Arkansas Administrative Code › Agency 209 - Arkansas Agriculture Department › Division 02 - State Plant Board › Rule 209.02.03-007 - 2002 Amendments to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Handbooks 44, 130, 133 and the Annual Book of the American Society for Testing and Material (ASTM) Standards

Current through Register Vol. 49, No. 6, June, 2024
Past Chairmen of the Conference
Conference
Year
Chairman
43rd
1958
J. P. McBride, MA
44th
1959
C. M. Fuller, CA
45th
1960
H. E. Crawford, FL
46th
1961
R. E. Meek, IN
47th
1962
Robert Williams, NY
48th
1963
C. H. Stender, SC
49th
1964
D. M. Turnbull, WA
50th
1965
V. D. Campbell, OH
51st
1966
J. F. True, KS
52nd
1967
J. E. Bowen, MA
53rd
1968
C. C. Morgan, IN
54th
1969
S. H. Christie, NJ
55th
1970
R. W. Searles, OH
56th
1971
M. Jennings, TN
57th
1972
E. H. Black, CA
58th
1973
George L. Johnson, KY
59th
1974
John H. Lewis, WA
60th
1975
Sydney D. Andrews, FL
61st
1976
Richard L. Thompson, MD
62nd
1977
Earl Prideaux, CO
63rd
1978
James F. Lyles, VA
64th
1979
Kendrick J. Simila, OR
65th
1980
Charles H. Vincent, TX
66th
1981
Edward H. Stadolnik, MA
67th
1982
Edward C. Heffron, MI
68th
1983
Charles H. Greene, NM
69th
1984
Sam F. Hindsman, AR
70th
1985
Ezio F. Delfino, CA
71st
1986
George E. Mattimoe, HI
72nd
1987
Frank C. Nagele, MI
73rd
1988
Darrell A. Guensler, CA
74th
1989
John J. Bartfai, NY
75th
1990
Fred A. Gerk, NM
76th
1991
N. David Smith, NC
77th
1992
Sidney A. Colbrook, IL
78th
1993
Allan M. Nelson, CT
79th
1994
Thomas F. Geiler, MA
80th
1995
James C. Truex, OH
81st
1996
Charles A. Gardner, Suffolk Co., NY
82nd
1997
Barbara J. Bloch, CA
83rd
1998
Steven A. Malone, NE
84th
1999
Aves D. Thompson, AK
85th
2000
G. Wes Diggs, VA
86th
2001
L. Straub, MD
National Conference on Weights and Measures, Inc.,
				Organization Chart
2002/2003
Click here
				to view image
Click here
				to view image
Click here
				to view image
Click here
				to view image
Click here
				to view image
President's Address
National Conference on Weights and Measures Annual
				Meeting
Arden Bement, Director, National Institute of Standards
				and Technology
Cincinnati, Ohio - July 16, 2002
Introduction
Thank you, Rich. I also wish to thank Chairman Ron Murdock for
				the opportunity to address the Conference members. It is my pleasure as NIST
				Director and as Honorary President of the National Conference on Weights and
				Measures to attend my first conference meeting.
And in anticipation of my first meeting with this very
				important group, I decided to prepare by going back in history-to the inaugural
				meeting of what was to become the National Conference on Weights and
				Measures.
In the Beginning: Confusion at Home
Back in 1905, the nation's system of weights and measures
				wasn't a system, at all. It was,
uniformly,
a mess- decades
				behind France and Germany. That's why Samuel Stratton, the first director of
				the National Bureau of Standards (the predecessor of today's NIST), and Louis
				Fischer, the bureau's chief of weights and measures, convened a meeting of
				state sealers of weights and measures.
Most states were not represented. Among the missing
				states, several had no such personnel.
Accounts given by those who did attend-representatives of eight
				states and the District of Columbia-confirmed the confusing state of affairs.
				I'll give a few quick anecdotes to convey the situation in the early
				1900s.
In Iowa, for example, only 14 of the state's 99 counties had a
				set of measurement standards. When Iowa's new superintendent of weights and
				measures instructed the 14 counties to submit the standards for the
				once-a-decade inspection required by law, the requests was largely ignored. Of
				those who did respond, most pled ignorance. Some counties said - quote - "they
				had heard something about a set of standards, but did not know where they were
				to be found."
By comparison to most states, Massachusetts was near head of
				the pack. Sealer of weights and measures was a fully funded position, and this
				person worked closely with his counterparts in cities and towns. Massachusetts
				began enforcement actions in 1890, but merchants intent on defrauding consumers
				were not easily deterred.
When Massachusetts inspectors identified thousands of short
				boxes of strawberries and underfilled bottles of milk, the purveyors of these
				items simply shipped them to an adjoining state, where they did not undergo
				inspection.
Then, there was the tongue-in-cheek lament of a scale
				manufacturer who was sent to represent Vermont. He worried that uniform
				standards might extend to thermometers, which, at the time, varied up to 15
				degrees. On cold winter mornings, temperatures ranged from 35 to 50 degrees
				below zero.
Vermonters and their newspapers always chose the lowest
				reading, using it as evidence of their fortitude and proof of New England
				stoicism. More accurate thermometers, he said, could dull an important point of
				pride.
In the end, however, the scale manufacturer agreed that, too
				often, the purchasing public was-quote-"at the mercy of users of unreliable
				weighing machines and capacity measures and of unscrupulous users of even
				correct ones."
So began the National Conference on Weights and Measures. And
				from this nearly one-hundred-year-old partnership between NIST and the states,
				the District of Columbia, and U.S. territories has come an essential,
				integrating element of a fair and equitable marketplace: A true system of
				uniform weights and measures.
We have come a long and productive way!
And, today, there should be a renewed appreciation for the
				organizations and the people who ensure fairness and equity in retail and
				wholesale transactions. Headline-making corporate scandals, though few in
				number, have grabbed the public's attention. Now may be an opportune time to
				remind the American public of the incredible value they get from their very,
				very modest investment in weights and measures.
And let me add-for those of you who have a hand in the senior
				management of our nation's companies-we need to address those concerns about
				corporate governance. We need to make certain that CEO stands not only for
				chief executive office, but also for chief ethical officer. The President has
				introduced some well thought-out reform initiatives that deserve to be
				adopted.
Trust is not an intangible. It sustains confidence, promotes
				efficiency, encourages investment, and, in so doing, helps to grow the economy.
				Through your behind-the-scenes contributions, you build trust by ensuring that
				buyer and seller get a fair deal.
And what a good deal it is! NCWM has done the math. Just 50
				cents per citizen pays for a system that underpins about half of the U.S.
				economy, or the almost 5 trillion dollars worth of transactions based on the
				weight, volume, length or count of products. That's a highly leveraged
				impact.
Today: Advancing toward a Global System of Legal
				Metrology
Obviously, the marketplace has changed greatly over the years.
				In the early 1900s, we got serious about putting our own house in order.
				Domestically, there are still important jobs to be done, and, without a doubt,
				new ones will arise as technology advances and ways of doing business evolve in
				sophistication.
Today, we also must think and act at the international level.
				We have a global marketplace with multinational retailers. Exports are vital to
				U.S. manufacturers. And they help to fuel economic growth. During the 1990s,
				increases in exports accounted for one-fourth of the nation's economic growth.
				Today, almost 10 percent of jobs in the United States depend on exports.
U.S. businesses in every sector now must reckon with the
				requirements of international standards and the regulations that embody those
				standards. It's estimated that 80 percent of world merchandise trade is
				affected by standards.
Legal metrology-your valuable specialty-is part of the
				infrastructure of international commerce. So, it is gratifying to see the
				participation of experts from other countries in the NCWM process. They add a
				much-needed perspective to the development of the U.S. standards.
I understand that our colleagues from Measurement Canada have
				served as technical advisors on NCWM committees since 1992 and that they were
				active participants for many years before then. I also understand that
				Measurement Canada and the conference intend to expand their current mutual
				recognition agreement on type evaluations.
Our relationship with Canada on weights-and-measures issues has
				been outstanding over the past 15 years. We need to replicate this partnership
				many times over.
