Geum.ru

WT/acc/rus/70 wt/min(11)/2

Вид материалаДокументы
Подобный материал:
1   ...   22   23   24   25   26   27   28   29   ...   75

- (v) Transparency and Notification
  1. In response to a question from a Member, the representative of the Russian Federation explained that all technical regulation proposals would be published in the public information system of the Russian Federation, the CU and the EurAsEC in digital form at least 60 days prior to their adoption. Neither Federal Law No. 184-FZ nor CU and EurAsEC Agreements and Acts on standardization or technical regulation defined or limited the number or character of interested persons who could submit commentary or suggestions to drafts of technical regulation. CU Commission Decision No. 527 explicitly provided for participation of all interested persons. Draft amendments would be revised after taking into account the comments of interested persons. He also noted that the relevant international agreements and other legal acts did not provide for any restrictions for foreign persons to participate in the public review of draft technical regulations as interested persons. In accordance with CU Commission Decision No. 527, interested persons including persons from third countries could submit their proposals and remarks on drafts of CU and EurAsEC technical regulations to the relevant national authorities as determined by the Government, to the CU Party-developer of the technical regulation, to the CU Commission or to the Integration Committee of the EurAsEC (in the event of the technical regulation of EurAsEC), as relevant. Proposals would be considered and upon the review there would be prepared a summary of comments on the draft of the technical regulation and a decision on each of them, including reasons for such decisions.
  2. The Federal Executive body authorised by the Government to be responsible for the draft technical regulation would send the list of comments received from all these sources in written form to the commission of experts which was elaborating the amendments, at least 30 days prior to adoption of the amendments. The commission of experts would consist of the representatives of the respective Federal Executive body, other interested Federal Executive bodies, research institutions, self regulating organizations, public associations of entrepreneurs and consumers. The decision on the amendment of the draft technical regulation in conformity with the comments and/or referral of the draft technical regulation to CU or EurAsEC bodies for further review, harmonization and approval or rejection would be made by the Federal body responsible for development of the technical regulation on the basis of documents presented by the commission of experts. The WTO TBT Committee would be notified when draft technical regulations were circulated for comment domestically and when amendments to national standards were proposed. He assured Members of the Working Party that this procedure would operate with the aim of securing effective and timely consideration of proposals on draft technical regulation proposals and amendments to draft technical regulation proposals.
  3. In response to a Member inquiring whether the comment period would be initiated only when notified, the representative of the Russian Federation stated that this 60 day period>
  4. In response to some Members' questions concerning matters of transparency in the area of technical regulation, the representative of the Russian Federation informed Members of the Working Party that the Federal Data Bank of Technical Regulations and Standards had been established to perform all information procedures, including WTO notifications. It also contained information on all remaining national technical regulations and national standards containing mandatory requirements that were in force. He also informed Members that a Single Enquiry Point, as contemplated under the WTO TBT Agreement and the WTO SPS Agreement, was operative within this structure, providing access to Russian regulations, standards, rules, and conformity assessment procedures, as well as drafts of respective documents. Rosstandart was the enquiry point and its website and e-mail address were the following: nfo.ru; and enpoint@gostinfo.ru. When national technical regulations were fully replaced with technical regulations established in accordance with relevant CU and EurAsEC Agreements and Acts, a new Single Enquiry Point would be established for the CU and EurAsEC.
  5. Since December 2003, "Newsletter (Vestnik) of Technical Regulation" was published by Gosstandart (afterwards by Rosstandart). This was an official publication, which contained all domestic notifications on the development and outcome of public consultations on technical regulations, conformity assessment procedures, and standards, reports of expert commissions on technical regulations, draft legislative acts, and other regulatory legal documents in the area of technical regulation. The CU Commission website, www.tsouz.ru, was the point of publication for such documents related to the development, adoption, and application of CU technical regulations. For EurAsEC technical regulations, the website was www.evrazes.com/en.
  6. Some Members expressed a concern that under the CU Commission Decision No. 620, as described in paragraph , foreign manufacturers not located in the territory of the CU, in contrast to manufacturers located within the territory of the CU, did not have the option to use declarations of conformity based on the CU common form. To these Members, this constituted discrimination in breach of the TBT Agreement. These Members sought a commitment that the Russian Federation, by the date of accession, would eliminate this discriminatory treatment.
  7. In response, the representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that in order to comply with the WTO TBT Agreement, and in particular Article 2.1 thereof, the said discriminatory treatment would be eliminated by the date of accession of the Russian Federation to the WTO through the amendment of CU Commission Decision No. 620 of 7 April 2011 "On the Unified List's Update with Regard to Products Subjected to Mandatory Conformity Assessment (Confirmation) within the Framework of the CU with Issuance of Single Documents", approved by CU Commission Decision No. 319 of 18 June 2010 to ensure that foreign manufacturers not located within the territory of the CU would be able to demonstrate the conformity of the products imported into the territory of the CU through use of declarations of conformity using the CU common form. The Working Party took note of this commitment.

