USNWG on Taximeters December 11, 2013

1

USNWG ON TAXIMETERS

DECEMBER 11, 2013

WEB-CONFERENCE SUMMARY

Contents

I. Carry-over items ..................................................................................................................................1

A. Point of Sale System Definition........................................................................................................1

B. Proposal to add new requirement S.1.1.1. Recording Elements.....................................................3

C. Proposal to amend S.1.9. Recorded Representation.................................................................... 10

D. Proposal to amend paragraph S.1.2. ............................................................................................ 14

II. Additional items............................................................................................................................ 17

III. Attendance.................................................................................................................................... 17

The USNWG members in attendance were informed that it is anticipated that the work group’s 

meeting summaries will be posted on the NIST Office of Weights and Measures (OWM) website in 

the near future. For this reason, all USNWG members are requested to review the draft summaries 

for accuracy and respond with any comments to the NIST Technical Advisor. This vetting will be part 

of an editorial review process necessary to eventually publish these documents.

I. Carry-over items

A. Point of Sale System Definition

This proposed amendment to the existing definition of “point-of-sale system” in the NIST Handbook 

44 (HB44) Appendix D is being proposed to clarify the meaning of the term 

Background:

The USNWG has had discussions during several meetings since September 2012 regarding this issue. 

These discussions were part of the USNWG attempts to establish what components, when used in 

conjunction with each other in a taximeter system would constitute a point-of-sale system (POS). A 

major element associated with this issue that was addressed during previous USNWG meetings was 

the development of a requirement for a recording element to be a mandatory part of a taximeter 

system by classifying the system as a POS. During a work group meeting in July 2013 however, the 

members agreed to discontinue any effort to amend the existing definition in NIST Handbook 44 
USNWG on Taximeters December 11, 2013

2

(HB44) for a point-of-sale system for the specific purpose that the revised definition could then be 

applied to a taximeter system as a means to require a recording element as part of that system.

The work group also agreed at that time however, that the existing definition for point-of-sale 

systems in HB44, Appendix D should be amended to make that term more clearly understood and 

more suitable to apply to all types of weighing and measuring devices. Acknowledging that a 

substantial amount of the work group’s time had been devoted to the development of a proposal to 

amend this definition, the USNWG agreed that this agenda item should not be discarded completely 

but rather that it should be given further attention by the work group to further clarify the term.

Since POS systems are found in association with many different types of weighing and measuring 

devices, the physical hardware components used to accomplish the functions of a POS may be 

significantly different depending on what type of weighing or measuring device they are attached 

to. The POS system used in conjunction with a motor fuel dispenser may serve the same general 

purpose as a POS attached to a checkout scale in a retail market however, the physical hardware 

used in these systems can differ. 

During the September 18, 2013 USNWG meeting, the work group agreed that the following draft of 

proposed amendments to the existing definition for POS should be supported by the group.

point-of-sale system. – An assembly of interactive elements connected either wired or 

wirelessly including a weighing or measuring element, an indicating element, and a recording 

element (and may also be equipped with a “scanner”) used to complete a direct sales 

transaction. The system components, when operated together must be capable of the 

following:

1. determining the weight or measure of a product or service offered; 

2. calculating a charge for the product or service based on the weight or measure 

and an established price/rate structure; 

3. determining a total cost that includes all associated fees involved with the 

transaction; 

4 providing a printed sales receipt when required by either buyer or seller. For 

systems equipped with the capability to issue an electronic receipt, the 

customer may be given the option to receive the receipt electronically (e.g., email, text message, computer file).

(Amended 201X)

This draft proposal agreed upon at the September 2013 meeting includes one additional change

that the work group recommended during that meeting that deletes the wording “when 

required by either buyer or seller” from bullet point number 4 in the draft proposal.

Discussion:
USNWG on Taximeters December 11, 2013

3

The work group was asked to indicate whether they support the draft proposal shown above. 

The majority indicated that they did support this draft. Mr. Stan Toy stated however, that the 

use of the term “computer file” in the final sentence, under number 4 of the proposed changes 

did not seem appropriate. Mr. Toy stated that a more suitable replacement for that term would 

be “electronic file” or “digital file.”

