RESTRICTED  
  
G/TBT/M/79  
 
 
30 January 2020  
(20-0705) Page: 1/63 
Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade    
 
MINUTES OF THE MEETI NG OF 12-15 NOVEMBER  2019  
CHAIR MAN: MR SUNG HWA JANG  
Note by the Secretariat1 
1  ADOPTION OF THE AGE NDA ................................ ................................ ........................  1 
2  IMPLEMENTATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF TH E AGREEMENT  ................................ . 1 
2.1  Statements from Members under Article  15.2 ................................ ................................ . 1 
2.2  Specific Trade Concerns  ................................ ................................ ...............................  1 
3  TECHNICAL ASSISTANC E ................................ ................................ ...........................  62 
4  OBSERVERS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...............  62 
4.1  Updating by observers  ................................ ................................ ...............................  62 
4.2  Pending requests  ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 62 
5  REPORT (2019) OF CO MMITTEE TO CTG  ................................ ................................ .... 62 
6  OTHER BUSINESS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 62 
7  DATE OF NEXT MEETING  ................................ ................................ ...........................  63 
 
1  ADOPTION OF THE AGEN DA 
1.1.  The Committee  adopted the agenda contained in WTO/AIR/TBT/ 15. 
2  IMPLEMENTATION AND A DMINISTRATION OF THE  AGREEMENT  
2.1  Statements from Members under Article  15.2 
2.1.  The Chair man reminded the Committee of Members' notification obligation under Article  15.2 
of the TBT  Agreement  and further informed the Committee that the latest list of statements on 
implementation submitted und er this provision was contained in an annex to the Annual Review of 
the Implementation and Operation of the TBT  Agreement  (G/TBT/42 ), issued on 25  February  2019. 
Information on the list of statements is available on the TBT Information Management System  (TBT 
IMS). 
2.2  Specific Trade Concerns  
2.2.1   Reported resolutions  
2.2.  There were no reported resolutions.  
 
1 This document has been prepared under the Secretariat's own responsibility  and is without prejudice 
to the positions of Members or to their rights and obligations under the WTO.  G/TBT/M/79  
 
- 2 - 
 
  2.2.2   Withdrawn concerns  
2.3.  The Chairperson  reported that the following STCs had been withdrawn from the agenda at the 
request of the concerned Member:  
a. China Management Measures for Compulsory Nation al Standards  
b. Thailand Labels of Alcoholic Beverages  
2.2.3   New Concerns  
European  Union – Revised Draft EU Regulation on Ecological Design Requirements 
for External Power Supply G/TBT/N/EU/605  (IMS ID  5962) 
2.4.  The representative of China  expressed concerns with this draft measure. The full stat ement is 
contained in G/TBT/W/694 . 
2.5.  The representative of the European Union  said that during the 60 -day public comment period 
of this draft measure c omments were received from China, Japan and Korea. The Ecodesign 
Regulatory Committee (ERC) then met to discuss and vote on this proposal.  According to the EU's 
"Comitology Regulation " (Regulation (EU) 182/2011 ), next, it would be for committee members 
representing Member States to have the opportunity to suggest amendments to th is draft, with the 
possibility of the chair present ing amended versions of Commission 's draft implementing acts, as it 
shall endeavour to find solutions that command the widest possible support within the committee.  
The resulting text of the new Regulation was then subject to a  3-month scrutiny period with the 
European Parliament and the Council, and it was adopted by the European Commission on 1  October 
2019 as part of a package of 10 Ecodesign measures. Finally, the Regulation was published in the 
Official Journal of the Europ ean Union on 25 October 2019 ( "Commission Regulation (EU) 
2019/1782 ").  
2.6.  He said that this Regulation would  repeal the previous Ecodesign Regulation of 2009 and that 
it would apply as from 1 April 2020. The Regulation expand ed the current scope and clarifie d some 
exemptions, update d the energy efficiency requirements by bringing them in line with the most 
ambitious international standards, and improve d the information offered by the manufacturers to 
the end users. The EU would then  update the harmonised meas urement standards for covering the 
new types of products that were now included in scope. It should be noted that such measurement 
methods already exist ed in other jurisdictions.  Furthermore, t he transitional period before applying 
the new requirements was  established based on the following arguments:  (i) products compliant 
with the new requirements that were  already present on the market : therefore no major redesign 
efforts were needed;  and (ii) this transitional period was considered optimal for contribut ing to EU 's 
commitment to increase with 32.5% its energy efficiency by 2030.  
Brazil - Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Food Supply – MAPA Ordinance 79, 
of 13 May 2019 establishing a public consultation to amend the Technical Regulation 67, 
05 Novembe r 2018 regarding the procedures and requirements for export and import 
certification of beverages, fermented acetic, wines and wine and grapes derived products 
G/TBT/N/BRA/853 , G/TBT/N/BRA /853/Add.1/Corr.1  (IMS ID  5973) 
2.7.  The representative of the United States  noted that the  proposed measure require d certification 
of "[e]very batch or set of imported wine coming from countries whose legislation allows the addition 
of water during the product ion process… " The US welcomed Brazil's decision not to pursue the 
requirement to certify for the non -addition of water for imports of wine from countries whose 
legislation allow ed the addition of water during the production process.  She thank ed Brazil for the 
constructive bilateral exchanges on this technical issue. Consistent with the TBT Committee 's 
Recommendation on the Coherent Use of Notification Formats, the US encourage d Brazil to , 
accordingly,  notify the withdraw al of the measure.  
 
2 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID  596 (under dates raised and references) . 
3 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID  597 (under dates raised and ref erences) . G/TBT/M/79  
 
- 3 - 
 
  2.8.  The representative  of South Africa  posed questions to Brazil with respect to the measure's: 
certificate of analysis/certificate of origin ; certificate of typicity ; and official declaration of 
non-addition of water . With respect to certificate of analysis/certificate of origin , the regulation  
substantially change d the analysis requirements for wine exported to Brazil. She asked  Brazil to 
explain whether the analysis requirements ha d changed and what analysis were required and in 
what format must it  be presented . The new certification requirements also require d splitting of the 
current analyses certificate into two documents, namely : a "Certificate of Analyses " and a "Certificate 
of Origin ". She asked Brazil to explain why this has been changed, what  was the purpose of these 
changes and when would be the final date for compliance . She also asked Br azil to provide examples 
of these certificates in English . With respect to certificate of typicity , she said that it was  not entirely 
clear what the content s of this certificate should be and what purpose it would  achieve. This 
certificate seem ed to place a substantial burden on the regulator in South Africa.  
2.9.  Finally, w ith respect to  the official declaration of non -addition of water , she said that  South 
African wine regulations provide d for the addition of water for certain specified technical purposes . 
For example , in order to dissolve permitted additives and processing aids or for other purposes 
incidental to the winemaking process, but not to dilute wine. For South Africa, it was still unclear 
whether: (i)  these technical purposes were provided for in the Brazilian regulati on; and (ii)  additional 
certification would  be required. She therefore asked Brazil for a more detailed explanation on these 
aspects.   
2.10.   The representative of New Ze aland shared the concerns raised regarding the prevention of 
the use of water in winemaking w here there was a technical necessity to do so. He requested Brazil 
to provide more information about their proposed regulation.  
2.11.   The representative of Brazil  said that the  comments received during the proposed measure's 
public consultation process  led to a re-evaluation of the regulatory alternatives to ensure the 
fulfilment of Brazil's  policy objectives for wine and wine derived products. Participation in different 
international fora ha d improved understanding of the best practices to ensure quality in this  sector.  
In this regard, Brazil inform ed the Committee that the regulation process in Draft Regulation 79 
would be discontinued. The discontinuation of this regulation process would  be soon formally 
communicated to the TBT enquiry points of th ose M embers w ho took part in  the public consultation  
process . Brazil therefore believe d that this STC could be withdrawn.  If in the future Brazil decide d 
to address the issues foreseen in this Draft, it w ould make sure to regularly submit new drafts for 
public consulta tion and notify them to the WTO accordingly . 
India - Air Conditioner and its related Parts (Quality Control) Order, 2018 
G/TBT/N/IND/74  (IMS ID  5984) 
2.12.   The representative of  the Republic of Korea  raised  concerns where a finished air conditioning 
unit, as well as related parts, must comply with the BIS standards and place the BIS certification 
mark. In order to place the BIS certification mark, the products must be tested by the designated 
laboratories in  India. Manufacturers were having difficulties in complying with this regulation due to 
the absence of designated testing laboratories. Korea asked India: (i)  to grant at least a 6 -month 
grace period after sufficient testing laboratories were designated an d operational; (ii)  if the sufficient 
number of testing laboratories were not designated or opened, that alternative measures be 
provided, such as accepting internationally -recognized test reports before the enforcement date; 
and (iii)  that a timeline be p rovided regarding the designated testing laboratories.  
2.13.   The representative of the United States  supported Korea's request that India  grant a 6-month 
grace period to comply with this regulation, particularly if there were not enough laboratories to 
complete the testing in India. To expedite the availability of AC equipment that had a documented 
verification testing record, BIS should recognize without additional testing, equipment whose energy 
efficiency ha d been verified by the AHRI Certification Program. BI S could access testing results on 
the AHRI website.  Industry recommend ed to defer Q uality Control Orders (QCO)  for components for 
one year. This would boost the "Make in India"  program . The US also suggested that the QCO for 
Finished Products be implemente d in the first phase i.e. the QCO compliance date for finished goods 
and component implementation should be  the same. The QCO for parts should then be implemented 
as a Phase 2 with a one -year gap. To date , critical components , such as compressors, partial 
 
4 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID  598 (under dates raised and references) . G/TBT/M/79  
 
- 4 - 
 
  requirement s were only manufactured in India, with the rest imported to meet the entire 
requirement. This would  also facilitate the setting up of production facilities.  
2.14.   The representative of India said that, with respect to non -availability of designated t esting 
laboratories, the BIS (under its Laboratory Recognition Scheme 2018) had recognized outside 
laboratories as per IS 1391: Room Air Conditioners; Part 1, i.e., for Unitary Air Conditioner and Part 
2i, i.e for Split Air Conditioner. Another outside lab oratory ha d been recognized for testing as per 
IS/IEC 60730 Part 2 Sec 9: Year: 11 - Automatic Electrical Controls for Household and Similar use 
Part-2 particulars requirements Section 9 Temperature sensing controls.  Details were available on 
the BIS websit e. The recognition of laboratories under BIS Laboratory Recognition Scheme, 2018 
was a continuous and ongoing process. Further, under the provision of BIS Conformity Assessment 
Regulations, 2018, the conformity of the product to relevant Indian Standards c ould also be verified 
through in -factory testing and a BIS license could also be granted on factory testing basis. Therefore, 
the risk of lacking necessary testing facilities before the enforcement date did not arise.  
2.15.   Regarding recognition of foreign labo ratories, the BIS Laboratory Recognition Scheme 2018 
provided for recognition of overseas laboratories. Details were available on the BIS website. The 
recognition of foreign laboratories would be carried out on a reciprocal and mutually beneficial basis. 
Further, the requests to grant a 6 -month grace period for implementation of the Air Conditioner and 
its related Parts (Quality Control) Order, 2018, was duly noted for positive consideration. The 
Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPII T), normally provided 6 months for 
implementation of any technical regulation from its date of adoption.  
Ecuador - Energy Efficiency Requirements for Clothes Dryers for Domestic Use 
G/TBT/N/ECU/439  (IMS ID  5995) 
2.16.   The representative of the Republic of Ko rea noted that, a ccording to Ecuador' s energy 
efficiency requirements for clothes dryers, a range of energy efficiency classes for sale of dryers was 
limited to A and B.  Korea request ed Ecuador to  withdraw the clause for the minimum allowable 
classes for sale.  This would be in line with international standards (IEC 61121 ) and was common 
practice in other Latin American countries. In addition to this, A and B classes, which restrict ed the 
sales in Ecuador , had higher standards. This could make it more difficult for all dryers to enter the 
Ecuadorian market  because the class for all dryers that were currently sold globally were under c lass 
"C" or lower under this amendment.  Korea thus asked Ecuador to  withdraw the clause for the 
minimum allowable classes for sale.  
2.17.   The representative of Ecuador  took note of the concerns raised by Korea, which would be 
assessed and responded  to in due course.  
Ghana - Administrative Process for Homologation of Model of Mo tor Vehicle and 
its Variants G/TBT/N/GHA/11  (IMS ID  6006) 
2.18.   The representative of the United States  said that, while appreciating  Ghana's  steps to improve 
road safety by adopting motor vehicle safety and emissions standards that were used internationally , 
the US  was nonetheless concerned that the measures would discontinue accepting vehicles built to 
comply with US regulations.  She asked Gh ana for any  data identifying specific concerns relating to 
the operation of vehicles built to US regulatory specifications on Ghana' s roadways . The US 
encourage d Ghana to continue accepting vehicles built to US Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 
(FMVSS ) and U S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) emissions requirements.  The US also  
encourage d the Ghana Standards Authority (GSA) to accept all current and future U S FMVSS and 
US EPA standards.  
2.19.   The representative of Canada  said that while Canada welcomed measures establishing 
automotive safety standards, such safety standards should be developed without creating 
unnecessary barriers to trade. Ghana's decision to consider automotive safety standards based 
exclusively on UNECE standards without consideration  of other international standards, such as the 
Canadian Motor Vehicle safety standards  and, as mentioned by the US, the US FMVSS  could create 
unnecessary barriers. Adoption and recognition of other international standards would facilitate trade 
by allowing  vehicles from other jurisdictions that follow different standards to be sold in Ghana. It 
 
5 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID  599 (under dates raised and references) . 
6 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID  600 (under dates raised and references) . G/TBT/M/79  
 
- 5 - 
 
  would also potentially improve public safety through a broader set of standards to be considered, 
rather than only one set of standards. Developing national safety s tandards based on UNECE 
standards did not preclude Ghana from also adopting Canadian Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 
and/or US Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards in the future.  
2.20.   The representative of Ghana  was not in the room.  The concerns expressed were subsequently 
transmitted to the relevant  authorities.  
United States - Modernization of the Labeling and Advertising Regulations for 
Wine, Distilled Spirits, and Malt Beverages G/TBT/N/USA/1429  (IMS ID  6017) 
2.21.   The representative of the European Union  raised concerns with various elements of the 
measure's labelling requirements. Regarding  wine labelling, she asked for more information about : 
the justification for character size limits (especially maximum limits); restrictions on indication of 
the vintage y ear and grape variety; appellations of origin for fruit, rice and agricultural wines; a 
minimum alcohol content of 15%, and the title "vermouth" seem ed to cover all aromatised wines. 
Regarding spirits  labelling, the EU was concerned with : the tolerance for  labelling of alcohol content; 
multiple distillation claims tha t were inconsistent with long -standing labelling conventions; 
statements of age, storage and percentage; and standards of identity (e.g. a minimum alcohol 
content of 40% requirement for all distilled spirits).  
2.22.   The representative of the United States  informed the Committee that the comment period for 
its rulemaking on this measure had closed on 26 June 2019, with around 1,200  comments  received, 
including from the EU. Next steps  included the  finalization of regulations exactly as proposed, 
finalizing some proposals but not others, re -noticing proposals (publishing an updated Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking in the Federal Register), withdrawing certain proposals, splitting the proposals 
out into pa rts for finalization, or a combination of these. The US said it was analysing hundreds of 
comments involving a great variety of challenging issues of widespread interest and was giving all 
comments and issues the analysis required. In the interest of trans parency , the US generally did not 
accept new comments on a proposed rule after the clos ure of the comment period.  
Qatar - Ministry of Public Health Circular regarding shelf life for cheese (IMS 
ID 6028) 
2.23.   The representative of the United States  expressed co ncern regarding the  require ment for 
most milk and milk products to comply with these requirements from 1 June 2019, without allowing 
a reasonable interval for implementation.  Qatar was invited to explain the rationale for restricting 
cheese shelf life para meters  that restricted  imported products  from being placed on the market. The 
US was particularly concerned that as the new shelf life restrictions were so short, they effectively 
prohibit ed dairy products originating from countries that were not geographi cally close to Qatar from 
being viable purchase options for importers. Although the US recognize d that common commercial 
practice in many regions was to require a certain percentage of a product 's shelf life to be available 
prior to importing it, requiring 80% of the product 's shelf life to be available would leave  very little 
time for the logistics involved in production, distribution, transit, shipping, import check and 
redistribution.  Although the regulation allow ed for abbreviated shelf life pe riods for a wide range of 
dairy products, implementing the restriction was particularly problematic for major cheese exporters, 
who were having trouble maintaining contracts with importers because of the shelf life restrictions.  
2.24.   The regulation  require d country of origin labelling and require d certain cheeses to be 
presented in low -fat form only  and therefore also restrict ed the marketing of fluid milks made from 
reconstituted powdered milks . The US was  also concerned with Qatar' s adoption of this measure 
without first being notified to the WTO so as to allow trading partners the opportunity to comment . 
A reasonable implementation period  had also not been provided . Qatar was requested to notify the 
measure to the TBT Committee  and to  suspend or amend th e measure. In 2018, the U S exported 
nearly  USD 8 million in dairy products to Qatar, with cheese comprising nearly 45% of its dairy 
exports.  
2.25.   The representative of the European Union  also asked that this measure be notified,  and its 
application suspended. The implementation of these rules was causing serious disruptions to EU 
 
7 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID  601 (under dates raised and references) . 
8 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID  602 (under dates raised and references) . G/TBT/M/79  
 
- 6 - 
 
  exporters as compliance with these requirements was not feasible for certain cheeses and milk 
products. Consequen tly, EU products covered by the measure  could no longer be exported to Qatar. 
The EU was particularly concerned about : the stringent restrictions on the shelf -life that 
disadvantage d imported products in comparison to local products ; and certain product 
characteristics for UHT milk and white ch eeses, in particular, obligatory addition of vitamins to milk 
and low -fat-only requirement for certain white cheeses.  These requirements , she noted, were  not in 
line with Codex  Alimentarius relevant international standards, were not science -based and d id not 
guarantee the safety of imported products. The measures therefore appear ed to be more restrictive 
than necessary to fulfil the legitimate objective of public health protection. She drew Qatar's 
attention, in this respect, to Articles  2.1, 2.2 and 2.4 of  the TBT Agreement.  
2.26.   The representative of Qatar  explained that the protection of consumers was of primary 
importance and that relevant authorities with specialised expertise in the matter were mandated to 
adopt appropriate measures to ensure the quality of  products and in particular agricultural products.  
Qatari measures addressing such issues were always adopted with WTO obligations in mind, 
including those concerning non -discrimination and avoiding  unnecessary barriers to trade .  
Turkey - Draft Amendment of the Regulation on Cosmetics  (IMS ID  6039) 
2.27.   The representative of the United States  expressed concerns with the trade restrictions that 
ensued after  the introduction by Turkey of several new product filing, labelling, and testing 
requirements . These new requirements had not been notified to the WTO and m any were introduced 
from 2016 to 2018, before Turkey had conducted a domestic -only consultation of its draft 
amendment to its Cosmetics Regulation in December 2018.  The proposed amendment would require  
companies to disclose highly confidential business information  (CBI) , in terms of product formulation 
and test data tha t were  not typically required during a product filing. CBI disclosures were required 
in most major markets only in the event of serious adverse events affecting consumers that require d 
further scrutiny by domestic regulators.  While understand ing Turkey 's objective to provide its 
consumers with information on products in the marketplace, some of the information being disclosed 
via the Turki sh Medic ines and Medical Devices Agency 's online product portal, such as product frame 
formulations and claims, could enable counterfeits and competitors to mine information.   
2.28.   She also recalled that in June 2019, Turkey's Enquiry P oint had indicated that T urkey would 
notify the draft amendment to the WTO, but to date there ha d been no such notification. The US 
asked Turkey : (i) when it intend ed to make such notification; (ii) that at least 60 days be provided 
for interes ted parties to submit comments; (iii)  that due consideration be given to US industry' s 
comments, including consideration of how to protect CBI in Turkey' s online portal ; and (iv) that the 
implementation of this measure be suspended until the  notification was made . Cosmetics was a 
growing area  of exports from Turkey to the US, up 18% to USD 20 million in 2018. However, this 
was not reciprocated bilaterally : US cosmetics exports to Turkey were down 25% since 2016 to USD 
28 million in 2018.  
2.29.   The representative of Turkey  said that Turkey had transpose d the EU' s harmonization 
legislation on products and quality infrastructure as a requirement of the EU -Turkey Customs Union 
Agreement, which entered into force in 1996. In this context, the Cosmetic Regulation of Turkey 
was one of the areas where harmonization with the EU legislation was continuing. Turkey' s Draft 
Amendment on Cosmetics, in which the Regulation of the EC No 1223/2009 ha d been taken into 
account, was therefore submitted to the EU Commission  for comments  on 22 August 2019.  After 
receiving and evaluating the comments of the Commission, Turkey was planning to notify it the 
regulation to the WTO  allowing for a 60-day comment period . 
Brazil - Ordinance 259, on 27 May 2019, which makes corrections and updates to 
the Conformity Assessment R equirements for Medical Devices Subject to the Health 
Surveillance System in Ordinance 54, from 1 February 2016 G/TBT/N/BRA/605/Add.1  
(IMS ID  60410) 
2.30.   The representative of the United States  expressed support for Brazil' s public health objective 
of ensuring the safety and efficacy of medical devices being sold on the Brazilian market. However, 
the US medical device industry – as well as  the Brazilian industry  – had concerns  with the validity 
 
9 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID  603 (under dates raised and references) . 
10 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID  604 (under dates raised and references) . G/TBT/M/79  
 
- 7 - 
 
  periods for testing, certification of medical devices and the requirements for the application of the 
Compliance Identification Seal. This was an important issue, given that the value for US medical 
device  exports to Brazil in 2018 was USD 1 Billion.  Indus try had identified these factors in the 
Brazilian measure as unlike other WTO Member requirements.  The US appreciated Brazil' s attempt 
to make corrections and updates in National Institute of Metrology Standardization and Industrial 
Quality (INMETRO) Ordin ance 259/2019, notified to the WTO on 13 June 2019 , which was in the 
process of being finalized . This Ordinance, it seemed, would eliminate the validity periods for testing 
and certification of medical devices. It would also  allow the application of Compli ance Identification 
Seal at the port of export or after arrival in Brazil without prior facility inspection. The US asked 
Brazil to notify the final measure according to the procedures outline in the Committee's 
recommendation on the Coherent Use of Notifi cation Formats.  
2.31.   The representative of Brazil  said that all  comments received  during the measure's consultation 
phase  helped regulators better understand industry's needs and concerns. The re had also been close 
coordination between the regulators involved  in the setting of requirements for medical devices in 
Brazil.  Industry had  raised concern about the validity periods for testing and certification of medical 
devices and the requirements for the application of the Compliance Identification Seal.  All validity 
periods would  therefore  be removed. The proposed text already allowed  for the Seal to be affixed in 
Brazil. The additional  requirements for inspection of the facilities in which the Seal was affixed would  
be withdrawn. Manufacturers and importe rs would  be responsible for ensuring their compliance with 
the affixation requirements. Brazil ha d consistently taken into consideration comments and  
suggestions provided by M embers and by industry . Besides  complying with transparency obligations 
under the  TBT Agreement, Brazil's  regulators ha d shown flexibility by actually amend ing their 
proposals based on comments received during public consultation. Brazil would continue to conside r 
any other suggestions for changes in the draft regulation that ha d not yet been addressed.  
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia - Electrical Clothes Dryers Energy Performance 
Requirements and Labeling , G/TBT/N/SAU/987  (IMS ID  60511) 
2.32.   The representative of the Republic of Korea  raised concerns wi th how this measure's criteria 
of the power consumption tolerance for motor -operated type dryers was different from international 
standards. According to the International Standard IEC 60335 -1, household appliances were 
classified into heating and combined  appliances, motor -operated appliances, depending on the 
presence of heat sources, motors, etc. This international standard stipulated the criteria of the power 
consumption tolerance based on this classification. Clothes dryers were also classified into th e two 
types, as household appliances depending on the driving methods. However, Saudi Arabia's 
regulation, SASO 2883 , stipulated very narrow power consumption tolerance for motor -operated 
clothes dryers because it regulated the same power consumption toler ance for all dryers with 
different driving methods. This, he said, could cause unnecessary trade restrictions due to the 
difference from the international standard and the criteria of all countries implementing energy 
efficiency regulations for clothes dry ers. Saudi Arabia was requested to harmonize its dryer power 
consumption tolerance with this IEC international standard as soon as possible.  
2.33.   The representative of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia  said Saudi Arabia was willing to further 
discuss this problem bil aterally  with Korea .  
Republic of Korea - Ballast Water Management Act  (IMS ID  60612) 
2.34.   The representative of the European Union  expressed concerns with Korea' s requirements on 
certification of ballast water treatment systems (BWTS ) for vessels registered under the Korean flag, 
in particular regarding the lack of recognition of tests performed on ballast water treatment system 
outside Korea. She asked  that Korea n otify this measure to the WTO to allow comments from 
Members . EU indus try continued  to report difficulties with the duplication of procedures and, in 
particular, long delays in the certification of such systems. In Korea, European manufacturers of 
ballast water treatment systems were obliged to submit a new application to th e Korean authorities 
before the installation of the equipment on board a vessel under a Korea flag. The equipment ha d 
already been tested and certified in Europe by one of the 12 classification societies approved by the 
EU and its  member States, including the Korean Register of Shipping (KR). These tests and 
certification processes were carried out in accordance with all relevant IMO requirements and the 
 
11 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID  605 (under dates raised and references) . 
12 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID  606 (under dates raised and references) . G/TBT/M/79  
 
- 8 - 
 
  G8 guidelines on approval of ballast water treatment systems. Therefore, European manufacturers 
of balla st water treatment systems already h eld the necessary IMO type approval documentation 
and certificates.   
2.35.   The Korean Ministry of Ocean and Fisheries (MOF) ha d delegated the task of reviewing the 
application by foreign manufacturers of ballast water treatmen t systems, including all the 
documentation submitted, to the Korean Institute of Ocean Science & Technology (KIOST). KIOST 
would  accept the application and documentation related to type approval tests approved by foreign 
authorities/governments or test ins titutes recognised by foreign authorities, but only if the 
application was formally submitted by a business entity officially registered in Korea, not by 
companies established and registered outside Korea.  This requirement was not in compliance with 
the G8  guidelines, as these guidelines only referred to "Manufacturers", not "importers or others" . 
The certification requirements thus created  additional costs and admi nistrative delays as it provided  
a preferential treatment in sales of ballast water treatment  systems for Korean flagged vessels . This 
had a strong impact on the competitiveness of EU companies  and was  not standard practice in the 
EU, where IMO type approval certificates for approval of ballast water treatment systems issued by 
the Korean classifi cation society were fully recognised.  
2.36.   The EU asked  Korea, in the approval of foreign manufactured ballast water treatment systems 
for vessels under the Korean Flag, to fully recognise all tests previously performed according to the 
IMO requirements and th e G8 guidelines.  The EU also invite d the Korean authorities to share 
information on the steps taken to remove this trade barrier.  
2.37.   The representative of the Republic of Korea  said that the type approval was an issue embodied 
in Regulation D -3 of Ballast Wat er Management Convention 's Annex, demonstrating the 
responsibility of the competent authority for type approval without any provisions to recognize other 
countries ' type approval. The EU had reportedly implemented the scheme that any foreign system 
require d the type approval granted by each EU member State or the Recognized Organization. 
Korean manufacturers were also subject to significant costs and time delays while awaiting approval 
by the EU countries and the Recognized Organization. The Ballast Water Management Act had 
already stipulated that foreign systems may be equal to Korean products in the conditions for type 
approval. In addition, Korea ha d implemented the updated scheme to grant type approval testing 
ease or immunity to the system approv ed overseas since the amendment of the Act on 1 July 2019. 
The approval requirements were mainly replaced with the relevant documents screening. 
Furthermore, under Korean law, manufacturers and importers did not only mean Korean companies: 
foreign companie s were equally qualified. This, he said, was an indicator  that Korea had not created 
any technical or institutional barriers in the procedure of type approval of Ballast Water Management 
System in comparison with the EU.  
Pakistan - Amendment to Pakistan 's Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1950: 
Statutory Regulatory Order (SRO) 237 on labe lling, shelf -life, and halal certification New 
concerns (IMS ID  60713) 
2.38.   The representative of the United States  expressed concerns with Pakistan' s new require ments 
in SRO 2 37. While noting that the  Ministry of Commerce (MOC) had delayed implementation of SRO 
237 until 1 July 2019, the US requested that Pakistan suspend implementation of these requirements 
by at least one year and notify the SRO as a draft  to the WTO . She rec alled that this request had 
already been made both  through a March 2019 communication to Pakistan's TBT Enquiry P oint as 
well as at a US -Pakistan TIFA intercessional meeting held in May 2019.  She reminded Pakistan that 
WTO Members should be allowed a reaso nable  period to submit comments (60 -90 days), and 
comments received should be considered prior to implementation of a measure.  
2.39.   With respect to the measure's labelling requirements, the US was concerned  that the SRO 
require d that all products be halal -certified and labe lled, even those products that were broadly 
recognized as being naturally halal.  While the US recognized  the importance of ensuring that 
products were halal for Pakistani consumers, it urged  Pakistan to develop halal policies that me t the 
needs of consumers without being overly burdensome or trade prohibitive. The US  encourage d 
Pakistan to follow other Islamic countries in making halal certification and label ling voluntary.  For 
example, in Malaysia, US exporters could  choose to volunta rily label and certify their consumer food 
and beverage products as halal for Malaysian consumers, but the voluntary nature of this 
 
13 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID  607 (under dates raised and references) . G/TBT/M/79  
 
