WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  TN/MA/W/123 
27 November 2009 
 (09-6017) 
Negotiating Group on Market Access Original:   English 
  
 
MARKET ACCESS FOR NON-AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS 
 
Compendium prepared by the European Communities, Mauritius, Sri Lanka and the United States
 
which contains the most recent NTBs text on Labe ling of Textiles, Clothing, Footwear, and Travel 
Goods, as well as the history of questions and answers related to this proposal    
 
Communication from the European Communities, Mauritius, Sri Lanka and the United States 
 
 
 The following communication, dated 27 November 2009, is being circulated at the request of 
the delegations of the European Communities,  Mauritius, Sri Lanka and the United States. 
 
_______________ 
 
Understanding on the Interpretation of  
the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade with respect to 
 the Labelling of Textiles, Clothing, Footwear, and Travel 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 products;  
 Recognizing  the important contribution of the textile, clothing, footwear, and travel 
goods sectors to global economic growth and development;  
Desiring  to promote cooperative and effect ive approaches to address unnecessary 
obstacles to international trade and enhance tr ade in textiles, clothing, footwear, and travel 
goods; 
 Taking into account  that labelling has an important function of informing consumers of 
certain characteristics of textiles, clothing, footwear, and travel goods; 
 Reaffirming  their existing obligation under the Agreement on Technical Barriers to 
Trade (TBT Agreement) to ensure that techni cal regulations and conformity assessment 
procedures are not prepared, adopted, or applied with a view to or with the effect of creating 
unnecessary obstacles to international trade;   
 Desiring  to interpret the provisions of the TBT Agreement as they apply to labelling 
requirements for textiles, clothing, footwear, and travel goods; 
 
Hereby agree  as follows: 
 TN/MA/W/123 
Page 2  
 
  Scope  
 1. This Understanding applies to the labelling of products specified in the Annex to this 
Understanding.    
Labelling 
 2. If a Member requires information on a labe l, a Member’s requirement to include any of 
the following information shall be rebuttably p resumed to be not more trade-restrictive than 
necessary under Articles 2.2 of the TBT Agreement: 
 FAQ 1:   Does paragraph 2 apply to permanent labels or all labels, whether permanent or 
non-permanent?  (TN/MA/W/114) 
 
• Co-sponsors’ answer:  Paragraph 2 app lies to all labels, whether permanent 
or non-permanent.  (TN/MA/W/114) 
 
FAQ 2:   Why does paragraph 2 not include la beling information related to safety or size? 
(TN/MA/W/114) 
  
• Co-sponsors’ answer:  Para graph 2 provides that, if a Member requires any of 
the information specified in paragraph 2 on a label, that requirement will be 
rebuttably presumed to be not more trade-restrictive than necessary under 
Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement.  It does not preclude a Member from 
requiring other information (such as info rmation regarding size or safety) on 
labels.  In fact, paragraph 2 expressly references the fact that Members may require other information on labels when that requirement is not inconsistent 
with Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement.   (TN/MA/W/114) 
 
FAQ 3:   Doesn’t paragraph 2 elevate the requirements listed therein above the legitimate 
objectives listed in Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement? (TN/MA/W/114) 
 
• Co-sponsors’ answer:  No. Paragraph 2 does not address legitimate 
objectives.  Legitimate objectives are addressed in Article 2.2 of the TBT 
Agreement; this provision will continue to  apply in addition to paragraph 2 of 
the proposal if the proposal is adopted.  Accordingly, even with respect to a 
requirement to include information speci fied in paragraph 2 on a label, a 
Member must have a legitimate objec tive and the requirement must not be 
more trade-restrictive than necessary to  fulfil that objective.  Paragraph 2 
only creates a presumption that requiring information specified in paragraph 
2 on a label is not more trade-restrictive than necessary.  That presumption is 
rebuttable, however, for example, by demonstrating that the requirement is 
not necessary to fulfil the Member’s legitimate objective.   (TN/MA/W/114) 
 FAQ 4:   Can you explain the concept of a “re buttable presumption” in paragraphs 2 and 4? 
(TN/MA/W/114) 
 
• Co-sponsors’ answer:  If a Member adopt s a requirement that information set 
out in paragraph 2 be included on a label, such a requirement would be 
rebuttably presumed to be not more trade-restrictive than necessary under 
Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement.  This means that other Members would 
retain the right to rebut, or call into question, whether that requirement is in  TN/MA/W/123 
 Page 3 
 
 
  fact not more trade- restrictive th an necessary under Article 2.2 of the TBT 
Agreement.  While we do not anticipat e it being the case, there could be 
situations where a Member may require information described in paragraph 2 on a label, but that requirement may nonetheless be more trade-restrictive than necessary to fulfil that Member’s legitimate objective.  In such 
situations, we feel that it is necessary  to allow a Member to challenge the 
consistency of the requirement under Article  2.2 of the TBT Agreement.      
 
