Gene, I understand your view that the NCWM issues with USC seem futile and useless. I would like to express a different view.
I have been concerned the FTC will simply ignore the comments and take a do-nothing position, and repeat the whole exercise in ten years. I believe the concerns raised by NCWM take "do-nothing" off the table, by raising some valid objections on the USC side of dual. Once they have "do something," maybe permissive-metric-only becomes more viable. If the USC became optional or supplemental, perhaps it is not necessary to address all the USC concerns. On Thursday, May 22, 2014 11:00 PM, "mechtly, eugene a" <[email protected]> wrote: > > >Jim (Frysinger), > >I have just completed a first reading of the comments to the FTC by Chris >Guay, by you, and by Paul Trusten. All of us and John Steele give the FTC >compelling reasons for *permissive* metric-only labeling of net amounts inside >packages and containers of consumer commodities; practiced by some packagers >even before metric-only labeling is formally made legal by an Amended FPLA, >and without complaints from consumers! Thanks for calling attention to your >comments. > >Chris briefly mentions Unit Pricing without much discussion. As you know, a >personal objective of mine is to establish *only SI units in the denominators >of Unit Price* in a "Best Practice Guide for Unit Pricing” so that mental >arithmetic can result in value comparisons by consumers without the aid of a >hand-held calculator. > >Chris also happens (for good reason) to be a member of the NIST Working Group >on Unit Pricing. >Several positions of the NCWM, stated by Chris, that I have doubts about are a >request for a return to the term “U.S. Customary” rather than the present term >“inch-pound” for the name of units outside the SI, and I have doubts about >NCWM's futile recommendations attempting to perfect or improve the >use of those units outside the SI. (wasted time and effort as metric-only >momentum increases!) > >Gene Mechtly. > > >On May 22, 2014, at 6:25 PM, James <[email protected]> wrote: > >> The FTC has published the public's comments on the FTC NMPR and RPC >> regarding the FPLA at >> http://www.ftc.gov/policy/public-comments/initiative-554 >> >> A total of 15 responses are listed. I know that there were a few more than >> that; it appears that at least 23 responses were submitted. Those not posted >> might have been off-topic or perhaps were null postings that nonetheless >> received automatic serialized receipts. >> >> Many of the responses do not address permissive metric-only labeling. A few >> of the responses were submitted by USMA members. The NCWM posted a 24 page >> response over the signature of Chris Guay! It covers a wide variety of >> topics (and brilliantly, too!) including metric-only labeling and many other >> salient points. The IEEE submission, over my signature as Chair of >> IEEE/SCC14, addresses only permissive metric-only labeling. >> >> Enjoy reading the responses! Now all that remains is to see what comes of >> this exercise. >> >> Jim Frysinger >> Chair, IEEE/SCC14 >> >> -- >> James R. Frysinger >> 632 Stoney Point Mountain Road >> Doyle TN 38559-3030 >> >> (C) 931.212.0267 >> (H) 931.657.3107 >> (F) 931.657.3108 >> > > > >
