. /.   WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  TN/MA/W/115 
22 May 2009 
 (09-2495) 
Negotiating Group on Market Access Original:   English 
  
 
MARKET ACCESS FOR NON-AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS  
 
Answers by the United States to Questions from Singapore on the “Agreement on Non-Tariff Barriers 
Pertaining to the Electrical Safety and Electromagnetic Compatibility (EMC) of Electronic Goods”  
 
Communication from the United States 
 
  The following communication, dated 21 May 2009, is being circulated at the request of the delegation of the United States. 
 
_______________ 
 
 
I. AGREEMENT ON NON-TARIFF BARRIERS PERTAINING TO THE 
ELECTRICAL SAFETY AND ELECTROMAG NETIC COMPATIBILITY (EMC) OF 
ELECTRONIC GOODS 
1. QUESTION: Paragraph 1 – We understand that the st andards, technical regulations and 
conformity assessment procedures for E/E products covers not only electrical safety or EMC, 
but also includes energy efficiency, WEEE etc.  Why is the NT proposal limited to only 
electrical safety or EMC?  Are those principles in the US proposal not applicable to energy 
efficiency and other regulations on E/E products, for example? 
 
ANSWER:  Two main reasons:  our proposal was a response to the EC proposal, which 
was limited to electrical safety and EMC, and these were also the regulatory areas in which our industry was requesting action.  Certainly, transparency and good regulatory practice are also applicable to environmental regulations  and would study any proposal Singapore might 
provide to address environmental regulations and energy efficiency for electronics goods. 
 2.   QUESTION: Paragraph II.B – Does the proposal apply only to Central Government 
bodies?  Or also to state or local government  bodies?  We note that the WTO TBT Agreement 
applies to the Central Government Bodies, local government bodies and non-governmental 
bodies.  
 
ANSWER: The United States regulates electrical safety and EMC at the Federal level; 
hence we drafted the text to apply to the Fede ral level only.  However, several Members have 
suggested that we broaden the disciplines of our initiative to the sub-Federal level, noting that 
some Members regulate electrical safety and EMC at the sub-Federal level.  Some possible 
options for doing this might include the following: (a) Members could schedule the regulatory bodies to which its commitments under this initia tive apply (including if applicable sub-
Federal entities); or (b) the proposal could incl ude language that track s the language of TBT 
Articles 3.1 and 7.1 which state that “Members shall take such reasonable measures as may be available to them to ensure compliance by [s ub-Federal bodies] …”  We would be interested 
in Members’ views on this issue. TN/MA/W/115 
Page 2  
 
  3.   QUESTION: Paragraph III.C – How are the transparency  provisions different from those in 
the WTO TBT Agreement? 
 
ANSWER:  Under our proposal, all the transparency provisions of the TBT Agreement 
continue to apply, with the addition of seven main requirements:  (1) a Member must notify 
all proposed standards, technical regulations or conformity assessment procedures that may 
have a significant effect on trade, not just tho se that are not based on relevant international 
standards; (2) a Member must identify up front  in its WTO notice the parts of the proposed 
measure that in substance deviate from rele vant international standards, guides or 
recommendations (rather than provide such in formation subsequently upon request) (3) a 
Member must consider comments from interested  persons, not just Members, on the proposed 
standard, technical regulation or  conformity assessment procedure; (4) a Member must allow 
as a “reasonable time” for the submission of comments from Members on a proposed measure normally not less than 60 days; (5) a Member must publish (in print or electronically) the proposed standard, technical regulation or c onformity assessment procedure (rather than 
simply a notice thereof); (6) a Member must be  prepared to provide particulars upon request 
concerning the standard, technical regulation or conformity assessment procedure including how it took into account the costs of complying with the proposed technical regulation or conformity assessment procedures; and (7) Members must publish or otherwise make 
available to the public comments it receives on th e proposed standard, technical regulation or 
conformity assessment procedure as well as its re sponses to significant and relevant issues 
raised in those comments. 
 4. QUESTION: Paragraph III.F – On what basis are th e products to be included in Annex II 
determined? 
 
ANSWER:  We are currently considering the best way to characterize the products for 
listing in the relevant Annexes of the proposal, given that regulators do not regulate by HS code.  We would welc ome suggestions.   
 5.   QUESTION: Paragraph III.H – For products in Annex III, can Members choose not to 
accept SDoC but use other assurances of conformity such as the Certification of Conformity 
(CoC) as required in the other Member’s domestic  regulation?  On what basis are the products 
to be included in Annex III determined? 
 
ANSWER:  Members self-select the products to in clude in Annexes III (SDoC) and IV 
(Third-Party Certification) from the list in Anne x I. Our intent is that for each product listed 
in Annex I for which a Member requires an assurance of conformity, the Member would 
indicate whether it accepts SDoC (by listing it in Annex III) or third-party certification 
(Annex IV). We would need more information on the Certification of Conformity to answer 
this question fully (e.g., is it a self-certifi cation or a third-party certification?).   
 
 
__________