THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
___________________________________________________________________________
__
For Immediate Release
December 18, 2000
REPORT OF THE TRANSATLANTIC ECONOMIC PARTNERSHIP STEERING GROUP TO THE
MEETING OF TRADE AND ECONOMIC MINISTERS
AT THE U.S.-EU SUMMIT
WASHINGTON, DECEMBER 18, 2000
The Transatlantic Economic Partnership (TEP) Steering Group met on
September 12 and
November 9, 2000. The next meeting is scheduled for late January 2001.
Achievements for the 2nd semester 2000
The Steering Group noted with satisfaction that significant progress
has been achieved over the last six months in fulfilling elements of the
TEP Action Plan.
In the area of technical barriers to trade, the Steering Group
welcomed the substantial progress we made on an agreed text of a mutual
recognition agreement (MRA) on marine equipment. The Steering Group was
also pleased by the finalization of a Joint Declaration on a Framework for
U.S.-EU Cooperation in the field of Metrology in Support of Trade area (see
Annex 1) as a step to reduce further barriers to transatlantic trade. In
addition, the Steering Group noted that the two sides have made progress
and have released for comment to the transatlantic dialogues a joint draft
bracketed text on guidelines for regulatory cooperation and transparency.
The Steering Group also acknowledged progress on regulatory cooperation in
the fields of cosmetics, elevators, telecommunications equipment and
consumer product safety.
In the area of services, both sides have been encouraged by the
finalization of a work plan for further discussion and negotiation on
mutual recognition arrangements in the architectural and engineering
services sectors (see Annex 2) as well as by the progress made in the
insurance sector.
Regarding discussions within the framework of the TEP Working Group on
biotechnology, U.S. and EU officials have made good progress towards
agreement on issues affecting U.S. corn exports to Spain and Portugal.
Since the last Summit, the experts in sampling and testing methods from
U.S., EU and Member State agencies have made significant progress in
identifying reliable and consistent approaches to verification. Parallel
discussions on the administrative aspects are also making progress.
Discussion continues on the issue of obtaining access to the data and
reference material needed for tests on new GMO events. This access is
currently being pursued on the basis of confidentiality undertakings with
testing laboratories. On this basis, policy officials will aim to make
further progress early in the New Year. In addition, regarding the TEP
pilot project on biotechnology, regulators from the U.S. and the EU have
made significant progress in comparing the molecular characterization
components of their review processes for transgenic plants.
Furthermore, discussions continued on conditions that could allow the
withdrawal of sanctions imposed by both sides in 1993 due to a dispute over
telecommunications-related procurement.
On the multilateral front, we continued working together on a number
of important issues in the WTO. In particular, the U.S. and the EU
approaches to the accession of China to the WTO have been characterized by
frequent and constructive coordination. We also took note of the
implementation debate recently concluded in the WTO General Council.
The Steering Group discussed additional items under the Early Warning
Mechanism established by the June 1999 U.S.-EU Summit and began an
examination of how to refine the practical procedures that should govern
the treatment of issues brought up under this mechanism.
Priorities for the 1st semester 2001
The Steering Group will monitor and give encouragement to completing
the process of bringing into force the MRA on marine equipment, including
the identification of an initial scope of product coverage. In addition,
the Steering Group will press for early finalization of the guidelines for
regulatory cooperation and transparency. Both sides will support
continued regulatory cooperation in the areas of road safety equipment,
cosmetics, lifts (elevators) and telecommunications equipment and explore
possible additional areas for cooperation.
Regarding services, the Steering Group will encourage progress in the
discussions concerning mutual recognition in this area, and looks forward
to renewed discussions and negotiations early in the new year.
On the new Round we will continue to work together over coming months
in order to increase the already existing support amongst WTO members in
favor of an inclusive and balanced round. As regards China?s protocol of
accession, we intend to continue our close cooperation toward bringing the
negotiations to a successful and expeditious conclusion.
With respect to the rest of the TEP Action Plan, both sides will seek
further progress in as many areas as possible. In addition, the Steering
Group will be open to consideration of new possibilities for cooperation
that could be established within the context of the TEP.
The Steering Group will aim to finalize concrete recommendations for
procedures that could streamline and make more effective the process of
identifying and addressing issues under the Early Warning Mechanism. It
will also continue to encourage contributions by the various dialogues to
early warning discussions.
Annex 1 - Joint Declaration on U.S.-EC Cooperation in the Field of
Metrology in Support of Trade
Annex 2 - Agreed TEN Wordplay for Architectural and Engineering Services
Annex 1
Joint Declaration on U.S.-E.C. Cooperation
in the Field of Metrology in Support of
Trade
1. Purpose
This declaration sets out the policy basis and orientation for a joint
technical program of work between the United States and the European
Community in view of supporting and furthering mutual recognition of test
reports, calibration and measurement certificates provided for regulatory
and market place compliance purposes. The goal is both to improve
regulatory efficiencies and to facilitate trade. These aims will be
achieved by reducing unnecessary duplicative measurements, tests and
calibration requirements and by improving regulator confidence in
measurements, tests and calibrations performed by qualified laboratories in
both the United States and the European Community.
