John Steele's interesting question is: "I wonder if underfills as large as allowed ever occur?
To answer this question, we need some of the actual *completed* "Model Inspection Forms" as found from Page 119 through Page 126, inc. in NIST HB 133 (2014). By copy of this email, I am asking NIST for access to some of these *completed* forms for liquids (e.g. bottled water, tea, and wines), and for solids (e.g. flour, meat, and fish). Eugene Mechtly ________________________________ From: John M. Steele [jmsteele9...@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2014 5:58 PM To: mechtly, eugene a; U.S. Metric Association Subject: Re: [USMA:54383] RE: NIST Training Course for Checking the Net Amouts inside Packages However, the lot average must still validate the larger claim via what is basically a student-t test. Therefore, if standard deviation is large, the average must exceed the claim by a larger amount to "prove" the claim. I wonder if underfills as large as allowed ever occur. It seems to me the manufacturer would save product by having a more accurate fill; on average, he can exceed the claim by less if the standard deviation is less. ________________________________ From: "mechtly, eugene a" <mech...@illinois.edu> To: U.S. Metric Association <usma@colostate.edu> Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2014 6:46 PM Subject: [USMA:54383] RE: NIST Training Course for Checking the Net Amouts inside Packages The table of Maximum Allowed Variations on Page 98 of HB 133 states for "More than 426 g to 489 g" the MAV is 19.9 g! With that *large* MAV of 19.9 g, why quibble over which declaration must be verified e.g. 453 g, 453.592 g, or 454 g? The actual fill may have a negative error of 19.9 g for some of the packages in a tested lot! The entire process of "dual" labeling and selection of the one-of-two declarations which must be verified, needs revision. With the limited precision of filling machines, the MAV allowances may need to be retained. Hopefully, the FTC will find a legal way to allow Metric-Only Enforcement in its new rulings. Eugene Mechtly ________________________________ From: owner-u...@colostate.edu [owner-u...@colostate.edu] on behalf of ezra.steinb...@comcast.net [ezra.steinb...@comcast.net] Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2014 4:10 PM To: U.S. Metric Association Cc: USMA Subject: [USMA:54382] Re: NIST Training Course for Checking the Net Amouts inside Packages But I thought that the proposal was that a company could package their product and label its weight, volume, etc. only in SI and that the only enforcement would be that the actual weight, volume, etc. was equal to or greater than what was stated on the package in SI only units. ________________________________ From: "John M. Steele" <jmsteele9...@sbcglobal.net> To: "USMA" <usma@colostate.edu> Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2014 11:14:44 AM Subject: [USMA:54381] Re: NIST Training Course for Checking the Net Amouts inside Packages But that is a big "IF." If filled to 454 g and 1 lb is claimed, 454 g is the larger claim and is what must be check under the current law. However, many packages are labeled 453 g | 1 lb in which case 1 lb is the larger claim and must be checked. I don't see that checking only the smaller claim (if it is the metric claim) can be justified. Of course I agree that IF the company fills and claims such that the metric claim is the larger claim, only it needs to be checked. so it can be argued it is completely within the company's control. ________________________________ From: "mechtly, eugene a" <mech...@illinois.edu> To: U.S. Metric Association <usma@colostate.edu> Cc: USMA <usma@colostate.edu> Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2014 11:53 AM Subject: [USMA:54377] Re: NIST Training Course for Checking the Net Amouts inside Packages Ezra, Thanks for the compliment! The current FPLA requires “duality” of labeling. The NIST Handbook 133 (Page 15) requires verification of the “larger of the two declarations." Amendment of the current FPLA is necessary to make metric-only *labeling* a legal reality. However, Metric-Only *Enforcement* of amounts inside packages if already legal (in my opinion) so long as the declaration in units from the SI is the *larger* of the two declarations. Machines that fill packages are not precise to six significant digits. Hence the elaborate procedure of Maximum Allowed Variation (MAV) which allows some packages to contain less that the targeted amount. See Page 3 on MAV in NIST Handbook 133. Gene. On Sep 17, 2014, at 12:44 PM, ezra.steinb...@comcast.net<mailto:ezra.steinb...@comcast.net> wrote: 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<mailto:mech...@illinois.edu>> To: "USMA" <usma@colostate.edu<mailto:usma@colostate.edu>> Cc: "USMA" <usma@colostate.edu<mailto: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
