RESTRICTED  
  
WT/TPR/S/350  
14 November 2016  
(16-6232) Page: 1/177 
Trade Policy Review Body   
 
TRADE POLICY REVIEW  
REPORT BY THE SECRET ARIAT  
UNITED STATES 
This report, prepared for the 13th Trade Policy Review of the United States, has been drawn up by 
the WTO Secretariat on its own responsibility. The Secretariat has, as required by the Agreement 
establishing the Trade Policy Review Mechanism (Annex 3 of the Marrakesh Agreement 
Establishing the World Trade Organization), sought clarification from the United States on its trade 
policies and practices.  
 
Any technical questions arising from this report  may be addressed to Messrs. Angelo Silvy 
(tel: 022/739  5249), Cato Christian Adrian (tel:  022/739  5469), Michael Kolie 
(tel: 022/739  5931), and Xinyi Li (tel:  022/739  5579).  
 
Document WT/TPR/G/350  contains the policy statement submitted by the United Stat es. 
 
Note: This report is subject to restricted circulation and press embargo until the end of the first 
session of the meeting of the Trade Policy Review Body on the United States. This report was 
drafted in English.  WT/TPR/S/350 • United States  
 
- 2 - 
 
  CONTENTS  
SUMMARY  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................  8 
1   ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT  ................................ ................................ ........................  13 
1.1   Recent Economic Developments  ................................ ................................ ................... 13 
1.1.1    Output, employment, and prices  ................................ ................................ ................ 13 
1.1.2    Fiscal policy  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 16 
1.1.3    Monetary policy  ................................ ................................ ................................ .......18 
1.1.4    Balance of payments  ................................ ................................ ................................ 19 
1.2   Developments in Trade and Investment  ................................ ................................ ........ 21 
1.2.1    Merchandise trade  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...21 
1.2.2    Trade in services  ................................ ................................ ................................ .....23 
1.3   Foreign Direct Investme nt ................................ ................................ ........................... 24 
1.4   Outlook  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 26 
2   TRADE AND INVESTMENT  REGIME  ................................ ................................ ............  27 
2.1   General Framework  ................................ ................................ ................................ ....27 
2.2   Trade Policy Objectives and Trade Policy Formulation  ................................ ...................... 27 
2.2.1    Trade policy objectives  ................................ ................................ ............................. 27 
2.2.2    Trade policy formulation  ................................ ................................ ........................... 28 
2.3   Trade Agreements and Arrangements  ................................ ................................ ........... 29 
2.3.1    WTO ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 29 
2.3.2    Preferential agreements  ................................ ................................ ........................... 30 
2.3.2.1    Reciprocal agreements  ................................ ................................ .......................... 30 
2.3.2.2    Unilateral preferences  ................................ ................................ ............................ 31 
2.3.2.2.1    Generalized system of preference (GSP)  ................................ ............................... 32 
2.3.2.2.2    African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA)  ................................ .......................... 33 
2.3.2.2.3    Caribbean Basin Initiative (CBI)  ................................ ................................ ........... 33 
2.4   Investment regime  ................................ ................................ ................................ .....34 
3   TRADE POLICIES AND P RACTICES BY MEASURE  ................................ ........................  37 
3.1   Measures Directly Affecting Imports  ................................ ................................ .............. 37 
3.1.1    Customs procedures and requirements  ................................ ................................ .......37 
3.1.1.1    Trade facilitation measures  ................................ ................................ .................... 37 
3.1.1.1.1    Single w indow  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...37 
3.1.1.1.2    ACE Cargo Release  ................................ ................................ ............................. 39 
3.1.1.1.3    Advance rulings  ................................ ................................ ................................ .39 
3.1.1.1.4    Trusted trader programmes  ................................ ................................ ................. 40 
3.1.1.1.4.1    Customs -Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C -TPAT)  ................................ .......40 
3.1.1.1. 4.2   Importer Self -Assessment Program (ISA)  ................................ ........................... 40 
3.1.1.1.4.3    Free and Secure Trade System (FAST)  ................................ ............................... 41 
3.1.1.1.4.4    Trusted Trade r Program Test  ................................ ................................ ............ 41 
3.1.1.2    Import security initiatives  ................................ ................................ ...................... 41 WT/TPR/S/350 • Unite d States  
 
- 3 - 
 
  3.1.1.2.1    Container Security Initiative (CSI)  ................................ ................................ ........ 41 
3.1.1.2.2    Secure Freight Initiative (SFI)  ................................ ................................ .............. 41 
3.1.1.3    Foreign Trade Zones (FTZs)  ................................ ................................ ................... 41 
3.1.1.4    Bonded warehouses  ................................ ................................ .............................. 42 
3.1.2    Customs valuation  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...42 
3.1.3    Rules of origin  ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 42 
3.1.3.1    Non-preferential  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...42 
3.1.3.2    Preferential  ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 43 
3.1.3.3    Country -of-origin marking  ................................ ................................ ...................... 43 
3.1.3.4    Certification of origin  ................................ ................................ ............................. 43 
3.1.4    Tariffs  ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 43 
3.1.4.1    Nomenclature  ................................ ................................ ................................ .......44 
3.1.4.2    Applied rates  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 44 
3.1.4.3    Bindings  ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 46 
3.1.4.4   Tariff-rate quotas  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..46 
3.1.5    Other charges affecting imports  ................................ ................................ ................. 46 
3.1.5.1    Customs user fees  ................................ ................................ ................................ 46 
3.1.5.1.1    Merchandise processing fee  ................................ ................................ ................. 46 
3.1.5.1.2    COBRA fees  ................................ ................................ ................................ .......47 
3.1.5.1.3    Harbor M aintenance Tax  ................................ ................................ ..................... 47 
3.1.5.1.4    Agriculture fees  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..48 
3.1.5.2    Excise taxes  ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 49 
3.1.6    Import prohibitions, restrictions, and special requirements  ................................ ........... 51 
3.1.6.1    Prohibitions and restrictions  ................................ ................................ ................... 51 
3.1.6.2   Import licensing  ................................ ................................ ................................ ....52 
3.1.6.3    Controls, special procedures, or diplomatic measures  ................................ ................ 52 
3.1.7    Anti-dumping, countervaili ng, and safeguard measures  ................................ ................ 53 
3.1.7.1    Legislation and administration  ................................ ................................ ................ 53 
3.1.7.2    Anti-dumping  ................................ ................................ ................................ .......57 
3.1.7.3    Countervailing duties  ................................ ................................ ............................. 59 
3.1.7.4    Safeguards  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 60 
3.1.7.4.1    Global safeguards  ................................ ................................ .............................. 60 
3.1.7.4.2    Special safeguards  ................................ ................................ ............................. 61 
3.1.8    Standards and other technical requirements  ................................ ............................... 61 
3.1.9    Sanitary and phytosanitary requirements  ................................ ................................ ....64 
3.1.9.1    Basic legal and institutional framework  ................................ ................................ ....64 
3.1.9.2    Food and Drug Administration (FDA)  ................................ ................................ .......65 
3.1.9.3    Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS)  ................................ ............................... 67 
3.1.9.4    Animal and Plan t Health Inspection Service (APHIS)  ................................ .................. 68 
3.1.9.5    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)  ................................ ................................ ...68 WT/TPR/S/350 • United States  
 
- 4 - 
 
  3.2   Measures Directly Affecting Expo rts ................................ ................................ .............. 68 
3.2.1    Export procedures and requirements  ................................ ................................ .......... 68 
3.2.2    Export taxes, charges, and levies  ................................ ................................ ............... 69 
3.2.3    Export prohibitions, restrictions, and licensing  ................................ ............................. 69 
3.2.3.1    Export Control Reform (ECR) Initiative  ................................ ................................ ....72 
3.2.4    Export support and promotion  ................................ ................................ ................... 72 
3.2.4.1    Institutional structure  ................................ ................................ ............................ 72 
3.2.4.2    National Export Initiat ive (NEI) and NEI/NEXT  ................................ .......................... 73 
3.2.4.3    Drawback regime  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..74 
3.2.5    Export finance, insurance, guarantees  ................................ ................................ ........ 74 
3.2.5.1    The Export -Import Bank of the United States (EXIM)  ................................ ................. 74 
3.2.5.2    Small Business Administration (SBA) Export Loan Programs  ................................ .......75 
3.2.5.3    Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC)  ................................ ...................... 76 
3.3   Measures Affecting Production and Trade  ................................ ................................ .......77 
3.3.1    Incentives  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 77 
3.3.2    Subsidies and other government assistance  ................................ ................................ 78 
3.3.3    Competition policy  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...80 
3.3.4    State trading, state -owned enterprises, and privatization  ................................ ............. 83 
3.3.5    Government procurement  ................................ ................................ ......................... 85 
3.3.5.1    Overview  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 85 
3.3.5.2    Institutional and legal framework  ................................ ................................ ............ 86 
3.3.5.3    Market  access conditions  ................................ ................................ ....................... 88 
3.3.5.4    Set-asides and preferences  ................................ ................................ .................... 90 
3.3.5.5    Bidding procedures  ................................ ................................ ............................... 92 
3.3.6    Intellectual property rights  ................................ ................................ ........................ 93 
3.3.6.1    Overview  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 93 
3.3.6.2    General regulatory framewo rk ................................ ................................ ................ 94 
3.3.6.3    Patents  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 97 
3.3.6.4    Industrial designs  ................................ ................................ ................................ .99 
3.3.6 .5   Trademarks and g eographical indications  ................................ ................................ .99 
3.3.6.5.1    Trademarks  ................................ ................................ ................................ .......99 
3.3.6.5.2    Geographical indications  ................................ ................................ ...................  100 
3.3.6.6    Trade secret protection  ................................ ................................ ........................  100 
3.3.6.7    Copyright  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...........  101 
3.3.6.8    IP enforcement  ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 102 
4   TRADE POLICIES BY SE CTOR  ................................ ................................ ...................  105  
4.1   Agriculture  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...............  105 
4.1.1    Main features  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........  105 
4.1.2    The 2014 Farm Act  ................................ ................................ ................................  107 
4.1.2.1    Overview  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...........  107 WT/TPR/S/350 • Unite d States  
 
- 5 - 
 
  4.1.2.2    Price Loss Coverage (PLC)  ................................ ................................ ....................  109 
4.1.2.3    Agricultural Risk Coverage (ARC)  ................................ ................................ ..........  110 
4.1.2.4    Marketing l oan programme  ................................ ................................ ..................  110 
4.1.2.5    Crop insurance  ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 111 
4.1.2.6    Cotton  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...............  113 
4.1.2.7    Sugar  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................  113 
4.1.2.8    Dairy sector  ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 114 
4.1.2.9    Other programmes  ................................ ................................ ..............................  115 
4.1.3    Trade measures  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 116 
4.1.3.1    Imports  ................................ ................................ ................................ .............  116 
4.1.3.2    Exports  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..............  117 
4.1.3.3    Food aid  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............  117 
4.1.4    Levels of support  ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 118 
4.2   Services  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................  120 
4.2.1    Financial services  ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 120 
4.2.1.1    General overview  ................................ ................................ ................................  120 
4.2.1.2    Legislative and regulat ory framework  ................................ ................................ .... 121 
4.2.1.3    Consolidated financial sector regulation  ................................ ................................ . 125 
4.2.1.4    Banking services  ................................ ................................ ................................ . 126 
4.2.1.5    Insurance services  ................................ ................................ ..............................  128 
4.2.1.6    Securities services  ................................ ................................ ..............................  132 
4.2.2    Telecommunica tions ................................ ................................ ...............................  135 
4.2.3    Transport  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..............  138 
4.2.3.1    Air transport and airports  ................................ ................................ .....................  138 
4.2.3.1.1    Air transport  ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 138 
4.2.3.1.2    Airports ................................ ................................ ................................ ...........  140 
4.2.3.2    Maritime transport, port services, and shipbuilding  ................................ ..................  141 
4.2.3.2.1    Maritime transport  ................................ ................................ ...........................  141 
4.2.3.2.2    Port services  ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 144 
4.2.3.2.3    Shipbuilding and ship repairs  ................................ ................................ .............  145 
5   APPENDIX TABLES  ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 147  
 
CHARTS  
 
Chart 1.1 Value added , by industry, 2015  ................................ ................................ ............. 13 
Chart 1.2 Contribution to percent change in real GDP, 2010 -16 ................................ ............... 15 
Chart 1.3 U.S. current account and net f inancial flows, 2006 -15 ................................ .............. 20 
Chart 1.4 U.S. current account and oil products trade, 2010 -16 ................................ ............... 21 
Chart 1.5 Merchandise trade, by mai n HS sections, 2012 and 2015  ................................ .......... 22 
Chart 1.6 Merchandise trade, by main destinations and origins, 2012 and 2015  ......................... 23 
Chart 1.7 FDI in to the United States, 2008 -15 ................................ ................................ .......24 WT/TPR/S/350 • United States  
 
- 6 - 
 
  Chart 1.8 Direct investment position on a historical -cost basis, by selected partners, 2012 
and 2015  ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 25 
Chart 3.1 Frequency distribution of MFN tariff rates, 2016  ................................ ....................... 45 
Chart 4.1 U.S. exports and imports of agricultural products, 2000 -15 ................................ ..... 107 
Chart 4.2 Green Box support in the United States, 2001 -13 ................................ ..................  119 
Chart 4.3 Amber Box support in the United States, 2001 -13 ................................ .................  119 
 
TABLES  
 
Table 1.1 Main economic indicators, 2010 -16 ................................ ................................ ........ 14 
Table 1.2 Current and capital accounts, 2010 -16 ................................ ................................ ...19 
Table 2.1 Free trade agreements in force, July 2016  ................................ .............................. 30 
Table 2.2 Selected foreign investment restrictions, July 2015  ................................ .................. 34 
Table 2.3 Covered transactions, Presidential decisions, and mitigation measures, 2011 -14 ......... 35 
Table 2.4 Covered transactions, by country, 2012 -14 ................................ ............................. 36 
Table 3.1 Changes to preferential rules of origin, June 2012 -July 2016  ................................ .....43 
Table 3.2 Structure of the tariff schedules, selected years  ................................ ....................... 44 
Table 3.3 COBRA fees  ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 47 
Table 3.4 Agricultural fees, applicable from 28 December 2015  ................................ ............... 48 
Table 3.5 Federal excise taxes  ................................ ................................ ............................. 50 
Table 3.6 Anti -dumping investigations, 2013 -June 2016  ................................ ......................... 58 
Table 3.7 Anti -dumping measures in force , by trading partner/region, 2013 -16 ......................... 58 
Table 3.8 Countervailing duty investigations and measures imposed, 2013 -15 .......................... 60 
Table 3.9 Implementing regulations for the FSMA  ................................ ................................ ..65 
Table 3.10 Items subject to export restrictions, controls, licensing, or certification  ..................... 70 
Table 3.11 Commerce Control List (CCL) and U.S. Munitions List (USML)  ................................ ..71 
Table 3.12 EXIM Bank authorizations, 2013 -15 ................................ ................................ ......75 
Table 3.13 Approved applications and loan amounts under SBA Export Loan Programs, 
2012-15 ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 76 
Table 3.14 Overview of OPIC activities, FY2013 -15 ................................ ................................ 77 
Table 3.15 Federal subsidy programmes (non -agriculture), 2013 -14 ................................ ........ 79 
Table 3.16 DoJ actions against anticompetitive practices, FY2013 -15 ................................ .......81 
Table 3.17 FTC actions against anticompetitive practices, FY2013 -15 ................................ .......81 
Table 3.18 Government corporations, 2015  ................................ ................................ ........... 84 
Table 3.19 Government -sponsored enterprises  ................................ ................................ ......84 
Table 3.20 Central government thresholds for the application of trade agreements, 
2016-17 ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 88 
Table 3.21 Most recent changes in intellectual property laws and regulations  ............................ 95 
Table 3.22 Summary of intellectual property protection in the United States, June 2016  ............. 95 
Table 4.1 Value of U.S. production, 2008 -15 ................................ ................................ ....... 105 
Table 4.2 U.S. and world production and trade of selected commodities, 2008/09 -2015/16  ....... 106 
Table 4.3 U.S. exports and imports of selected products, 2012 -15 ................................ .........  106 WT/TPR/S/350 • Unite d States  
 
- 7 - 
 
  Table 4.4 The 2014 Farm Act, main programmes  ................................ ................................ . 108 
Table 4.5 Crop insurance fiscal costs, by crop year, 2008 -14 ................................ .................  112 
Table 4.6 MPP Dairy, premium payments  ................................ ................................ ............  115 
Table 4.7 Deliveries of food aid from the United States, 2008 -12 ................................ ...........  117 
Table 4.8 Total producer support estimate and single commodity transfer value s for 
selected commodities, 2008 -15 ................................ ................................ .........................  118 
Table 4.9 Federal financial regulators and organizations  ................................ ........................  122 
Table 4.10 Federal financia l regulators and entities supervised  ................................ ..............  123 
Table 4.11 Top 10 life insurers, 2014 ................................ ................................ ..................  131 
Table 4.12 Top 10 P&C insurers, 2014  ................................ ................................ ................  132 
Table 4.13 Selected telecommunications indicators, 2011 -15 ................................ ................  135 
 
BOXES  
 
Box 2.1 Trade negotiating objectives, 2015 TPA  ................................ ................................ .....28 
Box 3.1 Steps in implementing ACE  ................................ ................................ ...................... 38 
 
APPENDIX TABLES  
 
Table A1. 1 Merchandise exports,  by HS sections and main chapters, 2012 -15 ........................  147 
Table A1. 2 Merchandise imports, by HS sections and main HS chapters, 2012 -15 ...................  149 
Table A1. 3 Merchandise exports, by trading partner, 2012 -15 ................................ ..............  151 
Table A1. 4 Merchandise imports, by trading partner, 2012 -15 ................................ ..............  152 
Table A1. 5 Commercial services exports, by type, 2012 -15 ................................ ..................  153 
Table A1. 6 Commercial services imports, by type, 2012 -15 ................................ ..................  153 
Table A1. 7 U.S. commercial services exports (modes 1, 2, and 4), by destination, 
2012-14 ................................ ................................ ................................ .........................  154 
Table A1. 8 U.S. commercial services imports (modes 1, 2, and 4), by origin, 2012 -14 ............  154 
Table A1. 9 Services supplied by U.S. affiliates established abroad (outward FATS), by 
economy of affiliate, through mode 3, 2010 -13 ................................ ................................ ... 155 
Table A1. 10 Services supplied by foreign affiliates in the United States (inward FATS), by 
economy of affiliate, through mode 3, 2010 -13 ................................ ................................ ... 155 
 
Table A2. 1 The Trade  Advisory Committee System  ................................ ..............................  156 
Table A2. 2 Selected U.S. notifications to the WTO, September 2014 -July 2016  .......................  157 
Table A2. 3 Disp ute settlement cases involving the United States, July 2016  ...........................  160 
 
Table A3. 1 Summary analysis of United States MFN tariff, 2016 ................................ ............  162 
Table A3. 2 Prohibitions, restrictions or other special requirements  ................................ ........  163 
Table A3. 3 Products subject to import licensing  ................................ ................................ .. 165 
Table A3. 4 Selected sub -federal subsidy schemes for "greener" energy  ................................ . 167 
 
Table A4. 1 Commodity loan rates and Price Loss Coverage reference prices, 
2014 Farm Act ................................ ................................ ................................ .................  177 WT/TPR/S/350 • United States  
 
- 8 - 
 
  SUMMARY  
1. The U.S. economy, the single largest in the world, continued to expand during the review 
period. Although GDP growth has been somewhat uneven on a quarterly basis since the last 
Trade Policy Review, real GDP continued to expand at annual rate s of 2.4% and 2.6 % in 2014 
and 2015 , respectively,  before slowing down to an annual rate of around 1% in the first half of 
2016. Growth in private consumption has been robust, and the unemploym ent rate has 
continued to decline from 10% in  2009 to less than 5% at present. A strengthening labour 
market and growth in personal income, together with falling energy prices, and low inflation, 
below the Federal Reserve's long -term objective of 2%, have boosted consumers' purchasing 
power. Gross capital formation was an engine of growth in 2014 and most of 2015, 
encouraged by low interest rates. However, investment contracted during the fourth quarter of 
2015 and the first two quarters of 2016 , partly due  to inventory adjustment, declines in 
equipment and structures investment (both oil and non -oil), and the negative impact of lower 
crude oil prices on investment in the energy sector. Despite the robust economic performance, 
challenges remain , including de aling with a deteriorating infrastructure and rising income 
inequalities.  
2. During the period under review, the fiscal stance turned rather neutral , as the authorities had 
limited recourse to fiscal policy instruments. Fiscal uncertainties were addressed through the 
Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, which suspended the debt ceiling until March 2017 and avoided 
the risk of government shutdowns by locking in appropriations for 2016 and 2017. The current 
fiscal stance aims at  reducing the fiscal deficit. In this re spect, the President's Fiscal Year 2017 
(FY17) Budget includes proposed measures to drive down future deficits, while implementing 
policies to accelerate growth and expand opportunities. The President's proposed policies 
would keep deficits below 3% of GDP  while stabilizing debt and putting it on a declining path 
for the next decade.  
3. Monetary policy was relatively accommodative during most of the review period, but the 
Federal Reserve initiated its "policy normalization process" (steps to raise the federal  funds 
rate and to reduce the Federal Reserve's securities holdings) in 2015. The Federal Open 
Market Committee (FOMC), the Federal Reserve's policy body, raised the target range for the 
federal funds rate by a quarter of a percentage point in December 201 5. However, the FOMC 
expects that economic conditions will warrant only gradual future increases in the federal 
funds rate.  
4. The United States is the world's top importer, and the second leading exporter, of goods and 
services. U.S. merchandise exports are  highly diversified, and are dominated by machinery, 
vehicles, chemicals, and refined petroleum products. Imports are as diversified as exports; 
their composition is led by manufactured products, which make up some 70% of the total. 
Machinery, transport eq uipment, and fuels constitute the main imported products. In 2015, 
the United States posted a merchandise trade deficit of US$763 billion, slightly larger than in 
2014, but 8 .7% above the 2013 deficit. Both merchandise imports and exports contracted in 
2015 reflecting to a large extent lower oil import prices , rising domestic production of crude oil 
and natural gas in the case of imports, and weak global demand and a stronger dollar in the 
case of exports. As in previous years, the merchandise trade deficit  was partly offset by a 
surplus in trade in services and primary income. The United States traditionally posts a trade 
surplus in cross -border commercial services, with strong surpluses in areas such as financial 
services, transport, and charges for the us e of intellectual property. The services surplus 
reached US$262 billion in 2015. Canada, the E uropean  Union, China, Mexico, and Japan 
remain the Unites States' main trading partners for both goods and services. The United States 
remains the world's top des tination for foreign direct investment, with total inflows of 
US$348.4 billion in 2015. The current account continued to be in deficit during the review 
period; it reached US$463 billion , or 2.6% of GDP , in 2015.  
5. U.S. trade policy seeks to "promote growth,  support well -paying jobs, and strengthen the 
middle class", as stated in the President's 2016 Trade Policy Agenda. To this end, the 
United  States is actively engaged in negotiations within the WTO framework, as well as in 
regional or plurilateral settings . The United States has been a strong supporter of the 
Agreement on Trade Facilitation, which it has ratified, and the expanded Information 
Technology Agreement (ITA), which was implemented on 1 July 2016. Negotiations on the 
Trans -Pacific Partnership (TPP ) Agreement were concluded in October 2015 and the Agreement WT/TPR/S/350 • Unite d States  
 