Conclusion:

This suggested change was presented to the participants of the meeting and they were asked 

again to indicate their level of support for the proposal. All work group participants indicated 

their support for this draft after this final change was enacted. It was agreed that the proposed 

change as shown below will be submitted as a recommended change to NIST Handbook 44 

(HB44) Appendix D – Definitions.

point-of-sale system. – An assembly of interactive elements including a weighing or 

measuring element, an indicating element, and a recording element (and may also be 

equipped with a “scanner”) used to complete a direct sales transaction. The system 

components, when operated together must be capable of the following:

1. determining the weight or measure of a product or service offered; 

2. calculating a charge for the product or service based on the weight or measure 

and an established price/rate structure; 

3. determining a total cost that includes all associated fees involved with the 

transaction; 

4 providing a printed sales receipt. For systems equipped with the capability to 

issue an electronic receipt, the customer may be given the option to receive the 

receipt electronically (e.g., e-mail, text message, electronic file).

(Amended 201X)

B. Proposal to add new requirement S.1.1.1. Recording Elements

The addition of this new requirement would require that a recording element be included as a 

mandatory component within a taximeter system.

Background:

After a number of discussions in previous USNWG meetings regarding a proposal to require a 

recording element in a taximeter system, the work group was presented with a choice of two 

approaches to accomplish this objective. At their July 2013 USNWG meeting, the work group 

considered the merits of these approaches.
USNWG on Taximeters December 11, 2013

4

During the September 2013 meeting of the USNWG, the NIST Technical advisor explained to the 

USNWG that the proposed amendments to S.1.9. Recorded Representation became excessively 

complicated to draft and added that those changes would result in a convoluted requirement that 

was difficult to understand. This was due to the multiple effective dates (i.e., dates that determine 

what individual segments of this requirement would be enforced) associated with the various nonretroactive portions of that requirement. 

At that time, the members agreed to pursue efforts to add the new requirement S.1.1.1. Recording 

Elements, rather than to amend the existing S.1.9. Recorded Representation as shown below.

S.1.1.1. Recording Elements. – A receipt providing the required information in S.1.9. 

Recorded Representations shall be available through an integral or separate recording 

element for all transactions conducted when any of the following criteria is met: 

a) When the regulatory authority requires that a receipt be provided to the passenger; 

b) When extras permitted exceed those charges for additional passengers or 

transportation of luggage; 

c) When the rate applied is permitted to change for any reason after the initiation of, 

and prior to the conclusion of a trip; 

d) When the total charges include fees for products or services not directly associated 

with the service of transportation of the customer. 

For systems equipped with the capability to issue an electronic receipt, the customer may be 

given the option to receive the receipt electronically (e.g., e-mail, text message, computer 

file). 

[Nonretroactive 20XX] 

(Added 20XX)

During USNWG discussions at the September 2013 meeting, certain deficiencies in the draft 

proposal to add a new S.1.1.1. were identified, including the following points.

Mr. Phillip Steiner noted that taximeters manufactured today all have the ability to calculate fares 

using more than one rate although not every jurisdiction that they will operate in will permit the use 

of multiple rates. Mr. Steiner questioned whether this requirement will be applied to a taximeter 

only during the type evaluation phase or will it be applied equally during field examinations. If 

applied during type evaluation, all devices will be required to undergo testing for compliance while 

attached to a recording element. However, when this requirement would be applied during field 

examinations, would there be any option for the inspector to provide exemptions from this

requirement for taximeters operating in a jurisdiction that does not permit more than a single rate? 

Mr. Bill Fishman recommended that the work group be selective about the wording of this 

requirement so that it is clear whether the requirement applies to a taximeter that is capable of 
USNWG on Taximeters December 11, 2013

5

operating with multiple rates or should it only apply to taximeters that are actually programmed to 

operate using multiple rates. It was noted that this multiple rate feature is a sealable function and 

that whether it is enabled or not would depend on the regulations in the jurisdiction where the 

taximeter is placed in service.

Mr. Steiner also noted that the composition of this requirement must be clear to specify whether 

the requirement for a recording element will apply to any taximeter system that is capable of 

calculating fares at multiple rates or whether it will specifically only apply to taximeters that will 

calculate at different rates during a single transaction.

Discussion:

The work group was asked to review the following drafts incorporating these recent comments. The 

first draft presented to the USNWG is a specification requirement that would require a receipt 

except in those taximeters which meet the following two parameters: 

1) those capable of only calculating fares at a single rate during a transaction; and 

2) those that do not accumulate extras or additional charges other than for additional 

passengers and baggage.

This proposed specification requirement is shown below.

S.1.1.1. Recording Elements. – A receipt providing information as required in S.1.9. 

Recorded Representations shall be provided by a taximeter or taximeter system through an 

integral or separate recording element for all transactions conducted.

