WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  TN/MA/W/125 
4 December 2009 
 (09-6212) 
Negotiating Group on Market Access Original:   English 
  
 
MARKET ACCESS FOR NON-AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS 
 
Compendium from the United States containing the most recent NTB's text on an Agreement on 
Non-Tariff Barriers Pertaining to the Electrical Safety and Electromagnetic  
Compatibility (EMC) of Electronic Goods, as well as the history of  
questions and answers related to this proposal   
 
Communication from the United States 
 
 
 The following communication, dated 2 December 2009, is being circulated at the request of 
the delegation of the United States. 
_______________ 
 
 
Agreement on Non-Tariff Barriers Pertaining to the 
Electrical Safety and Electromagnetic Compatibility (EMC) of Electronic Goods 
 
Members,  
 
Recalling that pursuant to paragraph 16 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration, Members 
agreed to negotiations aimed at reducing or as appropriate eliminating tariffs and non-tariff 
barriers on non-agricultural goods;  
Recognizing the important contribution of electronic goods to global economic growth 
and development;   
Desiring to ensure that technical regulations, standards, and conformity assessment 
procedures do not create unnecessary obstacles to international trade  in electronic goods;  
 
Affirming their existing rights and obligations  under the WTO Agreement, including the 
Agreement on Technical Barrier s to Trade (TBT Agreement); 
 Recognizing  that no Member should be prevented from taking measures that are 
necessary for the protection of human, animal or pl ant life or health, of the environment, at the 
levels it considers appropriate, subject to the requirement that they are not applied in a manner 
which would constitute a means of arbitrary or  unjustifiable discrimination between countries 
where the same conditions prevail or a disguise d restriction on international trade, and are 
otherwise in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement, or that are necessary for the 
protection of its essential security interest; 
 
Recognizing  that a Member’s selection of an appropriate conformity assessment 
procedure may involve the consideration of a numb er of factors, such as the risks associated 
with non-conformity or the product fo r which conformity is sought;     
 TN/MA/W/125 
Page 2  
 
  Seeking  to supplement and elaborate on the TBT  Agreement with respect to standards, 
technical regulations, and conformity assessment  procedures affecting electronic goods; and 
 
With a view to expanding the products listed in Me mbers' schedules to Annex I, II, III, 
and IV to this Agreement in the future. 
 
Agree as follows: 
 I. DEFINITIONS 
 For purposes of this Agreement: 
 
 Central government body means a central government body as defined in Annex 1 of the TBT Agreement;   Electronic good means any information technology, telecommunications, audio-visual, 
or other electronic or electrical product, whethe r for business or personal use, listed in Annex I 
of this Agreement; [Note: Annex I would cover a range of products falling under Chapter 84, 85, 
or 90 of the World Customs Organization's Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System and apply to all Members] ; 
 
Question from Thailand:  Could the U.S. provide HS codes for the product coverage? (JOB/08)/113) 
 
• U.S. 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 welcome s uggestions.  (JOB(09)/37) 
 
 Supplier means any party that supplies the product and may include a manufacturer, 
distributor, or importer; 
  Supplier's declaration of conformity (SDoC) means a declaration by a supplier based on an evaluation of the results of conformity assessment procedures that a product meets a 
specified standard or technical regulation or other specification;   
 Standard, technical regulation, or conformi ty assessment procedure means respectively 
a standard, technical regulation, or conformity assessment procedure as defined in Annex 1 of 
the TBT Agreement that pertains to the electri cal safety or electromagnetic compatibility 
(EMC) of an electronic good; and  
 Third-party certification means a declaration by a body, which the Member accepting 
the declaration has determined is independent of  suppliers and users, that a product meets a 
specified standard or technical regulation or oth er specification based on an evaluation of the 
results of conformity assessment procedures.  
Question from Singapore:  We understand that the st andards, technical regul ations 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? (JOB(09)/22)  
• U.S. 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  TN/MA/W/125 
 Page 3 
 
 
  industry was requesting action.  Certainly, transparency and good regulatory practice are also 
applicable to environmental regulations a nd would study any proposal Singapore might 
provide to address environmental regulations and energy efficiency for electronics goods. 
(TN/MA/W/115) 
 
II. SCOPE AND COVERAGE    
A. This Agreement shall apply to any sta ndard, technical regulation, or conformity 
assessment procedure, as defined in paragraph I.    B. This Agreement shall impose obligations on  Members only with respect to standards, 
technical regulations, and conformity assessment  procedures of central government bodies. 
 
