Arkansas Administrative Code
Agency 209 - Arkansas Agriculture Department
Division 02 - State Plant Board
Rule 209.02.05-001 - Amendments to Liquid Measuring Devices section of National Institute of Standards & Technology Handbook 44

S.l.6.5.1. Money-Value Divisions, Analog. - The values of the graduated intervals representing money values on a computing type device shall be no greater than those in Table 1. (Amended 1991)

S. 1.6.5.2. Money-Value Divisions, Digital. - A computing type device with digital indications shall comply with the requirements of paragraph G.S.5.5. Money Values, Mathematical Agreement, and the total

2004 Amendments

The following table lists the codes, paragraphs, and pages in which the 89th National Conference on Weights and Measures made amendments. In the column headed "Action," changes are noted as "added," "amended," "deleted," or "renumbered." Each code, section, or paragraph that has been changed will be noted as "Added 2004" or "Amended 2004."

S&T Committee 2004 Interim Report

POS nominal capacity or the Universal. Product Code is illegible, but the weight and unit price information are available on the item label and can be entered in the POS to calculate a price.

Handbook 44 includes provisions, to deter fraudulent use of the manual weight entry feature. Paragraph S.1.12. describes when a scale can accept such as entry and how it must be identified. Paragraph UR.3.9. specifies only four applications where the use of manual weight entries are permitted. Handbook 44 also requires that a scale shall be suitable for use. which includes its weighing capacity. The feature is not intended as a substitute for a system with insufficient weighing capacity

The Committee acknowledges that manual weight entries occur writh gross and net wreight packages. The Committee considered several proposals to address this practice. These proposals were either himted in the applications they covered, unclear on what tare information that must be recorded, or appeared to prohibit manual tare entries. After lengthy discussion at the 2003 NCWM Annual Meeting, the Committee agreed to keep the following proposal an information item to allow sufficient time for these deficiencies to be addressed:

S.1.12. Manual Weight Entries. - A de\ice shall accept an entry of a manual weight value only when the scale is at gross load zero and the scale gross or net* weight indication is qt_ zero . Recorded manual weight entiies, except those on labels generated for packages of standard weights, shall identify' the weight value as a manual weight entry by one of the following terms: "Manual Weight, " "Manual Wt," or "M,iN WT. " The use of a symbol to identify' multiple manual weight entries on a single document is pennitted, provided that the symbol is defined on the same page on which the manual weight entries appear and the definition of the symbol is automatically printed by the recording element as part of the document. [Nonretroactive as ofJanuaiy 1, 199 i] [Nonretroactive as ofJanuaiy 1. 2004.1

UR.3.9. Use of Manual ss Weight Entries. - Manual weight entries are permitted for use in the following applications only: (11 on a point-of-sale system interfaced with scales when credit is given for a wreighed item m --ss s, or when an item is pre-weighed and marked with the correct net weight: (21 when a device or system is generatemj labels for standard weight packages; (3) when postal scales or weight classifiers are generateing manifests for packages to be picked up at a later tune; -ef and (41 when- on hvestock scale and vehicle scale systems generate weight tickets to correct erroneous tickets.

The Central Weights and Measures Association did not take a position on this issue until it had a chance to review positions taken by the NTETC Weighing Sector when tbe Sector meets later in 2003.

During its September 2003 Annual Conference, the WWMA examined the recommendation developed by the 2003 S&T Committee and an alternate proposal that limited use of the manual weight entry feature to point-of-sale (POS) systems. The WWMA agreed that limiting the feature to POS systems was too restrictive. The WWMA. also agreed that the S&T Committee's recommendation would make the current practice of entering preset tare values with a load on the scale during direct sale transactions very difficult. Consequently, the WWMA recommended the alternate proposal for paragraph S.1.12. show:n in the recommendation above and modified paragraph U.3.9. to limit manual weight entries to either gross or net weighed items as follows:

UR.3.9. Use of Manual Weight Entries. - Manual gross or net weight entries are permitted for use in the following applications only: ( 11 on a point-of-sale system interfaced with scales when credit is given for a weighed item e eeee, or when an item is pre-weighed and marked with the correct net weight; (2) when a device or system is eeeing labels for standard weight packages; (3) when postal scales or weight classifiers are generating manifests for packages to be picked up at a later time: and (41 on livestock scale and vehicle scale systems that generate weight tickets to correct erroneous tickets.

