2005 State Laboratory Program Workload Survey

Summary Graphs and Data by NCSLI Legal Metrology Committee

PR Jun’05 Rev 1

Acknowledgements

The State Laboratory Program and all the state metrologists associated with it would like to acknowledge Henry Oppermann and the many contributions he has made to legal metrology in the United States. Along with John Taylor, Henry literally wrote the book on metrology. Nearly twenty years after its publication, NBS Handbook 145, Handbook for the Quality Assurance of Metrological Measurements, remains inarguably the most important reference to legal metrology in the United States. Henry trained many of us in the State Laboratory Program and shaped the programs we manage today. We owe much to his patient explanations, clear derivations, and quest to always want to know more. Even after leaving the management of the State Laboratory Program, his continuing support has allowed Georgia Harris to push our laboratories to ever higher standards. He has never lost sight of the importance of the metrology laboratory as the foundation of both legal metrology and industrial measurement. We wish him the very best in his retirement. Henry, thanks for the support and guidance you have given to the State Laboratory Program throughout the years. You have touched us all and improved the lives of everybody who has ever bought, sold, or manufactured a product based on weight or other measure in the United States. Your work is and will continue to be truly appreciated.

The committee would like to extend a special Thank You to Ken Fraley, Oklahoma Bureau of Standards, for his work in assembling the massive amount of data into the form before you. Without his dedication to this work the State Laboratory Survey would not have the clarity of form that enables the reader to understand the content so effortlessly.

We would also like to give our appreciation to Craig Gulka, Business Manager, NCSL International for automating the data collection through the NCSLI web site, truly pushing the survey into the twenty first century. It made this year’s data collection much easier and more efficient than in past surveys.

Thanks to the NCSLI Legal Metrology Committee, (Georgia Harris, NIST; Val Miller, NIST; L.F. Eason, North Carolina; Steve Sumner, New Mexico and Elizabeth Gentry, Oklahoma) for their perceptive review in the development of this report.

Dedicated to the Memory of Joe Rothleder (1939-2005) (California Principal State Metrologist, 1979 - 2003)

Joe, You always made us think and Often helped us to see what otherwise we would have missed.

Table of Contents

Pages

Introduction 1 – 3 Total Workload (Summary by Device Type) 4 – 5 Total Workload (Summary by Customer Type) 6 – 7 Total Mass (by Customer & Accuracy Type) 8 – 9 Mass Echelon I 10 – 11 Mass Echelon II 12 – 13 Precision Mass (Echelon I & II) 14 – 15 Mass Echelon III 16 – 17 Weight Carts 18 – 19 Length (Tapes) 20 – 21 Length (Rigid Rules) 22 – 23 Volume (Glassware) 24 – 25 Volume (Test Measures) 26 – 27 Volume (Provers) 28 – 29 Temperature 30 – 31 Frequency 32 – 33 Time 34 – 35 Wheel Load Weighers 36 – 37 Lottery Balls 38 – 39 Other Tests (Summary) 40 – 41 Other Tests (Special Volume) 42 – 43 Other Tests (Scales) 44 – 45 Other Tests (Special Linear/Dimensional) 46 – 47 Other Tests (Railroad Test Cars) 48 – 49 Laboratory Facilities (Age, Size, & Renovations) 50 – 51 Laboratory Elevation 52 – 53 Metrology Experience (by Lab) 54 – 55 Metrology Experience (by Individual) 56 – 57 NVLAP Accreditation & WMD Certificate of Traceability Status 58 – 59 Fees 60 – 67 Metrology Position Salary Ranges 68 – 71 Laboratory Customers 72 – 73

Survey Instructions Appendix Survey Questionnaire Appendix

2005 NCSLI Legal Metrology Committee State Laboratory Program Workload Survey

Objectives and History of the Survey

In 1996, the National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM) Metrology Subcommittee surveyed the State Laboratory participants to quantify the workload of the State Laboratory Program (SLP) and document its impact on the United States economy. From the survey analysis, it was clear that the workload statistics were dynamic and only provided a snapshot of the workload at the time. Therefore, the Metrology Subcommittee circulated a revised survey April 16, 1999 to update program statistics and to investigate trends in the National workload. The subcommittee has since recommended that the survey be conducted on a biennial 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. The 2005 survey is the first survey sponsored by the National Conference of Standards Laboratories International (NCSLI) Legal Metrology Committee. NCSLI created space on their website by which participants could complete the survey on-line.

Survey data will be used not only to quantify the impact of the State Laboratory Program 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 State Laboratory Program 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.

Standardization of Future Surveys

Since it is the intention to conduct this survey on a biennial basis, the survey has been standardized in a format very similar to the 1999 survey. Future surveys will continue to be standardized in this format. This facilitates the reporting information from the individual laboratories, since the laboratories are always aware of what information must be tracked during any reporting period. From time to time there have been (and will continue to be) instances that another questionnaire is attached to the survey to collect additional information of timely importance. For example, the 1999 survey had an attachment that asked for information regarding weight carts. This was a very efficient method for collecting data that was used in the drafting of the new NIST Handbook105-8 that addresses the specifications and tolerances for weight carts. The 2001 survey had a few special requests for information. One was job title and salary ranges of metrologists. Another special request was fee information. The 2003 survey was also accompanied with a questionnaire concerning technical specification standards and regulations. However, the basic format of the survey will be standardized from year to year.

The reporting period has also been standardized. The title of the survey report reflects the year in which the report was created. For example, the 2003 survey requested information

Jun’05 Rev 1 Page 1 Survey 2005 based on activities performed by each laboratory during the period of January 1, 2002 through December 31, 2002.

Presentation and Analysis of Data

Thanks in large part to the efforts of Craig Gulka, Business Manager, NCSL International, this was the first year that the survey was completed on-line. The NCSLI developed a program that automatically compiled the data into an Access database. Queries were developed to access the data that was then copied into Excel spreadsheets. The Excel spreadsheets were used to present the information in graphical form for the different types of standards. The first graph at the top of each page is a map graph in which shading is used to indicate the number of standards each state tested. Also included is a pie graph that provides a further breakdown of the data. The pie graph is automatically placed as an overlay on the map graph and associated with the appropriate State. The bar graph uses the same data as the map graph and provides a further breakdown of the data. The bar graph displays the total number of standards tested above each bar and an average is calculated and plotted.

Note: Extreme caution should be used when comparing one state’s data with data from another state. It was determined in the 1996 survey that laboratory workload is based somewhat on industrial and population densities that vary by geographical location. Laboratories generally attempt to meet the needs of their customers equally. For this and additional reasons listed elsewhere in this report, variance between individual laboratories concerning the number of devices tested, staffing, and laboratory facility are normal and cannot legitimately be used to rate the quality of any laboratory program.

Also presented are some comparisons between the calculated laboratory averages from the 1996, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2003, and 2005 surveys. 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.

Participants

The State Laboratory Program (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 active and 4 were temporarily inactive at the time of this survey. The Washington DC, Delaware, U.S.-Virgin Islands, and Rhode Island metrology laboratories were not operational. The Kentucky, Tennessee, and North Dakota state metrology laboratories, and Los Angeles County metrology laboratory were inactive during the reporting period of the 2005 survey. Forty-seven laboratories (100% of active laboratories) responded to the survey.

Jun’05 Rev 1 Page 2 Survey 2005 The following is a list of the SLP laboratories and their participation status in the 1996, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2003, and 2005 surveys.

1996 Survey 1999 Survey 2000 Survey 2001 Survey 2003 Survey 2005 Survey Participant Participant Participant Participant Participant Participant AK Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes AL Yes Yes Yes AR Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes AZ Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes CA Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes CO Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes CT Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes DE (inactive) (inactive) (inactive) (inactive) (inactive) (inactive) FL Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes GA Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes HI Yes Yes Yes (inactive) Yes Yes IA Yes Yes Yes (inactive) Yes ID Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes IL Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes IN Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes KS Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes KY Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes (inactive) LA Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes MA Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes MD Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes ME Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes MI Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes MN Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes MO Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes MS Yes Yes (inactive) Yes Yes MT Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes NC Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes ND Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes (inactive) NE Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes NH Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes NJ Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes NM Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes NV Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes NY Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes OH Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes OK Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes OR Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes PA Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes RI (inactive) (inactive) (inactive) (inactive) (inactive) (inactive) SC Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes SD Yes Yes (inactive) Yes TN Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes (inactive) TX Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes UT Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes VA Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes VT Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes WA Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes WI Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes WV Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes WY Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes USDA-GIPSA Yes Yes Washington DC (inactive) (inactive) (inactive) (inactive) (inactive) (inactive) Virgin Islands (inactive) (inactive) (inactive) (inactive) (inactive) (inactive) Puerto Rico Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes LA County Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes (inactive) TOTAL 51 46 45 45 48 47

Jun’05 Rev 1 Page 3 Survey 2005 Summary of All Standards {Total Number of Standards or Devices Tested}

Description

The graphs on the following page are a summary of the total number of standards or devices tested by the 47 reporting laboratories. The map graph gives a geographical distribution of these standards. Darker shading indicates more devices being tested. 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 categories of mass, volume, length, temperature, time/frequency, wheel load weighers, lottery balls, and other. The bar graph at the bottom of the page shows the same breakdown in categories along with the total number of devices tested by each laboratory. There is also a smaller line graph indicating the totals from the 1996, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2003, and 2005 surveys.

Findings

The 47 reporting laboratories tested a total of 355,986 standards.

Comparison of the 2005, 2003, 2001, 2000, 1999, and 1996 Surveys

# Reporting Labs Total Devices Lab Average 1996 51 332,587 6,521 1999 46 320,950 6,977 2000 45 352,274 7,828 2001 45 361,600 8,036 2003 48 375,411 7,821 2005 47 355,986 7,574 Using the lab averages: 1996 to 1999 -- An increase of 7 % 1999 to 2000 -- An increase of 12 %* 2000 to 2001 -- An increase of 3 % 2001 to 2003 -- A decrease of 3 % 2003 to 2005 -- A decrease of 3%

Notes and Comments

*Part of the 12 % increase from 1999 to 2000 may be attributed to a new category that was called “Other”. These are calibrations done by the laboratory, which did not fall into any of the pre-defined categories of the survey. This category was new for the 2000 survey and was not available for the 1996 and 1999 surveys. There were 25,350 devices reported as “Other” in the 2000 survey, when these are removed from the total it indicates an increase of 4 % over the 1999 survey.

Mass standards accounted for 77 % of the total number of devices tested.

Jun’05 Rev 1 Page 4 Survey 2005 Summary of All Standards (By Device Type)

Mass Lottery Balls Time/Frequency Wheel Load Weighers Volume Other Length Temperature

14,400 to 24,400 (4) USDA 11,200 to 14,400 (6) 9,400 to 11,200 (4) 7,000 to 9,400 (5) 5,200 to 7,000 (5) 3,800 to 5,200 (6) Puerto Rico 2,300 to 3,800 (4) 1,600 to 2,300 (5) 100 to 1,600 (5) 355986 Total Devices0 to 100 (7)

30000 390000

28103 Mass 77% 370000

350000 375411 24380

25000 Other 330000 361600 355986 352274 23261 2% 310000 332587

290000 320950

270000 20000 Lottery Balls 250000 18023 12%

230000 Wheel Load 15612 Volume

Weighers 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2% 15000 14352 3%Time Frequency

13624 Temp

13182 4% 13149 Length 0% 0% 11420 11230 10547 9653 9527 9466 10000 9370 8510 8472 8279 7561

6967 7574 6037 6033 5902 5751 5174 4898 4647 4521 4091

5000 3824 3372 3231 3157 3041 2282 2021 1932 1868 1774 1564 1483 1372 1207 1161 869 86 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IL RI IA ID IN HI NJ FL MI PR SC WI PA KS CT SD LA AL AZ TX VT UT TN NE DE CA AR NC CO OR DC AK GA OK DA VA KY NY NH OH NV ND MS MT ME MA MO MD NM MN WA WV WY

Mass Volume Length Temperature Time/Frequency Wheel Load Weighers Lottery Balls Other Average

Jun’05 Rev 1 Page 5 Survey 2005

Summary of All Standards (by customer type) {Lab, W&M, and External}

Description

The graphs on the following page represent the total number of all mass standards tested by the 47 reporting laboratories. The pie graph provides 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 metrology laboratory. W&M – work done for the weights and measures program. External – work done for customers who do not fall into any of the above categories.

