WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/TBT/W/257 
18 October 2005 
 (05-4759) 
Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade Original:   English 
  
TRANSITIONAL REVIEW MECHANISM PURSUANT TO SECTION 18 
 OF THE PROTOCOL ON THE ACCESSION OF THE  
PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA (“CHINA”) 
 
Questions and Comments from th e United States to China
 
 
 The following communication, dated 14 October 2005, is being circulated at the request of 
the Delegation of the United States. 
_______________ 
 
 
I. NOTIFICATIONS 
1. The United States has observed a significan t increase in the number of Chinese TBT 
notifications.  To date for 2005 (through notifi cation CHN/159), China has notified 96 proposed 
technical regulations, compared with 23 in 2004 and 28 in 2003.   
2. The vast majority of China’s notifications indicate the General Administration of Quality 
Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine (AQSIQ) or its subordinate organizations, the Standardization 
Administration of China (SAC) and the Certificati on and Accreditation Administration of the People's 
Republic of China (CNCA), as the "agency responsible" (see chart on page 2). 
3. The United States remains concerned that very fe w of the trade-related technical regulations 
promulgated by China’s other ministries have been notified to the WTO TBT Committee. Since 
China’s accession to the WTO, only seven trade-relate d technical regulations of the Ministry of 
Health (MOH) have been notified and one from the Ministry of Information Industry (MII).  Several 
ministries, including the State Environmental Protection Administration (SEPA), and the State Food and Drug Administration (SFDA), have not notified any trade-related technical regulations (see chart 
on page 2).  Several of these ministries have info rmed U.S. stakeholders  of regulatory activities 
informally on an ad hoc  basis.  The United States appreciates th ese efforts to share their regulatory 
activities with certain industry and government represen tatives.  However, in order to ensure that all 
interested persons receive the full benefit of Chin a’s WTO transparency obligations, the U.S. urges 
China to notify the WTO TBT Committee of all draft technical regulations and conformity assessment 
requirements that may affect trade, and to provide a reasonable period for comment.  
4. In paragraph 325 of the 10 November 2001 Report of the Working Party on the Accession of 
China, in response to Members concerns with Ch ina’s lack of regulatory transparency, China’s 
representative indicated that laws and regulations rela ting to foreign trade issued by the State Council 
and rules issued by China’s departments were pub lished in the “Gazette of the State Council,” the 
“Collection of the Laws and Regulations of the People’s Republic of China” and the “MOFTEC 
Gazette.”  Do these journals continue to include information on all laws a nd regulations relating to 
foreign trade, such as trade-related technical regulations?  Likewise, do these journals include 
proposed laws and regulations rela ting to foreign trade?  If so, do es China use this information to 
identify relevant proposals to notify to the WTO? G/TBT/W/257 
Page 2  
 
  
  
  
 
  
  
 
   
II. CHANGES IN CHINA’S STANDARDIZATION AND REGULATORY SYSTEM  
5. On 18 June 2004, SAC circulated a draft report entitled “The Study on the Construction of 
National Technical Standard System” for public comment.  The draft report indicates that transparency is a key element in China’s standards sy stem.  It states that one of the basic requirements 
is that “the process of standards formulation and m odification shall be open and transparent so that all 
relevant parties from both advantaged and di sadvantaged sides can participate.”  On 
24 September 2004, SAC issued another draft re port, entitled “The Study of China Technical 
Standard Development Strategy.”  This draft report focuses on the high- tech sector and China’s 
industrial competitiveness, and it also emphasizes th e importance of the “ope ning” and “transparency 
. . . of the standardization mechanism” and making “a full reflection of comments made by each of the 
interested parties in the standards.” 
(a) We would appreciate updated and deta iled information on changes China is 
contemplating in its standards-setting process,  in particular any steps to implement 
the important principles of openness and tr ansparency and to allow meaningful 
participation by interested parties.  To what extent is it envisioned that interested parties from other WTO Members will be able  to participate in the standards-setting 
process in China?   
(b) Will new regulations or other mechanis ms be put in place to better ensure 
coordination between ministries and agenci es in the development of standards and 
technical regulations? 
III. INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS 
6. Information provided during the last review (G/TBT/W/246) indicated that, in April 2004, 
SAC began an anticipated 14-month review of the 21,000 existing national standards to “check their 
relevance to market requirements and alignment with  international standards.”  Could China provide 
further information on the status of this review and its results? China TBT Notifications:  2002 - present 
19
711112
19
020406080100120
SAC AQSIQ CNCA MOH MII Other  G/TBT/W/257 
 Page 3 
 