- 9 - 
 
  signed in February 2016, but ratification is still pending. The United States is actively engaged 
in negotiations to liberalize trade further, notably in the form of the Environmental Goods 
Agree ment (EGA) and the Trade in Services Agreement (TiSA).  
6. The new Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) enacted on 29 June 2015, under the 2015  Bipartisan 
Congressional Trade Priority Act, provides the associated legislative procedure for new trade 
agreements unti l 1 July 2018, with a possible extension for new agreements until 1  July 2021. 
The 2015 TPA defines 13 trade negotiating objectives, addressing , inter alia , four new issues: 
state-owned and state -controlled enterprises (SOEs); localization barriers to trad e; currency 
issues; and , good governance, transparency, the effective operation of local regimes and the 
rule of law of trading partners.  
7. The United States extends unilateral preferences to developing countries, including least 
developed countries (LDCs), under its programmes of the Generalized System of Preferences 
(GSP), the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) and the Caribbean Basin Initiative 
(CBI). Both GSP and AGOA were reauthorized by Congress on 29 June 2015 under the Trade 
Preferences Extensi on Act of 2015.  The present authorization for GSP is valid until the end of 
2017, while preferences under AGOA remain authorized until 2025. No new free trade 
agreement has entered into force in the United States since the U.S. –Panama FTA in 2012.  
8. The fore ign investment regime in the United States remained unchanged during the review 
period. The regime is generally open and liberal, although some restrictions may apply, 
primarily for prudential or national security reasons. Certain transactions may be subje ct to a 
Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) review on grounds of national 
security. The 2011  SelectUSA programme continues to be the Federal Government's primary 
vehicle to promote inward investment in the United States.  
9. The long -standing commitment of the United States to open trade policies continued in the 
period under review. A number of trade facilitation measures have been implemented. In this 
respect, efforts have been focused on the implementation of the single -window Intern ational 
Trade Data System (ITDS) by 31 December 2016. In the future, traders will use the 
Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) to supply all information required by U.S. Customs 
and Border Protection (CBP) and its 47 Partner Government Agencies for the c learance of 
imports and exports. Other trade facilitation measures include continued work on simplified 
entry programmes and trusted trader programmes.  
10. Overall, the legal and regulatory framework for tariffs, rules of origin, import licensing, 
customs val uation, and import fees and charges remained unchanged during the review 
period. The current tariff, implemented in January 2016, has 10,516 tariff lines at the 8 -digit 
level. Most MFN tariffs are ad valorem , but specific and compound duty rates cover 
approximately 11% of all tariff lines. Non -ad valorem  tariff rates are concentrated in 
agriculture, fuels, textiles, and footwear. Most MFN rates are identical to their bound levels and 
have remained virtually unchanged for 10 years or more. The simple average  tariff amounted 
to 4.8% overall in 2016. Nearly 37% of the tariff lines face no import duty on an MFN basis, 
and a further 7.8% of tariff lines are subject to duty rates of 2% or less. Tariffs above 25% ad 
valorem  are concentrated in agriculture (notably dairy, tobacco, and vegetable products), 
footwear, and textiles. An estimated 22 tariff lines corresponding to agricultural products carry 
import duty rates above 100%.  
11. Most U.S. imports of goods receive MFN treatment. In 2015, tariff treatment under 
U.S. reciprocal or unilateral preference programmes was claimed for less than 20% of the 
import value. Although a certain opening has taken place, U.S. economic embargoes on Cuba 
and Iran remain in place. Sanctions against the Democratic People's Republic of K orea (DPRK) 
were tightened in 2016 and effectively embargo all trade with DPRK.  
12. The United States continues to be an active user of anti -dumping (AD) duties. During the 
period 2014 to end -June 2016, the number of AD investigation initiations totalled  85. T here 
were 269  AD orders in place as of 30 June 2016. The trading partners most affected by the 
measures were China, the E uropean Union, India, Japan, the Republic of Korea, and the 
Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu (Chinese Tai pei). The 
investigations initiated during the period were mainly concentrated in the steel industry. The WT/TPR/S/350 • United States  
 
- 10 - 
 
  average duration of an AD measure in place at the end of 2015 was seven years. There were 
60 countervailing duty (CVD) investigations initiated between  1 January 2014 and 30 June 
2016. A total of 69 CVD orders were in place in late June 2016.  
13. Standardization activities in the United States are decentralized and demand driven. 
Circular  A-119 directs federal agencies in the elaboration of technical regula tions to rely on 
voluntary consensus standards, rather than developing government -unique standards, unless 
this approach is inconsistent with law or otherwise impractical. The U.S. Office of Management 
and Budget (OMB) issued a revised Circular A -119 in Ja nuary 2016, which takes into account 
regulatory developments since 1998, including the increasing accessibility  and online 
availability of documentation, and the  need to ensure the  timely updating of standards.  
14. Implementation of the 2011 Food Safety Moder nization Act (FSMA), which aims at shifting the 
regulatory approach from response to prevention of food safety hazards, was a core activity of 
the authorities during the period under review. The legislation provides new powers  to hold 
food companies respon sible for the prevention of contamination. Key implementing regulations 
entered into force between September 2015 and July 2016. Most regulations include phased -in 
compliance dates for small and very small businesses. The Food and Drug Administration 
(FDA)  continues to issue guidance documents to assist industry in complying with the new 
food safety regulations.  
15. Reform of the U.S. export control system continues. The aim of the Export Control Reform 
(ECR) Initiative is to achieve a reallocation of resource s to improve controls on the more 
sensitive items. Fully implemented, the new export control system should be based on a 
unified control list, a single licensing agency, an integrated information technology platform for 
licensing and enforcement, and a sin gle enforcement coordination centre. The United States 
lifted an effective ban on exports of crude oil in December 2015. Following authorizations by 
the Department of Energy, the first major shipment of liquefied natural gas from the United 
States took pla ce in February 2016.  
16. In December 2015, a few months after the  authority of the Export -Import Bank of the United 
States (EXIM Bank) temporarily lapsed , the U.S. Congress passed legislation to reauthorize  it 
until 30 September 2019. However, due to an opera tional drawback, EXIM Bank is for the time 
being not in a position to grant medium - and long -term authorizations above US$10 million. 
The reauthorization of EXIM Bank was accompanied by a mandate for the United States to 
initiate multilateral negotiations to end export credit financing by 2025. The operations of the 
Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC), the U.S. Government's development finance 
institution, have been growing over the years. The U.S. Congress has been considering 
legislation under various vehicles to extend the authority of OPIC to operate on a longer -term 
legal basis.  
17. The United States has no overarching legal framework governing support at federal and 
sub-federal levels. Traditionally, federal support has been in the form of gran ts, tax 
concessions, loan guarantees, and direct payments. The Small Business Administration 
continues to active ly support small businesses and entrepreneurs, administer ing several 
programmes offering export financing to small businesses exporting or plann ing to export. 
Legislation passed in December  2015 simplified the taxation of small businesses and made 
certain tax cuts permanent for them.  
18. The United States' anti -trust enforcement agencies have continued to be active during the 
period under review. The  Department of Justice's Antitrust Division obtained a record 
US$3.6  billion in criminal fines and penalties in FY2015, notably due to settlements with 
financial institutions and auto part manufacturers in the United States and elsewhere. It has 
also conti nued to prosecute collusion and fraud in the financial services industry, resulting in 
criminal fines of more than US$2.5 billion for price fixing in the foreign exchange markets for 
U.S. dollars and euros, and manipulation of key reference interest rates (LIBOR). The Federal 
Trade Commission's (FTC) merger and non -merger enforcement activities in FY2015 resulted 
in estimated savings to U.S. consumers of US$3.4 billion. In the merger area, in FY2015 , the 
FTC challenged 22 proposed transactions in industries  critical to consumers, such as 
healthcare, pharmaceuticals, hospitals, and retail. Both agencies also provide advice and 
assistance to governmental bodies and other institutions in their decisions affecting consumers 
or competition through the filing of a dvocacy letters.  WT/TPR/S/350 • Unite d States  
 
- 11 - 
 
  19. The United States is a party to the WTO Agreement on Government Procurement (GPA) and 
played an active role in the negotiations leading to the Revised Agreement on Government 
Procurement. Government procurement at the federal level is dec entralized, and is carried out 
through the various executive agencies' procurement systems. Under the Buy American Act of 
1933 (BAA), the purchase of supplies and construction materials by government agencies is 
limited to those defined as "domestic end -products", in accordance with a two -part test that 
must establish that the article is manufactured in the United States, and that the cost of 
domestic components exceeds 50% of the cost of all the components. The BAA does not apply 
to services. The Trade Agr eements Act of 1979 waives the application of the BAA to the end -
products of designated countries, which include the parties to the GPA, bilateral agreements 
that cover government procurement, Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act (CBERA) 
beneficiaries, an d least developed countries. Exceptions to the BAA can also be granted if it is 
determined that the domestic preference is inconsistent with the public interest, in case of U.S. 
non-availability of a supply or material, or for reasonableness of cost. U.S. government 
procurement policy continues to seek to increase the participation of small businesses, 
including veteran -owned, women -owned, and disadvantaged small businesses. To this end, it 
carries out a policy of fixing set -asides when market research conc ludes that small businesses 
are available and able to perform the work or provide the products being procured by the 
Government.  
20. The United States is an important producer and exporter of goods and services that embody 
knowledge and other intellectual pro perty developments. In 2014, intellectual property (IP) 
was present in some 52% of U.S.  goods exports and IP -intensive industries in the United 
States accounted for 38.2% of U.S. GDP. The United  States traditionally posts a surplus in 
IP-related trade, as measured by the category charges for the use of IP. In 2015, net receipts 
were US$85.2  billion. IP protection is a key issue for the United States and enforcement is 
sought through a variety of mechanisms, such as bilateral IP agreements and investment 
treaties, and free  trade agreements. The United States also pursues IP protection through such 
vehicles as the annual Special 301 review and report. In the 2016 Report, 34 U.S. trading 
partners were listed :  11 on the Priority Watch List and 23 on the Watch L ist. The Notorious 
Markets List, published separately, identifies selected markets facilitating substantial copyright 
piracy and trademark counterfeiting. Investigations are also carried out through Section 337 of 
the Tariff Act of 1930, which declares unl awful the importation into the United States of 
articles that infringe a valid U.S.  patent, registered trademark, registered copyright, registered 
mask work, or vessel hull design. Between 1 January 2013 and 23 June 2016, 144  new 
Section 337 investigations  were instituted covering products from 31 trading partners.  
21. With respect to sectoral policies, U.S. agricultural policy is increasingly focused on insurance 
and risk management to provide a safety net for farmers in need. The U.S. agricultural sector 
is among the largest in the world, and the United States is a major world exporter of many 
agricultural commodities. Although their share of GDP is small, agricultural activities are very 
important to the local economy in parts of the United States. Average t ariff protection to 
agriculture remains higher than protection accorded to non -agricultural goods. In 2016, the 
average tariff on agricultural products (WTO definition) was 9.1%, compared with 4% for 
non-agricultural products. The 2014 Farm Act introduced a number of substantial changes to 
the system of support to agricultural producers: it eliminated the direct payments to crop 
production and introduced several modifications to other support programmes. Some features 
of the 2014 Farm Act are : the Price Los s Coverage (PLC) programme, which provides 
payments on a share of historical base acres and yields when prices fall below reference price 
levels for covered crops; the Agricultural Risk Coverage (ARC) programme, which provides 
payments on a share of histor ical base acres and yields when revenue at the county or farm 
level for covered commodities falls below county -based or individual benchmark guarantees; 
the Supplemental Coverage Option (SCO), a supplementary area -based insurance policy; the 
Stacked Income  Protection P lan (STAX), an insurance plan for producers of upland cotton that 
can be purchased on its own or in conjunction with other crop insurance; and the Margin 
Protection Program for Dairy Producers (MPP -Dairy). Early data suggest that total payment s 
under the PLC and ARC programmes are not markedly different from past expenditures under 
discontinued programmes.  
22. The financial services industry has largely recovered from the financial crisis. The majority of 
financial institutions have repaid the mon ey that they received from the Government's 
Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) during the crisis. By the first quarter of 2016, only 16 WT/TPR/S/350 • United States  
 
- 12 - 
 
  banks remained under TARP, out of the 707 that received funds. During the review period, 
financial services reform con tinued under the provisions of the 2010 Dodd -Frank Wall Street 
Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the Dodd -Frank Act) and its related regulatory rules.  
The Act aims at promoting financial stability  and addressing "too big to fail" considerations . It 
estab lished a new and comprehensive regulatory framework and extended regulation over new 
markets, entities, and activities. In total, the Dodd -Frank Act mandated 390 rulemaking 
requirements by 20 regulatory agencies, a process that is still ongoing. As of July  2016, 274 of 
these 390 rulemakings had resulted in finalized rules, 36 rules had been proposed, and the 
remaining 80 of these statutorily mandated rules had yet to be proposed by financial services 
regulators.  
23. The United States had a trade surplus in tele communications, computer, and information 
services estimated at around US$9 billion in 2015. Since 2014, the penetration rates of mobile 
telecom services , including telephony and broadband , have exceeded 100%. In February 
2015, the Federal Communication Co mmission (FCC) adopted a new Open Internet Order, 
which reclassified both fixed and mobile broadband internet access services as 
telecommunications services. As a result, broadband internet access service providers are now 
subject to some of the same rules  that apply to common carriers, including a prohibition on 
unjust or unreasonable practices or unreasonable discrimination. The Open Internet Order 
prohibits blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization of internet traffic.  
24. The general framework for the t ransport sector in the United States remained largely 
unchanged during the period under review. The air transport industry consolidation continued, 
with the result that there are now four large carriers operating in the U.S. domestic passenger 
market; regi onal airlines are still actively negotiating merger deals. The United States 
maintains " open skies agreements" (OSAs) with nearly 120 countries; these OSAs cover issues 
of, inter alia, market access, pricing, and commercial opportunities , including code -sharing, 
self-handling, user charges, fair competition, and intermodal rights. Most U.S. public -use 
airports with commercial services are publicly owned, either by States or local governments, or 
by local authorities, although there are no legal or regulator y barriers to prevent airports from 
being privately owned. The United States offers grants for the planning and development of 
public -use airports through the Airport Improvement Program (AIP). The share of costs 
covered by grants from the AIP can be up to  93.75% of eligible costs for small primary and 
general aviation airports. Some Buy American provisions apply to airport infrastructure 
projects when they are financed under the AIP; however , discretionary waivers may be 
granted under certain conditions.  
25. In maritime transport, restrictions on cabotage of goods and passengers remain in place. 
Cargo and passenger services between two points in the United  States, either directly or via a 
foreign port, are reserved for ships that are registered and built in th e United  States and 
owned by a U.S. corporation, and on which 100% of the officers and 75% of the crew are U.S. 
citizens. As of 2  August  2016, 93 oceangoing, self -propelled, cargo -carrying vessels of 1,000 
gross tons and above were eligible for cabotage se rvices. Foreign -owned U.S.  companies may 
engage in cabotage if they comply with domestic employment conditions; they may also own 
and operate ships flying the U.S. flag in international service. Existing legislation also 
continues to provide cargo preferen ces for U.S -flagged vessels, such as the requirement that 
at least 50% of the gross tonnage of all government -generated cargo being transported by 
U.S.-flag vessels. However, preferences for transporting agricultural cargos under certain 
USDA and USAID for eign assistance programmes were revoked in  2012.  
 WT/TPR/S/350 • Unite d States  
 
- 13 - 
 
  1  ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT  
1.1  Recent Economic Developments  
1.1.1   Output, employment, and prices  
1.1.  The United States remains the largest single economy in the world. Its nominal GDP stood at 
US$18. 4 trillion during the second quarter of 2016. GDP per capita was nearly US$57,000 at that 
date, and disposable personal  income was US$ 42,976.1 The United States  is the world 's top 
importer , and the second leading exporter , of goods and services.  In addition, it  is the top 
destinat ion for global foreign direct investment (FDI).  Its economy is dominated by the services 
sector  (including government  services ), which accounts for some 80%  of GDP (Chart 1.1). 
Manufacturing  is also a significant contributor to domestic output, accounting for 12.1% of GDP in 
2015, and the country is the second -largest manufacturer in the world.   
Chart 1.1 Value added, by industry, 2015  
Chart 1.1
Value added by industry, 2015
Gross domestic product: US$17,947 billion
Source:  WTO Secretariat, based on Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) online information.Govt
12.9%Other services
13.9%Federal
4.1%
Educational, healthcare
8.3%Manufacturing
12.1%
Retail trade
5.8%Utilities
1.6%
Private industries
87.1%
Finance, insurance, 
real estate
20.3%State & local
8.9%Construction
4.0%
Professional & business 
services
12.2%Agri., forestry, 
fishing & hunting
1.1%Mining
1.7%
Wholesale trade
6.0%
 
Note:  GDP: US$17,947 billion.  
Source:  WTO Secretariat, based on Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) online information. Viewed at: 
http://www.bea.gov .  
1.2.  The U.S. economy benefits from its highly developed services sector (finance, transport , and 
telecommunications), its productive workforce, as we ll as its free market and business -friendly 
environment. In fact, it ranked seventh out of 189 economies in the World Bank's 2016 report on 
ease of doing business2, and third in the World Economic Forum's global competitiveness index.3  
1.3.  Due to expansionary  macroeconomic policy measures, mainly low interest rates and a 
significant stimulus package, worth over US$800 billion, the U.S. economy has largely recovered 
from the depth of the 2009 recession. How ever, despite this improvement,  challenges remain, 
such as deteriorating infrastructure and rising inequalities.4 
1.4.  Since 2014, the U.S. economy has remained on a moderate growth trajectory, as economic 
fundamentals continue to strengthen in general. The annual real GDP growth rate  stood at 2.4% 
                                                
1 Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) online information. Viewed at: 
http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?ReqID=9&step=1#reqid=9&step=3&isuri=1&903=58 . 
2 World Bank (2016), "Economy Profile 2016: United States", Doing Business 2016 . Viewed at: 
http://www.doingbusiness.org/data/exploreeconomies/united -
states/~/media/giawb/doing%20business/documents/profiles/country/USA.pdf . 
3 WEF online information. Viewed at http://reports.weforum.org/global -competitiveness -report -2015-
2016/competitiveness -rankings/ .  
4 IMF online information. Viewed at: https://www.imf.org/external/np/ms/2016/062216.htm .  WT/TPR/S/350 • United States  
 
- 14 - 
 
  in 2014 and 2.6%  in 2015, but slowed down to 0.8% in the first quarter of 2016 and 1.1% in the 
second quarter (Table  1.1). 
Table 1.1 Main economic indicators, 2010 -16 
 2010  2011  2012  2013  2014  2015  2016 
Q1 2016 
Q2 
GDP (curre nt US$ billion)  14,964  15,518  16,155  16,692  17,393  18,037  18,282  18,437  
Real GDP (chained 2009 US$  billion)  14,784  15,021  15,355  15,612  15,982  16,397  16,525  16,570  
Real GDP growth (%)  2.5 1.6 2.2 1.7 2.4 2.6 0.8 1.1 
GDP per capita (current US$)  48,302  49,710  51,370  52,688  54,484  56,066  56,557  56,937  
GDP by expenditure (as a % share)  
Personal consumption expenditures  68.2 68.9 68.4 68.1 68.2 68.1 68.4 68.9 
Goods  22.5 23.2 23.1 23.0 22.8 22.2 21.9 22.2 
Durable goods  7.2 7.3 7.4 7.4 7.4 7.5 7.5 7.5 
Non-durable goods  15.3 15.9 15.8 15.5 15.4 14.7 14.5 14.6 
Services  45.7 45.7 45.3 45.1 45.4 45.9 46.4 46.7 
Gross private domestic investment  14.0 14.4 15.5 16.2 16.6 16.9 16.6 16.1 
Fixed investment  13.6 14.2 15.2 15.7 16.2 16.4 16.4 16.2 
Non-residential  11.1 11.7 12.4 12.5 12.9 12.8 12.5 12.4 
Residential  2.5 2.5 2.7 3.1 3.3 3.6 3.8 3.8 
Change in private inventories  0.4 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.2 -0.1 
Net exports of goods and services  -3.4 -3.7 -3.5 -2.9 -2.9 -2.9 -2.8 -2.7 
Exports  12.4 13.6 13.6 13.6 13.7 12.6 11.9 12.0 
Goods  8.6 9.5 9.4 9.4 9.3 8.3 7.7 7.8 
Services  3.8 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.2 4.2 4.2 
Imports  15.8 17.3 17.1 16.6 16.6 15.4 14.7 14.7 
Goods  13.0 14.5 14.3 13.8 13.8 12.7 12.0 11.9 
Services  2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.7 2.7 2.7 
Government consumpti on 
expenditures and gross investment  21.2 20.4 19.6 18.7 18.1 17.8 17.8 17.7 
Federal  8.7 8.4 8.0 7.4 7.0 6.8 6.7 6.7 
State and local  12.5 12.0 11.6 11.3 11.1 11.1 11.1 11.0 
GDP by expenditure (real growth rates)  
Personal consumption expenditures  1.9 2.3 1.5 1.5 2.9 3.2 1.6 4.4 
Goods  3.4 3.1 2.7 3.1 3.9 4.0 1.2 7.1 
Durable goods  6.1 6.1 7.4 6.2 6.7 6.9 -0.6 9.9 
Non-durable goods  2.2 1.8 0.6 1.7 2.6 2.6 2.1 5.7 
Services  1.2 1.8 0.8 0.6 2.3 2.8 1.9 3.1 
Gross private domestic investment  12.9 5.2 10.5 6.1 4.5 5.0 -3.3 -9.7 
Fixed investment  1.5 6.3 9.8 5.0 5.5 4.0 -0.9 -2.5 
Non-residential  2.5 7.7 9.0 3.5 6.0 2.1 -3.4 -0.9 
Residential  -2.5 0.5 13.5 11.9 3.5 11.7 7.8 -7.7 
Change in private inventories  .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 
Net exports of goods and s ervices  .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 
Exports  11.9 6.9 3.4 3.5 4.3 0.1 -0.7 1.2 
Goods  14.4 6.5 3.6 3.1 4.4 -0.6 0.1 1.7 
Services  6.8 7.6 3.0 4.4 3.9 1.6 -2.2 0.1 
Imports  12.7 5.5 2.2 1.1 4.4 4.6 -0.6 0.3 
Goods  14.9 5.8 2.1 1.2 4.8 4.9 -1.3 0.0 
Services  3.8 4.0 3.0 0.6 2.6 2.9 2.5 1.4 
Government consumption 
expenditures and gross investment  0.1 -3.0 -1.9 -2.9 -0.9 1.8 1.6 -1.5 
Federal  4.4 -2.7 -1.9 -5.8 -2.5 0.0 -1.5 -0.3 
State and local  -2.7 -3.3 -1.9 -0.8 0.2 2.9 3.5 -2.2 
Federal Government revenue and  expenditure (US$ billion)  
Current receipts  2,443  2,574  2,699  3,138  3,288  3,453  3,443  3,470  
Current tax receipts  1,353  1,554  1,661  1,824  1,995  2,149  2,107  2,138  
Contributions for government 
social insurance  971 904 938 1,091  1,141  1,190  1,215  1,225  
Income receipts on assets  55 56 53 163 75 49 51 39 
Current transfer receipts  68 67 56 71 86 73 79 80 
Current surplus of government 
enterprises  -3 -7 -9 -11 -8 -7 -10 -12 
Current expenditures  3,772  3,818  3,789  3,782  3,901  4,023  4,111  4,137  
Consumption expe nditures  1,004  1,006  1,008  961 956 964 969 975 
Current transfer payments  2,333  2,327  2,301  2,346  2,449  2,565  2,630  2,632  
Interest payments  381 426 423 416 441 438 454 472 
Subsidies  54 60 58 59 56 56 58 59 
Net Federal Government saving  -1,329  -1,244  -1,090 -644 -613 -570 -668 -668 
Social insurance funds  -291 -271 -289 -291 -287 -305 -317 -323 
Other  -1,038  -973 -801 -353 -326 -265 -351 -345 
Addenda:          
Total receipts  2,458  2,584  2,713  3,159  3,307  3,474  3,463  3,491  
Total expenditures  3,967  3,981  3,907  3,859  3,968  4,054  4,178  4,171  
Net lending (+) or net borrowing ( -) -1,509  -1,397  -1,193  -700 -660 -580 -715 -680 
As share of current GDP (%)  -10.1 -9.0 -7.4 -4.2 -3.8 -3.2 -3.9 -3.7 
         
Public debt (US$ billion)a 9,019  10,128  11,281  11,983  12,780  13,117  .. .. WT/TPR/S/350 • Unite d States  
 