Findings

The 47 reporting laboratories tested a total of 355,986 standards.

Notes and Comments

2 % of all standards were calibrated for internal use of the laboratory. 16 % of all standards were calibrated for “Weights & Measures Program’. 82 % of all standards were calibrated for ‘External’ customers.

This 2 % / 16 % / 82 % pattern is very representative of the breakdown of customers. However, it can be noted that the smaller the entire workload of the lab, the greater percentage “Lab” becomes. This reflects the ‘basic maintenance’ workload necessary to make a metrology laboratory operational.

Jun’05 Rev 1 Page 6 Survey 2005 Summary of All Standards (By Customer Type)

LAB W&M External

13,200 to 24,400 (6) 9,700 to 13,200 (5) 8,500 to 9,700 (5) USDA 7,000 to 8,500 (3) 4,900 to 7,000 (6) 3,400 to 4,900 (5) 2,000 to 3,400 (6) Puerto Rico 1,500 to 2,000 (4) 900 to 1,500 (3) 0 to 900 (8) 355986 Total Devices

30000 390000 28103

370000

W&M 350000 375411

24380 16% 25000 330000 361600 355986 352274 23,261 310000 332587

290000 320950 20000 270000 Lab 250000 18,023 2% External 82% 230000 15612 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

15000 14352 13624 13182 13149 11420 11230 10547 9653 9527 9466 10000 9370 8510 8472 8279 7561

6967 7574 6037 6033 5902 5751 5174 4898 4647 4521 4091

5000 3824 3372 3231 3157 3041 2282 2021 1932 1868 1774 1564 1483 1372 1207 1161 869 86 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IL RI IA ID IN HI NJ FL MI PR SC WI PA KS CT SD LA AL AZ TX VT UT TN NE DE CA AR NC CO OR DC AK GA VA OK DA KY NY OH NH NV ND MS MT ME MA MN MO MD NM WA WV WY

LAB W&M External Average

Jun’05 Rev 1 Page 7 Survey 2005

Mass Total (by customer type) & (by accuracy type)

Description

The pie graphs on the following page are for the total of number mass standards tested by the 47 reporting laboratories. The top pie graph provides a breakdown into the customer categories of Lab, W&M, and External.

Lab – work done for the metrology laboratory. W&M – work done for the weights and measures program. External – work done for customers who do not fall into any of the above categories.

The bottom pie graph provides a breakdown in the accuracy echelons of Mass I, Mass II, and Mass III. Mass I – Precision mass standards that are calibrated using Advanced Weighing Designs and Mass Code Data Reduction regardless of class. Mass II – Precision mass standards that are usually calibrated using 3-1 weighing designs or double substitutions. Mass III – Mass standards that are usually calibrated using modified or single substitution procedures.

Notes and Comments

Mass By Customer Type 2.7 % of all mass standards were calibrated for internal use by the laboratory. 18.8 % of all mass standards were calibrated for the Weights & Measures Program. 78.5 % of all mass standards were calibrated for ‘Other’ customers.

Mass By Echelon Category 1.4 % (3,707) of all mass standards were calibrated as Mass Echelon I. (compared to 0.9 % in 1999, 2.1 % in 2000, 1.8 % in 2001, and 1.8 % in 2003) 7.9 % (21,714) of all mass standards were calibrated as Mass Echelon II. (compared to 8.7 % in 1999, 8.9 % in 2000, 9.1 % in 2001, and 8.7 % in 2003) 90.7 % (248,117) of all mass standards were calibrated as Mass Echelon III. (compared to 90.4 % in 1999, 89.0 % in 2000, 89.1 % in 2001, and 89.6 % in 2003)

It has been estimated that it takes ten times the number of labor hours to calibrate an Echelon I or II weight as compared to an Echelon III weight. When this is taken into consideration, the same total number of labor hours is probably spent on Echelon I & II calibrations as is spent on Echelon III calibrations.

Jun’05 Rev 1 Page 8 Survey 2005 Total Mass (by Customer Type)

W&M 18.8%

Lab 2.7%

External 78.5%

Total Mass (by Accuracy Type)

Mass II 7.9%

Mass I 1.4% Mass III 90.7%

Jun’05 Rev 1 Page 9 Survey 2005

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. Darker shading indicates more devices were tested. 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. There is also a smaller line graph indicating the totals from the 1999, 2000, 2001, 2003, and 2005 surveys.

Lab – work done for the internal use of the metrology laboratory. W&M – work done for the weights and measures program. External – work done for customers who do not fall into any of the above categories.

Findings

Of the 47 reporting laboratories, 14 labs tested a total of 3,707 Mass I standards.

Comparison of the 2005, 2003, 2001, 2000, and 1999 Surveys

The number of laboratories performing Mass I calibrations appears to have stabilized in the range of 14 to 16. There were 10 labs in 1999, 15 labs in 2000, 16 labs in 2001, 15 in 2003, and 14 in 2005.

# Labs Reporting Total Devices Lab Average Change using lab Mass Echelon I averages 1999 10 2,667 267 -- 2000 15 5,985 399 + 50 % 2001 16 5,227 327 - 18 % 2003 15 5,288 353 + 8 % 2005 14 3,707 265 - 25 %

Results for Mass I cannot be compared to the 1996 survey. The 1996 survey did not use Mass Echelon I as a category. It used ‘Precision Mass’ as the category that included both Mass Echelon I and Mass Echelon II calibrations.

Notes and Comments

38 % of all Mass I standards were calibrated for internal use by the laboratory. 3 % of all Mass I standards were calibrated for the weight and measures program. 59 % of all Mass I standards were calibrated for external customers.

Jun’05 Rev 1 Page 10 Survey 2005 Mass Echelon I

Lab W&M External

270 to 1,380 (5) 187 to 270 (1) 145 to 187 (1) USDA 136 to 145 (1) 100 to 136 (1) 92 to 100 (1) 89 to 92 (1) Puerto Rico 25 to 89 (1) 15 to 25 (1) 0 to 15 (38) 3707 Total Devices

1500 W&M 7000

1380 Lab 3% 1400 6000 38%

1300 5000 5985 5288 1200 4000 5227

3000 1100 3707 2000 1000 2667 1000

900 0

800 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

700 External 627 59% 600 500 400 311 280 300 270 265 187

200 145 136 100 92 89

100 50 25 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IL RI IA HI ID IN NJ FL MI SC WI PR KS PA CT SD AL LA AZ TX TN UT VT DE NE AR CA OR NC CO DC AK GA OK DA VA KY NH ND NV NY OH MS MT ME MA MN NM MD MO WA WV WY

Lab W&M External Average

Jun’05 Rev 1 Page 11 Survey 2005

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. Darker shading indicates more devices were tested. 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 above each laboratory. There is also a smaller line graph indicating the totals from the 1999, 2000, 2001, 2003, and 2005 surveys.

Findings

Of the 47 reporting laboratories, 32 labs tested a total of 21,714 Mass II standards.

Comparison of the 2005, 2003, 2001, 2000, and 1999 Surveys

# Labs Reporting Total Devices Lab Average Change using lab Mass Echelon II averages 1999 36 24,926 692 -- 2000 35 25,807 737 + 6 % 2001 38 26,428 695 - 6 % 2003 37 25,847 699 + 0 % 2005 32 21,714 679 - 3 %

Results for Mass II cannot be compared to the 1996 survey. The 1996 survey did not use Mass Echelon II as a category. It used ‘Precision Mass’ as the category that included both Mass Echelon I and Mass Echelon II calibrations.

Notes and Comments

9 % of all Mass II standards were calibrated for the internal use of the laboratory. 3 % of all Mass II standards were calibrated for the weights and measures program. 88 % of all Mass II standards were calibrated for external customers.

Jun’05 Rev 1 Page 12 Survey 2005 Mass Echelon II

Lab W&M External

2,300 to 2,780 (1) 1,840 to 2,300 (1) 1,380 to 1,840 (3) USDA 920 to 1,380 (2) 460 to 920 (10) 0 to 460 (34) Puerto Rico

21714 Total Devices

3000 30000 2800 2776 25000 W&M 26847 26428 2600 3% 25807 20000 24926

2400 21714 15000 2200 10000 Lab 1974 9% 2000 External 5000

1792 88%

1800 1702 0 1604

1600 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 1400

1200 1165 1062 1000 842 837

800 750 636 679 546 543 521 600 510 469 468 450 401 391 380

400 287 269 259 244 219 180 171 200 145 67 46 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IL RI IA ID HI IN NJ FL MI PR WI SC PA KS CT SD AL LA AZ TX TN UT VT NE DE AR CA OR DC CO NC AK GA VA DA KY OK OH NV NH ND NY MS MT ME MA MO MD MN NM WA WV WY

Lab W&M External Average

Jun’05 Rev 1 Page 13 Survey 2005

Precision Mass (Mass Echelon I & II) Description

The graphs on the following page represent the total number of all Precision Mass (includes both Mass Echelon I and Mass Echelon II) standards tested by the 47 reporting laboratories. The graphs combine the data Mass Echelon I and Mass Echelon II so that they may be compared to the 1996 survey data. The map graph gives a geographical distribution of these standards. Darker shading indicates more devices were tested. 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. There is also a smaller line graph indicating the totals from the 1996, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2003, and 2005 surveys.

Findings

Of the 47 reporting laboratories, 33 labs tested a total of 25,421 Precision Mass standards (Mass I and Mass II standards combined).

Comparison of the 2005, 2003, 2001, 2000, 1999, and 1996 Surveys

# Labs Reporting Total Devices Lab Average Change from Mass I & II previous survey 1996 50 37,662 753 -- 1999 36 27,593 766 + 2 % 2000 36 31,792 883 + 15 % 2001 38 31,655 833 - 6 % 2003 38 31,135 819 - 2 % 2005 33 25,421 770 - 6 %

Comparing later surveys with the 1996 Survey

*The data shows an apparent decrease of 27 % in the total number of Precision Mass standards calibrated from 1996 to 1999. However, because there was not a clear definitive separation between “precision calibrations” and “tolerance testing”, in 1996, some labs may have shown some of their “tolerance testing” as “precision testing”, which would inflate the value for the number of precision mass standards tested in 1996.

Notes and Comments

13 % of all Precision Mass standards were calibrated for the internal use of the laboratory. 3 % of all Precision Mass standards were calibrated for the weights and measures program. 84 % of all Precision Mass standards were calibrated for external customers.

Jun’05 Rev 1 Page 14 Survey 2005 Precision Mass (Echelon I & II)

Lab W&M External

2,450 to 2,920 (1) 1,960 to 2,450 (2) 1,470 to 1,960 (3) USDA 980 to 1,470 (3) 490 to 980 (7) 0 to 490 (35) Puerto Rico

25421 Total Devices

3200 40000 W&M 2912 3000 3% 35000

2800 37662 2600 30000 31792 31655 31135 2400 Lab 25000

13% 27593

2200 25421 20000 1979 1974 1926

2000 1874 External 1800 1794 84% 15000 1600 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 1464 1400

1200 1165 1062 1000 842 750 800 770 636 599 543 521 494

600 468 465 430 414 401 391 378 326

400 287 259 244 219 180 171 145

200 100 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IL RI IA IN ID HI NJ FL MI SC PR WI PA KS CT SD AL LA AZ TX TN UT VT NE DE AR CA NC CO OR DC GA AK OK VA DA KY NY NH OH NV ND MS MT ME MA MN NM MO MD WA WV WY

Lab W&M External Average

Jun’05 Rev 1 Page 15 Survey 2005

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. Darker shading indicates more devices were tested. 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. There is also a smaller line graph indicating the totals from the 1996, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2003, and 2005 surveys.

Findings

Of the 47 reporting laboratories, 47 labs tested a total of 248,117 Mass III standards.

