2010 

State Laboratory Program 

Workload Survey 

2010 SLP Survey v.1.00 August 17, 2011
SLP Survey 2010 - Page 2 of 122 

Contents 

Objectives and History .................................................................................................................................................. 7

Presentation and Analysis of Data ................................................................................................................................. 8

Impact and Leveraging of NIST Calibrations .............................................................................................................. 10

National Institute of Standards and Technology Weights & Measures Division (Information provided by 

NIST/WMD) ................................................................................................................................................................ 12

Participants .................................................................................................................................................................. 21

Mass ............................................................................................................................................................................. 29

Mass Echelon I........................................................................................................................................................ 30

Mass Echelon II ...................................................................................................................................................... 32

Mass Echelon III ..................................................................................................................................................... 34

Weight Carts ........................................................................................................................................................... 36

Length .......................................................................................................................................................................... 38

Steel Tape Measures ............................................................................................................................................... 39

Rigid Rules ............................................................................................................................................................. 41

Volume ........................................................................................................................................................................ 43

Glassware ................................................................................................................................................................ 44

Test Measures (≤5 gallon) ...................................................................................................................................... 47

Provers (> 5 gallon and ≤ 100 gallon) ..................................................................................................................... 50

Provers (> 100 gallon) ............................................................................................................................................ 53

Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) Provers ................................................................................................................ 55

Dynamic Small Volume Provers (SVP) .................................................................................................................. 57

Temperature ................................................................................................................................................................. 58

Frequency .................................................................................................................................................................... 60

Timing Devices ........................................................................................................................................................... 62

Wheel Load Weighers ................................................................................................................................................. 64

Lottery Balls ................................................................................................................................................................ 66

Summary Other Tests .................................................................................................................................................. 68

Laboratory Fees (2010) ............................................................................................................................................... 69

Mass Echelon I........................................................................................................................................................ 71

Mass Echelon II ...................................................................................................................................................... 72

Mass Echelon III ..................................................................................................................................................... 73

5,000 lb Weight Cart ............................................................................................................................................... 74

Scale Truck Calibration Class F ............................................................................................................................. 75

Length 100 ft Steel Tape ......................................................................................................................................... 76

5 gallon test measures – Volume Transfer .............................................................................................................. 77

5 gallon test measure - Gravimetric ........................................................................................................................ 78

100 gallon field standard prover – Volume Transfer .............................................................................................. 79

100 gallon field standard prover- Gravimetric ........................................................................................................ 80

2010 SLP Survey v.1.00 August 17, 2011
SLP Survey 2010 - Page 3 of 122 

100 gallon field standard prover LPG – Volume Transfer ...................................................................................... 81

20 Gallon Dynamic Small Volume Prover (SVP) - Volume Transfer .................................................................... 82

20 Gallon Dynamic Small Volume Prover (SVP) – Volume Gravimetric ............................................................. 82

Metrology Positions/Title and Salaries ........................................................................................................................ 83

2010 State Laboratory Program Metrologists .............................................................................................................. 86

State Laboratory Program/Metrology Experience ....................................................................................................... 92

Acknowledgment of Calibration Certificates Matrix................................................................................................... 94

Supplementary Survey Questions ................................................................................................................................ 96

NIST Handbook 105 Series Standards (21) ............................................................................................................ 97

ASTM Standards (22) ............................................................................................................................................. 98

OIML Publications (23) .......................................................................................................................................... 99

Workload Survey Instructions ................................................................................................................................... 101

Instructions ........................................................................................................................................................ 102

Frequently Asked Questions & General Guidance ............................................................................................ 102

Laboratory Data – Sections 1-6: ........................................................................................................................ 102

Staff Data - Section 7:........................................................................................................................................ 103

Workload Sections 8-29: ................................................................................................................................... 103

Supplementary Questions: ................................................................................................................................. 104

ASSISTANCE/QUESTIONS?? ........................................................................................................................ 105

Workload Survey Form ............................................................................................................................................. 106

 

2010 SLP Survey v.1.00 August 17, 2011
SLP Survey 2010 - Page 4 of 122 

Tables 

Table 1: Historical survey titles and the year represented by each. ............................................................................... 7

Table 2: Laboratory scoring model trends. .................................................................................................................. 16

Table 3: Laboratory Facilities ..................................................................................................................................... 25

Table 4: Listing of SLP member laboratories and their participation status in previous surveys. ............................... 28

Table 5: Summary of echelon I tests reported on previous surveys. ........................................................................... 30

Table 6: Echelon II tests reported on previous surveys. .............................................................................................. 32

Table 7: Echelon III tests reported on previous surveys. ............................................................................................. 34

Table 8: Weight Cart tests reported on previous surveys. ........................................................................................... 36

Table 9: Tape measure tests reported on previous surveys. ......................................................................................... 39

Table 10: Rigid rule tests reported in previous surveys. .............................................................................................. 41

Table 11: Glassware calibrations from previous surveys. ........................................................................................... 44

Table 12: Test Measure (5 ≤ gal.) volume tests from previous surveys. ..................................................................... 47

Table 13: Provers (>5 gal. and ≤ 100 gal.) volume tests from previous surveys. ........................................................ 50

Table 14: Provers (> 100 gal.) tests from previous surveys. ........................................................................................ 53

Table 15: LPG Prover volume tests from previous surveys. ....................................................................................... 55

Table 16: SVP tests from previous surveys. ................................................................................................................ 57

Table 17: Temperature standard tests from previous surveys. ..................................................................................... 58

Table 18 Frequency standard tests from previous surveys. ......................................................................................... 60

Table 19: Timing devices tests from previous surveys ................................................................................................ 62

Table 20: Wheel load weigher tests from previous surveys ........................................................................................ 64

Table 21: Lottery balls tests from previous surveys .................................................................................................... 66

Table 22: Other tests reported by the participating laboratories .................................................................................. 68

Table 23: SLP member laboratories charging additional fees to out-of-state customers. ........................................... 70

Table 24: Average fee charged for echelon I mass testing from 2004 through 2010. ................................................. 71

Table 25: Average fee charged for echelon II mass testing from 2000 through 2010. ................................................ 72

Table 26 Average fee charged for echelon III mass testing from 2000 through 2010. ................................................ 73

Table 27: Average fee charged for a 5,000 lb weight cart testing from 2004 through 2010. ...................................... 74

Table 28: Average fee charged for typical scale truck testing from 2004 through 2010. ............................................ 75

Table 29: Average fee charged for typical 19 point testing of a 100 ft steel tape from 2000 through 2010. ............... 76

Table 30: Average fee charged for testing of a 5 gallon field test measure via volume transfer from 2000 through 

2010. ............................................................................................................................................................................ 77

Table 31: Average fee charged for testing of a 5 gallon field test measure via gravimetric method from 2000 through 

2010. ............................................................................................................................................................................ 78

Table 32: Average fee charged for testing of a 100 gallon field standard prover via volume transfer from 2000 

through 2010. ............................................................................................................................................................... 79

Table 33: Average fee charged for testing of a 100 gallon field test standard prover via gravimetric method from 

2006 through 2010. ...................................................................................................................................................... 80

Table 34: Average fees charged for the testing of a 100 gallon LPG prover from via volume transfer from 2006 

through 2010. ............................................................................................................................................................... 81

Table 35: Fees charged for testing a SVP via volume transfer. .................................................................................. 82

Table 36: Average fee charged for testing a SVP via volume transfer from 2006 through 2010. ............................... 82

Table 37: Fees charged for testing a SVP gravimetrically. .......................................................................................... 82

Table 38: Average fee charged for testing a SVP gravimetrically from 2006 through 2010. ...................................... 82

Table 39: Metrologist position titles and salary ranges. .............................................................................................. 83

Table 40: Listing of SLP metrologists as of 2010. 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. ................................................................................................................................................................... 90

Table 41: Comparison matrix summarizing metrology experience reported by metrologists from 2000 to 2010. .... 92

Table 42: Calibration Certificate acceptance matrix. ................................................................................................... 94

Table 43: Numbers of laboratories reporting usage of each of the named NIST HB105 series standards .................. 97

Table 44: Numbers of laboratories reporting usage of each of the identified ASTM standards .................................. 98

Table 45: Numbers of laboratories reporting usage of each of the identified OIML publications. ........................... 100

2010 SLP Survey v.1.00 August 17, 2011
SLP Survey 2010 - Page 5 of 122 

Figures 

Figure 1: Number of NIST Calibrations per Year ....................................................................................................... 10

Figure 2: US State Metrology Laboratories, WMD Recognition Status (2011) .......................................................... 13

Figure 3: State Laboratory Scores & Status 2011 ........................................................................................................ 14

Figure 4: Laboratory scoring model trends. ................................................................................................................. 16

Figure 5: US State Metrology Laboratories, NVLAP accreditation status (2011). ..................................................... 17

Figure 6: Laboratory metrology training. .................................................................................................................... 18

Figure 7: PT/ILC Success Rates .................................................................................................................................. 19

Figure 8: Corrective, Preventative, and Improvement actions taken in the past 3 years as a result of PT/ILC reports.

 ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 20

Figure 9: Mass Echelon I tests. .................................................................................................................................... 31

Figure 10: Mass Echelon II tests. ................................................................................................................................ 33

Figure 11: Mass Echelon III tests. ............................................................................................................................... 35

Figure 12: Weight Cart tests. ....................................................................................................................................... 37

Figure 13: Tape Measure tests. .................................................................................................................................... 40

Figure 14: Rigid rule tests. .......................................................................................................................................... 42

Figure 15: Glassware calibrations, volume transfer method ........................................................................................ 45

Figure 16: Glassware calibrations, gravimetric method. ............................................................................................. 46

Figure 17: Test Measure tests (≤5 gallon), volume transfer. ....................................................................................... 48

Figure 18: Test Measure tests (≤5 gallon), gravimetric. .............................................................................................. 49

Figure 19: Prover (≥5 gal. and < 100 gal.) tests, volume transfer. ............................................................................... 51

Figure 20: Prover (≥5 gal. and < 100 gal.) tests, gravimetric ...................................................................................... 52

Figure 21: Prover (≥100 gal.) tests, volume transfer ................................................................................................... 54

Figure 22: LPG Prover tests,volume transfer .............................................................................................................. 56

Figure 23: Temperature standard tests. ........................................................................................................................ 59

Figure 24 Frequency standard tests ............................................................................................................................. 61

Figure 25 Timing device tests ...................................................................................................................................... 63

Figure 26: Wheel load weigher tests ............................................................................................................................ 65

Figure 27 Lottery Ball tests ......................................................................................................................................... 67

Figure 28: 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. ....................................................................... 71

Figure 29: 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. ...................................................................... 72

Figure 30: Fees charged for testing a 31 lb weight kit containing 22 pieces to NIST HB 105-1 Class F tolerances 

(10) using mass echelon III procedures. ...................................................................................................................... 73

Figure 31: Fees charged for testing a 5,000lb weight cart according to NIST HB 105-8 (9) tolerances using mass 

echelon III procedures. ................................................................................................................................................ 74

Figure 32: Fees charged for testing a typical scale truck according mass echelon III procedures. .............................. 75

Figure 33: Fees charged for testing a steel 100 ft tape. ................................................................................................ 76

Figure 34: Fees charged for testing a 5 gallon field standard steel prover via volume transfer technique. ................. 77

Figure 35 Fees charged for gravimetrically testing a 5 gallon field test measure. ....................................................... 78

Figure 36: Fees charged for testing a 100 gallon field standard prover via volume transfer technique. ...................... 79

Figure 37: Fees charged for gravimetrically testing a 100 gallon field standard steel prover. .................................... 80

Figure 38: Fees charged for testing a 100 gallon LPG prover. .................................................................................... 81

Figure 39: Retirement Eligibility Histogram, 111 metrologists reporting. Metrologists were asked to provide the 

year which they are eligible for “full” retirement. This may not reflect when any one person actually plans to leave 

the SLP. ....................................................................................................................................................................... 91

Figure 40: 121 Metrologists reporting. Metrologists were asked to indicate which type of calibrations they are 

authorized to perform on behalf of their laboratories. ................................................................................................. 91

Figure 41: SLP metrologists ranked by years of experience. Red indicates experience in the SLP, green indicates 

other metrology experience. ........................................................................................................................................ 93

 

2010 SLP Survey v.1.00 August 17, 2011
SLP Survey 2010 - Page 6 of 122 

Acknowledgements 

This report was prepared with the help of the members of the NCSLi Committee 181 - Legal Metrology Committee. 

Special thanks must be given to the metrology professionals working in the State Laboratory Program who 

generously gave of their time to complete the 2010 State Program Workload Survey thus providing the data essential 

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

Weights and Measures Division who has 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 utilize the service those laboratories provide. 

 

2010 SLP Survey v.1.00 August 17, 2011
SLP Survey 2010 - Page 7 of 122 

Objectives and History 

The Workload Survey Committee, after examining the data from past surveys, determined that there has been 

inconsistency in the titles as they relate to the year from which data was extracted. To allow proper comparison of 

the survey data to other available measurement data the comparisons in the charts and tables of the 2008 Survey 

report reflect the year from which data was extracted rather than the year in the survey title (1). 

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 

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

In 1996, the National Conference on Weights and Measures (2) (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 will be 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 will be designed to meet real needs of the 

workload. Ultimately, the survey information will increase 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.

2010 SLP Survey v.1.00 August 17, 2011
SLP Survey 2010 - Page 8 of 122 

Presentation and Analysis of Data 

SLP laboratories submitted their data using a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet, or a Microsoft Word document, or an 

Acrobat PDF file. This was done to accommodate as many of the participants as possible. The 2010 survey is 

published in this report beginning on page 96. 

The data was copied from each individual completed survey form into a master data spreadsheet for analysis. Those 

surveys completed using the excel form provided the most accurate means of data transcription. A file was designed 

to reformat the information so that it could be copied to the master file with minimal manual transcription. Both 

word and handwritten surveys required manual transcription of the data.

The NIST Weights and Measures Division provides an initial report workload data from the NIST Measurement 

Services Division from 2000 through 2010 covering a range measurements including mass, volume, temperature, 

pressure, etc. It describes the value of each measurement performed and the value of the SLP laboratories in 

assisting in providing metrologically traceable measurements in support of commerce. The SLP removes a burden 

from the NIST Measurement Services, as is evidenced by the sheer number of devices tested, and provides a 

relatively convenient source of traceable measurements for the local industry. This report also outlines training and 

laboratory accreditation goals and quantifies their progress towards meeting these goals. The NIST report begins 

with “Impact and Leveraging of NIST Calibrations” on page 10. 

The participant SLP laboratories in the survey are identified by name location, age, size, and number of customer’s 

served in the opening section of the survey. Current contact information for the individual SLP laboratories and 

their NIST WMD Certificate of Traceability can be found on the NIST Weights and Measures Division website (3). 

Each laboratory’s participation in previous surveys is reported from 1996 through 2010. 

The SLP workload is generally broken down into four categories; mass, length, volume, and other. Each particular 

procedure was further subdivided into three categories; laboratory, weights and measures enforcement, and external. 

The laboratory category includes work done internally by the metrology laboratory staff in order to maintain 

measurement standards, to maintain internal quality control systems, and for participation in inter-laboratory 

crosscheck programs. The weights and measures enforcement category includes work done in direct support of a 

government operated weights and measures enforcement program which includes the calibration of a field 

inspector’s measurement and test equipment. The external category covers essentially all other work done by the 

laboratory. The data is presented in the form of 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 

SLP laboratory. Summary pie graphs are included to analyze totals across the entire SLP. 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 29, Length on page 38, Volume on page 43, and all other tests from 

pages 58 through 68. 

All of the SLP laboratories responding to the 2010 SLP workload survey report performing measurement services 

for hire in addition to the regulatory functions it supports. Fee data for 2010 covering a range of routine 

measurement services is presented in a series of bar graphs along with historical averages. The results may be found 

in the section title “Laboratory Fees (2010)” beginning on page 69. 

Each SLP laboratory provided salary ranges and position titles for each member of the laboratory staff. The SLP 

survey is attempting to document the need for effective succession planning within its ranks. Data is presented for 

each metrologist working in the SLP for the 2010 calendar year including years of experience and the year at which 

each person is eligible for full retirement. The results are presented in in a series of charts and tables beginning with 

the section title “Metrology Positions/Title and Salaries” beginning on page 83. 

The remaining sections summarize the acceptance of calibration certificates by each of the SLP laboratories. Each 

state and local weights and measures jurisdiction operates under slightly different rules and regulations. This means 

the each laboratory has different guidelines for accepting calibration certificates from other metrology laboratories 

both inside and out of the SLP. A table is provided on page 94 detailing each laboratory’s calibration certificate 

acceptance policy. 

A supplementary section of questions is included in the 2010 survey. When authorizing the use of measurement and 

test equipment many of the SLP laboratories utilize various standards detailing the construction and tolerances 

applied to this equipment. The 2010 survey provides a list of NIST 105 series handbooks (page 97), ASTM 

2010 SLP Survey v.1.00 August 17, 2011
SLP Survey 2010 - Page 9 of 122 

(formerly American Society for Testing and Materials) standards (page 98), and International Organization of Legal 

Metrology (OIML) publications (page 99). The number of responses were tallied and reported here in table form. 

Note: 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. Thus 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 compare increases or decreases in the workload of individual laboratories due to the fact 

that laboratories may use different calibration intervals for different standards and their annual workload will 

fluctuate accordingly. For example, a state may have their volumetric glassware on a two-year calibration interval 

with the majority of these standards calibrated in one twelve month period with very few that are tested in the 

following twelve-month period. This does not indicate that the workload is decreasing in that state; it is just a 

reflection of the calibration interval assigned to those standards. 

The individual SLP metrology laboratories charge fees for the measurement services they provide. Individual 

laboratory fees are presented in bar graphs ranked from highest to lowest. Average fees of the responding labs are 

provided for each measurement service covered in the survey. It can be difficult to compare fees between labs as 

they tend to bill an hourly rate for services. Each individual laboratory has a unique facility with its own particular 

measurement equipment meaning there is significant variation between the labs as to their ability to complete a 

particular job in a timely fashion. 

Staffing is a concern with all metrology laboratories. Each metrologist working in the SLP is asked to provide their 

years of metrology experience, both inside the SLP and out, and the year they are eligible for retirement. These data 

are included in a table ordered by laboratory code. Retirement and experience are plotted on bar charts to provide an 

overview of potential future staff needs within the program. We asked each metrology laboratory to provide 

position names and salary ranges for their metrologists and have provided this information in table form sorted by 

laboratory code. 

2010 SLP Survey v.1.00 August 17, 2011
Calibration

2010. One

calibration

to this ques

NIST calib

the United 

Figure 1: N

Data in the

traditional 

State weigh

leveraging 

customer w

measures e

calibration

Economic 

measures l

the State w

economic i

I

n data for State

e of the measur

ns. How many 

stion is a meas

brations to indu

States. 

Number of NIS

e current survey

measurement 

hts and measur

impact is appr

workload in the

enforcement ef

ns from the Nat

statistics indic

aboratory calib

weights and me

impact of these

S

Impact an

(

e laboratories w

res of impact o

additional cali

sure of the natio

ustry by the Sta

ST Calibrations

y has been exp

areas (e.g., tho

res laboratories

roximately 28,0

e state laborato

fforts). Many o

tional Metrolog

cate that weight

brations, affect

asures laborato

e calibrations i

SLP Survey 20

nd Leverag

(Information pr

was obtained fr

of NIST calibra

ibrations are m

onal impact of

ate weights and

s per Year

panded to inclu

ose outside of m

s account for a

000:1. Given d

ories is for indu

of these custom

gy Laboratory 

ts and measure

ts more than ha

ory workload d

nfluences virtu

010 - Page

ging of NI

rovided by NIS

rom the NIST M

ations is to quan

made by other la

f NIST calibrat

d measures lab

ude measureme

mass, length, an

a small portion 

data obtained i

ustry and other 

mers are the sam

(NMI). 

es enforcement

alf of the $13.2

does not affect 

ually all of the 

e 10 of 122 

IST Calibr

ST/WMD) 

Measurement S

antify the numb

aboratories usi

tion services an

boratories contr

ents and calibra

nd volume) as 

of NIST’s ann

in the early SL

r government a

me customers w

t, supported by

2 trillion U.S. G

weights and m

U.S. GDP. Ac

rations 

Services Divisi

ber and impact 

ing these calibr

nd training. Th

ributes greatly 

ations performe

were reported 

nual calibration

LP surveys, abo

agencies (i.e., n

who in other c

y these leverage

GDP (2006). S

measures enforc

ccurate measur

ion from 2000 

of downstream

rations? The a

his leveraging o

to the econom

ed at NIST in n

in past survey

ns. The averag

out half of the 

not weights and

ountries must o

ed State weigh

Since nearly ha

cement, the 

rements ensure

to 

m

answer 

of 

my of 

nonys. 

ge 

d

obtain 

hts and 

alf of 

e

2010 SLP Survey v.1.00 August 17, 2011
SLP Survey 2010 - Page 11 of 122 

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 Weights and Measures Division (WMD) is to 

coordinate the SLP . Each state laboratory that is recognized by WMD or accredited by NVLAP is required to have 

calibrations from acceptable sources, which are most often from NIST. WMD 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 

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 these 

established calibration intervals. 

A special assessment to catalog and document calibration standards and intervals will be completed during the 2011 

assessment cycle as a part of a “traceability evaluation” project. 

We can also look at comparisons by industry sector. For example, the CENAM in Mexico must calibrate all 

volumetric standards used by the petroleum industry. In the 2006 report, 8,800 volumetric standards were calibrated 

by the States to support petroleum meter calibration. Very small fractions of that number are calibrated annually by 

NIST. The same kind of leveraging comparison can be made for other measurement areas. It would require a very 

significant expansion of NIST facilities, equipment, and staffing just to handle the number of standards calibrated by 

the State weights and measures laboratories. Also, the economic impact of cost and downtime to ship standards 

from all over the United States to NIST for calibration would be crippling to U.S. industry. 

The recognition of this evolving reality was the primary driving force behind the federal legislation enabling the 

“new State standards program” in the 1950’s. The State weights and measures laboratories established by that 

legislation have matured to the efficiently leveraged program documented in this and previous surveys. From this 

analysis, it is clear that the State weights and measures laboratories are an essential element of the U.S. National 

Measurement System. 

 

2010 SLP Survey v.1.00 August 17, 2011
SLP Survey 2010 - Page 12 of 122 

National Institute of Standards and Technology 

Weights & Measures Division 

(Information provided by NIST/WMD)

NIST Weights and Measures Division follows an operational plan as a part of its effort to comply with the Baldrige 

quality framework. There are four program areas in support of the State Laboratory Program (SLP). They are: 

1. Laboratory Recognition 

2. Metrology Training 

3. Proficiency Testing 

4. Development of Documentary Publications for Field Standards (105-x series NIST Handbooks) 

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

measurement infrastructure. State laboratories provide the foundation for over 350,000 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.) 

Program Measures: 

1. Number of laboratories Recognized by the Weights and Measures Division according to 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). 

Strategy: To operate a comprehensive system of laboratory program assessment, metrology training, proficiency 

testing, and technical development to increase and measure the knowledge, performance, and services of state 

metrology laboratories and demonstrate their impact. 