Recognition of International Guests and
				Participants
Weights and measures are truly a global concern. The NCWM
				hosted a NIST Standards-in-Trade group from Latin America at its annual meeting
				two years ago. This year, I wish to recognize and warmly welcome the 25
				representatives from the Gulf Cooperation Council who are attending this
				meeting. These guests represent the countries of Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar,
				Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. They are here as part of another
				Standards-in-Trade Workshop.
Through this meeting, they will gain a deeper understanding of
				how measurements from the NIST calibration laboratories are transferred
				throughout the manufacturing and retail systems to the benefit of
				consumers.
'Opportunities to observe the NCWM process, to participate in
				some technical sessions, and to meet U.S. participants should be constructive
				for our guests and for conference members. NIST thanks the NCWM for its support
				of the Standards in Trade workshop program.
Another international aspect to this year's meeting is the
				attendance of two colleagues from Mexico. Today, Dr. Francisco Ramos, Director
				General of Research for the PROFECO Laboratories, and Ricardo Munoz Rodriguez,
				Director for Accreditation and Metrology in Mexico's General Directorate for
				Standards, are attending the NCWM Annual Meeting. I understand that Mexico is
				expanding its legal metrology activities. As part of the NIST collaboration
				with Mexico, one area of work is legal metrology. We look forward to working
				more closely with Mexico in this area.
While I'm at it, I also should mention one person whom you
				don't see at the meeting this week: Tina Butcher. Tina is on detail for one
				year to my office. She is a dedicated professional with a sincere interest in
				weights and measures. Your temporary loss of her services in weights and
				measures is my office's gain.
The Importance of International Standards
If I may, I'd like to say a bit more about the global
				marketplace, international standards, and the international measurement system.
				I'll start with a quote from baseball icon Yogi Berra, master of the
				malapropism.
After leaving a social gathering Yogi made the following
				comment: "It was impossible to get a conversation going. Everybody was talking
				too much."
Though unintended, Yogi's remark could have been considered an
				astute observation on the situation in weights-and-measures, specifically, and
				on measurement-related matters, overall. Let me explain.
From day one, weights and measures people
knew,
makers of measurement equipment
knew,
testing laboratories
knew,
and we at NIST
knew
-and
fully appreciated
-the bedrock
				importance of accurate, uniform measurements to the structure and flow of
				commerce.
Our message competed for attention in the increasingly hectic
				and ever more complex national and global economies. Often, it was drowned out
				in the din of discussions over things like tariffs, rules of origin, treatment
				of intellectual property, and the like.
Over the last few years, however, either our voices have grown
				louder or more ears have become tuned to our wavelength. In any event,
				measurement-related issues are beginning to get at least some of the attention
				they deserve from the users of our services and our equipment.
In Pursuit of Measurement Equivalency
From industry we are getting feedback in the form of a slowly
				intensifying chorus that goes something like this:
one standard, one
				measurement, one test, one certification.
U.S. companies are learning-sometimes the hard way-that
				standards set and regulations made in other nations and regions may not
				coincide with U.S. practices. In industries ranging from microelectronics to
				agriculture, U.S. firms have discovered that they can be shut out of markets if
				they do not make expensive changes to products or services-changes that are
				necessary to achieve compliance.
Competition in the rough-and-tumble global market is not always
				conducted on a level playing field. One means of correcting the tilt in this
				crucial arena is through measurement equivalency among international, national,
				and local laboratories. Measurement equivalency is critical for the acceptance
				of test results for international trade and for human health and safety,
				worldwide.
Now comes the more difficult part: actually achieving
				measurement equivalency or, in other words, creating a common global
				infrastructure that enables direct traceability to international
				standards.
NIST Strategic Plan
At NIST, efforts to accomplish this goal are key elements of
				our strategic plan. Some actions already have been taken.
For example, we have merged national weights-and-measures
				activities with the work NIST does in support of the International Organization
				of Legal Metrology. Our aim is, in effect, to harmonize work on national and
				international legal metrology issues. We will leverage the contributions of
				national work groups that already exist to review international legal metrology
				standards.
U.S. industry has been actively involved in these work groups
				for about 30 years. Now, we are enthusiastically encouraging weights and
				measures officials to become more involved in the national work groups.
Clearly, regulatory officials should participate in developing
				U.S. positions on international issues.
The NCWM strategic plan complements the steps that NIST has
				taken to harmonize the outputs of work on legal metrology issues. The
				conference's Board of Directors has set a priority on participating in the
				review and development of standards of the International Organization of Legal
				Metrology.
In addition to this unified focus on national and international
				matters, we are pursuing long-term strategies that advance our commitment to
				enabling mutual recognition and worldwide traceability of measurements.
NIST is building the machinery to establish the equivalence of
				measurement results on regional and, ultimately, global scales. We set up the
				International Comparisons Database. This is a vehicle for comparing our
				measurement and calibration capabilities with those of national metrology
				institutes in other Western Hemisphere nations.
By means of the database, a Brazilian purchaser of U.S.-made
				equipment, for example, could be certain that measurements shown to be
				traceable to NIST are equivalent to those traceable to INMETRO, Brazil's
				measurement authority.
This database, in turn, is associated with a comparison and
				calibration database maintained by the International Bureau of Weights and
				Measures, or BIPM. With links to all of the world's regional metrology
				organizations, the bureau's database will eventually provide direct and
				indirect means to judge the equivalence of measurement capabilities in
				different countries.
Of course, we also must tend to the quality and efficiency of
				traceability linkages at home-the chain of comparisons that run from NIST to
				federal, state, and private-sector laboratories. Our strategic plan-"NIST
				2010," for short-calls for effective use of information technology and
				organizational strategies to enhance the measurement traceability system in the
				United States.
In concert, we will use these tools and strategies to improve
				the quality, timeliness, efficiency, and accessibility of measurement services
				that NIST provides.
Survey of the U.S. Weights-and-Measures
				System
So, the increasing importance of global trade is sharpening the
				focus on the measurement infrastructure. This is good news, but one also might
				say that it is bad news. Because of tight state and local budgets and an
				uncertain economy, weights and measures programs are being asked to do more,
				often with less.
Today, both industry and government must demonstrate the value
				of what they do. Government agencies must be able to show the impacts and
				benefits of their work. This is true for NIST and, I am sure, it is true for
				weights and measures programs.
Last Fall, NIST sponsored two workshops for
				weights-and-measures administrators to discuss several challenges, including
				funding.
Administrators said they wanted data they could use to compare
				weights-and-measures programs in terms of workload, staffing, and
				effectiveness. In response, NIST is undertaking a study to benchmark the
				national weights-and-measures system.
We want to see how workloads and resources have changed, to
				identify adjustments that programs have made to improve efficiency and
				effectiveness, to estimate the economic impact of weights and measures
				activities, and to ask members of industry how their customers, markets, and
				international perspectives have changed.
Henry Oppermann, chief of the NIST Weights and Measures
				Division, gave you the details on the survey earlier today.
I just want to emphasize that this information is essential to
				justify impacts and to champion state and local needs. To succeed, the study
				must have your support and cooperation.
Computer-Based Training
As I already have indicated, one of the challenges NIST faces
				is improving the effectiveness of the services that NIST delivers to the
				weights-and-measures community. This requires us to be responsive to changing
				needs. We are trying to do just that in our training programs.
These programs have been extremely popular with metrologists in
				state and industry laboratories. However, the constant turnover in staff and
				ever-expanding amount of material to cover make it difficult to meet all the
				demands.
So, we are developing a comprehensive computer-based training
				course for basic mass calibration. This is being done under the direction of
				Georgia Harris. This multi-media course will be more accessible, and the
				information and guidance it contains will be available as a reference after
				training is completed. This course should be completed this Fall.
We also are developing a computer-based course on electronic
				audit trails used in both weighing and measuring devices. Since the conference
				approved the use of electronic audit trails in 1990, adoption of the technology
				has been increasing every year. Expected to be ready later this year, the
				course will help weights and measures officials to understand how the
				electronic audit trails operate, how to access them, and how to interpret the
				information contained in them. Juana Williams is leading this project.
