Hmm. One could push the issue in those states by creating metric-only labels for the entire country and sending the product to all states, including them. Then wait for the yelling. Then point out how stupid the yelling makes that state look, and would it please get on with the program, already.
cm -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Mighty Chimp Sent: Saturday, December 06, 2003 13:43 To: U.S. Metric Association Subject: [USMA:27776] RE: UPLR We are not talking about metric being legal for general use, but metric only labelling on products sold in the market place. It is only legal for a label to contain a metric only contents declaration in those states that have automatically adopted the UPLR. Those that didn't or don't plan to, have to wait for the FPLA to be amended. This should never be. Congress should never be involved in contents of packaging labels. That should be the decision of the UPLR authorities. If the majority of states adopt the UPLR, then it should be binding in all states and territories. This situation allows the minority of states that don't adopt the UPLR to hold the majority hostage. No company is going to have two sets of labels for the US market. One set of metric only for the states that allow metric only labels and a second dual set for those that don't. Therefore these companies are at the mercy of the minority that don't automatically adopt the UPLR. The question then that I have for Jim and those who might know, is what are the chances of getting the minority states to adapt the UPLR as it is? Would that be simpler then waiting for the FPLA to be amended? Euric ----- Original Message ----- From: "Phil Chernack" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, 2003-12-05 10:01 Subject: [USMA:27771] RE: UPLR > Not withstanding the map below, you need to understand that all states > pretty much have the same law permitting the use of customary and metric > units. Just because a state did not adopt the UPLR does not mean the state > does not permit metric only labelling. Examples: > > New Jersey Statutes > Title 51 Standard Weights and Measures > 51:1-3. Use of both systems > The inch-pound system of weights and measures in customary use in the > United States and the metric system or System International (SI) of weights > and measures are jointly recognized, and one or the other, or both, of these > systems shall be used for all purposes in this State. The definitions of > basic units of weight and measure, the tables of weights and measures , and > the weights and measures equivalents, as published by the National Bureau of > Standards, are recognized and shall govern weighing and measuring equipment > and transactions in this State. It is the intent of the Legislature that > nothing in this section shall mandate the exclusive use of SI; however, its > use within this State is encouraged. > > > Pennsylvania > Chapter 41 Weights and Measures > 4105. Systems of weights and measures. > The system of weights and measures in customary use in the United States and > the metric system of weights and measures are jointly recognized, and one or > both of these systems shall be used for all commercial purposes in this > Commonwealth. The definitions of basic units of weight and measure, the > tables of weight and measure and weights and measures equivalents as > published by the National Institute of Standards and Technology are > recognized and shall govern weighing and measuring equipment and > transactions within this Commonwealth. > > New York > § 177. Authorized systems of weights and measures; basic units. 1. The > metric system of weights and measures and the system of weights and > measures in customary use in the United States are jointly recognized, > and either system shall be used for all commercial purposes within the > state. However, the International Metric System ("SI"), as defined in > the Metric Conversion Act of nineteen hundred seventy-five (Public Law > 94-168) and as such definition may hereafter be amended, is hereby > adopted as the preferred system within the state. > 2. The definitions of basic units of weight and measure, the tables of > weight and measure, and weights and measures equivalents as published by > the national bureau of standards or its successor organization, the > national institute of standards and technology, of the United States > department of commerce are recognized and shall govern weighing and > measuring equipment and transactions in the state. > > > As I stated above, all states have such clauses in their weights and > measures statues, thus making the metric system totally legal for any > purpose. > > Nuff said. > > Phil > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of > Mighty Chimp > Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 11:56 PM > To: U.S. Metric Association > Subject: [USMA:27769] UPLR > > > > Figure 1. States that allow metric-only labelling (2002-11-01) > > > > > > > I found this map in an NIST document which can be accessed by clicking on > this link. It is a PDF file: > > http://www.ts.nist.gov/ts/htdocs/200/202/forum/forumreport.pdf > > The map can be found on page 12. From it we can see that as of last > November, the states in yellow are the only ones that have to wait for the > FPLA to be amended. The rest, the majority) already permit metric only > labelling. If these few states would just adopt the UPLR, there would be no > need to worry about the FPLA. It is too bad that if a majority of states > accept the UPLR, it should be valid in all. The present situation legally > allows one state to hold the other 49 hostage. > > Euric > >