- 9 - 
 
  requirement was not trade -prohibitive. The US had  several halal certification bodies, accredited by 
members of the Internati onal Halal Accreditation Forum (IHAF) and the Standards and Metrology 
Institute for the Islamic Countries (SMIIC).  The US also said that, rather than only recogniz ing halal 
certifiers that were accredited by IHAF and SMIIC members, Pakistan should also recognize ha lal 
certificates from other US -based halal certifiers recognized by other Islamic countries.  Finally, the 
US noted that a MOC memorandum issued on 31 July 2019  stated that raw and semi -processed 
agricultural products might not need halal certifica tion. The US asked Pakistan to  clarify the definition 
of semi -processed  agricultural product and what "may not" meant in this context.  
2.40.   The representative of the European Union  expressed concern that regulations establishing 
import requirements for foodstuf f had been adopted without previous notification to the WTO TBT 
or SPS Committee s. The EU stressed  the importance of notify ing any future revisions to the WTO at 
the draft stage, providing WTO Members with opportunity to comment.  The conditions laid out wi th 
regard to labelling were discouraging for EU importers especially given that the use of stickers, 
overprinting, stamp or scratched labelling was prohibited.  Given the lack of a sufficient transitional 
period, these requirements considerably delay ed approval of imported products for the Pakistani 
market. The EU thus asked Pakistan to  consider suspending the implementation of SRO 237 for at 
least 18 months to allow an adaptation period for EU importers . 
2.41.   The representative of Pakistan  said that the concerns  raised by the US and the EU would be 
sent to capital for detailed replies. As a preliminary response, SRO 237 was replaced with SRO 438 
on 9 April 2019 and revised again with SRO 659 on 27 June 2019, with certain amendments. The 
shelf life in other labell ing requirements contained in the SRO were not new and had existed at the 
sub federal provincial levels. This SRO was intended to update the policy order of 2016 to incorporate 
the existing measures and streamline them with national laws. The measures were  applicable on a 
non-discriminatory basis and were consistent with Pakistan's WTO obligations. Pakistan remained 
open to bilateral engagement with interested Members to address their concerns.  
2.2.4   Previous ly raised concerns  
China — Requirements for information security products, including, inter alia , the 
Office of State Commercial Cryptography Administration (OSCCA) 1999 Regulation on 
commercial encryption products and its on -going revision and the Multi -Level Protection 
Scheme (MLPS) (IMS ID  29414) 
2.42.   The representative of Japan  expressed concern about China 's "Regulation on the 
Administration of Commercial Cipher Codes " and "Cyber Security Multi -Level Protection Scheme " 
and referred to the statement made at the previous  TBT Com mittee meeting. Since the March 2019 
Committee meeting, China ha d explained that regulations on the "Cyber Security Multi -Level 
Protection Scheme " were being revised and that the regulation would be open for public comment, 
when the revision had been compl eted. Japan therefore requested that China provide relevant 
information regarding the revision process and that the regulations be implemented transparently.  
2.43.   The representative of the European Union  raised concerns with the measure. The full 
statement is c ontained in G/TBT/W/682 . 
2.44.   The repre sentative of China  said that to implement the requirements of promoting 
administration according to law, to deepen the administrative reform and transform government 
functions in the sector of commercial cryptography, China was organizing the revision of t he 
Regulations on Commercial Cryptography with the aim of further reducing administrative licen ces 
and strengthening the supervision of the whole process. The revision of the Regulations on 
Commercial Cryptography was currently ongoing and in the process o f research. China would 
continue to revise the Regulations on Commercial Cryptography according to the Law on 
Cryptography and release the Regulations for public consultation in the appropriate time. As 
technology developed in response to more complicated cyber security circumstances, information 
security multi -level protection scheme needed to be improved. Based on experience in past years 
and responding to new developments, the Cybersecurity Law stipulated that China would carry out 
the cybersecurity MLPS , which was based on information security MLPS. To fulfil the requirements 
 
14 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID  294 (under dates raised and references) . G/TBT/M/79  
 
- 10 - 
 
  in Cybersecurity Law, regulations on cybersecurity MLPS w ere under drafting. They would replace 
the former administrative measures on information security MLPS.  
Indonesia — Technic al Guidelines for the Implementation of the Adoption and 
Supervision of Indonesian National Standards for Obligatory Toy Safety, 
G/TBT/N/IDN/64 , G/TBT/N/IDN/64/Add .1, G/TBT/N/IDN/ 64/Add.2 , 
G/TBT/ N/IDN/64/Add.3  (IMS ID  32815) 
2.45.   The representative of the European Union  noted that this concern had been repeatedly  raised 
in previous TBT Committee  meetings regarding the amendment to the mandatory implementation 
of the Indonesia national standard (SNI) for  Toys by Regulation of the Minister of Industry 29 of 
November 2018. The amendment had introduced a Scheme 5, which applied to audits and inspection 
of toy production facilities as an optional scheme in order to replace the discriminatory requirement 
that provided for the testing of each batch of imported toys as compared with the testing of samples 
foreseen every six months for domestic products. The EU expressed concern about the overall 
implementation of Scheme 5, in particular as to whether the proposed  audits, inspections and 
laboratory testing would be conducted in a timely and efficient manner under this new scheme.  
2.46.   In addition, the expected implementation of Guidelines that should provide further details on 
the requirements for toys importers had no t yet been released. In this regard, the European Union 
understood that the Centre for Standardization had released a recent internal Circular (No. 
257/BPPI/VIII/2019) on toy certification procedures using Scheme 5, which introduced additional 
complementar y factory audits and/or product sampling and testing for new products entering the 
market every six months. These requirements would apply even if the manufacturer already had a 
certification of their production facilities, which currently was valid for four years. The European 
Union questioned therefore the added value of these complementary audits. It also seemed 
challenging to accomplish as it would require that companies were able to plan ahead the entering 
of new products on the market within the annua l audit/surveillance process laid down by the 
Indonesian authorities. The EU considered that new audits should only be triggered if a factory was 
changed.  
2.47.   The representative of Japan  supported the EU's position. In October 2018, Indonesia had 
revised its toy safety regulation to introduce a new scheme incorporating a quality management 
system in the production process as an option for toy certification procedures. Although Indonesia 
had mentioned that the drafting of implementation guidelines was in proces s at the March 2019 TBT 
Committee meeting and more than one year has passed since the toy safety regulation had been 
revised, the implementation guidelines had not yet been published. In this regard, at the June 2019 
TBT Committee meeting, Indonesia had ex plained that regulation 29/2018 included the guidelines 
for a Type 5 scheme for product certification. However, the regulation did not include sufficient 
information for compliance with the new toy safety regulation. Japan therefore requested that 
Indonesi a provide the implementation guidelines for the Type 5 scheme for product certification 
stipulated in regulation 29/2018. Japan also remained concerned that there were unnecessary trade -
restrictive measures in the revised regulation, such as the testing re quirement for "each-and-every 
import shipment " and the laboratory accreditation requirement for overseas laboratories. The 
requirements needed to be revised in accordance with the WTO -TBT obligations.  
2.48.   The representative of the United States  noted that dial ogue on Indonesia 's toy standard dated 
back to 2012; it was disappointing that after years of technical exchange Indonesia 's toy import 
requirements continued to be barriers to US exports of toys. The United States urged Indonesia to 
engage meaningfully wi th stakeholders to minimize barriers to trade in the importation of toys. She 
recalled that when the issue had been raised at the June meeting, Indonesia had noted that it would 
not be issuing implementing guidelines for the measure.  This decision was disa ppointing and further 
added to the lack of clarity for importers.  Indonesia had stated that the introduction of Scheme 5 
for importers was an attempt to ease the burden on importers, but according to US industry, the 
cost of factory inspections every six m onths was so exorbitant that it made Scheme 5 not an option 
and therefore importers were forced to continue to test every shipment of imported toys. To make 
Scheme 5 a reasonable alternative for US companies, Indonesia needed to consider allowing ISO 
accre dited inspectors in the country of manufacture to complete the inspections.  
 
15 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID  328 (under dates raised and references) . G/TBT/M/79  
 
- 11 - 
 
  2.49.   The representative of Indonesia  said that the current Regulation 29/2018 had included the 
technical guidelines for the option of type 1 and 5 for product certification procedures. It was 
Indonesia's understanding that both types of certification accorded the same treatment between 
imported products and domestic products. In addition, MoI had issued a circular letter to Product 
Certification Bodies that explained the procedures of ty pe 5 product certification. As set out in MoI 
regulation 29/2018, Indonesia recognized foreign testing laboratory under the framework of 
international accreditation arrangement on ILAC and MRA on a reciprocal basis.  
European Union — Draft Implementing Regulations amending Regulation 
(EC) No. 607/2009 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation 
(EC) No  479/2008 as regards protected designations of origin and geographical 
indications, traditiona l terms, labelling and presentation of certain wine sector products, 
G/TBT/N/EEC/264 , G/TBT/N/EEC/264/Add.1  (IMS ID  34516) 
2.50.   The representative of the United States  said that it was disappointing to once again have to 
raise concerns with the EU 's revisions to its draft regulation on geographical indications and 
traditional terms for wine; and, specifically, its industry 's pending applications for traditional terms.  
The EU 's persistent failure to provide any information left no choice. Since the June 2018 TBT 
Committee meeting, the EU had been saying that the pending applications for traditional terms were 
still under consideration, but it could not provide a precise t imeline for approval. Why was the EU 
still unable to provide any estimate more than a year later? The representative of the Unites States 
asked the EU to provide more transparency in respect of : (i) how many applications for traditional 
terms had been lodg ed over the last nine years; (ii) how many of those applications had been 
approved, rejected, or remained pending; (iii) what the average time between application and a final 
decision was; (iv) for pending applications, how long had these been waiting (for  pending 
applications); and (v) how many of the applications had come from member States.  
2.51.   The US was also concerned about the EU 's efforts to restrict the ability of its producers to use 
common descriptive tools for labelling and marketing their products, such as restrictions on the use 
of the term "barrel aged " and certain bottle shapes, to wines with geographical indications. Now that 
the EU had notified the revised draft regulation, the United States once again requested the EU to 
move expeditiously to a pprove its industry 's applications so that the United States could remove this 
longstanding item from this Committee 's agenda, as well as the agenda of the WTO Council or Trade 
in Goods (CTG). She also asked the EU to confirm how the processing of these ap plications had – or 
would – change following the recent Parliamentary elections – and to confirm if this work had 
transitioned to a new unit within the European Commission.  
2.52.   The representative of Argentina  reiterated concerns expressed at earlier meetings o f the 
Committee with respects to the discrimination that Argentinian wines had to face, as these could not 
use the traditional terms such as Reserva  and Gran Reserva  on their labels. This was happening 
despite the fact that Argentina had gone through the s ubstantial approval procedures for the use of 
such terms in March 2012 under EU law. Argentina once again urged the EU to act on all applications 
to register traditional terms which had been submitted by third countries, to prevent unnecessary 
technical ba rriers to trade.  
2.53.   The representative of New Zealand , while recognizing that Members had the right to protect 
their consumers from deceptive practices, asked the EU to take into consideration concerns raised 
by Members in relation to the scope and applicati on of the system of traditional terms, as well as 
the transparency of the process, and timeline in relation to the applications by third countries.  
2.54.   The representative of Brazil  reiterated that the terms contained in the regulation also affected 
Brazilian w ine producers. The fact that the EU was still analysing this case after such a long time 
was an indication that this measure was an unnecessary technical barrier to trade, and that it did 
not pursue any valid objective under the TBT Agreement. He respectfu lly asked the EU to share any 
updated information with the Committee, as well as to provide information about the estimated 
time-frame related to the use of regulated terms for wines exported to the EU in Regulation (EC) 
No. 607/2009, Council Regulation (E C) No 479/2008 and revised regulations notified under 
G/TBT/N/EU/570  and G/TBT/N/EU/571 . 
 
16 For previous statements fo llow the thread under IMS ID 345 (under dates raised and references) . G/TBT/M/79  
 
- 12 - 
 
  2.55.   The representative of the European Union  recalled that, as had been explained on previous 
occasions, the EU had now completed the revision of its internal legislation on traditional terms 
(Commission Delegated Regulation (E U) 2019/33 and Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 
2019/34) which had been discussed in previous TBT Committees. The EU believed that its internal 
legislation offered a meaningful and transparent system of protection to traditional terms used on 
wine p roducts from the EU, as well as on products from third countries. The pending applications for 
traditional terms were still being processed. The EU ha d in the past demonstrated its ability to 
address specific Members ' concerns in this area either via its i nternal legislation or via bilateral 
agreements.  
India — Electronics and Information Technology Goods (Requirements for 
Compulsory Registration) Order, 2012, G/TBT/N/IND/44 , G/TBT/N/IND/44/Add.1 , 
G/TBT/N/IND/44/Add.2 , G/TBT/N/IND/44/Add .3, G/TBT/N/IND/ 44/Add.6 , 
G/TBT/N/IND/47 , G/TBT/N/IND/58  (IMS ID  36717) 
2.56.   The representative of Canada  appreciated recent bilateral engagements, particularly in 
respect of the compulsory registration requirements. He referred to points made at previous 
meetings and welcomed any clarifications and information that India could prov ide. 
2.57.   The representative of the United States  referred to previous interventions under the specific 
trade concern.  
2.58.   The representative of India reiterated that the Bur eau of Indian Standards (BIS) accepted IEC 
pre-test reports for critical components in the BIS Station Scheme, except for the components which 
had been notified in the compulsory registration order, or the quality control orders. Further, the 
IEC conformity assessment system basic rules provide d for countries' law to prevail over any other 
obligation under IEC conformity assessment system. Although only test reports from BIS recognised 
labs were accepted under BIS registration scheme, the scheme did allow for recognition of overseas 
laboratories. The recognition of foreign laboratories would be c arried out on a reciprocal and mutually 
beneficial basis. In addition to these comments, the representative of India said that her delegation  
would welcome any further bilateral discussions by interested Members.  
European Union — Hazard -based approach to p lant protection products and 
setting of import tolerances G/TBT/N/EU/383 , G/TBT/N/EU/384 , G/SPS/N/EU/166  
(IMS  ID 39318) 
2.59.   The representative of the United States  expressed disappointment that the European Union 
had proceeded with implementation despite numerous interventions by WTO Members (14 Members 
at last TBT Committee meeting). The US h ad ongoing concerns with the EU 's hazard -based approach 
to pesticide regulation, and its implementation of criteria for identifying and subsequently banning 
endocrine -active substances. Simply identifying hazards without identifying ascertainable risks or 
considering reasonable methods for managing risk raised concerns. The hazard cut -offs restricted 
access to crop protection tools that would be deemed safe under a system that utilized risk 
assessments and risk management processes. They further impact ed trade by feeding into the EU 's 
maximum residue limit (MRL) policy determinations, which should instead be based on 
comprehensive risk assessment.  
2.60.   The representative of the US recalled that the EU had stated that import tolerances would be 
granted on a case -by-case basis, factoring in "all relevant factors ". However, the US remained 
troubled by the EU 's opaque process for managing import tolerances for substances that triggered 
the hazard -based cut -off criteria. Despite its insistence that import tolerances w ould be "in line with 
risk analysis principles, " the EU 's case -by-case approach did not seem to take into consideration the 
circumstances relevant to each substance, as would be the case in a true risk -based approach. The 
current approach created considera ble uncertainty for applicants and producers and could cause 
significant delays in the issuance of import tolerances, or no tolerance at all, and as a result trade 
may be effectively halted without a clear scientific reason. In such circumstances, the haza rd criteria 
serve d as barriers to trade.  
 
17 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 367 (under dates raised and references) . 
18 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 393 (under dates raised and references) . G/TBT/M/79  
 
- 13 - 
 
  2.61.   The US went on to note that if the EU was interested in addressing the concerns raised by 
Members, the EU needed to identify the relevant factors, how these factors related to safeguarding 
human health and the envi ronment, how long the process was anticipated to take, and how 
producers could effectively utilize the process. Other alternate regulatory approaches existed that 
provided high levels of human health and environmental protection, without causing unnecessar y 
negative impact to trade. Indeed, the EU had stated its commitment to transparency; however, the 
United States and others had raised this concern for years with no adequate response or change 
from the EU.  The policy regarding MRLs  and import tolerances for substances meeting hazard cut -
offs remained unclear and placed an unnecessary burden on producers. The EU needed to adhere to 
the principles of sound science, non -discrimination, transparency, and predictability in the 
implementa tion of TBT measures.  
2.62.   The representative of Costa Rica  reiterated concerns with the hazard -based approach adopted 
by the EU and requested that the application of the regulations be based on sound scientific criteria.  
2.63.   The representative of Argentina  said t hat there was uncertainty about how the application for 
import tolerances of active substances that had been affected by the hazard -based cut -off criteria 
would be applied in practice. Argentina urged the EU to take the appropriate precautions to avoid 
the application of an unnecessary barrier to international trade, especially given the importance of 
the EU market for developing countries, such as Argentina.  
2.64.   The representative of Australia  stressed the importance of a risk -based approach to regulating 
endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs), rather than considering only the potential for harm due to 
the intrinsic properties of a chemical. Australia noted the EU advice from March 2019 that no further 
discussions would be held with member States about the inclu sion in the legislation of potential 
negligible exposure provisions. Following the last European Parliamentary elections and subsequent 
changes to the European Commission, Australia would appreciate recommencing discussions on this 
topic. Australia underst ood that requests for import tolerances for chemicals meeting the so -called 
"cut-off" criteria would be considered on a case -by-case basis and that this would involve a risk 
assessment by a member State, and a scientific opinion by the European Food Safety  Authority. 
Australia asked if the EU was planning to develop guidance material about this process to assist 
exporting countries in submitting import tolerance requests and minimizing the trade impact of the 
new regulation.  
2.65.   The representative of Brazil  supported the preceding interventions. Regulations on endocrine 
disruptors needed to be established according to scientific principles, taking all available data into 
consideration. Serious evaluations had to differentiate between chemicals that had the pote ntial to 
cause harm due to their endocrine mode of action from those substances that did not pose a threat 
to human health. Maximum Residue Levels and tolerance levels for plant protection products needed 
to be addressed according to the principles of the SPS Agreement.  
2.66.   The representative of Canada  supported concerns raised by others, in particular with respect 
to the process for resetting import tolerances. She stressed that its importance was undeniable given 
the attention in the TBT and SPS Committees, a s well as the Council for Trade in Goods. This pointed 
to the inher ent link between the non -renewal decisions for plant protection products notified to the 
TBT Committee and the setting of MRLs for active substances normally notified to the SPS 
Committee. As the implementation remained unclear to Canada, she welcomed the EU's offer to hold 
third countries and stakeholders' seminars to address concerns. Hopefully these would provide 
detailed information on import tolerances falling under the cut -off criteria , including whether an 
assessment technique developed by a relevant international organi zation would be considered. 
Canada also asked for more clarity on the EU's case -by-case approach to the setting of import 
tolerances to ensure a clear and predictable p rocess for producers with clear timelines and access 
to the necessary transition measures; this was important because long renewal decisions were 
currently in the process of being implemented by the EU. In conclusion, Canada continued to seek 
clarity on ho w the EU would implement regulations 396/2005 and 1107/2009 in a coherent and 
transparent way that minimized negative and unnecessary trade effects and allowed producers and 
exporters to make timely business decisions. Canada requested confirmation that an  import 
tolerance would be established for inactive substances falling under the cut -off criteria when a full 
risk assessment determined an acceptable residue level. Until such a clear and predictable process 
for setting import tolerance was implemented, C anada requested that MRLs for active substances 
which were not authori zed in the EU be maintained at existing levels to allow trade to continue.  G/TBT/M/79  
 
- 14 - 
 
  2.67.   The representative of Uruguay  reiterated the concerns expressed by other Members in respect 
of the hazard -based approach used by the EU – which was not based on sound science. Indeed, the 
evidence based on the evaluation of real risk assessments associated with phytosanitary products 
needed to be of fundamental importance in standardizing decisions. If not, there was the possibility 
that some such products (of importance to the pest management system ) could be removed from 
the market, despite them being safe for use. It was stressed that a hazard -based approach would 
do little or nothing to protect public health wh ile it had potential to have a significant impact on 
sustainable development, food safety and security. Uruguay supported the work undertaken by 
Codex on a risk -based assessment with respect to endocrine disruptors: this guaranteed the 
protection of health  and facilitate d international trade.  
2.68.   The representatives of Paraguay , Guatemala  and Panama  supported the concerns raised by 
other Members and referred to previous intervention s on this matter.  
2.69.   The representative of the European Union  stressed, as explain ed at previous TBT Committee 
meetings, that the scientific criteria to identify endocrine disruptors for plant protection products 
were based on the WHO definitions, applicable since 10 November 2018 onwards and included in 
Regulation (EU) No 2018/605. The  representative of the EU was aware of both the general and 
specific concerns on the EU policy on plant protection products, in particular with respect to whether 
import tolerances could be established for substances that were not authori zed in the EU due to the 
so-called "cut-off" criteria in Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009.  
2.70.   After examin ing the different policy options and considering the concerns raised by 
stakeholders, member States and third countries, the EU confirmed that it had decided to follow the 
procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No. 396/2005 for the management of import tolerance 
requests concerning active substances falling under the cut -off criteria. These procedures included 
a risk assessment by an evaluating member State and a scientific op inion by the European Food 
Safety Authority (EFSA). The granting of the import tolerance would be considered in line with risk 
analysis principles on a case -by-case basis and considering all relevant factors. He stressed that the 
EU would act in full trans parency.  
China — Regulations for the Supervision and Administration of Medical Devices 
(Order No. 650 of the State Council), G/TBT/N/CHN/1313  (IMS ID  42819) 
2.71.   The representative of the Republic of Korea  reiterated concerns about the draft Regulation for 
the Supervision and Administration of Medical Devices ( G/TBT/N/CHN/1313 ). She requested China 
to recognize the inclusion of internationally accredited or other competent laboratories outside of 
China; she said that imported and domestic used medical devices should be treated equally in terms 
of sales and distribution on the Chinese market; and that there needed to be clarity on clinical trials 
conducted overseas. The representative of Korea asked China to share with the Committee  the date 
of entry into force of the proposed regulation and to provide sufficient transition period prior to 
implementation of this regulation to prevent any unnecessary confusion and allow time for industry 
to prepare.  
2.72.   The representative of China  said th at in January 2018, the former China Food and Drug 
Administration (CFDA) had released a guideline regarding the acceptance of overseas clinical trial 
results and clinical evaluation materials for medical devices. This guideline was intended to reduce 
duplication and speed up the marketing process. The Regulation for the supervision and 
administration of medical devices, adopted in 2014, had further simplified the requirements for 
registration. First, with respect to the improved classification management sy stem, based on the 
level of risk, medical devices were divided into three categories: Class 1, Class 2 and Class  3. The 
requirements for low risk products had been further streamlined. Second, to reduce the requirements 
on clinical trials, certain products  had been exempted from clinical trials. Third, the re -registration 
requirements had been simplified. To implement this regulation, CFDA had issued an implementation 
notice, providing one -year transition period and offering some transitional measures for r egistration. 
In September 2018, the National Medical Products Administration had published a new revised list 
for medical devices exempted from clinical trials. 1248 medical devices had been exempted from 
clinical trials, including 855 medical devices prod ucts and 393 in vitro diagnostic agents (IVD 
 
19 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID  428 (under dates raised and references) . G/TBT/M/79  
 
- 15 - 
 
  agents). Compared to the last version of list, 84 medical devices and 277 IVD agents ha d been 
added.  
China - Insurance Regulatory Commission (CIRC) Information and 
Communication Technology Regulation, G/TBT/N/CHN/1172  (IMS ID  48920) 
2.73.   The representative of the European Union  referred to comments made at previous TBT 
Committee meetings. The EU 's main concern was that the rules would have the effect of mandating 
insurance institutions in China to progressively phase out non -domestic crypt ographic products, 
which would be tantamount to a ban on procuring foreign cryptography products compared to 
domestic products. As a result, this would prevent insurance institutions from using the most 
developed and innovative encryption products and solu tions, which would weaken, rather than 
strengthen, information and network security. The EU also recalled that the concept of "secure and 
controllable", which was also used in the National Security Law and the Cybe rsecurity Law, lacked 
precision and create d uncertainty for economic operators. She also reiterated concerns about the 
requirement that insurance institutions obtain the ownership of the source code of the equipment, 
and the compulsory use of national standards and encryption requirements based on  national 
algorithms. The EU asked for an update from China with respect to the revision of the measure.  
2.74.   The representative of China  recalled that the CIRC 's Information and Communication 
Technology Regulation had been drafted in response to a domestic adj ustment. The drafting process 
would proceed in an open and transparent way. All measures contained in the regulation would 
equally apply to domestic and foreign companies.  
Indonesia — Halal Product Assurance Law No. 33 of 2014 ,  G/TBT/N/IDN/123  
(IMS ID  50221) 
2.75.   The representatives of  the European Union  and the United States  raised concerns with the 
measure. The full statements are contained in G/TBT/W/685  and G/TBT/W/705 . 
2.76.   The representative of Canada  said that the preliminary review of the measure found that 
details on several key provisions, namely those relating to certification and recognition process of 
foreign halal certifying organizations, were lacking and remained unclear. Canada requested that 
Indonesia: pr ovide additional information to clarify the process, and that Indonesia document 
requirements, costs and timelines by which foreign halal certifying bodies could secure halal 
recognition with Indonesia's halal product assurance agency. Canada also sought a ssurance that the 
halal certification process, whether obtained through recognised Indonesian or foreign authorities, 
was transparent and not unduly burdensome. Indonesia was encouraged to consult and provide 
timely information to trading partners to ensur e that measures did not unduly restrict trade.  
2.77.   The representative of Australia  said that Indonesia 's Halal law had entered into force on 
17 October 2019, with a five to fifteen -year phased implementation period. While Australia respected 
the general princi pals of the Halal Law  he reiterated concerns raised at previous meetings about the 
wide scope and the complexity of the Halal Law for all goods exported to Indonesia, including non -
halal goods, as well as impacts on services associated with exports. He enc ouraged Indonesia to 
facilitate an open dialogue with trading partners to allow foreign businesses and their valued 
Indonesian importers to remain adequately informed of Halal Law implementation regulations. 
Australia was particularly concerned that certai n aspects of the law appeared more trade restrictive 
than necessary, including the need for certification or labelling of non -halal products. More clarity 
was also needed regarding implementation.  
2.78.   The representative of The Separate Customs Territory of Tai wan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu  
said that several companies had sought clarification of the specific practices required since the 
measure was implemented on 17 October 2019. Clarification was needed on the halal certification 
bureau announcement concerning t he implementation rules, as well as the mandatory certification, 
mandatory product labelling requirements, scope of products and regulatory organization structure. 
In addition, it was important to explain: certification procedures; procedures for the mutua l 
recognition for foreign halal certification bodies; differences between previous specifications and new 
 
20 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 489 (under dates raised and references) . 
21 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 502 (under dates raised and references) . G/TBT/M/79  
 
- 16 - 
 
  ones; and, whether the current foreign institutions that had been approved were required to be 
reapproved by the BPJPH.  
2.79.   The representative of New Zeal and welcomed the recent WTO notification by Indonesia of the 
draft regulation titled: Draft of Minister of Religious Affairs regarding The Implementation of Halal 
Product Assurance. However, New Zealand requested further clarification from Indonesia as to when 
this draft regulation would come into effect. Also, were there any other regulations relating to Halal 
under development (in addition to the Minister of Religious Affairs regulation notified to the WTO in 
October)? Further information was also request ed on the progress of transition of responsibilities to 
Indonesia 's Halal Product Assurance Organizing Agency (BPJPH), particularly the establishment of 
certification bodies, and the steps taken to ensure continued recognition of foreign halal certificatio n. 
Similarly, clarification was sought on the scope of the term "non -halal products" and how labelling 
requirements would be managed.  
2.80.   The representative of Brazil  supported other Members' concerns and reiterated those they 
had previously stated. Brazil th anked Indonesia for having partially clarified that "non -halal" labelling 
for products containing "non -halal" substances would not be necessary. He asked Indonesia to 
further clarify this understanding of its new legislation, as well as the possibility of coexistence of 
halal and non -halal products.  
2.81.   The representative of Indonesia  recalled that the draft had been notified in G/TBT/N/IDN/123  
on 14 October 2019. The draft of implementing regulation arranged the halal assurance system as 
follows: (i) product scope; (ii) transition per iod and imposed time that are adjusted to the scope of 
the products; (iii) inclusion of labelling for halal and information on non halal products; (iv) halal 
conformity assessment system and its mutual recognition arrangement; (v) registration provision 
for halal certificate; and, (vi) the mechanism of halal -certified products during the transition period. 
Indonesia would take all comments into consideration.  
Ireland - Public Health (Alcohol) Bill 2015 G/TBT/N/IRL/2  (IMS ID 51622)  
2.82.   The representative of the United States  said that some questions remained regarding Ireland 's 
regulatory process for implementing its new labelling requirements for alcoholic beverages despite 
the European Union 's response of 28 February to the US comments. The US continued to support 
Ireland 's objective of ma naging the public health challenges of excessive alcohol consumption. At 
the March and June 2019 TBT Committee meetings, the US had repeated its request for Ireland to 
notify the amendments made to its Public Health (Alcohol) Bill 2015. In March, the EU ha d indicated 
that, due to public health concerns, Ireland was forced to enact the bill as soon as possible. The Bill 
had been signed into law on 17 October 2018, without the opportunity for consideration of WTO 
Members' comments on the revised measure. The EU had further indicated in March, and reiterated 
in June, that the labelling provisions would require secondary legislation that would need to be 
notified first to the European Commission and that Ireland would then notify these provisions to the 
TBT Comm ittee. In addition, the EU had confirmed that the secondary legislation and the primary 
law would not become operational for three years. As already requested in March and June, the US 
asked that Ireland clarify its regulatory process for the forthcoming s econdary legislation and provide 
an expected timeline for notification to the TBT Committee. She also asked for confirmation that 
Members would have the opportunity to comment on the secondary legislation and that comments 
would be considered, prior to the  commencement of the anticipated three -year transition period for 
the implementation of the measure.  
2.83.   The representative of Australia  recogni zed the right of governments to take measures 
necessary to protect public health and appreciated Ireland 's efforts to address a legitimate public 
health concern. Australia sought clarification on the details and implementation of the remaining 
eight sections of the Public Health (Alcohol) Act 2018, in particular Section 12 on Labelling and also 
on the process w ith regards to clearance at EU level. He also enquired about the expected timeline 
for the implementation of the new requirements while referring to the EU 's statement at the previous 
meeting that the new Act would be re -notified to allow trading partners to comment on the revised 
proposal given the substantial changes since the original notification.  
2.84.   The representative of Argentina  reiterated concerns with respect to the requirements laid 
down in Ireland's public health law, in particular Sections 12 and 13 pertaining to labelling and 
 
