RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONTCA/M/8
14 September 1999
(99-3764)
Committee on Trade in Civil Aircraft
MINUTES OF THE MEETING
HELD ON 21 JULY 1999
Chairperson:  Mr Didier Chambovey
1. The Committee on Trade in Civil Aircraft (the "Committee") held a meeting on 21 July 1999.
2. The Committee adopted the following agenda:
Page
A. CONSIDERATION OF THE STATUS OF THE 1979 AGREEMENT ON TRADE IN CIVIL
AIRCRAFT UNDER THE WTO .....................................................................................................1
B. U PDATE OF HS H EADINGS IN THE PRODUCT COVERAGE ANNEX OF THE 1979
AGREEMENT ON TRADE IN CIVIL AIRCRAFT ..........................................................................3
C. "E ND-USE" CUSTOMS ADMINISTRATION ................................................................................5
D. E UROPEAN COMMUNITY REGULATION ON AIRCRAFT ENGINE NOISE ...................................6
E. C ERTIFICATION OF LARGE CIVIL AIRCRAFT ...........................................................................7
F. O THER BUSINESS ....................................................................................................................8
A. CONSIDERATION OF THE STATUS OF THE 1979 AGREEMENT ON TRADE IN CIVIL AIRCRAFT
UNDER THE WTO
3. The Chairperson stated that as a result of the failure to introduce the Aircraft Agreement into
the WTO framework, there was significant uncertainty surrounding the legal status and operational
effectiveness of the Aircraft Agreement.  For this reason, at its November 1998 meeting, the
Committee had asked him to pursue this matter with Signatories.  On 29 April 1999, he had sent
Signatories a draft Protocol concerning technical rectifications needed to bring the Aircraft
Agreement into the WTO framework.
4. The Chairperson noted that previous attempts at bringing the Aircraft Agreement into the
WTO framework had failed.  In large part, he believed that earlier proposals had failed because they
went beyond mere technical rectification.  In part icular, such proposals sought to address certain
substantive matters, including the relationship between the Aircraft Agreement and the WTO
Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures .  Although he acknowledged the importance of
such substantive matters, the fact that various Signatories had mutually exclusive proposals for theirresolution made him sceptical whether they could ever be resolved in this forum.TCA/M/8
Page 2
5. In his view, difficulties concerning the resolution of such substantive matters should not block
the basic technical rectifications needed to brin g the Aircraft Agreement technically into the WTO
framework.  For this reason, the April 1999 draft Protocol deliberately sought to avoid substantive
changes to the Aircraft Agreement.  The April 1999  draft Protocol focused on the minimum technical
rectifications necessary to bring the Aircraft Agreement into the WTO framework.  It did not changethe structure of the Aircraft Agreement, nor the relationship of the Aircraft Agreement with other
WTO Agreements.  The April 1999 draft Protocol  simply replaced GATT-terminology with WTO-
terminology and references to non-existing legal in struments with references to their successors.
6. The April 1999 draft Protocol had been discussed by Signatories at the informal meeting of
the Aircraft Committee held on 20 July 1999.  For the benefit of those Signatories that were unable to
attend that informal meeting, the Chairperson reported briefly on that discussion, which had focused
principally on three issues.  First, certain Signatories had noted the proposed rectification ofArticle 6.1 of the Aircraft Agreement contained in paras. 25 and 26 of the April 1999 draft Protocol.
With regard to para. 25 of the April 1999 draft Protocol, certain Signatories had queried whether the
new reference to the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures would include that
Agreement in its entirety, including its footnotes.  The Chairperson had confirmed his understanding
that para. 25 of the April 1999 draft Protocol did refer to the whole of the WTO Agreement onSubsidies and Countervailing Measures, including all footnotes.  With regard to para. 26 of the
April 1999 draft Protocol, certain Signatories had queried why it was necessary to replace the phrase
"[Signatories] shall seek to avoid adverse effects" with the phrase "no Party should cause adverse
effects …".  The Chairperson had informed Signatories that this change was necessary in order to
maintain consistency with the rectification proposed at para. 25 of the April 1999 draft Protocol,whereby reference to the Tokyo Round Subsidies Ag reement would be replaced by reference to the
WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures.  The proposed phrase in the April 1999
draft Protocol was taken directly from Article 5 of the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and
Countervailing Measures, whereas the original Article 6.1 language was taken directly from
Article 8.3 and 8.4 of the Tokyo Round Subsidies Agreement.
