WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION   
G/TBT/W/352 
7 May 2012 
 (12-2424) 
Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade Original:   English 
  
 
SIXTH TRIENNIAL REVIEW OF THE AGREEMENT ON 
TECHNICAL BARRIERS TO TRADE:  TRANSPARENCY 
 
Communication from Japan 
 
 
 The following communication, dated 4 May 2012, is being circulated at the request of the 
delegation of Japan. 
  
_______________ 
 
 
I. BACKGROUND 
1. The Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade stres sed that obligation to ensure transparency 
is a fundamental pillar in the implementation of the TBT Agreement.
1  In order to ensure sufficient 
transparency, it is an important element not only to timely notify under the TBT Agreement but also 
to ensure access to texts of measures, to ensu re opportunities for comments, and to respond to 
comments.  Ensuring access to texts of measures and opportunities for comments in the past triennial 
reviews of the operation and implementation of th e TBT Agreement has been  discussed repeatedly 
and, thus, Japan recognizes that they have been improved. 
2. However, Japan recognizes that further impr ovement regarding response to comments on 
TBT notification should be necessary. In 2003 and 20 09 of the triennial reviews of the operation and 
implementation of the TBT Agreement2, the Committee agreed to encourage Members to voluntarily 
respond to comments.  Nevertheless, Japan has still experienced not having received answers.  
Because TBT notification is made during the stage of their draft of the proposed technical regulations 
concerned and because information mentioned and referred in the notification is not sometimes 
sufficient to convey the details of the proposed regulation, comment-and-response process is often 
crucial for clarification of such details. Japan has experienced that it had inquired about such details 
but received no response.  Thus, Japan thinks th at further improvement in this area should be 
necessary. 
3. The Committee recognizes the need to strengthen the implementation of the enquiry point.3  
The triennial review of the operation and implemen tation of the TBT Agreement in 2009 stressed the 
importance of operational capacity with respect to the provision of answers to enquiries and the promotion of a dialog.
4  Japan recognizes that it is important for enquiry points to work fully 
functionally from the point of improving transparen cy.  Japan has experienced that it sometimes 
                                                      
1 G/TBT/1/Rev.10, IV . A. (a). 
2 G/TBT/1/Rev.10, IV . C. 1. (viii) (b) (ii) and (d) (i). 
3 G/TBT/1/Rev. 10, IV . E. 1. 14 (b). 
4 G/TBT/1/Rev. 10, IV . E. 1. 14 (b) (i). G/TBT/W/352 
Page 2  
 
  receives no response to its inquiries.  Regarding deali ng with an inquiry to an enquiry point, there is 
still room for improvement in terms of the opera tion and implementation of  the TBT Agreement. 
4. Paragraph L of Annex 3 of the TBT Agreement,  Code of Good Practice for the Preparation, 
Adaption and Application concerns transparency on standards.  Although the Committee in the third 
triennial review agreed that electronic publica tion could be a thing which has been publicly 
announced, this paragraph should be addressed further for more transpar ency.  Japan thinks that how 
Members implements Para graph L is not fully shared among Members.  Sharing information 
regarding the implementation is significant fro m the viewpoint of facilitating stakeholders' 
involvement and promoting the use of the opportunities provided for in the paragraph. 
II. PROPOSALS 
5. In the light of the background as above, Japan would like to propose the following for the 
Sixth Triennial Review from the point of view of strengthening transparency on technical regulations, conformity assessment procedures and standards among Members built in the TBT Agreement.  
A. 
RESPONSE TO INQUIRIES AND COMMENTS TO TBT NOTIFICATIONS  
6. As stated in the background, there are some  cases where Japan did not receive any responses 
to inquiries or comments on a TBT notification. Japan  believes that further improvement is required.  
Members have already shared the importance of res ponding to comments in the past triennial reviews.  
One of the examples is Paragraph 42.(a) of the Fi fth Triennial Review where the Committee stresses 
the recommendation to voluntarily respond to comments in writing.5  From the point of view of 
improving TBT transparency, this committee should reaffirm this recommenda tion and urge Members 
to put the recommendation into practice.  In a ddition, in order to enhance TBT transparency, 
answering all reasonable inquiries in a timely manner should be encouraged a nd it might be effective 
to set a standard period from receipt of comment to response.  Furthermore, the coming triennial review should contain sharing of Members' experiences because this committee could address 
Members' difficulties in responding to comments. 
B. 
ENSURING OPPORTUNITIES FOR COMMENTS TO TBT NOTIFICATIONS  
7. Japan has an experience that its comment written in English was not accepted because a 
notifying country could only accept comments in Spanish.  In that  case, Japan had difficulty in 
providing a translated comment within the period for comment.  Based on this experience, it would be 
beneficial for Members if this committee would recommend the following:  if a comment is written in one of three WTO official languages (English, Fren ch and Spanish) and reaches a notifying country 
within the period for comment, Members should accept a translated version of the comment even after 
the end of period, provided that the translated  comments are reached within a reasonable time to 
translate.  
C. 
REPLY TO THE QUERY THROUGH ENQUIRY POINTS  
8. Japan has some experiences where it did not r eceive any responses from an enquiry point of a 
Member.  From the viewpoint of improving transpar ency, the Sixth Triennial Review should contain a 
recommendation to encourage Members to reply to inquiries.  Furthermore the Sixth Triennial 
                                                      
5 G/TBT/26, para 42(a). Stresses the importance of an efficient and effective handling of comments on 
notified measures and, in this respect, reiterates its previous recommendations on the handling of comments, 
including the recommendation to voluntarily respond to comme nts in writing, if so requested, and to share these 
replies with the TBT Committee and to encourage Members to draft their responses in one of the three official 
languages of the WTO. It can be also seen in  G/TBT/1/Rev.10, IV 5. C. 1. (viii) (d) (i).  G/TBT/W/352 
 Page 3 
 
 
  Review should include encouragement to Members to share experiences a bout cases where it was 
difficult to answer inquiries. 
D. CODE OF GOOD PRACTICE  
9. It is stipulated in Paragraph L of Annex 3 of the TBT Agreement that "before adopting a 
standard, the standardizing body shall allow at l east 60 days for the submission of comments on the 
draft standard by interested parties within the territory of a Member of the WTO".  From the 
viewpoints of enhancing transparency regarding sta ndards, it should be useful to share experiences 
and best practices in respect of the implementation of a Member’s standardizing bodies, e.g. information on how the standardizing body provi des opportunities for public comment and how long 
it accepts.  For instance, in implementing Paragr aph L of Annex 3, Japanese Industrial Standards 
Committee, also known as JISC, is in the practice of receiving public comments for at least 60 days 
via its website when planning new standards.
6  In this point of view, it would be a possible 
recommendation that, as the TBT Committee's future work, Members share and review implementation of such a public comment procedur e by standardizing bodies in Member states. 
 
 
__________  
                                                      
6 http://www.jisc.go.jp