[USMA:54377] Re: NIST Training Course for Checking the Net Amouts inside Packages
Ezra, Thanks for the compliment! The current FPLA requires “duality” of labeling. The NIST Handbook 133 (Page 15) requires verification of the “larger of the two declarations. Amendment of the current FPLA is necessary to make metric-only *labeling* a legal reality. However, Metric-Only *Enforcement* of amounts inside packages if already legal (in my opinion) so long as the declaration in units from the SI is the *larger* of the two declarations. Machines that fill packages are not precise to six significant digits. Hence the elaborate procedure of Maximum Allowed Variation (MAV) which allows some packages to contain less that the targeted amount. See Page 3 on MAV in NIST Handbook 133. Gene. On Sep 17, 2014, at 12:44 PM, ezra.steinb...@comcast.netmailto:ezra.steinb...@comcast.net wrote: Outstanding work, Gene! :-) So, if I understand this correctly, the FTC will let companies know that they will be checking only that the net contents as stated using SI units will be checked. In other words, as a matter of their new selective enforcement policy, the FTC will not come down on anyone who puts stuff in a package that is labeled only in metric units (even though that technically violates the FPLA) provided that the stated quantity in SI units is correct. Does that sum it up correctly? thanks, Ezra From: eugene a mechtly mech...@illinois.edumailto:mech...@illinois.edu To: USMA usma@colostate.edumailto:usma@colostate.edu Cc: USMA usma@colostate.edumailto:usma@colostate.edu Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2014 9:55:00 AM Subject: [USMA:54373] NIST Training Course for Checking the Net Amouts inside Packages First, I want to thank Ken Butcher for sending me various files in electronic format concerning the NIST Training Course for Officials who have the duty of verifying the net amounts inside packages intended for consumers in retail markets. My conclusion is that Metric-Only Enforcement of labeling declarations is completely compliant with requirements of both the current FPLA, and the current UPLR (as defined in the 2014 Editions of NIST Handbooks 130 and 133). Although duality of units of measurement (units from the SI and units from outside the SI) continues to be required on the labels of consumer commodities by the current FPLA, there is absolutely no exclusion of metric-only verification of net amounts inside packages by the current FPLA. The only limitation is that net amounts not be overstated, after rounding to three significant digits, by the part of the label stated in units from outside the SI. My hope is that the new revised FTC rules will be consistent with this interpretation. Eugene Mechtly
[USMA:54378] Fwd: Senator Boquist - Chief Sponsor of LC0044
FYI - Forwarded message from cont...@metricpioneer.com - Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2014 08:53:53 -0700 From: cont...@metricpioneer.com Subject: Senator Boquist - Chief Sponsor of LC0044 To: Sen Boquist sen.brianboqu...@state.or.us Cc: Rep Boles rep.denycbo...@state.or.us O! Thank you so much! This is great news. It really means a lot to me. Please keep in touch and let me know what you think I should do next. Keep me updated please. Call me any time. David Pearl www.MetricPioneer.com 503-428-4917 - Message from Sen Boquist sen.brianboqu...@state.or.us - Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2014 23:28:37 + From: Sen Boquist sen.brianboqu...@state.or.us Subject: RE: Senator Boquist Support for LC0044_DRAFT_2015_Regular_Session.pdf To: cont...@metricpioneer.com cont...@metricpioneer.com David, We have this taken care of. Senator Boquist will be the Chief Sponsor and we have it all squared away with Legislative Counsel. Marjorie Marjorie Van Boven, Legislative Assistant Senator Brian J. Boquist 900 Court St. NE S-305 Salem, OR 97301 503-986-1712 FROM: cont...@metricpioneer.com [mailto:cont...@metricpioneer.com] SENT: Monday, September 01, 2014 1:30 PM TO: Sen Boquist CC: Rep Boles; Anna Staver; Sen Roblan; Rep Greenlick SUBJECT: Re: Senator Boquist Support for LC0044_DRAFT_2015_Regular_Session.pdf M (Marjorie): I agree with Brian's terms. This is statewide issue, so as to Brian's concern of LC 44 being out of his district, no worries there. Please advise me about next steps. Thanks for your support of LC 44. David Pearl www.MetricPioneer.com[1] 503-428-4917 - Message from Sen Boquist sen.brianboqu...@state.or.us[2] - Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2014 20:12:53 + From: Sen Boquist sen.brianboqu...@state.or.us[2] Subject: RE: Senator Boquist Support for LC0044_DRAFT_2015_Regular_Session.pdf To: cont...