Steps to this effect may include, but are not limited to:
a) Recognition of the measurement capability of the National Measurement
Institutes (NIST for the United States) and other institutes that are
signatories to the CIPM Mutual Recognition Arrangement (MRA).
b) Establishment of the equivalence of national measurement standards based
on the CIPM MRA.
c) Recognition of the measurement capability of designated calibration
laboratories based on the equivalence of each other?s systems to assess
and monitor their competence.
d) Recognition by the importing Party?s regulatory bodies of the
calibration and measurement certificates issued by the National
Measurement Institutes and designated calibration laboratories of the
other Party.
e) Acceptance/recognition of reference materials developed and produced by
the other Party on the basis of the relevant international standard
(ISO/IEC Guide 34).
This declaration does not commit the U.S. or the EC to any sector-specific
initiatives; and precise decisions will have to be taken explicitly at the
appropriate time on a case-by-case basis.
2. Current Situation
Tests and measurements play an important role in commercial transactions
and trade, for industry and regulators alike. Product-testing protocols
increasingly require measurements that are directly related to the
importing nation?s national standards or those recognized as being
equivalent. In many cases, product tests and associated measurements refer
to underlying physical measurement standards realized and maintained by
National Measurement Institutes (NMIs). NMIs in the United States and
Europe are legally responsible for developing, maintaining and
disseminating national measurement standards, making them available to
industry, government agencies, and the public; they are not, however,
required to establish equivalence of national standards with other
countries, although some do undertake this responsibility as well.
Regulators and industrial customers will not accept product tests and
measurements verifying conformance to contract or regulatory requirements
unless they are confident that the underlying physical measurement
standards are valid. Mutual recognition of measurement standards between
the United States and the European Community (E.C.) would facilitate
acceptance of the results of conformance testing or product certification
performed by manufacturers, testing laboratories or certification bodies in
the United States and the E.C. in key sectors where measurement
comparability is important. Participation in measurement intercomparisons
is critical in assuring that one Party will not reject products exported by
the other Party simply because different methods are used to perform a
measurement or test. As new technologies emerge and world economies grow,
the number, frequency and coverage of such comparisons is rising rapidly.
Sound, accurate and reliable measurements, be they physical, chemical or
biological in nature, are therefore essential.
While physical measurements are realized and maintained at the highest
level by NMIs in the United States and the E.C., most tests and
measurements in support of trade are performed by commercial laboratories,
not by NMIs. Thus it is important to address both mutual recognition of
the measurement capability of NMIs and the measurement capabilities of
calibration and testing laboratories whose work is traceable to national or
international measurements. The current lack of recognition gives rise to
problems that affect trade, such as failure to accept calibration and
measurement certificates issued by laboratories in the exporting country;
unnecessary duplication of tests, measurements and assessments; and lack of
mutual understanding of how measurement-related issues are handled. It has
caused specific problems in certain sectors, e.g., aviation, pressure
vessels, exhaust emissions, electromagnetic compatibility.
3. Metrology-related trade impediments
The table below summarizes some of the general measurement-related trade
impediments that could unnecessarily burden U.S.-E.C. trade and suggests
some approaches for possible solutions.
|---------------------------------->
| |
| |
| |
| ?Impediments to Trade? |
| |
|---------------------------------->
>------------------------------------|
| |
| |
| |
| ?Solutions? |
| |
>------------------------------------|
|---------------------------------->
| |
| |
| |
| 1. Regulatory authorities (and |
| industry) require traceability to |
| physical standards maintained by |
| different National Measurement |
| Institutes. |
| |
|---------------------------------->
>------------------------------------|
| |
| |
| |
| a) Recognition of calibration and |
| measurement certificates issued by |
| NMIs, based on the CIPM-MRA |
| framework. |
| b) Increased awareness and |
| understanding of metrology-related |
| requirements (see point 5). |
| |
>------------------------------------|
|---------------------------------->
| |
| |
| |
| 2. Different approaches to |
| demonstrating measurement |
| capability. |
| |
|---------------------------------->
>------------------------------------|
| |
| |
| |
| a) Recognize equivalence of |
| respective systems and their |
| results. |
| b) Cooperation between NMIs |
| c) Cooperation between |
| accreditation organizations. |
| |
>------------------------------------|
|---------------------------------->
| |
| |
| |
| 3. Different approaches to |
| developing and certifying reference |
| materials |
| |
|---------------------------------->
>------------------------------------|
| |
| |
| |
| a) Recognize equivalence of |
| respective systems for value |
| assignment and their results. |
| b) Scientific and technological |
| co-operation. |
| c) Joint development of reference |
| materials. |
| |
>------------------------------------|
|---------------------------------->
| |
| |
| |
| 4. Reliance on different test |
| methods |
| |
|---------------------------------->
>------------------------------------|
| |
| |
| |
| a) Alignment to international |
| standards |
| b) Harmonization and/or |
| convergence of E.C. and US |
| standards |
| c) Regulatory co-operation |
| d) Scientific and technical |
| co-operation |
| |
>------------------------------------|
|---------------------------------->
| |
| |
| |
| 5. Lack of awareness among |
| regulators and economic operators |
| of how to deal with |
| measurement-related requirements |
| |
|---------------------------------->
>------------------------------------|
| |
| |
| |
| a) Regulatory co-operation |
| b) Exchange of best practices |
| c) Improve dialogue between |
| regulators and economic operators |
| on the one hand, and NMIs, CIPM, |
| accreditors etc. on the other |
| hand. |
| |
>------------------------------------|
4. Instruments available to achieve the objective
Trade facilitation and improved regulatory efficiencies can be achieved by
recognizing certain key elements related to the acceptability of
calibration and measurement certificates; promoting scientific and
technological co-operation based on existing U.S.-E.C. agreements; and
promoting cooperation, awareness and understanding of measurement issues
among regulators and industry. Examples of instruments and relationships
that already exist or are being put into place and that can be used
include:
- The CIPM (Comit? International des Poids et Mesures) Arrangement on
Mutual Recognition of national measurement standards and calibration
certificates issued by National Metrology Institutes and other MRA
signatories.
