VI 

E 

MD 

2022 

State Laboratory Program 

Workload Survey 

Published by the NCSL International Legal Metrology Committee 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 1 of 167 
Foreword 

Greetings from North Carolina! 

We are gearing up to publish the next State Lab survey, and I asked Steven if I could write the 

foreword for it. 

Steven and I worked together for years to produce this biennial survey, which we feel is very 

beneficial to the State Laboratory Program. We have solicited help (and thank you to all who 

responded!) but haven’t done as well as we would have liked in accepting the offers. That is on 

us, and we promise to improve in that area. Nonetheless, we are proud of the survey and excited 

to see how this next version will be used. In the past, Metrologists have used it for raises, fee 

increases, budget expansion, and scope expansion. 

I started in the NC Standards Laboratory in June 1993 (when I was just a toddler, keep in mind). 

I have been around for all of the previous 14 surveys, and in that time have also seen some of the 

greatest minds in the field retire and pass the mantle on to the next generation. I have also seen 

the field grow and improve with the help of NIST OWM training, collaboration between 

RMAPs, and the technical capabilities of our equipment. 

This, the 15th, is my final survey. I plan to retire in early 2024, and although I will miss working 

directly with you on the survey and other metrology efforts, I am excited Lisa Corn of Texas has 

been nominated for the Legal Metrology Chairman of Committee 156 in the Industrial Programs 

of NCSLI. Lisa is smart, great to work with, very active on a national level, and I am grateful 

she will keep the survey alive. 

But wait- you can’t get rid of me that easily! I plan on keeping up with the field of legal 

metrology, and you all know I don’t shy away from talking! If I can ever be of any assistance, 

please message me on my personal cell phone. I plan to spend time between the ocean and 

mountains (and DeAnn’s Honey Do List), so it may take a minute for me to respond, but I will 

do my best to get back with you. 

Well, I’ve got a heavy scale truck arriving shortly, so I’m off to smile at my balances. Enjoy the 

rest of your week and thank you in advance for your time on this and other surveys moving 

forward! 

Sincerely and all the best, 

Van Hyder 

(919) 656-6898 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 2 of 167 
Table of Contents 

Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................................11 

Objectives and History .................................................................................................................11 

Collection, Presentation, and Analysis of Data: ...........................................................................13 

Impact and Leveraging of NIST Calibrations ................................................................................15 

(Information provided by NIST/OWM) .........................................................................................15 

NIST Office of Weights and Measures (OWM) .............................................................................18 

Laboratory Metrology Program Overview ...................................................................................18 

Four Interrelated Program Areas............................................................................................................18 

Program Measures: ................................................................................................................................19 

Program Area Descriptions.....................................................................................................................19 

Laboratory Recognition .........................................................................................................19 

Laboratory Scoring Model .....................................................................................................20 

Scoring Model Trends.............................................................................................................................22 

Laboratory Accreditation........................................................................................................................23 

Training...................................................................................................................................................24 

Proficiency Testing..................................................................................................................................28 

Documentary Standards.........................................................................................................................29 

Program References ...............................................................................................................................29 

Internal Processes and Strategic Assessments .......................................................................................31 

Measuring Results ..................................................................................................................................32 

Participants ..................................................................................................................................33 

Laboratory Survey Participation ...................................................................................................37 

Grand Total ..................................................................................................................................39 

Mass.............................................................................................................................................41 

Mass Echelon I ........................................................................................................................................43 

Mass Echelon II .......................................................................................................................................45 

Mass Echelon III ......................................................................................................................................47 

Weight Carts ...........................................................................................................................................49 

Railroad Test Cars ........................................................................................................................51 

Railroad Specific Weight Carts .....................................................................................................53 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 3 of 167 
 

Length ..........................................................................................................................................55 

Steel Tape Measures...............................................................................................................................56 

Rigid Rules...............................................................................................................................................58 

Volume .........................................................................................................................................60 

Glassware ...............................................................................................................................................61 

Test Measures (≤5 gallon) 

................................................................................................................................................................64 

Provers (> 5 gallon and ≤ 100 gallon)......................................................................................................67 

Provers (> 100 gallon).............................................................................................................................70 

Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) Provers..................................................................................................73 

Dynamic Small Volume Provers (SVP).....................................................................................................75 

Small Volume Provers, Compact Displacement Provers, and Closed Loop Provers ...............................76 

Temperature ................................................................................................................................78 

Frequency.....................................................................................................................................80 

Timing Devices .............................................................................................................................82 

Wheel Load Weighers ..................................................................................................................84 

Electric Watt-hour Meters (NEW 2022) .......................................................................................86 

Lottery Balls..................................................................................................................................88 

Summary Other Tests...................................................................................................................90 

Laboratory Fees............................................................................................................................91 

Minimum Laboratory Fees......................................................................................................................95 

Mass Echelon I ........................................................................................................................................97 

Mass Echelon II .......................................................................................................................................99 

Mass Echelon III (31 lb kits) ..................................................................................................................101 

Mass Echelon III (50 lb Test Weights)...................................................................................................103 

Mass Echelon III (1000 lb Test Weights)...............................................................................................105 

5,000 lb Weight Cart.............................................................................................................................107 

Scale Truck Calibration Class F..............................................................................................................109 

Length 100 ft Steel Tape.......................................................................................................................111 

5 gallon test measures – Volume Transfer ...........................................................................................113 

5 gallon test measure – Gravimetric.....................................................................................................115 

100 gallon field standard prover – Volume Transfer............................................................................117 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 4 of 167 
 

 

 

 

100 gallon field standard prover- Gravimetric......................................................................................119 

100 gallon field standard prover LPG – Volume Transfer.....................................................................121 

20 Gallon Dynamic Small Volume Prover (SVP) – Volume Transfer .....................................................123 

Metrology Positions/Title and Salaries ......................................................................................124 

SLP Metrology Salaries – Standardized Title Comparison ..........................................................127 

State Laboratory Program Metrologists ....................................................................................132 

State Laboratory Program/Metrology Experience .....................................................................138 

Acknowledgment of Calibration Certificates Matrix ..................................................................142 

Supplementary Questions ..........................................................................................................144 

Comments – Survey Section 1 to 6 .............................................................................................156 

Comments Section 7...................................................................................................................157 

Comments – Survey Sections 8 to 32..........................................................................................158 

General Survey Comments.........................................................................................................159 

2022 Survey Form.......................................................................................................................160 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 5 of 167 
 

 

Figure 1. NIST total calibrations of State laboratories artifacts by year.......................................15 

Figure 4. Laboratory Recognition by OWM (2022 December). ...................................................20 

Figure 5. Laboratory Scoring Model (2022 December)................................................................22 

Figure 2. NIST total calibrations of State laboratories artifacts by measurement area.................16 

Figure 3. Laboratory Metrology Program Areas...........................................................................18 

Figure 6. NVLAP Accreditation of State W&M Laboratories......................................................24 

Figure 7. Regional Measurement Assurance Program (RMAP) Groups. .....................................25 

Figure 8 Laboratory Metrology Students Trained for 2012 through 2022....................................27 

Figure 9. Laboratory Metrology Training Events for 2012 through 2022. ...................................27 

Figure 10. Proficiency Testing Success Rates (2012 to 2022)......................................................28 

Figure 11: Historical survey titles and the year represented by each. ...........................................34 

Figure 12: Total of all measurements reported..............................................................................40 

Figure 13: Mass Echelon I tests.....................................................................................................44 

Figure 14: Mass Echelon II tests. ..................................................................................................46 

Figure 15: Mass Echelon III tests..................................................................................................48 

Figure 16: Weight Cart tests..........................................................................................................50 

Figure 17: Railroad Test Car tests. ................................................................................................52 

Figure 18: Railroad Specific Weight Cart tests.............................................................................54 

Figure 19: Tape Measure tests.......................................................................................................57 

Figure 20: Rigid rule tests. ............................................................................................................59 

Figure 21: Glassware calibrations, volume transfer method .........................................................62 

Figure 22: Glassware calibrations, gravimetric method................................................................63 

Figure 23: Test Measure tests (≤5 gallon), volume transfer..........................................................65 

Figure 24: Test Measure tests (≤5 gallon), gravimetric.................................................................66 

Figure 25: Prover (≥5 gal. and < 100 gal.) tests, volume transfer.................................................68 

Figure 26: Prover (≥5 gal. and < 100 gal.) tests, gravimetric........................................................69 

Figure 27: Prover (>100 gal.) tests, volume transfer.....................................................................71 

Figure 28: Prover (>100 gal.) tests, gravimetric............................................................................72 

Figure 29: LPG Prover tests, volume transfer...............................................................................74 

Figure 30: Small Volume, Compact Displacement, and Closed Loop prover tests......................77 

Figure 31: Temperature standard tests. .........................................................................................79 

Figure 32: Frequency standard tests..............................................................................................81 

Figure 33: Timing device tests ......................................................................................................83 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 6 of 167 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 34: Wheel load weigher test...............................................................................................85 

Figure 35: Electric Watt-hour Meters............................................................................................87 

Figure 36 Lottery Ball tests ...........................................................................................................89 

Figure 37: Minimum laboratory fees charged. Calibration time is the minimum calibration time 

upon which charges are based. ......................................................................................................96 

Figure 38: Fees charge for calibrating a precision weight kit containing 21 individual weights 

ranging from 100 g to 1 mg to ASTM Class 0 tolerances using Echelon I testing techniques.....98 

Figure 39: Fees charge for calibrating a precision weight kit containing 21 individual weights 

ranging from 100 g to 1 mg to ASTM Class 2 tolerances using Echelon II testing techniques..100 

Figure 40: Fees charged for testing a 31 lb weight kit containing 22 pieces to NIST HB 105-1 

Class F tolerances using mass echelon III procedures. ...............................................................102 

Figure 41: Fees charged for testing a set of 20 50 lb cast iron pipe-handle style test weights to 

NIST HB 105-1 Class F tolerances using mass echelon III procedures. 5 adjustments were 

assumed. ......................................................................................................................................104 

Figure 42: Fees charged for testing a set of 24 1,000 lb cast iron test weights to NIST HB 105-1 

Class F tolerances using mass Echelon III procedures. 5 adjustments were assumed. ..............106 

Figure 43: Fees charged for testing a 5,000 lb weight cart according to NIST HB 105-8 

tolerances using mass Echelon III procedures.............................................................................108 

Figure 44: Fees charged for testing a typical scale truck according to mass Echelon III 

procedures....................................................................................................................................110 

Figure 45: Fees charged for testing a steel 100 ft tape. ...............................................................112 

Figure 46: Fees charged for testing a 5 gallon test measure via volume transfer technique.......114 

Figure 47 Fees charged for gravimetrically testing a 5 gallon test measure. ..............................116 

Figure 48: Fees charged for testing a 100 gallon field standard prover via volume transfer 

technique......................................................................................................................................118 

Figure 49: Fees charged for gravimetrically testing a 100 gallon field standard steel prover. ...120 

Figure 50: Fees charged for testing a 100 gallon LPG prover. ...................................................122 

Figure 51: Salaries for Laboratory Supervisors...........................................................................128 

Figure 52: Salary ranges for Metrology/Calibration Engineers ..................................................129 

Figure 53: Salary ranges for Metrology/Calibration Technicians...............................................130 

Figure 54: Salary ranges for Support Staff..................................................................................131 

Figure 55: Retirement Eligibility Histogram. Of the 110 metrologists, 96 reported the year they 

would be eligible for full retirement. This may not reflect when any one person plans to leave 

the SLP. .......................................................................................................................................137 

Figure 56: SLP metrologists ranked by years of experience (cont). Blue indicates experience in 

the SLP, Red indicates other metrology experience....................................................................141 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 7 of 167 
 

 

Table 1: Historical survey titles and the year represented by each. ..............................................11 

Table 2. Laboratory Scoring Model Trends. .................................................................................23 

Table 3. Program Area Reference Documents. .............................................................................29 

Table 4: (beginning next page) Listing of the SLP laboratories including location, age, size, and 

total number of customers served as of the 2022 calendar year....................................................34 

Table 5: Listing of SLP member laboratories and their participation status in previous surveys 

(blanks indicate non-participation). ** indicates an inactive lab, empty cells indicates no 

response to the survey.. .................................................................................................................38 

Table 6: Summary of all measurements reported on prior surveys...............................................39 

Table 7: Summary of echelon I tests reported on previous surveys..............................................43 

Table 8: Echelon II tests reported on previous surveys.................................................................45 

Table 9: Echelon III tests reported on previous surveys. ..............................................................47 

Table 10: Weight Cart tests reported on previous surveys............................................................49 

Table 11: Railroad Test Car tests reported on previous surveys. ..................................................51 

Table 12: Railroad Specific Weight Carts tests reported on previous surveys. ............................53 

Table 13: Tape measure tests reported on previous surveys. ........................................................56 

Table 14: Rigid rule tests reported in previous surveys. ...............................................................58 

Table 15: Glassware calibrations from previous surveys..............................................................61 

Table 16: Test Measure (5 ≤ gal.) volume tests from previous surveys........................................64 

Table 17: Provers (>5 gal. and ≤ 100 gal.) volume tests from previous surveys. .........................67 

Table 18: Provers (> 100 gal.) tests from previous surveys. .........................................................70 

Table 19: LPG Prover volume tests from previous surveys..........................................................73 

Table 20: SVP tests from previous surveys...................................................................................75 

Table 21: Small Volume, Compact Displacement, and Closed Loop prover tests. ......................76 

Table 22: Temperature standard tests from previous surveys. ......................................................78 

Table 23: Frequency standard tests from previous surveys...........................................................80 

Table 24: Timing devices tests from previous surveys .................................................................82 

Table 25: Wheel load weigher tests from previous surveys..........................................................84 

Table 26: Timing devices tests from previous surveys .................................................................86 

Table 27: Lottery balls tests from previous surveys......................................................................88 

Table 28: Other tests reported by the participating laboratories ...................................................90 

Table 29: Average fee charged for Echelon I mass testing. ..........................................................97 

Table 30: Average fee charged for Echelon II mass testing..........................................................99 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 8 of 167 
 

 

 

Table 31: Average fee charged for Echelon III mass testing. .....................................................101 

Table 32: Average fee charged for testing 20 50 lb cast iron pipe-handle test weights, with 5 

adjustments. .................................................................................................................................103 

Table 33: Average fee charged for testing 24 1,000 lb cast iron test weights, with 5 adjustments 

.....................................................................................................................................................105 

Table 34: Average fee charged for a 5,000 lb weight cart testing...............................................107 

Table 35: Average fee charged for typical scale truck testing. ...................................................109 

Table 36: Average fee charged for typical 19 point testing of a 100 ft steel tape.......................111 

Table 37: Average fee charged for testing of a 5 gallon field test measure via volume transfer. 

.....................................................................................................................................................113 

Table 38: Average fee charged for testing of a 5 gallon field test measure via gravimetric 

method. ........................................................................................................................................115 

Table 39: Average fee charged for testing of a 100 gallon field standard prover via volume 

transfer.........................................................................................................................................117 

Table 40: Average fee charged for testing of a 100 gallon field test standard prover via 

gravimetric method......................................................................................................................119 

Table 41: Average fees charged for the testing of a 100 gallon LPG prover from via volume 

transfer.........................................................................................................................................121 

Table 42: Average fee charged for testing a SVP via volume transfer from 2006 through 2014. 

.....................................................................................................................................................123 

Table 43: Metrologist position titles and salary ranges...............................................................126 

Table 44: SLP metrologist compensation summary by standardized job titles. Calculations are 

rounded to the dollar....................................................................................................................127 

Table 45: Listing of SLP metrologists as of 2022. Each metrologist was asked to indicate which 

of the listed calibrations they are authorized to perform (“F” = Full authority, “N” = Not 

authorized, “P” = partial or limited authority), provide what year they are eligible for retirement, 

and to provide a measure of their metrology experience.............................................................136 

Table 46: 110 Metrologists reporting. Metrologists were asked to indicate which type of 

calibrations they are authorized to perform on behalf of their respective laboratories. ..............137 

Table 47: Comparison matrix summarizing metrology experience reported by metrologists. ..138 

Table 48: Calibration Certificate acceptance matrix. ..................................................................143 

Table 49: Summary of responses to supplementary questions in section 1. ...............................145 

Table 50: Summary of responses to supplementary questions in section 1. ...............................148 

Table 51: Responses to supplementary questions #1-#10 in section 2 .......................................150 

Table 52: Telecommuting options...............................................................................................151 

Table 53: Laboratory completed renovations..............................................................................152 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 9 of 167 
 

 

 

153

154

155

156

157

158

159

Table 54: Laboratory completed improvements.......................................................................... 

Table 55: Laboratory planned renovations.................................................................................. 

Table 56: Laboratory planned improvements.............................................................................. 

Table 57: Comments provided by respondents regarding sections 1 through 6 of the survey.... 

Table 58: Comments provided by respondents regarding section 7 of the survey...................... 

Table 59: Comments provided by respondents regarding section 8 through 31 of the survey. .. 

Table 60: General comments provided by respondents of the workload survey......................... 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 10 of 167 
 

 

Acknowledgements 

This report was prepared with the help of the members of the NCSL International Committee 

156 - Legal Metrology Committee. Special thanks must be given to all the metrology 

professionals working in the State Laboratory Program who have generously given their time to 

complete the 2022 State Program Workload Survey thus providing the data essential to make this 

report possible. Thanks also go to the staff of the National Institute of Standards and 

Technology, Office of Weights and Measures who have provided considerable support in 

collecting data and preparing and publishing this report. 

It is our sincere hope that this biannual report continues to be a valuable resource to the State 

Laboratory Program laboratories and to those who use the service that these laboratories provide. 

Objectives and History 

Historically there has been inconsistency between survey titles and the year which data 

represents. Starting in 2008 the survey team adopted a convention of naming the report based 

upon the year which the data represents rather than the year the report was published. For 

example, the report titled “2008 State Laboratory Program Workload Survey" represents data 

collected during the 2008 calendar year. Table 1 correlates historical workload surveys to the 

year(s) during which the data was collected. 

Year 

Survey Title represented 

1996 State Laboratory Program Workload Survey 1996 

1999 State Laboratory Program Workload Survey 1998 

2000 State Laboratory Program Workload Survey 1999 

2001 State Laboratory Program Workload Survey 2000 

2003 State Laboratory Program Workload Survey 2002 

2005 State Laboratory Program Workload Survey 2004 

2005 & 2006 State Laboratory Program Workload Survey 2005&2006 

2008 State Laboratory Program Workload Survey 2008 

2010 State Laboratory Program Workload Survey 2010 

2012 State Laboratory Program Workload Survey 2012 

2014 State Laboratory Program Workload Survey 2014 

2016 State Laboratory Program Workload Survey 2016 

2018 State Laboratory Program Workload Survey 2018 

2020 State Laboratory Program Workload Survey 2020 

2022 State Laboratory Program Workload Survey 2022 

Table 1: Historical survey titles and the year represented by each. 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 11 of 167 
 

In 1996, the National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM) Metrology Subcommittee 

surveyed the State Laboratory participants to quantify the workload of the State Laboratory 

Program (SLP) and document its impact on the United States economy. From the survey 

analysis, it was clear that the workload statistics were dynamic and only provided a snapshot of 

the workload at the time. Therefore, the Metrology Subcommittee circulated a revised survey 

April 16, 1999 to update program statistics and to investigate trends in the National workload. 

The subcommittee has since recommended that the survey be conducted on a regular basis and 

that the core survey be kept standardized in order for state labs to develop databases that could 

automatically generate the information for the survey. 

Survey data is used not only to quantify the impact of the SLP on the United States economy, but 

also to plan and maximize its effectiveness. Training and inter-laboratory comparisons are 

designed to meet real needs of the workload. Ultimately, the survey information increases the 

efficiency of the entire SLP and maximize the benefits to the national economy. The results of 

previous surveys have been used extensively at NIST to gain support and attention for the State 

Laboratories and have been helpful in putting together budget proposals. The information from 

the survey is also useful in identifying the diversities of the workload on a national level. 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 12 of 167 
Collection, Presentation, and Analysis of Data: 

SLP laboratories submitted their data using standardized Microsoft Excel spreadsheets. 

The data was copied from each completed survey forms into a master workbook for analysis. 

The copy process is automated using Excel macros to expedite the process and to minimize the 

potential for random data transcription errors. 

The overall survey is presented in the following order; 

1. The NIST Office of Weights and Measures (OWM) provides an initial report of workload 

data from the NIST Measurement Services Division summarizing calibration work done 

for State laboratories covering a range of measurements including mass, volume, 

temperature, pressure, etc. This report generally presents the leveraging effect that the 

SLP provides for the NIST Measurement Services Division. The NIST report begins on 

page 15. 

2. The NIST OWM provides an overview of the SLP which; 

● details program metrics NIST OWM uses to track member laboratories, 

● reports on the accreditation status of each of the member laboratories, 

● reports on training provided by NIST OWM for the member laboratories, 

● reports on proficiency testing conducted within the SLP, 

● reports on documentary standards used by the SLP, 

● details each member laboratory’s measurement scope as recognized by NIST 

OWM. 

3. Individual laboratories participating in the survey are identified by name location, age, 

size, and number of customers served beginning on page 33. Current contact information 

for the individual SLP laboratories and their NIST OWM Certificate of Measurement 

Traceability can be found on the NIST Office of Weights and Measures website: https:// 

www.nist.gov/pml/owm 

4. Each laboratory’s prior survey participation in previous surveys is reported beginning on 

page 38. 

5. The SLP workload portion of the survey is broken down into four broad measurement 

categories; mass, length, volume, and other. Each category is further subdivided into 

three sub-categories identifying the type of customer for whom measurements are 

performed; laboratory, weights and measures enforcement, and external. 

The data is presented in the form of both choropleth maps, color coded to illustrate the 

distribution of work across the entire SLP, and bar charts, ordered from high to low 

displaying the number of tests performed by each member laboratory. Summary pie 

graphs are included to report totals across the entire SLP by customer type. 

Summary data from previous workload surveys are included for each measurement 

category covered in this survey for comparison purposes. Mass testing data begins on 

page 41, Length on page 55, Volume on page 60, and all other tests on page 78. 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 13 of 167 
 

6. A report of fees charged for the various services provided by each member lab begins on 

page 91. Fee estimates for a range of routine measurement services are presented using 

bar graphs detailing individual laboratory fee estimates. Historical averages are included 

for each measurement service where the data is available. 

7. A report of laboratory staffing begins on page 124. This report includes; 

● Position titles; 

● Salary ranges; and 

● Detailed list of metrologists employed in the SLP at the time of the survey. The 

data includes specific calibration authorizations, experience in years, and the 

approximate dates each person is eligible for full retirement. 

8. Each laboratory is asked to identify from whom they will accept calibration certificates 

on page 142. Member laboratories often have a regulatory duty with respect to service 

personnel who are normally required to submit measurement equipment for calibration 

on a regular basis. The acceptance matrix identifies from whom a service company can 

purchase a calibration certificate which will then be given legal recognition within that 

member laboratory’s jurisdiction. 

9. Each year the survey team prepares a section of supplementary questions which, unlike 

the previous sections, changes significantly from year to year. This section begins on 

page 144. 

10. Survey participants are invited to add comments to help clarify their responses to each of 

the survey questions. Survey comments are listed in this report beginning on page 156. 

11. A reprint of the 2022 survey begins on page 160. 

Additional Comments: 

Caution should be used when comparing one state’s data with data to another. It was determined 

in the 1996 survey that laboratory workload is influenced by industrial and population densities 

that vary by geographical location. Thus, low numbers for a lab may simply reflect low local 

demand for a laboratory’s service. Variance in the number of devices tested, staffing, and 

facilities between individual laboratories are normal and cannot legitimately be used to rate the 

quality of any laboratory program. 

No attempt was made to analyze the change in the workload of individual laboratories due to 

cyclic nature of the work. For example, a member laboratory may measure their volumetric 

glassware on a two-year calibration interval with the majority of these standards calibrated in 

sync with each other. The consequence being that few are tested in the following twelve-month 

period. This does not indicate that the workload is decreasing, it is just a reflection of the 

calibration interval assigned to those standards. 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 14 of 167 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Calibrations by Vear 

20 

"'C 

a, 

..., 18 

~ 

.c 

16 

n, 14 

u 12 VI 

E 

a, 

10 

:::: 8 

- I 0 6 I I I ... 

I a, 4 

.c I E 2 ::J 

z 0 

0 M N M "'" ll1 I.Cl r-- 00 0) 0 M N M "'" ll1 I.Cl r-- 00 0) 0 M N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M M M M M M M M M M N N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 

Year 

■ Mass ■ Length ■ Volume ■ Temperature ■ Pressure ■ Force ■ Humidity ■ Resistor ■ Flow 

Impact and Leveraging of NIST Calibrations 

(Information provided by NIST/OWM) 

Calibration records for State laboratories were obtained from the NIST Measurement Services from 2000 

through 2022. One of the measures of impact of NIST calibrations is to quantify the number and impact of 

downstream calibrations. How many additional calibrations are made by other laboratories using these 

calibrations? The answer to this question is a measure of the national impact of NIST calibration services 

and training. This leveraging of NIST calibrations to industry by the State weights and measures 

laboratories contributes greatly to the economy of the United States. 

Figure 1. NIST total calibrations of State laboratories artifacts by year 

Data in Figure 1 includes measurements and calibrations performed at NIST in traditional and nontraditional measurement areas (i.e., those outside of mass, length, and volume). 

State weights and measures laboratories account for a small portion of NIST’s annual calibrations. Given 

data obtained in the Laboratory Program surveys in the 1990’s, typically about half of the customer 

workload in the State laboratories is for industry and other government agencies (i.e., not weights and 

measures enforcement efforts). Many of these customers are the same customers who in other countries 

must obtain calibrations from a National Metrology Institute (NMI) such as NIST. 

Economic statistics indicate that weights and measures enforcement, supported by these leveraged State 

weights and measures laboratory calibrations, affects more than half of the $25.46 trillion (2022) Gross 

Domestic Product (GDP). Since nearly half of the State weights and measures laboratory workload does 

not affect weights and measures enforcement, the economic impact of these calibrations influences virtually 

all of the U.S. GDP. Accurate measurements ensure product quality for practically every product 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 15 of 167 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Calibrations from 2000 to 2022 

180 

162 

"C 160 Qj 

+-' 

"' ... 140 

..c 

u "' 120 

II) 

100 E 

Qj 

:!: 80 

0 

... 60 

Qj 

..c 40 E 

::I 18 

z 20 

-

8 

1 1 1 1 0 

0 

Measurement 

-

Area 

■ Mass ■ Length ■ Volume Temperature ■ Pressure ■ Force ■ Humidity ■ Resistor ■ Flow 

manufactured, are required for other regulatory functions (EPA, FDA, DOD, DOE, DOT), and are requisite 

for international trade. 

Figure 2. NIST total calibrations of State laboratories artifacts by measurement area 

One question that might be asked in looking at Figure 2 of leveraging data is “are enough calibrations being 

obtained from NIST by the States?” One responsibility of the NIST Office of Weights and Measures 

(OWM) is to coordinate the Laboratory Metrology Program. Each state laboratory that is recognized by 

OWM or accredited by NVLAP is required to have calibrations from acceptable sources, which are most 

often from NIST or other accredited laboratories. OWM Recognition or NVLAP Accreditation ensures that 

enough calibrations are obtained from NIST by the State weights and measures laboratories and that the 

State metrologists are trained adequately. Furthermore, metrologists must prove their 

competency/proficiency and have specified calibration intervals for laboratory standards to ensure the 

ongoing ability to provide calibration results that are traceable to SI units or international and national 

standards. The number one corrective action following failed PTs/ILCs is that of obtaining updated 

calibrations for laboratory reference standards. It is estimated that better than 96 % of the laboratory 

standards are calibrated in a timely manner according to established calibration intervals. 

Metrological traceability and its assessment are required to comply with seven essential elements to ensure 

traceability to the International System of Units (SI) – typically, though not always, through NIST. The 

seven essential elements are 1) defining the measurand and realization of the measurements to the 

International System of Units (SI) 2) a documented unbroken chain of comparisons (calibrations), 3) 

documented and up to date calibration program, 4) documented and suitable measurement uncertainties, 5) 

use of documented and validated procedures, 6) demonstrated technical competence/proficiency, and 7) an 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 16 of 167 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

acceptable measurement assurance system to ensure the validity of the measurement results. In addition, 

State laboratories are required to comply with State laws regarding traceability to the SI (or as stated, to 

National Institute of Standards and Technology) and through adoption of NIST publications like NIST 

Handbook 44: Specifications, Tolerances, and Other Technical Requirements for Weighing and Measuring 

Devices - Current Edition, and NIST Handbook 130: Uniform Laws and Regulations in the Areas of Legal 

Metrology and Engine Fuel Quality - Current Edition, they also must ensure compliance of measurement 

standards to appropriate/suitable specifications and tolerances for use in legal metrology. 

Handbook 130 uniform laws allow for obtaining calibrations from suitable suppliers, as an alternative to 

direct NIST calibrations, when there is acceptable evidence of recognition and/or accreditation, suitable 

calibration and measurement capabilities (measurement, range, uncertainties) to ensure compliance with 

technical requirements of metrological traceability. 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 17 of 167 
 

 

 

Standards for Measurement Standards 

NIST Office of Weights and Measures (OWM) 

Laboratory Metrology Program Overview

One of NIST’s primary responsibilities is to ensure that uniform standards are available to 

support the nation’s measurement infrastructure. As documented in the last edition of the 

workload survey, State laboratories provide the foundation for over 305,000 calibrations as a 

critical part of the U.S. measurement infrastructure. Approximately half of these calibrations 

support commercial weights and measures with the remaining supporting measurements needed 

by industry and other government agencies. NIST and the U.S. economy depend on the accuracy, 

traceability, and defensibility of these measurement results for State programs enforcement 

purposes and to ensure fair trade. 

Four Interrelated Program Areas 

There are four key areas of responsibility in the OWM Laboratory Metrology Program in support 

of ensuring the capability of laboratories to provide traceable measurement results: Laboratory 

Recognition, Proficiency Testing, Training, and Field Standards for Weights and Measures 

documentary standards (Figure 1). Each functional area has a set of guiding documents as well as 

international documentary standards used for benchmarking to enhance program recognition and 

credibility. 

Figure 3. Laboratory Metrology Program Areas. 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 18 of 167 
 

All areas are interrelated with the other areas. For example, laboratories that are recognized often 

support the weights and measures program requirements to ensure that measurement results have 

demonstrated metrological traceability while the Handbook 105-series documentary standards 

are often required by the weights and measures program for enforcement applications. The 

laboratory recognition area is very narrow in scope and only supports weights and measures 

laboratories in the U.S. To be recognized, the laboratory must successfully complete both 

training and proficiency testing requirements, in addition to all other published requirements that 

follow the ISO/IEC 17025 standard for calibration laboratories. Training on both proficiency 

testing and laboratory recognition requirements is available. Proficiency testing is used not only 

to assess laboratory competency for recognition and accreditation but assesses the level of 

impact and application of training concepts. 

Program Measures: 

Program measures for the four areas include the following items to assess ongoing program 

improvements (or declines and areas for needed focus). Graphic examples are included in each 

section to present the association measures. 

1. Number of laboratories recognized by the Weights and Measures Division complying 

with NIST Handbook 143, Program Handbook. 

2. Laboratory Scoring Model measures changes in the national system over time with a key 

INDEX value according to elements of the Program Handbook, NIST Handbook 143. 

3. Number of laboratories accredited by NVLAP (third-party independent assessment of 

compliance to ISO/IEC 17025 criteria) to NIST Handbook 150, NVLAP Program 

Handbook. 

4. Number of staff completing training requirements as noted in NIST Handbook 143, 

Program Handbook. 

5. Percentage of acceptable/passing proficiency test results and increasing percentage of 

effective follow up action (improvement, preventive, and corrective). 

6. Updated publications. 

Program Area Descriptions 

Laboratory Recognition 

Laboratory recognition is provided for the weights and measures laboratories to help demonstrate 

evidence of metrological traceability that is required in the States and local jurisdictions. 

Handbook 130, model weights and measures laws, as adopted in the jurisdictions, states that 

weights and measures programs are required to ensure metrological traceability to the 

International System of Units (SI) normally through NIST. The latest model law indicates that 

laboratory recognition or Accreditation provides the demonstrated evidence of metrological 

traceability. Some value-added impacts of the OWM laboratory recognition over accreditation 

alone is that OWM can target specific technical areas each year when and where problems have 

been identified, as well as conduct national-level analysis to assess and consider system-wide 

needs. Annual assessments are conducted for all laboratories and periodic resources are posted 

on the NIST website related to annual assessments. Example technical assessments that have 

provided national level assessments in the past few years include facility assessments, software 

verification and validation, succession planning, measurement assurance, uncertainties, and 

metrological traceability. Identified problems provide input into the training area. The laboratory 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 19 of 167 
 

 

OWM Recognition 2022 

22: 2 yr Certificate {dark blue) 

20: 1 yr Certificate {light blue) 

13: Not Recognize/Closed {lightest blue) 

recognition program required all states to meet the requirements of the latest ISO/IEC 17025 

standard by the end of 2020. 

Figure 4. Laboratory Recognition by OWM (2022 December). 

Laboratory Scoring Model 

A laboratory scoring model was developed in 2006 and is based on assigning numerical values to 

each laboratory in several categories that correspond to NIST Handbook 143. Points are awarded 

in the following categories to each laboratory: 

• Quality Management System 

• Administrative Procedures 

• Facility 

• Equipment 

• Standards 

• Staff 

• Management Support 

• Proficiency Tests (PTs) 

• Extra Credit – Timely Submissions 

• Multipliers (NVLAP accreditation with 2-year OWM recognition, 2.5; NVLAP accreditation 

with 1 year OWM recognition, 2.25; OWM, 2 year recognition, 2; OWM, 1 year recognition, 

1.5; OWM, 1 year conditional recognition, 1; No recognition, 0.5; Lab Closed, 0). 

The model is intended to provide a quality index to the overall laboratory program. The scoring 

model was updated in 2008 based on laboratory feedback and the first two years of use. The 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 20 of 167 
 

scoring model is used internally at NIST to identify where resources and efforts will be allocated. 

The current “top score” possible (success goal) is 275. Laboratories that are fully successful with 

OWM 2-year Recognition generally score between 140 and 220. 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 21 of 167 
 

 

220 

180 

e:, 140 0 

u 

Cf) 

100 

60 

20 

-20 

~ 

D 

State Laboratory Scores & Status 2022 (Dec) 

Median: 131, Mean: 137 

Scores impacted by ISO/IEC 17025:2017 

I 

• .. 

