2020

State Laboratory Program 

Workload Survey 

Published by the 

NCSL International Legal Metrology Committee 

SLP Survey 2020 - Page 1 of 163 
 

Foreword 

Greetings metrologists from the State Laboratory Program (SLP) Workload Survey Team. It is 

again our please to present the 2020 State Laboratory Program Workload Survey. Many thanks 

go to the survey team for collecting and compiling survey data; to the National Institute of 

Standards and Technology (NIST) Office of Weights and Measures staff for providing reports on 

the activities of the Laboratory Metrology Program at NIST and for hosting the SLP surveys 

both past and present on their websites; and to the many metrologists who collect the data 

necessary for this survey. It is your support that makes this publication a valuable reference for 

all of us. Special thanks go to Van Hyder and Georgia Harris for the time, expertise, and effort 

they devote to both this survey and to our profession in general. 

It’s hard to think of appropriate words for this survey in light of the challenges we’ve all faced 

over the past couple of years in response to COVID-19. We have had to adapt to an array of new 

safety procedures in the lab, in our offices, and in our communities to control the spread of 

COVID-19 while we raced to make vaccines available to the public. We’ve all become 

accustom to face masks, social distancing, an array of surface sanitation products, daily 

reminders to take steps to reduce the spread of the disease, and the accompanying frustration and 

fatigue that accompanies the upheaval of all things “normal”. In light of this I’m thankful that 

our respective metrology laboratories could continue providing measurement services to the 

industry and regulatory programs whom we continued to support through this pandemic and I’m 

thankful that we were able to publish a survey this year all things considered! 

Our sympathies go out to those who lost friends and loved ones to COVID-19 these past couple 

of years. 

Be safe everyone, 

Steven Harrington 

Oregon Department of Agriculture 

635 Capitol Street NE 

Salem, OR 97301 

steven.harrington@oda.oregon.gov 

SLP Survey 2020 - Page 2 of 163 
 

Table of Contents 

Foreword........................................................................................................................................1 

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

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

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

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.............................................................................................................................21 

Table 2. Laboratory Scoring Model Trends.............................................................................................22 

Laboratory Accreditation........................................................................................................................22 

Training...................................................................................................................................................23 

Proficiency Testing..................................................................................................................................26 

Documentary Standards.........................................................................................................................27 

Program References...............................................................................................................................28 

Internal Processes and Strategic Assessments.......................................................................................30 

Measuring Results ..................................................................................................................................31 

Participants ..................................................................................................................................32 

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 

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

SLP Survey 2020 - Page 3 of 163 
 

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 

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 

Lottery Balls ..................................................................................................................................86 

Summary Other Tests...................................................................................................................88 

Laboratory Fees (2018) ................................................................................................................89 

Laboratory Fee Data Presentation..........................................................................................................93 

Minimum Laboratory Fees .....................................................................................................................93 

Mass Echelon I........................................................................................................................................95 

Mass Echelon II.......................................................................................................................................97 

Mass Echelon III (31 lb kits) ....................................................................................................................99 

Mass Echelon III (50 lb Test Weights)...................................................................................................101 

Mass Echelon III (1000 lb Test Weights)...............................................................................................103 

5,000 lb Weight Cart.............................................................................................................................105 

Scale Truck Calibration Class F..............................................................................................................107 

Length 100 ft Steel Tape.......................................................................................................................109 

5 gallon test measures – Volume Transfer...........................................................................................111 

5 gallon test measure – Gravimetric.....................................................................................................113 

100 gallon field standard prover – Volume Transfer............................................................................115 

100 gallon field standard prover- Gravimetric .....................................................................................117 

100 gallon field standard prover LPG – Volume Transfer.....................................................................119 

20 Gallon Dynamic Small Volume Prover (SVP) – Volume Transfer .....................................................121 

Metrology Positions/Title and Salaries ......................................................................................122 

SLP Survey 2020 - Page 4 of 163 
 

SLP Metrology Salaries – Standardized Title Comparison ..........................................................125 

State Laboratory Program Metrologists ....................................................................................130 

State Laboratory Program/Metrology Experience .....................................................................137 

Acknowledgment of Calibration Certificates Matrix ..................................................................141 

Supplementary Questions ..........................................................................................................143 

Comments – Survey Section 1 to 6 .............................................................................................151 

Section 7 Comments...................................................................................................................153 

Comments – Survey Sections 8 to 31 ..........................................................................................154 

General Survey Comments.........................................................................................................155 

2018 Survey Form.......................................................................................................................156 

SLP Survey 2020 - Page 5 of 163 
 

Tables

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

Table 1. Laboratory Scoring Model Trends. .................................................................................22 

Table 2. Program Area Reference Documents. .............................................................................28

Table 4: Summary of lab space, age, and customers served. (Note: Minimum values not 

explicitly reported as a zero value was reported in almost all summary categories by at least one

lab.)..............................................................................................................................................33

Table 5: (beginning next page) Listing of the SLP laboratories including location, age, size, and

total number of customers served as of the 2020 calendar year....................................................33 

Table 6: Listing of SLP member laboratories and their participation status in previous surveys

(blanks indicate non-participation)................................................................................................38 

Table 7: Summary of all measurements reported on prior surveys...............................................39 

Table 8: Summary of echelon I tests reported on previous surveys..............................................43 

Table 9: Echelon II tests reported on previous surveys.................................................................45 

Table 10: Echelon III tests reported on previous surveys. ............................................................47 

Table 11: Weight Cart tests reported on previous surveys............................................................49 

Table 12: Railroad Test Car tests reported on previous surveys. ..................................................51 

Table 13: Railroad Specific Weight Carts tests reported on previous surveys. ............................53 

Table 14: Tape measure tests reported on previous surveys. ........................................................56 

Table 15: Rigid rule tests reported in previous surveys. ...............................................................58 

Table 16: Glassware calibrations from previous surveys..............................................................61 

Table 17: Test Measure (5 ≤ gal.) volume tests from previous surveys........................................64 

Table 18: Provers (>5 gal. and ≤ 100 gal.) volume tests from previous surveys. .........................67 

Table 19: Provers (> 100 gal.) tests from previous surveys. .........................................................70 

Table 20: LPG Prover volume tests from previous surveys..........................................................73 

Table 21: SVP tests from previous surveys...................................................................................75 

Table 22: Small Volume, Compact Displacement, and Closed Loop prover tests. ......................76 

Table 23: Temperature standard tests from previous surveys. ......................................................78 

Table 24: Frequency standard tests from previous surveys...........................................................80 

Table 25: Timing devices tests from previous surveys .................................................................82 

Table 26: Wheel load weigher tests from previous surveys..........................................................84 

Table 27: Lottery balls tests from previous surveys......................................................................86 

Table 28: Other tests reported by the participating laboratories ...................................................88 

Table 29: Average fee charged for echelon I mass testing from 2004 through 2020....................95 

SLP Survey 2020 - Page 6 of 163 
 

Table 30: Average fee charged for echelon II mass testing from 2000 through 2020. .................97 

Table 31: Average fee charged for echelon III mass testing from 2000 through 2020.................99 

Table 32: Average fee charged for testing 20 50 lb cast iron pipe-handle test weights in 2020.101 

Table 33: Average fee charged for testing 24 1,000 lb cast iron test weights in 2020................103 

Table 34: Average fee charged for a 5,000 lb weight cart testing from 2004 through 2020.......105 

Table 35: Average fee charged for typical scale truck testing from 2004 through 2020. ...........107 

Table 36: Average fee charged for typical 19 point testing of a 100 ft steel tape from 2000 

through 2020................................................................................................................................109

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

from 2000 through 2020..............................................................................................................111

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

from 2000 through 2020..............................................................................................................113

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

transfer from 2000 through 2020.................................................................................................115

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

gravimetric method from 2006 through 2020. ............................................................................117 

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

transfer from 2006 through 2020.................................................................................................119

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

2014.............................................................................................................................................121

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

rounded to the dollar...................................................................................................................125 

Table 46: 122 Metrologists reporting. Metrologists were asked to indicate which type of

calibrations they are authorized to perform on behalf of their respective laboratories...............136

 

Table 47: Comparison matrix summarizing metrology experience reported by metrologists

from 2000 to 2020.......................................................................................................................137

Table 48: Calibration Certificate acceptance matrix. ..................................................................142

Table 49: Summary of responses to supplementary questions in section 1. ...............................144

Table 50: Summary of responses to supplementary questions in section 1. ...............................145

Table 51: Responses to supplementary questions #1-#10 in section 2 .......................................147 

Table 52: Excel versions used by laboratories. ...........................................................................148

SLP Survey 2020 - Page 7 of 163 

Table 43: Metrologist position titles and salary ranges...............................................................124

Table 45: Listing of SLP metrologists as of 2020......................................................................135
 

Table 53: COVID-19 protocols implemented by laboratories.....................................................150

Table 54 Comments provided by respondents regarding sections 1 through 6 of the survey... ..151

Table 55: Comments provided by respondents regarding section 7 of the survey......................153 

Table 56: Comments provided by respondents regarding section 8 through 31 of the survey. ..154 

Table 57: General comments provided by respondents of the workload survey.........................155 

SLP Survey 2020 - Page 8 of 163 
 

Figures 

Figure 1. Laboratory Metrology Program Areas...........................................................................18 

Figure 2: Total of all measurements reported................................................................................40 

Figure 3: Mass Echelon I tests.......................................................................................................44 

Figure 4: Mass Echelon II tests. ....................................................................................................46 

Figure 5: Mass Echelon III tests....................................................................................................48 

Figure 6: Weight Cart tests............................................................................................................50 

Figure 7: Railroad Test Car tests. ..................................................................................................52 

Figure 8: Railroad Specific Weight Cart tests...............................................................................54 

Figure 9: Tape Measure tests.........................................................................................................57 

Figure 10: Rigid rule tests. ............................................................................................................59 

Figure 11: Glassware calibrations, volume transfer method .........................................................62 

Figure 12: Glassware calibrations, gravimetric method................................................................63 

Figure 13: Test Measure tests (≤5 gallon), volume transfer..........................................................65 

Figure 14: Test Measure tests (≤5 gallon), gravimetric.................................................................66 

Figure 15: Prover (≥5 gal. and < 100 gal.) tests, volume transfer.................................................68 

Figure 16: Prover (≥5 gal. and < 100 gal.) tests, gravimetric........................................................69 

Figure 17: Prover (>100 gal.) tests, volume transfer.....................................................................71 

Figure 18: Prover (>100 gal.) tests, gravimetric............................................................................72 

Figure 19: LPG Prover tests, volume transfer...............................................................................74 

Figure 20: Small Volume, Compact Displacement, and Closed Loop prover tests......................77 

Figure 21: Temperature standard tests. .........................................................................................79 

Figure 22: Frequency standard tests..............................................................................................81 

Figure 23: Timing device tests ......................................................................................................83 

Figure 24: Wheel load weigher tests .............................................................................................85 

Figure 25 Lottery Ball tests ...........................................................................................................87 

Figure 26: Minimum laboratory fees charged. Calibration time is the minimum calibration time 

upon which charges are based. ......................................................................................................94 

Figure 27: 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......96 

Figure 28: 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. ...98 

Figure 29: 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. ...............................................................100 

SLP Survey 2020 - Page 9 of 163 
 

Figure 30: 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. ......................................................................................................................................102 

Figure 31: 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..............104 

Figure 32: Fees charged for testing a 5,000 lb weight cart according to NIST HB 105-8 

tolerances using mass echelon III procedures. ............................................................................106 

Figure 33: Fees charged for testing a typical scale truck according to mass echelon III 

procedures....................................................................................................................................108 

Figure 34: Fees charged for testing a steel 100 ft tape. ...............................................................110 

Figure 35: Fees charged for testing a 5 gallon test measure via volume transfer technique.......112 

Figure 36 Fees charged for gravimetrically testing a 5 gallon field test measure.......................114 

Figure 37: Fees charged for testing a 100 gallon field standard prover via volume transfer 

technique......................................................................................................................................116 

Figure 38: Fees charged for gravimetrically testing a 100 gallon field standard steel prover. ...118 

Figure 39: Fees charged for testing a 100 gallon LPG prover. ...................................................120 

Figure 40: Salaries for Laboratory Supervisors...........................................................................126 

Figure 41: Salary ranges for Metrology/Calibration Engineers ..................................................127 

Figure 42: Salary ranges for Metrology/Calibration Technicians...............................................128 

Figure 43: Salary ranges for Support Staff..................................................................................129 

Figure 44: Retirement Eligibility Histogram. Of the 122 metrologists, 106 reported the year they 

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

leave the SLP...............................................................................................................................136 

Figure 45: SLP metrologists ranked by years of experience (cont). Blue indicates experience in 

the SLP, Red indicates other metrology experience....................................................................140 

SLP Survey 2020 - Page 10 of 163 
 

Survey Title 

Year 

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 

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 2020 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 w orkload surveys to the 

year(s) during which the data was collected. 

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

SLP Survey 2020 - Page 11 of 163 
 

 

 

 

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 2020 - Page 12 of 163 
 

Collection, Presentation, and Analysis of Data: 

SLP laboratories submitted their data using standardized Microsoft Excel spreadsheets. 

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

analysis. The copy process is automated using Excel macros in order 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 32. 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/weights-and-measures/resources/state-laboratories-c.

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

page 37. 

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 pag e 76.

SLP Survey 2020 - Page 13 of 163 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

page 89. 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 122. 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 141. 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 143.

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 146.

11. A reprint of the 2018 survey begins on page 156.

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 2020 - Page 14 of 163 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Impact and Leveraging of NIST Calibrations 

(Information provided by NIST/OWM) 

Calibration data for State laboratories was obtained from the NIST Measurement Services from 2000 

through 2020. 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. 

Data in the current survey includes measurements and calibrations performed at NIST in non-traditional 

measurement areas (e.g., 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 $20.93 trillion (2020) Gross 

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

SLP Survey 2020 - Page 15 of 163 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 

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

for international trade. 

One question that might be asked in looking at this kind 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 

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 

SLP Survey 2020 - Page 16 of 163 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 2020 - Page 17 of 163 
 

 

 

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 325,000 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 will be successful if measurement results from 

State laboratories are accurate, traceable, defensible in support of enforcement actions, and 

widely accepted (both nationally and internationally.) 

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 1. Laboratory Metrology Program Areas. 

SLP Survey 2020 - Page 18 of 163 
 

 

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. 

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 law, 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 2020 - Page 19 of 163 
recognition program required all states to meet the requirements of the latest ISO/IEC 17025 

standard by the end of 2020. 

Not shown: 

District of Columbia 

Los Angeles County 

Puerto Rico 

U.S. Virgin Islands 

USDA-GIPSA 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 2. Laboratory Recognition by OWM (2020 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).

SLP Survey 2020 - Page 20 of 163 
 

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 

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. 

Figure 3. Laboratory Scoring Model (2020 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 2019 to 2020 time frame the 

COVID-19 pandemic impacted some laboratories timely plan to relocate to a new or renovated 

laboratory and succession planning. In addition, the end of 2020 deadline for recognized 

laboratories to comply with the ISO/IEC 17025:2017 standard played a role in the scoring. 

Training on the new ISO/IEC standard has been provided since 2016 and in anticipation of the 

changes to the standard so that 43 out of 47 (92 %) active laboratories were able to demonstrate 

compliance with the new standard. 

SLP Survey 2020 - Page 21 of 163 
 

 

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 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 2020 - Page 22 of 163 
 

Figure 4. NVLAP Accreditation of State W&M Laboratories 

Within NVLAP, the current primary contact for state laboratories is Kari Harper. The primary 

contact in OWM for this area 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. 

