USNWG ON TAXIMETERS

MAY 22, 2013

WEB-CONFERENCE SUMMARY

Contents

I. Carry-over agenda items.......................................................................................................... 2

A. Taximeter Point-of-Sale System/Recording Elements ........................................................ 2

B. Extras Charges..................................................................................................................... 7

C. Proposed new requirement: S.1.1.1. Point of Sale System................................................ 10

D. Proposed amendments to paragraph S.1.2. ........................................................................ 14

II. Update from GPS Subcommittee .......................................................................................... 16

III. Additional Notes................................................................................................................ 17

IV. Attendance ......................................................................................................................... 17
USNWG on Taximeters May 22, 2013

2

I. Carry-over agenda items

A. Taximeter Point-of-Sale System/Recording Elements

This carry-over item pertains to the development of an amendment for the definition of the 

term “point-of-sale system” as found in the NIST Handbook 44 (HB44), Appendix D.

Background:

During a meeting of the U.S. National Work Group on Taximeters (USNWG) held on 

September 2012 meeting, the work group members indicated their support for creating a 

new, separate definition for a taximeter point-of-sale system (POS) as a means to distinguish 

between a stand-alone (traditional) type of taximeter and taximeters that have been connected 

to more advanced components, creating taximeter system. This definition was developed

largely in response to a number of additional proposed changes to various requirements in the 

HB44 Taximeters Code which would apply only to POS systems associated with taximeters 

but not to stand-alone taximeters. The work group drafted a proposal to add a new, separate 

definition in HB44 Appendix D, for “taximeter point-of-sale” to better define a system 

associated with a taximeter as shown below.

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. 

Another point considered important to some work group members was that the proposed new 

definition for taximeter POS would include the requirement to provide a means for an

electronic form of payment. The members felt that it is important to include a means to 

facilitate electronic forms of payment as part of a description for a POS system used with a 

taximeter.

Also discussed at the September 2012 meeting was that current technology provides alternate 

methods for supplying a customer receipt (i.e., electronic receipt) and the USNWG agreed

that this capability should also be represented in the definition for “(taximeter) point-of-sale 

system.” 

One additional issue raised during the discussion during the September 2012 meeting was 

that the existing definition of point-of-sale systems specified that a recording element be 

included as a required component in the POS system. The USNWG recognized that other 

changes being proposed (also agenda items for that same meeting) within the HB44 

Taximeter Code would classify some taximeter systems as POS systems and, as a 
USNWG on Taximeters May 22, 2013

3

consequence of that designation; a recording element would then become a required 

component in those particular systems.

With regard to the question whether a recording element should be required, a number of 

USNWG members voiced the opinion that when a stand-alone taximeter is upgraded (i.e., 

adding components like MDTs, PIMs, DIMs), a printed receipt should be required at that 

point. Those USNWG members expressed the notion that the functionality of the device has 

been expanded when these types of components are added, and the resulting system is then 

capable of more than a stand-alone device and should therefore be capable of providing the 

passenger with a receipt.

The September 2012 meeting concluded without any consensus although the work group 

agreed to continue work on the development of this issue.

During the USNWG meeting held March 13, 2013, this item was addressed again. The NIST 

Technical Advisor pointed out to the work group that while other types of weighing and 

measuring devices are being used in association with POS systems, it has not been 

considered necessary to create a separate definition for a POS system used specifically with 

those other devices. Furthermore, the existing definition for point-of-sale systems was 

drafted using general terms to enable its application to multiple types of weighing and 

measuring devices. The NIST Technical Advisor also recommended that the work group not 

propose to add a separate definition for POS system as used with taximeters, believing that 

this would detract from the desired consistency in the language used and the principles 

applied throughout the various sections of HB44. 

During the March 13, 2013 meeting, the group was asked if amending the existing definition 

in HB44 for point-of-sale systems could achieve the same goal as creating a new and 

separate definition for “taximeter point-of-sale systems.” While some USNWG members 

restated their support to establish a new definition for “taximeter point-of-sale systems,”

others indicated that this alternative approach would be acceptable. The NIST Technical 

Advisor suggested that the existing definition for “point-of-sale systems” could be amended 

so that it would better represent the functions of a POS system rather than identifying 

specific hardware components required to comprise a POS system. The following draft 

amendment was offered to the group for consideration.

