As far as sustainability, 

if 0.95 g/cm3 is the established requirement it will cause an additional 12 million pounds of trash to be generated. 

An official countered that the intent of this proposal is to provide the inspectors with information. There is fraud in 

the marketplace on these types of items and additional information is warranted. A director recommends that a 

minor amendment be done to the item under consideration, and insert “for products labeled HD when the D is not on 

the package label use 0.95 g/cm3.” Also, use a similar statement “if the packer or manufacturer does not disclose the 

density then use 0.95 g/cm3.” The director pointed out that it is not the role of the Conference to address quality 

issues, but to have a level playing field for inspectors to test a product. Another official remarked that companies 

need to identify their product on the container, and inspectors will use what density is disclosed.

The Committee received one letter asking for the withdrawal of this proposal and California submitted material 

safety data sheets from several companies (refer to Appendix B). The Committee considered comments received

and agreed that more work was needed so the item was changed to Informational status.

At the 2010 CWMA Interim Meeting, there were no comments heard on this item. The CWMA L&R Committee 

recommends that this item remain Informational.

At the 2010 WWMA Annual Meeting, a state official commented that 10 companies have filed complaints 

concerning products being mislabeled, where the density was unknown. A state official submitted new language to 

replace a portion of language within the item under consideration. Two county officials spoke in support of the 

amended item, which would assist weights and measures officials in the field. A county official submitted a letter of 

support. The WWMA L&R Committee recommends that the amended language move forward as a Voting item. 

The WWMA L&R Committee also recommends that additional language be inserted for SI dimensions.

Amend Section 2.13.4. Declaration of Weight as follows:

For the purpose of this regulation, when D is not labeled on the package, known, the minimum density (D) 

used to calculate the target net weight for linear low density polyethylene products (LLPD) and products 

other than high density (HDPE) shall be 0.92 g/cm3 (when D is not known). For products labeled High 

Density (HDPE) or similar wording, which does not specify the minimum density (D) on the package 

label, the minimum density (D) used to calculate the target net weight shall be 0.95 g/cm3.

At the 2010 SWMA Annual Meeting held in Columbia, South Carolina, there were no comments heard on this item. 

The SWMA L&R Committee would like to seek additional comments from industry, other than material safety data 

sheets (refer to Appendix A in this report). The SWMA L&R Committee recommends that this item move forward 

as an Informational item. 

At the 2010 NEWMA Interim Meeting held in Norwich, Connecticut, they noted that this proposal is confusing and 

that additional work needs to be done to clarify the impact of the proposed changes on manufacturers and 

consumers. The NEWMA L&R Committee recommends this move forward as a Developing item. 
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

L&R - 16

At the 2011 NCWM Interim Meeting held in Dallas, Texas, Mr. Mike Jackelen, Berry Plastics, stated this item as 

written will have a detrimental effect on the industry due to the high cost of plastics. Mr. Jackelen further explained 

that high density plastics are of higher quality, but are of a t hinner gauge which subjects it to tearing. A state 

regulator stated the WWMA recommended a change to the language for specifying that only when the density is not 

known or not labeled then the 0.95 g/cm3 would apply. 

The Committee agreed that adding a requirement which gives the manufacturer the option of providing the actual 

density of the plastic provides flexibility for industry and will assist weights and measures officials to ensure the 

accuracy of quantity declarations. The Committee recommends the revised language under consideration from the 

WWMA move forward as a Voting item. 

At the 2011 NEWMA and CWMA Annual Meetings, there were no comments heard on this item. Both regions 

recommended this item be a Voting item.

At the 2011 NCWM Annual Meeting held in Missoula, Montana, it was noted that there is a corresponding test 

procedure proposal on the agenda under Item 260-2. Mr. Mike Jackelen, Berry Plastics, stated that if such a 

proposal passes it would have a detrimental effect on the plastics industry. This product is currently being made 

from oil and gas, both of which prices have skyrocketed. B y adopting the 0.95 g/cm3 density, an additional 

12 million pounds of plastics would be added into the marketplace and ultimately landfills at current productions 

rates. Current industry practice is 0.92 g/cm3 for high density polyethylene. Introducing a change will only confuse 

the marketplace. A director spoke in support of this proposal saying it will give weights and measures officials a 

tool to check non-consumer packages. It was emphasized that “D” could be stated on the product, but, if not, 

officials need a density factor in order to conduct inspections. This director also reminded everyone that this issue is 

about accuracy and not quality. A nother director expressed concern with the term “when D is not known.” 

Currently 0.92 g/cm3 is the lower density rating, when “D” is not known, the proposed language will allow industry 

to use densities lower than 0.92 g/cm3. A letter from industry was received stating that 0.95 g/cm3 may not represent 

the density of HDPW currently in the marketplace (refer to Appendix B.). Industry indicated that 0.948 g/cm3 is a

more accurate factor. The Committee believes that additional data from industry needs to be received on the density 

factors before proceeding with this item. The Committee returned this item back to Informational status.

232-2 I HB 130, Uniform Regulation for Method of Sale of Commodities – Packaged Printer Ink and 

Toner Cartridges 

Source: Southern Weights and Measures Association (SWMA)

Purpose: This proposal is to clarify the labeling requirements for industry, consumers and weights and measures 

officials. 

Item Under Consideration: 

2.XX. Printer Ink and Toner Cartridges Labeling. 

2.XX.1 Definitions.

2.XX.1.1. Printer ink cartridges – Any cartridge or module that contains ink or a s imilar 

substance in liquid form employed in the printing of documents, papers, pictures, etc., that is 

used in a printing device and designed to be replaced when no longer able to supply its contents 

in printing. 

2.XX.1.2. Toner cartridges – Any cartridge or module that contains toner, powder, or similar 

non-liquid substance employed in the copying or printing of documents, papers, pictures, etc. 

that is used in a copying device and designed to be replaced when no longer able to supply its 

contents in printing and/or copying.

 
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

L&R - 17

2.XX.2. Method of Sale and Labeling.

2.XX.2.1. Method of sale, printer ink cartridges. – All printer ink cartridges kept, offered, or 

exposed for sale or sold shall be sold in terms of the count of such cartridges and the fluid 

volume of ink in each cartridge, stated in terms of milliliters or fluid ounces. 

2.XX.2.2. Method of Sale, toner cartridges. – All toner cartridges kept, offered, or exposed for 

sale or sold shall be sold in terms of the count of such cartridges, and the net weight of toner 

substance.

(Added 201X) 

Background/Discussion: Over the past several years, there has been a change in the marketplace on inkjet and 

toner cartridges net content statements. Currently, there is little uniformity in the marketplace on this item, and the 

Committee is seeing some labels with a net content or with only a page yield count (e.g., prints 1000 pages). The 

NIST Weights and Measures Division (WMD) pointed out that according to guidelines printed in HB 130 from the 

Weights and Measures Law, Section 19 “information required on packages,” these products are required to have the 

net contents of the ink (and toner) labeled, but manufacturers have resisted, claiming an exemption under the FPLA. 

The purpose of this proposal is to specifically clarify the requirements for industry, consumers, and weights and 

measures officials. 

At the 2009 SWMA Annual Meeting in Clearwater, Florida, a Lexmark representative commented that they do not 

believe that a net content statement should be required, and that a page yield is sufficient. He read the main points 

of a letter from Lexmark to Mr. Max Gray, Director of Florida Agriculture and Consumer Services, dated 

March 17, 2009. The main points within the letter were: 1) the ink associated with a cartridge is a small fraction of 

the total cost of the print cartridge mechanism; 2) a page yield can provide a meaningful comparison to a consumer, 

if all manufacturers employ the same estimating assumptions and techniques; and 3) the International Organization 

for Standardization (ISO) studied this issue for years and has rejected reliance on ink volume or quantity; instead 

ISO has developed a yield, estimating and claiming methodology that permits cartridges to be compared using a 

consistent yardstick. U nlike ink volume measurements, page yield measurements provide a consumer with a 

reliable way to compare the amount of printing that can be expected. Lexmark also stated that ink is expressly 

exempt from labeling as provided by the FPLA 16 CFR 503.2(a).

An industry representative believes this issue does need to be discussed and reviewed further. H owever, many 

officials believe that consumers should know what they are getting. I f it i s determined that page count is the 

quantity statement, then the page print standard should be reviewed and have tighter standards. Mr. Gray felt that 

more data is needed from manufacturers on this issue. 

The SWMA L&R Committee recommends the item for consideration for Developing by the NCWM L&R 

Committee. 

At the 2010 Interim Meeting held in Nashville, Tennessee, the Committee heard testimony from Mr. Matthew 

Barkley, Hewlett Packard, regarding how the FPLA creates an exemption for ink, which extends to toner and ink 

cartridges. A declaration of weight and volume are not the best way for consumers to make value comparisons. 

Customers benefit from page count/yield. Mr. Barkley urges that this issue be Withdrawn. I f this issue is to 

proceed, it should be Informational and a review of the FPLA exemption needs to be reviewed. Page yield is widely 

accepted and has repeatability measures. 

Mr. Paul Jeran, Hewlett Packard, submitted a white paper (refer to Appendix C) from the Information Technology 

Industry Council (ITI). This white paper included manufacturers from Epson, Hewlett Packard, Kodak, and 

Lexmark. Mr. Jeran explained that his background is with ink and toner measurement. For the same volume of ink, 

two different systems of the same model cartridge from two different vendors can print a different number of pages. 

In order to determine the page yield, they are using the ISO/IEC methodology. ISO is currently working on a photo 

yield standard.

A state official expressed concerns with page yield being the standard page print for quantity. There is variation

based on the type of cartridge, printer, and font and if graphics/photos are being printed. There is also a concern 
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

L&R - 18

with what ink cartridge refillers are doing. The Florida official reviewed the current practice of refillers, and they 

are listing on the labels the amount of ink. There are many manufactured packages in the marketplace, so value 

comparison to original equipment manufacturer (OEM) is critical. This is an expensive commodity and 

clarifications of the requirements are needed. A state official recommended that this item not be Withdrawn, but 

made Informational so additional information can be researched on this item. It is firmly believed that there needs 

to be a consistency with the declaration statement on these types of items. A consumer stated that he believes the 

net content needs to be stated with voluntary supplemental information for page yield. Some voiced their opinion 

that consumers need to know page yield in order to make a value comparison. The NIST Technical Advisor stated 

that under the FTC regulations ink and toner cartridges were not part of the CFR. NIST met with the FTC on 

February 26, 2010, to request clarification of the exemption. According to the Committee, there needs to be a test 

procedure for verification of net content developed for ink and toner cartridges. The Committee recommends that 

this item be made Informational until they can receive clarification from the FTC, review ISO standards, and 

determine what refillers’ current practices are. 

At the 2010 N EWMA and the CWMA Annual Meetings, both Associations received a p resentation from 

Mr. Stephen Pociask from American Consumer Institute, regarding a lack of consumer information when purchasing 

computer printers and cartridges. Both Associations expressed that there are still many unanswered questions and 

would like to hear from manufacturers of ink and toner cartridges. Both Associations are recommending that this be 

an Informational item. 

At the 2010 Annual Meeting held in St. Paul, Minnesota, Mr. Pociask, presented a study done by his organization. 

It was asked who initially requested the study and who funded it. Mr. Pociask stated that the study was done back in 

2007, with funding by a telemarketing research company.

A Weights and Measures Official expressed concern that the study presented was not clear; is page count based on 

certain fill levels or declaring the weight on the cartridge itself? Mr. Pociask responded that currently Quality Logic 

uses the ISO standards. He also concluded that net weight is easy to enforce. Mr. Pociask stressed that his focus is 

to provide information that give consumers useful information in purchasing printers and the life cost of the printer, 

including printer ink cost.

Another official stated that the study was interesting, but would like to hear from manufacturers. There are several 

issues; cartridges are only for specific printers, when comparing price per page you suggest that price is static, and 

ink cartridge refillers need to be addressed. 

Mr. Joshua Rosenberg, IT Industry Council (ITI), agreed that providing consumers with information is meaningful, 

however; relevant to the consumer is the number of pages that can print. The ISO standards are a good tool, but will 

lead to customer confusion. Mr. Rosenberg expressed that there is a lot more that needs to be discussed on this issue 

(refer to Appendix C).

At the 2010 Annual Meeting, the Board of Directors established a Task Group (TG) for the Printer Ink and Toner 

Cartridges to review and obtain additional information from all stakeholders. Ms. Vicky L. Dempsey, Chief 

Inspector, Montgomery County, Ohio will Chair this group and Lisa Warfield will be the NIST Technical Advisor. 

At the 2010 CWMA Interim Meeting, Ms. Dempsey, Chairperson for the TG on Printer Ink and Toner Cartridges 

announced her resignation to the Association. Ms. Dempsey gave a briefing on this issue, in particular whether this 

particular form of ink is included in the exemption of the FPLA. It was indicated that FDA believes this exemption 

only applies to ink in pens, not in printer cartridges. Regulators commented that “yield’ is more important for cost 

comparison for consumers; however, other regulators felt that “yield” is not a weights and measures issue. Another 

concern was that the ISO yields are based upon approximations. Discussion also included whether regulators would 

have to purchase printers in order to verify yield. It was generally agreed that this is a very complicated matter, and 

the method of sale needs to be measurable. A regulator stated he had spoken with a manufacturer and questioned 

how the packages are filled. The response indicated that packages are filled by volume.

The CWMA L&R Committee supports the efforts of a TG for the Printer Ink and Toner Cartridges to gather more 

information for development of this proposal.
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

L&R - 19

At the 2010 WWMA Annual Meeting and the 2010 NEWMA Interim Meeting, it was announced that NCWM is 

seeking a chairperson for the Printer Ink and Toner Cartridges TG. The CWMA and WWMA are recommending 

that this item move forward as Informational.

At the 2010 SWMA Annual Meeting, it was announced that a chairperson is needed for the TG on Printer Ink and 

Toner Cartridges. The SWMA L&R Committee does not endorse the formation of an Ink and Toner TG to resolve 

this issue. Only within the past couple years have manufacturers changed their declaration statement to read “yield.” 

Allowing the declaration by yield will open the door for other commodities to change their labeling (e.g., loads of 

laundry). T he SWMA L&R Committee recommends that these commodities be sold by volume and weight; 

however, they are not opposed to yield being a supplementary statement. This will allow for inspectors to verify the 

net contents, and also provide information for consumers to make value comparisons. The SWMA L&R Committee 

would like to seek additional information from industry and ink refillers. A recommendation was made for the item 

under consideration move forward as a Voting item. 

At the 2011 NCWM Interim Meeting held in Dallas, Texas, the Ink and Toner Cartridge WG held its first work 

session. There was discussion on the current forms and types of printer ink. Industry also explained that they are 

able to deliver less ink with a better print quality. As a result, they refrain from using the net content statement but 

feel that a page yield is more useful information for a consumer in making comparisons. Industry was informed that 

yield is not acceptable and they cannot use words like “approximate” and “estimated.” It was agreed that yield 

could be a supplementary statement on the package.

The Ink and Toner WG requested additional information from industry in regards to: 

1. How the ISO standard works, and how this standard fits into the weights and measures test procedure. 

2. How is print darkness measured? 

3. An explanation as to why manufacturers removed the net weight declaration from packages and replaced it 

with a page yield? 

4. When changing formulas, is the toner receptacle resubmitted back through the ISO standards to validate the 

page print accuracy? 

Industry agreed to prepare a presentation to address these concerns at the Ink and Toner WG to be held in July 2011. 

The Committee recommends that this item be Informational. 

At the 2011 NEWMA Annual Meeting held in Saratoga Springs, New York, there were no comments heard on this 

item. The Committee Chair reminded members that the Printer and Toner WG will be meeting on the Sunday prior 

to the start of the NCWM Annual Meeting, and that industry will be giving a presentation. The NEWMA L&R 

Committee recommended that this item move forward as an Informational item.

At the 2011 CWMA Annual Meeting held in Grand Rapids, Michigan, there were several comments heard on this 

item. Concern was expressed that ink cartridges used to have quantity on the label, but now, in the marketplace, 

only yield is used for labeling. A state director expressed concern that ink refillers are not being addressed under 

this proposal. The CWMA L&R Committee recommended that this item move forward as an Informational item.

The Printer Ink and Toner Cartridge WG met on Sunday, July 17, 2011, at the NCWM Annual Conference in 

Missoula, Montana. T his workgroup was attended by several members of state, county, and city weights and 

measures officials as well as members of industry. Mr. Josh Rosenberg, with the Information Technology Industry 

Council (ITI), and other members of the printer industry gave a presentation outlining their viewpoints using yield 

as the method of sale for their products. The printer industry representatives were asked questions regarding the 

amount of product each cartridge held and all agreed their respective companies were aware of the net contents of 

each container. A stakeholder stated that packages must have the weight, measure, or count – no other type of 

labeling is acceptable. Industry was also informed that “yield” is not an acceptable means of labeling for any 

product. 
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

L&R - 20

The Ink and Toner WG will meet at the NCWM 2012 Interim meeting in New Orleans. The printer industry was 

asked to consolidate their presentation to only address the labeling issue of their products and address the WG with 

this information. A lso, the Printer Ink and Toner Cartridge WG plans to make a proposal to the NCWM L&R 

Committee for a method of sale for packaged printer ink and toner cartridges.

During the open hearings at the 2011 N CWM Annual Meeting, Mr. Rosenberg, with ITI (also representing 

Lexmark, HP, Kodak, Epson and Brother), entered their Sunday presentation for the record (refer to Appendix C.) 

Mr. Rosenberg remarked that a label by volume or weight does not meet the objectives of their organization or 

consumers’ preference. Mr. Rosenberg believes that yield is the best way to enable consumers to make informed 

purchase decisions. He further believes there is a way to provide information through yield data and the ability to 

apply the ISO standard for yield. Mr. Rosenberg stated they will be in attendance at the upcoming regional meetings 

to address any issues or concerns. A stakeholder noted that he does not believe the ISO yield standard is acceptable, 

due to the default system of each manufacturer’s printer being different. He also pointed out that NCWM is not a 

performance based evaluation agency, and encourages the Ink and Toner WG to develop an item based on the use of 

weight or volume as the unit of measure.

The Committee would like to see additional work from the Printer Ink and Toner WG.

Ms. Maureen Henzler, Kansas, is the Chairperson for the WG on Printer Ink and Toner Cartridges. If you are 

interested in participating in this TG, e-mail Ms. Henzler at maureen.henzler@kda.ks.gov or Lisa Warfield, NIST, at 

lisa.warfield@nist.gov.

232-3 V HB 130, Method of Sale Regulation, Section 1.7.2. Pelletized Ice Cream

(This item was adopted.) 

Source: NIST Weights and Measures Division, International Dairy Foods Association, Food and Drug 

Administration (FDA)

Purpose: Provide a method of sale for pelletized frozen desserts in accordance with FDA’s August 2010 statement.

Item Under Consideration: 

1.7.1. Factory Packaged Ice Cream and Similar Frozen Products. – Ice cream, ice milk, frozen yogurt, and 

similar products shall be kept, offered, or exposed for sale or sold in terms of fluid volume.

(Amended 1995)

1.7.2. Pelletized Ice Cream and Similar Pelletized Frozen Desserts – A semi-solid food product 

manufactured at very low temperatures using a nitrogen process and consisting of small beads of varying sizes. 

Bits of inclusions (cookies, candy, etc.) that also vary in size and weight may be mixed with the pellets. 

1.7.2.1. Method of Retail Sale – Packaged pelletized ice cream or similar pelletized frozen desserts

shall be kept, offered, or exposed for sale on the basis of net weight. 

Note: The method of sale for pelletized ice cream shall be enforceable after April 17, 2010, and after

August 2, 2011, for similar pelletized frozen desserts. 

(Added 2010) (Amended 20XX)

Background/Discussion: In a letter from the FDA (refer to NCWM 2010 Interim Meeting, L&R Agenda,

Appendix D), a statement was issued that the net quantity of content statement on pelletized frozen desserts, in 

addition to pelletized ice cream, conform to the standards for frozen desserts in 21 CFR Part 135. Nonstandardized 

frozen desserts that are similar to the standardized frozen desserts in 21 CFR Part 135 should be declared in terms of 

net weight. The FDA expects manufacturers of these pelletized frozen desserts to revise their labels to reflect a net 
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

L&R - 21

weight declaration during the next package printing cycle and encourage all marketers of pelletized frozen desserts 

to modify their labels with a net weight declaration within one year from the issue date (August 2011). 

At the 2010 fall regional meetings, there were no comments heard on this item. All four Associations have 

recommended that this item move forward as a Voting item. 

At the 2011 NCWM Interim Meeting held in Dallas, Texas, there were no comments heard on this item. The 

Committee recommends that the item move forward as a Voting item.

At the 2011 NEWMA and CWMA Annual Meetings, there were no comments heard on this item. Both regions are 

recommending this item be a Voting item.

At the 2011 NCWM Annual Meeting held in Missoula, Montana, there were no comments heard on this item. 

232-4 V HB 130, Method of Sale Regulation, Section 2.33. Vehicle Motor Oil 

(This item was returned to committee on a split vote.) 

Source: Central Weights and Measures Association

Purpose: Adopt a method of sale in HB 130 for vehicle motor oil. There is a corresponding Fuels and Automotive 

Lubricants Regulation to require detailed invoicing requirements. Some oil facilities may not deliver the advertised 

oil, so consumers may be receiving lower quality oil than what is specified. It is being recommended that retailers 

that provide oil change services be required to provide consumers with a document that lists the oil’s manufacturer, 

brand name, SAE viscosity, and service requirements as defined in API 1509, SAE J183, or ASTM D4485.

Item Under Consideration: 

2.33. Oil.

2.33.1. Labeling of Vehicle Motor Oil.

2.33.1.1. Viscosity. – The label on a vehicle motor oil container, receptacle, dispenser, or 

storage tank and the invoice or receipt from service on an engine that includes the installation of 

vehicle motor oil dispensed from a receptacle, dispenser, or storage tank shall contain the 

viscosity grade classification preceded by the letters “SAE” in accordance with the SAE 

International’s latest version of SAE J300, Engine Oil Viscosity Classification.

2.33.1.2. Intended Use. – The label on a vehicle motor oil container shall contain a statement of 

its intended use in accordance with the latest version of SAE J183, Engine Oil Performance and 

Engine Service Classification (Other than “Energy Conserving”).

2.33.1.3. Brand – The label on a vehicle motor oil container and the invoice or receipt from 

service on an engine that includes the installation of vehicle motor oil dispensed from a 

receptacle, dispenser, or storage tank shall contain the name, brand, trademark, or trade name 

of the vehicle motor oil.

2.33.1.4. Engine Service Category. – The label on a vehicle motor oil container, receptacle, 

dispenser, or storage tank and the invoice or receipt from service on an engine that includes the 

installation of vehicle motor oil dispensed from a receptacle, dispenser, or storage tank shall 

contain the engine service category, or categories, met in letters not less than 3.18 mm (1/8 in) in 

height, as defined by the latest version of SAE J183, Engine Oil Performance and Engine Service 

Classification (Other than “Energy Conserving”) or API Publication 1509, “Engine Oil 

Licensing and Certification System.”
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

L&R - 22

2.33.1.4.1. Inactive or Obsolete Service Categories. – The label on a vehicle motor oil container, 

receptacle, dispenser, or storage tank and the invoice or receipt from service on an engine that 

includes the installation of vehicle motor oil dispensed from a receptacle, dispenser, or storage 

tank shall bear a plainly visible cautionary statement in compliance with SAE J183, Appendix A, 

whenever the vehicle motor oil in the container or in bulk does not meet an active API service 

category as defined by the latest version of SAE J183, Engine Oil Performance and Engine 

Service Classification (Other than “Energy Conserving”).

2.33.1.4.2. Tank Trucks or Rail Cars. – Tank trucks, rail cars, or other types of delivery 

trucks that are used to deliver vehicle motor oil are not required to display the SAE viscosity 

grade and service category or categories as long as the bill of lading or other documentation 

provides that information. 

All references to invoice or receipt will be enforceable effective on July 1, 2012. 

(Added 201X)

Background/Discussion: At the 2011 NCWM Interim Meeting in Dallas, Texas, it was pointed out that if 

Item 237-6, HB 130 Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants Regulation, Section 3.13.1. Labeling of Vehicle 

Motor Oil was adopted by the Conference it would require a corresponding method of sale. It was also noted that 

this method of sale is important to consumers and stakeholders because not all of the states adopt the Engine Fuels 

and Lubricants Regulation. 

2.33. Oil.

2.33.1. Labeling of Vehicle Motor Oil.

2.33.1.1. Viscosity. – The label on a vehicle motor oil container, receptacle, dispenser, or 

storage tank and the invoice from service on an engine that includes the installation of vehicle 

motor oil dispensed from a receptacle, dispenser, or storage tank shall contain the viscosity grade 

classification preceded by the letters “SAE” in accordance with the SAE International’s latest 

version of SAE J300.

2.33.1.2. Intended Use. – The label on a vehicle motor oil container shall contain a statement of 

its intended use in accordance with the latest version of SAE J183.

2.33.1.3. Brand – The label on a vehicle motor oil container and the invoice from service on an 

engine that includes the installation of vehicle motor oil dispensed from a receptacle, dispenser, 

or storage tank shall contain the name, brand, trademark, or trade name of the vehicle motor oil.

2.33.1.4. Engine Service Category. – The label on a vehicle motor oil container, receptacle, 

dispenser, or storage tank and the invoice from service on an engine that includes the installation 

of vehicle motor oil dispensed from a receptacle, dispenser, or storage tank shall contain the 

engine service category, or categories, met in letters not less than 3.18 mm (1/8 in) in height, as 

defined by the latest version of SAE J183 or API Publication 1509, “Engine Oil Licensing and 

Certification System.”

2.33.1.4.1. Inactive or Obsolete Service Categories. – The label on a ve hicle motor oil 

container, receptacle, dispenser, or storage tank and the invoice from service on an engine 

that includes the installation of vehicle motor oil dispensed from a receptacle, dispenser, or 

storage tank shall bear a plainly visible cautionary statement in compliance with SAE J183, 

Appendix A, whenever the vehicle motor oil in the container or in bulk does not meet an 

active API service category as defined by the latest version of SAE J183.

2.33.1.4.2. Tank Trucks or Rail Cars. – Tank trucks, rail cars, or other types of delivery 

trucks that are used to deliver vehicle motor oil are not required to display the SAE viscosity 
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

L&R - 23

grade and service category or categories as long as the bill of lading or other documentation 

provides that information. 

(Added 201X)

The Committee recommends this item move forward as a Voting item.

At the 2011 NEWMA Annual Meeting held in Saratoga Springs, New York, membership reviewed the proposal 

under the background/discussion, and it was noted that the title to the SAE and API standard would be noted. It was 

also noted to change the word “motor” to “engine.” A representative from API did not object to these changes. The 

NEWMA L&R Committee recommended that this item move forward as a Voting item.

At the 2011 C WMA Annual Meeting held in Grand Rapids, Michigan, there was support from API and a state 

representative. The CWMA L&R Committee recommended that this item move forward as a Voting item.

At the 2011 NCWM Annual Meeting held in Missoula, Montana, the FALS and L&R Committee received a letter 

from the Independent Lubricant Manufacturers Association (ILMA) in support of this and a corresponding proposal

Item 237-6 (refer to Appendix G.) The FALS group believes this has unanimous support. It was noted that the SAE 

and API standards technical title would be editorially placed in the proposal. It was agreed that the term “motor” 

would not change to “engine.” A representative of API stated that bulk oils are the weak link in the property chain. 

A State representative expressed concern with the cost and training for testing the “brand.” API responded that the 

brand name is a cr itical part of the traceability. API does have a l icensing program for engine oil but, without 

knowing the brand name, it would be hard to determine compliance with any specifications. Several state regulators 

supported this proposal because of significant problems in the industry. It was also emphasized that industry wants 

this as well as the weights and measures regulatory community. It was mentioned that some car manufacturers will 

void a warranty unless a specific brand is used. The FALS Chairperson supports this proposal so that producers can 

guarantee their product and enforce mislabeling. 

During the voting session, a state regulator agreed that brand helps with traceability, but he believes the labeling 

requirement should be limited to specification. Several states stated they would support this item only if Section 

2.33.1.3. Brand was removed from the proposal. 

237 ENGINE FUELS AND AUTOMOTIVE LUBRICANTS REGULATION 

237-1 I HB 130, Engine Fuel Quality Requirements for Hydrogen 

Source: Western Weights and Measures Association (WWMA)

Purpose: Adopt engine fuel quality requirements for hydrogen in HB 130 to address gaseous hydrogen refueling 

applications. 

Item Under Consideration: The U.S. National Work Group (USNWG) Fuel Specifications Subcommittee (FSS) 

presented the following recommendation for consideration.
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

L&R - 24

Table 1.

Hydrogen Fuel Quality Specifications*

Constituent 99.97 Unit Limit Test Method(s)

Responsible 

Standards 

Committee and

Status of test 

method

Standard Practice for Gaseous Sampling ASTM D7606-11

1 Hydrogen Fuel Index % Minimum (a)

2 

Total Allowable NonHydrogen, NonHelium,

Non-Particulate

100.0 ppm v/v Maximum (b)

3 Total Non-Hydrogen 

Gases 300.0 ppm v/v Maximum (c)

4 Ammonia 0.1 ppm v/v Maximum ASTM D7653-10

5 Carbon Dioxide 2.0 ppm v/v Maximum ASTM D7653-10

ASTM D7649-10

6 Carbon Monoxide 0.2 ppm v/v Maximum ASTM D7653-10

7 Formaldehyde 0.01 ppm v/v Maximum ASTM D7653-10

8 Formic Acid 0.2 ppm v/v Maximum ASTM D7550-09

ASTM D7653-10

9 Helium 300.0 ppm v/v Maximum ASTM D1945-03

10 Nitrogen and Argon 100.0 ppm v/v Maximum ASTM D7649-10

11 Oxygen 5.0 ppm v/v Maximum ASTM D7649-10

12 Particulate 

Concentration 1.0 mg/kg Maximum ASTM D7650-10ASTM D7651-10

13 Total Halogenated 

Compounds 0.05 ppm v/v Maximum to be specified WK 23815 under ASTM D03.14

14 Total Hydrocarbons 2.0 (d) ppm v/v Maximum ASTM D7675-11

15 Total Sulfur 

Compounds 0.004 ppm v/v Maximum ASTM D7652-11

16 Water 5.0 ppm v/v Maximum ASTM D7653-10

ASTM D7649-10
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

L&R - 25

Table 1.

Hydrogen Fuel Quality Specifications*

Footnotes to Table 1:

a. Hydrogen fuel index = Sum of all non-hydrogen gases (as % of sample) subtracted from 100 %.

b. Total Allowable Non-Hydrogen, Non-Helium, Non-Particulate = S um of all constituents listed on the table, 

except hydrogen, helium, and particulates.

c. Total Non-Hydrogen Gases = Sum of all constituents listed on the table except hydrogen and 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 

http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/business/autos/bus29.shtm); requires dispensers to bear a declaration of the 

minimum percent of hydrogen determined according to test methods described in “Standard Test Method for 

Analysis of Natural Gas by Gas Chromatography (ASTM D1946).

Updated 7/12/2011

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 (test methods) 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.

In April 2009, at the USNWG on hydrogen meeting held in Sacramento, California, they further refined the 

definitions for hydrogen vehicle fuel based on work by SAE International. The definitions were modified to include 

more technically correct language, and the text is in alignment with the widely recognized “Bosch Automotive 

Handbook.” In January 2010, a column was added to Table 1 to reflect the responsible standards committee and the 

status of the test method.

Background/Discussion: Twenty-four states have hydrogen refueling dispensers in operation. Hydrogen stations 

using permanent and mobile refueling systems for automobiles, fleet vehicles (buses), forklifts, and 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 before it becomes a commercial application. T his effort by the 

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 to educate 

the general public, not if, but when, retail hydrogen applications become commercially available.

Existing codes do n ot fully address hydrogen refueling applications because of hydrogen’s properties and other 

technical differences in the setup and operations of dispensing systems. T he development of legal metrology 

standards for newly emerging hydrogen technology is a necessary component of the hydrogen infrastructure. The 

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 brought proposals for equipment, method of sale, and fuel quality requirements before the weights and

measures community to share this information about upcoming standards for an emerging technology. T he 

simultaneous development of the code and corresponding test procedures, will allow for input from the weights and 

measures and hydrogen communities, appropriate trials of the standards, and to address all areas of concerns early in 

the standards development process.
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

L&R - 26

This item was reviewed at the WWMA and SWMA 2008 Annual Meetings and at the NEWMA 2008 I nterim 

Meeting. N EWMA members generally discussed the “hydrogen issue” and its usage in the marketplace. I t is 

anticipated that hydrogen at first will be relegated to “fleet vehicles” (such as compressed natural gas [CNG]), and 

that retail sales will be slow in coming to the marketplace. These Associations are recommending 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 FSS has done to date (refer to Appendix J in the “Report of the 94th NCWM” [SP 1099, 2009]).

There were no comments heard on this proposal at the CWMA 2009 Interim Meeting. 

At the WWMA 2009 Annual Meeting held in Los Cruces, New Mexico, industry representatives acknowledged that 

some details of the specifications for fuel standards are in development. The WWMA L&R Committee believes it is 

best to be proactive on this item so that Hydrogen stations can be ready to make retail sales.

At the SWMA 2009 A nnual Meeting, a state recommended that as the test methods are developed they get 

published. It also requested that documentation be produced on the effects of hydrogen if they exceed certain 

property values listed in the table “Hydrogen Fuel Quality Specification,” and why this is important in the testing of 

hydrogen.

NEWMA reviewed this proposal at their 2009 Interim Meeting and recommends leaving this as a Developing item.

At the NCWM 2010 Interim Meeting, the NIST Technical Advisor provided an updated Table 1. Hydrogen Fuel 

Quality Specification (refer to L&R Appendix B in the “Report of the 95th NCWM” [SP 1115, 2010]) that amends 

the chart to identify which Standards Committee is actively working on the test method under development.

At the 2010 NEWMA and CWMA Annual Meeting, no comments were received on this item and both Associations 

are recommending that this item move forward as an Informational item.

At the 2010 NCWM Annual Meeting in St. Paul, Minnesota, Mr. Jennings, Tennessee, informed the Conference that 

the American Society for Testing and Materials International (ASTM) is actively working on a hydrogen 

specification. Until further developed by ASTM, there is nothing that can be done on this item. Mr. Jennings would 

also like to provide users with information on what the significance is of each property. 

At the 2010 CWMA Interim Meeting in Rock Island, Illinois, a representative of the USNWG provided an update 

on ASTM efforts to establish test methods. A n industry representative provided information that some of the 

specifications of the SAE standard contained parameters that could not be measured by the current test methods. A 

ballot cannot take place at ASTM until these test methods are established, and test methods will take some time to 

develop. The CWMA L&R Committee recommended that the proposal be further developed by the NCWM Fuels 

and Lubricants Subcommittee (FALS) due to their expertise in this area.

At the 2010 WWMA Annual Meeting held in Olympia, Washington, a state official, who is also a member of the 

USNWG, recommended that this item be split into two separate proposals. O ne proposal would address: 

“Specifications for Hydrogen Fuel for Internal Combustion Engines and Fuel Cells.” T he second item would 

address: “Definitions” with the existing language and definitions as recommended by the USNWG FSS. The state 

official commented that work has been done by the USNWG on definitions, and that moving the terms to a vote 

would help move the implementation and acceptance of hydrogen. It was stated that “specifications” could take 

years to develop. The WWMA L&R Committee agreed with the recommendation in having the definitions as a 

separate item (refer to Item 237-2). The WWMA L&R Committee recommends that this item remain Informational.

At the 2010 SWMA Annual Meeting, the NIST Technical Advisor informed the group that the WWMA 

recommended to separate the fuel specifications from the definitions. The SWMA L&R Committee also agreed to 

separate these two items. The SWMA L&R Committee recommends moving the fuel quality proposal forward as an 

Informational item. 
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

L&R - 27

At the 2010 N EWMA Interim Meeting, there were no comments heard on this item. T he NEWMA L&R 

Committee recommends moving forward the fuel specification portion as an Informational item. The NEWMA’s 

L&R recommendation for the definitions is documented in Item 237-2.

Table 1.

Hydrogen Fuel Quality Specifications*

Property Value Unit Limit Test Method(s)

Responsible Standards

Committee and

Status of test method

1 Ammonia 0.1 ppm v/v Maximum ASTM D7653-10

2 Carbon Dioxide 2.0 ppm v/v Maximum ASTM D7653-10

ASTM D7649-10

3 Carbon Monoxide 0.2 ppm v/v Maximum ASTM D7653-10

4 Formaldehyde 0.01 ppm v/v Maximum ASTM D7653-10

5 Formic Acid 0.2 ppm v/v Maximum ASTM D7550-09

ASTM D7653-10

6 Helium 300.0 ppm v/v to be specified ASTM D03.14

7 Hydrogen Fuel Index 99.97 % (a) to be specified

8 Nitrogen and Argon 100.0 ppm v/v ASTM D7649-10

9 Oxygen 5.0 ppm v/v Maximum ASTM D7649-10

10 Particulate 

Concentration 1.0 mg/kg Maximum ASTM D7650-10ASTM D7651-10

11

Total Allowable 

Non-Hydrogen, NonHelium,

Non-Particulate 

constituents

100.0 ppm v/v Maximum to be specified

12 Total Non-Hydrogen 

Gases 300.0 ppm v/v (b) Maximum to be specified

13 Total Halogenated 

Compounds 0.05 ppm v/v Maximum to be specified WK 23815 under ASTM D03.14

14 Total Hydrocarbons 2.0 ppm v/v 

(c) Maximum to be specified WK 22378 under ASTM D03.14

15 Total Sulfur 

Compounds 0.004 ppm v/v Maximum to be specified WK 24073 under ASTM D03.14

16 Water 5.0 ppm v/v Maximum ASTM D7653-10

ASTM D7649-10

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).

Updated 1/20/2011

At the 2011 NCWM Interim Meeting held in Dallas, Texas, the NIST Technical Advisor submitted an updated 

Table 1. Hydrogen Fuel Quality Specification that was received from the USNWG. The USNWG also submitted 

the following updated specifications for the allowable level of the constituents listed in Table 1. Hydrogen Fuel 

Quality Specifications and corresponding standardized procedures for collecting and measuring each constituent are 

now available for: Ammonia [1], Carbon Dioxide [2], Carbon Monoxide [3], Formaldehyde [4], Formic Acid [5], 
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

L&R - 28

Nitrogen and Argon [8], Oxygen [9], Particulate Concentration [10], and Water [16]. The next stage in the 

development of these standards is to round robin the methods to establish precision and bias. 

Standard Test Methods for Sulfur [15] and Hydrocarbons [14] will be made available shortly since these standards 

are in publishing. ASTM Subcommittee D03.14 on Hydrogen and Fuel Cells has tentative plans for sending the 

standards for Helium [6] and Halogenates [13] to ballot in March 2011.

The Committee recommends that the item remain Informational.

At the 2011 NEWMA and CWMA Annual Meetings, an updated specifications chart was reviewed. Both Regions 

are recommending this item move forward as an Informational item until further developed by the USNHWG.

At the 2011 NCWM Annual Meeting held in Missoula, Montana, a revised chart updated on July 12, 2011, was 

distributed (refer to item under consideration). It was noted by a representative of the USNHWG that the previous 

color coded chart was eliminated since only one constituent remains to be completed. T he Committee is in 

agreement that the revised chart move forward as an Information item. 

Additional information on this hydrogen proposal and the corresponding method of sale regulation and hydrogen gas 

measuring devices code adopted in 2010 can be found at website: http://www.nist.gov/pml/wmd/lmdg/hydrogen.cfm. For 

additional information on this item, contact Mr. Marc Buttler at marc.buttler@nist.gov or (301) 975-4615. 

237-2 I HB 130, Definitions for Hydrogen Fuel for Internal Combustion Engines and Fuel Cell Vehicles

(This item was removed from Voting status. 

The Committee determined that additional work needs to be done and returned it to Informational status.) 

Source: Western Weights and Measures Association (WWMA). This item was previously within Item 237-1. 

Purpose: Adopt definitions for hydrogen fuel, internal combustion engine, and fuel cell.

 

Item Under Consideration: In April 2009, the U.S. National Work Group (USNWG) for the Development of 

Commercial Hydrogen Measurement Standards Fuel Specifications Subcommittee (FSS) presented the following 

recommended definitions for consideration.

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 energy conversion device in which fuel and an oxidant react to 

generate energy without consumption of its electrodes or electrolytes.

(Added 201X)

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.

(Added 201X)

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.

(Added 201X)

Background/Discussion: This proposal was reviewed at all the fall regional meetings under Item 237-1. At the 

2010 WWMA and SWMA Annual Meetings and the 2010 NEWMA Interim Meeting, the Associations made the
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

L&R - 29

recommendation to have the definitions for hydrogen fuel for internal combustion engines and fuel cell vehicles 

considered as a separate item. All of the Associations are recommending this item move forward as a Voting item. 

(refer to Item 237-1 above for additional background information) 

At the 2011 NCWM Interim Meeting held in Dallas, Texas, a NIST Technical Advisor reported that the USNWG 

for hydrogen supports this item and recommends it be adopted by the NCWM. The Committee recommends this 

item for adoption by the NCWM. 

At the 2011 NEWMA and CWMA Annual Meetings, no comments were heard on this item. The NEWMA and 

CWMA L&R Committees recommended that this item move forward as a Voting item.

At the 2011 N CWM Annual Meeting held in Missoula, Montana, a state official spoke in support of this item. 

There were no additional comments heard. During the voting session, it was asked if online comments were

reviewed for additional language changes. The Committee Chair responded that online comments were reviewed by 

the Committee. 

Jim Simnick submitted the following changes via the NCWM online commenting system:

1.XX. Fuel Cell. – An electrochemical energy conversion device in which fuel and an oxidant react to generate 

electrical energy without consumption of its electrodes or electrolytes. 

1.XX. Hydrogen Fuel. – A fuel composed of the molecular chemical hydrogen intended for consumption in a 

surface vehicle or electricity production device 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 via spark-ignition or compression ignition combustion into mechanical work to power a vehicle 

or other device. 

Prior to the voting session it was recommended that the definition be amended to the language submitted by Mr. 

Simnick. A representative of the USNHWG remarked that the substitution of the word molecular for chemical is 

questionable; accordingly they would like to take the language back to the USNHWG for additional review and 

study. A state official requested that the Committee remove this item from Voting status and return to Informational 

status. The Committee was in agreement that an additional review is required by the USNHWG and removed the 

item from Voting status. 

237-3 I Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants Regulation, Section 3.15. Biodiesel and Biodiesel 

Blends 

Source: Southern Weights and Measures Association (SWMA)

Purpose: Amend Section 3.15. Biodiesel and Biodiesel Blends of the Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants 

Regulation to remove the exemption for declaration of biodiesel content on product transfer documents for biodiesel 

blends up to 5 %.

Item Under Consideration: Amend Section 3.15. Biodiesel and Biodiesel Blends of the Engine Fuels and 

Automotive Lubricants Regulation.

3.15. Biodiesel and Biodiesel Blends.

3.15.1. Identification of Product. – Biodiesel shall be identified by the term “biodiesel” with the 

designation “B100.” Biodiesel blends shall be identified by the term “Biodiesel Blend.”

3.15.2. Labeling of Retail Dispensers.

3.15.2.1. Labeling of Grade Required. – Biodiesel shall be identified by the grades S15 or S500. 

Biodiesel blends shall be identified by the grades No. 1-D, No. 2-D, or No. 4-D.
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

L&R - 30

3.15.2.2. EPA Labeling Requirements Also Apply. – Retailers and wholesale purchaser-consumers 

of biodiesel blends shall comply with EPA pump labeling requirements for sulfur under 

40 CFR § 80.570.

3.15.2.3. Automotive Fuel Rating. – Biodiesel and biodiesel blends shall be labeled with its 

automotive fuel rating in accordance with 16 CFR Part 306.

3.15.2.4. Biodiesel Blends. – When biodiesel blends greater than 20 % by volume are offered by 

sale, each side of the dispenser where fuel can be delivered shall have a label conspicuously placed that 

states, “Consult Vehicle Manufacturer Fuel Recommendations.”

The lettering of this legend shall not be less that 6 mm (1⁄4 in) in height by 0.8 mm (1

/32 in) stroke; block 

style letters and the color shall be in definite contrast to the background color to which it is applied.

3.15.3. Documentation for Dispenser Labeling Purposes Required on Transfer Documents. – The 

retailer shall be provided, aAt the time of delivery of the fuel, a d eclaration of the volume percent 

biodiesel shall be disclosed on all transfer documents. on an invoice, bill of lading, shipping paper, or 

other document. This documentation is for dispenser labeling purposes only; iIt is the responsibility 

of any potential blender to determine the amount of biodiesel in the diesel fuel prior to blending.

(Amended 201X)

3.15.4. Exemption. 

(a) Biodiesel blends that contain less than or equal to 5 % biodiesel by volume are exempted from 

the requirements of Sections 3.15.1. Identification of Product, and 3.15.2. Labeling of Retail 

Dispensers, and 3.15.3. Automotive Fuel Rating when it is sold as “diesel fuel” as required in 

Section 3.3. Diesel Fuel.

(b) Diesel fuel containing less than 1 % by volume biodiesel is exempted from the requirement 

of 3.15.3. Documentation for Dispenser Labeling Purposes.

(c) Diesel fuel containing 1 % and not more than 5 % by volume biodiesel fuel is exempt from 

disclosing the actual percent by volume of biodiesel as required in Section 3.15.3.

Documentation for Dispenser Labeling Purposes. However, the term “Contains Biodiesel” 

or other similar terms shall be used.

(Amended 201X)

(Added 2005) (Amended 2008 and 201X) 

Background/Discussion: At the 2009 SWMA Annual Meeting held in Clearwater, Florida, a discussion over 

blending was presented by a FALS member. Biodiesel is being blended at many terminals across the country in 

concentrations up to 5 %. Marketers downstream of the terminal are then attempting to blend additional biodiesel to 

target levels, and finding that their product is being over-blended because they were not aware that the fuel 

contained any biodiesel. Per Mr. Jennings, Tennessee, at least one major truck stop operator has already voiced 

concerns to the FALS Chairman. T his amended proposal will remove the exemption declaration of biodiesel 

content on product transfer documents for biodiesel blends up to 5 %. B iodiesel is blended at terminals in 

concentrations up to 5 %. Mr. Jennings felt it was important to start this recommendation and have the FALS 

Chairman vet the proposal out to all members of the FALS Committee for their comments before the NCWM 

Interim meeting in January 2010.

3.15. Biodiesel and Biodiesel Blends

3.15.1. Identification of Product. – Biodiesel shall be identified by the term “biodiesel” with the 

designation “B100.” Biodiesel blends shall be identified by the term “Biodiesel Blend.”
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

L&R - 31

3.15.2. Labeling of Retail Dispensers.

3.15.2.1. Labeling of Grade Required. – Biodiesel shall be identified by the grades S15 or S500. 

Biodiesel blends shall be identified by the grades No. 1-D, No. 2-D, or No. 4-D.

3.15.2.2. EPA Labeling Requirements Also Apply. – Retailers and wholesale purchaser-consumers 

of biodiesel blends shall comply with EPA pump labeling requirements for sulfur under 

40 CFR § 80.570.

3.15.2.3. Automotive Fuel Rating. – Biodiesel and biodiesel blends shall be labeled with its 

automotive fuel rating in accordance with 16 CFR Part 306.

3.15.2.4. Biodiesel Blends. – When biodiesel blends greater than 20 % by volume are offered by 

sale, each side of the dispenser where fuel can be delivered shall have a label conspicuously placed that 

states “Consult Vehicle Manufacturer Fuel Recommendations.” 

The lettering of this legend shall not be less that 6 mm (1⁄4 in) in height by 0.8 mm (1

/32 in) stroke; block 

style letters and the color shall be in definite contrast to the background color to which it is applied.

3.15.3. Documentation for Dispenser Labeling Purposes. – The retailer shall be provided, at the time of 

delivery of the fuel, a declaration of the volume percent biodiesel on an invoice, bill of lading, shipping 

paper, or other document. This documentation is for dispenser labeling purposes only; it is the 

responsibility of any potential blender to determine the amount of biodiesel in the diesel fuel prior to 

blending.

3.15.4. Exemption. – Biodiesel blends that contain less than or equal to 5 % biodiesel by volume are 

exempted from the requirements of Sections 3.15.1. Identification of Product, and 3.15.2. Labeling of 

Retail Dispensers, and 3.15.3. Automotive Fuel Rating when it is sold as “diesel fuel” as required in 

Section 3.3. Diesel Fuel.

(Added 2005) (Amended 2008 and 20XX) 

The SWMA Committee recommends moving this item forward to the NCWM L&R Committee Agenda as a Voting 

item.

At the 2010 NCWM Interim Meeting, Mr. Hayes, FALS Chairman, gave an update on the Subcommittee’s work to 

remove the current exemption for biodiesel disclosure in diesel fuel at 5 % and below, on product transfer 

documents.

A draft of substitute language was circulated among FALS members prior to the interim meeting. This substitute 

expanded the disclosure of biodiesel content on all transfer documents (not limited to ones to the retailer) and for 

levels greater than 1 % biodiesel. The substitute was an attempt to find middle ground. FALS members were more 

agreeable to this substitute, but many still felt more work is needed.

The L&R and FALS Committee received seven letters (refer to L&R Appendix E within the “Report of the 95th

NCWM” Annual Meeting [SP 1115, 2010]) that do not support this proposal as stated. The Committee does support

working on this issue and receiving feedback from industry. T here is concern with the documentation and comingling of fuels. If fuel is co-mingled, it would need to be sampled every time, which could be quite costly.

An official would like to see this item move forward as a Voting item. This official would like the spring Regional 

meetings (NEWMA and CWMA) to review and further develop the language. American Petroleum Institute (API) 

stated there are many things to consider, such as preemption language, cost implications, commercial issue of 

declaring with each transaction. API has worked with marketers, but there continues to be a difference of opinion 

and no consensus. It was voiced by industry that all biodiesel needs to be documented on the paperwork. If not, it

puts the wholesaler, retailer, and consumer at risk. There was a comment from a stakeholder that they do not agree 

with API’s comment, and that this has been a two-year battle on who gets to do the blending. Blenders are over-
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

L&R - 32

blending because they are not aware of what the current blend is. T o prevent this situation, it would require 

disclosure on the transfer document. 

At the 2010 NEWMA Annual Meeting in Groton, Connecticut, a comment was heard from a stakeholder that the 

FTC has not changed the existing posting rule. The NEWMA L&R Committee recommends that this item remain 

Informational.

At the 2010 CWMA Annual Meeting in Springfield, Illinois, there were several comments stating that the exact 

percentage of an alternative fuel needs to be known. Without the percentage being known, mislabeling can occur, 

which is not good for consumer, marketers, the environment, and renewable fuels. One question that needs to be 

addressed is: What is the downside of providing this information? A representative of the National Biodiesel Board 

(NBB) does not support this proposal and would like to have further discussions to seek what is best for the entire 

industry. They also commented that FTC declined to modify requirements for disclosure on product transfer 

documents for fuels containing 5 % or less biodiesel. A state official disagrees that the exact percentage is 

necessary since it is the blender’s responsibility to test the product prior to blending. A representative of the 

Renewable Fuels Association would like to see the proposal expanded to include all additives, and stated that the 

focus needs to be in broader terms instead of renewable fuels and recommends that the scope include all blending 

components. 

It was recommended by the CWMA L&R Committee that this item move forward as an Informational item and that 

FALS form a task force under their guidance, to help further develop this proposal.

At the 2010 NCWM Annual Meeting held in St. Paul, Minnesota, the Committee received numerous letters (refer to 

Appendix E within the “Report of the 95th NCWM” [SP 1115, 2010]), and heard from fifteen stakeholders and 

industry representatives, supporting Section 3.15.3 that requires disclosure. Several participants expressed concerns 

with sections of the proposal. Currently, the FTC has the authority to protect consumers and they are looking at 

requiring product transfer documents. Several stakeholders indicated that they expect FTC to issue a proposed rule 

on biodiesel in the near future. It would be best if we stayed in line with the FTC ruling on the biodiesel issue. The 

very low blends seem to be the challenge. 

The sections that are of concern to stakeholders are 3.15.4 (b) and (c), since it c onflicts with reporting of taxes 

collected on biodiesel. The exact amount of the blend needs to be documented on the transfer document. The 

concern is when fuel is picked up from various locations and delivered; the actual amount of biodiesel is not 

documented. Currently blending at the terminal is not an issue. 

The Committee agreed to allow time for the FALS Committee to receive additional information and further discuss 

this item. 

At the 2010 CWMA Interim Meeting, a representative from a Petroleum Marketers Association commented that 

disclosure sets the tone for a chain of events for biodiesel. It was important for disclosure to be provided all the way 

through the distribution process because of the potential for over-blending. He believes that it is not realistic for 

wholesale distributors to test for biodiesel due to the cost. H e supports the proposal with exception of the 

exemptions provided in 3.15.4 Exemptions (b) and (c). A state regulator agreed with this testimony. Another state 

regulator commented that the current proposal follows the same format as the ethanol regulation. A petroleum 

dealer mentioned that due to the RFS2, disclosure is needed in order to meet the mandates for blending. 

A representative with the NBB commented that this proposal needs to be further developed by the FALS. Sh e 

believes that we have not heard from all segments of the industry regarding this proposal. S he also expressed 

concern that there will be no benefit to consumers if the cost of the extra testing of fuel is being passed on to 

consumers. It was mentioned that there are quick testing methods available for determining biodiesel content in the 

field; although, some are more accurate than others. The NBB representative also stated that the FTC believes that it 

is the responsibility of the blender to determine biodiesel content prior to blending. 

A producer mentioned that the disclosure proposal would require terminals to purchase equipment and to do 

additional testing. The producer is concerned about tank stratification and the need to change bills of lading as the 

content varies. Cost and manpower are major concerns for producers. A marketer provided testimony that it is 
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

L&R - 33

more efficient for terminals to purchase testing equipment as opposed to requiring all downstream blenders to 

purchase testing equipment. He stated that changing bills of lading is only a software change. He believes that it is 

the blenders’ obligation to meet the law for labeling, and it is difficult if the biodiesel content is not disclosed. The 

NBB representative questioned how often marketers test. A marketer responded that they do n ot routinely test; 

since they rely on transfer documents to accurately state what they are getting. A nother marketer stated that 

producers can control what goes into their tanks and questioned if producers know how much biodiesel is in each 

batch. A producer responded that for barrels received by water in Savannah, Georgia, the biodiesel content is only 

disclosed on Plantation pipeline shipments if it is more than 5 %. The CWMA L&R Committee recommends that 

the proposal be further developed by the FALS.

At the 2010 WWMA and SWMA Annual Meeting, an industry representative spoke in support of keeping this item 

Informational and allow the FALS to further develop the requirements in light of the comments received. An 

industry representative stated that all shipping documents should show the exact blend of biodiesel. The Association

recommends that this item remain Informational.

At the 2010 NEWMA Interim Meeting, the NEWMA L&R Committee received written comments from API (refer 

to Appendix E). The NEWMA L&R Committee recommends that this item move forward as an Informational item. 

At the 2011 NCWM Interim Meeting held in Dallas, Texas, a member of both the FALS and L&R Committee 

reported that this item was debated during the FALS work sessions and a consensus could not be reached. It was 

agreed upon that a Biodiesel Disclosure Task Group be formed to further study this item. S teve Howell with 

MARC IV and Samuel Bell, Echols Oil Company will co-chair this Subcommittee. The L&R Committee received 

five letters (refer to L&R Appendix E.), but no comments were received from the floor during open hearings. Since 

the Committee received correspondence on the item, they were surprised that no one spoke to it at the open hearing. 

The Committee recommends that this item move forward as an Informational item. 

At the 2011 N EWMA Annual Meeting held in Saratoga Springs, New York, a consultant with the National 

Biodiesel Board (NBB) stated that a r eport is currently being prepared and will be ready for the 2011 Annual 

NCWM meeting. The NEWMA L&R Committee recommended that this item move forward as an Informational 

item.

At the 2011 CWMA Annual Meeting held in Grand Rapids, Michigan, the FALS Chairperson remarked that a WG

was formed under FALS to develop new language. A petroleum representative opposes the item as currently written 

as it does not allow the blender to disclose what level blending has occurred. Another petroleum representative 

remarked that there are other implications beyond small percentages of biodiesel with other additives. It was agreed 

that as blender you should know exactly what you are getting, but it needs to be tested. The question is, who is the 

responsible party for providing the test? The CWMA L&R Committee recommends that this item move forward as 

an Informational item.

At the 2011 NCWM National Meeting held in Missoula, Montana, the FALS Chairperson reported that a 

Subcommittee has been formed to work out a compromise on the requirements and a report with solutions should be 

prepared for the FALS at the 2012 Interim Meeting.

If you would like to participate in this Biodiesel Disclosure Task Group Subcommittee, contact Mr. Steve Howell, 

MARC IV (816-903-6272), e-mail: showell@marciv.com or Mr. Samuel Bell, Echols Oil Company, at 

(864) 233-6205, e-mail: info@scpma.com.

237-4 I HB 130, Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants Regulation, Section 2.1.2. GasolineOxygenated Blends 

Source: Central Weights and Measures Association 

Purpose: Modify the language in Section 2.1.2. Gasoline-Oxygenate Blends and 2.1.3. Gasoline-Ethanol Blends to 

be aligned with the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) language in the March 2009 Growth Energy 

Waiver request.
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

L&R - 34

Item Under Consideration: FALS will need to provide recommended language. S ection 2. Standard Fuel 

Specifications is provided below because the most recent language was not in HB 130 (2009), but was released as an 

amendment in August 2009 (in place of republishing HB 130 [2010]). This language, minus the proposed 

modifications, has been included in the HB 130 (2011).

2.1. Gasoline and Gasoline-Oxygenate Blends 

2.1.1. Gasoline and Gasoline-Oxygenate Blends (as defined in this regulation). – Shall meet the most recent 

version of ASTM D4814 “Standard Specification for Automotive Spark-Ignition Fuel”except for the 

permissible offsets for ethanol blends as provided in Section 2.1.3. Gasoline-Ethanol Blends. 

2.1.2. Gasoline-Oxygenate Blends. – Shall contain no more than 10 volume percent ethanol. For other 

oxygenates, blends shall contain no more than 2.0 mass percent oxygen except fuels containing aliphatic 

ethers and/or alcohols (excluding methanol) shall contain no more than 2.7 mass percent oxygen. 

(Added 2009)

2.1.3. Gasoline-Ethanol Blends. – When gasoline is blended with 1 to 10 volume percent ethanol, the 

ethanol shall meet the requirements of ASTM D4806 and the blend shall meet ASTM D4814 with the 

following permissible exceptions: 

(a) The maximum vapor pressure shall not exceed the ASTM D4814 limits by more than 1.0 psi 

for: 

(1) Only 9 to 10 volume percent ethanol blends from June 1 through September 15. 

(2) All blends of 1 to 10 volume percent ethanol from September 16 through May 31. 

(b) Until May 1, 2012, or until ASTM D4814 incorporates changes to the 50 volume percent 

evaporated point to account for the volatility effects of up to 10 volume percent ethanol, 

whichever occurs earlier, the distillation minimum temperature at the 50 volume percent 

evaporated point shall not be less than 66 °C (150 °F) (see Notes 1and 2). 

(c) Until May 1, 2012, or until ASTM D4814 incorporates changes to the vapor lock protection 

minimum temperature for Classes 1 - 5 to account for the volatility effects of up to 10 volume 

percent ethanol, whichever occurs earlier, the minimum temperature for a Vapor-Liquid 

Ratio of 20 for the applicable vapor lock protection class for gasoline-ethanol blends shall be 

as follows (see Notes 1 and 2): 

(1) Class 1 shall be 54 °C (129 °F) 

(2) Class 2 shall be 50. °C (122 °F) 

(3) Class 3 shall be 47 °C (116 °F) 

(4) Class 4 shall be 41.5 °C (107 °F) 

(5) Class 5 shall be 39 °C (102 °F) 

(6) Class 6 shall be 35 °C (95 °F) 

All gasoline and gasoline-ethanol blends sold in Area V (as shown in ASTM D4814 Appendix 

Fig. X1.2) shall meet the vapor lock protection minimum temperatures 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 
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

L&R - 35

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. In addition, existing Sections 2.1.3. through 2.1.7. of NIST Handbook 130 will be renumbered. 

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.”

(Added 2009)

Discussion/Background: The EPA will make a ruling on the March 2009 Growth Energy Waiver. When the 

ruling is announced, the above regulation will need to be extended to cover E15 gasoline blends. The Renewable 

Fuels Association (RFA) is proposing a broader approach to recognizing the authorized proportion of ethanol. RFA 

recommends the following language: 

2.1.2. Gasoline-Oxygenate Blends. – Shall contain no more than the maximum proportion of ethanol 

authorized by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under Section 211 of the Clean Air Act. 10 

volume percent ethanol. For other oxygenates, blends shall contain no more than 2.0 mass percent 

oxygen except fuels containing aliphatic ethers and/or alcohols (excluding methanol) shall contain no 

more than 2.7 mass percent oxygen. 

At the 2010 CWMA Interim Meeting, an update was given on the current consideration by EPA to allow higher 

ethanol blends in conventional vehicles. T he FALS Chairperson stated that the FALS Subcommittee may be 

meeting to discuss this issue at the NCWM Interim Meeting in January 2011. T he CWMA L&R Committee 

received two letters on this issue (refer to Appendix F). The CWMA L&R Committee recommends that this item be 

forwarded to the FALS for further work.

At the 2010 WWMA Meeting, an industry representative expressed concern on what this action will have on car 

warranties and potential liability issues. A representative stated that he opposed this item until an official ruling is 

made by the EPA. The WWMA L&R Committee recommends that this item be made developmental.

At the 2010 SWMA Annual Meeting and the 2010 NEWMA Interim Meeting, there were no comments heard on 

this item. The Conference would like to see a r ecommendation from the FALS. B oth Associations are 

recommending that these items go to the FALS for further development.

At the 2011 NCWM Interim Meeting held in Dallas, Texas, Mr. Ron Hayes, Chairman of FALS, reported that FALS 

held a conference call on January 14, 2011, and also met at the NCWM to review the FALS items. The FALS 

Chairman reported that consensus could not be reached on this item. 

An industry representative expressed concern with legal and liability challenges if the current proposal is passed. A 

representative from the renewable fuels industry recommended moving the item forward for adoption as written, 

because it recognizes EPA as the authority on setting requirements for ethanol and will not restrict ethanol use. An 

energy representative also noted the proposal collaboratively has gone through all the regions with no opposition

and moving this forward as a vote is to recognize what EPA has decided, and their authority not to restrict ethanol 

content. A representative from API commented that passing the proposal is premature and the NCWM should delay 

action until revisions to ASTM D4814 can be completed. He also noted that the EPA decision was based on the 

durability of emissions related equipment and vehicle emissions, and does not preempt rules that are based on 

grounds other than emissions; ASTM will need to determine the vehicle drivability characteristics of the fuel before 

amending the D4814 performance standard. It was suggested that the goal of the model engine fuel regulation is to 

ensure vehicle performance, so adopting the ASTM standard is appropriate. An automotive representative 

expressed support for waiting on the revisions for ASTM D4814. The Committee agreed to make this item 

Informational to allow FALS to study it further. 
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

L&R - 36

Section 2. Standard Fuel Specifications

2.1.2. Gasoline-Oxygenate Blends. – Shall contain no more than the maximum proportion of 10 

volume percent ethanol authorized by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under 

Section 11 of the Clean Air Act. For other oxygenates, blends shall contain no more than 2.0 mass 

percent oxygen except fuels containing aliphatic ethers and/or alcohols (excluding methanol) shall 

contain no more than 2.7 mass percent oxygen. 

(Added 2009)

At the 2011 NEWMA Annual Meeting held in Saratoga Springs, New York, a consultant remarked that proposed 

labeling is currently with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and they are working with the Federal 

Trade Commission (FTC) to agree on a final requirement. The NEWMA L&R Committee recommended this item 

move forward as an Informational item.

At the 2011 CWMA Annual Meeting held in Grand Rapids, Michigan, a letter was received recommending that the 

CWMA not give consideration to the proposal until ASTM D4814, Standard Specification for Automotive SparkIgnition Engine Fuel is completed. The CWMA L&R Committee recommended that this item move forward as an 

Informational item.

At the 2011 NCWM Annual Meeting held in Missoula, Montana, the FALS met to modify Section 2.1. (refer to item 

under consideration). FALS is waiting to see how E15 is incorporated into ASTM D4814, Standard Specification 

for Automotive Spark-Ignition Engine Fuel. ASTM is currently waiting for performance data from the Coordinating 

Research Council (CRC) study. A Tennessee state official recommends that the model regulation only refer to the 

ASTM D4814 specification for gasoline-oxygenate blends. There was additional discussion regarding the vapor 

pressure exceptions provided in the model law regulation. It was also mentioned that the Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) may eventually discontinue the 1.0 psi allowance for E10 blends. The Committee supports the item 

under consideration and would like to receive additional input from the Regional meetings. 

237-5 I HB 130, Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants Regulation, Section 2.1.4. Minimum Motor 

Octane Number

 

Source: BP Global Fuels Technology – West Coast

Purpose: Remove Section 2.1.4. Minimum Motor Octane Number since it is considered obsolete.

Item Under Consideration:

2.1.7. Minimum Motor Octane Number. – The minimum motor octane number shall not be less than 82 

for gasoline with an AKI of 87 or greater;

Background/Discussion: In the early 90s, the Table titled “Automotive Spark-Ignition Engine Fuel Antiknock 

Indexes in Current Practice” was removed from the body of D4814 and placed into an Appendix in D4814. This 

Appendix is non-mandatory information and is not part of the specification. It is inappropriate for NIST HB 130 to 

continue with the 82 motor octane number minimum for the following reasons: 1) 82 motor octane number 

minimum is not an ASTM D4814 specification; 2) FTC regulates octane posting and has no motor octane number 

minimum; 3) neither the Kinder Morgan Pipeline nor the Olympic Pipeline requires a minimum motor octane 

number specification; and 4) the Colonial Pipeline has no motor octane number minimum for either Reformulated 

Blendstock for Oxygenate Blending (RBOB) or Conventional Blendstock for Oxygenate Blending (CBOB). 

Recent data shows a low motor octane number is actually preferable for the current fleet of vehicles. Motor and 

Research octane numbers are equally important to the performance of the motor vehicle engine. A minimum motor 

octane number requirement offers no more protection to the consumer than the road octane number which is the 

average of the Motor and Research octane numbers.
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

L&R - 37

At the 2010 WWMA Annual Meeting, the WWMA L&R Committee is recommending that this item be made 

Informational.

At the 2010 SWMA Annual Meeting and the 2010 CWMA and NEWMA Interim Meeting, the Associations are

recommending that this item be made Informational and be forwarded to the FALS.

At the 2011 NCWM Interim Meeting held in Dallas, Texas, Mr. Ron Hayes, FALS Chairman, reported that the 

Subcommittee recommended that this item be Informational to allow more time for data to be reviewed. There 

currently exists historical data, and also a Coordinating Research Council (CRC) study is currently be done that will 

clarify issues and provide data needed to assist with making decision. There were no comments heard from the floor 

during open hearings. The L&R Committee made this item Informational. 

At the 2011 NEWMA Annual Meeting held in Saratoga Springs, New York, there were no comments heard on this 

item. The NEWMA L&R Committee recommended that this item move forward as an Informational item.

At the 2011 CWMA Annual Meeting held in Grand Rapids, Michigan, the FALS Chairperson indicated that they are 

waiting for results from the CRC study and recommends this remain Informational because it is not fully developed. 

The CWMA L&R Committee recommends that this item move forward as an Informational item.

At the 2011 N CWM Annual Meeting held in Missoula, Montana, the FALS met on Sunday, July 17 and a

presentation was provided by Mr. Jim McGetrick regarding background information on minimum octane levels. 

FALS is waiting for the data from the CRC study (report no. 660). The CRC plans to collect additional data on 

octane. T he FALS is recommending this be kept Informational until additional information is received and a 

recommendation to the Committee can be prepared. 

237-6 V HB 130, Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants Regulation, Section 3.13.1. Labeling of Vehicle 

Motor Oil

(This item was returned to Committee on a split vote.) 

Source: Central Weights and Measures Association

Purpose: Amend the Fuels and Automotive Lubricants Regulation to require detailed invoicing requirements. 

Some oil facilities may not deliver the advertised oil, so consumers may be receiving lower quality oil. It is being 

recommended that retailers that provide oil change services be required to provide consumers with a document that 

lists the oil’s manufacturer, brand name, SAE viscosity, and service requirements as defined in API 1509, SAE 

J183, or ASTM D4485.

Item Under Consideration: 

3.13. Oil.

3.13.1. Labeling of Vehicle Motor Oil.

3.13.1.1. Viscosity. – The label on each container of a vehicle motor oil container, receptacle, 

dispenser, or storage tank and the invoice or receipt from service on an engine that includes the 

installation of vehicle motor oil dispensed from a receptacle, dispenser, or storage tank shall 

contain the viscosity grade classification preceded by the letters “SAE” in accordance with the SAE 

International’s latest version of SAE J300 Engine Oil Viscosity Classification. 

3.13.1.2. Intended Use. – The label on each container of a vehicle motor oil container shall 

contain a statement of its intended use in accordance with the latest version of SAE J300 J183 Engine 

Oil Performance and Engine Service Classification (Other than “Energy Conserving”).

3.13.1.3. Brand – The label on a vehicle motor oil container and the invoice or receipt from 

service on an engine that includes the installation of vehicle motor oil dispensed from a 
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

L&R - 38

receptacle, dispenser, or storage tank shall contain the name, brand, trademark, or trade name 

of the vehicle motor oil.

3.13.1.3.1. Exception for Quantities of One Gallon (3.785 L) or Less. – A container of 

engine vehicle motor oil with a volume of 1 gal (3.785 L) or less that does not meet an active 

service category, as defined by the latest version of SAE J183, shall bear a plainly visible 

cautionary statement in compliance with SAE J183, Appendix A, for obsolete API oil 

categories.

3.13.1.34. Engine Service Category. – The label on each container of a vehicle motor oil container,

receptacle, dispenser, or storage tank and the invoice or receipt from service on an engine that 

includes the installation of vehicle motor oil dispensed from a receptacle, dispenser, or storage 

tank shall contain the engine service category, or categories, met in letters not less than 3.18 mm 

(

1

/8 in) in height, as defined by the latest version of SAE J183, Engine Oil Performance and Engine 

Service Classification (Other than “Energy Conserving”) or API Publication 1509, “Engine Oil 

Licensing and Certification System.”

3.13.1.4.1. Inactive or Obsolete Service Categories. – The label on a ve hicle motor oil 

container, receptacle, dispenser, or storage tank and the invoice or receipt from service on

an engine that includes the installation of vehicle motor engine oil dispensed from a 

receptacle, dispenser, or storage tank shall bear a plainly visible cautionary statement in 

compliance with SAE J183, Engine Oil Performance and Engine Service Classification 

(Other than “Energy Conserving”) Appendix A, whenever the vehicle motor oil in the 

container or in bulk does not meet an active API service category as defined by the latest 

version of SAE J183, Engine Oil Performance and Engine Service Classification (Other than 

“Energy Conserving”.

3.13.1.4.2. Tank Trucks or Rail Cars. – Tank trucks, rail cars, or other types of delivery 

trucks that are used to deliver vehicle motor oil are not required to display the SAE viscosity 

grade and service category or categories as long as the bill of lading other documentation 

provides that information. 

All references to invoice or receipt will be enforceable effective on July 1, 2012.

Background/Discussion: At the 2010 CWMA Interim Meeting, a state regulator stated that oil changing facilities 

are affecting revenues from legitimate businesses by masquerading as branded facilities, while selling lower-quality 

oil (refer to Appendix G). T he consumer believes they are receiving the advertised brand of oil. At least one 

branded oil company has investigated certain questionable installers, filed lawsuits, and have successfully closed 

those suits with installers in the area of trademark infringement and deceptive trade practices. To assist in mitigating 

these unlawful trade practices and to protect consumers against fraudulent activity, it is recommended that invoice 

be established. A state regulator questioned if businesses were using the same hose for hydraulic and motor oil, or if 

the hose would be flushed prior to using it for a different product. He remarked that there would be a contamination 

factor. The CWMA L&R Committee recommends that the item under consideration move forward to the NCWM

L&R Committee for consideration.

Original Proposal:

3.13. Oil.

3.13.1. Labeling of Vehicle Motor Oil.

3.13.1.1. Viscosity. – The label on each container of vehicle motor oil shall contain the viscosity 

grade classification preceded by the letters “SAE” in accordance with the SAE International’s latest 

version of SAE J300.
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

L&R - 39

3.13.1.2. Intended Use. – The label on each container of vehicle motor oil shall contain a statement 

of its intended use in accordance with the latest version of SAE J300183. 

3.13.1.3. Engine Service Category. – The label on each a container of vehicle motor oil container, 

receptacle, pump, dispenser, or storage tank and the invoice from the sale of vehicle motor oil 

dispensed from a receptacle, pump, dispenser, or storage tank shall contain the engine service 

category, or categories, met in letters not less than 3.18 mm (1/8 in) in height, as defined by the latest 

version of SAE J183 or API Publication 1509, “Engine Oil Licensing and Certification System.”

3.13.1.3.1. Exception for Quantities of One Gallon (3.785 L) or Less Inactive or Obsolete 

Service Categories. – A container of engine vehicle motor oil with a volume of 1 gal (3.785 L) 

or less that does not meet an active service category, as defined by the latest version of 

SAE J183, shall bear a plainly The label on a vehicle motor oil container, receptacle, pump, 

dispenser, or storage tank and the invoice from the sale of vehicle motor oil dispensed from a 

receptacle, pump, dispenser, or storage tank shall bear a plainly visible cautionary statement 

in compliance with SAE J183, Appendix A, for obsolete API oil categories whenever the 

vehicle motor oil in the container or in bulk does not meet an active API service category as 

defined by the latest version of SAI J183.

3.13.1.3.2. Tank Trucks or Rail Cars. – Tank trucks or rail cars that are used to deliver 

vehicle motor oil are not required to display the SAE viscosity grade and service category or 

categories as long as the bill of lading or other documentation provides that information.

At the 2010 WWMA Annual Meeting, an industry representative, who submitted this proposal, recommended that 

the term “pump” be dropped from the language. A state official questioned if checking the labeling on bulk tanks is 

the responsibility of weights and measures, or is it an industry issue? The Technical Advisor suggested giving 

consideration to mirroring this same language in the method of sale. The WWMA L&R Committee recognizes that 

statement of brand is required on liquid measuring devices in HB 44. The WWMA L&R Committee recommends 

this item be moved forward as Informational item and have it be reviewed by the FALS. 

3.13. Oil.

3.13.1. Labeling of Vehicle Motor Oil.

3.13.1.1. Viscosity. – The label on each container of a vehicle motor oil container, receptacle, 

dispenser, or storage tank and the invoice from service on an engine that includes the installation 

of vehicle motor oil dispensed from a receptacle, dispenser, or storage tank shall contain the 

viscosity grade classification preceded by the letters “SAE” in accordance with the SAE International’s 

latest version of SAE J300.

3.13.1.2. Intended Use. – The label on each container of a vehicle motor oil container shall 

contain a statement of its intended use in accordance with the latest version of SAE J300 J183. 

3.13.1.3. Brand – The label on a vehicle motor oil container and the invoice from service on an 

engine that includes the installation of vehicle motor oil dispensed from a receptacle, dispenser, 

or storage tank shall contain the name, brand, trademark, or trade name of the vehicle motor oil.

3.13.1.3.1. Exception for Quantities of One Gallon (3.785 L) or Less. – A container of 

engine vehicle motor oil with a volume of 1 gal (3.785 L) or less that does not meet an active 

service category, as defined by the latest version of SAE J183, shall bear a plainly visible 

cautionary statement in compliance with SAE J183, Appendix A, for obsolete API oil 

categories.

3.13.1.34. Engine Service Category. – The label on each container of a vehicle motor oil 

container, receptacle, dispenser, or storage tank and the invoice from service on an engine that 

includes the installation of vehicle motor oil dispensed from a receptacle, dispenser, or storage 
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

L&R - 40

tank shall contain the engine service category, or categories, met in letters not less than 3.18 mm 

(

1

/8 in) in height, as defined by the latest version of SAE J183 or API Publication 1509, “Engine Oil 

Licensing and Certification System.”

3.13.1.4.1. Inactive or Obsolete Service Categories. – The label on a ve hicle motor oil 

container, receptacle, dispenser, or storage tank and the invoice from service on an engine 

that includes the installation of vehicle motor oil dispensed from a receptacle, dispenser, or 

storage tank shall bear a plainly visible cautionary statement in compliance with SAE J183, 

Appendix A, whenever the vehicle motor oil in the container or in bulk does not meet an 

active API service category as defined by the latest version of SAE J183.

3.13.1.4.2. Tank Trucks or Rail Cars. – Tank trucks, rail cars, or other types of delivery 

trucks that are used to deliver vehicle motor oil are not required to display the SAE viscosity 

grade and service category or categories as long as the bill of lading or other documentation 

provides that information. 

At the 2010 S WMA Annual Meeting, Mr. Ferrick, from API, notified attendees that they were seeing a r evised 

proposal. This revision was not presented at the 2010 CWMA and WWMA meetings. Mr. Ferrick supports this 

item stating that HB 130 has required that labels on motor oil packages identify the oil’s SAE viscosity and API 

performance level. Both of these items are important pieces of information for consumers. The changes proposed 

for HB 130 are intended to apply the labeling requirements for packaged motor oils to oils sold in bulk. The 

changes as proposed would require motor oil manufacturers and distributors to identify the oils they deliver, and for 

installers to identify the oils they dispense. Requiring distributors to identify the motor oils they deliver to installers 

will help ensure that installers know what they are dispensing, and requiring installers to do t he same on their 

invoices will provide the same level of information for consumers. T he SWMA L&R Committee reviewed the 

revised language submitted, and agreed that the item has merit. It was also noted that the language needs to be 

similar for the regulations as well as the method of sale in HB 130. The SWMA L&R Committee would like to 

move this item forward as an Informational item.

At the 2010 NEWMA Interim Meeting, a representative of API spoke in favor of the need to disclose on all motor 

oil storage vessels and in receipts for oil change services the motor oil information. Currently, consumers may not 

be sure of what motor oil product they are receiving and may be subjected to fraud. A disclosure requirement would 

clearly disclose to consumers what they are purchasing and help eliminate any fraud. The NEWMA L&R 

Committee believes this is a consumer friendly issue, and that requiring retailer invoices for oil change services to 

disclose the manufacturer, brand name, SAE viscosity, and service requirements is appropriate. Proposed labeling 

requirements should be included on the agenda as a Developing item. 

At the 2011 NCWM Interim Meeting held in Dallas, Texas, Mr. Ron Hayes, Chairman of FALS, reported that FALS 

recommends moving the Western (WWMA) language forward. An API representative and submitter of the item 

also recommend that this revised version presented at the WWMA move forward. The Committee is recommending 

NCWM adoption of this item. 

3.13.1. Labeling of Vehicle Motor Oil.

3.13.1.1. Viscosity. – The label on each container of a vehicle motor oil container, receptacle, 

dispenser, or storage tank and the invoice from service on an engine that includes the installation of 

vehicle motor oil dispensed from a receptacle, dispenser, or storage tank shall contain the viscosity 

grade classification preceded by the letters “SAE” in accordance with the SAE International’s latest 

version of SAE J300.

3.13.1.2. Intended Use. – The label on each container of a vehicle motor oil container shall 

contain a statement of its intended use in accordance with the latest version of SAE J300 J183. 
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

L&R - 41

3.13.1.3. Brand – The label on a vehicle motor oil container and the invoice from service on an 

engine that includes the installation of vehicle motor oil dispensed from a receptacle, dispenser, or 

storage tank shall contain the name, brand, trademark, or trade name of the vehicle motor oil.

3.13.1.3.1. Exception for Quantities of One Gallon (3.785 L) or Less. – A container of 

engine vehicle motor oil with a volume of 1 gal (3.785 L) or less that does not meet an active 

service category, as defined by the latest version of SAE J183, shall bear a plainly visible 

cautionary statement in compliance with SAE J183, Appendix A, for obsolete API oil 

categories.

3.13.1.34. Engine Service Category. – The label on each container of a vehicle motor oil 

container, receptacle, dispenser, or storage tank and the invoice from service on an engine that 

includes the installation of vehicle motor oil dispensed from a receptacle, dispenser, or storage tank

shall contain the engine service category, or categories, met in letters not less than 3.18 mm (1/8 in) in 

height, as defined by the latest version of SAE J183 or API Publication 1509, “Engine Oil Licensing and 

Certification System.”

3.13.1.4.1. Inactive or Obsolete Service Categories. – The label on a vehicle motor oil container, 

receptacle, dispenser, or storage tank and the invoice from service on an engine that includes 

the installation of vehicle motor oil dispensed from a receptacle, dispenser, or storage tank 

shall bear a plainly visible cautionary statement in compliance with SAE J183, Appendix A, 

whenever the vehicle motor oil in the container or in bulk does not meet an active API service 

category as defined by the latest version of SAE J183.

3.13.1.4.2. Tank Trucks or Rail Cars. – Tank trucks, rail cars, or other types of delivery trucks 

that are used to deliver vehicle motor oil are not required to display the SAE viscosity grade 

and service category or categories as long as the bill of lading or other documentation provides 

that information. 

At the 2011 NEWMA Annual Meeting held in Saratoga Springs, New York, it was noted that the title to the SAE 

and API standards technical title would editorially be added to the proposal. A request was made to change the 

word “motor” to “engine.” A representative with API did not object to these changes. T he NEWMA L&R 

Committee recommended that the item move forward as a Voting item.

At the 2011 CWMA Annual Meeting held in Grand Rapids, Michigan, the FALS Chairperson noted there is an 

identical proposal under Item 232-4 for the method of sale. It was remarked by an API representative that some oils 

have no business in the marketplace because they may cause engine damage. He further noted that it is vitally 

important for this language to be accepted. The CWMA L&R Committee recommended that this item move 

forward as a Voting item with the editorial corrections.

At the 2011 NCWM Annual Meeting held in Missoula, Montana, the FALS and L&R Committee received a letter 

from a stakeholder in support of this proposal (refer to Appendix I). There is a corresponding method of sale 

proposal under Item 232-4. It was agreed that the title to the ASTM standards would be editorially added into the 

proposal. A stakeholder requested that the Committee give consideration to implementing the requirement of this 

information being available on the receipt to a later date. This will allow retailers time to change over their system. 

During Committee review, it was agreed that the term “motor” would not be changed to “engine.” Consideration 

was given to adding the following language with regard to receipts, “All references to invoice or receipt will be 

enforceable effective on July 1, 2012,” and to add the word “or receipts” after the term invoice (refer to item under 

Consideration).

During the Voting session, a motion was made to remove Section 3.13.1.3. Brand. The motion to amend failed. 

The FALS Chairperson commented that brand is an important issue and by removing this section you will continue 

to facilitate fraud in the marketplace. Also, consumers may not have the required information to verify warranty 

work if the product identity were eliminated. Engine oils are made up of different blends and stocks unique to each 

manufacturer. Keeping the Section for Brand within the proposal was supported by several states and opposed by 

several others. 
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

L&R - 42

260 NIST HANDBOOK 133

260-1 I HB 133, Section 2.3.8. Moisture Allowance - Moisture Loss for Products Not Listed.

Source: Moisture Loss Work Group (MLWG). 

Purpose: Provide additional guidance for making moisture allowances for products not listed in HB 133.

Item Under Consideration: 

2.3.8. Moisture Allowances

e. How is moisture loss handled for products not listed in NIST Handbook 133?

Officials can test products for which no moisture loss guidance has been provided. I f 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. O fficials 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. A s a result of product and moisture variability, the approach used by an 

official must be developed on a c ase-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.” M ost 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. A dditionally, the collection of adequate test data may 

require product examination over a broad geographical area and consideration of a wide range of 

environmental factors. I f a n ational effort is required, a c oordinated 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 but may be very time consuming depending on the product. B ecause 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.

Background/Discussion: In previous years, the MLWG reviewed draft changes that were developed to revise and 

update HB 133 (2005). S ome of the proposed changes and recommendations were developed to improve the 

guidance on making moisture allowances. A t the 2010 NCWM Annual Meeting held in St. Paul, Minnesota, 
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

L&R - 43

Item 260-1 (refer to the “Report of the 95th NCWM” [SP 1115, 2010]) was voted through the Conference with the 

exception of the item under of consideration. 

At the 2010 CWMA Interim Meeting, a state regulator stated that HB 133 provides moisture allowance for only a 

few products. The regulator provided an example where a product was claiming moisture allowance for a product 

not contained in HB 133. This regulator was provided with only verbal assistance from NIST regarding what was

needed to demonstrate the request for moisture allowance. The regulator believes written procedures need to be 

developed to provide guidance, and a step-by-step protocol developed for determining moisture allowance in a 

specific product. Another state regulator agreed and commented that determination of moisture allowance needs to 

be consistent. An industry representative agreed that more guidance is needed, and recommended that the proposal 

include the necessary information required to demonstrate moisture loss that warrants an allowance. The CWMA 

L&R Committee recommends that the MLWG continue to develop this proposal.

At the 2010 WWMA Annual Meeting, a county official expressed concern that the existing language is conflicting 

and does not provide specific guidance to weights and measures officials (i.e., statements that moisture loss should 

be determined on a case-by-case basis and at the same time calls for a nationwide study). It was recommended that 

the MLWG focus its effort on developing a clearer criteria and process for determining moisture loss. The WWMA 

L&R Committee agrees that the following language within the proposal is contradictory and vague and does not 

provide specific guidance to officials. 

• should be a collaborative effort between officials and industry

• should be completed on a nationwide basis

• must be based on scientific data

• must be developed on a case-by-case basis

• may be required to utilize specialized test equipment and specific laboratory procedure

• a coordinated effort involving industry, trade associations, weights and measures officials may be required 

The WWMA L&R Committee recommends that this be a Developmental item. 

At the both the 2010 SWMA Annual Meeting and the 2010 NEWMA Interim Meeting, both Associations agreed

that the item was not developed. It was recommended by both Associations that this moved forward as a 

Developing item. 

At the 2011 NCWM Interim Meeting held in Dallas, Texas, the NIST Technical Advisor gave an update that the 

HB 133 had amendments that were voted in at the July 2010 Conference. However, the item under consideration 

was pulled back for further development by the Moisture Loss WG. A state official commented that the MLWG 

needs to continue to develop this item. The NIST Technical Advisor will set up a WG meeting at the 2011 NCWM 

National Meeting.

The Committee supports the MLWG meeting in July and would like to receive additional input from the regions. 

The Committee made this an Informational item.

At the 2011 NEWMA Annual Meeting held in Saratoga Springs, New York, the NIST Technical Advisor requested 

information from the region on how they would like to proceed on this item. Currently, the item under consideration 

stipulates store, data, and test procedure. The NEWMA L&R Committee recommends that this item move forward 

as an Informational item.

At the 2011 CWMA Annual Meeting held in Grand Rapids, Michigan, a state representative remarked that current 

moisture loss issues with a company cannot be resolved due to lack of guidance for proper determination. They 

would like to see an emphasis on national studies and not case-by-case situations. There were recommendations to 
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

L&R - 44

form a workgroup or get an organization involved that can assist. T his region would like to see an easy, 

implementable solution on how to demonstrate moisture loss. The Committee would like to see a moisture loss 

determination for products not currently listed in HB 133. For this reason, the Committee would like to see this as 

an Informational item.

At the 2011 NCWM Annual Meeting held in Missoula, Montana, a representative of Kraft foods supported this as 

an Informational item. Kraft will be providing NIST with additional draft language for consideration. It is 

important that the language be clear as to who is to provide data, what purpose does the data serve, and is it for a 

specific product on a national or state level. Kraft will develop a detailed proposal to look at a few more principles 

of establishing moisture allowance. T hey will also provide recommendations on guidance of four areas in 

establishing moisture allowance in order to assist inspectors. The NIST Technical Advisor indicated that additional 

work needs to be done on this item and asks that comments be submitted from the fall regional meetings. 

260-2 I HB 133, Chapter 4.7. Polyethylene Sheeting - Test Procedure - Footnote Step 3 

(This item was removed from Voting status. 

The Committee determined that additional work needs to be done and returned it to Informational status.)

Source: Western Weights and Measures Association (WWMA)

Purpose: Update HB 133, Chapter 4.7. Polyethylene Sheeting – Test Procedure to provide new density values for 

heavier density plastics that are currently in the marketplace.

Polyethylene bags labeled as High Density (HDPE) or similar language have been found to package products whose

labeled net weights meet calculated target net weights when employing a d ensity factor of 0.92 g/cm3. W hen a 

density factor of 0.95 g/cm3 is used, as appropriate, in the calculation for high density polyethylene materials, these 

products commonly fail to meet the calculated target net weight. Further testing of these packages of polyethylene 

bags reveals that one or more of the labeled width, thickness, or count statements are inaccurate. HDPE product 

distributors that place a net weight statement on their packages based upon the Linear Low Density Polyethylene 

(LLDP) density value (0.92 g/cm3), have an approximately 3 % advantage over the distributor that uses the correct, 

high density, factor.

Item Under Consideration: Amend the asterisked footnote below Step 3 as follows: 

*Determined by ASTM Standard D 1505-98 (or latest issue) “Standard Method of Test for Density of Plastics 

by the Density Gradient Technique.” For the purpose of this handbook regulation, when the actual density is 

not known (D) is not labeled on the package, the minimum density (D) used to calculate the target net 

weight for linear low density polyethylene products (LLDP) and products other than high density 

(HDPE) shall be 0.92 g/cm3 when the actual density is not known. For products labeled High Density, 

HDPE, or similar wording, that does not specify the minimum density (D) on the package label, the 

minimum density (D) used to calculate the target net weight shall be 0.95 g/cm3.

Background/Discussion: A proposal was presented at the WWMA 2009 Annual Meeting in Los Cruces, New 

Mexico, that manufacturers and distributors of polyethylene bags labeled as “High Density,” or HDPE, have been 

found to package products whose labeled net weights meet calculated target net weights when employing a density 

factor of 0.92 g/cm3. When a density factor of 0.95 g/cm3 is used, as appropriate, in the calculation for high density 

polyethylene materials, these products commonly fail to meet the calculated target net weight. Further testing of 

these packages of polyethylene bags reveals that one or more of the labeled width, thickness, or count statements are 

inaccurate.

For example, a box of HDPE has stated dimensions of 24 in x 40 in x .4 mil, and a count of 250. Using the only 

density factor found in HB 133, 0.92 g/cm3, the calculated target net weight, and that shown on the label, would be 

6.38 lbs. If using the actual density factor for the HDPE bags of 0.95 g/cm3, the target net weight would be 6.59 lb. 

This means that HDPE product distributors that place a net weight statement on their packages based upon the 
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

L&R - 45

Linear Low Density Polyethylene (LLDP) density value (0.92 g/cm3), have an approximately 3 % advantage over 

the distributor that uses the correct, high density, factor.

When the original testing procedure was developed, HDPE bags had not yet entered the marketplace. Currently, this 

product is quite prevalent in the United States. Amending the test procedure will aid weights and measures 

inspectors in enforcing labeling requirements that allow true value comparisons and close a loophole within HB 133.

Original Proposal:

*Determined by ASTM Standard D 1505-98 (or latest issue) “Standard Method of Test for Density of Plastics 

by the Density Gradient Technique.” For the purpose of this handbook, when the actual density is not known,

the minimum density used to calculate the target net weight shall be 0.92 g/cm3 when the actual density is 

not known. For products labeled “High Density, HDPE, or similar wording, the minimum density (d) 

used to calculate the target net weight shall be 0.95 g/cm3.

The 2009 WWMA Association supports this item and recommends that it be a Voting item.

NEWMA reviewed this item at their 2009 Interim Meeting and proposes this item be a Developing item.

At the NCWM 2010 Interim Meeting, comments were heard on this item and Item 232-1 together at the open 

hearings. The Committee heard support for the suggestion that the density factor should change from 0.92 g /cm3 to 

0.95 g/cm3. A California official stated that the information provided by the WWMA was data extracted from 

Internet searches. Currently, manufacturers are complaining that under current practice, they cannot compete fairly. 

Mr. Jackelen, with Berry Plastics urged the Committee to reject this proposal. Mr. Jackelen stated that 0.92 g/cm3 

currently works for manufacturers and that changing it to 0.95 g/cm3 will cause undue cost and waste. M ost 

manufacturers do not make high density (HD) bags, but are producing blends. Mr. Jackelen also stated an additional 

reason to reject the proposal is 0.95 g/cm3 bags, if punctured will continue to tear.

A Weights and Measures Official stated that if you use the term HD, then you are bound by the 0.95 g/cm3 density. 

If you use the length x width x thickness x density to determine the net weight, then the density needs to be added to 

the package labeling. Another official stated that manufacturers should consider disclosing the density factor on 

every product as part of the labeling. It was voiced that if there are questions about an absolute 0.95 g/cm3 density, 

then there should be an alternate suggestion. Another official stated that 0.95 g/cm3 will be factored in when the 

density is not known. The Committee received letters that were reviewed on this item (refer to Appendix B). The

Committee recommends moving the item under consideration forward as a Voting item.

At the 2010 NEWMA Annual Meeting in Groton, Connecticut, there was concern that there appears to be a lack of 

data on this item. It was not reviewed by all regions and not presented to industry to seek comments. The NEWMA

L&R Committee felt that this item was not an emergency and would like to review comments received by all the 

regions and industry.

At the 2010 CWMA Annual Meeting in Springfield, Illinois, there were no comments heard on this item and the 

CWMA L&R Committee recommends that this item remain a Voting item.

At the 2010 NCWM Annual Meeting in St. Paul, Minnesota, an official stated that his comments were the same as 

he expressed in Item 232-4 (refer to the “Report of the 95th NCWM” [SP 1115, 2010]. The official stated that with 

the amendments recommended by another official expressed in Item 232-4, they would support this proposal. There 

is agreement that the role of the Conference is not to determine quality issues, but rather to set testing standards for 

inspectors. Moving this item to Informational status will allow time to receive additional information and data from 

manufacturers of polyethylene.

The Committee believes that additional work needs to be done on this item, including reviewing the labeling 

requirement of polyethylene. This may include requiring a mandatory statement and review of ASTM standards. 

The status of this item was changed to Informational during the 2010 Annual Meeting.
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

L&R - 46

At the 2010 CWMA Interim Meeting, there were no comments heard on this item. The CWMA L&R Committee 

recommends that this move forward as an Informational item. 

At the 2010 WWMA Annual Meeting, a state official commented that he is in support of this item with the proposed 

amended changes to replace the existing language with: 

*Determined by ASTM Standard D 1505-98 (or latest issue) “Standard Method of Test for Density of Plastics 

by the Density Gradient Technique.” For the purpose of this handbook regulation, when the actual density is 

not known (D) is not labeled on the package, the minimum density (D) used to calculate the target net 

weight for linear low density polyethylene products (LLDP) and products other than high density 

(HDPE) shall be 0.92 g/cm3 when the actual density is not known. For products labeled High Density, 

HDPE, or similar wording, that does not specify the minimum density (D) on the package label, the 

minimum density (D) used to calculate the target net weight shall be 0.95 g/cm3.

The WWMA L&R Committee recommends this item as amended move forward as a Voting item. 

At the 2010 SWMA Annual Meeting, there were no comments heard on this item. The SWMA L&R Committee 

would like to seek additional information and comments from industry, other than the material safety data sheets 

that were submitted. The SWMA L&R Committee recommends that this item move forward as an Informational

item.

At the 2010 N EWMA Interim Meeting, there were no comments heard on this item. T he NEWMA L&R

Committee would like this item to move forward as an Informational item. 

At the 2011 NCWM Interim Meeting held in Dallas, Texas, a state official remarked that within their state there are 

extensive labeling problems with poly-labeling. She recommends that the Committee consider the revised WWMA 

language. It will provide guidance and language for when the density is not known. 

The Committee recommends the revised language from the WWMA for adoption by NCWM. 

At the 2011 NEWMA & CWMA Annual Meetings, there were no comments heard on this item and both regions 

recommended this move forward as a Voting item. 

At the 2011 NCWM National Meeting held in Missoula, Montana, it was noted, there is also a corresponding 

proposal for the method of sale under Item 232-1. A state official expressed concern with the term “when D is not 

known.” Currently, 0.92 g/cm3 is the lower density rating when “D” is not known. The proposed language will 

allow industry to use products with densities lower than the 0.92 g/cm3. Several states spoke in support of this item 

since it does provide clarity for the test procedure. This testing can be destructive unless the density is known. A 

letter from industry was received stating that 0.95 g/cm3 density may not represent the density of HDPW currently in 

the marketplace. They indicated that 0.948 g/cm3 is a more accurate factor. The Committee believes that additional 

data from industry needs to be received on the density factors before proceeding with this item. The Committee 

placed this item back into Informational status.

260-3 V HB 133, Section 2.3.8 Moisture Allowance - Pasta Products 

(This item was returned to committee on a split vote)

 

Source: Southern Weights and Measures Association (SWMA)

Purpose: Amend HB 133 by adopting a 3 % moisture allowance for macaroni, noodle, and like products (pasta 

products).
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

L&R - 47

Item Under Consideration: Amend HB 133, Chapters 1 and 2, Moisture allowance to be amended as follows and 

which will incorporate a 3 % moisture allowance for pasta products, adding the language in bold below: 

• Chapter 1: Why do we allow for moisture loss or gain?

- This handbook provides “moisture allowances” for some meat and poultry products, flour, pasta 

products, and dry pet food.

- Test procedures for flour, pasta products, some meat, and poultry are based on the concept of a 

“moisture allowance” also known as a “gray area” or “no decision” area. 

• Chapter 2: Moisture Allowances: 

- What is the moisture allowance for flour, pasta products, and dry pet food? The moisture allowance 

for flour, pasta products, and dry pet food is 3 % of the labeled net weight. 

Note: Pasta products means all macaroni, noodle, and like products packaged in Kraft paper bags, 

paperboard cartons, and/or flexible plastic bags with a moisture content of 13 % or less at the time of 

pack. 

• Chapter 2: How is the average error for the moisture allowance corrected? 

- This handbook provides “moisture allowances” for some meat and poultry products, flour, pasta 

products, and dry pet food.

Background/Discussion: Studies indicate that moisture loss for pasta products is reasonably predictable over time. 

Pasta exhibits consistent moisture loss in all environments and packaging, which can vary more than 4 % due to 

environmental and geographic conditions. Although it eventually reaches equilibrium with the surrounding 

atmosphere, because it is hygroscopic, this balance does not occur until long after packaging and shipping.

At the 2010 Interim Meeting, the Committee heard support for this item from industry and stakeholders. If this item 

is approved, it will also amend the Moisture Allowance Table in HB 133 giving pasta a 3 % moisture allowance. 

The Committee reviewed the submitted study (refer to the “Report of the 95th NCWM” [SP 1115, 2010]). The

Committee recommends moving the item under consideration forward as a Voting item. 

At the 2010 NEWMA Annual Meeting held in Groton, Connecticut, a representative of the pasta industry gave the 

group an explanation of the item and expressed support for this item as written. The NEWMA L&R Committee also 

supports this item. 

At the 2010 C WMA Annual Meeting held in Springfield, Illinois, a representative from the National Pasta 

Association stated the data supports the 3 % moisture allowance. A Weights and Measures Official commented that 

testing in their state does not support the proposal. An industry representative stated that guidance is needed for an 

established moisture allowance, and currently there are no guidelines to establish the moisture loss percentage.

At the 2010 NCWM Annual Meeting held in St. Paul, Minnesota, a representative for the National Pasta Association 

spoke on behalf of the proposal. This item will allow for a specific moisture loss percentage to be taken. Inspectors 

will now have a s pecific number that they can apply to the pasta product. R epresentatives of several pasta 

companies spoke in support of this item stating that it is consistent with numerous studies that have been done. A 

state director opposes this item, since pasta is known to have moisture loss due to the type of product it is. He 

further explained that applying a blanket 3 % moisture loss does not make sense, what may be good in Florida may 

not be good in New Mexico. A Weights and Measures Official stated that applying the 3 % does not stop an 

inspector from going into a distribution or point of pack to inspect; especially if the inspectors believe the packer is 

under filling packages. He urged that this proposal be supported to provide a tool. Another official felt that the 

proposal should be voted through, it is important to recognize guidelines for consideration. A pasta association 

representative also agreed that this work goes back a couple of decades, and that several studies were provided for 

consideration. Another representative explained that they pack to net weight. Pasta contains 10 % to 13 % moisture; 
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

L&R - 48

if the moisture standard is lowered the product falls apart along with the product quality. This item neither passed 

nor failed vote at the National and was returned to the Committee.

At the 2010 CWMA Interim Meeting, a state regulator provided information regarding informal testing of pasta 

products in their state. The concern is pasta can gain moisture as well as lose moisture; therefore, they oppose a 

national moisture allowance for pasta products. I t was further explained that moisture loss/gain seems to be 

dependent upon the type of packaging used. This regulator also commented that product is no longer warehoused 

for long periods of time, and that it i s mostly in climate controlled stores, which would prevent the need for a 

moisture allowance. Another state regulator agreed that a national standard may not be appropriate due to humidity 

differences from state to state. The CWMA L&R Committee is recommending that this item be Withdrawn.

At the 2010 WWMA Annual Meeting, a state official expressed support for adopting a 3 % moisture allowance for 

pasta, citing the significant work done and data provided by the National Pasta Association. The WWMA L&R 

Committee recommends that any additional data from studies be provided for review. The WWMA L&R 

Committee also recommends that this item move forward as a Voting item. 

At the 2010 SWMA Annual Meeting, there were no comments heard on this item. The SWMA L&R Committee 

agrees that this item be Withdrawn. H owever, if further studies are developed, then this should be taken into 

consideration. 

At the 2010 N EWMA Interim Meeting, the Conference expressed strong reservations about this proposal. 

Comments were heard regarding industry practices in regards to moisture loss when packing and if there is a need to 

codify the moisture loss allowance at all. A member commented that if this proposal passed, other industries would 

now approach the Conference and ask for specific moisture allowances for their products. T he NEWMA L&R 

Committee recommends that this item be Withdrawn.

At the 2011 NCWM Interim Meeting held in Dallas, Texas, an overview was presented by the National Pasta 

Association regarding history and studies that have been performed in regard to moisture loss of pasta. Pasta is a 

hygroscopic product, and changes in moisture content in the product may occur in the package due to atmospheric 

changes. Hot, dry, and air conditioned store environments have less humidity and will pull moisture from the 

product. Subsequently; tropical, wet and high humidity environments (seldom seen in U.S. stores) will pull 

moisture into the product. P asta companies do pack to the law and have documented weight control programs, 

according to Ms. Jayne Hoover, with American Italian Pasta Company. 

The Committee recommends this item for adoption by the NCWM.

At the 2011 NEWMA Annual Meeting held in Saratoga Springs, New York, a representative of the National Pasta 

Association gave a briefing on the history of this item. She remarked that pasta is a mixture of flour and water, and 

that a moisture loss allowance was granted through the Conference for flour. She noted that packages are filled to 

weight. However, in the distribution process they may lose weight. Some states argued that they cannot support 

this item, given that the data reflects inconsistent loss. There was a question regarding whether the courts specify 

that you must grant a percentage when you consider moisture loss. The Committee recommends that the item be 

Withdrawn and moisture allowance not be considered for pasta. 

At the CWMA Annual Meeting in Grand Rapids, Michigan, a state official opposed this item stating that with 

proper storage and limited items on a store shelf; moisture loss is not an issue. A representative with the National 

Pasta Association (NPA) stated that within the legal framework, the law requires that reasonable variations due to 

moisture loss be considered. There is a legal obligation to allow for reasonable variation under good distribution 

and manufacturing practices. The NPA has made available the pasta study that they believe continues to remain 

valid. T he makeup of the product and the packaging has not changed, in fact, it is moisture that is adding or 

subtracting weight in the package. A state official questions whether 3 % is the correct number to use and would 

like to see a bell curve of data. Another state official would like to see data from NPA on whether moisture is 

different at separate points within the distribution points and shelf life. There was concern expressed that an average 

is taken rather than taking into account the different regional areas within the United States. A stakeholder remarked 

that this is a complex issue; however, we need to keep the solution simple. One strategy would be to define what is 
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

L&R - 49

necessary to demonstrate moisture loss. Several states commented they are having issues resolving current 

moisture loss with companies, due to lack of guidance on the procedure for proper determination. The Committee is 

recommending the item be indicated as Informational. 

At the 2011 NCWM Annual Meeting in Missoula, Montana, a representative from the NPA gave a presentation with 

background information and a brief legal overview on moisture loss. They also distributed a page with frequently 

asked questions regarding moisture loss in pasta (refer to Appendix I). A follow-up study (refer to Appendix I) that 

occurred in 2006 - 2007 shows a 2.5 % to 5 % moisture loss. Pasta consists of flour and water. Currently in HB 133 

flour is given a moisture loss allowance of 3 %. Pasta is packaged in either breathable film or paperboard cartons. 

This allows for the pasta to breathe and not mold. The industry is requesting that this proposal be adopted by the 

Conference to give officials the guidance that is needed when performing inspections. 

260-4 W HB 133, Seed Count for Agriculture Seed

(This item was Withdrawn.) 

Source: Western Weights and Measures Association (WWMA)

Purpose: The WWMA calls for the NCWM to rescind action taken in adopting the provisions of NCWM 2010 

L&R Agenda Item 260-2 (refer to Appendix H). The NCWM L&R Committee should undertake, or establish a WG

to undertake, necessary studies, laboratory testing, field trials, and other appropriate measures to establish 

procedures for verification of the accuracy and repeatability of “mechanical seed counter” devices and/or to develop 

seed count procedures that are practical and reliable for field enforcement activities by Weights and Measures 

officials.

Item Under Consideration: Call for Reconsideration and/or Repeal of action taken at 2010 Annual Meeting of 

NCWM (refer to the “Report of the 95th NCWM” [SP 1115, 2010]) to amend HB 133 Sections 4.2. and to add a new 

Section 4.11. re: Seed Count Tests. 

Background/Discussion: At the 2010 NCWM, the L&R Agenda Item 260-2 was not appropriately presented in full 

for adequate consideration and review by all Conference attendees prior to discussion, debate, and voting. Late into 

L&R Open Hearing discussions, it was clarified that the item intended to adopt (as the mandated HB 133 testing 

procedure for verification of the count of packaged corn, soybean, field bean, and wheat seeds) language from 

Section 12 “Mechanical Seed Count” of the “Rules for Testing Seeds” of the Association of Official Seed Analysts 

(AOSA) (Appendix F, refer to the “Report of the 95th NCWM” [SP 1115, 2010]). The publication of an incomplete 

proposal and delayed clarification of the full proposal impeded abilities to fully research the proposed testing 

methods, associated equipment, and to develop points for discussion. 

Section 12 of the “Rules for Testing Seeds” (refer to Appendix H) requires multiple, specific, highly technical steps 

that present significant challenges with which to comply (i.e., opportunities for non-compliant packers to challenge 

procedures and test results). Additionally, equipment costs are excessive and Weights and Measures officials are 

not trained or qualified to perform all required tests.

Examples include:

Section 12. – Mechanical Seed Count 

Concerns: 

• Requires use of a “mechanical seed counter.” 

• Such devices are typically permanently installed in a laboratory setting.

• Extreme care is required for transport of seed counters to the field.

• Device cost is approximately $8,000.
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

L&R - 50

Section 12.1 – Requires samples of 500 grams (soybean/corn/field beans), 100 grams (wheat)

• Instructs that samples are to be “received” in moisture proof containers. 

• Samples must be retained in moisture proof containers “until the weight of the sample prepared for 

purity analysis is recorded.” 

Concerns: 

• Above implies that samples are to be transferred to a laboratory for testing.

• Above indicates that sample is intended to be subjected to purity analysis.

• “Purity analysis” is a specific term in the seed inspection arena, requiring highly technical 

procedures performed by highly skilled technicians. 

• Such are not procedures with which Weights and Measures officials are familiar.

Section 12.2 – Seed counter calibration

• Must manually count 10 sets of 100 seeds. 

• Requires visual examination to ensure that seeds are “approximately the same size and shape as 

the seeds in a sample being tested.”

• Combined sample of 1,000 seeds (manually counted) is passed through mechanical seed counter 

with device count not to vary more than ± 2 seeds from 1,000. 

• If not within ± tolerance, “...clean mirrors; adjust feed rate and/or reading sensitivity... Rerun 

until within tolerance.” 

Concerns: 

• Reference to “sample being tested” refers to required “purity analysis.”

• Instruction to “rerun until within tolerance” includes no instruction to conduct additional trial 

counts for repeatability.

• Preliminary counts failing to meet tolerance could, theoretically, be unlimited.

• A single seed counter indication within tolerance may not indicate reliability.

Section 12.3 – Sample preparation (Emphasis added)

• “Immediately after opening the moisture proof container, mix and divide the submitted sample, in 

accordance with Section 2.2, to obtain a sample for purity analysis...”

• “Conduct the purity analysis to obtain pure seed for the seed count test.” 

Concerns:

• The term “divide” has specific meaning and requires very detailed procedural requirements set 

forth in the “Rules for Testing Seed” manual.

• Reference to “...in accordance with Section 2.2...” confirms the above. 

• Section 2.2. states: “A suitable type of mechanical divider (conical, centrifugal, riffle, etc.) should 

be used.” These procedures are not addressed in new § 4.11.

• Need for “suitable...divider” presents added expenses/device transport issues.

• Non-mechanical dividing methods permitted by the “Rules for Testing Seed” are labor intensive, 

very detailed, yet not incorporated into adopted Section 4.11.

• The directive to “conduct the purity analysis” is not followed by any instruction regarding how 

such is to be conducted.

• “Purity analysis” is a highly technical, detailed procedure with strict guidelines under “Rules for 

Testing Seed.”

• Weights and Measures officials are not trained to perform such analyses.

Section 12.4 – Conducting the test

• “...test the pure seed portion from the purity test and record the number of seeds in the sample.”

Concerns:

• Above specifies that the count test must be performed using “pure seed from the purity test.” 

• Again, Weights and Measures officials are not trained or qualified to perform purity analyses. In 

some states (e.g., California), licensing is required.

Summary of Concerns: The procedures adopted at the 2010 NCWM Annual Meeting require skills and expertise 

(seed purity analysis) for which weights and measures officials are not trained or qualified, and the procedure 
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

L&R - 51

provides no instruction whatsoever regarding how a purity analysis is to be performed. E quipment required 

(mechanical seed counters and dividers) is very costly and not suited for transport to the field. T he adopted 

procedures for calibrating the mechanical seed counters do not address the potential for numerous failed tests 

(exceeding the ± 2 tolerance for a 1 000-seed sample), followed by a single in-tolerance test and do not require 

repeatability testing to verify that the device is reliable. Any deviations from the mandated procedures and use of 

required equipment subject Weights and Measures agencies to challenges to the test findings, and potential liabilities 

for taking enforcement actions (e.g., “hold” or “off-sale” orders) in violation of procedures. T his item was 

prematurely approved without consideration of all concerns. 

At the 2010 WWMA Annual Meeting, the WWMA L&R Committee recommended that this item move forward as a 

Voting item. 

At the 2011 NCWM Interim Meeting held in Dallas, Texas, Kurt Floren, Los Angeles, California, gave an overview 

of the reasons this item was submitted for consideration and/or repeal of action. He believes that the proposal that 

was voted in at the July 2010 NCWM meeting was deficient in several areas. A state official commented that the 

presentation brings up several areas that clearly need to be addressed. Several states support this item, but do agree 

that this is a large enough item to review that a WG should be formed. Other states voiced that this item should not 

move forward since the current language addresses the need for those states that test seed.

Anita Hall, representing the Association of Official Seed Analyst (AOSA), presented an overview on the history of 

testing seed and the development of test procedures. Ms. Hall reviewed how the existing HB 133 method is based 

on the AOSA method. S he assured the Conference that the AOSA mechanical seed count method provides a 

reliable, reproducible, and practical procedure. Ms. Hall offered AOSA assistance in working with the Conference

to provide training to weights and measures officials on the adopted procedure. A stakeholder with AOSA 

addressed some of the concerns presented in Mr. Floren’s talk including: the word tolerance used by AOSA means 

MAV; field versus laboratory testing will need to be a jurisdictions decision. 

The Committee recognizes that changes need to be made to the existing language in order to clarify the procedure. 

The Committee is requesting that a new proposal with modification(s) to existing language be resubmitted through a 

new proposal (NCWM Form 15). O nce a proposal is received by the Committee, they will determine if a 

Subcommittee for seed needs to be formed. The Committee withdrew this item.

At the 2011 NEWMA, CWMA, and NCWM Annual meeting there were no comments heard on this item. 

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 are those items that 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 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 2011 Final Report

L&R - 52

270-1 D Fuels and Lubricants Subcommittee (FALS) 

Source: The Fuels and Lubricants Subcommittee (FALS)

Purpose: Update the Uniform Engine Fuels, Petroleum Products, and Automotive Lubricants Regulation in 

HB 130. Another task will be to update the Basic Engine and Fuels, Petroleum Products, and Lubricants Laboratory 

Publication.

Item Under Consideration: FALS has met since the 2007 Annual Meeting and continues its work on a number of 

items in addition to preparing a major revision of the Fuel Ethanol Specifications.

Background/Discussion: The Subcommittee met on January 24, 2007, at the 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 NCWM 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 NCWM Interim Meeting and Annual Meeting, the FALS Chairman informed the Committee that FALS 

is working toward getting changes made to the language within the document.

At the CWMA 2009 Interim, the WWMA 2009 Annual, the SWMA 2009 Annual, and the NEWMA 2009 Interim 

Meetings, there were no comments heard. The Associations recommend that this proposal remain a Developing 

item. 

At the 2010 NCWM Interim Meeting, the FALS Chairman, Mr. Hayes, informed the Committee that FALS is still 

working on this project. No comments were heard during the open hearings, and the Committee agrees that this 

item should remain a Developing item.

At the 2010 NEWMA Annual Meeting held in Groton, Connecticut, no comments were heard on this item. T he 

NEWMA L&R Committee recommends that this item remain Developmental.

At the 2010 CWMA Annual Meeting held in Springfield, Illinois, the NIST Technical Advisor provided information 

that NIST has begun work on the development of a handbook for State fuel laboratories. 

At the 2010 NCWM Annual Meeting in St. Paul, Minnesota, a comment from a petroleum representative stated that 

this item is premature and that action needs to be taken by the EPA. Mr. Hayes, FALS Chairman, clarified that this 

item is for a laboratory guide and that FALS supports NIST efforts to develop a handbook for state fuel laboratories. 

The item mentioned by the petroleum representative is for a new proposal that is being submitted through the 

regions modifying HB 130, as a r esult of a p otential EPA waiver for gasoline containing more than 10 volume 

percent ethanol. 

At the 2010 fall regional meetings, all of the Associations are recommending that this item be a Developmental 

item. 

At the 2011 NCWM Interim Meeting held in Dallas, Texas, the NIST Technical Advisor reported that a d raft 

laboratory guide for state laboratories will be available for distribution and comment by March 2011. The 

Committee recommended this item move forward as Informational. 

Ron Hayes added that FALS is considering a number of new items including:

• Section 3.2.5. – possible deletion of altitude adjustment for octane and economy grades

• Section 3.2.4. – establish a nozzle requirement for diesel fuel to prevent misfueling of gasoline vehicles
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

L&R - 53

• Section 4.4. – establish nozzle color coding system for retail motor fuel dispensers for product 

identification

• Reference ASTM microbial contamination standards

• Reference ISO 22241.1 NOx Reduction Agent Part 1 – Quality Requirements (quality standard for Diesel 

Exhaust Fluid)

• Section 3.1.2. – Retail Dispenser Labelling – Review for potential clarification of “gasoline” identity on 

retail motor fuel dispensers

• Establish regulations to determine if OEM labelled claims for Automatic Transmission & Tractor Fluids 

are met

At the NEWMA Annual Meeting in Saratoga Springs, New York, the Committee agreed that additional work is 

needed to establishing a requirement for misfueling. 

At the CWMA Annual meeting in Grand Rapids, Michigan, the FALS Chairperson noted the first draft related to 

misfueling was released for comment on June 6, 2011. 

At the 2011 NCWM Annual Meeting in Missoula, Montana, the FALS Chairperson gave an update. F ALS is 

working on the altitude adjustment table. Today’s vehicle population requires fuel with the same octane 

requirements regardless of altitude. A state official expressed concern that unleaded fuel is currently marketed as 

regular and unleaded 85 octane. FALS is in agreement that ASTM needs to address this issue as it involves pre1971 vehicles. Currently, all engine manufacturers require no less than 87 octane. The NIST Technical Advisor 

remarked that a second draft laboratory guide will be made available prior to October 2011 for distribution and 

review.

If you would like to participate in this Subcommittee, contact Mr. Ron Hayes, Chairman Fuels and Lubricants 

Subcommittee, at (573) 751-2922, e-mail: ron.hayes@mda.mo.gov, or Mr. David Sefcik, NIST at (301) 975-4868, 

e-mail: david.sefcik@nist.gov. 

270-2 D Packaging and Labeling Subcommittee (PALS) 

At the 2011 NCWM Interim meeting held in Dallas, Texas, the Packaging and Labeling Subcommittee (PALS) met 

for the first time to discuss ongoing issues and agenda items in regards to packaging and labeling regulations. There 

were 11 attendees that represented industry, state and county regulatory officials, and a NIST Technical Advisor. 

The mission of PALS is to assist the Laws and Regulations Committee in the development of agenda items related 

to packaging and labeling. The Subcommittee will also be called upon to provide important and much needed 

guidance to the regulatory and consumer packaging communities on difficult questions. The Packaging and 

Labeling Subcommittee (PALS) will report to the NCWM Laws and Regulations Committee. 

The NIST Technical Advisor reported that FTC will do a review of FPLA in 2013.

It was announced at the NEWMA and CWMA Annual meetings that Mr. Chris Guay is the Chair for this 

Subcommittee and he is actively seeking volunteers. Mr. Guay has requested at least one representative from each 

region.

At the 2011 NCWM Annual Meeting, this Subcommittee was unable to meet since the Chair was not in attendance. 

Volunteers were solicited for this Committee. 

NCWM has appointed Mr. Chris Guay, Procter and Gamble, to Chair the Subcommittee that will include state or 

local weights and measures officials and representatives from regulated industries. Anyone interested in an 

appointment to the Packaging and Labeling Subcommittee, please contact Mr. Guay at (513) 983-0530,

e-mail: guay.cb@pg.com or Mr. Sefcik, NIST at (301) 975-4868, e-mail: david.sefcik@nist.gov. 
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

L&R - 54

_____________________

Mr. John Gaccione, Westchester County, New York, Chairman

Mr. Joe Benavides, Texas

Ms. Jonelle Brent, Illinois

Mr. Raymond Johnson, New Mexico

Mr. Tim Lloyd, Montana

Mr. Ron Hayes, Missouri, Chairman FALS

Mr. Lance Robertson, Canada, Technical Advisor

Mr. Rob L. Underwood, Associate Member Representative

Ms. Lisa Warfield, NIST Technical Advisor: e-mail: lisa.warfield@nist.gov

Mr. David Sefcik, NIST Technical Advisor: e-mail: david.sefcik@nist.gov

Laws and Regulations Committee 
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix A – Item 231-2: Packaging and Labeling Regulation

L&R - A1 

Appendix A

Item 231-2: Handbook 130, Packaging and Labeling Regulation

Sections 6.12. Supplementary Quantity Declaration and 

6.14 Qualification of Declaration Prohibited 

Table of Contents 

Page

Federal Trade Commission, Div. of Enforcement Bureau of Consumer Protection....................................... L&R - A3

The Clorox Company ..................................................................................................................................... L&R - A8
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix A – Item 231-2: Packaging and Labeling Regulation

L&R - A2 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix A – Item 231-2: Packaging and Labeling Regulation

L&R - A3 

 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

 600 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, NW

 WASHINGTON, DC 20580

Division of Enforcement

Bureau of Consumer Protection

November 4, 2010

Michael K. Tomenga, 

Esq. Neville Peterson 

LLP

1400 16th Street, Suite 350 

Washington, DC 20036-2227

Dear Mr. Tomenga:

This is in response to your correspondence seeking staff's opinion regarding whether Clorox's 

charcoal labeling meets the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act (FPLA) requirements. Specifically, you ask 

whether the claim on the Kingsford charcoal packaging that a 13.9 lb. bag "lasts the same as a 15 lb. bag" 

constitutes an exaggerated quantity statement in violation of the FPLA. According to the materials submitted, 

this claim appears on the principal display panel of the product to the left of the net quantity declaration.

Charcoal briquettes are subject to the labeling requirements of the FPLA and the 

Commission's Rules and Regulations Promulgated Thereunder. Section 500.6(b) of the Commission's 

Regulations under the FPLA states that:

The declaration of net quantity shall appear as a distinct item on the principal display panel, shall 

be separated (by at least a space equal to the height of the lettering used in the declaration) from 

other printed label information appearing above or below the declaration and, shall not include any 

term qualifying a unit of weight or mass, measure, or count, such as "jumbo quart," "giant liter," 

"full gallon," "when packed," minimum," or words of similar import. The declaration of net 

quantity shall be separated (by at least a space equal to twice the width of the letter "N" of the 

style of type used in the net quantity statement) from other printed label information appearing to 

the left or right of the declaration . . .

Commission staff believes that the "lasts the same as" statement on the Kingsford

charcoal packaging does not qualify the package's unit of weight. Consumers would likely reasonably 

interpret that statement as a performance claim about the product. The claim appears

as a distinct item on the display panel and is separated from the net quantity declaration in accordance 

with the requirements of the FPLA regulations. Therefore, we would not

recommend that the Commission bring a law enforcement action for violations of the FPLA based on the 

facts presented in your letter. Nevertheless, under Section 5 of the Federal Trade

Commission Act, the company must possess and rely upon reasonable substantiation for the claim and the 

claim should not be deceptive. See FTC Policy Statements on Deception and Substantiation: 

http://www.fte.govibcp/policyshnt/ad-decept.htm; http://www.ftc.govibcp/guides/ad3subst.htm. We have 

not evaluated Clorox's substantiation to
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix A – Item 231-2: Packaging and Labeling Regulation

L&R - A4 

determine whether law violations exist.

This letter has not been reviewed or approved by the Commission or by any individual Commissioner 

and is given without prejudice to the right of the Commission to later rescind the advice and, where 

appropriate, to commence a law enforcement action. If you have any questions, you may contact me at 

(202) 326-3740, rspector@ftc.gov or Steve Ecklund at (202) 326-2841, seeklund@ftc.gov.