7. Second, one Signatory had asked why para. 35 of the April 1999 draft Protocol, concerning
Article 8.7 of the Aircraft Agreement, contained a reference to "Plurilateral Trade Agreements".  The
Chairperson had explained that this was necessary in order to ensure consistency with para. 4 of the
April 1999 draft Protocol, concerning recital 10 of the Aircraft Agreement.
8. Third, certain Signatories had referred to para. 37 of the April 1999 draft Protocol, concerning
Article 8.8 of the Aircraft Agreement.  Signatories had asked whether this provision would change the
current legal relationship between the Aircraft Agreement and the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and
Countervailing Measures.  The Chairperson had stressed that the April 1999 draft Protocol was
designed to ensure a neutral transposition of the Aircraft Agreement into the WTO framework,
making only the minimum technical rectifications necess ary to that end.  It was not intended to distort
the current legal relationship between the Aircraft Agreement and other WTO Agreements.
Furthermore, he had noted that the first sentence of the rectified version of Article 8.8 would notconstitute a decision applying the Dispute Settlement Understanding within the meaning of
Appendix 1 of the DSU.  The phrase "mutatis mutandis" -- which existed in the current version of
Article 8.8 of the Aircraft Agreement -- made it clear  that the DSU per se would not be applied under
the rectified Article 8.8.  If the rectified Article 8.8 were to apply the DSU per se, by removing the
phrase " mutatis mutandis ", the April 1999 draft Protocol would go beyond the mere neutral
transposition of the Aircraft Agreement into the WTO framework.  In accordance with Appendix 1 of
the DSU, the applicability of the DSU to the Aircraft Agreement was subject to the adoption of a
decision by this Committee.  Once such a decision was taken, the Committee might decide to remove
the phrase "mutatis mutandis" from Article 8.8.  But, as already stated, this would go beyond a mere
neutral transposition of the Aircraft Agreement into the WTO framework.TCA/M/8
Page 3
9. The Chairperson stated that at the informal meeting of 20 July 1999, Signatories had agreed
to give further consideration to the April 1999 draft Protocol.  He hoped that such further
consideration would result in all Signatories' support for the April 1999 draft Protocol and that, at the
Committee's next regular session in November, the Committee would be in a position to adopt this
draft Protocol, thus ending the regrettable legal and institutional uncertainty surrounding the AircraftAgreement.  At the same time, he had also raised the possibility of conducting negotiations on more
substantive amendments to the Aircraft Agreement in parallel with the new round of multilateral trade
negotiations.  He had invited Signatories to give consideration to this issue.
B. U
PDATE OF HS H EADINGS IN THE PRODUCT COVERAGE ANNEX OF THE 1979 A GREEMENT ON
TRADE IN CIVIL AIRCRAFT
10. The Chairperson stated that the  Product Coverage Annex of the 1979 Agreement on Trade in
Civil Aircraft identified products on the basis of HS headings.  Many HS headings had been amended
as of 1 January 1996.  At its November 1998 meeting, the Committee had asked the Secretariat to
compile a list of changes to the HS headings enum erated in the Product Coverage Annex.  This list
was sent to Signatories on 23 April 1999.  For those delegates that had not received the list, copies of
the relevant changes were provided.  The Chairper son noted that it was not immediately obvious how
all of the changes should be transposed into the Pr oduct Coverage Annex.  For example, where certain
headings were replaced by others, it was not always clear whether the new heading was fully or
partially applicable in the civil aircraft context.  He therefore invited Signatories to suggest ways in
which the relevant changes in HS headings could be incorporated into the Product Coverage Annex.
11. The representative of Canada stated that her delegation did not have particular suggestions to
make at this time, but that they supported this endeavour to update the product coverage in the
Agreement.  At the same time, her delegation wished that consideration be given to improvements in
the list.  In a document that was produced in 19941, Canada had asked that ground maintenance
simulators be added to the list.
12. The delegate of the European Community stated that his delegation believed that, in principle,
useful work had been done and could agree with the proposed changes.  He posed a specific question
with respect to position 8483.40, asking whether this was a correct transposition.  His delegation was
not 100 per cent certain that all the items that were now in the list were really aircraft-related, but
even if that were a problem, the European Community would not oppose the current list.  As an
example, he referred to 8510 and 8543, but he noted that the European Community was willing to
accept the proposals as a complete package.
13. The Chairperson understood the delegate of the European Community as saying that his
delegation could accept the proposed changes even where the substitutions were not absolutely perfect
on some points.