- 15 - 
 
   2010  2011  2012  2013  2014  2015  2016 
Q1 2016 
Q2 
As share of current GDP (%, fiscal 
year)  60.9 65.9 70.4 72.6 74.2 73.3 .. .. 
Prices          
Consumer price index (annual 
average, % change)  1.6 3.1 2.1 1.5 1.6 0.1 1.1 1.1 
Interest rates          
Federal funds rate, effective (%, 
annual average)  0.18 0.10 0.14 0.11 0.09 0.13 0.36 0.37 
Treasury note (%, annual average)  3.22 2.78 1.80 2.35 2.54 2.14 1.92 1.75 
Employment          
Total employment ('000)b 134,846  136,438  138,952  141,186  143,885  146,603  .. .. 
Employment in manufacturing  
('000)c 11,524  11,738  11,942  12,023  12,187  12,334  .. .. 
As share of total employment (%)  8.5 8.6 8.6 8.5 8.5 8.4 .. .. 
Unemployment rate (%)  9.6 8.9 8.1 7.4 6.2 5.3 4.9 4.9 
Trade to GDP ratio  21.7 24.1 24.0 23.4 23.2 21.1 .. .. 
.. Not availa ble. 
a  Fiscal year.  
b  Full-time and part -time employees.  
c  Estimates are based on the 2002 North American Industry Classification System (NAICS).  
Source:  WTO Secretariat, based on Bureau of Economic Analysis online information. Viewed at: 
http://www.bea.gov/ ; Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System online information. Viewed 
at: http://www.federalreserve.gov/econresdata/default.htm ; and Bur eau of Labor Statistics online 
information. Viewed at: http://www.bls.gov/ .  
1.5.  GDP growth has been somewhat uneven over time. Although GDP contracted  by 1.2% during 
the first quarter of 2014,  the economy g athered  momentum over the following quarter s, and 
annualized quarterly  growth rates remained positive through the second quarter of 2016 . GDP has 
increased at an average annual rate of 2.1% since the recovery  began in the second quarter 
of 2009. Personal consumption, which  accounts for over two thirds of GDP, continued to expand 
faster than GDP and remained the main driver of growth (Chart  1.2). GDP growth was given a 
boost particularly by the increase in expenditure in durable goods, which grew by over 6% in real 
terms in both 2014 and  2015.  
Chart 1.2 Contribution to percent change in real GDP, 20 10-16 
-4-20246810
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016Chart 1.2
Contributions to percent change in real GDP, 2010 -16
Source:(Percentage points)
WTO Secretariat, based on Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) online information. Viewed at: 
http//www.bea.gov.Personal consumption expenditures Gross private domestic investment
Total GDP growthExports of goods & services Imports of goods & services
Government consumption & gross investment
 
Source:  WTO Secretariat, based on B ureau of Economic Analysis online information. Viewed at: 
http://bea.gov/ . WT/TPR/S/350 • United States  
 
- 16 - 
 
  1.6.  Several factors explain the steady improvement in persona l consumption: increasing 
employment and g rowth in personal income, together  with falling energy prices, and low inflation 
in general, have  bolstered consumers' purchasing power. Fur thermore, in 2015, households' net 
wealth seems to have contributed to growth in consumer spending, as prices of houses posted 
significant gains. Low interest rates have also played a role as households' debt service burden has 
declined.5  
1.7.  Gross p rivate domestic investmen t, which represented 16.1% of GDP in 2015 , also expanded 
in both 2014 and 2015, at 4.5% and 5.0% respectively, on a year -over-year basis. 
Accommodative financing conditions, mainly low interest rates, continue d to be supportive of 
investmen t. However, private domestic investment contracted during the fourth quarter of 2015 
and the first two quarters of 2016. The decline in investment was partly due to inventory 
adjustment, and declines in both equipment and structures investment (both oil an d non -oil), and 
also reflected the continuing negative impact of lower crude oil prices on investment in the energy 
sector. Despite these declines, in early 2016, the Administration was expecting increased 
investment in the quarters ahead, due to strengthe ning consumer spending.  
1.8.  Net exports continue to make a low or negative contribution to GDP growth  (on an 
accounting basis). In 2014, this negative contribution was of 0.15 percentage points, rising to 
0.7 percentage points in 2015. This is mainly explained  by weak exports of goods and services, 
together with faster growing imports during the review perio d. Subdued export growth reflects 
weak global demand, together with the appreciation of the U.S. dollar . 
1.9.  Gross national savings as a whole remained broadly stable during the period under review, 
reaching 18.4% of gross national income in the first quarter of 2016, while the share of gross 
domestic investment in gross national income reached 23%, leading to a savings -investment gap 
of some 4.6% of gross nation al income.6 This gap is reflected in the deficit of the current accou nt 
of the balance of payments (including statistical discrepancies).  
1.10.   The employment situation continues to improve. Payroll employment rose by 2.3 million 
over the year 2015 and 15.0 mill ion since early 2010.  The unemployment rate declined from 9.6% 
in 2010 to 4.9% in July 2016 (Table  1.1).7 While an  aging population  has been pulling down  labour 
force participation  and will do so for another decade, the strength in employment growth has al so 
been pulling new entrants and re -entrants into the labour force during the past years.8  
1.11.   Inflation was below the Fed eral Reserve 's long -term objective of 2%  during the period 
under review . Low inflation has also contributed to stronger purchasing power to a certain extent. 
Headline inflation, measured by the price index for personal consumption expenditures, increased  
by 1.5% in 2014, before dropping to 0. 3% in 2015 . Prices picked up in 2016, with inflation 
reaching an annual rate of 0.3% in the first qu arter and 1.9 % in the second quarter . 
1.1.2   Fiscal  policy  
1.12.   During the review period, the authorities have had limited recourse to fiscal policy 
instruments. As a consequence, federal  fiscal policy has turned rather neutral. The President 's 
Fiscal Year 2017 (FY17 ) Budget includes proposed measures to drive down future deficits, while 
implementing policies to accelerate growth and expand opportunity. The President 's proposed 
policies would keep deficits below 3% of GDP while stabilizing debt and putting it on a dec lining 
path for the next decade.9 This fiscal result, made possible by health, tax, and immigration reform 
                                                
5 Federal Bank of New York (2016), Quarterly Report on Household Debt and Credit , February. Viewed 
at: https://www.newyorkfed.org/medialibrary/interactives/householdcredit/data/pdf/HHDC_2015Q4.pdf .  
6 BEA online information. Viewed at: 
http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?ReqID=9&step=1#reqid=9&step=3&isuri=1&903=137 .  
7 The unemployment rate stood at 10% in October 2009.  
8 For more details on labour force participation in the United States, see: Executive Offi ce of the 
President of the United States (2016), The Long -Term Decline in Prime -Age Male Labor Force Participation . 
Viewed at: https://www.whitehous e.gov/sites/default/files/page/files/20160620_cea_primeage_male_lfp.pdf .  
9 White House online information, "The President's Fiscal Year 2017 Budget". Viewed at: 
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2017/assets/fact_sheets/Investing%20in%20A
merican%20Infrastructure.pdf .  WT/TPR/S/350 • Unite d States  
 
- 17 - 
 
  and other proposals, is expected to be achieved even while investing in innovation, infrastructure, 
child care, preschool, post -secondary education, training, and pro -work tax cuts.10 
1.13.   Fiscal policy was contractionary during the previous review  period , as receipts grew more 
rapidly than expenditure, with the goal of reducing the deficit. A number of deficit -reduction 
measures  were applied , including spending cuts (under the Budget Control Act of 2011), an 
increase in taxes on top earners, as well as the ending of the temporary payroll tax holiday 
instituted as part of the Tax Relief, Unemployment Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010 . 
However, the  observed drag effect of government expenditures on GDP has  eased noticeably 
since 2014. Increased tax collection in the c ontext of positive GDP growth  was behind the faster 
growth of federal receipts as compared to expenditures in 2014 and 2015 . As a cons equence, the 
federal public deficit narrowed further to some 3. 2% of GDP  in 2015 (the lowest sin ce 2008), from 
4.2% in 2013 and 3. 8% in 2014 (Table 1.1).  
1.14.   Despite  the narrowing fiscal deficit, federal debt, in absolute value, grew by 2.6% from 
US$12.8 trill ion in 2014 to US$13.1 trillion in 2015; but as percentage of GDP, it fell slightly from 
74.2% to 73. 3%. 
1.15.   Fiscal uncertainties were reduced through the adoption of a number of measures.11 The 
Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 suspended the debt ceiling until Mar ch 2017 and avoided the risk of 
government shutdown by locking in appropriations f or 2016. It also raised  the caps on 
discretionary funding by US$50 billion in 2016 and by US$30 billion in 2017.  
1.16.   The Protecting Americans from Tax Hikes (PATH) Act of 2015  (PL 114-113, 
18 December  2015) includes several tax -related provisions.12 It ext ended or made permanent over 
50 separate provisions that had expired or were set to expire. The provisions made permanent  
include the enhanced child tax credit, the American Oppor tunity Tax Credit for college tuition, and 
the improvements introduced to the earned income tax credit (i.e. the expansion to larger families 
and removal of the marriage penalty). It also made the research and experimentation credit for 
corporations perman ent. 
1.17.   The Fixing America 's Surface Transportation Act of 2015 ( PL 114 –94, 4 December 2015)  
committed  US$305 billion to surfa ce transportation for the next succeeding four years and 
provide d some degree of stability to states in planning projects that are co -financed with federal 
resources.  
1.18.   As noted above, the President's Fiscal Year 2017 Budget aims to drive down future 
deficits .13 Policies aimed at trying to reduce the deficit are likely to continue. A r eport by the 
Congressional Budget Office (CBO) analysin g the President 's budget request for FY 2017 estimated 
that the federal budget deficit would decline in 2017 and 2018, but increase thereafter.14 Most of 
that deficit reduction would be achieved by raising revenues. In a report updating the budget and 
econom ic outlook, the CBO state d that, a s a percentage of o utput, the deficit would equal 3.2 % of 
GDP in 2016, drop to 3.1% in 2017 and 2.6% in 2018 , and then s tart increasing; it would 
                                                
10 For more on fostering innovation, see: Office of Science and Techno logy Policy (OSTP) online 
information. Viewed at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ostp/initiatives ; and OECD (2016), 
Economic Survey 2016 – United States , p. 36, T able 4. Viewed at: http://www.oecd.org/eco/surveys/United -
States -2016-overview.pdf . For more on proposals for infrastructure investment in the FY17 Budget, see: Office 
of Manag ement and Budget (OMB) online information. Viewed at: 
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budge t/fy2017/assets/fact_sheets/Investing%20in%20A
merican%20Infrastructure.pdf .  
11 IMF (2016), United States 2016 Article IV Consultation , Country Report No. 16/226. Viewed at: 
http://www .imf.org/external/pubs/ft/scr/2016/cr16226.pdf .  
12 U.S. House of Representatives online information. Viewed at: 
http://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20151214/121515.250_xml.pdf .  
13 White House online information, "The President's Fiscal Year 2017 Budget". Viewed at: 
https://www.whiteho use.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2017/assets/fact_sheets/Investing%20in%20A
merican%20Infrastructure.pdf .  
14 The CBO estimated that under the President 's proposals, the deficit would total US$529 billion 
in 2016, fall to US$433 billion in 2017, fal l further to US $383 billion in 2018, and then increase in most 
subsequent years, eventually growing to US$972 billion in 2026. The cumulative deficit over the 
2017-26 period would total US$6.9 trillion. See CBO (2016), An Analysis of the President 's 2017 Budget . 
Viewed at: https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/114th -congress -2015-2016/reports/51383 -APB.pdf . WT/TPR/S/350 • United States  
 
- 18 - 
 
  equal  4.6% of GDP in 2026.15 According to CBO estimates , federal d ebt held by  the public will 
amount to nearly 77 % of GDP by the end of 2016,  three percentage points higher than at the end 
of 2015 and  its highest ratio since 1950.16 
1.19.   If current laws generally remain unchanged , the deficit is projected to be 2.9% of GDP  
in 2016 throug h 2018 , rising  to close to 5% in 2026. Debt held by the public would also rise 
significantly from its already high level, reaching 86 % of GDP by 2026.17  
1.1.3   Monetary policy  
1.20.   The Federal Reserve is responsible for setting monetary policy in the United States . 
Legislation specifie s that, in conducting monetary policy, the Federal Reserve System and the 
Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) should seek "to promote effectively the goals of 
maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long -term interest rates" .18 The Federal 
Reserve adjusts the key  tools of monetary policy: open market operations, the discount rate, 
reserve requirements, and interest on reserves , in order to influence demand and supply 
conditions in the federal funds market and keep the federal funds  rate at the target rate 
established by the FOMC. Unlike some other central banks, the Federal Reserve does not set a 
specific inflation target.  However, the FOMC specifies  a longer -run goal for inflation , which has 
currently been determined to be 2% .19  
1.21.   Monetary policy continued  to be accommodative  throughout the review period, but the first 
steps toward monetary tightening occurred in late 2015 . Since late 2008, when the FOMC 
established a near -zero target range for the federal funds rate  in response to th e financial crisis, 
the Fed eral Reserve's monetary policy has been accommodative,  with forward guidance to 
communicate the anticipated future path of policy. In addition, the Federal Reserve  has employed  
unconventional monetary policy instruments, referred  to as quantitative easing, aimed at providing 
a further stimulus to the economy by purchasing large quantities of Treasury and direct obligations 
issued or fully  guaranteed by government sponsored enterprises. The Federal Reserve's approach 
to the impleme ntation of monetary policy has evolved considerably since the financial crisis, and 
particularly so since late 2008. From the end of 2008 through October 2014, the Federal Reserve 
greatly expanded its holding of longer -term securities through open market p urchases with the 
goal of putting downward pressure on longer -term interest rates and thus supporting economic 
activity and job creation by making financial conditions more accommodative.  
1.22.   In September 2014, the FOMC issued Policy Normalization Principles a nd Plans . It was 
decided that the FOMC would determine the timing and pace of policy normalization  – meaning 
steps to raise the federal funds rate and other short -term interest rates to more normal levels and 
to reduce the Federal  Reserve's securities hold ings – so as to promote its statutory mandate of 
maximum employment and price stability. During normalization, the Federal Reserve intends to : 
move the federal funds rate into the target range set by the FOMC primarily by adjusting the 
interest rate it pays on excess reserve balances , and use an overnight reverse repurchase 
agreement facility and other supplementary tools as needed to help control the federal funds rate. 
The FOMC intends to reduce the Federal Reserve's securities holdings in a gradual and p redictable 
manner primarily by ceasing to reinvest repayments of principal on securities. The FOMC intends 
that the Federal Reserve will, in the longer run, hold no more securities than necessary to 
implement monetary policy efficiently and effectively, an d that it will hold primarily Treasury 
securities . At the  March 2015 FOMC meeting, all participants agreed to provide additional details 
                                                
15 CBO (2016), An Update to the Budget and Econ omic Outlook: 2016 to 2026 . Viewed at: 
https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/114th -congress -2015-2016/reports/51908 -
2016_Outloo k_Update_OneCol -2.pdf.  
16 CBO (2016), An Update to the Budget and Economic Outlook: 2016 to 2026 . Viewed at: 
https://www.cbo.gov /sites/default/files/114th -congress -2015-2016/reports/51908 -
2016_Outlook_Update_OneCol -2.pdf.  
17 Further details available at CBO (2016) , Updated Budget Projections 2016 to 2026 . Viewed at: 
https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/114th -congress -2015-2016/reports/51384 -MarchBaseline_OneCol.pdf .  
18 Federal Reserve Board (undated), Purposes and Functions . Viewed at: 
http://www.federalreserve.gov/pf/pf.htm . 
19 Federal Reserve Board online information, Statement on Longer -Run Goals and Monetary Policy 
Strategy. Adopted effective January 24, 2012; as amended effective January 26, 2016 . Viewe d at: 
http://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/mpr_20160210_summary.htm .  WT/TPR/S/350 • Unite d States  
 
- 19 - 
 
  regarding the operational approach the FOMC intended to use , which included continuing  to target 
a range for the federa l funds rate that is 25 basis points wide.   
1.23.   The policy normalization process commenced in December 2015 . The  Federal Reserve 
decided to use overnight reverse repurchase agreements (ON RRPs)  as a supplementary policy 
tool, as necessary, to help control the federal funds rate and keep it in the target range set by the 
FOMC.20 In December 2015, the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC), the Federal Reserve's  
policy body, raised the target range for the federal funds rate by a quarter of a percentage point. 
This decision marked the first change in the policy rate in seven years, and it reflects the Federal 
Reserve's  outlook that the economy will improve further. However, the FOMC expects that 
economic conditions will warrant only gradual increases in the federal f unds rate.  
1.1.4   Balance of payments  
1.24.   The U.S. current account was in deficit  during the review period . The deficit in the current 
account of the balance of payments declined in 2013, but resumed its  increase in 2014. In  2015, it 
reached US$463 billion, or 2.6% of GDP , up from US$392 billion in 2014  (Table 1.2 and 
Chart  1.3). In the first half  of 2016, the current account deficit narrowed to  US$252 billion.  
Table 1.2 Current and capital accounts, 2010 -16 
(US$ billion)  
 2010  2011  2012  2013  2014  2015  2016a 
Current account                
Exports of goods and services and income receipts (credits)  2,631  2,988  3,097  3,215  3,339  3,173  1,536  
Exports of goods and services  1,854  2,127  2,219  2,293  2,377  2,261  1,085  
Goods  1,290 1,499  1,563  1,592  1,633  1,510  714 
General merchandise  1,272  1,464  1,525  1,558  1,610  1,489  706 
Non-monetary gold  18 35 37 34 23 21 8 
Services  563 628 656 701 743 751 370 
Primary income receipts  685 760 769 795 822 783 387 
Investment income  679 754 763 788 815 776 384 
Compensation of employees  6 6 6 7 7 7 4 
Secondary income (current transfer) receiptsb 92 101 109 127 140 129 64 
Imports of goods and services and income payments 
(debits)  3,073  3,448  3,544  3,581  3,731  3,636  1,788  
Imports of goods and services  2,348  2,676  2,756  2,755  2,867  2,762  1,335  
Goods  1,939  2,240  2,304  2,294  2,385  2,273  1,087  
General merchandise  1,924  2,222  2,285  2,276  2,370  2,260  1,078  
Nonmonetary gold  15 18 19 18 15 13 9 
Services  409 436 452 461 481 489 248 
Primary income p ayments  507 539 553 576 598 601 310 
Investment income  493 525 538 560 581 582 301 
Compensation of employees  14 14 15 16 17 18 9 
Secondary income (current transfer) paymentsb 217 234 235 250 266 274 142 
Capital account         
Capital transfer receipts and other credits  0 0 8 0 0 0 0 
Capital transfer payments and other debits  0 1 1 0 0 0 .. 
Financial account         
Net U.S. acquisition of financial assets excluding financial 
derivatives (net increase in assets / financial outflow (+))  963 496 178 651 823 225 354 
Direct investment assets  355 440 378 395 343 349 173 
Equity  343 402 322 337 341 316 181 
Debt instruments  12 39 56 58 2 32 -8 
Portfolio investment assets  200 85 249 481 583 154 53 
Equity and investment fund shares  79 7 104 287 432 203 71 
Debt securities  120 78 145 194 151 -49 -18 
Other investment assets  407 -45 -454 -221 -99 -271 128 
Currency and deposits  150 -89 -522 -127 -160 -194 49 
Loans  251 40 68 -104 67 -75 79 
Trade credit and advances  6 4 1 10 -6 -2 1 
Reserve assets  2 16 4 -3 -4 -6 -1 
Monetary gold  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
Special drawing rights  0 -2 0 0 0 0 0 
Reserve position in the International Monetary Fund  1 18 4 -3 -4 -6 -1 
Other reserve assets  1 0 0 0 0 0 0 
Net U.S. incurrence of liabilities excluding financial 
derivatives (net increase in liabilities/financial inflow (+))  1,386  977 625 1,045  1,056  395 469 
Direct investment liabilities  259 257 243 277 207 379 251 
Equity  203 185 204 201 112 301 206 
                                                
20 Federal Reserve Board online information. Viewed at: 
http://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/policy -normalization.htm .  WT/TPR/S/350 • United States  
 
- 20 - 
 
   2010  2011  2012  2013  2014  2015  2016a 
Debt instruments  56 72 39 76 95 78 45 
Portfolio investment liabilities  820 312 747 512 702 251 -22 
Equity and investment fund shares  179 123 239 -63 154 -178 -152 
Debt securities  641 188 508 575 548 429 130 
Other investment liabilities  307 408 -365 256 147 -235 240 
Currency and deposits  116 476 -246 203 60 33 52 
Loans  172 -85 -130 41 74 -283 178 
Trade credit and advances  19 17 12 11 14 14 11 
Special drawing rights allocations  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
Financial derivatives other than reserves, net transactionsc -14 -35 7 2 -54 -25 39 
Statistical discrepancyd 5 -54 -1 -24 105 268 175 
Balance on current account  -442 -460 -447 -366 -392 -463 -252 
Balance on goods and services  -495 -549 -537 -462 -490 -500 -250 
Balance on goods  -649 -741 -741 -702 -752 -763 -373 
Balance on service  154 192 204 240 262 262 123 
Balance on primary income  178 221 216 219 224 182 77 
Balance on secondary income  -125 -133 -126 -124 -126 -145 -78 
Net lending (+) or net borrowing ( -) from current - and 
capital -account transactionse -442 -462 -440 -367 -392 -463 -252 
Net lending (+) or net borrowing ( -) from finan cial-account 
transactionse -437 -516 -441 -391 -287 -195 -76 
.. Not available.  
a First semester.  
b Secondary income (current transfer) receipts and payments include U.S. government and private 
transfers, such as U.S. government grants and pensions, fines and penalties, withholding taxes, 
personal transfers (remittances), insurance -related transfers, and other current transfers.  
c Transactions for financial derivatives are only available as a net value equal to transactions for 
assets less transactions for liabilities. A positive value represents net U.S. cash payments arising 
from derivatives contracts, and a negative value represents net U.S. cash receipts.  
d The statistical discrepancy  is the difference between total debits and total credits recorded in t he 
current, capital, and financial accounts. In the current and capital accounts, credits and debits are 
labelled in the table. In the financial account, an acquisition of an asset or a repayment of a liability 
is a debit, and an incurrence of a liability or a disposal of an asset is a credit.  
e Net lending means that U.S. residents are net suppliers of funds to foreign residents, and net 
borrowing means the opposite. Net lending or net borrowing can be computed from current - and 
capital -account transaction s or from financial -account transactions. The two amounts differ by the 
statistical discrepancy.  
Source:  WTO Secretariat, based on Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) online information.  
Chart 1.3 U.S. current a ccount and net financial flows, 2006 -15 
-900-800-700-600-500-400-300-200-1000100200300
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Balance on current account Balance on goods Balance on services
Balance on income Unilateral current transfers, netChart 1.3
U.S. current account and net financial flows, 2006 -15
US$ billion
Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis.  Viewed at: http://www.bea.gov.
 
Source:  Bureau of Economic Analysis online information. Viewed at: http://www.bea.gov .  
1.25.   Both e xports and imports of goods and services expanded in 20 14 from the previous year, 
but declined in 2015 (Table 1.2). The decline in imports in 2015 reflects lower prices for oil and 
other commodities. Other i mports were boosted by the relatively strong p erformance of the 
U.S. economy. The larger  decline in exports than imports triggered an increase in t he trade deficit WT/TPR/S/350 • Unite d States  
 
- 21 - 
 
  on goods in 2015, to US$763  billion.  The surplus in services increased in 20 14, with export s 
growing faster than imports, and remained relatively stable in 2015.  
1.26.   The primary income ba lance remained in surplus in 201 4 and 2015. However , the surplus 
declined somewhat in  2015, as income receipts fell and income payments rose slightly. The 
surplus largely reflects higher  earnings o n U.S. direct investment abroad relative to foreign 
earnings on direct investment in the United State s. The secondary income balance was in deficit 
both in  2014 and 2015.  
1.27.   The deficit in the financial accounts declined in both 2014 and 2015 with respect to previous 
years. N et borrowing from  financial -account transactions fell from US$287 million in 2014 to  
US$195 million in 2015. This reflects a sharp decline in both net U.S. acquisition of assets and 
U.S. incurrence of liabilities, although the decline in liabilities was somewhat larger.  
1.28.   Chart  1.3 shows the time trajectory followed by the U.S. current acco unt balance in the last 
10 years. It shows that the deficit shrank considerably between 2006 and 2009, stabilized 
until 2012 and 2013 (when it was about  2% of GDP ), before deteriorati ng in  2014 and 2015, 
despite a reduction in  the oil trade deficit  (Chart 1.4). This reflects mainly an increasing 
merchandise trade deficit and a weakening income surplus . In addition, growth in the services 
trade surplus decelerated between 2014 and 2015.  
Chart 1.4 U.S. current a ccount and oil products trade, 2010 -16 
-150-100-50050
Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Balance on current account Balance on oil productsChart 1.4
U.S. current account and oil products trade, 2010Q1 -2016
US$ billion
Source:  Bureau of Economic Analysis.  Viewed at: http://www.bea.gov.
 