SLP Survey 2020 - Page 23 of 163 
 

 

Figure 5. 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 over the past few years 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. 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 is 

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 the remainder of the year. RMAP training delivery was modified to an online 

method. 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 can be seen in the 

relatively low scoring model average for the 2020 Recognition Reviews. To partially compensate 

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

SLP Survey 2020 - Page 24 of 163 
 

titled Fundamentals and Laboratory Auditing Program (LAP) Problems Preparation in 2020. 

This online course covers the principles taught in the Fundamentals of Metrology, with content 

from one Mass Metrology procedure and one Volume Metrology Seminar procedure. The course 

trains new staff on the basics of Metrology and the lower echelon methods of Mass and Volume 

Metrology. After completing this online course, new staff will still be required to take the core 

training seminars once the NIST campus reopens for on-site training. In addition to the 

pandemic, the training program has been impacted by the departure of three full-time staff 

members; two from retirement and one from reassignment to another program. In response, the 

program has hired a new staff member, reassigned another staff member of OWM to the 

program, and rehired the retirees as part-time annuitants. The program is also utilizing 

contractors, including experienced staff from state laboratories, to help instruct the training 

courses. 

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 

contacts for the OWM Contact System is Yvonne Branden. 

Training courses (seminars and webinars) for 2011 through 2020 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 training 

program is Isabel Chavez Baucom. 

SLP Survey 2020 - Page 25 of 163 
 

Figure 6. Laboratory Metrology Students Trained for 2011 through 2020. 

Figure 7. Laboratory Metrology Training Events for 2011 through 2020. 

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. 

SLP Survey 2020 - Page 26 of 163 
 

Figure 8. Proficiency Testing Success Rates (2011 to 2020). 

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 85,000 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 

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 in this area. 

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, but standards are 

selected for updates when issues arise indicating a need. Currently, an update to NIST Handbook 

SLP Survey 2020 - Page 27 of 163 
 

 

 

 

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.

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. Val Miller 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. 

Table 3. Program Area Reference Documents. 

Topic Publication Title 

Type and 

Number 

Latest 

Revisio 

n Date 

Recognition Handbook 143i State Weights and Measures Laboratories 

Program Handbook 

2019 

Accreditation Handbook 150-

2ii 

NVLAP Calibration Laboratories 2019 

Accreditation Handbook 150-

2, Annex A 

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

I (normative) 

2019 

Accreditation Handbook 150-

2, Annex B 

Annex B: Dimensional measurements 

(normative) 

2019 

Accreditation Handbook 150-

2, Annex C 

Annex C: Time and frequency 

measurements (normative) 

2019 

Accreditation Handbook 150-

2, Annex D1 

Annex D: Mechanical measurements 

(normative), D1 Force Calibrations 

2019 

Accreditation Handbook 150-

2, Annex D2 

Annex D: Mechanical measurements 

(normative), D2 Mass calibrations 

2019 

Accreditation Handbook 150-

2, Annex D3 

Annex D: Mechanical measurements 

(normative), D3 Volume calibrations 

2019 

Accreditation Handbook 150-

2, Annex E 

Annex E: Requirements for NVLAPaccredited legal metrology laboratories 2019 

SLP Survey 2020 - Page 28 of 163 
 

 

Topic Publication 

Type and 

Number 

Title Latest 

Revisio 

n Date 

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 

1996 

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 

SLP Survey 2020 - Page 29 of 163 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Topic Publication 

Type and 

Number 

Title Latest 

Revisio 

n Date 

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 

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. 

SLP Survey 2020 - Page 30 of 163 
 

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) or 

Isabel Chavez Baucom (isabel.chavez.baucom@nist.gov). 

SLP Survey 2020 - Page 31 of 163 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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, 8 are not 

operational. Washington DC, Delaware, Iowa, North Dakota, New Hampshire, Puerto Rico, 

Rhode Island, and U.S.-Virgin Islands metrology laboratories were closed during the reporting 

period for this survey. 

Notes and Comments: 

• 44 metrology laboratories provided data. 

• Table 4 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 laboratories frequently provide measurement services for a fee regardless of whether the 

customer is regulated or not. This new category provides a measure of the number of customers 

using SLP laboratory services who are not otherwise required to do so. 

SLP laboratories are frequently tasked with evaluating measurement equipment used by those 

service agents regulated by traditional Weights and Measures programs. These service agents 

provide calibration and repair services for measuring equipment used in commercial 

applications. They generally have a legal obligation to have their measure and test equipment 

periodically evaluated by one of the SLP member laboratories. 

SLP Survey 2020 - Page 32 of 163 
 

Non-Service Agent 

Customers Customers 

Lab Space (Sq. Ft.) 

Office Space (Sq.

Ft.) 

Age (Years) 

Average 28 664 3,213 170 51 

Maximum 110 2,700 12,200 585 319 

Table 4: Summary of lab space, age, and customers served. (Note: Minimum values not 

explicitly reported as a zero value was reported in almost all summary categories by at least one 

lab.) 

(White Space) 

Table 5: (beginning next page) Listing of the SLP laboratories including location, age1, size, and 

total number of customers served as of the 2020 calendar year. 

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

significantly renovated in recent years. 

SLP Survey 2020 - Page 33 of 163 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Laboratory Address Contact Website 

Age (Years)

Office Space (sq. ft.) 

Lab Space (sq. ft.)

Customers 

Non-Service Agent Customers 

State of Alaska Metrology Laboratory 12050 Industry Way Suite O #6 

Anchorage, AK 99515 Phone: (907) 365-1233 dot.alaska.gov/mscve/pages/metrology. shtml 6 350 1740 54 49 

Alabama Department of Agriculture 1445 Federal Dr 

Montgomery, AL 36107 

Phone: (334) 240-3729 

Fax: (334) 240-7175 www.alabama.gov 47 314 588 240 0 

Arkansas State Standards Laboratory 4608 W. 61st Street 

Little Rock, AR 72209 Phone: (501) 570-1191 www.agriculture.arkansas.gov 54 400 1500 200 15 

Arizona Dept Agriculture Weights and 

Measures Metrology Laboratory 

4425 W Olive Ave Ste 134 

Glendale, AZ 85302 

Phone: (602) 771-4938 

Fax: (623) 563-0440 agriculture.az.gov/ 21 500 5500 211 70 

California State Metrology Laboratory 6790 Florin Perkins Road, Suite 100 

Sacramento, CA 95828 Phone: (916) 229-4858 www.cdfa.ca.gov/dms/programs/m etrology/metrology.html 17 296 3747 121 2 

Colorado Metrology Lab 300 S. Technology Ct 

Broomfield, CO 80021 Phone: (303) 869-9241 ag.colorado.gov/labs/metrologylaboratory 2 500 2900 182 141 

Connecticut Metrology Lab 9 Windsor Avenue 

Windsor, CT 06095 

Phone: (860) 713-6165 

Fax: (860) 706-1236 portal.ct.gov/DCP 8 130 1862 21 9 

Florida Metrology Laboratory 3125 Conner Blvd Lab 2 

Tallahassee, FL 32399 

Phone: (850) 921-1580 

Fax: (850) 921-1593 www.fdacs.gov 51 620 3500 217 16 

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/weightsmeasures.aspx 

11 0 0 40 6 

USDA-AMS Master Scale 5800 W. 69th Street 

Chicago, USDA-GIPSA 60638 Phone: (708) 458-0655 www.ams.usda.gov/services/fgix/m aster-scale-progrtam 92 1200 3000 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 19 443 2602 52 22 

Illinois Department of Agriculture 

Metrology Laboratory 

801 Sangamon Avenue East 

Springfield, IL 62702 

Phone: (217) 785-8480 

Fax: (217) 785-3136 . 43 1200 3220 187 32 

Indiana Weights & Measures 

Metrology Lab 

2525 N Shadeland Ave. Suite 30 

Indianapolis, IN 46219 

Phone: (317) 719-8577 

Fax: (317) 351-2877 www.statehealth.in.gov 110 400 3600 85 43 

Kansas Metrology Laboratory 2004 Research Park Circle 

Manhattan, KS 66502 

Phone: (785) 564-7477 

Fax: (785) 564-6777 

agriculture.ks.gov/divisionsprograms/ag-lab/metrology-lab2 1 237 3751 49 27 

Kentucky Department of Agriculture 107 Corporate Dr 

Frankfort, KY 40601 

Phone: (502) 573-0282 

Fax: (502) 573-0303 www.kyagr.com 20 40 2395 38 4 

Louisiana Metrology Laboratory 5825 Florida Blvd 

Baton, LA 70806 Phone: (225) 922-1380 ldaf.state.la.us/consumers/metrolog y-lab/ 30 432 1568 143 98 

SLP Survey 2020 - Page 34 of 163 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Laboratory Address Contact Website 

Age (Years)

Office Space (sq. ft.) 

Lab Space (sq. ft.)

Customers 

Non-Service Agent Customers 

Massachusetts Division of Standards 

Metrology Laboratory 

661 (Rear) Highland Avenue 

Needfham Heights, MA 02494 

Phone: (781) 444-0219 

Fax: (781) 444-0891 www.mass.gov/standards 9 160 2192 75 6 

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 30 930 4870 10 0 

Maine Metrology Laboratory 333 Cony Rd 

Augusta, ME 04330 Phone: (207) 287-7587 www.maine.gov/dacf/qar/laboratory _testing/metrology.shtml 55 432 2600 143 0 

State of Michigan 940 Venture Lane 

Williamston, MI 48895 

Phone: (517) 655-8202 

Fax: (517) 655-8303 www.michigan.gov/wminfo 24 2000 12200 167 82 

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/industries/scale 

s-meters/metrology-lab.jsp 14 1120 4706 175 79 

Missouri Metrology Laboratory 1616 Missouri Blvd 

Jefferson City, MO 65109 

Phone: (573) 751-3440 

Fax: (573) 751-0281 agriculture.mo.gov 29 385 2433 576 42 

Bureau of Weights and Measures 2801 North Cooke Street 

Helena, MT 59601 

Phone: (406) 449-2582 

Fax: (406) 443-8163 

bsd.dli.mt.gov/weights-andmeasures 10 1200 1000 80 18 

NCDA&CS Standards Laboratory 1050 Mail Service Center 

Raleigh, NC 27699 

Phone: (919) 733-4411 

Fax: (919) 733-8804 ncstandards.org 35 2700 4800 427 8 

Nebraska Standards Laboratory 3721 West Cuming St. 

Lincoln, NE 68524 Phone: (402) 471-2087 NDA.nebraska.gov 42 580 1800 139 49 

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 31 200 2700 343 319 

New Mexico Department of Agriculture 

Metrololgy Lab 

3190 S. Espina 

Las Cruces, NM 88003 

Phone: (575) 646-1551 

Fax: (575) 646-2361 nmda.nmsu.edu 48 136 2335 341 212 

Nevada Metrology Lab 2150 Frazer Ave. 

Sparks, NV 86431 

Phone: (775) 353-3788 

Fax: (775) 353-3798 

agri.nv.gov/Protection/Weights_and 

_Measures/Metrology_Lab/ 47 170 1044 70 34 

New York State Metrology Laboratory 10B Airline Drive 

Albany, NY 12235 

Phone: (518) 457-4781 

Fax: (518) 457-2552 www.agriculture.ny.gov/ 10 975 4240 92 39 

Ohio 8995 E Main St, Bldg 5 

Reynoldsburg, OH 43068 Phone: (614) 728-6290 agri.ohio.gov/wps/portal/gov/oda/di visions/weights-and-measures 53 2500 3047 413 68 

Oklahoma Bureau of Standards 2800 N. Lincoln Blvd. 

Oklahoma City, OK 73105 

Phone: (405) 522-5459 

Fax: (405) 522-5457 ag.ok.gov/lab/bos.htm 12 400 5807 210 142 

SLP Survey 2020 - Page 35 of 163 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Laboratory Address Contact Website 

Age (Years)

Office Space (sq. ft.) 

Lab Space (sq. ft.)

Customers 

Non-Service Agent Customers 

Oregon Department of Agriculture 635 Capitol St NE, Ste 100 

Salem, OR 97301 

Phone: (503) 986-4669 

Fax: (503) 986-4784 

www.oregon.gov/oda/programs/Ma 

rketAccess/Pages/Metrology.aspx 22 367 2038 98 42 

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

Harrisburg, PA 17125 

Phone: (717) 787-4707 

Fax: (717) 705-0882 www.dgs.pa.gov 23 1568 3780 585 225 

SC Department of Agriculture 

Metrology Laboratory 

129 Ballard Court 

West Columbia, SC 29172 Phone: (803) 253-4052 agriculture.sc.gov/divisions/consum er-protection/metrology 3 835 8000 230 0 

South Dakota Metrology Laboratory 1500 Garfield Ave 

Pierre, SD 57501 Phone: (605) 280-4572 dps.sd.gov/inspections/weightsmeasures/metrology-lab 44 0 525 104 34 

Julius Johnson Metrology Lab (615) 837-5159

Nashville, TN 37211 Phone: (615) 253-4426 www.tn.gov/agriculture/consumers/ standards/metrology.html 3 2000 6000 53 0 

Texas Department of Agriculture 

Giddings Metrology Lab 

PO Box 1518, 1258 CR 226 

Giddings, TX 78942 Phone: (979) 542-3231 

www.texasagriculture.gov/Regulato 

ryPrograms/WeightsandMeasures/ 

MetrologyLab.aspx 

18 1200 11077 146 0 

State of Utah Metrology Lab 350 North Redwood Rd 

Salt Lake City, UT 84116 

Phone: (801) 982-2267 

Fax: (385) 465-6023 ag.utah.gov 35 150 1350 60 42 

VDACS 600 North 5th street 

Richmond, VA 23219 Phone: (804) 786-0479 0 0 0 169 59 

Vermont State Metrology Laboratory 163 Admin Drive 

Randolph Center, VT 05061 Phone: (802) 522-5415 agriculture.vermont.gov 2 500 1500 108 48 

WA St. Dept. of Agriculture Metrology 

Laboratory 

PO Box 42560 

Olympia, WA 98504 

Phone: (360) 753-5042 

Fax: (360) 586-4728 

agr.wa.gov/departments/laboratorie 

s/metrology-lab 43 230 2734 289 100 

Wisconsin Weights and Measures 

Laboratory 

3601 Galleon Run 

Madison, WI 53718 

Phone: (608) 224-4913 

Fax: (608) 224-4912 

datcp.wi.gov/Pages/Programs_Ser 

vices/MetrologyLab.aspx 14 550 3700 325 25 

WV Weights and Measures 570 MacCorkle Avenue 

St. Albans, WV 25177 

Phone: (304) 722-0602 

Fax: (304) 722-0605 www.labor.wv.gov 50 231 1769 166 39 

Wyoming Department of Agriculture 6607 Campstool Rd 

Cheyenne, WY 82009 

Phone: (307) 777-7556 

Fax: (307) 777-1943 agriculture.wy.gov 9 650 1660 50 12 

SLP Survey 2020 - Page 36 of 163 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Laboratory Survey Participation 

Survey 

Participation 

Matrix 

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

AK 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 

AR 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 

CA 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 

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

DE (inactive) (inactive) (inactive) (inactive) (inactive) (inactive) (inactive) (inactive) (inactive) (inactive) (inactive) (inactive) (inactive) (inactive) (inactive) 

FL 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 

HI Yes Yes Yes (inactive) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 

IA Yes Yes Yes (inactive) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes (inactive) (inactive) (inactive) (inactive) 

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

IL 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 

KY Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes (inactive) (inactive) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 

LA 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 

MD 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 

MI 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 

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

MS Yes Yes (inactive) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No 

MT 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 

ND Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes (inactive) Yes Yes Yes (inactive) (inactive) (inactive) (inactive) (inactive) 

SLP Survey 2020 - Page 37 of 163 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

NE 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 (inactive) 

NJ 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 

NV 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 

OH 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 

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

RI (inactive) (inactive) (inactive) (inactive) (inactive) (inactive) (inactive) (inactive) (inactive) (inactive) (inactive) (inactive) (inactive) (inactive) (inactive) 

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

SD Yes Yes (inactive) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 

TN Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes (inactive) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes 

TX 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 

VA 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 

WA 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 

WV 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 

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

Wash. DC (inactive) (inactive) (inactive) (inactive) (inactive) (inactive) (inactive) (inactive) (inactive) (inactive) (inactive) (inactive) (inactive) (inactive) (inactive) 

Virgin Islands (inactive) (inactive) (inactive) (inactive) (inactive) (inactive) (inactive) (inactive) (inactive) (inactive) (inactive) (inactive) (inactive) (inactive) (inactive) 

Puerto Rico Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No (inactive) 

LA County Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes (inactive) (inactive) (inactive) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No 

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

Table 6: Listing of SLP member laboratories and their participation status in previous surveys (blanks indicate non-participation). 