Sincerely yours,

Robin Rosen 

Spector Attorney

cc: David A. Sefcik

National Institute of Standards and Technology 

Weights and Measures Division

Laws and Metric Group

Stop 2600

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

Maureen Henzler

Weights & Measures Division, Kansas Department of Agriculture Program 

Service Administrator II

Small Scales, Packages, and Price Verification

109 SW 9th Street

Topeka, KS 66612
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix A – Item 231-2: Packaging and Labeling Regulation

L&R - A5 
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix A – Item 231-2: Packaging and Labeling Regulation

L&R - A6 
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix A – Item 231-2: Packaging and Labeling Regulation

L&R - A7 
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix A – Item 231-2: Packaging and Labeling Regulation

L&R - A8 
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix B – Item 232-1: Method of Sale Regulation

L&R - B1 

Appendix B

Item 232-1: Handbook 130, Method of Sale Regulation

Section 2.13.4. Declaration of Weight 

Table of Contents 

Page

A. Godwin, Ventura County, California .........................................................................................................L&R - B3

Berry Plastics Corporation...............................................................................................................................L&R - B5

Safety Data Sheets...........................................................................................................................................L&R - B7

American Packaging......................................................................................................................................L&R - B37

Wardley Industries, Inc.................................................................................................................................. L&R - B42
L&R 2011Committee Final Report

Appendix B – Item 232-1: Method of Sale Regulation

L&R - B2 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix B – Item 232-1: Method of Sale Regulation

L&R - B3 

FROM: A. Godwin, Ventura County, California

Specification and Tolerance Committee:

Method of sale regulations require that Polyethelene sheeting and bags 

be labeled with:

1. Length and width

2. Thickness in mil or micron

3. Count (bags only)

4. Net weight

The theoretical weight is used by weights and measure officials to verify the 

required net weight statement. The net weight for the product is 

determined by the dimensions stated on the label. If the thickness is missing 

then the net weight cannot be verified. If the count of the bags is missing, 

the net weight cannot be verified. However, if the label has no net 

weight, but is labeled otherwise in full compliance (1-3) then a 

theoretical net weight can be calculated.

Now, there are several misunderstandings within the plastics industry.

1. The Plastics Industry believe they have a 10% Tolerance on the 

net weight and

2. Weights and Measures can only test polyethylene by weight.

First there has never been a 10% or any tolerance for polyethylene 

products.

Second, we test by weight as a courtesy to the holder of the product. All 

dimensions are required to be accurate. If the bag has an inaccurate 

length, width, thickness or count, weights and measures can still test the 

product. We can open the boxes in the sample; measure the length by 

unrolling the product. We can destroy the bags by cutting the bags in half 

to measure the mil. We can test and average the dimensions of the bags 

and count the total bags inside the box. All of these testing procedures of 

coarse will render the product no longer able to go back into the original 

box and will increase the testing time substantially.

Several years ago TYCO plastics contacted Marianne Delperdang and 

 

 

 

 
L&R 2011Committee Final Report

Appendix B – Item 232-1: Method of Sale Regulation

L&R - B4 

used it too there advantage. If Weights and Measures can only hold us to 0.92 

g/cm3 then they could have an automatic 3% advantage in their weights. For 

example take the following dimensions

40 in x 48 in x 0.5 mil x 500 ct HDPD Can Liners

Using 0.92 g/cm3 the net weight for this box would be 31.91 lb. Using 

0.95 g/cm3 the net weight for this box would be 32.95 lb

32.95-31.91= 1.04 1.04/32.95= .003 x 100= 3%

If the manufacturer of this product places a net weight statement on this label 

at 32.00 LB, then we as weights and measures officials can only hold the 

product to 32.00 lbs. This means that when I test the product and it averages 

32.00 lbs net weight, I know the product is still short measure on one or more 

of the dimensions or count, since the product is not making a net weight at 

32.95 lbs. As a weights and measures official, I can use this formula now to 

identify that this product has a shortage because I know that as a high density 

product this package is short on one or more dimensions. Therefore, I can start 

opening the boxes and measuring the product inside.

The original formula was developed when the only Poly product out there was 

linear low density. This is the minimum density for linear low density is 0.92 

g/cm3 which isreflected in the FIB 133 formula. The formula was developed and 

agreed upon so that weights and measures officials would test the product 

without destroying the product. Unless there is a change made to the formula 

officially recognizing the different densities then the only option left for weights 

and measures officials is to test to the dimensions to ensure fair value 

comparisons. Allowing an unfair advantage to the HDPE Distributors is not an 

option. We will just use the industry recognized density factor to identify the 

short measure product. It is their choice to correctly label density.

Respectfully,

Angela Godwin

Deputy Sealer

County of Ventura, California
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix B – Item 232-1: Method of Sale Regulation

L&R - B5 

P LASTICS iiir 

CORPORATION AND 

SUBSIDIARIES

LEADERSHIP BY DESIGN

June 26, 2010

National Conference on Weights and Measures 1135 M Street

Suite 110

Lincoln, Nebraska 68508

E-mail• don.onwiler@ncwm.net

Attn: Don Onwiler

RE: Proposed Changes to Handbook 130, Method of Sale Regulation Section 2.13.4. "Declaration of 

Weight"

Dear Don:

This letter is in reference to the proposed changes to Handbook 130, Method of Sale Regulation Section 

2.13.4. "Declaration of Weight" (copy attached).

As you know, we attended the NCWM meeting in Nashville this year to present Berry Plastics' opposition to 

the above referenced Handbook 130 proposed changes. The purpose of this letter is to reiterate our 

opposition to this proposal.

Background 

Berry Plastics Corporation is a leading manufacturer and marketer of HDPE and LLDPE Institutional Can Liners. 

Berry Plastics is a long time participant in this market and is well versed in the category mechanics and needs of 

stakeholders (end user, distributor and manufacturer).

Recommendation

Berry Plastics respectfully requests the NCWM Laws and Regulations Committee reject the above referenced 

proposal for three reasons:

1) Blends — Most HDPE Can Liners utilize blends of various materials (HDPE, LLDPE, LDPE and 

post consumer and post industrial resins as well as additives). The current use of the .92 density factor 

sets a bottom limit on product weight. If the .95 density factor is adopted it will require 

manufacturers to overstate the weight of the product.

2) Convention — HDPE Can Liner product weights based on the .92 density factor are well accepted in the 

industry and the category participants (manufacturers, distributors and end users) are very 

accustomed to these product weights. Instead of clarifying the issue, changing the density factor will 

actually lead to confusion in the marketplace.
L&R 2011Committee Final Report

Appendix B – Item 232-1: Method of Sale Regulation

L&R - B6 

3) Sustainability — The strongest reason for rejecting this proposal relates to

Sustainability.The Institutional Can Liner market is untracked; however, we estimate the size of the 

HDPE segment at 400 million pounds per year.

a. If the .95 density factor is adopted, and if industry increases product weights an additional 

12 million pounds of plastic will find its way into the waste stream.

b. Just the production of this additional plastic will generate an additional 18.5 million pounds of 

CO2.

c. Additional CO2 would be generated to transport and package the heavier product.

Given the above, we strongly recommend that this proposed revision be rejected.

Don, as always we appreciate all you do for the organization and we thank you for reviewing our position 

on this proposal.

I look forward to seeing you in St. Paul this July. Best regards,

Michael T. Jackelen

Vice President

Berry Plastics Corporation

1401 West 94th Street

Minneapolis, MN 55431

mikejackelen@berryplastics.com Telephone 

Number — 952/885-9232

CC Lisa Warfield (lisa.warfield@nist.gov) 
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix B – Item 232-1: Method of Sale Regulation

L&R - B7 
L&R 2011Committee Final Report

Appendix B – Item 232-1: Method of Sale Regulation

L&R - B8 
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix B – Item 232-1: Method of Sale Regulation

L&R - B9 
L&R 2011Committee Final Report

Appendix B – Item 232-1: Method of Sale Regulation

L&R - B10
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix B – Item 232-1: Method of Sale Regulation

L&R - B11
L&R 2011Committee Final Report

Appendix B – Item 232-1: Method of Sale Regulation

L&R - B12
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix B – Item 232-1: Method of Sale Regulation

L&R - B13
L&R 2011Committee Final Report

Appendix B – Item 232-1: Method of Sale Regulation

L&R - B14
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix B – Item 232-1: Method of Sale Regulation

L&R - B15
L&R 2011Committee Final Report

Appendix B – Item 232-1: Method of Sale Regulation

L&R - B16
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix B – Item 232-1: Method of Sale Regulation

L&R - B17
L&R 2011Committee Final Report

Appendix B – Item 232-1: Method of Sale Regulation

L&R - B18
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix B – Item 232-1: Method of Sale Regulation

L&R - B19
L&R 2011Committee Final Report

Appendix B – Item 232-1: Method of Sale Regulation

L&R - B20
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix B – Item 232-1: Method of Sale Regulation

L&R - B21
L&R 2011Committee Final Report

Appendix B – Item 232-1: Method of Sale Regulation

L&R - B22
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix B – Item 232-1: Method of Sale Regulation

L&R - B23
L&R 2011Committee Final Report

Appendix B – Item 232-1: Method of Sale Regulation

L&R - B24
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix B – Item 232-1: Method of Sale Regulation

L&R - B25
L&R 2011Committee Final Report

Appendix B – Item 232-1: Method of Sale Regulation

L&R - B26
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix B – Item 232-1: Method of Sale Regulation

L&R - B27
L&R 2011Committee Final Report

Appendix B – Item 232-1: Method of Sale Regulation

L&R - B28
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix B – Item 232-1: Method of Sale Regulation

L&R - B29
L&R 2011Committee Final Report

Appendix B – Item 232-1: Method of Sale Regulation

L&R - B30
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix B – Item 232-1: Method of Sale Regulation

L&R - B31
L&R 2011Committee Final Report

Appendix B – Item 232-1: Method of Sale Regulation

L&R - B32
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix B – Item 232-1: Method of Sale Regulation

L&R - B33
L&R 2011Committee Final Report

Appendix B – Item 232-1: Method of Sale Regulation

L&R - B34
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix B – Item 232-1: Method of Sale Regulation

L&R - B35
L&R 2011Committee Final Report

Appendix B – Item 232-1: Method of Sale Regulation

L&R - B36
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix B – Item 232-1: Method of Sale Regulation

L&R - B37
L&R 2011Committee Final Report

Appendix B – Item 232-1: Method of Sale Regulation

L&R - B38
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix B – Item 232-1: Method of Sale Regulation

L&R - B39
L&R 2011Committee Final Report

Appendix B – Item 232-1: Method of Sale Regulation

L&R - B40
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix B – Item 232-1: Method of Sale Regulation

L&R - B41
L&R 2011Committee Final Report

Appendix B – Item 232-1: Method of Sale Regulation

L&R - B42
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix B – Item 232-1: Method of Sale Regulation

L&R - B43
L&R 2011Committee Final Report

Appendix B – Item 232-1: Method of Sale Regulation

L&R - B44
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix B – Item 232-1: Method of Sale Regulation

L&R - B45
L&R 2011Committee Final Report

Appendix B – Item 232-1: Method of Sale Regulation

L&R - B46

THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix C – Item 232-2: Method of Sale of Regulation

L&R - C1

Appendix C 

Item 232-2: Handbook 130, Method of Sale of Regulation

Section 2.13.4. Declaration of Weight 

Packaged Printer Ink and Toner Cartridges

Table of Contents 

Page

Lexmark Letter on Inkjet/Printer Cartridges/March 17, 2009 ........................................................................ L&R - C3

NIST Weights and Measures Division Position Paper on Inkjet and Printer Cartridges Considerations

(2005) ......................................................................................................................................................L&R - C8

G. J. Neville Design and Development Letter/January 21, 2010...................................................................L&R - C10

Information Technology Industry Council (ITI)/Best Practices....................................................................L&R - C14

Information Technology Industry Council (ITI)/August 10, 2010 ................................................................L&R - C18

Information Technology Industry Council (ITI)/August 10, 2011 ................................................................L&R - C20

Information Technology Industry Council (ITI)/Addendum, Additional Considerations.............................L&R - C22

ITI Industry Presentation before the Task Group on Printer Ink and Toner Cartridges................................. L&R - C28
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix C – Item 232-2: Method of Sale of Regulation

L&R - C2

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix C – Item 232-2: Method of Sale of Regulation

L&R - C3
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix C – Item 232-2: Method of Sale of Regulation

L&R - C4
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix C – Item 232-2: Method of Sale of Regulation

L&R - C5
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix C – Item 232-2: Method of Sale of Regulation

L&R - C6
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix C – Item 232-2: Method of Sale of Regulation

L&R - C7
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix C – Item 232-2: Method of Sale of Regulation

L&R - C8

(Position Provided by NIST WMD February 2005) 

Due to the discussion of inkjet cartridges, over the NIST W&M list server, WMD has investigated this situation. 

WMD concludes that inkjet cartridges need a net quantity statement in liquid measure to comply with Handbook 

130 requirements. Our analysis is below and further discussion is welcomed.

Inkjet and Printer Cartridge Considerations

The model weights and measures law contains several relevant sections that apply to ink cartridges.

Weights and Measures Law, Section 19. “Information Required on Packages:”

Except as otherwise provided in this Act or by regulations promulgated pursuant thereto, any package, whether a 

random package or a standard package, kept for the purpose of sale, or offered or exposed for sale, shall bear on the 

outside of the package a definite, plain, and conspicuous declaration of:

 - the identity of the commodity in the package;

 - the quantity of contents in terms of weight, measure, or count; 

 - the name and place of business of the manufacturer, packer, or distributor, in the case of any package 

kept, offered, or exposed for sale, or sold in any other place other than on the premises where packed.

 

Weights and Measures Law, Section 17. “Method of Sale:” 

The method of sale shall provide accurate and adequate quantity information that permits the buyer to make price 

and quantity comparisons, except as provided by established trade custom and practice. While trade custom and 

practice is a consideration in some instances... the burden to provide “accurate quantity information” by means of a 

designated “method of sale” is the responsibility of the manufacturer. 

 

 Count alone does not fulfill this requirement.

 

A declaration of quantity in terms of count shall be combined with appropriate declarations of the weight, measure, 

and size of the individual units unless a declaration of count is fully informative.

 

Packaging and Labeling Regulation, Section 6.4. – “Terms:” If there exists a firmly established general 

consumer usage and trade custom with respect to the terms used in expressing a declaration of quantity of a 

particular commodity, such declaration of quantity may be expressed in its traditional terms, provided such 

traditional declaration gives accurate and adequate information as to the quantity of the commodity. Any net 

content statement that does not permit price and quantity comparisons is forbidden.

 

Weights and Measures Law, Section 15. – “Misrepresentation of Quantity:” No person shall represent the 

quantity in any manner calculated or tending to mislead or in any way deceive another person. If “accurate quantity 

information” is not provided, consumers are certainly being mislead or deceived and cannot possibly make price and 

quantity comparisons.

 

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has informed us that the following commodities (partial list only - similar 

products) are excluded from FTC jurisdiction.

 

 Ink

 Fountain Pens

 Kindred Products (ball point pens, lead pencils, lead refills, etc.)

 School Supplies

 Stationery and Writing Supplies

 Typewriter Ribbon

 Printer Cartridges* 

 

*While printer cartridges are not listed specifically in Handbook 130, FTC has indicated to NIST that commodities 

of this nature do not fall under their jurisdiction.

 
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix C – Item 232-2: Method of Sale of Regulation

L&R - C9

Metric “Only” Labeling:

Since the labeling of printer ink cartridges fall under state labeling regulations, dual unit labeling is not required. 

Hence, these packages may be labeled in only metric units.

 

Packaging and Labeling Regulation, Section 11.33. “Inch-Pound Units, Exceptions – Consumer 

Commodities:”

The requirements for statements of quantity in inch-pound units shall not apply to packages that bear appropriate 

International System of Units (SI). This exception does not apply to foods, drugs, or cosmetics or to packages 

subject to regulation by the FTC, meat and poultry products subject to the Federal Meat or Poultry Products 

Inspection Acts, and tobacco or tobacco products.

 

NIST Handbook 133, “Checking the Net Content of Packaged Goods,” Fourth Edition, January 2005 – 

Product Testing: 

NIST Handbook 133 has been prepared as a procedural guide for compliance testing of net content statements on 

packaged goods. The gravimetric test method (outlined in Chapter 2) uses weight measurement to determine the net 

quantity of contents of packaged goods. The handbook provides 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 test for products, such as inkjet and other types of 

printer cartridges. Therefore, the test method to verify the net contents of ink in printer cartridges exists. However, 

NIST recognizes the difficulties associated with determining the net content of these cartridges, such as, density 

determination, product cost, tare verification (cartridge), the cleaning of tare and standards, and finally, inspection 

lot size. Unless the products are checked at the plant or warehouse, it may be difficult to find a sufficient “retail” 

lot, adequate in size to obtain an appropriate sample.
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix C – Item 232-2: Method of Sale of Regulation

L&R - C10

G.J. Neville

Design & Development Company

812-B Lincoln Boulevard, Dillon Court Alley Entrance

Venice, California 90291

Tel: 310-795-4301 

E-mail: gjneville@verizon.net

January 21, 2010

Attn: Mr. Don Onwiler, Executive Director

National Committee on Weights and Measures

1135- “M” Street, Ste. 110

Lincoln, NE 68508

 Sent by E-mail: info@ncwm.net

Re: Citizen comment on

270-9 HB 130- Uniform Regulation for Method of Sale

of Commodities—Packaged Ink and Toner 

Cartridges

Dear Mr. Onwiler: 

On 01-19-10 I spoke with Ms. Lisa Warfield this morning and she directed me to certain print sources

pertaining to the upcoming NCWM meetings, including the subject of Packaged Printer Ink and Toner 

Cartridges. Furthermore, she recommended I might speak with Mr. Ed Williams in Sacramento regarding 

these anecdotal experiences and observations. 

I then spoke with Mr. Williams and he felt I should direct the following commentary to you for possible 

inclusion as citizen input in your upcoming committee meeting report.

I don’t do this much and I have a propensity for HOT AIR...hope this isn’t too bad. 

_______________________

After having done my homework by reading Publication #15, Item 270-9, I shall first respond to certain 

comments made in Lexmark’s Fox in the Henhouse letter to Mr. Max Gray, dated, March 17, 2009 

supporting the current ISO-developed standard for Toner-Ink measurement methodology; then offer a 

personal experience to illustrate the current standard’s shortcomings; then a few observations and 

unsolicited recommendations; and lastly, a closing comment on the need for furthering a new design 

paradigm and how your NCWM Conference can do something about it!

Item 1 -- It is irrelevant that the Ink/Toner component is a small part of the overall cost of a new or

replacement cartridge—what matters is that the ink/Toner requires a costly and complex cartridge

container for delivery. THEY ACT AS A UNIT! Lexmark’s implication that the relatively low cost of the

Ink/Toner alone renders proper regulatory scrutiny unnecessary is totally spurious. 

In fact, the opposite is true—the Ink/Toner and Cartridge combination is an EXTREMELY EXPENSIVE 

Ink/Toner Delivery System because Content and Container act as a unit which, furthermore, is uniquely 

designed (with certain patent protection) to fit the corresponding printer model(s). Whether an OEM or 

lower-priced Name Brand cartridge, the Unit is surprisingly expensive! 

Items 2, 3 --Re standards for Page Yield and current ISO solutions—“yield estimating and claiming 

methodology that permits cartridges to be compared using a consistent yardstick”:
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix C – Item 232-2: Method of Sale of Regulation

L&R - C11

G.J. Neville

Design & Development Company

812-B Lincoln Boulevard, Dillon Court Alley Entrance

Venice, California 90291

Tel: 310-795-4301 

E-mail: gjneville@verizon.net

My layman’s opinion is that the “consistent yardstick” approach alone is inadequate. It prevents 

quantification of the contents—the essential ingredient inside the cartridge. Why not require the OEM 

Ink/Toner Cartridge/Printer industry to comply with freshly conceived DESIGN CRITERIA with at least one 

goal being to provide the consumer with a simple, yet accurate “back-up indicator” of a cartridge’s actual 

toner content? 

Personal observations:

The purpose of the foregoing recommendation would be to empower the consumer with a GUARANTEE 

for DELIVERY of the ENTIRETY of the purchased Ink/Toner. 

This approach is meant only to supplement, not replace, the simpler, more convenient ISO-approved 

Page Count approach. The secondary consumer benefit would be to eliminate the “wiggle room”-based 

dealer responses to Ink/Toner shortage customer complaints as not many consumers are inclined to pry 

toner cartridges apart or properly argue issues of equity in the event of suspected shortages. 

Whether by software revisions or hardware re-design, mandated new performance-based criteria can 

provide the consumer with a long-overdue checks-and-balances Tool to level the manufacturers’ playing 

fields. 

Solutions can take many forms—whether alpha-numerics via existing LCD windows or by color bar chart 

display graphics or even by adoption of primitive “clear plastic” toner cartridges. At the very least, the 

consumer would then have some kind of needed VERIFICATION TOOL.

Naturally, Lexmark’s letter to Mr. Gray fails to address any constructive new solutions as none were 

previously required by any regulatory agency. To illustrate the need for the foregoing, consider my 

particular frustration which occurred because of the absence of a Verification Tool:

My personal experience (Haven’t we all had them?): 

The following sequence occurred in my design office. We purchase Brother or Staples TN-350 Toner 

Cartridges for my Brother MFC 7420 desktop laser printer (purchased several years ago), which has 

generally been lightly used (average 3-15 copies daily) since purchase: 

EVENTS IN MY OFFICE:

• Periodically, the printer shuts down and will not print any longer...until a replacement Toner 

Cartridge is purchased and inserted into the printer!

NOTE:

o No easily noticeable, if any, Print Counter capability on the cartridge or the printer. The 

Toner Cartridge is a proverbial “Black Box”.

o Printer shutdown appears to occur SIGNIFICANTLY BEFORE the estimated 2500 pages 

of usage.

o No warning whatsoever of the pending total shutdown , i.e. printing quality drop-off or 

fade-out. 

o All printed copies 100% perfect prior to shutdown.

• Printer LCD Display Message then appears, saying something like “Out of Toner” or “Replace 

Toner Cartridge”
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix C – Item 232-2: Method of Sale of Regulation

L&R - C12

G.J. Neville

Design & Development Company

812-B Lincoln Boulevard, Dillon Court Alley Entrance

Venice, California 90291

Tel: 310-795-4301 

E-mail: gjneville@verizon.net

• Printer cannot be cajoled into operating again without a new replacement cartridge, i.e. pushing 

the rocker switch to OFF, waiting 30 seconds, then back to ON; rocking toner cartridge; sliding 

the corona wire; etc.

EVENTS FOLLOWING AT THE STORE:

• I take “suspect” cartridge to office supply dealer (where I purchased the printer, cartridges and all 

office supplies). A question and complaint is planned prior to purchasing a new replacement 

cartridge.

• The Store Manager recites the manufacturer’s mantra about the difficulty of estimating toner 

consumption, varying printed text/page densities, etc.

• I then suggest we investigate the circumstances together—we remove End Cap from cartridge 

and....guess what....a SIGNIFICANT amount of toner spills out! 

• The Store Manager then claims “Equipment Malfunction” may be responsible–did I purchase a 

Warranty? Ultimately, he reluctantly offered me a new replacement cartridge at half-price—but it 

was like pulling teeth from a donkey!. 

EPILOGUE:

Was I satisfied? Yes and No

• Yes, because of the Manager’s offer--I didn’t feel like a total idiot. 

• No, because of the repair disruption and the waste of my time. 

• No, because of my uncertainty of a future repeat experience. 

• No, because of the lack of final problem resolution—was the printer the real culprit or was it a 

batch of poorly designed Ink/Toner cartridges? Without the benefit of a built-in Diagnostic or 

Verification Tool(s)--either answer might be wrong. Will I, in the future, prematurely purchase 

again one or both of this manufacturer’s products? 

To avoid that risk of becoming a true idiot (the second time burn), will I switch manufacturers to 

avoid that possibility?

• Probably yes. What a shame, because otherwise, the printer offers excellent value! 

Final Thoughts/Conclusions:

The cartridge Page Yield Estimate, purportedly reflecting quantity of content, provides inadequate 

consumer protection without at least one additional design feature (in mechanism or software) to deliver 

to, and assure, consumer of full usage of the cartridge’s Ink/Toner contents. 

Should not better Consumers Protection apply to the design of COMPLEX or PERMANENTLY SEALED 

CONTAINERS (i.e. Ink/Toner Cartridges)? These devices, during design, should trigger design

compliance with additional new standards and regulations, generated by the appropriate agency, to 

assure the customer of: 

1. Quantity of container’s Contents

2. Delivery of Entirety of Contents, as is practical.

3. Provide consumer with a Print Count or Ink/Toner quantity verification tool, (on Cartridge or 

Printer Display Screen) as offered in larger printers.
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix C – Item 232-2: Method of Sale of Regulation

L&R - C13

G.J. Neville

Design & Development Company

812-B Lincoln Boulevard, Dillon Court Alley Entrance

Venice, California 90291

Tel: 310-795-4301 

E-mail: gjneville@verizon.net

WHICH COMPARISON IS MORE APT?

Consider the comparison of a sophisticated, complex, injection-molded Ink/Toner Cartridge vs. an oldfashioned Burlap Bag for Grain or Paper Bag for Cement, where measurement can be easily confirmed 

because of the container’s scale, flexibility and negligible weight --after all, it’s just a BAG!

 

Now consider the same Toner Cartridge vs. a craftily-designed rigid Magician’s Box with a false bottom

(designed by the Magician or Manufacturer), which by accident or design, conceals a portion (i.e.30%) of 

the grain--which remains unused and ultimately is then unknowingly discarded by the Consumer. Is that 

right?

Throughout history, did not the science of measurements ultimately evolve in most every society

so as to identify and prevent the proliferation of deceptive and/or irregular measurement practices

(whether for government tax gain or for the public’s protection)? 

So Why Not Now? 

EXAMPLE OFTHE NEW PARADIGM--REFILL THE REFILL:

The job of providing “replacement toner” could be done just as well with a Refill-the-Refill design. An 

affordable, small, lightweight, saltshaker-sized, two-ounce $3.00 Ink/Toner refill snap-on module or 

squeeze-dispenser bottle enabling a customer to conveniently refill an empty toner cartridge (purchased 

in $18.00 six-packs instead of buying one $50.00 traditional cartridge on six separate trip occasions). 

When do we “outlaw” UNAFFORDABLE, LARGE, HEAVY, PACKAGED, PALLETED and 

TRANSPORTED cartridges produced and sold in the usual way? 

A side-by-side Energy Audit of the two approaches would indicate at least NINE BILLION DOLLARS OF 

WASTE and FAR MORE IN UNNECESSARY ENERGY COSTS in the ten billion dollars per year 

Ink/Toner Cartridge !ndustry. Did I read ten billion somewhere?

In closing, the Ink/Toner cartridge is only one of countless ethically-challenged manufactured products

cluttering and consuming our environment. My experience, though very minor in the big scheme of things, 

again illustrates the range of social and environmental losses resulting from the current license 

manufacturers often have to legally harvest unearned profits and waste substantial energy in the process 

of producing these small-scale consumer products. The public suffers.

Respectfully,

Gary J. Neville

cc: Lisa Warfield,

 Ed Williams

 
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix C – Item 232-2: Method of Sale of Regulation

L&R - C14
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix C – Item 232-2: Method of Sale of Regulation

L&R - C15
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix C – Item 232-2: Method of Sale of Regulation

L&R - C16
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix C – Item 232-2: Method of Sale of Regulation

L&R - C17
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix C – Item 232-2: Method of Sale of Regulation

L&R - C18
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix C – Item 232-2: Method of Sale of Regulation

L&R - C19
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix C – Item 232-2: Method of Sale of Regulation

L&R - C20
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix C – Item 232-2: Method of Sale of Regulation

L&R - C21
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix C – Item 232-2: Method of Sale of Regulation

L&R - C22
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix C – Item 232-2: Method of Sale of Regulation

L&R - C23
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix C – Item 232-2: Method of Sale of Regulation

L&R - C24
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix C – Item 232-2: Method of Sale of Regulation

L&R - C25
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix C – Item 232-2: Method of Sale of Regulation

L&R - C26
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix C – Item 232-2: Method of Sale of Regulation

L&R - C27
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix C – Item 232-2: Method of Sale of Regulation

L&R - C28

Slide 1

Industry Presentation

before the 

Task Group on Printer Ink and Toner Cartridges

NCWM Annual Meeting

July 17, 2011

Missoula, MT 

Slide 2

Who We Are

• ITI is the premier voice, advocate, and thought leader for 

the information and communications technology (ICT) 

industry. 

• ITI’s members include the leaders of printer manufacturing 

technologies

• Companies have been engaged at NCWM

– Published white paper

– Participated in 2 years of NCWM Annual, Interim and various regional 

conferences
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix C – Item 232-2: Method of Sale of Regulation

L&R - C29

Slide 3

Today’s Presentation

• Revisit the proposal and its objectives

• Share industry’s perspective 

• Discuss customer needs

• Highlight technical considerations

• Address assumptions driving the proposal

• Answer your questions

Slide 4

What is the Objective

• Starting point of NCWM discussion seemed relatively 

simple: addition of volume and weight measurements to 

ink jet printer cartridges and laser toner. 

• “The purpose of this proposal is to specifically clarify the 

requirements for industry, consumers, and weights and 

measures officials...”

• The objective is finding the best way to accomplish this: 

yield or volume/weight?
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix C – Item 232-2: Method of Sale of Regulation

L&R - C30

Slide 5

Industry Position

• We agree with the main objective of this proposal: 

providing consumers with a meaningful measurement of 

value. 

• We believe the most meaningful measurement is yield, 

not volume or weight.

• Volume and weight may lead consumers to draw incorrect 

conclusions about product choice.

• There are international, globally-adopted standards for 

yield that provide a common, well accepted basis for 

consumers to understand and compare different cartridge 

options.

Slide 6

Presentation Outline

• Customer needs are better served by yield information

– David Erdtmann, Kodak

• Technical factors make weight/volume comparisons 

misleading

– Henry Sacco, Brother Int’l.

• ISO/IEC Standards provide a reliable, adopted basis for 

reporting cartridge yield

– Paul Jeran, HP and ISO/IEC Standards Editor/Convener
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix C – Item 232-2: Method of Sale of Regulation

L&R - C31

Slide 7

Customer Needs

Slide 8

Customer Focus

• When purchasing printers customers consider many factors:

– Reliability

– Printer price

– Product specifications – speed, copying, scan, fax, wifi, duplex 

capability, paper tray capacity

– Compatibility with existing equipment

– Brand name

– Consumer and industry reviews

– Footprint

– Retail availability

– Cartridge attributes
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix C – Item 232-2: Method of Sale of Regulation

L&R - C32

Slide 9

Customer Focus

• Customer cartridge attributes considered

– Reliability

– Price of replacement cartridges

– # of pages per cartridge

– Cost of operation/running cost

– Quality – photo, durability

– Easy to insert cartridges

– Tri-color compared to individual cartridges

• Goal - Help customers make comparisons and informed 

decisions

Slide 10 

Customer Comparisons

2 purchasing occasions for customer comparisons:

1. Initial printer purchase

2. Replacement print supply purchase
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix C – Item 232-2: Method of Sale of Regulation

L&R - C33

Slide 11 

Comparisons across technologies

Measure 15ml 200g 2 sticks

Price $18 $65 $22

Yield 300 pages 2000 pages 700 pages

Inkjet Laser ???

Customer Experience

Slide 12 

Customer Experience

Comparisons within a manufacturer

Measure 65g 300g 960g

Price $60 $120 $144

Yield 3000 pages 6000 pages 14,400 pages

Alpha 100 Alpha 200 Alpha 300
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix C – Item 232-2: Method of Sale of Regulation

L&R - C34

Slide 13 

Comparisons across generations

Measure 35ml 25ml 17ml

Price $18 $15 $15

Yield 300 pages 335 pages 350 pages

2004 Model 2008 Model 2012 Model

Customer Experience

Slide 14 

Comparisons between manufacturers

Measure 45ml 10ml 17ml

Price $18 $12 $15

Yield 310 pages 205 pages 350 pages

Mnfg: Alpha Mnfg: Delta Mnfg: Lambda

Customer Experience
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix C – Item 232-2: Method of Sale of Regulation

L&R - C35

Slide 15 

Comparisons across cartridge suppliers

Measure 4ml 6ml

Price $15 $30

Yield 200 pages 600 pages

XL Black Standard

Black

Customer Experience

Slide 16 

Technical Factors
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix C – Item 232-2: Method of Sale of Regulation

L&R - C36

Slide 17 

Technical Factors

• In order to understand what information is important to 

the consumer and necessary to make price and quantity 

comparisons, there needs to be an understanding of the 

various printing technologies.

• The following technical discussion also highlight the 

challenges and drawbacks of requiring volume and weight 

declarations on ink and toner packages. 

Slide 18 

How does the Inkjet Printer process work 

(Simplified Operation of an Inkjet Printer)

Data

Data processed 

for printing this 

device’s 

interpretation of 

the image System moves print 

head across paper 

while instructing 

print head to fire 

ink(s) from intended 

nozzle(s) at intended 

locations to achieve 

intended image; 

paper advances, 

print head returns 

and process 

continues

System readies print 

head for firing

Image is “fixed” to 

paper with heat to 

create output
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix C – Item 232-2: Method of Sale of Regulation

L&R - C37

Slide 19 

Inkjet Print Head Detail

PIEZO TECHNOLOGY

PRINT HEAD NOZZLES

THERMAL TECHNOLOGY

Slide 20 

Inkjet Cartridge/Print Head Designs

Ink

Cartridge

Print Head

Ink

Cartridge

Print Head

Ink

Cartridge

Print Head

Conjoined

Replace Print 

head with 

cartridge

On Carriage

Cartridge(s) on carriage 

with print head(s) but 

separately removable

Off Carriage

Cartridge(s) not 

on carriage 

with print 

head(s) -

separately 

removable and 

located farther 

away
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix C – Item 232-2: Method of Sale of Regulation

L&R - C38

Slide 21 

How does the Laser/LED Printer process work 

(Simplified Operation of a Laser/LED Printer)

Data

Data 

processed for 

printing this 

device’s 

interpretation 

of the image Energy Source 

“writes” image on 

photoconductive 

drum(s) and toner is 

transferred from 

developer rollers to 

written area on 

photoconductive 

drum(s). Charged 

toner particles are 

attracted to the 

electrostatic image on 

the photoconductive 

drum.

Developer rollers are 

energized to attract 

toner powder. The 

photoconductive 

drum surface is 

positively charged 

while the drum 

rotates. 

Paper passes the 

photoconductive drum where 

a negative charge is applied 

to it, causing the toner to be 

drawn away from the drum 

surface and deposited onto 

the paper surface. The toner 

image is “fixed” to the paper 

by heat and/or pressure 

within the fuser assembly. 

Then, the printed document 

exits the printer.

Slide 22 

Toner Technology - Jet milled vs. Chemical toners
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix C – Item 232-2: Method of Sale of Regulation

L&R - C39

Slide 23 

Toner Density 

This is a x-section of the monochrome toner.

The white specks within the toner particles

are Iron oxide particles which accounts for

49-50% of the weight of toner. 

The density of this toner is approximately 

1.4-1.5 g/cc.

This is a x-section of a black color CPT 

toner. The color toners does not contain 

Iron oxide and is primarily 98-99% 

polymer. 

The density of this toner is approximately 

.98-1.0 gm/cc.

Slide 24 

Customer experience based on density

impact on yield

• Potential fill volume of 200cc (volume constant)

– Chemical toner = 100g = 8.0K ISO Pages

– Jet milled toner = 133g = 2.7K ISO Pages

• Potential fill of 200g (weight constant)

– Chemical toner = 8.0K Pages

– Jet milled toner = 4.0K Pages

Weight or volume measure of toner can mislead 

to actual delivered value 

Based on:

• 40 pages/gram for chemical

• 20 pages/gram for jet-milled
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix C – Item 232-2: Method of Sale of Regulation

L&R - C40

Slide 25 

• Different toners have different density

• Different toners have different pages/gram efficiency

Technical Challenges with Toner

Grams Pages pages/gram

440 10560 24.0

300 4800 16.0

340 7200 21.2

300 8400 28.0

1050 21600 20.6

690 14400 20.9

1140 45600 40.0

65 3000 46.2

Based on several web site reports

http://www.uninetimaging.com/downloads/technical/TecArtWebAdded/Canon_LBP_EX_EP_E_Toner_Summit_Web.pdf 

http://www.collectingcanada.com/ibm_4019_29.pdf 

http://ezinearticles.com/?How-To-Properly-Remanufacture-Your-HP-Q1338A-Q1339A-Black-Toner-Cartridge-In-Just-53-Easy-Steps&id=106439

http://www.priceless-inkjet.com/cartridge/RI_887640.html 

http://www.iwt.kiev.ua/files/samsungml-1210.pdf 

Most likely Chemical

Most likely Jet Milled

Slide 26 

Inkjet and Laser/LED Technologies

Some OEM design choices that have an impact on both ink and toner 

consumption and which may make ink volume and toner weights 

misleading...thus, not allowing price and quantity comparisons 

between products.

• “Anti-Aliasing” or “Smoothing” : Techniques for 

smoothing the edge of the printed image. Depending 

upon the OEM device design, more or less ink/toner 

may be used in this “smoothing” process. 

• “Color Mixing”: Techniques used for mixing colors can impact 

ink/toner consumption – richer colors probably means more 

ink/toner. Certain OEM devices may mix colors differently based on 

the type and concentration of the ink/toner. 
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix C – Item 232-2: Method of Sale of Regulation

L&R - C41

Slide 27 

Inkjet and Laser/LED Technologies

Some OEM design choices that have an impact on both ink and toner 

consumption and which may make ink volume and toner weights 

misleading...thus, not allowing price and quantity comparisons 

between products. (cont.)

• Black vs. "Composite" Black: In some cases, the devices may print 

additional color(s) under the black to make it darker, more dense 

("Under Color Addition" or UCA).

• "Gray Component Replacement" or GCR: In some cases, devices may 

print by replacing some percentage of Cyan, Magenta, and/or 

Yellow ink/toner with a corresponding percentage of Black in order to 

reduce the overall ink/toner usage.

Slide 28 

Inkjet and Laser/LED Technologies

Some OEM design choices that have an impact on both ink and toner 

consumption and which may make ink volume and toner weights 

misleading...thus, not allowing price and quantity comparisons 

between products. (cont.)

• Printing with more than 4 colors: In some cases, such devices may 

print by replacing some percentage of Cyan, Magenta, and/or Black 

ink/toner with a higher percentage of Light Cyan, Light Magenta, 

and/or Light Black (Grays) in order to improve pastels and image 

highlights.
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix C – Item 232-2: Method of Sale of Regulation

L&R - C42

Slide 29 

Summary of factors that may contribute 

to misleading volume or weight

• Technology

• Print heads/drop weight

• Proprietary Ink Jet Nozzle 

Plate Designs

• Proprietary Ink Jetting 

Algorithms

• Developer rollers:

• Toner recapture vs. waste 

toner

• Proprietary Toner Algorithms: 

Inkjet and Laser/LED Technologies

Inkjet Laser/LED

• “Anti-Aliasing” or “Smoothing

• “Color Mixing”

• Black vs. "Composite" Black

• "Gray Component Replacement" or GCR 

• Printing with more than 4 colors

Inkjet and Laser/LED

Slide 30 

ISO/IEC Standards
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix C – Item 232-2: Method of Sale of Regulation

L&R - C43

Slide 31 

Meeting a Need: Developing an ISO Standard

• Prior to the development of a standard for yield, each 

manufacturer advertised their cartridges’ delivered value 

using various methods

– proprietary yield measures

– weight or volume

– nothing

• There was no way for customers to assess the relative value 

of cartridges between printers or even for the same printer.

• ISO was developed to provide that measure.

• Has been adopted world wide as the best measure available 

for reporting delivered cartridge value 

Slide 32 

What the yield standard is and is not

• Well defined method to measure and report the yield of a 

set of cartridges in a printing system

• Takes into account variation in printer and cartridges

• Carefully controls, environment test files and end of life

• Tests cartridges using a user-like page and end-of-life

• It is NOT a guarantee of a specific cartridge’s yield 

performance
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix C – Item 232-2: Method of Sale of Regulation

L&R - C44

Slide 33 

In Summary

• Dean Gallea, Head of Computer Testing at Consumer Reports

“...manufacturers should focus on the number of pages you 

can print rather than how much ink each cartridge contains... 

the number of pages that you get per unit volume of ink can 

vary between the different ink formulations and different 

manufacturers, so its not a clear indication of what the page 

count would be.”

Jan 22, 2010, on Marketplace, National Public Radio

Slide 34 

In Summary

• Based on the goals of NCWM (and those in Handbook 130), 

weight and volume will not meet the objective, but quantity 

and yield will. 

• Industry has already begun transitioning to use of the ISO/IEC 

standards.

• These standards are a better measure than weight/volume for 

consumer information and product comparison.
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix C – Item 232-2: Method of Sale of Regulation

L&R - C45

Slide 35 

Thank You

ITI Contact:

Josh Rosenberg

jrosenberg@itic.org

(202)626-5738
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix C – Item 232-2: Method of Sale of Regulation

L&R - C46

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix D – Item 232-3: Method of Sale Regulation

L&R - D1

Appendix D

Item 232-3: Handbook 130, Method of Sale Regulation

Section 1.7.1. Factory Packaged Ice Cream and Similar Frozen Products 

Table of Contents 

Page

Food and Drug Administration/August 2, 2010 ............................................................................................. L&R - D3
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix D – Item 232-3: Method of Sale Regulation

L&R - D2 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix D – Item 232-3: Method of Sale Regulation

L&R - D3
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix D – Item 232-3: Method of Sale Regulation

L&R - D4 
L&R Committee 2011 Interim Report

Appendix E – Item 237-3: Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - E1 

Appendix E

Handbook 130, Item 237-3: Engine Fuels and 

Automotive Lubricants Regulation

Section 3.15. Biodiesel and Biodiesel Blends 

Table of Contents 

Page

API...................................................................................................................................................................L&R - E3

Arizona Department of Weights and Measures...............................................................................................L&R - E7

Arizona Petroleum Marketers Association ......................................................................................................L&R - E9

Missouri Petroleum Marketers Association and Convenience Store Association (MPCA) ..........................L&R - E11

NATSO..........................................................................................................................................................L&R - E14

Petroleum Marketers Association of America (PMAA)................................................................................L&R - E16
L&R Committee 2011 Interim Report

Appendix E – Item 237-3: Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - E2 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
L&R Committee 2011 Interim Report

Appendix E – Item 237-3: Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - E3 

API Brian Knapp

Marketing Policy Advisor, Downstream

1220 L Street, NW

Washington, DC 20005-4070 

USA

Telephone 202-682-8172

Fax 202-682-8051

Email knappb@api.org

www.api.org

September 7, 2010

Fuels and Lubricants Subcommittee

c/o Ronald G. Hayes, Chairman

National Conference on Weights and 

Measures PO Box 630

1616 Missouri Boulevard

Jefferson City, MO 65102

Re: Publication 16: 237-3 — Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants Regulation, Section 3.15

Biodiesel and Biodiesel Blends

Dear Fuels and Lubricants Subcommittee:

I write today to clarify and expand on comments made in a January 20, 2010 email to the FLS 

regarding changes to Handbook 130 Section 3.15 Biodiesel and Biodiesel Blends. The comments 

also reflect and expand upon API positions that were orally presented during the July 2010 

NCWM Annual Meeting.

API Position

API agrees with NCWM that consumers must be protected from unknowingly purchasing diesel 

fuel containing greater than 5 percent biodiesel by volume. However, API opposes requirements 

on fuel suppliers to determine and convey the exact percentage of biodiesel in ASTM D975 diesel 

fuel. API supports with caveat the amended proposal included on L&R 24 in Publication 16 and 

opposes the draft substitute on L&R 25 in Publication 16. API would like to see the amended 

proposal on L&R 24 in Publication 16 further amended to say,

3.15.3. Documentation Required on Transfer Documents. The retailer shall be 

provided, at the time of delivery of the fuel, a declaration of the volume percent 

biodiesel on an invoice, bill of lading, shipping paper, or other document. It is the 

responsibility of any potential blender to determine the amount of biodiesel in the 

diesel fuel prior to blending.

3.15.4. Exemption.

(c) Diesel fuel containing not more than 5% by volume biodiesel fuel is exempt 

from disclosing the actual percent by volume of biodiesel as required in Section 

3.15.3. However, the term "May contain up to 5% biodiesel" shall be used.

API offers the following arguments in support of our request that NCWM not require fuel producers 

and suppliers to provide the percent biodiesel by volume in D975 diesel fuel to retailers:

 

 
L&R Committee 2011 Interim Report

Appendix E – Item 237-3: Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - E4 

percent biodiesel by volume and up to 20 percent biodiesel by volume, then the fuel is to comply with 

ASTM D7467, Standard Specification for Diesel Fuel Oil, Biodiesel Blend (B6 to B20).

• Blenders of biodiesel should be responsible for confirming the biodiesel content of the finished fuel and 

that the fuel complies with the appropriate ASTM specification.

• 16 CFR 306 - Automotive Fuel Ratings, Certification and Posting - explicitly states that "biodiesel blends 

and biomass-based diesel blends that contain less than or equal to 5 percent biodiesel by volume and 

less than or equal to 5 percent biomass-based diesel by volume, and that meet American Society 

for Testing and Materials ('ASTM') standard D975 ('Standard Specification of Diesel Fuel Oils') are not 

automotive fuels covered by the requirements of [16 CFR 306]."

• If a party desires tax and/or RIN credits for blending biodiesel, then they should be responsible for 

determining the biodiesel content of the fuel that they are blending.

• Due to the nature of how fuels are delivered to terminals, it is unrealistic to expect terminal

operators to provide exact biodiesel content of each transport of fuel being transferred.

• The requirement to disclose the exact biodiesel content on all transfer documents places an undue burden 

on the distribution system and does not allow for the flexibility needed by the operators of these systems.

Quality Assurance

Product integrity and quality assurance are essential for API member companies to ensure customer 

satisfaction. API members assure consumers that branded diesel containing up to 5 percent biodiesel by volume 

sold from their retail stations meets the ASTM D975 specification as required by law. If a party, who is 

authorized to do so, chooses to materially change the properties of the fuel offered by suppliers by adding 

biodiesel downstream of their fuel receipt from their supplier, it is the responsibility of that party to ensure that 

every gallon of the biodiesel blend offered to consumers meets the ASTM D975 specification and/or is in 

compliance with federal, state and local laws and regulations.

Requiring suppliers to determine the specific volume percentage of biodiesel in the fuel they offer to marketers 

who wish to then alter the fuel places an unreasonable burden on suppliers. If marketers wish to blend 

biodiesel into fuel, they should be the responsible party for determining the biodiesel content of the fuel.

Federal Trade Commission Regulation

16 CFR 306 - Automotive Fuel Ratings, Certification and Posting - explicitly states that "biodiesel blends and 

biomass-based diesel blends that contain less than or equal to 5 percent biodiesel by volume and less than 

or equal to 5 percent biomass-based diesel by volume, and that meet American Society for Testing and 

Materials ('ASTM') standard D975 ('Standard Specification of Diesel Fuel Oils') are not automotive fuels 

covered by the requirements of [16 CFR 306]." Therefore, refiners, importers and producers are not 

required to "determine" automotive fuel ratings for D975 diesel fuel before they transfer it. Additionally, 

refiners, importers and producers are not required to "certify" the automotive fuel rating for D975 diesel fuel 

for each transfer. The automotive fuel rating for diesel fuel containing over 5 volume percent is the biodiesel 

content.

10 4 API Comments on Publication 16: 237-3 — Biodiesel and Biodiesel Blends (Sept. 7, 2010)
L&R Committee 2011 Interim Report

Appendix E – Item 237-3: Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - E5 

Additionally, 16 CFR 306.4 states that, "no State or any political subdivision thereof may adopt or continue in 

effect...any provision of law or regulation with respect to such act or omission, unless such provision of such law or 

regulation is the same as the applicable provision of this title." In other words, the FTC regulation preempts state 

laws that are not the "same" as FTC rules. Thus, any NCWM efforts to require the determination and/or 

certification of the automotive fuel ratings for D975 diesel fuel would be advancing efforts that would be in 

violation of 16 CFR 306.4.

Tax Benefits

Some supporters of requiring that the percent biodiesel by volume in D975 diesel fuel be included on transfer 

documents cite tax benefits that are allowed to blenders based on the amount of biodiesel per gallon of diesel. 

These same supporters also cite the Renewable Identification Number (RIN) credit retailers can receive for 

blending biodiesel downstream of the supplier. These benefits that encourage biodiesel blending reward the 

party performing the blending, which API supports. However, it should not be the responsibility of a third 

party, namely fuel suppliers, to aid a downstream blender's assessment of their tax benefit without 

compensation; nor should it be that third party's responsibility to assure the quality of the final product made in 

the interests of receiving that credit. This is an undue burden and by no means equitable treatment.

Implementation Concerns

Adequate timing to test and determine the percent biodiesel by volume is an issue that may hinder 

implementation of a requirement to certify exact biodiesel content for D975 diesel fuel. Some terminals do not 

necessarily know that their D975 diesel fuel receipt contains up to 5 percent biodiesel because all D975 diesel fuel 

containing up to 5 percent biodiesel by volume is fungible product and thus may be mixed with other D975 

diesel fuel without the need to retest for quality. In some terminals, fungible D975 diesel fuel containing up 

to 5 percent biodiesel by volume can enter a terminal without the terminal operator's knowledge because it 

warrants no attention.

D975 diesel fuel, with up to 5 percent biodiesel by volume, may be placed in the same storage tanks as other 

D975 diesel fuel shipments potentially creating an amalgamation of D975 diesel fuel with differing amounts of 

biodiesel concentrations. To be clear, this would never result in a D975 diesel fuel surpassing 5 percent by 

volume in the storage tank. Should the terminal operator be aware of the biodiesel content, the shipment 

would still be placed in storage with other fungible D975 diesel fuel for efficient use of available storage tank 

capacity, rather than devoting an existing tank to the D975 diesel fuel with known biodiesel content or 

constructing a new tank for this purpose. Terminal tank space is currently at a premium, and any efforts to 

require additional tank space will be opposed by API members. Terminal operators do not have spare 

capacity to devote to different blends of fungible product nor the acreage to build new tanks. In short, because 

they optimize their use of existing storage tanks consistent with ASTM standards and Federal code, terminal 

operators, with the exception of those in jurisdictions with regulations requiring a specific biodiesel volume 

percentage in the diesel fuel offered, do not know the precise biodiesel content of D975 diesel fuel offered.

There are two ways a terminal operator could determine the biodiesel content of D975 diesel fuel before 

sale; both of which are costly and time-consuming. The method of greatest burden and cost involves testing 

the D975 diesel fuel in storage after each delivery to obtain an up-to-date accounting of the biodiesel content. 

The density of D975 diesel will vary between different fuel deliveries and will often leave different strata of 

D975 diesel fuel blends within the tank. A stratified tank means that a

10 5 API Comments on Publication 16: 237-3 — Biodiesel and Biodiesel Blends (Sept. 7, 2010)
L&R Committee 2011 Interim Report

Appendix E – Item 237-3: Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - E6 

terminal operator would not able to determine the biodiesel content of a tank by performing a simple weighted 

average calculation. Physical testing would be required to determine the specific biodiesel concentration at 

substantial burden and cost to the terminal operator. Further, the frequency with which some terminals 

receive deliveries of diesel fuel could require testing more than once daily.

Some tanks have stirring capabilities which would alleviate the potential stratification of D975 diesel fuel, but 

these capabilities are rarely installed on tanks holding fungible grade fuels. Tank stirrers are very expensive 

and, once installed, require a time consuming process to operate.

The second method requires the terminal operator to test each load delivered to the tank truck. This method 

requires the time and expense to complete the test, both of which result in no benefit to the fuel supplier.

It is for all of the reasons above that API supports the disclosure of ranges of biodiesel content consistent 

with the FTC pump labeling rules: (1) up to 5 percent biodiesel by volume, (2) greater than 5 percent and up to 20 

percent biodiesel by volume, and (3) greater than 20 percent biodiesel by volume. However, until FTC amends the 

Automotive Fuel Ratings, Certification and Posting rule (16 CFR 306) to allow for certification of automotive fuel 

ratings for biodiesel in these ranges, the NCWM cannot enact a similar change consistent with the requirements 

of FTC's preemption authority (16 CFR 306.4). Should FTC amend their regulation to reflect API's preferences for 

disclosure of biodiesel content in accordance with the ranges above, API would urge the NCWM to amend 

Publication 16 to mirror the FTC regulation consistent with the requirements of 16 CFR 306.4.

Documentation Flexibility

Regarding Section 3.15.3, API opposes efforts to mandate the disclosure of biodiesel content on all transfer 

documents. Fuel providers need the flexibility to determine on which document this information will be 

included given that the recipient of the order knows which document contains the information. Requiring 

disclosure on all transfer documents is entirely too inclusive and would be burdensome to fuel providers with 

no identified benefit.

Conclusion

There are many issues associated with requiring fuel suppliers to determine and label the amount of biodiesel in 

D975 diesel fuel. In summary, API supports NCWM efforts to inform retailers that D975 diesel fuel may 

contain up to 5 percent biodiesel by volume, but API opposes requirements to convey the exact percentage 

under or equal to 5 percent. Additionally, API supports the original wording of 3.15.3 which allows the fuel 

supplier flexibility in determining on which document to disclose biodiesel content.

Thank you very much for your consideration of our comments. I'd be happy to answer any questions the 

Fuels and Lubricants Subcommittee may have.

Sincerely, 

Brian Knapp

10 6 API Comments on Publication 16: 237-3 — Biodiesel and Biodiesel Blends (Sept. 7, 2010)
L&R Committee 2011 Interim Report

Appendix E – Item 237-3: Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - E7 

JANICE K BREWER 

GOVERNOR

KEVIN TYNE 

INTERIM DIRECTOR

ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF WEIGHTS AND MEASIMES

4425 West Olive Avenue, Suite 134 Glendale, AZ 85302 

602-771-4920 FAX 623-939-8586 800-277-6675 

www.azdwm.gov

January 21, 2011

John Gaccione

Committee Chair

Law &Regulation Committee

Ronald Hayes

Committee 

Chair Fuels 

and Lubricant 

Subcommitte

e 

Re: L&R Committee 2011 Interim Agenda Appendix — Item 237-3: Engine Fuels 

and Automotive Lubricants

Dear Committee Chairs:

I am writing you today to put forth Arizona's position on the Engine Fuels and 

Automotive Lubricants issue (item 237-3) being considered by your committee. 

This agenda item specifically deals with the requirements for Product Transfer Documents, 

("PTDs") and biodiesel blending. The State of Arizona Department of Weights and 

Measures strongly supports this requirement as critically necessary information for 

customers who receive the product. Without the biodiesel amount information customers 

will be subjected to unnecessary new costs to determine the levels and be required to 

conduct laboratory analysis which are currently avoided by capturing levels on the PTDs. 

Arizona Revised Statutes ("ARS") states that:

ARS 41-2083(M)

"M. For biodiesel blends that contain more than five percent by volume of biodiesel, a

person shall prepare product transfer documents in a manner that notifies the 

transferee of the percent by volume of biodiesel in the product. For diesel fuel 

that contains five per cent or less by volume of biodiesel, a person shall 

prepare product transfer documents in a manner that notifies the transferee of 

any volume percent of biodiesel intentionally added to or known by the transferor 

to be in the product."

 

 

 

 

 

 
L&R Committee 2011 Interim Report

Appendix E – Item 237-3: Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - E8 

be nothing to hide. This information can be important to the person receiving the product 

especially if they are going to blend additional biodiesel into it.

I understand that the Fuels and Lubricant subcommittee of the L&R committee is in the 

process of addressing this issue.

The State of Arizona Department of Weights and Measures has reviewed the American 

Petroleum Institute's, ("API") comments. It appears that API's position is that the FTC regulation 

also covers so called "labeling" on PTDs. We do not agree that the labeling in the FTC 

regulations apples to PTDs. Clearly the FTC regulations do apply to dispensers at which 

biodiesel is dispensed. The Department has adopted the FTC regulations relating to dispenser 

labeling. They are found in ARS 41-2083 which states the following:

ARS 41-2083(L)

"L. A person shall label dispensers at which biodiesel or biodiesel blends are dispensed

in conformance with 16 code of federal regulations part 306 and 40 Code of Federal 

Regulations sections 80.570, 80.571, 80.572, 80.573 and 80.574. This section does not 

preclude a person form labeling a dispenser that dispenses diesel fuel that contains up 

to five per cent biodiesel, with a label that states "may contain up to five per cent 

biodiesel"." 

The Department also agrees the diesel fuel is not regulated under the fuels rating rules, 

however, the Department believes that PTDs and language requirements are clearly regulated 

by The Environmental Protection Agency, ("EPA"). EPA in 40CFR 80.1453 entitled 'What are 

the product transfer document (PTD) requirement for the RFS program?" fully lays out the 

PTD requirements for the Renewable Fuels Standard, ("RFS") in this section it states:

"The number of gallon-RINs being transferred"

We also would point out regarding 16CFR (306), nowhere in the regulations do they talk about 

the PTDs and the required language. They talk about certification. Certification can be done 

through the use of documents used for PTDs.

It is the Department's position in the interest of transparency and full disclosure to the consumer 

that this information, if known, should be disclosed on the PTD. To do otherwise adds 

significant costs and burdens to the process. Thank you for taking the time and allowing us to 

present our position. We apologize for not being there in person but as you are aware state 

budgets will not allow for travel.

Sincerely,

Kevin Tyne 

Interim Director

Arizona Department of Weights and Measures
L&R Committee 2011 Interim Report

Appendix E – Item 237-3: Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - E9 
L&R Committee 2011 Interim Report

Appendix E – Item 237-3: Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - E10
L&R Committee 2011 Interim Report

Appendix E – Item 237-3: Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - E11
L&R Committee 2011 Interim Report

Appendix E – Item 237-3: Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - E12
L&R Committee 2011 Interim Report

Appendix E – Item 237-3: Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - E13
L&R Committee 2011 Interim Report

Appendix E – Item 237-3: Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - E14

January 20, 2011

Mr. John Gaccione

Chairman, Laws and Regulations Committee 

National Conference on Weights and Measures 

Director, Westchester County Department of Consumer 

Protection 112 East Post Road, 4th floor 

White Plains, NY 10601

Dear Chairman Gaccione:

On behalf of the NATSO, which represents America's travel plazas and truck stops, I would 

like to thank you for addressing important issues relevant to the petroleum marketing and fuel 

retailing industry during the National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM) interim 

and annual meetings.

NATSO is a national trade association that represents highway travel plazas and truck stop 

owners and operators. The association represents 235 corporate entities that have over 1,200 

locations across the nation. It's estimated that the highway travel plaza and truck stop 

industry sells more than ninty percent of all diesel fuel sold at retail in the United States.

I am writing today to highlight the need to modify language in Item 237-3, Engine Fuels and 

Automotive Lubricants Regulation, Section 3.15 Biodiesel and Biodiesel Blends (Publication 

16). NATSO is concerned that Item 237-3 in Publication 16 may have unintended 

consequences affecting fuel retailers and consumers if the current language is approved without 

modification. It is imperative to require the disclosure of the exact volume percent amount of 

biodiesel blends, even if such blends are believed to contain less than five percent biodiesel. 

NATSO urges the Committee to modify the language to require the disclosure of the 

exact volume percentage of biodiesel below five percent on product transfer documents 

(PTDS).

There are two ways biodiesel can get into the diesel stream. One option is to inject biodiesel 

into diesel at the downstream terminal. In this case, the terminal knows blending is 

occurring and should be required to disclose it. The biodiesel content should be indicated on 

the bill of lading (BOL) because a conscious decision to blend is being made at the local level. 

The other option is to inject biodiesel into diesel at the refinery before it goes into the 

pipeline. It's our belief that pipelines already test refinery inputs into their pipeline. Disclosing 

the amount of biodiesel injected into their system would be the first step in tracking the product 

from the refinery.

 

 

 

 

 
L&R Committee 2011 Interim Report

Appendix E – Item 237-3: Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - E15

It is optional that suppliers put biodiesel into diesel fuel being shipped, but financially attractive to 

them due to the $1-per-gallon biodiesel blender's tax credit and Renewable Identification Number 

(RINs), which are currently traded among producers, oil companies, marketers, and banks. 

NATSO believes the refiner should know what they are selling and the components therein. 

Information must be accurate and disclosed at the terminal to ensure that customers are receiving 

the right mixture of biodiesel product. If refiners choose to blend, there should be a requirement to 

disclose the amount biodiesel in the fuel as the product is transferred along the distribution chain. 

NATSO urges you to take these comments into consideration when the L&R Committee meets in 

Dallas, Texas in January 2011.

Sincerely,

Holly Alfano

Vice President, Government Affairs

NATSO
L&R Committee 2011 Interim Report

Appendix E – Item 237-3: Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - E16
L&R Committee 2011 Interim Report

Appendix E – Item 237-3: Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - E17
L&R Committee 2011 Interim Report

Appendix E – Item 237-3: Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - E18

3.15.5 Documentation for Product Transfer Document Disclosure — For biodiesel blends that contain more than five 

percent by volume of biodiesel, a person shall prepare the product transfer documents in a manner that notifies the 

transferee of the percent by volume of biodiesel in the product. For diesel fuel containing five percent or less by volume of 

biodiesel, a person shall prepare product transfer documents in a manner that notifies the transferee of any volume 

percent of biodiesel intentionally added to or known by the transferor to be in the product.

Finally, requiring suppliers to disclose on product transfer documents (PTDs) the exact volume percentage of biodiesel 

should be at the discretion of the NCWM not the FTC. PMAA does not believe PTD disclosure is in conflict with current

C retail labeling requirements for biodiesel. NCWMs' Fuels and Lubricants Subcommittee continues to refer to FTC's 

authority to preempt any NCWM or state action on PTDs. However, given Section 205 of EISA, PMAA urges NCWM 

Laws and Regulations Committee to reconsider requiring the exact biodiesel disclosure on PTDs.

PMAA urges you to take these comments into consideration when the L&R Committee meets in Dallas, Texas in 

January 2011.

Sincerely,

Dan Gilligan 

PMAA President
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix F – Item 237-4: Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - F1 

Appendix F

Item 237-4: Handbook 130, Engine Fuels and 

Automotive Lubricants Regulation

Section 2.1.2. Gasoline-Oxygenated Blends and Section 2.1.3. Gasoline-Ethanol Blends 

Table of Contents

Page

ASTM Specification Change Process/May 5, 2010......................................................................................... L&R - F3

Update: New Ethanol Blend/October 2010s .................................................................................................... L&R - F5

Summary of Auto/Oil E10+ Test Program for Highway “Non-FFV” Vehicles/April 29, 2010...................... L&R - F9

Mid Level Ethanol Blends Research Coordination Group Compilation of Projects with E10+ Fuel 

Formulation Information/August 27, 2010........................................................................................... L&R - F10

Growmark/September 7, 2010....................................................................................................................... L&R - F50

Illinois Renewable Fuels Association (ILRFA)/September 14, 2010............................................................ L&R - F51
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix F – Item 237-4: Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - F2 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report 

Appendix F – Item 237-4: Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants 

L&R - F3 

 

 
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report 

Appendix F – Item 237-4: Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants 

L&R - F4 

 
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix F – Item 237-4: Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - F5 
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix F – Item 237-4: Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - F6 
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix F – Item 237-4: Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - F7 
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix F – Item 237-4: Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - F8 
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix F – Item 237-4: Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - F9 
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix F – Item 237-4: Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - F10

Mid Level Ethanol Blends Research Coordination Group Compilation of Projects

with El0+ Fuel Formulation Information

Updated August 27, 2010

CRC Projects/ Reports (www.crcao.org)

1) E-65-3 Fuel Permeation from Automotives

a. Conventional vehicles tested on E0, E6, and E20

b. Flex fueled Vehicle tested on E85

c. Project complete; final report on CRC website

2) E-67 Effects of Ethanol and Volatility Parameters on Exhaust Emissions

a. E0, E6 and E10 fuels

b. Project complete; final report on CRC website

3) E-74 Effect of CO and RVP on Exhaust Emissions of In-Use Fleet

a. E0, E10 and E20 fuels

b. Project complete

 4) E-77 In-Use Evaporative Emissions

a. Pilot program complete (E0 testing only); final report on CRC website

b. E0, E10, and E20 fuels

c. E-77-2 main program testing ongoing

5) E-80 Exhaust and Evaporative Emissions Testing of Flex-Fueled Vehicles

a. Pilot program: E6, E85, 50/50 mix

b. Main program E9, E32, E66 and E85

c. Project testing in progress

6) E-84 Review of Prior Studies of Fuel Effects on Emissions

a. Limited data above 10% ethanol reported

b. Project complete; final report on CRC website

7) E-87 Mid Level Ethanol Blend Catalyst Durability Study

a. E0, E10, E15 and E20 fuels

b. Project testing in progress

8) E-89 EPAct Light Duty Vehicle Fuel Effects

a. E0, E10, E15 and E20 fuels

b. Project testing by EPA in progress

9) CRC Report No. 629 Coordinating Research Council, Inc., 2002 Hot Fuel Handling Program

a. E0, E3, E6, E10 fuels

b. Project complete; final report on CRC website

10) CRC Report No. 638 Coordinating Research Council, Inc., 2003 Intermediate-Temperature 

Volatility Program

a. E0 to E10 fuels only

b. Project complete; final report on CRC website

11) CRC Report No. 648 Coordinating Research Council, Inc., 2006 Hot-Fuel-Handling Program

a. E0, E5, E10 and E20 fuels

b. Project complete; final report on CRC website

12) CRC Report No. 652 Coordinating Research Council, Inc., 2008 Cold Start and Warm-up 

Driveability Program

a. E0, EIS, E20, and E85 (fuel-flexed vehicles only)

b. Project complete; final report on CRC website

13) AVFL-13b Fuel Chemistry Impacts of Gasoline/Ethanol Blends in HCCI Single Cylinder 

Test Engine
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix F – Item 237-4: Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - F11

a. Low Temperature Combustion (LTC) fuel effects being investigated in a research 

engine running in HCCI (Homogeneous Charge Combustion Ignition) mode

b. Fuels blended from 4 refinery streams to represent wide range of fuel properties of 

real world fuels

c. Ethanol effects tested up to E30

d. Testing complete; data analysis in progress

14) AVFL-15 E20 Fuel System and Fuel Component Durability Study

a. E0, E10, and aggressive E20 fuels

b. Aggressive E20 fuel used a modified J1681 design in order to keep sulfur and other 

parameters within both ASTM 4814 specification and J1681 targets

c. Project testing in progress

Outside Projects/Reports

15) "Market barriers to the uptake of biofuels study: A testing based assessment to determine 

impacts of a 10% and 20% ethanol gasoline fuel blend on non-automotive engines-2000hrs 

material compatibility testing." , Orbital Engine Company. (2003, May)

a. Report to Environment Australia.

16) "Issues Associated with the Use of Higher Ethanol Blends (E17-E24)", NREL/TP-510-32206 

(October, 2002)

17) "The Effects of E20 on Elastomers Used in Automotive Fuel System Components", Bruce 

Jones, Gary Mead, Paul Steevens and Chris Connors Minnesota Center for Automotive 

Research at Minnesota State University, Mankato (Feb., 2008)

a. Contact: Department of Automotive Engineering Technology, Minnesota State 

University, Mankato

b. ASTM Fuel C, C(E10)A, C(E20)A

18) "The Effects of E20 on Plastic Automotive Fuel System Components", Bruce Jones, Gary 

Mead, and Paul Steevens, Minnesota Center for Automotive Research at Minnesota State 

University, Mankato (Feb., 2008)

a. Contact: Department of Automotive Engineering Technology, Minnesota State 

University, Mankato

b. ASTM Fuel C, C(E10)A, C(E20)A

19) "The Effects of E20 on Automotive Fuel Pumps and Sending Units", Nathan Hanson, 

Thomas Devens, Colin Rohde, Adam Larson, Bruce Jones, Gary Mead, and Paul Steevens, 

Minnesota Center for Automotive Research at Minnesota State University, Mankato (Feb., 

2008)

a. Contact: Department of Automotive Engineering Technology, Minnesota State 

University, Mankato

b. ASTM Fuel C, C(E10)A, C(E20)A

20) "The Effects of E20 on Metals Used in Automotive Fuel System Components", Bruce Jones, 

Gary Mead, Paul Steevens, and Mike Timanus, Minnesota Center for Automotive 

Research at Minnesota State University, Mankato (Feb., 2008)

a. Contact: Department of Automotive Engineering Technology, Minnesota State 

University, Mankato

b. ASTM Fuel C, C(E10)A, C(E20)A

21) "Demonstration and Driveability Project to Determine the Feasibility of Using E20 as a 

Motor Fuel", David Kittleson, Andy Tan, and Darrick Zarling, University of Minnesota, 

Minneapolis, MN 55414, (Oct. 2007)

a. E0 and E20 fuels
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix F – Item 237-4: Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - F12

22) "An Examination of Fuel Pumps and Sending Units During a 4000 Hour Endurance Test in 

E20", Gary Mead, Bruce Jones, Paul Steevens, Nathan Hanson, Joe Harrenstein, Minnesota 

State University, Mankato, (publication pending)

23) "E20 Effects in Small Non-Road SI Engines", Robert Waytulonis, David Kittleson, and 

Darrick Zarling, University of Minnesota, Center for Diesel Research, Report to the 

Minnesota Department of Commerce, (Jan. 2008)

24) "Effects of Intermediate Ethanol Blends on Legacy Vehicles and Small Non-Road Engines, 

Report 1", Brian West, Keith Knoll, Wendy Clark, Ronald Graves, John Orban, Steve 

Prezesmitzki, Timothy Theis, on behalf of the U.S. Department of Energy, (Oct. 2008) 

a. EO, E10, E15, E20

25) Environmental Protection Agency. (1991, January 24). Regulation of fuels and fuel additives; 

Definition of substantially similar.

Http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/fuel/additive/jan91.pdf

26) Sun Refining and Marketing Company. (1998, April). Waiver application for 15% MTBE 

(EPA Publication No. EN-88-02, Ill-A-1). Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency.

27) "Technical Paper On The Introduction of Greater Than E10-Gasoline Blends", Ranajit Sahu, 

Outdoor Power Equipment Institute, (June 2007)

28) Proposed Test Plan for Determining the Effect of Mid-grade Ethanol Blends on Handheld 

Lawn and Garden Engines and Equipment, Ranajit Sahu, Outdoor Power Equipment 

Institute,( Jan. 2009)

29) "Optimal Ethanol Blend Level Investigation", Richard Shockey, Ted Aulich, Energy & 

Environmental Research Center, University of North Dakota, Grand Forks, ND, Bruce Jones, 

Gary Mead, and Paul Steevens, Minnesota Center for Automotive Research, Minnesota State 

University, Mankato, (Nov. 2007)

30) "Determination of the Potential Property Ranges of E10+ Blends", API

a. E0, E10, D12.5, E15, and E30 fuels

b. Base stocks are pump gasolines and BOBs taken from all U.S. PADDs

c. Fuel analysis in progress

Standards and recommended practices

31) SAE J312: Automotive Gasoline

32) SAE J905: Fuel Filter Test Methods

33) SAE J1297: (R) Alternative Automotive Fuels

34) SAE J1537: Validation Testing of Electric Fuel Pumps for Gasoline Fuel Injection Systems

35) SAE J1681: Gasoline, Alcohol, and Diesel Fuel Surrogates for Materials Testing

36) SAE J1747: Recommended Methods for Conducting Corrosion Tests in Hydrocarbon 

Fuels or Their Surrogates and Their Mixtures with Oxygenated Additives

37) SAE J1748: Methods for Determining Physical Properties of Polymeric Materials Exposed to 

Gasoline/ oxygenate Fuel Mixtures

a. Modifies ASTM D471 to make it fuel-testing specific

38) SAE J1832: Low Pressure Gasoline Fuel Injector

39) SAE J1862: Fuel Injection System Fuel Pressure Regulator and Pressure Damper

40) SAE J2260L Nonmetallic Fuel System Tubing with One or More Layers

41) "A rational approach to qualifying materials for use in fuel systems", Warrendale, PA: 

Harrigan, M., Banda, A., Bonazza, B., Graham,P., & Slimp, B. Society of Automotive 

Engineers. (2002).

42) SAE's Automotive Fuels Reference Book (2nd ed., 1995)- RVP Impact of blending ethanol 

into gasoline
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix F – Item 237-4: Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - F13

43) ASTM D 256-06 Standard test methods for determining the Izod pendulum impact resistance 

of plastics

44) ASTM D 412: Vulcanized Rubber and Thermoplastic Elastomers- Tension

45) ASTM D 471: Rubber Property- Effect of Liquids

46) ASTM D 543 Standard Practices for Evaluating the Resistance of Plastics to Chemical 

Reagents

47) ASTM D 618: Standard Practice for Conditioning plastics for Testing

48) ASTM D 638: Standard test method for tensile properties of plastics

49) ASTM D 2240: Standard test method for rubber property-durometer hardness

50) ASTM D 3183: Rubber- Preparation of Product Pieces for Test Purposes from Products

51) ASTM D 4806: Denatured Fuel Ethanol for Blending with Gasolines for Use as Automotive 

Spark-Ignition Engine Fuel

52) ASTM D 4814: Automotive Spark-Ignition Engine Fuel

53) ASTM D 4815: Determination of MTBE, ETBE, TAME, DIPE, tertiary-Amyl Alcohol C1 to 

C4 Alcohols in Gasoline by Gas Chromatography

54) ASTM D 5500: Vehicle Evaluation of Unleaded Automotive Spark-Ignition Engine Fuel for 

Intake Valve Deposit Formation

55) ASTM Gl: Preparing, Cleaning, and Evaluating Corrosion Test Specimens

56) ASTM G31: Laboratory Immersion Corrosion Testing of Metals

57) Physical Properties of Gasoline/ Alcohol Blends, Bartlesville Energy Technology Center, 

Department of Energy, Bartlesville, OK, (Sept. 1979)

58) Ethanol Fuel Modification for Highway Vehicle Use, Final Report, Science and Technology 

Division, Union Oil Co. of California, Brea., (Jan. 1980)

59) "Alcohols and Ethers, A Technical Assessment of Their Application as Fuels and Fuel 

Components", API Publication 4261, Third Edition, (June 2001)

60) "Determination of the Potential Property Ranges of Mid-Level Ethanol Blends", API, (April 

23, 2010)
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix F – Item 237-4: Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - F14

APPLICATION FOR A WAIVER PURSUANT TO

SECTION 211(0(4) OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT FOR E-15

Submitted by

Growth Energy on Behalf of 52 United States

Ethanol Manufacturers

In partnership with:

American Coalition for Ethanol

Renewal Fuels Association

National Ethanol Vehicle Coalition

Cellulosic Stakeholders:

Khosla Ventures

Coskata

BioGasol

TMO

Microbiogen

Edenspace

ZeaChem Inc.

Qteros

March 6, 2009
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix F – Item 237-4: Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - F15

I. Executive Summary

This application is submitted pursuant to Clean Air Act section § 211(f)(4) 

and requests approval for use of an ethanol-gasoline blend containing up to 15 

percent ethanol b y volume (hereinafter "E-15") by Growth Energy and t he 

following ethanol manufacturers: Absolute Energy, LLC, Agri-Energy 

LLC/Dakota Renewable, Amaizing Energy, LLC, Arizona Grain Inc., Arkalon 

Energy, LLC, Big River Resources, LLC, Cardinal Ethanol, LLC, Castle Rock 

Renewable Fuels, LLC, Conestoga Energy, DENCO, Didion Ethanol, East Kansas 

Agri Energy, LLC, Front Range Energy LLC, Golden Grain Energy, LLC, Granite 

Falls Energy, LLC, Green Plains Renewable Energy, Inc., Hawkeye Renewables 

LLC, IBEC Ethanol, ICM, Kansas Ethanol, LLC, LifeLine Foods, Inc., Little 

Sioux Corn Processors, LLC, Marquis Energy, LLC, Nesika Energy, LLC, Patriot 

Renewable Fuels, LLC, Pinal Ene rgy, POET Biorefining — Alexandria, POET 

Biorefining — Ashton, POET Biorefining — Big Stone, POET Biorefining - Caro, 

POET Biorefining — Chancellor, POET Biorefining — Coon Rapids, POET 

Biorefining — Corning, POET Biorefining Emmetsburg, POET B iorefining —

Glenville, POET Bior efining — Gowrie, POET Biorefining — Groton, POET 

Biorefining Hanlontown, POET Bior efining — Hudson, POET Biorefining —

Jewell, POET Biorefining — Laddonia; POET Biorefining — Lake Crystal; POET 

Biorefining — Leipsic, POET Biorefining — Macon, POET Biorefining — Mitchell, 

POET Biorefining — Portland, POET Biorefining — Preston, POET Ethanol 

Products, Prairie Horizon Agri-Energy LLC, Quad County Corn Processors,
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix F – Item 237-4: Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - F16

Renew Energy, Siouxland Ethanol LLC, Sire, and Western Plains Energy, LLC. 

The request to allow E-15 is further supported by the add itional parties and 

organizations noted on the cover of this app lication, Ford Motor Company, and 

numerous leading scientists that have signed a letter supporting introduction of 

higher ethanol blend fuels. The applicants and supporters of this application seek 

accelerated renewable fuel use, increased energy security, enhanced economic 

development, creation of American jobs, reduced transportation costs, and 

environmental benefits from increased use of ethanol through approval of up to a 

fifteen percent base blend of ethanol. Importantly, recent and extensive research 

demonstrates that use of higher ethanol blends will significantly benefit the 

environment by reducing greenhouse gas emissions,2 reducing harmful tailpipe 

emissions,3 reducing smog,4 using less energy for an equivalent amount of fuels, 

and protecting natural resources.6

See February 20, 2009 Letter from Susan M. Cischke of Ford Motor Company to Jeff Broin of POET 

noting that "Ford endorses efforts to increase base level blends up to E-15 and collaborate with key 

stakeholders to overcome challenges with introducing these higher levels of ethanol in the base fuel blend 

used by all vehicles in the near term."

See, e.g., Improvements in Life Cycle Energy Efficiency and Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Corn-Ethanol, 

by Adam J. Liska et. al. ("Nebraska Study") (Yale Journal of Industrial Ecology, January 2009) at 9 

(demonstrating, on a life-cycle basis, that corn-based ethanol production and use reduces greenhouse gas 

emissions 48-59 percent compared to

gasoline production and use); Greenhouse Gas Impacts of Expanded Renewable and Alternative Fuels 

Use, EPA Office of Transportation and Air Quality, EPA420-F-07-035 (April 2007) (finding that cellulosic 

ethanol production and use will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by more than 90 percent compared to 

gasoline).

3 See sections IV through VI infra.

Ethanol-blended fuels generally, and E-15 specifically, reduce vehicle tailpipe emissions of carbon 

monoxide and volatile organic compounds, both of which are smog- 
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix F – Item 237-4: Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - F17

Pursuant to the Clean Air Act, the Administrator of the Environmental 

Protection Agency ("EPA") may grant a waiver allowing use of a fuel additive 

upon application by a fuel manufacturer that establishes that use of the fuel 

additive "will not cause or contribute to the failure of any emission control device 

or system." This application seeks approval to increase the ethanol portion of the 

ethanol-gasoline blend to up to fifteen percent. Extensive experience with use of 

ethanol-gasoline blends, similarities of E-15 to ethanol-gasoline blends containing 

ten percent ethanol (hereinafter "E-10"), and multiple recent studies involving a 

range of ethanol and gasoline fuel blends at fifteen percent ethanol and higher

forming emissions. See section IV infra. Ethanol has been the preferred fuel to meet Clean Air Act 

reformulated gasoline requirements to reduce ozone and many states credit ethanol-blend gasoline with 

significantly reducing urban ozone levels. The American Lung Association of the Upper Midwest 

similarly credits ethanol-blend fuels with reducing smog and has embraced ethanol-blend fuels as part 

of its Clean Air Choice Initiative. Clean Air Choice website, available at 

http://www.cleanairchoice.org/news/.

5 The U.S. Department of Agriculture reports a net energy balance for ethanol production of 1.67 on 

average. By contrast, the U.S. Department of Energy reports that gasoline refining has a negative energy 

balance and every unit of energy expended in its production results in just 0.79 energy units in the form of 

gasoline. The 2001 Net Energy Balance of Corn-Ethanol, prepared by U.S. Department of Agriculture and 

Agricultural Research Service (2001); The Complete Lifecycle Energy Picture, prepared by the U.S. 

Department of Energy's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (2005).

Increased substitution of gasoline with ethanol will better protect natural resources by reducing the need to 

drill for oil in environmentally sensitive areas, such as oceans, critical habitats, and wildlife refuges. 

Ethanol has low toxicity, is miscible with water, is easily biodegraded in the environment greatly reducing the 

potential for contamination of surface and ground water compared to oil and gasoline, and produces fewer air 

emissions when used than gasoline. See, generally, Glenn Ulrich, Ph.D., "The Fate and Transport of 

Ethanol-Blended Gasoline in the Environment" (Oct. 1999, prepared for the Governors' Ethanol 

Coalition), available at www.n1c.state.ne.us/epubs/E5700/B055- 1999 .pdf
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix F – Item 237-4: Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - F18

support that use of E-15 will not cause or contribute to the failure of any emission 

control device or system. 

Ethanol has been widely used in the United States as a gasoline component 

as a f uel extender due to gasoline shortages,7 as an eff ective octane booster (to 

prevent early ignition, or "engine knock"), and as an oxygenate (to prevent air 

pollution from carbon monoxide and ozone). Congressional amendments to the 

Clean Air Act have encouraged the widespread use of ethanol as a fuel additive, 

including the Reformulated Gasoline Program ("RFG"),8 the Oxygenated Gasoline 

Program,9 and the Renewable Fuels Standard ("RFS").1° E-10 ethanol-gasoline 

blends have been approved by EPA for more than 30 years, and since 1980, more 

than 44.5 billion gallons of fuel ethanol have been produced in the United States,' 

In fact, ethanol has been used as fuel in the United States for over a century: Henry Ford's Model T 

was designed to run on either gasoline or ethanol. Renewable Energy Has An icon: Henry Ford, 

ASSOCIATED PRESS, Thurs., Oct. 12, 2006.

8 The RFG program requires the sale of "reformulated" gasoline in numerous areas to reduce pollutants, 

specifically those that contribute to ground level ozone, better known as smog. See Clean Air Act, § 

211(k). Reformulated gasoline that meets the performance criteria set by the CAA can be 

reformulated in a number of ways, including the addition of oxygenates to the gasoline. Ethanol has been 

the primary source of oxygenates used under the RFG program.

9 This program requires the sale of oxygenated motor fuels during the winter months in certain major 

metropolitan areas to reduce carbon monoxide pollution. See id. § 211(m). As with the RFG program, 

ethanol has been the primary source of oxygenates for this program.

I° This national program imposes requirements with respect to the amount of renewable fuel produced and 

used. See id. § 211(o). The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 modified the required amounts 

of renewable fuel to 7.5 billion gallons by 2012, rising to 36 billion gallons by 2022.

1' Renewable Fuels Association website, at http://www.ethanolrfa.org. 
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix F – Item 237-4: Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - F19

the vast majority of it (over ninety-nine percent) blended to form E-10 and used in 

all types of vehicles and engines. 

E-15 is similar in composition to E-10. The sole difference between E-10 

and E-15 is the addition of five percent more ethanol in place of gasoline. E-15, 

like E-10, is comprised primarily of gasoline and the chemical composition of the 

gasoline and ethanol used in both fuels is the same. E-10 and E-15 have 

essentially identical lead and sulfur levels.12 The additional ethanol in E-15 results 

in approximately five percent fewer hydrocarbons and two percent more oxygen in 

the blended fuel than E-10.13 The volatility of the two f uels also is essentially 

identical:4

12 Based on ASTM D 4806 Standard Specification for Denatured Fuel Ethanol for Blending with 

Gasolines for Use as Automotive Spark-Ignition Fuel, the quality of the ethanol used to produce E-10 and 

E-15 should be identical.

13 By calculation, the reduction in hydrocarbons should be equal to the hydrocarbons in the gasoline that 

ethanol displaces. The increase in oxygen content is arrived at by calculation based on the assumption 

that the same ethanol quality, denaturant (content and composition) and moisture content are used with E10 and E-15.

14 Issues Associated with the Use of Higher Ethanol Blends (E17-E24), prepared by National Renewable 

Energy Laboratory (October 2002) ("NREL Study") at 11-13. As the NREL Study explains, ethanol on its 

own has a low volatility (as measured by Reid Vapor Pressure or "RVP") of 2.3 psi, compared to 7-15 psi 

for motor gasoline. However, in some ethanol blends, blending ethanol with gasoline does not lower 

vapor pressure, but instead causes the blend's RVP to increase. The increase in RVP is highest at about 

five volume percent ethanol, raising the RVP slightly over 1 psi from the level of the original 9 psi of the 

base gasoline. However, as ethanol content increases, the increase in RVP falls gradually. In a 20 vol. % 

blend, the volatility is lower than a 5 vol. % blend. Id. The result of this curve is that the volatility of E-10 

and E-15, measured by RVP, are almost identical, with the intervening blends showing a very slight rise 

and fall in RVP. For example, Table 3-1 in the NREL Study gives the following volatility levels for 

ethanol blends between E-10 and E-20: E-10 (9.15 psi), E-12 (9.28 psi), E-14 (9.19 psi), E-17 (9.06 psi), 

and E-20 (9.02 psi).
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix F – Item 237-4: Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - F20

E-15 also is similar in performance to E-10. Recent and extensive studies 

by federal and state government agencies and private groups have evaluated the 

use of a range of ethanol-gasoline fuel blends. These recent studies are discussed 

in sections IV through VII below and included in the Appendix to this application. 

Virtually all of these studies have been undertaken for ethanol-gasoline blends that 

have an ethanol content of at least E-15, and the majority of studies have evaluated 

ethanol-gasoline fuel blends at ethanol concentrations higher than fifteen percent. 

While ongoing studies are anticipated to support use of ethanol-gasoline fuel 

blends containing twenty percent ethanol or more, the similarity of E-10 to E-15 

and studies that have been completed to date provide information necessary for 

approval of the requested E-15 waiver. As summarized in the application below, 

available data and multiple recent studies regarding the impact of various 

intermediate blends on emissions, materials compatibility, durability, and 

driveability were completed on extensive and representative test fleets, provide a 

reliable comparison to certification conditions, and demonstrate that use of E-15 

will not cause or contribute to a failure of any emission control device or system to 

meet its c ertification emissions standards. In sum, these studies find no 

statistically significant difference in performance between not only E-10 and E-15, 

but also between E-10 and E-20, which confirms the similarities of ethanolgasoline blends with less than twenty percent ethanol, and p rovides further 

assurance through testing at higher ethanol concentrations that E-15 will not cause 

or contribute to the failure of emission control devices or systems. 
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix F – Item 237-4: Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - F21

Significantly, not only are today's vehicles capable of successfully using E15, existing fuel dispensation infrastructure in use for decades with E-10 is 

similarly capable o f dispensing E-15. Underwriters Laboratories ("UL"), which 

independently tests and certifies products, including automotive fuel dispensers, 

expressly supports the use of existing UL listed fuel dispensation infrastructure 

with automotive fuel containing up to a maximum of fifteen percent ethanol. 15

The data UL ha s gathered as part of the organization's ongoing r esearch to 

investigate the impact of using higher ethanol blends in fuel dispensing systems 

supports that existing dispensers may be used successfully with ethanol blends up 

to E-15. 

Accordingly, based on t he similarity of E-10 to E-15 and recent and 

extensive work completed by governmental and private third-party researchers, 

and the results of those studies that are included as part of this application, Growth 

Energy and the ethanol manufacturers that submit this application request EPA 

grant the requested waiver. 

15 Press Release, Underwriters Laboratories Announce Support For Authorities Having 

Jurisdiction Who Decide To Permit The Use Of Existing UL Listed Gasoline Dispensers With 

Automotive Fuel Containing Up To A Maximum Of 15% Ethanol (February 19, 2009), available 

at http://www.ul.com/newsroorn/newsrel/nr021909.html. Indeed, UL certification has long 

defined the term "gasoline" as gasoline with up 15 percent ethanol: "[t]he term "gasoline" 

includes gasoline with small amounts of additives such as detergents, solvents for detergents, and 

anti-icing chemicals and gasoline with up to 15 percent ethanol or methyl tertiary butyl ether 

(MTBE)." UL 330, Hose and Hose Assemblies for Dispensing Flammable Liquids, at 111.1. See 

also UL 25, Meters for Flammable and Combustible Liquids and LP-Gas, at 111.2 (defining 

"Flammable and Combustible Liquids" as including "gasoline/alcohol blends up to 15% 

Ethanol."); UL 79, Power-Operated Pumps for Petroleum Dispensing Products, at 111.5 (defining 

"Petroleum Products" as including "gasoline/alcohol blends up to 15% Ethanol."). 
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix F – Item 237-4: Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - F22

H. Requested Wavier

This application seeks a waiver pursuant to Clean Air Act section 211(f)(4) 

for the introduction into commerce of an alcohol-gasoline blend containing up to 

fifteen percent ethanol'6 by volume in unleaded gasoline ("E-15").

III. Statutory Authority and Standard for Approval of Requested Waiver

Title H of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. §§ 7521-7590) establishes a 

comprehensive scheme for regulation of motor vehicle emission and fuel standards 

for the prevention and control of air pollution. 42 U.S.C. § 7545 ("Section 211" of 

the Clean Air Act), part (f)(1)(B) provides that effective upon November 15, 

1990, it shall be unlawful for any manufacturer of any fuel or fuel additive to 

first introduce into commerce, or to increase the concentration in use of, any fuel 

or fuel additive for use by any person in motor vehicles manufactured after 

model year 1974 whic h is not substantiall y similar to an y fuel or f uel additive 

utilized in the certification of any model year 1975, or subsequent model year, 

vehicle or engine under section 206 of the Act. 

Under section 211(0(4) of the Clean Air Act, the Administrator of the EPA 

may waive this prohibition where the Administrator determines that an applicant 

has established that the fuel or fuel additive, and the emission products thereof, 

will not cause or contribute to a failure of any emission control device or system

16 For purposes of this application the term "ethanol" shall refer to the definition of "ethanol" contained 

in ASTM D 4806 Standard Specification for Denatured Fuel Ethanol for Blending with Gasolines for Use as 

Automotive Spark-Ignition Fuel.
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix F – Item 237-4: Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - F23

(over the useful life of the motor vehicle, motor vehicle engine, non-road engine 

or non-road vehicle in wh ich such device or system is used) to meet its 

certification emissions standards.17 By statute, EPA must take final action to grant 

or deny an application for a s ection 211(f)(4) waiver, after public notice and 

comment, within 270 days of the receipt of such an application.18

EPA guidelines19 and past EPA waiver decision documents, as well as court 

decisions regarding waivers under section 211(0(4), provide guidance as to the 

appropriate content of waiver applications and the standard and scope of EPA's 

review of such applications. Based on the foregoing, a wai ver request should 

contain "data relating to a fuel additive's emissions effects which are derived from 

vehicle testing," and the data should provide a "reliable basis for comparison with 

the conditions under which vehicles are certified."2° Where an applicant does not 

have sufficient test data, the applicant may instead provide a reasonable theory 

which predicts the emission effects of an additive, and need only conduct a 

sufficient amount of testing to demonstrate the validity of such a theory.21 In 

addition to presenting data on emissions, a waiver application should include 

information regarding the proposed fuel's compatibility with materials used in

17 Clean Air Act, § 211(0(4), 42 U.S.C. 7545(0(4).

18 Id.

19 Guidelines for Fuel Additive Waivers, 43 Fed. Reg. 11,258 (Mar. 17, 1978); Guidelines for 

Section 211(0 Waivers for Alcohol-Gasoline Blends, 43 Fed. Reg. 24,131 (June 2, 1978).

20 Guidelines for Fuel Additive Waivers, 43 Fed. Reg. 11,258, 11,259 (Mar. 17, 1978).

21 Texaco; Grant of Application for Fuel Waiver for TC-11064, Decision Document, 45 Fed. Reg. 58,954, 

58,956 (1980).
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix F – Item 237-4: Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - F24

carburetors or fue l systems to demonstrate that the fuel will not impair the 

materials to the point that em issions are adversely affected.22 Similarly, 

applications should in clude information regarding a vehicle' s driveability on the 

waiver fuel to better ensure that emissions control devices or s ystems will not be 

removed or rendered inoperative because of their impact on performance.23

In evaluating a waiver request, EPA may "look at all of the available data, 

including data provided by persons other than the applicant"24 as well as 

preexisting studies.25 Federal case law in dicates that w aiver decisions are to be 

"based on one criterion: a fuel additive's effect on emission standards," and EPA's 

role is "to assess whether the additive's emission products 'causes or contributes' 

to an em ission control device's ability to comply with the Ac t's emission 

standards."26 Emissions increases below applicable emissions standards and 

emission of non-regulated compounds are not relevant to the waiver process.27

22 See, e.g., Sun Refining and Marketing Co.; Conditional Grant of Application for Fuel Waiver for 15% 

MTBE, Decision Document, 53 Fed. Reg. 33,846 (Sept. 1, 1988).

23 Guidelines for Fuel Additive Waivers, 43 Fed. Reg. 11,258, 11,259 (Mar. 17, 1978).

24 Petro-Tex Chemical Co., Denial of Application for Fuel Waiver for MTBE (0-15%), Decision Document, 

44 Fed. Reg. 1447, 1447 n.2 (1978).

25 See, e.g., Gas Plus, Inc.; Grant of Application for Fuel Waiver for 0-10% Anhydrous Ethanol ("Gasohol"), 

Decision Document, 44 Fed. Reg. 20,777 (April 6, 1979).

26 Ethyl Corp. v. EPA, Si F.3d 1053, 1058 (D.C. Cir. 1995).

27 id. (holding that EPA Administrator exceeded her authority by denying waiver application on basis 

of public health concerns); see also Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass '71 of U.S. v. EPA, 768 F.2d 385, 390 (D.C. 

Cir. 1985) ("[B]oth the plain language of the Act and its legislative history support the EPA's view that the 

Administrator is not required under section 211(0(4) to adopt a "no increase" standard and may grant a 

waiver as long as the fuel does not cause or contribute to a f ailure to achieve compliance with emission 

standards."). See also Petro-Tex Chemical Co., Denial of Application for Fuel Waiver
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix F – Item 237-4: Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - F25

Recognizing that it would be "virtually impossible" to test all vehicles and 

emission control systems, EPA and the courts have long recognized that statistical 

sampling and emissions evaluations based on a representative fleet are sufficient 

to support that a fuel under consideration for a section 211(0(4) waiver would not 

cause or contribute to a significant failure of emission standards by vehicles in the 

national fleet.28

IV. Recent Comprehensive Studies Support The Requested E-15 Waiver.

Recent, significant, and comprehensive studies involving over one-hundred 

vehicles, eighty-five vehicle and engine types, and thirty-three fuel dispensing 

units have been completed to evaluate the affects of ethanol-gasoline blends above 

ten percent ethanol, including, specifically, E-15 and blends as high as E-85. 

These studies include a yearlong driveability test and over 5,500 hours of 

materials compatibility testing. In direct support of this waiver application, 

Growth Energy submits the f ollowing recent scientific studies tha t collectively 

demonstrate that use of E-15 will not cause or contribute to the failure of any

for MTBE (0-15%), Decision Document, 44 Fed. Reg. 1447 (1978) (stating waiver provision is "solely 

concerned with the emission standards").

28 ARCO; Grant of Application for Fuel Waiver for Arconol (TBA, 0-7%), Decision Document, 44 Fed. 

Reg. 10,530 (Feb. 21, 1979); Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n, 768 F.2d at 392 (agreeing with EPA that "actual 

50,000-mile durability testing may not be always required to make the requisite determination that a fuel will 

not cause a vehicle to exceed emission standards over its useful life").
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix F – Item 237-4: Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - F26

emission control device or system to meet its certification emissions standards:

1. Effects of Intermediate Ethanol Blends on Legacy Vehicles and Small NonRoad Engines, Report 1, prepared by Oak Ridge National Laboratory for 

the U.S. Department of Energy (October 2008) ("DOE Study") (peerreviewed report studied the effects of E-15 and E-20 on motor vehicles and 

small non-road engines and concluded that when E-15 and E-20 were 

compared to tr aditional gasoline, there were no signif icant changes in 

vehicle tailpipe emissions, vehicle driveability, or s mall non-road engine 

emissions as ethanol content increased); 

2. Optimal Ethanol Blend-Level Investigation, Final Report, prepared by 

Energy & Environmental Research Center and Minnesota Center for 

Automotive Research for American Coalition for Ethanol (October 2007) 

("ACE Study") (report studied the effects of ethanol blends ranging from 

E-10 to E-85 on motor vehicles and found that exhaust emissions levels for 

all vehicles at all levels of ethanol blend were within the applicable Clean 

Air Act standards);

3. The Feasibility of 20 Percent Ethanol Blends by Volume as a Motor Fuel, 

Executive Summary, Results of Materials Compatibility and Dri veability 

Testing, prepared by the State of Minnesota and the Renewable Fuels 

Association (RFA) (March 2008) ("Minnesota Compatibility/Driveability 

Study: Executive Summary") 

a. The Effects of E20 on Metals Used in Automotive Fuel System

Components ("Metals Study") (study compared the effects of E-0, E10 and E-20 on nineteen metals and found that the metals tested

were compatible with all three fuels); 

b. The Effects of E20 on Elastomers Used in Automotive Fuel System 

Components ("Elastomers Study") (study compared the effects of E0, E-10 and E-20 on eight elastomers and found that E-20 caused no 

greater change in properties than E-0 or E-10); 

c. The Effects of E20 on Plastic Automotive System Components 

("Plastics Study") (study compared the effects of E-0, E-10 and E-20 

on eight plastics and found that there was no significant difference in 

the properties of the samples exposed to E-20 and E- 0); 

d. The Effects of E20 on Automotive Fuel Pumps and Sending Units 

("Fuel Pumps Study") (study compared the effects of E-0, E-10 and 

E-20 on the performance of twenty-four fuel pum ps and nine 

sending units and found that E-20 has similar effect as E-10 and E-0 

on fuel pumps and sending units); 
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix F – Item 237-4: Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - F27

e. Demonstration and Driveability Project to Determine the Feasibility 

of Using E20 as a Motor Fuel ("Driveability Study") (study tested 

forty pairs of vehi cles on E-0 and E-20 and found no driveability or 

operational issues with either fuel)

(Collectively, "Minnesota Compatibility/Driveability Study"); 

4. Fuel Permeation from Automotive Systems: E-O, E-6, E-10, E-20 and E-85, 

prepared by the Coordinating Research Council, Inc. (CRC Report No. E65-3) (December 2006) ("CRC Permeation Study") (study evaluated 

effects of E-0, E-6, E-20 and E-85 on the evaporative emissions rates from 

permeation in five newer California vehicles and found that there was no 

statistically significant increase in diurnal permeation rates between E-6 

and E-20); 

5. Report to the US Senate on E-20 Ethanol Research, prepared by the 

Rochester Institute of Technology (October 2008) ("RIT Study")29 (study 

evaluated effects of E-20 on ten legacy vehicles; initial results after 75,000 

collective miles driven found no fuel-related failures or significant vehicle 

problems and documented reductions in regulated tailpipe emissions when 

using E-20 compared to E-0); 

6. Use of Mid-Range Ethanol/Gasoline Blends in Unmodified Passenger Cars 

and Light Duty Trucks, prepared by Minnesota Center for Automotive 

Research (July 1999) ("MCAR Study") (one-year study evaluated the 

effects of E-10 and E-30 in fifteen older vehicles in "real world" driving 

conditions; found no effect on dr iveability or component compatibility 

from either fuel and found that regulated exhaust emissions from both fuels 

were well below federal standards); 

7. Blending of Ethanol in Gasoline for Spark Ignition Engines: Problem 

Inventory and Evaporative Measurements, prepared by Stockholm 

University et. al. (2004-05) ("Stockholm Study") (study tested and 

compared evaporative emissions from E-0, E-5, E-10, and E-15 and found 

lower total hydrocarbon emissions and lower evaporative emissions from 

E-15 than from E-10 and E-5). 

29 The RIT Study is a draft summary of results to date in an ongoing study of E-20 fuel vehicle driveability, 

vehicle exhaust, and vehicle maintenance in gasoline vehicles owned and operated by Monroe County, New 

York.
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix F – Item 237-4: Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - F28

V. Testing with E-I5 Demonstrates Both That It Has No Significant Effect

On Regulated Emissions As Compared To E-0 And That It Will Not 

Cause Or Contribute To The Failure Of Any Emission Control Device 

Or System To Meet Applicable Certified Emissions Standards.

Recent comprehensive studies make clear that use of E- 15 will not have a 

significant effect on regulated emissions or cause the failure of any emission 

control device or system. Specifically, the recent DOE Study provides results 

from a b road testing program initiated by the U.S. Department of Energy 

("DOE"), in partnership and consultation with various other organizations 

including the Coordinating Research Council ("CRC") and the EPA, to evaluate 

the impacts of using E-15 and E-20 in vehicles and other engines. The DOE study 

submitted with thi s application tested conv entional vehicles and s mall non-road 

engines ("SNREs") for regulated exhaust emissions, exhaust and catalyst 

temperatures, SNREs engine components temperature, and observ able operational 

issues. Significantly, for the purposes of this application, the DOE Study found 

that for conventional vehicles, "regulated tailpipe emissions remained largely 

unaffected by the ethanol content of the fuel."3°

The DOE Study was designed to determine the extent to which ethanol in 

fuel has an immediate effect on regulated e missions, selected aldehyde emissions, 

and fuel economy for the "average" light-duty vehicle. DOE d esigned its test 

procedures and vehicle samples with guidance and consultation from EPA.31 A 

30 DOE Study at xvii. 3 I 

Id. at xvi, 2-2.
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix F – Item 237-4: Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - F29

fleet of sixteen test vehicles32 was selected, after a 2007 national database 

characterization, to include vehicles from four groups of emission regulation 

requirements (based on age) reflecting a range of engine sizes and manufacturers, 

and including several of the h ighest selling vehicle models and several models 

considered most likely to be sensitive to ethanol content in gasoline.33 This fleet of 

test vehicles thus provided a good representation of the national fleet likely to use 

E-15 pursuant to a waiver. 

Each vehicle was tested on four fuels of varying ethanol content, E-0, E-10, 

E-15 and E-20, and emissions were determined using the LA92 drive cycle34 (on 

EPA's recommendation).35 The test parameters thus allowed for a reliable 

comparison with the conditions under which the test vehicles have been certified. 

Once the test results were obtained, they were statistically analyzed to determine 

whether sufficient evidence existed in the data to conclude that ethanol 

concentrations of up to twenty percent in the fuel changed emissions or fuel 

economy, either when averaged across all vehicles or for a majority of vehicles. 

32 Results from thirteen of the vehicles are reported in the DOE Report; results from the other three vehicles 

are expected in 2009.

33 DOE Study at 2-2 to 2-4.

34 "LA92 Drive Cycle" refers to the California Air Resources Board LA92 Dynamometer Driving Schedule. It 

was developed as an emission inventory improvement tool using 1992 test data from Los Angeles. 

Compared to the Federal Test Procedure (FTP 75), the LA92 has a higher top speed, a higher average speed, 

less idle time, fewer stops per mile, and a higher maximum rate of acceleration (generally representing a 

more aggressive urban driving style).

35 DOE Study at 2-2. See Appendix A of the DOE Study for a detailed discussion of the test equipment, 

procedures, and emissions standards used.
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix F – Item 237-4: Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - F30

The DOE s tudy concluded that regulated tailpipe emissions remained 

largely unaffected by the ethanol content of the fuel. More sp ecifically, no 

statistical differences were seen among all ethanol blends regarding emissions of 

non-methane organic gases ("NMOG"), non-methane hydrocarbons ("NMHC"), 

carbon monoxide ("CO"), and oxides of nitrogen ("NOx").36 When the higher 

ethanol blends were compared to E-0, the following statistical differences in 

regulated emissions were noted: (1) at a ninety-five percent confidence level, 

lower NMHC at E-10 and E-20 and lower CO at E-10 and E-15; and (2) at a 

ninety percent confidence level, lower NMHC at E-15 and lower CO at E-20.37

The following chart from the DOE Study displays these results38: 

Estimated change (% or mg/mi in emissions and fuel economy

relative to E0 with ±95% confidence limit

Emission (unit) E-10 E-15 E-20

NMOG (%) -3.99 1 7.90 4.23 14.76 1.78 ± 10.40

NMHC (%) -10.09 9.89a -11.85 1 12.20b 46.19 ± 10.79'

CO (%) 44.87 A: 8.20a 43.52 110.72. -12.58 ± 13.67b

NOx (%) -3.61 ± 20.87 -1.78 ± 22.43 12.96 f 17.41

Fuel economy (%) -3.88 ± 0.51" -5.03 1.21' -7.72 1 1.11a

Ethanol (ng/ini) 2.31 ± 1.51' 5.43 .1 2.38' 6.76 2.87a

Acetaldehyde (ing/mi) 0.21 .1 me 0.39 1 0.1? 0.45 1 0.13'

Formaldehyde (ng/mi) 0.1140.47. 0.08 E 0.08b 0.09 ± 0.10h

a Statistically significant at the 95% confidence level (shaded).

b Marginally significant at the 90% confidence level.

36

DOE Study at 3-1.

37

Id. at 3-1. See DOE Study, section 3, for a detailed explanation of the findings. Similarly, a study 

published by the Society of Automotive Engineers International (SAE) examined the influences of ethanol 

fuel on spark engine emissions and concluded that ethanol results in a reduction of NOx and THC 

emissions as compared to E-0 and that "ethanol is an effective fuel for lowering exhaust emissions." The 

Effect of Ethanol Fuel on a Spark Ignition Engine, SAE Technical Paper No. 2006-01-3380, at 7 (2006). 38 DOE Study at 3-3, Table 3.1.
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix F – Item 237-4: Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - F31

The DOE Study also includes emissions data for SNREs that further 

supports this waiver request. The DOE Study compared regulated emission levels 

from a comprehensive and nationally representative fleet of twenty-eight SNREs 

fueled by E-0, E-10, E-15, and E-20 (providing a reliable comparison to 

certification conditions). The stud y found that overall, regulate d emissions are 

generally no worse with E-15 (or E-20) than with E-0.39 Accordingly, for the 

purposes of this waiver request, the DOE Study provides sufficient data to 

establish, for vehicle exhaust emissions, that E-15 does not cause or contribute to a 

failure of any emission control de vice or s ystem to meet its certif ied emissions 

standards. 

The ACE Study, also included as part of this application, further supports 

this conclusion. The primary objective of the ACE Study was to investigate a fuel 

economy-based optimal ethanol blend level° as well as to acquire Highway Fuel 

Economy Test ("HWFET") tailpipe emission data for all the ethanol-blend fuels 

surveyed. For this purpose, eight different ethanol blends were used — E-10, E-20, 

E-30, E-40, E-50, E-60, E-70, and E-85.41 Fuel economy and emission testing was 

performed by the Minnesota Center for Automotive Research ("MCAR") using a

39 Id. at xix, 3-19 to 3-20.

40 As determined by the Highway Fuel Economy Test ("HWFET"), at which measured miles per gallon is 

greater than predicted based strictly on per-gallon fuel Btu content. ACE Study at iv.

41 See ACE Study at 3 for a more detailed description of the fuels used in this study.
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix F – Item 237-4: Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - F32

California Analytical Instruments dilution system to measure vehicle tailpipe 

emissions.42

The ACE Study found that exhaust emissions levels for all vehicles at all 

levels of ethanol blend, obtained from both the FTP-75 and the HWFET driving 

cycles, were within the applicable Clean Air Act standards.43 Because the ACE 

study included testing at lower and significantly higher ethanol blends than E-15 

and produced emissions within applicable limits, it is e xpected that E-15 will 

render analogous results and satisfy all emission standards.44

This conclusion is consistent with emissions testing conducted on another 

higher blend, E-30, as part of a 1999 stud y conducted by MCAR.45 The MCAR 

Study evaluated the effects on fuel economy, emission characteristics, driveability, 

and component compatibility of in-use light duty vehicles running on blends of 

thirty percent and ten percent ethanol. The tests included fifteen vehicles of

42 This system includes five specific parts: the SuperFlow AC motor-driven chassis dynamometer, the 

critical flow venturi, the drive cycle and driver's trace monitor, the FTP-75 driving cycle and the HWFET 

driving cycle, and the gas analyzers.

43 ACE Study at 18-21. There was one exception: the flex-fuel Chevrolet Impala exceeded the 

NMOG standard for the FTP-75 on E-20 and Tier 2 gasoline at 0.120 grams/mile and 0.152 grams/mile, 

respectively.

44 See Gas Plus, Inc.; Interpretation of Grant of Application for Fuel Waiver for 0-10% anhydrous ethanol 

("gasohol"), 47 Fed. Reg. 14,596 (Apr. 5, 1982) (concluding, on the basis of ethanol's chemical properties, 

that waiver approval of E-10 also applied to all blends between E-0 and E-10).

45

Use of Mid-Range Ethanol/Gasoline Blends in Unmodified Passenger Cars and Light Duty Trucks, 

prepared by Minnesota Center for Automotive Research (July 1999) ("MCAR Study").
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix F – Item 237-4: Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - F33

various makes and models, ranging in model years from 1985 to 1996.46 MCAR 

measured exhaust emission levels of HC, CO and NOx for E-10 and E-30 fuels in 

accordance with EPA test procedures.47 The study revealed no significant 

difference in emissions when comparing the vehicles fueled with E-10 and E-30 

and, consistent with the ACE Study, found emission levels from both fuels were 

low and below applicable federal standards.48

Accordingly, the results of both the ACE Study and the MCAR Study are 

consistent with the DOE Study and further support that intermediate ethanol 

blends, including E-15, do not significantly affect regulated vehicle exhaust 

emissions. 

Available information also supports that no l ong-term emissions increases 

will result from use of E-15. Consistent with pa st agency decisions, long-term 

exhaust emissions testing (50,000-Mile durability testing) is not ne cessary for 

approval of the requested waiver. For example, in the decision document granting 

Sun Refining's waiver for fuel containing up to fifteen percent methyl tertiary 

butyl ether ("MTBE") in unle aded gasoline, EPA de termined that 50,000-mile 

durability testing was not required because the agency was "unaware of any long46 MCAR Study at 2.

47 All the MCAR tests run on the dynamometer were based on the Federal Test Procedure as described in the 

Federal Register Part 86, Subpart B.

48 MCAR Study at 7.
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix F – Item 237-4: Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - F34

term deteriorative effects on e xhaust emissions associated with oxygenates."49

EPA explained that "[t]he vast majority of data in dicate that the ef fect of 

oxygenates on exhaust emissions over time has not be en a significant issue."5°

EPA noted that "reasonable theoretical judgments as to the emission effects of the 

fuel may be utilized as an alternative to direct testing of vehicles" and that fuel 

volatility specifications, limited durability emissions testing, and data regarding

materials compatibility and driveability could be considered in making such 

judgments.51 This approach was upheld by the United States Court of Appeals for 

the District of Columbia.52

Based on emissions testing completed as part of the DOE, ACE and MCAR 

studies, materials compatibility studies completed as part of the Minnes ota 

Compatibility/Driveability Study (and discussed in detail in section VI below), 

and E-15's compositional similarities to E-10, the effect of which upon long-term 

emissions is well known and has been widely considered acceptable for thirty

49 Sun Refining and Marketing Co.; Conditional Grant of Application for Fuel Waiver for 15% MTBE, 

Decision Document at 13, 53 Fed. Reg. 33,846 (Sept. 1, 1988).

50 Id. at 14; see also ARCO; Grant of Application for Fuel Waiver for Arconol (TBA, 07%), Decision 

Document, 44 Fed. Reg. 10,530 (Feb. 21, 1979) (granting waiver for fuel containing up to 7% of the 

oxygenate tertiary butyl alcohol and determining that that 50,000-mile durability testing was not 

required because, "upon examination of the available data on material compatibility and the chemistry of 

Arconol," a reasonable estimate of the test vehicle's emissions performance on Arconol can be obtained 

using back-to-back emission test data").

51 Id. at 10-11.

52 Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass '17 of U.S. v. EPA, 768 F.2d 385, 392-93 (D.C. Cir. 1985).
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix F – Item 237-4: Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - F35

years, E-15 is not anticipated to result in any adverse changes in regulated longterm emissions. 

This conclusion is further directly supported by a rece nt study by the 

Rochester Institute of Technology. The RIT Study examined the effects of E-20 

(as compared to E-0) on te n legacy vehicles with signif icant mileage (between 

30,000 and 120,000 miles), which together consumed 5,000 gallons of E-20 fuel 

over 75,000 miles of driving under real world conditions. Exhaust emissions 

testing was conducted in accor dance with FTP-75 standards with state-of-the-art 

testing equipment, including specialized vehicle and engine emissions equipment.

Specifically, the RIT Study showed the following significant results for 

vehicles using E-20 (as compared to E-0): 

 CO emissions decreased in nine of the ten vehicles tested, an d all vehicles 

fell well within the EPA full useful life standards for the individual vehicle 

requirements; 

 Average tailpipe NOx emissions decreased by 2.4 percent, with all vehicles 

well below EPA's NOx requirements; 

 Average total hydrocarbons emissions decreased 13,7 percent, with nine of 

ten vehicles decreaing the THC. 5 3

Accordingly, the RIT Study results are consistent with the ACE, MCAR, 

and DOE studies and further support that intermediate ethanol blends, including E15, do not significantly affect regulated vehicle exhaust emissions on a short-term 

or long-term basis. Consistent with EPA's prior conclusions that ethanol as an

53 The RIT Study also summarized the effects of the use of E-20 on vehicle driveability and vehicle 

maintenance during this initial phase and found no fuel-related failures or significant vehicle problems. 

RIT Study at 1.
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix F – Item 237-4: Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - F36

oxygenate is unl ikely to have " long-term deteriorative effects on e xhaust 

emissions," and based on extensive emissions and materials compatibility testing 

that demonstrates that blends up to E -20 will not have a significant deteriorative 

effect on ap plicable vehicle parts, EPA has sufficient information to grant this 

waiver. 

Based on the similar volatility of E-10 to E-15 and the results of recent 

studies, E-15 also is n ot anticipated t o result in an y discernable increase in an y 

evaporative emissions compared to commercially available fuels and may, in fact, 

result in fewer evaporative emissions. This conclusion is supported by two recent 

studies that evaluated the e ffect of higher ethanol blends upon evaporative 

emissions. 

A December 2006 study by the Coordinating Research Council found that 

there was no statistically significant increase in diurnal permeation" rates between 

E-6 and E-20.55 The study tested five newer California vehicles using six ethanol 

blends: E-0, E-6 (5.7% ethanol), E-6Hi (5.7% ethanol with increased aromatics 

content), E-10, E-20 and E-85. Of the five vehicles, two were from 2000 and

54 CRC Permeation Study at 2. The CRC Permeation Study explains that there are three mechanisms 

responsible for evaporative emissions: permeation from automotive systems, leaks (liquid and 

vapor), and fuel tank venting (canister losses). Id at 1. Of these, permeation is the most relevant to 

understanding the effect of ethanol on evaporative emissions. This is because ethanol's effect on leaks 

and fuel tank venting is unlikely to vary from that of non-ethanol-gasoline. Leaks are an anomaly and 

"not thought to be sensitive to gasoline composition," and gasoline vapor release due to ethanol via 

non-permeation mechanisms such as fuel tank venting is countered by lowering the RVP of the base 

gas. Id. at 62

55 Id. at 2.
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix F – Item 237-4: Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - F37

2001 (Rigs 1 and 2) subject to a 2.0 gram/day diurnal emissions standard, and two 

were newer "near zero" and "zero" vehicles (Rigs "11" and "12") with enhanced 

evaporative emissions technology, subject to California's "LEV H" requirements 

(which dropped the limits to 0.5 g/day for a three-day diurnal and 0.65 g/day for 

the two-day test).56 The fifth vehicle was a recent "flex fuel" vehicle (Rig "14"). 

The tests were conducted using the Sealed Housing for Evaporative Determination 

("SHED") method for evaporative emissions. 

All of the vehicles, when using any of the ethanol fuel blends, met the 

standard for which the vehicle had been cert ified.57 Importantly, the testing also 

confirmed no statistically significant increase in evaporative emissions between E6 and E-10 or betw een E-10 and E-20.58 This information indicates that 

evaporative emissions from E-15, like E-20, should be no worse than those of 

widely available commercial fuels and within applicable emissions limits.59

An additional study prepared by the University of Stockholm ("Stockholm 

Study")6° further supports that E-15 will have the same or lower evaporative

56 Id. at 5. " 

Id. at 17.

58 Id. at 2.

59 E-6 (in fact, E-5.7 in this study) contains approximately 2% oxygen and is thus considered a 

"substantially similar" for which no waiver is required. See 73 Fed. Reg. 22277, 22281 (Friday April 25, 

2008). Likewise, E-10 has been allowed by waiver for 30 years. See Gas Plus, Inc.; Grant of Application 

for Fuel Waiver for 0-10% anhydrous ethanol ("gasohol"), Decision Document, 44 Fed. Reg. 20,777 (Apr. 6, 

1979).

60 Blending of Ethanol in Gasoline for Spark Ignition Engines: Problem Inventory and Evaporative 

Measurements, prepared by Stockholm University et al (2004-05) ("Stockholm Study") at 4. At the time 

of the study, all gasoline sold in Sweden contained
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix F – Item 237-4: Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - F38

emissions than commercially available fuels. The Stockholm Study found that E15 had lower evaporative emissions of total hydrocarbons than both E-10 and E-5.

The Stockholm Study included SHED testing of evaporative emissions

from two "summer" gasoline fuels, with Reid Vapor Pressures of approximately

9.14 psi and 10.15 psi, respectively,61 which were blended with varying

percentages of ethanol: 0%, 5%, 10% and 15%, for a total of eight different fuel

blends. For reference purposes, E-85 also was measured.62 All tests were

performed at the AVL MTC Motor Test Centre in Haninge, Sweden° using a VT

Shed64 gas-proof test container normally used for testing whole cars.65 The test

procedure involved placing a specially prepared fuel container containing the

particular blend being tested into the VT Shed, leaving it sealed in the VT Shed for

a two hour period at a consistent temperature of forty degrees Celsius, and

five percent ethanol, with approximately 65,000 m3 produced domestically (from wheat and cellulose) and 

around 165,000 m3 imported from Brazil. Id. at 7.

61 The RVPs of the base fuels used in the study were expressed in metric units as 63 kPa and 70 kPa, 

respectively. See Id. App. 2 at 6 and 7 for detailed specifications of the base fuels.

62 Id. App. 2 at 3.

63 Id. App. 2 at 5. The AVL MTC test center is an accredited laboratory for automotive testing that has been 

in operation for approximately fifteen years. The center has experience of more than ten years of testing 

for the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency and the Swedish National Road Administration.

64 Id. App. 2 at 5. This container is called a "VT shed" as both its volume and temperature are 

controlled.

65 Id. The VT Shed includes a F lame Ionization Detector ("FID") for measuring the total emitted 

hydrocarbons. This instrument, along with an air sense mass spectrometer, was used for the Stockholm 

Study's evaporative emission tests.
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix F – Item 237-4: Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - F39

measuring the change in concentration over time of total hydrocarbons as well as 

selected specific hydrocarbons. 

The study found that with both base fuels (9.14 psi and 10.15 psi), the E-15 

blends had fewer evaporative emissions of total hydrocarbons than the 

corresponding E-10 and E-5 blends.66 The study also tested for specific 

hydrocarbons. When blended with the 10.15 psi base f uel, E-15 had f ewer 

evaporative emissions of benzene, butane, toluene, and xylene, when compared to 

E-10 and E-5.67 Similarly, when blended with the 9.14 psi base fuel, E-15 had 

fewer evaporative emissions of these same compounds when compared to E-5, and 

fewer evaporative emissions when compared to E-10 for all but toluene and 

xylene, for which the E-15 emissions were minimally greater.68 Finally, the study 

measured the Reid Vapor Pressure for each fuel blend tested and found that E-5, 

E-10 and E-15 had similar vapor pressures.69

Taken together, the CRC Permeation Study and the Stockholm Study 

demonstrate that the evaporative emissions of E-15 will be lower or no greater 

than those of commercially available fuels such as E-10 and E-5, and will be 

within applicable emissions limits.

Further, and consistent with past agency practice, to ensure no increases in 

evaporative emissions above applicable standards, Growth Energy proposes that 

66 Id. App. 2 at 10.

67 Id. App. 2 at 11-19.

68 Id. App. 2 at 16.

69 Id. App. 2 at 19.
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix F – Item 237-4: Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - F40

this waiver be grant ed with a condition requiring E-15 to conform to ASTM fuel 

volatility specifications for the area and ti me of year where it i s used. EPA has 

repeatedly granted section 211(0(4) waivers without r equiring any testing for 

evaporative emissions,7° For example, in co nsidering the wai ver application b y 

Synco 76 for E-10 plus a proprietary stabilizer, EPA granted the waiver without 

any evaporative emissions testing, stating: "controlling the volatility of the 

finished fuel within ASTM volatility specifications should adequately control 

evaporative emissions, and they should be no worse than those of commercially 

available fuels."71 EPA also has consistently stated that it "would be 

discriminatory to require the applicant's fuel to meet a more stringent volatility 

limit in order to control evaporative emissions than is characteristic of 

commercially available fuels."72

7° See, e.g., ARCO; Grant of Application for Fuel Waiver for Arconol (TBA, 0-7%), Decision Document, 

44 Fed. Reg. 10,530, 10,532 (Feb. 21, 1979) (approving waiver without SHED testing where ARCO 

demonstrated that when Arconol-fuel conforms to ASTM volatility specifications its evaporative emissions 

performance is "no worse than the evaporative emissions of the commercially available fuels of similar 

volatility"); ARCO; Grant of Application for Fuel Waiver for MTBE (0-7%), 44 Fed. Reg. 12,242, 12,245 

(1979); Sun Refining and Marketing Co.; Conditional Grant of Application for Fuel Waiver for 15% 

MTBE, Decision Document, 53 Fed. Reg. 33,846 (Sept. 1, 1988) (finding no SHED testing required when 

Sun: (1) conducted limited testing and found that fuels blended with its additive will have final volatility 

characteristics similar to present commercially available gasoline; and (2) Sun agreed to have the final 

fuel conform to ASTM fuel volatility standards); ARCO; Grant of Application for Fuel Waiver for 

Methanol/GTBA (up to 3.5% oxygen), Decision Document, 46 Fed. Reg. 56,361 (1981).

71 Synco 76 Fuel Corp.; Grant of Application for Fuel Waiver, Decision Document at 9, 47 Fed. Reg. 

22404 (1982).

72

See, e.g., Synco 76 Fuel Corp.; Grant of Application for Fuel Waiver, Decision Document at 9, 47 

Fed. Reg. 22404 (1982).
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix F – Item 237-4: Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - F41

Based on the similar volatility of E-10 to E-15, recent testing regarding 

evaporative emissions for E-15 and for blends with an even greater percentage of 

ethanol than E-15, and recent materials compatibility testing, no increase in 

evaporative emissions is anticipated. Accordingly, and consistent with past 

agency decisions, EPA may grant this waiver based on the information provided in 

this application. 

VI. E-15 Is Compatible With Materials Such That It Will Not Cause Or 

Contribute To The Failure Of Vehicles To Meet Applicable Certified 

Emissions Standards.

Recent studies conclusively support that E-15 will not impair the materials 

used in fuel systems to the point that emissions are a dversely affected. The 

Minnesota Compatibility/Driveability Study supports that even at ethanol 

concentrations as hi gh as E-20 there are no materials compatibility problems for 

automotive or fuel dispen sing equipment. The Minnesota 

Compatibility/Driveability Study examined the effect and performance of E-20 on 

a wide variety of motor vehicle engines and engine components. The study 

generated four separate and distinct materials compatibility reports (and one 

driveability report, di scussed in section VII b elow) regarding metals (the "Metals 

Study"), elastomers (the " Elastomers Study"), plastics (the "Plastics Study"), and 

common fuel sending unit and fuel pump combinations (the "Fuel Pumps Study") 

that are currently used in automotive, marine, small engine and fuel system
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix F – Item 237-4: Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - F42

dispensing equipment." The study used nationally recognized standards,

including Society of Automotive Engineers ("SAE") and American Society of 

Testing and Materials ("ASTM"), as recommended by both automotive and fuel 

industry experts.74 The E-20 and E-10 test fuels selected for the research were 

specifically formulated to pre sent a worst-case-scenario fuel (using "aggressive 

ethanol"75) that would still be ac ceptable under applicable fuel standards. 