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 shall be capable of 

performing the following functions:

1. determination of a weight or measure of a product or service offered; 
USNWG on Taximeters May 22, 2013

4

2. calculation of a charge for the product or service 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.

Further discussions of the USNWG during the March 13, 2013 web-conference did not 

produce any consensus on this issue. In a post-meeting effort to resolve this item, the 

USNWG members were asked to respond via email to the following three questions. 

1. Is it acceptable to amend the current definition of point-of-sale system (as shown 

in the alternative definition for point-of-sale system offered above), rather than 

creating a separate new definition only for taximeter POS?

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 in the alternative 

amended definition for point-of-sale system provided above? 

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 these questions from the work group were largely in agreement and did not 

indicate any significant divergence of opinions. The answers received indicated that the 

group would support the amendment of the existing definition for POS systems as an 

alternative to proposing a new separate definition for “taximeter point-of-sale system.” The 

group’s responses also indicated support for a requirement mandating a recording element as 

part of a taximeter system, and that there should not be any exemption provided for the 

situation described in question #3 above.

A number of additional responses to the above questions were received including a comment 

that stated the belief that, in an attempt to distinguish between taximeter systems and standalone taximeters, the work group is trending towards applying the term “point-of-sale

system” to any interface of a taximeter and other associated equipment. This response 

suggested that it may not be appropriate to use the simple fact that an interface between a 

taximeter and associated equipment exists to determine if certain other requirements will 

apply. Alternatively, it would be more relevant to consider whether there is any metrological 

effect from either the individual accessory components or the system as a whole when 

determining if HB44 requirements should apply. 
USNWG on Taximeters May 22, 2013

5

One comment received recommended that the development of any proposals to amend or add 

new requirements in the HB44 Taximeters Code should not be motivated by considering 

whether the regulation is applicable to stand-alone taximeters or to POS systems. Instead,

the application of requirements should be based on what (if any) metrological effect on a 

transaction is imparted by individual components or taximeter systems. 

Other comments recommended additional changes to the proposed amendment of the 

existing POS definition and are shown below.

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 shall be capable of the 

following:

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

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

measure an established price/rate structure; 

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

the transaction; 

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

4. providing a sales receipt in a form that is acceptable to all parties involved in the 

transaction when required by either buyer or seller.

The majority of responses also indicated support for proposing that taximeters/systems be 

required to include a recording element. However, one comment recommends that any

determination of whether or not a recording element will be required should be based on the 

user’s and/or regulator’s need for a receipt. Another response added that any proposed

requirement for a recording element should not be applicable to all taximeters or taximeter 

systems. That response also noted that in some jurisdictions where the allowable charges 

incurred for taxi service are very limited, the requirement of a recording element could be an 

unnecessary burden.

Discussion:

During the May 22, 2013 meeting the NIST Technical Advisor to the USNWG provided the 

work group with data from the responses to the three questions that were included in the 

previous meeting’s summary and are listed above. 

Those responses indicated that the USNWG would support the amendment of the existing 

definition for “point-of-sale systems” rather than continue with the development of a separate 

definition for “taximeter point-of-sale systems.” 
USNWG on Taximeters May 22, 2013

6

The work group agreed that this definition (and any subsequent amendment to it) would 

remain generic (i.e., relative to all types of weighing and measuring devices). 

Because this definition is intended to be generic in nature, Ms. Joanne Rausen questioned 

whether a work group such as the USNWG on Taximeters could, on its own advance the 

proposed changes without consultation or input from work groups representing other types of 

devices that may also be associated with point-of-sale systems.

An explanation was provided that any proposal submitted through the National Conference 

on Weights and Measures (NCWM) would be vetted by committees and voting members 

who are involved with the regulation of all types of devices.

The NIST Technical Advisor to the USNWG noted that this issue has been inextricably 

linked to the development of a proposal that would require a recoding element to be included 

within a taximeter system. While the discussion regarding both issues overlapped during the 

meeting, the portion of the discussion related to a requirement of a recording element has

been documented under that item (I-C) in this summary.