@metricpioneer.com cont...@metricpioneer.com M: OK with sponsoring this as long as it is done on behalf of Mr. Pearl meaning his name will be on the bill back. I am not knowledgeable enough to do it myself ... plus this may be out of our district. Brian OFFICE OF SENATOR BRIAN BOQUIST 900 COURT STREET NE , S- 305 SALEM OREGON 97301 503-986-1712 sen.brianboqu...@state.or.us - FROM:cont...@metricpioneer.com [cont...@metricpioneer.com] SENT: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 1:51 PM TO: Sen Boquist CC: Rep Boles; Rep Greenlick; Rep Gomberg; Rep Davis; Rep Fagan; Itai Pearl SUBJECT: Re: Senator Boquist Support for LC0044_DRAFT_2015_Regular_Session.pdf Marjorie. Thanks for asking who will be sponsoring LC 44. I would be absolutely thrilled if Senator Boquist would sponsor LC 44. I initially brought this legislative concept to my government representative Kevin Cameron, who got LC 44 started, then as you may know, Representative Denyc Boles temporarily fills that position until election time, when Jodi Hack is likely to be elected to represent District 19. Our governor is a doctor and as you may know, the medical profession all over the world, even in the United States, uses SI because SI is much more accurate for measuring medication, so anyone familiar with the field of medicine would be more likely to appreciate the significance of this legislation. So, Senator Boquist, please consider sponsoring this important legislation if for no other reason than to save the lives of so many children who die every year because their parents administer the wrong dosage of medicine for lack of a consistent measurement system. Thank you so much. David Pearl www.MetricPioneer.com[1] 503-428-4917 - Message from Sen Boquist sen.brianboqu...@state.or.us[3] - Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2014 20:12:50 + From: Sen Boquist sen.brianboqu...@state.or.us[3] Subject: RE: Senator Boquist Support for LC0044_DRAFT_2015_Regular_Session.pdf To: cont...@metricpioneer.com cont...@metricpioneer.com David, Senator Boquist read over the LC0044 Draft and would like to know who the sponsor is from the Legislature. Thanks. Marjorie Marjorie Van Boven, Legislative Assistant Senator Brian J. Boquist 900 Court St. NE S-305 Salem, OR 97301 503-986-1712 FROM:cont...@metricpioneer.com [mailto:cont...@metricpioneer.com] SENT: Thursday, August 07, 2014 8:18 PM TO: Sen Boquist SUBJECT: Senator Boquist Support for LC0044_DRAFT_2015_Regular_Session.pdf Dear Senator Brian Boquist. I urge you to support LC 44 (attached) for several reasons, including the following: There are very strong economic and scientific reasons for Oregon to adopt the International System of Units (SI). The cost of not using the SI is increasing with the trend toward globalization.. Failing to adopt the SI could result
[USMA:54379] Re: NIST Training Course for Checking the Net Amouts inside Packages
As always, your clarifications really help, Gene. :-) The bottom line for me is whether companies will interpret this new enforcement policy as an unofficial permission slip to label their packages using only SI units so long as they ensure that the amount indicated is equal to (modulo allowed precision and variation) or less than the amount actually in the package. How do you and other folks on the list interpret the practical impact of this proposed new enforcement policy? Ezra - Original Message - From: eugene a mechtly mech...@illinois.edu To: Ezra, Steinberg ezra.steinb...@comcast.net Cc: USMA usma@colostate.edu Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2014 8:53:00 AM Subject: Re: [USMA:54373] NIST Training Course for Checking the Net Amouts inside Packages Ezra, Thanks for the compliment! The current FPLA requires “duality” of labeling. The NIST Handbook 133 (Page 15) requires verification of the “larger of the two declarations. Amendment of the current FPLA is necessary to make metric-only *labeling* a legal reality. However, Metric-Only *Enforcement* of amounts inside packages if already legal (in my opinion) so long as the declaration in units from the SI is the *larger* of the two declarations. Machines that fill packages are not precise to six significant digits. Hence the elaborate procedure of Maximum Allowed Variation (MAV) which allows some packages to contain less that the targeted amount. See Page 3 on MAV in NIST Handbook 133. Gene. On Sep 17, 2014, at 12:44 PM, ezra.steinb...