This does not apply to taximeters or taximeter systems that are limited to indicating and 

accumulating charges exclusively for discrete, individual fares calculated at a single rate 

and, that do not indicate or accumulate extras or additional charges (other than those 

assessed for transporting additional passengers and baggage), 

For systems equipped with the capability to issue an electronic receipt, the customer may be 

given the option to receive the receipt electronically (e.g., e-mail, text message, computer 

file).

[Nonretroactive January 1, 201X]

(Added 201X)

The USNWG was advised that this proposed requirement will address the design of a taximeter and 

will exempt those that are not capable of operating using multiple rates and accumulating additional 

charges and multiple extras other than for additional passengers and the transportation of luggage. 

An important point to be made is that a specification requirement has a prominent role at the time 

which a device is undergoing type evaluation. The type evaluation will certify that the device will 

operate according to the manufacturer’s design using the criteria in specification requirements. The 
USNWG on Taximeters December 11, 2013

6

type evaluation however, will not encompass how any individual device may be operated once it is 

placed in service. A taximeter may be equipped with a variety of features although some may not 

be enabled when placed in service due to customer’s needs and regulations within the jurisdiction 

where the device is operated.

It was also noted that because the existing HB44 Taximeters Code does not include a requirement 

stating that a taximeter must provide a receipt, this proposed requirement would be submitted as a 

nonretroactive requirement which would “grandfather” all taximeters manufactured and installed 

prior to the effective date assigned to the requirement. 

Mr. Stan Toy raised some concerns over this proposal based on the following questions:

• Can a taximeter be type approved either with or without the capability of generating a 

receipt, and if so how does the field inspector know if a particular device has been approved 

for use with a printer? 

• If a taximeter is submitted for type evaluation and not evaluated for use with a printer will 

this be noted on the CC? 

• What happens when a field inspector encounters a taximeter in the field that is attached to 

a printer however, the CC does not specifically list this as a feature that it was evaluated for? 

• Would a taximeter manufacturer need to submit more than one device for type approval? 

One of the sample devices submitted would be evaluated with a recording element and one 

without. 

• Stating that within his area of responsibility there are several different jurisdictions that may 

or may not permit multiple rates to be used. In these situations, Mr. Toy questioned how a 

field inspector will know if a taximeter will need to be attached to a recording element. For 

a field inspector, will it be possible to look at a model number and determine whether or 

not a printer is required?

In response, Mr. Fishman stated that some manufacturers will submit different variations of models 

of devices for evaluation however; present day taximeters are typically (if not always) submitted as 

being capable of calculating fares using multiple rates. If this proposal is incorporated in HB44 and 

NCWM Publication 14, a multi-rate taximeter when it is type evaluated, would be tested with this 

feature enabled. If the taximeter is approved through that type evaluation, it would be issued a 

Certificate of Conformance (CC) that could state when the taximeter is placed in service where 

multiple rates are permitted, then a recording element would need to be included as part of that 

system. And, according to the proposed amendment, if this taximeter is placed in service where the 

use of multiple rates is not permitted, then a recording element may not be required. 

Mr. Fishman added that if the design of a taximeter is such that a recording element may be 

attached, the taximeter would be submitted for type evaluation either with a dedicated recording 

element or with instructions from the manufacturer that the taximeter may be connected to a 

general-use type of recording element. He also stated that NTEP would not likely require that 
USNWG on Taximeters December 11, 2013

7

additional taximeters be submitted for the evaluation. He added that it is the decision of the

manufacturer to specify what criteria their device is to be evaluated upon. 

Mr. Fishman further stated that the evolution of taximeters seems to be moving towards a design

that will be used with a separate printer rather than having an integral printer. The reason for this 

trend may be that separate printers are easier to make repairs to and simple to replace if needed. 

This is a potential problem however, if the printer is easily unplugged from the taximeter. Taxi 

drivers may simply unplug the printer and claim that it is broken to avoid giving a receipt, thereby

evading any official record of the transaction. 

The work group acknowledged that the ability to calculate fares using multiple rates would need to

be a sealable feature. That is, to either enable or disable this function, a type of security seal 

(physical or electronic) would need to be broken. This would provide assurance that a device user 

would not be capable of turning this function on and off without detection.

Additional concerns regarding the ability of taximeters to calculate fares at multiple rates were 

expressed by some members of the work group. Mr. Fishman stated that the easiest way to commit 

fraud with taximeters that have this feature is for the operator to simply apply the incorrect rate at 

the beginning of the trip. This is of course a concern even for those taximeters that are incapable of

calculating an individual fare using multiple rates. With this in mind, Mr. Fishman recommends that 

any taximeter that has the ability to use more than one rate (either within a single fare or from one 

transaction to the next) should be required to produce a receipt.

