USNWG ON TAXIMETERS

MARCH 13, 2013

MEETING SUMMARY

A meeting of the U.S. National Working Group on Taximeters (USNWG) was held on Wednesday, 

March 13, 2013 via web-conference. This meeting was a continuation of the group’s work to update the 

Taximeters Code in the NIST Handbook 44 (Specifications, Tolerances, and Other Technical 

Requirements for Weighing and Measuring Devices).

Following the initial meeting of the group in 2012, it was recognized that a significant portion of the 

group’s discussions included some terms frequently used in a weights and measures regulatory context 

that need to be clearly defined. Some of these terms may not be fully understood by those who are not 

closely associated with the weights and measures community when those terms are used in that context. 

The major portion of the agenda for this meeting was based on this premise. Some of the terms included 

in this meeting’s agenda were part of the USNWG discussions during the group’s previous meeting in 

September 2012 when the work group developed draft definitions for those terms.

Where changes are proposed within this summary, the following formatting will be used to indicate those 

changes being recommended.

• Language proposed to be deleted will be shown using the strikethrough formatting.

• New language proposed to be added will be shown using bold, underlined formatting.

Contents

I. Definition of “Taximeter”..................................................................................................................... 2

taximeter. .............................................................................................................................................. 2

taximeter. – A device that, based on time and/or distance travelled automatically calculates, at a 

predetermined rate or rates and indicates the charge for hire of a vehicle.[5.54].................................2

II. Definition of “Taximeter Point of Sale System (POS)” ....................................................................... 3

point-of-sale system. – An assembly of 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........................................................................................................ 4

III. Definition of “Metrological effect” ...................................................................................................... 8

IV. Definition of “Primary Indications” ..................................................................................................... 8

V. Definition of “Extras Charges”............................................................................................................. 9

VI. Proposed addition of new requirement to HB44 Taximeters Code, paragraph A.2. ..........................11

VII. Final Notes.......................................................................................................................................... 13

VIII.Attendance .......................................................................................................................................... 14
USNWG on Taximeters March 13, 2013

2

I. Definition of “Taximeter”

Background:

The existing definition contained in NIST Handbook 44 (HB44) Appendix D for “taximeter” reads as 

follows:

taximeter. – A device that automatically calculates, at a predetermined rate or rates, and 

indicates the charge for hire of a vehicle.[5.54]

The work group was asked to comment on several points that were raised in the meeting’s agenda and 

which included:

• The existing definition describes a taximeter as a “device” which may not be an adequate 

description for the more complex systems that are currently being used in some taxis;

• “Taximeter” may not be appropriate in defining systems designed using GPS or other alternative 

sources of measurements because the suffix “meter” could be interpreted as a strictly mechanical 

type of device;

• The current definition for taximeter does not include any reference to the nature of the 

measurement (time and/or distance) which taximeters use to calculate a charge for hire.

An amendment to the existing definition was proposed to the work group and is shown below:

taximeter. – A device that, based on time and/or distance travelled automatically 

calculates, at a predetermined rate or rates and indicates the charge for hire of a 

vehicle.[5.54]

In addition to consideration of the definition for taximeter, the group was asked whether a taximeter 

should be considered a commercial weighing or measuring device subject to legal metrology regulation, 

when the basis for the calculation of a fare does not involve a measurement of time and/or distance. This 

can occur in jurisdictions where it is permitted to base a passenger’s fare on flat rates that have been preestablished for transportation on specific, frequently traveled routes.

Discussion:

The work group generally acknowledged that, initially the term “taximeter” was used to describe 

relatively simple mechanical-type, stand-alone devices. The group also recognized however, that 

“taximeter” has become a well-established term used to describe a device used in a vehicle-for-hire. The 

group generally agreed that the term adequately identifies the device as a means to assess a charge for the 

hire of a vehicle. A number of terms have become part of the “dialect” that is well established in this 

industry (e.g., fare, extras, flat rate, negotiated flat rate) and some of the USNWG members felt that
USNWG on Taximeters March 13, 2013

3

amendments to the term taximeter and its definition could potentially create a need for changes in many 

layers of regulation within this industry. 

