Carol, 1. Where can we read the NIST recommendation to the FTC to allow the option of metric-only labeling?
2. Where can we read the NCWM recommendation to the FTC to allow the option of metric-only labeling? 3. What are the Internet links (URLs) to these recommendations? Eugene Mechtly. On Jun 27, 2014, at 1:58 PM, Hockert, Carol <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear Mr. Mechtly, > > While we cannot predict when changes to the FPLA law might occur, we are > hopeful that the FTC will consider our recommendation and the recommendation > of the NCWM to allow the option of metric only labeling during their current > review of the regulations. > > Best regards, > > Carol > > -----Original Message----- > From: mechtly, eugene a [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Friday, June 27, 2014 2:00 PM > To: Hockert, Carol; Crown, Linda D. > Cc: Butcher, Kenneth S.; Warfield, Lisa; [email protected]; Gentry, Elizabeth > Subject: RE: Legal Metrology Connection, Volume 5 Issue 5 > > Carol, > > Granted, the current FPLA does not require that declarations of net amounts > inside packages must be stated *first* in units of measurement from the SI, > and that supplementary indications, if any, "may" be stated in second place > in units from outside the SI. > > However, the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988 does, in fact, > designate SI as the *preferred* system of units of measurement for trade and > commerce in the United States! > > The word "preferred" means "in first place" "second to none". > > Therefore, the current FPLA must be interpreted to harmonize with the the Act > of 1988, placing SI Declarations in *first* place. > > Still better would be passage of the amended FPLA to permit SI-Only labels on > consumer commodities, as they are already permitted by State authorities for > items not burdened by the duality of the current FPLA? This would assist > export trade! > > When do you anticipate that SI-Only labels will be legally accepted under > federal legislation? > > > Eugene Mechtly > > ________________________________________ > From: Hockert, Carol [[email protected]] > Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2014 9:52 AM > To: mechtly, eugene a; Crown, Linda D. > Cc: Butcher, Kenneth S.; Warfield, Lisa; [email protected]; Gentry, Elizabeth > Subject: RE: Legal Metrology Connection, Volume 5 Issue 5 > > Dear Mr. Mechtley, > > While the metric system is preferred under the Metric Conversion Act, it is > the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act (FPLA) that governs most packages and > that law is neutral on the question of which unit must be primary. Also, it > is the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Food and Drug Administration > (FDA) that have responsibility for interpreting FPLA. Neither agency has > interpreted FPLA as requiring or expressing any preference for which units > are to be shown in the primary position. That decision is left to the > packager. For these reasons, NIST cannot express any preference for which > units must appear in the primary position in its training and technical > advice to packagers. > > The intent of the Metric Conversion Act was to increase the use of the metric > system. One step towards that goal was achieved in 1992 when the FPLA was > amended to include the use of the metric units on most packages (e.g., dual > units). NIST proposes the further expansion of metric use by offering packers > the option to use either dual units or metric units alone on package labels > in the future > (http://www.nist.gov/pml/wmd/metric/upload/Voluntary-Metric-Labeling-Dec2009.pdf). > > With regard to unit terminology in the NIST Handbooks, we are in the process > of editorially changing all references to "inch-pound" so that in all > instances these units will be referred to as "U.S. Customary". > > With best regards, > > Carol Hockert > > > -----Original Message----- > From: mechtly, eugene a [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2014 5:29 PM > To: Crown, Linda D. > Cc: Butcher, Kenneth S.; Hockert, Carol; Warfield, Lisa; [email protected] > Subject: RE: Legal Metrology Connection, Volume 5 Issue 5 > > Linda, > > Thank you for your reply to my two recent questions. > > Although NIST does not have the authority to directly regulate the labeling > and sale of consumer commodities, NIST is the *trainer* of State. Regional, > and Local Officials who do have the authority to remove products from sale if > they do not meet requirements of the FPLA, e.g. requirements for both > declarations. by SI Units , and by units from outside the SI. > > Since SI is *preferred* by Federal Laws, 94-168 of1975,100-418 of 1988, and > 110-69 of 2007, there is sufficient "justification" to assure that SI is > granted "first place" in the packaging and labeling instruction courses that > NIST offers to State and Local Regulators. > > Is this "first place" status of SI being implemented by all NIST Instructors? > > SI Units, and units from outside the SI *are not of equal status* under the > federal laws cited above! > > Note