During a previous USNWG discussion, Mr. Fishman stated that he was unaware of any prominent 

taximeter manufacturers that are currently producing devices that operate with the ability to 

calculate fares at only one rate. If indeed there are no single-rate taximeters are being produced, 

then to provide an exemption for that type of taximeter would be meaningless. The work group 

recognized that if this premise is valid, it may be unnecessary to include in this proposal any 

exemptions for requiring taximeters to be equipped with a recording element.

Ms. Aileen Fox questioned the use of language in the second paragraph of the proposed 

requirement “This does not apply to taximeters or taximeter systems...” She stated that the use of

this wording in the proposed S.1.1.1., could create a situation where the regulatory authority may 

not retain the ability to require a printer if the taximeter is used in an area with a simple rate 

structure. There was some discussion from the work group which suggested changing that 

particular sentence to: “This may not apply to taximeters or taximeter systems”... 

The NIST Technical Advisor explained that there are numerous instances where a regulatory agency 

will apply requirements that exceed what the requirements provided in HB44 require. The work 

group generally agreed that this would be an inappropriate change that would alter the intent of 

providing these exceptions to the proposed requirement.
USNWG on Taximeters December 11, 2013

8

Mr. Bob McGrath questioned whether the wording of the second paragraph in this proposed 

requirement could be amended so that it is more easily understood. Mr. McGrath suggested that 

the structure of this requirement could be improved by isolating the elements contained in the 

second paragraph through the use of bullet points. The NIST Technical Advisor displayed for the 

work group some additional edits affecting the second paragraph of the proposal to simplify the 

language. These edits were made to reflect the recommended structural changes to the paragraph 

resulting in the following revised draft proposal.

S.1.1.1. Recording Elements. – A receipt providing information as required in S.1.9. 

Recorded Representations shall be provided by a taximeter or taximeter system through an 

integral or separate recording element for all transactions conducted. This does not apply 

to taximeters or taximeter systems that are: 

a) limited to indicating and accumulating charges exclusively for discrete, individual

fares calculated at a not designed to calculate any fare for a single rate transaction 

using more than one rate; and

b) that do not indicate or accumulate extras or additional charges (other than those 

assessed for transporting additional passengers and baggage), 

For systems equipped with the capability to issue an electronic receipt, the customer may be 

given the option to receive the receipt electronically (e.g., e-mail, text message, computer 

file).

[Nonretroactive January 1, 201X]

(Added 201X)

The work group generally agreed with the structural changes to the proposed requirement shown 

above. 

Mr. Byron Corcoran expressed concern over the fact that exemptions granted for a limitation of

extras charges specifically targeted those two extras listed in this draft. He further stated that there 

are taximeter services in operation that allow extras charges other than those for additional 

passengers and transportation of baggage but would not comprise what he would considered a 

complex rate structure. In some jurisdictions, taxi services may include extras for tolls (for example) 

but will not allow for extras charges for additional passengers and baggage. Mr. Corcoran stated 

that this example should not be viewed as a complex rate structure and that it seems to be an 

arbitrary decision to allow an exemption for the extras charges of additional passengers and 

baggage but not for other types of extras charges.

Mr. McGrath stated that it is his understanding that the two extras charges specified in this proposal 

were included in this draft proposal because they are specifically listed in the definition of the term 

“extras” in HB44 Appendix D – Definitions. He added however, that he believes HB44 requirements 

should be drafted in a generic sense that will allow some flexibility for local authorities to apply 

requirements in a sensible manner within their jurisdiction.
USNWG on Taximeters December 11, 2013

9

The NIST Technical Advisor noted that if any extras charges are to be allowed before the system is 

required to include a recording element, there must be some limit applied so that the rate structure 

does not become overly complicated. The work group did not agree on where any distinction 

should be made in order to minimize those extras charges for which an exemption would be 

granted.

The draft for a new Users Requirement to accompany the above specification requirement was 

presented to the USNWG to consider. This proposed requirement specifies that taximeters 

that operate by calculating the fare using more than a single rate are required to issue a printed 

receipt. This user requirement would serve to bridge any gap in regulation between taximeters that 

are capable and enabled to operate in this manner from those that are capable of operating but are 

not enabled. The USNWG was reminded that it is believed that this feature is present in most, if not 

all taximeters manufactured today and that it is a sealable parameter enabled during the initial 

installation and programming of the taximeter. 