14. The delegate of the United States said that the United States had also reviewed the list and
found it a generally acceptable transposition.  His delegation would have to take a look at the question
raised by the Chair concerning what part of some of the sub- headings they would actually want to
include in the Annex.  Certainly, this was a correct reflection of revisions to the Harmonized System,which the United States had accepted.  He asked the delegate of Canada whether additions to the list
was something that her delegation wished to do si multaneously with this technical revision, since
there might be other items that Signatories wish to consider.  He was aware that, in the past, the
United States had supported the addition of ground maintenance simulators.
                                                     
1 AIR/W/97, 13 October 1994.TCA/M/8
Page 4
15. The representative of Canada affirmed that her delegation wished the addition of this item to
the list to be done at the same time as fixing up the product coverage.
16. The Chairperson clarified that the list proposed to Signatories did not include any additional
items that had been suggested for product coverage, and recalled that the Canadian proposal for
inclusion of ground maintenance simulators dated from 1994.  The Chairperson noted the Canadianproposal to consider all of the details of the transposition because not all of the details had been
agreed, and to do this at the same time as the extension of product coverage.  He asked delegates
whether this proposal was acceptable.
17. The delegate of the United States noted that his delegation would be willing to go ahead in
that way but that there was a difference in the domestic authority with regard to making technical
revisions to update the Annex and implementing them, as opposed to adding new items, which would
complicate the matter.  He noted the irony of updating the Annex without updating the Agreementitself.
18. The Chairperson acknowledged the irony of the situation, but stated that the Committee might
make some progress, as the suggested transposition was not really at the same level as the suggested
changes in the Agreement itself.
19. The delegate of the European Community stated that his delegation had no problem with the
Chairperson's proposal, but that it might take even longer if the Committee took the two issues
together.  He was not aware what his delegation's position had been on that issue at the time, but other
delegations might have specific ideas once the Committ ee really addressed the issue.  He thought that
the Committee should not foreclose the option of doing the technical work of updating the Annex, on
which he sensed substantial agreement, without necessarily linking the issues if this would take moretime.
20. The Chairperson recalled that it had not been hi s initial intention to link the two issues, but
rather it had been a proposal from the floor.  Certainly, in his view, the most urgent matter was the
transposition of the current Harmonized System head ings in the Annex to the latest version of the
Harmonized System.  However, he did not think th at the Committee would be in a position to do this
and that the Committee might have to convene the Technical Sub-Committee, which might be a more
appropriate forum to deal with these kinds of technical issues concerning the transposition of
Harmonized System headings to the latest version of the Harmonized System.  The Chairperson
recalled that the letter he had sent to Signatories on 23 April 1999 was not intended to be a proposal.
It was intended simply to depict the situation and to present problems as they arose from the
transposition.  The Chairperson wished Signatories to give consideration to these matters so that they
would be able to make concrete proposals at the meeting of the Technical Sub-Committee.  TheChairperson asked Signatories whether they would agree to deal with these matters relating to
transposition within the Technical Sub-Committee in due course.  This Sub-Committee could be
convened one or two days in advance of the next formal Committee meeting, so that people travelling
from far away would not have to travel twice.
21. The representative of Canada stated that her delegation had no difficulty with this and that the
timing seemed to be a good way of handling it in conjunction with a future meeting.  To address the
point raised by the EC about the inclusion of extra products and modification of the list, she thought
that the Technical Sub-Committee could look at that matter at the same time, and not foreclose that
opportunity, instead of convening another meeting to deal with the addition of one item to the list.
22. The Committee agreed that the question of the transposition would be taken up by the
Technical Sub-Committee.TCA/M/8
Page 5
23. The Chairperson recalled that Canadian proposal that the issue of the possible extension of
product coverage could also be done in the Technical Sub-Committee, but as a separate matter from
the issue of transposition.  It could also be taken up at the next formal meeting of the Committee.  The
timing would be more or less the same, it would not make a great deal of difference.  The Chairperson
proposed that the Committee address the issue of extension of the list as a separate item at the meetingof the Technical Sub-Committee, which would take place shortly before the formal meeting of the
Committee in November.
24. The Committee so agreed.
C. "END-USE" CUSTOMS ADMINISTRATION
25. The Chairperson stated that, at its November 1998 meeting, the Committee had accepted his
proposal that the factual information regarding civil/military identification for customs purposes
contained in document AIR/TSC/W/49 should be updated.  Signatories had agreed that the updated
information should be sent to the Secretariat by 30 May 1999.  Despite the circulation of a reminder
by the Secretariat, the response to this initiative had not been encouraging.  To date, only Bulgaria and
the United States had provided the requisite information.  The Chairperson therefore encouraged other
Signatories to submit the updated information to the Secretariat by 30 September 1999, in order that it
might be circulated in good time for discussion at the November 1999 meeting.  He hoped that theCommittee would have a more complete set of information for the November meeting.  Speaking for
the moment as the representative of Switzerland, he stated that he would do what was required to
encourage his authorities to submit the information as quickly as possible, and he hoped that other
delegations that had not yet provided the information would do the same.