 
 IV. CONFORMITY ASSESSMENT PROCEDURES  
7. In the Services Schedule accompanying its Prot ocol of Accession, China committed to permit 
foreign service suppliers that have  been engaged in inspection serv ices in their home countries for 
more than three years to establish minority foreign- owned joint venture technical testing, analysis and 
freight inspection companies upon accession, with majo rity foreign ownership no later than two years 
after accession (and wholly foreig n-owned subsidiaries four years after accession).  In paragraph 195 
of its Working Party Report, China further commi tted as follows:  “Concerning foreign and joint 
venture conformity assessment bodies, certain member s of the Working Party noted that China should 
not maintain requirements which had the effect of acting as barriers to their operation, unless 
otherwise specified in China's Schedule of Sp ecific Commitments.  The representative of China 
replied that China would not maintain such requi rements.  Some members also observed that all 
foreign or joint venture conformity assessment  bodies that met China's requirements should be 
eligible for accreditation and accorded national treatme nt.  The representative of China confirmed that 
the accreditation requirements would be transparent and provide national treatment to foreign conformity assessment bodies.  The Working Party took note of these commitments.” 
8. The United States understands that, to date, Ch ina has not accredited or otherwise recognized 
the competence of any foreign conformity assessme nt bodies for purposes of obtaining the Chinese 
Compulsory Certification (CCC).   
(a) When does China plan to accredit or otherw ise recognize the competence of foreign 
conformity assessment bodies for purposes of obtaining the CCC certification? 
(b) The United States thanks China for granti ng authority to perform annual follow-up 
assessment to select foreign enterprises and allowing this testing to be performed 
outside China.  Does China intend to ex tend this authority to additional foreign 
enterprises?  If not, why not? 
9. China’s First Catalogue of Products Subject to Compulsory Certification  lists products 
requiring the CCC mark (132 product categories).   In response to questions raised in the context of 
the 2004 transitional review, China indicated that  two categories had been added to the CCC 
catalogue:  decorative building products (e.g., paints, coatings and tiles) and se curity products.  China 
indicated that these changes had not been notifie d to the TBT Committee as they would not affect 
trade. 
10. The United States understands that China has recently begun enforcing these and other 
additions to the CCC catalogue, and U.S. shipments of  the relevant products are now unable to enter 
the Chinese market without the CCC mark.  As th e addition of the two above-described product 
categories affects trade, the United States requests that China notify these and any other additions to 
the CCC catalogue and that these changes not be enfo rced until all WTO Members have been allowed 
an adequate period for comment and suppliers have  been provided a reasonable period to comply, as 
required by the TBT Agreement.  Will  China consider taking those steps? 
11. The United States notes that China has recently no tified the addition of six categories of toys 
to the CCC catalogue. 
(a) Does China plan on making further revisions to the list of products requiring the CCC 
mark and notifying the proposed chang es for comment to WTO Members?   
(b) Will China consider removing products (e.g ., low-risk products and/or components) 
that may no longer justify mandatory certification?  If not, why not? G/TBT/W/257 
Page 4  
 