The proposal of this new user requirement is being offered for consideration by the USNWG to 

address the manner in which a taximeter is operated rather than the way in which it is designed. 

The option of an electronic receipt is provided in this requirement as well.

UR.3 Use Requirements

UR.3.1. Recording Element. – Taximeters or taximeter systems that operate by 

calculating the fare for any individual transaction using more than one rate for 

distance and/or time, shall issue a printed receipt providing information as required in

S.1.9. Recorded Representations.

For systems equipped with the capability to issue an electronic receipt, the customer 

may be given the option to receive the receipt electronically (e.g., e-mail, text message, 

computer file).

[Nonretroactive January 1, 201X]

(Added 201X)

Conclusion:

USNWG members were asked to review and comment on the proposed new specification and user 

requirements shown above. Some members of the USWNG support the latest revision of the 

proposed specification requirement (S.1.1.1.) which provides for exemptions of those 

taximeters/systems using a simple rate structure, and others support eliminating the exemptions 

provided in S.1.1.1. having the effect of requiring all taximeters/systems to be equipped with a 

recording element. No further comments were heard regarding the user requirement (UR.3.1.).

Due to time constraints and in an effort to move this item forward, the NIST Technical Advisor 

tabled the discussion on this item at this time and informed the work group that a ballot would be 
USNWG on Taximeters December 11, 2013

10

sent out with the meeting summary. This ballot would ask the USNWG members to respond with an

indication for which of the following options they support:

a) retain the latest revision of S.1.1.1. that includes two criteria required for an exemption. 

These criteria are that the taximeter operates by calculating fares at only a single rate during 

any individual transaction, and that the taximeter does not register extras charges, other 

than those for additional passengers and luggage;

b) elimination of the exemption for single rate/single fare but retaining an exemption for the 

limited use of certain extras charges;

c) elimination of the exemption from a required receipt for taximeters with extras limited only 

to those for additional passengers and luggage but retaining an exemption for taximeters 

that operate using only one rate per transaction; 

d) retaining both conditions for exemption but revising the bullet point (b) under the latest 

draft of S.1.1.1. to state that an exemption is provided for those taximeters that are limited 

to a small number (e.g. 2-3) of extras charges; or

e) elimination of all exemptions nonretroactively (i.e., all newly manufactured taximeters must 

be generate a receipt).

C. Proposal to amend S.1.9. Recorded Representation

This proposal would amend the existing specification requirement S.1.9. Recorded Representation 

by amending three of the existing bulleted items in the paragraph and adding three new bulleted 

items. In addition, two new notes would be added to this requirement indicating that the recording 

element may be an integral component within a taximeter or a separate element in a system and,

providing an option for electronic forms of receipts. The addition of the note stating that the 

recording element may either be housed within the taximeter or exist as a separate component will 

eliminate the need for this statement currently contained in the main paragraph of the requirement.

Background:

Consideration of changes to the required receipt data contained in the bullet points in this existing 

requirement by the work group began during its September 2012 meeting. Further discussion on 

these changes by the USNWG took place during the July 10, 2013 meeting and included proposals to 

address the following issues:

• The provision to issue a receipt in electronic form was supported by the work group. This 

would depend however, on the ability of the taxi operator to provide such a receipt and the 

acceptance of the same by the passenger;

• A change to bullet point “f” to eliminate the wording “for multi rate taximeters.” This 

language was considered to be obsolete in that it is believed that all taximeters on the 

market will now have the ability to calculate fares at more than one rate;
USNWG on Taximeters December 11, 2013

11

• Rewording of bullet point “h” to indicate that the total cost of the service provided 

(including extras charges and other additional charges) is the appropriate information that is

required; and

• To eliminate any language that can be interpreted to require that the owner/operator’s 

personal contact information be included on a receipt.

During the September 18, 2013 USNWG meeting, the work group reviewed this draft and had 

additional comments and concerns. One of those changes was the elimination of proposed 

language added during the September 2012 USNWG meeting in bullet point “g” that indicated that 

it would be optional whether extras and other additional charges are to be identified and itemized 

on a receipt. Other changes agreed to by the group at that meeting included the following.

• Amend the bulleted item “g” to reflect more current types of communication services that 

may be offered during a taxi ride. The work group agreed that “telecommunication” should 

replace the reference to “telephone use.”

• Because the USNWG had previously agreed that additional passengers and the 

transportation of baggage were exceptions to a requirement that extras charges be itemized 

on a receipt, it was proposed that the language under bulleted point “g” be amended to 

reflect this.