Another reason that members of the work group cited to retain the current terminology was that any 

necessary distinction between stand-alone taximeters and taximeter systems could be made within 

specific requirements in the HB44 Taximeters Code rather than in HB44 Appendix D. This could be 

accomplished by drafting new requirements or amending existing requirements in such a way that the 

requirement would specifically apply to stand-alone taximeters, taximeter systems, or both.

While the work group considered that appropriate changes to the definition could result in a more 

accurate description of the function (time/distance measurement) of these devices, the majority of 

comments offered during the meeting supported maintaining the existing language and indicated that if 

the definition were to be amended to reflect the function (i.e., “a device that calculates based on 

time/distance”), then the use of flat rates (where permitted) could be considered as being non-compliant 

with the HB44 Taximeters Code

This issue was discussed further when the USNWG members were asked if, when the specific function of 

calculating a charge based on time and/or distance is not used, and the fare is based instead on a flat rate,

is the taximeter at that time considered to be a commercial weighing and measuring device and subject to

weights and measures laws?

It should be stated that while the value for established flat rates for transportation between frequently 

traveled points may be based on an average time or distance, flat rates should not to be confused with 

fares incurred during trips where the charges are based on actual measurements performed through the 

taximeter as the trip occurs.

USNWG member Mr Bill Fishman stated that a flat rate is simply an option for a rate selection where the 

rate at which fare is calculated is set at a zero factor for time/distance. Other members commented that if 

any amendment to the definition of taximeter is proposed, then the definition should not prohibit 

producing a fare through the use of flat rates.

Conclusion:

The majority of comments from the USNWG during the 3/13/13 web-conference indicated that the term 

“taximeter” and its definition do not need to be changed. Based on those comments, it is recommended 

that the term and definition for “taximeter” be retained in their current form and no further action is 

considered necessary for this item.

II. Definition of “Taximeter Point of Sale System (POS)”

Background:

The USNWG recognized during the September 2012 meeting that an existing definition in HB44 -

Appendix D for the phrase “point-of-sale” may not adequately describe the type of systems used in 

conjunction with taximeters. This existing definition reads as follows:
USNWG on Taximeters March 13, 2013

4

point-of-sale system. – An assembly of 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.

At that meeting, the work group agreed that a definition should be developed that better describes the type 

of system incorporating a taximeter. The definition shown below is the USNWG’s draft for a definition 

of a POS system specifically interfaced with a taximeter.

taximeter point-of-sale system. – An assembly of devices including, but not limited to a 

taximeter and any other interactive components connected (wired or wirelessly) that 

provide a means to accept electronic payment for charges, used to complete a sales 

transaction. 

In developing the definition for “taximeter point-of-sale”, the USNWG did not include a recording 

element as a required component of that system. While the group recognized the importance of providing 

the passenger a record of the service rendered and the associated charges, they also noted that today’s 

technology provides alternate methods for supplying a customer receipt (i.e., electronic receipt). 

It was pointed out to the work group that it has not been necessary in any of the HB44 specific codes to 

create a separate definition for a POS system used in conjunction with those specific types of devices. To 

propose a separate definition for POS system as used with taximeters could possibly detract from the 

consistency that is sought in language and principle between the various sections of HB44. The omission

of a required recording element in the draft for a “taximeter POS” provides an noticeable distinction of 

taximeters from other commercial weighing and measuring devices which are required to supply the 

customer a form of receipt. This distinction is a controversial issue for many regulatory officials that

support requiring that a recording element be used with taximeters.

Discussion:

The work group was asked to provide further explanation for the justification to develop a separate 

definition for “taximeter POS” rather than accepting the existing, generic definition. The group was also 

asked if amending the existing definition in HB44 for point-of-sale system could provide an acceptable 

alternative.