SLP Survey 2020 - Page 38 of 163 
 

 

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. 

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 

2018 45 326,2194 7,244 

2020 44 306,8605 7,064 

Table 7: Summary of all measurements reported on prior surveys. 

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 2020 - Page 39 of 163 
 

Figure 2: Total of all measurements reported. 

SLP Survey 2020 - Page 40 of 163 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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", 2014), SOP 4 and SOP 7 (Harris, NIST IR 

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

Calibrations", 2014). 

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", 2014). 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, never the less, 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 2020 - Page 41 of 163 
 

 

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 2020 - Page 42 of 163 
 

 

 

Mass Echelon I 

Description 

The graphs on the following page represent the total number of Mass Echelon I standards 

evaluated by the 44 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.

Findings 

Of the 44 reporting laboratories, 9 labs tested a total of 2,686 mass standards 

Comparison of previous surveys 

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 

2020 9 2,686 

Table 8: Summary of echelon I tests reported on 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 

• 44 % of all Mass I standards were calibrated for internal use by the laboratory.

• 8 % of all Mass I standards were calibrated for the weight and measures program.

• 49 % of all Mass I standards were calibrated for external customers.

SLP Survey 2020 - Page 43 of 163 
 

Figure 3: Mass Echelon I tests. 

SLP Survey 2020 - Page 44 of 163 
 

 

Mass Echelon II 

Description 

The graphs on the following page represent the total number of Mass Echelon II standards 

evaluated by the 44 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.

Findings 

Of the 44 reporting laboratories, 26 labs tested a total of 12,083 mass standards 

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 

Table 9: 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 

• 16 % of all Mass II standards were calibrated for internal use by the laboratory.

• 12 % of all Mass II standards were calibrated for the weight and measures program.

• 72 % of all Mass II standards were calibrated for external customers.

SLP Survey 2020 - Page 45 of 163 
 

Figure 4: Mass Echelon II tests. 

SLP Survey 2020 - Page 46 of 163 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Mass Echelon III 

Description 

The graphs on the following page represent the total number of Mass Echelon III standards 

evaluated by the 44 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.

Findings 

Of the 44 reporting laboratories, 44 labs tested a total of 245,846 mass standards 

Comparison of previous surveys 

Year # Labs 

Total 

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 

Table 10: Echelon III tests reported on previous surveys. 

Notes and Comments 

• 1 % of all Mass III standards were calibrated for internal use by the laboratory.

• 14 % of all Mass III standards were calibrated for the weight and measures program.

• 85 % of all Mass III standards were calibrated for external customers.

SLP Survey 2020 - Page 47 of 163 
 

Figure 5: Mass Echelon III tests. 

SLP Survey 2020 - Page 48 of 163 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Weight Carts 

Description 

The graphs on the following page represent the total number of weight carts evaluated by the 44 

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.

Findings 

Of the 44 reporting laboratories, 29 labs tested a total of 587 weight carts 

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 

Table 11: Weight Cart tests reported on previous surveys. 

Notes and Comments 

• <1 % of all weight carts were calibrated for internal use by the laboratory.

• 16 % of all weight carts were calibrated for the weight and measures program.

• 84 % of all weight carts were calibrated for external customers.

SLP Survey 2020 - Page 49 of 163 
 

Figure 6: Weight Cart tests. 

SLP Survey 2020 - Page 50 of 163 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Railroad Test Cars 

Description 

The graphs on the following page represent the total number of railroad test cars evaluated by the 

44 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.

Findings 

Of the 44 reporting laboratories, 3 labs tested a total of 30 railroad test cars 

Comparison of previous surveys 

Year # Labs 

Total 

Devices 

2016 5 43 

2018 3 16 

2020 3 30 

Table 12: Railroad Test Car tests reported on previous surveys. 

Notes and Comments 

• 7 % of all railroad test cars were calibrated for internal use by the laboratory.

• 3% of all railroad test cars were calibrated for the weight and measures program.

• 90 % of all railroad test cars were calibrated for external customers.

SLP Survey 2020 - Page 51 of 163 
 

Figure 7: Railroad Test Car tests. 

SLP Survey 2020 - Page 52 of 163 
SLP Survey 2020 - Page 53 of 163 

Year # Labs 

Total 

Devices 

2016 5 13 

2018 7 33 

2020 3 8 

Railroad Specific Weight Carts 

Description 

The graphs on the following page represent the total number of railroad specific weight carts 

evaluated by the 44 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.

Findings 

Of the 44 reporting laboratories, 3 labs tested a total of 8 railroad specific weight carts 

Comparison of previous surveys 

Table 13: 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.

• 25 % of all weight carts were calibrated for the weight and measures program.

• 75 % of all weight carts were calibrated for external customers.
 

Figure 8: Railroad Specific Weight Cart tests. 

SLP Survey 2020 - Page 54 of 163 
 

 

 

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 2020 - Page 55 of 163 
 

 

 

 

Steel Tape Measures 

Description 

The graphs on the following page represent the total number of tape measures evaluated by the 

44 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.

Findings 

Of the 44 reporting laboratories, 5 labs tested a total of 226 tape measures 

Comparison of previous surveys 

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 

Table 14: Tape measure tests reported on previous surveys. 

Notes and Comments 

• 0 % of all tape measures were tested for internal use by the laboratory.

•

• 55 % of all tape measures were tested for external customers.

45 % of all tape measures were tested for the weight and measures program.

SLP Survey 2020 - Page 56 of 163 
 

Figure 9: Tape Measure tests. 

SLP Survey 2020 - Page 57 of 163 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rigid Rules 

Description 

The graphs on the following page represent the total number of rigid rules evaluated by the 44 

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.

Findings 

Of the 44 reporting laboratories, 3 labs tested a total of 30 rigid rules. 

Comparison of previous surveys 

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 

Table 15: Rigid rule tests reported in previous surveys. 

Notes and Comments 

• 13 % of all rigid rules were tested for internal use by the laboratory.

• 40 % of all rigid rules were tested for the weight and measures program.

• 47 % of all rigid rules were tested for external customers.

SLP Survey 2020 - Page 58 of 163 
 

Figure 10: Rigid rule tests. 

SLP Survey 2020 - Page 59 of 163 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 2020 - Page 60 of 163 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Glassware 

Description 

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

on glassware by the 44 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.

Findings 

• Of the 44 reporting laboratories, 0 labs performed a total of 0 volume transfer tests.

• Of the 44 reporting laboratories, 9 labs performed a total of 189 gravimetric volume tests.

Comparison of previous surveys 

Year # Labs 

VolumeTransferGravimetric

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 

Table 16: Glassware calibrations from previous surveys. 

Notes and Comments 

• 36 % of all glassware standards were tested for the laboratory

• 41 % of all glassware standards were tested for Weights and Measures enforcement

programs.

• 23 % of all glassware standards were tested for external customers.

SLP Survey 2020 - Page 61 of 163 
 

Volume Transfer 

No Volumetric Glassware Tests to Report 

Figure 11: Glassware calibrations, volume transfer method 

SLP Survey 2020 - Page 62 of 163 
 

Gravimetric 

Figure 12: Glassware calibrations, gravimetric method. 

SLP Survey 2020 - Page 63 of 163 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 44 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.

Findings 

• Of the 44 reporting laboratories, 43 labs performed a total of 7265 volume transfer tests. 

• Of the 44 reporting laboratories, 15 labs performed a total of 53 gravimetric volume tests.

Comparison of previous surveys 

Year # Labs 

VolumeTransferGravimetric

Total 

1996 48 8290 8290 

1998 46 6861 6861 

1999 45 6986 6986 

2000 45 7368 7368 

2002 48 6966 6966 

2004 46 6400 6400 

2005 42 6925 75 7000 

2006 46 7532 77 7609 

2008 49 7321 69 7390 

2010 45 8216 73 8289 

2012 46 7533 93 7626 

2014 46 7863 128 7991 

2016 46 7926 84 8010 

2018 44 8308 74 8341 

2020 43 7265 53 7318 

Table 17: Test Measure (5 ≤ gal.) volume tests from previous surveys. 

Notes and Comments 

• 1 % of all test measures were tested for the laboratory.

• 26 % of all test measures were tested for Weights and Measures enforcement programs.

• 73 % of all test measures were tested for external customers.

SLP Survey 2020 - Page 64 of 163 
 

Figure 13: Test Measure tests(≤5 gallon), volume transfer. 

SLP Survey 2020 - Page 65 of 163 
 

Figure 14: Test Measure tests (≤5 gallon), gravimetric. 

SLP Survey 2020 - Page 66 of 163 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 44 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.

Findings 

• Of the 44 reporting laboratories, 37 labs performed a total of 757 volume transfer tests.

• Of the 44 reporting laboratories, 10 labs performed a total of 33 gravimetric volume tests.

Comparison of previous surveys 

Year # Labs 

VolumeTransferGravimetric

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 

Table 18: Provers (>5 gal. and ≤ 100 gal.) volume tests from previous surveys. 

Notes and Comments 

• 7 % of all provers (> 5 gal. and ≤ 100 gal.) were tested for the laboratory

• 23 % of all provers (> 5 gal. and ≤ 100 gal.) were tested for Weights and Measures

enforcement programs.

• 70 % of all provers (> 5 gal. and ≤ 100 gal.) were tested for external customers.

SLP Survey 2020 - Page 67 of 163 
 

Volume Transfer 

Figure 15: Prover (≥5 gal. and < 100 gal.) tests, volume transfer. 

SLP Survey 2020 - Page 68 of 163 
 

 

Gravimetric 

Figure 16: Prover (≥5 gal. and < 100 gal.) tests, gravimetric. 

SLP Survey 2020 - Page 69 of 163 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Provers (> 100 gallon) 

Description 

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

on volumetric provers by the 44 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. 

Findings 

• Of the 44 reporting laboratories, 29 labs performed a total of 284 volume transfer tests. 

• Of the 44 reporting laboratories, 0 labs performed 0 gravimetric volume tests. 

Comparison of previous surveys 

Year # Labs 

VolumeTransferGravimetric

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 

Table 19: Provers (> 100 gal.) tests from previous surveys. 

Notes and Comments 

• 2 % of all provers (> 100 gal.) were tested for the laboratory. 

• 18 % 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 2020 - Page 70 of 163 
 

 

Volume Transfer 

Figure 17: Prover (>100 gal.) tests, volume transfer 

SLP Survey 2020 - Page 71 of 163 
 

 

Gravimetric 

No Gravimetric Volume Tests to Report 

Figure 18: Prover (>100 gal.) tests, gravimetric 

SLP Survey 2020 - Page 72 of 163 
 

 

 

 

 

 

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 44 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.

Findings 

• Of the 44 reporting laboratories, 23 labs performed a total of 259 volume transfer tests.

Comparison of previous surveys 

Year # Labs 

VolumeTransfer 

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 

Table 20: LPG Prover volume tests from previous surveys7. 

Notes and Comments 

• 1 % of all LPG provers were tested for the laboratory.

• 35 % of all LPG provers were tested for Weights and Measures enforcement programs.

• 64 % of all LPG provers were tested for external customers.

7 Prior editions of the survey included a survey of gravimetric testing of LPG style provers. This 

question was deleted in the 2016 edition. Laboratories have consistently reported performing no 

such measurements. 

SLP Survey 2020 - Page 73 of 163 
 

Figure 19: LPG Prover tests, volume transfer 

SLP Survey 2020 - Page 74 of 163 
 

 

 

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”) 

Year 

# LabsGravimetricVolumeTransfer

Total 

2005 11 0 11 

2006 20 0 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 21: SVP tests from previous surveys. 

SLP Survey 2020 - Page 75 of 163
 

 

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 44 

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.

Findings 

• Of the 44 reporting laboratories, 2 labs performed a total of 24 tests.

Comparison of previous surveys 

Year # Labs 

Total 

Devices 

2018 2 28 

2020 2 24 

Table 22: Small Volume, Compact Displacement, and Closed Loop prover tests. 

SLP Survey 2020 - Page 76 of 163 
 

Figure 20: Small Volume, Compact Displacement, and Closed Loop prover tests 

SLP Survey 2020 - Page 77 of 163 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Temperature 

Description 

The graphs on the next page represent the total number of measurements performed on 

temperature sensing devices by the 44 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.

Findings 

Of the 44 reporting laboratories, 5 labs tested a total of 216 temperature standards 

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 

Table 23: Temperature standard tests from previous surveys. 

Notes and Comments 

• 20 % of all temperature standards were tested for internal use by the laboratory.

• 57 % of all temperature standards were tested for the weight and measures program.

• 23 % of all temperature standards were tested for external customers.

SLP Survey 2020 - Page 78 of 163 
 

Figure 21: Temperature standard tests. 

SLP Survey 2020 - Page 79 of 163 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Frequency 

Description 

The graphs on the next page represent the total number of measurements performed on frequency 

standards by the 44 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 laborat

• 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.

indings 

f the 44 reporting laboratories, 3 labs tested a total of 12.083 frequency standards 

ory. 

F

O

Comparison of previous surveys 

Year # Labs 

Total 

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 

Table 24: Frequency standard tests from previous surveys. 

Notes and Comments 

• 5 % 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.

• 95 % of all frequency standards were tested for external customers.

SLP Survey 2020 - Page 80 of 163 
 

Figure 22: Frequency standard tests 

SLP Survey 2020 - Page 81 of 163 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Timing Devices 

Description 

The graphs on the next page represent the total number of measurements performed on timing 

devices by the 44 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.

Findings 

Of the 44 reporting laboratories, 9 labs tested a total of 572 timing devices 

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 

Table 25: Timing devices tests from previous surveys 

Notes and Comments 

• 3 % of all timing devices were tested for internal use by the laboratory.

• 20 % of all timing devices were tested for the weight and measures program.

• 77 % of all timing devices were tested for external customers.

SLP Survey 2020 - Page 82 of 163 
 

Figure 23: Timing device tests 

SLP Survey 2020 - Page 83 of 163 
 

 

 

Wheel Load Weighers 

Description 

The graphs on the next page represent the total number of measurements performed on wheel 

load weighers by the 44 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.

Findings 

Of the 44 reporting laboratories, 15 labs tested a total of 5,934 wheel load weighers. 

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 

Table 26: Wheel load weigher tests from previous surveys 

Notes and Comments 

• 1 % of all wheel load weighers were tested for internal use by the laboratory.

• 0 % of all wheel load weighers were tested for the weight and measures program.

• 99 % of all wheel load weighers were tested for external customers.

SLP Survey 2020 - Page 84 of 163 
 

Figure 24: Wheel load weigher tests

SLP Survey 2020 - Page 85 of 163 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lottery Balls 

Description 

The graphs on the next page represent the total number of measurements performed on lottery 

balls by the 44 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.