• Conversely, paragraph 4 contains a rebuttable presumption that the 
requirements listed therein would  be more trade-restrictive than necessary to 
fulfil a legitimate objective within the meaning of Article 2.2 of the TBT 
Agreement and therefore inconsiste nt with Article 2.2 of the TBT 
Agreement.  Creating a rebuttable presumption that such requirements are more trade-restrictive than necessary , rather than prohibiting such 
requirements outright, however would still allow a Member employing such a requirement to demonstrate that it is in  fact necessary to fulfil a legitimate 
objective. The burden of proof would be on a Member employing a 
requirement listed in paragraph 4 to de monstrate that it is not more trade-
restrictive than necessary. (TN/MA/W/114) 
 Question from Singapore:  Paragraph 2 - Artic le 2.5 of the TBT Agreement states “… Whenever a 
technical regulation is prepared, adopted or ap plied for one of the legitimate objectives explicitly 
mentioned in paragraph 2, and is in accordance wi th relevant international standards, it shall be 
rebuttably presumed not to create an unn ecessary obstacle to international trade .”  The term 
“rebuttably presumed ” only features in the TBT Agreement once and have certain conditions attached 
to it.  Will the co-sponsors please state clearly the legitimate objectiv e of each of the information 
listed in sub-paragraphs of paragraph 2?  (JOB(09)/22) 
 
• Co-sponsors’ answer:  Our proposal does not attempt to identify the 
legitimate objective of a requirement to include certain information on a label 
– for example the information listed in paragraph 2 – and wonder whether 
such an objective is something that can be identified in the abstract.  Instead, 
it would seem that each Member must de termine for itself what its legitimate 
objective is and, if it adopts a measure to fulfill that legitimate objective, the 
TBT Agreement requires that that measure be no more trade-restrictive than necessary to meet that legitimate objective.   Paragraph 2 of our proposal simply provides that requiring the specified information on a label shall be presumed not to be more trade restrictive than necessary.  That presumption can be rebutted, however, by showing for example that the requirement is 
more trade restrictive than necessary to meet the legitimate objective the 
Member imposing the measure seeks to fulfill.  (TN/MA/W/116)  
 FAQ 5:   Can you explain why this negotiating text does not constitute standards-setting by the 
WTO? Could you explain the distincti on between “parameters for government 
action” and “standards”? (TN/MA/W/114) 
 
• Co-sponsors answer:  As Members have consistently indicated, the WTO is 
not a standards-setting body.  This proposal does not create standards, nor should it.  The proposal does not ma ndate that Members, for example, 
include certain information on labels or use specific colours, fonts, font sizes, locations of information, or languages for the labeling of textiles, apparel, 
footwear, and travel goods. The proposal also does not mandate that TN/MA/W/123 
Page 4  
 
  Members comply with particular standa rds.  Rather, paragraphs 2 and 4 of 
the proposal clarify the types of measures that are rebuttably presumed to be not more trade-restrictive than necessary, in the case of paragraph 2, and those that are rebuttably presumed to  be more trade-restrictive than 
necessary, in the case of paragraph 4, in  the textiles, clothing, footwear, and 
travel goods sector.   (TN/MA/W/114) 
 
Question from Singapore: Arguably, paragraph 2 appears to require the WTO to undertake 
standardizing work, an area which the WTO is not responsible for and unfamiliar with.  In the event 
that there are new international standards with regard s to labelling of textiles, clothing, footwear or 
travel goods in the future, how would this new Understanding take these standards into account?  
(JOB(09)/22)  
• Co-sponsors’ answer:  Paragraph 2 does not require the WTO to undertake 
standardizing work nor does paragraph 2 create or contain standards.  FAQ 5 above addresses this question.  (TN/MA/W/116) 
 
Question from China:   Some Members expressed their concerns that this proposal seemed to get 
involved in the development of standards related to  the labelling of textiles, clothing, footwear, and 
travel goods.  What is the proponent’s re flection on this point?  (JOB(09)/60) 
 
• Co-sponsors’ answer:  FAQ 5 above addr esses this question and explains that 
the proposal does not create standard s.  Further rather than creating 
international standards – which the Unite d States agrees is not a task for the 
WTO – the proposal creates a presumption about certain types of requirements that are not more trade re strictive than necessary.  Importantly, 
the proposal does not affect the exis ting TBT Agreement obligation to base 
requirements on relevant international st andards (except where ineffective or 
inappropriate). In fact, to reinforce that obligation, footnote 1 of the proposal 
limits application of the presumption create in paragraph 2 with respect to requirements to include care instructions  on labels to those requirements that 
are based on relevant internati onal standards.  (JOB(09)/162) 
 
Question from Singapore: Paragraphs  2 and 4 – How would the co-sponsors consider the interplay of 
the last sentence of paragraph 2 i.e. “ A Member may only require additional information on a label 
when it is not inconsistent with  Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement ” and paragraph 4 which stipulates 
how “ a technical regulation of a Member … shall be rebuttably presumed to be more trade-restrictive 
than necessary to fulfil a legitimate objective within  the meaning of Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement ” 
and can the co-sponsors please use examples to elaborate on this? (JOB(09)/22) 
 
• Co-sponsors’ answer:   The co-sponsors circulated a document, 
TN/MA/W/113, on 22 May 2009 - FAQ, that addresses this question  (TN/MA/W/116) 
 
Question from Switzerland:  Labelling (article 2): Do the co-sponsors believe that textile labelling 
should be applied on a national treatment basis, as pr ovided for in Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement?  
(JOB(09)/68)  
• Co-sponsors’ answer:   Yes.  (JOB(09)/162)  TN/MA/W/123 
 Page 5 
 