Question from Thailand:  Please explain why th e Agreement shall impose obligations only on 
standards, technical regulations and conformity assessment of central government bodies while the 
TBT Agreement covers local government bodies and non-governmental bodies as well. 
(JOB(08)/113)  
 
• U.S. 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 (a) Members could schedule the regulatory body to 
which its commitments under this initiative appl y (including if applicable sub-Federal 
entities); or (b) the proposal could include langua ge that tracks the language of TBT Article 
3.1 which states that “Members shall take su ch reasonable measures as may be available to 
them to ensure compliance by [sub-Federal bodies] …” . (JOB(09)/37) 
 
Question from Singapore:  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.  (JOB(09)/22)  
 
• U.S. answer:  The United States regulates elec trical 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) 
 
C. This Agreement shall not apply to purchas ing specifications prepared by governmental 
bodies for production or consumption requirements of governmental bodies. 
 Question from Thailand:  Does this paragraph stating that the Agreement shall not apply to purchasing 
specifications prepared by governmental bodies fo r production or consumpt ion requirements of 
governmental bodies apply to the Members that are parties to the Government Procurement 
Agreement?  Please clarify. (JOB(08)/113)  TN/MA/W/125 
Page 4  
 
  • U.S. answer:  The proposal tracks the language of TBT Article 1.4, which states that 
“Purchasing specifications prepared by governmental bodies for production or consumption requirements of governmental bodies are not subject  to the provisions of this Agreement, but 
are addressed in the Agreement on Government Procurement.”  Our intent that the proposal 
would not apply to purchasing specifications in government procurements, just as the TBT 
Agreement does not apply to purchasing specifica tions in government procurements. As TBT 
Article 1.4 notes such purchasing specifications are addressed in the GPA.  (JOB(09)/37) 
 
D. Any reference in this Agreement to standard s, technical regulations, or conformity 
assessment procedures shall be construed to in clude any amendment thereto and any additions 
to the rules or product coverage thereof, except amendments and additions of an insignificant 
nature, to the extent such ame ndment or addition pertains to electrical safety or EMC for 
electronic goods.  III. STANDARDS, TECHNICAL REGULATIONS, AND CONFORMITY ASSESSMENT 
PROCEDURES 
Assessing Costs  
 A. Where a Member proposes to prepare or adopt a technical regulation or conformity assessment procedure, it shall take into account, inter alia , costs of complying with the proposed 
technical regulation or conformity assessment procedure.   
Question from Thailand:  Please provide more inform ation on “costs of complying” with the proposed 
technical regulation or conformity assessment procedures.  For example, how to assess them? (JOB(08)/113)  
• U.S. answer:  It is up to each individual Me mber to decide how to assess the costs of 
complying with the proposed technical regulati on or conformity assessment procedure.  In 
fact, different regulatory bodies within a si ngle economy may have different methods of 
assessing the costs of complying.  The point of the provision is to ensure that costs of 
complying are taken into account in the regulatory process. (JOB(09)/37) 
 
International Standards 
 
B. In determining whether an international st andard, guide or recommendation within the 
meaning of Articles 2 and 5 and Annex 3 of the TBT Agreement exists pertaining to electrical safety or EMC of an electronic good, each Member shall base its determination on the 
principles set out in Decisions and Recommendations adopted  by the Committee since 1 January 
1995 , G/TBT/1/Rev.8, 23 May 2002, Section IX (Decision of the Committee on Principles for the 
Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations with relation to Articles 2, 
5 and Annex 3 of the Agreement ) (Committee Decision ) issued by the WTO Committee on 
Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT Committee).      
Transparency  
 
C. Further to Articles 2.9 and 5.6 of the TBT Agreement, where a Member proposes to 
prepare or adopt a technical regulation or conf ormity assessment procedure that may have a 
significant effect on trade of other Members, the Member shall, with a view to providing meaningful opportunity for comment:    TN/MA/W/125 
 Page 5 
 
 
  (1) publish, in print or electronically, the proposed technical regulation or conformity 
assessment procedure at the earliest appropriate stage, in such a manner as to enable interested parties to become acquainted with it and to submit written comments before the Member finalizes it;
1  
 
(2) to the extent applicable, identify in any no tification it makes pursuant to Article 2.9.2 or 
5.6.2 of the TBT Agreement any provisions of the proposed technical regulation or conformity assessment procedure that deviat e in substance from relevant international 
standards, guides, or recommendations;  
(3) upon request from another Member, provide particulars concerning how it took or 
plans to take into account the costs of comp lying with the proposed technical regulation 
or conformity assessment procedures in accordance with paragraph A;  
 (4) normally allow not less than 60 days for Members to comment in writing on the 
proposed technical regulation or conformity assessment procedure; 
 (5)  (i)  allow reasonable time for interest ed parties to comment in writing on the 
proposed technical regulation or conf ormity assessment procedure, which 
normally shall not be less than 60 days;
2 and (ii) take into account any such 
comments the Member receives in fi nalizing the technical regulation or 
conformity assessment procedure; and 
 (6) publish, in print or electronically, any wr itten comments it receives from Members or 
interested parties on the proposed techni cal regulation or conformity assessment 
procedure. 
 
 Members shall comply with the obligations set out in this paragraph and Articles 2.9 
and 5.6 of the TBT Agreement regardless of wheth er relevant international standards, guides, 
or recommendations exist or the technical cont ent of the proposed technical regulation or 
conformity assessment procedure is  in accordance with relevant international standards, guides, 
or recommendations.   
 Question from Thailand:  Does the U.S. view th at proposed additional commitments beyond TBT 
Agreement such as notifying the proposed standards, technical regulation or conformity procedures 
and publishing the responses to any comments will cr eate significant burdens to developing countries, 
particularly those that do not use WTO language as official languages? (JOB(08)/113) 
 
