L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 1 

Report of the 

Laws and Regulations (L&R) Committee 

Raymond Johnson, Committee Chair 

New Mexico 

200 INTRODUCTION 

This is the report of the Laws and Regulations Committee (hereinafter referred to as the “Committee”) for the 99th

Annual Meeting of the National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM). This report is based on the 

Interim Report offered in the NCWM Publication 16, “Committee Reports,” testimony at public hearings, comments 

received from the regional weights and measures associations and other parties, the NCWM 2014 Online Position 

Forum, the addendum sheets issued at the Annual Meeting, and actions taken by the membership at the voting 

session of the Annual Meeting. The voting items shown below were adopted as presented when this report was 

approved. This report contains those recommendations to amend National Institute of Standards and Technology 

(NIST) Handbook 130 (2014), “Uniform Laws and Regulations in the Areas of Legal Metrology and Engine Fuel 

Quality,” or NIST Handbook 133 (2014), “Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods,” Fourth Edition. 

Table A identifies the agenda items and appendix items. The agenda items in the Report are identified by Reference 

Key Number, title, page number and the appendices by appendix designations. The acronyms for organizations and 

technical terms used throughout the agenda are identified in Table C. The first three digits of the Reference Key 

Numbers of the items are assigned from The Subject Series List. The status of each item contained in the report is 

designated as one of the following: (D) Developing Item: the Committee determined the item has merit; however, 

the item was returned to the submitter or other designated party for further development before any action can be 

taken at the national level; Informational (I) Item: the item is under consideration by the Committee but not 

proposed for Voting; (V) Voting Item: the Committee is making recommendations requiring a vote by the active 

members of NCWM; (W) Withdrawn Item: the item has been removed from consideration by the Committee. 

Table B provides a summary of the results of the voting on the Committee’s items and the report in its entirety. 

Some Voting Items are considered individually, others may be grouped in a consent calendar. Consent calendar 

items are Voting Items that the Committee has assembled as a single Voting Item during their deliberation after the 

Open Hearings on the assumption that the items are without opposition and will not require discussion. The Voting 

Items that have been grouped into consent calendar items will be listed on the addendum sheets. Prior to adoption of 

the consent calendar, the Committee entertains any requests from the floor to remove specific items from the 

consent calendar to be discussed and voted upon individually. 

Proposed revisions to the handbook(s) are shown as follows: 1) deleted language is indicated with a bold face font 

using strikeouts (e.g., this report), and 2) proposed new language is indicated with an underscored bold faced 

font (e.g., new items). When used in this report, the term “weight” means “mass.” 

Note: The policy of NIST is to use metric units of measurement in all of its publications; however, 

recommendations received by NCWM technical committees and regional weights and measures associations have 

been printed in this publication as submitted. Therefore, the report may contain references to inch-pound units. 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 2 

Subject Series List 

Introduction .................................................................................................................................................... 200 Series 

NIST Handbook 130 – General ...................................................................................................................... 210 Series 

Uniform Laws .......................................................................................................................................... 220 Series 

Uniform Weights and Measures Law ............................................................................................... 221 Series 

Uniform Weighmaster Law .............................................................................................................. 222 Series 

Uniform Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants Inspection Law ................................................ 223 Series 

Uniform Regulations ............................................................................................................................... 230 Series 

Uniform Packaging and Labeling Regulation .................................................................................. 231 Series 

Uniform Regulation for the Method of Sale of Commodities .......................................................... 232 Series

Uniform Unit Pricing Regulation ..................................................................................................... 233 Series 

Uniform Regulation for the Voluntary Registration of Servicepersons and Service Agencies for 

Commercial Weighing and Measuring Devices ............................................................................... 234 Series 

Uniform Open Dating Regulation .................................................................................................... 235 Series 

Uniform Regulation for National Type Evaluation .......................................................................... 236 Series 

Uniform Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants Regulation ....................................................... 237 Series 

Examination Procedure for Price Verification......................................................................................... 240 Series 

NCWM Policy, Interpretations, and Guidelines, Section 2 ..................................................................... 250 Series 

NIST Handbook 133 ....................................................................................................................................... 260 Series 

Other Items – Developing Items ..................................................................................................................... 270 Series 

 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 3 

Table A 

Table of Contents 

Reference Key Title of Item Page L&R

200 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 1

231 NIST HANDBOOK 130 – UNIFORM PACKAGING AND LABELING REGULATION ...... 6

231-1 D Sections 6.4., 6.5., 6.7., 6.8.1., 6.8.2., 6.9., and 10.8. Addition of Tables .................................. 6

231-2 V Section 10.3. Aerosols and Self-Pressurized Containers .......................................................... 14

232 NIST HANDBOOK 130 – UNIFORM REGULATION FOR THE METHOD OF SALE 

COMMODITIES ...................................................................................................................................... 18

232-1 D Section 2.20.3. Street Sign Prices and Advertising .................................................................... 18

232-2 W Section 2.27. Retail Sales of Natural Gas Sold as a Vehicle Fuel ............................................. 19

232-3 V Section 2.27. Retail Sales of Natural Gas Sold as a Vehicle Fuel ............................................. 22

232-4 V Section 2.33. Oil. ....................................................................................................................... 26

232-5 W Section 2.XX. Printer Ink and Toner Cartridges Labeling ......................................................... 30

232-6 V Section 2.30. E85 Fuel Ethanol Flex Fuel Blends ..................................................................... 35

232-7 V Section 2.XX. Diesel Exhaust Fluid (DEF). .............................................................................. 38

232-8 V Section 2.20. Gasoline-Oxygenate Blends ................................................................................. 40

237 NIST HANDBOOK 130 – UNIFORM ENGINE FUELS AND AUTOMOTIVE 

LUBRICANTS REGULATION .............................................................................................................. 42

237-1 W Section 1. Definitions - Diesel Liter Equivalent (DLE) and Diesel Gallon Equivalent (DGE) 42

237-2 V Section 1. Definitions - Diesel Liter Equivalent (DLE) and Diesel Gallon Equivalent (DGE): 

Compressed Natural Gas, Section 1. Definitions - Diesel Liter Equivalent (DLE) and Diesel 

Gallon Equivalent (DGE): Liquefied Natural Gas, Section 3.11. Compressed Natural Gas 

(CNG) and Section 3.12. Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) ........................................................... 43

237-3 W Section 1. Definitions - Diesel Liter Equivalent (DLE) and Diesel Gallon Equivalent (DGE): 

Liquefied Natural Gas ................................................................................................................ 50

237-4 I Sections 2.1.3. Minimum Antiknock Index (AKI), Section 2.1.4. Minimum Motor Octane 

Number, and Section 3.2.5. Prohibition of Terms – Table 1. .................................................... 51

237-5 W Section 3.11. Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) and Section 3.12. Liquefied Natural Gas 

(LNG) ........................................................................................................................................ 53

237-6 V Section 3.13. Oil, 3.13.1. Labeling of Vehicle Engine (Motor) Oil Required ........................... 56

237-7 V Section 3.2.7. Documentation for Dispenser Labeling Purposes ............................................... 60

237-8 V Section 4.3. Dispenser Filters .................................................................................................... 61

237-9 V Section 1. Definitions, Section 2. Standard Fuel Specifications, and Section 3. Classification 

and Method of Sale of Petroleum Items .................................................................................... 64

237-10 V Section 3.XX. Diesel Exhaust Fluid (DEF). .............................................................................. 69

237-11 V Section 2.12. Motor Oil ............................................................................................................. 71

260 NIST HANDBOOK 133 .................................................................................................................. 73

260-1 W Section 3.10. Animal Bedding ................................................................................................... 73

260-2 V Section 3.12. Fresh Oysters Labeled by Volume ....................................................................... 78

260-3 W Section 4.3. Paper Plates and Sanitary Paper Products .............................................................. 82

270 OTHER ITEMS .............................................................................................................................. 86

270-1 D Fuels and Lubricants Subcommittee .......................................................................................... 86

270-2 D Packaging and Labeling Subcommittee ..................................................................................... 87

270-3 D Moisture Allowance Task Group (MATG) ............................................................................... 88
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 4 

Appendices

A. Items 232-2, 232-3, 237-1, 237-2, 237-3, and 237-5: Background and Justification for 

Handbook 130, Definition for “Diesel Gallon Equivalent (DGE)” of Natural Gas as a 

Vehicular Fuel ..................................................................................................................................... A1 

B. Item 260-2: Handbook 133, Test Procedures – Packages Labeled by Volume, Section 3.12. Fresh 

Oysters Labeled by Volume ................................................................................................................ B1 

C. Items 232-6 and 237-9: NIST Handbook 130, Uniform Regulation for the Method of Sale,

Section 1. Definitions, Section 2. Standard Fuels Specifications, and Section 3. Classification and 

Method of Sale for Petroleum Items .................................................................................................... C1 

Table B 

Voting Results 

Reference Key 

Number

House of State Representatives House of Delegates Results Yeas Nays Yeas Nays 

Consent 

Calendar 

231-2 Adopted 

232-4 Adopted 

232-6 Adopted 

232-7 Adopted 

232-8 Adopted 

237-6 Adopted 

237-7 Adopted 

237-9 Adopted 

237-10 Adopted 

237-11 Adopted 

260-2 Adopted 

 

232-3* 29 9 14 27 Returned to 

Committee 

237-2* 29 9 14 27 Returned to 

Committee 

237-8 14 20 19 11 Returned to 

Committee 

* Items 232-3, 237-2 and 337-2 were voted upon as a block. 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 5 

Table C 

Glossary of Acronyms and Terms 

Acronym Term Acronym Term 

ACEA European Automobile Manufacturers 

Association 

HB 44 “Specifications, Tolerances, and Other 

Technical Requirements for Weighing 

and Measuring Devices” 

AKI Minimum Antiknock Index HB 130 “Uniform Laws and Regulations in the 

Areas of Legal Metrology and Engine 

Fuel Quality” 

AOAC AOAC International (Association of 

Analytical Communities) 

HB 133 “Checking the Net Contents of Packaged 

Goods” 

AOCA Automotive Oil Change Association IEC International Electrotechnical Association 

API American Petroleum Institute ISO International Organization for 

Standardization 

ASTM ASTM International L&R Laws and Regulations 

ATC Automatic Temperature Compensation LNG Liquefied Natural Gas 

AUS Aqueous Urea Solutions MATG Moisture Allowance Task Group 

BOV Bag on Valve MAV Maximum Allowable Variation 

BTU British Thermal Unit MON Motor Octane Number 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations NAA National Aerosol Association 

CNG Compressed Natural Gas NADA National Automobile Dealers Association 

CPSC Consumer Product Safety Committee NGSC Natural Gas Steering Committee 

CRC Coordinating Research Council NCWM National Conference on Weights and 

Measures 

CWMA Central Weights and Measures 

Association 

NEWMA Northeastern Weights and Measures 

Association 

DEF Diesel Exhaust Fluid NIST National Institute of Standards and 

Technology 

DGE Diesel Gallon Equivalent OEM Original Equipment Manufacturer 

DLE Diesel Liter Equivalent OWM Office of Weights and Measures 

DOE Department of Energy PALS Packaging and Labeling Subcommittee 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency RON Research Octane Number 

FALS Fuels and Lubricants Subcommittee S&T Specifications and Tolerances 

FDA Food and Drug Administration SAE Society of Automotive Engineers 

FPI Foodservice Packaging Industry SWMA Southern Weights and Measures 

FPLA Fair Packaging and Labeling Act TG Task Group 

FTC Federal Trade Commission UPLR Uniform Packaging and Labeling 

Regulation 

GGE Gasoline Gallon Equivalent UWML Uniform Weights and Measures Law 

GLE Gasoline Liter Equivalent USNWG U.S. National Work Group 

GM General Motors WWMA Western Weights and Measures Assoc. 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 6 

Details of All Items 

(In order by Reference Key)

231 NIST HANDBOOK 130 – UNIFORM PACKAGING AND LABELING 

REGULATION 

231-1 D Sections 6.4., 6.5., 6.7., 6.8.1., 6.8.2., 6.9., and 10.8. Addition of Tables 

Source: 

NCWM Packaging and Labeling Subcommittee (2014) 

Purpose: 

Add tables to Handbook 130 to help clarify requirements. 

Item Under Consideration: 

Amend NIST Handbook 130, Uniform Packaging and Labeling Regulation as follows: 

6.4. Terms: Weight, Measure, Volume, or Count. – The declaration of the quantity of a particular 

commodity shall be expressed in terms of: 

(a) weight if the commodity is solid, semisolid, viscous, or a mixture of solid and liquid; 

(b) volume measure if the commodity is liquid or dry, if the commodity is dry; 

(c) linear measure or area; or 

(d) numerical count. 

Table 6.4. 

Weight, Measure, Volume, or Count 

If the commodity is: The declaration of quantity shall be expressed in: 

(a) solid, semisolid, viscous or a mixture of solid 

and liquid 

weight (mass) 

(b) liquid or dry fluid measure if fluid. dry measures if dry. 

(c) linear or area linear measure or area 

(d) individual units numerical count 

Items referenced in the table with a ( ) refers to text in the section indicated with the like identifier. 

However, if there exists a firmly established general consumer usage and trade custom with respect to the terms used 

in expressing a declaration of quantity of a particular commodity, such a declaration of quantity may be expressed in 

its traditional terms, provided such traditional declaration gives accurate and adequate information as to the quantity 

of the commodity. Any net content statement that does not permit price and quantity comparisons is forbidden. 

(Amended 1989 and 20XX) 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 7 

6.5. SI Units: Mass, Measure. [NOTE 3, page 64] – A declaration of quantity: 

(a) in units of mass shall be the kilogram, gram, or milligram; 

(b) in units of liquid measure shall be the liter or milliliter and shall express the volume at 20 °C, except in 

the case of petroleum products or distilled spirits, for which the declaration shall express the volume at 

15.6 °C, and except also in the case of a commodity that is normally sold and consumed while frozen, for 

which the declaration shall express the volume at the frozen temperature, and except also in the case of 

malt beverages or a commodity that must be maintained in the refrigerated state, for which the 

declaration shall express the volume at 4 °C; 

(Amended 1985 and 1990) 

(c) in units of linear measure shall be the meter, centimeter, or millimeter; 

(d) in units of area measure shall be the square meter, square decimeters, square centimeter, or square 

millimeter; 

(e) in units of volume other than liquid measure shall be the liter and milliliter, except that the units cubic 

meter and cubic centimeter shall be used only when specifically designated as a method of sale; 

(f) Rule of 1000. – The selected multiple or submultiple prefixes for SI units shall result in numerical values 

between 1 and 1000. This rule allows centimeters or millimeters to be used where a length declaration is 

less than 100 centimeters. 

Examples:

500 g, not 0.5 kg; 

1.96 kg, not 1960 g; 

750 mL, not 0.75 L; or 

750 mm or 75 cm, not 0.75 m. 

(Added 1993) 

(g) SI declarations should be shown in three digits except where the quantity is below 100 grams, milliliters, 

centimeters, square centimeters, or cubic centimeters, where it may be shown in two digits. In either 

case, any final zero appearing to the right of the decimal point need not be shown; and 

(Added 1993) 

(h) the declaration of net quantity of contents shall not be expressed in mixed units. 

Example: 

1.5 kg, not 1 kg 500 g. 

(Added 1993) 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 8 

Table 6.5. 

SI Units: Mass, Measure 

If a declaration of quantity is by: Then shall be labeled in terms of: 

(a) mass milligram or gram or kilogram 

(b) liquid in units of liquid measure shall be the liter or milliliter and shall express 

the volume at 20 °C, except in the case of petroleum products or 

distilled spirits, for which the declaration shall express the volume at 

15.6 °C, and except also in the case of a commodity that is normally sold 

and consumed while frozen, for which the declaration shall express the 

volume at the frozen temperature, and except also in the case of malt 

beverages or a commodity that must be maintained in the refrigerated 

state, for which the declaration shall express the volume at 4 °C 

 

(c) linear measure Millimeter, centimeter, or meter 

(d) area measure square millimeter, square centimeter, square decimeter, or square 

meter 

(e) dry measure milliliter or liter except that cubic decimeter or cubic meter may be 

used if required by a method of sale regulation 

(f) Rule of 1000 between 1 and 1000, except that cm or mm may be used below 100 cm 

(e.g., 500 g not 0.5 kg; 750 mL not 0.75 L) 

(g) Digits should be in 3 digits but if less than 100 g, mL, cm, sq m, cubic cm 

should be in 2 digits 

(h) Mixed Units 1.85 kg not 1 kg 950 g – mixing of units prohibited 

Items referenced in the table with a ( ) refers to text in the section indicated with the like identifier. 

6.7. Inch-Pound Units Customary Units: Weight, Measure. – A declaration of quantity: 

(a) in units of weight shall be in terms of the avoirdupois pound or ounce; 

(b) in units of liquid measure shall be in terms of the United States gallon of 231 in3

 or liquid quart, liquid 

pint, or fluid-ounce subdivisions of the gallon and shall express the volume at 68 °F, except in the case of 

petroleum products and distilled spirits, for which the declaration shall express the volume at 60 °F, and 

except also in the case of a commodity that is normally sold and consumed while frozen, for which the 

declaration shall express the volume at the frozen temperature, and except also in the case of a 

commodity that must be maintained in the refrigerated state, for which the declaration shall express the 

volume at 40 °F, and except also in the case of malt beverages, for which the declaration shall express 

the volume at 39.1 °F; 

(Amended 1985 and 1990) 

(c) in units of linear measure shall be in terms of the yard, foot, or inch; 

(d) in units of area measure shall be in terms of the square yard, square foot, or square inch; 

(e) in units of volume measure shall be in terms of the cubic yard, cubic foot, or cubic inch; and 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 9 

(f) in units of dry measure shall be in terms of the United States bushel of 2150.42 in3

, or peck, dry quart, 

and dry pint subdivisions of the bushel. 

Table 6.7. 

Inch-Pound Customary Units: Weight, Measure 

Declaration of quantity if: Then it shall be labeled in terms of: 

(a) weight avoirdupois pound or ounce 

(b) liquid fluid ounce, pint, quart, or gallon (231 cubic inches) at 68 °F except for: 

 1. petroleum and distilled spirits at 60 °F 

 2. frozen commodities at frozen temperature 

 3. refrigerated beverages at 40 °F 

 4. malt beverages at 39.1 °F 

(c) linear measure inch, foot, yard 

(d) area measure square inch, square foot, square yard 

(e) volume cubic inch, cubic foot, cubic yard (unless another unit required by 

method sale regulation such as a "cord" for firewood") 

(f) dry measure dry pint, dry quart, peck, U.S. bushel (2150.42 cubic inches) 

All of the quantities shown above may be expressed in common fractions or decimal fractions of the largest 

unit to no more than three decimal places (e.g., 2.542 lb but not 2.5423 lb). 

Items referenced in the table with a ( ) refers to text in the section indicated with the like identifier. 

6.8. Prescribed Units, Inch-pound Customary Units System. 

6.8.1. Less than 1 foot, 1 square foot, 1 pound, or 1 pint. – The declaration of quantity shall be 

expressed in the following terms: 

(a) in the case of length measure of less than 1 ft, in inches and fractions of inches; 

(b) in the case of area measure of less than 1 ft2

, in square inches and fractions of square inches; 

(c) in the case of weight of less than 1 lb, in ounces and fractions of ounces; and 

(d) in the case of liquid measure of less than 1 pt, in fluid ounces and fractions of fluid ounces, provided, 

the quantity declaration appearing on a random package may be expressed in terms of decimal 

fractions of the largest appropriate unit, the fraction being carried out to not more than three decimal 

places. 

(Amended 1984) 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 10 

Table 6.8.1. 

Less than 1 foot, 1 square foot, 1 pound or 1 pint 

If a declaration of quantity LESS than ONE: It shall be labeled in terms of: 

(a) foot inches or fraction of inches 

(b) square foot square inches or fraction of square inches 

(c) pound ounces or fractions of ounces 

(d) pint fluid ounces and fraction of fluid ounces 

All of the quantities shown above may be expressed in common fractions or decimal fractions of the 

largest unit. Random packages may be labelled to no more than three decimal places. 

Items referenced in the table with a ( ) refers to text in the section indicated with the like identifier. 

6.8.2. One Foot, 1 Square Foot, 1 Pound, 1 Pint, 1 Gallon, or More. – The declaration of quantity 

shall be expressed in the following terms (see Section 6.2. Largest Whole Unit and 

Section 6.11. Fractions): 

(a) Linear Measure. – If 1 ft or more, expressed in terms of the largest whole unit (a yard or a foot) 

with any remainder expressed in inches and fractions of the inch or in fractions of the foot or yard, 

except that it shall be optional to include a statement of length in terms of inches. 

(b) Area Measure. 

(1) If 1 ft2

 or more, but less than 4 ft2, expressed in square feet with any remainder expressed in 

square inches and fractions of a square inch or in fractions of a square foot; and 

(2) If 4 ft2

 or more, expressed in terms of the largest whole unit (e.g., square yards or square feet) 

with any remainder expressed in square inches and fractions of a square inch or in fractions of 

the square foot or square yard. 

(c) Weight. – If 1 lb or more, expressed in terms of the largest whole unit with any remainder expressed 

in ounces and fractions of an ounce or in fractions of the pound. 

(d) Liquid Volume. 

(1) If 1 pt or more, but less than 1 gal, expressed in the largest whole unit (quarts, quarts and pints, 

or pints, as appropriate) with any remainder expressed in fluid ounces or fractions of the pint or 

quart, except that 2 qt may be declared as 1⁄2 gal, and it shall be optional to include an additional 

expression of net quantity in fluid ounces; or 

(2) If 1 gal or more, expressed in terms of the largest whole unit (gallons followed by fractions of a 

gallon or by the next smaller whole unit or units [for example, quarts and pints]) with any 

remainder expressed in fluid ounces or fractions of the pint or quart, except that it shall be 

optional to include an additional expression of net quantity in fluid ounces. 

(e) Dry Measure. – If 1 dry pt or more, expressed in terms of the largest whole unit with the remainder 

expressed in fractions of a dry pint, dry quart, peck, or bushel, provided the quantity declaration on a 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 11 

random package may be expressed in decimal fractions of the largest appropriate unit carried out to 

not more than three decimal places. 

(Amended 1993) 

Table 6.8.2. 

One Foot, 1 Square Foot, 1 Pound, 1 Pint, 1 Gallon, or More 

If a declaration of quantity is: Then it should be labeled in terms of the largest whole units in: 

(a) linear measure: 

 1 foot or more 

yards or feet with remainder in inches and fractions of an inch, or in 

fraction of the foot or yard. Optional declaration of inches is 

permitted 

(b) area measure: 

 (1) 1 square foot or more but 

less than 4 square feet 

 (2) 4 square feet or more 

square feet with remainder in square inches or square feet or in 

fractions of these units 

square yards or square feet with remainder in square inches or 

square feet or in fractions of these units (inches, sq ft, sq yd). 

(c) weight: 

 1 pound or more 

pounds with remainder in ounces or in fractions of an ounce or 

pound (e.g., "2 lb 7 3⁄4 oz" or "1.75 lb") 

(d) liquid measure: 

 (1) 1 pint or more but less 

than 1 gallon 

(2) 1 gallon or more 

quarts, quarts and pints, pints with remainder in fluid ounces or 

fractions of the pint or quart (2 qt may be 1⁄2 gal). Optional 

declaration of fluid ounces is permitted 

gallons followed by fractions of a gallon or next smaller whole unit 

such as quarts or pints. Optional declaration of fluid ounces 

(e) dry measure: 

 1 dry pint or more 

dry pint, dry quart, peck or bushel with remainder in fractions of 

those units 

Items referenced in the table with a ( ) refers to text in the section indicated with the like identifier. 

6.9. Bi-dimensional Commodities. – For bi-dimensional commodities (including roll-type commodities) the 

quantity declaration shall be expressed in both SI and inch-pound customary units of measurement as follows: 

(a) if the area is less than 929 cm2 (1 ft2), in terms of length and width (expressed in the largest whole unit 

for SI and in linear inches and fractions of linear inches for inch-pound customary units); 

Example: 

20.3 cm × 25.4 cm (8 in × 10 in); 

(b) if the area is at least 929 cm2

 (1 ft2), but less than 37.1 dm2 (4 ft2), in terms of area (expressed in the 

largest whole unit for SI and in square inches for inch-pound customary units), followed by a 

declaration of the length and width in terms of the largest whole unit: 

Example: 

31 dm2

 (49 cm × 64 cm) 3.36 ft2 (1.6 ft × 2.1 ft), provided: 

(1) bi-dimensional commodities having a width of 10 cm (4 in) or less, the declaration of net quantity 

shall be expressed in terms of width and length in linear measure; no declaration of area is required; 

(2) an inch-pound customary unit dimension of less than 2 ft may be stated in inches; 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 12 

(3) commodities consisting of usable individual units (e.g., paper napkins) require a declaration of unit 

area but not a declaration of total area of all such units (except roll-type commodities with individual 

usable units created by perforations, for which see Section 6.10. Count: Ply); and 

(4) inch-pound customary unit declarations may include after the statement of the linear dimensions in 

the largest whole unit a parenthetical declaration of the same dimensions in inches. 

Example: 

25 ft2

 (12 in×8.33 yd) (12 in × 300 in). 

Table 6.9.(a.)(b.) 

Bi-Dimensional Commodities 

If a declaration of quantity is: Then it shall be in largest whole units 

of customary units and SI units of: 

Units Expressed In: 

(See also Sections 6.6. 

Prescribed Units, SI and 6.8. 

Prescribed Units, Inch-Pound 

Customary System Fractions 

are Permitted.) 

(a) area less than 929 cm2 (2 ft2) length and width 

 for example, 20.3 cm × 25.4 cm 

(8 in x 10 in) 

mm, cm, or in 

(b) an area of 929 cm2 (1 ft2) up to 

37.2 dm2 (4ft2) 

area, length and width 

 for example, 31 dm2 (40 × 64 cm) 

3.36 ft2 (1.6 ft × 2.1 ft) 

area: 

sq cm or dm and sq in or ft 

linear: 

mm or cm and in or ft 

(1) a width of 10 cm (4 in) or 

less 

length and width but NOT area mm, cm or m and in, ft or yd 

(2) for a length or width 

dimension less than 2 ft 

the inch-pound statement may be in 

inches 

mm, cm, in 

(3) on packages of individual 

units (e.g., napkins). See 

Section 6.10. Count: Ply 

for perforated roll type 

products (e.g., paper towels 

and toilet paper). 

unit area but not the total area of all 

units 

area: 

sq, com, dm, m, and sq in, ft, 

or yd 

linear: 

mm, cm, m or in, ft, or yd 

(4) any customary unit 

declarations 

a statement of inches may be provided 

in addition to largest whole unit e.g. 

25 ft2 (12 in × 8.33 yd) (12 in × 300 in) 

inches 

Items referenced in the table with a ( ) refers to text in the section indicated with the like identifier. 

(c) if the area is 37.1 dm2 (4 ft2) or more, in terms of area (expressed in the largest whole unit for SI and in 

square feet for inch-pound), followed by a declaration of the length and width, in terms of the largest 

whole unit, provided: 

(1) no declaration of area is required for a bi-dimensional commodity with a width of 10 cm (4 in) or 

less; 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 13 

(2) bi-dimensional commodities with a width of 10 cm (4 in) or less, the inch-pound statement of width 

shall be expressed in terms of linear inches and fractions thereof, and length shall be expressed in the 

largest whole unit (yard or foot) with any remainder in terms of fractions of the yard or foot, except 

that it shall be optional to express the length in the largest whole unit followed by a statement of 

length in inches or to express the length in inches followed by a statement of length in the largest 

whole unit; 

Examples: 

5 cm × 9.14 m (2 in × 10 yd); or 

5 cm × 9.14 m (2 in × 10 yd) (360 in); or 

5 cm × 9.14 m (2 in × 360 in) (10 yd). 

(3) a customary unit dimension of less than 2 ft may be stated in inches; and 

(d) no declaration of area is required for commodities for which the length and width measurements are 

critical in terms of end use (such as wallpaper border) if such commodities clearly present the length and 

width measurements on the label. 

Table 6.9.(c.)(d.) 

Bi-Dimensional Commodities (including roll type packages) 

If a declaration of quantity is: Then it shall be in largest whole units with 

statements in customary units and SI units 

of: 

Units Expressed in: 

See also Sections 6.6. 

Prescribed Units, SI and 6.8. 

Prescribed Units, 

Customary System 

(fractions permitted). 

(c) for area of 37.1 dm2 (4 ft2) or 

more (see 1, 2, and 3 below) 

area, length, and width area: sq dm or sq cm and sq 

ft. Linear: mm or cm and 

in, ft or yd 

(1) and (2) for a width of 10 cm 

(4 in) or less 

width and length but NOT area 

Examples: 

5 cm x 9.14 m (2 in × 10 yd), or 

5 cm x 9.14 m (2 in × 10 yd) (360 in), or 

5 cm x 9.14 m (2 in × 360 in) (10 yd) 

linear: 

mm, cm or m 

inch-pound: width in inches 

length: 

ft or yd and may include 

inches 

(3) For length or width 

dimensions less than 2 ft 

inch-pound customary units statement 

may be in inches 

inches 

(d) on packages where length and 

width are critical for end use (e.g., 

wallpaper and borders) 

width and length but NOT area mm, cm or m and in, ft or 

yd 

Items referenced in the table with a ( ) refers to text in the section indicated with the like identifier. 

Background/Discussion: 

The tables were developed from a PowerPoint presentation provided at a NIST Packaging and Labeling Class for 

industry and regulators. Attendees found the tables to be an excellent reference material as they were challenged to 

evaluate various packaged commodities for compliance with the Uniform Packaging and Labeling Regulation. 

The addition of tables to NIST Handbook 130 would be useful to industry and regulators in interpreting 

requirements. No revisions of current requirements would be necessary. Marketing and art departments, amongst 

others, are challenged with developing the packaging and labeling for products being distributed by their companies 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 14 

or clients, and individuals in those professions would find it helpful to have the additional examples provided in the 

tables for reference. 

Several other tables are already provided in NIST Handbook 130, and these new tables are viewed as being equally 

helpful. For example, in NIST Handbook 130 (2014), Table 1. Rounding Rules on page 98 describes rounding rules 

and Table 2. Examples on page 100 assist with conversions. 

2014 NCWM Interim Meeting: It was mentioned that there are numerous technical errors and typographical errors 

within the submitted charts. The subsections in the tables do not coincide with the language printed within NIST 

Handbook 130. During Committee worked session, it was mentioned that developing tables for items within the 

NIST handbooks could set precedence for all items to have a table. NIST commented that they do provide a 

publication, NIST SP 1020 Series, Consumer Packaging Labeling Guides. The NIST SP 1020 Guides are quite 

popular and extremely user-friendly. The Committee would like to have feedback from the Regions on this item. 

They also requested the PALS (original submitter) correct the tables to align with the language as it appears with the 

handbook. 

Regional Association Comments: 

CWMA’s L&R Committee believes the revisions would improve the use of NIST Handbook 130 and provide 

clearer understanding by users. CWMA forwarded the item to NCWM, recommending it as a Voting item. At the 

2014 CWMA Meeting, no comments were heard during the L&R Committee Open Hearings. CWMA believes the 

item has merit, but agrees that the PALS needs to further develop the item. 

WWMA received an explanation from a NIST Technical Advisor that the tables were used to help explain the 

requirement of the UPLR as a teaching aid in its April 2013 seminar, which was open to industry. Industry saw 

great value and expressed how these tables were helpful and user friendly, indicating compliance could be increased 

if tables were added the Handbook. There is no change to existing language in the UPLR, it is only taking existing 

language and putting it in a more readable table format. The tables are supplemental and not intended to replace 

what currently exists. The PALS Chairman added that the intent is to be content neutral, noting that putting 

information in table format is more user-friendly. A regulatory official agreed that tables are helpful and easier to 

follow. WWMA forwarded this item to NCWM and recommended it as a Voting item. 

NEWMA: At the 2014 Interim Meeting, the Committee forwarded this item to NCWM recommending it as a 

Voting item. During the 2014 NEWMA Annual Meeting, no comments were received, and it was recommended the 

item continue as a Developing item. 

SWMA forwarded the item to NCWM recommending it as a Voting item as it is intended to make the requirements 

easier to understand with the table format added but will not change any of the requirements. 

231-2 V Section 10.3. Aerosols and Self-Pressurized Containers

(This item was Adopted.) 

Source: 

Commonwealth of Massachusetts Division of Standards (2012) 

Purpose: 

To allow for a quantity statement in terms of weight for packages utilizing the Bag on Valve (BOV) technology; 

where the propellant is not expelled when the valve is activated. NIST Handbook 130, Section 10.3. Aerosols and 

Similar Pressurized Containers require aerosols and similar pressurized containers that expel the propellant along 

with the product to disclose the net quantity in terms of weight. 

Item Under Consideration: 

Amend NIST Handbook 130, Uniform Packaging and Labeling Regulation as follows: 

10.3. Aerosols and Similar Other Pre-Pressurized Containers Dispensing Product Under Pressure. – The 

declaration of quantity on an aerosol and on a similar other pre-pressurized containers dispensing products 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 15 

under pressure package shall disclose the net quantity of the commodity (including propellant, where 

applicable), in terms of weight, that will be expelled when the instructions for use as shown on the container 

are followed. 

Note: Enforceable on packages using bag-on-valve (BOV) technology after January 1, 2018. 

(Amended 2014) 

Background/Discussion: 

There are a number of products in the marketplace bearing quantity statements in terms of fluid measure that utilize 

the BOV technology. Packages using BOV technology are non-aerosol by definition because the propellant is not 

dispensed with the product. Consumers cannot do price and quantity comparison between product packaged using 

BOV technology and similar product in aerosol packaging because the aerosol packaged product includes the 

propellant in the net weight and the propellant is dispensed with the product. In the example below, two similar 

products are pictured, however the one on the left is labeled by net weight, and the one on the right is labeled by 

liquid measure. 

BOV technology is environmentally friendlier because 

the propellant is not dispensed with the product. 

Products utilizing the BOV technology only expel the 

product as the product is contained in a bag which is 

surrounded by the propellant inside the container. In 

April 2011, NIST, OWM received a letter supporting 

labeling of certain products such as the “Pure Citrus” 

product pictured (left) by liquid measure. 

2012 NCWM Interim Meeting: The Committee reviewed several letters from different manufacturers that use BOV 

technology recommending liquid volume as the appropriate method of sale for products in BOV style packaging. 

Concern was expressed that consumers would not be able to make value comparisons if similar items had different 

units of measure. 