26. The delegate of Canada stated that the end-use customs administration in Canada had not
changed and that this was why her delegation had not sent any update.  She wished to raise another
matter, which Canada had suggested in 1992-93.  It was indicative of the fact that the Committee had
not been very active that delegates kept referring to things that had taken place a long time ago.  At
that time, Canada had asked that consideration be given to designating aircraft that were certified by
civil aviation regulatory authorities as "civil", even if they were purchased by a designated military orquasi-military entity.  Her delegation wished to have the views of other Signatories on this question.
27. The Chairperson took note that the list of dual-use products of Canada had not been amended
or changed. He stated that there was no update necessary, and that this was taken to be a notification
by Canada. He recalled that Canada had also just referred to a document concerning the end-use of
products that had been tabled some time ago, and had invited comments.
28. The delegate of the United States asked whether Canada, in its end-use system, currently
determined whether a product was duty-free under the Agreement by the end-use buyer or by the
nature of the product.
29. The delegate of Canada responded that Canada did this by the nature of the buyer, in keeping
with the Aircraft Agreement.  She noted that the United States, in its tariff schedule, did this in exactly
the way that Canada was suggesting, namely, on the basis of who certified the aircraft, as opposed to
who purchased it.
30. The delegate of the United States said that the United States, in fact, did it both ways.  It did
not exactly leap out in clarity from the wording in the tariff schedule, as in many regulations.  The
United States had started with the end-use certification system of things purchased by the Defence
Department and the Coast Guard as the only entities defined as "defence", and then had expanded
from that to products that were purchased by them that were also FAA-certified.  These wereconsidered "civil" aircraft.  This combined system was further explained in the paper that had beenTCA/M/8
Page 6
circulated.  The United States had no objection to early circulation of its paper so that it might serve
as a model to other Signatories in the preparation of their papers.  One of the United States interests
was whether there had been any change in the entities that were considered defence or military
entities for purposes of definition of "civil" as opposed to "military" aircraft.   In its paper, the
United States stated what its entities were, that there had been no change and the changes that hadoccurred since 1996.  The United States had addressed this briefly at the last meeting, but it was set
out more fully in the paper, which also included a copy of the US Regulation in its tariff schedules.
31. The delegate of Canada stated that her delegation would be prepared to table, before the next
meeting, a short paper on this issue, giving the details and the reasoning behind its suggestion.
32. The Committee took note of the statements made by Canada and the United States.  The
Chairperson noted, in particular, that these delegations would provide written information to the
Committee for its consideration at its November meeting.
D. EUROPEAN COMMUNITY REGULATION ON AIRCRAFT ENGINE NOISE
33. The representative of the United States said that his delegation had requested that this item be
reverted to because they wanted to have updated, on the record, from the European Community the
current status of the Regulation, which was proposed when the Committee last met.  The United
States had read a number of specific questions about the Regulation into the record.
34. The delegate of the European Community noted that there had been a lengthy discussion on
this item at the last meeting.  He expressed doubt as to whether it was really useful to have a
protracted discussion in this forum, given the developments which he would spell out in some detail.
His delegation could certainly inform the Committ ee that the EU Council of Transport Ministers
adopted Regulation 925/99 on the so-called "hush kits" in April 1999.  At the same time, however, itwas decided to suspend its application for one year in order to allow for further discussions on this
issue of noise reduction in the ICAO context.  He also recalled that the EC had notified the Regulation
under the TBT Agreement in February 1999 and that there had been extensive discussions in the TBT
Committee.  On the noise reduction issue, constructi ve discussions were now taking place within the
ICAO.  It looked as if progress was being made towards preparing definitions of new standards, aswell as rules for transition toward tighter rules.  On the margins of these discussions, possible
solutions to the hush kit issue were also under investigation.  Given these developments, his
delegation was not sure that it was useful, and certainly it was premature, to bring these issues up
here.  He expressed the sincere hope that good progress was underway in the ICAO and that the
Committee might not have to revert to this issue.