These recommended changes have been incorporated into the draft proposal and are shown below.
USNWG on Taximeters December 11, 2013

12

S.1.9. Recorded Representation. – A printed receipt issued from a 

taximeter, whether through an integral or separate recording element, shall include the 

following:

(a) date;

(b) unique vehicle identification number, such as the medallion number, taxi number, 

vehicle identification number (VIN) or permit number;*

(c) start and end time of trip;*

(d) distance traveled, maximum increment of 0.1 kilometer (0.1 mile);*

(e) fare in $;

(f) for multi-rate taximeters, each rate at which fare was computed and the associated 

fare at that rate;*

(g) additional charges in $ where permitted such as extras (except those for additional 

passengers and luggage), surcharge, telephone usetelecommunications, tip and tax 

shall be identified and may be itemized when required under local jurisdiction;*

and

(h) total fare charge for service in $ (total chargessum of fare, extras, and all 

additional charges) ;*

(i) any credits or discounts in $ applied to the fare;**

(j) trip number, if available** and

(k) telephone number (or other contact information) for customer assistance.**

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1989] *[Nonretroactive as of 

January 1, 2000] **[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 201X]

(Added 1988) (Amended 1999 and 201X)

Notes: 

The recording element may be an integral element housed within the taximeter or it may be 

a separate component in a taximeter system.

For systems equipped with the capability to issue an electronic receipt, the customer may 

be given the option to receive the receipt electronically (e.g., e-mail, text message, 

computer file).

The USNWG will be asked to review the changes shown above and determine if this proposal is 

sufficiently developed to be submitted for consideration by the NCWM.

Discussion:

The NIST Technical Advisor to the USNWG presented the work group with the most recent draft of 

proposed changes to S.1.9. and the members were asked for comments. Mr. Toy stated that the 

use of the term “computer file” could be misinterpreted and suggested changing that to “electronic 
USNWG on Taximeters December 11, 2013

13

(or digital) file” instead. The work group agreed with this change. Mr. Toy also asked why, under 

bullet point (d) the total distance traveled is to be included on the receipt although there is no 

similar requirement for the total time that may be used to calculate fare charges. The work group 

acknowledged that a start and end time for the trip is required however, this will not provide 

specific information regarding fare charges calculated on the basis of time.

Mr. Fishman stated that it is his understanding that a taximeter is not capable of providing that 

specific information due to the manner in which the device determines fare charges on distance and 

time. He explained that the taximeter will typically switch between the calculation of fare based on 

distance traveled and fare based on time during the trip depending on the cross-over speed. Mr. 

Byron Corcoran added that while there is no requirement in HB44 for a taximeter to register or 

indicate the time interval(s) used to calculate fare charges, it would be possible for a (Centrodyne) 

taximeter to be programmed to do so.

Mr. Fishman noted that because there has not been a designation in the type evaluation process for 

the verification of this function, if this feature was to be provided, it would be necessary to 

incorporate such an element in the NTEP process.

The work group was asked to indicate their support for adding “time charges” as an additional bullet 

point under S.1.9. The response was that only two of the meeting participants were in favor of this 

action at this time however, some members stated that this may be something to be added at a 

point in the future.

One additional element to include under S.1.9. that the work group has indicated support for is to 

include the taxi’s company name. Although the NIST Technical Advisor initially presented this 

additional data item as a separate bulleted item under S.1.9., some members of the work group 

indicated that this should be included as an element within the existing bulleted item (b). This 

would require the company/owner’s identification in conjunction with the vehicle identification.

Ms. Fox explained that two taxi cabs owned by different companies and based in different 

regulatory jurisdictions may coincidentally be assigned the same vehicle number or other identifier 

(e.g., medallion number). In some instances they can be located within a relatively small geographic 

area and these two taxis may operate within the same jurisdiction at any given time. In this 

example, unless some identifier is included with a vehicle number, regulatory officials (and 

passengers) would have a difficult time distinguishing between them. Since the two cabs may 

provide service in the same jurisdiction, the use of the company/owner’s name with the vehicle 

identification number would serve to positively identify the vehicles for the regulatory officials.

