As the current edition of SP330 uses it, I think this falls under "and as interpreted or modified for the Unites States by the Secretary of Commerce."
--- On Fri, 3/18/11, Martin Vlietstra <[email protected]> wrote: From: Martin Vlietstra <[email protected]> Subject: [USMA:50098] RE: COMPETES ACT of 2010 To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]> Date: Friday, March 18, 2011, 6:07 PM One trusts of course that the Secretary of State will accept the 1983 definition of the metre. -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] Sent: 18 March 2011 21:50 To: U.S. Metric Association Subject: [USMA:50097] COMPETES ACT of 2010 I spent some more time scanning PL110-69 and found in Section 3570: "Metric System Defined. The metric system of measurement shall be defined as the International System of Units as established in 1960 ... and as interpreted or modified for the Unites States by the Secretary of Commerce." Missing still, are calls in the Act for actual adoption of either "SI" or the "metric system of measurement." Who will help correct this omission? At this time, the US has no Secretary of Commerce. He is on his way to China. Gene. ---- Original message ---- >Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 16:08:19 -0500 (CDT) >From: <[email protected]> >Subject: [USMA:50096] Re: Fwd: STEM and Executive Order 12770 >To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]> > >I agree, Jim, EO 12770 only implicitly promotes adoption of SI by the authority of Executive Branch entities to grant or deny funding to metrication initiatives. > >Of more recent interest is the America COMPETES re-authorization Act of 2010 >(Public Law 110-69) which is loaded with calls for STEM Education, but it does not contain even a single mention of SI according to John Steele's search by topic! This is a major deficiency in my opinion. > >However, there is considerable doubt that the US House will appropriate funds for this Act as it stands, and there is time to amend it to explicitly recommend (if not require) SI. How can we do this? Another task for Tim Williamson? > >Gene. > > >---- Original message ---- >>Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 18:34:41 -0500 >>From: "James R. Frysinger" <[email protected]> >>Subject: [USMA:50077] Re: Fwd: STEM and Executive Order 12770 >>To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]> >> >>Upon more careful reading of Ken Butcher's email, Gene, I believe he is >>right. The EO directed agencies to metric, with some wiggle room >>provided. That had to do with their internal affairs. It did not call >>upon them necessarily to metricate their customers, except to the extent >>perhaps of requiring metricated inputs required of industry by the >>various agencies. >> >>Thus, for example, the Education Department might require reports by >>schools of their classroom floor areas in square meters, but it did not >>direct or authorize the Education Department to require the teaching of >>the SI in schools. Note, of course, that mandates from the federal >>Education Department are a "quid pro quo" situation, less politely known >>as extortion. "We won't give you any Title 1 funds unless you ....". >> >>EO 12770 pertained to the operation of federal agencies. It said nothing >>about their operations upon us. >> >>Jim >> >>On 2011-03-17 1418, [email protected] wrote: >>> Here is a reply from Ken Butcher. Unfortunately, he does not seem to support my (our?) recommendation that SI should be the fundamental (if not exclusive) language of measurement instruction in STEM Education, or he, more simply, has the view that the DoC (and NIST) do not have the authority to "direct" other elements of the Executive Branch to adopt SI. What became of the "shall" duties of DoC and NIST in Executive Order 12770? EAM, >> >>-- >>James R. Frysinger >>632 Stony Point Mountain Road >>Doyle, TN 38559-3030 >> >>(C) 931.212.0267 >>(H) 931.657.3107 >>(F) 931.657.3108 >> >