 
  Question from Switzerland:  Article 2.1. of the pro posal refers to the indication of the country of 
origin. Should this definition not be agreed among members, it could vary depending on the importing 
country. What would be a suitable solution in the co-sponsors’ view?  (JOB(09)/68) 
 
• Co-sponsors’ answer:  The intent of paragraph 2 of the proposal is to 
encourage Members (through use of a presumption) to limit the type of 
information they require on labels to  the types listed in subparagraphs 2.1-
2.3. Country of origin is one type of information listed in those subparagraphs.  We believe that paragraph 2 fulfils its intent to encourage 
Members to limit the types of inform ation Members may require on labels 
without defining “country of origin” or any of the other types of information 
listed in paragraph 2.  (JOB(09)/162)  
 
2.1 With respect to textiles and clothing, fi ber content, country of origin, and care 
instructions
1  
 
Question from Korea:  Para. 2.1 – Among textiles, ya rn and fabric are subject to business to business 
transactions that are usually based on detailed specifi cations papers and no othe r information than the 
country of origin is necessary on the label.  In order to reflect this aspect, could the proponents 
consider adding another category within this pa ragraph for yarn and fabric?  (JOB(09)/26) 
 
• Co-sponsors’ answer:  We believe this  question pertains to raw materials 
transferred from a supplier to another business for processing into a finished 
product.  Our understanding is that in  such instances, labeling requirements 
are often non-applicable.  The co-sponsors would happy to discuss this question further with the Republic of Korea in order to explore the issue in greater detail.  (TN/MA/W/113) 
 
Question from Switzerland:  With respect to interm ediate products (such as threads or fabrics which 
are not usually bought by the end consumers), th e indication of the country of origin may be 
burdensome and costly and can create a non-tariff ba rrier. Could the co-sponsors specify the reasons 
for labelling requirements in case of in termediate products? (JOB(09)/68) 
 
• Co-sponsors’ answer: We would be inter ested in exploring this question with 
Switzerland and other Members further.  What kinds of data or information 
has Switzerland’s industry provided to support this claim?  This negotiating 
text does not require Members to require  country-of-origin on labels; it only 
encourages Members to limit their inform ation requirements for labels to the 
types of information cited in paragrap h 2. Therefore, the negotiating text 
would not require a Member to requi re country-of-origin on labels for 
intermediate products.  (JOB(09)/162) 
 FAQ 6:   What international standards does th e negotiating text refer to in footnote 1?  
(TN/MA/W/114) 
 
• Co-sponsors’ answer:  Footnote 1 does not refer to specific international 
standards.  (TN/MA/W/114) 
 
                                                     
 
  1 This presumption covers requirements using relevant international standards, or the relevant parts of 
such standards, as a basis for the Me mber’s technical regulations regarding care instructions on labels.    TN/MA/W/123 
Page 6  
 
  Question from New Zealand:  At footnote 1, what are the “relevant international standards” which 
may be used as a basis for Members’ technical regula tions regarding care instructions on labels?  The 
response given in TN/MA/W/114, question 5 do es not make this clear.  (JOB(09)/89)  
 
• Co-sponsors’ answer : The co-sponsors have chosen not to refer to any 
specific relevant international standards for care instructions on labels in this 
proposal.  Members remain free use any relevant international standards as 
the basis for their technical regulations. This provision does not seek to change that.  (JOB(09)/162)  
 Question from Switzerland:  In particular for care  labelling, would the co -sponsors consider making 
more extensive use of symbols?  (JOB(09)/68) 
 
• Co-sponsors’ answer:  We would appr eciate clarification about whether 
Switzerland asking that the co-sponsors themselves make more extensive use 
of symbols in their own domestic regulations or asking the co-sponsors to consider referring to symbols somewhere in our proposed text?  As 
Switzerland is aware, Article 2.4 of the TBT Agreement requires Members to 
base their technical requirements on relevant international standards (except where ineffective or inappropriate).  Therefore, with respect to any requirements to include care instructions on labels of textiles and clothing, Members are under an existing obligation to base those requirements on relevant international standards.  Footnote 1 of the co-sponsors proposal 
reflects that for care instructions rele vant international standards exist and 
indicates that the presumption establishe d in paragraph 2 of the proposal 
applies only with respect to requirem ents to include care instructions on 
labels if those requirements are based on relevant international standards.  
Footnote 1 does not identify any partic ular international standard, although 
our understanding is that a certain re levant standard for care instructions 
includes pictograms while another relevant standard does not. The co-sponsors decided to not refer to either in the text and maintain this view.  
(JOB(09)/162) 
 
Question from New Zealand:  Would the cosponsors c onsider, for greater certainty, the inclusion of 
“consumer safety information” (appropriately define d) in the provisions/covera ge of paragraph 2.1? 
(JOB(09)/89)  
• Co-sponsors’ answer : The co-sponsors believe it is not necessary to refer to 
“consumer safety information” in para graph 2.  Paragraph 2 only establishes 
a presumption that requirements to include the types of information specified 
in paragraph 2 on labels are not more trade restrictive than necessary under 
Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement.  Requirements to include other types of information on labels may also be no more trade restrictive than necessary under Article 2.2.  The fact that we do not list them in paragraph 2 does not change that.  We are open to discussing any concerns New Zealand  may 
have in this regard.  (JOB(09)/162) 
  TN/MA/W/123 
 Page 7 
 
