1

USNWG ON TAXIMETERS

SEPTEMBER 24 – 26, 2012

GAITHERSBURG, MD

MEETING SUMMARY

This document is a summary of the U.S. National Work Group on Taximeters (USNWG) September 24-

26, 2012 meeting held at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in Gaithersburg, MD.

The meeting was held to discuss proposed amendments for the update of NIST Handbook 44 

Specifications, Tolerances and Other Technical Requirements for Weighing and Measuring Devices 

(HB44), Section 5.54 (Taximeters Code) to address legal metrology requirements for emerging 

technologies in the taximeter industry.

This was the second meeting of the USNWG and the first opportunity for the members to meet face-toface. In addition to those able to attend the meeting in person, the meeting was also attended by 

several USNWG members through web-conference.

Those in attendance included: regulatory officials from state and local weights and measures

jurisdictions; representatives of the New York Taxi and Limousine Commission (transportation 

associations and legal counsel); manufacturing representatives of taximeters and associated equipment; 

taximeter related software developers; representatives from U.S. type evaluation laboratories; and 

technical advisors from NIST Office of Weights and Measures (OWM) and Time and Frequency Division.

The USNWG is being coordinated through the NIST Office of Weights and Measures. NIST, in an 

agreement with the National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM) has accepted the role as 

the sponsor and organizer of the USNWG. 
USNWG on Taximeters NIST - Gaithersburg, MD

Meeting Summary September 24-26, 2012

2

Table of Contents

1 General considerations (terminology and Handbook 44 definitions) ................................................... 3

1.1 HB44 Appendix D Definitions........................................................................................................ 3

1.1.1 Taximeter.................................................................................................................................. 3

1.1.2 Point of Sale Systems................................................................................................................ 3

1.1.3 Proposal for new terminology “Taximeter point-of-sale system”............................................ 4

1.1.4 Metrological [Integrity/ Effect]................................................................................................. 4

1.2 Evaluation/Examination................................................................................................................ 5

2 Meeting Agenda.................................................................................................................................... 5

2.1 Item 4.1 – Proposed new paragraph A.2 Associated Equipment ................................................. 6

2.2 Item 4.2 - Proposed new paragraph S.1.1.1 Point of Sale System................................................ 8

2.3 Item 4.3 – Amendment of S.1.2. Advancement of Indicating Elements....................................... 9

2.4 Item 4.4 – Proposal for new requirement S.1.3.3. Customer’s Indications................................12

2.5 Item 4.6 – Proposed amendment to S.1.5.1. General and S.1.5.2. Time not Recording............14

2.6 Item 4.7. – Proposed addition of new paragraph S.1.7.1. Identification of Extras Charges.......17

2.7 Item 4.8 – Proposal to amend paragraph S.1.8. Protection of Indications.................................19

2.8 Item 4.9 – Proposed changes to paragraph S.1.9. Recorded Representations .........................20

2.9 Item 4.13 – Proposal to amend paragraph S.5 Provision for Security Seals..............................24

2.10 Items 4.5, 4.10, 4.11, and 4.12.................................................................................................... 28

2.11 Item: GPS as a distance/time measurement device .................................................................. 29

2.12 Item: Mobile (smart) Telephone Apps....................................................................................... 32

3 Meeting Conclusions:.......................................................................................................................... 33
USNWG on Taximeters NIST - Gaithersburg, MD

Meeting Summary September 24-26, 2012

3

1 General considerations (terminology and Handbook 44 

definitions)

The USNWG meeting began with a discussion regarding recommended changes to NIST Handbook 44, 

Section 5.54 (Taximeters Code). The group quickly realized that additional work not originally included 

as part of the agenda needed to be addressed. Preliminary work was necessary for the work group to 

agree on the meaning of certain terms specified in HB44 Appendix D and to identify and define any new 

terms as appropriate.

Many of the basic concepts and definitions that are understood and used routinely in the weights and 

measures community are not clearly defined and understood to those outside that circle. Some 

terminology, when used in context with taximeter systems must be clearly defined so that the meaning 

is understood by the entire USNWG. The work group initially identified at least three terms which will 

handicap the group’s progress unless clearly understood by all members.

1.1 HB44 Appendix D Definitions

1.1.1 Taximeter

The definition of the term “taximeter” itself (as found in Appendix D in HB44) was challenged by 

industry when the group’s discussions involved various types of accessory equipment being interfaced 

with a taximeter. Some of the associated equipment will perform functions that in the past that were 

solely performed by the taximeter. The concept of a taximeter from 15-20 years ago had been a standalone device however, in many instances taximeters are being interfaced with various accessory 

components to become integrated taximeter systems. 

The USNWG agreed that the current definition for “taximeter” in Appendix D will suffice and did not 

elect to propose any amendment for the definition of “taximeter” at this time. However, the members 

clearly recognized that a number of HB44 requirements which are appropriate for stand-alone 

taximeters are in need of amendment to make them applicable to today’s taximeter systems.

1.1.2 Point of Sale Systems

It became apparent to the USNWG that the definition for “point-of-sale” (POS) as it relates to a 

taximeter was not clearly understood by all. Although a definition for “point-of-sale system” already 

exists in HB44 Appendix D, the group devoted considerable attention and time to clearly define point-ofsale system as used in the context of taximeters. The work group deliberated on what components will 

comprise a point-of-sale system in relation to taximeters. The existing definition of point-of-sale system 

in Appendix D of HB44 reads as follows:
USNWG on Taximeters NIST - Gaithersburg, MD

Meeting Summary September 24-26, 2012

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.

While an “assembly of elements” aptly describes systems that can be found in taxis today, this definition 

did not seem entirely appropriate in relation to taximeters. Typical taximeter systems will not include 

any type of scanner and contrary to the above definition, under the current requirements of HB44 

taximeters are not required to have a recording element. It should be noted however, that other device 

codes in HB44 require that POS systems and devices that facilitate payment for a transaction provide a 

printed receipt. 

Additionally, there are taximeters produced where multiple components are combined within a single

housing and which provide indications of fare, extras, and other information and may also be equipped 

with an integrated printer. There was disagreement within the USNWG as to whether such a device 

could accurately be classified as a POS system.

1.1.3 Proposal for new terminology “Taximeter point-of-sale system”

The group did develop a draft definition for “Taximeter point-of-sale system” as follows:

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.

Considering that current taximeter systems comprised of multiple elements (taximeters, mobile data 

terminals, passenger/driver information monitors) but lacking a recording element have been appearing 

recently in a number of metropolitan areas, the group felt that a manufacturer could circumvent having 

their device classified as a POS system and thus avoid regulation if their device did not include a printer. 

In the case of some transportation services (e.g., those operating using mobile telephones and their 

“apps”), the passenger can be provided an electronic form of receipt on their mobile phone or email 

account and in those cases a printed receipt would not be necessary. This was the basis for the USNWG 

decision not to include a recording element as a required element in a POS system. 

1.1.4 Metrological [Integrity/ Effect]

During further discussion regarding the specific components that are necessary for a system to be 

considered as a POS within the context of a taximeter, the group considered which components that are 

being attached to a taximeter would have metrological effects on the system. This led to additional

discussion regarding the definition of the terms “metrological effect” or “metrological integrity.” 

Currently, HB44, Appendix D only provides a definition for the term metrological integrity as shown 

below:
USNWG on Taximeters NIST - Gaithersburg, MD

Meeting Summary September 24-26, 2012

5

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.

An explanation was given to the group that in the context of weights and measures, metrological 

features of a device refers not only to its ability to accurately perform that device’s intended

measurement but the term also encompasses the way that the measurement data is presented or 

displayed and how that may affect an associated transaction. Some examples of metrological effects 

not directly associated with performing the measurement would include (but are not limited to):

• the readability of the device’s display and any recorded/printed receipts;

• the positive identification of measurement units;

• the suitability of the device for its intended purpose; and 

• any feature of that device that would facilitate fraudulent use.

There was no further effort by the USNWG at this time to clarify or redefine these terms.

1.2 Evaluation/Examination

One other important topic that surfaced during this initial period of general discussion involved the 

distinction between the type evaluation of a device (primarily based on criteria found in NCWM 

Publication 14) and the field examination of the device primarily based on Handbook 44 specifications, 

tolerances, and other requirements. During this part of the discussion, the group was informed that 

type evaluation may include more extensive test procedures than that which are specified in HB44 in 

the device code Notes section. The reverse is also true in that a routine field examination will almost 

always involve applying requirements that are not appropriate in conditions present during a typical 

type evaluation. For example:

• a type evaluation may include analyzing the effects of temperature change upon the 

performance of a device or components of a system under controlled conditions (i.e. 

environmental chamber); and in contrast

• a field examination would most likely include verification that the device has been installed 

properly (typically as per manufacturer instructions).

