A performance audit of the Department of Adiministration-Weights and Measures Division

              STATE OF ARIZONA
OFFICE OF THE
AUDITOR GENERAL
A PERFORMANCE AUDIT
OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION-WEIGHTS
AND MEASURES DIVISION
AUGUST 1981
A REPORT TO THE
ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE
REPORT 81 - 6
DOUGLAS R. NORTON. CPA
AUDITOR GENERAL
STATE OF ARIZONA
OFFICE OF THE
AUDITOR GENERAL
September 11, 1981
Members of the Arizona L e g i s l a t u r e
The Honorable Bruce Babbitt, Governor
D r . Robert C. Dickeson, Director
Department of Administration
Transmitted herewith is a r e p o r t o f t h e Auditor General, A Performance
Audit of the Department of Administration - Weights and Measures
Division. T h i s r e p o r t is i n response t o a January 30, 1980, r e s o l u t i o n of
the J o i n t L e g i s l a t i v e Oversight Committee. The performance a u d i t was
conducted a s a p a r t of the Sunset review s e t f o r t h i n A. R. S. $ 941- 2351
through 41- 2379.
The blue pages present a summary of t h e r e p o r t ; a response from the
Department of Administration - Weights and Measures Division is found on
the yellow pages preceding the appendices.
My s t a f f and I w i l l be pleased t o d i s c u s s or c l a r i f y items i n the r e p o r t .
Respectfully submitted,
~ b u ~ % R. s Norton
Audit or General
S t a f f : Gerald A. S i l v a
William Thornson
Brent Nelson
Karen Holloway
cc: P a t r i c i a M. Fullinwider, A s s i s t a n t Director
DOA- Weights and Measures
Enclosure
LEGISLATIVE SERVICES WING SUITE 200 STATE CAPITOL PHOENIX. ARIZONA 85007 255- 4385
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
A PERFORMANCE AUDIT OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION -
WEIGHTS AND MEASURES D I V I S I O N
A REPORT TO THE
ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE
REPORT 81- 6
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
SUNSET FACTORS
FINDINGS
FINDING. I
Failure of the Weights and Measures Division to
Retest Devices Allows Incorrect Devices t o Be
Placed Back i n Service
CONCLUSION
RECOMMENDATIONS
FINDING I1
The Cattle Scale C e r t i f i c a t i o n Program Is a
Service Rather than a Regulatory Function and,
as Such, Does Not Represent an Effective Use of
the Division' s Resources
CONCLUSION
RECOMMENDATIONS
FINDING I11
The Statutory Fee Schedule f o r Metrology Laboratory
Services Needs to be Changed so t h a t the Fees Charged
Reflect the Effort Required to Perform the Services
CONCLUSION
RECOMMENDATION
OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION
WRITTEN RESPONSE TO THE AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT
Page
1
SUMMARY
The Office of the Auditor General has conducted a performance a u d i t of the
S t a t e of Arizona, Department of Administration - Weights and Neasures
Division i n response to a January 70, 1980, r e s o l u t i o n o f t h e J o i n t
L e g i s l a t i v e Oversight Committee. This performance a u d i t was conducted a s
a p a r t of the Sunset review s e t f o r t h i n A. R. S. $ 541- 2751 through 41- 2779.
Arizona's weights and measures program d a t e s back t o its 1912 statehood,
when l e g i s l a t i o n provided f o r a s t a t e inspec t o r of weights and measures.
There were few s u b s t a n t i v e changes t o t h i s o r i g i n a l l e g i s l a t i o n u n t i l
1974. In t h a t year, Arizona adopted, with few modifications, a model law
f o r weights and measures developed by the National Conference on Weights
and Measures. This is e s s e n t i a l l y the same s t a t u t e the weights and
measures program functions under today.
The Department of Administration - Weights and Measures Division ( DOA -
Weights and ~ e a s u r e s ) administers t h e c u r r e n t program with a s t a f f of 30.
The D i v i s i o n ' s o p e r a t i o n s i n c l u d e :
Licensing programs f o r : 1) r e g i s t e r e d s e r v i c e s agencies,
2) r e g i s t e r e d servicemen, and 3) public weighmasters.
Licensing and t e s t i n g of commercial devices including gas pumps,
l i q u i d petroleum gas meters and grocery, c a t t l e and i n d u s t r i a l
scales.
Inspection and t e s t i n g of prepackaged commodities f o r weight and
l a b e l v i o l a t i o n s .
The metrology l a b o r a t o r y , which t e s t s , c a l i b r a t e s and c e r t i f i e s
the accuracy of weights and measures.
Our review showed that as many as 23 percent of the weighing and measuring
devices { rejected as incorrect by the Weights and Measures Division are not
repaired properly before being placed back i n t o service by registered
servicemen. To combat t h i s , and to comply with statutory requirements,
the Division needs t o r e t e s t as close to 100 peqcent of the devices placed
back i n service as possible.
In conjunction with t h i s , the Division needs to establish a program to
monitor the performance of i n d i v i d u a l r e g i s t e r e d servicemen. The Division
also needs to review and amend the t e s t i n g program it uses t o ensure that
applicant servicemen are knowledgeable and competent before they are
registered. ( page 13)
We found t h a t the c a t t l e scale c e r t i f i c a t i o n program provided by the
Division is a s e r v i c e r a t h e r than a regulatory function. Further, t h i s
program uses eleven percent of the Division's inspection resources to
benefit a limited number of ranchers, whereas they could be used to
provide b e t t e r protection to a wider segment of the public f o r such
regulatory functions as gas pump and grocery scale t e s t s , or r e t e s t s of -
devices placed back i n service by registered servicemen. ( page 21)
Finally, the current statutory fee schedule for metrology laboratory
services needs t o be changed so that fees charged r e f l e c t the r e l a t i v e
e f f o r t to perform the services. ( page 27)
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
The Office of the Auditor General has conducted a performance a u d i t of the
S t a t e of Arizona, Department of Administration - Weights and deasures
Division i n response t o a January 30, 1980, r e s o l u t i o n of the J o i n t
L e g i s l a t i v e Oversight Committee. This performance a u d i t was conducted a s
a p a r t of the Sunset review s e t f o r t h i n A. R. S. $ 941- 2751 through 41- 2379.
Standards of measurement date back t o the Hammurabic Code." Every s o c i e t y
since has e s t a b l i s h e d standards f o r t h e accuracy of measurement.
I n the United S t a t e s the power to e s t a b l i s h standards f o r measurement is
granted to Congress by the Constitution. Congress has provided f o r the
adoption of standards and has d i s t r i b u t e d t o each s t a t e a complete s e t of
the weights and measures adopted, ". . . t o t h e end t h a t a uniform standard
of weights and measures may be e s t a b l i s h e d throughout the United States."
Much of the enforcement of the use of the standards f a l l s heavily on the
s t a t e s through t h e i r g e n e r a l p o l i c e powers and powers t o regulate
B i n t r a s t a t e commerce.
I
Arizona's weights and measures program dates back t o its 1912 statehood,
when l e g i s l a t i o n provided f o r a s t a t e inspector of weights and measures.
There were few s u b s t a n t i v e changes t o t h i s o r i g i n a l l e g i s l a t i o n u n t i l
1974. I n t h a t y e a r , Arizona adopted, with few modifications, a model law
for weights and measures developed by the National Conference on Weights
and Measures. This is e s s e n t i a l l y the same s t a t u t e the weights and
measures program functions under today.
* The e a r l i e s t complete c i v i l code known t o h i s t o r y , named f o r its
designer, Hammurabi, King of Babylon, c i r c a 1800 BC.
The Department of Administration - Weights and Measures Division ( DOA -
Weights and ~ e a s u r e s ) administers the S t a t e ' s program with a s t a f f of 30. ,
The Division's operations include:
Licensing programs for: 1) registered services agencies,
2) registered servicemen, and 3) public weighmasters.
Licensing and t e s t i n g of commercial devices including gas pumps,
liquid petroleum gas meters and grocery, c a t t l e and i n d u s t r i a l
scales.
Inspection and t e s t i n g of prepackaged commodities f o r weight and
l a b e l violations.
The metrology laboratory, which t e s t s , c a l i b r a t e s and c e r t i f i e s
the accuracy of weights and measures.
The Weights and Measures Division is funded by l e g i s l a t i v e appropriations
($ 820,200 i n f i s c a l year 1980- 81) and generates approximately $ 290,000
annually i n revenues to the State through l i c e n s e f e e s . Table 1
summarizes the full- time equivalent positions, revenues and expenditures
of the Division for f i s c a l years 1976- 77 through 1980- 81.
I
The Auditor General expresses gratitude to the Assistant Director,
DOA- Weights and Measures, and her s t a f f f o r t h e i r cooperation, assistance
and consideration during the course of the audit.
TABLE 1
SUMMARY OF FULL- TIME EQUIVALENT POSITIONS,
REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES FROM FISCAL YEARS 1976- 77
THROUGH FISCAL YEAR 1979- 80 AND ESTIMATED PULL- TIIW
EQUIVALENT EMPLOYEES, REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES
FOR FISCAL YEAR 1980- 81
Full- t i n e equivalent
p o s i t ions ( FTE)
1980- 81"
1976- 77" 1977- 78" 1978- 79* 1979- 80" ( estimated)
D Revenues :
Inspection and c e r t i f i c a t i o n
fees $ 13,867 $ 16,670 $ 20,997 $ 24,900 $ 21,000
C o m m e r c i a l d e v i c e l i c e n s e f e e s 255,747 257,098 254,306 250,100 253,500
Public weighmaster l i c e n s e f e e s 10,600 8,008 10,200 10,200 10,000
Registered s e r v i c e s agencies 3,500 4,511 3,335 2,700 3,200
I) Miscellaneous 236 7 40 1,526 400 1,400
Total -$ 2- 87. 950 $ 287,027 $ 290,364 $ 288,300 $ 289,100
Expenditures:
Personal s e r v i c e s $ 271,000 $ 316,528 $ 361,445 $ 394,300 $ 509,400
@ Employee- related expenditures 41,500 60,284 71,263 77,800 106,700
Professional and outside
services 18,800 18,522 17,022 27,800 34,200
Travel i n - S t a t e 62,200 63,104 73,823 82,700 92,500
Travel out- of- State 2,000 1,958 5 00 1,200 1,700
Other operating expenses 70,400 65,677 53,195 69,900 69,800
B Equipment 3,700 9,297 8,930 50,000 5,900
Total $ 469.600 $ 545,366 -$ 586.178 $ 696,700 $ 820.200
D * Source: Appropriations r e p o r t s
SUNSET FACTORS
SUNSET FACTOR: OBJECTIVE AND PURPOSE
I N ESTABLISHING THE DIVISION
A statement of l e g i s l a t i v e i n t e n t i n e s t a b l i s h i n g a weights and measures
program a t the time of statehood cannot be found. However, when the State
adopted the model weights and measures l e g i s l a t i o n i n 1974, l e g i s l a t i v e
i n t e n t was stated as:
". . . to e s t a b l i s h within the department of
administration the s t a t e weights and measures division
and to establish s t a t u t o r y authority for the
administration, regulation and enforcement of weights
and measures requirements within the s t a t e . The
objectives of s t a t e supervision of weights and measures
under t h i s chapter include t h e following:
" 1. Assuring that weights and measures i n commercial
services within the s t a t e a r e s u i t a b l e for t h e i r
intended use, properly i n s t a l l e d , accurate and are
so maintained by t h e i r owner or user.