 
  2.2 With respect to footwear, predominant materials of core parts2 and country of origin;  
and 
 
FAQ 7:   In paragraph 2.2.1 through 2.2.3, does “country of origin” refer to or include “rules of 
origin”?  If no, how does the reference to “country of origin” relate to “rules of 
origin”? (TN/MA/W/114)  
 
• Co-sponsors’ answer:  The reference to “country of origin” is not a reference 
to “rules of origin”.   Generally, rul es of origin are rules to determine the 
country of origin of a good for pur poses of determining whether a good 
qualifies for preferential treatment (e.g., preferential tariff treatment).  Our 
proposal does not address country of origin for purposes of determining 
whether a good qualifies for preferential treatment, but instead specifies a type of information – country of origin  – that may be required on a label.  
Our proposal does not address how country of origin – for purposes of labeling or otherwise – is to be determined. (TN/MA/W/114) 
 2.3 With respect to travel goods, fi ber content and country of origin. 
 3. Members shall give positive consideration to permitting any required information to be 
included on a non-permanent
3 label rather than a permanent label.4   
 FAQ 8:  Can paragraph 3 be re-drafted to identify a specific list of non-permanent labeling 
requirements, instead of keeping it open?  Can you define “required information” in 
paragraph 3?  (TN/MA/W/114) 
 
• Co-sponsors’ answer:  Paragraph 3 is  intended to encourage Members to 
permit any required information to be  included on a non-permanent label 
instead of a permanent label.  “Any required information” should be read as 
any information that a Member require s on a label, such as the information 
described in paragraph 2.  Paragraph 3 does not include specific non-permanent labeling requirements or disciplines because paragraph 4 already sets out such disciplines for all labels, whether permanent or 
non-permanent.  In addition, paragra ph 2 applies to all labels, whether 
permanent or non-permanent, and specifies the type of information, if required on a label, that would be re buttably presumed to be no more trade-
restrictive than necessary.  (TN/MA/W/114) 
 Question from Korea:   Para. 3 – How do Members give “positiv e consideration” to non-permanent 
labels? Could the proponents provi de specific examples in which “positive consideration” works?  
(JOB(09)/26)  
• Co-sponsors’ answer:    “Positive consideration” is a term used elsewhere in 
the TBT Agreement, in particular Article  2.7.  In the context of paragraph 3 
of the proposal, a Member could give “positive consideration” by favourably 
considering whether the required in formation could be included on a 
non-permanent (as opposed to a permanent) label. In undertaking such 
                                                     
 
2  There are three “core parts” of footwear: (1 ) upper, (2) lining and sock, and (3) outer sole. 
 3 "Non-permanent label" means any label on a product attached or affixed through stickers, hangtags, 
or through other similar means that can be removed or on the package of the product.  
4 "Permanent label" means any label on a product that is securely attached or affixed through gluing, 
printing, sewing, embossing, silk screening, or other similar means. TN/MA/W/123 
Page 8  
 
  consideration, a Member might assess whether its legitimate objective – for 
example of informing consumers of fibe r content or country of origin  – 
could be met if the information were  included on a non-permanent label, or 
whether that objective could only be met if the information were on a permanent label.  Requiring inform ation on a non-permanent label as 
opposed to a permanent label can be a l ess trade restrictive means to ensure 
required information is conveyed to consumers.  (TN/MA/W/113) 
 Question from New Zealand:  We would welcome an el aboration of the response given on the issue of 
“positive consideration” (paragraph 3 of the pr oposal) in TN/MA/W/113, question 2.  How could 
Members demonstrate “positive consideration”, short of deciding to permit required information on a 
non-permanent label?  Would a Member be required to determine/prove that its legitimate objective 
could not be met by means of a non-permanent label or that its stipulation of a permanent label was 
the least-trade-restrictive option available, in order to meet the “positive consideration” test?  Would 
consideration of semi-permanent labelling as an interim measure be considered “positive 
consideration”, provided Members were given su fficient notice of the implementation of new 
requirements for permanent labelling? (JOB(09)/89)  
• Co-sponsors’ answer: Paragraph 3 do es not define how Members should 
provide “positive consideration.”  In this  regard, it is similar to Article 2.7 of 
the TBT Agreement which also uses this term but does not define it.  In our view, giving positive consideration would include considering whether 
information could be included on a non-permanent label and to approach that 
consideration with a view toward allo wing the information to be included on 
a non-permanent label if permitting that would fulfil the Member’s legitimate 
objective.   (JOB(09)/162) 
 
4. A technical regulation or conformity assessment procedure of a Member that:  
 4.1 Prohibits the information included on a label from being in more than one language, for 
example by prohibiting such information from being in a language other than the Member’s official language(s);  
 
4.2 Requires a label to be pre-approved, registered or certified;  
 4.3 Prohibits a label from including informatio n that is not required by the Member, such 
as brand names;
5 or 
 
