Below is my previously-private e-mail to Jim concerning FRN-1998.

I agree with Jim that SP 330 (2001) in *now* a preferable citation for
the latest updates of SI rather than the older FRN-1998 which we used
when we were helping to write AWS A1.1 in 2000 before the 2001 Edition
of SP 330 became available.

Nevertheless, a statement on "interpretation" remains in the 2001 Edition:

"... this edition of NIST SP 330 conforms with the English text in the
BIPM SI Brochure but contains a few minor differences to reflect the most
recent interpretation of the SI for the United States by the Secretary of
Commerce, as published in the Federal Register of July 28, 1998, 63 FR
40334-40340." ...

Although I plan to cite 330 more frequently that the FRN in the future,
I reserve the right to cite FRN-1998 for particular purposes.
e.g. when discussing the authority for "interpretation" of the SI for the
United States as opposed to the more intrinsic details of SI.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 17:59:07 -0600 (CST)
From: Gene Mechtly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: James Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: FRN-1998 & SP 330-2001

On Sun, 10 Mar 2002, James Frysinger wrote:

> ... The only legal value that FRN's provide is to demonstrate
> "publication" of a document or of information...

Jim,

The very first sentence of the FR Notice of 1998 is:

"This notice restates the interpretation of the International System of
Units (SI) for the Unites States by the Department of Commerce."

That statement and the contents of the FRN that follow, express the
authority of the US Congress and the DoC, even if no legal penalties
are immediately included.

Furthermore, the Foreword of SP 330-2001 cites the FR Notice of 1998
as "... the most recent interpretation of the SI for the United States
by the Secretary of Commerce."

There is no escaping the fact that the FRN of 1998 gives the latest
interpretation of SI for the US.

Barry Taylor, by e-mail at the time he was writing the 2001 Edition
of SP 330, advised me to cite the FRN of 1998 as the most official
authority on interpretation of SI for the US, at that time, and I'm
confident that the FRN remains the official US Interpretation of SI
at the present time.

We are concerned here with information and standard practices; not with
the prosecution of illegal acts.

The FRN-98 should be cited in SI 10, just as it is cited in AWS 1.1.

Gene.

Reply via email to