USNWG member Mr David Paul explained that the development of a draft for a new definition for 

“taximeter POS” by the work group during its initial meeting was based on the group recognizing that 

other proposed requirements for inclusion in HB44 were dependent on whether the equipment that is 

being referred to is considered either a taximeter or a taximeter POS.

Additional comments offered by USNWG members indicated that the reason to draft a new, separate 

definition was to clearly distinguish between stand-alone (traditional) taximeters and those that have been 

connected to associated equipment. In addition the new definition would help to recognize the nature of 

the interaction between the taximeter and other components within the system. USNWG member, Ms

Aileen Fox pointed out the proposed draft of a new definition for taximeters POS specifies that it is 

comprised of “interactive components” which is not specified in the existing POS definition. 
USNWG on Taximeters March 13, 2013

5

A point considered as critical to some work group members was that the proposed new definition for 

taximeter POS would require a means to provide an electronic form of payment. This is considered to be 

relevant when it is recognized that existing equipment being installed and used (e.g., credit card readers) 

in conjunction with taximeters will offer this method for finalizing transactions.

A major consideration regarding this issue is that the existing definition for point-of-sale system includes 

a recording element as a standard component within a POS system. This creates a situation where, if a 

taximeter is attached to accessory equipment, creating a system, it would not be classified under the 

existing definition as a point-of-sale system unless a recording element is included. Even in cases where 

the capabilities of the stand-alone taximeter are enhanced through an interface with a computer-type 

device (e.g., MDT), unless a recording element is also attached, this would not qualify as a POS system

under the existing definition. 

A number of regulatory officials have supported the notion that, because some jurisdictions have complex 

rate structures a printed receipt should be required to provide the passenger/customer assistance in fully 

understanding the charges incurred during a transaction. A printed receipt is largely viewed as a means to

supplement the minimal amount of information and space for that information that a typical taximeter is 

capable of providing/indicating. 

In order to supply a passenger with sufficient detail of the charges incurred during a transaction, it has 

been suggested that when a taxi is equipped with a system of components (either as a completely new 

installation or an upgrade for a stand-alone taximeter) the system should then be required to be capable of 

providing some form of receipt to the passenger.

Further comments from the USNWG members do indicate that the work group agrees in principle that, 

when the total charge for taxi service consists of many different fees, some form of receipt should be 

made available to the passenger with enough information to clearly identify all charges incurred.

The matter is complicated when a stand-alone taximeter is enhanced through the addition of accessory 

equipment such as Mobile Data Terminals (MDTs), Passenger Information/input Monitors (PIMs), or 

Driver Information/Input Monitors (DIMs). These components can greatly increase the functionality of a 

taximeter through the creation of a taximeter system and this form of upgrade is considered by some 

USNWG members to be justification in requiring a recording element. Until a recording element is also 

added however, under the existing definition of POS system this system would not constitute a POS 

system.

An additional point was raised by USNWG member Mr Jesse Davis who pointed out that the term 

“recording element” may need to be clarified. Existing definitions found in HB44, Appendix D for 

“recording element” and “recorded representation” describe devices and representations that do not 

necessarily encompass the possibility of electronic versions of either of those terms.

This particular agenda item involves multiple issues facing the USNWG and raises a number of questions. 

Some of the questions the work group is asked to consider are: 

• Can a point-of-sale system be defined by the functions of that system rather than the hardware 

components?
USNWG on Taximeters March 13, 2013

6

• What configuration of components (or what functions of a system) will signify that the system 

created by the interface of those components has evolved into a POS system?

• At what point (determined either by a change in equipment installed in a for-hire vehicle or an 

increase of a taximeter’s features/functions) is there justification to require that a recording 

element be required in association with a taximeter?

• Should the requirement of a recording element depend upon the complexity of a jurisdiction’s 

rate schedule?