Conclusions:

The USNWG agreed to discontinue the effort to develop and propose the addition of a new 

definition for “taximeter point-of-sale systems.” The group also agreed to support the 

amendment of the existing definition for “point-of-sale systems,” and to base a proposal for 

that amendment on the draft amendment presented during the May 22 meeting. This draft 

will undergo additional review by the USNWG however.

The group was presented the following draft for a proposed amendment:

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 shall 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 an established price/rate structure; 

3. determining a total cost that includes based on all associated fees 

involved with the transaction; 

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

54 providing a sales receipt when required by either buyer or seller in a 

form that is acceptable to all parties involved in the transaction.
USNWG on Taximeters May 22, 2013

7

Some USNWG members questioned whether the provision for means to make and accept 

payment should be stricken or should remain as an indicator for a point-of-sale system. The 

work group was informed that this particular characteristic of a point-of-sale system is shown 

in the latest draft version as being deleted. This was done in response to a comment stating 

that this function/feature would not have any metrological effect on a transaction. Mr. Keith 

Walsh then raised the question whether that was a valid justification for eliminating that 

portion of the proposal.

Mr. Bill Fishman recommended that the wording “and may also be equipped with a 

scanner” is not needed and should be deleted because scanners are now widely accepted as 

commonplace equipment in direct sale check-out registers. This was not the case at the time 

the original requirement was drafted.

The USNWG had no further comments at this time. 

The work group will be asked to review a revised draft of this proposal which will be 

circulated prior to the next USNWG meeting. The revised draft will be added as an agenda 

item on that meeting’s schedule. If the USNWG indicates support for the revision of this 

draft at the work group’s next meeting, a proposal for amending the existing definition of 

“point-of-sale systems” would be submitted as a recommended HB44 change.

B. Extras Charges

This carry-over item involves amending the existing definition in NIST Handbook 44, 

Appendix D for the term “extras”.

Background:

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

existing definition for “extras”. 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 resulted from that meeting indicated that 

this term should specifically apply to charges that relate directly to the transportation service 

provided. Examples of these charges were included in an amended version developed by the 

USNWG 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 
USNWG on Taximeters May 22, 2013

8

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.” The NIST Technical Advisor recommended that the work group 

consider simply proposing an amendment of the term “extras” 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

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

During a meeting of the USNWG on March 13, 2013, 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 tips, taxes, surcharges and other specific fees would be 

appropriately considered as extras. Mr. Jesse Davis expressed the notion that extras charges 

should be limited to charges that have been established as set fees and were not subject to 

change during a trip. No consensus among the USNWG regarding the acceptance of this 

proposal was achieved during the meeting.

Following the March 13, 2013 meeting, the NIST Technical Advisor drafted further 

amendments for the existing definition of “extras charges” based on discussion from the 

work group during the meeting and offered the changes shown below to the USNWG for 

review and comment on the proposed changes. This draft was circulated to the USNWG by 

including it within the summary of the March 13th meeting.

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]

The USNWG was asked to comment via email on the latest draft (as shown above) and to

indicate support or opposition of the amendments as shown.

Discussion:
USNWG on Taximeters May 22, 2013

9

At the May 22, 2013 USNWG meeting, the NIST Technical Advisor informed the work 

group of the responses that were received based on the questions contained in the summary 

of the March 13, 2013 meeting. While some comments rejected the notion to further define 

extras charges in greater detail than in the existing HB44 definition, most comments received 

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

charges specifically related to the transportation service provided. 

The majority of 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” would seem to 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. Based on this 

feedback “established prior to a transaction” was deleted in a subsequent draft proposal. This 

proposal is offered for the work group to consider.

extras. – Any pre-existing Ccharges 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]

During the May 22, 2013 USNWG meeting, Mr. Bill Fishman raised a question regarding 

fees such as tariffs or taxes that may be incurred, asking if these fees are considered to be 

extras. The NIST Technical Advisor suggested that these fees should be considered as extras 

since they are applied to charges (fare) directly related to the transportation of the passenger.