··r 

•••••• •• 

• ••• 

- ~ 

I 

I 10 20 3p 

State 

I 

•• •• I 

• I 

••• • ◄ 

Labs haye NVLAP 

•••• I 

••• 

I 

Labs h ave 1-yr or 2-yr Certs 

Labs ha ve Conditi< nal Certs 

' 

Labs Closed and/or Nom-operationlal (13) 

40 5 E 0 

Figure 5. Laboratory Scoring Model (2022 December). 

Scoring Model Trends 

The OWM goal is to see the laboratory scores increase (or at least remain stable). Note: At this 

time, specific coding is not provided for identifying laboratories. In the latest assessment, we 

noted that several laboratories that were previously recognized and accredited have lost staff and 

not had adequate succession planning in place to keep laboratory recognition and/or accreditation 

in place or in place at the levels prior to staffing changes. In the 2021 to 2022 time frame the 

effects of the COVID-19 pandemic continued to plague and impact laboratories plans to relocate 

to a new or renovated laboratory and their ability to succession planning. In addition, after the 

2020, all laboratories had to demonstrate compliance with ISO/IEC 17025. Training on the new 

ISO/IEC 17025 standard has been provided since 2016 and is ongoing. All laboratories are 

required to demonstrate continued compliance with the standard. 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 22 of 167 
 

 

I I I I 

Table 2. Laboratory Scoring Model Trends. 

Year Median Mean 

Successful Goals 140 to 220 140 to 220 

Accreditation 

Goals 

220+ 220+ 

2006 97.5 130 

2007 140 140 

2008 172 156 

2009 172 156 

2010 168 154 

2012 168 156 

2014 (end) 143 149 

2016 186 169 

2018a 126 131 

2020 138 139 

2022 131 137 a Major adjustment due to use of 1-year interval for all laboratories with transition to ISO/IEC 17025:2017. 

Laboratory Accreditation 

The last measure of assessment in the recognition area that is presented here is the laboratory 

accreditation status through the NIST National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program 

(NVLAP). The OWM Laboratory Metrology Program interfaces with NVLAP for those state 

laboratories that are accredited. 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 23 of 167 
 

Accreditation 2022 

18: Accredited {dark green) 

C Montana 

ldah~-- -

Wyoming 

\ 

37: Not Accredited 

I 

I 

f---- South Dakota 

Texas 

i 

\ / 

/ 

Figure 6. NVLAP Accreditation of State W&M Laboratories 

Within NVLAP, the current primary contact for state laboratories is Robert Knake. The primary 

contact in OWM for OWM Accreditation and Recognition is Micheal Hicks. 

Training 

Training includes courses that are taught at NIST in the OWM Training Laboratory, regionally at 

the Regional Measurement Assurance Program (RMAP) annual training sessions (Figure 5), and 

online as a webinar, workshop, and info-hours. 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 24 of 167 
 

 

. 

WRAP· Western 

MldMap - MldAmerlca 

NEMAP • Northeastern 

SWAP • South~stem 

SEMAP . SoUCheastern 

CaMap - Caribbean 

Regional Measurement Assurance Program (RMAP) Groups 

NEMAP 

Mwyland 

W11$1ington, DC 

CaMAP 

-

Puerto 

Rko 

Figure 7. Regional Measurement Assurance Program (RMAP) Groups. 

The core laboratory metrology courses/seminars that are offered by OWM at NIST include: 

Fundamentals of Metrology, Mass Metrology, Volume Metrology, and Advanced Mass 

Metrology. These courses were developed and updated as a part of a training redesign project to 

ensure that all training requirements needed by the laboratories are covered as well as to 

integrate more activities and adult learning concepts into the courses as a part of the goal of 

maintaining an accredited training program. Previous courses (Basic Metrology for States, 

Intermediate Metrology) are no longer available and have evolved into the current courses. In 

addition to the traditional hands-on training courses, the OWM Laboratory Metrology Program 

has developed a series of 2-hour webinars on a variety of high interest topics. The seminar and 

webinar tuition are funded by the OWM for U.S. weights and measures officials and metrologists 

to enhance legal metrology uniformity. 

Specific training and personnel competency requirements to support laboratory recognition are 

published in Handbook 143 with interim updates published on the NIST OWM website. Training 

at the RMAP sessions is selected each year based on training needs assessments with input 

gathered through laboratory requests and inquiries, assessments of annual submissions from the 

laboratories, and through assessment of reasons for proficiency testing failures. 

The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in NIST OWM canceling all in-person training starting March 

2020 through February 2022. RMAP training delivery was modified to an online method for 

2020 and 2021. All NIST OWM core training seminars were suspended pending the reopening 

of the NIST campus. The impact of the suspension of the core training in 2020 and 2021 can be 

seen in the relatively low scoring model average for the 2022 Recognition Reviews. To partially 

compensate for the suspension of the training seminars, NIST OWM developed an interim online 

workshop titled Fundamentals and Laboratory Auditing Program (LAP) Problems Preparation in 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 25 of 167 
 

 

 

2020. This online course covered the principles taught in the Fundamentals of Metrology, with 

content from one Mass Metrology procedure and one Volume Metrology Seminar procedure. 

The main objective for this temporary/interim course was geared toward giving new staff the 

fundamentals and knowledge base needed to operate with confidence in Metrology at the lower 

echelon levels of Mass and Volume. This interim course was offered online and relied on an 

approved qualified mentor at the lab of the participant for hands on activities, as this course was 

not at the same level as Fundamental of Metrology at NIST. OWM designed, developed and 

delivered an abbreviated Fundamentals of Metrology training for metrologist who completed the 

online Interim course, discussed above, in 2022 so they could achieve and be recorded as 

receiving equivalent training to the full Fundamentals of Metrology Seminar. The abbreviated 

course was taught after the end of the 2022 RMAP training at the various regional locations. This 

course and the online interim course are no longer offered since the seminar courses have 

resumed on NIST campus. Additionally, the Laboratory Administration Workshop, a 5 day inperson course, was redesigned to an eight session online course during the pandemic. The online 

and in-person version of the Laboratory Administration Workshop will continue to be offered. 

OWM Laboratory Metrology Program has been dealing with staff changes throughout the 

pandemic and currently has a staff of three with all less than three years of experience and 

activity in the OWM Laboratory Metrology program. The use of contractors, including 

experienced staff from state laboratories, to help instruct the training courses has greatly helped 

to steady the program. 

Numerous supplementary courses are taught throughout the year as webinars covering many 

topics related to implementing content from Handbook 143 or to address training needs between 

other seminars that are scheduled. Registration for all courses is done through the NIST OWM 

Contact Management System database with transcripts readily available to students. The primary 

contact and administrator of this system is Yvonne Branden. 

Training courses (seminars and webinars) for 2012 through 2022 in metrology are summarized 

in Figures 6 and 7. New in 2016 were the addition of “Laboratory Metrology Info Hour” (LMIH) 

sessions. These are short, 1-hour, recorded sessions, no pre-work, no post-work, no certificates, 

to provide updated news and current events. These are sessions for weights and measures staff 

only and can support up to 98 participants per session. The primary contact for the laboratory 

training program is Isabel Chavez Baucom. 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 26 of 167 
 

Students Trained in Laboratory Metrology 

400 

350 

300 

250 

200 

150 

,: I 11111 I I 11 1 I I II 2012 2013 2014 201, 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 

■ Webinars ■ S9Tilna!'S ■ RMAPs 

Figure 8 Laboratory Metrology Students Trained for 2012 through 2022. 

3, 

30 

25 

20 

1, 

10 

Training Events in Lab Metrology 

2012 2013 2014 201> 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 

■ Weblnars ■ Se1unars ■ AMAPs 

40 

Figure 9. Laboratory Metrology Training Events for 2012 through 2022. 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 27 of 167 
 

Testing Success Rates 

100.00% ·-

-- H\ Vl 

1lfl- Vl 95.00 % - - ~ ~ 

QJ 

u 90.00% - - - t- ,____ u 

:J 85.00% - f--- - - - ~ ~ 

V, 

+"' 80.00% - f--- - - - ~ ~ 

C: 75.00 % QJ - f--- - - f- t- ,____ 

u 

~ 70.00% - f--- - - - ~ ~ 

QJ 

0.. 65.00% - f--- - - - ~ ~ 

60.00% 

Volume Length Stopwatch & Overall Success Mass Frequency rate 

■ 2012: 7 586 point.s 96.67% 84.07% 100.00 % 96.23 % 

■ 2013: 3684 point.s 99.62% 88.53% 100.00 % 98.97 % 

■ 2014: 1 0960 points 98.10 % 97.73% 94.74% 98.10 % 

■ 2015: 7220 points 98.34% 88.89% 98.10 % 

■ 2016: 7300 points 99.58% 93.70% 99.38 % 

■ 2017: 5506 points 99.75 % 86.75 % 99.20 % 

■ 2018: 1 6156 points 98.99% 98.25% 96.49% 98.94% 99.20% 

■ 2019: 1 0546 points 97.32% 90.00% 78.21% 99.66% 91.29% 

2020: 8870 point.s 99.50% 97.71% 99.45% 

■ 2021: 1 0564 points 99.22% 96.57% 97.90% 

■ 2022: 7725 points 98.97% 92.01% 89.16% 93.38% 

Proficiency Testing 

The proficiency testing area is primarily coordinated through the annual RMAP training 

sessions. A 4-year plan is developed within each RMAP group to support the need for 

laboratories to have a 4-year plan and comply with recognition and accreditation policies. The 

planning, analysis, and reporting takes place at each meeting, where laboratories are given 

opportunities to help create the plan to meet the needs of their measurement scopes as well as 

providing an opportunity to minimize overall program costs through volunteering to coordinate 

and analyze data. 

Figure 10. Proficiency Testing Success Rates (2012 to 2022). 

Proficiency testing and interlaboratory comparisons (PTs/ILCs) have been conducted in the 

Regional Measurement Assurance Program (RMAP) regions since the early 1980’s. NIST has 

captured the number and types of PTs/ILCs since that time. However, measures for evaluating 

proficiency testing results have been modified since 2006. Over 100,000 status points have been 

collected since pass/fail data has been collected. NIST began capturing pass/fail statistics for all 

PT/ILC results and compiling them by measurement parameter. This allows NIST to evaluate the 

effectiveness of training efforts and use of uniform calibration procedures among laboratories 

and to see improvements (or declines) over time. It also provides information on where to 

dedicate effort and resources in additional training and follow-up efforts. 

Overall, based on the 10-year of PT assessments above, over 95,000 evaluation points of 

normalized error (En) and normalized precision (Pn) have been assessed in the listed 

measurement areas. Laboratories are making good progress towards reaching the success goal of 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 28 of 167 
 

 

 

 

 

100 % passing rate and 100 % completed follow-up when needed. Program planning, analysis 

and reporting tools used in the PT program are used by many other laboratories outside the 

program and outside the United States. Micheal Hicks is the primary contact for OWM 

Proficiency Testing program. 

Documentary Standards 

Ideally, documentary standards would be reviewed at least every five years and updated as 

appropriate. This area of the program receives the least overall attention due to limited resources, 

but standards are selected for updates when issues arise indicating a need. Currently, an update to 

NIST Handbook 105-7 for small volume provers is in the development process. A new standard 

is being considered for master meters along with an update to 105-2 for field standard measuring 

flasks being published in 2021. Handbook 105-1 for field standard weights and Handbook 105-8 

for weight carts were both updated in 2019. Handbook 105-4 for LPG provers was updated in 

2016. The program also participates with ASTM, USP, and OIML standards development. 

Micheal Hicks is currently the primary contact for Handbook 105-1, and ASTM updates and 

Georgia Harris for the volumetric standards. 

Program References 

An intentional effort has been made by the OWM Laboratory Metrology Program – at least since 

the 1980’s – to adopt and use international standards and references to gain program credibility. 

For example, when NIST Handbook 143 was first published in 1986, it referenced ISO Guide 25 

and Handbook 145 procedures referenced Mil-Std-45662A. Both ISO Guide 25 and Mil-Std45662A were the internationally and nationally accepted standards at that time. Yet, full 

implementation of these and their current standard counterparts has taken time. The first 

documented guidance in the proficiency testing area followed ISO Guide 43, which has since 

become a formal standard rather than a guide with compliance to ISO/IEC 17043. Handbook 

143, Program Handbook was drafted during 2018 and published in 2019 to adopt ISO/IEC 

17025:2017. An update to Handbook 143 will be published in 2023. 

Table 3. Program Area Reference Documents. 

Topic Publication 

Type and 

Number 

Title Latest 

Revisio 

n Date 

Recognition Handbook 143i State Weights and Measures Laboratories 

Program Handbook 

2019 

Accreditatio 

n 

Handbook 150-

2ii 

NVLAP Calibration Laboratories 2019 

Accreditatio 

n 

Handbook 150-

2, Annex A 

Annex A: ANSI/NCSL Z540-1-1994, Part 

I (normative) 

2019 

Accreditatio 

n 

Handbook 150-

2, Annex B 

Annex B: Dimensional measurements 

(normative) 

2019 

Accreditatio 

n 

Handbook 150-

2, Annex C 

Annex C: Time and frequency 

measurements (normative) 

2019 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 29 of 167 
 

 

Topic Publication 

Type and 

Number 

Title Latest 

Revisio 

n Date 

Accreditatio 

n 

Handbook 150-

2, Annex D1 

Annex D: Mechanical measurements 

(normative), D1 Force Calibrations 

2019 

Accreditatio 

n 

Handbook 150-

2, Annex D2 

Annex D: Mechanical measurements 

(normative), D2 Mass calibrations 

2019 

Accreditatio 

n 

Handbook 150-

2, Annex D3 

Annex D: Mechanical measurements 

(normative), D3 Volume calibrations 

2019 

Accreditatio 

n 

Handbook 150-

2, Annex E 

Annex E: Requirements for NVLAPaccredited legal metrology laboratories 2019 

Mass 

Calibration 

Lab 

Procedures 

NISTIR 5672 Advanced Mass Calibrations and 

Measurements Assurance Program for the 

State Calibration Laboratories 

2019 

Mass 

Calibration 

Lab 

Procedures 

NISTIR 6969 Selected Laboratory and Measurement 

Practices, and Procedures to Support 

Basic Mass Calibrations 

2019 

Volume 

Calibration 

Lab 

Procedures 

NISTIR 7383 Selected Procedures for Volumetric 

Calibrations 

2019 

Length 

Calibration 

Lab 

Procedures 

NISTIR 8028 Selected Laboratory and Measurement 

Practices and Procedures for Length 

Calibrations 

2014 

Weights and 

Measures 

Lab 

Procedures 

NISTIR 8250iii Calibration Procedures for Weights and 

Measures Laboratories 

2019 

Proficiency 

Testing 

NISTIR 7082 Proficiency Test Policy Plan 2018 

Proficiency 

Testing 

NISTIR 7214iv Weights and Measures Division Quality 

Manual for Proficiency Testing and 

Interlaboratory Comparisons 

2005 

Field 

Standards 

Handbook 105-1 Specifications and Tolerances for Field 

Standard Weights, (NIST Class F) 

(available for Historical purposes) 

1990 

Field 

Standards 

Handbook 105-1 Specifications and Tolerances for Field 

Standard Weights, (Ref OIML R111 and 

ASTM E617) 

2019 

Field 

Standards 

Handbook 105-

2v 

Specifications and Tolerances for Field 

Standard Measuring Flasks 

2021 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 30 of 167 
 

Topic Publication 

Type and 

Number 

Title Latest 

Revisio 

n Date 

Field 

Standards 

Handbook 105-3 Specifications and Tolerances for 

Graduated Neck Type Volumetric Field 

Standards 

2010 

Field 

Standards 

Handbook 105-4 Specifications and Tolerances for 

Liquefied Petroleum Gas and Anhydrous 

Ammonia Liquid Volumetric Provers 

2016 

Field 

Standards 

Handbook 105-5 Specifications and Tolerances for Field 

Standard Stopwatches 

1997 

Field 

Standards 

Handbook 105-6 Specifications and Tolerances for 

Thermometers 

1997 

Field 

Standards 

Handbook 105-

7vi 

Specifications and Tolerances for 

Dynamic Small Volume Provers 

1997 

Field 

Standards 

Handbook 105-

8vii 

Specifications and Tolerances for Field 

Standard Weight Carts 

2019 

Notes i Handbook 143, Table 2 was updated in 2021. Additional updates are 

anticipated due to incomplete references in the NVLAP Handbook 

Annexes regarding Echelon categories. Additional annexes may be 

referenced as they are developed (e.g., for thermometry and 

thermodynamic measurements). 

ii NVLAP Handbook 150-2 for Calibration Laboratories and all Annexes 

are referenced in Handbook 143 as requirements for Weights and 

Measures Laboratories. Technical criteria were published as duplicates 

prior to the 2019 versions. For the 2019 publications, Handbook 143 

explicitly references the NVLAP technical criteria. Associated checklists 

are applicable for internal auditing and assessor evaluations as well. 

OWM staff contribute to technical and editorial review of the applicable 

NVLAP annexes. 

iii Additional procedures available in draft form to be formatted, validated, and 

published as part of this NISTIR in the future. See the table of contents for works to be 

completed in the future.

iv Updates expected to ensure compliance with ISO/IEC 17043 upon next revision (to 

ensure compliance and consistency with ISO/IEC 17025.) 

v Decision rule criteria to be updated in this publication. Currently specified as 

uncertainty required to be less than one-third applicable tolerances (maximum 

permissible errors). Updates will specify uncertainty to be less than the tolerances only. vi Comments received to update this publication. Updates are pending work of national 

working group analysis and efforts related to metering and meter calibrations. vii Updates expected to correct tolerance tables for correct rounding formatting. 

Internal Processes and Strategic Assessments 

Each OWM Laboratory Metrology Program area has documented internal processes that are 

followed to ensure consistency on an ongoing basis. At a high level, OWM conducts annual 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 31 of 167 
 

strategic planning and selects specific strategic and operational objectives. The Laboratory 

Metrology Program conducts an annual SWOT analysis (identifying strengths, weaknesses, 

threats, and opportunities) within each program area. This method has also been used to gather 

input from metrologists at the annual RMAP training sessions to ensure customer input is 

considered and that program efforts are responsive to current and emerging national needs. 

Measuring Results 

As noted throughout this section, specific concepts are used to measure results in each 

Laboratory Metrology Program area. At one time, most of the measures were output measures. 

These included a count of how many laboratories were recognized, how many students attended 

training and how many courses were held, how many proficiency tests were conducted and in 

what measurement areas, along with the status of how many 105-series handbooks were 

published or in the process of being updated. Gradually, these measures have moved to include 

outcome measures where improvements are tracked, especially quality and impact. For example, 

the maps show how many laboratories are recognized by OWM and accredited by NVLAP. In 

addition, the scoring model shows the big picture assessment of all the laboratories against 

standardized criteria to track whether improvements (or declines) are seen from year to year in 

the overall national quality of the laboratories. In the training area, OWM obtained IACET 

Accreditation in 2013, updated in 2018, and includes formal Kirkpatrick-type course evaluations 

to assess satisfaction with a training experience, learning, application, and impact. In the 

proficiency testing area, pass-fail statistics are tracked as well as a periodic evaluation of the 

resulting follow-up corrective actions made by the laboratories. In the documentary standards 

area, the level of application and adoption within the weights and measures programs is 

considered. 

If you have questions or comments about any of these program areas or the OWM Laboratory 

Metrology Program, please feel free to contact Micheal Hicks (micheal.hicks@nist.gov). 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 32 of 167 
 

 

Participants 

The SLP is comprised of 55 metrology laboratories. There are 50 state laboratories and 5 other 

government laboratories (Puerto Rico, Washington DC, Los Angeles County, USDA-GIPSA 

−identified as ‘DA’ in the survey−, and U.S.-Virgin Islands). Of these 55 laboratories, 11 are not 

operational. Connecticut, Delaware, Iowa, Los Angeles County, Mississippi, North Dakota, New 

Hampshire, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, Washington D.C., and the U.S. Virgin Islands, 

Notes and Comments: 

● 42 metrology laboratories provided data. 

● Figure 11 provides basic information summarizing the ages and sizes of the facilities in 

which the SLP conducts its work. It also summarizes the number of customers typically 

served by each laboratory. 

● Office space is the overall size of the space in the laboratory devoted to administrative 

work. This includes space for workstations, filing, etc. In general, this category may 

include all of the space devoted to the laboratory not specifically dedicated to 

measurement work. 

● Laboratory space is that space in the laboratory devoted to measurement work. This may 

include space where measurements are performed, space devoted to storing measurement 

standards and equipment, space used for material handling, space used for shipping and 

receiving of customer equipment, etc. 

● Customers is a count of all distinct customers who received measurement services from 

the laboratory regardless of the reason or application. 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 33 of 167 
 

 

 

I I I I Non-Service Agent Customers Customers Lab Space (Sq. Ft.) Office Space (Sq. Ft.) Age (Years) 

Average 28 696 3,629 184 61 

Maximum 92 2,500 12,200 1,195 646 

Figure 11: Historical survey titles and the year represented by each. 

(White Space) 

Table 4: (beginning next page) Listing of the SLP laboratories including location, age1, size, and total number of 

customers served as of the 2022 calendar year. 

1 Laboratory age is not indicative of laboratory condition. Many facilities have been 

significantly renovated in recent years. 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 34 of 167 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Non-Service 

Agent Customers 

Customers 

Office Space (sq 

Lab Space (sq ft) 

ft)

Age (Years) 

Laboratory Address Contact Website 

State of Alaska Metrology 

Laboratory 

12050 Industry Way Bldg. O Ste. 6 

Anchorage, AK 99515 Phone: 907-365-1233 dot.alaska.gov/mscve/pages/metrology 8 350 1,740 76 68 

Alabama Weights and Measures 

Laboratory 

1445 Federal Drive 

Montgomery, AL 36107 

Phone: 205-617-8068 

Fax: 334-240-7175 agi.alabama.gov 49 374 588 260 -

Arkansas State Standards 

Laboratory 

4608 W. 61st St. 

Little Rock, AR 72209 Phone: 501-219-6334 

www.agriculture.arkansas.gov/plantindustries/bureau-of-standards/state-massvolume-lab/ 

56 400 1,500 200 15 

Arizona Dept Agriculture Weights 

and Measures Metrology Laboratory 

4425 W Olive Ave Ste 134 

Glendale, AZ 85302 Phone: 602-771-4938 agriculture.az.gov/ 23 500 5,500 182 55 

California State Metrology 

Laboratory 

6790 Florin Perkins Road, Suite 100 

Sacramento, CA 95828 Phone: 916-229-4858 www.cdfa.ca.gov/dms/programs/metrology/metr ology.html 19 296 3,747 111 4 

Colorado Department of 

Agriculture, Metrology 

300 S. Technology Ct. 

Broomfield, CO 80021 Phone: 303-869-9240 ag.colorado.gov/labs/metrology-laboratory 4 500 2,900 255 33 

Florida Metrology Laboratory 3125 Conner Blvd Lab 2 

Tallahassee, FL 32399 Phone: 850-921-1572 www.fdacs.gov 53 620 3,500 201 17 

Georgia Department of Agriculture 

Metrology Laboratory 

3150 U.S. Highway 41 South 

Tifton, GA 31794 

Phone: 229-386-3601 

Fax: 229-386-3365 agr.georgia.gov/laboratories 13 994 6,818 125 -

USDA Master Scale 5800 W. 69th Street 

Chicago, USDA-GIPSA o, IL Phone: 312-919-7665 www.ams.usda.gov/services/fgis/master-scaleprogram 

92 1,200 3,000 5 5 

Hawaii Measurement Standards 

Laboratory 

1851 Auiki Steet 

Honolulu, HI 96819 

Phone: 808-832-0682 

Fax: 808-832-0683 hdoa.hawaii.gov/qad/measurement-standards 21 443 2,602 48 19 

Idaho Metrology Laboratory 2216 Kellogg Ln 

Boise, ID 83712 Phone: 208-332-8692 www.agri.idaho.gov 53 720 1,900 65 45 

Illinois Department of Agriculture 

Metrology Laboratory 

801 Sangamon Avenue East 

Springfield, IL 62702 Phone: 217-785-8480 agr.illinois.gov/consumers/weightsmeasures.htm l 45 1,200 3,220 115 32 

Kansas Metrology Laboratory 2004 Research Park Circle 

Manhattan, KS 66502 

Phone: 785-564-7477 

Fax: 745-564-6777 

agriculture.ks.gov/divisions-programs/aglab/metrology-lab2 2 237 3,751 125 52 

Kentucky Department of 

Agriculture 

107 Corporate Dr 

Frankfort, KY 40601 

Phone: 502-573-0282 

Fax: 502-573-0303 www.kyagr.com 22 40 2,395 - -

Louisiana State Metrology 

Laboratory 

5825 Florida Blvd 

Baton, LA 70806 

Phone: 225-922-1381 

Fax: 225-923-4877 www.ldaf.state.la.us 40 342 1,568 135 67 

Massachusetts Div of Standards 

Metrology Laboratory 

250 Eliot Street ~ Suite 10-D 

Ashland, MA 01721 Phone: 508-532-1200 www.mass.gov/orgs/division-of-standards 1 324 4,676 69 1 

Md Dept of Agriculture, Weights & 

Measures Laboratory 

50 Harry S Truman Pkwy 

Annapolis, MD 20850 

Phone: 410-841-5790 

Fax: 410-841-2765 www.mda.maryland.gov 32 930 4,870 13 -

Maine Metrology Laboratory 333 Cony Rd 

Augusta, ME 04330 Phone: 207-287-7587 www.maine.gov/dacf/qar/laboratory_testing/met rology.shtml 57 432 2,600 105 -

Michigan Department of 

Agriculture and Rural Development 

940 Venture Lane 

Williamston, MI 48895 

Phone: 517-655-7229 

Fax: 517-655-8303 www.michigan.gov/mdard/lab 26 2,000 12,200 152 78 

State of MN Metrology Lab 

14305 South Cross Drive W Suite 

150 

Burnsville, MN 55306 

Phone: 651-539-1567 

Fax: 952-435-4040 

mn.gov/commerce/business/weightsmeasures/scales-meters/metrology.jsp 16 1,120 4,706 236 74 

Missouri Metrology Laboratory 1616 Missouri Blvd 

Jefferson City, MO 65109 

Phone: 573-751-3440 

Fax: 573-751-0281 agriculture.mo.gov/ 30 385 2,433 68 1 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 35 of 167 
 

Laboratory Address Contact 

Non-Service 

Agent Customers 

Website 

Customers 

Office Space (sq 

Lab Space (sq ft) 

ft)

Age (Years) 

Montana Bureau of Weigfhts and 

Measures 

3806 US HWY 12/287 

East Helena, MT 59635 Phone: 406-461-4168 www.bsd.dli.mt.gov/weights-andmeasures/metrology-lab 2 500 1,000 71 15 

NCDA&CS Metrology Laboratory 4400 Reedy Creek Road 

Raleigh, NC 27607 

Phone: 984-236-4800 

Fax: 919-831-1303 www.ncagr.gov/standard 2 2,483 6,902 165 3 

Nebraska Standards Lab 3721 West Cuming St. 

Lincoln, NE 68524 Phone: 402-471-2087 44 580 1,800 159 61 

State of NJ, Office of Weights and 

Measures 

1261 Routes 1 & 9 South 

Avenel, NJ 07001 

Phone: 732-815-7821 

Fax: 732-382-5298 njconsumeraffairs.gov/OWM 33 200 2,700 422 399 

New Mexico Department of 

Agriculture 

3190 S. Espina 

Las Cruces, NM 88003 Phone: 575-646-1551 nmdeptag.nmsu.edu 49 281 2,335 139 93 

Nevada Metrology Laboratory 405 S. 21st Street 

Sparks, NV 89431 

Phone: 775-353-3794 

Fax: 775-353-3798 

agri.nv.gov/Protection/Weights_and_Measures/ 

Metrology_Lab/ 49 170 10,044 106 61 

New York State Metrology 

Laboratory 

10B Airline Dr 

Albany, NY 12235 

Phone: 518-457-4781 

Fax: 518-457-2552 www.agriculture.ny.gov 10 975 4,240 108 37 

Ohio Department of Agriculture 8995 East Main St. Bldg. #5 

Reynoldsburg, OH 43068 

Phone: 614-728-6290 

Fax: 614-728-6424 agri.ohio.gov/divisions/weights-and-measures 53 2,500 3,047 413 68 

Oregon Department of Agriculture 635 Capitol St NE, Suite 100 

Salem, OR 97301 

Phone: 503-986-4669 

Fax: 503-986-4784 

www.oregon.gov/oda/programs/MarketAccess/P 

ages/Metrology.aspx 24 367 2,038 91 44 

Pennsylvania Standards Laboratory 2221 Forster Street, Room G -44A 

Harrisburg, PA 17125 

Phone: 717-787-4707 

Fax: 717-705-0882 www.dgs.pa.gov 25 1,568 3,780 556 209 

SC Department of Agriculture 

Metrology Laboratory 

129 Ballard Court 

West Columbia, SC 29172 Phone: 803-253-4052 agriculture.sc.gov/divisions/consumerprotection/metrology 4 835 8,000 360 -

SD State Metrology Laboratory 1100 Otter Rd, Bldg D 

Sturgis, SD 57785 Phone: 605-280-4572 dps.sd.gov/inspections/weightsmeasures/metrology-lab 2 300 2,800 97 33 

Julius Johnson Metrology Lab 

(Tennessee Lab) 

5203 Marchant Dr. 

Nashville, TN 37211 Phone: 615-253-4426 www.tn.gov/agriculture/consumers/standards/me 

trology.html 6 - - 144 -

Texas Department of Agriculture -

Giddings Metrology Lab 

PO Box 1518, 1258 CR 226 

Giddings, TX 78942 

Phone: 979-542-3231 

Fax: 877-205-7741 

www.texasagriculture.gov/RegulatoryPrograms/ 

WeightsandMeasures/MetrologyLab.aspx 20 1,200 11,077 191 18 

Utah Metrology Lab 350 North Redwood Rd 

Salt Lake City, UT 84116 Phone: 801-982-2267 ag.utah.gov 37 150 1,350 64 43 

Virginia Department of Agriculture 

and Consumer Services 

600 North 5th Street 

Richmond, VA 23219 

Phone: 804-786-0479 

Fax: 804-371-0206 www.vdacs.virginia.gov/standards/service 21 - 3,637 156 57 

Vermont State Metrology 

Laboratory 

163 Admin Drive 

Randolph Center, VT 05061 Phone: 802-522-5415 agriculture.vermont.gov 4 500 1,500 124 62 

WA St. Dept. of Agriculture 

Metrology Laboratory 

PO Box 42560 

Olympia, WA 98504 Phone: 360-764-0199 agr.wa.gov/Inspection/WeightsMeasures/metrolo gylab/metrologylab.aspx 45 230 2,734 201 74 

Wisconsin Weights and Measures 

Laboratory 

3601 Galleon Run 

Madison, WI 53718 

Phone: 608-224-4913 

Fax: 608-224-4912 

datcp.wi.gov/Pages/Programs_Services/Metrolo 

gyLab.aspx 16 550 3,700 384 67 

West Virginia Weights & Measures 

Metrology Lab 

570 MacCorkle Ave SW 

St. Albans, WV 25177 

Phone: 304-722-0602 

Fax: 304-722-0605 www.labor.wv.gov 60 1,780 1,855 1,195 646 

Wyoming Department of 

Agriculture 

6607 Campstool Rd 

Cheyenne, WY 82002 

Phone: 307-777-7556 

Fax: 307-777-1943 agriculture.wy.gov 11 650 1,660 35 7 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 36 of 167 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Laboratory Survey Participation 

Lab ID 

Lab 

Code/Year 1996 1998 1999 2000 2002 2004 2005 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 

AK Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 

AL Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 

AR Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 

AZ Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 

CA Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 

CO Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 

CT Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 

DE   **  **   **  **   **  **   **  ** 

FL Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 

GA Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 

HI Yes Yes Yes ** Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 

IA Yes Yes Yes ** Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes   **  ** ** 

ID Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes 

IL Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 

IN Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 

KS Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 

KY Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes   Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 

LA Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 

MA Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 

MD Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 

ME Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 

MI Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 

MN Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 

MO Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 

MS Yes Yes **  Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No ** 

MT Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 

NC Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 

ND Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes ** Yes Yes Yes   **  **   

NE Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 

NH Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No **  ** 

NJ Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 

NM Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 

NV Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 

NY Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 

OH Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 

OK Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 

OR Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 

PA Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 

RI   **  **   **  **   **  **   **  ** 

SC Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 37 of 167 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Lab 

Code/Year 1996 1998 1999 2000 2002 2004 2005 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 

SD Yes Yes ** Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 

TN Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes ** Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes 

TX Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 

UT Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 

VA Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 

VT Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 

WA Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 

WI Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 

WV Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 

WY Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 

USDA-GIPSA Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes 

Wash. DC   **  **   **  **   **  **   **  ** 

Virgin Islands   **  **   **  **   **  **   **  ** 

Puerto Rico Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No   

LA County Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes **  ** ** Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No ** 

TOTAL 51 46 45 44 48 47 46 49 50 47 48 49 49 45 47 42 

Table 5: Listing of SLP member laboratories and their participation status in previous surveys (blanks indicate non-participation). ** indicates an inactive lab, empty cells indicates 

no response to the survey.. 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 38 of 167 
 

Grand Total 

In order to give a very high-level overview 

of the measurement work performed by the 

SLP program the survey team added the 

number of measurements reported by all of 

the laboratories for each measurement 

procedure surveyed to come up with a grand 

total. This total does not factor in time or 

effort required in performing individual 

measurements. The reader is referred to the 

supplementary section of the 2014 edition of 

the SLP Workload Survey for data on the 

time required to complete individual 

measurements. 

2018 45 326,2194 7,244 

2020 44 306,8605 7,064 

2022 42 306,660 7,301 

Table 6: Summary of all measurements reported on 

prior surveys. 

Total Lab 

Survey Labs Devices Average 

1996 51 322,472 6,323 

1998 46 320,931 6,977 

1999 45 352,274 7,828 

2000 45 361,600 8,036 

2002 48 375,411 7,821 

2004 47 355,986 7,574 

2005 46 361,054 7,849 

2006 49 365,004 7,449 

2008 50 367,336 7,347 

2010 47 368,333 7,837 

2012 47 305,7282 6,505 

2014 49 336,858 6,875 

2016 49 400,9113 8,182 

2 The dip in SLP measurement production 

reported in 2012 is attributed in large part to 

the absence of a survey response from 

Puerto Rico. Puerto Rico routinely reports 

testing approximately 30,000 lottery balls 

3 In 2016 the metrology laboratory in Puerto 

Rico reported testing 69,800 lottery balls. 