Conclusion
We are doing other jobs to increase the utility and value of
				the resources that we provide in support of the weights-and-measures system.
				NIST, like all of you, is trying to keep up with needs spawned by new
				technology. It's not easy.
In fact, we won't keep up if we don't work together and with
				other organizations in the private and public sectors.
We do need, like the theme of this meeting says, a "progressive
				partnership for the future." We at NIST need your input so we can place our
				resources where they can deliver the greatest impact in service to you, the
				customer.
Thank you for listening, and thank you for the important
				contributions you make to our economy and to our nation.
NCWM Metrology Subcommittee & NIST Management
				Meeting
April 1 - April 2, 2002
NIST WMD
Contacts: Henry Oppermann, Georgia Harris, Val Miller, Louis
				Straub, L.F. Eason, and Dan Newcombe
WMD reported on actions resulting from the customer service
				survey that was delivered to them by the subcommittee last year. Additional
				"Basic Metrology" seminars have been added. The latest class held in April 2002
				was only half filled and the majority of attendees were States' managerial
				staff, only one was actually a "working metrologist". It appears that the
				additional seminars have eliminated the backlog which was present a couple
				years ago.
The trend toward "regional laboratories" was discussed with
				several issues identified.
1. Certain
			 measurement parameters require high levels of resources to maintain the
			 integrity of the measurement infrastructure and many States have chosen not to
			 support them. Examples are, mass Echelon I, large volume, temperature, and
			 length.
2. Traceability
			 requirements have resulted in the need for more frequent calibration of primary
			 and working standards. Some States do not have the capability to calibrate
			 these standards nor do they have the resources to send them to NIST.
3. Regional laboratories result in less
			 "direct" traceability to NIST.
4.
			 Some States are losing measurement capability by relying on surrounding State
			 laboratories.
5. Regional
			 laboratories are experiencing growing workloads thus taxing their resources and
			 abilities to meet the demands of their own State.
6. State program administrators may determine
			 it not in the best interest of taxpayers to expend resources on out-of-state
			 work.
7. Most State programs do not
			 operate on a total cost recovery, fee system. This makes it difficult to cover
			 the costs of increasing or new measurement services and results in out-of-state
			 work that is subsidized by in-state customers.
8. A high turnover of qualified laboratory
			 staff exists. Even pivot labs are not immune to this, creating a need to
			 monitor pivot laboratory capabilities based on their staffing.
9. Some areas are experiencing considerable
			 competition from high-technology jobs in the private sector. Qualified, trained
			 metrologists are hard to find. Trained metrologists are even harder to keep
			 after significant investments have been made for their training.
Training gaps exist in the system as the high turnover brings
				new metrologists into the system. Training topics previously covered in the
				RMAP meetings are being missed by new personnel. It was suggested that WMD
				develop seminars to help fill these gaps. Identified areas include PMAP,
				writing and maintaining laboratory quality manuals, internal and external
				audits, standards documents (ASTM E 617, ISO/TEC 17025, NIST HB 143), and other
				training which has been delivered at RMAP meetings during the last 10
				years.
Funding for systematic calibration of 1-kg State standards was
				discussed but prospects of NIST funding for this type of project seems dim. It
				was noted during a later meeting with Dr. Rumble and Dr. Kayser that NIST is
				required to recover total costs for calibration services by statute.
NCWM - Metrology Subcommittee Standing
Contacts: Louis Straub, Henry Oppermann, Georgia Harris, Val
				Miller, L.F. Eason, Dan Newcombe.
Mr. Straub reviewed the NCWM Strategic Plan and explained some
				of its goals and objectives. He explained that the BOD is leaning toward small
				specific task oriented workgroups rather than ongoing committees with wide
				scopes of responsibilities. He suggested that the Metrology Subcommittee review
				the NCWM strategic plan he provided and make suggestions to the BOD for how the
				subcommittee activities fit the goals and objectives of the strategic plan. The
				subcommittee plans to do this before the July 2002 NCWM annual meeting.
The subcommittee wishes to make it clear that we understand the
				difficulties the Conference is going through at this time and wish to be of
				service in anyway we can. However, if the formal structure of the Metrology
				Subcommittee needs to be changed or even eliminated, we understand. The
				metrologists have great pride in the NCWM and appreciate the opportunity to
				participate, but do not want to be burdensome to the Conference in any
				way.
NIST MEASUREnet Status
Contacts:
Contacts:
Mr. Ray Hoffmann, Mr. Justin
				Leney, Henry Oppermann, Georgia Harris, Val Miller, Louis Straub, L.F. Eason,
				DanNewcombe.
It was reported that a promising solution to the MEASUREnet
				server and firewall problems has been found. Funding has been approved and
				testing will commence soon. It was agreed that this project has merits to
				expand to other than the initial laboratories without the need for large
				outlays for the States. The software update will enable laboratories to access
				the server through their current Internet connections. This program could
				possibly be expanded to include general weights and measures use as well as the
				current metrology training and collaboration applications.
NIST Mass & Force Group
Contacts: Dr. Zeina Jabbour, Val Miller, KelleenLarson, Jose
				Torres, L.F. Eason, DanNewcombe.
Dr. Jabbour reported on the status of the report for the Key
				Comparison. The draft report on Phase 1 should be ready for final review and
				release by late summer or early fall. Phase 2 initial results are being
				presented at the annual RMAP meetings this year. This presentation will also
				cover possible corrective actions where problems are identified. Dr. Jabbour
				seemed very pleased with the data, saying that the mass measurement system
				propagated across the Nation seemed to be in very good shape. Based on this
				analysis, she suggests that a cycle of 6 to 8 years seems appropriate to repeat
				the Key Comparison.
A proposal for funding from the armed services to rewrite the
				NIST Mass Code was discussed. The amount of money required for this project was
				more than the armed services were willing to commit and the proposal died.
				Funding to rewrite the NIST Mass Code is in the budget, but not for several
				years, and priorities and funding may change (as it did two years ago when a
				rewrite was anticipated) before it is accomplished. The subcommittee discussed
				the State Laboratory Program need for a new front end to the existing mass
				code. Lab Wizard 1.0, the interface to the mass code that we are currently
				using, is not Y2K compliant, is no longer supported by the developer, and will
				not work on Widows versions beyond Windows 98. An adequate front end to
				generate the data files for mass code processing is a priority for the State
				Laboratory Program metrologists.
Dr Jabbour discussed the new weight density testing system that
				is in development and scheduled to be put into use this summer. Though this has
				delayed the testing of all mass standards at the highest accuracy range until
				mid-summer 2002, the new system will greatly improve the propagation of
				kilogram mass value from the platinum iridium kilogram standards to our
				stainless steel kilograms by minimizing air buoyancy uncertainties.
Dr Jabbour requested that the Laboratories assist the Mass and
				Force Group in identifying new technologies that may be required, specifically,
				extremely small mass artifacts requested by the pharmaceutical industry. A need
				for mass artifacts smaller than 1 mg has been rumored, but no organization has
				presented a specific request for development of such artifacts. Dr Jabbour
				noted that to obtain NIST involvement in developing a suitable response, the
				Laboratories need to communicate with their customers and if such a need
				exists, to provide documents identifying specific needs.
NIST Thermometry/Humidity Group
Contacts: Dr. Dean Ripple, Dr. Peter Huang, Val Miller, Kelleen
				Larson, Jose Torres, L.F. Eason, and Dan Newcombe.
Several issues were discussed including a SLP thermometry round
				robin, proper use of the NIST SRM Gallium cells, thermometry training for State
				laboratories, and using salt solutions for calibration of State laboratory RH
				sensors.
The NIST thermometry group was enthusiastic about starting a
				thermometry round robin with the SLP laboratories that test thermometers. The
				round robin would be similar to the recent mass key comparison, coordinated by
				the NIST Mass Group and WMD. They already have nearly all the equipment needed
				(purchased originally as backup equipment for a SIMnet interlaboratory
				comparison). Therefore, the front-end costs are not excessive, but the
				equipment will require NIST calibration at the end of the cycle. The Metrology
				Subcommittee will survey the State laboratories to determine which labs would
				be interested in participating in this round robin.