35. The delegate of the United States thanked the EC for its response and noted that there were
discussions, both in ICAO and bilaterally between the EC and the United States, discussing new
ICAO standards that might be responses in this area.  He noted that the EC had stated that the EC had
adopted, but suspended, the Regulation.  Although this was positive, the suspended Regulation,
because of the possibility that it might be impl emented, could still have adverse effect in the
marketplace.  If it were inconsistent with international obligations, it could be actionable under those
obligations within the WTO or elsewhere.  He recalled that, at the last Committee meeting, his
delegation had noted some problematic aspects of the Regulation, including the fact that it seemed to
depart from an international standard;  that it wa s a design specification rather than a performance
specification;  and that the effects seemed to fall heavily, if not exclusively, on imported products and
foreign operators of aircraft outside the EU.  He noted again that discussions were going on and
expressed the hope that there would be a positive conclusion.  He asked whether there was anycontemplation, within the EU, of repealing or further suspending the Regulation.  The United States
view was that this Regulation was unnecessary, ineffective, may violate international obligations, and
should, in fact, be repealed.TCA/M/8
Page 7
36. The representative of the European Community st ated that the US delegate was repeating the
points the US had already raised, and referred to the points the EC had raised in the last meeting of the
Committee.  There was no need to repeat them all.  The EC certainly did not believe that this
Regulation was contrary to its international obligations, nor that it was unnecessary.  On the specific
question of whether there were any thoughts on repealing the Regulation, he stated that it was a littlepremature to start speculating about what the future of the Regulation would be, given the fact that
these discussions were going on elsewhere. As soon as the outcome of these discussions became clear,
his delegation would be in a position to say more.  For the time being, the facts were clear on the
table, the Regulation had been adopted but it was not in force.
37. The representative of the United States noted that, in the minutes of the last meeting, there
was some discussion of the necessity of putting forth this Regulation because of regulatory actions
that the United States had taken with respect to early implementation of the ICAO Stage 3 standard,and that this would possibly force Stage 2 or Stage 3 hush-kitted aircraft to recertify in the European
Community.  He thought that it had been clarified ov er time bilaterally, but not in this forum that the
changes in the US regulations did, in fact, not obsolesce those aircraft within the United States and
they were fully qualified to continue to fly and would not be forced on to other countries for that
reason.  This explanation had been accepted bilaterally.  He wished to note this change.  With respectto ICAO, there had been some discussion in the last meeting that the EC Regulation (which was, at
that time, still only proposed) was consistent with ICAO obligations.  Since that meeting, there had
been a letter from the Chairman of ICAO questi oning its consistency with ICAO Regulations.  He
noted, however, that there had been no formal fi nding by ICAO or any dispute resolution on that
subject within ICAO.  His delegation hoped for early resolution of this issue and emphasized that USair carriers and manufacturers of pre-certificated products or recertificated aircraft (hush kits and new
engines), whose products fully met the current Stage 3 noise standards (which were, in fact, not fully
in effect;  they would go into effect in 2002) were suffering adverse economic effects.  In the absence
of some resolution, the United States would have to consider what further steps to take to avoid
further damage.  His delegation thanked the European Community for its efforts to resolve this matterbilaterally, and hoped that there would be no need to bring this matter up again at the next meeting.
38. The Committee took note of the statements made.
E. CERTIFICATION OF LARGE CIVIL AIRCRAFT
39. The delegate of the United States expressed his delegation's concerns with the certification of
737, 700 and 800 model aircraft at the full passenger capacity.  All but one member of the European
Joint Airworthiness Authorities and the US FAA had certified those aircraft.  He asked whether there
had been any change in the status of certification of that aircraft by that one party.
40. The representative of the European Community st ated that this was again an issue that had
been discussed at some length at the last meeting of the Committee, and that his delegation had little
to add to what it had said on that occasion.  As far as he knew, the issue was still pending.  It certainly
was not a question of not certifying the aircraft in question – the 737, 700 and 800 versions – but only
a question of the number of seats.  From what he  had heard, discussions between the member State
concerned and the producer in question were ongoing, with a view to finding a resolution.
