This POSITION PAPER sets out and describes the European Union’s general approach on « Engineering industries » in the TTIP negotiations. It was tabled for discussion with the US in the
negotiating round of 19-23 May 2014 and made public on 7 January 2015.
EU POSITION PAPER
TTIP REGULATORY ISSUES – ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES
1. Introduction
The final report of the US -EU High Level Working Group on Jobs and Growth (February 2013) highlights that as regards regulatory aspects TTIP should contain, in addition to cross-cutting disciplines and TBT plus elements, provisions concerning individual sectors.
The purpose of this non-paper is to present possible elements for a sectoral approach for the engineering industries (mechanical, electrical and electonic sectors). It contains preliminary ideas, based on input from EU industry that can be complemented and refined at a later stage with further input from stakeholders. The elements suggested are complementary to those proposed by the EU concerning horizontal disciplines (Regulatory Coherence and TBT) which would be applicable also to this sector.
The scope of this non-paper covers mechanical, electrical and electonic equipment and products.1 While it is a somewhat heterogeneous sector, composed of a plurality of subsectors subject to different regulatory requirements, it encompasses an important family of products
with high relevance to the transatlantic economy. Specific ICT issues could be also addressed separately.
Transatlantic trade in this sector is indeed significant, but also has a potential which is not fully exploited. Chapters 84 and 85 account for approximately 25 % of total EU–US trade.
Barriers arising from regulatory divergences are deemed to have a more significant impact on trade than tariffs.
Regulatory systems for machinery, electrical products and electronics diverge in the US and the EU, notably as regards technical regulations affecting their marketing and use as well as conformity assessment. Conformity assessment procedures for these sectors are generally
lighter in the EU, where supplier’s declaration of conformity (SDoC) is the general rule, with some exceptions for specific categories of equipment involving significant risks or specific phenomena, like emissions. In the US, third party conformity assessment is more widely required, as workplace safety regulations (adopted by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, OSHA) require third party conformity assessment for a wide range of products (37 product categories) that can be used in the workplace, of which the most relevant one is electrical conductors and equipment. US regulations also establish mandatory requirements for several other categories of products, for which OSHA either establishes its own technical requirements or relies on referenced standards approved by US Standard Development Organisations (SDOs). Other requirements are established by other agencies,
This also includes electronic products; however, the paper does not intend to deal with issues specific to the
electronics and IT sectors, which are addressed in separate discussions under TTIP.
the use of common and/or international standards (i.e. ISO, IEC, ITU) in support of regulation
TTIP could establish cooperation mechanisms between the different regulators which are, among others, OSHA, EPA, USCG, NHTSA and the Federal Communications Commission
(FCC) in the US; and primarily DG ENTR in the EU. In this regard, TTIP could provide a basis for US and EU regulators to engage in international regulatory cooperation.
Those mechanisms could cover areas such as:
2
EU-US TTIP Negotiations
This POSITION PAPER sets out and describes the European Union’s general approach on « Engineering industries » in the TTIP negotiations. It was tabled for discussion with the US in the
negotiating round of 19-23 May 2014 and made public on 7 January 2015.
Apart from fostering collaboration between regulators, this sector would benefit from increased cooperation between standardisation bodies across the Atlantic. TTIP could
encourage this collaboration so that technical requirements are aligned as much as possible. This cooperation would focus on new technologies, but it could also extend to the revision of
standards for existing technologies where (existing) standards differ, as those differences actually have an impact on the ability of the product to comply with both sets of requirements
without modifications.
This collaboration would also include work carried out in international standardisation bodies (i.e. ISO, IEC and ITU). In the EU’s view, the outcome of such work should be used as basis
for the development of standards at national or regional level. Ideally, where feasible, the parties would encourage their standards development organisations to present joint EU/US
proposals in these fora and be consistent in their implementation.
However, as SDOs in both the EU and the US are private bodies to which the Administrations can give no instructions, work carried out in the TTIP framework can only act as an
encouragement for SDOs to cooperate.
parties could also explore other possibilities to enhance regulatory transparency, in particular when regulatory requirements are scattered over different levels of regulations (national,
regional and local). The diversity of regulatory requirements and complex access to information on such requirements can constitute barriers to market entry, especially for
SMEs. The TTIP could provide for better access to information on the regulatory requirements by product and geographical area, with the aim of simplifying the operation of
mandatory procedures.