Question from New Zealand:  For reasons of c onsumer safety, a Member may require that 
information regarding the fire risk of garments be included on a separate label, so that this important 
message is conveyed clearly and not diluted by ot her information such as branding.  Although such 
labelling may fulfil the legitimate objective requireme nts of TBT 2.2 and (unn umbered) paragraph 2.4 
of this proposal, it would nonetheless appear to breach paragraph 4.3.  We propose that the wording of 
the proposal be clarified to ensure that this leg itimate requirement is not cap tured by paragraph 4.3. 
(JOB(09)/89)  
• Co-sponsors’ answer:   The co-sponsors would be happy to discuss this 
concern with New Zealand further a nd are open to considering any text 
suggestions that New Zealand may have  that would address it.  The intent 
behind paragraph 4.3 is to ensure that  suppliers may choose to label their 
                                                     
 
 5 “Information” for purposes of subparagraph 4.3 means information related to the product or the 
marketing of the product and does not include information that is false, deceptive or misleading.   TN/MA/W/123 
 Page 9 
 
 
  products with information that is not mandatory such as brand names.  It is 
not meant to prevent Members from requiring that safety information be clearly displayed on labels. (JOB(09)/162)  
 
4.4 Specifies requirements that a label be of one or more materials;  
  
 Shall be rebuttably presumed to be more tr ade-restrictive than necessary to fulfill a 
legitimate objective within the meaning of Articl e 2.2 of the TBT Agreement or be more strict or 
be applied more strictly than is necessary to  give the importing Member adequate confidence 
that the product conforms with the applicable  technical regulation within the meaning of 
Article 5.1.2 of the TBT Agreement.   
 5. Notwithstanding Articles 2.9 and 5.6 of  the TBT Agreement, if a Member proposes to 
adopt or amend a technical regulation or conf ormity assessment procedure with respect to 
labelling, in whole or in part, it shall:  
 
5.1 Publish the proposed technical regulation or conformity assessment procedure in a 
publication at the earliest appropriate stage, in such a manner as to enable interested persons in other Members to become acquainte d with it and to submit comments before 
the Member finalizes the technical regulation or conformity assessment procedure;  
 
Question from Singapore: Paragraph 5.1 – Could the co-sponsors please elaborate on how they see “ in 
such a manner ” in the context described in th is sub-paragraph? (JOB(09)/22) 
 
• Co-sponsors’ answer: This phrase is bo rrowed from Articles 2.9.1 and 5.6.1 
of the TBT Agreement.  By including “in such a manner”, the co-sponsors are not precluding any publishing method that would “enable interested 
persons in other Members to become acquainted with” a proposed technical 
regulation “and to submit comments before the Member finalizes the technical regulation or conformity assessment procedure.”  (TN/MA/W/116) 
 
5.2 Notify other Members through the Secretaria t of the products to be covered by the 
proposed technical regulation or conformity assessment procedure, together with a brief 
indication of the measure’s objective and ra tionale and, to the extent applicable, an 
identification of the parts of the regulati on or procedure which in substance deviate 
from relevant international standards and, in  the case of a permanent label, the reason 
for requiring information other than that covered by paragraphs 2.1-2.3 of this 
Understanding.  Such notifications shall take place at an early appropriate stage, when 
amendments can still be introduced and comments taken into account 
  
Question from New Zealand:  We see the requirement in  paragraph 5.2 that Members identify in their 
notifications “ those parts of a proposed regulation or pr ocedure which in substance deviate from 
relevant international standards”  as a useful transparency additi on to existing TBT disciplines.  
However, the subsequent requirement in paragr aph 5.2 that Members include, as part of their 
notification “the reasons for requiring information other than that covered by paragraphs 2.1-2.3” 
seems to undermine the cosponsors’ assurances (T N/MA/W/114, question 4) that the labelling 
requirements of paragraphs 2.1-2.3 will not be elev ated above the “legitimate  objective” test of TBT 
2.2.  Why should Members have to justify other labelling requirements in respect of both TBT 2.2 and 
paragraphs 2.1-2.3?  (JOB(09)/89) 
 
• Co-sponsors’ answer:  The requirement in  paragraph 5.2 to include the reason 
it is requiring information on a label ot her than the information set out in TN/MA/W/123 
Page 10  
 
  paragraphs 2.1-2.3 concerns is design to provide enhanced transparency and 
is not a requirement that Members just ify the measure under Article 2.2. of 
the TBT Agreement.  A reason a Member might require information other than the information listed in paragraph 2 to be included on a label might be, 
e.g., that it is necessary to protect public safety.  The provision also serves 
another function – that is, to encourag e Members to require information on 
non-permanent labels (as opposed to perm anent labels), and in that regard 
reinforces paragraph 3 of the proposal wh ich also seeks to encourage use of 
non-permanent labels.  It also reflects the fact that the text allows Members to 
require other types of information to be included on labels other than those 
types listed in paragraphs 2.1-2.3, so  long as those labelling requirements are 
consistent with TBT Agreement Article 2.2.  Paragraph 5.2 purely concerns 
transparency and does not constitute a “justification” of the measure itself within the context of the legitimate  objectives contained in TBT 2.2.   
(JOB(09)/162)  
 
5.3 allow no less than 60 days for Members to submit comments in writing.  The Member 
shall give favourable consideration to reasonable requests to  extend the comment 
period; and 
 5.4 discuss, upon request, any comments it recei ves with the Member or interested person 
providing them, and take these written co mments and the results of these discussions 
into account in finalizing the measure, and publish or otherwise make available to the 
public, either in print or electronically, it s responses to significant issues raised in 
comments it receives no later than the date it publishes the final technical regulation or 
conformity assessment procedure.   
 