41. The delegate of the United States expressed regret that no progress had been made, since all
other parties to the European Joint Airworthines s Authorities group and the FAA had certified this
aircraft at the full seat size, and this particular aircraft had innovations, including automatic opening
over-wing doors that opened without the necessity of passenger intervention, which no other aircrafthad.  One might be tempted to ask the question whether the one party that was failing to certify the
full seating capacity was arguing that all the other parties to the airworthiness agreements in Europe
and the US were certifying unsafe aircraft.  That might appear to be the implication.  In the EuropeanTCA/M/8
Page 8
Joint Airworthiness review of this aircraft, represen tatives of countries with expertise in aircraft and
companies that were partners in the Airbus consortium were well-represented and his understanding
was that the technical report enabled the Joint Airworthiness authorities of Europe to certify, or rather
recommend certification of, this aircraft by their member states.  It was reported positively by this
technical committee, so again, his delegation did not understand the reasons why this one party to theJAA committee required more, or had not been satisfied, at this point in time.  Several years had
already gone by.
42. The representative of the European Communities stated that his delegation took note of the
points made by the delegate of the United States, but firmly rejected any notion that any implications
for other certifications or certifying unsafe aircraft could be drawn from the fact that, in one particular
instance, there was a somewhat protracted debate on the specific aspects.  He underlined that
certification had been granted for the aircraft in question – only the question of the number of seatsremained.  It was not a question of not certifying the aircraft.  It was just a matter of fact that it took a
little bit longer in this specific case and, as he had said, discussions were going on.  He did not believe
that a discussion of the shape of the doors in this Committee would help, and there would just have to
be patience to wait for the issue to be resolved by the appropriate authorities.
43. The delegate of the United States noted the ob ligation in the Aircraft Agreement on operating
standards and certification and thought that it wa s important to point out that the WTO and this
Committee were concerned with trade and economic aspects and it appeared that the maximum
allowable level of passengers, or seat size, was a very important economic aspect.  That is, if there
were aircraft certified at half the seats that would be carried in another country, there would be no
doubt that this would have a deleterious impact on marketing those aircraft.  So, it was a veryimportant aspect, and just the fact that the aircraft was certified but at a smaller seat size was not, in
itself, a satisfactory explanation of this problem.
44. The Committee took note of the statements made.
F. OTHER BUSINESS
1. Belgian aircraft industry supports
45. The delegate of the United States stated that this matter had been discussed at the last
meeting, and, as this was not a regular agenda item, he did not wish to enter into a full discussion.
The European Community, in its reply, had indicate d that there were some changes contemplated to
the Belgian programme and those had still been under discussion at that time.  They could not be
described.  The old programme had still been in effect.  He wondered whether there was now a new
programme, or if there were any knowledge of the date of that programme that could be provided at
this point in time.
46. The delegate of the European Community said that, in this case, both the United States and
the European Community might have waited for each other, because he noted from the report of the
last meeting that the EC had been promised a list of questions on this issue from the United States,
which, to his knowledge, had never been received.  His delegation had not paid the sort of attention
that might have been appropriate to this issue because they had never actually received any furtherinquiries.  Certainly, he could not, without any pr ior preparation, answer the questions which had been
raised on this issue under Other Business.  If there were a desire to discuss it further, it would have to
be made a formal agenda point with proper preparation.  Having said this, he was sure that, for a
fruitful discussion, his delegation would still appreciate concise written questions, or questions in any
other form, to find out what the specific concerns were on this point, beyond what had been discussedat the last meeting.TCA/M/8
Page 9
47. The representative of the United States appreciated the response of the European Community.
With respect to his delegation's detailed list of questions, he had noted after the meeting that questions
had been provided in another WTO forum, and some responses received.  His delegation did not want,
at that time, to replicate that process in this Committee.  His delegation would take another look at
that and see if it was appropriate to follow up on those questions and responses within this context.But he hoped that, at the next meeting, the European Community could inform the Committee of the
status of these new activities in Belgium and give reference to regulations or legislation that would
explain it.
48. The Committee took note of the statements made.
49. The Chairperson suggested that this item be placed on the agenda of the next formal meeting
of the Committee in November.
50. The Committee so agreed.
2. Report by the Committee to the General Council as its input in the General Council
report to the Seattle Ministerial Conference
51. The Chairperson stated his understanding that the Committee was to provide, by the
beginning of October 1999, a report to the General Council as its input in the General Council report
to the Seattle Ministerial meeting.  The Chairperson noted that the Committee had no regular orspecial meetings scheduled between now and that date.  He understood that there were very few -- if
any -- WTO meeting rooms still available before 1 October.  Therefore, it appeared that it would be
virtually impossible for this Committee to meet before 1 October.  In light of this, the Chairperson
proposed that he prepare, on his own responsibility, a very brief written update on the Committee’s
activities since the 1998 annual report had been adopted.  This update would simply state that theCommittee had met once in regular session and once informally since that annual report and would
provide the document references for the corresponding minutes.  The update would indicate as well
that, at the Committee’s regular meeting in November, the Committee would adopt its annual report
for 1999, which would be forwarded to the General Council immediately thereafter.  The Chairperson
asked if this procedure would be acceptable to the Committee.