2 Meeting Agenda

This meeting was the first where the USNWG addressed technical matters related to taximeters

including:

• design, performance, installation, and use requirements;

• test procedures; and 
USNWG on Taximeters NIST - Gaithersburg, MD

Meeting Summary September 24-26, 2012

6

• the basis for calculation of fares.

Although the meeting concluded before the entire planned agenda could be considered, the WG

made substantial progress towards developing proposals to bring the existing HB44 Taximeters Code 

up to date. A number of items listed on the agenda were not considered during this meeting due to 

extended discussions which were not anticipated, and the time constraints imposed by the meeting 

schedule. Items that were not considered during this meeting and those that were considered at 

length but where no consensus was achieved will be carried over to subsequent meetings. These 

issues are listed at the end of this summary under “3 Meeting Conclusions.”

The comments, discussions, and conclusions (where applicable) of this meeting are listed below in 

the order which they appeared on the meeting agenda. Item numbers are assigned according to the 

numbering format used for the meeting’s agenda. 

2.1 Item 4.1 – Proposed new paragraph A.2 Associated Equipment

The USNWG considered a proposal to include a new requirement to HB44 Taximeter Code, 

paragraph A.2. as shown:

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)

The new paragraph shown above was proposed to recognize that requirements found in the HB44 

Taximeters code should apply to accessory equipment used with a taximeter such as additional 

displays, keypads, Driver Information Monitors (DIMs), Passenger Information Monitors (PIMs), 

Mobile Data Terminals (MDTs), credit card readers, etc. which may affect the metrological integrity 

of a device (or system).

Discussion:

This proposal generated a great deal of discussion which revolved around the nature of the 

interaction between a taximeter and other associated equipment in a system, and what effect that 

interaction has on the accuracy and validity of a transaction. 

Most members of the group also felt that it is important to recognize that interfaces between the 

equipment in a system may be accomplished through wired or wireless connections. A major 

concern was the significance of data on the measurement or transaction which was produced by 

various components and the direction of data flow (input/output) between the taximeter and the 

associated equipment within a system.
USNWG on Taximeters NIST - Gaithersburg, MD

Meeting Summary September 24-26, 2012

7

It was pointed out by some manufacturers of software-based devices that these devices (i.e., Driver 

Information Monitors or DIMs and Mobile Data Terminals or MDTs) were being installed in 

taximeter systems where they provide data input which would affect the transaction. In some cases 

the MDTs would serve as a proxy for the taximeter where they could be used for functions such as: 

the display of required transaction information; entering extras charges; providing total fare 

calculations; and providing a method of payment (credit/debit cards). Functions that have

historically been performed by the taximeter could now be accomplished through the use of this 

type of equipment. The USNWG considered whether this type of equipment (MDTs) should be 

regulated under the HB44 Taximeters Code or rather the function and performance of the 

associated software should be the focus of regulation.

Another consideration that emerged during this discussion is that there are some circumstances 

where a taxi fare is charged that is not based on the distance/time measurement performed by the 

taximeter. Such is the case where the passenger is charged a flat rate not directly based upon time 

or distance. This type of charge is most often found where the trip is on frequently traveled,

established routes (e.g., from an airport to a city’s hotel district). The point was made that under 

these circumstances, the taximeter does not necessarily play a role in the transaction and, in this

situation the system could not be appropriately classified as a taximeter point of sale system if the 

definition of the term developed by the USNWG is applied (see 1.1.2).

Another scenario was recognized by the USNWG where the service provider (taxi company/driver)

uses a mobile telephone application (app) that operates as follows.

• The customer uses an “app” on their personal “smart” telephone to request a taxicab (or 

limousine).

• The driver receives a message (on a mobile telephone in his/her possession) to pick that 

passenger up and deliver the passenger to their destination.

• The fare for the service may be calculated by a taximeter located in the vehicle or, in some 

cases through the use of GPS technology incorporated in the driver’s mobile telephone.

• The driver then manually enters the fare information (in cases where fare is determined by a

taximeter) as well as additional charges (extras, tip, etc.) into the driver’s mobile telephone 

through the application.

• The mobile telephone app calculates the total charge and, in some cases provides the 

customer with a method of electronic payment. 

In these instances, the transaction involves the different elements of a typical POS system however 

there is no interface between the measuring device (taximeter) and the other components of the 

system.

Some members of the USNWG indicated that this proposed requirement would apply too broadly to 

equipment that is used in association with a taximeter during a transaction. Mr. Jesse Davis

(Creative Mobile Technologies, LLC) suggested that instead of applying regulation to system
USNWG on Taximeters NIST - Gaithersburg, MD

Meeting Summary September 24-26, 2012

8

hardware (associated equipment); the interface protocol used by the taximeter to communicate to 

the other equipment should be the focus of any proposed regulation. Others in the group stated 

that if the requirements apply solely to the communications interface and protocol regulation of 

these equipment would be overly complex and too prescriptive.

Conclusions:

The USNWG did not reach consensus on this proposal and elected to table further discussion about 

this item until definitions for terms such as “point-of-sale”, “metrological effect”, etc. could be fully 

developed and agreed upon by the USNWG. A result of the USNWG’s discussions about associated 

accessory equipment was a draft of a new definition for “taximeter point-of-sale” as shown above in 

section 1.1.2. This item will be carried-over for further consideration during subsequent meetings of 

the work group.

2.2 Item 4.2 - Proposed new paragraph S.1.1.1 Point of Sale System

The USNWG considered a proposal for including a new Taximeters code requirement as shown 

below in paragraph S.1.1.1. that would require that a printed receipt be available when a taximeter 

is part of a POS system.

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)

As noted previously during the initial meeting discussions, the USNWG acknowledged that it may be 

necessary to redefine POS system as it applies specifically to taximeters. 

Discussion:

Many of the USNWG members with regulatory backgrounds expressed the importance of the 

passenger/customer to have a printed receipt for the transaction as a record of charges and 

payments made. A notion expressed by some in the work group during the discussions was that in 

many instances the interchange between passenger and driver is brief and that the passenger may 

not immediately fully comprehend all details regarding the transaction. It is therefore important 

that the passenger be provided with a record of that transaction.

Some manufacturers expressed the notion that the adoption of this requirement would impose a 

hardship on their companies because not all of the models of equipment they currently produce are 

equipped with printers or they do not comply with the required itemization of all the information as 

required in HB44 Taximeters code, paragraph S.1.9. 
USNWG on Taximeters NIST - Gaithersburg, MD

Meeting Summary September 24-26, 2012

9

This point led to a general discussion among the group regarding the terms “non-retroactive” and 

“retroactive” and the fact that only devices manufactured after the effective date of the 

requirement would be required to comply. The manufacturers present during the meeting

acknowledged that they understood that any newly manufactured devices would need to comply 

with non-retroactive requirements. Some of these equipment manufacturers and transportation 

service providers expressed the notion however, that it is desirable for operators of multiple 

vehicles (i.e. taxicab companies/fleet managers) to maintain those vehicles with identical equipment 

and that this would be problematic if a specific model of taximeter (or associated equipment) 

becomes obsolete or unavailable as the fleet of vehicles expands or older vehicles are replaced.

It was also pointed out that, as written the requirement would only affect those taximeters 

associated with a POS system. This prompted yet even further discussion regarding the definition of 

POS systems and what constitutes those systems. 

Conclusions:

Based on this meeting’s discussion regarding POS systems associated with taximeters, the WG 

concluded that it was more appropriate to take a device-specific approach when addressing the 

recording element. Therefore the title of the proposed requirement would more appropriately be 

modified to indicate that this requirement applies to “Taximeter Point-of-Sale System” recording 

element indications.

The USNWG clarified the intent by stating that a system consisting of a taximeter and a means to 

accept electronic payment is the minimum criteria required for that system to be considered a POS 

system however, the intent of this requirement is not to exclude the ability for that same system to 

accept cash payment as well. 

Changes were made to the original proposal based on additional input from the members of the 

WG. The WG agreed to those changes as shown below.