22 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 516 (under dates raised and references) . G/TBT/M/79  
 
- 17 - 
 
  advertising, which were to be implemented through secondary legislation. The requirements to have 
messages showing the link between drinking alcohol and cancer for all types of alcoholic drinks, 
whatever their levels of alcoh ol and without making a distinction between alcohol abuse and sensible 
drinking, was disproportionate with respect to the legitimate interest of protecting human health 
and could create unnecessary obstacles to trade.  
2.85.   The representative of Mexico  thanked t he EU for their bilateral meeting and recalled the 
concerns raised at previous TBT Committee meetings. She sought clarification with respect to the 
secondary legislation that would be required for Ireland to implement the law.  
2.86.   The representative of Chile said that as one of the main exporters of wine to Ireland Chile 
shared the concerns raised by other Members. While recognizing the need for public health policies 
aimed at decreasing alcohol consumption, she also noted the need for Members to follow 
transpa rency requirements and avoid unnecessary barriers to trade.  
2.87.   The representative the European Union,  reiterating responses from previous TBT Committee 
meetings, explained that Ireland was obliged to enact the primary legislation at the earliest possible 
date and that the Bill had been signed into law on 17 October 2018. The labelling provisions of the 
Health Bill required secondary legislation. Section 23 of the Public Health (Alcohol) Act on the sale 
and supply of alcohol product had been notified to the Com mission on 2 September 2019 under the 
Single Market Transparency Directive (2015/1535) and was under the analysis of the Commission 
services. The measure would also be notified to the TBT Committee in due course. The three -year 
lead-in time before the labe lling provisions become operational would not commence until the 
notification processes at the EU and WTO level were completed to allow businesses the full three 
years to prepare for and to make the necessary changes to comply with the new measures. She 
added that in November 2018, the Minister for Health had signed an order to commence a number 
of sections of the Public Health (Alcohol) Act, that did not require secondary legislation, into 
operation. First, with effect from 12 November 2019, (i) alcohol ad vertising in or on public service 
vehicles, at public transport stops or stations and within 200m of a school, early years centre or a 
local authority playground would be prohibited, (ii) alcohol advertising in cinemas would be 
prohibited except around fil ms with an 18 classification or in licensed premises in a cinema, and 
(iii) children 's clothing that promotes alcohol would also be prohibited. Second, with effect from 
12 November 2020, in mixed retail outlets, alcohol products and advertising would be co nfined to 
one of the following: an area separated by a 1.2m high barrier, or units in which alcohol products 
were not visible up to 1.5m height, or up to three units that can be a maximum of 1m wide by 2.2m 
high. In addition, alcohol products could be cont ained but not be visible in a unit behind the counter. 
Third, with effect from 12 November 2021, alcohol advertising on a sports area during a sporting 
event, at events aimed at children or at events in which the majority of participants or competitors 
are children would be prohibited. In addition, alcohol sponsorship of events aimed at children, events 
where the majority of participants or competitors are children and events involving driving or racing 
motor vehicles would be prohibited.  
China — Cyberspace  Administration of China – Draft implementing measures for 
the Cybersecurity Review of Network Products and Services (IMS ID  53323) 
2.88.   The representative of Japan  expressed concerns that the Cybersecurity Review measures 
might hamper market access for foreign companies to China and result in the leakage of confidential 
technology information, depending on the concrete details of rules governing its implementation. 
Therefore, Japan asked China to implement the measure in a non -discriminatory manner and not 
make it more trade -restrictive than necessary. In this context, Japan requested that China clarify 
the definitions of terms, concrete requirements for review and evaluation, scope of regulations and 
thereby ensure transparency. Additionally, Japan requested tha t the relevant regulations and 
procedures be made consistent with international standards and practices and implemented 
transparently, taking into full consideration the comments and concerns raised by Japan and other 
Members.  
2.89.   The representative of the European Union  said that EU concerns regarding the Cybersecurity 
Review of Network Products and Services had already been raised on several occasions, notably 
regarding the fact that the measures were quite general and granted very broad discretionary powers 
to the authorities in charge of the security review, raising concerns for foreign ICT operators. The 
 
23 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID  533 (under dates raised and re ferences) . G/TBT/M/79  
 
- 18 - 
 
  EU urged China to ensure the clarity, transparency and objectivity of the security review. In June 
2019, the Cyberspace Administration of China (CAC) had r eleased the draft Cybersecurity Review 
Measures for public consultation, on which the EU had submitted comments. The EU was concerned 
that the draft measures remained at a general level and did not specify methodologies and standards 
to be used during the review. Critical Information Infrastructure (CII) operators would be obliged to 
conduct a preliminary risk assessment and formulate a report when purchasing network products 
and services and also apply for cybersecurity review under four circumstances. Som e of the elements 
appeared to be quite wide in scope and open -ended. Instead of being a one -off review, the 
cybersecurity review would be accompanied by post -market supervision measures taking the form 
of spot inspections and tip -offs (Article 16), thereby  having a continuous impact on those falling 
under the draft 's scope of application. The EU also noted that there was more focus on non -technical 
factors in the review compared to the earlier draft and wondered how China planned to assess these 
factors, be aring in mind that, from a business perspective, predictability was very important. There 
would also be economic and industrial development considerations, as demonstrated by the draft 's 
Article 3, which included the promotion of advanced technology among the cybersecurity review 's 
many purposes. Finally, the EU sought clarification on how the cybersecurity review would validate 
new contracts as the draft appeared to make the cybersecurity review a market access condition. 
For network product and service pr ocurement activities that needed to undergo the cybersecurity 
review, the Critical Information Infrastructure (CII) operators had to specify, in the procurement 
documents or the contracts, or via other binding means, the obligation of the product and servi ce 
providers to cooperate with the cybersecurity review and contracts could only take effect after the 
cybersecurity review was passed (Article 7).  
2.90.   The representative of Canada  welcomed the opportunity to comment on the measure 
published in May and had pr ovided comments to the cybersecurity bureau of China's cyberspace 
administration on 24 June 2019. Canada continued to seek changes to the measure to improve 
clarity in a number of areas  including what critical infrastructure was and how National and MFN 
Treatment would  be assured . As mentioned by other delegations, some elements of the measures 
remained wide in scope and further clarification was necessary on the legitimate objective being 
pursued. Canada invited China to indicate when it would respond to M embers' comments, provide 
an updated version of the measure and also notify the measure.  
2.91.   The representative of China  thanked delegations for their comments, which would be taken 
into consideration in drafting the revision. The purpose of the draft of the Cybersecurity Review 
Measure was to implement the requirements in the cybersecurity law, improve the level of securit y 
of network products and services, safeguard national cybersecurity and protect the public interest. 
The review mechanism only applied to those products and services that might affect national security 
in critical information infrastructures and important  information systems. It would be implemented 
in a non -discriminatory manner. With regard to the concerns on intellectual property protection, it 
was guaranteed that the security review would not violate companies' intellectual property rights. 
Strengtheni ng intellectual property protection was in the interest of both trading partners and the 
Chinese enterprises themselves. In practice, the authority had never required domestic or foreign 
enterprises to disclose their software codes. In conclusion, there wa s no difference in treatment 
between domestic and foreign enterprises in the security review process. The only purpose of the 
mechanism was to try to further increase consumers' confidence in network products and services, 
thereby facilitating the market e xpansion for both foreign and domestic enterprises  
China - Draft revised Encryption Law of the People's Republic of China by the 
Office of State Commercial Cryptography Administration (OSCCA) (IMS ID 53424) 
2.92.   The representative of Japan  noted that the Encrypt ion Law was adopted by the Standing 
Committee of the National People's Congress of China on 26 October and that it would enter into 
force on 1 January 2020. Having submitted comments on the draft during the public comment period 
in July 2019, Japan had con cerns related to two specific points. Article 24 provided that organizations 
engaging in "research, production, sale, service and import/export " of commercial encryption should  
comply with technical requirements in the "mandatory national standards " and "their own published 
technical standards. " Japan requested that China establish such standards in a transparent manner 
and using international standards as a basis in order to prevent them from being more trade -
restrictive than necessary. With regard to Arti cle 26, the safety certification requirements that 
manufacturers must meet when selling or otherwise providing commercial cryptographic products 
 
24 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID  534 (under dates raised and references) . G/TBT/M/79  
 
- 19 - 
 
  needed to be clearly stipulated in the text. Japan requested that such requirements be established 
through a tr ansparent process and not be more trade restrictive than necessary. In addition, related 
certification requirements needed to be developed in line with international obligations. In 
conclusion, Japan invited China to consider comments from Japan and other Members when drafting 
related regulations and not hamper foreign companies ' activities or market access to China.  
2.93.   The representative of the European Union  reiterated concerns on the draft Cryptography Law 
published by the Office of State Commercial Cryptog raphy Administration (OSCCA). On 21 October 
2019, a draft Cryptography Law had been submitted to China 's National People 's Congress (NPC) 
for a second deliberation, marking another step towards the final passage of the first unified law in 
the field of cry ptography. The new round of deliberation had followed a public consultation that had 
ended in September 2019. The EU had submitted comments in this round. In particular, the EU 
remained concerned about the wide scope of the law, in conjunction with the lac k of clarity of a 
number of foundational concepts as well as administrative procedures described in the text, all of 
which would negatively impact business confidence. The EU noted with concern that the September 
draft did not recognise China's previous co mmitment made in 2000 that cryptography -related 
regulation would only apply to products whose core function was that of providing encryption – the 
so-called "Year 2000 Clarification" by the SCA. The EU called on China to ensure that legal and 
regulatory re quirements were non-discriminatory, did not favour specific technologies, d id not limit 
market access or lead to a forced transfer of intellectual property. Regulatory procedures related to 
products containing cryptographic components needed to be transpar ent, predictable and consistent 
with international practices. The EU urged China to guarantee the possibility for foreign invested 
enterprises (FIEs) to participate on an equal footing with domestic companies in the production, 
research, development and sa le of cryptography products on its market. In this context, the EU drew 
attention to the World Semiconductor Council (WSC) "Encryption Principles" and the exchanges 
between the EU and China in the related "Government/Authorities Meeting on Semiconductors" 
(GAMS). The EU also invited China to notify the draft Cryptography Law to the TBT Committee, as 
set out in Article 2.9 of the TBT Agreement. She hoped that the EU inputs would be taken on  board 
in the final version of the draft and that China would keep it s trading partners informed of the next 
steps in the process.  
2.94.   The representative of the United States  supported the comments from Japan and the EU.  
2.95.   The representative of Canada  thanked China for the opportunity to submit written comments 
on the Draft Cryptology Law  on 5 July 2019 . While appreciating the removal of certain barriers to 
imports of cryptographic goods, Canada believed that the final version of the law did not addres s its 
TBT-related concerns. Canada sought China 's confirmation that the implementing regulations would 
rectify these concerns by (i) defining the scope of application in a way that ensured that only 
legitimate objectives pertaining to cryptographic goods w ere sought; (ii) clearly specifying that 
standards would be set in a manner consistent with the TBT Agreement 's transparency 
requirements; and (iii) specifically indicating the need to use international standards, whenever 
possible. In addition, Canada ask ed when China would notify the regulation to the Committee.  
2.96.   The representative of China  said that the Law on Cryptography had been adopted at the 14th 
session of the Standing Committee of the 13th National People's Congress on 26 October 2019 and 
would com e into force on 1 January 2020. The legislation of the Law on Cryptography adhered to 
the principles of law making in a well -conceived and democratic way. China had carried out scientific 
verification and public consultation to ensure stakeholders' partici pation in the legislative activity 
through legal ways. From July to September 2019, the Law on Cryptography (Draft) had been 
released for public consultation for 60 days. Domestic and foreign parties had provided many 
constructive suggestions and China had  actively researched and adopted the relevant suggestions 
from all parties. The Law on Cryptography clearly stipulated that government at all levels and 
relevant departments should  follow the principle of non -discrimination and treat all organizations 
equally, including foreign -invested enterprises that engage in commercial cryptography research, 
production, sales, service, importation and exportation, etc. The state encouraged commercial 
cryptography technical cooperation based on voluntary principles and commercial rules in the 
process of foreign investment. Administrative agencies and their staff were prohibited from forcing 
any transfer of commercial cryptography technology.  G/TBT/M/79  
 
- 20 - 
 
  
European Union — Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 (CLP Regulation) 
G/TBT/N/EU/629  (IMS  ID 53925) 
2.97.   The representative of the Russian Federation  raised concern s on the CLP regulation, in 
particular with respect to the proposed classification of cobalt. The full statement is contained in 
G/TBT/W/700 . 
2.98.   The representative of Mexico thanked the EU for the bilateral meeting held the previous day 
regarding the proposed classification of titanium dioxide as a possible carcinogen category II, as 
notified in document G/TBT/N/EU/629  in December 2018. The feedback from the EU seemed to 
indicate that the regulation would not have an impact on the paint sector as the classification would 
not apply in cases where titanium dioxide was present in a product in solid or liquid form. There 
would be an impact if there were special labelling requirements to indicate that a pr oduct contained 
titanium dioxide. Considering that the use of titanium dioxide was crucial for the production of 90% 
of paints, additional investments would be needed to adjust the labelling, which could also lead 
consumers to falsely believe that the prod ucts were dangerous. This could be incompatible with the 
principle of proportionality established in Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement as it would impose more 
onerous requirements on the paint sector than necessary in light of the objectives pursued by the 
EU. If the proposed classification did not cover products containing titanium dioxide in solid or liquid 
form, she wondered why the labelling of paints would need to indicate presence of titanium dioxide, 
creating additional burdens for the paint sector. I n this context, Mexico requested that the EU 
reconsider its proposal and also share information on the following steps to be taken regarding the 
regulation, its final publication and entry into force.  
2.99.   The representative of Canada , noting the concerns raise d by Russia and Mexico, reiterated 
concerns raised in previous meetings. Canada continued to be concerned with the potential 
disruption on trade in various products that the measure could create and was disappointed that the 
EU had not found it necessary t o perform an impact assessment on the potential downstream effects 
of the regulation. The measure would  foreseeably result in stricter requirements under other 
regulations, beyond simple labelling requirements, which could in turn have a significant impact on 
trade from Canada.  It also remained unclear how products containing cobalt and titanium dioxide 
would be treated once the regulation came into force. Canada thanked the EU for the useful 
information and clarification provided during various bilateral meetings and for responding to 
Canada's comments.  It also remained unclear how products containing cobal t and titanium dioxide 
would be treated once the regulation came into force. Canada thanked the EU for the useful 
information and clarification . 
2.100.   The representative of the United States  raised concerns regarding on the CLP regulation 
including with respect to titanium dioxide and cobalt. The full statement is contained in 
G/TBT/W/704 .  
2.101.   The representative of Australia  recognized the European Union 's right to regulate for public 
and occupational health and safety and that appropriate classification and labelling for hazardous 
substances and mi xtures could address legitimate public and occupational health concerns. Australia 
and other Members had raised concerns on multiple occasions in the TBT Committee and other fora 
that the proposed regulation was more trade -restrictive than necessary. Austr alia understood that 
the proposed classifications had been adopted and would enter into force in late December or early 
January if there were no objections from the Council or Parliament. The new classifications had the 
potential to create unintended downs tream consequences and unnecessary obstacles to international 
trade in products containing titanium oxide and cobalt. The actual impact of the new classification 
was unclear, particularly with regard to downstream products containing small amounts of titan ium 
dioxide or cobalt. For example, the classification of cobalt (as category 1B carcinogen for all routes 
of exposure, with a concentration limit of 0.1%) would appear to capture some types of stainless 
steel. As stainless steel was very common, the poten tial for the classification to have unintended 
consequences affecting trade was high. Australia urged the EU to ensure that regulations to address 
concerns about the possible hazards associated with titanium dioxide and cobalt were no more trade 
restrictiv e than necessary.  
2.102.   The representative of Japan  shared the concerns raised by other Members regarding the 
proposed changes to the CLP regulation, especially with respect to provisions for mixtures containing 
 
25 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID  539 (under dates raised and references) . G/TBT/M/79  
 
- 21 - 
 
  titanium dioxide. The proposed draft regulation co uld inappropriately broaden the scope of products 
to be regulated as it classified powder mixtures containing 1% or more of titanium dioxide as 
carcinogen regardless of whether exposure to titanium dioxide by inhalation could occur. In addition, 
labelling requirements would even affect products containing titanium dioxide with low inhalation 
risk such as toner cartridges. What is more, these products had not been classified as carcinogen in 
other countries ' systems or in the Global Harmonized System of Clas sification and Labelling of 
Chemicals (GHS). Therefore, Japan requested that the EU reconsider the classification criteria in 
order to limit the scope to products where titanium dioxide inhalation exposure risk existed and 
ensure that the regulation was no t more trade -restrictive than necessary.  
2.103.   The representative of New Zealand  shared other Members' concerns about the EU 's titanium 
dioxide regulation and referred the Committee to New Zealand 's statement delivered at the previous 
TBT Committee meeting. Alth ough the regulation was nearly finalized despite ongoing concerns, 
New Zealand reiterated its view that any regulation to address concerns about the possible 
carcinogenicity of titanium dioxide needed to be proportionate and not unduly restrict trade in go ods 
containing titanium dioxide. New Zealand wished to understand more about the labelling 
requirements that would be introduced to determine what implications they might have on trade.  
2.104.   The representative of the European Union  responded to the concerns rai sed. The full 
statement is contained in G/TBT/W/684 . 
China — Certification requirements for processed foods, G/TBT/N/CHN/1209  
and G/TBT/N/CHN/1209/ Add.1  (IMS  ID 54726) 
2.105.   The representative of Mexico  said that they had received unconfirmed information regarding 
the possible suspension of the Measures for the Administration of Certificates Attached to Foods 
Exported to China notified in document G/TBT/N/CHN/1209  in 2017. Mexico had concerns regarding 
the lack of clarity on the entry into force and implementation timeline of the measure and also the 
scope of application and its technical and scientific justification. In the specific case of Tequila, 
through bilateral meetings held  in the margins of the previous meetings of the Committee, Mexico 
had proposed that China accept a Certificate of Authenticity issued in the national territory as 
equivalent to the Certificate of Safety requested. The proposal would address the concerns be hind 
China's measure without imposing additional burdens on the Tequila industry and would create 
certainty for both parties, considering the principle of proportionality in the TBT Agreement. 
However, the proposal would only apply to Tequila and uncertain ty would remain for market access 
of other sectors and products subject to the new measures. Mexico requested that China provide an 
update on the status of the Food and Beverage Safety Certificate notified in 2017 and clarify whether 
the consideration of c omments was continuing or whether the measure was suspended permanently. 
If China still intended to apply the new Safety Certificate, Mexico requested the acceptance of the 
Certificate of Authenticity for Tequila and the launch of a bilateral dialogue to a void the new 
certificate requirements impos ing a disproportionate burden on other export products.  
2.106.   The representative of The Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu  
shared the concerns expressed by Mexico. The certification requirem ent for a range of imported 
fruits, including low risk and packaged fruit, seemed to be more trade restrictive than necessary. 
Chinese Taipei asked if China could present sufficient scientific evidence and the basis for a risk 
assessment for those products  falling within the scope of the measures.  
2.107.   The representative of China  said that the objective of the regulation, as indicated during 
earlier Committee meetings, was not to restrict trade, but to ensure safety and improve traceability 
through strengthening  the supervision responsibilities of exporting countries. Having considered the 
many comments received from Members following the notification of the draft measure, China had 
decided to suspend the implementation of the regulation. However, as China was st ill of the view 
that exporting countries had an obligation to ensure the safety of the food they export, it was 
cooperating with some trading partners to propose relevant international standards or guidelines for 
processed foods. China invited interested M embers to participate in the process and assured 
Members that the regulation would not be implemented before the conclusion of this work and 
therefore would not affect existing trade flows.  
 
26 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 547 (under dates raised and refe rences).  G/TBT/M/79  
 
- 22 - 
 
  
Brazil — Draft Technical Resolution n° 51, 7 April 2017 on labell ing of beverages, 
wine, and grape derivatives, G/TBT/N/BRA/719  and G/TBT/N/BRA/719/Add.1  (IMS 
ID 55727) 
2.108.   The representative of the European Union  recalled its written comments of 16 August 2017 
on Brazil's notification G/TBT/N/BRA/719  as well as its statements made in previous TBT Committee 
meetings. Brazil had indicated t hat the draft was under revision and would be subject to a new public 
consultation. The EU asked when this public consultation was expected to take place and whether 
Brazil would notify the new draft. The EU also invited Brazil to take into account the EU concerns 
during the preparation of the new draft and provide a response to its written comments.  
2.109.   The representative of Brazil  said that the technical regulation was in the process of being 
drafted and that the original text had been substantially improved.  Since the publication of the first 
draft, it had been necessary to make a few adjustments to the original schedule. No time -frame had 
yet been established for the launch of the new consultation and public hearing period and Brazil 
would ensure that intere sted parties would once again be able to express their views on the draft 
regulation. Brazil was not yet in a position to provide replies to the EU's written comments since 
replies were bring prepared to all questions received and these would be disclosed altogether.  
Chile - Public Consultation for draft legislation setting out rules on the 
preparation, description and labelling of milk products deriving from milk ,  
G/TBT/N/CHL/500 , G/TBT/N/CHL/458 , G/TBT/N/CHL/442   (ID 56628) 
2.110.   The repres entative of New Zealand  acknowledged and supported the rights of all Members 
to regulate for the protection of human health and safety. However, New Zealand was concerned 
that Chile 's law establishing rules on the marketing and labelling of dairy products might be more 
trade restrictive than necessary to fulfil a legitimate objective and at odds with internationally 
accepted C odex standards. Specifically, New Zealand was concerned that Chile 's proposed definition 
of "cheese " was overly restrictive in requir ing extra labelling for cheese that was manufactured with 
milk powder, despite C odex standards for cheese placing no restrictions on the use of milk powders 
and reconstitution for cheese manufacturing. New Zealand was also concerned by the exclusion of 
protein standardisation in Chile 's proposed definition of "natural milk, " as protein standardisation 
was an important and commonly used step for keeping milk of consistent quality and taste 
throughout the year. While appreciating Chile's notification of the m easure, New Zealand was very 
concerned that Chile  had decided to proceed with implementing the law by publishing the final 
regulation a month before the end of the 60 -day comment period, putting into question fulfilment 
of its obligations under the TBT Agr eement to allow a reasonable time for Members to make 
comments and to take these comments into account. Therefore, New Zealand strongly urged Chile 
to reconsider the regulation and bring it into alignment with C odex standards to avoid creating an 
unnecessary obstacle to trade, as per Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement.  
2.111.   The representative of the United States  said that while appreciating Chile's notification of its 
revised draft law on dairy products in September 2019, the US  was very concerned that the law 
appeared to have been approved and published in Chile 's Diario Oficial on 2 November 2019, more 
than three weeks before the deadline provided for comments. It was of particular concern in light of 
comments provided by  trading partners on previous versions of the law. The US and other trading 
partners had provided significant comments in 2018 on notifications G/TBT/N/CHL/442  and 
G/TBT/N/CHL/458 , which were related to this law. It appeared that the notification of the measure 
to the WTO at such a late stage was a mere for mality, rather than a meaningful opportunity to 
submit comments that Chile would take into consideration prior to implementation of the measure. 
An initial review of the published law indicated that Chile had taken neither the US comments nor 
concerns rais ed during previous TBT Committee Meetings into consideration. The US had concerns 
with Chile 's proposal to require labelling of reconstituted dairy products and the restriction of using 
reconstitution in cheese production, both of which appeared to be inco nsistent with Codex standards. 
The US asked Chile to explain its rationale for not adhering to Codex standards in the development 
of the measure and also what steps it intended to take to ensure that trading partners' comments 
were taken into account, in l ight of the fact that the measure had been finalized and whether it was 
possible for Chile to amend the measure. Finally, the US asked that the implementation of the draft 
 
27 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID  557 (under dates raised and references).  
28 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 566  (under dates raised and references).  G/TBT/M/79  
 
- 23 - 
 
  law be delayed pending confirmation with trading partners that their concerns, and p articularly the 
inconsistencies with Codex, had been taken into account in a revised version of the measure.  
2.112.   The representative of Chile responded to the concerns  raised. The full statement is contained 
in G/TBT/W/698 . 
European Union - Draft Commission Regulation laying down eco -design 
requirements for electronic displays pursuant to Directive 2009/125/EC of the European 
Parliament and of the Council, amending Commission Regulation (EC) No 1275/2008 and 
repealing Commission Regulation (EC) 642/2009 (and its accompanying annexes)" 
G/TBT/N/EU/609 , G/TBT/N/EU/610  (IMS ID  57529) 
2.113.   The representatives o f China  and Israel  raised concerns regarding the EU Draft Commission 
Delegated Regulation, in particular the prohibition of the use of halogenated flame retardants (HFRs) 
in the enclosures and stands of electronic displays. The full statements are contained in 
G/TBT/W/693  and G/TBT/W/699 . 
2.114.    The representative of Japan  noted that the eco -design implementing regulation for 
electronic displays had been adopted on 1 October 2019, together with regulations governing other 
products. It was disappointing that the EU had adopted the regulation without taking into account 
the comments presented by Jap an and other Members. She asked that the EU clarify and 
complement the contents of the adopted regulation by providing a Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) 
document in order to allow Japanese industry to smoothly and rapidly launch products that comply 
with the new regulations. Japan also requested that the EU take into account comments from 
stakeholders,  when publishing the FAQ. In addition, Japan reiterated its request that the EU ensure 
that each product -specific regulation under the eco -design directive b e established through a 
transparent process, without creating unnecessary barriers to trade.  
2.115.   The representative of Brazil , supporting concerns raised by other Members, said that 
compared to the draft originally notified, the last version of the regulation added new requirements 
for halogenated flame retardants, prohibiting their use in the enclosures and stands of electronic 
displays, as per the new version of Annex II D, related to "materials efficiency". The measure 
affected the flame retardants industry in Brazil and set out requirements that were not in line with 
the REACH Regulation and the Restriction of Hazardous Substances Directive. The potentially 
conflicting regulatory requirements between those measures and the Eco -design Directive raised 
questio ns about transparency in regulating these products. Therefore, Brazil asked the EU to 
consider withdrawing requirements that were too strict, such as the provisions regarding the use of 
halogenated flame -retardants.  
2.116.   The representative of the European Union  noted that the EU had submitted the notification 
in question on 9 October 2018, giving 60 days for interested Members to submit comments. 
Comments had been received from Japan, Korea and the US and the Eco -design Regulatory 
Committee (ERC) had met on 18 D ecember to discuss and vote on the Commission proposal. In 
terms of procedure, this was set out in Regulation (EU) 182/2011, the "Comitology regulation ". In 
the context of comitology procedures, committee members representing member States had the 
opportun ity to suggest amendments to the Commission draft and the chair could present amended 
versions of Commission 's draft implementing acts, as it should endeavour to find solutions that 
command the widest possible support within the committee. The Committee ha d done so on a 
number of eco -design measures, including as regards the partial restriction on the use of 
halogenated flame retardants (only in the enclosure and stand of electronic displays, still possible in 
other parts). The text had been voted on in Dec ember 2018, had been three  months in scrutiny and 
had then been adopted by the Commission on 1 October, as part of a package of 10 Eco -design 
measures. Publication in the Official Journal was scheduled for 5 December, together with the other 
measures of th e same package. The regulation would repeal the previous Eco -design legislation on 
televisions and TV monitors in force since 2010 and would extend the scope to other electronic 
displays, such as computer monitors. The review included, on top of energy eff iciency requirements 
updated in light of technological developments, also new "circular economy " requirements for 
increasing durability, improving reparability, and improving the efficiency of the recycling process 
and the yields of recoverable materials.  
 