Together, the four materials compatibility reports conclude that E-20 results in no 

problems for automotive or fuel dispensing equipment. 

The Metals Study compared the effects of E-0, E-10 and E-20 on nineteen 

metals selected for the study following reference to literature reviews and 

manuals, recommendations from fuel systems and engi ne manufacturers, and peer 

review by system engineers from several Original Equipment Manufacturers 

("OEMs") and Tier I and II suppliers (suppliers to OEMs). The metals samples 

were prepared using SAE and ASTM standards and exposed to E-0, E-10, and E20 fuel at an elevated temperature for 2,016 hours. Eighteen of the nineteen 

metals tested were found to be compatible with all three fuels and did not show

73 Materials used in fuel systems of Flex Fuel Vehicles ("FFV") were accepted as proven compatible and not 

included in this study.

74 • Minnesota Compatibility/Driveability Study: Executive Summary at 2.

75 The "aggressive ethanol" used in the study contained impurities found in fuel grade ethanol including 

sulfuric acid, acetic acid, water, and sodium chloride in the following proportions: synthetic ethanol 816.00 g, 

de-ionized water 8.103 g, sodium chloride 0.004 g, sulfuric acid 0.021 g, and glacial acetic acid 0.061 g.
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix F – Item 237-4: Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - F43

signs of pitting, loose corrosion by-products in the test fuel, or have a mass loss 

that exceeds a rate that would cause a failure within a twenty-year life cycle.76

The Elastomers Study compared the effects of E-0, E-10 and E-20 on eight 

elastoiners selected for the study following reference to literature reviews and 

manuals, recommendations from fuel systems and engine manufacturers, and peer 

review by system engineers from several OEMs and Tier I and I I suppliers. The 

elastomer samples were prepared using SAE and ASTM standards and exposed to 

E-0, E-10, and E-20 fuel at an elevated temperature for 500 hours. The study 

measured several properties of the elastomer samples, including volume, weight, 

appearance, tensile strength, ultimate elongation, and hardness. In a subs tantial 

majority of cases, E-20 caused no greater change in properties than E-0 or E-10.77

Where a greater change in properties was caused by E-20, the study concluded that 

the magnitude of the change was not great enough to represent a concern.78 In 

sum, the differences between E-0, E-10, and E-20 were small and statistically 

insignificant.

The Plastics Study compared the effects of E-0, E-10 and E-20 on eight 

plastics selected for the study following reference to literature reviews and

76 Metals Study at 8. The study considers and minimizes the finding regarding one metal found to be 

incompatible, Zamak 5. The Zamak samples used in the study were not plated — as it often is to increase 

corrosion resistance for fuel applications — which is believed to be a reason for the corrosion problems 

found in the study and not found on automobiles being used with E-10. Id.

77

Elastomers Study at 10.

78 Id.
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix F – Item 237-4: Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - F44

manuals, recommendations from fuel systems and engine manufacturers, and peer 

review by system engineers from several OEMs and Tier I and Il suppliers. The 

plastics samples were prepared using SAE and ASTM standards and exposed to E0, E-10, and E-20 fuel at an elevated temperature for 3,024 hours. The study 

analyzed several properties of the plastics samples, including mass loss/gain, 

volume, tensile strength, tensile elongation, and impact resistance. The study 

concluded that there was no significant difference in the properties of the samples 

exposed to E-20 and E-10.79

Finally, the Fuel Pumps Study compared the effects of E-0, E- 10 and E-20 

on the p erformance of twenty-four fuel pumps and nine sending units. The fuel 

pumps were selected to include a variety of manufacturers, model years, and 

common pump designs representative of those used i n a hi gh volume of vehicles 

currently making up t oday's automotive fleet. The sendin g units were similarly 

selected; however, fewer sending units we re necessary due to the similarity in 

design in the manufacture of sending units. The study found that E-20 has a 

similar effect as E-10 and E-0 on fuel pum ps and sending uni ts.80 In total, these 

materials compatibility studies demonstrate that the effects of blended fuel

79 Plastics Study at 7-8.

80 Fuel Pumps Study at 4.
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix F – Item 237-4: Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - F45

containing up to twenty percent ethanol present no problems for current 

automotive or fuel dispensing equipment.81

VII. E-15 Will Result in No Difference In Driveability As Compared 

to E-O 

Recent studies also s upport that E -15 will result in no di fference in 

driveability compared to E-O. The Driveability Study presents data to support that 

E-15 will cause no driveability issues and w ill not lead to "removal or rendering 

inoperative of [emissions control] devices or systems" based on negative impacts 

on performance.82

The Driveability Study tested a fleet of forty pairs of vehicles in which one 

vehicle of each pair was fueled with E-O and the other E-20.83 The vehicles were 

driven for a full calendar year by lay drivers, each of whom recorded driver logs.

81 In fact, evidence shows that blended fuels containing up to eighty-five percent ethanol present no 

problems for fuel dispensing equipment and engine components. The American Coalition for Ethanol 

fueled a regular, non-FFV vehicle (a 2000 Chevy Tahoe) on E-85 for 98% of the 105,496 miles driven 

before disassembly and inspection of the fuel dispensing equipment and engine components. An 

examination of these parts showed normal or better than normal wear than similar or identical parts used in 

a vehicle with high-80,000 mileage fueled on non-E-85 fuel. No engine parts or emission control devices 

were rendered inoperable by the use of E-85 (or otherwise) in the Chevy Tahoe. Video: American Coalition 

for Ethanol, available at http://www.ethanol.org/video. See also, Use of Mid-Range Ethanol/Gasoline 

Blends in Unmodified Passenger Cars and Light Duty Trucks, prepared by Minnesota Center for 

Automotive Research (July 1999) (finding no materials compatibility problems after testing E-30 on fifteen 

in-use cars and light duty trucks with model years ranging from 1985 to 1996).

82 Guidelines for Section 211(f) Waivers for Alcohol-Gasoline Blends, 43 Fed. Reg. 24,131, 24,132 (June 

2, 1978).

83 Driveability Study at 4.
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix F – Item 237-4: Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - F46

Additionally, each vehicle was tested quarterly (once each season: fall, winter, 

spring, summer) by trained driveability raters using industry standard driveability 

tests.84

The Driveability Study found that E-20 provided similar power and 

performance to E-0 throughout the year and that the test fleet operated 

satisfactorily on both E-0 and E-20 with no obvious differences between the 

fuels.85 In fact, maintenance records of the forty vehicles fueled by E-20 showed 

only two instances of vehicle operability failure during the study, neither of which 

were deemed to be fuel-related. Accordingly, the Driveability Study supports that 

fuel blends up to E-20 present no driveability concerns with respect to this E-15 

waiver request. 

The RIT Study also supports the Minnesota's Study's driveability findings. 

The RIT Study examined the effects of E-20 (as compared to E-0) on ten legacy 

vehicles with signif icant mileage (between 30,000 a nd 120,000 miles), which 

together consumed 5,000 gallons of E-20 fuel over 75,000 miles of driving under 

real world condition s.86 Tested vehicles wer e equipped with a wireless vehicle 

management system that provided real-time connection to the engin e control unit 

and maintenance information including diagnostic trouble codes.87 The RIT

84 Id. at 5.

85 Id.

86 RIT Study at I.

87 Id. at 5.
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix F – Item 237-4: Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - F47

Study found that the t ested vehicles ran as wel l or bet ter on E-20 than on E-0.88

Significantly, the study found that no malfunction (check engine) light illuminated 

and drivers did not detect any performance degradation. As for engine part 

durability, the s tudy found no fuel or engine part failures and no abnormal 

maintenance was required. In sum, the vehicles "operated normally" when fueled 

with E-20.89

The MCAR Study achieved similar results after a driveability analysis of 

fifteen in-use cars and light duty trucks, with manufacturing dates ranging from 

1985 to 1996, operating on E-10 and on E-30.9° Over the duration of MCAR's 

one-year study, study participants recorded data on cards with choices of words 

and phrases, which could be used to best describe abnormal performance. The 

Study reported no driveability complaints, no reports of cold starting, vapor lock, 

or hard starting conditions, and no reports of hesitation with the E-30 blend of 

fuel.91

The DOE Study92 also supports the findings of the Minnesota Study, the 

RIT Study, and the MCAR Study. The DOE Study found no operability or

88 Id. at 4-5.

89 Id. at 5.

90 Use of Mid-Range Ethanol/Gasoline Blends in Unmodified Passenger Cars and Light Duty Trucks, 

prepared by Minnesota Center for Automotive Research (July 1999) at 7.

91 Id.

92 Effects of Intermediate Ethanol Blends on Legacy Vehicles and Small Non-Road Engines, Study 1, 

prepared by Oak Ridge National Laboratory for the U.S. Department of Energy (October 2008).
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix F – Item 237-4: Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - F48

driveability issues with any of the ethanol blends used in that study, including E15 and E-20.93 In the relevant part, the study found: 

 None of the vehicles displayed a malfunction indicator light as a result of 

the ethanol content in the fuel; 

 No fuel filter plugging symptoms were observed;

 No cold start problems were observed in 75F and 50F laboratory conditions; 

and 

 No fuel leaks or conspicuous degradation of the fuel systems were 

observed.94

The DOE Study also supports that use of E-15 will not have a discernable 

impact on the performance and operability of SNREs. The DOE Study tested a 

range of SNREs to "full useful life" on E-0, E-10, E-15, and E-20 to determine 

how engine operation changed over time with exposure to various levels of 

ethano1.95 The DOE Study concluded that it is not possible to isolate the effects of 

ethanol on the operability of SNREs because of the great variance in performance 

among SNREs, regardless of the fuel used, and concl uded that no obvi ous 

materials compatibility issues were observed during testing.96

93 DOE Study at xviii.

94 Id. 

95 Id. 

96 Id. at xix. 
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix F – Item 237-4: Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - F49

VIII. Conclusion.

This waiver reque st includes recent comprehensive independent third-party 

studies by both governmental and private groups. This data builds on existing 

studies and over thirty years' experience with use of ethanol-gasoline fuel 

blends.97 Recent studies included in this application include data regarding 

exhaust emissions and evaporat ive emissions, materials compatibility and vehicle 

driveability based on use of ethanol-gasoline blends for both E-15 as well as f or 

blends with significantly higher ethanol content than E-15. Information provided 

in this application and available data makes clear that E-15 will not cause or 

contribute to the failure of any emission control device or system and supports 

EPA approval of the requested waiver. 

97 

See e.g., Review of Prior Studies of Fuel Effects on Vehicle Emissions, prepared by Coordinating 

Research Council, Inc. (CRC Report No. E-84) (August 2008).
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix F – Item 237-4: Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - F50

September 7, 2010

Ms. Jonelle Brent

Illinois Department of Agriculture

P.O. Box 19281

Springfield, IL 62794-9281

Dear Ms. Brent:

We need to prepare our existing infrastructure and standards for likely changes to blending specifications of 

renewable fuels. Congress passed laws requiring that 36 billion gallons of renewable fuel be used annually by 2022 

in the Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS) in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, and expanded the RFS in the Energy 

Independence and Security Act of 2007. The RFS provides incentives for investment in the production and 

infrastructure of biofuels to reduce America’s use of fossil fuels and dependence on foreign oil. Accelerated 

renewable fuel use required by the RFS also guarantees that higher fuel blends will be essential to meet the goals. 

NIST Handbook 130 §2.1.2 specifies that Gasoline-Oxygenate Blends shall contain no more than 10 volume percent 

ethanol. Recently the Renewable Fuels Association, (RFA) submitted Form 15 to the National Conference of 

Weights and Measures suggesting the removal of the limit to 10 percent ethanol content while proposing 

replacement wording for consideration. RFA’s proposal read such that blends “...shall contain no more than the 

maximum proportion of ethanol authorized by United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) under 

Section 211 of the Clean Air Act.”

RFA’s proposal recognizes U.S. EPA’s authority to allow new fuel and fuel additives to be approved for use while 

providing specific guidance to the states by providing clear expectations for these new fuel and fuel additives. As 

you know, U.S. EPA currently is considering a March 2009 waiver application pursuant to Clean Air Act §211(f)(4) 

to blend ethanol with gasoline up to 15 percent (i.e., E15). If the EPA approves this waiver, as it stands NIST 

Handbook 130 would prevent gasoline marketers from introducing E15 into commerce.

We urge you to advocate passage of this proposed amendment in an effort to broaden the authorized proportion of 

ethanol for model regulations. 

Sincerely, 

Charles J. Spencer 

Charles J. Spencer

Director Government Affairs 

Phone: 309-557-6343/Fax: 309-557-7279 

E-mail: cspencer@growmark.com 

CS/jw

cc: Tom Jennings, Director, Illinois Department of Agriculture

P.O. BOX 2500  BLOOMINGTON, IL 61702-2500  (309) 557-6000  http://www.growmark.com

AFFILIATED WITH FARM BUREAU  ILLINOIS, IOWA, AND WISCONSIN
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix F – Item 237-4: Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - F51
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix F – Item 237-4: Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - F52

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix G – Item 237-6: Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - G1 

Appendix G

Item 237-6: Handbook 130, Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants 

Regulation

Section 3.13. Oil 

Table of Contents 

Page

Supporting Documentation for Item 237-6 ..................................................................................................... L&R - G3

Independent Lubricant Manufacturers Association/July 15, 2011 ................................................................L&R - G36
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix G – Item 237-6: Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants 

L&R - G2 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix G – Item 237-6: Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - G3 

Presentation from Dennis Bachelder, API’s Engine Oil Licensing and Certification System

Good morning. I am Dennis Bachelder from API’s Engine Oil Licensing and Certification System, and I 

want to thank the Chair and members of the Northeastern Weights and Measures Association Law and 

Regulations Committee for this opportunity to recommend a change to Handbook 130 section 3.13.1, 

Labeling of Vehicle Motor Oil.

Handbook 130 has for many years required that labels on motor oil packages identify the oil’s SAE 

viscosity and API performance level. Both of these items are important pieces of information for vehicle 

owners and operators and maintenance personnel entrusted with the responsibility of selecting the right 

motor oil for a car or truck.

While section 3.13.1 continues to meet this need for motor oil packages, it does not address bulk motor 

oils, the manner by which many motor oils are distributed and installed today. Over the last two decades, 

the distribution and installation of motor oils has undergone a radical change, shifting from a do-it-yourself 

process with oil installed by vehicle owners from bottles to a do-it-for-me system where the oil is installed 

by service providers from tanks filled by distributors. According to Kline and Company, do-it-for-me 

installed more than 60 percent of passenger car motor oil last year. Consumers who once scrutinized 

motor oil labels in auto parts stores before installing them in their cars or trucks now travel to auto 

dealers, quick lubes, or service centers and wait while their vehicle’s oil is changed with motor oil from a 

bulk oil tank. These consumers might be selecting a specific oil for their vehicle, but many are probably 

trusting that the service provider is installing a quality bulk oil recommended for their car or truck. API 

samples and tests motor oils purchased from bulk oil installers annually, and I can say that this is often 

the case. However, API has also found the opposite to be true. Bulk oil installers don’t always know the 

identity of the oil in their tanks, and in some cases they actually consciously or unconsciously 

misrepresent what they’re installing. More than once API sampling has found installers claiming they are 

dispensing one brand of oil when in fact they are installing another brand. To complicate matters further, 

many times the customer receipt does not identify what’s been installed. Imagine how many of these 

types of transactions occur every day.

The changes proposed for Handbook 130 are intended to apply the labeling requirements for packaged 

motor oils to oils sold in bulk. These changes as proposed would require motor oil manufacturers and 

distributors to identify the oils they deliver and installers the oils they dispense. Requiring distributors to 

identify the motor oils they deliver to installers will help ensure that installers know what they’re 

dispensing, and requiring installers to do the same on their invoices will provide the same level of 

information for consumers.

I urge the Laws and Regulations Committee of the Northeastern Weights and Measures Association to 

amend Handbook 130 section 3.13.1 as API has proposed.
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix G – Item 237-6: Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants 

L&R - G4 

Presentation from Kevin Ferrick, Manager of API’s Engine Oil Licensing and Certification

System

Good morning. I am Kevin Ferrick, Manager of API’s Engine Oil Licensing and Certification System, and I 

want to thank the Chair and members of the Southern Weights and Measures Association Law and 

Regulations Committee for this opportunity to recommend a change to Handbook 130 section 3.13.1, 

Labeling of Vehicle Motor Oil.

Handbook 130 has for many years required that labels on motor oil packages identify the oil’s SAE 

viscosity and API performance level. Both of these items are important pieces of information for vehicle 

owners and operators and maintenance personnel entrusted with the responsibility of selecting the right 

motor oil for a car or truck.

While section 3.13.1 continues to meet this need for motor oil packages, it does not address bulk motor 

oils, the manner by which many motor oils are distributed and installed today. Over the last two decades, 

the distribution and installation of motor oils has undergone a radical change, shifting from a do-it-yourself 

process with oil installed by vehicle owners from bottles to a do-it-for-me system where the oil is installed 

by service providers from tanks filled by distributors. According to Kline and Company, do-it-for-me 

installed more than 60 percent of passenger car motor oil last year. Consumers who once scrutinized 

motor oil labels in auto parts stores before installing them in their cars or trucks now travel to auto 

dealers, quick lubes, or service centers and wait while their vehicle’s oil is changed with motor oil from a 

bulk oil tank. These consumers might be selecting a specific oil for their vehicle, but many are probably 

trusting that the service provider is installing a quality bulk oil recommended for their car or truck. API 

samples and tests motor oils purchased from bulk oil installers annually, and I can say that this is often 

the case. However, API has also found the opposite to be true. Bulk oil installers don’t always know the 

identity of the oil in their tanks, and in some cases they actually consciously or unconsciously 

misrepresent what they’re installing. More than once API sampling has found installers claiming they are 

dispensing one brand of oil when in fact they are installing another brand. To complicate matters further, 

many times the customer receipt does not identify what’s been installed. Imagine how many of these 

types of transactions occur every day.

The changes proposed for Handbook 130 are intended to apply the labeling requirements for packaged 

motor oils to oils sold in bulk. These changes as proposed would require motor oil manufacturers and 

distributors to identify the oils they deliver and installers the oils they dispense. Requiring distributors to 

identify the motor oils they deliver to installers will help ensure that installers know what they’re 

dispensing, and requiring installers to do the same on their invoices will provide the same level of 

information for consumers.

I urge the Laws and Regulations Committee of the Southern Weights and Measures Association to 

amend Handbook 130 section 3.13.1 as API has proposed.
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix G – Item 237-6: Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - G5 
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix G – Item 237-6: Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants 

L&R - G6 
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix G – Item 237-6: Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - G7 
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix G – Item 237-6: Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants 

L&R - G8 
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix G – Item 237-6: Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - G9 
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix G – Item 237-6: Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants 

L&R - G10
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix G – Item 237-6: Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - G11
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix G – Item 237-6: Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants 

L&R - G12
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix G – Item 237-6: Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - G13
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix G – Item 237-6: Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants 

L&R - G14

INTERNATIONAL LUBRICANT 

STANDARDIZATION AND APPROVAL 

COMMITTEE

GM

August 6, 2009

Luis Guimaraes

General Manager — Marketing 

Shell Lubricants North America

Mr. Guimaraes,

The International Lubricant Standardization and Approval Committee (ILSAC) (General Motors, 

Ford, Chrysler, and JAMA) recently learned about Shell's new initiative to monitor lubricant 

quality in the market (reference the attached Lube Report article by George Gill of LNG 

Publishing). On ILSAC's behalf, I congratulate you on your efforts to ensure that consumers 

are receiving the quality of oils they are expecting and paying for, and that their Owners 

Manuals are recommending. ILSAC, in partnership with the Oil and Additive industries, 

expends considerable time, effort, and money in developing the specifications for good quality 

oils that our mutual customers need for use in their automobiles. However, if the consumer is 

supplied with oils of questionable or poor quality, your industry and mine both suffer, along with 

the wronged consumer. Your program to "...protect the integrity of our brands, and the 

quality of our products..." is also protecting consumers' automobiles by helping to keep high 

quality lubricants available, and as such, is applauded by the automobile manufacturers. Thank 

you for your concern and attention to this important area. 1LSAC extends an offer to you 

personally or a Shell representative to meet with the ILSAC to review the findings of your 

product quality program. Please contact me if you have any questions.

Jim Linden, Chair ILSAC

General Motors Research and Development 

586-986-1888, 248-321-5343 (mobile) 

james.I.Iinden@gm.com

C: Scott Lindholm
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix G – Item 237-6: Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - G15

American International

AutomobileDealers

November 2, 2009

Elizabeth Boehm-Miller

Growth Manager, US

Shell Lubricants North 

America 700 Milam

Houston, TX 77002

Dear Ms. Boehm-Miller: 

The American International Automobile Dealers Association would like to commend Shell 

Lubricants for their Motor Oil Matters initiative and ongoing efforts to educate consumers 

about the vital role of quality motor oils. AIADA represents the more than 10,000 international 

automobile franchises and their more than 500,000 employees in the United States.

AIADA recognizes the need to make consumers aware of the importance of using quality 

motor oil and how it can help extend engine life and improve overall engine efficiency. An 

efficient engine can result in lower emissions and increased fuel economy. Low quality motor 

oils that do not meet a vehicle manufacturer's requirements or industry standards can 

potentially damage a vehicle's engine or void the manufacturer's warranty, costing the 

consumer in the long run.

AIADA is dedicated exclusively to the economic and political interests of America's international 

nameplate automobile dealers. The manufacturers of the vehicles our dealers sell and service 

have spent considerable time and money to design and build engines with the fuel economy 

and performance that consumers demand. Quality motor oils that meet the stringent 

requirements manufacturers recommend are vital to the proper operation of these engines in a 

variety of conditions and can help to ensure a long life of reliable performance. We laud your 

Motor Oil Matters initiative for educating consumers to specifically request quality motor oils, 

as well as encouraging any facility that changes oil to do their part to help consumers receive 

the quality of oil they need to protect their vehicles. 

Thank you for bringing this important message to vehicle owners.

Best regards,

American International Automobile Dealers Association 

211 N Union Street, Suite 300, Alexandria, Virginia 22314 

T: 703.519.7800 • F: 703.519.7810 

www.aiada.org
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix G – Item 237-6: Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants 

L&R - G16
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix G – Item 237-6: Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - G17
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix G – Item 237-6: Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants 

L&R - G18
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix G – Item 237-6: Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - G19

AUGUST 2009 VOL. 15 ISSUE 8
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix G – Item 237-6: Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants 

L&R - G20

LUBES 'N' GREASES

PUBLISHER'S LETTER

Nancy DeMarco
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix G – Item 237-6: Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - G21
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix G – Item 237-6: Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants 

L&R - G22
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix G – Item 237-6: Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - G23
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix G – Item 237-6: Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants 

L&R - G24
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix G – Item 237-6: Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - G25
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix G – Item 237-6: Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants 

L&R - G26
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix G – Item 237-6: Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - G27
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix G – Item 237-6: Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants 

L&R - G28
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix G – Item 237-6: Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - G29
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix G – Item 237-6: Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants 

L&R - G30
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix G – Item 237-6: Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - G31
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix G – Item 237-6: Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants 

L&R - G32
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix G – Item 237-6: Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - G33
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix G – Item 237-6: Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants 

L&R - G34
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix G – Item 237-6: Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - G35
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix G – Item 237-6: Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants 

L&R - G36
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix G – Item 237-6: Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - G37
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix G – Item 237-6: Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants 

L&R - G38
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix H – Item 260-4: HB 133, Seed Count for Agriculture Seed

L&R - H1 

Appendix H

Item 260-4: Handbook 133, Seed Count for Agriculture Seed

(Section 4.11. Procedure for Checking the Contents of Specific Agriculture Seed Packages 

Labeled by Count) 

Table of Contents 

Page

American Seed Trade Association (ASTA)/November 30, 2010................................................................... L&R - H3

AOSA Rules for Testing Seeds ...................................................................................................................... L&R - H6

NIST Handbook 133, New Procedure for Testing Seed Count, A Call for Repeal Action Taken at the 

95th NCWM/January 24, 2011................................................................................................................L&R - H12

Association of American See Control Officials (AASCO)/January 5, 2010 .................................................L&R - H26
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix H – Item 260-4: HB 133, Seed Count for Agriculture Seed

L&R - H2 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix H – Item 260-4: HB 133, Seed Count for Agriculture Seed

L&R - H3 
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix H – Item 260-4: HB 133, Seed Count for Agriculture Seed

L&R - H4 
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix H – Item 260-4: HB 133, Seed Count for Agriculture Seed

L&R - H5 
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix H – Item 260-4: HB 133, Seed Count for Agriculture Seed

L&R - H6 

AOSA Rules for Testing

(1) Coated or encrusted seed: seed that has been covered by a layer(s) of materials 

that obscure the original shape and size of the seed resulting in a substantial 

weight increase. The addition of biologicals, pesticides, identifying colorants or 

dyes, and/or other active ingredients including polymers can be included in this 

process. Refer to sections 3.8 and 6.8 I. 

(2) Film-coated seed: film-coated seed retains the shape and the general size of the 

raw seed with a minimal weight gain. The film coating may contain polymers, 

pesticides, biologicals, identifying colorants or d yes, and other additives. The 

coating should result in a more or less continuous covering that eliminates or 

minimizes product dust-off.

(3) Inoculated seed: seed that has received a coating of a commercial preparation 

containing a microbial product, e.g. Rhizobium sp.

(4) Pelleted seed: seed that has been covered by a layer(s) of materials that obscure 

the original shape and size of the seed resulting in a substantial weight increase 

and improved plantability or singulation. The addition of biologicals, pesticides, 

identifying colorants or dyes, and/or other active ingredients including polymers 

can be included in this process. Refer to sections 3.8 and 6.81. 

(5) Raw seed: seed that is free of any applied materials.

(6) Treated seed: seed with a m inimal covering of various materials whose primary 

objective is to reduce or control certain disease organisms, insects or other pests 

attacking the seed or s eedlings growing therefrom and that contains identifying 

colorants or dyes.

2.2 Obtaining the working sample

The working sample on which the actual analysis is performed shall be taken from the 

submitted sample in such a man ner that it will be representative. A suitable type of 

mechanical divider (conical, centrifugal, riffle, etc.) should be used. To avoid damage 

when dividing large-seeded crop kinds such as beans, peas, etc., prevent the seeds from 

falling great distances onto hard surfaces. When dividing coated, encrusted, and pelleted 

seeds, mechanical dividers may be used only if the distance of the fall does not damage 

the applied materials.

For seed moisture determination, sub-samples must be drawn quickly to avoid exposing 

the seeds to the ambient air. Mechanical dividers are not appropriate for this purpose. 

Refer to section 2.2 b (3). 

a. Mechanical dividers. — This method is suitable for most kinds of seeds. The 

apparatus divides a sample into two approximately equal parts. The submitted 

sample is mixed by passing it through the divider, recombining the two parts and 

passing the whole sample through a second time and similarly a third time. After
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix H – Item 260-4: HB 133, Seed Count for Agriculture Seed

L&R - H7 

mixing, the sample shall be reduced by passing the seed through the divider 

repeatedly, removing half the sample on each occasion. This process of successive halving is 

continued until a working sample of approximately, but not less than the minimum weight(s) 

stated in Table 2A is obtained. 

Use of compressed air or a vacuum is highly recommended for cleaning mechanical dividers.

(1) Centrifugal divider (Garnet type): This divider is suitable for all kinds of seed though it 

is not recommended for oilseeds (such as rapeseed, canola, mustards, flax) and kinds 

susceptible to damage (such as peas, soybeans, etc) and the extremely chaffy types.

The divider makes use of centrifugal force to mix and scatter seeds over the dividing 

surface. The seed flows downward through a hopper onto a shallow rubber cup or 

spinner. Upon rotation of the spinner by an electric motor the seeds are thrown out by 

centrifugal force and fall downward. The circle or area where the seeds fall is equally 

divided into two parts by a stationary baffle so that approximately half the seeds fall in 

one spout and half in the other spout. The centrifugal divider tends to give variable results 

when not carefully operated, and therefore the following procedure must be used: 

(a) Preparation of the apparatus: 

(i) Level the divider using the adjustable feet.

(ii) Check the divider and four containers for cleanliness. Note that seeds can be 

trapped under the spinner and become a source of contamination.

(b) Sample mixing:

(i) Place a container under each spout.

(ii) Feed the whole sample into the hopper; when filling the hopper, the seed must 

always be poured centrally. 

(iii) After the sample has been poured into the hopper, the spinner is operated and the 

seed passes into the two containers. Turn off spinner. 

(iv) Full containers are replaced by empty containers. The contents of the two 

full containers are fed centrally into the hopper together, the seed being 

allowed to blend as it flows in. The spinner is operated. 

(v) The sample mixing procedure is repeated at least once more.

(c) Sample reduction: 

(i) Full containers are replaced by empty containers. The contents of one full 

container are set aside and the contents of the other container are fed into the 

hopper. The spinner is operated. 

(ii) The successive halving process is continued until the working sample(s) of not 

less than the minimum weight(s) required stated in Table 2A are obtained. 
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix H – Item 260-4: HB 133, Seed Count for Agriculture Seed

L&R - H8 

(iii) Ensure that the divider and containers are clean after each mixing operation. 

(2) Soil/Riffle divider: This divider is suitable for most kinds of seed. For round-seeded kinds such 

as Brassica species, the collection containers should be covered to prevent the seeds from bouncing 

out. 

This divider consists of a hopper with attached channels or ducts, a frame to hold the hopper, four 

collection containers and a pouring pan. Ducts or channels lead from the hopper to the collection 

containers, alternate ones leading to opposite sides. Riffle dividers are available in different 

sizes for different sizes of seed. The width and number of channels and spaces are important. The 

minimum width of the channels must be at least two times the largest diameter of the seed or any 

possible contaminants being mixed. 

This apparatus, similar to the centrifugal divider, divides the sample into approximately 

equal parts.

(a) Preparation of the apparatus: 

(i) Place the riffle divider on a firm, level clean surface. Ensure the divider is level.

(ii) Ensure that the divider and the four sample collection containers are clean. Check all 

channels, joints and seams of the divider and collection containers to ensure there are no 

seeds or other plant matter present before each use.

(iii) Two clean empty collection containers shall be placed under the channels to 

receive the mixed seed.

(b) Sample mixing:

(i) Pour the whole sample into the divider by running the seed backwards and forwards 

along the edge of the divider so that all the channels and spaces of the divider receive an 

equal amount of seed. 

(ii) The two full containers shall be replaced with two clean empty containers. 

(iii) The contents of one full container shall be poured into the divider by holding the long 

edge of the pan against the long edge of the riffle hopper and then rotating the bottom 

up so that the seeds pour across all channels at the same time, followed by the other full 

container using the same procedure.

(iv) This process of mixing the entire submitted sample shall be repeated at least one more 

time before successive halving begins.

(c) Sample reduction:

(i) The contents of one full container are set aside. Empty containers are placed under each 

channel, and the contents of the other container is poured into the hopper by holding 

the long edge of the pan against the
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix H – Item 260-4: HB 133, Seed Count for Agriculture Seed

L&R - H9 

(a) Preparation of the apparatus: Ensure that two trays, spatula and spoon are clean.

(b) Sample mixing: 

(i) The sample is poured uniformly over a tray with a side to side swinging motion. 

(ii) The receiving pan should be kept level.

(iii) This mixing procedure is repeated a minimum of three times.

(c) Sample reduction: 

(i) A tray, a spatula and a spoon with a straight edge are required. After the preliminary 

mixing, pour the seed evenly over the tray with a side-toside swing, alternately in 

one direction and at right angles to it. The depth of the seed in the pan shall not 

exceed the height of the vertical sides of the spoon. Do not shake the tray 

thereafter. 

(ii) With the spoon in one hand, the spatula in the other, and using both, remove small 

portions of seed from not less than five random places on the tray.

(iii) Sufficient portions of seed are taken until the working sample(s) of not less than 

the minimum weight(s) required stated in Table 2A are obtained. 

(2) Hand-halving method: This method can be used when a proper mechanical divider is not 

available.

Procedure: 

(a) Seed is poured evenly onto a clean smooth surface.

(b) The sample shall be thoroughly mixed using a flat-edged spatula and placed into a pile. 

(c) The pile shall be divided in half using a straight edge or ruler.

(d) Each half portion is divided in half.

(e) Each of the portions is divided into half again. There are now eight portions.

(f) Arrange the eight portions into two rows of four.

(g) Alternate portions should be combined to obtain two halves e.g. combine the first portion 

from row I with the second portion from row 2. Remove the remaining four portions. 

(h) Repeat steps (a) to (g) until sufficient portions of seed are taken to constitute a working 

sample(s) of not less than the minimum weight(s) required stated in Table 2A are 

obtained. 

(3) For seed moisture determination, mix the submitted sample by tumbling or shaking the 

submitted sample bag, then open bag and use a spoon to remove portions from several 

random locations within the bag to obtain the appropriate working weight for one replicate. 

Place seeds in a moisture testing container. Repeat the procedure of mixing and sampling 

for the second replicate. Do not expose the sample to ambient air for more than one minute. 
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix H – Item 260-4: HB 133, Seed Count for Agriculture Seed

L&R - H10

SECTION 12: MECHANICAL SEED COUNT

The following method shall be employed when using a mechanical seed counter to determine the 

number of seeds contained in a sample of soybean (Glycine max), corn (Zea mays), wheat 

(Triticum aestivum) and field bean (Phaseolus vulgaris).

12.1 Samples.

Samples for testing shall be of at least 500 grams for soybean, corn and field beans and 100 

grams for wheat and received in moisture proof containers. Samples shall be retained in 

moisture proof containers until the weight of the sample prepared for purity analysis is 

recorded. 

12.2 Seed counter calibration.

The seed counter shall be calibrated daily prior to use. 

(a) Prepare a calibration sample by counting 10 sets of 100 seeds. Visually examine each set 

to insure that it contains whole seeds. Combine the 10 sets of seeds to make a 1,000 

seed calibration sample. The seeds of the calibration sample should be 

approximately the same size and shape as the seeds in a sample being tested. If the seeds 

in a sample being tested are noticeably different in size or shape from those in the 

calibration sample, prepare another calibration sample with seeds of the 

appropriate size and shape. Periodically re-examine the calibration samples to insure that 

no seeds have been lost or added. 

(b) Carefully pour the 1,000 seed calibration sample into the seed counter. Start the 

counter and run it until all the seeds have been counted. The seeds should not touch as 

they run through the counter. Record the number of seeds as displayed on the counter 

read out. The seed count should not vary more than ±2 seeds from 1,000. If the count is 

not within this tolerance, clean the mirrors, adjust the feed rate and/or reading 

sensitivity. Rerun the calibration sample until it is within the ±2 seed tolerance. If the 

seed counter continues to fail the calibration procedure and the calibration sample has 

been checked to ensure that it contains 1,000 seeds, do not use the counter until it has 

been repaired. 

12.3 Sample preparation.

Immediately after opening the moisture proof container, mix and divide the submitted 

sample, in accordance with section 2.2, to obtain a sample for purity analysis and record the 

weight of this sample in grams to the appropriate number of decimal places (refer to section 

2.3 a). Conduct the purity analysis to obtain pure seed for the seed count test. 
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix H – Item 260-4: HB 133, Seed Count for Agriculture Seed

L&R - H11

RULES FOR TESTING SEEDS

12.4 Conducting the test.

After the seed counter has been calibrated, test the pure seed portion from the purity test 

and record the number of seeds in the sample. 

12.5 Calculation of results.

Calculate the number of seeds per pound to the nearest whole number using the following 

formula: 

Number of seeds per pound = 453.6 g/Ib x no. of seeds counted in d.

weight (g) of sample analyzed for purity

12.6 Tolerances for results from different laboratories.

Multiply the labeled seed count or first seed count test result by four percent for soybean 

samples, two percent for corn (round, flat or plateless) samples, five percent for field 

bean samples and three percent for wheat samples. Express the tolerance (the number of 

seeds) to the nearest whole number. Consider the results of two tests in tolerance if the 

difference, expressed as the number of seeds, is equal to or less than the tolerance. 

Example:

Kind of seed: Corn

Label claim (1st test): 2275 seed/lb.

Lab Test (2nd test): Purity working weight = 500.3 g

Seed count of pure seed = 2479 seeds

453.6 glib x 2479 seeds

Number of seeds per pound = _________________________ = 2247.6 seeds/lb

500.3 g

Rounded to the nearest whole number = 2248 seeds/lb

Calculate tolerance value for corn: 

multiply label claim by 2%

2275 seeds/lb x 0.02 = 45.5 seeds/lb;

rounded to the nearest whole number = 46 seeds/lb

Determine the difference between label claim and lab test:

2275 seeds/lb — 2248 seeds/lb = 27 seeds/lb

The difference between the lab test (2nd test) and the label claim (1st test) is less than the tolerance 

(27 < 46); therefore, the two results are in tolerance.
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix H – Item 260-4: HB 133, Seed Count for Agriculture Seed

L&R - H12

Slide 1

NIST HANDBOOK 133

New Procedure for Testing Seed Count

WWMA Call for Repeal

of

Action Taken at 95th Annual Meeting of

National Conference on Weights & Measures

Re:

Testing Procedures for Seed Count

Presented January 24, 2011, by

Kurt Floren

Director of Weights & Measures

County of Los Angeles, California 1

Slide 2

Association of Official Seed Analysts

“Rules for Testing Seeds”

AOSA: Official nationwide association of 

seed analysts, formed in 1908 in response to 

actions by individual states to develop seed 

laws.

Members include state, federal & university 

seed labs of U.S. and Canada.

Primary Functions:

• Establish AOSA Rules for Testing Seeds, 

adopted by most states as seed rules

• Contribute to refinement & modification of 

rules and procedures for seed testing

• Ensure procedures are standardized 

between analysts and between labs

• Influence and assist in enforcement of 

appropriate seed legislation at state and 

federal levels

2
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix H – Item 260-4: HB 133, Seed Count for Agriculture Seed

L&R - H13

Slide 3

Procedure does NOT start with 

simple count of 10 groups of 100

To secure a representative sample, equal 

portions shall be taken from evenly 

distributed parts....

...a probe or trier...shall be used... 

able to remove an equal volume... from 

each part of the container... 

Each probe, trier, or handful... is considered a 

primary sample. Each should be visually 

checked for uniformity.

...determine the most appropriate tool and 

technique...Manual sampling tools should be 

able to reach all portions of the container 

and have openings at least 21⁄2 times the 

maximum diameter of... seed and possible 

contaminants... 

3

Slide 4

Procedure does NOT start with 

simple count of 10 groups of 100

For lots of one to six containers,

sample each...

...take at least five primary samples

For lots of more than six containers,

Sample five...plus at least 10% of the 

number of containers in the lot.

(up to 30 primary samples)

Samples are drawn to form 

composite sample.

All of this is required for 

Purity Analysis

4
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix H – Item 260-4: HB 133, Seed Count for Agriculture Seed

L&R - H14

Slide 5

Procedure Requires Lab Analysis

After...appropriate number of primary 

samples...are drawn and combined into the 

composite sample,

the entire sample is 

submitted to the laboratory

As you will see, the procedure 

adopted into Hdbk 133

requires Purity Analysis testing

by a seed analysis laboratory

5

Slide 6

Why be concerned with portions not 

adopted into Hdbk 133?

This entire handbook shall be 

considered part of the Rules and 

its use is required

for determination of classification 

of the kind of seed under 

consideration and classification of 

weed and crop seed 

contaminants for purity 

testing

Purity Testing

is a requisite part of procedure 

adopted by NCWM

6
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix H – Item 260-4: HB 133, Seed Count for Agriculture Seed

L&R - H15

Slide 7

Seed Count Testing Procedure 

References AOSA “Rules” 2.2

The laboratory analysis for

law enforcement, labeling.... should 

determine the following:

(1) the purity composition

(2) the rate of...noxious-weed seeds

(3) the percentage germination... 

By making reference to Section 2.2

(in Section 12 adopted by NCWM)

all of Section 2 must be followed

to ensure that seed count

verification testing is defensible

under legal challenge

(i.e., defense in prosecution)

7

Slide 8

Seed Count Testing Procedure 

References AOSA “Rules” 2.2

The working sample... shall be taken 

from the 

submitted sample

A suitable type of mechanical divider

(conical, centrifugal, riffle, etc.)

should be used

“Submitted sample” means 

that submitted to the

seed laboratory

(recall Section 1.5)

Mechanical dividers are costly, sensitive

pieces of equipment

that Weights & Measures agencies

do not possess 

8
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix H – Item 260-4: HB 133, Seed Count for Agriculture Seed

L&R - H16

Slide 9

Examples of Mechanical Dividers

Dividing seed with mechanical divider Dividing seed with mechanical divider

Preliminary research 

re: cost of 

Centrifugal Divider:

$2400 - $3000

Centrifugal divider photos from 

AOSA presentation to IPSA

Riffle Divider: ~ $400 - $700 

Boerner Divider: ~ $1500 - $1600

9

Slide 10

Purity Analysis: Only The Basics

...purity analysis...

determine the physical composition of 

the working sample.

The analysis shall include the 

identification of the kind... of 

seed under consideration, and 

all contaminating species and 

inert matter

The purity working sample 

shall be separated into the 

following components:

(1) kind or cultivar to be considered 

pure seed

(2) other crop seed

(3)inert matter, and

(4) weed seed

Requires seed identification expertise

not possessed by most W&M officials10
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix H – Item 260-4: HB 133, Seed Count for Agriculture Seed

L&R - H17

Slide 11

Pure Seed Sample: 

Required for Count Testing

The pure seed shall include 

all seed units of each kind 

or each kind and cultivar under 

consideration...

Identification / determination of

a PURE SEED sample

is critical to the procedure

and to demonstration of

compliance with the

Hdbk 133 procedure...

Are W&M field officials

trained, qualified, certified?

11

Slide 12

Can’t we just count 1,000 seeds?

This entire handbook shall be 

considered part of the Rules and 

its use is required

for determination of classification of the 

kind of seed under consideration and 

classification of weed and crop seed 

contaminants 

for purity testing

RECALL:

The procedure adopted by NCWM 

specifically requires calibration of 

mechanical seed counter using seed 

from a Pure Seed sample.......

Section 12.4 (Adopted in Hdbk 133): 

“After the seed counter has been 

calibrated, test the pure seed

portion from the purity test...”

12
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix H – Item 260-4: HB 133, Seed Count for Agriculture Seed

L&R - H18

Slide 13

Section 12 of “Rules for Testing Seeds”

Directly Adopted in NCWM Action

The following method 

shall be employed when using a 

mechanical seed counter...

Samples shall be retained in

moisture proof containers until

the weight of the sample prepared for 

purity analysis is recorded.

...after opening the moisture proof container, 

mix and divide the submitted sample,

in accordance with section 2.2,

to obtain a sample for purity analysis

Conduct the purity analysis

to obtain pure seed

for the seed count test

Can there be any question that we are 

bound by the entire AOSA procedure?13

Slide 14

Examples of “Pure Seed” Criteria

For Field Bean and Soybean:

 Seed with at least a portion of the seed coat attached

 Broken seed larger than one-half the original size with at least a 

portion of the seed coat attached

 For Fabaceae (includes Field Bean & Soybean):

- Cotyledons that are broken apart but held together by the 

seed coat shall be classified as pure seed. 

- Cotyledons that have separated and are not held together by 

the seed coat are regarded as inert matter irrespective of 

whether or not the radicle-plumule axis and/or more than 

half of the seed coat may be attached.

 Wing, when present, is removed and considered inert matter.

 Chalcid-damaged seeds in Fabaceae that are puffy, soft, or dry and 

crumbly are considered inert matter.

Concern: Do typical Weights & Measures officials 

have such expertise? 14
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix H – Item 260-4: HB 133, Seed Count for Agriculture Seed

L&R - H19

Slide 15

Examples of “Pure Seed” Criteria

For Corn:

 Multiple floret, with or without awn, provided a caryopsis with 

some degree of endosperm development can be detected (either 

by slight pressure or by examination over light).

 Caryopsis or piece of broken caryopsis larger than one-half of the 

original size

Special Consideration:

* A fertile floret attached to another fertile 

floret shall be separated

* Attached glumes and empty florets shall be 

removed and classified as inert matter.

Concern: Again, does the average W&M official have 

such expertise?

15

Slide 16

Purity Analysis: Seed Identification

When a purity analysis is conducted, the 

following shall be reported under 

Purity Analysis:

(1) Weight of purity working sample

(2) Percentage...of pure seed, other crop 

seed, inert matter, and weed seed...

(3) Scientific name, or common name, 

or both, of all other crop seed or 

weed seed found...

Seed Analysts typically work 4-5 years in a 

seed laboratory to gain expertise to 

independently conduct seed analyses...

What percentage of Weights & 

Measures officials are qualified?

ANY?

16
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix H – Item 260-4: HB 133, Seed Count for Agriculture Seed

L&R - H20

Slide 17

Other Concerns: Repeatability?

Prepare a calibration sample by 

counting 10 sets of 100 seeds.

Combine...to make a 1,000 seed 

calibration sample.

...pour...into the seed counter. ...run it 

until all seeds...counted. The seed 

count should not vary more than 2 

seeds from 1,000.

If...not within this tolerance, 

clean...mirrors, adjust...feed rate 

and/or reading sensitivity.

Rerun it until it is within the

2 seed count tolerance.

Calibration procedure mandates

no steps to verify repeatability.

Out-Of-Tolerance runs could be unlimited.

Results may result in enforcement action:

Defensible? 17

Slide 18

Mechanical Seed Counter

(Photo from AOSA presentation to IPSA)

Seen one? Own one? Have ready access to one?

Not subject to transportation on front seat of a pickup truck!

Preliminary Cost Estimate: $8,000 18
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix H – Item 260-4: HB 133, Seed Count for Agriculture Seed

L&R - H21

Slide 19

Example of 100-Seed Sampling

(from AOSA presentation to IPSA)

Preparing calibration sample

Does this look like a field activity?

19

Slide 20

Other Concerns: 

Equipment Access? Portability? 

Loading and running calibration sample.

(Photos from AOSA presentation to IPSA)

Use of mechanical seed counter is 

clearly not a field operation.

Equipment and analysis procedures 

are laboratory activities.

20
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix H – Item 260-4: HB 133, Seed Count for Agriculture Seed

L&R - H22

Slide 21

Adopted Hdbk 133 Procedure 

Does Not Duplicate AOSA Procedure

Key Difference:

 AOSA procedure sets “TOLERANCES”

[Corn: 2%; Wheat Seed: 3%; Soybean: 4%; Field Bean: 5%]

 Hdbk 133 procedure sets “MAVs” [Same values]

(All references to “Tolerance” amended by L&R to “MAV” prior to adoption)

“Tolerance”:

- Allows Underfill / Short Count in each package

“Maximum Allowable Variance” (MAV):

- Sets limit for any single Minus Error

- Average Error must still not be minus (>SEL) 21

Slide 22

Inspection Results on Same Lot Will 

NOT Result in Same Outcome

Key Questions:

- Does adopted procedure employ random sampling?

- Does adopted procedure permit action on LOT? (Pass/Fail)

Package Test Example (Hypothetical):

Lot Size: 200 50-lb. bags Corn (~80K seed ct. ea.)

Sample: 12 packages MAV/Tolerance: 2%

Errors: Minus 800 seeds (1%) in each sample

Avg. Error: - 1%

AOSA Procedure: Lot PASSES (No error > Tolerance)

Hdbk 133 Proc.: Lot FAILS (No UMEs, but Avg. Minus)

22
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix H – Item 260-4: HB 133, Seed Count for Agriculture Seed

L&R - H23

Slide 23

Call for Repeal of NCWM Adoption

Acknowledge:

1st: We do need an accurate, reliable, uniform procedure 

for testing seed count.

 Seed count is an important factor in farming to manage input costs & to 

meet needs of modern planting equipment

 Packers/Manufacturers are increasingly placing supplemental count 

statements on seed packages due to customer demand

 A procedure is needed by W&M to regulate labeled count accuracy 

2nd: AOSA standards are well established and are in wide use 

by seed labs.

BUT: Procedure was prematurely adopted by NCWM.

- Procedure provides little assurance of counter accuracy. 

- Procedure is not equivalent to AOSA (Tolerance vs MAV)

- We have adopted a test procedure that few, if any, 

can actually perform! 23

Slide 24

Call for Repeal of NCWM Adoption

NOT suggesting that procedure is not needed....

But,

New NIST Hdbk 133 sections 4.2 and 4.11

 Require expertise not held by W&M inspectors

 Require equipment not suitable for field use

 Require equipment that is cost restrictive

 Include procedures (e.g., “mix,” “divide,” “purity 

analysis,” etc.) for which no guidance is given

 Require steps that, if not precisely followed, subject 

W&M agencies to legal challenges and, potentially, 

litigation exposure for taking off-sale action. 24
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix H – Item 260-4: HB 133, Seed Count for Agriculture Seed

L&R - H24

Slide 25

Recommendation

WWMA calls on NCWM to:

Recognize that:

 State & local W&M agencies do not have required equipment

 State & local W&M agencies do not have required seed analysis expertise

(licensing/certification)

 State & local W&M agencies are highly unlikely to have time (years for 

certification as seed analysts) or resources ($$) to meet requirements

 Adopted procedures do not facilitate field tests of seed count

 Adopted procedures are not equivalent to AOSA method (Tol. vs MAV)

 Adopted procedures will not result in enhanced enforcement due to all of 

above.

25

Slide 26

Recommendation

WWMA calls on NCWM to:

Take the following actions:

 Rescind action taken to adopt amendments to Hdbk 133 Section 4.2 and 

to add Section 4.11 et seq

 Direct NCWM Laws & Regulations (L&R) Committee to (at a minimum):

- Establish a working group to conduct studies, field trials, laboratory 

testing, etc., to establish procedures for verification of repeatability

of Mechanical Seed Counter devices

- Revise proposed procedure to incorporate guidance to inspectors in 

conducting “mixing,” “dividing,” “purity analysis,” and other steps

 Direct NCWM L&R Committee to establish a working group to research, 

develop, and recommend alternative seed count testing procedures that 

are practical and reliable for field applications (preferred)

 VERY CAUTIOUSLY consider the ramifications of adopting any TOLERANCE

for any packaged commodity....... Slippery slope.

26
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix H – Item 260-4: HB 133, Seed Count for Agriculture Seed

L&R - H25

Slide 27

Thank You

Re: Call for Repeal of Seed Count Procedure

Questions?

Comments?

27
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix H – Item 260-4: HB 133, Seed Count for Agriculture Seed

L&R - H26
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix I – Item 260-3: Moisture Allowance for Pasta Products

L&R - I1 

Appendix I

Item 260-3: Handbook 133, Moisture Allowance for Pasta Products

Section 2.3.8. Moisture Allowance 

Table of Contents 

Page

National Pasta Association (correspondence from M. Hermida, June 23, 2011) .............................................L&R - I3 

L&R Agenda Item 260-3: Moisture Loss in Pasta Frequently Asked Questions ...........................................L&R - I15

National Pasta Association, Moisture Loss in Pasta Presentation at the NCWM Annual Meeting (M. Hermida, 

July 23, 2011)..........................................................................................................................................L&R - I17
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix I – Item 260-3: Moisture Allowance for Pasta Products

L&R - I2 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix I – Item 260-3: Moisture Allowance for Pasta Products

L&R - I3 
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix I – Item 260-3: Moisture Allowance for Pasta Products

L&R - I4 
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix I – Item 260-3: Moisture Allowance for Pasta Products

L&R - I5 
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix I – Item 260-3: Moisture Allowance for Pasta Products

L&R - I6 
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix I – Item 260-3: Moisture Allowance for Pasta Products

L&R - I7 
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix I – Item 260-3: Moisture Allowance for Pasta Products

L&R - I8 
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix I – Item 260-3: Moisture Allowance for Pasta Products

L&R - I9 
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix I – Item 260-3: Moisture Allowance for Pasta Products

L&R - I10
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix I – Item 260-3: Moisture Allowance for Pasta Products

L&R - I11
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix I – Item 260-3: Moisture Allowance for Pasta Products

L&R - I12
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix I – Item 260-3: Moisture Allowance for Pasta Products

L&R - I13
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix I 

– Item 260-3: Moisture Allowance for Pasta Products

L&R - I14
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix I – Item 260-3: Moisture Allowance for Pasta Products

L&R - I15

L&R Agenda Item 260-3: Moisture Loss in Pasta

Frequently Asked Questions

1) Why do inspectors need to consider moisture loss? 

A lawful inspection must take account of moisture loss for any product where moisture loss occurs, such as pasta. Federal 

(and corresponding state) requirements mandate that “reasonable variations caused by loss or gain of moisture during the 

course of good distribution practice or by unavoidable deviations in good manufacturing practice” must be recognized 

before the jurisdiction can determine the accuracy of the net weight statement. 

The U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Jones v. Rath Packing Company held that the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic 

Act “permits variations from stated weight caused by gain or loss of moisture” and therefore a manufacturer of food “is 

not subject to enforcement action for violation of the net weight labeling requirements if the label accurately states the net 

weight, with allowance for the specified reasonable variations” such as moisture loss. 

2) When must an inspector consider moisture loss when checking packaged pasta products?

Inspectors always must account for moisture loss for pasta because the product will always have the potential to lose 

moisture. Failure to account for moisture loss for hygroscopic products like pasta renders an inspection invalid. Federal 

and state law do not permit inspectors to issue a citation, order pasta products off-sale, or issue a civil penalty unless 

moisture loss has been accounted for by the inspector. This is a well-settled matter of law. 

3) Why should Handbook 133 be amended to address moisture loss for pasta?

The modest amendment to Handbook 133 would provide inspectors with critical guidance to ensure that pasta product 

package checking is done properly and lawfully. The industry petition was brought to the Conference because inspectors 

have mistakenly interpreted the lack of express guidance in Handbook 133 about moisture loss in pasta to mean that they 

are not required to consider moisture loss for these products. Of course, that is not the case. 

4) Why should the Conference create a special allowance for pasta? Will passage of this proposal open the door to a 

flood of similar amendments to Handbook 133? 

The pasta industry is not seeking special treatment. The proposal would merely memorialize a well-established moisture 

loss allowance and assist inspectors in accounting for moisture loss among pasta products, as is the case for flour, dry pet 

food, meat, and poultry. Indeed, both NIST and FDA have proposed 3% as the appropriate gray area for pasta. 

Only a finite number of products are subject to moisture loss and the vast majority of packaged foods do not gain or lose 

moisture. The Conference should consider proposals from other industries that are able to amass appropriate data that 

supports a moisture allowance gray area. 

5) How does a moisture allowance work? Why should pasta manufacturers be given a 3% “break” instead of just overpacking?

Although referred to in shorthand as a “moisture allowance,” it is important to recognize that the proposal before the 

Conference would establish a 3% “gray area.” It is not a tolerance. If a sample is found to be less than the labeled weight

but within the 3% threshold, the lot is in the “gray” or “no decision” area. This is an indication for inspectors that more 

information must be collected before lot compliance or noncompliance can be decided. In such situations, inspectors can 

elect to conduct further investigation to determine whether moisture loss is the basis for the product being short weight. 

This same method of inspection already exists for flour and pet food, and the modest amendment to Handbook 133 does 

not introduce a new concept or loophole that favors pasta products. 

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Jones v. Rath Packing Company and subsequent legal precedent, affirms a uniform net 

weight compliance standard that regulates a manufacturer’s conduct at the point-of-pack. Rath Packing recognizes that in 

a national marketplace companies are not required (nor is it feasible) to target package weights by region and climate. 
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix I – Item 260-3: Moisture Allowance for Pasta Products

L&R - I16

Inherent in the Court’s ruling is an understanding that companies are not required to over-pack to address moisture loss 

that may occur as the result of good distribution practices. The law does not sanction a requirement to target distribution 

regionally, nor would this approach be practicable for manufacturers to implement.

6) Is moisture loss really unavoidable for pasta? Why can’t you just change your packaging to prevent moisture loss?

Pasta is hygroscopic, which means that its moisture content does not remain constant after the product is manufactured. 

Depending on the relative humidity of the atmosphere, pasta will frequently gain or lose moisture even when good 

manufacturing and distribution practices are followed. The amount of moisture loss depends upon many factors including 

the shape of the noodles, the packaging material, the length of time it is in distribution, the retail sales environment, and 

environmental conditions. 

Pasta needs “breathability” throughout its life cycle in order to maintain quality because of its hygroscopic nature. 

Without flexible packaging, dissipating moisture would remain caught in the package. This could result in pasta that fails 

to cook properly or even could cause it to spoil if subject to extreme temperature changes. 

7) Why is 3% an appropriate level for the gray area?

The proposed value of 3% has consistently been recognized as an appropriate gray area for pasta products. The FDA and 

NIST each previously recognized 3% as an appropriate level for moisture loss in pasta. Additionally, the 3% level is 

supported by a published study conducted by North Dakota State University, commissioned by NPA, which was 

conducted in 1988 following the guidelines and input from FDA and NIST. More recent company-specific data also 

validates the findings of the North Dakota State University study and supports the 3% threshold. (Note that some of our 

data suggests the need for a higher threshold.) This value also is consistent with the gray areas already established in 

Handbook 133 for flour and pet food, which are similar in their formulations to pasta. The North Dakota State University

study and confirming industry data have been presented to the Conference for its review and consideration.
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix I – Item 260-3: Moisture Allowance for Pasta Products

L&R - I17

Slide 1

Slide 2

Overview

Proposal: Handbook 133, Section 2.3, would be amended to 

incorporate a 3% (“gray area”) moisture allowance for pasta 

products, as with flour and dry pet food products. 

A majority of the Conference voted in support of the proposal at 

the July 2010 Annual Meeting. The proposal received favorable 

treatment by L&R Committee at January 2011 meeting. 

The National Pasta Association appreciates the opportunity to 

survey the merits of the proposed amendment and appreciates 

the Conference’s consideration of this item.
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix I – Item 260-3: Moisture Allowance for Pasta Products

L&R - I18

Slide 3

Legal Framework

Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act: Foods in package form 

must bear “an accurate statement of the quantity of the contents in 

terms of weights . . . except that . . . reasonable variations shall be 

permitted.” (21 U.S.C. 343(e))

FDA Regulations: “Reasonable variations caused by loss or gain of 

moisture during the course of good distribution practice or by 

unavoidable deviations in good manufacturing practice will be 

recognized.” (21 C.F.R. 101.105(q))

State laws parallel the federal requirement. A unified legal 

framework guides inspectors’ actions when checking pasta 

products.

Slide 4

Legal Framework

U.S. Supreme Court in Jones v. Rath Packing Co. (1977): 

“The federal net-weight labeling standard permits variations from 

stated weight caused by this gain or loss of moisture.” 

“Over 60 years ago, Congress concluded that variations must be 

allowed because of the nature of certain foods and the impossibility of 

developing completely accurate means of packing. Since 1914, 

regulations under the food and drug laws have permitted 

reasonable variations from stated net weight resulting from 

packing deviations or gain or loss of moisture occurring despite 

good commercial practice. ... We can only conclude that under 

the [Fair Packaging and Labeling Act], as under the [Federal Food, 

Drug, and Cosmetic Act], a manufacturer is not subject to 

enforcement action for violation of the net-weight labeling 

requirements if the label accurately states the net weight, with 

allowance for the specified reasonable variations.“ 
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix I – Item 260-3: Moisture Allowance for Pasta Products

L&R - I19

Slide 5

Legal Framework

Jones v. Rath Packing Co., continued: 

“The moisture content of flour does not remain constant after 

milling is completed. If the relative humidity of the atmosphere in 

which it is stored is greater than 60%, flour will gain moisture, and if the 

humidity is less than 60%, it will lose moisture.” 

“Weight fluctuations of 3% to 4% resulting from changes in moisture 

content are not uncommon during good distribution practice within the 

continental United States.”

“If flour were packed in airtight packages in order to prevent 

weight fluctuations resulting from changes in moisture content, it 

would spoil.”

Slide 6

Historical Consideration

FDA Proposal – 1980: 

FDA proposed to quantitatively define permissible “reasonable 

variations” from stated net weights for several food categories, 

including food subject to moisture loss. 

FDA encouraged industry to submit data on moisture loss so that 

reasonable variations could be established for more food 

categories. 

FDA reviewed and accepted protocol for NPA moisture loss 

study. 

FDA Proposal – 1997: 3% “gray area” for pasta.

NIST Informal Guidance: Recognize 3% for pasta, rice and like 

products not formally included in Handbook 133.

NCWM Working Group: Teaching inspectors how to account for 

moisture loss has proven challenging. Call for industry to address 

the issue. 
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix I – Item 260-3: Moisture Allowance for Pasta Products

L&R - I20

Slide 7

Agenda Item 260-3

Goal: A moisture loss gray area facilitates retail inspections but does not 

excuse or sanction unlawful short weight packages on store shelves.

An inspector cannot order product off-sale (nor can a jurisdiction issue a 

citation or impose a penalty) for pasta products unless adequate account is 

made for moisture loss.

Adoption of a validated 3% “gray area” for moisture loss for pasta allows 

inspectors to effectively remove impermissibly short weight packages found on 

store shelves.

This is not a “free pass.” Inspectors can elect to conduct further investigation to 

determine whether moisture loss is the basis for the product being short weight 

and whether 3% is the appropriate amount of moisture loss to apply. 

The pasta industry views retail inspections as important to equity in the 

marketplace for consumers and competitors.

Slide 8

Benefits of Agenda Item 260-3

Enhances the ability of inspectors to evaluate moisture loss for 

pasta products. 

Enables jurisdictions to meet their legal obligation to account for 

moisture loss. 

Prevents confusion about the need to consider moisture loss or how 

to account for moisture loss. 

Educates inspectors about the requirements for moisture loss 

consideration under Handbook 133. 

Encourages rigorous inspection of pasta products. 

Demonstrates the Conference’s commitment to addressing issues of 

common concern in a timely and reasoned fashion. 
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix I – Item 260-3: Moisture Allowance for Pasta Products

L&R - I21

Slide 9

Moisture Loss in Pasta

Manufacturing Overview: Pasta is hygroscopic. Its 

moisture content does not remain constant after 

manufacture. Pasta eventually reaches a moisture 

equilibrium with its surrounding atmosphere. This balance 

does not occur until long after the packaging and distribution 

of product.

Data: Studies indicate that pasta exhibits moisture loss in all 

environments and packaging types. Data shows 3% to be 

an appropriate gray area. 

Slide 10

Pasta – Manufacturing Overview

Pasta is a basic recipe of flour and water.

Pasta is produced in accord with the moisture and quality 

requirements as defined by FDA regulations. 

Pasta is packed and documented at or above label weight in 

“breathable” film or paperboard cartons. Pasta must “breathe” to 

prevent substandard quality or mold issues.

Pasta is hygroscopic; It will seek to equilibrate with the surrounding 

atmosphere. 

Hot, dry, arid and air conditioned store environments that have less 

humidity will pull moisture from the pasta into the environment. 

Tropical, wet, high humidity environments, seldom seen in U.S. stores, 

will pull moisture from the environment, into the pasta. 

Pasta is produced regionally, but distributed nationally, subject to 

various climatology and environmental conditions. 
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix I – Item 260-3: Moisture Allowance for Pasta Products

L&R - I22

Slide 11

NDSU Published Study

North Dakota State University designed a controlled study in 1989 

in accordance with previous FDA study on moisture loss in flour.

Packaged pasta loses or gains moisture dependent upon 

environmental temperature and humidity during storage and 

distribution.

At retail, pasta packaged in paperboard lost up to 5.02% of its 

weight. Pasta packaged in flexible polyethylene bags lost up to 

3.18% of its weight. 

Neither product size, shape, composition or source of manufacture 

showed a significant effect on weight gain or loss. All products 

met the FDA regulations for pasta moisture at time of pack.

Slide 12

NDSU Published Study

Study considered moisture loss at retail and in warehouses (a 

transient point in the distribution chain—after which additional 

moisture loss occurs). 

Retail -6

-5

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M

PERCENT NET WEIGHT CHANGE

STORAGE TIME (months)

Net weight change in spaghetti in paperboard cartons during storage under ambient conditions.

3%
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix I – Item 260-3: Moisture Allowance for Pasta Products

L&R - I23

Slide 13

Using a similar design as 1989 Study, 

>700 samples were pulled 

10 major geographic locations 

5 manufacturers 

Throughout summer and winter months

Over a one year time period. 

Outcome:

75% of the samples lost moisture between 2.5% - 5.5%. 

Samples from hot, dry or high altitude locations, and from winter vs. 

summer weather were significantly more variable.

Industry Study 2006 – 2007

Slide 14

There is an additional and immediate weight loss when product is moved 

from a storage warehouse environment to a retail shelf environment. 

Weight Loss through the Total Distribution Life Cycle (Storage + Retail 

Outlet) measured from 2.5% to 5.5% across the USA.

Impact of Retail Environment 2006-2007 Study
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix I – Item 260-3: Moisture Allowance for Pasta Products

L&R - I24

Slide 15

Total Loss in Distribution Environment; (up to 5.5%)

Climatology – Temperature, Seasons and Humidity 

Humid vs. Dry or High Altitude Areas of Country 

Air Conditioned Store Environments 

Length of Time in Distribution 

Regional Production Locations with National Distribution

Warehousing of Closed Palletized Cases of Product; (up to 2.5%)

Slowest Rate of Decline 

Individual Packages are Not Exposed

Cased to Uncased, Displayed Product; (Additional 1.0 – 3.0%)

Quickest Rate of Decline

Exposure of Individual Packages to Direct Environmental Conditions

Moisture Loss in Distribution -

All Studies

Slide 16

In Summary

Federal and state law require consideration of moisture loss. 

Pasta is a hygroscopic product whereby moisture loss or gain 

occurs.

Substantial data, including a peer-reviewed published article 

(and other data submitted by NPA to the Conference), 

demonstrates the known amounts of moisture loss. 

Regulatory officials have recognized 3% as a validated and 

reasonable “gray area.”

NPA appreciates the Conference’s interest in and support of 

Agenda Item 260-3. 
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix J – Developing Item 270-1: Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants Regulation

L&R - J1 

Appendix J

Developing Item 270-1: Handbook 130, Engine Fuels and Automotive 

Lubricants Regulation

Motor Fuel Nozzle Color 

Table of Contents 

Page

Missouri Petroleum Marketers & Convenience Store Association (MPCAP)/April 25, 2011 .........................L&R - J3
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix J – Developing Item 270-1: Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants Regulation

L&R - J2 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix J – Developing Item 270-1: Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants Regulation

L&R - J3 
L&R Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix J – Developing Item 270-1: Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants Regulation

L&R - J4 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
S&T Committee 2011 Final Report

S&T - 1 

Report of the 

Specifications and Tolerances (S&T) Committee

Steve Giguere, Chairman

Augusta, Maine

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 96th 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 

NCWM 2011 Online Position Forum, 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 and appendix items. The agenda items are identified in the report by Reference Key 

Number, Item Title, and Page Number. T he 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 Informational 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 the NCWM. Table B identifies the acronyms for organizations and 

technical terms used throughout the report, and Table C provides a summary of the results of the voting on the 

Committee’s items and the report in its entirety. 

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

Handbook 44, 2011 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 S&T Page Number

310 GENERAL CODE................................................................................................................................ S&T - 4

310-1 V Provision for Sealing Electronic Adjustable Components....................................................S&T - 4

310-2 D G-S.1. Identification. – (Software).........................................................................................S&T - 7

310-3 V G-A.6. Nonretroactive Requirements (Remanufactured Equipment) ..................................S&T - 13

320 SCALES............................................................................................................................................... S&T - 18

320-1 W T.N.4.5.1. Time Dependence: Class II, III, and IIII Non-automatic Weighing 

Instruments..........................................................................................................................S&T - 18

320-2 V T.N.4.7. Creep Recovery for Load Cells..............................................................................S&T - 19
S&T Committee 2011 Final Report

S&T - 2 

321 BELT-CONVEYOR SCALE (BCS) SYSTEMS .............................................................................. S&T - 21

321-1 V N.3.1.3. Check for Consistency of the Conveyor Belt Along Its Entire Length ..................S&T - 21

331 VEHICLE-TANK METERS (VTM)................................................................................................. S&T - 23

331-1 V S.2.6. Thermometer Well, Temperature Determination.......................................................S&T - 23

331-2 I T.4. Product Depletion Test ................................................................................................. S&T - 26

336 WATER METERS ............................................................................................................................. S&T - 33

336-1 V Appendix D- Definition of Utility–Type Water Meters.......................................................S&T - 33

342 FARM MILK TANKS........................................................................................................................ S&T - 35

342-1 V N.5.1. Verification of Master Metering Systems ................................................................. S&T - 35

N.5.1. Verification of Master Metering Systems. ....................................................................................... S&T - 35

360 OTHER ITEMS .................................................................................................................................. S&T - 37

360-1 I International Organization of Legal Metrology (OIML) Report..........................................S&T - 37

360-2 D Developing Items.................................................................................................................S&T - 39

Appendix A – Developing Items.................................................................................................................. S&T - A1

Part 2.20. Weigh-In-Motion Vehicle Scales for Law Enforcement – Work Group ............................S&T - A1

Part 3.30. Liquid-Measuring Devices (LMD) – Item 1: Price Posting and Computing Capability and 

Requirements for a Retail Motor-Fuel Dispenser (RMFD)................................................S&T - A3

Appendix B - Attachments............................................................................................................................S&T - B1

S&T Item 310-3: Nonretroactive Requirements (Remanufactured Equipment) – Examples of 

Repaired Devices/Repaired Elements................................................................................. S&T - B1

S&T Agenda Item 310-3: Nonretroactive Requirements (Remanufactured Equipment) – 

HB 44 (2010) General and Scales Code List of Nonretroactive Requirements.................. S&T - B9

Appendix C – Correspondences.................................................................................................................. S&T - C1

S&T Agenda Item 310-3: Nonretroactive Requirements (Remanufactured Equipment) – Letter 

from PMP ........................................................................................................................... S&T - C1

S&T Agenda Item 310-3: Nonretroactive Requirements (Remanufactured Equipment) – 

Stakeholders Letter from Graffco....................................................................................... S&T - C3

S&T Agenda Item 310-3: Nonretroactive Requirements (Remanufactured Equipment) – Letter 

from Dresser Wayne..............................................................................................................S&T - 7

S&T Agenda Item 321-1: Belt-Conveyor Scale Systems - Letter from Thermo Fisher 

Scientific (2011)................................................................................................................. S&T - C9

S&T Agenda Item 321-1: Belt-Conveyor Scale Systems - Letter from Thermo Fisher 

Scientific (2010)............................................................................................................... S&T - C11

S&T Agenda Item 342-1: Data from Federal Milk Marketers Administration ....................................... S&T - C13
S&T Committee 2011 Final Report

S&T - 3 

Table B 

Glossary of Acronyms 

BCS Belt-Conveyor Scales NTETC National Type Evaluation Technical Committee

CC Certificate of Conformance NW&SA National Weighing and Sampling Association

CWMA Central Weights and Measures 

Association OEM Original Equipment Manufacturer

EPO Examination Procedure Outline Pub 14 NCWM Publication 14

GS NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector RMFD Retail Motor-Fuel Dispenser

GIPSA Grain Inspection Packers & Stockyards 

Administration 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 TG Task Group

LPG Liquefied Petroleum Gas WG Work Group

MS NTETC Measuring Sector WIM Weigh-in-motion

MMA Meter Manufacturers Association WMD NIST Weights and Measures Division

NCWM National Conference on Weights and 

Measures, Inc WS NTETC Weighing Sector 

NEWMA Northeastern Weights and Measures 

Association WWMA Western Weights and Measures Association 

NH3 Anhydrous Ammonia USNWG NIST/OIML U.S. National Working Group

NIST National Institute of Standards and 

Technology VTM Vehicle-tank Meters

NTEP National Type Evaluation Program

“Handbook 44” (HB 44) means the 2010 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 (including subsequent amendments), 

“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 2011 Final Report

S&T - 4 

Table C 

Voting Results

Reference Key 

Number

House of State 

Representatives House of Delegates

Results

Yeas Nays Yeas Nays

Consent Calendar

310-1 Adopted

310-3 Adopted

320-2 Adopted

321-1 Adopted

331-1 Adopted

336-1 Adopted

342-1 Adopted

(Report on its Entirety

Voice Vote) Adopted

Details of All Items

(In Order by Reference Key Number)

310 GENERAL CODE

310-1 V Provision for Sealing Electronic Adjustable Components 

(This item was adopted.)

Source: 2010 Carryover Item 310-1. This item originated from the Southern Weights and Measures Association 

(SWMA) Committee and first appeared on the Committee’s 2008 Agenda.

Purpose: The purpose of the original submitter’s proposed changes were intended to clarify what is considered an 

effective method of sealing metrological features, and what information is required to be indicated and recorded 

when a device is in a metrological adjustment mode.

Item Under Consideration: At the 2011 NCWM Annual Meeting, the Committee recommended that the 

interpretation of HB 44 General Code paragraph G-S.8. Provision for Sealing Electronic Adjustable Components as 

shown below be documented into the Report of the 96th NCWM. 

The current language in paragraph G-S.8. states: “A device shall be designed with provision(s) for 

applying a security seal that must be broken, or for using other approved means of providing security (e.g., 

data change audit trail available at the time of inspection), before any change that detrimentally affects the 

metrological integrity of the device can be made to any electronic mechanism.”

Thus, for parameters protected by physical means of security, once a physical security seal is applied to the 

device, it should not be possible to make a metrological change to those parameters without breaking that 

seal. Likewise, for parameters protected by electronic means of security, it should not be possible to make 

a metrological change to those parameters without that change being reflected in the audit trail. Since this 
S&T Committee 2011 Final Report

S&T - 5 

philosophy addresses provisions for protecting access to any metrological adjustment, the philosophy 

should be applied consistently to all electronic device types.

Background/Discussion: Several years ago, NTEP evaluators inspected some devices that could be sealed in an 

“adjustment” mode that would allow the user to make adjustments without breaking a physical security seal, and for 

which the accompanying user’s manual provided clear instructions that the physical security seal should not be 

affixed while the device was in that mode. For example, a switch placing the device in the “adjustment mode” 

should be set in the “off” position before affixing the physical security seal. B ecause device owners, including 

service agents, are required to comply with all user requirements, some NTEP evaluators and applicants believed 

that these devices complied with G-S.8. NTEP started receiving an increasing number of reports that users and 

service agents were not following the instructions in the user’s manuals for these devices, thus, rendering the method 

of sealing ineffective. In many cases, this situation went undetected because weights and measures officials do not 

have access to the users’ manuals, and the information was not consistently specified in the NTEP CC.

Since 2008, the NCWM S&T Committees, regional weights and measures associations, NTETC Sectors, and other 

interested parties considered several proposals intended to address what is considered an effective method of sealing 

metrological features. The proposals to amend HB 44 paragraph G-S.8. were intended to clarify what is considered 

an effective method of sealing that would be uniformly applied during type evaluation and field verification. 

Throughout these deliberations, it b ecame apparent that the issues identified in type evaluation were based upon 

multiple interpretations of G-S.8., and that a single interpretation was needed and should be distributed to the NTEP 

laboratories, so that type evaluation procedures for sealing could be reviewed and, if necessary, amended. See the 

2008 through 2010 N CWM Annual Reports to review previous language and positions and other background 

information to amend G-S.8. 

At its August 2010 Annual Meeting, the WS: 1) reviewed the sealing procedures in Pub 14 Scales type evaluation 

checklist and procedures; 2) compared them with similar type evaluation criteria in Pub 14 for LMD; and 

3) reviewed applicable HB 44 sealing requirements in the General, Scales, and LMD codes. Prior to the 2010 

meeting of the WS, a small WG was formed to develop more detailed procedures for determining compliance of the 

methods for sealing, and requested the WS consider its recommendations for Pub 14, DES Section 10. The WS 

reviewed the recommendations. The WS agreed with the revised proposal to amend Pub 14 Scale Section 10 and 

recommended it be forwarded to the S&T Committee and the SMA for consideration prior to the 2011 NCWM 

Interim Meeting. The WS also agreed to forward the amended language for Pub 14 to the S&T Committee with a 

recommendation that the S&T item to amend G-S.8. be Withdrawn from the Committee’s agenda. The final 

summary of the NTETC WS may be found in Appendix C of the NTEP Committee’s 2011 Interim Report. 

At its fall 2010 Interim Meeting, the CWMA stated that the item had been on the agenda since 2008, allowing

sufficient time for development. T he CWMA noted that no comments were received during its open hearing. 

Therefore, the CWMA S&T Committee believed that this should be moved forward as a Voting item. (The CWMA 

did not have a quorum to vote on its agenda.) 

During the fall 2010 WWMA Annual Technical Conference, Mr. Darrell Flocken, Mettler Toledo, speaking on 

behalf of the SMA, restated SMA’s position that this item be Withdrawn. Speaking as chairman of the WS, Mr. 

Flocken restated the history of the issues that initiated the original proposals. At the August 2009 WS meeting, it 

was noted that there were problems at NTEP weighing labs due to insufficient guidance in Pub 14. Mr. Cook, NIST 

Technical Advisor to the WS, speaking on behalf of the WS, provided the WWMA with a brief review of the WS 

recommendations to amend the weighing devices section of Pub 14. The WWMA recommended that this remain an 

Informational item until the 96th NCWM S&T Committee confirmed that the WS recommendations complied with 

the previous (95th) Committee’s interpretation of General Code paragraph G-S.8. 

During its fall 2010 Annual Meeting, the SWMA heard comments from Mr. Lou Straub, Fairbanks Scales, and 

Mr. Gordon Johnson, Gilbarco, indicating that no changes were needed to paragraph G-S.8. T he SWMA S&T 

Committee also received information from the WWMA and the WS regarding work accomplished in the WS to 

refine criteria in Pub 14 relative to the interpretation of paragraph G-S.8. M s. Tina Butcher, NIST WMD, and 

members of the WS, including Mr. Straub and Mr. Truex, reported that the WS had made progress on developing 

proposed changes to the Scales Checklist in Pub 14, and anticipated forwarding those changes to the NTEP 

Committee for possible inclusion in the next edition of Pub 14. In anticipation that the Sector’s work will bring 
S&T Committee 2011 Final Report

S&T - 6 

closure to this issue, and to encourage consistent interpretation of paragraph G-S.8., the SWMA recommended that 

this remain an Informational item to allow this work to be completed.

The Committee reviewed the new language proposed by the WS for inclusion in the 2011 Edition of Pub 14. The 

Committee also agreed with WMD’s suggestion that the Committee’s interpretation of G-S.8. be restated in Pub 14 

for each checklist where G-S.8. is referenced. A s noted earlier in the background information, the proposed 

interpretation is based on language that is already in Pub 14 LMD Section 9. 

The Committee initially recommended that this item remain Informational until the NTEP Committee agreed with 

the recommendation of the WS during the 2011 Interim Meeting. T he Committee also agreed with the WMD 

suggestion that the Committee’s interpretation be included in all Publication 14 checklists where paragraph G-S.8. is 

referenced. The NIST Technical Advisor contacted Mr. Truex, NTEP Administrator and NTEP Committee

Technical Advisor, regarding the proceedings of the NTEP Committee in its review of the summary of the 2010 

meeting of the NTETC WS during the Interim meeting. Mr. Truex reported that the NTEP Committee 

recommended no changes to the WS draft summary. Mr. Truex requested that the Committee consider:

1. Adding a statement in the Committee’s report recommending the interpretation be placed in other NIST 

and NCWM documents as appropriate.

2. Rewording the Committee’s interpretation of G-S.8. such that it is clear and applies only to electronic

components (i.e., it’s hard to seal a spring or nose iron). 

3. Recommending that other Sectors (Measuring, Belt-Conveyor, and Grain Analyzer) be given the 

opportunity to review any additions to their respective Pub 14 checklists since the WS was given time to 

review the proposed Committee interpretation in the weighing sections of Pub 14. 

4. The paragraph, in its final form, should probably be an up-front paragraph in Pub 14 “Philosophy for 

Sealing” appendices.

The Committee agreed with the comments from Mr. Truex. Although the Committee agreed with the comments to 

withdraw the proposal to amend G-S.8., it was concerned that its interpretation would be overlooked in the future 

because the item was Withdrawn. Therefore, the Committee agreed to remove the proposed language in its Interim 

agenda, and they recommended that the Committee’s current interpretation of G-S.8. in the Item Under 

Consideration be a Voting item. The Committee further recommended the language in the “Item Under 

Consideration” be added to NIST and NCWM documents as appropriate, and that the NTETC Sectors consider 

adding the language to the applicable “Philosophy for Sealing” appendices in NCWM Pub 14. 

During its spring 2011 Annual Meeting, the CWMA supported the item as presented after considering the following 

comments provided by the SMA: 

SMA understands that this item is a Voting item intended to recognize that the current language in G-S.2. 

Facilitation of Fraud and G-S.8. Provision for Sealing Electronic Adjustable Components, is sufficient to 

address the proper sealing methods for electronic devices. SMA understands that this item proposes no 

changes to HB 44. 

At the spring 2011 NEWMA Annual Meeting, Mr. Ross Andersen, Retired Director of the New York Bureau of 

Weights and Measures, speaking on his own behalf, indicated that there have been other instances in the past where 

the NCWM membership voted on a Committee’s position statement to provide a historical record of a particular 

Committee position/interpretation. Mr. Andersen also indicated that he believed the Committee’s position could be 

more clearly defined. Shortly after the NEWMA meeting concluded, NIST Technical Advisor, Mr. Rick Harshman, 

contacted Mr. Andersen in an effort to obtain additional clarification regarding the comment he had made 

concerning the Committee’s position. Mr. Andersen provided the following explanation:

The Committee’s interpretation of G-S.8. being voted on for addition into the Final Report of the 96th

NCWM requires a physical seal to be broken before a metrological change can be made to a device. The 

language that was added to Pub 14 is different than what’s proposed for vote. Pub 14 allows a device with 
S&T Committee 2011 Final Report

S&T - 7 

physical means of sealing to be sealed in the calibration or configuration mode if it provides a clear 

indication that it’s in that mode. If NTEP wants to say that an indicator light (which depicts a device is in 

the calibration or configuration mode) is acceptable, I’d like to see the Committee sanction that in their 

interpretation. Since NTEP policy must conform with HB 44, it seems necessary to ensure the code also 

permits the indicator light. Thus, that must be included in the interpretation of the Committee.

 

After further review of the Weighing Sector (WS) language, WMD agreed with the concern raised by Mr. Andersen. 

WMD concurred that the WS language was not consistent with the Committee’s interpretation of G.S.8. in that 

adjustments could still be made while a physical seal is intact. 

During the open hearings at the 2011 NCWM Annual Meeting, WMD suggested making the following changes to 

Committee’s interpretation of G-S.8. as shown in NCWM Publication 16 i n the “Item Under Consideration,” to 

clarify how that interpretation is intended to apply to electronic devices protected by physical means of security 

versus electronic devices protected by electronic means of security: 

The current language in paragraph G-S.8. requires that a security seal be broken before a metrological 

change can be made to an electronic device (or other approved means of security such as an audit trail 

provided). Thus, for parameters protected by physical means of security, once a physical security seal

is applied to the device, it should not be possible to make a metrological change to the device those 

parameters without breaking that seal. Likewise, for parameters protected by electronic means of 

security, it should not be possible to make a metrological change to those parameters without that 

change being reflected in the audit trail. Since this philosophy addresses provisions for protecting access 

to any metrological adjustment, the philosophy should be applied consistently to all electronic device types.

Mr. Gordon Johnson, Gilbarco, Inc.; Mr. Dmitri Karimov, Liquid Controls, speaking on behalf of MMA; and Mr. 

Darrell Flocken, Mettler-Toledo, speaking on behalf of the SMA, supported the language in Pub 16. Mr. Johnson 

and Mr. Karimov requested additional time for review of the language suggested by WMD. Mr. Flocken, speaking 

on behalf of Mettler-Toledo, indicated support for the amendments as suggested by WMD.

After discussing the comments from the 2011 NCWM Annual Meeting open hearings and the proposed changes 

from WMD, the Committee agreed to modify the language in its Interim Report to that shown in this Final Report in 

the Item Under Consideration. T he Committee also requested that the WS review the language that was added to 

NTEP Pub 14 and make certain it is consistent with the Committee’s interpretation of G.S.8. 

Additional background information and previous language considered by the Committee including written and open 

hearing comments may be reviewed in the 2008, 2009, and 2010 NCWM Annual Reports.

310-2 D G-S.1. Identification. – (Software)

(The status of this item was changed from Informational to Developing.) 

Source: 2010 Carryover Item 310-3. This item originated from the NTETC Software Sector (SS) and first 

appeared on the Committee’s 2007 agenda as Developing Item Part 1, Item 1.

Purpose: This proposal is intended to amend the identification marking requirements for all electronic devices 

manufactured after a s pecified date, by requiring that metrological software version or revision information be 

identified. Additionally, the proposal suggests listing methods, other than “permanently marked,” for providing the 

required information. 

Item Under Consideration: Amend G-S.1. Identification and G-S.1.1. Location of Marking Information for NotBuilt-for-Purpose, Software-Based Devices as shown in the 2010 Committee’s Final Report. The language in the 

Final Report incorporated the March 2010 recommendation from the SS and the Committee’s suggested language to 

address SMA concerns with the requirements in G-S.1., where it states that “all equipment . . . shall be permanently 

marked . . .” and G-S.1.1. that allows alternate methods, other than “permanently marked,” to identify softwarebased devices.
S&T Committee 2011 Final Report

S&T - 8 

Background/Discussion: In 2005, the Board of Directors (BOD) established an NTETC Software Sector. One of 

the Sector’s tasks is to recommend HB 44 specifications and requirements for software incorporated into weighing 

and measuring devices, which may include tools used for software identification.

During its October 2007 meeting, the SS discussed the value and merits of required markings for software. This 

included the possible differences in some types of software-based devices and methods of marking these devices. 

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 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 embedded software must display or hard-mark the device make, model, and S.N. to comply 

with G-S.1. Identification.

After the 2008 NCWM Annual Meeting, the Committee received the SS’s 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. The proposal listed “acceptable” and “not acceptable” methods for presenting: 

• NTEP CC number • Serial Number

• Make • Software Version/Revision Number

• Model

At the 2009 NCWM Interim Meeting, SMA commented that it has consistently opposed having different 

requirements between embedded and downloadable/programmable software-based devices. SMA added that it 

continues to support the intent of the proposal, and will continue to participate in the SS 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, or dropdown menus). 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. SMA 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 l iquid crystal display), rather than be physically marked on the device. W MD agrees with the 

interpretation and suggested that this interpretation could be expanded to other marking requirements (e.g., flow 

rates, capacity, interval, etc.), and codes after review on a case-by-case basis, and that specific language (based on 

the above interpretation) might be added to the applicable sections in HB 44.

SS Co-chairman Mr. Jim Pettinato, FMC Technologies, stated the SS recommended that this item remain an 

Informational Item to allow NCWM members to further study the proposal to develop a consensus on the format for 

Table G-S.1. Identification in its 2009 meeting summary.
S&T Committee 2011 Final Report

S&T - 9 

See the 2009 a nd 2010 A nnual Reports to review previous language and positions to amend HB 44 pa ragraphs 

G-S.1. and G-S.1.1.

In response to comments heard during the 2010 NCWM Interim Meeting, the SS (March 2010 meeting) proposed 

changes to the language shown in the NCWM S&T Committee’s 2010 Interim Report Item 310-3. These revisions 

removed the differentiation between types of software (Type P and Type U), while still managing to achieve the 

Sector’s objective of simplifying the process of locating required marking information. 

The SS recommended amending the 2010 i tem under consideration by removing the proposed words “and 

manufactured after January 1, 201X” from the first sentence in paragraph G-S.1., and noted that the remainder of 

the proposal remains unchanged. The SS agreed that the reference to the manufacture date is not necessary since the 

current proposal to amend G-S.1. includes applicable nonretroactive dates for the amended subparagraphs. 

The SS also initiated discussion on two new concepts, which may eventually result in additional recommendations 

to amend G-S.1. At that time, the SS noted that these new ideas were in the developmental stage and were included 

in the Committee’s report by request of the Sector, since comments from the regions and other interested parties 

would be appreciated by the Sector.

The SS sees merit to requiring some “connection” between the software identifier (i.e., version/revision) and the 

software itself. T he proposal was to add a new sub-subparagraph (3) to G-S.1.(d) to read as follows (with the 

expectation that examples of acceptable means of implementing such a link would be included in Pub 14).

“The version or revision identifier shall be directly and inseparably linked to the software itself. The 

version or revision identifier may consist of more than one part, but at least one part shall be dedicated 

to the metrologically significant software.”

Second, it seems that at each meeting of the SS, state weights and measures officials reiterate the problems they 

have in the field locating the basic information required when the CC number is marked via the rather general 

current HB 44 requirement of “accessible through an easily recognizable menu and if necessary a s ub-menu” 

(G-S.1.1. (b)(3)). States have indicated that this is too vague, and field inspectors often cannot find the certificate 

number on unfamiliar devices.

The SS requested feedback on a proposal to specify a limited number of menu items/icons for accessing the CC 

number (if it is not hard-marked or continuously displayed) in subparagraph (b) and that the information be 

accessible through one, or at most, two levels of access. 

At its spring 2010 Annual Meeting, NEWMA recommended leaving this item Informational to allow review of the 

SS’s revised language from its March 2010 meeting.

During the 2010 NCWM Annual Meeting, the SMA stated that the proposal from the SS addresses one of the 

SMA’s concerns dealing with the use of the term “not built for purpose;” however, it still has concerns with the 

requirement in G-S.1., stating that the software version or revision identifier must be clearly and permanently 

marked. The SMA recommends that the Software Sector and the S&T Committee review and correct what appears 

to be conflicting requirements as stated in G-S.1. and G-S.1.1. dealing with the marking requirement.

The Committee also received a summary of the 2010 meeting of the NTETC laboratories where some of the NTEP 

evaluators were concerned that the revised language could be interpreted such that no markings are required on a 

device. T hese evaluators expressed concern that an inspector would have to guess which of the eight methods 

recommended in the March 2010 Software Sector Summary is to be used to find the CC number and questioned 

whether this would mean that a weighing or measuring device might not be marked with any identifier markings, 

including the manufacturer.

The Committee amended the item under consideration based on the recommendations of the SS at its March 2010

meeting. The Committee agreed to clarify and document the SMA concerns with the requirements in G-S.1. where

it states that “all equipment . . . shall be permanently marked . . .” and G-S.1.1. that allows alternate methods, other 
S&T Committee 2011 Final Report

S&T - 10

than “permanently marked,” to identify software-based devices. Consequently, the Committee revised the first 

paragraph of G-S.1. to read as shown in the “Item Under Consideration” in its 2011 NCWM Interim Agenda. 

At its fall 2010 Interim Meeting, the CWMA stated that it believes that this item should be moved to a vote and 

suggested an editorial change to G.S.1.1.(b)(3) to read “no more than two levels of access” instead of “one or, at 

most, two levels of access.” 

During the fall 2010 WWMA Annual Technical Conference, Mr. Steve Cook, NIST Technical Advisor to the WS,

provided an update to the WWMA S&T Committee. Mr. Cook also discussed the conflicting language between 

G-S.1. and G-S.1.1. identified by the SMA, and the NCWM S&T Committee’s solution to eliminate the conflict.

The WS reviewed the list of acceptable abbreviations and icons as requested by the SS and agreed that the proposed 

software identification abbreviation “SI” should not be included in the list since “SI” is also the abbreviation for the 

International System of Units. 

The WS also noted that the proposed icon “M” with the green fill should not be used since it is used by the 

European Union as a metrology mark for all devices, not just for metrological software identification. 

Mr. Flocken, speaking on behalf of the SMA, restated SMA’s April 2010 position based on the conflicting language 

in paragraphs G-S.1. and G-S.1.1. He added that the revised language for G-S.1. in the S&T Agenda should also be 

reviewed by the SS. Mr. Johnson, Gilbarco, added that their current Retail Motor-Fuel Dispenser (RMFD) software 

cannot display alpha characters for software version identification, which is problematic since the latest version of 

the proposal includes software identification for all software-based devices. Mr. Johnson added that a possible 

solution would be to allow the software version to be reported on the NTEP CC.

The WWMA recommended the following amendment to G-S.1.(d)(1) that addressed Gilbarco’s comments on 

devices with limited character sets such as RMFD without alpha displays and/or annunciators to read as follows:

(d) the current software version or revision identifier for not-built for purpose, software-based devices;

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2004]

(Added 2003)

(1) Except for devices with limited character sets (e.g., primary indications without alpha characters or 

annunciators*) 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]

*[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 201X]

(Added 2006) (Amended 201X)

(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.) 

(Added 2006)

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2007]

*[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 201X]

[NIST Technical Advisor’s Note: After the WWMA meeting, WMD noted that it believes there is a need to address 

the exception by adding language to address the method for identifying the version or revision number for devices 

with limited character sets. For example: Add a new sentence at the end of (d)(2) above such as “For devices with 

limited character sets, the instructions to identify the version or revision identifier shall be listed on the NTEP 

CC.”)]

The WWMA believes that its suggested changes to the proposal sufficiently address all issues identified during the 

open hearings, and this should remain an Informational item to allow the SS an opportunity to comment on the 

revisions proposed by the NCWM and WWMA S&T Committees.

M
S&T Committee 2011 Final Report

S&T - 11

At its 2010 Annual Meeting, the SWMA heard from Mr. Johnson, Gilbarco, restating his concern about how this 

proposal would apply to simpler devices that may have a limited display capability; while these devices may be able 

to display a software version number, they aren’t able to display a designation that defines it as a “version number.” 

Mr. Johnson also noted that the WWMA modified the proposed language to provide an exception for devices with 

limited character sets and encouraged the Committee to review this language. Mr. Straub, Fairbanks Scales, 

speaking on behalf of SMA stated that SMA, at its 2010 spring meeting, opposed this item. Mr. Straub also pointed 

out that there appears to be a conflict with regard to the required permanence of the marking, noting that G-S.1. 

refers to “permanently marked,” whereas G-S.2. makes reference to “continuously displayed” markings.

The SWMA considered whether or not the proposal is ready to be adopted. Based on the variety of comments 

heard, comments opposing the item, and the alternatives presented, the SWMA did not feel it c ould make a 

recommendation at this time. The SWMA felt that the SS should be given the opportunity to review the input and 

comments made on this issue since the Sector’s last meeting. Consequently, the SWMA felt that the item should 

remain as an Informational item on the NCWM S&T Committee’s agenda.

At its fall 2010 Interim Meeting, NEWMA stated that the WWMA proposed revision to the “Item Under 

Consideration,” and the questions raised during discussions of the issue have merit. NEWMA recommended this 

remain an Informational item to give the Weighing Sector and the NCWM S&T Committee time to evaluate the new 

language.

At the 2011 Interim Meeting, the NCWM S&T Committee heard from Mr. Jim Pettinato, SS Co-Chairman, on two 

key points. 

1. The software version number would be required for all software-based devices (i.e., “built-for-purpose” 

devices as well as “not-built-for-purpose” devices). 

2. Limit the options for nonhard-marked certificate numbers so they are easy to find. There have been reports 

of difficulty in finding information such as the CC number, particularly for not-built-for-purpose devices. 

Mr. Pettinato also noted that the intent of the proposal is not to require stand-alone software to have a serial number.

The Committee agreed that this item is not ready to move forward as a Voting item. The Committee recommends 

the SS review the following comments and points made during the 2011 Interim meeting and consider how these 

issues should be addressed.

• Confirm that all software-based devices must have version/revision identification. 

• Stand-alone software does not require a serial number.

• Is a definition needed for software-based (electronic) devices?

• Devices with limited character sets may need different requirements since they may not be able to display 

all characters; they may have limited or no room for full display; and hard-markings for identification 

information may be impractical.

• Guidance is needed for metrological and non-metrological software. Perhaps separate version numbers or 

specific character locations in the version number that applies to metrological software are needed.

• Combine G-S.1 and G-S.1.1.

• Should G-S.1.(c) be included in G-S.1.1.(b)?
S&T Committee 2011 Final Report

S&T - 12

At their May 2011 Annual Meeting, the CWMA recommended this item remain Informational while waiting

recommended changes from the SS. The NEWMA also recommended this item remain Informational until the SS 

has had the chance to report back to the NCWM S&T. 

Prior to the 2011 NCWM Annual Meeting, NIST Technical Advisor Mr. Harshman, contacted SS Co-Chairman, 

Mr. Jim Pettinato, to obtain an update on the progress of the Sector’s continuing development of this item. Mr. 

Pettinato provided WMD a draft summary of the March 2011 SS Meeting. Based on the information provided and 

Mr. Pettanato’s explanation of the discussions that took place during the meeting, WMD suggested the SS consider 

recommending to the S&T Committee that the status of this item be changed from Informational to Developing in 

order to provide the SS additional time to more fully develop the item. 

During the 2011 NCWM Annual Meeting, the Committee heard from WMD relative to whether or not the status of 

this item should be changed to Developing to provide the SS additional time to more fully develop the item based on 

the following points:

1. The current proposal is not developed enough for consideration by the S&T. B ased on the diversity of 

comments heard on this issue, WMD believes the item is not close to a vote, and considerable work still 

needs to be done to develop the item before it could be considered for a vote by the NCWM. 

2. WMD interprets the current proposal to require software be marked with a non-repetitive serial number; when 

in fact, it is not the intent of the SS to require such marking. Thus, it is believed that the language in the 2010 

Committee’s Final Report will need modification to resolve this issue.

3. The draft of the March 2011 SS Summary reported that several SS members envision G-S.1. being developed 

further to the extent that G-S.1.1. may not be needed. 

NIST Technical Advisor, Mr. Harshman, reported that SS Co-chairman, Mr. Pettinato, stated a key point agreed 

upon by members of the SS was that the software version/revision identifier should be accessible through the user 

interface. When asked about the possibility of changing the status of the item to Developing, Mr. Pettinato indicated 

he intended to poll members of the SS to determine whether or not they agree the status should be changed. 

During the S&T Committee’s open hearings, Mr. Darrell Flocken, representing SMA, indicated that he believes the 

SS is intending to propose a change to the current item, and looks forward to the further development of this item 

based on the work of the SS. Mr. Dmitri Karimov, speaking on behalf of the MMA, agreed with the comments 

made by Mr. Flocken. No member of the SS provided any input during the open hearings. 

There were three positions posted on the NCWM 2011 Online Position Forum. Of those three, two indicated neutral 

positions, and the remaining one, posted by Mr. Gordon Johnson, Gilbarco, Inc. opposed the item and included the 

following comments: 

Gilbarco does not support the current proposed language. Our pumps and dispensers have a numeric 

display capable of displaying 6 digits. It is not currently possible to display the version identifier or an 

abbreviation or symbol that identifies the version number as required in (d) (1) and (2). It is not possible to 

access the software version using “one or, at most, two levels of access" as noted in section G-S.1.1 (3). 

We do not currently offer a menu based system and do not offer functions such as “Metrology,” “System 

Identification,” or “Help.” We do not have the ability to offer icons or symbols. Meeting the new marking 

requirements will be costly to the customer. We can currently display the software version number (i.e., 

Software Version number 01.8.30 would be shown on the main display as 01830 by using controls on the 

device). The software version will also be displayed during the power-up cycle. Recommend the status be 

changed to Informational. 

The Committee discussed the comments offered by WMD, SMA, and others. After considering those comments, 

the Committee agreed to change the status of this item to Developing because the item lacks enough information for 

full consideration, and a full proposal has yet to be developed. 
S&T Committee 2011 Final Report

S&T - 13

310-3 V G-A.6. Nonretroactive Requirements (Remanufactured Equipment)

(This item was adopted.) 

Source: WWMA and SWMA 2010 Carryover Item 310-4.

Purpose: Clarify the intent of the 2001 NCWM position on the application of nonretroactive requirements to 

devices which have been determined to have been “remanufactured.”

Item Under Consideration: 

1. Amend General Code paragraph G-A.6. Nonretroactive Requirements by amending subparagraphs (b) and (c), 

and adding a new subparagraph (d) as follows:

G-A.6. Nonretroactive Requirements. – “Nonretroactive” requirements are enforceable after the effective 

date for:

(a) devices manufactured within a state after the effective date;

(b) devices (both new and used) brought into a state after the effective date; and

(c) devices used in noncommercial applications which are placed into commercial use after the effective 

date.; and

(d) devices undergoing type evaluation, including devices that have been modified to the extent that 

a new NTEP CC is required. 

Nonretroactive requirements are not enforceable with respect to devices that are in commercial service in the 

state as of the effective date or to new equipment in the stock of a manufacturer or a dealer in the state as of the 

effective date. 

[Nonretroactive requirements are printed in italic type.]

(Amended 1989 and 2011) 

2. Amend General Code paragraph G-S.1.2. Remanufactured Devices and Remanufactured Main Elements by 

changing its status from nonretroactive to retroactive, adding an enforcement date, and changing the print from 

italics type to upright roman type as follows: 

G-S.1.2. Remanufactured Devices and Remanufactured Main Elements. –All remanufactured devices 

and remanufactured main elements All devices and main elements remanufactured as of January 1, 2002, 

shall be clearly and permanently marked for the purposes of identification with the following information:

(a) the name, initials, or trademark of the last remanufacturer or distributor;

(b) the remanufacturer’s or distributor’s model designation, if different than the original model 

designation.

(Added 2001) (Amended 2011) 

Note: Definitions for “manufactured device,” “repaired device,” and “repaired element” are also included (along with 

definitions for “remanufactured device” and “remanufactured element”) in Appendix D, Definitions.

Background/Discussion: This item was originally submitted by WMD in 2010, in response to an inquiry received 

from a state Weights and Measures Director regarding whether or not a nonretroactive paragraph in the LMD Code 

of HB 44 would apply to a remanufactured device. In researching this inquiry, WMD discovered an unintended gap 

in two General Code requirements relative to remanufactured equipment as follows: 
S&T Committee 2011 Final Report

S&T - 14

• Paragraph G-S.1.2. Remanufactured Devices and Remanufactured Main Elements was designated a 

nonretroactive requirement for marking remanufactured devices and remanufactured main elements with 

the identification information of the remanufacturer and is enforceable as of January 1, 2002. W MD 

believed that this paragraph is intended to apply to remanufactured devices and remanufactured main 

elements that have been placed into commercial service as of the effective date of the requirement (i.e., 

January 1, 2002). 

• Paragraph G-A.6. Nonretroactive Requirements provides the various conditions in which nonretroactive 

requirements apply. The paragraph references manufactured devices, new devices, and used devices, but

did not include any reference to “remanufactured devices” or “remanufactured main elements.” 

While developing the original proposal, WMD contacted two RMFDs OEMs, and representatives from those 

companies both indicated that remanufactured RMFDs should comply with the most recent HB 44 nonretroactive 

requirements in effect as of the date they are remanufactured.

WMD also contacted Mr. Jim Truex, the Chairman of the Remanufactured Device Task Force, which was formed 

by the NCWM BOD in 1999. Mr. Truex indicated that to the best of his recollection, there was no conscious 

discussion from the task force of how nonretroactive requirements were to apply to remanufactured equipment. He 

believes that different states may be enforcing nonretroactive requirements differently with respect to 

remanufactured equipment. 

WMD noted that the issue of applying paragraph G-A.6. to remanufactured equipment is separate from that of 

determining when a d evice or element has been “remanufactured.” D efinitions found in Appendix D of HB 44, 

along with guidance developed by the NCWM Remanufactured Equipment Task Force can be used to assist 

jurisdictions in determining when a device or main element has been “remanufactured.” The proposed change does 

not suggest changing these tools or their application. The proposed change is only intended to clarify the application 

of G-A.6. to devices that have been determined to have been “remanufactured.”

WMD believed that some alternate language needs to be added to G-A.6. to clarify its application to remanufactured 

equipment even if the proposed direction of solving this problem is not supported as written. 

At the 2010 NCWM Annual Meeting, the Committee received several comments from remanufacturers requesting 

the item be made an Informational item to give the device remanufacturers additional time to evaluate the impact of 

the proposed amendment to G-A.6. See the 2010 Final Report of the S&T Committee for additional background 

information and to view the comments and positions taken on this issue by the various stakeholders during the 2010 

NCWM Annual Meeting. 

During the 2010 NCWM Annual Meeting, WMD provided the Committee with “real life” examples outlining when 

a device is considered as “repaired” or “remanufactured.” The examples included both weighing and measuring 

devices and clarified when devices were to be considered “repaired” or “remanufactured.” (Note: These examples 

along with HB 44 ( 2010) General and Scales Code List of Nonretroactive Requirements can be reviewed in 

Appendix B of this report.)

During its deliberations at the 2010 NCWM Annual Meeting, the Committee considered the following points:

• The marking requirement in paragraph G-S.1.2. was adopted as a “nonretroactive requirement” so that 

devices and elements remanufactured prior to January 1, 2002, would not have to be retroactively marked.

- By formatting the language in paragraph G-S.1.2. in italics font, and designating it as a 

“nonretroactive requirement” directed specifically to remanufactured devices and elements, it could 

be argued that remanufactured devices and elements are subject to “nonretroactive requirements.”

- Alternatively, if one argues that remanufactured devices and elements are not subject to 

“nonretroactive requirements,” then the “nonretroactive markings” specified in G-S.1.2. would never 
S&T Committee 2011 Final Report

S&T - 15

be applied to any remanufactured device – even though the language is specifically directed to these 

devices. 

• Paragraph G-A.6. is currently silent with respect to remanufactured devices and elements and without 

further clarification is subject to multiple interpretations. 

• There is a lot of misunderstanding of the original findings and recommendations of the original task force.

• The report of the Remanufactured Task Force and table of scenarios is not readily available outside of the 

2001 NCWM Final Report.

After considering these points and the comments received on this issue, the Committee agreed to designate this as 

Informational item to allow interests parties to review the report of the Remanufactured Task Force and associated 

table of scenarios. The Committee also requested that the NIST Technical Advisor contact the NTEP Administrator 

to discuss the potential impact of VCAP on remanufacturers with regard to how these guidelines would be integrated 

into the VCAP system. 

At its fall 2010 Interim Meeting, the CWMA received comments during its open hearing to adopt the proposal as 

written, and move it forward for a Vote. Members of the CWMA believe that remanufactured devices also need to 

be traceable to an NTEP CC. The CWMA also received comments concerning unfair competition between original 

manufacturers and remanufacturers due to the use of non-OEM replacement parts. The CWMA S&T Committee 

recommends that this item be moved as a Voting item for the reasons stated above. All new and remanufactured 

device types to be used in trade or commerce must be traceable to an NTEP CC. 

During the fall 2010 WWMA Annual Technical Conference, Mr. Cook, NIST Technical Advisor, provided the 

WWMA a handout, “Summary of 2010 HB 44 General, Scales, and Liquid-Measuring Devices Codes 

Nonretroactive Requirements,” to help the WWMA assess the impact these requirements might have on 

remanufactured devices and elements listed in the examples referenced at the 2010 NCWM Annual Meeting. 

Mr. Cook added that he would contact Mr. Truex, NTEP Administrator, to discuss how the VCAP requirements 

might impact this issue, if VCAP addresses “production meets type” policies and guidelines for devices that have 

been remanufactured by parties other than the OEM. Mr. Flocken, speaking on behalf of the SMA, supported this 

proposal. Mr. Johnson, Gilbarco, also supported this proposal. 

The WWMA S&T Committee considered the effect of applying nonretroactive requirements to devices which have 

been determined to have been “remanufactured,” expressing concern that this General Code revision may have an 

unanticipated impact on certain devices. The WWMA S&T Committee reviewed a summary list of nonretroactive 

requirements provided by Mr. Cook, and found that some requirements seemed to be metrologically insignificant, 

with minimal benefit to users and/or consumers. The WWMA S&T Committee was uncertain if VCAP polices and 

guidelines should be considered when devices are required to be retested for compliance with influence factor 

requirements. The WWMA requested that the NIST Technical Advisor contact Mr. Truex, NTEP Administrator, 

and ask if VCAP policies and guidelines are also applicable to NTEP devices and elements subject to influence 

factor requirements that are remanufactured (and still traceable to the original CC). 

The WWMA agreed that while the “Examples of Repaired Devices/Repaired Elements” were sufficiently 

developed, they need to be readily available to remanufacturers and field officials. The WWMA also agreed that the

item should continue as an Informational item, allowing other regions and industry to provide input.

At its fall 2010 Annual Meeting, the SWMA considered the effect of applying nonretroactive requirements to 

devices which have been determined to have been “remanufactured.” Based on some of the comments heard during 

its open hearings, the Committee was not clear how the proposed changes might impact some remanufactured 

equipment. The Committee reviewed a s ummary of nonretroactive requirements prepared by Mr. Cook, NIST 

WMD. The Committee agreed with the WWMA’s assessment that some requirements seemed to be metrologically 

insignificant, with minimal benefit to users and/or consumers. The SWMA S&T Committee agreed with the 

WWMA, that while the examples of repaired and remanufactured devices and elements were sufficiently developed, 

they need to be readily available to remanufacturers and field officials. For example, referenced in HB 44 

Appendix D Definitions, and published in NIST Handbook 112, and on NCWM and WMD websites.
S&T Committee 2011 Final Report

S&T - 16

The SWMA agreed that the item should remain an Informational item to allow for input from stakeholders on the 

impact of the proposal. The Committee noted that to assist field officials and industry in correctly applying the 

HB 44 paragraph G-A.6., it should be amended to clearly define whether nonretroactive requirements do apply or do 

not apply to remanufactured equipment.

At its 2010 fall Interim Meeting, NEWMA heard from Mr. McGee, PMP Corporation. He stated his opposition to 

this item. He believes the current language in the HB 44 already covers remanufactured devices by virtue of the use 

of the term “used” in General Code paragraph G-A.6. (b) Nonretroactive Requirements. He stated that any devices 

that are remanufactured, repaired, reconditioned, refurbished, or rebuilt are “used” equipment. Therefore, they are 

required to comply with nonretroactive requirements if brought into a state. Hence, there is no pressing need to 

change the wording to include “and remanufactured” in G-A.6.(b). 

Discussion from the group restated the position that NEWMA does not see a need for this item when devices are 

serviced to such an extent that they are required to be marked as “Remanufactured” and must comply with 

nonretroactive requirements. NEWMA continues to question the purpose of this item if remanufactured devices are 

already considered as new devices in HB 44. 

After receiving the report from NEWMA, Mr. Cook, NIST Technical Advisor, contacted Mr. McGee to clarify his 

reasons for opposing this item. H e responded by questioning, as a practical manner, whether a weights and 

measures official would reject a specific model delicatessen scale, if a grocery store chain moved it from one of their 

stores in one state to one of their stores in another state, just because the imported scale did not have a CC number 

marked on the scale label; especially if it was the exact same model as the scales already in the store. Similarly, he 

questioned whether a weights and measures official was going to reject a retail motor fuel device brought into a state 

from another state to replace one hit and damaged beyond repair by a motorist, because it did not have the CC 

number marked on the dispenser label, or the name plate or the label was not placed at the required proper height. 

This is especially an issue in stations with dispensers manufactured by firms that are no longer in existence. 

At the S&T Committee’s 2011 NCWM Interim Meeting open hearings, Mr. Darrell Flocken, Mettler Toledo, 

speaking on behalf of the SMA, indicated that the SMA takes no position on the issue at this time. Mr. Tom

McGee, PMP Corporation, restated his opposition to the item and requested it be Withdrawn. He commented that 

current language in G-A.6. Nonretroactive Requirements already applies to remanufactured equipment by virtue of 

the term “used.” He also questioned the practicality of applying nonretroactive requirements to equipment that had 

been remanufactured and provided some examples to support his position. Mr. Tim Columbus of Steptoe and 

Johnson, LLP, specified that he and his clients have difficulty differentiating between the terms “remanufactured” 

and “used.” He indicated that the guidelines developed by the NCWM Remanufactured Devices Task Force help 

somewhat, but with respect to retail motor fuel devices, the definitions of these terms are not clear. Mr. Doug Long, 

RDM Industrial Electronics, a remanufacturer of electronic boards for RMFDs, indicated his opposition to the item 

by stating that he saw no long-term benefits from requiring remanufactured devices to comply with nonretroactive 

requirements. 

Mr. Ross Andersen, Retired Director of the New York Bureau of Weights and Measures, cautioned members to be 

careful concerning changing G-A.6., and emphasized the significance of changing an “Application” paragraph in the 

General Code. He questioned the difference between equipment that had been remanufactured versus repaired, and 

identified and noted that it may be confusing when a label is applied by a service agent. Mr. Andersen added that if 

a device has been repaired so that it is no longer traceable to the original CC and a new CC is required, then that 

equipment should be treated as a n ew device with respect to the application of nonretroactive requirements. 

Because such equipment would be treated as new, he did not see a need to change G-A.6. 

[NIST Technical Advisor’s Note: Relative to Mr. Andersen’s comments concerning the confusion created when a 

label is applied by a service agent, many state service agents regulations require that the service agent identify his 

or her work by an adhesive tag or label that includes much of the same information required by G-S.1.2. Other 

service agents, agencies, and installers label a device in order for the user to contact them in the event that 

additional sales or services are required.]
S&T Committee 2011 Final Report

S&T - 17

NIST WMD suggested adding additional clarification in HB 44 to make clear the intent of G-A.6. as it relates to 

remanufactured equipment, offered three options for consideration, and provided a description of the effect that each 

option would have relative to its selection. WMD also suggested changing the requirement status of G-S.1.2. from 

nonretroactive to retroactive (by changing the type from italics to upright roman), and specifying the date in which 

the requirement is to be effective. WMD noted that G-S.1.2. pertains only to remanufactured devices and 

remanufactured main elements. G-A.6. specifies the conditions in which nonretroactive requirements apply to both 

new and used devices, but is silent with respect to remanufactured devices and remanufactured main elements. 

Thus, there is an unintended gap in the two paragraphs. As a result, WMD indicated a concern that the enforcement 

of the marking requirements in G-S.1.2. may be difficult to support. However, if the paragraph status of G-S.1.2. 

were changed from nonretroactive to retroactive and an effective date specified, the paragraph, in accordance with 

G-A.5. Retroactive Requirements would be enforceable with respect to all equipment, including remanufactured 

equipment, as of whatever date is specified. 

Members of the Committee concluded that nonretroactive requirements should not necessarily apply to all devices 

that have been repaired/remanufactured, to the extent that the guidelines established by the NCWM Remanufactured 

Devices Task Force provide an indication that the device has been remanufactured. However, members agreed that 

nonretroactive requirements should apply to any device that has been modified, to the extent that a new NTEP CC is

required. Thus, if a remanufactured device is issued a new CC, that device would be required to comply with all 

applicable nonretroactive requirements in effect as of the date the device is placed into service just as any new 

device would. 

The Committee also agreed with WMD’s assertion that there existed an unintended gap between G-A.6. and 

G-S.1.2. that could make enforcement of G-S.1.2. difficult to support. The Committee agreed that changing the 

status of G-S.1.2. from nonretroactive to retroactive and assigning an enforcement date of January 1, 2002, would 

be an easy and effective way to eliminate the gap without causing any undue hardship to device owners, equipment 

suppliers, equipment manufacturers, or any other interested party. 

The Committee agreed to amend paragraphs G-A.6. and G-S.1.2. as shown in the Item Under Consideration and to 

move the item forward as a Voting item.

At their May 2011 Annual Meetings, the CWMA and NEWMA both recommended adoption of this item. 

During the 2011 NEWMA Annual Meeting, Mr. Andersen, speaking on his own behalf, commented that the 

requirement will have a more significant impact on load cell manufacturers than on fuel pump manufacturers. When

asked later by NIST Technical Advisor, Mr. Harshman, why he had made such a comment, Mr. Andersen explained 

that it was due to a difference in the definitions of “repair” and “remanufacture” and NTEP’s policy as it relates to 

load cells. He also stated he felt the added language (proposed) in bullet (d) was redundant because if a device is 

remanufactured to the extent that a new CC is required, he considered it a new device. [NIST Technical Advisor’s 

Note: This statement is supported in NTEP Administrative Policy “M” and HB 130, Section 4 of the Uniform 

Regulation for National Type Evaluation.] To further explain his point of view, Mr. Andersen stated that gas pumps 

are rarely remanufactured, while almost any work done on a load cell must be considered a remanufacture rather 

than a repair. This is because changes to the load cell affect influence factors that require a new certificate, and thus, 

should be considered a new device. Mr. Tom McGee of PMP Corp. stated he supports the item given the new 

language being proposed, but he questioned whether G-S.1.2. should be effective as of the date the item is passed as 

it may (unintentionally) have an unfavorable impact on devices that have been placed into service as of 2002. Mr. 

Harshman, NIST Technical Advisor, explained that the change proposed to G-S.1.2. does not in any way change the 

application of the requirement or the date that it becomes effective since the paragraph is currently nonretroactive as 

of January 1, 2002. 

During the open hearings of the 2011 NCWM Annual Meeting, Mr. McGee, PMP Corporation and Mr. Gordon 

Johnson, Gilbarco, Inc., stated that they supported this item. Mr. Flocken, Mettler-Toledo, speaking on behalf of the 

SMA took no position on this item. 

There were six positions posted on the NCWM 2011 O nline Position Forum. Of those six, four supported the 

proposal and two were neutral to the proposal. 
S&T Committee 2011 Final Report

S&T - 18

The Committee, during its deliberations, agreed with Mr. Andersen’s earlier comments that subparagraph (d) is 

somewhat redundant; however, because of the past lack of consistency in the application of G-A.6 to 

remanufactured equipment, the Committee believed that the added language was necessary. Consequently, the 

Committee agreed to include subparagraph (d) and present the item for Vote. 

Additional background information can be reviewed in the S&T Committee’s 2010 Annual Report. 

320 SCALES

320-1 W T.N.4.5.1. Time Dependence: Class II, III, and IIII Non-automatic Weighing Instruments

Source: 2010 NTETC Weighing Sector

Purpose: To reduce the inconsistency between full load time dependence (creep) requirements in T.N.4.5.1. and 

return to zero requirements in T.N.4.3. Zero Return: Non-automatic Weighing Instruments (creep recovery). 

Item Under Consideration:

T.N.4.5.1. Time Dependence: Class II, III, and IIII Non-automatic Weighing Instruments. – A 

non-automatic weighing instrument of Classes II, III, and IIII shall meet the following requirements at constant 

test conditions. During type evaluation, this test shall be conducted at 20 °C ± 2 °C (68 °F ± 4 °F):

(a) When any load is kept on an instrument, the difference between the indication obtained immediately 

after placing the load and the indication observed during the following 30 minutes shall not exceed:

0.5 e. 

(1) 0.5 e for Class II and IIII devices; 

(2) 0.5 e for Class III devices with 4000 or fewer divisions; and 

(3) 0.83 e for Class III devices with more than 4000 divisions.

However, the difference between the indication obtained at 15 minutes and the indication obtained at 

30 minutes shall not exceed 0.2 e.

For mutli-interval or multiple range instruments, when any load is kept on an instrument, the 

difference between the indication obtained immediately after placing the load and the indication 

observed during the following 30 minutes shall not exceed 0.83 ei (where ei is the interval of the 

weighing segment or range). 

(b) If the conditions in (a) are not met, the difference between the indication obtained immediately after 

placing the load on the instrument and the indication observed during the following 4 hours shall not 

exceed the absolute value of the maximum permissible error at the load applied.

(Added 2005) (Amended 2006, and2010, and 201X) 

Background/Discussion: During the 2010 A nnual Meeting, the NCWM voted to amend the language in 

T.N.4.5.3. Zero Load Return: Non-Automatic Weighing Instruments. Hobart Corporation reported that the changes 

to scale tolerances for time dependence in HB 44 adopted in 2005 were still not consistent with the intent to 

harmonize load cell and scale performance requirements. In 2009, the WS addressed creep recovery on return to 

zero, but there is still an extremely tight 0.5e requirement (Scales Code paragraph T.N.4.5.1.(a)) for the change in 

indications in 30 minutes. This requirement makes the recent changes to the scale zero return (creep recovery) 

specification of minimal value since the amount of creep at capacity is related to a load cells’ ability to return to 

zero. The WS agreed with the intent of the proposal submitted by Hobart Corporation, and agreed to submit the 

above proposal to amend HB 44 Scales Code paragraph T.N.4.5.1.(a) to the NCWM S&T Committee and regional 

weights and measures associations. 
S&T Committee 2011 Final Report

S&T - 19

At its fall 2010 Interim Meeting, the CWMA S&T Committee recommended this item be further developed by the 

WS since there was no one to speak on behalf of the proposal. 

At the 2010 fall WWMA Annual Technical Conference, Mr. Flocken, Mettler-Toledo and Mr. Straub, Fairbanks 

Scales stated their support for this item. There were no comments in opposition. The WWMA agreed that this item 

was sufficiently developed for the NCWM Agenda as a Voting item.

During open hearings at the fall 2010 SWMA Annual Meeting, the SWMA heard support for this item from Mr.

Straub. Mr. Straub noted that the industry was aware of the need for these changes when other, related changes, 

were adopted for paragraph T.N.4.5.1. in July 2010. However, rather than attempting to address these changes all at 

that time, the industry felt additional time should be given to allow industry and weights and measures officials to 

study additional changes to the paragraph. The SWMA heard no comments in opposition to the proposal and felt 

that the proposed change was reasonable. Additionally, the SWMA recognized that the issue had received technical 

review from the members of the WS. T hus, the SWMA recommended that the item be included on the NCWM 

S&T Committee’s agenda as a Voting item. 

At its fall 2010 Interim Meeting, the NEWMA recommended this item remain an Informational item since there was 

no one to speak on behalf of the proposal.

[NIST Technical Advisor’s Note: Prior to the NCWM 2011 Interim meeting, the NIST Technical Advisor asked 

the WS Chairman, Mr. Flocken, Mettler-Toledo, whether the change to this paragraph was intended to not only 

apply to Class III scales with d > 4000, but also, all class II and III multi-interval and multiple range scales as 

proposed changes to the paragraph indicate. No conclusive answer to this question was provided prior to the 

Interim meeting.] 

During the 2011 NCWM Interim meeting open hearings, Mr. Flocken speaking on behalf of the SMA supported this 

item. H owever, later, during S&T Committee deliberations, Mr. Flocken stated that after researching the item

further, including a discussion he had with another scale manufacturer, it was concluded that the proposal is not 

needed since the ultimate determination of compliance is the four-hour test (specified in subparagraph (b) of 

T.N.4.5.1.) regardless of the 0.5 or 0.83 e determinations. Upon receiving this new information, the S&T 

Committee decided this item should be Withdrawn. 

At their May 2011 Annual Meetings, the CWMA and NEWMA supported the Committee’s recommendation that 

this item be Withdrawn from the NCWM Agenda. At the NEWMA meeting, Mr. Straub speaking on behalf of the 

SMA, also supported the Committee’s recommendation to Withdraw this item. 

No further action was taken by the Committee at the 2011 NCWM Annual Meeting. 

320-2 V T.N.4.7. Creep Recovery for Load Cells

(This item was adopted.)

Source: 2010 NTETC Weighing Sector

Purpose: To eliminate the conflict in load cell creep recovery tolerances between Class III and III L load cells by 

increasing the creep recovery tolerance for Class III L load cells by the same factor (5/3) as was used in 2009 when 

the creep recovery tolerances for Class III load cells were amended. 

Item Under Consideration:

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:
S&T Committee 2011 Final Report

S&T - 20

(a) 0.5 times the value of the load cell verification interval (0.5 v) for Class 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) 2.5 1.5 times the value of the load cell verification interval (2.5 1.5 v) for Class III L load cells.