Mr. David Paul expressed his belief that the effort to establish a definition for “additional 

charges” as proposed previously should not be abandoned, and that there is a value in 

providing that definition. The development of a definition for additional charges was 

questioned however, considering the term “extras” is used in Handbook 44 to describe a 

very specific set of charges, the only use of the term “additional charges” is to describe 

various fees in a general sense.

Some work group members expressed the idea that providing examples within the definition 

for “extras” provides additional clarity to the definition and recommended that some 

examples be inserted into the proposed definition. Mr. Keith Walsh suggested that the 

wording “but not limited to” be inserted in the draft proposal as shown below.

extras. – Any pre-existing Ccharges to be paid by a passenger in addition to the fare., Extras 

charges are those fees directly related to the transportation service provided including but 

not limited to 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]

There were additional concerns raised by the work group with regard to the addition of the 

wording “pre-existing” that is included as part of the draft proposal shown above. Some 
USNWG on Taximeters May 22, 2013

10

USNWG members indicated that that language is confusing and suggested that “preexisting” needs to be adequately defined. Mr. Bob McGrath stated however, that the 

definition for extras is not created for the benefit or use by the public (taxi 

customers/passengers) and that it would not be confusing to those who must interpret 

Handbook 44 requirements. Other work group members suggested that there may be a more 

appropriate term although no other option was offered at that time.

Mr. Bill Fishman added that in some cases additional charges (not considered as extras) will 

be added through the controls on a taximeter and displayed in the extras display area on the 

primary indicating element. This generated discussion among the work group pertaining to 

the ability of such a taximeter to clearly indicate to the passenger what extras are incurred 

and the possibility that the display of both extras and additional charges in the same location

on the indicating element may cause confusion about what fees are being assessed. The work 

group agreed that this issue is important and that any proposals drafted in the future must be 

done in a way that will not promote the distinction between extras and additional charges to 

become blurred.

Conclusions: 

At the May 22, 2013 meeting the USNWG generally indicated their agreement to the draft 

proposal shown above but also recommended that the definition include reference that 

additional charges may also be incurred which are not included as fare and are not considered 

as extras. The NIST Technical Advisor agreed to provide further amendments to this draft 

proposal and will present a revised draft for further review by the USNWG members. 

C. Proposed new requirement: S.1.1.1. Point of Sale System

This proposal intends to add a new requirement in the HB44 Taximeters Code and would 

require that taximeter systems classified as a taximeter point-of-sale system include means to 

provide a printed receipt for all transactions

S.1.1.1 Point of Sale System. A printed 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 with point-of-sale systems 

[Nonretroactive 20XX]

(Added 20XX)

Background:

This proposed new requirement was initially developed during a meeting of small working 

group that met in August 2011 to develop a draft for an update for the HB44 Taximeters 

Code. The proposed new requirement was discussed briefly during the meeting of the 

USNWG in September 2012. .
USNWG on Taximeters May 22, 2013

11

As stated under this proposal, a printed receipt would be required based on the existence of a 

POS system and that information required under HB44 Taximeters Code paragraph S.1.9. is 

included on that receipt. 

No agreement was reached among the USNWG regarding this issue at the September 2012 

meeting.

Discussion:

This item proposing that a recording element is required as part of a point-of-sale system was 

closely tied to the discussion of item IA (above). Part of that discussion, was a suggestion

that rather than requiring a recording element simply based on the term “point-of-sale 

system” being applied to a taximeter system, it would be more appropriate to mandate a

recording element based on a set of criteria that identifies specific features of the system and 

how they are used. 

At the May 22 USNWG meeting, the NIST Technical Advisor recommended that this draft 

proposal be replaced with a proposal that a recording element be required based on criteria 

contained in a list developed by the USNWG (these examples are shown in item IA above). 

Furthermore, it was suggested that the USNWG determine a set of criteria that would elicit a 

requirement for a recording element as part of a taximeter system. The list should be 

applicable to a stand-alone taximeter or a taximeter system. A specification requirement 

could then be drafted based on these criteria that will provide regulators with a well-defined 

basis for applying the requirement of a recording element. This would also provide

manufacturers with clearly defined design specifications

It is anticipated that any requirement developed to address this issue would be drafted as a 

nonretroactive requirement that would only be enforceable on equipment 

manufactured/placed into service on or after an established effective date.