29 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID  575 (unde r dates raised and references) . G/TBT/M/79  
 
- 24 - 
 
  
China - Cosmetics Supervision and Administration Regulation (Draft) 
G/TBT/N/CHN/1310 , G/TBT/N/CHN/1311  G/TBT/N/CHN/1331  (IMS ID  57630) 
2.117.   The representative of Japan  supported China 's objectives of assuring the quality and safety 
of cosmetics and promoting innovations in the cosmetics industry. However, Japan expressed some 
ongoing concerns with the revision of this measure. Regarding disclosure of new ingredients and 
efficacy testing  materials, she recalled that China had explained at the previous meeting that it 
strictly protects confidential corporate information. Japan requested that the scope of disclosure be 
clearly stated so as to exclude confidential corporate information. Conc erning the requirements of 
label contents and persons responsible for products, Japan requested that these regulations, 
including the implementing regulations, be no more trade restrictive than necessary.  
2.118.   With respect to the "Regulation on Cosmetic Inspec tion in Registration and Filing ", which 
was enforced as of September 2019, Japan highlighted three concerns. First, the regulation 
stipulated that the testing laboratory should  obtain China Inspection Body and Laboratory Mandatory 
Approval (CMA) prior to c onducting registration testing on cosmetic products. Furthermore, under 
China 's regulations, only laboratories in China could  obtain CMA. She said therefore that Article 5 
did not accept test results obtained by in -house or foreign laboratories. Japan requ ested a more 
flexible framework in which test results obtained by in -house or foreign laboratories through 
internationally recognized practices such as ISO could  be accepted. Second, she noted that the 
efficacy evaluation test items include d SPF and whiten ing. However, the test methods required for 
whitening products were unclear. Although a one -year grace period from the publication date of the 
regulation was provided, it was virtually impossible to complete testing for all products (including 
existing one s) within the one -year grace period because not all CMA testing institutions could  
conduct whitening tests, and moreover whitening tests often took a long time. Japan requested that 
test results obtained by in -house or foreign laboratories be accepted and the grace period be 
extended until there was sufficient preparation for implementation of testing. Third, she noted that 
Appendix 1 required animal testing for non -special use products. However, Japan understand that 
the "Regulation for Notification of Non -special Cosmetics", notified by China on 6 June 2019, 
exempted non -special use products from animal testing under specific conditions. Japan requested 
that China maintain consistency with those regulations. Finally, Japan requested that China provide 
an adequate grace period of at least one year for implementation of these regulations, and related 
detailed regulations, to avoid confusion in the market.  
2.119.   The representative of the United States  thanked China for the notifications of its draft non -
special and special use cosmetics regulation and measures in support of China 's efforts to develop 
an up -to-date cosmetics regulation. The notification G/TBT/N/CHN/1331  addressed China 's non -
alignment with international cosmetics standards for good manufacturing practices (GMP) and safety 
assessment, including the current mandatory animal testing of imported products, by having a 
conformity assessment procedure that recognized non -special use cosmetics sold in other 
international markets. The US was however concerned that China may have adopt ed the final 
measure in advance of the notification G/TBT/N/CHN/1331 . The US was also concerned that the final 
measure did not address US government and industry concerns indicating that the conformity 
assessment procedures proposed for imported non -special use cosmetics were not  implementable, 
since by law, US national regulators could not  attest to GMP. She explained that in the US, domestic 
companies and importers self -certified GMP and the safety of their products, with the FDA monitoring 
compliance via post -market monitoring.  This approach recognized the relatively low health risk of 
cosmetics products to consumers, vis -à-vis other products such as pharmaceuticals. The US 
therefore asked China to consider the comments it received on the notification and modify the 
measure so a s to allow importers to self -certify their GMP to international standards.  
2.120.   Separately, the US sought clarification about a change made in G/TBT/N/CHN/1311  – 
namely that all sunscreens and cosmetics containing sunscreen must be tested in labs with Chinese 
Metrology Accreditation.  She asked if China would  recognize test data from international labs, or if 
this testing ha d to be undertaken in China by Chinese labs. The success of China 's cosmetics and 
personal care industry was important to the US, given both the number of Chinese p roducts used 
daily by US consumers, as well as the economic opportunity China represent ed to US companies 
seeking to serve China 's growing consumer base. She asked that China continue to notify the WTO 
of its progress on the Cosmetics Supervision and Admin istration Regulation (CSAR) including both 
the draft and final implementing measures. As demonstrated by the extensive comments provided 
 
30 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID  576 (under dates raised and references) . G/TBT/M/79  
 
- 25 - 
 
  by US government and stakeholders, the US viewed the CSAR legislation and its related measures 
as highly trade relevant .  
2.121.   The representative of the Republic of Korea  requested that China take into consideration 
Korean comments on the draft CSAR ( G/TBT/N/CHN/1310 ), and concerns raised at the previous TBT 
Committee meeting. She also asked China to take into consideration Korean comments to the draft 
Regulation for Notification of Non -Special Cosmetics ( G/TBT/ N/CHN/1331 ) that was published in 
June 2019. First, Korea had continuously requested China to improve the requirement to publish 
evidence for efficacy claims that may contain confidential business information. Howe ver, this 
concern had still not been improved or reflected in the revision of both regulations. Second, although 
labelling requirements may differ by countries, the proposed revision require d over-labels in Chinese 
to be consistent with the original labels . Korea therefore asked China to align its labelling 
requirements with international practices. Third, for the registration of non -special use cosmetics, 
imported products need to submit certifications issued by the exporting country 's cosmetics 
regulatory  authority or relevant industry association to verify its quality management system or 
good manufacturing practice. Korea requested that China also recognize certifications issued by 
third-party organizations such as in line with ISO standards in this proc ess. Fourth, according to the 
proposed regulation, Chinese domestic and imported non -special use cosmetics were managed by 
different regulatory authorities for their registration. Korea requested that China provide unified 
management and control for both d omestic and imported non -special use cosmetics. Finally, China 
was requested to share the enforcement date of this proposed regulation and to provide a sufficient 
transition period for industry to prepare for the new regulation. Korea looked forward to fur ther 
engagement with China on this issue.  
2.122.   The representative of the European Union  supported the concerns expressed by the US. The 
EU invited China to reply to the comments sent by the EU to the Chinese TBT Enquiry Point on 
8 March 2019.  
2.123.   The representative  of Australia  thanked China for notifying the draft CSAR. Australia 
encouraged China to remove the animal testing requirement for imported non -special cosmetic 
products so as to provide equal treatment for Chinese and foreign cosmetics products, and to be no 
more trade restrictive than necessary. Australia requested updates from China on its approach to 
animal testing requirements for imported non -special cosmetic products; and the status of this draft 
regulation and timelines for implementation. Australia welcomed opportunities to engage bilaterally 
with China on cosmetics regulations and alternatives to animal testing.  
2.124.   The representative of China  thanked Members for the useful bilateral exchanges of views in 
the margins of the TBT Committee meeting. China  had notified the CSAR in December 2018. She 
said the purpose of this regulation was to regulate the production and trade of cosmetics in a more 
efficient and scientific way, to strengthen management, to improve the quality and safety of 
cosmetics, to prot ect the consumer health and promote the development and innovation of the 
cosmetics industry. The regulation was still in its drafting stage, and Members ' concerns and 
comments had been taken full into consideration. The Regulation on Cosmetics Inspection in 
Registration and Filing had been  notified on 21 February 2019 and, likewise, was at the drafting 
stage. Other related implementing regulations and rules were still in the drafting process, and 
sufficient time would be allowed for Members to provide comm ents. 
2.125.   According to the regulatory authority, some adjustments had been made by incorporating 
Members ' comments in the latest version of the draft of CSAR and the Regulation on Cosmetic 
Inspection in Registration and Filing. For example, with regards to the  requirements on impurities 
and preservatives on which Japan had raised concerns, she explained that the new version deleted 
the testing requirements on preservatives. Furthermore, the test items on toxicology had been 
adjusted and optimized. On the concer n on animal test alternatives raised by the US, at present, 
China ha d incorporated several alternative test methods into the Cosmetic Safety Technical 
Specification 2015. Meanwhile, China had also accelerated the construction of a research and 
verification  system for alternative methods for the verification of cosmetic animal testing in China, 
as well as the research and verification system for cosmetic alternative toxicology. On the concern 
on national treatment she suggested that there might be a misunder standing of the notified draft 
caused by translation. In the newly -revised CSAR and relevant documents, it was clear that domestic 
and imported products would be treated equally in management, safety requirements and other 
aspects.  G/TBT/M/79  
 
- 26 - 
 
  2.126.   Finally, on the recognit ion and acceptance of test result, China believed it should be based 
on mutual recognition established on the same standards and laboratory management system, and 
not simply to request one Member to accept inspection reports issued by foreign inspection an d 
testing agencies. China had engaged in an initial information exchange with OECD in promoting 
mutual recognition of cosmetic experiment results and  was open to further technical communications 
and cooperation with Members, so as to achieve mutual recogni tion of data between China and 
trading partners in cosmetics inspection.  
Republic of Korea - Warning statement and graphic health warnings on alcoholic 
beverages, G/TBT/N/KOR/817  (IMS ID  57731) 
2.127.   The representative of the United States  reiterated that the US fully supported Korea's 
objective of managing public health challenges related to drunk driving. In March 2019, Korea 
notified the WTO of its newly proposed labelling requirements for alcoholic beverages, to which the 
US had submitted comments. At the June 2019 TBT Committee meetin g, Korea indicated that it 
would respond to those comments and the US asked when the response might be forthcoming.  
2.128.   It was the US understanding that Korea 's proposal included, among other requirements: 
(i) a warning on the label that driving under the infl uence of alcohol is "equivalent to the act of 
killing"; and, (ii) a picture on the label depicting a traffic accident or other harmful effects of driving 
under the influence of alcohol (including a warning photo). To reiterate the US comments submitted 
on the measure, while fully supporting Korea 's objective of mitigating public health challenges 
associated with driving under the influence of alcohol, the US was concerned that Korea 's proposed 
graphic warning label requirement may be more trade restrictive than necessary to achieve Korea 's 
legitimate objective. She asked what evidence Korea had considered when determining the specific 
language required on the label, and when determining the need for a graphic of a car accident in 
addition to a warning statem ent. The US queried whether Korea intended to notify implementing 
regulations outlining the details of its proposal prior to enforcement, and whether WTO Members 
would have the opportunity to comment.  
2.129.   The US described its federal mandatory health warning r equirements for alcoholic beverages, 
namely that federal regulations require that any alcoholic beverage containing 0.5% alcohol or 
higher include a Health Warning Statement on the label. US regulations also set out several 
requirements relating to the fon t and appearance of the Health Warning Statement, including that 
it be legible, appear on a contrasting background, and be separate and apart from all other label 
information. There was no federal requirement in the US for a graphic warning (i.e., a pictur e) on 
alcoholic beverage labels. The US supported several public -private partnership initiatives related to 
combating harmful use of alcohol and driving under the influence of alcohol. The 2015 -2020 US 
Dietary Guidelines did not recommend that individuals start or increase drinking for any reason and, 
if alcohol was consumed, the Guidelines state d that it should be consumed in moderation - up to 
one drink daily for woman and two drinks for men - and only by adults of legal drinking age.  
2.130.   The representative of the European Union  also had concerns with this measure and invited 
Korea to provide further details about the health warning statements, and to respond to the 
comments sent by the EU to the Korean TBT enquiry point in June.  
2.131.   The representative of the Japan echoed concerns raised by the US. Korea had not offered 
any detailed information on the warning statements and pictures showing the dangers of drinking 
and drunk driving, and the date of entry into force of this Amendment. Japan requested Korea to 
provide an overall explanation of the Amendment including the above detailed information as soon 
as possible. In addition, Korea had not indicated the length of the transition period for this 
Amendment. Japan requested Korea to update the Committee on the trans ition period and to ensure 
an adequate period to avoid any confusion. Finally, Japan asked Korea to take into consideration the 
relevant international standards for the Amendment, including "CODEX GENERAL GUIDELINES ON 
CLAIMS" (CAC/GL1 -1979).  
2.132.   The represent ative of Australia  recogni zed the right of Members to take measures necessary 
to protect public health. In this regard, Australia appreciated Korea's efforts to address a legitimate 
public health concern. Australia asked Korea to provide guidance on the fi nal wording of the warning 
statements and images that are required to appear on alcoholic beverages, as well as the 
 
31 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID  577 (under dates raised and references) . G/TBT/M/79  
 
- 27 - 
 
  specifications, such as size and placement, required for the warning statements and images. 
Australia also requested clarification from the Republic of Korea on the expected timeframe for 
implementation of the measures, and whether exemptions, or a transition period, would apply for 
products already on the market or in transit when the new measures would be implemented.  
2.133.   The representative of Canada  stated that as an exporting country of alcoholic beverages, 
Canada remained interested in the implementation of this regulation due to its possible impact on 
trade, especially for small producers. At the last TBT Committee, Korea indicated that the specifics 
with respect to the enforcement (such as whether or not it would be enforced, the detailed contents, 
and enforcement date) had not yet been determined. Korea also stated that it would consider the 
re-notification to the TBT Committee after the sp ecific enforcement date and the revised draft were 
confirmed. Canada requested that Korea update the Committee on this proposed measure, in 
particular with respect to the timing of the planned re -notification in order to ensure that any 
unnecessary disrupt ion to trade was avoided.  
2.134.   The representative of Mexico  reiterated its concerns expressed at previous meetings. Mexico 
also supported the concerns expressed by the US and other Members and  requested an update and 
more information from Korea on the designat ion of accident photographs, and the question of the 
re-notification of this measure.  
2.135.   The representative of the Republic of Korea  explained that the Ministry of Health and 
Welfare, the competent authority of Korea, had prepared and notified a draft of a P artial Amendment 
to the National Health Promotion Act to the TBT Committee, which reflected Member s' comments 
from the March 2019 TBT Committee meeting. At the June 2019 TBT Committee, Korea had stated 
that any discussions or procedures had not been taken domestically regarding the draft. Currently, 
the relevant ministries were gathering opinions from concerned Members, but discussions and 
procedures had not yet started. Furthermore, it was unclear whether the draft would even be 
implemented as discussion o n details and an enforcement date had not yet been initiated. Korea 
was fully aware of the interests of Members in the draft. In this sense, Korea would re -notify the 
draft after details and an enforcement date were confirmed. There would be a full discuss ion on 
these matters with Members based on a confirmed draft. Other requests raised by Members would 
be delivered to relevant ministries, and Korea would continue consultations with interested Members 
on this issue in a transparent manner.  
Uruguay – Label ling of Packaged Food (IMS ID  57832) 
2.136.   The representative of the United States  supported Uruguay 's public health objectives of 
reducing modifiable behavioural risk factors associated with non -communicable diseases. However, 
in the context of the June 2019 US -Uruguay Trade and Investment Framework Agreement talks, 
several remaining concerns were raised about the 29 August 2018 final decree notified to the TBT 
Committee. In particular, she said the decree may contribute to consumer confusion and Uruguay 
did not appear to have considered less trade -restrictive alternatives. The US reiterated its request 
that Uruguay consider whether the required black and white octagonal "stop sign" symbols, and the 
decree 's new requirement that the symbols must contain the initia ls MPH in addition to the statement 
that the product was in "excess of" a specified nutrient, may cause consumers to avoid products 
that could be part of a balanced diet, such as low - and no -calorie sweetened foods and beverages. 
The US again urged conside ration of whether alternative labelling schemes or a voluntary approach 
could provide consumers with similar information in a manner less burdensome and costly for 
producers while still achieving Uruguay 's valid health objective. The US also urged Uruguay to 
provide a transition period of at least two years, given the complexities involved in adjustment by 
manufacturers to new food labelling schemes.  
2.137.   The representative of Costa Rica  supported the concerns raised by the US. Costa Rica 
questioned the scientif ic base of Uruguay's labelling system and was concerned that it departed from 
Codex standards. He requested updated information from Uruguay and referred to Costa Rica's 
statement at the March 2019 Committee meeting  contained in G/TBT/W/613 . 
2.138.   The representative of Uruguay  said that at the p revious two meetings of the TBT Committee, 
as well as bilaterally, Uruguay had provided interested delegations with a great deal of information 
regarding the issues raised, including linking the measure with regulatory developments in Codex 
 
32 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID  578 (under dates raised and references) . G/TBT/M/79  
 
- 28 - 
 
  Alimentarius. U ruguay had also explained the corresponding scientific basis and the criteria used, 
and also the reasons for the selection of the frontal labelling system given the advantages it ha d 
when compared with alternative systems. He referred to Uruguay's statemen ts at the March and 
June 2019 Committee meetings.33 
2.139.   As Uruguay had previously stated, introducing a nutrient content rating label at no time 
raised questions about the safety of the product, nor was there evidence that it caused consumer 
fear. The objective  of the measure was to clearly inform the public and facilitate the identification of 
foods with excessive content of critical nutrients, so that informed decisions about their consumption 
could be made. Regarding the implementation periods, Decree No. 272 /018 entered into force as of 
its publication on 29 August 2018, and a period of 18 months had been given to adapt to its 
provisions. Therefore, since 1 March 2020 all foods produced after the date of entry into force of the 
measure would have to include f rontal labelling if they exceed ed the criteria established in the 
measure. Uruguay remained open to continue exchanging information with interested Members 
through the appropriate channels, while reaffirming its right to implement, in line with WTO rules, 
appropriate policies to protect public health and fight against obesity and noncommunicable 
diseases, in line with SDG 3.4 of the 2030 Agenda of the United Nations.  
European Union - Chlorothalonil (pesticide active substance) G/TBT/N/EU/625  
(IMS ID  57934)  
2.140.   The representatives of Colom bia, the United States , Ecuador  and Panama  raised concerns 
with the measure. The full statements are contained in  G/TBT/W/696 , G/TBT/W/703 , G/TBT/W/688  
and G/TBT/W/692 . 
2.141.   The representative of Paraguay  remained concerned about this measure, and reiterated 
concerns expressed at the previous meeting.35 
2.142.   The representative of Guatemala  stressed concerns with the non -renewal of the active 
ingredient chlorothalonil . Currently there were no substitutes or  similar plant protection products 
which could be used. Chlorothalonil was used for various crops including vegetables and Guatemala 
was disappointed that the EU had made this decision without adequate risk analysis and in line with 
long-term scientific data.  
2.143.   The representative of Brazil  continued to have concerns with this measure where it was 
inappropriate that the EU based measures solely on a hazard -based approach, without a proper risk 
analysis and compliance with long -standing scientific principles. The no n-renewal of approval for 
chlorothalonil did not take into consideration its current authorization in 109 countries, and that the 
MRLs allowed by Codex could reach up to 70 mg/kg, depending on the product. In this context, 
Brazil reiterated concerns that s ome hazard -based analyses conducted by the European Food Safety 
Agency (EFSA) had led to the non -renewal of certificates and subsequently to the reduction of MRLs. 
The case of chlorothalonil negatively impacted Brazil' s exports of agricultural products, su ch as 
bananas, coffee, citrus fruits, papaya, watermelon, among others, which used this substance for 
pest control. For all these commodities, Brazil adopted MRLs below those established by Codex, in 
line with concerns related to consumer safety. Brazil re iterated its systemic concern with the fact 
that issues related to the non -renewal of agricultural pesticides were being dealt firstly in the TBT 
Committee. In many cases, the non -renewal of approval of important substances for trade of 
agricultural commod ities had been  notified to the TBT Committee and as an announcement of the 
future reduction of MRLs to the SPS Committee. Given this situation, Brazil would continue to raise 
and support these concerns in both Committees.  
2.144.   The representative of Costa Rica  echoed concern raised by other Members on the EU's 
proposed measure . As previously stated, the use of this active ingredient was fundamental for 
agriculture in Costa Rica and the lack of its renewal would lead to problems in the productive sectors 
given tha t no replacement products existed . It was used to fight pests that were particularly affect ing 
bananas. As the fifth largest banana exporter in  the world, Costa Rica had billions of dollars in export 
represent ing 2% of GDP and 38% of agricultural GDP, as well as creating direct and indirect jobs. 
 
33 G/TBT/W/614 , G/TBT/W/677  
34 For previ ous statements follow the thread under IMS ID  579 (under dates raised and references) . 
35 G/TBT/M/78 , para. 3.79.  G/TBT/M/79  
 
- 29 - 
 
  The EU represented 50% of exports of Costa Rican banana production, and therefore this measure 
would have a huge impact on trade.  
2.145.   The EU's proposed measure highlighted the risk chlorothalonil may have on human health 
and environment. Costa Rica assured the Committee that it followed best practices on international 
certification such as Fair Trade and the  Rainforest Alliance's standards. The agrochemical residues 
centres had shown that there was a lack of chlorothalonil residues in Costa Rican produce. Therefore, 
this confirmed good practices were used and the lack of risk to human health and to the enviro nment. 
Finally, Costa Rica underlined that the non -renewal of chlorothalonil as proposed by the EU was not 
based on a risk assessment and therefore not in line with Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement. Its non -
renewal was based on concerns and questions that had not been scientifically proven. Costa Rica 
thus called on the EU not to adopt this measure without having carried out the appropriate analysis 
including possible effects on public health and should be adopted within the multilateral framework 
in line w ith Codex Alimentarius where tolerance levels for chlorothalonil had been established.  
2.146.   The representative of the European Union  reiterated that the EU proposed not to renew the 
approval of chlorothalonil and had notified the draf t Regulation to the WTO. Th e measure did not 
lead to immediate disruptions in trade, as it did not amend the MRLs and provided for a grace period. 
The possibility for granting transitional measures would be considered when proposing any changes 
to existing MRLs, which would not take  place before expiry of the grace period. Furthermore, the EU 
reiterated that any future action to reduce MRLs would be notified to the SPS Committee.  
2.147.   As previously explained, chlorothalonil was evaluated in accordance with Regulation (EC) 
No. 1107/2009 o n the placing of plant protection products on the market .36 The conclusion37 by the 
European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) on chlorothalonil, following assessment by the rapporteur 
member State and an extensive peer review process, had been  published in Janua ry 2018. During 
this peer review process, the approval criteria provided for in Article 4 of this Regulation were not 
satisfied, with respect to one or more representative uses of at least one plant protection product. 
During the assessment: (i) a critical  concern was identified by the Authority in relation to the 
contamination of groundwater by certain metabolites of chlorothalonil; (ii) the Authority could not 
exclude a genotoxicity concern for residues to which consumers would  be exposed and identified a  
high risk to amphibians and fish for all the uses evaluated; (iii) several areas of the risk assessment 
could not be finalised due to insufficient data in the dossier; and, (iv) it was noted that chlorothalonil 
was classified as carcinogen category 2 in a ccordance with Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the 
European Parliament and of the Council, while in the conclusion of the European Food Safety 
Authority, they indicated that chlorothalonil should be classified as carcinogen category 1B.  
2.148.   In light of the abo ve, the EU proposed not to renew the approval of chlorothalonil in 
accordance with Article 20(1)(b) of the Regulation. On 29 April 2019, the Commission adopted 
Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2019/677 concerning the non -renewal of the approval of the 
active substance chlorothalonil. The grace period should  expire by 20 May 2020, at the latest. The 
EU said that import tolerance requests however remain ed possible and would  be assessed on a case -
by-case basis by the rapporteur member State and European Food Sa fety Authority. Such requests 
would have to be supported by substantial new data addressing the concerns.  
European Union  - Transitional periods for MRLs and international consultations 
(IMS ID  58038) 
2.149.   The representative of Colombia  raised concerns with the measure. The full statement is 
contained in G/TBT/W/695 . 
2.150.   The representative of the United States  echoed the concerns of Colombia and seven other 
Members regarding the EU's transitional measures. The EU claimed the date of application from 
which new/lower MRLs were  enforced was deferred to six months after entry into force, in the vast 
majority of cases. Contrary to that, the US believed that this application date did not allow sufficient 
opportunity for third countries and food business operators to comply with the  new requirements 
resulting from the modification of the MRLs. To exacerbate the problem, the EU enforced its 
 
36 http://eur -lex.europa.eu/legal -content/EN/TXT/?qid=1489747880535&uri=CELEX:32009R1107  
37 EFSA 2018 Conclusion on the peer review of the pesticide risk asse ssment of the active substance 
chlorothalonil. EFSA Journal 2018;16(1):5126. http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/5126   
38 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID  580 (under dates raised and references) . G/TBT/M/79  
 
- 30 - 
 
  transition to the date of import into the EU rather than the date of production. Because of this, 
products with long shelf lives, such as dried fr uits, nuts, or some processed products, could be 
produced under an earlier MRL but be excluded from the EU market due to the time constraints 
associated with the commercial transaction for importing agricultural goods. The uncertainty created 
by the insuff icient transition period created a burden for growers who needed to know which plant 
protection tools were authorized to mitigate pests well in advance of a growing season.  
2.151.   The EU had suggested that producers in third countries should adjust their producti on 
methods based upon the TBT notification of substance approval or non -approval in the EU. The US 
found that this unfairly shifted the burden of the transition period onto what should be an EU -only 
regulation. Given that the EU made risk -based determinati ons for MRLs and import tolerances, third 
country producers were subjected to great uncertainty upon the removal of substance approval for 
use in the EU. The EU's MRL decisions imposed unrealistic transition periods that cut off access for 
crops produced o utside the EU. The US requested the EU not to apply its substance non -renewal 
decisions toward its MRLs or the MRL transitional arrangements. Additionally, the EU was urged to 
extend its MRL transitional measures to account for realistic production and pro cessing times for 
food and agricultural products. The US recognized and agreed with the EU that consumer health 
remained paramount in its decisions regarding crop protection products; however, she said, the 
most effective policy to protect consumer health was with risk -based management systems for crop 
protection products, feed ing into risk -based MRL decisions and a plentiful food market.  
2.152.   The representative of Panama  referred the Committee to the statement delivered under STC 
No. 20. He underlined that in a dopting measures, all Members should respect them and have enough 
time to adapt.  
2.153.   The representative of Ecuador  said that this measure specifically affected developing 
countries and supported the concerns raised. Ecuador  believed that before the entry into force of a 
standard reducing MRLs, the EU should consider its impact on agricultural production and take into 
consideration that for the registration of a new replacement substance, a new transitional period of 
24 months would be necessary in order to chec k its effectiveness. Considering that a period of no 
less than 12 months would be necessary for this new registration, a total of 36 months would be 
required for approval of a new substance. These deadlines were far too short, impacting producers 
in develo ping countries, many of which were low -income farmers with no other alternative for 
revenue.  
2.154.   The representative of El Salvador  joined others in urging the EU to reconsider its MRL 
transitional periods given their potential impact on agricultural product ex ports in El Salvador. There 
was no scientific basis for this measure and the six -month transitional period did not reflect realities 
of production and the possibility of substituting this active ingredient. Trade with the EU would be 
affected.  
2.155.   The represen tative of Guatemala  reiterated previously raised concerns, particularly the 
potential effects on agricultural exports to the EU which, she warned, would have a negative impact 
along the chain and for food security and rural development. These were key issu es in areas of 
Guatemala's cooperation with the EU. The transitional period of six months established by the EU 
did not correspond to real deadlines for farmers which would enable them to continue to comply 
with their established contracts. She urged the E U to take into consideration the harvesting and 
other periods so as not to restrict trade unnecessarily. Finally, Guatemala encouraged the EU to 
consider an additional transitional period of 24 months to adapt to these measures to allow farmers 
enough time  to carry out studies to identify alternative substances giving an adequate level of 
protection and allowing for the rural development of developing countries.  
2.156.   The representative of Canada  recognized and supported the right of all Members to apply 
food saf ety measures deemed necessary to protect human health while at the same time not 
unjustifiably restricting international trade. It was essential that the EU's transition periods for MRLs 
take into account the need for exporters to adapt to new requirements  and ensure that the conditions 
and requirements were the same for domestic producers and foreign exporters. This approach would 
acknowledge the reality of the agricultural supply chain such as multi -year inventory and extensive 
shelf life, including in fo reign countries.  G/TBT/M/79  
 
- 31 - 
 
  2.157.   The representative of Brazil  expressed continued support for the concerns raised by 
Colombia and the US and emphasized the importance of Article 2.12 of the TBT Agreement, as it 
related to the establishment of a reasonable interval betwee n the publication of technical regulations 
and their entry into force, except in cases of urgent problems of safety, health, environmental 
protection or national security. He underlined the utmost importance of guaranteeing adequate 
intervals of transition , especially for those cases in which the scientific opinions of the European 
Food Safety Agency on the toxicity of substances were "inconclusive" or only indicated a "suspected 
risk". He reiterated Brazil's concern that in some of these cases, also founde d on a hazard -based 
approach, the EU was deciding to reduce the MRLs of certain substances.  
2.158.   Also of concern was the transitional period of three months for accepting the presence of 
MRLs for chlorpyrifos under EU's recent notification G/TBT/N/EU/682 . Such a period was 
incompatible wi th the production period of an orange crop, whose plants had already been sprayed 
with chlorpyrifos. It was also incompatible with the production process, given that a significant part 
of the juice was exported frozen. This issue was especially important t o small farmers that already 
used the chlorpyrifos totally under the current regulation. He warned that if the time for adaptation 
was not extended, small farmers would be hindered from trading their production and, in most cases, 
would not be able to endu re the financial loss.  
2.159.   The representative of Costa Rica  urged the EU to extend the deadline to avoid a serious 
impact on Costa Rican exports to the EU market. He said that the EU's revision and the MRLs for the 
various substances used in farming production  were of considerable concern. He reiterated that it 
was impossible for agricultural producers to change to new tolerances in just six months because of 
the complex evaluation which increased the time required. Costa Rica also asked the EU to establish 
dialogue with the agricultural exporting countries as they would be greatly affected by changes in 
MRLs used commercially. Costa Rica would  welcome these studies and decisions being adopted 
multilaterally as part of Codex in the spirit of the WTO.  
2.160.   The represe ntative of Uruguay  joined the concerns made by the previous Members, taking 
into account the harvesting period and when phytosanitary products were applied, as well as the 
time needed to develop and register substitutes, that the transitional period which had been given 
by the EU on MRLs in these active ingredients was insufficient to make the necessary changes in 
production and to ensure compliance, particularly in the case of processed or frozen products. 
Uruguay renewed its request that the EU take regul atory action based on international standards or 
provide scientific case evidence when it was strictly necessary to depart from those standards to 
achieve the legitimate objectives. He said that if it was deemed necessary to lower the MRLs used 
in agricult ure in other countries, based on a complete risk analysis, the EU was urged to take into 
account the concerns expressed regarding the shortness of the transitional periods granted for such 
adjustment.  
2.161.   The representative of the European Union  repeated the r esponses provided at the previous 
TBT Committee meetings.39 
European  Union  - Explanatory memorandum of unmanned aircraft systems and 
third -country operators of unmanned aircraft G/TBT/N/EU/628  (ID 58540) 
2.162.   The representative of China  expressed concern that regarding the requirement for the 
mechanical strength of the tethered unmanned aircraft system ( UAS) cable, EU had introduced the 
factor of ten from the certification specifications of tethered gas balloons to other tethered UAS  and 
believed that such an approach did not take into account the differen ce in nature between airboat 
drone s and modern system drone s. He explained that f or airboat -style tethered unmanned drones, 
quite large  and light, the wind action was relatively huge, so the cable factor of 10 was reasonable. 
However, modern -system drones were small but heavy, wind action was small, so the cable factor 
of 10 was unnecessary, making it difficult to find suitable material for cable according to present 
technology. China ther efore suggest ed that the  EU reconsider this requirement based on scientific 
research.  
2.163.   China  further s uggest ed that the EU  extend the limited length of category C3 tethered UAS 
from 50 m to 120 m. With the development of technology, the tethered UAS of category C3 ha d good 
 
39 G/TBT/M/78 , para. 3.97 and G/TBT/M/77 , paras. 3.47 -3.48. 
40 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID  585 (under dates raised and references) . G/TBT/M/79  
 