The Northeastern Weights and Measures Association opposed the carryover recommendation developed by the 2003 S&T Committee because it found the language too cumbersome to address all possible scenarios where a manual w:eight entry is used.

The Scale Manufacturers Association (SMA1 supported tbe WWMA proposal to modify' paragraph S.1.12. and recommended an alternate proposal to modify paragraph UR.3.9. show:n in the recommendation above. The SMA

S&T Committee 2004 Interim Report

fbli The nominal capacity of a raHii'av track scale shall not exceed the lesser of 640 000 lb or SO 000 lb for each 5 feet of wreigh rail length or portion thereof and; the section capacity (SC) multiplied by the number of sections (N) of the scale minus O.J. The formula is stated as Nominal Capacity = SC x fN - 0.51. [Nonretroactive, as ofJannaiy 1, 2002]

Add new paragraph UR.X. as follows:

Source: Central Weights and Measures Association (CWMA)

Recommendation: Modify Table S.6.3.a Marking Requirements as follows:

(Added 1990) (Amended 1992, 1999, 2000, 2001 ah4 2002, and 2004) (Footnote 1 Added 2001)

Add new Note 24. to Table S.6.3 h. Notes for Table S6..i.a as follows:

24, The section capacity shall be prefaced by the words "Section Capacity" or an abbreviation of that term. Abbreviations shall be "Sec Cap" or Sec C." All capital letters and periods may be used, (Added 2004)

Discussion: The CWMA believes that current Handbook 44 may be mterpreted to prohibit the abbreviation of section capacity. Because some device identification badges are limited in space, manufacturers abbreviate marking information. The CWMA recommends adding a new paragraph S.6.4.3. that requires identification of section capacity information with a prefix and defines acceptable abbreviations foi that prefix. The CWMA did not submit specific language for addressing the abbreviation of section capacity in Table S 6 3.a Marking Requirements and Table S.6.3.b. Notes For Table S.6.3.a.

The Western Weights and Measures Association (WWMA) heard that the NTETC Weighing Sector and manufacturers support the intent of the proposal. FTmvever, the WWMA believes the CWMA proposal should be simplified and modified for clarity. The WWMA agreed that use of the abbreviations "SC" and "S Cap" to identify section capacity are not acceptable because they might be interpreted to represent scale capacity. The WWMA considered a recommendation to include identification requirements for section capacity in General Code paragraph G-S.l. Identification since that requirement specifies other marking information and prefixes. Ultimately, the WWMA decided to address the abbreviation of ''section capacity" as a Scale Code requirement. The WWMA worked with the NTETC Weighing Sector Technical Advisor to develop the alternate proposal to modify Table S.6.3.a. and Table S.6.3.b. as shown in the recommendation above

The Scale Manufacturers Association supported the proposal for including m Table S.6.3.a. and Table S.6.3 b. language that that requires a prefix to identify the scale's section capacity and specifies how the prefix must be abbreviated.

S&T Committee 2004 Interim Report

The Committee agreed that the best approach for designating a prefix that identifies the scale's section capacity is the WWMA alternate proposal. The WWMA proposal is consistent with the current practice of listing other scale marking requirements in one table. The Committee modified the WWMA proposal for new Note 24. by removing the word '"Acceptable." The Committee does not believe it is necessary to qualify that the abbreviation is acceptable since this text does not appear in other marking requirements and it is understood what abbreviation is acceptable because they are adequately defined in the note's text. Consequently, the Committee recommends modifying Table S.6.3 a. to include a marking requirement for a prefix that identifies the scale's section capacity and a corresponding note be added to Table S.6.3.0.

Source: Carryover Item 320-11. (This item originated from the Northeastern Weights and Measures Association (NEWMA) and first appeared on the Committee's 2003 agenda.)

Recommendation: Add new paragraph N.3.2.

