Paul, Is this same depressing situation also the case when it comes to getting New York state to adopt the UPLR provisions that allow metric-only labeling (as a prelude to nailing down Alabama to get total coverage throughout the USA and its territories and possessions)?
Once that happens, maybe we could then monitor the extent to which products governed by the UPLR have switched to metric-only labeling and then survey retailers to discover what kind of customer reaction there has been to such products. I'm also wondering what the take on all this is on the part of the principal advocates for metrication inside of Procter and Gamble, which seems to be a leader in pushing for metric labeling. Ezra ----- Original Message ----- From: "David" <[email protected]> To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2009 12:11:28 AM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific Subject: [USMA:43077] Re: Fwd: Re: Amendment to FPLA That's kind of depressing. All the email talks about is "wait, wait, wait." Haven't we waited long enough? But I have a few questions. First, why does the General Counsel have to approve the legislation? Do they have to approve all measurement-related legislation or just legislation drafted by NIST? Second, why does the legislation have to come from the Secretary of Commerce? Couldn't a member of congress sponsor the amendment? --- On Thu, 2/19/09, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote: From: [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: [USMA:43073] Fwd: Re: Amendment to FPLA To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]> Date: Thursday, February 19, 2009, 2:32 AM Gene, You are correct in your understanding of the situation. Any proposal to amend laws can only come out of Commerce at the highest levels which means we have to wait until a new Secretary of Commerce is confirmed and then wait for a new NIST Director to be appointed and confirmed. After that we have to wait for the agency to request proposed legislative action which will not occur in the foreseeable future for any number of reasons not the least of which is that NIST will receive about $500 million under the stimulus law signed this week and the new Director and everyone else will be scrambling to get that money spent. NIST also lost its General Counsel last month and that position is vacant. The GC has to review and approve all proposed legislation so we are essentially going to have to start all over again to justify the proposed legislation. Also, the Food Marketing Institute continues to maintain their opposition to the proposed FPLA amendment and they said at a meeting last fall that they would not reconsider. I doubt that Congress will consider or adopt the proposed amendment to FPLA until FMI changes its position. The USMA and its members are free to move communicate their views on metric but, given the change in administration and knowing that we will have to go through a long review and approval process up the chain of command I cannot give you any assurances of if or when the FPLA proposed ammendment might be introduced. Sorry that I cannot provide a more positive outlook but the economy and other issues of national importance are dominating Congress's attention as well as that of the Executive Branch. Ken Butcher Quoting [email protected]: > Dear Ken, > > Some members of the USMA e-mail forum want to begin an intensive campaign to persuade members of Congress to support the NIST draft Amendment to the FPLA. > > I expressed my opinion that NIST is not likely to push the Amendment until the new Secretary of Commerce is confirmed. > > Assuming that that is true, how soon after confirmation does NIST (and the DoC) hope to submit the Amendment to Congress? > > What is the time line for advancing the Amendment? > > Who in the Congress are present sponsors of the Amendment? > > When will public advocacy of the Amendment to members of Congress be most effective? > > Sincerely, > > Eugene (Gene) Mechtly > > > >
