Jim, Well, the situation with respect to New York sounds encouraging! Once they adopt the permissive metric-only labeling provision, perhaps the right folks in Alabama can be persuaded to join all the other States to create a uniform distribution zone (i.e. the entire country!) for such labels, which is certainly in the best interest of business.
And your speculation about why Alabama reverted appears quite sound to me. Let's hope the pressure from the notion that Alabama would be hindering business by remaining the "lone hold-out" (after New York falls into line) will be enough to neutralize the negative influence of that unnamed old codger or well-funded interest group. -- Ezra ----- Original Message ----- From: "James R. Frysinger" <[email protected]> To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, May 9, 2010 5:52:30 PM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific Subject: [USMA:47352] Re: Dental floss ready for metric only labeling I have a report from NIST to IEEE/SCC 14 that discusses this briefly. It says that NIST is still encouraging Alabama and New York to adopt the permissive metric-only labeling provision. Also, that NY is in the long regulatory process of adopting it. Thus, NY at least seems to be moving forward. What's ironic is that Alabama had been one of the early states to adopt it and then it reverted! Usually that's a sign of an old codger with a lot of influence or a well-funded interest raising dust. Jim [email protected] wrote: .... > This also makes me wonder if there are any updates to the situation in > Alabama and New York regarding the UPLR and permission to use > metric-only labeling on the products that it regulates. Anyone have any > info on that front? > > -- Ezra -- James R. Frysinger 632 Stony Point Mountain Road Doyle, TN 38559-3030 (C) 931.212.0267 (H) 931.657.3107 (F) 931.657.3108