- 32 - 
 
  stability and wind resistance. The extension length of 50 m, he said,  could  not meet the needs of 
market demand and restrict ed industrial development. In addition, according to the EU's regulation, 
the limit for the flying height of "Open Drones " was 120m, and the risk of the Tethered UAS with 
the same take -off weight was no more than non -tethered UAS . China therefore  suggest ed that the 
EU use the same criteria for both Open Drones and category C3 tethered UAS.  
2.164.   The representative of the European  Union  recalled that Commission delegated Regulation 
(EU) 2019/945 on unmanned aircraft systems and on third -country operators of unmanned aircraft 
system and Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/947 on the rules and procedures for 
the oper ation of unmanned aircraft had been  published in June 2019. All the relevant stakeholders 
had been  consulted. Indeed, China had had the opportunity to comment on th e draft and the ir 
comments had been duly taken into account and replied to in April 2019. In  this respect, the EU ha d 
adapted the wording of its requirement on the light identification device as well as the definition of 
the "follow -me" mode to a mode where the unmanned aircraft (UA) follow ed only the pilot and not 
any other person or a device, a s suggested by China.  
2.165.   On the range limitation imposed to unmanned aircraft (UA) when the "follow -me" mode was 
on, the EU consider ed, however, that the range limitation must be maintained at 50m + for safety 
reasons until reliable autonomous UA were available. Indeed, the UA should stay in close vicinity of 
the remote pilot in order to allow him to stay aware of the flight environment of his UA and to be 
able to quickly intervene and regain control  of his UA in case of necessity. On the physical serial 
number affixed to the equipment, under the relevant EU legislation, the serial number was not used 
for the registration of the UAS. A simple approach had been adopted whereby only the 
manufacturer's c ode would be attributed internationally by the International Civil Aviation 
Organization (ICAO) and the manufacturers would be responsible for the definition and the 
maintenance of the numbering of their products.  
2.166.   Regarding the requirement for the mechanical strength of the tethered UAS cable being  
stricter than necessary, the factor of 10 came from certification specifications of tethered gas 
balloons and took into account the unmanned aircrafts ' accelerations, the  variability of the tether 
material and a safety factor.  Lastly, with respect to the test criteria for noise, as there was no sound 
limit imposed for class C3 unmanned aircrafts, in case the test code provided could not  be strictly 
observed, documented dev iations from the test code may be acceptable, as long as conditions set 
in EN ISO 3744:2010 were met (e.g. measurement radius equal to or greater than twice the 
characteristic source dimension).  
Republic of Korea - Package Recycle Classification Regulation ,  
G/TBT/N/KOR/843 , G/TBT/N/KOR/844 , G/TBT/N/KOR/857  (ID 58841) 
2.167.   The representative of the United  States  applaud ed Korea' s leadership in promot ing recycling 
and reduc ing unnecessary waste. However, Korea was asked to consider how its packaging criteria 
could  afford flexibility for the differing functions that packaging play ed and allow for innovation in 
recycling technology. The US  appreciated Korea' s recent notifications and comment periods  and 
hoped that all submitted comments would  be taken into account in the development of the final 
measures. Noting that the comment per iod for the recent G/TBT/N /KOR/857  notification close d on 
8 November  2019 and that the regulation was to be implemented on 25 December  2019, Korea was 
asked to  confirm if US comments would  be fully reviewed and taken into account prior to this 
implementation date. Notification of the Package Recycle Classification Regulation, which the 
Ministry of Environment (MOE) had finalized on 17 April, was again request ed. Could Korea provide 
more det ail as to the criteria it would  use to evaluate the recyclability and resourcefulness of product 
packaging. US industry ha d noted in its comments that it welcome d the opportunity for a dialogue 
with MOE on the criteria ; her delegation  would be happy to ass ist in facilitating that discussion. She 
requested greater transparency and detail as to how Korea would  implement its consultations with 
companies to evaluate their product packaging and the thresholds that products must meet in order 
to avoid a ban or fi ne. 
2.168.   Korea' s classification regulation did not seem to be in harmony with current efforts in other 
countries to promote recycling, which encourag ed scale in the classification, label ling, and use of 
recyclable materials. By not considering these efforts in its regulations, Korea' s objective to promote 
recycling and reduce unnecessary waste may not succeed. The US  wanted to ensure there would  
 
41 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID  588 (under dates raised and references) . G/TBT/M/79  
 
- 33 - 
 
  not be a Korea -unique packaging requirement as this could  unnecessarily disrupt trade. Ha d Korea 
considered discussion s or partnerships with consumer product and waste recycling companies to 
identify global recycling best practices and opportunities?  Finally, the US asked Korea to consider 
extending the current proposed grace period to two  years for product packaging to b e graded, 
evaluated and label led, given the need for industries to adjust their supply chains.  
2.169.    The representative of Australia  recognized Korea's right to implement regulations that 
promoted the reduction of waste and the production of easily recyclable packaging materials. He 
thank ed Korea for notifying this proposed measure and refer red to comments submitted through 
the Enquiry  Point. Australia sought  clarification on the different treatments proposed for the "recycle -
friendly " colourless, brown or green glass and glass of other colours which was said to be "recycle -
unfriendly ". In particular, further information was sought on the scientific and technological basis 
for the measure and for classifying different colours of glass bottle in this manner, and how colour 
affect ed the recyclability of these packaging materials . Australia  would be concerned if this regulation 
limited the range of colours of glass containers considered re cycle friendly without a scientific basis. 
Australia note d that the Detailed Standards state d that some coloured bottles such as those used 
for wine may be considered "recycle -unfriendly ". The use of darker  coloured glass for certain light 
sensitive products, such as red wine and olive oil, serve d a legitimate technological purpose as it 
helped prevent oxidation and maintain ed the quality of the product until eventua l consumption.  
2.170.   Australia also sought  clarification of the process for exceptions, specifically how and on what 
grounds an exemption could  be sought. He said that p ackaging materials, particularly those for food 
and beverage products, may serve a technological purpose and unduly limiting their use  could have 
implications for product safety and quality. Further information on the exception process in the 
proposed regulation  was requested . Australia  also request ed that  Korea consider extending the 
current implementation date. As currently drafted, th e implementation period was deemed too short 
given the long lead times in production for some products. International food companies need ed 18 
months  to two years to create and apply new packaging and labelling designs, as well as to work 
their way through  existing stock of packaging materials. Additionally, some products, particularly 
wine, may not be exported for some time after production.  
2.171.    The representative of South Africa  thank ed Korea for its respective notifications of the draft 
regulations requiring that materials and structures of packaging be graded and evaluated according 
to their recyclability. Although South Africa support ed Korea' s recycling efforts for environmental 
protection purposes, South Africa also shared some of the concerns expressed by previous 
delegations. All packaging material including alcoholic beverages must be evaluated according to its 
ease or difficulty in its recyclability and that there would  be four g rades: excellent, good, normal 
and difficult. If a product ha d several parts or components, it would  be assessed against its most 
difficult component , for example for wine bottles the assessment would include the glass, the cap or 
cork and the label. The c riteria being used to grade ease of recyclability appear ed to imply that 
certain wine packaging elements might be graded as "difficult ". 
2.172.   In order to address South Africa' s concerns and to get a better understanding of the 
regulations, responses to the foll owing questions  were requested : 
a. What is the basis for determining what packaging is difficult to recycle - is it based on 
international scientific evidence or research that was done and published?  
b. Why is glass with colours other than brown or green difficu lt to recycle?  
c. Korea is kindly requested to provide clarity on examples of a label directly printed on 
the body of the glass and why this is more difficult to recycle?  
d. Although we fully support non -trade restrictive environmental protection, South Africa 
nevertheless questions whether it is acceptable that less environment -friendly products 
can be "fined" or have to pay a higher tariff? This can be regarded as a non -tariff barrier, 
especially if it is not based on sound scientific evidence?  
e. The process of v erification of each set of packaging by a public research centre that has 
to be approved by the Ministry of Environment is regarded as unnecessary cumbersome G/TBT/M/79  
 
- 34 - 
 
  and it can become very costly. The limited time period for compliance with this 
requirement is als o causing concerns.  
2.173.   South Africa also asked whether these regulations affecting imported packaging materials 
into Korea, were also  applicable to Korean originating packaging materials on an equal basis . 
2.174.    The representative of Canada  thank ed Korea for notif ying th e measure  which Canada was  
currently considering submitting comments on. As mentioned previously, Canada recognize d Korea's 
efforts and actions to protect the environment, particularly with respect to the management of waste 
and recyclable materials . However, he said, the prepared measure could affect a wide range of 
products and could have a significant impact on trade. Canada believe d that Korea could rely on 
international standards to achieve the same policy objective and minimize potential trade distortions. 
Had Korea taken international standards into account in the development of its measure, namely in 
its distinction of products that are "easy" or "difficult " to recycle? He underlined that u sing an 
internationally accepted class ification would facilitate trade.  
2.175.   Further, having a recognizable starting point (e.g. international standard), may also make it 
easier for manufacturers to prepare the information package required under the "Enforcement Rule 
of the Act on the Promotion of  Saving and Recycling of Resources ". It may also make it easier for 
manufacturers to prepare the information package required under the "Enforcement Rule of the Act 
on the Promotion of Saving and Recycling of Resources " if manufacturers could  refer to an e xisting 
classification they knew  and underst ood. How would  Korea ensure compliance and enforce these 
rules in practice?  Finally, and g iven the amount of time it would  take stakeholders to comply with 
the new rules, Canada  urged Korea to extend the implemen tation from December 2019 to give them 
time to evaluate current packing and consider whether improvements were possible.  
2.176.    The representative of the Republic of Korea  recalled that the regulation had been officially 
notified to the WTO on 9 September 2019 with a comment period , subsequently extended by two 
weeks . He explained that  details of the prohibition, such as PVCs and coloured pet bottles, were 
provided in the "Materials of Packaging, Structural Criteria" regulation , part of the sub -laws notified 
on 9 September. In addition, "Regulations on Pavement Materials, Structural Improvement" , issued 
on 17 April, classifie d and define d recycling grades according to their ease of recycling. The 
regulations ha d been prepared by referring to domestic recycling co nditions and standards for 
overseas recycling, and Korea would continue to review them regularly to keep pace with the 
innovation or development of recycling technologies. He said that other issues raised during the 
meeting would  be delivered to the releva nt ministries , and that Korea would maintain consultations 
with interested parties on th e issue in a transparent manner.  
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia - Added Sugar Upper Limit in Some Food Products ,  
G/TBT/N/SAU/1108 , G/TBT/N/SAU/1108/Add .1 (ID 58942) 
2.177.   The representative of the United  States  reiterated that  this measure would  disrupt the export 
of a wide range of popular food and beverage products to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. While 
appreciat ing Saudi Arabia' s desire to address obesity and  non-communicable diseases  (NCDs) , such 
as diabetes, as part of their Healthy Food Strategy , and as noted in comments dated 14 June 2019, 
the US had questions about the sufficiency of the scientific evidence used as justification for the 
regulation, the limits prescribed, the specific objectives of the regulation, and the process by which 
this draft would meet those objectives.  While acknowledging the  suspend ed implementation of the 
draft regulation, the US strongly urge d Saudi Arabia to be transparent and work closely with 
stakeholders and trading partners to ensure that revised measures took into account scientific 
evidence for meeting specific healt h objectives while minimizing potential negative economic 
impacts. The US was also concerned on the cumulative effect of the draft regulation on maximum 
added sugar limits and Saudi Arabia' s other proposed measures on Front of Package Nutrition 
Label ling (FOPNL) and maximum limits on salt. The current status of these measures was unclear, 
increasing uncertainty and unpredictability for many US companies. Saudi Arabia was requested to 
provide an update on the status of the FOPNL measure, notified as G/TBT/N/SAU/1105 . 
2.178.    The represent ative of Switzerland  joined the US in raising concerns over the proposed sugar 
upper limits in food products and recalled its position from the last meeting of the TBT Committee. 
Switzerland  remain ed concerned over the impact on trade if the regulation wer e implemented  and 
 
42 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID  589 (under dates raised and references) . G/TBT/M/79  
 
- 35 - 
 
  called on Saudi Arabia to continue to engage with trading partners and the private sector in a 
transparent process to assure that the measure was not more trade restrictive than necessary, and 
to take such consultations with stakeholders into account.  Also of concern  was the fact that the draft 
regulation in general and quantities of added sugar in food products in particular were not based on 
scientific evidence ; more information on the scientific basis of this measure  was therefore reque sted. 
Switzerland encourage d Saudi Arabia to consider less trade  restrictive alternatives, including through 
the engagement of foodstuff producers and suppliers, the provision of better information to 
consumers, and the promotion of a varied and balanced d iet with less sugar, and to allow for a 
reasonable transitional period, taking the technical challenge of the requirements into account.  While 
it was acknowledge d that the implementation of the draft regulation ha d been postponed and that 
the sugar upper limits seem ed to be voluntary for the time being , the status of the regulatory proce ss 
remain ed unclear. Switzerland requested an update on the regulatory developm ent of this measure 
and its timeline.  
2.179.    The representative of the Russian Federation  share d concern s raised by the US and recalled  
the statement made during the previous meeting of the TBT Committee. He requested information 
on the state of play of the rev ision as well as the nature of the proposed amendments. Russia  
remained open for bilateral work with Saudi Arabia on this issue.  
2.180.   The representative of the European  Union  reiterate d interest in the draft technical regulation 
on Added Sugar Upper Limit in So me Food Products , notified in G/TBT/N/SAU/1108 , and refer red to 
its detailed written comments. While fully sharing the legitimate objective of public health protection, 
the EU encourage d Saudi Arabia to consider alternative, less trade  restrictive policies to reduce the 
sugar con tent in foods placed on the national market.  Concerning the revision process of the draft 
announced in the previous TBT Committee meeting , Saudi Arabia was invited to duly take into 
account in th at process the comments and statements of the EU and other WT O Members. Most 
importantly, compliance with the proposed sugar limits would cause serious technical difficulties for 
the industry producing some of the products covered by the draft measure, particularly within the 
short timeframe proposed. Consequently, some key product categories currently exported from the 
EU to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia would no longer be able to access the market.  Finally, the EU 
requested an update on the state  of play of the notified draft.  
2.181.    The representative of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia  said that having notified the technical 
regulation in G/TBT/N/SAU/1108 , in response to valuable comments of many , Saudi Arabia had 
conducted several bilateral meetings and issued the addendum G/TBT/N/SAU/1108/Add.2  on 12 
June 2019. As a resul t of that the draft technical regulation would  not come into force until further 
notice. He expressed continued willingness to engage bilaterally with any interested delegations  
Uruguay - Analysis of Imported Products - Resolution of the Board of the 
Natio nal Grape -Growing and Wine Production Institute (INAVI) of 14 February 2019. 
Resolution of the Board of INAVI postponing implementation until 1 May 2019) - 
exogenous water in wine , G/TBT/N/URY/27 , G/TBT/N/URY/27/Rev.1  (ID 59043) 
2.182.   The representative of the United  States  thank ed Uruguay for bilateral technical exchanges 
and its agreement that for US wine it would  not require the certificate established by the Resolution , 
nor any declaration or proof regarding exogenous water. Technical uses of water in wine making  
permitted by the  US and other countries d id not lead to deception or the undermin ing of consumer 
protection. She urged Uruguay to recognize that those countries were not allowing the addition of 
water to dilute or increase the volume of wine and not to impose requirements  related to exogenous 
water on imports from those countries. As a party to the World Wine Trade Group (WWTG ) MAA, 
Uruguay was required to permit imports of wine produced by another party in conformity with the 
producing party's laws, regulations and requir ements relating to oenological practices and the 
mechanisms to regulate them.  
2.183.    The representative of Australia  referred to concerns raised in the June Committee meeting 
and expressed support  for the concerns of other Members regarding Uruguay 's implementation of 
new certification requirements for exogenous water in wine. Australia emphasize d the importance 
of compliance with WTO obligations, in particular the requirements that measures be impleme nted 
in a non -discriminatory manner and in a way that was no more trade restrictive than necessary. He 
pointed out that i n Australia, wine producers were permitted under the Australia New Zealand Food 
 
43 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID  590 (under dates raised and references) . G/TBT/M/79  
 
- 36 - 
 
  Standards Code to add water to dilute high sugar musts to aid in fermentation. The addition of water 
was done in minimal circumstances, for technical necessity, and in small volumes to aid 
fermentation.  
2.184.    The representative of New Zealand  expressed c oncern that Uruguay 's measure may be 
more trade restrictive th an necessary to fulfil a legitimate objective. She said that l ike Uruguay, New 
Zealand ha d a cooler climate and the addition of water to high sugar must to facilitate fermentation 
was currently not necessary for their winemakers , although climate change ma y eventually force a 
review of that decision. While New Zealand did not allow this practice in its own winemaking process, 
it was recognized that other countries may require this process due to differences in climate. New 
Zealand did not make any restricti ons based on this practice in imported wine  and acknowledged 
that countries allowing it due to climatic necessity exercised strict controls over its use.  Uruguay 
was therefore asked to reconsider its regulation so that it did not act as an unnecessary barr ier to 
trade, as per Article  2.2 of the TBT  Agreement .  
2.185.    The representative of Uruguay  referred to the explan ation given at the previous Committee 
meeting as to  why the accepted oenological practices d id not merit the establishment of a 
generalized percent age of tolerance in wine making  processes. Additionally, he said that some 
Members were already  exporting wines to Uruguay using the certificate of absence of exogenous 
water. Finally, in relation to the issues related to the participation of Uruguay in the WWTG, he 
indicated that Uruguay's mandate was not the same as the mandate of th e TBT Committe e and that 
Uruguay  would do what was possible in the appropriate channels in that forum . 
India — New Telecommunications related Rules (Department of 
Telecommunications, No. 842 -725/2005 -VAS/Vol.III (3 December 2009); No. 10 -
15/2009 -AS-III/193 (18 March 201 0); and Nos. 10 -15/2009 -AS.III/Vol.II/(Pt.)/(25 -
29) (28 July 2010); Department of Telecommunications, No. 10 -15/2009 -
AS.III/Vol.II/(Pt.)/(30) (28 July 2010) and accompanying template, "Security and 
Business Continuity Agreement") (IMS ID  27444) 
2.186.   The represen tative of the European  Union  expressed appreciat ion for  the clarifications and 
explanations given by India at previous meetings. She noted that mandatory testing and certification 
of telecom equipment had entered into force on 1 October 2019 for a limited range of products and 
also a limited range of tests  and that  a one -year exemption from submission of test reports for 
specific parameters ha d been granted. Could India provide additional information on the next steps?  
She recalled that India had published several notifications specify ing products for which in -country 
testing and certification would  be made mandatory  and, in this regard, stresse d the need to allow 
adequate time before the entry into force of these requirements in order for affected stakehold ers 
to have an opportunity to review the final requirements, including any applicable standards, 
specifications, testing methods and procedures.  
2.187.   On the recognition of test results carried out outside India, the EU reiterated  its concerns 
that mandatory in -country testing mean t duplication of testing/certification processes on products. 
Other WTO Members accept ed products through mechanisms such as the Declaration of Conformity 
or ILAC accredited labs, as ha d India up to now. These mechanisms , she said, wer e less trade 
restrictive means of achieving India's legitimate objectives of both safety and security – objectives 
shared by the EU. She underlined that all equipment tested in the EU met the highest standards in 
terms of safety and electro -magnetic radiat ion according to the legal framework in place in the EU. 
While appreciat ing the recent announcement by India that it would continue to recogni ze foreign 
ILAC-accredited laboratory results, she pointed out that this was only until end of March 2020. India 
was asked why this recognition could not be continued  and stress ed the importance of a permanent 
recognition or at least a much longer extension for this recognition.  
2.188.   The representative of the United  States  expressed support for the EU's comments and 
referred the Committee to previous interventions on th e matter.  
2.189.    The representative of Japan  express ed support for the positions of the US and the EU. Japan 
maintained concerns related to th e new Unified Access Service Licen se Agreement  and request ed 
that India ensure that its telecom regulations did not impede market access for foreign industries. 
 
44 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID  274 (under dates raised and references) . G/TBT/M/79  
 
- 37 - 
 
  He reiterated Japan's  request that the regulations should be implemented in a transparent manner 
in terms of testing methods and certification requirements.  
2.190.    The representative of Canada  acknowledged the points made by the US, EU and Japan and 
noted Canada's  continued concern about India's in -country testing requirements for telecoms 
equipment which may hinder  or possibly exclude Ca nadian exporters from the Indian m arket.  
2.191.    The representative of India recalled points made in previous meetings. She reiterated that 
the Telecom Networks were a part of the Critical Infrastructure on which other critical infrastructures 
like power, transportation, defence etc. also r ode. As formerly clarified , India would rely on 
international standards, to the extent possible. For IT product s, testing carried out against the 
Common Criteria (CC) Process under CCRA would  be leveraged. The Common Criteria certification 
did not address National Concerns on the Security Requirement of Telecom Networks , hence some 
additional tests may be conducted, if required, in t he interest of national security and public interest.   
2.192.   She said that t esting was carried out with the objective of ensuring that the radio frequency 
emissions from the equipment were within prescribed limits, the equipment did not degrade the 
performance o f the network to which it was connected and complie d with the relevant national 
regulations. Quality and performance were not tested and certified under MTCTE. The essential 
requirements (ERs) were based upon international standards with suitable modificat ions so that 
these were compliant with Indian requirements and regulations. Taking into consideration the 
concerns of industry , the MTCTE scheme was being implemented in a phased manner. Notification 
for telecom equipment covered under Phase 1 had been  issued on 4 July 2019, with certification for 
these products bec oming  mandatory from 1 October 2019 , the date of entry into force for the MTCTE 
phase 1. The scheme was being implemented in a transparent manner in terms of testing methods 
and certification req uirements. The scheme did not restrict the testing to conformance assessment 
bodies located in India only  and allowed testing from recognized international conformity assessment 
bodies located in MRA partner countries. The scheme was non-discriminatory in respect to domestic 
or foreign Original Equipment Manufacturers ( OEMs ) as well as the location of CABs, be it a TEC-
designated lab in India or recognized lab of an  MRA partner country anywhere in the world. She 
indicated that t est re sults from ILAC accredited labs would  be accepted up  to 31 March 2020 , by 
way of relaxation considering the demand from industry. India remained open to discuss the issues 
bilaterally.  
Russian Federation — Draft Technical Regulation on Alcohol Drinks Safe ty 
(published on 24 October 2011), G/TBT/N/RUS/2  (IMS ID  33245) 
2.193.   The representative of the European  Union  noted that detailed comments had been submitted 
to Russia and the EU had requested updates on the status the measure and whether the EU 's 
comments had been taken into consideration. Despite these requests, Russia had not inform ed the 
EU of any developments on the measure, until it officially announced in December 2018 that a new 
version of the measure had been adopted. The revised text had not been re -notified; given the trade 
implications of th e regulation, the EU asked Russia to comply with WTO transparency provisions and 
notify the revised text  to the TBT Committee.  Furthermore, she said, t he technical regulation also 
contain ed provisions covered by the TRIPS  Agreement  and Russia to notify the regulation to the 
Council for TRIPS, in accordance with Article  63.2 of the TRIPS  Agreement , so that the discussion 
could  take place there, as some of the provisions, in particular impacting geographical indications, 
raised serious conce rns for the EU.  
2.194.   The EU express ed the following concerns with the new version of the measure . Firstly, 
physical and chemical requirements laid down in the regulation in some cases contain ed more 
stringent limits than those set in the EU, which were in line with the recommendations of the OIV, 
of which Russia was a member. The application of these requirements , the EU believed,  would 
represent an obstacle for the importation of these products. Secondly, the mandatory labeling 
requirements set out in the regul ation were of concern to the EU , as not in line with international 
practice, by requiring for example, information such as date markings and storage conditions . The 
EU urged  Russia to refer to C odex standards as regards the indication of date markings and storage 
conditions, which were strictly linked to each other.  Could Russia confirm that the use of stickers 
was allowed, according to C odex STAN 1 -1985?  Finally, alcoholic beverages must prove conformity 
with the rule set out in the regulation in order to be marketed in the EAEU territory. The conformity 
 
45 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID  332 (under dates raised and references) . G/TBT/M/79  
 
- 38 - 
 
  assessment was conducted by a state entity and cover ed a wide range of requirements such as 
documentation and laboratory analysis, represent ing a disproportionate burden and cost for 
producers. Russia was a sked to confirm that the conformity procedure would  apply to imported 
products and that EU accompanying documents would  be considered as sufficient to establish the 
compliance of EU products with the notified technical regulation . The EU asked Russia to take their 
comments into consideration and renotify the new version of the measure, under both the 
TBT Agreement  and the TRIPS  Agreement .  
2.195.   The representative of Ukraine  support ed the concerns raised by the EU related to the 
application of conformity procedures, consideration of sufficient time of compliance of a company in 
documents . Ukraine would follow discussions on this issue.  
2.196.   The representative of  the Russian Federation  recalled that the Technical Regulation of the 
Eurasian Economic Union on Safety of Alcohol Beverages had been adopted on 5 December 2018 
and would enter into force on 9 January 2021 . This was  a grace peri od lengthy enough to provide 
ample opportunities for business to adapt to the new regulation.  To implement the Technical 
Regulation, the Eurasian Economic Commission had adopted Decision No. 61 dated 6 April 2019 
setting out transitional provisions. Specif ically, it provide d that the documents on conformity 
assessment issued before the entry into force of the Technical Regulation would continue to be valid 
until their expiration, but not later than 9 January 2024.  
2.197.   Concerning  geographical indications , the le gislation in force did not prohibit the use of the 
designations "cognac ", "calvados " and "champagne ". This point had been conveyed many times at 
the meetings with the EU and France. These designations transformed into generic names and were 
not associated in Russia with the geographical indications due to a long history of the use of these 
terms in the U SSR and even before. Under the arrangements between the Russian Federation and 
France the designations "cognac ", "champagne " and "calvados ", written in Cyrillic characters, could 
refer to products produced in Russia that were marketed domestically. He adde d that this provision 
had also found its way into the Technical Regulation on Safety of Alcohol Beverages under Chapter 
8 "Requirements for labelling of alcohol beverages ". The provision provided that only beverages 
originating from respective areas in Fra nce could bear the label "cognac ", "champagne " and 
"calvados " in Roman characters, while products produced in Russia for domestic consumption could 
bear the label in Cyrillic characters. Moreover, he said, EU producers had a full range of rights that 
were not limited by the Technical Regulation to register their geographical indications in the Federal 
Service for Intellectual Property and underlined that they were always welcome to do that. For this 
reason, the Technical Regulation on Safety of Alcohol woul d not be notified in the Council for TRIPS. 
The list of documents required for the conformity assessment procedures could be found in 
paragraph 47 through 49 of the Technical Regulation.  
2.198.   Concerning labelling requirements , Russia explained that common labe lling requirements set 
out in the Technical Regulation of the Eurasian Economic Union were based on the relevant standard 
of the Codex Alimentarius Commission 1 -1985. Requirements that were not set forth in the standard 
such as alcohol content or storage c onditions were introduced for the sake of consumer safety and 
to ensure that adult consumers made informed choices. He noted current discussions in the Codex 
Alimentarius Commission on the labelling of alcohol products since many countries perceived that 
applicable standards were not sufficient or clear enough for alcohol products. Also noted was that 
the approach to labelling employed by the Technical Regulation of the Eurasian Economic Union was 
not totally new and that the same requirements for alcohol l abelling applied today in Russia. Russia 
assured Members of their continued openness to comprehensive discussions on the issue, bilaterally 
or in the WTO.  
China – Registration Fees for Drugs and Medical Device Products (IMS ID  46646) 
2.199.   The representative of t he Republic of Korea  referred Members to concerns raised at the 
previous TBT Committee meeting. She request ed that should China revise the current regulation, 
that it be shared and notified to the WTO.  
2.200.   The representative of Australia  recalled concerns rais ed in the previous TBT Committee 
meeting and the  ongoing interest in developments in China 's regulation of drugs and medical 
devices. Australia continue d to look forward to constructive bilateral discussions with China on a 
 
46 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 466 (under dates raised and references) . G/TBT/M/79  
 
- 39 - 
 
  range of health technology topics of interest to both sides, and to further cooperation and information 
exchanges.  
2.201.    The representative of China  indicated that Korea's concerns had been  reported to the 
relevant regulatory authority. She clarified that t he registration fees for drugs and medical device 
products were determined mainly by the cost of the conformity assessment. The minor difference of 
the registration fees between imported a nd domestic drugs and medical device products was due to 
the different cost of manufacturing, the workloads and the various price level , a reflection of different 
levels of development.  
China — Interim Measures for Quality Management of Commercial Coal , 
G/TBT/N/CHN/1057  (IMS  ID 47747) 
2.202.   The representative of Australia  reiterate d concerns raised in previous TBT Committee 
meetings , most recently in June , especially the need for transparent coal quality testing processes 
which adopt international standards. Australia respect ed China' s right to ensure the use of coal 
within China met environmental standards. As a reliable, long -term supplier of high-quality  coal to 
China,  Australia continue d to note reports of lengthier than usual processing times for imports of 
Australian coal at Chinese  ports. Australia encourage d smooth trade flows and port processing.  
2.203.   The representative of China  reiterated its statement during the previous TBT  Committee 
meeting that there had been no adjustments in the Interim Measures for Quality Management of 
commercial coal. The relevant measures appl ied both to imported and domestic coals. For the past 
decades, Australia ha d continuously been one of the major sources of coal imports into China. In  
particular, since the China -Australia FTA had been  successfully concluded, the coal imports from 
Australia ha d kept rising due to the tariff free treatment. The import of coal from Australia ha d 
reached over 80 million ton nes in 2018, accounting for 29% o f total coal imports. With regards to 
the inspection of coals, according to the Law on Import Commodity Inspection and its related 
implementation regulations, any imported commodities were subject to the inspection of China' s 
Entry -Exit Inspection and Quar antine Bureau. Both Chinese and international methods were 
acceptable. However, she said, the third -party inspection could not  replace the statutory inspection. 
In the same vein, the pre -shipment inspection could not  replace the inspection at unloaded port  for 
those commodities in bulk.  
India — Draft Food Safety and Standards (Alcoholic Beverages Standards) 
Regulations, 2015, G/TBT/N/IND/51  (IMS ID  49448) 
2.204.   The representative of the European  Union  reiterated its concerns regarding this measure. 
The EU  welcomed the publication of the regulation on additives for alcoholic beverages in August 
2017, though not all their concerns had been taken on board. She recall ed that the regulation 
covering standards for alcoholic beverages had been published in April 2018, and was being 
implemented since April 2019, with the exception of the parameter for yeast in various categories 
of beer and the modification of certain spec ific provisions, for which an extension of six months had 
been announced. The EU also welcomed the notification to WTO in July 2019 of a number of 
amendments to the standards.  She thanked India for taking most of the EU's comments into account, 
and for the  six-month extension of the deadline for certain provisions to enter into force. However, 
there were still concerns with the Regulation . She requested Indian authorities to consider alignment 
with OIV standards.  
2.205.   In particular, the EU requested India to ta ke into account the following concerns. (i) The lack 
of stock -exhaustion clause (to allow the sale of products already present on the Indian market until 
exhaustion of stocks in order to minimi ze the impact for economic operators) and transition period. 
(ii) The presence of some technical specifications (maximum alcohol content, sugar content, some 
wines' definitions) that may not be in line with international standards or with international widely 
accepted practices and could result in an adverse impact fo r international trade. This would prevent 
some EU wines, spirits or beers entering the Indian market. (iii) Some labelling requirements were 
considered excessive (residues of additives in the final product) and would potentially trigger 
additional technica l controls that might result in unjustified barriers to trade. (iv) The Regulation 
also included the need to satisfy excessive analytical parameters that would result in additional 
 
