RESTRICTED  
  
G/TBT/M/72  
 
 
25 September 2017  
(17-5076) Page: 1/47 
Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade    
 
MINUTES OF THE MEETI NG OF 14-15 JUNE  2017 
CHAIR MAN: MR JOSE MANUEL CAMPO S (CHILE)  
Note by the Secretariat1 
1   ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA  ................................ ................................ ........................  1 
2   ELECTION OF THE CHAI RPERSON  ................................ ................................ ................  1 
3   IMPLEMENTATION AND A DMINISTRATION OF THE  AGREEMENT  ................................ . 1 
3.1   Statements from Members under Article 15.2  ................................ ................................ . 1 
3.2   Specific Trade Concerns (STCs)  ................................ ................................ .....................  2 
3.2.1    Reported resolutions  ................................ ................................ ................................ . 2 
3.2.2    Withdrawn concerns  ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 2 
3.2.3    New concerns  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...........  2 
3.2.4    Previously raised concerns  ................................ ................................ ........................ 13 
3.3   Exchange of Experiences  ................................ ................................ ............................. 46 
3.3.1    Thematic Session on Risk Assessment  ................................ ................................ ........ 46 
3.4   Eighth Triennial Review  ................................ ................................ ............................... 46 
4   TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE  ACTIVITIES  ................................ ................................ ....... 46 
5   UPDATING BY OBSERVER S ................................ ................................ ........................  47 
6   DATE OF NEXT MEETING ................................ ................................ ............................  47 
 
1  ADOPTION OF THE AGEN DA  
1.1.  The Committee  adopted the agenda contained in WTO/AIR/TBT/ 8. 
2  ELECTION OF THE CHAI RPERSON  
2.1.  The Committee  elected Mr. José Manuel Campos (Chile) as the chairman for 2017.  
3  IMPLEMENTATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF TH E AGREEMENT  
3.1  Statements from Members under Article 15.2  
3.1.  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 statement s on 
implementation submitted under this provision was contained in an annex to the Annual Review of 
                                                
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/72  
 
- 2 - 
 
  the Implementation and Operation of the TBT Agreement (G/TBT/39 /Rev.1 ), issued  on 18 May 
2017. He informed the Committee that since the last meeting in March 2017 , Gabon and Nepal  
had submitted statement s. He further informed the Committee that since 1995, 13 8 Members had 
submitted at least one statement of implementation. Information on the list of statements is 
available on the TBT IMS . 
3.2  Specific Trade Concerns (STCs)  
3.2.1   Reported resolutions  
3.2.  There were no report ed resolutions of  STCs. 
3.2.2   Withdrawn concerns  
3.3.  The Chairperson  reported that the following STCs had been withdrawn from the agenda at 
the requ est of the concerned Member:  
a. European Union — Regulation on the Registration, Evaluation and Auth orization of 
Chemicals (REACH)  
b. Colombia — Testing Requirements to be met by Toys and their Components and 
Accessories  
c. Dominican Republic — Requirements for importing steel rebar - RTD 458 and other 
requirements  
3.2.3   New concerns  
3.2.3.1   China — Cyberspace Administration of China – Draft implementing measures for  
the Cybersecurity Review of Network Products and Services   
3.4.  The representative of the European Union  thanked China for the opportunity to provide 
written comments on the draft implementing measures for the Cybersecurity Review of Network 
Products and released for public consultation on 4 February 2017. He asked China to confirm that 
the final version rel eased by the Cyberspace Administration of China (CAC) on 2 May 2017 would 
be notified to the TBT Committee. The EU appreciated that the final version seemed to have partly 
addressed some of the concerns raised (e.g. slightly narrowed scope, removal of the priority 
procurement requirement, introduction of appeal mechanism, clearer review focus and triggering 
mechanism) but that many remained, notably, the general nature of the measures and the very 
broad discretionary powers left to the authorities in charge  of the security review, causing 
uncertainty for foreign ICT operators. The EU urged China to ensure the clarity, transparency and 
objectiveness of the security review. He further recalled the importance of clarifying the 
designation and work mechanisms of  the Cybersecurity Review Committee, the Cybersecurity 
Review Expert Committee and third -party assessment bodies. Clear definitions and clearly 
specified detailed standards and other technical requirements should apply. Moreover, 
confirmation was sought th at foreign vendors' intellectual property and trade secrets (in particular 
source code) would not need to be disclosed to third parties, and that it would provide for credible 
sanction and redress mechanisms for addressing information leaks to third partie s and 
competitors.  
3.5.  The representative of the United States , in echoing the concerns raised by other Members, 
remained troubled by what seemed to be a widespread effort by China to impose "secure and 
controllable" requirements on ICT products, especially as  the term remained undefined. Her 
delegation was also concerned that the final version of the measure did not seem to take into 
account many stakeholder concerns. As the measure appeared to lay out a process for conformity 
assessment that would extend the "secure and controllable" requirement to services and supply 
chains, she asked how this was consistent with China's WTO TBT commitments. Clarity was 
requested on what specific standards constituted the "related standards" that Article 8 of the 
measure mand ated entities undertaking the security review to reference. If these were to be TC 
260 standards, the US underlined that they proposed an unprecedented approach to security 
assessment based on subjective criteria. China was therefore encouraged to engage i n G/TBT/M/72  
 
- 3 - 
 
  consultations with all interested parties and revise these standards to be in line with both 
international norms and the Code of Good Practice. Her delegation requested further details on 
when the list of products and services to be subject to security r eview, as flagged by CAC, would 
be released. She concluded by stressing her delegation's concern about China's approach to 
cybersecurity and its suite of measures that appeared to be inconsistent with its national 
treatment obligations and to discriminate against foreign technologies and firms in the name of 
information security.  
3.6.  The representative of Japan  expressed his delegation's concern and strong interest with 
regard to the measures, in particular with respect to, inter alia , the lack of clarity of a rticles 
regulating terms definitions, the concrete requirement for review and evaluation, and the scope of 
the regulation. Japan was concerned that the measures may hamper market access of foreign 
companies to China or cause the leakage of confidential tec hnology, depending on concrete details 
of rules or implementation thereof. China was therefore requested to implement the measure in a 
non-discriminatory manner and not to make it more trade -restrictive than necessary, in line with 
the TBT Agreement. In ad dition, China was asked to clarify the terms ' definitions, the concrete 
content of requirements and the scope of the regulation, to ensure transparency, and consistency 
with international standards and practices. With respect to the Security Review Measure s, he 
asked China to clarify the designation criteria for the third party organizations undertaking 
cybersecurity reviews and "related standards" (Article 7 and 11); and the concrete meanings of 
the term s "critical industry management agencies" (Article 9)  and "departments responsible for 
critical information infrastructure protection work" (Article 10). In addition, could China clarify if 
implementation systems and requirements for cybersecurity review in Article 9 and 10, and those 
conducted by government  in Article 2, were the same? Regarding cooperation in Article 12, could 
China clarify the scope and implementation scheme of cooperation in order not to require the 
disclosure of technical information more than necessary? Japan therefore requested that th e 
regulation be implemented transparently, and in full consideration of the views held by Japan and 
other countries.  
3.7.  The representative of Australia  expressed an interest in the measure and looked forward to 
an update on its implementation, as well as resp onses to the questions and concerns raised by 
other Members.  
3.8.  The representative of Canada  recognized the importance of safeguarding against network 
intrusions, terrorist acts, and other malicious cyber -attacks, as well as protecting users' personal 
informa tion and sensitive data. His delegation believed that both China and Canada shared an 
interest in ensuring that network products and services be considered equally under China's 
cybersecurity regime, regardless of their country of origin, to ensure that cr itical industries were 
able to procure world leading technologies for the promotion of secure and efficient networks. 
Canada nevertheless agreed with the concerns already raised by the US and other Members. Since 
the Cybersecurity Law was first published f or comments in July 2015, Canada had registered 
concerns about the potentially trade -distorting effects of the measures China was proceeding to 
implement.  
3.9.  In the case of the draft Network Product and Services Security Review Measures, released by 
the Stat e Internet Information Office on 4 February 2017, Canada had provided written comments 
on 4 March 2017, through the Canadian Embassy in Beijing. Canada appreciated the opportunity 
to comment on the Review Measures during the drafting stage and welcomed the  chance to share 
best practices and lessons learned with China on similar information technology and security -
related regulations and laws. He recalled Canada's recommendations in this regard: (i) where 
obligations apply to enterprises procuring network pr oducts and services, the implicated sectors 
should be clearly identified; (ii) the review criteria necessary for a product or service to be 
designated as "secure and controllable" should be clearly and comprehensively listed; (iii) greater 
clarity should b e provided on how review procedures are to be conducted, and by which agencies 
and third party organizations; (iv) assurances should be provided that foreign network products 
and services will be afforded equal consideration and treatment under cybersecuri ty review 
proceedings; (v) the protection and confidentiality of an applicant's commercially sensitive 
information should be guaranteed under review proceedings; and (vi) creation of a review or 
appeal procedure for an interested party who believes the out come of a security review may be 
flawed. Canada looked forward to receiving a response from the State Internet and Information 
Office.  G/TBT/M/72  
 
- 4 - 
 
  3.10.   The representative of China  underlined that the aim of the cybersecurity review was to 
guarantee as "secure and controlla ble" products and services which might endanger national 
security and public interests. The measures did not differentiate between Members, nor 
discriminate against foreign products and technologies. She said that rather than restricting the 
market  access  of foreign technologies, the review would help to increase consumer confidence and 
expand the market.  
3.2.3.2   China — Draft revised Encryption Law of the People's Republic of China by the 
Office of State Commercial Cryptography Administration (OSCCA)    
3.11.   The representative of the European Union  welcomed  the public consultation by China on the 
draft Cryptography Law published by the Office of State Commercial Cryptography Administration 
(OSCCA) on which it had provided  written comments. In those comments, c oncern had been 
raised that t he draft law was very broad in scope covering areas ranging from research and 
commercial use to import, export and certification. He noted in this regard that most ICT products 
were not dedicated mainly to encryption , but only  used some elements thereof. The draft law 
seemed  to depart from international practice, as well as previous commitments by China, including 
the March 2000 Clarification by OSCCA,  according to which  ICT products would not be subject to 
licensing requirements and  similar regulatory constraints  unless the core function of the products 
was encryption. The EU deemed that the draft law potentially captured  a much wider range of 
products subjecting them to  restrictions. In this context, could China clarify the intended scope of 
the draft, especially by precisely defining key concepts  such as "common", "core" and 
"commercial" cryptography.  
3.12.   His delegation noted , moreover, that the draft law foresaw  a pre-market approval obligation 
for commercial cryptographic products , a requirement deemed  cumbersome and departing  from 
international practice. The EU therefore called  on China to ensure that regulatory require ments 
related to market access we re non -discrimin atory, technology neutral and did  not lead t o forced 
transfer of intellectual property (e.g . by requiring mandatory disclosure of encryption keys).  
Finally, the EU recalled  the importance of developing and implementing international standards in 
the area of cr yptography to ensure global interoperability. This key role of international standards 
should be recognized in the draft law.  China was requested to take these comments into account 
and modify the draft law accordingly.  
3.13.   The representative of Japan  recalled  that her delegation had submitted views  on the 
Chinese draft encryption law durin g the public comment  period in April 2017. Amongst other 
things, Japan was concerned about certain unclear articles such as those regulating the definition 
of terms , the concrete requirement for review , and the scope of the regulation. This lack of clarity 
also extended to  the relevance of th e law to existing security regulations such as "Regulation on 
the Administration of Commercial Cipher Codes " (promulgated on 7 October 1999) and "the 
Cybersecurity Law " (enacted on 7 November 2016). Japan's concern was that market access to 
China of foreign companies dealing in cryptography -utilizing products might be hampered or that 
confidential technology might leak out, depending on con crete details of the specific regulations or 
how to implement the app licable provisions of this law. She therefore  request ed that  China clarify 
the definition of terms , the concrete contents of requirements and scope of the regulation, in order 
to ensure transparency. China was also encouraged to ensure that  the relevant regulations and 
procedures be consistent with international standards and practices.  
3.14.   The representative of the United States  expressed grave concern  regarding China's Office of 
State Commercial Cryptography (OSCCA) draft Cryptography Law of the People' s Republic of China 
on which it had submitted comments to China in May 2017. The US was concerned that this law 
would codify potenti ally far -reaching, highly trade -restrictive cryptogr aphy-related constraints on 
foreign ICT products.  Did China intend to notify this measure to the TBT Committee and allow for 
stakeholder comments, in accordance wit h its transparency obligations? She recalled that these 
concerns we re not new. Indeed, prov isions in the Draft Law seemed to contravene a number of 
bilateral and multila teral commitments that China had made in the past 17 years and we re in 
direct conflict with globally accepted practices to assess encryption in commercial ICT applications.  
The US had  expressed concerns about a number of China's cybersecurity -related measures in 
recent years, many of which raised serious issues relating to encryption ; however,  the codification 
of anti -foreign commercial encr yption requirements into a law wa s of e ven greater concern than 
encryption requiremen ts embedded in other measures.  G/TBT/M/72  
 
- 5 - 
 
  3.15.   As China's app roach with the Draft Law appeared  to be much more trade restrictive than 
necessary , her delegation urged China to carefully consider input from all stakeholders, in cluding 
the US Government and industry stakeholders, and to make substantial changes and clarifications 
to the Draft Law pr ior to implementation. For example, the law established  a licensing scheme for 
all imports and exports of commercial cryptography. Could China explain how it planned  to 
implement this scheme in line with its national treatment commitments? What steps was China 
taking to ensure the scheme would  not be operated as an unnecessary obstacle to trade? The law 
also called  for the continued dev elopment of a cryptography accreditation, testing and certification 
system. Given China's TBT obligations in Article 5, what steps was China taking to ensure this 
system would  operate in accordance thereof ? Specifically, how would  China ensure that the 
conditions for foreign products were no less favourable than those accorded to domestic products?  
Particular concern  had been raised by US industry that the  system would require applicants to 
divulge source code and other sensitive design information ; her del egation urged China to take 
these concerns into acco unt when developing the system. Further noting that the law called  for the 
development of national st andards related to cryptography, the US encouraged China to develop 
these standards in cooperation with the international standards development work in this field and 
that these future standards not become an unnecessary obstacle to trade.  Finally she requested 
an update on the status of the Draft Law, and asked how China intended  to consider the public 
comments it received.  
3.16.   The representative of Canada  recalled that the draft Encryption Law of the People's Republic 
of China by the Office of State Commercial Cryptography Administration Cyberspace 
Administration had been  released for public comment  on 13 April 2017. C anada requested that  
China explain the reason why only 30 days , instead of the normal time limit for comments of 60 
days, had been given  and questioned whether China  intend ed to notify the draft Encrypt ion Law to 
the WTO . His delegation supported  the concerns raised by the US and other Members on the draft 
law itself. In Canada's view, the l aw as drafted was more trade restrictive than necessary to 
achieve China' s national security objectives and would h ave far -reaching implications for a range 
of companies that use or supply encrypted products and encryp tion-related services in China. 
Canada strongly encourage d China to consider the views raised by WTO Mem bers and ensure that 
the draft l aw was consistent  with W TO obligations.  
3.17.   The representative of China  stressed that the encryption law wa s an important piece of 
legislation in China's comprehensive ly deepening  reform and advancing the the  law-based 
governance of China . She added that d uring the drafting process, the principles of legi slation 
based on law, science  and democra cy had been respected.  In April  2017, the draft encryption law 
had been  released for comments , and those received by the r elevant authority would  be carefully 
studied and taken into c onsideration during the draft revision  process.  
3.2.3.3   European Union — Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 - non-renewal of approval of 
the active substan ce picoxystrobin G/TBT/N/EU/437  
3.18.   The representative of Brazil  thanked  the EU for the very productive bilateral meeti ng held 
the previous day, during which t he EU had provided  answers to many questions . His delegation 
encouraged the EU to notify the proposed non -renewal of picoxystrobin to the SPS Committee due 
to the protection of human/ animal health being its  basic con cept. Brazil was of the view that this 
non-renewal went against scientifi c consensus that the substance was  safe to protect crops, 
particularly when it came  to genotoxicity. Council Directive 91/414/EEC of the European 
Commission declared that picoxystrobi n was not tox ic, the report of the European Food S afety 
Authority (EFSA) claimed  that it was not possible to conclude on the genotoxic potential of 
picoxystrobin based on the available data , and the J oint Committee of the FAO and WHO of 
specialist s had als o concluded that the substance was not genotoxic. He added that t he sub stance 
was used i n more than 65 countries and had been approved by many bodies , such as  US 
Environmental Protection Agency, Canadian Management Regulatory Agency, Japanese Agency as 
well as in  Brazil itself. His delegation considered that t he maximum residue levels (MRLs)  for 
picoxystrobin were already very low  - for example, for soya the default was 0.01mg/kg – and 
therefore  reiterate d that the EU's non-renewal of picoxystrobin was in contradiction to scientific 
data and should be changed.  
3.19.   The representative of Canada  shared Brazil's concerns with the process being followed by 
the EU and the potential for the non -renewal of p icoxystrobin , an active ingredient used as a 
fungicide on a wide variety of crops cultivated in Canada and exported to the EU. Her delegation G/TBT/M/72  
 
- 6 - 
 
  encouraged  the EU to base its scientific review process on international standards and to consider 
all data made available to it for the purpose of a review.  
3.20.   The representati ve of Argentina  expressed support for Brazil's intervention and emphasize d 
its own concern at the EU's initiative for the non -renewal of approval of the active substance 
picoxystrobin and the consequent withdrawal from the market of phytosanitary products 
containing that substance.  He recall ed that picoxystrobin had been  scientifically evaluated by the 
Joint FAO/WHO Meeting on Pesticide Residues (JMPR), a group of experts which carried  out 
exhaustive and rigorous risk assessments on pesticides, which were the essential basis for the 
standards subsequently adopted by the Codex Alimentarius Commission. The JMPR had concluded 
that it was not a genotoxic product, which mean t that non -renewal of the approval of the active 
substance picoxystrobin was an unjustif iable deviation from international standards. In this light,  
the EU was asked to base its measures concerning picoxystrobin on the JMPR recommendations, 
and thus to comply with its WTO commitment to base its decisions on a risk assessment and not 
on unfoun ded assumptions relating to hazards.  
3.21.   The representative of  the European Union noted  that, under Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 
on the placing of plant protection products on the market, only substances for which risk 
assessment was successful and for which t he safe use was confirmed, could  be approv ed. The risk 
assessment involved  both the EFSA and all m ember States. Re gulation (EC) No 1107/2009 made  it 
clear that it was the responsibility of industry to demonstrate that substances placed on the 
market did not have any harmful effects on human or animal health or any unacceptable effects on 
the environment. According to the r egulation, active substances could  only be approved for use in 
plant protection products on fulfilment of  certain criteria.   
3.22.   She explaine d that picoxystrobin was  part of the third stage of the EU renewal programme 
for active substances used in p lant protection products and had  been subject to a comprehensive 
assessment and peer review under EU rules. The large number of issues identified du ring the risk 
assessment and peer review of picoxystrobin had been  presented in the EFSA Conclusion publis hed 
in June 2016, which included  a number of critical areas of concern and  areas that could not be 
finaliz ed related to both human health and the envi ronment, as well as data gaps. The Commission 
proposal for not renewing the approval of picoxystrobin was based on the EFSA Conclusion, taking 
into consideration the approval criter ia outlined in the legislation. Taking into account the data 
submitte d in t he renewal dossier, it had  not been established with respect to one or more 
representative uses of at least one plant protection product that the approval criteria provided for 
in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 were satisfied. Therefore, she sai d, it was not 
possible to renew the approval of the active substance. Her delegation  highlighted , however , that 
a non -renewal decision did not prejudice the submission of a further application for the approval of 
picoxystrobin in accordance with Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, provided that the 
necessary data could  be submitted to address the concerns and issues identified.  It was noted  that 
the applicant for renewal did not agree with the outcome of the peer -review as detailed in the 
EFSA Conclu sion. However, the outcome was the result of an extensive and rigorous scientific 
evaluation i nvolving experts from EFSA and m ember States. According to EU legislation, EFSA 
conclusions should  be tak en into account in the decision -making for an active substance.  
3.23.   In relation to the assessment of genotoxicity, the EU stated  that the Commission proposal 
for non -renewal did not, in any way, state that picoxystrobin was a genotoxic substance, but 
rather that, on the basis of the information available in the dossier, it was not considered possible 
to conclude on the genotoxic potential of picoxystrobin. However, it was also important to highlight 
that the incomplete assessment of genotoxicity was one of several concerns identified, and that 
the other issues id entified preclude d themselves the renewal of approval.  She explained that the 
EU had  discussed the EFSA Conclusion with the applic ant on several occasions and had  also 
carefully considered all commen ts received during the decision -making process. However , given 
that EU legislation laid  down strict rules for approval which had not been satisfied, a proposal for 
the non -renewal of the approval of picoxystrobin was the appropriate course of action.  
3.24.   The EU considered  that the notified draft was in line with the  TBT Agreement (scientific 
output and a conclusion of EFSA) and that it did not lead to immediate disruptions in trade, as the 
measure itself did not amend the MRLs and provided  for a grace period.  Further more, the TBT 
notification made  it clear that any a ction to reduce MRLs would  be subject to a notification under 
the WTO/SPS procedure. Given the issues identified by EFSA, it was likely that a proposal to lower 
MRLs would  be made. Import tolerance requests would remain possible only if safety for G/TBT/M/72  
 