Based on the WMD efforts and measures, and to promote more effective synergy and awareness of program 

objectives, additional information is included in this SLP Workload Survey. The WMD measures include the 

following graphs: 

1. Map of laboratories Recognized by WMD. 

2. Map of laboratories accredited by NVLAP. 

3. Graph and Indices of Laboratory Scoring Model. 

4. Laboratory Metrology Training. 

5. Proficiency Testing (PT/ILC) Measures 

 

2010 SLP Survey v.1.00 August 17, 2011
NIST W

Certific

(as of M

Figure 2: U

Comments

Conditiona

limitations

Iowa 

Tennessee 

Not Recog

Arkansas 

Weights and

ates of Me

May 2011) 

US State Metro

s: 

al Recognition 

s): 

gnized: 

S

d Measure

easurement

ology Laborato

(primarily bas

SLP Survey 20

s Division

t Traceabil

ories, WMD Re

sed on facility 

010 - Page

lity 

ecognition Stat

Connecticut

Delaware [C

Colorado 

Massachuset

Nebraska 

Puerto Rico

Rhode Island

U.S. Virgin I

Washington 

e 13 of 122 

tus (2011) 

CLOSED] 

tts 

d [CLOSED] 

Islands 

D.C. [CLOSED] 

2010 SLP Survey v.1.00 August 17, 2011
Laborat

Figure 3: S

A laborato

a number o

143. The o

Points are 

• Quality M

• Administ

• Facility 

• Equipme

• Standard

• Staff 

• Managem

• Proficien

• Extra Cre

• Multiplie

Recognitio

recognition

0.5; Lab C

tory Scorin

State Laborato

ry scoring mod

of categories th

outline for the 

awarded in the

Management Sy

trative Procedu

nt 

s 

ment Support 

ncy Tests (PTs)

edit – Timely S

ers (NVLAP ac

on, 2.25; WMD

n, 1; No recogn

losed, 0) 

S

ng Model 

ory Scores & St

del was develo

hat correspond 

scoring model 

e following cat

ystem 

ures 

) 

Submissions 

ccreditation wit

D, 2 year recogn

nition, 

SLP Survey 20

tatus 2011

oped in 2006 an

to NIST Hand

is contained o

egories: 

th 2 year WMD

nition, 2; WMD

010 - Page

nd is based on 

dbook

on the following

D Recognition

D, 1 year recog

e 14 of 122 

assigning num

g pages. 

n, 2.5; NVLAP 

gnition, 1.5; W

merical values to

Accreditation 

MD, 1 year co

 each laborato

with 1 year W

onditional 

ory in 

WMD 

2010 SLP Survey v.1.00 August 17, 2011
SLP Survey 2010 - Page 15 of 122 

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 past 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. 

 

2010 SLP Survey v.1.00 August 17, 2011
Scoring M

Figure 4: L

Table 2: La

The WMD

identifying

failed to su

odel Trends 

Laboratory sco

Year

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

aboratory scor

D goal is to see 

g laboratories. 

ubmit evaluatio

S

oring model tre

ring model tren

the laboratory 

In the latest as

on packages, w

SLP Survey 20

ends. 

Median

97.5 

140 

172 

172 

168 

nds. 

scores increas

ssessment, we n

which reduces th

010 - Page

se. Note: At th

note that three 

he overall qual

e 16 of 122 

his time, specifi

 laboratories th

lity in the State

Mean

130 

140 

156 

156 

154 

fic coding is no

hat were previo

e laboratory sy

ot provided for 

ously Recogniz

ystem. 

ed 

2010 SLP Survey v.1.00 August 17, 2011
NIST N

Accredi

(as of M

Figure 5: U

Comments

There are 1

Arizona, C

Mexico, N

Oregon, Pe

There are 6

accreditatio

Hawaii, Ill

NVLAP 

itation Stat

May 2011) 

US State Metro

s:

19 laboratories

California, Flor

New York, Nort

ennsylvania, V

6 laboratories t

on: 

linois, Los Ang

S

tus 

ology Laborato

s currently accr

ida, Indiana, M

th Carolina, Oh

Virginia, and W

that have indic

geles County, S

SLP Survey 20

ories, NVLAP a

redited by NVL

Maine, Marylan

hio, Oklahoma

Washington 

ated plans to a

South Carolina

010 - Page

accreditation s

LAP: 

nd, Michigan, M

a, 

pply or have b

a, Texas, Wisco

e 17 of 122 

status (2011).

Minnesota, Ne

been encourage

onsin 

evada, New Ha

ed to apply for 

mpshire, New 

NVLAP 

2010 SLP Survey v.1.00 August 17, 2011
Metrolo

Figure 6: L

The trainin

numbers ar

1993. Nea

pharmaceu

similar to t

In addition

Regional M

for ongoing

laboratory 

the RMAP

A new cou

laboratorie

Program H

laboratory 

Recognitio

An effort i

Redesign W

models. T

possible. I

implement

ogy Trainin

Laboratory me

ng graph shows

re somewhat cy

arly half of all s

utical, defense, 

the non weight

n to training at 

Measurement A

g laboratory R

staff in functio

P training sessio

urse was added 

es in complying

Handbook). Th

quality/manag

on. 

s underway to 

Working Group

he goal is to pr

Input from past

t improvements

S

ng 

etrology trainin

s the number o

yclical, primar

students are fro

energy, biome

ts and measure

NIST in the Tr

Assurance Prog

Recognition and

onal laboratorie

ons is routinely

in 2008: Labo

g with the requ

he course is a o

gement and tech

evaluate the N

p is examining

rovide our train

t seminar atten

s to the training

SLP Survey 20

ng.

f metrologists 

rily because the

om State weigh

edical industrie

s calibration cu

raining and De

gram (RMAP) 

d participation 

es who are trai

y maintained at

oratory Admini

uirements of IS

ne-week work

hnical docume

NIST Laborator

g the training pr

ning in a forma

ndees, as well a

g offerings. 

010 - Page

and categories

e Advanced M

hts and measur

es and foreign g

ustomers of the

emonstration la

meetings in six

in the proficien

ined through th

t over 98 %. Th

istration Works

SO/IEC 17025 (

kshop with grou

entation and co

ry Metrology P

rogram from th

at that will pro

as working gro

e 18 of 122 

s of training at 

Mass course has 

res laboratories

governments. 

e State laborato

aboratory, NIST

x regional grou

ncy testing is r

he hands-on lab

he success goa

shop. The cou

(through Hand

up interactions

overs auditing a

Program trainin

he ‘ground up’

oduce the most 

oup input, will b

NIST since 19

 been taught ev

s. The rest are 

The mix of stu

ories. 

T also provide

ups where atten

required. The p

boratory course

al is 100 %. 

urse was design

dbook 143, Stat

s and working s

and submission

ng seminars. T

 using current 

competent lab

be considered 

990. The traini

very other year

from aerospac

udents is very 

s training at 

ndance is requi

percentage of S

es at NIST and

ned to assist 

te Laboratory 

sessions on 

n requirements

This SLP Train

instructional 

boratory metrol

as plans are m

ing 

r since 

e, 

ired 

State 

d in 

s for 

ning 

logists 

ade to 

2010 SLP Survey v.1.00 August 17, 2011
NIST bega

with comp

measureme

Proficie

Figure 7: P

Proficiency

Assurance 

since that t

began capt

allows NIS

laboratorie

effort and r

Further ass

in 2007 an

conducted 

were requi

2005 and 2

flasks were

gravimetric

A four-yea

circulated t

 Obt

 Obt

 Rev

 Tra

an offering We

liance to the IS

ent parameters

ency Testin

PT/ILC Succes

y testing and in

Program (RM

time. However

turing pass/fail

ST to evaluate t

es and to see im

resources in ad

sessments can b

d continued in 

and the data sh

red. In the are

2006 at the 5 ga

e included for g

c calibrations. 

ar assessment o

to all laborator

taining or calib

taining updated

vising uncertain

aining on probl

S

binars in 2009

SO/IEC 17025 

. These course

ng Measure

ss Rates

nterlaboratory 

MAP) regions si

r, measures for

l statistics for a

the effectivene

mprovements (o

dditional trainin

be observed ba

2008 at the 20

hows a decline

ea of volume, s

al level, reflect

gravimetric cal

of follow-up an

ries. The top 5

brating standard

d equipment or

nty analyses 

em areas and r

SLP Survey 20

 and has contin

criteria in the 

es are open to a

es 

comparisons (P

ince the early 1

r evaluating pr

all PT/ILC resu

ess of training e

or declines) ov

ng and followased on the dat

0 kg and 500 lb

e in performanc

pecial training

ting overall im

librations in 20

nd corrective ac

5 lab actions tha

ds 

r service for ex

review of proce

010 - Page

nued to refine t

WMD and NV

all interested p

PTs/ILCs) hav

1980’s. NIST h

oficiency testin

ults and compil

efforts and use

ver time. It also

-up efforts. 

ta. For exampl

b precision leve

ce, reflecting th

g efforts were c

mprovements in

008, demonstra

ctions was con

at were identif

xisting equipme

edures 

e 19 of 122 

the offering. W

VLAP Program

parties. 

ve been conduc

has captured th

ng results have

ling them by m

e of uniform ca

o provides info

le, in Mass, spe

els. These test

hat a number o

conducted on g

n the proficienc

ating the need f

nducted by NIS

fied from perio

ent

Webinar course

m Handbooks ra

cted in the Regi

he number and

e been modifie

measurement pa

alibration proce

ormation on wh

ecial proficienc

ts have not regu

of follow-up co

gravimetric vol

cy testing resul

for additional f

ST in 2007 with

odic reviews inc

es primarily de

ather than spec

ional Measurem

d types of PTs/I

d since 2006. 

arameter. This

edures among 

here to dedicat

cy tests were b

ularly been 

orrective action

ume calibratio

lts. However, g

follow up for a

h a summary re

cluded the nee

eal 

cific 

ment 

ILCs 

NIST 

s

te 

begun 

ns 

ons in 

glass 

all 

eport 

d for: 

2010 SLP Survey v.1.00 August 17, 2011
 Imp

Overall, ba

PTs/ILCs. 

In 2009, a 

again regar

Figure 8: C

plementing bet

ased on the fou

 The success g

follow up surv

rding correctiv

Corrective, Pre

S

tter measureme

ur-year assessm

goals are 100 %

vey was conduc

ve actions with 

eventative, and

SLP Survey 20

ent assurance m

ment in 2007, la

% passing rates

cted to assess c

the following 

d Improvement

010 - Page

methods 

aboratories com

 and 100 % co

customer feedb

results.

t actions taken 

e 20 of 122 

mpleted a total 

ompleted follow

back on the PT

in the past 3 y

of 245 follow

w-up when nee

T/ILC program.

years as a resul

-up actions fro

eded.

. Data was col

lt of PT/ILC rep

om 85 

llected 

eports.

2010 SLP Survey v.1.00 August 17, 2011
SLP Survey 2010 - Page 21 of 122 

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, 4 are not operational. The Washington DC, Delaware, U.S.-

Virgin Islands, and Rhode Island metrology laboratories were not operational during the 2010 reporting period of 

the survey. The Massachusetts, North Dakota, Nebraska, and Tennessee metrology laboratories did not participate 

this year. The North Dakota laboratory was open for a portion of the 2010 calendar year; It was, however, closed 

before survey data solicitation began in December of 2010. 

Notes and Comments 

47 metrology laboratories provided data for the 2010 State Program Workload Survey. 

Table 3 provides information regarding the participant laboratories including location, age1

, size, and aggregate 

number of customers served as of the 2010 calendar year. 

Table 4 indicates laboratory participation in workload surveys conducted from 1996 through 2010. 

Findings 

Size of Laboratory Facility: 

 Average 2950 ft 

 Maximum 12200 ft 

 Minimum 300 ft 

Age of Laboratory Facility 

 Average 26 years 

 Maximum 82 years 

 Minimum 1 years 

These laboratories reported serving 9,187 customers in 2010. 

 

1

 Laboratory age is not indicative of laboratory condition. Many facilities have been significantly renovated in 

recent years. 

2010 SLP Survey v.1.00 August 17, 2011
SLP Survey 2010 - Page 22 of 122 

Laboratory Name Address City State Zip Website 

Age of Lab (yrs) 

1 State of Alaska Metrology Laboratory 12050 Industry Way Bldg. O #6 Anchorage AK 99515 www.dot.state.ak.us 40 2 Alabama Weights & Measures Laboratory 1445 Federal Dr Montgomery AL 36109 www.agi.state.al.us 40 3 

Arizona Department of Weights and Measures Metrology Laboratory 

4425 W Olive Ave Ste 134 Glendale AZ 85302 www.azdwm.gov 11 

4 State of California 6790 Florin Perkins Road, Suite 100 Sacramento CA 95828 www.cdfa.ca.gov/dms/ 6 5 Colorado Metrology Laboratory 3125 Wyandot Street Denver CO 80211 www.colorado.gov 39 6 State of Connecticut, Metrology Laboratory 165 Capitol Avenue, Room G-15 and G-21 Hartford CT 06106 www.ct.gov/dcp 43 7 Hawaii Measurement Standards Lab 1851 Auiki St. Honolulu HI 96819 hawaii.gov/hdoa/qad/ms 10 8 Iowa Metrology Ellsworth Community College 1100 College Ave. Iowa Falls IA 50126 1 9 ISDA Metrology Lab 2216 Kellogg Ln. Boise ID 83712 www.agir.idaho.gov 41 10 State of Illinois - Department of Agriculture Metrolo 801 Sangamon Avenue East Springfield IL 62702 33 11 IN Weights and Measures Laboratory 2525 N Shadeland Ave #D3 Indianapolis IN 46219 www.in.gov/isdh/23288.htm 11 12 [state of] Kansas Metrology Laboratory BLDG 282, I Street, Forbers Field Topeka KS 66619 13 13 Kentucky Department of Agriculture 107 Corporate Dr Frankfort KY 40601 www.kyagr.com 10 14 Louisiana Metrology Laboratory PO Box 3098 Baton Rouge LA 70821 www.ldaf.state.la.us 22 

2010 SLP Survey v.1.00 August 17, 2011
SLP Survey 2010 - Page 23 of 122 

Laboratory Name Address City State Zip Website 

Age of Lab (yrs) 

15 County of Los Angeles 11012 Garfield Av Blldg A South Gate CA 90280 acwm.lacounty.gov 36 16 MD Weights and Measures 50 Harry S.Truman Parkway Annapolis MD 21401 www.mda.state.md.us 20 17 Maine Metrology Laboratory 333 Cony Road Augusta ME 04330 www.maine.gov/agriculture/qar/ metrology.html 34 18 State Of Michigan 940 Venture Lane Williamston MI 48895 www.michigan.gov/wminfo 13 19 Minnesota Metrology Laboratory 14305 Southcross Drive W #150 Burnsville MN 55306 4 20 Missouri Metrology Lab 1616 Missouri Blvd Jefferson City MO 65109 mda.mo.gov 21 21 Mississippi 1000 ASU Drive Lorman MS 39096 10 22 Montana Metrology Laboratory 2801 North Cooke Street Helena MT 59601 25 23 NCDA&CS Standards Laboratoy 4040 District Drive Raleigh NC 27607 www.ncstandards.org 26 24 New Hampshire Metrology Laboratory 25 Capitol St. Concord NH 03301 38 25 New Jersey Office of Weights and Measures 1261 Rts. 1&9 South Avenel NJ 07001 22 26 New Mexico 3190 South Espina Las Cruces NM 88003 37 27 Nevada Metrology Laboratory 2150 Frazier Avenue Sparks NV 89431 agri.nv.gov/ Measurement_MetrologyLab.htm 39 28 New York State Harriman Campus, Suite 122 Albany NY 12206 www.agmkt.state.ny.us 40 29 Ohio Dept. of Agriculture 8995 East Main Street Reynoldsburg OH 43068 www.ohioagriculture.gov 52 

2010 SLP Survey v.1.00 August 17, 2011
SLP Survey 2010 - Page 24 of 122 

Laboratory Name Address City State Zip Website 

Age of Lab (yrs) 

30 Oklahoma Bureau of Standards 2800 N. Lincoln Blvd. Oklahoma City OK 73105 www.oda.state.ok.us/lab/ 2 31 Oregon Dept. of Agriculture, MSD Metrology Laboratory 635 Capitol St NE Salem OR 97301 www.oregon.gov/ODA/MSD/ 12 32 Pennsylvania Standards Laboratory 2221 Forster Street, Room G-44A Harrisburg PA 17125 www.portal.state.pa.us 13 33 Laboratorio de Pesas y Medidas 722 Hoare St San Juan PR 00909 40 34 South Carolina Department of Agriculture 237 Catawba Street Columbia SC 29201 agriculture.sc.gov 24 35 South Dakota Metrology Lab Physical:1500 N Garfield, Mailing:118 W Captiol Pierre SD 57501 dps.sd.gov/licensing/weights_and_measures/ metrology_laboratory.aspx 25 36 Texas Department of Agriculture - Metrology Laboratory P.O. Box 1518 Giddings TX 78942 www.texasagriculture.gov 7 37 Utah Metrology Laboratory PO Box 146500, 350 North Redwood Road Salt Lake City UT 84114 ag.utah.gov 27 38 VT Agency of Agriculture Laboratory 103 South Main Waterbury VT 5671 21 39 Wisconsin Weights & Measures Laboratory 3601 Galleon Run Madison WI 53718 www.state.datcp.wi.us 4 40 WV Weights and Measures, State Measurement Laboratory 570 McCorkle Avenue St. Alban WV 25177 www.wvlabor.org 40 41 Wyoming Department of Agriculture 1510 Campstool Rd Cheyenne, WY 82002 wyagric.state.wy.us 23 42 Commonwealth of Virginia, Office of Weights and Measures 600 N. 5th Street, Room 162 Richmond VA 23219 www.vdacs.virginia.gov/standards/services 9 43 Georgia Weights & Measures Laboratory 16 Forest Parkway Forest Park GA 30297 agr.georgia.gov 41 44 Florida 3125 Conner Blvd, Lab 2 Tallahassee FL 32399 www.doac.state.fl.us 37 

2010 SLP Survey v.1.00 August 17, 2011
SLP Survey 2010 - Page 25 of 122 

Laboratory Name Address City State Zip Website 

Age of Lab (yrs) 

45 Arkansas Bureau of Standards 4608 West 61st Street Little Rock AR www.plantboard.arkansas.org 42 46 WA St. Dept. of Agriculture Metrology Laboratory 2747 29th Ave. SW Tumwater WA 98512 33 47 GIPSA Master Scale Depot USDA/FGIS 5800 W 69th ST Bedford Park IL 60638 82 

Table 3: Laboratory Facilities 2010 SLP Survey v.1.00 August 17, 2011
SLP Survey 2010 - Page 26 of 122 

Lab 

Code/Year 1996 1998 1999 2000 2002 2004 2005 2006 200

AK Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Ye

AL Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Ye

AR Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Ye

AZ Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Ye

CA Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes YeCO Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Ye

CT Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Ye

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

FL Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Ye

GA Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Ye

HI Yes Yes Yes (inactive) Yes Yes Yes Yes YeIA Yes Yes Yes (inactive) Yes Yes Yes YeID Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Ye

IL Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Ye

IN Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Ye

KS Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Ye

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

LA Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Ye

MA Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes YeMD Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Ye

ME Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Ye

MI Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Ye

MN Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes YeMO Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Ye

2010 SLP Survey v.1.00 August 17, 2011
SLP Survey 2010 - Page 27 of 122 

Lab 

Code/Year 1996 1998 1999 2000 2002 2004 2005 2006 200

MS Yes Yes (inactive) Yes Yes Yes Yes Ye

MT Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Ye

NC Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Ye

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

NE Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 

NH Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Ye

NJ Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Ye

NM Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Ye

NV Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes YeNY Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes YeOH Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes YeOK Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Ye

OR Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Ye

PA Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Ye

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

SC Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Ye

SD Yes Yes (inactive) Yes Yes Yes Ye

TN Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes (inactive) Yes Yes YeTX Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes YeUT Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Ye

VA Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Ye

VT Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Ye

WA Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Ye

WI Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Ye

2010 SLP Survey v.1.00 August 17, 2011
SLP Survey 2010 - Page 28 of 122 

Lab 

Code/Year 1996 1998 1999 2000 2002 2004 2005 2006 200

WV Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Ye

WY Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Ye

USDA-GIPSA Yes Yes Yes Yes Ye

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

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

Puerto Rico Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Ye

LA County Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes (inactive) (inactive) (inactive) Ye

TOTAL 51 46 45 45 48 47 46 49 50 

Table 4: Listing of SLP member laboratories and their participation status in previous surveys. 2010 SLP Survey v.1.00 August 17, 2011
SLP Survey 2010 - Page 29 of 122 

Mass 

Mass weighing procedures are broken into several categories for the purpose of this report. They are echelon I, 

echelon II, echelon III, and Weight Carts. 

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

the NIST SEMATECH Engineering Statistics Handbook (4) and NIST Technical Note 952 (5), are solved using a 

numerical least squares approximation, and employ an air buoyancy correction (6). These calibrations are typically 

associated with, but not limited to high tolerance class weights such as ASTM E617 Class 0 or OIML E1. Masscode 

(7) 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. They 

typically involve redundant weighings in order to reduce measurement uncertainty to a suitable level. Unlike 

Echelon I, conventional mass corrections (6) 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 IR 6969 (8), SOP 

4 and SOP 7 (8). 

Echelon III weighing procedures are essentially everything else with the exception of tests done on weight carts. A 

typical echelon III procedure is SOP 8 found in NIST IR 6969 (8). Most mass standards tested in SLP metrology lab 

fall into this category (91%)2

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 

(9) are typically tested using echelon III procedures; They are, however, treated separately herein as they are distinct 

from field test weights. 

 

2

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

2010 SLP Survey v.1.00 August 17, 2011
SLP Survey 2010 - Page 30 of 122 

Mass Echelon I 

Description 

The graphs on the following page represent the total number of Mass Echelon I standards tested by the 47 reporting 

laboratories. The map graph gives a geographical distribution of these standards. 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 47 reporting laboratories, 19 labs tested a total of 2,309 mass standards 

Comparison of previous surveys 

Year # Labs 

Total 

Devices 

1998 10 2667 

1999 15 5985 

2000 16 5227 

2002 15 5288 

2004 14 3707 

2005 14 3103 

2006 14 3025 

2008 17 2216 

2010 19 2309 

Table 5: 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 

 62 % of all Mass I standards were calibrated for internal use by the laboratory. 

 4 % of all Mass I standards were calibrated for the weight and measures program. 

 34 % of all Mass I standards were calibrated for external customers. 

2010 SLP Survey v.1.00 August 17, 2011
SLP Survey 2010 - Page 31 of 122 

AK 0 MI 88

AL 0 MN 308

AR 0 MO 0

AZ 0 MS 0

CA 0 MT 0

CO 0 NC 229

CT 0 ND No Data

DA 0 NE No Data

DE Closed NH 104

FL 0 NJ 0

GA 0 NM 89

HI 134 NV 5

IA 0 NY 78

ID 0 OH 0

IL 156 OK 220

IN 40 OR 247

KS 29 PA 0

KY 0 PR 67

LAC 10 RI Closed

LA 0 SC 72

MA No Data SD 0

MD 25 TN No Data

ME 211 TX 0

UT 0

VA 0

VT 0

WA 197

WI 0

WV 0

WY 0

Puerto Rico

Los Angeles County

Hawaii

USDA‐GIPSA

308

247

229

220

211

197

156

134

104

89

88

78

72

67

40

29

25

10

5

0000000000000000000000000000000000

0

30

60

90

120

150

180

210

240

270

300

330

360

MN OR NC OK ME WA IL HI NH NM MI NY SC PR IN KS MD LAC NV AK AL AR AZ CA CO CT DA DE FL GA IA ID KY LA MA MO MS MT ND NE NJ OH PA RI SD TN TX UT VA VT WI WV WY

Lab ID

Lab, 1424, 62%

W & M, 93, 4%

External, 792, 34%

Mass Echelon I

2309 devices (2010)

calibrated in 19 labs

1424 Labortory Support

93 W&M Program Support

792 For external customers

Legend

0

26

58

90

122

154

186

218

250

282

314

No Data

Closed

Figure 9: Mass Echelon I tests.