S.1.1.1. Taximeter Point of Sale System, Recorded Indications - A printed receipt providing the 

required information in S.1.9. Recorded Representations shall be available for all transactions 

conducted with a taximeter point-of-sale system. The customer may elect to receive an 

electronic version of the receipt in lieu of a printed receipt

[Nonretroactive 20XX]

(Added 20XX)

2.3 Item 4.3 – Amendment of S.1.2. Advancement of Indicating Elements

This proposal included amendments to paragraph S.1.2. as shown below.
USNWG on Taximeters NIST - Gaithersburg, MD

Meeting Summary September 24-26, 2012

10

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)

Discussion:

The WG acknowledged that many taxicab companies will want alternative types of fare charges

(e.g., flat rate based fares where permitted) to be entered into the taximeter as a way to document 

any transaction 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 (as 

mentioned in the discussions for Agenda Item 4.1), 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.

There was considerable discussion among the USNWG regarding the way that these types of flat 

rates are entered into a taximeter/taximeter system. It was noted that in many instances where flat 

rates are allowed, the taximeter is equipped with multiple buttons/controls on the taximeter which 

when activated will increment the applied rate in predetermined monetary amounts thus facilitating

the input of pre-established rates. These types of controls may be programmed to include the input 

of established flat rates as an option to any rates based on factors of time/distance.

Other controls, either located on the taximeter or associated equipment within a taximeter system 

may allow the input of a negotiated flat rate (in jurisdictions where permitted) that has been agreed 

upon by driver and passenger.

During the discussion, the point was made that a gap exists between the use of flat rates and the

NIST 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.

Mr. Davis stated that his company’s device (MDT) did not receive approval through type evaluation 

due to the capability of that device to add extras charges to the taximeter display. During the type 

evaluation, the input of extras charges was considered to be an advancement of indications. While 

this particular MDT would display additional extra charges to the total transaction cost however; it

does not have the ability to advance the display of fare indications on the taximeter. This prompted

a discussion among the group regarding the definition for the term “primary display” as used in this 

requirement.

The group debated whether the two distinct areas (one for fare and one for extras) on the taximeter 

display on many different manufacturers’ models were both part of the primary display. These 

areas are typically separated into a “fare” display area and an “extras” within the display area. 
USNWG on Taximeters NIST - Gaithersburg, MD

Meeting Summary September 24-26, 2012

11

While the primary display is generally considered as that area that displays the fare amount, the

work group was undecided on whether or not the extras display in these types of taximeters is 

considered to be part of the “primary” display. In many taximeters these two charges are displayed 

adjacent to each other and are distinguished from each other simply by placing the identifying terms 

“fare” and “extras” in close proximity to the respective locations on the taximeter’s display face.

Because extras charges in some cases are added during the trip as they are incurred (e.g. charges for 

tolls), the USNWG considered whether this updating of the extras charges constituted an 

advancement of indications in the primary display.

Conclusions:

Following the discussions of the group on this item, further editorial work resulted in the following 

amendments to the proposal:

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 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)

Additional consideration of this item is needed to review the definition of “primary display” and to 

clarify that term as it applies to taximeters. After the conclusion of the September 2012 meeting,

the NIST Technical Advisor to the USNWG 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 by manual or automatic means.

(Amended 1988, and 201X)

Both alternative proposed modifications will be presented to the work group for consideration and 

further discussion at future USNWG meetings.
USNWG on Taximeters NIST - Gaithersburg, MD

Meeting Summary September 24-26, 2012

12

2.4 Item 4.4 – Proposal for new requirement S.1.3.3. Customer’s Indications

A proposal for a new requirement: S.1.3.3. Customer’s Indications was developed to require that 

certain indications be displayed as appropriate on devices that are located in the rear seat/customer 

area of the taxi. 

The proposed new requirement is as follows:

S.1.3.3. Customer’s Indications. – A point-of-sale system’s indicating element positioned in the 

passenger compartment shall clearly display:

(a) indications for all fees; and

(b) values that are in agreement with indicated values on all other displays.

[Nonretroactive as of 20XX]

Discussion:

The USNWG discussions began with statements from manufacturers of associated devices pointing 

out the information that is required to be displayed may originate from sources other than the 

taximeter. Some computerized devices (i.e. MDTs) are capable of inputting data into a taximeter 

system they are associated with. 

Mr. Davis raised the question that if the data displayed on a passenger display does not originate 

from the taximeter itself, is it appropriate to incorporate requirements that apply to the associated 

equipment (that does provide the data to a display) within the HB44 Taximeters Code? Some 

members of the group suggested the possibility of developing a separate code or section within 

HB44 for POS systems. The NIST Technical Advisor informed the group that a number of other 

specific codes in HB44 already contain requirements that pertain to POS systems in association with 

those devices and that creating a separate code for POS would be somewhat impractical. Because 

POS systems are commonly tailored to work with specific types of devices, it is advisable to evaluate 

the POS system in relation to its operation with the measuring device it is interfaced with.

A work group member asked if the indication of data on the passenger’s display does not originate 

from the taximeter, will this requirement apply. In response to that question Mr. Bill Fishman 

(retired NY Bureau of Weights and Measures) explained that the intent of the requirement is that 

the indications for all fees (fare and extras charges) must be displayed clearly in any customer 

display component and that those indications must be in agreement with similar indications 

presented on other components within that same system. Mr. Fishman also recommended the 

following additional changes to the original proposal:

S.1.3.3. Customer’s Indications. – A taximeter point-of-sale system’s indicating element or a 

remote display positioned in the passenger compartment shall clearly display:

(a) Indications for all incurred fees and charges and
USNWG on Taximeters NIST - Gaithersburg, MD

Meeting Summary September 24-26, 2012

13

(b) Values that are in agreement with indicated similar values on all other displays in the 

same systems.

[Nonretroactive as of 20XX]

Further comments were made by some group members that additional information such as the rate 

class should also be included on the passenger’s display. Not all members were in agreement 

stating that the customer’s limited display size may not be sufficient for the amount of information 

being required in the proposal.

Mr. David Paul (Taxi Magic) stated that the requirement should be limited to saying that if the 

system is configured to display information to the customer, then the display should agree with any 

associated information on a primary display. However, whether or not the system is configured to 

provide that information to the passenger display should remain optional.

Mr. Paul also offered an alternative to the original proposal where the existing paragraph S.1.3. 

would remain as is, with the exception of making the title of the paragraph specific to stand alone 

taximeters. A paragraph (S.1.4.) would then be added to address the requirements pertaining to the 

visibility of indications displayed on a taximeter point of sale system.*

S.1.3. Taximeter Visibility of Indications. – The indications of fare, including extras, 

and the mode of operation, such as “time” or “hired,” shall be constantly displayed whenever the 

meter is in operation. All indications of passenger interest shall be easily read from a distance of 

1.2 m (4 ft) under any condition of normal operation.

(Amended 1977, 1986, and 1988)

S.1.4. Taximeter Point of Sale System Visibility of Indications. – When a taximeter point of 

sale system includes one or more displays other than the face of the taximeter, any values 

indicated on those other displays for fare, extras, additional charges and/or total, when and if 

displayed, must be at all times in agreement with the indicated values on the primary face of the 

taximeter.

[Nonretroactive as of 20XX]

*[NIST Technical Advisor’s note: The numbering of any additional paragraph(s) may be 

subject to further review and adjustments made as needed.]

Some members of the group contended that the backseat display was initially intended to be used 

for advertisement of other services/products available to the customer (e.g. theater tickets) and not 

for displaying fare, extras, and other relevant transaction information for the passenger.

Mr. Matthew Daus (Windels Marx Lane & Mittendorf, LLP) pointed out that not providing the 

customer with relevant information to the transaction will provide an opportunity for the driver/taxi 

company to commit fraud. He further stated that he supports a requirement that would require the 

taximeter system to provide an obvious notification to the passenger through some type of alert 

that the fare is being calculated based on a specific rate. Additionally, he stated that he is aware of 

two manufacturers of taximeter POS systems which have already designed this type of alert in their 

products.
USNWG on Taximeters NIST - Gaithersburg, MD

Meeting Summary September 24-26, 2012

14

Ms. Juana Williams (NIST) also pointed out that the HB44 General Code (applicable to all types of 

devices) already requires that primary indications are visible to the customer, and that [digital 

values] like values in a system must agree.

Recognizing Mr. Daus’ experience and familiarity with the taxi industry in New York City, Mr. 

Fishman pointed out that the taxi industry in that particular jurisdiction (and well as others) has a 

very complex rate structure. This is in contrast to other jurisdictions where rate structures are very 

simple. Mr. Fishman further stated that HB44 should not be excessively prescriptive so as to be 

developed based on specifics of any particular local jurisdiction’s method of enforcement, but rather 

simply provide the minimum standard that any regulatory jurisdiction may use as a foundation for 

legal metrology regulation.