N.3.2. Field Standard Weight Carts. - Field Standard Weight Carts that comply with the tolerances expressed in Fundamental Considerations, garagranh 3.2. (i.e.. one-third of the smallest tolerance nnrihed) may be included as nni t of the minimum 1 enuii ed test load for shift tests and other test procedures. (Added :>004)

Discussion: The original NEWMA proposal was intended to modify the NTST Handbook 44 Scales Code to recognize die use of weight carts during a shift test. During its October 2003 Interim Meeting, NEWMA indicated that its original proposal was not ready for adoption by the NCWM. New York noted that NEWMA's proposal shown below should include a reference to the Handbook 44 Fundamental Considerations 3.2 Tolerances for Standards. New York also recommended modifying NEWMA's proposal to eliminate any requirements that specify a particular type of information diat must be included in the weight cart's calibration report as follows:

N. 1.3.4.1. Weight Carts. - Weight carts may be included as part of the minimum required test load required in

N.l.3.4. provided that the mass value of the weight cart has been determined by weights and measures and is clearly marked thereon. Further, a certificate of calibration issued by the weights and measures jurisdiction that issued the weight certificate must be available at all times. e e eeeee ee eeee e.

At die 2004 NCWM Interim Meeting, the Committee heard that the NEWMA proposal was unclear as to how the mass value is determined by a weights and measures jurisdiction. The Committee agreed that the portions of the proposed language intended to address the reference standard should include information about the uncertainty of the scale used as die reference standard rather than the scale's minimum graduation size. The uncertainty of the reference scale is essential in the calibration report for the weight cart to establish the accuracy of measurements made with the field standard.

The Central Weights and Measures Association (CWMA) developed an alternate proposal that specified weight carts may be used as part of the minimum load for shift rests on vehicle scales. The CWMA believes that an additional proposal is needed to permit the use of weight carts in tests other than shift tests. The CWMA also recommended that die proposal make reference to weight carts meeting the Fundamental Considerations Tolerance for Standards when a weight cart is used as the testmg apparatus in accordance with the requirements for calibration of a field test standard in NIST Handbook 105-8, Specification and Tolerances for Field Standard Weight Carts.

The Committee agreed that the test note should include language that permits use of weight carts for shift tests and other test as well as specify a standard for the weight cart. The Fundamental Considerations prescribes the error in a field test standard used by weights and measures officials. The Committee also noted that the proposed paragraph designation is already in use. Consequently, the Committee modified the CWMA proposal as shown in the recommendation above to include a new paragraph designation and require diat field standard weight carts comply widi the guidelines for test apparatus in the Fundamental Considerations.

The Committee acknowledges that it is general knowledge that NIST Handbook 105-8 is available through the NIST Weights and Measures Division web site at wwwjrist.gov/own and was published in December 2003.

Source: Central Weights and Measures Association (CWMA)

Recommendation: Modify paragraph N.1.5. as follows:

N.1.5. Discrimination Tat. - A discrimination test shall be conducted on all automatic indicating scales with the weighing device in equilibrium st near zero load and-at near maximum test load, and under controlled conditions in which environmental factors are reduced to the extent that ftsy will not affect the results obtained. For scales equipped nith the Automatic Zero-Setting Mechanhin (AZSM). the discrimination ten may be conducted at a ranse outside of the AZSMrange. [Nonretroactive as of January I, 1986] "(Added 1985) (Amended 2004)

Discussion: The CWMA agreed that it is impossible to conduct a discrimination test and verify the zone of uncertainty at zero if the Automatic Zero-Setting Mechanism (AZSM) is operational. The CWMA believes the test should be conducted near zero without the weights and measures official having to disable AZSM. The CWMA does not want officials having to access the inside of scales to disable and then make operational AZSM or any other feature.

The Scale Manufacturers Association supports this item.

The Committee heard no opposition to the proposal. The Committee recognizes that there are environmental arid scale design factors that can affect the results of a discrimination test. The Committee also acknowledges that it is acceptable to perform a discrimination test at zero load just above the zero tracking range for scales that are equipped with AZSM. The test is also acceptable when performed just below the scale's maximum capacity in the event that a scale is set up to display an indication of over capacity that is less than maxmium total load in excess of scale capacity established in paragraph S.1.7. Capcaciry Indication, Weight Ranges, and Unit Weights.