- 7 - 
 
  consumer s could  be demonstrated.  She concluded by stating that s ince, in May 2017, a decision 
had not been reached on the  EU proposal, discussions with m ember States were currently  
ongoing. The Commission remained  of the opinion that the non -renewal of approval was the only 
appropriate action.  
3.2.3.4   China — Limits and Measurement Methods for Emissions of Light -duty Vehicles 
(China 6) G/TBT/N/CHN/930/Rev.1  
3.25.   The representative of Japan , whilst  appreciating  China's  efforts to improve air quality,  
expressed concern that the m easures notified in G/TBT/N/CHN/930/Rev.1 on 3 October 2016 
(hereinafter, the "China 6") were extremely strict compared to other international standards and 
impose d difficult technical challenges to the automobile industry. Japan had submitted comments 
to China on 29  November 2016  on China 6. First ly, China's conformity assessment criteria of in -
use vehicle conformity testing as stipulated in China 6, which his delegation believed should have 
been discussed with the criteria of limit value, had suddenly changed and had beco me 
substanti ally stricter than its draft standards released in May 2016. Japan therefore requested 
China to revise the conformity assessment criteria.  Second ly, with respect to the China 6 PN/RDE 
regulation which posed  many un resolved technical issues, Japan requested that the plan for early 
enforcement of China 6 in designated cities be reviewed. Since industries require d sufficient lead 
time to supply vehicles in conformity  with the PN/RDE regulation, it was suggested that the 
regulation should not be implemented prematurely.  Moreover, he express ed concern that there 
had been no response from China to Japan's comments when  China 6 had been  officially 
announc ed on 23  December 2016.  Despite the unresolved technical iss ues, some  designated cities 
had stated their intention to st art enforcing the China 6  6b standards from July 2018. He reported 
the difficult y of supply ing vehicles in conform ity with such standards to the market by the date of 
enforcement since some parts of the testing method and preparation  of testing laboratories had  
not yet been sufficiently  developed.  His delegation was concerned that the initiative , which Japan 
deemed hasty , was causing great confusion in the automobile industry. Under these 
circumstances, Jap an request ed China to carefully examine the current situation of preparation of 
the relevant agencies and institutes for China 6 and to postpone any early enforcement plans in 
designated cities.  
3.26.   The representative of China  stated that China 6 had  been noti fied in accordance with 
relevant procedures. The China 6 standards , released in December  2016, stipulated that from 
1 July 2020 all light -duty vehicles on sale or regist ered should  meet such requirements and as a 
result should be in conformity with 6a requirements in type I test ; furthermore,  from 1 July  2023, 
all light -duty vehicles on sale or regist ered should  meet the requirement, and as a result should be 
in conformity with 6b requirements. She clarified that local g overnments could set up their own  
timetable of China 6 , in accordance with local situation s. 
3.2.3.5   China — Internet of Vehicles Cybersecurity Protection Guideline Rules    
3.27.   The representative of the United States  expressed concern  about the draft Internet of 
Vehicles Cybersecurity Protection Guid eline Rules developed by the Telematics Industry Application 
Alliance (TIAA).  As noted many times at TBT Committee meetings in recent years, her delegation 
remain ed very concerned about China's policies that appear ed to discriminate against foreign 
technol ogies and firms in the name of information security  and the US  believed these new r ules 
would similarly unnecessarily restrict trade.  In a letter dated  17 April to MIIT Vice Min isters Liu 
Lihua and Xin Guobin, the US  had communicated some of its specific c oncerns and views of 
industry stakeholders, in the hope that they would be seriously addressed by TIAA. She pinpointed 
a number of troubling elements in the rules, similar to elements in China's other cyb ersecurity 
policies, including: p oorly defined key t erms, such as "critical" and "IoV Systems" ; an unclear, but 
apparently  broad, intended scope ; data localization requirement (in this case, that the computer 
rooms for service plat forms must be located in China); creation of  a security risk assessment 
regim e. 
3.28.   She then outlined the following concerns which had been specifically noted by US  industry 
and government. First, p rovisions requiring an undefined security assessment for security software 
used by connected vehicle companies, and givin g priority to products that had  passed this 
assessment, could be applied in a  manner that disadvantaged US products and services. Second, 
requirements for server rooms for service platforms to be located in China would dis advantage 
non-Chinese companies. Third, the r ules were unclear on implementation details. Industry was G/TBT/M/72  
 
- 8 - 
 
  especially concerned that the requirements would be applied to existing deployed technology 
retroactively, or implemented with a short time to become compliant. Since Internet of Vehicles 
(IoV) technol ogy was centred around autos, which may be in operation for many years after 
purchase, applying the requirements retroactively could make c ompliance unnecessarily onerous. 
Fourth, the r ules essentially place d the burden of cybersecurity compliance on a sin gle type of 
entity, the IoV "Operator". Industry had stressed that many different companies play ed a role in 
connected vehicle technology, and that a better approach would be to encourage all of them to 
collabor ate on cybersecurity protection. Lastly, on t he understand ing that compliance with the 
rules was voluntary, there was concern  that in practice compliance would  be made mandatory. In 
fact, the r ules even noted that they had been  developed under the guidance and direction of 
Chinese government agencies  including MIIT and OSCCA.  Should the r ules be made mandatory by 
incorporation into technical regulations or conformity assessment procedures, the US  expect ed 
China to comply with its WTO commitmen ts and notify the measure to the C ommittee for a 
comment pe riod of 60 days. Furthermore, it was expect ed that  at least a six -month delay between 
the close of the comment period and the date of implementation be provided for industry to adapt 
to the new requirements.  
3.29.   While her delegation recognized  the interest of China and all countries in protecting 
essential security interests, strong concern remain ed with the overall direction of China's 
cybersecurity approach, especially as codified in its Cybersecurity Law.  It was deemed that China's 
suite of cybersecurity mea sures had  the potential to adversely affect US exports of high 
technology products and services, as well as those  made or supplied by U S investors in China. In 
general, these measu res were considered  potential ly inconsistent with China's national treatment  
obligations and to discriminate against foreign technologies and firms in the name of information 
security.  The US therefore reiterated the importance of ensuring that China's approach was 
consistent with its WTO obligations and bilateral commitments.  
3.30.   The representative of China  stated that Internet of Vehicles Cybersecurity Protection 
Guideline Rules was a voluntary measure , drafted by TIAA , and re leased for comment in 
February  2017. Her delegation believed that c ybersecurity was very important for i nternet of 
vehicles in order to ensure data  and information security thereof, to protect consumer  privacy and 
interests, and to maintai n the rules of fair competition. TIAA, an open, independent and third -
party industry organization, had developed these gu ideline rules following technical trend s and 
market requirement s, and abiding by the principle s of voluntary and self -disciplined.  
3.2.3.6   China - Civil Aviation Network Information Security Management Rules  
3.31.   The representative of the United States  said that d espite having raised concerns about 
China's suite of "secure and controllable" measures both bilaterally and in the Committee  since 
early 2015, China was seen to be  pressing forward with its efforts to impose "secure and 
controllable" requirements for ICT prod ucts in yet another sector – civil aviation. She asked 
whether China intend ed to notify the  measure to the TBT Committee and allow for stakeholder 
comments, in accordance with its transparency obligations under the TBT Agreement  and with  its 
2016 Joint Com mission on Commerce and Trade commitment to notify all relevant "secure and 
controllable" technical r egulations to the TBT Committee. Her delegation was  concerned with the 
inclusion of the concept of "secure and controllable"  in the measure, as it had  been known and 
understood in the past to include references to domestic technology requirements. Companies 
sourcing ICT products were already interpreting this language conservatively, meaning that they 
believe d they were required to purchase only domestic goo ds. This was similar to trends seen in 
banking and  other industries that China had  deemed to be criti cal information infrastructure. China 
was asked to  explain how the measure was in line with its national treatment comm itments under 
the TBT Agreement.  
3.32.   Concern was also raised  with the inclusion of the concept of "hierarchical protection 
systems"  as it seemed  to imply using the Multi -Level Protection Scheme (MLPS) as a basis for 
evaluation. Her delegation had  objected to MLPS many times and had  raised it bot h bilaterally and 
in the Committee since 2010, as it mandated  domestic IP localization. Because civil aviation was 
inherently reliant on the IP of countless global suppliers, any move to impose IP localization 
requirements ran the risk of diminishing cyber security by preventing the use of cutting edge 
technologies to address the dynamic threat. Moreover , the US believed that it wa s inhere ntly trade 
restrictive and called  into question China's TBT commitments. She reiterate d the request to delay 
the implemen tation of this measure until its scope and impact were better defined, especially given G/TBT/M/72  
 
- 9 - 
 
  the possible unintended consequenc e of degrading aviation safety. She repeated her delegation's 
more general concerns with China's approach to cybersecurity, as expressed under the STC on 
Internet of Vehicles.2 
3.33.   The representative of the European Union expressed support for  the comments raised by 
the US and refer red to his delegation's concerns to be raised in detail in the context of the  STC on 
China's Cybersecuri ty Law.3 
3.34.   The representative of Canada , echoing his delegation's  comments related to the new STC on 
Cybersecurity Review of Network Products and Services4, raised concern  about the measures 
emanating from the Cybersecurity Law first published for comments in July 2015 . He support ed 
the US' comments with respect to the c ivil aviation network security management rules and 
encourage d China to notify the  measure to the TBT Com mittee.  
3.35.   The representative of China  stated that the Civil Aviation Network Information Sec urity 
Management Rules regulated  the relevant functions  in the civil aviation sector. She asked M embers  
to further elaborate their concerns  to enable the relevant au thoritie s to provide a detailed 
response . 
3.2.3.7   European Union — Titanium dioxide: Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 (CLP 
Regulation), Annex VI, Part 2  
3.36.   The representative of the United States  expressed strong support  for the objective s of the 
European Union and the European Chemicals Agency ( ECHA ) to protect the health and safety of its 
workers, consumers and the environment, in the use of chemicals and other substances.  In regard 
to titanium d ioxide, her delegation  was concerned that recent actions by ECHA to review  it for 
harmonized classification as a suspe cted carcinogen we re taking place before the Community 
Rolling Action Plan (CoRAP) process could be initiated. She said that  a suspected carcinogen 
classification of titanium dioxide c ould affect its use in thous ands of products due to the required 
carcinogen labelling , disrupting  global commerce. Moreover, she expressed surprise, given the 
longstanding and widespread use of titanium dioxide in so many products.  
3.37.   ECHA's Risk Advisory Committee (RAC) revie w of the H armonised Classification and 
Labelling (CLH) classification of titanium dioxide prior to the co mpletion of the  REACH Substance 
Evaluation appeared to deviate from  the typical process set out in ECHA's own guidance on the 
preparation of a CLH dossier.5 In addition, the RAC review under the CLH process (CLP) up -ended  
stakeholder plans to prepare evidence and submissions for the CoRAP review. Her delegation 
believed that the CLH decision may therefore lack the benefit of data necessary for a sound 
decision. T hese concerns with both the regulatory procedures and the weight of scientific evidence 
presented in the TiO2 CLH dossier had been expressed bilaterally with the EU in March 2017 and 
followed up with written questions. W ritten comments from industry had als o been transmitted 
directly  to the EU and via the WTO TBT e nquiry point  but to date  no response had been received.  
3.38.   The US u nderst ood that the RAC wa s now in the process of completing it s scientific opinion 
on the classification, and noted its industry's co ncerns that the CLH dossier submitted for  the RAC 
review did not follow ECHA guidance in terms of the process and criteria used to identify and to 
screen scientific studies to be included in the dossier. It also excluded relevant studies on titanium 
dioxide completed by competent EU authorities, including a n umber of reviews on its use in 
cosmetics carried out  by the European Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS). Industry 
had also question ed ECHA guidance and basic good practices in scientific met hodology in its 
decision on a carcinogen classification of titanium d ioxide based upon animal studies, given the 
availability of a number of extensive and recent human studies. The choice of rats was also a 
concern, given that the species was prone to tumours and due to the existence of important 
physiological differences between rats and humans, raising  questions about the utility of the 
                                                
2 See para. 3.29.   
3 China – Cybersecurity Law (IMS ID 526).  
4 See paras. 3.8.  - 3.9.   
5 See Section 5.2.2. of https://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/13626/clh_en.pdf/36 b11f14 -01a0-
4474-be46-e48dd9b27849  G/TBT/M/72  
 
- 10 - 
 
  findings when considering the human impact. Indeed, she said, studies of titanium dioxide in other 
mammals  had found no evidence of carcinogenicity.  
3.39.   Given these concerns,  the US  asked that the EU suspend any opinion on TiO2 to allow for 
the completion of the CoRAP and for the consideration of the full body of evidence related to TiO2.  
Her delegation urged the  EU to consider its request  as it held that a n incorrect classificatio n of 
titanium d ioxide would be extremely disruptive for both the millions of consumers and companies 
who relied  upon the performance and safety that it brought  to many products , from sun screens for 
cosmetics to reflective paint for safety markings on highways, for which there were no easily 
available substitutes. In view of  the potential impacts on this $20 billion dollar industry, the US 
urged  the EU to provide a  review that was procedur ally transparent and thorough.  
3.40.   The representative of the European Union thank ed the US for its comments on the scientific 
opinion to be taken on the hazard classification of titanium dioxide by the ECHA RAC in accordance 
with EU Regulation (EC) No 1272/200 8 on the classification, labelling and packaging of substances 
and mixtures (CLP Regulation). France had submitted a CLH dossier proposing to classify titanium 
dioxide as a carcinogenic substance Category 1B to be included in Annex VI of the CLP Regulation . 
This dossier had been  subject to public consultation from 31 May to 15 July 2016. ECHA had 
received several comments, including from US individuals and organi zations. Public authorities had 
been invited to  send their comments as well. After the public co nsultation, the RAC had discussed 
the issue on several occasions:  an introductory  session had been held in March 2017; f urther 
discussion had taken place on 1 and 8 June 2017; and i n the meeting of 8 June the RAC had 
concluded on the classification of T iO2 as Carcinogenic Category 2. He specified that t he scientific 
aspects of the classification process of titanium dioxide were dealt with by RAC with only marginal 
involvement from the Commission.  
3.41.   He said that f ollowing the RAC's determination of  titanium dioxide as a carcinogenic 
substance Category 2, in 2018 the Commission would  prepare an  Adaptation to Technical and 
Scientific Progress (ATP) amending the CLP Regulation to include titanium dioxide in the list of 
substances with harmoniz ed classi fications. He explained that ATPs we re typically first presented 
to CARACAL (the expert group for REACH and CLP), after which they were put to the vote in the 
REACH Committee (the regulatory committee for implementing legislation prepared by  the 
Commission ). Timing of the  vote in the REACH Committee meeting was typically in Q3 or Q4 of the 
year (i.e. 2018 in this case). After adoption of the ATP, a transitional perio d of typically 18 months 
applied, meaning that the harmoniz ed classification of titanium dio xide would only apply as of 
around mid -2020 (adoption end of 2018 plus an 18-month transitional period). Duty h olders were 
allowed to apply the harmoniz ed classificatio n voluntarily before that date.  
3.42.   The EU reassure d the TBT Committee that any proposal to classify titanium dioxide as a 
carcinogenic substance to be included in Annex VI of the CLP Regulation would  be notified to the 
WTO, as usual, at the latest 60 days before t he vote in the REACH Committee. All comments sent 
by WTO Members would  be duly take n into account by  the Commission in the decision -making 
process for the formal adoption of a RAC opinion.  Finally, he clarified that t he CLP and th e 
substance evaluation (REACH) we re two different processes under two different legislations. 
Indeed, both pr ocesses could  be instigated independently from each other. Specifically for CLH, all 
adequate and reliable information available at the time of assessing would be taken into account 
but whenever new information became  available, a ne w CLH could be started,  by an EU m ember 
State or by the industry.  
3.2.3.8   Oman, Kingdom of Bahrain, State of Kuwait, Qatar, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, 
United  Arab Emirates, Yemen - Guide for control of imported foods – Certification 
requirements for animal products G/TBT/N/OMN/198 , G/SPS/ N/BHR/164, 
G/SPS/N/QAT/22/Add.3, G/SPS/N/OMN/44/Rev.1/Add.1, G/SPS/N/SAU/14/Add.2  
3.43.   The representative of the United States  understood that the GCC member states had been 
working on the Guide for Control on Imported Foods (Guide) in order to harmonize food i mport 
procedures and requirements across the GCC and that after recently made changes, the revised 
Guide was to be published by April and implemented "on a trial basis", from 1 April to 1  October 
2017. Her delegation had yet to see the revised publication.  The US considered that given the 
potentially extensive nature of the changes in the GCC Guide and impact on trade, the lack of 
clarity in some of the requirements, and the time needed to make any changes to meet the new 
requirements, the grace or trial pe riod was insufficient and requested a reasonable transition G/TBT/M/72  
 
- 11 - 
 
  period that would allow stakeholders adequate time to comply in order to avoid a trade disruption. 
She said that whilst the US appreciated that the Guide had been previously notified as an SPS 
measure, TBT elements to the measure had been noted; all GCC member states were encouraged 
to notify it to the TBT Committee as well. She asked whether GCC technical experts would be 
willing to meet bilaterally to discuss the "alternative approaches" provisio n that was not detailed in 
the Guide. Given their long history of trade, the US looked forward to continuing to provide safe, 
quality, US food and agricultural products to its partners in the Gulf region.  
3.44.   The representative of the European Union  expressed  concern that the revised Guide had not 
been notified in accordance with the TBT Agreement, despite its significance for trade and its 
relevance thereto, but only in accordance with the SPS Agreement. He stressed the need for full 
transparency, and undersc ored the importance of open and direct contact with trading partners on 
measures of concern in accordance with WTO agreements.  
3.45.   The representative of the GCC ( Kingdom of Bahrain)  reported that implementation of the 
GCC Guide had been suspended until further  notice. He indicated that the GCC member states 
were still in the process of submitting the addenda to relevant notifications to indicate the delay 
and would in turn notify its implementation in the future. The GCC members were available for 
bilateral talks if needed.  
3.2.3.9   Nepal — National Alcohol Regulation and Control Policy – Graphic Warnings and 
Statements for Alcoholic Beverages  
3.46.   The representative of the United States  referred to the endorsement by Nepal's Cabinet of a 
new Natio nal Alcohol and Regulation and Control Policy, which intended to place restrictions on 
labelling and advertising for alcoholic beverages, such as a requirement for a graphic warning label 
against the harmful effects of excessive alcohol consumption. The ca binet was also directing the 
development of a new alcohol standard. Whilst strongly supporting Nepal's desire to reduce the 
impact of excessive alcohol consumption on its citizens and recognizing the importance to public 
health which these measures intende d to address, her delegation requested further information 
about Nepal's specific health concerns related to alcohol. In particular, what was the rate of 
consumption and what types of alcohol were mostly consumed? Could further information be 
provided on t he ten WHO strategies referred to in Nepal's policy document as obligating Nepal to 
implement these policies?  
3.47.   Her delegation understood that the requirement for a health warning label was not currently 
being enforced, but that implementing measures were u nder discussion; she requested 
confirmation of the status of the policy as well as plans and a timeline for implementation. She 
then stated that if the measure would apply to imported products, the US believed that it would 
have a trade impact as it would require producers to relabel their products. She therefore 
reiterate d the request made via Nepal's WTO TBT Enquiry Point on 24 March 2017 for Nepal to 
notify any proposed implementing measures under the terms of the TBT Agreement to allow 
Members a reasona ble time to provide written comments, discuss these comments on request and 
for Nepal to take those comments into account before finalizing any measures. Finally, information 
was requested as to how Nepal had developed the specific policy to cover 75% of a  bottle with a 
picture. Nepal was encouraged to consider the approach taken by major alcohol -consuming and 
producing countries to managing the public health impacts of excessive alcohol consumption and 
the development of alcohol standards. Her delegation w elcomed the opportunity to share its own 
experience in achieving these goals in the US.  
3.48.   The representative of the European Union  expressed interest  in the policy under preparation 
and invited Nepal to notify it at an early appropriate stage, as provided fo r in Article  2.9.2 of the 
TBT Agreement.  
3.49.   The representative of Canada  echoed the concerns raised by the US and the EU and said 
that her delegation would continue to monitor developments regarding the policy. While 
recognizing Nepal's efforts to minimize th e detrimental health impacts associated with excessive 
alcohol consumption, Canada remained concerned that the proposed regulation could have a 
negative effect on trade. In accordance with Article 2.9.2 of the TBT Agreement, Canada 
encouraged Nepal to noti fy the proposed measure and welcomed the opportunity to provide 
comments.  G/TBT/M/72  
 
- 12 - 
 
  3.50.   The representative of Nepal  committed to consult with its capital and provide further 
information on the matter in the coming days.  
3.2.3.10   United States - Standards of Identity for Cheese  
3.51.   The representative of Canada  stated that i n advance of the Committee on Agriculture 
meeting  on 7 June 2017 , his delegation had  submitted several questions to the US concerning its 
standards of identity f or cheese. In response, the US had indicated that its  position was that the 
questions were outside the scope of that committee and suggested they be raised at the WTO TBT 
Committee . He expressed surprise that despite the fact that Canada ha d consistently answered 
questions from Members in the past on its che ese compositional standards in the Committee on 
Agriculture , as well as many other questions from  the US on Canada's agriculture -related domestic 
regulations, his delegation was presently asking for further  information at the TBT Committee. 
Specifically, C anada was concerned about the potential discriminatory effect of the standards of 
identity for cheese on imported ultrafiltered milk for standardized cheese making. In Canada's 
view, the elements of these  US cheese identity standards seem ed to fall disprop ortionally on 
imported ultrafiltered milk to the benefit of users or producers of domestic ultrafiltered milk. 
Canada thanked  the US for its verbal  responses given during bilateral meetings earlier in the week 
and looked  forward to receiving written respon ses. In particular Canada welcome d any information 
on the confirmation of Canada's understanding of the cheese standards of identity as well as US 
enforcement practices of all elements  of the standards. This included:  (i) the enforcement of the 
US cheese s tandards of identity not allowing the use of ultrafiltered milk in the process of 
standardized cheese making unless the source of the ultrafiltered milk was from the cheese plant 
itself; and (ii) different labelling requirements for standardized cheese using ultra filtered  milk 
produced off site than for standardized cheese made using ultra filtered  milk produced at the same 
cheese plant.  
3.52.   The representative of the United States  was of the  understa nding from the bilateral meeting 
that Canada had  no active export problems or concerns. She therefore sought insight into why 
Canada was currently interested in the standard of identity in the production of standardized 
cheese , as the US stand ards for iden tity of cheese had  been in place for a number of years . 
Moreover, her delegation was  not aware of Canadian firms experiencing difficulties in exporting to 
the US. She did, h owever , draw attention to  a new dairy pricing ingredient programme 
implemented by the Government of Canada and Canadian provincial governments which had  
resulted in a substantial reduction to the value of US ultrafiltered milk exports. She underlined that 
the US FDA standards of identity were determined in an open and transparent process  which relied  
upon engagement of all stakeholders and were finalized in the US code of federal regulations  (to 
be found at 21CFR 133  for cheese products).  
3.2.3.11   United States - Wisconsin butter laws  
3.53.   The representative of Canada  stated that his delegation had ask ed questions to the US at 
the Committee on Agriculture meeting of 7 June 2017 regarding Wisconsin butter laws. The US 
had responded in the same way as for questions on its cheese standards of identity; that the 
questions were outside the scope of that comm ittee and suggested they be raised at the TBT 
Committee. Canada was concerned specifically with the Wisconsin state law that prohibited the 
sale of butter without either a Wisconsin or federal grade mark. Canada looked forward to the 
written responses from  the US.  
3.54.   The representative of the United States  said that it was her delegation's understanding that 
Canada had no active export problems or concerns. The US government could not comment on the 
objective of the 1953 Wisconsin State law. Her delegation bel ieved, however, from the text of the 
Wisconsin law, that it was focussed on providing product quality information. The US would take 
any concerns from Canada back for consideration.  G/TBT/M/72  
 