• U.S. answer:  We recognize that the proposal adds a new requirement to notify proposed 
technical regulations and conformity assessmen t procedures to the WTO even where such 
regulations or procedures are based on relevant international standards.  However, we view 
the benefits of this additional requirement as enhancing transparency and facilitating trade 
and that these benefits for industries far outwei gh the additional requirement for governments.  
In this regard, we note that the United States notifies proposed technical regulations and 
conformity assessment procedures to the WTO regardless of whether they are based on 
relevant international standards.  We woul d encourage discussions regarding our and other 
                                                     
 
1 When a Member publishes a proposed technical regulation or conformity assessment procedure in 
accordance with this subparagra ph, it shall be deemed to ha ve satisfied the obligation in  Article 2.9.1 or 5.6.1 of 
the TBT Agreement, as the case may be, to publish a no tice of the proposed technical regulation or conformity 
assessment procedure. 
2 Each Member shall publish a notice, in print or  electronically, specifying the comment period and 
give favourable consideration to reasonable re quests from interested parties to extend it.  TN/MA/W/125 
Page 6  
 
  Members’ experience with notifications.  Moreove r, having all proposed technical regulations 
and conformity assessment procedures in one central depositary would be significantly less burdensome on developing countries with limite d resources than engaging someone with the 
task of monitoring other countries’ websites or official journals for notices of new proposed technical regulations or conformity assessment procedures and then translating those notices 
into the domestic language.  Responses to co mments need not be responses to individual 
comments, but can be grouped by topic and summarized, for example, in the final rulemaking.  (JOB(09)/37) 
 
Question from Singapore:  How are the transparency  provisions different from those in the WTO TBT 
Agreement? (JOB(09)/22) 
 
• U.S. answer: Under our proposal, all the tran sparency 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. (TN/MA/W/115) 
 
Question from Canada – Transparency: Sectoral Requirements  
- Separate transparency requirements for the au tomotive or the electronics sectors could result 
in unique transparency requirements, the impl ementation of which would prove operationally 
challenging for many Members’ Notification Authorities and Enquiry Points.  
- Could the U.S. advise why it believes that different transparency requirements are required 
specifically for the automotive and electronics sectors? (JOB(09)/31+Corr.1) 
 
• U.S. answer:   The United States believes that additi onal transparency requirements can 
benefit many if not all sectors.  However,  the NAMA NTB negotiations have provided an 
opportunity to address TBT-related issues on a sect or specific basis, and in response to this 
opportunity a number of Members have submitte d sector-specific TBT-related NTB proposals 
that reflect sectors identified in the indicative list of NTBs.  Autos and electronics are two of 
those sectors and sectors where increased transpar ency can be particularly beneficial.  We 
acknowledge that other sectors may also benef it from improved transparency but we have a 
mandate to address TBT-related NTBs on a sectoral basis and should not neglect the opportunity we have to increase transparency in these sectors simply because transparency 
improvements may also be useful in other sectors. 
  TN/MA/W/125 
 Page 7 
 
 
  With respect to the automotive and electr onics sectors, both are examples of heavily 
regulated sectors with significant international trade, global supply chains and companies that operate in many different countries.  In our view, transparency provisions that guarantee all interested parties a  meaningful opportunity to comment on proposed measures is particularly beneficial in such sectors.    Our proposals help 
ensure meaningful opportunity for comment among other things by requiring that the 
proposed measure itself to be published, in print or electronically, and by requiring Members to take interested parties’ comments -- in addition to comments from 
Members -- into account in finalizing the proposed measure. In sectors with global significance, ensuring that interested par ties in all WTO Members can comment on 
proposed measures is critical.  In addition,  our proposals would require all proposed 
technical regulations, conformity assessment  procedures and standards developed by 
central government bodies (and having a significant effect on trade) to be published and notified to the WTO. In our view, even  measures based on international standards 
can benefit from interested party input, including for example, on elements of the 
measure that may differ from or go beyond re levant international standards.  In our 
view, greater opportunities for interested pa rty input can facilitate greater alignment 
and help prevent the creation of unnecessary barriers.  We have the opportunity to make these improvements in the NAMA NTB context and to do so on a sectoral basis 
and believe it is both appropr iate and important that take advantage of that 
opportunity in our autos and electronics proposals. (JOB(09)/157) 
 
Question from Canada:  Transparency: Publication of Standards 
 - The WTO TBT Agreement deals separately with th e three distinct types of measures that it 
covers (i.e. technical regulations, standards,  and conformity assessment procedures). Each 
measure is subject to distinct transparency re quirements which should not be lumped together 
and made subject to common obligations. For ex ample, standards are typically developed by 
private-sector organisations whic h normally provide their standa rds to the public only on a 
cost basis.  
- How does the U.S. foresee the implementation of the requirement for Members to publish and 
provide copies of standards in a way that refl ects the copyrights of standards-developments 
organizations? 
- In order to avoid the need for Members’ Notification Authorities to unnecessarily duplicate 
existing processes for the publication, notificati on and provision of draft standards, has the 
U.S. considered making reference to Annex 3 of the WTO TBT Agreement, which requires 
that work programmes of standards be published? 
- Similarly has the U.S. considered adding a reference to Article 10.4 of the WTO TBT 
Agreement, which requires Members to take su ch reasonable measures as may be available to 
them to ensure that, upon request, copies of documents “ are supplied at an equitable price (if 
any) which shall, apart from the real cost of de livery, be the same for the nationals of the 
Member concerned or of any other Member ”? (JOB(09)/31+Corr.1) 
 
• U.S. answer:  With respect to the point Canada ra ises about the TBT Agreement addressing 
standards differently than technical regulations and conformity assessment procedures, in response to Members’ feedback, the United St ates has revised its autos and electronics 
proposals to set out the transparency provisions  for standards and technical regulations and 
conformity assessment procedures separately.  
 