Question from Korea:  Para. 5.4 – Does the expr ession “make available to the public” include an 
option of providing the information on request rather  than putting it on the open notice? (JOB(09)/26) 
 
• Co-sponsors’ answer:  Yes, however in order to make that meaningful, we 
would expect that the Member would need to have some mechanism to make the public aware of the opportunity to  request copies or access to the 
Member’s response to comments. For example, the Member could publish a 
notice (in print or electronically) that the public may obtain copies of the Member’s responses to comments by contacting the Member at a certain address.  “Make available to the public” would also include making 
documents available in a reading room at a government agency, for example.  
The point is that the public should have  access to such information, whether 
in a publication, on government websites, in libraries, or in some other accessible way.  (TN/MA/W/113) 
 FAQ 9:   Can you more clearly explain para graph 5.4 and the publication of responses to 
comments? (TN/MA/W/114) 
 
• Co-sponsors’ answer:  Paragraph 5.4 c oncerns ensuring full transparency and 
participation in the process of developing technical regulations and conformity assessment procedures with respect to the labeling of textiles, apparel, footwear, and travel goods.  This paragraph would require a Member 
to discuss comments upon request by another Member or interested person.  
This paragraph would also require a Member to take into account both the 
comments and the discussions in finalizing the technical regulation or  TN/MA/W/123 
 Page 11 
 
 
  conformity assessment procedure.  Such “discussions” may be broadly read 
as including multiple means of communication (e.g., face-to-face meetings, digital video conferences, e-mail, and teleconferences).  A Member would have to publish or make publicly available its responses to significant comments received in the rule-making process no later than the date on 
which it publishes the final technical regulation or conformity assessment 
procedure.  In other words, a Member can publish responses to such comments prior to, or at the same ti me as, it publishes the final technical 
regulation or conformity assessment procedure. (TN/MA/W/114) 
 
Question from New Zealand:   How would Members determine which are  “significant comments” for 
the purposes of paragraph 5.4? (JOB(09)/89)  
• Co-sponsors’ answer:  The text leaves the determination of whether 
comments are significant to the discre tion of Members. We note that the 
word “significant” or “insignificant’ is also used in various provisions of the 
TBT Agreement and to our knowledge there has not been significant concern 
that the meaning of those terms are unclear.  In our view, significant comments are those that express substantive, reasoned views relevant to the proposed measure. (JOB(09)/162) 
 
FAQ 10:   Can you clearly explain how pa ragraphs 5 and 6 differ from the TBT?  
(TN/MA/W/114) 
 
• Co-sponsors’ answer:  The text of para graphs 5 and 6 elaborates obligations 
regarding the notification provisions of  the TBT Agreement with respect to 
the labeling of textile, clothing, footwear and travel goods:   
• The TBT Agreement requires a Member to provide other WTO Members 
notice that it is proposing a technical regulation or conformity assessment 
procedure if: (i) the technical content of the proposed technical regulation or 
conformity assessment procedure is not in accordance with the technical content of a relevant international st andard, guide or recommendation or if a 
relevant international standard, guide  or recommendation does not exist and 
(ii) the technical regulation or conformity assessment procedure may have a 
significant effect on trade of other Members.  Under the proposal, a Member 
would be required to notify other WTO Members of  all proposed technical 
regulations or conformity assessment procedures with respect to the labeling of products covered by the proposal.  Further, the proposal would require a 
Member to identify up front in its WTO notice the parts of the proposed 
measure that in substance deviate from  relevant interna tional standards, 
guides or recommendations (rather than provide such information 
subsequently upon request) and its r easons for requiring information on 
permanent labels other than the info rmation described in paragraph 2.  
• The TBT Agreement requires a Member to publish notices and, upon request, 
provide other Members copies of proposed technical regulations and conformity assessment procedures.  Under the proposal, a Member would be 
required to publish the actual proposed technical regulation or conformity 
assessment procedure “at the earliest appropriate stage,” rather than simply a notice that the Member proposes to in troduce a measure with a subsequent 
commitment to provide Members a copy of the proposed measure upon 
request.  This will ensure that the proposed technical regulation or conformity TN/MA/W/123 
Page 12  
 
  assessment procedure is made available to interested parties as well as 
Members in a timely manner. 
• The TBT Agreement requires a Member to allow reasonable time for other 
Members to make comments on the proposed technical regulation or conformity assessment procedure and to take any such comments into 
account.  The proposal recognizes that interested parties as well as Members 
shall be given the opportunity to submit comments on proposed technical regulations and conformity assessment procedures.  Under the proposal, a Member would be required to take  into account comments received from 
interested parties as well as Members in  finalizing its technical regulation or 
conformity assessment procedure.  In addition, the proposal specifies that a 
Member shall allow at least 60 days for other Members to submit comments 
and shall provide favourable considera tion to reasonable requests to extend 
the comment period.   The proposal would also require a Member to publish or otherwise make available to the public, either in print or electronically, its responses to significant comments it receives from other Members or the 
public no later than the date on which it publishes the final technical 
regulation or conformity assessment procedure. (TN/MA/W/114) 
 