- (vi) Conformity Assessment Procedures including the Accreditation of Conformity Assessment Bodies
  1. The representative of the Russian Federation explained that, under Federal Law No. 184-FZ, the cost of mandatory conformity assessment would be paid by the applicant. Furthermore, the cost of obligatory confirmation of compliance was to be determined regardless of the country and/or place of their origin or of the persons acting as applicants. He confirmed that the cost incurred by a conformity assessment body formed the basis for determining the cost to the applicant. The elements that would typically be considered by a conformity assessment body in the territory of the Russian Federation in determining fees included the costs of labour, any necessary materials or equipment, and tests, as well as other usual costs and profits typical to commercial practices in this sphere. The representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that, under Article 19(1) of Federal Law No. 184-FZ of 27 December 2002 "On Technical Regulation" (as last amended on 28 September 2010) (hereafter: Law No. 184-FZ), the procedures for the obligatory confirmation of compliance must be organized and applied in accordance with the principle of minimizing time duration and cost to the applicant. The elements and procedures for determining cost to the applicant were indicated by guidelines established by the national standardization body and, pursuant to Article 23.4 of Law No. 184, applied equally to imported and domestic products. The applicant had the right to apply to court to seek compliance with these provisions, including cases when Federal or local government or non-governmental measures or those of the CU or EurAsEC were concerned. He also noted that the provisions of Law No. 184-FZ as a whole reflected the principle of uniform application of the Technical Regulation system and of the rules of conformity assessment, regardless of the country of origin of the products or the nationality of conformity assessment bodies. Article 23(4) of Law No. 184-FZ specifically provided that the cost to be paid for work on obligatory conformity assessment of goods would be established regardless of the country and/or place of their origin, or the origin of the persons applying for conformity assessment. The Working Party took note of these commitments.
  2. In response to a question of a Member, whether conformity assessment bodies could generate profit from the fees they charge or whether they were limited to cost recovery only, the representative of the Russian Federation replied that conformity assessment bodies were commercial organizations and may generate profit.
  3. The representative of the Russian Federation explained that the issues of liability for releasing to the market, products which did not meet the requirements of technical regulations (including the judicial procedure of coercive retraction of products; liability of certification bodies, accredited testing laboratories and their employees) were described in Articles 36 to 42 of Federal Law No. 184-FZ.
  4. The representative of the Russian Federation explained that recognition of conformity assessment certificates issued in foreign countries was carried out in line with interstate agreements and international certification systems to which the Russian Federation had acceded and, in such cases, did not require the conclusion of a mutual recognition or other agreement. Those interstate agreements and international certification systems to which the Russian Federation had acceded and for which the Russian Federation recognised the results of conformity confirmation procedures, included the Geneva Agreement of 1955 on Mechanical Vehicles, Brussels Convention on Reciprocal Recognition of Proof Marks of Handguns and Cartridges, IEC Quality Assessment System for Electronic Components (IECQ), IEC System for Conformity Testing and Certification of Electrical Equipment (IECEE), and IEC Scheme for Certification to Standards for Electrical Equipment for Explosive Atmospheres (IECEx). For importation and transit of goods regulated by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), a permit issued by a CITES agency in the exporting country was accepted. Recognition of results of conformity assessment procedures was done through accreditation of foreign certification bodies within the national mandatory certification system based on Mutual Recognition Agreements (MRAs) and would be the responsibility of the single national accreditation body once this was established. Its first task would be to secure membership in ILAC. Membership would provide the basis for accepting the results of conformity assessment procedures of conformity assessment bodies accredited by other ILAC members. But even before joining ILAC, the Russian Federation was ready to start preparation of bilateral and multilateral arrangements with interested Members, including recognition of results of activity of certification bodies. The procedures for recognising foreign conformity assessment documents (i.e., documents for the confirmation of compliance and reports of examination (tests) and measurements of products) were also determined on the basis of relevant multilateral and bilateral agreements on mutual recognition of certificates and schemes of conformity. CU Commission Decision No. 621 of 7 April 2011 established such schemes, including scheme No. 9 which addressed the recognition of certificates of conformity of third-country conformity assessment bodies. In other cases, due to differences in requirements for the products and procedures of accreditation of certification bodies adopted in the Russian Federation compared to some other countries, foreign certificates were not recognised.
  5. A Member requested information on the agreements or arrangements (multilateral, plurilateral or bilateral) that the Russian authorities or conformity assessment bodies were party to, that would facilitate the mutual recognition of certificates of conformity. In response, the representative of the Russian Federation noted that the list of multilateral and bilateral agreements to which the Russian Federation was a party, including those containing provisions on mutual recognition, was available at www.gost.ru, as was the list of acceptable conformity assessment bodies and the Unified Register of conformity assessment bodies accepted by the CU Parties.