 Generally, we have included “standards” in the proposals’ transparency provisions to cover 
those instances when governments themselves deve lop a standard and in many instances then 
mandate compliance with that standard. Often th e development stage of that standard is the 
time at which interested parties can provide th e most meaningful input, as opposed to the time TN/MA/W/125 
Page 8  
 
  when the Member simply proposes that complian ce with that standard become mandatory.  
While recognizing that Annex 3 of the TB T Agreement contains some transparency 
disciplines for standards development, for example the requirement under paragraph J to publish a work program, our proposals seek to build upon those, for example, by requiring that the proposed standard also be published.  (Note that the U.S. proposals are limited to 
central government bodies such that the propo sals’ transparency provisions would only apply 
to standards developed by central government bodies.) 
 
 With respect to Canada’s questions on copy rights, our proposals do not intend to require 
private-sector standardizing bodies to follow the proposals’ transparency provisions and 
therefore do not see that they raises copyright i ssues.  Instead, for those that have accepted it, 
Annex 3 would continue to apply to non-gove rnmental standardizing bodies (including the 
requirement to publish work programs).  We note that Annex 3 would also continue to apply 
to government standardizing bodies – a point which we believe is made clearer in the revised 
autos and electronics proposals we tabled in September. (See TN/MA/W/105/Rev.2 and 
TN/MA/W/120).  For government standardizi ng bodies, for the reason noted above, we 
believe the additional publicati on and notification requirement s our proposals would impose 
are important to enhancing transparency in these sectors.  Our proposals do not reference Article 10.4 of the TBT Agreement because th at provision would con tinue to apply in 
addition to the requirements of our proposals. (JOB(09)/157) 
 
Question from Canada – Transparency: De viations from International Standards 
 - The U.S. proposals would require Members to always indicate any provisions that deviate in 
substance from international standards. The WTO TBT Agreement only requires Members to 
identify such provisions upon request.  
- How does the U.S. plan to address this ne w obligation from a resource-requirement and 
practical implementation perspective?  
- Does the U.S. foresee modifying the WTO templa te for notifications to include a new section 
in which Members would indicate provisions th at deviate in substance from international 
standards?   (JOB(09)/31+Corr.1) 
 
• U.S. answer:   Because the TBT Agreement already re quires Member to take into account 
relevant international standards in developi ng its standards, technical regulations and 
conformity assessment procedures, each Memb er should readily know whether, and which 
parts, of a proposed measure deviate in substa nce from relevant intern ational standards.  
Accordingly, the United States does not anticipate reporting that information in Members’ WTO notifications to be a significant new recourse  or practical burden, and in any event, we 
view the benefits of greater transparency th is requirement would provided our industries as 
outweighing the additional requirement  for governments.  (JOB(09)/157) 
 Question from Canada – Transparency: Good Regulatory Practices - It could be burdensome for Members to pr ovide, upon request, particulars concerning how 
elements of good regulatory practices, such as the cost of complying with the proposed 
measure, were taken into account.  
- As an alternative, has the U.S. considered allowing Members to simply provide a regulatory 
impact analysis statement, or equivalent info rmation, provided that it is publicly available? 
(JOB(09)/31+Corr.1) 
 
• U.S. answer:   It is up to each individual Member to decide how to assess the costs of 
complying with the proposed technical regulati on or conformity assessment procedure.  In 
fact, different regulatory bodies within a si ngle economy may have different methods of 
assessing the costs of complying.  Accordingly,  a regulatory impact analysis statement or  TN/MA/W/125 
 Page 9 
 
 
  equivalent information that included considera tion of the cost of complying would be one 
avenue Members could take to comply with th is provision, and in turn providing copies of 
such an analysis statement or equivalent info rmation could be one way in which to provide 
particulars concerning how the Member considered  the cost of complying.  The point of these 
provisions is to ensure that Members take co sts of complying into account in the regulatory 
process and that other Members and stakeholde rs have access to such information.  
(JOB(09)/157) 
  
Question from Canada – Transparency: Publication of Comments and Responses 
 
- Some Members’ regulatory regimes provide fo r the presumption that confidential information 
submitted to the government will be treated appr opriately and not be published. Canada’s 
regulatory practices, for example, provide for the publication of summaries of comments and summaries of responses, rather than verbatim comments and responses. This approach is 
efficient and effectively addresses confidentiality issues.  
- Has the U.S. considered providing for the publication of summaries of comments and 
summaries of responses, rather than verbatim comments and responses? (JOB(09)/31+Corr.1) 
 
• U.S. answer:  Our proposals would require that when a Member publishes an adopted measure 
(or as soon as possible thereafter), it also publish (in print or electronically) responses to significant issues raised in the comments it receive d.  We agree this requirement should allow 
the Member to publish a summary of those responses. Our proposals would also require 
Members to publish (in print or electronically) any written comments it received.  We agree 
that with respect to both requirements c onfidential business information should not be 
published.  (JOB(09)/157) 
 