This number is a little over double what has 

been historically reported by this laboratory. 

This accounts for a large portion of the 

increase in measurement production 

reported by the SLP this year. 

4 The dip in SLP measurement production 

reported in 2018 is attributed in large part to 

the absence of a survey response from 

Puerto Rico. Puerto Rico routinely reports 

testing approximately 30,000 lottery balls 

5 In 2020 COVID-19 and the associated 

efforts to control the impact of the disease 

on hospitals nationwide significantly 

affected the U.S. economy. 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 39 of 167 
 

AK 2092 

AL 6867 

AR 3535 

AZ 9300 

CA 6758 

co 10400 

CT Closed 

DA 5 

DE Closed 

FL 4553 

GA 7786 

HI 1746 

IA Closed 

ID 2913 

IL 3228 

IN No Data 

KS 7925 

KY 1292 

LAC Closed 

LA 5675 

MA 2057 

MD 1025 

ME 1524 

5732 Laboratory Support 

4669S \V&1,I Program Support 

25422& For external customers 

!I0000 

27000 

24000 

21000 

18000 

l.5000 

uooo 

!IODI) 

5000 

Los Angeles County 

Hawaii 

Puerto Rico 

USDA · FGIS 

306660 total devices 

calibrated in 42 labs 

Exrernot 15411! 

;;'. ~ g :! " ~ !! s 

l.ablO 

~ ~ :i i ! ii 

Ml 10509 

MN 14324 

MO 15062 

MS Closed 

MT 722 

NC 9230 

ND Closed 

NE 5436 

NH Closed 

NJ 11749 

NM 6318 

NV 2098 

Ni 14509 

OH 13851 

OK No Data 

OR 3659 

PA 25511 

PR Closed 

RI Closed 

SC 14958 

SD 4671 

TN 3009 

TX 18206 

UT 2907 

Legend 

0 

VA 13755 

VT 19241 

1,/A 2374 

2126 ■ 

4783 I 7441 ■ 

1,/I 10817 

1,/V 4048 

1,/Y 1015 

10098 ■ 

12756 ■ 

15413 ■ 

18070 I 

20728 ■ 

23385 ■ 26042 ■ 

No Data I 

Closed I 

D ~ ii ii !. 0 :i; i !i ~ 'S 

Ii 2' s ! s i i I ,, 

0 

Figure 12: Total of all measurements reported.. 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 40 of 167 
 

Mass 

Mass weighing procedures are broken into several categories based on measurement procedures 

and the category of mass standard measured for the purpose of this report. 

Echelon I weighing procedures are those mass calibrations which use calibration designs, such as 

those detailed in the NIST SEMATECH Engineering Statistics Handbook and NIST Technical 

Note 952, that are solved using numerical least squares approximations, and correct for air 

buoyancy when inter-comparing weights of unequal volume. These calibrations are typically 

associated with, but are not limited to high precision weight standards such as those specified in 

ASTM E617 Class 0 or OIML E1. Masscode is the industry standard software used to analyze 

data collected for an echelon I calibration. Any calibration for which a laboratory used 

Masscode to analyze the primary data is considered to be an echelon I calibration for this survey. 

Echelon II weighing procedures are typically used when high tolerance class calibrations are 

requested. These typically involve many redundant measurements in order to reduce the overall 

measurement uncertainty to an acceptable level. Unlike Echelon I, conventional mass 

corrections of the laboratory standards are typically used in lieu of performing air buoyancy 

corrections. Examples of echelon II mass calibration procedures may be found in NIST Internal 

Report 6969 (Harris, NIST IR 6969, "Selected Laboratory and Measurement Practices, and 

Procedures, to Support Basic Mass Calibrations", 2019), SOP 4 and SOP 7 (Harris, NIST IR 

6969, "Selected Laboratory and Measurement Practices, and Procedures, to Support Basic Mass 

Calibrations", 2019). 

Echelon III weighing procedures are essentially everything else with the exception of 

measurements performed on weight carts, railroad test cars, and railroad specific weight carts. A 

typical echelon III procedure is SOP 8 found in NIST Internal Report 6969 (Harris, NIST IR 

6969, "Selected Laboratory and Measurement Practices, and Procedures, to Support Basic Mass 

Calibrations", 2019). Most mass standards tested in SLP metrology lab fall into this category 

(91%)6 

Weight Carts are motorized carts used to transport a load of field test weights to facilitate the 

field testing of larger capacity scales. Weight carts are often subject to the specifications and 

tolerances found in NIST Handbook 105-8 (NIST Handbook 105-8 "Specifications and 

Tolerances for Field Standard Weight Carts", 2019) are typically tested using echelon III 

procedures. They are, nevertheless, treated separately herein as they are distinct from field test 

weights. 

Railroad Test Cars are certified mass standards built for AAR interchange service used to 

facilitate the testing of railroad track scales. Specifications for these field standards are 

published by The Association of American Railroads (AAR Scale Handbook 2013 Edition, 

2013). Certification of these mass standards is typically done using a master scale facility 

certified by the USDA Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyard Association (GIPSA). 

Railroad Specific Weight Carts are certified mass standards used to facilitate testing of railroad 

track scales. Unlike railroad test cars these devices by themselves are not suitable for AAR 

6 by count of mass standards tested only. The time required to complete a test is outside the 

scope of this survey. 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 41 of 167 
 

interchange service. Unlike traditional weight carts these devices are designed transport 80,000 

lb or more of test weight short distances on rail. Certification of these mass standards is typically 

done using a master scale facility certified by the USDA Grain Inspection, Packers and 

Stockyard Association (GIPSA) as these carts can weigh 10,000 lb or more. Additional weights 

loaded onto the cart are standard cast iron field test weights and are covered under Echelon III 

weighing procedures. 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 42 of 167 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mass Echelon I 

Description 

The graphs on the following page represent 

the total number of Mass Echelon I 

standards evaluated by the 42 reporting 

laboratories. The map graph illustrates a 

geographical distribution of the 

measurements. There are pie graphs located 

on the map for each individual lab and a 

larger pie graph that reflects the totals. The 

pie graphs provide a breakdown into the 

customer categories of Lab, W&M, and 

External. The bar graph at the bottom of the 

page shows the same breakdown along with 

the total number of devices tested by each 

laboratory. 

● Lab – work done for the internal use of the 

metrology laboratory. 

● W&M – work done for the weights and 

measures enforcement program. 

● External – work done for customers who do 

not fall into any of the above categories. 

Comparison of previous surveys 

Results for Mass I cannot be compared to 

the 1996 survey as it did not use Mass 

Echelon I as a category. ‘Precision Mass’ 

was used as the category and it included 

both Mass Echelon I and Mass Echelon II 

calibrations. 

Notes and Comments 

● 62 % of all Mass I standards were 

calibrated for internal use by the 

laboratory. 

● 0 % of all Mass I standards were 

calibrated for the weight and 

measures program. 

● 38 % of all Mass I standards were 

calibrated for external customers. 

Year # Labs 

Total 

Devices 

1998 10 2,667 

1999 15 5,985 

2000 16 5,227 

2002 15 5,288 

2004 14 3,707 

2005 14 3,103 

2006 14 3,025 

2008 17 2,216 

2010 19 2,309 

2012 12 2,493 

2014 13 2,980 

2016 11 1,845 

2018 11 2,485 

2018 11 2,485 

2022 9 1,421 

Table 7: Summary of echelon I tests reported on 

previous surveys. 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 43 of 167 
 

AK 0 

AL 0 

AR 0 

AZ 0 

CA 0 

co 71 

CT Closed 

DA 0 

DE Closed 

FL 0 

GA 0 

HI 64 

IA Closed 

ID 0 

IL 0 

IN No Data 

KS 35 

KY 0 \ LAC Closed 

LA 0 

MA 0 

MD 0 

ME 0 

887 Laboratory Support 

0 \V&M Program Support 

534 For external cu:."1omers 

Los Angeles County 

- Hawaii 

Puerto Rico 

USDA - FGIS 

1421 total devices 

calibrated in 9 labs 

Legend 

0 

39 ■ 

88 ■ IJ7 ■ 

186 ■ 

235 ■ 

284 ■ 

333 ■ 382 ■ 

431 ■ 480 ■ 

NoData ■ 

Clo,sed ■ 

Ml 44 

MN 182 

MO 0 

MS Closed 

MT 0 

NC 286 

ND Closed 

NE 0 

NH Closed 

NJ 0 

NM 30 

NV 0 

NY 0 

OH 0 

OK No Data 

OR 470 

PA 0 

PR Closed 

RI Closed 

SC 0 

so 0 

TN 0 

TX 0 

UT 0 

VA 0 

VT 0 

WA 239 

WI 0 

WV 0 

'wY 0 

500 ,------------------------------------------------------1 

450 

400 

350 

300 

250 

200 

150 

100 ------------------------------------------------------• 

50 ~- ---• ---1 1---------------------------------------------------1 

~ ~ ; ; s ! i o I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t t ~ s ~ = ! ~ s s i ~ i ~ i i i i i 2 ~ ~ s ~ f r • ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ s ~ > i ~ i 

!S LablO 

Figure 13: Mass Echelon I tests. 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 44 of 167 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Mass Echelon II 

Description 

The graphs on the following page represent 

the total number of Mass Echelon II 

standards evaluated by the 42 reporting 

laboratories. The map graph illustrates a 

geographical distribution of the 

measurements. There are pie graphs located 

on the map for each individual lab and a 

larger pie graph that reflects the totals. The 

pie graphs provide a breakdown into the 

customer categories of Lab, W&M, and 

External. The bar graph at the bottom of the 

page shows the same breakdown along with 

the total number of devices tested by each 

laboratory. 

● Lab – work done for the internal use of the 

metrology laboratory. 

● W&M – work done for the weights and 

measures enforcement program. 

● External – work done for customers who do 

not fall into any of the above categories. 

Comparison of previous surveys 

Year # Labs 

Total 

Devices 

1996 38 37,662 

1998 36 24,926 

1999 35 25,807 

2000 38 26,428 

2002 37 25,847 

2004 32 21,714 

2005 32 20,541 

2006 33 22,352 

2008 32 25,371 

2010 34 23,316 

2012 30 18,222 

2014 26 16,832 

2016 27 11,723 

2018 27 14,456 

2020 26 12,083 

2022 26 13,096 

Table 8: Echelon II tests reported on previous 

surveys. 

Results for Mass II cannot be compared to 

the 1996 survey as it did not use Mass 

Echelon II as a category. ‘Precision Mass’ 

was used as the category and it included 

both Mass Echelon I and Mass Echelon II 

calibrations. 

Notes and Comments 

● 12 % of all Mass II standards were 

calibrated for internal use by the 

laboratory. 

● 15 % of all Mass II standards were 

calibrated for the weight and 

measures program. 

● 73 % of all Mass II standards were 

calibrated for external customers. 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 45 of 167 
 

AK 135 

AL 0 

AR 0 

AZ 993 

CA 269 

co 721 

CT Closed 

DA 0 

DE Closed 

FL 132 

GA 544 

HI 189 

IA Closed 

ID 322 

IL 0 

IN No Data 

KS 424 

KY 0 

LAC Closed 

LA 0 

MA 0 

MD 0 

ME 124 

1557 Laboratory Support 

1976 \V&M Program Support 

9563 For external customers 

2000 

2400 

2200 

2000 

1000 

1600 

1400 

1200 

1000 

800 

000 

400 

200 

Los Angeles County 

Hawaii 

Puerto Rico 

USDA - FGIS 

13096 total devices 

calibrated in 26 labs 

Ml 2229 

MN 745 

MO 340 

MS Closed 

MT 0 

NC 93 

ND Closed 

NE 0 

NH Closed 

NJ 2 

NM 762 

NV 203 

NY 672 

OH 1166 

OK No Data 

OR 217 

PA 1441 

PR Closed 

RI Closed 

SC 945 

so 0 

TN 0 

TX 0 

UT 70 

Legend 

0 

VA 112 

VT 0 

WA 117 

186 ■ 

418 ■ 650 ■ 

WI 129 

WV 0 

'wY 0 

882 ■ 

ms ■ 

1347 ■ 

1579 ■ 1811 ■ 

2043 ■ 22'75 ■ 

No Data ■ Clo,sed ■ 

i ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ 8 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ r ~ ~ i i ~ ~ ~ S z ~ ~ ~ ! s ~ ~ t s s ~ ~ ~ ; i ~ J ~ f ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ > ~ i 

"l 

Lab ID 

Figure 14: Mass Echelon II tests. 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 46 of 167 
Total 

Year # Labs Devices 

1996 51 259,713 

1998 46 259,166 

1999 45 257,938 

2000 45 260,072 

2002 47 267,240 

2004 47 248,117 

2005 46 248,650 

2006 49 256,844 

2008 50 254,221 

2010 47 256,094 

2012 47 256,094 

2014 47 244,985 

2016 48 261,823 

2018 45 258,852 

2020 44 245,846 

2022 41 232,017 

Table 9: Echelon III tests reported on previous 

surveys. 

Mass Echelon III 

Description 

The graphs on the following page represent 

the total number of Mass Echelon III 

standards evaluated by the 42 reporting 

laboratories. The map graph illustrates a 

geographical distribution of the 

measurements. There are pie graphs located 

on the map for each individual lab and a 

larger pie graph that reflects the totals. The 

pie graphs provide a breakdown into the 

customer categories of Lab, W&M, and 

External. The bar graph at the bottom of the 

page shows the same breakdown along with 

the total number of devices tested by each 

laboratory. 

● Lab – work done for the internal use of the

metrology laboratory.

● W&M – work done for the weights and

measures enforcement program.

● External – work done for customers who do

not fall into any of the above categories.

Comparison of previous surveys 

Notes and Comments 

● 1 % of all Mass III standards were

calibrated for internal use by the

laboratory.

● 18 % of all Mass III standards were

calibrated for the weight and

measures program.

● 81 % of all Mass III standards were

calibrated for external customers.

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 47 of 167 
 

AK 609 

AL 6389 

AR 3448 

AZ 7996 

CA 5799 

co 6195 

CT Closed 

DA 0 

DE Closed 

FL 3920 

GA 6047 

HI 1429 

IA Closed 

ID 2490 

IL 2898 

IN No Data 

KS 7229 

KY 1196 

LAC Closed 

LA 5437 

MA 1899 

MD 987 

ME 1050 

2593 Laboratory Support 

41117 \V&M Program Support 

188307 For external customers 

24000 

22000 

,0000 

10000 

16000 

14000 

1'000 

10000 

,000 

6000 

4000 

Los Angeles County 

Hawaii 

Puerto Rico 

USDA - FGIS 

232017 total devices 

calibrated in 41 labs 

Ofp,n,o/ 1881()7 

2 ~ ' ~ = ~ ~ s !; 2 

LablO 

D D ~ I 

; i i ! l:. :1 ~ i 

Ml 7258 

MN 12806 

MO 14537 

MS Closed 

MT 610 

NC 7353 

ND Closed 

NE 5260 

NH Closed 

NJ 4487 

NM 5276 

NV 1738 

NY 5823 

OH 11445 

OK No Data 

OR 2691 

PA 20956 

PR Closed 

RI Closed 

SC 13429 

so 4508 

TN 2850 

TX 13603 

UT 2587 

Legend 

0 

VA 10441 

VT 2574 

WA 1966 

1746 ■ 

3929 ■ 6112 ■ 

WI 10221 

WV 3793 

'wY 787 

8195 ■ 10478 ■ 

12661 ■ 

14844 ■ 17027 ■ 

19210 ■ 21393 ■ 

No Data ■ Clo,sed ■ 

i □ 

s ~ O g s ! ~ i i i ~ .. 0 f " 

s 

Figure 15: Mass Echelon III tests. 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 48 of 167 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Weight Carts 

Description 

The graphs on the following page represent 

the total number of weight carts evaluated 

by the 42 reporting laboratories. The map 

graph illustrates a geographical distribution 

of the measurements. There are pie graphs 

located on the map for each individual lab 

and a larger pie graph that reflects the totals. 

The pie graphs provide a breakdown into the 

customer categories of Lab, W&M, and 

External. The bar graph at the bottom of the 

page shows the same breakdown along with 

the total number of devices tested by each 

laboratory. 

● Lab – work done for the internal use of the 

metrology laboratory. 

● W&M – work done for the weights and 

measures enforcement program. 

● External – work done for customers who do 

not fall into any of the above categories. 

Comparison of previous surveys 

Year # Labs 

Total 

Devices 

1998 30 297 

2000 27 344 

2002 29 388 

2004 33 365 

2005 30 410 

2006 31 388 

2008 32 445 

2010 35 468 

2012 31 433 

2014 30 517 

2016 31 572 

2018 30 585 

2020 29 587 

2022 29 646 

Table 10: Weight Cart tests reported on previous 

surveys. 

Notes and Comments 

● <1 % of all weight carts were 

calibrated for internal use by the 

laboratory. 

● 17 % of all weight carts were 

calibrated for the weight and 

measures program. 

● 83 % of all weight carts were 

calibrated for external customers. 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 49 of 167 
 

AK 0 

AL 4 

AR 0 

AZ 24 

CA 0 

co 11 

CT Closed 

DA 0 

DE Closed 

FL 10 

GA 14 

HI 0 

IA Closed 

ID 11 

IL 18 

IN No Data 

KS 35 

KY 0 

LAC Closed 

LA 0 

MA 0 

MD 0 

ME 2 

0 Laboratory Support 

113 W&M Program Support 

533 For external c.ustomers 

Los Angeles County 

Hawaii 

Puerto Rico 

USDA· FGIS 

646 total devices 

calibrated in 29 labs 

Ml 27 

MN 58 

MO 21 

MS Closed 

MT 17 

NC 6 

ND Closed 

NE 21 

NH Closed 

NJ 0 

NM 21 

NV 0 

~ 7 

OH 23 

OK No Data 

OR 22 

PA 57 

PR Closed 

RI Closed 

SC 23 

SD 20 

TN 0 

TX 28 

UT 0 

Legend 

0 

VA 77 

VT 5 

WA 6 

6 ■ 

14 ■ zz ■ 

WI 45 

WV 21 

'wY 11 

30 ■ 39 ■ 

47 ■ 

ss ■ 63 ■ 

71 ■ 79 ■ 

NoData ■ 

Closed ■ 

00 ~--------------------------------------------------------

80 f-------------------------------/ 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

: J i i ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ i ! i ~ a = ~ ~ s e i = l ~ ~ ~ ~ t ~ ~ ~ G ! ! ~ ! t ~ ~ i i i i i ~ i s f R f i s 

!9 

Ubl.O 

Figure 16: Weight Cart tests. 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 50 of 167 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Railroad Test Cars 

Description 

The graphs on the following page represent 

the total number of railroad test cars 

evaluated by the 42 reporting laboratories. 

The map graph illustrates a geographical 

distribution of the measurements. There are 

pie graphs located on the map for each 

individual lab and a larger pie graph that 

reflects the totals. The pie graphs provide a 

breakdown into the customer categories of 

Lab, W&M, and External. The bar graph at 

the bottom of the page shows the same 

breakdown along with the total number of 

devices tested by each laboratory. 

● Lab – work done for the internal use of the 

metrology laboratory. 

● W&M – work done for the weights and 

measures enforcement program. 

● External – work done for customers who do 

not fall into any of the above categories. 

Comparison of previous surveys 

Year # Labs 

Total 

Devices 

2016 5 43 

2018 3 16 

2020 3 30 

2022 3 8 

Table 11: Railroad Test Car tests reported on 

previous surveys. 

Notes and Comments 

● 0 % of all railroad test cars were 

calibrated for internal use by the 

laboratory. 

● 13% of all railroad test cars were 

calibrated for the weight and 

measures program. 

● 83% of all railroad test cars were 

calibrated for external customers. 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 51 of 167 
 

AK 0 

AL 0 

AR 0 

AZ 0 

CA 0 

co 0 

CT Closed 

DA 5 

DE Closed 

FL 0 

GA 0 

HI 0 

IA Closed 

ID 0 

IL 0 

IN No Data 

KS 0 

KY 0 

LAC Closed 

LA 0 

MA 0 

MD 0 

ME 0 

0 Laboratory Support 

I W&M Program Support 

7 For external customers 

I 

Los Angeles County 

Hawaii 

Puerto Rico 

USDA · FGIS 

8 total devices 

calibrated in 3 labs 

Legend 

0 

0 ■ 

■ 

■ 

1 ■ 3 ■ 

3 ■ 

4 ■ 4 ■ 

5 ■ 5 ■ 

NoData ■ 

Closed ■ 

Ml 0 

MN 1 

MO 0 MS Closed 

MT 0 

NC 0 

ND Closed 

NE 0 

NH Closed 

NJ 0 NM 0 

NV 0 

~ 0 

OH 0 

OK No Data 

OR 2 

PA 0 

PR Closed 

RI Closed 

SC 0 

SD 0 TN 0 

TX 0 

UT 0 

VA 0 

VT 0 WA 0 

WI 0 

WV 0 

WY 0 

a ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ 6 8 t ~ ~ ~ ! ~ e = ! ~ t ~ 5 i ~ i j ~ i ~ V i ~ i z i ~ ~ ~ s f f • ~ ~ f ~ s ~ ~ ; 3 ~ ~ 

!S 

Ubl.O 

Figure 17: Railroad Test Car tests. 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 52 of 167 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Railroad Specific Weight Carts 

Description 

The graphs on the following page represent 

the total number of railroad specific weight 

carts evaluated by the 42 reporting 

laboratories. The map graph illustrates a 

geographical distribution of the 

measurements. There are pie graphs located 

on the map for each individual lab and a 

larger pie graph that reflects the totals. The 

pie graphs provide a breakdown into the 

customer categories of Lab, W&M, and 

External. The bar graph at the bottom of the 

page shows the same breakdown along with 

the total number of devices tested by each 

laboratory. 

● Lab – work done for the internal use of the 

metrology laboratory. 

● W&M – work done for the weights and 

measures enforcement program. 

● External – work done for customers who do 

not fall into any of the above categories. 

Comparison of previous surveys 

Year # Labs 

Total 

Devices 

2016 5 13 

2018 7 33 

2020 3 8 

2022 3 21 

Table 12: Railroad Specific Weight Carts tests 

reported on previous surveys. 

Notes and Comments 

● 0 % of all weight carts were 

calibrated for internal use by the 

laboratory. 

● 0 % of all weight carts were 

calibrated for the weight and 

measures program. 

● 100 % of all weight carts were 

calibrated for external customers. 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 53 of 167 
 

AK 0 

AL 0 

AR 0 

AZ 0 

CA 0 

co 0 

CT Closed 

DA 0 

DE Closed 

FL 0 

GA 0 

HI 0 

IA Closed 

ID 0 

IL 0 

IN No Data 

KS 2 

KY 0 

LAC Closed 

LA 0 

MA 0 

MD 0 

ME 0 

0 Laboratory Support 

0 W&M Program Support 

21 For external customer., 

18 

16 

14 

12 

10 

8 

6 

4 

2 

0 z ~ !I ~ ;;! :! :. 

r' 

:;! .s 8 ti :!l ~ ~ 

Los Angeles County 

Hawaii 

Puerto Rico 

USDA- FGIS 

'f ~ ~ = '!, l; :s :s < 

:. 

21 total devices 

calibrated in 3 labs 

I 

\ 

Q i :i 0 :. i ~ li i :. 

Lab ID 

Ml 0 

MN 15 

MO 0 

MS Closed 

MT 0 

NC 0 

ND Closed 

NE 0 

NH Closed 

NJ 0 

NM 0 

NV 0 

NY 0 

OH 0 

OK No Data 

OR 0 

PA 0 

PR Closed 

RI Closed 

SC 0 

SD 0 

TN 0 

TX 0 

UT 0 

Legend VA 0 

0 VT 0 

'wA 0 

l ■ 'wl 0 

3 ■ 4 ■ 

'wV 4 

w 0 

6 ■ 8 ■ 9 ■ 11 ■ 12 ■ 

14 ■ 15 ■ 

NoData ■ 

Closed ■ 

~ 

\ 

J 

ExremcJ 2l 

!t I i! ~ ~ ~ :c ~ ~ ~ f " u ~ z 0 0 0 ~ .. I! ~ 5 ~ !;: ~ i ~ s 

Figure 18: Railroad Specific Weight Cart tests. 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 54 of 167 
 

Length 

SLP Laboratories normally test two distinct classes of length standards, steel tape measures 

(surveyor’s tapes or pi tapes for example) and rigid steel rules. 

A typical measurement procedure for calibrating a rigid steel rule involves the side by side 

comparison of two rigid steel rules with the aid of a microscope. Two measurement procedures 

are commonly employed by the SLP laboratories to test steel tape measures. One involves the 

direct comparison of two flat steel tapes the other a direct comparison of a surveyor tape to a 

fixed length bench calibrated at 1 ft intervals out to 16 ft. Measurement procedures may be 

found in NISTIR 8028, 2014, Selected Laboratory and Measurement Practices and Procedures 

for Length Calibrations, Jose A. Torres, Georgia L. Harris. 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 55 of 167 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Steel Tape Measures 

Description 

The graphs on the following page represent 

the total number of tape measures evaluated 

by the 42 reporting laboratories. The map 

graph illustrates a geographical distribution 

of the measurements. There are pie graphs 

located on the map for each individual lab 

and a larger pie graph that reflects the totals. 

The pie graphs provide a breakdown into the 

customer categories of Lab, W&M, and 

External. The bar graph at the bottom of the 

page shows the same breakdown along with 

the total number of devices tested by each 

laboratory. 

● Lab – work done for the internal use of the 

metrology laboratory. 

● W&M – work done for the weights and 

measures enforcement program. 

● External – work done for customers who do 

not fall into any of the above categories. 

Comparison of previous surveys 

Notes and Comments 

● 2 % of all tape measures were 

tested for internal use by the 

laboratory. 

● 46 % of all tape measures were 

tested for the weight and measures 

program. 

● 52 % of all tape measures were 

tested for external customers. 

Year # Labs 

Total 

Devices 

1996 27 707 

1998 29 537 

1999 21 566 

2000 22 487 

2002 21 584 

2004 21 319 

2005 19 304 

2006 18 339 

2008 17 425 

2010 15 310 

2012 12 353 

2014 9 323 

2016 7 319 

2018 5 213 

2020 5 226 

2022 5 196 

Table 13: Tape measure tests reported on previous 

surveys. 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 56 of 167 
 

AK 0 

AL 0 

AR 0 

AZ 0 

CA 41 

co 0 

CT Closed 

DA 0 

DE Closed 

FL 0 

GA 0 

HI 0 

IA Closed 

ID 0 

IL 0 

IN No Data 

KS 0 

KY 0 

LAC Closed 

LA 0 

MA 0 

MD 0 

ME 0 

4 Laboratory Support 

90 IV &M Program Support 

I 02 For external c.ustomers 

I 

Los Angeles County 

Hawaii 

Puerto Rico 

USDA· FGIS 

"'- ,.. - / 

\ ( I.(_ wrf'~"\ "' , 

., 

J 

1/ 

r LY' 

~(, 'v"\, 

\ 

\_ 

196 total devices 

calibrated in 5 labs 

\y ,,, 

Ml 0 

MN 0 

/' 

l y 

--

MO 0 MS Closed 

MT 0 

NC 0 

ND Closed 

NE 0 

NH Closed 

NJ 36 

NM 0 

NV 0 

~ 73 

OH 5 

\ OK No Data 

OR 0 

PA 41 

PR Closed 

RI Closed 

SC 0 

SD 0 TN 0 

TX 0 

UT 0 

Legend 

0 

VA 0 

VT 0 WA 0 

6 ■ 

14 ■ Zl ■ 

WI 0 

WV 0 

WY 0 

19 ■ 37 ■ 

44 ■ 

sz ■ 59 ■ 

67 ■ 75 ■ 

NoData ■ 

Closed ■ 

90 ~-----------------------------------------------------

so f---------------------------------/ 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

~ ~ ~ z 5 ~ ~ ~ ~ 8 t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ s s ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ r I ~ ~ 0 o f u ~ ~ l ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

!l 

UblO 

Figure 19: Tape Measure tests. 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 57 of 167 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rigid Rules 

Description 

The graphs on the following page represent 

the total number of rigid rules evaluated by 

the 42 reporting laboratories. The map graph 

illustrates a geographical distribution of the 

measurements. There are pie graphs located 

on the map for each individual lab and a 

larger pie graph that reflects the totals. The 

pie graphs provide a breakdown into the 

customer categories of Lab, W&M, and 

External. The bar graph at the bottom of the 

page shows the same breakdown along with 

the total number of devices tested by each 

laboratory. 

● Lab – work done for the internal use of the 

metrology laboratory. 

● W&M – work done for the weights and 

measures enforcement program. 

● External – work done for customers who do 

not fall into any of the above categories. 

Comparison of previous surveys 

Notes and Comments 

● 3 % of all rigid rules were tested for 

internal use by the laboratory. 

● 3 % of all rigid rules were tested for 

the weight and measures program. 

● 94 % of all rigid rules were tested 

for external customers. 

Year # Labs 

Total 

Devices 

1996 26 582 

1998 29 269 

1999 20 413 

2000 16 169 

2002 14 138 

2004 12 98 

2005 11 85 

2006 11 122 

2008 11 88 

2010 8 89 

2012 3 85 

2014 3 54 

2016 2 36 

2018 4 184 

2020 3 30 

2022 1 37 

Table 14: Rigid rule tests reported in previous 

surveys. 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 58 of 167 
 

AK 0 

AL 0 

AR 0 

AZ 0 

CA 0 

co 0 

CT Closed 

DA 0 

DE Closed 

FL 0 

GA 0 

HI 0 

IA Closed 

ID 0 

IL 0 

IN No Data 

KS 0 

KY 0 

LAC Closed 

LA 0 

MA 0 

MD 0 

ME 0 

1 Laboratory Support 

1 W&M Program Support 

35 For external c.ustome~ 

40 

38 

•• 

.. 

" 

so 

28 

,. 

24 

22 

20 

18 

1• 

14 

12 

10 

' 

' 

4 

2 

0 

i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 8 ~ !! ~ l! ~ :$ 

Los Angeles County 

Puerto Rico 

USDA· FGIS 

!! " ! 1:1 t s :I < 

li 

37 total devices 

calibrated in I labs 

/ 

I 

\ 

""'~ 

~ M l 

0 

li ii :ii z 

li 0 ~ 

li li ~ !ii!ijll£ 

LablD 

"' \ 

I 

/ 

~ 

0 

w 

0 "' 0 f f a :,: 

Legend 

0 

3 ■ 

7 I II ■ 15 ■ 19 ■ 

22 ■ 

26 I 30 ■ 

:w ■ 38 ■ 

NoData I Closed I 

g f I! a 

!l 

Ml 0 

MN 0 

MO 0 

MS Closed 

MT 0 

NC 0 

ND Closed 

NE 0 

NH Closed 

NJ 37 

NM 0 

NV 0 

Ni 0 

OH 0 

OK No Data 

OR 0 

PA 0 

PR Closed 

RI Closed 

SC 0 

SD 0 

TN 0 

TX 0 

UT 0 

VA 0 

VT 0 

'wA 0 

'wl 0 

'wV 0 

'wY 0 

5 < 

> !;;; i :i ~ ~ 

Figure 20: Rigid rule tests. 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 59 of 167 
 

 

Volume 

Volume measurement service are the 2nd most commonly performed by the SLP laboratories 

next to mass measurement. Volume measurement is broken down into distinct categories based 

upon the type of volumetric standard tested. The categories are glassware, volume test measures 

(≤ 5 gallons), medium volume provers (>5 gallons and ≤ 100 gallons), and large volume provers 

(> 100 gallons). 

Examples of Volumetric Standards include but may not be limited to the following; 

● laboratory glassware (see for example ASTM E288) and field measuring flasks (see 

NIST Handbook 105-2). 

● steel graduated neck test measures as described in NIST Handbook 105-3 and in 

American Petroleum Institute’s Manual of Petroleum Measurement Standards (Chapter 

4). These include the steel 5 gallon capacity test measures commonly used by weights 

and measures officials to test retail motor fuel dispensers. 

● pressurized Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) Provers as described in NIST Handbook 

105-4. 

● slicker plate standards. These devices are similar to volumetric provers with the 

exception that they do not have a graduated neck. A slicker plate is used to skim off the 

meniscus formed at the top of the vessel when filled. 

Volume measurements are further subdivided into two measurement categories. Volume 

standards are calibrated either by; 

● transferring a known quantity of liquid (usually clean water) into them (See SOP’s 16, 

18, and 19 of NIST Internal Report 7383) −Volumetric Calibration−, or 

● by filling it with a well characterized liquid (typically distilled water) and weighing it 

(See SOP 14 of NIST Internal Report 7383) −Gravimetric Calibration−. 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 60 of 167 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Glassware 

Description 

The graphs on the next two pages represent the total number of volume measurements performed 

on glassware by the 42 reporting laboratories. Each map graph illustrates the geographical 

distribution of these measurements. The pie graphs located on each map for each individual lab 

and a larger pie graph that reflects the totals. The bar graph at the bottom of the page shows the 

same customer breakdown along with the total number of devices tested by each laboratory. 

● Lab – work done for the internal use of the metrology laboratory. 

● W&M – work done for the weights and measures enforcement program. 

● External – work done for customers who do not fall into any of the above categories. 

Comparison of previous surveys 

Year # Labs 

Volume 

Transfer Gravimetric 

Total 

1996 29 1,205 

1998 24 844 

1999 25 853 

2000 27 668 

2002 24 555 

2004 17 332 

2005 20 69 140 209 

2006 18 82 172 254 

2008 18 42 183 225 

2010 16 43 288 331 

2010 16 43 288 331 

2012 8 170 78 248 

2014 9 124 119 243 

2016 10 6 75 81 

2018 9 0 104 104 

2020 9 0 189 189 

2022 6 2 100 102 

Table 15: Glassware calibrations from previous surveys. 

Notes and Comments 

● 43 % of all glassware standards were tested for the laboratory 

● 35 % of all glassware standards were tested for Weights and Measures enforcement 

programs. 

