16 CFR Parts 500-503: Rules, Regulations, Statements of General Policy or Interpretation and Exemptions Under the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act ("FPLA" or "Act") #00015

Submission Number:
Hank Picken
Beaumont Products, Inc.
Initiative Name:
16 CFR Parts 500-503: Rules, Regulations, Statements of General Policy or Interpretation and Exemptions Under the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act ("FPLA" or "Act")
Matter Number:


FPLA Rules, 16 CFR Parts 500 – 503, project No. R411015 Beaumont Products supports the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act, 16 CFR, Paragraph 500.7, Net Quantity of Contents, Methods of Expression, which states: “…. The net quantity of contents statement shall be in terms of fluid measure if the commodity is liquid, or in terms of weight or mass if the commodity is solid …”However, Beaumont takes exception to NIST Handbook 130, 2013, Section 10.3, “Aerosols and Similar Pressurized Containers” allowing Aerosols, although more liquid than solid, to declare contents in terms of weight, being applied to our non-aerosol bag-on-valve (BOV) products. Specifically, NIST Handbook 130, 2013, Section 10.3 states: “The declaration of quantity on an aerosol package and in a similar pressurized package shall disclose the net quantity of the commodity (including propellant), in terms of weight, that will be expelled when the instructions for use as shown on the container are followed.”NIST Handbook 130, 2013, Section 10.3 was granted because it is nearly impossible to capture and measure the dispensed liquid from an aerosol. This regulation allows for aerosol content to be easily checked and it allows the Aerosol industry to declare the weight of the gas-propellant as part of the content of the Aerosol package. With our BOV product, 100% of the dispensed product is liquid. The BOV propellant (pressurized ambient air) remains in the container even after the liquid product is dispensed, so the weight of the propellant in a BOV would not be included in the weight declaration of contents per NIST Handbook 130, 2013, Section 10.3. Further, due to the relative ease of measuring the liquid dispensed from our BOV, we do not need, nor want the exemption and would prefer to declare our contents in fluid ounces to best communicate our products’ contents to consumers. To declare our content in terms of weight would restrain us from making truthful and non-deceptive comparisons of the consumer benefits of a BOV vs. an Aerosol. In addition, the weight designation requirement would give Aerosols an unfair advantage because they include the weight of the gas/propellant in their contents. In an Aerosol, the propellant content is normally approximately 4-10% of the declared weight of a “standard” water-based aerosol and up to 33% of a “standard” solvent-based aerosol’s declared weight (it can be as high as 99.5% in some applications). In addition, forcing a weight declaration on BOVs will put us at a disadvantage with other types of competitive liquid dispensing devices that use liquid declarations, such as bottles using pump sprayers. Although both products could be filled with the same liquid and dispense the same amount of that liquid, consumers will be confused by the ‘weight versus liquid fill’ nomenclature. For products with low specific gravities, there will appear to be an extreme disparity between the number of weight ounces versus fluid ounces. This will lead the consumer to falsely believe that they are getting less product for their money on a BOV labeled in terms of weight ounces. It should be noted that we have been labeling our non-aerosol BOV containers with Liquid Declarations for over 20 years, and have never received a single consumer complaint about Declared Content Label copy. In conclusion, since the content of our BOV can easily be measured as a dispensed liquid, there is no need, nor consumer benefit, to apply the NIST Handbook 130, 2013, Section 10.3 to our BOV products.