State laboratories are currently expending significant monetary
				and time resources on outsourcing calibration of relative humidity sensors. Dr
				Huang discussed salt solution calibration methods as an alternative to sending
				these units out. The method can achieve accuracy levels of approximately
				± 2 percent, which would be adequate for SLP needs. The salt baths must
				be air-tight, be constructed of glass or other non-hydroscopic materials (no
				plastics), and must have very tight temperature controls (+ 0.5 °C or
				better). If condensation forms in the container the bath must be discarded and
				a new bath started. Dr. Huang also suggested testing the bath humidity with a
				NIST traceable chilled mirror, dew point hygrometer humidity standard to verify
				that the salt solution had been prepared properly. Concerns regarding
				traceability and accreditation must also be addressed when salt solutions are
				used as standards. When L.F. Eason mentioned problems with the lithium chloride
				bath in his lab, Dr. Huang said that lithium chloride was a difficult salt to
				work with and suggested magnesium chloride instead.
The group also requested that the metrologist collect some
				additional information as part of the next SLP survey. This information
				included:
* How many State laboratories use, or wish to use salt
				solutions for hygrometer verification and how many would want training?
* How many laboratories want training on the calibration of
				glass bead thermistors?
* How many States are phasing out mercury in glass thermometers
				due to safety concerns?
Working Lunch
Contacts: Dr. RichKayser, Dr. John Rumble, Henry Oppermann,
				Georgia Harris, Val Miller, Kelleen Larson, Jose Torres, L.F. Eason,
				DanNewcombe.
Dr Kayser explained that the requirement for NIST to charge
				fees based on total cost recovery is mandated by legislative statute and is
				administered across the board. Clearly, this legislative requirement has
				replaced the 1960's era understanding that the State Laboratories would not be
				charged for NBS calibrations. Though the States can no longer expect free
				calibrations, the number and frequency of calibrations required has been
				significantly reduced. Advanced Mass Training, as developed by the Office of
				Weights and Measures in close collaboration with the NIST mass and statistics
				groups, has resulted in many laboratories only needing NIST mass calibration at
				the 1-kg and 500-lb mass levels. Originally, all of the NBS-issued State
				standard weights (approximately 70 weights) had to be sent in for
				recalibration.
This program continues to be refined, thanks to training and
				round robin measurements through the WMD sponsored Regional Measurement
				Assurance Programs (RMAPs). Data acquired during the recent mass key
				comparisons coordinated by WMD and the NIST mass group has verified the success
				of these efforts. None of this would have been possible without the support of
				WMD and the direct collaboration with the various NIST measurement groups, a
				process that was significantly augmented by the first NCWM metrology
				subcommittee meeting with NIST management in 1997.
Dr Rumble outlined the procedure for determining these total
				costs and asked why the State laboratories do not recover total costs with
				their fee systems. Both Dr. Rumble and Dr. Kayser remarked that the trend is
				also toward regional specialization within the national laboratories throughout
				the global measurement system. The trend towards regional laboratories within
				the State Laboratory Program was discussed at length as were the associated
				issues identified above during the meeting with WMD. This regional concept has
				the potential to reduce the cost of maintaining NIST traceability for those
				State labs that either lack the capability to participate in the advanced mass
				measurement program or simply have no customers that need this level of
				service.
The impact of NVLAP accreditation on laboratories' workload was
				discussed. The consensus of the representatives of accredited laboratories
				(present during the visit) was that requests for accredited services are
				rapidly increasing as balance and service companies become accredited to
				ISO/IEC 17025.
NIST NVLAP
Contacts: Mr. Doug Faison, Mr. Steve Doty, Val Miller, Kelleen
				Larson, Jose Torres, L.F. Eason, Dan Newcombe.
Steve Doty reported eight State laboratories are now accredited
				and seven others are in the process. Of these seven, two are awaiting onsite
				audits and five are currently addressing deficiencies.
Doug Faison supplied feedback on some common, generic
				deficiencies found with some of the State labs.
1. Documentation of the quality system is
			 critical. Some laboratories are relying too heavily on the NIST WMD QM template
			 (NIST IR 5802) and are not tailoring it to the laboratory's individual
			 circumstances.
2. Technical
			 procedures are generally well documented, but following those procedures may be
			 a problem in some laboratories.
3.
			 Internal audits need be held to a documented time frame. The material Georgia
			 requests on an annual basis does not qualify as a complete audit. Other items,
			 as detailed on the NVLAP Handbook 150 (ISO/IEC Standard 17025) checklist, must
			 also be addressed. This checklist (available on the NVLAP WEB site) makes an
			 excellent guide for the internal audit.
4. The technical side of the onsite audits
			 has been generally good. This is a reflection of the many years of excellent
			 training that has been provided by NIST WMD for the State Laboratory
			 program.
5. ANSI Z 540-1 requires
			 audits and reviews to be annual. Those laboratories wanting NVLAP accreditation
			 to ANSI Z 540-1 need to meet additional requirements as detailed on a
			 supplemental checklist.
NIST, National Comparisons Database, NCDB
				(ICDB)
Contacts: Dr. Bob Watters, Val Miller, Kelleen Larson, Jose
				Torres, L.F. Eason, Dan Newcombe.
Dr. Bob Watters is developing a web-accessible database for
				tracking international (and now national) interlaboratory comparisons. WMD gave
				him data for 100-gallon provers and for two, 1-kg standards (Set C) for
				posting. These will be posted as soon as the data entry staff gets caught up
				with the international comparisons. This will be an excellent media for posting
				and comparing data from some of our nation wide interlaboratory
				comparisons.
Chairman's Address to the 87th
				Annual Meeting 2002
Presented by Ronald Murdock North Carolina Department of
				Agriculture, Division of Standards
As others have said in finishing their terms, "I
				am now one of those has-beens"
The National Conference has been moving ahead as we begin 2002.
				As we continue to move forward into 2002 we now face one of the largest
				problems that our organization has seen since we took over the NTEP Program.
				With production meets type, or conformity assessment as it is now called, we
				face a problem that has caused many sleepless nights for lots of our members.
				As we deal with this in the future, it will mean a lot of time for our NTEP
				laboratories and our NTEP Director. It's not like Steve Patoray doesn't have
				enough on his plate with everything that already comes in. The many other items
				that we face in our NTEP Program take just as much time as we try to make
				everyone happy with our decisions.
As we face all the different types of problems we have here at
				home, we all know that the rest of the world has just as many problems to deal
				with. We must move forward so that we can see all of the potholes that lie
				before us. During my years in State Government, all of those in weights and
				measures, I don't ever remember seeing or hearing of such a daily down turn in
				the economy as we hear each and every day. Things seem to go from bad to worse
				each and every day.
My heartfelt thanks go out to Lou Straub and Ross Andersen for
				all of their hard work and their undying support for both the Conference and me
				during this past year. My appreciation goes out to the staff at NCWM
				Headquarters for all of the work they do. Beth and her staff work so hard to
				support this Conference every day. My appreciation goes out to Henry Oppermann
				and staff at NIST for all of their support to this organization along with
				support from all of you, the membership. Your attendance at this meeting shows
				that we all are able to face these problems at home with our chins up and
				moving ahead is what we do.
I, and the Board of Directors, feel that the Conference is
				headed into the future in the right way. We are number-one in the world and we
				shall remain at that level throughout the years ahead in this great ship called
				the National Conference on Weights and Measures. It is now being piloted into
				the future by two of the greatest young men that we now have among us. It has
				been my pleasure to have known them better over the years. These men are Mr.
				Ross Andersen and Mr. Dennis Ehrhart.
During my years in weights and measures, I count myself very
				lucky to have only had four bosses. The first was Mr. John I. Moore, who hired
				a young man off the farm and out of college as a truck driver for one of his
				heavy scale test units. The second was Mr. Marion Kinlaw, who hired me as an
				inspector in our gasoline and oil inspection section and later on as an
				inspector in our weights and measures program. I enjoyed these times and
				learned so much in both those jobs.
