2. Elements of an Electronics NTBs Initiative
United States Perspective

3. Regulatory Regimes
Electrical safety and Electromagnetic Compatibility (EMC)

4. Regulatory approaches
Flexibility provided to accommodate multiple regulatory approaches
Does not require any Member to implement technical regulations for electrical safety or electromagnetic compatibility
Does not require any Member to implement conformity assessment procedures for electrical safety or electromagnetic compatibility
Offers disciplines if a Member chooses to use certain conformity assessment procedures
In exchange for regulatory flexibility, Members would have to be transparent about which technical regulations and conformity assessment procedures they maintain

5. Product Scope
A broad universe of electrical and electronics products, as agreed by Members
In our view, should be comprehensive with respect to electronics and electrical products – for example, it should include both low voltage and high voltage products.
We realize that many Members have asked about the universe of products that the U.S. proposal would cover, and we are working to develop a list. As indicated in our preamble, these would cover any information technology, telecommunications, audio-visual or other electronic or electrical product, whether for business of personal use. These are products classified in HS chapters 84, 85 and 90. [Our idea would be to list these products by HS code although matching HS codes to regulated products will take some work since our regulators typically don’t regulate by HS code.]

6. Framework approach
Members are able to choose which form of conformity assessment that they use for different products. Transparency about practices should be an objective. The proposal should allow for future regulatory changes.
Our proposal provides flexibility in the choice of conformity assessment – either third party or Suppliers’ Declaration of Conformity – and establishes disciplines with respect to each, for example, ensuring national treatment in the recognition of conformity assessment bodies and that required testing may be performed outside the Member’s territory.
Our sense is that most Members welcome this flexibility in conformity assessment.
We have also suggested a framework approach, under which Members would first indicate what type of conformity assessment they use for each product. Members would then have the opportunity to update these commitments. The type of conformity assessment each Member uses for each product would therefore be readily apparent to other Members and to industry. We believe this would be very trade facilitating.

7. International standards
Any standard that is developed in an open and transparent way in conformity with the TBT Decision. We do not want to list specific SSBs or standards.
Our proposal does not list specific standardizing bodies. We define international standards as any standards developed in an open and transparent way in conformity with the TBTC Decision.
We have fundamental concerns with the EU proposal which designates certain standards and standards-setting bodies as “international” and would require standards developed by any other body to be approved by one of the designated bodies before they could be considered “international,” undermining the TBT Committee Decision Principles for the Development of International standards, discouraging innovation and raising questions about the protection of intellectual property.
We also note that in electronics, numerous standards in use are not ISO, IEC, or ITU.
Designating these three bodies as “relevant international standardizing bodies” would appear to discourage them from applying the TBT Committee Decision principles, since regardless of whether those bodies apply the TBT Committee Decision principles, they would now and in the future maintain the designation of “relevant international” standardizing bodies. It would also discourage other bodies from applying the principles because regardless if they apply them or not, they could never be considered international.
Designating particular bodies as international also suggests that the world is static. Electronics is a particularly high-tech sector and new standards are being developed all the time to reflect new technologies. What is relevant today may not be relevant tomorrow. Designating certain bodies as international would have the effect of stifling innovation.
Naming particular bodies has been repeatedly raised and rejected by Members of the TBT Committee. The reason is that TBT experts understand, and have agreed, that naming bodies is inconsistent with the goal of ensuring that technologically and scientifically-relevant standards are available and able to evolve to meet regulators’ legitimate objectives on health, safety and the environment.
If needed:
Standards serve a multitude of purposes in regulation. Under the TBT Agreement, Members may choose not to base a technical regulation on relevant international standards where doing so would be ineffective or inappropriate to meet a legitimate objective.
(If raised that 85% of standards are ISO/IEC/ITU) This ignores the questions of what standards are actually used by regulators and in the marketplace; simply citing a percentage of standards available for use doesn’t tell you much.

8. Transparency
Disciplines would apply to all products within the agreement’s scope. Strengthen TBT transparency disciplines in a variety of ways.
Transparency is an important part of the US proposal, which would strengthen TBT transparency disciplines in a variety of ways. These transparency disciplines would apply to all products within the agreement’s scope.
In addition, the annexes would provide transparency about what types of conformity assessment each Member is using for various electronic and electrical products.

9. Costs
Costs of compliance taken into account when formulating new technical regulators or conformity assessment procedures. Members have the flexibility to determine the best way to factor this in.

10. Conformity Assessment Bodies (CABs)
No less favorable treatment for CABs in other Members with respect to the procedures and criteria for recognition or approval.

11. Testing
Testing is permitted to be performed outside the territory of the Member in a facility the Member considers competent.

12. Review
A Subcommittee would be established under the TBT Committee to review on a regular basis the operation of the agreement and consider modifications to the annexes.