The NIST Technical Advisor presented the work group with the following suggestions for 

rationale to determine when a recording element should be required:

• Requirements of the local authority;

• The complexity of the rate structure; and 

• The sophistication of the taximeter system. (not only the hardware and software used 

but also the features that it may offer – i.e., non-transportation products/services)

This is a preliminary list and may need to be further developed.

The following explanation was given to the USNWG of how each of the aforementioned 

general elements may be used to determine when a recording element should be required.
USNWG on Taximeters May 22, 2013

12

The first element listed above recognizes the requirements of the regulatory authority in the 

jurisdiction where the taximeter/system is operated. The NIST Technical Advisor suggested 

that the group support the notion, that if regulation in the local jurisdiction requires a 

recording element, that requirement should be upheld.

The second element on the above list is a recommendation that a requirement for a recording 

element be based also on the degree of complexity of the rate structure within a jurisdiction 

and that the “triggers” used to determine the need of a recording element may include:

• When any extras permitted are in excess of those charges for additional passengers or 

transportation of luggage;

• When rate differentials are permitted for trips in excess of set limits on distance 

travelled or passage of time;

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

with the service of transportation of the customer.

The third element listed as a potential consideration in determining whether or not a 

recording element is required is the sophistication of the taximeter system. This notion 

suggests that the requirement for a recording element could be based on the functions and/or 

features that a taximeter/taximeter system is capable of. The NIST Technical Advisor 

informed the group that initially, this seemed to be a reasonable basis for proposing a 

requirement of a recording element. At the time of the May 22 meeting however, this 

suggestion was recognized as a catalyst that could steer the work group away from progress 

and back to its previous struggle to define point-of-sale systems in terms of the components 

included in the system. For that reason, it was recommended that this approach not be 

included as part of the criteria used to determine when a recording element is required. 

Based on the above suggestions, the USNWG was asked to consider the following draft as a 

proposed requirement that would serve to replace the initial proposal to add a new 

requirement; S.1.1.1. Point of Sale System.

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 are in excess of those charges for additional passengers or 

transportation of luggage;

c) When rate differentials are permitted for trips in excess of set limits on distance 

travelled or passage of time;

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

the service of transportation of the customer.
USNWG on Taximeters May 22, 2013

13

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

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

etc.).

[Nonretroactive 20XX]

(Added 20XX)

No objections were stated regarding the basic notion that a recording element be required as 

part of a taximeter system. Most of the work group indicated however, that it would not 

always be appropriate to do so and that there are specific circumstances which would not 

warrant such a requirement. 

Some members in the group expressed their concerns for allowing exemptions based on the 

local regulations of individual jurisdictions, other work group members stated that local 

authorities should maintain the ability to “opt-in” or “opt-out” regarding the application of 

such a requirement. Mr. Bill Fishman noted that while exemptions may be provided by the 

local authorities during a routine field examination, when submitted for a type evaluation, a 

taximeter system would be required to comply with all applicable HB44 requirements. Mr. 

Bob McGrath added that since many jurisdictions adopt Handbook 44 by reference, if a 

proposal becomes adopted as a requirement into HB44, it may not be a simple decision 

whether that requirement will be enforced or not. 

Mr. Byron Corcoran commented that there are other circumstances involving the use of rate 

differentials which are not included in the draft proposal shown above and which should be 

considered as well. One such example would be a rate differential that applies to trips that 

exceed a threshold for a specific monetary value.

Others in the group suggested that a recording element should be required at any point when 

any rate change occurs. Some group members indicated that a recording element should be 

required if any rate that is charged is a variable rate that can change during a trip.

The USNWG had no further comments on this issue.

Conclusions:

The USNWG has agreed in general to support a proposal which will specify that a recording 

element be required as part of a taximeter system under appropriate conditions. The exact 

nature of the criteria which will serve to identify when a recording element is required needs 

further development however.

In addition, the work group agreed with the premise that local regulations should be upheld 

when they require that a recording element be included in a taximeter system. 