- The U.S.-E.C. Agreement on scientific and technological co-operation
and the Implementing Arrangement in the field of metrology and
measurement standards.
- Cooperation between U.S. and E.C. metrology organizations
- Bilateral, regional and international cooperation between U.S. and
E.C. accreditation systems.
5. Elements for a bilateral co-operation framework
To further our mutual objectives, and fully utilize the identified
instruments, the U.S. and E.C. agree to consider the following cooperative
activities and to develop workplans for specific technical activities.
These activities include:
a) Encourage regulators and industry in both the United States and the
European Community Member States to rely on and make use of the CIPM
Mutual Recognition Arrangement with a view to avoiding duplicative
measurements and calibrations.
b) Make use of the U.S.-E.C. Agreement on scientific and technological
co-operation and the Implementing Arrangement in the field of
metrology and measurement standards, to aid in finding solutions to
measurement and test related problems that impede or could impede
trade.
c) Establish cooperation between regulators on measurement-related
requirements in regulations. Encourage exchange of information and
experience among regulators, identification of best practices and
networking.
d) Promote awareness and understanding among regulators and industry of
measurement-related requirements and issues. Promote dialogue between
regulators, industry and metrology organizations
e) Encourage and support the use of international standards related to
laboratory competence. Encourage cooperation and agreements between
U.S. and E.C. accreditation organizations and support the related
activities at the international level. Support regional and
international programs for laboratory inter-comparisons.
f) Pursue an agreement on the mutual recognition of calibration and
measurement certificates.
Annex 2
TRANSATLANTIC ECONOMIC PARTNERSHIP
ELEMENTS OF THE WORK PLAN
Introduction
Six elements were identified to form part of the work plan for
architectural and engineering services.
Each element is listed below with a brief description. At some point, it
may be necessary to set forth
separate work plans for each profession.
Respect of each others? regulatory systems
? purpose of regulation.
? extent to which home country regulations and host country regulations
apply to an individual practicing in another country or jurisdiction. For
example, when is disciplinary action appropriate and what jurisdiction(s)
should take the action?
? requirements for licensing/registration/certification in a host
country.
? procedures to be used in processing applications from licensed and
unlicensed practitioners from other countries.
? services that may be provided in architecture and engineering by
individuals without licensure/registration/certification. (See also ?scope
of practice?)
? limitations on use of the title ?architect? or ?engineer,? if any.
? licensure/registration/certification requirements for companies (info
only, not MRA)
? period of validity of registration or licensing
? need for continuing professional development
Determining equivalence of education
? purpose of education requirements for licensing or registration of
professionals.
? process by which equivalency of education will be determined and who
will make the determination in each jurisdiction.
? applicability of existing agreements on educational requirements, as
appropriate.
? role of organizations which accredit degree-granting programs and/or
institutions, as appropriate.
Determining equivalence of qualifications other than education
? purpose of requirements, such as experience and examinations, in
determining whether an individual is qualified to practice the profession.
? equivalencies of examination
? equivalencies of practice qualifications
? process by which equivalence will be determined and who will make the
determination.
? ? role of quasi-governmental and non-governmental organizations, if
any, that would be involved in the process.
Notification to the World Trade Organization of the intent to negotiate
mutual recognition
? text of a notification to the World Trade Organization, as required
under Article VII:4 of the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS).
Scope of practice
? functions performed by licensed or registered individuals, including
functions in particular branches of engineering.
? services that may be provided in architecture and engineering by
individuals without licensure/registration/certification. (See also
?respect of each others? regulatory system?)
Implementation of agreements
? steps to be taken by regulatory authorities to make the agreement
work.
? steps to be taken by the governments at federal and sub-federal or at
Member State level to make the agreement effective.
? steps to be taken by others (professional associations and/or other
national or sub-national organizations) that may be necessary to make the
agreement work.
President and First Lady | Vice President and Mrs. Gore
Record of Progress | The Briefing Room
Gateway to Government | Contacting the White House | White House for Kids
White House History | White House Tours | Help
Privacy Statement