Source: Central Weights and Measures Association (CWMA)

Recommendation: Add a new footnote to Table 3 as follows:

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 19S6J

(Amended 1986, 19&7, 1997, 1998, 1999. aad 2003. and 2004) (Footnote 4 Added 1997) (Footnote 5 Added 20<W

Discussion: Requirements for the minimum and maximum number of scale divisions are listed in Table 3 Parameters for Accuracy Classes; however, the table presently does not recognize a limitation to the minimum arid maximum number of scale divisions included in user requirement, paragraph UR.1.2. Grain Hopper Scales. To ensure both manufacturer and users are aware of this limitation, the CWMA recommends adding a new footnote 5 to Table 3 making the information about gram hopper scales available in paragraphs intended for device manufacturers. The CWMA believes the paragraph UK 1.2. for the minimum number of scale divisions for a Class III Hopper Scale used for gram weighing is missed.

The Scale Manufacturers Association (SMA) opposes this proposal because it introduces a new application into Table 3. SMA prefers that Table _i not include any application requirements.

The Committee believes that adding a new note to Table 3 helps to clarify the allowable minimum number of scale divisions for a Class III Hopper Scale used in gram weighing application for the manufacturer and official. Addmg the Text from the user requirement into Table 3 is consistent with current Table 3 requirements for hopper scales and further explains the parameters that apply for this device type.

Setting Mechanism, N.1.3.1. Bench Counter Scales, and N.l.3.8. All Other Scales Except Crane Scales

Source: Carryover Item 320-4. (This item originated from the National Type Evaluation Technical Committee (NTETO Weighing Sector and first appeared on the Committee"s 2003 agenda.)

Source: Western Weights and Measures Association (WWMA)

Recommendation: Amend paragraphs S.l 5. andUR.1. as follows:

S.l. 5. Rate of Flow Indicators and Recorders. - A belt-conveyor scale shall be equipped with a rate of flow indicator and an analog or digital recorder. Pertnanent means shall be provided to produce an audio or visual signal when the rate of flow is equal to or less than 3£ 20 % and when the rate off aw is equal to or greater than $$-160 % of the rated capacity of the scale. The Pipe of alarm (audio or visual) shall be detemiined by the individual installation. [Nonretroactive as ofJanuaiy 1,1986] (Amended 1989 and 2004 )

UR..1. Lse Requirements. - A belt-conveyor scale system shall be operated between #20 % and 9& 100 % of its rated capacity. (Amended 2004)

Discussions: During the 2002 Belt-Conveyor Scale Technical Seminar, there was considerable discussion about harmonization of the NIST Handbook 44 Belt-Conveyor Scale Systems Code with OIML R 50 Continuous Totalizing Automatic Weighing Instruments. Preliminary data was presented to provide evidence that belt-conveyor scales tested only at zero and a single flow rate as specified by Handbook 44 may have excessive errors at other flow rates.

Occasionally, there are periods of varying duration, when a scale operates at different flow rates even though most belt-conveyor scales tend to operate a majority of the time at relatively the same flow rate. Other devices in Handbook 44 are tested throughout their rated operating range; therefore, belt-conveyor scales should be subject to similar testing to ensure accuracy at all ranges.

The WWMA heard comments in support of the proposal from a manufacturer and user. The WWMA recommended that the NCWM S&T Committee move the proposal forward as a voting item.

The Southern Weights and Measures Association recommended this proposal as written.

The Committee received additional industry support for the proposal as written. The Committee recognizes that the proposal is the result of work by the Belt-Conveyor Scale Technical Seminar representatives, the NIST Technical Advisor to the Seminar, and the WWMA..

The Committee considered input from XIST indicating that the original proposal to change the nonretroactive enforcement date from 1986 to 2005 would make the requirement rn paragraph S.1.5. less restrictive than the current requirements. The Committee agreed that systems installed prior to 2005 would meet the less restrictive requirement for a signal to indicate a rate of flow outside of the 20 % to 100 % range of scale capacity. The Committee acknowledged that it is acceptable for systems to operate within a range that is narrower than the proposed 20 % to 100 % of the scale's capacity as long as it complies with other Handbook 44 requirements. Consequently, the Committee kept the year at 1986 in paragraph S.1.5. and removed the proposed requirement for different enforcement dates based on an installation before or after January 1, 2005, from the proposal to modify paragraph UR.l. The Committee agreed that the proposal was ready for a vote with the modifications show: rn the recommendation above.