Comparison of the 2005, 2003, 2001, 2000, 1999, and 1996 Surveys

# Labs Reporting Total Devices Lab Average Change from Mass III previous survey 1996 51 259,713 5,092 -- 1999 46 259,463 5,640 + 11 % 2000 45 257,938 5,732 + 2 % 2001 45 260,072 5,779 + 1 % 2003 47 267,240 5,686 - 2 % 2005 47 248,117 5,279 - 7 %

Notes and Comments

2 % of all Mass III standards were calibrated for the internal use of the laboratory. 20 % of all Mass III standards were calibrated for the weights and measures program. 78 % of all Mass III standards were calibrated for external customers.

Jun’05 Rev 1 Page 16 Survey 2005 Mass Echelon III

Lab W&M External

11,300 to 21,800 (6) 7,900 to 11,300 (4) 6,400 to 7,900 (5) USDA 4,500 to 6,400 (6) 3,600 to 4,500 (5) 2,200 to 3,600 (4) 1,800 to 2,200 (3) Puerto Rico 1,200 to 1,800 (7) 100 to 1,200 (4) 0 to 100 (7) 248117 Total Devices

25000 270000

265000

21769 W&M 260000 20% 267240

255000 19834 260072 259713 20000 259463

250000 257938

245000

240000 248117

Lab 235000 2% 15000 230000 External 78% 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 12,035 11,911 11621 11330 10436

10000 9145 8719 8411 7884 7276 6754 6741 6536 6358 6043 5468 5468 5438

4512 5279 4386 5000 4181 3789 3756 3616 3279 3214 2750 2447 2160 2113 2051 1769 1696 1691 1647 1510 1335 1258 1203 1151 1025 869 738 724 70 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IL RI IA ID HI IN NJ FL MI WI SC PR PA KS CT SD LA AL AZ UT VT TX TN NE DE CA AR OR DC CO NC AK GA VA OK DA KY NV NY NH OH ND MS MT ME MA NM MD MO MN WA WY WV

Lab W&M External Average

Jun’05 Rev 1 Page 17 Survey 2005

Weight Carts

Description

The graphs on the following page represent the total number of weight cart mass standards tested by the 47 reporting laboratories. The map graph gives a geographical distribution of these standards. Darker shading indicates more devices were tested. 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. There is also a smaller line graph that reflects the totals from the 1999, 2001, 2003, and 2005 surveys.

Findings

Of the 47 reporting laboratories, 33 labs tested a total of 365 weight cart mass standards.

Comparison of the 2005, 2003, 2001, and 1999 Surveys # Labs Reporting Total Devices Lab Average Change from Weight Cart Tests previous survey 1999 30 297 9.9 -- 2001 27 344 12.7 + 29 % 2003 29 388 13.4 + 5 % 2005 33 365 11.1 - 17 % Notes and Comments

1 % of all weight cart standards were calibrated for the internal use of the laboratory. 28 % of all weight cart standards were calibrated for the weights and measures program. 71 % of all weight cart standards were calibrated for external customers.

Jun’05 Rev 1 Page 18 Survey 2005 Weight Carts

Lab W&M External

10 to 35 (18) 9 to 10 (1) 8 to 9 (2) USDA 7 to 8 (1) 6 to 7 (1) 5 to 6 (2) 3 to 5 (1) Puerto Rico 2 to 3 (1) 1 to 2 (5) 0 to 1 (19) 365 Total Devices

40 450 W&M 28% 400

35 350 35 388 300 365 344

250 297 30 200 150

100 25 25 Lab 50 1% 0 22 22

External 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 20 19 19 71% 17 16 15

15 14 14 13 13 13 12

10 10 10 11

10 9 8 8 8 7 6 5 5 5 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IL RI IA IN ID HI NJ FL MI PR SC WI PA KS SD CT AL LA AZ TX TN UT VT DE NE AR CA CO OR NC DC GA AK DA VA KY OK OH NY ND NH NV MS MT ME MA MN NM MD MO WA WY WV

Lab W&M External Average

Jun’05 Rev 1 Page 19 Survey 2005

Length -- Tapes

Description

The graphs on the following page represent the total number of length (tapes) standards tested by the 47 reporting laboratories. The map graph gives a geographical distribution of these standards. Darker shading indicates more devices were tested. 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. There is also a smaller line graph that reflects the totals from the 1996, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2003, and 2005 surveys.

Findings

Of the 47 reporting laboratories, 21 labs tested a total of 319 length (tape) standards.

Comparison of the 2005, 2003, 2001, 2000, 1999, and 1996 Surveys

# Labs Reporting Total Devices Lab Average Change from Length Tape Tests previous survey 1996 27 707 26 -- 1999 29 537 19 - 29 % 2000 21 566 27 + 46 % 2001 22 487 22 - 18 % 2003 21 584 28 + 26 % 2005 21 319 15 - 46 %

Notes and Comments

7 % of all length (tape) standards were calibrated for the internal use of the laboratory. 29 % of all length (tape) standards were calibrated for the weights and measures program. 64 % of all length (tape) standards were calibrated for external customers.

Jun’05 Rev 1 Page 20 Survey 2005 Length Tape

Lab W&M External

27 to 93 (3) 21 to 27 (1) 16 to 21 (1) USDA 13 to 16 (1) 9 to 13 (1) 8 to 9 (2) 3 to 8 (5) Puerto Rico 2 to 3 (2) 1 to 2 (4) 0 to 1 (31) 319 Total Devices

100 800

93 W&M 29% 90 700 707

82 600

80 584

500 566 537

400 487 70 Lab

7% 300 319

60 200 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

50 External 64% 40

30 27 21 19

20 16

13 15 9 10 8 8 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IL RI IA ID HI IN NJ FL MI PR SC WI PA KS CT SD AL LA AZ VT TX TN UT DE NE AR CA CO DC NC OR AK GA DA OK VA KY NY NH NV OH ND MS MT ME MA MN NM MD MO WA WV WY

Lab W&M External Average

Jun’05 Rev 1 Page 21 Survey 2005

Length – Rigid Rules

Description

The graphs on the following page represent the total number of length (rigid rules) standards tested by the 47 reporting laboratories. The map graph gives a geographical distribution of these standards. Darker shading indicates more devices were tested. 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. There is also a smaller line graph that reflects the totals from the 1996, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2003, and 2005 surveys.

Findings

Of the 47 reporting laboratories, 12 labs tested a total of 98 length (rigid rule) standards.

Comparison of the 2005, 2003, 2001, 2000, 1999, and 1996 Surveys

# Labs Reporting Total Devices Lab Average Change from Rigid Rule Tests previous survey 1996 26 582 22.4 -- 1999 29 269 9.3 - 59 % 2000 20 413 20.6 + 123 % 2001 16 164 10.2 - 50 % 2003 14 138 9.9 - 4 % 2005 12 98 8.2 - 17 %

Notes and Comments

5 % of all length (rigid rule) standards were calibrated for the internal use of the laboratory. 12 % of all length (rigid rule) standards were calibrated for the weights and measures program. 83 % of all length (rigid rule) standards were calibrated for external customers.

Jun’05 Rev 1 Page 22 Survey 2005 Length Rule

Lab W&M External

54 to 54 (1) 16 to 54 (1) 6 to 16 (1) USDA 4 to 6 (1) 3 to 4 (1) 2 to 3 (2) 1 to 2 (4) Puerto Rico 0 to 1 (40)

98 Total Devices

60 700

54 600 W&M

12% 500 582 50 400 413 300

200 269 40 Lab 5% 100 164 138

External 98 83% 0

30 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

20 16

10 7 8 6 4 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IL RI IA HI ID IN NJ FL MI WI PR SC PA KS SD CT AL LA AZ TN TX UT VT NE DE CA AR OR CO DC NC AK GA VA OK DA KY ND NH OH NV NY MS MT ME MA NM MD MN MO WA WV WY

Lab W&M External Average

Jun’05 Rev 1 Page 23 Survey 2005

Volume -- Glassware

Description

The graphs on the following page represent the total number of volume (glassware) standards tested by the 47 reporting laboratories. The map graph gives a geographical distribution of these standards. Darker shading indicates more devices were tested. 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. There is also a smaller line graph that reflects the totals from the 1996, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2003, and 2005 surveys.

Volume Categories: o Glassware – most glassware are kits that contain volumetric standards from 1 gallon to 2 fluid ounces. o Test Measures – most are metal volumetric standards nominally 5 gallons or less. o Provers – most are metal volumetric standards nominally larger than 5 gallons.

Findings

Of the 47 reporting laboratories, 17 labs tested a total of 332 volumetric glassware standards.

Comparison of the 2005, 2003, 2001, 2000, 1999, and 1996 Surveys

# Labs Reporting Total Devices Lab Average Change from Glassware Tests previous survey 1996 29 1,205 41.55 -- 1999 24 844 35.17 - 15 % 2000 25 853 34.12 - 3 % 2001 27 668 24.74 - 27 % 2003 24 555 23.12 - 7 % 2005 17 332 19.53 - 16 %

Notes and Comments

35 % of all volume (glassware) standards were calibrated for the laboratory. 52 % of all volume (glassware) standards were calibrated for weights and measures program. 13 % of all volume (glassware) standards were calibrated for external customers.

Jun’05 Rev 1 Page 24 Survey 2005 Volume Glassware

Lab W&M External

24 to 74 (5) 14 to 24 (2) 12 to 14 (1) USDA 10 to 12 (1) 8 to 10 (2) 7 to 8 (1) 5 to 7 (1) Puerto Rico 3 to 5 (2) 2 to 3 (1) 0 to 2 (35) 332 Total Devices

80 1400 74 73 Lab 1200 35%

70 1000 1205

800 853 844 60 600 668

400 555

200 50 332 External W&M 0 13% 52% 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

40 37

30 27 24

20 20 14 14 12 11 10 8 8

10 7 5 3 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IL RI IA HI ID IN NJ FL MI PR SC WI PA KS CT SD AL LA AZ TX TN UT VT NE DE AR CA CO NC DC OR AK GA OK VA DA KY OH ND NH NV NY MS MT ME MA MD MO NM MN WA WV WY

Lab W&M External Average

Jun’05 Rev 1 Page 25 Survey 2005

Volume – Test Measures

Description

The graphs on the following page represent the total number of volume (test measure) standards tested by the 47 reporting laboratories. The map graph gives a geographical distribution of these standards. Darker shading indicates more devices were tested. 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. There is also a smaller line graph that reflects the totals from the 1996, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2003, and 2005 surveys.

Findings

The 47 reporting laboratories, 45 labs tested a total of 6,400 volume (test measure) standards.

Comparison of the 2005, 2003, 2001, 2000, 1999, and 1996 Surveys

# Labs Reporting Total Devices Lab Average Change from Test Measures previous survey 1996 48 8,290 173 -- 1999 46 6,861 149 - 14 % 2000 45 6,986 155 + 4 % 2001 45 7,368 164 + 5 % 2003 48 6,966 145 - 11 % 2005 45 6,400 142 - 2 %

Notes and Comments

2 % of all volume (test measure) standards were calibrated for the laboratory. 31 % of all volume (test measure) standards were calibrated for weights and measures program. 67 % of all volume (test measure) standards were calibrated for external customers.

The Georgia State Fuel Oil Laboratory tests all volumetric test measures associated with petroleum product enforcement.

Jun’05 Rev 1 Page 26 Survey 2005 Volume Test Measures

Lab W&M External

220 to 694 (8) 154 to 220 (5) 134 to 154 (5) USDA 103 to 134 (5) 88 to 103 (5) 87 to 88 (1) 47 to 87 (7) Puerto Rico 33 to 47 (5) 16 to 33 (3) 0 to 16 (7) 6400 Total Devices

800 W&M 8500 31% 8000 8290 694 700 7500

7000 7368 598

6500 6986 600 6966 6861

6000 6400

Lab 5500 500 2%

448 5000 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 400 External 67% 303 300 263 262 235 220 182

200 168 167 158 154 150 139 137 135 134 118 117 142 111 108 103 97 97 96 90 88 87 80 80 80

100 68 67 51 47 41 37 36 34 33 27 23 21 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IL RI IA IN HI ID NJ FL MI SC WI PR PA KS CT SD AL LA AZ TX UT VT TN NE DE AR CA NC CO OR DC AK GA VA OK DA KY NV NY OH NH ND MS MT ME MA MN NM MO MD WA WV WY

Lab W&M External Average

Jun’05 Rev 1 Page 27 Survey 2005

Volume -- Provers

Description

The graphs on the following page represent the total number of volume (provers) standards tested by the 47 reporting laboratories. The map graph gives a geographical distribution of these standards. Darker shading indicates more devices were tested. 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. There is also a smaller line graph that reflects the totals from the 1996, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2003, and 2005 surveys.