47 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID  477 (under dates raised and references) . 
48 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID  494 (unde r dates raised and references) . G/TBT/M/79  
 
- 40 - 
 
  technical controls (residual extracts, higher alcohol, iron). These additio nal technical controls might 
result in unjustified barriers to trade.  
2.206.   A meeting of the Scientific Panel of Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) 
had taken place in March 2019 to discuss the most important outstanding EU concerns, but most 
requests had been rejected by India. The EU had again explained its concerns in May vis -à-vis the 
Indian authorities, namely the CEO of FSSAI. It was hoped that  discussions could be continued in 
order to find an acceptable solution to the outstanding issues . 
2.207.    The representative of the United  States  agreed with India that accurate food labelling 
information was essential for consumers to make informed, healthy, and nutritious food choices, 
and supported India's public health objective of reducing modifiable b ehavioural real risk factors 
including diet -related risk factors associated with NCDs. The US nevertheless expressed 
disappointment that India did not appear to have taken into account most of their comments 
submitted on the July 2019 notified revised text . Had India considered whether red -coating of the 
nutrient block would cause consumers to avoid certain foods containing beneficial nutrients? Some 
specific issues noted in US comments of 6 September 2019, and previously in comments of 5 July 
2018, include d the lack of a defined age range for the term "children" and what was meant by 
advertisement for children in any form. The US also questioned the scientific rationale that India 
used for establishing the nutrient threshold for specific food categories in schedule 1 which would 
be used to determine listed food products that were "high in" total fat or sodium triggering a red 
coating on the nutrient block on the front label and the requirement for the labelling information to 
display "per serve" on the front  of package without any indication if the 100g -100ml portions were 
equivalent to a serve.  
2.208.   On alcoholic beverages, of particular concern was India's requirement for a warning 
statement. As noted in their September 2019 comments, the US asked what evidence India had 
considered when developing the required warning statement "Consumption of alcohol is injurious to 
health". She said that in the US, the TTB warning statement on alcoholic beverages read 
"Consumption of alcoholic beverages impairs your ability to drive or operate machinery and may 
cause health problems". Had India considered if a more precise warning may be a less trade 
restrictive approach to achieve India's legitimate objective?  
2.209.   She said that the US was encouraged that India was having stakehold er consultations with 
industry representatives and consumer groups and hoped this feedback would be incorporated into 
the rulemaking. India was also requested to consider all US comments to both the 28 May 2018 
notification and the July 2019 notified revis ed text when finalizing the revised regulation. The US  
appreciated the food safety and standards authority of India's continuing discussions on this draft 
with the US Department of Agriculture and the FDA representatives at the US embassy in Delhi; the 
US looked forward to continued bilateral engagement as well as India's engagement with industry 
stakeholders as these requirements continued to be developed. She recalled that comments had 
been submitted by the US on another proposed measure on food safety st andards and alcoholic 
beverages amendment regulations 2019 notified in G/TBT/N/IND/104  and sought information 
regarding when a response could be expected.  
2.210.   The representative of Australia  recognized the right of the Indian Government to take 
measures necessary to protect public health but emphasised  the importance of compliance with WTO 
obligations, in particular the requirements that measures be implemented in a non -discriminatory 
manner and in a way that is no more trade  restrictive than necessary. Australia considered that 
India's draft amendments to its Food and Safety regulations in relation to alcoholic beverages would 
restrict the ability of winemakers to adapt to warming climates, b oth in Australia and India. She 
explained that in Australia, wine producers were permitted under the Australia New Zealand Food 
Standards Code to add water to dilute high sugar musts to aid in fermentation. The addition of water 
was done in minimal circums tances, for technical necessity, in small volumes to aid fermentation.  
2.211.   Australia encouraged India to consider permitting the addition of limited amounts of water 
to facilitate fermentation to enable winemakers to effectively respond to 'stuck fermentations '. She 
thanked the Food Safety Standards Authority of India for inviting Australia to provide alternative 
wording for the regulations to enable this outcome.  Given Australian regulations permitted the 
addition of water to dilute high  sugar musts to aid fer mentation, testing requirements could have a 
significant impact on trade between their countries. Clarification was sought of how, if India's 
amendments were implemented, wine would be tested to determine whether water had been added G/TBT/M/79  
 
- 41 - 
 
  to dilute high  sugar g rape musts. In addition, clarification was sought regarding the proposed 
amendment wording to '… declare the range of sugar as specified under these regulations'. Australia 
considered that this wording may cause confusion as to whether winemakers should st ate the sugar 
content or provide a statement such as 'brut', 'dry' or 'sweet', as proposed in another section of the 
regulations. Australia asked how and when the regulation would be implemented, noting that a 
proposed date of adoption and entry into force  was not listed in the notification. India was also 
requested to provide a transition period to allow businesses, specifically importers, time to adapt to 
the new requirements and to account for any product already in transit.  
2.212.    The representative of India recalled its statements from previous meetings of the TBT 
Committee clarifying these issues. She stated that these regulations had been formulated taking 
into consideration the stakeholder comments, including those of WTO Members, and keeping in view 
the prevailing Indian conditions and practices. Comments submitted by the EU and the US had been 
duly considered and, wherever appropriate, suitable amendments had been made to the Regulation. 
Certain issues related to labelling requirements had also been addre ssed during earlier interventions. 
She said that additional issues raised during the meeting would be sent to capital for appropriate 
action, moreover Members having any issue in this respect were urged to also approach the FFSAI, 
the concerned regulator f or further deliberation in their scientific panel.  
Russian Federation – Rules of cement certificatio n, G/TBT/N/RUS/48 , 
G/TBT/N/RUS/49  (IMS ID  49749) 
2.213.   The representative of the European  Union  referred the Committee to statements made at 
several previous TBT Committee meetings. Both Russian notifications G/TBT/N/RUS/48  and 
G/TBT/N/RUS/49  referred to measures that were a lready adopted and had entered into force at the 
time of their notification. This was not in line with Article  2.9 of the TBT Agreement . Comments on 
these two measures were sent to Russia in May and June 2016 but were never replied to. The EU 
deeply regret ted that Russia continue d to adopt restricting measures in the area of cement 
certification that were disproportionate, unjustified and not notified to the WTO before their entry 
into force. Since the introduction of the mandatory certification for c ement, EU exports of cement to 
the Russian Federation were practically blocked —with the exception of white cement, necessary for 
Russian industry.  The EU did welcome the announcement that a new standard on cement certification 
would be revised and requeste d updates concerning the planned timeline for its adoption and in 
particular its notification under the TBT  Agreement , as well as more detailed information about its 
content.  The EU welcomed the bilateral exchange between Russian and EU authorities in Octo ber 
2019, where the Russian authorities confirmed that the new standard on cement would be notified 
in accordance with the TBT  Agreement  at a draft stage. Moreover, it was the EU understanding this 
measure would be notified before March 2020. The EU reques ted confirmation on these points.  
2.214.   The representative of Ukraine  expressed close interest in following the development of new 
amendments to the cement certification standard and requested that Russia inform the Committee 
on the content of the planned change s to be adopted and on its latest development. She requested 
that Russia develop and implement  these amendments in full compliance with WTO principles such 
as transparency, non -discrimination and relevance and to take into account available international 
standards and best practices.  
2.215.   The representative of the Russian Federation  responded  that the provision of the GOST R at 
issue was to ensure the  safety of imported cement into Russia. On 3 September 2019 the 
amendments to the GOST R eliminating additional i nspection procedures were approved by the 
standardization body. These amendments w ould be notified in the WTO in accordance with the 
relevant provision of the  TBT Agreement . 
Egypt — Manufacturer Registration System (Decree No. 43/2016 and Decree No. 
992/20 15), G/TBT/N/EGY/114 , G/TBT/N/EGY/115  (IMS ID  50550) 
2.216.   The representative of the Russian Federation  thanked Egypt for the fruitful bilateral meetings 
and comprehensive discussion on this issue. Concerns remained with regard to the registration of 
companies and exporters, eligible to supply products to Egypt. R ussia reiterated statements made 
at previous TBT Committee meetings and at the Council for Trade in Goods. The conformity 
 
49 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID  497 (under dates raised and references).  
50 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID  505 (under dates raised and references) . G/TBT/M/79  
 
- 42 - 
 
  assessment procedures prescribed in the measure No. 43 and notified in G/TBT/N/EGY/114  was 
discrimi natory and more trade  restrictive than necessary. The economic impact of this measure on 
Russian exporters registered in 2016, was estimated at USD100 million per year and future exporters 
would  face similar challenges. The process was complicated and dupl icative , and irrelevant to the 
safety of products. Russian exporters faced challenges due to the multistage nature of the procedure 
where, after documents were prepared and translated, they were sent to an Egyptian law firm for 
verification. They were then  verified by a notary and sent to the General  Organization for Export and 
Import Control. Russian exporter documentation was currently at the Ministry of Trade and Industry 
of Egypt and therefore there was no reason why companies had not been registered in  the system 
since 2016. As a main trading partner, Russia requested that Egypt reconsider the measure as it 
was very important that bilateral trade was done in a predictable, transparent and mutually beneficial 
manner and followed the principles set out in  WTO Agreements. Egypt was also requested to provide 
relevant information regarding the status of the registration of Russian steel manufacturers.  
2.217.   The representative of the European  Union  reiterated concerns with regard to the Egyptian 
requirements on regi stration of manufacturers and importers. She thanked Egyptian authorities for 
the bilateral exchanges concerning the state of play of registration of EU companies. Egyptian 
authorities had informed the EU that the newly establish ed committee within the Min istry of Trade 
had led to substantial progress on registrations according to Decree 43/2016. Nevertheless, EU 
industry, in particular in the ceramic sector, continued to report long delays in the registration 
process and serious difficulties in obtaining i nformation about the state of play of their registration. 
The EU requested that all the companies that had submitted complete documentation, were 
registered without further delay; that Egyptian authorities provide updated statistics on the 
registration of EU companies and in particular on the number of pending registration requests per 
member State; and to continue dialogue on how to facilitate compliance with the registration 
requirements. Finally, the EU repeated its invitation to Egypt to suspend or furt her substantially 
improve the registration process with a view to liberali zing trade. Details on this were contained in 
previous statements at the TBT Committee.  
2.218.   The representative of Brazil  thanked Egypt for having established a new committee to review 
all pending applications so as to facilitate and speed up the registration process. Progress had been 
made with the very recent registration of Brazilian companies. However, at least one major producer 
of tableware products' registration was still pending. T his company had already incurred significant 
costs in obtaining the quality certificates but failed to be registered due to the short validity period 
of such certificates and the procedures defined in the Egyptian Manufacturer Registration System 
prior to the establishment of the abovementioned committee. Brazil hoped that the new committee 
would act promptly to this concern.  
2.219.   The representative of Egypt  thanked those Members with whom bilateral meetings had taken 
place in the margins of the Committee. She r eferred to the statement delivered by Egypt in the 
previous TBT Committee meeting in June where in line with its efforts to respond to the concerns 
expressed by a number of trading partners, Egypt had established a new committee with the purpose 
of reviewi ng all pending applications to facilitate and speed up the finalization of the registration 
process. Since the establishment of the aforementioned committee and until the end of September 
2019, 158 pending applications from 17 main trading partners had bee n processed and successfully 
registered with 2 ,216 companies registered by the end of September 2019. The committee would 
continue revising pending applications as requested by trading partners. Egypt renewed its call for 
Members whose companies were facin g specific problems or delays in registration to send the list of 
companies concerned so that they could be conveyed to the revision committee.  
China — National Standards on Limits of Volatile Organic Compounds for 
Furniture, G/TBT/N/CHN/1094 , G/TBT/N/CHN/1095 , G/TBT/N/CHN/1096  (IMS 
ID 50951) 
2.220.   The representative of the European  Union  referred to concerns raised in several previous 
TBT Committee meetings. It was the EU's understanding that there would be four mandatory 
standards for furniture drafted in the coming years and he asked if China inte nded to notify these 
standards in accordance with the TBT  Agreement . The EU requested conformation that the standard 
"Limits of harmful substances in furniture", would replace the previous notified standards. To help 
 
51 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID  509 (under dates raised and references) . G/TBT/M/79  
 
- 43 - 
 
  facilitate implementation, the EU reque sted the following information concerning the scope of these 
new proposed standards:  
• Would they concern the same furniture product groups as in previously foreseen 
standards, and if so, which?;  
• Would they cover more furniture product groups, and if so, w hich?;  
• What limits of which harmful substances would be covered by the mandatory standards 
– especially the one on "Limits of harmful substances in furniture"?  
• As there could  be value in exploring the possible use of ISO standards, either those 
existing or still in development  - as appropriate, would China be willing to engage in 
such collaborative work ? 
• Which authority in China would be responsible for the development of the new standard. 
Would it be the Chinese Standardisation Organisation (SAC) or a different body, and if 
so, which one?  
2.221.   Following its previous offer of technical meetings, the EU remained open to hold technical 
discussions in Brussels on issues pertaining to t hese and any other relevant furniture standards, as 
originally proposed by China in June 2017. To this end, the EU reiterated its request to China to 
designate its contact point for the organi zation of such a meeting. The EU proposed to involve 
industry in  the drafting process of these standards. The EU, once again, requested that China notify 
the announced standards in accordance with the TBT  Agreement .  
2.222.   The representative of China  informed the Committee that in May 2019, the Standardization 
Administration  of China (SAC) issued a plan to revise the mandatory national standard of the Limits 
of Hazardous Substances in Furniture which was under the responsibility of the Ministry of Industry 
and Information Technology (MIIT). This project would integrate three mandatory national standard 
projects, as well as the relevant content of the hazardous substance limits in the mandatory national 
standard of Limits of Dangerous Substances for Plastic Furniture (GB 28481 -2012). After integration, 
the mandatory national st andard of the Limits of Hazardous Substances in Furniture would cover 
products ranging from wood -based furniture, upholstered furniture mattresses, upholstered 
furniture sofas, plastic furniture to stone furniture, etc. Hazardous substances were formaldehy de, 
volatile organic compounds, the migration of heavy metals, decomposable aromatic amine, flame 
retardant, phthalate, radioactive elements, etc. The standard was still being drafted and MIIT 
expected to complete the preparation of the draft of the standa rd in the first half of 2021 and then 
submit it to the Standardization Administration of China for approval. In the standard -drafting 
process, China would adhere to the principle of openness and transparency, solicit opinions across 
the board, take ISO -related standards into adequate consideration, and actively absorb foreign -
funded enterprises and experts ' opinions into the formulation and revision of the standard.  
The Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu – Draft 
of the Organic Ag riculture A ct, G/TBT/N/T PKM/225 , G/TBT/N/TPKM/225/Add.1 , 
G/TBT/N/TPKM/225/Add.2  (IMS ID  51152) 
2.223.   The representative of the European  Union  thanked Chinese Taipei for the bilateral dialogue 
on the reform of its regulation on organic products. The new Organic Bill had been  promulgated on 
30 May 2018. The draf t implementing regulations of the new bill  had been  notified to the TBT 
Committee on 7  January 2019. The European  Union  had submitted comments on the implementing 
regulations on 14 March 2019, to which Chinese Taipei had replied on 22 March 2019. Bilateral talks 
had recently taken place with Chinese Taipei. The EU very much regretted that the new Bill allowed 
only for a transit ional period of two years, after which the unilateral recognition of 16 member States 
would expire. The consequences for trade partners were disproportionate, and a more flexible 
transitional arrangement should be considered in the future. The EU's main co ncern was how the 
Organic Bill would be implemented. Given that the EU was the second largest exporter of organic 
products to Chinese Taipei, this system needed to be effective and avoid any trade disruptions which 
might harm retailers and consumers in Chi nese Taipei. The EU requested Chinese Taipei to quickly 
 
52 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID  511 (under dates raised and references) . G/TBT/M/79  
 
- 44 - 
 
  set up a clear information tool to allow European operators and control bodies to familiarize 
themselves with the new imports procedures and called for a rapid and swift recognition of the 
European Co ntrol Bodies by the competent authorities in Chinese Taipei.  He also requested that 
Chinese Taipei recognize the European standards for products coming from the European  Union . 
This was currently not the case since, in practice, compliance with Chinese Tai pei standards was still 
checked. This caused tremendous problems for trade and, given the high level of European 
standards, Chinese Taipei could have full confidence that by respecting the European standards, 
products from the EU were safe. As a single mar ket with a single production standard, this 
recognition should extend to all 28 EU member States .  
2.224.   The representative of The Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu 
said that the act had entered into force on 30 May 2018 and all its provisions were uniformly 
applicable to each WTO Member. The act allowed for two paths for trading partners to export their 
organic products to Chinese Taipei. These were to either sign a mutual organic equivalence 
recognition treaty agreement or other doc uments with Chinese Taipei; or, for Members ' certification 
bodies to seek direct accreditation from Chinese Taipei. This practice was in line with that of the EU 
and in no way constituted a trade barrier. Chinese Taipei had engaged with the EU regarding or ganic 
equivalence since 2010 and had indicated its intention to enter into consultations for bilateral organic 
equivalence with the EU on multiple occasions. It wasn't until September 2018 when a delegation 
from Chinese Taipei visited the EU that they were  informed that the review of the equivalence 
application and the ensuing signing of a bilateral recognition agreement could not be completed by 
the deadline specified in the organic agricultural promotion act. In facilitating trade, both sides  had 
embarked  on a bilateral video conference on 14  December 2018  to discuss organic issues at a 
technical level. Both sides touched on the regulations for accrediting certification bodies, and it was 
made clear that if the mutual recognition deal on organic equivalenc e was not reached by the end 
of the grace period, organic agricultural products certified by EU certification bodies that were 
accredited by Chinese Taipei  would remain eligible for export.  
2.225.   Nine years ha d passed since Chinese Taipei  first sought bilateral organic equivalence 
relationship with the EU. Chinese Taipei asked that the EU pay attention to the importance of bilateral 
organic equivalence and be willing to  remain open to continually engage on this matter bilaterally.  
European  Union  — Organic product ion and labelling - Maté (erva -mate) 
(IMS  ID 52453) 
2.226.   The representative of Brazil  recalled concerns related to the labelling of organic erva -mate 
in the EU. While appreciating the clarifications and the regulatory changes established by the EU 
Regulation 848/2018, it was still Brazil's understanding that the unjustifiable refusal to provide a 
transitory solution was an unnecessary barrier to trade. As had been stated in previous meetings, 
by not including "erva -mate" in the organic product list without any technical or scientific 
justification, this measure was discriminatory and more trade  restrictive than necessary. Brazilian 
producers would be denied access to EU markets on an equitable basis until January 2021, without 
any sort of compensatio n. 
2.227.   The representative of the European  Union  noted that replie s had been provided on this issue 
at previous TBT Committee meetings, as well as bilaterally. Erva -mate was not within the scope of 
the current organic Regulation (Regulation (EC) 834/2007) and t here was no possibility to modify 
this. However, the EU noted that, as proposed by the European Commission, the new Regulation 
(EU) 2018/848 on organic production and labelling adopted on 30 May 2018 by the European 
Parliament and the Council included Maté  under its scope. The new Regulation would enter into force 
on 1 January 2021.  
China — Cybersecurity Law (IMS ID  52654) 
2.228.   The representative of Japan  said that there were continued concerns on China 's 
"Cybersecurity Law " that entered into force on 1 June 2017 . She referred the Committee to the 
statement made at the June 2019 TBT Committee meeting. In addition , Japan had concerns with 
the related enforcement regulation and requested that China notify the enforcement regulations to 
the TBT Committee and to consi der comments from stakeholders. Japan also requested that China 
 
53 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID  524 (under dates raised and references) . 
54 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID  526 (under da tes raised and references) . G/TBT/M/79  
 
- 45 - 
 
  provide adequate time for adaptation from their completion until their enforcement, and to 
implement these measures in a transparent manner.  
2.229.   The representative of the Republic of Korea  raised concerns with Article  31 of the law which 
stipulated the criteria for designation of Critical Information Infrastructure, and Article  35 which 
stipulated standards and procedures of a security review for IT products and services which were 
used for Critica l Information Infrastructure. The designation scope for the Critical Information 
Infrastructure was too general, and it was difficult to know whether the IT products and services 
should undergo  the national security review or not. Moreover, assessment proc edure for the national 
security review had not yet been clarified which could cause unnecessary  abuse of the regulation as 
well as breach of intellectual property rights. Korea requested more clarity on the designation criteria 
for Critical Information Inf rastructure and the scope for the national security review. Moreover, 
Korea requested that a clause be included for procedures prevent ing confidential business 
information leakage during the national security  review. Finally, Korea requested that any sub -laws 
and other implementing measures related to the Cyber Security Laws which were established or 
revised, be notified to the WTO to allow time for comments from international stakeholders.  
2.230.   The representative of the European  Union  referred to its comments m ade at previous TBT 
Committees and reiterated its concerns regarding the entry into force of the Cybersecurity Law on 
1 June 2017. The scope of the requirements was unclear, as key terms had not been specified in 
sufficient detail. Concepts such as "critic al information infrastructure" and "secure and trustworthy 
products" were not sufficiently clarified. The EU had concerns on the standard itself. The EU 
maintained its concerns about the revised methodology. While references to 'source code ' had been 
remov ed, the mere requirement of providing "relevant materials " to verify the security and 
controllability of products, could imply source code disclosure. The EU recalled the importance of 
international standards and note d that the law only ma de references to national standards. This 
could lead to a lack of interoperability with international standards. In the development of national 
standards, it would be appropriate to build on existing international standards and to involve all 
relevant stakeholders, including foreign -invested and wholly -foreign owned enterprises, in a non -
discriminatory manner in the relevant Technical Committees. The EU requested more clarity 
regarding several of the implementing measures following China's Cybersecurity  Law. For example, 
the Cyberspace Administration of China's Cross -Border Data Transfer Measures continued to raise 
concerns about the broad scope of these regulations, regarding what was considered as critical 
information infrastructure and which kinds of cross-border data transfers would be affected. A 
definition of critical information appeared to cover many commercial activities and whole sectors 
that had no bearing on national security. Moreover, the list of what was considered important data 
was open -ended. As a result of the data locali zation and security assessment requirements, foreign 
companies operating in China could find themselves in a less competitive situation compared to 
domestic operators.  
2.231.   As regards the certification and security requiremen ts on critical information infrastructure, 
the EU was concerned that such requirements led to a de facto  ban on products and services from 
foreign  invested enterprises providing products and services to businesses falling under the notion 
of "critical info rmation infrastructure". The EU called on China to implement these provisions in a 
non-discriminatory manner, respecting the principles of proportionality, necessity and technology 
neutrality and ensuring adequate protection of intellectual property. Moreo ver, the EU repeated its 
previous requests for clarifications on the relationship with existing Multi -Level Protection Schemes 
and the expected implementation timeline. The EU noted with concern that the Cybersecurity law 
had already been applied and was e nforceable (including possible fines and sanctions), while the 
implementing measures that would clarify its implementation were still not in place. This created 
significant uncertainty for economic operators. He requested that China inform the Committee wh en 
the implementing measures would be adopted. He also requested that China notify the draft 
measures concerning any sectoral implementation to the TBT Committee in order to give adequate 
opportunity for WTO Members and their stakeholders to comment on any  subsequent developments.  
2.232.   The representative of the United  States  repeated the statement made at the previous TBT 
Committee meeting.55 
2.233.   The representative of Australia  supported the concerns raised by other Members and 
reiterated its previous position regard ing China 's Cyber Security Law and related laws. It was 
 
55 G/TBT/ M/78, paras 3.245 -3.248.  G/TBT/M/79  
 
- 46 - 
 
  Australia's understanding that the Cyber Security Law had been recently adopted. Given concerns 
previously raised in this and other committees regarding the unclear details about the Cyber Security 
Law, Australia requested that China notify the adopted final legislation. The measures should be 
implemented in a non -discriminatory manner and in a way that was no more trade restrictive than 
necessary. Australia urged China to take into account the concern s of business and WTO Members 
in the implementation of these measures and development of future measures and welcomed the 
opportunity to work with China on draft measures related to cyber  security.  
2.234.   The representative of Canada  said that, in line with other  interventions by Canada pertaining 
to STCs related to China's cybersecurity and cryptography measures, Canada reiterate its concern 
with this law. Developments related to the implementation of the cybersecurity law were being 
closely followed and any addi tional information that China may provide would be appreciated.  
2.235.   The representative of China  said that there had been some fruitful exchange of views 
bilaterally with some trading partners. The Cyber Security Law was the fundamental law in the field 
of cybe r security in China. The draft and implementation of the law was a learning -by-doing process. 
Some provisions and practices had been directly borrowed from international practice, in particular 
from developed Members. The law aimed to safeguard national so vereignty and public interests in 
China. It was not to restrict foreign enterprises, technologies and products from entering the Chinese 
market. China believed the concern on national security review had been addressed earlier .56  
European  Union  — Regulatio n (EC) No 1107/2009 - non-renewal of approval of 
the active substance picoxystrobin G/TBT/N/EU/437  (IMS ID  53557)  
2.236.   The representative of Brazil  raised concerns with th e measure. The full statement is 
contained in G/TBT/W/681 .  
2.237.   The representative of Paraguay referred the Committee to statements made in previous TBT 
Committee meetings.  
2.238.   The representative of the European  Union  said that as had been explained in detail at 
previous TBT Committees, the European Commission decided not  to renew the approval of 
picoxystrobin through Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1455. Authori zations for 
plant protection products containing picoxystrobin in the EU were required to be withdrawn by 
30 November 2017. Member States were permitt ed to allow for a grace period until 30 November 
2018 at the latest. The European  Union  notified third countries of the draft Regulation via the TBT 
procedure. The measure did not lead to immediate disruptions in trade, as the measure itself did 
not amend the M RLs and provided for a grace period for use of products containing picoxystrobin.  
2.239.   Given the issues identified by the E FSA, the existing MRLs were reviewed in a separate 
measure in view of their safety to consumers. A draft measure lowering the MRLs fo r picoxystrobin 
to the limit of quantification (LOQ) was prepared and presented to the Standing Committee on Plants, 
Animals, Food and Feed. The European  Union  notified third countries of the draft Regulation via the 
SPS procedure. Comments received from n on-EU countries and stakeholders were available to the 
Standing Committee, where a summary of the key points raised was presented. The Standing 
Committee gave a favourable opinion on the draft. The European Commission formally adopted the 
revised MRLs in J anuary 2019. The revised MRLs were applicable since 13 August 2019. Import 
tolerance requests however remained possible and would be assessed on a case -by-case basis by 
EFSA. Such requests would have to be supported by substantial new data addressing the c oncerns . 
Viet Nam  — Cybersecurity Measures (IMS ID  54458) 
2.240.   The representative of Japan  expressed concerns regarding Viet  Nam's Cybersecurity Law, 
which was passed in the Viet  Nam National Assembly in June 2018 and included provisions which 
could hinder the free flow of information and the participation of foreign companies in Viet  Nam's 
market. At the last meeting, Viet  Nam explained that the draft Decree was in the process of 
government approval. Viet  Nam also explained that the description of Article 25 regarding the scope 
 
56 China — Cyberspace Administration of China – Draft implementing measures for the Cybersecurity 
Review of Network Products and Services (IMS ID 533)  
57 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID  535 (under dates raised and references) . 
58 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 544 (under dates raised and references).  G/TBT/M/79  
 
- 47 - 
 
  of the obligation to store data locally and to open up a local branch or a representative office had 
been developed with consideration for openness and flexibi lity. Japan requested that Viet  Nam 
inform Japan of any changes to the previously published draft, and that Viet  Nam provide information 
on the current status of the draft Decree and further steps. Japan was interested in whether or not 
the draft Decree as  a whole included technical requirements for IT products and devices and 
requested that the second draft be notified to the TBT Committee. Viet  Nam should implement the 
law and attached Decree in a transparent manner to prevent it from becoming more trade  restrictive 
than necessary and to take the comments from Member into consideration.  
2.241.   The representative of the United  States  said that there were deep concerns with Viet  Nam's 
Law on Cybersecurity and disappointment that this law had not been notified to th e WTO while it 
was still in draft form. She urged Viet  Nam to immediately notify the Law and the draft implementing 
measures that had been  published on 2 November 2018 so as to allow all interested parties to 
provide input. Viet  Nam should carefully review  and consider stakeholder comments when finalizing 
these measures. She invited Viet  Nam to work with the US and other stakeholders to resolve 
concerns with the Law on Cybersecurity and encouraged Viet  Nam to consider using a risk -based 
approach to cybersec urity drawing on industry best practices, widely accepted definitions, and 
international standards. Viet  Nam should consider the Common Criteria Recognition Arrangement 
(CCRA) certification process when finalizing the draft implementing measures for the La w.  
2.242.   The representative of Australia  said that feedback on the draft decree implementing the new 
law had been provided. She stressed the importance of the law maintaining Viet  Nam's 
entrepreneurialism and embracing of digital platforms, supporting increased  participation in global 
e-commerce, and enhancing the business environment in Viet  Nam, including by being transparent, 
clear and compliant with international trade commitments and regional trade agreements. Australia 
shared the view that safeguarding cyb er security was a legitimate policy objective of governments 
but questioned whether requirements in the law and draft implementing decree were necessary to 
meet Viet  Nam's cybersecurity objectives. The current laws did not represent the least trade -
restric tive manner to achieve those objectives. Australia strongly encouraged Viet  Nam to notify the 
drafts of the decree to the TBT Committee. She thanked Viet  Nam for its engagement and looked 
forward to continuing to work on the implementation of the Cyber Sec urity Law  
2.243.   The representative of the European  Union  said there were on -going concerns with the 
Vietnamese Cyber Security Law, which had entered into force on 1 January 2019. As in previous 
meetings of the TBT Committee, the EU was concerned with the potent ial economic impact of this 
legislation and its compatibility with Viet  Nam's WTO commitments. The EU welcomed the public 
consultation on the draft Implementing Decree on Cybersecurity setting out further details for some 
articles of the Cyber Security Law, to which the European Commission and the European External 
Action Service had provided comments in December 2018. The EU hoped that Viet  Nam would 
seriously consider the concerns expressed and continue dialogue with the EU on this matter to ensure 
its alignment with international best practices.  The EU requested that Viet  Nam notify this draft 
Implementing Decree to the TBT Committee for general transparency purposes and in accordance 
with Article  2.9 of the TBT  Agreement  to allow the opportunity to analy se the draft decree in depth 
and to provide comments within a reasonable time limit.  
2.244.   The EU invited Viet  Nam to provide up -to-date information on any plans for taking into 
consideration comments from interested parties, including industry and stakeholders and to provide 
an update on the timing for the adoption of the Implementing Decree. He also asked whether 
Viet Nam intended to develop further implementing measures. The EU encouraged Viet  Nam to 
develop and implement the Cyber Security Law and any implementing measures in full respect of 
WTO principles, such as non -discrimination and proportionality and to take into consideration 
available international standards and best practices.  
2.245.   The representative of Canada  referred the Committee to its statemen t delivered in the 
previous TBT Committee meeting.59 
2.246.   The representative of Viet Nam said that the Law on Cybersecurity and the draft Decree for 
implementing certain articles of this Cybersecurity Law had not regulated technical requirements 
with regard to i nformation technology products or devices. The law's objective was to ensure national 
security, social order and the protection of legitimate rights and interests of organizations and 
 
