Deprecation of US Survey Foot

NGS is soliciting public comments regarding the deprecation of the US Survey Foot in favor of the International Foot. Comments can be given here:

This is the comment I submitted (I submitted this as a surveyor and business owner and not under any capacity with TSPS):

There are several issues which perplex me regarding the deprecation of the US Survey Foot.

1. As noted in the published document, 40 states currently use the US Survey Foot. Deprecating the US Survey Foot in favor of the International Foot disproportionately disrupts the longstanding norms for the majority of states, the majority of the land area and the majority of the population of the US.

2. Using the name "foot" for the "international foot" will add tremendous confusion to users. A significant number of users already refer to their flavor of foot as "foot". Using a new definition of foot which will very likely be new (see note 1 above - the international foot will be different for the vast majority of the population), and referring to it as "foot" will not provide any warning to users that the new foot is different from the foot they've used exclusively for many years.

3. Software developers will need to allow users to select the appropriate type of foot to be used with a given coordinate system, except for with 2022 where the choices will need to be limited to meters and "foot".

I understand and appreciate the Constitutional authority the federal government has to establish weights and measures. I understand and appreciate the difficulties that two definitions of the foot have on the public. I understand and appreciate that with the many changes TRF 2022 and SPCS2022 will bring that now is an appropriate time to make significant changes.

With that said:
A. Perhaps linear dimensions in geodesy from the federal government should only be communicated in meters and leave it to users to convert to US Survey Foot or International Foot (or chains, varas, poles, perches, smoots, etc.) as appropriate.

B. If it is deemed absolutely necessary to select a single definition of foot in order to communicate linear dimensions in geodesy from the federal government, then use the US Survey Foot rather than the International Foot. I also find it odd, that the most disruptive option for the majority of users is the one being selected.  The US is the only developed nation in the world using the foot, so why be concerned with an international definition of the foot.

C. If it is deemed absolutely necessary to select the International Foot to communicate linear dimensions in geodesy from the federal government, then continue to refer to it as the International Foot. Using ambiguously named "foot" will only provide more opportunity for confusion during upheaval that will already be fraught with confusion.