  6. A Member asked whether these lists would be made publicly available in any other languages. In response, the representative of the Russian Federation stated that upon accession, the Russian Federation would officially notify these agreements in accordance with the provisions of the WTO TBT Agreement on notification, in one of the WTO official languages.
  7. Some Members of the Working Party requested clarification of the basis for acceptance of the results of conformity assessment procedures done in WTO Members, in particular on how the Russian Federation would implement Article 6.1 of the WTO TBT Agreement. They also sought confirmation that interstate agreements, international treaties, and international certification systems to which the Russian Federation had acceded included the WTO Agreement. Members noted that the Russian Federation ratified the EurAsEC Agreement on Technical Regulation Policy Coordination, Article 9.2 of which stated that "the documents of conformity assessment (confirmation) received outside the common customs area, including documents regarding test results and products imported for distribution within the common customs area, shall be recognised, only in case all States of the Parties have acceded to the relevant international treaties". They also noted that the Russian Federation had confirmed that, in practice, this meant that the documents of conformity assessment received outside the common customs area would be recognised only in cases where a mutual recognition agreement was applied between CU Parties and the relevant foreign state. They asked the Russian Federation to explain how the provisions of Article 6 of the WTO TBT Agreement, i.e., that WTO Members shall ensure, whenever possible, that the results of conformity assessment procedures in other WTO Members were accepted, even when those procedures differed from their own, provided they were satisfied that those procedures offered an assurance of conformity with applicable technical regulations or standards equivalent to their own procedures, could be implemented in light of the EurAsEC Agreement on Technical Regulation Policy Coordination.
  8. With respect to accreditation, the representative of the Russian Federation explained that the main principles of the organization of the current system of accreditation were set-out in Article 31 of Federal Law No. 184-FZ and would continue to be implemented until the establishment of a single national accreditation body in 2012. Pursuant to this Law and Government Resolution No. 163 of 24 February 2009 "On Accreditation of Certification Bodies and Testing Laboratories Carrying out the Work on Conformity Assessment" (as amended on 17 June 2010) foreign certification bodies and laboratories operating in the mandatory sphere could not be accredited in the Russian Federation. Similarly, according to the CU Commission Decision No. 319 foreign certification bodies and laboratories could not be included into the CU Unified List of accredited bodies. However, pursuant to Article 30 of Federal Law No. 184-FZ, the Russian Federation was able to accept the results of foreign conformity assessment bodies and similar provisions were incorporated in CU Commission Decision No. 621 of 7 April 2011. When the single national accreditation body of the Russian Federation joined ILAC, acceptance of the results of conformity assessment bodies accredited by other ILAC members would be facilitated.
  9. The representative of the Russian Federation explained that accreditation of certification bodies and test laboratories, according to the provisions of Article 31 of Federal Law No. 184-FZ, was voluntary and organised in conformity with the principles set-out in that Article, which included requirements for the certification body and/or test laboratory to provide free access to its rules for the accreditation of certification bodies and test laboratories, to establish its independence and competence, not to restrict competition, and to provide equal access for all applicants to accreditation. Any limitations which could adversely affect or impede the recognition of these accredited bodies in the different regions of the Russian Federation were prohibited. Therefore, anybody accredited by the Russian Federation to conduct conformity assessment was recognised anywhere in the territory of the Russian Federation and with the implementation of the CU Treaty on the Functioning of the Customs Union In Compliance with Customs Union Party Commitments under the Multilateral Trading System, would be recognised in the territory of the other CU Parties as well. Further, as noted in paragraph , neither Federal Law No. 184-FZ nor the CU Agreement on Mutual Recognition of Accreditation Bodies permitted the same entity to engage in both certification and accreditation activities. The rules of accreditation and list of the accreditation bodies, including submissions to the CU Unified Register of conformity assessment bodies were set by the Government of the Russian Federation, as further described in paragraphs through .
  10. One Member requested the Russian Federation to provide a list, in English, of the certification bodies authorised to provide the GOST R certification for electronic/electrical (including IT), mechanical and chemical products. In response, the representative of the Russian Federation stated that such list was available on the website of Rosstandart, www.gost.ru but not yet in English.
  11. One Member of the Working Party noted that accreditation of conformity assessment bodies in a foreign country by an accreditation body fulfilling the requirements of ISO 17011, should be sufficient. In response, the representative of the Russian Federation stated that, in his view, all of the accreditation procedures in the Russian Federation were based on standard ISO 17011, which
    set-out guidelines for accreditation bodies. Thus, simplifying accreditation procedures and avoiding re accreditation could be accomplished, inter alia, through the agreements on mutual recognition of accreditation bodies, if the relevant accreditation body was a signatory of the ILAC Arrangement or the IAF Multilateral Agreement or the relevant conformity assessment body participates for example, in an IEC scheme. He emphasized that one Russian accreditation body, the Association of Analytical Centres "Analitica" (AAC Analitica), was a signatory to the ILAC Arrangement in the voluntary sphere and that the single national accreditation body of the Russian Federation intended to become a Member of ILAC after its establishment.