" 2. Preventing unfair dealing by weight or measure i n
any commodity or service advertised, packaged,
sold o r purchased within the s t a t e .
" 3. Making available to a l l users of physical
standards or weighing, measuring and counting
equipment the precision c a l i b r a t i o n and related
metrological c e r t i f i c a t i o n c a p a b i l i t i e s of the
weights and measures f a c i l i t i e s of the s t a t e
weights and measures division.
" 4. Promoting uniformity, to the extent such
conformance is practicable and desirable between
weights and measures requirements of t h i s s t a t e
and those of other s t a t e s and federal agencies.
" 5. Encouraging desirable economic growth while
protecting the consumer through the adoption by
rule of weights and measures requirements as
necessary to ensure equity among buyers and
s e l l e r s . "
SUNSET FACTOR: THE DEGREE TO WHICH
THE DIVISION HAS BEEN ABLE TO RESPOND
TO THE NEEDS OF THE PUBLIC AND THE
EFFICIENCY WITH WHICH I T HAS OPERATED
The Division responds promptly to specific complaints. Further, i f a
complaint or problem a r i s e s which is widespread i n n a t u r e , t h e Division
d i v e r t s resources to correct the problem. For example, i n December 1980
it was determined that large q u a n t i t i e s of b u t t e r had been shipped into
the State which were shortweight. In some cases, the butter containers
were shortweight by as much as t h r e e q u a r t e r s of an ounce i n an
eight- ounce container. The shortweighted b u t t e r would have been widely
sold to Arizona c i t i z e n s through major r e t a i l chains, but Division
resources were diverted from other a c t i v i t i e s to track down the
shortweight product and prevent its s a l e i n Arizona.
The Division does schedule and group work i n a manner to minimize travel
time and costs.
SUNSET FACTOR: THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE
DIVISION HAS OPERATED WITHIN THE PUBLIC INTEREST
Most Division programs and a c t i v i t i e s appear to . be i n the public
i n t e r e s t . A c t i v i t i e s such as ensuring t h a t gas pumps, grocery scales and
other commercial weighing and measuring devices are accurate, c a l i b r a t i n g
and c e r t i f y i n g standards, licensing public weighmasters and registered
servicemen are i n the public i n t e r e s t .
Nevertheless, some aspects of Division operations do not appear to be i n
the best i n t e r e s t of the public as a whole. For example, the Division
has: 1) f a i l e d t o r e t e s t a l l devices that have been rejected as incorrect
by the Division and returned to service by a registered serviceman
( page 13), and 2) neglected to u t i l i z e resources to f u l l advantage i n
that it has allocated resources from regulatory programs to a c a t t l e scale
c e r t i f i c a t i o n program ( page 21).
SUNSET FACTOR: THE EXTENT TO WHICH RULES AND
REGULATIONS PROMULGATED BY THE DIVISION ARE
CONSISTENT WITH THE LEGISLATIVE MANDATE
When the Division was created i n its present form ( 1974), a team of
consultants developed the r u l e s and regulations. The rules were drawn
primarily from the model rules and regulations of the National Conference
on Weights and Measures. However, the rules as adopted were not
consistent with Arizona s t a t u t e s i n a t l e a s t two instances. In one, an
inconsistency with a r u l e r e l a t i n g to the q u a l i t y of petroleum products
was l a t e r corrected by amending the Arizona s t a t u t e . In the other
instance, a r u l e r e l a t i n g to p u l l dates* was declared invalid by the
courts.
New Division rules and regulations and/ or modification to existing r u l e s
and regulations are and have been reviewed by the Arizona Attorney General
to ensure consistency with l e g i s l a t i v e mandate.
SUNSET FACTOR: THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE DIVISION
HAS ENCOURAGED INPUT FROM THE PUBLIC BEFORE
PROMULGATING ITS RULES AND REGULATIONS AND THE
EXTENT TO WHICH I T HAS INFORMED THE PUBLIC AS
TO ITS ACTIONS AND THEIR EXPECTED IMPACT ON THE PUBLIC
Division e f f o r t s to encourage public input i n t o the rule- making process
and its e f f o r t s to notify the public of the impact of such r u l e s appear to
be more extensive than those of most State agencies reviewed by the
Auditor General. Many agencies simply f i l e proposed r u l e s with the
Secretary of S t a t e and post notices of public hearings i n t h e i r
buildings. In addition to t h e s e a c t i o n s , the Division takes the following
steps :
* A pull date is one placed on perishable o r semiperishable commodities
specifying the l a s t d a t e t h e commodity may be offered f o r s a l e without
a s i g n i f i c a n t r i s k of spoilage, l o s s of value or loss of p a l a t a b i l i t y .
1. It s o l i c i t s input from concerned groups, including consumers,
before the r u l e s and r e g u l a t i o n s a r e d r a f t e d and a hearing is
h e l d . Input is s o l i c i t e d through d i r e c t mail t o l i c e n s e e s , press
r e l e a s e s , a r t i c l e s i n t r a d e journals and n o t i c e s t o consumer
groups.
2. Information is mailed t o a f f e c t e d l i c e n s e e s with t h e i r l i c e n s e
renewal forms a f t e r a r u l e is adopted or revised.
SUNSET FACTOR: THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE DIVISION
HAS BEEN ABLE TO INVESTIGATE AND RESOLVE
COMPLAINTS THAT ARE WITHIN ITS JURISDICTION
The Division receives a limited number of complaints. In 1980, f o r
i n s t a n c e , 329 complaints were received. Most of these complaints r e l a t e d
to a s p e c i f i c device o r s i t u a t i o n , such as a gas pump t h a t may short
consumers or a gas s t a t i o n t h a t may have water i n i t s gasoline. Such
complaints a r e e a s i l y and r a p i d l y resolved. I n f a c t , Division policy is
t o respond t o such compliant s within t h r e e days whenever f e a s i b l e .
Occasionally the Division i n v e s t i g a t e s complaints of d e l i b e r a t e
shortweighing or o t h e r a l l e g e d f r a u d u l e n t a c t i o n s . These cases may lead
t o l e g a l prosecution, but they a r e d i f f i c u l t t o prosecute because when a
weights and measures v i o l a t i o n is t r e a t e d a s a c r i m i n a l m a t t e r , t h e
Division must prove " p a t t e r n and p r a c t i c e " and t h e v i o l a t i o n must be
egregious b e f o r e p r o s e c u t i n g a t t o r n e y s w i l l accept the case.
SUNSET FACTOR: THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL OR ANY OTHER APPLICABLE AGENCY OF STATE
GOVERNMENT HAS THE AUTHORITY TO PROSECUTE ACTIONS
UNDER ENABLING LEGISLATION
The Attorney General and county a t t o r n e y s have concurrent j u r i s d i c t i o n to
prosecute a c t i o n s under the enabling l e g i s l a t i o n .
SUNSET FACTOR: THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE DIVISION HAS
ADDRESSED DEFICIENCIES I N THE ENABLING STATUTES WHICH
PREVENT I T FROM FULFILLING ITS STATUTORY MANDATE
A s noted previously, a model law was adopted i n 1974. I n 1979 the Division
requested and was granted new l e g i s l a t i o n which:
1. Gave the Division a u t h o r i t y t o e s t a b l i s h q u a l i t y standards f o r
petroleum products ( A. R. s. $ 41- 2083),
2. Granted the Attorney General concurrent j u r i s d i c t i o n t o prosecute
weights and measure v i o l a t i o n s ( A. R. S. $ 41- 2113 . c) , and
7. Provided f o r a l a t e penalty f e e f o r f a i l u r e t o f i l e a l i c e n s e
a p p l i c a t i o n ( A. R. s. $ 41- 2091.~).
SUNSET FACTOR: THE EXTENT TO WHICH CHANGES ARE
NECESSARY I N THE LAWS OF THE DIVISION TO ADEQUATELY
COMPLY WITH THE FACTORS LISTED I N THIS SUBSECTION
One change which we recommend as a r e s u l t of our review is explained i n
d e t a i l on page 27. This change would provide f o r metrology laboratory
f e e s based on the time required t o perform l a b s e r v i c e s r a t h e r than a f l a t
r a t e based on weight or measure s i z e .
Another change p e r t a i n s t o A. R. S. $ 41- 2065.15. This s e c t i o n r e q u i r e s the
a s s i s t a n t d i r e c t o r of the Division t o :
" Issue weighing and measuring i n s t r u c t i o n s and
r e g u l a t i o n s , i n a d d i t i o n t o the c e r t i f i c a t e of
approval, t o be posted on a l l approved weighing and
measuring devices f o r the information of consumers and
the operators of such devices." ( ~ m ~ h a saidsd ed)
The a s s i s t a n t d i r e c t o r has informed us t h a t t h i s is an unreasonable
requirement with which the Division cannot comply. The a s s i s t a n t d i r e c t o r
notes t h a t it is impossible to put enough d e t a i l i n such an i n s t r u c t i o n t o
be u s e f u l without making it e i t h e r too l a r g e t o a t t a c h t o t h e devices or
i n p r i n t too small t o read. Accordingly, t h e a s s i s t a n t d i r e c t o r believes
the requirement should be removed from the s t a t u t e s .
FINDING I
FAILURE: OF THE WEIGHTS AND MEASURES DIVISION TO RETEST DEVICES ALLOWS
INCORRECT DEVICES TO BE PLACED BACK I N SERVICE.
