Today the WTO upheld its decision finding that Chinese restrictions on key raw material exports broke trade rules.
We have been following this particular issue since November 2009:
http://pmpaspeakingofprecision.com/2009/11/04/chinese-resource-hoarding-dispute-before-wto/
We followed up :
http://pmpaspeakingofprecision.com/2009/12/30/china-resource-hoarding-wto-panel-convened/
And today we are reporting that the WTO upheld its decision that Chinese restrictions on key raw material exports broke trade rules following the appeal by Beijing. As a result, China must bring its duty and export quota measures on elements including bauxite, coke, manganese and others in line with their WTO Obligations.
The WTO found in favor of the United States, European Union and Mexico in July following a complaint that China had failed to meet the promises it made when joining the body.
At issue were important raw materials for those of us involved in advanced manufacturing- bauxite (aluminum ore), coking coal (steel making), fluorspar (steelmaking) manganese (steelmaking), silicon metal (steel making), silicon carbide, yellow phosphorus and zinc (Brass).
Both the United States and the European Union claimed victory after the publication of the appeal body’s report. according to Industry Week online:
“Today’s report is a tremendous victory for the United States — particularly its manufacturers and workers,” U.S. trade ambassador Ron Kirk said. “Today’s decision ensures that core manufacturing industries in this country can get the materials they need to produce and compete on a level playing field.”
EU trade commissioner Karel De Gucht said the ruling represented a success in efforts to ensure fair access to “much needed” raw materials for EU industry.”
Congratulations to Ron Kirk and his team for winning one for U.S. Manufacturing.

Posted by speakingofprecision 














EPA Revising UST Regulations
January 19, 2012Comment period open until February 16, 2012.
The notice in the federal register identifies Manufacturing Sector NAICS codes 31-33 (thats us!) as potentially affected by the proposed changes.
Got UST's?
EPA’s proposal revises the UST technical regulation in 40 CFR part 280 by:
While we don’t see this update as unreasonable (its been 24 years since the 1988 UST regs first came into effect) we could see how the updates could result in large expenses by small manufacturers if they are required to update secondary containment and interstitial montitoring for their USTs.
Federal Register Notice UST
EPA UST Proposed Regs Page
If you would like to comment- here’s the link: UST Proposed Reg Comments
Need training in this area? Rutgers is offerring a UST training course on March 6, 2012
Why this rule?
Because we all deserve better than this.
Photo 1 credit
Photo 2 credit