Source:  Bureau of Economic Analysis online information. Viewed at: http://www.bea.gov . 
1.2  Developments in Trade and Investment21 
1.2.1   Merchandise trade  
1.29.   Despite the upturn in the economy, im port performance has been somewhat erratic 
since 2012, with imports growing in 2012 and 2014 and declining in 2013 and 2015. Exports, on 
the other hand, grew steadily between 2012 and 2014, before declining in 2015 to below 2012 
levels.  
1.30.   U.S. e xports are hi ghly diversified, and are dominated by machinery, vehicles, chemicals, 
and refined petroleum products. Except f or petroleum products, whose share in total exports , 
according to Comtrade data,  dropped from 9.6% to 7.1% between 2014 and 2015, the relative 
distribution of exports, remained broadly unchanged during the rev iew period (Chart 1.5 and 
Table  A1.1).  
                                                
21 This section uses information provided by UNSD's Comtrade database.  WT/TPR/S/350 • United States  
 
- 22 - 
 
  Chart 1.5 Merchandise trade, by main HS sections, 2012 and 2015  
Chart 1.5
Merchandise trade by main HS sections, 2012 and 2015
2012 2015
(a)    Exports
Total: US$1,545 billion
(b)    Imports
Total: US$2,335 billion. Total: US$2,307 billion.
Source:   UNSD, Comtrade database.Total: US$1,504 billionBase metals
5.3%Other
25.5%
Precision 
instruments
5.5%Other
27.4%
Chemical 
products
7.6%Base metals
4.6%
Machinery & 
electrical 
equipment
25.0%
Base metals
5.3%Mineral 
products
18.9%
Misc. 
manufactures
3.4%
Machniery & 
electrical 
equipment
26.2%Other
19.0%
Precision 
instruments
3.3%Chemical 
products
8.6%
Base 
metals
5.3%Misc. 
manufactures
4.2%
Machinery & 
electrical 
equipment
28.7%Other
21.3%
Precision 
instruments
3.3%
Textiles
4.6%Mineral 
products
9.0%
Textiles
5.2%Mineral products
9.5%Mineral products
7.7%
Machinery & 
electrical 
equipment
24.4%Chemical 
products
10.8%
Plastics
4.9%Chemical 
products
10.5%
Precision 
instruments
5.7%Plastics
4.8%
Vehicles & 
transport 
equipment
9.7%Vehicles & 
transport 
equipment
9.7%
Vehicles & 
transport 
equipment
11.7%Vehicles & 
transport 
equipment
14.1%Vegetable 
products
4.6%Vegetable 
products
4.3%
 
Source:  UNSD, Comtrade database.  
1.31.   The Un ited States continues to export  primarily  to its traditional markets, led by Canada, 
the EU, and Mexico. Between 2012 and 2015, the share of the EU increased by 0.7  percentage 
points, while the combined relative market share of Mexico and Canada decreased roughly in the 
same range (Chart 1.6 and Table A1.3).  
1.32.   Imports are as diversified as exports. In addition, similarly to exports, the composition is 
dominated by manufactured products, which make up some 70% of the total. Machinery, transport 
equipment, and fuels constitute the main imported products (Chart 1.5 and Table A1.2). The 
relative importance of oil imports declined sharply between 2014 an d 2015, a trend that started 
in 2012, reflecting falling global oil prices, together with substantial increases i n domestic 
production.  WT/TPR/S/350 • Unite d States  
 
- 23 - 
 
  Chart 1.6 Merchandise trade, by main destination s and  origin s, 2012 and 2015  
Chart1.6
Merchandise trade by main origin ad destination, 2012 and 2015
2012 2015
(a)    Exports
Total: US$1,545 billion
(b)    Imports
Total: US$2,335 billion Total: US$2,307 billion
Source:   UNSD Comtrade database..Total: US$1,504 billionBrazil
2.8%Others
7.6%
Canada
18.9%
EU(28)
18.3%Other 
Americas
9.0%Japan
4.5%
Mexico
12.0%Americas
44.4%Canada
18.6%
Other 
Americas
8.0%China
7.7%Others
7.2%
Other Asia
15.7%
Americas
44.7%Other Asia
15.6%
Canada
14.0%
Other Americas
6.2%Japan
6.4%
EU(28)
16.7%Korea, 
Rep. of
2.6%
China
19.0%Other Asia
10.3%Others
9.6%Canada
13.0%
Mexico
12.9%
Other 
Americas
4.0%
EU(28)
18.9%Japan
5.8%
China
21.8%Other 
Asia
12.2%Others
4.8%
Americas
33.6%Americas
31.2%
Other 
Europe
1.7%Other 
Europe
2.0%Asia
38.4%Asia
43.1%Korea, Rep. of
3.2%Other Europe
2.8%Japan
4.2%
EU(28)
17.6%Brazil
2.1%
Brazil
1.4%Mexico
14.0%Mexico
15.7%
Brazil
1.2%China
7.2%
Other Europe
2.4%Europe
20.3%Asia
27.3%
Europe
20.7%Asia
27.6%
Europe
20.9%Europe
18.5%
 
Source:  UNSD, Comtrade database.  
1.33.   China, the EU, and Canada, the largest suppliers of goods to the U.S. mar ket, continue to 
consolidate their top importers status, and this trend has been steady since the previous review, 
concomitantly with the declining shares of the Middle East oil -producing countries (Chart  1.6 and 
Table A1.4).  
1.2.2   Trade in services  
1.34.   The United S tates is the world 's largest single -country cross-border exporter and importer 
of commercial services. Its trade surplus growth slightly weakened between 2014 and 2015. 
Contraction in exports of transport services, as well as charges for the use of intelle ctual proper ty WT/TPR/S/350 • United States  
 
- 24 - 
 
  has somewhat played a part in this (Table A1.5). Furthermore, faster growing services imports 
added to the weak er growth in the services trade surplus (Table 1.1).  
1.35.   Cross -border services trade categories consist  mainly of transport, travel, and finance and 
insurance (Table s A1.5 and A1.6). The U.S. trade balance continues to be negative in transport, 
communication, and computer and information services.  
1.36.   The EU is the top trade partner for U.S. commercial services (accounting for 30% of total  
U.S. commercial services exports in 201 5, and 35% of total imports). Canada, Japan, China, 
Switzerland, and Mexico are also important services trade partners for the United  States 
(Tables  A1.7 and A1.8).  
1.3  Foreign Direct Investment  
1.37.   The United States is the  largest single destination for cumulative foreign direct investment 
(FDI) stock in the world, with an inbound direct investment pos ition of US$3.1 trillion in 2015 .22 
Multiple factors  – including a favourable business environment, a large domestic market, a 
prominent innovative economy, strong protection of intellectual property, and a flexible, 
productive and skilled workforce  – attract investment to the United States. FDI includes the  
establishment by foreign firms of new operations, the purchase of exist ing operations of another 
company, or the provision of additional capi tal to existing U.S. operations.23 
1.38.   FDI inflow trends were  mixed during the period under review, notably impacted by a single 
large megadeal in 2014.  Inward investment flows fell between 2 013 and 2014, largely due to one 
single divestment , by Vodafone (United Kingdom) of its stake in Verizon Wireless (Uni ted States) 
for US$130  billion.  However,  in 2015, FDI inflows to the United States doubled, from 
US$171.6  billion to US$3 48.4 billion , putting the United States  back on top as the top destination 
for new FDI .24 Looking at the past decade of attraction of global FDI inflows , the United  States has 
been the top destination  in nine out of the past ten years. On a sectoral basis, manufacturing is 
the largest  recipient of FDI in the United States (Chart 1.7).  
Chart 1.7 FDI into the United States, 2008 -15 
-100-50050100150200250300350400
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Manufacturing Wholesale trade Banking and finance All othersChart 1.7
Foreign direct investment into the United States, 2008 -15
(US$ billion)
Source:   Bureau of Economic Analysis online information.  Viewed at: http://www.bea.gov/.
 
Source:  Bureau of Economic Analysis online information. Viewed at: http://www.bea.gov . 
1.39.   Collectively, t he EU remains by far the largest  investor into the United States, although its 
relative share  decreased slightly between 2012 and 201 5 as FDI inflows from other markets grew 
at a faster pace  (Chart  1.8). Japan and Can ada also hold large shares of FDI stock  in the 
United  States; their contributions rose  during the review period.  
                                                
22 BEA online information. Viewed at: http://www.bea.gov/international/di1fdibal.htm .  
23 Foreign direct investment in the United States (inward direct investment)  is defined as ownership by a 
foreign investor of at least 10% of a U.S. business. See BEA online  information, at: 
http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?ReqID=2&step=1#reqid=2&step=1&isuri=1 .  
24 BEA online information. Viewed at: http://www.bea.gov/international/di1fdibal.htm .  WT/TPR/S/350 • Unite d States  
 
- 25 - 
 
  Chart 1.8 Direct investment position on a historical -cost basis, by selected partners, 
2012 and  2015 
Chart 1.8
Direct investment position on a historical -cost basis, by selected 
partners, 2012 and 2015.
Inward
2012
Total: US$2,585 billion
Total: US$3,134 billion2015
Total: US$5,041 billion
Source:    WTO Secretariat, based on Bureau of Economic Analysis online information. Viewed at: 
http://www.bea.gov.Total: US$4,410 billionAustralia
2.0%
Australia
3.7%
Japan
11.7%EU(28)
50.0%
Canada
8.3%Bermuda
6.3%United Kingdom 
Islands, Caribbean
5.0%Japan
2.8%
Switzerland
8.2%Australia
1.3%
Canada
8.6%
Japan
13.1%EU(28)
59.5%Mexico
1.8%
Canada
7.0%EU(28)
53.1%
Bermuda
5.3%United Kingdom 
Islands, Caribbean
5.1%Australia
3.3%Switzerland
3.1%EU(28)
62.2%Switzerland
7.7%
Canada
8.3%Others
5.6%
Switzerland
2.8%Others
15.4%
Others
6.2% Others
14.5%Outward(% of total investment)
Singapore
3.3%
Singapore
4.5%United Kingdom 
Islands, Caribbean
2.6%
United Kingdom 
Islands, Caribbean
3.0%
Japan
2.2%Mexico
2.4%
 
Source:  WTO Secretariat, based on Bureau of Economic Analysis online information. Viewed at: 
http://www.bea.gov . 
1.40.   During the review period, the United States consolidated its position as the top global 
investor, as  outbound direct investment grew to US$5  trillion in 201 5 up from  US$4.4  trillion 
in 2012. The EU remained the top destination  for U.S. investment, receiving more than  half of 
total investments abroad (Chart 1.8).25 
1.41.   Services supplied by U.S. affiliates esta blished abroad, totalled US$1.32 trillion in 2013,  the 
last year for which information is available (Table A1.9).26 The main destination s were the EU(28) 
                                                
25 BEA online information. Viewed at: http://www.bea.gov/international/di1fdibal.htm .  
26 Although not considered ex actly FDI, services supplied by affiliates are directly related to it, since 
affiliates are a product of FDI.   WT/TPR/S/350 • United States  
 
- 26 - 
 
  countries, with 42. 3% of the total, followed by Canada , Japan, Switzerland and Singapore. 
Services supp lied by foreign affiliates in the United States,  totalled US$867.7 billion in 2013. The 
main providers were the EU(28) with 52% of the total, followed by Japan, Canada, Switzerland 
and Australia (Table A1.10).  
1.4  Outlook  
1.42.   Real GDP is expected to grow in 2016  and 2017 at a pace close to the current level, but 
would slow in 2018 to an annual rate of 2%. Supportive labour market conditions, improved 
business and household balance sheets, and monetary policy that is expected to remain 
accommodative would contribute  to this moderate growth.27  
1.43.   Due to a number of factors, including the recent pickup in wage growth, inflation is set to 
increase  in 2016, and is expected to rise further in 2017, before reaching a rate close t o the 
Federal Reserve 's 2% inflation goal  in 20 18. However, this forecast is subject to risks such as 
recent declines in energy prices, and an appreciating dollar.28  
1.44.   The IMF forecasts GDP growth rates of 2. 2% and 2.5% in 2016 and 2017 . This performance 
is expected to be supported by improvement on various fronts. These include the continued 
strengthening of household disposable income and balance sheets, recovering housing prices, and 
increasing residential investment, which are expected to contribute to household wealth gains. 
Among  global downside ris ks that may affect this outlook, the IMF cites  a further appreciation of 
the U.S. dollar, a decline in commodity prices, and a sudden rise in global risk aversion.29 
 
                                                
27 Federal Reserve online information. Viewed at 
https://www .federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/fomcprojtabl20160316.htm .  
28 Federal Reserve (2016), Monetary Policy Report , 10 February. Viewed at 
http://www.federalreserve.g ov/monetarypolicy/files/20160210_mprfullreport.pdf .  
29 IMF (2016), United States 2016 Article IV Consultation , Country Report No. 16/226. Viewed at: 
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/f t/scr/2016/cr16226.pdf .  WT/TPR/S/350 • Unite d States  
 
- 27 - 
 
  2  TRADE AND INVESTMENT  REGIME  
2.1  General Framework  
2.1.  There have been no major changes in the gen eral institutional and legal framework affecting 
trade policy formulation and implementation in the United States since its last Trade Policy Review 
in 2014. Under the U.S.  Constitution, Congress has the authority to regulate international trade by 
setting  and collecting taxes, duties, imposts and excises, while the Executive branch under the 
President has the authority to negotiate and conclude international agreements.1 Trade legislation 
is enacted in the same manner as other laws, i.e. through passage by  both Houses of Congress 
and approval by the President.  
2.2.  In the United States, international trade agreements are generally considered 
congressional -executive agreements requiring approval by majority vote in each House of 
Congress.2 To implement the inter national obligations arising from a trade agreement, an 
implementing bill for the agreement must be submitted to Congress and enacted into law. An 
implementing bill contains, inter alia , a provision approving the trade agreement, and provisions 
"necessary or appropriate to implement such trade agreement or agreements  (…) either repealing 
or amending existing laws or providing new statutory authority ".3  
2.3.  Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) is a legislative procedure enacted by Congress through 
which Congress def ines U.S. negotiating objectives and establishes consultation and notification 
requirements for the President to follow during trade negotiations. Where specific conditions have 
been met, legislation to implement a trade agreement would be subject to agree d-upon 
procedures for consideration by Congress. Under these procedures, implementing legislation would 
not be subject to amendment, and would be guaranteed a vote in both the House of 
Representatives and the Senate by date certain.  
2.4.  The TPA granted to the  Executive in 2002 expired on 1 July 2007, however it remained in 
effect for agreements that had been entered into before its expiration (the United States -Colombia 
Trade Promotion Agreement , the Free Trade Agreement between the United States of America and 
the Republic of Korea , and the Panama –U.S. Trade Promotion Agreement  until their passage in 
October 2011) . The Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priority Act of  2015 (Title I of Public Law 
(PL) 114–26), enacted on 29 June 2015, grants TPA to the Executive for trade agreements  entered 
into before 1 July 2018. This authority may be extended  to implementing bills submitted with 
respect to trade agreements  entered into after 30 June 2018, and before 1 July 2021, if the 
President requests such extension and  neither House of Congress adopts an extension  disappro val 
resolution before 1 July 2018.  
2.5.  Under the U.S. federal structure of government, state governments have considerable 
independent regulatory authori ty. Most public procurement and some services sectors, such as 
banking, insurance and professional services, are regulated at the state level. States may also 
adopt technical regulations and sanitary and phytosanitary measures.  
2.2  Trade Policy Objectives and Trade Policy Formulation  
2.2.1   Trade policy o bjectives  
2.6.  As stated in the President's 2016 Trade Policy Agenda, U.S. trade policy seeks to "promote 
growth, support well -paying jobs, and strengthen the middle class", with the intention to position 
the United States  as "the world's production platform". In order to achieve these objectives, the 
United States is actively engaged in negotiations within the WTO framework (e.g. towards an 
Environmental Goods Agreement (EGA)), as well as in regional or plurilateral settin gs 
(e.g. towards the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (T -TIP) and the Trade in 
Services  Agreement (TiSA)).  
                                                
1 The Constitution of the United States of America, Article I Section 8 and Article II, Section 2.  
2 On the other hand, a treaty requires approval by two -thirds of the Senate. A non -self-executing treaty 
requires implementing legi slation in order to become effective in the United States.  
3 Smith J.M., D.T.  Shedd, and B.J. Murrill (2013), Why Certain Trade Agreements are Approved as 
Congressional -Executive Agreements Rather Than Treaties , Congressional Research Service Report. Viewe d at: 
https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/97 -896.pdf . WT/TPR/S/350 • United States  
 
- 28 - 
 
  2.7.  The trade negotiating objectives of the United States are defined under the 2015 Trade 
Promotion Authority (Box 2.1). Among the specifi c negotiating objectives, the 2015 TPA lists four 
new issues, namely: state -owned and state -controlled enterprises (SOEs); localization barriers to 
trade; currency; and good governance, transparency, the effective operation of local regimes and 
the rule of  law of trading partners.  
Box 2.1 Trade negotiating objectives, 2015 TPA  
Thirteen  trade negotiating objectives of the United States are defined in the 2015 Trade Promotion Authority:  
i. to obtain more open, equita ble, and reciprocal market access;  
ii. to obtain the reduction or elimination of barriers and distortions that are directly related to trade and investment 
and that decrease market opportunities for U.S. exports or otherwise distort U.S.  trade;  
iii. to further st rengthen the system of international trade and investment disciplines and procedures, including 
dispute settlement;  
iv. to foster economic growth, raise living standards, enhance the competitiveness of the United States, promote full 
employment in the United States, and enhance the global economy;  
v. to ensure that trade and environmental policies are mutually supportive and to seek to protect and preserve the 
environment and enhance the international means of doing so, while optimizing the use of the world's re sources;  
vi. to promote respect for worker rights and the rights of children consistent with core labour standards of the ILO 
(as set out in Section 111(7)) and an understanding of the relationship between trade and worker rights;  
vii. to seek provisions in trade agreements under which parties to those agreements ensure that they do not weaken 
or reduce the protections afforded in domestic environmental and labour laws as an encouragement for trade;  
viii. to ensure that trade agreements afford small businesses equal acc ess to international markets, equitable trade 
benefits, and expanded export market opportunities, and provide for the reduction or elimination of trade and 
investment barriers that disproportionately impact small businesses;  
ix. to promote universal ratificat ion of and full compliance with ILO Convention No. 182 Concerning the Prohibition 
and Immediate Action for the Elimination of the Worst Forms of Child Labour;  
x. to ensure that trade agreements reflect and facilitate the increasingly interrelated, multi -sectoral nature of trade 
and investment activity;  
xi. to recognize the growing significance of the Internet as a trading platform in international commerce;  
xii. to take into account other legitimate United States domestic objectives, including, but not limited to, t he 
protection of legitimate health or safety, essential security, and consumer interests, and the law and regulations 
related thereto; and  
xiii. to take into account conditions relating to religious freedom of any party to negotiations for a trade agreement 
with the United States.  
Source:  WTO Secretariat, based on the Bipartisan Congressional Trade Prior ities and Accountability Act 
of 2015 (PL 114 -26, Title I, Section 102). Viewed at:  
https://www.congress.gov/114/plaws/publ26/PLAW -114publ26.pdf .  
2.8.  The 2015 TPA updates other specific negotiating objectives from earlier TPAs. Electronic 
commerce becomes digital trade in goods and services and cross -border data flows. On trade in 
goods, new  language was added to take into account and encourage the utilization of global value 
chains. Regarding trade in services, the specific negotiating objective calls for liberalization 
through all means, including a plurilateral agreement. In the agricultur e sector, the United  States 
aims at establishing additional disciplines on the use of SPS measures and geographical indications 
(GIs).4 The 2015 TPA also covers transparency in the use of tariff -rate quotas (TRQs).  
2.2.2   Trade policy formulation  
2.9.  The mechanism fo r trade policy formulation in the United States remains largely unchanged. 
The 2015 TPA enhances transparency by expanding the scope of notification and consultation 
requirements for proposed negotiations.  
2.10.   In Congress, the House Committee on Ways and Mean s and the Senate Finance Committee 
are the leading committees with respect to the formulation of trade policies, working together with 
other committees that may have jurisdiction over laws affecting trade. The 2015 TPA foresees the 
replacement of the Congr essional Oversight Group (COG) with the  Congressional Advisory Groups 
on Negotiations (CAGs).5 CAGs include a House Advisory Group on Negotiations (HAG), chaired by 
                                                
4 The United States considers improper use of SPS measures and GIs to be impediments to its exports.  
5 PL 114 –26 Title I, Section 104. Viewed at:  https://www.congress.gov/114/plaws/publ26/PLAW -
114publ26.pdf . The Congressional Oversight Group (COG) was established in 2002 by the Trade Act of 2002 as 
a bipartisan coordinatin g group to oversee trade policies in Congress.  WT/TPR/S/350 • Unite d States  
 
- 29 - 
 
  the Ways and Means Committee, and a Senate Advisory Group on Negotiations (SAG), chaired by  
the Finance Committee.  
2.11.   The Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) is the Executive Branch's main 
agency on trade policy matters. USTR is headed by the United States Trade Representative, who is 
the President's chief advisor, negotiator an d spokesperson on trade issues.6 USTR is responsible 
for developing and coordinating U.S.  international trade, commodity, and direct investment policy, 
and for overseeing negotiations with other countries.7  
2.12.   Consultations between executive agencies on trad e policy matters take place through the 
Trade Policy Review Group (TPRG) and the Trade Policy Staff Committee (TPSC). The TPRG and 
the TPSC are both administered and chaired by the USTR, and composed of 21 federal agencies 
and offices including the Departm ents of Agriculture, Commerce, Labour, State, and the Treasury.8 
The TPSC is the primary avenue of interagency coordination, with more than 90  subcommittees 
supporting its functions in speciali zed areas and on particular issues. Should the TPSC be unable t o 
reach an agreement or if a policy question is considered of great significance, the TPRG (at the 
Deputy USTR/Under Secretary level) will take over the issue. The National Economic Council 
(NEC), chaired by the President, is the top tier of the interagenc y trade policy coordination 
mechanism. The NEC considers memoranda from the TPRG as well as other important or possibly 
controversial trade -related issues.  
2.13.   A trade advisory committee system channels input from U.S. public and private sector 
interests on tr ade policy and trade negotiating objectives.9 Advisory committee members 
represent the full span of interests including: manufacturing; agriculture; digital trade; intellectual 
property; services; small businesses; labour; environmental, consumer, and publ ic health 
organizations; and state and local government. The system includes three tiers: (i) the President's 
Advisory Committee for Trade Policy and Negotiations (ACTPN); (ii) five policy advisory 
committees covering policy issues concerning  agriculture, Africa, state and local government, 
labour, and environment; and (iii) 22 technical and sectoral advisory committees organi zed by two 
areas (i.e. agriculture and industry ) (Table A2. 1). The trade advisory committees provide  
information and advice on U.S.  negotiating objectives, the operation of trade agreements, and 
other matters arising in connection with the development, implementation, and administration of 
U.S. trade policy. Each advisory committee is required to produce a report at the conclusion of 
negotiations for each trade agreement, and the reports are made available to the public on the 
USTR website.  
2.14.   Workers, firms and farmers adversely affected by trade are eligible for benefits under the 
Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) Program . The TAA was re authorized for a six -year period by 
the Trade Adjustment Assistance Reauthorization Act of 2015 (Title IV of PL 114 -27, 
29 June 2015), and entered into force in June 2015. The reauthorized TAA Program  for workers 
was expanded, inter alia, to include servic e-sector workers and workers whose jobs were 
adversely affected by trade with non -FTA partners of the United States (Section 3.3.2). TAA 
expenditures could potentially total around US$3.2 billion from 2015 through 2021, based on 2015 
expenditures which wer e US$507 million for workers and US$20 million for firms .  
2.3  Trade Agreements and Arrangements  
2.3.1   WTO  
2.15.   The United States has a steadfast commitment to the multilateral trading system, and 
endeavours to "continue to take a leadership role at the WTO, working to e nsure that trade makes 
a powerful contribution in expanding the global economy".10 The United States views the  Nairobi  
                                                
6 USTR online information, "Mission of the USTR". Viewed at: https://ustr.gov/about -us/about -ustr. 
7 USTR online information, "Mission of the USTR". Viewed at: https://ustr.gov/about -us/about -ustr. 
8 USTR online information, "Executive Branch Agencies on the Trade Policy Staff Committee and the 
Trade Policy Review Group". Viewed at: https://ustr.gov/about -us/executive -branch -agencies -trade -policy -
staff-committee -and-trade -policy -review -group . 
9 The trade advisory committee system was  established by Congress under the Trade Act of 1974.  
10 USTR (2016), The President's 2016 Trade Policy Agenda and 2015 Annual Report on the Trade 
Agreements Progam , Chapter II. Viewed at: 
https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/files/reports/2016/AP/2016%20AR%20Chapter%202.pdf . WT/TPR/S/350 • United States  
 