 12. U.S. suppliers continue to express concerns  with the operation of the CCC program and 
associated costs.  Concerns have also been expressed regarding certification requirements for 
components that will be re-exported as a finished pr oduct and with inconsistencies in the process for 
obtaining exemptions.  Are there plans to review the overall operation of the CCC program? 
V. DISTILLED SPIRITS 
13. China maintains a mandatory standard on di stilled spirits (GB2757-81) that sets maximum 
limits in products of naturally occurring substances, k now as superior alcohols or fusel oils, that result 
from the production process.  However, the Joint UN FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives, like U.S. regulators of alcohol, has recogni zed that superior alcohols are safe for human 
consumption.  China’s Ministry of Health has also  adopted regulations which allow superior alcohols 
to be used as additives in food products without limitations on the quantity of those alcohols.  The 
United States thus strongly encourages China to el iminate this standard unless it can justify the 
standard on the basis of scientific  evidence that superior alcohols are harmful in some way to human 
health. 
(a) What scientific evidence does China use to ju stify the need to set a limit on superior 
alcohols in distilled spirits in products? 
(b) The United States understands that China is c onsidering revisions to this standard.  If 
so, what would be the time frame for such an action?  When do es China intend to 
notify the proposed revisions? 
(c) Given that China currently allows superior  alcohols to be used as additives in food 
products, please explain why China does not  allow products containing naturally-
occurring levels of superior al cohols above a certain level. 
14. China also imposes various labelling requirements for distilled spirits.  For example, it 
requires that spirits product labels include a “bottlin g date.”  Under international practice relating to 
wines and spirits, however, the date of manufacture (production or bottling date) is not required.  As 
many spirits products consist of a blend of spirits that are aged for varying periods, a single “date of 
manufacture” is often not possible to specify, woul d not represent the actual age of the product, and 
would confuse consumers regarding the actual age of the product.  Please explain the rationale for 
requiring that spirits product la bels include a “bottling date.” 
15. With regard to China’s regulations on safety  labelling, the United States recognizes that font 
size for mandatory information in Chinese may be re gulated for the purposes of legibility, but it is not 
clear why the font size on the safety label cannot be adjusted to fit onto the bottle in a way that does 
not obscure the producer’s label.  What is China’s rationale for this requirement?   
16. In order to help protect spirits products against counterfeiting, would China consider 
permitting only the trademark owner/producer to a pply for the mandatory Chinese safety label?  If 
not, why not? 
VI. CHEMICALS 
17. China’s Provisions on the Environmental Administration of New Chemical Substances , issued 
by SEPA on 12 September 2003, require that all new chemical substances be tested and registered 
before being introduced into the Chinese market. The United Stat es applauds China’s efforts to 
protect the environment, SEPA’s efforts and c ontinued technical exchanges with the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on the issue, and increases of approved new chemicals.  
However, problems with the implementation of this regulation continue to exist.  G/TBT/W/257 
 Page 5 
 
 
 (a) Before implementation of the Provisions on the Environmental Administration of 
New Chemical Substances  on 15 October 2003, China created the Inventory of 
Existing Chemical Substances in China (IECSC) consisting of all chemicals previously in the Chinese market.  The United States understands that not all 
chemicals in commerce before implementation are recorded on this registry, however.  
What is the procedure for adding these substances to the registry? 
(b) There appears to be insuffici ent scientific evidence to justify that eco-toxological tests 
of unique plant and animal species indigenous to China be performed in Chinese laboratories.  Will China therefore accept eco-toxological tests performed in other 
regulated countries? 
(c) The United States understands that a low-volume exemption is granted for research 
and development purposes.  When will SEPA issue a list of chemicals that would 
qualify for a low volume exemption? 
(d) Once the Executive Review Co mmittee has approved a chemical substance, please 
describe the process for ad ding it to the IECSC. 
VII. REDUCTION OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES AND WASTE IN ELECTRONICS 
AND ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT (ROHS AND WEEE) 
18. While the United States applauds China’s efforts in environmental protection and to solve the 
electronic waste problem, concern exists about  the upcoming guidelines for RoHS and WEEE in 
China.  We appreciate the recent notification of MII’s Administration on the Control of Pollution 
Caused by Electronic Information Products (G/TBT/N/CHN/140). 
19. Regarding the WEEE guidelines, there are concer ns about a China-specific labelling process 
that will be burdensome for WTO Member countries who import electronics into China.  What steps 
is China taking to minimize such burdens on industry? 
VIII.  RADIO FREQUENCY IDENTIFICATION 
20. During the last review, the United States noted its understanding of work underway in 
China’s Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) Wo rking Group to develop a RFID policy for China 
and noted our expectation that, in formulating this  policy, China will choose a policy that is as least 
trade restrictive as necessary to achieve China’ s legitimate policy objectives.  The United States 
would be very concerned if China pursued a polic y imposing a mandatory RFID standard that was 
incompatible with international st andards and would limit the ability of firms and consumers to adapt 
RFID technologies to their current and possible future needs.  We appreciated China’s clarification at 
that time that a draft regulation for RFID did not ye t exist and its confirmation that it would take into 
consideration relevant internationa l standards and, as appropriate, pr ovide notification of its proposal 
to WTO Members.  Is our understanding correct th at the situation has not changed since the last 
review? 
 
__________