● 22 % of all glassware standards were tested for external customers. 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 61 of 167 
 

AK 0 

AL 0 

AR 0 

AZ 0 

CA 0 

co 0 

CT Closed 

DA 0 

DE Closed 

FL 0 

GA 0 

HI 0 

IA Closed 

ID 0 

IL 0 

IN No Data 

KS 0 

KY 0 

LAC Closed 

LA 0 

MA 0 

MD 0 

ME 0 

0 Laboratory Support 

0 W&M Program Support 

2 For external customers 

u 

2. 2 

2 

1.8 

1.6 

1.4 

1. 2 

1 

0.8 

0.6 

0.4 

0.2 

0 

~ !:! < : ~ ~ 8 t ~ .: ~ " !I 

Los Angele~ County 

Hawaii 

Puerto Rico 

USDA - FGIS 

!! " ~ l2 t ~ s < " 

___J' 

2 total devices 

calibrated in l labs 

/ 

I 

\ 

~ 

0 ;; ~ z 0 ; 1 l! ~ " " " 

UblO 

,.. -

V.ub'1(jl0 

\ 

' 

J 

Exfl'mcf 2 / 

!! f 'l ~ ~ . 

0 ~ :; ~ f 1i ~ 

Legend 

0 

0 

2 

2 

■ 

■ 

■ 

■ 

■ 

■ 

■ 

■ 

■ 

■ 

NoData ■ 

Closed ■ 

~ ~ 1! t 

!! 

s ~ !; 

Ml 0 

MN 0 

MO 0 

MS Closed 

MT 0 

NC 0 

ND Closed 

NE 0 

NH Closed 

NJ 0 

NM 2 

NV 0 

NY 0 

OH 0 

OK No Data 

OR 0 

PA 0 

PR Closed 

RI Closed 

SC 0 

SD 0 

TN 0 

TX 0 

UT 0 

VA 0 

VT 0 

WA 0 

\.II 0 

\.IV 0 

',N 0 

~ 3 ~ ~ 

Volume Transfer 

Figure 21: Glassware calibrations, volume transfer method 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 62 of 167 
 

AK 0 

AL 0 

AR 0 

AZ 0 

CA 0 

co 0 

CT Closed 

DA 0 

DE Closed 

FL 0 

GA 0 

HI 13 

IA Closed 

ID 0 

IL 0 

IN No Data 

KS 0 

KY 0 

LAC Closed 

LA 0 

MA 0 

MO 0 

ME 0 

44 Labora1ory Support 

36 W&M Program Support 

20 For external customers 

.. 

Los Angeles County 

4I Hawaii 

Puerto Rico 

USDA- FGIS 

J 

I 00 total devices 

calibrated in 6 labs 

8 

13 

18 

23 

27 

32 

37 

41 

46 

■ 

■ 

■ 

■ 

■ 

■ 

■ 

■ 

■ 

■ 

NoData ■ 

Closed ■ 

Ml 

MN 

MO 

MS 

MT 

NC 

ND 

NE 

NH 

NJ 

NM 

NV 

NY 

OH 

OK 

OR 

PA 

PR 

RI 

SC 

50 

TN 

TX 

UT 

VA 

VT 

WA 

WI 

WV 

'wY 

20 

5 

0 

Closed 

0 

12 

Closed 

0 

Closed 

0 

45 

0 

5 

0 

No Data 

0 

0 

Closed 

Closed 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

48 .----------------------------------------------------

., __________________________ _,, 

40 - -------------------------{ 

38 - ------------------------

.. - -----------------------~ ,. _ _______________________ _ ,, _________________________ _ 30 - -------------------------- ,, ____________________________ _ 26 - ---------------------------------------------------

24 - --------------------------------------------------- ,, _ __________________________________________________ _ 

,. - ...,..,--------------------------------------------------

18 

" 

14 

12 

10 

... ,o 

~ • u 0 0 0 

Gravimetric 

Figure 22: Glassware calibrations, gravimetric method. 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 63 of 167 
 

 

 

 

 

Test Measures (≤5 gallon) 

Description 

The graphs on the next two pages represent the total number of volume measurements performed 

on test measures by the 42 reporting laboratories. Each map graph illustrates the geographical 

distribution of these measurements. The pie graphs located on each map for each individual lab 

and a larger pie graph that reflects the totals. The bar graph at the bottom of the page shows the 

same customer breakdown along with the total number of devices tested by each laboratory. 

● Lab – work done for the internal use of the metrology laboratory. 

● W&M – work done for the weights and measures enforcement program. 

● External – work done for customers who do not fall into any of the above categories. 

Comparison of previous surveys 

Year # Labs 

Volume 

Transfer Gravimetric 

Total 

1996 48 8,290 8,290 

1998 46 6,861 6,861 

1999 45 6,986 6,986 

2000 45 7,368 7,368 

2002 48 6,966 6,966 

2004 46 6,400 6,400 

2005 42 6,925 75 7,000 

2006 46 7,532 77 7,609 

2008 49 7,321 69 7,390 

2010 45 8,216 73 8,289 

2012 46 7,533 93 7,626 

2014 46 7,863 128 7,991 

2016 46 7,926 84 8,010 

2018 44 8,308 74 8,341 

2020 43 7,265 53 7,318 

2022 41 7,834 53 7,887 

Table 16: Test Measure (5 ≤ gal.) volume tests from previous surveys. 

Notes and Comments 

● 1 % of all test measures were tested for the laboratory. 

● 28 % of all test measures were tested for Weights and Measures enforcement programs. 

● 71 % of all test measures were tested for external customers. 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 64 of 167 
 

AK 26 

AL 392 

AR 87 

AZ 247 

CA 315 

co 151 

CT Closed 

DA 0 

DE Closed 

FL 415 

GA 140 

HI 36 

IA Closed 

ID 80 

IL 226 

IN No Data 

KS 164 

KY 87 

LAC Closed 

LA 238 

MA 146 

MD 38 

ME 95 

75 Laboratory Support 

2165 \V&M Program Support 

5 5 94 For external customers 

Los Angeles County 

H d Wd i i 

Puerto Rico 

USDA· FGIS 

7834 total devices 

calibrated in 41 labs 

Legend 

0 

63 ■ 

143 I 222 ■ 301 ■ 380 ■ 

459 ■ 

538 I 618 ■ 

691 ■ 776 ■ 

NoData I Closed I 

Ml 

MN 

MO 

MS 

MT 

NC 

ND 

NE 

NH 

NJ 

NM 

NV 

Ni 

OH 

OK 

OR 

PA 

PR 

RI 

SC 

SD 

TN 

TX 

UT 

VA 

VT 

'wA 

'wl 

'wV 

'wY 

188 

318 

136 

Closed 

80 

308 

Closed 

127 

Closed 

190 

161 

146 

124 

282 

No Data 

72 

760 

Closed 

Closed 

210 

124 

156 

510 

74 

282 

152 

39 

346 

125 

41 

- ---------------------------------------------------------

800 ..-------------------------------;' 

700 

600 

500 

400 

300 

100 

f ~ ~ ~ j § ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ 8 i i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ t e i S ~ ~ ~ ~ : ~ t ~ ~ ! s ~ i ! ~ f ~ i 

!!I 

L>blO 

Figure 23: Test Measure tests (≤5 gallon), volume transfer. 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 65 of 167 
 

AK 2 

AL 0 

AR 0 

AZ 4 

CA 1 

co 1 

CT Closed 

DA 0 

DE Closed 

FL 0 

GA 0 

HI 1 

IA Closed 

ID 0 

IL 0 

IN No Data 

KS 0 

KY 0 

LAC Closed 

LA 0 

MA 0 

MD 0 

ME 0 

16 Laboratory Support 

7 W&M Program Support 

30 For external c.ustome~ 

Los Angeles County 

Puerto Rico 

USDA· FGIS 

N.-

~ 

....., 

~ 

t--~ ....--------. 0 

Legend 

\ .L -...s V) : I ..... 9 ■ 

}:I 10 ■ 12 I 14 ■ 

16 ■ 

17 ■ 

53 total devices 

calibrated in 12 labs 

NoData I 

Closed I 

Ml 5 

MN 2 

MO 0 

MS Closed 

MT 0 

NC 5 ND Closed 

NE 0 

NH Closed 

NJ 0 

NM 0 

NV 2 

Ni 17 

OH 0 

OK No Data 

OR 0 

PA 12 

PR Closed 

RI Closed 

SC 1 

SD 0 

TN 0 

TX 0 

UT 0 

VA 0 

VT 0 

'wA 0 

'wl 0 

'wV 0 

'wY 0 

20 ------------------------------------------------------

1B f--------------------------------,7 

16 

1 4 

12 

10 

~ f i ~ ~ ~ § ~ ~ 8 ~ ~ < ~ ~ o t ~ ~ e = ! ~ ~ ~ 5 ~ ~ i ~ i i i z I 2 i ~ ~ ~ f ~ ~ ~ ~ i s ~ > ~ § ~ ~ 

!S L>blO 

Figure 24: Test Measure tests (≤5 gallon), gravimetric. 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 66 of 167 
 

 

 

 

 

Provers (> 5 gallon and ≤ 100 gallon) 

Description 

The graphs on the next two pages represent the total number of volume measurements performed 

on volumetric provers by the 42 reporting laboratories. Each map graph illustrates the 

geographical distribution of these measurements. The pie graphs located on each map for each 

individual lab and a larger pie graph that reflects the totals. The bar graph at the bottom of the 

page shows the same customer breakdown along with the total number of devices tested by each 

laboratory. 

● Lab – work done for the internal use of the metrology laboratory. 

● W&M – work done for the weights and measures enforcement program. 

● External – work done for customers who do not fall into any of the above categories. 

Comparison of previous surveys 

Year # Labs 

Volume 

Transfer Gravimetric 

Total 

2005 726 47 773 

2006 760 81 841 

2008 737 46 783 

2010 41 711 49 760 

2012 39 713 31 744 

2014 37 828 57 885 

2016 39 745 58 803 

2018 38 841 61 902 

2020 37 757 33 790 

2022 37 785 76 861 

Table 17: Provers (>5 gal. and ≤ 100 gal.) volume tests from previous surveys. 

Notes and Comments 

• 5 % of all provers (> 5 gal. and ≤ 100 gal.) were tested for the laboratory 

• 24 % of all provers (> 5 gal. and ≤ 100 gal.) were tested for Weights and Measures 

enforcement programs. 

• 71 % of all provers (> 5 gal. and ≤ 100 gal.) were tested for external customers. 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 67 of 167 
 

AK 15 

AL 60 

AR 0 

AZ 28 

CA 43 

co 6 

CT Closed 

DA 0 

DE Closed 

FL 47 

GA 30 

HI 4 

IA Closed 

ID 5 

IL 33 

IN No Data 

KS 21 

KY 9 

LAC Closed 

LA 0 

MA 11 

MD 0 

ME 10 

28 Laboratory Support 

203 W&M Program Support 

554 For external c.ustomers 

Los Angeles County 

H d Wd i i 

Puerto Rico 

USDA· FGIS 

787 total devices 

calibrated in 37 labs 

Legend 

0 

8 ■ 

18 I 27 ■ 37 ■ 47 ■ 

57 ■ 

67 I 76 ■ 

86 ■ 96 ■ 

NoData I 

Closed I 

Ml 

MN 

MO 

MS 

MT 

NC 

ND 

NE 

NH 

NJ 

NM 

NV 

Ni 

OH 

OK 

OR 

PA 

PR 

RI 

SC 

SD 

TN 

TX 

UT 

VA 

VT 

'wA 

'wl 

'wV 

'wY 

25 

74 

14 

Closed 

8 

15 

Closed 

5 

Closed 

30 

10 

4 

17 

26 

No Data 

2 

94 

Closed 

Closed 

0 

11 

3 

69 

6 

2 

6 

1 

23 

18 

2 

110 .---------------------------------------------------------

60 

SD 

40 

"' 

20 

10 

f i ~ ~ = ~ = ~ 2 ~ a ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i i ~ ; s s ~ 2 ~ ~ i ~ a i i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ! ~ ~ ~ i i i s r • ~ i 

!l 

LablD 

Figure 25: Prover (≥5 gal. and < 100 gal.) tests, volume transfer. 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 68 of 167 
 

 

AK 2 

AL 0 

AR 0 

AZ 2 

CA 0 

co 0 

CT Closed 

DA 0 

DE Closed 

FL 0 

GA 0 

HI 1 

IA Closed 

ID 0 

IL 0 

IN No Data 

KS 0 

KY 0 

LAC Closed 

LA 0 

MA 0 

MD 0 

ME 5 

15 Laboratory Support 

6 W&M Program Support 

55 For external c.ustome~ 

Los Angeles County 

Puerto Rico 

USDA· FGIS 

76 total devices 

calibrated in 9 labs 

Legend 

0 

3 ■ 

8 I u ■ 16 ■ 21 ■ 

25 ■ 

29 I 

33 ■ 

38 ■ 42 ■ 

NoData I 

Closed I 

Ml 2 

MN 4 

MO 0 

MS Closed 

MT 0 

NC 41 

ND Closed 

NE 0 

NH Closed 

NJ 0 

NM 0 

NV 0 

Ni 8 

OH 0 

OK No Data 

OR 0 

PA 11 

PR Closed 

RI Closed 

SC 0 

SD 0 

TN 0 

TX 0 

UT 0 

VA 0 

VT 0 

'wA 0 

'wl 0 

'wV 0 

'wY 0 

« ------------------------------------------------------

26 

24 

22 

20 

.. 

16 

14 

12 

10 

~ f ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i : ~ : 6 s ~ ! i ~ ~ ~ = ! ~ t ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ; i 2 z i z J ~ B ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i s ~ > ~ i ~ ~ 

!S L>b lO 

Figure 26: Prover (≥5 gal. and < 100 gal.) tests, gravimetric. 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 69 of 167 
Provers (> 100 gallon) 

Description 

The graphs on the next two pages represent the total number of volume measurements performed 

on volumetric provers by the 42 reporting laboratories. Each map graph illustrates the 

geographical distribution of these measurements. The pie graphs located on each map for each 

individual lab and a larger pie graph that reflects the totals. The bar graph at the bottom of the 

page shows the same customer breakdown along with the total number of devices tested by each 

laboratory. 

● Lab – work done for the internal use of the metrology laboratory.

● W&M – work done for the weights and measures enforcement program.

● External – work done for customers who do not fall into any of the above categories.

Comparison of previous surveys 

Year # Labs 

Volume 

Transfer Gravimetric 

Total 

2005 201 1 202 

2006 202 0 202 

2008 34 284 0 284 

2010 33 287 0 287 

2012 30 237 1 238 

2014 30 239 1 240 

2016 30 275 3 278 

2018 28 259 1 260 

2020 29 284 0 284 

2022 28 280 0 280 

Table 18: Provers (> 100 gal.) tests from previous surveys. 

Notes and Comments 

● 0 % of all provers (> 100 gal.) were tested for the laboratory.

● 20 % of all provers (> 100 gal.) were tested for Weights and Measures enforcement

programs.

● 80 % of all provers (> 100 gal.) were tested for external customers.

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 70 of 167 
 

AK 10 

AL 22 

AR 0 

AZ 1 

CA 15 

co 0 

CT Closed 

DA 0 

DE Closed 

FL 12 

GA 5 

HI 3 

IA Closed 

ID 3 

IL 28 

IN No Data 

KS 11 

KY 0 

LAC Closed 

LA 0 

MA 1 

MD 0 

ME 4 

0 Laboratory Support 

56 W&M Program Support 

224 For external c.ustomers 

" 

36 

"' 

" 

"' 

" 

26 

24 -

22 

20 -

18 

.. -

14 

12 - - - - -

10 

' - -

' 

4 

2 -

0 

-

~ ~ 

,- - -

I- -

I- -

- - ,-

z 

I = f ~ 2 ~ I! ~ ~ I:! ~ 

Los Angeles County 

H d Wd i i 

Puerto Rico 

USDA· FGIS 

- -

II-

- - - -

:1 l ~ ~ 0 

I .! :ii 

280 total devices 

calibrated in 28 labs 

I 

I 

\ \ ~ 

~ 

i-jjj II n n n.1 < 

~ f e :i ~ 11 ~ < 

I i "' 0 ~ 8 ti 

LablD 

L.Ob 0 

I 

I 

/ 

l!l ~ ! ii ~ ~ 0 

I i ~ ~ i 

Legend 

0 

3 ■ 

7 I 10 ■ 14 ■ 18 ■ 

21 ■ 

25 I 28 ■ 

32 ■ 36 ■ 

NoData I 

Closed I 

i " 0 " 0 f 

Ml 10 

MN 35 

MO 7 

MS Closed 

MT 0 

NC 0 

ND Closed 

NE 13 

NH Closed 

NJ 18 

NM 1 

NV 2 

Ni 10 

OH 1 

OK No Data 

OR 0 

PA 25 

PR Closed 

RI Closed 

SC 10 

SD 0 

TN 0 

TX 14 

UT 0 

VA 0 

VT 0 

'wA 4 

'wl 3 

'wV 3 

'wY 9 

• St ~ i 

!I 

s ~ \; 

Figure 27: Prover (>100 gal.) tests, volume transfer 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 71 of 167 
 

No Gravimetric Volume Tests to Report 

Figure 28: Prover (>100 gal.) tests, gravimetric 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 72 of 167
Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) Provers 

Description 

The graphs on the next two pages represent 

the total number of measurements 

performed on LPG provers by the 42 

reporting laboratories. Each map graph 

illustrates the geographical distribution of 

these measurements. The pie graphs located 

on each map for each individual lab and a 

larger pie graph that reflects the totals. The 

bar graph at the bottom of the page shows 

the same customer breakdown along with 

the total number of devices tested by each 

laboratory. 

● Lab – work done for the internal use of the

metrology laboratory.

● W&M – work done for the weights and

measures enforcement program.

● External – work done for customers who do

not fall into any of the above categories.

Comparison of previous surveys 

Volume 

Transfer 

Year # Labs 

2005 226 

2006 239 

2008 27 249 

2010 33 304 

2012 24 228 

2014 25 231 

2016 25 253 

2018 29 292 

2020 23 259 

2022 28 305 

Table 19: LPG Prover volume tests from previous 

surveys. 

Notes and Comments 

● 1 % of all LPG provers were tested

for the laboratory.

● 37 % of all LPG provers were tested

for Weights and Measures

enforcement programs.

● 62 % of all LPG provers were tested

for external customers.

 SLP Survey 2022 - Page 73 of 167
 

AK 0 

AL 0 

AR 0 

AZ 5 

CA 38 

co 5 CT Closed 

DA 0 

DE Closed 

FL 17 

GA 7 

HI 0 

IA Closed 

ID 2 

IL 24 

IN No Data 

KS 4 

KY 0 

LAC Closed 

LA 0 

MA 0 

MD 0 

ME 12 

2 Laboratory Support 

113 W&M Program Support 

190 For external c.ustomers 

Los Angeles County 

H d Wd i i 

Puerto Rico 

USDA · FGIS 

305 total devices 

calibrated in 28 labs 

Legend 

0 

3 ■ 

7 I II ■ 15 ■ 19 ■ 

2J ■ 

27 I 

31 ■ 

35 ■ 39 ■ 

No Data I Closed I 

Ml 

MN 

MO 

MS 

MT 

NC 

ND 

NE 

NH 

NJ 

NM 

NV 

Ni 

OH 

OK 

OR 

PA 

PR 

RI 

SC 

SD 

TN 

TX 

UT 

VA 

VT 

'wA 

'wl 

'wV 

'wY 

12 

30 

7 

Closed 

7 

6 

Closed 

10 

Closed 

27 

7 

3 

12 

6 

No Data 

2 

0 

Closed 

Closed 

0 

8 

0 

22 

0 

0 

3 

2 

11 

9 

7 

40 ,---------------------------------------------------------

20 

18 

1• 

14 

12 

10 

( II! 

LablD 

Figure 29: LPG Prover tests, volume transfer 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 74 of 167 
Year 

# 

Labs 

Grav 

imetr 

ic 

Volume 

Transfe 

r Total 

2005 110 11 

2006 200 20 

2008 3 16 11 27 [MI,NC,VT] 

2010 2 30 0 30 [MI,NC] 

2012 3 57 0 57 

2014 4 32 3 35 

2016 3 31 0 31[AZ,MI,NC] 

Table 20: SVP tests from previous surveys. 

Dynamic Small Volume Provers (SVP) 

Findings 

(This section was deprecated in 2018 however prior history data has been retained in this report 

for convenience. See the new section titled “Small Volume Provers, Compact Displacement 

Provers, and Closed Loop Provers”) 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 75 of 167 
Year # Labs 

Total 

Devices 

2018 2 28 

2020 2 24 

2022 2 19 

Small Volume Provers, Compact 

Displacement Provers, and Closed Loop 

Provers 

Description 

The graphs on the next two pages represent 

the total number of measurements 

performed on small volume provers, 

compact displacement provers, and closed 

loop provers by the 42 reporting 

laboratories. Each map graph illustrates the 

geographical distribution of these 

measurements. The pie graphs located on 

each map for each individual lab and a 

larger pie graph that reflects the totals. The 

bar graph at the bottom of the page shows 

the same customer breakdown along with 

the total number of devices tested by each 

laboratory. 

● Lab – work done for the internal use of the 

metrology laboratory. 

● W&M – work done for the weights and 

measures enforcement program. 

● External – work done for customers who do 

not fall into any of the above categories. 

Comparison of previous surveys 

Table 21: Small Volume, Compact Displacement, 

and Closed Loop prover tests. 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 76 of 167 
 

AK 0 

AL 0 

AR 0 

AZ 0 

CA 0 

co 0 

CT Closed 

DA 0 

DE Closed 

M--c-~ FL 0 

GA 0 

HI 0 

IA Closed 

ID 0 

IL 0 

IN No Data 

KS 0 

KY 0 

LAC Closed 

LA 0 \ ~I MA 0 

MD 0 

ME 0 

0 Laboratory Support 

0 W&M Program Support 

19 For external c.ustomers 

20 

18 

16 

14 

12 

10 

I 

' 

4 

2 

0 

~ !i ::: ~ ~ ':l ti 

t 

8 t; ~ i ~ 

.. 

"' Lo s Angeles County 

Hawaii 

Puerto Rico 

USDA - FGIS 

'f ,!a !! = !!, !I !; ~ ~ < 

:. 

\,-

~ \1 4 

7 

~ -t"' 

; ~ 

+-

\~ \ - Legend 

0 

)'1 w '\/\. 

..... 

19 total devices 

calibrated in 2 labs 

/ 

~ 

0 

!i ~ z 

:. 0 ~ 

:. :. li 0 

z ! 

LM IO 

~ 

{.rrrmar J9 

r 

z z :. ~ !. z 

\,, .. 

\ 

/ 

r 

0 ~ 

0 ~ 0 f f " :,: 

I ■ 

3 ■ 

■ 

7 ■ 9 ■ 

10 ■ 

12 ■ 14 ■ 

16 ■ 

17 ■ 

No Data ■ 

Closed ■ 

~ i: ~ a 

!S 

5 

M 17 

MIJ 0 

MO 0 

MS Closed 

M- 0 

NC 2 

NO Closed 

NE 0 

NH Closed 

NJ 0 

NM 0 

NV 0 

1W 0 

OH 0 

OK No Data 

OR 0 

PA 0 

PR Closed 

R Closed 

SC 0 

so 0 

HI 0 

TX 0 

u- 0 

VA 0 v- 0 

'wA 0 

wT 0 

'wV 0 ..,,., 0 

< 

> > ~ § ~ ~ 

Figure 30: Small Volume, Compact Displacement, and Closed Loop prover tests 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 77 of 167 
Temperature 

Description 

The graphs on the next page represent the 

total number of measurements performed on 

temperature sensing devices by the 42 

reporting laboratories. Each map graph 

illustrates the geographical distribution of 

these measurements. The pie graphs located 

on each map for each individual lab and a 

larger pie graph that reflects the totals. The 

bar graph at the bottom of the page shows 

the same customer breakdown along with 

the total number of devices tested by each 

laboratory. 

● Lab – work done for the internal use of the 

metrology laboratory. 

● W&M – work done for the weights and 

measures enforcement program. 

● External – work done for customers who do 

not fall into any of the above categories. 

Comparison of previous surveys 

Year # Labs 

Total 

Devices 

1996 20 447 

1998 11 378 

1999 12 514 

2000 16 460 

2002 13 456 

2004 12 315 

2005 15 418 

2006 12 281 

2008 13 498 

2010 11 465 

2012 7 191 

2014 6 192 

2016 6 242 

2018 5 216 

2020 5 262 

2022 5 314 

Notes and Comments 

● 16 % of all temperature standards 

were tested for internal use by the 

laboratory. 

● 77 % of all temperature standards 

were tested for the weight and 

measures program. 

● 7 % of all temperature standards 

were tested for external customers. 

Table 22: Temperature standard tests from previous 

surveys. 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 78 of 167 
 

AK 16 

AL 0 

AR 0 

AZ 0 

CA 187 

co 0 

CT Closed 

DA 0 

DE Closed 

FL 0 

GA 0 

HI 0 

IA Closed 

ID 0 

IL 0 

IN No Data 

KS 0 

KY 0 

LAC Closed 

LA 0 

MA 0 

MD 0 

ME 0 

49 Laboratory Support 

243 W&M Program Support 

22 For external c.ustome~ 

1000 

1000 

0000 

5000 

...., 

3000 

2000 

1000 

0 

i 8 < 

:> ~ ~ ~ ~ 

Los Angeles County 

Puerto Rico 

USDA· FGIS 

~ I; !I ;! ii ! :!i !! = ! !I Ii ~ ~ 

i 

314 total devices 

calibrated in 5 labs 

I 

~ iO 

\ ,:trt!!!li!' :.uiz 

< 

:i 0 :i ~ :i Z O ~ :i :i :i .. 

:i !i i t i i i 

LablD 

\ 

J 

~ ~ 

0 0 " .. 

0 ~ f .. 

Legend 

0 

16 

35 

55 

74 

94 

113 

132 

152 

171 

191 

■ 

I 

■ 

■ 

■ 

■ 

I 

■ 

■ 

■ 

NoData I Closed I 

:I ~ ~ I! ~ s 5 !;;; 

Ml 0 

MN 0 

MO 0 

MS Closed 

MT 0 

NC 101 

ND Closed 

NE 0 

NH Closed 

NJ 0 

NM 3 

NV 0 

Ni 0 

OH 0 

OK No Data 

OR 7 

PA 0 

PR Closed 

RI Closed 

SC 0 

SD 0 

TN 0 

TX 0 

UT 0 

VA 0 

VT 0 

'wA 0 

'wl 0 

'wV 0 

'wY 0 

i :i ~ ~ 

Figure 31: Temperature standard tests. 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 79 of 167 
 

Total 

Frequency 

Description 

The graphs on the next page represent the 

total number of measurements performed on 

frequency standards by the 42 reporting 

laboratories. Each map graph illustrates the 

geographical distribution of these 

measurements. The pie graphs located on 

each map for each individual lab and a 

larger pie graph that reflects the totals. The 

bar graph at the bottom of the page shows 

the same customer breakdown along with 

the total number of devices tested by each 

laboratory. 

● Lab – work done for the internal use of the 

metrology laboratory. 

● W&M – work done for the weights and 

measures enforcement program. 

● External – work done for customers who do 

not fall into any of the above categories. 

Comparison of previous surveys 

Year # Labs Devices 

1996 6 12,518 

1998 4 11,561 

1999 5 13,518 

2000 7 14,670 

2002 6 13,785 

2004 3 14,772 

2005 4 15,162 

2006 4 14,832 

2008 4 15,058 

2010 4 17,580 

2012 4 14,177 

2014 4 13,282 

2016 4 14,501 

2018 3 10,054 

2020 4 12,083 

2022 4 13,220 

Table 23: Frequency standard tests from previous 

surveys. 

Notes and Comments 

● 3 % of all frequency standards were 

tested for internal use by the 

laboratory. 

● 0 % of all frequency standards were 

tested for the weight and measures 

program. 

● 97 % of all frequency standards were 

tested for external customers 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 80 of 167 
 

AK 1117 

AL 0 

AR 0 

AZ 0 

CA 0 

co 3239 

CT Closed 

DA 0 

DE Closed 

FL 0 

GA 0 

HI 0 

IA Closed 

ID 0 

IL 0 

IN No Data 

KS 0 

KY 0 

LAC Closed 

LA 0 

MA 0 

MD 0 

ME 0 

403 Laboratory Support 

0 W&M Program Support 

12817 For external customers 

1000 

1000 

0000 

5000 

...., 

3000 

2000 

1000 

0 

i 8 < 

:> ~ ~ ~ ~ 

Los Angeles County 

Puerto Rico 

USDA· FGIS 

~ I; !I ;! ii ! :!i !! = ! !I Ii ~ ~ 

" 

L' ~ /" 

( o/( i i \j N.-

( ; 

~Jf4,~ 

t--ffi> 

~I ~~ '\..r\ 

~ 

13220 total devices 

calibrated in 4 labs 

I 

~ iO 

\ ,:trt!!!li!' :.uiz 

< 

:i 0 :i ~ :i Z O ~ :i :i :i .. 

:i !i i t i i i 

LablD 

}:I 

\ 

J 

~ ~ 

0 0 " .. 

0 

Legend 

0 

502 ■ 

ll29 I 1757 ■ 2384 ■ 3012 ■ 

3639 ■ 

4266 I 4894 ■ 

5521 ■ 6148 ■ 

NoData I 

Closed I 

~ f .. :I ~ ~ I! ~ s 

Ml 0 

MN 0 

MO 0 

MS Closed 

MT 0 

NC 0 

ND Closed 

NE 0 

NH Closed 

NJ 6023 

NM 0 

NV 0 

Ni 0 

OH 0 

OK No Data 

OR 0 

PA 0 

PR Closed 

RI Closed 

SC 0 

SD 0 

TN 0 

TX 0 

UT 0 

VA 2841 

VT 0 

'wA 0 

'wl 0 

'wV 0 

'wY 0 

5 !;;; i :i ~ ~ 

Figure 32: Frequency standard tests 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 81 of 167 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Timing Devices 

Description 

The graphs on the next page represent the 

total number of measurements performed on 

timing devices by the 42 reporting 

laboratories. Each map graph illustrates the 

geographical distribution of these 

measurements. The pie graphs located on 

each map for each individual lab and a 

larger pie graph that reflects the totals. The 

bar graph at the bottom of the page shows 

the same customer breakdown along with 

the total number of devices tested by each 

laboratory. 

● Lab – work done for the internal use of the 

metrology laboratory. 

● W&M – work done for the weights and 

measures enforcement program. 

● External – work done for customers who do 

not fall into any of the above categories. 

Comparison of previous surveys 

Year # Labs 

Total 

Devices 

1996 13 161 

1998 11 380 

1999 14 451 

2000 13 554 

2002 11 479 

2004 9 951 

2005 8 387 

2006 11 365 

2008 11 401 

2010 9 339 

2012 10 577 

2014 7 600 

2016 8 506 

2018 9 4306 

2020 9 572 

2022 7 642 

Table 24: Timing devices tests from previous surveys 

● 0 % of all timing devices were 

tested for internal use by the 

laboratory. 

● 27 % of all timing devices were 

tested for the weight and measures 

program. 

● 73 % of all timing devices were 

tested for external customers. 

Notes and Comments 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 82 of 167 
 

36 Laboratory Support 

164 W&M Progr am Support 

442 For external c.ustomers 

600 ~--

>Oil 

100 

Los Angeles County 

Puerto Rico 

USDA· FGIS 

\ 

.~ ~} 

L 4,+,Y ~ ~~ ~ 

642 total devices 

calibrated in 7 labs 

~ ! ~ t ~ S i o l l ~ ~ I ~ i ~ 

LablD 

Legend 

0 

42 ■ 

94 I 147 ■ 199 ■ 252 ■ 

304 ■ 

356 I 409 ■ 

461 ■ 513 ■ 

NoData I 

Closed I 

Figure 33: Timing device tests 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 83 of 167 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wheel Load Weighers 

Description 

The graphs on the next page represent the 

total number of measurements performed on 

wheel load weighers by the 42 reporting 

laboratories. Each map graph illustrates the 

geographical distribution of these 

measurements. The pie graphs located on 

each map for each individual lab and a 

larger pie graph that reflects the totals. The 

bar graph at the bottom of the page shows 

the same customer breakdown along with 

the total number of devices tested by each 

laboratory. 

● Lab – work done for the internal use of the 

metrology laboratory. 

● W&M – work done for the weights and 

measures enforcement program. 

● External – work done for customers who do 

not fall into any of the above categories. 

Comparison of previous surveys 

Year # Labs 

Total 

Devices 

1998 19 12,178 

1999 20 12,781 

2000 22 13,699 

2002 23 10,350 

2004 21 10,884 

2005 19 9,748 

2006 20 10,567 

2008 22 10,191 

2010 20 10,815 

2012 17 7,050 

2014 16 6,515 

2016 14 6,541 

2018 15 6,476 

2020 15 5,934 

2022 12 5,759 

Table 25: Wheel load weigher tests from previous 

surveys 

Notes and Comments 

● 0 % of all wheel load weighers 

were tested for internal use by the 

laboratory. 

● 6 % of all wheel load weighers 

were tested for the weight and 

measures program. 

● 94 % of all wheel load weighers 

were tested for external customers. 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 84 of 167 
 

AK 90 

AL 0 

AR 0 

AZ 0 

CA 0 

co 0 

CT Closed 

DA 0 

DE Closed 

FL 0 

GA 0 

HI 0 

IA Closed 

ID 0 

IL 0 

IN No Data 

KS 0 

KY 0 

LAC Closed 

LA 0 

MA 0 

MD 0 

ME 182 

16 Laboratory Support 

356 W&M Program Support 

5387 For external customers 

1aoo 

HOO 

""" 

1200 

1000 -

aoo -

600 

400 

200 

0 

f !i lt 

0 ii 2 ~ li -

0 

Los Angeles County 

Puerto Rico 

USDA· FGIS 

~On 

s i ~ I " ~ :t .s 8 t; ! .: 

5759 total devices 

calibrated in 12 labs 

I 

\ 

~ 

~ 

il ! :!: e :! ! ll Ii :s s .. 

~ 

0 

~ 

0 

~ 

Lab lD 

Ml 672 

MN 49 

MO 0 

MS Closed 

MT 0 

NC 0 

ND Closed 

NE 0 

NH Closed 

NJ 382 

NM 0 

NV 0 

Ni 1054 

OH 892 

OK No Data 

OR 174 

PA 1596 

PR Closed 

RI Closed 

SC 340 

SD 0 

TN 0 

TX 0 

UT 170 

Legend 

0 

VA 0 

VT 0 

'wA 0 

133 ■ 

299 I 466 ■ 

'wl 0 

'wV 0 

'wY 158 

632 ■ 798 ■ 

964 ■ 

1131 I 1297 ■ 

1463 ■ 1629 ■ 

NoData I Closed I 

\ 

J 

i ~ ii: i !I i i'i ~ .. 

0 f Ii ~ ~ I! i 

!l 

.. 