  12. In response, the representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that the WTO Agreement was an international treaty within the meaning of Article 30 of Federal Law No. 184-FZ of 27 December 2002 "On Technical Regulation" (as last amended on 28 September 2010) (Law No. 184-FZ). Thus, it was possible under Law No. 184-FZ for the Russian Federation to accept the results of conformity assessment procedures done in WTO Members on the basis of, and in compliance with, Article 6.1 of the WTO TBT Agreement, without requiring the conclusion of a mutual recognition or other agreement. The acceptance of such results throughout the CU would be established by the CU Treaty on the Functioning of the Customs Union in Compliance with Customs Union Party Commitments under the Multilateral Trading System. Therefore, from the date of its accession to the WTO, the Russian Federation would ensure, whenever possible, that results of conformity assessment procedures of conformity assessment bodies located in other WTO Members were accepted, provided that the Russian Federation was satisfied, as provided in Article 6.1 of the WTO TBT Agreement, that those procedures offered an assurance of conformity with applicable technical regulations or standards equivalent to the own procedures of the Russian Federation. The representative of the Russian Federation also confirmed that as provided in Article 6 of the WTO TBT Agreement, such acceptance also could, for example, be achieved through the membership of the single national accreditation body of the Russian Federation, once established, in ILAC and the International Accreditation Forum (IAF) and signing of the ILAC Arrangement, which would build confidence in the adequacy and technical competence of the conformity assessment bodies of third countries accredited by other ILAC and IAF members, including acceptance of the results of such conformity assessment bodies, conclusion of a Mutual Recognition Agreement and other appropriate means. The Working Party took note of these commitments.
  13. The representative of the Russian Federation explained that in accordance with the authority conferred in Article 31(3) of Federal Law No. 184-FZ, the current list of accredited certification bodies and test laboratories was published on the Rosstandart website (www.gost.ru). The representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that the accreditation bodies certified pursuant to Article 31(3) of Federal Law No. 184-FZ of 27 December 2002 "On Technical Regulation" (as last amended on 28 September 2010) would be replaced by a single national accreditation body by 30 June 2012, and the name and other information on this Body would be duly published along with the accredited bodies listed in the CU Unified Register, on the Rosstandart website (www.gost.ru) and the website of the CU Commission (www.tsouz.ru), respectively. The Working Party took note of this commitment.
  14. In response to a question from a Member, the representative of the Russian Federation noted that the development of draft technical regulations could proceed in parallel with the development of draft national standards. When developing technical regulations, the Russian Federation would use relevant international standards, or the relevant parts thereof, as a basis, in accordance with Article 2.4 of the WTO TBT Agreement. Before a technical regulation entered into force, Rosstandart, as the national standardization body, must approve and publish in a publication of the Federal Executive Body for technical regulation (Newsletter (Vestnik) of Technical Regulation) and in the public information system in digital electronic form (ссылка скрыта) the list of national standards and (or) sets of rules, the voluntary application of which results in compliance with the requirements of the approved technical regulations. The requirements of the particular technical regulation for which voluntary compliance with national standards and (or) sets of rules established compliance with the technical regulation, could be indicated in the national standards and (or) sets of rules. The application of national standards and (or) sets of rules on a voluntary basis would suffice to establish compliance with the requirements of the corresponding technical regulations. In case national standards and (or) sets of rules were applied for compliance with the requirements of the technical regulations, the assessment of compliance with the requirements of the technical regulations could be carried out on the basis of confirmation of compliance with the national standards and (or) sets of rules. These procedures were also relevant in terms of the CU system. Article 6 of the CU Agreement on Uniform Technical Regulation Principles stated that "the Commission shall approve the list of international and regional standards, and in the absence thereof - national standards of the CU Parties - voluntary application whereof ensures observance of requirements of the adopted technical regulations of the Customs Union and the methods of establishing conformity with CU technical regulations".
  15. The representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that, depending on the technical regulation at issue, documents establishing compliance with the requirements of the technical regulation could include a supplier's own evidence, such as declaration of conformity with the relevant technical regulation, test reports, and other documents as relevant, in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation, CU and EurAsEC Agreements and other EurAsEC and CU Acts, or the results of conformity assessment procedures that the Russian Federation may accept pursuant to Article 6.1 of the WTO TBT Agreement. The Working Party took note of these commitments.
  16. The representative of the Russian Federation stated that, Federal Law No. 184-FZ provided that until corresponding technical regulations had come into effect, the Government would approve a unified list of products that would be subject to obligatory certification, and a unified list of products, that would be subject to declaration of conformity, and would supplement these lists every year. In addition, these lists had formed the basis for the contribution of the Russian Federation to the Unified List compiled by the CU Commission, in accordance with CU Commission Decision No. 319.