Minimum Test Load

Source: Western Weights and Measures Association (WWMA)

Recommendation: Modify paragraph N.2. as follows:

N. 2. Conditions of Test. - A belt-conveyor scale shall be tested after it is installed on the conveyor system with which it is to be used and under such environmental conditions as may normally be expected. sEach test shall be conducted fer- with test loads no less than the minimum test load,

(

fe}-(Amended 1986 and 2004'i

Add new paragraphs N.2.1., N.2.2., and N.2.3., as follows:

N.2.1. Initial Verification. - A belt-couvevor scale svstem shall be tested at an intermediate flow rate, near 35 "o flow rates and normal use capacity. The system may also be tested at any other rate of flow that may be used at the installation. (Added 2004)

N.2.2. Subsequent Verification. - Suhsegugiit testing shall include testing at the normal flow rate null other floiv rates used at the installation, The official with statute iy authority may determine tli.it testing only at the normal flow rate is necessary for subsequent venfkali'.m-; if evidence is provided that the svstem is used to operate no less than 70 % of the niaxiniuni flow rate .it least SO ° o of the time, or that normal operational flow rate does not vaiy bv mare that 10 'ii (e.g. If the- normal flow rale is 7Q °'o an acceptable range can Lie 63 to 73 %). [Added 2004)

N.2. 3, Miniitmm Test Load. - The minimum test load shall not be less, than the largest of the following values,

Zero Stability"

Source: Western Weights and Measures Association (WWMA)

Rerommeudation: Amend paragraphs N.3.1.2. andN.3.1 3 as follows:

N.3.1.2. Initial Stable Zero. - The conveyor system shall be operated to warm up the belt and the belt scale shall be zero adjusted as required. A series of zero-load tests shall be carried our until three consecutive zero-load tests each indicate an error which does not exceed = 0.06 % of the totalized load at full scale canacitv for the duration time of the test, or = 1 division, whichever is less. No adjustments can be made during the three consecutive zero-load test readings. fAdded 2002> fAmended 2004t

N.3.1.3. Test of Zero Stability-. - The conveyor system shall be fwa operated to rami up the belt and the belt scale shall be zero adjusted as required. A series of zero-load tests shall be carried out immediately before the simulated or materials test until the three consecutive zero-load tests each indicate an error which does not exceed = 0.06 % el of the totalized load at full scale capacity for the duration time of the test, or ± 1 division, whichever is less. No adjustments can be made during the three consecutive zero-load test readings.

eeeeeeeeee e-ee e e e-e - ees e

(Added 2002) (Amended 2004)

Add a new paragraph T. 1.1. Tolerance Values - Test of Zero Stability as follows:

T.l.l. Tolerance Values - Test of Zero Stability. - Immediately after material has been weighed over the belt-couvevor scale during the conduct of the materials test, the zero-load test shall lie repeated, The change in the accumulated or subtracted weight on the Master Weight Totalizer during the zero test shall not exceed 0.12 % of the totalized l»;id at full scale capacity for the duration time of the test, or ± 2 divisions, whichever is less. (Added 2004)

Discussion: In 2002, paragraphs N.3.1.2. and N.3.1.3. were added to the Belt-Conveyor Scale Systems Code to define a stable zero and establish an acceptable variation in zero (zero error), when the system is operated at a no load condition. The change was made, in part, to make the code consistent with requirements in OTML R 50 Continuous Totalizing Automatic Weighing Instrument. R 50 defines the allowable zero error m terms of a percent of die totalized load at the system's maximum flow-rate only for the time-period it takes to complete the test. Current paragraphs N.3.1.2. and N.3.1.3. specify the allowable zero error only as a percent of full scale capacity which can be a rather large value and usually results in an error stated in scale divisions since that value is the lesser of die two values. Some comparisons of the allowable zero error in terms of scale divisions, percent of full scale capacity, and percent of capacity7 for the test duration are shown in the table below:

The proposal modifies current Handbook 44 language to redefine the maximum allowable change of zero that is more appropriate for the master weight totalizer.