General group discussions that followed included consideration regarding Certificates of 

Conformance (CC) that are issued upon type evaluation approval for taximeters. The group 

considered that some of these CCs were issued while the initial evaluations did not include any

evaluation of associated equipment attached to the taximeter and what the implications may be

when those taximeters are interfaced with other equipment (i.e. point-of-sale system). Mr. Fishman

indicated that if and when those taximeters become a component in a taximeter POS, the CCs for 

those taximeters would need to be amended. 

Conclusions:

The group did not arrive at any consensus on the location, visibility, and agreement of indications 

when the equipment within a system includes a separate (primary) display for the passenger. 

Future meetings/conferences will revisit this item for additional consideration.

2.5 Item 4.6 – Proposed amendment to S.1.5.1. General and S.1.5.2. Time not 

Recording

The USNWG considered a proposal to amend S.1.5.1. General and S.1.5.2. Time not Recording as 

shown:

S.1.5. Operating Condition.

S.1.5.1. General. – When a taximeter is cleared and not registering fare, the primary

indication shall display “Not Registering,” “Vacant,” or an equivalent expression shall be 

shown. Whenever a taximeter is set to register charges, it shall indicate “Registering,” “Hired,” 

or an equivalent expression and the rate at which it is set shall be automatically indicated, and 

the required display information shall not be obscured (Rate 1 or Rate A, for example).

(Amended 1988)
USNWG on Taximeters NIST - Gaithersburg, MD

Meeting Summary September 24-26, 2012

15

S.1.5.2. Time not Recording. – When a taximeter is set for fare registration with the time 

mechanism inoperative, it shall indicate “Time Not Recording” or an equivalent expression. 

A taximeter set for fare registration with the time mechanism operating shall provide a clear 

display (e.g., “Time Recording”, “Time Mechanism On”) to the passenger indicating the 

status of the time mechanism.

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 20XX]

(Amended 1988, and 20XX)

S.1.5.1.: The changes proposed to current paragraph S.1.5.1. were made to clarify that the 

operational status of the meter must be indicated on a primary display. The recommendation is also 

intended to specify that non-fare information that may be displayed (e.g. advertisements, maps, 

etc.) should not obscure the required fare information.

S.1.5.2.: These proposed changes to current paragraph S.1.5.2. will require that the status (the basis

by which a fare may be calculated) of the meter when “hired” to be identified. The “Time not 

recording” statement (or equivalent) is required in the existing Code. This indication denotes that 

fare will be based only on distance traveled and not on time. This proposal however, would require 

a statement of “Time recording” or similar statement to be displayed, indicating that fare may be 

based on elapsed time as well as distance traveled. 

Discussion:

An initial question from the members of the USNWG asked whether the proposed changes under 

paragraph S.1.5.1. would apply to only a stand-alone taximeter or to all displays within a taximeter 

POS. Concerns were expressed by several group members that the displayed information that this 

proposal requires does not seem appropriate for all displays within a system. 

Mr. Fishman explained that the amendments would only apply to a stand-alone taximeter as the 

proposal is drafted. Mr. Paul replied that he was not comfortable with the recommended changes if 

the requirement would be extended to cover POS systems. 

A number of group members expressed concerns regarding the interpretation for a primary display 

when the existing definition for “primary indicating and recording elements” in HB44 Appendix D 

was referred to. This definition for “primary indicating and recording elements” when applied to a 

taximeter POS system is ambiguous and can be interpreted as applicable to multiple components 

within a system. The question was asked by some group members if there could be more than one 

primary display within a POS system. The work group did not arrive at a definitive answer for this 

question.

Regarding the changes suggested for S.1.5.2., the USNWG discussed the implications of the changes 

based on the retroactive/nonretroactive status of the device. Some clarification was provided by 

Ms. Juana Williams on what conditions are used to classify a requirement as retroactive or 
USNWG on Taximeters NIST - Gaithersburg, MD

Meeting Summary September 24-26, 2012

16

nonretroactive. Ms. Williams referred to paragraphs from G-A.5. and G-A.6. found in HB44 General 

code while explaining that nonretroactive requirements are those that will apply to devices that are 

manufactured, brought into a state, or placed into service on or after the effective date for that 

requirement. Those that were in service prior to that date are “grandfathered” and are not required 

to comply with the requirement.

Mr. Fishman explained that historically the “time off” button was used to discontinue the 

advancement of the timing mechanism during instances such as: time needed to complete a 

transaction (payment process at the conclusion of a trip); stopping to fuel up the vehicle during a 

trip; etc. This typically allowed the total charges of fare and extras displays to remain visible and on 

“hold”. On some systems however, when the meter is placed in a vacant or un-hired mode the 

indications are cleared.

Further amendments by Mr. Fishman to the proposed changes were offered to the group as shown 

below:

S.1.5. Operating Condition.

S.1.5.1. General. – When a taximeter is cleared and not registering fare, the primary

indication shall display “Not Registering,” “Vacant,” or an equivalent expression shall be 

shown. Whenever a taximeter is set to register charges, it shall indicate “Registering,” 

“Hired,” or an equivalent expression and the rate at which it is set shall be automatically and 

continuously indicated. All required display information such as: Fare, Extras, Rate and 

time status shall not be obscured in any manner from the passenger.

(Amended 1988)

S.1.5.2. Time not Recording. – When a taximeter is set for fare registration with the 

time mechanism inoperative, it shall indicate “Time Not Recording” or an equivalent 

expression. Status of Time Mechanism. -When a taximeter is set for fare registration in 

the Hired mode, the status of the time mechanism must be clearly displayed on the meter’s 

face. (e.g., “Time Recording”, “Time On” or “Time Not recording”,” Time Off”,

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 20XX](Amended 1988, and 20XX)

Mr. Byron Corcoran (Centrodyne) advised the USNWG that this type of change would require 

hardware changes to existing devices and that those changes would be costly for the manufacturers.

The USNWG was asked to consider if the perceived value for adopting either of the two sets of 

proposed amendments shown above is justified while considering the potential cost to the 

manufacturers in order to make the necessary changes.

Conclusion:

The WG did not arrive at any consensus on changes to these requirements and agreed to carry the 

item over into the group’s next meeting.
USNWG on Taximeters NIST - Gaithersburg, MD

Meeting Summary September 24-26, 2012

17

2.6 Item 4.7. – Proposed addition of new paragraph S.1.7.1. Identification of 

Extras Charges

The intent of the proposal for the new paragraph S.1.7.1. and existing paragraph S.1.7.1. (to be 

renumbered as S.1.7.2.) is to require identification and itemization of specific extras charges for the 

passenger’s benefit. While some jurisdictions with simple rate plans may not be greatly affected, 

those jurisdictions with more complex rate plans would be more profoundly affected. These 

proposed changes are shown below:

S.1.7.1. – Identification of Extra charges – For extras other than those charges for additional 

passengers or luggage, these charges shall be identified and provide a clear indication of the 

nature of the charge. These charges shall be itemized as necessary on the statement of charges 

as provided for in UR.3. Statement of Rates and also on a printed receipt for the transaction.

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 20XX]

(Added 20XX)

S.1.7.12. Nonuse of Extras. – If and when taximeter extras are prohibited by legal authority or 

are discontinued by a vehicle operator, the extras mechanisms or function shall be rendered 

inoperable or the extras indications shall be disabled or effectively obscured by permanent means.

Discussion:

Ms. Joanne Rausen (NYC Taxi and Limousine Commission) offered the opinion that this requirement 

(like others that have been discussed) may best be approached if the paragraph were split into two 

parts: one section for stand-alone taximeters and a separate section for taximeter POS systems. Mr. 

Paul responded to the suggestion stating that it may be a means to arriving at a solution however, 

that approach would not solve all of the issues that concern his company’s products. Taxi Magic’s

POS system receives input from the taximeter it is attached to and will display that data. If the 

taximeter does not itemize the extras charges then the alternative means to display those itemized

extras charges would be to manually input them through other components in the POS system (i.e., 

MDT). The WG generally acknowledged that according to their understanding, there are currently 

no type approved taximeters that will meet the requirement by providing an itemized description of 

the charge. Mr. Paul further added that there should be some cause for concern for any 

manufacturer regarding the design of a system that would allow the driver to input charges into that

system.

