MWG.The statement that the combined probing system (CPS) is created in a contrast (!!!) to the system of certification is just a canard if not to tell more. Clause 18 of the project of the order "Public control" in which CPS is mentioned consists only of one paragraph. It says that any person who doubts product or certificate has the right to examine them not only in the accredited testing institutions but also in independent combined probing systems of the enterprises (associations). It says nothing more. Easy speaking, it is a matter of public control of products and certificates (declarations) on demand of the consumer. We should admit that this is not the worst idea in struggle against counterfeit products and unfair certification institutions (if there are any). There is not a single word about any obligatory examination of PSE in CPS's of association and similar information are not present neither in the project, nor in statements of the 4-th conference. Creation of CPS's is considered as one of tools of protection from unfair manufacturers, certification institutions, testing centers, etc. CPS's in no way should substitute the state control, they can only supplement it.

As for the strong objection to the fact that our certification institutions give way to low-quality products, this is quite a disputable question as the authors of the article say that the market is flooded with dangerous products. To stop saying that it is necessary to create public control which can check products without instructions of some "strongly interested" officials. And if the consumer doubts its certificate, and it is his/her legal right, whom should he/she address to? To the one who has issued it? We do not quite understand why the authors fear public control.

Authors. It seems that the last reading of the technical order:

1) Does not contribute to the entry of our country into WTO (the European Instruction 89/686/EEC and the new project of the technical order are fundamentally different).

MWG.From the document "AGREEMENT ON TECHNICAL BARRIERS IN TRADE (ТBТ)" of the WTO we know that to enter the WTO (in our case) it is enough that the requirement to PSE should be not more rigid than the requirements in the member countries of the WTO; and procedures of conformity should be not more complicated and/or "difficult" than in other countries (notice: there is no requirement of similarity). That's all! No one document of the WTO says about obligatory identity of documents, procedures and names! Why again do they mislead the reader with horrors about the WTO composing their own requirements on a global scale?

Besides, it is necessary to notice that on the 4-th International conference many experts from the European countries have publicly agreed with the reached level of harmonization of the project of the Association PPE with the European technical legislation. They, unlike some Russian opponents, have not found contradictions on this matter and have not seen any obstacles to the entry into the WTO.