Well, it might help, but signing New York is neither necessary nor sufficient. If Senators and Representatives followed their States, a vote to amend FPLA should pass 98-2 in the Senate, and 408-27 in the House right now vs. unanimously after New York adopts. Those would be impressive majorities. I suspect neither is a valid hypothetical and that Congress is its own beast. It needs a sponsor, it needs to be taken up, and it needs some supporters with influence. (It also needs a functional Congress that can debate and decide legislation.) It will be its own fight, although the impressive majority who have adopted the UPLR should certainly be used as a supportive indicator. Waiting for New York is a bit of cop-out and USMA should be simultaneously pushing for the FPLA amendment to actually get to Congress vs sitting in a NIST office. Our trade allies should be putting pressure on Washington too.
________________________________ From: Paul Trusten <trus...@mygrande.net> To: U.S. Metric Association <usma@colostate.edu> Cc: U.S. Metric Association <usma@colostate.edu> Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2013 8:02 AM Subject: [USMA:53371] the UPLR permissive metric-only labeling amendment What you are all reading, 11.33, is the so-called "UPLR amendment" that USMA and other metricationists have been fighting for since 1999. Fifty-five of the 56 U.S. weights-and -measures jurisdictions (50 states, DC, and the five territories) have adopted this rule. The only missing one on the list is New York State. Once New York does so, then the roll call of jurisdictions on this subject will be unanimous. Once it is unanimous, there is no reason why the federal FPLA cannot be amended in like manner. NYS residents: In all of your communications with New York State regulators and legislators, please emphasize that 11.33 provides a labeling OPTION. It costs nothing! It requires nothing! New York State residents should contact the following individuals, as well as their own state assemblyman, to urge adoption of this labeling option: Governor Andrew M. Cuomo http://www.governor.ny.gov/contact/GovernorContactForm.php AND Mike Sikula, Director, New York State Bureau of Weights and Measures mike.sik...@agriculture.ny.gov tel:(518)-457-3146 New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets Bureau of Weights and Measures 10B Airline Drive Albany, New York 12235 Paul Trusten, Registered Pharmacist Vice President and Public Relations Director U.S. Metric Association, Inc. Midland, Texas, USA +1(432)528-7724 http://www.metric.org/ trus...@grandecom.net On Oct 28, 2013, at 15:56, "mechtly, eugene a" <mech...@illinois.edu> wrote: John (Steele), > > >I am reading a printed copy of the *2014 Edition* of NIST HB 130. Apparently, >the 2014 Edition is not yet posted on the Internet. > > >As you have already done, I was just about to quote Paragraph 11.33. (Added >1999), as a second opening for metric-only labeling of "Consumer Commodities", >with some 'federal exemptions to the exemption' of 11.33. The wording is >identical to that of 11.33 in the 2013 Edition. > > >I agree that your wording would be an improvement. > > > >Eugene Mechtly > > >________________________________ > >From: John M. Steele [jmsteele9...@sbcglobal.net] >Sent: Monday, October 28, 2013 2:20 PM >To: mechtly, eugene a; U.S. Metric Association >Subject: Re: [USMA:53359] Re: State by state approach and positive response. > > >Eugene, >Are you reading a 2014 draft? I can't find a link to it. > >In any case, after laying out all the Customary requirements, editions >1999-2013 excuse the Customary requirements for consumer items not covered by >Federal law with section 11.33. The only concession is that State can't trump >Federal (ie FPLA still requires dual on items it covers) > > > >11.33. Inch-Pound Units, Exemptions - Consumer Commodities. – The requirements >for statements of quantity in inch-pound units shall not apply to packages >that bear appropriate SI units. This exemption does not apply to foods, drugs, >or cosmetics or to packages subject to regulation by the FTC, meat and poultry >products subject to the Federal Meat or Poultry Products Inspection Acts, and >tobacco or tobacco products. > > >(Added 1999) > >I do consider this a ham-handed relaxation of Customary. They lay out all the >requirements and then say "never mind" at the very hand. I would MUCH prefer >to see a declaration along the lines of "Customary labeling is no longer >required, but if used, must conform with the following guidelines" at the >BEGINNING of the guidelines. > > > > >________________________________ > From: "mechtly, eugene a" <mech...@illinois.edu> >To: U.S. Metric Association <usma@colostate.edu> >Cc: "mechtly, eugene a" <mech...@illinois.edu> >Sent: Monday, October 28, 2013 2:53 PM >Subject: [USMA:53359] Re: State by state approach and positive response. > > >Edward, > >A close reading of both the Uniform Packaging and Labeling Regulation (UPLR) >controlled by the NCWM (by regulators at the state and local levels), and the >Fair Packaging and Labeling Act (FPLA) controlled at the federal level, >indicates that SI *and* "inch-pound" units are still required on nearly all "consumer packages." > >The closest statement permitting metric-only labeling is on Page 73 of NIST HB >130 (2014) on behalf of the NCWM: > >"Although non-consumer packages under this Regulation may bear SI declarations >only, this Regulation should not be construed to supersede any labeling >requirements specified in federal law." > >(Non-consumer packages are packages intended solely for industrial or >institutional use.) > >There is much new legislation needed *in all states* and at the federal level >to enable metric-only labeling! >Hawaii and Oregon are a start. > >Eugene Mechtly > >________________________________________ >From: owner-u...@colostate.edu [owner-u...@colostate.edu] on behalf of >cont...@metricpioneer.com [cont...@metricpioneer.com] >Sent: Saturday, October 26, 2013 10:26 AM >To: U.S. Metric Association >Cc: U.S. Metric Association >Subject: [USMA:53349] Re: State by state approach and positive response. > >I agree with Edward B. >David Pearl MetricPioneer.com 503-428-4917 > >P.S. Please take this survey (if you have not already) and pass it on >to others just to get their feet wet: surveymonkey.com/s/N97FXGP > >----- Message from edws...@gmail.com --------- > Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 17:06:58 -0700 > From: Edward Schlesinger <edws...@gmail.com> >Reply-To: edws...@gmail.com > Subject: [USMA:53348] State by state approach and positive response. > To: "U.S. Metric Association" <usma@colostate.edu> > > >> Hi Paul Trusten , Eugene Mechtly, and all: >> >> A national approach to complete the transition to the SI metric system may >> be ideal the Federal government still wishes to keep a voluntry approach. >> This leaves the decision to States and industries to decide when they wish >> to complete Metrication. With Hawaii and Oregon considering bills for State >> wide use of the metric system, now would be the time to plan a strategy for >> next year legisitive session. >> >> I contacted my California State Senator to support a bill similar to >> Hawaii. She responded she will file my letter for next session since no new >> bills can be introduced this session. She agreed that the metric system is >> easier for students to understand and use and keep her informed. I feel now >> is the time for members of USMA to contact their State House and Senate >> Representatives. >> >> Also I think the message to convey is the completion and how much the US >> already uses the SI metric system. We need to get away from pointing to the >> outworn " only three Liberia, Myanmar, US". >> >> -- >> Sincerely, >> Edward B. >> > > >----- End message from edws...@gmail.com ----- > > > >