  17. He confirmed that the Russian Federation would review not only its lists of products subject to obligatory certification or declaration of conformity, but all the technical regulations applied on the territory of the Russian Federation, including CU and EurAsEC technical regulations, on an ongoing basis to ensure that they remained necessary to achieve the desired legitimate objective, in accordance with Article 2.3 of the WTO TBT Agreement. Technical regulations would not be maintained if the circumstances or objectives giving rise to their adoption no longer existed or if the changed circumstances or objectives could be addressed in a less-restrictive manner. The Working Party took note of the commitments.
  18. The representative of the Russian Federation further explained that, pursuant to Article 24(1) of Federal Law No. 184-FZ and Article 7.2 of the CU Agreement on Uniform Technical Regulation Principles, persons submitting a conformity declaration had to be registered in the Russian Federation or in one of the CU Parties, respectively, as legal persons or individual entrepreneurs, who were producers or sellers, or who were representing a foreign producer. In the latter case, a contract establishing delegation of authority to apply for conformity of the products to technical regulations and liability for non-conformity of the delivered products was required. Pursuant to Article 46(4) of Federal Law No. 184-FZ and the CU Agreement on Uniform Technical Regulation Principles, until the corresponding technical regulations had come into effect only producers or persons resident in one of the CU Parties representing a foreign producer could declare conformity on the basis of its own proofs (i.e., the declaration of conformity of a manufacturer or supplier). Importers could do so for foreign goods they imported into the Russian Federation based on a contract for that importation.
  19. Some Members expressed concerns about the requirement that, in the case of imports, the person submitting a conformity declaration was required to supply a contract including certain conditions when this>
  20. In response, the representative of the Russian Federation explained that Article 24(1) of Federal Law No. 184-FZ did not require that the contract contain provisions on the safety of goods which would then be subject to conformity assessment. The purpose for requiring a contract was to establish existence of the contractual obligation of the foreign supplier to the person who represented such supplier to ensure that the imported goods would be in conformity with applicable technical regulations, and that the person who represented such supplier would assume liability for any injury resulting from non-conformity with technical regulations. He added that the authorities of the Russian Federation did not influence or interfere in the economic and legal relations between entrepreneurs in respect of terms of contract.
  21. Some Members expressed concern that the provisions imposing liability on local suppliers for goods not meeting the technical regulations or standards-related-requirements implied that the goods manufacturer would be forced to share proprietary and confidential information with the local supplier in order for the latter to exercise its right of defence before the court. They noted that the manufacturer was the only entity which was ultimately responsible for the non-conformity of the good with the technical regulations or standards and, thus, should have the right to stand before the court in defence of conformity claims.
  22. In response, the representative of the Russian Federation explained that a foreign manufacturer, who intended to participate in a dispute between a person who represented its interests in the Russian Federation and a consumer who had suffered damages due to the product it had produced, was entitled to do so in accordance with Article 43 of the Civil Procedural Code of the Russian Federation. Under this Article such producer would be qualified as a "third party who does not submit a separate claim" in case the outcome of the dispute could affect its rights and obligations as regards any party of the dispute. In accordance with the said Article such producer could also be involved in the case as a "third party who does not submit a separate claim" at the request of any party to the dispute or at the initiative of the Court. Therefore, the representative of the Russian Federation explained that the manufacturer of the product(s), being the entity possessing the most complete information that could provide evidence on compliance of the good(s) with applicable technical regulations, would be entitled to demonstrate directly to competent judicial and administrative authorities the conformity of the good(s). He also explained that the following provisions of the Federal Law of 29 July 2004 No. 98-FZ "On Commercial Secrets", in particular Articles 10 and 14 thereof that provided for measures that ensured security of the information constituting commercial secret as well as criminal, civil and administrative liability of the persons responsible for illegal disclosure of that type of information, further specified in Article 13.14 of the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offences, Article 183 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, and Article 1472 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, guaranteed that confidential and proprietary information would be fully protected.
  23. He further stated that, pursuant to Article 24(2), (3), and (4) of Federal Law No. 184-FZ, when declaring conformity on the basis of the applicant's own proofs and those obtained with participation of a third party, an applicant, at his own choice and in addition to providing his own proof:

- could include in evidentiary materials the reports of research (tests) and measurements carried out in an accredited test laboratory (centre); and

- could submit the certificate of quality system, in relation to which there was provided for the control (supervision) of certification body, which has issued the given certificate, over certification object.
  1. The representative of the Russian Federation explained that the certificate of a quality system may be used together with other proofs when assessing the supplier's declaration for any products, except for the case when technical regulations stipulated for such products another form of conformity assurance. The contents of the documentary evidence were to be determined by a particular technical regulation.
  2. The representative of the Russian Federation noted that, in respect of mandatory certification, Federal Law No. 184-FZ provided that certification schemes applied for certification of products would be determined in the relevant technical regulations and not by the certification authority (Article 25(1)). The duration of validity of conformity certificates and conformity declarations were to be established in the relevant technical regulation. Further, according to Article 27 of Federal Law No. 184-FZ, products whose compliance with the requirements of technical regulations had been confirmed in accordance with the procedure stipulated by Federal Law No. 184-FZ must be labelled with the mark of circulation on the market. The applicant must label products with the mark of circulation on the market on his own, by any method (way) suitable for him.