> !. .. 

3 :i ~ 

Figure 34: Wheel load weigher test 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 85 of 167 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Electric Watt-hour Meters (NEW 

2022) 

Description 

The graphs on the next page represent the 

total number of measurements performed on 

watt-hour meters used to support the testing 

of electric vehicle charging stations by the 

42 reporting laboratories. Each map graph 

illustrates the geographical distribution of 

these measurements. The pie graphs located 

on each map for each individual lab and a 

larger pie graph that reflects the totals. The 

bar graph at the bottom of the page shows 

the same customer breakdown along with 

the total number of devices tested by each 

laboratory. 

● Lab – work done for the internal use of the 

metrology laboratory. 

● W&M – work done for the weights and 

measures enforcement program. 

● External – work done for customers who do 

not fall into any of the above categories. 

Comparison of previous surveys 

Year # Labs 

Total 

Devices 

2022 1 22 

Table 26: Timing devices tests from previous surveys 

Notes and Comments 

● 0 % of all timing devices were 

tested for internal use by the 

laboratory. 

● 21 % of all timing devices were 

tested for the weight and measures 

program. 

● 79 % of all timing devices were 

tested for external customers. 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 86 of 167 
 

AK 0 

AL 0 

AR 0 

AZ 0 

CA 28 

co 0 

CT Closed 

DA 0 

DE Closed 

FL 0 

GA 0 

HI 0 

IA Closed 

ID 0 

IL 0 

IN No Data 

KS 0 

KY 0 

LAC Closed 

LA 0 

MA 0 

MD 0 

ME 0 

6 Laboratory Support 

22 W&M Program Support 

0 For external c.ustomer5 

" 

27 

24 

21 

15 

12 

Los Angeles County 

Puerto Rico 

USDA· FGIS 

Yf~"' \J ,. ( ,r \s ~ 

.Jv ~"' 

'\. 

I Legend 

~ 0 

~--~ '\ ■ 

I 

■ 

■ 

■ 

■ 

I 

■ 

■ 

■ 

28 total devices 

calibrated in I labs 

LablO 

t 

,.:J 

8 

II 

14 

17 

20 

23 

26 

29 

NoData I 

Closed I 

Ml 0 

MN 0 

MO 0 

MS Closed 

MT 0 

NC 0 

ND Closed 

NE 0 

NH Closed 

NJ 0 

NM 0 

NV 0 

Ni 0 

OH 0 

OK No Data 

OR 0 

PA 0 

PR Closed 

RI Closed 

SC 0 

SD 0 

TN 0 

TX 0 

UT 0 

VA 0 

VT 0 

'wA 0 

'wl 0 

'wV 0 

'wY 0 

Figure 35: Electric Watt-hour Meters 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 87 of 167 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Lottery Balls 

Description 

The graphs on the next page represent the 

total number of measurements performed on 

lottery balls by the 42 reporting laboratories. 

Each map graph illustrates the geographical 

distribution of these measurements. The pie 

graphs located on each map for each 

individual lab and a larger pie graph that 

reflects the totals. The bar graph at the 

bottom of the page shows the same customer 

breakdown along with the total number of 

devices tested by each laboratory. 

● Lab – work done for the internal use of the 

metrology laboratory. 

● W&M – work done for the weights and 

measures enforcement program. 

● External – work done for customers who do 

not fall into any of the above categories. 

Comparison of previous surveys 

Year # Labs 

Total 

Devices 

1999 9 19,982 

2000 13 24,702 

2002 11 35,818 

2004 11 40,939 

2005 9 47,920 

2006 9 41,068 

2008 10 42,553 

2010 8 46,515 

2012 7 13,9247

2014 8 40,899 

2016 6 80,9468

2018 4 11,0879

2020 5 9,600 

7 The metrology laboratory in Puerto Rico, 

which normally performs approximately 

30,000 of the total number of lottery balls 

tests, did not submit survey responses in 

2012. 

8 The metrology laboratory in Puerto Rico, 

which performs approximately 30,000 of the 

total number of lottery balls tests, reported 

69,800 in 2016. 

9 The metrology laboratory in Puerto Rico, 

which normally performs approximately 

30,000 of the total number of lottery balls 

tests, did not submit survey responses in 

2018. 

2022 5 12,653 

Table 27: Lottery balls tests from previous surveys 

Notes and Comments 

● 100 % of all lottery balls were tested 

for external customers. 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 88 of 167 
 

 

