According to this article, the US State Department is the official representative to OIML, but NIST is designated as the technical representative. It also somewhat explains NIST's role. http://www.astm.org/SNEWS/JANUARY_2005/oppermann_jan05.html
________________________________ From: Martin Vlietstra <vliets...@btinternet.com> To: U.S. Metric Association <usma@colostate.edu> Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2014 4:55 PM Subject: [USMA:54375] Re: NIST Training Course for Checking the Net Amouts inside Packages I don’t know how many people know of the International Organisation of Legal Metrology. (Home page http://www.oiml.org/en). They ARE BASED IN Central Paris and work closely with the CGPM. Their job is to harmonise legal metrology around the globe - for example ensuring that ensuring that a “1 kg sugar” in Germany means the same as a “1 kg sugar” in Argentina (for example, does “1 kg” mean average contents per bag or guaranteed minimum, how are the measurements made etc). The OIML is closely aligned with the EU – many of the EU directives relating to weights and measures map onto OIML recommendations. The EU is encouraging many third-world countries to also adopt OIML recommendations (which is why the CGPM has both full and associate members). A list of the OIML recommendations can be found at http://www.oiml.org/en/publications/recommendations/publication_view?p_type=1&p_status=1. One of their recommendations pertains to the manufacture of Class IV cast-iron metric weights. If you look carefully at the picture of the banana seller about 2/3 of the way through the Wikipedia article at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_System_of_Units you will see some hexagonal weights which probably meet the recommendation. Where does this leave the US? If the US chooses to ignore the OIML recommendations, they will loose out on their markets which is probably why the SI measurements are the definitive measurements. Martin From:owner-u...@colostate.edu [mailto:owner-u...@colostate.edu] On Behalf Of ezra.steinb...@comcast.net Sent: 17 September 2014 18:45 To: U.S. Metric Association Cc: USMA Subject: [USMA:54374] Re: NIST Training Course for Checking the Net Amouts inside Packages 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