Arizona Revised S t a t u t e s ( A. R. S.) $ 41- 2094 provides for the licensure of
r e g i s t e r e d s e r v i c e agencies and registered servicemen who can provide the
Division with s a t i s f a c t o r y evidence t h a t they are "... qualified to
i n s t a l l , s e r v i c e , r e p a i r o r recondition commercial weighing, measuring,
metering and counting devices." Such registered servicemen or agencies
must: 1) complete application forms s t a t i n g that they possess the
necessary q u a l i f i c a t i o n s - and appropriate t e s t equipment and standards,
2) pass a written examination, and 3) pay an annual fee of $ 20 per agency
and $ 4 per registered serviceman. Arizona presently has 107 registered
service agencies and 300 registered servicemen.
A. R. S. 541- 2065 ( 14) requires the Weights and Measures Division to r e j e c t
any commercial weighing or measuring device found to be incorrect." These
devices are given rejection tags and, when repaired, can be returned to
service only by the Weights and Measures Division or a serviceman
registered by the Division.""
Registered servicemen are placing devices back i n t o service. The reason
f o r t h i s practice is t h a t it: 1) allows the owner of a device to resume
using it as soon as it is repaired, and ( 2 ) provides the Division with
some assurance t h a t the devices have been repaired properly.
* An incorrect device is one which does not conform to applicable
tolerances and other performance requirements and/ or does not meet a l l
applicable s p e c i f i c a t i o n requirements ( A. R. S. $$ 41,2051.3, 41- 2064 and
41- 206 5.14) .
"* Two types of tags are issued for rejected devices. One is a red tag
which stops f u r t h e r use of the device u n t i l it is repaired. The other
is a yellow tag which allows the owner t o continue to use the device
with the s t i p u l a t i o n t h a t the device be repaired within 30 days.
Yellow tags are issued primarily f o r violations of specifications that
do not a f f e c t accuracy, such as a broken glass cover.
However, our review revealed that:
- The Division does not r e t e s t approximately 75 percent of the
devices placed backed i n t o service by registered servicemen,
although i t is required to do so by law.
- According to Division t e s t s , as many as 23 percent of the devices
returned to service by registered servicemen are not repaired
properly. Further, many devices continue to be incorrect even
a f t e r being re- repaired and placed back i n t o service f o r a second
time.
- The Division does not systematically monitor the performance of
i n d i v i d u a l r e g i s t e r e d servicemen to determine which ones'
performances are substandard. A s a r e s u l t , the Division cannot
take appropriate d i s c i p l i n a r y action.
The Division Does Not Retest A l l
Devices Returned to Service
The Weights and Measures Division does not r e t e s t a l l devices placed back
i n t o s e r v i c e d e s p i t e the f a c t that ( a) the Division is s t a t u t o r i a l l y
required t o do so, and ( b) seven of the 15 other s t a t e s with programs
comparable* to Arizona's r e t e s t every device placed back i n t o service by
registered servicemen.
A. R. S. $ 41- 2111.~. 2 allows a registered serviceman to:
" Place i n service, u n t i l such time as an o f f i c i a l
examination can be made, a weighing, measuring,
metering or counting device that has been o f f i c i a l l y
rejected ." ( ~ m ~ h a saidsd ed)
Reviewing t h i s provision, Legislative Council issued an opinion that the
Division is required to r e t e s t each device placed i n t o service by
registered servicemen. In an opinion dated February 27, 1981, Legislative
Council held:
* Only 15 s t a t e s have a s i n g l e j u r i s d i c t i o n program comparable to
Arizona's. The other 34 s t a t e s are not comparable i n t h a t they have
local as well a s s t a t e inspection programs with varying requirements
and/ or do not have r e g i s t e r e d s e r v i c e agency programs.
" To carry out the l e g i s l a t i v e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y imposed on
the d i v i s i o n , it would appear t h a t once a r e g i s t e r e d
servicemen n o t i f i e d the d i v i s i o n t h a t a previously
r e j e c t e d device had been placed back i n s e r v i c e , t h e
d i v i s i o n should r e t e s t t h a t device t o v e r i f y its
accuracy ."
We found the Division r e t e s t e d 13 percent of the devices returned to
s e r v i c e i n f i s c a l year 1978- 79 and 23 percent of them i n f i s c a l year
1979- 80. Not only does t h i s f a l l considerably s h o r t of the 100 percent
r e t e s t required by s t a t u t e , it is s u b s t a n t i a l l y lower than the percentage
of devices r e t e s t e d by other s t a t e s having r e g i s t e r e d servicemen
programs." Table 2 lists each of these s t a t e s and its percentage of
r e t e s t s .
TABLE 2
PERCENTAGE OF RETESTS FOR STATES
HAVING REGISTERED SERVICEMEN PROGRAMS
S t a t e
Arkansas
Iowa
New Mexico
North Carolina
South Dakota
Utah
Vermont
Nevada
Kansas
Idaho
South Carolina
Georgia
Wyoming
North Dakota
ARIZONA
Mississippi
Percentage of
Devices Retested
100%
* Thirty- t h r e e s t a t e s have r e g i s t e r e d servicemen programs, but only 15
s t a t e s have weights and measures programs comparable t o Arizona's.
** Data not a v a i l a b l e .
In discussing the level of r e t e s t i n g with the a s s i s t a n t d i r e c t o r of the
Division we learned that the Division disagrees with t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n
t h a t the s t a t u t e s require 100 percent r e t e s t s . The a s s i s t a n t d i r e c t o r
told us she believes s t a t u t o r y i n t e n t was to allow the Division the
discretion t o e s t a b l i s h r e t e s t l e v e l s based on available resources. She
claimed t h a t t o recheck 100 percent of the devices placed back i n service
would require s h i f t s of resources from other areas and t h a t the ~ i v i s i o n ' s a
t r a v e l funds are i n s u f f i c i e n t f o r the t a s k .
In s p i t e of the above arguments, our audit showed there is a d e f i n i t e need
to increase the number of r e t e s t s by the Division. A s pointed out below,
a s i g n i f i c a n t portion of devices placed back i n service by registered
servicemen are not repaired properly. Also, a s detailed i n Finding 11,
the Division may be able to use its existing resources more e f f e c t i v e l y i f
it deemphasized other programs and placed more emphasis on r e t e s t s .
Inaccurate Devices Are
Returned to Service
As shown i n Table 2 , the Division does r e t e s t approximately one- quarter of
the devices placed back i n service by registered servicemen. A review of
the Division's computer records for f i s c a l year 1978- 79 and 1979- 80 showed
t h a t 23 percent of devices placed back i n service by registered servicemen
s t i l l were incorrect when retested by the Division. The percentages of
retagged devices by type of weighing device f o r f i s c a l year 1979- 80 were
as follows:
Grocery scales 14%
Indust r i a l scales 29%
Gas pwnps 26%
Because gas pumps a f f e c t so many consumers and had a high percentage of
retags, we conducted f u r t h e r study of t h i s area.
A t the request of audit s t a f f , the Division retested gas pumps which were
placed back i n service by registered servicemen during March 1981 i n the
Phoenix and Tucson areas. These r e t e s t s showed that 29 percent of the
tested devices had not been repaired properly. Those devices found to be
improperly repaired were repaired a second time by registered servicemen
and returned t o service. However, a second r e t e s t by the Division
revealed t h a t 25 percent of the re- repaired gas pumps still were
improperly repaired.
Following t h i s study, the Division conducted f u r t h e r r e t e s t s of gas pumps
i n the Phoenix area. Over a ten- week period the Division found 14.9
percent of the gas pumps retested remained defective. Table 3, summarizes
the percentages of retags over the period of the two s t u d i e s .
TABLE 3
PERCENTAGE SUMNARY OF RETAGS
BY STUDY AND TIME PERIOD
Time Period
Percent age
of Retags
Auditor General Study 3/ 11 23.5% ( phoenix only)
Division study 3/ 23 to 4/ 10
4/ 13 to 5/ 1
5/ 4 t o 5/ 29
( average)
A s shown above, the percentages of retags declined over the time periods
studied. This suggests t h a t a n aggressive r e t e s t i n g program does r e s u l t
i n improved work quality by registered servicemen.
According to the Division it is d i f f i c u l t to determine exactly why so many
of the devices placed back i n t o service are still i n c o r r e c t . Possible
explanations include careless work, i n t e n t i o n a l disregard of necessary
procedures by registered servicemen, environmental f a c t o r s affecting the
performance of a device ( e. g., heat, d u s t ) , or the f a i l u r e of the Division
to ensure through its examination process that servicemen are qualified.
A s p a r t o f our a u d i t , we reviewed the procedures used by the Division t o
t e s t the competency of r e g i s t e r e d servicemen. We found t h a t the Division
is not ensuring t h a t servicemen a r e q u a l i f i e d through i t s examination
procedure.* Our conclusion is based on the following:
1. The format of the examinations. The examinations c o n s i s t of
t r u e - f a l s e questions and a r e administered a s an open- book
examination. Further, the p e r t i n e n t handbook s e c t i o n , s t a t u t e or
r e g u l a t i o n f o r each question is c i t e d i n the margin of each
question.
2. The lack of c o n t r o l s over the examinations. The examinations a r e
n a i l e d t o r e g i s t e r e d s e r v i c e agencies and a r e returned by m a i l .
If an agency employs 12 servicemen, 12 examinations a r e sent to
the agency. Further, only one version of the examination is used
f o r each type of device f o r which a t e s t is administered. A s a
r e s u l t , it is possible f o r someone other than each employee being
t e s t e d t o determine t h e c o r r e c t answers and copy them onto a l l 12
s h e e t s before mailing.
We were told by Division s t a f f t h a t : 1) anyone who f a i l s t o achieve a
passing score of 70 is allowed to retake the t e s t u n t i l he passes, and
2) the s t a f f could not r e c a l l anyone who did n o t p a s s the examination
eventually.
In our opinion, the examination used by the Division f o r r e g i s t e r e d
servicemen provides l i t t l e , i f any, assurance t h a t an applicant is
knowledgeable or competent.
* The w r i t t e n t e s t was i n i t i a t e d by the present a s s i s t a n t d i r e c t o r i n
December 1978. P r i o r t o t h a t time, - no t e s t i n g was done.
The Performance of Individual Registered
Servicemen Is Not Systematically Monitored
to Identifv Substandard Performers
The Division does not systematically monitor the performance of individual
registered servicemen. A s a r e s u l t , the Division is precluded from
identifying and taking corrective action against incompetent servicemen.
A s we have noted, the Division does not r e t e s t every device placed back i n
service by registered servicemen. Further, the Division does not
aggregate and analyze the r e s u l t s of those r e t e s t s t h a t a r e done t o allow
for monitoring the performance of individual servicemen. For example,
data is not extracted and kept regarding which servicemen put which
devices back i n t o service, or the r e s u l t s of r e t e s t s on those devices. I n
addition, the Division does not keep data i n an e a s i l y accessible manner
to help determine which servicemen are or are not having t h e i r work
retested, and with what r e s u l t s .