Findings

Of the 47 reporting laboratories, 39 labs tested a total of 1,067 volume (prover) standards.

Comparison of the 2005, 2003, 2001, 2000, 1999, and 1996 Surveys

# Labs Reporting Total Devices Lab Average Change from Prover Tests previous survey 1996 48 1,187 25 -- 1999 46 867 19 - 24 % 2000 42 1,112 26 + 40 % 2001 43 1,260 29 + 11 % 2003 43 1,053 24 - 17 % 2005 39 1,067 27 + 12 %

Notes and Comments

5 % of all volume (prover) standards were calibrated for the laboratory. 36 % of all volume (prover) standards were calibrated for weights and measures program. 59 % of all volume (prover) standards were calibrated for external customers.

Jun’05 Rev 1 Page 28 Survey 2005 Volume Provers

Lab W&M External

25 to 103 (15) 17 to 25 (6) 14 to 17 (5) USDA 11 to 14 (3) 9 to 11 (1) 7 to 9 (1) 6 to 7 (2) Puerto Rico 5 to 6 (3) 1 to 5 (2) 0 to 1 (13) 1067 Total Devices

120 36% 1300

1200 1260 103 1100 100 1187 1000 1112 93 1067 1053 900

800 867 78 78 80 Lab 74 5% 700 71

600

60 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 External 59% 46 43 40 33 31 30 28 27 27

25 27 22 22 20 18 17 17 20 16 16 15 14 14 13 12 11 9 8 7 6 6 5 5 5 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IL RI IA ID HI IN NJ FL MI SC PR WI PA KS CT SD AL LA AZ UT TX TN VT NE DE CA AR OR NC CO DC GA AK VA OK DA KY NV NY OH ND NH MS MT ME MA MN MD MO NM WA WV WY

Lab W&M External Average

Jun’05 Rev 1 Page 29 Survey 2005

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. Darker shading indicates more devices were tested. 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. There is also a smaller line graph that reflects the totals from the 1996, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2003, and 2005 surveys.

Findings

Of the 47 reporting laboratories, 12 labs tested a total of 315 temperature standards.

Comparison of the 2005, 2003, 2001, 2000, 1999, and 1996 Surveys

# Labs Reporting Total Devices Lab Average Change from Temperature tests previous survey 1996 20 447 22 -- 1999 11 378 34 + 54 % 2000 12 514 43 + 25 % 2001 16 460 29 - 33 % 2003 13 456 35 + 22 % 2005 12 315 26 - 26 %

Notes and Comments

28 % of all temperature standards were calibrated for the laboratory. 46 % of all temperature standards were calibrated for weights and measures program. 26 % of all temperature standards were calibrated for external customers.

Jun’05 Rev 1 Page 30 Survey 2005 Temperature

Lab W&M External

118 to 118 (1) 47 to 118 (1) 31 to 47 (1) USDA 27 to 31 (1) 16 to 27 (3) 13 to 16 (1) 11 to 13 (1) Puerto Rico 8 to 11 (1) 6 to 8 (2) 0 to 6 (39) 315 Total Devices

140 550

500 514

118 Lab 450 120 28% 460 456 400 447 W&M 46% 350 100 376 300 315 250

80 200 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 External 26% 60 47

40 31 27 26

20 16 16 16 13 11 8 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IL RI IA IN HI ID NJ FL MI PR SC WI KS PA CT SD AL LA AZ VT TN TX UT DE NE CA AR CO DC NC OR AK GA VA OK KY DA NY ND NH NV OH MS MT ME MA MN MD NM MO WA WV WY

Lab W&M External Average

Jun’05 Rev 1 Page 31 Survey 2005

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. Darker shading indicates more devices were tested. 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. There is also a smaller line graph that reflects the totals from the 1996, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2003, and 2005 surveys.

Findings

Of the 47 reporting laboratories, 3 labs tested a total of 14,772 frequency standards.

Comparison of the 2005, 2003, 2001, 2000, 1999, and 1996 Surveys

# Labs Reporting Total Devices Lab Average Change from Frequency Tests previous survey 1996 6 12,518 2,086 -- 1999 4 11,561 2,890 + 39 % 2000 5 13,518 2,704 - 6 % 2001 7 14,670 2,096 - 22 % 2003 6 13,785 2,298 + 10 % 2005 3 14,772 4,924 + 114 %

Notes and Comments

0 % of all frequency standards were calibrated for the laboratory. 0 % of all frequency standards were calibrated for weights and measures program. 100 % of all frequency standards were calibrated for external customers.

Jun’05 Rev 1 Page 32 Survey 2005 Frequency

Lab W&M External

8,852 to 8,852 (1) 3,421 to 8,852 (1) 2,499 to 3,421 (1) USDA 0 to 2,499 (48)

Puerto Rico

14772 Total Devices

10000 16000

9000 8852 15000

14000 14772 8000 14670 13000 External 13785 13518 100% 7000 12000

W&M 12518 0% 11000 Lab 11561 0% 6000 10000 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 5000 4924

4000 3421

3000 2499

2000

1000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IL RI IA HI ID IN NJ FL MI PR SC WI KS PA CT SD AL LA AZ TN TX UT VT DE NE AR CA CO DC NC OR AK GA VA DA KY OK ND NH NV NY OH MS MT ME MA NM MN MO MD WA WV WY

Lab W&M External Average

Jun’05 Rev 1 Page 33 Survey 2005

Time

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. Darker shading indicates more devices were tested. 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. There is also a smaller line graph that reflects the totals from the 1996, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2003, and 2005 surveys.

Findings

Of the 47 reporting laboratories, 9 labs tested a total of 951 timing devices.

Comparison of the 2005, 2003, 2001, 2000, 1999, and 1996 Surveys

# Labs Reporting Total Devices Lab Average Change from Time Tests previous survey 1996 13 161 12 -- 1999 11 380 35 + 179 % 2000 14 451 32 - 7 % 2001 13 554 43 + 32 % 2003 11 479 44 + 2 % 2005 9 951 106 + 141 %

Notes and Comments

0 % of all timing devices were calibrated for the laboratory. 9 % of all timing devices were calibrated for weights and measures program. 91 % of all timing devices were calibrated for external customers.

Jun’05 Rev 1 Page 34 Survey 2005 Time

Lab W&M External

25 to 678 (3) 17 to 25 (1) 16 to 17 (1) USDA 14 to 16 (1) 3 to 14 (1) 2 to 3 (1) 1 to 2 (1) Puerto Rico 0 to 1 (42)

951 Total Devices

800 1000

900

800 951 678 700 700

600

W&M 500 554 600 9% 400 479 300 451 380 External 200 91% 500 Lab 100

0% 161 0

400 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

300

200 195

100 106 25 17 16 14 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IL RI IA HI IN ID NJ FL MI PR SC WI PA KS CT SD AL LA AZ TN TX UT VT DE NE CA AR CO DC NC OR AK GA DA KY OK VA OH NY ND NH NV MS MT ME MA NM MD MN MO WA WV WY

Lab W&M External Average

Jun’05 Rev 1 Page 35 Survey 2005

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. Darker shading indicates more devices were tested. 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. There is also a smaller line graph that reflects the totals from the 1999, 2000, 2001, 2003, and 2005 surveys.

Findings

Of the 47 reporting laboratories, 21 labs tested a total of 10,884 wheel load weighers.

Comparison of the 2005, 2003, 2001, 2000, and 1999 Surveys

# Labs Reporting Total Devices Lab Average Change from Wheel Load previous survey Weigher Tests 1999 19 12,178 641 -- 2000 20 12,781 639 0 % 2001 22 13,699 623 - 3 % 2003 23 10,350 450 - 28 % 2005 21 10,884 518 + 15 %

Notes and Comments

0 % of all wheel load weighers were calibrated for the laboratory. 6 % of all wheel load weighers were calibrated for weights and measures program. 94 % of all wheel load weighers were calibrated for external customers.

Pennsylvania laboratory performed 4,407 tests on wheel load weighers (40 % of the national total).

Jun’05 Rev 1 Page 36 Survey 2005 Wheel Load Weighers

Lab W&M External

236 to 4,407 (12) 201 to 236 (1) 197 to 201 (1) USDA 128 to 197 (1) 100 to 128 (1) 89 to 100 (1) 87 to 89 (1) Puerto Rico 81 to 87 (1) 60 to 81 (1) 0 to 60 (31) 10884 Total Devices

5000 14000

4407 13000

4500 13699

12000 12781

4000 12178 11000

W&M 6% 10000 3500 External 10884 94% 10350 9000 Lab 0% 3000 8000

2500 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

2000

1500 976 1000 892 609 600 500 461

380 518

500 324 280 270 236 201 197 128 100 89 87 81 60 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IL RI IA HI ID IN NJ FL MI WI PR SC KS PA CT SD AL LA AZ VT UT TN TX DE NE AR CA CO DC OR NC AK GA DA KY OK VA NV NH OH NY ND MS MT ME MA MN MD MO NM WA WY WV

Lab W&M External Average

Jun’05 Rev 1 Page 37 Survey 2005

Lottery Balls

Description

The graphs on the following page represent the total number of lottery balls tested by the 47 reporting laboratories. The map graph gives a geographical distribution of these standards. Darker shading indicates more devices were tested. 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. There is also a smaller line graph that reflects the totals from the 2000, 2001, 2003, and 2005 surveys.

Findings

Of the 47 reporting laboratories, 11 labs tested a total of 40,939 lottery balls.

Comparison of the 2005, 2003, 2001, 2000, 1999, and 1996 Surveys

# Labs Reporting Total Devices Lab Average Change from Tests on previous survey Lottery Balls 2000 9 19,982 2,220 -- 2001 13 24,702 1,900 - 14 % 2003 11 35,818 3,256 + 71 % 2005 11 40,939 3,722 + 14 %

Notes and Comments

0 % of all lottery balls were calibrated for the laboratory. 0 % of all lottery balls were calibrated for weights and measures program. 100 % of all lottery balls were calibrated for external customers.

Puerto Rico laboratory performed 26,304 tests on lottery balls (64 % of the national total).

This is a new survey category starting in 2005. In previous surveys, laboratories reported lottery balls under the category of ‘other tests’.

A supplemental question on lottery balls asked what characteristics were tested. 1 laboratory tested diameters only. 6 laboratories tested mass only. 4 laboratories tested the diameters and mass.

Jun’05 Rev 1 Page 38 Survey 2005 Lottery Balls

Lab W&M External

2,064 to 5,153 (2) 1,868 to 2,064 (1) 1,811 to 1,868 (1) USDA 1,320 to 1,811 (1) 878 to 1,320 (1) 464 to 878 (1) 420 to 464 (1) Puerto Rico 377 to 420 (1) 280 to 377 (1) 0 to 280 (41) 40939 Total Devices

30000 45000

40000 26304

35000 40939 25000

30000 35818

External 25000 100% 20000

W&M 24702 20000 0% 15000

Lab 19982 0% 10000

15000 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

10000 5153 5000 3722 2064 1868 1811 1320 878 464 420 377 280 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IL RI IA HI ID IN NJ FL MI PR WI SC PA KS CT SD AL LA AZ TX TN UT VT DE NE AR CA CO DC NC OR GA AK DA KY OK VA NY ND NH NV OH MS MT ME MA NM MN MO MD WA WV WY

Lab W&M External Average

Jun’05 Rev 1 Page 39 Survey 2005 Summary of “Other Tests”

Description

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

The graphs on the following page represent the total number of “Other Tests” performed by 22 reporting laboratories. The pie graph provides a further breakdown into the following categories: Hydrometers (1 laboratory) (2,505 tests) Filters-EPA (1 laboratory) (2,044 tests) Speed Detection † (1 laboratory) (424 tests) Special Volume * (6 laboratories) (383 tests) Grain Moisture (3 laboratories) (176 tests) Scales * (5 laboratories) (136 tests) Special Linear/Dimensional * (5 laboratories) (133 tests) LPG Provers (3 laboratories) (59 tests) Density (1 laboratory) (52 tests) Railroad Test Cars * (4 laboratories) (41 tests) Electrical (1 laboratory) (36 tests) Special Mass (2 laboratories) (17 tests)

* (Individual graphs are presented for these categories) † (Includes electronic testing of the radar unit, not just calibration of the tuning forks)

The bar graph at the bottom of the page shows the same breakdown in categories along with the total number of “Other Tests” performed above each laboratory.

