RESTRICTED  
  
G/STR/M/36  
 
10 December  2019 
(19-8510) Page: 1/7 
Working Party on State Trading Enterprises    
 
 MINUTES OF THE MEETI NG 
HELD ON 1 NOVEMBER  2019  
CHAIR: KRISTIAN HENK  (AUSTRIA ) 
1   ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA  ................................ ................................ ........................  1 
2   REVIEW OF NEW AN D FULL NOTIFICATIONS  SUBMITTED BY MEMBER S .....................  1 
3   REVIEW OF NOTIFI CATIONS PREVIOUSLY R EVIEWED BY THE WORKI NG 
PARTY  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..............................  3 
4   CONTINUED NON-NOTIFICATION OF STATE TRADING ENTERP RISES BY 
BRAZIL  ................................ ................................ ................................ .............................  4 
5   CONTINUED NON -NOTIFICATION OF STATE TRADING ENTERPRISES BY THE 
RUSSIAN  FEDERATION  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 5 
6   CONTINUED NON -NOTIFICATION OF STATE TRADING ENTERPRISES BY THE 
UNITED ARAB EMIRATES  ................................ ................................ ................................ . 6 
7   OTHER BUSINESS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........  6 
8   ANNUAL REPORT (2 019) TO THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS  ..............................  7 
9   DATE OF FOLLOWIN G MEETING  ................................ ................................ ..................  7 
 
1  ADOPTION OF THE AGEN DA 
1.  The Chair referred to the proposed agenda contained in WTO/AIR/STR/ 12, circulated on 
22 October  2019. The Chair also indicated that , under Other Business,  he intended to  report on 
the matter of a vice-chairperson  for the Working Party.  
2.  The Working Party adopted  the agenda  as thus amended . 
2  REVIEW OF NEW AND FU LL NOTIFICATIONS SUB MITTED BY MEMBERS  
3.  The Chair  recalled that, according to paragraph 5 of the Understanding on the Interpretation of 
Article XVII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade  1994 (the Understanding) , the 
Working  Party was tasked with reviewing the notifications and counter -notificati ons submitted  by 
Members on their St ate Trading Enterprises (STEs).  
4.  The Chair suggested that the Working Party review the notifications in the same way as at 
previous meetings, focusing on two main elements: (i) whether the notification responded 
adequatel y to the information requested in the Questionnaire (G/STR/3/Rev.1); and (ii) whether 
more information was required in order to permit, in  the language of paragraph 2 of the 
Understanding, "a clear appreciation of the manner of operation of the enterprises  notified and the 
effect of their operations on international trade".  
5.  The Chair recalled that new and full notifications were now presented every two years, a s 
recommended by the Working Party (G/STR/8) and agreed by the Council for Trade in Goods 
(CTG) on 22 June 2012.  The last call for new and full notification s, covering the years 2016 and 
2017, was contained in document G/STR/N/17. This document provided that the deadline for new 
and full notifications covering this period was 30 June 2018.  The Working Party  would take up 
notifications circulated since the previous  meeting on 16 July  2019. G/STR/M/36  
 