The a s s i s t a n t director has told us she agrees with the concept of
monitoring the performance of individual servicemen or agencies. She said
the Division plans to attempt t h i s monitoring by using the data processing
c a p a b i l i t i e s of a word processor the Division plans to i n s t a l l within six
months.
CONCLUSION
The Weights and Measures Division is f a i l i n g to comply with s t a t u t o r y
requirements that devices returned to service by registered servicemen be
retested by the Division. This f a i l u r e to r e t e s t every device is c r i t i c a l
because: ( a) data indicates as many as 23 percent of the devices are
incorrect a f t e r being placed back i n service, and ( b ) t h e Division does
not formally o r systematically monitor the performance of registered
servicemen to i d e n t i f y and r e c t i f y such instances of inadequate
performance .
RECOMME'NDATIONS
1. We recommend the Division r e t e s t a s close to 100 percent of the
devices returned to service as possible. Because so many devices
placed back i n service by registered servicemen are incorrect, we
recommend the Division consider t r a n s f e r r i n g resources from other
programs to accomplish t h i s .
2. We recommend the Division e s t a b l i s h a monitoring program to identify
and re. ctify instances of inadequate performance by registered
servicemen.
3. We recommend the Division review and amend its t e s t i n g program to help
ensure t h a t applicant servicemen are knowledgeable and competent
before they are registered.
FINDING I1
THE CATTLE SCALE CERTIFICATION PROGRAM IS A SERVICE RATHER THAN A
REGULATORY FUNCTION AND, AS SUCH, DOES NOT REPRESENT AN EFFECTIVE USE OF
THE DIVISION'S RESOURCES.
Arizona Revised S t a t u t e s ( A. R. S.) 541- 2065 require the Weights and
Measures Division to " inspect and t e s t " commercial weighing devices.
Accordingly, the Weights and Measures Division currently t e s t s and
c e r t i f i e s c a t t l e scales for Arizona ranches. Such c e r t i f i c a t i o n s are
conducted annually by the Divison - for - thos e ranchers - who request them.
Each year the Division sends ranchers a l e t t e r asking them to notify the
Division what, if any, scales they want c e r t i f i e d . Ranchers pay the
Division a $ 20 fee f o r these c e r t i f i c a t i o n s .
Reviewing the c a t t l e scale c e r t i f i c a t i o n program, we found t h a t the
program: 1) appears to be a service rather than a regulatory function,
and 2) may not be the best u t i l i z a t i o n of the Division's resources. By
allocating approximately eleven percent of its inspection resources to
c a t t l e scale c e r t i f i c a t i o n s , Division resources are diverted from other,
more c r i t i c a l , regulatory areas. Also, the Division exceeds its s t a t u t o r y
authority by a r b i t r a r i l y charging ranchers a lower fee for the c a t t l e
scales c e r t i f i c a t i o n s than it does f o r licensing or c e r t i f y i n g s i m i l i a r
scales.
A Service Rather Than A
Regulatory Function
Most c a t t l e scales inspected by the Division are commercial devices and as
such f a l l under the Division's r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to " inspect and t e s t . " A
survey of c a t t l e scale owners by audit s t a f f found that: 1) the scales
are used to determine the s e l l i n g weight of the owners' c a t t l e , and 2) an
average of 834 head of c a t t l e were weighed f o r s a l e on each scale i n 1979,
representing more than $ 320,000 i n sales per owner.
However, because of the manner i n which the program is conducted, the
c a t t l e scale c e r t i f i c a t i o n program appears to be a service r a t h e r than a
regulatory function, one which primarily benefits a limited number of
ranchers rather than the public as a whole. The program uses a
s i g n i f i c a n t percentage of limited Division inspection resources t h a t could
provide protection to a wider segment of the public i f used i n other areas.
The c a t t l e scale c e r t i f i c a t i o n appears to be a s e r v i c e r a t h e r than a
regulatory function because the program is e n t i r e l y voluntary. The
Division inspects only the scales of those ranchers who request such
inspections, and the scales are only tested a t a predesignated time. This
contrasts sharply with the regulatory t e s t i n g programs f o r other weighing
and measuring devices i n that the owners of other devices - do - not:
1) determine i f the devices w i l l be t e s t e d , or 2) receive advance notice
from the Division a s to when the t e s t s w i l l be performed.
Resources May be Better
Used i n Other Areas
In s p i t e of the f a c t that the c a t t l e scale program appears to be only a
service, it represents a s i g n i f i c a n t e f f o r t on the p a r t of the Division i n
that it consumes the equivalent of approximately 2.5 inspection positions
( or eleven percent of t h e D i v i s i o n ' s 27 inspectors) and 15 percent of the
D i v i s i o n ' s i n - S t a t e t r a v e l budget. If these resources were directed
toward regulatory functions, the Division could enhance its effectiveness
s i g n i f i c a n t l y . For example:
1. Gas pump compliance rates* and gas pump inspections. Currently,
a higher percentage of gas pumps i n Arizona may be inaccurate
than i n most other s t a t e s . Data i n d i c a t e s , however, t h i s
percentage could be decreased through more inspections, and that
would r e s u l t i n increased savings for consumers.
* Compliance r a t e s are the percentages of devices found to comply with
specified standards a t the time of inspection.
A comparison was made of the compliance r a t e s f o r gas pump
inspections i n Arizona and comparable states." Results show that
Arizona's compliance rate of 79 percent for gas pumps ranks l a s t
among s t a t e s reporting data i n t h i s category. Table 4 shows the
compliance r a t e for gas pumps by s t a t e .
TABLE 4
COMPLIANCE RATES FOR GAS PUlQ INSPECTIONS BY STATE
State
Compliance Rate
( percentage)
North Carolina
South Dakota
Arkansas
Wyomi ng
Vermont
Iowa
Nevada
North Dakota
ARIZONA
Georgia
New Mexico
South Carolina
Idaho
Mississippi
Utah
Kansas
Average
w See footnote on page 15 regarding comparable s t a t e s .
** Gas pump inspection procedures d i f f e r from Arizona's.
*** Data not available.
S t a t i s t i c a l analysis of the data from the other s t a t e s shows that
the frequency of inspection does a f f e c t compliance rates. I f an
additional 2.5 inspectors were used to inspect gas pumps rather
than c a t t l e scales, an additional 7,962 gas pumps could be
inspected each year. This would not only increase compliance
r a t e s f o r gas pumps, i t also would provide considerable savings
for consumers. Based on the Division's current level of
performance i n t h i s area, we estimate the increased inspections
would prevent an estimated $ 335,000" i n potential overcharges to
ultimate consumers each year.
2. Grocery s t o r e scales. I f the equivalent of 2.5 inspectors used
i n the c a t t l e program were devoted to grocery scale inspections,
640 more s t o r e s could be inspected each year. This would
represent an increase of 42 percent i n inspections and r a i s e the
t o t a l s t o r e s inspected each year from 58 percent to 82 percent.
3. Retests of devices returned to service. A s previously noted i n
Finding I, the Division r e t e s t s only about a fourth of the
devices placed back i n service by registered servicemen. A s many
as 23 percent of the gas pumps which are retested s t i l l are found
to be inaccurate. I f 2.5 inspectors were used to conduct
r e t e s t s , the Division could r e t e s t nearly every device** placed
back i n service. This would greatly aid the Division i n
enhancing i t s effectiveness i n that the incidence of inaccurate
devices being placed back i n service could be reduced
s i g n i f i c a n t l y .
Finally, i t appears that the c a t t l e scale inspections do not c o n s t i t u t e
the optimum use of Division resources. According to Division o f f i c i a l s
they: 1) have not received any complaints about c a t t l e scales, and
2) consider both the buyers and s e l l e r s i n c a t t l e t r a n s a c t i o n s t o be
experts a t estimating the approximate weight of the animals being sold.
* Based on the increased number of gas pumps that could be inspected and
the frequency and average amount of overcharges currently i d e n t i f i e d
through t h e D i v i s i o n ' s c u r r e n t level of inspections.
** One hundred percent r e t e s t s may not be feasible i f extensive t r a v e l is
required to outlying areas to inspect one or two devices placed back
i n service.
If the Division were t o use its resources for more c r i t i c a l regulatory
functions ( such a s those described above), it would be consistent with the
Division's practice i n o t h e r a r e a s . Because of limited resources the
Division has chosen not to inspect and t e s t such things as bulk gasoline
meters, wholesale food packages ( other than f o r S t a t e i n s t i t u t i o n s and
school d i s t r i c t s ) , milk meters and propane vapor meters, even though such
items also f a l l under the Division's statutory mandate to " inspect and
t e s t . "
A r b i t r a r i l y Low Fees Are
Charged f o r C e r t i f i c a t i o n s
In conducting the c a t t l e scale c e r t i f i c a t i o n program the Division charges
ranchers a $ 20 fee. In doing so, the Division has exceeded its s t a t u t o r y
authority i n that it has s e t an a r b i t r a r i l y low fee.
A. R. S. $ 41- 2091 provides f o r the Division to charge fees f o r licensing and
certifying weighing and measuring devices. A. R. S. $ 41- 2092. A specifies
the f e e s t h a t may be charged by each c l a s s of weighing and measuring
device; however, subsection D. of the same section does allow the Division
d i r e c t o r to "... reduce such fees to any amount he deems necessary."
Cattle scales generally a r e c l a s s i f i e d i n the 7,500- 59,999- pound capacity
c l a s s of scale. The s t a t u t o r i l y specified fee f o r t h i s scale c l a s s is
$ 50. This is the fee the Division has charged 796 other types of scales
licensed i n t h i s class. However, c i t i n g t h e s t a t u t o r y authority to reduce
f e e s , the Division charged only $ 20 f o r each of the 379 c a t t l e scales
c e r t i f i e d i n t h i s same class.
The lower f e e not only r e s u l t s i n approximately $ 10,000 i n l o s t revenue
each year, it also r e p r e s e n t s an a r b i t r a r y act. According to a
December 18, 1980, Legislative Council opinion, the a s s i s t a n t d i r e c t o r of
the Division does not have the authority to charge a lower fee f o r one
subclass of scales unless the cost involved for the subclass is l e s s .
