Linda Crown and Elizabeth Gentry have both been away from their offices at NIST through Friday, November 1st.
My hope now is that they and others at NIST are currently preparing answers to my two questions below, and that their reply will be a confirmation that *all states and territories of the United States now accept metric-only labeling* although the federal FPLA remains to be amended to permit metric-only labeling of products under FPLA control! Eugene Mechtly ________________________________ From: mechtly, eugene a Sent: Friday, November 01, 2013 11:15 AM To: linda.cr...@nist.gov; U.S. Metric Association Cc: mechtly, eugene a Subject: Unanimous Acceptance of Metric-Only Labeling 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 [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