Laboratory

Weights and Measures

External

Bar and pie chart color codes

2010 SLP Survey v.1.00 August 17, 2011
SLP Survey 2010 - Page 32 of 122 

Mass Echelon II 

Description 

The graphs on the following page represent the total number of Mass Echelon II standards tested by the 47 reporting 

laboratories. The map graph gives a geographical distribution of these standards. 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 47 reporting laboratories, 34 labs tested a total of 23,316 mass standards 

Comparison of previous surveys 

Year # Labs 

Total 

Devices 

1996 38 37662 

1998 36 24926 

1999 35 25807 

2000 38 26428 

2002 37 25847 

2004 32 21714 

2005 32 20541 

2006 33 22352 

2008 32 25371 

2010 34 23318 

Table 6: Echelon II tests reported on previous surveys. 

Results for Mass I cannot be compared to the 1996 survey. The 1996 survey did not use Echelon II as a category. It 

used ‘Precision Mass’ as the category that included both Echelon I and Echelon II calibrations. 

Notes and Comments 

 9 % of all Mass II standards were calibrated for internal use by the laboratory. 

 9 % of all Mass II standards were calibrated for the weight and measures program. 

 82 % of all Mass II standards were calibrated for external customers. 

2010 SLP Survey v.1.00 August 17, 2011
SLP Survey 2010 - Page 33 of 122 

AK 24 MI 1847

AL 0 MN 378

AR 0 MO 451

AZ 1315 MS 0

CA 263 MT 9

CO 997 NC 1950

CT 0 ND No Data

DA 0 NE No Data

DE Closed NH 941

FL 414 NJ 291

GA 378 NM 1050

HI 94 NV 324

IA 0 NY 1988

ID 197 OH 863

IL 76 OK 2144

IN 672 OR 115

KS 333 PA 1139

KY 0 PR 630

LAC 3 RI Closed

LA 0 SC 2442

MA No Data SD 0

MD 14 TN No Data

ME 1478 TX 160

UT 0

VA 145

VT 0

WA 67

WI 124

WV 0

WY 0

Puerto Rico

Los Angeles County

Hawaii

USDA‐GIPSA

2442

2144

1988

1950

1847

1478

1315

1139

1050

997

941

863

672

630

451

414

378378

333

324

291

263

197

160

145

124

115

94

76

67

24

14

9

3

0000000000000000000

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

2200

2400

2600

2800

SC OK NY NC MI ME AZ PA NM CO NH OH IN PR MO FL GA MN KS NV NJ CA ID TX VA WI OR HI IL WA AK MD MT LAC AL AR CT DA DE IA KY LA MA MS ND NE RI SD TN UT VT WV WY

Lab ID

Lab, 2149, 9%

W & M, 1982, 9%

External, 19185,

82%

Mass Echelon II

23316 devices (2010)

calibrated in 34 labs

2149 Labortory Support

1982 W&M Program Support

19185 For external customers

Legend

0

204

458

712

967

1221

1475

1730

1984

2239

2493

No Data

Closed

Figure 10: Mass Echelon II tests.

Laboratory

Weights and Measures

External

Bar and pie chart color codes

2010 SLP Survey v.1.00 August 17, 2011
SLP Survey 2010 - Page 34 of 122 

Mass Echelon III 

Description 

The graphs on the following page represent the total number of Mass Echelon III standards tested by the 47 

reporting laboratories. The map graph gives a geographical distribution of these standards. 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 47 reporting laboratories, 47 labs tested a total of 256,094 mass standards 

Comparison of previous surveys 

Year # Labs 

Total 

Devices 

1996 51 259713 

1998 46 259166 

1999 45 257938 

2000 45 260072 

2002 47 267240 

2004 47 248117 

2005 46 248650 

2006 49 256844 

2008 50 254221 

2010 47 256094 

Table 7: Echelon III tests reported on previous surveys. 

Notes and Comments 

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

 25 % of all Mass III standards were calibrated for the weight and measures program. 

 71 % of all Mass III standards were calibrated for external customers. 

2010 SLP Survey v.1.00 August 17, 2011
SLP Survey 2010 - Page 35 of 122 

AK 1099 MI 5323

AL 8846 MN 12842

AR 1039 MO 7307

AZ 6501 MS 3780

CA 4939 MT 1558

CO 4741 NC 20356

CT 621 ND No Data

DA 28 NE No Data

DE Closed NH 2370

FL 8100 NJ 4447

GA 8443 NM 4799

HI 1456 NV 1569

IA 1315 NY 4272

ID 1948 OH 12506

IL 5003 OK 9253

IN 7016 OR 2457

KS 8746 PA 19203

KY 1407 PR 1252

LAC 683 RI Closed

LA 3948 SC 8214

MA No Data SD 2730

MD 5257 TN No Data

ME 2083 TX 19538

UT 1782

VA 7728

VT 1640

WA 2698

WI 8394

WV 6151

WY 706

Puerto Rico

Los Angeles County

Hawaii

USDA‐GIPSA

20356

19538

19203

12842

12506

9253

8846

8746

8443

8394

8214

8100

7728

7307

7016

6501

6151

5323

5257

5003

4939

4799

4741

4447

4272

3948

3780

2730

2698

2457

2370

2083

1948

1782

1640

1569

1558

1456

1407

1315

1252

1099

1039

706

683

621

28

000000

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

18000

20000

22000

24000

NC TX PA MN OH OK AL KS GA WI SC FL VA MO IN AZ WV MI MD IL CA NM CO NJ NY LA MS SD WA OR NH ME ID UT VT NV MT HI KY IA PR AK AR WY LAC CT DA DE MA ND NE RI TN

Lab ID

Lab, 3338, 1%

W & M, 63322,

25%

External, 189464,

74%

Mass Echelon III

256094 devices (2010)

calibrated in 47 labs

3338 Labortory Support

63322 W&M Program Support

189464 For external customers

Legend

0

1696

3817

5937

8058

10178

12298

14419

16539

18660

20780

No Data

Closed

Figure 11: Mass Echelon III tests.

Laboratory

Weights and Measures

External

Bar and pie chart color codes

2010 SLP Survey v.1.00 August 17, 2011
SLP Survey 2010 - Page 36 of 122 

Weight Carts 

Description 

The graphs on the following page represent the total number of weight carts tested by the 47 reporting laboratories. 

The map graph gives a geographical distribution of these standards. 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 47 reporting laboratories, 35 labs tested a total of 468 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 

Table 8: Weight Cart tests reported on previous surveys. 

Notes and Comments 

 7 % of all weight carts were calibrated for internal use by the laboratory. 

 26 % of all weight carts were calibrated for the weight and measures program. 

 72 % of all weight carts were calibrated for external customers. 

2010 SLP Survey v.1.00 August 17, 2011
SLP Survey 2010 - Page 37 of 122 

AK 3 MI 7

AL 11 MN 39

AR 0 MO 10

AZ 12 MS 10

CA 0 MT 17

CO 18 NC 14

CT 0 ND No Data

DA 5 NE No Data

DE Closed NH 0

FL 11 NJ 2

GA 21 NM 8

HI 0 NV 0

IA 0 NY 8

ID 17 OH 37

IL 18 OK 0

IN 12 OR 15

KS 11 PA 37

KY 0 PR 2

LAC 2 RI Closed

LA 0 SC 12

MA No Data SD 15

MD 6 TN No Data

ME 4 TX 15

UT 0

VA 19

VT 0

WA 3

WI 21

WV 22

WY 4

Puerto Rico

Los Angeles County

Hawaii

USDA‐GIPSA

39

3737

22

2121

19

1818

1717

151515

14

121212

111111

1010

88

7

6

5

44

33

222

000000000000000000

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

34

36

38

40

42

MN OH PA WV GA WI VA CO IL ID MT OR SD TX NC AZ IN SC AL FL KS MO MS NM NY MI MD DA ME WY AK WA LAC NJ PR AR CA CT DE HI IA KY LA MA ND NE NH NV OK RI TN UT VT

Lab ID

Lab, 7, 2%

W & M, 124, 26%

External, 337, 72%

Weight Carts

468 devices (2010)

calibrated in 35 labs

7 Labortory Support

124 W&M Program Support

337 For external customers

Legend

0

3

7

11

15

20

24

28

32

36

40

No Data

Closed

Figure 12: Weight Cart tests. 

Laboratory

Weights and Measures

External

Bar and pie chart color codes

2010 SLP Survey v.1.00 August 17, 2011
SLP Survey 2010 - Page 38 of 122 

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 (for example see SOP No. 10 in National Bureau 

of Standards (NBS) Handbook 145) 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 (for example see SOP No. 12 in National 

Bureau of Standards (NBS) Handbook 145) the other a direct comparison of a surveyor tape to a fixed length bench 

calibrated at 1 ft intervals out to 16 ft (for example see SOP No. 11 in National Bureau of Standards (NBS) 

Handbook 145). 

2010 SLP Survey v.1.00 August 17, 2011
SLP Survey 2010 - Page 39 of 122 

Steel Tape Measures 

Description 

The graphs on the following page represent the total number of tape measures tested by the 47 reporting 

laboratories. The map graph gives a geographical distribution of these standards. 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 47 reporting laboratories, 15 labs tested a total of 310 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 

Table 9: Tape measure tests reported on previous surveys. 

Notes and Comments 

 4 % of all tape measures were tested for internal use by the laboratory. 

 59 % of all tape measures were tested for the weight and measures program. 

 37 % of all tape measures were tested for external customers.

2010 SLP Survey v.1.00 August 17, 2011
SLP Survey 2010 - Page 40 of 122 

\

AK 0 MI 17

AL 0 MN 2

AR 0 MO 0

AZ 0 MS 0

CA 18 MT 0

CO 27 NC 1

CT 0 ND No Data

DA 0 NE No Data

DE Closed NH 0

FL 0 NJ 46

GA 4 NM 7

HI 0 NV 0

IA 0 NY 21

ID 0 OH 30

IL 0 OK 0

IN 4 OR 0

KS 0 PA 109

KY 0 PR 20

LAC 0 RI Closed

LA 0 SC 1

MA No Data SD 0

MD 0 TN No Data

ME 3 TX 0

UT 0

VA 0

VT 0

WA 0

WI 0

WV 0

WY 0

Puerto Rico

Los Angeles County

Hawaii

USDA‐GIPSA

109

46

30

27

21

20

18

17

7

44

3

2

11

00000000000000000000000000000000000000

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

PA NJ OH CO NY PR CA MI NM GA IN ME MN NC SC AK AL AR AZ CT DA DE FL HI IA ID IL KS KY LA LAC MA MD MO MS MT ND NE NH NV OK OR RI SD TN TX UT VA VT WA WI WV WY

Lab ID

Lab, 11, 4%

W & M, 184, 59%

External, 115, 37%

Tapes

310 devices (2010)

calibrated in 15 labs

11 Labortory Support

184 W&M Program Support

115 For external customers

Legend

0

9

20

32

43

55

66

77

89

100

111

No Data

Closed

Figure 13: Tape Measure tests. 

Laboratory

Weights and Measures

External

Bar and pie chart color codes

2010 SLP Survey v.1.00 August 17, 2011
SLP Survey 2010 - Page 41 of 122 

Rigid Rules 

Description 

The graphs on the following page represent the total number of rigid rules tested by the 47 reporting laboratories. 

The map graph gives a geographical distribution of these standards. 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 47 reporting laboratories, 8 labs tested a total of 89 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 

Table 10: Rigid rule tests reported in previous surveys. 

Notes and Comments 

 0 % of all rigid rules were tested for internal use by the laboratory. 

 47 % of all rigid rules were tested for the weight and measures program. 

 53 % of all rigid rules were tested for external customers.

2010 SLP Survey v.1.00 August 17, 2011
SLP Survey 2010 - Page 42 of 122 

AK 0 MI 0

AL 0 MN 0

AR 0 MO 0

AZ 0 MS 0

CA 0 MT 0

CO 0 NC 2

CT 0 ND No Data

DA 0 NE No Data

DE Closed NH 0

FL 0 NJ 27

GA 2 NM 0

HI 0 NV 0

IA 0 NY 23

ID 0 OH 28

IL 0 OK 0

IN 0 OR 0

KS 0 PA 0

KY 0 PR 2

LAC 0 RI Closed

LA 0 SC 5

MA No Data SD 0

MD 0 TN No Data

ME 0 TX 0

UT 0

VA 0

VT 0

WA 0

WI 0

WV 0

WY 0

Puerto Rico

Los Angeles County

Hawaii

USDA‐GIPSA

28

27

23

5

222

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

0

3

6

9

12

15

18

21

24

27

30

33

OH NJ NY SC GA NC PR AK AL AR AZ CA CO CT DA DE FL HI IA ID IL IN KS KY LA LAC MA MD ME MI MN MO MS MT ND NE NH NM NV OK OR PA RI SD TN TX UT VA VT WA WI WV WY

Lab ID

Lab, 0, 0%

W & M, 42, 47%

External, 47, 53%

Rigid Rules

89 devices (2010)

calibrated in 7 labs

0 Labortory Support

42 W&M Program Support

47 For external customers

Legend

0

2

5

8

11

14

17

20

23

26

29

No Data

Closed

Figure 14: Rigid rule tests.

Laboratory

Weights and Measures

External

Bar and pie chart color codes

2010 SLP Survey v.1.00 August 17, 2011
SLP Survey 2010 - Page 43 of 122 

Volume 

Of the measurement services provided by the SLP volume measurement service are the 2nd most common next to 

mass measurement. Volume measurement is broken down into distinct categories based on the class of device 

tested. They are glassware, volume test measures (≤ 5 gallons), medium volume provers (>5 gallons and ≤ 100 

gallons), and large volume provers (> 100 gallons). 

Glassware consists of laboratory glassware (see for example ASTM E288 (10)), field measuring flasks (as described 

in NIST Handbook 105-2 (11)). Steel graduated neck test measures are described in NIST Handbook 105-3 and in 

American Petroleum Institute’s Manual of Petroleum Measurement Standards (Chapter 4) (12). These are normally 

the steel 5 gallon capacity test measures used to test motor fuel dispensers at the retail level. Steel graduated neck 

provers are generally distinguished from test measures by their bottom drain design. Test measures are emptied by 

lifting and pouring; Provers are usually mounted and drained through a butterfly valve at the bottom of the device. 

Since provers do not require lifting, these are the only devices manufactured in suitable sizes for testing high volume 

meters. Liquified Petroleum Gas (LPG) Provers are described in HIST Handbook 105-4 and are separated as a 

distinct class of devices as they are pressure vessels. LPG is liquid at ambient temperatures only at elevated 

pressures (typical LPG provers incorporate a pressure gauge reading up to 200 psi). Dynamic small volume provers 

are described in NIST Handbook 105-7. Slicker plate standards may also be included in these sections but they are 

not explicitly broken out into a separate category. These devices 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. It is not useful for testing liquid meters as 

it is designed to dispense a fixed amount of liquid when the bottom valve is opened and the slicker plate is removed. 

Volume tests are further subdivided into two measurement categories. Volume standards are calibrated by 

transferring a known quantity of liquid (usually clean water) into them (See SOP’s 16, 18, and 19 of NIST Internal 

Report 7383). Alternatively the volume standard may be tested by filling it with a well characterized liquid 

(typically distilled water) and weighed (See SOPs 13 and 14 of NIST Internal Report 7383). The testing of LPG 

provers is covered under a separate volume transfer procedure because of the need to pressurize the vessel during 

calibration (see SOP 21 of NIST Internal Report 7383). 

2010 SLP Survey v.1.00 August 17, 2011
SLP Survey 2010 - Page 44 of 122 

Glassware 

Description 

The graphs on the next two pages represent the total number of volume tests performed on glassware by the 47 

reporting laboratories using either a volume transfer (page 45) or gravimetric method (page 46). Each map graph 

gives a geographical distribution of these standards. There are pie graphs located on each 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 47 reporting laboratories, 4 labs performed a total of 43 volume transfer tests. 

 Of the 47 reporting laboratories, 12 labs performed a total of 288 gravimetric volume tests. 

Comparison of previous surveys 

Year # Labs 

Volume Transfer Gravimetric 

Total 

1996 29 1205 

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 

Table 11: Glassware calibrations from previous surveys.

Notes and Comments 

 12% of all glassware standards were tested for the laboratory 

 71% of all glassware standards were tested for Weights and Measures enforcement programs. 

 16% of all glassware standards were tested for external customers. 

2010 SLP Survey v.1.00 August 17, 2011
SLP Survey 2010 - Page 45 of 122 

Volume Transfer 

AK 0 MI 0

AL 0 MN 0

AR 0 MO 0

AZ 0 MS 0

CA 0 MT 0

CO 1 NC 0

CT 0 ND No Data

DA 0 NE No Data

DE Closed NH 0

FL 0 NJ 22

GA 0 NM 9

HI 0 NV 0

IA 0 NY 0

ID 0 OH 0

IL 0 OK 0

IN 0 OR 0

KS 0 PA 0

KY 0 PR 11

LAC 0 RI Closed

LA 0 SC 0

MA No Data SD 0

MD 0 TN No Data

ME 0 TX 0

UT 0

VA 0

VT 0

WA 0

WI 0

WV 0

WY 0

Puerto Rico

Los Angeles County

Hawaii

USDA‐GIPSA

22

11

9

1

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

NJ PR NM CO AK AL AR AZ CA CT DA DE FL GA HI IA ID IL IN KS KY LA LAC MA MD ME MI MN MO MS MT NC ND NE NH NV NY OH OK OR PA RI SC SD TN TX UT VA VT WA WI WV WY

Lab ID

Lab, 14, 33%

W & M, 20, 46%

External, 9, 21%

Volume - Glassware

43 devices (2010)

calibrated in 4 labs

14 Labortory Support

20 W&M Program Support

9 For external customers

Legend

0

2

4

6

9

11

13

16

18

20

22

No Data

Closed

Figure 15: Glassware calibrations, volume transfer method

2010 SLP Survey v.1.00 August 17, 2011
SLP Survey 2010 - Page 46 of 122 

Gravimetric 

\

AK 0 MI 6

AL 0 MN 7

AR 0 MO 1

AZ 0 MS 0

CA 0 MT 0

CO 0 NC 0

CT 0 ND No Data

DA 0 NE No Data

DE Closed NH 0

FL 0 NJ 0

GA 0 NM 0

HI 10 NV 8

IA 0 NY 0

ID 0 OH 210

IL 0 OK 28

IN 0 OR 0

KS 0 PA 0

KY 0 PR 5

LAC 2 RI Closed

LA 0 SC 0

MA No Data SD 0

MD 0 TN No Data

ME 2 TX 5

UT 0

VA 0

VT 0

WA 4

WI 0

WV 0

WY 0

Puerto Rico

Los Angeles County

Hawaii

USDA‐GIPSA

210

28

10

8

7

6

55

4

22

1

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

220

240

OH OK HI NV MN MI PR TX WA LAC ME MO AK AL AR AZ CA CO CT DA DE FL GA IA ID IL IN KS KY LA MA MD MS MT NC ND NE NH NJ NM NY OR PA RI SC SD TN UT VA VT WI WV WY

Lab ID

Lab, 27, 9%

W & M, 216, 75%

External, 45, 16%

Volume - Glassware

288 devices (2010)

calibrated in 12 labs

27 Labortory Support

216 W&M Program Support

45 For external customers

Legend

0

18

39

61

83

105

127

149

171

193

214

No Data

Closed

Figure 16: Glassware calibrations, gravimetric method. 

Laboratory

Weights and Measures

External

Bar and pie chart color codes

2010 SLP Survey v.1.00 August 17, 2011
SLP Survey 2010 - Page 47 of 122 

Test Measures (≤5 gallon) 

Description 

The graphs on the next two pages represent the total number of volume tests performed on metal volume test 

measures3

 by the 47 reporting laboratories using either a volume transfer (page 48) or gravimetric method (page 49). 

Each map graph gives a geographical distribution of these standards. There are pie graphs located on each 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 47 reporting laboratories, 45 labs performed a total of 8216 volume transfer tests. 

 Of the 47 reporting laboratories, 16 labs performed a total of 73 gravimetric volume tests. 

Comparison of previous surveys 

Year # Labs 

Volume Transfer

Gravimetric 

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 8009 73 8082 

Table 12: Test Measure (5 ≤ gal.) volume tests from previous surveys. 

Notes and Comments 

 8% of all test measures were tested for the laboratory 

 31% of all test measures were tested for Weights and Measures enforcement programs. 

 60% of all test measures were tested for external customers. 

 

3

 This includes small bottom drain provers and laboratory slicker plate standards falling in this range of volumes. 

2010 SLP Survey v.1.00 August 17, 2011
SLP Survey 2010 - Page 48 of 122 

Volume Transfer 

AK 30 MI 164

AL 232 MN 278

AR 102 MO 200

AZ 240 MS 170

CA 118 MT 66

CO 71 NC 485

CT 51 ND No Data

DA 0 NE No Data

DE Closed NH 104

FL 680 NJ 166

GA 14 NM 157

HI 40 NV 97

IA 27 NY 168

ID 40 OH 201

IL 128 OK 131

IN 123 OR 76

KS 107 PA 559

KY 111 PR 36

LAC 24 RI Closed

LA 238 SC 70

MA No Data SD 48

MD 88 TN No Data

ME 86 TX 1788

UT 49

VA 173

VT 0

WA 62

WI 269

WV 111

WY 38

Puerto Rico

Los Angeles County

Hawaii

USDA‐GIPSA

1788

680

559

485

278

269

240

238

232

201

200

173

170

168

166

164

157

131

128

123

118

111111

107

104

102

97

88

86

76

71

70

66

62

51

49

48

4040

38

36

30

27

24

14

00000000

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

TX FL PA NC MN WI AZ LA AL OH MO VA MS NY NJ MI NM OK IL IN CA KY WV KS NH AR NV MD ME OR CO SC MT WA CT UT SD HI ID WY PR AK IA LAC GA DA DE MA ND NE RI TN VT

Lab ID

Lab, 655, 8%

W & M, 2584, 31%

External, 4977,

61%

Volume Test Measures (≤5 gallon)

8216 devices (2010)

calibrated in 45 labs

655 Labortory Support

2584 W&M Program Support

4977 For external customers

Legend

0

149

335

522

708

894

1080

1267

1453

1639

1825

No Data

Closed

Figure 17: Test Measure tests (≤5 gallon), volume transfer. 