D. Where urgent problems of safety, health, environmental protection, or national security 
arise or threaten to arise for a Member, the Member may omit such steps enumerated in 
paragraph C as it finds necessary, provided th at the Member, upon finalizing the technical 
regulation or conformity assessment procedure, shall:  (1) to the extent applicable, identify in any notification it makes pursuant to Article 2.10.1 
or 5.7.1 of the TBT Agreement any provisions of the technical regulation or conformity 
assessment procedure that deviate in substa nce from relevant international standards, 
guides, or recommendations; 
 (2) upon request, provide other Members particulars concerning how it took or plans to 
take into account the costs of complying wi th the technical regulation or conformity 
assessment procedure in accord ance with paragraph A; and 
 (3) (i) allow interested parties to submit comme nts in writing on the technical regulation or 
conformity assessment procedure; and (ii) ta ke these comments into account in deciding 
whether to modify the technical regulatio n or conformity assessment procedure. 
 
E. Further to Article 4.1 and Annex 3 of the TBT Agreement, where a Member proposes to 
prepare or adopt a standard, it shall with a view to providing meaningful opportunity for comment:  (1) publish, in print or electronically, the proposed standard at the earliest appropriate 
stage, in such a manner as to enable interested  parties to become acquainted with it and 
to submit written comments before the Member finalizes it; 
 TN/MA/W/125 
Page 10  
 
  (2) notify other Members through the Secretariat  of the proposed standard at the earliest 
appropriate stage, including the products the proposed standard covers, together with a brief indication of its objective and rati onale and, to the extent applicable, any 
provisions of the standard that deviate in substance from relevant international standards, guides, or recommendations; 
 
(3) upon request from another Member, provide particulars concerning the proposed 
standard; 
 (4) upon request, discuss written comments it receives from Members and take the results 
of those discussions into account in finalizing the proposed standard; and 
 (5) publish, in print or electronically, any written comments it received from Members or 
interested parties on the proposed standard. 
  
 Each Member shall provide for standardiz ing bodies within its territory to apply 
paragraphs L and M of Annex 3 to other Members as well as to interested parties within the territory of a Member of the WTO.   F. When publishing a standard, technical regulation, or conformity assessment procedure, or if paragraph D applies, as soon as possible after publication of the final standard, technical 
regulation, or conformity assessment procedur e, each Member shall publish, in print or 
electronically:  (1) its responses to any significant and relevant issues raised in comments it received from 
Members or interested parties during the comment period;
3 and 
 
(2) the objective and rationale for preparing or  adopting the particular standard, technical 
regulation, or conformity assessment procedure. 
 
Question from Thailand:  Why the treatment of c onformity assessment bodies apply only to products 
listed in Annex II instead of applying to all products under the Agreement? (JOB(08)/113) 
 
• U.S. answer:  While some of the disciplines in the proposal would apply to all products listed 
in Annex I, our suggestion is that Members self- select the products for which they wish to 
undertake the commitments to accept SDoC or third party certification and identify those in Annex III and VI, respectively.  The proposal is meant as a flexible and transparent framework that would provide a tool for progressi ve deregulation and liber alization consistent 
with market development, regulatory capacity , and ensuring the continued protection of 
human health and safety.  The concept of sche duling varied commitments has been used in 
the services negotiations.  With respect to Annex II, the proposal contemplates Members’ listing products with respect to which the obliga tion to afford national treatment to conformity 
assessment bodies would apply.  We included th is provision to afford greater flexibility for 
Members for whom taking on such an obligati on would be difficult, but are open to the 
possibility of eliminating Annex II and requiri ng national treatment with respect to all 
products listed in Anne x I.  (JOB(09)/37) 
 
                                                     
 
3 For greater certainty, if a Member or an interested party submits comments during the comment 
period that raise questions or concerns regarding why the standard, technical regulation or conformity 
assessment procedure deviates from relevant internatio nal standards, guides, or recommendations or how the 
Member took into account th e costs of complying with the technical  regulation or conformity assessment 
procedure, the Member shall publish its responses to such comments.   TN/MA/W/125 
 Page 11 
 
 
  Treatment of Conformity Assessment Bodies 
 
G. Each Member shall accord to conformity a ssessment bodies in the territory of any other 
Member treatment no less favourable than that it  accords to conformity assessment bodies in its 
own territory with respect to the procedures , criteria, and other conditions with which 
conformity assessment bodies must  comply in order for the Member to accredit or otherwise 
approve them as competent to test or certify that a product conforms with the Member's standard or technical regulation.  This paragr aph shall apply only with respect to products 
listed for electrical safety, EMC or both in the Member's schedule to Annex II.  
 
