For those who don't have a version of Word that can handle .docx file type, here is a link to the online version: http://www.ita.doc.gov/press/press_releases/2009/EULabeling_051509.asp It is interesting that no mention is made of the trade barrier the US imposes on the rest of the world by being the only country in the world that requires dual labeling in Customary in addition to metric. Also no mention is made of the business "benefit" or irritating your customer by using a measurement system they don't use and don't like. Way to increase exports. DoC should at least permit metric-only and let the market decide.
--- On Fri, 5/15/09, James R. Frysinger <[email protected]> wrote: From: James R. Frysinger <[email protected]> Subject: [USMA:45073] ITA/DOC Press Release To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected], "Butcher, Kenneth S." <[email protected]>, "Gentry, Elizabeth" <[email protected]>, [email protected], "James Frysinger" <[email protected]> Date: Friday, May 15, 2009, 2:56 PM The International Trade Administration (ITA) of the Department of Commerce (DOC) has just issued a press release on the rule published on May 07 in the Journal of the European Union regarding use of non-metric units on items sold in the EU. See the attached copy. The press release quotes Michelle O’Neill, Acting Under Secretary for International Trade as saying, "U.S. small and medium manufacturers benefit most from this resolution as the costs to provide metric only labeling is significant." Obviously what forces elimination of non-metric labeling to be expensive for U.S. manufacturers is the FPLA, which has yet to be amended to permit metric-only labeling. With that amendment, and with 48 of 50 states already now permitting metric-only labeling of retail goods under their purview, manufacturers could actually reduce costs while providing cleaner and clearer package markings, should they decide to drop non-metric markings on their products. I hope that the ITA/DOC will work equally hard in supporting the effort by NIST to get this FPLA amendment passed as they did to get EU Directive 80/181/EC amended! This would be welcomed by every other country in the world, not just those within the EU. It would also be welcomed by a sizable number of U.S. citizens and businesses. It concerns me that this press release points out that the U.S. "can continue its efforts to go metric according to its own timeline" now that this pressure on us to move forward has been removed. And it causes me to wonder how a permissive -- not mandatory -- metric-only labeling provision in the FPLA could be held up as a threat to U.S. businesses by the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM). In my opinion, this paper tiger put up by the NAM is impinging on the practice of free trade in the U.S. The first quote in the above paragraph also ignores the Measurement Law in Japan and laws in Australia that still require metric-only labeling. Many, many industrial organizations in the U.S. are very much pro-metric -- for instance, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), the American Welding Society (AWS), and so forth. NIST's public meetings on the proposed FPLA amendment list many more. Jim Frysinger Chair, IEEE SCC 14 member AWS A-1 Committee -- James R. Frysinger 632 Stony Point Mountain Road Doyle, TN 38559-3030 (C) 931.212.0267 (H) 931.657.3107 (F) 931.657.3108