- 2 - 
 
  6.  The Chair recalled that, as provided in the Working Party's 1995 Report (G/L/35), Members 
wishing to raise questions on a notification under review were to pre sent them in writing to the 
notifying delegation and to the Secretariat at the latest three weeks before the meeting , and that  
response s were also to be presented in writing  in advance of the meeting . The Chair also reminded  
Member s asking questions not al ready sent in writing  that, if they wished to receive a written 
response, they would have to follow up by submitting their questions in writing to the Member 
concerned, with a copy to the Secretariat  for circulation . 
7.  No questions were posed  regarding the n otifications of Australia  (G/STR/N/17/AUS), 
Seychelles  (G/STR/N/17/SYC ), and Ukraine  (G/STR/N/17/UKR ). 
8.  Regarding the notification s of India  (G/STR/N/16/IND and G/STR/N/17/IND),  the 
United  States  had posed written questions (G/STR/Q 1/IND/21)  on 30 October 2019 . The United 
States thanked India for its notifications  and had a number of comments . First, the United States 
noted that certain entities were identified as STEs in India's Foreign Trade Policy for 2015 -2020 
but were not notified as STE s in India's 2019 notification. The United States asked India to explain 
the discrepancy. Second, the United States noted that 14 enterprises were no longer be ing notified 
as STEs in India's 2019 notification s.1 Referring to a note in India's 2018 notifica tion2 to the effect  
that India's export policy had changed from "STE" to "free", the United States asked India to 
explain whether this was the reason for removing the 14 enterprises. The United States further 
asked India to explain how this change was rele vant to whether the se enterprise s should be 
notified, given  that India had previously notified them as having be en granted a "special" and not 
"exclusive" privilege to export. Third, the United States noted that in its MA:1 notification to the 
WTO Committee on Agriculture3, India allocate d tariff-rate quotas  on certain agricultural products 
to existing STEs. However, these entiti es ha d not been notified to the Working Party as having 
these special privileges. Th e United States asked India to explain the discrepancy. The  
United  States asked whether India intend ed to provide an updated notification to the 
Working  Party.  
9.  The European  Union  noted that India did not notify the Indian Sugar Exim Corporation Limited 
(ISEC) in either of its new notifications  (G/STR/N/16/IND and G/STR/N/17/IND ). The 
European  Union asked India to confirm whether ISEC had been granted special privileges on 
exportation or import ation during the period concerned.  
10.  India stressed that it was  fully committed to fulfilling its transparency and notification 
obligations , as evidenced by its recent notifications. Regarding the questions circulated by the 
United States on 30 October, India had not had enough time to seek input from capital and would 
respond in detail  in writing  in due course. India would also provide a detailed response to the 
European Union's oral question once the European Union submit ted its question in writing.  
11.  The Working Party took note  of the notifications, questions and answers, and statements 
made.  
12.  The Chair drew the attention of delegations to  the room  document containing an updated 
Status of Notifications  (RD/STR/29)  and noted that  the vast majority of Members ha d not been 
fulfilling their notification obligations.  The Chair stressed the importance of transparency for the 
benefit of all Members, and the central role of transparency in the Working Party. He therefore 
urged Members to work with their capitals to improve the ir notification record , and invited 
Members to consult the Secretariat if they had questions . 
13.  The United States  expressed appreciation for  the Chair 's statement  encourag ing Members to 
make the required  notifications and noted that a number of Members had either failed to make any 
notification or had not notified  for some time. According to the latest data circulated by the 
Secretariat, 54 Members had not made a notification in the last ten years , and  only 40 of 
136 Members had made the requisite notification for the most recent cycle. That continued to be  
the lowest level of compliance the Working  Party had ever seen, the previous being 45 
notifications in 1996. The United States stressed that t ransparen cy was an important requirement 
for all WTO Member s and notifications and counter -notifications were sometimes the only way that 
                                                