My third boss was Mr. David Smith, Mr. "Smooth." I remember
				some of my friends, whose office lies north of the Great North State, telling
				us to watch out for that new guy, he's so smooth. That's how the nickname came
				to be. David Smith has said things and been so accurate with his thoughts over
				the years. He promoted me to a field supervisor and later on to our Measurement
				Section as Manager. He has been the Director of the Standards Division and now
				serves as the Assistant Commissioner of Agriculture for North Carolina. No one
				else was better for that job than David Smith.
My current boss is Mr. Winston Sutton, a man that I have known
				for a long time. He is now filling the Director's position in the Standards
				Division. He has worked very hard to be the best Director for the Division. His
				came back to us from his retirement as Chief of our Motor Fuels Section to
				begin this new job.
While at the Department of Agriculture, I only had two
				Commissioners to please. Mr. James A. Graham served there for 36 years and now
				Mrs. Meg Scott Phipps, who is the daughter of one of our former Governors, has
				been with us for two years. They both have done a great job for the Department
				and the citizens of the state.
My thanks goes out to the ladies in our office who daily do it
				all in the Division. Meri Beth Hibbets and Jennifer Jackson look out for
				everybody. They have given of their hard work on a daily basis and continue to
				put up with a crippled old man who loves them very much. Our field supervisors,
				Ken Nelson and Jerry Butler are daily asked to do more and more with less and
				less. Their inspectors are doing the same and they are doing a great job. Their
				efforts are appreciated each and every day. It has been an honor to have known
				and worked with such outstanding people.
Writing my retirement letter was one of the hardest things that
				I have ever sat down to do. In the back of my mind I was most concerned for my
				staff and my department, hoping my retirement would not result in any other job
				reductions. Coming up with the right words was hard to do. My doctors have
				wanted me to retire for such a long time. It also was one of the wishes of my
				loving wife, Peggy, who had often said that she wanted nothing but the best for
				us as we grew older. She often said, "Once I retire, we could do just what we
				wanted." I wish she were here to join me in this part of my life.
Thanks to each of you for all that you have done for me and may
				God bless you and yours.
NCWM 2002 Annual Meeting Honor Award
				Recipients
Full Name
No. of Years
Robert Murnane, Jr.
5
Bill Ripka
5
Kurt Floren
5
Angelique McCoy
5
Russell E. Robbins
5
Cary P. Frye
5
Larry M. Turberville
5
George Anderson
5
Gerald A. Buendel
5
Ron Balaze
10
Don Onwiler
10
Robert E. Reynolds
10
Richard W. Wotthlie
10
Norman R. Brucker
10
Dennis A. Krueger
10
Thomas Coleman
10
Randy Wise
10
John A. Baker
10
Constantine V. Cotsoradis
10
David K. Heck
15
Louis Straub
15
Carol P. Fulmer
15
Maxwell H. Gray
15
G.W. (Wes) Diggs
20
Ken Butcher
20
Fred P. Clem
20
L.F. Eason
20
F. Michael Belue
25
Marlene Belue
25
William H. Braun
25
Merrill S. Thompson
30
Report of the Board of Directors
Ronald D. Murdock, Chairman
Program Manager, Standards Division
North Carolina Department of Agriculture
Reference
Key Number
100
Introduction
This is the Report of the Board of Directors (BOD) for the
				87th Annual Meeting of the National Conference on
				Weights and Measures (NCWM). This Report is based on the Interim Report offered
				in Publication 16, Committee Reports; and actions taken by the membership at
				the Voting Sessions of the Annual Meeting. No addendum sheets were issued at
				the Annual Meeting.
The Report contains items related to the management of NCWM and
				the National Type Evaluation Program (NTEP). Items addressed by the NTEP
				Committee can be found in a separate report (the 500 Series). Title and page
				number indicates subject series. There are no voting (V) items. All items are
				information (I) only.
Table A
Index to Reference Key Items
Subject
Series
Status
Page Number
NCWM Operations and Policies
101 Series
I
2
Future Meetings and Events
102 Series
I
4
Financial Issues
103 Series
I
5
Strategic Plan
104 Series
I
6
NTEP Administration
105 Series
I
7
Liaison With Other Organizations
106 Series
I
9
Other Items
107 Series
I
11
General Membership Voting Items
108 Series
--
--
Table B
Appendices
Appendix
Title
Reference Key No.
Page
A
Report on the Activities of the International
						  Organization of Legal Metrology (OIML) and Regional Legal Metrology
						  Organizations
106 Series
12
B
NCWM Metrology Subcommittee & NIST Management
						  Meeting
107 Series
23
Table C
Voting Result
s
Reference Key Number
House of State Representatives
House of Delegates
Results
Yeas
Nays
Yeas
Nays
100 (Report in Its Entirety) Voice Vote
All
None
All
None
Passed
Details Of All Items
101
I NCWM Operations and
			 Policies
New Appointments to Committees/Sectors
The following are appointments that NCWM Chairman Ron Murdock
				and NTEP Committee Chairman Louis Straub made as of January 31, 2002:
NCWM Board of Directors: Don Onwiler, NE, replacing Darryl
				Brown, IA
NCWM S&T Committee: Mark Buccelli, MN, replacing
				Constantine Cotsoradis, KS
NCWM L&R Committee: Vicky Dempsey, Montgomery County, OH,
				replacing Don Onwiler, NE
NTEP Grain Moisture Meter Sector: Alan Lundstedt, Cognis
				QTA
NTEP Measuring Sector: Mike Gallo, Dresser Wayne
Board Governance Workshop
A Board Governance Workshop was held for the Board of Directors
				prior to the Annual Meeting on Saturday, July 13, 2002. All incoming Committee
				Chairs were invited to attend. Other member's interested in future volunteer
				leadership positions were also encouraged to attend.
In June, Chairman-Elect Ross Andersen and Executive Director
				Beth Palys attended the CEO Symposium sponsored by the American Society of
				Association Executives.
NCWM staff was directed to put together orientation materials
				for new Board members.
NCWM Newsletter
The Board of Directors discussed a request from a field
				inspector to include material in the NCWM newsletter that is relevant to field
				inspectors. There were several suggestions as to how to obtain articles of
				interest to inspectors. These included articles from regional newsletters,
				developing questions to which inspectors could respond and have the responses
				published in the newsletter, and articles supplied by the Administration and
				Public Affairs (A&P) Committee. The Board noted that the newsletter is a
				'work in progress' and will continue to evolve over time. The Board encourages
				feedback from the membership regarding how the newsletter can better meet their
				needs. The Board also discussed whether or not the NCWM would ultimately need
				an Editorial Review Board to review articles proposed for the
				newsletter.
Publications & Handbooks
The Board of Directors had received some requests from State
				Directors regarding Publication 5. The hard copy publication of Pub 5 was
				discontinued because the information is on the NCWM or NIST WMD website.
				Concern was expressed that the information on the NIST WMD website is not
				current since much of the information has not been updated since the transition
				of NTEP management from NIST WMD to NCWM. The Board directed staff to send out
				a needs assessment email survey to State Directors to determine what
				information is needed, in which format, and how frequently it should be made
				available. The Board will review the responses at its next Board
				meeting.
The Board of Directors expressed concern to Henry Oppermann,
				Chief, NIST WMD, that Publication 15 was so late in getting to members. Henry
				Oppermann indicated that Pub 15 had been ready to print on December
				5th and was posted on the NIST WMD web site at that
				time. However, publication of the hard copy of Pub 15 was delayed due to other
				NIST publications being in the queue and giving priority to printing Handbooks
				44 and 130. In future years, Publications 15 and 16 will be posted on both the
				NCWM and NIST WMD websites and meeting brochures will include information that
				the publications can be found on the websites.
Henry Oppermann asked the Board of Directors if they objected
				to NIST WMD preparing and distributing electronic versions of the reports of
				the NCWM from 1905 to the present. The Board responded that NIST WMD could put
				the reports in electronic format for the 2001 Annual Meeting and Annual
				Meetings prior to 2001. However, the Board of Directors reserved the right to
				discuss future Conference proceedings at a later date.
The Board of Directors discussed creating enhanced (hypertext)
				copies of Handbook 44, Handbook 130, and Handbook 133. Please refer to Series
				104 for more information.