Laboratory

Weights and Measures

External

Bar and pie chart color codes

2010 SLP Survey v.1.00 August 17, 2011
SLP Survey 2010 - Page 52 of 122 

Gravimetric 

\

AK 0 MI 2

AL 0 MN 2

AR 0 MO 0

AZ 4 MS 0

CA 0 MT 0

CO 0 NC 5

CT 0 ND No Data

DA 0 NE No Data

DE Closed NH 0

FL 0 NJ 0

GA 0 NM 0

HI 1 NV 0

IA 0 NY 6

ID 0 OH 0

IL 0 OK 4

IN 0 OR 0

KS 0 PA 1

KY 0 PR 0

LAC 0 RI Closed

LA 0 SC 0

MA No Data SD 0

MD 0 TN No Data

ME 24 TX 0

UT 0

VA 0

VT 0

WA 0

WI 0

WV 0

WY 0

Puerto Rico

Los Angeles County

Hawaii

USDA‐GIPSA

24

6

5

44

22

11

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

ME NY NC AZ OK MI MN HI PA AK AL AR CA CO CT DA DE FL GA IA ID IL IN KS KY LA LAC MA MD MO MS MT ND NE NH NJ NM NV OH OR PR RI SC SD TN TX UT VA VT WA WI WV WY

Lab ID

Lab, 17, 35%

W & M, 6, 12%

External, 26, 53%

Volume Provers ( >5 gallon and ≤100 gallon)

49 devices (2010)

calibrated in 9 labs

17 Labortory Support

6 W&M Program Support

26 For external customers

Legend

0

2

5

7

10

12

15

17

20

22

25

No Data

Closed

Figure 20: Prover (≥5 gal. and < 100 gal.) tests, gravimetric

Laboratory

Weights and Measures

External

Bar and pie chart color codes

2010 SLP Survey v.1.00 August 17, 2011
SLP Survey 2010 - Page 50 of 122 

Provers (> 5 gallon and ≤ 100 gallon) 

Description 

The graphs on the next two pages represent the total number of volume tests performed on medium sized metal 

volume provers by the 47 reporting laboratories using either a volume transfer (page 51) or gravimetric method (52). 

The individual map graphs give a geographical distribution of these standards. There are pie graphs located on each 

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 47 reporting laboratories, 41 labs performed a total of 711 volume transfer tests. 

 Of the 47 reporting laboratories, 9 labs performed a total of 49 gravimetric volume tests. 

Comparison of previous surveys 

Year # Labs 

Volume Transfer

Gravimetric 

Total 

2005 726 47 773 

2006 760 81 841 

2008 737 46 783 

2010 41 711 49 760 

Table 13: Provers (>5 gal. and ≤ 100 gal.) volume tests from previous surveys. 

Notes and Comments 

 6% of all provers (>5 gal. and ≤ 100 gal.) were tested for the laboratory 

 34% of all provers (>5 gal. and ≤ 100 gal.) were tested for Weights and Measures enforcement programs. 

 60% of all provers (>5 gal. and ≤ 100 gal.) were tested for external customers. 

2010 SLP Survey v.1.00 August 17, 2011
SLP Survey 2010 - Page 51 of 122 

Volume Transfer 

AK 17 MI 38

AL 32 MN 51

AR 0 MO 20

AZ 13 MS 7

CA 44 MT 22

CO 4 NC 22

CT 3 ND No Data

DA 0 NE No Data

DE Closed NH 0

FL 24 NJ 37

GA 12 NM 26

HI 4 NV 6

IA 1 NY 24

ID 4 OH 33

IL 31 OK 8

IN 8 OR 5

KS 16 PA 63

KY 5 PR 14

LAC 8 RI Closed

LA 0 SC 1

MA No Data SD 0

MD 3 TN No Data

ME 3 TX 34

UT 6

VA 0

VT 6

WA 6

WI 30

WV 14

WY 6

Puerto Rico

Los Angeles County

Hawaii

USDA‐GIPSA

63

51

44

38

37

34

33

32

31

30

26

2424

2222

20

17

16

1414

13

12

888

7

66666

55

444

333

11

000000000000

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

PA MN CA MI NJ TX OH AL IL WI NM FL NY MT NC MO AK KS PR WV AZ GA IN LAC OK MS NV UT VT WA WY KY OR CO HI ID CT MD ME IA SC AR DA DE LA MA ND NE NH RI SD TN VA

Lab ID

Lab, 32, 5%

W & M, 250, 35%

External, 429, 60%

Volume Provers ( >5 gallon and ≤100 gallon)

711 devices (2010)

calibrated in 41 labs

32 Labortory Support

250 W&M Program Support

429 For external customers

Legend

0

5

12

18

25

32

38

45

51

58

64

No Data

Closed

Figure 19: Prover (≥5 gal. and < 100 gal.) tests, volume transfer.

Laboratory

Weights and Measures

External

Bar and pie chart color codes

2010 SLP Survey v.1.00 August 17, 2011
SLP Survey 2010 - Page 52 of 122 

Gravimetric 

\

AK 0 MI 2

AL 0 MN 2

AR 0 MO 0

AZ 4 MS 0

CA 0 MT 0

CO 0 NC 5

CT 0 ND No Data

DA 0 NE No Data

DE Closed NH 0

FL 0 NJ 0

GA 0 NM 0

HI 1 NV 0

IA 0 NY 6

ID 0 OH 0

IL 0 OK 4

IN 0 OR 0

KS 0 PA 1

KY 0 PR 0

LAC 0 RI Closed

LA 0 SC 0

MA No Data SD 0

MD 0 TN No Data

ME 24 TX 0

UT 0

VA 0

VT 0

WA 0

WI 0

WV 0

WY 0

Puerto Rico

Los Angeles County

Hawaii

USDA‐GIPSA

24

6

5

44

22

11

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

ME NY NC AZ OK MI MN HI PA AK AL AR CA CO CT DA DE FL GA IA ID IL IN KS KY LA LAC MA MD MO MS MT ND NE NH NJ NM NV OH OR PR RI SC SD TN TX UT VA VT WA WI WV WY

Lab ID

Lab, 17, 35%

W & M, 6, 12%

External, 26, 53%

Volume Provers ( >5 gallon and ≤100 gallon)

49 devices (2010)

calibrated in 9 labs

17 Labortory Support

6 W&M Program Support

26 For external customers

Legend

0

2

5

7

10

12

15

17

20

22

25

No Data

Closed

Figure 20: Prover (≥5 gal. and < 100 gal.) tests, gravimetric

Laboratory

Weights and Measures

External

Bar and pie chart color codes

2010 SLP Survey v.1.00 August 17, 2011
SLP Survey 2010 - Page 53 of 122 

Provers (> 100 gallon) 

Description 

The graphs on page 54 represent the total number of volume tests performed on large metal volume provers by the 

47 reporting laboratories using either a volume transfer or gravimetric method. The map graph gives a geographical 

distribution of these standards. There are pie graphs located on the map for each individual lab and a larger pie graph 

that reflects overall 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 47 reporting laboratories, 33 labs performed a total of 287 volume transfer tests. 

 Of the 47 reporting laboratories, 0 labs performed gravimetric volume tests. 

Comparison of previous surveys 

Year # Labs 

Volume Transfer

Gravimetric 

Total 

2005 201 1 202 

2006 202 0 202 

2008 34 284 0 284 

2010 33 287 0 287 

Table 14: Provers (> 100 gal.) tests from previous surveys. 

Notes and Comments 

 3% of all provers (> 100 gal.) were tested for the laboratory 

 29% of all provers (> 100 gal.) were tested for Weights and Measures enforcement programs. 

 68% of all provers (> 100 gal.) were tested for external customers. 

2010 SLP Survey v.1.00 August 17, 2011
SLP Survey 2010 - Page 54 of 122 

Volume Transfer 

AK 11 MI 16

AL 12 MN 22

AR 0 MO 3

AZ 1 MS 0

CA 5 MT 2

CO 0 NC 5

CT 3 ND No Data

DA 0 NE No Data

DE Closed NH 0

FL 27 NJ 20

GA 1 NM 7

HI 4 NV 0

IA 0 NY 18

ID 5 OH 3

IL 21 OK 1

IN 0 OR 4

KS 4 PA 20

KY 0 PR 12

LAC 4 RI Closed

LA 0 SC 2

MA No Data SD 0

MD 16 TN No Data

ME 7 TX 15

UT 1

VA 0

VT 0

WA 6

WI 7

WV 2

WY 0

Puerto Rico

Los Angeles County

Hawaii

USDA‐GIPSA

27

22

21

2020

18

1616

15

1212

11

777

6

555

4444

333

222

1111

00000000000000000000

0

3

6

9

12

15

18

21

24

27

30

FL MN IL NJ PA NY MD MI TX AL PR AK ME NM WI WA CA ID NC HI KS LAC OR CT MO OH MT SC WV AZ GA OK UT AR CO DA DE IA IN KY LA MA MS ND NE NH NV RI SD TN VA VT WY

Lab ID

Lab, 10, 3%

W & M, 83, 29%

External, 194, 68%

Volume Provers (>100 gallon)

287 devices (2010)

calibrated in 33 labs

10 Labortory Support

83 W&M Program Support

194 For external customers

Legend

0

2

5

8

11

14

16

19

22

25

28

No Data

Closed

Figure 21: Prover (≥100 gal.) tests, volume transfer

Laboratory

Weights and Measures

External

Bar and pie chart color codes

2010 SLP Survey v.1.00 August 17, 2011
SLP Survey 2010 - Page 55 of 122 

Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) Provers 

Description 

The graph on page 56 represent the total number of volume tests performed on LPG provers by the 47 reporting 

laboratories using either a volume transfer or gravimetric method. The map graph gives a geographical distribution 

of these standards. There are pie graphs located on the map for each individual lab and a larger pie graph that 

reflects overall 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 47 reporting laboratories, 27 labs performed a total of 304 volume transfer tests. 

 Of the 47 reporting laboratories, 0 labs performed gravimetric volume tests. 

Comparison of previous surveys 

Year # Labs 

Volume Transfer

Gravimetric 

Total 

2005 226 0 226 

2006 239 0 239 

2008 27 249 0 249 

2010 33 304 0 304 

Table 15: LPG Prover volume tests from previous surveys. 

Notes and Comments 

 0% of all LPG provers were tested for the laboratory 

 33% of all LPG provers were tested for Weights and Measures enforcement programs. 

 67% of all LPG provers were tested for external customers. 

2010 SLP Survey v.1.00 August 17, 2011
SLP Survey 2010 - Page 56 of 122 

Volume Transfer 

AK 0 MI 7

AL 0 MN 25

AR 0 MO 16

AZ 2 MS 0

CA 20 MT 11

CO 5 NC 8

CT 0 ND No Data

DA 0 NE No Data

DE Closed NH 0

FL 8 NJ 24

GA 15 NM 7

HI 0 NV 8

IA 0 NY 1

ID 2 OH 9

IL 21 OK 0

IN 2 OR 0

KS 4 PA 0

KY 0 PR 0

LAC 0 RI Closed

LA 0 SC 1

MA No Data SD 0

MD 0 TN No Data

ME 3 TX 17

UT 0

VA 0

VT 67

WA 2

WI 8

WV 7

WY 4

Puerto Rico

Los Angeles County

Hawaii

USDA‐GIPSA

67

25

24

21

20

17

16

15

11

9

8888

777

5

44

3

2222

11

00000000000000000000000000

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

VT MN NJ IL CA TX MO GA MT OH FL NC NV WI MI NM WV CO KS WY ME AZ ID IN WA NY SC AK AL AR CT DA DE HI IA KY LA LAC MA MD MS ND NE NH OK OR PA PR RI SD TN UT VA

Lab ID

Lab, 1, 0%

W & M, 99, 33%

External, 204, 67%

Volume LPG

304 devices (2010)

calibrated in 27 labs

1 Labortory Support

99 W&M Program Support

204 For external customers

Legend

0

6

13

20

27

34

40

47

54

61

68

No Data

Closed

Figure 22: LPG Prover tests,volume transfer

Laboratory

Weights and Measures

External

Bar and pie chart color codes

2010 SLP Survey v.1.00 August 17, 2011
SLP Survey 2010 - Page 57 of 122 

Dynamic Small Volume Provers (SVP) 

Findings 

This section covers the testing of dynamic small volume provers either by gravimetric or volume transfer procedure. 

No graphs were generated due to the limited number of laboratories performing these calibrations. In 2010, only 2 

of the 47 reporting laboratories performed 30 gravimetric calibrations of dynamic small volume provers. 100% of 

these calibrations were performed for external clients. No volume transfer tests were reported. 

Year 

# Labs Gravimetric Volume Transfer 

Total 

2005 11 0 11 

2006 20 0 20 

2008 3 16 11 27 [MI,NC,VT] 

2010 3 30 0 30 [MI,NC] 

Table 16: SVP tests from previous surveys. 

 

2010 SLP Survey v.1.00 August 17, 2011
SLP Survey 2010 - Page 58 of 122 

Temperature 

Description 

The graphs on the following page represent the total number of temperature standards tested by the 47 reporting 

laboratories. The map graph gives a geographical distribution of these standards. 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 47 reporting laboratories, 11 labs tested a total of 465 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 

Table 17: Temperature standard tests from previous surveys.

Notes and Comments 

 14 % of all temperature standards were tested for internal use by the laboratory. 

 27 % of all temperature standards were tested for the weight and measures program. 

 59 % of all temperature standards were tested for external customers.

2010 SLP Survey v.1.00 August 17, 2011
SLP Survey 2010 - Page 59 of 122 

AK 0 MI 13

AL 0 MN 6

AR 0 MO 0

AZ 0 MS 0

CA 118 MT 0

CO 0 NC 288

CT 0 ND No Data

DA 0 NE No Data

DE Closed NH 0

FL 0 NJ 0

GA 0 NM 5

HI 0 NV 0

IA 0 NY 8

ID 0 OH 0

IL 0 OK 0

IN 1 OR 3

KS 0 PA 0

KY 0 PR 0

LAC 0 RI Closed

LA 0 SC 0

MA No Data SD 0

MD 6 TN No Data

ME 10 TX 0

UT 0

VA 0

VT 7

WA 0

WI 0

WV 0

WY 0

Puerto Rico

Los Angeles County

Hawaii

USDA‐GIPSA

288

118

13

10

8

7

66

5

3

1

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

0

30

60

90

120

150

180

210

240

270

300

330

NC CA MI ME NY VT MD MN NM OR IN AK AL AR AZ CO CT DA DE FL GA HI IA ID IL KS KY LA LAC MA MO MS MT ND NE NH NJ NV OH OK PA PR RI SC SD TN TX UT VA WA WI WV WY

Lab ID

Lab, 64, 14%

W & M, 126, 27%

External, 275, 59%

Temperature

465 devices (2010)

calibrated in 11 labs

64 Labortory Support

126 W&M Program Support

275 For external customers

Legend

0

24

54

84

114

144

174

204

234

264

294

No Data

Closed

Figure 23: Temperature standard tests. 

Laboratory

Weights and Measures

External

Bar and pie chart color codes

2010 SLP Survey v.1.00 August 17, 2011
SLP Survey 2010 - Page 60 of 122 

Frequency 

Description 

The graphs on the following page represent the total number of frequency standards tested by the 47 reporting 

laboratories. The map graph gives a geographical distribution of these standards. 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 47 reporting laboratories, 4 labs tested a total of 17,580 frequency standards 

Comparison of previous surveys 

Year # Labs 

Total 

Devices 

1996 6 12518 

1998 4 11561 

1999 5 13518 

2000 7 14670 

2002 6 13785 

2004 3 14772 

2005 4 15162 

2006 4 14832 

2008 4 15058 

2010 4 17580 

Table 18 Frequency standard tests from previous surveys. 

Notes and Comments 

 2 % 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. 

 98 % of all frequency standards were tested for external customers.

2010 SLP Survey v.1.00 August 17, 2011
SLP Survey 2010 - Page 61 of 122 

AK 1235 MI 0

AL 0 MN 0

AR 0 MO 0

AZ 0 MS 0

CA 0 MT 0

CO 3248 NC 0

CT 0 ND No Data

DA 0 NE No Data

DE Closed NH 0

FL 0 NJ 9127

GA 0 NM 0

HI 0 NV 0

IA 0 NY 0

ID 0 OH 0

IL 0 OK 0

IN 0 OR 0

KS 0 PA 0

KY 0 PR 0

LAC 0 RI Closed

LA 0 SC 0

MA No Data SD 0

MD 0 TN No Data

ME 0 TX 0

UT 0

VA 3970

VT 0

WA 0

WI 0

WV 0

WY 0

Puerto Rico

Los Angeles County

Hawaii

USDA‐GIPSA

9127

3970

3248

1235

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

11000

NJ VA CO AK AL AR AZ CA CT DA DE FL GA HI IA ID IL IN KS KY LA LAC MA MD ME MI MN MO MS MT NC ND NE NH NM NV NY OH OK OR PA PR RI SC SD TN TX UT VT WA WI WV WY

Lab ID

Lab, 278, 2% W & M, 0, 0%

External, 17302,

98%

Frequency

17580 devices (2010)

calibrated in 4 labs

278 Labortory Support

0 W&M Program Support

17302 For external customers

Legend

0

761

1711

2662

3613

4564

5514

6465

7416

8366

9317

No Data

Closed

Figure 24 Frequency standard tests

Laboratory

Weights and Measures

External

Bar and pie chart color codes

2010 SLP Survey v.1.00 August 17, 2011
SLP Survey 2010 - Page 62 of 122 

Timing Devices 

Description 

The graphs on the following page represent the total number of timing devices tested by the 47 reporting 

laboratories. The map graph gives a geographical distribution of these standards. 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 47 reporting laboratories, 9 labs tested a total of 339 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 

Table 19: Timing devices tests from previous surveys 

Notes and Comments 

 4 % of all timing devices were tested for internal use by the laboratory. 

 48 % of all timing devices were tested for the weight and measures program. 

 48 % of all timing devices were tested for external customers.

2010 SLP Survey v.1.00 August 17, 2011
SLP Survey 2010 - Page 63 of 122 

AK 0 MI 0

AL 0 MN 0

AR 0 MO 0

AZ 0 MS 0

CA 23 MT 0

CO 2 NC 0

CT 0 ND No Data

DA 0 NE No Data

DE Closed NH 0

FL 0 NJ 28

GA 0 NM 0

HI 0 NV 0

IA 0 NY 21

ID 0 OH 45

IL 0 OK 0

IN 3 OR 0

KS 0 PA 206

KY 0 PR 0

LAC 0 RI Closed

LA 0 SC 0

MA No Data SD 0

MD 8 TN No Data

ME 0 TX 0

UT 0

VA 0

VT 0

WA 3

WI 0

WV 0

WY 0

Puerto Rico

Los Angeles County

Hawaii

USDA‐GIPSA

206

45

28

23

21

8

33

2

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

220

240

PA OH NJ CA NY MD IN WA CO AK AL AR AZ CT DA DE FL GA HI IA ID IL KS KY LA LAC MA ME MI MN MO MS MT NC ND NE NH NM NV OK OR PR RI SC SD TN TX UT VA VT WI WV WY

Lab ID

Lab, 14, 4%

W & M, 161, 48%

External, 164, 48%

Timing Devices

339 devices (2010)

calibrated in 9 labs

14 Labortory Support

161 W&M Program Support

164 For external customers

Legend

0

17

39

60

82

103

124

146

167

189

210

No Data

Closed

Figure 25 Timing device tests

Laboratory

Weights and Measures

External

Bar and pie chart color codes

2010 SLP Survey v.1.00 August 17, 2011
SLP Survey 2010 - Page 64 of 122 

Wheel Load Weighers 

Description 

The graphs on the following page represent the total number of wheel load weighers tested by the 47 reporting 

laboratories. The map graph gives a geographical distribution of these standards. 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 47 reporting laboratories, 20 labs tested a total of 10815 wheel load weighers. 

Comparison of previous surveys 

Year # Labs 

Total 

Devices 

1998 19 12178 

1999 20 12781 

2000 22 13699 

2002 23 10350 

2004 21 10884 

2005 19 9748 

2006 20 10567 

2008 22 10191 

2010 20 10815 

Table 20: Wheel load weigher tests from previous surveys 

Notes and Comments 

 2 % of all wheel load weighers were tested for internal use by the laboratory. 

 4 % of all wheel load weighers were tested for the weight and measures program. 

 94 % of all wheel load weighers were tested for external customers.

2010 SLP Survey v.1.00 August 17, 2011
SLP Survey 2010 - Page 65 of 122 

AK 145 MI 702

AL 452 MN 92

AR 0 MO 0

AZ 0 MS 0

CA 0 MT 0

CO 0 NC 0

CT 154 ND No Data

DA 0 NE No Data

DE Closed NH 0

FL 0 NJ 424

GA 0 NM 0

HI 0 NV 64

IA 0 NY 1263

ID 7 OH 1500

IL 0 OK 0

IN 344 OR 292

KS 0 PA 3926

KY 0 PR 3

LAC 0 RI Closed

LA 0 SC 597

MA No Data SD 0

MD 0 TN No Data

ME 248 TX 0

UT 193

VA 0

VT 200

WA 0

WI 185

WV 0

WY 24

Puerto Rico

Los Angeles County

Hawaii

USDA‐GIPSA

3926

1500

1263

702

597

452

424

344

292

248

200

193

185

154

145

92

64

24

7

3

000000000000000000000000000000000

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

PA OH NY MI SC AL NJ IN OR ME VT UT WI CT AK MN NV WY ID PR AR AZ CA CO DA DE FL GA HI IA IL KS KY LA LAC MA MD MO MS MT NC ND NE NH NM OK RI SD TN TX VA WA WV

Lab ID

Lab, 245, 2% W & M, 452, 4%

External, 10118,

94%

Wheel Load Weighers

10815 devices (2010)

calibrated in 20 labs

245 Labortory Support

452 W&M Program Support

10118 For external customers

Legend

0

327

736

1145

1554

1963

2372

2781

3190

3599

4008

No Data

Closed

Figure 26: Wheel load weigher tests 

Laboratory

Weights and Measures

External

Bar and pie chart color codes

2010 SLP Survey v.1.00 August 17, 2011
SLP Survey 2010 - Page 66 of 122 

Lottery Balls 

Description 

The graphs on the following page represent the total number of lottery balls tested by the 47 reporting laboratories. 

A lottery ball test may involve checking it for size, weight, or both. The map graph gives a geographical distribution 

of these standards. 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 47 reporting laboratories, 8 labs tested a total of 46,515 lottery balls 

Comparison of previous surveys 

Year # Labs 

Total 

Devices 

1999 9 19982 

2000 13 24702 

2002 11 35818 

2004 11 40939 

2005 9 47920 

2006 9 41068 

2008 10 42553 

2010 8 46515 

Table 21: Lottery balls tests from previous surveys 

Notes and Comments 

 0 % of all lottery balls were tested for internal use by the laboratory. 

 0 % of all lottery balls were tested for the weight and measures program. 

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

The Puerto Rico metrology laboratory performed 30,200 tests on lottery balls (65% of the 

national total). 

2010 SLP Survey v.1.00 August 17, 2011
SLP Survey 2010 - Page 67 of 122 

AK 0 MI 0

AL 0 MN 0

AR 0 MO 0

AZ 0 MS 0

CA 0 MT 0

CO 0 NC 1372

CT 0 ND No Data

DA 0 NE No Data

DE Closed NH 0

FL 0 NJ 2760

GA 2620 NM 0

HI 0 NV 0

IA 0 NY 5937

ID 0 OH 0

IL 0 OK 0

IN 0 OR 0

KS 0 PA 1703

KY 0 PR 30200

LAC 0 RI Closed

LA 0 SC 0

MA No Data SD 0

MD 0 TN No Data

ME 0 TX 1453

UT 0

VA 0

VT 0

WA 0

WI 0

WV 470

WY 0

Puerto Rico

Los Angeles County

Hawaii

USDA‐GIPSA

30200

5937

2760

2620

1703

1453

1372

470

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

0

3000

6000

9000

12000

15000

18000

21000

24000

27000

30000

33000

36000

PR NY NJ GA PA TX NC WV AK AL AR AZ CA CO CT DA DE FL HI IA ID IL IN KS KY LA LAC MA MD ME MI MN MO MS MT ND NE NH NM NV OH OK OR RI SC SD TN UT VA VT WA WI WY

Lab ID

Lab, 12, 0% W & M, 0, 0%

External, 46503,

100%

Lottery Balls

46515 devices (2010)

calibrated in 8 labs

12 Labortory Support

0 W&M Program Support

46503 For external customers

Legend

0

495

1113

1732

2350

2969

3587

4205

4824

5442

6061

No Data

Closed

Figure 27 Lottery Ball tests

Laboratory

Weights and Measures

External

Bar and pie chart color codes

2010 SLP Survey v.1.00 August 17, 2011
SLP Survey 2010 - Page 68 of 122 

Summary Other Tests 

The category of “Other Tests” was for tests performed by the metrology laboratory that did not fit into any of the 

listed categories in the survey. This list is probably incomplete as it was left up to each laboratory to determine 

which tests were worth reporting. 