Test Results  
 H. If a Member requires test results (alone or  in conjunction with other assurances of 
conformity) or other assurances of conformity that are based on test results as an assurance that 
a electronic good conforms with a standard or technical regulation, it shall not require the 
testing to be performed in a testing facility within  its territory and shall accept the test results if 
they are performed by a facility that the Member  deems competent, or otherwise approves, for 
that purpose.  If the Member requires the t esting facility to comply with requirements 
concerning the testing of electronic goods for co nformity with the standard or technical 
regulations or requires the body that accredits th e testing facility to comply with requirements 
concerning that accreditation, it shall en sure that such requirements are based on: 
 
(1) a relevant international standard, guide or  recommendation that has been developed in 
accordance with the TBT Agreement and the Committee Decision; or  
 (2) a conformity assessment procedure establis hed by the Member in accordance with the 
procedures set out in paragraphs III.C and III.F.  
 
Question from Thailand:  Please elaborate more on the term “…deems competent, or otherwise 
approves…”  What does it mean? (JOB(08)/113)  
• U.S. answer:  We used the terminology recognizing that, while some countries have 
procedures to affirmatively approve conform ity assessment bodies, other countries do not but 
nonetheless permit conformity assessment bodies that meet certain criteria to perform 
conformity assessment procedures. We consider th at the word “deems” reflects the situation 
where no affirmative approval process is necessar y and that the word “approves” reflects the 
situation where there is an affirmative approval process.  (JOB(09)/37) 
 
SDoC 
 
I. If a Member requires a positive assurance that a product listed for electrical safety, 
EMC or both in its schedule to Annex III conforms  with a standard or technical regulation, it 
shall accept as such assurance a supplier's decl aration of conformity (SDoC).  The Member 
shall base any requirements for an SDoC on a relevant international standard, guide or 
recommendation that has been developed in accordance with the TBT Agreement and the 
Committee Decision , and may refuse to accept a declaration from any supplier if, upon request 
from the Member's regulatory or enforcement authorities, the supplier does not provide to those authorities documentation necessary to demonstrate the basis for a declaration or 
declarations (e.g., relevant test results) within a reasonable period after the date of the request. 
 
Question from Thailand:  In the case of SDoC, each country has different domestic regulations which 
require, for example, different technical files and accept SDoC for different type of goods.  If such TN/MA/W/125 
Page 12  
 
  details are not harmonized, how would this pro posal reduce or eliminate the NTB problem?  
(JOB(08)/113)  
• U.S. answer:  Our proposal recognizes at the outset the variations in existing regulatory 
regimes.  Given these variations, we suspect it would be difficult for all Members to adopt the 
same regulatory approach for all products in the timeframe of the Doha negotiations.  Our 
approach, therefore, has been to suggest a flexible framework under which Members would schedule existing regulatory requirements, with  the opportunity for future deregulation and 
liberalization, consistent with market deve lopment, regulatory capacity, and ensuring the 
continued protection of human health and safet y.  This does not detract from harmonization 
and over the longer term can contribute to it.  It also serves an important transparency 
function and prevents regression to less trade-faci litating regimes.  Is there an interest in 
broadening the proposal to more aggressive ly promote harmonization? (JOB(09)/37) 
 
 Question from Singapore:  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 regula tion?  On what basis are the products to be 
included in Annex III determined? (JOB(09)/22) 
 
• U.S. answer:  Members self-select the products  to include 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-certific ation or a third-party certification?).  
(TN/MA/W/115) 
 
Third-Party Certification 
 
J. If a Member requires third-party certification as positive assurance that a product listed 
for electrical safety, EMC, or both, in its sch edule to Annex IV, conforms with a standard, 
technical regulation, or conformity assessmen t procedure, it shall not require the body 
performing the third-party certification to be within its territory and shall accept the third 
party certification if it is performed by a body that the Member deems competent, or otherwise 
approves, for that purpose.  The Member shall ensure that it bases any requirements that the 
body must meet to be deemed competent or otherwise approved on:  
 
(1) a relevant international standard, guide or  recommendation that has been developed in 
accordance with the TBT Agreement  and the Committee Decision; or 
 (2) a conformity assessment procedure establis hed by the Member in accordance with the 
procedures set out in paragraphs III.C and III.F.  
 
 Members shall give positive consideration  to allowing certification bodies to base 
certifications, where such certifications are requi red, on test results from any testing facility 
that the certification body deems competent or otherwise approves.   
Question from Thailand:  What does “positive cons ideration” for third party certification mean? 
(JOB(08)/113)  
• U.S. answer:  This phrase is also used in TBT Article 2.7.  We interpret it to mean that a 
Member will consider with a view toward unde rtaking a particular action – in this case, 
allowing certification bodies to base certifications , where such certifications are required, on  TN/MA/W/125 
 Page 13 
 
 
  test results from any testing facility that the certification body deems competent or otherwise 
approves.  Although the term “positive consid eration” suggests that a Member will respond 
favourably, it does not commit the Member to do so. (JOB(09)/37) 
 
Procedures for Review  
 
K.  
 (1) Each Member shall establish or maintain judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative 
tribunals and procedures for the purpose of the review of its administrative actions 
relating to technical regulations and confor mity assessment procedures.  Each Member 
shall ensure that such tribunals are impartia l and independent of the office or authority 
entrusted with administrative enforcement a nd not have any substantial interest in the 
outcome of the matter and that proceedings  before such tribunals comply with due 
process of law. 
 
(2) Each Member shall also establish or main tain procedures for it to review, at 
regularly-scheduled intervals, its techni cal regulations and conformity assessment 
procedures to determine whether such measures should be modified or eliminated so as to make the Member’s regulatory program mo re effective in achieving the legitimate 
objective(s) pursued. 
 
