Mark
----- Original Message -----
From: "mechtly, eugene a" <[email protected]>
Date: Thursday, September 19, 2013 2:24 pm
Subject: [USMA:53281] RE: Almost Unanimous Metric-Only Labeling
To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]>
Cc: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Mark (Henschel),
>
>
>
> After reading the posting by Elizabeth Gentry of NIST, I concluded that it is New York State, not North Dakota, that is the final state that remains to permit metric-only labeling of products under state jurisdiction, products that are not regulated by
> the FPLA.
>
>
>
> North Dakota, apparently, accepts metric-only labeling by its individual state laws, state regulations, or state policies,
> even though North Dakota has not formally adopted the UPLR, as have most other states.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> After reading the posting by Elizabeth Gentry of NIST, I concluded that it is New York State, not North Dakota, that is the final state that remains to permit metric-only labeling of products under state jurisdiction, products that are not regulated by
> the FPLA.
>
>
>
> North Dakota, apparently, accepts metric-only labeling by its individual state laws, state regulations, or state policies,
> even though North Dakota has not formally adopted the UPLR, as have most other states.
>
>
>
>
Gene
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
From: Henschel Mark [[email protected]]
>
> Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 1:07 PM
>
> To: mechtly, eugene a
>
> Cc: U.S. Metric Association; U.S. Metric Accociation; mechtly, eugene a
>
> Subject: Re: [USMA:53275] Almost Unanimous Metric-Only Labeling
>
>
>
>
>
> Gene:
>
> I thought it was North Dakota, right?
>
>
>
> Mark
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: "mechtly, eugene a" <[email protected]>
>
> Date: Thursday, September 19, 2013 11:50 am
>
> Subject: [USMA:53275] Almost Unanimous Metric-Only Labeling
>
> To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]>
>
> Cc: "U.S. Metric Accociation" <[email protected]>, "mechtly, eugene a" <[email protected]>
>
>
>
> > Forty Nine states of the United States of America presently
>
> > permit Metric-Only Labeling of products which are entirely under
>
> > state jurisdiction, but not under the jurisdiction of the
>
> > federal Fair Packaging and Labeling Act (FPLA), by virtue of
>
> > individual state laws, regulations, or policies, if not by
>
> > formal adoption of the NCWM-NIST Uniform Packaging and Labeling
>
> > Regulation (UPLR).
>
> >
>
> > The only remaining exception is the State of New York which
>
> > continues to require dual-unit labeling.
>
> >
>
> > Are the above two statements accurate?
>
> >
>
> > Eugene Mechtly
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 1:07 PM
>
> To: mechtly, eugene a
>
> Cc: U.S. Metric Association; U.S. Metric Accociation; mechtly, eugene a
>
> Subject: Re: [USMA:53275] Almost Unanimous Metric-Only Labeling
>
>
>
>
>
> Gene:
>
> I thought it was North Dakota, right?
>
>
>
> Mark
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: "mechtly, eugene a" <[email protected]>
>
> Date: Thursday, September 19, 2013 11:50 am
>
> Subject: [USMA:53275] Almost Unanimous Metric-Only Labeling
>
> To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]>
>
> Cc: "U.S. Metric Accociation" <[email protected]>, "mechtly, eugene a" <[email protected]>
>
>
>
> > Forty Nine states of the United States of America presently
>
> > permit Metric-Only Labeling of products which are entirely under
>
> > state jurisdiction, but not under the jurisdiction of the
>
> > federal Fair Packaging and Labeling Act (FPLA), by virtue of
>
> > individual state laws, regulations, or policies, if not by
>
> > formal adoption of the NCWM-NIST Uniform Packaging and Labeling
>
> > Regulation (UPLR).
>
> >
>
> > The only remaining exception is the State of New York which
>
> > continues to require dual-unit labeling.
>
> >
>
> > Are the above two statements accurate?
>
> >
>
> > Eugene Mechtly
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