Management Company
The Board of Directors selected a subcommittee of the Board to
				conduct an annual review of the management company during the Spring Board
				meeting. Ross Andersen, Tom Geiler and Mike Pinagel were selected as
				subcommittee members. The entire Board will provide feedback to the
				subcommittee prior to the review.
Consultants
The Board discussed the selection process used for choosing
				consultants, i.e., auditors, attorneys, board and strategic planning
				facilitators. For future contracts, staff was asked to provide a choice of
				three consultants so that the Board can make a final selection.
Membership Report
The total NCWM membership as of January 2, 2002, is 2745. The
				membership breakdown by category is as follows:
State Government
915
Associate Members
930
Local Government
586
Foreign Associate
21
U.S. Government
41
Retirees
233
Foreign Government
19
Website
The Board of Directors reviewed and affirmed the current
				website posting policy. The current policy is that anything to be posted on the
				NCWM website must first be reviewed and approved by the NCWM Board of
				Directors. The Board is looking at the website as another means of enhancing
				the value of membership in the NCWM. Therefore, certain items may be placed in
				the 'members only section' available only to members of NCWM. Members can
				obtain the current passwords to the 'members only' section by contacting the
				NCWM Headquarters office.
The A&P Committee requested that the training material
				developed by the Gasoline Pump Manufacturers Association for gas pump service
				technicians be placed on the NCWM website. The Board approved and directed
				staff to post the training material.
Publications 15 and 16 will be provided to NCWM by NIST WMD for
				posting to the NCWM website.
Mentoring
The Board reviewed the challenge of increasing participation in
				NCWM activities. Restricted travel budgets, the recession, and the events of
				9/11 are not helping the situation.
Associate Membership Committee Report
The Associate Membership Committee met during the afternoon of
				January 23, 2002. The minutes of the July 23, 2001, meeting held in Washington,
				DC, were approved as distributed. The financial report was presented and the
				following allocations were approved.
The AMC will make available to the NCWM the amount of $14,000
				to be administered by the A&P Committee for training scholarships for the
				2002 fiscal year. The AMC Board will approve the monies and make the funds
				available.
The AMC will make available to the NCWM a maximum sum of
				$10,000 for the 2002 Annual Meeting Outing. In the event that the standard 60%
				contribution does not require the complete $10,000 the remaining funds are to
				be returned to the AMC.
David Quinn reported on the activities of the Board of
				Directors. He reported on the issues of holding association meetings during the
				Conference and the cost of the meeting rooms. The AMC membership believes that
				better scheduling of the various meetings would make better use of meeting room
				space. The membership also felt that this scheduling could be left to the
				meeting planner, providing the timing of the meetings was considered. The
				membership also discussed the cost of non-conference meeting rooms and felt
				that the AMC should consider paying these fees. David was asked to work with
				the BOD to determine an estimated cost or possibly a fixed fee. David also
				informed the membership that the NCWM strategic plan is available on the NCWM
				website and encouraged everyone to read it.
Chris Guay reported on the activities of the Laws and
				Regulations (L&R) Committee. His report included comments on voting item
				250-1 as it relates to the revised Handbook 133. Chris also reported on the
				International Packaging and Labeling Seminar held in December 2001 in Miami,
				FL. He asked the membership to bring forward any questions, concerns, or
				general input anyone had on multi-national labeling.
Chip Kloos reported on the activities of the A&P Committee.
				Chip, along with Jerry Flanders, discussed the need for reevaluating the timing
				and procedure regarding the issuance of AMC training funds made available to
				the States. Jerry noted that the current procedure for requests allows a window
				of only 5 months from the deadline until receipts for payment are due. The
				Associate Committee membership agreed on a new procedure to review financial
				statements and determine the amount of funds available to allocate for
				scholarships at the end of the fiscal year (September 30). The AMC Executive
				Committee will convene a teleconference shortly after the close of the books
				and convey the amount of funds available for scholarships to the A&P
				Committee rather than waiting until the Interim Meeting. This will permit more
				time for the use of the funds. All members present agreed on this.
102
I Future Meetings And Events
As of January 30, 2002, the plans for future meetings are as
				follows:
NCWM Annual Meetings
* 2002
July 14-18
Omni Netherland Hotel, Cincinnati, OH
* 2003
July 13-17
John Ascuaga's Nugget Hotel, Sparks, NV
* 2004
July 11-15
Hilton Pittsburgh & Towers, Pittsburgh, PA
NCWM Interim Meetings
* 2003
January 12-15
Omni Jacksonville Hotel, Jacksonville, FL
* 2004
January 25-28
Bethesda Hyatt, Bethesda, MD
NTEP Lab & Sector Meetings
* NTEP Laboratory Meeting
June 9-12, 2002
Hilton Garden Inn, Albany, NY
* Grain Moisture/NIR Sector
August 21-23, 2002
Chase Suites Hotel, Kansas City, MO
* Weighing Sector
September 29 - October 1, 2002
Sheraton Barcelo Hotel, Annapolis, MD
* Measuring Sector
October 11-12, 2002
Omni Richmond Hotel, Richmond, VA
NCWM Board of Directors Meetings
The Board of Directors met on April 15-16, 2002, at NCWM
				Headquarters in Rockville, MD. A Board Governance Workshop was held prior to
				the Annual Meeting on Saturday, July 13, 2002. The Board of Directors also met
				at the NCWM Annual Meeting in Cincinnati, OH.
Registration Fees
The Board of Directors approved a one-time reduced Observer
				registration fee of $125, exclusive of the Special Event, for the 2002 Annual
				Meeting for first-time member attendees from the region where the meeting is
				taking place. Observers will not have voting rights.
Hotel Rates
The Board of Directors raised the concern that many States, as
				well as industry, are experiencing reduced and restricted travel. This may have
				an impact on future attendance at meetings as well as the ability of attendees
				to stay at Conference hotels. Staff indicated that all future hotels, with the
				exception of the 2002 Annual Meeting, are contracted at Federal government per
				diem rates.
Space Utilization at Meetings
The Board of Directors discussed the meeting space needs for
				both the Interim and Annual Meetings. Because both meetings are so space
				intensive, NCWM is limited to hotels that can accommodate the meeting needs.
				NCWM staff negotiates for all space as part of the NCWM package. The meetings
				of allied associations at NCWM meetings were discussed. Staff was asked to
				provide a breakdown of the costs of these meetings. The Associate Membership
				Committee indicated their preference to help defray those costs from the
				Associate Member Fund rather than from each association.
103
I Financial Issues
Audited Financial Statement
The accounting firm of Dembo, Jones, Healy, Pennington &
				Marshall, P.C. conducted an annual audit of NCWM, Inc. The following is from
				their audited Financial Report dated September 30, 2001.
National Conference on Weights &
				Measures, Inc. Balance Sheet as of September 30,
				2001
Assets
Current Assets
Cash and cash equivalents
707,032
Prepaid expenses
$ 3,342
Total assets
$710,374
Liabilities and Net Assets
Current Liabilities
Accounts payable
$ 15,112
Deferred dues revenue
$151,420
Total Liabilities
166,532
Net Assets
General Activities
$517,086
Associate Funds
$ 26,756
Total Net Assets
$543,842
Total liabilities and net assets
$710,374
National Conference on Weights &
				Measures, Inc.