The Southern Weights and Measures Association supports the WWMA proposal as written.

The Committee received additional industry support for die proposal as written. The Committee recognizes that the proposal is the result of work by die Belt-Conveyor Scale Technical Seminar representatives, the NIST Technical Advisor to the Seminar, and the WWMA. Hearing no opposition, the Committee made the proposal a votmg item.

Source: Western Weights and Measures Association (WWMA)

Recommendation: Modify paragraph N.3 1.4 as follows:

N.3.1.4. Check For Consistency of the Conveyor Belt Along Its Entire Length. - After a zero-load test with flow rate filtering disabled, the totalizer shall not change more than ± three scale divisions from its initial indication during one complete belt revolution. (Added 2002) (Amended 2004)

Discussion: The intent of paragraph N.3.1.4. is to ensure that the conveyor belt is consistent in weight throughout its entuie length. To meet this requirement, a belt must be the same size and thickness throughout its entire length. The types of splices, belt material, and construction are a major contributing factor to maintaining uniform belt weight. During the stability tests, adjustments are made to the scale totalizer to average the entire belt weight to provide a zero reading over complete revolutions of the belt. The belt should not have variances large enough to affect the tolerance of the weighed load because a material load seldom fully captures a complete revolution of the belt and is not able to use the same averaging process that occurs during the stability tests.

Different interpretations exist over the true value of three scale divisions. The addition of the "±" symbol will ensure that all officials and commercial operators are reading, interpreting, and applying the requirement consistently-.

The Southern Weights and Measures Association recommends the proposal as written.

The Committee received additional industry support for me proposal as written. The Committee recognizes that the proposal is the result of work by the Belt-Conveyor Scale Technical Seminar representatives, the NIST Technical Advisor to the Seminar, and the WWMA. After hearing only favorable comments, the Committee made the proposal a voting item.

Source: Western Weights and Measures Association (WWMA) Recommendation: Modify paragraph T.3.1.1. as follows:

T.3.1.1. Effect on Zero-Load Balance. - The zero-load indication shall not change by more than 4#? 0.035 % of the rated capacity- of the scale (without the belt) for a change in temperature of 10 °C (18 °F) at a rate not to exceed 5 CC (9 "F) per hour. (Amended 2004)

Discussion: The current 0.07 % tolerance for change in the zero-load indication wras originally added in 1986 to paragraph T.3.1.1. to ensure consistency between NIST Handbook 44 and R 76 Non-Automatic Weighing Instruments. The 0.07 value wras recognized prior to the 1994 edition of R 50 Continuous Totalizing Automatic Weighing Instrument, which unlike the 19E0 edition of R 50 it superceded, does include influence factor testing.

The proposal amends paragraph T.3.1.1. to reduce the allowable variation regarding temperature effect on zero-load balance to harmonize the requirements with OLML R 50. The appropriate tolerance value for a belt-conveyor scale is 0.035 %. Modification of the tolerance would require reevaluation of existing data for devices with "Active" NTEP Certificates of Conformance to ensure those scales meet the more stringent tolerance

The WWMA heard comments in support of this item from a manufacturer and user.

The WWMA and Southern Weights and Measures Association support the proposal as written. The WWMA acknowledges the proposal is a retroactive requirement. The WWMA agreed that the proposal may require a reevaluation of existing data for devices with "Active" Certificates of Conformance

The Committee received additional industry support for the proposal as written. The Committee recognizes that the proposal is the result of work by the Belt-Conveyor Scale Technical Seminar representatives, the NIST Technical Advisor to the Seminar, and the WWMA. Hearing no opposition, the Committee made the proposal a voting item.

Source: Western Weights and Measures Association (WWMA)

Recommendation: Modify paragraph UR.2.2.(b) as follows:

UR.2.2. Conveyor Installation

Source: Western Weights and Measures Association (WWMA)

Recommendation: Amend paragraph UR.3 2.(b) as follows:

UR.3.2. Maintenance. - Belt-conveyor scales and idlers shall be maintained and serviced in accordance with manufacturer's instructions and the following:

Source: Carryover Item 322-1. This item originated from the Northeastern Weights and Measures Association (NEWMA) and first appeared on the Committee's 2002 agenda.