(Added 2006) (Amended 2009 and 2011) 

Background/Discussion: At the 2010 Annual Meeting of the WS, Avery Weigh-Tronix reported that HB 44 Creep 

Recovery tolerances for Class III load cells with n > 4000 divisions in Scales Code paragraph T.N.4.7., were greater 

than creep recovery tolerances applicable to Class III L load cells. In terms of mV/V equivalency, a Class III/III L 

load cell could pass Class III and fail Class III L creep recovery tolerances. 

Prior to 2009, the tolerance for Class III load cells was 0.5v. This was increased by a factor of 5/3 to arrive at the 

0.83 v tolerance in the current requirement. This recommendation proposes to increase the existing 1.5v tolerance 

for Class III L load cells by the same 5/3 factor. Thus the new tolerance would be 1.5v x 5/3 or 2.5v. 

The following is an example of a 50 000 lb load cell marked with both III and III L accuracy classes that illustrates 

the problem: 

Class III: Class III L

nmax = 5000 nmax = 10 000

vmin = 10 lb vmin = 5 lb 

The HB 44 Class III creep recovery tolerance is 0.83v (0.83v x 10 lb/v = 8.3 lb)

The HB 44 Class III L creep recovery tolerance is 1.5v (1.5v x 5 lb/v = 7.5 lb)

The proposed HB 44 Class III L creep recovery tolerance is 1.5v x 5/3 = 2.5v (2.5v x 5 lb/v = 12.5 lb)

The NIST Technical Advisor to the WS provided the Sector with a summary of creep recovery test results from 

October 1, 2007, through August 12, 2010, for Class III L load cells from the NIST Force Group that showed the 

Class III L load cell creep recovery type evaluation compliance rate is 76 %, when existing tolerances are applied. 

The compliance rate for Class III load cells over the same time period is 69 % using the expanded tolerance adopted 

in 2009. Mr. Kevin Fruechte, Avery Weigh-Tronix, explained to the WS the need to amend the creep recovery 

tolerances for Class III L load cells based on the example provided by the NIST Technical Advisor. A WS member 

stated that using the 5/3 factor would reconcile the differences between U.S. Class III L creep recovery tolerances 

with comparable OIML R 60 Class C load cell tolerances. T he WS agreed to submit the language to amend 

paragraph T.N.4.7. to the S&T Committee and regional weights and measures associations as shown in the item 

under consideration. 

 

At its fall 2010 Interim Meeting, the CWMA recommended this item be further developed by the WS since there 

was no one to speak on behalf of the proposal.

At the fall 2010 WWMA Annual Technical Conference, Mr. Flocken, Mettler-Toledo, and Mr. Straub, Fairbanks 

Scales, stated their support for this item. There were no comments in opposition. The WWMA agreed that this item 

is sufficiently developed for the NCWM Agenda as a Voting item.

 

At the 2010 SWMA Annual Meeting open hearings, the SWMA S&T Committee heard no comments in opposition 

to the proposal and felt that the proposed change was reasonable. The SWMA also noted that there was industry 

support for the proposal at the WWMA based on the WWMA addendum sheets.

At its fall 2010 Interim Meeting, NEWMA recommended this item remain an Informational item since there was no 

one to speak on behalf of the proposal.
S&T Committee 2011 Final Report

S&T - 21

At the 2011 NCWM Interim Meeting, the Committee received comments from Mr. Flocken speaking on behalf of 

the SMA, who indicated support for the item as written. Mr. Flocken stated that the item addressed an omission that 

was made back in 2009 when the tolerance value was modified for Class III load cells, but overlooked for 

Class III L load cells. The Committee agreed and recommended this item be moved forward as a Voting item. 

The CWMA and NEWMA both supported this item and recommended adoption by the NCWM during their spring

2011 Annual Meetings. 

There were six positions posted (three from industry and three from government) on the NCWM 2011 Online 

Position Forum, all of which supported this item without additional comments. 

During the S&T open hearings of the 2011 NCWM Annual Meeting, Darrell Flocken speaking on behalf of the 

SMA supported this item. There were no comments received in opposition. 

The Committee believed there was sufficient support for this item without need for any change and agreed to present 

the item for Vote. 

321 BELT-CONVEYOR SCALE (BCS) SYSTEMS

321-1 V N.3.1.3. Check for Consistency of the Conveyor Belt Along Its Entire Length

(This item was adopted.)

Source: 2010 Carryover Item 321-1. This item originated from the 2008 WWMA Meeting. ( This item first 

appeared on the 2008 Committee’s Developing Items Section of its agenda as Item 360-2 Part 3 Item 2.) 

Purpose: The U.S. National Work Group (USNWG) on Belt-Conveyor Scale Systems (BCS) agreed that the 

existing language in N.3.1.3. resulted in an excessive allowance for the variation in the totalizers for a belt with 

larger minimum division sizes. C onversely, the three division requirement potentially imposed an excessively 

narrow restriction for BCS with smaller minimum divisions. The proposed amendment corrects the issue and makes 

the allowable variation independent of division size. 

Item Under Consideration: Amend NIST HB 44, Section 2.21. Belt-Conveyor Scales (BCS) Systems Code, 

paragraph N.3.1.3. as follows:

N.3.1.3. 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. During a zero-load test with all 

operational low-flow lock-out disabled, the absolute value of the difference between the maximum and 

minimum totalizer readings indicated on the totalizer during any complete revolution of the belt shall not 

exceed 0.12% of the minimum test load.

 

Note: The end value of the zero-load test must meet the ± 0.06 % requirement referenced in the “Test for Zero 

Stability.”

(Added 2002) (Amended 2004 and 2011) 

Background/Discussion: At its fall 2007 Annual Technical Conference, the WWMA received a proposal from the 

USNWG on BCS to amend paragraph N.3.1.3. The USNWG stated that existing language in N.3.1.3. 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 tended to be 

canceled if the material test were conducted using complete revolutions. The maximum belt variation would occur 
S&T Committee 2011 Final Report

S&T - 22

at 0.5, 1.5, 2.5, etc., revolutions. However, material tests are rarely conducted using complete revolutions of the 

belt.

During the 2009 NCWM Annual Meeting, the Committee agreed with comments from Mr. Bill Ripka, Thermo 

Ramsey, Chairman of the USNWG on BCS, and WMD, that the item was not ready for vote and will remain 

Informational on its agenda as recommended by the USNWG. 

At the 2010 NCWM Annual Meeting, Mr. Ripka, Thermo-Fisher Scientific, provided the Committee with a letter 

regarding the status of the USNWG on BCS work on this issue. Based on the progress of a USNWG Subcommittee 

tasked with working on this issue and the pending receipt of actual field information as it relates to belt consistency, 

the Subcommittee requested the National S&T Committee to consider moving the Belt Consistency proposal from 

Informational to Developing. A complete copy of the letter can be viewed in Appendix C of this report. The 

Committee agreed with the recommendation to give this item Developmental status and move it to the list on 

Developmental items on the Committee’s 2011 Interim Agenda.

During the 2010 WWMA Annual Technical Conference open hearings, Mr. Ripka speaking on be half of the 

Subcommittee of the USNWG on BCS, recommended this proposal be moved forward as a Voting item. He stated 

that a small survey had been conducted at thirteen BCS installations to verify whether these installations would fit 

within the new wording. He reported that twelve of the thirteen installations easily complied with the proposed 

requirements; the remaining scale was a non-commercial device. Mr. Ripka, speaking on be half of Thermo 

Scientific, suggested deleting the last sentence of the proposal because the end value of the zero-load test is already 

covered in paragraph N.3.1.2. Test of Zero Stability. Mr. Cook, NIST Technical Advisor, reported that the 

recommendations of the subgroup were submitted to the entire USNWG on BCS with a recommendation that the 

item be upgraded to the NCWM S&T Committee agenda as a Voting item. 

The WWMA agreed with the recommendation of the subgroup, pending approval of the entire USNWG on BCS in 

its letter ballot prior to the January 2011 NCWM Interim Meeting. I n response to the recommendations from 

Thermo Fisher, the WWMA did not feel comfortable supporting Mr. Ripka’s suggested changes to delete the last 

sentence of the above proposal, and suggested that this change be supported by the USNWG. 

During the 2010 SWMA Annual Meeting, the SWMA received no comments on this issue during its open hearings. 

The SWMA S&T Committee heard from the NIST Technical Advisor and observed in the WWMA addendum 

sheets that the USNWG on BCS anticipates finalizing a recommendation on this issue in the near future. The 

SWMA supports the efforts of the USNWG and looks forward to considering future recommendations on this issue.

[NIST Technical Advisor’s Note: Just prior to the 2011 NCWM Interim Meeting, Ian Burrell, a member of the 

USNWG on BCS Subcommittee submitted a request to the NIST Technical Advisor to the USNWG on BCS to amend 

the language in Item Under Consideration specified in agenda Item 321-1 of the 2011 Interim agenda. The request 

was forwarded to other members of the subgroup to solicit their input relative to the changes proposed. Only one 

response (in acceptance of the changes) was received from the subgroup prior to the Interim meeting and at no time 

was the new language discussed or considered during the 2011 Interim Meeting Committee deliberations. The NIST 

Technical Advisor sought additional input concerning the proposed language change from members of the entire 

USNWG on BCS when that group met in February 2011, but no comments were received in support or opposition 

when the issue was raised. Thus, no action was taken at that time to amend the language as requested by Mr. 

Burrell.]

During the 2011 NCWM Interim Meeting, Mr. Darrell Flocken, Mettler-Toledo, speaking on behalf of the SMA 

supported the item. Mr. Ripka speaking on behalf of the USNWG Subcommittee indicated that the item was 

sufficiently developed, and recommended that the proposal to amend N.3.1.3. be moved forward as a Voting item. 

The Committee agreed and recommended that the item as specified in Item Under Consideration be moved forward 

as a Voting item. 

 

The CWMA and the NEWMA both supported the item and recommended adoption by the NCWM at their spring 

2011 Annual Meetings. Mr. Lou Straub, Fairbanks Scales, speaking on behalf of the SMA at the 2011 NEWMA 

Annual Meeting, also supported this item. 
S&T Committee 2011 Final Report

S&T - 23

Just prior to the 2011 NCWM Annual Meeting, WMD compared the language that had been previously submitted 

by Mr. Burrell to that which was being proposed. WMD concluded that the language submitted by Mr. Burrell was 

technically more accurate and less ambiguous, because it correctly associated the term “absolute value” with a 

change in totalizer readings. WMD noted that the language submitted by Mr. Burrell correctly stated the intent of 

the requirement. Thus, WMD agreed that the proposed language should be changed as requested by Ian Burrell. The 

NIST Technical Advisor to the USNWG on BCS, contacted Mr. Ripka, USNWG Chairman, to make him aware of 

the results of WMD’s analysis relative to this item, and he too agreed that the proposed language should be changed. 

During the 2011 NCWM Annual Meeting S&T Committee open hearings, NIST Technical Advisor, Mr. Steve 

Cook, speaking on behalf of WMD, supported the language that had been submitted by Mr. Burrell since it better 

reflects the intent of the USNWG. Mr. Ripka, speaking on behalf of Thermo-Fisher Scientific and as Chairman of 

the USNWG on BCS, supported the change and stated that the change removed ambiguity. Mr. Ripka also 

submitted a letter to the S&T Committee in support of the new language (refer to Appendix C), which indicated that 

the new language had been distributed to members of the USNWG, and all who had responded were in favor of the 

change. 

The Committee agreed with the above comments that the revised language was technically more accurate and less 

ambiguous than that which had been proposed earlier. The Committee also agreed that the term “absolute value” 

was, as WMD had concluded, intended to be associated with the change in totalizer readings rather than the 

minimum totalized load. Consequently, the Committee decided that the change to the language as shown above in

the Item Under Consideration was appropriate and maintained the status of the item as Voting. 

(See the Committee’s 2008, 2009, and 2010 Annual Reports for additional background information.) 

331 VEHICLE-TANK METERS (VTM)

 

331-1 V S.2.6. Thermometer Well, Temperature Determination

(This item was adopted.)

Source: 2011 NCWM S&T Committee, CWMA, WWMA, SWMA, and NEWMA

Purpose: To provide a means for inspectors and service personnel to determine the temperature of the product at 

the meter, enabling them to reduce uncertainties in the testing process by applying paragraph N.5. Temperature 

Correction for Refined Petroleum Products.

Item Under Consideration: Add a new paragraph to S.2. Design of Measuring Elements in Section 3.31 VehicleTank Meters to read as follows:

S.2.6. Thermometer Well, Temperature Determination - 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) in the meter inlet or discharge line immediately adjacent to the meter.

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2012] 

(Added 2011)

Background/Discussion: During discussions of proposed changes (which were adopted in July 2010) to reduce the 

tolerances for VTMs equipped with automatic temperature compensating systems in paragraph T.2.1., meter 

manufacturers expressed concerns about how to ensure that consistent and appropriate test procedures and 

equipment be used by weights and measures officials during inspections of VTMs. In response to these concerns, 

WMD revised the EPOs for VTMs and presented this information during a training seminar in April 2010. In the 
S&T Committee 2011 Final Report

S&T - 24

process of revising and presenting the procedures, WMD received comments indicating that many VTMs are not 

equipped with means for determining the temperature of the product at the meter. As a r esult, the inspector is 

unable to correct for any differences due to temperature between the meter and the prover during testing and, thus, is 

unable to properly apply Test Note paragraph N.5. Temperature Correction for Refined Petroleum Products, which 

states:

N.5. Temperature Correction for Refined Petroleum Products. – Corrections shall be made for any 

changes in volume resulting from the differences in liquid temperatures between the time of passage through the 

meter and the time of volumetric determination in the prover. When adjustments are necessary, appropriate 

petroleum measurement tables should be used.

(Added 2007)

In order for inspectors and service personnel to determine the difference between the temperature of the product at 

the meter and at the prover, some means is needed for determining the temperature of the product as it passes 

through the meter. Inspectors have reported that few VTMs are equipped with provisions such as a thermometer 

well at the meter that would enable them to determine the temperature of the product at the meter using a traceable 

thermometer. Consequently, the inspector is not able to make adjustments to the changes in the indicated volume 

that are the result of differences in temperature between the meter and the prover. Failing to account for differences 

in product temperature can, in some instances, introduce errors into the testing process, possibly resulting in the 

acceptance of a meter that is actually out of tolerance or the incorrect rejection of a meter that may actually be 

performing within applicable tolerance.

While the inspector could apply General Code paragraph G-UR.4.4. Assistance in Testing to require the installation 

of a t hermometer well or other provision for determining the temperature of the product at the meter, the S&T 

Committee believes it is more cost effective to require this to be incorporated into the equipment purchased by the 

user. T o minimize the impact on manufacturers and device owners, the S&T Committee proposes that this 

paragraph be applied nonretroactively.

Gasoline products expand/contract by a factor of about 0.00069 for every degree Fahrenheit change in temperature. 

Diesel fuels expand by a factor of about 0.00050 for every degree Fahrenheit change in temperature. NOTE: These 

values are approximations and the exact API/ASTM correction factors for the product being dispensed should be 

used to calculate the volume delivered when conducting actual tests.

Consider the impact of a one degree temperature difference between the meter and prover on a 100 gal test draft:

1 degree difference x 0.00069/ °F x 100 gal = 0.069 gal = 15.9 in3 for gasoline

1 degree difference x 0.00050/ °F x 100 gal = 0.05 gal = 11.6 in3 for diesel

If acceptance tolerance applies, the tolerance on a 100 gal draft of a VTM meter would be 0.15 % of the indicated 

100 gal delivery, which is 0.15 gal or 35 in3

. This means that almost half of the allowable tolerance is taken up by 

the effects of a one degree temperature difference on gasoline and about a third of the tolerance on diesel.

The LMD Code (Section 3.30.) already includes a p aragraph (S.2.6. Temperature Determination – Wholesale 

Devices) requiring means for taking the temperature of the product at the meter for larger, wholesale meters and the 

Liquefied Petroleum Gas and Anhydrous Ammonia LMD Code (Section 3.32., paragraph S.2.5. Thermometer Well) 

requires this provision for all LPG & NH3 meters. This proposed change to the VTM Code would also promote 

alignment of these liquid-measuring device codes.

This could result in additional costs for equipping some meters with a thermometer well. However, at least one 

manufacturer indicated that the meters they produce for this application are already designed with the option for 

thermometer wells. According to one manufacturer, a new meter equipped with thermometer wells would cost a 

device owner approximately $150 more than one without this provision. No additional cost considerations have 

been identified. 

This new language will encourage the use of corrections for temperature differences between the meter and the 

prover during the testing process because a thermometer well will enable inspectors and service personnel to 
S&T Committee 2011 Final Report

S&T - 25

determine the temperature of the product at the meter. As a result, this will promote more consistent calibration and 

verification of meter accuracy and improve uniformity in measurements from company to company.

The weights and measures community may wish to review other measuring codes for consistency and consider the 

possible inclusion of similar requirements in a future proposal(s).

At its 2010 WWMA Annual Technical Conference, the WWMA received comments on this item during its open 

hearings, suggesting that this was another attempt at temperature compensation. T he WWMA S&T Committee 

disregarded those comments in their deliberation because the proposal is not an automatic temperature compensation 

issue. T he Committee voted to recommend that this item move forward as a V oting item on the NCWM S&T 

Committee Agenda.

At its 2010 SWMA Annual Meeting, the SWMA heard no comments on this issue during its open hearings. In 

reviewing the background and history for this item, the SWMA S&T Committee agreed that the proposed change is 

appropriate given the potential impact of temperature differences between the meter and the prover for test drafts of 

the magnitude of those used in VTM testing. The SWMA S&T Committee also agreed that the proposed paragraph 

should be nonretroactive as of January 1, 2012. C onsequently, the SWMA recommended that the item be 

forwarded, as originally proposed by the NCWM S&T Committee, to the NCWM S&T Committee as a Voting item.

At its fall 2010 Interim Meeting, NEWMA received a comment on the item during its open hearing that this 

proposal is not an automatic temperature compensation issue and that the temperature is used to correct for thermal 

expansion (or contraction) between meter and prover, which are calibrated to 60 oF by state metrology labs. Before 

it can support the proposal, NEWMA wanted to see more data on the potential impact to justify a need for this 

requirement.

The NTETC Measuring Sector reviewed this issue at its October 2010 meeting. While the Sector had no specific 

technical guidance to offer on this issue, some Sector members suggested that the Committee consider requiring 

“wet-down” runs on each meter test as an alternative to requiring a thermometer well to help equalize the product 

temperature between the prover and the meter.

At the Committee’s 2011 NCWM Interim Meeting open hearings, Mr. Dmitri Karimov, Liquid Controls, speaking 

on behalf of the Meter Manufacturers Association (MMA), noted the that MMA believes that the facility for taking 

the temperature of the product at the meter will improve accuracy during field testing. Accordingly, the MMA 

supports the addition of the proposed paragraph.

At the Interim Meeting during discussion on the comments received regarding this issue, the Committee considered 

the idea of requiring additional drafts (to equalize the product temperature between the meter and the prover) prior 

to the official accuracy test; however, the Committee believes that there is limited value to conducting additional 

runs, noting that this will increase testing time. T he Committee also noted there may be other reasons for 

differences in temperature between the meter and prover, and additional runs may not entirely eliminate the 

difference. Given the potential impact of even a one degree Fahrenheit difference, the Committee believes the most 

appropriate way to reduce the uncertainties contributed by the temperature difference is to provide a means for the 

inspector/serviceperson to determine the temperature during testing.

The Committee also discussed whether or not more specific requirements for the thermometer well, such as material 

and thickness, should be specified, noting Canada’s experiences that led not only to the specification of criteria for 

the thermometer wells, but also resulted in criteria that address other components installed near the wells that can 

also influence accurate temperature determination. The Committee recognizes the value of such specifications and 

is open to considering a proposal to include specifications at some future point. However, given the immediacy of 

the need to enable inspectors and service personnel to reduce uncertainties in the testing process, the Committee 

believes that the current proposal should strive to first align the VTM code requirements for thermometer wells with 

those in other metering codes. A ny recommendation for the inclusion of more specific requirements for the 

thermometer well itself, should be considered in a separate proposal and, for consistency, should encompass all 

metering codes (particularly the LPG & Anhydrous Ammonia Liquid-Measuring Devices Code since the effects of 

temperature on LPG are significantly greater).
S&T Committee 2011 Final Report

S&T - 26

Acknowledging the importance of providing tools to enable the inspector and serviceperson to reduce uncertainties 

in the test process, hearing no opposition at its open hearings, and recognizing the potential impact of temperature 

on the test results, the Committee agreed to recommend this proposal for a Vote.

At their spring 2011 meetings, both NEWMA and the CWMA expressed support for the proposal as written. The 

CWMA further noted that the proposed change will align the VTM code with the Liquid-Measuring Devices and 

LPG and Anhydrous Ammonia Liquid-Measuring Devices Codes. The Committee also received two comments

from regulatory officials in support of the proposal through the NCWM Online Comment Forum.

During open hearings at the 2011 NCWM Annual Meeting, the Committee announced that the proposed paragraph 

was intended to include an effective date of January 1, 2012, noting that the year was not specified in the published 

copy of the Committee’s Interim Report. The Committee heard support by the MMA for the proposal, including the 

2012 effective date. NIST WMD reiterated that the proposed language will provide the regulatory authority with the 

means to reduce uncertainties in the testing process associated with differences in temperature between the meter 

and the prover. The Committee heard no opposition to the proposed change.

331-2 I T.4. Product Depletion Test

Source: Northeast Weights and Measures Association (NEWMA). This item was originally part of the 2010 

Agenda Item 360-3 – Developing Items Part 3.31., Vehicle-Tank Meters – Item 1. 

Purpose: Modify the VTM code to base the product depletion test tolerances on the meter’s maximum flow rate (a 

required marking on all meters), rather than the meter size (a required marking for meters manufactured beginning 

in 2009). This will enable more consistent application of the tolerances for older meters, which are not required to 

be marked with the meter size, and address an unintentional gap which allows an unreasonably large tolerance for 

smaller meters.

Item Under Consideration: The Committee is considering two options for modifications to paragraph T.4. and 

Table T.4. The Committee is asking for feedback on both of these proposals and is particularly interested in data 

from manufacturers and weights and measures jurisdictions that would illustrate the impact of these proposals on 

smaller meters.

Option 1:

Modify 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. Product depletion test tolerances for typical meters are the 

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. 

Accuracy Classes and Tolerances for Vehicle-Tank Meters. 
S&T Committee 2011 Final Report

S&T - 27

Delete current Table T.4.:

Table T.4.

Tolerances for Vehicle-Tank Meters on Product Depletion Tests, Except Milk Meters

Meter Size Maintenance and Acceptance Tolerances

Up to, but not including, 50 mm (2 in) 1.70 L (104 in3)

1

From 50 mm (2 in) up to, but not including, 75 mm (3 in) 2.25 L (137 in3)

1

75 mm (3 in) or larger 3.75 L (229 in3)

1

1 Based on a test volume of at least the amount specified in N.3. Test Drafts.

Replace current Table T.4. with revised Table T.4. as follows:

Option 1

Table T.4.

Tolerances for Typical Vehicle-Tank Meters on Product Depletion Tests, Except Milk Meters

Meters Marked with Flow Rates in SI Units Meters Marked with Flow Rates in

Inch-Pound Units

Marked Maximum

Flow Rate1

Maintenance and 

Acceptance Tolerances2

Marked Maximum

Flow Rate1

Maintenance and 

Acceptance Tolerances2

114 Lpm 0.57 L 30 gpm 0.15 gal (34.6 in3)

227 Lpm 1.14 L 60 gpm 0.30 gal (69.3 in3)

380 Lpm 1.90 L 100 gpm 0.5 gal (115 in3)

757 Lpm 3.78 L 200 gpm 1.0 gal (231 in3)

1

Refer to T.4. for meters with maximum flow rates not listed.

2

Based on a test draft volume of at least the amount specified in N.3. Test Drafts.

Option 2:

This option includes larger tolerances 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 380 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 380 Lpm (100 gpm) or lower. Product depletion test tolerances for typical meters are the 

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.

Accuracy Classes and Tolerances for Vehicle-Tank Meters.
S&T Committee 2011 Final Report

S&T - 28

Delete current Table T.4.:

Table T.4.

Tolerances for Vehicle-Tank Meters on Product Depletion Tests, Except Milk Meters

Meter Size Maintenance and Acceptance Tolerances

Up to, but not including, 50 mm (2 in) 1.70 L (104 in3)

1

From 50 mm (2 in) up to, but not including, 75 mm (3 in) 2.25 L (137 in3)

1

75 mm (3 in) or larger 3.75 L (229 in3)

1

1 Based on a test volume of at least the amount specified in N.3. Test Drafts.

Replace current Table T.4. with revised Table T.4. as follows:

Option 2

Table T.4.

Tolerances for Typical Vehicle-Tank Meters on Product Depletion Tests, Except Milk Meters

Meters Marked with Flow Rates in SI Units Meters Marked with Flow Rates in

Inch-Pound Units

Marked Maximum

Flow Rate1

Maintenance and 

Acceptance Tolerances2

Marked Maximum

Flow Rate1

Maintenance and 

Acceptance Tolerances2

114 Lpm 0.68 L 30 gpm 0.18 gal (41.6 in3) 

227 Lpm 1.36 L 60 gpm 0.36 gal (83.2 in3) 

380 Lpm 2.28 L 100 gpm 0.6 gal (139 in3) 

757 Lpm 3.78 L 200 gpm 1.0 gal (231 in3) 

1

Refer to T.4. for meters with maximum flow rates not listed.

2

Based on a test draft volume of at least the amount specified in N.3. Test Drafts. 

Background/Discussion: This item was submitted to NEWMA at its October 2008 Interim Meeting as an 

alternative proposal to Item 331-1, “S.5.7. Meter Size,” in the 2008 NCWM Annual Report. This alternative 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 NCWM S&T Committee received a proposal in 2008 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. T his solution would add a new marking 

requirement non-retroactively, which will not solve the problem until the entire fleet of meters 

presently in use is 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, thus, the inspector will have 

the information necessary to correctly apply the tolerance. It is further recommended that the table 

provide tolerances for the common meter sizes, which will handle most cases encountered in the 
S&T Committee 2011 Final Report

S&T - 29

field (i.e., 11⁄4-, 11⁄2-, 2- and 3-inch meters with maximum flow rates of 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. It is not thought that this 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 it is not believed that to be achievable 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 positive 

displacement 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.

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, 

thus, allowing 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 provided supporting graphics, which can be viewed in the Committee’s 2010 Final Report in the 

Developmental Items Section. 

In its initial review of this item in 2008, NEWMA did not feel the proposed change was justified. As a result of 

discussions at subsequent meetings, NEWMA since determined that this item is ready to be elevated for 

considerations by the NCWM S&T Committee. 

At the 2010 NCWM Annual Meeting, the Committee heard comments from Mr. Andersen, New York, reiterating 

NEWMA’s request to place this item on the Committee’s 2011 Interim Agenda. T he Committee agreed to 

NEWMA’s request and included this item on its 2011 Interim Agenda and submitted it to the 2010 fall regional 

weights and measures association meetings.

At its 2010 fall Interim Meeting, the CWMA S&T Committee recommended that this item remain a Developing 

item as one of the committee members was concerned that the conversion of the metric value may have been 

incorrectly or inconsistently rounded or truncated in the proposed amendments to Table 4. 

At its 2010 Annual Technical Conference, the WWMA recommended that this item move forward as a Voting item. 

The WWMA believes the proposed amendments to Table T.4. would reduce the unnecessarily large tolerances for 

meters under 60 gpm (2in meters) and more closely reflects existing tolerances of larger meters. The WWMA also 

recommended removing paragraph S.5.7. Meter Size from the VTM Code since the language was adopted in 2009 

to facilitate a different application of the correct product depletion test tolerances, which were based on meter size. 

Since the item under consideration proposes to no longer use meter size as the basis for calculating product 

depletion tolerances, the WWMA believes that paragraph S.5.7. would no longer be necessary. During the voting 

session, Mr. Kurt Floren, Los Angeles County, California, commented he had no issue with the intent of the 

proposal, but asked that the NCWM Committee look into the mathematical agreement in the metric conversion 

listed in Table T.4. It was also suggested that it may be more appropriate to list the “inch-pound” (gpm) before the 

SI units in Table T.4.

At its 2010 Annual Meeting, the SWMA S&T Committee stated that it does not object to considering modifications 

to the tolerance to better address the product depletion test. However, it feels that additional time is needed for 

industry and weights and measures officials to study the proposed changes. The SWMA S&T Committee noted that 
S&T Committee 2011 Final Report

S&T - 30

the product depletion tolerance was amended only five years ago, and a new marking requirement was added to 

correspond to that requirement a few years later in 2009. The SWMA S&T Committee feels that, before making yet 

another change, thoughtful consideration needs to be given to ensure that any changes are appropriate. The SWMA 

agreed with the SWMA’s S&T Committee’s justification and its recommendation that this item be made an 

Informational item on the 2011 NCWM Committee agenda.

At its 2010 Annual Meeting, NEWMA restated its support for this item and was looking forward to input from the 

other regional weights and measures associations and other interested parties. 

At its open hearings at the 2011 NCWM Interim Meeting, the Committee heard comments from the MMA 

expressing concerns about both options presented in the proposal. Mr. Dmitri Karimov, Liquid Controls, speaking 

on behalf of the MMA, noted that 2 in meters tested against the tolerances proposed in the first option (“Option 1”) 

would automatically fail. U nder the second option (“Option 2”), 2 in meters would meet the requirements, but 

smaller meters such as 11⁄4 in meters would fail. The MMA believes that this item requires additional work and 

recommended that the item be designated as an Informational item.

Ms. Juana Williams, NIST Weights and Measures Division, offered the following comments for the Committee to 

consider in its technical analysis of this item:

• WMD observed that the breakpoints of the tolerance are depicted incorrectly relative to the meter sizes on 

the graphs (comparing current and proposed tolerances) in the Interim Agenda under both Option 1 and 

Option 2. For example, a tolerance of 104 in3 is technically extended up to, but not including a 2 in meter 

rather than just beyond the 11⁄2 in size mark. A different type of graph might be considered to better 

illustrate the comparison.

• For both Option 1 and 2, the resolution to which the metric values in the tables are reported should be 

reviewed and reconsidered relative to the typical graduation size of a metric prover. For example, the 

maximum value of the subdivision on a 200 L prover is 50 mL according to NIST Handbook 105-3. The 

resolution of the equivalent metric values presented in the proposed tables is to 0.01 L or 10 mL. Given the 

prover can only be read to a division of 50 mL (0.05 L), the metric values presented are at a higher 

resolution than the graduations on the prover gauge plate and, therefore, are not realistically readable on the 

prover.

• An alternative to consider for presenting metric versions of the tolerance is to present the metric tolerances 

in a separate table so that examples are more reflective of the actual numerical values for meters marked 

with flow rates in metric units.

• In Option 2, the metric tolerance values for meters with marked maximum flow rates below 100 gpm do 

not match the proposed changes shown in the corresponding paragraph T.4. The tolerances are calculated 

at 0.5 % rather than 0.6 %. (This was also noted by the WWMA and CWMA.)

• Present the proposed changes by striking the existing table and showing the proposed changes as a 

replacement table. As proposed, it in itially appeared to some that the tolerance for a 2 in meter, for 

example, has been reduced from 104 in3 to 34 in3

. However, the tolerance for that size meter (which is 

typically a 100 gpm maximum) is actually 115 in3

. 

• Move the statement “Refer to T.4. for meters with flow rates not listed” to the bottom of the table rather 

than in the title.

• Include examples of the current tolerance and the two options in a t abular format to allow easier 

comparison, and illustrate the impact of the two options. (WMD provided two examples for the Committee 

to consider along with proposed changes to the tolerance tables in both options to correct the errors noted 

above.)
S&T Committee 2011 Final Report

S&T - 31

The Committee generally agreed with the concept of basing the tolerances on the marked maximum flow rate of the 

meter rather than on the marked meter size. Additionally, while recognizing that one goal of the proposal was to 

reduce what the submitter considered to be an unreasonably large tolerance for smaller meters, the Committee 

expressed concern about the magnitude of the impact on these meters. The Committee also heard comments from 

one meter manufacturer indicating that consideration should be given to different technology types, since turbine 

meters, for example, may have different typical flow rate ranges than a p ositive displacement meter. After 

reviewing the two options (Option 1 and Option 2) presented by the submitter; considering the comments made 

during the open hearings and in the regions; and reviewing the examples provided by WMD, the Committee agreed 

that additional work is needed on this item. Consequently, the Committee decided to designate the status of the item 

on its agenda as an “Informational” item to allow additional time for this information to be collected and reviewed.

The Committee would specifically like feedback from meter manufacturers and weights and measures jurisdictions 

regarding the impact on smaller meters, including results from past tests that could be analyzed against the current 

and proposed tolerances. In the meantime, the Committee modified the two options proposed to correct the errors 

noted in the discussion above and agreed to include the following examples provided by WMD to illustrate the 

impact of the tolerances.

• Example A illustrates a 2 in meter with max flow of 100 gpm:

Example A

Sample Results of a Product Depletion Test

Meter Size: 2 in

Minimum Flow Rate: 20 gpm

Maximum Flow Rate: 100 gpm

Normal Test Draft Results + 50 in3

Product Depletion Test Draft Results − 80 in3

Difference

[Normal Test Result – Product Depletion Test Result] 130 in3

-80 +50

Total Spread: 130 cubic inches

0
S&T Committee 2011 Final Report

S&T - 32

Comparison of Tolerances (Current vs. Proposed)

for Example A (2 in, 100 gpm max)

Current Tolerance Proposal #1

(0.5 %)

Proposal #2

(0.6 %)

Product Depletion 

Tolerance Calculation

0.5 % x Max Marked Flow 

Rate

= 0.005 x 100 = 0.5 gal

0.6 % x Max Marked Flow 

Rate = 0.006 x 100 = 0.6 gal

Product Depletion 

Tolerance 137 in3 115.5 in3 138.6 in3

Conclusion:

Does System “Pass” or 

“Fail” the Product 

Depletion Test?

Pass Fail Pass

• Example B illustrates a 1-1/4 in meter with a max flow of 30 gpm.

Example B

Sample Results of a Product Depletion Test

Meter Size: 11⁄4 in

Minimum Flow Rate: 5 gpm

Maximum Flow Rate: 30 gpm

Normal Test Draft Results + 30 in3

Product Depletion Test Draft Results − 20 in3

Difference

[Normal Test - Product Depletion Test Results] 50 in3

Comparison of Tolerances (Current vs. Proposed)

for Example B (1-1/4 in, 30 gpm max)

Current

Tolerance

Proposal #1

(0.5 %)

Proposal #2

(0.6 %)

Product Depletion 

Tolerance Calculation

0.5% x Max Marked Flow Rate

= 0.005 x 30 = 0.15 gal

0.6% x Max Marked Flow 

Rate = 0.006 x 30 = 0.18 gal

Product Depletion 

Tolerance 104 in3 34.6 in3 41.6 in3

Conclusion:

Does System “Pass” or 

“Fail” the Product 

Depletion Test?

Pass Fail Fail

− 20 0 + 30

Total Spread: 50 cubic
S&T Committee 2011 Final Report

S&T - 33

At their 2011 spring Meetings, the CWMA and NEWMA expressed continued support for maintaining this item as

Informational on the Committee’s agenda. The Committee also received comments through the NCWM Online 

Comment System from Mr. Randy Jennings, Tennessee, supporting the concept of the proposed changes, but 

concurring with the Committee’s position that data is needed to analyze the impact of any proposed change. Mr. 

Jennings also questioned whether or not data from NTEP tests might be considered as a source of data.

At the 2011 N CWM Annual Meeting, the Committee reiterated its need for data to evaluate the impact of any 

proposed tolerances changes, noting that, to date, no data has been submitted to the Committee.

 

The Committee asks that the following test data be submitted to assist the Committee in making this assessment:

• make and model of the meter; 

• marked maximum flow rate of the meter;

• actual delivery rate during the normal test;

• error (in cubic inches or percent) for the normal test;

• actual delivery rate during the product depletion test; 

• error (in cubic inches or percent) for the product depletion test; and

• type of test (e.g., routine or follow-up). 

[Technical Advisor’s Note: This list was updated by the Committee following the Annual Meeting to include 

additional data points relative to the “normal test” and the “type of test.”]

For information on submitting data, contact the NIST Technical Advisor, Ms. Tina Butcher by e-mail at 

tina.butcher@nist.gov or by phone at (301) 975-2196. The Committee also plans to distribute a request on WMD’s 

Weights and Measures Directors’ list serve for jurisdictions to submit data.

Mr. Karimov, speaking on behalf of the MMA, indicated the MMA continues to be concerned about the impact of 

any proposed changes on smaller meter sizes, particularly meter sizes that are less than 11⁄2 in. 

The Committee looks forward to receiving additional proposals and requested data by November 1, 2011, so that the 

information can be considered at the 2012 NCWM Interim Meeting and the item can remain on the Committee’s 

agenda.

336 WATER METERS

336-1 V Appendix D – Definition of Utility-Type Water Meters

(This item was adopted.)

Source: Western Weights and Measures Association (WWMA).

Purpose: To add a definition for the term “utility-type water meter,” which is used with increased frequency in the 

Water Meters code. 
S&T Committee 2011 Final Report

S&T - 34

Item Under Consideration: 

utility-type water meter. – A device used for the measurement of water generally applicable to meters 

installed in residences or business establishments, excluding batching meters.[3.36]

(Added 2011) 

Background/Discussion: With the recent changes to the Water Meter Code for utility-type meters, it was made 

apparent that a definition for a utility-type meter was not listed in Appendix D – Definitions of HB 44. Several 

water meter manufacturers believe that a c lear definition for these types of metering intruments is needed. The 

manufacturers that developed and support this item are:

Mr. Andre Noel Neptune Technology Group Inc.

Mr. George De Jarlais Badger Meter

Mr. Scott Swanson Sensus Metering

Mr. Alex Watson Elster AMCO

Mr. Scott Bruneau Master Meter

 

During the 2010 WWMA Annual Technical Conference, the WWMA S&T Committee agreed with the justification 

for the definition provided by the submitters. The Committee revised the proposed definition for a “utility-type 

water meter” to eliminate the term “utility-type” from the body of the definition. The WWMA recommended that 

this item (as revised by the WWMA S&T Committee) move forward as a V oting item on the NCWM S&T 

Committee Agenda.

At its 2010 Annual Meeting, the SWMA heard no opposition to establishing a definition for “utility-type water 

meter.” Like the WWMA, the SWMA noted that the definition as originally proposed included the word that was 

being defined in the definition itself and was, therefore, still not clear. T he SWMA S&T Committee reviewed 

alternative language developed by the WWMA, and agreed the alternative language was preferable. Consequently, 

the SWMA voted to recommend that the language as modified by the WWMA move forward as a Voting item on 

the NCWM S&T Committee Agenda.

During its open hearings at the 2011 Interim Meeting, the Committee heard comments from Mr. George DeJarlais, 

Badger Meter, speaking on behalf of the water meter manufacturers present at the meeting (Badger Meter, Neptune 

Technology Group, and Master Meter). Mr. DeJarlais reported the above meter manufacturers support the proposed 

definition with revisions suggested by the WWMA. T he Committee Chairman also advised meeting participants 

that the Committee received letters of support from Sensus Metering and Elster AMCO. Al so, during the open 

hearings, Ms. Juana Williams, NIST WMD, suggested the following two alternative definitions for the Committee to 

consider:

utility-type water meter. – A device used for the measurement of water generally applicable to meters

installed in residences or business establishments. excluding batching meters. [3.36]

(Added 201X)

or: 

utility-type water meter. A device used for the measurement of water, generally applicable to meters 

installed of an equivalent design to those meters installed by water utilities in residences or business 

establishments, excluding batching meters. [3.36]

(Added 201X)

The Committee reviewed the alternate proposals provided by WMD. The Committee felt that, in the first option, the 

deletion of the term “generally” would make the definition too limiting in its application, and the exclusion for 

batching meters needs to be retained. The Committee also discussed the second proposal, but still felt that the 

version provided by the WWMA was more appropriate. G iven that the Committee heard no opposition to the 

recommendation proposed by the WWMA, the Committee agreed to recommend this item for a vote as presented in 

the Recommendation above.
S&T Committee 2011 Final Report

S&T - 35

The Committee also acknowledged in its discussions that, at some point, the code may need to be modified to better 

address water meters used in other applications, such as water vending applications. However, for the present time, 

the Committee hopes that the proposed definition at least clarifies the use of the term “utility-type water meter.”

At their spring 2011 meetings, NEWMA and CWMA expressed support for the proposal as written. The Committee 

received one comment in support of the proposal from the NCWM Online Comment Forum and a letter of support 

from Master Meter.

During open hearings at the July 2011 N CWM Annual Meeting, the Committee heard support for the proposed 

language from Mr. Andre Noel, Neptune, who indicated that he also spoke on behalf of other water meter 

manufacturers, including Sensus and from Ms. Kristin Macey, California. The Committee also received letters of 

support for the proposed definition from Master Meter and Badger.

342 FARM MILK TANKS

342-1 V N.5.1. Verification of Master Metering Systems

(This item was adopted.)

Source: Central Weights and Measures Association (CWMA) (This item was originally part of the 2010 Agenda 

Item 360-2 Developing Items Part 4.42, Farm Milk Tanks – Item 1: N .5.1. Verification of Master Metering 

Systems.) (This item was previous indicated as Item 442-1 in the 2011 Interim Agenda [Pub 15].)

Purpose: Eliminate unnecessary verification testing for master meters capable of operating within a p rescribed 

percent of the applicable tolerance.

Item Under Consideration: 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 re-verified at least every quarter of the tank capacity, or every 

2000 L (500 gal), whichever is greater. The process of re-verifying the master metering system at every 

quarter of the tank, or every 2000 L (500 gal) may be waived if the system is verified using a N IST 

traceable prover with a minimum of two tests immediately before and one test immediately after the 

gauging process and that each test result is within 25 % of T.3. Basic Tolerance Values.

(Added 2001)(Amended 2012)

Background/Discussion: The CWMA received a p roposal at its fall 2008 Interim Meeting to modify 

paragraph N.5.1. Verification of Master Metering Systems in NIST HB 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. B ecause no supporting data was 

provided to show that all mass flow meters will perform to the same standard, the CWMA originally recommended 

this proposal be Informational.

At its fall 2008 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 mass flow meters has eliminated the variations seen in other types of meters used to 

calibrate or check farm bulk milk tanks. T he 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. T his proposal originated by Mr. Tom MacNish, Market 

Administrator, and was presented to the CWMA in September [2008]. Mass flow meters have been 

used extensively in their market with excellent results.
S&T Committee 2011 Final Report

S&T - 36

At the 2010 NCWM Annual Meeting, the Committee heard comments from Mr. Andersen, New York, in which he 

reiterated NEWMA’s request to place this item on the Committee’s 2011 Interim agenda. In response to NEWMA’s 

request, the Committee agreed to include this item on its 2011 Interim agenda and submitted it to the 2010 fall 

regional weights and measures association meetings.

At its 2010 fall Interim Meeting, the CWMA heard comments during the open hearing about testing from the 

USDA; which performs the most testing of this type of device for farm milk tanks in the region. Additional 

comments noted the increased uncertainty resulting from the connecting and disconnecting of valves and hoses in 

order to verify the master meter at every 2000 L (500 gal) when calibrating a farm milk tank, as opposed to testing 

the master meter only at the beginning and end of a farm milk tank calibration. Based on comments heard from the 

floor and data provided by Mr. Koeberle and Mr. MacNish, the CWMA S&T Committee believes that this proposal 

is ready to move forward as a Voting item on the NCWM S&T Committee agenda.

During its 2010 WWMA Annual Technical Conference, the WWMA S&T Committee reviewed the submitted data 

in a file titled “cali_massflowsheet.xlx.” The WWMA S&T Committee raised questions about how to interpret the 

data, noting that the unit of measure for the reported difference between meter and prover readings is inconsistent 

with the units of measure for the prover and meter indications. The WWMA S&T Committee commented that this 

inconsistency along with a lack of information describing test parameters, legends, and column headings made it 

difficult to analyze the data. The WWMA recommends the NCWM S&T Committee seek additional information on 

the data describing the test conditions and type of mass flow meter used. Additionally, a general summary of the 

data would help in assessing the proposal as would a cl arification of whether or not the reduced re-verification 

applies to other meter technologies (e.g., PD meter, turbine meter, etc.). The WWMA recommends that this item 

move forward as an Informational item on the NCWM Interim agenda to allow time to seek the additional 

information on the submitted data.

At its 2010 Annual Meeting, the SWMA recognized the efficiencies realized by using a master meter to test farm 

milk tanks. Allowing fewer verification points to be used when a master meter can be shown to perform within a 

tighter tolerance would provide for further efficiency in the test process, while maintaining confidence in the test. 

Consequently, the SWMA supports the proposal as written.

At its fall 2010 Interim Meeting, a representative of New York volunteered to obtain a summary of the analysis and 

work with the Market Administrators to address WWMA’s concerns.

During its open hearings at the 2011 Interim Meeting, the Committee heard comments from Mr. Koeberle, who 

outlined a history of this proposal from his organization’s perspective and described the challenges posed by the 

current language. He acknowledged that there may be questions regarding how to interpret the data submitted with 

the proposal, and offered to work with the Committee in responding to those questions. He also noted that he had 

additional data to provide to the Committee in support of the proposed change.

Mr. Ross Andersen, retired Director of the New York Bureau of Weights and Measures, speaking on his own behalf, 

expressed his support for this proposal. In addition to some of the points already made, he noted that technology has 

changed over the years and some of the influences previously experienced with positive displacement meters can be 

eliminated or reduced through the use of mass flow meters.

Ms. Juana Williams, NIST WMD, shared some additional technical points for the Committee to consider in its 

deliberations. While noting that the phrase “capable of operating within 25 % of applicable tolerance” is already 

included in text of N.5., NIST WMD questioned whether or not the reference might need further elaboration to 

clarify how to define when a system meets that criterion. F or example, should a minimum number of runs be 

specified or repeatability criteria referenced?

During the Committee’s work session, Mr. Koeberle provided an explanation to the Committee of the differences 

between a calibration (i.e., developing a new chart to correspond to volumes in the tank established during testing) 

and verification (i.e., verifying the “as found” accuracy of a tank, a process also known as “gauging”) of farm milk 

tanks, and the procedures used by his agency to test them. Mr. Koeberle provided additional results of tests that 
S&T Committee 2011 Final Report

S&T - 37

were completed by his agency, including a cover letter describing the format of the data sheets. The letter and this 

data are included in Appendix C to this report. Mr. Koeberle indicated that an interim test of the meter must be 

conducted at each 500 gal, and he noted that, in the process of conducting these interim tests, additional uncertainty 

is introduced into the test process due to purging of lines, switching of valves, and other variables. 

The Committee also discussed the comments raised by NIST regarding whether or not the reference to testing 

“within 25 %” needed additional qualification, such as specifying the amount of testing, limits of repeatability, or 

other criteria. The Committee discussed whether interim testing of the meter is necessary if a test of the meter 

before and after testing of the farm milk tank showed that the master meter was in tolerance. Committee members 

with active farm milk tank testing programs indicated that the current test of the meter before a test was begun and 

after a test had concluded would satisfy their concerns that the meter was accurate. Individual jurisdictions will 

determine the suitability of the test equipment based on fundamental considerations in HB 44. T he Committee 

believes that the current language allows flexibility for jurisdictions to make the assessment on a case-by-case basis 

and that this flexibility needs to be maintained.

After reviewing the comments received during the open hearings, input from the regions, data and testimony 

provided by Mr. Koeberle, and other points raised during its work session discussions, the Committee agreed to 

recommend the proposal outlined in the “Item Under Consideration” for a Vote.

At their spring 2011 meetings, NEWMA and the CWMA expressed support of the proposal as written.

At the 2011 NCWM Annual Meeting, NIST WMD provided the Committee with additional technical comments to 

assist the Committee in its analysis of this issue and spoke to this information during the open hearings. NIST 

WMD acknowledged that the intent of the proposal is to eliminate unnecessary testing and reduce uncertainties in 

the test process. However, WMD reiterated its concerns that the reference in the proposed language to “capable of 

operating within 25 %” may need further elaboration to clarify how to define when a system meets this criterion and 

ensure consistent interpretation. WMD believes that the language proposed in the Committee’s Interim Report was 

unclear with regard to the instances in which the master metering system has to be verified only before and after the 

gauging process, and in which instances the systems has to be verified at every quarter of the tank. For example, is 

“calibrating” a farm milk tank the same as “gauging” a farm milk tank? If yes, then there is currently no guidance 

on when to conduct intermediate verification of the master metering system, or when the intermediate tests are not 

necessary.

Working with Mr. Koeberle, WMD technical advisors developed and presented to the Committee two alternative

versions of the language that might help to improve consistency in the interpretation and application of the 

requirements. The Committee agreed upon one of the alternatives, which is shown in the “Item Under 

Consideration” above, noting that they felt this language would improve consistency in applying N.5.1. During the 

opening hearings, Mr. Koeberle offered support for the above modified language. Hearing no opposition to the 

modified proposal, the Committee presented it for a Vote. 

WMD also noted that additional work is needed to correct similar inconsistencies in terminology in the current code 

and suggested that the Committee consider creating a Developing item for inclusion in next year’s NCWM cycle to 

address these inconsistencies.

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. F or additional information on other OIML 

device activities that involve WMD staff, please contact WMD using the information listed below:
S&T Committee 2011 Final Report

S&T - 38

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”

•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 2 “Metrological Supervision”

•TC 6 “Prepackaged Products”

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 for the United States

•V1 “International vocabulary of terms in legal metrology (VIML)”

•V2 “International vocabulary of basic and general terms in metrology (VIM)”

•B3 “OIML Certificate System for Measuring Instruments”

•B6 “OIML Directives for the Technical Work”

•B 10 “Framework for a Mu tual 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”

•ISO/IEC Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement” 

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”
S&T Committee 2011 Final Report

S&T - 39

NIST Weights and Measures Division (WMD)

Contact List for International Activities

Contact Information Responsibilities

Mr. Ralph Richter (ILMG)

(301) 975-3997

ralph.richter@nist.gov

•D 11 “General Requirements for Electronic Measuring Instruments”

•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” (static measurement)

•R 85 “Automatic Level Gauges for Measuring the Level of Liquid in Fixed Storage 

Tanks”

•R 95 “Ship’s Tanks”

•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” (all measuring technologies)

•R 140 “Measuring Systems for Gaseous Fuel” (i.e., large pipelines)

•ISO TC 30/SC 7 “Water Meters”

Dr. Ambler Thompson 

(ILMG)

(301) 975-2333

ambler@nist.gov

•D 16 “Principles of Assurance of Metrological Control”

•D 19 “Pattern Evaluation and Pattern Approval”

•D 20 “Initial and Subsequent Verification of Measuring Instruments and Processes”

•D 27 “Initial Verification of Measuring Instruments Using the Manufacturer’s 

Quality Management System”

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

•R 34 “Accuracy Classes of Measuring Instruments”

•R 46 “Active Electrical Energy Meters for Direct Connection of Class 2”

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”

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 D 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 items in 

this section have been designated as Developing items by the submitter and/or the Committee based on an 

assessment of their relative stage of development. The Developing items are currently under review by at least one 

regional association, technical committee, or organization.
S&T Committee 2011 Final Report

S&T - 40

Developing items are listed in Appendix A according to the specific HB 44 code section under which they fall 

(e.g., a scale-related item appears in part 2.20 which corresponds to NIST HB 44 Section 2.20 Scales Code). 

Periodically, a proposal 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.

In future Committee reports, the Committee plans to include only a brief summary and point of contact for each 

Developing item in this section and will post any additional details on the item on the Committee’s web page on the 

NCWM web site.

Mr. Steve Giguere, Maine, Chairman

Mr. Kenneth Ramsburg, Maryland

Mr. Paul Moyer, Nebraska

Mr. Doug Deiman, Alaska

Mr. Brett Gurney, Utah

Mr. Ted Kingsbury, Measurement Canada, Technical Advisor

Ms. Tina Butcher, NIST, Technical Advisor

Mr. Steve Cook, NIST Technical Advisor

Mr. Richard Harshman, NIST, Technical Advisor

Specifications and Tolerances Committee
S&T Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix A – Developing Items

S&T - A1 

Appendix A – Developing Items

Item 360-2: Developing Items

In future Committee reports, the Committee plans to include only a brief summary and point of contact for each 

Developing item in this section and will post any additional details on the item on the Committee’s web page on the 

NCWM web site.

Part 2.20. Weigh-In-Motion Vehicle Scales for Law Enforcement – Work Group

Source: Mr. Richard Harshman, NIST, on behalf of the U.S. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) 

Purpose: Introduce a new Developing Item on the Specification and Tolerances Committee 2011 Agenda to keep 

the weights and measures community apprised of work to develop standards for weigh-in-motion (WIM) scale 

systems and to encourage their participation in this work. 

Item Under Consideration: The FHWA is forming a U.S. National Work Group (USNWG) to develop proposed 

standards that would apply to WIM scale systems used to screen or sort commercial vehicles for possible violations 

of legal roadway weight limits, with the ultimate goal of bringing the proposed standards before the weights and 

measures community for possible inclusion in HB 44. FHWA has been collaborating with NIST WMD and the 

commercial vehicle enforcement community to identify industry experts, device users, regulatory officials, and 

others interested in participating in the WG. The WG plans to develop proposed specifications, tolerance, and other 

technical requirements applicable to WIM scale systems used in official use for the enforcement of law, or for the 

collection of statistical information by government agencies.

Background/Discussion: The nation’s highways, freight transportation system, and enforcement resources are 

being strained by the volume of freight being moved and the corresponding number of commercial vehicles 

operating on its roads. Traditional, manual-based vehicle inspection activities simply cannot keep pace with 

anticipated truck volume increases. C urrent U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) forecasts project freight 

volumes to double by 2035, and commercial vehicles to travel an additional 100 billion miles per year by 2020. 

WIM technology has been targeted by FHWA and Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) to a 

technology capable of supporting more effective and efficient truck weight enforcement programs. 

Several DOT efforts are underway and planned for the future to maintain adequate levels of enforcement that ensure 

equity in the trucking industry market and protection of highway infrastructure. Judicial support for enforcement 

decisions to apply more intense enforcement actions on specific trucks depends on support from the U.S. legal 

metrology community. Standards are needed in HB 44 to address the design, installation, accuracy, and use of WIM 

systems used in a screening/sorting application. T he implementation of a uniform set of standards will greatly 

improve the overall efficiency of the nation’s commercial vehicle enforcement process. 

Once adopted by the truck weight enforcement community, these requirements will enhance the accuracy of the 

nation’s WIM scale systems, serve as a sound basis for judicial support of next-generation truck weight enforcement 

programs, and result in fewer legally loaded vehicles being delayed at static weigh station locations, thus, reducing 

traffic congestion and non-productive fuel consumption and improving the movement of freight on our nation’s 

roadways.

During the fall 2010 CWMA Interim Meeting, a comment was heard from the floor during its open hearings that 

WIM scales could be used for enforcement issues and evaluating or assessing fines to overweight trucks. Currently, 

most of these scales are used for audit purposes only. The CWMA S&T Committee believes that the efforts to 

establish requirements for WIM scales has merit, and when fully developed, will assist in expediting commerce by 

not having to reweigh clearly legal highway vehicles while protecting roadways from vehicles that exceed legal 

highway load limits. 
S&T Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix A – Developing Items

S&T - A2 

At the 2010 WWMA Annual Technical Conference, Mr. Stephen Langford, Cardinal Scales, stated during the open 

hearings that he is a member of the WG and supports adding language defining performance parameters of WIM 

devices for use in law enforcement. Mr. Langford added that the WG will be considering other existing standards to 

help develop the language in HB 44 (e.g., OIML R 134 “Automatic instruments for weighing road vehicles in 

motion and measuring axle loads”). Mr. Kurt Floren, Los Angeles County, added that even though these devices are 

non-commercial they are covered under the scope of HB 44 General Code Application paragraph 

G-A.1.(c) Commercial and Law Enforcement Equipment. 

During the open hearings at its 2010 Annual Meeting, the SWMA heard comments from Mr. Langford, Cardinal 

Manufacturing, supporting the direction of this WG. Mr. Langford noted that these WIM scales are not currently 

used to levy fines, but rather to screen for overweight trucks. He noted that the WG is just getting started and that 

Cardinal is looking forward to participating in this work. Mr. Max Gray, Florida questioned whether putting 

requirements for highway WIM devices in HB 44 would obligate jurisdictions to conduct tests of these devices. 

While he doesn’t oppose the inclusion of requirements in general, he questioned the availability of resources to 

accommodate the additional workload given the extreme budget restrictions many jurisdictions are facing. Ms. Tina 

Butcher, NIST WMD, noted that DOT reported that highway weight enforcement officials are concerned that the 

use of the scales in screening will be challenged without reference to a recognized standard. Since many of these 

agencies currently reference HB 44, they felt that recognition of these devices in NIST HB 44 as law enforcement 

equipment would lend credibility and consistency to the design, use, accuracy, and application of this equipment. 

At its 2010 Annual Meeting, the SWMA S&T Committee stated its support for the efforts of the WG. However, 

given some of the concerns and questions raised at the open hearings about resources for testing, that committee did 

not want to take a position on this issue until it has more information about the direction of the WG. 

During open hearings at its fall 2010 Interim Meeting, NEWMA heard comments supporting the formation of the 

WG but questioned what role existed for the NCWM S&T Committee at this time.

At the Committee’s 2011 NCWM Interim Meeting open hearings, Juana Williams, NIST WMD, provided the 

following update on the progress of weigh-in-motion (WIM) standards development: 

 

Purpose of the Project: The Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA’s) Office of Freight Management and 

Operations recognized a need to encourage uniformity in the design, testing, installation, and performance of WIM 

technology and subsequently encourage acceptance by prosecution agencies (administrative or judicial) regarding 

the validity of WIM technology’s role in supporting commercial motor vehicle (CMV) weight enforcement.

In response to this need, and recognizing the credibility of having a standard included in HB 44 because it lends 

integrity and is more recognizable in legal actions, the FHWA seeks to integrate WIM technology into the 

“handbook.” The FHWA recently contracted the services of the Texas Transportation Institute—The Texas A&M 

University System and Battelle (a private company) to begin this process. A dditionally, a small oversight 

committee was formed by the FHWA, made up of three representatives from the FHWA, a NIST Technical Advisor, 

and a r epresentative of a U .S. manufacturer of WIM equipment to validate that each contract deliverable is 

completed according to contract.

 

The intended application of the proposed new code is for screening purposes only (i.e., for screening/sorting 

commercial vehicles for possible violations of FHWA vehicle weight requirements). It is anticipated that as WIM 

technology continues to advance, this code may have a much broader application sometime in the future.

As a first step in this effort, the contracted team was tasked to develop an initial, detailed Project Work Plan 

intended to guide activities and establish lines of communication from project inception to project completion. This 

deliverable has been completed and was recently submitted to the Project Oversight Committee for consideration.

The next step will be to establish a work group (WG) from the WIM technology stakeholder community. This 

process is already underway, and the WG will be comprised of representatives from state departments of 

transportation, state law enforcement agencies, weights and measures officials, WIM technology manufacturers and 

vendors, academic researchers, and others. The initial meeting of the WG is planned, although not yet scheduled, 

for the middle of February 2011.
S&T Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix A – Developing Items

S&T - A3 

It is anticipated that a final draft code will be ready for consideration by the NCWM in 2012. F or additional 

information regarding this project, contact Mr. Rick Harshman, NIST WMD by e-mail at 

richard.harshman@nist.gov; by telephone at 301-975-8107; or by mail at NIST, 100 Bureau Drive – MS 2600, 

Gaithersburg, MD, 20899-2600.

Mr. Max Gray, State Director of Florida commented that although he didn’t have any issues regarding developing 

standards for WIM systems, he did not believe that inclusion of a new WIM code into HB 44 was appropriate

because the application of the proposed code was for screening purposes only. 

Mr. Langford supported the development of the standard, and stated that the “Application” section of the General 

Code not only applies to commercial equipment, but also equipment used in law-enforcement and for the collection 

of statistical information by government agencies. He also stated that it was too early to make a determination on 

how much work would be involved in the testing of WIM systems because the WG had yet to be formed. 

The CWMA and NEWMA supported further development of this item at their 2011 spring Annual Meetings.

At the 2011 NCWM Annual Meeting, Rick Harshman, NIST Technical Advisor to the WIM WG provided the 

following update:

Mr. Harshman reported that the project is progressing slower than anticipated. A few months ago the project team 

leader resigned due to a r elocation of her residence to another state. Dr. Dan Middleton, Texas Transportation 

Institute (TTI), was then selected to be the new project team leader. Since the 2011 Interim Meeting, the Project 

Oversight team has developed and agreed on a WG charter, which among other things defines the rules of the WG, 

including voting rights, membership balance, etc. Candidates for the WG have been identified, invitations to 

participate circulated, and members selected based on returned invitations. As of April 2011, 35 candidates had 

agreed to participate on the WG. The initial kickoff meeting is scheduled July 28, 2011, in Dallas, Texas. A second 

face-to-face meeting is planned, perhaps later in the year. 

Part 3.30. Liquid-Measuring Devices (LMD) – Item 1: P rice Posting and Computing Capability and 

Requirements for a Retail Motor-Fuel Dispenser (RMFD)

Source: 2010 Carryover Developing Item 360-3, Part 3.30-Item 1. T his item originated from WMD and the 

regional associations and first appeared on the Committee’s 2007 agenda.

Purpose: To review and update criteria in the LMD Code related to price posting and computing capability of 

RMFDs to reflect current market practices. 

Item Under Consideration: In 2008 and 2009, the Committee considered a proposal to make modifications to 

HB 44 Section 3.30. LMD Code to address price posting and computing capability for RMFDs. Full details of the 

recommendation are found in Agenda Item 330-3 in the Committee’s 2008 and 2009 Final Reports. The Committee 

believes that changes are needed to the LMD Code; however, based on comments received it does not believe the 

proposal adequately addressed the community’s concerns. In 2010, the Committee received approval to form an 

NCWM Task Group (TG) on RMFD price posting and computing capability (PPCC) to review and recommend 

necessary changes to the LMD Code by January 2012. 

Key Points:

• Current LMD Code requirements relative to unit price posting and selection and total price computation 

were developed to address marketing practices in place in the early 1990s; primarily cash/credit forms of 

payment.

• Marketing practices have changed since the 1990s, and the LMD Code does not adequately address these 

changes with regard to the display, posting, and selection of unit price information or total price 

information at various points in a transaction.
S&T Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix A – Developing Items

S&T - A4 

• There appears to be general agreement in the weights and measures community that changes are needed to 

the LMD Code in HB 44 to better reflect current market practices.

• Comments indicate the proposal considered in 2008-2009 by the Committee did not adequately address 

concerns, particularly on the parts of weights and measures officials.

• Weights and measures officials are concerned that customers be given adequate information at all points of 

the transaction, not just at the end.

• Regional weights and measures associations and industry comments indicated support for a WG to further 

develop this issue.

• The 2010 S&T Committee established a TG to further develop this issue and present an alternative 

recommendation for its consideration in 2012.

 

Background/Discussion: In the early 1990s, various sections of the LMD 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 in instances, where the same product is offered at different unit prices based on the method of 

payment or other conditions of the sale. 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 and weights and measures officials 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. W MD 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:

(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.

The WMD expressed an interest in receiving input from the weights and measures community about 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 regional weights and measures associations agreed that changes are needed and encouraged WMD to continue 

development of the issue. D uring the 2007 NCWM Interim Meeting, the S&T Committee agreed to add to its 

agenda a Developing item to begin to address these issues. At the 2008 NCWM Interim Meeting, Ohio Weights and 

Measures submitted a proposal to modify various sections of the LMD Code to the Committee. With a specific 

proposal to consider, the 2008 Committee elevated the item from Developing to Informational status for further 

review and input.
S&T Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix A – Developing Items

S&T - A5 

In 2008, the CWMA noted that although the proposal was a good start it did not address what was happening in the 

marketplace. T he CWMA also recommended establishment of a small WG to further develop the issue and 

encouraged consideration of points such as the following:

1. discounts calculated at the pump and others 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.

NIST WMD agreed to form a small WG to further study this issue and held an initial meeting of interested parties in 

July 2008. A reduction of staff at NIST prevented subsequent work on this issue. The S&T Committee continued to 

hear requests from the regional associations and industry regarding the importance that this work be continued, and 

urging NIST to allocate resources to the project. Mr. John Eichberger, National Association of Convenience Stores, 

offered to coordinate assistance from some of the association’s interested members at the point where work would 

resume. See the Committee’s 2008 and 2009 Final Reports for additional details on this effort.

At its fall 2009 meeting, the CWMA urged that resources be committed to this item’s further development. CWMA 

members commented that price posting continues to be a problem, noting that the current language in NIST HB 44 

does not reflect current market practices, and the language needs to be either fixed or removed from the handbook. 

The CWMA also requested that the NCWM sponsor a WG to address this issue.

At its fall 2009 meeting, NEWMA agreed that this is a priority item and encouraged the formation of a WG as soon 

as possible. NEWMA further noted comments heard during its meeting:

• As long as terms and conditions are made clear prior to sale, the transaction should be allowed.

• Businesses should purchase the correct equipment (according to HB 44) for their marketing strategy.

• This item needs to move forward as a priority.

• We need to find some remedy for businesses that have older equipment.

• It is very difficult to take a hard line (follow HB 44 exactly) on this item.

• We must enforce equally and provide a level playing field.

• HB 44 is antiquated and should be revised.

At its fall 2009 meeting, the SWMA recommended that NIST WMD resume working on this proposal as soon as 

resources are available. The SWMA also encouraged NIST to include Mr. Eichberger and other sectors that are 

interested in the work and any stakeholders impacted by proposals to modify the LMD code relative to price posting 

and computing for RMFDs.

The Committee heard comments from all four regional weights and measures associations (including the CWMA), 

industry, and individual NCWM members that, while changes are needed to the LMD Code, the proposal on the 

NCWM S&T Committee’s 2008 and 2009 agendas did not meet the needs of the marketplace (see the Committee’s 

2008 and 2009 Final Reports for details of specific concerns). A key concern raised by weights and measures

officials was the importance 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.
S&T Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix A – Developing Items

S&T - A6 

Prior to the 2010 January NCWM Interim Meeting, NIST reallocated additional resources to work on this issue and 

announced that Ms. Juana Williams, NIST WMD, would lead the effort to renew the WG. Working in collaboration 

with the S&T Committee, Ms. Williams held an informal meeting during the 2010 Interim Meeting to allow 

interested parties to further discuss the issue, share thoughts about next steps, and indicate interest in participating in 

the WG. That meeting was well attended with 29 NCWM members participating, and a number of useful comments 

were made. Prior to the open hearings, Ms. Williams gave the Committee an overview of the informal meeting and 

an update on the plan to renew the WG. 

At its 2010 o pen hearings, the S&T Committee received positive comments regarding NIST’s reallocation of 

resources to this project and agreed that reviewing and revising current requirements is important. The Committee 

continued to strongly support the intent of the proposal and recognized that significant additional development is 

needed. The Committee believes that this can best be done through an S&T TG, and decided to give this item 

Developing status until the TG develops a proposal for consideration by the Conference. After collaborating with 

NCWM Chairman, Mr. Randy Jennings, the Committee Chair indicated that the TG should be chaired by an 

NCWM voting member under the technical direction of NIST, and report to the NCWM S&T Committee. The 

Committee asked that Ms. Williams collaborate with the S&T Chair regarding possible candidates for the TG’s chair 

position, based on those who have indicated an interest in serving on the TG. The Committee asked that the TG

provide frequent updates on its progress to the Committee and to the regional weights and measures associations. 

The Committee also asked that the TG communicate a work plan and time line after its first official meeting.

Prior to the July 2010 NCWM Annual Meeting, Chair Jeff Humphreys, Los Angeles County (California) Weights 

and Measures, and Vice Chair Fran Elson-Houston, Ohio, were appointed to lead the TG. On July 11, 2010, the 

RMFD Price Posting and Computing Capability (PPCC) Task Group (TG) held its first formal meeting. The TG 

expressed its thanks to its sponsor the NCWM S&T Committee and also to NCWM members for their contributions 

made up to this session. 

The TG was tasked with reviewing the current NIST Handbook 44 Section 3.30 LMD Code to determine if the code 

requirements address rapidly changing practices for marketing retail motor-fuels to the general public. The TG was 

also tasked with developing proposals for modifying those codes that need changing and preparing them for a 

review by the S&T Committee. 

Since July 2010, the TG has made progress in the following areas to achieve its goals:

 

(1) September 2010 – Established a Work Plan (to include a project timeline) approved by the S&T 

Committee;

(2) September 2010 – Developed a M otor-Fuel Marketing Method Information Form approved by the S&T 

Committee;

(3) September 2010 – Recruited and confirmed 13 new TG members who are stakeholders affected by these 

marketing practices who represent the following organizations/agencies/associations/sectors:

CWMA Convenience Store Associations; 

NEWMA Discount Programming/Point of Sale Systems; 

SWMA Petroleum Marketers Associations; 

WWMA RMFD Manufacturers; 

NTEP Weights and Measures Consultants. 

(4) October 21, 2010 – Web/Teleconference Meeting; 

(5) December 14, 2010 – Web/Teleconference Meeting; 

(6) January 23, 2011 – In-Person Meeting; and

(7) Upcoming Web/Teleconference Meetings are planned for February 23, 2011, and March 22, 2011. 
S&T Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix A – Developing Items

S&T - A7 

The NCWM has provided the TG with two resources: a web page and a list serve e-mail system. The web page is 

available as a central point for posting TG documents, photos, etc., so these working documents and information can 

be viewed or downloaded. The website allows the TG to work more efficiently through draft documents. The 

NCWM Listserv allows the TG to communicate ideas and proposals, etc. by e-mail. 

The TG began its work by requesting additional information to ensure that it does not reinvent code sections that 

already work to address marketing practices. The TG was interested in any recent legislation or policies enacted to 

address these marketing scenarios and will continue to accept this information. The TG plans to examine various 

examples of marketing practices to establish some general categories for classifying these marketing practices and 

later analyzing if a practice is adequately addressed by any codes it might develop. The TG developed a Motor-Fuel 

Marketing Method Information Form for stakeholders to provide information on newly emerging marketing 

practices they encounter which are either: (1) not addressed in the code; (2) result in non-uniform interpretation of 

the application of code sections; or (3) are difficult to enforce because of conflicting codes that apply to the 

equipment’s design and use.

The primary focus of the TG’s work has been six existing HB 44 LMD Code requirements that apply to RMFDs and 

address the equipment’s: 

• computing capability/suitability; 

• receipts; 

• unit price displays; 

• unit price selection and Control; and 

• exemptions from these requirements.

The TG outlined several principles that might be considered as the basis for any marketing practice used in 

motor-fuel sales through a RMFD. These principles would:

• ensure transparency of the transaction; 

• allow for customer selection of the unit price; 

• result in the unit price being correctly applied; and 

• provide detailed transaction information available on the receipt. 

These principles would allow sufficient flexibility for the consumer and avoid unintentional errors that the weights 

and measures community has observed in the absence of requirements for past marketing schemes.

Since multiple agency requirements apply to service station transactions at RMFDs for street signage, credit card 

regulations, etc., at some point the TG may need to determine if there are other laws and regulations that should be 

examined for conflicts or redundancy. The TG has discussed and will continue to monitor the Dodd-Frank Wall 

Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, and its effects on discounts offered for motor-fuel purchases based on 

payment made with various types and levels of credit/debit cards. The Dodd-Frank Act is an extensive piece of 

legislation intended to offer consumer protections and improve practices and services in the U.S. financial system. 

The TG plans to work with its membership and available resources to ensure that any requirements it develops are in 

harmony with this Act.

The TG has provided summaries of its October 2010 a nd December 2010 Web/Teleconference Meetings to the 

January 2011 S&T Committee to update the Committee on its work. During the January 2011 NCWM Interim 
S&T Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix A – Developing Items

S&T - A8 

Meeting open hearing session, TG Chair Humphreys also provided an update on the TG’s work to the entire 

NCWM.

At the 2011 NCWM Annual Meeting, Mr. Jeff Humphreys, Chairman of the NCWM TG on RMFD Price Posting, 

provided the Committee with an update on the progress of the TG.

To provide comments or submit questions to the TG, please contact NIST WMD Technical Advisor Ms. Juana 

Williams by e-mail at juana.williams@nist.gov, by telephone at (301) 975-3989, or in writing at NIST 100 Bureau 

Drive – Stop 2600, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2600.
S&T Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix B – Attachments

S&T - B1 

Appendix B - Attachments 

S&T Agenda Item 310-3: Nonretroactive Requirements (Remanufactured Equipment) – Examples of 

Repaired Devices/Repaired Elements

2002 NCWM Annual Report Agenda Item 310-2A from the Remanufactured Devices Task Force

Section I

Examples of Repaired Devices/Repaired Elements

(no metrological change)

Remanufactured

Device

Remanufactured

Element

Still 

Traceable to 

NTEP CC

Marking 

Required

Weighing Activity

I-1-W A scale that is disassembled for 

the purpose of cleaning and repairing 

pivots and bearings this activity covers 

cleaning and packing bearings. 

No No Yes No

I-2-W A device in which the electronic 

components have been changed on site 

using original manufacturer’s factory 

components parts or NTEP traceable 

replacement parts.

No No Yes No

I-3-W A weighing element that is 

replaced on site with original 

manufacturer’s factory parts or NTEP 

traceable replacement parts. This does not 

prohibit repairs by other than the original 

manufacturer. 

No No Yes No

I-4-W A Class III L scales in which a 

section adjustment (mechanical or 

electronic) is made and some disassembly 

is required.

No No Yes No

I-5-W A mechanical scales in which a 

nose iron is adjusted and some 

disassembly is required.

No No Yes No

I-6-W Replacement of Liquid Crystal 

Display (LCD) or non-metrological 

computer boards or chips. 

No No Yes No
S&T Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix B – Attachments

S&T - B2 

S&T Agenda Item 310-3: Nonretroactive Requirements (Remanufactured Equipment) – Examples of 

Repaired Devices/Repaired Elements

2002 NCWM Annual Report Agenda Item 310-2A from the Remanufactured Devices Task Force

Remanufactured

Device

Remanufactured

Element

Still 

Traceable to 

NTEP CC

Marking 

Required

I-7-W Replacement of pivots and 

bearings on mechanical scales. 

NOTE: Pivots and bearings would have 

to meet the original manufacturer's 

specifications for the scale to operate 

correctly.

No No Yes No

I-8-W Replacement of some or all load 

cells with load cells identical (same 

manufacturer, make and model) to those 

removed.

No No Yes No

I-9-W Replacement of some or all load 

cells with metrologically equivalent 

(nmax, vmin, etc.) load cells from a 

different manufacturer, provided the load 

cells are of the same basic type that have 

an NTEP CC and can be replaced without 

modification to the basic design of the 

load cell mounting assembly.

No No Yes No

I-10-W Replacement of all load cells of 

a particular technology (analog, digital, 

and hydraulic) in a s cale system with 

approved and compatible digital load 

cells that have an NTEP CC provided the 

cells can be replaced without any 

modification to the basic design of the 

load cell mounting assembly. 

No No Yes No

Measuring Activity

I-1-M Disassembly of a motor fuel 

dispenser for the purpose of replacing a 

meter gasket.

No No Yes No

I-2-M A device in which the electronic 

components have been replaced on site 

using original manufacturer’s factory 

components, parts, or NTEP traceable 

replacement parts.

No No Yes No
S&T Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix B – Attachments

S&T - B3 

S&T Agenda Item 310-3: Nonretroactive Requirements (Remanufactured Equipment) – Examples of 

Repaired Devices/Repaired Elements

2002 NCWM Annual Report Agenda Item 310-2A from the Remanufactured Devices Task Force

Remanufactured

Device

Remanufactured

Element

Still 

Traceable to 

NTEP CC

Marking 

Required

I-3-M Any measuring element that is 

replaced on site with original 

manufacturer’s factory parts or NTEP 

traceable replacement. T his does not 

prohibit repairs by other than the original 

manufacturer. 

No No Yes No

I-4-M Replacement of nozzles on 

gasoline dispensers. No No Yes No

I-5-M Replacement of LCD or nonmetrological computer boards or chips. No No Yes No

I-6-M Adjustment of ranger gears on 

meters (some disassembly required). 

This activity applies to meters calibrated 

with a r ange of gears rather than an 

adjustor.

No No Yes No

I-7-M A service agency replaces a meter 

that cannot be brought into the proper 

calibration with a used meter (at the 

service station) of the same model and the 

meter is recalibrated. 

No No Yes No

Section II - Examples of Remanufactured Devices/Remanufactured Elements

(no metrological change)

Weighing Activity

II-1-W A scale that is disassembled for 

the purpose of checking for worn parts, 

cleaning the scale, and replacing some or 

all of the scale’s load cells with 

remanufactured load cells provided the 

load cells are remanufactured by the 

original manufacturer or are 

remanufactured metrologically equivalent 

(nmax, vmin, etc.) load cells with an 

NTEP CC and are identical to those 

removed.

No

Yes – Load Cells

No – Weighing 

Element

Yes

Yes – (Load 

Cells)

No –

(Weighing 

Element 

Original 

markings meet 

requirement)
S&T Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix B – Attachments

S&T - B4 

S&T Agenda Item 310-3: Nonretroactive Requirements (Remanufactured Equipment) – Examples of 

Repaired Devices/Repaired Elements

2002 NCWM Annual Report Agenda Item 310-2A from the Remanufactured Devices Task Force

Remanufactured

Device

Remanufactured

Element

Still 

Traceable to 

NTEP CC

Marking 

Required

II-2-W A service agency replaces a 

digital indicating element of a floor scale 

with the same model indicator 

remanufactured by a firm other than the 

original manufacturer of the scale. 

NOTE: The remanufacturer made no 

design change to the indicator.

No

Yes – Indicating 

Element

No – Weighing 

Element

Yes

Yes 

(Indicating 

Element 

only)

II-3-W A service agency completely 

disassembles a co unter computing scale 

in their shop, checks for worn parts and 

replaces all worn parts (without replacing 

the load cell(s)) with remanufactured 

parts (not original manufacturer but no 

design change), replaces other parts as 

needed, cleans and reassembles the scale 

for sale.

Yes Yes Yes Yes

II-4-W A device or element is sent back 

to the original equipment manufacturer. 

The device is disassembled, checked for 

wear, parts are replaced or fixed as 

necessary, and the device is reassembled 

and made to operate like a new scale of 

the same type.

Yes No Yes

No (Original 

markings 

meet 

requirement)

II-5-W A device or element is sent to a 

company (not the original manufacturer). 

The device is disassembled, checked for 

wear, parts are replaced with Original 

Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) parts or 

fixed as necessary, and the device or 

element is reassembled and made to 

operate like a n ew device or element of 

the same type.

Yes No Yes Yes

Measuring Activity

II-1-M Complete disassembly of a motor 

fuel dispenser, checking for worn parts, 

cleaning the dispenser and replacement of 

all badly worn parts with parts identical 

(same manufacturer, make, and model) to 

those removed.

Yes No Yes Yes
S&T Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix B – Attachments

S&T - B5 

S&T Agenda Item 310-3: Nonretroactive Requirements (Remanufactured Equipment) – Examples of 

Repaired Devices/Repaired Elements

2002 NCWM Annual Report Agenda Item 310-2A from the Remanufactured Devices Task Force

Remanufactured

Device

Remanufactured

Element

Still 

Traceable to 

NTEP CC

Marking 

Required

II-2-M A service agency replaces a 

meter on site that cannot be brought into 

the proper calibration in a dispenser with 

the same model meter remanufactured by 

a firm other than the original 

manufacturer of the dispenser. 

NOTE: The remanufacturer made no 

design change.

No Yes Yes

Yes 

(Element 

only)

II-3-M A service agency replaces a m eter 

mechanical indicating element with the 

same model mechanical indicating element 

remanufactured by a firm other than the 

original manufacturer of the mechanical 

indicating element. NOTE: The 

remanufacturer made no design change.

No Yes Yes

Yes 

(Element 

only)

II-4-M A device is sent back to the 

original equipment manufacturer. The 

device is disassembled, checked for wear, 

parts are replaced or fixed as necessary, 

and the device is reassembled and made 

to operate like a new device or element of 

the same type.

Yes No &es

No (Original 

markings 

meet 

requirement)

II-5-M A company completely 

disassembles a motor fuel dispenser in 

their shop, checks for worn parts and 

replaces all worn elements with 

remanufactured elements (not original 

manufacturer but no design change), 

cleans and reinstalls the dispenser.

Yes Yes Yes Yes

II-6-M A dispenser remanufacturer 

completely disassembles a motor fuel 

dispenser, replaces a meter that cannot be 

brought into the proper calibration with 

the same model meter remanufactured by 

another firm, fixes and/or replaces all 

other parts as needed, reassembles the 

dispenser for sale as a r emanufactured 

dispenser.

Yes Yes Yes Yes
S&T Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix B – Attachments

S&T - B6 

S&T Agenda Item 310-3: Nonretroactive Requirements (Remanufactured Equipment) – Examples of 

Repaired Devices/Repaired Elements

2002 NCWM Annual Report Agenda Item 310-2A from the Remanufactured Devices Task Force

Remanufactured

Device

Remanufactured

Element

Still 

Traceable to 

NTEP CC

Marking 

Required

II-7-M A company brings a motor fuel 

dispenser in their shop, fixes any leaks, 

replaces any meter which cannot be 

calibrated with a r emanufactured meter 

which can be calibrated (not original 

manufacturer but no design change), 

replaces other non functioning parts with 

new, used, or repaired parts which 

function, cleans, installs new graphics, 

and sends the dispenser out for 

installation. NOTE: The remanufacturer 

made no design change.

No Yes Yes

Yes 

(Element 

only)

II-8-M A device is sent to a co mpany 

(not the original manufacturer). The 

device is disassembled, checked for wear, 

parts are replaced with OEM parts or 

fixed as necessary, and the device is 

reassembled and made to operate like a 

new device of the same type.

Yes No Yes Yes

Section III

Examples of Remanufacturing/Repairs/Modifications that Constitute a

Metrological Design Change or a Violation of NTEP Policy

Weighing Activity

III-1-W A company disassembles a 

scale, cleans the scale and checks for 

worn parts, then replaces hydraulic load 

cells with shear beam load cells. 

NOTE: Requires different mounting due 

to different type of cells.

Not Applicable Not Applicable No Yes*

III-2-W A metrological change to 

Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) 

design of a weighing device or element.

Not Applicable Not Applicable No Yes*

III-3-W Structural modifications to 

weighbridges. Scale changes that do not 

comply with UR. 4.3. Scale Modification 

Not Applicable Not Applicable No Yes*

III-4-W Replacing a l ever system with 

load cells. Not Applicable Not Applicable No Yes*
S&T Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix B – Attachments

S&T - B7 

S&T Agenda Item 310-3: Nonretroactive Requirements (Remanufactured Equipment) – Examples of 

Repaired Devices/Repaired Elements

2002 NCWM Annual Report Agenda Item 310-2A from the Remanufactured Devices Task Force

Remanufactured

Device

Remanufactured

Element

Still 

Traceable to 

NTEP CC

Marking 

Required

III-5-W Substitution of a l oad cell or 

cells in a s cale when the replacement 

cells were not repaired or remanufactured 

by the original manufacturer or 

authorized agent of the original 

manufacturer. T he remanufactured load 

cell(s) does not have an NTEP CC. 

(NTEP Policy, see NCWM Pub. 14)

Not Applicable Not Applicable No Yes*

III-6-W A company completely 

disassembles a co unter computing scale 

in their shop, checks for worn parts and 

replaces all worn parts with 

remanufactured parts (not the original 

manufacturer but no design change) and 

load cell without an NTEP CC, replaces 

other parts as needed, cleans and 

reassembles the scale.

Not Applicable Not Applicable No Yes*

Measuring Activity

III-1-M A metrological change to the 

Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) 

design of a measuring device or element.

Not Applicable Not Applicable No Yes*

III-2-M A dispenser remanufacturer 

adds temperature compensation to a 

dispenser, which was never approved for 

temperature compensation.

Not Applicable Not Applicable No Yes*

*The Committee agreed that devices in Section III should be marked. The Task Force indicated that remanufactured 

marking requirements do not apply to Section III activities. The Committee noted that devices in Section III require 

the following:

• must be reevaluated

• must be marked with new manufacturer’s identity

• must be marked with new NTEP CC number

• must meet paragraph G-S.1. Identification

The Committee agreed that it was historically important to include in the report the following NTEP Policies that are 

the basis for placing examples in Section III (activities that represent a metrological change or violation of current 

NTEP Policy).

III-1-W The 2000 edition of NCWM Pub 14 Weighing Devices Checklist for Load Cells Section A Program 

Description 5. Substitution of Metrologically Equivalent Load Cells in Scales states that metrologically equivalent 
S&T Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix B – Attachments

S&T - B8 

S&T Agenda Item 310-3: Nonretroactive Requirements (Remanufactured Equipment) – Examples of 

Repaired Devices/Repaired Elements

2002 NCWM Annual Report Agenda Item 310-2A from the Remanufactured Devices Task Force

load cells from the same or a different manufacturer may be substituted into a scale provided that the substituted 

load cells can be placed in the scale without any modification to the design of the load cell mounting assembly.

III-2-W The 2001 edition of NCWM Pub 14 A dministrative Policy Section M. Policy on Remanufactured and 

Repaired Devices specifies that a device is no longer covered by an NTEP Certificate of Conformance if a company 

or individual makes changes to a device to the extent that the metrological characteristics are changed.

III-3-W Devices that fall under this activity are not covered by a CC unless the device complies NIST Handbook 

44 paragraph UR.4.3. Scale Modification. Devices that meet UR.4.3. require approval by the weights and measures 

authority having jurisdiction over the device.

III-4-W The 2000 edition of NCWM Pub 14 Checklist for Digital Electronic Scales Section E. Modification of 

Type 1. Replacing the Lever System with Load Cells specifies that changing a scale from a lever system scale to a 

full electronic scale is considered a modification of type. The total replacement of any levers in a mechanical scale 

is a modification of type that is not covered by the original CC without additional testing.

III-5-W The 2000 edition of NCWM Pub 14 Weighing Devices Checklist for Load Cells Section A. Program 

Description 4. Repaired or Remanufactured Load Cells specifies that the original Certificate of Conformance (CC) 

no longer applies to a repaired load cell if that load cell is repaired by other than the original manufacturer or its 

authorized agent. 

III-6-W The 2000 e dition of NCWM Pub 14 W eighing Devices Checklist for Load Cells Section A. Program 

Description 5. Substitution of Metrologically Equivalent Load Cells in a Scale states that load cells from the same or 

a different manufacturer may be substituted into a scale provided that the load cells to be substituted have been 

evaluated separately and have a CC. III-1-M NIST Handbook 130, Uniform National Type Evaluation Regulation 

Section 4. Prohibited Acts and Exemptions (9) Repaired Device and (10) Remanufactured Device and the 2001 

edition of NCWM Pub 14 Administrative Policy Section M and the Checklist for Liquid-Measuring Devices Section 

K. Policy on Remanufactured and Repaired Devices specify that if a co mpany or individual repairs or 

remanufactures a device, they are obligated to repair or remanufacture the device consistent with the manufacturer’s 

original design. Otherwise, that specific device is no longer traceable to the NTEP CC.

III-2-M Handbook 130, Uniform National Type Evaluation Regulation Section 4. Prohibited Acts and Exemptions 

(9) Repaired Device and (10) Remanufactured Device and the 2001 edition of Pub 14 Administrative Policy Section 

J.2 Re-evaluation to Expand an Existing Certificate of Conformance. A type with a valid CC may be re-evaluated in 

order to encompass additional features such as expanding the kinds of commodities that may be measured. See also 

Publication 14 Administrative Policy Section M. Policy on Remanufactured and Repaired Devices, and Section K. 

Evaluation of New Technology.
S&T Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix B – Attachments

S&T - B9 

S&T Agenda Item 310-3: Nonretroactive Requirements (Remanufactured Equipment) – HB 44 ( 2010) 

General and Scales Code List of Nonretroactive Requirements.

Code 

Section

Nonretroactive 

paragraph

Effective 

Date Subject Comment

1.10 G-S.1.(b)(1) 2003 Identification - Model Identifier Abbreviations for Model

1.10 G-S.1.(c) 1968 Serial number Required

1.10 G-S.1.(c)(1) 1986 Serial number Identified with words, symbols, etc.

1.10 G-S.1.(c)(2) 2001 Serial number Acceptable abbreviations

1.10 G-S.1.(d) 2004 Software version Must be identified

1.10 G-S.1.(d)(1) 2007 Software version Identified with words, symbols, etc.

1.10 G-S.1.(d)(2) 2007 Software version Acceptable abbreviations

1.10 G-S.1.(e) 2003 CC number Identified with words, symbols, 

acceptable abbreviations, etc.

1.10 G-S.1.1. 2004 Locations of markings Applicable to not-built-for-purpose 

devices

1.10 G-S.1.2. 2002 Remanufactured devices and 

elements Markings

1.10 G-S.5.2.2.(d) 1986 Digital zero indications Minimum zero indications

1.10 G-S.6. 1977 Operational control indications, etc. Markings

1.10 G-S.8. 1990 Sealing electronic adjustable 

components

1.10 G-S.8.1. 2010 Sealing multiple elements

2.20 S.1.1.1.(b) 1993 Center of zero requirements

2.20 S.1.2. 1986 Value of d

2.20 S.1.2.1. 1989 Digital indicating scales single unit 

of measure

2.20 S.1.4.3. 2002 Width of index for graduations

2.20 S.1.7.(b) 1993 Capacity indication Max 9d above capacity

2.20 S.1.8.3.1. 2001 Weight classifiers-sealing and 

indications

Applicable to weight classifiers and 

normal rounding scales capable of 

weight classifying

2.20 S.1.8.4. (a)(b) 

footnote 2006 # symbol Prohibited

2.20 S.1.11.(a) 1979 Sealing

2.20 S.1.11.(b) 1990 Sealing Recognizes audit trail

2.20 S.1.11.(c) 1995 Sealing Table S.1.11. format for audit trails

2.20 S.1.1.11. (table) 1995 Audit trail format

2.20 S.1.12. 1993 Manual weights Requirements and abbreviations for 

manual weights

2.20 S.1.12. 1995 Manual weights Net weights permitted

2.20 S.2.1.3. ??? Automatic zero-tracking

Mfg. before and after dates in lieu of 

nonretroactive dates (applicable to 

remanufactured devices?)
S&T Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix B – Attachments

S&T - B10

Code 

Section

Nonretroactive 

paragraph

Effective 

Date Subject Comment

2.20 S.2.1.3.3. 2001 Means to disable AZT

2.20 S.2.1.5.(c) 2009 IZSM Requirements and limits for IZSM on 

separable indicating elements

2.20 S.2.2.2. 1989 Equal arm scales Balance indicator requirements

2.20 S.2.3. 1983 Tare Nonretroactive requirements for clearing 

of tare and for MI & MR scales. 

2.20 S.2.4. 1986 Level-indicating means

Retroactive exemption for jewelers, 

prescription, and dairy test scales 

including Class I and II scales. 

2.20 S.5.1. 1986 Accuracy Class Markings

2.20 S.5.2. 1986 Parameters for Accuracy Classes

2.20 S.5.4. 1994 Relationship of v and e Suitability of load cell vmin 

2.20 Table 3 1986 Parameters for Accuracy Classes Table

2.20 S.6.1. 1989 CLC marking requirements

2.20 S.6.4. 2002 RR track scale section capacity Limitations of capacity of 2-section and 

more that 2-section scales

2.20 S.6.5. 2003 Livestock scales Limitations of capacity of 2-section and 

more that 2-section scales

2.20 S.6.3.(b)1 2003 Model designation Allowable prefixes

2.20 S.6.3.(b)2 1968 Serial number Required

2.20 S.6.3.(b)2 1986 Serial number Allowable prefixes

2.20 S.6.3.(b)3 1983 Nominal Capacity Nonretroactive requirement for value of 

the scale division

2.20 S.6.3.(b)4 1986 d and e Markings

2.20 S.6.3.(b)5 1986 Temperature ranges Marking if required

2.20 S.6.3.(b)6 1988 nmax for load cells Includes acceptable abbreviation.

2.20 S.6.3.(b)7 1988 Single and Multiple load cell Markings

2.20 S.6.3.(b)8 1988 Separable indicating element Marking Included III/III L

2.20 S.6.3.(b)9 1989 CLC marking requirements Includes modified scales

2.20 S.6.3.(b)11 1991 Load cell markings Permits accompanying document

2.20 S.6.3.(b)12 1989 CLC marking requirements Acceptable abbreviation

2.20 S.6.3.(b)13 1986 Marking for special application In additions to existing retroactive

counting feature requirements

2.20 S.6.3.(b)14 2003 CLC marking requirements Added for livestock scales that also 

weigh vehicles

2.20 S.6.3.(b)15 1988 Loading direction for load cells Markings

2.20 S.6.3.(b)16 1986 Serial number markings Includes prefix

2.20 S.6.3.(b)17 1986 Accuracy class marking 

requirements

2.20 S.6.3.(b)18 (e) 1989 Included load-receiving elements Nominal capacity marking

2.20 S.6.3.(b)19 1988 nmax, vmin, accuracy class 

markings

Applicable to separable weighing-loadreceiving elements
S&T Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix B – Attachments

S&T - B11

Code 

Section

Nonretroactive 

paragraph

Effective 

Date Subject Comment

2.20 S.6.3.(b)20 2000 CLC requirements for combination 

RRtrack/Vehicle scales Markings

2.20 S.6.3.(b)21 2001 vmin in terms of mass

2.20 S.6.3.(b)22 2003 CLC and section capacity markings Applicable to combination RR track and 

vehicle scales

2.20 S.6.3.(b)23 2001 CC marking requirement refers to G-S.1.(e)

2.20 S.6.3.(b)24 2005 Acceptable abbreviations for 

"Section Capacity."

2.20 N.1.5. 1986 Discrimination test

2.20 N.1.4.2. 1991? CIM railroad weighing systems < ten 

cars

"In-service before" in lieu of 

nonretroactive dates (applicable of 

remanufactured devices?)

2.20 N.1.4.3. 1991? CIM railroad weighing systems < ten 

cars

"In-service after” in lieu of nonretroactive 

dates (applicable of remanufactured 

devices?)

2.20 T.N.1. 1986 Tolerance for marked scales

Applicable to remanufactures scales 

(e.g., T.N.4.5., T.N.4.6., T.N.4.7., T.N.7., 

T.N.8.,)

2.20 UR.1.3. 1986 Value of scale division Recorded value same as indicated 

value.

2.20 UR.1.5. 1996 RR track scale printer requirement.

2.20 UR.2.6.1. 1976 Approaches

3.30 S.1.5.3.(a) 2002 Width of index for graduations

3.30 S.1.6.1. 2006 Indications of delivery for electronic 

devices

Quantity and total price inhibited until 

fueling conditions reached.

3.30 S.1.6.2. 1983 Power loss provisions Transaction and user information 

retention requirements

3.30 S.1.6.4.1.(b) 1991 Display of Unit Prices

Selected UP displayed prior to delivery 

with exceptions (e.g., fleet, contract, and 

truck refueling sales).

3.30 S.1.6.5.(a) 1991 Money-Value computations

Device shall compute (and display?) all 

possible sales within range of 

measurement or computing elements 

(i.e., with exceptions to fleet, contract, 

truck-stop dispensers)

3.30 S.1.6.5.3. 1985 Auxiliary element money indications Agreement requirements with primary 

indications

3.30 S.1.6.5.4. 1991 Selection on unit price

Requires selection of UP prior to 

delivery using device or other customer 

activated controls with exceptions (e.g., 

fleet, contract, and truck refueling 

sales).

3.30 S.1.6.5.5. 1994 Retention of quantity and total price 

Indications on the face of the dispenser 

retained for a minimum of 5-minutes or 

until new transaction initiated. 

Exception for aviation refueling.

3.30 S.1.6.5.6.(a) 2008 Quantity and total price - Aviation 

refueling

Quantity displayed through the 

transaction.

3.30 S.1.6.5.6.(b) 2008 Total price display Conditions for displaying total price
S&T Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix B – Attachments

S&T - B12

Code 

Section

Nonretroactive 

paragraph

Effective 

Date Subject Comment

 3.30 S.1.6.5.6.(c) 2008 Retention of quantity and total price 

Indications retained for a minimum of 5-

minutes or until new transaction 

initiated. 

3.30 S.1.6.5.6.(d) 2008 Printed receipt Shall be available & include TP, UP, and 

quantity.

3.30 S.1.6.6. (b) 1998 Agreement between indications

Primary and auxiliary indicated or 

recording elements meet formula 

(quantity x UP = TP to nearest 1 cent)

3.30 S.1.6.7. 1986 Recorded representations (receipt)

Receipt requirements for POS and card 

(debit/credit) or cash activated devices 

with exceptions to fleet and contract 

sales. 

3.30 S.2.2. 1995 Provisions for sealing Table S.2.2. format for audit trails

3.30 S.2.2. Table 1996 Methods for sealing Cat. 2 devices

Hardware on-site, scales with adequate 

event counters or physical seal and 

requirements for the location of event 

counters.

3.30 S.2.2. Table 2001 Cat. 3 devices

Indication, operation, and recorded 

representations during remote 

configuration.

3.30 S.2.6. 1985 Temp. determinations ( wholesale) Requirements for thermometer well and 

its location.

3.30 S.4.4.1. 1985 Retail devices (discharge rate) Discharge rate marking requirements.

3.30 S.4.4.2. 2003 Retail devices (location - G-S.1. Info) Height range, internal/external access, 

and permanent part of device, 

3.30 S.5. 1995 Retail devices (totalizers) Requirements.

3.30 T.4. 1988 ATC - differences in meter error Based on results of determined with and 

without ATC activated.

 
S&T Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix C – Correspondence

S&T - C1 

Appendix C – Correspondences 

S&T Agenda Item 310-3: Nonretroactive Requirements (Remanufactured Equipment) - Letter from PMP 

Letter from Mr. Thomas McGee, President, PMP Corporation, submitted to the 2010 NCWM Annual Meeting 1.

PMP CORPORATION 

Petroleum Meter & Pump 

May 4, 2010 

Steve Giguere 

Maine Department of Agriculture State House Station 28 Augusta, ME 04333 

Dear Steve, 

The National Conference on Weights and Measures has on its agenda for 2010 a 

voting item which could a dramatic effect on the Remanufacturing Industry and on low 

volume retail fuel outlets. Item 310-4 (See Supplement I) was proposed at the 2009 

WNMA and SWMA Regional Meetings but was originally submitted by the NIST Office 

of Weights and Measures. It was based on an inquirer NIST received from a State 

Director, asking if the Nonretroactive Requirements apply to Remanufactured Devices. 

It is stated that the change is needed to clarify the application of intent for the 

Nonretroactive Clause in Handbook 44, G-A.6. 

To say that this change is just a clarification is an understatement It changes the overall 

interpretation and scope of the Nonretroactive requirement. The change will add 

requirements to remanufactured devices that were added to the Handbook after the 

device was originally manufactured. It ultimately could eliminate or severely impact the 

practice and business of Remanufacturing and of low volume retail fuel outlets. 

If you review G-A.6 as it currently reads in the 2010 version of Handbook 44, 

Nonretroactive Requirements apply to New Devices based on the "Original 

Manufacturing Date" compared to effective date of a requirement. Adding 

"Remanufactured" to the requirement will establish a new point in time 

(Remanufactured Date) to apply requirements. So in short a device originally 

manufactured in January of 2002 and remanufactured January of 2007 would need to 

meet all nonretroactive requirements added to the handbook up to and including 

January of 2007. 

A good example of this would be if a Tokheim 1200 series dispenser was removed from 

the island and remanufactured. Let say the dispenser was disassembled checked for 

wear and a new mechanical computer and new outer skins were installed. The 

dispenser was checked for accuracy and everything checked out per handbook 44. 

Because this dispenser was out of production prior to the adding of the nonretroactive 

marking requirement specifying that the CC number be clearly marked on the 

dispenser, it could be rejected by a state and not allowed to be installed. These 

dispensers are very accurate, and proven to be very reliable and especially suitable for 

low volume retail outlets in rural areas. There is a vast difference in the cost per gallon 
S&T Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix C – Correspondence

S&T - C2 

S&T Agenda Item 310-3: Nonretroactive Requirements (Remanufactured Equipment) - Letter from PMP 

Letter from Mr. Thomas McGee, President, PMP Corporation, submitted to the 2010 NCWM Annual Meeting 

for equipment that is passed on to the consumer from a retail location that sells 

250,000 gallons per month verses the location that sells 30,000 gallons per month. The 

same issues apply to scales such as a deli scale that is removed from one grocery 

store location to the stores shop where it is rebuild and move to another grocery store. 

As stated in the discussion of the item NIST wants to make a direct comparison 

between a new device and a remanufactured device indicating they directly compete 

with each other. This is true as far as competing in the same market as a whole but not 

if you factor in technology, features, warranty, etc. Some time back the 

Remanufactured Task Force recognized that Remanufacturing has been going on for a 

long time and is just part of the business. The remanufactured devices do not directly 

compete with new devices but they do fin a void. A smaller low volume operation can 

buy remanufactured devices at a reduced price which keeps them competitive with the 

large volume operations. It provides a means to extend the life of equipment that 

maybe has gone out of production but is still very accurate and reliable. 

NIST has also stated they do not want to reopen the whole remanufactured 

discussion. However to fully understand the ramification of the change and to 

determine if the change is even needed, one has to go back and review the current 

handbook requirements, and definitions for remanufactured devices and repaired 

devices. Simply said there are very subtle differences between the definitions or 

repaired and remanufactured. More importantly, the handbook under the 

nonretroactive requirements already defines application for "used" devices which 

includes remanufactured devices. 

This item should be moved back to an informational item or removed for the agenda. If 

made informational it would give all of those companies that could be impacted by the 

change to review and comment on this issue. This is not just a clarification. It is clearly 

a change in the philosophy of applying Nonretroactive Requirements. 

Please feel free to contact me at 1 (800) 243-6628 if you have any questions or 

need further information. 

Sincerely, 

Thomas McGee 

President 
S&T Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix C – Correspondence

S&T - C3 

S&T Agenda Item 310-3: Nonretroactive Requirements (Remanufactured Equipment) - Stakeholders Letter 

from Graffco 

Letter from Mr. Dan Graff, President, Graffco Inc., submitted to the 2010 NCWM Annual Meeting 

July 2, 2010 

Tina G. Butcher (NIST Tech Advisor) 

NIST, Weights & Measures Division 

100 Bureau Drive, MS 2600 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2600 

Ms. Butcher: 

We write to you as stakeholders in the community that works to recondition-or, as coined in Handbook 44, 

"remanufacture" - used gas pumps for sale in the United States. It has come to our attention that a provision 

currently viewed as a "technical correction" is proposed as a voting item at the National Conference of Weights and 

Measures in July; the item is 310-4 of the 2010 Publication 15, entitled "Nonretroactive Requirements 

(Remanufactured Equipment)." This "correction," however, could have a major and lasting impact on the market for 

reconditioned or remanufactured gas pumps and has not been adequately discussed by the Weights and Measures 

community or by the remanufacturing community. 

This letter is to urge you to support moving the 310-4 G-A6 amendment from ''voting'' to an "informational item," so 

that a task force, like the Remanufacturing Task Force formed in the early 2000s, can adequately discuss the 

ramifications of the change and the resulting impact on the process of reconditioning gas pumps. 

We realize that there has been continued debate on how exactly to treat reconditioned or remanufactured gas 

pumps, and the need for conformity throughout the Weights and Measures community. This item, 310-4, however, is 

likely to exacerbate the problem and lead to further confusion in the remanufacturing community on the appropriate 

procedure for compliance with Handbook 44. For this reason, both the Northeast Weights and Measures Association 

and the Central Weights and Measures Association have recommended that the item be moved to "informational" 

status at the National conference. 

For the last decade, "gas pump remanufacturers," equipment distributors, oil companies, and convenience store 

operators have been reconditioning gas pumps to meet the specifications of the original Certificate of Compliance 

(CC). The proposal for revised language in 310-4, however, could be interpreted as requiring these reconditioned 

gas pumps (and possibly even gas pumps repaired on site, but taken off the island) to be treated as if they were 

newly manufactured gas pumps. This change would drastically increase the costs associated with reconditioning 

used gas pumps, and potentially ending the practice in the industry, leaving only new gas pumps available in an 

already depressed market and used pumps sitting as potential hazards in local landfills. 

This change would not only harm those that recondition gas pumps, but also the industries that rely on selling used 

gas pumps, or retailers that seek access to reconditioned pumps as a way to reduce costs in an economically 

strained market. This letter has been signed by stakeholders with the hope that this issue can be better discussed if 

there is no change in July. Item 310-4 needs to remain an informational item. 

We appreciate all the work that you do on behalf of the Weights and Measures community and look forward to 

continued discussion on this topic. Please feel free to contact any of us with questions regarding our position on Item 

310-4. 

Sincerely, 

GRAFFCO, INC. 

Dan Graff President 

13957 Lake Drive Forest Lake, 

MN 55025 

651-464-1079 
S&T Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix C – Correspondence

S&T - C4 

Letter from Remanufacturing Stakeholders July 2, 2010

Page 2

ADA INC DBA PINE SQUARE 

Matthew Seymour, President 

Brainerd, MN 

mcseymour99@gmail.com 

ALLEN FUEL SERVICES 

Allen Williams 

allen@allenfuelservices.com 

ALL-TECH FUEL SYSTEMS, LLC 

Jerry Montgomery, Owner/President 

PO Box 941765

Houston, TX 77094 

ARROW CONTRACTING 

John Bumpus, President 

5550 Route 96 

Farmington, NY 14425 

BILL L. DOVER COMPANY, INC. 

Wade Dover President 

Jaspar, TX 

kld@cmaaccess.com 

BROOKS OIL COMPANY, INC. 

Steve Metcalf 

Middlesboro, KY 

boilco@bellsouth.net 

CARTERENERGY CORPORATION 

Michael Kittrell, Texas Area Manager 

Overland, KS 

mike.kittrell@carterenergy.com 

214-762-0504 

CPDENERGY 

Mickey Jamal, CEO 

536 main st, 

New Paltz, NY 12561 

DIVINE CORPORATION 

Alli Murrell, Office Manager 

203 W 3rd Ave 

Spokane, WA 99201 

DUNCAN OIL COMPANY 

Ken Kilgore, HVR Sales & 

Construction Manager 

718 S. Detroit St. 

LaGrange, IN 46761 

ESTES EQUIPMENT CO., INC. 

Dale Simmons, Managing Partner 

1258 Old Hwy 11 

Birmingham, AL 35235 

BAUMAN OIL DISTRIBUTORS, INC. 

Paul F. Bauman, President 

1503 Commercial Blvd. 

Hercuaneum, MO 63048 

BLODGETT OIL COMPANY, INC. 

Ross W. Blodgett, President 

P.O. Box 39 

Mt. Pleasant, Ml 48804-0039 

CAMPBELL OIL CO. INC. 

Les Campbell, Pres/CEO 

2028 Edison 

Ames, IA 50010 

COLBEA ENTERPRISES, LLC 

Thomas W. Breckel, Vice President of 

Operations/HS&E 

2050 Plainfield Pike 

Cranston, RI 02921 

DENMAR CORPORATION 

Dennis Austin, President 

PO Box 13117 

Scottsdale, AZ 85267 

DOUGLASS DISTRIBUTING, INC. 

Brad Douglass, President 

325 E Forest Ave 

Sherman, TX 75090-8832 

DUNLAVY PRO LLC BEAR 

CROSSING LLC 

Leo Dunlavy, Vice President 

107 E. Broadway 

Glidden, WI 54527 

EXPRESS MART 

Patrick Hyde, Facilities Manager 

6567 Kinne Rd. 

DeWitt, NY 13214 

BEST QUALITY EQUIPMENT INC. 

Tony Lizarraga, Sales Manager

tony@bestqualitiequipment.com 

BOWDEN OIL COMPANY, INC. 

David Hamilton, General Manager 

P.O. Box 145 

Sylacauga, AL 35150 

CISSY'S C-STORES 

Norma L. Campbell, Owner 

2028 Edison 

Ames, IA 50010 

COUGAR OIL, INC. 

John Larry Jones 

Selma, AL

jlarry@cougaroil.com 

DIAMOND OIL LLC 

Neil Patel, Vice President 

Des Moines, IA

diamondoil@diamondoil-corp.com 

DOWNS ENERGY 

Michael Downs, President 

1296 Magnolia Ave 

Corona, CA 92879 

ENERBASE (Formerly Farmers Union Oil Of 

Minot, DBA Enerbase) 

Tony Bernhardt, CEO 

215 E. Central Ave. 

Minot, ND 58702 

FIRST COAST ENERGY 

Eddie West, Service Manager 

Jacksonville, FL 

ewest@universalpetro.com 

FLEMING OIL COMPANY INC. 

Richard Fleming, Jr. President 

1 Putney Road 

Brattleboro, VT 05301 

G&M OIL CO 

Rickie Allen, Controller 

Barbourville, KY 

rlallen@barbourville.com

 
S&T Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix C – Correspondence

S&T - C5 

Letter from Remanufacturing Stakeholders July 2, 2010

Page 3

HANDEE MARTS INC. dba 7- Eleven 

Ed Szalankiewicz, Director of Gas & 

Maintenance 

714 Warrendale Rd. 

Gibsonia, P A 15044

JM OIL CO INC 

Brian Laudenbach, General Manager 

St. Cloud, MN 

800-233-8044

brianl@jmoil.net 

NEWCOMB OIL CO. 

L. Newcomb Jr., President 

Bardstown, KY 

Jack@NewcombOil.com 

O'CONNELL OIL ASSOC., INC. 

James Sobon, VP Maintenance 

545 Merrill Road 

P.O. Box 1387 

Pittsfield, MA 

O'CONNELL OIL ASSOC., INC. 

Mark Sobon, VP 

545 Merrill Road 

P.O. Box 1387 

Pittsfield, MA 

PEP-UP INC. 

William C. Pepper, President 

Georgetown, DE 

FOOD AND GAS, LLC. 

Russell B. Clegg, Managing Member 

Duluth, GA 

rclegg@foodandgasinc.com 

GIT'N GO MARKETS 

Joe A. Hollingsworth, Jr. Chairman 

Two Centre Plaza 

Clinton, Tennessee 37716 

HOME OIL COMPANY, INC. 

Tim Shirley President 

5744 Hwy. 84 East Cowarts, 

AL 36321

MTG MANAGEMENT, INC. 

Guy Oliver, President 

Austin, TX 

goliver@mbgaustin.com 

O'CONNELL OIL ASSOC., INC. 

George Dickhout, CFO 

545 Merrill Road

P.O. Box 1387 

Pittsfield, MA 

O'CONNELL OIL ASSOC., INC. 

John Gaudrault, Senior VP 

545 Merrill Road 

P.O. Box 1387 

Pittsfield, MA 

O'CONNELL OIL ASSOC., INC. 

Steven Yates, CIO 

545 Merrill Road 

P.O. Box 1387 

Pittsfield, MA 

PETES OF ERIE, INC. 

Gratz Peters, President

gratz-petescorp@sbcglobal.net 

FREEDOM OIL LLC 

Gregory Cobb, Managing Member 

Bloomington, IL 

gjcobb@aol.com 

GULF COASTEQUWMENT CO INC. 

Bob Moore, CEO 

14922 Henry Rd 

Houston, TX 77060 

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS 

BROKERS, INC. 

Robert T. Novak Vice President 

3480 Kossuth St., #7 

Lafayette, IN 47905 

NASHVILLE EQUIPMENT SERVICE, 

INC. 

Gary Beasley, President 

P.O. Box 90282 

610 1 California Avenue 

Nashville, TN 37209

O'CONNELL OIL ASSOC., INC. 

Michael Sobon, CEO 

545 Merrill Road 

P.O. Box 1387 

Pittsfield, MA 

O'CONNELL OIL ASSOC., INC. 

James Zoltek, VP Operations 

545 Merrill Road 

P.O. Box 1387 

Pittsfield, MA 

PEl MAINTENANCE & CONTRACTING 

Rod Armes, Fuel System Specialist 

7630 N. Fox Hollow Road 

Bloomington, IN 47408 

PETROLEUM SERVICES GROUP 

Thomas E. Podczaski, Eastern Sales and 

Engineering 

Waycross, GA 

podczaski@eseng.org 

PTSG, INC. 

Larry Gariepy Sr., National Sales and 

Marketing Mgr. 

1340 Kings Cove Dr. 

Canyon Lake, TX 78133 

ROCKY TOP MARKETS, LLC 

Steve Poe, Vice President of Operations 

Kingston, TN 

rockytopmarkets@aol.com 

STAPLES ENTERPRISES, INC. 

Corey Maricle, Business Director 

P.O. Box 243 

Windom, MN 56101 

THE WILLS GROUP INC. 

Steve Stookey, Manager, Engineering & 

Environmental Services 

6355 Crain Highway 

La Plata, MD 20646 

WESTHUSING'S INC. 

Bruce H. Deutscher, Manager 

10 16 South Cedar 

Stockton, KS 67669
S&T Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix C – Correspondence

S&T - C6 

Letter from Remanufacturing Stakeholders July 2, 2010

Page 4

R&B SYSTEMS, INC. 

Robert Beal 

1520 N. Argonne 

Spokane, WA 99212 

STAPLES ENTERPRISES, INC. 

Brent Staples, President 

P.O. Box 243 

Windom, MN 56101 

STAPLES OIL CO., INC 

Alan Staples, President 

Box 243 

Windom, MN 56101 

TRIUMPH ENERGY 

Mike Martinelli, Construction 

Maintenance Director 

9171 Dry Fork Rd. 

Harrison OH 45030 

WINNSBORO PETROLEUM CO 

Charles Renwick, Plant Manager 

Winnsboro, SC 

crenwick@pops-mart.com 

R & S TANK SERVICE, LLC 

Rick Standifer, President 

1006 N6th 

Conroe, TX 77301 

STAPLES ENTERPRISES, INC. 

Daric T. Zimmerman, Retail Marketing 

Director 

P.O. Box 243 

Windom, MN 5610 1 

STEINHAGEN OIL CO., INC. 

Gary M. Holcombe, Operations Director 

Beaumont, TX 

gholcombe@soc-fastlane.com 

WARE OIL & SUPPLY CO., INC. 

Donald Everett, President 

2715 S. Bryon Butler Pkwy 

Perry, FL 32348 

WYKSTRA OIL COMPANY 

Harold Wykstra, Vice President 

917 E Allegan St. 

Martin, Ml 49070 
S&T Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix C – Correspondence

S&T - C7 

S&T Agenda Item 310-3: Nonretroactive Requirements (Remanufactured Equipment) - Letter from Dresser 

Wayne

Letter from Mr. R. Michael Carlson President, Dresser Wayne North America Dresser, Inc., submitted to the 2010 

NCWM Annual Meeting 

DRESSER Wayne 

July 7, 2010 

Executive Secretary 

National Conference on Weights and Measures 

National Institute of Standards and Technology 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 2600 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2600 

ATTN: Specifications and Tolerances Committee 

RE: Item 310-4. G-A.6. Nonretroactive Requirements (Remanufactured Equipment) 

Dear Mr. Saum and the Specifications and Tolerances 

Committee: 

As one of the leading manufacturers of fuel dispensers in the United States, Dresser 

Wayne takes great care in providing products in which fuel retailers can place their 

confidence and can rest assured that their equipment will be safe for and fair to the 

general public. To that end, we put considerable effort into maintaining Certificates of 

Conformance for each of our dispensers to ensure that they meet all current NTEP 

requirements. Dresser Wayne understands that changes to the NTEP standards are 

not arbitrary: they are put into place to meet the changing needs of the marketplace 

and to help protect consumers and retailers alike. 

Under ordinary circumstances, retailers replace their fuel dispensers with new 

equipment at the end of the normal lifecycle, a practice that helps ensure that their 

dispensers always meet the most current standards. However, there is a growing trend 

to extend that lifecycle by refurbishing or "remanufacturing" the equipment after its 

removal from the original site, and then placing it back into the stream of commerce 

without first bringing it into compliance with current NTEP standards. This failure to 

meet applicable NTEP certification standards increases the chances of errors, misuse, 

and fraud, and puts consumers as well as station owners at risk. 

The purpose of the NTEP standards is to promulgate consistency and fairness in the 

dispensing of fuel to the public. Dresser Wayne believes that those standards should 

apply equally to every company selling fuel dispensers, whether the equipment is new, 

used or remanufactured. The current practice of extending the usable life of fuel 

dispensers without a system of checks and balances to help ensure that, at the time of 

sale, such used and remanufactured equipment meets current NTEP standards results 

in inconsistency in the marketplace, and an unacceptable risk of error. All dispenser 

suppliers should have an obligation to help keep the public protected, and to see to it 

that customers at the pump are getting exactly what they pay for. 

The consistency and accuracy of fuel-dispensing equipment is an issue of critical and 

growing importance. For decades the industry has been able to safely and reliably 

operate within a fueling and payment infrastructure that remained relatively stable. 

However, the last few years have brought significant changes to the marketplace 

including: 
S&T Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix C – Correspondence

S&T - C8 

S&T Agenda Item 310-3: Nonretroactive Requirements (Remanufactured Equipment) - Letter from Dresser 

Wayne

Letter from Mr. R. Michael Carlson President, Dresser Wayne North America Dresser, Inc., submitted to the 2010 

NCWM Annual Meeting 

• Payment security. Higher fuel prices and sophisticated identity-theft schemes 

both have exposed dispensing equipment to increasing threats of fraud - 

manifested by the theft of fuel as well as customers' personal and financial data. 

As such, the credit card industry has mandated increasingly rigorous paymentsecurity standards, and dispenser manufacturers have enhanced fuel-meter 

technology and associated electronics to deter tampering with measurement and 

calibration. 

• Fuel evolution. The last few years have brought unprecedented changes in the 

country's fuel supply based on national energy policy and environmental 

initiatives. The introduction of ultra-low-sulfur diesel (ULSD) and diesel exhaust 

fluid (DEF) have taxed the capabilities of dispensers' hydraulic systems. In 

addition, higher levels of ethanol in today's fuels require specially fabricated 

seals and components. Manufacturers must adapt quickly and skillfully to these 

changes, not only to meet environmental standards, but also to maintain the 

integrity of the metrological function. 

• Communications interface. Although current dispenser communications are 

via serial interface, the recent introduction of Ethernet communication to the 

forecourt portends both the download of dispenser software from remote 

sources as well as the potential for automatic meter-calibration based on realtime statistical reconciliation. These emerging technological advances may well 

require updated sealing methods and robust audit requirements achievable only 

with adherence to the latest industry standards. 

It is critical that such developments in a rapidly evolving industry be built upon an 

infrastructure that does not compromise when it comes to fairness. As such, Dresser 

Wayne supports maintaining item 301-4 G-A.6 as a voting item at the National 

Conference of Weights and Measures on July 11-15, 2010. It is in the best interest of 

the general public, station owners and the fuel-dispensing industry in general. 

Sincerely, 

R. Michael Carlson 

President, Dresser Wayne 

North America Dresser, Inc. 

Dresser Wayne Dresser. Inc. 

3&14 Jarrett Way, Austin, 1X 7S72& 

Office: +15123&88371 Fax: +1512388&302 

www.dresserwayne.com
S&T Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix C – Correspondence

S&T - C9 

S&T Agenda Item 321-1: Belt-Conveyor Scale Systems - Letter from Thermo Fisher Scientific 

Thermo Fisher

SCIENTIFIC

501 90th Avenue N.W. 

Minneapolis, MN 55433

7-18-2011 

TO: NCWM S&T Committee 

REF: Key Number 321-1 

PH: 800-445-3503

Fax: 763.783.2525

www.thermoscientific.com/bulkhandlinq

A polling of the full membership of the USNWG on Belt-Conveyor Scales took place 

beginning on 9/30/2010 in order to determine the level of support within the entire WG for 

the draft proposal of the amendments to N.3.1.3. The members of the WG were contacted 

by email and asked to review and provide a yes/no vote of the proposal as shown.

N.3.1.3. Check for Consistency of the Conveyor Belt Along Its Entire Length. — 

During a zero-load test with flow rate filtering disabled, the total change indicated in the 

totalizer during one revolution of the belt shall not exceed 0.12% of the minimum test load 

for the system as defined in paragraph N.2.3. Minimum Test Load. The end value of the 

zero-load test must meet the ± 0.06 % requirement of paragraph N.3.1.2. Test for Zero 

Stability. (Added 2002) (Amended 2004 and 201X) 

Every respondent to the balloting indicated his/her support for the draft proposal.

N.3.1.3. Check for Consistency of the Conveyor Belt Along Its Entire Length. — 

During a z ero-load test with all operational fie low-flow lockout disabled, the total 

change indicated in the totalizer during one revolution of the belt any complete 

revolution of the belt shall not exceed an absolute value of 0.12% of the minimum 

test load.

*Note: The end value of the zero-load test must meet the ± 0.06 % requirement: Test for 

Zero Stability. (Added 2002) (Amended 2004 and 201X)

A final review of the proposal resulted in one change to reduce the ambiguity of the allowable 

range. This change was proposed by a scale manufacturer (CST). distributed to the USNWG, 

and all members of the work group who responded were in favor of the suggested wording 

changes. The final proposal requested to be adopted by the NCWM is: 

N.3.1.3. Check for Consistency of the Conveyor Belt Along Its Entire Length. — 

During a zero-load test with all operational no low-flow lockout disabled, the 

absolute value of the difference between the maximum and minimum totalizer 

readings indicated on the totalizer during any complete revolution of the belt shall 

not exceed 0.12% of the minimum test load.
S&T Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix C – Correspondence

S&T - C10

*Note: The end value of the zero-load test must meet the ± 0.06 % requirement: 

Test for Zero Stability. (Added 2002) (Amended 2004 and 201X) 

Bill Ripka
S&T Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix C – Correspondence

S&T - C11

S&T Agenda Item 321-1: Belt-Conveyor Scale Systems - Letter from Thermo Fisher Scientific 

Letter Thermo Fisher Scientific, submitted to the 2010 NCWM Annual Meeting S&T Agenda Item 321-1

501 90th Avenue N.W. PH: 800-445-3503

Minneapolis, MN 55433 Fax: 763.783.2525

www.thermofisher.com

Memo to: 20 June 2010

National Conference on Weights and Measures

Specifications and Tolerances Committee

A sub-committee of the Belt Conveyor Scale Working Group has held conference calls on over the past several 

months to discuss NCWM informational item 321-1 regarding the consistency of the conveyor belt. 

The existing wording in HB-44 is:

 

N.3.1.3. 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 (+/- 3d) 3.0 scale divisions 

from its initial indication during one complete revolution.

The current proposal (321-1) reads:

N.3.1.3. 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.

The sub-committee has agreed that the final proposal must include reference to disabling the flow rate filtering (low 

flow cutoff, dead band, flow rate damping, etc.). The committee also has agreed that the allowable error should be 

based on the maximum load that can be delivered in one revolution of the belt operated at maximum capacity. The 

effects of significant variations in the belt carcass could affect the delivered load if the delivered load requires less 

than complete revolutions of the belt (it is uncommon for a load to be equal to a exact belt revolution or multiples 

thereof). The committee has also agreed that the allowable error should be expressed in percentage, not in scale 

divisions. We have also noted that it is not necessary to refer to a different paragraph in the handbook, as each 

section should be capable of being enforced individually.

In order to determine the current % of belt consistency variance, the team has distributed a brief survey to several 

manufacturers and scale service companies to obtain data on current installations, both commercial and noncommercial use. U se of current conditions in the majority of installations will be used to establish the final 

proposed allowable consistency variance.