  3. Some Members noted that there did not appear to be a commitment to ensure that regulatory authorities allow a reasonable period of time between the final publication of a conformity assessment procedure and its entry into force so that suppliers can adapt. The representative of the Russian Federation replied that Article 7(10) of Federal Law No. 184-FZ of 27 December 2002, "On Technical Regulation" (as last amended on 28 September 2010) (Federal Law No. 184-FZ) provided that final technical regulations would not enter into force earlier than six months after their official publication. He clarified that the rules of conformity to a technical regulation generally would be contained within the regulation itself. In this context, the reference to "technical regulations" in Article 7(10) of Federal Law No. 184-FZ referred to conformity assessment procedures as well; thus, there would be no less than six months between the official publication of a conformity assessment procedure and its entry into force. He confirmed that Article 7(2) of Federal Law No. 184-FZ provided that the requirements of technical regulations must not be applied so as to create obstacles to trade to a greater extent than necessary to achieve the aims set-out in Article 6(1) of Federal Law No. 184-FZ. The Working Party took note of the commitment.
  4. The representative of the Russian Federation further explained that, in cases where a positive assurance of conformity with technical regulations was required and technical rules and methods for ensuring compliance with technical regulations (i.e., elements of conformity assessment procedures, defining the methods of research, tests, measurements, or selection of samples that could be used to comply with the technical regulations) were not included in a technical regulation, such rules and methods would be developed in accordance with CU Commission Decision No. 527 of 28 January 2011, Regulation on Development, Adoption, Amendment and Cancellation of Technical Regulations (CU Commission Decision No. 527). He confirmed that CU Commission Decision No. 527 provided for the placement of such rules and methods in digital electronic form not later than 90 days before the day of their adoption, approved by the CU Commission not later than 60 days before the entry into force of the relevant technical regulation and published on websites of the CU Commission and of MIT (www.tsouz.ru and www.minpromtorg.gov.ru/eng, respectively). He added that these rules were to be based on relevant guides or recommendations issued by international standardizing bodies, in accordance with Article 5.4 of the WTO TBT Agreement, and would define the methods of research, tests, measurements, or selection of samples that may be used to comply with the technical regulations. The rules must, where possible, list a choice of compliance methods and, in order to ensure compliance with Article 5.1.2 and other provisions of the WTO TBT Agreement, conformity assessment procedures would not be more strict or be applied more strictly than necessary to give adequate confidence that products conform with the applicable technical regulations, taking account of the risks non-conformity would create. He confirmed that the above-mentioned rules would not create a bigger impediment to business activity than was necessary to fulfil the goals that are specified in Article 4.2 of the CU Agreement on Uniform Principles and Rules of Technical Regulation in the Republic of Belarus, Republic of Kazakhstan and the Russian Federation of 18 November 2010. The Working Party took note of these commitments.
  5. The representative of the Russian Federation noted that pursuant to Article 29(1) of Federal Law No. 184-FZ, customs clearance of products subject to mandatory conformity assessment required submission of a conformity certificate or a conformity declaration registered with the authorised body. Such a certificate or a conformity declaration was submitted to customs authorities together with the customs declaration, and was necessary to obtain permission to import the products in question into the Russian Federation. Lists of products requiring mandatory certification, including the HS Codes, were to be approved on the basis of technical regulations by the Government. Currently, the national list of products subject to mandatory certification or declaration of conformity was provided in Government Resolution No. 982 of 1 December 2009 "On the Approval of the Single List of Goods Subject to Mandatory Certification and Single List of Goods whose Conformity may be Confirmed by Conformity Declaration" (as last amended 13 November 2010). He noted that 24 current national technical regulations in effect in the Russian Federation also included the list of goods subject to mandatory certification or declaration of conformity. He further recalled that, since 1999, a wide range of products subject to mandatory certification had been consequently transferred to the conformity declaration procedure (in accordance with amendments to the above regulations, provided by Government Resolutions No. 287 of 29 April 2002, No. 72 of 10 February 2004, No. 775 of 17 December 2005, and No. 982 of 1 December 2009). According to preliminary assessments, upon entry into effect of all envisaged technical regulations, approximately 60 per cent of goods would be subject to conformity declaration and 40 per cent to conformity certification. CU and EurAsEC Agreements and Acts also had established the Unified Register of declarations of conformity and certification accepted within the CU. The Unified List of Goods subject to mandatory certification and confirmation by conformity declaration was contained in CU Commission Decision No. 620.