52. The delegate of the United States asked if there was a tentative date for the November
meeting of the Committee.
53. The Chairperson responded that the tentative date for the November meeting was
9 November 1999.
54. The delegate of the United States asked whether this allowed adequate time for the report to
be approved.  He was not sure he understood what the Chairperson was suggesting.
55. The Chairperson clarified that what he was proposing was that the Committee would not meet
before the deadline and that the Committee allow him, on his own responsibility, to forward an
update, a very neutral report, and this update would simply state that the Committee had met once in
regular session and once informally since the 1998 annual report and would also provide the
document references for the corresponding minutes.  Nothing more than this.  This would be the input
of this Committee to the General Council.  The General Council would forward this input to the
Seattle Ministerial meeting.  Then, in November, the Committee would also have to adopt its annual
report, which would also be forwarded to the Gene ral Council as usual, but would not be forwarded to
the Ministerial meeting, because it was another track.  That was his understanding of the situation.
Otherwise, the report would be too late for th e preparations for the Ministerial Conference.TCA/M/8
Page 10
56. The representative of the United States asked whether the 1 October report would be
substantive enough to parallel the reports received from other WTO bodies, including the plurilateral
groups.
57. The Chairperson believed that the other bodies were in the same situation as this Committee.
Most of them would be meeting later than 1 October.  It had to be borne in mind that regular activities
of the WTO normally only began in mid-September.  He did not think that, in  the two weeks between
mid-September and the beginning of October, very many subsidiary bodies would meet.  They would
certainly be in the same situation as this Committee.  He guessed that they would forward the kind of
report he had just depicted to the General Council.  That seemed to be the general understanding, also
with the Secretariat.
58. The delegate of Canada asked whether there would be any harm in circulating the proposed
report to the General Council prior to sending it to the General Council.
59. The Chairperson replied that he did not think there would be any harm in that.  It could be
circulated some days before the deadline.  He did not think it would raise any difficulty with the
Signatories.
60. The representative of the European Communitie s stated that his question went in the same
direction, but was also linked to the proposal that the Chairperson had made to discuss at some stage
the question whether a parallel track, a parallel negotiation with the new Round might be necessary on
some of the issues related to the rectification issue.  As far as he knew, the last General Council before
the Ministerial was at the beginning of November, 3 or 4, and he wondered how, if the Committee
met after that date, the Committee could channel any recommendations on parallel negotiations, etc.
to the Ministerial Conference if there was no General Council in between.  The basic fact that thereport would be adopted formally on 3-4 November prompted the question whether it wouldn't make
more sense to have the meeting a little bit before the General Council – two weeks earlier, for
example.  He thought it would also be useful for al l these people engaged in preparations for Seattle to
have the meeting as early as possible.  But he knew that the situation with meeting rooms etc. was
difficult.
61. The Chairperson stated that he owed two answ ers, at least, to the European Community.
62. The delegate of the European Community had a third point.  His attention had been drawn by
people who had been dealing with this longer than he had that in the usual report to the General
Council or to the Ministerial Conference, there was also a reference to the ongoing work on
rectification as a standard sentence.  He thought that this was one of the items on which the
Committee was under an obligation to make progress.   Somebody would have to check what had been
done for Singapore, for example.  Maybe this was one substantive point which, for formal reasons,should also be addressed in addition to the minutes, etc.
63. The Chairperson asked whether the delegate of  the European Community believed that the
reference to the minutes would not do, because this was a point that was addressed in the minutes.
64. The delegate of the European Community replied that, from what he knew, it had been done
differently, with an explicit reference, in earlier reports, but that was a question that the Chairperson
might wish to clarify with the Secretariat.
65. The Chairperson pointed out that the Committee had a time constraint which was quite
difficult to manage.  This was the reason why he had proposed to prepare a very factual, very
minimalist, report for the Ministerial Conference, to avoid any discussion.  Otherwise, if there were
going to be substantive issues in the report itself, there might be some reactions from delegations andTCA/M/8
Page 11
this would mean that the Committee would have to convene another meeting.  This was almost not
feasible before 9 November.  It seemed that, physically, it was impossible to meet before
9 November, because there would be no rooms available.  The Committee would need rooms for two
days, because it had to be borne in mind that the Committee wished to convene the Technical Sub-
Committee as well, just before the formal meeting.  This was an additional constraint.  He askedwhether this addressed the query of the representative of the European Community.