While not yet fully defined, the committee’s version of the revised proposal will be similar to:

N.3.1.4.3. Check for Consistency of the Conveyor Belt Along Its Entire Length. – 

Prior to performing a materials test, the consistency of the conveyor belt shall verified as follows:

a. Flow rate filtering and no flow cut-off shall be disabled.

b. The belt shall be marked in order to verify one complete revolution.

c. Run the empty belt.

d. The total variance in weight accumulation during one complete revolution of the belt shall not 

exceed x% (tbd) of the load delivered when operated at maximum capacity for one revolution of the 

belt.
S&T Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix C – Correspondence

S&T - C12

S&T Agenda Item 321-1: Belt-Conveyor Scale Systems - Letter from Thermo Fisher Scientific 

Letter Thermo Fisher Scientific, submitted to the 2010 NCWM Annual Meeting S&T Agenda Item 321-1 

(example: If the capacity is 2500 TPH and 1 belt revolution takes = 260 seconds, the load delivered in one 

revolution at maximum capacity = 180.55 Tons. The total variance of < 0.12% (total +/- accumulation) 

cannot exceed 0.216 tons.)

Based on the progress of the sub-committee, and the pending receipt of actual field information as it relates to 

belt consistency, the sub-committee of the National Belt Conveyor Scale Working Group requests the National 

S&T committee to consider moving the Belt Consistency proposal from informational to developing. The subcommittee expects to have data ready for the fall 2010 regional conferences, or if data is slow in being 

provided, by the NCWM interim meeting in January, 2011.

Respectfully submitted,

Bill Ripka – sub-committee lead

Sub-Committee Members:

Peter Sirrico – Thayer Scale

Phil Carpentier – PTC Consulting

Al Page – independent

James Hale – Southern Company Services

John Barton – NIST

Rick Harshman – NIST

Jim Dietrich – Kaskaskia Valley Scale
S&T Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix C – Correspondence

S&T - C13

S&T Agenda Item 342-1: Data from Federal Milk Marketers Administration

Mass Flow Meter Study Summary 

The Northeast Market Administrator upgraded one of the bulk milk tank calibration units in early 2008 with a mass flow 

meter made by Micro Motion. The mass flow meter system was studied for accuracy, repeatability and effects of water 

temperature during August, September and November of 2008 and March through July of 2009. 

There were 56 bulk tank calibrations performed during the study period with bulk tanks larger than 500 gallons. The 

meter was checked 228 times by metering 50 gallons into a certified Determine-Brownie prover can which was certified 

by the New York State Metrology Laboratory in Albany, NY.

During each bulk milk tank calibration, the meter was checked at the start and after completion. The meter was also 

checked (re-verified) during the interim if the tank was larger than 500 gallons. T here were 116 interim meter checks 

performed. Only during one of these meter checks did the reading prove to exceed the allowable tolerance of +/-6 cubic 

inches. The other 115 meter checks proved to be within the allowable tolerance. It should be noted that the one meter 

check that was out of tolerance read +7 cubic inches.

The mass flow metering system has proven to be very accurate, has excellent repeatability, and is very reliable. The data 

is attached. A brief description of each column follows:

Date-The day the calibration was performed

Tank check/calibration-service provided at that time. A calibration check is a much quicker procedure usually checking 

at 4-5 levels throughout the producer’s production range. A calibration establishes approximately 60 levels throughout the 

tank and converts gallons to pounds. A conversion chart is create and left for measuring milk by the producer and milk 

hauler.

(Prover) Cu/Inches Start- this is the scale reading from the certified 50 gallon prover can in cubic inches after the meter 

delivered 50 gallons into the prover. This column includes start and interim meter checks.

(Display) Meter Reading-reading on the display after the meter delivered 50 gallons into the prover can. 

(Prover) Cu/Inches Finish- this is the scale reading from the certified 50 gallon prover can in cubic inches after the meter 

delivered 50 gallons into the prover. This column is used for readings after the tank calibration is completed.

Water Temp (F)-this is the temperature of the water being used when the meter was checked.

Delivery Size- amount (in gallons) used to check the meter system. For example, if there is a 10 in the column, it means 

that five deliveries of 10 gallon each were used to fill the prover. 

Comments-in many cases, the operator included the gallons in the bulk tank when the interim meter checks were being 

performed. Also, notes about meter system adjustments are included. A note was usually included when adding water to 

the unit during a calibration to study temperature affects on the metering system.

We have continued to monitor both of our calibration units performance and record all meter checks during tank checks 

and calibrations. However, the data is not summarized in the above. 

Richard Koeberle

Marketing Specialist

Federal Milk Market Administrator

Northeast Marketing Area-Order 1

302A Washington Avenue Extension

Albany, NY 12203

Office-518.452.4410 extension 1678

Cell-518.859.3742
S&T Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix C – Correspondence

S&T - C14

S&T Agenda Item 342-1: Data from Federal Milk Marketers Administration

Rkoeberle@fedmilk1.com

August-SLH

Date

Tank

Check/ 

Calibration

Meter Error

(Prover)

Cu/Inches

Start

(Display)

Meter 

Reading

Final draft

(Prover)

Cu/Inches

Finish

(Display)

Meter

Reading

Water 

Temp (F) Comments

8/1/08 check 1 50.00 3 50.00

8/1/08 calibration 2 49.99 Start (wet down)

" " -1 49.99 500 gallons

" " -1 49.99 End (1000 gal tank)

8/4/08 check 1 50.00 1 49.99

8/4/08 check 3 50.00 5 50.01

8/4/08 check 3 50.00 4 50.00

8/5/08 check 2 50.00 3 50.00

8/5/08 check 8 50.01 6 50.00 very steep grade

8/5/08 check 6 50.00 3 49.99

8/6/08 check 3 50.00 1 50.00 adjusted @ start

8/6/08 check 4 50.00 2 50.00

8/6/08 calibration 3 50.00 start

" " 0 50.00 500 gallons

" " 0 50.00 1000 gallons

" " 1 49.99 1500 gallons

" " -1 50.00 end

8/6/08 check 0 50.00 -2 49.99

8/7/08 check -1 50.00 2 50.00

8/7/08 check 2 50.01 1 50.00

8/8/08 calibration 0 50.00 adjusted @ start

" " 2 50.00 500 gallons

" " -1 49.99 1000 gallons

" " -1 49.99 1500 gallons

" " 4 50.00 end

8/11/08 check 2 50.00 0 49.99

8/11/08 check -1 50.00 0 50.00

8/11/08 calibration 3 50.00 start

" " -2 49.99 500 gallons

" " -2 50.00 end

8/11/08 check 3 50.00 2 50.00

8/12/08 check 3 50.00 2 50.00

8/12/08 check 3 50.00 2 50.00

8/13/08 check 3 50.00 4 50.00

8/13/08 check 5 50.01 4 50.00

8/13/08 check 4 50.00 6 50.01

8/14/08 check 6 50.00 5 49.99

8/14/08 check 4 50.00 4 49.99

8/14/08 check 7 50.00 7 50.00

8/15/08 check 6 50.00 7 50.00
S&T Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix C – Correspondence

S&T - C15

August-SLH

Date

Tank

Check/ 

Calibration

Meter Error

(Prover)

Cu/Inches

Start

(Display)

Meter 

Reading

Final draft

(Prover)

Cu/Inches

Finish

(Display)

Meter

Reading

Water 

Temp (F) Comments

8/15/08 check 6 50.00 7 50.00

8/15/08 check 7 50.00 6 50.00

8/25/08 check 1 50.00 3 50.00 adjusted @ start

8/25/08 calibration 1 50.00 -1 50.00 adjusted @ start

8/26/08 check -4 50.00 -4 50.00

8/26/08 check -3 50.00 -4 50.00

8/26/08 calibration 2 50.00 adjusted @ start

" " 2 50.01 500 gallons

" " 5 50.00 end

Con't

8/28/08 check -2 50.00 0 50.01

8/28/08 calibration 0 50.00 start

" " 3 50.01 500 gallons

" " 2 50.00 1000 gallons

" " 1 50.00 end

8/29/08 calibration -3 49.99 start

" " 3 50.00 750 gallons (adj)

" " 1 49.99 1500 gallons

" " 5 50.00 2200 gallons

" " 2 50.01 end

September-DAA

Date

Tank

check/

calibration

(Prover)

Cu/Inches

Start

(Display)

Meter

Reading

(Prover)

Cu/Inches

Finish

(Display)

Meter

Reading

Water

Temp (F) Comments

9/2/08 check 3 -1

9/3/08 check 2 1 50.00

9/3/08 check 2 50.00 2 49.99

9/3/08 calibration 3 50.00 start

" " 2 49.99 500 gallons

" " 2 49.99 1000 gallons

" " 0 50.00 1500 gallons

" " 0 50.00 end

9/4/08 check 3 50.00 2 49.99

9/4/08 check 1 50.00 2 50.01

9/4/08 check 4 50.00 5 50.01 73.7

9/4/08 check 1 50.01 2 50.00 74.6 adjusted @start

9/5/08 check 2 50.01 1 50.00 75.2

9/5/08 check 1 50.00 2 50.00 75.2

9/5/08 check 0 50.01 1 50.01 76.2

9/5/08 check 2 49.99 2 50.00 77.4

9/8/08 check 0 50.00 1 50.00 77.4
S&T Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix C – Correspondence

S&T - C16

September-DAA

Date

Tank

check/

calibration

(Prover)

Cu/Inches

Start

(Display)

Meter

Reading

(Prover)

Cu/Inches

Finish

(Display)

Meter

Reading

Water

Temp (F) Comments

9/8/08 check -1 49.99 1 50.00 76.8

9/8/08 calibration 1 50.00 76.8 start

" " 0 50.00 76.8 500 gallons

" " 1 50.00 76.8 1000 gallons

" " -1 49.99 76.8 end

9/9/08 check 3 50.00 2 49.99 77.6

9/9/08 check 0 50.00 -1 49.99 78.0

9/9/08 check 3 50.00 2 50.00 78.1

9/10/08 check 2 50.00 1 50.00 78.6

9/10/08 check 1 49.99 1 50.00 78.7

9/10/08 check 1 49.99 1 49.99 78.8

9/11/08 check 3 49.99 2 50.00 78.3

9/11/08 check 2 49.99 3 50.00 78.3

9/11/08 check 4 50.01 3 50.00 79.2

9/11/08 check 4 50.01 3 50.00 79.1

9/12/08 check 3 50.00 3 50.00 78.4

9/12/08 check 3 50.00 3 50.00 78.1

9/15/08 check 4 50.01 3 50.00 80.7

9/15/08 check 3 50.00 3 50.00 79.5

9/15/08 check 5 50.00 4 50.00 80.5

9/15/08 check 5 50.00 5 50.00 80.0

9/16/08 check 4 49.99 5 50.00 79.6

9/16/08 check 5 50.00 4 49.99 79.8

9/16/08 check 4 50.00 3 50.00 80.4 (2 tanks

9/16/08 check 3 50.00 4 50.00 80.4 same farm)

9/16/08 check 5 50.01 4 50.00 80.5 (2 tanks

9/16/08 check 4 50.00 3 49.99 80.5 same farm)

9/17/08 calibration 5 50.01 79.6 start

" " -2 49.99 74.4 1800 gallons

" " -1 49.99 72.9 3550 gallons

" " -2 50.00 71.0 5300 gallons

" " -1 50.01 71.0

7220 gallons 

(end)

9/18/08 check -2 50.01 -1 50.00 73.1

9/18/08 check 3 50.02 2 50.00 73.6

9/18/08 check 3 50.00 3 50.00 73.2

9/18/08 check 2 50.00 3 50.00 73.5

9/19/08 check 0 50.00 1 50.00 74.2

9/19/08 check -2 50.00 -2 50.00 74.6

9/19/08 check 0 50.01 -1 50.00 74.3

9/22/08 check 1 50.00 0 49.99 73.4

9/22/08 check 0 50.00 1 50.00 74.1

9/22/08 check -1 50.00 0 50.00 74.6

9/22/08 check 1 50.00 2 50.01 75.2
S&T Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix C – Correspondence

S&T - C17

September-DAA

Date

Tank

check/

calibration

(Prover)

Cu/Inches

Start

(Display)

Meter

Reading

(Prover)

Cu/Inches

Finish

(Display)

Meter

Reading

Water

Temp (F) Comments

9/23/08 check -2 50.00 -1 50.00 74.6

9/23/08 check 0 50.00 -1 49.99 75.1

9/23/08 check -1 50.00 0 50.00 75.5

9/23/08 check 0 50.00 -2 49.99 75.7

9/23/08 check 2 50.01 2 50.00 75.9

9/24/08 check 0 50.00 1 50.00 74.4

9/24/08 check 1 50.00 2 50.00 75.5

9/24/08 check 1 50.00 3 50.00 77.6

9/25/08 check 1 50.00 2 50.01 76.6

9/29/08 check 3 50.00 3 50.00 75.4

9/29/08 check 2 50.00 3 50.01 75.7

9/30/08 check 3 50.00 2 50.00 74.8

9/30/08 check -2 49.99 -1 50.00 74.6

9/30/08 check -1 50.00 -1 50 74.5

Temperature Correction Data

Temp 

in °C

Gallon 

pounds

Gallon 

grams

Cubic 

inch at 

5°C

50 Gal 

Cubic 

Inch

Expected 

Correction

cu in per liter

61.02374 Steel Expansion

32.0 0 8.33467 3780.543 230.7360 11536.8 -0.012 0.00004608 21701.39

33.8 1 8.33518 3780.781 230.7361 11536.8 -0.009 -0.00069 0.00038

35.6 2 8.33556 3780.953 230.7361 11536.81 -0.007 -0.00031 0.00024

37.4 3 8.33580 3781.060 230.7362 11536.81 -0.005 -0.00007 0.00010

39.2 4 8.33590 3781.105 230.7362 11536.81 -0.002 0.00003 -0.00003

41.0 5 8.33587 3781.090 230.7363 11536.81 0.000 0.00000 -0.00017

42.8 6 8.33570 3781.015 230.7363 11536.82 0.002 -0.00017 -0.00029

44.6 7 8.33541 3780.884 230.7364 11536.82 0.005 -0.00046 -0.00041

46.4 8 8.33500 3780.698 230.7364 11536.82 0.007 -0.00087 -0.00053

48.2 9 8.33447 3780.458 230.7365 11536.82 0.009 -0.00140 -0.00064

50.0 10 8.33383 3780.167 230.7365 11536.82 0.012 -0.00204 -0.00076

51.8 11 8.33307 3779.821 230.7365 11536.83 0.014 -0.00280 -0.00087

53.6 12 8.33220 3779.426 230.7366 11536.83 0.016 -0.00367 -0.00098

55.4 13 8.33122 3778.983 230.7366 11536.83 0.018 -0.00465 -0.00108

57.2 14 8.33014 3778.495 230.7367 11536.83 0.021 -0.00573 -0.00117

59.0 15 8.32897 3777.962 230.7367 11536.84 0.023 -0.00690 -0.00127

60.8 16 8.32770 3777.415 230.7368 11536.84 0.025 -0.00817 -0.00137

62.6 17 8.32633 3776.764 230.7368 11536.84 0.028 -0.00954 -0.00146

64.4 18 8.32487 3776.103 230.7369 11536.84 0.030 -0.01100 -0.00155

66.2 19 8.32332 3775.398 230.7369 11536.85 0.032 -0.01255 -0.00165
S&T Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix C – Correspondence

S&T - C18

68.0 20 8.32167 3774.653 230.7370 11536.85 0.035 -0.01420 -0.00173

69.8 21 8.31994 3773.868 230.7370 11536.85 0.037 -0.01593 -0.00181

71.6 22 8.31813 3773.044 230.7371 11536.85 0.039 -0.01774 -0.00191

73.4 23 8.31622 3772.180 230.7371 11536.85 0.041 -0.01965 -0.00198

75.2 24 8.31424 3771.279 230.7371 11536.86 0.044 -0.02163 -0.00207

77.0 25 8.31217 3770.340 230.7372 11536.86 0.046 -0.02370

Mass Flow Meter Calibration Data

Date Time Temp °F Meter Gal Prover Gal Diff in cc

4/2/2007 53.80 50.00 49.99 (0.01)

4/2/2007 13:00 54.00 49.99 49.97 (0.02)

4/2/2007 13:30 54.10 50.00 49.98 (0.02)

4/2/2007 15:00 54.30 50.00 49.99 (0.01)

4/2/2007 15:40 54.60 50.00 49.99 (0.01)

4/2/2007 16:15 54.80 50.00 49.99 (0.01)

4/3/2007 12:30 55.00 50.00 49.99 (0.01)

4/3/2007 13:15 55.50 50.00 49.97 (0.03)

4/3/2007 13:30 55.70 49.99 49.96 (0.03)

4/3/2007 15:30 56.10 49.99 49.99 0.00 

4/3/2007 16:00 56.40 50.00 50.00 0.00 

4/3/2007 16:00 56.40 50.00 50.00 0.00 

4/3/2007 16:40 56.60 50.01 50.00 (0.01)

4/3/2007 17:05 56.80 50.00 49.99 (0.01)

4/4/2007 10:25 55.80 50.00 50.00 0.00 

4/4/2007 11:05 55.40 50.01 50.03 0.02 

4/4/2007 11:30 55.30 50.00 50.02 0.02 

4/4/2007 12:45 55.00 50.01 50.00 (0.01)

4/4/2007 13:25 55.10 50.01 50.00 (0.01)

4/4/2007 14:00 55.10 50.01 50.00 (0.01)

4/5/2007 12:30 53.00 49.99 49.99 0.00 

4/5/2007 13:10 52.90 50.00 50.01 0.01 

4/5/2007 13:35 52.90 50.01 50.01 0.00 

4/5/2007 14:00 52.70 50.00 50.01 0.01 

4/5/2007 14:40 52.20 50.01 50.03 0.02 

4/6/2007 9:15 53.40 50.00 50.00 0.00 

4/6/2007 10:15 52.70 49.99 50.02 0.03 

4/6/2007 10:55 52.50 50.00 50.01 0.01 

4/6/2007 11:35 52.40 50.01 50.02 0.01 

4/6/2007 12:00 52.40 50.00 50.00 0.00 
S&T Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix C – Correspondence

S&T - C19

Mass Flow Meter Calibration Data

Date Time Temp °F Meter Gal Prover Gal Diff in cc

4/9/2007 15:15 53.40 50.01 50.00 (0.01)

4/9/2007 15:55 52.80 49.99 50.02 0.03 

4/9/2007 16:25 52.40 50.00 50.01 0.01 

4/9/2007 18:30 52.60 50.00 50.00 0.00 

4/9/2007 19:00 52.60 50.02 50.01 (0.01)

4/9/2007 19:35 52.50 50.00 50.00 0.00 

4/10/2007 9:50 52.90 49.99 49.99 0.00 

4/10/2007 10:40 52.40 50.00 50.02 0.02 

4/10/2007 11:05 52.40 50.01 50.01 0.00 

4/10/2007 12:55 52.20 50.00 50.00 0.00 

4/10/2007 13:30 52.00 50.00 50.00 0.00 

4/10/2007 13:55 52.10 50.00 50.00 0.00 

4/11/2007 9:15 51.20 50.00 50.00 0.00 

4/11/2007 10:05 51.40 50.00 50.00 0.00 

4/11/2007 10:35 51.40 50.00 50.00 0.00 

4/11/2007 11:00 51.40 50.00 49.99 (0.01)

4/11/2007 11:45 51.60 49.99 49.97 (0.02)

4/12/2007 8:35 51.20 50.00 50.00 0.00 

4/12/2007 9:15 51.40 49.99 49.98 (0.01)

4/12/2007 10:05 51.10 50.00 49.99 (0.01)

4/12/2007 10:35 51.30 50.00 49.98 (0.02)

4/12/2007 9:36 51.40 50.00 49.97 (0.03)

4/12/2007 11:55 51.50 50.00 50.01 0.01 

4/12/2007 12:40 51.30 50.00 50.01 0.01 

4/12/2007 1:10 51.40 50.00 50.01 0.01 

4/15/2007 10:05 47.70 49.99 49.99 0.00 

4/15/2007 11:30 47.80 49.99 49.98 (0.01)

4/15/2007 12:15 47.80 50.00 49.99 (0.01)

4/16/2007 1:10 47.70 50.00 50.00 0.00 

4/16/2007 2:00 47.80 50.00 50.00 0.00 

4/17/2007 10:20 47.00 50.00 50.00 0.00 

4/17/2007 11:00 47.30 49.99 49.98 (0.01)

4/17/2007 12:15 47.30 50.00 50.00 0.00 

4/17/2007 1:10 47.50 50.00 50.00 0.00 

4/17/2007 1:50 47.50 50.01 50.00 (0.01)

4/24/2007 8:50 56.90 50.00 50.00 0.00 

4/24/2007 9:30 56.90 50.01 50.01 0.00 

4/24/2007 10:05 56.90 50.00 50.02 0.02 
S&T Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix C – Correspondence

S&T - C20

Mass Flow Meter Calibration Data

Date Time Temp °F Meter Gal Prover Gal Diff in cc

4/24/2007 10:25 57.00 50.00 50.01 0.01 

4/24/2007 11:00 57.10 50.00 50.00 0.00 

4/24/2007 1:15 57.50 50.00 50.01 0.01 

4/24/2007 1:50 57.90 50.01 49.99 (0.02)

4/24/2007 2:25 58.20 50.01 49.99 (0.02)

4/25/2007 10:30 58.30 50.00 50.01 0.01 

4/25/2007 11:10 58.40 50.00 50.00 0.00 

4/25/2007 11:35 58.50 50.00 50.00 0.00 

4/25/2007 1:20 58.50 49.99 49.99 0.00 

4/25/2007 2:05 58.50 50.00 50.00 0.00 

4/25/2007 2:45 58.40 50.00 50.01 0.01 

4/25/2007 4:30 58.40 50.00 50.00 0.00 

4/25/2007 5:05 58.60 50.00 49.98 (0.02)

4/25/2007 5:40 58.80 50.00 49.97 (0.03)

4/26/2007 10:45 57.80 50.00 50.00 0.00 

4/26/2007 11:45 58.00 50.00 49.98 (0.02)

4/26/2007 12:35 58.00 50.00 49.98 (0.02)

4/26/2007 2:55 58.20 50.00 50.00 0.00 

4/26/2007 3:40 58.40 50.00 49.98 (0.02)

4/26/2007 4:15 58.40 50.00 49.98 (0.02)

4/26/2007 7:50 58.30 50.00 49.99 (0.01)

4/26/2007 8:25 58.50 50.00 50.00 0.00 

4/26/2007 8:50 58.60 50.01 50.00 (0.01)

4/26/2007 9:50 58.50 50.00 50.01 0.01 

4/26/2007 10:50 58.50 50.00 50.00 0.00 

5/2/2007 10:20 55.90 50.00 50.00 0.00 

5/2/2007 11:20 56.10 50.00 49.99 (0.01)

5/2/2007 12:00 56.10 49.99 49.98 (0.01)

5/2/2007 12:40 56.20 49.99 49.98 (0.01)

5/2/2007 13:15 56.60 50.00 49.99 (0.01)

5/2/2007 13:40 56.60 50.00 49.99 (0.01)

5/2/2007 13:45 56.60 50.00 49.99 (0.01)

5/2/2007 14:15 57.00 49.99 49.97 (0.02)

5/3/2007 6:30 56.70 50.00 50.00 0.00 

5/3/2007 7:45 56.70 50.00 50.00 0.00 

5/3/2007 12:00 56.80 50.00 50.00 0.00 

5/3/2007 12:40 57.30 50.00 49.99 (0.01)

5/3/2007 13:10 57.30 50.00 50.00 0.00 
S&T Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix C – Correspondence

S&T - C21

Mass Flow Meter Calibration Data

Date Time Temp °F Meter Gal Prover Gal Diff in cc

5/7/2007 11:30 59.30 50.00 50.01 0.01 

5/7/2007 12:05 59.60 50.00 50.01 0.01 

5/7/2007 12:30 59.70 50.00 50.00 0.00 

5/7/2007 12:55 59.80 50.00 50.00 0.00 

5/7/2007 13:30 60.00 49.99 49.97 (0.02)

5/8/2007 7:40 60.20 50.00 50.01 0.01 

5/8/2007 8:30 60.20 50.00 50.00 0.00 

5/8/2007 9:05 60.40 50.00 50.00 0.00 

5/8/2007 9:35 60.50 50.01 49.99 (0.02)

5/8/2007 12:15 61.00 50.00 49.99 (0.01)

5/8/2007 12:55 61.20 50.00 49.99 (0.01)

5/8/2007 13:40 61.30 50.00 49.99 (0.01)

5/9/2007 8:40 60.20 50.00 50.00 0.00 

5/9/2007 9:40 60.30 50.00 49.99 (0.01)

5/9/2007 10:10 60.50 50.01 50.00 (0.01)

5/9/2007 10:50 60.70 50.00 50.00 0.00 

5/9/2007 11:55 61.10 50.00 50.00 0.00 

5/10/2007 9:15 61.90 50.01 50.00 (0.01)

5/10/2007 9:55 62.00 50.00 50.00 0.00 

5/10/2007 10:25 62.30 50.00 49.99 (0.01)

5/10/2007 11:50 62.30 50.00 50.00 0.00 

5/10/2007 13:30 62.70 50.01 50.00 (0.01)

5/10/2007 13:10 62.90 50.00 49.98 (0.02)

5/14/2007 9:50 63.20 50.00 50.01 0.01 

5/14/2007 10:40 63.30 50.00 49.99 (0.01)

5/14/2007 11:20 63.60 50.00 49.98 (0.02)

5/14/2007 12:30 63.70 50.00 50.01 0.01 

5/14/2007 13:30 63.80 50.00 49.98 (0.02)

5/15/2007 12:00 64.20 50.00 50.00 0.00 

5/15/2007 13:50 64.50 49.99 49.98 (0.01)

5/15/2007 16:10 65.20 50.00 50.00 0.00 

5/15/2007 16:40 65.30 50.00 49.99 (0.01)

5/15/2007 17:10 65.70 50.00 49.99 (0.01)

5/15/2007 17:30 65.70 49.99 49.98 (0.01)

5/16/2007 9:10 65.40 50.00 50.02 0.02 

5/16/2007 9:50 65.40 50.00 50.01 0.01 

5/16/2007 10:20 65.40 50.00 50.00 0.00 

5/16/2007 10:45 65.40 50.00 50.00 0.00 
S&T Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix C – Correspondence

S&T - C22

Mass Flow Meter Calibration Data

Date Time Temp °F Meter Gal Prover Gal Diff in cc

5/16/2007 11:25 65.40 50.00 50.00 0.00 

6/4/2007 10:45 71.20 50.00 50.01 0.01 

11:30 71.40 50.00 50.03 0.03 

12:05 71.80 50.00 50.02 0.02 

12:40 72.30 50.00 50.02 0.02 

1:20 72.80 50.00 50.01 0.01 

6/5/2007 9:50 71.80 50.00 50.00 0.00 

11:30 71.20 50.00 50.00 0.00 

1:15 71.60 50.00 50.00 0.00 

2:00 71.60 50.00 50.00 0.00 

2:45 71.60 50.00 50.00 0.00 

6/7/2004 11:45 70.60 50.00 49.99 (0.01)

12:45 71.00 50.00 49.99 (0.01)

2:00 71.50 50.00 49.99 (0.01)

6/11/2007 11:20 72.00 50.00 49.99 (0.01)

1:30 72.60 50.00 49.99 (0.01)

6/12/2007 9:30 72.70 50.00 50.00 0.00 

12:00 73.90 50.00 49.99 (0.01)

6/14/2007 10:00 74.30 50.00 50.00 0.00 

10:50 74.70 50.00 50.00 0.00 

11:20 75.00 50.00 50.00 0.00 

3:15 75.50 50.00 50.00 0.00 

4:20 75.60 50.00 50.00 0.00 

6/15/2007 4:30 74.90 49.99 49.99 0.00 

5:30 75.10 49.99 50.00 0.01 

7:00 74.50 49.99 49.99 0.00 

8:00 74.50 49.99 49.99 0.00 

8:55 74.50 49.99 49.99 0.00 

9:45 74.60 50.00 50.00 0.00 

6/18/2007 11:30 75.90 50.00 50.00 0.00 

12:35 76.20 50.00 50.00 0.00 

2:00 76.40 50.00 50.00 0.00 

3:15 76.40 50.01 50.00 (0.01)

6/19/2007 12:20 63.70 50.00 50.00 0.00 

1:15 63.80 50.00 49.98 (0.02)

2:10 64.20 49.99 49.99 0.00 

6/20/2007 10:00 64.90 50.00 50.01 0.01 

10:45 65.10 50.00 50.00 0.00 
S&T Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix C – Correspondence

S&T - C23

Mass Flow Meter Calibration Data

Date Time Temp °F Meter Gal Prover Gal Diff in cc

11:20 65.20 50.00 50.00 0.00 

12:00 65.40 50.00 50.00 0.00 

12:30 65.50 50.00 50.00 0.00 

1:30 65.50 50.00 50.00 0.00 

2:10 65.70 50.00 50.00 0.00 

2:40 66.00 50.00 50.00 0.00 

7/2/2007 12:45 69.60 50.00 50.00 0.00 

2:00 69.90 50.00 50.00 0.00 

7/3/2007 9:45 69.60 50.00 50.00 0.00 

10:30 69.80 50.00 49.99 (0.01)

11:10 70.00 50.00 50.00 0.00 

11:45 70.20 50.00 50.00 0.00 

12:45 70.50 50.00 50.00 0.00 

7/5/2007 8:00 70.50 50.00 50.00 0.00 

8:45 70.80 50.00 50.00 0.00 

9:30 71.20 50.00 50.00 0.00 

10:15 71.50 50.00 50.01 0.01 

11:30 71.70 50.00 50.01 0.01 

7/6/2007 8:20 71.00 50.00 50.01 0.01 

9:00 71.10 50.00 50.00 0.00 

9:40 71.20 50.00 50.00 0.00 

10:30 71.40 50.00 50.00 0.00 

11:30 71.50 50.00 49.99 (0.01)

12:15 71.70 49.99 49.99 0.00 

12:50 71.90 50.00 49.99 (0.01)

1:30 72.00 50.00 49.99 (0.01)

2:10 72.30 50.00 49.98 (0.02)

7/9/2007 8:45 73.40 50.00 49.99 (0.01)

9:30 73.50 50.00 50.00 0.00 

10:05 73.50 50.00 50.00 0.00 

10:45 73.70 50.00 49.99 (0.01)

11:30 73.70 50.00 50.00 0.00 

1:30 73.70 50.00 50.00 0.00 

2:10 74.10 49.99 49.98 (0.01)

2:40 74.70 50.00 49.98 (0.02)

3:20 75.40 50.00 49.98 (0.02)

7/10/2007 9:30 76.00 50.00 50.00 0.00 

10:10 76.10 50.00 50.00 0.00 
S&T Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix C – Correspondence

S&T - C24

Mass Flow Meter Calibration Data

Date Time Temp °F Meter Gal Prover Gal Diff in cc

10:45 76.10 50.00 50.00 0.00 

11:30 76.20 50.00 50.00 0.00 

12:10 76.30 50.00 49.99 (0.01)

7/11/2007 1:30 76.30 50.00 50.00 0.00 

2:10 76.30 50.00 50.00 0.00 

2:45 76.30 50.00 50.00 0.00 

3:25 76.30 50.00 49.99 (0.01)

7/16/2007 9:15 67.10 50.00 50.01 0.01 

10:15 67.40 50.00 50.00 0.00 

11:45 67.40 50.00 49.99 (0.01)

12:30 67.80 50.00 49.99 (0.01)

1:15 68.10 50.00 49.98 (0.02)

7/17/2007 11:15 69.00 50.00 50.00 0.00 

11:50 69.40 50.00 50.00 0.00 

12:30 69.60 50.00 49.99 (0.01)

4:00 70.10 50.00 50.00 0.00 

4:50 70.30 50.01 50.02 0.01 

7/18/2007 10:00 70.50 50.00 50.01 0.01 

10:40 70.60 50.00 50.00 0.00 

11:15 70.80 50.00 50.00 0.00 

11:50 70.80 50.00 50.00 0.00 

12:45 70.90 50.00 50.00 0.00 

7/19/2007 10:00 71.60 50.00 50.00 0.00 

11:10 71.80 50.00 49.99 (0.01)

12:00 71.80 50.00 50.00 0.00 

1:00 71.90 50.01 50.00 (0.01)

7/23/2007 1:10 72.30 50.00 50.01 0.01 

2:15 72.80 50.00 50.00 0.00 

7/26/2007 12:30 71.60 50.00 50.00 0.00 

1:15 71.70 50.00 50.00 0.00 

2:00 71.80 50.00 50.00 0.00 

7/30/2007 11:00 73.00 50.00 50.00 0.00 

11:45 72.60 50.00 50.00 0.00 

12:30 70.20 50.00 50.00 0.00 

1:15 67.70 50.00 50.00 0.00 

2:15 65.60 50.00 50.00 0.00 

4:00 70.90 50.00 50.00 0.00 

4:40 71.80 50.00 50.00 0.00 
S&T Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix C – Correspondence

S&T - C25

Mass Flow Meter Calibration Data

Date Time Temp °F Meter Gal Prover Gal Diff in cc

5:15 72.40 50.00 50.00 0.00 

6:00 72.80 50.00 50.00 0.00 

6:40 73.40 50.00 49.98 (0.02)

8/1/2007 11:45 73.50 50.00 50.00 0.00 

12:30 73.70 50.00 50.00 0.00 

1:15 74.00 50.00 50.00 0.00 

2:00 74.30 50.00 50.00 0.00 

2:35 74.70 50.00 49.99 (0.01)

11:15 75.00 50.00 50.00 0.00 

12:30 76.10 50.00 49.99 (0.01)

8/7/2007 10:15 75.20 50.00 50.00 0.00 

11:00 75.50 50.00 50.00 0.00 

11:40 75.80 50.00 50.00 0.00 

12:15 76.00 50.00 50.00 0.00 

8/8/2007 9:45 75.40 50.00 50.00 0.00 

11:30 76.50 50.00 50.00 0.00 

2:00 76.80 50.01 50.01 0.00 

3:00 77.00 50.00 50.00 0.00 

8/9/2007 10:15 76.10 50.00 50.00 0.00 

12:00 76.60 50.00 50.00 0.00 

8/13/2007 10:35 76.10 50.00 50.01 0.01 

11:30 76.90 50.00 50.02 0.02 

12:20 77.00 50.00 50.01 0.01 

1:00 77.60 50.00 50.01 0.01 

1:40 77.90 50.00 50.01 0.01 

2:15 78.20 50.00 50.01 0.01 

3:45 78.20 50.00 50.00 0.00 

4:20 78.30 50.00 50.00 0.00 

5:00 78.40 50.00 50.00 0.00 

8/14/2007 4:15 77.40 50.00 50.01 0.01 

6:15 77.40 50.00 50.02 0.02 

8/15/2007 3:20 77.50 50.00 50.00 0.00 

4:30 77.60 50.00 50.00 0.00 

8/16/2007 5:45 77.30 50.00 49.99 (0.01)

6:20 77.40 49.99 49.99 0.00 

7:00 77.50 49.99 49.98 (0.01)

7:45 77.50 49.99 49.98 (0.01)

1:00 77.10 50.00 50.00 0.00 
S&T Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix C – Correspondence

S&T - C26

Mass Flow Meter Calibration Data

Date Time Temp °F Meter Gal Prover Gal Diff in cc

1:40 77.60 50.00 50.00 0.00 

2:20 78.00 50.00 50.00 0.00 

8/20/2007 11:15 68.00 50.00 50.00 0.00 

12:15 68.10 50.00 49.99 (0.01)

2:00 67.30 50.00 50.00 0.00 

3:15 68.40 50.00 50.00 0.00 

8/21/2007 3:00 68.20 50.00 50.00 0.00 

3:40 68.40 50.00 50.00 0.00 

4:20 68.50 50.00 50.00 0.00 

5:00 68.70 50.00 50.00 0.00 

5:50 68.70 50.00 50.00 0.00 

8/22/2007 10:00 67.70 50.00 50.01 0.01 

10:45 68.00 50.00 50.01 0.01 

8/23/2007 11:30 68.30 50.00 50.00 0.00 

12:15 68.50 50.00 50.00 0.00 

1:10 68.80 50.00 49.99 (0.01)

8/27/2007 9:45 71.70 50.00 50.00 0.00 

10:30 72.10 50.00 50.00 0.00 

11:15 72.40 50.00 50.00 0.00 

11:55 72.60 50.00 50.00 0.00 

12:45 72.80 50.00 49.99 (0.01)

8/29/2007 12:00 72.90 50.00 50.00 0.00 

12:50 73.10 50.00 50.00 0.00 

1:30 73.40 50.00 50.01 0.01 

9/11/2007 9:45 69.00 50.01 50.01 0.00 

10:30 69.10 50.00 50.01 0.01 

11:00 69.20 50.00 50.01 0.01 

11:45 64.20 50.00 50.01 0.01 

12:30 64.20 50.00 50.00 0.00 

12:50 64.20 50.00 50.00 0.00 

1:30 64.20 50.00 50.02 0.02 

3:00 64.40 50.00 50.02 0.02 

9/12/2007 12:00 68.40 50.00 50.00 0.00 

2:00 68.60 50.00 50.00 0.00 

9/14/2007 9:00 68.10 50.00 50.01 0.01 

10:15 68.30 50.00 50.00 0.00 

11:30 68.40 50.00 50.00 0.00 

12:15 68.80 50.00 49.99 (0.01)
S&T Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix C – Correspondence

S&T - C27

Mass Flow Meter Calibration Data

Date Time Temp °F Meter Gal Prover Gal Diff in cc

1:20 69.00 50.00 49.98 (0.02)

9/18/2007 10:00 67.20 50.00 50.00 0.00 

10:45 67.50 50.00 49.99 (0.01)

11:25 67.70 49.99 49.99 0.00 

9/19/2007 10:00 67.20 50.00 50.01 0.01 

11:20 67.30 50.00 50.00 0.00
S&T Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix C – Correspondence

S&T - C28

THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
PDC 2011 Final Report

PDC - 1 

The Report of the

Professional Development Committee (PDC)

Stacy Carlsen, Chairman

Marin County Weights and Measures

Novato, California

Reference

Key Number

400 INTRODUCTION

This is the report of the Professional Development Committee (hereinafter referred to as the “Committee” or PDC) 

for the 96th Annual Meeting of the National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM). This report is based 

on the Interim Report offered in the 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 and appendix items. Agenda items are identified 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 Informational 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 results of any voting items.

Table A 

Index to Reference Key Items

Reference

Key Number Title of Item Page

400 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... PDC - 1

401 EDUCATION....................................................................................................................................... PDC - 2

401-1 I National Certification Program (NCP)...................................................................................PDC - 2

401-2 I Instructor Improvement........................................................................................................PDC - 11

401-3 I Recommended Topics for Conference Training ..................................................................PDC - 12

402 PROGRAM MANAGEMENT......................................................................................................... PDC - 14

402-1 I Safety Awareness.................................................................................................................PDC - 14

402-2 I PDC Publication...................................................................................................................PDC - 15

Appendices

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

B Package Checking Segments (Draft) ....................................................................................................... PDC - B1

C Converting Technical Content to Training Material ............................................................................... PDC - C1
PDC 2011 Final Report

PDC - 2 

Table B 

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: Carry-over Item 401-1. (This item originated from the Committee and first appeared on its Agenda in 

2003.) The Committee has combined items previously numbered as Item 401-1 National Certification Program 

(NCP), Item 401-2 Create a Curriculum Plan, and Item 401-4 Certification into one item covering all aspects of the 

Certification Program. 

Background/Discussion: For complete background information, see the Professional Development Committee 

(PDC) page or the PDC meeting archives on the NCWM website (www.ncwm.net), or the previous Committee 

reports available from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) website

(http://www.nist.gov/pml/wmd/pubs/index.cfm). 

The Committee set a g oal at the 2009 Annual Meeting to conduct an on-line beta test on the retail motor fuel 

curriculum. The beta test is completed and the results reviewed and analyzed. 

Results:

• 63 took exam/43 completed exam/20 timed out and did not receive a score.

• 6 passed with passing set at 85 %.

• 20 would have passed if passing were set at 75 %.

• 27 would have passed if passing were set at 70 %.

What did the results show about the exam process itself?

• The settings of the service caused a large number of people to time out. Each section of the test was timed. 

Any remaining time from one section could not be added to the next sections, but the instructions did not 

make that clear to the candidates. In addition, if candidates timed out in the first section, they were not 

allowed to continue to the other sections. The NCWM staff has corrected this. In the future, if a candidate 

times out on a section, the candidate will just progress to the next section or the test will end. T he 

candidate will receive the score for all questions answered correctly.
PDC 2011 Final Report

PDC - 3 

• Some candidates had web navigation issues. It was difficult or impossible to use an electronic version of 

Handbook 44 (HB 44) as a r eference while taking the test. R eviewing past answers was cumbersome 

because the candidates were required to page back question by question. There is no solution for this, as 

this is the way the testing service operates. Candidates should consider using a hardcopy of HB 44 when 

taking the test.

• The illustration graphic quality needs improvement. We are going to make every effort to provide quality 

graphics in the first case, and to improve graphics where test results show that improvements are necessary. 

• The grading of short answer questions was very intolerant of variations like capitalization and punctuation. 

The Committee believes that short answer questions are necessary to test for the ability to apply code 

requirements. To help in this regard, the Committee is working on improved instruction on how to take the 

test. A sample test, which will not be timed or graded, may be built into the test itself. The Committee is 

also looking at using a pull-down help feature on some questions to aid the candidate in properly formatting 

the answers.

• Some candidates could not see the entire question without scrolling down. Others experienced difficulty 

seeing the graphics. These problems relate to the candidates’ computer settings, and can be corrected by 

changing the screen resolution, or by using the zoom function on the bottom of the Internet browser. The 

graphics can be seen by adjusting the candidates’ browser security settings. The Committee thinks that the 

sample test can be designed so that the candidate discovers these problems before getting to the real test. 

The candidate will then have the opportunity to leave the exam and make the needed setting changes or 

consult with information technology (IT) specialists as needed. In addition, a guide to taking the NCWM 

certification tests could be written addressing frequently asked questions (FAQs) that arise out of taking the 

tests.

What did the results show about the exam content?

• The Committee analyzed the scoring versus the elapsed time on each section and found that 16 of the 20 

people, who timed out on the test, did so on the first section, relating to general HB 44 questions. Three 

people timed out in the general liquid measuring section, and only one person timed out on the retail motor 

fuel device (RMFD) section. The Committee will be adjusting the timing by taking five minutes off the 

RMFD section, and adding it to the HB 44 section. The Committee also expects that timeout problems will 

decrease as candidates become accustomed to taking tests with timed sections.

• Questions with high error rates and low average times were identified as problem questions. P eople 

thought they knew the answers, as evidenced by the quickness of their responses, but the error rate 

indicates that something is potentially wrong with those questions. Questions with high error rates and 

long response times will also be subject to review to determine whether they exceed the learning objectives.

• Ms. Georgia Harris, NIST Weights and Measures Division, assisted the Committee with information on 

ISO 17204, which is the ISO guide for certification bodies. One component of this guide is analysis of the 

cut score that defines the passing grade. A wealth of information exists on setting the cut score to define 

the minimally competent person. The competent group includes individuals at the basic, proficient, and 

advanced levels. T he Committee wants to ensure that the candidate at the bottom of the basically 

competent group has a reasonable chance of passing the test. Based upon the results of the beta test, the 

Committee thinks that the cut score for the RMFD test should be set at either 70 % or 75 %. 

• Future tests will require similar question evaluation and cut score analyses; that will require staff resources 

to coordinate the review of questions and tests.

Using what was learned from the beta exam, the Committee:

• made changes to the time allocation on the test; 
PDC 2011 Final Report

PDC - 4 

• adjusted the passing score; 

• rewrote or eliminated problem questions; 

• wrote a practice test which is included as an option on the exam site; and

• updated the instructions for taking the test. 

The revised RMFD exam was made available November 1, 2010. As of January 1, 2011, 22 individuals had taken 

the exam 28 times resulting in 21 certifications issued. T his indicates that some took the test more than once to 

achieve a passing score. The average passing score was 82 %.

The Committee received an update on the RMFD Certification exam covering results from November 2010 t o 

July 1, 2011. Since the NCWM Certification Program went active on the Retail Motor Fuel Device exam in 

November 2010, there have been 49 completed exams. The overall results appear below. The median score for

passing candidates was 82 % (with 70 % minimum score to pass). The high score thus far was 98 %. The 

Committee is pleased to see these results, as they support our expectations based on the analysis of the beta exam. 

Most importantly, we can see the separation between those that passed and those that failed. 

 

The critical role of the certification exam is not to showcase your successful candidates, but rather to separate the 

“minimally qualified candidate” from those that are not qualified. Our focus has to remain on the 70 % dividing 

line, to see if we can see the formation of two distributions; one for the passing candidates and one for the failing 

candidates. While we only have 10 failing candidates, it does appear that we are getting that separation. 

The analysis also looked at scoring on each of the three parts of the exam. The two parallel graphs below present a 

comparison of the scoring by the passing candidates versus the failing candidates. The Committee sees the clear 

separation of those two categories in our exam. We see a normal bell curve appearing for the passing candidates, 

but see scoring well below the 70 % passing score and wide variation with the failing candidates.
PDC 2011 Final Report

PDC - 5 

 

What did the result show about the Committee’s plan for certification?

The low passing rate on the beta exam may indicate that parts of the system are not working together. It is important 

that users of the NCWM Certification Program understand how the pieces fit together and form a coherent system. 

To illustrate the relationships we can describe the system as a triangle of interdependent parts (see diagram below). 

The standards come in the form of goals with measureable learning objectives. The education part involves training 

provided to help the candidate reach the desired level of proficiency for each of the learning objectives. The 

certification involves an assessment of proficiency that measures whether or not the objectives have been met. 
PDC 2011 Final Report

PDC - 6 

The Committee has until now focused attention on the standards and the certification pieces in the triangle as 

illustrated in the flowcharts below.
PDC 2011 Final Report

PDC - 7 

The Committee has described this work in a number of documents. Ms. Carol Hockert, NIST WMD has indicated 

that the partnership between NCWM, the states, and NIST WMD will benefit from consistency in the terms we use

in our training/certification programs, and that the terms the Committee are using are not consistent with current 

usage in the education field. Therefore, the Committee has resolved to revise some of the terminology we use in our 

program. Changes to terminology are listed below. 

Body of Knowledge (replaces “curriculum”) – refers broadly to the knowledge and skills required to function as a 

Weights and Measures Professional. The term or its acronym “BOK” may refer broadly to the entire scope of 

knowledge and skills required within the profession, or in a more directed manner to any selected subset for 

which the particular person is responsible. The BOK describes what you expect the Weights and Measures

Professional to achieve, as opposed to, how he/she will achieve it. To make the BOK more manageable in 

administration of the National Certification Program, it will be subdivided into Modules in a tree-like 

structure moving from general knowledge and skills to more specific areas. 

Module (formerly “curriculum segment”) – refers to a g roup of related subject materials within the BOK. The 

module contains the articulated learning objectives for the subject area. Each module can be thought of as a 

single, self-contained course of study. However, a broader course may span multiple modules, and refreshers, 

seminars, etc. may include only part of a module or parts of multiple modules. The PDC Committee has 

created a standard format to create modules for the NCWM National Certification Program. The Committee 

has also created the Curriculum Outline and Workplans to help manage the work activities within the 

program, to create the many modules necessary to cover the entire profession. 

Learning Objective (formerly “outcome” or “milestone”) – refers to the articulation of expectations of performance 

in measureable terms. Learning objectives are stated using active terms, so as to be precise and measureable. 

There are two types of learning objectives, a “terminal objective” and an “enabling objective.” Terminal 

learning objectives state broadly the expectation of performance. The enabling objectives state the specific 

parts or steps required to demonstrate competence. The PDC has developed a guide to writing learning 

objectives of both parts, and this includes the active verbs associated with the cognitive levels in Boom’s 

Taxonomy. In training, the instructor will typically choose learning activities to explore each of the enabling 

objectives in an attempt to reach the terminal objective. In assessment, the questions will typically test for 

competence in each of enabling objectives to demonstrate that the terminal objective has been met.

Certification – refers to verification of competence relative to all or part of the body of knowledge for the 

profession as designated by the PDC for inclusion in a certification exam. The selected body of knowledge 

using modules is documented in a test description. Each of the modules, or combinations, are given a specific 

weighting in the design of the test. After obtaining a passing score on the exam, the candidate is issued a 

certificate stating he/she has met the competency standard. 

Curriculum – refers to the list of Modules that are used to document the Body of Knowledge. 
PDC 2011 Final Report

PDC - 8 

Bloom’s Taxonomy – refers to a classification of higher levels of cognitive learning, widely used in education, in 

many fields. The levels are knowledge, understanding, application, analysis, integration, and evaluation. The 

active verbs used in the articulation of learning objectives define the cognitive level. In training, the learning 

activities are matched to the cognitive level. In assessment, the form of the question is also matched to the 

cognitive level. The use of Bloom’s Taxonomy is described in detail in the Body of Knowledge Model 

document.

The Committee has prepared program documents that are available on the NCWM website. These documents will 

be revised, where required, to reflect the terminology changes in the near future and updated on the website.

• The Curriculum Outline, which breaks the profession of weights and measures into component parts called 

Modules.

• The Body of Knowledge Model (formerly Core Curriculum Model) explains how to create Modules to 

document the learning objectives.

• The Modules developed thus far (formerly Curriculum Segments).

• The Certifications developed thus far (formerly Certification Disciplines). 

Results of the beta test indicate it will be very important as the program moves forward, that trainers integrate the 

learning objectives into their materials, and design courses in such a way that students will achieve the desired levels 

of learning. See Item 401-2 Instructor Improvement.

Discussion: At the 2011 Interim Meeting, the Committee addressed the need to build partnerships between the 

states, NIST, and NCWM. Each group has roles in relation to the Certification Triangle as shown in the following 

diagram. 

National Certification Program 

Applying Certification Triangle

Triumverate Partnership

STATES

 National Certified Workforce

 Assessment Tools and Certification Triangle Applied

 Student Meets Training Milestones 

 Feedback to Trainer and Employee

 Value test results = Recognition + Adult Learning

 Develop New Training Standards

 NCWM / NIST Regional Education and Training

NIST 

Training and Education

Instructor Improvement “ADDIE”

State Instruction Support

Technical Materials

Train the Trainer Material

Classroom and Field Training

NCWM-PDC

Web Site and Administer NCP

Enlist Subject Matter Experts

Learning Objectives and Standards

Curriculum Work Plans, Disciplines, Segments

Write/Verify Test Questions

Test Evaluation/Statistical Analysis
PDC 2011 Final Report

PDC - 9 

Four of the critical elements for continuing development of certification programs are: 

• Appointment by the NCWM Board of a Certification Exam Coordinator t o ensure the credibility and 

integrity of the certification process; 

• Enlistment of Subject Matter Experts (SME) from states, counties, industries, and NIST to identify the 

learning objectives for new disciplines, and for writing and reviewing test questions; 

• Utilization by the states of the NCWM curriculum standards; and

• Improvement of instructors through training on how to use appropriate learning objectives (NCWM 

curricula) and adult learning methods. 

With regard to the first bullet above, the Committee is pleased to have a staff person working for NCWM to 

coordinate the National Certification Program. Mr. Ross Andersen, New York State, retired, has been hired on a 

part-time basis by the Board to coordinate activities within the program in cooperation with the PDC. The following 

is an excerpt from the NCWM Certification Coordinator contract listing the duties:

a. Act out the duties defined in this contract, the direction of the NCWM Board of Directors, and the work of 

the Professional Development Committee (PDC) in the development of examination and certification of 

weights and measures professionals in the areas of small capacity scales, package checking, vehicle tank 

meters, and other areas as work progresses through the term of this contract.

b. Communicate effectively with the NCWM Executive Director, his staff, the PDC and others toward the 

successful coordination of efforts.

c. Participate in meetings and work sessions of the PDC when necessary, to the development of examinations 

for certification.

d. Identify an appropriate number of qualified Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) who will serve as volunteers to 

NCWM in developing certification exam questions, reviewing questions, and improving questions as 

necessary. Provide assistance and training to SMEs in performance of their activities.

e. Coordinate the efforts of the PDC, SMEs, and NCWM staff as outlined in Appendix A to this agreement.

f. Establish deadlines for each phase of the project and communicate those deadlines to volunteer leadership.

g. Provide curriculum segments, exam question banks, and beta analysis of test results in an expeditious 

manner to facilitate growth of the National Certification Program.

h. Provide maintenance analysis of existing exams upon request of the Executive Director. 

i. Provide monthly status reports to the Executive Director on progress of each exam that is under 

development.

With regard to the second bullet, the Committee has developed a guide for Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) to help 

describe the activities we need them to provide. This document is under final review and will be posted soon on the 

NCWM website. The Certification Coordinator has enlisted a good number of SMEs to begin work on certification 

exam questions for the Small Capacity Scales Class III and Basic Package Checking certifications. We are also 

working to expand our list of state training coordinators, which we use to recruit SMEs to assist us in the program.

In open hearings, the Committee heard comments that local jurisdictions also be asked to provide SME volunteers. 

The Committee agrees, and will consider avenues to reach out to local jurisdictions. If experts from any jurisdiction 

or business are interested in volunteering, they can contact the Committee Chair through the PDC page on NCWM’s

website.
PDC 2011 Final Report

PDC - 10

The Certification segments currently developed (or in development) are:

• Retail Motor Fuels – certification available through NCWM; 

• Basic Package Labeling/Checking; 

 

• Small Capacity Scales; and

• Vehicle Tank Meters. 

The Committee asked for feedback regarding which of the following segments should be developed next:

• Liquid Petroleum Gas (LPG);

• Large Capacity Scales; 

• Taxi Meters; and

• Price Verification. 

The Committee received no feedback at the Interim Meeting. Since then, the Committee has received comments 

from a state police agency in Oregon, asking if the NCWM could create a certification exam for police that use 

highway weight scales (i.e., wheel-load weighers and portable axle-load scales). The Committee also got a request 

from the Central Weights and Measures Association (CWMA) to consider creating NCWM certification exams for 

registered service persons. The problem noted is that our basic competence level in the exams, thus far, has been at 

the expectation of an employee with one-year experience. The CWMA believes that may not be reasonable for a 

registered service person. Industries with numerous service agents working across state lines, told the Committee 

that they saw great benefit in the development of a single exam that would eliminate duplication in testing on 

technical issues. It was recognized that agents would still have to apply to individual states administratively to get 

the license, but without the need for additional testing. The Committee also sees the benefit of a single technical 

exam, but this will require that we get buy-in from the states to accept the NCWM certification. It also means, 

possibly administering individual state specific exams covering laws and regulations, directed at service agents. We 

can consider moving down this path if we get some positive feedback from states with registered service persons. 

The Committee is planning to conduct a survey of the NCWM members on future priorities as we develop future 

certifications, and will include the issue of registered service agents.

The Committee also sought feedback regarding whether the Package Checking curriculum should stay close to the 

organization of HB 133, Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods, as written in Appendix B, or whether it 

should be re-written to match the organization of the three sections of the test:

• Core Procedure & General Considerations

• Packages Labeled by Weight (Standard & Random)

• Packages Labeled by Volume (Gravimetric & Volumetric)

The major difference between the two is that the core procedure (identifying lot, selecting random samples, testing 

the samples, and evaluating the results) is included with general considerations in the first section of the curriculum, 

but is included with Packages Labeled by Weight in NIST Handbook 133, which is the primary reference material. 

The Committee received no feedback on this item. The Committee will post the Package Checking curriculum 

based upon the work of the CWMA PDC. (See Appendix B)
PDC 2011 Final Report

PDC - 11

401-2 I Instructor Improvement

Source: Carry-over Item 401-3 (This item originated from the Committee and first appeared on its agenda in 2003.)

Background/Discussion: Prior to the 2010 Annual Meeting, Ms. Harris, NIST WMD, provided the Committee 

with reference material on teaching methods and assessment of training success. Distilling the essence of these 

materials, the Committee feels that instructors need training in more than just the technical material; they need 

training in setting the learning objectives, developing the training materials with those objectives in mind, selecting 

training methods that incorporate adult learning styles, and evaluating the effectiveness of their training.

The chart below covers three levels of learning objectives and relates them to the training activities most likely to be 

successful, and demonstrates best methods for assessing the success of the training. The curriculum segments state 

the learning objectives using verbs similar to those in the bottom row of the table. These drive both the training 

activities required to promote adult learning, and the assessment tools appropriate to measure success at that level.

NIST WMD has expressed strong interest in collaborating with the NCWM in efforts to educate instructors in adult 

learning techniques and relating them to the learning objectives in the NCWM curriculum. Appendix C contains 

NIST material on converting technical content to training material. The importance of pre-training analysis and 

post-training evaluation cannot be overestimated. Failure to include these steps often leads to failure of training 

efforts. 
PDC 2011 Final Report

PDC - 12

National Certification Program

Systems Approach to Training Evaluation

Assessment

“ADDIE”

401-1

Discussion: Ms. Carol Hockert (NIST), commented that NIST and PDC need to work together to clarify training 

terminology. She also suggests that the PDC needs to communicate with state directors to make sure we know their 

goals for the certification program, so that we are designing the tests to assess whether they are meeting those goals.

The Committee is calling on the states and other training developers to implement the Analysis, Design, 

Development, Implementation, and Evaluation (ADDIE) model in their training preparations and post training 

evaluation. Everyone needs to participate in the development of the curriculum segments, and then encourage their 

trainers to use them in their training plans.

401-3 I Recommended Topics for Conference Training

Source: Carry-over Item 401-5 (This item originated from the Committee and first appeared on its agenda in 2003.)

Background/Discussion: 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) Marketplace Surveys;

(b) Alternative Fuels (Fuel Volatility Issues and Ethanol Blending, and Biodiesel Blend Issues);

(c) Ergonomics (including Proper Lifting Techniques, Back and Stress Techniques and Office Ergonomics); 

(d) Public Relations, specifically dealing with aggressive/angry people (recommended by the SWMA);

(e) General Safety Issues (recommended by the WWMA);
PDC 2011 Final Report

PDC - 13

(f) Defensive Driving (recommended by the WWMA);

(g) Administrative Civil Penalty Process (recommended by the WWMA);

(h) Price Verification (recommended by the WWMA);

(i) Customer Service (recommended by the WWMA);

(j) Ethics (recommended by the CWMA);

(k) Moisture Loss; 

(l) Economic Justification of W&M Programs;

(m) Demonstrating the Value of Enforcement Programs;

(n) Training the Trainer in Adult Learning Methods; and

(o) Emerging Issues. 

The Committee asked for suggestions for future training or recommendation on how to prioritize suggestions 

already on the list. Based on the needs identified in the first two items (401-1 and 401-2), the Committee would like 

to recommend that the regional associations and the NCWM consider offering training for trainers on how to 

identify learning objectives, and design training materials that integrate interactive activities and adult learning 

styles. NIST has a 1.5-hour course on taking technical material and turning it into a course for adult learners, which 

may be appropriate to fill this need.

Training Topics already covered may be available on the NCWM website by looking at the meeting archives:

(a) Device Inspections Using a Sampling Model (Mr. Henry Oppermann 2010);

(b) Corrosion Issues with Low Sulfur Diesel (Mr. Ron Hayes 2010); 

(c) Diesel Exhaust Fluid (DEF) (Mr. Gordon Johnson, Mr. Randy Moses 2009); 

(d) Alternative Fuels (Fuel Volatility Issues and Ethanol Blending, and biodiesel blend issues) (Mr. Ron Hayes 

2009);

(e) Investigative Techniques (Mr. Michael Cleary 2009); 

(f) Automatic Temperature Compensation (ATC) Analysis of Testing Data (Mr. Henry Oppermann 2008);

(g) Effective Safety & Health Program (Mr. Dan Whipple 2008); 

(h) Handbook 44 Scale Code Tare Changes (Mr. Steve Cook);

(i) Automatic Temperature Compensation Issues (Mr. Henry Oppermann and Mr. Ross Anderson 2007); 

(j) Analyzing Inspection Data (Mr. Henry Opermann and Mr. Steve Malone 2007); 

(k) Grocery Unit Pricing in the United States (Mr. David Sefcik, NIST WMD and Mr. Ian Jarratt, Queensland 

Consumer Association, Australia 2011); and

(l) Hydrogen Measuring Systems: The Turning Point? (Ms. Kristen Macey 2011).
PDC 2011 Final Report

PDC - 14

Discussion: At the 2011 Interim Meeting, comments were heard from Mr. Brett Gurney, Utah, that all stakeholders 

need training on how to demonstrate the value of our enforcement programs to administrative/legislative levels 

above us.

Mr. Oppermann suggested a topic of “Economic Justification of Weights and Measures Programs” using data from 

the latest census in conjunction with compliance data gathered before and after the end of a p rogram or the 

installation of a new program.

WWMA Discussion: The PDC solicited topics from the WWMA for future conference training. The Committee 

recognized a need for promoting the value of our programs to stakeholders. S takeholders include, but are not 

limited to, executive administrators, elected officials, and the public. D uring challenging economic times, it is 

critical that Weights and Measures maintain a s trong presence in the marketplace. T he NIST, WMD Chief 

suggested a session to teach trainers how to teach. The WWMA PDC sees a benefit in this type of training for 

developing presentation skills. The WWMA Board of Directors has recommended that the PDC develop a shared 

calendar of scheduled training events available to other jurisdictions. T he WWMA Board of Directors has 

suggested that training be conducted, concurrent with, but independent of, the national and regional meetings. This 

training would utilize the same facilities and could allow for additional savings when negotiating conference 

locations. This would allow exposure to weights and measures officials that would not normally be able to attend 

conferences. 

The WWMA PDC suggested topics are train the trainer and those topics that would promote Weights and Measures 

Programs to the stakeholders. One recommended format would be to facilitate a round table to identify success 

stories and best practices from weights and measures jurisdictions. The WWMA PDC recommends that the NCWM 

develop a shared calendar of scheduled training and consider scheduling training in conjunction with conferences.

402 PROGRAM MANAGEMENT

402-1 I Safety Awareness

Source: Carry-over Item 402-1 (This item originated from the Committee and first appeared on its agenda in 2003.)

Background/Discussion: 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. Jurisdictions are encouraged to

send their safety reports and issues to their regional safety liaison, who in turn will forward them to the PDC. Below 

is a list of the Regional Safety Liaisons.

SWMA Mr. Steve Hadder, Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services

WWMA Mr. Douglas Deiman, Alaska Division of Measurement Standards/CVE

CWMA Ms. Julie Quinn, Minnesota Department of Commerce

NEWMA Mr. Michael Sikula, New York Bureau of Weights and Measures

The Committee will continue to ask the regions to prepare articles for the NCWM newsletter, and have revised the 

schedule as follows for future issues. T he Committee plans to notify the Regional Safety Coordinators as their 

assignment date approaches.

Association Issue Publication Date Article Deadline

CWMA 2011, Issue 3 September July 15, 2011

NEWMA 2012, Issue 1 February January 16, 2012

SWMA 2012, Issue 2 June April 16, 2012

WWMA 2012, Issue 3 September July 16, 2012

E-mail all articles to the NCWM headquarters at info@ncwm.net. 
PDC 2011 Final Report

PDC - 15

The Committee would like to thank those persons who submitted safety related articles to the NCWM Newsletter. 

In particular, the Committee recognizes the three contributors thus far, for the 2011 NCWM Newsletters.

• Consumer Tips for Proper Gasoline Handling, 2011 Issue 1 (Mr. Steve Hadder, Florida)

• Vehicle Safety Issues for Weights and Measures Inspector, 2011 Issue 2 (Mr. Douglas Deiman, Alaska)

• Controlling the Risk of Solitary Workers, 2011 Issue 2 (Mr. Brett Gurney, Utah).

The Committee asks for suggestions for safety articles people would like to see in future newsletters, and/or safety 

issues that need to be addressed immediately. They would like to remind regional associations to check the 

submission deadlines for their upcoming article assignments. Send completed articles to NCWM headquarters by 

the submission deadline.

The Committee received a request during the work session that the publication dates be kept current in this ongoing 

item.

402-2 I PDC Publication

Background/Discussion: The Committee is updating the National Certification pages on the website. T hese 

website changes will be demonstrated at the 2011 Annual Meeting. The three main sections of material 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.

At the 2011 Interim Meeting, no comments were received from the floor.

The Committee is in the process of revising its pages on the NCWM website. Some of the changes will include the

new terminology (see Item 401-1). In addition, the Committee believes it is vital to move forward with a more 

formal set of administrative procedures for running a credible certification program. The Committee will be making 

efforts to continue work done by Mr. Michael Sikula, New York, at the request of the Board, to document our 

procedures following ISO 17024 guidelines for Certification Bodies. 

Mr. Stacy Carlsen, Chair, Marin County, California

Ms. Julie Quinn, Minnesota

Mr. Dale Saunders, Virginia

Ms. Cheryl Ayer, New Hampshire

Mr. Steven Grabski, Walmart

Professional Development Committee 
PDC 2011 Final Report

PDC - 16

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
PDC 2011 Final Report

Appendix A – NCWM Curriculum Work Plan

PDC - A1 

Appendix A 

National Conference on Weight and Measures

National Certification Program

NCWM CURRICULUM WORK PLAN

Revised January 2010

Segment/Subject

Level 1/Level 2/Level 3

1. Fundamentals of Weights and Measures

1.1. Introduction to Weights and Measures Programs

1.2. W&M Laws and Regulations

1.3. Field Standards and 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 and 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 and 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. Static Electronic Weighing Systems, General

4.3.2. Static Mechanical and Hybrid Weighing Systems, General

4.3.3. Dynamic Weighing Systems, General

4.3.4. Precision Weighing Systems Class I and II

4.3.5. Small Capacity Weighing Systems Class III

4.3.6. Medium Capacity Weighing Systems Class III

4.3.7. Large Capacity Class III and IIIL Weighing Systems (Vehicle and Livestock) 

4.3.8. Large Capacity Class III and IIIL Weighing Systems - Advanced

4.3.9. Railroad Track Weighing Systems

4.3.10. In-Motion Railroad Track Weighing Systems

4.3.11. Hopper Weighing Systems
PDC 2011 Final Report

Appendix A – NCWM Curriculum Work Plan

PDC - A2 

4.3.12. Automatic Bulk Weighing Systems

4.3.13. Automatic Weighing Systems

4.3.14. Belt Conveyor Weighing Systems

4.3.15. In-Motion Monorail Weighing Systems

4.3.16. Point-of-Sale Weighing Systems

4.3.17. Other Specialty Weighing Systems

4.4. Dynamic Measuring Systems – General

4.4.1. Retail Motor Fuel Dispensers

4.4.2. Loading Rack and Other Stationary Metering Systems

4.4.3. Loading Rack and 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) and Commodities (NIST HB 133)

5.1. Safety Considerations – Market Practices, NIST Handbook 130, NIST Handbook 133

5.2. NIST Handbook 130 – Laws and 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 2011 Final Report

Appendix B – Package Checking Segments

PDC - B1 

Appendix B

Packaging Checking Segments (Draft)

National Conference on Weights and Measures

National Certification Program Curriculum

Segment 5.3.1 

Commodities - General

Overview and Scope

This segment sets standards for basic inspection and testing for checking the net contents of packaged goods. The 

segment is geared toward general and basic concepts that can be applied to all package checking. These concepts 

include such basics as selecting the point of enforcement; understanding lots, package requirements, and moisture 

allowances; choosing and applying sampling plans; identifying the jurisdictions of other regulatory agencies 

responsible for package regulations and requirements; and utilizing good measurement practices including the care 

and use of standards. 

Prerequisites: 

• None

Objectives and Competencies

1. When and Where to Use Package Checking Procedures

A weights & measures inspector should understand the principles of when and where to use package checking 

procedures. To demonstrate that understanding the inspector can:

• List the types of products which may be tested; 

• Describe how marketplace surveys, sales volume surveys, and audits influence decisions on where to 

concentrate package checking resources; and

• Decide the appropriate venue for the investigation being conducted:

- Point of Pack; 

- Wholesale; and

- Retail. 

2. Package Requirements

A weights & measures inspector should understand the requirements that apply to inspection lots and to the 

individual packages within those lots. To demonstrate that understanding the inspector can:

• Determine an inspection lot; 

• Describe the average requirement for the lot; 

• Describe the individual package requirement; 

• Determine the maximum allowable variation (MAV) for a package; 

• Determine and apply the appropriate moisture allowance if applicable; and

• Describe exceptions to the average and individual package requirements: 

- For packages labeled by count for 50 or fewer items; and

- For the capacity of molded glass tumblers and stemware. 
PDC 2011 Final Report

Appendix B – Package Checking Segments

PDC - B2 

3. Sampling Plans

A weights and measures inspector should understand the principles and reasons for sampling plans as well as 

the differences between sampling plans. To demonstrate that understanding the inspector can:

• Determine when to use a category B sampling plan, and when to use Category A; 

• Explain why sampling is used to test packages, why sampling is random, and why statistical 

corrections are applied to the test results; 

• State the confidence level for each sampling category plan; and

• Use audit tests and other shortcuts appropriately. 

4. Other Regulatory Agencies Responsible for Package Regulations and Applicable Requirements 

A weights and measures inspector should understand the relationships between various agencies with 

jurisdictions governing package labeling and contents. To demonstrate that understanding the inspector can:

• List and describe the various other regulatory agencies, their jurisdictions and authorizing legislation:

- U.S. Department of Agriculture; 

- U.S. Food and Drug Administration; 

- Federal Trade Commission; 

- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; 

- Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms; and

- State and Local Weights & Measures Agencies. 

5. Good Measurement Practices

A weights and measures inspector should understand good measurement practices as they relate to test 

standards and equipment. To demonstrate that understanding the inspector can:

• Determine that his/her standards and equipment meet the traceability requirement for measurement 

standards and test equipment; and

• Determine that his/her standards and equipment meet the certification requirement for standards and 

test equipment. 

Contributors:

5/15/08 – Initial Draft – CWMA (Ms. Rachelle Miller, Wisconsin, Chair)

01/12/11– Revised Draft – (Ms. Julie Quinn, Minnesota) 

01/13/11 – Editorial revision by NCWM PDC (Mr. Stacy Carlson, Marin County, California, Chair) 
PDC 2011 Final Report

Appendix B – Package Checking Segments

PDC - B3 

National Conference on Weights and Measures

National Certification Program Curriculum

Segment 5.3.2 

Packages Labeled by Weight, Standard and Random

Overview and Scope

This segment sets standards for basic inspection and testing for checking the net contents of packaged goods. The 

segment is geared toward specific concepts that can be applied to checking random and standard packages labeled 

by weight, including concepts relating to the device technology, inspection considerations and requirements, and test 

procedures. 

Prerequisites: 

• Segment 5.3.1 Commodities - General

Objectives and Competencies

1. Gravimetric Test Procedure for Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods. 

A weights and measures inspector should understand that gravimetric testing is used to determine the net weight 

of packages labeled in weight, and be able to explain why it is the preferred method for testing most products. 

2. Measurement Standards and Test Equipment. 

A weights and measures inspector should understand the criteria for selecting test equipment and the procedures 

for verifying test equipment. To demonstrate that understanding the inspector can:

a. Calculate 1

∋6 MAV for any given package labeled by weight; 

b. State how often and under what conditions a scale should be verified; 

c. State what considerations affect measurement accuracy; 

d. Utilize Table 1-1 and Table 1-2 to determine the tolerance which applies to the test scale; 

e. Verify the test scale using the following procedures:

i. Increasing Load Test; 

ii. Decreasing Load Test; and

iii. Shift Test. 

f. Select other standards and measurement equipment in accordance with the requirements of NIST 

Handbook 105, including:

i. Mass standards; 

ii. Volumetric flasks and cylinders; 

iii. Stopwatches; and

iv. Thermometers. 

3. Basic Test Procedure

 

A weights & measures inspector should understand the basic gravimetric test procedure. To demonstrate that 

understanding the inspector can:

a. Identify and define the inspection lot; 

b. Determine whether the lot is random or standard pack; 
PDC 2011 Final Report

Appendix B – Package Checking Segments

PDC - B4 

c. Select the appropriate sampling plan; 

d. Select the random sample; 

e. Decide the appropriate type of tare to be used – 

i. Used dry tare; 

ii. Unused dry tare; or

iii. Wet tare. 

f. Determine tare weight for the random sample; 

g. Measure the net contents of the packages in the sample; 

h. Evaluate compliance with the MAV requirement; 

i. Evaluate compliance with the average requirement; and

j. Calculate and apply moisture allowance when appropriate. 

Contributors:

5/15/08 – Initial Draft – CWMA (Ms. Rachelle Miller, Wisconsin, Chair)

01/12/11 – Revised Draft – Ms. Julie Quinn

01/13/11 – Editorial revision by NCWM PDC (Mr. Stacy Carlson, Marin County, California, Chair)
PDC 2011 Final Report

Appendix B – Package Checking Segments

PDC - B5 

National Conference on Weights and Measures

National Certification Program Curriculum

Segment 5.3.4 

Packages Labeled by Volume (Volumetric and Gravimetric)

Overview and Scope

This segment sets standards for basic inspection and testing for checking the net contents of packaged goods. The 

segment is geared toward specific concepts that can be applied to checking packages labeled by volume using either 

gravimetric or volumetric means. T he segment includes concepts relating to device technology, inspection 

considerations and requirements, and test procedures. 

Prerequisites: 

• Segment 5.3.1. Commodities – General

• Segment 5.3.2. Packages Labeled by Weight, Standard and Random

Objectives and Competencies

1. Scope

A weights and measures inspector should understand which products may be tested using these procedures. To 

demonstrate that understanding the inspector can:

a. Explain the roles density and product temperature play in determining whether gravimetric or volumetric 

testing will be conducted; and

b. Utilize Table 3-1 to determine the appropriate reference temperature for a liquid. 

2. Measurement Standards and Test Equipment

A weights and measures inspector should understand the criteria for selecting test equipment, and the 

procedures for verifying test equipment. To demonstrate that understanding the inspector can:

a. Determine the density of the liquid and calculate the nominal gross weight of the package; 

b. Calculate 1

/6 MAV for the package based upon its nominal gross weight; 

c. Select the appropriate volumetric measure based upon the declared volume of the package; and

d. Select other standards and measurement equipment in accordance with the requirements of NIST 

Handbook 105, including:

i. Stopwatches; 

ii. Thermometers. 

3. Basic Gravimetric Test Procedure

 

A weights and measures inspector should understand the basic gravimetric test procedure. To demonstrate that 

understanding the inspector can:

a. Identify and define the inspection lot; 

b. Select the appropriate sampling plan; 

c. Select the random sample; 

d. Bring the packages and their contents to the proper reference temperature; 

e. Determine tare weight for the random sample; 

f. Wet down a clean volumetric measure; 
PDC 2011 Final Report

Appendix B – Package Checking Segments

PDC - B6 

g. Determine the density of the liquid and calculate the nominal gross weight of the package; 

h. Measure the net contents of the packages in the sample; 

i. Evaluate compliance with the MAV requirement; and

j. Evaluate compliance with the average requirement. 

4. Basic Volumetric Test Procedure

 

A weights & measures inspector should understand the basic gravimetric test procedure. To demonstrate that 

understanding the inspector can:

a. Identify and define the inspection lot; 

b. Select the appropriate sampling plan; 

c. Select the random sample; 

d. Bring the packages and their contents to the proper reference temperature; 

e. Wet down a clean volumetric measure; 

f. Measure the net contents of the packages in the sample; 

g. Evaluate compliance with the MAV requirement; and

h. Evaluate compliance with the average requirement. 

Contributors:

5/15/08 – Initial Draft – CWMA (Ms. Rachelle Miller, Wisconsin, Chair)

01/12/11 – Revised Draft – (Ms. Julie Quinn, Minnesota)

01/13/11 – Editorial revision
PDC 2011 Final Report

Appendix C – Converting Technical Content to Training Material

PDC - C1 

Appendix C

Converting Technical Content to Training Material

Speakers/Authors: Georgia L. Harris, Dana Leaman

National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) 

100 Bureau Drive 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899 

G. Harris: 301-975-4014, gharris@nist.gov

D. Leaman: 301-975-4679, dana.leaman@nist.gov

Abstract: This paper provides the basis for an interactive tutorial and covers how to convert 

technical content to training materials. It includes: defining the audience, writing Learning 

Objectives, designing content and activities to achieve objectives, engaging participants in 

learning activities using adult learning methods, and assessing the learning event to determine 

whether objectives have been met. Examples are provided from NCSL International1 resources. 

The instructional approach in this paper covers the Analysis, Design, and Development phases of 

the ADDIE instructional system development (ISD) model; due to time constraints, it will only 

briefly touch on the Implementation and Evaluation phases. The paper integrates concepts from 

Bloom’s Taxonomy and criteria from the ANSI/IACET2

 standard for offering continuing 

education units as an Authorized Provider. 

Learning Objectives: Given the handouts and practical experience during the tutorial session, 

participants will be able to successfully: 

1. Identify the phases of the ADDIE instructional design model; 

2. Define the appropriate audience for training content; 

3. Identify and Create well-written Learning Objectives;

4. Give examples of Activities that will engage adult participants and achieve Learning 

Objectives; and 

5. Identify appropriate Assessment methods to determine whether Learning Objectives have 

been met.

Background 

The NCSLI Strategic Plan has identified an effort to 

create training resources to match with NCSLI 

publications as they are created and updated. NCSLI 

is also seeking to gain compliance with the 

International Association for Continuing Education 

and Training (ANSI/IACET) criteria for offering 

Authorized Provider Continuing Education Units 

(CEUs) to ensure continual improvement and 

professional training approaches in our metrology 

training. This session will use resources from three 

1

 NCSL International (also known as National Conference of Standards Laboratories, International). 2 American National Standards Institute, International Association for Continuing Education and Training 

(ANSI/IACET). http://www.iacet.org, 2010. 

Figure 1. Sample ANSI/IACET logo which we 

could apply to NCSLI content if we were an 

Authorized Provider.
PDC 2011 Final Report

Appendix C – Converting Technical Content to Training Material

PDC - C2 

new NCSLI publications and their associated conference/section meeting presentations as 

Application examples throughout this paper. These publications include Recommended Practice 

(RP) 3, “Calibration Procedures”, Recommended Practice (RP) 20, “Metrology Laboratory 

Workforce Planning” and the “Metrology Human Resource Handbook” (HR Handbook). 

The ANSI/IACET criteria require organizations to use a s ystematic design and development 

process for developing all training materials. Most professional instructional designers follow 

some type of model, probably the most common of which is the ADDIE instructional system 

development (ISD) process. ADDIE refers to the Analysis, Design, Development, 

Implementation, and Evaluation phases of the ISD process. One of the unique features of the 

metrology community is that instructors are often subject matter experts (SMEs) without a 

formal background in ISD. Our overall goal with this paper and mini-tutorial is to provide 

guidance to the NCSLI technical committee members who are SMEs to develop training 

resources that follow a standardized practice, or model process, that will enable consistency in 

course development as well as compliance to the ANSI/IACET requirements. 

We will cover two modules (with integrated Activities) during the mini-tutorial. The first module 

provides background information on t he ADDIE instructional system development model and 

the other provides Application examples for each phase in the ADDIE model. However, this 

paper integrates the Applications with each topic as it is covered. We have also organized the 

mini-tutorial modules directly around the five Learning Objectives stated on the first page. We 

will reflect on the Learning Objectives as we cover this ISD model and as we apply the model to 

our three case studies. 

One of the key things to consider in all adult learning events is that adults often preview your 

objectives or abstract to determine if there is something in your session for them. They ask the 

question “what’s in it for me?” Adults juggle many priorities and their time is valuable. So, we 

can apply that concept, right now – why are you here? What is it in this particular session that 

you hope to get? What’s in it for you? Why are you reading this paper? During the mini-tutorial, 

we will take some time to reflect on what aspects of the session are most important for each 

participant.

To keep this session most applicable, we have selected three case studies and are relying on the 

subject matter experts (SMEs) from the committees responsible for the content to help us ensure 

the content meets the needs of the participants who might receive training. So, our design 

process overlays these educational design concepts onto the technical content. We hope that this 

approach will serve as a useful model for speakers who want to ensure that ideas they present are 

applied in the workplace and that committee members who want to develop training material 

based on t he technical content in guides, standards, and recommended practices are able to 

follow these steps to be successful in creating effective training materials. Our number one goal 

in training materials is to be able to reach a designated level of knowledge or application. 
PDC 2011 Final Report

Appendix C – Converting Technical Content to Training Material

PDC - C3 

ADDIE Instructional Design Model

There are many instructional system development models and you can see it graphically 

presented in a number of ways. The Laboratory Metrology Group of the Weights and Measures 

Division, National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) have chosen this particular 

approach because it follows a Plan, Do, Check, Act (PDCA) model with Evaluation forming a 

part of every phase. We will work through this diagram (See Fig. 2) and each of the phases, 

starting with Analysis. Every instructional designer ends up t ailoring this model to his own 

processes, projects, and approaches to developing training. “One cardinal rule is to never leave 

out Analysis or Evaluation from the learning 

event development process because the 

projects can be spotted quickly – 1) these 

efforts seldom work to meet learning 

objectives and 2) no one ever really figures 

out why.”3

. 

There are a n umber of websites that cover 

Instructional Design concepts and the ADDIE 

model. Some additional references include: 

• Hodell, Chuck, “ISD From the Ground 

Up, A No-Nonsense Approach to 

Instructional Design,” ASTD Press, 

August 2006. 

• Elengold, Linda J., “Teach SMEs to 

Design Training,” ASTD Info-Line, 

Tips, Tools, and Intelligence for 

Trainers, 2001. 

• Harris, Georgia L., “Development of a 

CD-ROM Metrology Course at 

NIST,” Measurement Science 

Conference, 2003. It is available here:

http://ts.nist.gov/WeightsAndMeasures/upload/MSC2003CDROMPaper.pdf

Defining the Audience and Need for Training

During the Analysis phase, the designer or, in most metrology cases, the instructor or SME 

defines the need, the target audience, and the expected outcome of the training. ANSI/IACET 

Criteria Number 4 is related to Learning Event Planning (4): “Each learning event is planned in 

response to the identified needs of a target audience.” There is room on the Case Study Planning 

Worksheet (Appendix A) and Learning Event Planning Worksheet (Appendix B) to make notes 

about the Audience and Need for a given training event. 

As a first step in Analysis, we need to answer a number of questions: 

• Who is the audience? 

• Why conduct the training? 

3

 Hodell, Chuck, “ISD From the Ground Up, A No-Nonsense Approach to Instructional Design,” ASTD Press, 

August 2006.

Figure 2. ADDIE Instructional System Development 

(ISD) Model. ADDIE: Analysis, Design, Development, 

Implementation, Evaluation.
PDC 2011 Final Report

Appendix C – Converting Technical Content to Training Material

PDC - C4 

• What is the performance need? 

• What is the root cause?

• How will the content be delivered and by whom? 

We may need to answer these questions from the perspective of laboratory management as well 

as the metrologist or person being trained. We must have an effective partnership between the 

trainer, the manager, and the person being trained for the training to be effective and 

used/applied back on the job. If a manager does not support change that might be required for 

applying training content, the training will have no impact. Identifying the real need and the best 

solution are important for everyone. 

One thing we might want to ask is: can other solutions meet the requirements without training? 

Sometimes when analyzing the need, we find that the root cause is lack of management support 

or lack of resources, rather than a lack of knowledge or awareness. Perhaps a simple publication 

and job aid such as a form or checklist serves an even better purpose than spending time in a 

training session. A step-by-step checklist or form may ensure consistent application of a new 

procedure, publication, or idea, without need for a training course. 

If we look at the ANSI/IACET criteria for offering CEUs, one of the things we find is that we 

can also refer to a “job standard” to define the need for training. For example, any single item in 

the ISO/IEC 17025 standard for calibration and testing laboratories is rich as training content in 

the calibration world. One example might be a course on “Writing a Calibration Report 

(ISO/IEC 17025, Section 5.10.” 

Application: Identifying the Audience for our NCSLI Publications 

- The audience for the mini tutorial is primarily Committee Chairs and Members who 

want to develop training material from NCSLI publications. There might be 

additional benefits to regular conference presenters or tutorial instructors who want to 

improve the instructional value of their resources. 

- The audience for RP 3, “Calibration Procedures” might be: Calibration Laboratory 

Managers, Metrologists/Engineers, Technical Managers, or the Procedure 

Writing/Validation Team.

- The audience for RP 20, “ Metrology Laboratory Workforce Planning” and the 

“Metrology Human Resources Handbook” might include: Laboratory Managers, 

Human Resources staff, and Training Managers/Directors. 

Application: Examples of Need 

- The need for this mini-tutorial is that SMEs need formal training on methodologies 

and processes for developing training material from NCSLI publications to ensure 

compliance with standard training methodologies and the ANSI/IACET requirements. 

- The need for training on R P 3, “Calibration Procedures” could include: a 

requirement in ISO/IEC 17025 to document calibration procedures and validate them. 

- The need for training on RP 20, “Metrology Laboratory Workforce Planning” and the 

“Metrology Human Resources Handbook” include: a desire for international 

consistency and adoption of standardized job descriptions to enable recognition and 

professional status of metrology careers. 
PDC 2011 Final Report

Appendix C – Converting Technical Content to Training Material

PDC - C5 

Learning Objectives

A Learning Objective or Learning Outcome (often interchangeably used), is a specific statement, 

written from the participant’s perspective, which provides information about what the participant 

will gain during a learning event. They are focused on pa rticipant performance, not teacher 

performance. 

“Learning objectives: Statements about what a student will gain from a course or activity. These 

are specific statements about exactly what a student should know, be able to do, or value as a 

result of accomplishing a learning goal. Learning objectives form the basis for curriculum and 

course development as well as testing (Reed, 2005).”4 

The “Bloom’s to Assessment” graphic (Fig. 5) and the Learning Event Planning Worksheet 

(Appendix B) are two tools that will help implement these concepts. They will help answer 

“what” and “why” of our learning event. Part of the Analysis phase helps determine what level 

of training and comprehension is required by the audience. Then, the Design process requires 

that we design training at the level needed to help the participant get what they need at the right 

level.

Bloom’s Taxonomy 

We will consider these 

six levels of 

understanding before 

we consider writing 

effective Learning 

Objectives. We need 

to answer what level 

we want the

participant to be able 

to know and apply the 

material. We must 

accurately identify the 

audience, understand 

their level of 

knowledge, and their 

unique needs. Each of 

the six areas in the 

taxonomy builds on 

the previous level of 

knowledge. A key 

design and 

development concept is that a participant must have Knowledge about a topic before they can 

Analyze it. In Table 1, the six areas noted in the Bloom’s graphic (Fig. 3) are listed, with a brief 

description of each category, and a list of verbs that can be used to describe what the participant 

4

 From the University of Texas at Dallas, glossary: http://sacs.utdallas.edu/sacs_glossary (March 2010).

Figure 3. Bloom's Taxonomy Model.
PDC 2011 Final Report

Appendix C – Converting Technical Content to Training Material

PDC - C6 

will need to be able to Know, Do, or Think after the session. These sample verbs provide 

examples that can be used to reflect appropriate learning levels in each Learning Objective and 

to specify the level of mastery expected for the student. 

Table 1. Bloom's Taxonomy - Descriptions and Sample Verbs.

Level Description Sample Verbs

Knowledge Recall data or information describe, identify, recall, arrange, define, duplicate, 

label, list, memorize, name, order, recognize, 

reproduce state

Comprehension Understand the meaning of a 

problem, be able to translate into 

own words

comprehend, give example, classify, describe, 

discuss, explain, express, identify, indicate, locate, 

recognize, report, restate, review, select, translate

Application Use a concept in a new situation apply, change, construct, compute, choose, 

demonstrate, dramatize, employ, illustrate, interpret, 

operate, practice, schedule, sketch, solve, use, write

Analysis Can split concepts into parts and 

understands the structure

analyze, break down, relate, appraise, calculate, 

categorize, compare, contrast, criticize, 

differentiate, discriminate, distinguish, examine, 

experiment, question, make inferences, find 

evidence, test

Synthesis Produce something from different 

elements (e.g., a report)

summarize, arrange, combine, categorize, assemble, 

collect, compose, construct, create, design, develop, 

formulate, manage, organize, plan, prepare, 

propose, set up, write

Evaluation Make judgments, justify a 

solution

appraise, interpret, argue, assess, attach, compare, 

defend, estimate, judge, predict, rate, core, select, 

support, value, evaluate, prove, deduct

How to Write Learning Objectives

The ANSI/IACET standard for continuing education units identifies four categories in Section 5 

related to writing Learning Objectives. These are the four criteria required for writing an 

effective Learning Objective.

1. They are written from the perspective of the learner, reflecting what the learner will achieve.

2. Learning objectives must be clear, specific, concise, and measurable (with four components): 

a. They state the performance the learner should be able to accomplish. (Behavior) 

b. They specify the conditions under which the learner is to perform. (Conditions) 

c. They specify the criteria for acceptable performance. (Criteria)

d. They are directly related to the subject matter and content of the learning event.

3. Learning outcomes are established for each session within a l arge event, conference, or 

convention. 

4. Instructional delivery includes discussion of learning outcomes. 
PDC 2011 Final Report

Appendix C – Converting Technical Content to Training Material

PDC - C7 

If we expand on category number 2, a nd consider the four components of a clear, specific, 

concise, and measurable objective, here are some additional notes to clarify what is meant. Each 

Learning Objective should begin with: After this session (tutorial, paper, or workshop) the 

participant will__________. 

Component 1: T his component covers the expected behavior after the training. Think about 

performance in terms of active verbs related to what you want the participant to know, do, or be, 

after the training: identify, calculate, assess, present, analyze, and apply. (Refer back to Table 1 

for additional examples.) At this point, select an appropriate verb for the level of knowledge or

application that is expected.

Component 2: What are the conditions? Can the participant use their notes? Can they use a 

documented procedure? Can they use a calculator? Are computers allowed? Must they use Excel 

for calculations? Are there additional reference materials provided? Will they have to be 

assessed from memory?

Component 3: What criteria will be used to judge acceptable performance? Is an 80 % passing 

grade acceptable? Would it be okay if they submit their response in text-message format? Must

they provide a written response or can it be oral? What will a valid uncertainty statement look 

like? (Instructors need to make sure that the criteria for successful performance are covered in 

the course!)

Component 4: Learning objectives must be directly related to the subject matter and content of 

the event. If you haven’t covered various types of statistical distributions in a course, you should 

not evaluate students against the criteria (unless of course it was given as a prerequisite). If a 

course is to cover how to correctly perform pressure calibrations, it would not make sense to 

have Learning Objectives related to the laboratory management system. This component should 

be obvious – but must be stated. 

Another approach commonly used is the A-B-C-D approach to writing Learning Objectives. A, 

B, C, and D stand for Audience, Behavior, Condition, and Degree. This approach matches up 

nicely with the ANSI/IACET criteria, in that the objective must focus on the Audience, and be 

written from the student perspective. Then, it needs to specify what Behavior is expected as a 

result of the training, must address the Conditions that will be allowed, and the Degree or level 

of mastery required (the Criteria for measuring successful mastery). We may not use this model 

in this tutorial, but you might see it in some references on this topic and the approach may be 

helpful to you. 

Developing Learning Objectives for our Application examples are next. You can see that we 

have included the Behavior, Condition, and Criteria in these examples. Note how you might 

improve or expand on ideas for appropriate Learning Objectives. 

Application: Examples for NCSLI Publications 

- Five Learning Objectives for this mini tutorial were stated earlier on page 1.

- Objectives for RP 3, “Calibration Procedures” might include: given resources and 

examples (condition), participants will be able to correctly (criteria) write, assess 
PDC 2011 Final Report

Appendix C – Converting Technical Content to Training Material

PDC - C8 

(identify good procedures, identify gaps and weaknesses), and validate procedures 

(behavior).

- Objectives for RP 20, “ Metrology Laboratory Workforce Planning” might include: 

given the resources (condition), participants will be able to describe the overall 

workforce planning process (behavior), and successfully implement all or portions of 

(criteria) laboratory succession planning efforts (behavior), etc.

- Objectives for the “Metrology Human Resources Handbook” might include: given the 

resources (condition), participants will be able to update job descriptions (behavior) 

consistent with standard practice (criteria), collect employment data (behavior) 

according to standard classifications (criteria), participate in providing input to 

OPM/Department of Labor, etc.

How to Select and Align Activities and Assessments with Learning Objectives

The triangle shown in 

Figure 4 represents the 

relationship between 

Learning Objectives, 

Learning Activities and 

Assessment. If these three 

components are present 

and compatible then 

teaching and learning is 

enhanced, hence, this 

model is often called “The 

Magic Triangle.” If these 

three components are not 

congruent then students 

become discouraged and 

unhappy and make the 

assumption the objectives 

cannot be trusted and they 

will stop paying attention 

to them. A key factor to consider with this model is that if one side of the triangle is missing, the 

learning collapses and is not effective. 

Note: Learning Activities are those things the instructional designer plans during the Design 

Phase and the student does to learn in the Implementation Phase. For example, listening to a 

lecture is a Learning Activity; engaging in a small group discussion led by a facilitator is a 

Learning Activity; evaluating a measurement instrument with a calibration technician clinician is 

a Learning Activity. 

Evaluation or Assessment (of the student, not the course) is often thought of as a testing

component. But, Assessment could also be a project assignment that is graded or otherwise 

evaluated. The important factor to consider is that whatever forms the Assessment takes, it 

Figure 4. "The Magic Triangle." Used to align Learning Objectives, 

Activities, and Assessment Methods.
PDC 2011 Final Report

Appendix C – Converting Technical Content to Training Material

PDC - C9 

should measure the student’s accomplishment and provide specific feedback to the student(s) on 

how well they met the Learning Objectives. 

Figure 5. From Bloom's to Assessment.

If you review the “Bloom’s to Assessment” graphic (Fig. 5), you can see that there are some 

activities more appropriate for some levels of learning than others. E.g., a Lecture/Test might be 

appropriate Activity and Assessment for the Knowledge level learning, but it is usually the 

lowest level of engagement and retention. A Case Study Activity and Assessment are more 

appropriate for the Application and Synthesis levels. The concept of the Magic Triangle (Fig. 4) 

should be considered when using the Learning Event Planning Worksheet (Appendix B) that we 

will also discuss later. Keep this idea in mind: the Objective, Activity, and Assessment 
PDC 2011 Final Report

Appendix C – Converting Technical Content to Training Material

PDC - C10

components are all a part of the triangle, all are essential, and all must be considered during the 

Design process. They must be selected to match the appropriate level of Bloom’s taxonomy. 

Designing Content

ANSI/IACET Criteria 7 states that: the content and instructional methods are appropriate for 

each learning outcome; content is organized in a logical manner in support of learning outcomes; 

instructional methods are consistent with learning outcomes regardless of delivery mode; and 

instructional methods accommodate various learning styles and are designed to promote 

interaction between and among learners, instructors, and learning resources to achieve the stated 

learning outcomes.

Depending on what topic is being converted to training material, a trainer might design around 

themes, chronology, or steps in a measurement process. It is important to make sure that topics 

are aligned around the objectives and to focus on ensuring that the technical content is effective 

as training material. Using a logical sequence of topics is one of the ANSI/IACET criteria and is 

important for training course development. One topic should typically build on the knowledge 

gained from previous topics or modules. 

In this mini tutorial we are taking PowerPoint®5 slide content that is “about a publication” and 

converting it to a “training resource.” If the content were not available, we would have to start 

from scratch and design and build everything. Our focus is to convert the content in such a way 

as to comply with recognized ISD education and training models. 

Techniques, teaching methods, or activities need to be selected and aligned for each of our Case 

Studies to match the Bloom’s Taxonomy level we want to achieve, as well as the KSA 

(Knowledge, Skill, Ability) we are trying to ensure the participant can KNOW or DO at the 

conclusion of the session. What are the best instructional methods that are likely to be used 

during the Implementation phases? Instructional designers must think about best instructional 

and Assessment methods during Analysis and Design to select the best activities and methods for 

teaching. They must also consider the best Assessment methods. Table 2 lists several examples 

of Teaching Activities/Methods. 

A traditional model of training that combines Activity and Assessment is Lecture, followed by a 

Test. In a co nference setting, we often only see Lectures. As you can see by reviewing the 

“Bloom’s to Assessment” graphic (Fig. 5), this approach is not very effective if you want 

participants to know or do something different. What makes it worse is that adults prefer to be 

involved in their learning and tend to hate the Lecture/Test model. What comes to mind is “death 

by PowerPoint!” This approach provides the lowest level of engagement and retention and treats 

the audience as inexperienced/non experts (though they usually do bring something to the 

learning event). During the Analysis and Design phase we must answer whether we want people 

to only be able to LIST information or be able to fully ANALYZE and APPLY the material on 

the job. In most cases, we want to see performance improvements on t he job and not simply 

improve a participant’s knowledge. 

5 The use of specific software products is not intended as an endorsement; it is simply the products that are 

commonly used in the development of training resources. 
PDC 2011 Final Report

Appendix C – Converting Technical Content to Training Material

PDC - C11

Table 2. Teaching Activities/Methods.

Activity or Method Description

Lecture Presents factual material in a direct logical method. Useful for large groups. Should only 

be used in combination with other instructional techniques, unless there is a very 

inspirational instructor and the goal is to inspire learners. Lectures must include liberal 

use of visual, auditory, and kinesthetic (physical activity) approaches. Lectures are often 

passive and learning is generally at the lowest end of Bloom’s taxonomy. 

Video Can be entertaining if selected and done well. Video can be used as part of an Activity, 

but additional instructions need to be included, such as “watch this video and take notes 

on the measurement errors you observe.”

Discussion Discussions are often started by asking open-ended questions and engaging all 

participants. They can be done in large groups, small groups, or as brainstorming 

sessions. The idea is to engage all participants. It is not practical for very large groups 

unless there is an option for breaking into smaller groups and reporting back. 

Demonstration In this method, the instructor or a member of the class might demonstrate a procedure or 

method to the rest of the class. Participants are given an idea of what something might 

look like in practice and have the opportunity to observe, ask questions, and critique. 

Exercise/Drill Perform a measurement procedure or review a specific procedure is an example of an 

exercise/drill activity. Exercises provide immediate opportunities to apply what has been 

learned. Students individually perform an experiment and then come together as a class 

to discuss the results. The hands-on application of a procedure and final expected results 

are often assessed. 

Case Study Case studies are practical examples related to the content that must also be relevant to 

the participant. Allows for application of content that has been learned and promotes 

analytical and problem solving skills. The case study must be complete enough for the 

participant to assess the entire case versus having too many unknown components that 

might simply frustrate the students (especially if the right answer is more fixed than 

students are led to believe).

Application: Selecting Activities

To convert our technical content to training materials, we need to have some creative planning. 

Having a team of designers or instructors select energetic and applicable Activities can be an art. 

This phase is often quite a challenge for no-nonsense SMEs for whom the content is obvious and 

comes easily. During the design process we need to answer: What kind of activities will help 

participants understand, implement, analyze at the levels needed? We h ave selected some 

Activities for our Case Studies below. Can you identify additional Learning Activities that might 

be fun, engaging, and effective? 

- Activities for this mini tutorial. We are making extensive use of real case studies from 

new NCSLI publications. These provide real examples of what we are trying to do. 

- Activities for RP 3, “Calibration Procedures” might include: pr ovide a procedure 

with parts missing – identify missing parts and consider the impact if they are not 

present; provide a procedure that is poorly written or unclear and consider the impact; 

provide a well written procedure, and consider what is needed to document the 

validation. 

- An Activity for RP 20, “Metrology Laboratory Workforce Planning” might include: 

perform a knowledge/skills/ability Assessment for participants (make it real for each 
PDC 2011 Final Report

Appendix C – Converting Technical Content to Training Material

PDC - C12

person) to answer the question, what would be required for succession planning to fill 

your own position. 

- An Activity for the “Metrology Human Resources Handbook” might include: bring 

your own set of job descriptions to the course to assess them against the Handbook 

criteria.

How to Ensure Learning Takes Place–Assessments

Activities and Assessment methodologies must be considered in the context of Design, but the 

instructional designer must consider how they will be Implemented for each audience. The 

ANSI/IACET Criteria 8 specifies that Assessment must take place. Procedures established 

during event planning [Design, Development] are used to assess student’s achievement of the 

learning outcomes. Learners must also be provided feedback on t heir mastery of learning

outcomes. During development we will develop the instructional content, but we must consider 

good design approaches in the Design phase. Later, Implementation also includes the Activities, 

and Assessments of whether students have mastered the topic at the expected or desired level. 

It is important to align the Assessment method with the Learning Objective and Activity as 

shown in the Magic Triangle (Fig. 4) and the “Bloom’s to Assessment” graphic (Fig. 5). For 

adult audiences, it is important to integrate Assessment into the training as much as possible 

(versus issuing a post-test). According to the ANSI/IACET criteria, each person does not have to 

be assessed on achieving each objective in a course, but sometimes that is important for issuing 

certificates of successful completion or for demonstration of competency. For example, if you 

have objectives such as “each person will successfully calculate the standard deviation and get 

100 % correct” or “each person will successfully calibrate item x during the seminar.” In those 

examples, the instructor will need to be able to review each person’s numbers or measured result 

to assess accuracy and achievement of the objectives, and also to provide feedback to the 

student. Sometimes there is also a need to assess post-event learning and application – e.g., use 

of proficiency testing for procedure training. 

To improve Assessment efficiency, and to motivate and engage students, it is important to 

provide group feedback to let them know what you learned from the Assessments and what 

difference that information will make. All Assessments need to reflect back to measurable 

Learning Objectives to determine if the student has learned the material and it is important to 

provide feedback to the student so that they know whether they have learned the material 

correctly. That is, Assessment should be more than simply correcting a quiz and returning it with 

a grade. Table 3 provides a number of Assessment Methods that may be considered. 
PDC 2011 Final Report

Appendix C – Converting Technical Content to Training Material

PDC - C13

Table 3. Assessment Methods.

Assessment Method Description

Multiple Choice A type of quiz or Assessment where the student must choose either the best answer or 

a number of answers that might be correct. Immediate review can be done to provide 

feedback. Discussion of “wrong” items often yields interesting applications that might 

not have been considered during the Analysis, Design, and Development phases. 

True False This is a simple type of quiz or Assessment that can be done orally or on paper. It can 

be done individually or in a large group setting. Right and wrong answers are usually 

provided. It can be done by raising of hands. E.g., how many of you think this 

statement is True? How many false? Can anyone give me a reason for their answer? 

Feedback might be as simple as “great job” or “here’s the correct answer.”

Fill in Blanks This type of approach can be done in a group setting and handled orally, or even in 

teams. Most often it is used in a written test and will usually only have one right 

answer. 

Essay/Reports It is more difficult to assess essays/reports in a training session unless it is several days 

long and the instructor will have time to review and grade the content. Specific 

guidance may be needed in the Developed material to ensure that an instructor or 

facilitator knows the content adequately or has adequate information on which to base 

evaluation. A “one minute” Assessment can also be useful. For example, “write down 

one thing you learned [and can apply] during this session on this index card and pass it 

in.”

Simulation The Assessment is made in each participant’s engagement, completion, and accuracy 

of the Learning Objectives and at the level of knowledge required. Job task analysis 

can help create an observational checklist. 

Case Study The application of a procedure and final expected results are often assessed. Group 

review of the final results can provide dynamic feedback or individual feedback may 

be provided to each participant. Teachers can use a checklist and observation to assess 

student success with the particular material. A minimum set of knowledge or skills can 

be included on the checklist. Job task analysis can help create an observational 

checklist. 

Role Play Specific guidance is given to the parties in the role-play and then observations and 

feedback from the group are collected. The instructor provides an overview of the 

Activity and summarizes the important components. Participants are encouraged to 

practice a role or skill. Teachers can use a checklist and observation to assess student 

success with the particular material.

Journaling Students are asked to take specific notes during the session. For example, “write down 

one key idea from this session and write down one thing you can apply back on the 

job.” The summary notes are reviewed at the end of the class either as a group or 

individually. The notes can also be used to summarize or highlight the important 

aspects of what was learned to a manager or coworker back on the job. 

The Case Study Worksheet (Appendix A) and Learning Event Planning Worksheet (Appendix 

B) use tables that can be expanded like the one shown in Table 4. These worksheets can be using 

during the Design phase to consider effective methods in training resource development. But, 

this specific portion of the worksheets (Table 4) helps align the Learning Outcomes with the 
PDC 2011 Final Report

Appendix C – Converting Technical Content to Training Material

PDC - C14

Activities and Assessment methods to ensure that all three sides of the Magic Triangle (Fig. 4) 

are aligned according to the “Bloom’s to Assessment” (Fig. 5) and that the instructional 

materials and methods will be effective. If Assessments are integrated into the Activity 

effectively, students may not realize whether they are learning or being assessed. 

Table 4. Example Learning Outcomes, Instructional Methods, and Assessment Methods.

Item Learning Outcome

Instructional Method 

(Activity) Assessment Method

Application: Matching Assessments to Activities and Learning Objectives 

- Activities and Assessment for this mini tutorial. We are making use of real case 

studies and reviewing possible Applications as we cover each Phase. Assessment will 

be done by evaluating the levels of participation and questions raised by participants. 

Feedback will be given during the session. Follow up Assessment will be done to 

determine the level at which new training materials comply with the ADDIE model 

and ANSI/IACET criteria. 

- Activities for RP 3, “Calibration Procedures” might include: pr ovide a procedure 

with parts missing – identify missing parts and consider the impact if they are not 

present; provide a procedure that is poorly written or unclear and consider the impact; 

provide a well written procedure, and consider what is needed to document the 

validation. In this case, was the participant able to identify missing items in a 

calibration procedure? This could be done through group discussions and a 

presentation with feedback from the facilitator. Assessing impact would be much 

more difficult as an Activity and one might question whether there is a list of key 

items one might consider in assessing the impact of poorly written calibration 

procedures. The content of the Assessment material must be covered in the training. 

- An Activity for RP 20, “Metrology Laboratory Workforce Planning” might include: 

perform a knowledge/skills/abilities Assessment for participants (make it real for each 

person) to answer the question, “What would be required for succession planning to 

fill your own position?” If an Activity included discussion of each phase in 

Succession Planning, and the Learning Objective was to list three of the five phases, 

an oral examination, or team competition, might be used to assess whether the 

participants understood the topic at the level expected. 

- An Activity for the “Metrology Human Resources Handbook” might include: bring 

your own set of job descriptions to the course to assess them against the Handbook 

criteria. However, the objective might have been to be able to list the three job titles 

that are in the handbook. In that case, a quiz at the end could determine if the 

participant is able to list all three job descriptions. A matching quiz could be used to 

match attributes with each job title.
PDC 2011 Final Report

Appendix C – Converting Technical Content to Training Material

PDC - C15

Developing a Lesson Plan, Agenda, Instructor’s Resources 

Once the course content is Designed, the course materials are Developed. Content that is 

developed might include an Agenda, Lesson Plan, Slides, Visual Aids, and Instructors Notes. It 

should also include any additional handouts or case study references that are not included as a 

part of the course reference materials. For example, in this mini-tutorial, we provide: a copy of 

this paper, copies of PowerPoint slides from the three Application examples, and additional 

References on a CD-ROM. We are also providing a set of PowerPoint slides (Notes version) and 

a paper copy of Appendix A for personal notes during the session. We are intentionally 

providing the Notes version because our time will be limited and we want to encourage 

participants to share this resource within their committees or with others who are developing 

training resources. Our goal is to encourage participants to implement the content at the 

Application level of Bloom’s Taxonomy. You will note that this goal was not stated as a 

Learning Objective, but is an outcome of the training that we hope will be fulfilled. 

The agenda for the mini-tutorial includes: 

- Overview of the Session (including Learning Objectives). We will ask participants to 

take notes on their own project or use the Case Study we will discuss. 

- Module 1: ADDIE ISD Process/Theory. This is presented as Lecture with Group 

Oral Assessment. 

- Module 2: ADDIE Process – Applied to One Case Study (the RP on Calibration 

Procedures). (Note: this paper provides references to three Applications, but there is 

not time to cover all three examples during the session; however, they are included in 

the Notes section of the slides/handouts.) The Five Steps of Adult Learning 

(Metrologist, July 2010) will be implemented as a part of the teaching/Activity. 

Assessment will include review of participant engagement. Are the questions 

applicable? Are groups interacting? Are new, creative ideas raised?

For a mini-tutorial that is presented in one and a half hours, we are not planning for any breaks. 

However, we want to cover the Overview and Module 1 fairly quickly so that we can ensure we 

spend the majority of our time on the Applications (Case Study). An estimated time might be 15 

minutes for an Introduction and Overview, 30 minutes for Module 1, and 45 minutes for Module 

2. 

In general, PowerPoint® provides a Notes section that can be used for instructor guidance and 

reference. During the Development, and Implementation phases, it is important to ensure that the 

notes and content are enough for a knowledgeable and skilled instructor or SME to present the 

content. What else might be needed? Are the case studies included? Will there be a compiled 

handout for participants as well as instructors? What qualifications are needed (if any) for the 

instructor/facilitator? The instructor must have a background in the instructional design process, 

but because the process is fairly simple and the notes fairly complete, a good instructor could 

feasibly review the materials and facilitate the implementation with knowledgeable SMEs. In 

fact, the content for this mini-tutorial could easily be shared by an effective Committee Chair to 

the rest of their Committee to guide the development of new training resources. 
PDC 2011 Final Report

Appendix C – Converting Technical Content to Training Material

PDC - C16

Implementation and Evaluation 

Implementation and Evaluation are the last two phases of the ADDIE model. It is arguable that 

Evaluation is last because we integrate it into each level of the process. It is beneficial to conduct 

dry-run evaluations and obtain feedback (beta testing) with instructors or SMEs to ensure the 

needs and objectives of the training material will be met. Adjustments in the content will often 

be made as the material is developed – and before the course is presented. Course evaluations 

and continual improvement (refinement) of content, objectives, activities, and Assessments also 

help to improve content over time. 

Having an evaluation program that includes overall assessment of all program components, as 

well as individual course evaluations, is an essential part of the ANSI/IACET criteria, but we 

will not spend time on those phases during the mini-tutorial. This is not to minimize their 

importance as a p art of the ADDIE process as much as it is related to the need to focus on 

Designing and Developing content in the available time. Recall what we said earlier: a cardinal 

rule is to never leave out Analysis or Evaluation from the learning event development process 

because the projects can be spotted quickly – 1) these efforts seldom work to meet learning 

objectives and 2) no one ever really figures out why.” 

Conclusions 

This paper is being presented as part of a mini-tutorial to help metrology subject matter experts 

design and develop training content that follows formal ISD models and to help comply with 

ANSI/IACET standards for Authorized Providers in NCSLI-developed training resources. The 

authors hope that this resource will be expanded and enhanced for use by NCSLI committees in 

the Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation, and Evaluation of training resources as 

well as used as a resource for converting or developing effective metrology training content. 

Acknowledgements 

The authors wish to acknowledge contributions from the Committee Chairs/Co-chairs 

(committee number provided), Gloria Neely (163), Caroline Dixon (163), and Thomas Flynn 

(176) for providing PowerPoint® slides related to each of their new publications and for 

participating in a preliminary webinar on t hese topics to provide subject matter guidance, 

Application examples, and feedback on the draft mini-tutorial presentations. 

Appendices and References

 Appendix A: Case Study Planning Worksheet 

 Appendix B: Learning Event Planning Worksheet 

 Metrologist Articles: CEU (April 2009), Train the Trainer: Writing Learning Objectives 

(April 2010), 5 S teps for Adult Learning (July 2010), Activities and Assessments 

(October 2010, draft) 

 NCSLI Website: Trainer Resources: 

http://www.ncsli.org/NCSL/learning/Trainer_Resources.aspx 
PDC 2011 Final Report

Appendix C – Converting Technical Content to Training Material

PDC - C17

Appendix A

Case Study Planning Worksheet

Title of Course/Tutorial:_________________________________

ADDIE Phase Questions and Notes

Analysis What is the need?

Who is the audience?

What standards might be referenced?

What will success look like?

Design Write Learning Objectives:

Using ____________________, participant will be able to _________________ (at this 

level_______________) after the training.

Level in Bloom’s Taxonomy?

Possible VERBS?

Match Activity – Align Assessment Method

What are some possible activities and Assessments that can be used?

Learning Objective Activity Assessment

Tools: Learning Event Planning Worksheet, “Bloom’s to Assessment”, Writing Learning Objectives Article

Develop Creating content... 

Teacher’s Manual. Slides. Case Studies. 

Often slides.... (or outline/notes)

Additional handouts? Worksheets? Case studies? 

Additional considerations: Instructor notes. Agenda. Lesson Plan. Timing/breaks. Constraints. 

Implement Step 1: Set up the Activity.

Step 2: Conduct the Activity. 

Step 3: Learners share and interpret their reactions.

Step 4: Participants identify concepts.

Step 5: Participants consider and share how they will apply these concepts.

Tools: Five Steps of Adult Learning

Evaluate 1. Evaluate each phase of the ADDIE process. 

2. Participant Assessment Methods.

3. Use of standard course evaluations.

Tools: Learning Event Planning Worksheet, “Bloom’s to Assessment”
PDC 2011 Final Report

Appendix C – Converting Technical Content to Training Material

PDC - C18

Appendix B

Sample Learning Event Planning Worksheet (used for Analysis and Design Phases)

Title:

Abstract:

Constraints:

• Instructor: 

• Time/Date: 

• Length of course: 

• Prerequisites: (e.g., previous course, downloadable reading, tasks/activities)

• Maximum number of students: 

• Minimum number of students: 

• Room set up: 

• AV Required: 

Define the audience and need for this training (e.g., laboratory management knowledge, skill, ability, standards 

such as ISO/IEC 17025, 17043, VIM, GUM, measurement parameter knowledge, skill, ability to perform 

calibrations, poor performance on proficiency tests, observed/requested needs): 

Complete this table for each course/event:

Learning Objectives6 Instructional Method (Activity)7 Assessment Method8

Agenda Outline (Include highlight agenda items and attached detailed agenda and descriptions.)

6

 Note Bloom’s Taxonomy and write from the Learner’s perspective... e.g., At the end of this session, the learner 

will be able to use “x” tool to comply with section “y” of “q” standard; will be able to name the benefits of 

complying with the standard; will be able to tell others how to select the best tools from choices given to implement 

a program. This is NOT where the instructor says “here’s what we’re going to cover.” Suitable activities and 

Assessment methods are to be used to ensure participant learning at the desired level. 7

 Think about Instructional methods and Learning activities. What are the Visual activities: observing slides, 

watching list of notes, demonstrations of documents, watching a measurement, watching a video, reading a 

procedure. What are the Auditory cues: lecture, discussion, question/answer, round the room sharing, brainstorming, 

and role-playing? What are the kinesthetic activities: making a measurement, taking time to reflect and write notes – 

journaling; sharing thoughts; reviewing and summarizing a document; note taking that includes key questions (and 

can be used for learner Assessment). Activities must be matched with Assessment method and Learning Objectives. 

8

 Think about how to provide immediate Assessment and feedback to adult learners and consider the Five Steps of 

Adult Learning. After a question directed to the group (whether they answer aloud or in writing), provide the right 

answer. Use a quick daily/hourly Quiz. Use a Q&A approach and provide answers. Ask individual participants to 

share their answers or examples. Use a competitive game. Use role-playing and have participants provide feedback 

to each other. Give immediate feedback when creating a group list by brainstorming. 
PDC 2011 Final Report

Appendix C – Converting Technical Content to Training Material

PDC - C19

Topic Time

Attendance, Group Introductions 

Course Title, Description, and Successful Completion requirements

Learning Objectives

Module 1 Objective, Activity, Assessment

Module 2 Objective, Activity, Assessment

Module 3 Objective, Activity, Assessment

Review and Closure

Course and Student Assessments
PDC 2011 Final Report

Appendix C – Converting Technical Content to Training Material

PDC - C20

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
NTEP Committee 2011 Final Report

NTEP - 1 

Report of the

National Type Evaluation Program (NTEP) Committee

Randy Jennings, Chairman

Executive Assistant

Tennessee Department of Agriculture

Reference

Key Number

500 INTRODUCTION

The National Type Evaluation Program (NTEP) Committee (hereinafter referred to as “Committee”) submits its 

report for consideration by the 96th 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 17 - 21, 2011, in Missoula, Montana. T he Committee considered communications 

received prior to and during the 96th Annual Meeting that are noted in this report.

Table A identifies the agenda and appendix items. The agenda items are listed 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 Informational 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 contains provides a glossary of acronyms used in this 

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 the National Institute of Standards and Technology (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 ...............................................................................................................................NTEP - 1

500-1 I Mutual Recognition Arrangement (MRA) ...............................................................................NTEP - 3

500-2 I Mutual Acceptance Arrangement (MAA)................................................................................NTEP - 4

500-3 I NTEP Participating Laboratories and Evaluations Reports......................................................NTEP - 6

500-4 I National Type Evaluation Technical Committee (NTETC) Sector Reports ..........................NTEP - 10

500-5 I Conformity Assessment Program...........................................................................................NTEP - 11

500-6 I NTEP Contingency ................................................................................................................NTEP - 15

500-7 I Publication 14 – NTEP Administrative Policy.......................................................................NTEP - 16
NTEP Committee 2011 Final Report

NTEP - 2 

Appendices

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

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

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

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

Appendix E. NTETC Belt-Conveyor Scale Sector Meeting Summary ..................................................... NTEP - E1

Appendix F. Mutual Recognition Agreement ........................................................................................... NTEP - F1

Table B 

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 MC Measurement Canada

DD Draft Document2 R Recommendation

DR Draft Recommendation2 SC Subcommittee

DV Draft Vocabulary2 TC Technical Committee

DoMC Declarations of Mutual Confidence UT Utilizing Participant

IP Issuing Participant WD Working Document3

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.

Table C

Voting Results

Reference Key 

Number

House of State 

Representatives House of Delegates Results

Yeas Nays Yeas Nays

500 (In its entirety) 

voice vote Passed
NTEP Committee 2011 Final Report

NTEP - 3 

Details of All Items

(In Order by Reference Key Number)

500-1 I Mutual Recognition Arrangement (MRA)

Background/Discussion: The MRA between Measurement Canada (MC) and the National Type Evaluation 

Program (NTEP) labs originated April 1, 1994. S ince that time, the original MRA has expanded, and a s econd 

MRA covering measuring devices has been developed. T he MRA pursuant to weighing devices will expire in 

January 2011, and the MRA for measuring devices will expire in July 2011. The NTEP Committee and members of 

the Board of Directors have been actively engaged with MC over the past two years to develop a new agreement that 

will continue our relationship with MC by formalizing an updated MRA that meets the needs of both the NCWM 

and MC, and includes both weighing and measuring devices in one document. 

The scope of the current MRA’s includes:

• gasoline and diesel dispensers; 

• high-speed dispensers; 

• gasoline and diesel meters intended to be used in fuel dispensers and truck refuelers; 

• electronic computing and non-computing bench, counter, floor, and platform scales with a capacity up to 

1000 kg (2000 lb); 

• weighing/load receiving elements with a capacity of up to 1000 kg (2000 lb); 

• electronic weight indicating elements (except those that are software based, i.e., programmed by 

downloading parameters); and

• mechanical scales up to 10 000 kg (20 000 lb). 

As part of this evaluation process, the NTEP 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 MC expressed 

willingness to consider a proposal from the NCWM. The NTEP Administrator opened communication with MC 

with a recommendation to expand the MRA to include electronic platform scales up to 14 000 kg (30 000 lb). The 

current limit is 1000 kg. If the limit was expanded to just platform scales (i.e., not including hoppers, OBWS, IIIL), 

it appeared the only addition to what is required during an evaluation would be the field permanence test criteria 

(Pub 14, DES Sections 62.22., 63.7., 64.3., and 64.4.). Upon discussion with MC type evaluation personnel, other 

issues surfaced: a) MC tests some weighing elements up to 10 000 kg in the lab, applying influence factor 

requirements (power, temperature, EMI, etc). There is a size limit of 1.6 m x 1.6 m. NTEP has a lab test limit of 

1000 kg and some of the chambers will not accommodate the larger weighing elements; and MC does not apply the 

minimum 20 day use limit for field permanence tests to field performance tests for “cost factor” reasons (i.e., they 

want to avoid a second visit to the site). MC initially had a 20 day use requirement. But replaced it with a 300 

weighments test at half capacity and acquired equipment to have the permanence test conducted in their laboratory. 

Based upon this information, taking the current workload of the weighing labs and current economic conditions into 

consideration, NTEP does not plan to move forward with the expansion of the MRA to include larger capacity 

weighing devices at this time. Additionally, U.S. manufacturers requested that the Committee consider expanding 

the MRA to include Automatic Weighing Systems (AWS) and Multiple Dimension Measuring Devices (MDMD). 

The requests were discussed by the MC and the NCWM Board members. Expansion to include AWS was deemed 

inappropriate at this time because of significant differences in requirements. The inclusion of MDMD is under 

consideration. NTEP is working to identify differences between the United States and Canada technical 

requirements and test procedures.

At the NCWM Annual meeting in July 2010, the NCWM Chairman and Chair-elect as well as the NTEP Chair and 

Administrator met with Measurement Canada (MC) President and Vice-President and it was agreed to consider 

possible expansion of the MRA for multiple-dimension measuring devices (MDMD). It was also agreed that further 

information was needed before a decision could be made on such an expansion. 

The NTEP Committee was asked to identify the differences between Canadian and United States requirements, 

procedures, and practices regarding the type approval evaluation of MDMDs. T he NTEP MDMD Work Group 

began this task at the December 2010 meeting.
NTEP Committee 2011 Final Report

NTEP - 4 

NTEP also requested that tests conducted at manufacturers’ premises under the supervision of an NTEP evaluator be 

included in the scope of the MRA. MC expressed the desire to keep these evaluations outside the scope of the MRA 

for scales, load receiving elements, and electronic weight indicating elements. 

In order to allow MC and the NCWM to review the NTEP MDMD work group analysis, MC President, Mr. Alan 

Johnston, and NCWM Chairman, Mr. Tim Tyson, signed a six-month extension agreement to the MRA for 

weighing devices at the Interim Meeting in January 2011. 

The NTEP Committee continued working with MC to develop a n ew "combined" agreement and to explore the 

possibility of expanding the scope to include Multiple Dimension Measuring Devices (MDMD) and higher capacity 

scales. Technical obstacles have taken both MDMD and higher capacity scales off the table for now, but NTEP and 

MC remain committed to continue to discuss expansion.

NTEP also requested that tests conducted at manufacturers' premises under the supervision of an NTEP evaluator be 

included in the scope of the MRA. MC expressed the desire to keep these evaluations outside the scope of the MRA 

for scales, load receiving elements, and electronic weight indicating elements. 

MC, NTEP, and all of our mutual stakeholders agree that the MRA is a benefit for the North American weights and 

measures industry. Therefore, the NTEP Committee was proud to see the signing of a new MRA on Tuesday, July 

19th, by NCWM Chairman, Mr. Tyson, and Measurement Canada President, Mr. Johnston, that combines the 

weighing and measuring devices into one document and provides for continued cooperation between the two 

organizations and continuation of the beneficial partnership. The new MRA will be effective for five years. A copy 

of the signed MRA is included with this report, see Appendix F.

500-2 I Mutual Acceptance Arrangement (MAA)

Background/Discussion: Information regarding the International Organization of Legal Metrology (OIML) Mutual 

Acceptance Agreement (MAA) can be found at www.oiml.org/maa. The NCWM has signed the OIML MAA 

DoMC for R 60 Load Cells as a utilizing participant. A Utilizing Participant is a participant which does not issue 

any OIML Certificates of Conformity (CC) nor OIML Test Reports and/or Test Reports under a DoMC but which 

utilizes the reports issued by Issuing Participants.