Question from Thailand:  Please provide more expl anation on procedures for review.  As developing 
countries and LDCs already have resources constraint, if the Agreement obliges each member to 
establish additional bodes for the purpose of the review of its administrative actions, it might cause 
some problems.  Moreover, does not it duplicate the work of TBT Committee? (JOB(08)/113) 
 
• U.S. answer:  Our suggestion was that this ag reement – or understanding if it is ultimately 
called that – would be monitored by a Sub-Committee of the TBT Committee.  We have not proposed the establishment of a separate ne w committee.  The proposed Sub-Committee 
could meet on the margins of the TBT Committe e and take advantage of any capital-based 
representatives attending the TBT Committee.  We are happy to discuss other ideas for 
monitoring the implementation of this initiative.  (JOB(09)/37) 
 
IV. INFORMATION AND ASSISTANCE 
 Nothing in this Agreement shall be constr ued to require a Member to furnish or allow 
access to confidential information the disclosur e of which would impede law enforcement or 
otherwise be contrary to the public interest or which would prejudice the legitimate commercial 
interests of particular enterprises, public or private.   [We may want to include other provisions under this heading along the lines of those in 
TBT Articles 10 and 11 ] 
 
V. MONITORING AND OVERSIGHT 
 A Subcommittee on Electronic Goods (Subcommittee) is hereby established as a 
subcommittee to the TBT Committee to oversee the operation and implementation of this 
Agreement and further its objectives and to provide a forum for discussions on any matter 
related to this Agreement .  The Subcommittee shall: 
 
(1) comprise representatives of each Member;  TN/MA/W/125 
Page 14  
 
  (2) elect its own Chairman and apply the TBT Committee working procedures; 
 (3) meet 12 months after the date of entry into  force of this Agreement, and at the end of 
each one-year period thereafter, or earlier as necessary, to: 
 
 (a) review the implementation and opera tion of this Agreement, and where 
appropriate, consider proposals for amending it; and  
 (b) review Annexes I, II, III, and IV and consider whether they should be modified; 
and 
 
(4) report to the TBT Committee and the Commit tee of Participants on the Expansion of 
Trade in Information Technology Pr oducts established pursuant to the Communication 
to the Chairman of the Council on Trade in Goods: Implementation of the Ministerial Declaration on Trade in Information Technology Products G/L/160 (March 26, 1997) 
(ITA Committee) with a view to complementing and not duplicating the work of those 
committees, and to this end, communicate  to the TBT and ITA Committees the results 
of its review conducted pursuant to subparagraph (3) and, as appropriate, any proposed amendments to this Agreement or recommendati ons to modify Annex I, II, III, or IV. 
 VI. DISPUTE SETTLEMENT 
 Article 14 of the TBT Agreement shall apply mutatis mutandis to this Agreement. 
 [Note:  Need to further consider relations hip with Dispute Settlement Understanding] 
 VII. FINAL PROVISIONS 
Annexes 
  Annexes I, II, III, and IV shall constitute an  integral part of this Agreement.  To the 
extent a Member seeks to modify its schedule to Annex II, III, or IV and the modification would 
expand the products subject to this Agreement,  the Member may do so by notifying other 
Members through the Secretariat of the Member's  modified schedule.  The Secretariat shall 
modify Annex II, III, or IV, as necessary, to include the Member's modified schedule. A 
Member may modify its schedule to Annex II, III, or IV in a manner that would reduce the products subject to this Agreemen t in accordance with Article [ ] (Modification of Schedules) of 
this Agreement.   
[Note: Need to consider additional "final provisio ns" to be included in this Agreement, such as 
entry into force, withdrawal, amendment, modifi cations of schedules,  WTO Secretariat to service 
Agreement, deposit etc. - items included, for example, in the various UR WTO agreements]  
 
Annex I - Electronic Goods 
 
 [ Add positive list of electronic goods subject to the Agreement.  This list would apply to all 
Members.]  
 
 Question from Singapore:  On what basis are the products to be included in Annex II 
determined? (JOB(09)/22) 
  TN/MA/W/125 
 Page 15 
 
 
  • U.S. answer:  We are currently considering the best wa y to characterize the products for listing 
in the relevant Annexes of the proposal, given th at regulators do not regulate by HS code.  We 
would welcome suggestions.  (TN/MA/W/115) 
 
 
Annex II -Treatment of Conformity Assessment Bodies 
 
 [Add positive list of electronic goods covered for each agency of the Member with respect to the obligations in III.F. Each agency and its co vered products may be listed separately with respect 
to EMC and electrical safety.]  
 
Annex III - Acceptance of SDoC 
  [Add positive list of electronic goods covered for each agency of the Member with respect to the obligations in III.H. Each agency and its aff ected products may be listed separately with respect 
to EMC and electrical safety.  For example, SDoC  accepted for x product with respect to EMC and 
for y product with respect to electrical safety.] 
 
Annex IV – Acceptance of Third-Party Certification 
 
 [Add positive list of electronic goods covered for each agency of the Member with respect to the obligations in III.I. Each agency and its aff ected products may be listed separately with respect 
to EMC and electrical safety.  For example, Third -Party Certification accepted for x product with 
respect to EMC and for y product with respect to electrical safety.]  
 