Mr. Bob McGrath (City of Boston Weights & Measures) stated that since this proposal applies to a 

printed receipt, that the content of this requirement would be placed more appropriately under 

requirement S.1.9. Recorded Representation instead. He added that this will definitely be a 
USNWG on Taximeters NIST - Gaithersburg, MD

Meeting Summary September 24-26, 2012

18

problem for most if not all taximeters because they don’t have the capability to itemize the extras 

charges. The group was undecided whether this proposed new paragraph should remain or be 

stricken because it could be considered redundant to paragraph S.1.9.

Mr. Davis reminded the group about a complication (mentioned earlier under 2.3) that surfaced

during the type evaluation of a taximeter POS system developed by his company. Because the 

requirement S.1.2. Advancement of Indicating Elements does not permit the primary indicating (and 

recording) element to advance except by the movement of the vehicle, the ability to advance the 

indication of extras charges through another source of input (i.e. manual entering of charges for 

various extras charges) that was observed during the type evaluation process, was determined to 

not be in compliance. The rejection for type approval of this POS system through the National Type 

Evaluation Program (NTEP) was based on an interpretation of paragraph S.1.2. whereby the primary 

display of the system is considered to be inclusive of the indications of extras charges on the 

taximeter.

The USNWG was offered further amendments to the proposal by Mr. Fishman as shown below:

S.1.7.1. – Identification of Extra charges – For extras other than those charges for additional 

passengers or luggage, these All extras displayed on a taxi point of sale system or printed on a 

receipt or transmitted on an electronic version of a receipt shall be itemized and identified and 

provide a clear indication of the nature of the charge. Those charges for additional passengers 

or luggage may be excluded from those being required to be itemized or identified. 

Information such as abbreviations used must be stated and explained on the receipt and on the 

Statement of Rates. [Nonretroactive as of January 1, 20XX]

(Added 20XX)

S.1.7.12.Nonuse of Extras. – If and when a taximeter’s extras are prohibited by legal authority or 

are discontinued by a vehicle operator, the extras mechanisms or function shall be rendered 

inoperable or the extras indications shall be disabled or effectively obscured by permanent means.

Mr. Fishman added that under S.1.7.1. it may be preferable rather than to exclude extras charges for 

additional passengers and luggage, to simply require that all extras be identified and itemized.

Further discussion points from the group included the notion that any specific requirements that 

would address charges for extras and the method used to identify those charges would be omitted 

from HB44. This suggestion would only including generally stated requirements in HB44 regarding 

the identification of extras and would include a statement that placed the responsibility of 

regulating how these charges are to be displayed upon the local jurisdictions and authorities. If this 

approach is agreed upon by the group, language will need to be developed for that purpose. Ms. 

Williams cautioned the work group against drafting requirements of this type by pointing out that 

the requirements in the Specification section of the HB44 Codes apply to design criteria of the 

device and are highly significant to the manufacturer’s design specifications for that device. Since 
USNWG on Taximeters NIST - Gaithersburg, MD

Meeting Summary September 24-26, 2012

19

many manufacturers base (at least to some extent) the design of commercial devices on the 

requirements in HB44, it is important to provide the manufacturers with design criteria by ensuring 

that all appropriate specification requirements are included in HB44 Taximeters Code. Ms. Williams 

suggested that if a system will be required to meet certain criteria in a jurisdiction, then it may be 

prudent to include those criteria within any specification requirements proposed. A manufacturer 

would not likely choose to produce multiple variations of a product in order to tailor the product for 

compliance in different jurisdictions. Therefore, it may not be advisable to draft requirements that 

would promote different interpretations and enforcement policies for those requirements. 

Additionally, this is a critical consideration if the device will undergo NTEP evaluation because this

process would provide an evaluation for approval on a national level and would not accommodate 

variations in different jurisdictions.

Conclusions:

The USNWG did not arrive at any consensus or definite conclusions regarding the recommended 

changes. This item will carry over to the group’s next meeting.

2.7 Item 4.8 – Proposal to amend paragraph S.1.8. Protection of Indications.

This requirement was originally developed for application to mechanical type meters, and the 

proposed amendments would bring the requirement up to date with current technology. Paragraph 

S.1.8. requires that taximeter indications should be protected from manipulation which had been

more easily accomplished on mechanical-type indications. Electronic/digital type indications are 

much less subject to alteration or adjustment through physical manipulation of the 

indications/displays however, those indications could potentially be manipulated through 

microprocessors or any software that provides the display with input. The recommended changes 

are shown below:

S.1.8. Protection of Indications. –Indications of fare and extras shall be displayed through and 

entirely protected by glass or other suitable transparent material securely attached to the housing 

of the taximeter protected from unauthorized alteration or manipulation.

(Amended 20XX)

Discussion:

The WG recommends adding the word “all” to the beginning of the paragraph.

Conclusion:
USNWG on Taximeters NIST - Gaithersburg, MD

Meeting Summary September 24-26, 2012

20

The USNWG agreed to support an alternative proposal to modify paragraph S.1.8. as shown below.

S.1.8. Protection of Indications. – All Indications of fare and extras shall be displayed through 

and entirely protected by glass or other suitable transparent material securely attached to the 

housing of the taximeter protected from unauthorized alteration or manipulation.

(Amended 20XX)

2.8 Item 4.9 – Proposed changes to paragraph S.1.9. Recorded 

Representations

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 where permitted such as extras, surcharge, telephone use, tip and tax 

shall be identified and itemized;* and

(h) total fare in $ (total charge).*

(j) any credits or discounts applied to the fare**

(k) the name of the taxicab company or owner**

The customer may elect to receive this information in the form of an electronic receipt made 

available to the customer’s personal device.

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1989] 

*[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2000] 

**[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 20XX]

[Technical Advisors note: It was pointed out during the USNWG’s discussion that the numbering 

format of this requirement does not follow a correct alphabetic sequence by omitting a lettered item 

“i”. This error in the sequence has been amended in the most current version of the proposal as 

shown under “Conclusions” section of this item.]

The proposed changes to paragraph S.1.9. as shown above are recommended to require that 

additional information be included on a printed receipt which may provide additional information 
USNWG on Taximeters NIST - Gaithersburg, MD

Meeting Summary September 24-26, 2012

21

that could be of use to the passenger in verifying charges and for contact information for the 

owner/operator of the taximeter (or taxicab service). The USNWG acknowledges that newer 

technology offers alternate means for providing receipts; therefore, this proposal includes 

amendments to recognize the device’s ability to receive transaction information electronically.

Mr. Fishman offered further changes to the initial proposal as shown below, stating that he believes

it would be beneficial to also require an additional item requiring the taxi company’s contact 

information on the receipt in the event that the passenger has any questions regarding billing or the 

service provided. Another change that Mr. Fishman suggested would be clarification that it is 

permissible to receive a receipt through the customer’s electronic personal device (i.e., mobile 

telephone, electronic tablet, email, etc.).

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 ...

(j) any credits or discounts applied to the fare**

(k) the name of the taxicab company or owner**

(l) Active contact information, such as a telephone number or computer web-site, in 

which a passenger can contact the company **

If agreed upon by the passenger, the passenger may elect to receive receipt information 

in the form of an electronic receipt made available to the passenger’s personal device.

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1989] 

*[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2000] 

 **[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 20XX]

Discussion:

Some USNWG members expressed the belief that bullet points “k” and “l” shown above would not 

be necessary and would simply take up valuable space on the printed receipt. In addition, this type 

of information is available if the medallion number (already required) is provided, although not all 

jurisdictions require taxi companies to purchase medallions. USNWG members noted that other 

information already required would be sufficient for the passenger to readily make contact with the 

responsible party.

Mr. Corcoran pointed out that the formatting of printed receipts may be limited to a certain number 

of data lines on the receipt and that by adding these additional items, the available number of data 
USNWG on Taximeters NIST - Gaithersburg, MD

Meeting Summary September 24-26, 2012

22

lines could be exceeded. He suggested that some of the bullet points could possibly be combined to 

satisfy the intent of the requirement.

Mr. Corcoran also made the point that although at least one model of taximeter which has already 

been evaluated and has received a type approval through NTEP, will not comply with the 

requirement’s provisions under subparagraph “g” for itemization of the extras. The existing 

requirement states that “additional charges where permitted such as extras, surcharge, telephone 

use, tip and tax shall be identified and itemized”. Mr. Corcoran informed the group that he is 

unaware of any currently type approved taximeters that will meet this section of the requirement 

for itemized description of the charge.