  6. In response to concerns of one Member in respect of transparency of mandatory requirements which were currently applied to imported goods and would stay in effect until the adoption of the relevant technical regulations, the representative of the Russian Federation informed Members of the Working Party that a unified list of products subject to mandatory certification and certification of conformity, adopted in accordance with Article 46(3) of Federal Law No. 184-FZ of 27 December 2002 "On Technical Regulation" (as last amended on 28 September 2010) (Law No. 184-FZ), as well as in accordance with CU Agreement on Circulation of Goods Subject to Mandatory Conformity Assessment on the Customs Territory of Customs Union of 11 December 2009 and CU Commission Decision No. 526 of 28 January 2011, "On the Unified List of Products, in Respect of which Mandatory Requirements are Established in the Framework of the Customs Union" was available at the website www.minpromtorg.gov.ru and the CU Commission website www.tsouz.ru. These lists were legally binding. The Unified List of Goods established by CU Commission Decision No. 620 of 7 April 2011 "On the Unified List's Update with Regard to Products Subjected to Mandatory Conformity Assessment (Confirmation) Within the Framework of the CU" with issuance of single documents, approved by CU Commission Decision No. 319 of 18 June 2010 indicated particular national standards and/or their parts which defined mandatory requirements for such goods and would stay in force until the relevant CU and EurAsEC technical regulations entered into force. He emphasized that the national list would be duly revised and updated in accordance with the procedures provided for by Article 46(3) of Federal Law No. 184-FZ, i.e. upon adoption of new technical regulations or updating of existing national standards due to developments of technologies. Interested parties and Members would be able to participate in such updating, in accordance with the procedures described in paragraph . The Unified List would be amended in accordance with normal CU Commission procedures. He stated that in his view such lists would be an effective mechanism ensuring the transparency of mandatory requirements and facilitation of trade.
  7. The representative of the Russian Federation explained that documents (national standards and others) relevant to goods subject to mandatory certification and declaration of conformity were developed in accordance with Government Resolution No. 982 of 1 December 2009 "On Approval of the Single List of Goods Subject to Mandatory Certification and Single List of Goods Subject to Conformity Confirmation Procedures by means of Conformity Declaration" and published on the website of Rosstandart. Rosstandart, the successor of Gosstandart, was in charge of accreditation. The procedures of conformity confirmation of products determined before 1 July 2003 by Rosstandart or other governmental bodies of the Russian Federation, in conformity with established international practices, would remain in effect until the issuance of CU or EurAsEC technical regulations or would be eliminated if the relevant technical regulation was eliminated or transformed into a voluntary standard. Since the entry into force of Federal Law No. 184-FZ, mandatory assessment of conformity with technical regulations has been governed exclusively by the relevant provisions of the Law, specifically Articles 20 (Forms of Compliance Confirmation) and 23 (Obligatory Confirmation of Compliance). The provisions of technical regulations containing the conformity assessment procedures used in respect of particular products must be in compliance with those Articles and with the relevant CU and EurAsEC Agreements and EurAsEC and CU Acts. He noted that work on mandatory certification of goods was currently conducted by Russian authorities and laboratories accredited by Rosstandart and other accreditation bodies in accordance with the established procedure and later, after the new CU System was developed, by a single national accreditation body. This single national accreditation body would be solely responsible for the accreditation of assessment bodies. In response to the request of a member, the representative of the Russian Federation said that a list of certification bodies accredited to provide the GOST R certification for electronic/electrical (including information technology), mechanical and chemical products had been provided on the website of Rosstandart: www.gost.ru.
  8. The representative of the Russian Federation explained that the Russian Federation would, from the date of accession, ensure that central government bodies use existing (or soon-to-be-completed) relevant guides or recommendations, or the relevant parts of them, issued by international standardization bodies as a basis for their conformity assessment procedures, except where, as provided for in Article 5.4 of the WTO TBT Agreement, such guides or recommendations or relevant parts of them are inappropriate for the Russian Federation. In addition, he confirmed that the Russian Federation would in accordance with Articles 7 and 8 of the WTO TBT Agreement, from the date of accession, take all reasonable measures to ensure that local government bodies and non governmental bodies within its territory to the extent that they operated conformity assessment procedures, complied with the respective provisions of the WTO TBT Agreement. He also confirmed that in accordance with Article 5.1.2 of the WTO TBT Agreement, in respect of products subject to mandatory certification the conformity assessment procedure provided for in CU and EurAsEC Agreements and Acts would not be more strict or be applied more strictly than was necessary to give the Russian Federation adequate confidence that products conformed to the applicable technical regulations or standards. He confirmed that the products subject to mandatory certification set-out in the CU Unified List described in paragraph would be defined in accordance with the provisions of the TBT Agreement, including the provisions of Article 5.1.2 thereof. The Working Party took note of these commitments.
  9. The representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that the Russian Federation would, from the date of accession, ensure that a procedure was maintained to review complaints concerning the operation of conformity assessment procedures and ensure that corrective actions were taken in response to justified complaints in accordance with the requirements of Article 5.2.8 of the WTO TBT Agreement. The Working Party took note of these commitments.
