I have to express an alternate viewpoint. If you compare the lists of what products are regulated under FPLA vs under UPLR (assuming a State has adopted it), the items under UPLR are the "odds and ends." The metric-only FPLA has sat, essentially unchanged and certainly unimplemented since 2002, having never been brought to Congress for an up-or-down vote. If the agreement of 48 of the 50 States is not a sufficient majority to satisfy Congress, then probably 50/50 isn't either.
If the metric-only FPLA is not passed, I don't think an metric-only UPLR would be much used, even if all 50 States agreed. I think the focus really needs to be Federal passage of the metric-only FPLA. Once it passes, the backwardness of the holdout States will be pretty clear. Until it passes, their failure to approve metric-only UPLR is of no consequence. ________________________________ From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> To: U.S. Metric Association <[email protected]> Sent: Sun, May 9, 2010 9:19:03 PM Subject: [USMA:47353] Re: Dental floss ready for metric only labeling 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