Mr. Van Slyke (Lock Lord Bissell & Liddell LLP/Blue Magic, Inc.) provided a presentation indicating that they 

believe BOV does not fall under the aerosol guidelines. The reasoning is that a BOV container does not expel 

propellant with the product; therefore, it inherently has less net weight. They believe that consumers do not have 

sufficient information to know differences between aerosols and BOV products. Mr. Van Slyke recommended two 

solutions amending the UPLR language as follows: 

10.3. Aerosols and Similar Pressurized Containers. – The declaration of quantity on an aerosol package 

and on a similar pressurized package shall disclose the net quantity of the commodity (including propellant), in 

terms of weight, that will be expelled when the instructions for use as shown on the container are followed, 

provided however that containers that separate propellant from the expelled product so that propellant is 

not expelled (such as containers using bag-on-valve technology) may be labeled either with weight or 

volume of the quantity of the commodity that will be expelled.

or 

10.3. Aerosols and Similar Pressurized Containers. – The declaration of quantity on an aerosol package 

and on a similar pressurized package shall disclose the net quantity of the commodity (including propellant), in 

terms of weight, that will be expelled when the instructions for use as shown on the container are followed. 

10.3.1. Containers that separate propellant from the expelled product so that the propellant is not 

expelled (such as containers using bag-on-valve technology) shall be prominently labeled NONAEROSOL. The declaration of quantity shall disclose the net quantity of the commodity in terms of 

fluid measure. 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 16 

Mr. Douglas Raymond (National Aerosol Association [NAA]) gave a presentation reporting the association’s 

position that a container using BOV technology is an aerosol, and its net quantity needs to be declared in terms of 

net weight. He remarked that BOV has been around for twenty plus years and is not new to the marketplace. 

Various products are packaged using the BOV technology (e.g., sunscreen, wound washes, shaving cream, and car 

products). Different aerosol forms use liquid gas, compressed gases, and in barrier forms using Sepro, bladder, and 

BOV. Mr. Raymond also stated that BOV and non-BOV products are designed to expel their products equally. He 

stated that classifying a BOV container as a non-aerosol is misleading and a safety concern since this product is 

pressurized. 

A regulatory official agreed that BOV containers should be labeled and tested by net weight. He remarked that test 

procedures need to be clarified for BOV containers. For example, should the bag be removed from the canister to 

recover the product? 

Concern was also expressed that consumers would be confused if they encountered similar products with different 

unit pricing and, if the products contents are labeled differently. The BOV proposal that was represented during the 

2012 NCWM Interim Meeting was based upon the views of the room air fresheners industry only. 

The Committee would like to have a better understanding of the variety and type of products in the marketplace and 

what is under current development. Clarification is needed for the term “similar products” for example, what 

products meet this classification as defined in NIST Handbook 130, UPLR, Section 10.3. Aerosols and Similar 

Pressurized Containers. The Committee is also requesting from NIST, OWM clarification on the definition of 

aerosol and a review for any updates to NIST Handbook 130, Interpretations and Guidelines, Section 2.2.7. Aerosol 

Packaged Products. The 2012 L&R Committee designated this as an Informational Item. 

2013 NCWM Interim Meeting: The Committee received and reviewed several letters from BOV manufacturers. 

The letter from National Aerosol Association (NAA) contained draft language that proposes dual labeling for the 

method of sale on the product label. The Committee discussed that there is no applicable volumetric test procedure. 

It was stated that allowing two methods of sales is in opposition of the OIML TC 6 Committee on Prepackaged 

Products, which resolved that aerosols should be declared by weight. The Committee was in agreement that if 

industry could develop a test procedure they would readdress the issue. The Committee revised the item under 

consideration to include terminology to include “bag on valve.” The Committee recommends this item be an 

Informational Item to allow time for manufacturers to provide feedback on the time frame for labeling to change 

over and to research a volumetric test procedure. 

Mr. Hank Pickens (Beaumont) provided a presentation at the 2013 NCWM Annual Meeting describing the 

procedures and reasoning for BOV to be labeled by volumetric measure. Mr. Pickens opposes NAA’s proposal for 

BOV to have a dual unit label. Douglas Raymond (National Aerosol Association [NAA]) is in support of a weight 

statement due to the challenge in testing this product. Mr. Raymond remarked that BOV products can be in liquid, 

paste, and powder forms. A NIST Technical Advisor remarked that a volumetric method of sale would be in 

conflict with federal law regardless of whether it is an aerosol or not. Mr. Sefcik (NIST, OWM) has agreed to host a 

meeting at NIST in Gaithersburg, Maryland, and bring interested federal agencies (i.e., FDA, FTC, and EPA) and 

stakeholders together. The Committee would like to see the outcome from this meeting. 

2014 Interim Meeting: A NIST Technical Advisor provided a briefing from the NIST January 2014 meeting and 

there was unanimous agreement that weight shall be the required method of sale for all pressurized containers 

regardless of the technology. There was also agreement from all parties that an enforcement exemption be granted 

for three years to allow manufacturers to turn over their current stock of product. The Committee received several 

letters from aerosol and BOV manufacturers. 

The Committee reviewed the language as it appeared in NCWM Publication 15 (2014) and made modifications as it 

appears in the item under consideration. 

10.3. Aerosols and Similar Pressurized Containers. – The declaration of quantity on an aerosol package 

including Bag on Valve (BOV) technology and other similar pressurized packages shall disclose the net 

quantity of the commodity (including propellant), in terms of weight, that will be expelled when the instructions 

for use as shown on the container are followed. 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 17 

Note: Packages that utilize the Bag on Valve (BOV) technology shall be enforceable after 

month/day/20XX. 

(Amended 20XX) 

2014 NCWM Annual Meeting: Modified language for the item under consideration was submitted by Mr. K. Floren 

(Los Angeles County). The Committee agreed to modify the language in its Interim Report to that shown in this 

Final Report in the item Under Consideration. 

Regional Association Comments: 

CWMA recommends the item remain informational to allow time to receive information from a meeting that is 

scheduled to be held at NIST in Gaithersburg, Maryland, after the NCWM Annual Meeting. This meeting will bring 

together interested federal agencies (i.e., FDA, FTC, and EPA) and stakeholders. Since 2012, CWMA has 

recommended the item remain Informational. NIST has been working with other agencies and organizations to 

determine that this regulation will not have conflicts. At the 2014 CWMA Meeting, it was agreed this language 

helps clarify that all self-pressurized containers are sold by weight and recommends this as a Voting item. 

WWMA was informed by a NIST Technical Advisor remarked that a meeting is scheduled for January 9, 2014, at 

NIST, which will include representation from EPA, FTC, FDA, CPSC, industry regulators, and interested 

stakeholders. A report will be provided at the 2014 NCWM Interim Meeting. A regulatory official indicated that 

net weight is preferred as different products have varying volatility, which affects the testing procedure. An industry 

representative stated this is a competitive business issue and was concerned about the safety aspect of testing this 

product. The Committee recommended that this be an Informational item. 

NEWMA heard a comment in 2011, that testing for content could be problematic and that marking on the package 

should be net weight of product only, not including propellant, which is not part of product. The Committee 

believed there is better comparison of net contents of product being sold if words “NON-AEROSOL PRODUCT” 

are added to product label. NEWMA forwarded the item to NCWM recommending it as a Voting item with the 

following revision: add to the container language “A NON-AEROSOL PRODUCT.” At the 2012 Annual Meeting 

there was discussion about a conflict between aerosols and bag on valve (BOV) products and their declaration of 

content in the marketplace. NEWMA recommended that the item remain as an Informational item. The same status 

was recommended during the 2012 NEWMA Interim and Annual Meetings. At the 2013 Interim Meeting, 

NEWMA attendees were informed that NIST, OWM will be hosting a meeting in January 2014, which will include 

federal regulatory agencies, stakeholders, and weights and measures regulators to discuss a method of sale. 

NEWMA would like to see the outcome of this meeting and recommended the item be an Informational item. 

During the 2014 NEWMA Annual Meeting, based on the results of the January 2014 meeting at NIST this item is 

fully developed and is recommending that it be a Voting item. 

SWMA heard concern in 2011 by an industry weights and measures consultant over an acceptable test procedure 

that would be used if volume was permitted. The NIST Technical Advisor noted that no specific language has been 

proposed and that the UPLR Section 6.4., Terms: Weight, Measures, Volume, or Count declares that “any net 

content statement that does not permit price and quantity comparison is forbidden”. It was further noted that NIST 

Handbook 130, Section 10.3. Aerosols and Similar Pressurized Containers, applies to aerosols and similar 

pressurized containers. One manufacturer has provided input to this proposal. The National Aerosol Association 

(NAA) was contacted for input into this proposal. Preliminary comment by NAA was that BOV technology or 

versions of it have been around since the 1990s. The NAA Board of Directors member believes BOV technology is 

considered an aerosol, basing his opinion on a California Air Resources Board Regulation. The SWMA Committee 

requested that specific language be developed for this item and a complete response from the NAA. They also noted 

that test procedures will need to be discussed if a volume statement is to be considered. SWMA forwarded the item 

to NCWM recommending it as a Developing item. 

In 2012, SWMA withheld comment until NAA offers proposed language at the 2013 NCWM Interim Meeting. 

SWMA recommended that the item be an Informational item. In 2013, SWMA recommended this item remain on 

the NCWM agenda as an Informational item, pending the outcome of a meeting being hosted by NIST in 

January 2014, on this issue. 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 18 

Additional letters, presentations, and data may have been part of the Committee’s consideration. To review the 

supporting documentation, please refer to the Report of the 98th National Conference on Weights and Measures

(SP 1171, 2013). 

232 NIST HANDBOOK 130 – UNIFORM REGULATION FOR THE METHOD OF 

SALE COMMODITIES 

232-1 D Section 2.20.3. Street Sign Prices and Advertising 

Source: 

Retail Motor Fuel Dispenser Price Posting and Computing Capabilities Task Group (2014) 

Purpose: 

Ensure that consumers are not charged a higher price per gallon for motor fuel than what it advertised on a street 

sign. 

Item under Consideration: 

Amend NIST Handbook 130, Uniform Regulation for the Method of Sale of Commodities as follows: 

2.20. Gasoline-Oxygenate Blends. 

2.20.1. Method of Retail Sale. – Type of Oxygenate must be Disclosed – All automotive gasoline or 

automotive gasoline-oxygenate blends kept, offered, or exposed for sale, or sold at retail containing at least 

1.5 mass percent oxygen shall be identified as “with” or “containing” (or similar wording) the predominant 

oxygenate in the engine fuel. For example, the label may read “contains ethanol” or “with MTBE.” The 

oxygenate contributing the largest mass percent oxygen to the blend shall be considered the predominant 

oxygenate. Where mixtures of only ethers are present, the retailer may post the predominant oxygenate 

followed by the phrase “or other ethers” or alternatively post the phrase “contains MTBE or other ethers.” 

In addition, gasoline-methanol blend fuels containing more than 0.15 mass percent oxygen from methanol 

shall be identified as “with” or “containing” methanol. This information shall be posted on the upper 50 % 

of the dispenser front panel in a position clear and conspicuous from the driver’s position in a type at least 

12.7 mm (1⁄2 in) in height, 1.5 mm (1/16 in) stroke (width of type). 

(Amended 1996) 

2.20.2. Documentation for Dispenser Labeling Purposes. – At the time of delivery of the fuel, the 

retailer shall be provided, on an invoice, bill of lading, shipping paper, or other documentation a declaration 

of the predominant oxygenate or combination of oxygenates present in concentrations sufficient to yield an 

oxygen content of at least 1.5 mass percent in the fuel. Where mixtures of only ethers are present, the fuel 

supplier may identify either the predominant oxygenate in the fuel (i.e., the oxygenate contributing the 

largest mass percent oxygen) or, alternatively, use the phrase “contains MTBE or other ethers.” In 

addition, any gasoline containing more than 0.15 mass percent oxygen from methanol shall be identified as 

“with” or “containing” methanol. This documentation is only for dispenser labeling purposes; it is the 

responsibility of any potential blender to determine the total oxygen content of the engine fuel before 

blending. 

(Added 1984) (Amended 1985, 1986, 1991, and 1996) 

2.20.3. Street Sign Prices and Advertising 

(a) The unit price must be in terms of price per gallon in 1/10 cents. 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 19 

(b) When the price of fuel increases, the street sign must be changed before or simultaneous when 

the price at the pump is changed. When the price of fuel decreases, the price at the pump 

must be changed before or simultaneous when the street sign price is changed. 

 (Added 20XX) 

Background/Discussion: 

The consumer should never pay more for fuel than the advertised price. A street sign price posting that is lower than 

the price at the pump, could unfairly draw business from a competitor. 

2014 NCWM Interim Meeting: The Committee heard from Mr. Hornbach (Chevron) who spoke in regards to 

electronic price signs that have the capability to change pumps and signs simultaneously. He recommends that the 

word “simultaneous” be added into the proposal. Ms. Elson-Houston (Chair of the Retail Motor Fuel Dispenser 

Price Posting and Computing Capabilities Task Group) concurs with this change. The Committee does not feel this 

item is developed enough and request that the Task Group (TG) ensure that all sections of the method of sale are 

addressed in regards to price posting, multi-tier and dual pricing with fuels. The Committee would like the regions 

to review and comment on this item. Ms. Elson-Houston informed the Committee that the Price Posting TG will be 

disbanding in July 2014. At the 2014 NCWM Annual Meeting, the Committee agreed this item had merit and 

recommended continued development by the submitter. 

Regional Associations Comments: 

This item was submitted directly to the Standing Committee from the NCWM Price Posting TG after the deadlines 

for submitting to the regional associations. 

2014 NEWMA Annual Meeting: No comments were received and the recommendation was to maintain this item as 

Developing. 

2014 CWMA Annual Meeting: An industry representative expressed concern over language requiring tenth-of-apercent price posting; industry requests price posting to the whole cent; the same representative expressed concern 

that signs need to change “simultaneously,” and suggested the word “concurrent” be substituted. A second industry 

representative stated that just because the technology is available, all retail stations do not necessarily have the 

newest equipment. A regulator stated the use of price per metric units should be recognized as well (i.e., liters). 

The Committee agreed that based on the comments provided, the item needs further development. 

Additional letters, presentations, and data may have been part of the Committee’s consideration. To review the 

supporting documentation, please refer to the Report of the 98th National Conference on Weights and Measures

(SP 1171, 2013). 

232-2 W Section 2.27. Retail Sales of Natural Gas Sold as a Vehicle Fuel 

(This item was Withdrawn.) 

Source: 

Clean Vehicle Education Foundation (2013) 

Purpose: 

Enable consumers to make cost and fuel economy comparisons between diesel fuel and natural gas. 

Item Under Consideration: 

Amend NIST Handbook 130, Uniform Regulation for the Method of Sale of Commodities as follows: 

2.27. Retail Sales of Natural Gas Sold as a Vehicle Fuel. 

2.27.1. Definitions. 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 20 

2.27.1.1. Compressed Natural Gas (CNG). – A gaseous fuel composed primarily of methane that is 

suitable for compression and dispensing into a fuel storage container(s) for use as an engine fuel. 

2.27.1.2. Gasoline Liter Equivalent (GLE). – Gasoline liter equivalent (GLE) means 0.678 kg of 

compressed natural gas. 

2.27.1.3. Gasoline Gallon Equivalent (GGE). – Gasoline gallon equivalent (GGE) means 2.567 kg 

(5.660 lb) of compressed natural gas. 

2.27.1.4. Diesel Liter Equivalent (DLE). – means 0.756 kg of natural gas. 

2.27.1.5. Diesel Gallon Equivalent (DGE). – means 2.894 kg (6.38 lb) of natural gas. 

2.27.1.6. Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG). - A gaseous fuel composed primarily of methane that 

has had carbon dioxide removed and nitrogen reduced to 0.5 % by volume and is suitable for 

liquefaction at − 162 °C (− 259 °F) and dispensed into an insulated cryogenic fuel storage 

container(s) for use as an engine fuel. 

2.27.1.7. Diesel Liter Equivalent (DLE). – Diesel liter equivalent means 0.7263 kg of liquefied 

natural gas. 

2.27.1.8. Diesel Gallon Equivalent (DGE). – Diesel gallon equivalent means 2.749 kg (6.06 lb) of 

liquefied natural gas. 

2.27.2. Method of Retail Sale and Dispenser Labeling. 

2.27.2.1. Method of Retail Sale. – All compressed natural gas kept, offered, or exposed for sale and 

sold at retail as a vehicle fuel shall be in terms of the gasoline liter equivalent (GLE) or gasoline 

gallon equivalent (GGE).: 

(a) the gasoline liter equivalent (GLE) or gasoline gallon equivalent (GGE), or 

(b) the diesel liter equivalent (DLE) or diesel gallon equivalent (DGE). 

2.27.2.2. Dispenser Labeling. – All retail compressed natural gas dispensers shall be labeled with 

the conversion factor in terms of kilograms or pounds. The label shall be permanently and 

conspicuously displayed on the face of the dispenser and shall have either the statement “1 Gasoline 

Liter Equivalent (GLE) is equal to 0.678 kg of Natural Gas” or “1 Gasoline Gallon Equivalent 

(GGE) is equal to 5.660 lb of Natural Gas” consistent with the method of sale used.: 

(a) either the statement “1 Gasoline Liter Equivalent (GLE) is equal to 0.678 kg of Natural 

Gas” or “1 Gasoline Gallon Equivalent (GGE) is equal to 5.660 lb of Natural Gas” 

consistent with the method of sale used. 

(b) either the statement “1 Diesel Liter Equivalent (DLE) is equal to 0.756 kg of Natural 

Gas” or “1 Diesel Gallon Equivalent (DGE) is equal to 6.312 lb of Natural Gas” 

consistent with the method of sale used. 

2.27.2.3. Method of Retail Sale. – All liquefied natural gas kept, offered, or exposed for sale and 

sold at retail as a vehicle fuel shall be in terms of diesel liter equivalent (DLE) or diesel gallon 

equivalent (DGE). 

2.27.2.4. Dispenser Labeling. – All retail liquefied natural gas dispensers shall be labeled with 

the conversion factor in terms of kilograms or pounds. The label shall be permanently and 

conspicuously displayed on the face of the dispenser and shall have the statement “1 Diesel Liter 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 21 

Equivalent (DLE) is equal to 0.7263 kg of Natural Gas” or “1 Diesel Gallon Equivalent (DGE) is 

equal to 6.06 lb of Natural Gas” consistent with the method of sale used. 

Background/Discussion: 

The gasoline gallon equivalent (GGE) unit was defined by NCWM in 1994 (refer to Appendix A) to allow users of 

natural gas vehicles to readily compare costs and fuel economy of light-duty natural gas vehicles with equivalent 

gasoline powered vehicles. For the medium and heavy duty natural gas vehicles in widespread use today, there is a 

need to officially define a unit (already in widespread use) allowing a comparison of cost and fuel economy with 

diesel powered vehicles. Natural gas is sold as a vehicle fuel as either compressed natural gas (CNG) or liquefied 

natural gas (LNG) and each method of sale is measured in mass. Therefore, the generic term natural gas is proposed 

to be used in NIST Handbooks 44 and 130 without the existing term “compressed.” (The mathematics justifying the 

specific quantity (mass) of natural gas in a DLE and DGE is included in Appendix A.) 

The official definition of a DLE and a DGE will likely provide justification for California, Wisconsin, and other 

states to permit retail sales of LNG for heavy-duty vehicles in these convenient units. 

Additional Contacts: Clean Energy, Seal Beach, California, NGV America, Washington, DC, Clean Vehicle 

Education Foundation, Acworth, Georgia. 

2013 NCWM Interim Meeting: A presentation in support of this item was given by Mr. Doug Horne (Clean Vehicle 

Education Foundation). Several comments were heard regarding the references and databases used to develop the 

calculations. Concern was expressed with the conversion factors used. Concern was also expressed that the LNG 

method of sale should be by weight. A NIST, OWM S&T Technical Advisor recommends that L&R and S&T work 

in a joint session since there is a companion Item 337-1, NIST Handbook 44, “Specifications, Tolerances and Other 

Technical Requirements for Weighing and Measuring Devices,” Appendix D – Definitions: Diesel Liter and Diesel 

Gallon Equivalents (DLE, DGE), on the S&T Agenda. A collaborative effort between the two Committees will 

ensure that the proposed equivalent unit is dispensed accurately at the dispenser. Several attendees spoke in support 

of the collaborative effort. The Committee will request that the NCWM Board of Directors create a Steering 

Committee that consists of experts and stakeholders to review this proposal. L&R will prepare a list of comments 

that they would like the Steering Committee to review and address. The L&R Committee recommends this as 

Informational item. 

At the 2013 NCWM Annual Meeting, the Committee was informed that the Natural Gas Steering Committee 

chaired by Mahesh Albuquerque would be reviewing this item. 

At the 2014 NCWM Interim Meeting Mr. Albuquerque (Chair, National Gas Steering Committee) notified the 

Committee this item was being withdrawn in its entirety. The submitter of this proposal sent in a modified proposal 

(Item 232-3) on this subject matter that will be further developed by the Steering Committee. The Committee did 

note that the factor in Section 2.27.1.6. Liquefied Natural Gas should not read − 126.1 °C, but rather – 162 °C. This 

item was wWithdrawn in its entirety. 

Regional Association Comments: 

CWMA reported that based on the comments received from a majority of states, the Committee does not 

recommend the proposal as written. Since 2012, regulators from the central region have expressed concerns that 

LNG and CNG are being sold and there is no standard established through the NCWM process for sales of these 

products. Establishment of a standard is urgently needed. During the 2013 CWMA Annual Meeting, an industry 

representative stated that creating an equivalence factor with gallon equivalents was not a weights and measures 

issue, and some regulators agreed. A NIST representative stated that using equivalence would not allow traceability 

back to the International System of Units (SI). CWMA recommended the item be withdrawn at the 2013 Annual 

Meeting. The CWMA recommends the status of this item be Developing at the September 2013 Interim Meeting. 

WWMA recognized that Item 232-2 on their agenda is being proposed by submitter to replace this item. Mr. John 

Wasberg (BLU) and Mr. Michael Eaves (Clean Energy) provided presentations on LNG. Some regulatory officials 

supported mass as the appropriate method of sale, noting it is based on a traceable standard and there are two 

alternative methods of sale (hydrogen and electricity) recently adopted by NCWM without using equivalents. 

Concern was expressed regarding whether it was weights and measures responsibility to verify the conversion factor 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 22 

and questioned whether the conversion factor would remain constant over time. Mr. Albuquerque, Chairman of the 

Natural Gas Steering Committee, stated they will continue to meet and consider all related issues and hope to have 

the item developed for the 2014 NCWM Interim Meeting. A regulatory official noted tax implications, equipment 

that converts mass to gallon equivalents, and a possible phase in period. WWMA recommended that this item be a 

Developing item. 

NEWMA reviewed the CWMA comments from 2012. A General Motors representative indicated, at that time, 

there was discussion on a point of reference. A remark pointed out both methods of labeling may be required on a 

dispenser. The labeling issue may create confusion for the consumer. NEWMA recommended review by the 

FALS. NEWMA forwarded the item to NCWM L&R Committee recommending it as an Informational item. 

In 2013, Graham Barker (Clean Vehicle Education Foundation) presented comments in support for this item due to 

there being no standards for DGE and LNG, and standards are needed for GGE and DGE. Comments were made 

that definitions do not need to be in the handbook as consumers and fleet managers can research and make informed 

decisions. The Committee recommends keeping this as an Informational item, and they would like to see a 

recommendation from the Natural Gas Steering Committee. The Committee should also look at the original 1994 

decision on gas equivalent as part of its focus to determine if it should remain in the handbook. NEWMA 

recommends that this item be an Informational item. 

SWMA received a recommendation at their 2012 Annual Meeting from an industry representative that this be 

designated as Developing item. A regulatory official questioned why industry is not installing the right equipment 

rather than putting a label on a nozzle. The Committee recommended that this item be reviewed by FALS, in part to 

check the accuracy of the diesel conversion. The Committee also suggested that the 1994 standard for the GGE be 

reviewed. SWMA forwarded the item to NCWM, recommending it as an Informational item. At the 2013 SWMA 

Annual Meeting the majority of regulators spoke in favor of mass being the method of sale but that some states have 

already recognized the DGE. The Committee received letters supporting the DGE and DLE as the preferred method 

of sale. A regulator stated they would not support multiple methods of sale. A member asks that all of the 

conversions factors be a reviewed for accuracy, so everyone can understand what is being debated. Both the S&T 

and L&R met in joint session to discuss the comments heard and how the two Committees should proceed forward 

in tandem with this issue. The Committees received a handout from Mr. Brett Barry (Clean Energy) summarizing 

Natural Gas Vehicle Fuel DGE proposal. 

Additional letters, presentations, and data may have been part of the Committee’s consideration. To review the 

supporting documentation, please refer to the Report of the 98th National Conference on Weights and Measures

(SP 1171, 2013). 

232-3 V Section 2.27. Retail Sales of Natural Gas Sold as a Vehicle Fuel 

(This item was returned to Committee.) 

Source: 

Clean Vehicle Education Foundation (2014) 

Purpose: 

Since natural gas is sold in the retail market place as compressed natural gas (CNG) to be an alternative fuel to 

gasoline and diesel fuel and as liquefied natural gas (LNG) to be an alternative fuel to diesel, the proposed additions 

and edits to NIST Handbook 130 will provide definitions for natural gas equivalents for diesel liters and diesel 

gallons so that end users can readily compare cost and fuel economy. At present, only CNG equivalents for gasoline 

are included in the handbooks. 

Item under Consideration: 

Amend the NIST Handbook 130, Method of Sale Regulation as follows: 

2.27. Retail Sales of Natural Gas Sold as a Vehicle Fuel. 

2.27.1. Definitions. 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 23 

2.27.1.1. Compressed Natural Gas (CNG). – A gaseous fuel composed primarily of methane that is 

suitable for compression and dispensing into a fuel storage container(s) for use as an engine 

fuel.2.27.1.2. Gasoline Liter Equivalent (GLE). – Gasoline liter equivalent (GLE) means 0.678 kg 

(1.495 lb) of compressed natural gas. 

2.27.1.3. Gasoline Gallon Equivalent (GGE). – Gasoline gallon equivalent (GGE) means 2.567 kg 

(5.660 lb) of compressed natural gas. 

2.27.1.4. Diesel Liter Equivalent (DLE). – Diesel liter equivalent means 0.765 kg of compressed 

natural gas or 0.726 kg of liquefied natural gas. 

2.27.1.5. Diesel Gallon Equivalent (DGE). – Diesel gallon equivalent means 6.384 lb of 

compressed natural gas or 6.059 lb of liquefied natural gas.

2.27.1.6. Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG). – Natural gas which is predominantly methane that has 

been − 162 °C (− 260 °F) at 14.696 PSIA and stored in insulated cryogenic fuel storage tanks for 

use as an engine fuel. 

2.27.2. Method of Retail Sale and Dispenser Labeling. 

2.27.2.1. Method of Retail Sale. – All compressed natural gas kept, offered, or exposed for sale and 

sold at retail as a vehicle fuel shall be measured in terms of mass, and indicated in the gasoline liter 

equivalent (GLE), or gasoline gallon equivalent (GGE) diesel liter equivalent (DLE), or diesel 

gallon equivalent (DGE) units.

2.27.2.2. Dispenser Labeling Compressed Natural Gas. – All retail compressed natural gas 

dispensers shall be labeled with the equivalent conversion factor in terms of kilograms or pounds. 

The label shall be permanently and conspicuously displayed on the face of the dispenser and shall have 

either the statement “1 Gasoline Liter Equivalent (GLE) is Approximately equal to 0.678 kg of 

Natural Gas” and “1 Diesel Liter Equivalent (DLE) is Approximately equal to 0.765 kg of 

Compressed Natural Gas” or the statements “1 Gasoline Gallon Equivalent (GGE) is 

Approximately equal to 5.660 lb of Compressed Natural Gas” and “1 Diesel Gallon Equivalent 

(DGE) is Approximately Equal to 6.384 lb of Compressed Natural Gas” consistent with the 

method of sale used. 

2.27.2.3. Method of Retail Sale. – All liquefied natural gas kept, offered, or exposed for sale and 

sold at retail as a vehicle fuel shall be measured in mass, and indicated in diesel liter equivalent 

(DLE) or diesel gallon equivalent (DGE) units. 

2.27.2.4. Dispenser Labeling of Retail Liquefied Natural Gas. – All retail liquefied natural gas 

dispensers shall be labeled with the equivalent conversion factor in terms of kilograms or 

pounds. The label shall be permanently and conspicuously displayed on the face of the dispenser 

and shall have either the statement “1 Diesel Liter Equivalent (DLE) is Approximately equal to 

0.726 kg of Liquefied Natural Gas” or “1 Diesel Gallon Equivalent (DGE) is Approximately 

equal to 6.059 lb of Liquefied Natural Gas” consistent with the method of sale used. 

Background/Discussion: 

The gasoline gallon equivalent (GGE) unit was defined by NCWM in 1994 (refer to Appendix A) to allow users of 

compressed natural gas (CNG) vehicles to readily compare costs and fuel economy of light-duty natural gas vehicles 

with equivalent gasoline powered vehicles. For the medium and heavy duty natural gas vehicles in widespread use 

today, there is a need to officially define a unit for both CNG and LNG (already in widespread use) allowing a 

comparison of cost and fuel economy with diesel powered vehicles. Natural gas is sold as a vehicle fuel as either 

(CNG or LNG and each method of sale is measured in mass. The submitter stated that the official definition of a 

DLE and a DGE will likely provide justification for California, Wisconsin and many other states to permit retail 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 24 

sales of LNG for heavy-duty vehicles in these convenient units. (The mathematics justifying the specific quantity 

(mass) of natural gas in a DLE and DGE is included in Appendix A.) 

2014 NCWM Interim Meeting: Mr. Albuquerque (Chair, National Gas Steering Committee [NGSC]) notified the 

Committee that this item is being developed by the NGSC. The Committee noted that the factor in Section 2.27.1.6. 

Liquefied Natural Gas should not read − 126.1 °C but rather – 162 °C. 

The L&R Committee responded to the NGSC’s June 10, 2014, request to change the NGSC’s March 2014 

recommendation for DGE units. The Committee agreed that the CNG and LNG conversion factors proposed for use 

in converting these gases to DGE units should be revised in the 2014 Interim Report so that their numerical values 

are expressed to three decimal places rather than two decimal places. These changes are reflected in the following 

proposed modifications within Section 2.27. Retail Sales of Natural Gas Sold as Vehicle Fuel to read: 1 Diesel 

Gallon Equivalent (DGE) is 6.380 6.384 pounds of Compressed Natural Gas and 1 Diesel Gallon Equivalent of 

Liquefied Natural Gas is 6.060 6.059 pounds. 

2014 NCWM Annual Meeting: A joint session was held with L&R and S&T to hear this item. It was noted that if 

the L&R did not move forward Item 232-3, there would be no reason to proceed with Item 237-2 and S&T 

Item 337-2. There was discussion regarding the term “approximately equal” found in Sections 2.27.2.2. and 

2.27.2.4. It was noted this term was not a measurement equivalency but refers to energy to in energy content. It was 

recommended that the Committee give consideration to amend the definition and clarify the meaning. Some spoke 

in opposition that this item would cause consumer confusion in the marketplace, if adopted. Several members 

questioned where the IRS obtained the numbers that are used in the IRS tax form. NIST provided an alternative 

proposal to this item and several members believed this proposal should be taken into consideration. Since the 

proposal from the NGSC was not released until June 10, 2014, members felt they did not have enough time to vet 

the modification or the NIST proposal. The Committee reviewed numerous letters in support of all the items related 

to the sale of natural gas as vehicle fuel. 

Regional Association Comments: 

2014 CWMA Interim Meeting: Comments were made that this item is a duplicate of Item 232-2 with the exception 

of the conversion factors, which need to be updated in Item 232-1. Based on this, the Committee recommends 

Withdrawal of this item. CWMA did not forward this item to NCWM. 

2014 CWMA Annual Meeting: The Committee heard comments on this item in conjunction with Item 237-2 and 

S&T Item 337-2. Main points included in the testimony were: An industry representative stated that gaining 

consensus on these proposals provides the best chance to develop a uniform national standard. Currently, there are 

legislative bills in six states supporting DGEs and similar activity in many other states including a letter of support 

with 54 signatures from Congress. An industry representative commented his membership supports the concept, but 

expressed concern over a discrepancy with equivalencies between the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) definition 

(126.67 cubic feet per gal) and the steering group’s proposal (123 cu ft per gal). He expressed concern that the 

industry feels these differences must be reconciled, or they will be faced with confusion between the two standards. 

A second industry representative agreed. A regulator, who served on the steering group, commented that the some 

members of the steering group attempted to allow for dual declarations on dispensers, using the mass standard as the 

primary value. He fears adding multiple new standards will add to the confusion. He further stated that he has no 

objection to supplemental language, but traditional mass unit should be the primary unit. 

A NIST Technical Advisor commented there are currently seven different types of fuels, and asked if they should all 

have gasoline gallon equivalents. A parallel example was provided of selling paint on a square foot wall coverage 

equivalent. Would weights and measures consider this a viable method of sale? 

An industry representative commented that multiple unit pricings could cause confusion, and there were concerns 

about retrofitting old equipment to allow for multiple unit pricings. He further stated labels are the mechanism by 

which we convey mass measurement. The same representative commented that some say GGE should have never 

been adopted. Another regulator stated natural gas engines are not diesel engines. When posting price equivalence, 

consumers could be misled or confused as to the energy comparison versus the price comparison. 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 25 

A NIST Technical Advisor stated a consumer should be aware of what is being measured and that measurement 

should be accurate. A regulator asked the Conference to recall consideration of equity and uniformity statements in 

the past. He gave examples of previous items that were artificial declarations and were rejected by the Conference; 

examples included “lasts the same as,” “burns longer than,” “equivalent to” . . . etc. The regulator stated that in 

most cases, natural gas has been sold in fleets, so the cost per mile factor has been calculated internally. Sales are 

now increasing at public fueling locations, so when selling fuel with equivalencies, we are getting into marketing 

rather than weights and measures functions. 

CWMA L&R and S&T Committees met jointly in a working session and concur the items have merit, but questions 

and concerns over accuracy of this final proposal still remain. Both Committees agreed to move the item forward as 

an Information item. During the L&R Committee’s work session, discussion took place regarding the inconsistency 

in language in the method of sale in Item 232-3, Section 2.27.2.; and Item 237-2 Section 3.11.2.1. Additionally, the 

Committee discussed the importance of including the same number of significant digits in the conversions specified 

in the DGE and DLE values. The Chairman of the CWMA L&R Committee will communicated these two concerns 

to the Chairman of the NCWM NGSC. 