The OIML Technical Subcommittee for TC 3/SC 5 “Conformity assessment” is revising the following OIML 

B documents that are classified as Basic Publications:

• OIML B 3, “OIML Certificate System for Measuring Instruments;” and 

• A combined revision of OIML B 10-1, “Framework for a Mutual Acceptance Arrangement on OIML Type 

Evaluations,” and OIML B 10-2, “Checklists for Issuing Authorities and Testing Laboratories carrying out 

OIML Type Evaluations.”

A 2 CD of B 3 and a 1 CD of the combined B 10 revision were distributed to TC 3/SC 5 “Conformity assessment”

in December 2009. Comments were requested by April 30, 2010, in advance of a TC 3/SC 5 meeting planned for 

October 2010.

Plans to revise the OIML B 3 and B 10 documents are proceeding (the present revision will not incorporate the 

inclusion of test data from MTLs into B 10, but will keep it in B 3). It has recently been clarified by a TC 3/SC 5 

member who wants to include test data from Manufacturers Testing Laboratories (MTLs) into B 10 that the data is 

not obtained under “unsupervised” conditions, but rather under conditions of “controlled supervision,” meaning that, 

at a minimum, 1) a thorough review of the manufacturer’s quality system has been performed; 2) the manufacturer 

has an independent testing laboratory that reports to the highest management level of the organization; 3) the Issuing 

Authority must be notified before any type approval tests are begun; 4) the Issuing Authority must be allowed to 

observe any and all testing on a short-notice basis; 5) the Issuing Authority is entitled to repeat any tests that it 

deems necessary, either at the manufacturing facility or at its own laboratory, at the manufacturer’s expense; plus 6) 

possibly other requirements. In addition, the Issuing Authority (Issuing Participant) would take all responsibility for 

any test data it obtained from the manufacturer. It would not be required, however, that the Issuing Authority be 
NTEP Committee 2011 Final Report

NTEP - 5 

present at the MTL for all of the testing. The NCWM has already determined that NTEP will not accept test data 

from manufacturers unless there was an Issuing Authority representative on-site at the manufacturer’s site to 

supervise 100 % of the testing.

Dr. Charles Ehrlich attended the TC 3/SC 5 meeting held October 2010 in France. The meeting had two intended 

objectives: 1) to further the process of incorporating necessary revisions to the two main documents pertaining to 

the OIML Certificate System for Type Evaluation (OIML B 3 on the OIML Basic Certificate System, and OIML 

B 10 on the OIML MAA; and 2) to further the possibility of permitting under the MAA the use of test data that is 

obtained directly from instrument manufacturers. 

The revisions of B 3 and B 10 are necessary in order to update these documents to incorporate lessons learned over 

the last several years during the startup phase of the MAA. Revising the documents also permits their 

“harmonization,” in the sense that the MAA is now seen as an extension of the Basic Certificate System, and so it is 

necessary to better clarify how the two systems work together, yet separately. The meeting focused on addressing 

some specific comments that had been submitted on draft revisions of B 3 and B 10 that had been circulated prior to 

the meeting. T opics discussed included legal obligations of authorities that issue OIML certificates, whether to 

combine all of the individual signed arrangements under the MAA into one master document, confidentiality of 

reports submitted to the Committees on Participation Review (CPRs) that decide which testing laboratories can 

participate in the MAA system, equity of the processes used for accreditation, or peer review of the testing 

laboratories, the number of participants required to begin an arrangement for a particular category of instrument, and 

several issues related to ownership of OIML Certificates (e.g., withdrawal and transfer of certificates). Revised 

drafts of the B 3 and B 10 documents were developed by the conclusion of the meeting, and will be circulated (along 

with responses to the comments) by the Secretariat to TC 3/SC 5 members for vote, with the objective of having 

final documents submitted to the International Committee on Legal Metrology (CIML) for their vote at the next 

CIML Meeting (October 2011).

The issue of whether to allow test data from manufacturers’ test laboratories (MTLs) into the MAA has been 

contentious. The practice of utilizing test data from MTLs to issue national or regional type approval certificates has 

been used fairly successfully for many years in parts of Europe, but seems to be opposed in many other parts of the 

world, including by the NCWM. The NCWM continues to state its current position that NTEP will not accept test 

data from manufacturers unless there is an Issuing Authority representative on-site at the manufacturer’s site to 

supervise 100 % of the testing.

At the January 2011 Interim Meeting, the NTEP Committee reviewed four items related to the revisions of B 3 and 

B 10: (1) housekeeping revisions to Document B 3; (2) housekeeping revisions to B 10; (3) revisions to B 10 that 

would incorporate provisions under which manufacturers’ test data would be accepted under the MA, and (4) a 

resolution of compromise whereby countries may voluntarily accept manufacturers' test data. The NTEP Committee 

recommended that the Board of Directors authorize the U.S. Representative to vote YES on items (1) and (2), NO 

on item (3), and YES on item (4) with a qualifying statement that the United States would not accept any MAA 

certificates based on manufactures’ test data. The Board of Directors voted to support all of the recommendations 

from the NTEP Committee.

During the Annual Meeting, Dr. Chuck Ehrlich gave an update of current international activities. He reported that 

OIML held a two-day seminar in June 2011, in Utrecht, The Netherlands, to explore whether there is a role that 

OIML might play in an international conformity to type (CTT) program. The first day of the two-day seminar was 

devoted to formal presentations related to the topic. Presentations were provided by ISO and IEC on their 

conformity assessment programs, by United States (Mr. Don Onwiler), European, and Australian experts to discuss 

CTT programs in use in their countries/regions, by United States (Mr. Darrell Flocken) and European manufacturers 

to get their perspectives on the needs for, and likely success of, an OIML CTT program, and by a representative 

(from New Zealand) of the Asia Pacific Legal Metrology Program (APLMF) providing perspectives from that 

region. At the conclusion of the presentations, some participants indicated they had not realized how far the U.S. 

CTT program had come, and seemed glad to learn that it was operating and could possibly serve as a good model for 

others (while recognizing, of course, that NCWM/NIST documents/requirements, and not OIML Recommendations 

are used as the basis of the program).
NTEP Committee 2011 Final Report

NTEP - 6 

The second day of the seminar was devoted to discussing issues raised during the first day, including ”What is the 

problem needing to be solved by an OIML CTT program?”, better clarification of concepts and terminology, and 

defining the scope of what an OIML CTT program might cover. The initial discussion focused on elaborating 

between the concepts of a complete CTT program that includes both initial verification and market surveillance, and 

what Mr. Onwiler characterized as a P erformance to Type program (PTT) that looks only at compliance of 

production instruments that have not left the manufacturer’s site. It was decided that any OIML program should be 

of the PTT rather than the CTT variety, since the latter is too broad in scope for OIML to handle, at least at the start. 

After additional discussion concerning what OIML might possibly be able to provide, it was decided that the best 

starting point for OIML would be the development of an OIML Document, similar to D 1 (Model Law on 

Metrology) that could serve as a best-practices document, which other countries/regions might try to emulate. The 

Document would describe the United States, European, Australian (for water meters) and possibly other systems. 

This will be discussed at a follow-up workshop being held in conjunction with the next meeting of the International 

Committee of Legal Metrology (CIML) in Prague in October, 2011.

The NTEP Committee also heard concerns from U.S. manufacturers that some foreign labs authorized to conduct 

tests and issue MAA certificates, have stated they cannot test load cells to Handbook 44, Class IIIL requirements. 

The Committee acknowledges there may be some confusion that needs to be addressed. The next OIML meeting of 

the Committee on Participation Review (CPR) addressing the maintenance and renewal of the R 60 DoMC is 

scheduled to be held September 21 - 23, 2011, in Germany. The NCWM Board of Directors has authorized the 

NTEP Administrator to attend the meeting and explore the issues.

500-3 I NTEP Participating Laboratories and Evaluations Reports 

Background: During the 2010 Annual Meeting, Mr. Jim Truex, NTEP Administrator, updated the Committee on 

NTEP laboratory and administrative activities. 

The NTEP weighing and measuring laboratories held a j oint meeting March 22 - 26, 2010, in Sacramento, 

California. The NTEP weighing laboratories met again in August 2010, prior to the meeting of the Weighing Sector 

in Columbus, Ohio, and the NTEP measuring laboratories met once more in October 2010, prior to the Measuring 

Sector meeting in Columbia, South Carolina. 

During the Interim Meeting, Mr. Truex reported to the Committee that incoming applications remain comparable to 

normal. He reported there is no backlog concern for measuring devices and the brick and mortar weighing labs at 

this time. Updated NTEP laboratory statistics will be provided to the membership at the NCWM Annual Meeting.

2011 NTEP Meetings: 

• NTETC Belt-Conveyor Sector February 23 - 24, 2011 St. Louis, Missouri 

• NTETC Software Sector Meeting March 15 - 16, 2011 Annapolis, Maryland 

• NTEP Laboratory Meeting March 28 - April 1 , 2011 Annapolis, Maryland

• NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector August 24 - 25, 2011 Kansas City, Missouri

• NTETC Weighing Sector August 30 - September 1, 2011 Sacramento, California

• NTETC Measuring Sector October 21-22, 2011 Norfolk, Virginia

The Committee previously announced plans to conduct a survey of NTEP customers and NTEP laboratories 

regarding customer service. The Board plans to use the results of the survey to form a continuous improvement plan 

for NTEP. A small WG was formed to get the project rolling. The resulting draft was presented to the Board of 

Directors during the 2011 Annual Meeting in Montana. Like with any survey, the challenge is to develop a 

document that is concise enough that customers will respond, while also providing a meaningful set of data. The 

survey is expected to be ready for release to all active CC holders within the next six months.
NTEP Committee 2011 Final Report

NTEP - 7 

The NTEP Committee reviewed the following NTEP statistics.

NTEP Statistics Report

General NTEP Statistics 2009 - 2010 2010 - 2011 *Grand Total 

10/01/09 - 6/30/10 10/01/10 - 6/30/11 10/1/00 - 6/30/11

Total Applications Processed (6) 174 (41) 209 (188) 2850

Applications Completed 218 206 2567

New Certificates Issued 197 191 2297

Active NTEP Certificates on 6/30/2011 1797 

( ) = Reactivations

Assignments to Labs per Year 10/1/09 - 9/30/10 10/1/10 - 6/30/11 10/1/00 - 6/30/11

California (1) 29 (1) 15 (15) 379

Canada 7 7 (4) 35

GIPSA-DC 1 0 15

GIPSA-KC 6 7 75

Kansas 13 7 (9) 65

Maryland (4) 44 (6) 22 (19) 289

New York (2) 8 1 (17) 161

NIST Force Group (1) 14 8 82

North Carolina 13 (2) 14 (4) 94

Ohio 31 39 (15) 733

NTEP Staff 70 (1) 96 (9) 711

Applications Not Yet Assigned to a Lab 4 

( ) = Reassignments from another lab

Process Statistics 2010 - 2011 2000 - 2011

Average Time to Assign an Evaluation 5 Days 10 Days

Average Time to Complete an 

Evaluation 144 Days
NTEP Committee 2011 Final Report

NTEP - 8 

Report on NTEP Evaluations in Progress 

Evaluations in 

Progress 0 - 3 Months 3 - 6 Months 6 - 9 Months 9 - 12 Months Over 1 Year Total

April 2009 58 29 27 17 36 167 

June 2009 48 27 17 12 29 133 

October 2009 41 33 18 12 33 137 

December 2009 45 30 22 12 28 137 

March 31, 2010 24 20 18 19 23 104 

June 30, 2010 37 12 11 13 24 97 

October 30, 2010 40 30 8 8 20 106 

December 31, 2010 39 25 22 5 20 111 

March 31, 2011 37 27 13 19 17 107 

June 30, 2011 47 20 7 7 21 102

In Progress by Lab 0 - 3 Months 3 - 6 Months 6 - 9 Months 9 - 12 Months Over 1 Year Total

California 7 5 1 4 9 26 

Canada 2 3 1 0 1 7 

GIPSA-DC 0 0 0 0 0 0 

GIPSA-KC 5 0 1 0 1 7 

Kansas 5 1 0 0 3 9 

Maryland 9 2 0 2 3 16 

New York 0 0 0 0 0 0 

NIST Force Group 2 4 1 1 2 10 

North Carolina 2 1 1 0 0 4 

Ohio 6 4 2 0 2 14 

NTEP Staff 9 0 0 0 0 9 

Total Pending: 102
NTEP Committee 2011 Final Report

NTEP - 9 

Report on NTEP Applications Received by Quarter 

Applications 01 - 02 02 - 03 03 - 04 04-05 05 - 06 06-07 07 - 08 08 - 09 09 - 10 10 - 11

Oct – Dec 81 59 59 58 47 55 56 76 71 58

Jan – Mar 99 62 55 62 74 63 54 105 42 69

Apr – Jun 54 76 68 65 71 64 54 64 61 82

Jul - Sep 38 59 44 70 48 64 63 61 56

Total 272 256 226 255 240 246 227 306 230 209

Average Per Quarter Overall: 63.3

Average Per Quarter This FY: 69.7

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11

Oct. - Dec. Jan. - March April - June July - Sept.
NTEP Committee 2011 Final Report

NTEP - 10

500-4 I National Type Evaluation Technical Committee (NTETC) Sector Reports

Background/Discussion: The Committee is happy to report that all National Type Evaluation Technical 

Committee (NTETC) Sector reports were available to members at the time Pub 15 was published, and is committed 

to insuring that electronic versions of Sector reports are available with Pub 15 in the future. Please note that the 

Sector reports will only be available in the electronic version of Pub 15; it will not be available in the printed 

versions of Pub 15. (NIST/WMD –www.nist.gov/pml/wmd/index.cfm and NCWM – www.ncwm.net)

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 25 - 26, 2010. A draft of the final summary 

was provided to the Committee, prior to the 2011 NCWM Interim Meeting for review and approval.

The next meeting of the Grain Moisture Meter and NIR Protein Analyzer Sectors is scheduled for 

August 24 - 25, 2011, 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: 

Ms. Diane Lee Mr. 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: barber.jw@comcast.net

e-mail: diane.lee@nist.gov

Measuring Sector: The NTETC Measuring Sector met October 1 - 2, 2010, in Charleston, South Carolina. A draft 

of the final summary was provided to the NTEP Committee prior to the 2011 NCWM Interim Meeting for review 

and approval.

The next meeting of the Measuring Sector is scheduled to be held in Norfolk, Virginia, October 21 - 22, 2011, in 

conjunction with the Southern Weights and Measures Association’s 2011 Annual Meeting. Tina Butcher announced 

that the NIST WMD has assigned a new Sector Technical Advisor for 2011, Mr. Marc Buttler. For questions on the 

current status of Sector work, or to propose items for a future meeting, please contact the Sector Technical Advisor: 

Ms. Tina Butcher Mr. Marc Buttler

NIST WMD NIST WMD

100 Bureau Drive, Stop 2600 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 2600

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2600 Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2600

Phone: (301) 975-2196 Phone: (301) 975-4615

Fax: (301) 975-8091 Fax: (301) 975-8091

e-mail: tbutcher@nist.gov e-mail: marc.buttler@nist.gov

Software Sector: The NTETC Software Sector met March 2 - 3, 2010, in Sacramento, California. A final draft of 

the meeting summary was provided to the Committee, prior to the 2011 NCWM Interim Meeting for review and 

approval.

The next meeting of the Software Sector is scheduled for March 15 - 16, 2011, in Annapolis, Maryland. 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:
NTEP Committee 2011 Final Report

NTEP - 11

Mr. Jim Pettinato Mr. Norm Ingram Mr. 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 August 31 - September 2, 2010, in Columbus, Ohio. A final 

draft of the meeting summary was provided to the Committee, prior to the 2011 NCWM Interim Meeting for review 

and approval.

The next Weighing Sector meeting is scheduled for August 30 - September 1, 2011, in Sacramento, California. Tina 

Butcher announced that the NIST WMD has assigned a new Sector Technical Advisor for 2011, Mr. Richard 

Harshman. For questions on t he current status of Sector work or to propose items for a f uture meeting, please 

contact the Sector Technical Advisor: 

Mr. Rick Harshman

NIST WMD

100 Bureau Drive, Stop 2600

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2600

Phone: (301) 975-8107

Fax: (301) 975-8091

e-mail: richard.harshman@nist.gov

Belt-Conveyor Scale Sector: The NTETC Belt-Conveyor Scale Sector met February 24 - 25, 2009, in St. Louis, 

Missouri. A final draft of the meeting summary was provided to the Committee, prior to the 2010 NCWM Interim 

Meeting for review and approval.

The next meeting of the Belt Conveyor Scale sector is scheduled for February 23 - 24, 2011, in St. Louis, Missouri. 

For questions on the current status of Sector work or to propose items for a future meeting, please contact the Sector 

Technical Advisor: 

Mr. John Barton

NIST WMD

100 Bureau Drive, Stop 2600

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2600

Phone: (301) 975-4002

Fax: (301) 975-8091

e-mail: john.barton@nist.gov

The NTEP Committee reviewed and approved all 2010 NTETC Sector reports during the Interim Meeting. The 

Committee also reviewed and approved a report of the Multiple Dimension Measuring Device Work Group from 

their meeting held December 7 - 8, 2010. The Northeast region was represented by Mr. Mark Coyne due to the 

absence of Mr. Sikula.

500-5 I Conformity Assessment Program

Background/Discussion: 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). T his item is included on the Committee’s 

agenda to provide an update on these elements.
NTEP Committee 2011 Final Report

NTEP - 12

Certificate Review: Certificates are constantly under review by NTEP staff and laboratories. M any active 

certificates are amended annually, because of manufacturer submission for evaluation or issues reported by the 

states pertaining to information on the certificate. When the devices are re-evaluated and certificates are amended, 

the information is reviewed and necessary steps are taken to assure compliance and accurate, thorough information 

is reported on the certificate.

In an effort to keep certificate information up to date, the NTEP Committee offered, during the CC annual 

maintenance fee invoice period, an opportunity for active certificate holders to update contact information that is

contained in the “Submitted By” on c ertificates during the payment period with the payment of their annual 

maintenance fee. Many CC holders have taken advantage of the opportunity.

Initial Verification (IV): The IV initiative is ongoing. Field enforcement officials perform an initial 

inspection and test on new installations on a routine basis. The Committee recognized that the states do not want IV

reporting to be cumbersome. 

An IV report form has been developed. The Committee wanted to have a simple form, perhaps web based for use 

by the state and local regulators. The form has been approved by the Committee and distributed to the states. A 

completed form can be submitted via mail, e-mail, fax, or online. The form is available to regulatory officials who

are members of the NCWM online at www.ncwm.net/content/initial_verification_report. 

Verified Conformity Assessment Program (VCAP): The NCWM and NTEP have been concerned about 

production meeting type, protecting the integrity of the NTEP CC since the inception of NTEP. Load cells traceable 

to NTEP certificates have been selected for the initial effort. All holders of NTEP CCs for load cells have been 

notified.

The NCWM Board of Directors reconfirmed its belief that conformity assessment is vital to NTEP’s continued 

success and will be implemented. VCAP Audit Reports for manufacturers with load cell certificates were due no 

later than June 30, 2010. VCAP Audit Reports for private label certificate holders were due no later than 

November 30, 2010. VCAP for load cells will occur according to the final timelines below. 

NTEP VCAP Timeline – Load Cell Manufacturer Certificate Holders

Jul 2008 – Ongoing Jan 2009 – Jun 2010 Jan 2010 – Sep 2010 Jul 2010 – May 2011 May 2011

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 

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.
NTEP Committee 2011 Final Report

NTEP - 13

NTEP VCAP Timeline – Load Cell Private Label Certificate Holders

Jul 2008 – ongoing Jan 2009 – Nov 2010 Jun 2010 – Mar 2011 Dec 2010 – May 2011 Nov 2011

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 

CCs declared 

inactive if CC 

holder fails to 

meet VCAP

Answer incoming 

questions

Insure 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.

The NCWM decided to require a systems audit checklist that is to be completed by an outside auditor, and submitted 

to the NCWM per Section 2.5 of the VCAP requirements. A “VCAP Systems Audit Checklist for Manufacturers” 

and a “VCAP Systems Audit Checklist for Private Label Certificate Holders” have been developed and are available 

on the NCWM website at www.ncwm.net. 

In 2010, the NCWM revised requirements for private label CC holder audits and auditors. A new checklist for 

private label certificate holders was developed and distributed. The requirements for the Certification Body and 

VCAP auditor were changed to require an “ISO auditor.” Clarification was requested to avoid confusion by private 

label auditors. The Committee added clarification language to the introduction section of the private label checklist. 

Additionally, the Committee developed a new NCWM Publication 14 (Pub 14), Administrative Policy to distinguish 

between the requirements for parent NTEP certificate holders (S.1.c.) and private label certificate holders. T he 

requirements in S.1.d. track the private label checklist requirements; traceability to parent NTEP CC, traceability of 

the private label cell to a VCAP audit, purchase and sales records, plan to report non-conforming product and nonconforming product in stock, plan to conduct internal audits to verify non-compliance action, and internal audit 

records. 

Proposed S.1.d. NTEP Verified Conformity Assessment Program (VCAP) Procedures for Private Label 

Certificate Holders

Introduction

Many NTEP Certified devices must meet NIST Handbook 44 (HB 44), Specifications, Tolerances, and Other 

Technical Requirements for Weighing and Measuring Devices, 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 HB 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.

For weighing devices that are subject to influence factors, traceable to a private label NTEP Certificate of 

Conformance, NTEP will require the private label certificate holder to verify that the parent certificate holder 

has complied with VCAP requirements, has a cu rrent VCAP audit certificate, the VCAP certification is 

traceable back to the parent NTEP certificate, and the parent certificate is active.

Devices that Must Meet this Requirement are Limited to the List Below:

• Load Cell (T.N.8.)

• Indicating Elements (T.N.8.)

• Weighing/Load Receiving Elements with non-NTEP Load Cells (T.N.8.)
NTEP Committee 2011 Final Report

NTEP - 14

• Complete Scales (T.N.8.)

• Automatic Weighing Systems (T.7.)

• Belt-Conveyor Scales (T.3)

• Automatic Bulk Weighing Systems (T.7.)

Requirements:

1. The Private label NTEP CC Holder's Responsibilities:

1.1 Documentation is available to show that all private label certificates are traceable back to a parent 

certificate holder(s).

1.2 All parent certificates are active.

1.3 Records are records available to show the private label certificate holder has confirmed that the 

supplier has a current VCAP audit meeting applicable requirements.

1.4 The private label certificate holder’s purchase and sales records verify that no other supplier is 

providing the product listed on the NTEP certificate.

1.5 The supplier’s sales records agree with the private label certificate holder’s purchasing records.

1.6 The private label certificate holder has a plan in place to report non-conformance to the supplier.

1.7 The private label certificate holder has a plan in place to address non-conforming devices already sold 

or in stock.

1.8 The private label certificate holder has a p lan in place to conduct internal audits to verify nonconformance action. Internal audits shall be conducted at established intervals, not to exceed one year.

1.9 Surveillance audits for VCAP conducted by an outside auditor representing a certification body must 

be completed. The surveillance audits will be conducted every three years until objective evidence is 

obtained to move to a maximum of every five years.

1.10 The NTEP private label CC holder shall take corrective action within 90 days of non-conformances 

sited by the auditor. 

1.11 All records and plans shall be made available to the VCAP auditor.

2. Certification Body's Responsibilities:

2.1. The selected Certification Body (auditor) shall be accredited to the ISO 9001:2008 standard for 

providing audits and certifications of management systems.

2.2. The Certification Body is required to notify NCWM when a major breakdown of the NTEP private 

label CC holder's VCAP program is found.

2.3. The Certification Body shall submit a completed “VCAP Systems Audit Checklist for Private Label 

Certificate Holders” to NCWM. Submitted documentation must contain a clear statement of

compliance as a result of the VCAP audit.
NTEP Committee 2011 Final Report

NTEP - 15

3. NCWM Responsibilities:

3.1. For new certificate holders, ensure that VCAP certification has been completed within a one year cycle 

of the first maintenance fee, but not to exceed 18 months (example: if NTEP certified in July 2011. 

VCAP certification would be required by November 2012).

3.2. As part of annual maintenance, NCWM shall ensure that VCAP audit reports are on file, current, and 

that all non-conformances have been addressed.

3.3. Ensure that an appeals process is in place and made available to Certificate holders. [Note: The appeal 

and review process contained in section T. of this document shall be used.]

Current Comment: At the Interim Meeting, the Committee heard no opposition to the proposed S.1.d. section to 

NCWM Publication 14, Administrative Policy. It was recommended that the citation of the ISO 9001 standard be 

updated to reflect the updated 2008 standard, which has been changed in subsection 2.1. The NTEP Committee was 

again asked to announce which device(s) will be next after load cells. Comments from the membership also urged 

the NTEP Committee to look at what issues surfaced, based upon the load cell VCAP initiative, and how we can 

improve VCAP before moving on to the next phase. 

During the Annual Meeting open hearing, the NTEP Committee announced that the next device category under 

consideration is weighing/load receiving elements, 2000 lb capacity and less using load cells that are not traceable to 

their own NTEP certificate. The NTEP Committee would like to receive comments from the membership so that the 

NTEP Committee can identify and understand any concerns before a f inal decision is made and timetable 

established.

The NTEP Committee heard comments from several manufacturers pertaining to VCAP and the next device 

category. The Committee expects there will be additional questions and is considering the need to form a VCAP 

committee to discuss the issues. However, the NTEP Committee would like to have a better understanding of the 

specific questions and concerns. Certificate holders and other interested parties are encouraged to submit written 

questions to the NTEP Committee so decisions can be made regarding the need for a VCAP Committee and, if 

needed, the make-up of the group.

500-6 I NTEP Contingency 

Source: NTEP Committee

Purpose: NTEP Contingency, to keep NTEP operating and ensure NTEP services are available at an adequate 

level. T he NTEP Committee wants to ensure there is an appropriate number of laboratories and personnel 

(evaluators) to maintain viable support for NTEP services, including MRAs, MAAs, and potentially to be an R 76 

Issuing Participant.

Item Under Consideration: 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 continue to discuss these issues during a long-range planning session and welcomes 

comments from the membership.

Issues under consideration include should the NCWM: 

1. Employ NTEP evaluators to conduct testing at manufacturer’s facilities?

2. Have evaluators under contract to conduct testing at manufacturer’s facilities?

3. Employ NTEP evaluators or have evaluators under contract to assist the state NTEP laboratories?

4. Have a brick and mortar NTEP laboratory and NTEP evaluators?
NTEP Committee 2011 Final Report

NTEP - 16

5. Use a private third party laboratory to conduct NTEP evaluations?

The Committee heard testimony expressing support and concerns pertaining to the options. Several stated that the 

Committee should consider adding OIML MAA participation as a Utilizing Participant to the list. Another urged 

the Committee to continue working on the idea of NCWM NTEP evaluators, an NCWM NTEP lab, and keeping all 

options open. One member asked the Committee to consider accepting manufacturer compliance data in lieu of 

hiring NTEP contractors. A nother suggestion from the floor was to consider beefing up and utilizing “Initial 

Verification” as part of the NTEP process. A representative of a state brick and mortar NTEP laboratory asked the 

Committee to move cautiously forward and not destroy the state NTEP labs. H e expressed concern that the 

establishment of an NCWM/NTEP brick and mortar lab could lead to significant legal complications for the states.

Current Comment: The NTEP Committee wants the membership to know that, at this time, the preferred course 

of action would be the evaluators under contract option. The Committee recognizes the commitment states with 

NTEP laboratories have made over the years, and would only resort to contingency measures in the event of a severe 

loss of state lab resources. Labs are handling current demand without a need for contingency measures. The 

Committee continues to keep NTEP contingency a top priority and watch over the status of the laboratories.

500-7 I Publication 14 – NTEP Administrative Policy

Source: NTEP Committee

Purpose: The NTEP Committee feels that it in the best interest of the program to amend the NTEP Administrative 

Policy to make it clear that the manufacturers/CC holders are obligated to meet current HB 44 requirements, 

regardless of when the devices covered by the NTEP certificate(s) were evaluated and the certificate was issued.

Item Under Consideration: Amend sections D.2., J.1.a, R. and S. as follows.

Amend Section D.2. to read:

D.2. Responsibility for Reporting Occurrence of Modification

When a manufacturer or other certificate holder makes changes to a certified type, evaluation of the 

modification may be necessary. Manufacturers and other certificate holders are responsible for 

iensuring compliance of the production devices to NIST Handbook 44. When changes to NIST 

Handbook 44 are adopted by the NCWM that affect the device traceable to an NTEP certificate, 

devices produced after the effective date must meet the current applicable Handbook 44 

requirements. The manufacturer must report changes that might require the attention of NTEP. The 

decision to report changes is dictated by the metrological significance of the modification. 

a. Notification of Change

The manufacturer or other certificate holder notifies NTEP that a change to a certified device has 

been made or is contemplated. The manufacturer may make judgments concerning the modifications 

and request issuance of an approval of a modification, by citing the existing Certificate of 

Conformance, detailing the changes, giving any data, analysis, and conclusions concerning the 

technical or metrological consequences of the changes. 

b. NTEP Options

On the basis of the manufacturer's or other certificate holder's notification, NTEP will decide 

whether or not to require an evaluation for approving the modification or issuance of a n ew 

Certificate of Conformance. NTEP will inform the manufacturer certificate holder accordingly.
NTEP Committee 2011 Final Report

NTEP - 17

Amend Section J.1.a to read:

J.1. Re-evaluation to Verify Compliance

NTEP may decide to re-evaluate a previously evaluated type, whether or not a Certificate of 

Conformance has been issued. Re-evaluation must be justified based on considerations such as the 

following:

a. Manufacturers and other certificate holders are responsible for iensuring compliance of the 

production devices to NIST Handbook 44. When changes to NIST Handbook 44 are adopted 

by the NCWM that affect the device traceable to an NTEP certificate, devices produced after 

the effective date must meet the current applicable Handbook 44 requirements. That is, 

Ddevices manufactured after the effective date of any new non-retroactive regulations must meet the 

new requirements; devices manufactured prior to the effective date of such regulations must meet 

retroactive requirements only. 

Amend Section R to read:

R. Post Evaluation Responsibility of Manufacturer Certificate Holder

As a result of requesting an evaluation and accepting an NTEP Certificate of Conformance, the 

manufacturer implicitly claims that all devices manufactured as the type referenced in the Certificate of 

Conformance are the same type. Manufacturers and other certificate holders are responsible for 

iensuring compliance of the production devices to NIST Handbook 44. When changes to NIST 

Handbook 44 are adopted by the NCWM that affect the device traceable to an NTEP certificate, 

devices produced after the effective date must meet the current applicable Handbook 44 

requirements. The certificate holder may be responsible for reporting modifications to NTEP, per 

section D.2.a. NTEP does not normally require re-evaluation for technical requirement changes to 

NIST Handbook 44 per section J.1.a. as compliance can be determined through field enforcement. If 

a production device is found with a model number corresponding to that referenced in the Certificate of 

Conformance, but which does not conform to the type, the Certificate of Conformance may be withdrawn.

Amend Section S to read:

S. Conformity Assessment Process

Type approval (certification) is one of the main elements in the metrological control system for weighing 

and measuring devices used in commercial measurements. The NTEP Certificate of Conformance, issued 

by NCWM, is a tool used by weights and measures officials in the inspection and approval of those 

devices. NTEP looks at one or more devices in a f amily, during the evaluation process. This typically 

occurs in the early stages of product development or production, yet it is expected that a commercial device 

will have a useful production life of several years. It is inevitable that changes will occur in production 

methods or components, that new features will be added to improve the product to respond to user needs 

and that the technical and performance standards will change as NIST Handbook 44 evolves in its annual 

cycle. Some of these changes will result in the manufacturer certificate holder requesting a re-evaluation. 

The content and format of a Certificate of Conformance will also evolve over time. 

Conformity Assessment is a responsibility of the certificate holder. It is vital that the Certificate of 

Conformance accurately reflects the device design and its features. It is also vital that the device be 

manufactured in conformance with the applicable requirements, while the Certificate of Conformance is in 

active status. In addition to the type evaluation, described in Section E through G of this document, the steps 

below outline the measures NTEP will use to keep the Certificate of Conformance accurate and to ensure 

conformance.
NTEP Committee 2011 Final Report

NTEP - 18

Current Comment: Based upon comments heard from the floor during the open hearings, the NTEP Committee 

carefully reviewed the proposed language and decided the use of "manufacturers and other certificate holder" 

terminology appropriately describes the intent of the policies. 

The review did reveal a need to change the word "insuring", found in paragraphs D.2., J.1.a. and R. to "ensuring". 

Also, a change was made to the last sentence in D.2.b. to read, "NTEP will inform the manufacturer certificate 

holder accordingly." The changes will be incorporated into the 2012 version of NCWM Publication 14. 

Mr. Randy Jennings, Tennessee, NTEP Committee Chair

Mr. Tim Tyson, Kansas, NCWM Chair

Mr. Mike Sikula, New York

Mr. Brett Saum, San Luis Obispo County, California

Mr. Kurt Floren, LA County, California 

NTEP Technical Advisor: Mr. Jim Truex, NTEP Administrator

National Type Evaluation Program Committee 
NTEP Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix A – NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector

NTEP - A1 

Appendix A

National Type Evaluation Technical Committee (NTETC)

Grain Analyzer Sector

August 25 - 26, 2010 

Kansas City, Missouri 

Meeting Summary

1. Report on the 2010 NCWM Interim and Annual Meetings.............................................................NTEP - A1

2. Report on NTEP Type Evaluations and OCP (Phase II) Testing ....................................................NTEP - A2

3. Review of Ongoing Calibration Program (Phase II) Performance Data..........................................NTEP - A2

4. Report on New GIPSA/NIST Interagency Agreement for 2010 – 2014 .........................................NTEP - A3

5. Item 310-1 G-S.8. Provision for Sealing Electronic Adjustable Components, G-S.8.1., 

Adjustment Mode Indication, and Definitions for Adjustment and Adjustment Mode...................NTEP - A4

6. Item 310-3: G-S.1. Identification. – (Software) ..............................................................................NTEP - A9

7. Other Software Requirements That May Impact Grain Analyzers................................................NTEP - A12

8. Report on OIML TC17/SC1 R59 “Moisture Meters for Cereal Grains and Oilseeds” .................NTEP - A17

9. Report on OIML TC 17/SC 8 “Protein Measuring Instruments for Cereal Grain and 

Oil Seeds”......................................................................................................................................NTEP - A18

10. Standardization of Grain Moisture Meters – Traceability of GMMs used in Meter to Like-Meter 

testing. ...........................................................................................................................................NTEP - A18

11. Air-Oven Collaborative Study – Analysis of results.....................................................................NTEP - A21

12. Proficiency Testing .......................................................................................................................NTEP - A23

13. Time and Place for Next Meeting ................................................................................................. NTEP - A24

14. Future Direction of Moisture Measurement Technology ..............................................................NTEP - A24

1. Report on the 2010 NCWM Interim and Annual Meetings

The 95th Annual Meeting of the National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM) was held 

July 11 - 15, 2010, in St. Paul, Minnesota. No Grain Moisture Meter (GMM) or Near Infrared (NIR) Grain 

Analyzer items appeared in the Specifications and Tolerances (S&T) Committee Interim Report for consideration by 

the NCWM at the 2010 Annual Meeting. 

Mr. Jim Truex, National Type Evaluation Program (NTEP) Administrator, reported that Annual Meeting attendance 

this year was down to approximately 250 registrants with only 35 to 36 states participating. There was some 

speculation that the attendance drop was partly due to the economy. Conference membership for 2010 is down 

approximately 200 from 2009. A similar drop in membership occurred the previous year. NCWM is running 

smoothly; in spite of the drop in membership, the Conference is in sound financial shape. 

Other General Code items of interest to the Sector were non-voting items related to software and provisions for 

sealing electronic adjustable components. [See Grain Analyzer Sector Agenda Items 5, 6, and 7.]
NTEP Committee 2011 Final Report 

Appendix A – NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector

NTEP - A2 

2. Report on NTEP Type Evaluations and On-going Calibration Program (OCP) 

(Phase II) Testing

Ms. 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. A Phase I 

evaluation is currently underway for one new grain moisture meter. Annual GMM calibration reviews were 

completed on schedule and updated Certificates of Conformance (CCs) were issued for six device types. Six device 

types are enrolled in the OCP (Phase II) for the 2010 harvest:

Bruins Instruments OmegAnalyzerG

DICKEY-john Corporation GAC2000 NTEP, GAC2100, GAC2100a, GAC2100b

DICKEY-john Corporation GAC2500 (first year for this instrument)

Foss North America Infratec 1241 

Perten Instruments AM5100 

The Steinlite Corporation SL95 

[Note: Models listed on a single line are considered to be of the same “type.”] 

Ms. Brenner pointed out that plans to resume work on an addition to and the remodeling of the Federal Grain 

Inspection Service (FGIS) Technical Services Division Building can have an impact on NTEP testing. O f major 

concern is the loss the walk-in environmental chamber. The chamber will be completely disassembled and removed 

to make way for utility hook-ups. It is likely to be the last item to be restored to operating condition. If started in 

September, the new addition is tentatively scheduled to be completed in March. Some of the labs will then be 

moved to the new building. The labs remaining in the old building will be rearranged to allow renovations to be 

made to the empty portion of the old building. Those labs will then be moved into the renovated portion so the 

renovation can be completed. The air-oven lab, NTEP lab, the moisture meter lab, among others, would each have 

to be relocated twice in the remodeling process. At least two years of renovations and disruptions are anticipated. 

Other facilities are being looked into as possible interim sites where Phase I environmental testing might be 

performed. One possibility for manufacturers with suitable walk-in environmental chambers would be for GIPSA to 

perform the tests on-site. There is also the possibility that facilities might be available for GIPSA to use on a short 

term rental basis. Alternatively, testing could be subcontracted to other NTEP laboratories. There are questions of 

how the added cost of on-site, rental, or subcontracting can be handled, and what additional training other NTEP 

laboratories might require for conducting tests unique to grain moisture meters (GMMs). If these details cannot be 

resolved satisfactorily, testing might have to be deferred until the new facility is fully operational.

Some of the facilities suggested include: Kansas State University, Ohio Department of Agriculture, and Iowa

Department of Agriculture. Additional sites are being investigated.

3. Review of Ongoing Calibration Program (Phase II) Performance Data 

At the Sector’s August 2005 meeting, it was agreed that comparative Ongoing Calibration Program (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, Ms. Brenner, representing GIPSA, the NTEP Participating Laboratory for Grain 

Analyzers, presented data showing the performance of NTEP meters compared to the air oven. These data are based 

on the last three crop years (2007 - 2009) using calibrations updated for use during the 2010 harvest season.

Four meter types were included in the comparison graphs: DICKEY-john’s GAC2100, Foss’s Infratec 1241, 

Perten’s AM5100, and Steinlite’s SL95. Only the GAC2100 has been identified on the comparisons. It is identified 

as “Official Meter”. The remaining three instruments were randomly assigned numbers 1, 2 and 3, or, in the case of 

sunflowers, A and B. 
NTEP Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix A – NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector

NTEP - A3 

[Note: The 2007 - 2009 GMM Phase II comparison graphs were distributed with the August 2010 Grain Analyzer 

Sector Agenda. Until completion of the NCWM Interim Meeting, held in January 2011, they can be downloaded 

from the NCWM web site using the following link:

http://www.ncwm.net/sites/default/files/meetings/grain_analyzer/2010/10_GMM_Bias.pdf

After that time, all Grain Analyzer Sector Meeting documents will be moved to the NCWM web site Meetings 

Archive Folder.] 

Ms. Brenner pointed out that sunflower results were included this year. T hey had been eliminated last year to 

preserve confidentiality, because only two meters were approved for sunflowers and one of them was the Official 

Meter. This year there are now two meters, in addition to the Official Meter with sunflower results.

 

The 2009 crop year was atypical especially for Corn and Rough Rice. Many of the samples received were of low 

test weight per bushel (TW) or of low quality. Two of the meters showed abnormal results especially in the 14 % to 

16 % moisture range. When performance was reviewed before calibrations were adjusted (using the calibrations 

from the 2009 harvest), out of five meters in the program two meters passed, and three just barely failed, if 2009 

data was included. When 2009 data was ignored, all meters passed. 

Dr. Richard Pierce, GIPSA, expanded on Ms. Brenner’s comments, explaining that they had received many more 

low TW samples than in previous years. Under usual circumstances, GIPSA might have decided that this is not the 

kind of data that they wanted to use for the calibration program, and they could have deleted those samples. This 

wasn’t done because the effects of low TW differ radically from one meter type to the next. Some read low if TW is 

low, others may read high, and some are not affected. As a result, GIPSA didn’t believe there was a valid reason for 

deleting those samples. As one of the lower frequency meters, the Official Meter seems to be more sensitive to 

unusual grain conditions. This has shown up on the rice samples, and there have been issues in the 14 % to 16 % 

moisture range with corn. 

At the last Grain Inspection Advisory Committee meeting, GIPSA was asked if there was anything they could do to 

improve the moisture calibrations for rice and corn. Dr. David Funk, GIPSA, told the Committee that the meter is 

doing as well as it can for the technology that is used. He suggested that if this is a serious problem for the 

Committee, then GIPSA may need to look at selecting a new meter technology that performs better on these atypical 

crops. The Advisory Committee responded by suggesting that GIPSA move forward and explore that. Although 

there is presently no agency decision, and no firm timeline regarding selecting a replacement for the current Official 

Meter, Dr. Pierce was of the belief that we are now at the point where manufacturers and agencies within GIPSA 

need to be made aware that this could be coming and it could be coming fairly quickly. 

Dr. Funk indicated his willingness to make the same Power Point presentation to the Sector that he had given to the 

Grain Inspection Advisory Committee if the Sector was interested in hearing more on this subject. The Sector 

agreed to amend the Agenda to include Dr. Funk’s presentation. [Note: See Agenda Item 14. Future Direction of 

Moisture Measurement Technology.] 

4. Report on New GIPSA/NIST Interagency Agreement for 2010 – 2014 

The five-year Interagency Agreement that provides funding and defines the fee schedule for the NTEP Phase II

GMM OCP expired September 30, 2009 (the end of the Federal Government’s Fiscal Year 2009). At the time of the 

Sector’s August 2009 meeting, a new Interagency Agreement was being reviewed by the National Institute of 

Standards and Technology’s (NIST’s) legal office. The new agreement was finally approved in the spring of 2010. 

Dr. Pierce, GIPSA, explained the fee table showing how fees are calculated based on the number of meter types in 

the program. With six device types presently enrolled in Phase II for the 2010 harvest, the cost to manufacturers 

will be $8750 per device type. If a seventh meter enters the program, the cost per device type per year increases to 

$10,715. Dr. Pierce noted that over the last 15 years, the number of meters in the program each year has varied from 

5 to 7. 

 
NTEP Committee 2011 Final Report 

Appendix A – NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector

NTEP - A4 

The fee schedule for the new agreement is shown below:

NTEP On-going Calibration Program Fee Schedule 

For Year 2010 to 2014

Funding Contribution From Participants

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)

Total Meters

(including

official

meter)

Meters in 

NTEP

Pool

Cost Per

Pool Meter

Total

Program

Cost

NIST GIPSA Mfg’s

(total 

funding 

from 

mfg’s)

Cost Per 

Meter Type

2 1 22,500 22,500 7,500 7,500 7,500 3,750

3 2 22,500 45,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 5,000

4 3 22,500 67,500 22,500 22,500 22,500 5,625

5 4 22,500 90,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 6,000

6 5 22,500 112,500 30,000 30,000 52,500 8,750

7 6 22,500 135,000 30,000 30,000 75,000 10,715

8 7 22,500 157,500 30,000 30,000 97,500 12,185

9 8 22,500 180,000 30,000 30,000 120,000 13,335

Column Explanation (or formula for calculating)

(1) Total Meters The number of meter types (including the Official GIPSA meter) that will share 

in the NTEP calibration costs.

(2) Total Meters in NTEP Pool The number of meter types other than the Official meter that will share in the 

NTEP calibration costs. 

(3) Cost per Pool Meter The cost associated with each pool meter in the program.

(4) Total Program Cost A per meter type cost of $22,500 times the number of NTEP "pool" meters.

(5) NIST Contribution One-third the total program cost up to a maximum of $30,000.

(6) GIPSA Contribution One-third the total program cost up to a maximum of $30,000.

(7) Manufacturers Contributions 

(total funding from manufacturers)

Total Program Cost minus NIST Contribution minus GIPSA Contribution.

(8) Cost per Meter Type Manufacturers' Contributions divided by Total Meters (including the Official 

meter).

5. Item 310-1 G-S.8. Provision for Sealing Electronic Adjustable Components, G-S.8.1., 

Adjustment Mode Indication, and Definitions for Adjustment and Adjustment Mode 

Background: This item originated from the Southern Weights and Measures Association (SWMA) and first 

appeared on the S&T Committee’s 2008 agenda. The proposal added 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.
NTEP Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix A – NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector

NTEP - A5 

At the 2008 Interim Meeting, the S&T Committee reviewed comments received during the open hearing and 

discussed alternate proposals provided by NIST Weights and Measures Division (WMD) and the Scale 

Manufactures Association (SMA). At the 2008 Annual Meeting, the WMD suggested that the S&T Committee 

amend the recommendation to address some of the concerns noted by the CWMA, NTEP participating laboratories, 

and WMD since the 2008 Interim Meeting. The item remained Informational for the 2008 Annual Meeting. 

During the open hearings at the 2009 Interim Meeting, WMD stated 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. 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? 

The S&T Committee agreed with the comments that the proposal was not ready to become a Voting item and 

recommended that the item remain Informational for 2009. 

At the 2010 NCWM Interim Meeting, WMD stated that it remained concerned about devices which could be sealed, 

while allowing access to calibration or configuration changes without breaking that seal. WMD agreed with the 

position of the NCWM S&T Committee that the current language in paragraph G-S.8. requires that a security seal be 

broken before a metrological change can be made to a device (or other approved means of security such as an audit 

trail provided). Thus, once a security seal is applied, it should not be possible to make a metrological change to the 

device without breaking that seal. S ince this philosophy addresses provisions for protecting access to any 

metrological adjustment, the philosophy should be applied consistently to all device types. WMD encouraged the 

S&T Committee to reiterate in its Interim and Final Reports the correct interpretation of G-S.8. as the Committee 

and the Measuring Sector have done in the past, and as demonstrated in more recent actions by the Weighing Sector. 

The S&T Committee agreed that a 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 with paragraph G-S.8. The Committee also 

believed that an indication that the adjustment mode is in operation is only necessary for devices with approved 

electronic methods of sealing. Additionally, the adjustment mode indicator should not be operable during normal 

weighing or measuring operations. The Committee agreed that if a device designed for commercial applications is 

capable of being sealed and still allows external or remote access to the calibration or configuration mode, then that 

device is clearly in violation of the current provisions in G-S.8. Provision for Sealing Electronic Adjustable 

Components and G-S.2. Facilitation of Fraud and, therefore, no change to the existing language in paragraph G-S.8. 

would be needed. The S&T Committee believed that type evaluation procedures have been amended in applicable 

sections of NCWM Pub 14 to address the issues of incorrectly applying the requirements in G-S.8. The Committee 

also noted that there was some confusion regarding the meaning of the terms “adjustment” and “adjustment mode” 

in the CWMA Annual Meeting reports. 

The S&T Committee received no comments addressing potential inconsistent interpretations of the requirements by 

field officials, requirements for adjustment mode indications, and limitations on metrological indications while in 

the adjustment mode in any proposals. Consequently, the Committee developed a revised proposal that:

• does not change the existing text in G-S.8.;

• adds language that restates the intent of G-S.8.;

• adds language to address metrological (legal for trade) measurements while in an adjustment mode;

• adds a n ew paragraph G-S.8.1. that requires an indication and, recorded representations while in the 

adjustment mode (if equipped with a printer); and 

• adds new definitions for “adjustment” and “adjustment mode” from the white paper on the “Metrological 

Requirements for Audit Trails” adopted by NCWM in July 1993 to facilitate a common understanding of 

the terms.

The S&T Committee also recommended that the amended proposal be given Informational status to allow interested 

parties sufficient time to analyze and comment on the most recent language that appears in the “Item Under 

Consideration” below: 
NTEP Committee 2011 Final Report 

Appendix A – NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector

NTEP - A6 

[See the 2008 NCWM Annual and 2009 Interim and Annual Reports for additional background information.]

Item Under Consideration: 

Amend General Code paragraph G-S.8. and subsequent subparagraphs.

G-S.8. Provision for Sealing Electronic Adjustable Components. - A device shall be designed with 

provision(s) for applying a security seal that must be broken, or for using other approved means of providing 

security (e.g., data change audit trail available at the time of inspection), before any change that detrimentally 

affects the metrological integrity of the device can be made to any electronic mechanism. That is:

(a) It shall not be possible to apply a physical security seal to the device while it is in the calibration 

and/or configuration mode nor to access the calibration and/or configuration (adjustment) mode 

when sealed; or 

(b) The calibration and/or configuration adjustments are protected by an approved method for 

providing security (e.g., data change audit trail). 

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.

During any mode of operation in which adjustments can be made, devices shall not provide indications that 

can be interpreted, transmitted into memory, or printed as a usable (legal) measurement value.*

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1990]

*[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 201X]

(Added 1985) (Amended 1989, and 1993, and 201X) 

G-S.8.1. Adjustment Mode Indication. For electronic devices protected by an approved means for 

providing security (e.g. data change audit trail), 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, 201X]

. 

G-S.8.12. Multiple Weighing or Measuring Elements that Share a Common Provision for Sealing. – A 

change to any metrological parameter (calibration or configuration) of any weighing or measuring element 

shall be individually identified.

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2010]

Note: For devices that utilize an electronic form of sealing, in addition to the requirements in G-S.8.12., any appropriate 

audit trail requirements in an applicable specific device code also apply. Examples of identification of a change to the 

metrological parameters of a weighing or measuring element include, but are not limited to:

(1) a broken, missing, or replaced physical seal on an individual weighing, measuring, or indicating element or active 

junction box;

(2) a change in a calibration factor or configuration setting for each weighing or measuring element; 

(3) a display of the date of calibration or configuration event for each weighing or measuring element; or

(4) counters indicating the number of calibration and/or configuration events for each weighing or measuring element.

(Added 2007)

Add applicable definitions to Appendix D from a white paper on the “Metrological Requirements for Audit Trails” 

adopted by NCWM in July 1993.
NTEP Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix A – NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector

NTEP - A7 

Adjustment mode. A n operational mode of a device which enables the user to make adjustments to 

sealable parameters, including changes to configuration parameters.

Adjustment. A change in the value of any of a d evice's sealable calibration parameters or sealable 

configuration parameters.

Discussion: This item is a carryover from the Grain Analyzer Sector’s August 2009 meeting (Agenda Item 9). At 

that time, the changes did not appear to affect the provisions for sealing GMMs and NIR Grain Analyzers. 

However, if the most recent language proposed for G-S.8. and its sub-paragraphs, see “Item Under Consideration” 

above, is the version that will ultimately be accepted, changes will have to be made in both the GMM Code in 

HB 44 and the GMM checklist in Pub 14.

The necessary changes could be addressed as follows: 

1) Incorporate the essence of the proposed changes to G-S.8. and applicable subparagraphs; retain the 

simple device categories of the existing GMM Code; broaden the scope of Category 3 by removing 

“remotely”; and add a note to Table S.2.5. to explain the meaning and scope of “Remote configuration 

capability.” This is accomplished by amending paragraph S.2.5. Provision for Sealing and Table S.2.5. 

Categories of Device and Methods for Sealing of HB 44 Section 5.56.(a) Grain Moisture Meters, 

and amending all the GMM Pub 14 checklist items under the heading Code Reference: S.2.5. 

Provision for Sealing to include the proposed additions/amendments to G-S.8. 

The suggested GMM HB 44 changes are as follows: 

S.2.5. Provision for Sealing. – Provision shall be made for applying a security seal in a manner that requires 

the security seal to be broken, or for using other approved means of providing security (e.g., audit trail available 

at the time of inspection as defined in Table S.2.5. Categories of Device and Methods of Sealing) before any 

change that affects the metrological integrity of the device can be made to any electronic mechanism. That is:

(a) It shall not be possible to apply a physical security seal to the device while it is in the calibration 

and/or configuration mode nor to access the calibration and/or configuration (adjustment) mode 

when sealed; or 

(b) The calibration and/or configuration adjustments are protected by an approved method for 

providing security (e.g., data change audit trail). 

During any mode of operation in which adjustments can be made, devices shall not provide indications that 

can be interpreted, transmitted into memory, or printed as a usable (legal) measurement value. 

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 201X]

(Amended 201X) 
NTEP Committee 2011 Final Report 

Appendix A – NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector

NTEP - A8 

Table S.2.5. 

Categories of Device and Methods of Sealing

Categories of Device Methods of Sealing

Category 1: No remote configuration capability. Seal by physical seal or two event counters: one for calibration 

parameters (000 to 999) and one for configuration parameters 

(000 to 999). If equipped with event counters, the device must 

be capable of displaying, or printing through the device or 

through another on-site device, the contents of the counters.

Category 2: Remote configuration capability, but 

access is controlled by physical hardware.

A device shall clearly indicate that it is in the 

remote configuration mode and shall not be 

capable of operating in the measure mode while 

enabled for remote configuration.

The hardware enabling access for remote communication must 

be at the device and sealed using a physical seal or two event 

counters: one for calibration parameters (000 to 999) and one 

for configuration parameters (000 to 999). If equipped with 

event counters, the device must be capable of displaying, or 

printing through the device or through another on-site device, 

the contents of the counters.

Category 3: Remote configuration capability 

access may be unlimited or controlled through a 

software switch (e.g., password).

When accessed remotely for the purpose of 

modifying sealable parameters, the device shall 

clearly and continuously indicate that it is in the 

configuration mode and shall not be capable of 

operating in the measuring mode.

An event logger (e.g., a data change audit trail) is required in 

the device; it must include an event counter (000 to 999), the 

parameter ID, the date and time of the change, and the new 

value of the parameter (for calibration changes consisting of 

multiple constants, the calibration version number may be used

rather than the calibration constants). A printed copy of the 

information must be available through the device or through 

another on-site device. The event logger shall have a capacity 

to retain records equal to twenty-five (25) times the number of 

sealable parameters in the device, but not more than 

1000 records are required. (Note: Does not require 

1000 changes to be stored for each parameter.)

Category 3a: No remote capability, but operator 

is able to make changes that affect the 

metrological integrity of the device (e.g., slope, 

bias, etc.) in normal operation.

Same as Category 3

Category 3b: No remote capability, but access to 

metrological parameters is controlled through a 

software switch (e.g., password).

Same as Category 3

Note: Remote configuration capability is defined in HB 44 as the ability to adjust a weighing or measuring device or change its 

sealable parameters from or through some other device that is not itself necessary to the operation of the weighing or measuring 

device or is not a permanent part of that device. 

As used in this table, “remote configuration capability” also includes the ability of the measuring device to accept new or revised 

sealable parameters from a memory chip, external computer, network, or other device plugged into a mating port (e.g., USB 

port) on the measuring device or connected wirelessly to the measuring device. 

(Added 201X)

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1999 and January 1, 201X] 

(Amended 1998)

Note: Zero-setting and test point adjustments are considered to affect metrological characteristics and must be sealed.

(Added 1993) (Amended 1995 and 1997)

Any additions/changes to the GMM section of HB 44 will also need to be made to the corresponding Sections to 

Pub 14.

Comments/Conclusions: Several Sector members questioned the need for adding “and continuously” to the second 

paragraph of Category 3 in Table S.2.5., reasoning that menu-driven devices typically allow access to a 
NTEP Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix A – NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector

NTEP - A9 

configuration mode only by password. Once in a configuration mode, it is not possible to make measurements 

without first leaving the configuration mode. The Sector agreed that “and continuously” should be deleted. 

 

Please note that this proposal is in response to an Informational item on the NCWM S&T agenda. Consideration of 

the suggested changes and additions depends on further discussion of this item and on the final action taken by the 

S&T Committee on Item 310-1. This will remain a carryover item for the next Grain Analyzer Sector meeting. 

6. Item 310-3 G-S.1. Identification. – (Software) 

Purpose: This proposal is intended to amend the identification marking requirements for all electronic devices 

manufactured after a specified date by requiring that metrological software version or revision information be 

identified. Additionally, the proposal will list methods, other than “permanently marked,” for providing the required 

information.

Background: Starting at the October 2007 meeting, the Software Sector has discussed the value and merits of 

required markings for software. After several iterations, the Software Sector developed a t able to reflect their 

positions. This table was submitted to NCWM S&T Committee and was assigned Developing status in 2008. 

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. In particular, WMD was concerned about properly addressing the various existing 

requirements and multiple non-retroactive dates. 

 

Prior to the NCWM 2009 Interim Meeting, NIST WMD commented on S&T Item 310-3, and presented an alternate 

proposal with significant modifications, which were included in the Interim Meeting Agenda background for the 

item. There was much additional comment and various proposed versions of the table from NIST WMD, et al. 

[Note: For the complete background on Item 310-3 refer to the Specifications and Tolerances Committee Interim 

Agenda for the 2010 NCWM Interim Meeting as it appeared in Pub 15, 2010. This is available on line at:

http://ts.nist.gov/WeightsAndMeasures/Publications/upload/08-ST-10-Pub15-FINAL.pdf.]

 

At the 2009 Software Sector Meeting, it was agreed that the proposed table had not accomplished the intended 

purpose of clarifying the requirements. To remove some of the confusion, the Software Sector revisited this item 

from the beginning, modifying the text of G-S.1. to match the Software Sector’s original intent. 

At its March 2010 meeting, the Software Sector, in response to comments heard during the 2010 Interim meeting, 

revised the proposed language changes described in the S&T Committee Interim Agenda Item 310-3. These 

revisions removed existing mention of “not-built-for purpose” and the differentiation between Type P and Type U 

software types. The first sentence of G-S.1. was restored to the current HB 44 wording. 

The Software Sector also initiated discussion on two new concepts, which may eventually result in additional 

recommendations to amend G-S.1. First, the Software Sector sees merit to requiring some “connection” between the 

software identifier (i.e., version/revision) and the software itself. The proposal was as follows (with the expectation 

that examples of acceptable means of implementing such a link would be included in Pub 14).

Add a new sub-subparagraph G-S.1.(d)(3): 

“The version or revision identifier shall be directly and inseparably linked to the software itself. The 

version or revision identifier may consist of more than one part, but at least one part shall be 

dedicated to the metrologically significant software.”

Second, it seems that at each meeting of the Software Sector, the states reiterate the problems they have in the field 

locating the basic information required when the CC number is marked via the rather general current HB 44

requirement of ‘accessible through an easily recognizable menu, and if necessary a sub-menu’ [G-S.1.1.(b)(3)]. The 

states have indicated that this is too vague and field inspectors often cannot find the certificate number on unfamiliar 

devices. 
NTEP Committee 2011 Final Report 

Appendix A – NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector

NTEP - A10

The Software Sector would like feedback on the proposal to specify a limited number of menu items/icons for 

accessing the CC number (if is not hard-marked or continuously displayed) in subparagraph (c) as follows:

(b) The Certificate of Conformance (CC) Number shall be: 

(3) accessible through one or, at most, two levels of access.an easily recognized menu and, if necessary a 

submenu.one or, at most, two levels of access. Examplies of menu and submenu identification 

include, but are not limited to, “Help,” System Identification,” “G-S.1. Identification,” or “Weights 

and Measures Identification.”

(i) For menu-based systems, “Metrology”, “System Identification”, or “Help”.

(ii) For systems using icons, a metrology symbol (“M” or “SI”), or a help symbol (“?,” “I," or an 

“i" within a magnifying glass).

To facilitate a review of the suggested amendments, additions, and changes to G-S.1. and its sub-paragraphs, the 

current HB 44 language has been marked up below to show all of the suggested modifications.

G-S.1. Identification. – All equipment, except weights and separate parts necessary to the measurement

process but not having any metrological effect, 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 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 not-built-for-purpose software-based electronic

devices;

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2004]

(Added 2003) (Amended 201X) 
NTEP Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix A – NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector

NTEP - A11

(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)

(3) The version or revision identifier shall be directly and inseparably linked to the software itself. 

The version or revision identifier may consist of more than one part, but at least one part shall 

be dedicated to the metrologically significant software.

(Added 201X)

(e) an NTEP 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 Not-Built-For-Purpose Software-Based Electronic

Devices. – For not-built-for-purpose, software-based devices 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

(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.” one or, 

at most, two levels of access.

(i) For menu-based systems, “Metrology”, “System Identification”, or “Help”.

(ii) For systems using icons, a metrology symbol (“M” or “SI”), or a help symbol (“?,” 

“I," or an “i" within a magnifying glass).
NTEP Committee 2011 Final Report 

Appendix A – NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector

NTEP - A12

Note: For (b), clear instructions for accessing the information required in G-S.1.(a), (b), (c), 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 and 201X] 

(Added 2003) (Amended 2006 and 201X) 

Discussion: It should be noted that these new ideas are in the Developmental stage, and are included here at the 

request of the Software Sector, which is seeking comments from interested parties. The Grain Analyzer (GA) Sector 

is asked to comment on the proposed changes to G-S.1. and G-S.1.1. shown above, specifically those that will most 

affect Grain Analyzers. 

1. G-S.1.(d) and its sub paragraphs will require a software version or revision identifier that is directly and 

inseparably linked to the software itself; and

2. G-S.1.1. and its sub paragraphs will allow the identifiers required in G-S.1. to be either permanently 

marked or continuously displayed for software-based electronic devices. This includes the software 

version or revision identifier. It also allows display of the CC number to be accessible by menu or icon (as 

opposed to continuously displayed.) 

3. If not either permanently marked or continuously displayed, the CC Number will have to be accessible 

through one or two levels of access identified by the labels, “Metrology”, “System Identification”, or 

“Help” in menu based systems, or for systems using icons, a metrology symbol (“M” or “SI”), or a help 

symbol (“?,” “I,” or an “i” within a magnifying glass). Note that this is not suggested to be the final list of 

valid options; the Software Sector would like to have feedback specifically on additional menu text/icon 

images that should be considered acceptable. The Software Sector feels that the number of acceptable 

options is less of an issue (within reason) than the fact that the list is finite.

Comments/Recommendations: The GA Sector found the wording of G-S.1.1. confusing. It seemed to say that the 

markings spelled out in G-S.1. were to be EITHER permanently marked or continuously displayed on the device 

OR the Certificate of Conformance (CC) Number shall be either: permanently marked or continuously displayed, or 

accessible through menu or icon. To some, this implied that the software version identifier did NOT have to be 

displayed. Others believed that the “OR” phrase meant that only the CC had three options for marking (permanent, 

continuously displayed, or accessible via menu or icon), and that the software/firmware version/revision number 

must be either permanently marked or continuously displayed. 

Regardless of how the wording is interpreted, the GA Sector agreed that it was not practical to permanently mark or 

continuously display the software/firmware version/revision identifier for GMMs. The GA Sector recommends that 

G-S.1.1.(b) be amended to include accessing the software version or revision identifier by menu or icon. At present 

all NTEP GMMs are built-for-purpose. They all have permanently marked CC numbers. Software version/revision 

identifiers, however, are accessible by menu or icon. G MM displays are of limited size. Some existing devices 

don’t have room to display the software version/revision identifier on every “screen”. H ard marking of that 

identifier is not practical, because it precludes updating software without also replacing the hard-marked label. 

7. Other Software Requirements That May Impact Grain Analyzers

The items under this heading are mostly excerpts from the Software Sector’s March 2010 meeting summary

intended to keep Grain Analyzer Sector Members informed of developmental software requirements that may 

impact grain analyzers. For more detailed information, see the complete Software Sector meeting summary at:

http://www.ncwm.net/sites/default/files/meetings/software/2010/10_Software_Summary.pdf

a. Identification of Certified Software

[Note: This item is now partially covered by the provisional proposal to make G-S.1.(d) applicable to 

software-based electronic devices and by adding the following new sub-subparagraph G-S.1.(d)(3):] 
NTEP Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix A – NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector

NTEP - A13

“The version or revision identifier shall be directly and inseparably linked to the software 

itself. The version or revision identifier may consist of more than one part, but at least one 

part shall be dedicated to the metrologically significant software.”

Also the Software Sector recommends the following information be added to Pub 14 as explanation/examples: 

• Unique identifier must be displayable/printable on command or during operation, etc. 

• At a minimum, a version/revision indication (1.02.09, rev 3.0 a, etc.). Could also consist of/contain 

checksum, etc. (crc32, for example). 

Software Sector Conclusions: The item needs additional discussion and development by the Software Sector. 

Outstanding questions: If we allow hard-marking of the software identifier (the Sector has wavered on this in the 

past), does the above wording then imply that some mechanical means is required (i.e., physical seal) to ‘inseparably 

link’ the identifier to the software? Do we still have to be able to display/print the identifier if it is hard-marked?

b. Software Protection / Security

Background: The Software Sector derived a trial Pub 14 checklist based on the International Organization of Legal 

Metrology (OIML) checklist to verify that the software adequately protected against fraudulent modification as well 

as accidental or unintentional changes. The checklist has been distributed to current NTEP labs for use on a trial 

basis for new type approval applications.

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 all the metrologically significant functions, designating 

those that are considered metrologically significant

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 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 

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 
NTEP Committee 2011 Final Report 

Appendix A – NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector

NTEP - A14

Software with closed shell (no access to the operating system and/or programs 

possible for the user)

Check whether there is a complete set of commands (e.g. function keys or 

commands via external interfaces) supplied and accompanied by short 

descriptions

Yes No N/A 

Check whether the manufacturer has submitted a written declaration of the 

completeness of the set of commands

Yes No N/A 

Operating system and / or program(s) accessible for the user:

Check whether a checksum or equivalent signature is generated over the 

machine code of the metrologically significant software (program module(s) 

subject to legal control W&M jurisdiction and type-specific parameters)

Yes No N/A 

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 

Software Sector Discussion: The labs again indicated they had not had a chance to utilize the checklist. The list was 

reviewed and some minor modifications to the checklist text were incorporated as shown above.

Software Sector Conclusion: Work is ongoing on this item with the intent that it eventually be incorporated as a 

checklist in Pub 14; again the labs are requested to try utilizing this checklist for any evaluations on software-based 

electronic devices.

c. Software Maintenance and Reconfiguration

Background: The Software Sector agreed that the two definitions below for update and Traced update were 

acceptable.

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.

The Software Sector also worked towards language proposed for defining the requirements for a Traced Update 

(currently considered as relevant for Pub 14):
NTEP Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix A – NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector

NTEP - A15

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.

Use of a Category 3 audit trail is required for the Traced Update. If software update is the only loggable 

event, then the Category 3 audit trail can be limited to only 10 entries. A log entry representing a 

software update shall include the software identification of the newly installed version.

Software Sector Conclusions: The general consensus of the group after considering feedback from external 

interested parties is that a new G-S.9. with explicit requirements (for Metrologically Significant Software) is not 

necessary (nor likely to be adopted by the Conference), and that this requirement belongs in the Pub 14 lists of 

sealable parameters rather than in Handbook 44: 

The updating of metrologically significant software shall be considered a sealable event. 

Additional work is to be done to further develop the proposed text toward inclusion in Pub 14. 

Grain Analyzer Sector Discussion: At its August 2009 meeting, the GA Sector questioned the need for a 

definition of “Traced Update.” The “Traced Update” was initially intended to cover cases in Europe where the 

National Body controls a network of devices and wants to update all the devices simultaneously from a central 

location. Denmark and France do this with NIR Grain Analyzers. Even though individual states may still require 

that a device updated via a “Traced Update” it must be “returned to service” by a registered serviceperson before it 

can be used, the Sector may want to consider adopting “Traced Update” requirements for all Category 3 Grain 

Analyzers. The device is still subject to later inspection by state Weights and Measures personnel. By designing to 

the requirements for “Traced Update”, states might be encouraged to allow devices updated to those requirements to 

be returned to service without requiring a visit by a registered serviceperson.

Logic flow charts illustrating “Traced Update” and “Verified” update are shown on the following page.
NTEP Committee 2011 Final Report 

Appendix A – NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector

NTEP - A16

Software Update Procedure – from OIML D 31:2008 (E) 
NTEP Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix A – NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector

NTEP - A17

Notes:

(1) In the case of a Traced Update updating is separated into two steps: “loading” and installing/activating”. 

This implies that the software is temporarily stored after loading without being activated because it must be 

possible to discard the loaded software and revert to the old version, if the checks fail.

(2) In the case of a 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.

(3) Here, only failure of the verification due to the software update is considered. Failure due to other reasons 

does not require re-loading and re-installing of the software, symbolized by the NO-branch.

Note: GA Agenda Item 7 was for information only. No action was taken. No comments or recommendations were 

made 

8. Report on OIML TC17/SC1 R59 “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. In October 2008, the Secretariat of TC 17/SC 1 was jointly allocated to China and the United States. 

The Co-Secretariats (China and the United States) are working closely with an international work group (IWG) to 

revise OIML R 59 “Moisture meters for cereal grains and oilseeds.” The 5 CD of OIML R 59, revised to comply 

with OIML’s Guide Format for OIML Recommendations and to incorporate tests for the recommended 

disturbances of OIML D 11 General Requirements for Electronic Measuring Instruments, was distributed to the 

Subcommittee in February 2009. 

Comments: Ms. Diane Lee, NIST/WMD, reported that comments on the 5 CD of OIML R 59 have been received 

by 10 countries, including the United States. Ms. Lee is working on a draft 6 CD based on those comments. It will 

reflect the U.S. recommendation to remove the Sand & Dust test (one of the disturbance tests of OIML D 11), on the 

basis that the sand and dust concentration specified for that test far exceeds the concentrations encountered by 

GMMs in normal use. The equipment diagrams of 5 CD will be replaced by generic block diagrams and, at the 

request of Japan, a block diagram will be added for a resistance type GMM. 

A meeting of TC 17/SC 1 to review the draft 6 CD will be held in Orlando, Florida, following the CIML meeting. 

Ms. Lee noted that, in addition to herself, TC 17/SC 1 meetings are usually attended by Dr. Pierce, Ms. Brenner, and 

Ms. Cassie Eigenmann. She will arrange a conference call to go over the draft 6 CD before the changes are made 

permanent for discussion at the meeting. 

Mr. Richard Cantrill, AOCS, recommended that TC 17/SC 1 become aware of the work that ISO Food Group 

Technical Committees, TC 34/SC 2 – Oil Seeds, and TC 34/SC 4 – Cereals and Pulses, have done that relates to the 

use of moisture meters. 

Editor’s Note: The related Standards are:

ISO 7700-1:2008 – Checking the performance of moisture meters in use 

– Part 1: Moisture meters for cereals

ISO/DIS 7700-2 – Checking the performance of moisture meters in use 

– Part 2: Moisture meters for oilseeds

(ISO/DIS 7700-2 is a Draft International Standard. When approved, it will replace ISO 7700-2:1987.)

Editor’s Note: At the September 28 - 29, 2010, TC 17/SC 1 meeting in Orlando, Florida, the participants reviewed 

a preliminary copy of OIML R 59 CD and comments to R 59 CD. Changes to R 59 6 CD will include the changes 

that were agreed to at the September 2010 meeting.
NTEP Committee 2011 Final Report 

Appendix A – NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector

NTEP - A18

9. Report on OIML TC 17/SC 8 “Protein Measuring Instruments for Cereal Grain and Oil 

Seeds” 

Background: This item was included on the Sector’s agenda to provide a s ummary of the activities of OIML 

TC 17/SC 8. A new subcommittee was formed to study the issues and write a working draft document “Protein 

Measuring Instruments for Cereal Grain and Oil Seeds.” Australia is the Secretariat for this new subcommittee. A 

TC 17/SC 8 meeting was hosted by NIST in September 2007 t o discuss the 2 CD. 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. The Secretariat distributed a 2 CD N6 of the document 

in February 2010. Comments were due in May 2010. 

Discussion/Comments: Ms. Lee, NIST/WMD, reported that 2 CD N6 reflects major changes to harmonize with 

R 59-5 CD. A meeting of TC 17/SC 8 will be held September 27 - 28, 2010, in Orlando, Florida to address the 

comments to 2 CD N6. 

Dr. Pierce noted that there is still resistance to accepting the U.S. recommendation that two instruments be submitted 

for type evaluation. He asked those who had been with the Sector from the early days, to explain what had led the 

Sector to decide that type evaluation would require two instruments as opposed to one or three. At least two Sector 

members remembered the reasoning: It is easy to make one instrument. The problem is to make two that read alike.

The Sector originally considered three instruments but that was too expensive. Three would have been ideal, 

because if one fails during testing, you usually have two that agree with each other, so you know immediately which 

one is wrong.

GIPSA has seen numerous instances in NTEP testing where one test instrument passes a t est and the second 

instrument does not (for the NTEP Power Supply test, since 1994, in 24 % of the tests one instrument failed while 

the other passed; in 3 % of the tests both instruments failed). The failures appear not to be random events. They

appear to identify legitimate deficiencies. 

Editor’s Note: At the September 27 - 28, 2010, TC 17/SC 8 meeting comments to the Recommendation on Protein 

Measuring Instruments for Cereal Grain and Oil Seeds 2 CD were reviewed. It was agreed at this meeting that two 

instruments will be submitted for OIML type approval. This agreed change and other changes from the 

September 2010 meeting will be included in 3 CD. 

10. Standardization of Grain Moisture Meters – Traceability of GMMs used in Meter to 

Like-Meter testing.

Background: This item is a carry-over from the Sector’s August 2009 meeting (Item 9.5). For NTEP meters 

HB 44 permits meter to like-meter testing using “Properly Standardized Reference Meters”. Mr. Karl Cunningham, 

Illinois Department of Agriculture, Weights and Measures, asked for a definition of a “Properly Standardized 

Reference Meter”. He also wanted to know what criteria these “Reference Meters” must meet. 

 

He was referred to Section VI. Standardization of Instruments in the GMM chapter of Pub 14 that shows the 

relationship and maximum permissible errors between the NTEP Lab meters, Manufacturer’s Laboratory Standard 

Meters, Manufacturer’s Production Master Meter, and “As Shipped” meters. It was explained that a properly 

standardized reference meter for a Service Company should have the same traceability to the NTEP Lab Meters as 

the Manufacturer’s Production Master Meter has.

Section VI. Standardization of Instruments in the GMM chapter of Pub 14 requires manufacturers to

demonstrate that their methods for standardizing units in production result in as “shipped” units, which agree with 

the corresponding NTEP Laboratory units (path D in the accompanying Figure 1) within ± 0.3 x t he HB 44 

acceptance tolerance. They are also required to show that the mean moisture difference between Manufacturer's 

Laboratory Standard Meters and the corresponding NTEP Laboratory Meters (path A in the accompanying 

Figure 1) does not exceed ± 0.2 x the HB 44 acceptance tolerance.
NTEP Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix A – NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector

NTEP - A19

Figure 1

During a discussion of potential agenda items for the Sector’s 2010 meeting, Dr. Pierce, FGIS/GIPSA, representing 

the NTEP Participating Laboratory for Grain Analyzers, suggested that the Sector may want to explore how the 

NTEP program (or lab) can assist manufacturers who are asked to demonstrate traceability of field instruments back 

to the air oven reference method. The NTEP Lab has manufacturers’ instruments in the NTEP Phase II program that 

are directly traceable to the GIPSA air oven reference lab. There is, however, no documentation demonstrating 

alignment of NTEP instruments with manufacturers’ master instruments or field instruments. The NTEP lab is not 

involved in this process. There are no criteria for the grain types, the number of analyses, or the number of samples 

that should be used in side-by-side testing. 

The Sector Co-Technical Advisor suggested that a first step in acquiring documentation demonstrating alignment of 

NTEP instruments with manufacturers’ master instruments or field instruments would be adding language to the 

NTEP Application to require submission of the documentation required by §VI., and adding a checklist of the 

Required Documentation to the existing GMM Checklist of Pub 14.

A related issue, mentioned by Dr. Pierce, was authorized repair facilities providing states with documentation that 

their “standard” instrument is traceable to the air oven reference. He was of the opinion that this was not directly an

NTEP lab issue, but believed that manufacturers should be able to trace these standards back to NTEP Phase II 

instruments.

Proposed: Amend the Application Instructions Section of the Grain Analyzer NTEP Application as shown below:

• Submit details of procedures and tests for maintaining reference meters and standardizing units in 

production to meet the requirements of §IV of the GMM Chapter of Pub 14.

And insert the following Check List of Required Documentation just in front of the General section [but still under 

the “Checklist” Heading in the Table of Contents] of the GMM chapter of Pub 14:

NTEP

Lab Meters

Manufacturer’s 

Laboratory

Standard Meters

“As Shipped” 

Meters

Manufacturer’s 

Production

Master Meter

A

B

C

D
NTEP Committee 2011 Final Report 

Appendix A – NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector

NTEP - A20

Required Documentation 

(Refer to NCWM Publication 14, Grain Moisture Meter Chapter, §VI. Standardization of Instruments)

Doc1. Manufacturer has submitted specific details of the proposed test 

procedures to be used for the comparison between their reference standard 

instruments and instruments of like type in the NTEP Participating 

Laboratory.

Yes No N/A 

(a) Comparisons will be made “side-by-side Yes No N/A 

(b) Comparisons will be made by an exchange of grain samples Yes No N/A 

Doc2. Manufacturer has shown that the mean moisture difference between 

Manufacturer's Laboratory Standard Meters and the corresponding 

NTEP Laboratory Meters (path A in figure below) does not exceed ± 0.2 x 

the Handbook 44 acceptance tolerance.

Yes No N/A 

Doc3. Manufacturer has demonstrated that its methods for standardizing units in 

production result in "as shipped" units which agree with the 

corresponding NTEP Laboratory units (path D in Figure 1 of §VI) within 

± 0.3 x the Handbook 44 acceptance tolerance. 

Yes No N/A 

Doc4. Manufacturer has also demonstrated that once units are standardized, 

moisture results between units of like type will not exceed these tolerances 

when a grain calibration change is made.

Yes No N/A 

Discussion: Dr. Pierce suggested that there are two issues being presented here:

1. For Phase I, a clarification of what information is being obtained at the time of initial type evaluation. At 

present, manufacturers are asked for a general description of the process (not all the details) they intend to 

use to standardize instruments. 

2. For Phase II, whether there should be some kind of semi-official document signed by the NTEP laboratory 

attesting to the fact that a side-by-side test (or by grain sample exchange) demonstrated that manufacturer 

“A’s” working masters line up with the two calibration instruments at the NTEP laboratory within 0.x % 

moisture. This might be issued each year (or every two years) as part of the Phase II program. I f the 

laboratory provided this service, Dr. Pierce noted that they would have to specify the test procedure that 

had been used including the grain type(s), number and sequence of drops, etc. 

When manufacturers were asked if this addition to Phase II was needed, Mr. Tim Kaeding, Perten Instruments, 

responded that, with the exception of an NTEP lab issued certificate, what Dr. Pierce described was very much like 

what they were already doing. Perten takes their working standard instruments to the NTEP lab, performs a side-byside comparison with the NTEP instruments using corn, soybeans, and wheat; analyzes the data; determines that 

they match statistically, and prepares a report showing the traceability of their working standards to the 

corresponding NTEP instruments lab. This has apparently satisfied the Illinois Department of Agriculture’s request 

for traceability.

Ms. Eigenmann outlined the procedures used by DICKEY-john. Twice a year the base parameters of three 

laboratory standard meters, which never leave DICKEY-john’s temperature and humidity controlled laboratory, are 

measured to ensure that they are aligned. Records are kept of every test, adjustment, etc. performed on the lab 

standards. Three working standards, used on the production line, are taken to the laboratory once a month for a 

check against the three lab standards. In side-by-side comparisons of six drops of grain per unit, the average 

moistures must agree within 0.08. Similarly, three Product Service working standards are brought to the laboratory 

twice a year to be checked against the lab standards using the same criteria as the production line standards. 

Additionally, two transfer standards are checked against the lab standards. These are held to a tighter tolerance than 

0.08. The transfer standards are hand carried to Kansas City, Missouri, and checked against all the like instruments 

at FGIS (including the two NTEP lab units). Anyone requiring a document showing comparative data between a 

GAC 2100 and the lab standards can bring their GAC 2100 to DICKEY-john’s moisture lab for checking. 
NTEP Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix A – NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector

NTEP - A21

With no one from Steinlite to report, Dr. Pierce recalled that Steinlite typically picked up their two NTEP lab meters 

and took them back to Atchison, Kansas, for testing. 

With manufacturers already running comparative tests and providing the requested documentation, it didn’t appear 

that the NTEP laboratory needed to be involved. Ma nufacturers were not in agreement that the testing be 

standardized. S ome questioned whether the testing could be standardized because it would be technology 

dependent. Others saw some merit in standardizing comparative tests using specified grains and procedures 

(number and sequence of drops, etc.) and of standardized reports. No action was taken on this issue. 

Some Sector members objected to the proposed amendments to the Grain Analyzer NTEP Application and the 

GMM checklist. Manufacturers were of the opinion that they were already providing the information required in the 

Section VI of the GMM Chapter of NCWM Pub 14. Further, Section IV relates more to Phase II than to Phase I. 

No Phase I testing is required by Section IV, so the addition of checklist items was not required. 

Decided: The Sector decided that the proposal to amend the Application Instructions Section of the Grain Analyzer 

NTEP Application, and to insert a Checklist of Required Documentation in the Checklist of the GMM chapter of 

Pub 14 was a Phase II issue not a Phase I issue. The Proposal will be withdrawn.

11. Air-Oven Collaborative Study – Analysis of results 

Background: At its August 2008 meeting, 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 General 

requirements for the competence of testing and calibration laboratories. Mr. Cunningham subsequently agreed 

that the State of Illinois Moisture Meter Laboratory would serve as the “pivot” laboratory. A t the August 2009 

meeting, he reported that 14 laboratories participated in this study. P articipants included: USDA/GIPSA (as 

reference laboratory), Arkansas, Colorado, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, 

South Carolina, Wisconsin (corn only), Wyoming, and DICKEY-john. Perten was sent samples but didn’t return 

results. With the exception of one or two outliers, results were fairly good. Histograms showing the distribution of 

Lab error (Participant Lab result minus Reference Lab result) for each of the grain samples were presented (see 

August 2009 Sector Meeting Summary). 

Discussion: Dr. Charles Hurburgh, Iowa State University, was unable to attend the Sector meeting. He forwarded a 

statistical analysis of the results, and supplied the following comments:

The results were quite good. Two outliers were removed. Outliers are detected by calculating the 

SD with the questionable point removed. If the questionable point is 3 SDs out after being removed, 

it is considered an outlier. When you don’t have many data points this prevents a bad data point 

from making the SD very large and protecting itself, so to speak. Standard deviations across labs of 

less than 0.20 percentage points are good. The sample handling and prep were clearly done well.

 

Overall, the individual Labs did well; there were only two cases where the lab average was 

significantly different from the average of the labs, but none of the information values 

(temperatures, humidity, etc.) seemed to correlate with errors. No attempt was made to analyze the 

information data; it would be helpful in the future to require all the temperatures in one type of units 

(C or F), and all the times in minutes, and so on.

The chart below shows the deviation from the average. Most are within 0.2 % of the Average. 
NTEP Committee 2011 Final Report 

Appendix A – NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector

NTEP - A22

Discussion: Several Sector members asked why the lab difference from average was averaged across two samples

of each grain type. They wondered what the chart would look like if results were shown for individual samples. 

The concern was that in some cases the averaging over two samples might lead to significantly understating errors.

Several weeks after the Sector’s meeting, the Co-Technical Advisor prepared a chart showing the lab difference 

from average for each individual sample (see chart following). One of the most dramatic differences showed up in

Lab 3’s results for soybeans. A veraged over two samples, the difference was only −0.04, while individual 

differences from individual averages were 0.19 for SB08 and −0.27 for SB03. A similar phenomenon was observed 

in Lab 6’s results for corn. A veraged over two samples, the difference was only −0.02 while the individual 

differences were −0.23 for Corn12 and 0.19 for Corn29. 
NTEP Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix A – NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector

NTEP - A23

12. Proficiency Testing

[Submitted by Ms. Amy L. Johnson, SQT Program Manager, American Oil Chemists Society (AOCS)]

Background: At the Sector’s August 2009 Meeting, Dr. Hurburgh, Iowa State University, urged the representatives 

from the American Oil Chemists Society (AOCS) to prepare a proposal so that the collaborative (air-oven) study 

could be conducted on an on-going basis, rather than on an ad hoc basis. He cautioned that the proposal would have 

to include corn and wheat as well as soybeans. 

Several years ago, the AOCS in conjunction with the United Soybean Board (USB) established the AOCS-USB 

Soybean Quality Traits Analytical Standards Program (SQT), a system of verification of analytical measurements. 

This program provided the infrastructure for the generation of reliable analytical results at all levels of the soybean 

industry, by establishing industry-wide acceptance of analytical methods and protocols and their implementation 

under internationally accepted quality management standards. The AOCS has proposed the addition of an airoven/grain moisture meter proficency testing (PT) series to their Analytical Standards Program (ASP). Proficency 

testing is a continuous program, samples are sent out in regular intervals (e.g., 2 to 4 times/year). Participants are

able to join on a continuous basis.

Discussion: Ms. Johnson, AOCS, proposed an air-oven/GMM proficiency testing series designed specifically to 

address the needs of GMM manufacturers and states maintaining a grain moisture laboratory. AOCS would 

administer the program, oversee distribution of samples, compile results, perform statistical analysis of results, and 

distribute a report to participants. AOCS does not collect the samples. This is subcontracted to suitable providers. 

AOCS does not have laboratories. Since GIPSA/FGIS is a cer tified laboratory already participating in the SQT 

program, GIPSA air-oven results could be reported for comparison, if desired.

The Sector decided that a program that included distribution of two samples each of corn, wheat (preferably of one 

type), and soybeans per year would be adequate. A final report by mid-July is desirable, so sample distribution 

would have to take place in early spring (March – April). The annual cost of such a program was estimated to be in 

the range of $80 to $100 per participant.

-0.50

-0.40

-0.30

-0.20

-0.10

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

2009 NTEP OVEN MOISTURE STUDY

SB08 SB03 Wheat03 Wheat08 Corn12 Corn29

Significantly Different from Average

Difference from average in % pts
NTEP Committee 2011 Final Report 

Appendix A – NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector

NTEP - A24

Sector , Ms. Eigenmann, asked Ms. Johnson to put together a formal proposal based on the above criteria. Ms. 

Johnson will contact all those on the GA Sector mailing list, as well as those on the NIST/WMD list of state W&M 

officials interested in grain moisture with details of the proposed program. 

13. Time and Place for Next Meeting

The next meeting is tentatively planned for Wednesday, August 24 and Thursday, August 25, 2011, at the Chase 

Suites by Woodfin at Kansas City International Airport 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 2010. 

If you would like to submit an agenda item for the 2011 meeting, please contact any of the following persons by 

June 1, 2011:

Mr. Jim Truex, NTEP Administrator at jim.truex@ncwm.net

Ms. G. Diane Lee, NIST Technical Advisor, at diane.lee@nist.gov

Mr. Jack Barber, Co-Technical Advisor, at barber.jw@comcast.net

14. Future Direction of Moisture Measurement Technology 

The Grain Inspection Advisory Committee (GIAC) meets twice annually to advise GIPSA on the programs and 

services it delivers under the U.S. Grain Standards Act. Recommendations by the committee help GIPSA to better 

meet the needs of its customers who operate in a dynamic and changing marketplace.

 

The committee is comprised of 15 members and 15 alternate members appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture. 

Committee members and alternates represent all segments of the grain industry. They include grain producers, 

processors, merchandisers, handlers, exporters, consumers, grain inspection agencies, and scientists. Committee 

members serve without compensation, but are reimbursed for travel expenses.

Meetings typically follow a format of a day of presentations followed by a morning during which committee 

members digest the material they have heard to produce resolutions addressing the significant issues. The 

resolutions are subjected to a v ote by the committee. Those that are adopted are taken seriously by GIPSA’s 

administer in considering how to respond to these resolutions.

On June 16, 2010, Dr. Funk, GIPSA/FGIS Associate Director for Methods Development, made a presentation to the 

GIAC entitled, “Future Direction of Moisture Measurement Technology.” He repeated this presentation on 

August 26, 2010, at the NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector meeting in Kansas City, Missouri. Following is a digest of 

Dr. Funk’s presentation.

In November of 2009 the GIAC approved the following resolution:

The Advisory Committee recommends that GIPSA evaluate the current moisture calibration for 

high moisture rough rice for accuracy when compared to the air oven reference. 

The FGIS Annual Calibration Study was already doing this. Each year approximately 1100 samples are collected to 

evaluate and enhance official moisture meter accuracy. For 15 major grains, all NTEP-certified models are tested 

with the same set of grain samples. Grain calibrations are optimized to the most recent three years of data with 

consideration of abnormal conditions. To minimize “hunting”, calibrations are changed only if certain error 

thresholds are exceeded, but there are problems. The long gain rough rice accuracy for 2007 - 2009 crops shows a 

large scatter above 20 % moisture and for 2009 a very strange pocket of data between 14 % and 17 % moisture with 

significant negative bias. Similar problems appeared in corn. The crop year 2009 was a year of extremely low

quality and low test weights. Many samples were well under 50 pounds per bushel.

The conclusions reached from the 2009 crop calibration study revealed:
NTEP Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix A – NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector

NTEP - A25

• Year-to-year differences contribute significant instability to GMM calibrations.

• Rice is one of the more difficult grains for accurate moisture measurements.

• Growing conditions in 2009 r esulted in some grain samples not being measured accurately by current 

official moisture meters.

• It is impossible to significantly improve the official meter’s accuracy for the “problem” samples without 

degrading overall accuracy. 

So GIPSA’s response to the GIAC Resolution was that FGIS is continually evaluating and trying to improve 

moisture calibrations. FGIS has expert knowledge of moisture measurement technologies and the current official 

technology is doing the best that it can. If the market needs better performance, FGIS needs to select and implement 

different technology. If FGIS is going to implement different moisture technology, it needs to happen soon.

New technology offers improved accuracy, better stability over time and crop conditions, easier calibration 

development, reduced support cost, and provides competition (it can be duplicated by any manufacturer).

It needs to happen soon to avoid being caught in a technology “rut” for decades as with the older dielectric 

instruments which required look-up tables. It needs to happen soon to be able to utilize current FGIS expertise 

before it is depleted by retirements. It needs to happen soon to create and implement a sustainable official moisture 

measurement system based on up-to-date technology.

New technology will be selected using the following steps:

• Develop and prioritize criteria for the selection.

• Develop a procurement document.

• Solicit proposals.

• Evaluate proposals and submitted performance data.

• Conduct further testing of the proposed technologies.

• Announce selection and establish contract(s).

• Develop and validate official standardization processes.

• Procure new moisture measurement instruments.

• Conduct a pilot test to validate system readiness for the transition.

• Implement the switch to the new instrumentation.

The criteria used to select a new official meter will most likely include the following criteria used in 1997: 

• Best value to the government

o Procurement costs

o Support costs

• NTEP certification
NTEP Committee 2011 Final Report 

Appendix A – NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector

NTEP - A26

• Accuracy over moisture and temperature ranges

• Repeatability

• Suitability for all grain type officially tested

• Suitability for automation

• Consistency among units

o Transferability of calibrations

o Precision of standardization

o Ease of standardization

o Stability over time

Other possible criteria might include:

• Speed of test

• Multiple-factor capability

• Accuracy of tests on abnormal samples such as “green soybeans”

• Availability of multiple sources for equivalent technology

• Prior commercial acceptance of technology

Dr. Funk offered the following time line for fully implementing a new technology:

• October 2010 – Agency decision on whether to pursue new moisture technology

• June 2011 – Develop criteria and procurement documents and issue solicitation for proposals

• February 2012 – Announce decision

• May 2013 – Implement new technology for initial grains

• September 2013 and later – Implement new technology for other grains.

Following his presentation to the GIAC, the following resolution was adopted:

The Advisory Committee recommends that GIPSA/FGIS move forward with expediency to 

determine the feasibility and selection of a new federal standard moisture measurement technology 

and/or instrument(s) for use in the official system.

Following Dr. Funk’s presentation to the GA Sector, he conducted a question and answer session. Some of the 

questions and Dr. Funk’s responses are shown below:

Question: Will the new technology require any changes to existing HB 44 or Pub 14 requirements or procedures?

Answer: Basically, no ... and yes. We have choices of technology, but the technologies out there are already 

represented in the NTEP program. We’re not going to select a technology that hasn’t proven itself. If 
NTEP Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix A – NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector

NTEP - A27

it’s not out there as a commercial technology that’s proven itself in the marketplace, we’re not going to 

consider it. In the NTEP program we have two technologies represented: dielectric RF methods and 

NIR methods. Right now we have two instruments that represent the technology I’m talking about that 

have been NTEP certified. That was the trigger point at which we could consider adopting a new 

technology. That is not to say that is the technology we are going to select, but until we had proven 

that we could have two instruments using that technology we were not ready to even consider adopting 

a new technology.

Question: You’ve answered the “Yes” half of the previous question. Could you please address the “No”?

Answer: The answer is, to the extent that industry migrates to this technology hopefully we will get to the point 

where we don’t need a P hase II evaluation. W hen all USDA instruments are using the same 

calibrations, and they are not being yanked around year by year, we may be looking to a m ore 

technical evaluation of instruments where we just evaluate the ability of an instrument to accurately 

measure density corrected dielectric constants. If the new technology is widely accepted we may get 

to a point in 5 to 10 years where the NTEP looks significantly different from what it is now. The 

current five-year interagency agreement may be the last one.

[Note: Dr. Pierce commented that he believed they were committed to finishing the current five-year 

agreement.]

Question: Do you think this new technology will eliminate a lot of complaints we get about such things as the 

“rebound” effect in soybeans?

Answer: It will help. It’s not going to eliminate green soybeans effect nor will it eliminate test weight sensitivity 

in corn, but it will reduce the effects. It has about half the effect as the current official meter. I’m not 

saying this is the best technology possible. The goal is not to come up with the best possible 

technology. T he goal here is to come up with a s imple, well documented, public technology that 

anybody can use successfully and get equivalent results. W e do want it to be accurate, and it is 

accurate. We want it to be stable, and it is much more stable. Is it perfect? Absolutely not! There is a 

microwave technology out there that is probably very good, but it also requires an exclusive license. It 

is not open for anyone to use royalty free. The goal here is to have something that is royalty free by 

anybody that wants to make it. 
NTEP Committee 2011 Final Report 

Appendix A – NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector

NTEP - A28

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
NTEP Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix B – NTETC Measuring Sector

NTEP - B1 

Appendix B

National Type Evaluation Technical Committee (NTETC) 

Measuring Sector Annual Meeting

October 1 - 2, 2010 

Columbia, South Carolina 

Meeting Summary

Carry-over Items:....................................................................................................................................... NTEP - B2

1. Table of Key Characteristics of Products in Product Families for Meters Table..................................NTEP - B2

2. Testing Meters Made of Different Materials.........................................................................................NTEP - B4

3. Add Testing Criteria to NTEP Policy U “Evaluating electronic indicators submitted separate 

from a measuring element” ...................................................................................................................NTEP - B6

4. Policy C - Product Family Table – Change in Upper Limit for Oxygenated Blends – Note 4 .............NTEP - B9

5. Electronic Linearization for Positive Displacement Meters................................................................NTEP - B10

New Items:................................................................................................................................................. NTEP - B13

6. Code Reference S.1.6.1. Indication of Delivery – Reference to Indicator Reset ................................NTEP - B13

7. Development of Water Meters Checklist............................................................................................NTEP - B14

8. Development of Hydrogen Gas-Measuring Devices Checklist...........................................................NTEP - B16

9. Next Meeting ......................................................................................................................................NTEP - B17

Additional Items as Time Allows: ........................................................................................................... NTEP - B17

10. General Code, Section 1.10, Paragraph G-S.1. Marking (Software) (S&T Carryover Agenda 

Item)....................................................................................................................................................NTEP - B18

11. G-S.8.1. Provision for Sealing Electronic Adjustable Components, G-S.8.1. Adjustment Mode 

Indication, and Definitions for “Adjustment” and “Adjustment Mode” (HB 44 Section 1.10. 

General Code) (S&T Agenda Carryover Item)....................................................................................NTEP - B22

12. G-A.6. Nonretroactive Requirements (Remanufactured Equipment) (Handbook 44 Section 1.10. 

General Code) (S&T Agenda Carryover Item)....................................................................................NTEP - B22

13. Product Depletion Test Paragraph T.4. (HB 44 Section 3.31. Vehicle-Tank Meters) (S&T 

Item – New Item)................................................................................................................................. NTEP - B24

14. N.5.1. Verification of Master Meter Systems for Testing of Farm Milk Tanks (Handbook 44 

Section 4.42 Farm Milk Tanks) (S&T Item – New Item) ....................................................................NTEP - B26

15. S.2.6. Thermometer Well – Proposed New Paragraph for Handbook 44 Section 3.31. 

Vehicle-Tank Meters Code (S&T)......................................................................................................NTEP - B27

Appendices: 

Appendix A. Proposed Revisions to Policy C – Product Family Table (Agenda Item 1)....................... NTEP – B29

Appendix B. Action Items Table .............................................................................................................NTEP - B41

Appendix C. List of Attendees at 2010 Measuring Sector Meeting.........................................................NTEP - B44 
NTEP Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix B – NTETC Measuring Sector

NTEP - B2

Carry-over Items:

1. Table of Key Characteristics of Products in Product Families for Meters Table

Source: Carryover Item from 2006 - 2009 Measuring Sector Agendas 

Purpose: For the past several years, the Measuring Sector (Sector) has been working to revise the “Product 

Family” tables in National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM) Publication 14 (Pub 14) with the goal of 

clarifying the tests to be conducted and products to be referenced on a National Type Evaluation Progam (NTEP) 

Certificate of Conformance (CC) based on NTEP testing. This item is included on the agenda to allow for review of 

a recent revision to the tables and to determine what additional work is needed.

Background: Since 2006, the Sector has been working to develop and agree upon revisions to the NTEP Technical 

Policy on Product Families for Meters. The Sector has considered multiple iterations of the table and various 

formats with the goal of providing NTEP laboratories and manufacturers with guidelines that will help to improve 

the clarity and consistency of application of product family criteria. Please see the 2006 - 2009 Measuring Sector 

Meeting Summaries for details.

At the end of its 2009 meeting, the Sector reached the following conclusion:

Of three alternative versions of the table presented to the Sector during its 2009 meeting, the approach in 

which technologies are addressed in separate tables was viewed as a more appropriate approach. (Note: 

An example of this format is illustrated in Appendix C to the Sector’s 2009 Meeting Summary in a draft

table prepared by Mr. Henry Oppermann, W&M Consulting, and further revised and reformatted by 

Mr. Michael Keilty, Endress and Hauser.) 

Mr. Keilty agreed to continue to shepherd this work, coordinating with those who have expressed interest 

in this issue and welcoming additional input from other Sector members. Work was to be done to integrate 

the separated technology proposal with that presented at the 2009 Sector meeting. T his newly edited 

version will be circulated among Sector members and discussed with those members who are able to attend 

the January 2010 NCWM Interim Meeting. Based on any comments received, additional revisions may be 

made prior to presenting a revised draft to the Sector at the 2010 Sector meeting. The goal is to develop a 

version for inclusion in Pub 14, in which it is easy to understand which tests and procedures must be 

followed for type evaluation testing.

Since the 2009 Sector meeting, Mr. Keilty has continued working with members of the Sector to refine the table. 

Mr. Keilty reported receiving suggestions at the January 2010 NCWM Interim Meeting to:

(1) align the products in each horizontal row; and

(2) insert a column for conductivity to the magnetic flow meter column.

Based on suggestions received and discussions at the last Sector meeting, Mr. Keilty made revisions to the proposed 

table as outlined in Appendix A to the agenda. T he revisions also include the addition of product conductivity 

characteristics based on data received from Mr. Dmitri Karimov, Liquid Controls. Mr. Keilty noted that the first 

request to align product rows could not be easily accomplished and would significantly increase the page length of 

the table to make it unwieldy. 

Discussion: The Sector was asked to review and comment on proposed changes to NTEP Technical Policy Section 

C. as shown in Appendix A to the Sector’s 2010 Agenda. Sector Chairman, Mr. Keilty, indicated that there has been 

a lot of work done since the Sector’s 2009 meeting. He proposed that the Sector consider adoption of the table 

included in the appendix and asked the Sector members present for comment on the latest draft. 

Mr. Marc Buttler, Emerson Process Management - Micro Motion Inc., commented that the terminology used in the 

text of Policy C and the associated table may need to be examined more closely to ensure consistent use and 

understanding. In particular, it would be helpful to have a clear definition for family and category, and to have a 
NTEP Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix B – NTETC Measuring Sector

NTEP - B3 

clear understanding of the difference between subgroups, families, and other terms. Such clarifications would help 

to ensure uniform understanding and application of the technical policy in the future. As an example of how the 

criteria could be misinterpreted, Mr. Buttler noted that the Test B definition refers to the CC covering “all products 

and categories” listed in the table within the specific gravity range listed. Interpreted literally, this would mean that 

even product categories included under Test D would be included on the CC, and he believes this interpretation is 

incorrect. Further, under the mass flow meter column, Test B refers to families and there is a similar reference 

under Test D. These tests are intended to provide coverage within families of products, which are still not 

completely defined. Likewise, if you consider Test F under magnetic flow meters, there is a reference to families. 

However, there is no definition or reference to that term elsewhere. Modifying the table by adding definitions for 

the terminology would help clarify the use of the table. Mr. Buttler noted that, if we can agree on the meaning of the 

terms, the text in the table and associated policy could be modified rather easily.

Some questions regarding specific values referenced for given products were raised and some modifications were 

made to the table during the course of the discussions. Additionally, Mr. Dennis Beattie, Measurement Canada

(MC), noted that there are some products for which no values are listed. Mr. Keilty acknowledged that, for some 

products, we don’t have the data available, just like we don’t have information for conductivity in some instances. 

The Sector acknowledged that values for specific product characteristics can be added as that information becomes 

available, and noted that additional products can also be added over time. However, this is a start in providing the 

NTEP laboratories and manufacturers with additional data and guidance in assessing where particular products 

would fall in the families table.

Mr. Buttler questioned whether it is necessary to specify the type of viscosity being referenced under positive 

displacement meters. He also noted that it is necessary to consider the product characteristic relative to the 

metrology of the specific meter type. Mr. Beattie commented that one of Measurement Canada’s engineers 

preferred the use of the term kinematic throughout the table. H e also noted that they normally rate meters in 

centistokes as a more common term.

Sector Technical Advisor, Ms. Tina Butcher, National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Weights and 

Measures Division (WMD), suggested that consideration be given to using the same format for all meter 

technologies to make it easier to see the demarcation between product categories. For example, mass flow meters 

and magnetic flow meters include columns with “typical products,” “specific gravity,” and “product category” 

whereas, positive displacement meters and turbine meters list “product category” in rows at various points in the

table. Recognizing that page space might be an issue, consideration might be given to using the same format for all 

technologies.

At the conclusion of discussions on this item during the first day of the meeting, the Sector agreed that additional 

work might be done to the table, including assessing the use of the term kinematic (viscosity) throughout the 

document, considering deleting the term kinematic at the heading of the turbine meter column, and/or modifying 

footnote 5 to clarify its application. Mr. Buttler and Mr. Keilty volunteered to work on the additional changes to the 

table and present them for review by the Sector the following day.

One the second day of the 2010 Sector meeting, there was additional discussion of the table as modified overnight 

by Mr. Keilty and Mr. Buttler. The Sector further modified the table during the meeting and more discussion 

ensued. The Sector also agreed to modify the denominator of the equation defining kinematic viscosity as shown in 

Appendix A, to this meeting summary. Mr. Keilty summarized how the table was developed over the past couple of 

years, noting that the content extracted from the original tables has not changed much in the sense that ranges of 

products can be covered with a s pecific test(s); however, we have identified groupings with regard to specific 

products. He proposed that the Sector at least come to agreement on the reformatted structure, as shown in the table, 

with revisions during the meeting and asked the Sector for a vote.

Decision: After making revisions to the version of the table distributed with the Sector’s agenda and lengthy

discussion, the Sector agreed by a formal vote to recommend inclusion of the revised table (shown in 

Appendix A to this meeting summary) in the next edition of Pub 14. The results of the vote are as follows:
NTEP Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix B – NTETC Measuring Sector

NTEP - B4

Yes 13

No 1 

Abstain 0 

The Sector also agreed to move the heated products to a single section in the final version of the table.

NTEP Director, Mr. Jim Truex noted that the table does not address brine used as a de-icing solution for 

roads. The NTEP Measuring Labs discussed this during their meeting on October 1, 2010, and agreed that 

this product is to be considered in the category of clear liquid fertilizers. However, Mr. Truex noted that the 

product won’t be added to the table at this time, pending NTEP obtaining additional information about the 

specific characteristics of the product.

2. Testing Meters Made of Different Materials

Source: California NTEP Laboratory – Carryover from 2007-2009 Measuring Sector Agendas

Purpose: For the past several years, the Sector has been discussing the issue of how to assess variations in meter 

materials in conjunction with type evaluation testing. A key point of contention in these discussions revolves 

around changes to meter materials from that used in the meter evaluated during type evaluation. T he NTEP 

laboratories would like more definitive criteria to help them assess when changes to meter materials are 

metrologically significant to the extent that additional testing should be required in order for the new material to be 

covered on the NTEP CC. Meter manufacturers generally believe that changes in materials should be left to the 

judgment of the manufacturer, since they must ensure continued meter performance for their customers, and as the 

designers of the meter, they well understand and take into consideration product and environmental applications and 

adjust materials accordingly to meet the needs of the end application. The issue is further complicated by the lack of 

definitive criteria that would guide the NTEP laboratories in making a decision about which meter materials should 

be selected for testing to be representative of a range of materials.

Background: In 2006, the Sector considered the following proposal for adding a n ew section to the Technical 

Policy Section of Publication 14 to address meters made of different materials within the same family. 

U. Meters Made of Different Materials within the Same Family 

When multiple meters made of different materials within a meter family are submitted for evaluation all 

meters will be tested with at least one product from each product family to be included on the CC, and at 

least one meter will be tested with the range of products required in the Product Family Table for the meter 

type (e.g., positive displacement, turbine, mass meter, etc.) submitted for evaluation.

The Sector was unable to reach an agreement at its 2006 meeting and again reviewed this issue at its 2007, 2008, 

and 2009 meetings, but was again unable to reach a consensus on the item.

After discussing this issue at great length at its 2009 meeting, the Sector concluded that it would not reach a 

resolution on this issue by continuing to discuss it at the Sector meetings alone. Consequently, the Sector agreed to 

form a work group (WG), the “Metrologically Significant Characteristics of Technologies WG,” to arrive at a 

uniform, appropriate, and clear approach for initial, subsequent, and additional tests for the performance of a device 

technology. The following people agreed to serve on the WG: 
NTEP Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix B – NTETC Measuring Sector

NTEP - B5 

Metrologically Significant Characteristics of Technologies

Work Group

Organization Name

Actaris Mr. Rodney Cooper Chair

FMC Mr. Rich Miller Co-Chair

Emerson Process Management -

Micro Motion Inc.

Mr. Marc Buttler

Murray Equipment Mr. Paul Glowacki

Tuthill Transfer Systems Mr. Mike Guidry

Gilbarco Mr. Gordon Johnson

Liquid Controls Mr. Dmitri Karimov

The WG was tasked to:

(1) Create a short list of features/options affecting the metrological characteristics of each device technology 

by December 15, 2009;

(2) Prepare a 1 page analysis that briefly documents and provides the rationale for including each metrological 

characteristic in the list (referenced in task 1) by December 15, 2009;

(3) Review the first draft list of “significant constituents” and condense that list to only relevant characteristics;

and

(4) Prepare a final list for a WG meeting during the NCWM Interim Meeting by January 15, 2010. 

Discussion: At the 2010 Sector Meeting, Sector Chairman, Mr. Keilty, Endress and Hauser, asked for an update 

from any members of the WG on the progress of this work. Mr. Rodney Cooper, Tuthill Transfer Systems, noted 

that when he was asked to serve as Chairman of this WG, he worked for Actaris; he has since switched jobs and, 

with the need to focus on making this transition, he has been unable to devote time to this activity. While he would 

be willing to try to continue in the capacity of Chair and possibly prepare something by the next Sector meeting, he 

does not believe his current assignments would allow him adequate time to work on the project. He also noted that 

his Co-chair, Mr. Rich Miller, FMC, has indicated that he, too, is very busy.

Mr. Keilty noted that he had previously proposed that the Sector drop this item; however, the Sector indicated that 

the item is important. He asked for input on the idea of dropping the item from the Sector’s agenda. Mr. Cooper 

indicated that, while he believes the issue is still an important one, he believes that the revised product families table 

may address many of the concerns.

Mr. Jerry Butler, North Carolina NTEP Laboratory, indicated that the key issue was that manufacturers were 

responsible enough to monitor the materials on the meters. He also noted that a 20 day permanence test really isn’t 

adequate to assess the effect of a given material on meter performance in a given application. He suggested that, 

perhaps, a large part of the burden needs to be placed on the device purchaser to ensure that the meter purchased is 

suitable for the application. Mr. Dan Reiswig, CA NTEP Laboratory indicated that he had raised this issue noting 

inconsistencies with alloys and materials and the way in which they were listed on CCs. He suggested that the 

laboratories could continue to work with individual manufacturers and, if an alloy is to be referenced on a CC, then 

testing needs to be conducted with that alloy.

Sector Technical Advisor, Ms. Butcher, NIST WMD, commented that a key part of this issue was the question of 

what was and was not covered by a given CC; one manufacturer might test a particular material and list it on the CC, 

but if another manufacturer doesn’t list the material, there was a question of whether or not that material was 

covered. Without additional guidance in the NTEP policy, laboratories have to rely on individual manufacturers to 

provide guidance on the “worst case” scenarios to select for testing. M anufacturers who aren’t candid may be 

permitted to get by with doing less stringent testing, putting those manufacturers who are more forthright at a 

competitive disadvantage. NTEP Director, Mr. Truex, added that NTEP does not want to have to test with lots of 
NTEP Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix B – NTETC Measuring Sector

NTEP - B6

different materials; however, if an inspector calls and asks about a material that isn’t listed on the CC, then he would 

have to indicate that the meter made with that material is not covered. Mr. Truex indicated that he has serious 

reservations on hearing that there are still unresolved concerns on this issue (including that the material of the meter 

sold for a given application makes a metrologically significant difference), but that manufacturers will take care of 

this themselves. While most manufacturers such as those present at the table will probably do this reliably, NTEP 

deals with many, many companies and some companies are not so responsible. H e further commented that in 

discussing this issue, the Sector is asking manufacturers to identify the “worst case” scenarios, otherwise NTEP will 

have to do it for them.

Mr. Keilty observed that the Sector’s discussion on this issue seems to have evolved from the original discussion of 

meter materials into one of metrologically significant characteristics that are of importance to specific meter 

technologies. Mr. Wade Mattar, Invensys/Foxboro, commented that there is a fundamental difference between the 

metrologically significant features for a p articular technology. Others noted that for some technologies, certain 

materials and products are metrologically significant and for other technologies those same variables make no 

difference. 

Ms. Butcher reiterated that the NTEP Laboratories want to do the fewest tests possible and give manufacturers the 

most coverage based on those tests. W ithout guidelines, each laboratory will interpret this differently. T he 

laboratories are asking for guidance on what is and is not metrologically significant with respect to meter materials, 

to help ensure that they are making consistent decisions regarding what can or cannot be covered on a CC, and so 

that it is clear to the inspector in the field whether or not a given meter is covered by a CC.

Mr. Cooper questioned whether we will come back to the Sector meeting next year and once again argue about the 

issue without resolution if we head in the direction of defining metrologically significant criteria for materials. He 

indicated he does not see any benefit to doing this. Mr. Buttler, Emerson Process Management - Micro Motion Inc., 

questioned why we are singling out materials. He noted that there are many other aspects of design that could be 

considered metrologically significant. If it is likely that material will make a significant difference, then it may be 

worthwhile to purse development of this issue; if not, then it’s not worthwhile to continue with this issue. Mr. Truex 

commented that, if there is data that the manufacturer can provide, that would prove to NTEP that a particular 

attribute is not metrologically significant, then he believes this would be acceptable.

After further discussion on this issue without any apparent resolution, Mr. Keilty proposed dropping the item from 

the Sector’s agenda.

Decision: After extended discussion of this issue once again, the Sector appeared no closer to resolving the 

concerns regarding meter materials than it had in the past. Since no one could suggest or support any course 

of action that would enable the Sector to reach a resolution, the Sector agreed to drop this item from its 

agenda.

3. Add Testing Criteria to NTEP Policy U “Evaluating Electronic Indicators Submitted 

Separate from a Measuring Element”

Source: California NTEP Lab

 

Background: At its 2007 meeting, the Sector heard that Section U. of the NTEP Policy in Pub 14 allows for testing 

an indicator separate 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 separate 

from a measuring element for this section. From 2007 t o 2009, the CA NTEP laboratory worked to develop a 

checklist, but had received limited input on the drafts. At the 2009 Sector meeting, Mr. Reiswig, CA Division of 

Measurement Standards (DMS), provided an update to the Sector on progress to develop criteria for separate 

electronic indicators. He reported that the draft checklist provided to the Sector follows the general format of 

Pub 14, and the main test procedures are at the end of the document. Questions were raised about the readiness of 

the checklist for inclusion in NCWM Pub 14. The Sector agreed that some additional work is needed and suggested 

that a small WG be formed to further develop the checklist. One additional question to consider is whether or not 

the checklist would apply to indicators across all technologies and applications.
NTEP Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix B – NTETC Measuring Sector

NTEP - B7 

At the conclusion of its 2009 meeting, the Sector agreed to the following: 

• A small WG comprised of the following individuals is to further review and discuss the checklist.

Electronic Indicators Checklist Development

Work Group

Organization Name

Actaris Mr. Rodney Cooper

Tuthill Transfer Systems Mr. Maurice Forkert

Liquid Controls Mr. Dmitri Karimov

FMC Technologies Mr. Rich Miller

Veeder-Root Mr. Dave Rajala

NIST WMD Mr. Ralph Richter

CA DMS Mr. Dan Reiswig Checklist Developer

• The WG will provide input to Mr. Reiswig at least one month prior to the March 2010 NTEP Laboratory 

Meeting. Mr. Reiswig will provide this input to the Measuring Laboratories. One additional question the 

WG will consider is whether or not the checklist would apply to indicators across all technologies and in all 

applications.

• Following the March 2010 NTEP Laboratory meeting, Mr. Reiswig will modify the draft checklist based on 

feedback from the NTEP Measuring Labs.

• Mr. Reiswig will provide a co py of the draft checklist to the NIST Technical Advisor by the end of 

August 2010 to allow for distribution to the Sector one month prior to the fall 2010 Sector Meeting.

• Following the fall 2010 Sector meeting, Mr. Reiswig will work with Sector Technical Advisor Ms. Butcher, 

NIST WMD, to update the draft checklist to reflect comments from the Sector.

• Assuming the checklist requires no further modification or review by the Sector, Ms. Butcher will submit the 

checklist to the NTEP Committee to consider for inclusion in the 2011 version of NCWM Pub 14.

Discussion: The Sector heard an update from Mr. Reiswig who indicated that he distributed the checklist with a 

request for comments; however, none were received other than from the other NTEP Laboratories. T here were 

some members of the WG who indicated that they might discuss it at the January 2010 NCWM Interim Meeting, but 

he did not hear back from anyone regarding whether or not such a meeting took place. He has consulted with 

Measurement Canada and attempted to incorporate ideas from their procedures into the draft checklist. Mr. Reiswig 

believes the checklist still needs a lot of work before it is finalized. He noted that the key motivation for developing 

such a ch ecklist is to help ensure that all of the NTEP Laboratories are conducting evaluations of indicators 

consistently. Thus, he felt that it is still important to pursue development of the checklist, but noted that he 

particularly needs help from industry.

NTEP Director, Mr. Truex, recognized the amount of work that Mr. Reiswig has put into the development of the 

draft and pointed out the importance of having industry review the checklist to determine if it is ready to be 

finalized.

Mr. Cooper, Tuthill Transfer Systems, who was the only other individual (besides Mr. Reiswig) from the original 

WG present, pointed out that when he initially agreed to participate on the WG he worked for Actaris, a company 

that made digital indicators, where he could have consulted with engineers responsible for designing indicators. 

Though Mr. Cooper would like to be able to help, he has changed companies and he doesn’t feel he has the 

individual expertise needed to assist.
NTEP Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix B – NTETC Measuring Sector

NTEP - B8

During discussions of this item on the first day of the Sector meeting, the Sector concluded that it would be helpful 

for Mr. Reiswig and the other NTEP Laboratory representatives to identify a list of specific areas where work is 

needed in order to finalize the checklist. This list would also assist the Sector in identifying people in the industry 

who would best be able to assist as subject matter experts in those areas.

On the second day of the Sector’s meeting, Mr. Reiswig presented a list of five areas of the checklist that need 

specific attention and review. The Sector reviewed these items and added some additional comments.

Decision: The Sector agreed that Mr. Reiswig, CA Division of Measurement Standards (DMS), should 

continue developing the Checklist for Electronic Indicators Submitted Separate from a Measuring Element.

The Sector identified the following points that require further development and input from industry in order 

to finalize the checklist.

1. It is recommended to run a minimum of 10,000 pulses when verifying pulses captured. Should we 

consider specifying a minimum number of pulses/division? For example, 100 pulses = 1 indication 

division or 10 pulses = 1 indication division.

2. Would a limit of “plus or minus 1 pulse in 10,000” be an appropriate tolerance?

3. Test with low, medium, and high temperature inputs to the indicator to verify a t emperature 

compensation function, if available. Test with a minimum of two API Gravity values through the 

temperature test ranges tested. Identify and specify reference tables.

4. Develop a test to verify multi point calibration using pulses.

Include frequencies for switchover of linearizations. For example, specify a certain number of pulses 

per liters.

5. The tests listed above are based on an indicator receiving pulses from a measuring element. 

Therefore, it would seem logical to also develop tests for an indicator to verify other process signal 

output from other elements in the system that is sent to indicators such as frequencies at 4-20 

milliamps, or other process signals.

The Sector also identified the following people who might be able to provide additional input and asked that 

Mr. Reiswig also contact them to request their assistance.

Possible Industry Contacts to Assist in Review of

Draft Electronic Indicators Checklist

Organization Name Organization Name

Contrec Mr. Jef Gaskil Itron Mr. Mike McGhee

Dresser Wayne Mr. Phil Katselnik Kraus Global Mr. Gord Wedel

Emerson (Daniel) Mr. Andrew MacAllister Liquid Controls Mr. Dmitri Karimov

Emerson Process 

Management - Micro 

Motion Inc.,

Mr. Marc Buttler Measurement Canada Mr. Dennis Beattie

Endress and Hauser Mr. Michael Keilty Midwest Meter Mr. Rick Salvesen

FMC Mr. Rich Miller Toptech Mr. Jim Xander

Gilbarco Mr. Gordon Johnson VeederRoot Mr. Kevin Jensen

Invensys Mr. Wade Mattar

The Sector agreed that Mr. Reiswig should forward the latest draft of the checklist along with the five areas 

requiring specific attention to the people listed in the original WG and to the list of possible contacts above. 

Mr. Reiswig should ask for their assistance in reviewing and commenting on the checklist, noting that input 

on the five areas would be of particular help.
NTEP Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix B – NTETC Measuring Sector

NTEP - B9 

4. Policy C - Product Family Table – Change in Upper Limit for Oxygenated Blends – 

Note 4

Source: Mr. Gordon Johnson, Gilbarco, Inc.

Background: At its 2009 meeting, the Sector was asked to review Pub 14, Technical Policy C. Product families 

for meters, Note 4 in the product families table, which currently states:

"Gasoline includes oxygenated fuel blends with up to 15% oxygenate" 

The Sector was asked to consider changing the oxygenated fuel blends from 15 % to 25 %. The new Note 4 would 

read:

"Gasoline includes oxygenated fuel blends with up to 25% oxygenate"

At that time, Mr. Johnson, Gilbarco, Inc., advised the Sector that UL recently issued UL87A Edition 5, which details 

the tests and specifications needed to list dispensers for Ethanol and Ethanol blends. Mr. Johnson also outlined the 

history of this issue, noting that UL has made several significant changes to UL 87 (to include an alternative fuel 

standard) as a result of a push by EPA to coincide with a federal mandate to increase the levels of ethanol in vehicle 

fuel. He proposed changing the current reference in Pub 14 from 15 % standard to 25 %, noting that he has no data 

to illustrate the impact of the change. He indicated that both Gilbarco and Wayne are completing tests for E85, but 

no tests have been conducted for 25 %. H e also noted that there was not enough ethanol in production and he 

anticipated a gradual increase in the amount of 25 % fuels. He expressed concerns that weights and measures 

officials will tag devices out of service if equipment is used to deliver product above 15 % without a corresponding 

increase on the application section of NTEP CCs.

At the 2009 S ector meeting, the NTEP Measuring Laboratories agreed additional data is needed to support 

increasing the limit. After discussing this issue at that meeting, the Sector was unable to reach agreement on the 

proposed change to policy C. The Sector expressed its appreciation to Mr. Johnson for information on changes to 

the fuel standard and agreed that this should remain an information item on the Sector’s agenda. See the 2009 

Measuring Sector summary for details.

Discussion: As agreed to at the last Sector meeting, this item was included on the agenda to allow Sector members 

to provide any updates they might have on this issue.

At its 2010 meeting, the Sector discussed the history of this item and the meaning of the clause in Note 4 of the

Product Family table. S ummarizing from last year’s discussion, Technical Advisor, Ms. Butcher, NIST WMD, 

noted that the footnote does not preclude someone from submitting and testing for product with up to 25 % 

oxygenates; the footnote would simply not permit the higher (than 15 %) percentages to be covered without 

additional testing. When the Sector discussed this item last year, there was no available data on 25 % oxygenate 

blends, and that, because there was no UL approval on the units used to dispense the higher blends, it was not 

possible to conduct testing to demonstrate compliance. Several NTEP Lab representatives expressed the desire for 

additional data before extending the range to cover a larger percentage of oxygenate. Consequently, there was not 

support for making the proposed modification to Note 4 of the table. 

Decision: The Sector did not support increasing the upper limit referenced in Note 4 of Policy C - Product 

Family Table from 15 % to 25 % and decided to drop the item from its agenda. The Sector notes that the 

submitter can resubmit the item; however, the NTEP Laboratories have advised that they would want to see 

data supporting the proposed change before they would consider expanding the upper limit. I n the 

meantime, this decision does not preclude a company from submitting a meter for use with a higher 

percentage of oxygenate; it simply means that additional testing would be required in order to cover the 

higher percentage.
NTEP Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix B – NTETC Measuring Sector

NTEP - B10

5. Electronic Linearization for Positive Displacement Meters

Source: Mr. Maurice Forkert, Tuthill Transfer Systems

Background: At its 2009 meeting, the Sector was asked to add criteria into Pub 14 for electronic linearization for 

positive displacement meters. Mr. Forkert suggested considering, if permissible, Measurement Canada’s “Approval 

Procedure for Linearization Functions Incorporated in Measuring Systems” (Document Number VO-AP-037) as the 

basis for the criteria. Mr. Forkert noted that there apparently is no regulation for electronic linearization internal to a 

positive displacement meter. He also suggested some additional revisions to the Measurement Canada document 

(see 2009 Sector Summary for details).