1 G/STR/N/16/IND and G/STR/N/17/IND . 
2 G/STR/N/15/IND.  
3 G/AG/N/IND/6 . G/STR/M/36  
 
- 3 - 
 
  other Members could be properly informed of certain Members' activities in a given area. Low 
levels of compliance undermined th e transparency function of the Working Party. The 
United  States also noted that much of the information to be provided in the context of STE 
notifications had been provided and discussed  in the Trade Policy Review process, in the WTO 
Committee on Agriculture, or had been otherwise provided to the WTO. Therefore, if it only 
required updating information already provided, the notification process did not need to be 
cumbersome. Non-notificati on was a serious problem for the Working  Party and required some 
type of action. The United States would  fully support  any initiative taken by the Chair or the 
Secretariat in this regard. The United States encouraged Members to think creatively about  how to 
improve compliance with notification requirements. The CTG continue d to consider a proposal  from 
the United States, co -sponsored by Argentina, Australia, Canada, Costa Rica, the European Union, 
Japan, New Zealand, and Chinese Taipei  (JOB/CTG/14/Rev.2) , which sought to enhance 
transparency and encourage better compliance with notification requirements in all WTO 
Committees  – fundamental elements of a properly functioning WTO system. The co-sponsors of 
the proposal ha d continued outreach efforts to obtain s ubstantive feedback from other Members. 
The United States remain ed willing to discuss this proposal bilaterally with any Member and 
welcome d feedback  in preparation for the mid -November meeting of the CTG. 
14.  The Working Party took note  of the statement s made . 
3  REVIEW OF NOTIFICATI ONS PREVIOUSLY REVIE WED BY THE WORKING P ARTY  
15.  Delegations requested  that the Working Party revert to two notifications.  
16.  Regarding the notification of India  (G/STR/N/1 5/IND), the United States  had posed written 
questions on  30 October 2019, circulated as  document G/STR/Q1/ IND/21. The United States  was 
concern ed that India was not providing enough or timely transparency regarding its STEs, and 
therefore look ed forward to India's written responses to the questions. In addition, the Uni ted 
States recalled that India's Foreign Trade Policy for 2015 -2020 list ed certain entities as STEs, 
including the National Dairy Development Board (NDDB), which had been removed by India in its 
2018 notification without any explanation. The United States asked India to explain why the NDDB 
was identified as an STE in the Foreign Trade Policy for 2015 -2020 but not in the notification . The 
United States also asked India to clarify when it would  provide any updated notification to the 
Working Party in the eve nt that certain STEs or privileges were not reflected in India's 
notifications.  
17.   The European Union  noted that India ha d included a substantial number of agricultural 
exporting STEs in its recent notifications and thanked India for its efforts to do so. The 
European  Union noted that such agricultural STEs were subject to the commitments contained in 
the Nairobi Ministerial Decision on Export Competition4, including its paragraph 20, which require d 
Members to ensure that agricultural STEs d id not operate in a manner that circumvent ed any other 
disciplines contained in the Decision. Such agricultural STEs should also be notifi ed to the 
Committee on Agriculture within the framework of a Member's annual questionnaire on export 
competition. Yet, India ha d not identified any of its agricultural STEs to the Committee on 
Agriculture , and the European Union asked India to clarify whet her it intend ed to do so. The 
European Union also asked India to explain how its agricultural exporting STEs ensure d compliance 
with the Nairobi Ministerial Decision  on Export Competition , and in particular with the requirement 
not to grant export subsidie s. Finally, the European Union asked India to provide more detailed 
information on each of the notified agricultural STEs, including total exports by each STE, the 
value of those exports, and whether any of those exports originated from public stockholding  
programmes, directly or indirectly.  
18.  India thanked both the United States and the European Union for their questions.  Regarding 
the United States'  questions concerning the absence of certain entities from India's recent  
notifications,  India explained that state entities State Trading Corporation ( STC) and Spices 
Trading Corporation Limited ( STCL) are no longer notified as having special privileges in the import 
of maize. For the years 2012 -2013 and 2013 -2014, India explained that STE p rivileges  for maize  
imports were only allowed for the Food Corporation of India (FCI) , as reflected in India's 
notification. India would provide a detail ed written response explaining the inclusion or non -
inclusion of certain entities in its recent notific ations . 
                                                