  10. In response to a question from a Member regarding the number of products subject to mandatory certification, the representative of the Russian Federation explained that, as more low risk products would become subject to supplier's declaration of conformity, the overall number of products currently subject to mandatory certification could be expected to decline in future compared to today.
  11. In response to the question from one Member regarding the perspectives of transferring electronic equipment to the sphere of declaration of conformity, the representative of the Russian Federation noted that, while taking a decision of transferring of particular types of electronic equipment to the sphere of declaration of conformity, the factor of risk to cause harm is considered. Taking into account that electronic equipment, which was intended for non-professional users (those not having special education), carried elevated risk, currently such products should be subject to certification, in accordance with the existing norms of technical regulation based on international rules. Electronic equipment such as computers and audio-visual equipment, intended for professional users, would be subject to declaration of conformity. He stated that the Russian Federation would seek and duly consider a position of interested WTO Members regarding changes of the form of conformity assessment (certification) for electronic equipment such as television (TV), audio-visual (AV) and personal computers, within the procedures described in paragraph . He also explained that the Russian Federation would permanently conduct a review of products under certification, with the purpose to expand the scope of products under declaration of conformity, on the base of new data, provided, inter alia, by manufacturers. In addition, he stated that in accordance with the adopted CU technical regulation on safety of low-voltage equipment (which regulated also electrical safety of TV, AV and personal computers) the validity of certificates was extended from three to five years.
  12. In response to a request from a Member regarding automatic extension of the term of validity of automobile-type approval, the representative of the Russian Federation explained that, according to the technical regulation on Safety of Wheeled Vehicles, adopted by the Russian Federation, for extension of the term of validity of automobile-type approval, analysis of the changes affecting the safety of the vehicle should be done. If there were no such changes, the automobile-type approval would be extended without additional tests. The representative of the Russian Federation assumed that such approach, aimed at simplification of automobile-type approval procedure, complied with the provisions of the WTO TBT Agreement. The representative of the Russian Federation stated that the same approach, as described above in this paragraph, would be reflected in the corresponding technical regulation of the Customs Union which was currently under development.
  13. In response to the request of a Member to eliminate duplicative certification requirements applied to industrial products, the representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that the Russian Federation abolished the duplicative certification requirement for industrial products on 1 July 2010, and that it would seek to ensure that such duplicative certification requirements would not be contained in any future CU technical regulations.
  14. In response to questions from some Members concerning matters of transparency in the area of technical regulation, the representative of the Russian Federation informed Members of the Working Party that the Federal Data Bank of Technical Regulations and Standards had been established to perform all information procedures, including WTO notifications. He also informed Members that within this structure a Single Enquiry Point, as contemplated under the WTO TBT Agreement and the WTO SPS Agreement, were operative, providing access to, technical regulations, standards, rules, and conformity assessment procedures applied on the territory of the Russian Federation, as well as drafts of respective documents. Rosstandartinform, a State Unitary Enterprise, was the enquiry point and its website and e-mail address were the following: nfo.ru; enpoint@gostinfo.ru.
  15. In response to a question from a Member about the mandatory labelling requirement for GMO products, the representative of the Russian Federation stated that this requirement, in his view, complied with the legitimate objective of preventing deceptive practices, as provided for by Article 2.2 of the WTO TBT Agreement and reflected in Article 6.1 of Federal Law No. 184-FZ and Article 4.2 of the CU Agreement on the Common Policy on Technical Regulations. This requirement did not restrict entering of products containing GMOs into the market of the Russian Federation. It did not require from the producer any special labelling for a product containing GMOs but rather just a listing of the GMOs amongst other elements of the product's content. Furthermore, this requirement applied in the same manner to many WTO Members and there was no definitive provision in the WTO legislation establishing that it was inconsistent with the WTO rules.
  16. Some Members expressed concern about the statement by the representative of the Russian Federation that a mandatory labelling requirement for GMO products "complied with the legitimate objective of 'preventing deceptive practices'". In the view of these Members, such mandatory labelling was itself deceptive, because it incorrectly implied that products made from GMOs were not as safe as comparable, non-GMO products. One Member stated that it did not share the opinion of the Russian Federation that mandatory special labelling for a product containing GMOs complied with WTO TBT legislation and would like this labelling requirement to be removed.
  17. Some Members noted that quality management systems based on ISO 9000 should be recognised without Mutual Recognition Agreement. In response, the representative of the Russian Federation noted that the Russian Federation considered quality management systems as voluntary certification systems. This was a sphere that>inter alia by means of Mutual Recognition Agreements, concluded on a voluntary basis. Furthermore, quality management systems on particular kinds of products, based on ISO 9000, were recognised within the international ISONET system, and this practice took place in the Russian Federation.
  18. The representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that, from the date of accession, the Russian Federation would ensure that all laws, regulations, and other measures within the scope of the WTO TBT Agreement, such as technical regulations, standards, and conformity assessment procedures, applied in the Russian Federation complied with the provisions of the WTO TBT Agreement. The Working Party took note of this commitment.