“Other Test” – ID Lab ID Tests 

Air Quality Filters ME 2450 

Digital Calipers PR 23 

Fish Measures ME 32 

Grain Moisture Tests CO,WI 163 

Hydrometers VT 6660 

Laser Distance Devices NJ 122 

Master Meters AZ,ME 45 

Package Checking Scales OH,WI 95 

Police Drag Sled NH 1 

Police Lidar Units AK 79 

Police Radar Units AK 626 

Rail Road Test Cars WY,DA,MN,MO 43 

Rail Road Weight Carts MN 4 

Scales, Balances, and Load Cells NJ,PR,NC,CT,MN 140 

Trigger-Pull Gauges PR 21 

Watt Hour Meters CA 10 

Table 22: Other tests reported by the participating laboratories 

2010 SLP Survey v.1.00 August 17, 2011
SLP Survey 2010 - Page 69 of 122 

Laboratory Fees (2010) 

Description 

This information is provided as guidance for labs attempting to adjust fees for measurement services and to potential 

clients whom use the member laboratories services. Data from prior SLP Workload Surveys are included where 

similarity between individual historical survey questions and those found in this survey regarding fees charged are 

sufficiently similar. 

The SLP laboratories often, if not always, charge a fee for routine calibration work; They may provide an hourly rate 

and bill real time, they may provide an hourly rate and bill based on the typical time to complete a calibration, they 

may charged a fixed fee for routine work, etc. SLP laboratories may charge additional fees for cleaning, repair, 

adjusting, packaging, etc which are outside of that required by normal well cared for measurement standards. 

In some previous surveys a lab’s fee schedule or its hourly rate was used to calculate fees charged for certain routine 

work. Significant problems arise, however, when using hourly rates as the survey analysts were not able to 

accurately estimate fees without additional data on each laboratory’s equipment, policies, and procedures. The time 

it takes, for example, to calibrate a particular widget will vary significantly between laboratories because of 

differences in the available weight handling and measurement equipment. Both the number of employees and their 

experience varies significantly among the laboratories and may significantly impact the time required to complete a 

calibration. In some cases there are significant variations in how calibration time is tracked and billed; One lab, for 

example, may track the total time required to log in, unpack, collect data, adjust, prepare a certificate, re-pack, and 

log out an item while another state may only track the actual time required to complete the test. The estimation of 

fees based on hourly rate alone was thus abandoned in favor of requesting typical fees charged for specific routine 

services performed. 

We asked each lab, in the more recent surveys, to quote the typical fee that they would charge for the various routine 

measurements instead of relying 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 

laboratories4

. 

Additional Notes: 

We noted that some laboratories quoted fees for services which do not appear on either their NVLAP Scope of 

Accreditation (13) or their NIST/WMD Certificate of Measurement Traceability (3). We have not made an attempt 

to verify each laboratory’s status as a part of this survey. Please check with each laboratory individually to discuss 

your measurement needs before contracting services. 

Only those labs responding to this section of the survey are represented. Labs providing a blanket per hour service 

fee are not included, nor are any labs which 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. 

In 2008 it was reported that Hawaii and Wyoming did not charge calibration fees. Both of these labs reported 

charging calibration fees in 2010 and provided the requested quotes for routine calibration services. 

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: 

 

 

4

 Actual fees may differ from those indicated for a variety of reasons including but not limited to the number of 

required adjustments and the condition of the equipment under test. 

2010 SLP Survey v.1.00 August 17, 2011
SLP Survey 2010 - Page 70 of 122 

GA Out of state customers are charged double if they have an operating NIST

traceable lab with a current unconditional certificate.

NC (No comments provided)

OK The prices for out of state customer is twice the normal fee charged to

customers that live or do business within the borders of the state of

Oklahoma.  This is to offset the time and resources that will be taken away

from performing calibrations for in state  

VT $60/hour for out of state. $45/hour for in state servicemen

WY Out of state customers are charged double the amount for in state customers

Table 23: SLP member laboratories charging additional fees to out-of-state customers. 

2010 SLP Survey v.1.00 August 17, 2011
SLP Survey 2010 - Page 71 of 122 

Mass Echelon I 

Description 

Each laboratory was asked to estimate the fee charged for testing a precision weight kit containing 21 pieces from 

100g to 1mg to ASTM Class 0 tolerances using echelon I procedures. 

Comparison of Previous Surveys 

Survey

Labs Reporting Mass

Echelon I Average Fee %Change

2004 15 $617.87 ‐‐ 

2006 16 $758.75 +23%

2008 14 $700.07  ‐8%

2010 15 $780.83 +10%

Table 24: Average fee charged for echelon I mass testing from 2004 through 2010. 

Figure 28: 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. 

 $1,522.50 $1,312.50 $1,260.00 $840.00

$775.00

$735.00

$714.00

$700.00

$675.00

$630.00

$600.00

$525.00

$493.50

$480.00

$450.00

$0.00

$200.00

$400.00

$600.00

$800.00

$1,000.00

$1,200.00

$1,400.00

$1,600.00

$1,800.00

MI OR OK IN IL NH HI MN CO NC NV MD SC ME PR

Lab Code

Mass Echelon I

{ASTM Class 0, 100g‐1mg}

21 Individual Weights

2010 SLP Survey v.1.00 August 17, 2011
SLP Survey 2010 - Page 72 of 122 

Mass Echelon II 

Description 

Each laboratory was asked to estimate the fee charged for testing a precision weight kit containing 21 pieces from 

100g to 1mg to ASTM Class 2 tolerances using echelon II procedures. 

Comparison of Previous Surveys 

Survey

Labs Reporting Mass

Echelon II 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%

Table 25: Average fee charged for echelon II mass testing from 2000 through 2010. 

Figure 29: 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. $1,200.00 $1,112.50$913.50 $775.00 $675.00 $630.00 $630.00 $592.20 $575.00 $535.50 $525.00 $525.00 $504.00 $490.00 $455.00 $450.00 $440.00

$420.00$420.00$420.00$420.00

$378.00

$375.00

$320.00$320.00$320.00

$300.00

$210.00$210.00

$0.00

$200.00

$400.00

$600.00

$800.00

$1,000.00

$1,200.00

$1,400.00

CA

OR

MI

IL

CO

GA

PA

FL

KS

HI

MD

VA

NMMN

NH

PR

AZ

NC

NJ

NY

OK

SC

CT

ME

NV

OH

MO

ID

IN

Lab Code

Mass Echelon II

{ASTM Class 2, 100g ‐ 1mg}

21 Individual Weights

2010 SLP Survey v.1.00 August 17, 2011
SLP Survey 2010 - Page 73 of 122 

Mass Echelon III 

Description 

Each laboratory was asked to estimate the fee charged for testing a 31 lb weight kit containing 22 pieces according 

to NIST Class F (10) tolerances using echelon III procedures. 

Comparison of Previous Surveys 

Survey

Labs Reporting Mass

Echelon III 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%

Table 26 Average fee charged for echelon III mass testing from 2000 through 2010. 

Figure 30: Fees charged for testing a 31 lb weight kit containing 22 pieces to NIST HB 105-1 Class F tolerances 

(10) using mass echelon III procedures. $720.00 $440.00 $390.00 $375.00 $374.00 $319.00 $310.00 $300.00 $300.00 $300.00 $244.20

$220.00

$165.00

$160.00

$154.00$154.00$154.00

$150.00

$144.00

$132.00$132.00

$124.00

$121.00

$120.00

$110.00$110.00$110.00$110.00$110.00$110.00

$100.00

$85.00

$77.00

$75.00

$70.00

$60.00$60.00

$45.00

$44.00

$42.90

$30.00

$0.00

$100.00

$200.00

$300.00

$400.00

$500.00

$600.00

$700.00

$800.00

LAC

NJ

CO

PR

HI

MI

IL

AK

CA

OR

IA

TX

AZ

NV

AR

OK

MN

CT

SD

NM

PA

MD

GA

OH

AL

ID

KY

MS

NC

NH

ME

NY

SC

MT

VA

KS

MO

VT

LA

FL

IN

Lab Code

Mass Echelon III

{Class F, 31 lb weight set}

22 Individual Weights

2010 SLP Survey v.1.00 August 17, 2011
SLP Survey 2010 - Page 74 of 122 

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 (9) using echelon III procedures. 

Comparison of Previous Surveys 

Survey

Labs Reporting Weight

Carts Average Fee %Change

2004 28 $163.27 ‐‐ 

2006 31 $205.74 +23%

2008 31 $185.80 +28%

2010 34 $225.09 +21%

Table 27: Average fee charged for a 5,000 lb weight cart testing from 2004 through 2010. 

Figure 31: Fees charged for testing a 5,000lb weight cart according to NIST HB 105-8 (9) tolerances using mass 

echelon III procedures. $1,000.00 $700.00 $465.00 $406.00

$373.10

$369.25

$300.00

$250.00$250.00

$240.00

$225.00$225.00$225.00

$210.00

$202.50

$200.00$200.00

$196.00

$144.00

$140.00

$134.00

$127.00

$125.00$125.00

$120.00$120.00

$110.00

$100.00$100.00

$85.00

$80.00

$56.25

$30.00

$20.00

$0.00

$200.00

$400.00

$600.00

$800.00

$1,000.00

$1,200.00

FL

PR

IL

MI

WI

WA

CT

DA

OK

OH

CO

LAC

NY

PA

SC

ME

OR

MN

SD

MD

KS

VA

NC

WV

MO

NM

AZ

MS

WY

ID

TX

MT

AL

IN

Lab Code

Mass Echelon III

5,000 lb Weight Cart

2010 SLP Survey v.1.00 August 17, 2011
SLP Survey 2010 - Page 75 of 122 

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 class F cast cube weights requiring 5 adjustments, 20 50 lb 

class F pipe-handle weights requiring 5 adjustments, and 2 31 lb weight kits containing 22 pieces each. Echelon III 

mass calibration procedures were requested for all measurements. 

Comparison of Previous Surveys 

Survey

Labs Reporting Scale

Trucks 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%

Table 28: Average fee charged for typical scale truck testing from 2004 through 2010. 

Figure 32: Fees charged for testing a typical scale truck according mass echelon III procedures. $6,318.00 $3,090.00 $2,895.00 $2,800.00 $2,669.20 $2,640.00 $2,472.00 $2,062.50 $1,945.00 $1,941.50 $1,803.20 $1,800.00 $1,640.00 $1,612.50 $1,594.00 $1,533.00 $1,395.00 $1,392.00 $1,340.00 $1,318.75 $1,310.00 $1,280.00 $1,275.00 $1,160.00 $1,094.00 $1,080.00 $1,050.00 $1,050.00 $990.00 $897.00 $888.75 $812.00 $788.00 $740.00 $740.00 $720.00 $668.00

$660.00

$619.20

$468.00

$447.50

$401.40

$360.00

$290.00

$0.00

$500.00

$1,000.00

$1,500.00

$2,000.00

$2,500.00

$3,000.00

$3,500.00

$4,000.00

$4,500.00

$5,000.00

$5,500.00

$6,000.00

$6,500.00

$7,000.00

LAC

CA

CO

AK

IA

NJ

HI

MT

KY

MI

WI

TX

NV

OR

MN

MD

IL

NM

WY

WA

NY

OK

PR

CT

PA

AR

MS

NC

AZ

ID

VA

WV

LAAL

ME

OH

SC

DA

SD

IN

KS

FL

MO

VT

Lab Code

Mass Echelon III

{Scale Truck Class F}

2010 SLP Survey v.1.00 August 17, 2011
SLP Survey 2010 - Page 76 of 122 

Length 100 ft Steel Tape 

Description 

Each laboratory was asked to estimate the fee charged for 19 point testing of a 100 ft tape. Measurement points 

were requested at 1 ft intervals up to and including 10 ft then at 10 ft intervals up to and including 100 ft. It was left 

up to each lab to decide how best to test the steel tape, only the fee charged is reported here. 

Comparison of Previous Surveys 

Survey 

Labs Reporting 100 ft 

Tapes 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% 

Table 29: Average fee charged for typical 19 point testing of a 100 ft steel tape from 2000 through 2010. 

Figure 33: Fees charged for testing a steel 100 ft tape. $400.00 $300.00 $300.00 $300.00 $285.00 $285.00 $285.00

$285.00

$230.00

$217.00

$200.00

$150.00

$148.50

$145.00

$140.00

$76.00

$0.00

$100.00

$200.00

$300.00

$400.00

$500.00

OH CA CO PR HI MD OK PA NC MI ME CT SC NY NJ IN

Lab Code

Length

100 ft Tape

{19 points tested}

2010 SLP Survey v.1.00 August 17, 2011
SLP Survey 2010 - Page 77 of 122 

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 (14) tolerances using a volume transfer calibration technique (for example SOP No. 18 in ref. 

(12)). 

Comparison of Previous Surveys 

Survey

Labs Reporting 5 gallon

volume transfer fees 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%

Table 30: Average fee charged for testing of a 5 gallon field test measure via volume transfer from 2000 through 

2010. 

Figure 34: Fees charged for testing a 5 gallon field standard steel prover via volume transfer technique. $270.00 $155.00 $150.00 $150.00 $150.00 $128.10 $120.00 $116.05 $101.00 $80.00 $80.00 $80.00 $75.00 $75.00 $75.00 $70.00 $60.00 $55.00 $54.50 $50.00 $45.00 $45.00 $45.00 $40.00 $40.00 $40.00 $40.00 $40.00 $35.00 $35.00 $30.00 $30.00 $30.00 $30.00 $30.00 $25.50 $25.00 $25.00 $25.00 $20.00

$20.00$20.00

$15.00

$10.00

$0.00

$50.00

$100.00

$150.00

$200.00

$250.00

$300.00

LAC

IL

CA

CO

OR

WI

SD

WA

MI

HI

NV

OH

CT

MT

PR

MN

MO

AZ

IA

AK

NH

PA

VT

AR

ME

MS

OK

TX

KS

NM

ALLA

MD

NC

NJ

SC

FL

ID

WY

KY

VA

WV

NY

IN

Lab Code

Volume Transfer

5 Gallon Test Measure

2010 SLP Survey v.1.00 August 17, 2011
SLP Survey 2010 - Page 78 of 122 

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 using a gravimetric measurement technique. 

Comparison of Previous Surveys 

Survey

Labs Reporting 5 gallon

gravimetric calibration

fees Average Fee %Change

2006 20 $177.95 ‐‐ 

2008 17 $173.65 +23%

2010 21 $209.25 +21%

Table 31: Average fee charged for testing of a 5 gallon field test measure via gravimetric method from 2000 through 

2010. 

Figure 35 Fees charged for gravimetrically testing a 5 gallon field test measure. $440.00 $420.00 $300.00 $300.00 $290.00 $270.00 $250.00 $240.00 $237.38 $200.00 $180.00 $160.00 $160.00 $160.00

$160.00

$150.00$150.00

$112.00

$100.00

$60.00

$55.00

$0.00

$200.00

$400.00

$600.00

AZ MN CA CO MI LAC OR NV WA OK PA HI ME NH OH CT PR MD ID NC NY

Lab Code

Volume Gravimetric

5 Gallon Test Measure

2010 SLP Survey v.1.00 August 17, 2011
SLP Survey 2010 - Page 79 of 122 

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 using a volume transfer calibration technique. 

Comparison of Previous Surveys 

Survey

Labs Reporting 100

gallon volume transfer

fees 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%

Table 32: Average fee charged for testing of a 100 gallon field standard prover via volume transfer from 2000 

through 2010. 

Figure 36: Fees charged for testing a 100 gallon field standard prover via volume transfer technique. $720.00$600.00 $450.00 $387.50 $362.00 $320.00 $320.00 $320.00 $304.50 $300.00 $300.00 $253.20 $247.10 $225.00 $220.00 $200.00 $200.00 $200.00 $200.00 $180.00 $175.00 $168.00 $160.00 $150.00 $150.00 $150.00 $150.00 $125.00 $111.25 $110.00 $100.00 $90.00 $87.50 $75.00

$68.00

$65.00

$56.70

$50.00

$0.00

$100.00

$200.00

$300.00

$400.00

$500.00

$600.00

$700.00

$800.00

LAC

CO

CA

IL

MI

HI

NV

OH

IA

CT

OR

WA

WI

PR

AZ

ID

NJ

OK

WY

MO

AK

MN

MEMT

NM

PA

WV

KS

MS

MD

IN

NY

TX

AL

NC

SC

FL

KY

Lab Code

Volume Transfer

100 Gallon Prover

2010 SLP Survey v.1.00 August 17, 2011
SLP Survey 2010 - Page 80 of 122 

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 using a gravimetric calibration technique. 

Comparison of Previous Surveys 

Survey

Labs Reporting 100

gallon gravimetric fees Average Fee %Change

2006 4 $265.00 +5%

2008 7 $434.29 +64%

2010 7 $597.14 +37%

Table 33: Average fee charged for testing of a 100 gallon field test standard prover via gravimetric method from 

2006 through 2010. 

Figure 37: Fees charged for gravimetrically testing a 100 gallon field standard steel prover. $1,200.00$980.00 $660.00 $600.00 $250.00 $250.00

$240.00

$0.00

$200.00

$400.00

$600.00

$800.00

$1,000.00

$1,200.00

$1,400.00

CO MN AZ OK MD NC ME

Lab Code

Volume Gravimetric

100 Gallon Prover

2010 SLP Survey v.1.00 August 17, 2011
SLP Survey 2010 - Page 81 of 122 

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 using a volume transfer calibration technique. 

Comparison of Previous Surveys 

Survey

Labs Reporting 100

gallon LPG Average Fee %Change

2006 32 $255.78 ‐‐ 

2008 31 $295.39 +23%

2010 38 $219.75  ‐26%

Table 34: Average fees charged for the testing of a 100 gallon LPG prover from via volume transfer from 2006 

through 2010. 

Figure 38: Fees charged for testing a 100 gallon LPG prover. 

$750.00

$700.00

$618.10

$600.00

$580.00

$560.00

$550.00

$527.50

$500.00

$465.00

$450.00

$330.00

$325.00

$300.00$300.00

$250.00$250.00$250.00

$240.00$240.00$240.00

$200.00

$187.50

$171.66

$169.80

$150.00

$135.00

$100.00

$68.00

$50.00

$0.00

$200.00

$400.00

$600.00

$800.00

CA

MN

WI

CO

MI

OH

OR

WA

OK

IL

WV

AZ

NY

CT

ID

MD

NM

TX

ME

MO

NV

NJ

MT

KS

FL

SC

GA

IN

NC

KY

Lab Code

Volume Transfer

LPG 100 Gallon Prover

2010 SLP Survey v.1.00 August 17, 2011
SLP Survey 2010 - Page 82 of 122 

20 Gallon Dynamic Small Volume Prover (SVP) - Volume Transfer 

Description 

Each lab was asked to estimate the fee for tesing a 20 gallon SVP according to NIST HB 105- 7 tolerances using a 

volume transfer calibration method. The sole reported fee is given in Table 35 

Lab ID Fee 

ID $100.00 

Table 35: Fees charged for testing a SVP via volume transfer. 

Comparison of Previous Surveys 

Survey 

Labs Reporting SVP 

Volume Transfer Average Fee %Change 

2006 3 $113.33 -- 

2008 2 $123.75 +9% 

2010 1 $100.00 -19% 

Table 36: Average fee charged for testing a SVP via volume transfer from 2006 through 2010. 

20 Gallon Dynamic Small Volume Prover (SVP) – Volume Gravimetric 

Description 

Each lab was asked to provide a fee for testing one 20 gallon SVP according to HB 105- 7 tolerances using a 

gravimetric calibration method. The reported fees are given in Table 37. 

Lab ID Fee 

MI $870.00 

AZ $770.00 

NC $140.00 

Table 37: Fees charged for testing a SVP gravimetrically. 

Comparison of Previous Surveys 

Survey 

Labs Reporting SVP 

Volume Gravimetric Average Fee %Change 

2006 3 $470.00 -- 

2008 3 $470.00 0% 

2010 3 $593.33 +26% 

Table 38: Average fee charged for testing a SVP gravimetrically from 2006 through 2010.

2010 SLP Survey v.1.00 August 17, 2011
SLP Survey 2010 - Page 83 of 122 

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. 