Statement of Activities ending September 30,
				2001
Revenue and Support
Dues - government
$ 81,535
Dues - associate
$ 58,905
Associate member fund
$ 17,760
NTEP
$356,743
Interim Meeting Fees
$ 22,830
Annual Meeting Fees
$ 70,905
Publication Sales
$ 16,788
Interest
$ 27,078
Total Revenue and Support
$652,544
Expenses Programs
Membership
$ 8,441
NTEP
$362,824
Interim Meeting
$ 35,237
Annual Meeting
$ 89,183
Publications
$ 21,112
Newsletter
$ 13,167
Total Programs
$529,964
Management and general
Management fees
$ 51,534
Board of Directors
$ 21,642
Associate fund
$ 15,188
Website
$ 12,301
Strategic planning
$ 12,044
Bank fees
$ 5,571
Legal & accounting
$ 5,024
Telephone
$ 2,339
Insurance
$ 1,928
Printing
$ 804
Office supplies
$ 667
Miscellaneous
$ 523
Total Management & General
$129,565
Total Expenses
$659,529
Change in net assets
(6,985)
2002 Budget
Revenue and Support
Dues - government
$ 82,000
Dues - associate
$ 58,600
Associate member fund
$ 17,580
NTEP
$437,800
Interim Meeting Fees
$ 22,375
Annual Meeting Fees
$ 80,000
Publication Sales
$ 17,500
Interest
$ 30,000
Total Revenue and Support
$745,855
Expenses Programs
Membership
$ 10,865
NTEP
$387,350
Interim Meeting
$ 50,150
Annual Meeting
$ 98,475
Publications
$ 17,600
Newsletter
$ 18,410
Total Programs
$582,850
Management and general
Management fees
$ 40,000
Board of Directors
$ 31,475
Associate fund
$ 20,500
Committee contingency fund
$ 1,500
Website
$ 12,060
Bank fees
$ 2,700
Legal & accounting
$ 9,000
Telephone
$ 2,200
Insurance
$ 2,500
Printing
$ 1,200
Office supplies
$ 600
Miscellaneous
$ 800
Storage Space Rental
$ 1,100
Total Management & General
$125,635
Total Expenses
$708,485
Change in net assets
$ 37,370
The Board will provide an overview of NCWM's finances at the
				Annual Meeting in Cincinnati, OH.
104
I Strategic Plan
The National Conference on Weights and Measures, Inc.'s
				strategic plan is posted on the NCWM website. The Board of Directors reviewed
				the strategies that they had identified as priorities for the coming
				year.
Strategy C4.
"Collect basic statistical and
				summary data on the scope of weights and measures programs, so all fifty states
				have the background knowledge and credibility to promote weights and measures."
				The first phase will be to survey the states to see how data is currently being
				collected. The second phase is to achieve consensus on how the data
should
be collected. Ross Andersen has asked the following
				people to serve on that workgroup: Ken Wheeler, OH; John Tillson, MS; Mike
				Sikula, NY; and Craig Leisy, City of Seattle, WA. The long-term goal is to
				provide data that programs can use to illustrate the value of W&M to our
				local, state, and national economies.
Strategy B5.
"Explore developing a multi-tiered
				certification program." NCWM is exploring national training programs as well as
				certification. NCWM would take the lead role in voluntary assessment. The Board
				suggested that NCWM and WMD could work together to determine the 'curriculum'
				of what a weights and measures official should know. Henry Oppermann indicated
				that WMD would be willing to participate, provided that NCWM takes the lead
				role in what would be an NCWM project.
Strategy Al.
"Involve NCWM in International
				Organization of Legal Metrology (OIML) activities to work toward the
				harmonization of U.S. and International Standards." Chuck Ehrlich, Chief, NIST
				Technical Standards Activities Group (TSAG) encouraged the Board of Directors
				to participate more at OIML meetings. NCWM will be asking other technical
				groups to report back to NCWM on discussions related to U.S. issues. The U.S.
				Working Group level was identified as the arena where NCWM wants to have
				influence.
Strategy A2.
"Jointly identify the appropriate
				roles for NCWM, NIST and other key stakeholders in advancing weights and
				measures." Ross Andersen, Lou Straub, and David Quinn, representing the NCWM
				Board of Directors, met with Henry Oppermann, Chief, Weights and Measures
				Division, and key WMD staff on December 5, 2001, to begin discussions on this
				issue. Both parties agreed that future meetings are necessary and the Board of
				Directors allocated funds for another meeting.
Strategy A3.
"Revise the standing committee
				operation to utilize work groups to develop consensus and background materials
				to more effectively support informed decisions." In addition to the standing
				committee structure, the Board, through Chairman-Elect Ross Andersen, has begun
				to put together small working groups to support the work of the strategic plan
				and to support the standing committees. The Board has also asked the Enhanced
				Meat Products Work Group for an action plan.
Strategy B3. "Develop new publications - some that will produce
				net, non-dues revenue." The Board of Directors is exploring the possibility of
				creating hypertext editions of Handbooks 44, 130 and 133. When asked, Henry
				Oppermann indicated that WMD is not planning to create hypertext editions of
				the handbooks.
105
I
			 NTEP Administration
NTEP Scope and Purpose
The Board of Directors explored the dividing line between NTEP
				and Handbook 44 issues/questions. The Board affirmed their commitment to
				answering all NTEP questions. However, the NTEP Director was hired to manage
				the NTEP program and not to replace the technical advisers at NIST. The Board
				also made a commitment to resolve issues brought before NTEP by either getting
				the question answered or referring the issue to the right source.
NTEP Travel Issues
The Board of Directors discussed funding for NTEP lab
				representatives to attend the sector meetings. The Board of Directors had
				reached a decision at the 2001 Annual Meeting to limit the number of labs
				funded to attend the sector meetings. However, in a conference call following
				that meeting, the Board decided to postpone the implementation of that
				decision. Their concern was that the Labs had not been given sufficient notice
				to be able to budget for this travel. The Board will review the issue prior to
				drafting the 2003 budget.
The Board discussed the funding of public member travel to the
				Grain Moisture Meter (GMM) Sector. There was concern about the impact that NCWM
				can have on the program. Diane Lee shared her concern with the Board that they
				need to consider the impact of grain moisture measurements and not simply the
				number of meters. The Board directed staff to conduct a cost analysis of the
				GMM Sector and report back to the Board at the next meeting.
Publication 14
The Board discussed the recommendations presented by the NTEP
				Sectors for changes to Publication 14. Recommendations for each section, grain
				moisture/near infrared devices, measuring devices, and weighing devices were
				reviewed. The NTEP Committee approved the recommendations of the Sectors.
				Changes will be included in the 2002 version of Publication 14.
Effective Status of Certificates of
				Conformance
Several companies expressed concerns regarding the change in
				the markings required by Handbook 44. This change will require the NTEP
				Certificate of Conformance (CC) number be permanently marked on each device.
				The companies indicated that a mechanism is needed to provide the Certificate
				number immediately upon the successful completion of the evaluation. Stephen
				Patoray presented a proposal that would require a draft Certificate of
				Conformance to accompany the application for an NTEP Evaluation to speed the
				issuance of Certificates. This proposal will be finalized and the detailed
				recommendation will be presented to the NTEP Committee for consideration at
				their next scheduled meeting.
Mutual Acceptance Agreements (MAAs)
The Board is exploring the potential of developing test data
				exchange agreements with countries other than Canada. The NCWM is using its
				experience with Canada in its approach and is also watching closely the work
				toward international MAA's. The United States (see TSAG report in Appendix A)
				is currently chairing the OIML work group developing a standard for mutual
				acceptance of type evaluation test data. While much of the present discussion
				has focused on an agreement with Germany's Physikalisch-Technische
				Bundesanstalt (PTB), the Board is not looking to limit itself to agreements
				with only one country.
The initial work with PTB has centered on an MAA for load
				cells. Because international load cell intercomparisons have already been done
				within OIML, the NIST Mass and Force Group (an NTEP Participating Lab)
				potentially has the ability to demonstrate competence to the satisfaction of
				PTB and other countries. NTEP would also consider moving toward MAAs for
				non-automatic weighing instruments, where our participating labs presently have
				the capability to perform the tests to R-76 requirements.
The Board met with the NIST Mass and Force Group, WMD, and TSAG
				representatives at the Interim Meetings to discuss some of the issues that may
				arise from an MAA. These discussions covered a wide range of topics that would
				need to be addressed in negotiating and managing an MAA. The NCWM assured the
				Force Group that it would be acting as a Participating Laboratory and would not
				be required to be a signatory to any MAA.
Lou Straub and Steve Patoray met with Renald Marceau and Alain
				Casademont, Measurement Canada, to discuss a two-year pilot MAA for
				liquid-measuring devices with NCWM. Mike Gallo, Gordon Johnson, Richard Tucker,
				and Mark Joelson represented the Gas Pump Manufacturers Association
				(GPMA).
