Modern Weights and Measures Regulation in the United States

A Brief History

Craig A. Leisy

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2021
• ISBN:
  9781000547535
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Politique et relations internationales
• Subtopic: Affaires publiques et administration

In this book, Craig A. Leisy provides a concise history of weights and measures regulation in the United States from the early 20th century up to the present day.

Written for academic and professional readers, Leisy describes basic terms and concepts, the origins and history of weights and measures laws, weights and measures regulation, the economics of regulation, key enforcement cases, landmark legal decisions, the effects of public policy, and a forecast on the future of weights and measures regulation. He also discusses the impact of weights and measures regulation on both producers (sellers) and consumers (buyers) in the marketplace. The book also features a new 2019 survey of state weights and measures regulatory programs, an introduction to the economics of weights and measures regulation, a case study of the municipal weights and measures regulatory program in Seattle, Washington, details of a major gasoline dispenser fraud case in Los Angeles County, and landmark legal cases related to net contents of packaged goods.

Modern Weights and Measures Regulation in the United States is the only book on this subject from the perspective of a former long-time weights and measures regulatory official.

1Modern Weights and Measures Regulation in the United States

DOI: 10.4324/9781003263661-2

Weights and measures regulation in the 21st century is, in many respects, very similar to the 20th century except that the marketplace reflects changing consumer tastes and advances in technology that have, in turn, prompted corresponding changes to inspection types and practices. Weights and measures regulation is still conducted by state and local government agencies but there has been considerable consolidation as many municipalities and counties have turned over their programs to states due to budgetary difficulties.

First Survey of State Weights and Measures Programs [2002]

In 2003, the Chairman of the National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM) appointed the author of this book to lead a working group of representatives from all four regional associations comprising the NCWM (e.g., Western Weights and Measures Association) to conduct a first-ever national survey of state weights and measures regulatory programs. All 50 state weights and measures regulatory programs were sent a questionnaire about 2002 budgets, staffing, inspection workloads, device registration and inspection fees, and inspection procedures and policies. The purpose of the survey was to learn the fundamentals about state weights and measures regulatory programs in all states that comprise the NCWM.

The purpose of the survey was to establish baseline information on the types of inspection statistics collected by state weights and measures programs. This is the first phase of a larger project intended to promote uniform data collection and to measure the value of weights and measures work nationwide.¹

The rate of return of survey questionnaires was 80 percent (40 states). Not all states returning questionnaires were able to provide complete information due to limitations of their data collection. ‘Total’ figures for the United States were based upon projections that assumed state weights and measures regulatory program data was proportional to state populations.

State Weights and Measures Program Budgets [2002]²

Table 1.1 State W&M Program Budgets [2002]

Funding Source	Amount (%)
Registration/License Fees	$14,891,449 (12.7)
Inspection Fees	20,363,985 (17.4)
Fuel Quality	16,540,049 (14.2)
Metrology Lab	1,689,881 (1.4)
General Fund	51,908,019 (44.4)
Price Verification	3,363,895 (2.9)
Other	8,061,360 (6.9)
Total (38 states)	$116,818,638 (99.9)
Projected (50 states)	$135,520,462
Notes
The 38 state budgets summarized represent 86.2 percent of the U.S. population.
See “July 1, 2002 Population” at www.eire.census.gov/popest/data/states/tables/ST-EST 2002-01.php

The sum of funding by sources was assumed to equal the total budget for all of the state weights and measures regulatory programs during calendar year 2002. Only 38 states, representing 86.2 percent of the U.S. population, provided complete data for this item on the questionnaire, but the combined budgets for all 50 states was based on a projection for 100 percent of the population. This projection was $135,520,462. The ratio of budget per inspector was estimated based on this information. The General Fund (44%) was equal to the next top three funding sources combined: Registration or License fees (12.7%), Inspection fees (17.4%), and Fuel Quality fees (14.2%). Clearly, the migration from the General Fund to self-supporting regulatory fees was only about 56 percent complete by 2002. No follow-on survey was conducted until 2019.

State Weights and Measures Inspectors [2002]³

Table 1.2 State W&M Inspectors [2002]

W&M Inspector Ratio	Amount
Budget per Inspector	$73,853
Population per Inspector	157,149
Land Area per Inspector	1,928 sq. mi.
Retail Motor-Fuel Dispensers per Inspector	1,377
Scales (all kinds) per Inspector	550
Survey Count (39 states with 86.5% of U.S. population)	1,587
Projected (50 states)	1,835
Notes
Ratios based on projected total inspectors (above) and projected total RMFD and scales (all).
Land Area (2000) from www.quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states .

It was projected that, in 2002, there were only 1,835 inspectors nationwide. It is not clear how many of these were full-time equivalent employees (FTEs). The number of administrative and management staff were not counted. It is remarkable that there was just one inspector for 157,149 population (consumers) or approximately the population of a city the size of Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Also, there was only one inspector for a land area nearly the size of the state of Delaware. As a result, inspectors spent a considerable amount of their work hours just driving to and from inspections so maintaining an annual ...