WWMA did not forward this item to NCWM. See comments in Item 232-2 of this report. 

NEWMA: At the 2013 Interim Meeting this item was forwarded to NCWM and was recommended as an 

Informational item. 

At the 2014 NEWMA Annual Meeting, the Committee heard comments on this item in conjunction with S&T 

Item 337-2. There was a discussion on the item with numerous comments from both industry and regulatory 

officials. A summary of the comments are as follows: 

• GGE and GLE are already established measurements in the marketplace for CNG. 

• If the product is measured in mass, it should be sold in mass. 

• Equivalents are not an exact number. 

• Consumers have done homework before they buy. 

• There is wide support from industry to expand GGE to other fuels. 

• CNG is taxed at the federal level based on gallon equivalent. It would be easier to tax by GGE. 

• All the reasons heard in support of selling by equivalent units sound like marketing tools. 

• NIST Handbook 130 is not a promotional tool! It is about the best way to measure. 

• Some states have already adopted GGE or DGE as a method of sale for these alternative fuels. 

• Clarify L&R Item 232-3, Section 2.27.2.1. to be consistent with agenda Item 237-2; measured in mass and 

sold by volume. 

Additional comments were heard during the S&T Committee open hearings suggesting the need to include the same 

number of significant digits in the conversions specified in the proposal for DGE and DLE values. For example, 

6.380 and 6.060 contain four significant digits, whereas, 0.765 and 0.726 contain only three significant digits. A 

recommendation was made to the Committee for it to determine whether or not the values specified are appropriate. 

Due to the concerns expressed during the Open Hearings for both Committees, NEWMA voted to recommend to the 

National L&R and S&T Committees that the status be changed to Informational. This would allow both 

Committees to revise the agenda items addressing the concerns raised during Open Hearings as well and any 

concerns involving the IRS method of taxing these products. There are additional related comments located in L&R 

agenda Item 232-3. 

SWMA 2014 Annual Meeting: It was discussed that the submitter wished to modify the original proposal; however, 

the conversion factors are correct in this item. The S&T and L&R Committees met in a joint session to deliberate 

on the comments, and during discussion, it was decided the two items should be harmonized and move in tandem. 

During the joint session, discussion took place on how to move forward on the natural gas items. The Committees 

received a handout from Mr. Brett Barry (Clean Energy) summarizing the Natural Gas Vehicle Fuel DGE proposal. 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 26 

The SWMA recommends Withdrawing this item to consolidate all of the information under Item 232-2. SWMA did 

not forward this item to NCWM. 

Additional letters, presentations, and data may have been part of the Committee’s consideration. To review the 

supporting documentation, please refer to the Report of the 98th National Conference on Weights and Measures

(SP 1171, 2013). 

232-4 V Section 2.33. Oil. 

(This item was Adopted.) 

Source: 

Automotive Oil Change Association (AOCA) (2013) 

Purpose: 

Prevent consumer confusion and government-sponsored product bias regarding legitimate, manufacturerrecommended products, and to prevent installers and retailers from being held responsible for labeling requirements 

with respect to packaged goods. 

Item Under Consideration: 

Amend NIST Handbook 130, Uniform Regulation for the Method of Sale of Commodities as follows: 

2.33. Oil. 

2.33.1. Labeling of Vehicle Engine (Motor) Oil. – Vehicle engine (motor) oil shall be labeled. 

2.33.1.1. Viscosity. – The label on any vehicle engine (motor) oil container, receptacle, dispenser, or 

storage tank, and any invoice or receipt from service on an engine that includes the installation of bulk

vehicle engine (motor) oil dispensed from a receptacle, dispenser, or storage tank, shall contain the 

viscosity grade classification preceded by the letters “SAE” in accordance with SAE International’s 

latest version of SAE J300, “Engine Oil Viscosity Classification.” 

Note: If an invoice or receipt from service on an engine has limited room for identifying the 

viscosity, brand, and service category, then abbreviated versions of each may be used on the 

invoice or receipt and the letters “SAE” may be omitted from the viscosity classification. 

(Note Added 2014) 

(Amended 2014) 

2.33.1.2. Intended Use. – The label on any vehicle engine (motor) oil container shall contain a 

statement of its intended use in accordance with the latest version of SAE J183, “Engine Oil 

Performance and Engine Service Classification (Other than “Energy Conserving”).” 

2.33.1.3.2. Brand. – The label on any vehicle engine (motor) oil container and the invoice or receipt 

from service on an engine that includes the installation of bulk vehicle engine (motor) oil dispensed 

from a receptacle, dispenser, or storage tank shall contain the name, brand, trademark, or trade name of 

the vehicle engine (motor) oil. 

(Amended 2014) 

2.33.1.4.3. Engine Service Category. – The label on any vehicle engine (motor) oil container, 

receptacle, dispenser, or storage tank and the invoice or receipt from service on an engine that includes 

the installation of bulk vehicle engine (motor) oil dispensed from a receptacle, dispenser, or storage 

tank shall contain the engine service category, or categories, displayed in letters not less than 3.18 mm 

(1/8 in) in height, as defined by the latest version of SAE J183, “Engine Oil Performance and Engine 

Service Classification (Other than ”Energy Conserving”),” or API Publication 1509, “Engine Oil 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 27 

Licensing and Certification System.,” European Automobile Manufacturers Association (ACEA), 

“European Oil Sequences,” or other Vehicle or Engine Manufacturer Standards as provided in 

Section 2.33.1.3.1. 

(Amended 2014) 

2.33.1.4.3.1. Vehicle or Engine Manufacturer Standard. – The label on any vehicle 

engine (motor) oil container, receptacle, dispenser, or storage tank and the invoice or 

receipt from service on an engine that includes the installation of vehicle engine (motor) oil 

dispensed from a receptacle, dispenser, or storage tank shall identify the specific vehicle or 

engine manufacturer standard, or standards, met in letters not less than 3.18 mm (1/8 in) in 

height. If the vehicle (motor) oil only meets a vehicle or engine manufacturer standard, 

the label must clearly identify that the oil is only intended for use where specifically 

recommended by the vehicle or engine manufacturer. 

(Added 2014) 

2.33.1.4.1.3.2. Inactive or Obsolete Service Categories. – The label on any vehicle engine 

(motor) oil container, receptacle, dispenser, or storage tank and the invoice or receipt from 

service on an engine that includes the installation of bulk vehicle engine (motor) oil dispensed 

from a receptacle, dispenser, or storage tank shall bear a plainly visible cautionary statement in 

compliance with the latest version of SAE J183, Appendix A, whenever the vehicle engine 

(motor) oil in the container or in bulk does not meet an active API service category as defined 

by the latest version of SAE J183, “Engine Oil Performance and Engine Service Classification 

(Other than “Energy Conserving”).” If a vehicle engine (motor) oil is identified as only 

meeting a vehicle or engine manufacturer standard, the labeling requirements in Section 

2.33.1.3.1. Vehicle or Engine Manufacturer Standard apply. 

(Amended 2014) 

2.33.1.4.5. Tank Trucks or Rail Cars. – Tank trucks, rail cars, and other types of delivery trucks that 

are used to deliver bulk vehicle engine (motor) oil are not required to display the SAE viscosity grade 

and service category or categories as long as the bill of lading or other documentation provides that 

information. 

(Amended 2013 and 2014) 

2.33.1.5.6. Documentation. – When the engine (motor) oil is sold in bulk, an invoice, bill of lading, 

shipping paper, or other documentation must accompany each delivery. This document must identify 

the quantity of bulk engine (motor) oil delivered as defined in Sections 2.33.1.1. Viscosity; 2.33.1.2. 

Intended Use; 2.33.1.3.2. Brand; 2.33.1.4.3. Engine Service Category; the name and address of the 

seller and buyer; and the date and time of the sale. For inactive or obsolete service categories, the 

documentation shall also bear a plainly visible cautionary statement as required in Section 

2.33.1.4.1.3.2 Inactive or Obsolete Service Categories,. Documentation must be retained at the retail 

establishment for a period of not less than one year. 

(Added 2013) (Amended 2014) 

(Added 2012) (Amended 2014) 

Background/Discussion: The vast majority of engine oil used at professional fast lube facilities is the most current 

category of API (American Petroleum Institute) licensed oil. However, older, specialty, and some non-American 

vehicles take engine oil not listed as active under API’s private regulatory scheme; some are former API licensed 

oils now considered “obsolete” or “inactive” and some are simply licensed by another organization like the 

European Automobile Manufacturers Association (ACEA). However, if original equipment manufacturers (OEM) 

recommend those engine oils for their vehicles, consumers have a right to use them regardless of API’s blessing, and 

installers and retailers should be able to sell them without obstruction. 

Automotive Oil Change Association (AOCA) amendment is necessary because a cautionary statement appearing on 

service receipts without explanation will inappropriately mislead consumers with older and uncommon model 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 28 

vehicles into believing they should not use OEM-recommended engine oil. The average fast lube customer does not 

recognize API or SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers) to mean anything in particular but “CAUTION” and 

“OBSOLETE” in big capital letters could only be understood as negative. Scaring consumers in this way will not 

only push them to buy more expensive engine oil they do not need but also engender distrust in their installer service 

providers for recommending and/or using OEM-recommended engine oil. 

The average age of cars in the current fleet is nearly 11-years old, and it is not unusual for fast lubes to have 

customers with vehicles twice that age; for example, there are millions of opportunities for consumers to be misled 

into rejecting proper engine oil. The fact is American consumers are hanging onto their vehicles longer than API is 

hanging onto its service categories. When API designates a motor oil category as inactive, this does not mean 

consumers with vehicles designed to use that category turn in their cars or otherwise want to buy a more expensive 

grade of motor oil going forward. Therefore, a category of motor oil designed to work for particular makes and 

models of vehicles should not be burdened with the chilling effect of a cautionary statement absent a specific 

clarification acknowledging the preeminence of the OEM’s recommendations. 

The new standard phase-in factor must be considered as well. When API publishes a new edition of 1509, Engine 

Oil Licensing and Certification Systems, and/or creates a new service category, a reasonable phase-in period for bulk 

oil stock is necessary to accommodate older vehicle owners’ needs; for example, it may be in those customers’ best 

interests, both functionally and economically, to use motor oil developed in accordance with an earlier edition or 

service category so long as the automobile manufacturer originally recommended it and its continued use has no 

impact on any remaining warranty coverage. Although it is common for API to retain a couple of the most recent 

service categories as “active,” API could choose to make all but the most recent service category “obsolete.” For 

fast lube operators to automatically upgrade bulk oil stock at API determined intervals would be tantamount to 

giving API control over the price of oil change services regardless of what the market can bear. 

And what about packaged engine oil products already on the shelf or in the distribution chain when API makes a 

unilateral decision to deactivate an engine oil category? As a practical matter, tens of thousands of retailers and 

installers cannot re-mark millions of packages to coincide with API’s timing or take the financial hit for sending it 

all back in violation of purchase agreements. Attempting to enforce the labeling requirement at this level would be a 

nightmare for everyone involved. The way to avoid this problem is to adopt AOCA’s amendment so that the 

requirement for proper labeling of packaged containers of engine oil rest with the party in control of the 

packaging−the manufacturers. 

Without the amendment, the labeling requirement will be very difficult to enforce given the inventory of packaged 

goods remaining after an active engine oil category has been declared inactive or obsolete. 

Fast lubes would experience catastrophic business loss if customers with older and uncommon model vehicles were 

alienated. Maintenance costs for consumers with older model cars could easily double if they are confused into 

believing they need the latest category of engine oil. 

AOCA contends that the proposed amendment will accomplish three important goals: 1) prevent unintended 

consumer confusion and product stigma from using a cautionary statement by reestablishing the connection to OEM 

recommendations; 2) provide the necessary exemption to protect retailers and installers for selling lawful packaged 

inventory; and 3) which leads to an increase in practical enforcement prospects. 

The most analogous regulatory situation to the one at issue in AOCA’s proposed amendment is found in the Federal 

Trade Commissions (FTC) Test Procedures and Labeling Standards for Recycled Oil (16 CFR 311). In that 

rulemaking process, FTC specifically rejected requiring recycled engine oil to be labeled “recycled” because of the 

stigma associated with the term at that time (see 72 FR 14410 – 14413 & FN11 [1 H.R. Rep. No. 96–1415, 96th

Cong. 2d Sess. 6 (1980), reproduced at 1980 U.S. Code Cong. & Ad. News 4354, 4356. ‘‘Oil should be labeled on 

the basis of performance characteristics and fitness for its intended use, and not on the basis of the origin of the 

oil.’’]). The National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA) also commented in favor of this approach: “NADA 

further stated that by not requiring that ‘‘substantially equivalent’’ recycled oils be labeled ‘‘recycled’’ or ‘‘rerefined,’’ used oil processors are able to market their products effectively.” (72 FR at 14411) No “recycled” or other 

potentially derogatory designation is required so long as the finished product meets the appropriate API standard. 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 29 

2013 NCWM Interim Meeting: A state opposed this item and would like to see it Withdrawn. The FALS Chairman 

remarked that there are several engine oils designed for specific model vehicles and the FALS is trying to resolve 

this issue. A Committee member remarked that a statement of accountability should be within the language. The 

Committee would like to see additional language developed by FALS and made this an Informational item. 

2013 NCWM Annual Meeting: The FALS submitted modified language for Sections 2.33.1.4. Engine Service 

Category, 2.33.1.4.1. Vehicle or Engine Manufacturer Standard and 2.33.1.4.12. Inactive or Obsolete Service 

Categories. The Committee would like to have regional input on this modified language to review at the 2014 

NCWM Interim Meeting. 

2014 NCWM Interim Meeting: The FALS and API provided the Committee with modified language. This 

modified language removes Section 2.33.1.2. Intended Use. For clarification the term “bulk” was added. In Section 

2.33.1.1. Viscosity, a note was added to allow for abbreviations on tickets and the term “SAE” may be omitted. One 

member questioned the labeling for underground storage containers and their legibility. The Committee moved the 

modified language forward as a Voting item. 

2014 NCWM Annual Meeting: The Committee agreed to minor editorial corrections to the language in its Interim 

Report to that shown in this Final Report in the Item Under Consideration. 

Regional Association Comments: 

CWMA reported that this item is still under consideration from engine manufacturers and FALS. During previous 

CWMA meetings (since 2012), various industry representatives have provided comments to the region. AOCA 

stated that the oil change industry consists of small businesses without legal staff so they need clear guidance that is 

easily understood. These businesses follow OEM recommendations, which recommend oils that do not follow API 

or SAE standards. The language should acknowledge that some manufacturers approve and recommend their own 

oil. AOCA thought that the current language required all OEM oils that did not meet a specific API performance 

standard to be labeled as obsolete. A GM representative confirmed GM produces its own oils, which does not have 

an API certification. A FALS member shared the API motor oil guide, which labels specific categories of oil as 

obsolete (refer to Appendix C in the Report of the National Conference on Weights and Measures (SP 1171, 2013). 

If a manufacturer does not label the oil with an API obsolete category, the product is not considered to be obsolete. 

OEM manufacturers that were named do not label their oil with an obsolete category, and so oil changers do not 

need to worry about the obsolete label being used on OEM motor oils. State regulators clarified that nothing is 

written in the regulation, and that grace periods would be determined on a state-by-state basis. AOCA reiterated that 

the language should clearly state that OEM oils that do not have API certification are not obsolete. AOCA asked 

that the Committee recommend this clarifying language. AOCA also stated installers should not be responsible for 

labeling on packaged products received. A regulatory official stated retailers in other industries are responsible for 

labeling on packages received, and it would be an unfair market advantage to allow some retailers to use products 

that were illegally labeled. Since the current language is not clear about exactly what oils are obsolete, the 

Committee recommended that FALS continue to develop this issue. At the 2013 CWMA Annual Meeting, 

Mr. Ferrick (API) opposed the language for this item, stating if a product meets an obsolete standard the customer 

deserves to know this. CWMA would like to see additional information from FALS. An industry representative 

opposed the proposed language for this item stating if a product meets an obsolete standard the customer deserves to 

know this. CWMA recommended that the item remain Informational at the May Annual Meeting in 2013. 

2014 CWMA Annual Meeting: It was noted that this item has companion Items 237-6 and 237-11. An industry 

representative commented he supported all items with an additional change to Item 237-11 (see Item 237-11). The 

Committee believes the item has been fully developed and is recommending it as a Voting item.

WWMA heard comment from Mr. Ferrick (API) who supported the proposed changes to NIST Handbook 130 

which are necessary and provided the following reasons: 1) adding the reference to ACEA will expand the current 

regulation to cover engine oil performance specifications recommended by many European vehicle and engine 

manufacturers; and, 2) allowing engine oil labels, invoices and receipts to list a performance specification set by a 

particular vehicle or engine manufacturer will address unique situations where an oil cannot claim any performance 

level maintained by API or ACEA. The FALS Chair reported it is currently considering these changes, but has not 

reached consensus, seeking resolution by 2014 NCWM Interim Meeting. WWMA recommended that this be an 

Informational item. 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 30 

NEWMA received comment in 2012 from API stating it opposes the item and that specifics have been submitted in 

writing. API suggested this proposal and Item 237-4 be Withdrawn. General Motors indicated the proposal appears 

to allow older formulations of engine oil, but newer formulations give better performance, even in older vehicles. 

GM prefers current formulation of engine oil. NEWMA did not forward the item to NCWM. At the 2013 NEWMA 

Annual Meeting, testimony was heard that API indicated they submitted comments to their opposition of this item 

and requested this item be Withdrawn. NEWMA would like to see additional information from FALS. In 2013, the 

API representative commented to NEWMA that final language review should be made through FALS. No other 

comments were heard, and NEWMA recommended that this be an Information item. The 2014 NEWMA Annual 

Meeting recommended that the new clarified language be a Voting item. 

SWMA received comment at their 2012 Annual Meeting from an API representative who voiced their opposition to 

the item and provided written testimony in dispute of the comments and claims made by the submitter. At the 2013 

SWMA Annual Meeting, SWMA recommended the item be moved forward as two separate Developing items as 

FALS had indicated, in order to move the ACEA reference forward. 

Additional letters, presentations, and data may have been part of the Committee’s consideration. To review the 

supporting documentation, please refer to the Report of the 98th National Conference on Weights and Measures

(SP 1171, 2013). 

232-5 W Section 2.XX. Printer Ink and Toner Cartridges Labeling

(This item was Withdrawn.) 

Source: 

Southern Weights and Measures Association (2010) 

Purpose: 

Clarify the labeling requirements for industry, consumers, and weights and measures officials. 

Item Under Consideration: 

Amend NIST Handbook 130, Method of Sale Regulation as follows: 

2.XX. Printer Ink and Toner Cartridges Labeling. 

2.XX.1. Definitions. 

2.XX.1.1. Printer Ink Cartridges. – Any cartridge or module that contains ink or a similar 

substance in liquid form employed in the printing and/or copying of documents, papers, pictures, 

etc., that is used in a printing device and designed to be replaced when no longer able to supply 

its contents in printing and/or copying. 

2.XX.1.2. Toner Cartridges. – Any cartridge or module that contains toner, powder, or 

similar non-liquid substance employed in the copying or printing of documents, papers, pictures, 

etc. that is used in a printing and/or copying device and designed to be replaced when no longer 

able to supply its contents in printing and/or copying. 

2.XX.2. Method of Sale and Labeling. 

2.XX.2.1. Method of sale, printer ink cartridges. – All printer ink cartridges kept, offered, or 

exposed for sale or sold shall be sold in terms of the count. 

2.XX.2.2. Method of Sale, toner cartridges. – All toner cartridges kept, offered, or exposed for 

sale or sold shall be sold in terms of the count. 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 31 

2.XX.3. Yield Disclosure. – If the seller discloses the yield of printer ink or toner cartridges on the 

package, then it shall be measured using the latest version of ISO/IEC printer yield standard on the 

package offered for prepackaged sale. This information shall be considered a supplemental 

statement. 

Note: Labeling shall be enforceable after month/day/20XX.

(Added 20XX) 

Background/Discussion: 

Over the past several years, there has been a change in the marketplace on inkjet and toner cartridges net content 

statements. There is little uniformity, and the Committee has seen some labels with a net content or with only a 

page yield count (e.g., prints 1000 pages). The NIST, OWM pointed out that, according to guidelines printed in 

NIST Handbook 130, Weights and Measures Law, Section 19. Information Required on Packages, these products 

are required to have the net contents of the ink (and toner) labeled, but manufacturers have resisted, claiming an 

exemption under the FPLA. The purpose of this proposal is to specifically clarify the requirements for industry, 

consumers, and weights and measures officials. 

NCWM 2010 Interim Meeting: Mr. Matthew Barkley (Hewlett Packard Co.) commented that the FPLA creates an 

exemption for ink which extends to toner and ink cartridges. A declaration of weight and volume are not the best 

way for consumers to make value comparisons. Customers benefit from page count/yield. Mr. Barkley urged that 

this issue be Withdrawn. If this issue is to proceed, it should be Informational to allow for a review of the FPLA 

exemption. He suggested that page yield is widely accepted and has repeatability measures. 

Mr. Jeran (Hewlett Packard Co.) submitted a white paper from the Information Technology Industry Council (refer 

to Appendix C in the Report of the 96th National Conference on Weights and Measures [SP 1125, 2011]). This 

white paper included manufacturers from Epson, Hewlett Packard, Kodak, and Lexmark. Mr. Jeran explained that 

his background is with ink and toner measurement. For the same volume of ink, two different systems of the same 

model cartridge from two different vendors can print a different number of pages. In order to determine the page 

yield, they are using the ISO/IEC methodology. ISO is working on a photo yield standard. 

An official expressed concerns with page yield being the standard page print for quantity. Variation exists based on 

the type of cartridge, printer, and font and if graphics/photos are being printed. There is also a concern with what 

ink cartridge refillers are doing. The Florida official reviewed the current practice of refillers, and said they are 

stating the amount of ink on labels. There are many manufactured packages in the marketplace, so value 

comparison to the Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) is critical. This is an expensive commodity and 

clarifications of the requirements are needed. An official recommended that this item not be Withdrawn, but made 

Informational to allow time for research. Regulatory officials firmly believe that there needs to be a consistency 

with the declaration statement on these types of items. A consumer stated that the net content needs to be stated 

with voluntary supplemental information for page yield. Some voiced their opinion that consumers need to know 

page yield in order to make a value comparison. The NIST Technical Advisor stated that under the FTC regulations 

ink and toner cartridges were not part of the CFR. NIST, OWM met with the FTC on February 26, 2010, to request 

clarification of the exemption. According to the Committee, there needs to be a test procedure for verification of net 

content developed for ink and toner cartridges. The 2010 L&R Committee designated this item as an Informational 

item until they receive clarification from FTC, review ISO standards, and determine what refillers’ current practices 

are. 

NCWM 2010 Annual Meeting: Mr. Pociask (American Consumer Institute) presented a 2007 study done by his 

organization with funding by a telemarketing research company. An official expressed his concern that the 

presentation was not clear and asked if page count is based on certain fill levels or declaring the weight on the 

cartridge itself? Mr. Pociask responded that Quality Logic uses the ISO standards. He concluded that net weight is 

easy to enforce. Mr. Pociask stressed that his focus is to provide information that gives consumers useful 

information in purchasing printers and the life cost of the printer, including printer ink cost. 

Another official stated that the study was interesting, but would like to hear from manufacturers. There are several 

issues; cartridges are only for specific printers, when comparing price per page you suggest that price is static, and 

printer ink cartridge refillers need to be addressed. 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 32 

Mr. Rosenberg (Information Consumer Industry Council) agreed that providing consumers with information is 

meaningful; however, relevant to the consumer is the number of pages that can print. The ISO standards are a good 

tool, but will lead to customer confusion. Mr. Rosenberg said that much more discussion is necessary on this issue 

(refer to the Report of the 96th National Conference on Weights and Measures [SP1125, 2011], Appendix C). 

NCWM 2010 Annual Meeting: The Board of Directors established a Printer Ink and Toner Cartridge Task Group 

(TG) to review and obtain additional information from all stakeholders. Ms. Dempsey (Montgomery County 

Weights and Measures, Ohio) was appointed as chair and Ms. Warfield was designated as the NIST Technical 

Advisor. 

NCWM 2011 Interim Meeting: The TG held its first work session, chaired by Ms. Maureen Henzler (Kansas 

Department of Agriculture). There was discussion on the current forms and types of printer ink. Industry also 

explained that they are able to deliver less ink with a better print quality. As a result they refrain from using the net 

content statement but believe that a page yield is more useful information for a consumer in making comparisons. 

Industry was informed that yield is not acceptable and they cannot use words like “approximate” and “estimated.” It 

was agreed that yield could be a supplementary statement on the package. The 2011 L&R Committee designated 

this item as an Informational item. 

The TG requested the following additional information from industry: 

1. How does the ISO standard work and how does this standard would fit into the weights and measures test 

procedure? 

2. How is print darkness measured? 

3. Why have manufacturers removed the net weight declaration from packages and replaced it with a page 

yield? 

4. When changing formulas, is the toner receptacle resubmitted back through the ISO standards to validate the 

page print accuracy? 

NCWM 2011 Annual Meeting: The TG held a Sunday work session. Several state, county, and city weights and 

measures officials and members of industry attended. Mr. Josh Rosenberg (Information Technology Industry 

Council [ITI]), and other printer industry representatives gave a presentation outlining why they believe yield is the 

appropriate method of sale for their products. They responded to questions regarding the quantity control they have 

when manufacturing the cartridges. All industry representatives acknowledged in response to questions that their 

companies have very good quantity control systems in place for filling cartridges. A stakeholder stated that 

packages must have the weight, measure, or count; no other type of labeling is acceptable. Participants commented 

that “yield” is not an acceptable means of labeling for any product. The TG agreed to meet again at the 2012 

NCWM Interim Meeting. The group requested that industry representatives make another presentation at that time 

that would be limited just to the labeling issue. The TG plans to submit a method of sale proposal to the NCWM 

L&R Committee for a method of sale for packaged printer ink and toner cartridges. 

During the Committee Open Hearings, Mr. Rosenberg (representing Lexmark, Hewlett Packard, Kodak, Epson, and 

Brother) submitted a presentation from the Sunday session for the record (refer to Appendix C in the Report of the 

National Conference on Weights and Measures [SP 1125, 2011]). Mr. Rosenberg remarked that quantity 

declarations by volume or weight do not meet the objectives of his organization nor consumers’ preference. He said 

that yield is the best way to enable consumers to make informed purchase decisions. He believes the ISO standard 

for yield can be applied to create that data. Mr. Rosenberg stated that industry representatives will attend upcoming 

regional meetings to address any issues or concerns. A stakeholder noted that he does not believe the ISO yield 

standard is acceptable, because each manufacturer’s default system is different. He also pointed out that NCWM is 

not a performance based evaluation agency, and encouraged the Task Group to propose the use of weight or volume 

as the method of sale. The L&R Committee requested that the TG continue developing this item. 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 33 

NCWM 2012 Interim Meeting: Ms. Henzler informed the Committee that the TG did not have a recommendation 

on a method of sale for either the ink or toner. They did suggest minor editorial changes to add the word “copying” 

after the word “printing” or vice versa, throughout the definitions. 

Several members of the ink and toner industry recommended that this item be Withdrawn, and they have reflected 

this in letters written to the Committee since this item first appeared. They remarked that the current proposal would 

confuse and mislead consumers. They believe that consumers are not concerned with the net quantity of ink they 

are getting, but how many pages they can print. They agreed that the definitions do need additional work. They 

added that there are other ink technologies in the marketplace such as, wax sticks and oils. Currently wax 

sticks/crayons are sold by count. 

A contractor commented that the Method of Sale Regulation states items must be sold on the basis of weight, 

measure, or count. The regulation should be the starting point with the possibility of adding supplementary 

information. The Committee believes test procedures need to be developed to test these commodities. In addition, 

destructive testing of these products can be costly. The Committee wants to look at the possibility for both toner and 

ink to be sold by weight. Ms. Cardin, TG Chair, will request that the NCWM Board of Directors appoint a new 

work group to develop test procedures and to disband the current TG on Printer Ink and Toner Cartridges. The 2012 

L&R Committee designated this item as an Informational item. 

NCWM 2012 Annual Meeting: The new Printer Ink and Toner Cartridge Gravimetric Package Testing Task Group 

(TG) met to discuss a test method that would require industry to label cartridges with a tare (packaged materials) 

weight. This TG, chaired by Ms. Cardin, will continue to develop gravimetric test methods for printer ink and toner 

cartridges, and will provide a report at the 2013 NCWM Interim Meeting. The Committee is placing an item in the 

260 Series (NIST Handbook 133) in their next agenda to report the work of the Printer Ink and Toner Cartridge 

Gravimetric Package Testing TG. The L&R Committee will delay further development of this method of sale item 

until the TG has completed its recommendations. 

NCWM 2013 Interim Meeting: Ms. Cardin (Printer Ink and Toner Cartridge Gravimetric Package Testing TG 

Chair) provided a presentation on the work of the TG (refer to Item 260-3). Ms. Cardin also provided a marketplace 

survey that reflected “count” was the most common quantity statement being used. Industry was asked about the 

feasibility of placing the tare weight on cartridges. Their response was that it was not practicable due to cartridge 

parts being manufactured domestically and internationally and may not always be made of the same material. The 

presentation also reflected an in-house test using a gravimetric procedure. The TG concluded that there is not a 

practical test procedure and the work group is disbanding. The Committee discussed the results of the TG and 

reviewed the method of sale language. In conclusion, the method of sale language was revised by the L&R 

Committee to allow for this product to be sold by count. Ms. Lisa Warfield (NIST, OWM) commented that 

consideration needs to be given to the time manufacturers will need to change over 2013 NCWM Annual Meeting: 

The Committee heard several comments that there may not be a feasible way to label and test this product. Industry 

believes that consumers are interested in a yield statement when making a purchase. The Committee modified the 

language in Section 2.XX.3. Yield Disclosure to read as: 

2.XX.3. Yield Disclosure – If the seller discloses the yield of printer ink or toner cartridges on the 

package, then it shall be measured using the latest version of ISO/IEC printer yield standard on the 

package offered for prepackaged sale. This information shall be considered a supplemental statement.

The Committee moved this item to an Informational for a review of the amended language at the fall regional 

association meetings. 

NCWM 2014 Interim Meeting: The Committee heard that count should not be the method of sale for this item. If 

there is a concern, they can use third-party testing laboratories to test against the appropriate ISO/IEC standard. The 

Committee reviewed the history and regional reports and Withdrew this item. 

Regional Association Comments: 

CWMA’s L&R Committee feels a feasible way to label and test this product has not been discovered and the item 

should be Withdrawn. State officials have both supported and opposed this item in the past, some indicating they 

would rather see a weight statement because the amount of ink would be too small to measure the density. There 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 34 

has been some support for a yield statement instead of measurement by weight because one cannot measure when 

the cartridge retains some portion of ink. Others question how yield could be measured (ISO yields are based upon 

approximations), but suggested yield may be a supplemental declaration. No new procedures or recommendations 

have been brought forth from the Printer Ink and Toner Cartridge Gravimetric Package Testing TG. This issue has 

been on the agenda since 2010. CWMA recommended that this item be Withdrawn.

WWMA received comment from a regulator who noted that yield is being considered since no method of sale can be 

agreed on. If a statement of yield is required, it could be perceived as method of sale, when in fact it is a 

supplemental performance statement. The Committee noted there was no practical way to verify and measure such 

quantity statements. During Committee deliberations, it was noted that if yield is agreed upon by NCWM, then the 

committee’s recommendation is to place this requirement in the Uniform Package and Labeling Requirement, 

Section 11, rather than the Method of Sale. WWMA recommended that this item be Withdrawn. 

NEWMA received a presentation at its 2010 Annual Meeting from Mr. Pociask (American Consumer Institute) 

regarding a lack of consumer information when purchasing computer printers and cartridges. NEWMA expressed 

that there are still many unanswered questions and would like to hear from manufacturers of printer ink and toner 

cartridges. NEWMA recommended that the item remain as an Informational item. At the 2010 NEWMA Interim 

Meeting, it was announced NCWM is seeking a chair for the Printer Ink and Toner Cartridge Task Group. In 2011, 

there were no comments heard on this item. The Committee Chair reminded members that the Printer Ink and Toner 

Cartridge TG will be meeting on the Sunday prior to the start of the NCWM Annual Meeting, and that industry will 

be giving a presentation. The NEWMA L&R Committee recommended that this item move forward as an 

Informational item. At the 2012 NEWMA Annual Meeting, Mr. Floren (Los Angeles County, California) indicated 

that there is an impasse on Method of Sale and test procedures on these items. The TG was not planning to meet at 

this time to resolve the issues. NEWMA recommended that the item remain as an Informational item. At the 2013 

NEWMA Annual Meeting, several representatives believed “count” was meaningless. A remark was made about 

“low count: being exempt from count requirements.” NIST responded stating it would be exempt if written into the 

requirements. FTC was consulted but did not take a position on this issue. Several attendees speaking as consumers 

voiced concerns on a yield statement. NIST advised that there are ISO/IEC yield standards. NEWMA 

recommended the modification to Section XX.2. Method of Sale. 

2.XX.2. Method of Sale and Labeling. 

2.XX.2.1. Method of sale, printer ink cartridges. – All printer ink cartridges kept, offered, or exposed 

for sale or sold shall be sold in terms of the count 

2.XX.2.2. Method of Sale, toner cartridges. – All toner cartridges kept, offered, or exposed for sale or 

sold shall be sold in terms of the count 

2.XX.3. Yield Disclosure. – The seller shall disclose the yield of printer ink or toner cartridges as per 

ISO/IEC 19752, ISO/IEC 19798, ISO/IEC 24711, ISO/IEC 24712 on the package offered for prepackaged 

sale, or on the receipt for direct sale, or on the transfer document for bulk sale. 

NEWMA stated all work has been completed and industry and NCWM L&R are in agreement on the Method of 

Sale by count. The proposed modification provides clarity to the consumer when “yield” is questioned. NEWMA 

recommended the modified language move forward as a Voting item. 

