I downloaded the UPLR section of 2013 HB130, and Appendix C of HB44, the two pieces I have a lot of use for. I agree with you about reading onscreen, although it is possible to print all, or a section, from the download. I didn't think I had enough use for the whole set to warrant ordering them.
________________________________ From: "mechtly, eugene a" <mech...@illinois.edu> To: U.S. Metric Association <usma@colostate.edu> Cc: "mechtly, eugene a" <mech...@illinois.edu> Sent: Sun, March 24, 2013 11:03:18 AM Subject: [USMA:52549] RE: NCWM-NIST Handbooks for 2013 John, Reorganization of HB130 should be done along the lines you indicate below; i.e. more complete *separation of any use of i-p units* from any and all usages of SI units. Thank you, John, for your more thorough analysis of HP130 than I have found time to do so far! Did you download the 2013 Edition? I like the version on paper to avoid the fatigue of sanning on screen. Eugene ________________________________ From: John M. Steele [jmsteele9...@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2013 5:10 PM To: mechtly, eugene a; U.S. Metric Association Cc: mechtly, eugene a Subject: Re: [USMA:52540] NCWM-NIST Handbooks for 2013 Maybe. What reorganization of the material do you have in mind? I downloaded HB130, the UPLR section and reread it. I think my principal issue is that section 6.1 appears to continue to require dual, that is, both SI and IP units. Permissive-metric-only is deeply buried in section 11.33, and no examples are shown of any labels using the exemption in 11.33. However, such a change might freak out FMI and make the task of achieving permissive-metric-only FPLA more difficult. However, long-term, I agree a rewrite for an SI-required/IP-optional environment is required. I really can't agree with requiring dual at the beginning of the document, then exempting it at the end of the document. New York holding out may not be the only reason there is no metric-only in practice; it is buried 40 pages deep in the document. I like the separation of SI and IP requirements as in: Section 6.5, 6.6 for SI Section 6.7, 6.8 for IP I think section 6.9 (bidimensional) should be split into SI and IP parts and added to the above sections. I think 6.11 should be added to the above IP sections. However, the examples for particular packages are basically OK. There should be examples of SI-only net content labelling per section 11.33 as welll as examples of dual labelling per section 6.1. Permissive-metric-only doesn't seem very real in reading the document, until you FINALLY get to 11.33. In section 8.2.2 on letter height of net contains, I hope the SI predominates and the IP in parentheses are supplemental, however, that isn't clear to me from the text. ________________________________ From: "mechtly, eugene a" <mech...@illinois.edu> To: U.S. Metric Association <usma@colostate.edu> Cc: "mechtly, eugene a" <mech...@illinois.edu> Sent: Sat, March 23, 2013 4:27:37 PM Subject: [USMA:52540] NCWM-NIST Handbooks for 2013 My printed copies of the 2013 editions of Handbooks 44, 130, and 133 arrived by USPS in today's mail. Handbook 130, Uniform Laws and Regulations in the areas of legal metrology..., is of greatest interest because it contains the "Uniform Packaging and Labeling Regulation" (UPLR), a regulation similar to the federal FPLA, adopted for regulation of consumer products in most of the states (Alabama and New York being the last to adopt), that are not regulated by federal laws. At first glance I see that inch-pound units continue to be intermingled with SI units. For many years, I have tried to persuade the NCWM and NIST to cleanly separate inch-pound units from the SI so that regulations governing units outside the SI can be discarded sometime before the end of the 21st Century. Separation of i-p units from the SI remains an objective of mine. Do you support this objective? If so, help persuade the NCWM and NIST to do the separation in new editions of their printed documents. Eugene Mechtly