Mr. McGrath stated that while this may be beneficial under certain circumstances, in large 

metropolitan areas the fleet of cabs under a single ownership may include hundreds of vehicles. In 

these cases, the company’s name will not provide any significant assistance in identifying a 

particular vehicle. It should therefore be left up to the local jurisdictions to establish any additional 

information needed on a printed receipt. 
USNWG on Taximeters December 11, 2013

14

Mr. Corcoran agreed and suggested that the requirement for this additional information could be 

optional by drafting the requirement in a non-specific manner. He suggested that in S.1.9. bulleted 

item (b), could be amended to state: “unique vehicle/company identification, such as medallion 

number, taxi number, ...”

One additional change was suggested that would add the wording “if any” following “Additional 

charges” under bulleted item (g).

Conclusion:

The USNWG members supported the change of wording from “computer file” to “electronic file” in 

the final note under S.1.9. This change will be made the proposed amendment. The members also 

agreed that the wording “if any” should be added to the sentence under item (g).

The work group generally agreed that in certain cases the use of the company/owner’s name would 

be beneficial and should therefore be added to the data required under S.1.9. however, the 

members at the meeting did not agree upon the manner in which this data should be incorporated 

into the requirement. 

The NIST Technical Advisor will include the proposed addition of the taxi company/owner’s name to 

the data required in paragraph S.1.9. in a ballot that will be circulated with this meeting’s summary. 

The USNWG will be asked to respond with an indication of their support for various options in the 

format which this data is incorporated.

D. Proposal to amend paragraph S.1.2.

This proposal would amend S.1.2. Advancement of Indicating Elements so that certain fare 

indications would be permitted to advance by means other than the movement of the vehicle or by 

the time mechanism.

Background:

The language in the existing requirement does not allow for fare indications to advance when a flat 

rate is charged for a trip and then displayed on the primary indicating element. This type of fare

that is permitted in some jurisdictions is used for commonly traveled routes such as between 

airports and a hotel district. The fare in this type of transaction is entered in the taximeter as a fixed

charge that is not calculated using factors of distance traveled or time elapsed. 

Additionally, it is not clear whether or not this requirement is applicable to the display of charges 

assessed in addition to fare (e.g., extras and other additional charges). This type of charge is

normally applied and displayed independently of vehicle movement or the lapse of time.

The proposal to amend S.1.2. had been discussed by the work group during USNWG meetings held 

between September 2012 and July 2013. In these discussions, the USNWG agreed that 

advancement of fare indications should be permitted for transactions involving charges not based 
USNWG on Taximeters December 11, 2013

15

on time and distance measurements. The group also acknowledged that on a typical, stand-alone 

taximeter, charges that can be assessed during the transportation service provided, other than fare 

or extras will commonly be displayed on the taximeter’s display that is normally reserved for the 

display of extras charges. It was the consensus of the work group that this requirement should be 

changed to recognize that extras and other additional charges must be permitted to advance 

independent of the movement of the vehicle and the lapse of time. The work group agreed that this 

proposal should therefore make it clear that any non-fare charges displayed may advance through 

“manual or automatic means.”

At the September 2013 USNWG meeting, the NIST Technical Advisor offered a draft proposal to 

the work group for review and comment. Although changes that the USNWG have supported 

were incorporated into this draft, the work group noted that one additional change should be 

made. This additional change involved replacing the term “fees” with “charges.” The term 

“charges” was preferred by the work group believing that it is a more generic description for 

various additional costs associated with a transaction. 

The draft shown below incorporates all changes recommended by the USNWG. The group will be 

asked to review this draft and determine if this proposal is sufficiently developed to be submitted 

for consideration by the NCWM.

S.1.2. Advancement of Indicating Elements. – Except when a taximeter is being cleared, 

the fare charges displayed on the primary indicating and recording elements shall be 

susceptible of advancement only by:

a). the movement of the vehicle; 

b). by the time mechanism;

c). a combination of both a) and b); or 

d). the entry of a monetary amount associated with a flat rate or negotiated flat 

rate where permitted.

Advancement of the indications for charges, other than fare may occur through manual 

or automatic means.

(Amended 1988, and 201X)

Discussion:

Mr. Toy asked for clarification of what is meant by “flat rates” and what types of charges does 

this term encompass. He stated that it should be made clear that the ability to enter a flat rate 

should not be permitted to add to any charges already registered in the taximeter. He also 

asked how these types of rates are applied (i.e., via a single button programmed to add a fixed 

value, or using a series of numeric keys to enter a charge). 

When asked if the value associated with a flat rate was related to the fare calculated based on 

distance, Ms. Fox stated that it was her understanding that flat rates were not established 

through any type of measurement capability of taximeters. Mr. James Cassidy explained that 
USNWG on Taximeters December 11, 2013

16

flat rates had been established to prevent taxi drivers from overcharging visitors to a city by 

travelling extended routes instead of travelling the most direct route, adding to the measured 

distance used in the fare calculation.