4 WT/MIN(15)/45  - WT/L/980.  G/STR/M/36  
 
- 4 - 
 
  19.  India noted that the European Union's question concerning the annual questionnaire on export 
competition was  similar to a question that the European Union  had raised  at the 91st meeting of 
the Committee of Agriculture , to which India ha d already re sponded  (AG-IMS ID 91072) . India 
recalled that, pursuant to footnote 17 of the Nairobi Ministerial Decision  on Export Competition , 
developing country Members  were not required to provide information on export subsidies in their  
annual questionnaire respons es prior to 2020. India would provide responses to the 
European  Union's remaining questions once the European Union submitted them in writing 
following the meeting.  
20.  Regarding the notification s of Viet Nam (G/STR/N/15/VNM  and G/STR/N/16/VNM), the Chair  
recalled that the United  States had made  a counter -notification (G/STR/ Q1/VNM/4)  and that 
Viet Nam had responded in document s G/STR/Q1/VNM/5  and G/STR/Q1/VNM/5/Corr.1 . The 
United  States had provide d responses  and posed follow -up questions to Viet Nam  
(G/STR/Q1/VNM/6) . 
21.  The United States  noted that Viet Nam had recently reached out to the United Sates to 
discuss the issues raised in the United States' questions. The United States welcomed this 
outreach and indicated that it looked f orward to future dialogue on the issues raised and to 
Viet Nam's written responses to questions. In this respect, the United States recalled that it had 
also posed separate question s in November 2017, which ha d not yet been answered. The 
United  States indicated that if any revisions to Viet Nam's notifications we re necessary as a result 
of Viet  Nam's review of the United States' replies, then the United States look ed forward to 
Viet Nam's revised notifications.  
22.  Viet Nam  indicated that it had held a constructive dialogue with the United S tates following 
the 16 July 2019 meeting of the Working Party, which helped Viet Nam understand important 
differences between the United States' and Viet Nam's interpretations of the scope of the definition 
of STEs. Viet Nam indicated that both sides w ould continue to discuss and consult on the issues 
raised by the United States.  
23.  The Working Party took note  of the statement s made.  
4  CONTINUED NON -NOTIFICATION OF STATE TRADING ENTERPR ISES BY BRAZIL  
24.  The United States  expressed its strong interest in ensuring that WTO Members compl ied with 
their notification obligations in the Working Party  and re ferred to paragraph 4 of the 
Understanding. The United States recalled that , in 1996 , Brazil had submitted its first notification 
to the Working Party, notifying ten entities as STEs, with statistical information provided in 1997. 
Brazil  did not provide any further notification until 2016, when it notified that it did not maintain 
any STEs  falling under the working definition of paragraph 1 of the Understanding , without  
providing any explanation for the change . In 2018, Brazil had repeated its nil notification, again 
failing to provide any  explanation for the change from its 1996 notificati on. The United States had 
conducted its own research  and found that publicly available information indicate d that there 
appear ed to be a number of entities that Brazil ha d failed to identify as STEs. The United States 
had raised the issue with Brazil bilaterally  and in consultations in Geneva . Although it consider ed 
that the  issue was not yet resolved, the United States thanked  Brazil for its  good faith efforts to 
engage in  these processes and continued to hope the issue could be solved through bilateral 
discussion. If not, the United States might need to file a counter -notification.  
25.  Brazil  thanked the United States for its continued interest in this matter. Brazil recalled that it 
had included the following ten companies in its 1996 notification: Computadores e Sistemas 
Brasileiros SA (COBRA); Petrobrás Química SA (PETROQUISA); ITAIPU Binacional; Industrias 
Nucleares do Brasil SA (INB); Florestas Rio Doce SA; Companhia Vale do Rio Doce (CVRD); 
Companhia Nacional de Abastecimento (CONAB); Casa da Moeda do Brasil (CMB); BR Petrobrás 
Distribuidora SA; and Petróleo Brasileiro SA (PETROBRÁS).5 During the 2014 -2016 period, Brazil 
had re-evaluated the situation of the ten companies , taking into account changes that  had 
occurred since Brazil's original notification , and taking into account a reassessment of the 
definition of STEs in the Understanding. Following the United States' comments at the previous  
meeting of the Working Party, Brazil was reviewing the situation of several companies , as well as  
the current notification and counter -notification practices of other Members, and other information 
                                                