Recommendation: Delete paragraphs T.I.4., T.2., T.2.1. T.3.2. and T 3.3 as follows:

4eeee-e ees ee e eee e e ee e e e e ses eeeee eeee ee

s-----s

s

-eeeses-e ee ee ee e e ee ee e e e seelew.

ss-s

ese-e ee ee se es

Renumber paragraph T.3. and renumber and modify7 T.3.1. as follows:

T.3.2.. Basic Tolerance Values.

T.3.2_.l. Acceptance Tolerance. -The basic acceptance tolerance shall be one-half the basic maintenance tolerance but never less than 1 division.

Add new paragraphs T.2.2., T.2.3.. and T.2.3.1. and Table 1 and Table 2 as follows:

T.2.2. General. - The tolerance applicable to devices not marked with an accuracy class shall have the tolerances applied as specified in Table 1. below.

tolerances additional time to compare data and come to an amendable and appropriate solution for ABWS tolerances. A USNWG should be given serious consideration as a possible forum to work on suitable ABWS tolerances.

For more background information, refer to the 2002 and 2003 S&T Final Report.

Source: Carryover Item 324-1. (This item originated from the Southern Weights and Measures Association (SWMA) and first appeared on the Committee's 2002 agenda.)

Recommendation: Change the status of the Automatic Weighing Systems Code from tentative to permanent

Discussion: Smce 2002. the Committee considered a proposal to change the status of the Automatic Weighing Systems (AWS) Code from tentative to permanent to provide requnements that can be enforced by weights and measures officials. The item was maintained as an information item to provide time for the AWS Working Group to resolve issues with the limits on units of measurement, inconsistencies in the text, and laboratory tests. The Committee recognized that, although the AWS Working Group addressed many issues, industry still has concerns about devices mat comply with XIST Handbook 44. but generate packages that do not meet NIST Handbook 133 requuiements for net content.

At its September 2003 Technical Conference, the WWMA heard comments from manufacturers that continue to oppose changing the current status of the tentative code because of allowable device errors permitted in Handbook 44 that may present mconsistencies with package lot requirements in Handbooks 130 and 133. A scale that complies with Handbook 44 accuracy requnements, when used for packaging, may produce package lots that do not meet allowable variance restrictions under Handbook 133. The manufacturers recommended further work by the AWS Workmg Group to resolve the remaining issues. The WWMA considered a proposal to amend the application of the AWS code exclusively to automatic weigh-labelers used in USDA facilities, but concluded that this proposed solution Avould not eliminate the concerns about packages checked at the pomt-of-pack. The WWMA recommended that this item remain informational.

The Scale Manufacturers Association (SMA) supports the WWMA recommendation to keep the proposal an information item.

During the January7 2004 Interim Meeting, the Committee reviewed a proposal to amend the AWS Code that included modifications recommended by the AWS Working Group as well as language that addresses manufacturers concerns expressed at the WWMA Technical Conference. Manufacturers indicated that with minor changes to this alternate proposal the AWS Code is ready for permanent status. The Committee agreed that the alternate proposal should also be part of tins proposal to change the code status to permanent. The alternate proposal to modify the AWS Code is included in Appendix B. The Committee recognized that the AWS Workmg Group must be balloted on modifications recommended by manufacturers. The Committee asked that the NIST Technical Advisor to the AWS Working Group report on the results of the work group's ballot and any further modifications beyond editorial changes become separate voting items at the July 2004 NCWM Annual Meeting.

For more background information, refer to the 2002 and 2003 S&T Fmal Report.

Source: Carryover Item 330-1. (This item originated from the National Type Evaluation Technical Committee Measuring Sector and first appeared on the Committee's 2003 agenda.)