In discussing this issue, reference was made to Pub 14 Policy G. Range of Data Points, which addresses the use of 

“multi-point calibration.” This policy specifies that “multi-point calibration” must be “blind and integral” which, 

according to the policy, is intended to mean it is programmed during the manufacture of the device and is not 

accessible in the field. The policy also prohibits multi-point calibration from being used as a means to establish the 

minimum turn down ratios of 5:1 or 10:1; however, it does allow the feature to be used to extend the measuring 

range beyond the minimum ratios. In discussing how this policy is to be applied in conjunction with Mr. Forkert’s 

example, there were questions regarding the use of the term “blind and integral.” Several members noted that a 

better definition of the term is needed in order to ensure consistent understanding of the term and its use in the 

application of requirements.

Mr. Forkert explained that his company had introduced a meter into the market with a linearization board and was 

advised by the weights and measures authority that there were no regulations to address that component. He 

recommended including the feature as allowable in the register, and to not require a s eparate evaluation of this 

component. H e explained that the part could not be removed or modified without breaking a s eal. H e also 

requested that the e-linearization feature be considered as part of the meter just as the pulse output component is 

looked at as part of the meter. 

Mr. Oppermann, Weights and Measures Consulting, commented that industry wants to be able to use e-linearization 

as a means to improve the performance of a meter and noted that this has been done for years with scales and load 

cells. Provided the performance is within acceptable levels, it should not matter how this is accomplished.

Mr. Forkert noted a distinction in his scenario is that they want the e-linearization feature to be considered a part of 

the meter, much as one would consider other components of the device. U nderstanding that the e-linearization 

feature is used to individually program each meter at the factory, some NTEP laboratory representatives expressed 

concerns about the possibility of interchanging parts in the field and the impact on meter performance, and 

questioned what means would be provided to deter field replacements. Some manufacturers noted that this should 

be viewed no differently than replacing other metrologically significant parts in the field; for example, meters are 

not shipped back to the factory for replacement of a rotor and replacement of the e-linearization board should be 

viewed in the same light. I t is up to the user/installer to ensure continued compliance with accuracy and other 

requirements.

There were also questions during the discussion regarding whether or not the e-linearization feature should be listed 

as a feature on the CC. Some pointed out that other device types use metrologically significant components that can 

be replaced in the field when problems are encountered. Repairs, adjustments, or changes to these features are 

generally obvious or detectable. Mr. Steve Patoray, Consultants on Certification, gave several examples of 

weighing device applications such as load cells (which are not repairable in the field), junction boxes (which can be 

protected by a security seal), and electronic boards (which are completely replaced when they fail).

The Sector discussed developing language to clarify the application of Policy G., but was unable to reach a 

conclusion at the meeting. While they did not identify a specific alternative, there was general agreement that the 

electronic linearization that is programmed during the manufacture of a device should not be readily accessible in 

the field without breaking an approved seal. The NTEP Labs expressed concern regarding the unique nature of the 

programming and how interchange of the e-linearization board would be controlled in the field to prevent the 
NTEP Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix B – NTETC Measuring Sector

NTEP - B11

facilitation of fraud. The Sector agreed that this issue requires additional work that would best be accomplished by a 

small WG. 

At its 2009 meeting, the Sector agreed that a small WG comprised of the following individuals be established to 

further develop this issue for the Sector’s review.

Developing Electronic Linearization Criteria

Work Group

Organization Name

Consultants on Certification Mr. Steve Patoray Work Group Chairman

Tuthill Transfer Systems Mr. Maurice Forkert

Maryland NTEP Laboratory Mr. Mike Frailer

Tuthill Transfer Systems Mr. Mike Guidry

Liquid Controls Corporation Mr. Dmitri Karimov

FMC Mr. Rich Miller

Meggitt/Whittaker Controls Mr. Ken Smith

The WG was tasked with the following:

1) Clarify Policy G. Range of Data Points by bouncing ideas off of Mr. Mike Frailer for:

a. Defining what is meant by multi-point calibration shall be “blind and integral” to the measuring 

element.

b. Clarifying what is meant by multi-point calibration shall be not "accessible" in the field.

2) Develop language in Policy G. Range of Data Points to allow for uniform interpretation and application 

of the criteria by the United States and Canadian stakeholders by February 2010, including: 

a. Where necessary to clarify the intent of the criteria:

i. Modify language

ii. Define terminology

3) Review and Discuss Modifications to Policy G. at the March 2010 NTEP Measuring Lab Meeting

Discussion: The Sector asked for an update of the WG’s progress.

Mr. Frailer, Maryland NTEP Laboratory, indicated that he has had no contact from any members of the WG on this 

issue.

Mr. Cooper, Tuthill Transfer Systems, reported that he visited with Mr. Maurice Forkert, Tuthill Transfer Systems, 

on this issue. H e noted that they are attempting to clarify that it is necessary to break a s eal to access meter 

adjustments, and he proposed the following alternative language for the Sector to consider:

“Multi-point calibrations shall be blind and integral (programmed during manufacture and not accessible in 

the field without breaking a physical seal).” 

Mr. Butler, North Carolina, NTEP Laboratory, questioned whether the term “blind and integral” is referring to 

something that is part of the meter that cannot be replaced or if it is referring to something else. O ther Sector 

members asked for clarification on various aspects of how Tuthill’s meter works.

Mr. Cooper clarified that, in Tuthill’s instance, the meter does all calculations within the meter; it does not rely on a 

separate device such as a controller for those adjustments. He noted that their meter has a programmable chip that is 

inside of the mother board of the device. The programmable chip is accessible by removing a cover and several 

screws. By using the program in the chip, it is possible to get a very flat curve, thus, taking a really good meter and 

making it even more accurate. Their product uses the same mother board for all meters across the product lines. 

The small, programmable chip has different pulses per gallon for different meters. If the mother board on a given 

meter were damaged, they would send a new mother board with a new chip with the exact same profile as the 
NTEP Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix B – NTETC Measuring Sector

NTEP - B12

original one for that individual meter. The mother board has all of the electronics in the meter; no matter which 

indicator is used with the meter, it will always provide the same output.

Technical Advisor, Ms. Butcher, NIST WMD, asked for clarification that the meter cannot be adjusted at multiple 

points along its calibration curve in the field. You can break a seal and change the chip; you can replace the chip 

with a chip with another profile, but you can’t selectively calibrate the meter at different points. This is unlike a 

meter that is interfaced with an indicator in which you can adjust the meter factor at different flow rates along its 

curve. Mr. Cooper indicated that this is correct.

Mr. Reiswig, California NTEP Laboratory, expressed concern over the possibility of being able to interchange a 

reprogrammed mother board in the field. The Sector discussed at length how the term “blind and integral” is being 

used in Tuthill’s scenario as well as in other instances and also discussed whether or not these various approaches 

would facilitate fraud. The Sector also discussed the importance of a meter being able to meet the basic 5:1 (or 10:1 

in the case of a mass flow meter) turndown ratio without being calibrated at multiple points. T he Sector also 

discussed whether or not there is justification for prohibiting multiple point calibration from being used to meet the 

minimum turn down ratio; however, there was not a cl ear consensus on this point. Some members also cited 

concerns about various types of adjustments being used to compensate for worn or poorly designed meters.

Mr. Beattie, Measurement Canada, commented that it appears we are giving two different features the same name. 

He associates the term “multipoint calibration” with something that is accessible in a register and that can be 

programmed in the field. He suggested that the Sector consider using the following International Organization of 

Legal Metrology (OIML) definition for “correction device:” 

OIML Definition for Correction Device:

“Device connected to or incorporated in the meter for automatically correcting the measured quantity 

at the time of measurement, by taking into account the flowrate and/or the characteristics of the liquid to 

be measured (viscosity, temperature, pressure, etc.) and the pre-established calibration curves.

The characteristics of the liquid shall either be measured using associated measuring devices, or stored 

in the memory of the instrument.” 

Mr. Cooper commented that OIML refers to the meter as a complete system. He suggested that the OIML 

terminology might make this issue overly complex and that we should strive to keep this issue simple. Mr. Cooper 

also noted that the multi-point calibration is not a correction device in this instance. If you can program this inside 

the meter and, after it leaves the factory you can’t change it, then it is “blind and integral to the meter.” We want to 

simply say that you can’t change it after it leaves the factory.

Following discussions on this issue the first day of the meeting, Mr. Cooper drafted alternative language for the 

Sector to consider. After further discussions on the issue, the Sector finally agreed on recommended changes to 

Policy G.

 

Decision: The Sector agreed to recommend that the second paragraph of Technical Policy G be replaced with 

the following:

A measuring element may use factory-established linearization curves to establish the minimum flow 

range (5:1, 10:1, or as required), providing the linearization programming is installed during 

manufacturing and the programming cannot be altered after leaving the manufacturer.

Auxiliary equipment (e.g., indicator or register) with programmable multi-point calibration that alters 

the output signal from the measuring element to extend the flow range of the system beyond the 

measuring element’s required minimum flow range may be used and the auxiliary device’s multi-point 

calibration will be noted on the CC and must be marked on the meter. 
NTEP Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix B – NTETC Measuring Sector

NTEP - B13

New Items:

6. Code Reference S.1.6.1. Indication of Delivery – Reference to Indicator Reset

Source: Mr. Dmitri Karimov, Liquid Controls

Background: The Sector was asked to consider modifying Pub 14 LMD Checklist Code Reference S.1.6.1. 

Indication of Delivery (see page LMD-29) by adding a “Note” to Step 5, as follows:

Code Reference: S.1.6.1. Indication of Delivery

7.25. Retail devices shall automatically show their initial zero condition and amount delivered up to the 

nominal capacity of the device. For electronic devices manufactured on or after 

January 1, 2006....to ensure delivery starts at zero.

7.26 For electronic devices manufactured prior to January 1, 2006....need not be indicated.

Test Method Steps:

Step 1: Set unit price on dispenser.

Step 5: Activate the dispenser and let the system reset to 8s, blanks then 0s.

Note: Display segment check instead of “8s and blanks” is allowed.

Putting aside the fact that there is no code reference that specifies an indicator must initially displays “8's and 

blanks,” this requirement might be applicable only to the old-style cathode tube-based displays. This requirement is 

not applicable to LED displays, which perform a segment check of the display.

In addition to the above reference to the NTEP LMD checklist, the submitter provided the following reference to 

OIML R 117-1, Page 55:

From R 117-1 (page 55)

a) For fuel dispenser

• displaying all the elements (“eights” test if appropriate); and

• blanking all the elements (“blank” test), and displaying “zeros” for quantity, and, if applicable, 

displaying the valid unit price and “zeros” for price, just before a new delivery starts. Each step of 

the sequence shall last at least 0.5 second.

b) For all other interruptible and non-interruptible measuring systems, the test sequence shall be as 

described under (a) (above) or any other automatic test cycle which indicates all possible states for 

each element of the display.

Discussion: Mr. Beattie, Measurement Canada, asked whether or not there is a s pecific reference to the reset 

display in NIST Handbook 44 (HB 44). Sector Technical Advisor, Ms. Butcher, NIST WMD, noted that there is not 

a specific reference in the Liquid-Measuring Devices code; however, there are General Code requirements 

specifying that a device must be in proper operating condition. Additionally, she noted that this checklist item is 

addressing a return to zero, not the segments. It might be appropriate to have something specific to address unlit 

segments. Sector Chairman, Mr. Keilty, Endress and Hauser, and NTEP Director, Mr. Truex, also cited references 

in the General Code, paragraphs G-S.5.1. Indicating and Recording Elements, General and G-S.6. Marking 

Operational Controls and Features that could be used to address malfunctioning displays.

The NTEP Measuring Labs reported meeting prior to the Sector meeting and suggested a proposed alternative 

(outlined in the Decision below) to address the issue. The Sector reviewed the proposed alternative and agreed that 

it appears to address the concern raised by the submitter.
NTEP Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix B – NTETC Measuring Sector

NTEP - B14

Decision: T he Sector agreed to recommend modifying Step 5 as follows to recognize other methods for 

resetting the indications:

Step 5: Activate the dispenser and let the system reset to 8s, blanks then 0s. Activate the dispenser and let 

the system reset to zero (for example, showing “8’s” and then zero; running through a segment check, or 

using another method of resetting the system).

7. Development of Water Meters Checklist

Source: Mr. Andre Noel, Neptune Technology Group, Inc.

Background: Utility type water meter manufacturers are receiving state requests for a N TEP Certificate of 

Approval. Utility type water meters under HB 44, Section 3.36. are evaluated under the California Type Evaluation 

Program (CTEP). Currently there is no NTEP for utility type water meters. The Sector was asked to consider 

adding a checklist for utility type water meters to Pub 14. Mr. Andre Noel, Neptune Technology Group, distributed 

(via e-mail) a draft checklist to the Sector Chairman, NTEP Director, and Technical Advisor the night before the 

Sector meeting; he also offered copies to those interested at the Sector meeting.

Discussion: At the Sector meeting, Mr. Noel provided an overview of this item. H e noted that he and 

representatives from other water meter manufacturers have been working quite a bit with CA DMS, which does 

most of the testing of water meters in the United States for those water meters regulated by weights and measures 

jurisdictions. Presently Certificates are issued under the California Type Evaluation Program, and, if a checklist and 

test procedures were developed for inclusion in Pub 14, then the scope of water meter testing could be expanded to

include NTEP testing. Mr. Noel proposed establishing a small WG to work on the development of a checklist and 

present it to the Sector for consideration.

The Sector was amenable to establishing a WG to work on the development of a checklist. Mr. Beattie, 

Measurement Canada, asked that Mr. Jim Welsh, Measurement Canada, be included in any mailings and 

correspondence since MC is currently working on its water meter criteria (Mr. Beattie confirmed this with 

Mr. Truex via e-mail during the Sector meeting). Sector Technical Advisor, Ms. Butcher, NIST WMD, asked that 

Mr. Ralph Richter, NIST WMD, be copied on any WG correspondence since he is the U.S. technical point of 

contact for OIML R49 (Water Meters). NTEP Director, Mr. Truex, noted that this draft should be circulated to as 

many people in the community as possible.

Mr. Reiswig, California DMS, advised the Sector that he put together a d raft checklist a few years ago, and 

circulated the document. He noted that, in the draft presented to the Sector, Mr. Noel has made some changes to the 

original document, and for some of the changes, California DMS is not in agreement with the proposed changes. 

For example, with regard to the number of meters to be tested, California tests three meters of the same model. This 

is a bit different from what NTEP does in testing other meter types; however, the testing process is different for 

water meters in that three meters can be tested at one time on a water meter test bench. Additionally, conducting 

only nine tests on a water meter still provides an extremely limited data set for a meter that is used so widely in 

apartment buildings. An additional area of discussion is the flow rates at which the meters are to be tested. 

Mr. Reiswig noted that California DMS is in closer agreement to the proposed procedures now than previously, and 

anticipates continued work will allow these differences to be resolved. Mr. Reiswig noted that his comments are 

reflected using track changes in the document that Mr. Noel has submitted.

Mr. Keilty, Endress and Hauser, questioned the inclusion of criteria for remote communication in the draft checklist 

and asked whether event counters would be required. Mr. Reiswig explained that the criteria were included because 

California anticipates seeing this type of feature on meters in the future. Ms. Juana Williams, NIST WMD, also 

suggested that the HB 44 Water Meters Code be examined with regard to any proposed audit trail criteria to be sure 

that the proposed criteria is supported by the code; if not supported, a proposed change to the code might need to be 

considered. Likewise, the WG might be alert to other proposed changes to the code which would update the code to 

reflect current technology. Ms. Butcher, suggested that as the group reviews the code and develops the checklist, 

that it examine American Water Works Association standards and consider proposed changes to the code and/or 
NTEP Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix B – NTETC Measuring Sector

NTEP - B15

checklist. Manufacturers have criticized the HB 44 Code for divergence from AWWA standards, and this might be 

an opportune time to propose changes to either HB 44 or to AWWA to harmonize standards where appropriate. In 

some instances differences may make sense since the focus of HB 44 and AWWA are somewhat different; however, 

if there are areas where the standards can be better aligned, we should consider taking steps to do so. Additionally, 

it would be helpful to make the NCWM Specifications and Tolerances (S&T) Committee aware of needed changes 

to HB 44.

Mr. Keilty asked whether or not the draft checklist might be ready for circulation to the Sector by the 2011 NCWM 

Interim Meeting, with the ultimate goal of readying the checklist over the next year for publishing in the 2012 

edition of NCWM Pub 14. Mr. Noel and Mr. Reiswig indicated that this could be accomplished. 

Decision: The Sector agreed to establish a WG to further develop the draft checklist presented to the Sector 

at its October 2010 meeting. The WG consists of:

Water Meters Checklist Development

Work Group

Member Company/Organization

Mr. Andre Noel Neptune Technology Group

Mr. Dan Reiswig California Division of Measurement Standards

Mr. Jim Welsh Measurement Canada (MC) (pending confirmation 

by Mr. Dennis Beattie)

Mr. Noel will forward the draft checklist to other companies such as those who hold CA type approval 

certificates to ensure that it gets wide distribution. Mr. Beattie, MC, will contact Mr. Welsh, MC, and 

confirm that it is acceptable for Mr. Noel to forward the document to Mr. Welsh for input from MC.

 

In developing the checklist, the group is asked to: 

(1) Identify areas in HB 44 Section 3.36. Water Meters Code where changes might be appropriate to update 

the criteria to reflect current technology and practices. For example, more specific audit trail criteria 

may need to be added to the Water Meters Code. 

(2) Forward any proposed changes to HB 44 to the NCWM S&T Committee via the established NCWM 

process by preparing and submitting NCWM Form 15 to the regional weights and measures associations 

and NTETC Measuring Sector. 

(3) Consider any differences between AWWA standards and NIST HB 44 and consider recommendations 

for aligning the two documents where that makes sense.

(4) Copy the Measuring Sector Chairman, Mr. Keilty and Technical Advisor, Ms. Butcher on 

communications to the group.

(5) Copy Mr. Richter, NIST WMD, who is the U.S. point of contact for OIML R49 with any proposed drafts.

(6) Distribute a subsequent draft for review by the Sector by the January 2011 NCWM Interim Meeting.

(7) Distribute a final draft for review by the Sector at least a month prior to the fall 2011 Sector meeting.

This item will be maintained as a Carryover Item on the Sector’s agenda.
NTEP Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix B – NTETC Measuring Sector

NTEP - B16

8. Development of Hydrogen Gas-Measuring Devices Checklist

Source: NIST Weights & Measures Division

Background: At the July 2010 NCWM Annual Meeting, NCWM members voted to add a t entative code for 

commercial hydrogen gas-measuring devices to HB 44. Since the majority of states require NTEP CCs for 

commercial weighing and measuring devices, offering NTEP CCs for these devices would facilitate the acceptance 

of these devices in the commercial marketplace and assist states in their assessment of these devices.

The Sector was asked to discuss and consider the following:

(1) Propose that the NTEP Committee consider expanding the scope of NTEP evaluations to include 

hydrogen gas-measuring devices.

(2) In anticipation that the NTEP Committee will support this proposal, establish a small work group tasked 

with the development of a checklist for hydrogen gas-measuring devices.

Discussion: NTEP Director Mr. Truex noted the importance of developing a checklist for hydrogen gas-measuring 

devices in a timely manner. Now that a tentative code has been adopted, manufacturers of this equipment will begin 

seeking type evaluation on these devices. Particularly since this equipment is already in use, Mr. Truex commented 

that we are already behind in the development of a checklist. He cited a similar situation with Multiple Dimension 

Measuring Devices and noted the importance of involving all parties affected by the code, including manufacturers, 

users, regulatory officials, and NTEP laboratories. Mr. Truex also noted that, since alternative fuels are highly 

visible, some jurisdictions may get political pressure to accept devices in advance of finalizing the HB 44 code and 

NTEP checklists. Mr. Truex also cited the paragraph included in the application section of the tentative code which 

states that NTEP will only accept for type evaluation those devices which comply with the provisions of the code.

Sector Chairman, Mr. Keilty, Endress and Hauser, suggested establishing a small WG of Sector members to develop 

a draft for consideration by the Sector. Technical Advisor, Ms. Butcher, NIST WMD, recommended including 

Sector members who have served on the U.S. National Work Group (USNWG) for hydrogen, since they would be 

familiar with the criteria included in the draft code and represent many of the interest groups noted by Mr. Truex. 

Sector members present were amenable to the idea of establishing a WG to work on a draft checklist.

Several members noted that California DMS had developed a draft checklist in 2008 and NIST WMD provided 

comments on the checklist; however, the work had been set aside pending further development of the HB 44 code. 

Now that the code has been adopted as a tentative code, this checklist could be resurrected and updated to reflect the 

provisions of the tentative code. Ms. Butcher noted that the USNWG is continuing to work on developing 

recommended test procedures for hydrogen gas-measuring devices; she suggested that work could move ahead in 

developing the portions of the checklist other than the test procedures section, including updating the draft 

developed by California DMS to the current tentative code requirements; once the USNWG has completed its work 

on recommended test procedures, the WG would have information that could be used as the basis for developing 

more detailed type evaluation test procedures. Ms. Williams, NIST WMD and Technical Advisor to the USNWG 

on Hydrogen Measuring Devices, advised the Sector that last year Ms. Diane Lee, NIST WMD, developed and 

circulated a draft EPO and associated Excel spreadsheet for use in testing hydrogen-gas measuring devices; while 

the draft is not final, this information might also be of use to the WG. She also noted that the USNWG members 

provide links to the broader hydrogen measurement community, and many, including herself, are involved in 

international standards development such as OIML R139 (which addresses compressed gas motor fuels) and OIML 

R81 (which addresses liquid hydrogen). Ms. Butcher commented the test procedure developed by NIST WMD is 

based on other NIST examination procedure outlines (EPOs) for gravimetric testing, and NIST has questions about 

the uncertainties associated with gravimetric testing for these devices given the relatively small net quantities 

involved and the availability of appropriate equipment in field environments. Consequently, the USNWG is actively 

exploring other alternatives to find the best solution for field testing. Mr. Reiswig, California DMS, noted that 

California DMS has contracted with the California Energy Commission for the development of field test equipment 

and procedures and, while there have been delays as a result of the contracting process, he anticipates this work will 

provide input for the WG to use.
NTEP Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix B – NTETC Measuring Sector

NTEP - B17

Decision: The Sector established a small WG to develop a d raft Pub 14 Hydrogen Measuring Devices 

Checklist for the Sector to consider at its next meeting. The WG consists of the following:

 

Work Group on Hydrogen Gas-Measuring Devices NTEP Checklist

Member Company/Organization

Mr. Michael Keilty (Work Group 

Chair)

Endress and Hauser

Mr. Dennis Beattie Measurement Canada (to link to expert MC’s compressed 

gases area)

Mr. Marc Buttler Emerson Process Management - Micro Motion Inc.

Mr. Mike Gallo CLEANFUEL USA

Mr. Dan Reiswig California Division of Measurement Standards

Ms. Juana Williams National Institute of Standards and Technology

The WG will begin by reviewing a draft checklist prepared in 2008 by Mr. Norman Ingram, California

Division of Measurement Standards. Ms. Williams will contact Mr. Ingram to ask that he send a copy of the 

checklist to the members of this WG to ensure that everyone is working on the same version of the checklist. 

The WG will:

(1) Update the checklist to correspond to the 2010 version of the Hydrogen Gas-Measuring Devices 

Code (adopted by the NCWM in July 2010);

(2) Review the checklist and provide comments to Sub Group Chairman, Mr. Keilty;

(3) Schedule web conference call(s) to discuss needed changes; and

(4) Finalize the draft and present it to the Sector for consideration at its next meeting.

The Sector also acknowledged that the USNWG on hydrogen is presently exploring multiple options for 

performance tests of hydrogen measuring instruments. Once the USNWG makes its final recommendations 

for field test procedures for these devices, the WG will proceed to work on the development of test procedures 

for type evaluation. Ms. Williams will also update the USNWG on the Sector’s efforts so that they are aware 

of the work.

9. Next Meeting

The Sector was asked to develop a proposed date and location for the next meeting. The Sector discussed whether 

to recommend that the meeting continue to be held in conjunction with the Southern Weights and Measures 

Association (SWMA) meeting or to recommend that it be held with another regional association or as a separate 

meeting. The Sector discussed some alternate ideas; however, there were no strong feelings to either maintain the 

current arrangements or to consider an alternative.

Recommendation: The Sector agreed to recommend that its next meeting be held in conjunction with the 

SWMA once again. However, because the Sector must be mindful of meeting publication deadlines for the 

NCWM Interim Meeting Agenda, the Sector noted that this decision may need to be revisited once a date and 

location has been selected for the next SWMA meeting.

Additional Items as Time Allows: 

The Measuring Sector was asked to provide input to the NCWM S&T Committee on the following measuring

related issues on its agenda if time permitted during the Sector Meeting. In the interest of brevity, the narrative for 
NTEP Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix B – NTETC Measuring Sector

NTEP - B18

each item is abbreviated to the extent practical. Full descriptions of the items can be found in the S&T Committee’s 

list of carryover items and its 2009 Interim and Final Reports. 

10. General Code, Section 1.10, P aragraph G-S.1. Marking (Software) (S&T Carryover 

Agenda Item) 

Sources: 2009 and 2010 NTETC Software Sector Agenda Items and 2010 S&T Item 310-3 G-S.1. Identification. 

(Software)

See also:

2010 Software Sector summary: 

(http://ncwm.net/sites/default/files/meetings/software/2010/10_Software_Summary.pdf) 

2010 Interim Report of the S&T Committee: 

(http://ts.nist.gov/WeightsAndMeasures/Publications/10-Pub16.cfm) 

Background: Weights and Measures inspectors need a means to determine whether equipment discovered in the 

field has been evaluated by NTEP. If so, the inspector needs to know at a minimum the CC number. From this 

starting point, other required information can be ascertained. Currently HB 44 Paragraph G-S.1. includes three 

options for marking of the CC:

1. Permanent marking; 

2. Continuous display; or

3. Recall using a special operation. 

Manufacturers of Purpose-built (known internationally as “Type P”) equipment often choose permanent marking. 

For Type Approved software executing on a Universal computer (internationally known as “Type U”), permanent 

making is not very practical. The second option of continuous display is also undesirable as the permanent display

because it occupies valuable operator/customer screen area. As a r esult most makers of software for Type U 

equipment opt for the special recall option. Unfortunately, Paragraph G-S.1. is somewhat vague about the specific 

means of recall. According to the Software Sector, software makers can be quite creative, leaving the field inspector 

guesswork, frustration, and wasted time. If the inspector complains about how difficult it is to locate required 

information, the maker notes that the recall procedure is documented in the CC. But this is precisely the information 

that cannot be retrieved in the field, leading to a circular argument.

Compounding the problem, makers of sophisticated built-for-purpose equipment would also like the same flexibility 

currently afforded to makers of software for Type U equipment. The recall method is not available to the Type P 

maker today.

In response to comments heard during the 2010 NCWM Interim meeting, the Software Sector (at its March 2010

meeting) proposed changes to the language shown in the NCWM S&T Committee’s 2010 Interim Report 

Item 310-3. These revisions removed the differentiation between types of software (Type P and Type U) while still 

managing to achieve the Sector’s objective of simplifying the process of locating required marking information. 

That revised proposal can be seen in the 2010 Software Sector Summary and is not included here for the sake of 

brevity.

In summary, for S&T Item 310-3 the Software Sector now suggests amending the current item under the S&T 

Committee’s consideration. The Software Sector also initiated discussion on two new concepts, which may 

eventually result in additional recommendations to amend G-S.1. It should be noted that these new ideas are in the 

developmental stage, and are included here by request of the Software Sector, since its members would appreciate 

comments from the regions and other interested parties.
NTEP Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix B – NTETC Measuring Sector

NTEP - B19

First, the Software Sector sees merit to requiring some connection between the software identifier 

(i.e., version/revision) and the software itself. The proposal was as follows (with the expectation that examples of 

acceptable means of implementing such a link would be included in Pub 14).

Add a new sub-subparagraph (3) to G-S.1.(d) to read as follows: 

“The version or revision identifier shall be directly and inseparably linked to the software itself. The 

version or revision identifier may consist of more than one part, but at least one part shall be dedicated 

to the metrologically significant software.”

Second, it seems that at each meeting of the Software Sector, the state officials reiterate the problems they have in 

the field when attempting to locate the basic information required when the CC number is marked via the rather 

general current HB 44 requirement of ‘accessible through an easily recognizable menu, and if necessary a s ubmenu’ [G-S.1.1. (b)(3)]. The states have indicated that this is too vague and field inspectors often cannot find the 

certificate number on unfamiliar devices.

The Software Sector would like feedback on the proposal to specify a limited number of menu items/icons for 

accessing the CC number (it is not hard-marked or continuously displayed) in proposed G-S.1.1. subparagraph (b) as 

follows:

(b) The CC Number shall be: 

(3) accessible through one or, at most, two levels of access.

(i) For menu-based systems, “Metrology”, “System Identification”, or “Help”.

(ii) For systems using icons, a metrology symbol (“M” or “SI”), or a help symbol (“?,” “I,” or an 

“i” within a magnifying glass).

Note that this is not suggested to be the final list of valid options for locating the point of access for the CC number; 

the Software Sector would like to have feedback specifically on other acceptable menu text/icon images that identify 

how to access the CC number on software-based systems. The Software Sector agreed that a reasonable list of

acceptable options is not as much of an issue as the fact that the list is finite. The sector realizes this may affect 

manufacturers so feedback from associate members and representative groups is also appreciated.

A Possible Compromise Solution:

The Software Sector is asking if the restrictions for marking Type P equipment (which allow the same options as for 

Type U) be relaxed in exchange for limiting the number of optional means for recalling the CC number when a 

recall sequence is required.

The proposed limitations on CC recall sequence are:

1. Recall shall not require more than two levels of operations. The CC recall method (trigger, command, etc.) 

may be present either on the main screen or one sub-menu/sub-screen down.

2. A limited number of menu text strings or icon shape choices are permitted for both the CC recall methods 

and the optional top level. (There is actually some validity to the argument that this requirement is currently 

already implied by the term ‘readily identifiable menu’ currently used in HB 44 paragraph G-S.1. to 

describe the allowable means of recalling the CC.)

Of course, to affect this compromise, a finite list of acceptable menu text/button icon options will have to be agreed 

upon and documented. Note that the states didn’t express much concern about the actual number of allowable 

selections included (although they agreed it should be reasonable); they are more concerned that there is simply a 
NTEP Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix B – NTETC Measuring Sector

NTEP - B20

finite list of options which the NTEP labs can reference to validate the device’s implementation and that using that 

same list inspectors can locate the required information in the field.

Thus, the Software Sector developed the following brief initial list of ideas of allowable/acceptable menu text and 

icons as a starting point for developing the complete list of acceptable options for the readily identifiable menu. 

Comments and additional suggestions for entries in the list are welcome.

Permitted Menu Text 

examples

Permitted Icon 

shape examples Essential characteristics

Information

Info

Top level menu text or icon

• Icon text is a lower case “i” with block serifs

• Text color may be light or dark but must contrast with the 

background color

• Icon may have a circular border

• Activation of this menu text/icon may invoke a second level 

menu text/icon that recalls metrology information.

Help

? 

Top level menu text or icon

• Icon text is a question mark

• Text color may be light or dark but must contrast with the 

background color

• Icon may have a circular border

• Activation of this menu text/icon may invoke a second level 

menu text/icon that recalls metrology information.

Metrology

Metrological 

Information

Top or second level menu text or icon

• Icon text is an upper case “M”

• Text color may be light or dark but must contrast with the 

background color

• Icon may have a rectangle or rounded rectangle border

• If present, the activation of this menu text/icon must recall at 

a minimum the NTEP CC number. Other metrology 

information may optionally be displayed.

SI

S.I.

Top or second level menu text or icon

• Icon text is upper case “SI”

• Text color may be light or dark but must contrast with the 

background color

• Icon may have a rectangle or rounded rectangle border

• If present, the activation of this menu item/icon must recall 

at a minimum the NTEP CC number. Other metrology 

information may optionally be displayed.

NTEP Data

N.T.E.P. Certificate

This one is debatable – what if the certificate is revoked? Does 

NTEP grant holders of CCs the right to display the logo on the 

device, or just in documentation?

Acceptable examples of where the text or icon may be displayed: 

1. The “M” icon is available on the home screen. Activation of the icon displays a new screen containing the 

CC number and some additional metrology information including the software version/revision number(s).

?

M

M

SI

SI

?
NTEP Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix B – NTETC Measuring Sector

NTEP - B21

2. The “SI” icon is available on the home screen. T ouch screen activation of the icon displays a pop-up 

containing the CC number. Releasing the icon erases the pop-up.

3. The main screen contains the “i” icon (information). Activating this icon displays a screen of other icons 

including the “M” icon. Activating the “M” icon displays the NTEP CC.

4. The main menu includes a “Help” selection which in turn contains a “Metrology” selection. Activation of 

the Metrology selection displays a pop-up screen containing all global metrological approvals, including 

the NTEP CC number. The user manually dismisses the pop-up screen by pressing the [X] button.

5. The main menu includes an “Info” selection which in turn contains a “SI” selection. Activation of the SI 

selection displays a pop-up screen containing all global metrological approvals, including the NTEP CC 

number. The user manually dismisses the pop-up screen by pressing the [OK] button.

Recommendation to the Measuring Sector: This item was included on the Measuring Sector’s agenda as an 

information item to keep Sector members informed of the progress of this NCWM S&T Issue and to ask for input 

from Sector members on this issue.

The S&T Committee has been considering changes to G-S.1. to better address identification requirements for 

metrologically significant software in software-based systems. The Committee has considered multiple proposals 

under this item from the NTETC Software Sector and the weights and measures community. A t the July 2010

NCWM Annual Meeting, the S&T Committee agreed to maintain this as an Information item on its agenda to allow 

for additional review and input. As noted above, the Software Sector is looking for specific feedback on proposed 

modifications to paragraph G-S.1. so that it can develop a revised proposal for consideration by the S&T 

Committee. Should time permit the Measuring Sector to discuss this item, the NCWM S&T Committee and the 

Software Sector would appreciate the Sector’s input.

Discussion: NTEP Director and past Software Sector Chairman, Mr. Truex, provided a history of how this issue 

evolved. H e noted that there were multiple attempts to address software in not-built-for purpose devices. T he 

Software Sector has attempted to further simplify the identification requirements that apply to software-based 

systems and has made multiple suggestions that were not accepted. The Sector has taken a step back and is trying to 

get the point across that the marking requirements are not for the manufacturer, but to assist the inspector in the 

inspection process and in assessing whether or not a specific device, including software, is covered under an NTEP 

CC. The Sector realizes that this information is not going to be physically marked on the device, and is looking for 

alternatives in which this information can be provided electronically to inspectors in an easily accessible manner. It 

will likely be provided on the device’s display screen and there is limited space for this information to be displayed. 

The SW Sector is looking for input on the general direction it should take in developing/updating HB 44 

requirements. If the direction seems reasonable, the SW Sector will further develop the idea; if not, the Sector will 

consider an alternative direction.

The Sector discussed some of the symbols in the proposed list of icons and discussed differences between built-forpurpose and not-built-for-purpose devices. Some Sector members also acknowledged that sometimes changes to 

software will affect the metrological functions of the device, even though the change was not intended to have that 

effect, and was supposed to be a “non-metrologically significant” change. S ome members, particularly the 

regulators, supported the idea of a “Weights and Measures” key that would be standardized and, thus, readily 

recognized by the field official. Mr. Truex acknowledged that the regulatory community has, in his opinion, 

indicated that the options need to be limited. Mr. Rich Tucker, RL Tucker Consulting LLC, and Mr. Keilty, Endress 

Hauser, Flowtec AG USA, expressed support for labeling the key that would enable display of the required 

information as “help.”

Decision: The Sector had no additional technical guidance to offer to the S&T Committee on this issue. 

However, based on comments from Sector members present, the Sector expressed general support for trying to 

refine the marking requirements and limit the number of options for marking keys that enable the inspector to 

view the required marking information.
NTEP Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix B – NTETC Measuring Sector

NTEP - B22

11. G-S.8.1. Provision for Sealing Electronic Adjustable Components, G-S.8.1. Adjustment 

Mode Indication, and Definitions for “Adjustment” and “Adjustment Mode” (HB 44 

Section 1.10. General Code) (S&T Agenda Carryover Item)

Purpose: T he purpose of the proposed changes is to clarify what is considered an effective method of sealing 

metrological features and what information is required to be indicated and recorded when a d evice is in a 

metrological adjustment mode.

Background: For several years, the NCWM S&T Committee has been considering proposed modifications to 

General Code paragraph G-S.8. that would help to ensure that the paragraph is being consistently interpreted during 

type evaluation and by the weights and measures community in field applications.

The Committee has heard opposition to making changes to G-S.8. from SMA and the NTETC Weighing Sector. 

NIST WMD suggested that the Committee consider withdrawing the item and proposing changes to align the 

NTETC weighing devices checklist with the measuring devices checklists.

The S&T Committee agreed that the current language in paragraph G-S.8. requires that a security seal be broken 

before a metrological change can be made to a device (or other approved means of security is provided, such as an 

audit trail). Thus, once a security seal is applied, it should not be possible to make a metrological change to the 

device without breaking that seal. Since this is the primary philosophy for protecting access to metrological 

adjustment, the philosophy should be applied consistently to all device types. 

The Committee is concerned about a device which could be sealed in a mode that would allow access to calibration 

or configuration changes without breaking a seal. Since the NTEP tests and procedures are based on interpretations 

of HB 44, the Committee supports the efforts of the Weighing Sector and is recommending that this item remain 

informational until Publication 14 type evaluation procedures to verify compliance with G-S.8. provisions for 

sealing are consistent with the Committee’s interpretation of G-S.8. stated in the previous paragraph.

The NCWM S&T Committee is looking to the Weighing Sector to develop type evaluation criteria consistent with 

the philosophy stated in the Publication 14 LMD checklist. T hus, no action was asked of the Measuring Sector. 

This item was included on the Measuring Sector’s agenda as an information item to keep Sector members informed

of the progress of this NCWM S&T issue and to acknowledge that the criteria in the LMD checklist is consistent 

with the intent of G-S.8.

See the 2008 and 2009 NCWM Annual Reports and the 2010 Interim and Annual Reports for additional background 

information.

Discussion: Sector Chairman, Mr. Keilty, and Sector Technical Advisor and NCWM S&T Committee Technical 

Advisor, Ms. Butcher, gave an overview of this item and noted that no action was required on the part of the Sector 

unless the Sector had comments it wishes to share with the S&T Committee.

Decision: The Sector had no additional technical guidance to offer to the S&T Committee on this issue.

12. G-A.6. Nonretroactive Requirements (Remanufactured Equipment) (HB 44 Section 

1.10. General Code) (S&T Agenda Carryover Item)

Source: WWMA and SWMA, 2010 Carryover Item 310-4. 

Purpose: Clarify the intent of the 2001 NCWM position on the application of nonretroactive requirements to 

devices which have been determined to have been “remanufactured.”

Item Under Consideration: Amend HB 44 General Code paragraph G-A.6. Nonretroactive Requirements by 

amending subparagraphs (a) and (b) as follows:
NTEP Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix B – NTETC Measuring Sector

NTEP - B23

G-A.6. Nonretroactive Requirements. – “Nonretroactive” requirements are enforceable after the effective 

date for:

(a) devices manufactured and remanufactured within a state after the effective date;

(b) both new, and used, and remanufactured devices brought into a state after the effective date; and

(c) devices used in noncommercial applications which are placed into commercial use after the effective 

date. 

Nonretroactive requirements are not enforceable with respect to devices that are in commercial service in the 

state as of the effective date or to new equipment in the stock of a manufacturer or a dealer in the state as of the 

effective date. 

[Nonretroactive requirements are printed in italic type.]

(Amended 1989 and 201X) 

Background: NIST WMD received an inquiry from a state Weights and Measures Director regarding whether a 

nonretroactive paragraph in the LMD Code of HB 44 would apply to a remanufactured device. In researching this 

inquiry, WMD discovered an unintended gap in the General Code requirements relative to remanufactured 

equipment.

• Paragraph G-S.1.2. Remanufactured Devices and Remanufactured Main Elements is a nonretroactive 

requirement for marking a device with the remanufacturer’s information and became enforceable as of 

January 1, 2002. WMD believes that this paragraph was intended to apply to remanufactured devices and 

remanufactured main elements that have been placed into commercial service as of the effective date of the 

requirement, which was January 1, 2002.

• Paragraph G-A.6. Nonretroactive Requirements (which provides the various conditions in which 

nonretroactive requirements apply) does not include references to “remanufactured devices” or 

“remanufactured main elements.” Subparagraph (a) (of G-A.6.) references and applies to “manufactured” 

devices within a state. Appendix D of HB 44 defines a “manufactured” device as any commercial 

weighing or measuring device shipped as new from the original equipment manufacturer (OEM). 

Subparagraph (b) could be applied to remanufactured devices that are brought into a state, but could not be 

applied to those devices installed by a remanufacturer or distributor operating within the state. 

Subparagraph (c) applies to devices placed into commercial service that had previously been used in 

noncommercial applications.

If paragraph G-A.6. does not apply to remanufactured devices, then paragraph G-S.1.2. cannot be applied to 

remanufactured devices as it is currently written. Additional details on this item were included in the Sector’s 2010 

Agenda and in the NCWM S&T Committee’s 2010 Interim and Annual Reports.

The S&T Committee is considering a change to paragraph G-A.6. to clarify its application to “remanufactured” 

equipment. However, the Committee heard suggestions from two regional Weights and Measures associations, 

industry representatives, and remanufacturers requesting the item be made informational to give the device 

remanufacturers additional time to evaluate the impact of the proposed amendment to G-A.6. 

This item was included on the Sector’s agenda to keep Sector members informed of the issue and allow opportunity 

for input should time permit.

Discussion: Sector Chairman, Mr. Keilty, and Sector and NCWM S&T Committee Technical Advisor, Ms. 

Butcher, summarized the background information on this item. During discussions of this issue, some Sector 

members asked about definitions for the difference between “remanufactured” and “repaired.” Ms. Butcher noted 

that, in proposing this item, NIST WMD is not attempting to redefine these terms or to suggest that the community 

change how it addresses these devices; the proposal is only attempting to correct a gap in the current HB 44 

language. NTEP Director, Mr. Truex, who also served as the Chairman of the NCWM Task Force on 
NTEP Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix B – NTETC Measuring Sector

NTEP - B24

Remanufactured Equipment, also noted that the terms were already defined (see HB 44, Appendix D) by that Task 

Force and guidelines were already adopted by the NCWM to define how the terms apply.

Mr. Doug Long, RDM Electronics, noted that in remanufacturing, companies are not supposed to be changing 

designs, only bringing equipment back up to its original condition. These changes are more like repairs and eighty 

percent of these changes are of a cosmetic nature. Mr. Truex pointed out the additional caveat of G-A.6., which 

notes that if you bring such a device into another state, you would have to make that device like new and it would 

have to meet current requirements. While that might sound unfair, the requirement is already in HB 44. 

Decision: The Sector did not have any specific technical guidance to offer on this issue. However, the Sector 

recognized the need for those affected by the proposed change to study it carefully.

13. Product Depletion Test Paragraph T.4. (HB 44 Section 3.31. V ehicle-Tank Meters)

(S&T Item – New Item)

Source: Northeast Weights and Measures Association (NEWMA)

(NOTE: Measuring Sector member Mr. Karimov, Liquid Controls, requested that this item be included on the 

Sector’s agenda for discussion.)

Purpose: Modify the VTM code to base the product depletion test tolerances on the meter’s maximum flow rate (a 

required marking on all meters), rather than the meter size. This will enable more consistent application of the 

tolerances for older meters, which are not required to be marked with the meter size, and address an unintentional 

gap which allows an unreasonably large tolerance for smaller meters.

Background: The NCWM S&T Committee is considering the following changes to paragraph T.4. The proposed 

changes would base the tolerances for the product depletion test on the maximum flow rate of the meter rather than 

the meter size. This item previously appeared on the S&T Committee’s Developing Items agenda and was elevated 

to a carryover item as a result of discussions at the July 2010 NCWM Annual Meeting. Additional background 

information can be found in the 2010 Final Report of the S&T Committee. 

Item Under Consideration: 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.

Accuracy Classes and Tolerances for Vehicle-Tank Meters.
NTEP Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix B – NTETC Measuring Sector

NTEP - B25

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. Test Drafts.

(Table Added 2005) (Amended 201X)

Alternatively, NEWMA proposed the following modifications to paragraph T.4., with larger tolerances 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. T olerances 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.

Accuracy Classes and Tolerances for Vehicle-Tank Meters.

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. Test Drafts.

(Table Added 2005) (Amended 201X)

Editor’s Note: The metric and customary values in the proposed changes to the table are not equivalent. This point 

needs to be addressed in any final proposal. 
NTEP Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix B – NTETC Measuring Sector

NTEP - B26

This item was included on the Measuring Sector’s agenda to keep Sector members informed of the item and to allow 

for Sector comment, discussion, and input to the S&T Committee. See the S&T Committee’s 2010 Final Report and 

2011 Interim Agenda for details.

Discussion: Mr. Cooper, Tuthill Transfer Systems, commented that concerns may arise regarding whether or not 

meters with smaller maximum flow rates will be able to meet the proposed change in tolerances since the revised 

tolerances are much tighter for the smaller meter sizes. Sector Chairman, Mr. Keilty, Endress and Hauser, noted that 

data should be supplied to illustrate whether or not the smaller meters can meet the revised tolerances. Sector 

Technical Advisor, Ms. Butcher, NIST WMD, noted that the uncertainties in the test process should also be 

considered in the tests of smaller meters to ensure that the revised tolerances are appropriate, but also noted that the 

tolerance based on maximum flow rate seems logical. She also suggested that the Sector consider proposing that, if 

the revised tolerances are adopted, the marking requirement for meter size in paragraph S.5.7. Meter Size be 

eliminated from the code. This marking requirement was added to assist inspectors in applying the current product 

depletion tolerance, which is based on meter size.

Decision: The Sector did not have any specific technical guidance to offer on this issue. However, some 

members cited concerns regarding whether smaller meters can meet the tighter tolerances. Others suggested that 

the S&T Committee consider asking for data to support the proposed change and also consider the uncertainties 

in the test process relative to the tolerance to ensure that the proposed tolerances are appropriate.

14. N.5.1. Verification of Master Meter Systems for Testing of Farm Milk Tanks (HB 44 

Section 4.42 Farm Milk Tanks) (S&T Item – New Item) 

Source: Central Weights and Measures Association (CWMA)

Purpose: Eliminate unnecessary verification testing for master meters capable of operating within a p rescribed 

percent of the applicable tolerance.

Item Under Consideration: 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 re-verified 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: (2010 Developing Item Part 4.42, Farm Milk Tanks - Item 1: N .5.1. Verification of 

Master Metering Systems) The CWMA received a p roposal at its fall 2008 Interim Meeting to modify 

paragraph N.5.1. Verification of Master Metering Systems in NIST HB 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 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. 

This proposal originated by Mr. Tom MacNish, from the Cleveland Market Administrator, and was 
NTEP Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix B – NTETC Measuring Sector

NTEP - B27

presented to the CWMA in September (2008). M ass 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

At the 2010 N CWM Annual Meeting, the Committee heard comments from Mr. Ross Andersen, New York, 

reiterating NEWMA’s request to place this item on the NCWM S&T Committee’s 2011 Interim Agenda.

The Committee agreed to NEWMA’s request and included this item in the list of carryover items submitted to the 

fall 2010 regional weights and measures association meetings.

This item was included on the Measuring Sector’s agenda to keep Sector members informed of the item and to allow 

for Sector comment, discussion, and input to the S&T Committee.

Discussion: Sector Chairman, Mr. Keilty, Endress and Hauser, provided background on this issue. Several Sector 

members commented that the proposal makes sense, particularly for large tanks where the testing process can be 

quite lengthy. Sector Technical Advisor, Ms. Butcher, NIST WMD, noted that NIST WMD’s Laboratory 

Metrology Group has had multiple inquiries about developing a standard on master meters, but to date no one has 

agreed to take on this task. However, it is necessary to look at the uncertainties in the test process to be sure that the 

proposed tolerance is achievable.

Decision: The Sector did not have any specific technical guidance to offer on this issue. However, Sector 

members generally noted support of the proposal since it would eliminate unnecessary testing and, hopefully, 

eliminate some uncertainties in the test process.

15. S.2.6. Thermometer Well – Proposed New Paragraph for HB 44 Section 3.31. VehicleTank Meters Code (S&T)

Source: Fall 2010 NCWM S&T Committee Proposal to 2010 Regional Weights and Measures Associations

(NOTE: Measuring Sector member Mr. Karimov, Liquid Controls, also requested that this item be included on the 

Sector’s agenda for discussion.)

Purpose: To provide a means for inspectors and service personnel to determine the temperature of the product at the 

meter and, thus, enable them to apply paragraph N.5. Temperature Correction for Refined Petroleum Products.

Background: The NCWM S&T Committee announced at the July 2010 Annual Meeting that it intended to submit 

a proposal for consideration by the weights and measures community to nonretroactively require means 

(e.g., thermometer wells) for determining the temperature of the product at the meter during meter testing. 

During discussions of proposed changes to the tolerances for VTMs (which were ultimately adopted in July 2010) 

equipped with automatic temperature compensating systems (paragraph T.2.1.), meter manufacturers expressed 

concerns about how to ensure that consistent and appropriate test procedures and equipment be used by weights and 

measures officials during inspections of VTMs. NIST WMD revised the Examination Procedure Outlines for VTMs 

and presented this information during a training seminar in April 2010. In the process of revising and presenting the 

procedures, WMD received comments indicating that many VTMs are not equipped with means for determining the 

temperature of the product at the meter. Thus, the inspector is unable to properly apply paragraph N.5. Temperature 

Correction for Refined Petroleum Products; paragraph N.5. requires the inspector to make corrections for any 

changes in volume resulting from differences in liquid temperatures between the time of passage through the meter 

and the time of volumetric determination in the prover.
NTEP Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix B – NTETC Measuring Sector

NTEP - B28

In order for inspectors and service personnel to determine the difference between the temperature of the product at 

the meter and at the prover, some means is needed for determining the temperature of the product as it passes 

through the meter. Inspectors have reported that few VTMs are equipped with provisions such as a thermometer 

well at the meter that would enable them to determine the temperature of the product at the meter using a traceable 

thermometer. Consequently, the inspector is not able to make adjustments to the indications for changes due to 

temperature between the meter and the prover. Failing to account for differences in product temperature can, in 

some instances, introduce errors into the testing process, possibly resulting in the acceptance of a meter that is 

actually out of tolerance or the incorrect rejection of a meter that may actually be performing within applicable 

tolerance.

The S&T Committee submitted a p roposal to several 2010 regional weights and measures associations to nonretroactively require a thermometer well for all VTMs. 

This item was included on the Measuring Sector’s agenda to keep Sector members informed of the item and to allow 

for Sector comment, discussion, and input to the S&T Committee. See the NCWM S&T Committee’s 2011 Agenda 

for details.

Discussion: The Sector discussed possible locations where the thermometer well might be placed into the system, 

recognizing that similar paragraphs in other codes recognize more than one possible location for the well such as 

piping adjacent to the meter. Mr. Buttler, Emerson Process Management – Micro Motion Inc., noted that some 

aspects of the proposed paragraph appear to be more of a user requirement than a device specification. Mr. Tucker, 

RL Tucker Consulting LLC, pointed out that during discussions at the WWMA, questions were raised regarding 

why the threshold was 20 gpm rather than 30 gpm, which coincides with the requirement for marking minimum and 

maximum flow rate on the meter. Sector Technical Advisor and Technical Advisor to the NCWM S&T Committee, 

Ms. Butcher, commented that the Committee considered whether to use 20 gpm or 30 gpm as the threshold, noting 

both thresholds appear in various requirements within the code. The 20 gpm threshold was selected because 

inspectors frequently use provers with capacities of 25 gal and larger to test VTMs and the impact of the temperature 

difference on these sizes of test drafts can be significant relative to the applicable tolerance. Ms. Butcher pointed 

out the example cited in the S&T’s proposal, in which a one-degree difference in temperature between the liquid at 

the meter and in the prover can result in a difference of about 16 in3 gasoline and 11 in3

 on diesel on a 100 gal test

draft. On a 100 gal test draft, the applicable acceptance tolerance is only 35 in3

. The impact on of a temperature 

difference on a 25 gal test draft would be a quarter of this, but the applicable tolerance is also less. 

Mr. Beattie, Measurement Canada, noted that they have been making corrections to account for temperature for 

some time, but also noted that they may run additional runs to stabilize the temperature between the two systems. 

He also noted that they set a limit on the amount of variation in temperature between the two systems before starting 

an official test run. Mr. Mike Gallo, CLEANFUEL USA, expressed support for doing a “wet down” run for each 

meter as is done with liquefied petroleum gas systems. His experience indicates that the temperatures equalize after 

doing a “wet down” run.

Decision: The Sector did not have any specific technical guidance to offer on this issue. However, some 

members suggested that the S&T Committee consider requiring wet down runs on each meter test as an 

alternative to requiring a thermometer well. Another member suggested the Committee consider whether or not 

the threshold for requiring a thermometer well in a system should be meters marked with maximum flow rates of 

20 gpm or 30 gpm.
NTEP Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix B – NTETC Measuring Sector - Appendix A – Product Families for Meters

NTEP - B29

Appendix A – NTEP Technical Policy C. Product Families for Meters

2010 Measuring Sector Meeting Summary

C. Product Categories and Families for Meters

When submitting a meter for evaluation, the manufacturer must specify the product categor(y)(ies) and/or famil(y)(ies) and critical parameters for which the meter is being 

submitted. 

Product Category: A group of products that share similar characteristics.

Note: Under certain Test Requirements, product coverage is indicated by reference to the “Product Category,” while under other Test Requirements, product 

coverage is indicated by “Product Family.”

Product Family: A group of products, sometimes including multiple Product Categories, which share a common Test Requirement.

Note: Coverage of different products by a certificate may be indicated using references to either “Product Categories” or “Product Families,” as indicated in the Test 

Requirement for that Product Family.

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.

Mass Meter Product Category & Test

Requirements

Magnetic Flow Meter Product

Category & Test Requirements

Positive Displacement Flow Meter 

Product Category & Test 

Requirements

Turbine Flow Meter 

Product

Category & Test 

Requirements

Test B - To cover a range of the following 

products, test with one product having a 

low specific gravity and test with a second 

product having a high specific gravity. 

The Certificate of Conformance will cover 

all products in all product categories listed 

in the table under Test B within the 

specific gravity range tested.

(Test B does not apply to product 

categories of liquefied gases, compressed 

liquids, cryogenic liquids or heated 

products.)

Note: Product categories under Test B 

were formerly referred to collectively as 

“Normal Liquids.”

Test F – To cover a range of the following products, 

test with one product having a specified conductivity. 

The Certificate of Conformance will cover all 

products with conductivity equal to or above the 

conductivity of the tested liquid.

(Test F does not apply to product categories of 

potable water, non-potable water and tap water; water 

mixes of alcohols and glycols; fertilizers; suspension 

fertilizers; liquid feeds; clear liquid fertilizers; 

chemicals or crop chemicals A, B, C, or D.)

(Test F does not apply to product categories of 

liquefied gases, or compressed liquids.)

Test C - To cover a range of products 

within each product category, test with 

one product having a low viscosity and 

test with a second product having a 

high viscosity within each category. 

The Certificate of Conformance will 

cover all products in the product 

category within the viscosity range 

tested.

Test E – To cover a range of 

products within each product 

category, test with one 

product having a low 

kinematic viscosity and test 

with a second product having 

a high kinematic viscosity 

within each category. The 

Certificate of Conformance 

will cover all products in the 

product category within the 

kinematic viscosity range 

tested.

Note: See note 5. 
NTEP Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix B – NTETC Measuring Sector - Appendix A – Product Families for Meters

NTEP - B30

Mass Meter Product Category & Test

Requirements

Magnetic Flow Meter Product

Category & Test Requirements

Positive Displacement Flow Meter 

Product Category & Test 

Requirements

Turbine Flow Meter 

Product

Category & Test 

Requirements

Typical 

Products

Specific 

Gravity

(60 F)

Product 

Category

Typical 

Products

Conductivity

(microSiemens/centimeter)

Product 

Category

Product Category: Fuels, Lubricants, 

Industrial and Food Grade Liquid Oils

(FL&O)

Product Category: Fuels, 

Lubricants, Industrial and 

Food Grade Liquid Oils

(FL&O)

Asphalt FL&O Gasoline FL&O Typical Products Reference 

Viscosity

(60 F)

Typical 

Products

Reference 

Viscosity

(60 F)

Avgas FL&O JP4 FL&O Centipoise 

(cP)

Centipoise

(cP)

Jet A FL&O Jet A-1 FL&O Gasoline 0.28 Gasoline 0.28

Jet B FL&O JP7 & JP8 FL&O JP4 1.02 JP4 1.02

Spindle Oil FL&O Kerosene FL&O Jet A-1 1.36 Jet A-1 1.36

Adjuvants 0.7 - 1.2 CC JP5 FL&O JP7 & JP8 1.82 JP7 & JP8 1.82

Banvel 0.7 - 1.2 CC Corn Oil FL&O Kerosene 1.94 Kerosene 1.94

Fumigants 0.7 - 1.2 CC Cooking Oils FL&O JP5 1.94 JP5 1.94

Fungicides 0.7 - 1.2 CC Diesel Fuel FL&O Corn Oil 4 Corn Oil 4

Herbicides 0.7 - 1.2 CC Biodiesel above 

B20

FL&O Cooking Oils 9.93 Cooking Oils 9.93

Insecticides 0.7 - 1.2 CC Light Oil FL&O Diesel Fuel 10 Diesel Fuel 10

Paraquat 0.7 - 1.2 CC Sunflower Oil FL&O Biodiesel above B20 10.12 Biodiesel 

above B20

10.12

Prowl 0.7 - 1.2 CC Soy Oil 0 FL&O Light Oil 13.47 Light Oil 13.47

Round-up 0.7 - 1.2 CC Olive Oil FL&O Sunflower Oil 90.1 Sunflower Oil 90.1

Touchdown 0.7 - 1.2 CC Vegetable Oil 0 FL&O Soy Oil 90.6 Soy Oil 90.6

Treflan 0.7 - 1.2 CC Bunker Oil FL&O Olive Oil 116.8 Olive Oil 116.8

Ammonia 

Nitrate

1.16-1.37 Fert Avgas FL&O Vegetable Oil 133 Vegetable Oil 133

Crude Oil 0.79-0.97 FL&O Jet A FL&O Bunker Oil 11,200 Bunker Oil 11,200

Lubricating 

Oils

0.80-0.90 FL&O Jet B FL&O Avgas 1.5 to 6 Avgas 1.5 to 6 

Peanut Oil 0.9-1.0 FL&O Asphalt FL&O Jet A 1.5 to 6 Jet A 1.5 to 6 
NTEP Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix B – NTETC Measuring Sector - Appendix A – Product Families for Meters

NTEP - B31

Mass Meter Product Category & Test

Requirements

Magnetic Flow Meter Product

Category & Test Requirements

Positive Displacement Flow Meter 

Product Category & Test 

Requirements

Turbine Flow Meter 

Product

Category & Test 

Requirements

Hexane 0.66 Sol Gen Peanut Oil FL&O Jet B 1.5 to 6 Jet B 1.5 to 6 

Diesel Fuel 0.84 FL&O SAE Grades FL&O Asphalt 100 – 5000 Asphalt 100 – 5000

Gasoline 0.72 FL&O Lubricating Oils FL&O Peanut Oil 11 to 110 Peanut Oil 11 to 110 

Kerosene 0.75 FL&O Crude Oil FL&O SAE Grades 192-3626 SAE Grades 192-3626 

Jet A-1 0.76 FL&O 6 Oil (#5, #6) FL&O Lubricating Oils 20 to 1000 Lubricating 

Oils

20 to 1000 

JP4 0.76 FL&O Fuel Oil (#1, #2, 

#3, #4)

0 FL&O Crude Oil 3-1783 Crude Oil 3-1783 

JP5 0.76 FL&O Spindle Oil FL&O 6 Oil (#5, #6) 66-13,000 6 Oil (#5, #6) 66-13,000 

JP7

JP8

0.76 FL&O Acetone .02 Sol Gen Fuel Oil (#1, #2, #3, #4) 8 to 88 Fuel Oil (#1, 

#2, #3, #4)

8 to 88 

Ethanol 0.79 Alc Gly Hexane 0 Sol Gen Spindle Oil Spindle Oil

Isopropyl 0.79 Alc Gly Acetates Sol Gen Test C -

Product Category: Solvents General 

(Sol Gen)

Test E -

Product Category: Solvents 

General (Sol Gen)

Acetone 0.8 Sol Gen MEK 0.1 Sol Gen Typical Products Reference 

Viscosity* 

(60 F)

Typical 

Products

Reference 

Viscosity* 

(60 F)

Methanol 0.80 Alc Gly Toluene 0 Sol Gen Centipoise 

(cP)

Centipoise

(cP)

Butanol 0.81 Alc Gly Xylene 0 Sol Gen Acetone 0.34 Acetone 0.34

Isobutyl 0.81 Alc Gly Ethylacetate 0.00001 Sol Gen Hexane 0.34 Hexane 0.34

MEK 0.81 Sol Gen MethyleneChlorideSol Chl Acetates 0.44 Acetates 0.44

Biodiesel 

above B20

0.86 FL&O TrichloroEthyleneSol Chl MEK 0.45 MEK 0.45

Light Oil 0.86 FL&O Carbon TetraChlorideSol Chl Toluene 0.62 Toluene 0.62

Toluene 0.87 Sol Gen PerchloroEthyleneSol Chl Xylene 0.86 Xylene 0.86

20% Aqua- 0.89 Fert Methanol 0.44 Alc Gly Ethylacetate 1.36 Ethylacetate 1.36
NTEP Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix B – NTETC Measuring Sector - Appendix A – Product Families for Meters

NTEP - B32

Mass Meter Product Category & Test

Requirements

Magnetic Flow Meter Product

Category & Test Requirements

Positive Displacement Flow Meter 

Product Category & Test 

Requirements

Turbine Flow Meter 

Product

Category & Test 

Requirements

Ammonia

Xylene 0.89 Sol Gen Ethanol 0.0013 Alc Gly Test C -

Product Category: Solvents 

Chlorinated (Sol Chl)

Test E -

Product Category:

Alcohols, Glycols & Water 

Mixes Thereof (Alc Gly)

6 Oil (#5, #6) 0.9 FL&O Isopropyl 3.5 Alc Gly Typical Products Reference 

Viscosity* 

(60 F)

Typical 

Products

Reference 

Viscosity* 

(60 F)

Fuel Oil (#1, 

#2, #3, #4)

0.9 FL&O Butanol Alc Gly Centipoise 

(cP)

Centipoise

(cP)

SAE Grades 0.9 FL&O Isobutyl 0.02 Alc Gly Methylene-Chloride 0.46 Methanol 0.64

Corn Oil 0.91 FL&O Ethylene glycol Alc Gly Trichloro-Ethylene 0.6 Ethanol 1.29

Cooking Oils 0.92 FL&O Propylene glycol Alc Gly Carbon Tetra-Chloride 0.99 Isopropyl 2.78

Olive Oil 0.92 FL&O Demineralized Water Perchloro-Ethylene 1 Butanol 3.34

Vegetable Oil 0.92 FL&O Deionized Water Test C -

Product Category: Alcohols, Glycols 

& Water Mixes Thereof (Alc Gly)

Isobutyl 4.54

Acetates 0.93 Sol Gen Asphalt Heated Typical Products Reference 

Viscosity* 

(60 F)

Ethylene glycol 25.5

Soy Oil 0.93 FL&O Bunker C Heated Centipoise 

(cP)

Propylene 

glycol

54

Test D – To obtain coverage for a product category: 

Test with one product in the product category. The 

Certificate of Conformance will cover all products in 

the category.

(Test D does not apply to product categories of pure 

alcohols and pure glycol, pure water, solvents 

chlorinated, solvents general, and fuels, lubricants, 

Methanol 0.64 Test E -

Product Category: 

Compressed liquids, Fuels 

and Refrigerants, NH3

Sunflower Oil 0.93 FL&O Typical 

Products

Reference 

Viscosity* 

(60 F)

Centipoise

(cP)
NTEP Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix B – NTETC Measuring Sector - Appendix A – Product Families for Meters

NTEP - B33

Mass Meter Product Category & Test

Requirements

Magnetic Flow Meter Product

Category & Test Requirements

Positive Displacement Flow Meter 

Product Category & Test 

Requirements

Turbine Flow Meter 

Product

Category & Test 

Requirements

Ethylacetate 0.96 Sol Gen

industrial and food grade liquid oils.)

(Test D does not apply to product categories of 

liquefied gases, compressed liquids or heated 

products.)

Ethanol 1.29 Propane 0.098

Anhydrous 

Ammonia

0.188

Bunker Oil 0.99 FL&O Isopropyl 2.78 Butane 0.19

Beverages 1.0 Water Butanol 3.34 Freon 11 0.313

Deionized 1.0 Water Tap water 72** Water Isobutyl 4.54 Freon 12 0.359

Demineralized 1.0 Water Potable 72** Water Ethylene glycol 25.5 Freon 22 1.99

Juices 1.0 Water Nonpotable 72** Water Propylene glycol 54 Ethane

Milk 1.0 Water Juices Water Test C -

Product Category: Clear Liquid 

Fertilizers (Liq Fert)

Test A – The following 

products must be individually 

tested and noted on the 

Nonpotable Certificate of Conformance. 1.0 Water Beverages Water Typical Products Reference 

Viscosity* 

(60 F)

Potable 1.0 Water Water mixes of 

alcohols & 

glycols

Alc Gly Centipoise 

(cP)

Typical 

Products

Product 

Category

Tap Water 1.0 Water Urea 5000 Fert Urea 1 MethyleneChlorideSol Chl

Propylene 

glycol

1.04 Alc Gly Ammonia 

Nitrate

Fert Ammonia Nitrate 11.22 TrichloroEthyleneSol Chl

Hydrochloric 

Acid

1.1 Chem 10-34-0 Fert 10-34-0 48 Carbon TetraChlorideSol Chl

Ethylene 

glycol

1.19 Alc Gly 20% AquaAmmoniaFert 20% Aqua-Ammonia 1.1 – 1.3 PerchloroEthyleneSol Chl

Liquid 

Molasses

1.25 Liq Feed Clear Liquid 

Fert

Fert Clear Liquid Fert 31 - 110 Urea Liq Fert

9-18-9 1.32 Fert Nitrogen 

Solution

Fert Nitrogen Solution 31 - 110 Ammonia 

Nitrate

Liq Fert

MethyleneChloride1.34 Sol Chl 28%, 30% or 

32%

Fert 28%, 30% or 32% 31 - 110 10-34-0 Liq Fert
NTEP Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix B – NTETC Measuring Sector - Appendix A – Product Families for Meters

NTEP - B34

Mass Meter Product Category & Test

Requirements

Magnetic Flow Meter Product

Category & Test Requirements

Positive Displacement Flow Meter 

Product Category & Test 

Requirements

Turbine Flow Meter 

Product

Category & Test 

Requirements

10-34-0 1.39 Fert N-P-K solutions Fert N-P-K solutions 20% AquaAmmoniaLiq Fert

TrichloroEthylene1.47 Sol Chl 9-18-0 Fert 9-18-0 Chlear Liquid 

Fert

Liq Fert

Carbon TetraChloride1.6 Sol Chl 4-4-27 Sus Fert Test C -

Product Category: Suspension 

Fertilizers (Sus Fert)

Nitrogen 

Solution

Liq Fert

PerchloroEthylene1.6 Sol Chl 3-10-30 Sus Fert Typical Products Reference 

Viscosity* 

(60 F)

28%, 30% or 

32%

Liq Fert

Sulfuric Acid 1.83 Chem Molasses plus 

Phos Acid 

and/or Urea 

(TreaChle)

Liq Feed Centipoise 

(cP)

N-P-K 

solutions

Liq Fert

Phosphoric 

Acid

1.87 Chem Liquid Molasses 300 Liq Feed 4-4-27 20 – 215 9-18-0 Liq Fert

Urea 1.89 Fert Sulfuric Acid 209000 Chem 3-10-30 100 – 1000 4-4-27 Sus Fert

Fungicides 1 – 1.2 CC Phosphoric Acid 56600 Chem Test C -

Product Category: Liquid Feeds (Liq 

Feed)

3-10-30 Sus Fert

Micronutrients 1 – 1.2 CC Hydrochloric 

Acid

395000 Chem Typical Products Reference 

Viscosity* 

(60 F)

Molasses plus 

Phos Acid 

and/or Urea 

(TreaChle)

Liq Feed

Molasses plus 

Phos Acid 

and/or Urea 

(TreaChle)

1.1 to 1.3 Liq Feed Herbicides CC-A Centipoise 

(cP)

Liquid 

Molasses

Liq Feed

3-10-30 0.9 – 1.65 Liq Fert Round-up CC-A Molasses plus Phos Acid 

and/or Urea (TreaChle)

2882 Asphalt Heated

4-4-27 0.9 – 1.65 Liq Fert Touchdown CC-A Liquid Molasses 8640 Bunker C Heated
NTEP Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix B – NTETC Measuring Sector - Appendix A – Product Families for Meters

NTEP - B35

Mass Meter Product Category & Test

Requirements

Magnetic Flow Meter Product

Category & Test Requirements

Positive Displacement Flow Meter 

Product Category & Test 

Requirements

Turbine Flow Meter 

Product

Category & Test 

Requirements

Micronutrients 0.9 – 1.65 Liq Fert Banvel CC-A Test C -

Product Category: Heated Products 

(Heated)

Sulfuric Acid Chem

28%, 30% or 

32%

1.28 – 1.32 Fert Treflan CC-A Typical Products Reference 

Viscosity* 

(60 F)

Phosphoric 

Acid

Chem

N-P-K 

solutions

1.2 – 1.4 Fert Paraquat CC-A Centipoise 

(cP)

Hydrochloric 

Acid

Chem

Clear Liquid 

Fert

1.17 – 1.44 Fert Prowl CC-A Asphalt 100 – 5000 Herbicides CC-A

Nitrogen 

Solution

1.17 – 1.44 Fert Herbicides CC-A Bunker C 11,200 Round-up CC-A

Fungicides CC-B Test C -

Product Category: Chemicals (Chem)

Touchdown CC-A

Insecticides CC-B Typical Products Reference 

Viscosity* 

(60 F)

Treflan CC-A

Test D – To obtain coverage for each of 

the following product categories, test with 

one product in each product category. The 

Certificate of Conformance will cover the 

products in the product category in which a 

product was tested.

Adjuvants CC-B Banvel CC-A

Fumigants CC-B Sulfuric Acid 1.49 Paraquat CC-A

Fungicides CC-C Phosphoric Acid 161 Prowl CC-A

Product 

Category

Typical 

Products

Specific 

Gravity2

(60 F)

Micronutrients CC-D Hydrochloric Acid 0.80 – 1. 0 Herbicides CC-A

Comp gas Compressed 

Natural Gas 

(CNG)

0.6 to 0.8 

(1=Air)

Test C -

Product Category: Crop Chemicals 

(Type A) (CC-A)

Fungicides CC-B
NTEP Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix B – NTETC Measuring Sector - Appendix A – Product Families for Meters

NTEP - B36

Mass Meter Product Category & Test

Requirements

Magnetic Flow Meter Product

Category & Test Requirements

Positive Displacement Flow Meter 

Product Category & Test 

Requirements

Turbine Flow Meter 

Product

Category & Test 

Requirements

Product 

Category

Typical 

Products

Specific 

Gravity2

(60 F)

Typical Products Reference 

Viscosity* 

(60 F)

Insecticides CC-B

Comp liq Anhydrous 

Ammonia

0.61 Centipoise 

(cP)

Adjuvants CC-B

Comp liq Butane 0.595 Herbicides 4 – 400 Fumigants CC-B

Comp liq Ethane Round-up 4 – 400 Fungicides CC-C

Comp liq Freon 11 1.49 Touchdown 4 – 400 Micronutrients CC-D

Comp liq Freon 12 1.33 Banvel 4 – 400 Dual Flow

Comp liq Freon 22 1.37 Treflan 4 – 400 Bicep Flow

Paraquat 4 – 400 Marksman Flow

Comp liq Propane 0.504 Prowl 4 – 400 Broadstrike Flow

Test D – To obtain coverage for each of 

the following product categories, test with 

one product in each product category. The 

Certificate of Conformance will cover the 

products in the product category in which a 

product was tested.

Product 

Category

Typical 

Products

Specific 

Gravity2

(60 F)

Test C -

Product Category: Crop Chemicals 

(Type B) (CC-B)

Doubleplay Flow

Cryo LNG Liquefied 

Natural Gas

Typical Products Reference 

Viscosity* 

(60 F)

Topnotch Flow

Cryo LNG Liquefied 

Oxygen

0.66 Centipoise 

(cP)

Guardsman Flow

Cryo LNG Nitrogen 0.31 Fungicides 0.7 – 100 Harness Flow

Insecticides 0.7 – 100 NH3
NTEP Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix B – NTETC Measuring Sector - Appendix A – Product Families for Meters

NTEP - B37

Mass Meter Product Category & Test

Requirements

Magnetic Flow Meter Product

Category & Test Requirements

Positive Displacement Flow Meter 

Product Category & Test 

Requirements

Turbine Flow Meter 

Product

Category & Test 

Requirements

Adjuvants 0.7 – 100 Test D – To obtain coverage 

for a product category: Test 

with one product in the 

product category. The 

Certificate of Conformance 

will cover all products in the 

category.

Fumigants 0.7 – 100

Test D – To obtain coverage for each of 

the following product categories, test with 

one product in each product category. The 

Certificate of Conformance will cover the 

products in the product category in which a 

product was tested.

Test C -

Product Category: Crop Chemicals 

(Type C) (CC-C)

Product 

Category

Typical 

Products

Specific 

Gravity2

(60 F)

Typical Products Reference 

Viscosity* 

(60 F)

Tap Water Water

Heated 

Products

Asphalt Centipoise 

(cP)

Deionized Water

Heated 

Products

Bunker C 1.1 Fungicides 20 – 900 Demineralized Water

Test C

Product Category: Crop Chemicals 

(Type D) (CC-D)

Potable Water

Typical Products Reference 

Viscosity* 

(60 F)

Nonpotable Water

Centipoise 

(cP)

Juices Water

Micronutrients 20 – 1000 Beverages Water

Test C -

Product Category: Flowables (Flow)

Milk Water

Typical Products Reference 

Viscosity* 

(60 F)

Liquefied 

Oxygen

Cryo LNG

Centipoise 

(cP)

Nitrogen Cryo LNG

Dual 20 – 900 Liquefied Cryo LNG
NTEP Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix B – NTETC Measuring Sector - Appendix A – Product Families for Meters

NTEP - B38

Mass Meter Product Category & Test

Requirements

Magnetic Flow Meter Product

Category & Test Requirements

Positive Displacement Flow Meter 

Product Category & Test 

Requirements

Turbine Flow Meter 

Product

Category & Test 

Requirements

Natural Gas

Bicep 20 – 900

Marksman 20 – 900

Broadstrike 20 – 900

Doubleplay 20 – 900

Topnotch 20 – 900

Guardsman 20 – 900

Harness 20 – 900

Test C -

Product Category: Compressed 

Liquids: Fuels and Refrigerants (Comp 

liq)

Typical Products Reference 

Viscosity* 

(60 F)

Centipoise 

(cP)

Propane 0.098

Anhydrous Ammonia 0.188

Butane 0.19

Freon 11 0.313

Freon 12 0.359

Freon 22 1.99

Ethane

Test D – To obtain coverage for a 

product category: Test with one 

product in the product category. The 

Certificate of Conformance will cover 

all products in the category.
NTEP Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix B – NTETC Measuring Sector - Appendix A – Product Families for Meters

NTEP - B39

Mass Meter Product Category & Test

Requirements

Magnetic Flow Meter Product

Category & Test Requirements

Positive Displacement Flow Meter 

Product Category & Test 

Requirements

Turbine Flow Meter 

Product

Category & Test 

Requirements

Product Category: All Water (Water)

Typical Products Reference 

Viscosity* 

(60 F)

Centipoise 

(cP)

Tap Water 1.0

Deionized 1.0

Demineralized 1.0

Potable 1.0

Nonpotable 1.0

Juices 1.0

Beverages 1.0

Milk 1.0

Test A – The following products must 

be individually tested and noted on the 

Certificate of Conformance.

Product Category: Cryogenic Liquids 

and Liquefied Natural Gas (Cryo LNG)

Typical Products Reference 

Viscosity* 

(60 F)

Centipoise 

(cP)

Liquefied Oxygen 0.038

Nitrogen 1.07

Liquefied Natural Gas
NTEP Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix B – NTETC Measuring Sector - Appendix A – Product Families for Meters

NTEP - B40

• Product Category Table – Category Abbreviations

Abbreviation Product Categories

FL&O Fuels, Lubricants, Industrial and Food Grade Liquid Oils

Solv Gen Solvents General

Solv Cl Solvents Chlorinated

Alc Gly Alcohols, Glycols & Water Mixes thereof

Water Water

Fert Fertilizers

CC-A Crop Chemicals (Type A)

CC-B Crop Chemicals (Type B)

CC-C Crop Chemicals (Type C)

CC-D Crop Chemicals (Type D)

Flow Flowables

Sus Fert Suspension Fertilizers

Liq Feed Liquid Feeds

Chem Chemicals

Heated Heated Products

Comp liq Compressed Liquids: Fuels and Refrigerants NH3

Comp gas Compressed Gases

Cryo LNG Cryogenic Liquids and 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 (kg/m s)

 Centistokes (m2

/s) = ---------------------

 

density (kg / m3

) 5 Kinematic viscosity is measured in centistokes. 

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."

** Editor Note: This data point is suspected to be lower than that of normal tap water supplied for residential 

consumption. 
NTEP Committee 2011 Interim Report

Appendix B – NTETC Measuring Sector - Appendix B – Action Items

NTEP - B41

Appendix B

Action Items Table

October 1 - 2, 2010, NTETC Measuring Sector Meeting

Agenda 

Item Title Task Responsible Person(s) Due Date

1 Table of Key 

Characteristics of 

Products in Product 

Families for Meters 

Table

Make final editorial changes, (including 

removing editorial marks, moving heated 

products, and making general editorial 

formatting changes) to the table and 

forward to Chair and NTEP Director for 

submission to the NCWM NTEP 

Committee.

Technical Advisor, 

Ms. Tina Butcher

12/1/10

3 Add Testing Criteria 

to NTEP Policy U 

“Evaluating electronic 

indicators submitted 

separate from a 

measuring element”

Continue development of checklist, 

including:

Mr. Dan Reiswig, 

California DMS

Ongoing

Contact list of possible work group

members (as identified by Sector).

Mr. Dan Reiswig, 

California DMS

1/1/11

Forward latest draft of checklist AND 

five areas requiring special attention 

(identified by Sector) to original work 

group members and list of possible 

contacts identified by Sector.

Mr. Dan Reiswig, 

California DMS

1/1/11

Apprise Chairman, NTEP Director, and 

Technical Advisor of progress via e-mails 

or periodic reports.

Mr. Dan Reiswig, 

California DMS

Ongoing

Present updated checklist to Sector for 

review and acceptance.

Work Group 2011 

Sector 

Mtg

4 Policy C - Product 

Family Table – 

Change in Upper 

Limit for Oxygenated 

Blends – Note 4

Advise original submitter of Sector’s 

decision.

Technical Advisor, 

Ms. Tina Butcher

12/1/10

5 Electronic 

Linearization for 

Positive Displacement 

Meters

Submit recommendation to modify 

NCWM Publication 14 to NTEP 

Committee

Technical Advisor, 

Ms. Tina Butcher

12/1/10

6 Code Reference 

S.1.6.1. Indication of 

Delivery – Reference 

to Indicator Reset

Submit recommendation to modify 

NCWM Publication 14 to NTEP 

Committee

Technical Advisor, 

Ms. Tina Butcher

12/1/10

7 Water Meters 

Checklist 

(8) Forward current draft checklist to 

other companies who hold California

Type Evaluation Program Certificates 

for Water Meters.

Mr. Andre Noel 12/1/10

(9) Identify areas in NIST HB 44 Water 

Meters Code where updates are 

needed to reflect current technology 

and practices. 

Water Meters Checklist 

Sub-Group: 

Mr. Andre Noel

Mr. Dan Reiswig

Mr. Jim Welsh

(Others Identified)

7/1/11
NTEP Committee 2011 Interim Report

Appendix B – NTETC Measuring Sector - Appendix B – Action Items

NTEP - B42

Appendix B

Action Items Table

October 1 - 2, 2010, NTETC Measuring Sector Meeting

Agenda 

Item Title Task Responsible Person(s) Due Date

(10)Forward any proposed changes to 

NIST HB 44 to the NCWM S&T 

Committee by developing and 

submitting an NCWM Form 15.

Water Meters Checklist 

Sub-Group

7/1/11

(11)Identify differences between AWWA 

standards and NIST HB 44 and 

consider recommendations for 

aligning the two documents.

Water Meters Checklist 

Sub-Group

7/1/11

(12)Copy the Chairman, Mr. Mike Keilty 

and Technical Advisor, Ms. Tina 

Butcher on communications to the 

group.

Water Meters Checklist 

Sub-Group

Ongoing

(13)Copy Mr. Ralph Richter, NIST 

WMD, U.S. point of contact for 

OIML R49 with any proposed drafts.

Water Meters Checklist 

Sub-Group

Ongoing

(14)Distribute an updated draft for review 

by the Sector by the 2011 NCWM 

Interim Meeting.

Water Meters Checklist 

Sub-Group

01/10/11

(15)Distribute a final draft for review by 

the Sector at least one month prior to 

the 2011 Sector meeting.

Water Meters Checklist 

Sub-Group

8/15/11

8 Hydrogen GasMeasuring Devices 

Checklist

(1) Contact Norm Ingram to request 

distribution of draft checklist.

Ms. Juana Williams, 

NIST WMD

11/15/10

(2) Update USNWG on Sector’s plans to 

develop checklist.

Ms. Juana Williams,

NIST WMD

11/15/10

(3) Update the checklist to correspond to 

the 2010 H ydrogen Measuring 

Devices Code.

Hydrogen Meters 

Checklist Sub-Group:

Mr. Mike Keilty, 

Chairman

Mr. Dennis Beattie, MC

Mr. Marc Buttler, 

Micro Motion

Mr. Dan Reiswig, 

California DMS

Ms. Juana Williams, 

NIST

As 

assigned

(4) Review the checklist and provide 

comments to Sub Group Chairman.

Hydrogen Meters 

Checklist Sub-Group

As 

assigned

(5) Schedule web conference call(s) to 

discuss needed changes.

Sub-Group Chairman Jan-July 

2011

(6) Finalize and present draft to the 

Sector for consideration.

Hydrogen Meters 

Checklist Sub-Group

8/15/11

(7) Monitor USNWG progress on 

developing test procedures. Begin 

development of type evaluation test 

procedures when USNWG completes 

test procedures work.

Hydrogen Meters 

Checklist Sub-Group

Ongoing
NTEP Committee 2011 Interim Report

Appendix B – NTETC Measuring Sector - Appendix B – Action Items

NTEP - B43

Appendix B

Action Items Table

October 1 - 2, 2010, NTETC Measuring Sector Meeting

Agenda 

Item Title Task Responsible Person(s) Due Date

9 Next Meeting Identify location and time of next SWMA 

Meeting and propose location to NTEP 

Committee

Chair, NTEP Director, 

Technical Advisor

2011 

Interim 

Mtg

10 G-S.1. Marking 

(Software) (S&T)

Forward Sector comments to NCWM 

S&T Committee

Technical Advisor, 

Ms. Tina Butcher

2011 

Interim 

Mtg

11 G-S.8.1. Provision for 

Sealing (S&T)

Forward Sector comments to NCWM 

S&T Committee

Technical Advisor, 

Ms. Tina Butcher

2011 

Interim 

Mtg

12 G-A.6. 

Nonretroactive 

Requirements (S&T)

Forward Sector comments to NCWM 

S&T Committee

Technical Advisor, 

Ms. Tina Butcher

2011 

Interim 

Mtg

13 Product Depletion 

Test (S&T)

Forward Sector comments to NCWM 

S&T Committee

Technical Advisor, 

Ms. Tina Butcher

2011 

Interim 

Mtg

14 N.5.1. Master Meter 

Systems- Farm Milk 

Tanks (S&T)

Forward Sector comments to NCWM 

S&T Committee

Technical Advisor, 

Ms. Tina Butcher

2011 

Interim 

Mtg

15 S.2.6. Thermometer 

Well -VTMs (S&T)

Forward Sector comments to NCWM 

S&T Committee

Technical Advisor, 

Ms. Tina Butcher

2011 

Interim 

Mtg
NTEP Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix B – NTETC Measuring Sector - Appendix C – Sector Attendees

NTEP - B44

Appendix C 

National Conference on Weights and Measures / National Type Evaluation Program

Appendix C to 2010 Measuring Sector Summary

Measuring Sector Attendee List

October 1-2, 2010 / Columbia, SC

Dennis Beattie

Measurement Canada

400 St Mary Ave 

Winnipeg, Manitoba R3C 4K5 

P.(204)983-8910 

E.dennis.beattie@ic.gc.ca

Mike Gallo

CLEANFUEL USA

116 Halmar Cove 

Georgetown, TX 78628 

P.(512)789-8543 

E.mikegallo@cleanfuelusa.com

Tina Butcher

NIST Weights & Measures Division

100 Bureau Drive 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2600 

P.(301) 975-2196 

E.tbutcher@nist.gov

Paul Glowacki

Murray Equipment Inc.

2515 Charleston Place 

Fort Wayne, IN 46805 

P.(260) 480-1352 

E.pglowacki@murrayequipment.com

Jerry Butler

North Carolina Department of Agriculture

105 Mail Service Center 

Raleigh, NC 27699 

P.(919) 733-3313 

E.jerry.butler@ncagr.gov 

Allen Katalinic

North Carolina Department of Agriculture

105 Mail Service Center 

Raleigh, NC 27699 

P.(919) 733-3313 

E.merleallen1234@aol.com 

Marc Buttler

Emerson Process Management - Micro Motion 

Inc.

7070 Winchester Circle 

Boulder, CO 80301 

P.(303) 530-8562 

E.marc.buttler@emerson.com 

Michael Keilty

Endress + Hauser Flowtec AG USA

211 Pinewood Drive 

Lyons, CO 80540 

P.(303) 823-5796 

E.michael.keilty@us.endress.com

William Cooper

Tuthill Transfer Systems

8825 Aviation Drive 

Fort Wayne, IN 46809 

P.(260) 747-7529 x1352 

E.rcooper@tuthill.com

Doug Long

RDM Electronics

850 Harmony Grove Rd 

Nebo, NC 28761 

P.(828)652-8346 

E.doug@rdm.net 

Michael Frailer

Maryland Department of Agriculture

50 Harry S. Truman Parkway

Annapolis, MD 21401 

P.(410) 841-5790 

E.fraileml@mda.state.md.us

Wade Mattar

Invensys/Foxboro

33 Commercial Street 

Foxboro, MA 02035 

P.(508)549-2067 

E.wade.mattar@ips.invensys.com
NTEP Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix B – NTETC Measuring Sector - Appendix C – Sector Attendees

NTEP - B45

National Conference on Weights and Measures / National Type Evaluation Program

Appendix C to 2010 Measuring Sector Summary

Measuring Sector Attendee List

October 1-2, 2010 / Columbia, SC

Marlin McAfee

Independent Author

943 Katherwood Drive 

Atlanta, GA 30310 

P.(404)454-1052 

E.memcafee3@gmail.com

James Truex

National Conference on Weights and 

Measures Inc.

88 Carryback Drive 

Pataskala, OH 43062 

P.(740) 919-4350 

E.jim.truex@ncwm.net

Andre Noel

Neptune Technology Group Inc.

1600 Alabama Highway #229 

Tallassee, AL 36078 

P.(334) 283-7298 

E.anoel@neptunetg.com

Richard Tucker

RL Tucker Consulting LLC

605 Bittersweet Lane 

Ossian, IN 46777 

P.(260) 622-4243 

E.rtucker83@comcast.net 

Dan Reiswig

California Division of Measurement Standards

6790 Florin Perkins Road 

Sacramento, CA 95828 

P.(916) 229-3023 

E.dreiswig@cdfa.ca.gov

Juana Williams

NIST Weights & Measures Division

100 Bureau Drive 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2600 

P.(301) 975-3989 

E.juana.williams@nist.gov

Damon Thompson

Meggitt Fueling Product

4308 Spindletree Lane 

Fort Worth, TX 76137 

P.(817)306-8189 

E.damont.thompson@meggitt.com
NTEP Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix B – NTETC Measuring Sector - Appendix C – Sector Attendees

NTEP - B46

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
NTEP Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix C – NTETC Weighing Sector

NTEP - C1 

Appendix C

National Type Evaluation Technical Committee (NTETC) 

Weighing Sector

August 31 - September 2, 2010 

Columbus, Ohio

Meeting Summary

Carry-over Items:..........................................................................................................................................NTEP - 2

1. Recommended Changes to Publication 14 Based on Actions at the 2010 NCWM Annual 

Meeting ..............................................................................................................................................NTEP - 2

1.a. Scales, ABWS, and AWS Codes - Automatic Zero-Load Adjustment. ..................................NTEP - 2

1.b. T.N.4.5.3. Zero-Load Return. ..................................................................................................NTEP - 3

1.c. UR.2.6. Approaches.................................................................................................................NTEP - 4

2. HB 44, G-S.8. Provisions for Sealing Adjustable Components .........................................................NTEP - 4

3. DES Section 66 (c) – Remove............................................................................................................NTEP - 5

New Items:......................................................................................................................................................NTEP - 6

4. HB 44, Scales Code – T.N.4.7. Amend Creep Recovery Tolerances for III L Load Cells ................NTEP - 6

5. DES Section 11 - Indicating and Recording Elements – Use of the Comma as a Decimal 

Marker................................................................................................................................................NTEP - 7

6. DES Section 42 - Zero-Load and Tare Adjustment - Rounding of Intermediate Values in an 

Equation. ............................................................................................................................................NTEP - 8

7. HB 44 -2.10. T.N.4.5.1. Creep and Creep Recovery Requirements for Class III Scales with 

n > 4000 divisions. ...........................................................................................................................NTEP - 10

8. NTEP Policy Clarification on Adding a CIM Controller to a Static RR Track Scale. .....................NTEP - 11

9. ECRS Section 8 - Power Failure ......................................................................................................NTEP - 12

10. Acceptable Symbols/Abbreviations to Display the CC Number via a Device’s User Interface.......NTEP - 13

Next Sector Meeting:...................................................................................................................................NTEP - 17

Appendix A - Recommendations for Amendments to Publication 14.....................................................NTEP - 18

Agenda Item 1.a. .....................................................................................................................................NTEP - 18

Agenda Item 1.b. .....................................................................................................................................NTEP - 21

Agenda Item 2. ........................................................................................................................................NTEP - 22

Agenda Item 5. ........................................................................................................................................NTEP - 24

Agenda Item 6. ........................................................................................................................................NTEP - 24

Agenda Item 9 .........................................................................................................................................NTEP - 25

Appendix B - List of Attendees...................................................................................................................NTEP - 26

Attachments .................................................................................................................................................NTEP - 28

Agenda Item 4. T.N.4.7. Amend Creep Recovery Tolerances for III L Load Cells...........................NTEP - 28
NTEP Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix C – NTETC Weighing Sector

NTEP - C2 

Glossary of Acronyms

ABWS Automatic Bulk Weighing Systems NTEP National Type Evaluation Program

AWS Automatic Weighing Systems NTETC National Type Evaluation Technical 

Committee

CC NTEP Certificate of Conformance OIML International Organization of Legal 

Metrology

CIM Coupled-in-Motion (Railway Track Scales) S&T NCWM Specifications and Tolerances 

Committee

CWMA Central Weights and Measures Association SWMA Southern Weights and Measures Association

ECRS Electronic Cash Registers Interfaces with 

Scales WG Work Group

GIPSA Grain Inspection Packers and Stockyards 

Administration WMD NIST Weights and Measures Division

NCWM National Conference on Weights and Measures WWMA Western Weights and Measures Association

NEWMA Northeastern Weights and Measures 

Association WS NTETC Weighing Sector

NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology

Unless Otherwise Stated:

- “Handbook 44” (HB 44) means the 2010 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 2010 Edition of NCWM Publication 14 - Weighing Devices - Technical 

Policy - Checklists - Test Procedures. 

Note: NIST does not imply that these acronyms are used solely to identify these organizations or technical topics.

Carry-over Items:

1. Recommended Changes to Publication 14 Based on Actions at the 2010 NCWM Annual 

Meeting

Source: The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Technical Advisor, Mr. Steve Cook, provided 

the Sector with specific recommendations for incorporating test procedures and checklist language based upon 

actions of the 2010 Annual Meeting of the 95th National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM). The 

Sector was asked to briefly discuss each item and, if appropriate, provide general input on the technical aspects of 

the issues.

1.a. Scales, ABWS, and AWS Codes - Automatic Zero-Load Adjustment. 

Background: See the 2009 Summary of the Weighing Sector (WS) Agenda Item 8 and the Interim and Annual 

Reports of the 2010 NCWM Specifications and Tolerances (S&T) Committee agenda items 320-2, 322-1, and 

324-1 for the adopted language and additional background information on items to amend Handbook 44

(HB 44) Scales Code paragraph S.2.1.1. General (Zero-Load Adjustment), ABWS Code paragraph 

S.2.1. Automatic Zero-Tracking (AZT) Mechanism, and AWS Code paragraph S.2.1.1. Automatic ZeroTracking Mechanism. This item was originally proposed by a subgroup of the 2008 WS. However, at its 2009 

Annual Meeting, the Sector reached a consensus among the attendees that an Automatic Zero-Setting 

Mechanism does not have any value, and at times will facilitate inaccurate weight determinations either against 

the buyer or seller. The NCWM considered the recommendations of the WS and additional comments at the 

NCWM Interim and Annual meetings, and agreed to amend Scales and Automatic Weighing System (AWS) 

codes to clarify that automatic zero adjustments beyond the AZT limits are not permitted. The WS also agreed 

with the amendment to the Automatic Bulk Weighing Systems (ABWS) code to clarify that an automatic zerosetting mechanism is prohibited. The NCWM adopted the WS recommendations to amend Scales Code 
NTEP Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix C – NTETC Weighing Sector

NTEP - C3 

paragraph S.2.1.1., ABWS paragraph S.2.1., and AWS paragraphs S.2.1.1. in the 2011 Edition of HB 44. The 

NCWM also adopted a new definition of automatic zero-setting mechanism (AZSM) in HB 44 Appendix D, 

since the term is used in the ABWS code. 

The background information may be obtained online at:

2009 WS – http://ncwm.net/sites/default/files/meetings/weighing/2009/09_Weighing_Summary.pdf

2010 S&T Interim Report – http://www.ncwm.net/sites/default/files/meetings/annual/2010/10_Pub_16_ST.pdf

2010 S&T Annual Report – http://www.nist.gov/pml/wmd/index.cfm

Discussion/Conclusion: The NIST Technical Advisor provided the Sector with specific recommendations for 

incorporating test procedures and checklist language into Publication 14 based upon actions of the 2010 Annual 

meeting of the 95th NCWM. The WS discussed each item and provided the following input regarding the 

technical aspect of the issues: 

• Pub 14 DES 43. Zero-Tracking Mechanism: A question was raised by a member of the WS whether 

the Publication 14 would automatically change as the result of R 76 being amended, since the language 

recommended excluded the reference to a specific edition of R 76. The WS recommended that the 

year “2006” be added to specifically indicate that it is the language from that particular edition, and no 

other, that was being agreed upon by members of the WS. The WS also agreed to replace the words “a 

period of time” with “30 minutes” when it was pointed out that Canada had adopted 30 minutes as a 

standard and “a period of time” is too subjective. 

• Pub 14 ABWS Section 8. The WS agreed to recommend that the new sentence proposed by the NIST 

Technical Advisor prohibiting AZSM be added. 

• Pub 14 AWS Section 16. The WS agreed to recommend that the new sentenced proposed by the NIST 

Technical Advisor prohibiting an automatic zero adjustment beyond the limits of AZT be added. 

However, rather than adding the new sentence to Section 16 as proposed, the WS recommends that the 

sentence be added to Section 25. 

• Pub 14 AWS Section 25. The WS discussed the need to include a specific period of time as a 

condition in which AZT may operate rather than “after a period of time” as proposed in language 

developed and recommended by the NIST Technical Advisor. The WS agreed to recommend “30 

minutes” as the time period. 

Additionally, the WS agreed to amend procedures proposed by the NIST Technical Advisor for verifying that a

device does not automatically re-zero an amount greater than the limit of AZT. The procedures developed by 

the NIST Technical Advisor recommended the test be conducted by placing a load just above the limit of AZT. 

A WS member questioned the meaning of “just above the AZT limits,” and the WS concluded that the 

procedures should indicate a specific amount of weight. T he WS agreed to recommend that the procedure 

specify the test be conducted with a load 1 to 3 d above the limit of AZT. These recommendations can be found 

in Appendix A, Agenda Item 1.a. 

1.b. T.N.4.5.3. Zero-Load Return.

Background: See the Final Report of the 2010 NCWM S&T Committee Agenda Item 320-3 for the adopted 

language and additional background information on the item to amend HB 44 Scales Code paragraphs 

T.N.4.5.1. Time Dependence, T.N.4.5.2. Time Dependence (III L), and add new paragraph T.N.4.5.3. ZeroLoad Return (http://www.ncwm.net/sites/default/files/meetings/annual/2010/10_Pub_16_ST.pdf). The NCWM 

agreed to amend the existing paragraphs (T.N.4.5.1. and T.N.4.5.2.) by moving creep recovery tolerances and 

adding them in a new paragraph (T.N.4.5.3.), to align creep recovery tolerances on scales with the equivalent 

tolerances for load cells, which were adopted in 2009. 
NTEP Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix C – NTETC Weighing Sector

NTEP - C4 

Discussion/Conclusion: The NIST Technical Advisor provided the Sector with specific recommendations for 

incorporating test procedures and checklist language into Publication 14 based upon actions of the 2010 Annual 

Meeting of the 95th NCWM. T he WS reviewed the item and suggested the technical advisor review the 

applicable references for weighing segment and weighing range. The WS agreed to recommend the proposed 

changes to the time dependence test form with the editorial corrections noted above be added to Publication 14. 

The proposed changes can be found in Appendix A, Item 1b.

1.c. UR.2.6. Approaches 

Background: See the Final Report of the 2010 NCWM S&T Committee Agenda Item 320-4 for additional 

background information on the item to amend HB 44 Scales Code paragraphs UR.2.6. Approaches.

Conclusion: The WS agreed with the NIST Technical Advisor recommendation that no changes to 

Publication 14 are needed. 

2. HB 44, G-S.8. Provisions for Sealing Adjustable Components

Source: NCWM S&T Committee – 2009 WS Agenda Item 13.

Background: At its 2009 m eeting, the WS reviewed the comments from the S&T Committee, the background 

information in the NCWM 2008 Annual and 2009 Interim Reports, and the summary of proposals provided by the 

NIST Technical Advisor. The WS believes that existing language in HB 44 is sufficient and that the sectors review 

existing type evaluation criteria to verify that devices shall be designed with:

1. provision(s) for applying a physical security seal that must be broken before any change that detrimentally 

affects the metrological integrity of the device can be made to any electronic mechanism; or

2. other approved means of providing security to document any change that detrimentally affects the 

metrological integrity of the device can be made to any electronic mechanism (e.g., data change audit trail) 

available at the time of inspection.

During the fall 2009 WWMA Technical Conference, Mr. Darrell Flocken, Mettler-Toledo, speaking as Chairman of 

the WS, reported the Sector’s position as stated above, and noted that the Sector can develop additional guidance in 

NCWM Publication 14 to ensure uniform interpretation of the requirement during type evaluation. 

At its October 2009 meeting, the National Type Evaluation Technical Committee (NTETC) Measuring Sector 

provided the Committee with the following comments:

The Sector stated that measuring devices with National Type Evaluation Program (NTEP) Certificate of 

Conformances (CCs) have been evaluated to either:

1) not function in the calibration or configuration mode;

2) not be sealed in the calibration or configuration mode; or

3) clearly indicate the device is in the calibration or configuration mode.

The Measuring Sector agreed that these options reflect the intent of General Code paragraph G-S.8., and, because 

the intent of the paragraph is understood and appropriately applied by the measuring community, the Measuring 

Sector recommends that no changes be proposed to General Code paragraph G-S.8.

Additional information on the past S&T Committee discussion on the item can be found at:

• 2008 Final Report – http://ts.nist.gov/WeightsAndMeasures/Publications/SP1080.cfm

• 2009 Final Report – http://ts.nist.gov/WeightsAndMeasures/Publications/sp1099.cfm
NTEP Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix C – NTETC Weighing Sector

NTEP - C5 

• 2009 WS Summary –

http://www.ncwm.net/sites/default/files/meetings/weighing/2009/09_Weighing_Summary.pdf

• 2010 Interim Report – http://ts.nist.gov/WeightsAndMeasures/Publications/10-Pub16.cfm

• 2010 Annual Report – http://www.nist.gov/pml/wmd/index.cfm) 

Discussion: The WS reviewed the sealing procedures in Publication 14 Scales and compared them with 

Publication 14 for Liquid Measuring Devices, and also compared applicable HB 44 sealing requirements in the 

General, Scales, and Liquid Measuring Device (LMD) codes. A small WG was formed to develop more detailed

procedures for determining compliance of the methods for sealing and requested the WS to consider its

recommendations for Publication 14, DES Section 10. The WS reviewed the recommendations and was asked to 

determine whether the guidance in the WG recommendation ensures uniform interpretation of sealing requirements 

during type evaluation.

During the discussions, Mr. Flocken, Chairman, reported that the goal is to add additional guidance in 

Publication 14. Mr. Jim Truex, NTEP Administrator, stated that NTEP has received numerous reports of scales 

found left in the calibration/configuration mode with physical seals intact. Mr. Nigel Mills, Hobart Corp., added 

that the use of the phrase “clearly indicate” in the first paragraph of the WG recommendation is ambiguous without 

additional clarification and subject to multiple interpretations. The WS discussed various examples of indications 

intended to clearly indicate that a d evice is in a cal ibration/configuration mode. S ome of the examples were 

considered by the WS to be acceptable, while other examples were deemed unacceptable (e.g., flashing weight 

indications or blanking units of measure). Mr. Truex suggested that as a starting point a small list of acceptable and 

unacceptable means of providing clear indication be developed by the WS. Mr. Cook volunteered to develop a short 

list as a starting point before the conclusion of the meeting. The WS reviewed the list and discussed additional 

acceptable and unacceptable indications that were then added. The list should not be limiting or all inclusive and 

that other indications may be acceptable. Mr. Flocken suggested that the WG recommendation, with suggestions 

from the WS, be forwarded to the S&T Committee and Scale Manufacturers Association (SMA) for consideration 

prior to the 2011 NCWM Interim Meeting. 

Conclusion: The WS agreed with the revised proposal to amend Publication 14 Section 10. This recommendation

can be found in Appendix A, Agenda Item 2. The WS also agreed to forward the amended language for 

Publication 14 to the S&T Committee with a recommendation that the S&T item be withdrawn from the 

Committee’s Agenda. 

3. DES Section 66 (c) – Remove. 

Source: Mr. Ed Luthy, formerly of Brechbuhler Scales – 2009 WS agenda item 15

Background: Mr. Luthy requested the WS to consider deleting DES Section 66 (c). Performance and Permanence 

Tests for “Side-by-Side” Modular and Non-Modular Vehicle Scales, stating that the time and expense is too large 

for the value added to having the option listed on an NTEP CC. 

At its 2009 meeting, the WS stated that it is not in favor of removing the section. The purpose of the original 

proposal to delete DES Section 66(c) is intended to reduce the expense of type evaluation on these devices. The 

scale manufacturers in attendance volunteered to form a small work group (WG) to review the existing procedures 

and develop proposals to amend existing language for a possible abbreviated test procedure. 

Discussion/Conclusion: The WS recommended this item be removed from the its Agenda upon learning from the 

NIST Technical Advisor that no activity had been reported by the small WG since the item was first introduced at 

the 2009 Annual WS meeting. Additionally, Mr. Luthy requested the item be removed since he no longer represents 

Brechbuhler.
NTEP Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix C – NTETC Weighing Sector

NTEP - C6 

New Items:

4. HB 44, Scales Code – T.N.4.7. Amend Creep Recovery Tolerances for III L Load Cells 

Source: Mr. Kevin Fruechte, Avery Weigh-Tronix

Background: Avery Weigh-Tronix reported that HB 44 Creep Recovery tolerances for Class III load cells with 

n > 4000 divisions in Scales Code paragraph T.N.4.7., is now greater than creep recovery tolerances applicable to

Class III L load cells. In terms of mV/V equivalency, a Class III/III L load cell can now pass Class III and fail 

Class III L creep recovery tolerances. 

Prior to 2009, the tolerance for Class III load cells was 0.5v. This was increased by a factor of 5/3 to arrive at the 

0.83 v tolerance in the current requirement. This recommendation proposes to increase the existing 1.5 v tolerance 

for Class III L load cells by the same 5/3 factor. Thus the new tolerance would be 1.5 v x 5/3 or 2.5 v. 

The following is an example of a 50 000 lb load cell marked with both III and III L accuracy classes that illustrates 

the problem.

Class III Class III L

nmax = 5000 nmax = 10 000v

vmin = 10 lb vmin = 5 lb 

The Class III creep recovery tolerance is 0.83 v (0.83 v x 10 lb/v = 8.3 lb)

The Class III L creep recovery tolerance is 1.5 v (1.5 v x 5 lb/v = 7.5 lb)

The proposed Class III L creep recovery tolerance is 1.5 v v 5/3 = 2.5v (2.5 v x 5 lb/v = 12.5 lb)

Avery Weigh-Tronix also notes the increased cost involved with meeting Class III L VCAP (voluntary Conformity 

Assessment Program) requirements with a tolerance that is less than Class III. Multiplying the Class III L tolerance 

by 5/3, as was done with Class III, would be more cost effective for a load cell manufacturer.

Discussion/Conclusion: The NIST Technical Advisor to the WS provided the sector with a s ummary of creep 

recovery test results from October 1, 2007, through August 12, 2010, for Class III L load cells from the NIST Force 

Group that shows that Class III L load cell creep recovery type evaluation compliance rate is 76 % using existing 

tolerances (See Attachment for Agenda Item 4.). The compliance rate for Class III load cells over the same time 

period is 69 % using the expanded tolerance adopted in 2009. Mr. Fruechte, Avery Weigh-Tronix, explained to the 

WS the need to amend the creep recovery tolerances for Class III L load cells based on the example provided by the 

NIST Technical Advisor. A WS member stated that using the 5/3 factor would reconcile the differences between 

U.S. Class III L creep recovery tolerances with comparable International Organization of Legal Metrology (OIML) 

R 60 Class C load cell tolerances. The WS agreed to submit the language to amend paragraph T.N.4.7. to the S&T 

Committee and regional weights and measures associations 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 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) 2.5 1.5 times the value of the load cell verification interval (2.5 1.5 v) for Class III L load cells.
NTEP Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix C – NTETC Weighing Sector

NTEP - C7 

(Added 2006) (Amended 2009 and 201X) 

5. DES Section 11 - Indicating and Recording Elements – Use of the Comma as a Decimal 

Marker. 

Source: Mr. Steven Cook, NIST Weights and Measures Division (WMD) 

Background: WMD has received a request for clarification about the use of commas as a decimal marker. There is 

no specific prohibition of the use of commas in HB 44 and Handbook 130 (HB 130). Additionally, Publication 14

DES section only uses periods or dots when decimals markers are used. H owever, Pub 14 Liquid-Measuring 

Devices Section 1.20., states that “Symbols for decimal points shall clearly identify the decimal position. (Generally 

acceptable symbols are dots, small commas, or x.)” 

The use of the dot as the decimal marker is customary in the United States and WMD believes that the use of a 

comma is not appropriate for commercial applications. HB 44 references the words “decimal point” in the General 

Code. The “decimal point” is generally defined as a dot, point, or period and is based on the terminology having a 

general meaning found in several U.S. dictionaries. Additionally, the comma is not used universally in international 

marketplaces where it conflicts the customary usage of the country. WMD believes that there is general resistance 

to the use of the comma by U.S. consumers and regulatory officials based on concerns over potential 

misinterpretations of indications and printed representations of weight or volume on weighing and measuring 

devices. T he “Forward” of Handbook includes language that recognizes potential issues with the use of the 

“comma” where it states that: 

“. . . a s pace has been inserted instead of commas in all numerical values greater than 9999 in this 

document, following a growing practice, originating in tabular work, to use spaces to separate large 

numbers into groups of three digits. This avoids conflict with the practice in many countries to use the 

comma as a decimal marker.” 

Additionally, our recollections are that other NTEP applicants were denied the use of the comma as a d ecimal 

marker before the administration of NTEP was transferred from NIST to the NCWM.

The following references to the use or prohibition of the commas as a decimal marker were used to develop the 

WMD response.

U.S. Government Printing Office Style Manual

12.27. Fractions (1⁄4, 1⁄2, 3⁄4, 3⁄8, 5⁄8, 7⁄8, 1

/2954) or full-sized figures with the shilling mark (1/4, 1/2954) may be used 

only when either is specifically requested. A comma should not be used in any part of a built-up fraction of four 

or more digits or in decimals. (See rule 12.9e.)

12.9. e. Use spaces to separate groups of three digits in a decimal fraction.

(See rule 12.27.) 0.123 456 789; but 0.1234

Extract from NIST Tech Beat by Ms. Carol Hockert, November 2006

The specification of the use of only the decimal comma in English language international standards has 

been a source of antagonism for native English speaking people developing and using international 

standards for decades. Building upon a recent General Conference on Weights and Measures (CGPM 2003) 

resolution endorsing the use of the point on the line as the decimal sign, NIST, through ANSI, the official 

U.S. representative body in ISO and IEC, has recently been successful in gaining the acceptance of using 

the decimal point instead of the decimal comma in new English language international standards. This 

change in policy by ISO and IEC reflects customary usage of native English speakers and eliminates the 

disparity in practice between ISO and IEC standards and English language documents of other international 

organizations.
NTEP Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix C – NTETC Weighing Sector

NTEP - C8 

Extract from the NIST Monthly Highlights February 2004 

22nd CGPM Unanimously Adopts Decimal Marker Resolution

The 22nd General Conference on Weights and Measures (CGPM), at its meeting in Paris on 

Oct. 13 - 17, 2003, unanimously adopted a resolution initiated by NIST declaring that "the symbol for the 

decimal marker shall be either the point on the line or the comma on the line," thereby giving full equality 

to the two symbols. In the same resolution, the 22nd CGPM reaffirmed that "Numbers may be divided in 

groups of three in order to facilitate reading; neither dots nor commas are ever inserted in the spaces 

between groups."

In the International System of Units (SI), which is the modern metric system, values of quantities are 

normally expressed as a number times an SI unit. Often the number contains multiple digits with an integral 

part and a decimal part. The symbol that separates the integral part from the decimal part is called the 

decimal marker. The established custom in English, as well as in many other languages, is to use the point 

on the line as the decimal marker, while in other languages, including French, the comma is used.

Despite these long-standing customs, some international bodies employ the comma as the decimal marker 

in their English language publications, and two of the world's most influential international standardizing 

bodies specify that the comma shall be the symbol for the decimal marker in all languages. Clearly, the 

specification of the comma as the decimal marker is in many languages in conflict with customary usage 

and could lead to much confusion if followed.

To address this issue, the 22nd CGPM unanimously adopted the NIST-initiated resolution. NIST will now 

work with international standardizing bodies, such as ISO and IEC, to bring the documentary standards of 

such bodies into agreement with the resolution.

Discussion/Conclusion: The WS agreed that the use of the comma as a decimal marker instead of the point or dot 

would be confusing in the U.S. marketplace. It was noted by Mr. Luciano Burtini, Measurement Canada (MC) that 

it would not be confusing in the Canadian marketplace since the use of the decimal point or comma depended upon 

whether a person spoke English or French. The WS agreed to recommend that Publication 14 DES Section 11 

Indicating and Recording Elements - General be amended as proposed by the NIST Technical Advisor, and that the 

decimal point would be used in United States/Canada mutual recognition type evaluations. This recommendation 

can be found in Appendix A, Agenda Item 5.

6. DES Section 42 - Zero-Load and Tare Adjustment - Rounding of Intermediate Values 

in an Equation.

Source: Mr. Steven Cook, NIST WMD

Background: Publication 14 DES Sections 42 - Zero-Load Adjustment – Monorail Scales currently reflects 

language in HB 44 regarding the setting of zero and tare value less than 5 % of the scale capacity to within 0.02 % 

of scale capacity according to HB 44 Scales Code paragraphs S.2.1.4 (Monorail Scales) and S.2.3.1.(Monorail 

Scales Equipped with Digital Indications). In other words, a 1000 lb x 1 lb monorail scale shall have the capability 

to set tare values up to 50 lb to within a resolution of 0.2 lb (1000 x 0.02 %). 

However, there are no procedures in Section 42 to verify that a co rrect zero-load balance or semiautomatic, 

keyboard entered, or stored tares are not rounded to the nearest value of d (1 lb) before the net weight is calculated. 

In the above example, a tare that is rounded before the net weight calculation introduces an extra 0.5 lb uncertainty 

in the net weight. This can be a problem if an average tare value of 7.6 lb for a series of trolleys is entered as tare. 

Objects (animal carcasses) will be consistently short weighed if the tare is rounded from 7.6 lb to 8 lb before the net 

weight is calculated. This may present economic harm to sellers or producers of livestock that are paid based on the 

weights from the monorail scale. Conversely, average tare weights that are rounded down to the nearest displayed 

scale division may present economic harm to the buyers, typically processors, that pay the producers based on the 

weights from the monorail scale.
NTEP Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix C – NTETC Weighing Sector

NTEP - C9 

Another question is whether the net weights are determined using the digital indicator's internal or displayed 

resolution of the gross weight in the calculation of the net weight.

The following is additional background information supporting the correct rounding (and significant digits) of 

values in an equation: 

NIST SP 811-Guide for the Use of the International System of Units (SI), Barry N. Taylor and Ambler 

Thompson (2008)

B.7.2 Rounding converted numerical values of quantities

The use of the factors given in Secs. B.8 and B.9 to convert values of quantities was demonstrated in 

Sec. B.3. In most cases the product of the unconverted numerical value and the factor will be a 

numerical value with a number of digits that exceeds the number of significant digits (see Sec. 7.9) of 

the unconverted numerical value. Proper conversion procedure requires rounding this converted 

numerical value to the number of significant digits that is consistent with the maximum possible 

rounding error of the unconverted numerical value.

Example: To express the value l = 36 ft in meters, use the factor 3.048 E−01 from Sec. B.8 or Sec. B.9 

and write

l = 36 ft × 0.3048 m/ft = 10.9728 m = 11.0 m.

Rounding guidelines found on the Internet:

- In any math problem you should wait until the end to round; Only the final answer should be 

rounded. Carry as many significant digits as you can throughout the problem.

- Round Off Rule: Round only the final answer not the intermediate values that occur during the 

calculation. Carry at least twice as many decimal places as will be used in the final answer.

- Do the math, then round the answer so that the number of significant figures is equal to the least 

number of significant figures found in any one measurement in the equation.

Discussion: WMD asked the sector to consider the following suggestions to address the specific issues of correctly 

rounding values in the calculation of net weight determinations on monorail scales, develops test procedures, and 

support a general guideline in the rules for rounding in HB 44. 

Part 1 Technical Advisor Recommendation: WMD requested that the WS consider adding language to DES 42 

that clarifies that rounding is not performed until the last mathematical operation is completed to read as follows

(Note that the language is consistent with the rounding requirements in DES Section 12.3.2.3. for converting units of 

measure):

42. Zero-Load and Tare Adjustment - Monorail Scales

Code References: S.2.1.4. and S.2.3.1.

Under the regulations of the Packers and Stockyards Administration, the rollers and hooks used on 

monorail scales within a facility are required to be nearly the same weight. Since monorail scales typically 

have scale divisions of 1 lb, a monorail scale must be capable of setting tare weights that are less than 5 % 

of the scale capacity to a weight value less than the displayed scale division. This reduces the rounding 

error in the tare weight that would otherwise be present if the tare weight were rounded to the nearest 

displayed scale division.

42.1. Means must be provided for setting the zero-load balance and any tare 

value less than 5 % of the scale capacity to within 0.02 % of scale 

capacity. 

Yes No N/A 

42.2. For an in-motion system, the conditions above must be automatically 

maintained.

Yes No N/A 
NTEP Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix C – NTETC Weighing Sector

NTEP - C10

42.3. Rounding is not performed until the last mathematical operation to 

reduce the uncertainty of the net weight calculation.

Yes No N/A 

Part 1 Conclusion: The WS agreed to recommend that Publication 14 Section 42 be amended to clarify rounding 

procedures for monorail scales. This recommendation can also be found in Appendix A, Agenda Item 6.

Part 2 Technical Advisor Recommendation: WMD believes that that compliance with HB 44 paragraphs

S.2.1.4. (Monorail Scales) and S.2.3.1. (Monorail Scales Equipped with Digital Indications) should be verified with 

documented and agreed upon test procedures. The NIST Technical Advisor suggests that a small WG be formed 

that includes a member representing manufacturers of monorail scale digital indicating elements, and a 

representative from Grain Inspection Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA). The group may also want to 

address the appropriate method of calculating net weight using the digital indicator's internal or displayed resolution 

of the gross weight. 

Part 2 Conclusion: The WS agreed to form a small WG to develop test procedures for verifying correct rounding 

of net weight determinations on monorail scales. Mr. Cook and Mr. Truex will contact holders of monorail NTEP 

CCs and request their involvement. GIPSA will be consulted on any recommendations from the WG. 

Part 3 Technical Advisor Recommendation: Submit or support a recommendation to the S&T Committee to 

amend Appendix A-Fundamental Considerations, Section 10. Rounding Off Numerical Values to state that 

intermediate values that occur during a calculation shall not be rounded. If intermediate values are to be rounded 

they should only be rounded so that the number of significant figures is equal to the least number of significant 

figures found in any one measurement or value in the equation. 

Part 3 Conclusion: Mr. Cook, NIST Technical Advisor, stated that the proposal to develop language for HB 44 is 

not sufficiently developed. Therefore, the WS agreed to take no action at this time.

7. HB 44 -2.10. T.N.4.5.1. Creep and Creep Recovery Requirements for Class III Scales

with n > 4000 divisions. 

Source: Mr. Nigel Mills, Hobart

Background: During the 2010 Annual Conference, the NCWM voted to amend the language in T.N.4.5. as shown 

in agenda item 2(b). Hobart reports that the recent change to scale tolerances for time dependence in HB 44 are still 

not consistent with the intent to harmonize load cell and scale performance. In 2009, the WS addressed creep 

recovery on return to zero but there is still an extremely tight 0.5e (Scales Code paragraph T.N.4.5.1. (a))

requirement, which makes the recent changes to the scale zero return specification of minimal value since the 

amount of creep at capacity is related to a load cells ability to return to zero. 

According to paragraph T.N.4.5.1. Time Dependence: Class II, III, and IIII Non-automatic Weighing Instruments: 

the change in the near capacity indication after 30 minutes for a complete device may not exceed 0.5e, while the

load cell of the same rated increments is permitted a maximum permissible error (mpe) of 1.5e or even 2.5e. 

Hobart proposed that the WS submit a proposal to the S&T Committee amending the language in bullet (a) of the 

2011 HB 44 Scales Code Paragraph T.N.4.5.1. to provide specific tolerances for time dependence for the different 

accuracy classes of scales and maximum number of divisions. 

Discussion/Conclusions: The WS agreed with the intent of the proposal and asked that Mr. Cook and Mr. Mills 

verify the time references in the proposal, and agreed to submit the following language to the NCWM S&T 

Committee and regional weights and measures associations as a proposal to amend HB 44 Scales Code paragraph 

T.N.4.5.1.(a) for by the NCWM during the 2011 NCWM Interim Meeting. 

(a) When any load is kept on an instrument, the difference between the indication obtained immediately after 

placing the load and the indication observed during the following 30 minutes shall not exceed 0.5 e.: 
NTEP Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix C – NTETC Weighing Sector

NTEP - C11

(i) 0.5 e for Class II and IIII devices; 

(ii) 0.5 e for Class III devices with 4000 or fewer divisions; and 

(iii) 0.83 e for Class III devices with more than 4000 divisions.

However, the difference between the indication obtained at 15 minutes and the indication obtained at 

30 minutes shall not exceed 0.2e.

For mutli-interval or multiple range instruments, when any load is kept on an instrument, the difference 

between the indication obtained immediately after placing the load and the indication observed during 

the following 30 minutes shall not exceed 0.83 ei (where ei is the interval of the weighing segment or 

range). 

If the conditions in (a) are not met, the difference between the indication obtained immediately after the load is 

applied to the instrument and the indication observed during the following 4 hours shall not exceed the absolute 

value of the maximum permissable error at the load applied.

NIST Technical Advisor’s Note. Mr. Mills, Mr. Darrell Flocken, and Mr. Cook submitted the NCWM Form 15 

Proposal to Amend Handbooks to Central Weights and Measures Association (CWMA), Western Weights and 

Measures Association (WWMA), Southern Weights and Measures Association (SWMA), and Northeastern Weights 

and Measures Association (NEWMA) in time for their fall meetings, and to the NCWM. 

8. NTEP Policy Clarification on Adding a CIM Controller to a Static RR Track Scale.

Source: Mr. Lou Straub, Fairbanks Scales, Inc. 

Background: Fairbanks Scales was asked by a customer to add a Coupled-in-Motion (CIM) controller to a Static 

Railroad Track Scale. Both the scale and the CIM controller have current NTEP CCs. The State where the device 

was located would not approve this application because the static Railroad Track scale was not evaluated with the 

CIM controller. The State took the position that any static Railroad Track scale used with a CIM controller must be 

evaluated for in-motion weighing and this application must be included on an NTEP CC. 

Fairbanks Scales believes that the state’s perspective concerning a static weighbridge receiving NTEP approval for 

in-motion weighing is legitimate. However; after searching the NTEP database they could not find any railway 

weighbridges approved for in-motion weighing. The only two CCs addressing this issue are for the controller - and 

both (96-141 and 06-061) used a NTEP approved static weighbridge.

This item has been addressed in previous Weighing Sector Meetings; however, the published comments in the 

NTEP Weighing Sector Summaries, the changes made to NCWM Pub 14, or information supplied by the NTEP 

Administrator and NIST would not change the decision of the State.

The submitter reports that after discussing this issue with the NTEP Administrator and NIST Technical Advisor to 

the Weighing Sector, he believes the following bullets reflect the actions of the 2007 WS:

• The 2010 Edition of Pub 14 Section 70 only applies to the controllers, indicators and recording elements.

• Pub 14 Section 70 states that the in-motion controller performance tests are to be conducted with a railway 

track scale load-receiving element and without the use of simulation devices.

• Pub 14 Section 70 also states “It is assumed that the weighing/load-receiving element used during the test 

has already been examined and found to comply with applicable requirements in Section 71 (Performance 

and Permanence Tests for Railway Track Scales Used to Weigh Statically).” 
NTEP Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix C – NTETC Weighing Sector

NTEP - C12

• The permanence test requirement was removed (starting with in the 2008 Edition of Publication 14). 

• There is no section in Pub 14 for “Permanence and Performance Tests for Railway Track Scales Used to 

Weigh Dynamically (in-motion)”.