@comcast.net wrote: Outstanding work, Gene! :-) So, if I understand this correctly, the FTC will let companies know that they will be checking only that the net contents as stated using SI units will be checked. In other words, as a matter of their new selective enforcement policy, the FTC will not come down on anyone who puts stuff in a package that is labeled only in metric units (even though that technically violates the FPLA) provided that the stated quantity in SI units is correct. Does that sum it up correctly? thanks, Ezra - Original Message - From: eugene a mechtly mech...@illinois.edu To: USMA usma@colostate.edu Cc: USMA usma@colostate.edu Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2014 9:55:00 AM Subject: [USMA:54373] NIST Training Course for Checking the Net Amouts inside Packages First, I want to thank Ken Butcher for sending me various files in electronic format concerning the NIST Training Course for Officials who have the duty of verifying the net amounts inside packages intended for consumers in retail markets. My conclusion is that Metric-Only Enforcement of labeling declarations is completely compliant with requirements of both the current FPLA, and the current UPLR (as defined in the 2014 Editions of NIST Handbooks 130 and 133). Although duality of units of measurement (units from the SI and units from outside the SI) continues to be required on the labels of consumer commodities by the current FPLA, there is absolutely no exclusion of metric-only verification of net amounts inside packages by the current FPLA. The only limitation is that net amounts not be overstated, after rounding to three significant digits, by the part of the label stated in units from outside the SI. My hope is that the new revised FTC rules will be consistent with this interpretation. Eugene Mechtly
[USMA:54380] Re: NIST Training Course for Checking the Net Amouts inside Packages
If I owned a company not sure I would violate the law just because someone says they “wont enforce’ it but some might. It think the impact will be small but it’s a start. Howard Ressel Project Design Engineer NYSDOT 1530 Jefferson Road Rochester, NY 14623 585 272-3372 43,560 square feet in an acre 5280 feet in a mile 16 ounces in a pound 128 ounces in a gallon 23 confused kids in a class What could be simpler? From: owner-u...@colostate.edu [mailto:owner-u...@colostate.edu] On Behalf Of ezra.steinb...@comcast.net Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2014 1:06 PM To: U.S. Metric Association Cc: USMA Subject: [USMA:54379] Re: NIST Training Course for Checking the Net Amouts inside Packages As always, your clarifications really help, Gene. :-) The bottom line for me is whether companies will interpret this new enforcement policy as an unofficial permission slip to label their packages using only SI units so long as they ensure that the amount indicated is equal to (modulo allowed precision and variation) or less than the amount actually in the package. How do you and other folks on the list interpret the practical impact of this proposed new enforcement policy? Ezra From: eugene a mechtly mech...@illinois.edumailto:mech...@illinois.edu To: Ezra, Steinberg ezra.steinb...@comcast.netmailto:ezra.steinb...@comcast.net Cc: USMA usma@colostate.edumailto:usma@colostate.edu Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2014 8:53:00 AM Subject: Re: [USMA:54373] NIST Training Course for Checking the Net Amouts inside Packages Ezra, Thanks for the compliment! The current FPLA requires “duality” of labeling. The NIST Handbook 133 (Page 15) requires verification of the “larger of the two declarations. Amendment of the current FPLA is necessary to make metric-only *labeling* a legal reality. However, Metric-Only *Enforcement* of amounts inside packages if already legal (in my opinion) so long as the declaration in units from the SI is the *larger* of the two declarations. Machines that fill packages are not precise to six significant digits. Hence the elaborate procedure of Maximum Allowed Variation (MAV) which allows some packages to contain less that the targeted amount. See Page 3 on MAV in NIST Handbook 133. Gene. On Sep 17, 2014, at 12:44 PM, ezra.steinb...@comcast.netmailto:ezra.steinb...@comcast.net wrote: Outstanding work, Gene! :-) So, if I understand this correctly, the FTC will let companies know that they will be checking only that the net contents as stated using SI units will be checked. In other words, as a matter of their new selective enforcement policy, the FTC will not come down on anyone who puts stuff in a package that is labeled only in metric units (even though that technically violates the FPLA) provided that the stated quantity in SI units is correct. Does that sum it up correctly? thanks, Ezra From: eugene a mechtly mech...