- 30 - 
 
  Ministerial Conference as a "turning point for the WTO", and, going forward, it "expects to work 
with other ready WTO Members to identify specific opportunities to negotiate meaningful 
agreements in the WTO in an effort to move beyond the Doha Development Agenda".11 The 
United  States attaches great importance to sustaining and enhancing the WTO's critical role in 
transparency, including monit oring.  
2.16.   The United States is an original Member of the WTO. It is a contracting party to the 
Agreement on Government Procurement (GPA), a participant in the expanded Information 
Technology Agreement (ITA), and a signatory to the Agreement on Trade in Civil  Aircraft. The 
United States deposited its instrument of acceptance of the Trade Facilitation Agreement (TFA) to 
the WTO  in January 2015.12 The trade policies of the United States have been reviewed 12 times; 
the last TPR took place in 2014.  
2.17.   The United Stat es submitted numerous notifications during the period under review, 
covering, inter alia , agriculture, trade remedies, and technical regulations. It has also provided a 
number of supplements and addenda, providing further information on previously notified  
measures ( Table A2.2 ).  
2.18.   During the review period, the United States was involved in five new dispute settlement 
cases as a respondent, and in two new cases as a complainant, under the WTO Dispute Settlement 
Mechanism ( Table A2.3 ). In addition, the United States was a third party in seven new cases.  
2.3.2   Preferential agreements  
2.3.2.1   Reciprocal agreements  
2.19.   The United States maintains free trade agreements (FTAs) with 20 countries; all 
agreements (except the U.S. -Israel FTA) cover both goods and services (Table 2.1). Al l U.S. FTAs 
have been notified to and considered in the WTO Committee on Regional Trade Agreements.  
Table 2.1 Free trade agreements in force, July 2016  
RTA name Coverage  Date of entry into force  Date of notifi cation  
US – Israel  Goods  19-Aug-85 13-Sep-85 
North American Free Trade 
Agreement (NAFTA)  Goods & services  01-Jan-94 29-Jan-93(goods ) 
01-Mar-95(services ) 
US – Jordan  Goods & services  17-Dec-01 15-Jan-02 
US – Chile Goods & services  01-Jan-04 16-Dec-03 
US – Singapore  Goods & services  01-Jan-04 17-Dec-03 
US – Australia  Goods & services  01-Jan-05 22-Dec-04 
US – Morocco  Goods & services  01-Jan-06 30-Dec-05 
Dominican Republic - Central 
America – United  States Free 
Trade Agreement (CAFTA -DR) Goods & service s 01-Mar-06 01-Mar-06 (SLV);  
01-Apr-06 (HND, NIC);  
01-Jul-06 (GTM);  
01-Mar-07 (DOM);  
01-Jan-09 (CRI)  
US – Bahrain  Goods & services  01-Aug-06 08-Sep-06 
US – Oman  Goods & services  01-Jan-09 30-Jan-09 
US – Peru Goods & services  01-Feb-09 03-Feb-09 
US - Korea, Rep. of  Goods & services  15-Mar-12 15-Mar-12 
US – Colombia  Goods & services  15-May-12 08-May-12 
US – Panama  Goods & services  31-Oct-12 29-Oct-12 
Source:  WTO Regional Trade Agreements Information System (RTA -IS). 
2.20.   The United States and 11 other parti es signed the Trans -Pacific Partnership (TPP) 
Agreement  on 4 February 2016 .13 The TPP Agreement has 30  chapters covering, inter alia , market 
                                                
11 USTR (2016), The President's 2016 Trade Policy Agenda and 2015 Annual Report on the Trade 
Agreements Progam , Chapter II. Viewed at:  https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/2016 -AR-Compiled -FINAL.pdf . 
12 WTO document, WT/LET/1029, 28 January 2015; and USTR Press Release. Viewed at: 
https://ustr.gov/about -us/policy -offices/press -office/press -releases/2015/january/united -states -takes -final-
step. 
13 The parties to the Trans -Pacific Partner ship Agreement are Australia, Brunei  Darussalam, Canada, 
Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the United States, and Viet Nam.  WT/TPR/S/350 • Unite d States  
 
- 31 - 
 
  access for goods and services, rules of origin, SPS and TBT issues, investment, government 
procurement, intellectual  property rights, labour, and the environment. Several provisions are 
"new" in the sense that they have not been included in other U.S. FTAs, such as provisions on 
state-owned enterprises (SOEs), environmental conservation, biologic drugs,  regulatory 
coher ence, capacity -building, competitiveness, and small -and-medium -sized enterprises (SMEs).  
2.21.   TPP provisions on trade in goods accord transition periods for tariff reductions that differ 
from one participant to the other. Upon entry into force, the United State s is expected to provide  
for immediate duty -free treatment for all partners on nearly 75% of all tariff lines, with almost all 
tariffs for all TPP partners phased out within 10 years. The maximum transition period for the 
United States is 30 years (for lig ht trucks from Japan). TPP also provides transitional safeguards 
that permit a part y to implement measures against one or several parties during the transition 
period. TPP provisions on anti -dumping, countervailing dut y, SPS, and TBT measures are largely 
aligned with WTO rules. TPP parties do not have recourse to TPP dispute settlement if they allege a 
violation only of the provisions of the WTO TBT Agreement that have been incorporated into the 
TPP. 
2.22.   Trade in services is liberalized according to a negative -list approach. The e -commerce 
chapter contains a notable development with its extensive section on cross -border transfer of 
information (e.g. cloud services), and specific provisions addressing issues such as data storage 
location, prohibitions on cross -border data flows, and the forced sharing of software codes with 
Governments. Trade in services through commercial presence is primarily covered in the 
investment chapter.  
2.23.   The TPP's investment chapter is similar in many aspects to the investment chapters of  other 
FTAs recently signed by the United States. The chapter contains provisions on national and MFN 
treatment, the minimum standard treatment, expropriation and compensation, and transfers. The 
chapter broadens the scope of prohibited investment performa nce requirements compared with 
prior U.S. FTAs, including new rules on technology localization and royalty agreements. The 
chapter provides for investor -State dispute settlement (ISDS), and the agreement's general 
State-to-State dispute settlement procedur es also apply. The chapter includes significant new 
clarifications and safeguards designed to protect the right of Governments to regulate in the public 
interest and to prevent abuse of the dispute settlement process.  
2.24.   Negotiations between the United States  and the European Union (EU) on the Trans -Atlantic 
Trade and Investment Partnership (T -TIP) are ongoing. The President's 2016 Trade Policy Agenda 
sets out TPP implementation and conclusion of the T -TIP negotiations as U.S. trade policy 
priorities.  
2.3.2.2   Unilate ral preferences  
2.25.   The United States continues to grant unilateral preferences under the Generalized System of 
Preferences (GSP), the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), and the Caribbean Basin 
Initiative (CBI). The U.S. authorities may link these unil ateral preferences to adherence to criteria 
they consider promote sound policies and expand trade and investment with the beneficiary 
countries. Congress reauthorized GSP and AGOA in June 2015 under the Trade Preferences  
Extension Act of 2015 (P L 114 -27).14 
2.26.   The United States also provides duty -free treatment to goods originating in U.S. insular 
possessions, freely associated states, and the West Bank and Gaza Strip (including qualified 
industrial zones ). There have been no changes in these arrangements since  the last TPR in 2014.  
2.27.   The Andean Trade Promotion and Drug Eradication Act (ATPDEA) expired on 31 July 2013.15 
Ecuador, which was the remaining beneficiary under the ATPDEA continues to receive preferential 
treatment under the GSP (see below).  
                                                
14 More specifically, Title I of the Act, known as the Extension of African Growth and Opportunity Act, 
extended the preferences for AGOA, while Title II, the Extension of Generalized System of Preferences Act, 
extended the GSP. See: https://www.congress.gov/114/plaws/publ27/PLAW -114publ27.pdf .  
15 U.S. International Trade Administration online information. Viewed at: 
http://web.ita.doc.gov/tacgi/eamain. nsf/6e1600e39721316c852570ab0056f719/53018ab5e2d8426a85257394
0049684c?OpenDocument . WT/TPR/S/350 • United States  
 
- 32 - 
 
  2.3.2.2.1   Generalized  system of preference (GSP)  
2.28.   Under the GSP program me, the United States grants duty -free treatment to certain 
products originating in least developed countries (LDCs) and eligible developing countries. The GSP 
program me was established by the Trade Act of 1 974, and requires periodical reauthorization by 
Congress. GSP expired on 31 July 2013, and was reauthorized retroactive to the date of expiration 
on 29  June 2015 by PL 114 -27. The authorization is valid until 31 December 2017.16 GSP currently 
covers 4,986 t ariff lines at the 8 -digit level, of which 1,490 are reserved only for least developed 
beneficiary developing countries;  there are 122 beneficiary trading partners. Imports into the 
United States under the GSP scheme reached US$17.7 billion in 2015, or 0.8 % of total 
U.S. imports.  
2.29.   The GSP Subcommittee of the TPSC, chaired by USTR, is responsible for the annual review 
of eligible goods and countries entitled to GSP treatment. The GSP statute (19  U.S.C. 2462 (b)) 
lays down the criteria for being a beneficiary.  The list of beneficiaries is reviewed periodically. Any 
person may submit a petition to the GSP Subcommittee requesting modifications to the list. Under 
the Active GSP Country Practice Review, preferences to Bangladesh have been suspended since 
3 Septembe r 2013 pending a review of workers' rights.17 A benefici ary is graduated from GSP, 
i.e. removed from the list of U.S. beneficiaries, when the World Bank deems the recipient to be a 
"high income country". Three countries, i.e. Seychelles, Uruguay, and Venezu ela (Bolivarian 
Republic of), will cease to be GSP beneficiaries from 1 January 2017 according to the income 
criterion.18 
2.30.   The GSP Subcommittee reviews and amends the list of goods eligible for GSP treatment 
annually on its own initiative or following petiti ons. Only interested parties may submit petitions to 
modify the GSP product list.19 During the period under review, certain cotton, cotton products and 
travel and luggage goods made in LDCs20 have been added to the preferential list.21 
The 2015/16  review resu lted in removal from the list of fluorescent brightening agents and PET 
resin originating in India.22  
2.31.   The GSP statute includes a "competitive need limitation" (CNL) whereby a particular product 
from a GSP beneficiary may no longer have preferential access once imports exceed a certain 
level, and hence may be considered to be competitive. The GSP statutes  require termination of 
GSP benefits for products from specified beneficiaries if those products  account for 50 % or more of 
the value of total U.S. imports of that product, or  exceed a certain dollar value , which is 
US$175  million for 2016.23 The CNL provisions do not apply to LDCs or to beneficiaries under the 
AGOA (see below). The removal from GSP eligibility of imports in excess of the CNL will proceed 
unless a CNL waiver is granted.24 A product may be reinstated for GSP eligibility, at the discretion 
of the President, if imports fall again below the CNL level. Four products were reinstated following 
the 2014/15 product review, including oilcake and other sol id residues from Ukraine and insulated 
ignition wiring sets from Indonesia. No products were re -designated in the 2015/16 Annual 
Review.  
                                                
16 GSP, as reauthorized by the Extension of Generalized System of Preferences Act), permits retroactive 
extension of GSP benefits for eligible goods having entered the U.S.  between 31 July 2013 and 29  July 2015. 
Viewed at: https://www.congress.gov/114/plaws/publ27/PLAW -114publ27.pdf .  
17 USTR online information, "Outcomes of the 2015/2016 GSP Annual Review". Viewed at: 
https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/Outcomes -2015-2016-GSP-Annual -Review.pdf . 
18 Presidential Proclamation 9333, 30 September 2015.  
19 An inter ested party is any party with a significant economic interest in the subject matter of the 
request, or any other party representing a significant economic interest that would be materially affected by 
the action requested, such as a domestic producer of a like or directly competitive article, a commercial 
importer or retailer of an article eligible for GSP or for which GSP eligibility is requested, or a foreign 
government.  
20 AGOA beneficiaries are also accorded preferences for such travel and luggage goods.  
21 USTR online information, "Results of the 2014/2015 GSP Limited Product Review" and "Outcomes of 
the 2015/2016 GSP Annual Review". Viewed at: https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/Results -of-the-2014-2015-
GSP-Limited -Product -Review.pdf , and https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/Outcomes -2015-2016-GSP-Annual -
Review.pdf . 
22 USTR online information, "Outcomes of the 2015/2016 GSP Annual Review". Viewed at: 
https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/Outcomes -2015-2016-GSP-Annual -Review.pdf . 
23 The dollar -value limit is increased by US$5 million each year.  
24 Interested parties anticipating increased imports may submit petitions to the GSP Subcommittee for a 
CNL waiver to maintain GSP preferences. CNL waivers, of which there are th ree types (petitioned, 504(d), and 
de minimis),  must be sought before imports reach the trigger level.  WT/TPR/S/350 • Unite d States  
 
- 33 - 
 
  2.32.   The rules of origin under the U.S. GSP program me remain unchanged since the last TPR. 
Products must contain at least 35 % value added in the beneficiary countries, and imported inputs 
in eligible products must undergo double substantial transformation. Countries belonging to a 
GSP-eligible regional association may request the cumulation of value added. The U.S. GSP 
program me recognizes six regional associations at present, namely the Andean Group, ASEAN25, 
CARICOM, SAARC, SADC, and WAEMU. GSP eligible goods must satisfy a "direct import" 
requirement to maintain preferences.  
2.33.   India, Thailand, Brazil, Indonesia, and the Philippi nes were the leading exporters to the 
United States under the GSP program me in 2015. The main GSP items (by import value) were 
motor vehicle parts, ferroalloys, monumental or building stone, precious metal jewellery, and 
electric motors and generators.26  
2.3.2.2.2   African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA)  
2.34.   The United States continues to provide duty -free, quota -free preferences to eligible 
sub-Saharan African countries under AGOA. AGOA was renewed on 29 June 2015 and is authorized 
until 30 September 2025.27 The renewed  AGOA provides additional tools to support compliance 
with the AGOA eligibility criteria, including by providing greater flexibility to withdraw, suspend, or 
limit benefits under the program me if it is determined that such action would be more effective 
than termination of AGOA eligibility. The renewed AGOA was also enhanced by promoting greater 
regional integration by expanding rule of origin and encouraging AGOA beneficiary countries to 
develop AGOA utilization strategies.  
2.35.   A country must be eligible for GSP treatment and meet other criteria laid down in the Act to 
be a qualified AGOA beneficiary.28 AGOA requires the President to make an annual determination 
of which countries will be eligible for AGOA in the following year and therefore the list of AGOA 
beneficiaries is revised annually. During the period under review, The Gambia, South Sudan, and 
Swaziland were no longer AGOA eligible as of 1 January 201529, and Burundi since 
1 January  2016.30 There are 38 AGOA beneficiary countries in  2016.31  
2.36.   AGOA preferenc es cover around 6,800 tariff lines, including all lines under the GSP scheme 
and more than 1,800 additional tariff lines. Notably, these additional lines include textile and 
apparel items. AGOA rules of origin are generally similar to GSP rules of origin. The textile 
provisions in AGOA apply specific apparel rules of origin.  
2.37.   In 2015, imports from Sub -Saharan African countries amounted to US$9. 3 billion  under 
AGOA (and GSP) preferences . Non-oil imports from AGOA beneficiaries reached US$4. 1 billion, up 
from US$1.4 billion in 2001. The leading AGOA exporters were South Africa, Angola, Chad, Nigeria, 
and Kenya.32  
2.3.2.2.3   Caribbean Basin Initiative (CBI)  
2.38.   The United States provides duty -free treatment to eligible products from Caribbean 
countries through the Caribbean Ba sin Initiative (CBI). The CBI comprises, inter alia,  the 
Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act (CBERA) and the Caribbean Basin Trade Partnership Act 
(CBTPA) . CBERA covers 17 beneficiar ies at present, of which eight are also beneficiaries under 
CBTPA.33 
                                                
25 The eligible members of ASEAN are Cambodia, Indonesia, the Philippines, and Thailand.  
26 USTR online information, "GSP by the Numbers". Viewed at: 
https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/GSP%20by%20the%20numbers_1.pdf . 
27 AGOA was extended by the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015.  
28 Not all GSP beneficiary countries in S ub-Saharan Africa are eligible for AGOA. Examples include Sudan 
and Zimbabwe.  
29 USTR online press releases. Viewed at: https://ustr.gov/about -us/policy -offices/press -office/press -
releases/2014/June/President -Obama -removes -Swaziland -reinstates -Madagascar -for-AGOA -Benefits . 
30 The White House online information. Viewed at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the -press -
office/2015/10/30/message -congress -notification -congress -agoa-program -change . 
31 USTR (2016), 2016 Biennial Rep ort on the Implementation of the African Growth and Opportunity Act , 
Appendix 1. Viewed at: https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/2016 -AGOA -Implementation -Report.pdf . 
32 USTR (2016), 2016 Biennial Report on the Implementation of the African Growth and Opportunity Act . 
Viewed at: https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/2016 -AGOA -Implementa tion-Report.pdf . 
33 CBI beneficiaries are: Antigua and Barbuda, Aruba, the Bahamas, Barbados, British Virgin Islands, 
Curaçao, Dominica, Grenada, Guyana, Haiti, Jamaica, Montserrat, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, WT/TPR/S/350 • United States  
 
- 34 - 
 
  2.39.   The Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015 modified CBERA to extend trade preferences 
for Haiti granted under the Haitian Hemispheric Opportunity through  Partnership Encouragement 
Act of 2006 , to 30 September 2025 . CBERA has no expiry date . CBTPA entered into  force on 
1 October 2000, and is set to expire on 30  September 2020  at the latest.34 
2.4  Investment regime  
2.40.   The foreign investment regime in the United States remained unchanged during the period 
under review. The regime is generally open and liberal, although s ome restrictions apply, primarily 
for prudential or national security reasons ( Table 2.2 ). Restrictions on foreign ownership principally 
apply in specific areas such as: atomic energy operations; oil pipeline ri ght of way; the mining of 
coal and certain mi nerals, or petroleum exploration; and certain  fishing operations. The 
United  States accords national treatment to foreign investment as a general rule; notable 
limitations include eligibility for public funding of research and development (R&D), emergency 
loans to agriculture, and loans, guarantees, and political risk insurance for investment.  
Table 2.2 Select ed foreign investment restrictions, July 2015  
Industry/subject  Provision  References  
Maritime  Restric tion on the foreign ownership of U.S. -registered ships  46 U.S.C. 551  
Aircraft  Restriction on foreign investment for U.S. -registered aircraft  49 U.S.C. 44101  
49 U.S.C. 44102  
Mining  U.S. citizenship or U.S. corporation requirements for the 
exploration and  purchase of land with mineral deposits as 
well as similar restrictions on certain leasing of mineral landsa 30 U.S.C. 22  
30 U.S.C. 24  
30 U.S.C. 181  
43 U.S.C. 1331  
Energy  Licenses for the construction, operation, or maintenance of 
facilities for the trans mission and utilization of power on land 
and water of which the Federal Government has control, is 
limited to U.S. citizens and domestic corporationsa 16 U.S.C. 797(e)  
42 U.S.C. 2133(d)  
Lands  Citizenship requirements to make a claim under the Desert 
Land Act and for a permit to allow grazing on public lands  43 U.S.C. 321  
43 U.S.C. 315b  
Communications  Restrictions on foreign ownership of radio licenses  47 U.S.C. 310(a)  
Banking  Regulations or restrictions on bank holding companies  12 U.S.C. 1841 -1849 
Investment Company 
Regulations  Restriction on securities in interstate commerce  15 U.S.C. 77jjj(a)(1)  
a According to the authorities, this does not preclude foreign investors from obtaining mining licences 
through locally incorporated firms, and thus it doe s not present a de facto  barrier.  
Source:  WTO Secretariat, based on Seitzinger  (2013) Foreign Investment in the United States: Major Federal 
Statutory Restrictions .  
2.41.   The International Investment and Trade in Services Survey Act requires foreign direct 
investment (FDI) into the United States to be reported to the relevant authorities for analytical and 
statistical purposes. Direct investment is reported to the Bureau of Economic Analysis in the 
Department of Commerce, long -term portfolio investment is report ed to the Treasury Department, 
and foreign acquisition of agricultural land is reported to the Department of Agriculture.  
2.42.   Foreign investment is generally not subject to review. However, the President may conduct 
national security reviews of "covered trans actions" through the Committee on Foreign Investment 
in the United States (CFIUS) . The term "covered transaction" is defined in the Defense Production 
Act of 1950 (known as the "Exon Florio" provision or "CFIUS statute"), as amended by the Foreign 
Investme nt and National Security Act of 2007 (FINSA).35 CFIUS is an interagency committee 
                                                                                                                                                  
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, and Trinidad and Tobago. Viewed at: https://ustr.gov/issue -areas/trade -
development/preference -programs/caribbean -basin -initiative -cbi. 
34 Alternati vely, CBTPA expires on the date (if sooner than 30 September 2020) when a free trade 
agreement enters into force between the United States and the last remaining CBTPA beneficiary country.  
35 A "covered transaction" is "any merger, acquisition, or takeover (…) by or with any foreign person 
which could result in foreign control of any person engaged in interstate commerce in the United States" 
(50 U.S.C. App. 4565 (a)(3)). The CFIUS statute does not define the term "control." However, Treasury 
Department regu lations define control as "the power, direct or indirect, whether or not exercised, through the 
ownership of a majority or a dominant minority of the total outstanding voting interest in an entity, board 
representation, proxy voting , a special share, contr actual arrangements, formal or informal arrangements to 
act in concert, or other means, to determine, direct, or decide important matte rs affecting an entity (…)" 
(31 CFR §800.204). According to Treasury Department regulations, a transaction that results i n a foreign WT/TPR/S/350 • Unite d States  
 
- 35 - 
 
  authorized to review the national security36 aspects of transactions that could result in a foreign 
person gaining control of a U.S.  business.37 The CFIUS statute and accompanyi ng regulations do 
not limit review to certain industries or types of activity. CFIUS has indicated that, as it does not 
wish to unnecessarily impede the flow of foreign investment, the statute is to be implemented 
"only insofar as necessary to protect the national security", and "in a manner fully consistent with 
the international obligations of the United States".38  
2.43.   The notification of a transaction to CFIUS is voluntary, though the Committee may also 
self-initiate reviews of non -notified transactions, gen erally within a three -year period following the 
completion of such transactions.39 CFIUS may need up to 30 days to review a notified transaction. 
Should CFIUS require additional time to consider the transaction, it will be subject to an additional 
"investig ation" period of up to 45 days.40 By statute, CFIUS may negotiate, enter into or impose, 
and enforce any agreement or condition with any party to a covered transaction in order to 
mitigate any threat to the national security of the United States that arises  as a result of the 
covered transaction. The President can block a transaction when he determines that the 
transaction threatens to impair the national security. According to the authorities, in practice, 
when an investment poses a national security risk, the United States addresses the risk as 
expeditiously as possible, including through targeted mitigation arrangements rather than 
prohibition whenever reasonably possible.  
2.44.   In 2013 and 2014 together, 244 notices were filed with CFIUS, and 99 transactions w ere 
subject to investigation (Table 2.3). The number of investigations and the share of them subject to 
mitigation measures increased slightly compared with the previous two -year period. 
No presidential decisions were required in 2013 or 2014.41  
Table 2.3 Covered transactions, Presidential decisions, and mitigation measures, 
2011 -14  
Year Notices received  Investigations  Presidential decisions  Mitigation measures  
2011 111 40 0 8 
2012 114 45 1 8 
2013 97 48 0 11 
2014 147 51 0 9 
Source:  Committee on Foreign In vestment in the United States ( various years), Annual Report to Congress . 
2.45.   The manufacturing sector accounts for the largest share of CFIUS -covered transactions, 
reaching 47% of the transaction filings in 2 014, followed by the finance, information, and other 
services sectors (26%).42 China overtook the United Kingdom as the investor home country with 
the highest share of filings (19%) during 2012 -14. Notices involving investors from Germany, 
                                                                                                                                                  
person holding 10% or less of the outstanding voting interest in a U.S. business and made solely for the 
purpose of passive investment is generally not subject to CFIUS review (31 CFR §800.302(b)). Examples of a 
"covered transaction" can be fou nd in the CFIUS Regulations (viewed at: https://www.treasury.gov/resource -
center/international/foreign -investment/Documents/C FIUS-Final-Regulations -new.pdf ). 
36 The national security concept includes issues relating to "homeland security", such as "critical 
infrastructure" defined in the Foreign Investment and National Security Act of 2007.  
37 A detailed description of the histor y and operation of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the 
United States (CFIUS) may be found at: Jackson  J.K. (2016), The Committee on Foreign Investment in the 
United States (CFIUS) , Congressional Research Service Report.  Viewed at: 
https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33388.pdf . 
38 Jackson J.K. (2013), The Exon -Florio National Security Test for Foreign Investment , Congressional 
Research Service Report (quoting Briefing on the Dubai Ports Wo rld Ports Deal, Senate Armed Services 
Committee, 23 February 2006). Viewed at: https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33312.pdf . 
39 Although the filing of a notice is voluntary, firms generally pr ovide such filings before consummating a 
covered transaction. See: Jackson J.K. ( 2016), The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States 
(CFIUS) . Viewed at: https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/n atsec/RL33388.pdf . 
40 In addition, CFIUS must conduct an investigation if a covered transaction involves an acquisition by 
entities controlled by, or acting on behalf of, a foreign government. This requirement may be waived if 
senior -level officials determ ine that such a transaction will not impair national security.  
41 CFIUS (2016), Annual Report to Congress for CY 2014 , Table I -2. Viewed at: 
https://www.treasury.gov/resource -center/international/foreign -
investment/Documents/Annual%20Report%20to%20Congress%20for%20CY2014.pdf . 
42 CFIUS (2016), Annual Report to Congress for CY 2014 , Table I -3. Viewed at: 
https://www.treasury.gov/resource -center/international/foreign -
investment/Documents/Annual%20Report%20to%20Congres s%20for%20CY2014.pdf . WT/TPR/S/350 • United States  
 