Legislative Council held:
" I f s c a l e s are used f o r commerial purposes, the
a s s i s t a n t d i r e c t o r may reduce the fee for a statutory
class but mav not subclassifv scales to benefit one
subclass unless the subclassification represents
differences i n actual cost or there is a valid s t a t e
i n t e r e s t served by the subclassification." (~ mphasis
added)
Cattle scale c e r t i f i c a t i o n inspections do not cost l e s s than inspections
of other scales i n the same class. I n f a c t , we estimate that the average
cost to inspect a c a t t l e scale is 257 percent of the average cost to
inspect an i n d u s t r i a l scale i n the same weight class. The average cost of
inspecting a c a t t l e scale is $ 160.31, whereas the average cost of
inspecting an i n d u s t r i a l scale is $ 62.46.
CONCLUSION
The c a t t l e scale c e r t i f i c a t i o n program appears to be a service rather than 4
a regulatory function. Division resources devoted to c a t t l e scale
inspection could be used more effectively i f directed towards Division
regulatory programs which have limited resources. In addition, the
Division has exceeded its statutory authority by a r b i t r a r i l y establishing a
a lower fee f o r c a t t l e scale t e s t s than t h a t charged for industrial scales
i n the same weight class.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. We recommend that the Division discontinue its c a t t l e scale
c e r t i f i c a t i o n program and redirect those resources to r e t e s t s of
devices returned to service or other regulatory programs, such as gas
pump t e s t s or grocery scale t e s t s .
2. In those instances i n which the Division does inspect a c a t t l e scale,
we recommend the same fee be charged as f o r i n d u s t r i a l scales i n the
same weight class.
FINDIBG I11
THE STATUTORY FEE SCHEDULE FOR METROLOGY LABORATORY SERVICES NEEDS TO BE
CHANGED SO THAT THE FEES CHARGED REFLECT THE EFFORT REQUIRED TO PERFORM
THE SERVICE.
The metrology laboratory of the Weights and Measures Division t e s t s and
c e r t i f i e s weights and measures for Division inspectors and f o r the
public. The Division's c e r t i f i e d weights and measures can be used as
standards f o r t e s t i n g the accuracy of weighing and measuring devices or
for other purposes for which accuracy is required. Metrology laboratory
c e r t i f i c a t i o n s a r e made without charge for S t a t e agencies and nonprofit
organizations; however, other e n t i t i e s are charged a fee i n accordance
with A. R. S. $ 41- 2067. H. Our review of the fees charged by the metrology
laboratory revealed t h a t they are inequitable i n t h a t they do not r e f l e c t
the r e l a t i v e costs of making the c e r t i f i c a t i o n s .
Inequitable Fee Structure
A. R. S. $ 41- 2092 establishes fees* to be charged by the metrology
laborabory f o r c e r t i f y i n g weights and measures. For example, the
laboratory charges $ 2 t o c e r t i f y weights up to and including f i v e pounds
and $ 3 t o c e r t i f y weights over five pounds and up to and including 50
pounds. However, because of the d i f f e r e n t factors involved i n c e r t i f y i n g
weights and measures, these fees are inequitable because they do not
r e f l e c t the r e l a t i v e costs to the laboratory to provide t h e s e r v i c e s .
The costs incurred by the laboratory to do c e r t i f i c a t i o n s are dependent
largely on the time required to complete the work, and t h a t time is
dependent on such f a c t o r s as:
* Fees have not been revised since 1974.
27
1. Graduations Required - The more graduations required i n a
c e r t i f i c a t i o n the longer the c e r t i f i c a t i o n w i l l take to f i n i s h .
Each graduation takes approximately the same time. Therefore, a
25- meter length standard calculated by centimeters w i l l take ten
times longer t o c a l i b r a t e than a 25- meter length standard
calibrated by decimeters. However, the fee schedule i n A. R. S.
$ 41- 2092 establishes a fee t h a t is based on the length of the
standard. Thus, the laboratory would charge the same fee for
both c e r t i f i c a t i o n s i n the example, d e s p i t e t h e f a c t that one
takes ten times longer t o complete.
Adjustment Required - The number of adjustments required also
a f f e c t s the time required to do a c e r t i f i c a t i o n . The metrologist
may need to add or remove material to c e r t i f y a weight. Thus,
two weights of the same s i z e may require d i f f e r e n t times to
c e r t i f y because one may require many more adjustments. According
to the metrologist, it is not unusual for a 50- pound weight to
take longer t o c e r t i f y than a 500- pound weight because 50- pound
weights receive rougher treatment and, t h e r e f o r e , r e q u i r e more
adjustments. I r o n i c a l l y , the laboratory charges $ 3 to c e r t i f y a
50- pound weight and $ 20 to c e r t i f y a 500- pound weight.
3. Precision of Adjustment - The more precise the c e r t i f i c a t i o n
d e s i r e d , t h e more time usually is requir'ed to complete the
c e r t i f i c a t i o n . Weights and measures may be calibrated t o f i e l d
standards, or to more accurate precision standards, depending on
t h e i r intended uses. Thus, a two- gram weight calibrated to
precision standards may require much more time to c e r t i f y than a
three- pound weight calibrated to f i e l d standards.
Surveying other s t a t e s , we found t h a t 28 charge fees f o r t h e i r
metrology services. Of these 28 s t a t e s , 22 or 79 percent charge
fees based a t l e a s t p a r t l y on the time required to make
c e r t i f i c a t i o n s . We also found that private companies performing
precision c a l i b r a t i o n s generally s e t t h e i r fees on an hourly
basis.
CONCLUSION
The s t a t u t o r y f e e s charged for metrology laboratory services should be
changed to r e f l e c t the r e l a t i v e costs to c e r t i f y weights and measures.
I, The current fees allowed by A. R. S. $ 41- 2092 r e s u l t i n inequitable
c e r t i f i c a t i o n fees.
We recommend that A. R. S. $ 41- 2092 be amended to provide for the Division
to charge fees based on the a c t u a l time required to perform c e r t i f i c a t i o n
services. .
OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION
In March 1974, the Weights and Measures Division purchased a large truck
specially equipped to t e s t meters used to measure bulk d e l i v e r i e s of
fuel. The price of the truck i n 1974 was $ 23,111. The Division
discontinued using the truck two years l a t e r , because t e s t i n g bulk meters
was a low- priority a c t i v i t y . The truck has s a t i d l e since December 1976
with l e s s than 10,000 miles registered on its odometer. It has not been
maintained and requires new t i r e s and general servicing before it can be
used again.
According to Division o f f i c i a l s they have retained the truck because they
hope to o b t a i n a d d i t i o n a l s t a f f to resume t e s t i n g bulk metering devices.
The Division requested such s t a f f i n its f i s c a l years 1977- 78, 1978- 79,
1980- 81, 1981- 82 budget requests, but has not been granted t h e a d d i t i o n a l
s t a f f requested. Division o f f i c i a l s claim that they have not sold the
truck because they a n t i c i p a t e t h a t the bulk meter t e s t i n g program
eventually w i l l be resumed.
August 28, 1981
Mr. Douglas R. Norton
Auditor General
State of Arizona
Phoenix, Arizona 85007
Dear Mr. Norton:
Submitted herewith are the revised written comments in response to the
first of the several divisional portions of the performance audit of
the Department of Administration, that of the Weights and Measures
Division.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment in writing on the audit.
By way of providing perspective, we are pleased to note that, after
considerable scrutiny by your staff, initiated 16 months ago, the
Weights and Measures Division and its several programs succeeded in
fulfilling your performance criteria.
ul ly submitted,
RCD: eb
REYPONSE r) F TIIF n I V T C T O Y OF LIEIGHTS & NO YEA' 5lJRE5 TO TtlE PERFf'R:. 1AI\ JCE AUOTT
CQrlDIJCTED BY THE OFFTCE OF THE 4ljDTTIIP GEI\~ EP, I\ L AC PART OF THE SlJrJSET F? EVTEIJ
T ~ PD i v i s i o n wishns t o thqnk thp Auditor G e n ~ r a l ' sS t a f f f o r t h e i r p f f o r t s and
t h e i r c o u r t ~ s yi n t h n i r a c c n p t a n c ~ o f s u q q " s t ~ d ~ ~ ' I ~ L J ~ TaJs Pw ell i15
s t i b s t a n t a t i v e chanqps d u r i nq th? O r a f t R r v i ~ wP r o c ~ s s . P a r t i c u l a r l y
c o n s i d e r i n q the d i f f i c u l t i p s i n t r n d ~ r s t a n dniq the t e c h n i c a l asppcts o f \ J Pq~ h ts
and Mnasr~ res, t l i ~ P 1 ~ l d i t o r 1 s t a f f ~ ? I V P ( Ion" a cornm~ ndahlej ob. T h ~ yh ave mad@
s e v ~ r a ls riqqestions; somP are a l r ~ a d yi rnpl~~ mpntcds; o rnp arp u n d ~ r
c o n s i d ~ r a t i o n ; and some wrt3 under wicy ? t tho time o f the a u d i t . Tho D i v i s i o n
s t i l l has s ~ v p r a l ar;. as o f rlisaqr~ emont w i t h t h r f i n a l r n p o r t .
blc i n Woiqhts and M ~ a s u r ~ hsa v ~ fo und over t h s ypars t h a t t h i~ n f o r m a t i o n
c o n t a i n 4 i n various r s p o r t s 8nd survpys can o f t o n b~ m i s l ~ a d i n q depnndinq on
tho p r ~ s ~ n t a t . i oor lf + h- informat, ion. A cursory r e v i ~ wo f an ~ n n t l a lr c p o r t from
a stat^ past o f f i r i z o n ? ~ ~ o l s lhda ve l e d onn t o b c l i p v ~ th at, 2 maior p f f o r t wits
rsndertaken by t h a t stat,^ i n packaw c o n t r o l as they had l i s t c d 3.4 m i l l i o n
p a r k a q ~ sr h ~ c k p df o r net ~ ~ i q chotm p l i a n c ~ . 4 mora c i l r ~ f u lr ~ a d i n qo f the
r p p o r t revpaled t h a t t h i s was % lip t o t a l production of one commodity w i t h i n t h a t
s t a t e and the weiqhts and rnnasurps o f f i c i a l s had s a m p l ~ dt ho packaq~ sa t thp
p o i n t o f o r i q i n . Reliant- on u n s ~ s b s t i r n t i a t ~ rdn p o r t s i s ha78reous at bps?.
