Linda (Crown),
Elizabeth Gentry is out of her office today, so I address my questions to you
as the principal editor of NIST HB 130.
1. Does NIST interpret North Dakota's "NO" position ("No law or regulation") on
"Packaging and Labeling" to mean that
North Dakota does, in fact, accept the metric-only labeling of state-regulated
packages?
2. Since the states of Alabama and New York recently responded with a "yes" on
Packaging and Labeling, are all states and territories of the United States now
unanimous in accepting metric-only labeling?
Eugene Mechtly
________________________________
From: mechtly, eugene a
Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2013 12:25 PM
To: U.S. Metric Association; elizabeth.gen...@nist.gov
Cc: mechtly, eugene a
Subject: RE: [USMA:53371] the UPLR permissive metric-only labeling amendment
Elizabeth (Gentry),
New York is presently listed in NIST HB 130 (2014) under "Packaging and
Labeling" as "yes" = "Law or regulation in force, NCWM standard used as basis
of adoption, but from an earlier year."
Only North Dakota is listed as "NO" = "No law or regulation.)
How does NIST explain this confusion?
Eugene Mechtly
________________________________
From: Kilopascal [kilopas...@cox.net]
Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2013 8:01 PM
To: U.S. Metric Association
Subject: [USMA:53371] the UPLR permissive metric-only labeling amendment
I find it interesting that one single holdout can keep everyone else from
moving forward. Whatever happened to majority rules?
It doesn’t appear like New York is going to budge, so why not just ignore them
and move on? I wonder if New York’s holding back may be because they have been
pressured by anti-metric forces of the FMI for the very reasons Paul mentions
would likely happen if all states adopt the UPLR? The FMI may be backed into a
corner to accept the change to the FPLA. As long as they keep New York from
adopting the UPLR, they can continue to openly oppose the FPLA amendment for
metric only.
[USMA:53371] the UPLR permissive metric-only labeling
amendment<http://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=usma@colostate.edu&q=subject:%22%5BUSMA%3A53371%5D+the+UPLR+permissive+metric-only+labeling+amendment%22>
Paul
Trusten<http://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=usma@colostate.edu&q=from:%22Paul+Trusten%22>
Wed, 30 Oct 2013 05:05:26
-0700<http://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=usma@colostate.edu&q=date:20131030>
What you are all reading, 11.33, is the so-called "UPLR amendment" that USMA
and other metricationists have been fighting for since 1999. Fifty-five of the
56 U.S. weights-and -measures jurisdictions (50 states, DC, and the five
territories) have adopted this rule. The only missing one on the list is New
York State. Once New York does so, then the roll call of jurisdictions on this
subject will be unanimous. Once it is unanimous, there is no reason why the
federal FPLA cannot be amended in like manner.
NYS residents: In all of your communications with New York State regulators and
legislators, please emphasize that 11.33 provides a labeling OPTION. It costs
nothing! It requires nothing!
New York State residents should contact the following individuals, as well as
their own state assemblyman, to urge adoption of this labeling option:
Governor Andrew M. Cuomo
http://www.governor.ny.gov/contact/GovernorContactForm.php
AND
Mike Sikula, Director, New York State Bureau of Weights and Measures
mike.sik...@agriculture.ny.gov
tel:(518)-457-3146
New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets
Bureau of Weights and Measures
10B Airline Drive
Albany, New York 12235
Paul Trusten, Registered Pharmacist
Vice President and Public Relations Director
U.S. Metric Association, Inc.
Midland, Texas, USA
+1(432)528-7724
www.metric.org
trus...@grandecom.net