@illinois.edumailto:mech...@illinois.edu To: USMA usma@colostate.edumailto:usma@colostate.edu Cc: USMA usma@colostate.edumailto:usma@colostate.edu Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2014 9:55:00 AM Subject: [USMA:54373] NIST Training Course for Checking the Net Amouts inside Packages First, I want to thank Ken Butcher for sending me various files in electronic format concerning the NIST Training Course for Officials who have the duty of verifying the net amounts inside packages intended for consumers in retail markets. My conclusion is that Metric-Only Enforcement of labeling declarations is completely compliant with requirements of both the current FPLA, and the current UPLR (as defined in the 2014 Editions of NIST Handbooks 130 and 133). Although duality of units of measurement (units from the SI and units from outside the SI) continues to be required on the labels of consumer commodities by the current FPLA, there is absolutely no exclusion of metric-only verification of net amounts inside packages by the current FPLA. The only limitation is that net amounts not be overstated, after rounding to three significant digits, by the part of the label stated in units from outside the SI. My hope is that the new revised FTC rules will be consistent with this interpretation. Eugene Mechtly
[USMA:54381] Re: NIST Training Course for Checking the Net Amouts inside Packages
But that is a big IF. If filled to 454 g and 1 lb is claimed, 454 g is the larger claim and is what must be check under the current law. However, many packages are labeled 453 g | 1 lb in which case 1 lb is the larger claim and must be checked. I don't see that checking only the smaller claim (if it is the metric claim) can be justified. Of course I agree that IF the company fills and claims such that the metric claim is the larger claim, only it needs to be checked. so it can be argued it is completely within the company's control. From: mechtly, eugene a mech...@illinois.edu To: U.S. Metric Association usma@colostate.edu Cc: USMA usma@colostate.edu Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2014 11:53 AM Subject: [USMA:54377] Re: NIST Training Course for Checking the Net Amouts inside Packages Ezra, Thanks for the compliment! The current FPLA requires “duality” of labeling. The NIST Handbook 133 (Page 15) requires verification of the “larger of the two declarations. Amendment of the current FPLA is necessary to make metric-only *labeling* a legal reality. However, Metric-Only *Enforcement* of amounts inside packages if already legal (in my opinion) so long as the declaration in units from the SI is the *larger* of the two declarations. Machines that fill packages are not precise to six significant digits. Hence the elaborate procedure of Maximum Allowed Variation (MAV) which allows some packages to contain less that the targeted amount. See Page 3 on MAV in NIST Handbook 133. Gene. On Sep 17, 2014, at 12:44 PM, ezra.steinb...@comcast.net wrote: Outstanding work, Gene! :-) So, if I understand this correctly, the FTC will let companies know that they will be checking only that the net contents as stated using SI units will be checked. In other words, as a matter of their new selective enforcement policy, the FTC will not come down on anyone who puts stuff in a package that is labeled only in metric units (even though that technically violates the FPLA) provided that the stated quantity in SI units is correct. Does that sum it up correctly? thanks, Ezra From: eugene a mechtly mech...@illinois.edu To: USMA usma@colostate.edu Cc: USMA usma@colostate.edu Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2014 9:55:00 AM Subject: [USMA:54373] NIST Training Course for Checking the Net Amouts inside Packages First, I want to thank Ken Butcher for sending me various files in electronic format concerning the NIST Training Course for Officials who have the duty of verifying the net amounts inside packages intended for consumers in retail markets. My conclusion is that Metric-Only Enforcement of labeling declarations is completely compliant with requirements of both the current FPLA, and the current UPLR (as defined in the 2014 Editions of NIST Handbooks 130 and 133). Although duality of units of measurement (units from the SI and units from outside the SI) continues to be required on the labels of consumer commodities by the current FPLA, there is absolutely no exclusion of metric-only verification of net amounts inside packages by the current FPLA. The only limitation is that net amounts not be overstated, after rounding to three significant digits, by the part of the label stated in units from outside the SI. My hope is that the new revised FTC rules will be consistent with this interpretation. Eugene Mechtly