Findings 

Of the 44 reporting laboratories, 5 labs tested a total of 9,600 lottery balls 

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 13,9248

2014 8 40,899 

2016 6 80,9469

2018 4 11,08710

2020 5 9,600 

Table 27: Lottery balls tests from previous surveys 

Notes and Comments 

• 100 % of all lottery balls were tested for external customers.

8 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. 

9 The metrology laboratory in Puerto Rico, which performs approximately 30,000 of the total 

number of lottery balls tests, reported 69,800 in 2016. 

10 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. 

SLP Survey 2020 - Page 86 of 163 
 

Figure 25 Lottery Ball tests 

SLP Survey 2020 - Page 87 of 163 
 

W&M 

Test Description Lab Program External Total 

AK Witness testing of Watt Hour Meters 0 0 1 1 

CT Scales: Type III scales used by W&M Inspectors and hanging 

scales used in fishing tournaments) 0 2 1 3 

NC Special Test - Control Load Cell & Vaisala to Vaisala 

comparison 11 0 0 11 

NC Special Test - Load Cells for our Highway Patrol Division 0 0 8 8 

NJ Laser Devices 0 0 57 57 

NJ Scales < 1,000 lb capacity 0 10 154 164 

NJ Water Meter Bench Provers 0 0 25 25 

PA Force Gauges ≤ 50 lbf 1 0 13 14 

AK Distance testing LIDAR units for law enforcement 0 0 52 52 

CA Electric Energy, watthour standards 0 29 1 30 

USDA-GIPSA Testing of vehicle scales 0 0 75 75 

USDA-GIPSA Testing of hopper scales 0 0 25 25 

USDA-GIPSA Testing of track scales 0 0 5 5 

ME shellfish measures 0 0 30 30 

TX Neck Scale Plate Calibrations 0 0 90 90 

VT Hydrometry 0 0 7459 7459 

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. 

Table 28: Other tests reported by the participating laboratories 

SLP Survey 2020 - Page 88 of 163 
 

 

 

 

 

 

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 laboratories11. 

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. 

11 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 2020 - Page 89 of 163 
 

 

 

 

 

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 8-31 published in this report beginning on page 154. 

SLP Survey 2020 - Page 90 of 163 
 

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 

• MN 

• MO 

• NC 

• NE 

• NM 

• NY 

• OK 

• OR 

• TX 

• TN 

• UT 

• VA 

• VT 

• WA 

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 2020 - Page 91 of 163 
 

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 • TN 

• LA • TX 

• MA • UT 

• MD • VA 

• ME • VT 

• MN • WA 

• MO • WI 

• MT • WY 

NOTE: Not all states operate a service agent registration program. 

SLP Survey 2020 - Page 92 of 163 
 

 

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 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 26 on page 94. 

SLP Survey 2020 - Page 93 of 163 
 

Figure 26: Minimum laboratory fees charged. Calibration time is the minimum calibration time upon which charges are based. 

SLP Survey 2020 - Page 94 of 163 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 %Change 

2004 15 $617.87 --

2006 16 $758.75 +23 % 

2008 14 $700.07 -8 % 

2010 15 $780.83 +10 % 

2012 14 $820.18 +5 % 

2014 15 $870.90 <1 % Change 

2016 13 $922.23 +6 % 

2018 10 $933.07 +1%

2020 9 $1,028 +10%

Table 29: Average fee charged for echelon I mass testing from 2004 through 2020. 

SLP Survey 2020 - Page 95 of 163
 

 

Figure 27: 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 2020 - Page 96 of 163 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 %Change 

2000 33 $334.00 --

2002 39 $414.32 +24 % 

2004 30 $431.43 +4 % 

2006 31 $482.87 +12 % 

2008 29 $496.18 +3 % 

2010 29 $522.09 +5 % 

2012 25 $636.25 +22 % 

2014 27 $601.17 < 1 % Change 

2016 26 $671.85 +12 % 

2018 23 $594.27 -12%

2020 22 $620.09 +4%

Table 30: Average fee charged for echelon II mass testing. 

SLP Survey 2020 - Page 97 of 163 
 

Figure 28: 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 2020 - Page 98 of 163 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 %Change 

2000 36 $77.00 --

2002 41 $94.99 +23 % 

2004 38 $121.13 +28 % 

2006 42 $135.64 +12 % 

2008 44 $156.93 +15 % 

2010 41 $179.30 +14 % 

2012 43 $186.93 +4 % 

2014 46 $187.56 > 1 % change

2016 47 $203.97 > 1 % change

2018 43 $201.28 -1%

2020 43 $185.99 -8%

Table 31: Average fee charged for echelon III mass testing. 

SLP Survey 2020 - Page 99 of 163 
 

Figure 29: 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 2020 - Page 100 of 163 
 

Survey 

Labs 

Reporting Average Fee %Change 

2014 47 $294.67 --

2016 47 $351.98 +19 %

2018 44 $336.72 -4%

2020 43 $365.41 +9%

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 

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

SLP Survey 2020 - Page 101 of 163
SLP Survey 2020 - Page 102 of 163 

Figure 30: 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. 
 

 

 

 

 

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 %Change 

2014 46 $1,058.00 --

2016 47 $820.06 -22 % 

2018 44 $857.66 5% 

2020 43 $798.32 -7%

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

SLP Survey 2020 - Page 103 of 163
 

Figure 31: 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 2020 - Page 104 of 163 
 

Survey 

Labs 

Reporting Average Fee % Change 

2004 28 $163.27 --

2006 31 $205.74 +23 % 

2008 31 $185.80 +28 % 

2010 34 $225.09 +21 % 

2012 30 $201.65 -10 %

2014 31 $203.97 +1 %

2016 32 $205.01 < 1 % Change 

2018 31 $208.60 2% 

2020 31 $233.00 +12%

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 

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

SLP Survey 2020 - Page 105 of 163
 

Figure 32: Fees charged for testing a 5,000 lb weight cart according to NIST HB 105-8 tolerances using mass echelon III proce dures. 

SLP Survey 2020 - Page 106 of 163 
 

Survey 

Labs 

Reporting Average Fee % Change 

2004 39 $1,050.56 --

2006 43 $1,060.77 +23 %

2008 42 $1,300.30 +28 %

2010 44 $1,455.69 +12 %

2012 42 $1,520.41 +4 %

2014 45 $1,472.13 -3 % 

2016 47 $1,529.57 +4 %

2018 44 $1562.19 2% 

2020 43 $1521.59 -3%

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 

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

SLP Survey 2020 - Page 107 of 163
 

Figure 33: Fees charged for testing a typical scale truck according to mass echelon III procedures. 

SLP Survey 2020 - Page 108 of 163 
 

Survey 

Labs 

Reporting Average Fee %Change 

2000 33 $133.00 --

2002 36 $173.03 +30 % 

2004 22 $250.89 +45 % 

2006 22 $261.23 +4 %

2008 18 $244.86 -6 % 

2010 16 $234.16 -4 % 

2012 10 $246.00 +5 %

2014 9 $198.56 -19 %

2016 7 $200.71 +1 %

2018 5 $195.50 -3%

2020 6 $262.92 +34%

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 

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

SLP Survey 2020 - Page 109 of 163
 

Figure 34: Fees charged for testing a steel 100 ft tape. 

SLP Survey 2020 - Page 110 of 163 
 

 

 

 

Survey Labs Reporting Average Fee % Change

2000 35 $35.00 --

2002 41 $41.46 +18 % 

2004 39 $42.06 +1 %

2006 43 $43.93 +4 %

2008 43 $56.89 +30 % 

2010 44 $64.44 +13 % 

2012 44 $63.61 -1 % 

2014 46 $62.52 -2 % 

2016 48 $67.07 +7 %

2018 44 $70.24 5% 

43 $65.57 -7%

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 

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

SLP Survey 2020 - Page 111 of 163
 

Figure 35: Fees charged for testing a 5 gallon test measure via volume transfer technique. 

SLP Survey 2020 - Page 112 of 163 
 

 

 

Survey Labs Reporting Average Fee % Change

2006 20 $177.95 --

2008 17 $173.65 +23 % 

2010 21 $209.25 +21 % 

2012 18 $215.24 +3 %

2014 22 $200.95 -7 % 

2016 19 $241.26 +20 % 

2018 18 $218.05 -10%

2020 16 $216.62 -1%

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 

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

method. 

SLP Survey 2020 - Page 113 of 163
 

Figure 36 Fees charged for gravimetrically testing a 5 gallon field test measure. 

SLP Survey 2020 - Page 114 of 163 
 

 

 

Survey 

Labs 

Reporting Average Fee % Change

2000 35 $108.00 --

2002 40 $125.19 +16 % 

2004 35 $138.73 +11 % 

2006 37 $145.32 +5 % 

2008 36 $191.83 +32 % 

2010 38 $219.76 +15 % 

2012 38 $206.35 -6 % 

2014 40 $217.01 +5 % 

2016 42 $224.16 +3 % 

2018 38 $214.57 -4%

2020 39 $217.73 1% 

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 

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

transfer. 

SLP Survey 2020 - Page 115 of 163
 

Figure 37: Fees charged for testing a 100 gallon field standard prover via volume transfer technique. 

SLP Survey 2020 - Page 116 of 163 
 

 

 

Survey 

Labs 

Reporting Average Fee % Change

2006 4 $265.00 +5 % 

2008 7 $434.29 +64 %

2010 7 $597.14 +37 %

2012 7 $447.14 -25 % 

2014 8 $670.63 +50 %

2016 7 $854.29 +27 %

2018 7 $702.29 -18%

2020 7 $702.29 0% 

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 

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

gravimetric method. 

SLP Survey 2020 - Page 117 of 163
 

Figure 38: Fees charged for gravimetrically testing a 100 gallon field standard steel prover. 

SLP Survey 2020 - Page 118 of 163 
 

 

 

 

Survey Labs Reporting Average Fee %Change 

2006 32 $255.78 --

2008 31 $295.39 +23 % 

2010 38 $219.75 -26 %

2012 29 $348.05 +58 % 

2014 31 $347.05 < 1 % change 

2016 30 $372.44 +7 %

2018 29 $389.74 5% 

2020 28 $394.65 1% 

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 

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

transfer. 

SLP Survey 2020 - Page 119 of 163
 

Figure 39: Fees charged for testing a 100 gallon LPG prover. 

SLP Survey 2020 - Page 120 of 163 
 

 

 

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 % Change

2006 3 $113.33 --

2008 2 $123.75 +9 %

2010 1 $100.00 -19 %

2012 2 $200.00 +100 % 

2014 4 $220.00 +10 % 

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

SLP Survey 2020 - Page 121 of 163
 

Lab ID Job Title Standardized Title Min Salary Max Salary 

AK State Metrologist II Laboratory Supervisor $55,044.00 $93,648.00 

AR Supervison/Quality Manager Laboratory Supervisor $50,222.04 $72,822.00 

AZ State Metrologist Laboratory Supervisor $46,593.60 $79,424.40 

CO Physical Scientist Laboratory Supervisor $94,464.00 $153,084.00 

FL Laboratory Manager Laboratory Supervisor $42,813.36 $88,847.16 

GA State Metrologist Laboratory Supervisor $39,038.04 $71,523.00 

HI Metrologist 3 Laboratory Supervisor $55,200.00 $81,744.00 

KS Agricultural Inspector / State Metrologist Laboratory Supervisor $46,266.72 $53,206.80 

KY Metrology Lab Supervisor Laboratory Supervisor $38,770.08 $63,952.32 

LA Richert W. Williams Laboratory Supervisor $67,308.00 $117,936.00 

MD Administrator I Laboratory Supervisor $44,016.96 $70,265.04 

ME Metrologist Laboratory Supervisor $49,363.20 $67,027.20 

MI Metrologist Manager - 14 Laboratory Supervisor $63,481.56 $93,392.04 

MN Lab Manager: SPA Manager Senior Laboratory Supervisor $76,296.00 $109,766.04 

MO Metrology Lab Manager Laboratory Supervisor $38,472.00 $79,440.00 

MT Metrologist Laboratory Supervisor $42,474.00 $54,699.60 

NC Laboratory Manager Laboratory Supervisor $46,203.00 $78,217.92 

NE State Metrologist Laboratory Supervisor $42,000.00 $57,600.00 

NJ Sup. of Licensing, Metrololgy, and Registration Laboratory Supervisor $80,001.48 $116,023.20 

NM Regulatory Lab Manager Laboratory Supervisor $48,960.00 $73,440.00 

NV Metrologist III Laboratory Supervisor $45,643.68 $67,901.76 

NY Specialist II (Lab Manager) Laboratory Supervisor $73,284.00 $92,693.04 

NY Director Laboratory Supervisor $99,414.96 $125,628.96 

OH Laboratory Supervisor Laboratory Supervisor $47,892.00 $60,480.00 

OK Metrologist IV Laboratory Supervisor $43,162.68 $79,131.60 

OR Lead Metrologist Laboratory Supervisor $72,108.00 $110,724.00 

PA Laboratory Supervisor Laboratory Supervisor $58,895.04 $89,448.00 

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 

VT W & M Section Chief and State Metrologist Laboratory Supervisor $57,792.00 $90,600.00 

WA State Metrologist Laboratory Supervisor $44,652.00 $60,012.00 

WI Laboratory Director (Chemist Supervisor) Laboratory Supervisor $44,889.60 $74,092.80 

WV Program Specialist- Head Metrologist Laboratory Supervisor $31,140.00 $57,624.00 

WY Inspection Supervisor Laboratory Supervisor $59,172.00 $88,764.00 

CA Measurement Standards Specialist III Metrology/Calibration Engineer $59,400.00 $74,352.00 

CA Principal State Metrologist Metrology/Calibration Engineer $96,276.00 $109,344.00 

CO Physical Scientist II Metrology/Calibration Engineer $65,796.00 $96,288.00 

CT Metrologist Metrology/Calibration Engineer $58,665.24 $83,187.24 

CT W&M Inspector Metrology/Calibration Engineer $65,913.24 $83,239.20 

GA Metrologist Metrology/Calibration Engineer $30,000.00 $78,000.00 

HI Metrologist 2 Metrology/Calibration Engineer $51,024.00 $75,588.00 

IN Metrologist I Metrology/Calibration Engineer $45,000.00 $72,000.00 

KY Metrology Lab Technician II Metrology/Calibration Engineer $29,129.28 $48,048.00 

MI Metrology Specialist - 13 Metrology/Calibration Engineer $58,905.60 $86,486.40 

MI Metrologist - 12Metrology/Calibration Engineer $54,288.00 $79,143.96 

MI Metrologist - P11Metrology/Calibration Engineer $51,708.84 $72,800.04 

MI Metrologist - 10 Metrology/Calibration Engineer $44,636.76 $62,961.60 

MI Metrologist - 9 Metrology/Calibration Engineer $43,201.56 $61,630.44 

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. 