_______________ 
 
 General Questions: 
 Question from Thailand:  Unlike other proposals that use the term “Understanding on,” the U.S. uses 
the term “Agreement on...”  So, we would like to ask whether the U.S. intends to propose a new 
agreement .  Do these two words contain different  legal implications? (JOB(08)/113) 
 
• U.S. answer:  Our intent is that each of the U.S. TBT-related proposals – regardless of 
whether the title of the proposal refers to  an “understanding” or an “agreement” – 
memorialize an agreement between WTO Members.   We intend that agreement to be binding 
and enforceable through dispute settlement.  We  are open to Secretariat guidance and other 
Members’ views on how best to accomplish that.  We note, for example, that certain Uruguay 
Round Agreements are stylized as “Understandings” but nonetheless contain binding 
commitments enforceable through dispute settlement .  In addition, we view each of the U.S. 
TBT-related proposals as adding an additional layer of disciplines. These new disciplines would apply in addition to existing TBT Ag reement obligations.  The proposals do not 
“reopen” the TBT Agreement since existing TB T Agreement obligations would continue to 
apply; instead the proposals seek to deepen Memb ers’ commitments in particular sectors that 
Members and industry have identified as par ticularly plagued by NTBs. (JOB(09)/37) 
 Question from Thailand:  Does this Agreement allo w the standards bodies of the importing countries 
to perform product testing under surveillance mechanism? (JOB(08)/113)  
• U.S. answer:  The proposal does not preclude  post-market surveillance. (JOB(09)/37) 
 TN/MA/W/125 
Page 16  
 
  Question from China: Many Members have expressed th eir view that the two proposals on electronics 
should merge into one since these two are trying to address similar issues.  Otherwise it is too time and energy consuming.  China would like to urge the proponents to speed up this process. 
 - China believes it is necessary to promote the harmonization of international standards in 
electronics.  The revised part of the EC’s pro posal is interesting and China will study this 
proposal carefully.  China notices that the US’ and EC’ proposals are trying to address this 
issue in different approaches.  China would like  to invite the US and EC to comment on each 
other’s proposal regarding the standards issues. 
- Regarding the idea of SDoC contained in EC’s proposal, it feels to many developing 
Members that applying this system is unrealistic.  Conformity assessment procedure is 
something closely related to the economic deve lopment level of a Member and its monitoring 
capacity.  What is the EC’ reflection to this fact?   
- Regarding the US’ proposal, we notice that four  annexes need to be developed.  Would the 
US explain how the lists in the annex are deve loped? Selected by a Member on its own or 
through negotiation?  Paragraph V(3)(b) provi des that the Subcommittee shall “review 
Annexes I, II, III, and IV and consider whet her they should be modified”.  Could the 
proponent elaborate on how these work to be ca rried out?  Who determines the modification 
should be done or not? (JOB(09)/60) 
 
• U.S. answer :  With respect to the merging of the U.S. and EC proposals, the United States 
and the EC have been attempting to do so.  However, given the different approaches the 
respective proposals take and the differing view s of the United States and the EC on certain 
issues, our efforts to merge the texts, while on-going, have not gone easily or quickly.  The 
United States welcomes questions, comments, a nd text suggestions from other Members on 
both proposals so as to better inform our merger discussions.    
 
 With respect to one of the issues relevant to the U.S. and EC efforts to merge the proposals – 
the question of whether to name particular st andards or standards developing bodies in the 
proposal – the United States maintains its vi ew that NAMA TBT-related negotiating texts 
should not recognize,  endorse or otherwise refer to specific standards-setting bodies or 
standards.  Our electronics and autos propo sals would commit Members to apply the 2000 
Decision by the TBT Committee on the principles for the development of international 
standards in determining what may be considered  to be the relevant international standard.  
We believe this approach is best suited for a sector in which innovation, technology and time-
to-market are critical factors influencing whet her a standard is relevant in achieving a 
legitimate regulatory objective.  
 With respect to the development of the A nnexes I-IV, please see our answer to Singapore’s 
questions 4 and 5 in TN/MA/W/115, namely that given that regulators do not regulate by HS 
code, we are considering the best way to char acterize the products for listing in the relevant 
annexes of the proposal.   We welcome suggesti ons from China in this regard. In terms of 
deciding which products to list in the Annexes II, III, and IV, each Member would self-select 
the products to include, but at the same tim e we envision Members engaging with each other 
about the products they have chosen to incl ude and that such engagement may include 
requests from one Member to another Member  to expand the number of products that 
Member has listed in a particular annex.  The Subcommittee establis hed in the proposal 
would create an ongoing forum for such discussi ons.  Ultimately, however, a decision to 
include a product in a particular Member’s a nnex remains with that member. (JOB(09)/156) 
  TN/MA/W/125 
 Page 17 
 
 
  Question from Korea:  Given that the two proposal s presented by the United States and the EC cover 
a similar subject area, it would be desirable to merge the two proposals into one. Have the U.S. and EC proceeded with this task? If they have, what are its status and prospects? (JOB(09)/26)  
• U.S. answer:  Please see our response to China’ s question above regarding the prospect of 
merging the separate proposals.  
 
__________