59 G/TBT/M/79 , para. 3.276.  G/TBT/M/79  
 
- 48 - 
 
  individuals. The process through which the law and its draft Decree were  formulated and/or to be 
enacted had been very open, transparent and complied fully with requirements prescribed in the 
Law on promulgation of legal documents in Viet  Nam. In fact, Viet  Nam published all draft legislation 
on respective government portals t o enable all individuals, organizations, domestic and foreign 
stakeholders to access and provide comments. Numerous meetings and workshops were held and 
intensive consultations were taken so that Viet  Nam could carefully listen to comments and provide 
explanations on the legitimate policy objectives to interested parties.  
China - Catalogue of Solid Wastes Forbidden to Import into China (ID 54560) 
2.247.   The representative of New Zealand  acknowledged and supported the right of all WTO 
Members to regulate to achieve legitimate domestic health and environmental objectives. New 
Zealand applauded China 's stated proactive policy objectives in relation to sustainable development 
and encouraged valid actions to limit harmful environmental impacts from contaminated waste ins ide 
its borders. New Zealand did not seek to question China 's right to regulate to protect its environment. 
However, New Zealand remained concerned that vanadium slag was included in China 's catalogue 
of banned imports under this measure and reiterated its  view that vanadium slag was a purposefully 
produced co -product with a purposeful end use in production of specific forms of steel. It was not a 
waste product, and so should not fall under measures for solid waste. New Zealand recalled that 
China itself wa s the largest global producer of vanadium slag, with approximately 500,000 ton nes 
annual production generated as a co -product from steel mills. New Zealand requested clarification 
on how China had ensured that the rules apply ing to foreign products were no  less favourable than 
those accorded to domestic products. Further explanation was requested on how it ha d ensured that 
the import ban on vanadium slag was not more trade restrictive than necessary to achieve China 's 
environmental and health protection obj ectives. New Zealand thanked China for the recent 
discussion on this issue and looked forward to further constructive engagement on this topic to 
better understand China 's approach to distinguishing between waste and non -waste materials.  
2.248.   The representative  of the United  States  referred to concerns raised during the March 2019 
TBT Committee meeting regarding the negative trade and environmental impacts resulting from 
China 's import ban, and accompanying measures, on certain recovered materials. China had mad e 
certain references to environmental concerns and had invoked the legitimate objective of 
environmental protection as the rationale for the measures. Yet, China had provided no details as 
to what specific environmental concerns it was hoping to address, m uch less how these restrictive 
measures – including a full ban – were intended to alleviate any such environmental concerns. 
China 's current approach appeared to have the opposite effect. The most likely outcome of the ban 
was that reusable plastics would be redirected from productive purposes, such as recycling, to the 
waste stream. The US recognized and appreciated China 's interest in addressing valid environmental 
concerns. Meetings had been repeatedly requested with experts from China 's Ministry of Ecology 
and Environment (MEE) so as to understand China's  environmental concerns and why these 
measures were necessary to address those concerns, and to work cooperatively to ensure that valid 
environmental concerns were met in the least trade -restrictive manner possible. China had declined 
all such requests. Instead of attempting to explain its environmental objectives and working 
constructively to minimize trade restrictions, China had moved forward with the implementation of 
these measures and even expan ded the scope of restricted materials.  
2.249.   The US requested that China immediately suspend implementation of its import ban and its 
import control standards for recovered materials. China was urged to break its silence if it truly 
wanted to address valid envi ronmental concerns. Additionally, the US requested, at least in the 
interim, that China revise these measures in a manner consistent with existing international 
standards for trade in recycled commodities. In July 2018, China released draft revisions to th e Law 
on Prevention and Control of Environmental Pollution by Solid Wastes. As currently written, this draft 
Law appeared to ban the import of all recyclable materials into China. The US was very concerned 
with the overly broad scope of "solid waste, " which could effectively result in an import ban on 
recyclable materials. The classification of recyclable materials that ha d been separated from the 
waste stream for recycling as a raw material; and were saleable items traded within a distinct global 
marketpla ce (i.e., they have an underlying economic value) ma de the classification of recyclable 
materials as "waste" inaccurate. The US urged China to provide allowances for trade in recyclable 
 
60 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID  545 (under dates raised and references).  G/TBT/M/79  
 
- 49 - 
 
  materials and to properly define and distinguish "waste " from recyclab le materials and scrap before 
finalizing and implementing this draft law. 
2.250.   The representative of Canada  reiterated its support  for China's willingness to protect the 
environment  and limit harmful impacts resulting from contaminated waste material.  However, the 
regulatory changes implemented by China in the forms of bans, quotas, and revised standards 
contributed to the increasingly difficult and uncertain trading conditions for exporters of waste and 
scrap products. For instance, the allowable "carried waste ", in other words "contamination ", under 
China 's revised quality standards for various waste products , were well below international standards 
set by the Bureau international de la recuperation and the Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries. 
Some Canadian  stakeholders noted that these standards would be impossible to meet. Canada was 
also particularly concerned with how wood pellets would be treated under the regulations. Canadian 
wood pellets were not contaminated. They were made from pure forest fibre, s uch as logging 
residuals (small diameter stems and branches) and residues (sawdust) from logs being converted 
into lumber in sawmills. Wood pellets were beneficial to the environment and could contribute to 
China 's goal of enhanced environmental protection . Wood pellets were a renewable, low  carbon 
resource and switching from coal to wood pellets reduced GHG emissions significantly. In this 
context, China was requested to explain how its ban on wood pellets was not more trade -restrictive 
than necessary to m eet China 's environmental and health protection objectives. Canada commended 
China for putting in place measures to protect the environment and limit harmful impacts resulting 
from contaminated waste but urged China to consider approaches and mechanisms th at were the 
least trade restrictive.  
2.251.   The representative of China  reiterated its  position provided at the previous TBT Committee 
meeting and contained in G/TBT/W/653 . After the catalogue of solid wastes was released, there 
were still more than 22 million ton nes of imports of solid waste in 2018, which posed severe risks 
to human, animal, and plant life and health in China, and was still a heavy burden on the 
environment.  
India - Amended regul ation on toy imports (ID 54661) 
2.252.   The representative of the United  States  requested India to clarify how it planned to 
implement a Quality Control Order (QCO) for toys and whether the draft Toys (Quality Control) 
Order, 2019 would be notified to the WTO. The US encouraged India to ensure that at least 60 days 
were allowed for interested parties to submit comments and asked if India had a tentative timeline 
for the implementation of the draft Toys (Quality Control) Order, 2019. India had previously stated 
that increased controls on imported toys were necessary due to concerns regarding the safety of 
children. The US requested that India provide information regarding the evaluation of specific toy 
hazards and why the additional burdens on industry inherent in a Q CO were necessary in this sector. 
The US was the seventh largest exporter of toys to India in 2017. These were primarily specialty 
toys from small and medium -sized manufacturers. The US was also home to two of the world 's 
largest toy companies and the valu e of the Indian toy market for those companies was estimated at 
$75 million - $100 million in 2016. Domestic US exports from small and medium -sized companies 
had decreased since India began requiring in -country testing in 2016. The potential detrimental 
effect of this amendment on trade was of deep concer n. Prior to regulatory changes notified in 
G/TBT/N/IND/68 , India employed what many considered the "gold standard" of toy regulatory 
regimes – toy manufacturers could test to either the ASTM, ISO, or EN toy safety standards in the 
country of manufacture by a lab accredited under the ILAC system. She requested that India explain 
why testing to these international standards in the country of manufacture by accredited foreign 
labs was no longer appropriate to ensure the safety of toys.  
2.253.   The representatives of the European  Union  and Canada  supported the comments made by 
the US and referred the Committee to the statements delivered at the previous TBT Committee 
meeting.62  
2.254.   The representative of India said that responses to Members ' queries had been provided in 
previous TBT Committee meetings. The Quality Control Order (QCO) 2019 on toys was in the 
advanced stage of consideration and would soon be notified to the WTO allowing Members time to 
comment wi thin a reasonable time period. India hoped that this clarified some of the issues raised 
 
61 For previou s statements follow the thread under IMS ID  546 (under dates raised and references).  
62 G/TBT/M/78 , para. 3.286 -3.287.  G/TBT/M/79  
 
- 50 - 
 
  by Members. For any additional concern, she requested that Member s forward their statements so 
that capital could provide further clarification.   
Viet Nam  - Decree 116 /2017/ND -CP on business requirements for 
manufacturing, assembly and imports of automobiles, automobiles warranty and 
maintenance services (ID 54963) 
2.255.   The representative of the Russian Federation  thanked Viet  Nam for bilateral consultations 
but expressed dee p concern with the provisions of the mentioned Decree, especially Article  6.2 
setting additional tests for each consignment of new automobiles imported into the customs territory 
of Viet  Nam. Whil e appreciating Viet  Nam's objective of protecting the enviro nment, Russia 
considered the measure to be discriminative in respect of foreign products due to the inappropriate 
interpretation of the international standards, namely the ECE Agreement of 1958, schemes of 
mandatory certification different for cars produce d in the territory of Viet  Nam, and the application 
of unnecessary  conformity assessment procedures.  
2.256.   A consignment of Russian cars had been detained in the Haiphong port for approximately 
five months in order to conduct the required certification. Russia h ad been informed that in order to 
undergo all the procedures, the new automobiles should have completed a run -in of 3,000 km in a 
specific area, the value of which was US$5,000. He said that due to the long storage at the port of 
entry in wet conditions th e new automobiles were usually covered with corrosion, making their 
subsequent market release unprofitable and inappropriate. After running in, US$10,000 were 
charged in order to conduct additional tests. Extra costs, required for mandatory assessment 
procedures of the imported automobiles, became an unbearable burden for importers to release the 
products of a certain price category. Russia highlighted that this situation questioned the future 
rationality of developing exports of new automobiles to Viet  Nam due to heavy time and economic 
losses borne by suppliers and consumers. Exports of new cars from the Russian Federation to 
Viet Nam had decreased by 74% in 2018 compared to the similar indicator in 2016, despite tariff 
liberalization in respect of this ca tegory of products reached bilaterally. In conclusion, the Russian 
delegation asked Viet  Nam to reconsider the measure and bring it in line with WTO rules, especially 
Article  5.1.1 of the TBT  Agreement  and Article  III of GATT 1994.  
2.257.   The representative of Thailand  reiterate d concerns regarding the implementation of Decree 
116 and its related circulars which , in Thailand's  view, were not consistent with the obligations under 
the TBT Agreement  of ensuring that proposed technical regulati ons and conformity assessment 
procedures should  not be prepared, adopted or applied with the effect of creating unnecessary 
obstacles to international trade. She said that t esting for every single lot of imported cars and 
requirement for VTA Certificates m andated by Decree  116 were more strict than necessary and 
inconsistent with international practices. Furthermore, t he measures significantly increase d extra 
costs and customs clearance time for importers without enhancing the safety or environmental 
object ives. In addition, Viet  Nam had insufficient  technical services which caused import delays and 
significantly affected trade. Thailand welcomed the news that Viet Nam was in the process of revising 
the regulation for inspecting imported motor vehicles under  Circular 03/2018/TT BGTVT. Viet  Nam 
was urged to expedite the process to eliminate adverse effects to trade  and to notify the coming 
revision to the TBT Committee to enable  Members to provide comments and allow reasonable time 
for industry in exporting co untries to become acquainted with the revised regulation.   
2.258.    The representative of the United  States  welcomed Viet  Nam's revision of Decree 116 to 
address concerns that had been raised since it was introduced. In particular, the US welcomed 
Viet Nam's plans  to eliminate the lot -by-lot testing requirement and the fact that the import 
requirements would specifically allow vehicles from countries providing for self -certification of 
conformity with safety and emissions regulations. At the same time, she emphasiz ed that revisions 
to Decree 116 should not create new barriers to trade. To that end, Viet  Nam was urged to consult 
with all relevant stakeholders while finalizing the revision of the Decree and implementing circulars, 
and to seriously consider all comment s received. In addition, she asked Viet  Nam to incorporate a 
meaningful transition period for the efficient implementation of the revisions to allow importers 
sufficient time to comply with the new requirements. It was especially important that both the Decree 
and the implementing circular(s) go in to effect concurrently to avoid uncertainty about the 
 
63 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID  549 (under dates raised and references).  G/TBT/M/79  
 
- 51 - 
 
  requirements and their compliance procedures. Finally, Viet  Nam was requested to notify the Decree 
116 draft revisions and implementing circular(s) to the TBT Committee prior to finalizing them.  
2.259.    The r epresentative of the European  Union  shared the concerns expressed by the Russian 
Federation, Thailand and the United  States  about the Viet namese Decree 116/2017 reiterated its 
earlier position questioning the compatibility of the Decree with WTO rules. The  EU expressed regret 
that, irrespective of the fact that the implementing circular was issued in October 2017, the TBT 
Committee had not been notified on time about the Decree, which had entered into force on 
1 January 2018. He recalled that, in line with Article  2.9 of the TBT  Agreement , notifications to the 
WTO should take place at an early appropriate stage, when amendments to the measure could still 
be introduced and that, in accordance with Article  2.9.4 of the TBT  Agreement , reasonable time 
should be allowed, so that comments by WTO Members could be taken into consideration.  
2.260.   In addition, the EU noted that the new testing procedures deviated from those based on 
internationally recognized UN type approvals, and, furthermore, were systematically imposed o n 
each shipment. All of this created unnecessary delays at customs and impose d additional costs to 
third country exporters, without providing any additional safety or consumer merit. This harmed 
competitiveness of imported vehicles vis -à-vis locally manufa ctured car brands and, as such, was 
discriminatory in nature. The EU recalled that conformity assessment procedures should not be 
prepared, adopted or applied with a view to or with the effect of creating unnecessary obstacles to 
trade. Under the framework  of Decree 116, Viet  Nam had also notified a new Circular 
(G/TBT/N/VN M/140)  for car parts that no longer allowed for the recognition of UN certificates and 
required all imports to undergo local testing. The EU had sent comments on 7 June 2019 and was 
still awaiting an official reply to the specific concerns raised.  For exam ple, the EU invited Viet  Nam 
to accept UN certificates, markings, test  reports and conformity assessment reports, and to conduct 
checks only on the basis of a reasonable risk assessment system, that would take into account the 
very low risk posed by import s conducted by the official importer of vehicle or component 
manufacturers. In light of the above, the EU requested Viet  Nam to suspend the application of the 
Decree and reconsider the comments provided by WTO Members in different fora. Viet  Nam was also 
requested to re -consult all stakeholders, in particular small volume importers of foreign cars.  
2.261.    The representative of Japan  shared the concerns regarding Decree 116 raised by the Russian 
Federation, Thailand, the US and the EU. According to the Decree, imp orted automobiles were 
required to have a copy of vehicle type approval issued by overseas authorized agencies. Domestic 
automobiles were only required to have vehicle type approval issued by Vietnamese authorities. As 
for the frequency of inspections and tests, imported automobiles were subject to inspections in each 
shipment. Japan requested that Viet Nam treat imported automobiles and domestic automobiles in 
an equitable manner.  
2.262.    The representative of Viet Nam flagged plans to amend some relevant  provisions of Decree 
116 to better reflect business realities in the manner that further facilitates trade. She indicated that 
these amendments would  be incorporated into a draft Decree soon to be published, which was to 
amend and supplement a number of g overnmental decrees stipulat ing business and investment 
conditions under state management of the Ministry of Industry and Trade. Accordingly, Viet  Nam 
would be revising some provisions of Circular No 3 which was subject to Decree 116. Viet  Nam 
invited all Members to provide comments on the draft revision.  
European  Union  — Amendments to the Directive 2009/28/EC, Renewable 
Energy Directive (IMS ID  55364) 
2.263.   The representatives of Indonesia , Malaysia , Colombia  and Ecuador  continued to raise 
concerns with this meas ure. The full statements are contained in G/TBT/W/690 , G/TBT/W/691 , 
G/TBT/W/697  and G/TBT/W/689 . 
2.264.   The representative of Guatemala  said th at as a producing country of palm oil, Guatemala 
shared the concerns and understood that this method did not limit the use of palm oil but acted as 
a disincentive of its use as it was discriminated against when compared with other vegetable oils, 
and particular those produced in the EU, meaning that ther e were fewer advantages for this type of 
oil. Stating that in 2017 palm oil had been positioned as the sixth export product from Guatemala, 
she said that the impact of these new measures would affect bilateral trade as the EU represented 
 
64 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 553 (under dates raised and references).  G/TBT/M/79  
 
- 52 - 
 
  one of its main tr ading partners. The production sector was making the necessary efforts to generate 
sustainable production, implementing policies at the private level and estimating GHG emissions in 
palm oil production, thereby demonstrating its priority and commitment to these issues. Additionally, 
it was considered necessary to differentiate between palm oil production and production conditions 
worldwide; it was not possible to condemn those whose daily livelihood depended upon it. Guatemala 
reiterated its commitment to a chieve the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals and 
supported the certification of sustainable palm oil with the aim of achieving the millennium goals.  
2.265.    The representative of  Costa Rica  expressed support for concerns raised  by other Members 
regardi ng the changes made to the EU text. He also expressed concern regarding the criteria which 
had been set for the determination on changes in soil use and also regarding biofuels. As previously 
stated, Costa Rica was very committed to protecting the environm ent and was amongst the few 
countries that had been able to reverse deforestation, therefore benefitting from a very low carbon 
fuel system. Whil e understanding the EU's need for renewable energy legislation, Costa Rica  believed 
that it was important that such legislation should not be made on grounds having no scientific basis. 
The EU was therefore requested to look at low  risk biofuels and on that basis to recognize the 
advantages of palm oil in Costa Rica and other Latin American countries.  
2.266.    The represen tative of the European  Union  repeated the statement provided at the previous 
TBT Committee meeting.65  
European  Union  — Application of Regulation No. 1169/2011 and Regulation (EC) 
No 1924/2006 as regards the labelling of food products, in not prohibiting or  examining 
the use of "palm oil free" labels (IMS ID  55566) 
2.267.   The representative of Indonesia  reiterate d its concerns about the use of "Palm Oil Free" 
labelling by several food product companies in the EU  and referred the Committee to  its statement 
in the pre vious meeting . Indonesia  continued to be concerned about the  EU's inconsistency with 
their own  Regulation (EU) 1169/2011 on food information, in particular food labelling, Article  7 
and 36, and EU Regulation 1924/2006 on nutrition and health claims made on  foods. Indonesia 
emphasize d that the EU should  abide by Article  2.1 of the TBT Agreement  on non -discrimination, as 
well as Article s 3.4 and 3.5 on measures by local governments and non -governmental bodies.  
2.268.    The representative of Guatemala  shared  concerns expressed by other palm  oil producing 
Members. The labelling "palm oil free" or "does not contain palm oil", generated a label with negative 
impact and discouraged the consumption of palm oil and not the other vegetable oils produced in 
the EU, constituting discrimination. She said that this type of labelling provided misleading 
information and supported other types of oil, making it d ifficult for Guatemala's oil industry. These 
measures ignored the efforts made by Guatemalan palm oil agribusiness to have sustainable 
production and comply with international environmental sustainability standards.  
2.269.    The representative of Malaysia  register ed its interest in this STC and would continue to 
monitor its development in the Committee.  
2.270.    The representative of Colombia  reiterated previously raised concern s with the adverse trade 
effect the measure could have on its palm oil industry, in particular t he use of negative labels which 
Colombia considered was not being applied in consideration of consumer protection. Colombia looked 
forward to receiving information from the EU on the matter.  
2.271.    The representative of Costa Rica  echoed Indonesia's concerns reg arding the use of "palm 
oil free" labelling, which Costa Rica believed had no scientific justification. Costa Rica maintained 
that it was unjustified to use language on packaging indicating that food produced with palm oil was 
harmful to health and therefo re that the measure was not in line with the TBT  Agreement . 
2.272.    The representative of the European  Union  repeated the response provided at the previous 
TBT Committee meeting.67 
 
65 G/TBT/M/78 , para. 3.183.  
66 For previou s statements follow the thread under IMS ID 555 (under dates raised and references).  
67 G/TBT/M/78 , paras.  3.297 -3.298.  G/TBT/M/79  
 
- 53 - 
 
  
Thailand - Certificate of Analysis for the import of alcoholic beverages 
G/TBT/N/THA/524  (ID 55668) 
2.273.   The repres entative of the United  States  recalled that on 18 June 2019, Thailand had notified 
its Ministerial Regulation entitled Liquor Importation Permission (No.2) B.E. 2562 (2019) amending 
the Ministerial Regulation entitled Liquor Importation Permission B.E. 256 0 and Notification of the 
Excise Department Prescribing Quality Standards for Imported Liquor to the WTO TBT Committee as 
G/TBT/N/THA/548  and G/TBT/N/THA/549 , respectively. As of 5 June 2019, all alcohol beverage 
imports required a certificate of analysis confirming the product's compliance with a series of 
maximum limits for contaminants, food additives, and chemical attributes. The US appreciated the 
bilateral discussions held to date with the Government of Thailand but remained concerned about 
its certificate of analysis requirement for alcohol b everages, which could be burdensome for US 
alcohol beverage exporters. She noted that testing for all the requested substances was not standard 
practice in the US, and federal laws prohibited the use of certain substances, such as Ferro cyanide. 
Further sh e noted that Thailand's measure appeared to be related to food safety given its focus on 
maximum limits for additives and contaminants. Thailand was therefore urged to also notify its 
measure to the SPS Committee and provide the required scientific justifi cation for its certification 
and testing requirements. The US hoped for the opportunity to continue to engage with the 
Government of Thailand on this requirement in the Committee and bilaterally, and to find a mutually 
agreed upon solution to satisfying th is requirement.   
2.274.   The representative of the European  Union  raised concerns with th e measure. The full 
statement is contained in G/TBT/W/687 . 
2.275.   The representative of Japan  asked Thailand to provide the latest information on this issue  
and requested that Thailand amend this Ministerial Regulati on appropriately and sufficiently with 
scientific background before entry into force, taking into account comments from Members.  
2.276.    The representative of Canada  supported Thailand's efforts in addressing specific public 
health concerns related to import of a lcoholic beverages. Canadian industry remained interested in 
the Certificate of Analysis requirements implemented by Thailand due to the possible undue impact 
on trade in alcoholic beverages. Canada would be interested in receiving additional information o n 
work of the regulatory body on determining the testing standards and levels being introduced. 
Further, Canada would be interested in receiving clarification regarding acceptance of foreign 
certifications issued by accredited laboratories, which would ach ieve the objectives of these 
measures. Canada was keen to work with Thailand to ensure Canadian industry meet Thailand 's 
objectives under these measures through the least trade restrictive ways.  
2.277.    The representative of Australia  recognized the right of gov ernments to take measures 
necessary to protect public health . There was also the importance of compliance with WTO 
obligations, in particular the requirements that measures not be implemented in a non -
discriminatory manner and in a way that was no more tra de restrictive than necessary. She said 
that Australian exporters faced ongoing uncertainty regarding the implementation and certification 
requirements under the regulations. Understanding that the requirements had changed, Australia 
requested that these b e notified through the WTO to enable the engagement of trading partners. 
Australian exporters were also concerned about the impact of the requirements on their business, 
in particular the cost involved in additional testing and the potentially lengthy wait  times for test 
results. In Australia, wine production was governed by Standard 4.5.1 of the Australia New Zealand 
Food Standards Code. She said that Australia would appreciate the opportunity to outline the 
Australian approach whereby the regulatory requi rements imposed on wine makers were 
proportionate to wine's low food safety risk. Australia would also welcome the opportunity to discuss 
alternative pathways for satisfying the requirements of the Thai regulation including: recognition 
and acceptance by T hailand of Australian production techniques; acceptance of certificates issued 
by Australia's wine regulator, Wine Australia, in place of Certificate of Analysis; and  the possibility 
of capturing the Australian practices that meet the Thai regulation in a bilateral agreement. Finally, 
she thanked Thailand for its ongoing engagement with Australia on the issue and looked forward to 
further cooperation.  
2.278.    The representative of Chile asked Thailand to consider accepting  the APEC certificate in 
order to facilita te trade, explaining that it was a regulatory measure guaranteeing health and safety 
 
68 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID  556 (under dates raised and references).  G/TBT/M/79  
 
- 54 - 
 
  that everybody aspired to. She said that the sanitary measures of the country of origin must be 
respected and acknowledged the very different conditions for production det ermin ing the acceptable 
limits for additives. Chile assured that the safety and health of consumers would be guarantee d as 
the measures  were checked in the countries of origin.  
2.279.    The representative of New Zealand  acknowledged and supported Thailand's right to address 
public health concerns, in particular the harmful use of alcohol, and as such he said the technical 
regulation was directed towards achieving a legitimate public health objective. However, New 
Zealand exporters continued to face uncertainty with  regards to certification requirements and had 
concerns about the impact of the additional testing requirements on the ability to gain timely 
certification for exports. New Zealand requested clarification as to whether acceptance of other 
recognized indust ry certification achieving Thailand's objectives was being considered. New Zealand 
remained eager to work with the Thai government to ensure New Zealand exporters met Thailand's 
objectives under these regulations through the least -restrictive means possibl e. 
2.280.   The representative of Thailand  thanked the EU and Canada for the bilateral meeting. All 
concerns raised by Members would be conveyed to the relevant Thai authorities for their 
consideration and updated information would be reported at the next TBT Commi ttee meeting . 
United  States  — TSA Certification on security screening equipment 
(IMS  ID 55969) 
2.281.   The representative of China  expressed concern that for more than five years Chinese 
companies had been treated unequally and unfairly in the conformity assessment procedures 
performed by TSA. She noted that Article  5.1.2 of the TBT  Agreement  stipulated that conformity 
assessment pro cedures were not prepared, adopted or applied with a view to or with the effect of 
creating unnecessary obstacles to international trade. However, China deemed that the TSA 
certification was undertaken in an unpredictable and unclear way, which had led to negative impacts 
on trade. Furthermore, TSA had never precisely informed the Chinese companies of the results and 
the reason of declining Chinese companies' products and services, preventing them from being able 
to make any correction or improvement. Final ly, the US was requested to notify the TSA certification 
to the TBT Committee so as to fulfil its transparency obligation stipulated in the TBT  Agreement . 
2.282.    The representative of the United  States  reiterated that the TSA certification requirements 
were contained in federal government procurement requirements and as such  were not a  technical 
barrier to trade and should not be for discussion in the TBT Committee.  
Russian Federation — Federal law No 487 -FZ, providing a framework for 
comprehensive use of specia l labelling and traceability of goods and Decision No. 792 -r 
specifying the goods to which labelling will apply and the dates of introduction of the 
mandatory labelling (IMS ID  56770) 
2.283.   The representative of the European  Union  continued to raise concerns with  the measure. 
The full statement is contained in G/TBT/W/686 . 
2.284.    The representative of the Russian Federation  said that labelling by means of identification  
was not a technical barrier to trade for a number of reasons. First, technical regulations were adopted 
for ensuring the protection of human health and safety, environment and other objectives under the 
Article  2.2 of the TBT  Agreement . Second, labelling requirements under the technical regulations 
implied the mandatory labelling with uniform conformity marks such as EAC (in the EAEU) or CE (in 
the EU) and information for consumers in the form of inscriptions and graphs on the packaging or 
any other type of information. Third, the measure was applicable in respect of both products of 
national origin and imported ones and did not provide fo r any discriminative provisions and 
approaches. Fourth, the approaches for the track -and-trace system for each type of product had 
been elaborated jointly with producers and importers within pilots approved by the Ministry of 
Industry and Trade and the Gov ernment of the Russian Federation. In addition, the system was 
being elaborated in cooperation with the relevant division of the European Commission. Finally, the 
objective for this labelling was ensuring the legal circulation of goods, traceability from p roduction 
to disposal, and identification of each item of products. The track -and-trace system did not set the 
 
69 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 559 (under dates raised and references).  
70 For previous st atements follow the thread under IMS ID  567 (under dates raised and references) . G/TBT/M/79  
 
- 55 - 
 
  requirements for product characteristics or its safety and did not require fulfilment of the procedures 
on conformity assessment.  
2.285.   Taking into acc ount the specifics of the concept, Russia believed that the measure should be 
considered under Article  XX(d) of the GATT 1994, as necessary to ensure compliance with the 
legislation on prevention of the deceptive practices, protection of trademarks and cus toms 
enforcement.  
Brazil — Technical Regulation 14, 8 February 2018, to set the additional official 
identity, quality standards for wine and derivatives of grape and wine products as well as 
the requirements to be acquainted and Technical Regulation No. 48 , 31 August 2018 
published in the Official Gazette on 10 September 2018 (IMS ID  56871) 
2.286.   The representative of New Zealand  said that the requirements for the certificate of analysis 
for wine exported to Brazil set out in Normative Instruction 14 (IN14) 2018, posed a significant 
barrier to trade for New Zealand wine exporters. Recogni zed wine testing laboratories in New 
Zealan d did not provide testing for a number of required parameters. Testing for these parameters 
would have to be out -sourced to laboratories outside of New Zealand, at significant cost to exporters, 
which could result in trade no longer being viable. Certifica tes of Origin issued by New Zealand 's 
Ministry for Primary Industries were unable to reference Certificates of Analysis provided by a third 
country, meaning the additional testing requirements could also result in New Zealand being unable 
to meet the certi ficate of origin requirements in Normative Instruction 67 (IN67). New Zealand 
sought clarification from Brazil on how it had ensured that the certificate of analysis requirements 
implemented through Normative Instruction 14 2018 were not more trade restric tive than necessary. 
Brazil was invited to explain the rationale for its departure from conformity with OIV -adopted 
resolutions and encouraged Brazil to bring IN14 into alignment with OIV recommendations.  As Brazil 
was consolidating requirements set out in  IN14 into Operational Administrative Rule (OAR) 01/2019, 
New Zealand encouraged Brazil to notify this updated regulation to the WTO.  
2.287.   The representative of the European  Union  recalled its concerns with regard to  Technical 
Regulation no 14 of 8 February 201 8 setting the official identity, quality standards for wine and 
derivatives of grape and wine products. This technical regulation contained a long list of analytical 
parameters and test methods differing from those used in the EU and were not aligned with the OIV 
recommendations. Its implementation caused delays and financial costs for EU wine importers and 
difficulties for EU based laboratories due to lack of methodology for some parameters, particularly 
those banned in the EU (such as colourings and sweet eners). At previous TBT Committee meetings, 
Brazil had said that Technical Regulation 14 would be soon revised, and the EU requested more 
information on the timeframe for the public consultation and its notification to the WTO. The EU 
reiterated its invita tion to the Brazilian authorities to use to the maximum extent possible the 
recommendations of the OIV when revising Technical Regulation no 14 and to consider accepting 
imported wines made according to oenological practices authorised by the OIV. The Euro pean Union  
was available for bilateral engagement with Brazil in that respect.  
2.288.   The representative of Brazil  thanked all WTO Members that had taken part in the public 
consultation to amend Technical Regulation 67. The comments received had led to a re -evalu ation 
of the regulatory alternatives to ensure the fulfilment of Brazilian  policy objectives for wine and wine 
derived products. Participation in different international fora had also improved understanding of the 
best practices to ensure quality in this s ector. Brazilian authorities had cautiously welcomed 
comments and suggestions from partners and incorporated them into the regulatory process. Brazil 
informed the Committee that the regulation process started with Draft Regulation 79 would be 
discontinued and this information would be formally communicated to the TBT Enquiry Points of 
those Members who had taken part in the public consultation. Therefore, Brazil believed this STC 
could be withdrawn. If Brazil decided to address the issues foreseen in this draft again, it would 
regularly submit new drafts for public consultation and notify them to the WTO accordingly.  
 
