What should the officer ensure regarding costs associated with the test during the recession of refusal?

The correct choice emphasizes the importance of ensuring that the costs associated with the Intoxilyzer test are minimal. This is crucial, especially in the context of a refusal to participate in the test. During such a scenario, it is the officer's obligation to consider the financial implications that the test might have on the individual involved.

By ensuring that costs are kept minimal, the officer helps to promote compliance with the testing process, potentially reducing the likelihood of refusals that can complicate legal proceedings and enforcement actions. Additionally, reducing financial burdens can support the argument that testing should be accessible and fair, thereby encouraging individuals to participate rather than refuse.

In contrast, substantial costs might deter individuals from undergoing testing, leading to increased instances of refusal. Insurance coverage for the costs, while an important aspect in some contexts, does not address the immediate concern of ensuring every party involved feels that testing is a manageable obligation. Waiving costs altogether might not be practical or a viable option in all scenarios, thus making the focus on minimizing costs more strategically sound.