Conclusion: 

Some members of the USNWG support the proposed definition for “taximeter POS” that was developed 

during the September 2012 meeting which does not require a recording element. Other members believe 

that this definition does not sufficiently define a POS because this new definition does not include what 

are considered critical components which have been traditionally considered as part of POS systems. 

Certain functions performed through a particular system may be performed by one or more components 

within that system. For example, a system of components connected to a retail gasoline dispenser may 

not consist of identical equipment as a system connected to food market checkout scale, even though the 

systems perform the same basic functions. Because the design, construction, installation, and capabilities 

of a system’s equipment may not be the identical when used in connection with various weighing and 

measuring devices, the NIST Technical Advisor to the USNWG suggested that a POS could be defined as 

a categorization of the functions it is capable of rather than the components (hardware) that comprise the 

system. These basic functions that are common to POS systems are as follows:

1. Determination of a weight or measure for a product or service offered Calculation of a charge for 

the product or service based on a price per unit 

2. Determination of a total cost by accumulating charges for distinct products or services or related 

fees associated with a transaction; 

3. Producing a sales receipt for the transaction (could be a printed receipt or an electronic receipt if 

customer chooses) when required.

Because there was no consensus regarding this item during the meeting, the USNWG members were

asked to consider the three questions listed below that were distributed to USNWG members on April 4, 

2013. These questions are considered to be critical to the resolution of this item were included in the 

March 13, 2013 meeting’s draft summary. USNWG members were requested to provide their responses 

to the NIST Technical Advisor. The following conclusion(s) are based upon the additional input received 

in response to those questions.

Question #1

Is it acceptable to amend the current definition of point-of-sale system as shown below, rather 

than creating a separate new definition only for taximeter POS?

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 
USNWG on Taximeters March 13, 2013

7

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

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

performing the following functions:

1. determination of a weight or measure of a product or service offered; 

2. calculation of a charge for a product or service that is based on an established 

price/rate structure; 

3. determination of a total cost based on all associated fees involved with the 

transaction; 

4. provision for a means to make and accept payment; and 

5. provision for a sales receipt when required by either buyer or seller in a form 

that is acceptable to all parties involved in the transaction.

While one response indicated that either resolution was acceptable, other responses rejected the proposal 

to create a new definition for “taximeter point-of-sale systems.” There were no responses however, in 

opposition to amending the existing definition of “Point-of-Sale System.” 

Another comment received stated that it would be more appropriate to consider whether the components 

in a system impart any metrological effect on the transaction when the application of various 

requirements will be determined.

In addition, some suggestions for changes to the amendments as shown above were provided. One 

comment indicated that “connected either wired or wirelessly” was not needed and that the word 

“interactive” was the only term needed to indicate that the components were interfaced. Other comments 

stated that listing the functions of a POS as shown were not needed and stated further that the functions 

could be listed in a separate specifications requirement within the Taximeters Code.

The amendments proposed for the existing definition of “point-of-sale systems” will be carried over to the 

next meeting of the USNWG.

Question #2

Is it acceptable to require a recording element which would provide a printed receipt (or an 

electronic form of receipt with customer approval) when a taximeter (or taximeter system) is 

capable of performing functions listed as numbers 1-4 in the previous question? If so, this of 

course would not be required on existing taximeters – the requirement would be nonretroactive.

One post-meeting comment recommended that any printed receipt should only be required if 

specified by local regulation. Responses from the majority of the work group however, indicated

support for a proposal that would require a recording element.

The development of such a proposal will be discussed at the next meeting of the USNWG. It should 

be noted that any proposal to require a recording element would be drafted as a non-retroactive 

requirement.
USNWG on Taximeters March 13, 2013

8

Question #3

Should a requirement for a recording element include an exemption for taximeters/systems used 

only in a jurisdiction with basic and very simple rate structures? Such as jurisdictions which 

only permit extras charges for additional passengers and transportation/handling of luggage.

The responses to this question were a unanimous rejection of any exemption such as mentioned.