Findings

Comparison of the 2005, 2003, 2001, and 2000 Surveys

# Labs Reporting Total Devices Lab Average Change from Other Tests Tested previous survey 2000 24 25,350 1,056 -- 2001 26 30,199 1,162 + 10 % 2003 24 42,282 1,762 + 52 % 2005 22 6,006 273 - 85 %

The 22 reporting laboratories performed a total of 6,006 ‘Other Tests’, which is a decrease of 85 % from the 42,282 other tests from 2003. The main reason for the decrease in the number of ‘Other Tests’ is that ‘Lottery Balls’ were moved to a separate category beginning with the 2005 survey.

Jun’05 Rev 1 Page 40 Survey 2005 Summary of Other Tests 6006 Total Devices 2800

2600 Hydrometers 2506 41.71%

2400 Special Mass 0.28%

2200 Electrical

2100 0.60%

2000 Railroad Test Cars 0.68%

Density 1800 0.87%

LPG Provers 1600 0.98%

Scales 1400 2.26% Filters-EPA 34.03% Special 1200 Linear/Dimensional Special Volume 2.21% 6.38% Speed Detection Grain Moisture 7.06% 1000 2.93%

800

600 424 400 299

200 120 111 89 63 48 43 39 36 27 25 23 16 15 10 5 4 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IL IA HI ID IN RI MI FL NJ AL LA VT AZ TX WI AK KS KY PA VA CT TN UT AR DE PR CA DA SC NV NE NY SD DC GA NC MT ND NH OK ME MA MS OR CO OH MN MD NM MO WY WA WV Hydrometers Filters-EPA Special Volume Speed Detection Grain Moisture Special Linear/Dimensional Scales LPG Provers Density Railroad Test Cars Electrical Special Mass

Jun’05 Rev 1 Page 41 Survey 2005

“Other Tests” -- Special Volume

Description

The graphs on the following page represent the total number of special volume tests performed by the 47 reporting laboratories. The map graph gives a geographical distribution of these standards. Darker shading indicates more devices were tested. The bar graph at the bottom of the page shows the same breakdown along with the total number of devices tested by each laboratory.

Findings

Of the 47 reporting laboratories, 6 labs tested a total of 383 special volume devices.

Comparison of the 2005, 2003, 2001, and 2000 Surveys

# Labs Reporting Total Tested Lab Average Change from Special Volume previous survey Tests 2000 2 43 21.50 -- 2001 2 45 22.50 + 5 % 2003 8 266 33.25 + 48 % 2005 6 383 63.83 + 92 %

Notes and Comments

Examples of ‘special volume’ include farm milk tanks, compact provers, and LPG vapor meters.

Jun’05 Rev 1 Page 42 Survey 2005 Special Volume

10 to 297 (4) 2 to 10 (1) 1 to 2 (1) 0 to 1 (45)

Puerto Rico

383 Total Devices

350 450

400

350 297 383 300 300

250

200 250 150 100

50 200 0 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

150

100 63 64 50 10 10 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IL RI IA IN HI ID NJ FL MI PR SC WI KS PA CT SD AL LA AZ TN TX UT VT DE NE AR CA NC OR CO DC AK GA DA KY VA OK ND NH NV NY OH MS MT ME MA MD MN MO NM WA WV WY

Jun’05 Rev 1 Page 43 Survey 2005

“Other Tests” -- Scales

Description

The graphs on the following page represent the total number of scale tests performed by the 47 reporting laboratories. The map graph gives a geographical distribution of these standards. Darker shading indicates more devices were tested. The bar graph at the bottom of the page shows the same breakdown along with the total number of devices tested by each laboratory.

Findings

Of the 47 reporting laboratories, 5 labs tested a total of 136 scales.

Comparison of the 2005, 2003, 2001, and 2000 Surveys

# Labs Reporting Total Tests Lab Average Change from Scale Tests previous survey 2000 5 92 18 -- 2001 9 189 21 + 14 % 2003 7 180 26 + 24 % 2005 5 136 27 + 4 %

Notes and Comments

There were 5 laboratories that reported the testing of scales.

The type of scales tested by these metrology labs included: Package checking scales Force gauges Fish scales Produce scales Doctor-Type Scales Assorted electronic/mechanical/spring scales

Jun’05 Rev 1 Page 44 Survey 2005 Scales

34 to 40 (2) 21 to 34 (1) 8 to 21 (1) 0 to 8 (47)

Puerto Rico

136 Total Devices

45 210

190 40

40 170 189 180 150

35 34 130 33 136 110 30 90 92 70 27 27 50 25 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 21 20

10 8

5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IL RI IA HI ID IN NJ FL MI WI PR SC PA KS SD CT AL LA AZ TN TX UT VT DE NE AR CA CO DC NC OR AK GA VA DA OK KY OH ND NH NV NY MS MT ME MA NM MD MN MO WA WV WY

Jun’05 Rev 1 Page 45 Survey 2005

“Other Tests” -- Special Linear/Dimensional

Description

The graphs on the following page represent the total number of special linear/dimensional tests performed by the 47 reporting laboratories. The map graph gives a geographical distribution of these standards. Darker shading indicates more devices were tested. The bar graph at the bottom of the page shows the same breakdown along with the total number of devices tested by each laboratory.

Findings

Of the 47 reporting laboratories, 5 labs performed a total of 133 special linear/dimensional tests.

Comparison of the 2005, 2003, 2001, and 2000 Surveys

# Labs Reporting Total Tests Lab Average Change from Special Linear previous survey Tests 2000 3 209 70 -- 2001 4 258 64 - 7 % 2003 4 83 21 - 68 % 2005 5 133 27 + 29 %

Notes and Comments

There were 5 laboratories that reported the testing of special linear/dimensional devices.

The Special Linear/Dimensional devices consisted of the following types: Vent Gage & Lobster Plugs Fish/Lobster/Shellfish linear standards Apple sizing rings

Jun’05 Rev 1 Page 46 Survey 2005 Special Linear / Dimensional

46 to 77 (2) 3 to 46 (1) 1 to 3 (1) 0 to 1 (47)

Puerto Rico

133 Total Devices

90 300

250

80 77 258 200 209 70 150

100 133

60 50 83

0 50 46 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

30 27

10 6 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IL RI IA HI ID IN NJ FL MI PR SC WI PA KS SD CT AL LA AZ VT TN TX UT DE NE AR CA CO DC NC OR AK GA VA DA OK KY OH ND NH NV NY MS MT ME MA NM MD MN MO WA WV WY

Jun’05 Rev 1 Page 47 Survey 2005

“Other Tests” -- Railroad Test Cars

Description

The graphs on the following page represent the total number of railroad test car calibrations performed by the 47 reporting laboratories. The map graph gives a geographical distribution of these standards. Darker shading indicates more devices were tested. The bar graph at the bottom of the page shows the same breakdown along with the total number of devices tested by each laboratory.

Findings

Of the 47 reporting laboratories, 4 labs performed a total of 41 railroad test car calibrations.

Comparison of the 2005, 2003, 2001, and 2000 Surveys

# Labs Reporting Total Tests Lab Average Change from Railroad Test Car previous survey Tests 2000 1 6 6.00 -- 2001 2 12 6.00 0 % 2003 2 3 1.50 - 75 % 2005 4 41 10.25 + 583 %

Notes and Comments

There were 4 laboratories that reported the testing of railroad test cars.

Jun’05 Rev 1 Page 48 Survey 2005 Railroad Test Cars

9 to 25 (2) 5 to 9 (1) 2 to 5 (1) 0 to 2 (47)

Puerto Rico

41 Total Devices

30 45

40 41 35 25 25 30 25

15 20 10 5

0 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 15

10 9 5 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IL RI IA HI ID IN NJ FL MI PR SC WI KS PA CT SD AL LA AZ TN TX UT VT DE NE AR CA OR CO DC NC AK GA DA KY VA OK ND NH NV NY OH MS MT ME MA MN MO MD NM WA WY WV

Jun’05 Rev 1 Page 49 Survey 2005

Laboratory Facilities

Description

Size of Laboratory Facility: The top graph on the next page represents the size of the laboratory facility in square feet as reported by each laboratory.

Age of Laboratory Facility: The bottom graph on the next page represents the age of the laboratory facility as reported by each laboratory.

Notes and Comments

Size of Laboratory Facility: Average 4,114 sq ft Maximum 14,806 sq ft Minimum 605 sq ft

Age of Laboratory Facility: Average 22 years Maximum 77 years Minimum 0 years

Laboratory Renovations: Lab Year Square Feet Added % of Lab Renovated CA 2004 914 100 % CO 1998 0 10 % IL Many MT 2004 2000 50 % NV 1998 0 20 % NH 2000 0 50 % NM 2003 0 100 % NY 2004 470 18 % ND 1996 0 70 % OH 2000 775 36 % OR 2003 25 % VA 2003 10,856 100 % WV 1998 & 2002 0 25 %

IA will be occupying a new laboratory facility during summer and fall 2005.

Jun’05 Rev 1 Page 50 Survey 2005 Lab Size (square feet) 16000 14806

14000 13500 12277 12200 12000

10000

8000 7500 6500 6000 5704 5500 6000 5483 5000 5000 4860 4412 4400 4360 3955 3800

3620 4114 4000 3500 3500 3500 3500 3424 3049 3045 3025 3000 2970 2734 2700 2670 2600 2500 2350 2100 2000 1927 1900 1650

2000 1488 1200 1145 900 900 616 605

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

Lab Age (years) 90

80 77

50 47 45 38

40 37 37 37 35 35 35 35 35 34 34 34 34 33 32 30

30 28 28 25 25 21 21

22 20 19 18

20 17 17 16 15 14 14

10 7 7 7 6 6 5 5 3 3 3 2 1 1 0 0 IL IA ID IN HI MI FL AL NJ LA TX WI VT AZ CT UT AK KS PA VA KY PR NV NY AR DA SD SC CA ND NH NC MT GA OK ME OH CO MA OR MS MN MD NM MO WV WA WY

Jun’05 Rev 1 Page 51 Survey 2005

Laboratory Elevations

This question was new for the 2005 survey. Each laboratory was asked to report their laboratory elevation in feet above sea level. This information is useful since all mass measurements must take into consideration the influence of air buoyancy and elevation is one of the key components that will influence the air density in the laboratory. Mass measurements at higher elevations have an increased need for accurate air buoyancy corrections, especially when comparing mass standards that have different densities.

Description

The graphs on the following page provide information on laboratory elevation. The map graph gives a geographical view of laboratory elevation. Darker shading indicates higher elevations. The bar graph at the bottom of the page shows the same elevations in the order of highest elevation to lowest elevation.

Notes and Comments

The mean elevation for the 47 reporting laboratories is 1,212 feet above sea level.

Jun’05 Rev 1 Page 52 Survey 2005 Laboratory Elevation (feet above sea level)

Light green color indicates no response was provided to the question.

4,232 to 6,042 (4) 2,730 to 4,232 (4) 1,100 to 2,730 (4) 928 to 1,100 (4) 660 to 928 (4) 454 to 660 (4) 250 to 454 (4) 103 to 250 (5) 79 to 103 (5) 0 to 79 (5)

7000 6042 6000 5308

5000 4415 4232 3900 4000 3873 3011

3000 2730 feet above sea level sea above feet

2000 1740 1700 1220 1100 1050 1045 1028 1212 928 886 852 1000 850 660 600 590 580 570 454 425 300 262 250 205 190 180 166 103 100 100 98 84 79 75 58 36 20 0 0 0 IL IA HI IN ID NJ FL MI WI PR KS PA CT SD AL LA AZ VT TX UT NE AR CA OR NC CO AK GA VA DA OK NY OH ND NV MT ME MA MN MO MD NM WA WV WY

Elevation Average

Jun’05 Rev 1 Page 53 Survey 2005 Metrology Experience

Description

Experience in State Metrology Laboratory Program The top graph on the next page represents the years of metrology experience gained in a state metrology laboratory. The shading of the state is based on the sum of state metrology lab experience for all metrologists that perform measurements for that lab. The bar graph in each state represents the breakdown for each individual metrologist in that state.