NEWMA 2013 Interim Meeting: NEWMA reviewed comments and recommendations for this to be Withdrawn 

from the WWMA and SWMA. There was a variety of concerns with this item from attendees. The NCWM L&R 

Committee recommended that method of sale be count. Discussion was heard about the lack of accuracy using 

weight/volume of the cartridges based on the variety of different parts in ink cartridges and third party 

manufacturers complying with ISO/IEC yield standards. One attendee did not want this to be Withdrawn, it should 

not be difficult to determine yield based on ISO/IEC for individual manufacturers. Another attendee stated that 

yield could be part of secondary package labeling. NEWMA recommends this item be sent to PALS for input on 

secondary labeling on the packaging in addition to count thereby giving the consumer more information using the 

2013 NEWMA proposed yield language as a basis. 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 35 

SWMA received this proposal at their 2009 Annual Meeting. A Lexmark representative commented they do not 

believe that a net content statement should be required, and a page yield is sufficient. He read the main points of a 

Lexmark letter to Mr. Gray, (Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services) dated March 17, 2009. 

The main points within the letter were: 1) the ink associated with a cartridge is a small fraction of the total cost of 

the print cartridge mechanism; 2) a page yield can provide a meaningful comparison to a consumer if all 

manufacturers employ the same estimating assumptions and techniques; and 3) International Organization for 

Standardization (ISO) studied this issue for years and has rejected reliance on ink volume or quantity; instead ISO 

has developed a yield estimating and claiming methodology that permits cartridges to be compared using a 

consistent yardstick. Unlike ink volume measurements, page yield measurements provide a consumer with a 

reliable way to compare the amount of printing that can be expected. Lexmark also stated ink is expressly exempt 

from labeling as provided by the FPLA, 16 CFR Part 503.2(a). 

An industry representative said this issue does need to be discussed and reviewed further. However, many officials 

believe consumers should know what they are getting. If it is determined that page count is the quantity statement, 

then the page print standard should be reviewed and have tighter standards. Mr. Gray said more data is needed from 

manufacturers on this issue. SWMA forwarded the item to NCWM, recommending it as a Developing item. 

SWMA 2010 Annual Meeting: It was announced that a chair is needed for the Printer Ink and Toner Cartridge TG. 

The Committee did not endorse the formation of the Printer Ink and Toner Cartridge TG to resolve this issue. Only 

within the past couple years have manufacturers changed their declaration statement to read “yield.” Allowing the 

declaration by yield will open the door for other commodities to change their labeling (e.g., loads of laundry). The 

SWMA Committee recommended that these commodities be sold by volume and weight; however, they are not 

opposed to yield being a supplementary statement. This will allow for inspectors to verify the net contents, and also 

provide information for consumers to make value comparisons. The Committee would like to seek additional 

information from industry and ink refillers. SWMA recommended that the item be a Voting item. 

SWMA 2011 Annual Meeting: No comments were recorded. The Committee supported the item as written. 

SWMA recommended that the item be a Voting item. 

SWMA 2012 Annual Meeting: An industry representative serving on the Printer Ink and Toner Cartridge 

Gravimetric Package Testing TG commented that it is was established to develop a test procedure for checking net 

contents without regard for the method of sale. SWMA supported the Method of Sale proposal as written 

recommended that the item be a Voting item. 

SWMA 2013 Annual Meeting: SWMA recommended the item be Withdrawn since no acceptable resolution 

appears to be able to be reached. 

Additional letters, presentations, and data may have been part of the Committee’s consideration. To review the 

supporting documentation, please refer to the Report of the 98th National Conference on Weights and Measures

(SP 1171, 2013). 

232-6 V Section 2.30. E85 Fuel Ethanol Flex Fuel Blends 

(This item was Adopted.) 

Source: 

Fuels and Lubricants Subcommittee Task Group (2012) 

(Note: In the Report of the 98th National Conference on Weights and Measures (2013) Item 232-6) 

Purpose: 

Update regulations related to flex fuels. 

Item under Consideration: 

Amend NIST Handbook 130, Method of Sale Regulation as follows: 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 36 

2.30. E85 Fuel Ethanol Flex Fuel. 

2.30.1. How to Identify Fuel Ethanol Flex Fuel – Fuel Ethanol flex fuel shall be identified as “ethanol 

flex fuel or EXX flex fuel” E85. 

2.30.2. Labeling Requirements. 

(a) Fuel Ethanol flex fuel with an ethanol concentration no less than 51 and no greater than 

83 volume percent shall be labeled “ethanol flex fuel, minimum 51 % ethanol”. shall be 

labeled with its automotive fuel rating in accordance with 16 Code of Federal Regulations 

Part 306. 

 (Amended 2014) 

(b) Ethanol flex fuel with an ethanol concentration less than or equal to 50 volume percent shall 

be labeled “EXX Flex Fuel, minimum YY % ethanol”, where the XX is the target ethanol 

concentration in volume percent and YY is XX minus 5. The actual ethanol concentration of 

the fuel shall be XX volume percent plus or minus 5 volume percent. 

(Added 2014) 

(c)(b) A label shall be posted which states “For Use in Flexible Fuel Vehicles (FFV) Only.” This 

information shall be clearly and conspicuously posed on the upper 50 % of the dispenser front 

panel in a type at least 12.7 mm (1⁄2 in) in height, 1.5 mm (1

/16 in) stroke (width of type). A label 

shall be posted which states, “CHECK OWNER’S MANUAL,” “Consult Vehicle 

Manufacturer Fuel Recommendations,” and shall not be less than 6 mm (1⁄4 in) in height by 

0.8 mm (1/32 in) stroke; block style letters and the color shall be in definite contrast to the 

background color to which it is applied. 

(Amended 2014) 

(Added 2007) (Amended 2014) 

Background/Discussion: 

The current wording in NIST Handbook 130 related to fuels restricted to use in Flex Fuel Vehicles should be 

reviewed. Input gathered from the regional meetings and other stakeholders will be used by FALS to develop 

recommended modifications to NIST Handbook 130. 

NCWM 2013 Annual Meeting: Mr. Chuck Corr, Chair of the task group under FALS provided initial language 

changes for a Section 2.30. E85 Fuel Ethanol. There is additional work being done by this task group under the 

L&R Committee Item 237-9. 

NCWM 2014 Interim Meeting: There was a comment that the language put liability on the retailer and the owner 

needs to bear the responsibility on what fuel is required. The language presented needs to be clearer to address this 

issue. The Committee made minor modifications to the language that was provided by the Chair of the TG. The 

Committee is recommending this modified language move forward as a Voting item. 

NCWM 2014 Annual Meeting: FALS informed the Committee that the term “ethanol flex fuel” shall not be 

capitalized. Matthew Curran, FALS Chair, indicated he is in contact with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in 

regard to the FTC proposed ruling on this issue. Currently, FTC is awaiting the outcome of the 2014 NCWM 

Annual Meeting results before proceeding (refer to Appendix C) with their proposal. The Committee agreed to 

modify the language in its Interim Report to that shown in this Final Report in the item Under Consideration. 

Regional Association Comments: 

Fall 2013 CWMA Meeting: They offered the following revised proposal to improve the handbook wording on 

gasoline ethanol blends above 15 %. CWMA supported this alternate wording as a Voting item: 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 37 

2.30. Ethanol Flex Fuel Blends E85 Fuel Ethanol. 

2.30.1. How to Identify Ethanol Flex Fuel Blends Fuel Ethanol. – Ethanol Flex Fuel Blends Fuel 

ethanol shall be identified as Ethanol Flex Fuel or EXX Flex Fuel E85. 

2.30.2. Labeling Requirements. 

(a) Ethanol Flex Fuel blends with an ethanol concentration no less than 51 and no greater 

than 83 volume percent shall be labeled “Ethanol Flex Fuel, minimum 51 % ethanol”. 

Fuel ethanol shall be labeled with its automotive fuel rating in accordance with 16 Code of 

Federal Regulations Part 306. 

(b) Ethanol Flex Fuel blends with an ethanol concentration less than or equal to 50 volume 

percent shall be labeled “EXX Flex Fuel, minimum YY % ethanol”, where the XX is the 

target ethanol concentration in volume percent and YY is XX minus 5. The actual ethanol 

concentration of the blend shall be XX volume percent plus or minus 5 volume percent. 

(c)(b) A label shall be posted which states “For Use in Flexible Fuel Vehicles (FFV) Only.” This 

information shall be clearly and conspicuously posed on the upper 50 % of the dispenser front 

panel in a type at least 12.7 mm (1⁄2 in) in height, 1.5 mm (1

/16 in) stroke (width of type). A label 

shall be posted which states, “CHECK OWNER’S MANUAL”, “Consult Vehicle 

Manufacturer Fuel Recommendations,” and shall not be less than 6 mm (1⁄4 in) in height by 

0.8 mm (1/32 in) stroke; block style letters and the color shall be in definite contrast to the 

background color to which it is applied. 

2014 CWMA Annual Meeting: An industry representative encouraged support of this item; FALS also recommends 

its adoption. A regulator summarized a recent Notice of Proposed Rule from the FTC. He indicated the proposal 

falls short in a number of areas: 1) for E15, the only requirement would be an EPA label – the FTC proposal does 

not require an octane rating; 2) ethanol blends above 15 % to 83 % will be posted in units of 10 percent increments; 

3) the term “E85” can no longer be used. A second industry representative commented that the FTC proposal is a 

regression and creates problems; he urged support for this item. FALS is considering submitting comments to FTC 

regarding the proposed rule. The CWMA L&R Committee agrees with the comments from regulators and industry, 

believes the item has been fully developed, and is ready for Voting. 

WWMA heard from an industry representative who stated that FALS recommends the item be voted upon with the 

changes shown in the CWMA 2013 Fall Meeting Item 232-5, Section 2.30.2.(c). WWMA recommended the 

proposed version above as a Voting item. 

NEWMA heard from an industry representative that FALS recommends the item be voted upon with the same 

changes represented above in the CWMA 2013 Fall Meeting, Item 232-5, Section 2.30.2.(c). NEWMA 

recommended that the item be a Voting item. 2014 NEWMA Annual Meeting: It was recommended this be a 

Voting item to make it consistent with ASTM on volatility and Flex Fuel language. 

SWMA recommended at its 2013 Annual Meeting that the item be a Voting item on the NCWM agenda with the 

change from “font size” to a measurable type size in paragraph (c) of the proposal as shown in the CWMA 2013 Fall 

Meeting report, Item 232-5. 

Additional letters, presentations, and data may have been part of the Committee’s consideration. To review the 

supporting documentation, please refer to the Report of the 98th National Conference on Weights and Measures

(SP 1171, 2013). 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 38 

232-7 V Section 2.XX. Diesel Exhaust Fluid (DEF). 

(This item was Adopted.) 

Source: 

American Petroleum Institute (2014) 

Purpose: 

To include Diesel Exhaust Fluid (DEF) in NIST Handbook 130, including defining DEF and outlining marking 

requirements to provide information to consumers of DEF. 

Item under Consideration: 

Amend NIST Handbook 130, Uniform Regulation for the Method of Sale of Commodities as follows: 

2.35. Diesel Exhaust Fluid (DEF). 

2.35.1. Definition. 

2.35.1.1. Diesel Exhaust Fluid. – A preparation of aqueous urea [(NH2)2CO], containing 

32.5 % by mass of technically-pure urea in high-purity water with quality characteristics defined 

by the latest version of ISO 22241, “Diesel engines - NOx reduction agent AUS 32.” 

2.35.2. Labeling of Diesel Exhaust Fluid. – Diesel Exhaust Fluid shall be labeled. 

2.35.2.1. Retail Dispenser Labeling. – A label shall be clearly and conspicuously placed on the 

front panel of the Diesel Exhaust Fluid dispenser stating “for operation of selective catalytic 

reduction (SCR) converters in motor vehicles with diesel engines.” 

2.35.2.2. Documentation for Retailers of Bulk Product. – A DEF supplier shall provide, at the 

time of delivery of the bulk shipment of DEF, identification of the fluid’s origin including the 

name of the fluid manufacturer, the brand name, trade name, or trademark, and a statement 

identifying the fluid as DEF conforming to specifications given in the latest version of ISO 22241, 

“Diesel engines - NOx reduction agent AUS 32.” This information shall be provided by the 

supplier on an invoice, bill of lading, shipping paper, or other document. 

2.35.2.3. Labeling of Packaged Product. – Any diesel exhaust fluid retail package shall bear a 

label that includes the name of the fluid manufacturer, the brand name, trade name, or 

trademark, a statement identifying the fluid as DEF conforming to specifications given in the 

latest version of ISO 22241 “Diesel engines - NOx reduction agent AUS 32,” and the statement, 

“It is recommended to store DEF between − 5 °C to 30 °C (23 °F to 86 °F).” 

2.35.2.4. Documentation for Bulk Deliveries. – A carrier that transports or accepts for 

transportation any bulk shipment by tank truck, freight container, cargo tank, railcar, or any 

other vehicle used to transport or deliver bulk quantities of DEF shall, at the time of delivery of 

the DEF, provide identification of the fluid’s origin including the name of the fluid 

manufacturer, the brand name, trade name, or trademark, and a statement identifying the fluid 

as DEF conforming to specifications given in the latest version of ISO 22241, “Diesel engines - 

NOx reduction agent AUS 32.” This information shall be provided to the recipient on an invoice, 

bill of lading, shipping paper, or other document. 

Effective date shall be January 1, 2016 

(Added 2014) 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 39 

Background/Discussion:

Diesel exhaust fluid (DEF) is an aqueous mixture of 32.5 % high-purity urea and 67.5 % deionized water, and it is 

used in conjunction with Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) systems to remove harmful NOx emissions from 

diesel engines. In January 2010, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) enacted new emission standards 

requiring medium- and heavy-duty diesel vehicles to significantly reduce engine emissions, including NOx. A 

majority of engine manufacturers is now using SCR systems to meet the new EPA standards in their diesel 

applications, and is specifying the use of DEF meeting the quality requirements of the most current version of 

ISO 22241, “Diesel engines - NOx reduction agent AUS 32,” Parts 1-5. 

As a result, the sale of DEF has become a fast-growth, emerging market as pre-2010 on- and off-highway equipment 

inventory continues to turn over. For instance, DEF may currently be purchased at fuel-island pumps at over 1000 

locations nationwide, with many more locations expected in the near future. The sale of DEF can be expected to 

continue to grow very quickly as additional fleet turnover occurs and regulations for passenger cars, light-duty 

trucks, non-road vehicles, and stationary diesel engines are phased in during the coming years. Hence, it is of 

utmost importance that consumers of DEF are receiving the proper information about the product they purchasing as 

well as assurances that the product meets the ISO 22241, “Diesel engines - NOx reduction agent AUS 32,” 

specifications. The language as originally proposed is as follows: 

2.XX. Diesel Exhaust Fluid (DEF). 

2.XX.1. Labeling of Diesel Exhaust Fluid. – Diesel Exhaust Fluid shall be labeled. 

2.XX.1.1. Definition. – diesel exhaust fluid, DEF, n—preparation of aqueous urea 

[(NH2)2CO], containing 32.5% by mass of technically pure urea in high-purity water with 

quality characteristics defined by International Standards Organization’s latest version of ISO 

22241. “Diesel engines - NOx reduction agent AUS 32.” 

2.XX.1.2. Marking Requirements. – With the exception of on-vehicle storage tanks designed 

for use in a vehicle’s emissions control system, any diesel exhaust fluid retail package, storage 

container, or point-of-sale delivery apparatus, delivery invoice and/or receipt shall contain the 

following: 

2.XX.1.2.1. A statement identifying the fluid as DEF conforming to specifications given in 

the latest version of ISO 22241. 

2.XX.1.2.2. With the exception of point-of-sale delivery apparatus, identification of the 

fluid’s origin including the name of the fluid manufacturer, brand name, trade name, or 

trademark, as provided in the latest version of ISO 22241-3. 

2.XX.1.2.3. Any diesel exhaust fluid retail package or storage container shall have the 

following statement, “It is recommended to store DEF between 23 °F to 77 °F (– 5 °C to 25 

°C).” 

2.XX.1.3. Marking Placement. – Markings on any diesel exhaust fluid retail package or 

storage container required by 2.XX.1.2. shall be clearly visible, legible and printed on, tagged 

with, or otherwise affixed to a surface, other than the bottom, of the required package, or 

container. 

2.XX.1.4. Bulk Deliveries. – A carrier that transports or accepts for transportation any bulk 

shipment by tank truck, freight container, cargo tank, railcar, or any other vehicle used to 

transport or deliver bulk quantities of DEF is exempt from the labeling requirements of 

Section 2.XX.1.2. Marking Requirements, provided, however, that the information required by 

Section 2.XX.1.2. Marking Requirements, appears on the shipment bill of lading or other form 

of documentation accompanying the shipment. 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 40 

NCWM 2014 Interim Meeting: A representative with API provided FALS with modified language. This language 

addresses the regional concerns regarding the clarity of the language and providing for retail dispenser labeling. 

This modification also expanded the recommended temperature ranges and is consistent with the ISO Method. 

FALS concurs with the changes and submitted the changes to the Committee recommending it as a Voting item. 

NCWM 2014 Annual Meeting: An API representative supported this item and supports a provision for an effective 

date of January 2016. The Committee agreed to modify the language in its Interim Report to that shown in this 

Final Report in the Item Under Consideration. 

Regional Association Comments: 

In the fall of 2013, CWMA forwarded the item to NCWM recommending it as a Voting item. An ISO specification 

currently exists for this product, and quality assurance is important. At the 2014 CWMA Annual Meeting, the 

Committee was informed that there is a companion Item 237-10. An industry representative supports both items. A 

regulator has been working through the ASTM process to develop a specification for this product, but ASTM has 

decided to not pursue it. Consequently, he urges support and passage of this item. After discussion among the 

attendees, consensus was reached that an implementation date of one year after passage would allow sufficient time 

for the regulated industry to comply. The Committee is also recommending a proposed effective date be placed into 

the item that reflects an effective date of one year after publication. The Committee believes a specification for this 

product is important, since ASTM is not going to develop a specification, this item should move forward as a Voting 

item.

WWMA heard from an API representative regarding Items 232-6 and 232-7 simultaneously. The API 

representative explained there is no definition for DEF. He also stated the sale of DEF will continue to increase in 

the marketplace, as it is in use on all selective catalytic reduction diesel vehicles. He further stated the method to 

manufacture DEF may differ, but the standard remains the same for all DEF products and purity is important. The 

FALS Chairman stated that ASTM does not have a specification, so the ISO specification is appropriate and would 

recommend this as a Voting item. An industry representative from Gilbarco spoke to whether current receipt 

technology has the capability to print all required information. An industry representative expressed concern 

regarding temperatures requirements due to storage locations outside the specified range. The Committee supports 

this item and would like clarification in regards whether current receipt technology (dispenser) can accommodate 

proposed requirements. WWMA forwarded this item to NCWM and recommended it as an Informational item. 

NEWMA heard a comment from the submitter that adding Diesel Exhaust Fluid (DEF) to NIST Handbook 130, 

including defining DEF and outlining marking requirements would provide information to consumers of DEF. 

NEWMA forwarded the item to NCWM, recommending that it be a Developing item. At the 2014 NEWMA 

Annual Meeting, the Committee believed this item is fully developed and recommended it as a Voting item. 

SWMA forwarded the item to NCWM, recommending it as a Developing item to further address the concerns of 

quality statements on receipts and dispensers. 

Additional letters, presentations, and data may have been part of the Committee’s consideration. To review the 

supporting documentation, please refer to the Report of the 98th National Conference on Weights and Measures

[SP 1171, 2013]. 

232-8 V Section 2.20. Gasoline-Oxygenate Blends 

(This item was Adopted.) 

This information was not published within Publication 16, Committee Reports for the 99th Annual Meeting. 

This item is an editorial change recommended by FALS and approved by the Committee. There is a 

companion Item 237-7, 3.2.7 Documentation for Dispenser Labeling Purposes. 

Source: 

Archer Daniels Midland Company (2014) 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 41 

Purpose: 

Update the information for documentation for dispenser labeling purposes in the method of sale section of the 

Uniform Regulation of the Method of Sale of Commodities in NIST Handbook 130. This update will recognize the 

EPA regulations for product transfer documents for gasoline and gasoline/oxygenate blends. 

Item under Consideration: 

Amend NIST Handbook 130, Uniform Regulation for the Method of Sale of Commodities as follows: 

2.20. Gasoline-Oxygenate Blends. 

2.20.1. Method of Retail Sale. – Type of Oxygenate must be Disclosed. – All automotive gasoline or 

automotive gasoline-oxygenate blends kept, offered, or exposed for sale, or sold at retail containing at least 

1.5 mass percent oxygen shall be identified as “with” or “containing” (or similar wording) the predominant 

oxygenate in the engine fuel. For example, the label may read “contains ethanol” or “with MTBE.” The 

oxygenate contributing the largest mass percent oxygen to the blend shall be considered the predominant 

oxygenate. Where mixtures of only ethers are present, the retailer may post the predominant oxygenate 

followed by the phrase “or other ethers” or alternatively post the phrase “contains MTBE or other ethers.” 

In addition, gasoline-methanol blend fuels containing more than 0.15 mass percent oxygen from methanol 

shall be identified as “with” or “containing” methanol. This information shall be posted on the upper 50 % 

of the dispenser front panel in a position clear and conspicuous from the driver’s position in a type at least 

12.7 mm (1⁄2 in) in height, 1.5 mm (1

/16 in) stroke (width of type). 

(Amended 1996) 

2.20.2. Documentation for Dispenser Labeling Purposes. – At the time of delivery of the fuel, the 

retailer shall be provided, on an invoice, bill of lading, shipping paper, or other documentation a 

declaration of the predominant oxygenate or combination of oxygenates present in concentrations 

sufficient to yield an oxygen content of at least 1.5 mass percent in the fuel. Where mixtures of only 

ethers are present, the fuel supplier may identify either the predominant oxygenate in the fuel (i.e., 

the oxygenate contributing the largest mass percent oxygen) or, alternatively, use the phrase 

“contains MTBE or other ethers.” In addition, any gasoline containing more than 0.15 mass percent 

oxygen from methanol shall be identified as “with” or “containing” methanol. This documentation is 

only for dispenser labeling purposes; it is the responsibility of any potential blender to determine the 

total oxygen content of the engine fuel before blending. The retailer shall be provided, at the time of 

delivery of the fuel, on product transfer documents such as an invoice, bill of lading, shipping paper, 

or other documentation: 

(a) Information that complies with 40 CFR § 80.1503 when the fuel contains ethanol. 

(b) For fuels that do not contain ethanol, information that complies with 40 CFR § 80.1503 and 

a declaration of the predominant oxygenate or combination of oxygenates present in 

concentrations sufficient to yield an oxygen content of at least 1.5 mass percent in the fuel. 

Where mixtures of only ethers are present, the fuel supplier may identify either the 

predominant oxygenate in the fuel (i.e., the oxygenate contributing the largest mass percent 

oxygen) or alternatively, use the phrase “contains MTBE or other ethers.” 

(c) Gasoline containing more than 0.15 mass percent oxygen from methanol shall be identified 

as “with” or “containing” methanol. 

(Amended 2014)

(Added 1984) (Amended 1985, 1986, 1991, and 1996, and 2014) 

Background/Discussion: 

NCWM 2014 Annual Meeting: Mr. Chuck Corr, submitter of this item, informed the Committee that a companion 

item under the Fuels and Lubricants Regulation, Item 237-7 was submitted and there needs to be a corresponding 

Method of Sale. The Committee agreed that a method of sale needed to proceed in tandem with Item 237-7. 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 42 

The proposal incorporates existing EPA regulations. 

Additional letters, presentations, and data may have been part of the Committee’s consideration. To review the 

supporting documentation, please refer to the Report of the 98th National Conference on Weights and Measures

(SP 1171, 2013). 

237 NIST HANDBOOK 130 – UNIFORM ENGINE FUELS AND AUTOMOTIVE 

LUBRICANTS REGULATION 

237-1 W Section 1. Definitions - Diesel Liter Equivalent (DLE) and Diesel Gallon Equivalent 

(DGE) 

(This item was Withdrawn.) 

Source: 

Clean Vehicle Education Foundation (2013) 

Purpose: 

Enable consumers to make cost and fuel economy comparisons between diesel fuel and natural gas. 

Item Under Consideration: 

Amend NIST Handbook 130, Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants Regulation as follows. 

Section 1. Definitions 

1.XX. Diesel Liter Equivalent (DLE). – means 0.756 kg of natural gas. 

(Added 20XX) 

1.XX. Diesel Gallon Equivalent (DGE). – means 2.863 kg (6.312 lb) of natural gas. 

(Added 20XX) 

Background/Discussion: 

The gasoline gallon equivalent (GGE) unit was defined by NCWM in 1994 (refer to Appendix A) to allow users of 

natural gas vehicles to readily compare costs and fuel economy of light-duty natural gas vehicles with equivalent 

gasoline powered vehicles. For the medium and heavy duty natural gas vehicles in widespread use today, there is a 

need to officially define a unit (already in widespread use) allowing a comparison of cost and fuel economy with 

diesel powered vehicles. Also natural gas sold as a vehicle fuel is sold either as Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) or 

Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) and each method of sale in measured in mass. Therefore, the generic term for natural 

gas is proposed to be used in NIST Handbooks 44 and 130 without the existing term “compressed.” The 

mathematics justifying the specific quantity (mass) of natural gas in a DLE and DGE is included in Appendix A. 

The official definition of a DLE and a DGE will likely provide justification for California, Wisconsin, and any other 

state to permit retail sales of LNG for heavy-duty vehicles in these convenient units. 

2013 NCWM Interim Meeting: A presentation in support of this item was given by Mr. Doug Horne (Clean Vehicle 

Education Foundation). Several comments were heard regarding the references and databases used to develop the 

calculations. Concern was expressed with the conversion factors used. A NIST S&T Technical Advisor 

recommends that L&R and S&T work in a joint session since there is a companion Item 337-1 on the S&T agenda. 

A collaborative effort between the L&R and S&T Committees will ensure that the proposed equivalent unit is 

dispensed accurately at the dispenser. Several attendees spoke in support of the collaborative effort. The 

Committee will request the NCWM Board of Directors create a steering committee that consists of experts and 

stakeholders to review this proposal. L&R will prepare a list of comments that they would like the Steering 

Committee to review and address. The L&R Committee recommends this as Informational item. 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 43 

NCWM 2013 Annual Meeting: The Committee was informed that the Natural Gas Steering Committee chaired by 

Mahesh Albuquerque would be reviewing this item. At the 2014 NCWM Interim Meeting, Mr. Albuquerque (Chair, 

National Gas Steering Committee) notified the Committee this item was being withdrawn in its entirety. The 

submitter of this proposal sent in a modified proposal (Item 237-2) on this subject matter that will be further 

developed by the Steering Committee. 

Regional Association Comments: 

2012 CWMA Interim Meeting: A regulatory official commented that there is no standard for Diesel Gallon 

Equivalent (DGE), and LNG and CNG are being sold in Wisconsin and other states as DGE in order to compete 

with diesel sales. As a result, a standard is urgently needed. DGE sales are occurring in the marketplace without a 

standard. The Committee recommended that FALS review the conversion factors for DGE and LGE for accuracy. 

CWMA supported this item and forwarded the item to NCWM, recommending it as a Voting item. 

CWMA 2013 Annual Meeting: It was reported that based on the comments received from a majority of states, the 

committee does not recommend the proposal as written. (See comments from Item 232-1.) CWMA recommends 

that this item be a Developing item. 

WWMA’s L&R Committee recommends that the item be further developed by submitter and amend the existing 

proposed language. WWMA recommended that the item be a Developing item. 

NEWMA reviewed the CWMA comments from 2012. A General Motors representative indicated that there is a lot 

of discussion on a point of reference. It was commented that both methods of labeling may be required on a 

dispenser. The labeling issue may create more confusion for the consumer. NEWMA recommended further review 

by the FALS. NEWMA forwarded the item to NCWM recommending it as an Informational item. In 2013, 

NEWMA recommended that this item be an Informational item. See comments on Item 232-1. 

SWMA recommended at their 2012 Annual Meeting a review by the FALS and forwarded the item to NCWM 

recommending it as an Informational item. At the 2013 SWMA Annual Meeting the S&T and L&R Committees 

met in joint session to deliberate on the comments received, with discussion that the two committees should move in 

tandem and their efforts regarding Natural Gas issues should be harmonized. During that joint session a discussion 

took place on how to move forward on the Natural Gas items. The Committees received a handout from Mr. Brett 

Barry (Clean Energy) summarizing Natural Gas Vehicle Fuel DGE proposal. The SWMA recommended the item 

be Withdrawn from the NCWM agenda as the submitter they would reintroduced to the Conference as two separate 

items. 

Additional letters, presentations, and data may have been part of the Committee’s consideration. To review the 

supporting documentation, please refer to the Report of the 98th National Conference on Weights and Measures

(SP 1171, 2013). 

237-2 V Section 1. Definitions - Diesel Liter Equivalent (DLE) and Diesel Gallon Equivalent 

(DGE): Compressed Natural Gas, Section 1. Definitions - Diesel Liter Equivalent 

(DLE) and Diesel Gallon Equivalent (DGE): Liquefied Natural Gas, Section 3.11. 

Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) and Section 3.12. Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) 

(This item was returned to Committee.) 

Source: 

Clean Vehicle Education Foundation (2013) 

Purpose: 

Enable consumers to make cost and fuel economy comparisons between diesel fuel and natural gas. 

Item under Consideration: 

Amend NIST Handbook 130, Uniform Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants Regulation as follows: 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 44 

Section 1. Definitions 

1.XX. Diesel Gallon Equivalent (DGE). – means 6.384 lb of compressed natural gas or 6.059 lb of 

liquefied natural gas.

1.XX. Diesel Liter Equivalent (DLE). – means 0.765 kg of compressed natural gas or 0.726 kg of 

liquefied natural gas.

1.25. Gasoline Gallon Equivalent (GGE). – means 2.567 kg (5.660 lb) of compressed natural gas.

1.26. Gasoline Liter Equivalent (GLE). – means 0.678 kg (1.495 lb) of compressed natural gas.

1.35. Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG). – Natural gas which is predominantly methane that has been 

liquefied at 126.1– 162 °C (– 259260 °F) at 14.696 PSIA and stored in insulated cryogenic tanks for use as an 

engine fuel.

Section 3. Classification and Method of Sale of Petroleum Products

3.11. Compressed Natural Gas (CNG).

3.11.1. How Compressed Natural Gas is to be Identified. – For the purposes of this regulation, 

compressed natural gas shall be identified by the term “Compressed Natural Gas” or “CNG.” 

3.11.2. Retail Sales of Compressed Natural Gas Sold as a Vehicle Fuel. 

3.11.2.1. Method of Retail Sale. – All CNG kept, offered, or exposed for sale or sold at retail as a 

vehicle fuel shall be measured in terms of mass, and indicated in the gasoline liter equivalent (GLE), 

gasoline gallon equivalent (GGE), diesel liter equivalent (DLE), or diesel gallon equivalent (DGE) 

units. 

3.11.2.2. Retail Dispenser Labeling. 

3.11.2.2.1. Identification of Product. – Each retail dispenser of CNG shall be labeled as 

“Compressed Natural Gas.”

3.11.2.2.2. Conversion Factor. – All retail CNG dispensers shall be labeled with the 

equivalent conversion factor in terms of kilograms or pounds. The label shall be permanently and 

conspicuously displayed on the face of the dispenser and shall have either the statements 

“1 Gasoline Liter Equivalent (GLE) is Approximately Equal to 0.678 kg of Natural Gas” and 

“1 Diesel Liter Equivalent (DLE) is Approximately Equal to 0.765 kg of Compressed 

Natural Gas” or the statements “1 Gasoline Gallon Equivalent (GGE) is Approximately Equal 

to 5.660 lb of Compressed Natural Gas” and “1 Diesel Gallon Equivalent (DGE) is 

Approximately Equal to 6.384 lb of Compressed Natural Gas” consistent with the method of 

sale used. 

3.11.2.2.3. Pressure. – CNG is dispensed into vehicle fuel containers with working pressures of 

20 684 kPa (3000 psig), or 24 821 kPa (3600 psig). The dispenser shall be labeled 20 684 kPa

(3000 psig), or 24 821 kPa (3600 psig) corresponding to the pressure of the CNG dispensed by 

each fueling hose. 

3.11.2.2.4. NFPA Labeling. – NFPA Labeling requirements also apply. (Refer to NFPA 52.) 

3.11.2.2.5. Automotive Fuel Rating. – CNG automotive fuel shall be labeled with its 

automotive fuel rating in accordance with 16 CFR Part 309. 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 45 

3.11.3. Nozzle Requirements for CNG. – CNG fueling nozzles shall comply with 

ANSI/AGA/CGA NGV 1.

3.12. Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG).

3.12.1. How Liquefied Natural Gas is to be Identified. – For the purposes of this regulation, liquefied 

natural gas shall be identified by the term “Liquefied Natural Gas” or “LNG.” 

3.12.2. Labeling of Retail Dispensers of Retail Sales of Liquefied Natural Gas Sold as a Vehicle Fuel.

3.12.2.1. Method of Retail Sale. – All LNG kept, offered, or exposed for sale or sold at retail as 

a vehicle fuel shall be measured in mass, and indicated in diesel liter equivalent (DLE) or diesel 

gallon equivalent (DGE) units. 

3.12.2.2. Retail Dispenser Labeling. 

3.12.2.2.1. Identification of Product. – Each retail dispenser of LNG shall be labeled as 

“Liquefied Natural Gas.” 

3.12.2.2.2. Conversion Factor. – All retail LNG dispensers shall be labeled with the 

equivalent conversion factor in terms of kilograms or pounds. The label shall be 

permanently and conspicuously displayed on the face of the dispenser and shall have either 

the statement “1 Diesel Liter Equivalent (DLE) is Approximately Equal to 0.726 kg of 

Liquefied Natural Gas” or “1 Diesel Gallon Equivalent (DGE) is Approximately Equal to 

6.059 lb of Liquefied Natural Gas” consistent with the method of sale used. 

3.12.2.2.3. Automotive Fuel Rating. – LNG automotive fuel shall be labeled with its 

automotive fuel rating in accordance with 16 CFR Part 306. 

3.12.2.2.4. NFPA Labeling. – NFPA Labeling requirements also apply. (Refer to NFPA 52.) 

Background/Discussion: 

The gasoline gallon equivalent (GGE) unit was defined by NCWM in 1994 (refer to Appendix A) to allow users of 

natural gas vehicles to readily compare costs and fuel economy of light-duty compressed natural gas vehicles with 

equivalent gasoline powered vehicles. For the medium and heavy duty natural gas vehicles in widespread use today, 

there is a need to officially define a unit (already in widespread use) allowing a comparison of cost and fuel 

economy with diesel powered vehicles. The submitter stated that the official definition of a DLE and a DGE will 

likely provide justification for California, Wisconson, and many other states to permit retail sales of CNG for 

heavy-duty vehicles in these convenient units. The mathematics justifying the specific quantity (mass) of 

compressed natural gas in a DLE and DGE is included in the Appendix. 