Table 39: Metrologist position titles and salary ranges. Lab ID 

Position Title 

Min Salary Max Salary 

Category 

AK State Metrologist I $3,813.00 $5,473.00 Metrology/Calibration Technician 

AK State Metrologist II $4,391.00 $6,253.00 Laboratory Supervisor 

AL Consumer W&M Protection Specialist: Lab $2,376.40 $3,979.80 Metrology/Calibration Technician 

AL Laboratory Supervisor $2,690.60 $4,077.00 Laboratory Supervisor 

AL Graduate Engineer $3,438.20 $6,057.20 Metrology/Calibration Engineer 

AR Metrologist $2,416.00 $2,416.00 Metrology/Calibration Technician 

AR Metrologist $2,602.00 $2,602.00 Metrology/Calibration Technician 

AR Moisture Meter Inspector $2,717.00 $2,717.00 Support Staff 

AR Moisture Technician $2,967.00 $2,967.00 Support Staff 

AR Laboratory Supervisor $3,216.00 $3,216.00 Laboratory Supervisor 

AZ Admin Services Officer ll $3,882.80 $6,618.70 Laboratory Supervisor 

CA Measurement Standards Specialist II $3,192.00 $3,834.00 Metrology/Calibration Technician 

CA Measurement Standards Specialist III $3,837.00 $4,663.00 Metrology/Calibration Technician 

CA Principal State Metrologist $5,899.00 $6,504.00 Laboratory Supervisor 

CO Metrologist I $2,885.00 $4,952.00 Metrology/Calibration Engineer 

CO Metrologist II $3,779.00 $5,423.00 Metrology/Calibration Engineer 

CO Metrologist III $4,165.00 $5,979.00 Laboratory Supervisor 

CT Metrologist $4,176.25 $5,624.50 Metrology/Calibration Engineer 

CT Weights and Measures Inspector $4,692.25 $5,925.67 Metrology/Calibration Engineer 

DA Industrial Specialist $5,200.00 $8,100.00 Laboratory Supervisor 

DA Program Manager $7,400.00 $9,600.00 Manager 

FL Laboratory Technician IV $2,125.81 $3,308.32 Support Staff 

FL Metrologist $2,350.39 $3,717.22 Metrology/Calibration Technician 

FL Senior Metrologist $2,763.49 $4,617.01 Laboratory Supervisor 

GA Metrologist $1,839.83 $3,221.82 Metrology/Calibration Technician 

GA Metrologist 2 $2,026.83 $3,553.67 Metrology/Calibration Engineer 

GA Assistant State Metrologist $2,701.53 $4,727.02 Technical Manager 

GA State Metrologist $2,964.11 $5,191.82 Laboratory Supervisor 

HI Metrologist 1 $3,249.00 $4,809.00 Metrology/Calibration Technician 

HI Metrologist 2 $3,511.00 $5,202.00 Metrology/Calibration Engineer 

HI Metrologist 3 $3,798.00 $5,624.00 Laboratory Supervisor 

IA Metrologist $5,000.00 $5,183.00 Metrology/Calibration Engineer 

ID Section Manager/Metrologist $4,394.00 $8,082.50 Laboratory Supervisor 

IL Products & Standards Inspector $3,758.00 $4,923.00 Calibration Engineer 

IL Public Service Administrator - Option 8Z $4,400.00 $6,253.00 Calibration Technician 

IN Metrologist V $1,980.00 $3,446.00 Metrology/Calibration Technician 

IN Inspector I $2,052.00 $2,790.00 Wts & Meas Field Inspector 

KS AGRICULTURAL INSPECTOR III / METROLOGIST $3,066.00 $4,317.00 Metrology/Calibration Technician 

KS STATE METROLOGIST $3,221.00 $4,530.00 Laboratory Supervisor 

KY Agricultural Inspector I $1,823.90 $3,008.54 Metrology/Calibration Technician 

KY Metrology Lab Technician I $2,006.08 $3,309.32 Metrology/Calibration Technician 

KY Metrology Lab Technician II $2,427.44 $4,004.00 Metrology/Calibration Engineer 

KY Program Coordinator $2,670.20 $4,439.20 Laboratory Supervisor 

KY Metrology Lab Supervisor $3,230.84 $5,329.36 Laboratory Supervisor 

LA Metrologist $2,851.00 $5,520.00 

LA Asst. Division Director $4,277.00 $8,285.00 

2010 SLP Survey v.1.00 August 17, 2011
SLP Survey 2010 - Page 84 of 122 

Lab ID 

Position Title 

Min Salary Max Salary 

Category 

LAC ACWM Associate Inspector $3,223.83 $3,223.83 Metrology/Calibration Technician 

LAC ACWM Inspector I $3,478.00 $4,313.00 Metrology/Calibration Technician 

LAC ACWM Inspector II $3,573.00 $4,679.00 Metrology/Calibration Engineer 

LAC ACWM Inspector III $3,977.00 $5,216.00 Laboratory Supervisor 

LAC Metrologist $4,036.45 $5,294.00 Metrology/Calibration Engineer 

LAC Senior Metrologist $4,260.73 $5,588.36 Laboratory Supervisor 

MD Metrologist Trainee $2,206.42 $3,418.25 Metrology Technician 

MD Metrologist I $2,810.25 $4,409.58 Metrology Technician 

MD Metrologist II $2,988.75 $4,705.75 Metrology Technician 

MD Laboratory Supervisor $3,357.58 $5,359.75 Lab Supervisor 

ME Metrologist Assistant $2,609.00 $3,515.00 Metrology/Calibration Technician 

ME Consumer Protection Inspector $2,609.00 $3,515.00 Metrology/Calibration Technician 

ME Metrologist $3,526.00 $4,787.50 Laboratory Supervisor 

MI Metrologist -9 $3,102.67 $4,425.20 Metrology/Calibration Technician 

MI Metrologist -10 $3,208.40 $4,524.00 Metrology/Calibration Technician 

MI Metrologist -P11 $3,714.53 $5,229.47 Metrology/Calibration Engineer 

MI Metrologist -12 $3,900.00 $5,685.33 Metrology/Calibration Engineer 

MI Metrology Specialist -13 $4,232.80 $6,212.27 Metrology/Calibration Engineer 

MI Metrologist Manager -14 $4,425.20 $6,512.13 Lab Supervisor 

MN State Program Administrator, Technical Specialist $2,802.00 $3,945.00 Metrology/Calibration Technician 

MN State Program Administrator, Principle $3,859.00 $5,688.00 Metrology/Calibration Engineer 

MN Assistant Director (Lab Manager) $4,895.00 $7,035.00 Laboratory Supervisor 

MO Metrology Specialist $2,625.00 $3,706.00 Metrology/Calibration Technician 

MO Metrologist $3,040.00 $4,945.00 Laboratory Supervisor 

MS Assistant State Metrologist $2,229.00 $3,901.00 Metrology/Calibration Technician 

MS State Metrologist $2,472.00 $4,325.00 Laboratory Supervisor 

MT Field Inspector $2,500.00 $3,300.00 Support Staff 

MT State Metrologist $3,083.00 $3,750.00 Laboratory Supervisor 

NC Processing Assistant III $2,007.67 $2,998.33 Support Staff 

NC Metrologist I $2,733.00 $4,287.17 Metrology/Calibration Technician 

NC Quality Manager $2,944.75 $4,694.17 Metrology/Calibration Engineer 

NC Grain Moisture Supervisor $2,944.75 $4,694.17 Metrology/Calibration Engineer 

NC Lab Manager $3,569.42 $5,875.00 Laboratory Supervisor 

NH Weights & Measures Metrologist $2,795.00 $3,711.50 

NJ Inspector III/Metrologist $3,831.00 $5,557.00 Metrology/Calibration Technician 

NJ Inspector II/Metrologist $4,435.00 $6,432.00 Metrology/Calibration Engineer 

NJ Inspector I/Metrologist $5,135.00 $7,447.00 Metrology/Calibration Engineer 

NJ Supervisor of Licensing/Metrology $5,659.00 $8,208.00 Laboratory Supervisor 

NV Chief State Metrologist $3,403.00 $5,562.00 Laboratory Supervisor 

NY Specialist I (Metrologist) $3,244.00 $5,433.00 Metrologist 

NY Assistant Director (Lab Manager) $5,417.00 $7,048.00 Lab Manager 

OH Weights & Measure Inspector 2 $2,755.00 $3,455.00 Support Staff 

OH Weights & Measures Technologist $2,938.00 $3,819.00 Metrology/Calibration Technician 

OK Metrologist I $2,144.17 $3,573.67 Metrology/Calibration Technician 

OK Metrologist II $2,576.67 $4,294.50 Metrology/Calibration Technician 

OK Metrologist III $3,146.00 $5,243.33 Metrology/Calibration Engineer 

OR Metrologist $3,547.00 $5,187.00 Metrology/Calibration Technician 

OR Lead Metrologist $4,286.00 $6,277.00 Metrology/Calibration Technician 

PA Metrologist $3,908.75 $5,564.83 Metrology/Calibration Technician 

PA Laboratory Supervisor $3,939.75 $5,983.75 Laboratory Supervisor 

PA Metrologist (with NIST Basic Training) $4,088.00 $5,564.83 Metrology/Calibration Engineer 

PA Metrolgogist (with NIST Intermediate Training) $4,269.00 $5,564.83 Metrology/Calibration Engineer 

SC Program Coordinator I $2,522.83 $4,667.92 Laboratory Supervisor 

2010 SLP Survey v.1.00 August 17, 2011
SLP Survey 2010 - Page 85 of 122 

Lab ID 

Position Title 

Min Salary Max Salary 

Category 

SC Lab Technician II $2,522.83 $4,667.92 Metrology/Calibration Technician 

SD State Inspector $2,411.07 $3,993.60 Laboratory Supervisor 

TX Laboratory Technician I $2,069.33 $2,827.42 Metrology/Calibration Technician 

TX Inspector II $2,094.33 $2,945.00 Metrology/Calibration Engineer 

TX Inspector IV $2,717.58 $3,855.00 Metrology/Calibration Engineer 

TX Program Supervisor IV $3,687.83 $5,605.83 Lab Supervisor 

UT State Metrologist $3,650.00 $5,791.00 Metrology/Calibration Technician 

VA Metrologist $2,917.00 $4,000.00 Metrologist 

VA Lab Manager/Program Manager $4,167.00 $5,000.00 Laboratory Supervisor 

VT Weights and Measure Specialist $3,700.00 $5,300.00 Metrology/Calibration Technician 

WA State Metrologist $2,994.00 $3,918.00 Laboratory Supervisor 

WI Metrologist $3,818.00 $8,780.00 

WY Senior Inspection Specialist $3,945.00 $5,323.00 Laboratory Supervisor 

 

2010 SLP Survey v.1.00 August 17, 2011
SLP Survey 2010 - Page 86 of 122 

2010 State Laboratory Program Metrologists 

The survey requested 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. 

Note 

The SLP has lost several of its senior metrologists between 2008 and 2010. Some 27% of the metrologists listed in 

this survey will be eligible for full retirement by 2014. Some have already retired. In Table 40 we’ve highlighted 

those metrologists who have retired since the completion of this survey. 

The NIST Weights and Measures Division offers a comprehensive training program for all metrologists in the SLP. 

Completions of specific training modules are requirements for inclusion of a measurement discipline on a 

laboratory’s certificate of measurement traceability. We noted that some metrologists are authorized perform 

measurements on behalf of a laboratory for which they have not received the required NIST training. 

2010 SLP Survey v.1.00 August 17, 2011
SLP Survey 2010 - Page 87 of 122 

Laboratory ID Name Email 

Mass I 

Mass II 

Mass III 

Vol Trans 

Vol Grav 

Length 

Time/Frequency 

Temperature 

Grain Moisture 

What Year Eligible 

fRtit? 

AK ROGER HOLLAND ROGER.HOLLAND@ALASKA.GOV N P F F P N F N N 202AK GARRET BROWN GARRET.BROWN@ALASKA.GOV N P F F P N F N N 202AL DAVID MORSE DAVID.MORSE@AGI.ALABAMA.GOV N N F F N N N N N 201AL MICHAEL BRIDGES MICHAEL.BRIDGES@AGI.ALABAMA.GOV N N P P N N N N N 201AL WES SEALS WES.SEALS@AGI.ALABAMA.GOV N N F F N N N N N 201AR CHARLES HAWKINS CHARLES.HAWKINS@ASPB.AR.GOV N N F F N N N N N 203AR CLINTON PHIFER CLINTON.PHIFER@ASPB.AR.GOV N N F F N N N N N 203AR RAY CURTIS RAY.CURTIS@ASPB.AR.GOV N F F F N N N N N AZ BRIAN SELLERS BSELLERS@AZDWM.GOV N F F F F N N N N 202CA GREG BOERS GBOERS@CDFA.CA.GOV N F F F F F F F N 201CA ANTHONY GRUNEISEN AGRUNEISEN@CDFA.CA.GOV N F F F F F F F N 202CO DIANE C. WISE DIANE.WISE@AG.STATE.CO.US P F F F F F F N F 201CO JENNIFER A. OZNOFF JENNIFER.OZNOFF@AG.STATE.CO.US P F F F F F F N F 203CT ION DAHA ION.DAHA@CT.GOV N N F F N N N N N 203CT ANA MARIA FELICIANO ANA.FELICIANO@CT.GOV N F F F N F N N N 203DA AL RUPERT AL.L.RUPERT@USDA.GOV N N F N N N N N N 201DA MARCUS HARWITZ MARCUS.HARWITZ@USDA.GOV N N F N N N N N N 202FL MIKE COOK MICHEAL.COOK@FRESHFROMFLORIDA.COM N F F F F F N F F 200FL DAVIS TERRY DAVIS.TERRY@FRESHFROMFLORIDA.COM N F F F F F N N F 201GA BRIAN GRACE BGRACE@AGR.STATE.GA.US N N F F F F N N F GA DALE GANN DGANN@AGR.STATE.GA.US N F F F F F N N F GA KONTZ BENNETT KBENNETT@AGR.STATE.GA.US N F F F F F N N N HI MICHAEL TANG MICHAEL.TANG@HAWAII.GOV F F F F F F F N N 201IA ANDREW BLACKBURN ANDREW.BLACKBURN@IAVALLEY.EDU N N F F N N N N N ID KEVIN MERRITT KEVIN.MERRITT@AGRI.IDAHO.GOV N F F F F N N N N 201IL MATT WILLIAMS MATT.WILLIAMS@ILLINOIS.GOV N N F F N N N N N 201IL MIKE ROCKFORD MIKE.ROCKFORD@ILLINOIS.GOV F F F F N N N N N 201IL KARL CUNNINGHAM KARL.CUNNINGHAM@ILLINOIS.GOV N N F F N N N N F 202IN TERRELL SHARLOW N P P P N N N N N 200IN JERRY L. CLINGAMAN, JR. JCLINGAM@ISDH.IN.GOV F F F F F F F F N 201IN DOUG STEVENS N P P P N N N N N 201IN KRIS WINNINGHAM KWINNINGHAM@ISDH.IN.GOV N P F P N P P P N 203KS KARL HERKEN KARL.HERKEN@KDA.KS.GOV F F F F F N N P N KS KEVIN NUTTER KEVIN.NUTTER@KDA.KS.GOV N F F F F N N P N KY JASON GLASS JASON.GLASS@KY.GOV N N F F N N N N N 202KY CHESTER WATSON CHESTER.WATSON@KY.GOV N N F F N N N N N 203

2010 SLP Survey v.1.00 August 17, 2011
SLP Survey 2010 - Page 88 of 122 

Laboratory ID Name Email 

Mass I 

Mass II 

Mass III 

Vol Trans 

Vol Grav 

Length 

Time/Frequency 

Temperature 

Grain Moisture 

What Year Eligible 

fRtit? 

KY WILLIAM BAKER BILL.BAKER@KY.GOV N N F F N N N N N 203LA RICHERT WILLIAMS RICHER_@LDAF.STATE.LA.US N N N F F N N N N 200LA CARL DECKER CDECKER@LDAF.STATE.LA.US N N N F F N N N N 200LAC KC CHOW KCHOW@ACWM.LACOUNTY.GOV P F F F F N N N N 201LAC DONALD FRANKS DFRANKS@ACWM.LACOUNTY.GOV P F F F F N N N N 202LAC LINA NG LNG@ACWM.LACOUNTY.GOV N F F F F N N N N 203MD STEPHEN BARRY BARRYSA@MDA.STATE.MD.US F F F F F F N F N 201MD ZENON WACLAWIW WACLAWZM@MDA.STATE.MD.US F F F F F P N N N 202MD REGINALD KENNION KENNIORE@MDA.STATE.MD.US N N F P P N F N N 203ME DANNY NEWCOMBE DANNY.NEWCOMBE@MAINE.GOV F F F F F F F F N 201ME DONALD LANGLEY DONALD.LANGLEY@MAINE.GOV N N P N N N N N N 201ME GEORGE O'CONNOR GEORGE.OCONNOR@MAINE.GOV P P F P P F N P N 201MI CRAIG VANBUREN VANBURENC9@MICHIGAN.GOV F F F F F F N F N 203MI SCOTT FERGUSON FERGUSONS@MICHIGAN.GOV N N P P N N N N N 203MI RYANNE HARTMAN HARTMANR9@MICHIGAN.GOV N P F F F P N P N 203MI NICK SANTINI SANTININ@MICHIGAN.GOV N N P P N N N N N 204MI NEIL JONES JONESN@MICHIGAN.GOV F F F F F F N F N Now MN BRUCE ADAMS BRUCE.ADAMS@STATE.MN.US F F F F F F N F N 201MN HEIDI JONES HEIDI.JONES@STATE.MN.US N N P N N N N N N 202MN MARK ZASADNY MARK.ZASADNY@STATE.MN.US F F F F F F N F N 203MN NILS FLEMING NILS.FLEMING@STATE.MN.US F F F F F F N F N 201MN STEVEN HARRINGTON STEVEN.HARRINGTON@STATE.MN.US F F F F F F N F N 203MO ROBERT WITTENBERGER BOB.WITTENBERGER@MDA.MO.GOV N F F F P F N N N 200MO KEVIN HANSON KEVIN.HANSON@MDA.MO.GOV N F F F P F N N N 202MO TOM HUGHES TOM.HUGHES@MDA.MO.GOV N F F F P F N N F 202MS JOHN L. SULLIVAN JOHNS1@MDAC.STATE.MS.US N N F F N N N N N 202MS WILLIAM BELL N N F F N N N N N 203MS MEL IASIGI N N F F N N N N N MT KEITH REIMUND KREIMUND@MT.GOV N P F F P N N N N 202NC CHERYL TEW CHERYL.TEW@NCAGR.GOV N N N N N N N N F 201NC CLIFF MURRAY CLIFF.MURRAY@NCAGR.GOV F F F F F F N F N 201NC SHARON WOODARD SHARON.WOODARD@NCAGR.GOV F F F F F F N F P 202NC SPURGEON VAN HYDER VAN.HYDER@NCAGR.GOV F F F F F F N N N 202NC HAROLD TAL ANDERSON III TAL.ANDERSON@NCAGR.GOV F F F F F F N F N 202NC GERALD PRICE GERALD.PRICE@NCAGR.GOV N P F F F F N N N 203NH TIM OSMER TOSMER@AGR.STATE.NH.US F F F F F N N N N 204

2010 SLP Survey v.1.00 August 17, 2011
SLP Survey 2010 - Page 89 of 122 

Laboratory ID Name Email 

Mass I 

Mass II 

Mass III 

Vol Trans 

Vol Grav 

Length 

Time/Frequency 

Tempe

rature 

Grain Moisture 

What Year Eligible 

fRtit? 

NJ MICHAEL CECERE MICHAEL.CECERE@LPS.STATE.NJ.US N F F F F F F N N 202NJ RAYMOND SZPOND RAYMOND. SZPOND@LPS.STATE.NJ.US N F F F F F F N N 202NJ W. CRAIG GERHARTZ GERHARTZC@LPS.STATE.NJ.US N N F F N F F N N 203NM STEVE SUMNER SSUMNER@NMDA.NMSU.EDU F F F F F N N N N 201NM CLAY IVEY CIVEY@NMDA.NMSU.EDU N N F F P N N N N NV STEVE SCHULTZ BOXCAR53@AGRI.STATE.NV.US N F F F F N N N N 201NV DAVE WALCH DWALCH@AGRI.STATE.NV.US N N P P N N N N N 201NY ED SZESNAT EDWARD.SZESNAT@AGMKT.STATE.NY.US F F F F F F F F N 200NY ROBERT ACHESON ROBERT.ACHESON@AGMKT.STATE.NY.US N F F F F F F F N 200NY MIKE SIKULA MIKE.SIKULA@AGMKT.STATE.NY.US N F F F F F F F N 201OH STEVE SMITH SSMITH@AGRI.STATE.GOV N N N P N N N N N 201OH EARL MATTHEWS MATTHEWS@AGRI.STATE.GOV N P P P P P P N N 201OH KEN JOHNSON JOJNSON@AGRI.STATE.GOV N F F F F F F N N 202OK RICHARD GONZALES RICHARD.GONZALES@ODA.STATE.OK.US F F F F F F N N N 201OK ROBERT WHITNEY ROBERT.WHITNEY@ODA.STATE.OK.US N N P P N N N N N 202OK JAMES WILLSON JAMES.WILLSON@ODA.STATE.OK.US N N P P N N N N N 203OK JEREMY NADING JEREMY.NADING@ODA.STATE.OK.US N P F F F F N N N 203OK HEATHER SCHMIDT HEATHER.SCHMIDT@ODA.STATE.OK.US N N P N N N N N N 204OR RAY NEKUDA RNEKUDA@ODA.STATE.OR.US N F F F F N N N N 203OR AARON AYDELOTTE AAYDELOTTE@ODA.STATE.OR.US F F F F F N N F N 204PA TERRANCE M. SHINGARA TESHINGARA@STATE.PA.US N F F F F F F N N 200PA PAUL D. SPROUT PSPROUT@STATE.PA.US N F F F F F F N N 201PA RICHARD M. RADEL, JR. RIRADEL@STATE.PA.US N F F F F F F N N 202PA JAMES P. GOWNLEY JGOWNLEY@STATE.PA.US N F F F F F F N N 203PA CHRISTOPHER J. DRUPP CDRUPP@STATE.PA.US N F F F F F F N N 203PR JOSÉ TORRES JATORRES@NIST.GOV F F F F F F N N N 201PR ABNER RODRÍGUEZ OLAS_50@YAHOO.COM N F F F F F N N N 204SC ROBERT L. MCGEE RMCGEE@SCDA.SC.GOV F F F F F F N N F 202SC ED MENDENHALL EMENDEN@SCDA.SC.GOV N F F F F F N N P 203SC BILLY KENNINGTON BKENNING@SCDA.SC.GOV N F F F F F N N F SD BRAD STOVER BRAD.STOVER@STATE.SD.US N N F F N N N N N 202TX HARVEY FISCHER HARVEY.FISCHER@TEXASAGRICULTURE.GOV N P F F F N N N N 200TX PRESTON ADACHI PRESTON.ADACHI@TEXASAGRICULTURE.GOV N F F F F N N N N 201TX DANIEL GIBBONS DANIEL.GIBBONS@TEXASAGRICULTURE.GOV N F F F F N N N N 202TX PHILIP WRIGHT PHILIP.WRIGHT@TEXASAGRICULTURE.GOV N F F F F N N N N 202TX LISA CORN LISA.CORN@TEXASAGRICULTURE.GOV N P F F F N N N N 203

2010 SLP Survey v.1.00 August 17, 2011
SLP Survey 2010 - Page 90 of 122 

Laboratory ID Name Email 

Mass I 

Mass II 

Mass III 

Vol Trans 

Vol Grav 

Length 

Time/Frequency 

Temperature 

Grain Moisture 

What Year Eligible 

fRtit? 

TX PATRICK SANDERS PATRICK.SANDERS@TEXASAGRICULTURE.GOV N N P P P N N N N 203UT BILL RIGBY BRIGBY@UTAH.GOV N N F F N P N N N 202VA DALE L. SAUNDERS DALE.SAUNDERS@VDACS.VIRGINIA.GOV N N P P N N P N N 201VA WILLIAM H. LOVING WILLIAM.LOVING@VDACS.VIRGINIA.GOV N F F F N N F N N 202VT RAY CIOFFI RAY.CIOFFI@STATE.VT.US N N F F N N N F N 201VT MARC PAQUETTE MARC.PAQUETTET@STATE.VT.US N N P F N N N N N 202WA DAN WRIGHT DWRIGHT@AGR.WA.GOV F F F F F F F N N 201WI ALAN PORTER ALAN.PORTER@WI.GOV N N F F N N N N N 200WI JEFF HOUSER JEFF.HOUSER@WI.GOV N N F F N N N N N 201WI RICH MCCANN RICHARD.MCCANN@WI.GOV N N F F N N N N N 202WV ANTHONY O'BRIEN TONY.P.OBRIEN@WV.GOV N N F F N N N N N 202WV DAN MACE DAN.J.MACE@WV.GOV N N F F N N N N N 202WY ROBERT WEIDLER RWEIDL@STATE.WY.US N N F F N N N N N 202

Table 40: Listing of SLP metrologists as of 2010. Each metrologist was asked to indicate which of the listed calibrations they are authFull authority, “N” = Not authorized, “P” = partial or limited authority), provide what year they are eligible for retirement, and to prmetrology experience. 2010 SLP Survey v.1.00 August 17, 2011
SLP Survey 2010 - Page 91 of 122 

Figure 39: Retirement Eligibility Histogram, 111 metrologists reporting. Metrologists were asked to provide the 

year which they are eligible for “full” retirement. This may not reflect when any one person actually plans to leave 

the SLP. 

Figure 40: 121 Metrologists reporting. Metrologists were asked to indicate which type of calibrations they are 

authorized to perform on behalf of their laboratories. 