SLP Survey 2020 - Page 122 of 163 
 

Lab ID Job Title Standardized Title Min Salary Max Salary 

NC Quality Assurance Manager Metrology/Calibration Engineer $36,677.04 $62,091.96 

NC Grain Moisture Program Supervisor Metrology/Calibration Engineer $36,677.04 $62,091.96 

NM Metrologist, Intermediate Metrology/Calibration Engineer $36,720.00 $55,080.00 

NV Metrologist II Metrology/Calibration Engineer $41,843.52 $62,055.36 

PA Metrologist (PSL Basic Requirements) Metrology/Calibration Engineer $57,624.00 $78,416.04 

PA Metrologist (PSL Intermediate Requirements) Metrology/Calibration Engineer $60,126.96 $78,416.04 

SD State Metrologist Metrology/Calibration Engineer $44,223.84 $62,640.00 

TN Metrologist Metrology/Calibration Engineer $38,472.00 $61,524.00 

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 

UT State Metrologist Metrology/Calibration Engineer $46,944.00 $74,460.00 

VA State Metrologist Metrology/Calibration Engineer $54,000.00 $54,000.00 

VT Consumer Protection Specialist Metrology/Calibration Engineer $40,620.00 $80,100.00 

AK State Metrologist II Metrology/Calibration Technician $47,784.00 $81,876.00 

AR Metrologist Metrology/Calibration Technician $36,155.04 $52,425.00 

CA Laboratory Assistant Metrology/Calibration Technician $33,240.00 $44,772.00 

CA Measurement Standards Specialist I Metrology/Calibration Technician $41,040.00 $50,604.00 

CA Measurement Standards Specialist II Metrology/Calibration Technician $46,956.00 $58,092.00 

CO Physical Scientist Intern Metrology/Calibration Technician $52,944.00 $77,508.00 

FL Senior Metrologist Metrology/Calibration Technician $31,847.52 $55,310.16 

FL Metrologist Metrology/Calibration Technician $27,087.12 $44,530.80 

HI Metrologist 1 Metrology/Calibration Technician $47,196.00 $69,876.00 

IN Metrologist I Metrology/Calibration Technician $39,996.00 $51,996.00 

IN Metrologist I Metrology/Calibration Technician $39,996.00 $51,996.00 

KS Agricultural Inspector / Metrologist Metrology/Calibration Technician $36,000.00 $41,400.00 

KY Program Coordinator Metrology/Calibration Technician $32,042.40 $53,270.40 

KY Metrology Lab Technician I Metrology/Calibration Technician $24,072.96 $39,711.84 

LA Whitney Corley Metrology/Calibration Technician $39,168.00 $68,640.00 

LA Jennifer Martin Metrology/Calibration Technician $39,168.00 $68,640.00 

MD Metrologist I Metrology/Calibration Technician $36,557.04 $57,807.96 

MD Metrologist II Metrology/Calibration Technician $38,880.00 $61,691.04 

MN Technical Manager/ Lab Administrator: SPA Principal Metrology/Calibration Technician $57,540.00 $84,792.00 

MN Metrologist: SPA Senior Metrology/Calibration Technician $50,172.00 $73,584.00 

MO Metrology Specialist Metrology/Calibration Technician $28,716.00 $62,400.00 

NC Metrologist I Metrology/Calibration Technician $33,960.00 $57,492.96 

NJ Weights and Measures Inspector 2 Metrology/Calibration Technician $61,989.72 $94,936.44 

NJ Weights and Measures Inspector 1 Metrology/Calibration Technician $53,548.08 $82,023.12 

NV Metrologist I Metrology/Calibration Technician $38,440.08 $56,751.84 

NY Specialist I Metrology/Calibration Technician $56,604.00 $71,979.96 

OH Weights and Measures Technologist Metrology/Calibration Technician $42,240.00 $54,960.00 

OK Metrologist I Metrology/Calibration Technician $26,502.12 $48,587.28 

OK Laboratory Technician I Metrology/Calibration Technician $21,720.00 $27,585.96 

OR Metrologist Metrology/Calibration Technician $65,520.00 $100,716.00 

PA Metrologist Metrology/Calibration Technician $55,061.04 $78,416.04 

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 State Metrologist Metrology/Calibration Technician $49,704.00 $49,704.00 

WI Metrologist Metrology/Calibration Technician $44,889.60 $74,092.80 

WV Labor Inspector II - Asst. Metrologist Metrology/Calibration Technician $26,400.00 $48,840.00 

WY Inspection Specialist Metrology/Calibration Technician $41,448.00 $62,184.00 

AR Director Support Staff $62,531.04 $90,669.96 

FL Laboratory Technician IV Support Staff $24,498.96 $42,010.56 

KY Agricultural Inspector I Support Staff $21,886.80 $36,102.48 

SLP Survey 2020 - Page 123 of 163 
 

Lab ID Job Title Standardized Title Min Salary Max Salary 

NC Administrative Associate II Support Staff $27,780.00 $44,091.00 

NJ Agency Service Representative 3 Support Staff $40,079.40 $56,215.44 

PA Laboratory Administrative Assistant Support Staff $35,364.00 $52,773.00 

TX Administrative Assistant IV Support Staff $32,976.00 $52,044.00 

VA Administer Support Staff $17,280.00 $17,280.00 

VT Consumer Protection Specialist Support Staff $40,620.00 $80,100.00 

WI Metrologist (LTE) Support Staff $34,483.20 $56,870.40 

AL Laboratory Supervisor $32,287.20 $48,924.00 

AL Consumer W & M Protection Specialist $28,516.80 $47,757.60 

AL Labor $9,000.00 $13,500.00 

AZ Assistant State Metrologist $36,168.00 $67,982.40 

IL Public Service Administrator $55,344.00 $83,880.00 

IL Metrologist Associate $45,504.00 $67,212.00 

IL Products & Standards Inspector $45,408.00 $65,376.00 

MA State Metrologist & Laboratory Manager $54,000.00 $78,000.00 

USDA-GIPSA Program Manager $102,180.00 $132,840.00 

USDA-GIPSA Industrial Specialist $85,932.00 $111,720.00 

Table 43: Metrologist position titles and salary ranges. 

SLP Survey 2020 - Page 124 of 163 
 

 

 

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$31,140.00 $53,207.00 $42,173.50 

Maximum Salary

Salary Range 

$99,415.00 $153,084.00 $126,249.50 

$68,275.00 $99,877.00 $99,877.00 

Metrologist/Calibration Engineer 

Minimum Maximum Average 

Minimum Salary $29,129.00 $48,048.00 $35,588.50 

Maximum Salary 

Salary Range 

$96,276.00 $109,344.00 $102,810.00 

$67,147.00 $61,296.00 $61,221.50 

Metrologist/Calibration Technician 

Minimum Salary 

Maximum Salary 

Salary Range 

Minimum 

$21.720.00 

$65,520.00 

$43,800.00 

Maximum 

$27,586.00 

$100,716.00 

$73,130.00 

Average 

$24,653.00 

$83,118.00 

$58,465.00 

Support Staff 

Minimum Salary 

Maximum Salary 

Salary Range 

Minimum 

$17,280.00 

$62,531.00 

$45,250.00 

Maximum 

$17,280.00 

$90,670.00 

$73,390.00 

Average 

$17,280.00 

$76.600.50 

$59,320.50 

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

rounded to the dollar. 

SLP Survey 2020 - Page 125 of 163 
 

Figure 40: Salaries for Laboratory Supervisors 

SLP Survey 2020 - Page 126 of 163 
 

Figure 41: Salary ranges for Metrology/Calibration Engineers 

SLP Survey 2020 - Page 127 of 163 
 

Figure 42: Salary ranges for Metrology/Calibration Technicians 

SLP Survey 2020 - Page 128 of 163 
 

Figure 43: Salary ranges for Support Staff 

SLP Survey 2020 - Page 129 of 163 
 

 

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 2020 - Page 130 of 163 
 

 

 

Lab ID Name Email 

Mass IMass 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 16 8 24 

AK Travis Garding travis.garding@alaska.gov N N N N N N N N N 2050 1 9 10 

AL Michael Bridges michael.bridges@agi.alabama.gov F F 2027 11 0 11 

AL Anthony Gallagher anthony.gallagher@agi.alabama.gov F F 2041 5 0 5 

AR Eva Ramirez eva.ramirez@agriculture.arkansas.gov N N Y 2 0 2 

AR John Irvin john.irvin@agriculture.arkansas.gov N N Y 0 0 0 

AR Matthew Snyder matthew.snyder@agriculture.arkansas.gov N N Y 0 0 0 

AR Jill Franke jill.franke@agriculture.arkansas.gov Y Y Y 6 0 6 

AR Nikhil Soman nikhil.soman@agriculture.arkansas.gov Y Y N 11 0 11 

AZ Brian Sellers bsellers@azda.gov Y Y Y Y 2024 16.5 0 16.5 

AZ Mauro Nieves mnieves@azda.gov 2036 1 0 1 

CA Thomas Benin Thomas.Benin@cdfa.ca.gov N N N N N N N N N 2054 1.33 0 1.33 

CA Toni Bulai Toni.Bulai@cdfa.ca.gov N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N 2040 4.6 9 13.6 

CA Tony Gruneisen Anthony.Gruneisen@cdfa.ca.gov N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N 2032 19.5 0 19.5 

CO Kate Smetana kate.smetana@state.co.us Y Y Y Y Y N Y N Y 2038 8.5 0 8.5 

CO Tiffany Brigner tiffany.brigner@state.co.us N N N N N N N N N 2029 1 0 1 

CO Andrew Shopes andrew.shopes@state.co.us N N N N N N N N N 2051 0 0 0 

CT Ana Maria Feliciano ana.feliciano@ct.gov N N Y Y N N N N N 2040 10 0 10 

CT Ion Daha ion.daha@ct.gov N N Y Y N N N N N 2033 12 0 12 

FL Amy Smith Amy.Smith@fdacs.gov N Y Y Y N N N N N 2036 8 0 8 

FL Megan Money Megan.Money@fdacs.gov N Y Y Y N N N N N 2042 8 0 8 

FL Micheal Kruse Michael.Kruse@fdacs.gov N Y Y Y N N N N N 2043 6 0 6 

FL Terry Edwards Jr. Terry.Edwards@fdacs.gov N N N N N N N N N 2050 1 0 1 

GA Kontz Bennett kontz.bennett@agr.georgia.gov N Y Y Y Y Y N N N 2030 20 0 20 

GA Stan Diffie stan.diffie@agr.georgia.gov N Y Y Y N N N N N 2027 4 0 4 

GA Justin Odom justin.odom@agr.georgia.gov N N N N N N N N N 2048 2 0 2 

USDA-GIPSA Marcus Harwitz marcus.harwitz@usda.gov Y 9 17 26 

HI Michael Tang michael.tang@hawaii.gov Y Y Y Y Y N Y N N 2019 20 0 20 

IL Karl Cunningham karl.cunningham@illinois.gov Y Y Y 2025 16 0 16 

SLP Survey 2020 - Page 131 of 163 
 

 

 

Lab ID Name Email 

Mass IMass IIMass IIIVol TransVol GravLengthTime/FrequencyTemperatureGrain MoistureWhat Year Eligiblefor Retirement?State LabMetrologyOtherMetrologyTotalMetrologyExperience 

IL John Satterlee john.satterlee@illinois.gov 2046 3 0 3 

IL Brad Lowery brad.lowery@illinois.gov 2048 2 0 2 

IN Howard Wickersham hwickersham@isdh.in.gov Y Y Y Y 2022 6 4 10 

IN Chris Gast ggast@isdh.in.gov 2045 1.5 0 1.5 

IN Katelyn Scott kscott@isdh.in.gov 2050 0.25 0 0.25 

KS Kevin Uphoff Kevin.Uphoff@ks.gov Y Y Y Y Y N N Y N 2036 9 0 9 

KS Evan Johnson ClarenceEvan.Johnson@Ks.gov N N Y Y N N N N N 2049 2 0 2 

KY Jason Glass Jason.glass@ky.gov N N Y Y N N N N N 2027 17 0 17 

KY Chester Watson chester.watson@ky.gov N N Y Y N N N N N 2034 13 0 13 

KY Bill Baker bill.baker@ky.gov N N N N N N N N N 2035 13 0 13 

LA Richert W. Williams richer_w@ldaf.state.la.us Y Y 2021 23 0 23 

LA Whitney Corley wcorley@ldaf.state.la.us Y Y 2038 2 0 2 

LA Jennifer Martin jmartin1@ldaf.state.la.us N N 2039 1 0 1 

MA Ray Costa ray.costa@mass.gov N N Y Y N N N N N 2022 9 36 45 

MD Elizabeth Koncki elizabeth.koncki@maryland.gov N N N N N N N N Y 2039 7 0 7 

MD Zach Tripoulas zacharias.tripoulas@maryland.gov N N Y Y N N N N N 2040 6 0 6 

MD Tong Hsu tong.hsu@maryland.gov N N Y Y N N N N N 2043 5 0 5 

ME Brad Bachelder bradford.bachelder@maine.gov Y Y Y Y Y 2052 8 1 9 

MI Craig VanBuren vanburenc9@michigan.gov N N N N N 21 0 21 

MI Neil Jones jonesn@michigan.gov Y Y Y Y Y 21 0 21 

MI Nick Santini santinin@michigan.gov Y Y Y Y Y 10 0 10 

MI Ryanne Hartman hartmanr9@michigan.gov N Y Y Y Y 10 0 10 

MI Scott Ferguson fergusons9@michigan.gov N Y Y Y Y 10 0 10 

MI Steve Galvan galvans@michigan.gov N N N N N 5 0 5 

MI Nicole Byndas byndasn@michigan.gov N Y Y Y Y 3 5 8 

MN Benj FitzPatrick Benjamin.FitzPatrick@state.mn.us Y Y Y Y Y N N N N 2047 5.5 0 5.5 

MN Eric Johnson Eric.E.Johnson@state.mn.us N N N N N N N N N 2047 1.5 4 5.5 

MN Anna Pierce Anna.Pierce@state.mn.us N Y Y Y Y N N N N 2055 2.5 0 2.5 

MN Heidi Jones Heidi.Jones@state.mn.us N N N N N N N N N 2025 21 0 21 

SLP Survey 2020 - Page 132 of 163 
 

 

 

 

 

Lab ID Name Email 

Mass IMass IIMass IIIVol TransVol GravLengthTime/FrequencyTemperatureGrain MoistureWhat Year Eligiblefor Retirement?State LabMetrologyOtherMetrologyTotalMetrologyExperience 

MN Valare Falkner Valare.Falkner@state.mn.us N N N N N N N N N 2055 1.5 0 1.5 

MO John Bell johnny.bell@mda.mo.gov N N N N N N N N N 2032 0.5 0 0.5 

MO Houston Naugher houston.naugher@mda.mo.gov N y y y y N N N y 2052 3 0 3 

MT David Fraser dafraser@mt.gov N N Y Y N N N N N 2030 7 0 7 

NC Sharon Woodard sharon.woodard@ncagr.gov Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y 2022 28.5 0 28.5 

NC Spurgeon Van Hyder van.hyder@ncagr.gov Y Y Y Y Y Y N 2024 26.5 0 26.5 

NC Ashley Lessard ashley.lessard@ncagr.gov Y Y Y Y Y Y N 2041 9.75 0 9.75 

NC Robert Rogers robert.rogers@ncagr.gov Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y 2041 9.17 8 17.17 