After some discussion regarding the definition of extras, the work group also agreed that any

proposed requirement for a recording element would not apply to taximeter systems which 
USNWG on Taximeters May 22, 2013

14

are not permitted to assess extras charges beyond those incurred for additional passengers 

and the transportation of luggage.

The NIST Technical Advisor will draft a revised version of S.1.1.1. shown above and base

that revision on the discussions from the May 22, 2013 meeting of the USNWG. This draft 

will then be presented for review by the USNWG. The consideration of this draft will be 

included in the agenda of the next meeting of the USNWG.

D. Proposed amendments to paragraph S.1.2.

The proposal shown below consisted of amendments to paragraph S.1.2. made to recognize 

that fare indications may be advanced by means other than the movement of the vehicle or by 

the time mechanism..

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

primary indicating and recording elements shall be susceptible of advancement only by the 

movement of the vehicle or by the time mechanism, or by automatic entry of a predetermined 

fixed rate.

(Amended 1988, and 201X)

Background:

Many taxicab companies wish to use alternative types of fare charges (e.g., flat rate based 

fares where permitted) that would be entered into the taximeter as a way to document 

transactions and revenue whether the charges are based on a metered distance/time or by 

other arrangements. Because some jurisdictions allow charges based on predetermined flat 

rates, it has been suggested the use of this type of fares should be reflected by appropriate 

HB44 references. Furthermore some jurisdictions permit the use of “negotiated flat rates” 

where an established charge for a flat rate may be negotiated by the passenger and driver.

During the discussions at the September 2012 USNWG meeting, the point was made that a 

gap exists between the use of flat rates and the HB44 Taximeters Code paragraph S.1.2. 

because the input of flat rates or negotiated flat rates would cause the meter indications (i.e., 

fare) to advance. This would not comply with existing requirement S.1.2. which states that 

indications are only allowed to advance by the movement of the vehicle while the input of 

any flat rate is not dependent on the movement of the vehicle.

Further discussions of the group on this item, resulted in additional editorial work to amend 

the proposal as shown below:

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

the fare as displayed by the primary indicating and recording elements shall be susceptible of 
USNWG on Taximeters May 22, 2013

15

advancement only by the movement of the vehicle or by the time mechanism, a combination of 

both, or by the automatic or manual entry of a monetary amount as permitted by the 

activation of a flat or negotiated rate.

Extras charges may be advanced by any means.

(Amended 1988, and 201X)

At the conclusion of the September 2012 meeting, there was no agreement within the 

USNWG regarding this item. Following that meeting, the NIST Technical Advisor to the 

work group further modified this proposal in a draft for the group to consider as shown 

below:

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 indications for charges not based on the measurement of distance and time 

(including extras charges) may occur through manual or automatic means.

(Amended 1988, and 201X)

Discussion:

During the May 22, 2013 USNWG meeting, the work group was asked to consider the above 

draft. There was general discussion among the work group in which it was recognized that 

while the original requirement was intended to be applied to the display of an indication of 

fare, some regulatory officials considered that the advancement of indications in this 

requirement also applied to the advancement of indications in the extras display. The 

language that has been added in the above draft of this proposed amendment clarifies that the 

requirement would apply to indications of fare and allows for the advancement of the fare 

indications by means other than the movement of the vehicle or by the time mechanism. 

The discussions of the USNWG indicated that clarification is necessary for the last sentence 

in the proposed amendment shown above. The last sentence in the amended paragraph 

acknowledges and provides for the advancement of indications through the entry of charges 

other than fare. Mr. Bill Fishman questioned what types of additional charges (other than 

extras) are being referred to in that final sentence. 
USNWG on Taximeters May 22, 2013

16

There was general agreement among the work group that the identification and itemization of 

additional charges should not occur within this particular requirement. The itemization of 

charges may however be appropriate under other requirements (e.g., HB44 Taximeters Code 

S.1.9.).

Mr. Fishman pointed out that for a number of taximeter designs the entry of additional 

charges (not considered as extras) will result in the advancement of the displayed indications 

of extras. In those cases, taximeters are equipped with separate displays only for fare and for 

extras and that non-extras additional charges are incorporated with the extras indications. 

