I believe (but don't know for sure) that a technical barrier to trade is defined as a requirement placed on an imported item that local domestic manufacturers ans suppliers do not have to meet or adhere to. As long as ALL manufacturers or suppliers have to meet a requirement, then it is not a technical barrier as specified by the WTO, even if that requirement is unique to that country or jurisdiction. This is why, for example, all cars in Canada - US and non-US designed and manufactured alike - have to have daytime running lights and metric (or metric-predominant) speedometers, even though the same cars sold in the US don't. It would only be regarded as a technical barrier if cars imported into Canada had to have these features but cars produced in Canada didn't.
John F-L ----- Original Message ----- From: Kilopascal To: mech...@illinois.edu ; U.S. Metric Association Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2011 12:38 AM Subject: [USMA:50137] Re: Fwd: National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) TBT Notifications for Americas Update I can, but I think you are going to have to help me until I get the feel for what to look for. I also believe that others in the USMA need to do their part and watch the WTO too. BTW, wouldn't the FPLA labeling requirement forbidding metric only be considered a technical barrier to trade? What about the UK pint requirement? If I can't sell a litre of beer in a UK pub, isn't that a trade barrier? Even UK requirements to have a metric dash board displays changed over in the UK restricts trade in used automobiles. [USMA:50137] Re: Fwd: National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) TBT Notifications for Americas Update mechtly Tue, 22 Mar 2011 08:03:38 -0700 To the extent that I have the time and diligence, I plan to monitor WTO-TBT and US Federal Register postings to thwart acceptance of OSI units (units of measurement Outside the SI) and to submit written comments in support of SI. Can you join me in searching for Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) which are in the form of deviations from SI? For example, what do the trade deals negotiated by President Obama have to say with respect to *requirements for SI* in designs and labeiing of products? Gene. Original message ---- >Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 21:55:56 -0400 >From: "Kilopascal" <kilopas...@cox.net> >Subject: Re: [USMA:50127] Fwd: National Institute of Standards and Technology >(NIST) TBT Notifications for Americas Update >To: <mech...@illinois.edu>, "U.S. Metric Association" <usma@colostate.edu> > > That may be so but as long as the WTO is still in > business to back US interests, anything like this is > suspect. You have to be careful of walking into a > trap and make sure that what you are supporting is > truly designed to bring more metric to the US and > not another scheme to do to the world what was done > to the EU. > > If what you say is true and the WTO is changing its > regulations in favour of SI it may be that American > influence in the organization is waning and the rest > of the world is filling the vacuum. But that > doesn't mean we should let our guard down or assume > the NIST or others won't make a last attempt to > force the world to accept non-SI. > > We want to assure that any advice that the NIST may > give to those that complain about the metric issue > is that they will tell the complainer to metricate > and not tell the complainer they will force a > foreign nation to accept no-SI. > > Be vigilent! > ...