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!
> ...