[USMA:54382] Re: NIST Training Course for Checking the Net Amouts inside Packages
But I thought that the proposal was that a company could package their product and label its weight, volume, etc. only in SI and that the only enforcement would be that the actual weight, volume, etc. was equal to or greater than what was stated on the package in SI only units. - Original Message - From: John M. Steele jmsteele9...@sbcglobal.net To: USMA usma@colostate.edu Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2014 11:14:44 AM Subject: [USMA:54381] Re: NIST Training Course for Checking the Net Amouts inside Packages But that is a big IF. If filled to 454 g and 1 lb is claimed, 454 g is the larger claim and is what must be check under the current law. However, many packages are labeled 453 g | 1 lb in which case 1 lb is the larger claim and must be checked. I don't see that checking only the smaller claim (if it is the metric claim) can be justified. Of course I agree that IF the company fills and claims such that the metric claim is the larger claim, only it needs to be checked. so it can be argued it is completely within the company's control. From: mechtly, eugene a mech...@illinois.edu To: U.S. Metric Association usma@colostate.edu Cc: USMA usma@colostate.edu Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2014 11:53 AM Subject: [USMA:54377] Re: NIST Training Course for Checking the Net Amouts inside Packages Ezra, Thanks for the compliment! The current FPLA requires “duality” of labeling. The NIST Handbook 133 (Page 15) requires verification of the “larger of the two declarations. Amendment of the current FPLA is necessary to make metric-only *labeling* a legal reality. However, Metric-Only *Enforcement* of amounts inside packages if already legal (in my opinion) so long as the declaration in units from the SI is the *larger* of the two declarations. Machines that fill packages are not precise to six significant digits. Hence the elaborate procedure of Maximum Allowed Variation (MAV) which allows some packages to contain less that the targeted amount. See Page 3 on MAV in NIST Handbook 133. Gene. On Sep 17, 2014, at 12:44 PM, ezra.steinb...@comcast.net wrote: Outstanding work, Gene! :-) So, if I understand this correctly, the FTC will let companies know that they will be checking only that the net contents as stated using SI units will be checked. In other words, as a matter of their new selective enforcement policy, the FTC will not come down on anyone who puts stuff in a package that is labeled only in metric units (even though that technically violates the FPLA) provided that the stated quantity in SI units is correct. Does that sum it up correctly? thanks, Ezra From: eugene a mechtly mech...@illinois.edu To: USMA usma@colostate.edu Cc: USMA usma@colostate.edu Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2014 9:55:00 AM Subject: [USMA:54373] NIST Training Course for Checking the Net Amouts inside Packages First, I want to thank Ken Butcher for sending me various files in electronic format concerning the NIST Training Course for Officials who have the duty of verifying the net amounts inside packages intended for consumers in retail markets. My conclusion is that Metric-Only Enforcement of labeling declarations is completely compliant with requirements of both the current FPLA, and the current UPLR (as defined in the 2014 Editions of NIST Handbooks 130 and 133). Although duality of units of measurement (units from the SI and units from outside the SI) continues to be required on the labels of consumer commodities by the current FPLA, there is absolutely no exclusion of metric-only verification of net amounts inside packages by the current FPLA. The only limitation is that net amounts not be overstated, after rounding to three significant digits, by the part of the label stated in units from outside the SI. My hope is that the new revised FTC rules will be consistent with this interpretation. Eugene Mechtly
[USMA:54383] RE: NIST Training Course for Checking the Net Amouts inside Packages