Automatic Weighing Systems Code
There is a need to reconvene the Automatic Weighing Systems
				Code workgroup to work on Handbook 44 issues with ramifications on type
				evaluation. The purpose of the meeting will be to come up with a proposal for
				changes to Handbook 44 that can then be given to the Specifications and
				Tolerances (S&T) Committee. NCWM will host the meeting and fund travel for
				the Ohio Lab to travel to Maryland. The NTEP Director will also attend the
				meeting.
Conformity Assessment
The Board discussed conformity assessment. Conformity
				assessment is viewed as a means to make certain that quality control standards
				to ensure compliance with Handbook 44 are in place. Stephen A. Patoray, NTEP
				Director, indicated that it is his intention to complete the conformity
				assessment work this year. This is important to the device manufacturers so
				that they get a clear picture of what the program will be. A work group is
				being formed and several members have already been named representing a wide
				range of device manufacturers. In the selection process, NCWM wants members of
				the work group to be representative of different device types and sizes of
				manufacturers.
NIST Force Group
A meeting was held with representatives of NCWM, NIST WMD, and
				the NIST Mass and Force Group. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss
				questions and concerns related to possible bi-lateral agreements between NCWM
				and any other country. After significant discussion, many of the questions and
				concerns were answered; however, several specific questions remain to be
				answered in future discussions with any country wishing to enter into a
				bi-lateral agreement with NCWM.
106
I Liaison With Other
			 Organizations
WMD/NCWM
Henry Oppermann, Chief of the Weights and Measures Division
				(WMD), provided a status report on WMD activities and support that WMD and NIST
				provide to the Conference. Highlights of his report are as follows:
1. Based on discussions at the two workshops
			 for weights and measures (W&M) administrators held this past fall, WMD will
			 contract for a study of the national weights and measures system to examine how
			 the marketplace and weights and measures programs have changed. The scope and
			 details of the study have not been developed in detail, but included in the
			 study will be:
* how weights and measures programs vary across the
				country;
* compliance levels for jurisdictions across the
				country;
* how their budgets and staffing has changed over a 10-year
				period;
* how the business community regulated by W&M has
				changed;
* how the focus of device manufacturers and consumer product
				companies has changed as the market has changed; and
* the level of interest of companies in the use of
				international standards for devices and package labeling.
2. WMD is preparing a summary of the topics
			 and ideas discussed at the two workshops for weights and measures
			 administrators held last fall. This summary will be a reference document for
			 some of the current and complex issues confronting W&M administrators
			 today.
3. The WMD revision of the
			 examination procedures outlines (EPOs) has been completed and is in the review
			 process for publication. The Handbook 44 references in the EPOs have been
			 updated. The revised EPOs will be available this spring.
4. The template quality manual for NTEP
			 laboratories is finished and in the final review process before publication.
			 This template should be available this spring.
5. WMD will coordinate an NTEP laboratory
			 intercomparison on a price-computing scale. The NTEP labs will be asked to
			 apply the NTEP checklist and performance tests to the scale. The scale will be
			 shipped to the first NTEP lab in the next two months.
6. WMD and TSAG are working with the NCWM and
			 NTEP labs to define the technical support and procedures necessary to implement
			 the bilateral agreements under consideration by the NCWM regarding the
			 acceptance of type evaluation test data. The implementation of these bilateral
			 agreements is expected to require significant staff resources to implement
			 effectively.
7. The NIST Work Group
			 on Weight Carts continues to develop specifications for weight carts used to
			 test large capacity scales. The objective is to develop design specifications
			 that reduce the weight variability of weight carts, thereby reducing the
			 uncertainty associated with the use of weight carts to test scales. The
			 specifications being developed will be published as part of the NIST Handbook
			 105 series for field standards.
8.
			 The ASTM committee on fat-measuring devices is active. Four subcommittees have
			 been formed, staffed, and are working via e-mail to develop draft documents.
			 Meetings for all four subcommittees will be scheduled, probably before the end
			 of June.
9. WMD will participate in
			 a training seminar developed by the National Weighing and Sampling Association,
			 which are scheduled for April 7-11. Dick Suiter and Steve Cook will be part of
			 the program. As part of their preparation for this course, they are developing
			 draft field reference manuals for belt-conveyor scales and hopper scales.
			 [Note: This seminar was cancelled in March 2000.]
10. The NIST Laws and Metric Group has
			 drafted and submitted suggested changes to the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act
			 (FPLA) to give packagers the option to label consumer packages in either dual
			 units or metric-only quantity statements. The Laws and Metric Group staff is
			 meeting with companies, industry trade associations, and federal agencies to
			 discuss the proposed changes, identify any concerns that these groups may have
			 about the proposed changes, and identify their levels of interest and support
			 for these changes. They are also exploring other projects such as the
			 development of guides for labeling and unit pricing that would facilitate the
			 transition to metric-only labeling.
11. The Laws and Metric Group will be
			 contacting State weights and measures directors in States whose laws do not
			 permit metric-only labeling to encourage them to change their laws to give
			 packagers the option to label packages in either dual units or metric-only
			 quantity statements.
12.
			 Resolutions adopted at the SIM Packaging and Labeling Workshop in December 2001
			 support the use of labeling in metric-only units and the simplification of the
			 net quantity statement on products sold throughout the Western Hemisphere. WMD
			 will work with TSAG to pursue the implementation of these two
			 resolutions.
13. The CD-ROM
			 training course for laboratory mass calibration is nearing completion. This
			 project is much more complex than originally anticipated, but the work is
			 progressing well. We expect to distribute the final product to State W&M
			 laboratories by early summer.
14.
			 The development of the CD-ROM training course on audit trails is well underway.
			 It is based on the WMD training course conducted in Spring 2001. The CD-ROM
			 course should be completed by this fall.
15. WMD will work with TSAG to promote the
			 alignment of U.S. and OIML standards. Canada is also looking at closer
			 alignment with some OIML standards, particularly related to R117. The NCWM
			 strategic plan states its intent to increase its involvement in the review and
			 development of U.S. positions on OIML documents and recommendations. Various
			 sectors of the weighing and measuring industry have expressed their desire to
			 see alignment of U.S. and OIML standards. Consequently, WMD will take steps to
			 move toward this goal.
16. WMD has
			 contracted with Paul Chase, Chase Technologies, Inc., to identify the
			 similarities and differences in the Belt-Conveyor Scales Code and the OIML
			 standard for belt-conveyor scales. The industry participants in the WMD
			 Technical Workshop of Belt-Conveyor Scales held last May expressed their desire
			 for the OIML standard to be adopted as the U.S. standard. The analysis being
			 done by Paul Chase will be the basis for discussion of possible changes to move
			 the United States closer to the OIML standard.
17. WMD will host another Belt-Conveyor Scale
			 Technical Workshop again this year to address new and remaining issues. This
			 group will also discuss the similarities and differences between the OIML
			 Recommendation and the Belt-Conveyor Scales Code and develop a plan for how to
			 address the differences.
18. For
			 the first time this year, WMD has submitted written positions on a number of
			 issues on the agenda of the S&T Committee. These position statements may be
			 updated following the Interim Meeting and sent to the regional weights and
			 measures associations for consideration in their deliberations on the
			 issues.
19. The Laws and Metric
			 Group developed a strategic plan this past year and sent it to a small group of
			 people for review. Their comments have been received and discussed within WMD.
			 The comments from the reviews have helped shape the priorities of the Laws and
			 Metric Group for this year. The strategic plan will be updated to incorporate
			 these comments and the updated plan will be available this summer.
20. WMD has begun the review of its strategic
			 plan. The objective is to complete the revision by early summer. We plan to ask
			 the members of our original focus group, the NCWM Board of Directors, Scale
			 Manufacturers Association, Gas Pump Manufacturers Association, and Meter
			 Manufacturers Association to review the revised plan for their comments and
			 recommendations.
21. This spring,
			 Tina Butcher will start a one-year detail in the NIST Program Office. In this
			 detail, she will provide support to the office of the NIST Director regarding
			 NIST budget, programs, legislative actions, and interactions with the
			 Department of Commerce.