6. Notwithstanding Articles 2.10 and 5.7 of the TBT Agreement, where urgent problems of 
safety, health, environmental protection or nati onal security arise or threaten to arise for a 
Member, that Member may omit such of the st eps enumerated in paragraph 5 as it finds 
necessary, provided that the Member upon adopti on of a technical regulation or conformity 
assessment procedure shall:  6.1 Publish the final technical regulation or  conformity assessment procedure in a 
publication at the earliest appropriate time, in such a manner as to enable interested 
persons in other Members to become acquainted with it; 
 6.2 Notify other Members through the Secretariat of the products to be covered by the final 
technical regulation or conformity assessment procedure, together with a brief indication of the measure’s objective and rationale, including the nature of the urgent problems, and, to the extent applicable, an id entification of the parts of the regulation or 
procedure which in substance deviate from rel evant international standards and, in the 
case of a permanent label, the reason for requiring information other than that covered by paragraphs 2.1-2.3 of this Understanding. 
 6.3 Allow interested persons and other Members to submit comments in writing and discuss 
these comments upon request with the Member or interested person providing them, 
and take these written comments and the resu lts of these discussions into account in 
deciding whether to modify the regulation or  procedure, and publish or otherwise make 
available to the public, either in print or el ectronically, its responses to significant issues 
raised in comments it receives at the earliest  appropriate date after it publishes the final 
technical regulation or conformity assessment procedure. 
 
Question from Korea:   Para. 6 – Do the proponents have any reason for omitting “in the case of a 
permanent label, the reason for requiring informat ion…” in this paragra ph while paragraph 5.2 
contains this clause? (JOB(09)/26)  
• Co-sponsors’ answer:  The co-sponsors will examine this drafting issue and 
thank the Republic of Korea for bringing it to our attention.   (TN/MA/W/113)  TN/MA/W/123 
 Page 13 
 
 
  Question from Singapore: Would this result in numer ous individuals insisting that the Member enter 
into separate discussions with them?  (JOB(09)/22)  
• Co-sponsors’ answer:   A Member would have discretion on how it wants to 
respond to comments from interested persons, either on an individual or 
collective basis. (TN/MA/W/116)  
 
Question from Singapore: Can this interest ed person be from a non-WTO Member?   
 
• Co-sponsors’ answer: The co-sponsors circulated a document, 
TN/MA/W/113, on 22 May 2009, that addresses this question. (JOB(09)/22) 
 
FAQ 11:   Can you explain the meaning of the term “interested persons” in the context of 
paragraphs 5 and 6? (TN/MA/W/114) 
 
• Co-sponsors’ answer:  “Interested person s” refers to anyone, anywhere in the 
world, including legal entities and private individuals that have an interest of any nature in the technical regulation or conformity assessment procedure.   
(TN/MA/W/114) 
 Question from Singapore: Paragraphs 5.4 and 6.3 – para graphs 2.9.4, 5.6.4, 2.10.3, and 5.7.3 of the 
TBT Agreement require the Member to allow “ other Members to present their comments in writing, 
discuss these comments upon request, and take these written comments and the results of these 
discussions into account. ”  Paragraphs 5.4 and 6.3 of this  Understanding would now require the 
Member to “ discuss these comments upon request with the Member or interested person  providing 
them ” [emphasis in bold added]. What interested person(s) do the co-sponsors have in mind?  
(JOB(09)/22)  
• Co-sponsor answer:   FAQ 11 addresses this question. (TN/MA/W/116) 
 
Question from New Zealand:  The proposal includes a requirement to allow “interested persons” to 
comment on proposed technical regulations and conformity assessment procedures (paragraph 6.3).  This appears to be broader than the requirement in  the TBT Agreement, which refers to “interested 
parties in WTO Members”.  What is the reason fo r including a broader requirement?  (JOB(09)/89) 
 
• Co-sponsors answer: In FAQ 11, we explain that “interested person” refers to 
anyone, anywhere in the world, including legal entities and private 
individuals that have an interest of an y nature in the measure.  (JOB(09)/162) 
 
Final Provisions 
 
7. The Committee on Technical Barriers to  Trade shall review the operation and 
implementation of this Understanding, including the list of products contained in the Annex, on an annual basis.  The Committee shall also revie w other developments in technical regulations 
and conformity assessment procedures involving international trade in textiles, clothing, 
footwear, and travel goods of importance to this Understanding in accordance with the Committee’s procedures.
6   
 
                                                      
 6 It is understood that, for this purpose and to f acilitate transparency, exchanges of information, and 
discussions among Members, the WTO Secretariat will prepar e an annual report of the notifications received by 
the WTO Secretariat with respect to the labelling of textiles, clothing, footwear, and travel goods.  TN/MA/W/123 
Page 14  
 
  Question from New Zealand:  Do the cosponsors see the requirements of paragraph 7 as placing 
additional administrative burdens on the Secretariat/C ommittee?  Annual review  seems quite frequent, 
especially given the Committee’s already full work programme.  (JOB(09)/89)  
• Co-sponsors’ answer: We do not see paragraph 7 as placing additional 
administrative burden on the Secretariat or Committee.  The annual review 
could take a variety of forms and involve as much time and resources as Members decide is appropriate.  We see the review as an opportunity not a burden for Members. Moreover, the Committee mandate already includes consideration of textile, clothing, foot wear and travel goods labelling issues 
raised by Members. If the proposed Understanding is adopted, those issues 
could continue to be raised in the Co mmittee as part of its review of the 
implementation of this Unde rstanding.   (JOB(09)/162) 
 