5 G/STR/N/1/BRA . G/STR/M/36  
 
- 5 - 
 
  including the Illustrative List of Relationships between Governments and State Trading Enterprises 
and the Kinds of Activities Engaged in by These Enterpri ses (G/STR/4).  This work involve d 
coordination with all relevant governing bodies with supervisory authority over state -owned 
companies, as well as with the companies themselves. P rivatization in the oil, gas and electricity 
sectors was also being reviewed . Brazil hope d to better understand the relationship between the  
operation s of these entities and the definition and practice regarding STEs at the WTO. Brazil  did 
not prejudge the results of this ongoing review process and did not rule out the possibility  of 
modifying the terms of its notification in the near future.  
26.  The Working Party took note  of the statements made.  
5  CONTINUED NON -NOTIFICATION OF STATE TRADING ENTERPRISES BY THE 
RUSSIAN  FEDERATION  
27.  The United States  regretted that this was the tenth  consec utive meeting at which  the 
continued non -notification of STEs by the Russian Federation was on the agenda , and the s eventh  
year that this issue had been raised in the Working Party. Russia had made an effort to meet its 
transparency commitments in other WT O bodies, but the United States regretted that this effort 
was being resisted  in this Working Party. Russia had missed four consecutive notification cycles, or 
eight years, as indicated in the most recent Status of Notifications6, and had not fulfilled a single 
STE notification obligation since joining the WTO. The United States explained that t ransparency 
was an important WTO requirement, which Russia had agreed to abide by when it joined the WTO 
and has served an important functi on for all WTO Members to better understand a nd evaluate 
Member s' STE operations and compliance with relevant WTO obligations. That having been said, 
the United States welcomed statements made by Russia at the October 2016 meeting of the 
Working Party  acknowledging that companies had been granted the exclusive right to export 
liquefied natural gas  and would, therefore, be notified.  In addition, the United States noted that  
Russia had previously indicated that it  was planning to notify JSC United Grain Compa ny as an 
STE, and welcomed this. However, at the 1 6 July 2019 meeting, Russia had indicated that this 
may not be the case, although no explanation was given for the change in Russia's position. The 
United States ha d attempted to discuss this issue bilatera lly with Russia and continue d to wait for 
an opportunity to do so. At the July meeting, Russia  had also stated that it needed more time to 
complete its preparatory work on the notification. Russia ha d taken this same position since 
October 2012 , i.e. since  the first meeting of the Working Party after Russia had become  a Member. 
Given these and other past indications by Russia that a notification was coming, the United States 
asked Russia to update the Working Party on when its notification would be submitte d to it for 
review, and on whether the upcoming notification would provide all of the required information for 
the missing years, as well as the most recent period.  
28.  The European Union  reiterated its concern about the lack of STE notification s by the 
Russia n Federation. During previous meetings of the Working Party , as well as in the framework of 
the Russian Federation's  Trade Policy Review, the European Union understood that the 
Russian  Federation grant ed exclusive rights to several companies , pursuant to the Order of the 
Government of the Russian Federation of 14 July 2014 No.  1277-r and Government Regulation 
No. 2001-r of 9 October 2014. At the previous  meeting of this Working Party, the 
Russian  Federati on had explained that preparation of the notification was in its final stage s. The 
European Union regretted that Russia had not yet fulfilled its notification obligations and urged 
Russia to transform its repeated announcements in to concrete action.  
29.  Ukrain e echoed the concerns expressed by the United States and the European Union about 
the Russian Federation's continued non -notification of its STEs . Ukraine  reiterated its concern 
about this longstanding issue, as well as the importance of the requirement fo r transparency, in 
particular with regard to STEs. Given that more than  seven years that had elapsed since the 
accession of the Russian Federation  to the WTO , and the occurrence of the fourth notification 
period since its accession, Ukraine once again  invited the Russian Federation to comply with its 
notification obligations under paragraph 4(a) of Article XVII of the General Agreement on Tariffs 
and Trade  1994 and paragraph  1 of the Understanding.  
30.  The Russian Federation  thanked the United States, the Europ ean Union , and Ukraine for their 
continued interest in the issue and informed  Members that it continued to work with the Minister of 
                                                