NC April Lee april.lee@ncagr.gov N Y 2042 8.5 0 8.5 

NC Marina Paggen marina.paggen@ncagr.gov Y Y Y Y N 2048 3 0 3 

NC Joshua Hairston joshua.hairston@ncagr.gov Y Y N 2049 1 0 1 

NE Joel P. Lavicky joel.lavicky@nebraska.gov Y Y 2040 5 0 5 

NJ Michael J. Cecere CecereM@dca.lps.state.nj.us N N Y Y N Y Y N N 2019 14 0 14 

NJ Kyle C. Pierson PiersonK@dca.lps.state.nj.us N N Y Y N Y Y N N 2035 5.5 0 5.5 

NM Clay Ivey civey@nmda.nmsu.edu Y Y Y Y N N N N 2030 11 0 11 

NM Ryan Rust rrust@nmda.nmsu.edu Y Y Y Y N N N N 2042 4 0 4 

NV James Kellames jkellames@agri.nv.gov N Y Y Y Y N N N N 2043 6 0 6 

NV Jerome Plant jplant@agri.nv.gov N Y Y Y Y N N N N 2027 4 0 4 

NV Kiara Riske kriske@agri.nv.gov N Y Y Y Y N N N N 2048 3 0 3 

NY Jonathan Fox jonathan.fox@agriculture.ny.gov Y Y Y Y Y Y 2039 6 0 6 

NY Jeremy Best jeremy.best@agriculture.ny.gov N N N N N N 2049 2 0 2 

NY Eric Morabito eric.morabito@agriculture.ny.gov Y Y Y Y Y Y 2021 10 0 10 

NY Michael Lejeune michael.lejeune@agriculture.ny.gov Y Y Y Y Y Y 2035 6 0 6 

NY Mike Sikula mike.sikula@agriculture.ny.gov N N N N N N 2021 22 7 29 

OH Tom Buck tom.buck@agri.ohio.gov N Y Y Y Y Y Y N N 2031 7 0 7 

OH Ken Johnson ken.johnson@agri.ohio.gov N Y Y Y Y Y Y N N 2020 31 6 37 

OH Daniel Walker daniel.walker@agri.ohio.gov N Y Y Y Y Y Y N N 2042 9 10 19 

OH Jeff Gibson jeffrey.gibson@agri.ohio.gov N Y Y Y Y Y Y N N 2030 5 0 5 

OK Jeremy Nading jeremy.nading@ag.ok.gov Y Y Y Y Y N N N N 2037 15 0 15 

SLP Survey 2020 - Page 133 of 163 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lab ID Name Email 

Mass IMass IIMass IIIVol TransVol GravLengthTime/FrequencyTemperatureGrain MoistureWhat Year Eligiblefor Retirement?State LabMetrologyOtherMetrologyTotalMetrologyExperience 

OK Amanda Kramer amanda.kramer@ag.ok.gov N N Y Y N N N N N 2052 2 0 2 

OK Jacob Whitten jacob.whitten@ag.ok.gov N N N N N N N N N 2050 1.5 0 1.5 

OR Aaron Aydelotte aaydelotte@oda.state.or.us Y Y Y Y Y N N Y N 2029 20 0 20 

OR Ray Nekuda rnekuda@oda.state.or.us Y Y Y Y Y N N N N 2037 13 0 13 

PA James P. Gownley jgownley@pa.gov N Y Y Y Y Y Y N N 2030 19 0 19 

PA Christopher J. Drupp cdrupp@pa.gov N Y Y Y Y Y Y N N 2034 13 0 13 

PA Richard M. Radel, Jr. riradel@pa.gov N Y Y Y Y Y Y N N 2025 12.5 0 12.5 

PA David Welker dawelker@pa.gov N Y Y Y Y Y Y N N 2022 7.25 0 7.25 

PA Dustin Claycomb duclaycomb@pa.gov N Y Y Y Y Y Y N N 2031 6.5 5 11.5 

SC Kristin Sherrick ksherrick@scda.sc.gov Y Y Y Y N N N Y 2048 3 0 3 

SC Eric Eliassen eeliassen@scda.sc.gov Y Y N N N N N Y 2027 2 0 2 

SC Lakoia Turner lturner@scda.sc.gov N Y Y N N N N N 2050 1 0 1 

SC Timothy Jones tjones@scda.sc.gov N Y Y Y Y N N N Y 2044 6 0 6 

SD Ron Peterson ron.peterson@state.sd.us N N Y Y N N N N Y 2025 9 0 9 

TN Nicholas Andersen Nicholas.Andersen@TN.gov Y Y 4 0 4 

TN Rong Zhang Rhong.Zhang@TN.gov Y 2 0 2 

TN Sara Perdue Sara.Perdue@TN.gov 1 0 1 

TX Preston Adachi preston.adachi@texasagriculture.gov N Y Y Y Y N N N N 2015 15 30 45 

TX Daniel Gibbons daniel.gibbons@texasagriculture.gov N Y Y Y Y N N N N 2024 17 0 17 

TX Lisa Corn lisa.corn@texasagriculture.gov Y Y Y Y Y N N N N 2035 13 0 13 

TX Keri Schatte keri.schatte@texasagriculture.gov N N Y N N N N N N 2038 4 0 4 

UT Bill Rigby brigby@utah.gov Y Y 2030 16 0 16 

VA William Scott william.scott@vdacs.virginia.gov Y Y Y Y Y 2045 6 5 11 

VA William Loving william.loving@vdacs.virginia.gov Y Y Y Y Y 2020 31 0 31 

VT Marc Paquette marc.paquette@vermont.gov N N Y Y N N N N N 2021 15 0 15 

VT Scott Dolan scott.dolan@vermont.gov N N Y Y N N N N N 2041 9 0 9 

WA Leslie German lgerman@agr.wa.gov Y Y Y Y Y N Y N N 2029 4 0 4 

WI Justin Lien justin.lien@wisconsin.gov N N Y Y N N Y N N 2044 7 0 7 

WI Paul Masterson paul.masterson@wisconsin.gov N N Y Y N N Y N N 2045 6 0 6 

SLP Survey 2020 - Page 134 of 163 
 

Lab ID Name Email 

Mass IMass IIMass IIIVol TransVol GravLengthTime/FrequencyTemperatureGrain MoistureWhat Year Eligiblefor Retirement?State LabMetrologyOtherMetrologyTotalMetrologyExperience 

WI Ronald DePouw ronald.depouw@wisconsin.gov N N Y Y N N Y N N 2047 4 0 4 

WI Bradley Wing bradleya.wing@wisconsin.gov N N Y N N N N N N 2047 4 0 4 

WV Anthony O'Brien anthony.p.obrien@wv.gov N N Y Y N N N N N 2026 23 0 23 

WV Steven Nehls steven.b.nehls@wv.gov N N Y Y N N N N N 2045 2 0 2 

WY Robert Weidler robert.weidler@wyo.gov Y Y 2029 12 0 12 

WY Todd Stiles todd.stiles@wyo.gov Y Y 2032 5 0 5 

Table 45: Listing of SLP metrologists as of 2020. 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 2020 - Page 135 of 163 
 

 

 

 

 

Figure 44: Retirement Eligibility Histogram. Of the 122 metrologists, 106 reported the year they 

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

leave the SLP. 

Measurement 

Category 

Mass I 17 

Mass II 55 

Mass III 92 

Vol Trans 86 

Vol Grav 49 

Length 24 

Time/Frequency 25 

Temperature 7 

Grain Moisture 14 

Table 46: 122 Metrologists reporting. Metrologists were asked to indicate which type of 

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

SLP Survey 2020 - Page 136 of 163 
 

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

MetrologistsAverage SLPExperienceAverage OtherExperienceAverage TotalExperience 

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 

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

Comments: 

• Data was collected for 122 metrologist in the SLP from 44 laboratories. 

• Each metrologist reports an average of 8.5 years the SLP experience each.

• Each metrologist reports an average of 1.3 years “other” experience each.

• Each of the 16 metrologist reporting “other” experience reports an average of 10.3 years 

of relevant experience. 

• Each metrologists report an average of 9.8 years total experience each. 

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 2020 - Page 137 of 163 
SLP Survey 2020 - Page 138 of 163 
SLP Survey 2020 - Page 139 of 163 
 

Figure 45: SLP metrologists ranked by years of experience (cont). Blue indicates experience in 

the SLP, Red indicates other metrology experience. 

SLP Survey 2020 - Page 140 of 163 
 

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 ONLY12. 

• 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 ILAC Signatory 

AK No No Yes Yes No Yes 

AL No 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 Yes No Yes Yes No Yes 

CT No No Yes Yes No Yes 

FL Yes No Yes Yes No Yes 

GA No No Yes Yes No No 

USDA-GIPSA No No No Yes No No 

HI No No Yes Yes No No 

IL No No Yes Yes No No 

IN Yes No No Yes No Yes 

KS No No Yes No No Yes 

KY No No Yes Yes No Yes 

LA No No Yes Yes No No 

MA No No Yes Yes No Yes 

MD No No Yes Yes No No 

ME No No Yes Yes No No 

MI No No Yes Yes No Yes 

MN No No Yes Yes No No 

12 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 2020 - Page 141 of 163 
 

 

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 

MO No No Yes Yes No Yes 

MT No Yes Yes Yes No Yes 

NC No No Yes Yes No Yes 

NE No No Yes Yes No No 

NJ Yes No Yes No No No 

NM No No No No No No 

NV No No Yes Yes No Yes 

NY No No Yes Yes No Yes 

OH No No Yes No No No 

OK Yes 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 Yes No Yes Yes No No 

TN No No Yes No No No 

TX No No Yes Yes No Yes 

UT No No Yes Yes No Yes 

VA No No Yes Yes No Yes 

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 2020 - Page 142 of 163 
 

 

 

 

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.

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 2020 - Page 143 of 163 
 

Supplementary Questions Section 1 

Question Yes No 

Did COVID delay having your lab standards calibrated or accredited? 

Did COVID delay staff training (NIST provided or internal)? 

Did you defer the purchase of new lab equipment in 2020 because of COVID? 

Did you experience other budget cuts? 

Did you have mandatory furlough time in 2020 because of COVID? 

Did your workload decrease in 2020 because of COVID? 

Did your workload increase in 2020 because of COVID? 

If your lab is relocating, will the move delay having your lab standards 

15 29 

27 16 

12 31 

16 24 

13 30 

20 21 

9 32 

calibrated and recertified? 1 0 

Were you required to hold a vacant metrology position open because of budget 

cuts due to COVID? 1 36 

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

SLP Survey 2020 - Page 144 of 163 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1) Did your workload increase in 2020 because of COVID?

Yes: AK,AR,AZ,FL,IN,MO,NE,OK,VA 

No:AL,CA,CO,CT,GA,HI,IL,KY,LA,MA,MD,ME,MI,MN,MT,NC,NJ,NM,NV,NY,OH,OR,PA,SC,SD,TN,TX,US 

DA-GIPSA,UT,WA,WI,WV 

2) Did your workload decrease in 2020 because of COVID?

Yes: AK,CA,CO,CT,FL,GA,HI,LA,MD,ME,MN,NC,NJ,NM,NY,PA,SC,WA,WI,WV 

No: AL,AR,AZ,IL,IN,KY,MI,MO,MT,NE,NV,OH,OK,OR,SD,TN,TX,USDA-GIPSA,UT,VA,VT 

3) Did you have mandatory furlough time in 2020 because of COVID?

Yes: AL,CA,CO,IN,LA,MD,MI,NV,NY,PA,SC,SD,WA 

No: AK,AR,AZ,CT,FL,GA,HI,IL,KS,KY,MA,ME,MN,MO,MT,NC,NE,NJ,NM,OH,OK,OR,TN,TX,USDAGIPSA,UT,VA,WI,WV,WY 

4) Did you experience other budget cuts?

Yes: AK,CA,CO,GA,HI,IN,MD,ME,MI,MN,MO,NJ,NV,OH,USDA-GIPSA,WY 

No: AL,CT,FL,IL,KS,KY,LA,MA,MT,NC,NE,NM,NY,OK,OR,PA,SD,TN,TX,UT,VA,VT,WA,WV 

5) Did you defer the purchase of new lab equipment in 2020 because of COVID?

Yes: CA,HI,IN,MI,MN,MO,NJ,NV,SC,TN,WI,WV 

No: AK,AL,AR,AZ,CO,CT,GA,IL,KS,KY,LA,MA,MD,ME,MT,NC,NE,NM,NY,OH,OK,OR,PA,SD,TX,USDAGIPSA,UT,VA,VT,WA,WY 

6) Were you required to hold a vacant metrology position open because of budget cuts due to COVID?

Yes:MO 

No:AK,AL,AR,AZ,CA,CO,CT,FL,GA,HI,IL,IN,KY,LA,MA,ME,MN,MT,NC,NE,NJ,NM,NV,NY,OK,OR,SC,SD, 

TN,TX,USDA-GIPSA,UT,VA,WI,WV,WY 

7) Did COVID delay having your lab standards calibrated or accredited?

Yes: AK,AR,CO,CT,HI,IN,KS,KY,MD,NE,NJ,OK,SC,WA,WV 

No: AL,AZ,CA,FL,GA,IL,LA,MA,ME,MI,MN,MO,MT,NC,NM,NV,NY,OH,OR,PA,SD,TN,TX,USDAGIPSA,UT,VA,VT,WI,WY 

8) Did COVID delay staff training (NIST provided or internal)?

Yes: AK,AR,AZ,CA,CO,GA,IL,IN,KS,KY,LA,MA,MD,MI,MN,MO,MT,NC,NM,NY,OK,SC,TN,USDAGIPSA,WI,WV,WY 

No: AL,CT,HI,ME,NE,NJ,NV,OH,OR,PA,SD,TX,UT,VA,VT,WA 

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

SLP Survey 2020 - Page 145 of 163 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Supplementary Questions Section 2 

Laboratories were asked to list up to 10 requests for calibration services that they are currently 

unable to provide. Responses are listed here alphabetically. 

AK - Echelon I Mass 

AK - Thermometry out of scope range 

AK - Gauge blocks 

AK - Dead weight piston surface area 

AL - Customers wanting a higher class than we can calibrate 

AL - customers wanting to get weight carts calibrated 

AR - Customer asked for ASTM 5 calibration; referral to a different state lab. 

AR - Customer requested calibration for test measures greater than 5 gallon standard. Referral to Missouri or Texas. 

AR - Customer asked for calibration for 3-1250 lb weights. It is out of our scope. 

CA - Field calibrations of 25 lb and 50 lb weights 

CA - Field calibrations of 5 gal and greater volume transfer 

CA - Field calibrations of LPG provers 

CT - Mass Echelon II - Some customers have asked for calibration of Mass Echelon II weights but the lab is not recognized for that so 

service was not provided. 

FL - Thermometry 

FL - Echelon I calibrations 

FL - Rail carts 

GA - Calibration services to non-licensed customers 

GA - Calibration services to other state metrology labs 

GA - Calibration services to customers of other states 

USDA-GIPSA - 1000 lb weights 

USDA-GIPSA - 50 lb weights 

USDA-GIPSA - 25 lb weights 

HI - thermometers 

HI - pressure measurement devices 

IN - Class 2 calibrations 

IN - Class I calibration of Pharmacy Kits 

IN - Time Clock calibrations 

IN - Non Mototrized Rail Weight cart calibration. 

IN - Length Calibrations 

IN - Preasure Guages 

KS - Mass Echelon I 

KS - Gauge Blocks 

KY - Tolerance Test 5 kg weights 

LA - Echelon II precision testing 

MA - Class 1 weight kits (two or three per year at most) 

MD - Request 1000 lb cast iron calibration, outside of lab scope 

MD - Request large volume prover (>50 gallon) volume transfer method, outside of lab scope 

MD - Request LPG, outside of lab scope 

ME - temperature 

ME - ASTM class 1 

MN - Several request for Masterscale calibrations during winter months. (our master scale is closed Nov - April). 

MO - Mass II - Restoring recognition status 

MO - Volume I Gravimetric - Restoring recognition status 

NC - Gauge Blocks 

NC - Pressure Gauges 

NE - kg mass > 30 kg 

NE - Echelon II mass calibrations 

NJ - Non Covid Related - Gravimetric Calibrations of 1 and 2 gallon test measures used by the NJ Weights and Measures program. NJ has 

participated in 2 proficiency tests and has developed control charts with the intention of requesting NIST laboratory recognition for these test 

measures. 

NV - Pippettes 

NV - Thermometers 

NV - Length 

NY - Tape measures made of fiberglass 

NY - Gage blocks 

NY - Stopwatches that don't meet NIST SOP 24 precision 

NY - Masses larger than 500 lbs (until we obtained equip) 

PA - Mass Echelon I 

SLP Survey 2020 - Page 146 of 163 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PA - Thermometers 

PA - LP Prover Calibrations 

SC - Calibrations of Echelon II above 100 g (SOP 4,5) 

SD - 25 gal, 50 gal and 100 gal LPG provers 

TN - Weight Carts 

TN - Echelon II Mass 

TN - LPG Provers 

UT - Unable to perform Echelon 1 requests, facility and training requirements not met. 

