Just an example http://news.yahoo.com/obama-immigration-executive-orders-could-force-showdown-101209067--politics.html
________________________________ From: Patrick Moore <pmo...@asnt.org> To: U.S. Metric Association <usma@colostate.edu> Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2014 11:17 AM Subject: [USMA:54238] RE: FW: Comments to FTC from the NCWM & NIST I call foul. The snipe about our president is contrary to fact and, more significantly here, off topic. [End] From: "John M. Steele" <jmsteele9...@sbcglobal.net<mailto:jmsteele9...@sbcglobal.net>> Reply-To: "John M. Steele" <jmsteele9...@sbcglobal.net<mailto:jmsteele9...@sbcglobal.net>> Date: Wednesday, July 30, 2014 5:43 AM To: "U.S. Metric Association" <usma@colostate.edu<mailto:usma@colostate.edu>> Subject: [USMA:54236] RE: FW: Comments to FTC from the NCWM & NIST I used the phrase "selective enforcement" which treat some differently from others -- that's the risk. They used the term "discretionary enforcement" which means enforce the parts of the law you like and not the parts of the law you don't like. Anyway, the law requires dual. Omitting the Customary violates the law. The solution is to fix the law, not arbitrarily decide to ignore the law. I suppose it might be within FTC's discretion to only use the metric declaration to test for shortfill instead of testing against the larger declaration. But I don't see how they could ignore a missing Customary declaration and claim they are enforcing the law, as written, which is their duty. It might, however, be perfectly clear to President Obama, who has taken a position that he will ignore any law he doesn't like and do as he wished. Perhaps "there is no law" will become the law of the land (for leaders, not us peons). I remain completely opposed to the concept of discretionary enforcement vs enforcing the written law. If I oppose some forms of discretionary enforcement, I have to oppose them all -- even on things I want. ________________________________ From: "mechtly, eugene a" <mech...@illinois.edu<mailto:mech...@illinois.edu>> To: U.S. Metric Association <usma@colostate.edu<mailto:usma@colostate.edu>> Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2014 9:01 PM Subject: [USMA:54234] RE: FW: Comments to FTC from the NCWM & NIST John (Steele), I read "Selective Enforcement" to mean using *only the declarations in metric units* for enforcement decisions, not to mean the discretion to inspect some packages and not other packages. No laws would be violated! Declarations in units from outside the SI would be *excluded* as the basis for enforcement decisions. The current FPLA specifies that the larger declared amount (in SI or not-SI) be used for inspections. Of course, overstatements of net amounts in packages would have to be prohibited, when expressed in those other units from outside the SI. "Maximum Allowed Variations" (MLV) as prescribed in the NIST Handbooks, would apply to the metric declarations, and "understatements" (if only in the third decimal place) of net amounts would be required for declarations in the non-SI units. A ruling by the FTC for enforcement of only the metric declarations can be fully compliant with the current FPLA if all other declarations are required to be understated. Eugene Mechtly ________________________________ From: ezra.steinb...@comcast.net<mailto:ezra.steinb...@comcast.net> [ezra.steinb...@comcast.net<mailto:ezra.steinb...@comcast.net>] Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2014 11:26 PM To: mechtly, eugene a Cc: USMA Subject: Re: [USMA:54204] FW: Comments to FTC from the NCWM & NIST Thanks, Gene! Let's hope the FTC does the right thing and issues that ruling. What a great step forward that would be. (And too bad for the FMI, eh? ;-) Ezra ________________________________ From: "eugene a mechtly" <mech...@illinois.edu<mailto:mech...@illinois.edu>> To: "USMA" <usma@colostate.edu<mailto:usma@colostate.edu>> Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2014 6:41:47 PM Subject: [USMA:54204] FW: Comments to FTC from the NCWM & NIST Eugene Mechtly ________________________________ From: Butcher, Kenneth S. [kenneth.butc...@nist.gov<mailto:kenneth.butc...@nist.gov>] Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2014 8:27 AM To: mechtly, eugene a Cc: Gentry, Elizabeth; Hockert, Carol; Warfield, Lisa; Sefcik, David; 'lorelle...@aol.com<mailto:'lorelle...@aol.com>'; Mark Henschel Subject: Comments to FTC from the NCWM & NIST Mr. Mechtly Attached is a PDF of the comments the National Conference on Weights and Measures submitted to the FTC regarding their regulatory review of the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act (FPLA) that you requested. Please see comment Number 5 which encourages FTC to consider allowing metric only labeling under its rulemaking authority. NIST worked closely with the NCWM to prepare and submit the comments. The FTC was already well aware that both the NIST and the NCWM have supported voluntary metric only labeling since 1999 when the Uniform Packaging and Labeling Regulation in NIST Handbook 130 was amended. This URL will take you to the NIST Handbook 130: http://www.nist.gov/pml/wmd/pubs/hb130-14.cfm This URL will take you to the proposed amendment to FPLA to permit metric only label: http://www.nist.gov/pml/wmd/metric/pack-lab.cfm. Copies of both publications have been given to FTC. Ken Butcher National Institute of Standards and Technology Office of Weights and Measures