0 Laboratory Support 

0 W&M Program Support 

12653 For exte mal customers . 

5000 

3000 

2000 

Los Angeles County 

Puerto Rico 

USDA· FGIS 

12653 total devices 

calibrated in 5 labs 

~ ~ i ! l I ~ i ~ 

~~~~:!:~ e~ =~ !~ ri~ ~- :s ____ ..,,!!~--------~ 

~ ~ ~ ;s 8 t;- ! ;! l! LablD 

1252 

1948 

2643 

3339 

4035 

4730 

5426 

6122 

6817 

NoData I Closed I 

Figure 36 Lottery Ball tests 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 89 of 167 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Summary Other Tests 

The category of “Other Tests” is included to give each of the SLP laboratories an opportunity to 

report calibration work done on devices that did not fit into any of the other categories in the 

survey. This should not be considered to be an exhaustive list as it was up to each laboratory to 

determine which tests were worth including in the workload survey and survey allowed for only 

3 additional responses per laboratory surveyed. 

Description 

Lab 

Weights 

and 

Measures 

External Total 

AK Distance testing LIDAR units for law 

enforcement 0 0 69 69 

AK Witness testing of Watt Hour Meters 0 0 1 1 

ME shellfish measures 0 0 40 40 

NJ Laser Devices 0 0 40 40 

NJ Scales < 1,000 lb capacity 0 29 314 343 

NJ Water Meter Bench Provers 0 0 76 76 

PA Force Gauges ≤ 50 lbf 0 0 15 15 

TX Neck Calibration 0 0 61 61 

VT Hydrometry: Maple Syrup and Sap 0 0 16,501 16,501 

Table 28: Other tests reported by the participating laboratories 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 90 of 167 
 

Laboratory Fees 

Description 

This information is provided as guidance for SLP member laboratories evaluating the fees they 

charge for measurement services as well as potential clients whom use their services. 

The SLP laboratories charge fees for the calibration work they perform; when reviewing the fee 

estimates in this section consider; 

● laboratories may provide an hourly rate and bill real time for all work done, 

● laboratories may provide an hourly rate and bill based on the typical time to complete a 

calibration, 

● laboratories may charge a fixed fee for routine calibration work, 

● laboratories may charge additional fees for cleaning, repair, adjusting, packaging, etc. 

which are outside of that which is normally required to prepare measurement standards 

for calibration. 

The time it takes for any one laboratory to calibrate a particular item will vary significantly 

between laboratories because of differences in the staffing level, staff experience, the facility, the 

available weight handling equipment, and the available measurement equipment. 

Laboratories were asked to quote the typical fee that they would charge for the various routine 

measurements instead of providing published hourly rates. This provides each lab with a similar 

set of assumptions when quoting fees for the survey enabling a more meaningful comparison of 

fee data between the individual SLP laboratories10. 

Additional Notes: 

Only those labs responding to this section of the survey are represented. Labs responding with 

only a flat per hour service fee are not included, nor are any labs that did not respond to the 

survey, or are currently closed. No effort was made to extrapolate from previous surveys or to 

estimate calibration times for each requested service. 

10 Actual fees may differ from those indicated for a variety of reasons including but not limited 

to the number of required adjustments and the general condition of the equipment as delivered to 

the laboratory. 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 91 of 167 
 

 

 

Fees for Out of State Customers 

The fees quoted are based on in-state calibration work. Most of the member labs charge fees 

based solely on the measurement services provided, however, the following laboratories report 

charging higher rates for out-of- state customers; 

GA 

KS 

NC 

NV 

OK 

VT 

WY 

Details on labs charging higher rates for out-of-state customers may be found in the comments 

for sections 8-32 published in this report beginning on page 158. 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 92 of 167 
 

Fees for Local Government Weights and Measures Programs 

Labs were asked if they charge local government for the calibration of W&M field test 

equipment used for regulatory purposes. The following labs indicated that they charge for 

calibrating city, county, township (political jurisdiction W&M) equipment and standards: 

AK 

AZ 

CA 

CO 

FL 

GA 

KY 

LA 

MD 

ME 

MI 

MN 

MO 

NC 

NE 

NM 

NY 

OK 

OR 

TX 

UT 

VA 

VT 

WA 

TN 

NOTE: Labs may not charge because they provide the service pro bono or because there is an 

absence of W&M programs operated at the county, city, or township level in the region. 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 93 of 167 
 

Fees for in State Registered Service Companies 

Labs were asked if they charge for the calibration of field test equipment used by registered 

placed in service agents where the agent is registered within the lab’s jurisdiction. The following 

labs indicated that they charge for calibrating registered service company equipment and 

standards: 

AK NC 

AL NE 

AR NJ 

AZ NM 

CA NV 

CO NY 

FL OH 

GA OK 

HI OR 

IL PA 

IN SC 

KS SD 

KY TX 

LA UT 

MA VA 

MD VT 

ME WA 

MI WI 

MN WY 

MO TN 

MT 

NOTE: Not all states operate a service agent registration program. 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 94 of 167 
 

 

 

 

Fees for “in Jurisdiction” Weights and Measures Programs 

Labs were asked if they charge for the calibration of W&M field test equipment used by the 

W&M program within the lab’s jurisdiction. Normally this question addresses W&M programs 

operated at the state government level. The following labs indicated that they charge for 

calibrating W&M field equipment and standards: 

CO 

IN 

MN 

OK 

SD 

WA 

Laboratory Fee Data Presentation 

Fee data are plotted as box and whisker charts showing distribution of reported fees into quartiles 

delineated by boxes, the mean value, and whiskers are intended to highlight both the mean and 

outliers. 

Fees are also tabulated in order from highest to lowest. Each fee table includes the fee estimate 

provided by each responding laboratory, the estimated calibration time, and indicators which are 

meant to show whether the laboratory figures packing, equipment setup, certificate preparation, 

and maintenance of statistical controls explicitly as part of the calibration time estimate. 

Historical average fees are reported with each section. 

Minimum Laboratory Fees 

Description 

Labs may enforce a minimum charge to cover all the basic costs associated with performing 

small calibration jobs. Each laboratory was asked if a minimum calibration fee is assessed and 

the responses are provided in Figure 37 on page 96. 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 95 of 167 
 

Includes 

Calibration Includes Includes Statistical Certificate 

Lab ID Fee Total Time Packing Setup Controls 

- 1.0 + + + + 

+ + + + 

- 0.5 + + + 

- 1.0 + + + + 

IL 

NV 

WI 

OR 

MO 

AK 

NE 

MT 

VT 

Ml 

ID 

GA 

WA 

Af 

KS 

OH 

SD 

MA 

SC 

co 

ME 

NM 

FL 

NC 

UT 

HI 

AL 

AR 

CA 

KY 

LA 

MD 

MN 

NJ 

NY 

PA 

TN 

TX 

0 - 1.0 + + + + 

- 5.00 

~ 0.00 

- 75.00 

- 75.00 

- 72.50 

- $60.00 

- $55.00 

- $52.75 

- $50.00 

- $50.00 

- $50.00 

- $48.00 

- $45.00 

- $45.00 

- $40.00 

- $40.00 

• $35.00 

■ $25.00 

■ $25.00 

■ $25.00 

I $20.00 

I $5.00 

USDA-GIPSA 

VA 

WV 

WY 

- 1.0 + + .. .. 

- 1.0 + + + + 

- 1.0 + + + + 

- 1.0 + + + + 

- 0.5 + + + + 

+ + + + 

- 0.5 

- 0.5 + + + + 

- 0.5 + + + + 

- 1.0 + + + + 

0.0 + + + + 

- 0.5 + + + + 

- 0.8 + + 

- 0.5 + + 

- 1.0 + + + + 

Fee Total 

S180.00 

S160.00 

oSlSS.00 

o$1S0.00 

0$146.40 

S140.00 

0$135.00 

- ,s12s.oo 

S120.00 

S100.00 

5 

$80.00 77.50 

XS65.54 

S60.00 

so.co 

$40.00 ,.,40.00 

S20.00 

- ~S.00 

so.co 

Labs Resoondmo = 27 Averaoe Fee = $65.54 Averaoe Cahbrat,on T,me = 0.8 hours 

Calibration Time 

2.5 

2.0 

1.5 

1.0 ~------~ 1.0 

Xo.8 

0.5 '----~----'O.s 

0.0 __ o.o 

Figure 37: Minimum laboratory fees charged. Calibration time is the minimum calibration time upon which charges are based. 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 96 of 167 
 

 

 

Mass Echelon I 

Description 

Each laboratory was asked to estimate the fee charged for testing a precision weight kit in good 

condition containing 21 pieces from 100 g to 1 mg to ASTM Class 0 tolerances using Echelon I 

procedures. Laboratories were not asked to allow for cleaning or adjustments. 

Comparison of Previous Surveys 

Survey Labs Reporting Average Fee 

2004 15 $617.87 

2006 16 $758.75 

2008 14 $700.07 

2010 15 $780.83 

2012 14 $820.18 

2014 15 $870.90 

2016 13 $922.23 

2018 10 $933.07 

2020 9 $1,028.00 

2022 9 $1,264.25 

Table 29: Average fee charged for Echelon I mass testing. 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 97 of 167 
 

Includes 

Calibration Includes Includes Statistical Certificate 

Fee Total Time 

- 20.00 - 12.0 

- 522.50 

- 10.5 

• $866.16 

- 8.2 

Lab ID 

MN 

OR 

Ml 

WA 

KS 

HI 

NC 

co 

NM 

AK 

AL 

AR 

Af 

CA 

FL 

GA 

ID 

IL 

KY 

LA 

MA 

MD 

ME 

MO 

MT 

NE 

NJ 

NV 

NY 

OH 

PA 

SC 

SD 

TN 

TX 

• $840.00 - 6.3 • $819.00 

■ $690.00 

■ $640.00 

I $504.00 

USDA-GIPSA 

UT 

VA 

VT 

WI 

WV 

WY 

- 6.0 

- 6.0 

Labs Resoondmo -- 9 

Packing Setup Controls 

+ + + + 

+ + + + Fee Total 

+ + + + $4,500.00 

+ + + + 

+ + + 

+ + .. .. 

+ + + + $4,000.00 

+ + 0$3,876.60 

$3,500.00 

$3,000.00 

$2,500.00 

5 

$2,000.00 

$1,500.00 

~ $1,620.00 

$1,522.50 

X51,264.2 

$1,000.00 

840.00 

$500.00 J_' ,;,690.00 

5504.CO 

$0.00 

Averaoe Fee -- $1264.25 Averaoe Cahbrat,on T,me = 12.7 hours 

Calibration Time 

25.0 

-~22.0 

20.0 

17.3 

15.0 

• E 

i:: 

C 

0 X12.7 

~ ,!! 

3 11.3 

10.0 

-l.o .7 

5.0 

0.0 

Figure 38: Fees charge for calibrating a precision weight kit containing 21 individual weights ranging from 100 g to 1 mg to ASTM Class 0 tolerances using Echelon I testing 

techniques. 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 98 of 167 
 

 

Mass Echelon II 

Description 

Each laboratory was asked to estimate the fee charged for testing a precision weight kit kit in 

good condition containing 21 pieces from 100g to 1mg to ASTM Class 2 tolerances using 

Echelon II procedures. Laboratories were not asked to allow for cleaning or adjustments. 

Comparison of Previous Surveys 

Survey 

Labs 

Reporting Average Fee 

2000 33 $334.00 

2002 39 $414.32 

2004 30 $431.43 

2006 31 $482.87 

2008 29 $496.18 

2010 29 $522.09 

2012 25 $636.25 

2014 27 $601.17 

2016 26 $671.85 

2018 23 $594.27 

2020 22 $620.09 

2022 24 $687.98 

Table 30: Average fee charged for Echelon II mass testing. 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 99 of 167 
 

Includes 

Calibration Includes Includes Statistical Certificate 

Lab ID 

OR 

PA 

CA 

Ml 

ID 

MN 

WA 

NC 

AK 

GA 

HI 

MO 

NV 

VA 

WI 

NM 

OH 

ME 

NY 

Af 

co 

FL 

KS 

SC 

AL 

AR 

IL 

KY 

LA 

MA 

MD 

MT 

NE 

NJ 

SD 

TN 

TX 

Fee Total Time 

- 12.0 

- 7.5 

00 - 8.0 

- 3.50 

- 6.3 

~ 0.00 

- 37.10 • 4.1 

- 29.01 

- 6.9 

- 90.00 

- 80.00 - 8.0 

- 630.00 9110 - 630.00 

- 625.00 - 5.0 

- 600.00 - 8.0 

- 588.00 

- 570.40 • 4.0 

- 504.00 - 6.0 

- 500.00 

- 5.0 

~ 80.00 - 6.0 

~ 80.00 ■ 3.5 

- $440.00 

- $440.00 - 11.0 

- $420.00 .0 

- $420.00 

- 5.5 

- $409.50 ■ 3.5 

USDA-GIPSA 

UT 

VT 

WV 

WY 

Packing Setup Controls 

+ + + + 

+ + 

+ 

+ + + + 

+ + + + 

+ + .. .. 

+ + + + 

+ + + + 

+ + + 

+ + + + 

+ + + + 

+ 

+ + 

+ + 

+ + + + 

+ + + + 

+ + + + 

+ + + + 

+ + + + 

+ + + 

.. .. .. .. 

Fee Total 

$1,800.00 

$1,600.00 oSl,620.00 

$1,400.00 

oSl,365.00 

$1,200.00 oSl,200.00 

$1,000.00 

5 - ,S913.SO 

$800.00 

X$687.98 

$600.00 

$400.00 _1_$409.50 

$200.00 

$0.00 

Labs Resoondmo = 24 Averaoe Fee = $687.98 Averaoe Cahbrat,on T,me = 8.5 hours 

Calibration Time 

25.0 

20.0 -~o.o 

15.0 

• E 

i:: 

C 

0 

~ ,!! 

3 11.0 

731.03 10.0 

612.50 XS.5 

480.00 ~.9 

5.0 

J_3.5 

5.0 

0.0 

Figure 39: Fees charge for calibrating a precision weight kit containing 21 individual weights ranging from 100 g to 1 mg to ASTM Class 2 tolerances using Echelon II testing 

techniques. 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 100 of 167 
 

 

Mass Echelon III (31 lb kits) 

Description 

Each laboratory was asked to estimate the fee charged for testing a 31 lb weight kit containing 22 

pieces to NIST Class F tolerances using Echelon III procedures (NIST Handbook 105-1 

"Specifications for Field Standard Test Weights (NIST Class F)", 1990). Laboratories were not 

asked to allow for cleaning or adjustments. 

Comparison of Previous Surveys 

Survey 

Labs 

Reporting Average Fee 

2000 36 $77.00 

2002 41 $94.99 

2004 38 $121.13 

2006 42 $135.64 

2008 44 $156.93 

2010 41 $179.30 

2012 43 $186.93 

2014 46 $187.56 

2016 47 $203.97 

2018 43 $201.28 

2020 43 $185.99 

2022 40 $202.52 

Table 31: Average fee charged for Echelon III mass testing. 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 101 of 167 
 

 

Includes 

Calibration Includes Includes Statistical Certificate 

Lab ID 

HI 

NJ 

PA 

TX 

MT 

OR 

CA 

WA 

Ml 

IL 

AK 

WI 

ID 

NV 

MN 

ME 

OH 

UT 

Af 

MA 

AR 

LA 

VA 

FL 

NE 

NM 

MO 

co 

GA 

SC 

AL 

KY 

NC 

WV 

SD 

NY 

VT 

MD 

WY 

KS 

TN 

Fee Total Time 

.0 

- 1.5 

- 2.0 

- 1.5 

0 

- 2.5 

0 4 

83 

- 3.1 

00 

- 2.2 

- 00 

- 2.0 _ _ oo - 3.0 

- 2.40 - 1.5 

- 2.00 

~ 5.00 

- 3.0 

- 00.20 

- 1.4 

- 00.00 

- 2.5 

- 00.00 

- 2.0 

- 00.00 .0 

- 165.00 

- 165.00 3.7 

- 154.00 

- 3.0 

- 154.00 

- 2.5 

- 154.00 I 0.5 

- 142.00 

- 2.0 

- 140.00 

- 1.8 

~ 132.00 I 0.5 

• $125.00 I 0.5 

- $124.00 - 3.1 

- $121.00 - 1.5 

- $115.50 - 1.5 

- $110.00 

- 2.0 

- $110.00 - 3.0 

- $110.00 

- $110.00 

• $96.00 • 1.0 

• $92.50 - 1.5 

■ $75.00 • 1.0 

I $57.00 

- 3.0 

I $50.00 

- 2.5 

I $35.00 - 1.5 

U~UA-Gll-'~A 

Packing Setup Controls 

+ + + + 

+ 

+ + 

+ + + 

+ + + 

+ + .. .. 

+ + + + 

+ + + + 

+ + + + 

+ + + + 

+ + + + 

+ + 

+ + + + 

+ + + + 

+ + + + 

+ + + + 

+ + + + 

+ + 

+ + + + 

+ + + + 

+ + + + 

+ .. .. .. .. 

+ + + + 

+ + 

+ + + + 

+ + + 

+ + + + 

+ + + + 

+ + + 

+ + + + 

+ + + + 

+ + + 

+ + + + 

+ + + 

Fee Total 

SS00.00 

S4SO.OO 

- ~0.00 

$400.00 

S3SO.OO 

$300.00 ~ 

5 $2~0.00 

S200.00 Xs202.s2 

SlS0.00 

- Sl00.00 

SS0.00 

.. J~.00 

S0.00 

Labs Resoondmo = 40 Averaoe Fee = $202.52 Averaoe Calibration Time = 2.3 hours 

302.SO 

1S9.SO 

114.13 

• E 

i:: 

C 

6.0 

s.o 

4.0 

O 3.0 

~ ,!! 

3 

2.0 

1.0 

0.0 

Calibration Time 

- -5.0 

.0 

X2.3 

.0 

1 .s 

- -0.S 

Figure 40: Fees charged for testing a 31 lb weight kit containing 22 pieces to NIST HB 105-1 Class F tolerances using mass echelon III procedures. 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 102 of 167 
 

Mass Echelon III (50 lb Test Weights) 

Description 

Each laboratory was asked to estimate the fee charged for testing a set of 20 50 lb cast iron pipehandle style test weights to NIST Class F tolerances or ASTM E617 Classes 4 – 7 using echelon 

III procedures (NIST Handbook 105-1 "Specifications for Field Standard Test Weights (NIST 

Class F)", 1990). Each lab was asked to provide an estimate assuming that 5 of the weights were 

adjusted. 

Comparison of Previous Surveys 

Survey 

Labs 

Reporting Average Fee 

2014 47 $294.67 

2016 47 $351.98 

2018 44 $336.72 

2020 43 $365.41 

2022 40 $363.34 

Table 32: Average fee charged for testing 20 50 lb cast iron pipe-handle test weights, with 5 adjustments. 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 103 of 167 
 

 

Includes 

Calibration Includes Includes Statistical Certificate 

Lab ID 

TX 

AK 

NJ 

CA 

HI 

PA 

WI 

IL 

KY 

OR 

NV 

Ml 

AR 

NM 

MA 

NY 

Af 

MT 

WV 

WY 

ID 

ME 

MN 

MD 

GA 

LA 

NC 

OH 

FL 

VA 

co 

WA 

NE 

SC 

UT 

SD 

VT 

AL 

KS 

MO 

TN 

Fee Total Time 

- 2.5 

_ _ 00 - 4.0 

-.io.oo - 2.5 

- 600.00 - 4.0 - 580.00 

- 500.00 ■ 1.0 

-..i79.20 

- 1.5 

~ 65.00 

- 3.0 

- $425.00 - 2.0 

- $405.00 

- 3.0 

- $375.00 .0 

- $362.50 - 2.5 

- $360.00 - 3.0 

- $360.00 ■ 1.0 

• $350.00 .0 

• $345.00 

- 3.0 

• $330.00 

■ $300.00 - 4.0 

■ $300.00 

■ $300.00 

- 1.5 

■ $280.00 

■ $280.00 

- 3.5 

■ $273.00 

- 2.7 

■ $265.00 

- 3.5 

■ $250.00 

- 3.0 

■ $250.00 

- 2.5 

■ $250.00 

■ $250.00 

- 2.5 

■ $240.00 

■ $240.00 - 2.0 

■ $232.00 

■ $211.00 - 2.0 

■ $210.00 - 2.0 

■ $206.25 - 2.0 

I $200.00 - 4.0 

I $192.00 - 2.0 

I $190.00 - 2.0 

I $160.00 

I $105.00 

- 3.0 

I $62.50 I 0.5 

U~UA-Gll-'~A 

Packing Setup Controls 

+ + + 

+ + + + 

+ 

+ + + + 

+ + + + .. .. + + 

+ + + + 

+ + + + 

+ + + + 

+ + + + 

+ + + + 

+ + 

+ + + + 

+ + + + 

+ + + 

+ + + + 

+ + + + 

+ + + + 

+ + + + .. .. .. + + + 

+ + + + 

+ + + + 

+ + + + 

+ + 

+ + + + 

+ + + + 

+ + + + 

+ + + + 

+ + 

+ + + + 

+ + + + 

+ + + 

Fee Total 

$1,800.00 

$1,600.00 

os1,sso.oo 

$1,400.00 

$1,200.00 

$1,000.00 oSl,000.00 

5 

$800.00 0$800.00 

$600.00 - ~fSco 

$400.00 382.50 )($363.34 

290.00 

.,238.00 

$200.00 

- 62.5C 

$0.00 

, Labs Resoondmo = 40 Averaoe Fee = $063.34 Averaoe Cahbrat,on T,me = 3 hours 

Calibration Time 

7.0 

6.0 - -6.0 

5.0 

4.0 .0 

• E 

i:: 

C 

0 

~ ,!! 

3 3.0 X3.0 

.9 

2.0 2 .0 

1.0 

- -0.S 

0.0 

Figure 41: Fees charged for testing a set of 20 50 lb cast iron pipe-handle style test weights to NIST HB 105-1 Class F tolerances using mass echelon III procedures. 5 adjustments 

were assumed. 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 104 of 167 
 

 

 

Mass Echelon III (1000 lb Test Weights) 

Description 

Each laboratory was asked to estimate the fee charged for testing a set of 24 1,000 lb cast iron 

test weights according to NIST Class F or ASTM E617 Classes 4 – 7 tolerances using Echelon 

III procedures (NIST Handbook 105-1 "Specifications for Field Standard Test Weights (NIST 

Class F)", 1990). Each lab was asked to provide an estimate assuming that 5 of the weights were 

adjusted. 

Comparison of Previous Surveys 

Survey Labs Reporting Average Fee 

2014 46 $1,058.00 

2016 47 $820.06 

2018 44 $857.66 

2020 43 $798.32 

2022 39 $798.77 

Table 33: Average fee charged for testing 24 1,000 lb cast iron test weights, with 5 adjustments 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 105 of 167 
 

 

Includes 

Calibration Includes Includes Statistical Certificate 

Lab ID 

AK 

CA 

TX 

HI 

KY 

PA 

ID 

WI 

OR 

MN 

NJ 

NY 

Ml 

IL 

V'N 

NM 

NV 

VA 

FL 

LA 

NE 

AR 

MT 

WY 

NC 

OH 

VT 

ME 

MA 

UT 

co 

SD 

SC 

WA 

GA 

MO 

AL 

Af 

KS 

MD 

TN 

Fee Total Time 

- 6.0 

- 8.0 

- 4.0 

0 - 8.0 

00 - 4.0 _ _ oo 

- 3.0 _ _ oo 

_ _ 20 - 4.0 

_ _ oo - 8.0 

--3.80 

- 5.2 

~ 0.00 

- 5.0 

~ 0.00 

~ 2.50 

- 6.5 

~ 0.00 

- 6.0 

- 20.00 

- 16.00 ■ 2.0 

_,50.00 .0 

_,48.00 - 4.0 

- 720.00 

- 6.0 

- 650.00 - 4.0 

- 644.00 

- 3.0 

- 612.00 - 8.0 

- 600.00 - 8.0 

- 600.00 

- 5.0 

- 580.00 

- 580.00 

- 5.8 

- 570.00 

- 5.0 

- 560.00 

- 7.0 

~ 540.00 

- $500.00 .0 

- $488.00 

- $480.00 

- 5.0 

- $465.70 - 4.0 

• $419.84 - 4.0 

• $396.00 - 4.0 

• $375.00 I 1.5 

• $360.00 - 8.0 

■ $330.00 

I $217.00 

- 4.5 

U~UA-Gll-'~A 

Packing Setup Controls 

+ + + + 

+ + 

+ + + 

+ + + + 

+ + + + .. .. 

+ + + + 

+ + 

+ + + + 

+ 

+ + + + 

+ + + + 

+ + + + 

+ + 

+ + + + 

+ + 

+ + + + 

+ + + + 

+ + + + 

+ + + + 

+ + + .. .. .. .. 

+ + + + 

+ + + + 

+ + + + 

+ + + + 

+ + + 

+ + + + 

+ + + + 

+ + + + 

+ + + + 

+ + + 

+ + + 

Fee Total 

$2,000.00 

$1,800.00 ost,800.00 

$1,600.00 

--S1,54-0.0 0 

$1,400.00 

$1,200.00 

5 $1,000.00 s 1,016.90 

$800.00 Xs798.77 

6S0.00 

$600.00 

$20.00 

$400.00 

$200.00 - - · $217.(0 

$0.00 

- Labs Resoondmo = 39 Averaoe Fee = $/98. 77 Averaoe Calibration Time = 6 hours 

Calibration Time 

14.0 

--12.2 12.0 

10.0 

8.0 ~-0 

• E 

i:: 

C 

0 

~ ,!! 

3 6.0 X6.0 

2 

4.0 .. 0 

2.0 

-~1.s 

0.0 

Figure 42: Fees charged for testing a set of 24 1,000 lb cast iron test weights to NIST HB 105-1 Class F tolerances using mass Echelon III procedures. 5 adjustments were 

assumed. 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 106 of 167 
 

5,000 lb Weight Cart 

Description 

Each laboratory was asked to estimate the fee charged for testing a 5,000 lb weight cart 

according to NIST HB 105-8 tolerances using Echelon III procedures (NIST Handbook 105-8 

"Specifications and Tolerances for Field Standard Weight Carts", 2019). Laboratories were not 

asked to allow for cleaning or adjustments. 

Comparison of Previous Surveys 

Survey 

Labs 

Reporting Average Fee 

2004 28 $163.27 

2006 31 $205.74 

2008 31 $185.80 

2010 34 $225.09 

2012 30 $201.65 

2014 31 $203.97 

2016 32 $205.01 

2018 31 $208.60 

2020 31 $233.00 

2022 29 $251.06 

Table 34: Average fee charged for a 5,000 lb weight cart testing. 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 107 of 167 
 

 

Includes 

Calibration Includes Includes Statistical Certificate 

Fee Total Time 

0 

.0 

- 2.0 

5 

- 4.1 

0 - 2.0 

00 

- 2.8 

Lab ID 

ME 

AK 

MO 

WA 

WI 

Ml 

MT 

PA 

IL 

MN 

VT 

OR 

SC 

NY 

NE 

OH 

V'N 

ID 

NM 

VA 

NC 

SD 

co 

AZ. 

GA 

TX 

FL 

WY 

KS 

AL 

AR 

CA 

HI 

KY 

LA 

MA 

MD 

NJ 

NV 

TN 

_ _ oo - 5.0 

- 5.00 ■ 

- 0.00 

- 9.40 

-

I 

~ 0.00 

-

-

-

- 200

55

6

70

5

.

.

.

.5

00 

00 

00 

0 

-

-

- -

-

-

200

200

190

.

.

.

00 

00 

00 

-

- • $145.00 I 

• $131.00 I • $125.00 

• $125.00 

• $120.00 

■ $11 0.00 

■ $110.00 

■ $110.00 

■ $100.00 

■ $100.00 

I 

USDA-GIPSA 

UI 

$80.00 

■ 

-

-

-

-

-

■ 

1.5 

2.0 

1.0 

3.0 

2.0 

2.0 

2.5 

2.0 

0.5 

1.0 

1.3 

3.0 

2.5 

2.5 

2.0 

2.0 

1.5 

Packing Setup Controls 

+ + + + 

+ + + + 

+ + + + 

+ + 

+ + .. .. + + + 

+ + 

+ + + + 

+ + + + 

+ + + + 

+ + + + 

+ + + + 

+ + + + 

+ + + + 

+ + + + 

+ + + + 

+ + 

+ + 

+ + + + 

+ + + + 

+ + + 

+ + + 

+ + + + 

+ + + + 

+ + + 

Fee Total 

$600.00 

- ~ s,o.oo 

SS00.00 

$400.00 

31S.OO 

5 $300.00 

XS2S1.06 

S200.00 t-'200.00 

12S.OO 

Sl00.00 

- ~ o.oo 

S0.00 

Labs Resoondmo = 29 Averaoe Fee = $251.06 Averaoe Cahbrat,on T,me = 2.8 hours 

Calibration Time 

9.0 

8.0 08.0 

7.0 <>7.0 

6.0 06.0 

• s.o 05.0 E 

i:: 

C 

0 

~ ,!! 

3 4.0 - -4.1 

3.0 .0 

X2.s 

2.0 .0 

1.0 

- .s 

0.0 

Figure 43: Fees charged for testing a 5,000 lb weight cart according to NIST HB 105-8 tolerances using mass Echelon III procedures. 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 108 of 167 
 

Scale Truck Calibration Class F 

Description 

Each laboratory was asked to estimate the fee charged for testing the measurement equipment 

contained in a single scale truck. The truck was assumed to carry 24 1,000 lb cast cube weights 

requiring 5 adjustments, 20 50 lb pipe-handle weights requiring 5 adjustments, and 2 31 lb 

weight kits containing 22 pieces each. Echelon III mass calibration procedures were requested 

for all measurements. 

Comparison of Previous Surveys 

Survey 

Labs 

Reporting Average Fee 

2004 39 $1,050.56 

2006 43 $1,060.77 

2008 42 $1,300.30 

2010 44 $1,455.69 

2012 42 $1,520.41 

2014 45 $1,472.13 

2016 47 $1,529.57 

2018 44 $1,562.19 

2020 43 $1,521.59 

2022 40 $1,522.55 

Table 35: Average fee charged for typical scale truck testing. 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 109 of 167 
 

Includes 

Calibration Includes Includes Statistical Certificate 

Lab ID 

TX 

AK 

CA 

HI 

NJ 

PA 

WI 

IL 

OR 

ID 

KY 

Ml 

MN 

MT 

NY 

NM 

OH 

NV 

WV 

VA 

AR 

FL 

ME 

MA 

NE 

LA 

UT 

NC 

WY 

Af 

co 

SC 

WA 

GA 

SD 

VT 

AL 

MO 

KS 

MD 

TN 

Fee Total Time 

lies 

0 

8 

0 

_ _ oo - 10.s _ _ oo - 6.5 

-20.80 

- 8.0 

...-is.oo - 13.0 

--.i8.oo - 14.8 

- 64.00 0.0 

~ 5.00 

- 10.5 

~ 3.00 - 13.4 

- 47.20 

- 9.8 

- 500.00 .0 

- 490.00 - 7.0 

- 440.00 ■ 3.8 

- 430.00 - 14.3 - 425.00 .0 

• . 340.00 0.0 

- .296.00 

- 7.0 

- .280.00 - 6.0 

- .244.00 - 6.0 

- .240.00 - 15.5 

• . 220.00 

• . 134.00 - 8.5 

• . 108.00 - 9.5 

• . 100.00 

• . 050.00 0.0 

• 1.000.00 - 10.5 

- $990.00 0.0 

- $968.00 

• $902.95 

- 7.0 

• $894.59 

- 8.5 

• $888.00 

- 9.5 

• $864.00 

- 9.0 

• $860.00 

- 8.0 

■ $740.00 .0 

■ $562.50 I 3.0 

I $392.00 

- 10.5 

I $379.00 

- 9.5 

U~UA-Gll-'~A 

Packing Setup Controls 

+ + + + 

Fee Total 

$4,500.00 

$4,000.00 0$3,970.00 

$3,500.00 

0$3,400.00 

$3,000.00 --S3,0~. 00 

$2,500.00 

$2,000.00 $1,949.75 

$1,500.00 X51,522.5 

$1,288.00 

$1,000.00 $984.50 

$500.00 

- 379.CO 

$0.00 

Labs Resoondmo = 40 Averaoe Fee = $1522.55 Averaoe Calibration Time = 11.6 hours 

Calibration Time 

30.0 

25.0 

-~24.3 

20.0 

16.0 

X11.6 

10.5 

10.0 

8.0 

5.0 

0.0 - ~ 0.0 

Figure 44: Fees charged for testing a typical scale truck according to mass Echelon III procedures. 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 110 of 167 
 

Length 100 ft Steel Tape 

Description 

Each laboratory was asked to estimate the fee charged for 19 point testing of a 100 ft tape. 

Measurement points were requested at 1 ft intervals up to and including 10 ft then at 10 ft 

intervals up to and including 100 ft. It was left up to each lab to decide how best to test the steel 

tape, only the fee charged is reported here. 

Comparison of Previous Surveys 

Survey 

Labs 

Reporting Average Fee 

2000 33 $133.00 

2002 36 $173.03 

2004 22 $250.89 

2006 22 $261.23 

2008 18 $244.86 

2010 16 $234.16 

2012 10 $246.00 

2014 9 $198.56 

2016 7 $200.71 

2018 5 $195.50 

2020 6 $262.92 

2022 5 $390.15 

Table 36: Average fee charged for typical 19 point testing of a 100 ft steel tape. 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 111 of 167 
 

Includes 

Calibration Includes Includes Statistical Certificate 

Lab ID 

PA 

CA 

OH 

NJ 

NY 

AK 

AL 

AR 

Af 

co 

FL 

GA 

HI 

ID 

IL 

KS 

KY 

LA 

MA 

MD 

ME 

Ml 

MN 

MO 

MT 

NC 

NE 

NM 

NV 

OR 

SC 

SD 

TN 

TX 

Fee Total Time 

0 - 4.0 

- 50.00 - 3.5 ■ $140.00 

■ $102.50 

- 2.0 

USDA-GIPSA 

UT 

VA 

VT 

WA 

WI 

WV 

WY 

Labs Resoondmo = 5 

Packing Setup Controls 

+ + + + 

+ + + Fee Total 

+ + + + $800.00 

+ 

+ + + + -~760.00 

$700.00 

S600.00 

SS00.00 

5 $400.00 )($390.50 

$300.00 

S200.00 

Sl00.00 ~ 102.~ 

so.co , Averaoe Fee = $090.5 Averaoe Cahbrat,on T,me = 4.3 hours 

Calibration Time 

7.0 

6.0 ~------...... - ,6.Q 

600.00 

s.o 

X4.3 

4.0 .0 

• E 

i:: 

C 

0 ).~ 

~ ,!! 

350.00 3 3.0 

2.0 --2.0 

140.00 

1.0 

0.0 

Figure 45: Fees charged for testing a steel 100 ft tape. 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 112 of 167 
 

 

 

5 gallon test measures – Volume Transfer 

Description 

Each laboratory was asked to estimate the fee charged for testing a single 5 gallon field test 

measure according to NIST HB 105-3 (NIST Handbook 105-3, "Specifications and Tolerance 

Graduated Neck Type Volumetric Field Standards", 2010) tolerances using a volume transfer 

calibration. 

Comparison of Previous Surveys 

Survey Labs Reporting Average Fee 

2000 35 $35.00 

2002 41 $41.46 

2004 39 $42.06 

2006 43 $43.93 

2008 43 $56.89 

2010 44 $64.44 

2012 44 $63.61 

2014 46 $62.52 

2016 48 $67.07 

2018 44 $70.24 

2020 43 $65.57 

2022 40 $66.51 

Table 37: Average fee charged for testing of a 5 gallon field test measure via volume transfer. 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 113 of 167 
 

Includes 

Calibration Includes Includes Statistical Certificate 

Fee Total Time 

00 

0 -

-

■ 

00 

40 

-

-

-

~

00

6

0

1.

.

.

.

50 

00 

05 

00 

-

-

-

- -

-

92

91.

.00 

00 

-

■ 

~ 80.00 

-

-

-

-

-

$77

$75

$75

$60

$55

.

.

.

.

.

00 

00 

00 

00 

00 

-

-

-

- - $51.00 

-

■ 

- $50.00 

- $50.00 

-

■ 

$50

$45..

00 

00 

-

- ■ $45.00 

-

■ 

■ $40.00 

■ 

■ $37

$40

.

.00 

25 

-

- ■ 

■ 

$35

$35

.

.

00 

00 

-

■ 

Lab ID 

OR 

IL 

CA 

NV 

WI 

PA 

WA 

Ml 

OH 

HI 

MN 

ME 

SD 

AK 

MT 

ID 

TX 

NE 

Af 

KS 

UT 

MA 

VT 

AR 

co 

SC 

FL 

NM 

MO 

AL 

GA 

LA 

MD 

NC 

NJ 

WV 

KY 

WY 

NY 

VA 

TN 

■ $31.25 I 

■ $30.00 

■ $30.00 

■ 

■ 

■ 

$30

$30

$30

.

.

.

00 

00 

00 

-

- ■ $30.00 

I 

■ $30

$25

.

.

00 

00 

-

■ 

I $25.00 

I $22.50 

-

■ 

I $22.00 

U~ UA-Gll-'~A 

-

Packing Setup Controls 

1.5 

1.0 + + + + 

0.5 + 

.0 + + + + 

1.0 + + 

1.0 + .. .. 1. 1 + + + + 

0.7 + + + + 

1.0 + + + + 

+ + + + 

0.5 + + + + 

1.0 + + + + 

0.8 + + 

1.0 + + + + 

1.0 + + + 

+ + + + 

0.8 + + + 

0.5 + + + + 

0.8 + + + 

1.0 + + + 

1.0 + + + + 

0.5 + + + 

1.5 .. .. .. .. 1.0 + + + + 

1.0 + + + + 

+ + + + 

0.5 + + + 

0.3 

1.0 

1.5 + + + + 

.0 + + + 

0.8 + 

0.5 + + + + 

1.0 + + + + 

0.5 + + + + 

1.0 + + 

Fee Total 

S250.CO 

S200.CO 0s202.so 

-,s1ss.oo 

S150.CO 

5 

SlOO.CO 

91.25 

)($66.51 

SSC.CO 50.00 

~ 22.00 

.,30.00 

so.co 

Labs Resoondmo = 40 Averaoe Fee = $66.51 Averaoe Cahbrat,on T,me = 1 hours 

Calibration Time 

3.0 

2.S 02.s 

2.0 02.0 

• E 

i:: 

C 

0 1.~ <>t.~ 

~ ,!! 

3 

1.0 ~

1.10 

0 1.0 

.7 

o.s --o.s 

00.3 

0.0 

Figure 46: Fees charged for testing a 5 gallon test measure via volume transfer technique. 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 114 of 167 
 

 

 

5 gallon test measure – Gravimetric 

Description 

Each laboratory was asked to estimate the fee charged for testing a single 5 gallon field standard 

test measure according to NIST HB 105-3 tolerances (NIST Handbook 105-3, "Specifications 

and Tolerance Graduated Neck Type Volumetric Field Standards", 2010) using a gravimetric 

measurement technique. 

Comparison of Previous Surveys 

Survey Labs Reporting Average Fee 

2006 20 $177.95 

2008 17 $173.65 

2010 21 $209.25 

2012 18 $215.24 

2014 22 $200.95 

2016 19 $241.26 

2018 18 $218.05 

2020 16 $216.62 

2022 15 $257.75 

Table 38: Average fee charged for testing of a 5 gallon field test measure via gravimetric method. 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 115 of 167 
 

 

Includes 

Calibration Includes Includes Statistical Certificate 

Lab ID 

PA 

Af 

MN 

NV 

HI 

OR 

WA 

AK 

Ml 

KS 

ME 

MO 

SC 

NY 

NC 

AL 

AR 

CA 

co 

FL 

GA 

ID 

IL 

KY 

LA 

MA 

MD 

MT 

NE 

NJ 

NM 

OH 

SD 

TN 

TX 

Fee Total Time 

- 0.00 

- 64.00 -

- 300.00 - - 276.00 

- 270.00 

• 

-

-

-

$

$2

263

255

180

17

.

.

.

.50 

7

00 

00 

5 -

-

-

• • 

■ 

$

$

1

1

60

25

.

.

00 

00 

-

-

■ 

I $67.50 ■ 

I $62.50 

I $60.00 • 

USDA-GIPSA 

UT 

VA 

VT 

WI 

WV 

WY 

Packing Setup Controls 

+ + + + 

2.0 + + + + 

4.0 + + + + 

.0 + + + + 

2.0 

2.5 + + + + 

3.0 + + + + 

1.5 + + + + 

2.5 + + + 

2.0 + + + + 

1.0 

1.0 + + + + 

1.5 + + + + 

Fee Total 

S900.00 

0$825.00 

5800.00 

S700.00 

S600.00 

S500.00 

& --$440.00 

5400.00 

S300.00 288.00 

.. t-'2SS.00 

S200.00 

142.50 

S100.00 

--560.00 

S0.00 

Labs Resoondmo = 15 Averaoe Fee = $257.75 Averaoe Cahbrat,on T,me = 2.8 hours 

Calibration Time 

8.0 

oJ.S 

7.0 

6.0 06.0 

5.0 

4.0 --4.0 

3.0 .0 

X2.8 

2.0 .0 

1.5 

1.0 1_10 

0.0 

Figure 47 Fees charged for gravimetrically testing a 5 gallon test measure. 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 116 of 167 
 

100 gallon field standard prover – Volume Transfer 

Description 

Each laboratory was asked to estimate the fee charged for testing a 100 gallon field standard 

prover according to NIST HB 105-3 tolerances (NIST Handbook 105-3, "Specifications and 

Tolerance Graduated Neck Type Volumetric Field Standards", 2010) using a volume transfer 

calibration technique. 

Comparison of Previous Surveys 

Survey 

Labs 

Reporting Average Fee 

2000 35 $108.00 

2002 40 $125.19 

2004 35 $138.73 

2006 37 $145.32 

2008 36 $191.83 

2010 38 $219.76 

2012 38 $206.35 

2014 40 $217.01 

2016 42 $224.16 

2018 38 $214.57 

2020 39 $217.73 

2022 35 $237.14 

Table 39: Average fee charged for testing of a 100 gallon field standard prover via volume transfer. 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 117 of 167 
 

 

Includes 

Calibration Includes Includes Statistical Certificate 

Fee Total Time 

0 - 3.0 

O I 0.5 

- 00 

- 2.5 _ _ so 

- 2.9 

Lab ID 

MT 

IL 

CA 

PA 

OR 

HI 

Ml 

MA 

WA 

NV 

VT 

WI 

MO 

OH 

ME 

SD 

Af 

MN 

AK 

NJ 

WV 

WY 

NE 

TX 

NM 

UT 

SC 

co 

FL 

NY 

KS 

KY 

AL 

NC 

GA 

AR 

ID 

LA 

MD 

TN 

_ _ oo - 5.0 

~ .50 

- 2.5 _ _ oo 

- 6.50 

- 3.0 

.-.00.00 

- 4.0 

.-.00.00 - 3.0 

- 82.40 

- 2.5 

~ 50.00 I 1.0 

~ 50.00 

- 2.5 

1111240.00 - 3.0 

1111240.00 

- 2.5 

- 220.00 

- 218.40 ■ 1.2 

- 200.00 

- 2.0 

- 200.00 ■ 1.5 

- 200.00 

- 200.00 

- 2.0 

- $160.00 

- 2.0 

- $160.00 

- 2.0 

- $150.00 ■ 1.5 

- $150.00 - 3.0 

- $139.00 

- 2.0 

■ $120.00 - 3.0 

■ $106.25 - 3.0 

■ $97.50 - 5.0 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

USDA-GIPSA 

VA 

$85.00 ■ 1.3 

$80.00 - 3.0 

$75.00 

$68.00 

$55.00 - 2.0 

Packing Setup Controls 

+ + + 

+ + + + 

+ 

+ + + + 

+ + + + 

+ + + + 

+ + + + 

+ + + + 

+ + + + 

+ + + 

+ + 

+ + + + 

+ + + + 

+ + 

+ + + + 

+ + + + 

+ 

+ + + + 

+ + + + 

+ + + 

+ + + + 

+ + + 

+ + + + 

+ + + + 

+ + + + 

+ + + + 

+ + + 

+ + + + 

+ + + 

Fee Total 

S700.00 

S600.00 0$600.00 

S500.00 

- -$465.00 

5400.00 

& 

S300.00 

XS237.14 

S200.00 

S100.00 

- -S55.00 

S0.00 

Labs Resoondmo = 35 Averaoe Fee = $237.14 Averaoe Cahbrat,on T,me = 2.9 hours 

Calibration Time 

9.0 

8.0 08.0 

7.0 

6.0 

5.0 <>5.0 

308.25 4.0 - -4.0 

3.0 .0 

218.40 X2.9 

.5 

2.0 2.0 144.50 

1.0 

- .5 

0.0 

Figure 48: Fees charged for testing a 100 gallon field standard prover via volume transfer technique. 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 118 of 167 
 

 

100 gallon field standard prover- Gravimetric 

Description 

Each laboratory was asked to estimate the fee charged for testing a 100 gallon field standard 

prover according to NIST HB 105-3 tolerances (NIST Handbook 105-3, "Specifications and 

Tolerance Graduated Neck Type Volumetric Field Standards", 2010) using a gravimetric 

calibration technique. 

Comparison of Previous Surveys 

Survey 

Labs 

Reporting Average Fee 

2006 4 $265.00 

2008 7 $434.29 

2010 7 $597.14 

2012 7 $447.14 

2014 8 $670.63 

2016 7 $854.29 

2018 7 $702.29 

2020 7 $702.29 

2022 6 $805.17 

Table 40: Average fee charged for testing of a 100 gallon field test standard prover via gravimetric method. 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 119 of 167 
 

Includes 

Calibration Includes Includes Statistical Certificate 

Lab ID 

PA 

MN 

Af 

ME 

NY 

NC 

AK 

AL 

AR 

CA 

co 

FL 

GA 

HI 

ID 

IL 

KS 

KY 

LA 

MA 

MD 

Ml 

MO 

MT 

NE 

NJ 

NM 

NV 

OH 

OR 

SC 

SD 

TN 

TX 

Fee Total 

- 660.00 

- $480.00 

■ $345.00 

■ $250.00 

USDA-GIPSA 

UT 

VA 

VT 

WA 

WI 

WV 

WY 

Time 

-

-

-

Labs Resoondmo = 6 

8.0 

6.0 

8.0 

Packing Setup Controls 

+ + + + 

+ + + + Fee Total 

$1,800.00 

+ + + + 

+ + + + 

- - st,640.oo 

$1,600.00 

$1,400.00 

$1,257.00 

$1,200.00 

$1,000.00 

& 

$800.00 XsSOS.17 

$600.00 

l-'S70.00 

$400.00 378 7S 

1 $25000 

$200.00 

so.co 

Averaoe Fee = $805.17 Averaoe Cahbrat,on T,me = 9.3 hours 

Calibration Time 

16.0 

01s.o 

14.0 

12.0 

10.0 

.8 

X9.3 

8.0 ~.o 

.s 

6.0 -~.o 

4.0 

2.0 

0.0 

Figure 49: Fees charged for gravimetrically testing a 100 gallon field standard steel prover. 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 120 of 167 
 

 

 

 

100 gallon field standard prover LPG – Volume Transfer 

Description 

Each laboratory was asked to estimate the fee charged for testing a 100 gallon liquefied 

petroleum gas (LPG) field standard prover according to NIST HB 105-4 tolerances (NIST 

Handbook 105-4, "Specifications and Tolerances for Liquified Petroleum Gas and Anhydrous 

Ammonia Liquid Volumetric Provers", 2016) using a volume transfer calibration technique. 

Comparison of Previous Surveys 

Survey Labs Reporting Average Fee 

2006 32 $255.78 

2008 31 $295.39 

2010 38 $219.75 

2012 29 $348.05 

2014 31 $347.05 

2016 30 $372.44 

2018 29 $389.74 

2020 28 $394.65 

2022 30 $413.30 

Table 41: Average fees charged for the testing of a 100 gallon LPG prover from via volume transfer. 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 121 of 167 
 

Includes 

Calibration Includes Includes Statistical Certificate 

Lab ID Fee Total Time Packing Setup Controls 

OR 

= 

CA + 

MN + + + + 

WI + + 

MT + + + 

OH + + + + 

Ml - 00 - 4.0 + + + + 

WA _ _ 50 - 5.0 + + + + 

Fee Total 

S900.00 

SS00.00 

--$823.SO 

Calibration Time 

9.0 

8.0 --8.0 

MO _ _ oo 

- 2.0 

V'N _ _ oo 

ME - 0.00 .0 + + + + 

IL - 5.00 - 3.0 + + + + S700.00 7.0 

NV - 0.00 .0 + + + + 

VT - 0.00 

- 4.0 + + + 

ID - 8.00 + + + + 

Af - 0.00 

SD ~ 2.00 

- 4.5 + + S600.00 6.0 

AK - 00.00 

- 4.0 + + + + .8 

NY - 70.00 0 + + + + 

TX - 325.00 

- 3.5 + + + 

NM ~ 250.00 

- 2.0 + + + + 

NE - $240.00 

- 3.0 + + + + S500.00 

520.63 

5.0 

SC - $200.50 

- 3.0 + + + + 

FL - $200.00 + + + + ~ 444.00 

NJ - $200.00 

- 2.0 + 

WY - $200.00 

- 3.0 + + + + 5400.00 Xs413.30 4.0 

X4.3 

.0 

KS • $170.00 

- 2.0 + + + 

co • $160.00 

- 4.0 + + + + 

GA ■ $135.00 

- 3.0 + + + 

NC I $68.00 

AL S300.00 3.0 3 .0 

AR 

HI 

KY 

LA 