NCWM 2014 Interim Meeting: Mr. Albuquerque (Chair, National Gas Steering Committee) notified the Committee 

that this item was actively being developed by the National Gas Steering Committee (NGSC). 

The L&R Committee is responded to the NGSC’s June 10, 2014, request to change the NGSC’s March 2014 

recommendation for DGE units. 

The L&R Committee agreed that the CNG and LNG conversion factors proposed for use in converting these gases 

to DGE units should be revised in the 2014 Interim Report so that their numerical values are expressed to three 

decimal places rather than two decimal places. These changes are reflected in the following proposed modifications 

to Section 1. Definitions 1.XX, and to the proposed new definition for “diesel gallon equivalent” to read “1 Diesel 

Gallon Equivalent (DGE) is 6.380 6.384 pounds of Compressed Natural Gas and 1 Diesel Gallon Equivalent of 

Liquefied Natural Gas is 6.060 6.059 pounds.” 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 46 

NCWM 2014 Annual Meeting: A joint session was held with L&R and S&T Committees to hear this item. It was 

noted that if the Committee did not move Item 232-3 forward then there would be no reason to proceed with 

Item 237-2 and S&T Committee Item 337-2. There was discussion regarding the term “approximately equal” found 

in Sections 2.27.2.2. and 2.27.2.4. It was noted this term was not a measurement equivalency but refers to energy 

content. It was recommended that the Committee give consideration to amend the definition and clarify the 

meaning. Some spoke in opposition that this item would cause consumer confusion in the marketplace, if adopted. 

Several members questioned where the IRS obtained the numbers that are used in the IRS tax form. NIST provided 

an alternative proposal to this item, and several members believed this proposal should be taken into consideration. 

Since the proposal from the NGSC was not released until June 10, 2014, members felt they did not have enough 

time to vet the modification or the NIST proposal. The Committee reviewed numerous letters in support of all the 

items that related to the sale of natural gas as vehicle fuel. 

March 2014 Natural Gas Steering Committee Report to the L&R and S&T Committees 

The Natural Gas Steering Committee (NGSC) was formed in July 2013 to help understand and educate the NCWM 

membership regarding the technical issues surrounding the proposed changes to NIST Handbooks 44 and 130 

submitted by the Clean Vehicle Education Foundation (CVEF), the anticipated impact of the proposed changes, and 

issues related to implementation requirements when compressed natural gas (CNG) and liquefied natural gas (LNG) 

are dispensed and sold as a retail engine fuel in gallon equivalent units. 

NCWM 2014 Interim Meeting: Mr. Albuquerque, Chair of the NGSC provided the S&T and L&R Committees with 

an update from the NGSC, including proposed revisions to the proposals submitted by the CVEF. The NGSC heard 

comments from the floor related to the proposed revisions and requested additional time to further develop its 

recommendations. The S&T and L&R Committees agreed to allow the NGSC additional time to meet and develop 

alternative proposals to those on the S&T and L&R Committees January 2014 agendas, with the expectation that the 

NGSC recommendations would be ready for inclusion in Publication 16, and moved forward as a Voting item at the 

July 2014 NCWM Annual Meeting. 

Summary of NGSC Meeting Discussions 

The NGSC met weekly following the January 2014 Interim Meeting, and focused on modifying the Clean Vehicle 

Education Foundation (CVEF) 2013 proposals for the recognition of diesel gallon equivalent (DGE) units for 

CNG/LNG dispenser indications and the method of sale for these two natural gas alternative engine fuels. The 

NGSC reviewed multiple modifications to those proposals including: 

 limiting sales to a single unit of mass measurement enforceable by 2016; 

 requiring indications in mass and gasoline and diesel gallon equivalents, while phasing in mass only units; 

 require sale by mass as the primary means, but allow for the simultaneous display of volume equivalent 

units, so long as the purchaser always had access to the mass (traceable) measurement; and 

 a proposal from NIST OWM which would allow the posting of supplemental information to assist 

consumers in making value comparisons and for use by taxation/other agencies, but requiring the phase in 

of indications in mass. 

The NGSC received: 

 input from DOE on the latest edition of the DOE Transportation Energy Data Book: Edition 32, July 2013 

available on the Oak Ridge National Laboratory website at: http://cta.ornl.gov/data/index.shtml; 

 updates from CNG (3) and LNG (1) dispenser manufacturers indicating their dispensing systems comply 

with the requirements in the handbooks, and have the capability to indicate a sale in a single unit of 

measurement, and any further input on adding displays to the cabinet for additional units would require 

further cost analysis; while one OEM indicated use of their LNG RMFD in a fleet operation where 

indications are only in the DGE; and 

 feedback from committee members related to the pros and cons of requiring the indication of sale in mass 

or gallon equivalent units, including traceability, equipment capabilities, marketplace considerations, and 

units used by state and federal agencies. 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 47 

Also noted in the NGSC discussions were: 

 how a gallon equivalent unit is derived using energy content, and that the gallon equivalent is defined and 

measured in terms of mass, not volume; 

 for the last 20 years, NIST Handbooks 44 and 130 have required all dispensing equipment to indicate 

deliveries of natural gas in GGE units to consumers, and in mass units for inspection and testing purposes. 

CNG RMFD equipment in the most states comply with the requirements in the handbooks; 

 international practices for indicating CNG and LNG engine fuel deliveries are predominantly mass; Canada 

requires LNG indications in the kilogram and the corresponding OIML R 139 “Compressed gaseous fuel 

measuring systems for vehicles” standard requires indication of the measured gas in mass; 

 the variations in engine efficiency relative to a single conversion factor based on an averaged energy 

content for LNG and the primary focus of the driving public and fleets on mileage rather than petroleum 

products no longer used to fuel their vehicles; 

 the work ahead over the next year by ASTM committees to develop current CNG and LNG fuel quality 

standards which will need to be referenced in NIST Handbook 130; 

 differences in the measurement of the gallon and kilogram – since the gallon is a volume measurement and 

not an energy measurement, and the NIST Handbook 44 Mass Flow Meters Code includes a requirement 

for volume-measuring devices with ATC used in natural gas applications to be equipped with an automatic 

means to make corrections; if the devices is affected by changes in the properties of the product, it was also 

noted that U.S. gasoline and diesel dispensers are not required to have ATC; whereas, ATC does occur in 

sales at the wholesale level; 

 how traceability applies to the measurement results at each level of the custody chain (to include the 

determination of the uncertainty of all calibrations and use of an appropriate unit of measurement); and 

 the capabilities of equipment in the marketplace. 

A DOE representative supported the use of gallon equivalents, and pointed out that they are used in the DOE 

Transportation Energy Data Book. The DOE representative also pointed out that other federal agencies including 

the IRS were requiring use of gallon equivalent units for reporting. 

Industry representatives on the NGSC indicated that they are actively campaigning to their state and federal offices, 

encouraging each government branch to recognize sales of CNG and LNG in gasoline and diesel volume equivalent 

units. Industry sectors represented on the NGSC indicated that their customers are satisfied with the averaged fuel 

energy values that correspond to the conversion factors for CNG and LNG, with only one exception. The exception 

was a truck stop chain indicating their customers would be amenable to a single conversion factor for both fuels. 

The CVEF also provided a comparison of GTI’s 1992 study results and preliminary data from a 2013 study. The 

CVEF reported the constituents in natural gas as basically unchanged over 21 years since the NCWM first 

recognized the GGE. Industry unanimously opposed a recommendation for phasing in mass as the only unit of 

measurement, noting also that U.S. drivers would be confused by SI units while acknowledging that the United 

States is in the minority of countries whereby delivery and sales are by equivalent units. At the conclusion of the 

NGSC deliberations, NGVAmerica provided the following statement: 

“One of the major advantages of the proposal as currently drafted with inclusion of the DGE and GGE 

units for natural gas is that this is a proposal that the natural gas industry can support. It further recognizes 

what is already the preferred practice for how natural gas is measured and dispensed. The latest proposal 

with DGE and GGE units provides a pathway forward toward a national consensus approach. If the 

proposal were to instead require use of kilograms or even pounds as the primary method of sale, industry 

would not support that proposal and likely would strongly oppose it this summer if NCWM were to 

consider it as a voting issue. Also, if NCWM finalizes on a standard that does not include DGE or GGE, 

industry is committed to pursuing adoption of an alternative standard on a state by state basis, which could 

lead to different treatment across the country. Several states have already introduced legislation to 

recognize the DGE standard (CA, IL, MO, and VA) and I expect more will do so later this year. And you 

know Colorado and Arkansas already have put in place standards that recognize the DGE units.” 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 48 

NGSC Recommendations: 

After consideration of all of the above, the NGSC recommends alternate proposals to the L&R and S&T Committee 

Agenda items which further modify and consolidate the Clean Vehicle Education Foundation 2013 proposals to 

include: 

1. requirements for measurement in mass and indication in gallon equivalent units (NIST Handbook 44 

paragraphs S.1.3.1.1. and S.1.3.1.2.; and NIST Handbook 130 paragraphs 3.11.2.1. and 3.12.2.1.); 

2. posting of a label that has both the GGE and DGE or the GLE and DLE for CNG applications (NIST 

Handbook 44 paragraphs S.5.2., S.5.3., UR.3.1.1., and UR.3.1.2; and NIST Handbook 130 paragraphs 

3.11.2.2.2. and 3.12.2.2.2.); 

3. expression of all equivalent conversion factors expressed in mass units to 3 significant places beyond the 

decimal point for consistency (NIST Handbook 44 paragraphs S.5.2., S.5.3., UR.3.1.1., and UR.3.1.2 and 

Appendix D and NIST Handbook 130 Section 1, paragraphs 3.11.2.2.2. and 3.12.2.2.2.); 

4. correction of the temperatures in the LNG definition (NIST Handbook 130 Section 1); 

5. addition of 16 CFR Part 309 for CNG automotive fuel rating (NIST Handbook 130 paragraph 3.11.2.2.5.); 

and 

6. reference to NFPA 52 (NIST Handbook 130 paragraph 3.12.2.2.4.).

With regards to NIST Handbook 44, the NGSC recommends withdrawing S&T Agenda Items 337-1 and 337-4 and 

the consolidation of agenda Items 337-2, 337-3, and 337-5 into a newly revised single Voting item designated as 

Item 337-2. The NGSC also recommends further modifications to corresponding NIST Handbook 130 prosposals to 

align the definitions of related terms and method of sale with definitions, indicated delivery and dispenser labeling 

requirements being proposed for NIST Handbook 44. 

With regards to NIST Handbook 44, the NGSC also recommends consideration of a new Developing item 

addressing proposed changes to paragraph S.3.6. Automatic Density Correction designated as Item 360-4. This new 

proposal is consistent with the NGSC decision to encourage further work beyond the current scope of their work on 

the CVEF’s proposals to fully address all LNG applications. 

Representatives of the NGSC and the S&T and L&R Committees met in March 2014, all agreed on the course of 

action outlined above. 

Additional Contacts: Clean Energy, Seal Beach, CA, NGVAmerica, Washington, DC, Clean Vehicle Education 

Foundation, Acworth, GA. Regional Association Comments: (Fall 2013 Input on the Committee’s 2014 Interim 

Agenda Items 337-1 through 337-5). 

With regards to NIST Handbook 130 the NGSC recommends withdrawing L&R agenda Item 237-1 and the 

consolidation of agenda Items 237-2, 237-3, and 237-5 into newly revised single Voting item designated as 

Item 237-1 of this report. 

Regional Association Comments: 

2014 CWMA Interim Meeting: Comments were made that is item is a duplicate of Item 237-1 with the exception 

of the conversion factors, which need to be updated in Item 237-1. Based on this, the Committee recommends this 

item to be Withdrawn. CWMA did not forward this item to NCWM. 

2014 CWMA Annual Meeting: The Committee heard comments on this item in conjunction with Item 237-2 and 

S&T Item 337-2. Main points included in the testimony included: an industry representative stated that gaining 

consensus on these proposals provides the best chance to develop a uniform national standard. Currently, there are 

legislative bills in six states supporting DGEs and similar activity in many other states including a letter of support 

with 54 signatures from Congress. An industry representative commented his membership supports the concept, but 

expressed concern over a discrepancy with equivalencies between the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) definition 

(126.67 cu ft per gal) and the steering group’s proposal (123 cu ft gal). He expressed concern that the industry feels 

these differences must be reconciled, or they will be faced with confusion between the two standards. A second 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 49 

industry representative agreed. A regulator, who served on the steering group, commented that some members of 

the steering group attempted to allow for dual declarations on dispensers, using the mass standard as the primary 

value. He fears adding multiple new standards will add to the confusion. He further stated he had no objection to 

supplemental language, but traditional mass unit should be the primary unit. 

A NIST Technical Advisor commented there are currently seven different types of fuels; and asked if they should all 

have gasoline gallon equivalents. A parallel example was provided of selling paint on a square foot wall coverage 

equivalent. Would weights and measures consider it a viable method of sale? 

An industry representative commented that multiple unit pricings could cause confusion, and there were concerns 

about retrofitting old equipment to allow for multiple unit pricings. He further stated labels are the mechanism by 

which we convey mass measurement. This same industry representative commented that some say GGE should 

have never been adopted. He asked the Conference how they thought it had not worked in the marketplace. 

Another regulator stated that natural gas engines are not diesel engines. When posting price equivalence, consumers 

could be misled or confused as to the energy comparison versus the price comparison. 

A NIST representative stated a consumer should be aware of what is being measured, and the measure be accurate. 

A regulator asked the Conference to recall consideration of equity and uniformity statements in the past. He gave 

examples of previous items that were artificial declarations and were rejected by the Conference. Examples 

included “lasts the same as,” “burns longer than,” “equivalent to...etcetera.” A regulator stated in most cases, 

natural gas has been sold in fleets, so the cost per mile factor has been calculated internally. Sales are now 

increasing at public fueling locations, so when selling fuel with equivalencies, we are getting into marketing rather 

than weights and measures functions. 

CWMA L&R and S&T Committees met jointly in a working session, and concur the items have merit, but questions 

and concerns over accuracy of this final proposal still remain. Both Committees agreed to move the item forward as 

an Informational item. During the L&R Committee’s work session, discussion took place regarding the 

inconsistency in language in the method of sale in L&R Item 232-3, Section 2.27.2. compared to the method of sale 

with L&R Item 237-2, Section 3.11.2.1. Additionally, the Committee discussed the importance of including the 

same number of significant digits in the conversions specified in the DGE and DLE equivalent values. The 

Chairman of the CWMA L&R Committee will communicate these two concerns to the Chairman of the NCWM 

Natural Gas Steering Committee. 

WWMA reported that two regulatory officials voiced support for method of sale by mass and see no value in using 

equivalents. The Committee recommends this item be Withdrawn and for the submitter to incorporate the pertinent 

information into Item 237-1. WWMA did not forward this item to NCWM. 

2014 NEWMA Annual Meeting: The Committee heard comments on this item in conjunction with S&T 

Item 337-2. There was a lot of good discussion on the item with numerous comments from both industry and 

regulatory officials. A summary of the comments are as follows: 

 GGE and GLE are already established measurements in the marketplace for CNG. 

 If the product is measured in mass, it should be sold in mass. 

 Equivalents are not an exact number. 

 Consumers have done homework before they buy. 

 There’s wide support from industry to expand GGE to other fuels. 

 CNG is taxed at the federal level based on gallon equivalent. It would be easier to tax by GGE. 

 All the reasons heard in support of selling by equivalent units sound like marketing tools. 

 NIST Handbook 130 is not a promotional tool! It is about the best way to measure. 

 Some states have already adopted GGE or DGE as a method of sale for these alternative fuels. 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 50 

 Clarify method of sale Section 2.27.2.1. to be consistent with Item 237-2; measured in mass and sold by 

volume. 

Additional comments were heard during the S&T Committee Open Hearings suggesting the need to include the 

same number of significant digits in the conversions specified in the proposal for DGE and DLE values. For 

example, 6.380 and 6.060 contain four significant digits, whereas, 0.765 and 0.726 contain only three significant 

digits. A recommendation was made to the Committee that it determines whether or not the values specified are 

appropriate. 

Due to the concerns expressed during the open hearings for both L&R and S&T Committees, NEWMA voted to 

recommend to the NCWM L&R and S&T Committees the status on the agenda items be changed to Informational. 

SWMA recommended review by the FALS at the 2012 Annual Meeting and forwarded the item to NCWM, 

recommending it as an Informational item. At the 2013 SWMA Annual Meeting, the S&T and L&R Committees 

met in joint session to deliberate on the comments received, with discussion that the two Committees should move 

in tandem and their efforts regarding natural gas issues should be harmonized. During the joint session, discussion 

took place on how to move forward on the natural gas items. The Committees received a handout from Mr. Brett 

Barry (Clean Energy) summarizing Natural Gas Vehicle Fuel DGE proposal. The SWMA recommended the item 

be Withdrawn from the NCWM agenda as the submitter indicated it would be reintroduced as two separate items. 

Additional letters, presentations, and data may have been part of the Committee’s consideration. To review the 

supporting documentation, please refer to the Report of the 98th National Conference on Weights and Measures

(SP 1171, 2013). 

237-3 W Section 1. Definitions - Diesel Liter Equivalent (DLE) and Diesel Gallon Equivalent 

(DGE): Liquefied Natural Gas 

(This item was Withdrawn.) 

Source: 

Clean Vehicle Education Foundation (2014) 

Purpose: 

Since liquefied natural gas (LNG) is sold in the retail market place as an alternative fuel to diesel fuel, the proposed 

additions and edits to NIST Handbook 44 will provide definitions for liquefied natural gas (LNG) equivalents for 

diesel liters and gallons so that end users can readily compare cost and fuel economy. At present no LNG 

equivalents for diesel are included in the handbooks. 

Item under Consideration: 

Amend NIST Handbook 130, Uniform Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants Regulation as follows: 

Section 1. Definitions 

1.XX. Diesel Liter Equivalent (DLE). – Means 0.7263 kg of liquefied natural gas. 

1.XX. Diesel Gallon Equivalent (DGE). – Means 2.749 kg (6.06 lb) of liquefied natural gas. 

Background/Discussion: 

The gasoline gallon equivalent (GGE) unit was defined by NCWM in 1994 to allow users of compressed natural gas 

vehicles to readily compare costs and fuel economy of light-duty compressed natural gas vehicles with equivalent 

gasoline powered vehicles. For the medium and heavy duty liquefied natural gas (LNG) vehicles in widespread use 

today, there is a need to officially define a unit (already in widespread use) allowing a comparison of cost and fuel 

economy with diesel powered vehicles. The submitter stated that the official definition of a DLE and a DGE will 

likely provide justification for California, Wisconsin, and many other states to permit retail sales of LNG for heavy-
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 51 

duty vehicles in these convenient units. The mathematics justifying the specific quantity (mass) of liquefied natural 

gas in a DLE and DGE is included in Appendix A. 

NCWM 2014 Interim Meeting: Mr. Albuquerque (Chair, National Gas Steering Committee) notified the Committee 

that this item was being further reviewed by the National Gas Steering Committee. This item was subsequently 

Withdrawn and combined with Item 237-2. 

Regional Association Comments: 

CWMA reported that based on the comments received from a majority of states, the committee does not recommend 

the proposal as written. (See comments from Item 232-1.) CWMA forwarded this item to NCWM and 

recommended it as a Developing item.

WWMA’s L&R Committee recommends this item be Withdrawn and the submitter to incorporate the pertinent 

information into Item 237-1. WWMA did not forward this item to NCWM. 

NEWMA forwarded this item to NCWM and recommended that it be an Informational item. See comments on 

Item 232-1. 

SWMA comments were in favor of moving the definitions forward. The S&T and L&R Committees met in joint 

session to deliberate on the comments with discussion that the two items should be harmonized and move in tandem. 

During the joint session, discussion took place on how to move forward on the Natural Gas items. The Committees 

received a handout from Mr. Brett Barry (Clean Energy) summarizing the Natural Gas Vehicle Fuel DGE proposal 

that contained current conversions. The SWMA is recommending it be an Informational item. 

Additional letters, presentations, and data may have been part of the Committee’s consideration. To review the 

supporting documentation, please refer to the Report of the 98th National Conference on Weights and Measures

[SP 1171, 2013]. 

237-4 I Sections 2.1.3. Minimum Antiknock Index (AKI), Section 2.1.4. Minimum Motor 

Octane Number, and Section 3.2.5 Prohibition of Terms – Table 1. 

Source: 

General Motors (2013) 

Purpose: 

Remove obsolete Altitude De-rating of Octane practice, establish a National Octane Baseline, and harmonize Octane 

Labeling from state to state. 

Item Under Consideration: 

Amend the NIST Handbook 130, Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants Regulation as follows: 

Section 2. Standard Fuel Specification 

2.1.3. Minimum Antiknock Index (AKI). – The AKI of gasoline and gasoline-oxygenate blends 

shall not be less than 87. The AKI shall not be less than the AKI posted on the product dispenser or as 

certified on the invoice, bill of lading, shipping paper, or other documentation. 

(Amended 20XX) 

2.1.4. Minimum Motor Octane Number. – The minimum motor octane number shall not be less than 

82. for gasoline with an AKI of 87 or greater; 

(Amended 20XX) 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 52 

Section 3. Classification and Method of Sale of Petroleum Products 

3.2. Automotive Gasoline and Automotive Gasoline-Oxygenate Blends 

3.2.5. Prohibition of Terms. – It is prohibited to use specific terms to describe a grade of gasoline or 

gasoline-oxygenate blend unless it meets the minimum antiknock index requirement shown in 

Table 1. Minimum Antiknock Index Requirements. 

Table 1. 

Minimum Antiknock Index Requirements 

Term 

Minimum Antiknock Index 

ASTM D4814 Altitude Reduction 

Areas IV and V 

All Other ASTM D4814 Areas 

Premium, Super, Supreme, High 

Test 90 91 

Midgrade, Plus 87 89 

Regular Leaded 86 88 

Regular, Unleaded (alone) 85 87 

Economy – 86 

(Table 1. Amended 1997 and 20XX)

Background/Discussion: 

These NIST Handbook 130 octane changes will harmonize with an effort underway in the ASTM International 

(ASTM) Gasoline and Oxygenates Subcommittee to include a minimum motor octane number (MON) performance 

limit in gasoline. The naming of the various octanes is a function for weights and measures.

Nominally, vehicles manufactured after 1984 include engine computer controls maintaining optimal performance 

while using gasoline octane of 87-AKI or higher. The practice of altitude de-rating of octane, resulting in octanes 

below 87-AKI, reduces a vehicle’s efficiency and fuel economy. Increasingly, more vehicles are boosted 

(turbocharged/supercharged) eliminating altitude intake air effects. Additionally, consumers using gasoline with an 

octane AKI below 87 will void their vehicle owner’s warranty. The Coordinating Research Council (CRC) Report 

No. 660, “Fuel Anti-knock Quality – Engine Response to RON (Research Octane Number) versus MON,” May 2011 

demonstrates the continued need for gasoline MON octane for the large bored, naturally aspirated U.S. engines. 

Setting an 82-MON minimum maintains the current MON level for today’s 87-AKI Regular Unleaded gasoline. A 

common U.S. octane specification between ASTM, NCWM, and Vehicle Owners Manuals will give states clear 

direction on how best to enforce proper fuel pump octane labeling and quality levels on behalf of vehicle consumers. 

Leaded gasoline is not available at retail and therefore labeling guidance is not needed. 

NCWM 2013 Interim Meeting: The FALS could not reach agreement on this item during their Sunday work 

session. The Committee received and reviewed several letters in support of this proposal. During open hearings 

Mr. Bill Studzinski (General Motors) provided a presentation. The Committee also received comments in 

opposition to the proposal citing the lack of consumer complaints with sub-octane and it was requested that the 

Committee wait until the CRC study provides data that can be used by ASTM and NCWM to determine whether or 

not a change is necessary. The Committee recommends this to be an Informational item. 

NCWM 2013 Annual Meeting: Mr. Hayes, FALS Chair provided a presentation and stated that the CRC study has 

been expanded and finalized data is expected by year end. It was also noted the ASTM ballot failed. The 

Committee concurs to await a recommendation from FALS once they have considered all the data. Additional 

letters, presentations, and data may have been part of the Committee’s consideration. 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 53 

NCWM 2014 Interim Meeting: Mr. Studzinski provided an update that the CRC study is almost finalized and then a 

ballot will be prepared for ASTM. Mr. Studzinski will have additional information for the 2015 NCWM Interim. 

NCWM 2014 Annual Meeting: Mr. Curran, FALS Chair, remarked FALS is recommending this as an Informational 

item until the CRC study results are available. Mr. Studzinski provided a briefing of the work being done and a full 

report should be issued in the fall of 2014. 

Regional Association Comments: 

2013 CWMA’s L&R Committee recommended this remain Informational pending receipt of additional data from 

the CRC study. At past meetings, the region has recommended this item be Voting in one instance, but more 

recently, have recommended it be Informational pending the outcome of the June 2013 ASTM ballot, which is 

related to octane. A regulatory official requested it be made clear that this would only apply to retail fuel sales. At 

the 2014 CWMA Annual Meeting, an industry representative commented that General Motors is conducting a study 

under the Coordinating Research Council (CRC) umbrella at altitude and sea levels analyzing fuel economy and 

emissions. The item should be balloted by ASTM in September and will be voted on at the December ASTM 

meeting. Additional information will be provided at the 2015 NCWM Interim meeting. The CWMA L&R 

Committee believes the item should remain Informational until the CRC results are finalized.

WWMA received comment from the FALS Chairman that the work group is addressing this issue and awaiting 

results from the CRC study in conjunction with ASTM, which is expected to be released in December 2013. FALS 

and one regulatory official support this item pending validation from the CRC study. One regulatory official 

strongly opposed this item due to significant potential negative economic impacts in his and other Rocky Mountain 

States. He suggested a ten year phase in period. WWMA recommended that this item be an Informational item. 

In NEWMA 2012 received a presentation from Mr. Bill Studzinski (GM) summarizing the position of all the 

regions. NEWMA forwarded the item to NCWM recommending it as a Voting item. At NEWMA’s 2013 Annual 

Meeting, they recommended the item remain Informational until FALS makes a recommendation to the Committee. 

At the 2013 NEWMA Interim Meeting, NEWMA members indicated that they would like to see the results of the 

CCR study and a FALS recommendation. NEWMA recommended that the item be an Informational item. At the 

2014 NEWMA Annual Meeting, they are awaiting results from the CRC study and recommended this be an 

Informational item. 

SWMA reported in 2012 that Mr. Studzinski (GM, Chair of a FALS Task Group, and ASTM) provided a 

presentation in support of this item at the 2012 SWMA Annual Meeting. The SWMA Committee acknowledged 

strong support from their Association. SWMA forwarded the item to NCWM recommending it as a Voting item. 

At the 2013 SWMA Annual Meeting, the Association supported this item remaining on the agenda as an 

Informational item pending a recommendation from FALS. 

Additional letters, presentations, and data may have been part of the Committee’s consideration. To review the 

supporting documentation, please refer to the Report of the 98th National Conference on Weights and Measures

[SP 1171, 2013].

237-5 W Section 3.11. Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) and Section 3.12. Liquefied Natural 

Gas (LNG) 

(This item was Withdrawn.) 

Source: 

Clean Vehicle Education Foundation (2014) 

Purpose: 

Since natural gas is sold in the retail market place as compressed natural gas (CNG) to be an alternative fuel to 

gasoline and diesel fuel and as liquefied natural gas (LNG) to be an alternative fuel to diesel, the proposed additions 

and edits to NIST Handbook 130 will provide definitions for natural gas equivalents for diesel liters and diesel 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 54 

gallons so that end users can readily compare cost and fuel economy. At present, only CNG equivalents for gasoline 

are included in the handbooks. 

Item under Consideration: 

Amend NIST Handbook 130, Uniform Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants Regulation as follows: 

3.11. Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) 

3.11.2.1. Method of retail Sale. – All CNG kept, offered, or exposed for sale or sold at retail as a vehicle 

fuel shall be either in terms of: the gasoline liter equivalent (GLE) or gasoline gallon equivalent 

(GGE). 

(a) Mass (in pounds or kilograms), or 

(b) The gasoline liter equivalent (GLE) or gasoline gallon equivalent (GGE); or 

(c) The diesel liter equivalent (DLE) or diesel gallon equivalent (DGE). 

3.11.2.2. Retail Dispenser Labeling. 

3.11.2.2.1. Identification of Product. – Each retail dispenser of CNG shall be labeled as 

“Compressed Natural Gas.” 

3.11.2.2.2. Conversion Factor. – All retail CNG dispensers shall be labeled with the conversion 

factor in terms of kilograms or pounds. The label shall be permanently and conspicuously displayed on 

the face of the dispenser and shall have either the statement: “1 Gasoline Liter Equivalent (GLE) is 

equal to 0.678 kg of Natural Gas” or “1 Gasoline Gallon Equivalent (GGE) is equal to 5.660 lb of 

Natural Gas” consistent with the method of sale used. 

(a) either the statement “1 Gasoline Liter Equivalent (GLE) is equal to 0.678 kg of Compressed 

Natural Gas” or “1 Gasoline Gallon Equivalent (GGE) is equal to 5.660 lb of Compressed 

Natural Gas” consistent with the method of sale used; or 

(b) either the statement “1 Diesel Liter Equivalent (DLE) is equal to 0.765 kg of 

Compressed Natural Gas” or “1 Diesel Gallon Equivalent (GGE) is equal to 6.38 lb of 

Compressed Natural Gas” consistent with the method of sale used. 

3.11.2.2.3. Pressure. – CNG is dispensed into vehicle fuel containers with working pressures of

16 574 kPa, 20 684 kPa (3000 psig) or 24 821 kPa (3600 psig). The dispenser shall be labeled

16 574 kPa, 20 684 kPa (3000 psig) or 240821 kPa (3600 psig) corresponding to the pressure of the 

CNG dispensed by each fueling hose. 

3.11.2.2.4. NFPA Labeling. – NFPA Labeling requirements also apply. (Refer to NFPA 52.) 

3.12. Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG). 

3.12.1. How Liquefied Natural Gas is to be Identified. – For the purposes of this regulation, liquefied 

natural gas shall be identified by the term “Liquefied Natural Gas” or “LNG.” 

3.12.2. Labeling of Retail Dispensers of Liquefied Natural Gas Sold as a Vehicle Fuel. 

3.12.2.1. Identification of Product. – Each retail dispenser of LNG shall be labeled as “Liquefied 

Natural Gas.” 

3.12.2.2. Automotive Fuel Rating. – LNG automotive fuel shall be labeled with its automotive fuel 

rating in accordance with 16 CFR Part 306. 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 55 

3.12.X.X. Method of Retail Sale. – All LNG kept, offered, or exposed for sale or sold at retail as 

a vehicle fuel shall be in terms of: 

(a) mass (in pounds or kilograms); or 

(b) the diesel liter equivalent (DLE) or diesel gallon equivalent (DGE). 

(Added 20XX) 

3.12.2.3. NFPA Labeling. – NFPA Labeling requirements also apply. (Refer to NFPA 57 52) 

(Amended 20XX)

3.12.2.4. Conversion Factor. – All retail LNG dispensers shall be labeled with the conversion 

factor in terms of kilograms or pounds. The label shall be permanently and conspicuously 

displayed on the face of the dispenser and shall have: 

(a) either the statement “1 Diesel Liter Equivalent (DLE) is equal to 0.7263 kg of Liquefied 

Natural Gas”; or 

(b) “1 Diesel Gallon Equivalent (GGE) is equal to 6.06 lb of Liquefied Natural Gas” 

consistent with the method of sale used. 

(Added 20XX) 

Background/Discussion: 

The gasoline gallon equivalent (GGE) unit was defined by NCWM in 1994 (refer to Appendix A) to allow users of 

compressed natural gas (CNG) vehicles to readily compare costs and fuel economy of light-duty natural gas vehicles 

with equivalent gasoline powered vehicles. For the medium and heavy duty natural gas vehicles in widespread use 

today, there is a need to officially define a unit for both CNG and LNG (already in widespread use) allowing a 

comparison of cost and fuel economy with diesel powered vehicles. Natural gas is sold as a vehicle fuel as either 

CNG or LNG and each method of sale is measured in mass. The submitter stated that the official definition of a 

DLE and a DGE will likely provide justification for California, Wisconsin, and many other states to permit retail 

sales of LNG for heavy-duty vehicles in these convenient units. The mathematics justifying the specific quantity 

(mass) of natural gas in a DLE and DGE is included in the Appendix A. 

CNG is no longer dispensed at 16 574 kPa (2400 psig) in the United States so the requirement is no longer valid. 

NFPA 57 was incorporate into NFPA 52 in 2006 and is no longer a stand alone document. 

At the 2014 NCWM Interim Meeting, Mr. Albuquerque (Chair, National Gas Steering Committee) notified the 

Committee was developing this item and would provide a recommendation to the Committee. This item was 

subsequently withdrawn and combined with Item 237-2. 

Regional Association Comments: 

CWMA commented to stay consistent with the previous proposals for CNG and LNG; they are recommending this 

as a Developmental item. (See comments from Item 232-1.) CWMA forwarded this item to NCWM, 

recommending it as a Developing item. 

WWMA heard concern from a regulatory official that the item would allow for multiple methods of sale in the 

marketplace which would be problematic. Another regulatory official agreed and added it would frustrate value 

comparison. The Committee awaits further information from the Natural Gas Steering Committee. WWMA 

forwarded this item to NCWM, recommending that it be an Informational item. 

NEWMA forwarded this item to NCWM, recommending that it be an Informational item. See Item 232-1 for 

comments. 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 56 

SWMA forwarded the item to NCWM, recommending it as a Developing item with the preferred method of sale for 

natural gas being by mass, allowing for supplemental labeling of conversion factors to convert mass to volume 

equivalents, and that the conversion factors be verified and clarified. 

Additional letters, presentations, and data may have been part of the Committee’s consideration. To review the 

supporting documentation, please refer to the Report of the 98th National Conference on Weights and Measures

(SP 1171, 2013). 

237-6 V Section 3.13. Oil, 3.13.1. Labeling of Vehicle Engine (Motor) Oil Required 

(This item was Adopted.) 

Source: 

Automotive Oil Change Association (2013) 

Purpose: 

Prevent consumer confusion and government-sponsored product bias regarding legitimate, manufacturer 

recommended products, and to prevent installers and retailers from being held responsible for labeling requirements 

with respect to packaged goods. 