71 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID  568 (under dates raised and references) . 
 G/TBT/M/79  
 
- 56 - 
 
  
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia – Technical Regulation for plastic products OXO – 
biodegradable , G/TBT/N/SAU/947  (IMS ID  58372) 
2.289.   The representative of the European  Union  reiterate d its interest in this issue. In 2016, the 
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia notified a SASO Technical Regulation for Degradable Plastic Products to the 
TBT Committee, requiring certain types of disposable plastics to be oxo -degradable and bear a 
specific mark to de monstrate compliance. In autumn 2018, Saudi Arabia announced the scope of 
this measure would be extended to primary and secondary packaging as of February 2019, which 
was subsequently postponed to Spring 2020. The EU noted that if Saudi Arabia implemented this 
requirement for primary and secondary packaging, it would constitute a serious barrier to trade for 
various EU industries exporting products packaged in stretch and shrink film to Saudi Arabia, 
including the toy, cosmetics, textiles, machinery, and fo od/drink industry. SASO issued this 
regulation more than two years ago. A substantial amount of international scientific research had 
been undertaken since then on so -called oxo -biodegradable plastics, also known as oxo -degradable 
plastics, and the results  questioned their real environmental benefits. Consequently, EU co -
legislators adopted on 5 June 2019 the Directive on the reduction of the impact of certain plastic 
products on the environment, to be implemented by EU member States within two years after its 
entry into force. The Directive required member States to prohibit the placing on the market of 
products made from oxo -degradable plastics. The EU asked Saudi Arabia about the results of the 
recent scientific studies evaluating the impact of oxo -degrad able plastic in Saudi local conditions and 
what were the envisaged next steps of the regulation on plastics in light of these results.  
2.290.   The EU invited Saudi Arabia to consider suspending the implementation of the regulation on 
plastics, to review the regul ation in light of the relevant scientific studies so as to guarantee EU and 
Saudi Arabia 's environmental objectives were aligned and in a way that did not create unnecessary 
obstacles for economic operators and that complied with the WTO TBT notification o bligations. The 
EU thanked SASO for cooperative engagement and looks forward to further dialogue.  
2.291.   The representative of Switzerland  supported the statement made by the EU. Swiss industry 
had concerns regarding the requirement for certain types of plastic packaging to be oxo -degradable 
and bear a specific mark to demonstrate compliance. The need to use oxo -degradable SASO certified 
plastic packaging led to additional costs and created trade barriers. The uncertainty regarding the 
status of the regulatory pr ocess contributed to industry's problems. Switzerland requested that Saudi 
Arabia provide an update on the regulatory development of this measure and its timeline. 
Switzerland encouraged Saudi Arabia to consider less trade -restrictive alternatives to achie ve its 
environmental objectives and to take relevant international scientific research on oxo -degradable 
plastic into account.  
2.292.   The representative of China  supported other Members' concerns on this regulation. While 
respecting Saudi Arabia's efforts to pro tect the environment, the conformity assessment procedure 
was complex and unnecessary. The complex certificate for oxo -degradable materials was only valid 
for one year and China suggested that this be extended to at least three years.  
2.293.   The representative of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia  informed the Committee that a national 
study had been  undertaken to investigate the claim of the adverse impact of oxo -degradable on the 
environment taking into account climate conditions. As a result , the implementation of phase 2 and 
3 had been postponed to April 2020 until the findings of this study were consolidated and approved. 
Saudi Arabia welcomed further discussions with any interested delegations in this regard.  
European  Union  - Concerns on regulat ions with regard to eco -design 
requirements for various products in EU , G/TBT/N/EU/606  G/TBT/N/EU/607  
G/TBT/N/EU/611  G/TBT/N/EU/615  (ID 59273) 
2.294.   The representative of China  reiterated concerns on EU ecodesign requirements on light 
sources notified in G/TBT/N/EU/606  and G/TBT/N/EU/607 , household dishwashers notifi ed in 
G/TBT/N/EU/611  and hou sehold washing machines notified in G/TBT/N/EU/615 . For the ecodesign 
requirements for light sources, in accordance with Article  2.4 of the TBT  Agreement , China 
recommended using IEC standards for colour consistency and calculation of lumen maintenance 
factor of LED lights. The EU wa s asked to clarify the test method for the "Pst LM " value of "Flicker 
 
72 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID  583 (under dates raised and references) . 
73 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID  592 (unde r dates raised and references) . G/TBT/M/79  
 
- 57 - 
 
  for LED and OLED MLS " and "SVM" value of "Stroboscopic effect for LED and OLED MLS ". China also 
recommended that the EU allow for a transition period to avoid any negative impacts on tra de.  
2.295.   China found that there was a major discrepancy when comparing the light efficiency 
parameters set by the ecodesign requirements and the energy labelling regulation 
(G/TBT/N/EU/607 ). Light sources with the best available technology in terms of efficacy according 
to the ecodesign requirements could only meet the energy efficiency class D of the energy labelling 
regulation. The EU was strongly urged to adjust energy efficiency rating in the energy labelling 
regulation. China also suggested that the EU give a clearer definition on pr oducts subject to the 
ecodesign requirements on washing machines and washer dryers and clarify whether washing 
machines without heating function were subject to the regulation. In the notified ecodesign 
requirements on household washing machines, there was  a provision that 'manufacturers or 
importers shall deliver the necessary spare parts for household washing machines and household 
washer dryers to professional repairers within 15 working days after having received the order ". 
There was a similar provisio n in the ecodesign requirements for household dishwashers. As spare 
parts delivery is a pure business practice, and such requirements would be very difficult for overseas 
manufacturers, China strongly recommended that the EU revoke such requirements so as to avoid 
unnecessary barriers to trade.  
2.296.   The representative of the European  Union  noted that the EU had submitted the notifications 
under the TBT  Agreement  in the following order:  on 5 July October 2018 ecodesign  requirements on 
enterprise servers and data storage products ; on 8 October 2019 ecodesign requirements for light 
sources and the energy labelling light sources ( G/TBT/N/EU/606  and G/TBT/N/EU/ 607); on 22 
October ecodesign requirements for household washing machines and household washer  dryers 
(G/TBT/N/EU/ 615); and on 15 October ecodesig n requirements for household dishwashers 
(G/TBT/N/EU /611). A 60-day comment period had been  allowed for all the notifications. Comments 
had been  received from Brazil, Japan, China, the US and Korea. Between December 2018 and 
January 2019, the Ecodesign Regulatory Committee had met to discuss the proposed ecodesign 
regulations. Every proposed measure was voted favourably by member States, sometimes with 
changes to the text. This process w as based on Regulation (EU) 182/2011, where committee 
Members representing member States ha d the opportunity to suggest amendments to the 
Commission draft and the chair may present amended versions of Commission 's draft implementing 
acts, so as to find sol utions command ing the widest possible support within the committee. After 
the vote, each Ecodesign Regulation was subject to a 3 -month scrutiny period with the European 
Parliament and the Council. This period had passed without any objection and the draft ecodesign 
measures were adopted by the Commission on 1 October.  
2.297.   The Ecodesign Regulation on servers and data storage products was published in the Official 
Journal of the European  Union  on 15 March 2019. Four additional measures were published on 25 
Octob er 2019 (external power supplies, power transformers, welding equipment and electric 
motors). The remaining measures for washing machines, refrigerators, dishwashers, electronic 
displays, light sources and commercial refrigerators (including the related en ergy labelling 
regulations) were scheduled for publication on 5 December. The regulations would repeal the 
previous legislation on the same product groups. The reviews for ecodesign, on top of energy 
efficiency requirements, were updated to include new "circular economy " requirements for increasing 
durability, for improving reparability and the efficiency of the recycling process at end of life .  
European  Union  - Medical Device Regulation (MDR) and In Vitro Diagnostic 
Medical Devices Regulation (IVDR) , G/TBT/N/EU/71/Add.1 , G/TBT/N/EU/72 , 
G/TBT/N/EU/72/Add.1  (ID 59474) 
2.298.   The representative of Japan  expressed Japan's support for the development of medical 
device regulations setting high standards of quality and safety for medical devices. However, Japan 
had serious concerns on the implementation of the MDR from May 2020. Firstly, the EU had not 
provided necessary and sufficient information, or completed implementing acts, for manufacturers 
to comply with the new system.  Secondly, the number of Notified Bodies designated (by EU 
countries) to perform certification activities u nder MDR was insufficient. As of 7 November, only 
seven Notified Bodies had been designated. While the number of Notified Bodies had increased since 
June 2019, it was still insufficient to certify the volume of products that would fall under the MDR. 
Furth ermore, the currently designated Notified Bodies had not started accepting MDR applications 
 
74 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID  594 (under dates raised and references) . G/TBT/M/79  
 
- 58 - 
 
  of new products in Japan.  Thirdly, the classification of devices such as reusable surgical instruments 
had been changed to class 1 devices, meaning that manufacture rs must involve Notified Bodies in 
conformity assessment in addition to self -certification. However, there was no transition period for 
these devices.  
2.299.   Since the implementing acts and Notified Bodies were still inadequate, it would not be 
possible for manuf acturers to comply with the MDR for these devices before May 2020 and Japanese 
manufacturers would be unable to export to the EU not only new products, but also the newly 
classified class 1 products which would require an audit by Notified Bodies. These is sues could 
potentially create a substantially trade  restrictive barrier. Japan requested that the EU postpone the 
date of application for a minimum of two years and undertake some reforms to allow Japanese 
manufacturers to comply with the requirements of the MDR.  
2.300.   The representative of China  said that the lack of sufficient numbers of conformity bodies to 
perform certification, was making it very hard for companies to get certificates in time and the EU 
should therefore extend the transitional period to two years. As some medical devices in t he List B 
catalogue already had CE certification, duplicated certification tests could be avoided with simplified 
procedures for such products.  
2.301.   The representative of the United  States  supported the development and enforcement of a 
well-defined medical dev ice regulatory system that assured the safety and performance of medical 
devices. However, there were serious concerns regarding the implementation of the MDR and IVDR. 
US industry was worried about its continued access to the EU's USD 125 billion medical device 
market, $20 billion of which was supplied by US products. As MDR/IVDR 's implementation was 
behind schedule, there were two main concerns . Firstly, the insufficient number of Notified Bodies 
(NBs) designated to perform certification activities under the MDR/IVDR. With only five Notified 
Bodies currently designated, including one based in the UK, could the EU provide an estimate as to 
when all 58 will be operational? US understanding was that DG GROW expected no more than 20 
Notified Bodies to be desig nated as operational by the end of 2019. This was insufficient to ensure 
continued regulatory approvals by May 2020 and May 2022. Smaller companies appeared 
disproportionally affected by the insufficient number of designated Notified Bodies.  Secondly, the EU 
had drafted an insufficient number of the implementing acts needed to provide details about how 
industry can ensure their products comply with the new product standards. As of 16 September 
2019, only two of the 18 implementing regulations had been issued and a third had been drafted. 
As a result, EU standardizing bodies could not begin work on developing the standards that industry 
may use to comply with the MDR/IVMDR.  
2.302.   The MDR and IVDR provisions for warehousing were insufficient to provide  relief during the 
transition. Buyers and producers could not predict demand, making it difficult to warehouse the right 
amount of product to meet that demand through the implementation delays. Moreover, warehousing 
was expensive, degradation was common wi th medical technology, and the technology itself quickly 
obsolete. Further, the MDR and IVDR provisions for grace periods to provide relief during transition 
were also insufficient. The grace periods were insufficient because CE mark product registrations 
compliant with the old directives could expire before the end of the grace period, in 2024. 
Additionally, companies had informed the US representative that Notified Bodies were not issuing 
CE marks currently under the old system, hindering their ability to  take advantage of the grace 
period. Given these concerns the EU was urged to allow legacy products currently deemed safe to 
be sold on the market until 2024 and to ask Notified Bodies to grant new products, which required 
testing for the first time, prior ity access to Notified Body testing. Other flexibilities that would provide 
relief to companies looking to access the market would also be welcome.  
2.303.   The representative of the Republic of Korea  supported the objective of the Medical Device 
Regulation (MDR) a nd In Vitro Diagnostic Regulation (IVDR) in promoting advanced safety and 
quality control of medical devices on the EU market. However, given that the implementation of 
these regulations was only six months away, Korean industry had the following concerns . Firstly, 
the insufficient number of Notified Bodies (NBs) as there were currently only five NBs to perform 
certification activities under MDR. This was a highly insufficient number to test and certify the 
products under the all directives.  Secondly, the i nsufficient number of the implementing acts of the 
new regulations could cause difficulty for industry in preparing for their CE application under the 
new regulations.  G/TBT/M/79  
 
- 59 - 
 
  2.304.   Therefore, Korea requested that the EU designate a sufficient number of NBs as operation al 
and provide information on where the adoption of implementing acts stood and when all the acts 
would be adopted in full. Lastly Korea asked the EU to grant sufficient grace period of at least one 
year from the adoption of all 18 implementing acts.  
2.305.   The r epresentative of Canada  echoed the points raised by the US regarding the 
implementation of this measure, which affected an important export market for Canadian medical 
device manufacturers. In particular, concerns remained on the insufficient number of Notified Bodies 
to carry out the certification and approval activities provided for in the regulations. Canada also 
noted the recent change in responsibility within the Commission for regulatory implementation from 
DG GROW to DG Health. She requested confirma tion that this situation would not lead to new delays 
and create new obstacles in the process of certification and approval of Notified Bodies.  
2.306.   The representative of Mexico  supported the development and application of ambitious 
regulatory frameworks on the  quality of products, However, it was important that these new 
measures did generate unnecessary barriers to trade in medical devices and in vitro diagnostic 
medical devices. Mexico supported the concerns raised by Members . This new scheme could enter 
into force before the necessary conformity assessment infrastructure within the EU was ready. This 
could have a direct effect on Mexican exporters, as well as on the marketing and supply of these 
products. She requested that the EU update the information share d at the Committee meeting last 
June, contained in document G/TBT/W/654 . Mexico's priority was to have information on the actions 
and measures that were being taken to ensure the functioning of the infrastructure that would 
implement this new regulation, especially in relation to the confo rmity assessment bodies 
responsible for medical devices.  
2.307.   The representative of the European  Union  responded to the concerns raised. The full 
statement is contained in G/TBT/W/683 . 
2.2.5   Exchange of Experiences  
Standards  
2.308.   The Moderator's  report is contained in G/TBT/GEN/277 . 
Conformity Assess ment Procedures  
2.309.   The Moderator's  report is contained in G/TBT/GEN/278 . 
2.2.6   Follow -up on Committee Decisions and Recommendations  
Conformity Assessment Procedures: Guidelines  
2.310.   The full statement of the United  States  is contained in  G/TBT/GEN/ 280. 
2.311.   The representative of the  European  Union  said that his delegation had made a presentation 
at the last meeting of the Committee where it had considered best practices on conformity 
assessment based on European  Union 's experience. He said that he saw a number of common 
elements between the EU and US submissions, including for instanc e: stakeholder engagement; 
transparency considerations; coordination among regulators; risk -based decisions or the need to 
have adequate level of oversight of conformity assessment bodies; as well as strategies on how to 
handle non -conformity issues. He st ressed that the EU believed that these were good elements that 
could benefit from further discussion and consideration for an eventual outcome on the guidelines. 
In order to move forward in this exercise, the European  Union  encouraged other Members to brin g 
forward their ideas and proposals so that the Committee could have a better basis for its work.  
2.312.   The representative of Australia  welcomed the opportunity to contribute to this important 
work of the Committee. As with other Members, Australia acknowledged the mandate provided by 
the Eighth Triennial Review (G/TBT/41), where WTO Members had agreed to initiate work on 
developing non -prescriptive, practical guidelines to support regulators in the choice and design of 
appropriate conformity assessment procedure s. Also, he thanked other Members for submitting 
papers to help take this important discussion forward, including the European  Union , the G/TBT/M/79  
 
- 60 - 
 
  United  States  and Japan. These had all been of great interest to the Australian Government and the 
National Quality Infrastructure (NQI). He mentioned that Australia presented their views in the form 
of a paper contained in document JOB/TBT/347 , circulated to Members on 8  November 2019. The 
submission had been developed in close consultation with Australia 's technical infrastructure 
organi zations, among others. It outlined and Australian perspective on some practical, non -
prescriptive objectives, principles and criteria that could underpin guidelines fo r regulators, broadly 
framed around the areas already agreed in the Eighth Triennial Review. The paper started with a 
brief overview of Australia 's standards and conformance system and flagged some Australian 
Government guidance – freely available online – that may be of interest to Members, this included 
Australia 's Standards and Conformance Infrastructure: An Essential Foundation ' and Australian 
Government Guide to Regulation.  
2.313.   Some key messages Australia hoped to emphasi ze in its paper were: (i) the impor tance of 
engaging with the NQI as a fully integrated system, rather than treating each part in isolation; (ii) 
fostering a coordinated, proactive approach to regulatory development, bringing together 
government, industry, the community and the NQI through engagement and consultation; (iii) 
taking advantage of multilateral mutual recognition and acceptance arrangements (MLAs/MRAs) for 
quality infrastructure for both in regard to accreditation and metrology; (iii) enhancing transparency 
and good regulatory pr actice with regards to conformity assessment procedures in regulation; (iv) 
acknowledging the importance of technical competence; and, (v) providing flexible (non -
prescriptive) options for regulators to draw on based on their unique needs and circumstances  – 
noting that regulation and conformity assessment were not homogenous processes and did not occur 
in a vacuum.  
2.314.   As was the case with submissions made by other WTO Members, Australia supported 
guidelines consisting of appropriate foundational (or general/ baseline) principles, in addition to some 
more detailed principles and guidance for regulatory conformity assessment selection, design and 
implementation. He noted that conformity assessment procedures achieved greater potential and 
utility when they were strongly evidence -based and took adequate account of context and risk, while 
still meeting international obligations and facilitating trade. It was also important to ensure that 
drafting and discussion of the guidelines effectively drew on the technical ex pertise and lived 
experience of WTO Members ' NQI organi zations during the development of these guidelines. This 
would help ensure that the guidelines were practical, fit -for-purpose, and had broad relevance for 
WTO Member regulators and policymakers.  
2.315.   The r epresentative of Japan  referred to her delegation's submission contained in document   
JOB/TBT/349 . She recalled that at the thematic sessions, it had been evident that the quality of 
infrastructure for conformity assessment varied between Members. Japan believed that Members' 
regulatory fr ameworks and conformity assessment procedures varied among countries depending 
on their own circumstances, such as the historical background, culture and economic situations. 
Japan underlined that their paper stressed that in designing conformity assessmen t schemes, 
regulators needed take into account the obligation to avoid unnecessary duplication of conformity 
assessment procedures, and to recogni zes available mechanisms to do so. The guidelines needed to 
be practical so as to provide a wide range of opti ons that regulators could refer to. Japan encouraged 
Members to actively participate in the discussion on the development of guidelines and to reference 
examples of good practice.  
2.316.   The Chairman  suspended the formal meeting so that the Committee could have a n informal 
discussion on the guidelines. In summarizing the discussion afterwards, he made a few comments:  
a. Support . Several Members reiterated their support the development of guidelines on 
conformity assessment procedures in the TBT Committee – this was a priority area of 
follow -up to the Eighth Triennial Review;  
b. Timeline and process . While it was important to consider timing – it was also noted that 
the process should not be rushed, and that sufficient time should be provided to Members 
to analyse the various proposals and discuss them in informal and formal modes. There 
was no need, it was noted, to be limited by the ending of the ongoing Triennial Review 
period (2019 -2021). Also, informal discussions – even between Committee meetings – 
could become more important as the process advanced and there were more submissions 
on the table. It was also pointed out that information presented in thematic sessions could 
be fed into the process.  G/TBT/M/79  
 
- 61 - 
 
  c. More proposals . Several Members stressed the need for more  papers from other 
Members, particularly those that are active in conformity assessment in the international 
community, and that are currently considering revisions to their conformity assessment 
programmes or systems.  
d. Practical usefulness . It was important that the guidelines to be drafted and developed 
by the Committee are as practical as possible to ensure maximum buy -in. Officials with 
expertise in capitals needed to be involved in the process.  
2.317.   After summarizing the discussion, the Chairman  reverted to formal mode.  
Transparency  
2.2.6.2.1   Adopted final texts  
2.318.   The Committee  adopted a revised recommendation on the coherent use of notification 
formats. The revised recommendation was subsequently circulated in G/TBT/35/Rev.1 . 
2.2.6.2.2   Update from the Secretariat  
2.319.   The Secretariat  provided  an update on transparency related activities , including on ePing  
and the eAgenda . The statement s are c ontained in  G/TBT/GEN/274  and G/TBT/GEN/276 . 
2.320.   The representative of Switzerland  thanked the WTO Secretariat for organizing the walk -in-
session on ePing and introducing the  enhancements to the alert system. These were very useful to 
further improve its functioning. ePing facilitated, for example, information -sharing with respect to 
comments on notifications and replies to such comments. In this sense it could be a valuable t ool to 
implement some of the Eighth Triennial Review recommendations. Switzerland recalled that during 
the Eighth Triennial Review, the Committee had adopted a recommendation to encourage Members 
to publish their comments and replies to comments. Switzerla nd urged all Members to use ePing for 
this purpose, and to share information with respect to comments on notifications and replies to such 
comments. He noted that Members could decide to publish the entire comment or reply, or only 
parts of it. Members cou ld also simply indicate that they had provided comments or replies. This 
was now possible with the enhanced features in ePing. Switzerland saw added value in these ePing 
features as they allowed identification of: which Members commented and on what specif ic 
measures; and on whether the comments remained unanswered. It was also a useful indication of 
which notifications received most attention from Members. Such disclosure of problems and solutions 
to the problems increased transparency on the handling of c omments and allowed for more efficient 
discussions and solution of Specific Trade Concern (STCs), better coordination between interested 
Members and thus helped to avoid unnecessary obstacles to trade. He hoped that the use of these 
new functionalities wou ld become common practice.  
Thematic sessions in 202075 
2.321.   The representative of Canada  referred to the triennial review, the Committee had agreed to 
hold a workshop on the role of gender in the development of standards. As the initial idea for this 
activity had been brought forward by Canada, Canada was pleased to inform the Committee that it 
would lead the organization of a half -day workshop on this topic – tentatively to be held in the 
margins of the May TBT Committee meeting. The objective of the workshop would be an exchange 
of information and experiences on gender and standards among va rious actors including 
governments, standards development organizations, intergovernmental organizations and private 
sector stakeholders. She added that Canada was currently working on developing a draft programme 
for this workshop and invited interested M embers to communicate with the Canadian delegation to 
share ideas for topics of discussion and potential speakers, male and female. Canada would also 
reach out to certain Members which had recently been active on this issue.  
2.322.   The representative of the United States  recalled that the U S had submitted a proposal for 
the GRP thematic session in February contained in document JOB/TBT/348 . The United  States  was 
 
75 Subsequent to the meeting, a tentative schedule of t hematic sessions was circulated in document 
JOB/TBT/350 . G/TBT/M/79  
 
- 62 - 
 
  seeking examples of regulatory cooperation and was suggesting two areas: one was a sector where 
US had several specific trade concerns a nd it was a topic that the Committee had discussed over 
time – the area of medical devices. Another idea was to talk about early cooperation in emerging 
technology. It was proposed that the Committee could discuss new vehicle technologies like electric 
and autonomous vehicles as a way to have the Committee think about things that had not been 
regulated yet. These proposals were not intended to limit the discussion to either medical devices 
or emerging technologies for vehicles, but rather to set out ideas f or possible topics. The 
United  States  welcomed other Members ' views on the matter.  
2.323.   The representative of Chile supported the proposal on Good Regulatory Practice and referred 
to a recent report by the OECD in relation to GRP – another possible topic for di scussion by the 
Committee in February 2020.  
3  TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE  
3.1.  The representative of the United  States  updated the Committee on its activities. The statement 
is contained in G/TBT/GEN/ 279.  
3.2.  The representatives of Colombia  and China  thanked the Secretariat for regional and national 
TA activities and the regional workshop held in Bogota and Beijing, respectively in October 2019.  
3.3.  The Secretariat  updated the Committee on the TBT Advanced Course that had ta ken plac e from 
12-15 November . Topics covered included technical regulations, standa rds, metrology, 
accreditation, conformity assessment and regional regulatory cooperation amongst others. He 
thanked those Members and Observer Organizations that had provided expert speakers and the 
participants for their strong engagement in the course. T he Secretariat also updated the Committee 
on recent developments on Quality Infrastructure (QI) . The full statement is contained in  
G/TBT/GEN/27 5. 
3.4.  The representativ e of Trinidad and Tobago , speaking for the CARICOM region, welcomed quality 
infrastructure strengthening and said that  many of the members of CARICOM were currently 
undertaking work in this respect . 
3.5.  The representative of Mozambique  commended the TBT team f or TBT Advance Course and 
stressed the  importance  of a good quality infrastructure. As an LDC, it faced challenges which limited 
participation in international markets. Mozambique use d the opportunity of the Committee meeting 
to request support to address gaps in the area of quality infrastructure.  
4  OBSERVERS  
4.1  Updating by observers  
4.1.  The representatives of BIPM, IEC, UNECE , Codex, OIML, and ISO76 provided updates on their 
activities related to the TBT Committee.  
4.2  Pending requests  
4.2.  The representative of Turkey , supported by Jordan and Pakistan, supported the granting of 
observership status to SMIIC. The representative of the United  States  said that her delegation was 
not in a position to approve the granting of observer status to SMIIC at the current time.  
5  REPORT (2019) OF COMMIT TEE TO CTG  
5.1.  The Committee adopted  the report to the CTG contained in G/L/1340 . 
6  OTHER BUSINESS  
6.1.  The representative of Panama , supported by Mexico , Paraguay  and Ecuador , recalled that the 
dates of TBT Committee had been circulated one year ahead of time . Concern s were voiced  about 
 
76 G/TBT /GEN/281 , G/TBT/GEN/282 , G/TBT/GEN/283  G/TBT/GEN/284 . G/TBT/M/79  
 
- 63 - 
 
  the lack of communication within the Secretariat on the organization of meetings, especially between 
the CTG and TBT. He requested that the chairs to the subsidiary bodies of the CTG, and the CTG, 
coordinate better.  
6.2.  The representative of Argen tina while agreeing on the importance of avoiding clashes, noted 
that the TBT dates for 2020 had been circulated very much in advance (in December 2018). There 
was a similar practice in the SPS Committee. This was highly useful – he encouraged other 
Commit tees to do likewise. This was particular important for capital -based delegates who had 
already planned their work taking these dates into account.  
6.3.  The Secretariat  and the Chairman  said that efforts would be made to seek better coordination 
so as to avoid future clashes in dates.  
7  DATE OF NEXT MEETING  
7.1.  The next regular meeting of the Committee is scheduled for 26 -27 February  2020. It will be 
preceded by thematic sessions on 2 5 February. An informal meeting is scheduled for Thursday, 
30 January.  
__________