• Fairbanks Scales was unable to find any “stand-alone” CCs for in-motion railway track scale 

weighing/load-receiving elements.

The submitter asked the WS to review this issue and provide clarification that will be considered acceptable to all 

the states participating in NTEP. The submitter provided the following possible solutions:

1. Require NTEP CCs for CIM controllers be clarified to reflect the decisions of the 2007 Weighing Sector 

which specifically allow any NTEP approved static Railroad Track scale to be used with an NTEP 

approved CIM controller, or

2. Add permissive language to NIST HB 44

Discussion: Mr. Lou Straub, Fairbanks Scales, indicated that in spite of NTEP Technical Policy to the contrary, the 

particular state referenced above would only permit one manufacturer to sell a CIM in that state, since NTEP CCs

do not state that a CIM system can be used with other compatible and NTEP certified static railway track scales. 

Mr. Truex commented that it is a state’s right to fix the policy for the state and added that there are no CCs for 

railway track CIM weighing element. Darrell Flocken suggested amending existing railway track scale CCs by 

removing the words “static.” 

Conclusion: The WS recommends that the NTEP Committee consider editorially amending existing active CCs for 

railway track scale weighing/load-receiving elements by removing the word “static” since static railway track scales 

are allowed to be used for in-motion weighing applications (e.g., “Application: For general purpose railway track 

scale weighing applications.”).

9. ECRS Section 8 - Power Failure

Source: NTEP Weighing Labs

Background: During the March 2010 NTEP Lab Meeting, held in Sacramento, California, the Weighing Labs were 

asked by Mr. Steve Patoray, (Weighing Labs Agenda Item 2) to explain how Section 8, paragraph 8.7.3. of Pub 14, 

ECRS could be met. The labs agreed that this item be forwarded to the WS for review and possible development of 

appropriate test criteria. The following is a copy of the 2010 Weighing Labs Agenda Item 2:

Weighing Labs Item 2 – ECRS Power Failure

Source: Steve Patoray

Section 8 in ECRS has info on power loss for the ECRS. 

Mr. Patoray asks how 8.7.3. can be met from what is stated in the Note below this section? Parts 1 and 2 of 8.7. are 

fairly clear, but in part 3, how does the ECR “continue to function and perform correctly” if it prevents indication or 

continuation of any transaction. 

If part 3 is acceptable, what must occur after the card has been read in a card-activated system when the power has 

been restored? Some questions are:

• Does step 3 apply to such a system? 

• Could the transaction be “canceled” in case of a power loss? 

• No charges? 
NTEP Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix C – NTETC Weighing Sector

NTEP - C13 

• Then the POS returns to normal operation, (with no transaction) once power is restored?

8.7. Power Interruptions. If a power interruption occurs via the switch, plug, or line 

fluctuation, the register must do one of the following:

8.7.1. Continue to function and perform correctly (e.g., the ECR is equipped 

with an uninterruptible power supply).

Yes No N/A 

8.7.2. Cease operation when power is interrupted and resume the transaction 

in process, at the time of the power failure when power is returned. 

Yes No N/A 

8.7.3. Prevent any indication or the continuation of any transaction initiated 

before a power interruption.

Yes No N/A 

NOTE: Either alternative is acceptable provided that the ECR continues to function and perform correctly.

There are no requirements to indicate when a power failure or interruption has occurred. Test first with a power 

failure to the ECR alone, then power failure to the scale alone and finally by power failure to both components 

simultaneously.

Also, the sentence underlined below, does not seem to fit with 8.7.3. either. 

8. Indicating and Recording Elements – General

Code Reference: G-S.5.1., G-S.2., S.1.1. and S.1.12.

A point-of-sale system (POS) shall be designed to provide clear, definite, and adequate indications. 

• Its features and operations shall be designed so that they minimize the potential of both intentional and 

unintentional errors. 

• The price-look-up (PLU) capability shall prevent the interaction of weight and nonweight PLUs, (e.g., 

weight-related PLUs must require a weight input and nonweight PLUs shall not respond to weight 

input). 

• Manual gross or net weight entries are permitted only under specific conditions and shall be identified 

on the printed ticket or receipt. Manual, stored, or other predetermined tare entries do not have to be 

identified. 

• Transaction information shall not be lost or unrecorded in the event of a power failure.

It would seem that with this criteria that every ECR/POS would need to have some type of battery back-up or UPS 

(for the 15 minute requirement) to continue with the transaction. Is this correct?

Recommendation/Conclusion: The WS reviewed existing test criteria in Section 8.7. and recommended changing

Publication 14 to clarify how an ECR is to perform when power is restored after a power interruption. T his 

recommendation can be found in Appendix A, Agenda Item 9. 

10. Acceptable Symbols/Abbreviations to Display the CC Number via a Device’s User 

Interface. 

Sources: 2009 NTETC Software Sector Agenda Item 3 and 2010 S&T Item 310-3 G-S.1. Identification. (Software)

2010 Interim Report of the S&T Committee: 

(http://ts.nist.gov/WeightsAndMeasures/Publications/10-Pub16.cfm) 

2010 Software Sector summary: 

(http://ncwm.net/sites/default/files/meetings/software/2010/10_Software_Summary.pdf) 

Background: Local Weights and Measures inspectors need a means to determine whether equipment discovered in 

the field has been evaluated by NTEP. If so, the inspector needs to know at a minimum the CC number. From this 
NTEP Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix C – NTETC Weighing Sector

NTEP - C14

starting point, other required information can be ascertained. HB 44 currently includes three options for marking of 

the CC:

1. Permanent marking; 

2. Continuous display; or

3. Recall using a special operation. 

Makers of Purpose-built (known internationally as “Type P”) equipment often choose permanent marking. For 

Type Approved software executing on a U niversal computer (internationally known as “Type U”), permanent 

marking is not very practical. The second option of continuous display is also undesirable, as the permanent display 

occupies valuable operator/customer screen area. As a result, most makers of software for Type U equipment opt 

for the special recall option. Unfortunately, HB 44 is somewhat vague about the specific means of recall. Software 

makers can be quite creative leaving the field inspector guesswork, frustration, and wasted time. If the inspector 

complains, the maker notes that the recall procedure is documented in the CC. But this is precisely the information 

that cannot be retrieved in the field, leading to a circular argument.

Compounding the problem, makers of sophisticated built-for-purpose equipment would also like the same flexibility 

currently afforded to makers of software for Type U equipment. The recall method is not available to the Type P 

maker today.

At its March 2010meeting, the Software Sector, in response to comments heard during the 2010 Interim meeting, 

revised the proposed language changes described in the NCWM S&T Committee’s Interim Report Item 310-3. 

These revisions removed the differentiation between types of software (Type P and Type U) while still managing to 

achieve the Sector’s objective. The revised Item 310-3 proposal can be seen in the 2010 Software Sector Summary 

and is not included here for the sake of brevity.

In summary, for S&T Item 310-3 the Sector now suggests amending the current item under consideration. The 

Software Sector also initiated discussion on two new concepts, which may eventually result in additional 

recommendations to amend G-S.1. It should be noted that these new ideas are in the developmental stage, and are 

included here by request of the Sector, since comments from the regions and other interested parties would be 

appreciated by the Software Sector members.

First, the sector sees merit to requiring some “connection” between the software identifier (i.e., version/revision) and 

the software itself. The proposal was as follows (with the expectation that examples of acceptable means of 

implementing such a link would be included in Pub 14).

Add a new sub-subparagraph (3) to G-S.1.(d) to read as follows: 

The version or revision identifier shall be directly and inseparably linked to the software itself. The 

version or revision identifier may consist of more than one part, but at least one part shall be dedicated 

to the metrologically significant software.

Second, it seems that at each meeting of the Sector, the states reiterate the problems they have in the field locating 

the basic information required when the CC number is marked via the rather general current HB 44 requirement of 

‘accessible through an easily recognizable menu, and if necessary a sub-menu’ [G-S.1.1. (b)(3)]. The states have 

indicated that this is too vague and field inspectors often cannot find the certificate number on unfamiliar devices.

Discussion: The WS was requested to provide feedback on a brief initial list of menu text and icons intended to 

form a starting point for developing a complete list of acceptable options for accessing the required CC Number (if it 

is not hard-marked or continuously displayed) relating to the proposed G-S.1.1. subparagraph (b) and possible 

compromise solution as follows:
NTEP Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix C – NTETC Weighing Sector

NTEP - C15

Proposed G-S.1.1.subparagraph (b):

(b) The CC Number shall be: 

(3) accessible through one or, at most, two levels of access.

(i) For menu-based systems, “Metrology”, “System Identification”, or “Help”.

(ii) For systems using icons, a metrology symbol (“M” or “SI”), or a help symbol (“?,” “I," or an 

“i" within a magnifying glass).

The software sector noted they are not suggesting the items in (i) and (ii) of the subparagraph be the final valid 

options and desired to have feedback specifically on additional menu text/icon images that should be considered 

acceptable. The software sector also noted that the number of acceptable options is less of an issue (within reason) 

than the fact that the list is finite. 

A Possible Compromise Solution: 

The Software Sector is asking if the restrictions for marking Type P equipment (allow the same options as for 

Type U) be relaxed in exchange for limiting the number of optional means for recalling the CC number when a 

recall sequence is required.

The proposed limitations on CC recall sequence are:

1. Recall shall not require more than two levels of operations. The CC recall method (trigger, command, etc.) 

may be present either on the main screen or one sub-menu/sub-screen down.

2. A limited number of menu text strings or icon shape choices are permitted for both the CC recall methods

and the optional top level. (There is actually some validity to the argument this requirement is currently

already implied by the term ‘readily identifiable menu’ used in HB 44 to describe the allowable means of 

recalling the CC.)

Of course, to affect this compromise a finite list of acceptable menu text/button icon options will have to be agreed 

upon and documented. Note that the states didn’t express much concern about the actual number of allowable 

selections included (though it should be reasonable); they are more concerned that there is simply a finite list of 

options which the NTEP labs can reference to validate the device’s implementation and that using that same list 

inspectors can locate the required information in the field.

Thus, the Software Sector developed the following brief initial list of ideas of menu text and icons which would 

form the starting point to developing the complete list of acceptable options for the readily identifiable menu. 

Comments and additional suggestions for entries in the list are welcome.
NTEP Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix C – NTETC Weighing Sector

NTEP - C16

Permitted Menu Text 

examples

Permitted Icon 

shape examples Essential characteristics

Information

Info

Top level menu text or icon

• Icon text is a lower case “i” with block serifs

• Text color may be light or dark but must contrast with the 

background color

• Icon may have a circular border

• Activation of this menu text/icon may invoke a second level 

menu text/icon that recalls metrology information.

Help

? 

Top level menu text or icon

• Icon text is a question mark

• Text color may be light or dark but must contrast with the 

background color

• Icon may have a circular border

• Activation of this menu text/icon may invoke a second level 

menu text/icon that recalls metrology information.

Metrology

Metrological Information

Top or second level menu text or icon

• Icon text is an upper case “M”

• Text color may be light or dark but must contrast with the 

background color

• Icon may have a rectangle or rounded rectangle border

• If present, the activation of this menu text/icon must recall at a 

minimum the NTEP CC number. Other metrology 

information may optionally be displayed.

SI

S.I.

Top or second level menu text or icon

• Icon text is upper case “SI”

• Text color may be light or dark but must contrast with the 

background color

• Icon may have a rectangle or rounded rectangle border

• If present, the activation of this menu item/icon must recall at 

a minimum the NTEP CC number. Other metrology 

information may optionally be displayed.

NTEP Data

N.T.E.P. Certificate

This one is debatable – what if the certificate is revoked? Does 

NTEP grant holders of CCs the right to display the logo on the 

device, or just in documentation?

Acceptable examples:

1. The “M” icon is available on the home screen. Activation displays a new screen containing the CC number 

and some additional metrology information including the software version/revision number(s).

2. The “SI” icon is available on the home screen. Touch screen activation displays a pop-up containing the 

CC number. Releasing the icon erases the pop-up.

3. The main screen contains the “i” icon (information). Activating this icon displays a screen of other icons 

including the “M” icon. Activating the “M” icon displays the NTEP CC.

4. The main menu includes a “Help” selection which in turn contains a “Metrology” selection. Activation of 

the Metrology selection displays a pop-up screen containing all global metrological approvals, including 

the NTEP CC number. The user manually dismisses the pop-up screen by pressing the [X] button.

?

M

M

SI

?
NTEP Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix C – NTETC Weighing Sector

NTEP - C17

5. The main menu includes an “Info” selection which in turn contains a “SI” selection. Activation of the SI 

selection displays a pop-up screen containing all global metrological approvals, including the NTEP CC 

number. The user manually dismisses the pop-up screen by pressing the [OK] button.

Conclusion: The WS reviewed the initial list of menu text and icons and provided the following comments: 

• Mr. Flocken indicated that the green M is an EU metrology mark and for that reason should not be 

considered an acceptable icon. 

• There was general consensus amongst WS members that the SI should not be considered acceptable since it 

is also used to identify the International System of Units. 

Next Sector Meeting: 

Conclusion: The WS agreed to recommend that its annual meeting be held during the last week of August 2011 in 

Sacramento, California. The WS suggested Denver, Colorado, as an alternate location.
NTEP Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix C – NTETC Weighing Sector - Appendix A – Recommendations, Pub 14

NTEP - C18

Appendix A - Recommendations for Amendments to Publication 14 

Agenda Item 1.a. 

DES Section 40. Zero-Load Adjustment - General

Code References: S.2.1.1. and S.2.1.2.

. 

. 

Indicate the zero load adjustment method provided.

 Tool operated zero-load adjustment. (Manual zero-setting mechanism)

 Semi-automatic zero-load adjustment. (Semi-automatic zero-setting mechanism)

 Power switch zero-load adjustment.

 Initial zero setting mechanism.(editorial)

DES 43.Zero-Tracking Mechanism

Code Reference: S.2.1.3., S.2.1.3.1., S.2.1.3.2., and S.2.1.3.3. 

A scale may be equipped with an automatic zero-tracking mechanism (AZT) capability to automatically correct for 

weight variations near zero within specified limits. T o reduce the potential for weighing errors, the AZT may 

operate only under limited conditions as indicated in the specific type evaluation criteria. Automatic zero-setting 

(setting the scale to zero without the intervention of the operator after 30 minutes) beyond the limits of AZT 

as defined in OIML R76 (Edition 2006) as an zero-setting mechanism is not permitted in HB 44 since there is 

no limit on the amount of zero adjustment in HB 44. Note that automatic zero setting is not the same as the 

initial zero-setting mechanism.

. 

. 

. 

43.1. This amount must comply with S.2.1.3. for the intended application. Yes No N/A 

43.2. AZT shall not be operable on any hopper scale. Yes No N/A 

43.3. For vehicle, axle-load, and railway track scales, and scales other than 

bench, counter, and livestock scales AZT may be operable only at a gross 

load zero.

Yes No N/A 

43.4. AZT shall not be operational when the scale is displaying a positive weight 

value greater than the maximum AZT quantity allowed.

Yes No N/A 

43.5. Hopper scales used in automatic bulk-weighing systems and all Class III L 

scales shall be equipped with a sealable means to enable/disable or set the 

AZT window to zero (0) for testing and inspection. 

Yes No N/A 

43.6 Review documentation to verify whether the device has an automatic 

zero-setting mechanism. If yes, the feature shall be configured in the 

disabled position. This feature shall also be protected by the approved 

security mean in Pub 14 Section 10. 

If there is no reference to automatic zero-setting in the documentation, 

verify that the device does not automatically rezero an amount greater 

than the limits of AZT.

1) Place a l oad of 1 t o 3 d above the limits of AZT. A fter 30-

minutes, observe the device to see if the indication 

automatically returned to a zero indication.

2) Place a load of 1 to 3 d above the limits of AZT. Zero the scale 

using the semiautomatic zero-setting mechanism. Remove the 

Yes No N/A 
NTEP Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix C – NTETC Weighing Sector - Appendix A – Recommendations, Pub 14

NTEP - C19

test load. T he device should maintain a n egative weight 

indication or an error message or code that it is below zero. 

After 30-minutes, observe the device to see if the indication 

automatically returned to a zero indication.

The device does not comply if the indication automatically returns to 

zero.

ABWS Section 8

Code Reference: S.2.1., S.2.1.1., S.2.1.2.

The weighing system shall be equipped with manual or semiautomatic means by which the zero-balance or no-load 

reference value may be adjusted. An automatic zero setting mechanism (AZSM) and an automatic zero tracking 

(AZT) mechanism as defined in Appendix D of HB 44 are is prohibited.

AWS Section 25.Automatic Zero-Setting Tracking Mechanism (Zero Tracking) (AZT)

Code Reference: S.2.1.1. 

A scale may be equipped with an AZT capability to automatically correct for weight variations near zero within 

specified limits. To reduce the potential for weighing errors, the AZT may operate only under limited conditions. 

Automatic zero-setting (setting the scale to zero without the intervention of the operator after 30 minutes) the

limits of AZT as defined in HB 44 for the intended application is prohibited. Note that automatic zero setting 

is not the same as an initial zero-setting mechanism. An automatic zero adjustment beyond the limits of 

automatic zero-tracking (AZT), as defined in HB 44, is prohibited.

. 

. 

. 

If the device has an AZT capability, record the maximum amount (in scale divisions) that can be zeroed at one time.

AVOIRDUPOIS: d 

METRIC: d 

OTHER UNITS: Specify unit ; d 

25.1. This amount must comply with S.2.1.3. (Scales Code) for the intended 

application.

For devices falling under S.2.1.3. (a), that is, bench or c unter, AZT ma 

be operable with the device at a g oss load zero at a net load zero or at a 

negative net weight indication resulting from a tare weight entry having 

been made with the scale at zero gross load.

Yes No N/A 

Indicate where AZT is operational.

Gross Zero Yes No N/A 

Net Zero Yes No N/A 

Negative with Tare Yes No N/A 

25.2. AZT shall not be operational when the scale is displaying a positive weight 

value greater than the maximum AZT quantity allowed.

Yes No N/A 
NTEP Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix C – NTETC Weighing Sector - Appendix A – Recommendations, Pub 14

NTEP - C20

25.3 Review documentation to determine if the device has an automatic 

zero-setting mechanism. If yes, the feature shall be configured in the 

disabled position. This feature shall also be protected by the approved 

security mean in Pub 14 Section 8. 

If there is no reference to automatic zero-setting in the documentation, 

verify that the device does not automatically rezero an amount greater 

than the limits of AZT.

1) Place a l oad of 1 t o 3 d above the limits of AZT. After 30-

minutes, observe the device to see if the indication 

automatically returned to a zero indication.

2) Place a load of 1 to 3 d above the limits of AZT. Zero the scale 

using the semiautomatic zero-setting mechanism. Remove the 

test load. T he device should maintain a negative weight 

indication or an error message or code that it is below zero. 

After 30-minutes, observe the device to see if the indication 

automatically returned to a zero indication.

The device does not comply if the indication automatically returns to 

zero.

Yes No N/A 
NTEP Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix C – NTETC Weighing Sector - Appendix A – Recommendations, Pub 14

NTEP - C21

Agenda Item 1.b. 

TIME DEPENDENCE TEST FORM

Code Reference: T.N.4.5.1., and T.N.4.5.3.

Control No.: 

Pattern designation: 

Date: 

Observer: 

Verification scale interval e: :

Resolution during test (smaller than e): :

Zero-tracking device is:

 Non-existent Not in operation Out of working range

E = I + 0.5 e - ∆ L – L 

Load L Time of Reading Indication I Add. Load ∆ L Error mpe

Initial + 20 sec

5 min

15 min

30 min

If the difference between the indication obtained at 15 minutes and that at 30 minutes exceeds 0.2 e, the difference 

between the indication obtained immediately after placing the load on the instrument and the indication observed 

during the following four hours shall not exceed the absolute value of the maximum permissible error at the load 

applied.

1 hr

2 hr

3 hr

4 hr

15 - 30 min Passed Failed

0 - 30 min Passed Failed

0 – 4 hr Passed Failed Not Applicable

Time Dependence Zero Return

Zero-tracking device is:

Non-existent Not in operation Out of working range

P = I + 0.5 e - ∆ L

Time of Reading Load L0 Indication of zero I0 Add. load ∆ L P

After loading for 30 minutes Load = __________

Meaning of symbols:

Change of indication ∆ P = ________________ I = Indication

At start At max At end

Temp: oC

Rel. h: %

Time:

Bar. Pres: hPa

(Only Class I)
NTEP Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix C – NTETC Weighing Sector - Appendix A – Recommendations, Pub 14

NTEP - C22

For single range scales:

Check that ∆Ρ ≤ ΜΡΕ for Class III L devices

Check that ∆Ρ ≤ 0.5 e for Class II, III, and IIII devices

Check that ∆Ρ ≤ 0.5 e for Class III devices (n ≤ 4000 d)

Check that ∆Ρ ≤ 0.83 e for Class III devices (n > 4000 d)

For multi-interval scales:

Check that ∆Ρ ≤ 0.83 e of the first weighing segment of 

the scale 

For multiple range scales:

Check that ∆Ρ ≤ 0.83 e (interval of the weighing range 

under test)

Check that after returning to zero from any load greater 

than Max1 and immediately after switching to the lowest 

weighing range, the indication near zero shall not vary by 

more than e1 during the next 5 minutes. 

I0 = Indication of no-load reference at the start of 

the test 

L = Load

L0 = Mass of no-load reference at the start of the 

test

Add. load Δ L = Additional load to next 

changeover point

P = Digital indication prior to rounding = I + 1/2 

e - Δ L 

E = Error = I - L or P – L 

e1 = interval of the first weighing range or 

segment

Max1 = capacity of the first weighing range or 

segment

mpe = Maximum permissible error 

EUT = Equipment under test

Passed Failed

Remarks:

Agenda Item 2. 

10. Provision For Metrological Sealing of Adjustable Components or Audit Trail 

Code References: G-S.8.1. and S.1.11. 

Due to the ease of adjusting the accuracy of electronic scales, all scales (except for Class I scales) must 

provide for a security seal that must be broken or provide an audit trail, before any adjustment that 

detrimentally affects the performance of the electronic device can be made. Only metrological parameters that 

can affect the measurement features that have a s ignificant potential for fraud and features or parameters 

whose range extends beyond that appropriate for device compliance with NIST HB 44 or the suitability of 

equipment, shall be sealed.

For additional information on the proper design and operation of the different forms of audit trail, see 

Appendix B for the Requirements for Metrological Audit Trails.

The judgment of whether or not the method of access to an adjustment represents a “significant potential for 

fraud” and will normally require sealing for security will be made based upon the application of the 

Philosophy for Sealing in Appendix A. 

Sealing - General

In addition to satisfying the physical security sealing requirement; the presents of a physical seal shall 

clearly indicate that the setup or configuration mode (any mode permitting access to any or all sealable 

parameters based upon the application of the Philosophy for Sealing in Publication 14) of the device can 

not be accessed without additional actions (e.g., removal of a jumper, pressing a key or switch, etc.) 

only possible after the removal of the seal. 
NTEP Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix C – NTETC Weighing Sector - Appendix A – Recommendations, Pub 14

NTEP - C23

If the use of a physical seal is the only approved method of sealing,; it shall not be possible to apply the 

physical seal with the device in the setup or configuration mode (any mode permitting access to any or 

all sealable parameters based upon the application of the Philosophy for Sealing in Publication 14)

unless the device has a clear indication that the device is in this mode. See the list of acceptable and 

unacceptable indications below.

Technologist:

Project number: 

Applicable for Devices Using a Physical Seal

Remarks:

Date 

Time

Temp oC

RH (%)

Mechanism used to enter calibration / configuration

Jumper

Pushbutton 

(momentary 

switch)

Toggle / Slide 

Switch

Other 

(Describe in 

Remarks)

Meets requirements

 

Yes No N/A Yes No N/A Yes No N/A Yes No N/A Yes No N/A 

 

Mechanism effective upon exit of calibration / configuration in Approved Mode, when 

mechanism is properly set according to manufacturer’s specifications. 

Jumper

Pushbutton 

(momentary 

switch)

Toggle / Slide 

Switch

Other

(Describe in 

Remarks)

Meets requirements

 

Yes No N/A Yes No N/A Yes No N/A Yes No N/A Yes No N/A 

 

(Note: entering and exiting the calibration/configuration access mode shall be listed on the NTEP CC.)
NTEP Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix C – NTETC Weighing Sector - Appendix A – Recommendations, Pub 14

NTEP - C24

Indications representing that the device is configured with the setup or configuration 

mode enabled (i.e., any mode permitting access to any or all sealable parameters)

This list is not limiting or all-inclusive; other indications may be acceptable.

Acceptable Clear Indications Indications NOT Acceptably Clear 

Unusable weight indications

Example:

C100.05E

C 100.05 lb

“not HB 44” annunciator Any digit in the weight differentiated buy 

size, shape, or color

“CAL” annunciator

(single or mixed case)

Weights w/o units

Example.

100.05

“Set-up” annunciator

(single or mixed case) Flashing weight value

“Config” annunciator

(single or mixed case) Weight with no annunciators displayed

Weight all annunciators displayed

Audit Trails – General

10.1. Verify that... (The remainder of Section 10 is unchanged.)

Agenda Item 5. 

11. Indicating and Recording Elements - General

Code References: G-S.2., G-S.5.1., G-S.5.2.2., and S.1.2.

There are several general requirements to facilitate the reading and interpretation of displayed weight values. 

Other requirements address the proper operation of indicating and recording elements. The use of the dot as 

the decimal marker is customary in the U.S. and that the use of other types of decimal markers (e.g., 

comma or “∙”) is not acceptable.

Agenda Item 6. 

42. Zero-Load and Tare Adjustment - Monorail Scales

Code References: S.2.1.4. and S.2.3.1.

Under the regulations of the Packers and Stockyards Administration, the rollers and hooks used on monorail 

scales within a facility are required to be nearly the same weight. Since monorail scales typically have scale 

divisions of 1 lb, a monorail scale must be capable of setting tare weights that are less than 5 percent of the 

scale capacity to a weight value less than the displayed scale division. This reduces the rounding error in the 

tare weight that would otherwise be present if the tare weight were rounded to the nearest displayed scale 

division.

42.1. Means must be provided for setting the zero-load balance and any tare 

value less than 5 percent of the scale capacity to within 0.02 percent of 

scale capacity. 

Yes No N/A 

42.2. For an in-motion system, the conditions above must be automatically 

maintained.

Yes No N/A 

42.3. Rounding is not performed until the last mathematical operation to 

reduce the uncertainty of the net weight calculation.

Yes No N/A 
NTEP Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix C – NTETC Weighing Sector - Appendix A – Recommendations, Pub 14

NTEP - C25

Agenda Item 9 

8.7. Power Interruptions: If a power interruption occurs via the switch, plug, or line fluctuation, the register 

must do one of the following: 

8.7.1. Continue to function and perform correctly (e.g., the ECR is equipped with an 

uninterruptible power supply.); 

Yes No N/A 

8.7.2. Cease operation when power is interrupted and resume the transaction in 

process, at the time of the power failure when power is returned; or 

Yes No N/A 

8.7.3. Prevent any indication or the continuation of any transaction initiated before a 

power interruption when power is returned. 

Yes No N/A 

Note: Either alternative is acceptable provided that the ECR continues to function and perform correctly. There 

are no requirements to indicate when a power failure or interruption has occurred. Test first with a power failure 

to the ECR alone, then power failure to the scale alone, and finally by power failure to both components 

simultaneously.
NTEP Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix C – NTETC Weighing Sector - Appendix A – Recommendations, Pub 14

NTEP - C26

Appendix B - List of Attendees 

National Conference on Weights and Measures / National Type Evaluation 

Program

Weighing Sector Final Attendee List

August 31, 2010 – September 2, 2010 / Columbus, Ohio 

L. Cary Ainsworth

USDA Packers and Stockyards Program

75 Spring Street, Suite 230 

Atlanta, GA 30303-3309 

P. (404) 562-5426 

E. l.cary.ainsworth@usda.gov 

Adnan Alam

A&D Engineering, Inc.

1756 Automation Parkway 

San Jose, CA 95131 

P. (408) 518-5112 

E. aalam@andonline.com

Luciano Burtini

Measurement Canada

2008 Matera Avenue 

Kelowna, BC V1V1W9 

P. (250) 862-6557 

E. luciano.burtini@ic.gc.ca

Steven Cook

NIST Weights and Measures Division

100 Bureau Drive 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2600 

P. (301) 975-4003 

E. stevenc@nist.gov

Scott Davidson

Mettler-Toledo, Inc.

1150 Dearborn Drive 

Worthington, OH 43085 

P. (614) 438-4387 

E. scott.davidson@mt.com

Terry Davis

Kansas Department of Agriculture/W&M 

Division

Forbes Field Building 282

Topeka, KS 66619-0282 

P. (785) 479-2193 

E. terry.davis@kda.ks.gov 

Fran Elson-Houston

Ohio Department of Agriculture

8995 East Main Street 

Reynoldsburg, OH 43068 

P. (614) 728-6290 

E. houston@agri.ohio.gov

Thomas Fink

ITW Food Equipment/ Hobart

701 Ridge Ave

Troy, OH 45374 

P. (937) 332-3114 

E. tom.fink@hobartcorp.com

William Fishman

New York Dept. of Agriculture & Markets 

Building 7A 1220 Washington Avenue

Albany, NY 12235 

P. (518)457-3452 

E. bill.fishman@agmkt.state.ny.us

Darrell Flocken

Mettler-Toledo, Inc.

1150 Dearborn Drive 

Worthington, OH 43085 

P. (614) 438-4393 

E. darrell.flocken@mt.com

Kevin Fruechte

Avery Weigh-Tronix

1000 Armstrong Drive 

Fairmont, MN 56031 

P. (507) 238-4461 

E. kfruechte@awtxglobal.com

Richard Harshman

NIST Weights and Measures Division

100 Bureau Drive 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2600 

P. (301) 975-8107 

E. richard.harshman@nist.gov
NTEP Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix C – NTETC Weighing Sector - Appendix B – WS List of Attendees

NTEP - C27

Ken Jones

California Division of Measurement Services

6790 Florin Perkins Road Suite 100 

Sacramento, CA 95828 

P. (916) 229-3052 

E. kjones@cdfa.ca.gov

Thomas Jones

Hobart Corporation

401 W. Market 

Troy, OH 45374 

P. (937) 332-2427 

E. thomas.jones@hobartcorp.com

Takashi Kawazoe

New Brunswick International, Inc.

76 Veronica Avenue 

Somerset, NJ 08873 

P. (732) 828-3633 

E. TKService@nbidigi.com

Michael Kelley

Ohio Department of Agriculture

8995 East Main Street 

Reynoldsburg, OH 43068 

P. (614) 728-6290 

E. mkelley@agri.ohio.gov

Stephen Langford

Cardinal Scale Manufacturing Co.

203 East Daugherty Street 

Webb City, MO 64870 

P. (417) 673-4631 

E. slangford@cardet.com

Jean Lemay

Measurement Canada

151 Tunney's Pasture Drive 

Ottawa, Ontario KIA0C9

P. (613) 952-0612 

E. jean.lemay@ic.gc.ca

Paul Lewis

Rice Lake Weighing Systems, Inc.

230 West Coleman Street 

Rice Lake, WI 54868-2404 

P. (715) 434-5322 

E. plewis@ricelake.com

L. Edward Luthy

Stock Equipment

108 Wade Drive 

Dover, OH 44622 

P. (440) 241-0194 

E. eluthy@gmail.com

Earl Matthews

Ohio Department of Agriculture 

8995 East Main Street Building 5 

Reynoldsburg, OH 43068 

P. (614) 728-6290 

E. matthews@agri.ohio.gov

Nigel Mills

Hobart Corporation

701 South Ridge Avenue 

Troy, OH 45374-0001 

P. (937) 332-3205 

E. nigel.mills@hobartcorp.com

Edward Payne

Maryland Department of Agriculture

50 Harry S. Truman Parkway

Annapolis, MD 21401 

P. (410) 841-5790 

E. payneea@mda.state.md.us

Samuel Sagarsee

Emery Winslow Scale Co.

613 Gardendale Road 

Terre Haute, IN 47803 

P. (812) 877-0126 

E. srsagarsee@winslowth.com

Louis Straub

Fairbanks Scales, Inc.

3056 Irwin Drive S.E. 

Southport, NC 28461 

P. (910) 253-3250 

E. lstraub@fairbanks.com

James Truex

National Conference on Weights and Measures

88 Carryback Drive 

Pataskala, OH 43062 

P. (740) 919-4350 

E. jim.truex@ncwm.net
NTEP Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix C – NTETC Weighing Sector - Attachments – Agenda Item 4

NTEP - C28

Attachments

Agenda Item 4. T.N.4.7. Amend Creep Recovery Tolerances for III L Load Cells 

Creep Recovery history and tolerance scenario 

NIST tests 10/1/2007 - 8/12/2010 

Class III L 

outcome 

delay measured for also 

time recovery tolerance listed for 

capacity classification (seconds) (v) of 1.50v Class III 

30 t III L Mult 10000 50 0.90 pass 

30 t III L Mult 10000 50 0.80 pass 

75 klb III L Mult 10000 50 1.01 pass 

75 klb III L Mult 10000 50 0.60 pass 

50 klb III L Mult 10000 50 2.20 

50 klb III L Mult 10000 50 1.60 

60 klb III L Mult 10000 50 1.55 * 

75 klb III L Mult 10000 50 1.12 pass 

75 klb III L Mult 10000 50 1.68 

2000 kg III L Mult 10000 40 0.64 pass * 

2000 kg III L Mult 10000 40 0.56 pass * 

60 klb III L Mult 10000 50 1.41 pass * 

60 klb III L Mult 10000 50 1.49 pass * 

65 klb III L Mult 10000 50 1.33 pass * 

75 klb III L Mult 10000 50 1.38 pass 

100 klb III L Mult 10000 50 0.62 pass * 

30 t III L Mult 10000 50 0.61 pass * 

percent passing ==> 76% 

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 initiation of unloading and taking 

the first (reference) reading 

Note 3: prior to 2009, recovery values for "delay times" of 30 or 50 seconds were 

interpolated from measured readings at nearby points 

Note 4: since 1/1/2009, NIST sampling begins with a reading at the "delay time" 

required by the new Pub.14 Table 5 
NTEP Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix C – NTETC Weighing Sector - Attachments – Agenda Item 4

NTEP - C29

Creep Recovery history and tolerance scenario 

NIST tests 10/1/2007 - 8/12/2010 

Class III 

outcome 

delay measured for 

time recovery tolerance 

capacity classification (seconds) (v) of 0.83v 

4 klb III Mult 5000 40 1.09 

4 klb III Mult 5000 40 0.95 

1000 kg III Mult 5000 30 0.59 pass 

1000 kg III Mult 5000 30 0.82 pass 

5 klb III Mult 5000 40 1.56 

5 klb III Mult 5000 40 0.17 pass 

2000 kg III Sing 5000 40 0.39 pass 

2000 kg III Sing 5000 40 0.16 pass 

5 klb III Sing 5000 40 1.72 

1000 kg III Sing 5000 30 0.96 

200 Ib III Sing 5000 20 1.51 

1000 kg III Mult 5000 30 0.48 pass 

5 klb III Mult 5000 40 0.60 pass 

5 klb III Mult 5000 40 0.39 pass 

10 klb III Mult 5000 40 0.66 pass 

4 klb III Mult 5000 40 0.75 pass 

4.4 klb III Mult 5000 40 0.42 pass 

10 klb III Mult 5000 40 1.22 

5 klb III Sing 5000 40 1.03 

4 klb III Mult 5000 40 0.28 pass 

10 klb III Mult 5000 40 0.93 

10 klb III Mult 5000 40 1.25 

10 klb III Mult 5000 40 0.93 

60 klb III Mult 5000 50 0.77 pass 

200 Ib III Sing 5000 20 0.48 pass 

500 Ib III Sing 5000 30 0.50 pass 

2000 kg III Sing 5000 40 0.32 pass 

2000 kg III Sing 5000 40 0.28 pass 

4000lb III Mult 5000 40 0.80 pass 

4000lb III Mult 5000 40 0.18 pass 

60 klb III Mult 5000 50 0.70 pass 

60 klb III Mult 5000 50 0.74 pass 

65 klb III Mult 5000 50 0.66 pass 

100 klb III Mult 5000 50 0.31 pass 

30 t III Mult 5000 50 0.30 pass 

percent passing ==> 69% 
NTEP Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix C – NTETC Weighing Sector - Attachments – Agenda Item 4

NTEP - C30

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
NTEP Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix D – NTETC Software Sector

NTEP - D1 

Appendix D

National Type Evaluation Technical Committee (NTETC) 

Software Sector 

March 2 - 3, 2010 

Sacramento, California

Annual Meeting Summary

Carry-over Items

1. NCWM/NTEP Policies – Issuing CCs for Software ........................................................................NTEP - D1

2. Definitions for Software Based Devices...........................................................................................NTEP - D2

3. G-S.1. Identification (Software) .......................................................................................................NTEP - D3

4. Identification Of Certified Software ................................................................................................. NTEP - D8

5. Software Protection/Security ..........................................................................................................NTEP - D11

6. Software Maintenance and Reconfiguration...................................................................................NTEP - D13

7. Verification In The Field by the Weights/Measures Inspector.......................................................NTEP - D16

8. NTEP Application ..........................................................................................................................NTEP - D17

New Items

9. Training of Field Inspectors............................................................................................................NTEP - D18

10. Next Meeting ..................................................................................................................................NTEP - D20

Appendices

Appendix A: Report on 2009 Interim Meeting........................................................................................NTEP - D21

Appendix B: Report on International W&M Activity .............................................................................NTEP - D22

Appendix C: 2010 Software Sector Meeting Attendee List ....................................................................NTEP - D23

Carry-over Items

1. NCWM/NTEP Policies – Issuing CCs for Software 

Source: NCWM Reports

Background: For additional background on this item, see the 2009 Software Sector Meeting summary.

Recommendation: The Sector recommended the following language to be submitted to the National Type 

Evaluation Program (NTEP) Committee as a policy change.

Software Requiring a Separate CC: Software, which is implemented as an add-on to other NTEP 

Certified main elements to create a weighing or measuring system and its metrological functions, 

are significant in determining the first indication of the final quantity. Such software is considered 

a main element of the system requiring traceability to an NTEP CC.
NTEP Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix D – NTETC Software Sector

NTEP - D2 

NOTE: OEM software may be added to an existing CC or have a stand-alone CC with applicable 

applications (e.g., a manufacturer adding a software upgrade to their ECR or point-of-sale system, 

vehicle scale weigh-in/weigh-out software added as a feature to an indicating element, automatic 

bulk weighing, liquid-measuring device loading racks, etc.) and minimum system requirements for 

“type P” devices (see proposed software definition below). It may be possible for a manufacturer to 

submit a single application for both hardware and software contained in the same device. A single 

CC would be issued. 

In this instance, OEM refers to a 3rd party. The request to add software could be made by the 

original CC holder on behalf of the 3rd party. Alternatively, a new CC could be created that refers 

to the original CC and simply lists the new portions that were examined.

The NTEP committee included this item in their agenda (NTEP Committee 2009 Interim Agenda Item 8); there was 

no discussion during the open hearing, and this became a Voting item for the 2009 Annual Meeting. At the 2009 

National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM) Annual Meeting, this proposal was passed unanimously 

by the Conference.

Discussion: The NTEP Administrator was asked if there is to be any actual change in any document or is this 

strictly a procedural change? How do the labs know they can/should handle software items differently now? The 

answers to these questions were: there have not been any changes to Pub 14 this year; the Certificates of 

Conformance (CC) can now say “software;” the labs know this; and NTEP policy is communicated to the labs. It 

was suggested that software could be a secondary classification on the certificates.

Conclusions: Our work is complete on this item; it will be removed from the agenda.

2. Definitions for Software Based Devices 

Source: 2009 Carryover Item 310-2. This item originated from the National Type Evaluation Technical Committee 

(NTETC) Software Sector and first appeared on the Committee’s 2007 Agenda as Developing Item Part 1, Item 2.

From: NCWM Publication 15, 2010: 

310-2 Appendix D – Definition of Electronic Devices, Software-Based and Built-for-Purpose Device

Item Under Consideration: 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)

and, add a new definition and a cross-reference to Appendix D in the National Institute of Standards and Technology 

(NIST) Handbook 44 (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-forpurpose. – 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. 
NTEP Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix D – NTETC Software Sector

NTEP - D3 

Software-based devices – See Electronic devices, software-based.

Background: For additional background information on this item, please reference the 2009 S oftware Sector 

Meeting Summary and the 2010 NCWM Interim Meeting Agenda (Pub 15).

At its 2009 Interim Meeting, the Central Weights and Measures Association (CWMA) received comments that the 

proposal is sufficiently developed and recommends moving this item forward as a Voting item on the Committee’s 

Agenda. At its 2009 Annual Technical Conference, the Western Weights and Measures Association (WWMA) 

received comments from Mr. Lou Straub, speaking on behalf of the Scales Manufacturers Association (SMA), 

indicating the SMA continues to oppose this item, noting that requirements should apply equally to the two different 

device types described. The WWMA received no other input on this item, and recommends this item should remain 

Informational until the Software Sector has had an opportunity to review comments from the 2009 NCWM Annual 

Meeting and any comments made at subsequent regional weights and measures association meetings. At its 2009 

Annual Meeting, the Southern Weights and Measures Association (SWMA) recommended keeping the status of this 

proposal to delete the current definition of built-for-purpose device, and add a new definition and a cross-reference 

to Appendix D in HB 44 for “Electronic devices, software-based” to replace the current definition of “built-forpurpose device” as an Informational item. The SWMA agreed that the Software Sector should continue to work on 

the proposal until it arrives at some final language. During its 2009 Interim Meeting, the Northeastern Weights and 

Measures Association (NEWMA) stated that it supports the Committee’s decision 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. The item remains as an 

Informational item on 2010 Annual Meeting Agenda; the Specifications and Tolerances (S&T) Committee indicated 

that they look forward to additional work being done on this item by the Sector. 

Discussion: Initially, it was decided to table discussion on this item; as we worked on items further down the list, 

we would see if it was really necessary to include the ‘Type P’ and ‘Type U’ differentiation at this time; if so, we 

would come back and work on the definitions. In particular, Agenda Item 3 (which contained references to the 

proposed definitions) would be examined in more detail to see if we couldn’t satisfy the concerns of the SMA by 

avoiding differentiation of device types for identification purposes.

Conclusion: When all other Agenda items had been discussed, it was determined that there was no real need to 

introduce this differentiation in device types at the current time. It was decided that we would recommend to S&T 

that this item be Withdrawn for now (with the realization that work on future items may require we reintroduce the 

concept). The previously proposed language is recorded herein, if future requirements would revive the need for the 

definitions to differentiate between device types.

3. G-S.1. Identification (Software) 

Source: NTETC Software Sector

Background: During their October 2007 meeting, the Sector discussed the value and merits of required markings 

for software. This included the possible differences in some types of devices and marking requirements. After 

hearing several proposals, the Sector agreed to the following technical requirements applicable to the marking of 

software.

1. The NTEP CC Number must be continuously displayed or hard marked; 

2. The version must be software-generated and shall not be hard marked; 

3. The version is required for embedded (Type P) software; 

4. Printing the required identification information can be an option; 

5. Command or operator action can be considered as an option in lieu of a continuous display of the required 

information; and
NTEP Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix D – NTETC Software Sector

NTEP - D4 

6. Devices with Type P (embedded) software must display or hard mark the make, model, and 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 HB 44. There was much additional comments and various proposed versions of the table 

from NIST Weights and Measures Division (WMD), et al. (The complete background on this item can be seen in the 

2010 Interim Meeting Agenda, NCWM Pub 15, 2010.)

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. 

At the 2009 Software Sector Meeting, it was agreed that the proposed table had not accomplished the intended 

purpose of clarifying the requirements, indeed, it seemed to have generated more confusion. Hence, this item was 

revisited from the beginning, and it was suggested that a simpler approach be taken, namely to modify the text of 

G-S.1. to match our intent. The proposal from our Sector was as follows:

G-S.1.Identification. – All equipment, except weights and separate parts necessary to the 

measurement process but not having any metrological effect and manufactured prior toafter 

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 (builtfor-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]
NTEP Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix D – NTETC Software Sector

NTEP - D5 

(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)

(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 prior toafter 

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

(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) 
NTEP Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix D – NTETC Software Sector

NTEP - D6 

Discussion: As was noted in the review of what transpired at the Interim Meeting, there appears to be continued 

resistance, especially from the SMA, to differentiating between Type P and Type U software types. From their 

perspective it is ‘all software,’ and they are concerned that marking requirements will be more complex if we 

delineate between two different types of software-based devices. Also, the inspectors want to standardize the 

method of locating the marking information when it is being displayed via menu, and insist that it should be very 

simple for field personnel to locate. Some additional work by the group resulted in this modified proposal that does 

not include the new definitions and does not specifically delineate any device types (in fact, it removes the existing 

mention of ‘built-for purpose’):

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 (builtfor-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)
NTEP Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix D – NTETC Software Sector

NTEP - D7 

(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 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) 

Comments: The thinking was that standalone software has no moving or electronic component parts, and hence, is 

not required to have a serial number. This was considered acceptable by the Sector; the Sector sees no value in 

requiring vendors’ submittals for NTEP approval that are software-only to print serial numbers on their distribution 

media (CD, DVD, etc). It was observed by California that if we continue with the concept of only examining 

‘devices’ that typically off-the-shelf PC’s have their own serial number, generated by the manufacturer. This can 

and has been used by the inspectors as a means to meet G-S.1.(c) though the prefix/abbreviation is sometimes an 

issue, since the PC manufacturer knows nothing about G-S.1.

It was also suggested that G-S.1.1.(b)(3) be modified to omit the term “easily recognized”; instead, a limited list of 

options would be available. A first pass at reworking G-S.1.1(b)(3) resulted in:

G-S.1.1. Location Method of Marking Information for Not-Built-For-Purpose all Software-Based 

Electronic 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 

(b) The CC Number shall be: 

(1) permanently marked on the device; 

(2) continuously displayed; or 

(3) accessible through one, or, at most, two levels of access. 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.” 

(a) For menu-based systems, “Metrology”, “System Identification”, or “Help”. 

(b) For systems using icons, a metrology symbol (“M”), “SI”, or a help symbol (“?”, 

“i", or an “i" within a magnifying glass).
NTEP Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix D – NTETC Software Sector

NTEP - D8 

Note: For (b), clear instructions for accessing the information required in G-S.1. (a), (b), (c), 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)

This new language for G-S.1.1.(3)(b) is in the early stages, and the Software Sector would like feedback regarding 

G-S.1.1(b)(3), particularly suggestions for specific allowed menu items/icons that should be included on the list. 

Conclusion: The revised G-S.1. (and G-S.1.1.) above will be sent to NCWM S&T Committee as our updated 

recommendation. 

Note: It was observed by WMD (after our meeting adjourned) that there have been several revisions, and revisions 

to revisions, to our G-S.1. proposals. The proofing (font, bold/italic, etc.) may no longer reflect the correct form 

with which changes are to be submitted, and they may not actually reflect the changes from what is currently in the

2010 Handbook. This needs to be addressed prior to submission to the S&T Committee; the Chair will compare the 

proposed language to the current HB 44 language and make sure the desired changes are marked properly in the 

forwarded proposal.

4. Identification of Certified Software

Source: NTETC Software Sector

Background/Discussion: This item originated as an attempt to answer the question “How does the field inspector 

know that the software running in the device is the same software evaluated and approved by the lab?” In previous 

meetings it was shown that the international community has addressed this issue (both the European Cooperation in 

Legal Metrology (WELMEC) and the International Organization of Legal Metrology (OIML)). F rom 

WELMEC 7.2:

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. 

From OIML D 31:

The executable file “tt100_12.exe” is protected against modification by a checksum. The value of 

checksum as determined by algorithm XYZ is 1A2B3C. 

Previous discussions have included a listing of some additional examples of possible valid methods (not limiting):

• CRC (cyclical redundancy check)

• Checksum

• Inextricably Linked version no.

• Encryption

• Digital Signature
NTEP Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix D – NTETC Software Sector

NTEP - D9 

Is there some method to give the Weights and Measures (WM) inspector information that something has changed? 

(Yes, the Category III audit trail or other means of sealing). How can the WM inspector identify an NTEP Certified 

version? (They can’t, without adding additional requirements like what is described here, in conjunction with 

including the identifier on the CC).

The Sector believes that we should work towards language that would include a requirement similar to the OIML 

requirement in HB 44. It is also the opinion of the Sector that a specific method should not be defined; rather the 

manufacturer should utilize a method and demonstrate the selected identification mechanism is suitable for the 

purpose. It is not clear from the discussion where such proposed language might belong.

NTEP strongly recommends that metrological software be separated from non-metrological software for ease of 

identification and evaluation. From OIML:

Separation of software parts – All software modules (programmes, subroutines, objects etc.) that 

perform metrologically significant functions or that contain metrologically significant data 

domains from 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)

Initial draft proposed language: (G-S.1.1.?)

Handbook 44 (This has been written into G-S.1.(d)(3): 

Identification of Certified Software:

Software-based electronic devices shall be designed such that the metrologically significant 

software is clearly identified by the version or revision number. The identification, and this 

identification of the software shall be inextricably directly and inseparably linked to the 

software itself. The version or revision number may consist of more than one part, but at 

least one part shall be dedicated to the metrologically significant software. 

Pub. 14:

Identification of Certified Software: 

Note: Manufacturers may choose to separate metrologically significant software from nonmetrologically significant software. Separation would allow the revision of the non-metrological 

portion without the need for further evaluation. In addition, non-metrologically significant 

software may be updated on devices without breaking a seal, if so designed. Separation of 

software requires that all software modules (programs, subroutines, objects etc.) that perform 

metrologically significant functions or that contain metrologically significant data domains from 

the metrologically significant software part of a measuring instrument (device or sub-assembly). If 

the separation of the software is not possible or needed, then the software is metrologically 

significant as a whole. The conformity requirement applies to all parts and parts shall be 

marked according to Section G-S-X.X.

The manufacturer must describe and possibly demonstrate how the version or revision identifier is 

directly and inseparably linked to the metrologically significant software. W here the version 

revision identifier is comprised of more than one part, the manufacturer shall describe which 

portion represents the metrological significant software and which does not.
NTEP Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix D – NTETC Software Sector

NTEP - D10

From OIML D-31:

Legally relevant software of a measuring instrument/electronic device/sub-assembly shall be 

clearly identified with the software version or another token. The identification may consist of 

more than one part but at least one part shall be dedicated to the legal purpose.

The identification shall be inextricably linked to the software itself and shall be presented or 

printed on command or displayed during operation or at start up for a measuring instrument that 

can be turned off and on again. If a sub-assembly/an electronic device has neither display nor 

printer, the identification shall be sent via a communication interface in order to be 

displayed/printed on another sub-assembly/electronic device.

The first sentence of the first paragraph above is already addressed in HB 44’s marking requirements.

Recommendation: Recommend the following change to HB 44, General Code: G-S.1.(d) to add a new 

subsection (3): 

(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)

(3) The version or revision identifier shall be directly and inseparably linked to the software 

itself. The version or revision identifier may consist of more than one part, but at least one 

part shall be dedicated to the metrologically significant software.

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 201X] 

(Added 201X)

Also the Sector recommends the following information be added to Pub. 14 as explanation/examples: 

• Unique identifier must be displayable/printable on command or during operation, etc. 

• At a minimum, a version/revision indication (1.02.09, rev 3.0 a, etc) could also consist 

of/contain, checksum, etc (crc32, for example) 

Conclusions: The item needs additional discussion and development by the Sector. Outstanding questions: If we 

allow hard-marking of the software identifier (the Sector has wavered on this in the past), does the above wording 

then imply that some mechanical means is required (i.e., physical seal) to ‘inseparably link’ the identifier to the 

software? Do we still have to be able to display/print the identifier if it is hard-marked?
NTEP Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix D – NTETC Software Sector

NTEP - D11

5. Software Protection / Security

Source: NTETC Software Sector

Background: The sector agreed that HB 44 already has an audit trail and physical seal, but the question on the 

table is, does the Handbook need to be enhanced to sufficiently discourage the facilitation of fraud, intentional or 

accidental, where software is concerned?

WELMEC and OIML again have addressed this issue specifically when dealing with software. From WELMEC:

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 of 

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.

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 derived a suitable checklist for Pub 14 from the OIML checklist, and asked the current NTEP labs to 

begin using this checklist on a trial basis for new type approval applications.
NTEP Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix D – NTETC Software Sector

NTEP - D12

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 all the metrologically significant functions, designating 

those that are considered metrologically significant

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 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 

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 control WM jurisdiction and type-specific parameters)

Yes  No  N/A 

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 
NTEP Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix D – NTETC Software Sector

NTEP - D13

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 

The Sector hopes to obtain feedback at this meeting from the NTEP labs regarding this checklist. 

Discussion: The labs again indicated they had not had a chance to utilize the checklist. The list was reviewed and 

some minor modifications to the checklist text were incorporated as shown in this excerpt: 

The software documentation contains:

the description of all the metrologically significant functions, 

designating those that are considered metrologically significant

OIML states that there shall be no undocumented functions

Yes  No  N/A 

the description of the securing means (evidence of an intervention) Yes  No  N/A 

the software identification Yes  No  N/A 

Conclusion: Work is ongoing on this item with the intent that it eventually be incorporated as a checklist in Pub 14; 

again the labs are requested to try utilizing this checklist for any evaluations on software-based electronic devices. 

6. Software Maintenance and Reconfiguration

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, for example, 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, for example, 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.
NTEP Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix D – NTETC Software Sector

NTEP - D14

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 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. WM requirements. 

The Sector agreed that the two definitions below for verified update and traced update were acceptable.

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.

The Sector also worked towards language proposed for defining the requirements for a Traced Update (currently 

considered as relevant for Pub 14):

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. 

Use of a C ategory 3 audit trail is acceptable and required for the software update logger

Traced Update. In this case the existing requirement of 1,000 entries supersedes the 10 entry 

requirement. If software update is the only loggable event, then the Category 3 audit trail 

can be limited to only 10 entries. A software update log entry representing a software 

update shall include the following: the software identification of the newly installed version.

• an event counter;

• the date and time of the change; 
NTEP Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix D – NTETC Software Sector

NTEP - D15

• the event type/parameter ID, which indicates a software update event (if not using a 

dedicated update log); and

• the new value of the parameter, which is the software identification of the newly 

installed version. 

A Category III device may include the software update events in the Category III audit log, 

in lieu of a separate software update log; the existing requirement for 1000 entries 

supersedes the requirement for 10 entries. 

The traceability means and records are part of the metrologically significant software, and 

should be protected as such. If software separation is employed, the software used for 

displaying the audit trail belongs to the fixed metrologically significant software. (Note: This 

needs to be discussed further due to some manufacturer's 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.) (include flowchart from 

OIML D 31)

The Sector discussed how to best move this item forward, and there was also some discussion as to whether new 

language for the General Code was required. The following new text was proposed:

G-S.9. Metrologically Significant Software Updates

The updating of metrologically significant software shall be considered a sealable event. 

Metrologically significant software that does not conform to the approved type is not allowed 

for use. 

The NTEP Administrator indicated that the current requirements in G-S.8. already make the statement that any 

changes that affect metrological function are sealable; hence, software updates may be covered and the proposed 

G-S.9. unnecessary. Mr. Todd Lucas suggested we go ahead and submit the proposed G-S.9. to the Committee and 

request a clarification/interpretation of G-S.8. 

At the 2009 meeting, the Sector opined that the explicit language proposed for G-S.9. is clearer than any implied 

requirement in G-S.8. The Sector would like a clarification/interpretation of G-S.8. as it relates to software updates 

from the S&T Committee (with their response preferably to be included in Pub 16). The Sector will also continue 

to develop the proposed text (and flow chart) targeted for inclusion in Pub 14.

Discussion: The Sector reviewed the proposal and reconsidered allowing a separate ‘update log’. It was decided 

that this would probably generate confusion and is not likely to be adopted by manufacturers anyway. Hence, the 

previously proposed text was modified to require a Category III audit trail for ‘traced updates’:

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. Use of a Category 3 audit trail is acceptable required for the software update logger 

Traced Update. In this case the existing requirement of 1,000 entries supersedes the 10 entry 

requirement. If software update is the only loggable event, then the Category 3 audit trail can be 

limited to only 10 entries. A software update log entry representing a s oftware update shall 

include the following: the software identification of the newly installed version.

• An event counter;

• the date and time of the change; and 
NTEP Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix D – NTETC Software Sector

NTEP - D16

• the event type/parameter ID, which indicates a s oftware update event (if not using a 

dedicated update log);

• the new value of the parameter, which is the software identification of the newly installed 

version. 

A Category III device may include the software update events in the Category III audit log 

in lieu of a separate software update log; the existing requirement for 1,000 entries 

supersedes the requirement for 10 entries. 

Conclusions: The general consensus of the group after considering feedback from external interested parties is that 

a new G-S.9. with explicit requirements is not necessary (nor likely to be adopted by the Conference), and that this 

requirement belongs in the Pub 14 lists of sealable parameters rather than in HB 44; i.e. 

The updating of metrologically significant software shall be considered a sealable event.

Additional work is to be done to further develop the proposed text toward inclusion in Pub 14.

7. Verification in the Field, By the W&M Inspector

Source: NTETC Software Sector

Background Question: What tools does the field inspector need?

Possible Answers:

• Have NTEP CC No. continuously displayed. (needs some type of protection) during the normal weighing 

or measuring operation. 

• Clear and simple instructions on NTEP CC to get to the other inspection information. 

• The CRC, checksum, version 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.). 

Some discussion about system information requirements for the inspector took place... does the inspector really 

need to have access to OS, RAM information, etc.? (General opinion seems to be if there is a dependency, then the 

NTEP lab would specifically include that requirement in the CC.)

Audit trail info – the question was asked, does there need to be a specific requirement for providing access to this 

information? 

Regarding the concept of First Final – There was some concern expressed as to how the inspectors are able to 

discern where the indication of first final be found for the system (as opposed to the devices in the system). What 

devices in the system are of concern to the inspector? The NTEP Administrator indicated that field inspectors need 

to follow the system all the way to receipt/bill generation.

Data transmission is an issue when considering systems as opposed to devices...how far does the inspector’s 

jurisdiction extend? (Should we model future requirements on the WELMEC section concerning DTD/DSD?) 

Decision: data transmission/storage is not currently being addressed by the Sector at this time. Since part of the 

Sector’s mission is education, do we want to assist in developing training aids for labs/inspectors related to 
NTEP Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix D – NTETC Software Sector

NTEP - D17

evaluating/inspecting software-based devices? This will be a topic to be added to the Sector’s Agenda for the next 

meeting.

At the 2009 meeting, the Sector decided to continue to develop this item, and initiate a new Agenda item specific to 

inspector training in relation to evaluating/validating software-based devices.

Discussion: A question from the floor requested opinion as to whether this Agenda item continued to serve a 

purpose. During discussion, it was stated that the goals of this item have all been addressed as part of all the other 

agenda items save one (training), and inspector training will now be covered in a new item (Training of Field 

Inspectors), leaving this item without merit.

Conclusion: No argument was made for retaining this item as a separate item on the Agenda. This item will be 

removed from future Agendas.

8. NTEP Application for Software requiring a separate Certificate of Conformance –

based Electronic Devices

Source: NTETC Software Sector

Background/Discussion: The purpose of initiating this item was to identify issues, requirements, and processes for 

type approving Type U device applications. It was suggested that it may be useful to the labs to devise a separate 

submission form for software for Type U devices. Question: What gets submitted? What requirements and 

mechanisms for submission should be available? 

Validation in the lab - all required subsystems shall be included to be able to simulate the system as installed.

It was noted this Agenda item is irrelevant if the NTEP Committee does not approve the pending item up for Vote.

Mr. John Roach, California NTEP Lab, stated that if the software package being evaluated supports 

platforms/subsystems from multiple manufacturers, testing should be done using at least two platforms/subsystems. 

Scale labs and scale manufacturers indicated that this is not usually done for scale evaluations.

Conclusion of 2009 Sector Meeting: The Sector will continue to develop this item, contingent on the status of the 

related NTEP Committee Agenda item after the 2009 Annual Meeting. 

Discussion: Since the NTEP Committee passed the related item at the Annual Meeting, we will continue to work 

on this. The NTEP director indicated that we can move in this direction, but felt that it was somewhat premature to 

develop this thoroughly now. At the point where the Sector has developed checklist requirements, then we could 

move to perhaps add a subsection to current NTEP applications for applicable software. Refer to D-31.6.1. It was 

also agreed that there seems to be no reason for limiting the scope of this item to software-only applications; hence, 

all software/software-based devices could benefit from an enhanced application process. Hence, the description of 

this agenda item was modified as shown in the marked up heading.

Conclusion: The item will be revisited at the 2011 Meeting, and it will be decided whether to begin further 

development of this item at this time.
NTEP Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix D – NTETC Software Sector

NTEP - D18

New Items

9. Training of Field Inspectors 

Source: NTETC Software Sector

Background: During discussions at the 2009 meeting, the Sector concluded that a new Agenda item should be 

initiated specific to the training of field inspectors in relation to evaluating/validating software-based devices.

Discussion: California has an Examination Procedure Outline (EPO) that begins to address this. Use Handbook 112 

as a pattern template for how it could read.

Items to be addressed:

• Certificate of Conformance

• Terminology (as related to software) beyond what is in HB 44

• Reference materials / information sources

• Safety

System Verification Tests

NOTE: Item numbers 1 through 5 apply to both weighing and measuring devices. Numbers 6 and 7 are specific to 

weighing devices; while numbers 9 and 10 apply to measuring devices.

1. Identification. The identification (ID) tag may be on the back room computer server and could be 

viewed on an identification screen on the computer monitor. The ID information may be displayed 

on a menu or identification screen. Though currently discouraged, some systems may be designed 

so the system must be shut down and reset to view the ID information. G-S.1. (1.10.) 

1.1. Manufacturer.

1.2. Model designation.

2. Provisions for sealing. G-S.8. [1.10.]; S.1.11. [2.20]; S.2.2. [3.30.] 

2.1. Verify sealing category of device (refer to Certificate of Approval for that system).

2.2. Verify compliance with certificate.

3. Units of measure.

3.1. A computer and printer interfaced to a digital indicator shall print all metrological values,

intended to be the same, identically. G-S.5.2.2.(a); G-S.5.1. [1.10.] 

3.2. The unit of measure, such as lb, kg, oz, gal, qts, liters, or whatever is used, must agree.

4. Operational controls, indications and features (buttons and switches). Verify that application criteria 

and performance criteria are met (refer to Certificate of Approval).

4.1. Any indication, operation, function or condition must not be represented in a manner that

interferes with the interpretation of the indicated or printed values.
NTEP Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix D – NTETC Software Sector

NTEP - D19

5. Indications and displays.

5.1. Attempt to print a ticket. The recorded information must be accurate or the software must

not process and print a ticket with erroneous data interpreted as a measured amount.

Weighing Devices

6. Motion detection.

6.1. For railway track, livestock, and vehicle scales apply or remove a test load of at least 15 d 

while simultaneously operating a print button, push-button tare or push-button zero. A good 

way to do this is to try to print a ticket while pulling the weight truck or another vehicle onto 

the scale. Recorded values shall not differ from the static display by more than 3 d. Perform 

the test at 10 %, 50 % and 100 % of the maximum applied test load. S.2.5.1.(a) [2.20.]; EPO 

NO. 2-3, 2.4.

6.2. For all other scales, apply or remove at least 5d. Printed weight values must agree with the

static weight within 1d and must exactly agree with other indications. S.2.5.4.(b) [2.20.]; 

EPO NO. 2-3, 2.4. 

7. Behind zero indication.

7.1 Apply a load in excess of the automatic zero setting mechanism (AZSM) and zero the scale. 

S.2.1.3. [2.20.]; EPO NO. 2-3, 2.4., 2.5.2. 

Example: On a vehicle scale have someone stand on the scale, then zero them off (AZSM is 3d). 

Remove the weight (person) and note the behind zero display (usually a minus weight value) or error 

condition.

7.2. Attempt to print a ticket. With a behind zero condition, (manually or mechanically operated) 

a negative number must not be printed as a positive value.

8. Over capacity.

8.1. Manually enter a gross weight if permissible or apply a test load in excess of 105 % of the

scale’s capacity. S.1.7. [2.20.]; S.1.12., UR.3.9. [2.20.] 

8.2. Attempt to print a weight ticket. A system must not print a ticket if the manually entered

weight or load exceeds 105 % of the scale capacity.

Measuring Devices

10. Motion detection.

10.1. Initiate flow through the measuring element. Attempt to print a ticket while the product is 

flowing through the measuring chamber. The device must not print while the indication is 

not stable. S.2.4.1. (3.30.) 

11. Over capacity.

11.1. Attempt to print a ticket in excess of the indicated capacity. A system must not print a ticket 

if the device is manually or mechanically operated in excess of the indicated value. 

NOTE: Be aware of error codes on the indicator which may be interrupted as measured values.
NTEP Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix D – NTETC Software Sector

NTEP - D20

Conclusion: This item is in the early stages; work will continue on the item working toward materials to aid in the 

training of field inspectors. It was indicated that working in conjunction with the Professional Development 

Committee (PDC) to develop training materials, etc. would be a logical path of progress once we have developed the 

information content to include.

10. Next meeting

Background: The Sector is on a yearly schedule for Sector meetings. The NTEP Administrator determines when 

the next meeting is possible.

Discussion: The NTEP Administrator indicated that the NTETC meetings are to be scheduled where the 

Conference gets the most ‘bang for the buck’, so that implies (considering our spring schedule) one of the states 

with an NTEP lab. Hence we’ve been rotating among Annapolis, Maryland, Columbus, Ohio, and Sacramento, 

California. It was also mentioned by the Technical Advisor that this rotating of the location has been quite 

beneficial to the group, considering the variety of input from individuals not typically able to make the trip to attend 

distant meetings.

Conclusion: Given the above, it was suggested that it would be Maryland’s turn in 2011. In keeping with the 

March timeframe and trying to avoid the last blast of winter, the group decided to return to Annapolis, Maryland, 

preferably March 15-16, 2011. Second choice would be the following week (March 22-23). The Maryland lab 

personnel will assist the NCWM staff in suggesting one or more suitable host facilities for the meeting.
NTEP Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix D – NTETC Software Sector

NTEP - D21

Appendix A: Report on 2009 Interim Meeting

There were two items on the NCWM S&T Committee agenda related to our mission – Item 310-2 (definitions of 

software based devices) and Item 310-3 (marking requirements). The consensus was that they still need work, and 

they remain informational.

It seemed from the comments made during the open hearings that the membership didn’t see a clear benefit to the 

field inspectors, and the scale manufacturers were also resistant to the change, fearing distinction between different 

types of devices would complicate marking, and additionally the SMA didn’t see a difference between built-forpurpose and non-built-for-purpose.

In general, the feedback at the Interim gave the impression to Sector members that attended that we need to back up 

a little.
NTEP Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix D – NTETC Software Sector - Appendix A – Report on 2009 Interim Meeting

NTEP - D22

Appendix B: Report on International WM Activity

There’s a new project regarding field verification, but there likely won’t be activity this year.

There weren’t too many changes to WELMEC 7.2. They are mainly clarifications. The current methodologies are 

now considered a bit too restrictive, so they’re being reconsidered.

There has been an update to one of our referenced WELMEC documents since our last Software Sector meeting:

Software Guide (Measurement Instruments Directive 2004/22/EC) is now at Issue 4.

You can download an updated copy of this document at http://www.welmec.org/publications/7-2.asp

The changes are minor, including:

• Removal of the requirement that the NB maintain a file of the documentation and (if necessary) the 

software supplied for Type P & Type U submissions. 

• Software Download extension has two additions, listed below in blue (underscored and bolded) below. 

9 Extension D: Download of Legally Relevant Software

This extension shall be used for the download of legally relevant software as long as the metrological 

characteristics remain unchanged and the declaration of conformity is still valid, (e.g., bug-fixes). These 

requirements are to be considered in addition to the basic requirements for Types P and Type U described in 

Chapters 4 and 5 in the guide.

D2: Authentication of downloaded software

Means shall be employed to guarantee that the downloaded software is authentic, and to indicate that the 

downloaded software has been approved by an NB.

Specifying Notes:

1. Before the downloaded software is used for the first time, the measuring instrument shall automatically 

check that:

a. The software is authentic (not a fraudulent simulation).

b. The software is approved for that type of measuring instrument.

2. The means by which the software identifies its NB approval status shall be made secure to prevent 

counterfeiting of the NB status.

3. If downloaded software fails any of the above tests, see D1.

4. If a manufacturer intends to change or update the legally relevant software he shall announce the 

intended changes to the responsible notified body. The notified body decides whether an addition to 

the existing TEC is necessary or not. For software download it is indispensable that there is a 

software identification which is unambiguously assigned to the approved software version.
NTEP Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix D – NTETC Software Sector - Appendix C – Sector Attendees

NTEP - D23

Appendix C: 2010 Software Sector Meeting Attendee List

William Arce

USDA, GIPSA, PSP

210 Walnut Street, Room 317 

Des Moines, IA 50309 

P. (515) 323-2510 F. (515) 323-2590 

E. william.arce-arana@usda.gov

Dennis Beattie

Measurement Canada

400 St. Mary Avenue

Winnipeg, Manitoba R3C 4K5

Canada

P. (204) 983-8910 F. (204) 983-5511 

E. dennis.beattie@ic.gc.ca

Doug Bliss

Mettler-Toledo, Inc.

1150 Dearborn Drive 

Worthington, OH 43085 

P. (614) 438-4307 F. (614) 438-4355 

E. doug.bliss@mt.com

Kevin Detert

Avery Weigh-Tronix

1000 Armstrong Drive 

Fairmont, MN 56031-1439 

P. (507) 238-4461 F. (507) 238-8255 

E. kdetert@awtxglobal.com

Dick Dirksen

Vande Berg Scales

770 7th St. NW

Sioux Center, IA 51250

P. (712) 722-1181 

Cassie Eigenmann

DICKEY-john Corporation

5200 Dickey-john Road

Auburn, IL 62615 

P. (217) 438-2294 F. (217) 438-2635 

E. ceigenmann@dickey-john.com

Michael Frailer

Maryland Department of Agriculture

50 Harry S. Truman Parkway

Annapolis, MD 21224 

P. (410) 841-5790 F. (410) 841-2765 

E. fraileml@mda.state.md.us

Andrew Gell

FOSS North America, Inc.

8091 Wallace Road

Eden Prairie, MN 55344 

P. (952) 974-9892 

E. agell@fossnorthamerica.com

Teri Gulke

Liquid Controls

105 Albrecht Drive 

Lake Bluff, IL 60044-2242 

P. (847) 283-8346 F. (847) 295-1170 

E. tgulke@idexcorp.com

Norman Ingram

CDFA / DMS

6790 Florin Perkins Road, Suite 100 

Sacramento, CA 95828-1812 

P. (916) 229-3016 F. (916) 229-3015 

E. ningram@cdfa.ca.gov

Kenneth Jones

CDFA / DMS

6790 Florin Perkins Road, Suite 100 

Sacramento, CA 95828-1812 

P. (916) 229-3052 F. (916) 229-3015 

E. kjones@cdfa.ca.gov

Michael Kelley

Ohio Department of Agriculture

Division of Weights and Measures

8995 East Main Street 

Reynoldsburg, OH 43068 

P. (614) 728-6290 F. (614) 728-6424 

E. mkelley@agri.ohio.gov

Dan Parks

California Division of Measurements 

Standards

6790 Florin Perkins Road, Suite 100 

Sacramento, CA 95828 

P. (916) 229-3000 F. (916) 229-3015 

E. dparks@cdfa.ca.gov
NTEP Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix D – NTETC Software Sector - Appendix C – Sector Attendees

NTEP - D24

Paul A. Lewis, Sr.

Rice Lake Weighing Systems, Inc.

230 West Coleman Street 

Rice Lake, WI 54868-2404 

P. (715) 434-5322 F. (715) 234-6967 

E. plewis@ricelake.com

James Pettinato

FMC Technologies Measurement Solutions, 

Inc.

1602 Wagner Avenue 

Erie, PA 16510 

P. (814) 898-5250 F. (814) 899-3414 

E. jim.pettinato@fmcti.com

Joe Raspino

California Division of Measurement 

Standards

6790 Florin Perkins Road, Suite 100 

Sacramento, CA 95828 

P. (916) 229-3070 F. (916) 229-3015 

E. jraspino@cdfa.ca.gov

Dan Reiswig

California Division of Measurement 

Standards

6790 Florin Perkins Road, Suite 100 

Sacramento, CA 95828 

P. (916) 229-3023 F. (916) 229-3015 

E. dreiswig@cdfa.ca.gov

John Roach

California Division of Measurement 

Standards

Type Evaluation Program

6790 Florin Perkins Road, Suite 100 

Sacramento, CA 95828 

P. (916) 229-3014 F. (916) 229-3015 

E. jroach@cdfa.ca.gov

Mike Roach

VeriFone

4011 Barwood C 

Tampa, FL 33624 

P. (727) 953-4245 F. (727) 953-4001 

E. mike_r4@verifone.com 

Brett Saum

San Luis Obispo County Weights and 

Measures

2156 Sierra Way, Suite A 

San Luis Obispo, CA 93401

P. (805) 781-5922 F. (805) 781-1035 

E. bsaum@co.slo.ca.us 

Matthew Stevens

California Division of Measurement 

Standards

Type Evaluation Program

6790 Florin Perkins Road, Suite 100 

Sacramento, CA 95828 

P. (916) 229-3018 F. (916) 229-3015 

E. mstevens@cdfa.ca.gov

Scott Szurek

Emerson Process Management

1612 South 17th Avenue 

Marshalltown, IA 50158 

P. (641) 754-3425 F. (641) 754-3630 

E. scott.szurek@emerson.com

Ambler Thompson

NIST, Weights & Measures Division

100 Bureau Drive, MS 2600 

Gaithersburg, MD 21701 

P. (301) 975-2333 F. (301) 975-8091 

E. ambler@nist.gov

Van Thompson

California Division of Measurement 

Standards

6790 Florin Perkins Road, Suite 100 

Sacramento, CA 95828 

P. (916) 229-3025 F. (916) 229-3016 

E. vthompson@cdfa.ca.gov

James Truex

National Conference on Weights and 

Measures

88 Carryback Drive 

Pataskala, OH 43062

P. (740) 919-4350 F. (740) 919-4348 

E. jim.truex@ncwm.net
NTEP Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix E – NTETC Belt-Conveyor Scale Sector

NTEP - E1 

Appendix E 

National Type Evaluation Committee (NTETC)

Belt-Conveyor Scale (BCS) Sector

February 25, 2010 

Meeting Summary

A. NCWM Publication 14 Updates ......................................................................................................................... E1

1. Handbook 44, UR.3.2. (S&T Committee agenda Item 321-1)...................................................................... E1

2. Handbook 44, S.1.3.1. (S&T Committee agenda Item 321-3)....................................................................... E1

3. Handbook 44, N.2.and N.2.1. (S&T Committee agenda Item 321-5) (Number of Tests during Initial 

Verification)................................................................................................................................................... E2

4. Handbook 44, T.1.1. (S&T Committee agenda Item 321-6)......................................................................... E3

5. Handbook 44, Sections N.3.1.2., N.3.1.3., and S.3.3.1. ................................................................................. E3

B. Proposed Update to NCWM Publication 14 Belt-Scale Checklist ................................................................... E4

C. Develop a List of Sealable Parameters for BCS Systems.................................................................................. E5

D. New Business........................................................................................................................................................ E6

1. Revisit parameters used to categorize "Family" groups................................................................................. E6

E. Attendance ............................................................................................................................................................ E6

A. NCWM Publication 14 Updates

1. Handbook 44, UR.3.2. (S&T Committee agenda Item 321-1)

Background: At the 2009 National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM) Annual Meeting, the 

Conference adopted an amendment to paragraph UR.3.2. to clarify that zero-load and material or 

simulated-load tests are required to be performed between official testing at intervals determined by the 

statutory authority or by the manufacturer. Full details of the amendments to the National Institute of 

Standards and Technology (NIST) Handbook 44 (HB 44) may be found in the Specifications and 

Tolerances (S&T) Committee 2009 Interim Report.

Discussion/Conclusion: The Sector members agreed that this is a HB 44 User Requirement and not 

intended for use during type evaluation. No changes are recommended in Publication 14 (Pub 14). 

2. Handbook 44, S.1.3.1. (S&T Committee agenda Item 321-3)

Background: At the 2009 NCWM Annual Meeting, the Conference adopted an amendment to paragraph 

S.1.3.1. 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). 

Recommendation: National Type Evaluation Technical Committee (NTETC) Belt-Conveyor Scales 

(BCS) Sector Technical Advisor recommended the amendment to NCWM Pub 14 Section 1.8. as shown 

below to reflect changes in HB 44 BCS Code, design specification S.1.3.1. 
NTEP Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix E – NTETC Belt-Conveyor Scale Sector

NTEP - E2 

1.8. (S.1.2. and S.1.3.1.) The scale division shall be in increments of 

1, 2, or 5 times 10k where k is an integer and shall not be greater 

than 0.125 % (1/800) of the minimum totalized load.

Yes No N/A 

1.8.1. What is the scale division? 

Unit Abbreviation

 pounds lb or LB

 U.S. short ton Ton or T

 U.S. long ton LT

 Metric ton t

 kilograms kg

1.8.2. Verify that the value of the scale division is 

protected by an acceptable security means (e.g., 

physical seal or audit trail).

Discussion/Conclusion: Sector members agreed to recommend the proposed change to Pub 14 BCS 

Section 1.8., and add a new Section 1.8.2. to verify that the value of the scale division should be a sealable 

parameter which is protected by a security means as shown above.

3. Handbook 44, N.2. and N.2.1. ( S&T Committee agenda Item 321-5) (Number of 

Tests during Initial Verification)

Background: At the 2009 NCWM Annual Meeting, the Conference adopted an amendment to paragraph 

N.2.1. to provide clarification of how many test runs are required during an official test. Portions of the 

wording changes in N.2.1. relate to testing a belt-conveyor scale at a single flow rate (using a minimum of 

four test runs); if it can be verified that the system is operated using a single flow rate and that rate does not 

vary in either direction by an amount more than 10 % of the normal flow rate that can be developed at the 

installation for at least 80 % of the time.

These changes are applicable to specific installations that operate exclusively (within parameters) at one 

flow rate, and would, therefore, not impact procedures used during type evaluation testing.

Other changes to N.2.1. will impact testing procedures regardless of the specifics of an installation, and 

should, therefore result in changes to Pub 14. 

Recommendation: To reflect changes in the 2010 edition of HB 44, the technical advisor recommends 

that Pub 14 page BCS-15 be amended as follows: 

13. Field Test Procedure

Field Performance Test of the Belt-Conveyor Scale

N.2.1. Initial Verification. - A belt-conveyor scale system shall be tested at the normal use

flow rate, 35 % of the maximum rated capacity, and an intermediate flow rate between these 

two points. The system may also be tested at any other rate of flow that may be used at the 

installation.

(Added 2004)
NTEP Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix E – NTETC Belt-Conveyor Scale Sector

NTEP - E3 

N.2.1. Initial Verification. – A belt-conveyor scale system shall be verified 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.

Discussion/Conclusion: The sector agreed to recommend the proposed amendments to Pub 14 BCS 

Section 13. In addition, the members also recommend that a note (as shown below) for Section 13 be 

added to clarify that the site identified for conducting the field permanence test portion of the type 

evaluation shall be capable of providing tests at various flow rates. 

Note: The test site selected for permanence testing shall be capable of testing over a range of 

flow rates. Any site where the belt-conveyor scale system is limited to a single flow rate will 

not be considered acceptable. 

4. Handbook 44, T.1.1. (S&T Committee agenda Item 321-6)

Background: At the 2009 NCWM Annual Meeting, the Conference adopted an amendment to 

paragraph T.1.1. Tolerance Values. to clarify the allowable change in zero during an official test. 

Background information on the amendments to HB 44 may be found in the S&T Committee 2009 

Interim Report. 

Recommendation: The Technical Advisor recommended that no action is necessary because the 

amendments to HB 44 requirements shown above are applicable to subsequent field examinations, are 

not referenced explicitly in Pub 14, and do not apply to type approval test procedures. 

Discussion/Conclusion: Sector members agreed with the Technical Advisor's recommendation that 

no further actions are required.

5. Handbook 44, Sections N.3.1.2., N.3.1.3., and S.3.3.1. 

Background: At the 2009 NCWM Annual Meeting, the Conference adopted amendments to 

paragraphs N.3.1.2., N.3.1.3., N.3.1.4., and to add new paragraph S.3.1.1. in order to: 

• Consolidate the requirements in N.3.1.2. and N.3.1.3.;

• Clarify the testing guidelines in N.3.1.3.; 

• Renumber the impacted paragraphs; and 

• Add a new paragraph to state that the zero balance condition shall not be obscured by the 

automatic zero-setting mechanism. 

Recommendation: The technical advisor recommended that references in Pub 14, pages BCS-16 be 

amended to reflect the consolidation and renumbering of the paragraphs as shown below:

13. Field Test Procedure

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 % 
NTEP Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix E – NTETC Belt-Conveyor Scale Sector

NTEP - E4 

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.3.1.32. Test of Zero Stability. – The conveyor system shall be operated 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 

before weighing material immediately before the simulated or materials test until the 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 test. No adjustments can be made during the three 

consecutive zero-load test readings.

(Added 2002) (Amended 2004 and 2009) 

N.3.1.43. 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 d) 3.0 scale divisions from its initial indication during one complete belt revolution.

(Added 2002) (Amended 2004)

The technical advisor also recommended adding the following language to Publication 14 page BCS-7:

6. Zero-Setting Mechanism

 

Code Reference: S.3.1. and S.3.1.1.

6.3. The completion of the automatic zero-setting operation must be 

indicated.

Yes No N/A 

6.3.1. Verify that any changes in the zero reference are 

indicated and/or recorded 

Yes No N/A 

Discussion/Conclusion: The Sector members agreed with the proposed changes and recommended 

that NCWM Publication 14 be amended as shown above.

B. Proposed Update to NCWM Publication 14 Belt-Scale Checklist

Background: During the February 2009 BCS Sector meeting, a draft Pub 14 checklist was developed and 

offered for use on a trial basis by the National Type Evaluation Program (NTEP) labs that would evaluate 

manufacturer's replacement instruments. During the meeting, Sector Chairman, Mr. Bill Ripka, ThermoFisher, stated that Thermo-Fisher would possibly have an instrument that would be submitted in the near 

future to undergo the NTEP process. This checklist could then be used on this instrument as a trial basis. 

The results/comments would then be returned to NTEP Administrator and Sector work group (WG) for 

review and further development. The entire draft checklist may be found in the 2009 NTETC BeltConveyor Scale Sector meeting summary.

Discussion: Based on information provided by NTEP Administrator Mr. Jim Truex, the Sector members 

were informed that NTEP had not received an instrument from any manufacturer to use as a trial for the 

checklist that has been drafted. Mr. Lars Marmsater indicated that Merrick Industries will be submitting an 

indicator to update its NTEP Certificate of Conformance (CC). 

Conclusion: NTEP Administrator, Mr. Truex, indicated that the California NTEP Lab would perform the 

evaluation when the device is submitted and that the sector will be provided with a report from the NTEP 

lab for any recommendations to approve or amend the proposed checklist. Sector members agreed that no 

further work is needed to the checklist at this time, pending a report from NTEP, after applying the draft to 

the evaluation of an instrument. This item will be carried over and placed on the next meeting agenda of 

the NTETC BCS Sector. 
NTEP Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix E – NTETC Belt-Conveyor Scale Sector

NTEP - E5 

C. Develop a List of Sealable Parameters for BCS Systems

Background: The list shown below was developed during the 2009 NTETC BCS Sector meeting, and was 

to be forwarded to NTEP laboratories for use on a t rial basis after which comments and recommended

amendments would be forwarded to the Sector WG for further development. The technical advisor 

reported to the members that no manufacturers' devices have been submitted for NTEP approval; therefore, 

the list has not been used during any evaluations.

Discussion/Conclusion: Sector members agreed that no further amendments to the table are needed at this 

time, and that the table should be incorporated in the 2011 edition of Pub 14. 

Belt-Conveyor Scale Features and Parameters

Typical Features to be Sealed Typical Features and Parameters

Not Required to be Sealed

Official verification zero reference

Official verification span/calibration reference

Linearity correction values

Allowable range of zero (if adjustable)

Selection of measurement units 

Division value, d

Range of over capacity indications (if it can be set to 

extend beyond regulatory limits)

Alarm limits for flow rate (high/low)

Automatic zero-setting mechanism (on/off)

Automatic zero-setting mechanism (range of a single 

step)

Configuration (speed, capacity, calibrated test weight 

value if applicable, pulses per belt revolution, load 

cell configuration)

Display update rate

Baud rate for electronic data transfer

Communications (Configuration of input, 

output signal to peripheral devices)

 

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, and there may be parameters other than those 

listed which affect the metrological performance of the device and must, therefore, be sealed. If listed 

parameters or other parameters which may affect the metrological function of the device are not sealed, 

the manufacturer must demonstrate that the parameter will not affect the metrological performance of 

the device (i.e., all settings comply with the most stringent requirements of HB 44 for the applications 

for which the device is to be used).
NTEP Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix E – NTETC Belt-Conveyor Scale Sector

NTEP - E6 

D. New Business

1. Revisit parameters used to categorize "Family" groups

Mr. Steve Cook, NIST, recommended that the Sector review and revise if necessary the criteria used to 

base the grouping of instruments submitted for type evaluation as a Family or Type of devices. This topic 

is recommended to be included on the next NTETC Belt-Conveyor Scale Sector Meeting Agenda. 

E. Attendance

2010 NTETC Belt-Conveyor Scale Sector Meeting Attendance

Name Company Mailing Address Telephone Email

John 

Barton NIST

100 Bureau Drive

Mailstop 2600 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

(301) 975-4002 john.barton@nist.gov

Leonard 

Ian Burrell

Control Systems 

Technology

No. 3 Southern Street

Oatley, NSW 2223

Australia

+61 4 1929-2604 iburrell@controlsystems.com.au

Steven 

Cook NIST

100 Bureau Drive

Mailstop 2600 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

(301) 975-4003 stevenc@nist.gov

James Hale Southern Co.

366 Three Oaks Subdivision 

Road. 

Langley, KY 41645

(606) 285-3635 jahale@southernco.com

Richard 

Harshman NIST

100 Bureau Drive

Mailstop 2600 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

(301) 975-8107 richard.harshman@nist.gov

Ken Jones

CA. Division of 

Measurement 

Services

6790 Florin Perkins Road 

Suite 100 

Sacramento, CA. 95828

(916) 229-3052 kjones@cdfa.ca.gov

Lars 

Marmsater

Merrick Industries, 

Inc.

10 Arthur Drive

Lynn Haven, FL 32444 (850) 271-7829 lars@merrick-inc.com

Bill Ripka Thermo Fisher 

Scientific

501 90th Avenue. NW 

Minneapolis, MN.55433 (800) 445-3503 bill.ripka@thermofisher.com

Peter 

Serrico Thayer Scale 91 Schoosett Street Pembroke, MA 02359 (781) 826-8101 psirrico@thayerscale.com

Chris 

Skelton

Control Systems 

Technology

37 Stanley Street Peakhurst

Sydney, NSW 2210

Australia

+61 2 9584-4500 cskelton@controlsystems.com.au

James 

Truex NCWM 88 Carryback DrivePataskala, OH 43062 (740) 919-4350 jim.truex@ncwm.net

David 

Vaughn

Tennessee Valley 

Authority

1101 Market Street

Chattanooga, TN 37402 (423) 751-3018 tdvaughn@tva.gov
NTEP Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix F – Mutual Recognition Arrangement with Canada

NTEP - F1 

APPENDIX F

Mutual Recognition Arrangement

between 

Canada and the National Conference on Weights and Measures
NTEP Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix F – Mutual Recognition Arrangement with Canada

NTEP - F2 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
NTEP Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix F – Mutual Recognition Arrangement with Canada

NTEP - F3 
NTEP Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix F – Mutual Recognition Arrangement with Canada

NTEP - F4 
NTEP Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix F – Mutual Recognition Arrangement with Canada

NTEP - F5 
NTEP Committee 2011 Final Report

Appendix F – Mutual Recognition Arrangement with Canada

NTEP - F6 
Nominating Committee 2011 Final Report

NOM - 1 

The Report of the

Nominating Committee

Randy Jennings, Chairman

Executive Assistant

Tennessee Department of Agriculture

The Nominating Committee met during the Interim Meeting at the Fairmont Dallas, Dallas, Texas, at which time the 

Committee nominated the persons listed below to be officers of the 97th National Conference on Weights and 

Measures. I n the selection of nominees from the active and associate 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 a unanimous vote of the Nominating Committee and elected by a 

unanimous vote of membership at the 96th National Conference on Weights and Measures.

CHAIRMAN-ELECT: Mr. Stephen Benjamin, North Carolina Department of Agriculture

BOARD OF DIRECTORS

SOUTHERN REGION: Mr. Terence McBride, Memphis, Tennessee Weights and Measures

BOARD OF DIRECTORS

AT LARGE: Mr. John Gaccione, Westchester County, New York Weights and Measures

TREASURER: Mr. Mark Coyne, Brockton, Massachusetts Weights and Measures

Mr. Randy Jennings, Tennessee, Chairman

Ms. Judy Cardin, Wisconsin

Mr. Charles Carroll, Massachusetts

Mr. Tom Geiler, Barnstable, Massachusetts

Mr. Joe Gomez, New Mexico

Mr. Maxwell Gray, Florida

Mr. Steve Malone, Nebraska

Nominating Committee
Nominating Committee 2011 Final Report

NOM - 2 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
National Conference on Weights and Measures / National Type Evaluation Program

2011 Annual Meeting Final Attendee List

July 17-21, 2011 / Missoula, Montana

ATTEND - 1 

Adnan Alam

A&D Engineering, Inc.

1756 Automation Parkway

San Jose, CA 95131

P. (408) 518-5112

E. aalam@andonline.com

John Albert

Missouri Department of Agriculture

1616 Missouri Boulevard

P.O. Box 630

Jefferson City, MO 65102

P. (573) 751-7062

E. John.Albert@mda.mo.gov

Mahesh Albuquerque

CDLE-Oil and Public Safety

633 17th Street, Suite 500

Denver, CO 80202

P. (303) 318-8502

E. mahesh.albuquerque@state.co.us

Ronna Alexander

Montana Petroleum Marketers 

and Convenience Store Association

PO Box 306

Helena, MT 59624

P. (406) 449-4133

E. ccomm@bresnan.net

Jim Allred

Idaho National Laboratory

PO Box 1625, MS 4137

Idaho Falls, ID 83415-4137

P. (208) 526-2017

E. jim.allred@inl.gov

Ross Andersen

25 Moon Drive

Albany, NY 12205

P. (518) 869-7334

E. rjandersen@verizon.net

Marco Anzo

Artech Industries

1966 Keats Drive

Riveside, CA 92501

P. (951) 276-3331

E. marco@artechindustiresinc.com

Jill Bach

Epson America, Inc.

3840 Kilroy Airport Way

Long Beach, CA 90806-2452

P. (562) 290-4959

E. jill_bach@ea.epson.com

Jason Barber

Oregon Measurement Standards Division

635 Capitol Street NE

Salem, OR 97301

P. (503) 986-4767

E. jbarber@oda.state.or.us

Matthew Barkley

Hewlett Packard Co.

18110 SE 34th Street

Vancouver, WA 98683

P. (360) 212-5353

E. matthew.barkley@hp.com

Sam Bell

Echols Oil Company, Inc.

PO Box 1477

Greenville, SC 29602

P. (864) 233-6205

E. info@scpma.com

Joe Benavides

Texas Department of Agriculture

1700 North Congress Avenue

Stephen F. Austin Building, 11th Floor

Austin, TX 78701

P. (512) 463-5706

E. joe.benavides@texasagriculture.gov

Stephen Benjamin

North Carolina Department of Agriculture 

and Consumer Services

1050 Mail Service Center

Raleigh, NC 27699-1050

P. (919) 733-3313

E. steve.benjamin@ncagr.gov

Tom Bloemer

Kentucky Department of Agriculture

107 Corporate Drive

Frankfort, KY 40601

P. (502) 573-0282

E. tom.bloemer@ky.gov
National Conference on Weights and Measures / National Type Evaluation Program

2011 Annual Meeting Final Attendee List

July 17-21, 2011 / Missoula, Montana

ATTEND - 2 

Mike Boitano

Amador County

12200 B Airport Road

Jackson, CA 95642

P. (209) 223-6481

E. mboitano@amadorgov.org

David Boykin

NCR Corporation

200 Highway 74 South

Peachtree City, GA 30269

P. (770) 288-1556

E. db123643@ncr.com

Chris Bradley

Seraphin Test Measure

30 Indel Avenue

Rancocas, NJ 08073

P. (609) 267-0922

E. cparker@pemfab.com

Nicholas Brechun

Colorado Department of Agriculture

3125 Wyandot Street

Denver, CO 80211

P. (303) 867-9232

E. nick.brechun@ag.state.co.us

Jonelle Brent

Illinois Department of Agriculture

801 Sangamon Avenue

PO Box 19281

Springfield, IL 62794-9281

P. (217) 785-8301

E. jonelle.brent@illinois.gov

Jeff Brooks

USDA

1404 Carroll Avenue

Carrollton, TX 75006

P. (972) 245-6060

E. jeff.brooks@dallasma.com

Rex Brown

Petroleum Equipment Institute

PO Box 2380

Tulsa, OK 74101

P. (918) 236-3961

E. jrbrown@pei.org

Norm Brucker

Precision Measurement Standards, Inc.

1665 Bonaire Path West

Rosemount, MN 55068

P. (651) 423-3241

E. sharnoma@frontiernet.net

Jerry Buendel

Washington State Department of Agriculture

1111 Washington Street

PO Box 42560

Olympia, WA 98504-2560

P. (360) 902-1856

E. jbuendel@agr.wa.gov

Tina Butcher

NIST, Weights and Measures Division

100 Bureau Drive, MS 2600

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-6900

P. (301) 975-2196

E. tbutcher@nist.gov

Jerry Butler

North Carolina Department of Agriculture

1050 Mail Service Center

Raleigh, NC 27699-1050

P. (919) 733-3313

E. jerry.butler@ncagr.gov

James Byers

San Diego County Department of Agriculture Weights and 

Measures

5555 Overland Avenue, Suite 1101

San Diego, CA 92123-1256

P. (858) 694-3577

E. jim.byers@sdcounty.ca.gov

David Calix

NCR Corporation

1510 North Walton Boulevard

Bentonville, AR 72712

P. (479) 372-8407

E. david.calix@ncr.com

Loretta Carey

U.S. Food and Drug Administration

5100 Paint Branch Parkway

College Park, MD 20740

P. (240) 402-1799

E. loretta.carey@fda.hhs.gov
National Conference on Weights and Measures / National Type Evaluation Program

2011 Annual Meeting Final Attendee List

July 17-21, 2011 / Missoula, Montana

ATTEND - 3 

Stacy Carlsen

Marin County Weights and Measures

1682 Novato Boulevard, Suite 150-A 

Novato, CA 94947-7021

P. (415) 499-6700

E. scarlsen@co.marin.ca.us

Charlie Carroll

Massachusetts Division of Standards

One Ashburton Place, Room 1115

Boston, MA 02108

P. (617) 727-3480

E. Charles.Carroll@state.ma.us

Kevin Chesnutwood

NIST, Mechanical Metrology Division

100 Bureau Drive, MS 8222

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

P. (301) 975-6653

E. kevin.chesnutwood@nist.gov

Tim Chesser

Arkansas Bureau of Standards

4608 West 61st Street

Little Rock, AR 72209

P. (501) 570-1159

E. tim.chesser@aspb.ar.gov

Tim Columbus

Steptoe and Johnson, LLP

1330 Connecticut Ave, NW

Washington, DC 20036

P. (202) 429-6222

E. tcolumbus@steptoe.com

Steve Cook

NIST, Weights and Measures Division

100 Bureau Drive, MS 2600

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2600

P. (301) 975-4003

E. stevenc@nist.gov

Clark Cooney

Oregon Measurement Standsards Division

635 Capitol Street NE

Salem, OR 97301-2532

P. (503) 986-4677

E. ccooney@oda.state.or.us

Rodney Cooper

Tuthill Transfer Systems

8825 Aviation Drive

Fort Wayne, IN 46809

P. (260) 747-7529

E. rcooper@tuthill.com

Chuck Corr

Archer Daniels Midland Company

1251 Beaver Channel Parkway

Clinton, IA 52732

P. (563) 244-5208

E. corr@adm.com

Mark Coyne

Brockton Weights and Measures

45 School Street

City Hall

Brockton, MA 02301-9927

P. (508) 580-7120

E. mcoyne@cobma.us

Melody Culton

Brother International Corporation

100 Somerset Corporate Boulevard

Bridgewater, NJ 08807

P. (908) 252-3055

E. melody.culton@brother.com

Rick Czech

Montana Weights and Measures Bureau

P.O. Box 200516

Helena, MT 59620

P. (406) 443-8065

E. rickyj1970@yahoo.com

Doug Deiman

Alaska Division of Measurement Standards/CVE

12050 Industry Way

Building O, Suite 6 

Anchorage, AK 99515

P. (907) 365-1222

E. doug.deiman@alaska.gov

Bill Deitz

Sam's Club

2101 Simple Savings Drive

Bentonville, AR 72712

P. (479) 277-7595

E. bill.deitz@samsclub.com
National Conference on Weights and Measures / National Type Evaluation Program

2011 Annual Meeting Final Attendee List

July 17-21, 2011 / Missoula, Montana

ATTEND - 4 

Rob DeRubeis

Michigan Department of Agriculture

940 Venture Lane

Williamston, MI 48895

P. (517) 655-8202

E. derubeisr@michigan.gov

Chuck Ehrlich

NIST, Weights and Measures Division

100 Bureau Drive, MS 2600

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2600

P. (301) 975-4834

E. charles.ehrlich@nist.gov

John Eichberger

National Association of Convenience Stores

1600 Duke Street

Alexandria, VA 22314

P. (703) 518-4247

E. jeichberger@nacsonline.com

Dave Erdtmann

Kodak

115 Canal Landing Boulevard

Rochester, NY 14560

P. (585) 722-9648

E. david.erdtmann@kodak.com

Kevin Ferrick

API

1220 L Street NW

Washington, DC 20005

P. (202) 682-8233

E. ferrick@api.org

Darrell Flocken

Mettler-Toledo, Inc.

1150 Dearborn Drive

Worthington, OH 43085

P. (614) 438-4393

E. darrell.flocken@mt.com

Kurt E. Floren

LA County Agricultural Commissioner

Weights and Measures

12300 Lower Azusa Road

Arcadia, CA 91006

P. (626) 575-5451

E. kfloren@acwm.lacounty.gov

John Gaccione

Westchester County New York

Weights and Measures

112 East Post Road

4th Floor

White Plains, NY 10601

P. (914) 995-2164

E. jpg4@westchestergov.com

Tom Geiler

Barnstable Weights and Measures

200 Main Street

Hyannis, MA 02601

P. (508) 862-4670

E. tom.geiler@town.barnstable.ma.us

Bill Geubelle

ConocoPhillips

1000 S Pine

Ponca City, OK 74602

P. (580) 767-3400

E. bill.g.geubelle@conocophillips.com

Steve Giguere

Maine Department of Agriculture

28 State House Station

Augusta, ME 04333

P. (207) 287-4456

E. steve.giguere@maine.gov

Jason Glass

Kentucky Department of Agriculture

107 Corporate Drive

Frankfort, KY 40601

P. (502) 573-0282

E. jason.glass@ky.gov

Angela Godwin

County of Ventura

800 S Victoria Avenue, #1750

Ventrua, CA 93009

P. (805) 654-2444

E. angela.godwin@ventura.org

Joe Gomez

New Mexico Department of Agriculture

P.O. Box 30005

MSC 3170

Las Cruces, NM 88003-8005

P. (575) 646-1616

E. jgomez@nmda.nmsu.edu
National Conference on Weights and Measures / National Type Evaluation Program

2011 Annual Meeting Final Attendee List

July 17-21, 2011 / Missoula, Montana

ATTEND - 5 

Steve Grabski

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

508 SW 8th Street, MS 0505

Bentonville, AR 72712

P. (479) 277-8005

E. steven.grabski@wal-mart.com

Max Gray

Florida Department of Agriculture 

and Consumer Services

3125 Conner Boulevard

Lab 2, Mailstop L2

Tallahassee, FL 32399-1650

P. (850) 921-1570

E. maxwell.gray@freshfromflorida.com

Randy Griswold

Montana Weights and Measures Bureau

P.O. Box 200516

Helena, MT 59620-0516

P. (406) 443-8065

Brett Gurney

Utah Department of Agriculture and Food

P.O. Box 146500

Salt Lake City, UT 84114-6500

P. (801) 538-7158

E. bgurney@utah.gov

Steve Hadder

Florida Department of Agriculture 

and Consumer Services

3125 Conner Boulevard

Building 1, Mailstop L1

Tallahassee, FL 32399-1650

P. (850) 487-2634

E. steve.hadder@freshfromflorida.com

Ivan Hankins

Iowa Department of Agriculture

Weights and Measures

2230 S. Ankeny Boulevard

Ankeny, IA 50023-9093

P. (515) 725-1493

E. ivan.hankins@iowaagriculture.gov

Rick Harshman

NIST, Weights and Measures Division

100 Bureau Drive, MS 2600

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2600

P. (301) 975-8107

E. richard.harshman@nist.gov

Ryanne Hartman

Michigan Department of Agriculture

940 Venture Lane

Williamston, MI 48895-2451

P. (517) 655-8202

E. hartmanr4@michigan.gov

Ron Hasemeyer

Alameda County Department 

of Weights and Measures

333 5th Street

Oakland, CA 94607

P. (510) 268-7348

E. ron.hasemeyer@acgov.org

Donnie Hawkins

Coti Global Sensors, Inc.

5709 Highway 53

Harvest, AL 35749

P. (256) 852-9900

E. donnie@cotiglobal.com

Ronald Hayes

Missouri Department of Agriculture

1616 Missouri Boulevard

P.O. Box 630

Jefferson City, MO 65102

P. (573) 751-4316

E. ron.hayes@mda.mo.gov

Scott Henry

NCR Corporation

2651 Satellite Boulevard

Duluth, GA 30096

P. (770) 623-7543

E. scott.henry@ncr.com

Maureen Henzler

Kansas Department of Agriculture

2510 SW Gainsboro Road

Topeka, KS 66614

P. (785) 862-2415

E. maureen.henzler@kda.ks.gov

Marilyn J. Herman

Herman and Associates

3730 Military Road NW

Washington, DC 20015

P. (202) 362-9520

E. mherman697@aol.com
National Conference on Weights and Measures / National Type Evaluation Program

2011 Annual Meeting Final Attendee List

July 17-21, 2011 / Missoula, Montana

ATTEND - 6 

Maile Hermida

Hogan Lovells US, LLP

555 13th Steet, NW

Washington, DC 20004

P. (202) 637-5428

E. maile.hermida@hoganlovells.com

Jim Hewston

Scale Source

1621 South 35th Street

Council Bluffs, IA 51501

P. (402) 455-2143

E. jhewston@scalesource.com

Tyler Hicks

Oklahoma Department of Agriculture

Food and Forestry

2800 N Lincoln Boulevard

Oklahoma City, OK 73105

P. (405) 522-5968

E. tyler.hicks@ag.ok.gov

Lindsay Hier

National Conference on Weights and Measures, Inc.

1135 M Street, Suite 110

Lincoln, NE 68508

P. (402) 434-4880

E. lindsay.hier@ncwm.net

Ann Hines

Arkansas Oil Marketers Association, Inc.

P.O. Box 229

Little Rock, AR 72203

P. (501) 374-6293

E. ann@aoma.org

Mike Hoar

New World Pasta

85 Shannon Road

Harrisburg, PA 17112

P. (502) 396-1746

E. mhoar@nwpasta.com

Carol Hockert

NIST, Weights and Measures Division

100 Bureau Drive, MS 2600

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2600

P. (301) 975-4004

E. carol.hockert@nist.gov

Jayne Hoover

American Italian Pasta Company

1251 NW Briarcliff Parkway, Suite 500

Kansas City, MO 64116

P. (816) 309-9267

E. jhoover@aipc.com

Jerry Horn

Chevron Global Downstream, LLC

100 Chevron Way

Room 61-4228

Richmond, CA 94802

P. (510) 242-1367

E. jerryhorn@chevron.com

Bill Hornbach

Chevron Products Company

6001 Bollinger Canyon Road

San Ramon, CA 94583

P. (925) 842-3484

E. billhornbach@chevron.com

Fran Houston

Ohio Department of Agriculture

8995 East Main Street

Reynoldsburg, OH 43068

P. (614) 728-6290

E. houston@agri.ohio.gov

Jeff Humphreys

LA County Agricultural Commissioner

Weights and Measures

11012 Garfield Avenue

South Gate, CA 90280

P. (562) 622-0404

E. jhumphreys@acwm.lacounty.gov

Will Hutson

Nestlé USA

5750 Harper Road

Solon, OH 44139

P. (440) 264-6298

E. william.hutson@us.nestle.com

Mike Jackelen

Berry Plastics

9965 Alabama Road

Bloomington, MN 55438

P. (612) 816-7182

E. mikejackelen@berryplastics.com
National Conference on Weights and Measures / National Type Evaluation Program

2011 Annual Meeting Final Attendee List

July 17-21, 2011 / Missoula, Montana

ATTEND - 7 

Ian Jarratt

Queensland Consumers Association

3/42 Dunmore Terrace

Auchenflower, 4066

Australia

E. ijarratt@australiamail.com

Randy Jennings

Tennessee Department of Agriculture

P.O. Box 40627

Melrose Station

Nashville, TN 37204

P. (615) 837-5327

E. randy.jennings@tn.gov

Paul Jeran

Hewlett-Packard Company

11311 Chinden Blvd

Boise, ID 83714

P. (208) 396-6144

E. paul.jeran@hp.com

Rafael Jimenez

Association of American Railroad Transportation Technology 

Center

P.O. Box 11130

55500 D.O.T. Road

Pueblo, CO 81001

P. (719) 584-0691

E. rafael_jimenez@ttci.aar.com

Gordon Johnson

Gilbarco, Inc.

7300 West Friendly Avenue

Greensboro, NC 27410

P. (336) 547-5375

E. gordon.johnson@gilbarco.com

Raymond Johnson Jr.

New Mexico Department of Agriculture

P.O. Box 30005

MSC 3170

Las Cruces, NM 88003-8005

P. (575) 646-1616

E. rjohnson@nmda.nmsu.edu

Alan Johnston

Measurement Canada

151 Tunney's Pasture Driveway

Ottawa, ON K1A 0C9

Canada

P. (613) 952-0655

E. alan.johnston@ic.gc.ca

John Paul Jones 

NIST/OLES

100 Bureau Drive, MS 8102

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

P. (301) 975-2782

E. john.jones@nist.gov

Randy Jones

Montana Weights and Measures Bureau

P.O. Box 200516

Helena, MT 59620-0516

P. (406) 443-8065

E. 

Jack Kane

Montana Department of Labor

Industry Business Standards Division

301 South Park

P.O. Box 200517

Helena, MT 59620-0517

P. (406) 841-2243

E. jkane@mt.gov

Dmitri Karimov

Liquid Controls

105 Albrecht Drive

Lake Bluff, IL 60044

P. (847) 283-8317

E. dkarimov@idexcorp.com

Phil Katselnik

Dresser Wayne

3814 Jarrett Way

Austin, TX 78728

P. (512) 388-8763

E. phil.katselnik@dresser.com

Michael Keilty

Endress + Hauser Flowtec AG USA

211 Pinewood Drive

Lyons, CO 80540

P. (303) 823-5796

E. michael.keilty@us.endress.com

Michael Kerr

Southern Company Services

207 West Mount Vernon Street

Somerset, KY 42501

P. (606) 303-2419

E. mlkerr@southernco.com
National Conference on Weights and Measures / National Type Evaluation Program

2011 Annual Meeting Final Attendee List

July 17-21, 2011 / Missoula, Montana

ATTEND - 8 

Ted Kingsbury

Measurement Canada

151 Tunney's Pasture Driveway

Ottawa, ON K1A 0C9

Canada

P. (613) 941-8919

E. kingsbury.ted@ic.gc.ca

Brian Knapp

American Petroleum Institute

1220 L Street NW

Washington, DC 20005

P. (202) 682-8172

E. knappb@api.org

Richard Koeberle

USDA-Federal Milk Market Administrator

726 Lawyersville Road

Cobleskill, NY 12043

P. (518) 859-3742

E. rkoeberle@fedmilk1.com

Dennis Kolsun

H.J. Heinz Co.

357 6th Street

Pittsburgh, PA 15222

P. (724) 778-4503

E. dennis.kolsun@us.hjheinz.com

Mike Kuntz

Montana Weights and Measures Bureau

P.O. Box 200516

Helena, MT 59620-0516

P. (406) 443-8065

Steve Langford

Cardinal Scale Manufacturing Co.

203 East Daugherty Street

PO Box 151

Webb City, MO 64870

P. (417) 673-4631

E. slangford@cardet.com

Carol Larkin

Montana Weights and Measures Bureau

P.O. Box 200516

Helena, MT 59620-0516

P. (406) 443-8065

E. clarkin@mt.gov

David Leckman

Badger Meter, Inc.

PO Box 245036

Milwaukee, wi 53223

P. (414) 371-7266

E. dleckman@badgermeter.com

Lisa Leondis

San Diego County Department of Agriculture Weights and 

Measures 

5555 Overland Avenue, Suite 3101

San Diego, CA 92123

P. (858) 565-7046

E. lisa.leondis@sdcounty.ca.gov

Russ Lewis

Marathon Petroleum, LLC

2901 Camelia Drive

Flatwoods, KY 41139

P. (606) 921-2009

E. rplewis@marathonoil.com

Rich Lewis

Georgia Department of Agriculture

Agriculture Building

19 MLK Drive, Rm 321

Atlanta, GA 30334

P. (404) 656-3605

E. rlewis@agr.state.ga.us

Paul A. Lewis

Rice Lake Weighing Systems, Inc.

230 West Coleman Street

Rice Lake, WI 54868-2404

P. (715) 434-5322

E. plewis@ricelake.com

Rob Linton

EveryWeigh

320 South 8th Street

Hamilton, MT 59840

P. (559) 667-4150

E. rob@7software.com

Tim Lloyd

Montana Weights and Measures Bureau

P.O. Box 200516

Helena, MT 59620-0516

P. (406) 443-3289

E. tlloyd@mt.gov
National Conference on Weights and Measures / National Type Evaluation Program

2011 Annual Meeting Final Attendee List

July 17-21, 2011 / Missoula, Montana

ATTEND - 9 

Ed Luthy

Stock Equipment Co., Inc.

108 Wade Drive

Dover, OH 44622

P. (440) 241-0194

E. ed.luthy@stockequipment.com

Andrew MacAllister

Daniel Measurement and Control, Inc.

11100 Brittmoore Park Drive

Houston, TX 77041

P. (713) 827-4334

E. andrew.macallister@emerson.com

Kristin Macey

California Division of Measurement Standards

6790 Florin Perkins Road, Suite 100

Sacramento, CA 95828

P. (916) 229-3000

E. kmacey@cdfa.ca.gov

Steve Malone

17700 Basswood Drive

Martell, NE 68404

P. (402) 794-4275

E. mmalone@inetnebr.com

Terence McBride

Memphis Weights and Measures

590 Washington Street

Memphis, TN 38105

P. (901) 528-2904

E. terence.mcbride@memphistn.gov

Tom McGee

PMP Corporation

P.O. Box 422

25 Security Drive

Avon, CT 06001-0422

P. (860) 677-9656

E. tmcgee@pmp-corp.com

James McGetrick

BP Products

Mail Code J-8 

150 W. Warrenville Road

Naperville, IL 60563

P. (630) 420-4579

E. james.mcgetrick@bp.com

Paul Menard

Lexmark International

740 West New Circle Road

501C14/082-1 

Lexington, KY 40550

P. (859) 232-7379

E. menard@lexmark.com

Chad E. Mickey

Veeder-Root Company

2709 Route 764

Duncansville, PA 16635

P. (814) 696-8129

E. cmickey@veeder.com

Maggie Mills

USDA, GIPSA, P&SP

3950 Lewiston Street, Suite 200

Aurora, Co 80011

P. (303) 375-4257

E. margaret.a.mills@usda.gov

Charlie Mitchell

Total Petrochemicals, Inc.

P.O. Box 849

Port Arthur, TX 77641-0849

P. (409) 963-6885

E. charlie.mitchell@total.com

Kristy Moore

Renewable Fuels Association

425 3rd Street, SW, Suite 1150

Washington, DC 20024

P. (309) 830-6154

E. kmoore@ethanolrfa.org

Paul Moyer

Nebraska Division of Weights and Measures

301 Centennial Mall South

Box 94757

Lincoln, NE 68509-4757

P. (402) 471-4292

E. paul.moyer@nebraska.gov

Bob Murnane

Seraphin Test Measures

30 Indel Avenue

PO Box 227

Rancocas, NJ 08073-0227

P. (609) 267-0922

E. rmurnane@pemfab.com
National Conference on Weights and Measures / National Type Evaluation Program

2011 Annual Meeting Final Attendee List

July 17-21, 2011 / Missoula, Montana

ATTEND - 10

Dennis Myers

Rail Scale, Inc.

113 Nature Walk Parkway, Suite 105

St Augustine, FL 32092

P. (904) 302-5154

E. dennismyers@railscale.com

Andre Noel

Neptune Technology Group, Inc.

1600 Alabama Highway #229

Tallassee, AL 36078

P. (334) 283-7298

E. anoel@neptunetg.com

Neal Nover

WinWam Software

3000 Atrium Way, Suite 2203

Mount Laurel, NJ 08054-3910

P. (856) 273-6988

E. NealNov@winwam.com

Don Onwiler

National Conference on Weights and Measures, Inc.

1135 M Street, Suite 110

Lincoln, NE 68508

P. (402) 434-4871

E. don.onwiler@ncwm.net

Henry Oppermann

Weights and Measures Consulting, LLC

1300 Peniston Street

New Orleans, LA 70115

P. (504) 896-9172

E. wm-consulting@att.net

Al Page

Montana Highlands, Inc.

2316 Canyon Drive

Billings, MT 59102-6309

P. (406) 652-4043

E. awp88bb@gmail.com

Stephen Patoray

OIML

11, Rue Turgot

Paris, 75009

France

P. 33 1 48 78 57 73

E. stephen.patoray@oiml.org

Jill Paxton

Iowa Department of Agriculture

2230 S. Ankeny Boulevard

Ankeny, IA 50023

P. (515) 725-1493

E. jill.paxton@iowaagriculture.gov

Jack Payne

Rail Scale, Inc.

1413 Shepherd Drive

Naperville, IL 60565

P. (630) 717-8169

E. jack@railscale.com

Dan Peterson

Yokogawa Corporation of American

2 Dart Road

Newnan, GA 30265

P. (770) 254-0404

E. dan.peterson@us.yokogawa.com

Jerry Portis

Barilla America, Inc.

3311 East Lincoln Way

Ames, IA 50010

P. (515) 956-4410

E. jerry.portis@barilla.com

Marvin Pound

Georgia Department of Agriculture

19 Martin Luther King Jr. Drive SW

Atlanta, GA 31087

P. (404) 656-3605

E. mpound@agr.state.ga.us

Hal Prince

Maine Department of Agriculture

28 State House Station

Augusta, ME 04333

P. (207) 287-3841

E. hal.prince@maine.gov

Dave Rajala

Total Meter Services, Inc.

136 Queen Anne Drive

Hollidaysburg, PA 16648-9228

P. (814) 693-1055

E. drajala@totalmeter.com
National Conference on Weights and Measures / National Type Evaluation Program

2011 Annual Meeting Final Attendee List

July 17-21, 2011 / Missoula, Montana

ATTEND - 11

Kenneth Ramsburg

Maryland Department of Agriculture

50 Harry S. Truman Parkway

Annapolis, MD 21401

P. (410) 841-5790

E. RamsbuKR@mda.state.md.us

Don Reimer

Montana Weights and Measures Bureau

P.O. Box 200516

Helena, MT 59620-0516

P. (406) 443-8065

E. dreimer@mt.gov

Rebecca Richardson

MARC IV Consulting

2005 Tin Cup Road

Mahomet, IL 61853

P. (217) 586-2860

E. RRichardson@marciv.com

Sandy Rintoul

Wilks Enterprise, Inc.

25 Van Zant Street, Suite 8F

Norwalk, CT 06855

P. (831) 338-7459

E. srintoul@wilksir.com

Bill Ripka

Thermo Fisher Scientific

501 90th Avenue NW

Minneapolis, MN 55433

P. (800) 445-3503

E. bill.ripka@thermofisher.com

Mike Roach

VeriFone

4011 Barwood Court

Tampa, FL 33624

P. (813) 205-0876

E. mike_r4@verifone.com

Lance Robertson

Measurement Canada

151 Tunney's Pasture Driveway

Ottawa, ON K1A 0C9

Canada

P. (613) 952-0661

E. lance.robertson@ic.gc.ca

Dr. Charles H. Romine

NIST, Director’s Office

100 Bureau Drive, MS 1000

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

P. (301) 975-3039

E. cromine@nist.gov

Josh Rosenberg

Information Technology Industry Council

1101 K Street NW, Suite 610

Washington, DC 20005

P. (202) 626-5738

E. jrosenberg@itic.ogr

Henry Sacco

Brother International Corporation

100 Somerset Corporate Boulevard

Bridgewater, NJ 08807

P. (908) 252-3029

E. henry.sacco@brother.com

Brett Saum

San Luis Obispo County Weights and Measures

2156 Sierra Way, Suite A

San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-4556

P. (805) 781-5922

E. bsaum@co.slo.ca.us

Dale Saunders

Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services

PO Box 1163

Richmond, VA 23218

P. (804) 786-2476

E. Dale.Saunders@vdacs.virginia.gov

David Sefcik

NIST, Weights and Measures Division

100 Bureau Drive, MS 2600

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2600

P. (301) 975-4868

E. dsefcik@nist.gov

Martin Settevendemie

San Luis Obispo County Weights and Measures

2156 Sierra Way, Suite A

San Luis Obispo, CA 93401

P. (805) 781-5913

E. msettevendemie@co.slo.ca.us
National Conference on Weights and Measures / National Type Evaluation Program

2011 Annual Meeting Final Attendee List

July 17-21, 2011 / Missoula, Montana

ATTEND - 12

Joe Silvestro

Gloucester Co. New Jersey

64 Forage Drive

Mickleton, NJ 08056

P. (856) 423-5360

E. silver7777@comcast.net

Fred Steinbacher

Montana Weights and Measures Bureau

P.O. Box 200516

Helena, MT 59620-0516

P. (406) 443-8065

Steve Steinborn

Hogan Lovells US, LLP

555 13th Street NW

Washington, DC 20004

P. (202) 637-5969

E. steven.steinborn@hoganlovells.com

Tim Stephens

Montana Weights and Measures Bureau

P.O. Box 200516

Helena, MT 59620

P. (406) 443-8065

Brad Stotler

NATSO, Representing America's Truck Stop Operators

1737 King Street, Suite 200

Alexandria, VA 22314

P. (202) 309-0400

E. bstotler@natso.com

Louis Straub

Fairbanks Scales, Inc.

3056 Irwin Drive SE

Southport, NC 28461

P. (910) 253-3250

E. lstraub@fairbanks.com

Bill Studzinski

General Motors - Powertrain Division

823 Joslyn Road 

Mailcode: 483-730-472

Pontiac, MI 48340

P. (248) 255-7785

E. william.studzinski@gm.com

Larry Stump

Indiana State Department of Health

2525 N. Shadeland Avenue #03

Indianapolis, IN 46219-1791

P. (317) 356-7078

E. lstump@isdh.in.gov

Richard Suiter

Richard Suiter Consulting

9819 Anchor Bend

McCordsville, IN 46055

P. (317) 336-9818

E. Rsuiter700@aol.com

John L. Sullivan

Mississippi Department of Agriculture 

and Commerce

PO Box 1609

Jackson, MS 39215

P. (601) 807-0332

E. johns1@mdac.state.ms.us

Scott Swanson

Sensus

450 N Gallatin Avenue

Uniontown, PA 15401

P. (724) 430-4059

E. scott.swanson@sensus.com

Elizabeth Tansing

Food Marketing Institute

2345 Crystal Drive, Suite 800

Arlington, VA 22202

P. (202) 220-0708

E. etansing@fmi.org

Shari Tretheway

National Conference on Weights and Measures, Inc.

1135 M Street, Suite 110

Lincoln, NE 68508

P. (402) 434-4872

E. shari.tretheway@ncwm.net

Jim Truex

National Conference on Weights and Measures, Inc.

88 Carryback Drive

Pataskala, OH 43062

P. (740) 919-4350

E. jim.truex@ncwm.net

Rich Tucker

RL Tucker Consulting, LLC

605 Bittersweet Lane

Ossian, IN 46777

P. (260) 622-4243

E. rtucker83@comcast.net
National Conference on Weights and Measures / National Type Evaluation Program

2011 Annual Meeting Final Attendee List

July 17-21, 2011 / Missoula, Montana

ATTEND - 13

Tim Tyson

Kansas Department of Agriculture

Weights and Measures Division

P.O. Box 19282

Forbes Field Building 282

Topeka, KS 66619-0282

P. (785) 862-2415

E. tim.tyson@kda.ks.gov

Rob Underwood

Petroleum Marketers Association of America

1901 N Fort Myer Drive, Suite 500

Arlington, VA 22209

P. (703) 351-8000

E. runderwood@pmaa.org

Craig VanBuren

Michigan Department of Agriculture 

and Rural Development

940 Venture Lane

Williamston, MI 48895-2451

P. (517) 655-8202

E. vanburenc9@michigan.gov

Gilles Vinet

Measurement Canada

151 Tunney's Pasture Driveway

Ottawa, ON K1A 0C9

Canada

P. (613) 941-8918

E. gilles.vinet@ic.gc.ca

Jay Visco

Vishay Precision Group

275 Warren Street

Waltham, MA 02453

P. (781) 330-9362

E. Jay.Visco@vishaypg.com

Jack Walsh

Town of Wellesley

525 Washington Street-Town Hall

Wellesley, MA 02482

P. (508) 532-5480

E. jackbwalsh@comcast.net

Lisa Warfield

NIST, Weights and Measures Division

100 Bureau Drive, MS 2600

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2600

P. (301) 975-3308

E. lisa.warfield@nist.gov

Lisa Weddig

National Fisheries Institute

7918 Jones Branch Drive, Suite 700

McLean, VA 22102

P. (703) 752-8886

E. lweddig@nfi.org

Bob Weidler

Wyoming Department of Agriculture

2219 Carey Avenue

Cheyenne, WY 82002

P. (307) 777-7556

E. robert.weidler@wyo.gov

Tim White

Michigan Department of Agriculture

940 Venture Lane

Williamston, MI 48895-2451

P. (517) 655-8202

E. whitet@michigan.gov

Curt Williams

CP Williams Energy Consulting, LLC

95 Roundtree Court

Stockbridge, GA 30281

P. (770) 957-6992

E. curtispwilliams@aol.com

Juana Williams

NIST, Weights and Measures Division

100 Bureau Drive, MS 2600

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2600

P. (301) 975-3989

E. juana.williams@nist.gov
National Conference on Weights and Measures / National Type Evaluation Program

2011 Annual Meeting Final Attendee List

July 17-21, 2011 / Missoula, Montana

ATTEND - 14

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK