I forwarded the original message below to: <[email protected]>
It did not bounce. ---- Original message ---- >Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 13:30:58 -0500 (CDT) >From: <[email protected]> >Subject: [USMA:45092] Re: Directive 2009/3/EC >To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]> >Cc: [email protected], [email protected] > > >The original message below was addressed only to Michelle Oneil and to Ann Ngo >of the ITA; copies to USMA and to NIST. >The mail to Michelle bounced. The mail to Ann was, apparently, received at >the ITA. What is Michelle's correct e-mail address? Is >[email protected] blocked? > >Gene Mechtly > >---- Original message ---- >>Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 13:12:28 -0500 (CDT) >>From: <[email protected]> >>Subject: [USMA:45091] Directive 2009/3/EC >>To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]> >>Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] >> >>Directive 2009/3/EC of the European Union (published May 7) authorizes two >>types of units of measurement for use after 2010 January 1 throughout the EU; >>"legal units" and supplementary indications." >> >>The "legal units" are only those authorized in the Annex of Directive >>80/181/EEC (as amended May 7). The "legal units" are exclusively units >>obtained from the International System of Units (SI). >> >>"Supplementary indications" are by units outside the SI such as fluid ounce, >>pint, quart, and gallon (by either the US or the UK definitions, with >>continued exemption for local trade of the UK pint). The "supplementary >>indications" are to have no legal standing for commerce and trade throughout >>the European Union after 2010 January 1. >> >>The "supplementary indications" may be no more prominent than the "legal >>units" on labels and in documentation. >> >>The DoC-ITA Press Release of May 15 fails to disclose these facts. >> >>Even after revisions of laws of Member States of the EU in response to >>Directive 2009/3/EC to permit continued use of "supplementary indications" >>after 2009 December 31, the possibility remains that exports from the US can >>be rejected because "legal units" are used less prominently than >>"supplementary indications" on labels and in documentation, or "supplementary >>indications" fail to distinguish non-SI units as by the US or by the UK >>definitions. Exporters must be made aware of these possibilities of >>rejections. >> >>Amendment of the FPLA to *permit* metric-only labeling will assist in >>avoidance of such rejections. >> >>My draft of FPLA 2010 would move labeling of consumer commodities from 19th >>to 21st Century standards of measurement. Please open the attachment. >> >>Eugene A. Mechtly, Retiree >>Advocate of SI and Consumer Protection >> >>________________ >>FPLA-4-30.pdf (292k bytes) >
