[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > Retail goods fall into three general categories when it comes to
> > labeling requirements: federally controlled, state controlled, and
> > uncontrolled.
>
> Thanks for that explanation. It helps a lot.
>
> I hope that all those authorities manage to all agree on allow
> metric-only. Otherwise the UPLR is not very 'uniform'.
Well, it is "uniform" in the sense that without it, we would have over
50 totally unrelated sets of state statutes and regulations. The UPLR
was written by the cooperative and self-administered organization of
states' weights and measures officers, the NCWM -- i.e., a professional
association or, to a very great extent, a voluntary standards
organization. That organization's purpose is to provide some sense of
uniformity and also to provide model regulations which states may use as
is or at least as a starting point.
The federal government has stepped in with the FPLA for goods that it
deemed important in the arena of interstate commerce or as having
overriding concerns relating to public safety.
Indeed, the recent UPLR amendment, the movement of a significant number
of states in this direciton, and the planned ammendment to the FPLA are
signs of our continuing, albeit slow and bottom-up approach to
metrication. Continued pressure from outside the U.S. by Australia,
Japan, South Korea, the OAS, and the EU will help us convince
legislators to continue that movement and hopefully to pick up the pace.
It's going to be a coin-toss I fear when the FPLA ammendment reaches
Congress. Will the legislators recognize the big (i.e. international
trade) picture sufficiently to deafen their ears to luddites in their
constituencies? As I stated before, corporate lobbying is important in
this matter as well.
Jim
--
Metric Methods(SM) "Don't be late to metricate!"
James R. Frysinger, CAMS http://www.metricmethods.com/
10 Captiva Row e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Charleston, SC 29407 phone/FAX: 843.225.6789