that the NCWN can not even decide what to call units from outside the > SI; "U.S. customary" or "inch-pound" units? > > > Eugene Mechtly > > > ________________________________________ > From: Crown, Linda D. [[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2014 12:48 PM > To: mechtly, eugene a > Cc: Butcher, Kenneth S.; Hockert, Carol; Warfield, Lisa; [email protected] > Subject: RE: Legal Metrology Connection, Volume 5 Issue 5 > > Dear Mr. Mechtly, > > Thank you for your query and the answers to your questions follow. > > In response to your question in 1: > > Be advised that NIST does not have any regulatory authority. Regulatory > responsibility for packaging and labeling is the responsibility of the > States, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Federal Trade Commission > (FTC), the U.S. Department of Agriculture and other federal agencies. When > the SI revisions to the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act (FPLA) were > incorporated into regulations in the early 1990s, the suggestion of requiring > that SI units be displayed first (i.e., primary position) in a quantity > declaration was considered. The proposal was not adopted for several reasons > including (1) the FPLA itself did not specify which units had to be in the > primary position in the quantity declaration, and (2) at the time many > packagers provided both customary and SI units on packages with the SI in the > secondary position and there was no justifiable reason to render those > packages unacceptable under FPLA. > > In response to your question in 2: > > The Uniform Packaging and Labeling Regulations adopted by the National > Conference on Weights and Measures in 1993 and which is enforced by State and > Local Weights and Measures Officials was developed to specifically promote > the use of the SI. The method of displaying the quantity of contents you > mentioned is already permitted under Section 6.3.1 "Use of Net Mass or Net > Weight" which is shown below. > > 6.3.1. Use of "Net Mass" or "Net Weight." - A quantity declaration may stand > alone [e.g., "200 g (7 oz)" or "1 lb (453 g)"] or may include the term "net > mass" or "net weight" either preceding or following the declaration. The > term "net" by itself may be used on food labels. However, the quantity of > contents shall always declare the net quantity of contents even when such > terms are not used. > (Amended 1993) > > Have a wonderful day. > > Linda > > Linda Crown > Weights and Measures Coordinator > Publications > National Institute of Standards and Technology > 100 Bureau Drive, M/S 2600 > Bldg. 222, Room B250 > Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2600 > E-mail: [email protected] > Phone: (301) 975-3998 > Fax: (301) 975-8091 > URL: http://www.nist.gov/pml/wmd/ > > > -----Original Message----- > From: mechtly, eugene a [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Monday, June 23, 2014 12:54 PM > To: Crown, Linda D.; Butcher, Kenneth S. > Cc: Warfield, Lisa; Hockert, Carol; U.S. Metric Accociation > Subject: Legal Metrology Connection, Volume 5 Issue 5 > > I completed a reading of *Legal Metrology Connection* 5-5, (aka W&M > Connection).and ask the following questions: > > 1. In view of the *fact*, that three federal laws declare that units of > measurement from the International System of Units (SI) are preferred for > trade and commerce in the Unites State, > > NIST has ample authority to *require* that declarations of net amounts inside > packages and containers be expressed In *first place* in Units from the SI, > and only in second place in units from outside the SI, as required by the > current FPLA, even though the NCWM has not yet arrived at this > forward-looking requirement. > > 2. Why does NIST not promote, if not require, declarations of amount simply > by a number and the SI Unit, with "NET" or "NET CONTENTS" or "NET AMOUNT" as > *optional* modifiers? > > Eugene Mechtly > > ________________________________________ > From: Linda Crown [[email protected]] > Sent: Friday, June 20, 2014 12:11 AM > To: mechtly, eugene a > Subject: Weights and Measures Connection, Volume 5 Issue 5 > > Dear Readers, > > In this edition of the "Weights and Measures Connection," we introduce a new > member of the Office of Weights and Measures team, Mr. Clark Cooney. Some of > you may already know Clark; however, we have provided a brief introduction > for those who do not. There is also guidance on the use of "Principal > Display Panels on Random Packages" and an update on an educational outreach > effort conducted at a nearby middle school. > > Please remember to check out the updated "Calendar" to see what OWM is > offering in the training area as well as scheduled meetings. > > Online access is available to the newsletter at > http://www.nist.gov/pml/wmd/pubs/upload/WMConnections.pdf, and for your > convenience an Acrobat (.pdf) copy is attached. > > As always, we would be happy to get your feedback and ideas for future > articles. > > Happy reading, > > Linda > Editor, "Weights and Measures Connection" > [email protected] > (301) 975-3998