III. Definition of “Metrological effect”

Background:

The discussion during the September 2012 meeting indicated that the term “metrological effect” or 

“metrological integrity” is not clearly understood and should be clarified prior to further discussion. This 

item was included on the agenda not to amend or revise the definition for the term but simply to ensure 

that the USNWG has a complete understanding of “metrological effect/integrity”. 

The following is an existing definition provided in NIST HB44, Appendix D:

metrological integrity (of a device). – The design, features, operation, installation, or 

use of a device that facilitates (1) the accuracy and validity of a measurement or 

transaction, (2) compliance of the device with weights and measures requirements, or 

(3) the suitability of the device for a given application.

Discussion:

The work group did not offer any additional comments that indicate there is a need to further amend the 

current definition for this term. Mr. Jesse Davis did propose however, that any responsibility for ensuring 

that the metrological integrity of a device/system remains intact, should be placed upon the taximeter

which offers the interface protocol for the connection of accessory devices. The additional devices which 

can be attached as accessories in a system should not bear this responsibility.

Not all members indicated their satisfaction with the existing definition however; no comments were 

made that indicated the term is misunderstood. No further work by the USNWG is recommended at this 

time.

IV. Definition of “Primary Indications”

Background:

Part of the discussions during the September 2012 meeting resulted in questions about what constitutes a 

“primary” display. An existing definition for “primary indicating or recording elements” is as follows:

primary indicating or recording elements. – The term “primary” is applied to those 

principal indicating (visual) elements and recording elements that are designed to, or 

may, be used by the operator in the normal commercial use of a device. The term 
USNWG on Taximeters March 13, 2013

9

“primary” is applied to any element or elements that may be the determining factor in 

arriving at the sale representation when the device is used commercially. (Examples of 

primary elements are the visual indicators for meters or scales not equipped with ticket 

printers or other recording elements and both the visual indicators and the ticket printers 

or other recording elements for meters or scales so equipped.) The term “primary” is not 

applied to such auxiliary elements as, for example, the totalizing register or 

predetermined-stop mechanism on a meter or the means for producing a running record 

of successive weighing operations, these elements being supplementary to those that are 

the determining factors in sales representations of individual deliveries or weights. (See 

“indicating element” and “recording element.”)

Discussion/Conclusion:

The listing of this item in the March 13, 2013 meeting’s agenda included a listing of situations and 

configurations with an explanation of how the primary indication would be determined in each case. The 

USNWG was requested in the agenda to review this listing and comment on it during the meeting. No 

comments were voiced during the meeting, no further action needed regarding this item. No additional 

comments were made, no further work by the USNWG is recommended at this time.

V. Definition of “Extras Charges”

Background:

During the September 2012 meeting the USNWG developed proposed amendments for the existing 

definition for “extras charges”. The existing definition for extras charges is as follows:

extras. – Charges to be paid by a passenger in addition to the fare, including any charge 

at a flat rate for the transportation of passengers in excess of a stated number and any 

charge for the transportation of baggage.[5.54]

The proposed amendments to this definition that were drafted at that meeting indicated that this term 

applies to charges that relate directly to the transportation service provided. Examples for these charges 

were included in an amended version developed by the WG as follows:

extras. - Any Ccharge or charges to be paid by a passenger in addition to the fare, that 

are directly related to the transportation service provided. Examples include but 

are not limited to charges for the transportation of baggage, fuel surcharges, 

bridge/tunnel/toll fees, telephone or dispatch surcharges/fees, and additional 

passenger fees. including any charge at a flat rate for the transportation of passengers in 

excess of a stated number and any charge for the transportation of baggage.[5.54]

The work group also elected to propose the addition of a new definition for the term “additional charges.” 

This addition would provide further clarification of some charges that may be applied but do not fall 

under the category of extras charges.
USNWG on Taximeters March 13, 2013

10

additional charges. - Any charge or charges to be paid by the passenger in addition to 

the fare and any extra(s) that are not directly related to the transportation services 

provided. Examples include but are not limited to purchase of items other than 

transportation services, tip, and taxes.