Varyinq i n t c r p r ~ t a t i o n s o f l c ~ q i s l a t i o n , rulr. s, and p r o c ~ d u r e s can e f f r c t
u n i f o r m i t y . ! dr wo( 11d l i k r t o c i t e a case i n p o i n t vhich war oublish~ 3d i n
t h~ Plational Confer~ nce- o n 1lt. i qhts and f. leirsurcs T n t ~ r i r nR ~ p o r t rorlardi nq thm
n ~ ~ r n ho~ f rs t a t ~ sw hich ? dhnrnd t o a s p ~ c i f i cm ethod of c h v k i n a pack2qes. T ~ P •
r r p o r t forinri t h a t althouqh th? statns claim t o f o l l o w thr. procpdt~ r~? w, t lnn asked
t. o ~ P S O ~ VaP p r o b l ~ mb ased on t h ? t procedure, flP! of t h o s ~ s t a t e s f a i l ? d t, o
takp t h a~ po ropriatn a c t i o n , thus d~ monst, ratinqt h a t althouoh they c l a i m ~ dt o •
f o l l o w tht. p r o c e d u r ~ so f Handhook 67 ( the p r o c ~ d u r ei n question i s c o n t a i n ~ di n
t h i s handbook), i n an actual prohlpm s i t u a t i o n , t h ~ yd i d not f o l l o w t h f
p r o c ~ r i u r ~ . T hus, had no follow- up q u ~ s t i o n sb ~ a~ skend, tho conclusions drawn I
from tho data r ~ q a r d i n qc o n i p l i a n c ~ w onld have b ~ d~ i f fnr r ~ n t .
Tho D i v i s i o n wishps t o take issue w i t h two of t h r t h r w Findinqs of thn Auditor 4
G e n ~ r a la s l e l i n r a t a d irl t h ~ i Sr u nsct Audit. lit. w i l l takc t h f~ i n d i n q s out o f
o r d ~ ra nd deal w i t h t h a~ re as of q e n ~ r a l? q r ~ ~ m ~ fni rts. t .
\ JP do not d i r p u t t . Findinq T T T but merely wish t o commpnt, i n a q ~ n ~ r waaly , on 4
thcl r~ cornmnndation. Whi 10 thp Mntroloqy lab f ~ c sar t. not basrd on Ienqth of
t i m ~ r ~ q u i r r l df o r c a l i b r a t i o n , w h q t h ~ rt he cost c h a r q ~ dt o i n d u s t r y should h~ .-
r p f l a c t i v n of t, rue co5ts t o the I l i v i s i o n , i s onr, of philosophy. A t prcsnnt,
nonr o f the ~ C P Si n t h s~ t a t r l t c s r ~ f l r c tth n p q i l o ~ o p h yd r l i n ~ a t ~ i nd Findinq
T T T . Thp fpes charqpd varv and a f f e c t a l l comrn~ rci? l ~ s t a b l i s h r n a n t s which
cstahl i s h p r i c o s ba5t. d on w ~ i q h, t mPas1lrr or count. As we are a11 a v ~ a r ~ t, h ~
cost o f r o q u l a t i o n i s p a c s ~ do n t o t h o consum+? r and any increase i n ~ P P St o
indust r v v r i 11 he r ~ l ~ fc t c di n i n c r r a s c d c h a r q ~ st o consllmprs. C ~ r t a i nd ~ v i c e s
which arP not rpqui rod t o be cal ih r a t ~ da re p r s s ~ n tyl b ~ i n qc al i h r a t e d , thus
~ r o v i d i n qt r a c e a b i l i t y ? nd accurqcy i n the markntplace.
Tf th- SP f ~ c sar p i n c r c a s r d t h p s ~ d avice3s may no loqq? r b~ c ? l i h r a t p d . Tho
D i \ / i s i o n f ~ e l st h a t if f v 5 f o r the l a b o r a t o r y : 7r~ c hanqrrl t o r ~ f l o c tt t - 1 1 ~
cost, thcln, i n thy> i n t ~ r ~ osft c o n s i s t ~ n c y , t hn other fpps charqed should h~
~ xarninrvit o ~ 1 3 0i f thev r 1 ~ 1 ~ r ri v i s i o n .
Tho D i v i s i o n dons take issue w i t h t h r~ cm aininq tero f i n d i n q s 8nd w i l l dn? l w i t h
t h e m i n order.
Th3 D i v i s i o n wishes t o nxnrpss i t s concrrn r ~ q a r d i n qt h i s f i n d i n q . Thp hqsis
o f t h A~ u d i t o r ' s f i q d i n q i s F l p q i s l ? t i v e c o u n c i l o p i n i o n which i s i n d i r e c t
o p p o s i t i o n t o thp i n t s r p r c t a t i o n o f th? D i v i s i o n . Acc~ ptancn o f t h i s f i n d i n q
would r e s u l t i n f a r reachinq chanq~ sf o r t h D~ i v i s i o n which arn not i n tho
p u b l i c i n t e r e s t . The c o u n c i l o p i n i o n i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h c D i v i s i o n i s r a q t ~ i r ~ d
- t o r ~ t c s t1( 105: o f a l- l- - r t ~ v i c p s. This r e q i ~ i r e m ~ nwti l l have a s i q n i f i c a n t
impact, n o t o n l y on the resources o f the d i v i s i o n , b ~ r t p ~ r h a p s more
i m g o r t a n t l . ~ , on tho concppt o f ~ q u i t yi n tho m , a r k ~ t p l a c ~ ~ .
It i s qot mnrcly a q u ~ s t i o n o f inadequate t r a v c l f~ rnds, as suqqested, t h ? t
would precluds us from r ~ t e s t i n qa t lf109', but inadpqilat? s t a f f i n q and
in3dequato c q r ~ i p m ~ n ta, s w e l l . Even i f a1 1 the nrcc3ssarv resources wcrc
available t o us, the D i v i s i o n f r c l s t h a t t h i s l r v n l o f r e t e s t would b~ a misusc
o f rpsourcos. Tn the past, we havc re? lloca% cd resourcps t o r p t c s t i n q on
a trrnporary h s i s w h s n ~ v ~ corm pliance r a t e s f e l l be lo,+^ a set l e v ? l . Tho
Auditor cornm~ nds us f o r t h i s a c t i o n i n fhs ari. i, o f p a c k a q ~ c o n t r o l but docls
not accppt i t as a v i a h l r a l t o r n a t i v ~ t o lPQO', r p t ~ s t i n c l . ! le f e e l t h a t our
approach a l l ~ w s11 s t o i n i t i a l l y t. ost, as w ~ l las k c ~ p? r1 py9 on tho p ~ r f o r r n 4 n c ~
o f D ? c l i s t ~ r p d qprvicp 4qcnciec t h r o r ~ q h r p t ~ s t i n q . The D i v i s i o n has always
t r i r d t o he sensitiv;. t o t h n~~ ~ odfs t h e r u r a l i( rPas of tho stat^ and t o
provide thpm w i t h thc s a w d9qr- w o f n q u i t y t h a t thp ma. jor rnetropol i t a n areas
r p c ~ i v c l . It i s lpss expnnsivp t o t ~ s itn the m ~ t r o p n l i t a na reas brcausc o f
density. Rut i f WP r ~ t p s t? t 10flol i n t h r~ n p t r o ~ oilt a n arcas, WP wi 11 bp l ~ n 2 b l ~
t o teest i n t h o~ u t l y i n a arcas, thus q ~ n ~ r a t i ntwqo lclvpls o f ~ q i i i t yw i t h i n tho ( I
Statto. Th? ~ r o b l e r no f r ~ t ~ isn t th o o u t l y i n q arpas i s ~ s r t i a l l yr ~ c o q n i z ~ bdy
the Auditor w h ~ nh a s t a t ~ so n paq4? 24, '' On? hundred p o r c ~ n tr e t e s t may not bn
f e a s i b l ~ i f e x t ~ n s i vt r~ a l r e l i s r ~ q nri ~ tdo out1 y i n q areas t o inspect on0 or
two d e v i c ~ s placpd b3c4 i n s ~ r v i c ~ . "
The D i v i s i o n has some t e c h n i c a l concerns w i t h tticl d ~ f i n i t i o no f " r ~ t e s ta t
1n0; O" as u s 4 by thp A u d i t o r .
D e f i n i t i o n o f " R ~ t e s t a t 1007;":
" Retest" as I I S P ~ i n tha a u d i t r p p o r t could w a n any o f t h f~ o l l o u i n q :
I. r p t p s t 1nQx o f a11 r- d taqs i s s u ~ d
2. r r t ~ s tIn 07f8 o f a11 red and y e l l o w taqs i s s u ~ d
3. r p t p s t 100% o f i n i t i a l i n s f a l l a t i o n s , r? d and y ~ l l o wta qs
4. r p t p s t IOI)"! o f i n i t i a l i n s t a l l a t i o n s , rtld and y t l l l o w taqs and any
rnaint, nn? ncr \;/ or- k dono by ; ln RCA.
Idr. can c n v i s i o n a minim~~ noif two timr- l f r a m ~ sf o r cach o f t h f f o u r abo\ lf.:
1 . r ~ t e s tw it hi^ ? O days o f r ~ c ~ i opft p lacpd i n s r r v i c r r r p o r t
7 . r c t ~ s t . a ny t i m ~ a f t ~ rth ? ? O day p 9 r i o d ( IJP t o 3 y w i r s ) .
Thp c o u n c i l ' s opinion d o ~ sn ot s t a t c anyw' 7tor~ w hat k i n d of a tirnc. framn i s
intcndpr! by t h e l ~ q i s l a t i o na nd thp D i v i s i o n can f i n d no r ~ f ~ r c n ci nc t h e
s t a t r l t ~ st o t i m ~ fra mns, ~ x c n p tf o r l i c ~ n s i n q , y ~ tt h i~ m p l i c a t i o n o f t h ~
coc~ nci'ls opinion i s t h a t i m m ~ d i a t cr r t ~ s t i n qi s r e q u i r r d . Sincr no % imp framr
i s i n c l l ~ d ~ i nd the s t a t ~ l f c , how ran t h r~ o r ~ q c i la t t ~ m p tt o e s t a b l i s h one?
Exist, inq l p q i s l a t i o n qivt3s the A s s i s t a n t D i r r c t o r the oh1 i q a t i o n t o h i r~ such
s t a f f as nPcesSary hut no on0 ~ o r ~ ? l qd r w t h a t s h ~ can h i r ~ as mpny as s h ~
wants. Tf no time l i m i t i s ~ s t a b l i s h e d , and i f i t t? kcs two yp? rs t o conduct
a11 r ~ t e s t s , t hen the A s s i s t a n t D i r e c t o r i s l o t i n v i o l a t i o n o f the s t a t u t ~ .