The group raised other issues regarding the proposal which included the question of whether or not 

this requirement should be applicable to stand-alone taximeters or only to taximeter POS systems. 

Another issue that surfaced during the group’s discussions is a difference in interpretation of the 

term “extras”. While some in the group held the belief that all charges excluding the charge for fare 

are considered extras, others did not believe that the term extras included charges such as 

purchasing unrelated products or services (e.g. theater tickets) that may be promoted through the 

passenger’s display in a POS system. It was apparent that this interpretation may vary from one 

jurisdiction to another.

Mr. Paul indicated that, as he had stated earlier, unless the taximeter provides the data for the

itemization of charges, his company’s product (Taxi Magic’s POS) will not have the input needed to 

display the itemization of charges on their equipment.

Conclusions:

These additional changes shown below are recommended by the USNWG:
USNWG on Taximeters NIST - Gaithersburg, MD

Meeting Summary September 24-26, 2012

23

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; and current contact information*

(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 where permitted such as extras in $, surcharge, telephone use, tip and 

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

and

(h) total fare in $ (total charge).*

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

(m) the name of the taxicab company or owner**

(n) Active contact information, such as a telephone number or computer web-site, in 

which a passenger can contact the company **

As previously mentioned, clarification of the types of charges associated with the NIST HB44 

Appendix D definition of the term “extras” is needed. Following the conclusion of the USNWG 

meeting, Mr. Paul submitted a proposal that modifies the current HB44 definition of extras and also 

includes a newly proposed definition of the term “additional charges” as shown below for the 

USNWG to consider.

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.[5.54]

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. [5.54]

Along with these definitions, Mr. PauI also recommended further revision (shown below) to 

paragraph S.1.9. Recorded Representation. These recommended changes would replace 
USNWG on Taximeters NIST - Gaithersburg, MD

Meeting Summary September 24-26, 2012

24

subparagraph “g” and insert a new subparagraph “h” into the proposal. The existing subparagraphs 

“h” and “i” as shown in the proposal above would remain although they would need to be 

renumbered.

(g) extras in $*; where required by the local regulation, the extras shall be itemized in a 

manner consistent with such regulation**;

(h) itemized additional charges in $;**

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

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

(Added 1988) (Amended 1999, 201X)

This item will be carried over to the USNWG’s next meeting where it will receive further review. 

2.9 Item 4.13 – Proposal to amend paragraph S.5 Provision for Security 

Seals.

As is the case with many other types of commercial weighing and measuring devices; the advances 

in taximeter design and enhancement of its functions have reached a stage where it is possible to

change metrologically relevant features through programming (e.g., software). Having this 

capability for these electronic features is in sharp contrast to manually making changes or 

adjustment to these features using some physical means or mechanism on the device.

This proposal would add a new provision for sealing the device to the existing requirement S.5. 

Provision for Security Seals. This proposal would allow electronic means for providing security to

the metrological features of the device.

The proposal recognizes a third new option for securing the device as shown below:

S.5. Provision for Security Seals. – Adequate provision shall be made to provide 

security for a taximeter. Security may be provided either by:

(a) Affixing physical security seals to the taximeter and to all other components 

required for service operation of a complete installation on a vehicle, so that no 

adjustments, alterations, or replacements affecting accuracy or indications of the 

device or the assembly can be made without mutilating the seal or seals; or

(b) Using a combination of security seals described in paragraph (a) and, in the case 

of a component that may be removed from a vehicle (e.g., slide mounting the 

taximeter), providing a physical or electronic link between components affecting 

accuracy or indications of the device to ensure that its performance is not 

affected and operation is permitted only with those components having the same 

unique properties; or
USNWG on Taximeters NIST - Gaithersburg, MD

Meeting Summary September 24-26, 2012

25

(c) For taximeters that are interfaced with enhanced software driven (POS) 

systems and that are capable of remote configuration, the sealing of 

calibration and configuration parameters shall be performed through the 

use of a physical seal that when removed may allow remote configuration. 

Any changes made after the removal of this physical seal must be recorded 

in an event logger.

(Added 20XX)

The sealing means shall be such that it is not necessary to disassemble or remove any part 

of the device or of the vehicle to apply or inspect the seals.

(Amended 1988, 2000, and 20XX)

[Audit trails shall use the format set forth in Table S.5. Categories of Device and 

Methods of Sealing]*

[*Nonretroactive as of January 1, 20XX]

The proposal also includes a recommendation for a table corresponding to paragraph S.5 that 

categorizes the device or system based on its configuration capability and specifies the method of 

sealing each category of device as shown below:
USNWG on Taximeters NIST - Gaithersburg, MD

Meeting Summary September 24-26, 2012

26

Table S.5. Categories of Device and Methods of Sealing

Categories of Device Methods of Sealing

Category 1: No remote configuration 

capability.

Seal by physical seal or a combination of physical 

seals and for components that may be removed 

from the vehicle, a physical or electronic link as 

described in S.5.(b) above.

Category 2: Remote configuration 

capability, but access is controlled by 

physical hardware.

The device shall clearly indicate that 

it is in the remote configuration mode 

and record such message if capable 

of printing in this mode.

The hardware enabling access for remote 

communication must be at the device and sealed 

using a physical seal and two event loggers: one 

for calibration parameters and one for 

configuration parameters. The event loggers are 

required in the device; they must include event 

counters (000 to 999), the parameter ID, the date 

and time of the change, and the new value of the 

parameter. A printed copy of the information must 

be available through the device. The event loggers 

shall have a capacity to retain records equal to 10 

times the number of sealable parameters in the 

device, but not more than 1000 records are 

required. (Note: Does not require 1000 changes to 

be stored for each parameter.)

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 20XX]

(Table added 20XX)

Discussion:

The members of the USNWG were not in agreement regarding this proposal in that some expressed 

opposition for adopting the proposal while others expressed their support.

Some of the members noted that the ability to attach a physical seal is limited to the design of the 

device. The point was made that some of the emerging technologies now being used (e.g. smart 

phone apps) are housed in compact devices and that it would not be practical to affix a cumbersome 

physical seal to a smaller devices or system components. The members in support of the proposal 

also pointed out that if taximeters were designed so that metrological changes to the configuration 

and calibration of the device could be accomplished by remote access, the proposal would facilitate

these processes by enabling the technician(s) making those changes to perform many calibrations 

very quickly. 

As an example, to change the schedule of rates at which the fares are calculated could be done on a 

fleet of vehicles in a short time and without the need for the taxis to physically be taken to one 
USNWG on Taximeters NIST - Gaithersburg, MD

Meeting Summary September 24-26, 2012

27

central site where changes would otherwise be performed. Reportedly, these types of systems 

could be protected by limiting access and control through the use of passwords. Additionally the 

proposal would require the use of an audit trail that would maintain a record of changes performed.

Others in the USNWG (including most, if not all members representing regulatory agencies) 

expressed the notion that a physical seal is the only means that is practical in deterring unauthorized 

adjustments. Those group members endorsing this view explained that their support is largely due 

to the “transitory” nature of the taxi industry. In many cases the drivers are not likely to be 

classified as permanent, full-time employees. Many times the vehicles within a fleet are leased on a 

short-term basis or operated by different drivers during to their respective shifts within a 24 hour 

period. 

Some USNWG members opposed to allowing alternate, electronic methods of sealing believe that 

some drivers would not be deterred from tampering with the taximeter unless a physical obstacle is 

in place preventing access to adjustments. In cases where one taxi is operated by several different 

drivers working in alternating shifts, it becomes much more difficult to ascertain which shift any

unauthorized tampering had taken place. Therefore it would be preferable to prevent the 

tampering through the use of a physical seal rather than detect and record the event after the 

tampering has taken place. It should be noted however, that an event logger as part of an audit trail 

will provide a time stamp for which any change was made along with information to indicate what 

parameter(s) had been changed.

Maintaining the required use of a physical seal is also supported by the notion that an unbroken

physical seal provides a simple means to expedite the process of verification that the meter has not 

been tampered with. This is important to many field officials and their administrators when 

inspections are performed because it enables an inspector to quickly determine if adjustment 

mechanisms have been accessed. This is contrasted by what is perceived as a time consuming 

practice of accessing and analyzing the content of an audit trail for the device. 