Recommendation: Add a new paragraph to X1ST Handbook 44, Section 3.30. Liquid-Measuring Devices S.2.2.1. Multiple Measuring Elements with a Single Provision for Sealing as follows:

Appendix B Item 324-1: Tentative Status of the Automatic Weighing Systems Code

Section 2.24. Automatic Weighing Systems

The status of Section 2.24. Automatic Weighing Systems was changed from tentative to permanent in Jnlv 2004 and will go into effect on Janiiarv 1, 2005.

NTEP has been evaluating devices under the provisions of this code since it was added to Handbook 44 in 1995. In addition, a number of weights and measures jurisdictions as well as organizations such as I"SPA have implemented this code using the provisions of General Code Paragraph G-A.3. - Special and In classified Equipment. It is recommended that the jurisdictions who have not implemented this code, work with industry to expedite implementation its use.

Source: NIST Weights and Measures Division

Recommendation: Modify NIST Handbook 44, Section 3.30. Liquid-Measuring Devices S.4.4.2. Location of Marking Information; Retail Motor-Fuel Dispensers (RMFD) as follows:

S.4.4.2. Location of Marking Information; Retail Motor-Fuel Dispensers. - The required marking information in the General Code, Paragraph G-S.l. shall appear as follows:

Source: Multiple Dimension Measuring Devices Working Group

Recommendation: Modify Handbook 44 Section 5.58. Multiple Dimension Measunng Devices, paragraph S.1.6., delete the current Table S.1.6. and replace it with a new Table S.1.6.: and a add new paragraph UR. 5. and new Table UR.5. as follows:

Note 7

Source: Multiple Dimension Measuring Devices Working (MDMD) Group

Recommendation: Modify Handbook 44 Section 5.58. Multiple Dimension Measuring Devices paragraph S.1.8. and Note 7 of Table SAl.b. as follows:

Source: Multiple Dimension Measuring Devices Working Group

Recommendation: Modify Handbook 44 5 58 Multiple Dunension Measuring Devices, paragraph S.3. as follows, and add a definition for the term "Measurement Field.'"

Source: Multiple Dimension Measuring Devices Working Group

Recommendation: Modify Handbook 44 Section. 5.58. Multiple Dimension Measuring Devices, by adding a new paragraph XI 4.1. Test Objects and a definition for the term "Test Objects'" as follows:

Source: Multiple Dimension Measuring Devices (MDMD) Working Group

Recommendation: Modify Handbook 44 Section 5.58. Multiple Dimension Measuring Devices, paragraph T.3. Tolerance Values as follows:

Current Power Supply

Source: Multiple Dimension Measuring Devices (MDMD)Working Group

Recommendation: Modify Handbook 44 Section 5.58. Multiple Dimension. Measuring Devices, paragraph T.5.2. Power Supply Voltage, add new paragraphs T.5.2.1. Alternating Current Power Supply and T.5.2.2. Direct Current Power Supply, as follows and remove paragraph. T.7. Electric Power Supply.

Source: Carryover Item 358-1. (This item originated from the Southern Weights and Measures Association (SWMA) and first appeared on the Committee's 2002 agenda.)

Recommend a Hon: Change the status of the Multiple Dimension Measuring Devices Code (MDMD) from tentative to permanent.

At its October 2003 Meeting, the SWMA agreed to forward a recommendation to the NCWM S&T Committee that this item be withdrawn from its agenda.

At the 2004 NCWM Interim Meeting, the Meter Manufacturers Association indicated support for this item. A large manufacturer of retail motor-fuel dispensers agreed with the CWMA and SWMA that this item should be withdrawn. The S&T Committee also agreed with the CWMA and SWMA and decided to withdraw Item 330-4 from the S&T Committee Agenda for the 2004 NCWM Annual Meeting in July.

Source: Multiple Dimension Measuring Devices Working Group

Recommendation: Modify Handbook 44 Section 5.58. Multiple Dimension Measuring Devices, by adding a new paragraph N.l .4.1 Test Objects and a definition for the term "Test Objects'" as follows:

N.l.4.1 Test Objects. - Verification of devices may be conducted using appropriate test objects of various sizes and of stable dimensions. Test object dimensions must be known to an expanded uncertainty (coverage factor k =2) of not more than one-third of the applicable device tolerance. The dimensions shall also be checked to the same uncertainty when used at the extreme values of the influence factors.