The table of Maximum Allowed Variations on Page 98 of HB 133 states for More than 426 g to 489 g the MAV is 19.9 g! With that *large* MAV of 19.9 g, why quibble over which declaration must be verified e.g. 453 g, 453.592 g, or 454 g? The actual fill may have a negative error of 19.9 g for some of the packages in a tested lot! The entire process of dual labeling and selection of the one-of-two declarations which must be verified, needs revision. With the limited precision of filling machines, the MAV allowances may need to be retained. Hopefully, the FTC will find a legal way to allow Metric-Only Enforcement in its new rulings. Eugene Mechtly From: owner-u...@colostate.edu [owner-u...@colostate.edu] on behalf of ezra.steinb...@comcast.net [ezra.steinb...@comcast.net] Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2014 4:10 PM To: U.S. Metric Association Cc: USMA Subject: [USMA:54382] Re: NIST Training Course for Checking the Net Amouts inside Packages But I thought that the proposal was that a company could package their product and label its weight, volume, etc. only in SI and that the only enforcement would be that the actual weight, volume, etc. was equal to or greater than what was stated on the package in SI only units. From: John M. Steele jmsteele9...@sbcglobal.net To: USMA usma@colostate.edu Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2014 11:14:44 AM Subject: [USMA:54381] Re: NIST Training Course for Checking the Net Amouts inside Packages But that is a big IF. If filled to 454 g and 1 lb is claimed, 454 g is the larger claim and is what must be check under the current law. However, many packages are labeled 453 g | 1 lb in which case 1 lb is the larger claim and must be checked. I don't see that checking only the smaller claim (if it is the metric claim) can be justified. Of course I agree that IF the company fills and claims such that the metric claim is the larger claim, only it needs to be checked. so it can be argued it is completely within the company's control. From: mechtly, eugene a mech...@illinois.edu To: U.S. Metric Association usma@colostate.edu Cc: USMA usma@colostate.edu Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2014 11:53 AM Subject: [USMA:54377] Re: NIST Training Course for Checking the Net Amouts inside Packages Ezra, Thanks for the compliment! The current FPLA requires “duality” of labeling. The NIST Handbook 133 (Page 15) requires verification of the “larger of the two declarations. Amendment of the current FPLA is necessary to make metric-only *labeling* a legal reality. However, Metric-Only *Enforcement* of amounts inside packages if already legal (in my opinion) so long as the declaration in units from the SI is the *larger* of the two declarations. Machines that fill packages are not precise to six significant digits. Hence the elaborate procedure of Maximum Allowed Variation (MAV) which allows some packages to contain less that the targeted amount. See Page 3 on MAV in NIST Handbook 133. Gene. On Sep 17, 2014, at 12:44 PM, ezra.steinb...@comcast.netmailto:ezra.steinb...@comcast.net wrote: Outstanding work, Gene! :-) So, if I understand this correctly, the FTC will let companies know that they will be checking only that the net contents as stated using SI units will be checked. In other words, as a matter of their new selective enforcement policy, the FTC will not come down on anyone who puts stuff in a package that is labeled only in metric units (even though that technically violates the FPLA) provided that the stated quantity in SI units is correct. Does that sum it up correctly? thanks, Ezra From: eugene a mechtly mech...@illinois.edumailto:mech...@illinois.edu To: USMA usma@colostate.edumailto:usma@colostate.edu Cc: USMA usma@colostate.edumailto:usma@colostate.edu Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2014 9:55:00 AM Subject: [USMA:54373] NIST Training Course for Checking the Net Amouts inside Packages First, I want to thank Ken Butcher for sending me various files in electronic format concerning the NIST Training Course for Officials who have the duty of verifying the net amounts inside packages intended for consumers in retail markets. My conclusion is that Metric-Only Enforcement of labeling declarations is completely compliant with requirements of both the current FPLA, and the current UPLR (as defined in the 2014 Editions of NIST Handbooks 130 and 133). Although duality of units of measurement (units from the SI and units from outside the SI) continues to be required on the labels of consumer commodities by the current FPLA, there is absolutely no exclusion of metric-only verification of net amounts inside packages by the current FPLA. The only limitation is that net amounts not be overstated, after rounding to three significant digits, by the part of the label stated in units from outside the SI. My
[USMA:54384] RE: NIST Training Course for Checking the Net Amouts inside Packages