It was pointed out by several work group members that this type of charge could be entered 

into the taximeter through either of the ways noted above. That is, specific monetary values 

may be entered as flat rates by activating a single button programmed to input that value, or a 

numeric keypad could be used to enter random values for use in a negotiated flat rate.

The work group discussed the possibility of a flat rate being entered into the taximeter and then 

having that charge intentionally changed. The work group generally agreed that although there 

may be legitimate reason for doing so, this ability would create an obvious opportunity for 

fraud. 

This ability to commit fraud in this manner could however be mitigated through the 

development of a definition for a flat rate that indicates that the flat rate charge is determined 

prior to the start of a trip. Since there is no existing definition for the term in HB44 Appendix D 

– Definitions, it may be necessary to establish that definition at the time that this proposed 

amendment is submitted for consideration by the NCWM. 

Another point made during this discussion was that under current HB44 requirements, 

time/distance rates, along with flat rates must be posted on the rate card. Ms. Fox added that 

in some cases, information regarding flat and negotiated flat rates is being made available to the 

passenger through a passenger information monitor (PIM).

Mr. Fishman added that the permitted use of flat rates which may be applied as a fare charge 

during a single trip will lend support to his contention that any taximeter capable of applying 

more than one rate should be required to generate a receipt. He explained that if a jurisdiction 

only allows a single fare to be calculated based upon a single rate, the work group is proposing 

that a taximeter system operating in this jurisdiction would not require a printer. But if this 

same jurisdiction allows flat rates as an option for one of the rates available, the application of 

that flat rate should always be required to be clearly identified as a flat rate on a printed receipt.

The NIST Technical Advisor asked the work group to indicate whether or not they support the 

amendments shown in the draft of the proposed requirement above. A majority of the work 

group indicated that they do support this latest draft of the proposed amendment to S.1.2.

Conclusion:

The above draft of the proposed amendment to S.1.2. Advancement of Indicating Elements will 

be submitted for consideration by NCWM. Additionally, the USNWG will be asked to review a 

draft proposal to add a new definition for the term “flat rate” at a future meeting. The NIST 

Technical Advisor will develop an initial draft for this definition to be considered.
USNWG on Taximeters December 11, 2013

17

II. Additional items

Due to a constraint of time allotted for the meeting two additional agenda items were not 

addressed during this meeting. These items: a proposal to amend paragraph A.1. General; and 

a proposal for a new requirement S.1.3.3. Customer’s Indications will be placed on the agenda 

of the next USNWG meeting.

The work group was given a brief update on the activity of the GPS Subcommittee which has 

been primarily to identify a new Chair for that subcommittee. The group has lost its initial 

member that agreed to take that position and the work from that group has stalled. A new 

Chair must be named so that this group will be able to establish a routine of scheduled meetings 

and proceed with its work.

The results of the poll that participants of this meeting were asked to respond to indicated that 

there were multiple dates in the months of February and March that received an equal amount 

of votes from the participants. However, to allow sufficient time for USNWG members to 

respond to the ballot mentioned in items I.B. and I.C. and due to other commitments, it was not 

feasible to conduct a subsequent meeting of the USNWG on those dates within the month of 

February. For that reason, March 4, 2014 has been identified as the next scheduled meeting of 

the USNWG.

III. Attendance
USNWG on Taximeters December 11, 2013

18

Name Affiliation Email

John Barton NIST Office of Weights and 

Measures john.barton@nist.gov

Anthony Bong Lee, County of Orange Bong.lee@ocpw.ocgov.com

Jimmy Cassidy City of Cambridge, MA jcassidy@cambridgema.gov

Byron Corcoran Centrodyne byron@centrodyne.com

Bill Fishman bfishman@nycap.rr.com

Aileen Fox NYC Taxi and Limousine 

Commission, Legal Department foxa@tlc.nyc.gov

Angela Godwin County of Ventura, CA angela.godwin@ventura.org

Viktor Gruber Inspector Weights and Measures

City and County of San Francisco viktor.gruber@sfdph.org

Taila Martin Windels Marx Lane & Mittendorf, 

LLP tmartin@windelsmarx.com

Kevin McDonald City of Chicago, IL Kevin.McDonald@cityofchicago.org

Bob McGrath City of Boston, MA Robert.McGrath@CityofBoston.Gov

Stan Toy Santa Clara Weights and Measures Stan.toy@aem.sccgov.org