VT - ASTM 4 Stainless Steel 10 kg and 20 kg 

VT - Steel Tapes 25 feet to 102 feet 

VT - Class 2 Weights 1 mg to 500 mg, 1 kg to 5 kg 

VT - Glassware 1 gil to 0.5 gallons, 50 mL to 2000 mL 

WA - gravimetric-glassware. On scope for internal use only. 

WI - Class I and/or Class II Weight Kit Calibrations 

WV - volume less than 5 gallon 

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

SLP Survey 2020 - Page 147 of 163 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Laboratories were asked to identify which version of Excel they are currently using. Responses 

are listed here alphabetically. 

AK - 2016 

AL - 2016 

AR - 365 

CA - "Version 2008 (Build 13127.21216 click to run)" 

CO - 2016 

CT - 10 

FL - 2016 

GA - Microsoft 365 for Enterprise Version 2102 (Build 13801.20294); 1997 to 2003 compatability mode is still utilized 

for some excel documents. 

USDA-GIPSA - Excel for Microsoft Office 365 

HI - 97-2003,2007, for Microsoft 365 

IL - 2016 

IN - Excel 365, Operating system is Windows 10 

KS - Microsoft Excel for Office 365, Version 2101 (Build 13628.20380 Click-to-Run) 

KY - Excel 2016 

LA - 2010 

MA - Microsoft Office Professional Plus 2013 

MD - 2016 

ME - 2016 

MI - Office 365 ProPlus 

MN - 2008 

MO - Excel 2016 

MT - 2019. Excel Version 1902. 

NC - Microsoft Excel for Office 365 MSO (16.0.11901.20070) 32-bit 

NE - Office 365 

NJ - Excel 2016 

NM - 2016 

NV - 2008 version of Excel for Microsoft 365 

NY - 2016 

OH - Excel for MS Office 365 (2008) 

OK - Excel 2016 

OR - Mac Version 16 

PA - Microsoft Excel for Microsoft 365 MSO (16.0.13628.20128) 

SC - Version 2008 

SD - 2008/ Excel for Microsoft 365 

TN - Excel 365 

TX - 2000 

UT - 2010 

VA - 2016 

VT - the current one 

WA - 2016 

WI - Microsoft Office 365 

WV – 2016 

WY – 2019 

Table 52: Excel versions used by laboratories. 

SLP Survey 2020 - Page 148 of 163 
 

Laboratories were asked to briefly describe any safety protocols implemented by their laboratory 

to cope with COVID-19 (i.e. mandatory masks, limited face to face interactions, sanitation 

requirements). Responses are listed here alphabetically. 

AK - Hand washing, masks, social distancing. Incoming artifacts were "quarantined" for 3 days early on. The building 

was closed to the public. 

AR - Mandatory masks when social distancing isn't possible. 

CA - Masks when away from desks, Nobody except staff unless necessary, document who comes and goes from lab, 

receive and return equipment outside of lab. 

CO - mandatory masks, limited room/building capacities, voluntary division wide weekly COVID testing, daily 

temperature and symptom recording sheets. 

CT - Use of mask all the time inside the building. Frequent washing of hands or use of hand sanitizer when washing is 

not possible. Use of gloves whenever possible. Customers are not allowed to enter the lab. Customers call and schedule 

the drop off/pick up of equipment and equipment is left outside the building so there is no direct interaction with 

customers. Metrologist works alone in the lab. 

FL - Mandatory masks, customers not allowed in the building, sanitation requirements including but not limited to hand 

washing, wearing gloves when in contact with customer equipment. The lab uses of MS Teams, email, and phone calls 

for communication to limit face to face interactions. 

GA - Self-temperature screening before reporting to the lab is required. Masks are required to be worn. Customers are 

restricted to only the metrology lab section. When possible, we are asked to telework. We are also asked to consult with 

others by phone instead of in-person when possible, and the usual stand 6 feet apart. 

USDA-GIPSA - Mandatory face coverings, hand sanitizing and social distancing. 

HI - mandatory face masks (except by yourself in your office), hand sanitizer use, social distancing (6 ft between 

people), no lunch room use, no gatherings or parties, wipe down and sanitize weight containers, weights and small 

provers 

IL - The laboratory followed the guidelines of the Illinois Department of Public Health and the CDC. 

IN - 1st Mask to be worn when away from desk. 2nd Maintain 6 ft distance when speaking with customers. 3rd 

Sterilization of all equipment when they arrive at the labs. Small kits go to the sanitation room for UL light exposure for 

a least 5 - 10 minutes. the large mass weights are treated with a hand held UV light for 5 minutes. 

KS - Mandatory face coverings for staff and visitors, hand sanitizer and wipes at all entry points, visitor log for contact 

tracing, sanitation of common surfaces and door knobs, and limited face to face meetings and customer interactions. 

KY - mask were required in the building at all times, social distancing of six feet or greater was to be observed if 

possible. Extra hand sanitizer was provided. 

LA - mandatory mask when personnel are occupying the same room, visitors have limited access and must wear mask at 

all times. 14 day home isolation and negative covid test when there has been exposure to positive covid person or contact 

with someone who has come in contact with a positive tested person. 

MA - Outside entry doors always locked, masks required at all times for entry, specific area outside roped off for 

delivery and pickup of equipment, hand sanitizers at many locations throughout the lab, limited number of occupancy at 

any one time, exterior of submitted equipment (weight cases, ss test measures) swabbed with antibacterial wipes, etc.. 

MD - Masks required within building, limited one person per room and hallway at the same time, sanitation as often as 

possible (hand sanitizer and surface sanitization wipes provided), no customer allow into building unless requested 

ahead, only one entrance for the building and all office employees screen for temperature and covid related question 

every time entering the building. Lab limited contact with customer by handling all drop off artifacts and paper work 

outside of the loading dock with mask on. 

ME - Masks, 6 ft distance where possible, work from home when possible 

MI - Masks are required except when working at your own desk, customers are not allowed in the lab except when 

necessary to operate equipment (weight carts, SVPs), door handles and frequently touched surfaces are sanitized twice a 

day, health screening questionnaire has to be filled out daily by staff, health screening questionnaire and temperature 

checks required for customers when they are needed to be in the building, only essential staff are allowed in the building, 

new intercom installed at back door to limit customer contact at the main entrance. 

MN - We have locked all of our entrances and require health screening/temperature checks for anyone that will be in the 

building longer than 10 minutes. We require masks in all spaces, expect personal offices, cubical or laboratory space and 

only when you are working independently. We have enhanced daily cleaning procedures for the office and lab spaces. 

We disinfect artifact if able (kit handles, measure handles). 

MO - Masks required for employees and customers and restriction of customers entering lab facility 

MT - Masks to be worn when customers or non-laboratory personnel present. No mask required when only office 

personnel present. 

NC - Face Mask within 6 ft or 15 min face to face interactions. Hand washing; Hand Sanitizer 

NE - Masks are required and all customers have limited access to the building. Lab staff does try to sanitize when 

needed, Shipments are disinfected when received. 

NJ - The Inspectors of the NJ OWM have been deemed "Essential Workers" by the Governor's Office and were required 

to resume their duties. To address the risks of exposure, the Superintendent of NJ OWM had created a Personal 

Protection Equipment (PPE) Committee. Each section of the NJ OWM has an employee that participates, and Mr. Kyle 

Pierson is both the Chairperson and the representative for Metrology. The committee developed safety protocols, which 

includes the necessary equipment, to ensure that the OWM staff can perform their functions and avoid risk of exposure 

to Covid-19. In addition to that committee, the Metrology Laboratory created Covid-19 protocols to supplement NJ SAP: 

SLP Survey 2020 - Page 149 of 163 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Handling and Storage of Calibration and Test Items. These additional protocols, drafted and approved in June 2020, were 

put into place to address the risks of exposure as a result of contact with both laboratory customers and their equipment. 

These protocols have been modified over time as more information becomes available regarding the spread of Covid-19. 

The most current protocols in place for the entire NJ OWM facility include locked doors throughout the complex, 

mandatory face coverings/masks and social distance protocols. Submission of items for calibrations are made by 

appointment only, and the receipt of items submitted is given to customers by email. 

NM - We wear mask in the lab and around customers, we wipe down as much as we can (kits, test measures,door 

handles, etc.) with sanitizing wipes 

NV - Mandatory face masks 

6 ft social distancing 

Surfaces are wiped down with disinfectant after use 

Limited face to face interactions by working both at home and in the office 

All tested items must sit for 2-3 days for decontamination before being calibrated 

Customer standards are not handled with bare hands 

NY - Mandatory masks, limited visitation to lab by non-lab personnel, no lab tours. The lab's high-touch surfaces are 

sanitized daily but not by lab personnel. 

OH - Mandatory masks 

Distanced personnel 

Alternating telework schedules 

OK - Face Masks 

OR - Masks, hand sanitizer, cleaning of shared areas, 6 ft distancing 

PA - Mandatory mask wearing was implemented with eased restriction in defined circumstances. Direct access to the lab 

by the general public is currently prohibited. 

SC - All staff worked from home for a period of time. Masks at all times. No customers in the facility. Limited staff at 

the lab for a period of time. Wearing gloves when calibrating test weights. 6 feet apart at all times if not able, mask at 

all times. 

SD - Use of sanitizers and avoiding close contact. 

TN - We all wear masks outside of our respective offices and we using disposable gloves when interacting with artifacts. 

Communal areas are also regularly disinfected by cleaning staff. 

TX - Skeleton Crew Lab staff to reduce exposure; masks required; no public restrooms; no external visitors aside from 

customer drop offs; 

UT - Mandatory masks. Isolation, only one individual in lab. Cleaning equipment when it arrives at lab. 

VA - Mandatory mask, no clients in lab and questionnaire for anyone entering the building 

VT - We have mandatory mask requirements for all staff and people delivering artifacts. Those dropping off equipment 

don't enter the building. We don't have more than 3 people working in the lab at any one time. 

WA - State mandated face masks and social distancing on all state property. Those that can are working from home, but 

the metrology lab is a one person lab so it did not affect me. Early on, all deliveries were put into 'quarantine' for three 

days per CDC guidelines. More recently, deliveries are processed as they are received. CDC research has shown that 

Covid transmission from packages is highly unlikely. Visitor log for anyone actually coming into the offices for tracking. 

Those dropping off in the bay don't have to sign in. There are 'clean' stations at both exits with disposable masks, hand 

wipes, sanitizing spray, and sanitizing wipes. 

WI - mandatory masks - at all times, from start/end of shift. Social distance as much as reasonably possible - staff 

relocated workstations throughout the laboratory. Additionally, lab staff maintain a large supply of wipes and hand 

sanitizer that can be found throughout the lab. Routine cleaning/sanitizing of work stations upon completion of a project 

or calibration. 

WV - mandatory masks, social distancing, temperature each day and recorded, sanitation of building, no congregating, 

clean desk and other working areas frequently 

WY - State implemented mask mandate and telework (for those that could). Laboratory did not implement any 

additional protocols and assigned staff have worked in the lab per normal operating procedures. 

Table 53: COVID-19 protocols implemented by laboratories. 

SLP Survey 2020 - Page 150 of 163 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 

Lab ID Comments Survey Sections 1-6 

CT 

The job description selected for Consumer Protection W&M Inspector has been chosen as 

Metrology/Calibration Engineer because the inspector that helps in the lab has training in 

Metrology (Basic Metrology Seminar), have been participating in PTs for the last 7 years and 

his background is Engineering. 

FL I counted all of the work we did for our inspectors as separate customers. If you want to count 

our inspectors as one customer then we had 130 total. 

IN We would not accept certificates from L-A-B, LAB, IAS, or Perry Johnson. 

KS There is a significant decrease in the number of customers served for 2020 due to the relocation 

of the laboratory. 

ME Sorry, cannot determine number of customers that are not W&M officials or service companies. 

MN For section 6: MN accepts calibration certificates from ISO 17025 accredited manufacturers 

initially, when new weights are purchased. 

NC I do not have an adequate way to determine which companies are NOT W&M officials or 

Service Companies. I provided a guesstimation. 

NE 

The Nebraska Statue says we may accept certificates from "a laboratory that is accredited or 

recognized by NIST". Since NIST does not accredited and because of the relationship between 

NVLAP and NIST, we may accept certs from a NVLAP lab. 

NJ 

There were NJ Civil Service Title changed made in 2020. Included in these changes were 

Weights and Measures Inspector 1 and 3. Prior to 2020, an employee would be promoted from 

Inspector 3 to Inspector 2 and then to Inspector 1. The order was changed to be consistent with 

other similar titles of employees of the Division of Consumer Affairs. 

NM 

The metrology lab is under a different division than the Weights and Measures division, the lab 

does not see other certificates coming to New Mexico therefore the answer to section 6 is 

unknown. 

SD SD built a new lab in 2020 located in Sturgis SD. Pierre lab was closed in March 2021. 

TN In section 6 the state law says that it must also be a state lab as well as NIST traceable. 

WI 

For Section 4: Minimum and Maximum monthly salaries are identified by the working title 

classification that is assigned to each position within the State system. An employee may exceed 

the maximum appointment salary after a number of years in state service. Moreover, these 

values are for new hire(s) with the associated position that is being filled. ; For Section 5: the 

number of Laboratory Customers reflects nearly three (3) months of telecommuting due to 

COVID-19. The laboratory was essentially shut down for calibrations during this period. 

Historically, the lab completes around 400 unique work orders fulfilled during a calendar year. 

Table 54. 

Lab ID Comments Survey Sections 1-6 

CT 

The job description selected for Consumer Protection W&M Inspector has been chosen as 

Metrology/Calibration Engineer because the inspector that helps in the lab has training in 

Metrology (Basic Metrology Seminar), have been participating in PTs for the last 7 years and 

his background is Engineering. 

FL I counted all of the work we did for our inspectors as separate customers. If you want to count 

our inspectors as one customer then we had 130 total. 

IN We would not accept certificates from L-A-B, LAB, IAS, or Perry Johnson. 

KS There is a significant decrease in the number of customers served for 2020 due to the relocation 

of the laboratory. 

ME Sorry, cannot determine number of customers that are not W&M officials or service companies. 

MN For section 6: MN accepts calibration certificates from ISO 17025 accredited manufacturers 

initially, when new weights are purchased. 

SLP Survey 2020 - Page 151 of 163 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NC I do not have an adequate way to determine which companies are NOT W&M officials or 

Service Companies. I provided a guesstimation. 

NE 

The Nebraska Statue says we may accept certificates from "a laboratory that is accredited or 

recognized by NIST". Since NIST does not accredited and because of the relationship between 

NVLAP and NIST, we may accept certs from a NVLAP lab. 

NJ 

There were NJ Civil Service Title changed made in 2020. Included in these changes were 

Weights and Measures Inspector 1 and 3. Prior to 2020, an employee would be promoted from 

Inspector 3 to Inspector 2 and then to Inspector 1. The order was changed to be consistent with 

other similar titles of employees of the Division of Consumer Affairs. 

NM 

The metrology lab is under a different division than the Weights and Measures division, the lab 

does not see other certificates coming to New Mexico therefore the answer to section 6 is 

unknown. 

SD SD built a new lab in 2020 located in Sturgis SD. Pierre lab was closed in March 2021. 

TN In section 6 the state law says that it must also be a state lab as well as NIST traceable. 