Discussion:

At the March 13, 2013 meeting, the USNWG was asked to review and comment on these proposals.

The NIST Technical Advisor recommended that the work group consider simply proposing an 

amendment of the term “extras charges” and that the proposal for a new definition of “additional charges” 

would not be necessary. Those charges and fees that are not covered under extras charges would by 

default be considered as additional charges. The USNWG was asked to consider additional changes to 

the work group’s draft definition of extras charges as follows:

extras. - Any charge or Ccharges to be paid by a passenger in addition to the fare, including 

any charge at a flat rate for the transportation of passengers in excess of a stated number and 

any charge for the transportation of baggage that are directly related to the transportation 

service provided. Examples include but are not limited to charges for the 

transportation of baggage, fuel surcharges, bridge/tunnel/toll fees, telephone or dispatch 

surcharges/fees, and additional passenger fees. Charges that are not considered as 

“extras” include (but are not limited to) tips, taxes, and purchases not related to the 

transportation service provided.[5.54]

The work group discussed whether charges for “taxes” and “tips” are associated with the transportation 

service that is provided and should these fees be considered as extras. Mr. Jesse Davis commented that 

extras charges should be considered as optional, but non-discretional fees added to the fare. He added

that any charge categorized as an extra should be a pre-set value and established prior to any transaction. 

Based on this premise, a tip should not be considered as an extras charge. There was general agreement 

from the group on this point.

Several members offered examples of different locales having variations in the way taxes are applied to 

goods and services. USNWG member, Mr. Robert McGrath stated that taxes applied to the cost of 

transportation services should not be listed as either extras or additional charges and suggested that the 

work group avoid categorizing all possible types of charges as this could better handled within the

development of language for specific requirements in HB44 that address the itemization of charges as 

well as through local regulation. 

Following the March 13, 2013 meeting, the NIST Technical Advisor drafted amendments for the existing 

definition of “extras charges” based on discussion from the work group during that meeting and offered 

the amended draft to the USNWG in the draft summary of the meeting which was circulated to the work 

group on April 4, 2013.

extras. – Any pre-existing Ccharges established prior to a transaction to be paid by a 

passenger in addition to the fare., Extras charges are those fees directly related to the 

transportation service provided including any charge at a flat rate for the transportation of 

passengers in excess of a stated number and any charge for the transportation of baggage.[5.54]
USNWG on Taximeters March 13, 2013

11

The work group was asked to forward their comments on this latest draft proposal to the NIST Technical 

Advisor via email (john.barton@nist.gov).

Conclusion:

There was general agreement among the USNWG that the definition for “extras” should be amended to 

indicate that these are charges directly associated with the transportation service provided, and that these 

charges are pre-set fees, established prior to the start of any transaction in which they will be included as 

part of the fare. While there were general comments from the group made regarding specific charges 

being considered as “additional charges”, there were no specific comments offered during this meeting 

that supported the proposal to add a new definition for the term “additional charges.”

Some of the comments contained in responses to the request for additional post-meeting input rejected the 

notion to further define extras charges in greater detail than in the existing HB44 definition. Most

however, were in favor of maintaining the amended language added which indicates that extras are those 

charges specifically related to the transportation service provided. 

The majority of post-meeting USNWG comments received also rejected the specific change that 

designates extras charges as those which would be established prior to a transaction. While “pre-existing” 

charges may be added to the total charge by activating control keys or buttons during any portion of the 

trip, USNWG members pointed out that the phrase “established prior to a transaction” may eliminate 

additional charges that may be legitimately added during a trip. For example: tolls incurred if the 

passenger elects to change routes during the trip and takes a route where an additional tolls are assessed.

This item will carry-over to the next meeting of the USNWG where additional consideration will be given 

to the definition of “extras charges.”