Item Under Consideration: 

Amend NIST Handbook 130, Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants Regulation as follows: 

3.13. Oil. 

3.13.1. Labeling of Vehicle Engine (Motor) Oil Required. 

3.13.1.1. Viscosity. – The label on any vehicle engine (motor) oil container, receptacle, dispenser, or 

storage tank and the invoice or receipt from service on an engine that includes the installation of bulk 

vehicle motor oil dispensed from a receptacle, dispenser, or storage tank shall contain the viscosity grade 

classification preceded by the letters “SAE” in accordance with the SAE International’s latest version of 

SAE J300, “Engine Oil Viscosity Classification.” 

(Amended 2012 and 2014) 

3.13.1.2. Intended Use. – The label on any vehicle engine (motor) oil container shall contain a 

statement of its intended use in accordance with the latest version of SAE J183, “Engine Oil 

Performance and Engine Service Classification (Other than “Energy Conserving”).” 

(Amended 2012) 

3.13.1.3.2. Brand. – The label on any vehicle engine (motor) oil container and the invoice or receipt 

from service on an engine that includes the installation of bulk vehicle engine (motor) oil dispensed from a 

receptacle, dispenser, or storage tank shall contain the name, brand, trademark, or trade name of the vehicle 

engine (motor) oil. 

(Added 2012) 

3.13.1.4.3. Engine Service Category. – The label on any vehicle engine (motor) oil container, 

receptacle, dispenser or storage tank and the invoice or receipt from service on an engine that includes the 

installation of bulk vehicle engine (motor) oil dispensed from a receptacle, dispenser, or storage tank shall 

contain the engine service category, or categories, met in letters not less than 3.18 mm (1/8 in) in height, as 

defined by the latest version of SAE J183, “Engine Oil Performance and Engine Service Classification 

(Other than “Energy Conserving”),” or API Publication 1509, “Engine Oil Licensing and Certification 

System,” or European Automobile Manufacturers Association (ACEA) European Oil Sequences or 

Vehicle or Engine Manufacturer Standard as provided in Section 3.33.1.3.1. 

(Amended 2012 and 2014) 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 57 

3.33.1.3.1. Vehicle or Engine Manufacturer Standard. – The label on any vehicle engine 

(motor) oil container, receptacle, dispenser, or storage tank and the invoice or receipt from 

service on an engine that includes the installation of vehicle engine (motor) oil dispensed from a 

receptacle, dispenser, or storage tank shall identify the specific vehicle or engine manufacturer 

standard, or standards, met in letters not less than 3.18 mm (1/8 in) in height. If the vehicle 

(motor) oil only meets a vehicle or engine manufacturer standard, the label must clearly identify 

that the oil is only intended for use where specifically recommended by the vehicle or engine 

manufacturer. 

(Added 2014) 

3.13.1.4.12.3.2. Inactive or Obsolete Service Categories. – The label on any vehicle engine (motor) 

oil container, receptacle, dispenser, or storage tank and the invoice or receipt from service on an engine 

that includes the installation of vehicle engine (motor) engine oil dispensed from a receptacle, 

dispenser, or storage tank shall bear a plainly visible cautionary statement in compliance with the latest 

version of SAE J183, Engine Oil Performance and Engine Service Classification (Other than “Energy 

Conserving”)” Appendix A, whenever the vehicle engine (motor) oil in the container or in bulk does 

not meet an active API service category as defined by the latest version of SAE J183, “Engine Oil 

Performance and Engine Service Classification (Other than “Energy Conserving”).” If a vehicle 

engine (motor) oil is identified as only meeting a vehicle or engine manufacturer standard, the 

labeling requirements in Section 3.13.1.3.1. Vehicle or Engine Manufacturer Standard apply. 

(Added 2012) (Amended 2014) 

3.13.1.5.4. Tank Trucks or Rail Cars. – Tank trucks, rail cars, and types of delivery trucks that are used 

to deliver bulk vehicle engine (motor) oil are not required to display the SAE viscosity grade and service 

category or categories as long as the bill of lading other documentation provides that information. 

(Added 2012) (Amended 2014) 

3.13.1.65. Documentation. – When the engine (motor) oil is sold in bulk, an invoice, bill of lading, 

shipping paper, or other documentation must accompany each delivery. This document must identify the 

quantity of bulk engine (motor) oil delivered as defined in Sections 3.13.1.1. Viscosity; 3.13.1.2. Intended 

Use; 3.13.1.32. Brand; 3.13.1.43. Engine Service Category; the name and address of the seller and buyer; 

and the date and time of the sale. For inactive or obsolete service categories, the documentation shall also 

bear a plainly visible cautionary statement as required in Section 3.13.1.43.12. Inactive or Obsolete Service 

Categories. Documentation must be retained at the retail establishment for a period of not less than one 

year. 

(Added 2013) (Amended 2014)

(Amended 2012 and 2014) 

Background/Discussion: 

The vast majority of engine oil used at professional fast lube facilities is the most current category of American 

Petroleum Institute (API) licensed oil. However, older, specialty, and some non-American vehicles take engine oil 

not listed as active under API’s private regulatory scheme; some are former API licensed oils now considered 

“obsolete” or “inactive” and some are simply licensed by another organization like European Automobile 

Manufacturers Association (ACEA.) However, if the original equipment manufacturers (OEM) recommend those 

engine oils for their vehicles, consumers have a right to use them regardless of API’s blessing, and installers and 

retailers should be able to sell them without obstruction. (See Appendix C of the Report of the 98th National 

Conference on Weights and Measures [SP 1171, 2013].) 

The Automotive Oil Change Association (AOCA) amendment is necessary because a cautionary statement 

appearing on service receipts without explanation will inappropriately mislead consumers with older and uncommon 

model vehicles into believing they should not use OEM-recommended engine oil. The average fast lube customer 

does not recognize API or SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers) to mean anything in particular but “CAUTION” 

and “OBSOLETE” in big capital letters could only be understood as negative. Scaring consumers in this way will 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 58 

not only push them to buy more expensive engine oil they do not need, but also engender distrust in their installer 

service providers for recommending and/or using OEM recommended engine oil. 

The average age of cars in the current fleet is nearly 11-years old and it is not unusual for fast lubes to have 

customers with vehicles twice that age; for example, there are millions of opportunities for consumers to be misled 

into rejecting proper engine oil. The fact is American consumers are hanging onto their vehicles longer than API is 

hanging onto its service categories. When API designates a motor oil category as inactive, this does not mean 

consumers with vehicles designed to use that category turn in their cars or otherwise want to buy a more expensive 

grade of motor oil going forward. Therefore, a category of motor oil designed to work for particular makes and 

models of vehicles should not be burdened with the chilling effect of a cautionary statement absent a specific 

clarification acknowledging the preeminence of the OEM’s recommendations. 

The new standard phase-in factor must be considered as well. When API publishes a new edition of 1509, Engine 

Oil Licensing and Certification Systems, and/or creates a new service category, a reasonable phase-in period for bulk 

oil stock is necessary to accommodate older vehicle owners’ needs; for example, it may be in those customers’ best 

interests, both functionally and economically, to use motor oil developed in accordance with an earlier edition or 

service category so long as the automobile manufacturer originally recommended it and its continued use has no 

impact on any remaining warranty coverage. Although it is common for API to retain a couple of the most recent 

service categories as “active,” API could choose to make all but the most recent service category “obsolete.” For 

fast lube operators to automatically upgrade bulk oil stock at API-determined intervals would be tantamount to 

giving API control over the price of oil change services regardless of what the market can bear. 

This amendment also addresses packaged engine oil products already on the shelf or in the distribution chain when 

API makes a unilateral decision to deactivate an engine oil category. As a practical matter, tens of thousands of 

retailers and installers cannot re-mark millions of packages to coincide with API’s timing or take the financial hit for 

sending it all back in violation of purchase agreements. This amendment resolves this problem so that the 

requirement for proper labeling, of packaged containers, of engine oil rest with the party in control of the packagingthe manufacturers. 

Without the amendment, the labeling requirement will be very difficult to enforce given the inventory of packaged 

goods remaining after an active engine oil category has been declared inactive or obsolete. 

It was noted that fast lubes would experience catastrophic business loss if customers with older and uncommon 

model vehicles were alienated. Maintenance costs for consumers with older model cars could easily double if they 

are confused into believing they need the latest category of engine oil. 

AOCA contends that the proposed amendment will accomplish three important goals: 1) prevent unintended 

consumer confusion and product stigma from using a cautionary statement by reestablishing the connection to OEM 

recommendations; 2) provide the necessary exemption to protect retailers and installers for selling lawful packaged 

inventory; and 3) which leads to an increase in practical enforcement prospects. 

The most analogous regulatory situation to the one at issue in AOCA’s proposed amendment is found in the Federal 

Trade Commission’s (FTC) Test Procedures and Labeling Standards for Recycled Oil (16 CFR 31, 

www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2011-title16-vol1/pdf/CFR-2011-title16-vol1-part312.pdf). In the rulemaking 

process, FTC specifically rejected requiring recycled engine oil to be labeled “recycled” because of the stigma 

associated with the term at that time (see 72 FR 14410 – 14413 & FN11 (1 H.R. Rep. No. 96–1415, 

96th Cong. 2d Sess. 6 (1980), reproduced at 1980 U.S. Code Cong. & Ad. News 4354, 4356. ‘‘Oil should be labeled 

on the basis of performance characteristics and fitness for its intended use, and not on the basis of the origin of the 

oil.’’). The National Automobile Dealers Association also commented in favor of this approach: “NADA further 

stated that by not requiring that ‘‘substantially equivalent’’ recycled oils be labeled ‘‘recycled’’ or ‘‘re-refined,’’ 

used oil processors are able to market their products effectively.” (72 FR at 14411) No “recycled” or other 

potentially derogatory designation is required so long as the finished product meets the appropriate API standard. 

NCWM 2013 Interim Meeting: A state opposed this item and would like to see it Withdrawn. The FALS Chairman 

remarked that there are several engine oils designed for specific model vehicles and the FALS is working to resolve 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 59 

this issue. A Committee member remarked that a statement of accountability should be included in the language. 

The Committee would like to see additional language developed by FALS and made this an Informational item. 

NCWM 2013 Annual Meeting: The FALS submitted modified language for Sections 3.13.1.4. Engine Service 

Category, 3.13.1.4.1. Vehicle or Engine Manufacturer Standard and 3.33.1.4.12. Inactive or Obsolete Service 

Categories. The Committee would like to have regional input on this modified language to review at the 

2014 NCWM Interim Meeting. 

NCWM 2014 Interim Meeting: The FALS and API provided the Committee with modified language. This 

modified language removes Section 3.13.1.2. Intended Use. Section 3.13.1.1. was modified to allow for 

abbreviations on tickets. One member questioned the labeling for underground storage containers and their 

legibility. 

2014 NCWM Annual Meeting: The Committee heard support for this item and agreed to modify the language in its 

Interim Report to that shown in this Final Report in the Item Under Consideration. 

Regional Association Comments: 

CWMA: Refer to comments in Item 232-3. CWMA recommended that this item be a Developing item. At the 

2014 CWMA Annual Meeting, it was noted that this item has companion Items 232-4 and 237-11. An industry 

representative commented that he supported all items with an additional change to Item 237-11 (see Item 237-11). 

The Committee believes the item has been fully developed and is ready for Voting. 

The WWMA heard from an American Petroleum Institute (API) representative that they supported the proposed 

changes to NIST Handbook 130 which are necessary for the following reasons: 1) adding the reference to ACEA 

will expand the current regulation to cover engine oil performance specifications recommended by many European 

vehicle and engine manufacturers; and 2) allowing engine oil labels, invoices and receipts to list a performance 

specification set by a particular vehicle or engine manufacturer will address unique situations where an oil cannot 

claim any performance level maintained by API or ACEA. The FALS Chairman reported that it is currently 

considering these changes, but have not reached consensus, and they are seeking a resolution by 2014 NCWM 

Interim. The Committee supports ongoing work by FALS, pending agreement with stakeholders. WWMA 

recommended that this item be an Informational item. 

NEWMA received comment in 2012 from API it opposes the item and that specifics have been submitted in writing. 

API suggested this proposal and Item 237-4 be Withdrawn. General Motors indicated the proposal appears to allow 

older formulations of engine oil, but newer formulations give better performance, even in older vehicles. GM 

prefers current formulation of engine oil. NEWMA did not forward the item to NCWM. At the 2013 NEWMA 

Annual Meeting, Mr. Kevin Ferrick (API) indicated they submitted comments to their opposition of this item and 

requested this item be Withdrawn. NEWMA would like to see additional information from the FALS. In 2013, Mr. 

Ferrick commented to NEWMA that final language review should be made through FALS. No other comments 

were heard and NEWMA recommended this be an Information item. At the 2014 NEWMA Annual Meeting, with 

no other comments, the clarified language was recommended to be forwarded as a Voting item. 

SWMA reported in 2012 that an API representative voiced opposition to the item and provided written testimony in 

dispute of the comments and claims made by the submitter: The SWMA Committee believed there was lack of 

support for the item and that the oil change industry has a poor understanding of the API standards. SWMA did not 

forward the item to NCWM. At the 2013 SWMA Annual Meeting, the association supported the carryover item 

being a Developing item on the NCWM agenda to allow FALS an opportunity to work on Section 3.33.1.4. in the 

proposal (which should be Section 3.13.1.4.) and to give consideration to adding the ACEA standards to the 

proposal. 

Additional letters, presentations, and data may have been part of the Committee’s consideration. To review the 

supporting documentation, please refer to the Report of the 98th National Conference on Weights and Measures

(SP 1171, 2013). 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 60 

237-7 V Section 3.2.7. Documentation for Dispenser Labeling Purposes 

(This item was Adopted.) 

Source: 

Archer Daniels Midland Company (2014) 

Purpose: 

Update the information for documentation for dispenser labeling purposes in the method of sale section of the 

Uniform Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants regulations of NIST Handbook 130. This update will recognize 

the EPA regulations for product transfer documents for gasoline and gasoline/oxygenate blends. 

Item under Consideration: 

Amend NIST Handbook 130, Uniform Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants Regulation as follows: 

3.2.7. Documentation for Dispenser Labeling Purposes. – The retailer shall be provided, at the time of 

delivery of the fuel, on product transfer documents such as an invoice, bill of lading, shipping paper, or 

other documentation:, a declaration of the predominant oxygenate or combination of oxygenates present 

in concentrations sufficient to yield an oxygen content of at least 1.5 mass percent in the fuel. Where 

mixtures of only ethers are present, the fuel supplier may identify either the predominant oxygenate in 

the fuel (i.e., the oxygenate contributing the largest mass percent oxygen) or alternatively, use the phrase 

“contains MTBE or other ethers.” In addition, any gasoline containing more than 0.15 mass percent 

oxygen from methanol shall be identified as “with” or “containing” methanol. This documentation is 

only for dispenser labeling purposes; it is the responsibility of any potential blender to determine the total 

oxygen content of the engine fuel before blending. 

(Amended 1996 and 2014) 

(a) Information that complies with 40 CFR § 80.1503 when the fuel contains ethanol. 

(b) For fuels that do not contain ethanol, information that complies with 40 CFR § 80.1503 and a 

declaration of the predominant oxygenate or combination of oxygenates present in 

concentrations sufficient to yield an oxygen content of at least 1.5 mass percent in the fuel. 

Where mixtures of only ethers are present, the fuel supplier may identify either the predominant 

oxygenate in the fuel (i.e., the oxygenate contributing the largest mass percent oxygen) or 

alternatively, use the phrase “contains MTBE or other ethers.” 

(c) Gasoline containing more than 0.15 mass percent oxygen from methanol shall be identified as 

“with” or “containing” methanol. 

(Added 2014) 

Background/Discussion: 

The proposal incorporates existing EPA regulations. NCWM 2014 Interim: Mr. Meeting Chuck Corr, submitter of 

this item, informed the Committee this new language now aligns with current EPA regulations. The Committee 

moved this item forward as a Voting item. 

NCWM 2014 Annual Meeting: The Committee was informed by Mr. Matthew Curran, FALS Chair that if this item 

was adopted there needs to be a method of sale added with like language. Mr. Corr concurred with this modification 

for the method of sale and spoke in support of this item. The Committee agreed to modify the language in its 

Interim Report to that shown in this Final Report in the Item Under Consideration and added Item 232-8, under the 

Method of Sale. 

Regional Association Comments: 

NEWMA 2014 Annual Meeting: The Committee recommended this as a Voting item in order to harmonize with 

EPA regulations. 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 61 

CWMA’s L&R Committee supports this item as it provides recognition of federal requirements for product transfer 

documents. CWMA forwarded it to NCWM, recommending it as a Voting item. CWMA 2014 Annual Meeting: 

The submitter of this item stated that there should have been a companion item under Method of Sale of 

Commodities. The CWMA L&R Committee agrees that the item should include in the Method of Sale under 

Section 2.20.2. and is ready for Voting status. 

Additional letters, presentations, and data may have been part of the Committee’s consideration. To review the 

supporting documentation, please refer to the Report of the 98th National Conference on Weights and Measures

(SP 1171, 2013). 

237-8 V Section 4.3. Dispenser Filters 

(This item returned to Committee.) 

Source: 

Missouri Department of Agriculture (2012) 

Purpose: 

Recognize the need for 10-micron or smaller nominal pore-sized filters for today’s diesel engines. 

Item Under Consideration: 

4.3. Dispenser Filters. 

4.3.1. Engine Fuel Dispensers. 

(a) All gasoline, gasoline-alcohol blends, gasoline-ether blends, E85 fuel ethanol and M85 methanol 

dispensers shall have a 10 micron or smaller nominal pore-sized filter. 

(b) All biodiesel, biodiesel blends, diesel, and kerosene dispensers shall have a 30 10 micron or 

smaller nominal pore-sized filter except for dispensers with flow rates greater than 15 gallons 

per minute which shall have a 30 micron or smaller nominal pore size filter.

Background/Discussion: 

Abnormal dispenser filter plugging at retail will alert the retailer of potential storage tank problems. Requiring 

10-micron filters for all products will reduce the inventory and the potential of installing the wrong filter for all 

products at the same site. 

NCWM 2012 Interim Meeting: Mr. Hayes, FALS Chair, informed the Committee that FALS recommended that this 

item be Informational because of industry concerns that 10-micron filters would be too restrictive of flow in highflow systems. One industry representative expressed opposition for the use of 10-micron filters and recommends 

this item to be Withdrawn. A representative of an automobile manufacturer claimed diesel passenger vehicles do 

not have the sophisticated filtration systems commonly found on commercial duty vehicles and 10-micron filters on 

dispensers are needed for protection from particulate contamination. As proposed, this item could cause clogging of 

diesel dispenser filters in colder climates. The Committee believes this item has merit but lacks a consensus and 

also believes that FALS needs to address these concerns. The 2012 L&R Committee designated this item as an 

Informational item and assigned it to FALS for further development. 

NCWM 2012 Interim Meeting: It was apparent to the Committee that that there are many unresolved issues related 

to passenger vehicles. The Committee encourages the FALS to continue developing this item. 

NCWM 2012 Annual Meeting: Several stakeholders spoke in opposition on this item. Mr. Hayes, FALS Chair 

remarked that the FALS worked on this item in 2007 and believes FALS needs to continue to work on this item. 

The NCWM L&R Committee agreed that this item is not ready and supports the continued development by FALS. 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 62 

NCWM 2013 Interim Meeting: Mr. Hayes (Missouri), FALS Chairperson, remarked that a similar item was bought 

before the Committee in 2007. FALS did not have enough time in their work session to work on this item. There 

are several stakeholders and states that are having issues with the terminology and would like it removed from the 

agenda. Mr. Hayes remarked that they supported this item because contamination is an issue with cars that do not 

have filtering systems. The Committee reviewed comments from the Regional Associations however; FALS did not 

have sufficient time review and consider recommendation to the Committee. The Committee would like for FALS 

to continue to work on this item and is proposing this as an Informational item. 

NCWM 2013 Annual Meeting: Mr. Hayes, FALS Chair requested that the Committee allow them to continue to 

work on a recommendation for this item. There was opposition on moving this item forward. In less than two years 

since this proposal came forward, there has been no data developed. The Committee reviewed the Regional 

Association reports, open hearing comments, and letters received and changed the status of this item to Developing. 

NCWM 2014 Interim Meeting: Mr. Hayes who submitted the proposal offered modified language and supporting 

data to support the flow rate on 10-micron diesel filters. There was considerable discussion in regards to the fill 

time reduction, burdensome cost for station owners, and equipment and filter maintenance. It was noted that there is 

work being done within ASTM but, at this time, that information cannot be shared. The Committee reviewed the 

Item under Consideration within NCWM Interim Publication 15 (2014). The Committee moved forward the 

modified language provided by Mr. Hayes for consideration as a Voting item. 

NCWM 2014 Annual Meeting: The Committee reviewed several letters and additional data submitted by the 

Petroleum Marketers Association of American (PMAA). The FALS recommended this item move forward for a 

Vote. During the Open Hearings, there were mixed concerns in regard to this this item. Numerous concerns were 

expressed concerning the data from PMAA. Several comments were heard that ASTM should be allowed to 

develop a standard. 

Regional Association Comments: 

CWMA’s L&R Committee heard no opposing comments and believes the proposal protects consumer vehicles and 

alerts retailers of potential product quality problems. Comments from previous meetings included a remark from an 

official indicating a smaller porosity filter may be acceptable, but for now this is a reasonable start. General Motors 

(GM) supported this item for passenger vehicles, as these vehicles now have 4-micron filters. Several industry 

representatives did not support this item during a past meeting because they believe this is a dispenser protection 

issue rather than a consumer protection issue. A state regulator remarked that it is a fuel quality issue, which 

impacts consumers’ vehicles and fuel systems. Officials clarified that the proposal should only apply to passenger 

type vehicles, and it would specifically exempt high-flow rate meters such as truck stop meters. CWMA supported 

the following proposal and recommended it as a Voting item. 

4.3. Dispenser Filters. 

4.3.1. Engine Fuel Dispensers. 

(a) All gasoline, gasoline-alcohol blends, gasoline-ether blends, E85 fuel ethanol and M85 methanol 

dispensers shall have a 10 micron or smaller nominal pore-sized filter. 

(b) All biodiesel, biodiesel blends, diesel, and kerosene dispensers shall have a 30 10 micron or smaller 

nominal pore-sized filter except for dispensers with flow rates greater than 15 gallons per 

minute which shall have a 30 micron or smaller nominal pore size filter.

CWMA 2014 Annual Meeting: A regulator commented this item has been vetted through the regions several times. 

There is additional data on the NCWM website that was shared with FALS. It was stressed that this item is for retail 

motor fuel dispensers for passenger vehicles not high-flow meters. The regulator also mentioned the work done by 

his staff during cold weather to test whether or not flow rates through 10-micron filters were more diminished than 

fuel flowing through 30-micron filters during sub-zero weather. The regulator stated FALS supports this item. A 

second regulator commented that he was seeking clarification on whether determination of the flow rate would be 

made with a marked flow rate or flow rate at the dispenser. Other regulators stated the intent was to have 10 micron 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 63 

filters on passenger vehicle dispensers and light trucks only. This proposal best accomplishes that end. An industry 

representative asked about the cost between the 10-micron filters and 30-micron filters. A regulator responded costs 

were the same. The CWMA L&R Committee believes the item has been fully developed and is ready for Voting. 

WWMA heard from one regulatory official recommending Withdrawal of the item because it is unnecessary. There 

is concern with the potential negative impact on the speed of fuel delivery. The submitting regulatory official 

supports the item with the language for Section 4.3.1.(b) as presented above in the CWMA Interim Report. WWMA 

recommends this item as a Voting item. 

NEWMA reported in 2011 that questions were raised as to whether or not “measurement” of filter content was 

within the ability of weights and measures officials. It was noted that better filters may enhance fuel quality. The 

Committee believes the proposal has potential given input from industry and stakeholders. NEWMA forwarded the 

item to NCWM recommending it as a Developing item. 

NEWMA 2012 Interim Meeting: The Committee reviewed the CWMA report. NEWMA recommended it to be an 

Informational item and requested it be reviewed by FALS. 

NEWMA 2013 Interim and Annual Meetings: At both meetings, it was recommended that that the item be 

Withdrawn. Attendees commented that this item is not a weights and measures issue, but a manufacturer’s issue. 

NEWMA 2014 Annual Meeting: The Committee recommended this item be forwarded as a Voting item. 

Attendees commented that this item is not a weights and measures issue, but rather a manufacturer’s issue. At the 

2014 NEWMA Annual Meeting, they recommend this be a Voting item. 

SWMA reported in 2011 that an industry representative stated that standard retailer dispensers use a 10-micron 

filter, and high capacity dispensers use 30-micron filters (i.e., diesel dispensed at truck stops). The company’s 

engineers have determined that reducing a 30-micron filter to a 10-micron filter will drastically reduce flow rate to 

trucks. Another industry representative agreed and re-iterated that truck stops would see a tremendous reduction in 

flow. The Committee believed this proposal was not practical and would have a negative impact and undue burden 

on the trucking industry. SWMA did not forward the item to NCWM. 

SWMA 2012 Annual Meeting: An industry representative commented that the current technology to put a 

10-micron filter on diesel at a truck stop will prohibit fuel from being dispensed in a timely manner and, therefore, 

opposes this. The Committee recommends the use of 10-micron filters be limited to passenger vehicle meters and 

specifically exempt high-flow rate meters. SWMA recommended the item be a Voting item but with the changes as 

described by the Committee. 

SWMA 2013 Annual Meeting: The SWMA supported moving this item forward as a Voting item on the NCWM 

agenda modifying the requirements to read; 10 micron filters on devices delivering 15 gpm or less and 30-micron 

filters for greater than 15 gpm. 

Additional letters, presentations, and data may have been part of the Committee’s consideration. To review the 

supporting documentation, please refer to the Report of the 98th National Conference on Weights and Measures

(SP 1171, 2013). 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 64 

237-9 V Section 1. Definitions, Section 2. Standard Fuel Specifications, and Section 3. 

Classification and Method of Sale of Petroleum Items 

(This item was Adopted.) 

Source: 

Fuels and Lubricants Subcommittee Task Group (2012) 

Purpose: 

Update regulations related to flex fuels. 

Item Under Consideration: 

Amend the Uniform Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants Regulation as follows: 

Section 1. Definitions 

1.13. Denatured Fuel Ethanol. – “Ethanol” as defined in Section 1.20. Ethanol. An ethanol blend 

component for use in gasoline-ethanol blends and ethanol flex fuel. The ethanol is rendered unfit for 

beverage use by the addition of denaturants under formulas approved by the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax 

and Trade Bureau (TTB), www.ttb.gov. ASTM D4806, “Standard Specification for Denatured Fuel 

Ethanol for Blending with Gasolines for Use as Automotive Spark-Ignition Engine Fuel” describes the 

acceptable denaturants for denatured fuel ethanol to be blended into spark ignition engine fuels. 

(Amended 2014) 

1.21. E85 Fuel Ethanol Flex Fuel. – A blend Blends of ethanol and hydrocarbons restricted for use as fuel 

in ground vehicles equipped with flexible-fuel spark-ignition engines. of which the ethanol portion is 

(nominally 75 to 85 volume percent denatured fuel ethanol). 

(Amended 2014) 

1.20. Ethanol. – Also known as “Denatured Fuel Ethanol,” means nominally anhydrous ethyl alcohol 

meeting ASTM D4806 standards. It is intended to be blended with gasoline for use as a fuel in a sparkignition internal combustion engine. The denatured fuel ethanol is first made unfit for drinking by the 

addition of the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB), www.ttb.gov, approved substances 

before blending with gasoline. “ethyl alcohol.” Ethanol is provided in gasoline-ethanol blends by 

blending denatured fuel ethanol. See Section 1.13. Denatured Fuel Ethanol. 

(Amended 20XX) 

1.53. Wholesale Purchaser Consumer. – Any person who is an ultimate gasoline consumer of gasoline, fuel 

methanol, ethanol flex fuel, fuel ethanol, diesel fuel, biodiesel, biodiesel blends, fuel oil, kerosene, aviation 

turbine fuels, natural gas, compressed natural gas, or liquefied petroleum gas and who purchases or obtains the 

product from a supplier and receives delivery of that product into a storage tank. 

(Added 1998) (Amended 1999 and 2014) 

Section 2. Standard Fuel Specifications 

2.7. Denatured Fuel Ethanol. – Intended for blending with gasoline shall meet the latest version of ASTM 

D4806, “Standard Specification for Denatured Fuel Ethanol for Blending with Gasolines for Use as Automotive 

Spark-Ignition Engine Fuel.” 

2.10. E85 Fuel Ethanol Flex Fuel. – shall meet the latest version of the following ASTM D5798, 

“Standard Specification for Ethanol Fuel Blends for Flexible-Fuel Fuel Ethanol (Ed75-Ed85) for 

Automotive Spark-Ignition Engines.” Ethanol flex fuel is covered by one of two ASTM standards based

on the ethanol concentration of the blend: 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 65 

(a) Ethanol flex fuel containing 51 to 83 volume percent ethanol shall meet the latest version of 

ASTM D5798, “Standard Specification for Ethanol Fuel Blends for Flexible Fuel Automotive 

Spark-Ignition Engines”; and 

(b) Ethanol flex fuel containing 16 to 50 volume percent ethanol shall be blended, stored and 

conveyed for consumption in accordance with the latest version of ASTM D7794, “Standard 

Practice for Blending Mid-Level Ethanol Fuel Blends for Flexible Fuel Vehicles with Automotive 

Spark-Ignition Engines.” 

(Added 1997) (Amended 2014) 

Section 3. Classification and Method of Sale of Petroleum Products

3.8. E85 Fuel Ethanol Flex Fuel. 

3.8.1. How to Identify E85 Fuel Ethanol Flex Fuel. –Fuel Ethanol flex fuel shall be identified as 

Ethanol Flex Fuel or EXX Flex Fuel E85.

3.8.2. Labeling Requirements. 

(a) Ethanol flex fuel with an ethanol concentration no less than 51 and no greater than 

83 volume percent shall be labeled “Ethanol Flex Fuel, minimum 51 % ethanol.”. Fuel 

ethanol shall be labeled with its automotive fuel rating in accordance with 16 CFR Part 306. 

(b) Ethanol flex fuel with an ethanol concentration less than or equal to 50 volume percent shall 

be labeled “EXX Flex Fuel, minimum YY % ethanol”, where the XX is the ethanol 

concentration in volume percent and YY is XX minus 5. The actual ethanol concentration of 

the blend shall be XX volume percent plus or minus 5 volume percent. 

(c)(b) A label shall be posted which states “For Use in Flexible Fuel Vehicles (FFV) Only.” This 

information shall be clearly and conspicuously posed on the upper 50 % of the dispenser front 

panel in a type at least 12.7 mm (1⁄2 in) in height, 1.5 mm (1/16 in) stroke (width of type). A label 

shall be posted which states, “Consult Vehicle Manufacturer Fuel Recommendations,”

“CHECK OWNER’S MANUAL,”, and shall not be less than 6 mm (1⁄4 in) in height by 0.8 mm 

(1/32 in) stroke; block style letters and the color shall be in definite contrast to the background color 

to which it is applied.

(Amended 2007, 2008, and 2014)

Section 4. Retail Storage Tanks and Dispenser Filters 

4.1. Water in Gasoline-Alcohol Blends, Biodiesel Blends, E85 Fuel Ethanol Flex Fuel, Aviation 

Gasoline, and Aviation Turbine Fuel. – No water phase greater than 6 mm (1⁄4 in) as determined by an 

appropriate detection paste or other acceptable means, is allowed to accumulate in any tank utilized in the 

storage of gasoline-alcohol blend, biodiesel, biodiesel blends, E85 Fuel ethanol flex fuel blends, aviation 

gasoline, and aviation turbine fuel. 

(Amended 2014)

4.2. Water in Gasoline, Diesel, Gasoline-Ether, and Other Fuels. – Water shall not exceed 25 mm (1 in) in 

depth when measured with water indicating paste or other acceptable means in any tank utilized in the storage 

of diesel, gasoline, gasoline-ether blends, and kerosene sold at retail except as required in Section 4.1. Water in 

Gasoline-Alcohol Blends, Aviation Blends, Biodiesel Blends, E85 Fuel Ethanol Flex Fuel, Aviation Gasoline, 

and Aviation Turbine Fuel. 

(Amended 2008, and 2012, and 2014) 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 66 

4.3. Dispenser Filters. 

4.3.1. Engine Fuel Dispensers. 

(a) All gasoline, gasoline-alcohol blends, gasoline-ether blends, E85 fuel ethanol flex fuel and M85 

methanol dispensers shall have a 10 micron or smaller nominal pore-sized filter. 

(b) All biodiesel, biodiesel blends, diesel, and kerosene dispensers shall have a 30 micron or smaller 

nominal pore-sized filter. 

(Added 2008) (Amended 2014) 

Background/Discussion: 

The current wording in NIST Handbook 130 related to fuels restricted to use in flex fuel vehicles should be 

reviewed. Input gathered from the regional meetings and other stakeholders will be utilized by FALS to develop 

recommended modifications to NIST Handbook 130. 

NCWM 2012 Interim Meeting: The Committee received an update from Mr. Corr, (Chair of the Task Group [TG] 

under the FALS), will lead an effort to get regional input on a transition and implementation date. The 2012 L&R 

Committee designated this item as an Informational item. 

NCWM 2012 Annual Meeting: Mr. Corr, Chair of the TG under the FALS, reported on behalf of FALS TG that 

approximately 18 areas of NIST Handbook 130 have been identified where modifications may be needed. A 

stakeholder voiced full support of the TG efforts. Mr. Corr’s group will report again at the 2013 NCWM Interim 

Meeting. 

NCWM 2013 Interim Meeting: Mr. Corr provided an update of the language changes recommended for addressing 

the full range of fuels restricted to flex fuel vehicles in NIST Handbook 130. He remarked that no feedback has 

been provided to him from stakeholders and states concerning the language changes. Mr. Corr also stated FALS has 

also not reviewed and discussed the proposed changes. The Committee recommended this as an Informational item 

so interested parties can provide comments. 

NCWM 2013 Annual Meeting: Mr. Corr provided initial language changes for the Uniform Regulation for the 

Method of Sale, Section 2.30. E85 Fuel Ethanol Flex Fuel Blends, and this language was placed under the Method 

of Sale of Commodities section and appears as Item 232-6. 

NCWM 2014 Interim Meeting: Mr. Corr submitted modified language that aligns also with Item 232-6 within the 

report. The Committee recommends this as a Voting item. 

NCWM 2014 Annual Meeting: The Committee heard from Mr. Matthew Curran, FALS Chair, who is in contact 

with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in regards to the FTC proposed ruling on this issue. Currently FTC is 

awaiting the outcome of the 2014 NCWM Annual Meeting results before proceeding (refer to Appendix C) with 

their proposal. The Committee agreed to modify the language in its Interim Report to that shown in this Final 

Report in the Item Under Consideration. 