Most of the USNWG agreed that when extras and additional charges are displayed as a 

combined indication and the customer is not provided with a means to distinguish between 

these charges, the customer would not be provided with a sufficiently clear statement of 

charges.

Mr. Fishman suggested that the language in this proposal should be unspecific with regard to 

the type of charges indicated and instead refer to the advancement of the extras display. By 

doing so, the requirement is not directly referring to extras charges or to any additional 

charges that may be displayed in combination with the extras charges. 

While acknowledging the existence of the types of taximeter designs where extras and other 

additional charges (not considered as extras) may be combined into a single displayed 

indication, Ms. Juana Williams noted that this may not be a situation that will remain 

unchallenged. Considering past and current efforts to provide the passenger with 

unambiguous information involved in a transaction, the USNWG or others may at some point 

offer proposals that would require a clear distinction between all charges incurred.

Conclusions:

The work group indicated its support for the most recent version of the proposal to amend 

S.1.2. however, the members agreed that the last sentence in this proposed amendment

should not be worded so that additional charges other than extras are referenced.

The NIST Technical Advisor will draft a revision of this proposal and present the revised 

version to the USNWG. The consideration of that revised version will be placed on the 

agenda for the work group’s next meeting.

II. Update from GPS Subcommittee

Discussion/Conclusion:
USNWG on Taximeters May 22, 2013

17

During the May 22nd meeting, and in the absence of the GPS Subcommittee Chair, Mr. Bill 

Fishman (Subcommittee Co-Chair) provided the USNWG with an update of the activities of 

the subcommittee.

The USNWG was informed that the subcommittee had been asked to respond to a 

questionnaire that was drafted to gather information from the subcommittee members 

regarding the direction and scope of the group’s efforts. The three questions posed to the 

subcommittee members were intended to assist the group in achieving a better focus on its 

overall objectives.

The USNWG was informed that all substantive issues considered among the subcommittee 

including any decisions and conclusions made will be further reviewed by the entire 

USNWG prior to any final determinations being made. Any proposals for additions or 

amendments to HB44 requirements will be sanctioned by the USNWG prior to being 

submitted for consideration by NCWM. In addition, the USNWG meeting agendas will 

include updates from the subcommittee when warranted.

It has also been determined that this subcommittee will attempt to conduct its meetings and 

soliciting the member’s comments and opinions on various matters via email. Although it is 

foreseen that more personal meetings will be necessary at some point, this exchange of 

emails will be used as a substitute for meetings when, and as often as practical.

III. Additional Notes

A poll was provided during the May 22, 2013 web-conference where participants were asked

to select up to three dates from several options provided. These dates were selected on the 

basis of when would be an acceptable date to schedule the work group’s next meeting. The 

result of this poll indicated that the date receiving the greatest amount of approval (60%) was 

July 10, 2013. The next scheduled meeting of the USNWG will therefore be held on 

Wednesday, July 10, 2013. More information about this next meeting will be provided in 

advance.

IV. Attendance

Name Affiliation Email

John Barton NIST Office of Weights and 

Measures john.barton@nist.gov

James Cassidy City of Cambridge

Weights and Measures jcassidy@cambridgema.gov

Byron Corcoran Centrodyne, Inc. byron@centrodyne.com 
USNWG on Taximeters May 22, 2013

18

Jesse H. Davis President 

Creative Mobile Technologies LLC jdavis@cmtnyc.com

Bill Fishman bfishman@nycap.rr.com

Aileen Fox

NYC Taxi and Limousine 

Commission

Legal Department

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

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

Bob McGrath City of Boston 

Weights and Measures Robert.McGrath@CityofBoston.Gov

David Paul Director, Business Operations

Taxi Magic dmp@taximagic.com 

Joanne Rausen

NYC Taxi and Limousine 

Commission 

Policy Group

Rausenj@tlc.nyc.gov 

Stan Toy Santa Clara County Weights & 

Measures stan.toy@aem.sccgov.org

Keith Walsh

NYC Taxi and Limousine 

Commission 

Legal Department

walshke@tlc.nyc.gov

Juana Williams NIST Office of Weights and 

Measures juana.williams@nist.gov