However, the lot average must still validate the larger claim via what is basically a student-t test. Therefore, if standard deviation is large, the average must exceed the claim by a larger amount to prove the claim. I wonder if underfills as large as allowed ever occur. It seems to me the manufacturer would save product by having a more accurate fill; on average, he can exceed the claim by less if the standard deviation is less. From: mechtly, eugene a mech...@illinois.edu To: U.S. Metric Association usma@colostate.edu Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2014 6:46 PM Subject: [USMA:54383] RE: NIST Training Course for Checking the Net Amouts inside Packages The table of Maximum Allowed Variations on Page 98 of HB 133 states for More than 426 g to 489 g the MAV is 19.9 g! With that *large* MAV of 19.9 g, why quibble over which declaration must be verified e.g. 453 g, 453.592 g, or 454 g? The actual fill may have a negative error of 19.9 g for some of the packages in a tested lot! The entire process of dual labeling and selection of the one-of-two declarations which must be verified, needs revision. With the limited precision of filling machines, the MAV allowances may need to be retained. Hopefully, the FTC will find a legal way to allow Metric-Only Enforcement in its new rulings. Eugene Mechtly From: owner-u...@colostate.edu [owner-u...@colostate.edu] on behalf of ezra.steinb...@comcast.net [ezra.steinb...@comcast.net] Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2014 4:10 PM To: U.S. Metric Association Cc: USMA Subject: [USMA:54382] Re: NIST Training Course for Checking the Net Amouts inside Packages But I thought that the proposal was that a company could package their product and label its weight, volume, etc. only in SI and that the only enforcement would be that the actual weight, volume, etc. was equal to or greater than what was stated on the package in SI only units. From: John M. Steele jmsteele9...@sbcglobal.net To: USMA usma@colostate.edu Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2014 11:14:44 AM Subject: [USMA:54381] Re: NIST Training Course for Checking the Net Amouts inside Packages But that is a big IF. If filled to 454 g and 1 lb is claimed, 454 g is the larger claim and is what must be check under the current law. However, many packages are labeled 453 g | 1 lb in which case 1 lb is the larger claim and must be checked. I don't see that checking only the smaller claim (if it is the metric claim) can be justified. Of course I agree that IF the company fills and claims such that the metric claim is the larger claim, only it needs to be checked. so it can be argued it is completely within the company's control. From: mechtly, eugene a mech...@illinois.edu To: U.S. Metric Association usma@colostate.edu Cc: USMA usma@colostate.edu Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2014 11:53 AM Subject: [USMA:54377] Re: NIST Training Course for Checking the Net Amouts inside Packages Ezra, Thanks for the compliment! The current FPLA requires “duality” of labeling. The NIST Handbook 133 (Page 15) requires verification of the “larger of the two declarations. Amendment of the current FPLA is necessary to make metric-only *labeling* a legal reality. However, Metric-Only *Enforcement* of amounts inside packages if already legal (in my opinion) so long as the declaration in units from the SI is the *larger* of the two declarations. Machines that fill packages are not precise to six significant digits. Hence the elaborate procedure of Maximum Allowed Variation (MAV) which allows some packages to contain less that the targeted amount. See Page 3 on MAV in NIST Handbook 133. Gene. On Sep 17, 2014, at 12:44 PM, ezra.steinb...@comcast.net wrote: Outstanding work, Gene! :-) So, if I understand this correctly, the FTC will let companies know that they will be checking only that the net contents as stated using SI units will be checked. In other words, as a matter of their new selective enforcement policy, the FTC will not come down on anyone who puts stuff in a package that is labeled only in metric units (even though that technically violates the FPLA) provided that the stated quantity in SI units is correct. Does that sum it up correctly? thanks, Ezra From: eugene a mechtly mech...@illinois.edu To: USMA usma@colostate.edu Cc: USMA usma@colostate.edu Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2014 9:55:00 AM Subject: [USMA:54373] NIST Training Course for Checking the Net Amouts inside Packages First, I want to thank Ken Butcher for sending me various files in electronic format concerning the NIST Training Course for Officials who have the duty of verifying the net amounts inside packages intended for consumers in retail markets. My conclusion is that Metric-Only Enforcement of labeling