As drafted into the proposal, an additional option which would add a layer of security to the 

metrological features of the taximeter was based on a design where adjustments to these features

were controlled by placing the device in or out of a calibration or adjustment mode. While in the 

calibration/adjustment mode (when changes could be made) the device would not operate as 

normal or perform any measurements. Only when the device was returned to an operational mode 

would it be able to carry out its intended measuring capabilities. Similar to other devices, the ability 

to place the taximeter in a calibration mode and then return it to an operational mode could be 

controlled by the use of a physical switch whose operation could be only accessed by breaking a 

security seal. With this type of design, remote configuration could be permitted but would only be 

allowed if the physical seal was broken and the switch placed in the calibration position.

An alternate proposal for a new paragraph S.5.(c) was offered by Mr. Fishman as shown below. This 

proposal specifies that any metrological changes to the taximeter would only be permitted after the 
USNWG on Taximeters NIST - Gaithersburg, MD

Meeting Summary September 24-26, 2012

28

removal of a physical seal, and that the device could not be returned to a “hired” mode until the 

physical seal is replaced.

(c) Taximeters that are interfaced with enhanced software driven (POS) systems 

or that are capable of remote configuration, may allow the calibration and 

configuration parameters to be changed through the use of a physical seal that 

when removed allow remote, wired or wireless configuration. Any changes 

made after the removal of the physical seal must be recorded in an event logger. 

(New)

A taximeter with this feature must automatically prevent the meter from 

accessing the hired mode until the physical seal is replaced. 

Conclusions:

Mr. James Wisniewski (Frias Transportation) stated his belief that the emergence of software 

controlled devices will eventually make it necessary that security on these devices will be in the 

electronic format of passwords, encryption, and audit trails.

Mr. McGrath stated that until that time arrives, the regulators are performing inspections that 

include a verification that unauthorized tampering with adjustments is not taking place, and that 

this is more easily and efficiently done by visually confirming that a physical seal is intact.

No consensus was reached by the group at this time; this issue will carry over to the next USNWG 

meeting.

2.10 Items 4.5, 4.10, 4.11, and 4.12

Due to time constraints that were encountered at the September 24-26, 2012 meeting, the USNWG 

did not have an opportunity to consider the following items that appeared on the meeting’s agenda:

Item 4.5 A proposal to add new paragraph S.1.4.1 Multiple Rate Taximeters and two 

subparagraphs: S.1.4.1.1. Manual Rate Changes; and S.1.4.1.2. Automatic Rate Changes

This proposed change would require that changes to rates affecting the calculation of 

fares be accessed only by breaking a physical security seal. In addition, it would allow 

only manual changes to predetermined flat rates.

Item 4.10 Proposal to amend paragraph S.1.10 Non-fare Information

These proposed amendments are intended to clarify what displays (in the case of 

multiple displays) are covered in this requirement. In addition the proposal would limit 

the length of time “non-essential” information is permitted to be displayed.
USNWG on Taximeters NIST - Gaithersburg, MD

Meeting Summary September 24-26, 2012

29

Item 4.11 Proposed amendment to paragraph S.2 Basis of Fare Calculations.

This proposal would add subparagraph S.2.(d) “a negotiated flat rate” in recognition that 

fare charges may include flat rates and/or negotiated flat rates where they are 

permitted.

Itme 4.12 Proposed amendment of paragraph S.3.2. Flag.

This existing requirement was written to apply to devices utilizing mechanical 

mechanisms which are considered obsolete and may not be found in service today. The 

proposed amendment would serve to update the paragraph by changing the language 

to relate to current technology while maintaining the intent of the original requirement.

These items will be carried-over to the next meeting of the USNWG for consideration.

2.11 Item: GPS as a distance/time measurement device

Mr. Michael Lombardi from the NIST Time and Frequency Division gave the USNWG a presentation 

about Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) systems and navigational positioning satellite systems in 

general. His presentation provided the USNWG members with fundamental technical information 

about the design, operation, and capabilities of the GPS system which provides location and time 

information to users world-wide. This important information is critical for consideration when 

developing any standards for time and distance measurement devices/systems based on this 

technology. 

There were a number of questions from the group after the presentation was made which are 

summarized below in a question and answer (Q and A) format.

Q How is the GPS system calibrated?

A The GPS system is really self-calibrating. There would be no need to establish a routine other 

than to verify that the system is receiving the satellite data correctly.

Q How would you know if signal is being manipulated?

A “Jamming” is the term used when the signal is blocked. This would simply result in an absence 

of signal. This would seem to be more of a problem when the cab is moving unless the jamming 

signal is coming from within the cab. If the jamming is caused by an outside stationary source 

(e.g. radio/television transmissions, neon signs, etc.) and the taxi is moving past that point, it is 

unlikely that the momentary interruption would result in lack of service from the GPS. If the 

source of the jamming is present in the cab (i.e., passenger carrying a personal privacy device) 

then it would likely be an obvious condition where the GPS device would simply indicate a loss 

of signal.
USNWG on Taximeters NIST - Gaithersburg, MD

Meeting Summary September 24-26, 2012

30

Q What are possible sources of errors in GPS signals?

A GPS signal could possibly encounter errors in basically two ways. 

One source of error may be “user equivalent range error”. This type of error could occur due to 

a lack of quality in the broadcast signal in space, instability in a particular satellite’s clock, and an 

incorrect prediction of the satellite’s orbit.

The second source of error in a GPS signal could occur due to “dilution of precision” (DOP). This 

could take place when the satellites that are accessed by a receiver are not in an optimal 

position in relation to the receiver’s location on the earth. This would be the case where the 

receiver’s line of sight to the available satellites is limited due to obstructions and those

satellites that are used in determination of the receiver’s position are concentrated somewhat

in a direct overhead position relative to the receiver. Accuracy is enhanced when the receiver 

accesses satellites that are spread over a wide area of space above and somewhat lateral to the 

receiver.

Other errors could possibly occur in the translation of the GPS signal, most likely as a fault or 

corruption of the software used.

Q Are there any standards documented for GPS devices?

A There are some standards for receivers but it is not known what they would be.

Q What method(s) could be used for verification of a measurement made by GPS? 

A Possibly a measured test course for distance. For time measurement it would be a matter of 

verification by using a calibrated stopwatch.

Q What is the level of accuracy that can be achieved from a GPS distance measurement?

A The typical error is limited to approximately 1 meter. If GPS were used to measure a distance 

traveled based on a starting point and the end point you could expect that measurement to be 

within 1 meter regardless of the actual distance.

To measure the progress of a continuously moving vehicle, a position would be located each 

time the GPS signal updates. Mr. Lombardi estimated that typically a commercially available 

system will update 5 times every second. Every measurement (or update of the receiver’s 

position) would be expected to be within 1 meter of the actual location. A taxi trip of 1 mile 

could be expected to be measured to within 1 meter, and a taxi trip of 100 miles could be 

expected to be measured to within 1 meter of the actual distance as well.

The more frequently the signal updates, the more precise the relative distance measurement 

will be.
USNWG on Taximeters NIST - Gaithersburg, MD

Meeting Summary September 24-26, 2012

31

Q How long does the GPS system take to respond with a position?

A Almost instantaneous. If a receiver is started cold it could take several minutes and depends

whether or not on the receiver has an almanac programmed into it.

Q How does the GPS account for distance that includes a change in altitude?

A GPS does have considerable limitations to accurately distinguish a change in altitude. However, 

it is doubtful that within the length of a typical cab ride that it would make any difference. It 

would only seem relevant when you are talking about an extreme change in altitude within a 

short ride where it would it make any difference, and then probably only a minimal difference.

Q Has anyone ever compared it to a traditional type of taximeter? 

A Not as far as anyone in this work group knows.

Q It is apparently a very accurate means to make a distance and time measurement however it 

seems that a major concern is the loss of signal due to various obstructions. Are there any 

means to predict what will affect the readings? 

A If the GPS signal is interrupted that would be a problem that is not predictable. When the signal 

is lost, the distance measurement capability is disabled however the time measurement would 

still continue.

Q What types of technical issues could be expected for a company that uses smartphone apps to 

facilitate GPS measurement of distance?

A It could be a potential problem if two different mobile phones (passenger and driver) come up 

with conflicting measurements. 

Q Is there a way to fill in data for that portion of a taxi ride if the signal is lost?

A There is software that provides “dead reckoning” which serves that purpose. (Additional 

information is needed on this software and what potential it would have if used in this context)

Q Can the GPS measurement be manipulated through the software application that the taximeter 

system uses? 

A Software (any software) could be manipulated; it would be a concern of computer security for 

that equipment. To change the measurement provided by the satellite positioning, it would be 

necessary to alter the signal (spoofing). This is very difficult to accomplish.