- 36 - 
 
  Israel, the Nethe rlands, Korea (Rep. of), Switzerland, and the U nited Kingdom rose sharply 
from 2013 to  2014 (Table 2.4). According to CFIUS, transactions notified between 2012 and 2014 
involving China, Japan, and the United  Kingdom were distributed relatively evenly acros s sectors, 
whereas notifications involving French, German, Israeli, and Swiss investors were heavily 
concentrated in manufacturing.  
Table 2.4 Covered transactions , by country, 2012 -14  
Country  2012  2013  2014  Total  
Total , of which  114 97 147 358 
China  23 21 24 68 
UK 17 7 21 45 
Canada  13 12 15 40 
Japan  9 18 10 37 
France  8 7 6 21 
Germany  4 4 9 17 
Netherlands  6 1 8 15 
Switzerland  5 3 7 15 
Singapore  2 3 6 11 
Korea, Rep. of  2 1 7 10 
Israel  4 1 5 10 
Source: Committee on Foreign In vestment in the United States (2014), Annual Report to Congress . 
2.46.   The United States has a system of international investment agreements built on trade and 
investment framework agreements (TIFAs), bilateral investment treaties (BIT s), and free trade 
agreements with investment chapters. According to the authorities, trade and investment 
framework agreements (TIFAs) are generally the first step in establishing stronger trade and 
investment links with a country. TIFAs contain details r egarding consultation procedures and 
cooperation between the United States and its partners on a broad range of issues, including 
market access, labour, and the environment. The United States currently has 55 TIFAs in force.43 
2.47.   BITs, which are negotiated fol lowing a model framework, have been at the core of 
U.S. reciprocal binding agreements on investment for many years. The current U.S. model BIT, 
implemented since 2012, contains provisions on national and MFN treatment, minimum standard 
of treatment, exprop riation, transfers, and performance requirements. It also contains sections on 
investor -State and State -to-State dispute settlement. The United States has 41 BITs in force.44  
2.48.   SelectUSA is the primary program me of the U.S. Federal Government to promote inwa rd 
investment in the United States. Created in 2011, SelectUSA is housed in the International Trade 
Administration under the Department of Commerce. The program me provides services to two 
stakeholders: foreign -owned firms considering investing in the Unite d States and U.S. economic 
development organizations (EDOs) seeking to attract high -impact FDI. Assistance provided 
through SelectUSA services includes information, counsel ling and advisory services, ombudsman 
assistance, investment advocacy, outreach, and  investment missions (Section 3.3.1). SelectUSA 
informs prospective investors and U.S. EDOs about available federal government program mes, 
resources, and services.  
                                                
43 USTR online information, "Trade & Investment Framework Agreements". Viewed at: 
https://ustr.gov/trade -agreements/trade -investment -framework -agreements . 
44 UNCTAD online information, "Investment Policy Hub". Viewed at: 
http://investmentpolicyhub.unctad.org/IIA/CountryBits/223#iiaInnerMenu . WT/TPR/S/350 • Unite d States  
 
- 37 - 
 
  3  TRADE POLICIES AND P RACTICES BY MEASURE  
3.1  Measures Directly Affecting Imports  
3.1.1   Customs proce dures and requirements  
3.1.  Since 1993, following the passage of the Customs Modernization Act (PL 103 -182), the 
United States has gradually been moving from import controls as a government duty towards 
compliance with customs rules as a responsibility shared w ith traders. With increasing volumes of 
international trade, trade processing is shifting from the clearance of individual transactions to 
processing by account and industry at the pre -entry, entry, and post -entry stages.  
3.2.  The U.S. Customs and Border Prote ction (CBP), as part of the Department of Homeland 
Security  (DHS) , was created in 2003 by merging the legacy organizations of the U.S. Customs 
Service with other services overseeing the cross -border movement of goods and travellers.1 
However, even with an enlarged CBP, some 30 federal agencies continue to play a role in trade 
enforcement activities. Thus, the Border Interagency Executive Council (BIEC)2 was established 
formally in February 2014 to provide strategic leadership and policy guidance as the dead line for 
completion of the single -window International Trade Da ta System (ITDS) is nearing 
(31 December  2016).3  
3.3.  The Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015 (PL 114 -125) was signed into law 
on 24 February 2016. Among its provisions, the law re quires the U.S. Treasury and the 
Department of Homeland Security to establish a Commercial Customs Operations Advisory 
Committee (COAC) to provide advice on any matter, including recommended improvements, 
involving the commercial operations of CBP.4 Center s of Excellence and Expertise (CEEs) are to be 
developed throughout CBP to ensure consistent and improved enforcement of laws and regulations 
at all ports of entry.5 The Government Accountability Office (GAO) is expected to present a report 
to Congress no later than 31  December 2017 on the implementation of the Automated Commercial 
Environment (ACE), including cost savings and potential benefits to trade enforcement.  
3.4.  The United States deposited its instrument of acceptance of the Protocol of Amendment of 
the WTO Agreement, inserting the Agreement on Trade Facilitation (TFA) into its Annex 1A, on 
23 January 2015. As a developed country Member, the United States is bound by all the 
commitments contained in the TFA upon the entry into force of the Agreement.  
3.1.1.1   Trade facilitation  measures  
3.1.1.1.1   Single window  
3.5.  Work towards a single -window application  commenced as early as  1984 with the 
development of an Automated Commercial System (ACS) to track, control and process goods 
entering the United States. In 2001, the Automated  Commercial Environment (ACE) was devised 
as a means to enhance border security while simultaneously facilitating trade.  
3.6.  In February 2014, the President's Executive Order 13659 on "Streamlining the Export/Import 
Process for America's Businesses" mandated the completion of the single -window International 
Trade Data System (ITDS) by 31 December 2016. The Executive Order also established the Border 
                                                
1 The CBP encompasses, for example the Air and Marine Operations Division of U.S. Immigration and 
Customs Enforcement, the U.S. Border Patrol, the Immigrations Inspection Program, and the U.S. Visitor and 
Immigrant Status Indicator Technology (US -VISIT).  
2 BIEC includes executiv es, representatives and staff of: the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, 
Defense, Health and Human Services, Interior, Justice, State, Transportation and Treasury; the National 
Security Council; the National Economic Council; the Office of Management an d Budget; and the United States 
Trade Representative.  
3 Executive Order 13659 – Streamlining the Export/Import Process for America's Businesses, 
19 February 2014.  
4 COAC consists of 20 appointed individuals from the private sector. Upon establishment of  COAC, CBP 
simultaneously announced the termination of its Advisory Committee on Commercial Operations 
(81 FR 18865).  
5 CBP launched two CEE pilots in November 2010. At present, 10 CEEs are fully operational (viewed at: 
http://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/documents/cee_map_1.pdf ). WT/TPR/S/350 • United States  
 
- 38 - 
 
  Interagency Executive Council (BIEC) to develop policies and processes to enhance coordination 
among border mana gement authorities, including those charged with customs, transportation 
security, health and safety, sanitary and phytosanitary controls, conservation, and trade. The 
senior -level members of BIEC have been overseeing agency -level work in three committees 
dedicated to risk management, process coordination, and external engagement.  
3.7.  By the end of 2016, the fully developed ITDS should allow businesses to use ACE to enter 
electronically all data required by CBP and its 47 Partner Government Agencies  (PGAs)  to 
determine the admissibility of import and export cargo.6 The ACE portal will become the central 
online access point for transaction and financial data. By signing up to a periodic monthly 
statement function, frequent users may accumulate duties and taxes d ue in any given month into 
a single payment to be effected by the 15th working day of the following month.  
3.8.  Implementation of the ITDS has been proceeding in stages.  The filing of electronic import or 
export manifest data in ACE became obligatory for all m odes of transportation from 1  May 2015 
(Box 3.1).7 Deadlines for the operability of the various functions of ACE have been differentiated 
depending on the nature of the filings and the agencies involved.8 The gradual expansion of the 
functionality of ACE h as been accompanied by the decommissioning of corresponding capabilities 
in ACS, which is being phased out in its entirety.9 The last electronic portions of the cargo release 
process (drawback, protest, reconciliation, and statements) should be used by all  participants from 
1 October 2016.  
Box 3.1 Steps in implementing ACE  
Deadline  Functions  
01.05.2015  Use of ACE became mandatory for all electronic manifest filings .  
28.02.2016  CBP began divesting the legacy  Automated Commercial System (ACS). This transition 
shifted technical and customer support resources away from the legacy ACS system, a 
necessary step to focus critical resources in support of the new system, ACE.  
31.03.2016  Filers required to file in ACE  electronic entry summaries for the most commonly filed entry 
types, AND electronic entries and entry summaries with Animal and Plant Health Inspection 
Service (APHIS) Lacey Act and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) 
data. The legacy sy stem, the Automated Commercial System (ACS), is no longer available 
for these specific transactions.  
20.05.2016  Full transition of legacy AES Direct  (export commodity filings via the portal) to ACE.  
28.05.2016  Filers required to file in ACE electronic ent ries (cargo release) for the most commonly filed 
entry types, and Foreign Trade Zone entries and entry summaries. The legacy system, ACS, 
is no longer available for these specific transactions.  
15.06.2016  Mandatory filing of ACE electronic entries and ent ry summaries with Food and Drug 
Administration (FDA) data. At this point, all electronic entries and entry summaries that do 
not have quota merchandise should be filed in ACE.  
23.07.2016  Mandatory filing of ACE electronic entries and entry summaries for r emaining entry types, 
specifically those entry types involving quota merchandise.  
CBP expects the following mandatory transitions to ACE in 2016:  
27.08.2016  Mandatory use of ACE for protests.  
01.10.2016  Mandatory use of ACE for all remaining electronic portions of the CBP cargo process: duty 
deferrals, statements, reconciliation, drawback and liquidation.  
                                                
6 In all, the U.S. authorities employ nearly 200 different forms for import and export. The principal 
forms are the Entry Manifest (CBP Form 7533), or alternatively the Application and Special Permit for 
Immediate Delivery (CBP Form 3461), both of which must be filed within 15 days o f arrival at the port of 
entry; and the Entry Summary (CBP Form 7501) , which must be  filed at entry for the calculation of estimated 
import duties.  
7 Export manifests could still be filed in paper copy after 1 May 2015, but filers were encouraged to use 
voluntary mode -specific pilots as soon as these were functional.  
8 A summary of the mandatory use dates under the ACE may be found at 
http://www.cbp.gov/trade/automated/ace -mandatory -use-dates . 
9 Effective 23 July 2016, ACE has become the sole CBP -authorized system for processing most electronic 
entry and  entry summary filings (81 FR 32339).  WT/TPR/S/350 • Unite d States  
 
- 39 - 
 
  By 31.12.2016  Mandatory use of ACE for filing electronic entries and corresponding entry summaries with 
data for remaining PGAs.  
Following the deploy ment of core trade processing capabilities in ACE in 2016, CBP will continue to enhance 
ACE capabilities in an operations and maintenance mode.  
Source:  Information provided by the authorities.  
3.9.  The World Customs Organization (WCO) has recommended that Governments should develop 
their single window environments through data harmonization and standardized processes, and 
has elaborated a WCO Data Model for this purpose.10 The United States uses the National 
Information Exchange Model (NIEM) standard for the sha ring of data across all levels of 
government. According to the U.S. authorities, NIEM is compliant with the WCO Data Model. So 
far, ACE has been partially aligned with the WCO Data Model and further alignment is intended as 
part of post -2016 ACE developmen t activities. In the interim, CBP is working actively with the 
WCO on updating the WCO Data Model.  
3.10.   Under the Beyond the Border Action Plan, the United States and Canada have conducted a 
comparison of entry, release, and PGA data requirements and agreed to  common advance data 
elements for their respective single -window systems. With Mexico, the United States has been 
elaborating harmonized rail manifest data elements to arrive at a single message set compatible 
with the filing requirements of both countries .  
3.1.1.1.2   ACE Cargo Release  
3.11.   CBP introduced in November  2011 a Simplified Entry Pilot project for imports arriving by 
air.11 The project initially covered three airports and nine participants (filers), but was later 
expanded to additional airports and participants.12 It offered electronic transmission of fewer data 
elements necessary for importation. The programme was incorporated into ACE and renamed ACE 
Cargo Release in 2014, supporting simplified entry processing for cargo transported by air, rail, 
ship and truck at selected ports of entry. By December 2014, more than 850,000 simplified entries 
had been filed for over 1,000 importers of record.  
3.1.1.1.3   Advance rulings  
3.12.   CBP issues binding advance rulings on how it would treat a prospective import or carrier 
transaction. Rul ings may be requested on a variety of subjects by importers, exporters or anyone 
having a demonstrable interest in the matter, e.g. sureties, carriers, freight forwarders, brokers, 
or manufacturers . Most advance rulings concern classification issues, rules  of origin, valuation, and 
carriers. The CBP will not issue advance rulings on hypothetical questions or on matters subject to 
ongoing litigation. The CBP publishes advance rulings and other binding decisions in its Customs 
Rulings On -line Search System (C ROSS)  (http://rulings.cbp.gov/ ), its weekly Customs Bulletin and 
Decisions ( http://www.cbp.gov/trade/rulings/bulletin -decisions ), or through pertine nt Federal 
Register notices for certain advance rulings.  
3.13.   Advance ruling requests may be submitted online (eRulings) to the National Commodity 
Specialist Division (NCSD) of Regulations and Rulings (in New York). The eRulings template is 
available for reque sts pertaining to classification, country of origin and marking, and the 
applicability of a trade programme (NAFTA, AGOA, etc.), whereas requests concerning valuation or 
carriers must be submitted by letter. The NCSD generally issues rulings within 30 days  of receipt. 
Requests requiring referral to Regulations and Rulings  (R&R)  headquarters are issued by mail, 
                                                
10 WCO Data Model, Single Window Data Harmonization. Viewed at: 
http://ww w.wcoomd.org/en/topics/facilitation/activities -and-programmes/single -
window/~/media/E2C03EE328FC4793AF529AEE01EDAD98.ashx . 
11 76 FR 69755.  
12 Starting at Indianapolis, Chicago and Atlanta, the international airports of Seattle, San Francisco, 
Oakland, Los A ngeles, Dallas/Ft. Worth, Houston, Miami, JFK, Newark and Boston were added in August 2012, 
and Detroit, Memphis, and Anchorage in November 2014. The nine initial participants (AN Deringer, 
Expeditors, FedEx Trade Networks, FH Kaysing, Janel Group of New Y ork, Kuehne & Nagel, Inc., Livingston 
International, Page & Jones, Inc. and UPS) were joined by Alliance Customs Clearance Inc., Barthco 
International Inc. dba OHL International, CEVA Logistics, CSI Weiss -Rohlig USA Inc., Damco Customs Services, 
Inc., DHL Express, Inc. (USA), Future Forwarding Company, NEC Corporation of America, Scarbrough 
International, Ltd., Schenker, Inc., and UTC Overseas, Inc. in August 2012 (77 FR 48527).  WT/TPR/S/350 • United States  
 
- 40 - 
 
  which CBP endeavours to provide within 90 days of receipt provided all necessary information has 
been submitted. CBP issued 3,993 advance rulings in 2015.  
3.1.1.1.4   Trusted trader program mes 
3.1.1.1.4.1   Customs -Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C -TPAT)   
3.14.   A voluntary public -private partnership programme focusing on cargo security, C -TPAT was 
established in 2001 and codified into law through the Security and Accountability  for Every Port Act 
of 2006. C -TPAT candidates, e.g. importers, exporters, freight forwarders, manufacturers and 
customs brokers, submit applications online through the C-TPAT Portal  
(https://ctpat.cbp.dhs.gov/ ). Having completed and submitted a Company Profile13, an account is 
opened and the applicant's representative is requested to complete a Security Profile. The 
information is reviewed by a Supply Chain Security Specialist (SCSS) who determine s the 
company 's ability to meet C ‐TPAT minimum security requirements .14 Once accepted into the 
programme, the SCSS will arrange an on -site validation of the security practices. Importers are 
classified in three levels; certified (Tier 1); certified validated  (Tier 2) , i.e. inspection(s) passed ; 
and certified exceeding (Tier 3). The highest level is reserved for companies maintaining security 
measures above and beyond the minimum requirements of C -TPAT. Enrolment in C -TPAT does not 
pre-empt sec urity examinations of imported o r exported  merchandise. However, the probability 
that non -participants will experience security -based examination of their entries is 3.5 times 
higher than for Tier 2 companies, and 9 times more likely than for C -TPAT Tier 3 partners.15  
3.15.   Supporting the WCO' s Framework of Standards to Secure and Facilitate Global Trade, CBP 
has signed mutual recognition arrangements (MRAs) with other customs admini strations with 
comparable fully fledged operational programmes.  The process involves side -by-side comparison 
of programme requirements, joint validation and observation, the signing of a formal 
arrangement, and the development of operational procedures, principally information sharing. The 
arrangements are security based and do not address compliance. As of 1 Decembe r 2015, CBP had 
concluded ten MRAs involving the customs authorities of New Zealand, Canada, Jordan, the 
Republic of Korea , the EU, the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu  
(Chinese Taipei ), Israel, Mexico, Singapore, and the Dominican Republic; it had five ongoing 
mutual recognition projects (China, Peru, India, Uruguay, and Brazil), and eight technical 
assistance projects. The number of certified partner accounts totall ed 11,461, including 
4,220  U.S. importers, 450 U.S. exporters , and 1,568 foreign manufacturers. C -TPAT members 
account for around 54% of the total value of merchandise imported  into the United States.  
3.1.1.1.4.2   Importer Self -Assessment Program (ISA)  
3.16.   Certified C -TPAT importers , resident in the United States or Canada, with a two-year import  
history  are eligible to join the ISA programme. Applicants submit a memorandum of 
understanding, agreeing to comply with ISA requirements including documented policies and 
procedures for the import process, a completed questionnaire, and a self-testing plan. ISA focuses 
on trade and customs compliance and offers benefits beyond C -TPAT such as exemption from 
comprehensive audits, expedited cargo release, the assignment of a national account manager, 
and enhanced prior disclosure. CBP Centers of Excellence and Expertise have been serving as a 
single point of processing for businesses enrolled in C -TPAT and ISA.  
3.17.   Two pilot programmes exist under the ISA : the Importer Self -Assessment -Product Safety 
Pilot (ISA -PS) and the Broker Importer Self -Assessment Pre -Certification (Broker ISA PC) test. 
Launched in 2008, ISA -PS focuses on product safety as a collaborative effort between CBP, the 
Consumer Product Safety Commission and importers to prevent unsafe imports. Broker ISA PC, 
created in  2013, targets  small and medium -sized importers. Before presenting an ISA candidate to 
CBP, brokers evaluate the importer's ability to manage and monitor its compliance through 
risk-based self -testing. The Broker ISA PC pilot is still ongoing.  
                                                
13 CBP online information. Viewed at: http://www.cbp.gov/border -security/ports -entry/cargo -security/c -
tpat-customs -trade -partnership -against -terrorism/apply/company -profile . 
14 The mini mum security requirements, by type of operator, can be viewed at: 
http://www.cbp.gov/border -security/por ts-entry/cargo -security/c -tpat-customs -trade -partnership -against -
terrorism/apply/security -criteria . 
15 Examinations are at the discretion of CBP officers.  WT/TPR/S/350 • Unite d States  
 
- 41 - 
 
  3.1.1.1.4.3   Free and Secure Trade Sys tem (FAST)  
3.18.   FAST is open to certified C -TPAT commercial carriers having completed certain background 
checks. FAST allows truck drivers who are citizens of the United States, Canada, and Mexico to use 
dedicated lanes at 34 border crossings with Canada and Me xico involving shorter waiting times, 
fewer inspections, and faster processing. Nearly 75,000 commercial drivers are enrolled in the 
programme nationwide.  
3.1.1.1.4.4   Trusted Trader Program Test  
3.19.   As announced in June 2014, the Trusted Trader Program is currently in a test phase.16 The 
ambition is to integrate the current C -TPAT and ISA processes in a holistic Trusted Trader Program 
combining supply chain security and trade compliance. Phase I, which tested the joint validation 
process, was completed in June 2016. The re sults are being analysed. In the meantime, CBP has 
launched Phase II, which will focus on testing  implementation by CBP and the feasibility of 
incentives.  
3.1.1.2   Import security initiatives  
3.1.1.2.1   Container Security Initiative (CSI)  
3.20.   Authorized under the 2006 SAFE Port  Act (PL 109 -347), CSI addresses the threat to border 
security and global trade of potential terrorist use of maritime containers to deliver weaponry. CSI 
is operational at 60 ports world -wide and ensures that approximately 80% of all maritime cargo 
destin ed to the United States is pre -screened and, as deemed necessary, scanned or inspected 
prior to shipment. All containerized cargo determined high risk at a CSI port is scanned for illicit 
radiological materials using non -intrusive inspection technology or subjected to manual inspection.  
3.1.1.2.2   Secure Freight Initiative (SFI)  
3.21.   Seeking to improve container security further, Section 232 of the 2006 SAFE Port Act 
provides for the SFI to test the feasibility of 100% scanning of all cargo containers destined for the 
United States at a minimum of three pilot ports. Moreover, the Implementing Recommendations of 
the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 mandated 100% scanning (x -ray imaging and radiation) prior to 
lading.  
3.22.   SFI pilot operations were initially run at six foreign ports , but subsequently scaled back to 
cover only one foreign port. The other five ports reverted to CSI risk based targeting operations 
after an evaluation of the costs versus potential benefits of 100% scanning, logistical problems 
with the placement of scann ers, and diplomatic concerns.17 The 100% target has thus not been 
realized for containerized maritime freight, but the Department of Homeland Security ( DHS) 
continues to work with foreign governments and the private sector to find solutions. The Secretary 
of Homeland Security used h er/his authority to extend the SFI deadline in July 2012, July 2014, 
and July  2016. The mandate is currently extended until July 2018.  
3.1.1.3   Foreign Trade Zones (FTZs)  
3.23.   The Foreign Trade Zones Act (19 U .S.C. 81a-81u) was passed in 1934  to attract and 
promote international trade and commerce. Under the Department of Commerce, the Foreign 
Trade Zones Board reviews and approves applications to establish, operate and maintain FTZs, 
while FTZ operations are activated and supervised by CBP. M ost F TZs are located in or near 
U.S. ports of entry, industrial parks, or terminal warehouse facilities. However, FTZ subzones may 
be established in any designated area, including on a user's private facility. Every U.S. State has 
at least one FTZ, althoug h not all designated FTZ s may have users operating in them in any given 
year. A total of 179  FTZs were active during 2014. The approximately 2,700 firms using FTZs 
employed nearly 420,000 workers, and shipments into the zones were valued at nearly 
US$800  billion.18  
                                                
16 79 FR 34334.  
17 SFI pilot operations continue at Qasim (Pakistan), having been discontinued at Puert o Cortes 
(Honduras), Southampton (United Kingdom), Busan (Republic of Korea), Salalah (Oman), and 
Hong Kong,  China.  
18 Foreign -Trade Zones Board (2015), 76th Annual Report to the Congress of the United States , August. 
Viewed at: http://enforcement.trade.gov/ftzpage/annual -report.html .  WT/TPR/S/350 • United States  
 