- 13 - 
 
  3.2.4   Previously raised concerns  
3.2.4.1   India — Pneumatic tyres and tubes for automotive vehicles G/TBT/N/IND/20 
G/TBT/N/IND/40 (IMS ID 1336) 
3.55.   The representative of the European Union  repeated  her delegation's concerns with the 
Indian measure at issue which introduced a certification procedure with a mandatory marking for 
tyres. The EU thanked India for detailed information  regarding the ISI marking fee and the 
US$10,000 bank guarantee. India w as requested to align its procedures to international practices 
and remove the obligation to pay a marking fee per marked tyre and to eliminate the 
discriminatory bank guarantee requirement. She understood that India had reduced in the Scheme 
of Testing In spections (STI) 15633/6 of March 2016 the number of conformity of production (COP) 
testing needed to multiples of 30,000 tyres. The EU said this was a relief for the industry and 
recogni zed the steps taken in finding a compromise with Indian local industry . The EU considered 
that these testing requirements were burdensome and costly and asked what specific safety -
related objectives India was pursuing by requiring such test frequency. She recalled that 
international practice was to carry out COP tests every two years and regardless of the number of 
tyres.  
3.56.   The representative of the Republic of Korea  repeated the concerns raised in the previous 
meeting , requesting India to remove the discrimination between domestic and foreign companies 
and to eliminate the usage fee for ISI mark or at least reduce it.  
3.57.   The representative of Japan  expressed support for the position of the EU regarding this 
issue. His delegation remained concerned about the extensive marking fee and long term for 
certification.  Currently, Japan continued to check the facts regarding the basis of calculation of the 
marking fee  to reach a satisfactory conclusion through closed bilateral meetings . 
3.58.   The representative of India stated that the issues raised were not new and had been 
explained several t imes in previous meetings. He referred Members to responses provided in 
previous meetings.  He recalled that Article 5.6 of th e TBT Agreement required the notification of  
conformity assessment procedures that were not in accordance with international guides  and noted 
that the BIS Product Certification Scheme was based on the international standard ISO/IEC 17067 
(Type 4). He highlighted that STI was a condition of the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) licence 
and was applied without discrimination. He noted th at the performance bank guarantee was 
intended to protect the BIS during the tenure of the licence and was invoked only in case of breach 
of any condition of the agreement signed between BIS and licensee.  This guarantee covered loss 
of revenue to BIS on a ccount of non -payment of requisite marking fee. He mentioned that while 
compensation through court was available for breaches by domestic manufacturers, this was not 
possible for breaches by foreign manufacturers. India referred Members to its position in previous 
meetings concerning the concern on excessively high marking fees. In addition, he said that BIS 
was a non -profit organization, with marking fees aimed at covering administrative expenses (e.g. 
marking and testing of samples and other overhead expe nses). The marking fee charged to foreign 
and domestic manufacturers was  equal.  
3.2.4.2   China — Provisions for the Administration of Cosmetics Application Acceptance 
G/TBT/N/CHN/821 (IMS ID 2967) 
3.59.   The representative of the European Union  welcomed China's plans to set up a differentiated 
approach between priority cosmetics ingredients (of higher risk and requiring a premarket 
registration) and ordinary ingredients, which would only need to be notified to the competent 
Chinese authorities. She asked for an update on the state of play of the measure.  
3.60.   The representative of Japan  noted that China had spoken of a revision to the measure at 
issue at previous meetings. He reiterated calls for clarification in this regard, and asked that an 
opportu nity for public comment – in accordance with WTO/TBT disciplines – be provided. Japan 
remained concerned about the time it took for examination, the safety evaluation requirement and 
requirements on information disclosure.   
                                                
6 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 133  (under dates raised and references) . 
7 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 296  (under dates raised and references) . G/TBT/M/72  
 
- 14 - 
 
  3.61.   As there were no further updates  to give, the representative of China referred to responses 
given at the previous meeting .  
3.2.4.3   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 2010); 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 2748) 
3.62.   The repre sentative of the European Union  appreciated the clarifications and explanations 
given by India at previous TBT Committee meetings, and asked India to urgently clarify the 
effective date of entry into force of the testing requirements, which the EU understo od was 
postponed until 1 April 2018. The EU repeated the concerns expressed  in the previous meeting . 
3.63.   The representative of the United States  repeated the concerns expressed  in the previous 
meeting.  
3.64.   The representative of Japan  expressed support for the stat ements by the EU and the US. 
She repeated the concerns expressed  in previous meeting s. Japan requested that India implement 
the regulations in a more transparent manner. Japan noted that India released draft implementing 
regulation s for in -country security  certification on 24 May 2017, and the deadline of submitting 
comments was 1 June 2017, later extended to 24 June. Japan was concerned  that the comment 
period was too short for industries to examine and implement the draft regulations.  Japan 
request ed India to carefully consider the specific content of testing modalities a nd provide 
sufficient time for their  implementation , so as not to impede market access for foreign industries.  
3.65.   The representative of Canada  repeated the concerns expressed in previous  meetings.  
3.66.   The representative of India repeated the explanations provided in previous meetings, 
contained in paragraphs  2.72-2.73 of G/TBT/M/70. India noted that the deadline for the in -country 
security certification had been extended to 1 April 2018, and the notification to this effect was 
available on the website of the Department of Telecommunications. He clarified that the status quo 
regarding security testing and certification requirements would continue until the extended date. 
Finally, he said that s ufficient allowance would be made in the provision of transition time to 
facilitate compliance with the requirements through an actual effective date for the network 
elements.  
3.2.4.4   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) ; China — Banking IT Equipment Security Regulation ; China — 
Insurance Regulatory Commission (CIRC) Information and Communication Technology 
Regulation G/TBT/N/CHN/1172 (IMS IDs  294 , 457 and 4899) 
3.67.   The Chair man informed the Committee that Members had requested , in the interest of time,  
that these three specific trade concerns  that had been raised separately in the past be combined , 
as many of the concerns overlapped.  
3.68.   The representative of the European Union  repeated  concerns raised in previous  TBT 
Committee meetings  and requested  China to notify draft measures in any subsequent sectoral 
implementation to the TBT Committee in order to gi ve adequate opportunity for Members and their 
stakeholders to comment on any subsequent developments. Specifically regarding information 
security i n the banking sector, the EU would appreciate an update by China on the status and 
expected timeline of the possible revision of the Guideline for Promoting the Application of Secure 
and Controllable Information Technology in Banking Sector (2014 -2015) .  
                                                
8 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 274  (under dates raised and references) . 
9 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 294 , IMS ID 457  and IMS ID 489  (under dates 
raised and references) . G/TBT/M/72  
 
- 15 - 
 
  3.69.   As for the rules applicable to the insurance sector, the representative of the EU reiterated its 
concerns regarding the draft insurance sector informatization rules, which had the effect of 
mandating insurance institutions in China to progressively phase ou t non -domestic cryptographic 
products. This would be tantamount to a ban on procuring foreign cryptography products 
compared with domestic products. It would prevent insurance institutions from using the most 
developed and innovative encryption products an d solutions, which would have the unintended 
consequence of weakening rather than strengthening information and network security. The EU 
recalled  that the concept of "secure a nd controllable", which was also used in the National Security 
Law and the Cybers ecurity Law, lacked precision and created  uncertainty for economic operator s.  
3.70.   In addition, the representative of the EU raised its concerns regarding the requirement that 
insurance institutions obtained the ownership of the source code of the equipment an d the 
compulsory use of national standards and encryption requirements based on national algorithms.  
The EU would therefore appreciate an update with respect to the revision of the measure. He 
asked China to confirm if the revised draft would be notified to the WTO for comments. The EU 
recalled the importance of allowing for adequate participation of interested parties in the domestic 
processes.  
3.71.   The representative of Canada  repeated concerns raised in previous TBT Committee 
meetings and echoe d the views o f other WTO Members regarding CIRC Information and 
Communication Technology Regulation.  
3.72.   The representative of Japan  still ha d concern s about the  three regulations.10 With respect to 
Chinese Banking IT Equipment Security R egulation , he recalled China's expl anation of the expired 
Guideline for P romoting the Application of Secure and Controllable Information Technolog y in 
Banking Sector (2014 -2015), where there was no timetable for further development of any 
guidelines. He asked if China ha d a plan to revise the Guideline or to draft new ones.  If any 
guideline was to be issued, Japan requested  China to inform the Members  concerned of the future 
schedule.  If no g uideline was revised or newly drafted , Japan requested China to ensure that the 
Guiding Opinions of the China Banking Regulatory Commission on Strengthening the Banking 
Network Security and Information Technology  Construction,  issued on 3 September 2014 , no 
longer had any effect on banking IT equipment.  In addition, Japan asked China's view on how to 
deal with the security regulations on banking IT equipment under the Cybersecurity Law . 
3.73.   Regarding both the Banking IT Equipment Security Regulation and CIRC Information and 
Communication Technology Regulation, he stated that if China required source codes sub mission 
for risk assessment without clarifying the range of data scope, it would be more trade restrictive 
than necessary in light of the regulation objective. Japan therefore requested China to review 
these regulations to ensure transparency and complianc e with international standards. With regard 
to Article 56 of CIRC Information and Communication Technology Regulation, which prescribed the 
application of MLPS, Japan was concerned that requiring Chinese intellectual property in core 
technologies or requir ing domestic certification in China might cause discrimination of foreign 
companies in some levels. Japan recalled China's explanation that MLPS would be revised and 
adjusted appropriately in line with the principles of the Cybersecurity Law and requested that the 
revised draft regulation be no more trade restrictive than necessary, comply with international 
standards, and be based on the opinions of Japan and other Members.  
3.74.   The representative of the United States  remained very concerned about China' s suit e of 
measures that appeared to discriminate against foreign technologies and firms in the name of 
information security. This included China' s Cybersecurity Law and draft insurance sector 
informatization rules, along with many other specific measures. China 's draft measures for "secure 
and controllable" technology in the banking sector continued to affect sales of foreign technology 
to banks in China. Without China's announcement that such rules or other measures restricting or 
limiting the use of foreign te chnology products in the banking sector would not be imposed at a 
later date, the banking sector remained reluctant to purchase foreign technology products, which 
raised concerns of national treatment. The US urged China to uphold its transparency 
commitme nts by notifying relevant technical regulations to the WTO TBT Committee, publicly 
soliciting comments, and taking into account stakeholders' comments from the US Government, 
                                                
10 Chinese banking IT equipment security regulation, CIRC Information and Communication Technology 
Regulation, and the MLPS.  G/TBT/M/72  
 
- 16 - 
 
  industries, and foreign governments before implementing any similar cybersecurity  measures in 
the banking or other commercial sectors. She reiterated the concerns raised in previous TBT 
Committee meeting on China's commercial encryption products and its on -going revision and the 
MLPS . Her delegation hoped that China would take into acc ount all stakeholders' comments made 
on the draft standards related to MLPS, but more broadly  to adopt international standards instead 
of creating country -specific ones.  
3.75.   The representative of Australia  repeated concerns raised in previous TBT Committee 
meetings and supported the concerns raised by others regarding the proposed CIRC Information 
and Communication Technology Regulation and the Banking IT Equipment Security Regulation. He 
understood China's desire to protect ICT infrastructure, but questioned whether the proposed 
measures were more trade restrictive than necessary. His delegation requested  further information 
from China on the status of the regulations and whether they would be permanently withdrawn.  
3.76.   The representative of China  stated that rega rding the OSCCA 1999 Regulation on 
Commercial Encryption Products, its on -going revision and MLPS, MLPS played an important role in 
guaranteeing cybersecurity. Both the Regulation on Commercial Encryption Products and the 
Information Security MLPS would be  revised to be in line with Cybersecurity Law. China would take 
its trading partners ' concerns into consideration. With regard to the relationship between Cyber 
Security MLPS and Information Security MLPS, the Cyber Security Law was fundamental to China' s 
cyber and information security.  It was based on the new features of cyber security, and meant a 
new phase for Information Security MLPS. Information Security MLPS would be revised to be in 
line with the principles of the Cyber Security Law.  
3.77.   The representative explained that the Guideline for Promoting the Application of Secure and 
Controllable Information Technology in Banking Sector (2014 -2015) had expired. Her delegation 
would always persist in its opening -up policy and abide by its WTO commitm ents. China was 
always open and transparent in building up commercial banking information system, which also 
conformed to long -term interest s of further development of China' s banking sectors.  
3.78.   Regarding measures on insurance, China paid great attention to cyber and information 
security works. The aim of drafting this CIRC Regulation was to ensure information security in the 
insurance sector. This process had been carried out in an open and transparent manner. China had 
notified this Regulation  to the WTO and was now carefully studying all the comments . She thanked 
Members for the bilateral engagement  and reemphasized that China was willing to consult with all 
interested Members and stakeholders on this matter.   
3.2.4.5   Russian Federation — Draft Technical Regulatio n on Alcohol Drinks Safety 
(published on 24 October 2011),  G/TBT/N/RUS/2 (IMS ID 33211) 
3.79.   The representative of the European Union  repeated the concerns raised in previous 
meetings . 
3.80.   The representative of the United States  repeated concerns raised in previous  meetings. She 
further reminded the Committee that in March 2017, Russia had noted that the Eurasian Customs 
Union consultations on the draft technical regulation were scheduled for April. She asked that 
Russia provide an update on the outcome of those con sultations.  
3.81.   The representative of Ukraine  repeated the concerns raised in previous meetings and 
supported the views of  the EU and the US . In addition, she  repeated requests for Russia to provide 
comments concerning the mandatory requirements for applicants to register in the territory of the 
Eurasian Economic Union. An update was requested on the results of the subsequent  round of 
consultations on the draft technical regulation which  Russia had flagged would be held in April 
2017. 
3.82.   The representative of Guatemala  asked for an update on the internal consultations held in 
April 2017 and indicated her delegation's concern that the measure might become a barrier to 
trade.  
                                                
11 For previous  statements follow the thread under IMS ID 332  (under dates raised and references).  G/TBT/M/72  
 
- 17 - 
 
  3.83.   The representative of t he Russian Federation  repeated its statement made in previous TBT 
Committee meetings and announced that the next round of consultations would be held in July 
2017.  He added that Russia could not notify the draft technical regulation a second time since the  
procedures for drafting, adoption, amendment and cancellation of the EAEU technical regulations 
(adopted by Eurasian Economic Commission Council Decision No. 48 of 20.06.2012) set only one 
period for public consultations.  
3.84.   The representative of the United States , referring to the EAEU Decision to allow only one 
comment period, recalled that the TBT Committee had agreed to a document on the coherent use 
of notification formats, which allowed for the revision of a document to be re -notified for an 
additional comment period. While the EAEU was not a Member of the WTO, Russia was. If there 
were substantial changes compared to the originally notified draft, Russia needed to submit a 
revised  notification and reopen the comment period.   
3.2.4.6   Republic of Korea — Regulati on on Registration and Evaluation of Chemical 
Material G/TBT/N/KOR/305, G/TBT/N/KOR/305/Add.1, G/TBT/N/KOR/478, 
G/TBT/N/KOR/547, G/TBT/N/KOR/592, G/TBT/N/KOR/700   (IMS ID 30512) 
3.85.   The representative of the United States  repeated concerns raised in previous TB T 
Committee meetings. She requested  an update on the timeline for review and finalization of the 
amendments to K -REACH and, with respect to NIER's 11  May announcement on registration 
permitting alternatives to test reports, also asked which alternative data sources would now be 
accepted.  S he also expressed her delegation's willingness to continue last March meeting's 
discussions on: (i)  Korea's indication that it would consider the US proposal to have an 
information -sharing DVC between US  EPA and Korean regulators and industry; and (ii)  Korea's 
indication that it would introduce a notification system for new substances in small volume, rather 
than a registration system, so as to minimize the burden on Korean and foreign companies.  
3.86.   Recent Korean announcements had  only added to concerns about the compliance burden, 
with many US chemical companies considering withdrawing from Korea's market – to the 
detriment of Korea's manufacturing sectors. There was also significant confusion and uncertainty – 
especially for trace amounts used as inputs – with respect to specific requirements and acceptance 
of notifications and registrations. Chemicals also continue d to be added or removed from the toxic 
substances list without proper notice, opportunity for comment, or reasoning. In this respect, she 
asked wh ether Korea could provide answers to US  industry recommendations such as that: 
(i) K-REACH focus on industrial chemicals; (ii)  lubricants related to food and food production areas 
be exempted; (iii)  Article  5 on "Duties of Business Entity" be removed so th at the focus could be 
on implementing risk management provisions; (iv)  IUCLID, or a compatible system, be used to 
ease registration; (v)  QSAR (Qualitative or Quantitative Structure Activity Relationship Models) 
and read -across techniques be accepted in ord er to reduce duplicative testing; (vi)  a longer grace 
period for acceptance of existing chemicals; (vii) polymers of low concerns be exempted; (viii) the 
exemption confirmation requirement be removed, allowing self -certification; (ix) there would only 
be a simplified notification scheme required for novel and non -isolated intermediates; (x) there 
would be an exemption for substances used as stabilizers; (xi) consult with USEPA concerning its 
risk-based approach to endocrine disruptors;  (xii) Korea would ma intain a high level of CBI 
protection, as well as develop scientific, detailed guidance and uniform criteria for submitting CBI 
claims; (xiii)  allow the use of generic names for non -hazardous substances; (xiv) Korea would 
establish a system for reporting d irectly from manufacturers, third parties or foreign companies, 
especially if substance concentrations need to be reported; (xv) K -REACH definitions and 
provisions would be aligned with Korea's biocide requirements, or use the O nly Representative 
(OR) function similar to the EU process where the OR registers on behalf of foreign manufacturers 
rather than importers.  
3.87.   The representative of the Republic of Korea  said a summarized plan for K -REACH would be 
made available by the end of June  2017. Regarding regist ration system of chemical substances, to 
minimize the burden of Korean and foreign companies, he explained that Korea had introduced a 
notification system for new substances in small volume, instead of registration system. Moreover, 
substances in small vol ume for the purposes of R&D were already exempted from registration. On 
                                                
12 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 305 (under dates raised and references) . 
 G/TBT/M/72  
 
- 18 - 
 
  CBI (Confidential Business Information), if companies appl ied for confidential treatment of some 
information to the Ministry of Environment (MoE), such information could be protected u nder the 
CCA (Chemicals Control Act) and AREC after a review process by the MoE.  
3.2.4.7   Indonesia — Technical 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/ID N/64/Add.1 -2 (IMS ID 32813) 
3.88.   The representative of the European Union  repeated concerns raised in previous TBT 
Committee meetings. Concerning the review of Ministerial Decree No. 24, Indonesia had indicated 
that it was expected to be completed by the end of 2017. The EU asked Indonesia: (i) to ensure 
that the review was conducted in a transparent manner and allowed adequate opportunities for 
foreign toy manufacturers to participate; and (ii) to notify the draft amendment to the WTO at an 
early appropriate sta ge. The EU deemed the review urgent and necessary  in order to address the 
issue of the currently discriminatory testing requirements , which tested every imported batch 
while testing domestic products every six months. This review should  provide the same co nformity 
assessment procedure for imported and domestic toys .  
3.89.   The representative of the United States  repeated  concerns raised in previous TBT 
Committee meetings.  Her delegation understood that the Indonesia was considering a new scheme 
for testing frequency. She requested an update on this review process and said that the new 
scheme should  treat importers and domestic producers equally with respect to testing frequenc y.  
The US remained available for further discussion during the revision of the regulation.    
3.90.   The representative of Japan  expressed continued support for the positions of EU and US. 
Serious delays in exports were being caused by a sequence of events such as sampling, testing, 
SNI certification and pre -shipment inspection. Japan strongly requested again that Indonesia 
reconsider the requirements and accept testing results from foreign laboratories.  
3.91.   The representative of Indonesia  repeated responses provided  in previous TBT Committee 
meetings. Concerning  the differen t sampling method, Indonesia had  an on -going process to 
determine  the quantity of sampling units per number of products . Indonesia w ould recognize the 
test results of foreign conformity assessment  bodies if accredited by national accreditation bod ies 
signatory to APLAC  and ILAC. Regarding  acceptance at na tional level, Indonesia required a  mutual 
recognition agreement with a  regulatory authority. Indonesia remained available for further 
discussion .  
3.2.4.8   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, 
tradition al terms, labelling and presentation of certain wine sector products , 
G/TBT/N/EU/246 , G/TBT/N/EU/246/Add.1  (IMS ID 34514) 
3.92.   The representative of Argentina  repeated  concerns raised in previous TBT Committee 
meetings .  Argentina's application remained blocked "in limbo" and despite the numerous requests 
made through the TBT Committee and bilaterally, the EU had not provided any legal justification 
for the lack of action by the European Commission for over five years. Ar gentina did not agree that 
the argument concerning a legal review of the use of traditional terms, announced more than 
three years ago, could legally justify the blocking of applications for the registration of traditional 
terms over such a long time -period. Due to the EU announcing over three years ago that it was in 
the process of reviewing the use of traditional terms with a view to simplifying them, all 
applications for approval of traditional terms had come to a standstill. Regulation (EC) No 
607/2009 had therefore become obsolete, at least with regard to the requests for approval of 
"traditional terms". This meant that Argentina had been in a situation of legal uncertainty for three 
years on the reform of the wine regime, and for five years on its appl ication for approval of the 
traditional terms "Reserva" and "Gran Reserva".  
                                                
13 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 328 (under dates raised and references) . 
14 For previous statements fo llow the thread under IMS ID 345  (under dates raised and references) . G/TBT/M/72  
 
- 19 - 
 
  3.93.   The EU's refusal to apply its current standards while awaiting reforms which had never 
materialized reflected a lack of will in resolving this trade concern. The EU had indicated t hat the 
proposed reform would be notified in 2016 but this never materialized, nor was there any further 
information on the proposal or its impact on applications for approval, which Argentina had 
completed in full. In previous meetings, the EU had indicat ed that trading partners' concerns would 
be taken into account in the review that was under way. Argentina therefore again requested the 
EU to lift the unwarranted restrictions on Argentine exports of quality wine, by including this item 
on the agenda of t he next meeting of the College of Commissioners and publishing the relevant act 
in its official journal. Argentina urged the EU to submit the proposed amendment to this regime 
without delay and to explain the treatment that would be given to applications t hat had  completed 
the technical approval process, and request ed the prompt conclusion of the formalities.  
3.94.   The representative of the United States  repeated  concerns raised in previous TBT 
Committee meetings . US industry had lodged applications for the use o f 13 traditional terms in 
2010. She requested confirmation that the publication of the draft regulation was mid -2017 as had 
been indicated by EU officials and that the revised regulation would be notified to the WTO. She 
also asked if the regulation would enter into force in 2018 and to expedite the consideration of US 
applications.  The EU had failed to provide any information on how US applications would be dealt 
with despite the advanced drafting stage of the revised regulation. She also asked the EU to 
explicitly detail the treatment for pending applications and to confirm that they were not required 
to wait until transitional provisions were put in place.  
3.95.   The representative of Brazil  supported concerns raised by Argentina and the US. He noted 
that EU r egulations could cause problems for both  Brazilian wine producers and MERCOSUR -EU 
negotiations.  
3.96.   The representative of the European Union  repeated statement s made in previous TBT 
Committee meetings  and showed availability for bilateral discussions with tra de partners at expert 
level. 
3.2.4.9   India — Electronics and Information Technology Goods (Requirements for 
Compulsory Registration) Order, 2012 G/TBT/N/IND/44, G/TBT/N/IND/44/Add.1 -5, 
G/TBT/N/IND/47 G/TBT/N/IND/47/Add.1 -3, G/TBT/N/IND/47/Add.1/Corr.1 (IMS ID 
36715) 
3.97.   The representatives of the United States , the European Union  the Republic of Korea  and 
Canada  repeated concerns raised in previous TBT Committee meetings.  
3.98.   The representative of India recalled that many of the issues raised had been previously 
responded to. On two issues, namely the acceptance of IECEE CB test reports and streamlining of 
procedures, he explained that BIS  accepted IECEE CB test reports for critical components under 
the BIS Registration scheme. The IECEE Publication "IECEE 01 " specifie d IEC Conformity 
Assessment Systems - Basic Rules wherein the Legal Provisions of IECEE at National Level 
provide d for the country law to prevail over any other obligation under IEC Conformi ty Assessment 
Systems. The acceptance of CB test reports and certificates had been  discussed with IECEE 
officials in a meeting in October 2013 , and in the joint communication issued both sides noted that 
India had not infringe d any of the IECEE Rules. On s treamlining of procedures, a provision had 
been included so as to allow for online acceptance of documents relating to the revision of IS 
16046. Remaining queries and suggestions of Members would be transmitted to authorities in 
capital for consideration a nd response.  
3.2.4.10   European Union — Revised Proposal for the Categorization of Compounds as 
Endocrine Disruptors of 19 February 2013 by DG Environment G/TBT/N/EU/383, 
G/TBT/N/EU/383/Add.1, G/TBT/N/EU/384, G/TBT/N/EU/384/Add.1, 
G/SPS/N/EU/166,  G/SPS/N/EU/166/Add.1  (IMS ID 39316) 
3.99.   The representative of Argentina  repeated  concerns raised in previous TBT Committee 
meetings.  Argentina was particularly concerned that were the proposal on "criteria" alone to be 
                                                
15 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 367  (under dates raised and references) . 
16 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 3 93 (under dates raised and references) . G/TBT/M/72  
 
- 20 - 
 
  adopted, the use of those substances whose exposure represented "insignificant risk" of endocrine 
disruption would be prohibited without any scientific justification. For Argentina, the adoption of a 
solely hazard -based approach instead of a full risk eval uation, which characterize d hazards in all 
their elements (including risk exposure and characterization), could lead to disproportionate and 
unnecessarily trade -restrictive measures.  
3.100.   Argentina recalled that the EU asserted that applications for import tol erances concerning 
marketing of plant protection products would depend on the approval of th e proposal on repeals. 
Since this  division was put in place , the internal treatment of the proposals had created great 
uncertainty around the approval of the provis ions establishing repeals and hence import  tolerances 
under Regulation (EC) No. 396/2005.  
3.101.   Taking into account the impending expiry of the time limit fixed internally by the EU for the 
approval of this regulation, Argentina once more asked the EU to underta ke an adjustment of its 
proposal in light of its international WTO commitments. Further, were the proposal on criteria to be 
approved in the terms presented by the EC, and without prejudice to the above -mentioned 
inconsistencies, Argentina asked the EC to advance the proposal on repeals "in parallel", in order 
to exempt at least those substances that represented insignificant risks to human health. 
Otherwise, not only would Members be faced de facto  with a substantive modification of the 
proposal duly notif ied to the SPS and TBT Committees, but also with the unnecessary creation of 
increased barriers to international trade in agricultural products, without any scientific justification.  
3.102.   The representative of Canada  repeated  concerns raised in previous TBT Com mittee 
meetings.  Based on the most recent EU draft amendments, Canada awaited assurance as to if and 
when a complete risk assessment would be perform ed.  Canada also stressed the importance of 
the EU ensuring that, regardless of the outcome of its internal  regulations on these products, 
import M aximum Residual Levels (MRLs) would  continue to be established according to 
scientifically based comprehensive risk assessments, in accordance with its WTO obligations.  
3.103.   The representative of the United States  repeated  concerns raised in previous TBT 
Committee meetings. She noted that more than 20 Members at SPS  Committee Meetings and 
more tha n ten in the TBT  Committee ha d expressed serious concerns with EU's hazard approach 
for endocrine disruptors. She urged t he EU to take into account these concerns, in particular that 
the EU should adopt a science -based approach that would evaluate the relevant risks.  
3.104.   The representative s of Colombia  and Brazil  support ed concerns raised by other 
delegations . Brazil, in partic ular, was interested to know why the EU sepa rated the processes 
related to endocrine d isruptors  into two pieces of legislation:  one about identification of endocrine 
disruptors and the other concerning the derogation of tolerance levels.  
3.105.   The representative s of Thailand , Guatemala  and Uruguay  repeated concerns raised in 
previous TBT Committee meetings.   
3.106.   The representative of Australia  considered the retention in the measure of a risk -based 
derogation to be of critical importance to avoid unnecessary restrict ions on critical crop protection 
products. Implementing the package without relevant derogation provisions could result in MRLs 
being removed for a significant number of critical crop protection products, which would disrupt 
Australia's premium grain, oilseed and horticultural exports to the EU. Australia welcomed the 
opportunity to review and comment on the re -drafted exemption a s soon as practicable to 
continue its engagement. Australia also noted that in June 2016 the European Commission had 
tasked the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) with 
reviewing registered active substances for the p otential with which they may meet the new criteria 
for endocrine -disrupting properties. Australia asked the EU for an update on the status of this work 
and how the review outcomes would be communicated to trading partners.  
3.107.   The representative of Egypt  share d the concerns expressed by previous delegations  and 
said that the draft regulation, if implemented as proposed, would potentially have negative impact 
on Egypt's trade with the EU given that it was expected to affect almost 50 % of agricultural 
exports to the EU.  G/TBT/M/72  
 
- 21 - 
 
  3.108.   The representative of the European Union  repeated responses provided in previous TBT 
Committee meetings.   She clarified that the relevant regulatory procedures to adopt the criteria 
were ongoing. During these ongoing discussions, and in order to ad dress the comme nts received, 
the Commission had  revised the draft acts to provide additional clarification regarding the burden 
of proof and the scope of the criteria. No substantial changes ha d been introduced compared to 
the drafts notified under the TBT  and SPS Agreements. The revised versions of the criteria, as well 
as the state -of-play of the regulatory procedures, had been published on the Commission's 
website. For transparency reasons and to facilitate the decision -making process, which involved 
several bodies and institutions, the plant protection products act had been split in December 2016 
into two acts: one text containing the "criteria" and another one containing the technical 
amendment to the clause on "negligible exposure". As there has been n o substantial change in the 
content of the proposals, there was no need to re -notify the draft acts.  
3.2.4.11   Peru — Act to Promote Healthy Eating Among Children and Adolescents , 
G/TBT/N/PER/59, G/TBT/N/PER/89, G/TBT/N/PER/89/Corr.1 , 
G/TBT/N/PER/89/Add.1  (IMS ID 38 317) 
3.109.   The representative of Mexico  repeated  concerns raised in p revious TBT Committee 
meetings and requested that Peru provide an  update on the status of the draft technical 
regulations.  
3.110.   The representative of the United States  repeated concerns raised in pre vious TBT 
Committee meetings . In addition, she asked that Peru share information on regulatory 
developments and that US comments submitted on  December 2016 be taken into account. She 
reminded Peru that sufficient time should be allowed for industry compliance  before enforcement 
of labelling requirements.  
3.111.   The representative of Guatemala  repeated  concerns raised in previous TBT Committee 
meetings  and highlighted the lack  of food labelling harmonization in the region, which affected in 
particular devel oping  country Members and small and medium -sized enterprises that were unable 
to produce different labels for different markets.  
3.112.   The representative of Peru repeated responses provided in  the previous TBT Committee 
meeting.  Trading partners had been given a mple opportunity to submit comments with the 
deadline of 8 December 2016. Peru had taken comments into account in the final version of the 
regulations, which would be approved shortly and would enter into force 180 days after 
publication . He underlined tha t the regulations established time -frames for implementation of 
advertising and precautionary warnings requirements. The deadline for the latter would be 
calculated from the date of approval of their corresponding supplementary standards that would be 
published after adoption of the final regulations. Peru believed that these regulations were aligned 
with the TBT Agreement and fulfilled the legitimate objective of protecting citizens' health through 
improving  consumer awareness of nutritional information. H e reiterated that the measure was 
based on existing scientific evidence on non-communicable diseases developed by excessive 
consumption of sodium, sugar and fat. Based on this evidence, other Members had adopted similar 
measures. Peru affirmed that the reg ulations would be notified to the WTO when approved, in 
accordance with its WTO obligations.  
3.2.4.12   Ecuador — Resolution No. 116 of the Foreign Trade Committee of Ecuador of 19 
November 2013 and Technical Regulation of the Ecuadorian Standardization Institute 
RTE INEN 022 on the labelling of processed and packaged food products 
G/TBT/N/ECU/19 G/TBT/N/ECU/19/Add.1 –11 (IMS ID 41118) 
3.113.   The representative of Mexico  repeated the concern with respect to this technical 
regulation, the objective of which was "to regulate and control the labelling of processed foods for 
human consumption, in order to guarantee a person's constitutional right to timely, clear, accurate 
and non -misleading information concerning the content and characteristics of these foods, thereby 
enabling consumers to make the correct choice when purchasing and consuming such products" . 
She recalled that Mexico had submitted a communica tion to the TBT Committee on  19 January 
                                                
17 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 383  (under dates raised and references) . 
18 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 411  (under dates raised and references) . G/TBT/M/72  
 
- 22 - 
 
  2016 (G/TBT/W/430) expressing its trade concerns, and had raised the same issue as a specific 
trade concern at the November 2016 and March 2017 TBT Committee meetings.  
3.114.   Mexico noted that during its bilateral meeting with Ecuador at the M arch 201 7 TBT 
Committee meeting , Ecuador had stated that Technical Regulation 022 was undergoing a 
comprehensive review, and that some changes were planned in the following a reas: (i ) calculation 
of the sugar component of the graphic "nutritional traffic light" sy stem, on the basis of added 
sugars; (ii ) calculation of the content of permitted components and concentrations , to appear in 
units of mass; (iii ) introduction of the graphic nutritional system for breast -milk substitutes; and 
(iv) introduction of rules on the size of warnings regarding transgenics and artificial sweeteners. 
She recalled that Ecuador had said that these changes would be notified to the WTO so that 
Members could submit comments, as required under the TBT Agreement. However, as f ar as 
Mexico w as aware, this had  not yet happened, and she therefore asked Ecuador about the current 
status of the review.  
3.115.   In view of the above, Mexico requested that Ecuador: (i) provide an explanation on the 
reasoning and the scientific evidence justifying the use of  the colour -coded graphic system for 
indicating the "high", "medium" or "low" concentration of total fats, sugars and salts, respectively , 
as well as information about the results of this scheme; (ii) provide justification for or, if 
appropriate, envisage the elimination of the requirement for the label to include the word 
"transgenic", where present; and (iii) reconsider the restrictions on advertising on labels.  
3.116.   The representative of Colombia  supported the concerns raised by Mexico, and requested 
an updat e from Ecuador on this measure.  
3.117.   The representative of Guatemala  repeated the concerns expressed at the previous 
meeting. In addition, Guatemala said the lack of harmonization of food labelling requirements in 
the region particularly affected developing  countries and small and medium -sized enterprises, 
which were unable to produce different labels for different markets, and only benefited large 
enterprises.  
3.118.   The representative of Ecuador  repeated the explanations provided in the previous meeting.  
3.2.4.13   Russian Fede ration — Safety of products for children and adolescents 
G/TBT/N/RUS/29 (IMS ID 41819) 
3.119.   The representative of  the European Union  repeated concerns raised in previous TBT 
Committee meetings which were supported by the representatives  of the United States  and 
Ukraine . She asked for the planned date of entry of this measure into force.  
3.120.   The representative of  the Russian Federation  explained that the EAEU Members had 
concluded the consultation process on draft amendments to the Technical Regulation. 
Unfortunately , the draft amendments №2 had not yet been adopted. His delegation expected that 
the adoption of amendments to the Technical Regulation would take place  in July  2017, during  the 
meeting of the Council of the Eurasian Economic Commission. Russia would keep Members 
informed of any outcome of that meeting . 
3.2.4.14   Thailand — Draft Notification of the Alcoholic Beverages Control, Re: Rules, 
Procedure and condition for Labels of Alcoholic Beverages, issued under B.E. , 
G/TBT/N/THA/437, G/TBT/N/THA/437/Add.1  (IMS ID 42720) 
3.121.   The representative of the United States  thanked Thailand for the additional information 
provided through their TBT Enquiry Point in early March 2017 in relation to Thailand' s regulation 
on the labelling and packaging for alcoholic beverages and noted the revised non -binding 
guidelines that had been  published on Thailand's Ministry of Public Health website in April. While 
the US appreciated the efforts that Thailand had made to date to clarify its approach, including 
through the release of revised guideline s, the US found it difficult to understand and therefore also 
                                                
19 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 418  (under dates raised and references) . 
20 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 427  (under dates raised and references) . G/TBT/M/72  
 
- 23 - 
 
  ensure compliance with many of the restrictions, such as on statements "leading to the cultural 
disgrace of country " or "false or exaggerated statements ". This created considerable uncertainty 
for producers especially in light of the discretion that enforcement officers were granted under the 
regulation.  
3.122.   At the previous TBT Committee meeting, Thailand had advised that they were undertaking 
an evaluation of the technical regulation. The US commended Thailand for acknowledging the need 
for the regulation to be evaluated and for considering improvements and asked for additional 
information about the process, including how stakeholders ' concerns and experience s were being 
taken into account. Th e US welcomed the opportunity to share information on how US law 
achieved the important goal of protecting consumers from misleading labelling practices while 
providing certainty to producers about the applicable rules. The US understood that Thailand migh t 
be re -considering the implementation of pictorial health warnings for alcohol beverages. The US 
had expressed concerns about the draft requirements for such warnings that had originally been 
included in the regulation. She asked whether Thailand was cons idering introducing such 
requirements either as part of the re -evaluation of the technical regulation or otherwise. The US 
sought  assurance that Thailand would notify any draft measures to the WTO so as to provide an 
opportunity for trading partners to co mment and for those comments to be considered prior to 
finalization . 
3.123.   The representative of the European Union  said that they were following closely the 
developments and implementation of the Regulation on Criteria, Procedures and Conditions for 
Labels of A lcoholic Beverages (B.E 2558/2015), applicable from 19 October 2015. While regretting 
that the text of the regulation itself had not been amended, the EU welcomed the revised version 
of the technical implementing guidelines published at the website of the Office of the Alcoholic 
Beverages Control Committee in early April. As stated in previous TBT Committee meetings and in 
the written comments submitted in December 2015, which had not been answered by the Thai 
authorities, the EU was concerned with the stri ct labelling requirements included in the regulation 
and with the lack of clarity of the provisions relating to the messages permitted on the label, which 
might lead to inconsistent interpretations. The EU acknowledged that the revised technical 
guidelines  seemed to provide certain clarifications, for instance, on the use of true and factual 
statements or statements supported by evidence. However, the EU noted that they prohibited 
claims about properties, benefits or quality of the alcohol products whether directly or indirectly, 
and that this prohibition would have an impact on certain specific terms commonly used in the EU 
linked to the ageing or maturation process and to the conditions or characteristics of the product. 
The guidelines also prohibited stat ements that encouraged the consumption of alcohol. While the 
EU shared concerns linked to the protection of consumers, further clarification would be needed on 
the specific requirements envisaged by Thailand, so as to avoid undue impacts on trade and 
divergent interpretations.  
3.124.   In light of the above, the EU considered that the revised guidelines were still unclear and 
did not provide industry with concrete information on how to ensure that labels of alcoholic drinks 
were compliant with the Thai regulation. The EU invited Thailand to further clarify the 
implementation of the regulation and encouraged the involvement of stakeholders in the process, 
since they did not seem to have been consulted during the recent revision of the technical 
guidelines.  The EU also asked for an update on any possible upcoming initiatives with regard to 
graphic health warnings on alcoholic drinks. Should there be any such initiative, the EU invited 
Thailand to notify any draft proposal, so as to allow Members to become ac quainted with it and 
submit comments, in accordance with Article 2.9.2 of the TBT Agreement.  
3.125.   The representative of Japan  shared the concerns raised by other delegations. At the 
previous TBT Committee meeting, Thailand had said that a technical document for  this regulation 
had been developed and would be published in early April 2017. Japan asked Thailand to provide 
an update on any discussions on the revision of the measure.  
3.126.   The representative of Australia  repeated the concerns expressed at the previous mee ting. 
3.127.   The representative of Guatemala  repeated the concerns expressed at the previous 
meeting,  and welcomed any action that would be taken by Thailand in response to the trade 
concerns that Members continued to raise as well as to the request by some Membe rs to suspend 
the measure.  G/TBT/M/72  
 
- 24 - 
 
  3.128.   The representative of Canada  said that his delegation had expressed interest and concerns  
regarding the regulation during a number of Committee meetings. In particular, Canada believed 
that the labelling requirements were likely to impose discriminatory treatment on like alcoholic 
products and result in additional labelling costs for exporters to Thailand. Therefore, the measure 
would have a negative impact on trade. Canada requested that Thailand provide an update to the 
Committe e in order to reduce uncertainty for exporters.  
3.129.   The representative of New Zealand  said that her delegation acknowledged and supported 
Thailand' s right to introduce new regulations to address specific public health concerns. In seeking 
to address the harmf ul use of alcohol, the technical regulation was directed toward achieving a 
legitimate public health objective. New Zealand thanked Thailand for its engagement on the 
regulation to date and for the updates it had provided. As expressed in previous meetings , New 
Zealand continued to follow the development of the measure with interest, particularly with 
regards to its potential impact on trade. She sought an update on whether Thailand intended to 
introduce mandatory graphic health warnings on alcohol labels a nd if so, when Thailand expected 
to notify this to the WTO.  
3.130.   The representative of Thailand  reaffirmed its intention to control the harmful use of alcohol 
through various measures. The regulation in question aimed to control new consumers of alcohol , 
especi ally adolescents and women as Thailand did not want its new generation to be attracted by 
misleading messages labelled on alcoholic beverages. It was widely recognized that the label of 
alcoholic beverages was regarded as one of the advertising and marketi ng tools for use at the 
point of sale. There was no doubt that advertising of alcoholic beverages would increase alcohol 
consumption and consequently its harmful use. Harmful use of alcohol created many health and 
social problems as presented in many studi es. The technical regulation did not aim to create 
technical barriers to trade. It simply prohibited the use of falsified, exaggerated, misleading 
messages that attracted the consumer to the product, and social ly disruptive messages on labels 
and packages of alcoholic beverages. Thailand understood the concerns in this respect and had 
revised the technical document, which explained each prohibited practice and clarified unclear 
messages. The revised version was accessible via the website of the Office of Al cohol Beverage 
Control Committee since April 2017. Thailand was in the process of evaluating the implementation 
and impact of the regulation and hoped to share the result of the evaluation with the Committee 
by 2018. Thailand reiterated its commitment to c omply with international trade agreements while 
retaining its right to protect the health of its population.  
3.2.4.15   China — Regulations for the Supervision and Administration of Medical Devices 
(Order No. 650 of the State Council)  G/TBT/N/CHN/1022, G/TBT/N/CHN/10 23, 
G/TBT/N/CHN/1024, G/TBT/N/CHN/1025, G/TB T/N/CHN/1026, G/TBT/N/CHN/1029 
(IMS ID 42821) 
3.131.   The representative s of the  European Union  and the Republic of Korea  repeated  concerns 
raised in previous TBT Committee meetings . 
3.132.   The representative of  Canada  said that  the requirements, under Article 13 of Order No.4 
and Article 15 of Order No.5 , for imported medical devices to obtain market approval from the 
country (region) where the applicant's business registration was or where the product was 
produced would restric t access for products not registered in the country of origin , creating  
unnecessary barriers to trade while further limiting Chinese consumers ' access to life -saving and 
life-improvi ng medical devices. Canada wished  to work with China with a view to addres sing these 
and other aspects of the regulation in a constructive manner . 
3.133.   The representative China  said that since there was no update delegations could refer to 
the minutes of the previous meetings, during which China had provided detailed explanations . 
                                                
21 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 428  (under dates raised and references) . G/TBT/M/72  
 
- 25 - 
 
  3.2.4.16   Kingdom of Saudi Arabia , Kingdom of Bahrain, State of Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, 
United Arab Emirates, Yemen — The Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf 
Draft Technical Regulation for "Requirements of Handling Energy Drinks" , 
G/TBT/N/ARE/262 , G/TBT/ N/QAT/389 , G/TBT/N/SAU/669 , G/TBT/N/SAU/789 , 
G/TBT/N/ARE/299 , G/TBT/N/BHR/426 , G/TBT/N/KWT/309 , G/TBT/N/OMN/23 , 
G/TBT/N/QAT/423 , G/TBT/N/SAU/910 , G/TBT/N/YEM/29 , G/TBT/N/ARE/301 , 
G/TBT/N/BHR/428 , G/TBT/N/KWT/311 , G/TBT/N/OMN/240 , G/TBT/N/QAT/425 , 
G/TBT/N/S AU/912 , G/TBT/N/YEM/31 ( IMS ID 44222) 
3.134.   The representative of the United States  supported the public health objective  of the Gulf 
Cooperation Council  (GCC) of working to curb  excessive caffeine consumption but requested again 
that the GCC and GSO take into account the feedback from t he private sector in developing final 
regulations. The US had submitted comments in 2015 an d 2016, and requested that consideration 
be given to it s remaining  concerns, in particular regarding size and content of the warning labels, 
as well as container size limitations. In addition, the US requested information on what concerns 
the GCC had identified with regard to energy drinks and technical inform ation supporting the 
regulation of these products. The US understood that these regulations were still in development 
and requested any additional information Saudi Arabia could provide on the status of the 
regulatory process. The US remained available for  further discussion.  
3.135.   The representative of the European Union  repeated the concerns raised in the previous 
minutes.  
3.136.   The representative of Switzerland  supported other Members' interventions and expressed 
concern on the trade impact of the measures that GC C countries were developing in the area of 
energy drinks.  He recalled that under the TBT Agreement technical regulations should be based 
on international standards when they existed and not be more trade restrictive than necessary. 
Switzerland shared GCC' s public health objective and regulated these beverages based on 
international standards on nutritional labelling and health claims. He noted that the European Food 
Safety Agency found the level of protection of health of energy drinks to be safe and faile d to 
understand the conclusion of GCC members to go beyond Codex guidelines and to require 
producers to warn consumers about allegedly detrimental effects of specific consumption 
quantities or for certain groups . Switzerland lacked scientific evidence to b ack up these warnings 
and said that there were alternatives based on international standards and WHO recommendations 
such as information campaigns on the advantages of a balanced diet and of a healthy lifestyle. It 
remained unclear to what extent the GSO s tandard was applicable in other GCC countries and its 
relation with national measures on energy drinks in GCC countries. Switzerland had submitted 
comments in 2015 and 2016 and requested that consideration be given to them by the GCC and 
GSO. His delegatio n asked GCC countries for an update on regulatory developments.  
3.137.   The representative of the Kingdom of Bahrain , on behalf of the GCC, stated that the 
regulation was still bei ng drafted by the Gulf Technical C ommittee for food and agriculture 
standards. This committee was still  receiving comme nts and amendments from concerned 
Members. GCC countries remained available for further discussion .  
3.2.4.17   European Union — Common Criteria for Information Technology Security 
Evaluation (Common Criteria) certification in the E U (IMS ID 44823) 
3.138.   The representative of China  reported that since 2009, many Chinese companies had 
applied for Common Criteria  EAL 4+ c ertification in some EU member S tates.  The labour and 
financial cost s of a pplying for this certification were quite large, however  none of the companies 
had been  able to  obtain the certification, and their applicati ons to join JHAS had  also been refused. 
China said that Article 5 require d the equal treatment of foreign products, and the least trade -
distortive effect  in respect  of conformity assessment procedures . China hoped that the EU would 
provide national treatment to Chinese companies and products in respect of certification and 
joining standardizing bodies. Finally , China asked the  EU to increase  the transparency of JHAS 
standard s, and provide more Common Criteria related information, such as the organization of 
CCRA, SOGIS, JHAS, and their relevant work and functions.  
                                                
22 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 442  (unde r dates raised and references) . 
23 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 448  (under dates raised and references) . G/TBT/M/72  
 
- 26 - 
 
  3.139.   The representative of the European Union  said that, unlike in China, in the EU commercial 
encryption and encryption for national security were clearly distinguished. Encryption for national 
security was limited to a few sectors closely linked with national security m atters. Neither the EU 
nor its m ember States impose d mandatory cryptography standards or confo rmity assessment 
procedures to access the EU markets. He said it was up to individual companies to ensure secure 
transmission of data over their systems and networks.  
3.140.   The representative explained that European certification schemes were voluntary and 
based  on international standards for security evaluation (in particular, the Common Criteria 
standard ISO/IEC 15408, an international standard  since 1999) and global practices, such as the 
Common Criteria Recognition Arrangement (CCRA – international scheme) an d SOGIS -MRA 
(Senior Officers Group for Information Systems , Mutual Recognition Agreement – European 
scheme, EU Member States  plus EFTA countries).  The EU clarified that ICT security certification 
was a m ember State competence, and the security testing labo ratories operate d under the 
oversight of the national certification bodies established by EU member States. On these bases, 
the EU consider ed that these measures fell outside the scope of the TBT Agreement. The EU 
delegation had  repeatedly asked China to identify concrete measures, technical regulations or 
conformity assessment procedures, falling within the scope of the TBT Agreement.  
3.141.   The EU was of the view that regulatory approaches should not prevent authorities and IT 
system operators to use the best technology available, regardless of ownership of technology or 
location of equipment manufacturers. He clarified that while in China no foreign compan y had ever 
been granted a licenc e by OSCCA, some Chinese companies had obtained certification up to 
Evaluation Assurance Level (EAL) 4, which was high in the evaluation scale under the common 
criteria in international standards. He said that the JIL Hardware Attack Subgroup was not a 
standards body, but a subgroup composed of EU membe r State experts set up under the Senior 
Official Group on Information Systems Security (SOG -IS). The SOG -IS comprised only nine 
member States along with Norway and dealt with information security issues - those member 
States who were fully participating in  the Common Criteria Recognition Agreement. Finally, w hile 
Chinese stakeholders could participate in the activities of European standardization bodies in 
information security, some European companies had difficulties in participating in the activities of 
Chinese standardization bodies, such as the Technical Committee 260 (TC260).  
3.2.4.18   China — Administrative Measure on Cosmetics Labelling (AMCL) 
G/TBT/N/CHN/1064  (IMS ID 45624)  
3.142.   The representative of the European Union  repeated concerns raised in previous TBT 
Commi ttee meetings.   
3.143.   The representative of Japan  repeated three concerns such as manufacturer labelling  in 
Articles 14 and 15 of the draft measures, promotional advertising of cosmetics efficacy claims in 
Article 19 and 20 of the draft measures and providing cl ear guidance raised in previous TBT 
Committee meetings. He noted that, at the Committee's June meeting, China had mentioned that 
the draft AMCL would be revised according to the contents of "Regulations concerning Hygiene 
Supervision over Cosmetics " which was a superior regulation to the draft measures. Japan asked 
China to provide opportunity for public comment on the revision in accordance with WTO/TBT rules 
and encouraged China to explain the details of discussion on manufacturer labelling and efficacy 
assessment testing in the studies.  
3.144.   The representative of New Zealand  repeated  concerns raised in previous TBT Committee 
meetings . New Zealand encouraged China to ensure that these measures did not create 
unnecessary barriers to trade. In that respect, New Zealand also asked for clarification on whether 
animal testing for the safety of cosmetic products would continue to be required for imported 
cosmetic products if safety could be provide d through accepted alternative methods. It was noted 
that mandatory an imal testing requirements for domestically  manufactured cosmetics had been 
removed in 2014, and New Zealand encouraged China to ensure that imported cosmetics products 
would not be treated less favourably than domestic products in this respect.  
                                                
24 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 456  (under dates raised and references) . G/TBT/M/72  
 
- 27 - 
 
  3.145.   The repres entative of China  said that cosmetic labelling was quite important for Chinese 
consumers and that the regulation was still under drafting. China had collected many suggestions 
and comments from enterprises and/or associations both in the domestic market and abroad. 
These were being studied carefully a nd reasonable suggestions and comments would be absorbed . 
Following  international practice, China  would allow the imported products consistent with China' s 
relevant regulations to be attached with labels in Chinese.  
3.2.4.19   China — Registration Fees for Drugs and Medical Device Products 
(IMS ID 46625) 
3.146.   The representative of the Republic of Korea  repeated  concerns raised in previous TBT 
Committee meetings. In addition, with regard to Class II medical devices , while China provided for  
public registration fee s for impor ted devices, registration fee s for domestically manufactured 
devices were to be set by each provincial government wi thout any further information. In this 
regard, Korea requested  China to at least publish the registration fee criteria applied by Chinese 
provinces on Class II to domestic medical devices.  
3.147.   The representative of Canada  repeated concerns raised in previous TBT Committee 
meetings . She said China' s recently announced Circular on Streamlining and Regulating a Batch of 
Administrative Service Fees and the abolition of 41 administrative fees  was an  encouraging 
development.  
3.148.   The representative of Australia  repeated  concerns raised in previous TBT Committee 
meetings . 
3.149.   The representative of China  reiterated  the response provided in previous TBT Committee 
meetings. R egistration fees for drugs and medical devices were common practice internationally  
and t he regist ration fees in China were  calculated on the basis of cost. The difference between the 
drugs a nd medical devices only reflected  the different workl oad and pricing levels.  China continued 
to be of the view that registration fees should not be discussed in TBT Committee.  
3.2.4.20   Brazil — Draft Ordinance Act Nº 374, 27 November 2014 (Portaria SDA/MAPA 
374/2014) Establishes quality requirements for wine and deriv atives of grape and wine , 
G/TBT/N/BRA/613, G/TBT/N/BRA/613/Rev.1, G/TBT/N/BRA/675 (IMS ID 47026) 
3.150.   The representative of the European Union  thanked the Brazilian authorities for their reply 
of 22 May 2017 to the EU comments of 18 July 2016. The EU appreciated  that many of their 
comments had been taken into account, in particular that Annex II had been removed from the 
draft ordinance and that other comments with relation to the year of harvest, limitations to 
sparkling wine production, definition of spirit dri nks and definition of sangria had been entirely or 
partially incorporated into the revised draft. Nevertheless, some of the EU concerns had not been 
reflected in the revised draft ordinance, in particular in relation to the various limits set out in the 
annex that were not in line with OIV standards and also regarding , inter alia , indication of the 
colour and the sugar content on the label, use of the term "moscato", sugar content in liqueurs 
and definition of aromati zed wines. The EU took note that not all  comments could be taken on 
board in the revised draft ordinance since some of the respective provisions were based on higher 
level laws and regulations. However, there was willingness on the Brazilian side to consider 
addressing some of them in the future  and the EU was prepared to work bilaterally with Brazil in 
this respect. Finally, the EU welcomed the intention of the Brazilian authorities to hold a public 
consultation on the revised text towards the end of June, which would provide an additional 
oppor tunity for an exchange of views on the draft ordinance.  
3.151.   The representative of Brazil  stressed that the process relating to this ordinance was being 
conducted with openness and transparency. All comments had been taken into consideration, a 
public consultat ion had been held the previous year and agricultural authorities would hold a public 
consultation from 27 to 30 June 2017.  Brazil was following through all relevant provisions of the 
TBT Agreement and looked forward to working further with the EU on this matter.  
                                                
25 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 4 66 (under dates raised and references) . 
26 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 470  (under dates raised and references) . G/TBT/M/72  
 
- 28 - 
 
  3.2.4.21   Brazil — Toy Certification; Ordinance No. 89, No. 310 and draft administrative 
rule No. 321 G/TBT/N/BRA/612, G/TBT/N/BRA/612/Add.1  (IMS ID 47827) 
3.152.   The representative of the European Union  thanked Brazil for clarifications provided at the 
March 2017  Committee meeting concerning various aspects of INMETRO's Ordinance No. 563 of 
29 December 2016, in particular as regards the implementation timeline and the certification 
process. While the EU understood the rationale behind the measure, which was to incr ease the 
traceability of toys and facilitate recall of toys in case of safety issues, the requirement on the 
registration of individual toys with INMETRO according to the concept of product family continued 
to be the main concern for European toy manufactu rers. He reiterated the concerns raised in 
previous meetings.  
3.153.   The representative s of Canada  and the United States  echoed the concerns raised by the 
EU. Canada repeated the statements that had been previously delivered by her delegation on this 
measure.  
3.154.   The representative of Brazil  stressed that the preparation of this measure had been 
undertaken in an open and transparent manner. Comments from Members had been taken into 
account and had led to the removal of the filming requirement. Two public consultations  had taken 
place in 2014. He confirmed that implementation guidelines would be made available to help 
producers comply with the law.  This registration requirement also applied to 69 other products 
with which there did not appear to be any issue.  Neverthe less, Inmetro had created a working 
party specifically on toy registration.  This register would guarantee the traceability and provide 
additional information to consumers and was in line with internationally approved market 
surveillance benchmarks. INMETR O had met with representatives from the toy industry and was 
willing to meet with them again if necessary.  
3.2.4.22   China — Interim Measures for Quality Managemen t of Commercial Coal, (IMS 
ID 47728) 
3.155.   The representative of Australia  repeated  concerns raised in previou s TBT Committee 
meetings.  Retesting of coal in China was causing significant delays for Australian exports and 
adding greatly to the cost of trade. She stressed that Australian testing facilities were equipped to 
accurately test for quality and purity stan dards, and that Australian coal exceeded these high 
standards.   
3.156.   The representative of China  said that the measure at issue came into force in January 
2015 and, since that date both imported coal and domestic coal were required to satisfy the same 
standard s. 
3.2.4.23   India — The Stainless Steel Products (Quality Control) Order, 2015  
(IMS  ID 48629) 
3.157.   The representative of the European Union  repeated concerns expressed at the previous 
meeting. Given the low risk of the steel products subject to certification, and that EU steel 
producers already complied with internationally recognised standards for safety and quality 
recognized around the wor ld, the EU again requested that India:  accept tests carried out in foreign 
accredited laboratories attesting compliance with ISO standards (or India standards) thus not 
requiring local testing in India for all types of steel products ; and not conduct facto ry inspections 
of EU steel mills with quality management systems (QMS) a s defined in ISO 9001  in place . Finally, 
recalling the bilateral meeting with India on the margins of the March 2017 meeting, the EU 
reiterated its request for additional information a bout the reasons for the low number of licences 
being issued to the EU manufacturers.  
3.158.   The representative of India recalled that the Quality Control Order aimed to ensure quality 
and durability of stainless steel products intended for critical end -use appli cations. He noted that 
many of the steel products were also used as final products. The order was equally applicable to 
                                                
27 For previous statements follow the thread unde r IMS ID 47 8 (under dates raised and references) . 
28 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 47 7 (under dates raised and references) . 
29 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 486  (under dates raised and references) . G/TBT/M/72  
 
- 29 - 
 
  both domestic and foreign manufacturers. Regarding concerns about the necessity of the measure, 
India reiterated that quality of the sta inless steel was of utmost importance as it involved public 
health, safety and security. For the requirement of testing, India stated that the BIS (Certification) 
Regulations 1988, required evidence of conformity of the product to the relevant Indian standard 
through testing in a BIS/BIS -recognized laboratory, for the purpose of granting a BIS marks 
certification licence. Samples were drawn for testing in the independent laboratories for assessing 
conformity to the relevant standard before granting a licenc e. Indian standards specif ied the 
method of tests, and the labs recognized by BIS carr ied out tests as per the test methods and 
requirements defined in Indian standards.  
3.159.   With respect to the cost of certification, India informed the Committee that testing c harges 
for samples were part of the annual marking fee for operating the licence, and said that the BIS 
certification cost was reasonable. Concerning the suggestion that steel mills with ISO 9001 quality 
management system in place be exempted from the requ irement of factory inspections, India 
stated that product certification was different from QMS certification. The visit to the factory 
premises and verification and testing in the factory, was part of the BIS Conformity Assessment 
Scheme. On the other hand , he noted that ISO 9001 certification did not cover factory testing as 
per Indian standards. Finally, India informed the Committee that the Indian standard on stainless 
steel plate, sheet and strip, referred to in the Quality Control Order, was revised fr om 
IS 6911:1992 to IS 6911:2017. In this revision, 21 new grades of stainless steel had been 
incorporated.  
3.2.4.24   India — Draft Food Safety and Standards (Alcoholic Beverages Standards) 
Regulations, 2015, G/TBT/N/IND/51 (IMS ID 49430) 
3.160.   The representative of the European Union  repeated  concerns raised in previous TBT 
Committee meetings. He requested confirmation that comments provided by the EU had been 
taken into account in the revised draft regulations covering standards and additives for alcoholic 
beverages . The E U understood that this text had been sent for ministerial approval and  that its 
publication in the Gazette was expected in June 2017.  
3.161.   The representative of Japan  shared the concerns of the EU. While Japan's comments had 
been replied to by India, it had been difficult to assess from the reply whether the comments had 
been taken into account. He therefore asked India to provide a consolidated draft text.  
3.162.   The repres entative of Canada  asked India when the standard would enter into force. While 
Canada appreciated the update provided by India at the previous Committee meeting, it hoped to 
see a similar definition for Canadian whisky , like other whiskies,  as a whisky dis tilled and matured 
in Canada in accordance with the laws applicable thereto in Canada.  
3.163.   The representative of India referred Members to replies provided in the previous meetings 
of the Committee. Following the March TBT Committee meeting, the Indian delegat ion had 
forwarded the written replies from FSSAI to concerned delegations. There had been no further 
update since then. He believed all questions raised had thus been responded to and asked that 
concerned Members forward their remaining questions in writin g. 
3.2.4.25   China — Formula Registration Regulation for Infant and Follow -up Formula , 
G/TBT/N/CHN/1165  (IMS ID 49331)  
3.164.   The representative s of the European Union  and Japan  repeated  concerns raised in previous 
TBT Committee meetings.    
3.165.   The representative of the United  States  supported the EU's concerns and sought to ensure 
that trade would not be disrupted as a result of Decree 26, and hoped  to gain full understanding of 
the measure.  The US had recently provided comments on the implementation of CFDA 
Announcement 175 .  The US asked the implementation date for this measure  and whether China 
had feedback on US comments.  The U S kindly requested  China to notify this measure to the WTO. 
                                                
30 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 494  (under dates raised and references) . 
31 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 493  (under dates raised and references) . G/TBT/M/72  
 
- 30 - 
 
  She recalled that at the March 2017 TBT Committee meeting, China had indicated that the purpose 
of limiting the number of products on the market under Decree 26 was to avoid "consumer 
confusion" and "deceptive trade practices". The US asked China to explain wha t consumers were 
confused about and  what the deceptive trade pra ctices were . She also recalled that China said that 
infant formula was designed to be a replacement for breast milk and that there should not be 
many formulations available.  The US requested the basis for this position.  
3.166.   The representative of China  reitera ted that the huge domestic demand and rapid 
development of the infant formula milk powder  industry as well as the challenges of market 
disorder had led to consumer confusion caused by too many brands and formula on the market.   
China said infant formula sh ould only be a nutritional supplement to breastfeeding, that the 
composition of infant formula milk powder should be similar to breast milk, and that there should 
not be too many kinds of formula. China's research had concluded that large foreign infant fo rmula 
manufacturers had no more than three brands. To address Members' concerns on on -site 
inspection, China clarified that it mainly focused  on the R&D data of milk powder formulas and 
manufacturers' capacity to turn formulas into production . Her delegati on emphasized that the 
regulation was applied in a non -discriminatory manner and that a transitional period had been 
provid ed to avoid unnecessary trade distortions.  
3.2.4.26   Indonesia — Halal Product Assurance Law No. 33 of 2014 (IMS ID 50232) 
3.167.   The representative o f the European Union  repeated  concerns with the Indonesian Halal 
Product Guarantee Law. A clearer idea of the specific products covered by the law was necessary 
for Members as t he lack of transparency on implementing rules and the fragmented approach 
create d uncertainty as to the requirements applicable at any point in time. The European Union 
asked for an update on the development of implementing provisions on halal and the timing for 
adoption, reminding Indonesia of their transpa rency obl igations.  
3.168.   The representative of the United States  repeated  concerns raised in previous TBT 
Committee meetings . 
3.169.   The representative of Brazil  supported the concerns raised by the EU and the US. Given 
the profound impact this measure would have on in ternational trade, he asked Indonesia when this 
measure would be notified to the WTO and whether there would be an opportunity to provide 
comments.  
3.170.   The representative of Australia  repeated  concerns with the Indonesian Halal Product 
Guarantee Law. To date,  Australia had still not received a response to its request for clarification 
on some aspec ts of the regulations including on the requirement for certification or labelling of 
non-halal product; the very broad coverage of the regulation extending to consum er goods and 
services; and the treatment of existing halal certification assurance systems.  
3.171.   The representative of Indonesia  stated that the Halal Product Assurance Law was 
scheduled to be applicable in 2019 when all related products being distributed and sold would 
require halal certification. The rules of procedure were currently being developed between 
ministries and the implementation regulation would be equipped with a number of ministerial 
regulations for the ministry of religious affairs to review sp ecific matters. The harmonization aimed  
to ensure that the review was undertaken  without overlapping with existing rules. This law did not 
prohibit the sale and circulation of non -halal products, it provided certainty to consumers about 
the halal products by clearly indicating which products were halal and which were non -halal, and 
allowed consumers to choose freely. Indonesia remained available for further discussion with 
interested Members.  
                                                
32 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 502 (under dates raised and references) . G/TBT/M/72  
 
- 31 - 
 
  3.2.4.27   Thailand — Milk Code - Draft Act on Controlling to the Marketing Promotion on 
Food for Infant and Young Children and Other Related Products BE , G/TBT/N/THA/471, 
G/TBT/N/THA/471/Rev.1  (IMS ID 50333) 
3.172.   The representative of the United States  strongly support ed the public health objective of 
increasing breast feeding, and her delegation  acknowledge d receipt of the revision to the measure, 
which include d a welcome  modification, allowing adverti sing of food for young children.  Both the 
US government and the US  industry plan ned to submit comments on the revised measure through 
Thailand' s Enquiry Point.  The US underst ood the Committee on the Control of Marketing of Infant 
and Young Child food ha d been granted substantial authority, including  developing a system for 
monitoring the marketing of foods for infants, young children and s upplementary food for infants 
and providing advice to the Ministry of Public Health to ensure compliance with the measure.  She 
mentioned that the US  comments would  address questions on the broad definition of foods for 
young children and the Marketing Comm ittee's work to ensure compliance with the measure. Her 
delegation  welcome d any c omments or feedback from Thailand on the scope of the Marketing 
Committee 's work.  
3.173.   The representative s of Australia , the European Union  and Canada  repeated  and supported 
others  concerns raised in previous TBT Committee meetings.  
3.174.   The representative of Thailand  explained that the draft Milk Code ha d recently been 
modified, and Thailand had notified the second revision to WTO Members in April 2017, which 
reflected its transparency and sincerity for Members to have opportunities for comments and 
feedback . The exact time frame  for enforcement was to be confirmed.  His delegation understood 
that the industries need ed sufficient time to adjust their practices , so the draft M ilk Code provided  
an appropriate transition period for any measures.  A Marketing Committee would  be established 
under this draft act to ensure effective enforcement. Various stakeholder representatives would be 
engaged as Committee members. The representat ive inform ed that Thailand ha d been using 
Codex as its guide to develop its quality and safety standards for food including milk products , and 
ensured that the  application of these guidelines did not  contradict with Codex.  He emphasised 
Thailand's need for  this draft act to control the marketing promotion of milk products that were 
specifically marketed for infants and young children in order to protect breastfeeding practice of 
mothers and children , as breastfeeding provided  great lifelong benefit for them . Thailand 
welcomed comments and suppo rt from M embers to help Thailand achieve the goal on 
breastfeeding according to global target by 2025 . 
3.2.4.28   Russian Federation — Rules of cement certification , G/TBT/N/RUS/48, 
G/TBT/N/RUS/49 (IMS ID 49734) 
3.175.   The representative  of the European Union  repeated  concerns raised in previous TBT 
Committee meetings. She recalled that her delegation had already raised this issue during the 
Council on Trade in Goods (CTG) of 17 November 2016 . The EU expressed particular concern with  
Russia's continued adoption, prior to notification, of restrictive, disproportionate and unjustified 
measures before their entry into force. Since the introduction of the mandatory certificate for 
cement, in March 2016, no i mporter had  been able to ship cement  to Russia (excluding those of 
white cement which was not produced in sufficient quantities in Russia). The EU therefore called 
upon Russia to inform its customs that valid certificates could not be rejected at the border, and to 
ensure that the EU exporte rs would no longer face unjustified refusals at the border.  
3.176.   She also noted that at the end of January 2017 Russia had adopted an amendment of the 
Russian mandatory standard for cement GOST R 56836 -2016, which introduced additional 
obstacles to importers t o import cement in Russia. The EU requested Russia to provide an official 
copy of this amendment to WTO Members. Furthermore, the EU called upon Russia to notify to the 
WTO the amended GOST with sufficient time before its formal adoption and entry into for ce to 
allow a proper discussion. The amended GOST, in her delegation's opinion, created additional 
obstacles on importation. Among the new requirements, the EU highlighted the following ones: 
(i) the extension from 10 working days to 30 days for the respon se to an application for a 
conformity certificate; (ii)  the requirement for a separate certificate for each type of cement; 
                                                
33 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 503 (under dates raised and references) . 
34 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 497 (unde r dates raised and references) . G/TBT/M/72  
 
- 32 - 
 
  (iii) the requirement, for importers only, that at the border one shipment was defined by one type 
and quality of cement, and had to  be tested according to the relevant standard. This requirement, 
she said, was extremely burdensome and represented a de facto  ban due to the impossibility of 
storing at the border a train composed of more than 50 wagons for 28 days, a time period 
necessar y to do the testing. Still with respect to this particular requirement, she then asked Russia 
to confirm whether the strength test had to be conducted at the border and explain why it was 
necessary for importers to do all this testing given that domestic p roducers were not subject to the 
same strict control; (iv)  the requirement to have the quality of cement producer proven and 
confirmed by a non -identified authority. With respect to this particular requirement, she then 
asked Russia to specify who would co nduct this control and how Russia would ensure that such 
checks would be done in an efficient and timely manner; (v) the requirement that only few 
conformity assessments bodies were accredited to issue certificates. With  respect to this particular 
requirem ent, she then asked if Russia could provide guarantees that there would be sufficient 
number of bodies and those would have the capacity to issue the necessary certificates to 
importers, given that this was important because a number of the biggest bodies refuse d the 
applications of importers on the basis of lack of resources to conduct the assessment; and, finally, 
(vi) with respect to business confidential information (BCI), she asked Russia to confirm that it 
would not require BCI in the conformity asses sment procedure, in particular pursuant to point 6.3 
of the GOST.  
3.177.    The EU also reiterated its request for Russia to suspend all evoked measures that led to a 
de facto ban of EU -originating cement imports, to justify the additional testing processes at the  
border for each cement batch exported to Russia by the EU in light of the TBT rules. The EU also 
asked Russia to confirm that the strength test would not have to be performed for certified 
cement, as this would lead to th e product being blocked at the bor der. 
3.178.   The representative of Mexico  repeated concerns put forth in previous meetings. She noted 
that her delegation believed that Russia may be infringing Article 5.1.1, 5.1.2 and 5.2.1 of the TBT 
Agreement by applying the conformity assessment procedure est ablished in the measure in a 
manner more burdensome for imported cement than for domestic cement and that from Eurasian 
countries. She reiterated the concern that Russia may be failing to ensure that assessment 
procedures were undertaken and completed as e xpeditiously as possible.  
3.179.   The representative of Ukraine  repeated  concerns raised in previous TBT Committee 
meetings . 
3.180.   The representative of Kazakhstan  stated that Kazakhstan and Russia were very close 
trading partners and founders of the Customs Union. He expressed his delegation's regret that 
they had to join others in raising concerns . Cement producers were experiencing serious problems 
in accessing the Russian market due to the se measures. Kazakhstan was specifically concerned 
with the unsubstantiated refusal to issue certificates for conformity and delays in their issuance. 
When  applying for certificates of conformity before the Russian bodies, Kazakhstan's applicants 
were placed  at the end of the queue for the season of sales of cement, regardless of early or late 
submission of application. This was incompatible with Article 5.2.1 of the TBT Agreement. 
Kazakhstan asked that Russia provide non -discriminatory treatment for Kazakhst an's products in 
comparison to Russian domestic products and other domestic products in terms of conformity 
assessment procedures for cement.  
3.181.   The representative of the Russian Federation  explained that the requir ement for  
mandatory certification of cement in Russia was due to the urgent problems stemming from 
danger s to life and health; problems that were directly due to the content of a carcinogen and, 
indirectly, also due to the quality and reliability deterioration in buildings and constructions. For 
inspection control, he explained that the rules of cement certification provided for two forms 
thereof: (i)  inspection control at a production site; and (ii)  inspection control of the products on 
the border. Inspection control at a production site presumed a complex control of the production, 
which was conducted no less than once every six months, and additional inspections on 
unscheduled basis. Control of products was a simple r, less costly procedure.  G/TBT/M/72  
 
- 33 - 
 
  3.2.4.29   Egypt — Manufacturer Registration System (Decree No. 43/20 16 and Decree 
No. 992/2015) G/TBT/N/EGY/114, G/TBT/N/EGY/115 (IMS ID 50535) 
3.182.   The representative of the United States , the European Union , Ukraine , Canada  and 
Australia  reiterated concerns raised in previous TBT Committee meetings and supported the 
concerns r aised by other Members.   
3.183.   The representative of Turkey  repeated  concerns raised in previous TBT Committee 
meetings. The requirements of the measures were clearly disproportionate so as to prevent 
exportation to Egypt and were  creating distortions to trade flows, introducing barriers to trade and 
acting as a quantitative restriction.  
3.184.   The representative of Switzerland  said it was still unclear  how Decree  No. 43/2016 would 
contribute to the objective of Egyptian authorities and whether the circumstances  giving rise to the 
adoption of these measures still exist ed. The lack of clarity of the registration process, the 
requirements to be fulfilled and the actual implementation of the measures continued to be of 
concern. It still remained unclear how applicat ions were evaluated and if the completion of the 
process was subject to any time  limit. Switzerland  therefore  encourage d Egypt to consider a less 
trade -restrictive approach to bringing its legislation and implementation in to compliance with the 
principles and rules of the WTO and TBT Agreement.  
3.185.   The representative of Thailand  said this measure had begun to affect Thai exports to Egypt 
and looked forward to meeting bilaterally . 
3.186.   The representative of Egypt  explained that the decree required the registration of  the 
manufacturing plants and companies owning trademarks qualified to export their products to 
Egypt. This measure, however, did not deal with, or require, compliance of products with specific 
technical regulations. This decree was therefore administrativ e in nature and, as such, did  not 
impose further burdens on producers or companies to comply with specific technical regulations. 
Although Egyptian imports from the products listed in the decree represented only a minimal share 
in total Egyptian imports, t he Egyptian market ha d been witnessing within the last few years a 
sharp increase of imports of such products. This sharp increase was due, however, to illegal 
manufacturing practices, which were having a negative impact on consumers' health and safety. 
Egypt also confirmed that Egyptian manufacturing plants and companies were also subject to 
registration, surveillance and inspection requirements by numerous Egyptian regulatory authorities 
in order to ensure their compliance with relevant regulations. On th e issue of whether the quality 
certificates were deemed to be sufficient for registration, Egypt confirmed that any certificates 
were issued by entities accredited by national or regional accreditation bodies (ILAC) or (IAF), or 
an Egyptian or foreign gove rnmental entity approved by the competen t minister . Copies of these 
certificates were also accepted, given that the Egyptian authorities could access an electronic 
version there of on the database of the accredited certification service providers. Further, 
registration fees were payed only once for the manufacturing plants and the companies owning 
trademarks. Moreover, registration remained valid as long as the quality certificate was valid. 
Registration duration was largely depending on manufacturers submit ting the full file, including all 
data and required certificat ion.  
3.187.   She expressed her delegation's strong belief that the registration requirements under 
Decree No.  43/2016 were not more trade  restrictive than necessary . Since the full implementation 
of the decree, hundreds of producers and manufacturers had been registered  and no company 
registration request had been refused to date . All concerns and requests raised on these measures 
had been conveyed to capital, where som e were still being examined due to privacy concerns. She 
stressed her delegation's intention to fully cooperate and its commitment to tackle all concerns 
raised by Members.  
                                                
35 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 505  (under dates raised and references) . G/TBT/M/72  
 
- 34 - 
 
  3.2.4.30   Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, Rwanda, Burundi — East African Community 
alcoholic beverag e standards , G/TBT/N/KEN/472 -477, G/TBT/N/KEN/479, 
G/TBT/N/KEN/482 -483, G/TBT/N/KEN/556 -561 G/TBT/N/KEN/563 -565 
G/TBT/N/KEN/567, G/TBT/N/UGA/434 -435, G/TBT/N/UGA/437 -441 (IMS ID 510 
and 51936) 
3.188.   The representative of the European Union  repeated  concerns raised in previous TBT 
Committee meetings. In addition, he welcomed the news that during the revision proc ess of the 
standard, the EAC had  removed some of the problematic provisions, in particular those regarding 
analytical parameters. The EU welc omed this step in the right direction. He also invited Uganda 
and Kenya to explain the process foreseen in order to incorporate these standards into the 
appropriate technical regulations. In this regard, the EU encouraged all EAC members to adopt the 
stand ard in a harmoni zed way as national deviations from the regional standard would create 
additional barriers to trade. Lastly, he  recall ed that the minimum time for the entry into force of 
the new technical regulations should be at least six months, and enco urage d EAC members to 
provide an even longer transition period to allow companies to adapt to the new requirements.  
3.189.   The representatives of the United States  thank ed Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda for their 
recent notifications of draft alcohol beverage standar ds that sought  to implement revised East 
African Community (EAC) standards.  The US urged Rwanda and Burundi to also fully notify these 
alcohol standards to the WTO if they intend ed to adopt them, and to provide an opportunity for 
comment prior to finalizat ion. The US  appreciate d the opportunity that these notifications provide d 
for WTO Members to submit comments, but was concerned that Kenya' s plan to adopt the 
standards in June 2017 so shortly after the comment period close d provide d very little time for 
review and revision. The US asked Kenya to confirm whether this was  the correct timeline and, if 
so, whether  further revisions were possible.  
3.190.   The US appreciated the efforts that the EAC countries ha d made to revise the draft 
regional EAC alcohol standards f ollowing comments from the US and other WTO Members. She 
noted that in a number of areas their comments had been taken into account  positively . 
3.191.   That said, there were still a number of outstanding concerns that were more fully set out in 
their written comments. In this respect she highlighted: the overly restrictive list of permitted 
additives for wines which did not include many additives that are commonly permitted in major 
wine-producing countries; and, the lack of clarity about the kinds of whisk ies that may be sold in 
the EAC. The US urged Kenya and its EAC partners to delay national adoption until these concerns 
had been resolved, otherwise US trade would be impacted. The US supported the EAC 's efforts to 
protect its citizens and reduce the  impact of the consumption of adulterated alcoholic beverages.  
The US welcomed discussions with EAC members to find a solution that could fulfil legitimate 
objectives without unnecessarily restricting trade.  
3.192.   The representative of Kenya  noted that EAC harm onized alcoholic beverage standards had  
first been notified by Kenya to the Committee in July 2016. As a result of comments from Members 
as well as from other stakeholders, the EAC harmonized alcoholic beverage standards ha d been 
undergoing review. Kenya appreciated the comments received from the EU and US following 
Kenya's recent notifications of the revised draft EAC alcoholic beverage standards. These 
comments were currently under consideration by the EAC regional technical committee, along with 
the com ments received during our public review process. The technical committee was also 
examining specific issues where clarification may be required, and Kenya would revert with 
appropriate responses. He explained that the final version of the EAC alcoholic bev erage standards 
by the regional technical committee would have to be adopted by the EAC council of ministers 
before implementation by individual EAC member states. Kenya  remained available for further 
discussion with the EU and US, and any other interested  Members, as the EAC moved towards the 
final stages of the conclusion and the adoption of the revised EAC alcoholic beverage standards.  
                                                
36 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 510  and IMS ID 519  (under dates raised and 
references) . G/TBT/M/72  
 
- 35 - 
 
  3.2.4.31   European Union — Quality Schemes for Agricultural Products and Foodstuffs , 
G/TBT/ N/EU/139 , G/TBT/ N/EU/139/Add.1  (IMS ID 51237) 
3.193.   The representative of the United States  recalled that the EU had notified the above -
mentioned measure under the TBT Agreement. This was a labelling issue with elements that 
concerned Codex standards that were subject to TBT disciplines. The United St ates asked the EU 
for a status update on Denmark' s applications, which had been pending since 2014. Was there a 
statute of limitations for how long an application could be outstanding?  Did an open application 
ever expire, and if so, would Denmark need to reapply or resubmit its application? Outstanding 
concerns needed to be discussed amongst both IP and TBT experts as soon as possible.  
3.194.   The representative of Uruguay  remained interested in the matter, particularly regarding 
the application of Denmark for the Danbo term as a geographical indication in accordance with EU 
law. Like the US, Uruguay considered that this theme was relevant to the TBT Committee; it was 
not o nly an IP issue. This was certainly so for Danbo: Codex 24/2006, which had been updated 
many times, established quality criteria for this type of cheese.  
3.195.   The representative of the European Union  repeated responses given in previous TBT 
Committee meetings.   
3.2.4.32   The Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Pehghu, Kinmen and Matsu – Draft 
of the Organic Agriculture Act , G/TBT/N/TPKM/225, G/TBT/N/TPKM/225 Add.1 -2 
(IMS  ID 51138) 
3.196.   The European Union  thanked Chinese Taipei for bilateral engagement, and repeated 
concerns expressed in the previous meeting.  
3.197.   The representative of the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and 
Matsu reported that the Draft Organic Agriculture Act was still under review and would undergo 
the legislative process for approval after the final review. He assured the EU that its comment on 
the one -year period for concluding an equivalence agreement for organic agriculture products 
would be taken into account along with comments from other WTO Members and domestic 
stakeholders. Chinese T aipei welcomed consultations on new bilateral equivalence agreements 
even before the measure was adopted, and would spare no efforts to work with Members on 
facilitating conclusion of such agreements.  
3.198.   Regarding the EU' s question about clarity of product co verage and process stage coverage, 
he said that Article 3 provided their definitions. He stressed that the Organic Agriculture Act was 
the primary law, and once the Act was adopted, the implementing regulations, which would  be 
based on the current practice s, would  be announced for commenting. Finally, he mentioned 
bilateral discussions with the EU over the past months, and at the most recent bilateral meeting in 
June, the Agriculture and Food Agency had provided more detailed information. Chinese Taipei 
remained available for further discussion with the EU.  
3.2.4.33   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 50939) 
3.199.   The representative of the European Union  repeated conce rns expressed in the previous 
meeting , as they had not been resolved despite bilateral discussions . China impose d mandatory 
standards which include d unnecessary deviations from well -known international ISO standards. 
These specific and costly tests  raised a question  as to whether Chinese testing laboratories would 
be equipped for carrying out  such tests . Furthermore,  the parameter TVOC (Total Volatile Organic 
Compounds) measured a sum of harmful and harmless substances ; there was concern  that this 
risked m ixing up the tested values for individual substances, meaning that a significant value for a 
harmful substance could be shrouded by average values. This could have important environmental 
and/or health consequences.  The EU also asked how the differentiatio n between voluntary and 
                                                
37 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 51 2 (under dates raised and references) . 
38 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 511  (under  dates raised and references) . 
39 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 509  (under dates raised and references) . G/TBT/M/72  
 
- 36 - 
 
  mandatory requirements would apply, e.g. what limits and/or other requirements were included in 
the notified drafts (e.g. formaldehyde emissions).  The EU noted that, as at previous Committee 
meetings, China had indicated that deviat ions from international standards were justified by 
realistic conditions of use – and, she understood, the notified standards were still under 
development. However, since a considerable time had now elapsed since they had first been 
announced (July 2015), China was asked to provide a progress report on their development as 
soon as possible, together with the likely date of entry into force.  In the meantime, China was 
asked to accept equivalent international standards for the relevant product categories.  
3.200.   The representative of China  reiterated responses given in previous TBT Committee 
meetings.   
3.2.4.34   Kazakhstan, Russian Federation, Kyrgyz Republic — The amendments No. 2 to 
the Technical Regulation of the Customs Union on Safety of Toys (TÐ ÌÑ 008/2011) 
GTBT/N/KAZ/ 7,  G/TBT/N/RUS/73, G/TBT/N/KGZ/48   IMS ID 51440 
3.201.   The representative of the European Union  reiterated his delegation's concerns about the 
proposed amendment to the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU)'s Technical Regulation on the Safety 
of Toys. The EU acknowledg ed the need to protect children's health and safety but noted that the 
proposed requirements bore no relation to the stated objective of "protecting children from the 
possible negative impact of toys on their development and health, causing aggressive behaviour, 
fear and anxiety" . According to the revised proposal submitted by Kazakhstan to the EAEU 
Working Group in charge of this matter on 31 March 2017, the amendment would now be 
specifically applied to dolls. The proposal would prohibit the marketing  of dolls not complying with 
the very prescriptive psychological and pedagogical criteria laid down in the proposal. One of these 
criteria, for instance, related to the requirement that "Dolls must give a true image of a person, 
corresponding to different age stages; and dolls should be externally attractive and represent the 
image of a physically healthy person" . The EU requested an update on the state of play with 
respect to process both at EAEU and national level in Kazakhstan and Russia. Following the p ublic 
consultation conducted by the EAEU last year (until 30 November 2016) on the first draft proposal, 
the EU had understood that an additional stakeholder consultation had been carried out by the 
Russian Ministry of Economic Development and Trade (deadl ine: 14 March 2017), which had 
resulted in the issuance of a negative opinion on the Kazakh proposal by the Ministry on 28 April. 
The EU considered this negative opinion as confirming the lack of any scientific basis of the 
proposed amendment.  
3.202.   The represe ntative of the United States  said that, while her delegation strongly supported 
the desire of the Eurasian Economic Commission  (EEC) to protect the emotional well -being of 
children, it was also important to continue discussing with EEC members ways to achi eve this 
objective in a manner that would not unnecessarily restrict trade. The US had  a number of 
concerns with the proposed measures, which would isolate EAEU Members as the only countries in 
the world to apply such criteria to toys: (i)  the fact that th e proposed measure could impact trade, 
by prohibiting access for certain types of dolls, and creating significant uncertainty for exporters ; 
(ii) the lack of specifics regarding pre -market evaluation and potential arbitrary application of the 
psychological  criteria, which were subjective ; (iii) the fact that the measures were not based on 
international standards, which recommended less trade -restrictive alternatives; and (iv)  concerns 
with respect to the proportionality of the measures and the use of risk a ssessment. In this latter 
respect, she said that it was unclear to the US how EAEU members had identified and studied the 
causal risk of particular types of dolls for the emotional well -being of children.  The US expected 
EAEU members to have a scientific basis for the proposed market prohibition that would justify 
that approach over less trade -restrictive alternatives. The US was unaware of scientific evidence to 
support the claim that toys negatively impacted a child's well -being. It was impossible to iso late 
the influence of toys from other influences in a child's life, including the environment in which the 
child grew  up, parenting, and peer influence. Could Kazakhstan please explain the scientific basis 
for the criteria that were being used to limit toy  dolls in its market? The US also suggested that 
Kazakhstan explore less trade -restrictive alternatives to achieve its objective. For example, age 
grading was a globally recognized practice cited in international standards that applied to ensure 
children h ad access to toys that were appropriate and safe for particular stages of physical and 
                                                
40 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 514  (under dates raised and references) . 
 G/TBT/M/72  
 
- 37 - 
 
  mental development. As noted in Annex 1 to the ISO 8124 Toy Safety Standard, "age grading is 
intended to provide point of sale guidance to consumers for the selection of  appropriate toys for 
children with respect to average abilities, interests of various age groups, and safety aspects of the 
toys themselves." The US thus urged Kazakhstan to consider the unintended consequences of 
implementing the measure, as amended, not ing that toys that represented children with 
disabilities would be banned from the market.   
3.203.    The representative of Ukraine  supported the concerns raised by EU and US. Ukraine 
requested Kazakhstan and Russia to address the following issues : (i) why certifi cation by 
conformity assessment body of the EAEU  was issuing a certificate of conformity for the toys; 
(ii) the existence of requirements for conformity assessment procedures stricter than on the 
territories of other WTO Members, which were specified in th e mentioned Technical Regulations, 
should be justified on the basis of provision of a scientifically substantiated clarification by 
Kazakhstan and the Russian Federation;  (iii) the fact that the requirements that conformity 
assessment procedures did not cr eate unjustified barriers to international trade (TBT Article 5.1.2) 
had not been met. Ukraine called on Kazakhstan and Russia to remove unjustified technical 
barriers to trade and to bring the provisions of the mentioned technical regulations in line with  
international practice, and to respond all comments and concerns Ukraine had sent to Kazakhstan 
previously  in March .  
3.204.   The representative of Kazakhstan  said that, with respect to the questions of the US and EU 
regarding the scientific basis,  the draft ame ndments had been initiated on the basis of the 
scientific research called "Impact of Toys Which Do Not Meet Psychological and Pedagogical 
Criteria to Psychological Health of Children ", conducted by Kazakh State Woman Pedagogical 
University in 2016. The dra ft amendments were still being discussed by the working group in order 
to take into account comments received during public consultation.  The representative thanked 
the US for constructive conversation at the DVC held between their capitals shortly before  the 
meeting. The comments and proposals had been very useful and served as a good basis for further 
improvement of the draft amendments. Kazakhstan would study carefully the ISO standards 
referred to by EU and the US and explore if they were helpful to ac hieve Kazakhstan's legitimate 
objective. He also expressed Kazakhstan's strong commitment to WTO rules and its intention to 
making every effort to reach a less trade -restrictive effect of the measure. With respect to the 
comment of Ukraine, he referred to Kazakhstan's previous answers, made in November 2016 and 
March 2017.  
3.205.    Public consultations on the draft technical regulation had taken place in July -August 2010. 
No comments or questions had been received from Ukraine in the course of these consultations.  
Certification of conformity of toys had always been applied in Kazakhstan, even before adoption of 
the Customs Union Technical Regulation "On Safety of Toys" . Kazakhstan's authorities had never 
registered any problem with obtaining conformity certificate for products originating from Ukraine. 
To date, 83 certificates had been issued by Kazakhstan's conformity assessment bodies to the toys 
of Ukraine. He further noted that several other WTO Members also required certification of 
conformity. He concluded by reminding Ukraine that the TBT Agreement did not preclude a 
Member from choosing a type of conformity assessment scheme that it considered appropriate in 
ensuring its legitimate objective.  
3.206.    The representative of the Russian Federation  said that in the EAEU , each member could 
initiate the development of technical regulation or amendments to technical regulation. Russia was 
not the developer of draft amendments No.  2 to the Technical Regulation of the Customs Union on 
Safety of Toys. Like other WTO Members, t he Russian Federation and Russian stakeholders had 
participated in the public discussion. According to the procedure on drafting, adopting, amendment 
and cancellation of the EAEU technical regulations (adopted by Eurasian Economic Commission 
Council Decisi on No. 48 of 20 June 2012) a special Working Group had been created including 
representatives of all member states to review the draft amendments, as well as all comments 
received.  G/TBT/M/72  
 
- 38 - 
 
  3.2.4.35   Korea — Amendment of the Notifications on Warning Messages on Smoking 
and D rinking G/TBT/N/KOR/664, G/TBT/N/KOR/664/Add.1 (IMS ID 51841) 
3.207.   The representative of the European Union  repeated the concerns raised in the previous 
minutes . Regarding the transition period for application for the measure, he underst ood that Korea 
had shown flexibility in accommodating the concerns of Members relative to the need to provide 
sufficient time for industry to adapt to the new measur es, and  that the end of the transition period 
had been set at 8 February 2018.  He asked Korea to confirm that  8 February  2018 was the final 
date for placing the imported  goods on the Korean market, which could  then be sold until 
exhaustion of stocks, or else to clarify the exact sequence of events for implementation of the 
measure.  
3.208.   The representative of Japan  repeated  its support for Korea' s measures aimed at reduc ing 
harmful use of alcohol. His delegation had requested Korea to extend the transition period via 
comment s on the notification and at past meetings. Japan had also sent a joint letter from the 
Embassy o f Japan in Korea along with embassies of six Members concerning this issue and had 
received a reply from the Ministry of Health and Welfare the previous month . The reply indicated 
that the Ministry had accepted, in part, its request for an extended transit ion period and allowed 
liquor importers to sell liquor with the previous warning labels until 8 February 2018 . His 
delegation appreciated that Korea had partially taken into account its comment, and sought  
confirm ation that wholesaler or retailers ' stocks with old warning labels could be sold by 
8 February  2018, and that importers would not have to recall them to enforce the new 
requirement. If Korea were not to introduce the measure, Japan requested Korea to allow 
exhaustion of stocks without enfor cing the new requirement, due to the difficulty  for liquor 
importer s to recall liquors once they were sold. Lastly, Japan requested Korea to announce this 
modification of transition period adequately to liquor industries and relevant stakeholders in order 
to avoid confusion, and to enforce it appropriately.  
3.209.   The representative of the United States  repeated  its concerns with the measure in 
question. While support ing Korea' s efforts to inform consumers about the risks of excessive alcohol 
consumption , her dele gation remained concerned about how these requirements would  impact its 
industry.  She welcomed Korea's response to its comments, including to a joint letter sent by a 
number of embassies in Seoul.  In that letter Korea indicated that an extended adaptation period 
would be provided to enable alcoholic beverages to be sold with previous warning labels until 
8 February  2018. While grateful that Korea ha d considered its  request for an extended transition 
period, her delegation  remain ed unclear about the scope of this adaptation period.  She asked for 
clarification  if the measure in its entirety would  not be enforced until 8 February 2018, or whether  
it only appl ied to some warnings and some products . The representative emphasized that it  was 
particularly important to  receive clear advice about dates for compliance , given the number of 
changes that Korea had  made to this measure since it was notified.  
3.210.   The representative of Australia  had joined other M embers in writing  to Korea' s Ministry o f 
Health and Welfare on 28 March 2017  to express  concerns regarding the new alcohol warning label 
requirements . He repeated the concerns raised in the pre vious minutes, continuing to request an 
official English translation of the proposed health warning st atements , to question the direct link 
between alcohol consumption and certain diseases , and to request a scientific basis for the 
measure in question. He noted the disparity between the period for presentation of comments by 
Members (27 September 2016),  and the date that the new requirements came into effect 
(3 September 2016). In addition, amendments to the text of one of the proposed warning label 
options (8 December 2016) now ha d a separate implementation date (8 February 2018) to the 
other two labels (1  September 2017).  His delegation  request ed an appropriate comment period to 
allow time for comments from Members to be taken into account.  
3.211.   The representative of Canada  thanked  Korea for its recent letter in response to concerns 
raised by Canada and other M embers regarding its alcohol labelling measure. His delegation  also 
welcome d the positive news regarding Korea' s decision to delay compliance with the new warning 
labels until 8  February 2018. However, Canada requested the full detail of the regulation, including 
the proposed language of the warning labels in English to be able to fully assess the potential 
impact of the measure.  
                                                
41 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 518  (under dates raised and references) . G/TBT/M/72  
 
- 39 - 
 
  3.212.   The representative of Chile associated his delegation with the concerns already raised, and 
requested greater information and c larification about the implementation of this measure . 
3.213.   The representative of New Zealand  acknowledged and supported Korea's right to introduce 
new regulations to address specific public health concerns. New Zealand appreciated that, in 
seeking to address t he harmful use of alcohol, this measure was directed towards achieving a 
legitimate public health objective. She  thanked Korea for its engagement  regarding the 
Notifications on Warning Messages on Excessive Drinking, and noted that Korea ha d taken into 
account some of the comments made by Members by extending the adaption period until 
8 February 2018.  Her delegation would appreciate additional details with regards to the 
implementation of the extended adaptation period. The Ministry of Health and Welfare of  Korea 
had confirmed that the previous alcohol warning labels could  be used until 30 August 2017, with 
the new labels to be used from 8 February 2018. She enquired how the measure would be 
enforced between 30 August 2017 and 8 February 2018 . Would any prod uct complying with the 
previous requirements not be able to be imported from 30 August 2017 ? Would such products 
imported by 30 August 2017 be able to remain for sale in shops until 8 February 2018 ? Further, if 
such products remained unsold by 8 February , would they be able to be sold after this date  until 
exhaustion of stocks ? Her delegation then repeated its request for an official English translation of 
the new warning messages, in order to avoid any confusion among producers.  
3.214.   The representative of Mexic o associated her delegation  with the concerns raise d, and 
thanked Korea  for its feedback. Her delegation reiterated its recommendation that the warnings be 
translated into English to avoid  confusion . 
3.215.   The representative of the Republic of Korea  replied that a six-month adaptation period 
would  be provided for alcoholic beverage s which were imported before 9  August 2017  to ensure 
smooth implementation of this measure . Thus, those beverages could  be so ld with existing label s 
until 8  February 2018.  His delegation reiterated  that the companies could  choose one of the three 
labels as stated on the regulation , giving companies the flexibility to select the most appropriate 
expression from their own perspective. Korea remained av ailable for further discu ssion with 
interested Members  and stakeholders to resolve all concerns in a transparent manner.  
3.2.4.36   Russian Federation, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz Republic — Pharmaceutical products - 
Resolution 1314 of the Government of the Russian Federation on determining 
complianc e of medicinal products' manufacturers with the requirements of Good 
Manufacturing Practice (non -notified); draft decisions of the Board of the Eurasian 
Economic Union ,  G/TBT/N/RUS/54 , G/TBT/N/RUS/58 , G/TBT/N/RUS/63  
(IMS ID 52142) 
3.216.   The representative of the  European Union  repeated concerns raised and questions posed 
by his delegation in the last meeting.  
3.217.   The representative of the United States  repeated the concerns raised in the previous 
meeting.  The US also understood that the Russian Government had conducted 195 inspections of 
foreign plants which resulted in 61 denials compared to 165 inspections of Russian plants which 
resulted in zero denials. Could Russia explain whether the review was different for foreign plants or 
why this discrepancy existed?  Russia had stated at the March 2017 Committee meeting that the 
previously issued registration certificates would be valid for a certain transitional period.  For how 
long would that period be? Would it be possible to provide a transition time so that Russ ian 
citizens would not lose access to innovative lifesaving medicines and so that the Russian livestock 
and pets would not be at increased risk to infectious diseases? The US also asked Russia to 
confirm whether it would require that clinical trials for or phan drugs be conducted in Russia. It 
appeared, in this respect , that the Russian Ministry of Industry and Trade/GMP Institution planned 
to visit the US in July 2017 to conduct GMP training. The US was open to having technical 
discussion with Russia regard ing GMP best practices.  
3.218.   The representative of Ukraine  echoed the concerns raised by other delegations and would 
continue to follow this issue.  
                                                
42 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 521  (under dates raised and references) . G/TBT/M/72  
 
- 40 - 
 
  3.219.   The representative of the Russian Federation  explained that the "Agreement on Common 
Principles and Rules of Pha rmaceutical products Circulation in the Eurasian Economic Union" had 
been signed in December 2014. He also informed that all documents of the EAEU on turnover of 
pharmaceutical products had entered into force on 6 May 2017. However, the entry into force of  
these documents did not mean a sharp change in the existing system of registration. As of now, 
producers and importers would have the opportunity to register pharmaceutical products in the 
Russian system or in the system of the Eurasian Economic Union. Re gistration certificates issued in 
the Russian registration system would be valid only in the territory of the Russian Federation. 
Registration certificates issued in accordance with the rules of the Union would operate on the 
territory of all countries of the Union. This transition period would last until 31 December 2021. In 
2022 the Russian registration system would be completely replaced by the system of the Union. 
Moreover, previously issued registration certificates would be valid until 31 December 202 5. As for 
the system of GMP, he noted that Russia had already tried to answer all the questions of WTO 
Members in detail at the previous meeting of the TBT Committee.  
3.2.4.37   Ireland — Public Health (Alcohol) Bill 2015 , G/TBT/N/IRL/2 (IMS ID 51643) 
3.220.   The representati ve of Mexico  repeated concerns raised at previous TBT Committee 
meetings on the labelling requirements contained in the measure. She asked what was the 
technical and scientific evidence used when assessing the risk of non - fulfilment and requested 
informat ion on the approval status before the EU.  
3.221.   The representative of the European Union  reiterated the replies provided in previous 
meetings of the Committee.  
3.2.4.38   Russian Federation — Medical Devices , G/TBT/N/RUS/51, G/TBT/N/RUS/52, 
G/TBT/N/RUS/53, G/TBT/N/RUS/55 ( IMS ID 52044) 
3.222.   The representative of the United States  repeated  concerns raised in previous TBT 
Committee meetings and again requested Russia to share the status of implementation of the new 
regulation and the number of new and re -registrations that had been  filed but not yet processed; 
respond to the enquiry expressed by the US industry via the Enquiry Point; and consider a meeting 
with industry to discuss their concerns with the implementation of Russia's new medical device 
registration, as well as the EEU draft agreement and guidance.  
3.223.   The representative of the European Union  repeated  concerns raised in previous TBT 
Committee meetings and repeated their requests  regarding the short comment periods provided; 
the long review time for dossiers (G/TBT/N/RUS/51 ); the transition periods for entry into force and 
the recognition of international standards/best practices (G/TBT/N/RUS/52); the information to be 
included in the "labelling" (G/TBT/N/RUS/53); and the "recognition by expert reports" 
(G/TBT/N/RUS/55).  
3.224.   The r epresentative of Ukraine  supported the concerns raised by the EU and US and drew 
attention to some inconsistencies in the mentioned documents with the requirements of the TBT 
Agreement. The package of documents referred to by Russia during the March 2017 C ommittee 
meeting, which had been developed according to the draft agreement , were not in compliance with 
requirements under the TBT Agreement.  The requirements of the draft agreement needed to be 
justified on the basis of scientifically substantiated clari fication concerning application of the 
stricter conditions for exporters compared with domestic producers, which related to the 
mandatory state registration. State registration of medical devices was based on the examination 
of safety, quality and effectiv eness of medical devices, which was conducted by expert authorities 
defined by the member states of the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU). The mandatory 
requirement for applicants to register on the territory of member states of the EAEU put national 
producer s and producers from other member states of the WTO in an unequal position.  The 
reference of the representative of the Russian Federation to the existence of the transition period 
of the draft agreement before entering into force was not the condition for the removal of already 
existing technical barriers to trade. Conformity assessment procedures provided for medical 
devices differed significantly from international  practice, which provided for the manufacturer to 
                                                
43 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 516 (under dates raised and references) . 
44 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 520  (unde r dates raised and references) . G/TBT/M/72  
 
- 41 - 
 
  declare conformity of its products to requ irements of technical regulations. The draft agreements 
specified requirements for implementation, installation, repair and disposal of medical products 
that were inconsistent with international practices. Ukraine requested that Russia further clarify 
the information to be included in the labelling and in the operational documents. Ukraine called on 
Russia to remove unjustified tec hnical barriers to trade and bring the provisions of the draft 
documents on medical devices in line with international practice.  
3.225.   The representative of the Russian Federation  said that the Agreement on Common 
Principles and Rules of Medical Devices Circulation in the Eurasian Economic Union had been 
signed in December 2014 and that all documents of the EAEU on turnover of medical de vices had 
entered into force on 6 May 2017. However, the entry into force of these documents did not mean 
a sharp change in the existing system of registration. Producers and importers had the opportunity 
to register medical devices in the Russian system o r in the system of the Eurasian Economic 
Union. Registration certificates issued in the Russian registration system would be valid only in the 
territory of the Russian Federation while registration certificates issued in accordance with the 
rules of the Un ion would operate on the territory of all countries of the Union. The transition period 
would last until 31 December 2021. In 2022 the Russian registration system would be completely 
replaced by the system of the Union. Moreover, previously issued registra tion certificates would be 
valid until 31 December 2025. Russia took note of concerns raised by the interested Members and 
was ready to continue working with them on this matter.  
3.2.4.39   China — Cybersecurity Law (IMS ID 52645) 
3.226.   The representative of the United Stat es repeated the concerns raised in the previous 
minutes , and noted that in the TBT Committee meeting, her delegation had already discussed its 
specific concerns with China' s proposed cybersecurity review regime, as well as cybersecurity rules 
for the civil  aviation, banking, insurance, and Internet of V ehicles sectors.  More specifically, the US  
was concerned about China' s Cybersecurity Law, which was implemented on 1  June despite  
serious and long -standing concerns from the US and many other  international stakeholders. It was 
understoo d that related implementing measures, introducing cybersecurity regulations into 
additional critical sectors of the Chinese economy, would  be developed over the coming months.   
3.227.   She noted that TC 260 ha d made som e changes to the standards based on the feedback it 
had received , and expected China to notify the TBT Committee  should TC 260 or other voluntary 
standards be incorporated into a technical regulation or conformity assessment procedure,  given 
China' s WTO tr ansparency obligations and bilateral commitment at th e 2016 JCCT to notify 
relevant " secure and controllable " technical regulations.  Her delegation requested that China 
afford subsequent opportunities for interested parties to submit comments on revised i terations of 
these draft standards, and all other implementing measures related to the Cybersecurity Law.  
Given the broad potential impact of these standards and measures and the serious concerns they 
had raised, it was critical that China act deliberately  to collaborate with all interested parties, and 
take their comments into account before adopting the drafts as written.  The US would continue to 
carefully monitor China' s implementation of the Cybersecurity Law and related measures, and to 
continue the im portant dialogue . 
3.228.   The representative of the European Union  noted with concern the entry into force on 
1 June 2017 of the new Cybersecurity Law. The EU ha d provided written comments in 2016 
detailing these concerns  on: (i) the scope of the requirements was not clear as key terms ha d not 
been specified in sufficient detail. Concepts such as "critical information infrastructure" and "secure 
and trustworthy products" were not clarified, which le d to a lack of clarity as to which sectors were 
impacted by the measures ; (ii) recalling the importance of international standards , his delegation 
noted that the law only reference d national standards  which  could lead to lack of interoperability 
with international standards.  In the development of national standards, it  would be appropriate to 
build on existing international standards and to inv olve all relevant stakeholders, including foreign 
invested and wholly -foreign owned enterprises , in a non -discrim inatory manner in the relevant 
technical  committees ; (iii) regardi ng the certification and security requirements on critical 
information infrastructure, the EU wa s conc erned that such requirements le d to a de facto  ban on 
products and services from fore ign-invested enterprises provid ing products and services to 
businesse s falling under the notion of "criti cal information infrastructure." The EU call ed on China 
                                                
45 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 526  (under dates raised and references) . G/TBT/M/72  
 
- 42 - 
 
  to implement these provisions in a non -discriminatory manner, and to respect  the principles of 
proportionality, necessity and technology neutrality.  Moreover, he  repeat ed its previous requests 
for clarifications on the relationship to existing multi -level-protection systems (MLPs) and the 
expected timeline of implementation ; (iv) as regards data localization, the EU underst ood that the 
storage obligation ha d been re placed by controls on cross -border transfers of data.  The EU was 
concerned that these controls  create d the same level of restriction as the obligation to store data 
in China.  Moreover, the EU note d with concern that the scope of the relevant obligations ha d been 
enlarged to "network operators " in general, rather than  only those of crit ical information 
infrastructure . The EU appreciate d that the date of entry into force of these specific measures ha d 
been postponed to 31  December. Furthermore, the EU welcomed  the opening for public comments 
of TC260 standard which defined  the concept of "important data ". 
3.229.   The EU note d with concern that the Cybersecurity Law had already been applied and wa s 
enforceable  with possible fines and sanctions , while the impleme nting measures that wo uld clarify 
its implementation we re still not in place. The current situation create d a lot of uncertainty for 
economic operators. The EU requested  China to notify draft measures in any subsequent sectoral 
implementation to the TBT Co mmittee in order to give adequate opportunity for WTO Members 
and their stakeholders to comment on any subsequent developments.  
3.230.   The representative of Japan  expressed concern and strong interest with regard to the 
Cybersecurity Law , which had entered into force on 1 June  2017, on which it had  submitted 
opinions during the public comments periods of the first draft in July 2015 and of the second draft 
in July 2016. Regarding the law, after its adoption in Novembe r 2016, industrial circles had 
express ed significant c oncern, for example via the global a ssociation letter issued in May 2017 by 
54 organizations from 11 countries all over the world.  Japan still ha d particular concerns about the 
law and its relevant regulations, because definitions, requirements and  scope of standards or 
procedures for conformity assessment adopted in them were not clear.  Recalling China's clarified 
definition on " secure and controllable " and its explanation that such a term did not mean the 
requirement of using  Chinese technology or  the procurement of domestic products , his delegation 
request ed China to make the related regulations reflect such an explanation and be consistent with 
international standards and practices.  In case the standards to be ado pted we re not consistent 
with internatio nal standards, Japan asked China to comply with the TBT agreement through 
appropriate procedures based on the Article 2 and Article 5 for conformity assessment procedures.  
3.231.   The representative of Canada  support ed the comments of the other WTO M embe rs 
regarding China' s Cybersecurity Law and would follow it closely , consistent with Canada's 
intervention in the previously raised STC No. 4 . 46 
3.232.   The representative of Australia  echoed the concerns of the US, EU, Japan, and  Canada, 
and repeated the concerns raised in the previous meeting. She suggested that the implementation 
period be delayed until there was greater certainty around the scope and application of its 
provisions . Her delegation encouraged China to provide further information about the measure s o 
that the requirements could  be considered, including the definition key terms, publication of 
implementing regulations, inspection and certification requirements, and the scope of the sectors 
covered.   Australia welcome d the opportunity for further consu ltation with Members to ensure the 
measures were implemented in a way that was no more trade restrictive than necessary.  
3.233.   The representative of China  recalled President Xi's remarks on opening -up as a basic policy 
of China , which was also the principle of China' s cyber security policy.  Based on opening -up and 
globalization, the law aimed  at ensuring  cyber security and national security in China , and would 
not be an excuse to close the door to the outside world.  She outlined  the definition of secure an d 
controllable . Firstly, data was  controllable for the users. The product or service providers were not 
to use their product or service to illegally obtain users ' data. Secondly, equipment was controllable 
for the users. Provide rs were not to illegally control users ' equipment. Th irdly, to guarantee that 
users had  choices , providers were not to operate a monopoly or seek illegal interest by making use 
of users ' reliance on the product or service, such as  stopping providing safety  technical support 
without a justifiable reaso n or force users to upgrade. The se terms were not created by China. 
There was no distinction between domestic and foreign companies  as all enterprises had to abide 
                                                
46 Para. 3.71  G/TBT/M/72  
 
- 43 - 
 
  by these requirements . She noted that data sto rage and other similar matters were beyond the 
scope of the TBT Agreement, and therefore it wa s not appropriate to discuss them in the 
Committee . 
3.2.4.40   China — Tentative Administrative Rules on Enterprises Average Fuel 
Consumption and New Energy Vehicle Credits and Administration Regulation on the 
Access of New Energy Vehicle Manufactures and Products , G/TBT/N/CHN/1187, 
G/TBT/N/CHN/1188 (IMS ID 52747) 
3.234.   The representative of the European Union  reiterated concerns raised in the previous 
meeting. In addition she asked  for further information on whether any European car maker had 
been placed on the MIIT NEV subsidies list of those that would benefit from NEV incentive 
measures in China. T he EU also welcome d confirmation from China that, as regards the 
requirement of suf ficient capacity concerning R&D laid down in Article 7 Point III of the notified 
draft contained in G/TBT/N/CHN/1187 , there is no obligation for the car manufacturers to have 
their R&D facilities located in China in order to be given market access.  
3.235.   The rep resentative of Japan  reiterated concerns raised in the previous meeting. Regarding 
G/TBT/N/CHN/1187, g iven the significant impact the Tentative Administrative Rules would have on 
the automobile industry he asked if these rules had been modified since notif ication in December 
2016. Japan was particularly interested in the coefficient credit values for NEVs as they had a 
major impact on production plans and requested that China provide the opportunity for dialogue 
with automobile manufacturers and other relev ant entities as soon as possible. Japan encouraged 
China to consider the concerns raised before the official announcement and enforcement of the 
Tentative Administrative Rules. Regarding G/TBT/CHN/N/1188, Japan requested to reconsider the 
following three p oints such as systems of the national and local monitoring platforms, period for 
monitoring and recording, and lack of sufficient lead time. Japan proposed that China consider its 
requests in the development procedure of the guideline for the regulation, a nd not to impose 
unnecessary obstacles to international trade.   
3.236.   The representative of China  reiterated that China was facing energy and environmental 
challenges. The development of new energy vehicle s was crucial for saving energy and 
environmental prote ction and i nternational practice was to strengthen the administration of 
vehicles. The Administrative rules on enterprises average fuel consumption and New Energy 
Vehicle Credits, and Administration Regulation on the Access of New Energy Vehicle Manufactur es 
and Products regulate d vehicles produced and sold in China. As the number of new energy vehicle s 
was increasing dramatically, China had  to respond to the urgent need to protect human life and 
public security because of the higher risk brought by the new  technology. China had therefore 
revised the 2009 administration regulation on the access of new energy vehicle manufacturers and 
products.  In order to ensure safety and quality, the new energy vehicle manufacturers were 
required to obtain design capabilit y. It did not require companies to establish R&D cent res in 
China, or to localize the control and power system , and was  non-discrimin atory and in line with the 
TBT A greement . 
3.2.4.41   Italy — Labelling requirements of the origin of grains used in the preparation 
of dried pasta (IMS ID 53048) 
3.237.   The representative of Mexico  reiterated the systemic concern regarding Italy’s proposed 
decree that would require the labelling of dry pasta products to include the name of the country or 
area of origin of the grain used to manuf acture the product, or the name of the place where the 
product was manufactured. She again requested that consideration be given to the Panel and 
Appellate Body reports ruling against the US measure. She recalled transparency obligations under 
the TBT agre ement and requested the EU to notify the measure to TBT Committee Members. 
Finally, she requested information regarding the status of the decree . 
3.238.   The representative of Canada  repeated  concerns raised at the previous TBT Committee 
meeting. Mandatory COOL me asures could cause discrimination within food supply chains, where 
                                                
47 For previous statements follow the thre ad under IMS ID 527  (under dates raised and references) . 
48 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 530  (under dates raised and references) . G/TBT/M/72  
 
- 44 - 
 
  locally sourced ingredients could become the de facto choice for producers to the detriment of 
imported like ingredients. There could also be negative e ffects for millers and pasta producer s in 
Italy who rel ied on imports of durum wheat to meet their production demand . 
3.239.   The representative of Brazil  supported the concerns raised by other delegations. Brazil 
believed that these Country of Origin measures in the EU were setting dangerous precede nts and 
requested that the EU consider alternative approaches. Like other delegations, Brazil encouraged 
the EU and its member States to notify such measures, so as to give Members the opportunity to 
provide comments.  
3.240.   The representative of the European Uni on repeated the explanations on the EU relevant 
legal framework  made at the previous TBT Committee meeting. In addition, she clarified that  Italy 
had notified a draft decree on the origin indication of durum wheat for pasta  to the Commission on 
12 May 2017  which  was currently under assessment by the Commission.  
3.2.4.42   European Union — Organic production and labelling - Maté (erva -mate) 
(IMS ID 52449) 
3.241.   The representative of Brazil  thanked the EU for the very productive bilateral meeting held 
the previous day. The EU had presented answers to many questions and both delegations had 
engaged in a fruitful discussion. Nevertheless, Brazil was of the view that it was important to keep 
the erva mate subject as a specific trade concern in the Committee to stress the importanc e of the 
issue and to reaffirm Brazil's interest in the approval of the new European legislation EC 180/2014, 
with the inclusion of erva mate in the list of organic products. Brazil was hopeful that once the 
"trialogue " among the Commission, Parliament and  the Council about the new legislation on 
labelling of organic products was resumed, the European authorities would recognize the evolution 
since the establishment of the previous list of organic goods and insert erva mate in the new list.  
3.242.   The representati ve of the European Union  said that , as already explained at the March 
2017 TBT Committee meeting and during their bilateral meeting, maté was excluded from the 
scope of the EU organic legislation (Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 on organic production and 
labelling of organic products), since it had not been included in Annex 1 of the Treaty on the 
Functioning of the European Union. Therefore, this product could not be certified as organic under 
the EU legislation and bear the EU organic logo. Within the framewo rk of the current review of the 
EU organic legislation, the European Commission had proposed to include maté within the scope of 
the future EU legislation on organics. However, it was difficult to predict the final outcome of the 
Commission proposal. Inter -institutional discussions (trilogues) on the new EU organic regulation 
were on -going with EU co -legislators (the European Parliament and the Council) and the final 
result would not depend only on the Commission. The objective was to reach a possible polit ical 
agreement by the end of the year. Once the final wording on the Commission proposal was 
agreed, the EU would be pleased to inform the Brazilian delegation accordingly.  
3.2.4.43   European Union — Radio Equipment Directive , G/TBT/N/EU/93  (IMS ID 52550) 
3.243.   The represe ntative of China  again  raised  concerns on Directive 2014/53/EU, also called 
RED, which replaced the 1999/5/EC, R&TTE, and which covered a wide range of products . While  
the deadline of the transition period (12 June 2016 to 12 June 2017)  had passed, there w as still 
unclarified ambiguity in the Directive. Enterprises did not know what to follow because of the lack 
of guidelines and this affected their production and research and development.  China kindly 
requested the EU to release the RED guidelines and coo rdination standards. She recalled that the 
EU considered the coordination standards non -mandatory. However, the Directive required  the 
equipment to be in conformity with the official coordination standards, so as to meet the basic 
requirement in Art icle 3 of the d irective,  which China believed made  the coordination standards 
mandatory. China was concerned about the resulting uncertainty which constituted a significant 
risk for exporting enterprises, due to the renewal of the previous standards and the lack of release 
of coordination standards. Finally, she noted that if the EU could not provide a timetable  for the 
release of official guidelines and coordination standards , China would appreciate an extension of 
the transition period.  
                                                
49 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 524  (under dates raised and references) . 
50 For previous statements follow the threa d under IMS ID 525  (under dates raised and references) . G/TBT/M/72  
 
- 45 - 
 
  3.244.   The representative of the United States  expressed concern that US  companies were facing 
difficulties demonstrating compliance with the EU's RED. She considered the European 
standardization system to be closed to US stakeholders' participation and, conseque ntly, to create 
uncertainty for US companies . US companies could not benefit from the presumption of conformity 
by demonstrating compliance with the harmonized European Telecommunications Standards 
Institute's standards because a number of them were not av ailable when the directive had become 
effective. The US had requested information on the implementing timeline, a two -year transitional 
period and an update on the status of not yet adopted standards. Her delegation understood that 
interim solutions until harmonized standards were finalized included republishing standards of the 
previous Directive (Radio and Telecommunications Terminal Equipment Directive). She asked 
whether the Commission envisioned a transitional period when final standards were published . 
3.245.   The representative of the European Union  repeated its statement in the previous meeting . 
In addition, he mentioned that the transitional period issue was being resolved and did not create 
barriers to trade.  The RED could apply without the publication of harmoni zed standards, was 
technology neutral and allowed for the use of manufacturers' technical solutions that complied with 
its essential requirements. He said that the extra cost of notified bodies' intervention equally 
affected manufacturers and was se t out in the laws of other Members. 90% of the delivered 
harmoni zed standards (114 of 126) were "unique" and published in the Official Journal of the 
European Union in 8 June. 20 additional harmoni zed standards of the previous directive would be 
published to cover the transmitter part of the equipment. Notified Bodies' guidance for this 
equipment accepted the transmitter part to be covered in the Radio and Telecommunication and 
Terminal Equipment Directive and required assessment only to the receiver part. He noted that a 
number of RED harmoni zed standards were still missing as the list in June would have 134 
"unique" harmoni zed standards. The EU believed that there was no impediment in applying legal 
and viable solutions for the placement of radio equipment  on the EU market as the Commission 
survey on Notified Bodies' capabilities concluded that 40% of them worked under low and 20% 
under normal load.  
3.2.4.44   Korea — Household Chemical and Biocidal Products , G/TBT/N/KOR/684 , 
G/TBT/N/KOR/547, G/TBT/N/KOR/702 (IMS ID 5 2951) 
3.246.   The representative of the United States  reiterated concerns with the Control Scheme to 
restrict the use of hazardous materials in electronic and electrical devices. She asked for 
clarification on how many products had been banned as G/TBT/N/KOR/684 stated that the ban 
covered 15 products wherea s Korea had said in the previous meeting that the ban extended to 18 
products.  
3.247.   The representative of the Republic of Korea  confirmed that 18 types of products had been 
included in the "Designation of products of risk concerns, and safety and labelling stan dards" 
notified in G/TBT/N/KOR/684. Korea designated CMIT and MIT as ingredients as they could be 
used in various mixtures. Korea had banned the use of spray type and all type s of air freshener 
with CMIT/MIT in order to prevent respiratory exposure of CMIT /MIT as these substances had 
caused a terrible accident in Korea where 117 people had died and 4,602 people affected.  
3.2.4.45   United Arab Emirates – Control Scheme to restrict the use of hazardous 
materials in electronic and electrical devices , G/TBT/N/ARE/265 (IMS ID 49652) 
3.248.   The representative of the European Union  repeated concerns with the control scheme to 
restrict the use of hazardous materials in electronic and electrical devices.   
3.249.   The Chairman  took note of the EU's statement and request ed that the Secretariat convey 
the EU concerns to the delegation of the UAE.  
                                                
51 For previous statements fo llow the thread under IMS ID  529 (under dates raised and references) . 
52 For previous statements fo llow the thread under IMS ID 49 6 (under dates raised and references) . G/TBT/M/72  
 
- 46 - 
 
  3.3  Exchange of Experiences  
3.3.1   Thematic Session on Risk Assessment  
3.250.   The Moderator's  report on the thematic session is contained in G/TBT/GEN/226.  
3.4  Eighth Triennial Review  
3.251.   The Chairman  recalled that at the informal meeting – chaired by the outgoing Chairperson 
earlier in the week, Ms Esther Peh (Singapore) – delegations had discussed the timeline and 
approach to the upcoming Eighth Triennial Review. He said that the approach was straigh tforward: 
the review process would be driven by substantive proposals from Members relat ing to specific 
areas of the Committee 's work (e.g., conformity assessment procedures, transparency, standards 
– or good regulatory practice). The proposals could also relate to the operation of the Committee, 
for example on specific trade concerns, or on thematic sessions. It was noted that, normally, 
discussions built on work already undertaken by the Committee, documented in G/TBT/1/Rev.13 
(compilation of all the Comm ittee's decisions and recommendations to date). The timeline, he said, 
was clear: the Committee had one year  to complete this process, starting in November 2017. This 
meant that at each of the Committee's meetings until November 2018 the Eighth Triennial R eview 
would be on the agenda.  
3.252.   The Chairman said that a draft timeline had been considered at the informal meeting 
(distributed as a room document with the title "Advance copy " and date d 13 June). In light of 
comments made, the wording had been slightly revised at the end of the first paragraph on the 
document. The last two sentences were intended to clarify two things. First, submissions were 
welcome ahead of the Committee's November 201 7 meeting. Second, submissions would  be 
considered on a rolling basis as they c ame in. In other words, any submissions made before the 
November meeting would be discussed at the November meeting, and any submission received 
ahead of the March meeting would  be discussed at the March meeting. Of course, Members could 
always revert to submissions made at earlier dates at any time before the review 's conclusion. The 
final deadline for making submissions under the triennial review remained 1 June 2018 . The 
Chairman stressed that time was short and encouraged Members to submit any proposals as soon 
as possible in the process.  
3.253.   The Committee agreed  on the timeline as contained in document G/TBT/W/ 450. It was 
also agreed that the day set aside for the thematic sessi on to be held on 7  November  2017 would 
be dedicated to the Eighth Triennial Review.  
4  TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE  ACTIVITIES  
4.1.  The representative of Canada  informed the Committee that the Canadian Enquiry Point had 
hosted officials from the Trinidad and Tobago Bureau  of Standards (TTBS) in Ottawa. The 
workshop provided an opportunity to learn about the day -to-day activities of Canada' s WTO TBT & 
SPS Enquiry Point and was an opportunity to share knowledge and exchange ideas pertaining to 
the general operation and overs ight of national enquiry points. The program me for the week was 
divided into several parts, with several workshop sessions interspersed between presentations and 
meetings with other Government of Canada departments and agencies. The sessions focused on: 
an overview of the TBT and SPS notification requirements; the process undertaken by Canada' s 
Enquiry Point to identify technical regulations in the Canada Gazette, Canada' s regulatory 
newspaper; best practices for stakeholder engagement, such as government r egulators and 
industry groups; the WTO 's electronic resources and databases ; and, a hands -on activity to 
process and submit TBT notifications through the WTO 's TBT Notification and Submission System. 
Canada' s procedures for handling comments, extension req uests and responding to client 
enquiries, and an overview and activity on the methods used by the Canadian Enquiry Point to 
maintain electronic records was also included in the programme.  
4.2.  Colleagues from Trinidad and Tobago were also given the opportunity  to meet separately 
with representatives from: the Regulatory Affairs Secretariat in Canada' s Treasury Board 
Secretariat, the Canadian Government ministry responsible for enforcing good regulatory practice s 
amongst Canada' s regulators; the Standards Counci l of Canada;  and the Canadian Food Inspection 
Agency. These meetings provide d an opportunity for exchanges on : the role and structure of the G/TBT/M/72  
 
- 47 - 
 
  Regulatory Affairs Secretariat in the context of Canada' s regulation -making process, as well as 
Canada' s regulatory system and regulatory cooperation initiatives such as the Canada -United 
States Regulatory Cooperation Council; Canada' s conformity assessment system as well as an 
overview of the structure and mandate of the Standards Council of Canada, and th e origins of the 
Canadian Food Inspection Agency, what it does, the complexities of its mandate which covers food 
safety and animal and plant health, and the key role the Canadian Food Inspection Agency play ed 
in Canada' s participation in the WTO SPS Agree ment. He expressed his delegation's appreciation 
for the participants' engagement. Canada was not only grateful for the opportunity to share 
Canada' s experiences and approaches to the operation of a TBT and SPS Enquiry Point, but also 
for the learning oppo rtunity it afforded Canada relatin g to the challenges faced in Trinidad and 
Tobago to the optimal functioning of its Enquiry Point.  
4.3.  The representative of Trinidad and Tobago  thanked  Canada and looked  forward to further 
cooperation.  
4.4.  The representatives of IEC, BIPM, OIML updated the Committee on their activities  related to 
technical assistance activities.53 
4.5.  The Secretariat  provided information on TBT related activities in the Global Review of Aid for 
Trade and made available a document on its  technical assistance  activities54  
5  UPDATING BY OBSERVER S 
5.1.  The representatives of WHO, Codex , IEC, BIPM, OIML, UNECE  and UNIDO  provided updates 
on their activities  related to the TBT Committee.55 
5.2.  The representative of Codex  said that coherence between Codex and WHO polic ies was very 
much a priority for both and as it was something that was coming up in the Committee it was 
important to highlight. Relating to the concerns on alcohol beverage labelling and to nutrition 
claims labelling, she said Codex encourage d countries t o participate in the food labelling 
committee which would be meeting  in Paraguay in October  where front-of-pack labelling would be 
on the agenda. There would also be a  proposal from WHO on the labelling of alcoholic beverages in 
particular to try and align  with the WHO strategies.  As a general observation, she noted  that an 
absence of a Codex standard or absence of certain issues being addressed in a Codex standard did 
not preclude a country from developing their own standards and legislation  and this  did not 
necessarily mean that they were in contradiction with C odex.  
5.3.  The representative of the United States  thanked WHO and Codex for bringing the attention of 
the TBT Committee to the important developments in their work on nutrition. The US valued and 
appreciated Codex's member -driven process and its adherence to science -based transparent 
consensus approach to standards development. She stressed that topics mentioned by Codex, for 
example proposed new work regarding front -of-pack labelling and incorporatio n of references in 
Codex standards into World Health Assembly resolution and guidance documents related to 
marketing restrictions of breast milk substitutes were still under discussion by C odex members. 
The US understood that these issues were still being discussed in electronic working groups 
designed to develop work bet ween C odex committee sessions in an effort to build consensus in the 
committee. Further alcohol labelling had  not yet been proposed as a new area of work in Codex 
technical committees. The US encourage d the TBT Committee to continue active engagement in 
the work of Codex and WHO as they involve d important topics related to public health and trade 
concerns that were being discussed in the Committee . 
6  DATE OF NEXT MEETING  
6.1.  The next regular meeti ng of the Committee will be held on 8-9 November  2017, with one  day 
set aside for discussion on the Eighth Triennial Review on 7 November  2017.  
__________  
                                                
53 G/TBT/GEN/230, G/TBT/GEN/231, G/TBT/GEN/23 2. 
54 G/TBT/GEN/228 and RD/TBT/225.  
55 G/TBT/GEN/229, G/TBT/GEN/233, G/TBT/GEN/230, G/TBT/GEN/231, G/TBT/GEN/232, 
G/TBT/GEN/234, G/TBT/GEN/235.