6 Room document RD/STR/29.  G/STR/M/36  
 
- 6 - 
 
  Finance and the respective enterprises to move forward with the issue. The Russian Federation 
had done a great deal of preparatory work but need ed more time for consultation with the parties 
concerned. The Russian Federation  reiterated that it acted in compliance with its WTO 
commitments and that its goal was to submit a complete and exhaustive notification to Members, 
which it would do once its work on it was complete. Regarding  JSC United Grain Company, the 
Russian Federation stated that it had previously provided to this Working Group a detailed 
explanation of why JSC United Grain Company f ell outside the definition of STEs. The 
Russian  Federation would provide detailed response s to the remaining questions in writing and was 
ready to engage bilaterally wi th all interested delegations.  
31.  The Working Party took note  of the statements made.  
6  CONTINUED NON -NOTIFICATION OF STATE TRADING ENTERPRISES BY THE UNITED 
ARAB EMIRATES  
32.  The United States  regretted that this was the seventh  consecutive meeting at which the 
continued non -notification of STEs by the United Arab Emirates  was on the agenda of the 
Working  Party. As it had stated during the Working Party meetings of October 2016, May and 
November  2017, May and October 2018,  and July 2019,  the United States had enquired, during 
the Trade Policy Review of the United Arab Emira tes of June 2016 , about  the status of its STE 
notifications, since the United Arab Emirates had not submitted any STE notification since 1996. 
The United Arab Emirates responded that it did not consider making STE notification s a priority, 
and that making those notification s was a challenge because of the definition of STEs and the 
federal structure of the Government of the United Arab Emirates. The United States indicated that 
it continue d to be concerned about  that response, because the United Arab Emirat es was giving 
the impression that it did not place much value on its transparency obligations. Furthermore, 
having a federal government itself and 50 state governments, the United States did not find the 
structure of government of the United Arab Emirates a particularly compelling reason not to notify. 
As to the definition of STEs, the United States continued to urge the United  Arab Emirates to seek 
technical assistance from the Secretariat to understand the provisions of Article  XVII of the 
General Agreeme nt on Tariffs and Trade 1994 . Further, if that was of help, given that the 
United  States too had a federal system of government, the United States would be willing to 
supplement any assistance from the Secretariat and work with the United Arab Emirates on a 
technical level to help it meet this important notification obligation.  
33.  The European Union  echoed the United States' concern s regarding  the lack of  any notification 
and urged the United Arab Emirates  to comply with its notification obligations.  
34.  The delegation of the United Arab Emirates was not present at the meeting.  
35.  The Working Party took note  of the statements made.  
7  OTHER BUSINESS  
36.  The Chair  recalled that, at the Working Party meeting of 16 July 2019, an interest had been  
expressed in allowing th e Working Party to have a vice -chairperson.  The Chair further recalled that 
he had  therefore offered to convey that interest to the Chairperson of the CTG and , in the absence 
of further comments or objections, the Working Party had taken note of th at propose d course of 
action. Th at exchange was reflected in paras. 45 to 47 of  the minutes of the July meeting  
(G/STR/M/35) . 
37.  The Chair  report ed that he had  accordingly met with the Chair of the CTG, who ha d requested 
him to clarify whether the intention of the Work ing Party was to proceed as other subsidiary bodies 
do by electing its own vice -Chair; that is, whether the Working Party envisage d that the Chair of 
the Working Party would consult with Members regarding the future vice -chairperson, and that the 
election of the vice -chairperson would take place in the Working Party. This was already the case 
for other subsidiary bodies of the CTG, for which, as reflected in the minutes of many meetings of 
the CTG under the agenda item "Appointment of officers to the subsid iary bodies", it was "for the G/STR/M/36  
 
- 7 - 
 
  subsidiary bodies themselves to decide if they need ed a vice -chair, and … for  the respective 
committee chair to hold the necessary consultations".7 
38.  The Chair asked whether h e was correct in understanding  that this course of action was 
acceptable to the Working Party and that he could  convey to the Chair of the CTG this 
understanding of how the Working Party would proceed, or whether instead any delegation ha d a 
different understanding or wish ed to comment  further on this matter . The Chair then opened the 
floor for objections or further comments.  
39.  There were no objections  or further comments . The Chair therefore indicated that i n light of 
the absence of objections, he would  confirm to the Chair of the CTG th is understanding of how the 
Working Party intend ed to proceed.  
40.  The Working Party took note  of the Chair's  statement and of the absence of objections.  
8  ANNUAL REPORT (2019)  TO THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS  
41.  The Chair noted that paragraph 5 of the Understanding instructed the Working Party to report 
annually to the CTG. At its meeting of 30 October 2012, the Working Party had agreed on a new 
format for the annual report. It was agreed to separate the draft annual repor t and the table of 
notifications since 1995 into two separate documents. The draft annual report had been circulated 
as room document RD/STR/32 and the table of notifications as document G/STR/22, both on 
24 October 2019.  
42.  The Working Party adopted  its 2019  Annual Report , accompanied by the Status of 
Notifications . 
9  DATE OF FOLLOWING MEETING  
43.  The Chair  recalled the Working Party's practice of holding its regular meetings either 
immediately before or immediately after the week during which the Committees on Ant i-Dumping 
Practices, on Safeguards and on Subsidies and Countervailing measures hold their regular 
meetings . Given that , for the spring,  those meetings were  tentatively scheduled for the week of 
27 April 2020, the Chair proposed to schedule  the following  meeting  of the Working Party  for 
24 April 2020. 
44.  No objections were raised , and therefore t he Chair tentatively scheduled the following 
meeting for 24 April  2020. 
45.  The meeting was adjourned . 
__________  
 
 
                                                
7 E.g. G/C/M/131, paras. 3.10 -3.11.