Edward, Thanks for sending a copy of the Hawaii Bill.
I must say that it is not acceptable as written! Note that it prescribes Customary units and SI units as though they are of equal merit. That is the main objection to the present FPLA, requiring inch-pound units in duality with SI units! Eugene ________________________________ From: Edward Schlesinger [[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2013 1:50 PM To: mechtly, eugene a Subject: Re: [USMA:53359] Re: State by state approach and positive response. Hi Eugene, I do not know if the FPLA is or will be adressed. These bills are still in review process to be taken up when their states begin in 2014. I am enclosing the Hawaii bill cannot find Oregon. On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 8:15 AM, mechtly, eugene a <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Edward, As you know, an obstacle to exclusively pro-metric legislation by each state is the federal FPLA which requires *dual unit* labeling on many if not most consumer packages. Hence, the need for an amendment of the FPLA to permit metric-only labeling. How do the drafts of Bills in Hawaii and Oregon avoid this problem? Please forward verbatim drafts of these two Bills, if they are available. Eugene ________________________________ From: Edward Schlesinger [[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>] Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2013 12:25 AM To: mechtly, eugene a Subject: Re: [USMA:53359] Re: State by state approach and positive response. Hi Eugene: Regarding the introduced Bills in Hawaii and Oregon for state wide use, I know under Federal Regulations dual labeling would continue until the US transitions to SI metric. However, my thinking is as a group of metric supporters, we can push for other states to adopt similar bills like Hawaii and Oregon begginning in 2014 legisative year. I feel hopeful since I received a supportive response from my California 18 th district senate representive after writing to her about HI HB 36 and encouraging her to adopt a simular one. I think each state would need a bill worded differently, however, the reasons would be trade issues and student ability to learn subject material easier if SI was used alone. I think my next step is to give her some sort of supportive materials like "Metrication in Australia". On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 11:53 AM, mechtly, eugene a <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Edward, A close reading of both the Uniform Packaging and Labeling Regulation (UPLR) controlled by the NCWM (by regulators at the state and local levels), and the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act (FPLA) controlled at the federal level, indicates that SI *and* "inch-pound" units are still required on nearly all "consumer packages." The closest statement permitting metric-only labeling is on Page 73 of NIST HB 130 (2014) on behalf of the NCWM: "Although non-consumer packages under this Regulation may bear SI declarations only, this Regulation should not be construed to supersede any labeling requirements specified in federal law." (Non-consumer packages are packages intended solely for industrial or institutional use.) There is much new legislation needed *in all states* and at the federal level to enable metric-only labeling! Hawaii and Oregon are a start. Eugene Mechtly ________________________________________ From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> [[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>] on behalf of [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> [[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>] Sent: Saturday, October 26, 2013 10:26 AM To: U.S. Metric Association Cc: U.S. Metric Association Subject: [USMA:53349] Re: State by state approach and positive response. I agree with Edward B. David Pearl MetricPioneer.com 503-428-4917<tel:503-428-4917> P.S. Please take this survey (if you have not already) and pass it on to others just to get their feet wet: surveymonkey.com/s/N97FXGP<http://surveymonkey.com/s/N97FXGP> ----- Message from [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> --------- Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 17:06:58 -0700 From: Edward Schlesinger <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Reply-To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: [USMA:53348] State by state approach and positive response. To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> > Hi Paul Trusten , Eugene Mechtly, and all: > > A national approach to complete the transition to the SI metric system may > be ideal the Federal government still wishes to keep a voluntry approach. > This leaves the decision to States and industries to decide when they wish > to complete Metrication. With Hawaii and Oregon considering bills for State > wide use of the metric system, now would be the time to plan a strategy for > next year legisitive session. > > I contacted my California State Senator to support a bill similar to > Hawaii. She responded she will file my letter for next session since no new > bills can be introduced this session. She agreed that the metric system is > easier for students to understand and use and keep her informed. I feel now > is the time for members of USMA to contact their State House and Senate > Representatives. > > Also I think the message to convey is the completion and how much the US > already uses the SI metric system. We need to get away from pointing to the > outworn " only three Liberia, Myanmar, US". > > -- > Sincerely, > Edward B. > ----- End message from [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> ----- -- Sincerely, Edward B. -- Sincerely, Edward B.