- 42 - 
 
  3.24.   FTZs are legally outside the customs territory of the United States for tariff and entry 
purposes.19 Formal customs entries for foreign goods do not need to be filed until such goods enter 
the U.S. customs territory for consumption, or not at all in the case of re -exports. Foreign as well 
as domestic goods may be brought into the zones and subjected to assembly, manufacturing, or 
processing or be held for storage or exhibition purposes.20 Domestic goods are considered 
exported for the purposes of ex cise tax rebates and drawback once they enter an FTZ. For foreign 
goods subject to processing before entry into the customs territory of the United States, users 
may choose to pay import duty on the final product or on the original foreign materials.  
3.25.   The main industrial activities in U.S. FTZs are oil refining and the production of automotive 
goods, electronics, pharmaceuticals, and machinery/equipment. The main states using FTZs are 
Texas and Louisiana, each with shipments exceeding US$100 billion per yea r. Direct exports from 
U.S. FTZ facilities totalled US$84.6 billion in 2015.21  
3.1.1.4   Bonded warehouses  
3.26.   Decisions to confer the status of bonded warehouse are taken by local port directors.22 No 
fees are charged, either for facility establishment or operation, but  the warehouse operator is 
responsible for the day -to-day oversight and safekeeping of all merchandise held in custody. The 
operator must maintain a custodial bond to cover the value of any cargo missing or unaccounted 
for. CBP officials may enter and insp ect any bonded facility at any time.  
3.27.   Keeping imported goods in a bonded warehouse allows the owner to defer the payment of 
customs duties and taxes for up to five years. Five years from the date of importation, at the 
latest, bonded goods must enter the c ommerce of the United States, or be exported, destroyed, or 
sold at public auction. A bonded warehouse may be a building or other secured area where 
imported goods are stored, manipulated or subject to manufacturing operations. Imported 
merchandise and goo ds for export may be stored simultaneously at a bonded facility, but 
separated physically under security measures approved by the port director. There are 
approximately 1,500 bonded warehouses nationwide.23  
3.1.2   Customs valuation  
3.28.   The provisions on customs valua tion applied by the United States are contained in the Trade 
Agreements Act of 1979 (45 FR 45135). The United States notified the WTO in 1996 that the 
legislation it had ratified under the Tokyo Round Customs Valuation Agreement had not been 
changed and th us remained valid under the WTO Customs Valuation Agreement.24 No changes 
were made to the customs valuation regulations during the period under review.  
3.29.   The Act stipulates transaction value as the principal and preferred method of appraisement 
and establis hes the hierarchy of alternative valuation methods in sequential order as laid down in 
the Customs Valuation Agreement. Customs value excludes transportation and landed costs.  
3.1.3   Rules of origin  
3.1.3.1   Non-preferential  
3.30.   U.S. n on-preferential  rules of origin use the "wholly obtained" or "substantial 
transformation" criteria to determine the origin of an imported product. A wholly obtained product 
                                                
19 All other federal laws apply to goods and establishments within the zones. FTZ activities are governed 
by regulations issued by the FTZ Board and CBP (1 5 CFR Part 400 and 19 CFR Part 146). Individual FTZs are 
proposed, sponsored and managed by agencies at the regional or local level.  
20 In 2014, 64% of the shipments received at the FTZs involved domestic status merchandise, 
i.e. domestically -produced goods  as well as foreign goods having entered U.S. customs territory before 
admission to an FTZ.  
21 In addition, some FTZ merchandise is processed at non -FTZ facilities prior to exportation.  
22 The authority to establish bonded warehouses is contained in 19 U.S.C . 1555 and the regulations in 
19 CFR 19. 
23 The number of bonded warehouses tends to fluctuate, driven by economic factors as well as the 
decisions of warehouse operators and actions of port directors.  
24 WTO document G/VAL/N/1/USA/1, 1 April 1996.  WT/TPR/S/350 • Unite d States  
 
- 43 - 
 
  is entirely grown, gathered, produced or manufactured in a particular country. The substantial 
transformation criterion, i. e. change in name, character or use, is applied case -by-case for goods 
that consist in whole or in part of materials from more than one country. The United  States 
notified its non -preferential rules of origin to the WTO in 1995 and administrative rulings o f the 
U.S. Customs Service in 1996.25  
3.1.3.2   Preferential  
3.31.   Although NAFTA and many other FTAs concluded by the United States have incorporated a 
change in tariff classification ("tariff shift") method to determine the eligibility for FTA benefits, the 
U.S. also us es other methods, e.g. local/regional value content or technical criteria, to determine 
origin beyond the "wholly obtained" criterion. Each FTA has its own set of origin criteria. The 
variety of methods applied reflects the outcome of the negotiations, inc luding industry preferences 
for particular methods, notably in textiles.  
3.32.   The United States notified preferential rules of origin to the WTO in 1995, and again 
in 2013.26 Minor changes to the preferential rules of origin may be introduced from time to time 
(Table 3.1).  
Table 3.1 Changes to preferential rules of origin, June 2012 -July 2016  
Agreement  Effective date  Citation  Change  
CAFTA -DR 13 October 2012  77 FR 59241  Modification of certain textile and apparel rules of origin  
NAFTA, Bahrain, 
Morocco  25 September 2012  77 FR 58931  Technical corrections as a result of the 2012 Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule ( HTS) changes  
Australia  1 June 2012  77 FR 31683  Implementation of certain modifications to a product -specific ru le of 
origin  
Chile 1 January 2013  77 FR 249  Technical corrections as a result of the 2012 HTS changes  
Korea (Rep. of)  1 January 2014  78 FR 80418  Technical corrections as a result of the 2007 and 2012 HTS changes  
Source:  WTO Secretariat, based on the cit ations in the table.  
3.1.3.3   Country -of-origin marking  
3.33.   The United States has long -standing laws and regulations requiring articles of foreign 
manufacture to carry a mark or label indicating to the final consumer where the product was 
made. The Tariff Act of 1930 l ays down the main marking provisions. In addition, NAFTA and 
federal  and state laws contain product -specific labelling requirements or marking rules. Country of 
origin marking rules are distinct and separate from eligibility determinations for customs purp oses.  
3.1.3.4   Certification of origin  
3.34.   Importers claiming preferential tariff treatment must certify the origin of the good. Although 
NAFTA prescribes a specific format for the certificates of origin, most other FTAs or preferential 
agreements do not. The importer  must present the certificate of origin or other supporting 
documents to justify the preferential treatment when requested by CBP.  
3.1.4   Tariffs  
3.35.   The U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) publishes the Harmonized Tariff Schedule 
of the United States (HTSUS ) as directed by Congress in Section 1207 of the Omnibus Trade and 
Competitiveness Act of 1988. The USITC updates the tariff schedule regularly to reflect changes in 
tariff rates and other provisions. Although the HTSUS primarily provides the applicable ra tes of 
import duty, it also contains other provisions such as preferential rules of origin. The current 
edition of the HTSUS has been in effect since 1 January 2016, and was last updated on 
1 July 2016.  
                                                
25 WTO do cuments G/RO/N/1, 9 May 1995; G/RO/N/1/Add.1, 22 June 1995; G/RO/N/6, 
19 December  1995; and G/RO/N/12, 1 October 1996.  
26 WTO documents G/RO/N/1/Add.1, 22 June 1995; and G/RO/N/88, 18 January 2013. The 
2013 notification covered the rules in the FTAs with Ch ile, Singapore, Australia, Morocco, Bahrain, 
Central  America -Dominican Republic, Oman and the Republic of Korea, and the Trade Promotion Agreements 
with Peru, Colombia, and Panama.  WT/TPR/S/350 • United States  
 
- 44 - 
 
  3.1.4.1   Nomenclature  
3.36.   The United States implemented the HS201 2 changes in early 2012, except for changes 
relating to photograp hic films in Chapter 37. The HS 2012 nomenclature for photographic films has 
been incorporated into the HTSUS since 1 January 2015.27 Nomenclature changes relating to 
footwear were implemented in late 2011.28  
3.37.   The United States uses the Harmonized System nomenclature of the WCO as the basis for 
its tariff schedule and classifies goods accordingly in Chapters 1 through 97. The HTSUS uses two 
additional chapters (98 and 99) to provide special duty treatment with or without quantitative 
limits for certain goods, e.g. temporary tariff remissions, commitments under FTAs, AGOA, or 
imports by certain non -profit institutions. Importers must report the tariff line (under Chapters  1 
to 97) as well as the fu nctional number within Chapters 98 or 99 to claim the special treatment.  
3.1.4.2   Applied rates  
3.38.   The HTSUS has three tariff columns. For each tariff line, the first column provides the 
general (i.e. MFN) rate of import duty, followed by "special" (i.e. preferential)  duty as applicable. 
The third column indicates the rate applicable to other countries.29 The special duty treatment 
stems from FTAs or non -reciprocal preferences, and the preferential trading partners are indicated 
in each instance. Most MFN tariffs are ad valorem , but the United States also uses specific and 
compound duty rates, covering approximately 11% of all tariff lines. Non -ad valorem  tariff rates 
are concentrated in the agriculture, fuels, textiles, and footwear sectors.  
3.39.   The current HTSUS, implemen ted in January 2016, has 10,516 tariff lines at the 8 -digit 
level.30 Most MFN rates are identical to their bound levels and have remained virtually unchanged 
for 10 years or more.31 As in previous years, the simple average tariff amounted to 4.8% overall 
in 2016 (Table 3.2).32 Nearly 37% of the tariff lines face no import duty on an MFN basis, a 
reflection of the United States' participation in the ITA, the Agreement on Trade in Civil Aircraft, 
and zero -for-zero initiatives and sectoral agreements in the Urugu ay Round (Chart 3.1). A further 
7.8% of the tariff lines are subject to very low duty rates (i.e. 2% or less). Tariffs above 25% 
ad valorem  are concentrated in agriculture (notably dairy, tobacco, and vegetable products), 
footwear, and textiles (Table A3.1 ). An estimated 22 tariff line s carry import duty rates above 
100%.33 These are all agricultural products. Overall, the U.S. tariff structure has little or no tariff 
escalation.  
Table 3.2 Structure of the tari ff schedules, selected yearsa 
  2007  2009  2012  2014  2016b 
1. Total number of tariff lines  10,253  10,253  10,511  10,514  10,516  
2. Non-ad valorem  tariffs (% of all tariff lines)  10.7 10.7 10.9 10.9 10.9 
3. Non-ad valorem  with no AVEs (% of all tariff lines ) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 
4. Lines subject to tariff quotas (% of all tariff lines)  1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 
5. Duty free tariff lines (% of all tariff lines)  36.5 36.3 37.0 36.8 36.8 
6. Dutiable lines tariff average rate (%)  7.6 7.6 7.5 7.6 7.6 
7. Simple avera ge tariff (%)  4.8 4.8 4.7 4.8 4.8 
                                                
27 Proclamation 9223 of 23 December 2014. The tariff lines in question were 370296, 370297, and 
370298.  
28 The modifications were included in the U.S. HS 2012 transposition file, submitted to the WTO in 
October 2012, and will be included in the certification of the 2012 nomenclature changes.  
29 The only countries subject to the hig hest rates in the third column are Cuba and the Democratic 
People's Republic of Korea.  
30 The HTSUS was updated in July 2016 to incorporate changes resulting from Presidential Proclamation 
9466 (Implementing the World Trade Organization Declaration on the E xpansion of Trade in Information 
Technology Products and For Other Purposes).  
31 APEC leaders agreed to cut tariffs on certain environmental goods in 2012. In the United States, the 
general rate of duty was reduced to 5% on six tariff lines with effect fro m 31 December 2015 
(Proclamation  9384 of 23 December 2015).  
32 Minor variations in the calculated average annual tariffs can primarily be ascribed to changes in 
import prices, affecting the estimated ad valorem  equivalents of specific and compound duty rate s.  
33 Of these 22 lines, 13 lines have ad valorem  rates of 350% (certain tobacco products) and 131.8% or 
163.8% (peanuts). The remaining nine lines are estimated ad valorem  equivalents of specific/compound duties 
on tobacco refuse, sour cream, certain prep arations for infant use, and Swiss cheeses. The highest ad valorem  
equivalent, US$1.646 per kg on tariff line 04015075, amounts to 510.9%.  WT/TPR/S/350 • Unite d States  
 
- 45 - 
 
    2007  2009  2012  2014  2016b 
8. WTO agriculture  8.9 8.9 8.5 9.0 9.1 
9. WTO non -agriculture (incl. petroleum)  4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 
10. Agriculture, hunting, forestry, and fishing (ISIC 1)  5.5 5.7 5.6 6.7 6.5 
11. Mining and quarrying (ISIC 2)  0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 
12. Manufacturing (ISIC 3)  4.8 4.8 4.7 4.8 4.8 
13. First stage of processing  3.7 3.7 3.7 4.3 4.3 
14. Semi-processed products  4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 
15. Fully processed products  5.3 5.3 5.2 5.3 5.3 
16. Domestic tariff "peaks" (% of all tariff  lines)c 6.9 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 
17. International tariff "peaks" (% of all tariff lines)d 5.2 5.3 5.0 5.1 5.1 
18. Overall standard deviation  11.9 11.8 11.9 13.7 14.0 
19. Nuisance applied rates (% of tariff lines)e 7.1 7.2 7.7 7.8 7.8 
20. Bound tariff line s (% of all tariff lines)f 100.0  100.0  100.0  100.0  100.0  
a The tariff is provided at the eight-digit level. Averages exclude in -quota rates and lines. Calculations 
include ad valorem  equivalents (AVEs) for non -ad valorem  duties that were calculated by the  
U.S. authorities using import price data.  
b As of January 2016.  
c Domestic tariff peaks are defined as those exceeding three times the overall average applied rate.  
d International tariff peaks are defined as those exceeding 15%.  
e Nuisance rates are grea ter than 0% but inferior or equal to 2%.  
f Two lines applying to crude petroleum are not bound.  
Source:  WTO Secretariat calculations, based on data provided by the authorities and notifications.  
Chart 3.1 Frequency distribution of MFN tariff rates, 2016  
(36.8%)
(31.4%)
(21.1%)
(5.7%)
(2.3%)
(1.0%)(1.9%)
0102030405060708090100
05001,0001,5002,0002,5003,0003,5004,0004,500
Duty free >0-5 >5-10 >10-15 >15-20 >20-25 >25Chart 3.1
Frequency distribution of MFN tariff rates, 2016
Number of tariff linesaPer cent
Cumulative per cent
Number of lines (% of total)
The total number of lines is 10,516.
WTO Secretariat calculations, based on data provided by the authorities.a
Source :
 
a The total number of lines is 10,516.  
Source:  WTO Secretariat, based on data provided by the authorities.  
3.40.   Legislation providing temporary tariff suspensions on several hundred products of 
importance to U.S. m anufacturing enterprises expired at the end of 2012, and tariff suspensions 
on two other lines expired at the end of 2014. The American Manufacturing Competitiveness Act 
of 2016 (PL 114 -159) provides a new process for the consideration of temporary tariff 
suspensions. Enterprises seeking tariff relief are to petition the USITC, which will examine such 
petitions, receive comments, and issue a report to Congress providing specified findings on the 
requested duty suspensions and reductions. Based on such a rep ort, Congress will consider a 
miscellaneous tariff bill that could authorize tariff relief.  WT/TPR/S/350 • United States  
 
- 46 - 
 
  3.1.4.3   Bindings  
3.41.   According to the WTO tariff commitments of the United States, as contained in Schedule XX, 
all tariff lines in Chapters 1 through 97 are bound except for two lines pertaining to crude 
petroleum.34 Schedule XX was last updated in 2015 following approval of the HS2007 
nomenclature changes. The draft containing the modifications and rectifications was circulated in 
July 2015, and the modified schedule has been in effect sin ce 30 October 2015. The United  States 
remains under waiver to implement changes stemming from HS2012.35 Preparing the 
implementation of HS2017, the USITC made its proposed modifications publically available in 
February 2015, inviting comments b y 20 April 2015. The recommended changes were published in 
July 2015 .36 HS2017 is set to be implemented from 1 January 2017  provided that the required 
legislative day layover is completed without objection.   
3.42.   A number of changes to the HTSUS have not been no tified to the WTO as changes to 
Schedule XX. Such changes include the third and fourth revisions to the pharmaceutical coverage, 
Chapter Notes, and the Article XXVIII renegotiation (tobacco).  
3.43.   The United States has bound all "other duties and charges" (ODC s) within the meaning of 
Article II.1(b) of the GATT in Schedule XX. Except for seven tariff lines, the ODCs are bound at 
zero.  
3.1.4.4   Tariff -rate quotas  
3.44.   The United States maintains 44 tariff -rate quotas (TRQs). Among these, 18 TRQs concern 
the dairy sector, inc luding milk, cream, butter, ice cream, and cheeses. Other commodities subject 
to TRQs are beef, mandarins, peanuts, sugar, chocolate, sweetened cocoa powder, olives, 
satsumas, animal feed, tobacco, and cotton. Driven by market conditions, fill rates may va ry 
significantly between the TRQs and over time. Most quotas with low fill rates are administered on a 
first come, first served basis.37  
3.1.5   Other charges affecting imports  
3.1.5.1   Customs user fees  
3.1.5.1.1   Merchandise processing fee  
3.45.   Formal and informal imports are subject to  a Merchandise Processing Fee (MPF). The fee 
amounts to 0.3464% of the customs value ( not including duty, freight, or insurance charges ), with 
minimum and maximum of US$25 and US$485, for formal entries. Consignments qualifying as 
informal entries, e.g. co mmercial shipments worth no more than US$2,500 and personal 
shipments ) are not subject to the ad valorem  rate. Instead, flat rates are applied depending on 
whether the entry or release : (i) is entirely automated (US$2); (ii) is manual, but not prepared by 
CBP staff (US$6); or (iii) requires any preparation by CBP personnel (US$9). Imports under FTAs 
or preferential agreements or arrangements may be exempt from the Merchandise Processing 
Fee.38 Moreover, with the passage of the Trade Facilitation and Trade En forcement Act of 2015, 
MPF is no longer applied to express and postal shipments valued at less than US$800. The 
de minimis  value provision in the Tariff Act of 1930, below which goods are generally admitted free 
of duty and taxes, was raised from US$200 to  US$800 with effect from 11 March 2016.39 
                                                
34 According to the U.S. authorities, the two lines were never bound for reasons of national security. The 
current ap plied rates are 5.25 cents (HTS 2709.00.10) and 10.5 cents (HTS 2709.00.20) per barrel.  
35 WTO document WT/L/969, 2 December 2015.  
36 U.S. International Trade Commission (2015), Recommended Modifications in the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule to Conform with Amen dments to the Harmonized System Recommended by the World Customs 
Organization, and to Address Other Matters , Investigation No. 1205 -11, July. Viewed at: 
https://www.usitc.gov/publ ications/tariff_affairs/pub4556.pdf .  
37 TRQ allocation methods are described in WTO document G/AG/N/USA/2/Add.3, 5 October 2001.  
38 CBP provides a (non -binding) overview of the application (or exemption) of the MPF to imports under 
free trade agreements or  special trade legislation at: 
http://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/documents/merchandise_pf_table_0.pdf . 
39 The Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 20 15 (HR 644), Section 901 (c) and (d).  WT/TPR/S/350 • Unite d States  
 
- 47 - 
 
  3.46.   The Trans -Pacific Partnership ( TPP) Agreement  provisions prohibit  the use of an ad valorem  
fee for customs processing, which applies to the MPF, with a transition period for  the 
United  States. CBP has undertaken an analysis to develop a new MPF structure, and has begun 
sharing information with the public on the proposed new structure.40  
3.1.5.1.2   COBRA fees  
3.47.   Importers were not charged inspection fees prior to the passage of COBRA – the Consolidate 
Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1985 (PL 99 -272). Since 7 July 1986, COBRA fees have been 
collected for various customs services, including the issuance of customs broker permits, the 
treatment of dutiable mail packages, and the processing of private vessels, commercial trucks, and 
passe ngers and cargo arriving by air, sea or rail. Fees vary by mode of arrival and may be 
assessed per crossing or annually with the help of transponders or decals (Table 3.3).41 
Table 3.3 COBRA fees  
Fee Reference  Fee rate/annual 
decal/cap/user fee  Note  
Commercial vessel  19 CFR 24.22(b)(1)  US$437/ US$5,955 (cap)   
Commercial vehicle  19 CFR 24.22(c)  US$5.50/US$100 (annual cap)   
Rail cars  19 CFR 24.22(d)  US$8.25/US$100 (prepay)   
Private aircraft/vessel  19 CFR 24.2 2(e) US$27.50 (annual decal)   
Air/sea passenger  19 CFR 24.22(g)  US$5.50 (per arrival)  Exemption for 
Canada, Mexico, and 
U.S. territories, 
possessions or 
adjacent islands  
Cruise vessel and ferry 
passenger trave l from Canada, 
Mexico, and U.S.  territories, 
possessions or adjacent islands  19 CFR 24.22(g)(ii)  US$1.93 (per arrival)   
Dutiable mail  19 CFR 24.22(f)  US$5.50 (per dutiable package)   
Customs broker  19 CFR 24.22(c)  US$138 (annual fee)   
Barge/bulk carriers from 
Canada and Mexico  19 CFR 24.22(b)(2 )(i) US$110/US$1,500 (cap)   
Source:  WTO document WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1, 13 March 2015 , based on CBP online information. Viewed at: 
http://www.cbp.gov/trade/basic -import -export/uftd -info and 
http://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/documents/userfee0407_3.pdf . 
3.1.5.1.3   Harbor Maintenance Tax  
3.48.   CBP collects a 0.125% tax on all commercial imports arriving by vessel,  admiss ions into 
foreign trade zones, domestic cargo shipped through a port, and cruise ship passengers.  The tax is 
not collected on exports in accordance with a decision of the  U.S. Supreme Court in 1998.  
3.49.   The proceeds are remitted to the Harbor Maintenance Trus t Fund (HMTF), from which 
Congress appropriates amounts to maintain harbours and undertake development work through 
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. In 2015, the tax generated revenue (including earnings on 
investment) of approximately US$1.5 billion. Ove r the years, about US$8.6 billion has been 
accumulated in the HMTF. The Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 
(PL 113-121) establishes minimum levels of total target budget resources to be made available to 
the Secretary of the Army from the H MTF over a ten -year period. Starting in 2015 at a minimum 
of 67% (of the revenues collected in 2014), the targeted minimum percentage is set to increase 
annually until it reach es 100% in 2025, thereby reducing the HMTF and ensuring continued Corps 
work.  
                                                
40 CBP online information , "Merchandise Processing Fee (MPF) Analysis" . Viewed at: 
https://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/assets/documents/2016 -
Apr/MPF%20Briefing%20for%20External%20Stakeholders_April2016.pdf .  
41 Decals are stickers placed on private aircraft and vessels (longer than 30 feet) proving that the 
annual user fee has been paid. Affixed to the inside of windscreens of vehicles, transponders contain radio 
frequency identification chips transmitting information about the vehicle and its user fee status. The 
transponder is updated as the user fee is paid and may have a lif e span of 10 years. If the annual fee has not 
been paid, the transponder will continue to transmit, and a per -crossing fee will be applied.  WT/TPR/S/350 • United States  
 