15

9 9

6

5 5

7 7

8

4

11

5

3

7

333

1

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

NOW

2011‐20122012‐20142015‐20162017‐20182019‐20202021‐20222023‐20242025‐20262027‐20282029‐20302031‐20322033‐20342035‐20362037‐20382039‐20402041‐20422043‐2044

Year

Retirement Eligibility Histogram

24

63

102 100

64

49

24 20

11

5

13 15 15 11

5 3 5 2

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Mass I

Mass II

Mass III

Vol Transfer

Vol Gravimetric

Length

Time/Frequency

Temperature

Grain Moisture

# Metrologists

Measurement Area

Authorized Calibrations

Full

Partial

2010 SLP Survey v.1.00 August 17, 2011
SLP Survey 2010 - Page 92 of 122 

State Laboratory Program/Metrology Experience 

Description 

Total Metrology Experience: 

Each metrologist was asked to disclose their metrology experience in years. These data was broken down into two 

categories, years experience in the SLP, and years metrology experience outside the SLP. Figure 40 ranks the SLP 

metrologists by total metrology experience. 

Comparison of previous surveys Number of Metrologists

Average SLP

Experience

Average Other

Experience

Average Total

Experience

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

Table 41: Comparison matrix summarizing metrology experience reported by metrologists from 2000 to 2010. 

Comments: 

 Data was collected for 121 metrologist in the SLP from 47 laboratories. 

 Each metrologist reports an average of 9.5 years the SLP experience each. 

 Each metrologist reports an average of 1.9 years “other” experience each. 

 Each of the 19 metrologist reporting “other” experience reports an average of 12 years other experience. 

 Each metrologists report an average of 11.4 years total experience each. 

2010 SLP Survey v.1.00 August 17, 2011
SLP Survey 2010 - Page 93 of 122 

Figure 41: SLP metrologists ranked by years of experience. Red indicates experience in the SLP, green indicates 

other metrology experience.

0

0

0.5

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1 2

2

2

2.5

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3.5

3.5

4

4

4

4.5

5

5

5

5

5

5.5

5.5

6

6

6

6

6.5

7

7

7

7

7

7 8

8 9

9

9

9 10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10.5

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11 12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12 13

13 14

14 15

15

15 16 17

17 18

18 19

19 20 21 22

22

22

22 23

23 24

24 25 26 29 30 32

32

32

32

32

32 33 35

35

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

(MI) NICK SANTINI

(OH) STEVE SMITH

(CT) ANA MARIA FELICIANO

(AK) ROGER HOLLAND

(AL) MICHAEL BRIDGES

(CT) ION DAHA

(MI) SCOTT FERGUSON

(MI) RYANNE HARTMAN

(NM) CLAY IVEY

(OK) JAMES WILLSON

(OK) HEATHER SCHMIDT

(TX) PATRICK SANDERS

(VT) MARC PAQUETTE

(IN) DOUG STEVENS

(IN) KRIS WINNINGHAM

(AR) CHARLES HAWKINS

(PA) RICHARD M. RADEL, JR.

(AR) CLINTON PHIFER

(LAC) LINA NG

(MD) REGINALD KENNION

(NC) GERALD PRICE

(OK) ROBERT WHITNEY

(OR) RAY NEKUDA

(PA) CHRISTOPHER J. DRUPP

(TX) PHILIP WRIGHT

(TX) LISA CORN

(WY) ROBERT WEIDLER

(KY) CHESTER WATSON

(KY) WILLIAM BAKER

(GA) BRIAN GRACE

(VA) DALE L. SAUNDERS

(WI) JEFF HOUSER

(MN) NILS FLEMING

(AL) WES SEALS

(LAC) DONALD FRANKS

(ME) DONALD LANGLEY

(NJ) MICHAEL CECERE

(OK) JEREMY NADING

(MN) STEVEN HARRINGTON

(NH) TIM OSMER

(IL) KARL CUNNINGHAM

(MS) WILLIAM BELL

(PA) TERRANCE M. SHINGARA

(UT) BILL RIGBY

(AZ) BRIAN SELLERS

(CA) ANTHONY GRUNEISEN

(KY) JASON GLASS

(NJ) W. CRAIG GERHARTZ

(PR) ABNER RODRÍGUEZ

(SC) ED MENDENHALL

(TX) DANIEL GIBBONS

(NY) ROBERT ACHESON

(SD) BRAD STOVER

(AL) DAVID MORSE

(ME) GEORGE O'CONNOR

(OH) EARL MATTHEWS

(PA) JAMES P. GOWNLEY

(IN) TERRELL SHARLOW

(CO) JENNIFER A. OZNOFF

(IL) MATT WILLIAMS

(MN) MARK ZASADNY

(MS) JOHN L. SULLIVAN

(MS) MEL IASIGI

(OR) AARON AYDELOTTE

(VA) WILLIAM H. LOVING

(DA) MARCUS HARWITZ

(FL) DAVIS TERRY

(GA) KONTZ BENNETT

(HI) MICHAEL TANG

(LA) RICHERT WILLIAMS

(LAC) KC CHOW

(MI) CRAIG VANBUREN

(MI) NEIL JONES

(MN) HEIDI JONES

(NV) DAVE WALCH

(NY) MIKE SIKULA

(DA) AL RUPERT

(GA) DALE GANN

(MD) ZENON WACLAWIW

(MO) TOM HUGHES

(NC) HAROLD TAL ANDERSON III

(NJ) RAYMOND SZPOND

(WI) RICH MCCANN

(WV) ANTHONY O'BRIEN

(AR) RAY CURTIS

(NV) STEVE SCHULTZ

(AK) GARRET BROWN

(WV) DAN MACE

(ID) KEVIN MERRITT

(MO) KEVIN HANSON

(MT) KEITH REIMUND

(SC) ROBERT L. MCGEE

(CA) GREG BOERS

(NC) SPURGEON VAN HYDER

(CO) DIANE C. WISE

(NY) ED SZESNAT

(LA) CARL DECKER

(NC) SHARON WOODARD

(MN) BRUCE ADAMS

(OH) KEN JOHNSON

(IA) ANDREW BLACKBURN

(IL) MIKE ROCKFORD

(MD) STEPHEN BARRY

(ME) DANNY NEWCOMBE

(PA) PAUL D. SPROUT

(PR) JOSÉ TORRES

(OK) RICHARD GONZALES

(WI) ALAN PORTER

(FL) MIKE COOK

(KS) KEVIN NUTTER

(NC) CLIFF MURRAY

(NC) CHERYL TEW

(IN) JERRY L. CLINGAMAN, JR.

(KS) KARL HERKEN

(SC) BILLY KENNINGTON

(TX) HARVEY FISCHER

(VT) RAY CIOFFI

(WA) DAN WRIGHT

(NM) STEVE SUMNER

(MO) ROBERT WITTENBERGER

(TX) PRESTON ADACHI

YrsSLP

YrsOther

2010 SLP Survey v.1.00 August 17, 2011
SLP Survey 2010 - Page 94 of 122 

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 ONLY5

. 

 Any of the SLP member labs. 

 Any SLP member lab having NIST/WMD (17) recognition (18). 

 Any NVLAP Accredited Lab (19). 

 Any Weight Manufacturer regardless of accreditation status. 

 Any laboratory accredited by an accreditation body that is an ILAC (20) signatory. 

Table 42: Calibration Certificate acceptance matrix. 

Lab ID Your State Lab Only Any State Lab Regardless of Status Any NIST/WMD Recognized Lab Any NVLAP Accredited Lab Any Weight Manufacturer Regardless of Accreditation Status Any Company or Lab that is Accredited by an Accreditation Body that is an ILAC Signatory 

AK Yes Yes Yes 

AL Yes 

AZ Yes Yes Yes 

CA Yes Yes Yes 

CO Yes Yes 

CT Yes Yes 

HI Yes Yes Yes 

IA Yes Yes Yes 

ID Yes Yes 

IL Yes Yes 

IN Yes 

KS Yes Yes 

KY Yes Yes Yes 

LA Yes Yes Yes 

LAC Yes Yes 

MD Yes 

ME Yes Yes Yes 

MI Yes Yes 

MN Yes 

MO Yes Yes Yes 

MS Yes 

MT Yes Yes Yes 

NC Yes Yes Yes Yes 

NH Yes Yes Yes 

NJ Yes Yes 

NM Yes Yes 

NV Yes Yes Yes Yes 

NY Yes Yes Yes 

OH Yes Yes 

OK Yes Yes Yes 

OR Yes Yes Yes 

PA Yes 

 

5

 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. 

2010 SLP Survey v.1.00 August 17, 2011
SLP Survey 2010 - Page 95 of 122 

Lab ID Your State Lab Only Any State Lab Regardless of Status Any NIST/WMD Recognized Lab Any NVLAP Accredited Lab Any Weight Manufacturer Regardless of Accreditation Status Any Company or Lab that is Accredited by an Accreditation Body that is an ILAC Signatory 

PR Yes 

SC Yes Yes Yes 

SD Yes Yes Yes 

TX Yes Yes 

UT Yes 

VT Yes 

WI Yes Yes 

WV Yes Yes Yes 

WY Yes Yes Yes 

2010 SLP Survey v.1.00 August 17, 2011
2010 SLP Survey v.1.02 31Jul11 Page 96 of 122 

Supplementary Survey Questions 

Each of the SLP laboratories was presented a list of standards published by NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology), by 

ASTM (formerly the American Society of Testing and Materials), and by OIML (International Organization of Legal Metrology) and 

asked if they referenced each standard within the framework of their program. They were asked if they used the standard as an 

enforcement tool, if they recommended the standard, or if the standard was simply not used. 

“Enforce” means the laboratory used the standard as a basis for rejecting measurement equipment from service. SLP metrology 

laboratories are often charged with approving measurement equipment for use in legal metrology and have the authority to condemn and 

confiscate equipment which does not meet the requirements of the standard. 

“Recommend” means the laboratory will recommend this standard when specifications are needed for the measurement equipment in 

question. For example: Purchasing specifications. 

“Not Used” Is self explanatory. The laboratory does not use this standard in any way, shape, or form. 

The column titled “Weights and Measures” indicates the number of laboratories indicating that they used the standard as a guideline or 

requirement for evaluating measurement equipment in support of a government operated weights and measures enforcement program. 

The column titled “Service Technicians” indicates the number of laboratories indicating that they used the standard as a guideline or 

requirement for evaluating measurement equipment for licensed or otherwise regulated calibration and repair technicians. 

Note: Not all laboratories provided responses for all of the standards asked about. This may simply reflect confusion as to what the 

standard is or it may reflect caution if there is doubt as to whether the standard is actually used or not. We have only counted responses 

which are definitive yes or no answers. Questions which were not answered were not counted. 

2010 SLP Survey v.1.00 August 17, 2011
2010 SLP Survey v.1.02 31Jul11 Page 97 of 122 

NIST Handbook 105 Series Standards (21) 

The NIST Handbook 105 series provides specifications and tolerances for reference standards and field standard weights and measures. 

 Handbook 105-1 Specifications and Tolerances for Field Standard Weights (NIST Class F) 

 Handbook 105-2 Specifications and Tolerances for Field Standard Measuring Flasks 

 Handbook 105-3 Specifications and Tolerances for Graduated Neck Type Volumetric Field Standards 

 Handbook 105-4 Specifications and Tolerances for Liquefied Petroleum Gas and Anhydrous Ammonia Liquid Volumetric 

Provers 

 Handbook 105-5 Specifications and Tolerances for Field Standard Stopwatches 

 Handbook 105-6 Specifications and Tolerances for Thermometers 

 Handbook 105-7 Specifications and Tolerances for Dynamic Small Volume Provers 

 Handbook 105-8 Specifications and Tolerances for Field Standard Weight Carts 

NIST Handbook 

105 Series Publication 

Weights and 

Measures 

Service 

Technicians 

105-1 Enforce 36 32 

Recommend 6 7 

Not Used 0 1 

105-2 Enforce 9 5 

Recommend 10 8 

Not Used 6 9 

105-3 Enforce 34 33 

Recommend 5 5 

Not Used 2 1 

105-4 Enforce 24 25 

Recommend 9 8 

Not Used 2 3 

105-5 Enforce 7 3 

Recommend 7 8 

Not Used 9 10 

105-6 Enforce 6 2 

Recommend 7 7 

Not Used 12 13 

105-7 Enforce 1 4 

Recommend 4 7 

Not Used 11 9 

105-8 Enforce 25 23 

Recommend 7 7 

Not Used 6 6 

Table 43: Numbers of laboratories reporting usage of each of the named NIST HB105 series standards 

2010 SLP Survey v.1.00 August 17, 2011
2010 SLP Survey v.1.02 31Jul11 Page 98 of 122 

ASTM Standards (22) 

ASTM publishes standards for materials, measurement and test equipment, petroleum based fuels, safety equipment, paints and coatings, 

textiles, construction, etc. 

 ASTM E617 Standard Specification for Laboratory Weights And Precision Mass Standards 

 ASTM E74 Standard Practice of Calibration of Force-Measuring Instruments for Verifying the Force Indication of Testing 

Machines 

 ASTM E100 Standard Specification for ASTM Hydrometers 

 ASTM E288 Standard Specification for Laboratory Glass Volumetric Flasks 

 ASTM E1 Standard Specification for ASTM Liquid-in-Glass Thermometers 

 ASTM E2251 Standard Specification for Liquid-in-Glass ASTM Thermometers with Low-Hazard Precision Liquids ASTM Standard Weights and Measures Service Technicians

E617 Enforce 11 9 

Recommend 8 9 

Not Used 4 3 

E74 Enforce 5 4 

Recommend 3 3 

Not Used 8 7 

E100 Enforce 0 0 

Recommend 0 0 

Not Used 14 14 

E288 Enforce 3 1 

Recommend 1 2 

Not Used 12 12 

E1 Enforce 0 0 

Recommend 1 1 

Not Used 13 13 

E2251 Enforce 1 0 

Recommend 1 2 

Not Used 13 13 

Table 44: Numbers of laboratories reporting usage of each of the identified ASTM standards 

2010 SLP Survey v.1.00 August 17, 2011
2010 SLP Survey v.1.02 31Jul11 Page 99 of 122 

OIML Publications (23) 

The OIML develops model regulations, International Recommendations, which provide Members with an internationally agreed upon 

basis for the establishment of national legislation on various categories of measuring instruments. 

 R 7 Clinical thermometers, mercury-in-glass with maximum device 

 R 43 Standard graduated glass flasks for verification officers 

 R 59 Moisture meters for cereal grains and oilseeds 

 R 84 Platinum, copper, and nickel resistance thermometers (for industrial and commercial use) 

 R 91 Radar equipment for the measurement of the speed of vehicles 

 R 111-1 Weights of classes E1, E2, F1, F2, M1, M1-2, M2, M2-3 and M3. Part 1: Metrological and technical requirements 

 R 111-2 Weights of classes E1, E2, F1, F2, M1, M1-2, M2, M2-3 and M3. Part 2: Test report format 

 R 114 Clinical electrical thermometers for continuous measurement 

 R 115 Clinical electrical thermometers with maximum device 

 R 119 Pipe provers for testing of measuring systems for liquids other than water 

 R 120 Standard capacity measures for testing measuring systems for liquids other than water 

 R 129 Multi-dimensional measuring instruments 

 R 133 Liquid-in-glass thermometers OIML

StandardWeights andMeasuresServiceTechnicians

R7 Enforce 0 0 

Recommend 0 0 

Not Used 13 13 

R43 Enforce 1 0 

Recommend 1 1 

Not Used 11 12 

R59 Enforce 3 3 

Recommend 0 0 

Not Used 13 13 

R84 Enforce 0 0 

Recommend 0 0 

Not Used 13 13 

R91 Enforce 2 2 

Recommend 2 0 

Not Used 11 11 

R111-1 Enforce 6 5 

Recommend 7 7 

Not Used 6 6 

R111-2 Enforce 4 3 

Recommend 4 4 

Not Used 8 9 

R114 Enforce 0 0 

Recommend 2 1 

Not Used 11 12 

R115 Enforce 0 1 

Recommend 1 1 

Not Used 12 12 

R119 Enforce 0 0 

Recommend 0 0 

Not Used 13 13 

R120 Enforce 2 1 

Recommend 0 0 

Not Used 11 12 

2010 SLP Survey v.1.00 August 17, 2011
2010 SLP Survey v.1.02 31Jul11 Page 100 of 122 OIML Standard

Weights andMeasuresServiceTechnicians

R129 Enforce 0 0 

Recommend 0 0 

Not Used 13 13 

R133 Enforce 0 0 

Recommend 1 0 

Not Used 13 13 

Table 45: Numbers of laboratories reporting usage of each of the identified OIML publications. 

2010 SLP Survey v.1.00 August 17, 2011
2010 SLP Survey v.1.02 31Jul11 Page 101 of 122 

Workload Survey Instructions 

This page intentionally left blank 

2010 SLP Survey v.1.00 August 17, 2011
2010 SLP Survey v.1.02 31Jul11 Page 102 of 122 

2010 Workload Survey 

State Metrology Laboratories 

for 

Jan 1, 2010 – Dec 31, 2010 

December 2, 2010 

To: State Metrology Laboratories 

DUE by April 1, 2011 

Instructions 

This year’s workload survey will cover one year of workload data. The preferred time period is Jan 1, 2010 – Dec 31, 2010. 

There are two options for submitting your survey results. The preferred method is to use the attached Excel spreadsheet. If you are 

unable to use the spreadsheet, you may print out the ‘Word’ document and complete it by hand (make sure it is legible) and fax it to 

952-435-4040 Attn: Steven 

or mail it to 

Weights and Measures 

ATTN: Steven Harrington 

14305 Southcross Drive W #150 

Burnsville, MN 55306 

Frequently Asked Questions & General Guidance 

Laboratory Data – Sections 1-6: 

Contact Information for Person Completing this Survey: 

This is needed in case I have a question or need clarification on the information provided in your survey. 

Laboratory Information: 

This will be used for verifying the mailing address for the lab. 

Laboratory Age & Size: 

Size of Lab – We are attempting to determine the size of the metrology lab excluding office and warehouse space. 

List all Job Titles that could be utilized to perform metrology measurements or functions: 

We do not want names of personnel in this section. The results of this section will be used to see the different ‘official 

titles’ and associated pay bands of the positions that perform measurements or other metrology functions. This 

information is not confidential and is usually public records in each state. 

Job Titles/Salary Ranges (make sure they are monthly salaries): 

Examples 

2010 SLP Survey v.1.00 August 17, 2011
2010 SLP Survey v.1.02 31Jul11 Page 103 of 122 

 Metrologist I $1,800.00 $2,400.00 Calibration Technician 

 Metrologist II $2,000.00 $2,800.00 Calibration Engineer 

 Metrologist III $2,600.00 $3,200.00 Laboratory Supervisor 

Number of Laboratory Customers served during the reporting period 

This information is used to demonstrate the wide impact of the SLP. Count different locations of the same parent 

company as separate customers. If there are separate divisions within the same parent company, count each as a 

separate customer. 

From which labs will your State W&M acknowledge calibration certificates? 

This is a new question for the survey. Your State W&M program probably requires licensed repairmen to have their 

standards periodically calibrated. We are trying to determine what criterion is required for the laboratories that perform 

these calibrations. In this section, check each one that applies to your jurisdiction. 

Staff Data - Section 7: 

Staff information: 

Authorized Calibrations enter F (Full), P (Partial), or N (None). 

‘Experience’ is asking for the number of years of experience in an SLP laboratory and the number of years of other 

experience in metrology and the total number of years of metrology experience. The “Year eligible for retirement” is 

the year that the individual will be able to file for full retirement, not necessarily when they plan to actually do so. 

Workload Sections 8-29: 

The survey covers the workload of your lab for a twelve-month period, preferably Jan 1 through Dec 31, 2010. If the 

reporting period covers a different period make certain that it is noted in the comments section. Each category is also 

broken down into the following customers: Lab, W&M Program, and External Customers. 

Lab – Those standards calibrated for use by the metrology laboratory, including working standards, surveillance 

calibrations on primary standards, etc. These tests are also referred to as internal calibrations. 

W&M Program – Those standards calibrated for state government weights and measures regulatory agencies. 

External Customers – All other standards calibrated by the laboratory. 

In general, the survey is asking for the number of individual devices calibrated by the metrology laboratory. Use the 

following examples as guidelines for reporting numbers for this survey. 

1. Example: A “31 pound weight kit” is not counted as one device; make sure each weight in the kit is counted. 

2. Example: A 100 foot tape is counted as one device; do not count each point tested. 

3. Example: If three double substitutions are used to calibrate a single standard it is counted as one device; do not 

count it as three devices. 

4. Example: A 100g standard calibrated using a 3-1 weighing design is counted as one device; do not count the 

check standard. (Same with advanced weighing designs using Masscode, do not count the check standards as 

they are used solely for defining the measurement process.) 

2010 SLP Survey v.1.00 August 17, 2011
2010 SLP Survey v.1.02 31Jul11 Page 104 of 122 

Workload Categories: 

Mass Echelon I – The number of precision mass standards that were calibrated using the Mass Code for data reduction, 

regardless of accuracy class. 

Mass Echelon II – The number of precision mass standards that were calibrated not using the Mass Code for data 

reduction. The procedures used are typically, SOP 4 using the air buoyancy correction option or SOP 5. 

Mass Echelon III – Do not count weight carts in this category; weight carts have their own category. 

Volume – All volume calibrations are broken down into two categories, depending on the procedure used; these are 

categorized as either volume transfer or volume gravimetric procedures. 

We would also like to know of any other work that is done by your metrology laboratory which was not covered in this 

survey, therefore, there are several “blank categories” at the end of the survey for any calibrations or tests that do not 

fall into any of the prescribed categories. Please provide enough detail about these additional tests for it to be clear 

what is being done. 

Calibration Fees: 

At the end of the survey there is a section for calibration fees. Please include all fees that would normally be charged 

including cleaning, shipping, packing, etc. 

Supplementary Questions: 

Additional information is often requested regarding the SLP in conjunction with this survey. These requests are kept 

separate from the main survey to maintain a consistent presentation from year to year in a document titled 

“Supplementary Survey Questions”. The supplementary survey instructions are included here in order to minimize the 

impact on the main survey instructions in order to maintain a more consistent document. 

This year we are requesting some basic information as to whether or not your program utilizes various national and 

international standards from 1) the 105 Handbook series, 2) ASTM Standards, 3) OIML Standards, and 4) American 

Petroleum Institute (API) Standards. 

Example: 

105-1 

Class F Weights and 

Mass Standards 

For state regulatory 

investigators? 

Actively 

Enforced 

Actively 

Recommended 

Not actively 

Recommended or Enforced 

For industry service 

technicians? 

Actively 

Enforced 

Actively 

Recommended 

Not actively 

Recommended or Enforced 

State Regulatory Investigators refers to those individuals who are charged with inspecting legal for trade devices for 

compliance with state and local regulations. These individuals typically have the authority to remove devices from 

service and may be government employees or they may be private contractors working on the government’s behalf. 

2010 SLP Survey v.1.00 August 17, 2011
2010 SLP Survey v.1.02 31Jul11 Page 105 of 122 

Industry Service Technicians refers to those individuals who are authorized to place legal for trade devices into 

commercial service. These individuals may be authorized by the state or local jurisdiction through a formal permitting 

process, however, the term is simply used in this survey to identify anyone who is potentially allowed to install and 

service legal for trade devices under state and local law regardless of whether a formal process exists or not. 

Actively Enforced indicates that the standard is enforced. This essentially means the measurement and test equipment 

used in conjunction with installing and repairing legal for trade devices may be condemned based upon the standard 

identified. 

Actively Recommended indicates that the standard is used merely as a guideline for selection of measure and test 

equipment to be used in conjunction with the installation and repair of legal for trade devices. 