Total Metrology Experience: The bottom graph on the next page represents the total metrology experience gained in any metrology laboratory. The shading of the state is based on the sum of all metrology experience for that lab. The bar graph in each state represents the breakdown for each individual metrologist in that state.

Jun’05 Rev 1 Page 54 Survey 2005 Experience in State Metrology Laboratory

Yrs SLP(#1) Yrs SLP (#2) Yrs SLP (#3) Yrs SLP (#4) 36 to 83 (8) Yrs SLP (#5) 26 to 36 (4) Yrs SLP (#6) 23 to 26 (4) Yrs SLP (#7) 20 to 23 (4) 15 to 20 (5) 9 to 15 (5) 7 to 9 (1) 5 to 7 (5) 1 to 5 (4) 0 to 1 (6) Light green color and no bar chart indicate no response was provided to the question. Total Technical Experience

Total (#1) Total (#2) Total (#3) Total (#4) Total (#5) 36 to 104 (11) Total (#6) 28 to 36 (4) Total (#7) 27 to 28 (2) 26 to 27 (3) 22 to 26 (4) 18 to 22 (6) 15 to 18 (3) 10 to 15 (4) 7 to 10 (1) 0 to 7 (8)

Jun’05 Rev 1 Page 55 Survey 2005

Metrology Experience (By Individual)

Description

Total Metrology Experience: The bar graph on the next page represents the total metrology experience by individual metrologist. The graph is a stacked bar, the blue portion represents “other metrology experience” and the red portion represents “state laboratory program experience”.

Comparison of the 2005, 2003, and 2001 Surveys

Number of Average SLP Average Other Average Total Metrologists Experience Experience Experience 2001 111 8.7 2.4 11.0 2003 113 9.1 2.1 11.2 2005 111 8.1 2.6 10.8

Comments:

Of the 47 responding laboratories: 111 individual metrologists Average SLP experience – 8.1 years Average Other experience – 2.6 years Average Total experience – 10.8 years

Jun’05 Rev 1 Page 56 Survey 2005 Bill Rigby - UT 0 Terrance Shingara - PA 0 George O'Connor - ME 0 Edward Mendenhall - SC 1 Benny Ontiveros - NM 1 Brian Sellers - AZ 1 Total Years of Metrology Experience Andrew Kuti - VA 1 Julio Troche - PR 1 YrsOther Abner Rodríguez - PR 1 Craig Gerhartz - NJ 1 YrsSLP Jacob Baer - MN 1 Jason Glass - KY 1 James Chastain - AR 1 Daniel Gibbons - TX 2 Mark Bowman - TX 2 Brad Stover - SD 2 Thomas Hale - PA 2 Robert Acheson - NY 2 David Walsh - NV 2 James Emerson - AL 2 Allen Kemevor - TX 3 James Gownley - PA 3 Jeff Weiss - OR 3 Mel Iasigi - MS 3 John L. Sullivan - MS 3 Anthony Gruneisen - CA 3 John McGuire - NJ 3 Keith Reimund - TX 4 Aaron Aydelotte - OR 4 Neil Jones - MI 4 Craig VanBuren - MI 4 Joseph Hyla - MD 4 Michael Tang - HI 4 Kontz Bennett - GA 4 Jennifer Oznoff - CO 4 David Morse - AL 4 William Loving - VA 4 Mark Zasadny - MN 4 Earl Matthews - OH 5 Cary Brown - DA 5 Elizabeth Gentry - OK 5 Thomas Hughes - MO 5 Dale Gann - GA 5 Rich Lewis - GA 5 Davis Terry - FL 5 Terrell Sharlow - IN 5 Kevin Hanson - ND 6 Russell Campbell - AK 6 Zenon Waclawiw - MD 6 Kevin Merritt - ID 6 Raymond Szpond - NJ 6 Richard McCann - WI 7 Anthony O'Brien - WV 7 Tal Anderson - NC 7 Terry Gawel - MI 7 Greg Boers - CA 7 Judy Voight - AZ 7 Garret Brown - AK 8 Steve Schultz - NV 8 Jimmy Jew - CA 8 Al Rupert - DA 9 Dan Mace - WV 9 Ray Curtis - AR 9 Bob Albright - NC 10 Robert McGee - SC 10 William Erickson - MI 10 Van Hyder - NC 10 Anthony Neri - NJ 10 Marcus Harwitz - WI 11 Don Williams - FL 11 Diane Wise - CO 11 Sharon Woodard - NC 13 Paul Gentry - FL 13 Richard Cote - NH 13 Jerry Clingaman - IN 13 Ken Johnson - OH 15 Edward Szesnat - NY 15 Danny Newcombe - ME 15 Michael Kramer - VA 15 Bruce Adams - MN 15 Stephen Barry - MD 16 José Torres - PR 17 Kelleen Larson - AZ 17 Paul Sprout - PA 18 Richard Gonzales - OK 18 Michael Cook - FL 18 Cliff Murray - NC 19 Bill Fishman - NY 19 Dan Nisbet - MT 19 Kevin Nutter - KS 20 Carl Decker - LA 20 Cheryl Tew - NC 20 Michael Dynia - CT 22 Michael Grenier - NH 23 Randy Calcote - TX 24 Patrick Forester - TX 24 L.F. Eason - NC 25 Craig Olsen - NE 26 Dan Wright - WA 26 Darryl Brown - IA 27 Karl Herken - KS 27 Ray Cioffi - VT 27 Billy Kennington - SC 27 Peter Boykin - IN 27 Donnie Smith - MA 28 Steve Sumner - NM 28 Victor Gerber - WY 28 George Terrell - CA 29 Robert Wittenberger - MO 29 Richert Williams - LA 33 Ken Fraley - OK 34 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Jun’05 Rev 1 Page 57 Survey 2005

NIST/WMD Certificates of Traceability (as of June 2005)

Description The top map graph on the following page represents the status of each state.

Comments: Waiting on Additional Information: Louisiana Montana Nebraska North Dakota Not Recognized: Arkansas Delaware Iowa Kentucky Puerto Rico Rhode Island Tennessee Texas U.S. Virgin Islands Utah Washington D.C. Wyoming

NVLAP Accreditation Status (as of June 2005)

Description The bottom map graph on the following page represents the NVLAP accreditation status of each state. Six additional laboratories have received their NVLAP accreditation since the last survey.

Comments:

16 laboratories are currently accredited by NVLAP. Arizona, Florida, Indiana, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Virginia, and Washington.

There are no applications pending.

Jun’05 Rev 1 Page 58 Survey 2005 WMD Recognition Status (June 2005)

Washi ngton Vermont Maine Montana North Dakota

Minnesota Oregon New Hampshire Idaho South Dakota Wisconsin New York Massachusetts Michigan Wyomi ng Rhode Island Iowa Pennsylvania Connecticut Nebraska Ohio New Jersey Nevada Illinois Utah Indiana We st Delaware Colorado Virginia Virginia Maryland Kansas Missouri Kentucky California North Washi ngton, DC Tennessee Carolina US DA, GIPS A Oklahoma South Arizona Arkansas New Mexico Carolina Mississippi Georgia Alabama Texas Loui si ana Hawaii Florida U.S . Virgin Alaska Islands Recognized (38) Incomplete Submissions (4) Puerto Not Recognized (12) Rico

NVLAP Accreditation Status (June 2005)

Washi ngton Vermont Maine Montana North Dakota Minnesota Oregon New Hampshire Idaho South Dakota Wisconsin New York Massachusetts Michigan Wyoming Rhode Island Iowa Pennsylvania Connecticut Nebraska Ohio New Jersey Nevada Illinois Utah Indiana We st Delaware Colorado Virginia Virginia Maryland Kansas Missouri Kentucky California North Washington, DC Tennessee Carolina US DA, GIPS A Oklahoma South Arizona Arkansas New Mexico Carolina Los Ange l e s Mississippi County Georgia Alabama NVLAP 1995/1996 Texas Accreditation lapsed Loui si ana Hawaii Florida U.S . Virgin Alaska Islands

NVLAP (16) No applications pending. Puerto Rico

Jun’05 Rev 1 Page 59 Survey 2005

Fees

Description

This information would be valuable for those labs that are attempting to implement fees for the first time and also to those labs that may be in the process of amending their fees. The next seven pages contain eight graphs. In the past surveys the fee schedule or hourly rate that each lab provided was used to calculate the fees for certain routine work. However a problem arises when using hourly rates. The time it takes to calibrate a particular artifact will vary from state to state depending on weight handling equipment, balances, experience and number of employees. Another factor is that while one state may track the total time it takes to log in, unpack, test, re-pack, and log out an item, another state may only track the actual time required to complete the test. This year, in an attempt to gain more accurate information, we asked each lab to quote the typical fee that they would charge for the various routine calibrations.

Mass Echelon I - Class 0 Precision Weight Kit

Description

The top graph represents the fees charged for calibrating a Class 0 precision weight kit containing 21 individual weights from 100 gram down to 1 milligram using Mass Echelon I procedures. There were 15 laboratories that quoted fees and the average fee charged was $617.87. This is the first survey that has requested information on fees for Mass Echelon I calibrations.

Mass Echelon II - Class 2 Precision Weight Kit

Description

The bottom graph represents the fees charged for calibrating a Class 2 precision weight kit that contains 21 individual weights from 100 gram down to 1 milligram using Mass Echelon II procedures. There were 30 laboratories that quoted fees and the average fee charged was $431.43.

Comparison of the 2005, 2003, and 2001 Surveys

# of Labs Average Fee % Change 2001 33 $334.00 -- 2003 39 $414.32 + 24 % 2005 30 $431.43 + 4 %

Jun’05 Rev 1 Page 60 Survey 2005 $1,800 Mass Echelon I 100 g - 1 mg Class 0 $1,600 $1,522.50 21 Individual Weights

$1,400

$1,200

$1,000 $840.00 $840.00 $817.50 $800 $675.00 $600.00 $600 $617.87 $525.00 $525.00 $493.00 $480.00 $450.00 $420.00 $390.00 $400 $375.00 $315.00

$200

$0 IL IN MI CT SC PR NH NC OK OR MS ME MN MD WA

$1,000 Mass Echelon II $913.50 100 g - 1 mg Class 2 $900 21 Individual Weights $840.00

$800

$700 $652.50 $630.00 $600.00 $592.00

$600 $575.00 $525.00 $525.00 $525.00

$500 $480.00 $450.00 $448.00

$420.00 $420.00 $431.43 $400.00 $400.00 $390.00 $378.00 $400 $375.00 $320.00 $315.00 $315.00 $300 $252.00 $240.00 $210.00 $210.00 $200.00 $200.00 $200 $141.75

$100

$0 IL ID IN MI FL NJ TX AZ CT VA KS NV NY NE PR SC NC NH OK GA ME MS CO OH OR NM MD MN MO WA

Jun’05 Rev 1 Page 61 Survey 2005

Mass Echelon III - Class F Weight Kit {31 lb kit} 22 Individual Weights

Description

The top graph represents the fees charged for calibrating a Class F weight kit that contains 22 individual weights using Mass Echelon III procedures. There were 38 laboratories that quoted fees and the average fee charged was $121.13.

Comparison of the 2005, 2003, and 2001 Surveys

# of Labs Average Fee % Change 2001 36 $77.00 -- 2003 41 $94.99 + 23 % 2005 38 $121.13 + 28 %

Mass Echelon III - Class F Typical Scale Truck 24 – 1000 lb (5 adjusted) 20 – 50 lb (5 adjusted) 2 – 31 lb Weight Kits (22 weights each)

Description

The bottom graph represents the fees charged for calibrating a typical scale truck using Mass Echelon III procedures. There were 39 laboratories that quoted fees and the average fee charged was $1,050.56. These fees cannot be compared to previous survey results.