Regional Association Comments: 

CWMA reported FALS recommended the alternate proposal below be a Voting item. The Committee agreed. 

During past regional meetings, Mr. Corr gave a presentation on “Flex Fuel Task Force Update.” This presentation 

noted that ASTM D7794-12 and D5798-11 cover the standard for a full range of ethanol concentrations. Several 

commented that the 51 % to 83 % range is too broad. A regulatory official was concerned with blends at the pumps 

they can choose a blend and percentage. A stakeholder remarked that consumers are concerned with price and miles 

per gallon (MPG) and may not have enough knowledge in regards to blends. Another stakeholder remarked that 

ASTM 5798 is at the terminal and the Conference needs to address this issue. 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 67 

Section 1. Definitions 

1.13. Denatured Fuel Ethanol. – “Ethanol” as defined in Section 1.20. Ethanol. An ethanol blend

component for use in gasoline-ethanol blends and Ethanol Flex Fuel blends. The ethanol is rendered 

unfit for beverage use by the addition of denaturants under formulas approved by the Alcohol and 

Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB), www.ttb.gov. ASTM D4806, “Standard Specification for 

Denatured Fuel Ethanol for blending with Gasolines for Use as Automotive Spark-Ignition Engine Fuel” 

which describes the acceptable denaturants for denatured fuel ethanol to be blended into spark-ignition 

engine fuels.

1.17. Ethanol Flex Fuel Blends E85 Fuel Ethanol. – A blend Blends of ethanol and hydrocarbons restricted 

for use as fuel in ground vehicles equipped with flexible-fuel spark-ignition engines. of which the ethanol 

portion is (nominally 75 to 85 volume percent denatured fuel ethanol). 

1.20. Ethanol. – Also known as “ethyl alcohol”. Ethanol is provided in gasoline-ethanol blends and 

Ethanol Flex Fuel blends by blending denatured fuel ethanol. See “Denatured Fuel Ethanol” in Section 

1.13. “Denatured Fuel Ethanol,” means nominally anhydrous ethyl alcohol meeting ASTM D4806 

standards. It is intended to be blended with gasoline for use as a fuel in a spark-ignition internal 

combustion engine. The denatured fuel ethanol is first made unfit for drinking by the addition of the 

Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB), www.ttb.gov, approved substances before blending 

with gasoline. 

1.53. Wholesale Purchaser Consumer. – Any person who is an ultimate gasoline consumer of gasoline, fuel 

methanol, Ethanol Flex Fuel blends, fuel ethanol, diesel fuel, biodiesel, biodiesel blends, fuel oil, kerosene, 

aviation turbine fuels, natural gas, compressed natural gas, or liquefied petroleum gas and who purchases or 

obtains the product from a supplier and receives delivery of that product into a storage tank. 

Section 2. Standard Fuel Specifications 

2.7. Denatured Fuel Ethanol. – Intended for blending with gasoline shall meet the most recent version of 

ASTM D4806, “Standard Specification for Denatured Fuel Ethanol for Blending with Gasolines for Use as 

Automotive Spark-Ignition Engine Fuel.” 

2.10. Ethanol Flex Fuel E85 Fuel Ethanol. – Shall meet the most recent version of the following ASTM 

D5798, “Standard Specification for Fuel Ethanol (Ed75-Ed85) for Automotive Spark-Ignition Engines.” 

Ethanol Flex Fuel blends are is covered by one of two ASTM standards based on the ethanol 

concentration of the blend: 

(a) Ethanol Flex Fuel blends containing 51 to 83 volume percent ethanol shall meet the latest 

version of ASTM D5798, “Standard Specification for Ethanol Fuel Blends for Flexible-Fuel 

Automotive Spark-Ignition Engines”; and 

(b) Ethanol Flex Fuel Blends containing 16 to 50 volume percent ethanol shall be blended, stored 

and conveyed for consumption in accordance with the latest version of ASTM D7794, 

“Standard Practice for Blending Mid-Level Ethanol Fuel Blends for Flexible-Fuel Vehicles 

with Automotive Spark-Ignition Engines.” 

Section 3. Classification and Method of Sale of Petroleum Products 

3.8. Ethanol Flex Fuel Blends E85 Fuel Ethanol. 

3.8.1. How to Identify Ethanol Flex Fuel Blends E85 Fuel Ethanol. – Ethanol Flex Fuel blends Fuel 

ethanol shall be identified as Ethanol Flex Fuel or EXX Flex Fuel E85. 

3.8.2. Labeling Requirements. 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 68 

(a) Ethanol Flex Fuel blends with an ethanol concentration no less than 51 and no greater than 

83 volume percent shall be labeled “Ethanol Flex Fuel, minimum 51 % ethanol”. Fuel 

ethanol shall be labeled with its automotive fuel rating in accordance with 16 CFR Part 306. 

(b) Ethanol Flex Fuel blends with an ethanol concentration less than or equal to 50 volume 

percent shall be labeled “EXX Flex Fuel, minimum YY % ethanol”, where the XX is the 

target ethanol concentration in volume percent and YY is XX minus 5. The actual ethanol 

concentration of the blend shall be XX volume percent plus or minus 5 volume percent. 

(c)(b) A label shall be posted which states “For Use in Flexible Fuel Vehicles (FFV) Only.” This 

information shall be clearly and conspicuously posed on the upper 50 % of the dispenser front 

panel in a type at least 12.7 mm (1⁄2 in) in height, 1.5 mm (1/16 in) stroke (width of type). A label 

shall be posted which states, “CHECK OWNER’S MANUAL”, “Consult Vehicle 

Manufacturer Fuel Recommendations,” and shall not be less than 6 mm (1⁄4 in) in height by 

0.8 mm (1/32 in) stroke; block style letters and the color shall be in definite contrast to the 

background color to which it is applied. 

(Amended 2007, and 2008, and 20XX) 

Section 4. Retail Storage Tanks and Dispenser Filters 

4.1. Water in Gasoline-Alcohol Blends, Biodiesel Blends, Ethanol Flex Fuel Blends E85 Fuel Ethanol, 

Aviation Gasoline, and Aviation Turbine Fuel. – No water phase greater than 6 mm (1⁄4 in) as determined by 

an appropriate detection paste or other acceptable means, is allowed to accumulate in any tank utilized in the 

storage of gasoline-alcohol blend, biodiesel, biodiesel blends, Ethanol Flex Fuel blends E85 fuel ethanol, 

aviation gasoline, and aviation turbine fuel.

4.2. Water in Gasoline, Diesel, Gasoline-Ether, and Other Fuels. – Water shall not exceed 25 mm (1 in) in 

depth when measured with water indicating paste or other acceptable means in any tank utilized in the storage 

of diesel, gasoline, gasoline-ether blends, and kerosene sold at retail except as required in Section 4.1.Water in 

Gasoline-Alcohol Blends, Aviation Blends, Biodiesel Blends, Ethanol Flex Fuel Blends E85 Fuel Ethanol, 

Aviation Gasoline, and Aviation Turbine Fuel. 

4.3. Dispenser Filters. 

4.3.1. Engine Fuel Dispensers. 

(a) All gasoline, gasoline-alcohol blends, gasoline-ether blends, Ethanol Flex Fuel blends E85 fuel 

ethanol, and M85 methanol dispensers shall have a 10 micron or smaller nominal pore-sized filter. 

(b) All biodiesel, biodiesel blends, diesel, and kerosene dispensers shall have a 30 micron or smaller 

nominal pore-sized filter. 

CWMA 2014 Annual Meeting: An industry representative encouraged support of this item; FALS also recommends 

its adoption. A regulator summarized a recent Notice of Proposed Rule from the FTC. He indicated the proposal 

falls short in a number of areas: 1) for E15, the only requirement would be an EPA label – the FTC proposal does 

not require an octane rating; 2) ethanol blends above 15 % to 83 % will be posted in units of 10 percent increments; 

and 3) the term “E85” can no longer be used. A second industry representative commented that the FTC proposal is 

a regression and creates problems; he urged support for this item. FALS is considering submitting comments to 

FTC regarding the proposed rule. The CWMA L&R Committee agrees with the comments from regulators and 

industry, believes the item has been fully developed, and is ready for Voting. 

WWMA heard from industry representative stating that FALS recommends the item be moved to Voting Status with 

the same changes identified in the above CWMA comments. WWMA recommended that this item as modified be a 

Voting item. 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 69 

NEWMA recommended in 2012 that the item remain as an Informational item. During its 2013 Annual Meeting, 

NEWMA supported the ongoing work being done by the Task Group and recommended it as an Informational item. 

At the 2013 NEWMA Interim Meeting, an industry representative stated that FALS recommends the item be moved 

to Voting status with the same changes as shown above in the CWMA comments. At the 2014 NEWMA Annual 

Meeting, the Committee recommended this be a Voting item to make it consistent with the ASTM on volatility and 

flex fuel language. 

SWMA heard a presentation in 2011 from Mr. Corr. He identified several areas where stakeholder input is needed 

to propose updates to NIST Handbook 130 and to reflect new language in ASTM D5798. No comments were made 

during the hearing. FALS is expected to have a recommendation for the 2012 NCWM Interim Meeting. SWMA 

forwarded the item to NCWM, recommending it as a Developing item. 

SWMA 2012 Annual Meeting: Mr. Corr commented as Chair of the FALS TG that the group is working on 

language to reflect the new ASTM D7794 and modified D5798 standards for fuels restricted to flex fuel vehicles. It 

should be available for review at the NCWM Interim Meeting. Mr. Russ Lewis (Marathon Petroleum) gave a 

presentation in support of the proposal, taking into account the recently modified ASTM D5798 “Specifications for 

Ethanol Fuel Blends for Flexible Fuel Automotive Spark Ignition Engines.” Mr. Lewis provided proposed language 

to the TG for consideration. SWMA recommended that this be an Informational item. 

SWMA 2013 Annual Meeting: The region supported moving forward the modified language as it appears in their 

2013 final report as a Voting item to NCWM. 

Additional letters, presentations, and data may have been part of the Committee’s consideration. To review the 

supporting documentation, please refer to the Report of the 98 National Conference on Weights and Measures

(SP 1171, 2013). 

237-10 V Section 3.XX. Diesel Exhaust Fluid (DEF). 

(This item was Adopted.) 

Source: 

American Petroleum Institute (2014) 

(Note: In the 2014 NCWM Publication 15, this was Item 232-8)

Purpose: 

To include Diesel Exhaust Fluid (DEF) in NIST Handbook 130, including defining DEF and outlining marking 

requirements to provide information to consumers of DEF. 

Item under Consideration: 

Amend NIST Handbook 130, Uniform Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants Regulation as follows: 

Section 1. Definitions 

1.14. Diesel Exhaust Fluid. – A preparation of aqueous urea [(NH2)2CO], containing 32.5% by mass of 

technically-pure urea in high-purity water with quality characteristics defined by the latest version of 

ISO 22241, “Diesel engines - NOx reduction agent AUS 32.”

(Added 2014) 

Section 2. Standard Fuel Specifications 

2.18. Diesel Exhaust Fluid (DEF). – Shall meet the latest version of ISO 22241, “Diesel engines – NOx 

reduction agent AUS 32.” 

(Added 2014)
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 70 

Section 3. Classification and Method of Sale of Petroleum Products

3.16. Diesel Exhaust Fluid (DEF). 

3.16.1. Labeling of Diesel Exhaust Fluid. – Diesel Exhaust Fluid shall be labeled. 

3.16.1.1. Retail Dispenser Labeling. – A label shall be clearly and conspicuously placed on the 

front panel of the Diesel Exhaust Fluid dispenser stating “for operation of selective catalytic 

reduction (SCR) converters in motor vehicles with diesel engines.” 

3.16.1.2. Documentation for Retailers of Bulk Product. – A DEF supplier shall provide, at the 

time of delivery of the bulk shipment of DEF, identification of the fluid’s origin including the 

name of the fluid manufacturer, the brand name, trade name, or trademark, and a statement 

identifying the fluid as DEF conforming to specifications given in the latest version of ISO 22241, 

“Diesel engines – NOx reduction agent AUS 32.”. This information shall be provided by the 

supplier on an invoice, bill of lading, shipping paper, or other document. 

3.16.1.3. Labeling of Packaged Product. – Any diesel exhaust fluid retail package shall bear a 

label that includes the name of the fluid manufacturer, the brand name, trade name, or 

trademark, a statement identifying the fluid as DEF conforming to specifications given in the 

latest version of ISO 22241, “Diesel engines – NOx reduction agent AUS 32.” and the statement, 

“It is recommended to store DEF between – 5 °C to 30 °C (23 °F to 86 °F).” 

3.16.1.4. Documentation for Bulk Deliveries. – A carrier that transports or accepts for 

transportation any bulk shipment by tank truck, freight container, cargo tank, railcar, or any 

other vehicle used to transport or deliver bulk quantities of DEF shall, at the time of delivery of 

the DEF, provide identification of the fluid’s origin including the name of the fluid 

manufacturer, the brand name, trade name, or trademark, and a statement identifying the fluid 

as DEF conforming to specifications given in the latest version of ISO 22241, “Diesel engines – 

NOx reduction agent AUS 32.”. This information shall be provided to the recipient on an 

invoice, bill of lading, shipping paper, or other document. 

Effective date shall be January 1, 2016 

(Added 2014) 

Background/Discussion: Diesel exhaust fluid (DEF) is an aqueous mixture of 32.5 % high-purity urea and 67.5 % 

deionized water, and is used in conjunction with Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) systems to remove harmful 

NOx emissions from diesel engines. In January 2010, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) enacted 

new emission standards requiring medium- and heavy-duty diesel vehicles to significantly reduce engine emissions, 

including NOx. A majority of engine manufacturers is now using SCR systems to meet the new EPA standards in 

their diesel applications and is specifying the use of DEF meeting the quality requirements of the most current 

version of ISO 22241, “Diesel engines - NOx reduction agent AUS 32- Parts 1-5.” 

As a result, the sale of DEF has become a fast-growth, emerging market as pre-2010 on- and off-highway equipment 

inventory continues to turn over. For instance, DEF may currently be purchased at fuel-island pumps at over 

1000 locations nationwide, with many more locations expected in the near future. The sale of DEF can be expected 

to continue to grow very quickly as additional fleet turnover occurs and regulations for passenger cars, light-duty 

trucks, non-road vehicles, and stationary diesel engines are phased in during the coming years. Hence, it is of 

utmost importance that consumers of DEF are receiving the proper information about the product they purchasing as 

well as assurances that the product meets the ISO 22241, “Diesel engines - NOx reduction agent AUS 32” 

specifications. 

NCWM 2014 Interim Meeting: A representative with API provided FALS with modified language. This language 

will address the regional concerns regarding the clarity of the language and providing for retail dispenser labeling. 

This modification also expanded the recommended temperature ranges and is consistent with the ISO method. 

FALS concurs with the changes and submitted them to the Committee as a Voting item. 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 71 

NCWM 2014 Annual Meeting: The Committee heard support that a provision should be made to make this item 

effective January 2016. The Committee agreed to modify the language in its Interim Report to that shown in this 

Final Report in the Item Under Consideration. 

Regional Associations Comments: 

CWMA 2014: An ISO specification currently exists for this product, and quality assurance is important. At the 

CWMA Annual Meeting, the Committee was informed that there is also a companion Item 232-7. An industry 

representative supports both items. A regulator has been working through the ASTM process to develop a 

specification for this product, but ASTM has decided to not pursue it. Consequently, he urges support and passage 

of this item. After discussion among the attendees, consensus was reached that an implementation date of one year 

after passage would allow sufficient time for the regulated industry to comply. The Committee is also 

recommending a proposed effective date be placed into the item that reflects an effective date of one year after 

publication. CWMA L&R Committee believes that a specification for this product is important, since ASTM is not 

going to develop a specification, this item should move forward as a Voting item. 

WWMA heard from a representative of API regarding both Items 232-6 and 232-7 simultaneously. API explained 

that there is currently no definition of DEF. API also stated the sale of DEF will continue to increase in the market, 

as it is in use on all selective catalytic reduction diesel vehicles. He stated the method to manufacture DEF may 

differ, but the standard remains the same for all DEF products and purity is important. The FALS Chairman stated 

that ASTM does not have a specification, so the ISO specification is appropriate and would like to make this a 

Voting item. An industry representative from Gilbarco spoke to the uncertainty whether current receipt technology 

has the capability to print all required information. An industry representative expressed concern regarding 

temperatures requirements because of storage locations outside the specified range. The Committee supports this 

item and would like clarification regarding whether current receipt dispenser technology can accommodate proposed 

requirements. WWMA forwarded this item to NCWM and recommended it be an Informational item. 

NEWMA heard a comment from the submitter that adding DEF to NIST Handbook 130, including defining DEF 

and outlining marking requirements would provide information to consumers of DEF. NEWMA forwarded it to 

NCWM, recommending it as a Developing item. At the 2014 NEWMA Annual Meeting, they recommended that 

this be a Voting item as it is fully developed. 

SWMA forwarded the item to NCWM, recommending it as a Developing item to further address the concerns of 

quality statements on receipts and dispensers. 

Additional letters, presentations, and data may have been part of the Committee’s consideration. To review the 

supporting documentation, please refer to the Report of the 98th National Conference on Weights and Measures

(SP 1171, 2013). 

237-11 V Section 2.12. Motor Oil 

(This item was Adopted.) 

Source: 

Fuels and Lubricants Subcommittee and API (2014) 

(Note: This item did not appear in the 2014 NCWM Publication. This was submitted as an editorial change 

through FALS.) 

Purpose: 

Editorial change under Section 2.12.(a) Motor Oil that allows for the language insertion to include Automobile 

Manufacturers’ Association (ACEA) “European Oil Sequences.” 

Item Under Consideration: 

2.12. Engine (Motor) Oil. – Shall not be sold or distributed for use unless the product conforms to the 

following specifications: 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 72 

(a) performance claims listed on the label shall be evaluated against the latest version of SAE J183, 

“Engine Oil Performance and Engine Service Classification,” (Other than “Energy Conserving,” 

API 1509 “Engine Oil Licensing and Certifications System,” API 1509 “Engine Oil Licensing 

and Certification System”, European Automobile Manufacturers’ Association (ACEA) 

“European Oil Sequences” or other industry standards as applicable; 

(b) the product shall meet its labeled viscosity grade specification as specified in the latest version of SAE 

J300, “Engine Oil Viscosity Classification.; and

(c) any engine oil that is represented as “energy conserving” shall meet the requirements established 

by the latest version of SAE J1423, “Classification of Energy Conserving Engine Oil for 

Passenger Cars, Vans, Sport Utility Vehicles, and Light-Duty Trucks. 

(Added 2004) (Amended 2014) 

Background/Discussion: 

Mr. Kevin Ferrick (API) provided editorial changes through the FALS that provided clarity and aligns with similar 

items in the handbook. The FALS agreed to send this to the Committee recommending it as a Voting item. 

2014 NCWM Interim Meeting: The Committee was informed by FALS that an editorial change to 

Section 2.12. Motor Oil was needed to add the European Automobile Association “European Oil Sequences” to 

align with proposed language in Item 232-4 and 237-6. The Committee concurs with this change. 

2014 NCWM Annual Meeting: There was an editorial change to remove the word “industry” from Section 2.2.(a). 

The Committee agreed to modify the language in its Interim Report to that shown in this Final Report in the Item 

Under Consideration. 

2014 NEWMA Annual Meeting: It was recommended that the language as it currently appears in the agenda be a 

Voting item. 

Regional Associations Comments: 

2014 CWMA Annual Meeting: An industry representative indicated support for this item with the following change 

(2.12. Motor Oil, Section (a) add words “vehicle or engine manufacturer”). The CWMA L&R Committee feels this 

item has been fully developed and is ready for Voting as amended. 

(a) performance claims listed on the label shall be evaluated against the latest version of SAE J183, “Engine 

Oil Performance and Engine Service Classification,” (Other than “Energy Conserving,” API 1509 

“Engine Oil Licensing and Certifications System,” API 1509 “Engine Oil Licensing and Certification 

System”, European Automobile Manufacturers’ Association (ACEA) “European Oil Sequences” or 

other industry, vehicle or engine manufacturer standards as applicable; the product shall meet its labeled 

viscosity grade specification as specified in the latest version of SAE J300, “Engine Oil Viscosity 

Classification.” 

The CWMA L&R Committee agrees with the amended language, believes this item has been fully developed and is 

ready for Voting as amended. 

Additional letters, presentations, and data may have been part of the Committee’s consideration. To review the 

supporting documentation, please refer to the Report of the 98th National Conference on Weights and Measures

(SP 1171, 2013). 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 73 

260 NIST HANDBOOK 133 

260-1 W Section 3.10. Animal Bedding 

(This item was Withdrawn.) 

Source: 

Central Weights and Measures Association (2012) 

Purpose: 

This proposal is to clarify appropriate test procedures for animal bedding. 

Item Under Consideration: 

Amend NIST Handbook 133, Test Procedures – For Packages Labeled by Volume as follows: 

3.10. Mulch, and Soils, and Animal Bedding Labeled by Volume. 

Mulch is defined as “any product or material except peat or peat moss that is advertised, offered for sale, or sold 

for primary use as a horticultural, above-ground dressing, for decoration, moisture control, weed control, 

erosion control, temperature control, or other similar purposes.” 

Soil is defined as “any product or material, except peat or peat moss that is advertised or offered for sale, or sold 

for primary use as a horticultural growing media, soil amendment, and/or soil replacement.” 

Animal bedding is defined as “any product or material, except for baled straw or peat moss, that is 

advertised, offered for sale, or sold for primary use as a medium for animals to bed, nest or eliminate 

waste, such as compressed wood pulp or cellulose fibers (confetti, granules, or pellets), softwood shavings, 

shredded paper, compressed coconut fiber, ground corn cob, pelleted paper or wheat straw, cotton fibers, 

and bamboo products or any other material.” Animal bedding as “animal bedding of all kinds, except for 

baled straw” 

3.10.1. Test Equipment. 

 A test measure appropriate for the package size that meets the specifications for test measures in 

Table 3-4. “Specifications for Test Measures for Mulch, and Soils and Animal Bedding” 

 Drop cloth/polyethylene sheeting for catching overflow of material 

 Level (at least 15 cm [6 in] in length) 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 74 

Table 3-4. 

Specifications for Test Measures for Mulch, and Soils, and Animal Bedding 

Nominal 

Capacity 

of Test Measure4

Actual Volume 

of the Measure4

Interior Wall Dimensions1

 Marked 

Intervals 

on 

Interior 

Wall3

Volume 

Equivalent 

of Marked 

Intervals Length Width Height2

30.2 L 

(1.07 cu ft) 

for testing 

packages that 

contain less than 

28.3 L 

(1 cu ft or 

25.7 dry qt) 

31.9 L 

(1.13 cu ft) 

213.4 mm 

(8.4 in) 

203.2 mm 

(8 in) 

736.6 mm 

(29 in) 

12.7 mm 

(1⁄2 in) 

550.6 mL 

(33.6 in3

) 

28.3 L 

(1 cu ft) 

28.3 L 

(1 cu ft) 

304.8 mm 

(12 in) 

304.8 mm 

(12 in) 

304.8 mm 

(12 in) 

1179.8 mL 

(72 in3

) 

56.6 L 

(2 cu ft) 

63.7 L 

(2.25 cu ft) 

304.8 mm 

(12 in) 

304.8 mm 

(12 in) 

685.8 mm 

(27 in) 

406.4 mm 

(16 in) 

228.6 mm 

(9 in) 

685.8 mm 

(27 in) 

84.9 L 

(3 cu ft) 

92 L 

(3.25 cu ft) 

304.8 mm 

(12 in) 

304.8 mm 

(12 in) 

990.6 mm 

(39 in) 

406.4 mm 

(16 in) 

228.6 mm 

(9 in) 

990.6 mm 

(39 in) 

Measures are typically constructed of 1.27 cm (1/2 in) marine plywood. A transparent sidewall is useful for 

determining the level of fill, but must be reinforced if it is not thick enough to resist distortion. If the measure has a 

clear front, place the level gage at the back (inside) of the measure so that the markings are read over the top of the 

mulch. 

Notes 

1

 Other interior dimensions are acceptable if the test measure approximates the configuration of the package under 

test and does not exceed a base configuration of the package cross-section. 

2

The height of the test measure may be reduced, but this will limit the volume of the package that can be tested. 

3

When lines are marked in boxes, they should extend to all four sides of the measure if possible to improve 

readability. It is recommended that a line indicating the MAV level also be marked to reduce the possibility of 

reading errors when the level of the mulch is at or near the MAV. 

4

The Nominal Capacity is given to identify the size of packages that can be tested in a single measurement using the 

dry measure with the listed dimensions. It is based on the most common package sizes of mulch in the marketplace. 

If the measures are built to the dimensions shown above the actual volume will be larger than the nominal volume so 

that plus errors (overfill) can be measured accurately. 

(Amended 2010 and 20XX) 

3.10.2. Test Procedure. 

1. Follow the Section 2.3.1. “Define the Inspection Lot.” Use a “Category A” sampling plan in the 

inspection, and select a random sample. 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 75 

2. Open each package in turn. Empty the contents of the package into a test measure and level the 

contents by hand. Do not rock, shake, drop, rotate, or tamp the test measure. Read the 

horizontal marks to determine package net volume. 

Note: Mulch: Some types of mulch are susceptible to clumping and compacting. Take steps to 

ensure that the material is loose and free flowing when placed into the test measure. Gently roll the 

bag before opening to reduce the clumping and compaction of material. 

Compressed state animal bedding: To measure the usable volume, first empty the contents of 

the package on a drop cloth. Using your hands, or a tool if necessary, loosen the material until 

it is free of all clumps and compaction. When the product is free flowing, place in a test 

measure. To determine volume of the compressed state animal bedding, follow Section 3.9.1. 

Compressed Volume Packages. 

3. Exercise care in leveling the surface of the mulch/soil/animal bedding and determine the 

volume reading from a position that minimizes errors caused by parallax. 

4. Determine package errors by subtracting the labeled volume from the package net volume in 

the measure. Record each package error. 

Package Error = Package Net Volume − Labeled Volume 

3.10.3. Evaluation of Results. 

Follow the procedures in Section 2.3.7. “Evaluate for Compliance to determine lot conformance. 

Note: In accordance with Appendix A, Table 2-10. Exceptions to the Maximum Allowable Variations for 

Textiles, Polyethylene Sheeting and Film, Mulch and Soil Labeled by Volume, Packaged Firewood, and 

Packages Labeled by Count with 50 Items or Fewer, and Specific Agricultural Seeds Labeled by Count, 

apply an MAV of 5 % of the declared quantity to mulch, and soil and animal bedding sold by volume. 

When testing mulch and soil with a net quantity in terms of volume, one package out of every 12 in the 

sample may exceed the 5 % MAV (e.g., one in a sample of 12 packages; two in a sample of 24 packages; 

four in a sample of 48 packages). However, the sample must meet the average requirement of the 

“Category A” Sampling Plan. 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 76 

Table 2-10. 

Exceptions to the Maximum Allowable Variations for Textiles, Polyethylene Sheeting and Film, Mulch, 

and Soils, and Animal Bedding Labeled by Volume, Packaged Firewood, and Packages Labeled by Count 

with 50 Items or Fewer, and Specific Agricultural Seeds Labeled by Count. 

 Maximum Allowable Variations (MAVs) 

Mulch, And Soil, and 

Animal Bedding Labeled By 

Volume 

The MAVs are: 

For individual packages: 5 % of the labeled volume. 

For example: One package may exceed the MAV for every 12 packages in 

the sample (e.g., when the sample size is 12 or fewer, 1 package may exceed 

the MAV and when the sample size is 48 packages, 4 packages may exceed 

the MAV). 

NOTE: For Animal Bedding there is a temporary exemption not to apply 

the MAV. After July 2017, there will be an MAV of 5 % of the labeled 

volume applied to “animal bedding.” 

(Amended 2010) 

Background/Discussion: 

NIST Handbook 130, Uniform Regulation for the Method of Sale, Section 2.23. Animal Bedding states: 

2.23. Animal Bedding. – Packaged animal bedding of all kinds, except for baled straw, shall be sold by 

volume, that is, by the cubic meter, liter, or milliliter and by the cubic yard, cubic foot, or cubic inch. If the 

commodity is packaged in a compressed state, the quantity declaration shall include both the quantity in the 

compressed state and the usable quantity that can be recovered.

Example: 

250 mL expands to 500 mL (500 in3

 expands to 1000 in3). 

(Added 1990) (Amended 2012) 

However, NIST Handbook 133 does not include specific procedures for testing animal bedding volume declarations, 

compressed state quantity declarations, or usable quantity declarations. This proposal is to clarify appropriate test 

procedures for animal bedding. 

NCWM 2012 Interim Meeting: The Committee made minor editorial changes to align the proposal with the format 

and language currently in NIST Handbook 133. The submitter had the word “uncompressed” added under the note 

section within “Evaluation of Results.” The Committee agreed and recommended to remove this word. 

This proposal includes adopting both the mulch and soil test method and the evaluation of results for animal 

bedding. The method of evaluating results for mulch and soil testing includes an exception to the maximum 

allowable variation (MAV), the MAV is 5%, and one package out of a 12 item sample (two packages in 24 item 

sample, four packages in a 48 item sample) is allowed to exceed the MAV. However, the sample must meet the 

average requirement of “Category A.” This MAV exception for mulch and soil was developed based on a study of 

mulch and soil test results. The Committee will ask industry to submit animal bedding product information and test 

data to determine if the MAV exception is appropriate for animal bedding. 

An animal bedding industry representative was supportive of the 5 % allowance and also recommended a 

12 × 12 × 12 cu ft vessel. The submitter of the proposal has been using the mulch test procedure to test animal 

bedding and has not had issues using the procedure under the item for consideration. The 2012 Committee 

designated this item as an Informational item. 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 77 

NCWM 2012 Annual Meeting: The Committee requested that regulators and industry conduct animal bedding 

package testing, and submit their test results to Ms. Cardin at judy.cardin@wi.gov or to Mr. David Sefcik at 

dsefcik@nist.gov. Preliminary analysis by NIST of available test data indicates that an exception for MAV is 

necessary for this product, but the Committee needs additional test data to determine the appropriate amount for that 

exception. 

NCWM 2013 Interim Meeting: Mr. David Sefcik (NIST, OWM) provided a summary of the data that was received 

from states and manufacturers that tested animal bedding. The findings were limited participation, and very few lots 

passed; therefore, NIST could not make a recommendation for a MAV. Data shows there is a bigger concern than 

determining correct MAV. Even with applying a 5 % MAV, almost all the lots would have failed. There were also 

significant variations in labeled content, variability on bedding materials, different types of packing machines and 

volumetric test measures. It was agreed the test procedure for mulch could be used for animal bedding. The 

recommendation was that the Committee should consider a temporary exemption from the MAV (three to five 

years). This would provide an exemption from the current MAV which is too restrictive while giving the 

Committee and NIST additional time for data to be collected to determine the proper MAV. NIST will work with 

stakeholders to develop a standardized test measure. 

Mr. Jim Byers (San Diego County, California) expressed concern that animal bedding needs to be clearly defined. 

Mr. Byers submitted recommended language to define animal as follows: 

“Any product or material, except for baled straw, that is advertised, offered for sale, or sold for 

primary use as a medium for animals to bed, nest or eliminate waste, such as compressed wood pulp 

or cellulose fibers (confetti, granules, or pellets), softwood shavings, shredded paper, compressed 

coconut fiber, ground corn cob, pelleted paper or wheat straw, cotton fibers, and bamboo products 

or any other material.” 

Mr. Floren agrees with Mr. Byers and Mr. Sefcik on their recommendations. Mr. Rich Whiting (American Wood 

Fibers) spoke that they participated and their lots did not pass. American Wood Fibers would like to see a test 

measure and quantity control practices developed by NCWM. 

The Committee agrees with the definition for animal bedding drafted by Mr. Byers with the addition of peat moss as 

an exemption. It was agreed to remove the MAV requirement for animal bedding and the Committee is 

recommending that the states test animal bedding on the “average requirement.” The removal of the MAV for 

animal bedding would be a temporary exemption for a four year period, after which time the MAV would default to 

the 5 %. There was no objection from NIST on the test procedure. Information will need to be obtained from 

industry to determine an accurate test measure. It was also agreed to put a sunset date of July 2017 into the 

language. With these changes, the Committee proposes this as a Voting item. 

NCWM 2013 Annual Meeting: A regulator opposed the item as written due to animal bedding is being defined 

within a test procedure for mulch and soil. He questions how the 5 % MAV was calculated. He also does not 

recommend a fix of applying a temporary MAV exemption. The Committee concurs that this item is not ready to 

move forward as a Voting Item and moved this item to Developing status, so the submitter can further develop. The 

definition needs to be reviewed to determine any exemptions that may apply for items currently sold by weight. 

Reconsideration should also be given to whether a three-year exemption to the MAV is appropriate. The Committee 

believes this item needs to be further developed and returned to the submitter. 

NCWM 2014 Interim Meeting: There were no comments heard and there has been no response from the submitter 

to further develop. A NIST Technical Advisor responded that NIST will continue to gather data and study this 

issue. If NIST believes there is an issue, they will submit a new proposal. The Committee is recommending this be 

a Withdrawn item since no additional work by the submitter has been done. 

Regional Association Comments: 

CWMA commented that no additional information has been received to date. During past regional meetings, a state 

regulator noted there is no standard for animal bedding, and industry is using a variety of test methods, which 

produce varying results. Wisconsin tested and found a wide variance in net quantity accuracy and found significant 

shortages in several instances. Ms. Cardin encouraged other jurisdictions to test animal bedding and to share data 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 78 

with NIST, OWM. Missouri did a lot of testing at one facility and found a maximum of 36 % shortage and an 

average of 23 % shortage. Missouri’s analysis further showed that the chipper had a great impact of the “spring 

effect” of compression. An industry representative recommended developing a method of sale for this commodity 

when sold from bulk since a significant amount of horse bedding is purchased in bulk. Ms. Cardin announced she 

would coordinate an animal bedding package testing survey to provide data to determine the appropriate exception 

to MAV for animal bedding. Some states agreed to participate. During the most recent annual meeting (2013), the 

NIST Technical Advisor remarked that the date in the MAV table was open ended and consideration should be 

given to make it date specific. NIST continues to analyze test data, and states should continue to send test data to 

NIST. During their May 2013 Annual Meeting, the Committee recommended that a date for the temporary 

exemption read July 1, 2017, and recommended Voting status. At the 2013 CWMA Interim Meeting, they 

recommended that the item be a Developing item. 