VI. Proposed addition of new requirement to HB44 Taximeters Code, 

paragraph A.2.

A.2 Associated Equipment. – This code also applies to associated equipment that can be 

interfaced with taximeters and which has any metrological effect on a taximeter such as: 

POS systems; driver/passenger input devices and displays; and computing types of devices 

(i.e., Mobile Data Terminals).

(Added 201X)

Background:

This proposed new requirement shown above was drafted to provide an understanding that equipment 

interfaced with taximeters as part of a system and, which has any metrological effect on the transaction 

involving that system will be regulated using the requirements found in the HB44 Taximeters Code. This 

proposal was considered during the September 2012 meeting however, the USNWG did not reach any 

agreement on this item and elected to table further discussion until definitions for certain terms such as: 
USNWG on Taximeters March 13, 2013

12

metrological effect/integrity; primary indication; point-of-sale; and other terms that are included in the 

agenda for the March 13, 2013 meeting, could be clearly defined and understood by the USNWG.

In some instances, the operation of associated devices within a taximeter system will impart metrological 

effects on transactions conducted using that system. The associated equipment in some systems may: 

alter total charges; affect the means by which required information is displayed or represented to an 

operator and/or passenger; and introduce the potential for fraudulent use of the taximeter system. In some 

cases this associated equipment would serve as a proxy for the taximeter and under those circumstances it 

would seem appropriate that requirements contained in HB44 applicable to a taximeter would be 

applicable to this equipment as well.

The work group acknowledged that certain associated equipment should be regulated under the HB44 

Taximeters Code but did not come to any agreement on what, if any requirements could apply and what 

criteria to use to determine what components within a system should fall under regulation. 

One notion that the USNWG did agree upon was the idea that the means of providing an interface 

between components (i.e., wired or wireless) would not factor into a determination whether those 

components were regulated or not.

Discussion:

During the March 13, 2013 USNWG meeting, the participants were asked revisit this item and to provide 

input on whether the proposed new requirement, paragraph A.2. is necessary. The USNWG was also 

asked to consider an existing requirement found in HB44 General Code under paragraph G-A.1. 

Commercial and Law-Enforcement Equipment. This requirement, being located in the General Code is 

applicable to all commercial and weighing devices and addresses the type of equipment that the 

requirements within HB44 would apply to. The subparagraph G-A.1.(b) reads as follows:

G-A.1. Commercial and Law-Enforcement Equipment. – These specifications, tolerances, 

and other technical requirements apply as follows:

(a) To commercial weighing...

(b) To any accessory attached to or used in connection with a commercial weighing or measuring 

device when such accessory is so designed that its operation affects the accuracy of the 

device.

(c) To weighing and...

It was pointed out the there are no current HB44 specific codes that include requirements similar to the 

proposed new requirement, A.2. Associated Equipment, and to include it in the Taximeters Code would 

not be consistent with the other HB44 codes. 

It should also be recognized that other requirements within the General Code will have direct effects on 

specific devices covered under separate HB44 codes. General Code requirement G-S.2. Facilitation of 

Fraud shown below refers to the design, construction, and installation of commercial devices.
USNWG on Taximeters March 13, 2013

13

G-S.2. Facilitation of Fraud. – All equipment and all mechanisms, software, and devices 

attached to or used in conjunction therewith shall be so designed, constructed, assembled, and installed 

for use such that they do not facilitate the perpetration of fraud.

(Amended 2007)

Most of the work group member’s comments indicated that this newly proposed requirement is 

unnecessary and is redundant to the General Code requirement G-A.1. It was also stated that the intent 

behind the requirement is the motivation for the work group developing a new definition for “taximeter 

point-of-sale.” If all associated equipment in a system is subject to regulation, then a taximeter point-ofsale system must be defined so that it is clear what equipment is considered as part of the system and 

therefore subject to the various requirements.