Jun’05 Rev 1 Page 62 Survey 2005 $350 Class F Weight Kit $325.00 $319.00 {31 lb Kit}

$300.00 22 Individual Weights $300 $280.00 $270.00

$250 $220.00 $220.00

$200 $187.50 $160.00 $150.00

$150 $140.00 $125.00 $121.00 $121.13 $110.00 $110.00 $110.00 $110.00 $100.00 $92.50 $90.00

$100 $88.00 $80.00 $80.00 $80.00 $77.00 $70.00 $70.00 $67.50 $66.00 $60.00 $51.00 $45.00 $44.00 $43.00 $50 $42.50 $36.00 $33.00 $30.00

$0 IL ID IN MI FL NJ AL LA TX WI AZ VT CT AK VA KS PR CA NY NE NV SC SD NH NC GA OK CO OH OR ME MS MN NM MD MO WA WV

$3,500 Scale Truck Class F $3,100.00 24 - 1000 lb (5 adjusted) $3,000 20 - 50 lb (5 adjusted) 2 - Weight Kits (22 weights each)

$2,500

$2,000 $1,943.00 $1,800.00 $1,760.00 $1,760.00 $1,580.00 $1,560.00 $1,490.00 $1,460.00

$1,500 $1,405.00 $1,300.00 $1,300.00 $1,260.00 $1,140.00 $1,138.00 $1,110.00 $1,095.00

$1,000.00 $1,050.56 $940.00 $920.00 $900.00 $897.00 $1,000 $888.00 $868.00 $866.00 $788.00 $755.00 $720.00 $712.00 $682.00 $540.00 $473.00 $468.00 $467.00 $430.91 $400.00 $500 $390.00 $350.00 $316.00

$0 IL IN ID MI FL AL NJ LA TX VT AZ WI AK KS VA CT NE SD NV NY SC CA DA PR NC GA OK MS ME CO OH OR MD NM MN MO WV WY WA

Jun’05 Rev 1 Page 63 Survey 2005

Mass Echelon III - 5000 lb Weight Cart

Description

The top graph represents the fees charged for calibrating a 5000 lb weight cart using Mass Echelon III procedures. There were 28 laboratories that quoted fees and the average fee charged was $163.27. These fees cannot be compared to previous survey results.

100 foot Tape 19 Points Tested

Description

The bottom graph represents the fees charged for a 100 foot steel tape that contained 19 points to be calibrated. There were 22 laboratories that quoted fees and the average fee charged was $250.89.

Comparison of the 2005, 2003, and 2001 Surveys

# of Labs Average Fee % Change 2001 33 $133.00 -- 2003 36 $173.07 + 30 % 2005 22 $250.89 + 45 %

Jun’05 Rev 1 Page 64 Survey 2005 $800 Mass Echelon III 5000 lb Weight Cart $700.00 $700

$600

$500 $450.00 $406.00 $400 $340.00

$300 $280.00 $240.00 $200.00 $200.00 $200.00 $200 $196.00 $163.27 $127.00 $125.00 $125.00 $120.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $85.00 $100 $80.00 $67.50 $55.00 $50.00 $40.00 $30.00 $25.00 $20.00 $10.00 $0 IL ID IN MI FL NJ AL TX AZ VA KS PR NY DA SC SD NC GA OH CO OR MS MN MD NM MO WA WV

$1,000

$950.00 100 ft Steel Tape 19 Points Tested $900

$800

$700 $600.00 $600

$500 $448.00 $415.00 $400.00 $400 $320.00

$300 $285.00 $260.00 $250.00 $250.89 $217.50 $200.00 $200 $160.00 $150.00 $148.50 $133.00 $115.00 $102.50 $100.00 $100.00

$100 $80.00 $55.00 $30.00 $0 IN ID MI FL NJ TX CT VA NY PR NV SC NC GA OK OR OH MS CO ME MN MD

Jun’05 Rev 1 Page 65 Survey 2005

5 Gallon Test Measure

Description

The top graph represents the fees charged for calibrating a 5 gallon test measure. There were 39 laboratories that quoted fees and the average fee charged was $42.06.

Comparison of the 2005, 2003, and 2001 Surveys

# of Labs Average Fee % Change 2001 35 $35.00 -- 2003 41 $41.46 + 18 % 2005 39 $42.06 + 1 %

100 Gallon Prover

Description

The bottom graph represents the fees charged for calibrating a 100 gallon prover. There were 35 laboratories that quoted fees and the average fee charged was $138.73.

Comparison of the 2005, 2003, and 2001 Surveys

# of Labs Average Fee % Change 2001 35 $108.00 -- 2003 40 $125.19 + 16 % 2005 35 $138.73 + 11 %

Jun’05 Rev 1 Page 66 Survey 2005 $160 5 Gallon Test Measure $140.00 $140

$120 $101.50 $100.00 $100 $80.00

$80 $75.00 $70.00 $67.50 $65.00 $60.00

$60 $55.00 $51.00 $50.00 $50.00 $45.00 $41.23 $40.00 $40.00 $42.06

$40 $35.00 $30.00 $30.00 $30.00 $30.00 $30.00 $30.00 $25.00 $25.00 $25.00 $25.00 $24.00 $20.00 $20.00 $20.00 $20.00 $20.00 $20.00

$20 $15.00 $15.00 $10.00 $10.00

$0 IL IN ID MI FL AL LA NJ TX WI AZ VT CT VA AK KS NY SC NV CA SD PR NE NC NH OK GA ME MS OR CO OH MD MN NM MO WV WY WA

$400 100 Gallon Prover $362.50 $350 $320.00

$300 $280.00

$250 $219.00 $200.00 $200.00 $200.00 $200 $195.00 $175.00 $168.00 $160.00 $160.00 $150.00 $150.00 $150.00 $150.00

$150 $135.00 $135.00 $138.73 $120.00 $112.50 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $90.00 $90.00 $90.00 $87.50

$100 $85.00 $65.00 $60.00 $57.00 $50 $34.00 $30.00 $25.00

$0 IL ID IN MI FL NJ AL TX WI AZ CT AK KS VA NV NE CA PR NY SC NC GA OK MS ME OH CO OR MD NM MN MO WV WY WA

Jun’05 Rev 1 Page 67 Survey 2005 Metrology Positions - Salary Ranges Description Listed in the table below are the position titles for each position that performs metrology functions.

Lab ID Position Title Minimum Maximum Mid Point AK State Metrologist II $3,806.00 $5,420.00 $4,613.00 AK State Metrologist I $3,304.00 $4,742.00 $4,023.00 AL Graduate Engineer $2,885.00 $5,080.00 $3,982.50 AL Consumer W&M Protection Specialist $1,993.00 $3,337.00 $2,665.00 AR Metrologist IV $3,894.00 $3,894.00 $3,894.00 AR Metrologist III $2,924.00 $3,409.00 $3,166.50 AR Metrologist II $2,456.00 $2,690.00 $2,573.00 AR Metrologist I $2,033.00 $2,245.00 $2,139.00 AZ Admin. Services Officer II $2,962.00 $5,074.00 $4,018.00 AZ Metrology Tech. $1,044.00 $3,815.00 $2,429.50 CA Principal State Metrologist $5,899.00 $6,504.00 $6,201.50 CA Measurement Standards Specialist III $3,837.00 $4,663.00 $4,250.00 CA Measurement Standards Specialist II $3,192.00 $3,834.00 $3,513.00 CA Measurement Standards Specialist I $2,790.00 $3,341.00 $3,065.50 CO Engineering/Physical Science Technician III $3,501.00 $5,356.00 $4,428.50 CO Engineering/Physical Science Technician II $3,176.00 $4,858.00 $4,017.00 CO Engineering/Physical Science Technician I $2,959.00 $4,528.00 $3,743.50 CT Consumer Protection Metrologist $3,675.00 $5,210.00 $4,442.50 FL Senior Metrologist $2,763.00 $4,617.00 $3,690.00 FL Metrologist $2,350.00 $3,717.00 $3,033.50 GA State Metrologist $2,686.00 $4,568.00 $3,627.00 GA Metrologist I $1,667.00 $2,835.00 $2,251.00 HI State Metrologist 4 $3,691.00 $5,254.00 $4,472.50 HI State Metrologist 3 $3,278.00 $4,670.00 $3,974.00 HI State Metrologist 2 $3,030.00 $4,318.00 $3,674.00 HI State Metrologist 1 $2,804.00 $3,991.00 $3,397.50 IA State Metrologist (05104) $3,418.13 $5,071.73 $4,244.93 ID Program Manager / Metrologist $3,458.00 $5,725.00 $4,591.50 IL State Metrologist $ - $ - $ - IL Metrologist Associate $ - $ - $ - KS State Metrologist $2,552.00 $3,344.00 $2,948.00 KS Ag Inspector II $2,318.00 $3,028.00 $2,673.00 KY Program Coordinator $2,246.00 $2,246.00 $2,246.00 KY Inspector II $1,856.00 $1,856.00 $1,856.00 LA Assistant Division Director $4,032.00 $7,266.00 $5,649.00 LA Laboratory Metrologist $2,687.00 $4,524.00 $3,605.50 MA Compliance officer II $2,739.00 $3,957.00 $3,348.00 MD Laboratory Program Manager $2,788.00 $4,287.00 $3,537.50 MD Metrologist II gr. 13 $2,618.00 $4,018.00 $3,318.00 MD Metrologist I gr. 12 $2,458.00 $3,767.00 $3,112.50 MD Metrologist Trainee gr. 9 $2,039.00 $3,107.00 $2,573.00 ME Metrologist $2,622.00 $3,593.00 $3,107.50 ME Metrologist Assistant $2,310.00 $3,123.00 $2,716.50 MI Metrologist Manager 14 $3,926.00 $5,389.00 $4,657.50 MI Metrology Specialist 13 $3,669.00 $4,992.00 $4,330.50 MI Metrologist 12 $3,368.00 $4,566.00 $3,967.00 MI Metrologist P11 $3,160.00 $4,200.00 $3,680.00

Jun’05 Rev 1 Page 68 Survey 2005 MN State Program Administrator Principal $3,478.00 $5,128.00 $4,303.00 MN State Program Administrator (Vacant) $2,537.00 $3,724.00 $3,130.50 MN Student Intern $2,016.00 $2,520.00 $2,268.00 MO Metrologist I $3,190.00 $4,755.00 $3,972.50 MO Metrology Specialist I $2,374.00 $3,463.00 $2,918.50 MS Director V $2,449.00 $4,285.00 $3,367.00 MS State Metrologist $1,775.00 $3,106.00 $2,440.50 MS State Asst. Metrologist $1,604.00 $2,807.00 $2,205.50 MT Metrologist $2,200.00 $3,000.00 $2,600.00 NC Standards Laboratory Manager $2,754.00 $4,536.00 $3,645.00 NC QA Manager (Metrologist II) / Grain Moisture Supervisor $2,332.00 $3,792.00 $3,062.00 NC Metrologist I $2,148.00 $3,464.00 $2,806.00 ND State Metrologist/Assistant Director $3,000.00 $3,200.00 $3,100.00 NE Metrologist $2,785.00 $4,033.00 $3,409.00 NH Weights and Measures Supervisor IV $2,898.00 $3,946.00 $3,422.00 NH Program Specialist I $2,440.00 $3,307.00 $2,873.50 NH Weights and Measures Metrologist $2,154.00 $2,886.00 $2,520.00 NJ Supervisor of Metrology $5,175.00 $7,247.00 $6,211.00 NJ Inspector I $4,695.00 $6,574.00 $5,634.50 NJ Inspector II $4,056.00 $5,679.00 $4,867.50 NJ Inspector III $3,503.00 $4,906.00 $4,204.50 NM Specialist III $2,894.00 $4,341.00 $3,617.50 NM Specialist I $2,238.00 $3,357.00 $2,797.50 NV Weights and Measures Inspector IV $3,523.00 $5,011.00 $4,267.00 NV Metrologist $3,233.00 $4,586.00 $3,909.50 NY Metrologist $3,585.00 $4,462.00 $4,023.50 NY Specialist II $3,206.00 $4,061.00 $3,633.50 NY Specialist I $2,707.00 $3,450.00 $3,078.50 OH Weights & Measures Technologist $2,560.00 $3,328.00 $2,944.00 OK Metrologist III $2,702.00 $4,504.00 $3,603.00 OK Metrologist II $2,213.00 $3,689.00 $2,951.00 OK Metrologist I $1,842.00 $3,070.00 $2,456.00 OR Metrologist $3,060.00 $4,265.00 $3,662.50 PA Procurement Quality Supervisor $3,552.00 $5,397.00 $4,474.50 PA Metrologist $3,113.00 $4,730.00 $3,921.50 SC Program Coordinator II $2,755.00 $5,097.00 $3,926.00 SC Lab Technician I $2,264.00 $4,189.00 $3,226.50 SC Program Coordinator I $2,264.00 $4,189.00 $3,226.50 SD State Inspector $1,984.00 $2,976.00 $2,480.00 TX Coordinator for Metrology/Chief Metrologist III $3,518.00 $4,680.00 $4,099.00 TX Metrologist II $2,589.00 $3,309.00 $2,949.00 TX Lead Metrologist I $2,436.00 $3,111.00 $2,773.50 TX Metrologist I $1,921.00 $2,436.00 $2,178.50 USDA Industrial Specialist GS-12 $6,431.00 $7,031.00 $6,731.00 USDA Industrial Specialist GS-11 $4,512.00 $5,866.00 $5,189.00 UT State Metrologist $3,166.00 $5,023.00 $4,094.50 VA Lab and Research Manager $3,064.00 $6,288.00 $4,676.00 VA Lab and Research Specialist II $2,345.00 $4,813.00 $3,579.00 VT Weights and Measures Specialist $3,240.00 $4,923.00 $4,081.50 WA State Metrologist $2,615.00 $3,337.00 $2,976.00 WI State Metrologist $3,093.00 $4,640.00 $3,866.50 WV Metrologist $2,020.00 $3,475.00 $2,747.50