WWMA received comment from a regulatory official stating that the submitter is unlikely to continue work on this 

item; however, a national test procedure on animal bedding is needed. First, the definition for animal bedding needs 

to be reworked. The definition in Section 3.10. Mulch and Soils Labeled by Volume, needs to specifically address 

compressible materials only or “products subject to compression.” In Section 3.10.2., Test Procedure is 

contradictory because the definition specifically excludes peat moss, yet the test procedure references Section 3.9.1. 

Compressed Volume Packages Applied to Peat Moss. Third, there is no data to justify a 5 % MAV. The Committee 

believed this item has merit and should be further developed. WWMA recommended that it be a Developing item. 

NEWMA commented in 2012 that it would like to see results of the CWMA study before action is taken on the 

proposal. NEWMA recommended that the item be an Informational item. During the 2013 NEWMA Annual 

Meeting, the NIST Technical Advisor remarked that they continue to collect data on this subject matter. The 

Committee believed there is sufficient data to support this item and recommended it as a Voting item. At their 2013 

Interim Meeting, reviewed the comments from the report of the WWMA and recommended that the item be a 

Developing item. 

SWMA heard comments in 2012 from a NIST Technical Advisor that the chair of the NCWM L&R Committee is 

requesting states to participate in the package testing of animal bedding over the next two months in order to provide 

more data to help determine the appropriate MAV. SWMA recommended that the item be an Informational item 

unless there is strong evidence from the survey for an appropriate MAV, in which case SWMA would recommend it 

as a Voting item. At the 2013 SWMA Annual Meeting, they supported the item remaining as a Developing item as 

it needs more work. 

Additional letters, presentations, and data may have been part of the Committee’s consideration. To review the 

supporting documentation, please refer to the Report of the 98th National Conference on Weights and Measures

(SP 1171, 2013). 

260-2 V Section 3.12. Fresh Oysters Labeled by Volume 

(This item was Adopted.) 

Source: 

NIST Office of Weights and Measures (2014) 

Purpose: 

To correct errors and omissions to NIST Handbook 133, Section 3.12., Fresh Oysters Labeled by volume so that it is 

in complete agreement with the AOAC Official Method 35.1.07 (953.11), which is utilized by the Food and Drug 

Administration. 

Item under Consideration: 

Amend NIST Handbook 133 as follows: 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 79 

3.12. Fresh Oysters Labeled by Volume. 

Packaged fresh oysters removed from the shell must be labeled by volume. The maximum amount of permitted 

free liquid is limited to 15 % by weight. Testing the quantity of contents of fresh oysters requires the inspector 

to determine total volume, total weight of solids and liquid, and the weight of the free liquid. 

3.12.1. Test Equipment. 

• A scale that meets the requirements in Section 2.2. “Measurement Standards and Test Equipment” 

• Volumetric measures 

• Micrometer depth gage (ends of rods fully rounded), 0 mm to 228 mm (0 in to 9 in) 

• Strainer for determining the amount of drained liquid from shucked oysters. Use as a strainer and

a slightly smaller flat bottom metal receiving pan or tray constructed to the following 

specifications: 

 Sides: 5.08 cm (2 in) 

 Area: 1935 cm2

 (300 in2) or more for each 3.78 L (1 gal) of oysters 

Note: Strainers of smaller area dimensions are permitted to facilitate testing smaller containers. 

• Perforations: 

Diameter: 6.35 mm (1⁄4 in) 

Location: 3.17 cm (11⁄4 in) apart in a square pattern, or perforations of equivalent area and 

distribution. 

• Spanning bar, 2.54 cm by 2.54 cm by 30.48 cm (1 in by 1 in by 12 in) 

• Rubber spatula 

• Thermometer, 1 °C (2 °F) graduations and a range of – 35 °C to + 50 °C (− 30 °F) to + 120 °F) 

accurate to ± 1 °C (± 2 °F) 

• Level, at least 15.24 cm (6 in) in length 

• Stopwatch 

3.12.2. Test Procedure. 

Note: Test the oysters at a temperature of 7 (± 1) °C [45(± 2) °F]. 

1. Follow the Section 2.3.1. “Define the Inspection Lot.” Use a “Category A” sampling plan in the 

inspection; and select a random sample. 

2. Determine and record the gross weight of a sample package. 

3. Set the container on a level surface and open it. Use a depth gage to determine the level of fill. 

Lock the depth gauge. Mark the location of the gauge on the package. 

4. Weigh a dry 20.32 cm or 30.48 cm (8 in or 12 in) receiving pan and record the weight. Set 

strainer over the receiving pan. 

5. Pour the contents from the container onto the strainer without shaking it. Tip the strainer slightly 

and let it d Drain for two minutes. Remove strainer with oysters. It is normal for oysters to 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 80 

include mucous (which is part of the product) that will not pass through the strainer, so do not 

force it. 

6. Weigh the receiving pan and liquid and record the weight. Subtract the weight of the dry receiving 

pan from the weight of pan and liquid to obtain the weight of free liquid and record the value. 

7. Clean, dry, and weigh the container and record the tare weight. Subtract the tare weight from the 

gross weight to obtain the total weight of the oysters and liquid and record this value. 

8. Determine and record the percent of free liquid by weight as follows: 

Note: This handbook provides a Worksheet for Determining the Free Liquid and Net Volume of 

Oysters in Appendix C. 

Percent of free liquid by weight = [(weight of free liquid) ÷ (weight of oysters + liquid)] × 100, 

or 

(f ÷ c) × 100 = Percentage of Free Liquid by Weight 

Where: 

f = Weight of Free Liquid 

c = (Net Weight of Oysters + Liquid) 

9. Set up the depth gauge on the dry package container as in Step 3. Pour water from the flasks and 

graduate as needed to re-establish the level of fill obtained in Step 3. Add the volumes delivered 

as the actual net volume for the container and record the value. 

Note: Some containers will hold the declared volume only when filled to the brim; they may have been 

designed for other products, rather than for oysters. If the net volume is short measure (per Step 9), determine if 

the container will reach the declared volume only if filled to the brim. Under such circumstance, the package 

net volumes will all be short measure because the container cannot be filled to the brim with a solid and liquid 

mixture. A small headspace is required in order to get the lid into the container without losing any liquid. 

(Amended 2014) 

Background/Discussion: 

In preparing a new presentation on oyster testing for the NIST Handbook 133 Basics class, to be held in North 

Carolina, the Office of Weights and Measures compared the test methods used by the Food and Drug Administration 

(FDA), which are published by AOAC International (AOAC), to the test procedure in Section 3.12., Fresh Oysters 

Labeled by Volume. This review revealed that the test procedure in NIST Handbook 133 did not include the AOAC 

requirement that the oysters be tested at a specified temperature, or the description of the receiving pan in the list of 

test equipment. Also, Step 4 of the test procedure was inaccurate. NIST OWM also found the HB133 requirement 

that the strainer be “tipped slightly” (refer to Step 5) to be ambiguous and it is not included in the AOAC procedure. 

NIST OWM believes these errors most likely occurred when the 4th Edition of NIST Handbook 133 was revised to 

replace the original sieve requirements with the AOAC equipment requirements that were in response to the 

requirements of the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act (NLEA). NLEA requires that state and local regulations 

(and test procedures) be identical to those used by FDA. 

To bring NIST Handbook 133, Section 3.12., Fresh Oysters Labeled by Volume into agreement with the AOAC 

Official Method 35.1.07 (953.11), the following revisions are proposed: 

1. Revise the description of the receiving pan in Section 3.12.1. to clarify that it is to be slightly smaller than 

the strainer. 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 81 

2. Add a note in Section 3.12.2. Test Procedure regarding the temperature at which the oysters must be tested. 

3. Delete the incorrect references to circular receiving pans (i.e., 8 in and 12 in) in Section 3.12.2. Test 

Procedure, Step 4. 

4. Delete the instruction to “tip the strainer slightly” in Section 3.12.2. Test Procedure, Step 5 to eliminate the 

ambiguous guidance which conflicts with the AOAC method. 

5. Add a simpler version of the formula in Section 3.12.2. Test Procedure, Step 8 which can be used in the 

Worksheet for Determining the Free Liquid and Net Volume of Oysters. 

6. Add a Worksheet for Determining the Free Liquid and Net Volume of Oysters to NIST Handbook 133, 

Appendix C., Model Inspection Report Forms. This worksheet was created to aid the inspector in 

conducting the test and documenting the actual test values. It was adapted from the oyster worksheet 

adopted in 1990 and published in the 3rd Supplement to the 3rd Edition of NIST Handbook 133. 

In 1997, the State of North Carolina shared its drawings of the AOAC strainer with OWM and those drawings have 

been reformatted and made available for free download at: www.nist.gov/pml/wmd/pubs/hb133-13.cfm. 

The Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act requires the use of net quantity test procedures and equipment identical to 

those used by the Food and Drug Administration which are contained in AOAC International test methods. 

This proposal corrects previous errors and omissions and eliminates a conflict with an FDA test method. NIST 

OWM does not believe there is any reason to object to the proposed revisions. Some jurisdiction may object to 

adding another worksheet to NIST Handbook 133. NIST OWM will make the form available on the Office of 

Weights and Measures web page. (See Appendix B). 

2014 Interim Meeting: A NIST Technical Advisor remarked that this test procedure and equipment was performed 

at a NIST Handbook 133 training course and there were no issues or concerns. The Committee moved this forward 

as a Voting item. 2014 NCWM Annual Meeting: No comments heard. The NIST Technical Advisor made an 

editorial change, adding a note to Step 8 to reference the location of the Worksheet for Determining the Free Liquid 

and Net Volume of Oysters. 

Regional Association Comments: 

CWMA’s L&R Committee agrees with NIST, clarification of language should be harmonized. CWMA forwarded 

the item to NCWM, recommending it as a Voting item. At the 2014 CWMA Annual Meeting no comments were 

received at the L&R Committee Open Hearings. The Committee believes this proposal will correct errors and 

omissions, so that the provision in NIST Handbook 133 is aligned with the AOAC Official 

Method 35.1.07 (953.11), which is utilized by the Food and Drug Administration. Consequently, the CWMA L&R 

Committee believes the item has been fully developed and is ready for Voting. 

WWMA heard from a NIST technical advisor who stated that this item is intended to correct errors and omissions to 

the test procedure in NIST Handbook 133 so that it brings the item in agreement with AOAC Official 

Method 35.1.07 (953.11) which is utilized by FDA. The proposal also includes a worksheet developed by NIST 

which would appear in the NIST Handbook 133 Appendix. The Committee believes the item has merit, and it is 

fully developed. WWMA forwarded the item to NCWM and recommended that it be a Voting item. 

NEWMA 2013 Interim Meeting: NEWMA commented that the language corrects technical errors and forward the 

item to NCWM recommending the item as Voting. 

NEWMA 2014 Annual Conference: The Committee recommends this as a Voting item in order to be consistent 

with federal regulations. NEWMA commented that the language corrects technical errors and forwarded the item to 

NCWM. 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 82 

SWMA supported the item as proposed and forwarded the item to NCWM, recommending that it be a Voting item 

as it aligns weights and measures and FDA inspection procedures. 

Additional letters, presentations, and data may have been part of the Committee’s consideration. To review the 

supporting documentation, please refer to the Report of the 98th National Conference on Weights and Measures

(SP 1171, 2013). 

260-3 W Section 4.3. Paper Plates and Sanitary Paper Products 

(This item was Withdrawn.) 

Source: 

Georgia Pacific (2013) 

Purpose: 

Add a more accurate & reproducible test method for verifying dimensions of disposable plates, bowls, and platters. 

Item Under Consideration: 

Amend NIST Handbook 133 as follows: 

4.3. Paper Plates and Sanitary Paper Products 

The following procedure is used to verify the size of paper plates and other sanitary paper products. It may also be 

used to verify the size declarations of other disposable dinnerware. 

Note: Do not distort the item’s shape during measurement. 

The count of sanitary paper products cannot be adequately determined by weighing. Variability in sheet weight and 

core weight requires that official tests be conducted by actual count. However, weighing can be a useful audit 

method. These products often declare total area as well as unit count and sheet size. If the actual sheet size 

measurements and the actual count comply with the average requirements, the total area declaration is assumed 

correct. 

4.3.1. Test Equipment. 

 Steel tapes and rules. Determine measurements of length to the nearest division of the appropriate tape 

or rule. 

 Metric Units: 

For labeled dimensions 40 cm or less, linear measure: 30 cm in length, 1 mm divisions; or a 1 m 

rule with 0.1 mm divisions, overall length tolerance of 0.4 mm.

For labeled dimensions greater than 40 cm, 30 m tape with 1 mm divisions. 

 Inch-pound Units: 

For labeled dimensions 25 in or less, use a 36 in rule with 1

/64 in or 1/100 in divisions and an overall 

length tolerance of 1/64 in. 

For dimensions greater than 25 in, use a 100 ft tape with in divisions and an overall length 

tolerance of 0.1 in. 

 Measuring Base 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 83 

Note: A measuring base may be made of any flat, sturdy material approximately 38 cm (15 in) square. Two 

vertical side pieces approximately 3 cm (1 in) high and the same length as the sides of the measuring base are 

attached along two adjoining edges of the measuring base to form a 90° corner. Trim all white borders from 

two or more sheets of graph paper (10 divisions per centimeter or 20 divisions per inch). Place one sheet on the 

measuring base and position it so that one corner of graph paper is snug in the corner of the measuring base and 

vertical sides. Tape the sheet to the measuring base. Overlap other sheets on the first sheet so that the lines of 

top and bottom sheet coincide, expanding the graph area to a size bigger than plates to be measured; tape these 

sheets to the measuring base. Number each line from the top and left side of base plates: 1, 2, 3, etc. 

 Plate Dimension Tester 

4.3.2. Test Procedure 

1.* Follow Section 2.3.1. “Define the Inspection Lot.” Use a “Category A” sampling plan in the 

inspection; select a random sample. 

2.* Select an initial tare sample according to Section 2.3.5.1. “Determination of Tare Sample and 

Average Tare Weight.” 

3. Open each package and select one item from each. 

Note: Some packages of plates contain a combination of different-sized plates. In this instance, take a plate of 

each declared size from the package to represent all the plates of that size in the package. For example, if three 

sizes are declared, select three different plates from each package. 

Note: Occasionally, packages of plates declared to be one size contain plates that can be seen by inspection to 

be of different sizes in the same package. In this instance, select the smallest plate and use the methods below 

to determine the package error. If the smallest plate is not short measure by more than the MAV, measure each 

size of plate in the package and calculate the average dimensions. 

Example: 

If five plates measure 21.41 cm (8.43 in) and 15 measure 21.74 cm (8.56 in), the average dimension 

for this package of 20 plates is 21.66 cm (8.53 in). 

4. For paper plates bowls or platters: Place each item on the plate dimension tester or measuring base

plate (or use the linear measure) with the eating surface down so two sides of the plate touch the sides

of the plate dimension tester or measuring base. If using the plate dimension tester, follow the

test procedure for determining the plate, bowl or platter size.

5. For other products: Use either the measuring base or a linear measure to determine actual labeled

dimensions (e.g., packages of napkins, rolls of paper towels). If testing folded products, be sure that

the folds are pressed flat so that the measurement is accurate.
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 84 

6. If the measurements reveal that the dimensions of the individual items vary, select at least 10 items

from each package. Measure and average these dimensions. Use the average dimensions to

determine package error in Step 7 below. 

7. The package error equals the actual dimensions minus the labeled dimensions. 

4.3.3. Evaluation of Results. 

Follow the procedures in Section 2.3.7. “Evaluate for Compliance to determine lot conformance. 

Background/Discussion: 

NIST Handbook 133, Section 4.3. Paper Plates and Sanitary Paper Products, identifies “Metric” and/or “U.S. 

Customary Units (Inch Pound)” steel tapes and rules or a “measuring base” as acceptable equipment for doing 

dimensional evaluations of paper plates and sanitary paper products. This proposal would add another acceptable 

piece of equipment which we call the “Plate Dimension Tester.” 

It is simpler, faster, and easier for an operator, technician, or regulator to use, and it is or more accurate and 

reproducible than the existing acceptable equipment listed in NIST Handbook 133 Section 4.3. Paper Plates and 

Sanitary Paper Products. For most of these types of products (11.8 in or less), the current metric rule is identified as 

a 30 mm rule in 1 mm divisions (0.039 in), or a 1 meter rule with 0.1 mm divisions (0.0039 in), and the inch pound 

rule is a 36 inch rule with 1/64 or 1/100 divisions (0.015 in or 0.01 in). The acceptable divisions are somewhat 

different. The proposed tester uses a certified steel rule with divisions of 0.02 inches which falls within the range of 

acceptable rules already listed in Section 4.3. Paper Plates and Sanitary Paper Products. 

The measuring base described as acceptable uses graph paper with divisions of 0.05 inches. That measuring base is 

described and constructed as follows: 

A measuring base may be made of any flat, sturdy material approximately 38 cm (15 in) square. Two 

vertical side pieces approximately 3 cm (1 in) high and the same length as the sides of the measuring base 

are attached along two adjoining edges of the measuring base to form a 90° corner. Trim all white 

borders from two or more sheets of graph paper (10 divisions per centimeter or 20 divisions per in). Place 

one sheet on the measuring base and position it so that one corner of graph paper is snug in the corner of 

the measuring base and vertical sides. Tape the sheet to the measuring base. Overlap other sheets on the 

first sheet so that the lines of top and bottom sheet coincide, expanding the graph area to a size bigger than 

plates to be measured; tape these sheets to the measuring base. Number each line from the top and left 

side of base plates: 1, 2, 3, etc. 

The submitter believes the accuracy of cutting the borders off the edges of graph paper, aligning the graph paper 

lines to match, and then taping them in place leaves a lot to be desired for accuracy when gathering data; especially 

when the expectations require the values to be read to such small increments. The plates need to touch the two sides 

of the measuring base which require holding the plate flat against the measuring base and changes in that pressure 

can alter the values. The process of using rules can also cause problems when the plate edge must be perfectly 

aligned with the edges of the rule and then to make sure you have measured both directions in a perfect 90° angle. 

We, therefore, developed the Plate Dimension Tester to solve all those problems. He submitted separately pictures 

of the tester, a test procedure for using the tester, a video showing the use of the tester, some reproducibility data and 

a letter from the Foodservice Packaging Industry (FPI), which represents 85 % of the companies producing these 

types of products, indicating their industry Technical Committee supports this proposal. The submitter believes his 

method would be a positive addition to NIST Handbook 133 without changing any of regulatory requirements; 

simply improving on the technical accuracy and reproducibility of the resulting data generated. 

The Standard Test Method as well as additional pictures, reproducibility data and a blueprint of a Plate Dimension 

Tester is in the Report of the 98th National Conference on Weights and Measures (SP 1171, 2013), Appendix F. 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 85 

2012 SWMA Annual Meeting: Mr. Richard Davis (Georgia Pacific) expressed concern with that importers are not 

compliant and is causing unfair competition to U.S. manufacturers (e.g., a 1/8 in shortage in a paper plate can equate 

to over $100,000 unfair advantage). Mr. Davis has submitted this proposal that would add an additional test 

method, but would not change the current test procedures (steel rule or graph paper) in NIST Handbook 133. 

Mr. Davis believes that this is a more accurate procedure than what is currently adopted and would provide support 

if challenged in court. The device has an estimated cost of $3,000 and would be available through a third party. A 

video was shown describing how to operate and test. An industry official expressed concern on whether the 

equipment and disc can be certified and calibrated by a state lab. The Committee believes that the device would 

provide an additional option and improved test procedure for regulators and industry. SWMA forwarded the item to 

NCWM, recommending it as a Voting item. 

Mr. Davis provided a presentation at the 2013 NCWM Interim Meeting provided an overview on the test standard 

and equipment that they are proposing to use in the test procedure. Mr. Davis believes that the item presented 

before the Committee will allow for greater efficiency, accuracy, repeatability, and uncertainty. This device will 

also allow for the testing of other products such as paper towels, napkins, and sandwich bags. Ms. Carol Hockert 

(NIST, OWM) volunteers to take the information to the NIST Dimensional Laboratory for further accuracy testing. 

The Committee feels this item is developed, and is moving this item forward as a Voting item. At the 2013 NCWM 

Annual Meeting, the Committee believes that additional work needs to be addressed on this item. A separate NIST 

Handbook 133 procedure needs to be created in order to utilize the plate dimension tester. The Technical 

Association of Pulp and Paper Industry (TAPPI) standard that is referenced within the procedure was not made 

available. The procedure title may need to reflect bowls and platters. The Committee is returning this item to 

Developing status so that the submitter can develop this item. 

NCWM 2013 Annual Meeting: There was testimony heard that this item needs to be furthered developed. Some 

spoke that it is not feasible to place the Plate Dimension Tester in the current test procedure in NIST Handbook 133 

(2013). The Item Under Consideration also has a TAPPI standard reference and there was not a copy of this 

standards available for review. The Committee agrees that this item should be returned to the submitter for further 

development. 

NCWM 2014 Interim Meeting: The Committee heard from a NIST Technical Advisor that they are unable to 

contact Mr. Davis (Georgia Pacific) whom originally submitted this proposal due to his retirement. They also tried 

alternative personnel with Georgia Pacific and have been unsuccessful. For these reasons, the Committee is 

Withdrawing this item. 

Regional Association Comments: 

CWMA recommended that this item be Developing. At the May 2013 Annual Meeting, CWMA recommended 

Voting status, and agreed that this would be an improved test method. They based their recommendation on 

Conference comments during the 2013 NCWM Annual Meeting, and the fact that no other information was 

received. 

WWMA heard from a regulatory official who stated that the item lacks an actual test procedure in Section 4.3.2., 

and references TAPPI standards that are not included in NIST Handbook 133. The item needs further clarification 

and development. WWMA recommended that it be a Developing item. 

NEWMA received a report at its 2013 Annual Meeting from Ms. Carol Hockert (NIST OWM) that the NIST 

Dimensional Laboratory reported no problems with the testing device. Based on this new information NEWMA 

believed this item was fully developed and recommended this as a Voting item. At the 2013 NEWMA Interim 

Meeting, the Committee chair reported that a regulatory official stated that the item lacks an actual test procedure in 

Section 4.3.2., and references TAPPI standards that are not included in NIST Handbook 133. Based on the 

information the NCWM L&R Committee changed the status of this item from Voting to Developing in July 2013. 

The item needs further clarification and development. NEWMA recommended that the item be a Developing item. 

SWMA reported in 2012 that Mr. Richard Davis (Georgia Pacific) expressed concern that importers are not 

compliant and is causing unfair competition to U.S. manufacturers (e.g., a 1/8 inch shortage in a paper plate can 

equate to over $100,000 unfair advantage.) Mr. Davis has submitted this proposal that would add an additional test 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 86 

method but would not change the current test procedures (steel rule or graph paper) in NIST Handbook 133. Mr. 

Davis believes this is a more accurate procedure than what is currently adopted, and would provide support it if 

challenged in court. The device has an estimated cost of $3,000, and would be available through a third party. A 

video was shown describing how to operate and test. An industry official expressed concern on whether the 

equipment and disc can be certified and calibrated by a state lab. The Committee believes that the device would 

provide an additional option and improved test procedure for regulators and industry. SWMA forwarded the item to 

NCWM, recommending it as a Voting item. At the 2013 Annual Meeting, the SWMA supported the item remaining 

as a Developing item on the NCWM agenda, that the TAPPI standard referenced in the procedure be made 

available, and that the procedure for using the apparatus be developed and included. 

Additional letters, presentations, and data may have been part of the Committee’s consideration. To review the 

supporting documentation, please refer to the Report of the 98th National Conference on Weights and Measures

(SP 1171, 2013). 

270 OTHER ITEMS 

270-1 D Fuels and Lubricants Subcommittee 

Source: 

The Fuels and Lubricants Subcommittee (2007) 

Purpose: 

Update the Uniform Engine Fuels, Petroleum Products, and Automotive Lubricants Regulation in NIST 

Handbook 130 including major revisions to fuel ethanol specifications. Another task will be to update the Basic 

Engine and Fuels, Petroleum Products, and Lubricants Laboratory Publication. 

Item Under Consideration: 

This item is under development. All comments should be directed to Dr. Matthew Curran, FALS Chair at 

(850) 921-1570, matthew.curran@freshfromflorida.com, or Ms. Lisa Warfield, NIST Technical Advisor at 

(301) 975-3308, lisa.warfield@nist.gov. 

Background/Discussion: 

The Subcommittee met on January 24, 2007, at NCWM Interim Meeting to undertake a review of a number of 

significant issues related to fuel standards. Their first project was to undertake a major review and update of the 

Uniform Engine Fuels, Petroleum Products, and Automotive Lubricants Regulation in NIST Handbook 130. The 

Subcommittee also met at the 2007 NCWM Annual Meeting and continued its work on a number of items in 

addition to preparing a major revision of the Fuel Ethanol Specifications. 

An additional project will be to update and possibly expand the Basic Engine Fuels, Petroleum Products, and 

Lubricants Laboratory Publication. The Subcommittee will undertake other projects as time and resources permit. 

Regional Association Comments: 

CWMA supports the ongoing work of FALS. 

WWMA received an update from the FALS Chair on items currently under discussion: 1) A workgroup has been 

formed to address organic metallic additives (MMT); 2) A proposal has been submitted to develop a quality standard 

for Diesel Exhaust Fluid DEF; 3) Consideration is being given to reviewing regulations in their entirety to ensure 

harmonization with EPA regulations and references; and 4) ATF regulations will be reviewed. Committee supports 

the ongoing work of the FALS. 

SWMA supported the continuing work of the Fuels and Lubricants Subcommittee. 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 87 

Additional letters, presentations, and data may have been part of the Committee’s consideration. To review the 

supporting documentation, please refer to the Report of the 98th National Conference on Weights and Measures

(SP 1171, 2013). 

270-2 D Packaging and Labeling Subcommittee 

Source: 

Packaging and Labeling Subcommittee (2011) 

Purpose: 

Provide notice of formation of a new Subcommittee reporting to the L&R Committee. 

Item Under Consideration: 

This item is under development. All comments should be directed to Mr. Chris Guay, Packaging and Labeling 

Subcommittee Chair, at (513) 983-0530, guay.cb@pg.com or Mr. David Sefcik, NIST Technical Advisor at 

(301) 975-4868, david.sefcik@nist.gov. 

Background/Discussion: 

NCWM 2011 Interim Meeting: The PALS met for the first time to discuss ongoing issues and agenda items in 

regards to packaging and labeling regulations. There were 11 attendees that represented industry, state and county 

regulatory officials, and the NIST Technical Advisor. 

The mission of PALS is to assist the L&R Committee in the development of agenda items related to packaging and 

labeling. The Subcommittee will also be called upon to provide important and much needed guidance to the 

regulatory and consumer packaging communities on difficult questions. PALS will report to NCWM L&R 

Committee. The NIST Technical Advisor reported that FTC will do a review of FPLA in 2013. The 2011 L&R 

Committee designated this item as a Developing item and assigned its development to PALS. 

NCWM 2012 Interim Meeting: PALS met to discuss its formation and strategy. The NCWM Chairman will 

appoint eight voting members on the Committee to consist of four regulatory officials (one from each region) and 

four from industry (two retailers and two manufacturers). Mr. Guay, PALS Chair, reported that work will be done 

through webinar meetings to be held approximately four times a year. PALS members will be responsible for 

providing updates and seeking feedback on the issues at their regional meetings. Mr. Guay added that PALS will be 

developing proposals and providing guidance and recommendations on existing proposals as assigned by the 

NCWM L&R Committee. He also stressed the need and importance of having key federal agencies (FDA, FTC, and 

USDA) participating. The NIST Technical Advisor commented that FTC announced that they will review the FPLA 

in 2013. The 2012 L&R Committee designated this item as a Developing item and assigned its development to 

PALS. 

NCWM 2012 Annual Meeting: Mr. Guay reported the Subcommittee is considering further development of the 

following items: 

 Additional Net Content Declarations on the Principal Display Panel – Package net contents are most 

commonly determined by the product form, for example, solid products are labeled by weight, and liquid 

products are labeled by volume. Semi-solid products such as pastes, creams, and viscous liquids are 

required to be labeled by weight in the United States and by volume in Canada. 

 Icons in Lieu of Words in Packaged labeled by Count – Can a clear, non-misleading icon take the place 

of the word “count” or “item name” in a net content statement? While existing Federal regulation requires 

regulatory label information to be in “English,” the increasing presence of multilingual labels and the 

growing diversity of the U.S. population suggest more consumers are served with a clear and nonmisleading icon. 

 Multilingual Labels 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 88 

 Multipacks and Bundle Packages – The net content statements for multipacks and bundled packages of 

individually labeled products can be different based on the approach used to calculate them. The difference 

is the result of the degree of rounding for dual inch-pound and metric declarations. Using two apparently 

valid but different methods can yield one net content statement result, that provide better accuracy between 

the metric and inch-pound declarations and a different net content result which is consumer friendly. 

SWMA 2012 Annual Meeting: Mr. Guay stated Item 231-1 has been assigned to PALS for a recommendation. 

PALS is working on a series of principles and recommendations regarding claims and statements made on packages 

outside of quantity statement (i.e., supplemental, quality and performance claims), on what is appropriate and what 

is not. PALS will recommend that Item 231-1 be Withdrawn. PALS is also looking at whether icons are 

appropriate as part of a quantity statement and how labeling of products with multilingual labels can be simplified. 

SWMA recommended that the item remain as a Developing item. 

NCWM 2013 Interim Meeting: James Kohm (Director of Enforcement at the Federal Trade Commission [FTC]), 

briefed NCWM on the goals and objectives of FTC. Mr. Kohm gave a general overview of the Fair Packaging and 

Labeling Act (FPLA) and announced that it is under review in 2013. 

Mr. Chris Guay provided an update on the action of PALS. PALS will be focusing on best practice principles for 

the various quantity and quality statements seen in the marketplace. PALS will also continue to work on the items 

addressed at the 2012 Annual Meeting. 

NCWM 2014 Interim Meeting: Mr. Guay (PALS Chair) stated that they are awaiting an announcement from FTC 

in regards to updating the FPLA regulations. 

Regional Association Comments: 

CWMA acknowledged that PALS is still waiting on FTC to update FPLA regulations. During previous meetings, 

the PALS Chair stated that there is a need to prioritize labeling issues. 

WWMA received an update from the PALS Chair: (1) The subcommittee is developing recommendations regarding 

good principles and best practice guidelines on label claims and quantity statements on packages; and (2) The 

subcommittee is drafting comments to FTC on recommended changes to FPLA. The Committee supports the 

ongoing work of the PALS. 

SWMA heard in 2012 from Mr. Guay who stated that Item 231-1 has been assigned to PALS for a recommendation. 

PALS is working on a series of principles and recommendations regarding claims and statements made on packages 

outside of quantity statement (i.e., supplemental, quality and performance claims), on what is appropriate and what 

is not. PALS will recommend that 231-1 be Withdrawn. PALS is also looking at whether icons are appropriate as 

part of a quantity statement and how labeling of products with multilingual labels can be simplified. SWMA 

recommended that the item remain as a Developing item. At the 2013 SWMA Annual Meeting the association 

supported the work of the PALS remaining as a Developing item on the NCWM agenda. 

Additional letters, presentations, and data may have been part of the Committee’s consideration. To review the 

supporting documentation, please refer to the Report of the 98th National Conference on Weights and Measures

(SP 1171, 2013). 

270-3 D Moisture Allowance Task Group (MATG) 

Source: 

Moisture Allowance Task Group (2012) 

Purpose: 

Provide notice of formation of a new Task Group reporting to the Committee. This Task Group will provide 

additional guidance for making moisture allowances for products not listed in NIST Handbook 133. 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 89 

Item Under Consideration: 

This item is under development. All comments should be directed to Mr. Kurt Floren, Moisture Allowance Task 

Group Chair at (626) 575-5451, kfloren@acwm.lacounty.gov or Ms. Lisa Warfield, NIST Technical Advisor at 

(301) 975-3308, lisa.warfield@nist.gov 

Background/Discussion: 

NCWM 2012 Interim Meeting: Ms. Judy Cardin, Committee Chair, will be requesting that the NCWM Board of 

Directors form a new Task Group to review moisture allowance. The 2012 L&R Committee designated this item as 

a Developing item. 

NCWM 2012 Annual Meeting: Mr. Floren (Los Angeles County, California) announced that he will Chair the 

Moisture Allowance Task Group. 

NCWM 2013 Interim Meeting: Mr. Floren announced that he is seeking a representative from each region for the 

MATG. He would prefer to have a representative from each region. Currently the following have regions have 

provided a representative; NEWMA, Mr. Frank Greene, (Connecticut) and WWMA, Mr. Brett Gurney (Utah). The 

following individuals have also expressed interest: Ms. Maile Hermida (Hogan Lovells US, LLP), Ms. Ann 

Boeckman (Kraft Foods Group), and Mr. Chris Guay (Procter and Gamble Co.). Mr. Floren remarked that meetings 

will be held via web-meetings and at the NCWM Conferences. 

NCWM 2014 Interim Meeting: The MATG discussed how to proceed forward on this item and reviewed past 

history of prior work done. 

Regional Association Comments: 

CWMA acknowledged that a committee is being formed. 

WWMA received a report from the MATG Chair that progress has been made in the formation of work group and 

regional representation. A teleconference will be scheduled. The Committee supports the anticipated work of 

MATG. 

SWMA reported in 2012 that the Committee supported the formation of the moisture loss work group. SWMA 

recommended that the item remain as a Developing item. At the 2013 SWMA Annual Meeting, the association 

supported the work of the MATG remaining as a Developing item on the NCWM agenda. 

Additional letters, presentations, and data may have been part of the Committee’s consideration. To review the 

supporting documentation, please refer to the Report of the 98th National Conference on Weights and Measures

(SP 1171, 2013). 

Mr. Raymond Johnson, New Mexico | Committee Chair 

Mr. Tim Lloyd, Montana | Member 

Mr. Richard Lewis, Georgia | Member 

Mr. Louis Sakin, Towns of Hopkinton/Northbridge, Massachusetts | Member 

Mr. John Albert, Missouri | Member 

Mr. Steven Grabski, Wal-Mart Stores | Associate Membership Representative 

Mr. Lance Robertson, Measurement Canada | Canadian Technical Advisor 

Mr. David Sefcik, NIST, OWM | NIST Technical Advisor 

Ms. Lisa Warfield, NIST, OWM | NIST Technical Advisor 

Laws and Regulations Committee
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 90 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK