G/TBT/GEN/312  
 
4 March  2021 
(21-1823) Page: 1/12 
Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade  Original: English  
 
 
THEMATIC SESSION ON TRANSPARENCY  
4 FEBRUARY  2021 
Chair' s Report1  
The TBT Committee Chair  deliver ed this Report at the WTO TBT Committee's meeting of 
24-26 February 2021. 
 
_______________  
 
 
At the Eighth Triennial Review, Members agreed to continue to hold thematic sessions in conjunction 
with its regular meetings during 2019 to 2021, with a view to further deepening the Committee's 
exchange of experiences on specific topics . On this basis, the Committee agreed  to hold a session 
on transparency .2 The final programme for the thematic session is contained in the Annex of this 
report. The presentations summarized below are available through the WTO w ebsite .3  
 
1  TRANSPARENCY OVERVIEW  
1.1.  The Secretariat  recalled the key transparency provisions of the Agreement, some basic stats 
on their implementation and finally the transparency -related recommendations of the Committee 
from the Eighth Triennial Review. First, s ince 1995, the Committee had seen the circu lation of almost  
40,000 notifications  from 142 Members  related to new or changed  technical regulations and 
conformity assessment procedures . In 2020, the year marked by the Covid -19 pandemic, Members 
had submitted a record 3,354 notifications, illustrating that the transparency mechanism was very 
much alive despite the challenges posed by the pandemic. Second, the Committee had adopted 
recommen dations to facilitate access to final texts of  regulations, through a revised Addendum 
format and through collection of information on availability of domestic websites. Third, 
159 Members had designate d their  Enquiry Point s for answering  queries related t o TBT measures in 
place or under development.  Fourth, 145 Members had submitted at least one statement under 
Article  15.2, explaining how they would implement the provisions of the Agreement.  Fifth, 
23 Members had submitted a total of 156 notifications wit h respect agreements  they had reach ed 
with one or more  Members  regarding technical regulations, standards and conformity assessment 
procedures  (Article  10.7) . Finally, there were a series of transparency provisions related to standards 
contained in the Cod e of Good Practice, including the notification of the acceptance of the Code and 
192 standardizing bodies from 144 Members had thus far submitted their acceptance. The Eighth 
Triennial Review, concluded in 2018, had included about 17 recommendations relate d to 
transparency . With a view to gaining a general overview of progress, the Secretariat had tried to 
group them in three categories: a first category for those on which significant action had been 
undertaken, a second category for those where there was w ork in progress and a third for those 
which had not seen much action. Further information on the Committee's follow up actions related 
to these recommendations could be found in the Aide -Memoire in document JOB/TBT/273/Rev.7 . 
 
1 Mr. Laurence Sandral  (Australia ). This Report is provided under  the Chair's own responsibility.  
2 G/TBT/41 , para. 8.2.a.iv (as indicated in JOB/TBT/350 ). 
3 https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/tbt_e/tbtthematict04022021_e.htm  G/TBT/GEN/312  
 
- 2 - 
 
  1.2.  The Secretariat  also provided an update on the online tools developed to support the 
implementation of the TBT transparency provisions. Three topics were discussed: updates to the 
TBT NSS and TBT IMS; updates to the ePing platform; and plans for the TBT online tools looking 
ahead. On the TBT NSS and IMS, the Secretariat provided  two updates. One update related to the 
inclusion of all HS versions in the NSS: users can now pick the HS version they wish to use to indicate 
products covered in a notification. The second update relat ed to adjusting the NSS and IMS to reflect 
the recently updated addendum format. The second part of the presentation focused on the ePing 
alert system. First, the Secretariat briefly recalled the different features included in ePing related to 
tracking not ifications and increasing communications on notified TBT measures. Second, a new 
communication feature that is currently being piloted was presented: the admin chat. It was 
explained that this feature was built following up on requests and discussions in t he TBT Committee 
and capacity building activities . It allows users with admin rights on ePing, typically Enquiry Points, 
to set up a chat with other selected admin users. Finally, the Secretariat provided an overview of 
existing TBT online tools  and announ ced plans to integrate them more closely  with a view to offering  
a more coherent and efficient set of online services. As primary users, Members were encouraged 
to provide feedback on current systems as well as suggestions and ideas for a more integrated o nline 
TBT platform.  
1.3.  Ms Ana Rodriguez Perez4 (European Union)  shared thoughts on ePing's potential and how it 
might be used as a vehicle to facilitate the implementation of the TBT Agreement and help the work 
of the TBT Committee. This presentation, she sa id, was not a list of things to do, rather it was the 
EU putting on the table a number of functionalities that could act as food for thought on what e Ping 
could be with further development. This included using ePing as a single notification platform to 
include all Members' notifications, from the initial notification drafts to the notification of final texts. 
ePing could also have a public face allowing the general public to see how TBT works and where 
comments on notifications can be published. In addition , ePing could have a restricted access area 
to be used by officials to communicate comments and replies, to request clarification on a measure 
and facilitate exchanges in general between Members. Another use for ePing could be as a repository 
for each noti fication, where drafts, addenda, stakeholders' contributions, comments and replies and 
the final texts could be contained in a single file. Any STC information might also be included there. 
It was important to spell out the challenges before embarking on t his path , for example, how much 
information should be shared just with WTO Members and how much with the general public. The 
treatment of delicate information and personal data protection also had to be taken into account; 
and were ePing to be considered f or binding use, there would be obligations related to that.  
1.4.  Switzerland  supported suggestions to centralize the Committee's work in one platform, which 
would help better implement the transparency provisions. His delegation was open to engage in 
further di scussions on this topic.  
2  SUBMISSION OF NOTIFICATIONS: PRODUCT COVERAGE  
2.1.  Mr. Roy Santana (WTO Secretariat) recalled that the Convention on the Harmonized 
Commodity Description and Coding System was established in 1983 under the auspices of the World 
Customs Organization (WCO). It entered into force on 1 January 1988, replacing the CCCN (to which 
there was an outdated reference in the current TBT new notification format).  It is applied by more 
than 200 customs organizations worldwide and is administere d by the WCO Harmonized System 
Committee (HSC).  He clarified that the HS codes are based on the objective characteristics of the 
product and allow goods moving across borders to be assigned to a category in a uniform manner 
all over the world.  He further e xplained that the Harmonized System has a hierarchical structure 
consisting of numerical codes and descriptions of product categories (the "nomenclature"), including 
21 Sections, 96 Chapters, more than 1200 Headings and 5300 Sub -headings.  He used the examp le 
of a chocolate bar with nuts of 100 gr to indicate how the two, four, six and eight -digit (national 
break -out) codes are used to identify a particular product. He also noted that the HS is updated 
periodically to secure uniform interpretation, reflect c hanges in trade patterns, manufacturing 
processes or technological advancement.  The latest and sixth HS version date s from 2017 while a 
seventh version will be implemented as of 1 January 2022, introducing new entries or clarifications 
for products such as  novel tobacco, 3D printers, e -waste and scrap, drones, edible insects and 
electronic textiles. Amendments to the HS ha s sometimes required significant adjustments to 
databases, statistical time series, texts of Agreements (e.g. Agreement on Trade in Civil  Aircraft) as 
well as transposition of schedules of concessions. A new tool developed by the WTO Secretariat, the 
 
4 Deputy Head of Unit, DG Grow . G/TBT/GEN/312  
 
- 3 - 
 
  HS Tracker5 (beta version), allow s different stakeholders (e.g. customs and trade officials, 
statisticians, lawyers, researchers, etc.) to track the changes of particular headings or subheadings 
across different versions. He also mentioned that the lack of HS codes in the notifications is a 
problem affecting several notifications in different Committee s and that the Secretariat is currently 
brainstorming on possible tools that could be developed to assist Members in preparing their 
notifications and users in retrieving the information.  
2.2.  Mr. Luigi Principi6 (ISO) recalled that the International Classific ation of Standards (ICS) was 
first published by the ISO in 1992, replacing the Universal Decimal Classification (UDC), which had 
been commonly used for classifying books and periodicals in libraires , but which had proven difficult 
to use for classification of standards.  The ICS provide s a structure for catalogues of international, 
regional and national standards and other normative documents and is used by the ISO as well as 
other standardizing bodies . He explained that an ICS Code is composed by a number and a title and 
is based on three hierarchical levels. The first level is the field, which can be a sector of the economy 
such as agriculture, mining, construction or packaging; a technology such as t elecommunications or 
food processing; an activity such as environment protection, safety assurance and protection of 
public health; or a field of science such as mathematics or astronomy.  At present, the classification 
includes 40 two -digit fields, e.g. 11  for health care technology. The field is then sub -divided into 
groups, each group being identified by the number of the field plus the three -digit number of the 
group, e.g. 11.060 for Dentistry. Sub -groups can be used to further subdivide groups into spec ific 
subjects, e.g. 11.060.15 for dental implants. A standard can be assigned to more than one group or 
sub-group, ideally up to a maximum of four groups. For example, a standard dealing with safety in 
the textile industry would be classified under the saf ety field as well as the textiles field. He pointed 
out that the last and seventh update of the ICS publication was published in 2015, including an 
Index, which shows a series of keywords in alphabetical order and the corresponding ICS Codes. 
A project to launch work on the next revision ha s been put on hold due to the COVID -19 pandemic.  
Still, any user could submit proposals for modifications and/or additions to the ICS by contacting 
customerservice@iso.org . Mr Principi further noted that each new revision of the ICS requires an 
update to IT systems/databases and a reclassi fication of affected documents, which c an be a lengthy 
process. He concluded by indicating that the ICS are publicly available through a pdf publication7 
and also through an online standards catalogue .8 In response to a query regarding differences in 
indexing and allocation of ICS Codes to standards in different Members,  he suggested that this issue 
could possibly be ta ken up during the next revision of the ICS. He also encouraged Members to 
contact the ISO if they had questions or doubts about assigning specific Codes to standards.   
2.3.  In response to questions/concerns regarding the lack of HS Codes in notification s and the 
possible availability of a concordance table between HS and ICS Codes , the Secretariat first recalled 
that only about a third of notifications had included HS Codes in the past year while it was more 
common to see ICS Codes.  To facilitate the iden tification of HS Codes  and ICS Codes  in notifications , 
the online Notification Submission System included drop -down option s where Members could search 
for specific codes based on product names. In cases where the submitted notification did not include 
an HS or ICS Code , the Secretariat , more specifically the Central Registry of Notifications, assign ed 
these Codes where possible. The additional codes did not appear in the official notification but were 
used to facilitate database searches  and alerts , for exa mple in the IMS and ePing. With respect to 
linkages between HS and ICS Codes, the logic and general approach of the two systems were quite 
different making it difficult to have a concordance table.  Still, the Economic Research and Statistics 
Division had t ried to build an unofficial correlation table between the two systems, which was still 
work in progress.  Interested delegations were invited to contact the Secretariat for further 
information and possibly collaboration in this regard.   
3  COMMENTING ON NOTIFI CATIONS  
3.1  Using ePing to disseminate comments and replies on notifications  
3.1.  Following up on the  8th Triennial Review recommendation encouraging Members to 
disseminate comments and replies  related to notifications  on a voluntary basis as well as  subsequent 
discussions in the TBT Committee meetings, the Secretariat  introduced the first draft of a practical 
 
5 https://hstracker.wto.or g/  
6 ISO Central Secretariat . 
7 https://www.iso.org/publication/PUB100033.html  
8 https://www.iso.org/standards -catalogue/browse -by-ics.html  G/TBT/GEN/312  
 
- 4 - 
 
  document  (JOB/TBT/396 ) on the potential benefits of sharing such information and on how ePing 
can be used  for this purpose b y means of a short tutorial video. Members were invited to provide 
feedback on the circulated practical document and the feature in general.  
3.2.  Switzerland  said that the document would be useful in supporting Members in implementing 
the respective TBT Committ ee recommendation. He encouraged Members to share their views on 
this practice and this document, or their possible concerns. The centralization of this task on an 
already available platform such as ePing meant an increased transparency of handling of comm ents, 
the early disclosure of problems or their solutions, and allowed for more discussion and solution of 
STCs and better coordination between interested members. Switzerland was already using ePing to 
inform members that comments had been submitted, some times only indicating that comments had 
been provided when sensitive information was contained therein. To date no issues had been 
encountered with using ePing for this purpose. Members were encouraged to publish comments and 
replies to comments on ePing. Some next steps could  be the circulation of a revised document, 
based on Members feedback, for further discussion. The document based on such discussions or 
written feedback of members, could be further amended in order to reflect possible comments, 
addres s possible concerns, or get a key understanding of certain aspects so as to the implementation 
of this TBT Committee recommendation. The United States  said the US is keenly following ePing 
functions that allowed for the discussion of comments by Members. T here were some privacy 
concerns to be worked out but overall , the developments were positive . Trinidad and Tobago  
shared the US concerns on privacy and suggested that the new ePing chat feature could be used to 
share more sensitive information on a one -to-one basis. Australia saw considerable value in efforts 
to promote the practice of sharing comments on notifications and replies to comments via ePing. 
Noting concerns about privacy and treatment of commercial information, it was helpful that the 
document m ade clear that the comment and reply sharing practice would be voluntary and Members 
would determine whether comments could be shared in whole, in part, or members could simply 
indicate that comments were made without disclosing the detail. This flexibilit y was useful in 
managing privacy concerns and Australia welcomed further consideration of options to address such 
concerns. Providing comments would provide enhanced transparency for Members, as well as 
industry and other stakeholders. Encouraging this sha ring practice on ePing would promote better 
use of that platform as well as provide transparency dividends, both for Members, but also industry 
and stakeholders, who often had limited visibility of the work that goes into addressing the TBT 
issues that wer e of concern to them.  The Chair  suggested that the Secretariat revise the document 
after studying the comments provided by Members.  
3.2  Experiences with the commenting process and preparation of a good practice guide  
3.3.  Ms Gabriela Szmidt9 (European Union) spo ke about the EU's process of preparing comments 
on TBT notifications submitted  by other WTO Members. She explained that the EU's approach is to 
submit, for each TBT notification, a single comment on behalf of the EU. The EU's Enquiry Point (EU 
EP) coordina tes the preparation of EU comments so that it is based on different views expressed by 
various EU stakeholders ( member states, European industries, individual stakeholders) against the 
background of general EU interests and policies. She then gave a detailed, step -by-step explanation 
on the EU process of preparing comments: (i)  as soon as a notification is received, it is manually 
encoded in the EU's internal system, and then published in the EU's public TBT  database , so all 
stakeholders can immediate ly have access (stakeholders may register to receive notifications by 
country or by topics or fields); (ii)  the EU EP then dispatches the notification to relevant European 
Commission experts from groups created in the Commission internal database; (iii)  the EU EP then 
gathers all the incoming comments from different stakeholders and forward s them to the experts in 
charge of the notification; (iv)  then, all of these reactions, together with the draft measure, are 
assessed by competent Commission services; (v ) the different contributions from Commission 
experts are then gathered by the EU EP, and then it is the EP which prepares the draft EU comments 
on this basis; (iv) what follows is the internal approval process , beginning with the "inter -service 
consultati on" or ISC , a formal procedure in which the draft comment text is agreed between the 
Commission departments that were involved in the drafting of the comments (also involving other 
EU Services, such as the Commission's Legal Services, the Secretariat -Gener al and DG  Trade). The 
consulted DGs can either provide the EU  EP with an agreement for the proposed text, or they can 
send comments. It is for the TBT Coordinator within the EP to find an agreement between different 
departments that were consulted and to m ake sure that the final comments reflect the wishes of all 
the different sides. Once the compromise version (of the EU comments) is ready, it is then formally 
 
9 TBT Enquiry Point, DG Grow . G/TBT/GEN/312  
 
- 5 - 
 
  adopted as EU comments. The EU comments are then sent by the EU EP to the WTO Member which 
had ma de the notification, and subsequently also published in the EU's TBT database.  
3.4.  She concluded  by remarking that the EU faces three major challenges when preparing 
comments on TBT notifications by other WTO Members. The first, and the most important, is  the 
lack of translation of notified measures into one of the official/working WTO languages. She st ressed 
that many WTO Members do not provide such translations, although they are required  to do so  under 
Article 10.5 of the TBT Agreement. Translations are costly and time -consuming, and thus impact the 
ability to timely and appropriately prepare and send  comments. She urged TBT  Committee Members 
to better cooperate on translation matters to prevent these negatives effects. The other two 
remaining challenges, she said, concerned: (i)  late notifications and insufficient time for comments 
(given EU's multi -stakeholder approach for preparing comments, less than 60 days makes it difficult 
to react on time); and (ii)  situations when measures are notified to both the TBT and SPS 
Committees, but this is not indicated by the notifying Member (if Members consistentl y provide d 
such indication, this would help the EU and others to better prepare comments to both Committees). 
She also addressed questions raised by Trinidad and Tobago (sharing the concern that sometimes 
the Member receiving the comment does not acknowled ge receipt of such comments) and Colombia 
(responding that in the EU there is no established deadline for its stakeholders to provide their 
comments internally, but that it does recommend they do so as soon as possible and well before the 
date set by the t hird country that had made the notification object of the comment).  
3.5.  Ms MaryAnn Hogan10 (United States) made a presentation about how the US WTO Enquiry 
Point (US EP) facilitates the sharing of comments from US industry and government on WTO 
Members' TBT  notifications and of WTO Members' comments on US notifications. After stressing the 
importance of the TBT Agreement's core transparency obligations, she gave an overview of the 
various roles of the US EP and Notification Authority: (i) monitoring US Federal and State regulations, 
and notifying those that meet the TBT definitions; (ii)  making TBT notification details and full -texts 
available via the "Notify  U.S." website11, relying on ePing12 to reach WTO Members and 
US stakeholders; (iii)  distributing comment s, correspondence from US stakeholders to 
WTO Members and keeping US government trade agencies informed; (iv) distributing comments, 
responding to correspondence from WTO Members and keeping Members and US government trade 
agencies informed; and (v)  provid ing information and guidance to US industry and WTO Members 
on comment submissions. She also said that the US EP provides guidance for US commenters on 
the "Notify U.S." website. Basically, she added, US  entities submit comments, procedural questions, 
other information requests to the US  TBT EP, which then distributes them to appropriate 
WTO Members' national EPs and also to the US government trade/export agencies. She then 
explained the role of the US EP when WTO Members submit comments on US TBT notificat ions. In 
such cases, she said, the US EP distributes these comments to the appropriate US regulators and 
trade agencies (e.g. USTR, Department of Agriculture, Environmental Protection Agency, etc.). The 
US EP tries to acknowledge all communications receive d. US notifications include a link to the 
associated text and information about the "Docket Folder"13 (the system  the US uses for collecting 
and viewing comments on US proposed rules/technical regulations and notices that are made at the 
federal level) so that anyone interested can view all comments that have been submitted by the US 
and other stakeholders.  
3.6.  She then listed the following as key benefits of commenting through the US EP: (i) allows for 
inter-agency coordination, creating awareness of unintend ed consequences of draft regulations, thus 
making possible advancing any possible defensive concerns; (ii)  helps gaining understanding of TBT 
and carrying out obligations, thus improving US notification performance; and (iii) allows both WTO 
Members as wel l US stakeholders connecting to US government trade agencies. She then referred 
to some of the key challenges and opportunities. She mentioned, among others, lack of responses 
of requests for comment period extensions as an important challenge. On the othe r hand, she also 
referred to better using ePing as an opportunity: it facilitates commenting and awareness of 
comments , ePing being an organized and robust system that allows for different comment sharing 
scenarios. Finally, in response to queries regardin g the option to post comments on ePing, she first 
 
10 US WTO TBT Enquiry Point, National Institute of Standards and Technology . 
11 "Notify U.S.  is a free, web -based e -mail registration service that offers U.S. entities (citizens, industries, 
organizations) an opportunity to review and comment on proposed foreign technical regulations and conformity 
assessment procedures (CAPs) that can affect their b usinesses and their access to international markets. " 
(https://tsapps.nist.gov/notifyus/data/index/index.cfm ). 
12 https://epingalert.org/en . 
13 www.regulations.gov . G/TBT/GEN/312  
 
- 6 - 
 
  explained that sometimes the comments are simply about seeking clarifications and are not 
necessarily critical of the notified regulation. She added that sharing comments on ePing would be 
beneficial for ot her Members, who could join in to seek for further clarifications.  
3.7.  Mr. Yang Song14 (China) shared the experience of China in how comments on TBT notifications 
are prepared. The TBT Enquiry Point receive s and translate s TBT notifications and select s those 
notifications that may have an impact on Chinese exports. These notifications are then emailed to 
the regulatory authority for further study and comment. Notifications are available in a monthly 
newsletter and on the En quiry Point website www.tbt -sps.gov.cn . Stakeholders are encouraged to 
use ePing to track notifications. Government establish es expert groups and stakeholders, such as 
those in industry, ma kes comments on the selec ted notifications and submit s them to the competent 
authority. That authority in turn examine s the comments and sen ds those approved to the Enquiry 
Point. The Enquiry Point translate s the comments into English and submit s them to the notifying 
Member. Ther e are sometimes varying opinions on comments from different authorities. Upon 
receipt of replies, the Enquiry Point convey s them to stakeholders for reference or further comment. 
If the notifying Member d oes not take comments into account, China would cons ider raising a Specific 
Trade Concern. Participation in the commenting process include s four entities - experts in custom, 
experts from other government authorities, associations and industries, and university and research 
institutes. Recently research and  comment centres ha ve been established so as to include better 
participation of industry in the process as they ha ve the resources to research and comment on 
notifications. In order to make the comment process more effective, Mr. Yang said it was important  
to be as detailed as possible when submitting comments; to compare with practices of like Members, 
compare with international standards, use scientific evidence; and give suggestions. There are 
challenges, such as the financial and time costs of translati ng the increasing number of notifications 
and full texts; and not receiving a response to requests to extend the comment period, especially 
when less than 60 days had been provided. There are also domestic challenges in getting 
stakeholders to make comment s, particularly for SMEs. Training of industries need to be 
strengthened with the support of the Enquiry Point. The Enquiry Point face s difficulties in choosing 
notifications to be commented upon and in evaluating the trade impact. Mr. Yang invited suggest ions 
from other Members and hoped this topic could be discussed further. Another challenge is that 
Enquiry Point emails are not always working, and sometimes no responses to the comments are 
received.  
3.8.  The Russian Federation  asked the three speakers if they  could provide a rough percentage 
of the number of comments which had been taken into account, resulting in changes to the planned 
regulation and prevention of potential trade barriers. Mr. Yang Song (China) replied that the 
percentage is not so high - around 10% of comments are accepted and result in regulations 
changing, while some comments get explanations, but still many comments are not replied to and 
he hoped that that situation might change. Ms MaryAnn Hogan (US) said that while not able to 
provide a  percentage, there are cases of Members responding positively to comments from the U.S. 
The US practice is not to respond to individual comments, regulators are limited in what they can 
discuss during the rulemaking period, but comments received are intens ively reviewed and 
substantive comments are addressed in the final rule published in the U.S. Federal Register. In terms 
of Member responses to US comments, in 2019 there were 61 responses, and this rose to 72 in 
2020. Ms Gabriela Szmidt  (EU) said that whi le she didn't have statistics available, the situation 
was not black and white as there are various level of satisfactory replies. Sometimes all comments 
are taken into account and sometimes just partially, or just one element is included.  
3.9.  In response to a further question from the Russian Federation , on who mainly provides 
comments and what percentage of comments accounts for each group of stakeholder (industry 
associations, individual exporters, research institutions, government experts, etc.), Ms MaryAn n 
Hogan (US) replied that 60 -70% of comments are received from the US Government, and 30% 
from industry and trade associations. Comments are also received from standards developing 
organizations (SDOs). Ms Gabriela Szmidt  (EU) replied that comments are mai nly from industry 
associations. The EU does have associations working at the EU level, who are in direct contact with 
the European Commission. Comments are also received from individuals, in particular from SMEs 
and also from global actors but in their cas e, they usually include the relevant association in the 
loop. Comments are also received through EU delegations globally.  
 
14 Director , WTO/TBT National Enquiry Point of China.  G/TBT/GEN/312  
 
- 7 - 
 
  3.10.   Following  up on the recommendation in the Eighth Triennial Review to develop a good practice 
guide on how to prepare a comment on a WTO notified technical regulation or conformity assessment 
procedure, the Chair  had asked Members to share views on the development of such a guide, 
focussing on three questions. First , what key elements should be included in the good practice guide? 
Second, are there specific challenges faced in preparing comments on notifications that should be 
considered? And third, would delegation s be willing to share experiences or case studies re lated to 
commenting on notifications?  
3.11.   Canada  explained that the main challenges had been adequately addressed in the three 
presentations on the matter. He indicated that Canada could relate to the challenges mentioned , 
such as email addresses of Enquiry Points no longer being valid and difficulties related to engaging 
stakeholders to provide inputs on notified measures. The most important challenge faced by Canada, 
the speaker noted, is the lack of availability of very complex regulations in one of the thre e official 
languages of the WTO, which undermines the capacity of Members to be able to provide comments 
within the commenting period. This issue could be addressed in a good practice guide on preparing 
comments . 
3.12.   Peru discussed two issues that could be con sidered when drafting a good practice guide. The 
first issue she mentioned was challenges related to reaching out to stakeholders in a timely manner 
to give them sufficient time to provide comments on a notified draft. This can take time, the speaker 
expla ined, as it often involves reaching out to intermediaries such as sector associations which in 
turn reach out to their membership. In addition, Ms. Léon referred to the inclusion of the technical 
justification in the comments to ensure that the concerns ra ised are addressed in the most 
satisfactory manner.  
3.13.   Recalling the Committee's Eighth Triennial Review recommendation, the Chair  suggested that 
the Secretariat could start working on the good practice guide in light of the inputs provided 
throughout the the matic session and keep the Committee informed of developments.  
4  MEMBERS'  EXPERIENCES WITH DOMESTIC COORDINATION  
4.1.  Dr Roy Chun Lee15 (Chinese Taipei) shared experiences on enhancing private sector 
engagement in the TBT notification process. In practice, privat e sector participation in the 
notification process in Chinese Taipei is limited ; on average, two comments are received per year. 
Information overload and information illiteracy are two challenges that contribute to limited 
participation. In response, Chinese Taipei introduced an information filtering and interpretation 
system to facilitate private sector particip ation, which includes a three -step process to provide a list 
every fortnight of the most important notifications in terms of top trading partners and export 
product categories. In 2020, the filter caught 279 out of a total of 3 ,090 notifications from 
11 Members, almost 60% of which concerned machinery, and electrical machinery and equipment. 
As the dissemination step of the system, over 600 invitations to comment were sent to relevant 
industrial associations or individual firms, and 392 responses were recei ved. However, only one 
response indicated the notified regulation had an unjustified trade impact, which led to comments, 
and subsequently an STC raised at the TBT Committee. In conclusion, the lack of HS codes in 
notifications, and unclear or abstract des cription of content, were mentioned as two main challenges. 
Chinese Taipei encouraged Members to provide corresponding HS codes in the "Products covered " 
column, at least as a supplementary reference to ICS or other classification system. In addition, 
Chinese Taipei said Members should endeavour to provide the legal implication and changes 
associated with the notified draft regulation, not just the title of the new regulation.  
4.2.  Mr Tom Digby -Rogers16 (United Kingdom) explained how awareness of WTO TBT obligat ions 
was raised through the United Kingdom 's Regulatory Impact Assessment process. As part of a pilot 
in 2019 -2020, a new question was added to the UK Regulatory Impact Assessment template: "Is 
this measure likely to impact on international trade or invest ment? (Yes / No)" This question offered 
a new conceptual, analytical and legal challenge for UK Departments and Regulators to consider. In 
response, the Department for International Trade (DIT) took the opportunity to engage across 
Government, raising awar eness of WTO obligations and providing training to other Departments and 
Regulators. A two -step analysis for responding to the question was suggested by DIT. First, a series 
of three questions serve s to establish the likely impact and the level of DIT invo lvement needed. 
 
15 Senior Deputy Executive Director, WTO & RTA Center, Chung -Hua Institution Economic Research.  
16 Department for International Trade, United Kingdom Government . G/TBT/GEN/312  
 
- 8 - 
 
  Second, a series of sub -questions help s assess impacts on trade and investment, covering both 
economic impact and legal implications. The cross -government connections between the various UK 
Departments, Ministries, Agencies and Authorities was also presented, including the sectorial focuses 
of their work.  
4.3.  Ms Jeannette Mariño17 (Ecuador) spoke about Ecuador 's experience with TBT notifications 
and in particular the functioning of their national Enquiry Point. She also provided information abou t 
internal coordination among regulatory agencies in Ecuador, the participation of the private sector 
and the use of good practices. Regarding challenges, among other things, Ms Mariño said there is a 
continued need to raise awareness about the use of ePin g and to involve the private sector in 
providing comments on notifications. It is also a challenge for the Enquiry Point to raise awareness 
of the trade impact of TBT measures. In conclusion, changes to the development of standards ha s 
helped strengthen th e information management system and ha s enhanced transparency of regulator 
actions. The notification process, she said, is very beneficial for both the private sector and 
regulators. She described the usefulness of ePing as this ha s simplified the process significantly and 
has facilitated interactions with the private sector. Currently, Ms Mariño explained, Ecuador has 
288 subscribers, with almost 90 % from the private sector. The ePing platform ha s helped increase 
interest in the assessment of trade effects of regulations implemented by other countries, i.e., those 
that affect Ecuador 's trade – including by academia. Also, in response to a question from the floor, 
Ecuador confirmed that ePing ha s facilitated coordination with regulators and ha s also enabled 
regulators themselves to follow  up directly on issues of interest to themselves, including, for 
instance, by creating taskforces to address specific issues.  
4.4.  Ms Julie Abraham (United States) spoke  about transparency as well as stakeholder 
participation in addressing emerging technologies and other regulatory issues in the United States.18 
She stressed that transparency, coordination, and engagement are needed at all stages  of the 
regulatory process  – this is important because it helps ensure that regulations effectively both 
address legitimate policy objectives (e.g., safety and health) and do so in a technologically neutral 
manner so as not to impede innovation. Ms Abraham spoke about the various s tages of rulemaking, 
including pre -rulemaking (research, interagency coordination, standards bodies and public outreach, 
advanced notice of proposed rulemaking), proposed rulemaking (notice, importance of unrestricted 
participation and international notifi cation), as well as final rule and review (public comments, 
administrative review and judicial review). She provided examples of outreach with respect to 
emerging technologies, e.g., automated driving systems, vehicle -to-vehicle communication, and 
unmanned  aircraft systems. In response to questions, Ms Abraham stressed that the rapidity of 
technological evolution increases the need to seek comments on every phase  of work (e.g., through 
conferences, technical workshops). This allows stakeholders, she said, t o provide up -to-date 
information and views. She also noted the importance of participating in international standard -
setting bodies. She closed with examples of regulatory changes made in response to public 
comment.   
COMMENT  
4.5.  On a more personal note, the Chair  provides the following remarks.  
4.6.  The presentations and exchanges we had throughout the thematic session on transparency 
illustrate the extensive effort that goes into complying with and also drawing benefits from the 
transparency provisions of the TBT Agreement. Ultimately this is about regulatory cooperation, 
predictability and facilitating  safe trade.  The TBT Enquiry Point is  often the main entity for overseeing 
the transparency process  but there are many other actors  and stakeholders  involved, including 
regulators, standardizing bodies, trade officials, international bodies, sectoral associations, 
companies, academia, etc.  This highlights once again the importance of coordination as well as 
awareness -raising on the TBT Agreement.   
 
17 Director, Strategic Quality Management.  
18 Executive Director, Office of International Transportation and Trade, United States Department of 
Transportation . G/TBT/GEN/312  
 
- 9 - 
 
  4.7.  Some  specific  takeaways of the session  for me  were the following:  
a. A consistent message throughout the session was that the commenting process is a 
challenge across the Membership. Accessing texts/translations and a ssessing them with 
inputs from stakeholders requires resources and good coordination; at the same time, 
replies to comments are not always forthcoming. In this context, I would suggest that we 
ask the Secretariat to start drafting the good practice guide o n how to prepare a comment, 
a mandate from  the Eighth Triennial Review, drawing on the experiences shared by  
Members . I would also encourage Members to advance their discussions on a related 
Committee recommendation - on disseminating comments and replies on a voluntary 
basis,  possibly using ePing - as this could also contribute towards a more effective and 
efficient commenting process.  
b. We had encouraging feedback from Members on how ePing assists in reaching out to 
regulators as well as private sector stak eholders and in raising awareness on the TBT 
Agreement. One Member  shared some thoughts on how ePing could become a more 
comprehensive work platform for submitting, tracking and discussing notifications and 
linking to STCs.  In this general context, I would  invite the Secretariat to keep the 
Committee informed of its plans to integrate more closely its various online tools  and 
would also encourage Members to come forward with suggestions and feedback.  
c. With respect to product information in notifications, it was pointed out that both HS and 
ICS codes  are key to be able to  track,  filter and assess the trade impact of notifi ed 
regulations. In an effort to close the gaps we heard about in this regard, the Committee 
could continue its dialogue on this Eighth Triennial Review Recommendation, also drawing 
on initiatives mentioned by  the Secretariat . 
4.8.  In closing, I believe that this thematic session provided a good opportunity to follow up on 
some of the Eig hth Triennial Review recommendations and our discussions and reflections from this 
session can also serve as food for thought as we embark on the Ninth Triennial Revie w.  
_______________  
 G/TBT/GEN/312  
 
- 10 - 
 
  ANNEX  
 
THEMATIC SESSION ON TRANSPARENCY  
4 FEBRUARY 2021, STARTING AT 10:00  
Programme  
At the conclusion of the Eighth Triennial Review, Members agreed to continue to hold thematic 
sessions in conjunction with the Committee's regular meetings during 2019 -2021, with a view to 
further d eepening the Committee's exchange of experiences on specific topics.1 On this basis, the 
Committee agreed to hold a thematic session on transparency in February 2021.2 The aide -memoire 
contains an overview of the Committee's follow up discussions regardi ng transparency.3 
The programme below is structured around some of the transparency -related recommendations of 
the Eighth Triennial Review. It builds on the  thematic session on transparency held in June 20194 
and compiles specific proposals put forth by Members. The webpage5 dedicated to this event contains 
this programme and will be updated to include presentations and the moderator's report.  
_______________  
 
The thematic session will be moderated by Mr. Laurence Sandral, Chair of the TBT Committee  
1  TRANSPARENCY OVERVIEW  
a. Update from the Secretariat on the status of Committee recommendations related to 
transparency.  
b. Online tools  
i. Update from the  Secretariat on recent developments with online tools it has created 
to facilitate the implementation of transparency provisions in the TBT Agreement.6 
ii. European Union:  ePing in general, Ana Rodriguez Perez, Deputy Head of Unit, 
DG Grow.7 
2  SUBMISSION OF NO TIFICATIONS: PRODUCT COVERAGE  
At the conclusion of the Eighth Triennial Review, Members agreed to hold an initial discussion on 
how to improve – and what challenges exist for – the identification of products including with respect 
to the use of ICS and/or HS codes and/or product names where precise codes do not apply.8 The 
two general presentations below are intended to contribute to this discussion.  
 
a. An overview on HS Codes, Roy Santana, Counsellor, Market Access Division, WTO.  
b. An overview of ICS Codes, L uigi Principi, ISO Central Secretariat.  
 
1 G/TBT/41 , para. 8.2.a.i .  
2 G/TBT/41 , para. 8.2.a.iv. and JOB/TBT/364/Rev. 2.  
3 JOB/TBT/273/Rev.7 , paras  3.1-3.35.  
4 G/TBT/GEN/265 . 
5 https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/tbt_e/tbtthematict04022021_e.htm  
6 TBT NSS, TBT IMS , ePing , WTO ISO Standards Information Gateway . 
7 JOB/TBT/393 . 
8 G/TBT/41 , para. 6.19.d.i i. G/TBT/GEN/312  
 
- 11 - 
 
  3  COMMENTING ON NOTIFICATIONS  
3.1  Using ePing to disseminate comments and replies on notifications  
At the conclusion of the Eighth Triennial Review, the Committee agreed to encourage Members to 
disseminate comments and re plies related to notifications on a voluntary basis and to consider using 
ePing for this purpose.9 
 
a. Presentation of Secretariat document JOB/TBT/396 , followed by discussion  
3.2  Experiences with the commenting process and preparation of a good practice guide  
At the conclusion of the Eighth Triennial Review, Members agreed to develop a good practice guide 
on how to prepare a comment on a notification.10  
 
a. European Union:  Preparing comments, Gabriela Szmidt, TBT Enquiry Point, DG Grow.11 
b. United States:  How the Inquiry Point facilitates the sharing of comments from US 
industry and government on WTO Member notifications and WTO Member comments on 
US notifications, MaryAnn Hogan, US WTO TBT Inquiry Point, National Institute of 
Standards and Technology.12 
c. China: How to prepare comments to TB T Notifications - The Practice of China, Yang Song, 
Director, WTO/TBT National Notification and Enquiry Center of People's Republic of 
China.13 
d. The Moderator will launch a discussion with the following questions:  
i. What key elements should be included in the  good practice guide?  
ii. Are there specific challenges faced in preparing comments on notifications that should 
be considered?  
iii. Would your delegation be willing to share experiences or case studies related to 
commenting on notifications?  
4  MEMBERS' EXPERIENCES WITH DOMESTIC COORDINATION  
At the conclusion of the Eighth Triennial Review, Members agreed to discuss good practices for 
domestic coordination and engagement with regulators, including sharing information about how 
Members effectively communicate with re gulatory agencies to ensure that all relevant notifications 
are made.14 During the thematic session on transparency held in June 2019, Members also pointed 
out the importance of effective stakeholder engagement in the notification process.15 
 
a. Chinese Taipei: Enhancing Private Sector Engagement in TBT Notifications - Experienc es 
from the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu, Roy Chun 
Lee, Senior Deputy Executive Director, WTO & RTA Center, Chung -Hua Institution 
Economic Research.16 
 
9 G/TBT/41 , para. 6.19.f.  
10 G/TBT/41 , para. 7.12.c.  
11 JOB/TBT/393 . 
12 JOB/TBT/398 . 
13 JOB/TBT/399 . 
14 G/TBT/41 , para. 6.19.b.  
15 G/TBT/GEN/265 .  
16 JOB/TBT/392 . G/TBT/GEN/312  
 
- 12 - 
 
  b. United Kingdom: Raising awareness of WTO TBT obligations through the UK 's Regulation 
Impact Assessment and cross -government coordination initiatives, Tom Digby -Rogers, 
Head, WTO TBT Committee, Department for International Trade, United Kingdom 
Government.17 
c. Ecuador:  Ecuador's Experience with TBT notifications: the functioning  of the national 
Enquiry Point, Jeannette Marino, Director, Strategic Quality Management.18 
d. United States: Transparency and stakeholder participation in addressing evolving 
technologies and other regulatory issues, Julie Abraham, Executive Director, Office  of 
International Transportation and Trade, United States Department of Transportation.19 
__________  
 
 
17 JOB/TBT/394 . 
18 JOB/TBT/397 . 
19 JOB/TBT/398 .