Jun’05 Rev 1 Page 69 Survey 2005 WV Labor Inspector II / Assigned to Laboratory $1,539.00 $2,695.00 $2,117.00 WY Consumer Protection Supervisor/W&M Program Coordinator $ - $ - $ -

Metrology Positions

Salary Graph

The chart on the following page shows salary information for up to four metrology positions in each reporting laboratory. Each position performing metrology functions is shown with the associated salary pay band. They are presented in descending order from “laboratory management positions” (red) to “metrology technician positions or entry-level positions” (green) for each state.

From the different titles listed, it is evident that the range of responsibilities varies from lab to lab between positions of the same color. The red bar is probably the most comparable position since it is the highest paid position in each lab. Therefore, the order of labs is arranged from highest to lowest by the salary midpoint of this position in each lab. An assumption is made that the position with the highest salary range has the highest level of responsibility in the lab. Yet, even here, in one lab the highest paid position may manage the laboratory with program, facility, budget, and supervisory responsibilities while in another lab, this position may not have program management or supervisory responsibilities. One person may manage a laboratory with a staff of metrologists, a secretary, and maintenance worker while another may work in a one-person lab with shared field inspection responsibilities. Comparisons between the lower positions are even more problematic. Depending on the number of positions in a laboratory, the second position may have quality management responsibilities in one lab, but be a technician, inspector or even a trainee in another laboratory. Of course, even titles can be deceptive. Metrology positions are unique and often do not fit cleanly into government position classifications. Thus, a technician or inspector classification in one laboratory may have the same level of responsibility as a metrologist or manager in another.

In future surveys, we would like to try to get a better idea of salary ranges based on the level of responsibility. For example, the red bar may be reserved for metrologists with program management (including budget, facility, and supervisory) responsibilities. The blue level may be reserved for quality management positions. The yellow level could represent the metrologists in the labs who turn out the majority of the work, but who do not have management and supervisory responsibilities. And the green level could indicate a technician or trainee who works under more direct supervision. These are just some thoughts on how we might be able to improve the data and make it more useful. We would appreciate your ideas.

Jun’05 Rev 1 Page 70 Survey 2005 $7,500

$7,000

$6,500

$6,000

$5,500

$5,000

$4,500

$4,000

$3,500

$3,000

$2,500

$2,000

$1,500

$1,000 DA NJ CA LA VA MI AK ID PA HI CT CO MN NV IA TX UT VT NY AZ AL MO SC AR WI FL OR NC GA NM OK MD NH NE MS MA ME ND WA KS OH WV MT SD KY

Position I Position II Position III Position IIII Ave I Ave II Ave III Ave IIII

Jun’05 Rev 1 Page 71 Survey 2005

Laboratory Customers

Description

The graphs on the following page represent the total number of laboratory customers served by the 47 reporting laboratories. The map graph gives a geographical distribution of these customers. Darker shading indicates more customers. The bar graph at the bottom of the page shows the same breakdown along with the total number of customers served by each laboratory. There is also a smaller line graph indicating the totals from the 1996, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2003, and 2005 surveys.

Findings

Of the 47 reporting laboratories, 43 labs served a total of 8,629 customers.

Jun’05 Rev 1 Page 72 Survey 2005

Lab Customers

Light green color indicates no response was provided to the question. 512 to 627 (4) 340 to 512 (4) 270 to 340 (4) 240 to 270 (4) 179 to 240 (4) 108 to 179 (4) 94 to 108 (4) 62 to 94 (4) 45 to 62 (4) 18 to 45 (5) 8629 Total Customers

700 25000 627

616 20000 600

15000 19400 552 512

10000 14700 12795 476 500 12109 11617

5000 8629 421 407 400 0 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 340 331 315 300 300 270 266 252 249 240 223 200 192

200 179 201 168 135 127 108 105 103 95 94 93 100 88 68 62 53 50 48 46 45 44 42 26 22 21 18 0 IL ID HI IN NJ FL MI PR SC KS PA SD CT AL LA AZ VT UT TX NE AR CA OR CO NC AK GA DA OK NY NH NV OH MS MT ME MA MD NM MN MO WA WV

Customers Average

Jun’05 Rev 1 Page 73 Survey 2005

INSTRUCTIONS

Workload Survey 2004 State Metrology Laboratories

We are using the same basic format as the last survey and we plan on using the same format for future surveys. If future surveys require major changes in format, we will provide enough advanced notice to allow for proper data collection for the reporting period.

DUE by April 1, 2005

Instructions

General Laboratory Information Section:

Lab Elevation (NEW) This is the elevation above sea level of your lab in feet.

Lab Renovation (NEW) This section was added since many laboratories have had significant renovations since they were built. In many cases, the renovations have significantly improved the laboratory’s environment and capabilities.

Staff information: ‘Experience’ is asking for the number of years of experience in an SLP laboratory and the total number of years of experience in metrology.

Example: Worked 5 years in an Air Force PMEL laboratory and worked 14 years at a state metrology laboratory. SLP Lab experience = 14 years Total Metrology experience = 19 years

Job Titles/Salary Ranges (make sure they are monthly salaries): NOTE: We do not want names or current salaries; we only want the position title and the salary range (this information is usually public record for state government). Example: Metrologist I $1,800.00 - $2,400.00 Metrologist II $2,000.00 - $2,800.00 Metrologist III $2,600.00 - $3,200.00

Workload 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.

Jun’05 Rev 1 Appendix – Instructions Page 1 Survey 2005

W&M Program – Those standards calibrated for weights and measures regulatory agencies.

External Customers – All other standards calibrated by the laboratory for industry.

The survey covers the workload of your lab for a twelve-month period, preferably Jan 1, 2004 through Dec 31, 2004. If the reporting period covers a different period make sure it is noted in the survey.

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.

Example: A “31 pound weight kit” is not counted as one device; make sure each weight in the kit is counted.

Example: A 100 foot tape is counted as one device; do not count each point tested.

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.

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 the mass code; do not count the check standards as they are used solely for defining the measurement process.)

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.

Mass Echelon III – Do not count weight carts in this category; weight carts have their own category.

Lottery Balls – This section is new and was added due to the increasing number of labs that were reporting these tests under the ‘other’ category.

Other Calibrations – 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.

Laboratory Customers: The number of customers served by your lab during the 1- year 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.

Jun’05 Rev 1 Appendix – Instructions Page 2 Survey 2005 Laboratory Fees - At the end of the survey there is a section for calibration fees. This section is new and was added to more accurately report the typical cost of calibrations at the various state labs. If a fee schedule is used please attach a copy.

At the end of the on-line survey is an option to upload a file. This option was provided so that you can include a copy of your fee schedule if you would like. Uploading the file is not required.

Jun’05 Rev 1 Appendix – Instructions Page 3 Survey 2005

2004 State Laboratory Program Survey DUE by April 1, 2005 General Laboratory Information Laboratory: Name: Mail Address: Phone: City, State, Zip: Fax: Age of Lab: Years Web Site Approx. Sq. Ft.: Sq ft Address: Lab Elevation: ______Feet above sea level Has lab been renovated? YES NO If so, what year:______How many sq ft were added?______Approximately ______% of lab was renovated Please list all personnel which perform metrology measurements or functions in the laboratory Full Time or #Yrs Experience Name e-mail Part Time SLP Lab Total

List all Job Titles which could be utilized to perform metrology measurements or functions Job Title Minimum Monthly Salary Maximum Monthly Salary

NOTE: The following information should be based on a 12 month period, preferably Jan 1, 2004 through Dec 31, 2004 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 ______Mass Echelon I Lab Number of mass standards calibrated using Advanced W&M Program Weighing Designs and Mass Code Data Reduction. External Customers Regardless of Class. Total Mass Echelon II Number of mass standards. Lab ASTM Class 1, 2, 3 W&M Program OIML Class E2, F1 External Customers Total

Jun’05 Rev 1 Appendix – Survey Questionnaire Page 1 Survey 2005

Mass Echelon III Number of mass standards (except weight carts). Lab ASTM Class 4, 5, 6, 7 W&M Program OIML Class F2, M1, M2, M3 External Customers NIST Class F Total Weight Carts Number of weight carts calibrated. Lab W&M Program External Customers Total Volume - Glassware Number of individual pieces of volumetric glassware Lab calibrated. W&M Program External Customers Total Volume - Small Metal Standards Number of metal volumetric standards (20 liter / 5 Lab gallon and smaller). W&M Program External Customers Total Volume - Large Metal Standards Number of metal volumetric standards (larger than 20 Lab liter / 5 gallon). W&M Program External Customers Total Length - Tapes Number of individual tapes (metal, fiberglass, woven Lab fiberglass, cloth, etc.). W&M Program External Customers Total Length - Rigid Rules Number of rigid rules calibrated. Lab W&M Program External Customers Total Thermometry Number of thermometers tested (mechanical, liquid-in- Lab glass, thermocouples, thermistors, PRTs, SPRTs). W&M Program External Customers Total Frequency Number of frequency standards tested (includes tuning Lab forks). W&M Program External Customers Total Timing Devices Number of timing devices tested (stopwatches). Lab W&M Program External Customers Total

Jun’05 Rev 1 Appendix – Survey Questionnaire Page 2 Survey 2005 Wheel Load Weighers Number of wheel load weighers tested : Lab W&M Program External Customers Total Lottery Balls Number of lottery balls tested : Lab Characteristic Tested: W&M Program Mass Diameter Other External Customers Describe Other______Total (A) Other Types of Measurements not covered in this survey Describe type of measurement: Lab W&M Program External Customers Total (B) Other Types of Measurements not covered in this survey Describe type of measurement: Lab W&M Program External Customers Total (C) Other Types of Measurements not covered in this survey Describe type of measurement: Lab W&M Program External Customers Total 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 ______

Laboratory Fees Does your laboratory charge fees for external customers? YES NO Do you have a minimum fee? $ In this section please estimate the typical fees charged for each of the described examples. [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) $ One - 5 gallon test measure: $ One – 100 gallon prover: $ One- 100 foot tape with 19 points tested: $

Jun’05 Rev 1 Appendix – Survey Questionnaire Page 3 Survey 2005

Calibration Fees Please describe your labs fees below OR attach a copy of your Fee Schedule

Comments on Survey

Jun’05 Rev 1 Appendix – Survey Questionnaire Page 4 Survey 2005