MA S200.00 210.38 2.0 -

MD 

PA 

TN 

USDA-GIPSA S100.00 1.0 

UT 

VA - -s, 68.00 

S0.00 0.0 

Labs Resoondmo = 30 Averaoe Fee = $413.3 Averaoe Calibration Time = 4.3 hours 

Figure 50: Fees charged for testing a 100 gallon LPG prover. 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 122 of 167 
 

20 Gallon Dynamic Small Volume Prover (SVP) – Volume Transfer 

Description 

In previous surveys each lab was asked to estimate the fee for calibrating a 20 gallon SVP 

according to NIST HB 105- 7 tolerances (NIST Handbook 105-7, "Specifications and Tolerances 

for Dynamic Small Volume Provers", 1997). The question was deprecated in 2016 because only 

a very few labs calibrate these devices. The results are reprinted in this survey for convenient 

reference. 

Comparison of Previous Surveys 

Survey 

Labs 

Reporting Average Fee 

2006 3 $113.33 

2008 2 $123.75 

2010 1 $100.00 

2012 2 $200.00 

2014 4 $220.00 

Table 42: Average fee charged for testing a SVP via volume transfer from 2006 through 2014. 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 123 of 167 
 

Metrology Positions/Title and Salaries 

Each laboratory was asked to provide position titles and salary ranges for personnel employed by the lab. They 

were asked to categorize each position according to the metrology function performed. 

Lab ID Job Title Standardized Title Min Salary Max Salary 

AK State Metrologist II Laboratory Supervisor $57,276.00 $94,338.00 

AL Laboratory Supervisor Laboratory Supervisor $32,287.20 $48,924.00 

AR Quality Manager Laboratory Supervisor $50,222.04 $72,822.00 

AZ State Metrologist Laboratory Supervisor $46,593.60 $79,424.40 

CA Principal State Metrologist Laboratory Supervisor $106,212.00 $120,624.00 

CO Physical Scientist V* Laboratory Supervisor $98,280.00 $159,264.00 

FL Senior Metrologist - SESLaboratory Supervisor $33,560.88 $68,764.44 

GA State Metrologist Laboratory Supervisor $39,038.04 $71,523.00 

HI Metrologist 3 Laboratory Supervisor $56,304.00 $83,376.00 

ID Ag Program Manager/Metrologist Laboratory Supervisor $59,832.00 $106,848.00 

ID Ag Program Specialist/Metrologist Laboratory Supervisor $54,156.00 $96,744.00 

KS Agricultural Inspector / State Metrologist Laboratory Supervisor $51,600.00 $54,000.00 

KY Metrology Lab Supervisor Laboratory Supervisor $41,872.56 $82,194.48 

LA Program Manager of Metrology Laboratory Supervisor $58,776.00 $102,996.00 

MA Administrator V Laboratory Supervisor $54,000.00 $78,000.00 

ME Metrologist / W&M Program Manager Laboratory Supervisor $56,721.60 $77,022.36 

MI Metrologist Manager - 14Laboratory Supervisor $69,368.04 $102,044.76 

MN Lab Manager: SPA Manager Senior Laboratory Supervisor $80,148.00 $115,320.00 

MO Metrology Lab Manager Laboratory Supervisor $41,424.00 $88,248.00 

MT Metrologist Laboratory Supervisor $55,920.00 $56,748.00 

NC Program Manager Laboratory Supervisor $58,293.96 $102,015.00 

NE Scientist II Laboratory Supervisor $43,200.00 $58,800.00 

NJ 

Supervisor of Licensing Weights and 

Measures Laboratory Supervisor $88,302.48 $128,061.84 

NM Regulatory Lab Mgr, Metrology Laboratory Supervisor $65,088.00 $104,136.00 

NV Metrologist III Laboratory Supervisor $45,643.68 $67,901.76 

NY Specialist II (lab manager) Laboratory Supervisor $79,320.00 $100,344.00 

NY Director Laboratory Supervisor $105,504.00 $133,296.00 

OH Laboratory Supervisor Laboratory Supervisor $53,892.96 $67,324.68 

OR Lead Metrologist Laboratory Supervisor $76,200.00 $117,012.00 

PA Laboratory Supervisor Laboratory Supervisor $61,867.92 $93,966.00 

SC Metrology Lab Director/Manager Laboratory Supervisor $48,000.00 $75,000.00 

TX Manager for Metrology Laboratory Laboratory Supervisor $51,612.00 $84,480.00 

UT State Metrologist Laboratory Supervisor $50,040.00 $79,368.00 

VT 

Weights & Measures Section Chief and 

State Metrologist Laboratory Supervisor $60,864.00 $95,424.00 

WA State Metrologist Laboratory Supervisor $50,592.00 $68,076.00 

WI Laboratory Director (Chemist Supervisor) Laboratory Supervisor $44,889.60 $74,092.80 

WV Labor Program Specialist Laboratory Supervisor $34,260.96 $63,381.96 

WV Labor Programs Manager Laboratory Supervisor $47,286.96 $87,480.00 

WY Inspection Supervisor Laboratory Supervisor $59,172.00 $88,764.00 

AL Consumer Protection Specialist Metrology/Calibration Engineer $28,516.80 $47,757.60 

AR Agri Program Manager Metrology/Calibration Engineer $40,340.04 $58,493.04 

CA Measurement Standards Specialist III Metrology/Calibration Engineer $63,648.00 $79,680.00 

CO Physical Scientist I Metrology/Calibration Engineer $59,220.00 $86,688.00 

CO Physical Scientist II Metrology/Calibration Engineer $68,460.00 $100,176.00 

HI Metrologist 2 Metrology/Calibration Engineer $52,044.00 $77,100.00 

KY Metrology Lab Technician II Metrology/Calibration Engineer $31,461.36 $61,752.72 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 124 of 167
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lab ID Job Title Standardized Title Min Salary Max Salary 

LA Agriculture Specialist, Metrologist Metrology/Calibration Engineer $39,996.00 $73,440.00 

MI Metrology Specialist - 13 Metrology/Calibration Engineer $64,334.40 $94,494.36 

MI Metrologist - 12 Metrology/Calibration Engineer $59,321.64 $86,465.64 

MI Metrologist - P11 Metrology/Calibration Engineer $56,492.76 $79,539.24 

MI Metrologist - 10 Metrology/Calibration Engineer $48,755.16 $68,764.80 

MI Metrologist - 9 Metrology/Calibration Engineer $47,195.16 $67,350.36 

NC Quality Assurance Manager Metrology/Calibration Engineer $50,357.04 $88,125.00 

NC Grain Moisture Program Supervisor Metrology/Calibration Engineer $50,357.04 $88,125.00 

NM Metrologist, Inter Metrology/Calibration Engineer $38,424.00 $57,636.00 

NV Metrologist II Metrology/Calibration Engineer $41,843.52 $62,055.36 

PA Metrologist (PSL Basic Requirements) Metrology/Calibration Engineer $60,558.00 $82,386.96 

PA 

Metrologist (PSL Intermediate 

Requirements) Metrology/Calibration Engineer $63,179.04 $82,386.96 

SD Metrologist Metrology/Calibration Engineer $52,137.36 $59,071.92 

TN Metrologist Metrology/Calibration Engineer $53,400.00 $79,896.00 

TX Inspector V Metrology/Calibration Engineer $36,972.00 $58,392.00 

TX Program Specialist III Metrology/Calibration Engineer $42,240.00 $68,952.00 

VT Consumer Protection Specialist Metrology/Calibration Engineer $42,796.80 $84,364.80 

AK State Metrologist I Metrology/Calibration Technician $49,716.00 $82,494.00 

AL Laborer Metrology/Calibration Technician $9,000.00 $13,500.00 

AR Metrologist Metrology/Calibration Technician $36,155.04 $52,425.00 

CA Measurement Standards Specialist I Metrology/Calibration Technician $44,088.00 $54,360.00 

CA Measurement Standards Specialist II Metrology/Calibration Technician $50,436.00 $62,400.00 

CO Calibration Technician Metrology/Calibration Technician $37,488.00 $52,920.00 

FL Metrologist - LW Metrology/Calibration Technician $28,800.00 $57,561.60 

FL Metrologist Metrology/Calibration Technician $28,800.00 $57,561.60 

FL 

Environmental Manager / QA/QC 

Coordinator Metrology/Calibration Technician $45,120.00 $108,355.44 

GA Metrologist Metrology/Calibration Technician $30,000.00 $78,000.00 

HI Metrologist 1 Metrology/Calibration Technician $48,144.00 $71,268.00 

KS Agricultural Inspector / Metrologist Metrology/Calibration Technician $42,000.00 $45,000.00 

KY Program Coordinator Metrology/Calibration Technician $34,606.80 $67,932.24 

KY Metrology Lab Technician I Metrology/Calibration Technician $25,999.44 $51,033.36 

MA Compliance Officer II Metrology/Calibration Technician $46,800.00 $60,000.00 

MD Metrologist I Metrology/Calibration Technician $46,434.96 $71,124.00 

MD Metrologist II Metrology/Calibration Technician $49,403.04 $75,903.00 

MN 

Technical Manager/Quality Manager/ Lab 

Administrator: SPA Principal Metrology/Calibration Technician $60,468.00 $89,100.00 

MN Metrologist: SPA Senior Metrology/Calibration Technician $52,728.00 $77,292.00 

MO Metrology Specialist Metrology/Calibration Technician $31,200.00 $69,312.00 

NC Metrologist I Metrology/Calibration Technician $43,500.00 $76,125.00 

NJ Weights and Measures Inspector 3 Metrology/Calibration Technician $74,319.24 $112,696.56 

NJ Weights and Measures Inspector 1 Metrology/Calibration Technician $53,548.20 $82,023.12 

NV Metrologist I Metrology/Calibration Technician $38,440.08 $56,751.84 

NY Specialist I Metrology/Calibration Technician $61,260.00 $77,916.00 

OH Weights and Measures Technologist Metrology/Calibration Technician $47,353.56 $61,574.16 

OR Metrologist Metrology/Calibration Technician $69,252.00 $106,440.00 

PA Metrologist Metrology/Calibration Technician $57,839.04 $82,386.96 

SC Lab Technologist I Metrology/Calibration Technician $27,516.00 $50,928.00 

SC Lab Technologist II Metrology/Calibration Technician $33,492.00 $61,968.00 

VA Lab Research Practitioner II Metrology/Calibration Technician $57,499.92 $57,499.92 

VA Lab Research Practitioner II Metrology/Calibration Technician $57,000.00 $57,000.00 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 125 of 167 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lab ID Job Title Standardized Title Min Salary Max Salary 

WI Metrologist Metrology/Calibration Technician $44,889.60 $74,092.80 

WV Labor Inspector I Metrology/Calibration Technician $27,662.04 $51,173.04 

WV Labor Inspector II Metrology/Calibration Technician $29,046.96 $53,736.00 

WY Inspection Specialist Metrology/Calibration Technician $41,448.00 $62,184.00 

AZ Assistant State Metrologist Support Staff $36,168.00 $67,982.40 

CA Laboratory Assistant Support Staff $35,712.00 $47,988.00 

CO Admin Assistant III Support Staff $44,400.00 $59,400.00 

FL Laboratory Techinician IV Support Staff $28,800.00 $51,234.96 

KY Agricultural Regulatory Specialist I Support Staff $31,461.36 $61,752.72 

NC Administrative Associate II Support Staff $26,705.04 $46,734.00 

NC Application Systems Analyst I Support Staff $64,004.04 $96,006.96 

NJ Agency Service Representative 3 Support Staff $46,431.84 $65,324.76 

PA Laboratory Adminstrative Assistant Support Staff $37,143.96 $55,433.04 

TX Adminsistrative Assistant IV Support Staff $32,976.00 $52,008.00 

VA Administer Support Staff $17,280.00 $17,280.00 

VT Consumer Protection Specialist Support Staff $42,796.80 $84,364.80 

WI Metrologist (LTE) Support Staff $34,483.20 $56,870.40 

CO *supervises multiple labs within division 

IL Public Service Administrator $55,344.00 $132,948.00 

IL Metrologist Associate $45,504.00 $79,860.00 

IL Products & Standards Inspector $45,408.00 $65,376.00 

USDAGIPSA Program Manager $109,728.00 $142,656.00 

USDAGIPSA Industrial Specialist $92,280.00 $119,964.00 

Table 43: Metrologist position titles and salary ranges. 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 126 of 167 
 

SLP Metrology Salaries – Standardized Title Comparison 

A comparison of salary ranging reported across the SLP is made here using the standardized 

titled reported for each job title; 

● Laboratory Supervisor 

● Metrology/Calibration Engineer 

● Metrology/Calibration Technician 

● Support Staff 

Annual salaries for each position identified are plotted on a range from minimum to maximum 

and sorted on the highest possible compensation from high to low. Summary information for the 

entire program is provided showing minimum, maximum, and average values for the minimum 

salaries, maximum salaries, and salary ranges. 

No adjustments have been made to these data for cost of living variations across the nation. 

Laboratory Supervisor 

Minimum Maximum Average 

Minimum Salary 

Maximum Salary 

Salary Range 

$32,287.00 $48,924.00 $40,605.50 

$106,212.00 $159,264.00 $132,738.00 

$73,925.00 $110,340.00 $92,132.50 

Metrologist/Calibration Engineer 

Minimum Maximum Average 

Minimum Salary 

Maximum Salary 

Salary Range 

$28,517.00 $47,758.00 $38,137.50 

$68,460.00 $100,176.00 $84,318.00 

$39,943.00 $52,418.00 $46,180.50 

Metrologist/Calibration Technician 

Minimum Maximum Average 

Minimum Salary 

Maximum Salary 

Salary Range 

$9,000.00 $13,500.00 $11,250.00 

$74,319.00 $112,697.00 $93,508.00 

$65,319 $99,197.00 $82,250.00 

Support Staff 

Minimum Maximum Average 

Minimum Salary 

Maximum Salary 

Salary Range 

$17,280.00 $17,280.00 $17,280.00 

$64,004.00 $96,007.00 $80,005.50 

$46,724.00 $78,727.00 $62,725.00 

Table 44: SLP metrologist compensation summary by standardized job titles. Calculations are rounded to the dollar. 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 127 of 167 
 

ry Supervisor 

Lab ID Min Sala 

AK $57,2 . .00 

AL $32,287.20 ~ 8.924.00 

AR $50,222.04 ~ .822.00 

Af $46,593.60 

CA $106,212.00 

co $98,280.00 

FL $33,560.88 

GA $39,038.04 

HI $56,304.00 

ID $59,832.00 

ID $54,156.00 

KS $51,600.00 

KY $41,872.56 

LA $58,776.00 

MA $54,000.00 

ME $56,721.60 

Ml $69,368.04 

MN $80,148.00 

MO $41,424.00 

MT $55,920.00 

NC $58,293.96 

NE $43,200.00 

NJ $88,302.48 

NM $65,088.00 

NV $45,643.68 

NY $79,320.00 

NY $105,504.00 

OH $53,892.96 

OR $76,200.00 . 

PA $61,867.92 - 66.00 

SC $48,000.00 - .000.00 

TX $51,612.00 - 480.00 

UT $50,040.00 - .368.00 

VT $60,864.00 - 24.00 

WA $50,592.00 - .076.00 

WI $44,889.60 - .092.80 

WV $34,260.96 - 3.381.96 

wv $47,286.96 -.itl8o.oo 

WY $59,172.00 - 64.00 

Sl60,000.00 

Sl40,000.00 

Sl20,000.00 

Sl00,000.00 

SS0,000.00 

S60,000.00 

S40,000.00 

S20,000.00 

SO.DO 

Minimum Salary 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Sl60,000.00 

Sl40,000.00 

Sl20,000.00 

Sl00,000.00 

SS0,000.00 

S60,000.00 

S40,000.00 

S20,000.00 

SO.DO 

Maximlim Salary 

- -

0 

0 

0 

0 

:g 

g 

0 

8 

8 

0 

- -

Figure 51: Salaries for Laboratory Supervisors 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 128 of 167 
 

etrology/Calibration Engineer Sl60,000.00 

lab ID Min Sala 

Minimum Salary Sl60,000.00 Maximum Salary 

AL $28,5 

AR $40,340. 

CA $63,648. 

co $59,220. Sl40,000.00 Sl40,000.00 

co $68,460. 

HI $52,044. 

KY $31,461. 

LA $39,996. 

Ml $64,334. 

Ml $59,321. Sl20,000.00 Sl20,000.00 

Ml $56,492. 

Ml $48,755. 

Ml $47. 195. 

NC $50,357. 

NC $50,357. 

NM $38,424. Sl00,000.00 Sl00,000.00 

NV $41,843. 

PA $60,558. 

PA $63. 179. 

SD $52. 137. 0 

0 

TN $53,400. SS0,000.00 SS0,000.00 0 

0 

TX $36,972. ~ TX $42,240. 

VT $42,796. 0 

0 

S60,000.00 S60,000.00 

0 

0 

0 

0 

8 S40,000.00 S40,000.00 

S20,000.00 S20,000.00 

SO.OD SO.OD 

Figure 52: Salary ranges for Metrology/Calibration Engineers 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 129 of 167 
 

etrology/Calibration Technician Sl60,000.00 

lab ID Min Sala 

Minimum Salary Sl60,000.00 Maximum Salary 

AK $49,7 . .00 

AL $9,000.00 ■ $13,500.00 

AR $36,155.04 - ,425.00 

CA $44,088.00 - .360.00 

CA $50,436.00 - 00.00 

Sl40,000.00 Sl40,000.00 

co $37,488.00 - .920.00 

FL $28,800.00 - 561.60 

FL $28,800.00 

FL $45,120.00 

GA $30,000.00 Sl20,000.00 Sl20,000.00 

HI $48,144.00 

KS $42,000.00 0 

KY $34,606.80 

KY $25,999.44 

MA $46,800.00 

MD $46,434.96 

Sl00,000.00 Sl00,000.00 

MD $49,403.04 

MN $60,468.00 

MN $52,728.00 

MO $31,200.00 

NC $43,500.00 SS0,000.00 SS0,000.00 

NJ $74,319.24 - - 0 

0 

NJ $53,548.20 0 

NV $38,440.08 0 

~ 

NY $61,260.00 

OH $47,353.56 S60,000.00 S60,000.00 0 

0 

OR $69,252.00 0 

PA $57,839.04 

SC $27,516.00 8 

SC $33,492.00 l68 00 8 

VA $57,499.92 - 499.92 

VA $57,000.00 - 000.00 S40,000.00 ~ 

8 S40,000.00 

WI $44,889.60 2.80 

WV $27,662.04 - .173.04 

0 

8 

WV $29,046.96 - ,736.00 

WY $41,448.00 84 00 

S20,000.00 S20,000.00 

0 

- ~ 

SO.DO SO.DO 

Figure 53: Salary ranges for Metrology/Calibration Technicians 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 130 of 167 
 

upport Staff 

lab ID Min Salarv Max Salarv 

Af 

CA 

co 

FL 

KY 

NC 

NC 

NJ 

PA 

TX 

VA 

VT 

w I 

$36. 168.00 .40 

$35,712.00 - .988.00 

$44,400.00 0.00 

$28,800.00 -.il234.96 

$31,461.36 2.72 

$26,705.04- 734.00 

$64,004.04 

$46,431.84 .76 

$37. 143.96 - 33.04 

$32,976.00 - 008.00 

$'17,280.00 • $17,280.00 

$42,796.80 0 

$34,483.20 - 70.40 

Sl60,000.00 Minimum Salary Sl60,000.00 Maximum Salary 

Sl40,000.00 Sl40,000.00 

Sl20,000.00 Sl20,000.00 

Sl00,000.00 Sl00,000.00 

0 

SS0,000.00 SS0,000.00 

0 0 

0 

S60,000.00 S60,000.00 ~ 

0 

0 

0 

S40,000.00 S40,000.00 

0 

0 

S20,000.00 S20,000.00 0 

SO.OD SO.OD 

Figure 54: Salary ranges for Support Staff 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 131 of 167 
 

State Laboratory Program Metrologists 

The survey requested specific data on each metrologists on staff in the SLP. These data include 

details on what measurements the metrologist is authorized to perform, his or her experience (in 

years) both in the SLP and outside of it, and the calendar year when he or she will be eligible for 

full retirement. 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 132 of 167 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lab ID Name Email 

Mass I

Mass IIMass IIIVol TransVol GravLengthTime/FrequencyTemperatureGrain MoistureWhat Year Eligiblefor Retirement?State LabMetrologyOtherMetrologyTotalMetrologyExperience 

AK Garret Brown garret.brown@alaska.gov N Y Y Y Y N Y Y N 2023 18 8 26 

AK Travis Garding travis.garding@alaska.gov N N N N N N N N N 2050 3 9 12 

AL Michael Bridges michael.bridges@agi.alabama.gov Y Y 2027 

AL Anthony Gallagher anthony.gallagher@agi.alabama.gov Y Y 2041 7 7 

AR Jill Franke jill.franke@agriculture.arkansas.gov N N Y Y N N N N Y 2033 8 8 

AR Nikhil Soman nikhil.soman@agriculture.arkansas.gov N N Y Y N N N N N 2030 12 12 

AR Kayla Hankins kayla.hankins@agriculture.arkansas.gov N N N N N N N N Y 2051 1 1 

AR Claude Riche claude.riche@agriculture.arkansas.gov N N N N N N N N Y 2045 1 1 

AZ Brian Sellers bsellers@azda.gov Y Y Y Y 2024 18.5 18.5 

AZ Mauro Nieves mnieves@azda.gov 2036 3 3 

CA Tony Gruneisen Anthony.Gruneisen@cdfa.ca.gov N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N 2032 22 0 22 

CA Toni Bulai Toni.Bulai@cdfa.ca.gov N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N 2040 6.6 9 15.6 

CA Demi Noll Demielle.Noll-Tennin@cdfa.ca.gov N N N N N N N N N 1 0 1 

CO Tiffany Brigner tiffany.brigner@state.co.us N N N N N 2028 3 0 3 

CO Steven Hine steven.hine@state.co.us N N N N N 0 0 0 

CO Andrew Shopes andrew.shopes@state.co.us N Y Y Y Y 2051 2 0 2 

CO Kate Smetana kate.smetana@state.co.us Y Y Y Y Y 2040 10 0 10 

FL Megan Money Megan.Money@fdacs.gov N Y Y Y N N N N N 2042 10 10 

FL Mike Kruse Mike.Kruse@fdacs.gov N Y Y Y N N N N N 2043 8 8 

FL Amy Smith Amy.Smith@fdacs.gov N Y Y Y N N N N N 2036 10 10 

GA Stan Diffie stan.diffie@agr.georgia.gov N Y Y Y N N N N N 2026 6 6 

GA Wesley Thompson wesley.thompson@agr.georgia.gov N N N N N N N N N 2052 1 1 

USDA-GIPSA Marcus Harwitz Marcus.Harwitz@usda.gov Y 2021 9 20 29 

USDA-GIPSA Oscar Porter Oscar.KC.Porter@usda.gov Y 2 2 

HI Michael Tang michael.tang@hawaii.gov Y Y Y Y Y N Y N N 2019 22 0 22 

ID Stacie Ybarra stacie.ybarra@isda.idaho.gov N Y Y Y Y N N N N 2032 12 12 

IL John Satterlee john.satterlee@illinois.gov Y Y Y 2046 5 5 

IL Karl Cunningham karl.cunningham@illinois.gov Y Y Y 2025 19 19 

IL Austin Boyett Austin.Boyett@illinois.gov 2047 0 0 

IL Stephanie Somer Stephanie.Somers@illinois.gov 2048 0 0 

KS Kevin Uphoff Kevin.Uphoff@ks.gov Y Y Y Y Y N N Y N 2036 11 0 11 

KS Evan Johnson ClarenceEvan.Johnson@ks.gov N Y Y Y Y N N N N 2049 4 0 4 

KY Jason Glass Jason.glass@ky.gov N N Y Y N N N N N 2027 19 0 19 

KY Chester Watson chester.watson@ky.gov N N Y Y N N N N N 2034 15 0 15 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 133 of 167 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lab ID Name Email 

Mass I

Mass IIMass IIIVol TransVol GravLengthTime/FrequencyTemperatureGrain Moisture

What Year

Eligible

for Retirement?

State Lab

Metrology

Other

Metrology

Total

Metrology

Experience 

LA Whitney Corley wcorley@ldaf.state.la.us Y Y 2054 4.4 4.4 

LA Jennifer Adair jadair@ldaf.state.la.us Y Y 2055 3.5 3.5 

LA Tyler Holmes tholmes@ldaf.state.la.us N N 2059 0.2 0.2 

MA Ray Costa ray.costa@mass.gov N N Y Y N N N N N 2023 11 36 47 

MA Hain Wan (Will) Setow hain.setow@mass.gov N N N N N N N N N 2050 1 0 1 

MD Zach Tripoulas zacharias.tripoulas@maryland.gov N N Y Y N N N N N 2040 10 10 

MD Tong Hsu tong.hsu@maryland.gov N N Y Y N N N N N 2043 6 6 

ME Brad Bachelder bradford.bachelder@maine.gov N Y Y Y Y Y N N N 2052 10 1 11 

MI Craig VanBuren vanburenc9@michigan.gov N N N N N 23 23 

MI Neil Jones jonesn@michigan.gov Y Y Y Y Y 23 23 

MI Nick Santini santinin@michigan.gov Y Y Y Y Y 12 12 

MI Ryanne Hartman hartmanr9@michigan.gov N Y Y Y Y 12 12 

MI Scott Ferguson fergusons9@michigan.gov N Y Y Y Y 12 12 

MI Steve Galvan galvans@michigan.gov N N N N N 7 7 

MI Nicole Byndas byndasn@michigan.gov N Y Y Y Y 5 5 10 

MN Benj FitzPatrick Benjamin.FitzPatrick@state.mn.us Y Y Y Y Y N N N N 2047 7.5 0 7.5 

MN Eric Johnson Eric.E.Johnson@state.mn.us N N N N N N N N N 2047 3.5 4 7.5 

MN Anna Pierce Anna.Pierce@state.mn.us N Y Y Y Y N N N N 2055 4.5 0 4.5 

MN Heidi Jones Heidi.Jones@state.mn.us N N N N N N N N N 2024 23 0 23 

MN Valare Falkner Valare.Falkner@state.mn.us N N N N N N N N N 2055 3.5 0 3.5 

MN Nick Santori Nick.Santori@state.mn.us N N N N N N N N N 2040 1 15 16 

MO John Bell johnny.bell@mda.mo.gov N Y Y Y Y N N N N 2032 2 0 2 

MO Houston Naugher houston.naugher@mda.mo.gov N Y Y Y Y N N N N 2053 6 0 6 

MT David Fraser dafraser@mt.gov N N Y Y N N N N N 2030 10 0 10 

NC Sharon Woodard sharon.woodard@ncagr.gov Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y 2022 30 30 

NC Spurgeon Van Hyder van.hyder@ncagr.gov Y Y Y Y Y Y N 2024 28 28 

NC Robert Rogers robert.rogers@ncagr.gov Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y 2041 11 8 19 

NC Charles Edward Stephens ed.stephens@ncagr.gov N 2052 0.5 0.5 

NC Kevin Knox kevin.knox@ncagr.gov N 2053 

NE Joel P. Lavicky joel.lavicky@nebraska.gov Y Y 2040 7 7 

NJ Michael J. Cecere CecereM@dca.njoag.gov N N Y Y N Y Y N N 2019 16 0 16 

NJ Kyle C. Pierson PiersonK@dca.njoag.gov N N Y Y N Y Y N N 2035 7.5 0 7.5 

NM Clay Ivey civey@nmda.nmsu.edu Y Y Y Y Y N N N N 2030 13 0 13 

NV James Kellames jkellames@agri.nv.gov N Y Y Y Y N N N N 2043 8 0 8 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 134 of 167 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lab ID Name Email 

Mass I

Mass IIMass IIIVol TransVol GravLengthTime/FrequencyTemperatureGrain Moisture

What Year

Eligible

for Retirement?

State Lab

Metrology

Other

Metrology

Total

Metrology

Experience 

NV Kiara Saunders kriske@agri.nv.gov N Y Y Y Y N N N N 2048 5 0 5 

NY Jeremy Best jeremy.best@agriculture.ny.gov Y Y Y Y Y Y 2049 4 4 

NY Jonathan Fox jonathan.fox@agriculture.ny.gov Y Y Y Y Y Y 2039 8 8 

NY Michael Lejeune michael.lejeune@agriculture.ny.gov Y Y Y Y Y Y 2035 8 8 

OH Tom Buck tom.buck@agri.ohio.gov N Y Y Y Y Y Y N N 2032 9 0 9 

OH Ken Johnson ken.johnson@agri.ohio.gov N Y Y Y Y Y Y N N 2020 33 6 39 

OH Daniel Walker daniel.walker@agri.ohio.gov N Y Y Y Y Y Y N N 2042 11 10 21 

OH Keith Crider keith.crider@agri.ohio.gov N N N N N N N N N 2027 1 37 38 

OR Aaron Aydelotte Aaron.AYDELOTTE@oda.oregon.gov Y Y Y Y Y N N Y N 2029 22 0 22 

OR Ray Nekuda Raymond.NEKUDA@oda.oregon.gov Y Y Y Y Y N N N N 2037 15 0 15 

PA James P. Gownley jgownley@pa.gov N Y Y Y Y Y Y N N 2030 21 0 21 

PA Christopher J. Drupp cdrupp@pa.gov N Y Y Y Y Y Y N N 2034 15 0 15 

PA Richard M. Radel, Jr. riradel@pa.gov N Y Y Y Y Y Y N N 2025 14.5 0 14.5 

PA Dustin Claycomb duclaycomb@pa.gov N Y Y Y Y Y Y N N 2031 8.5 5 13.5 

PA Kenrick Singh kensingh@pa.gov N N N N N N N N N 2046 0.25 0 0.25 

SC Kristin Sherrick ksherrick@scda.sc.gov N Y Y Y Y N N N N 2048 5 0 5 

SC Candice Zegilla cmzegilla@scda.sc.gov N N N N N N N N N 2052 0 0 0 

SC Timothy Jones tjones@scda.sc.gov N Y Y Y Y N N N Y 2044 8 0 8 

SD Ron Peterson ron.peterson@state.sd.us N N Y Y N N N N N 2026 11 0 11 

SD Dwight Johnson dwight.johnson@state.sd.us N N Y Y N N N N N 2034 1 0 1 

TN Nicholas Andersen Nicholas.andersen@tn.gov Y Y Y 6 6 

TN Rong Zhang Rhong.Zhange@tn.gov Y Y Y 5 5 

TN Sara Purdue Sara.Purdue@tn.gov 2 2 

TX Lisa Corn lisa.corn@texasagriculture.gov N Y Y Y Y N N N N 2035 15 0 15 

TX Keri Schatte keri.schatte@texasagricultre.gov N Y Y Y Y N N N N 2038 6 0 6 

TX Heather Exner heather.exner@texasagriculture.gov N N N N N N N N N 2032 1 0 1 

TX Kirt Weyand kirt.weyand@texasagriculture.gov N N N N N N N N N 0.75 0 0.75 

TX Allison Haas allison.haas@texasagriculture.gov N N N N N N N N N 0.5 0 0.5 

UT Bill Rigby brigby@utah.gov Y Y Y 2030 18 18 

VA William Scott William.scott@vdacs.virginia.gov N Y Y Y N N Y N N 2044 8 5 13 

VA Armeta Robinson Armeta.Robinson@vdacs.virginia.gov N N N N N N N N N 2023 1 0 1 

VT Marc Paquette marc.paquette@vermont.gov N N Y Y N N N N N 2021 17 0 17 

VT Scott Dolan scott.dolan@vermont.gov N N Y Y N N N N N 2041 11 0 11 

WA Leslie German lgerman@agr.wa.gov Y Y Y Y Y N Y N N 2029 6 0 6 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 135 of 167
 

 

 

Lab ID Name Email 

Mass I

Mass IIMass IIIVol TransVol GravLengthTime/FrequencyTemperatureGrain Moisture

What Year

Eligible

for Retirement?

State Lab

Metrology

Other

Metrology

Total

Metrology

Experience 

WI Justin Lien justin.lien@wisconsin.gov N Y Y Y N N Y N N 2044 8 0 8 

WI Paul Masterson paul.masterson@wisconsin.gov N Y Y Y N N Y N N 2045 7 0 7 

WI Ronald DePouw ronald.depouw@wisconsin.gov N Y Y Y N N Y N N 2047 5 0 5 

WI Bradley Wing bradleya.wing@wisconsin.gov N N N N N N Y N N 2052 6 0 6 

WV Tory Brewer Tory.D.Brewer@wv.gov N N Y Y N N N N N 2046 10 0 10 

WV Alysan Miller Alysan.Miller@wv.gov N N N N N N N N N 2058 1 0 1 

WY Robert Weidler robert.weidler@wyo.gov Y Y 2029 14 0 14 

WY Todd Stiles todd.stiles@wyo.gov Y Y 2032 7 0 7 

Table 45: Listing of SLP metrologists as of 2022. Each metrologist was asked to indicate which of the listed calibrations they are authorized to perform (“F” = Full authority, “N” 

= Not authorized, “P” = partial or limited authority), provide what year they are eligible for retirement, and to provide a measure of their metrology experience. 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 136 of 167 
 

 

 

 

Retirement Eligibility 

20 

18 

16 16 

16 

14 

V, 

ti 12 .bJl 

_Q 10 e 

~ 

Q) 8 ~ 

6 

4 

2 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

0 U"l 0 U"l 0 U"l 0 U"l 0 U"l 0 U"l 0 U"l 0 U"l 0 ,.; N N n'l n'l st st U"l U"l <D <D r-- r-- 00 00 O'l 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 

Year Eligible for Full Retirement 

Figure 55: Retirement Eligibility Histogram. Of the 110 metrologists, 96 reported the year they would be eligible 

for full retirement. This may not reflect when any one person plans to leave the SLP. 

13 

Mass II 52 

Mass III 80 

Vol Trans 78 

Vol Grav 43 

Length 18 

Time/Frequency 24 

Temperature 7 

Grain Moisture 7 

Table 46: 110 Metrologists reporting. Metrologists were asked to indicate which type of calibrations they are 

authorized to perform on behalf of their respective laboratories. 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 137 of 167 

Mass I 
 

 

State Laboratory Program/Metrology Experience 

Description 

Total Metrology Experience: 

Each metrologist was asked to report their metrology experience in years. The data was broken 

down into two categories, years of experience in the SLP, and years metrology experience 

outside the SLP. 

Comparison of previous surveys 

Number 

of 

Metrolog 

ists 

Average 

SLP 

Experien 

ce 

Average 

Other 

Experien 

ce 

Average 

Total 

Experien 

ce 

2000 111 8.7 2.4 11.0 

2002 113 9.1 2.1 11.2 

2004 111 8.1 2.6 10.8 

2006 112 8.3 3.1 11.4 

2008 125 9.2 2.4 11.6 

2010 121 9.5 1.9 11.4 

2012 110 8.7 2.1 10.8 

2014 118 9.2 1.7 10.9 

2016 116 8.8 2.8 10.3 

2018 119 9.3 1.4 10.7 

2020 122 8.5 1.3 9.8 

2022 110 8.8 2.6 10.4 

Table 47: Comparison matrix summarizing metrology experience reported by metrologists. 

Comments: 

● Data was collected for 110 metrologist in the SLP from 42 laboratories. 

NOTE: The survey team is aware some of the metrologists identified in this list are either full 

time weights and measures employees working part time in the laboratory due to promotions or 

transfers or are working as post retirement contractors to help maintain laboratory recognition or 

accreditation. These individuals tend to be more senior and thus skew the overall measures of 

experience and retirement risk high. 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 138 of 167 
 

Costa 

Ken Johnson 

Keith Crider 

Sharon Woodard 

Marcus Harwitz 

Spurgeon Van Hyder 

Garret Brown 

Craig VanBuren 

Heidi Jones 

Neil Jones 

Aaron Aydelotte 

Michael Tang 

Tony Gruneisen 

Daniel Walker 

James P. Gownley 

Jason Glass 

Karl Cunningham 

Robert Rage rs 

Brian Sellers 

Bill Rigby 

Marc Paquette 

Michael J. Cecere 

Nick Santori 

Toni Bulai 

Chester Watson 

Christopher J. Drupp 

Lisa Corn 

Ray Nekuda 

Richard M. Radel,Jr. 

Robert Weidler 

Dustin Claycomb 

Clay Ivey 

William Scott 

Nick Santini 

Nikhil Soman 

Ryanne Hartman 

Scott Ferguson 

Stacie Ybarra 

Travis Garding 

Brad Bachelder 

Kevin Uphoff 

Ron Peterson 

Scott Dolan 

Amy Smith 

David Fraser 

Kate Smetana 

Megan Money 

Nicole Byndas 

Tory Brewer 

Zach Tripoulas 

0 5 10 15 

Years Experience 

20 25 30 

■ SLP Experience ■ Other Metrology Exp. 

35 40 45 50 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 139 of 167 
 

Buck 

James Kellames 

Jill Franke 

Jonathan Fox 

Justin Lien 

Michael Lejeune 

Mike Kruse 

Timothy Jones 

Be nj Fitz Patrick 

Eric Johnson 

Kyle C. Pierson 

Anthony Gallagher 

Joel P. Lavicky 

Paul Masterson 

Steve Galvan 

Todd Stiles 

Bradley Wing 

Houston Naugher 

Keri Schatte 

Leslie German 

Nicholas Andersen 

Stan Diffie 

Tong Hsu 

0 5 

John Satterlee -

Kiara Saunders -

Kristin Sherrick -

Ronald DePouw -

RongZhang -

Anna Pierce -

Whitney Corley -

EvanJohnson -

Jeremy Best -

Jennifer Adair -

Valare Falkner -

Mauro Nieves -

Tiffany Brigner .-i 

Andrew Shapes • 

John Bell • 

Oscar Porter • 

Sara Purdue • 

Alysan Miller Ill 

Armeta Robinson Ill 

Claude Riche I 

Demi Noll Ill 

Dwight Johnson Ill 

Hain Wan {Will) Setow Ill 

Heather Exner Ill 

Kayla Hankins I 

Wesley Thompson I 

Kirt Weyand OJ)S 

10 15 

Years Experience 

20 25 30 

■ SLP Experience ■ Other Metrology Exp. 

35 40 45 50 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 140 of 167 
 

 

■ ■ 

0

0

Years Experience 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 

Allison Haas 

Charles Edward Stephens 

Kenrick Singh 

Tyler Holmes 

AusCn BoyeE 

Candice Zegilla 

Stephanie Somer 

Steven Hine 

Kevin Knox 

Michael Bridges 

0.50 

0.5 

0.250 

0.2 

0 

0 

0 

0 

SLP Experience Other Metrology Exp. 

Figure 56: SLP metrologists ranked by years of experience (cont). Blue indicates experience in the SLP, Red 

indicates other metrology experience. 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 141 of 167 
 

Acknowledgment of Calibration Certificates Matrix 

Each member laboratory was asked to identify what laboratories it will accept calibration 

certificates from. The choices were: 

● From your laboratory ONLY11. 

● Any of the SLP member labs. 

● Any SLP member lab having NIST/OWM Recognition. 

● Any NVLAP Accredited Lab. 

● Any Weight Manufacturer regardless of accreditation status. 

● Any laboratory accredited by an accreditation body that is an ILAC signatory. 

Lab ID 

Your State Lab OnlyAny State Lab Regardless of StatusAny NIST/OWM Recognized LabAny NVLAP Accredited LabAny Weight Manufacturer Regardless ofAccreditation StatusAny Company or Lab that is Accreditedby an Accreditation Body that is an ILACSignatory 

AK No No Yes Yes No Yes 

AL Yes No Yes No No No 

AR No No Yes Yes No Yes 

AZ No No Yes Yes No Yes 

CA No No Yes Yes No Yes 

CO No No Yes Yes No No 

FL Yes No Yes Yes No Yes 

GA No No Yes Yes No No 

USDAGIPSA No No Yes Yes No Yes 

HI No No Yes Yes No No 

ID No No Yes Yes No No 

IL No No Yes Yes No No 

KS No No Yes No No Yes 

KY No No Yes Yes No Yes 

LA No No Yes Yes No No 

MA Yes No Yes Yes No No 

MD No No Yes Yes No No 

ME No No Yes Yes No Yes 

MI No No Yes Yes No Yes 

MN No No Yes No No No 

MO No No Yes Yes No Yes 

11 This choice should have been exclusive of the other options. Some respondents may have 

answered this question assuming that this meant they would accept their own certificates in 

addition to others as identified. 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 142 of 167 
 

Lab ID 

Your State Lab OnlyAny State Lab Regardless of StatusAny NIST/OWM Recognized LabAny NVLAP Accredited LabAny Weight Manufacturer Regardless ofAccreditation StatusAny Company or Lab that is Accreditedby an Accreditation Body that is an ILACSignatory 

MT No Yes Yes Yes No Yes 

NC No No Yes Yes No Yes 

NE Yes No Yes Yes No No 

NJ Yes No Yes No No No 

NM No No Yes Yes No Yes 

NV No No Yes Yes No Yes 

NY No No Yes Yes No Yes 

OH No No Yes Yes No Yes 

OR No No Yes Yes No Yes 

PA No No Yes No No No 

SC No No Yes Yes No Yes 

SD No No Yes Yes No Yes 

TN No No Yes No No No 

TX No No Yes Yes No Yes 

UT Yes No Yes Yes No Yes 

VA No No Yes Yes No No 

VT No No Yes Yes No Yes 

WA No No Yes Yes No Yes 

WI No No Yes Yes No Yes 

WV No No Yes Yes No Yes 

WY No No Yes Yes No Yes 

Table 48: Calibration Certificate acceptance matrix. 

NOTE: The question of calibration acceptance seems to be a bit vague. One could take it to 

mean acceptance of a calibration certificate from a service provider for the calibration of 

measure and testing equipment used by the laboratory to carry out its work. Another 

interpretation involves the acceptance of those calibration certificates submitted by service 

agents registered or licensed by the state or county weights and measures program. A third 

interpretation would look at any calibration certificate submitted to the laboratory regardless of 

reason. The survey team cannot infer how each respondent interpreted the question. 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 143 of 167 
 

Supplementary Questions 

Some biannual surveys include a section covering subjects of potential interest by NIST OWM 

and the SLP member laboratories. These supplementary questions are designed to require only a 

minimum of research time in order to answer and the answers themselves are generally limited to 

one word, multiple choice responses. 

Historical Supplementary Questions 

● 2003 – Miscellaneous questions 

● 2010 – Use of national and international standards (HB 105 series, OIML, ASTM) 

● 2014 – Who do you use for calibration services; Time to calibrate measure and test 

equipment. 

● 2016 – Weight cleaning policy, Masscode revision in service, largest weight cart, relative 

metric workload, and service request tracking. 

● 2018 – Acceptance criteria for MTE coming into the lab for calibration (cast iron and test 

measures). Calibration services requested by customers but not offered by the lab. What 

version of Excel are you using? 

● 2020 – Questions related to COVID-19 impact on lab operations. 

● 2022 – Questions related to remote work, laboratory renovations, program funding, and 

EV charging station support. 

In 2018 a standardized format for including supplemental questions was introduced into the 

survey. Section 1 includes a bank of up to 10 yes or no questions. Section 2 includes a bank of 

up to 10 short answer questions. 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 144 of 167 
Supplementary Questions Section 1 

No. Question Yes No 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

As of 31 December 2022, does your laboratory have a vacancy 

in a position described in Section 4? 8 33 

Is your laboratory facility owned by the governing entity under 

which it operates? (i.e. state, county, municipality, federal 

district, tribe, territory, or commonwealth) 28 14 

Is your laboratory facility rented or leased by the governing 

entity under which it operates? (answer No if you answered 

Yes to question 3) 14 28 

Has your laboratory had any renovations since 1 January 2021? 11 31 

Has your laboratory had any new construction since 1 January 

2021? 3 38 

Are there any renovations expected to start or continue in 

2023? 5 34 

Is new new laboratory construction expected to begin in 2023? 

( if the project is adding to an existing laboratory answer No 

here, answer Yes to question 7) 2 34 

Does your laboratory currently test watt -hour meters which are 

used to test electric vehicle charging stations? 0 41 

Does your laboratory plan to test watt -hour meters which are 

used to test electric vehicle charging stations in 2023? 3 31 

Does your laboratory allow teleworking? 16 25 

Identify the average 1 -way commute completed by the 

metrology staff in your lab: 

0-10 miles 15 5 

11-20 miles 16 7 

21-30 miles 10 6 

31-40 miles 9 7 

41-50 miles 2 7 

> 50 miles 2 7 

Laboratory Funding, Is your laboratory funded by: 0 

Fees (including calibration fees and service 

registration fees) 26 12 

Weights and Measures program funds 26 10 

Table 49: Summary of responses to supplementary questions in section 1. 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 145 of 167 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Question 

Count

Response 

Q. 1 As of 31 December 2022, does your laboratory have a vacancy in a position described in Section 4? 

Yes 8 AR,FL,ID,KY,NC,NM,OH,WV 

No 33 AK,AZ,CA,CO,GA,HI,IL,KS,LA,MA,MD,ME,MI,MN,MO,MT,NE,NJ,NV,NY,OR,PA,SC,SD,TN,TX,USDA-GIPSA,UT,VA,VT,WA,WI,WY 

No Answer 1 AL 