8. The Annex to this Understanding constitutes an integral part thereof. 
 
ANNEX 
 
TEXTILES, CLOTHING, FOOTWEAR AND 
TRAVEL GOODS SUBJECT TO THE UNDERSTANDING  
 1.  With respect to textiles, clothing, and footwear, this Understanding shall cover all 
products contained in Chapters 50 through 65 of Harmonized Commodity Description and 
Coding System (HS) Nomenclature, ex cept for the products listed below: 
 HS Number
 Product Description  
5001 - 5003 Silk Fiber 
5101 - 5104 Wool Fiber 
5201 - 5203 Cotton Fiber 5301 - 5305 Other Vegetable Fibers 6506.10  Safety headgear (e.g. motorcycle helmets) 6506.91  Rubber or plastic headgear 6506.99  Furskin & other headgear 
6507.00  Headbands, linings, covers, hat foundat ions, hat frames, peaks (visors), and chin 
straps, for headgear 
6406  Footwear Parts  2.   With respect to travel goods, this Understa nding shall cover all products listed below:   
 
HS Number
 Product Description  
ex 3926.90 Handbags made of beads, bugles and spangles, of plastics 42.02    Trunks, suit-cases, vanity-cases, ex ecutive-cases, brief-cases, school satchels, 
spectacle cases, binocular cases, camera cases, musical instrument cases, gun 
cases, holsters and similar containers;  travelling-bags, insulated food or 
beverage bags, toilet bags, rucksacks, handbags, shopping bags, wallets, purses, 
map-cases, cigarette-cases, tobacco-pouches,  tool bags, sports bags, bottle-cases, 
jewellery boxes, powder-boxes, cutlery ca ses and similar containers, of leather or 
of composition leather, of sheeting of plastics, of textile materials, of vulcanized fiber or of paperboard, or wholly or main ly covered with such materials or with 
paper. 
  - Trunks, suit-cases, vanity-cases, executi ve-cases, brief-cases, school satchels 
and similar containers:  TN/MA/W/123 
 Page 15 
 
 
  4202.11  With outer surface of leather, of composition leather, or of patent leather 
4202.12  With outer surface of plastics or of textile materials 4202.19  Other    - Handbags, whether or not with shoulder strap, including those without handle: 4202.21  With outer surface of leather, of composition leather or of patent leather 
4202.22  With outer surface of sheeting of plastic or of textile materials 
4202.29  Other   - Articles of a kind normally carried in the pocket or in the handbag: 4202.31  With outer surface of leather, of composition leather or of patent leather 4202.32  With outer surface of sheeting of plastic or of textile materials 
4202.39  Other 
  - Other: 4202.91  With outer surface of leather, of composition leather or of patent leather 4202.92  With outer surface of sheeting of plastic or of textile materials 4202.99  Other 
ex 4602.11 Luggage, handbags and flat good s, whether or not lined, of bamboo  
ex 4602.12 Articles of a kind normally carried in the pocket or in the handbag, of rattan  
ex 4602.12 Luggage, handbags and flat goods, whether or not lined, of rattan, nesoi  ex 4602.19 Luggage, handbags and flat goods, whether or not lined, of willow   ex 4602.19 Articles of a kind normally carried in  the pocket or in the handbag, of palm leaf 
 
ex 4602.19 Luggage, handbags and flat goods, wh ether or not lined, of palm leaf, nesoi  
ex 4602.19 Luggage, handbags and flat goods, wh ether or not lined, made from plaiting  
  materials nesoi   9605.05            Travel sets for personal toilet, sewing or shoe or clothes cleaning  
_______________ 
 
General Questions and Answers
:   
 FAQ:   Why are you creating new TBT-related disciplines for a specific sector?  Would it not be more effective and balanced to amend the TBT Ag reement so that any changes applied across all 
sectors?  (TN/MA/W/114) 
 
• Co-sponsors answer:  Early on in the NAMA NTB negotiations, Members 
submitted indicative lists of non-tariff barriers, distilled from information 
provided by global industry.  TBT issues were the second most common market access problem cited behind trad e facilitation.   For this reason, 
several Members have submitted industr y-driven TBT-related NTB proposals 
that aim to facilitate trade and improve market access globally in specific sectors set out in the indicative lists .  The types of measures that may 
constitute technical barriers to trade or be more trade-restrictive than necessary will differ from sector to sector, as will the means by which a 
reduction of non-tariff barriers can be achieved.  
  This proposal identifies what may be considered  “more trade restrictive than necessary” with 
respect to requirements concerning labeling of textiles, clothing, footwear and travel goods in response to a particular NTB – labeling of goods –  observed in that sector.  In the context of the 
textiles, clothing, footwear and travel goods sect or, we believe paragraph 2 addresses the types of 
measures in that sector that we have found are genera lly not more trade-restrictive than necessary, and 
in the case of paragraph 4, are generally more tr ade-restrictive than necessary.  (TN/MA/W/114) 
__________