Givcn e x i s t i n q rpsourcss, t h ~ r ci s no p o s s i b i l i t y o f accornplishinq the 3Q day
time f r a m ~ f o r any of t h f~ ou r c a t ~ q o r i ~ blsit holft s ~ r i o r l sd i s r u p t . i o ~ o f f h ~ l
e x i s t i n q t c s t i n q proqrarn. Given schedulina, t i m i n q , e q u i p m ~ n t and p e r s o n n ~ l
a1 l o c a t i o n s , i n somp i n s t a n c ~ si t v~ orrldb e impossible t o meet t h 3~ 0 d ay
dnadl in^ i n q i ven devi ce c a t ~ q o rPiS . R c s o u r c ~ sw ould be q r ~ a ty l m i sal 1 ocated
and i n e f f i c ~ n t l yu sed without some d i s c r c t . i o n i n the area of r n t c s t tirninq.
D ~ v i c e s which r e q u i r e the services o f an RSA w i l l bn repaired a t d i f f e r ~ n t
times. Givnn the f a c t t h a t wp are a l l a v ~ a ro~ f the n e ~ dt o he as Onprqy
consciorrs as p o s s i b l e , the D i v i s i o n doubts i f t h A~ rld itor trleans t o r ~ c o m ~ n ~ n d
that, the D i v i s i o n should check the QSA's work immpdiatcly upon n o t i f i c a t i o n as
t h a t would c n t a i l a q r ~ a td eal o f i n e f f i c i c n t t r a v c l i n q . Tn some instances,
f o r cxample on v e h i c l e scales, there i s only one p i ~ ocf ~ M ~ i q h t sa nd Mpasur~ s
e q u i ~ m c n t t o do the job. I f the l a r q s t r u c k i s conductinq t e s t s , it i s u n a v a i l -
ahlo f o r r ~ t e s tw ork. T ~ Psam e i s t r u e i n other arpas whprp the D i v i s i o n has
only onp t c s t u n i t i n a q i v ~ npr oqram area. D e s p i t r our concern t o have
i n s p p c t o r r c r o s s - t r a i n e d t h e w arP instancps W ~ P a~ Pqiv en s t a f f m13mhnr i s
~ s s ~ n t i at ol tho t e s t i n q c a p a b i l i t i ~ si n a qivcn proqram area. I f thp person
i s u n a v a i l a h l ~ , t ht3n thp t ~ s t i n oo r r p t p s t i n q must w a i t . AS i s so o f t ~ nt h ~
case, t h c r r nust h~ somn d i s c r ~ t i o na llowed i n tha prrformancr-. o f a t a s k i n
o r d c r t o p r o v i d " f o r t h q ~ x c e p t i o n s and unforsecn continqencies. I f thp
D i v i s i o n i61~ 1- o locked i n t o a ' 30 day timo framn, nQ would f a i l t o m ~ c tt h ~
dpadline as o f t e n as w~ succo~ ded i n m n r t i n q i t . Tf t h ? Auditor G n n ~ r a l moans
t o recommqnd t h a t wc i n c r ~ a s ot h 1~ ~ v o~ f 1r e t e s t i n q t o a h i a h ~ rp r r c e n t a q r
than WP a r n~ ow doinq, t + ~ nth at, i s a p o s s i b i l i t y . \ Jh? n th? p a r ? m ~ t c r sa r0 as
s t r i n q p n t as t h r y appear i n t h r~~ p o r t , t hen our comnliancp i s not p h y s i c a l l y
p o s s i b l e .
Tho D i v i s i o n must s t r o n q l y oppose t h i~ m p l ~ m c n t a t i o no f a 1- 00? recheck proqram a
which has, as a major covpon~ nt,, a s p e c i f i e d tima p e r i o d , evnn i f tho
d o f i n i t i o n o f " recheck" i s i n t e r p r e t e d i n i t s n? rro~,, rst sense ( i. p . , r e t e s t
100?, o f a11 " red taqs" issued). ! / P a l s o milst s t r o n q l y oppose implementation o f 4
a random r r t p s t proqram f o r the same reasons. Given t h l fact. t h a t devices are
rppaired by servicrmen a t d i f f c r ~ n tti mes i~ d i f f e r ~ n tl o c a t i o n s , WP w i l l be
snnndinq a considsrahl P amount o f our tirnf. and t r a v e l rcsourcps " chasinq," 4
which i s an i n e f f i c i r n t us? o f oirr l i m i t e d rpsources. Thc D i v i s i o n i s w i l l i n q
t o consider i n c r e a s i n q t h s l e v ~ lo f r ~ c h e c k sf o r taas a f f e c t i n q v o l u m ~ ,
e s p ~ c i a l li n~ thp major m ~ t r o p o l i t a na rpas ( i . n . , those arras w i t h a close
p r o x i m i t y t o on? of t h e t h r p ~ br anch o f f i c f l s ) . Thn t i n l ~ fr ame must ho f l e x i b l e
o r we w i l l b~ c o m p r l l r r i t o d i m i n i s h t h n~ um b~ ro f i n i t i a l inspections which ? rp
accori~ plishcd. Tf LIP are t o bn hold t o a 1 ~ v o~ f1 10 0" rt3ch~ ckso f a1 1 " rpd ? nd a
yo1 low taqs," t h r n u n b r o f i n i t . i a 1 i n s n n c t i o n s w i l l d(> crpaso by as much as
S O , An i m p l i c a t i o n i n ttin Audit R ~ p o r ti 5 t h a t i t i s t h ~ sol^ r e s p o n s i b i l i t y
o f the ? 5)? t o i n s u r n device accur; lry. Tn the s t a t . ~ ~ t et, h p ownt3r i s h r l d ( I
accountabln f o r the accuracy o f t h d~~ v i c r . Thp RYA who ~ r n d ~ r t a kt o~ sr( 3pa- i r a
dnvicp and submits a " placed i n r ~ r v i c e " r - n o r t t, o t h " D i v i s i o n i s a t t r s t i n q
t o t h f~ ac t t h a t whon + D l e f t f h r dovicp if mbot a11 specifications, a
t o l r r a n c r s , and a11 r p q u i r e m ~ n t s o f tho D i v i s i o n . \/ hat i f thp RSr\ l r l f t t l i ~
d ~ v i c ra ccurato and t h o~ wn er a d j u s t 4 it a f t e r h~ l ~ f t ? Id hat i f q f t e r hr l o f t
sorn17thinq happcnod t o tho device t o a f f ~ c ti t s accuracy ( P- q., som~ on, r~ a n over
t h h~ as p)" Lfhat if tho L I ~ i q h t sa nd M~ astrrcso f f i c i 2 1 m i s r ~ a d so ne crrbic inch
on tho miniscus7 \\ hat i f tho device bras marqinal an1 w i t h ~ rsp s l i p s out o f
t o l ~ r a n c ~ I7fh at i f t h e w i s an i n t e r f a c o d s y s t ~ ma nd s o m ~ t h i n qo ops wronq ~../ ith
t h o~ t h e r component.? T ~ PP u d i t o r G n n ~ r a ld ons not sPPm t o qivt? much c r r d ~ n c p
t o these p o s s i b i l i t i s s h l ~ tt . h ~ ya rP v r r v r p a l ? nd arp a n c o u n t ~ r c de very day i n
t h e marketplace.
W? m< aks r v e r y a t t r m p t t o i n s u r e t h a t t h e RS4 i s aw? re t h a t wh? n he IP~ VPS
t h r pump or scale h~ i s a t t p s t i r l q t o t h r accuracy of t h a t d ~ \ l i c c . To a t t t w p t
t o hold him t o c o n d i t i o n s o u t s i d e h i s c o n t r o l i s u n r r a l i s t i c and u n w f o r c ~ a h l e .
Thc i m p l i c a t i o n i n tho Audit Rpport i s t h a t t h c D i v i s i o n does no m o n i t o r i n q
of RSA work. That t, he D i v i s i o n d o ~ sn ot have a form, al procpdure whew t h ~
i n f o r m a t i o n i s r r a d i l y a v a i l ~ b l nt o t h o A u d i t o r i s conceded. At some p o i n t ,
~ O W C V P ~ t,, h ~ n wds o f tho Auditor and th? nwds o f t h l D i v i s i o n a r r
i n c o m p a t i b l ~ . I f a phonr. c a l l w i l l rpsolve tho proble111, i~ it . necnssary t o
maintain a paprr rccord? WP arc, and have b ~ r nf o r some tin@, l o o k i n q a t a
moro doc~ lmnntahl-. p r o c ~ d r ~ bur t~ t h f~ a c t i s t h a t RYAs arp n i o n i t o r ~ d . l4p h a w
hold o f f i c r h ~ a r i n q s , c n t ~ r r di n t o s t i p u l a t i o n a q r ~ r m r n t sa nd s i q n ~ dc o n s ~ n t
r i q c r p p ~ w i t h !?? AS. Thp Proqram A r ~ aS u n ~ r v i s o ri s r ~ s p o n s i b l ef o r m o n i t o r i n q
the work o f t h R~ SA s i n h i s area.
Thn Auditor s t a t e s , i n F i n l i n q 11, t h a t 115 o f + he D i v i s i o n ' s resources arp
m i s a l l o c a t ~ di n tho c a t t l e scalo t n s t i n q proqram. To r r t ~ s t , a s s u q q r s t ~ di n
t h o i n s t a n t F i n d i n q , a t t h r In04 love1 w i l l r ~ q u i r os i q n i f i c a n t l y more than
114 o f our r x i s t i n q budqot. To r ~ t ~ lsflntZ o f v ( > h i c l ~ s c a l ~ sa lon? would
cost t h ? Stat0 a p p r o x i m a t ~ l y S137, flOq i n a d d i t i o n a l fundinq, and t h a t i s j u s t
on0 proqram arpa.
The D i v i s i o n s t i 1 1 has r ~ s c r v a t i o n sr nq3rdinq tho q u c s t i o n n a i r e t l s ~ dh y tho
a u d i t o r .
Not w i s h i n q t o cast aspsrsions on f ~ lo;. l{ St? tf! i d ~ i q h t sa nd t l o a s u r ~ sO f f i c i a l s ,
it i s w e l l known i n tho w i g h t s 2nd measures coinmunity t h a t d e s p i t e th? cry f o r ( I
u n i f o r m i t y . tho s p v ~ r a l s t a t e s are a l o n q w? y from t h a t + s i r e d qoa1.
lllp ?? VP only t o look a t tho f i n d i n q s o f tho Plational - Tas- k - For ce on Packarl~
Control t o ~ P Pt h a t u n i f o r m i t y d o ? ~ n ot exist.. Tn onc a r ~ a , n am1. l y, m ~ t h o r lo f a
t s s t i n packqqp chcckinq, dcspi t e claims by j u r i s d i c t i o n s t h a t riniforrni t y d o ~ s
e x i s t , t h e Task Force found a v a r i ~ t yo f p r o c ~ d u r s sh ~ i n gus ed i n the f i e l d .