Mr. Lombardi shared his opinion that it would not be difficult to establish traceability to the GPS’s

distance measurements because the time measurements are based on the SI time standard already 

established. 
USNWG on Taximeters NIST - Gaithersburg, MD

Meeting Summary September 24-26, 2012

32

Although there are multiple navigational positioning systems available or currently under 

development, (e.g., GLONASS, GPS, Galileo, etc.) and receivers on the earth could potentially access 

any of them, only two are currently operational – GPS and GLONASS. GPS is operated by the U.S. 

government and is free to use worldwide, however access to the system may be terminated by the 

U.S. government in cases of national emergency.

It became apparent to the USNWG that the most vulnerable component of the GPS system is the 

software employed to process the satellite signals and perform calculations of distance and time. 

The group recognized that this would be a challenge to secure. Mr. Lombardi informed the group 

that the signal used by the satellites is encrypted and only those with a high level of security 

clearance have access to it.

The group questioned whether or not requirements addressing GPS’s capability for determining 

distance and/or time could be incorporated into the existing HB44 Taximeters Code. A point was 

made by Mr. Paul that there is only an indirect mention of “pulse” in the existing Taximeters Code. 

Since pulse is the term used for the measurement source generated from mechanisms used on 

traditional taximeters, there may not be any need to specifically mention GPS as a source (for the 

distance measurement). It may be possible to include GPS in the code without a large amount of 

editorial changes.

The work group did note however that HB44 Taximeters Code, paragraph S.1.2. only allows for the 

advancement of indications by way of the movement of the vehicle and that this will need to be 

amended if it is decided that GPS will be regulated under the HB44 Taximeters Code.

Conclusion:

NIST Technical Advisor, Mr. John Barton, polled the USNWG to determine if the group would 

support undertaking the work necessary to develop the necessary standards and test procedures 

needed to adequately assess a distance/time measuring device utilizing the GPS system as a basis 

for its operation. The entire group indicated that they would support the effort.

Mr. Barton also polled the group to gauge their opinion on whether the standards and requirements 

needed for this type of device could be incorporated into NIST HB44 Taximeters Code or would it be 

necessary to develop a separate code for GPS based devices. After some discussion, there was 

general agreement within the group that requirements applicable to GPS devices could be 

incorporated into the existing Taximeters Code.

2.12 Item: Mobile (smart) Telephone Apps

While this agenda item was not specifically addressed in any detail during the September 2012

meeting, these devices were considered during the discussions involving other agenda items. 
USNWG on Taximeters NIST - Gaithersburg, MD

Meeting Summary September 24-26, 2012

33

Mobile telephone “apps” are being developed as a means for potential customers to request taxi or 

limousine services. Also available through the use of mobile telephones is a feature allowing a

passenger to submit electronic payment for taxi service through their personal mobile telephone. 

Additionally, mobile telephones are being issued to drivers (taxi/sedan) by a service provider where 

these telephones function as the “receiver” component in a GPS-based system used for determining

distance/time measurements to base a fare charges upon.

These applications of mobile telephones apps raise a number of questions which, much like those 

regarding GPS systems noted above will require some level of expertise in this type of software to 

properly assess the necessary requirements and practices for regulation by weights and measures 

authorities.

On behalf of International Association of Transportation Regulators (IATR), Mr. Matthew Daus 

expressed the hope that the USNWG will address the use of these systems in place of traditional 

type taximeters and also stated that he believes it would not be in the public’s best interest if this 

issue is ignored. Mr. Daus stated that the IATR is also working towards the development of model 

regulations that address these systems and is asking for any help that this work group may provide.

Mr. Barton stated that the objectives of the USNWG include this issue and that it will be the work 

group’s decision on what approach to take when this issue can be discussed in detail. In addition, 

Mr. Barton expressed the desire to work in cooperation with the IATR whenever possible and that it 

is in the best interest of the public to collaborate in producing useful regulation for this type of 

technology. 

3 Meeting Conclusions:

It was apparent that some of this meeting’s agenda would not be able to be considered by the work 

group due to time constraints of the September 2012 meeting. The group did come to agreement 

on three items considered during the meeting, they are: 

• a proposed new definition for “Taximeter Point-of-Sale System” (see item 1.1.3);

• further amendments to Section S.1.1.1. Point of Sale System (see item 2.2); and

• changes to amend current HB44 Section 5.54 paragraph S.1.8. Protection of Indications (see 

item 2.7)

Mr. Barton noted there is additional work that remains for the USNWG to complete and indicated 

that subsequent meetings of the USNWG will be necessary. The group was informed that the 

USNWG’s objectives can basically be divided into two areas. The first area is to fully develop the 

proposed amendments to the existing NIST HB44 Taximeters Code (listed as individual items on this 

meeting’s agenda). The group would then follow up by submitting these proposals to the National 

Conference on Weights and Measures with a recommendation for their adoption into NIST HB44.
USNWG on Taximeters NIST - Gaithersburg, MD

Meeting Summary September 24-26, 2012

34

The other area of the group’s objectives would be to adequately address both the commercial use of 

GPS as a distance/time measurement device and mobile (smart) telephones as “virtual” taximeters.

Mr. Barton shared the idea of forming a subcommittee from within the membership of the USNWG 

to work specifically on the issues related to GPS use and mobile “smart” phone software application. 

The members were informed that this approach would include the continuing development of the 

proposed amendments to HB44 Taximeters Code through the USNWG as a whole, and proceeding 

with work targeted toward the issues of GPS and mobile phone apps through this smaller 

subcommittee. The members were then polled to gauge what level of support the group has for 

that approach. The USNWG acknowledged the large amount of work needed on this project and

indicated support for the two pronged approach of the suggested plan.

This meeting has “set the stage” for future meetings of the USNWG and has served to bring into 

focus the additional work that is needed for the USNWG to meet its objectives. The NIST Technical 

Advisor will contact the members of the USNWG to schedule subsequent meetings. 
USNWG on Taximeters NIST - Gaithersburg, MD

Meeting Summary September 24-26, 2012

35

Attendees

John Barton NIST OWM (USNWG Technical Advisor) john.barton@nist.gov

James Cassidy City of Cambridge jcassidy@cambridgema.gov

Byron Corcoran Centrodyne byron@centrodyne.com

Matthew W. Daus Windels Marx Lane & Mittendorf, LLP mdaus@windelsmarx.com

Jesse H. Davis Creative Mobile Technologies, LLC jdavis@cmtnyc.com

Bill Fishman Retired NY Bureau of W/M bfishman@nycap.rr.com

Aileen Fox NYC Taxi and Limousine Commision-Legal 

Unit foxa@tlc.nyc.gov

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

Alfred LaGasse Taxicab, Limousine & Paratransit Assoc. 

(TLPA) alagasse@tlpa.org

Craig Leisy Seattle Consumer Affairs Unit mailto:craig.leisy@seattle.gov 

Michael Lombardi NIST Time & Frequency Div. michael.lombardi@nist.gov

Bob McGrath City of Boston W/M Robert.McGrath@CityofBoston.Gov

James McLary E2TAxi james.mclary@e2taxi.com

Jeff Milne Mobile Knowledge Corp. jmilne@mobile-knowledge.com

David Paul RideCharge dmp@taximagic.com

Joanne Rausen NYC Taxi and Limousine Commision-Policy 

& External Affairs department Rausenj@tlc.nyc.gov

Michael Timmons City of Medford mwtimmons@medford.org

Keith Walsh NYC Taxi and Limousine Commision-Legal 

Unit keith.walsh@tlc.nyc.gov
USNWG on Taximeters NIST - Gaithersburg, MD

Meeting Summary September 24-26, 2012

36

Juana Williams NIST OWM juana.williams@nist.gov

James Wisniewski Frias Transportation james.wisniewski@transportationinfrastructre.com

Web Conference Participants

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

Maria del Carmen 

Kern

Weights and Measures, San Francisco 

County Carmen.Kern@sfdph.org

Rober Kinne Bureau of Weights & Measures

County of Niagara, NY Robert.Kinne@niagaracounty.com

Javier Ortiz Public Vehicle Operations Division

Chicago, Illinois Javier.Ortiz@cityofchicago.org

John Roach Division of Measurement Standards, 

California Dept. of Food and Agriculture jroach@cdfa.ca.gov

Pasqualino (Pat) 

Russo Windels Marx Lane & Mittendorf, LLP prusso@windelsmarx.com

Phil Steiner Centrodyne psteiner@centrodyne.com

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

Han Wu Mentor Engineering hwu@mentoreng.com