WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/TBT/W/71
24 June 1998
(98-2548)
Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade Original:  English
CANADIAN CONTRIBUTION
National Experiences with Technical Regulations
1. This contribution by Canada is to provide some examples of technical regulations where it
has referenced, or considered as equivalent, the technical regulations of other Members.  It should be
viewed as a contribution to future Committee discus sions of the preparation, adoption and application
of technical regulations, pursuant to paragraph 24 (c), and equivalency, pursuant to paragraph 14, ofthe Triennial Review (G/TBT/5 19 November 1997).  This contribution is designed to encourage
further contributions by other Members in order to provide the TBT Committee with a variety of
national experience with issues related to technical regulations.
2. In the development of technical regulations in Canada, regulatory authorities routinely
examine the technical regulations of other jurisdictions.  Where the technical regulations are judged
adequate to meet Canadian regulatory objectives, they are referenced into Canadian technical
regulations.  This approach is more akin to harmonization than equivalency per se.  This reduces the
regulatory burden by reference to technical regulations of other countries that meet Canadian
regulatory requirements rather than establishing a parallel but equivalent Canadian technical
regulation. Canada has selected the attached seven examples of this approach.  We have also attached
the regulatory announcements as they appeared in the Canada Gazette.  These pertain to technicalregulations by the Department of Health and the Department of Transport.
3. The first examples pertains to the consideration of data and testing methods as equivalent to
Canadian data and testing methods. G/TBT/Notif.97.792 of 30 December 1997 pertains to making
mandatory the current voluntary fortification of flour and enriched pasta with folic acid.  Thisnotification notes that the United States has chosen levels of folic acid that are considered safe for
long term consumption by all segments of the population and that will improve dietary folic acid
intakes of women who could become pregnant.  The Canadian Department of Health has thus decided
that it is in the interests of public health to harmonize with the United States levels and make the
addition of folic acid mandatory in both flour and enriched pasta.
4. G/TBT/Notif.96.337 of 17 September 1996 pertains to minimum crush resistance
requirements for side doors of passenger minivans and light trucks below a gross vehicle weight
rating of less than 4,536 kg. The notification notes that the regulatory amendment would extend the
requirements of Section 214 of Schedule IV to the Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations  and also
harmonize Canada's quasi-static side impact protection requirements with those of the United States,
which extended the applicability of its standards in 1993.  This technical regulation was subject to
discussion in the Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade (a related technical regulation,
G/TBT/Notif.95.336, pertains to Canadian side door  strength test, was subject to discussion at
TBT Committee meetings of 28 June 1996 and 16 October 1996).
./.G/TBT/W/71
Page 2
5. G/TBT/Notif.96.29 of 16 February 1996 pertains  to reducing maximum sound pressure levels
permissible for new motor vehicles sold in Canada.  In addition, the notification notes that noise
emission requirements governing heavy trucks are out of date and do not harmonize with those of the
United States or the United Nations Economic Commission of Europe (ECE).  The amendment
discontinues the use of existing test procedures, and requires either that a United States Society of
Automotive Engineers (SAE) or revised ECE test procedures be used instead. Since the proposedamendment would harmonize Canada's requirements with those of both the United States and the
Economic Commission for Europe, vehicle manufacture rs would no longer be required to establish
and maintain separate Canadian test records, thereby reducing their testing costs.
6. The second examples pertain to domestic technical regulations which are considered
obsolescent in relation to United States performance standards and/or international standards.
G/TBT/Notif.97.729 of 25 November 1997 pertains to diagnostic X-ray equipment.  The existingCanadian technical regulation of the Department of Health has been in force with only minor
amendments since 1981.  It does not reflect the current state of equipment design and technology that
is reflected in United States performance standards (CFR 1020.30) and international standards
(IEC 601-1 series).  The revision of the Canadian technical regulation would eliminate the need for
advanced imported equipment to undergo unnecessary modifications and thus avoid increased costs toCanadian consumers.
7. G/TBT/Notif.96.454 of 23 December 1996 pertains to requirements governing the reflectivity
of rearview mirrors of school buses as contained in Section 111 of the Motor Vehicle Safety
Regulations .  The notification notes that certain provisions were outdated and did not provide
adequate visibility to the front and sides of the school bus from the driver's position. Specifically,
Section 111 subparagraph wording on reflectivity made specific mention of prismatic mirrors, but not
electrochromic mirrors, which may appear to exclude the latter. In order to remove this perceived
restriction, the reference to prismatic-type mirrors was deleted and replaced with broader terminology.
This change harmonized Canada's reflectivity requirements with those of the United States.
8. The third series of examples pertain to use of technical regulations from other countries.
G/TBT/Notif.95.70 of 13 March 1995 pertains to lighters and the requirement that low-cost lighters
carry an appropriate warning statement and that such lighters incorporate passive child-resistant
features meeting specific performance standards.  The standards referenced by the Department of
Health are those of the United States Consum er Product Safety Commission’s requirements for
child-resistant lighters.
9. G/TBT/Notif.95.192 of 26 June 1995 pertains to the definition of child-resistant package.
One voluntary standard is referenced: Cana dian Standards Association CAN/SCA-Z76.1-M90,
Reclosable Child-Resistant Packages, published January 1990. Two mandatory technical regulations
are also referenced: European Standard EN Z8317: 1992 Child-resistant packaging - requirements andtesting procedures for reclosable packages; and, Code of Federal Regulations (United States), Title
16, Section 1700.15, Poison prevention packaging standards.
10. The above cases are illustrative of how regulators can and do consider the technical
regulations and/or public policy objectives of other jurisdictions as equivalent to domestic regulatoryneeds.  This approach, where appropriate, can satisfy both public policy objectives while minimizing
trade barriers and costs to consumers.
__________