T H E   W H I T E   H O U S E

Report of the Transatlantic Economic Partnership Steering Group to the Meeting of Trade and Economic Ministers at the U.S.-EU Summit

Help Site Map Text Only

                              THE WHITE HOUSE

                       Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release
December 18, 2000

                           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

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

-     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

-     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

c)     Establish  cooperation  between  regulators  on  measurement-related
     requirements  in  regulations.  Encourage  exchange of information and
     experience  among  regulators,  identification  of  best practices and

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




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
?    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
?    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
?    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
?    ?    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
?    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 | Text Only

Privacy Statement