WI 

For Section 4: Minimum and Maximum monthly salaries are identified by the working title 

classification that is assigned to each position within the State system. An employee may exceed 

the maximum appointment salary after a number of years in state service. Moreover, these 

values are for new hire(s) with the associated position that is being filled. ; For Section 5: the 

number of Laboratory Customers reflects nearly three (3) months of telecommuting due to 

COVID-19. The laboratory was essentially shut down for calibrations during this period. 

Historically, the lab completes around 400 unique work orders fulfilled during a calendar year. 

Table 54: Comments provided by respondents regarding sections 1 through 6 of the survey. 

SLP Survey 2020 - Page 152 of 163 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Section 7 Comments 

Section 7 of the survey includes questions regarding individual metrologists working in the SLP. 

Comments provided by individual SLP laboratories are listed in Table 55. 

Lab ID Comments Survey Sections 7 

CT 

The year eligible for retirement has been calculated when personnel reach the age of 67 which is 

the year for full (normal) retirement age for the personnel listed in Section 7. Years of 

Metrology experience of Ion Daha (W&M inspector) has been counting since he attended the 

Basic Metrology Seminar (in 2008) even he doesn't work full time in the lab (he has been 

helping the Metrologist in the lab and the last 7 years have been participating in PTs). 

IN 

Nothing at this time. Working on preasure gauges, or torque calibration sometime in the 2025. 

After we have the Class 2 , Echelon II certification. Would like to see the NVLAP accreitation 

as well in 2022. 

KS Metrologist, Evan Johnson has conditional signatory status for legal metrology for Mass 

Echelon III and Volume Echelon II while NIST training is delayed due to Covid-19. 

MD Grain is not on Scope. State regulator use only. 

MI Santini, Ferguson, Galvan, Byndas are approved signatores 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 and lottery ball diameter calibrations. 

PA We are also recognized for force 0 to 50 lbf 

USDA-GIPSA Railroad test cars from 80,000 lb to 110,000 lb. Mass III limited to 25 lb, 50 lb, 1000 lb and 

10,000 lb cast iron weights. 

VT Hydrometry: Marc Paquette 

WI 

Eligibility for retirement is based off of thirty (30) years in state service. With regards, to 

the lab's Scope, we are currently working on data collection in hopes of becoming Recognized 

to performed Echelon/Mass II mass calibrations. 

Table 55: Comments provided by respondents regarding section 7 of the survey. 

SLP Survey 2020 - Page 153 of 163 
 

Comments – Survey Sections 8 to 31 

Sections 8 through 31 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 56. 

Lab ID Comments Survey Sections 8 -31 

AK Section 31, Alaska doesn' t have RSA' s. 

CT 

There is no charge for CT State Agencies and CT City Sealers. Fees are charged to industry' s 

companies. For companies/individuals who uses erquipment for W&M aplications such as 

dealers and repairmen (registered service companies) there is no charge if the following 3 

conditions are met: the company is based in Connecticut or have a place of bussiness in CT, 

they have a Repairmen or Dealer license from CT, and the technician that use the equipment 

lives in CT. If one of the conditions is not met the lab will charge for the service. Number of 

standards/equipment tested in 2020 is smaller than previous years becaus e of the COVID-19 

pandemic (lab was closed about 3 months). 

• There is a significant decrease in the number of items calibrated for 2020 due to the relocation 

of the laboratory. 

• Adjustment fees range anywhere from $5.00 to $50.00 per piece and are the same for in-state

and out-of-state customers.

KS 

• Calibration costs are determined on a per piece basis and range anywhere from $4.00 to $30.00 

per piece more for out -of-state customers.

• Calibration costs, also, vary on the quantity of items per order for certain items. Ten to ninety -

nine items will be cheaper per piece than items in the single digit range and 100 or more items 

will be cheaper than the ten to ninety -nine quantity. 

• The Kansas Metrology Laboratory does not have any in -state city, county,or township

standards that come to the lab. 

• The calibration times listed above do not account for everyday laboratory operations (only 

time per category if a calibration was performed non-stop until complete). 

• Measurement control time in the above tab le only refers to obtaining and analyzing data for the

immediate measurement being performed. It does not account for extensive analysis.

MA Director attempting to institute per unit fees rather than per hour. 

services to be performed. 

 Easier to pre-quote pricing for 

MO We do not charge W&M field equipment and standards for Missouri but we do charge for other 

states equipment. 

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. Wedo not charge an additional 

fee to handle standards. There are some set up fees for various calibrations - Gravimetric 

Calibrations, SLPs and Thermometry 

NJ 1. Section 9, Mass Echelon 2: Both Metrologists participated in NEMAP -20-MII-US-01, 6 pc 

Troemner Metric Weight Kit PT. 

NM We do our own 5 gal slicker plate gravimetrically, I wasn't sure where to put it so I added it to 

section 17 

SC In Section 9 Echelon II answers, ASTM Class 1 calibrations are included in the numbers. 

SD Shouldn't the weight cart be included in the "Scale Test Truck total"? 

We do maintenance of 5 track scale test cars. Three of the test cars have individual 10,000 lb 

USDA-GIPSA weights and a 10,000 lb weight cart. Total test weight in two of the cars is 100,000 lb and one 

car has 110,000 lb. Twoofthe test cars have a 90,000+ lb self propelled test weight. 

VT All weight calibration is by the hour $75/hour for instate and $95/hour out of state. 

WA Metrology Lab fee is $105.50/hour with minimum fee of one half hour. Fees mandated by the 

legislature. 

WI 

NOTE: Weight Cart total includes adjustment. We charge an additional $140.00 for an 

"adjustment and retest", when applicable. ForSection 30, the dollar values are what it 

would cost a customer for the calibration of those artifacts. Wedonot charge for 

unpacking/packing standards nor for the time it takes to input raw data into our Microsoft 

Access Database, which generates the Certificates of Calibration. However, we may reconsider 

this item the next time we evaluate our Fee Schedule (~2024 ish). It may take our staff well over 

an hour to unload a customer and this ought to be factored in at some point. Section 31: in 

2018 we stopped charging municipalities for calibration services. While we generate a billing 

summary of costs, it 's strictly for internal record keeping purposes. 

WY Prices listed are in -state customers; out of state charged twice that amount. 

Table 56: Comments provided by respondents regarding section 8 through 31 of the survey. 

SLP Survey 2020 - Page 154 of 163 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 Comment 

AK Great job! 

USDA-GIPSA You need to do some formatting change to the additional comments sections 8-31. 

I would like to thank all the staff that makes this survey happen. One does not know all the hard work that goes on 

behind the scenes to make this happen for the metrology labs. The Indiana lab has benefitted greatly from the data that is 

IN compiled and shared. I cannot speak directly for other lab managers and personnel but I have heard many positive 

comments over the years now the National Workload Survey has help them in managing their labs and communication 

with upper management in a more professional way. 

Section 7 lists three personnel who perform metrology measurements/functions in the lab, but not all are full-time in the 

MD metrology lab. One is 10% time to metrology (mainly PT and administrative work), one is 10% time to metrology 

(mainly PT, most time focus on NTEP evaluation), one is full time in metrology lab. 

Missouri requested some preliminary results because we are trying to increase funding for our Metrology program. 

MO These results will assist in demonstrating how Missouri compares to other states not only with what we can calibrate but 

also the fees charged for various calibrations. 

The Pennsylvania Standards Laboratory uses the results of this survey to evaluate fees, staffing and overall workload. PA The work that goes into getting this information compiled and published is greatly appreciated. 

The way we have to input the time and calculate hours isn't particularly relevant to the way our lab develop invoices for VT mass standards. It would be easier to do everything by the unit, like the way 5 gallon test measures are done. 

Suggestion - please consider modifying 'comments' sections to allow various thoughts/comments to be broken up onto 

separate line items. That is, the comments section appears to be merged & centered into one large field. This prevents WI me from listing out bullet points, so to speak, and it may be hard to distinguish one comment from another because I 

cannot apply a new paragraph for separate thoughts. Thank you. 

Table 57: General comments provided by respondents of the workload survey. 

SLP Survey 2020 - Page 155 of 163 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Name : 

Phone : 

Fax : 

Laboratory : 

Address : 

City, State, Zip : 

Web Site : 

Age of Lab : yrs 

Office Space : sq ft 

Active Lab Space : sq ft 

Comments: Sections 1-6 

Go To Next Sheet (Survey Section 7) 

Loaded . . . 

Section 1 Section 2 

Laboratory Information 

Section 3Laboratory Information 

Minimum Monthly Salary Maximum Monthly Salary 

Section 4 

Job Title 

List all Job Titles which perform metrology measurements or functions. 

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. 

Section 5 

Number of Laboratory Customers served during the reporting period 

Laboratory Customers : 

Number of the above that are NOT W&M officials or Service 

Companies: 

Select the closest job description from the 

standardized list below 

(Select 'Yes' for all that apply) 

Section 6 

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: 

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) 

Any NIST/OWM Recognized Lab : 

Your State Lab ONLY : 

Any State Lab regardless of status : 

Any NVLAP Accredited Lab : 

2020 Workload Survey - Excel Version 

The worksheets in this survey are protected to reduce the risk 

of unintentially making changes to the survey layout. The 

survey team uses a group of templates to collect and analyze 

survey responses in order to expedite the report building 

process and to reduce the risk of transcription errors when 

copying your responses from this form. Please do not modify 

this survey as it will no longer work within the survey team's 

process if you do. The survey team welcomes your suggestions 

for improvement. Please add your comments to the comment 

block at the end of this survey. If you have mockups for an 

improved layout you may send it in with the completed survey 

for consideration. 

SLP Survey 2020 - Page 156 of 163 
 

 

 

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 8-31) 

Go To Previous Sheet (Survey Sections 1 - 6) 

SLP Survey 2020 - Page 157 of 163 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

TOTAL 0 0 

Lab (Internal) 

W&M Program1

Volume - LPG 

Number of individual LPG provers calibrated. 

Volume - Non-Pressurized Small Metal Standards (≤5 gallon) 

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. 

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. 

Mass Echelon I (Match with Handbook 143 and Lab Scope) 

Number of mass standards calibrated using 

Advanced Weighing Designs and Mass Code 

Data Reduction. Regardless of Class. 

Section 8

And, ASTM 1 or better, OIML E2 or better. 

Section 9 

Mass Echelon II (Match with Handbook 143 and Lab Scope) 

Number of mass standards. 

ASTM Class 2, 3 

OIML Class F1, F2 

Section 10 Section 16 Section 15

Number of small volume provers and closed loop 

provers calibrated. 

Mass Echelon III (Match with Handbook 143 and Lab Scope) 

Number of mass standards (except weight carts). 

ASTM Class 4, 5, 6, 7 

OIML Class M1, M2, M3 

NIST Class F 

Section 11 

Weight Carts 

Number of weight carts calibrated. 

Section 14 

Number of individual pieces of volumetric 

glassware calibrated. 

Note: Indicate number of Volume Transfer and/or 

Gravimetric tests. 

Volume - Glassware 

15.Volume - SVP (Dynamic Volumetric Systems) 

Section 17 Section 19 

Volume - Non-Pressurized Large Metal Standards (>100 gallon) 

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. 

Section 18 

Volume - Non-Pressurized Medium Metal Standards ( >5 gallon and ≤100 gallon) 

ction 20 

Length - Tapes 

Number of individual tapes (metal, fiberglass, 

woven fiberglass, cloth, etc.). Please enter 

#devices tested, NOT number of points tested. 

Section 12 

Railroad Test Cars (Master Scale) 

Number of cars calibrated. 

Section 13 

Railroad Specific Weight Carts 

Number of weight carts calibrated. 

Footnotes: Section 8 -

SLP Survey 2020 - Page 158 of 163 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sect

, p 

Length - Rigid Rules 

External Customers2

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 calibration (i.e. unpacking, logging, 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. 

TOTAL 0 

Section 21 

Number of individual rigid rules tested. Please 

enter #devices tested, NOT number of points 

tested. 

Thermometry 

Lab (Internal) 

W&M Program1

External Customers2

TOTAL 0 

Section 22 

Number of thermometers tested (mechanical, 

liquid-in-glass, thermocouples, thermistors, PRT, 

and SPRT). 

Frequency 

Lab (Internal) 

W&M Program1

External Customers2

TOTAL 0 

Section 23 

Number of frequency standards tested (includes 

tuning forks). 

Timing Devices 

Lab (Internal) 

W&M Program1

External Customers2

TOTAL 0 

Section 24

Number of timing devices tested (stopwatches). 

Wheel Load Weighers 

Lab (Internal) 

W&M Program1

External Customers2

TOTAL 0 

Section 25 

Number of wheel load weighers tested. 

Lottery Balls 

Lab (Internal) 

W&M Program1

External Customers2

TOTAL 0 

Section 26 

Number of lottery balls tested. 

(A) Other Types of Measurements not covered i

Lab (Internal) 

W&M Program1

External Customers2

TOTAL 

n this survey 

0 

27 

Describe type of measurement: Lab (Internal) 

Section 

W&M Program1

External Customers2

(B) Other Types of Measurements not covered i

TOTAL 

n this survey 

0 

Section 28 

Describe type of measurement: 

Lab (Internal) 

W&M Program1

External Customers2

(C) Other Types of Measurements not covered i

TOTAL 

n this survey 

0 

29 

Describe type of measurement: Lab (Internal) 

Section 

W&M Program1

External Customers2

TOTAL 0 

In this section please estimate the typical fees charged for each of the described examples and 

enter the average time required for each item. Fee 

Average Time 

(enter time in 

decimal hours) Includes Unpacking/PackingStandardsIncludes pre measurementsetup timeIncludes measurementcontrol related work Includes certificatepreparation time 

Section 30 

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 : 

Mass Echelon III 

Large Scale 

Test Truck 

24 - 1000 lb weights (5 adjusted) : 

20 - 50 lb weights (5 adjusted) : 

2 - 31 lb weight kits (22 weights each) : 

Scale Test Truck Total : $ - 0.0 

One - 5 gallon test measure using volume transfer method : 

One - 5 gallon test measure using gravimetric method : 

SLP Survey 2020 - Page 159 of 163 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Section 31 

One - 100 gallon prover using volume transfer method : 

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? 

One - 100 gallon prover using gravimetric method : 

One - 100 gallon LPG prover : 

One - 100 foot tape with 19 points tested : 

Do you charge: 

Comments: Sections 8-31 

Go To Supplimentary Questions 1. 

Go To Previous Sheet (Survey Section 7) 

SLP Survey 2020 - Page 160 of 163 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Section 32: Supplementary Questions 1. (Yes/No) 

1 Did your workload increase in 2020 because of COVID? 

2 Did your workload decrease in 2020 because of COVID? 

3 Did you have mandatory furlough time in 2020 because of COVID? 

4 Did you experience other budget cuts? 

Did you defer the purchase of new lab equipment in 2020 because 5 of COVID? 

Were you required to hold a vacant metrology position open 6 because of budget cuts due to COVID? 

Did COVID delay having your lab standards calibrated or 7 accredited? 

8 Did COVID delay staff training (NIST provided or internal)? 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

Comments, Supplementary Questions 1. 

Go To Supplementary Questions 2. 

Go To Previous (Sections 8 - 31) 

SLP Survey 2020 - Page 161 of 163 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Section 33: 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 Which version of Excel are you 

using? 

13 

Briefly describe any safety protocols 

your laboratory implemented in order 

to cope with COVID-19 (i.e. 

mandatory masks, limited face to 

face interactions, sanitation 

requirements)? 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

Go To Survey Comments 

Back To Supplementary Questions 1. 

SLP Survey 2020 - Page 162 of 163 
Section 34 

Comments on Survey 

 

Go To Prevous Sheet (Supplementary Questions 2.) 

End of Survey 

SLP Survey 2020 - Page 163 of 163