66. The representative of the United States stated that the timing of the report, the necessity, as
raised by the European Community, to get it in before 3-4 November, related to the substance of the
report, and that related to the substance of what the Committee does.  Simply to report that the
Committee was still discussing rectification and that it had not yet concorded the Aircraft Agreement
with the WTO, of which the Committee was a part, and that was the best that the Committee could do,
he did not think that anyone would be holding their breath in the General Council, let alone among theMinisters, for that kind of report.  It really depended on progress that the Committee could make
before that date.  However, it was constrained by meeting rooms.  The Committee could not conclude
on rectification and there was no great anxiousness to do a report.  The other aspect of this, since the
Committee had a major rectification problem, it did not seem to him that this Committee should look
any more out of step by having a report less substantive than other bodies.  However, he had beenassured that this was consistent with what other bodies were doing.  So his delegation had no problem
with what the Chairperson proposed.
67. The Chairperson stated that he was not in the position to give an assurance, but there was a
strong hint that other Committees would find themselves in the same situation as this Committee.
Due to the fact that the Committee had a time constraint and there would be no opportunity to meetbefore 1 October, the Chairperson asked whether Signatories would allow him to prepare a report
along the lines that he had described, avoiding the insertion in this report of any substantive issues
which might give rise to difficulties with Signatories and which might require the convening of a
meeting.  Of course, this report would be circulated to the Signatories for their reactions before it was
handed over to the General Council, and he hoped it would not prompt any reactions.
68. The Chairperson clarified that this report would be a report made on his own responsibility.
What he was asking was that the Committee allow him to prepare such a report on his own
responsibility that he would forward, but that he wo uld circulate to Signatories for their information in
advance of the date on which it was due.  This report would only commit the Chair.
69. The Committee so agreed.
70. The Chairperson considered, in response to the last query raised by the EC, if the Committee
wished to launch further activities, more ambitious activities on substantive issues, as he had
suggested in the informal meeting the day before, and repeated earlier in his report on the informal
meeting, how it should proceed.  He pointed out that the Committee was a plurilateral committee,
which was a peculiar situation.  As far as he was informed, the General Council had not so far
mandated subsidiary bodies to come up with propos als for the future negotiations.  So, such an
initiative should be taken by Members within the General Council.  But he thought that this was notthe only way to proceed.  The General Council was mainly dealing with multilateral questions, and
not with plurilateral agreements.  It seemed to him that, during the Uruguay Round, there had been a
parallel track of negotiations within the Committee, which was also another possibility.  It could be an
initiative taken by this Committee.  The difference would be, in this case, that it might not be reflected
in the Seattle Declaration, or be reflected in a different fashion.  So, there were basically two ways.This was just food for thought that he wanted to sh are with delegates.  He did not see any other ways.
Some of the delegates were very experienced and had been involved in these issues for a long time.
He thought it was important, if it could be agreed, that the Committee launch such a process.  It wasTCA/M/8
Page 12
necessary to consider the formalities, how the Co mmittee wished to do this.  He saw basically two
tracks, which he had just described.
71. The delegate of the United States stated that the Committee had authority to review its own
Agreement, under Article 8.3, periodically.  He thought it was, however, essential, that the Committee
be done with the neutral rectification matter first and get that out of the way before (not that one was aprecondition for the other) getting into a protracted process that substantive revision was likely to be.
His delegation did not wish the Committee to stay in this strange circumstance of not having proper
WTO references.  He thanked the Chairperson for pointing out the two alternatives.  His delegation
would certainly take a look at those options.
72. The Chairperson thanked the delegate of the United States for the useful reminder about
Article 8.3.  It was also the Chairperson's understanding that the sense of the debate was that the
Committee should prioritize the issue of the neutral transposition of the existing Agreement into theWTO framework.  Before the meeting was adjourned, the Chairperson wished to ask Signatories, on
this question of transposition, to interact with each other, especially on issues which might give rise to
difficulties, to try to work out mutually acceptable solutions.  This would help the Chairperson, and it
was also his job to try to propose these kind of solutions, by listening and trying to take into account
all of the interests at stake, and all the comments that had been made.  He thought it was also for thedelegations to try to interact with each other.  It was in this way that he thought the Committee would
achieve the best progress in this matter.  The te ntative dates for the next meeting of the Committee,
and the meeting of the Technical Sub-Committee, were 9-10 November 1999.
73. The meeting was adjourned.
__________