Not Actively Recommended or Enforced indicates that the standard is not referenced at all. You may use an alternative 

standard (i.e. OIML R111 instead of HB 105-1) or you may simply not have an opinion regarding to the measurement 

and test equipment described by the standard identified (i.e. it is not widely used or regulated). 

In addition to the sample shown in these instructions there are two more columns associated with each standard. 

In the column titled “Other Usage (purchasing specifications, calibration tolerance definitions, etc)” please indicate if 

you use the standard for any other reason. 

Example: you may not enforce ASTM E617 specifications for weights but you may use the tolerance tables within to 

establish adjustment criteria for the calibration of test weights. 

In the column titled, “Enforced/Recommended Calibration Interval 

(please specify in months)” please indicate the calibration interval required for the measure and test equipment 

described by the standard. If it doesn’t apply, simply mark the field as “N/A”. 

Example: Service providers are often required to have their HB105-1 compliant test weights calibrated annually. If this 

is true, enter “12” in this field. 

If you have a situation which is not covered sufficiently by the supplementary questionnaire or you are unsure how to 

answer. Please contact me. See below. 

ASSISTANCE/QUESTIONS?? 

You may contact me at: 

Phone: 651-215-1777 

Fax: 952-435-4040 

Email: steven.harrington@state.mn.us 

Weights and Measures 

Attn: Steven Harrington 

14305 Southcross Drive W #150 

Burnsville, MN 55306 

Please report any errors found in the survey via email to steven.harrington@state.mn.us 

2010 SLP Survey v.1.00 August 17, 2011
2010 SLP Survey v.1.02 31Jul11 Page 106 of 122 

Workload Survey Form 

This page intentionally left blank 

2010 SLP Survey v.1.00 August 17, 2011
SLP Survey 2010 - Page 107 of 122 

2010 State Laboratory Program Survey 

DUE by April 1, 2011 

Mail or Fax to: 

steven.harrington@state.mn.us 

Fax: 952-435-4040 ATTN: Steven

Weights and Measures 

Attn: Steven Harrington 

Minnesota Weights and Measures 

14305 Southcross Drive W #150 

Burnsville, MN 55306

1. Contact Information for Person Completing this Survey 

 Name: 

 Phone: 

 Fax: 

2. Laboratory Information 

Laboratory: 

Mail Address: 

City, State, Zip: 

Web Site: Address 

3. Laboratory Age & Size 

Age of Lab: yrs 

Office Space: sq ft 

Active Lab Space (used for calibration): sq ft 

4. List all Job Titles which could be utilized to perform metrology measurements or functions 

Job Title Min Monthly 

Salary 

Max Monthly 

Salary 

(Select – Best Match) 

Lab Supervisor 

Metrology/Calibration Engineer 

Metrology/Calibration Technician 

Support Staff 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5. Number of Laboratory Customers served during the reporting period 

Count different locations of the same parent company as separate customers. If there are separate divisions within the same 

parent company, count each as a separate customer. 

Laboratory Customers _____________ 

6. From which labs will your State W&M acknowledge calibration certificates 

(Check all that apply) 

 Your State Lab ONLY  Any NVLAP accredited Lab  Any Company or Lab that is 

Accredited by an Accreditation Body 

that is an ILAC signatory (e.g. NVLAP, 

A2LA, LAB, IAS, ACLASS)

 Any State Lab regardless of status  Any Weight Manufacturer, 

 regardless of accreditation status Any NIST/WMD Recognized Lab 

2010 SLP Survey v.1.00 August 17, 2011
SLP Survey 2010 - Page 108 of 122 

7. Please list all personnel which perform metrology measurements or functions in the laboratory 

Name e-mail 

Authorized Calibrations F = Full P = Partial N = None 

Mass I 

Mass II 

Mass III 

Vol Trans 

Vol Grav 

Length 

Time/Frequency 

Temperature 

Grain Moisture 

2010 SLP Survey v.1.00 August 17, 2011
SLP Survey 2010 - Page 109 of 122 

2010 Workload Information 

NOTE: The following information should be based on a 12 month period, preferably Jan 1, 2010 through Dec 31, 2010 or the 

most recent fiscal year. Reported data should not be estimates. If unable to quote actual data, please attach your comments to the 

end of this survey.

Actual Period of Time Covered: From _______________ To _______________ 

8. Mass Echelon I 

Number of mass standards calibrated using Advanced Weighing 

Designs and Mass Code Data Reduction. 

Regardless of Class. 

Lab (Internal) 

W&M Program 

External Customers 

Total 

9. Mass Echelon II 

Number of mass standards. 

ASTM Class 1, 2, 3 

OIML Class E2, F1 

Lab (Internal) 

W&M Program 

External Customers 

Total 

10. Mass Echelon III 

Number of mass standards (except weight carts). 

ASTM Class 4, 5, 6, 7 

OIML Class F2, M1, M2, M3 

NIST Class F 

Lab (Internal) 

W&M Program 

External Customers 

Total 

11. Weight Carts 

Number of weight carts calibrated. Lab (Internal) 

W&M Program 

External Customers 

Total 

12. Volume – Glassware 

Number of individual pieces of volumetric glassware calibrated. 

Note: Indicate number of Volume Transfer (V-T) and/or 

Gravimetric test methods. 

Vol-Transfer Gravimetric 

Lab (Internal) 

W&M Program 

External Customers 

Total 

13. Volume – SVP (Small Volume Provers) ( NOT 5 gallon test measures ) 

Number of small volume provers calibrated. 

Note: Indicate number of Volume Transfer (V-T) and/or 

Gravimetric test methods. If you don’t know what a SVP is, your 

answer is probably zero. 

Vol-Transfer Gravimetric 

Lab (Internal) 

W&M Program 

External Customers 

Total 

14. Volume – LPG 

Number of individual LPG provers calibrated. 

Note: Indicate number of Volume Transfer (V-T) and/or 

Gravimetric test methods. 

Vol-Transfer Gravimetric 

Lab (Internal) 

W&M Program 

External Customers 

Total 

 

2010 SLP Survey v.1.00 August 17, 2011
SLP Survey 2010 - Page 110 of 122 

15. 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 (V-T) and/or 

Gravimetric test methods. 

Vol-Transfer Gravimetric 

Lab (Internal) 

W&M Program 

External Customers 

Total 

16. Volume – Non-Pressurized Medium Metal Standards ( > 5 gallon and  100 gallon) 

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 (V-T) and/or 

Gravimetric test methods. 

Vol-Transfer Gravimetric 

Lab (Internal) 

W&M Program 

External Customers 

Total 

17. 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 (V-T) and/or 

Gravimetric test methods. 

Vol-Transfer Gravimetric 

Lab (Internal) 

W&M Program 

External Customers 

Total 

18. Length - Tapes 

Number of individual tapes (metal, fiberglass, woven fiberglass, 

cloth, etc.). Please enter #devices tested, NOT number of points 

tested. 

Lab (Internal) 

W&M Program 

External Customers 

Total 

19. Length - Rigid Rules 

Number of rigid rules calibrated. Lab (Internal) 

W&M Program 

External Customers 

Total 

20. Thermometry 

Number of thermometers tested (mechanical, liquid-in-glass, 

thermocouples, thermistors, PRTs, SPRTs). 

Lab (Internal) 

W&M Program 

External Customers 

Total 

21. Frequency 

Number of frequency standards tested (includes tuning forks). Lab (Internal) 

W&M Program 

External Customers 

Total 

22. Timing Devices 

Number of timing devices tested (stopwatches). Lab (Internal) 

W&M Program 

External Customers 

Total 

23. Wheel Load Weighers 

Number of wheel load weighers tested : Lab (Internal) 

W&M Program 

External Customers 

Total 

2010 SLP Survey v.1.00 August 17, 2011
SLP Survey 2010 - Page 111 of 122 

24. Lottery Balls 

Number of lottery balls tested : 

 Characteristic Tested: 

  Mass  Diameter  Other 

 Describe Other________________________________ 

Lab (Internal) 

W&M Program 

External Customers 

Total 

25. (A) Other Types of Measurements not covered in this survey 

Describe type of measurement: Lab (Internal) 

W&M Program 

External Customers 

Total 

26. (B) Other Types of Measurements not covered in this survey 

Describe type of measurement: Lab (Internal) 

W&M Program 

External Customers 

Total 

27. (C) Other Types of Measurements not covered in this survey 

Describe type of measurement: Lab (Internal) 

W&M Program 

External Customers 

Total 

 

2010 SLP Survey v.1.00 August 17, 2011
SLP Survey 2010 - Page 112 of 122 

28. Laboratory Fees 

In this section please estimate the typical fees charged for each of the described examples. 

Does your laboratory charge fees for external customers? YES  NO 

Do you have a minimum fee? $ 

[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) $ 

One – 31 lb Class F weight set (22 weights) $ 

5,000 lb weight cart $ 

Scale test truck: 

24-1000 lb weights (5 adjusted) 

20 - 50 lb weights (5 adjusted) 

2 -31 lb weight sets (22 weights each) 

TOTAL 

$ 

$ 

$ 

$ 

One – 5 gallon test measure using volume transfer method: $ 

One – 5 gallon test measure using gravimetric method: $ 

One – 100 gallon prover using volume transfer method: $ 

One – 100 gallon prover using gravimetric method: $ 

One – 100 gallon LPG prover: $ 

One – 20 gallon SVP (small volume prover) using volume transfer method: $ 

One – 20 gallon SVP (small volume prover) using gravimetric method: $ 

One- 100 foot tape with 19 points tested: $ 

Are out-of-state customers charged more than your in-state customers? YES  NO  

If YES, please explain in the comment section. 

29. Comments on Survey 

 

2010 SLP Survey v.1.00 August 17, 2011
SLP Survey 2010 - Page 113 of 122 

Additional Survey Questions 

Jurisdiction: Name: 

For each of the following recommended standards please indicate if your jurisdiction actively enforces, recommends, or does not

utilize the standard. Please indicate if your jurisdiction utilizes the indicated standard for purchasing specifications, measurement 

tolerances, etc. Please indicate the calibration interval recommended or enforced by your jurisdiction for the device covered by 

each standard if appropriate. Indicate N/A as is appropriate for your jurisdiction. 

Standard Compliance Enforcement 

Other Usage 

(purchasing 

specifications, calibration 

tolerance definitions, etc) 

Enforced/Recomme

nded Calibration 

Interval 

(please specify in 

months) 

NIST HB 105 Series 

105-1 

Class F Weights and 

Mass Standards 

For state regulatory 

investigators? 

Actively 

Enforced 

 

Actively 

Recommended 

Not actively 

Recommended or Enforced 

For industry service 

technicians? 

Actively 

Enforced 

Actively 

Recommended 

Not actively 

Recommended or Enforced 

105-2 

Glass Flasks 

For state regulatory 

investigators? 

Actively 

Enforced 

 

Actively 

Recommended 

Not actively 

Recommended or Enforced 

For industry service 

technicians? 

Actively 

Enforced 

Actively 

Recommended 

Not actively 

Recommended or Enforced 

105-3 

Graduated Neck-Type 

Volumetric Test 

Measures and Provers 

For state regulatory 

investigators? 

Actively 

Enforced 

 

Actively 

Recommended 

Not actively 

Recommended or Enforced 

For industry service 

technicians? 

Actively 

Enforced 

Actively 

Recommended 

Not actively 

Recommended or Enforced 

 

2010 SLP Survey v.1.00 August 17, 2011
SLP Survey 2010 - Page 114 of 122 

105-4 

Liquefied Petroleum 

Gas Type Provers 

For state regulatory 

investigators? 

Actively 

Enforced 

 

Actively 

Recommended 

Not actively 

Recommended or Enforced 

For industry service 

technicians? 

Actively 

Enforced 

Actively 

Recommended 

Not actively 

Recommended or Enforced 

105-5 

Stopwatches 

For state regulatory 

investigators? 

Actively 

Enforced 

 

Actively Recommended 

Not actively 

Recommended or Enforced 

For industry service 

technicians? 

Actively 

Enforced 

Actively 

 Recommended 

Not actively 

Recommended or Enforced 

105-6 

Thermometers 

For state regulatory 

investigators? 

Actively 

Enforced 

 

Actively 

Recommended 

Not actively 

Recommended or Enforced 

For industry service 

technicians? 

Actively 

Enforced 

Actively Recommended 

Not actively 

Recommended or Enforced 

105-7 

Dynamic Small 

Volume Provers 

For state regulatory 

investigators? 

Actively 

Enforced 

 

Actively 

Recommended 

Not actively 

Recommended or Enforced 

For industry service 

technicians? 

Actively 

Enforced 

Actively 

Recommended 

Not actively 

Recommended or Enforced 

 

2010 SLP Survey v.1.00 August 17, 2011
SLP Survey 2010 - Page 115 of 122 

105-8 

Field Standard Weight 

Carts 

For state regulatory 

investigators? 

Actively 

Enforced 

 

Actively 

Recommended 

Not actively 

Recommended or Enforced 

For industry service 

technicians? 

Actively 

Enforced 

Actively 

Recommended 

Not actively 

Recommended or Enforced 

ASTM Standards 

ASTM E617 

(mass) 

For state regulatory 

investigators?

Actively 

Enforced

 

Actively 

Recommended 

Not actively 

Recommended or Enforced 

For industry service 

technicians?

Actively 

Enforced

Actively 

Recommended 

Not actively 

Recommended or Enforced 

ASTM E74 

(load cells/proving 

rings calibration) 

For state regulatory 

investigators?

Actively 

Enforced

 

Actively 

Recommended 

Not actively 

Recommended or Enforced 

For industry service 

technicians?

Actively 

Enforced

Actively 

Recommended 

Not actively 

Recommended or Enforced 

ASTM E100 

(hydrometers) 

For state regulatory 

investigators?

Actively 

Enforced

 

Actively 

Recommended 

Not actively 

Recommended or Enforced 

For industry service 

technicians?

Actively 

Enforced

Actively 

Recommended 

Not actively 

Recommended or Enforced 

 

2010 SLP Survey v.1.00 August 17, 2011
SLP Survey 2010 - Page 116 of 122 

ASTM E288 

(glassware) 

For state regulatory 

investigators?

Actively 

Enforced

 

Actively 

Recommended 

Not actively 

Recommended or Enforced 

For industry service 

technicians?

Actively 

Enforced

Actively 

Recommended 

Not actively 

Recommended or Enforced 

ASTM E1 

(LIG Thermometers, 

mercury) 

For state regulatory 

investigators?

Actively 

Enforced

 

Actively 

Recommended 

Not actively 

Recommended or Enforced 

For industry service 

technicians?

Actively 

Enforced

Actively 

Recommended 

Not actively 

Recommended or Enforced 

ASTM E2251 

(LIG Thermometers, 

other) 

For state regulatory 

investigators?

Actively 

Enforced

 

Actively 

Recommended 

Not actively 

Recommended or Enforced 

For industry service 

technicians?

Actively 

Enforced

Actively 

Recommended 

Not actively 

Recommended or Enforced 

OIML Standards 

R7 

Clinical thermometers, 

mercury-in-glass with 

maximum device 

For state regulatory 

investigators? 

Actively 

Enforced

 

Actively 

Recommended 

Not actively 

Recommended or Enforced

For industry service 

technicians? 

Actively 

Enforced

Actively 

Recommended 

Not actively 

Recommended or Enforced

 

2010 SLP Survey v.1.00 August 17, 2011
SLP Survey 2010 - Page 117 of 122 

R43 

Standard graduated 

glass flasks for 

verification officers

For state regulatory 

investigators?

Actively 

Enforced

 

Actively 

Recommended 

Not actively 

Recommended or Enforced

For industry service 

technicians?

Actively 

Enforced

Actively 

Recommended 

Not actively 

Recommended or Enforced

R59 

Moisture meters for 

cereal grains and 

oilseeds 

For state regulatory 

investigators?

Actively 

Enforced

 

Actively 

Recommended 

Not actively 

Recommended or Enforced

For industry service 

technicians?

Actively 

Enforced

Actively 

Recommended 

Not actively 

Recommended or Enforced

R84 

Platinum, copper, and 

nickel resistance 

thermometers (for 

industrial and 

commercial use) 

For state regulatory 

investigators?

Actively 

Enforced

 

Actively 

Recommended 

Not actively 

Recommended or Enforced

For industry service 

technicians?

Actively 

Enforced

Actively 

Recommended 

Not actively 

Recommended or Enforced

R91 

Radar equipment for 

the measurement of the 

speed of vehicles 

For state regulatory 

investigators?

Actively 

Enforced

 

Actively 

Recommended 

Not actively 

Recommended or Enforced

For industry service 

technicians?

Actively 

Enforced

Actively 

Recommended 

Not actively 

Recommended or Enforced

 

2010 SLP Survey v.1.00 August 17, 2011
SLP Survey 2010 - Page 118 of 122 

R111-1 

Weights of classes E1, 

E2, F1, F2, M1, M1-2, 

M2, M2-3 and M3. 

Part 1: Metrological 

and technical 

requirements 

For state regulatory 

investigators?

Actively 

Enforced

 

Actively 

Recommended 

Not actively 

Recommended or Enforced

For industry service 

technicians?

Actively 

Enforced

Actively 

Recommended 

Not actively 

Recommended or Enforced

R111-2 

Weights of classes E1, 

E2, F1, F2, M1, M1-2, 

M2, M2-3 and M3. 

Part 2: Test report 

format 

For state regulatory 

investigators?

Actively 

Enforced

 

Actively 

Recommended 

Not actively 

Recommended or Enforced

For industry service 

technicians?

Actively 

Enforced

Actively 

Recommended 

Not actively 

Recommended or Enforced

R114 

Clinical electrical 

thermometers for 

continuous 

measurement 

For state regulatory 

investigators?

Actively 

Enforced

 

Actively 

Recommended 

Not actively 

Recommended or Enforced

For industry service 

technicians?

Actively 

Enforced

Actively 

Recommended 

Not actively 

Recommended or Enforced

R115 

Clinical electrical 

thermometers with 

maximum device 

For state regulatory 

investigators?

Actively 

Enforced

 

Actively 

Recommended 

Not actively 

Recommended or Enforced

For industry service 

technicians?

Actively 

Enforced

Actively 

Recommended 

Not actively 

Recommended or Enforced

 

2010 SLP Survey v.1.00 August 17, 2011
SLP Survey 2010 - Page 119 of 122 

R119 

Pipe provers for testing 

of measuring systems 

for liquids other than 

water 

For state regulatory 

investigators?

Actively 

Enforced

 

Actively 

Recommended 

Not actively 

Recommended or Enforced

For industry service 

technicians?

Actively 

Enforced

Actively 

Recommended 

Not actively 

Recommended or Enforced

R120 

Standard capacity 

measures for testing 

measuring systems for 

liquids other than water 

For state regulatory 

investigators?

Actively 

Enforced

 

Actively 

Recommended 

Not actively 

Recommended or Enforced

For industry service 

technicians?

Actively 

Enforced

Actively 

Recommended 

Not actively 

Recommended or Enforced

R129 

Multi-dimensional 

measuring instruments 

For state regulatory 

investigators?

Actively 

Enforced

 

Actively 

Recommended 

Not actively 

Recommended or Enforced

For industry service 

technicians?

Actively 

Enforced

Actively 

Recommended 

Not actively 

Recommended or Enforced

R133 

Liquid-in-glass 

thermometers 

For state regulatory 

investigators?

Actively 

Enforced

 

Actively 

Recommended 

Not actively 

Recommended or Enforced

For industry service 

technicians?

Actively 

Enforced

Actively 

Recommended 

Not actively 

Recommended or Enforced

 

2010 SLP Survey v.1.00 August 17, 2011
SLP Survey 2010 - Page 120 of 122 

Other Standards 

API Standards 

(any, please specify in 

comments) 

For state regulatory 

investigators?

Actively 

Enforced

 

Actively 

Recommended 

Not actively 

Recommended or Enforced 

For industry service 

technicians?

Actively 

Enforced

Actively 

Recommended 

Not actively 

Recommended or Enforced 

Comments 

 

2010 SLP Survey v.1.00 August 17, 2011
SLP Survey 2010 - Page 121 of 122 

MAIL OR FAX COMPLETED SURVEY TO: 

Weights and Measures 

Attn: Steven Harrington 

14305 Southcross Drive W #150 

Burnsville, MN 55306 

Telephone: 651-215-1777 

FAX: 952-435-4040 

Email: steven.harrington@state.mn.us

 

2010 SLP Survey v.1.00 August 17, 2011
SLP Survey 2010 - Page 122 of 122 

1. http://www.nist.gov/pml/wmd/labmetrology/lab-resources-archive.cfm. [Online] 

2. www.ncwm.net. [Online] 

3. www.nist.gov/pml/wmd/labmetrology/lab-contacts-ac.cfm. [Online] 

4. NIST/SEMATECH e Handbook of Statistical Methods (http://www.itl.nist.gov/div898/handbook). 2005. 

5. Cameron, J. M., Croarkin, M. C. and Raybold, R. C. NBS Technical Note 952 "Designs for the Calibration of Standards of 

Mass". 1977. 

6. OIML D 28, "Conventional value of the Result of Weighing in Air". 2004. 

7. Varner, R. N. and Raybold, R. C. NBS Technical Note 1127 "Mass Calibration Computer Software". 1980. 

8. Harris, G. L. and Torres, J. A. NIST IR 6969, "Selected Laboratory and Measurement Practices, and Procedures, to Support 

Basic Mass Calibrations". 2003. 

9. NIST Handbook 105-8 "Specifications and Tolerances for Field Standard Weight Carts". 2003. 

10. NIST Handbook 105-1 "Specifications for Field Standard Test Weights (NIST Class F)". 1990. 

11. Taylor, J. K. and Oppermann, H. V. NBS Handbook 145 "Handbook for the Quality Assurance of Metrological Measurements". 

1986. 

12. Harris, G. L. NIST Internal Report 7383, "Selected Procedures for Volumetric Calibrations". 2006. 

13. www.nist.gov/pml/nvlap/. [Online] 

14. NIST Handbook 105-3, "Specifications and Tolerance Graduated Neck Type Volumetric Field Standards". 2010. 

15. NIST Handbook 105-4, "Specifications and Tolerances for Liquified Petroleum Gas and Anhydrous Ammonia Liquid Volumetric 

Provers". 2010. 

16. NIST Handbook 105-7, "Specifications and Tolerances for Dynamic Small Volume Provers". 1997. 

17. http://www.nist.gov/pml/wmd/. [Online] 

18. NIST Handbook 143 "State Weights and Measures Laboratories Program Handbook". 2010. 

19. Faison, C.D., et al., et al. NIST Handbook 150 "National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program Procedures and General 

Requirements". 2006. 

20. http://www.ilac.org/. [Online] 

21. www.nist.gov/pml/wmd/pubs/handbooks.cfm. [Online] 

22. www.astm.org. [Online] 

23. www.oiml.org. [Online] 

24. Harris, G. L. and Torres, J. A. NIST Internal Report 6969 "Selected Laboratory and Measurement Practices and Procedures, to 

Support Basic Mass Calibrations. 2003. 

25. Fraley, K. L. and Harris, G. L. NIST Internal Report 5672 "Advanced Mass Calibration and Measurement Assurance Program 

for State Calibration Laboratories". 2005. 

26. Davis, R.S. Equation for the Determination of the Density of Moist Air (1981/1991). Metrologia. 1992, Vol. 29, pp. 67-70. 

27. http://www.itl.nist.gov/div898/handbook/. [Online] 

2010 SLP Survey v.1.00 August 17, 2011