Eugene, Are you reading a 2014 draft? I can't find a link to it. In any case, after laying out all the Customary requirements, editions 1999-2013 excuse the Customary requirements for consumer items not covered by Federal law with section 11.33. The only concession is that State can't trump Federal (ie FPLA still requires dual on items it covers)
11.33. Inch-Pound Units, Exemptions - Consumer Commodities. – The requirements for statements of quantity in inch-pound units shall not apply to packages that bear appropriate SI units. This exemption does not apply to foods, drugs, or cosmetics or to packages subject to regulation by the FTC, meat and poultry products subject to the Federal Meat or Poultry Products Inspection Acts, and tobacco or tobacco products. (Added 1999) I do consider this a ham-handed relaxation of Customary. They lay out all the requirements and then say "never mind" at the very hand. I would MUCH prefer to see a declaration along the lines of "Customary labeling is no longer required, but if used, must conform with the following guidelines" at the BEGINNING of the guidelines. ________________________________ From: "mechtly, eugene a" <mech...@illinois.edu> To: U.S. Metric Association <usma@colostate.edu> Cc: "mechtly, eugene a" <mech...@illinois.edu> Sent: Monday, October 28, 2013 2:53 PM Subject: [USMA:53359] Re: State by state approach and positive response. 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: owner-u...@colostate.edu [owner-u...@colostate.edu] on behalf of cont...@metricpioneer.com [cont...@metricpioneer.com] 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 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 ----- Message from edws...@gmail.com --------- Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 17:06:58 -0700 From: Edward Schlesinger <edws...@gmail.com> Reply-To: edws...@gmail.com Subject: [USMA:53348] State by state approach and positive response. To: "U.S. Metric Association" <usma@colostate.edu> > 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 edws...@gmail.com -----