Q. 2 Is your laboratory facility owned by the governing entity under which it operates? (i.e. state, county, municipality, federal district, tribe, territory, or 

commonwealth) 

Yes 28 AL,AR,CO,FL,GA,HI,ID,IL,LA,MD,ME,MI,MO,NC,NJ,NV,NY,OH,PA,SC,SD,TN,TX,USDA-GIPSA,UT,VT,WV,WY 

No 14 AK,AZ,CA,KS,KY,MA,MN,MT,NE,NM,OR,VA,WA,WI 

No Answer 0 

Q. 3 Is your laboratory facility rented or leased by the governing entity under which it operates? (answer No if you answered Yes to question 3) 

Yes 14 AK,AZ,CA,KS,KY,MA,MN,MT,NE,NM,OR,VA,WA,WI 

No 28 AL,AR,CO,FL,GA,HI,ID,IL,LA,MD,ME,MI,MO,NC,NJ,NV,NY,OH,PA,SC,SD,TN,TX,USDA-GIPSA,UT,VT,WV,WY 

No Answer 0 

Q. 4 Has your laboratory had any renovations since 1 January 2021? 

Yes 11 AK,CA,CO,GA,KS,MN,MT,NV,OH,TX,WA 

No 31 AL,AR,AZ,FL,HI,ID,IL,KY,LA,MA,MD,ME,MI,MO,NC,NE,NJ,NM,NY,OR,PA,SC,SD,TN,USDA-GIPSA,UT,VA,VT,WI,WV,WY 

No Answer 0 

Q. 5 Has your laboratory had any new construction since 1 January 2021? 

Yes 3 IL,MA,UT 

No 38 AK,AR,AZ,CA,CO,FL,GA,HI,ID,KS,KY,LA,MD,ME,MI,MN,MO,MT,NC,NE,NJ,NM,NV,NY,OH,OR,PA,SC,SD,TN,TX,USDA-GIPSA,VA,VT,WA,WI,WV,WY 

No Answer 1 AL 

Q. 6 Are there any renovations expected to start or continue in 2023? 

Yes 5 AK,MO,MT,NM,UT 

No 34 AR,AZ,CA,CO,GA,HI,IL,KS,KY,LA,MA,MD,ME,MI,MN,NC,NE,NJ,NV,NY,OH,OR,PA,SC,SD,TN,TX,USDA-GIPSA,VA,VT,WA,WI,WV,WY 

No Answer 3 AL,FL,ID 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 146 of 167 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Question 

Count

Response 

Q. 7 Is new new laboratory construction expected to begin in 2023? ( if the project is adding to an existing laboratory answer No here, answer Yes to question 7) 

Yes 2 NE,NM 

No 34 AK,AZ,CA,CO,GA,HI,IL,KS,KY,LA,MA,MD,ME,MI,MN,MO,MT,NC,NJ,NV,NY,OH,OR,PA,SC,SD,TN,TX,USDA-GIPSA,UT,VA,VT,WA,WY 

No Answer 6 AL,AR,FL,ID,WI,WV 

Q. 8 Does your laboratory currently test watt-hour meters which are used to test electric vehicle charging stations? 

Yes 0 

No 41 AK,AL,AR,AZ,CA,CO,FL,GA,HI,ID,IL,KS,KY,LA,MA,MD,ME,MI,MN,MO,MT,NC,NE,NJ,NM,NV,NY,OH,OR,PA,SC,SD,TN,TX,USDAGIPSA,UT,VA,VT,WA,WV,WY 

No Answer 1 WI 

Q. 9 Does your laboratory plan to test watt-hour meters which are used to test electric vehicle charging stations in 2023? 

Yes 3 CA,MO,TX 

No 31 AK,AL,AR,AZ,CO,ID,KS,KY,LA,MA,MD,ME,MI,MN,NE,NJ,NM,NV,NY,OH,OR,PA,SC,SD,TN,USDA-GIPSA,UT,VT,WA,WV,WY 

No Answer 8 FL,GA,HI,IL,MT,NC,VA,WI 

Q. 10 Does your laboratory allow teleworking? 

Yes 16 FL,GA,KS,KY,ME,MI,MN,MT,NC,NJ,NY,SD,TX,USDA-GIPSA,VT,WA 

No 25 AK,AL,AR,AZ,CA,CO,HI,ID,IL,LA,MA,MD,MO,NM,NV,OH,OR,PA,SC,TN,UT,VA,WI,WV,WY 

No Answer 1 NE 

Q. 11 Identify the average 1-way commute completed by the metrology staff in your lab: 

0-10 miles 

Yes 15 AR,AZ,CA,GA,HI,IL,MO,NE,NM,NV,SC,TN,TX,WI,WV 

No 5 KY,MD,OH,UT,VT 

No Answer 22 AK,AL,CO,FL,ID,KS,LA,MA,ME,MI,MN,MT,NC,NJ,NY,OR,PA,SD,USDA-GIPSA,VA,WA,WY 

11-20 miles 

Yes 16 AZ,CO,FL,ID,KS,KY,ME,MN,MT,OR,SC,TX,USDA-GIPSA,VA,WI,WY 

No 7 AR,HI,MD,NV,OH,UT,VT 

No Answer 19 AK,AL,CA,GA,IL,LA,MA,MI,MO,NC,NE,NJ,NM,NY,PA,SD,TN,WA,WV 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 147 of 167 
 

 

 

 

Question 

Count

Response 

21-30 miles 

Yes 10 AK,MI,MO,NC,PA,SC,SD,TX,UT,VT 

No 6 AR,HI,KY,MD,NV,OH 

No Answer 26 AL,AZ,CA,CO,FL,GA,ID,IL,KS,LA,MA,ME,MN,MT,NE,NJ,NM,NY,OR,TN,USDA-GIPSA,VA,WA,WI,WV,WY 

31-40 miles 

Yes 9 FL,LA,NJ,NY,OH,SC,WA,WI,WV 

No 7 AR,HI,KY,MD,NV,UT,VT 

No Answer 26 AK,AL,AZ,CA,CO,GA,ID,IL,KS,MA,ME,MI,MN,MO,MT,NC,NE,NM,OR,PA,SD,TN,TX,USDA-GIPSA,VA,WY 

41-50 miles 

Yes 2 MA,MD 

No 7 AR,HI,KY,NV,OH,UT,VT 

No Answer 33 AK,AL,AZ,CA,CO,FL,GA,ID,IL,KS,LA,ME,MI,MN,MO,MT,NC,NE,NJ,NM,NY,OR,PA,SC,SD,TN,TX,USDA-GIPSA,VA,WA,WI,WV,WY 

> 50 miles 

Yes 2 AL,VT 

No 7 AR,HI,KY,MD,NV,OH,UT 

No Answer 33 AK,AZ,CA,CO,FL,GA,ID,IL,KS,LA,MA,ME,MI,MN,MO,MT,NC,NE,NJ,NM,NY,OR,PA,SC,SD,TN,TX,USDA-GIPSA,VA,WA,WI,WV,WY 

Q. 12 Laboratory Funding, Is your laboratory funded by: 

Fees (including calibration fees and service registration fees) 

Yes 26 AK,CA,CO,FL,ID,IL,KY,LA,MD,ME,MI,MO,MT,NC,NE,NJ,NV,OH,OR,SC,SD,TX,USDA-GIPSA,VT,WA,WI 

No 12 AL,AR,GA,HI,KS,MA,NY,PA,TN,UT,VA,WY 

No Answer 4 AZ,MN,NM,WV 

Weights and Measures program funds 

Yes 26 AK,AL,AZ,CO,ID,IL,KS,LA,ME,MI,MN,MO,MT,NE,NJ,NV,OH,OR,SC,SD,TN,UT,VA,VT,WA,WI 

No 10 AR,GA,HI,KY,MA,MD,NY,PA,TX,WY 

No Answer 6 CA,FL,NC,NM,USDA-GIPSA,WV 

Table 50: Summary of responses to supplementary questions in section 1. 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 148 of 167 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Supplementary Questions Section 2 

Questions 1 – 10: In #1 - #10 identify some requests for calibration services that you are 

currently unable to provide. 

AK - Echelon I mass 

AK - Liquid in glass thermometers 

AK - 1 gallon test measure 

AK - 0.5 gallon test measure 

AR - Volume LPG 

CO - Gravimetric 

CO - Flow meter 

CO - Length 

CO - EV charging 

FL - Thermometry 

FL - Small Volume Gravimetric 

GA - Calibration of 2000 lb weights 

GA - Calibration of 6000 lb carts 

HI - thermometers 

HI - pressure measurement devices 

IL - Echelon 2 

IL - Temp. 

KS - Dynamic small volume provers 

KS - Thermometers 

KS - Watt-Hour Meters used to test EV Charging Stations 

KY - Mass II Calibrations 

KY - Weight Carts 

LA - weight carts 

LA - large volume provers 

LA - MEII 

MA - Class 1 Weight Kits (1 or 2 per year at most) 

ME - Temperature 

ME - Mass Echelon I 

MN - Several request for Masterscale calibrations during winter months. (our master scale is closed Nov - April). Additional 

issues getting our Master Scale calibrated have caused extra delays for customers. 

MN - OIML E1 

MN - 5 Liter measure 

MN - 6000 lb and 10 000lb weight cart/rail carts 

MT - Gravemetric Volume 

MT - Echelon II or Higher Mass 

MT - Echelon I or Higher Volume 

MT - Length 

MT - Volume Less Than 5 Gallons 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 149 of 167 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MT - Tuning Forks 

NC - Gauge Blocks 

NC - Pressure Gauges 

NC - Electrical Port Chargers 

NE - Echellon II calibrations for industry, ASTM 2/3 

NJ - Calibrations of 1 and 2 gallon test measures, either gravimetric or volume transfer 

NJ - Mass, Echelon 2 

NM - 1000 gallon prover 

NM - 6000 lb Weight Cart 

NV - Calipers 

NV - Pipettes 

NV - Tape measurers 

NY - Stopwatches that don't meet precision requirements 

NY - Ounce weights at Echelon II 

NY - Ech I mass calibrations 

NY - Vol gravimetric larger than 100 gal 

PA - Mass Echelon I 

PA - Thermometers 

PA - LPG Prover Calibrations 

SC - Calibrations of Echelon I Status (SOP 28) 

SD - 1250, 1500 lb 

TN - Weights Carts 

TN - 50 gallon provers 

USDA-GIPSA - 1000 lb cast weights 

USDA-GIPSA - 50 lb cast weights 

USDA-GIPSA - 25 lb cast weights 

USDA-GIPSA - 500 lb cast weights 

UT - Weight Cart 

VA - wheelload weighers 

VA - trigger pull gauge 

VA - temperature 

VA - large provers > 100 gallons 

VT - Glass Wear 1 gil to 1/2 gallon, 50 mL to 200 mL 

VT - Steel Tape 25' to 102' 

VT - Class 2 weights 1 mg to 500 mg, 1 kg to 5 kg 

WI - On the rare occasion, request for a Class I calibration 

WY - No requests outside of our scope 

Table 51: Responses to supplementary questions #1-#10 in section 2 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 150 of 167 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Question 11: If you answered Yes to Question 10 of Section 33 (Supplementary Y/N questions) 

please describe your current telework practices. 

FL - Management is allowed to work from home if needed. 

GA - Teleworking is only allowed under special conditions with the approval of the Laboratory Division Director 

HI - none 

KS - In the event of illness or inclement weather employees can telework for administrative duties. 

KY - 1 day per week agreed upon in writing 

MA - No 

MD - N/A 

ME - I can telework on thursdays to catch up with phone calls, emails, write reports, attend meetings, etc. 

MI - Lab staff have the ability to telework on an as needed basis. 

MN - MN Commerce allows teleworking as long as business needs are meet. Currently all metrologist telework approximately 

one day a week. 

MT - Lab staff was given the option to tele-work but we choose not too. 

NC - Telework only when necessary and if there is work you can do at home. 

NJ - Support staff and metrologists are permitted to work from home up to two days per week on specific and designated days for 

each employee. This is done to ensure that an adequate staff is working inside the office at all times. The tasks performed at home 

include processing and proofreading certificates, updating work logs and scheduling appointments. Please note that in practice, the 

metrologists rarely work from home. 

NV - Was allowed, but is being discontinued as of July 1, 2023. 

NY - Permitted on a case-by-case basis, per request, when work that can be done at home is available and when in-lab calibrations 

are not needed that day. 

SD - Telework for documentation; only during inclement weather. 

TX - 1 day a week telework, 4 days in lab 

VT - Clerical work can be done from home. 

WA - Only for duties where I can use the laptop. No measurements. 

WI - Not Applicable 

WY - N/A 

Table 52: Telecommuting options. 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 151 of 167 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Question 12. If you answered Yes to Question 4 Section 33 (Supplementary Y/N questions) 

please describe the renovations completed. 

AK - Replacement of steam generator component of lab HVAC system. Replacement of duct heating coil for lab HVAC system. 

Modernization of laboratory keycard access system. 

CA - Epoxy floors installed, Drop ceiling replaced with hard ceiling, new light fixtures, new cabinetry. 

CO - additional DI water line in Volume lab 

GA - A new AC controlling system was installed. 

KS - Partial HVAC remodel adding humidifier units. 

MN - New piers in large mass lab, to accomidate a new balance (MT XK2003KLC). New measurer tipper wall and drain installed 

in bay area. New air handler and humdifier for Multipurpose laboratory. 

MT - Renovations to Large Volume drop area, new mezinine and water delivery system. Renovations to Large Mass Lab, epoxy 

floor coating and fabricated workbenches. 

NM - Construction of new lab is on going estimated time of finish is July of 2023 

NV - New stand alone humidifier in our receiving room. 

OH - Exterior drains installed around outside of entire building to remove runoff from going under building. Stabilized south wall 

to prevent movement. Removed old balance table and installed new marble tables in small mass lab. 

TX - New HVAC system and ducts, better insulation in walls, new humidifiers, canopies on external garage doors for sun 

protection 

WA - HVAC system upgraded. 

Table 53: Laboratory completed renovations. 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 152 of 167 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Question 13. If you answered Yes to Question 5 Section 33 (Supplementary Y/N questions) 

please describe any improvements you realized over your existing laboratory facility. 

IL - New plumbing, and a new HVAC system for the entire building 

MA - (1) Laboratory was relocated from Needham to Ashland, MA in the final week of October 2021. 

(2) Large Mass Comparator placed on 3-foot-thick concrete pad protruding only 3 inches above floor level. 

(3) Addition of 100-gal & 50-gal slicker standard on mezzanine to the laboratory. 

(4) Overhead garage door opening increased from 10 feet wide and 12 feet high (in former laboratory) to 12 feet wide and 14 feet 

high (in current laboratory). 

UT - New lab nearing completion. Planned to move March 16, 2023 

WI - While I (Justin) answered no, we will be expanding the width of an entryway between our Volume lab and the Loading dock, 

to allow for extra room to move customer work to and from the receiving area. 

Table 54: Laboratory completed improvements. 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 153 of 167 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Question 14: If you answered Yes to Question 6 Section 33 (Supplementary Y/N questions) 

please describe the renovations planned. 

AK - Widening and heightening of laboratory "freight" door opening, and new laboratory door to replace the old one. 

MO - Adding an office for the lab manager in a part of the grain moisture lab. This will allow the metrology specialist to move 

into the existing office and open up a area for a secretary when funding is available. 

MT - New rigging equipment for Large Mass Lab. Small volume area will be walled off to keep it separate from the shop. 

UT - Finishing new lab construction 

WI - While there are no plans for renovations in 2023, we anticipate replacing laboratory humidifiers for each of the three (3) 

rooms: small mass, large mass, volume. New equipment may extend to other components related to the HVAC handling system. 

Table 55: Laboratory planned renovations. 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 154 of 167 
 

 

Question 15. If you answered Yes to Question 7 Section 33 (Supplementary Y/N questions) 

please describe any improvements you expect to realize over your existing laboratory facility. 

NE - Replacing garage doors to reduce outside air flow around the seals. Possibly having a double door. 

Table 56: Laboratory planned improvements. 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 155 of 167 
 

 

 

Comments – Survey Section 1 to 6 

Sections 1 through 6 of the survey included questions covering 

● the laboratory, 

● job titles and salary ranges, 

● laboratory customers, and 

● acceptance of calibration certificates 

Comments provided by individual SLP laboratories are listed in Table 57 

Lab ID Comments Survey Sections 1-6 

section 4: 

Lab Experienced Staffing Reorg. - approved and implemented March 2022 - Lab gained an 

additional Metrologist Position 

Sr. Metrologist SES now serves as the Laboratory Manager/Supervisor & Metrology/Calibration 

Technician FL Metrologist & Lab Tech. IV positions are currently Vacant as of 2/15/23 - recruiting for another 

Metrologist has been unsuccessful so far 

Environmental Manager is temporarily serving as backup for calibrations as needed and is 

keeping signatory status until the laboratory is fully staffed & now s erves as an additional 

quality control personnel for the lab and other labs in the Bureau. 

MA Minimum & Maximum Monthly Salary are private information. 

There is no way to adequately determine W&M officials or Service Companies. Number NC provided is a guestimation 

NE We do not accept any certificates that are traceable through Mexico or Canada at this time. 

Salary, Weights and Measures Inspector 1 - Employees with this title are now 4 years without a NJ contract. When it is settled, it is anticipated to be retroactive which will impact 2022 salaries. 

Tennessee code requires that the calibration certificates for service persons be from a NIST TN recognized state lab. 

Suggestion with future WorkLoad Suvey Forms such as this one - I'd much prefer to have this 

comments section allow me to bullet point or separate out various ideas and/or comments. As it 

currently stands, everything stays clumped together and the user must then identify the different 

thoughts and comments that are being provided. DONE..... For Section 3: per the metrology 

WI lab lease/contract, the area of the lab is listed at 7,081 square feet, of which roughly 3,700 

square feet is devoted to lab space. The remaining portion is used to store field trailers for field 

inspector use. Section 5: completed 384 work orders for 2022, of which 67 were assoc. with 

internal calibrations for WI field inspector staff members and equipment. Please note that we do 

not have a means to separate out and tally up "Service Companies" whether in/out of state. 

The Labor Program Manager is not typically involved in calibration functions. They have been 

WV listed this time because they happen to have signature authority for the 

lab due to personnel changes and training. 

Table 57: Comments provided by respondents regarding sections 1 through 6 of the survey. 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 156 of 167 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Comments Section 7 

Section 7 of the survey includes questions regarding individual metrologists working in the SLP. 

Comments provided by individual SLP laboratories are listed in Table 58. 

Lab ID Comments Survey Sections 7 

CA Recognized by the NIST OWM to measure AC electric energy at 120 V, 0.5 A, 0 ° phase angle. 

MD Grain is not on Scope. State regulator use only. 

MI Santini, Byndas, Ferguson, Galvan are approved signatories for wheel load weighers 

MN Weight carts, Rail test cars and carts (master scale), wheel load scales 

NJ Wheel Load Weighers 20 000 lb to 2 500 lb 

NY We are also recognized for lottery ball weight, diameter. 

PA We are also recognized for force 0 to 50 lbf 

VT Hydrometry: Marc Paquette, Mike Larose, Ryan Lockwood 

WI 

With regards to Time/Frequency, the WI laboratory performs Stopwatch calibrations. And 

when it comes retirement, eligibility is based off of thirty (30) years in state service, while 

holding a permanent position. Please note that while Bradley Wing has been employed (as a 

limited term employee (LTE)) since 2016, he hadn't received permanent status as a Metrologist 

until August 2022. 

Table 58: Comments provided by respondents regarding section 7 of the survey. 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 157 of 167 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Comments – Survey Sections 8 to 32 

Sections 8 through 32 of the survey cover the production of measurements by the SLP 

laboratories and the fees charged for measurement services. Comments provided by individual 

SLP laboratories are listed in Table 59. 

Lab ID Comments Survey Sections 8-32 

AK Section 31: Alaska does not have registered service agents (RSAs). 

MA 24 - 1000 lb weight (5 adjusted) requires 6 hours x 2 men equaling 12 hours 

One - 100 gal prover using VT requires 4 hours x 2 men equaling 8 hours 

MO 

We charge 125.00 per hour per employee. If two employees work on a weight cart for two 

hours the charge would be for 4 hours = $500.00. Weight carts, 1000 lb cast iron, 500 lb cast 

iron , LPG provers, and refined fuel provers over 5 gallons will usually require two employess. 

NC 

Section 26: We test both characteristics - mass & diameter of lottery balls Section 31: Fees are 

doubled for standards used primarily outside of North Carolina. We do not charge an additional 

fee to handle standards. There are some set up fees for various calibrations - Gravimetric 

Caibrations, SVPs and Thermometry 

NE 1000lb weights have a charge fo $23.50 per weight, 25-50lb weights are $8.50 per weight. 

Adjustments are at a rate of $80 per hour. 

NV We completed sections 8-30 based on certificates produced in 2022 (Jan. - Dec.). Hopefully this 

was the correct timeframe, but one was not specified. 

SC In Section 9 Echelon II answers, ASTM Class 1 calibrations are included in the numbers. 

SD Volume greater than 5 gallons and LPG to 100 gallons were added to our scope in mid-2022 

VT All weight calibration is by the hour $75/hour for instate and $95/hour out of state. 

WI Section 31, Line 125 (5,000 lb Weight Cart). If cart needs to be adjusted into tolerance, our lab 

would charge an adjustment and retest fee of $80.00 minimum, for a new total of 506.40 

WV 

For clarification, we do NOT charge to calibrate our own W&M field equipment and WV does 

not have city, county, or township jurisdictions. 

However, we DO charge for W&M field equipment if it comes from another state. 

WY Prices listed are for in state customers; out of state customers are charge double the in state rate. 

Table 59: Comments provided by respondents regarding section 8 through 32 of the survey. 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 158 of 167 
 

General Survey Comments 

At the end of the workload survey the responding laboratory has an opportunity to provide any 

general comments about the entire survey. These comments are listed in 

Lab ID Section 33 Survey Comments 

In the section 33, Supplementary Questions 1, the drop-down boxes does that open at the top of each line. 

MA It would be nice if this workbook could be reconfigured so that the printout of it comes out nicely on an 8.5" x 11" sheet 

of paper either in portrait or landscape or a combination of both. Presently, each sheet of this survey has to be 

reconfigured to be able to print it. 

ME Sorry it took me so long Van 

NE Keep up the good work. We would like to try to get the equipment to offer EVC charging calibration for field equp. Its 

all cost dependent. 

OH Section 33, Question 7, has an incorrect reference to Question 7. It should be ? 

Section 31 is the Fees table, not Section 30. The instructions say that table is Section 30 

The "Total" cells in Sections 8 to 30 are not protected. Protect these cells so the sum formulas aren't deleted. 

PA The Pennsylvania Standards Laboratory uses the results of this survey to evaluate fees, staffing and overall workload. 

The work that goes into getting this information compiled and published is greatly appreciated. 

WI I'm hoping that hard copies of the 2022 Workload Survey will be published and circulated. A physical copy is much 

preferred over electronic form! Thanks for the consideration. 

Table 60: General comments provided by respondents of the workload survey. 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 159 of 167 
2022 Survey Form

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

II 

II 

II II 

Section 6 Section 5 Section 4 Section 3 Section 2 Section 1 

Loaded . . . 2022 Workload Survey - Excel Version 

Name : 

The worksheets in this survey are protected to reduce the risk Phone : of unintentially making changes to the survey layout. The 

Fax : survey team uses a group of templates to collect and analyze 

Laboratory Information survey responses in order to expedite the report building 

process and to reduce the risk of transcription errors when Laboratory : copying your responses from this form. Please do not modify Address : this survey as it will no longer work within the survey team's 

City, State, Zip : process if you do. The survey team welcomes your suggestions 

Web Site : for improvement. Please add your comments to the comment 

block at the end of this survey. If you have mockups for an Laboratory Information improved layout you may send it in with the completed survey 

Age of Lab : yrs for consideration. 

Office Space : sq ft 

Active Lab Space : sq ft 

List all Job Titles which perform metrology measurements or functions. Select the closest job description from the 

Job Title Minimum Monthly Salary Maximum Monthly Salary standardized list below 

Number of Laboratory Customers served during the reporting period 

Count different locations of the same parent company as separate customers. If there are separate divisions with the same parent 

company, count each as a separate customer. 

Laboratory Customers : 

Number of the above that are NOT W&M officials or Service 

Companies: 

Which of the following best describes your State’s policy on accepting calibration certificates for field standards from registered 

service agents/companies in lieu of performing required verification of their testing equipment. Your State will accept calibration 

certificates from: 

(Select 'Yes' for all that apply) 

Your State Lab ONLY : 

Any State Lab regardless of status : 

Any NIST/OWM Recognized Lab : 

Any NVLAP Accredited Lab : 

Any Manufacturer, regardless of accreditation status : 

Any Company or Lab that is Accredited by an Accreditation Body that is an ILAC 

signatory (e.g. NVLAP, A2LA, ANAB (and L-A-B), LAB, IAS, Perry Johnson) 

Comments: Sections 1-6 

Go To Next Sheet (Survey Section 7) 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 160 of 167 
2022 Survey Form

 

 

 

Section 7 

1.Please list all current personnel who perform metrology measurements or functions in the laboratory (match with your Scope). 

Name Email 

Check Approved Signatory 

Status (yes or no) 

What Year Eligible

for Retirement?

#Yrs Metrology 

Experience 

Mass IMass IIMass IIIVol TransVol GravLengthTime/FrequencyTemperatureGrain Moisture

State LabMetrologyOtherMetrologyTotalMetrologyExperience 

Comments: Sections 7 (include additional items on your scope which are not listed above.) 

Go To Next Sheet (Survey Sections 8-32) 

Go To Previous Sheet (Survey Sections 1 - 6) 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 161 of 167 
2022 Survey Form

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Section 29 

1. Count State or Local Jurisdiction owned Weights 

and Measures Testing Equipment used by State 

Weights and Measures Program Staff only. 

2.External customers includes registered service 

companies, industry, city/county standards, and 

standards that do not belong to State officials. 

Lab (Internal) 

W&M Program1

External Customers2

TOTAL 0 

Lab (Internal) 

W&M Program1

External Customers2

TOTAL 0 

Lab (Internal) 

W&M Program1

External Customers2

TOTAL 0 

Lab (Internal) 

W&M Program1

External Customers2

TOTAL 0 

Lab (Internal) 

W&M Program1

External Customers2

TOTAL 0 

Lab (Internal) 

W&M Program1

External Customers2

TOTAL 0 

Vol-Transfer Gravimetric 

Lab (Internal) 

W&M Program1

External Customers2

TOTAL 0 0 

Lab (Internal) 

W&M Program1

External Customers2

TOTAL 0 

Lab (Internal) 

W&M Program1

External Customers2

TOTAL 0 

Vol-Transfer Gravimetric 

Lab (Internal) 

W&M Program1

External Customers2

TOTAL 0 0 

Vol-Transfer Gravimetric 

Lab (Internal) 

W&M Program1

External Customers2

TOTAL 0 0 

Vol-Transfer Gravimetric 

Lab (Internal) 

W&M Program1

External Customers2

Volume - LPG 

Volume - Non-Pressurized Small Metal Standards (≤5 gallon) 

Number of individual LPG provers calibrated. 

Mass Echelon I (Match with Handbook 143 and Lab Scope) 

Section 8 Section 9 

Mass Echelon II (Match with Handbook 143 and Lab Scope) 

Actual Counts 

Number of mass standards calibrated using 

Advanced Weighing Designs and Mass Code 

Data Reduction. Regardless of Class. 

And, ASTM 1 or better, OIML E2 or better. 

Actual Counts 

Number of mass standards. 

ASTM Class 2, 3 

OIML Class F1, F2 

Section 10 Section 16 Section 15 

Mass Echelon III (Match with Handbook 143 and Lab Scope) 

Section 11 

Weight Carts 

Section 14 

Actual Counts 

Number of small volume provers and closed loop 

provers calibrated. 

Actual Counts 

Volume - Glassware 

15.Volume - SVP (Dynamic Volumetric Systems) 

Section 17 Section 19 

Volume - Non-Pressurized Large Metal Standards (>100 gallon) 

Actual Counts 

Section 18 

Volume - Non-Pressurized Medium Metal Standards ( >5 gallon and ≤100 gallon) 

Actual Counts 

Number of individual pieces of volumetric 

glassware calibrated. 

Note: Indicate number of Volume Transfer and/or 

Gravimetric tests. 

Actual Counts 

Number of weight carts calibrated. 

Section 12 

Railroad Test Cars (Master Scale) 

Section 13 

Railroad Specific Weight Carts 

Number of metal volumetric standards (20 liter / 5 

gallon and smaller). 

Note: Indicate number of Volume Transfer 

(Volume II) and/or Gravimetric (Volume I) tests. 

Actual Counts 

Number of metal volumetric standards (larger than 

20 liter / 5 gallon and less than or equal to 400 

liter / 100 gallon). 

Note: Indicate number of Volume Transfer 

(Volume II) and/or Gravimetric (Volume I) tests. 

Number of metal volumetric standards (greater 

than 400 liter / 100 gallon). 

Note: Indicate number of Volume Transfer 

(Volume II) and/or Gravimetric (Volume I) tests. 

Number of mass standards (except weight carts). 

ASTM Class 4, 5, 6, 7 

OIML Class M1, M2, M3 

NIST Class F 

Actual Counts 

Number of weight carts calibrated. 

Actual Counts 

Number of cars calibrated. 

Actual Counts 

Footnotes: Section 8 -

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 162 of 167 
2022 Survey Form

Actual Counts TOTAL 0 0 

Length - Tapes 

Section 30 Instructions: 

Fee: This is the fee estimate that you would provide a customer in a calibration service 

quotation. 

Average Time: This is the time estimated to complete the calibration work specified in 

decimal hours. 

Includes Unpacking/Packing Standards: Select "Yes" if your time estimate includes 

receiving equipment for calibrati on (i.e. unpacking, loggi ng, storing, etc) and prepping 

equipment for shipment (i.e. palletizing, packing, coordinating pick up, etc) 

Includes pre-measurement setup time: Select "Yes" if your time estimate includes 

time setting up the measurement area (i.e. setting up measurement standards, 

instrument warm up time, staging customer equipment, etc.) 

Includes measurement control related work: Select "Yes" if your time estimate 

includes time spent obtaining and analyzing measurement control data. 

Includes certificate preparation time: Select "Yes" if your time estimate includes time spent preparing and error checking the calibration certificate. 

Section 20 

Number of individual tapes (metal, fiberglass, 

woven fiberglass, cloth, etc.). Please enter 

#devices tested, NOT number of points tested. 

Actual Counts 

Lab (Internal) 

1 W&M Program

2 External Customers

TOTAL 0 

Length - Rigid Rules 

Section 21 

Number of individual rigid rules tested. Please 

enter #devices tested, NOT number of points 

tested. 

Actual Counts 

Lab (Internal) 

1 W&M Program

2 External Customers

TOTAL 0 

Thermometry 

Section 22 Number of thermometers tested (mechanical, 

liquid-in-glass, thermocouples, thermistors, PRT, 

and SPRT). 

Actual Counts 

Lab (Internal) 

1 W&M Program

2 External Customers

TOTAL 0 

Frequency 

Section 23 

Number of frequency standards tested (includes 

tuning forks). 

Actual Counts 

Timing Devices 

Lab (Internal) 

1 W&M Program

2 External Customers

TOTAL 0 

Section 24 Number of timing devices tested (stopwatches). 

Actual Counts 

Lab (Internal) 

1 W&M Program

2 External Customers

TOTAL 0 

Wheel Load Weighers 

Section 25 

Number of wheel load weighers tested. 

Actual Counts 

Lab (Internal) 

1 W&M Program

2 External Customers

TOTAL 0 

Lottery Balls 

Section 26 

Number of lottery balls tested. 

Actual Counts 

Lab (Internal) 

1 W&M Program

2 External Customers

TOTAL 0 

Watt-Hour Meters used to test EV Charging Stations 

Section 27 

Number of Watt-Hour meters tested. 

Actual Counts 

Lab (Internal) 

1 W&M Program

2 External Customers

TOTAL 0 

(A) Other Types of Measurements not covered in this survey 

28 

Describe type of measurement: Lab (Internal) 

Section 

1 W&M Program

2 External Customers

TOTAL 0 

(B) Other Types of Measurements not covered in this survey 

29 

Describe type of measurement: 

Lab (Internal) 

Section 

1 W&M Program

2 External Customers

TOTAL 0 

(C) Other Types of Measurements not covered in this survey 

30 

Describe type of measurement: Lab (Internal) 

Section 

1 W&M Program

2 External Customers

TOTAL 0 

,_ 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 163 of 167 
2022 Survey Form Section 32 Section 31 

Average Time 

In this section please estimate the typical fees charged for each of the described examples and (enter time in 

enter the average time required for each item. Fee decimal hours) 

If you have a minimum fee for a test, what is it? 

[Mass Echelon I] ASTM Class 0 Precision mass set - 100 g to 1 mg (21 weights) : 

[Mass Echelon II] ASTM Class 2 Precision mass set - 100 g to 1 mg (21 weights) : 

[Mass Echelon III] One - 31 lb Class F weight kit (22 weights) : 

[Mass Echelon III] 5,000 lb weight cart : 

24 - 1000 lb weights (5 adjusted) : 

Mass Echelon III 20 - 50 lb weights (5 adjusted) : Large Scale 2 - 31 lb weight kits (22 weights each) : Test Truck 

Scale Test Truck Total : $ - 0.0 

One - 5 gallon test measure using volume transfer method : 

One - 5 gallon test measure using gravimetric method : 

One - 100 gallon prover using volume transfer method : 

One - 100 gallon prover using gravimetric method : 

One - 100 gallon LPG prover : 

One - 100 foot tape with 19 points tested : 

Do you charge: 

Do you charge out of state customers higher fees than in state customers? 

Do you charge for calibrating W&M field equipment and standards? 

Do you charge for calibrating city, county, township (political jurisdiction W&M) equipment and 

standards? 

Do you charge for calibrating registered service company equipment and standards? 

Comments: Sections 8-32 

Includes Unpacking/PackingStandardsIncludes pre measurementsetup timeIncludes measurementcontrol related work 

Go To Supplimentary Questions 1. 

Includes certificatepreparation time 

Go To Previous Sheet (Survey Section 7) 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 164 of 167 
2022 Survey Form

Section 33: Supplementary Questions 1. (Yes/No) 

Renovations: As of 31 December 2022, does your laboratory have a vacancy in 1 5 - Answer Yes if any renovations were a position described in Section 4? Yes made to your facility since 2021. This 

Is your laboratory facility owned by the governing entity under includes any updates or additions to an 

2 which it operates? (i.e. state, county, municipality, federal district, existing laboratory. It does not include new 

tribe, territory, or commonwealth) MT&E including No mass comparators. 

Is your laboratory facility rented or leased by the governing entity 6 - New construction means construction of 3 under which it operates? (answer No if you answered Yes to an entirely new laboratory facility which can question 3) A include the N/buildout of a new leased space, 4 Has your laboratory had any renovations since 1 January 2021? new laboratory Unsuspace re added to an existing 

Has your laboratory had any new construction since 1 January structure, or an entirely new structure. 5 2021? 

6 Are there any renovations expected to start or continue in 2023? 7 and 8 are similar. In these answer yes if 

work is planned to start in 2023. Is new new laboratory construction expected to begin in 2023? ( if 

7 the project is adding to an existing laboratory answer No here, The question as posed is intended to help answer Yes to question 7) metrologists who may be facing either a 

Does your laboratory currently test watt-hour meters which are used remodel or planning a new lab identify labs 8 to test electric vehicle charging stations? which are or have recently done the same. 

Does your laboratory plan to test watt-hour meters which are used 9 Follow up questions are included in the next to test electric vehicle charging stations in 2023? section to describe additional details of the 10 Does your laboratory allow teleworking? project(s). 

Identify the average 1-way commute completed by the 11 metrology staff in your lab: 

12 0-10 miles For questions 11 - 17, 

13 11-20 miles 

14 21-30 miles compute the average 1-way communte for 

all full time metrology staff in your lab 15 31-40 miles (including support staff) 16 41-50 miles 

17 > 50 miles

18 Laboraty Funding, Is your laboratory funded by: 

20 Fees (including calibration fees and service registration fees) Questions 18-23, 

21 Weights and Measures program funds 

22 General Fund Allocation Answer Yes for any portion of the fees you 

23 Other Funds charge are returned to the laboratory fund 

to help cover laboratory operational costs. Please indicate whether or not your lab uses the following 24 Answer No if the fees charged are returned 

software: to the agency. 25 Qualtrax 

26 IndySoft Answer Yes to Weights and Measures 

27 MC Link program funds if your laboratory is closely 

associated with and operates from a 28 Balance Link common cost center and funding as the 29 Q-Pluse Weights and Measures program. 30 

Answer Yes to General Fund allocation if 

Comments, Supplementary Questions 1. your laboratory funds includes general fund 

money in any amount. 

Answer Yes to "Other Funds" for all funding 

not described in 20, 21, and 22. 

Use the Comments Section below to 

provide any additional details you feel are 

important. 

Go To Supplementary Questions 2. 

Go To Previous (Sections 8 - 32) 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 165 of 167 
2022 Survey Form

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Section 34: Supplementary Questions 2. Short Answer 

1 

In #1 - #10 identifiy some requests for 

calibration services that you are 

currently unable to provide. 

(Give a brief description) 

2 #1 

3 #2 

4 #3 

5 #4 

6 #5 

7 #6 

8 #7 

9 #8 

10 #9 

11 #10 

12 

If you answered Yes to Question 10 

of Section 33 (Supplementary Y/N 

questions) please describe your 

current telework practices. 

13 

If you answered Yes to Question 4 

Section 33 (Supplementary Y/N 

questions) please describe the 

renovations completed. 

14 

If you answered Yes to Question 5 

Section 33 (Supplementary Y/N 

questions) please describe any 

improvements you realized over your 

existing laboratory facility. 

15 

If you answered Yes to Question 6 

Section 33 (Supplementary Y/N 

questions) please describe the 

renovations planned. 

16 

If you answered Yes to Question 7 

Section 33 (Supplementary Y/N 

questions) please describe any 

improvements you expect to realize 

over your existing laboratory facility. 

17 

18 

19 

20 

Go To Survey Comments 

Back To Supplementary Questions 1. 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 166 of 167 
2022 Survey Form Section 34 

Comments on Survey 

Go To Prevous Sheet (Supplementary Questions 2.) 

End of Survey 

SLP Survey 2022 - Page 167 of 167