Mr. Jesse Davis stated his belief that the responsibility of compliance with relevant HB44 requirements 

should be placed upon the taximeter which supplies an interface and protocol and provides the capability 

for additional pieces of equipment to perform those various functions which may have a metrological 

effect on the transaction.

Conclusion:

Those comments offered during the March 13, 2013 meeting supported the notion that the newly 

proposed requirement is not necessary. There were no comments offered during the meeting in support of 

the proposal to add the new requirement to the Taximeters Code.

USNWG member, Ms. Joanne Rausen suggested that the work group should be further advised on the 

application of the General Code requirements prior to establishing any conclusions on this issue. 

With the understanding that the General Code requirements apply to all specific commercial devices, it is 

recommended that the proposal to add a new (A.2. Associated Equipment) requirement to the Taximeters 

Code be withdrawn until it is demonstrated that by reason of design, function, or installation, certain 

equipment attached to a taximeter would not be subject to requirements under the General Code. 

VII. Final Notes

The meeting was concluded at the scheduled time of 4:00 pm eastern time. The results of the two polls 

included in the web-conference showed that approximately one-third of the participants are unable to 

travel under any circumstances and that only a few participants (11%) had the ability to travel as 

necessary. The remaining participants were subject to restrictions which limit their ability to travel. The 

poll which asked members to make a selection of their preference for the date of the next USNWG 

meeting indicated that the largest percentage (67%) of participants would prefer the meeting to be held on 

May 22, 2013. Based on this information, the next meeting will be scheduled on that date and will also 

be a web-conference style meeting. 
USNWG on Taximeters March 13, 2013

14

VIII. Attendance

Name Affiliation Email

John Barton NIST Office of Weigts and Measures john.barton@nist.gov

Tina Butcher NIST Office of Weigts and Measures tina.butcher@nist.gov

James Cassidy City of Cambridge

Weights and Measures jcassidy@cambridgema.gov

Byron 

Corcoran Centrodyne, Inc. byron@centrodyne.com 

Jesse H. Davis President 

Creative Mobile Technologies LLC jdavis@cmtnyc.com

Bill Fishman bfishman@nycap.rr.com

Aileen Fox NYC Taxi and Limousine Commission foxa@tlc.nyc.gov

Angela 

Godwin

Sealer of Weights & Measures

Ventura County angela.godwin@ventura.org

Viktor Gruber Inspector Weights and Measures

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

Maria del 

Carmen Kern

Deputy Sealer of Weights and Measures

City and County of San Francisco Carmen.Kern@sfdph.org

Anthony Bong 

Lee

(Gary Smith, 

Juan Lopez)

Weights and Measures Inspector

Agricultural Commissioner’s Office/

Sealer of Weights and Measures

County of Orange

Bong.Lee@ocpw.ocgov.com 

Craig Leisy City of Seattle 

Consumer Affairs Unit craig.leisy@seattle.gov 

Jasmine 

LeVeaux Windels Marx Lane & Mittendorf, LLP mailto:jleveaux@windelsmarx.com

Bob McGrath City of Boston 

Weights and Measures Robert.McGrath@CityofBoston.Gov

Kevin 

McDonald City of Chicago Kevin.McDonald@cityofchicago.org

Javier Ortiz City of Chicago

David Paul Director, Business Operations

Taxi Magic dmp@taximagic.com 

Joanne Rausen NYC Taxi and Limousine Commission 

Legal Department Rausenj@tlc.nyc.gov 

John Roach

Division of Measurement Standards, 

California Department of Food and 

Agriculture

jroach@cdfa.ca.gov

Philip Steiner President

Centrodyne, Inc. psteiner@centrodyne.com

Keith Walsh NYC Taxi and Limousine Commission walshke@tlc.nyc.gov
USNWG on Taximeters March 13, 2013

15

Juana 

Williams NIST Office of Weigts and Measures juana.williams@nist.gov

James 

Wisniewski Frias Transportation Infrastructure james.wisniewski@transportationinfrastructure.com