Tho A u d i t o r has asked i n h i s questionnaire i f t h ,~ j u r i s d i c t i o n s a d h ~ r ct o
Handbook 44 ( which i s t h s l i s t i n q o f s p e c i f i c a t i o n s and t o l ~ r a n c ~ resq qrdinq
d r v i c n s ) . PJowh~ rr i n the q u r s t i o n n a i t- D arp t h ~ r ca ny f o l low-( ID q u r s t i o n s t o
doterminn i f t h e r e d r e~ x ~ m p t i o n st o somp o f t h e p r o v i s i o n s . Arizona f o l l o ~ s
Handb~ ot4 4 except v~ harpi t h3s b ~ p nn o d i f i p d bv r ~ q o l a t i n n . For ypars WP had
d i f fi. rnnt r o q t l i r ~ m ~ rflotr ~ t h a~ 1 1 owahla p i t d? pth o f S C ? ~ Q St han tiandhook 44
h l ~ ti f tho T ) i \ l i s i o n had hppn asked i f we a r i h r r ~ dt o t h I~ fan dhook, our answnr
would havn b w n " yns." Tf onp looks a t t h r~ psp onsCs of the s t a t e s shown on
tho S I J ~ V P YS omm? ry s h c ~ t\. r e f i n d a n o t h r r i n s t a n c r o f n o n - r ~ n i f o r mtiy . I n
rpsponsp t o t h r q u o s t i o n : " 3ors your stat^ law r - q u i r e a l l d ~ v i c e st o 90
i n s p x t p d a t l e a s t oqcn a yt3ar o r moro o f t o n " " , th,? states o f Gnorqia, rlorth
C a r o l i n a , South Carolina aqd Utah rrspon+ ad " no." Thcso s t a t ~ s , h o w c v ~ r , a11
U L I c . 7 + t' c ' C
a .- r c c , m + L C
r t r ~ 3 . ~ mr c c a : >
+ L C C & > - C C > rc
c s r u ' m c u o a
C . r C u C c S - - V)
G C C ffi ' t C C
t - C t' c . C l~ 4- a. u
C G C t P . t ' C a + ' V L
C L V ) U ( L' > C X C 3
T C L ~ & . ~ - - E ~- 1C 7 0
c C: T I : C L Z X . C V )
v , ri l n . ? C, L t r c - a
C . r d z ' r V ) + G C I r S C L L
> c - c L VI c m c c ~
C G C = C ~ . L - . ~ C C V -
L E Z - c = c r r c c ~ ~ c
Wc contrnd thqt t h n cornbin? tioo ~ f tho two typ- s o f taqs i s a mom r ~ a l i s t i c
p i c t r r r n o f t o t a l c o r n p l i a n c ~ hut, qiven t h r hiqh f i q u r o s i n t h o A u d i t o r ' s
S U ~ V P Y , our c o n t ~ n t i o ni s t h a t o t h n r s t a t n s art? not i n c l u d i n q a11 taqs.
P r o c s d u r ? ~ d i f f r r from s t a t c ' t o s t a t e . 7om~ j u r i s d i c t i o n s a l l o w w r i q h t s and
m@ asurDso f f i c i a l s t o a d j u s t r n ~ t r r s , a nd thus f o r t h o s ~ m ~ t ~ ardsj u s t ~ d , t h ~ r n
are no taqs ~ S S U P ~ . A rizona d o ~ sn ot a l l o w i n s p ~ c t o r st o ad% justr n o t ~ r s . T ~ P
e q u i p m ~ n t i s too v a r i e d and complc'x t- o make t h i s a safe p r a c t i c ~ . Som~ s t a t e s
mrpt thc r s q i s t ~ r n ds ~ r v i cmq~ n a t t h e s t a t i o n and t h r~ ep airman makrs t h ~
adjustments which a r n~ c c ~ s s a r ya nd any mpters thus adjusted a r n~ ot i s s ~ ~ e r i ( I
taqs, and thus thcv are n P w r r c c o r r i ~ di n thc' c o m p l i a n c ~ r a t i n q s . 4 n a l y s i s o f
tho data ouqht t o takn i n t o account thnsp d i f f e r ~ n c ~ i ns procc'dl~ rc'.
Thp D i v i s i o n s r r i o u s l y q u ~ s t i o n st h e A u d i t o r ' s opinion t h a t t h t~~ s t i n qo f
c a t t l ~ sc ales i s a s o r v i c r and not p a r t o f our r p q r l l a t o r v f u n c t i o n . Thp
A u d i t o r d o ~ sn ot question t h a t the s c ? l ~ sa r r comm3rcial d r v i c e s and thus,
llnlc'ss t h s~ t a t u t r i s chanq+ 3d, a r w~ i t h i n our j u r i s d i c t i o n . Thcy c i t ~ th e
f o l l o w i n q roasoqs f o r d ~ t r r m i n i n qt h a t it i s a " s e r v i c r : "
A. T ~ Pit1 3ms ~+/ riqh? db clonq t o t. h 0 prrson who owns t h s~ ca le.
R. Thn pprsnn who h ~ n r ft is i 5 t h o~ wn er o f tho d ~ v i c ~ .
C. N o t i f i c a t i o n i s q i v ~ nas t o timp o f t r s t .
That tho scale ownpr i s \- lc> iqhino h i s own c a t t l i > i s i r r i . l f > v a n t . T ~ Pq r o c c r owns
tho p r o r l l ~ c tw ~ i q h o do n h i s scalns, as tho qas s t a t i o n o14ncr owns t h q~ as sold
throllqh h i s r l i s p n n q ~ r s . Cincc a1 1 own t, hr d ~ v i c r srn : aasr~ rinq thc' p r n d ~ i r t . , t h ~
D i v i s i o n f a i l s t o SCP t h i s as a v a l i d d i s t i q c t i o n .
4s t o i t ~ r n9, tho Auditor i s concludinq t h ? t + hn romlnPrce thus p r o t e c t ~ di s
r n l a t i v ~ yl i n s i q n i f i c a n t . l l s i n q tho A u d i t o r ' s own f i q t ~ r ~ f osr t h a~ mo unt o f
cornrncrcr which oasscs ovt7r t h ~ ds~~ v i c ~ sho, w ~ vc) r, , vc c a l c u l a t ~ a v a l ~ r ro f 107
m i l l i o n d o l l a r s . WP f a i l t o SPP t h a t t h i s i~ a n -- i n s i q n i f i c a n t amount o f
colnrnprcp d c s ~ r v i n qp r o t ~ cito n on an annual basis.
F i n a l l y . th,? very n a t ~ i r no f t h u~ se o f c a t , t l c s c 8 l ~ sr ~ q u i r ~ 11s t o q i v ~
n o t i f i c a t i o n i f V ~ Par P t o t o s t . I f a r8nchpr i s not qoinq t o us^ h i s s c z l ~ f o r
cornnl~ rcial pllrnoscs, t h p r e i s no l ~ q a lr ~ q u i r e m ~ nt ot t e s t . T ~ s t i n qa 11 c a t t l ~
s c a l ~ s ,~ h c t h t~ lr ~ a~ rpy used or n o t , would r p q u i r c a qroat dpal more than t h e
114 o f our h ~ d q n t which we are c u r r e n t l v usinq. F r ~ q u c n t l y , r a n c h ~ r s w i l l lock
tho beam box ( t h i s contains thp weiqhinq ~ l ~ w o n t ) . I f we d i d not n o t i f y the
r a n c h ~ ro f our i n t e n t t o t p s t , WP would not hava accpss t o t h A~ P V ~ C P .
N o t i f i c a t i o n o f ranchers i s i n the same cataqory as t c s t i n q r c t a i l qrocery
storos d u r i n q normal business hours, it p r o v i d ~ s1 1s w i t h a c c c s s a b i l i t v . I n t h ?
arp? o f LPG t ~ s t i n q , WP n o t i f y p r i o r t o tcst. inq. Tf we d i d not do so, WP would
v a r c l y f i n d propann t r u c k s a v a i l a b l e f o r t e s t i n q .
Thp Auditor claims t h a t 7.5 FTEs are used i n tho c a t t l ~ sc alp t r s t i n q proqran.
nrrr f i q u r o s show 7.1 FTEs f o r a p e r i o d o f s i x months a year. This i s d u t~ o
r r f i n ~ dd ata c o l l n c t i o n f o r t h e c u r r n n t yPar and was u n a v a i l a b l e a t the tim?
o f t h e a u d i t . Tho p o i n t i s made t o i n d i c 8 t c what resourcps would b~ available
t o tb? D i v i s i o n i f c a t t l ~ sc alp t e s t i n q i s qbandonnd.
I f wc abandon the cattle, s c a l r t e s t i n q , we w i l l s t i l l have othtqr dcvicns o f
simi l i a r c a ~ a c i t yt o tat, t t l l ~ sn ot savinq t h e amo~ rnt that, t h e Auditors
a n t i c i p a t e . Tha Auditor appnars t o f ~ t h a~ t t h plr p w i l l he minimal d i f f i c ~ i l t v
i n t r a n s f ~ r r i n qth n rPsourcPs from c a t t l e scalp t ~ s t i n qt o somn o t h e r proqram.
Tincc a primary concorn o f t h n~ t l d i t o r appqarc t o + fl r ~ t c s s t i n q , e specially of
q? s pumps, rvr wondnr hot;/ i ~ s ~ . f ual boom t r u c k w i t h Finflflf o f known l w i q h t w i l l b ~ )
i n the c h e c t i n q o f qas disp? nsprs.
L p q i s l a t i v p Council has q i v ~ ni t s opinion as t o the ~ P Phs inq a r b i t r a r y . \ lo
dis3qrpp. Thb3r- p arn o t h c r instances w h ~ r p a si,~ bcl? ss has beon c h a r q ~ d a l ~ s s 1 3 r
fpa ( c. q., LPG rnr? tc) rs) and t h r~ a t i o n a l p has bpsn based on t h u~ s? qp o f the
d ~ v i c ~ C. a t t l e scales a r e n o t i n continuorls cnmrn~ rcial usr, but arc us? d
occasional 1y i n commr> rcD and t h e P i v i s i o n f e e l s , j ~ ~ s t i f i n~ dch arqinq a l c s s ~ r
f ~ oon t h i s basis.