- 48 - 
 
  3.1.5.1.4   Agriculture fees  
3.50.   The Animal  and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) , part of the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture (USDA),  collects Agriculture Quarantine Inspection (AQI) fees which it shares  with CBP  
under an agreed allocation . In addition, fees are coll ected for veterinary and laboratory services 
(Table 3.4).  
Table 3.4 Agricultural fees, applicable from 28 December 2015  
Fee Legal reference  Reason  Amount of fee  
AQI Aircraft Clearance  Food, Agriculture and 
Conservation Act of 1990; 
also MOU  Agricultural quarantine 
and inspection services  US$225.00 per arrival  
AQI Commercial Cargo 
Vessel  Food, Agriculture and 
Conservation Act of 1990; 
also MOU  Agricultural quarantine 
and inspection services  US$825.00 per ar rival 
(cap of 15 payments per 
calendar year eliminated)  
AQI Commercial Truck  Food, Agriculture and 
Conservation Act of 1990; 
also MOU  Agricultural quarantine 
and inspection services  US$7.55 per arrival  
AQI Commercial Truck 
with transponder (one 
annual p ayment)  Food, Agriculture and 
Conservation Act of 1990; 
also MOU  Agricultural quarantine 
and inspection services  US$301.67  
AQI Commercial 
Vessel (Cruise) 
Passenger  Food, Agriculture and 
Conservation Act of 1990; 
also MOU  Agricultural quarantine 
and insp ection services  US$1.75 per arrival  
AQI International Air 
Passenger  Food, Agriculture and 
Conservation Act of 1990; 
also MOU  Agricultural quarantine 
and inspection services  US$3.96 per arrival  
AQI Loaded Rail Car  Food, Agriculture and 
Conservation Act o f 1990; 
also MOU  Agricultural quarantine 
and inspection services  US$2.00 per arrival  
AQI Treatment  Food, Agriculture and 
Conservation Act of 1990; 
also MOU  Agricultural quarantine 
and inspection services  First year: US$47.00  
Second year: US$95.00  
Third year: US$142.00  
Fourth year: US$190.00  
Fifth year: US$237.00  
Avocado Import 
Assessment  7 CFR 1219.54  Avocado research, 
promotion, consumer 
information  US$0.025 per pound  
Beef Import 
Assessment  7 CFR Part 1260  Beef research, 
promotion, consumer 
informati on Varies according to the 
product and HTS number  
Blueberry Import 
Assessment  7 CFR 1218.52  Blueberry research, 
promotion, consumer 
information  US$0.01984 per  kg 
Christmas Tree Import 
Assessment  7 CFR 1214.52  Christmas tree research, 
promotion, consumer 
information  US$0.15 per Christmas 
tree 
Cotton Import 
Assessment  Cotton Research and 
Promotion Act of 1989 7 CFR 
1205  Cotton research, 
promotion, consumer 
information  Varies according to the 
product and HTS number  
Dairy Import 
Assessment  7 CFR Part 1150  Dairy research, 
promotion, consumer 
information  US$0.01327 per kg of 
milk solids  
Honey Import 
Assessment  7 CFR 1212.52  Honey research, 
promotion, consumer 
information  Varies according to the 
product and HTS number  
Mango Import 
Assessment  7 CFR 1206.42  Mango research, 
promotion, consumer 
information  US$0.0075 per pound  
Mushroom Import 
Assessment  Food, Agriculture  and 
Conservation Act of 1990 
7 CFR 1209  Mushroom research, 
promotion, consumer 
information  Varies according to the 
product and HTS number  
Paper and Packaging 
Import Assessment  7 CFR 1222.52  Paper and packaging 
research, promotion, 
consumer information  US$0.00000386 per kg  
Pork Import 
Assessment  7 CFR Part 1230  Pork research, 
promotion, consumer 
information  Varies according to the 
product an d HTS number  WT/TPR/S/350 • Unite d States  
 
- 49 - 
 
  Fee Legal reference  Reason  Amount of fee  
Potato Import 
Assessment  Food, Agriculture and 
Conservation Act of 1990 
7 CFR 1207  Potato research, 
promotion, consumer 
information  Varies according to the 
product and HTS number  
Raspberry Import 
Assessment  7 CFR 1208.52  Raspberry research , 
promotion, consumer 
information  Varies according to the 
product and HTS number  
Softwood Lumber 
Import Assessment  7 CFR 1217.52  Softwood lumber 
research, promotion, 
consumer information  US$0.1483 per cubic 
metre  
Veterinary Diagnostic 
User Fees  9 CFR 130 .14 through 
130.19  Costs for tests from the 
national Veterinary 
Services Laboratories  Varies depending on the 
type of test  
Veterinary Services 
User Fees  9 CFR 130.2 through 130.30  Costs for veterinary 
services  Varies by type of service  
Watermelon Import 
Assessment  Watermelon Research and 
Promotion Act 7 CFR 1210  Watermelon research, 
promotion, consumer 
information  Varies according to the 
product and HTS number  
Source:  CPB online information . Viewed at: 
http://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/documents/userfee0407_3.pdf  and 
https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/business -services/user_fees/aqi_user_fees ; and 
information provided by the authorities.  
3.51.   Following a report by the  Government Accountability Office ( GAO) in 2013, highlighting 
discrepancies between fee revenue and programme costs42 and concerns regarding the collection  
process, APHIS published a proposal to adjust existing AQI fees and add new fees in April 2014. 
The USDA issued its final rule in October  2015.43 The new and amended AQI fees entered into 
force on 28 December 2015.  
3.52.   The new rates are based on detailed hist orical cost data (for 2010, 2011, and 2012) for 
each fee, adding projected inflation through 2017 and a 3.5% reserve on the basic costs.44 The 
closer alignment of the fee structure to the underlying costs of the services rendered resulted in a 
significant d ecline in the charges for railcar cargo and international air passengers but also in 
markedly higher fees for aircraft clearance (+300%), commercial vessels (+60%), and trucking 
fees. The revised rules introduced an AQI fee on arriving cruise ship passenge rs (US$1.75) as well 
as a new fee for instances where APHIS prescribes treatments for pests of quarantine 
significance.45 In the final rule, the treatment fee is lower than originally proposed (US$375) as 
overtime charges have been separated from the basic fee. The new fee is being phased in over a 
five-year period, thus rising from US$47 in 2016 to US$237 as from 28 December 2019.  
3.1.5.2   Excise taxes  
3.53.   Excise taxes may be levied at the federal, state, local, o r municipal level in the 
United  States. Rates vary widel y from State to State, and some goods may be subject to taxation 
at more than one level. They are equally applied on imports and domestic products and services. 
Revenue from federal excise taxes (Table 3.5) may be earmarked for specific purposes (trust 
funds) or held for general expenditure (general funds).  
3.54.   Excise taxes are projected to account for approximately 2.9% of federal government 
revenue in 2016.46 The most important sources of revenue are the excises on motor fuels, air 
                                                
42 OMB Circular A -25 requires user charges to match the full cost to the Federal Government. Viewed at: 
https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_a025/ . 
43 80 FR 66748.  
44 The reserve account is targeted as a 90 - to 150 -day operating reserve to be drawn upon when a 
shortfall of activity would lead to programme costs exceeding the revenue collected.  
45 The AQI treatment fee is assessed when treatment is required and performed in the United States 
under the supervision of an APHIS agent. Treatment may, for example, be in the form of fumigation, dips, 
sprays or non -chemical treatments such as cold treatment, hot water immersion, vapour heat treatment, 
steam sterilization, or irradiation. The fee covers the cost of APHIS supervision only and not, for example, the 
services of fumigators and other treatment providers.  
46 Joint Committee on Taxation (2016), Overview of the Federal Tax System as in Effect for 2016 
(JCX-43-16), 10 May. Viewed at: https://www.jct.gov/publications.html?func=startdown&i d=4912 .  WT/TPR/S/350 • United States  
 
- 50 - 
 
  tickets, tobacco, and alcoho lic beverages, and the annual fee on health insurance providers.47 
Many excises, including some of the fuel -related taxes, have a permanent legal basis, while others 
would expire at regular intervals unless renewed. The tax rates are generally expressed in 
ad valorem  or specific (per unit) terms. Taxes on domestic and international air passengers are 
adjusted annually for inflation. The excise tax on crude oil for the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund has 
been set at 8 cents per barrel in 2016, rising to 9 cent s in calendar year 2017.  
Table 3.5 Federal excise taxes  
Fund/subject  Products  
Trust funds  
Highway Trust Fund  Petrol, diesel, and alcohol fuels; ethanol, liquid fuel, ethanol, 
methanol, bio -diesel, CNG, LPG, LNG, other special fuels, highway 
tractors, heavy trucks, trailers, t yres for heavy vehicles, highway 
use by heavy vehicles  
Airport and Airway Trust Fund  Domestic and international air passengers transportation, air 
cargo, aviation fuelsa 
Inland Waterwa ys Trust Fund  Diesel fuel and other liquid fuels  
Harbo r Maintenance Trust Fund  Commercial cargo  
Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust 
Fund Excise Tax  Certain fuels; methanol and ethanol fuels produced from coal  
Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund  Crude oi l and imported petroleum products  
Sport Fish Restoration and Boating Trust 
Fund Fishing rods, reels, and other fishing equipment, motorboat fuel, 
small-engine fuel  
Land and Water Conservation Fund  Bows and arrows, regular firearms and ammunition, motorbo at 
fuel 
Black Lung Disability Trust Fund  Coal 
Vaccine Injury Compensation Trust Fund  Certain taxable vaccines  
Patient -Centered Outcomes Research 
Trust Fund  Specified health insurance policy; self -insured plans  
Medicare Part B Trust Fund  Annual fee on b randed prescription pharmaceutical manufacturers 
and importers  
General funds  
Distilled spirits, wine, and beer  Distilled spirits, wine (including champagne and hard apple cider), 
and beer  
Tobacco  Tobacco products, cigarette papers and tubes  
Communicati ons Local telephone service, local teletypewriter service, and 
telephone cards (local -only service)  
Gas guzzler s Automobiles (tax is related to vehicle fuel economy rating)  
Water transportation passengers  Per passenger per covered voyage on commercial ve ssels 
Ozone -depleting chemicals  Certain CFC and related chemicals  
Foreign procurement  Specified federal procurement payments  
Health care  Indoor tanning services; certain medical devices; hospital 
failures; and health insurance providers  
Non-regular fir earms  Machine guns, destructive devices, sawed off shotguns, etc.  
Wagering  Tax on the amount of wager and on persons engaged or 
employed in business of accepting wagers  
Domestic private foundation net 
investment income  Tax on tax -exempt and taxable foun dations  
Foreign private foundation net investment 
income  Tax on gross investment income from sources within the 
United  States  
Insurance policies issued by foreign 
insurers  Insurance (tax on premium paid)  
a 26 U.S.C. 4221 provides for an exemption, based  on reciprocity, from U.S. excise taxes on fuel for 
civil aircraft engaged in foreign trade with the United States and any of its possessions, where the 
Department of Commerce has made a finding that a foreign country allows, or will allow, 
substantially r eciprocal privileges in respect of aircraft registered in the United States.  
Note:  Excise taxes related to certain private foundations, excess lobbying expenses, real estate  
investment , "golden parachutes", or miscellaneous regulatory excise taxes are not included as they 
are not trade related.  
Source:  Joint Committee on Taxation (201 5), Present Law and Background Information on Federal Excise 
Taxes , 13 July. Viewed at: https://www.j ct.gov/publications.html?func=showdown&id=4798 .  
                                                
47 Regarding the taxation of alcoholic beverages, reduced tax rates apply to small brewers and wineries, 
and an exemption applies to limited production for own consumption. A portion of the distilled spirits excise tax 
on rum (US$10.50 per proof g allon) is remitted to Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands.  WT/TPR/S/350 • Unite d States  
 
- 51 - 
 
  3.55.   For health insurance providers, the annual fee is imposed as an aggregate amount on the 
industry, and subsequently apportioned among the covered entities based on their respective 
market shares.48 The same m ethod is used for the imposition of the annual fee on branded 
prescription drugs. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 (PL 114 -113) provides a two -year 
moratorium on the medical devices excise tax. Thus, the 2.3% tax is not to be levied until the end 
of 2017.49 The Act also suspends collection of the health insurance provider fee for the 
2017 calendar year. Thus, health insurance issuers are not required to pay these fees for 2017.  
3.1.6   Import prohibitions, restrictions, and special requirements  
3.1.6.1   Prohibitions  and restrictions  
3.56.   On behalf of some 40 federal agencies, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection enforces 
laws that may prohibit or restrict the importation of certain goods for various purposes. 
Importation may be prohibited outright, or allowed under cert ain conditions, or be subject to 
special requirements such as designated ports of entry or routing restrictions (Table A3.2).  
3.57.   United States' fisheries legislation, in particular the Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation 
and Management Reauthorization Act (MSRA) of 2006 and the Illegal, Unreported, and 
Unregulated Fishing Enforcement Act of 2015 (which amended the High Seas Driftnet Fishing 
Moratorium Protection Act), provides a framework for addressing concerns regarding illegal, 
unreported and unregulated  (IUU) fishing, bycatch of protected living marine resources, and shark 
conservation. Under the Moratorium Protection Act, the Secretary of Commerce, in a report to 
Congress, is required to identify countries whose fishing vessels have been  engaged in (i) IUU 
fishing, (ii) bycatch of protected living marine resources where a nation has not adopted a 
regulatory program me to address the conservation of sharks  that is comparable to that of the 
United  States, or (iii) fishing activities on the high seas that ta rget or incidentally catch sharks 
where the nation has not adopted a regulatory program me to address the conservation of sharks 
that is comparable to that of the United States. The identified countries are certified following a 
two-year consultative proces s. A negative certification results in the imposition of port restrictions 
and potential import restrictions on fish and fish products.50  
3.58.   In June 2014, the President established a task force to develop recommendations to 
enhance coordination and implement a comprehensive framework to combat IUU fishing and 
seafood fraud. The task force provided an action plan to implement 15 recommendations on 
15 March 2015.51 Two of the recommendations address the establishment of a risk -based 
program me to track domestic an d imported seafood from point of harvest or production to entry 
into U.S.  commerce. In February 2016, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 
(NOAA Fisheries) published a proposed rule for public comment, and expect ed to publish a final 
rule in  September 2016. The proposed rule would establish reporting requirements (through ACE) 
for imports of a set of priority species, applicable to U.S. importers.52 The proposed rule focuses on 
imports because, for the priority species selected for the program me's initial phase, equivalent 
information for domestic products is already being collected through existing program mes. The 
importer will need to keep records regarding the product's chain of custody to point of entry into 
                                                
48 The annual fee has been set at US$11.3 billion for calendar years 2015 and 2016, US$13.9 billion 
for 2017, and US$14.3 billion for 2018. The fee is to be indexed to the rate of premium growth  after 2018.  
49 Since the tax was introduced in 2012, it has been applied to manufacturers and importers of certain 
medical equipment for professional use, but not to retail purchases for personal use of eyeglasses, contact 
lenses, hearing aids, or other de vices by the general public.  
50 The 2015 report to Congress provided positive certifications for all ten countries (Colombia, Ecuador, 
Ghana, Italy, Korea (Rep. of), Mexico, Panama, Spain, Tanzania, and Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of))  
included in the pr evious report, as having strengthened their laws or regulations, enforcement, and monitoring 
systems. Simultaneously, the report identified six countries (Colombia, Ecuador, Mexico, Nicaragua, Nigeria, 
and Portugal) with vessels engaged in IUU fishing in 2 013 and 2014 and thus to be subject to consultations 
and certification. Viewed at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/ia/iuu/msra_page/2015noaareptcongress.pdf . The 
authority for prep aration of the biennial report has been delegated from the Secretary of Commerce to the 
NOAA Assistant Administrator for Fisheries. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is scheduled 
to issue its next report in January  2017.  
51 Presidential In itiative on Combating Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated (IUU) Fishing and Seafood 
Fraud. Report viewed at : http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/ia/iuu/noaa_taskforce_report_final.pdf . 
52 This would include information on harvest, landing, and chain of custody of product to the point of 
entry into U.S. commerce.  WT/TPR/S/350 • United States  
 
- 52 - 
 
  U.S. commerce and make those rec ords available to NOAA Fisheries upon request. The rule does 
not institute new labelling requirements.53  
3.1.6.2   Import licensing  
3.59.   Import licences, imposed under various statutes and for various purposes, are enforced by 
six agencies: the Departments of Agriculture , Commerce (steel), Energy (natural gas), the Interior 
(fish and wildlife), Justice (firearms, explosives, and drugs), and the Treasury (alcohol and 
tobacco), and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Licences are either automatic or 
non-automatic. The Steel Import Monitoring and Analysis System, an automatic system designed 
to provide statistical data five to six weeks in advance of when it would normally become available, 
was extended until 21  March 2017 under a decision taken in 2013.54 Licensing requirement s apply 
to all basic steel mill imports from all countries.  
3.60.   During the review period, the United States has provided two notifications of its import 
licensing regime.55 The regime has largely been stable (Table A3.3). After extensive public 
comment, a regu lation amending certain aspects of the Dairy Import Licensing Program (TRQs) 
was published on 27 July 2015.56 The revision extends the historical licence reduction provision 
(§ 6.25(b) – set to expire at the beginning of the 2016 quota year) for an addition al seven years, 
aligns the collection of fees more closely to the costs of administering the program me, and 
prescribes the exclusive use of electronic communication in the application, reporting and payment 
procedures. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission ame nded its import/export regulations on 
10 July 2014 to conform to the export control guidelines of the Nuclear Suppliers Group and to 
incorporate, by reference, the document "Nuclear Security Recommendations on Physical 
Protection of Nuclear Material and Nu clear Facilities" of the International Atomic Energy Agency.57  
3.1.6.3   Controls, special procedures, or diplomatic measures  
3.61.   The Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) of the United States Treasury Department 
administers a number of program mes involving the blocki ng of assets of Specially Designated 
Nationals and Blocked Persons (SDNs).58 Some of these program mes concern actions taken to 
combat trafficking in narcotics, transnational criminal organizations, cyber -related crimes, rough 
diamond trade controls, anti -terrorism measures, and the non -proliferation of weapons of mass 
destruction. Among the country -specific measures, a variety of economic, trade, and other 
restrictions are enforced with respect to certain countries, including Cuba, Iran, the Democratic 
Peopl e's Republic of Korea (DPRK), Sudan, and Syria.  
3.62.   On 17 December 2014, the Presidents of the United States and Cuba announced their 
intention to re -establish diplomatic relations between the two countries.59 On the U.S. side, the 
announcement has been accomp anied by a modification of existing measures, including 
authorizing certain travel and commerce, and eased restrictions on certain aspects of finance, 
shipping, and importation of software of Cuban origin. However, although modified, the economic, 
commerci al and financial embargo on Cuba remains in place.  
3.63.   Following the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action60 reached between Iran and the 
United  States and its partners61 on 14 July 2015, which was concluded to ensure that Iran's 
nuclear programme is and remains e xclusively peaceful, the United States took action to authorize 
                                                
53 Actions and Announcements: Recommendations 14 & 15. Viewed at: 
http://www.iuufishing.noaa.gov/RecommendationsandActions/RECOMMENDATION1415/February2016Proposed
RuleforSeafoodTraceabilityProgram.aspx . 
54 78 FR 11090.  
55 WTO document s G/LIC/N/3/USA/11, 3 October 2014, and G/LIC/N/3/USA/12, 9 October 2015.  
56 80 FR 44251 -44258.  
57 IAEA document INFCIRC/225/Revision 5, January 2011.  
58 U.S. Department of the Treasury online information. Viewed at: https://www.treasury.gov/resource -
center/sanctions/Programs/Pages/Programs.aspx . 
59 For the statement by the President of the United States, see: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the -press -
office/2014/12/17/statement -president -cuba-policy -changes  
60 U.S. Department of the Treasury online information. Viewed at: https://www.treasury.gov/resource -
center/sanctions/Programs/Documents/implement_guide_jcpoa.pdf  (Guidance) and 
https://www.treasury.gov/resource -center/sanctions/Programs/Documents/jcpoa_faqs.pdf  (FAQs).  
61 The European Union, China, France, Germany, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom.  WT/TPR/S/350 • Unite d States  
 
- 53 - 
 
  the importation of certain goods of Iranian origin in January 2016.62 The United States 
Government also lifted nuclear -related "secondary sanctions", which generally are directed toward 
non-U.S. persons for specified conduct involving Iran that occurs entirely outside of 
U.S. jurisdiction and does not involve U.S. persons. The U.S. embargo on Iran remains in place.  
3.64.   Regarding DPRK, sanctions were tightened through passage of the North Korea Sanct ions 
and Policy Enhancement Act of 2016 (PL 114 -122). The law requires the President to impose 
economic sanctions on persons engaged in "sanctionable conduct", including the proliferation of 
weapons of mass destruction and arms -related materials, trade in luxury goods and counterfeit 
goods with the DPRK, human rights violations, and other illicit activitie s. Further, Executive 
Order  13722, signed on 15 March 2016, imposed a ban on exports to DPRK which, when combined 
with existing sanctions prohibiting impo rts, effectively embargos trade with DPRK.  
3.65.   Title IV of the Trade Act of 1974, also known as the Jackson -Vanik amendment, is still 
applied with respect to Azerbaijan, Belarus, Cuba, Kazakhstan, the Democratic People's Re public 
of Korea, Tajikistan, Turkmen istan, and Uzbekistan. Following the accessions of Tajikistan and 
Kazakhstan to the WTO, the U.S.  Congress will need to pass legislation to allow the United  States 
to grant permanent normal trade relations (PNTR) to these two countries.  
3.1.7   Anti-dumping, coun tervailing, and safeguard measures  
3.1.7.1   Legislation and administration  
3.66.   The main U.S . legislation with respect to anti -dumping (AD) and countervailing duties (CVD) 
is Title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Trade Agreements Act of 1979. The Trade 
and Tariff Act of 1984, the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988, and the Uruguay 
Round Agreements Act of 1994 (URAA) introduced further modifications to AD and CVD legislation. 
The main regulations governing AD and CVD investigations (including  reviews) are included in 
Title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 201, 207, and 351.63  
3.67.   The International Trade Administration (ITA) in the U.S. Department of Commerce 
(USDOC), and the United States International Trade Commission (USITC), are respo nsible for the 
administration of laws and agreements with respect to AD and CVD measures in the United States. 
The ITA is in charge of the determination of the existence and margin of dumping and subsidy in 
AD and CVD investigations, while the USITC determ ines material injury or threat of material injury 
to the domestic industry resulting from imports of the dumped or subsidized products.  
3.68.   In particular, ITA's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations Unit (AD/CVD 
Operations) is responsible for enforci ng U.S. AD and CVD laws. AD/CVD Operations conducts 
investigations in response to petitions received by the USDOC from domestic industries and/or 
labour unions. AD/CVD Operations also conducts subsequent proceedings known as administrative 
reviews in which  importers' actual duty liability is assessed. The Customs Unit within AD/CVD 
Operations serves as the liaison with U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) on matters 
pertaining to the collection of AD/CVD duties and issues of potential fraud associated w ith AD/CVD 
proceedings.64 
3.69.   The ITA's AD/CVD Petition Counseling and Analysis Unit, es tablished in 2004, assists 
U.S. companies with respect to recourse to U.S. unfair trade laws. The Unit provides assistance, 
inter alia, to help interested parties understand  legislation and regulations and information on how 
to file petitions.65  
                                                
62 OFAC amended the Iranian Transactions and S anctions Regulations, 31 CFR part 560, authorizing 
imports of foodstuffs (within HS Chapters 2 to 23), including pistachios and caviar, and carpets 
(HS 97.06.00.0060 and Chapter 57).  
63 19 CFR Part 351 62 Fed. Reg. 27295, 19 May 1997 (AD Duties, Final Rule) ; 19 CFR Part 351 63 Fed. 
Reg. 65347, 25 November 1998 (CV Duties, Final Rule); 19 CFR 351.222(b) 64 Fed. Reg. 29818, 3 June 1999 
(Proposed Regulation Concerning the Revocation of AD Duty); 19 CFR 351.222(b) and 19 CFR 351.222(c) 
64 Fed. Reg. 51236, 22 Sep tember 1999 (Amended Regulation Concerning the Revocation of AD and CV Duty 
Orders); 19 CFR Section 351.218 63 Fed. Reg. 13516, 20 March 1998 (Procedures for Conducting Five -Year 
("Sunset") Reviews of AD CV Duty Orders); 19 CFR Parts 351 and 354 63 Fed. Re g. 24391, 4 May 1998 
(AD and CV Duty Proceedings).  
64 USDOC online information. Viewed at: http://trade.gov/enforcement/operations/ .  
65 USDOC online information. Viewed at: http://enforcement.trade.gov/petitioncounseling/index.html .  WT/TPR/S/350 • United States  
 
- 54 - 
 
  3.70.   The USDOC initiates AD and CVD investigations, generally at the request of petitioners, 
based on written applications; it has the authority to self -initiate investigations, but seldom  uses 
it. Investigation petitions must be filed simultaneously with the USDOC's ITA and the USITC . An 
U.S. industry petitioning for the initiation of an AD or CVD investigation must provide a reasonable 
basis to believe or suspect (a) that dumping and/or s ubsidization of a particular product is 
occurring, (b) that the domestic industry has suffered "material injury or threat thereof" , and 
(c) that there is a causal link between the two . AD and CVD on the same product may be initiated 
concurrently.  
3.71.   To initi ate an investigation, the USDOC must determine that a petition has been  filed by an 
interested party and that it has the support of the industry producing the domestic like product in 
the United States (industry support). To determine if the petition has i ndustry support, it must 
meet two criteria: (a) the 25% test, meaning that the domestic producers or workers who support 
the petition must account for at least 25% of the total production of the domestic like product; and 
(b) the 50% test, meaning that the  domestic producers or workers who support the petition must 
account for more than 50% of the production of the domestic like product produced by that 
portion of the industry expressing support for the petition. The petition must also clearly identify 
and define the domestic like product as well as all its producers. In addition, the petition must 
include information relating to the degree of industry support for  it, including: (a) the total volume 
and value of U.S. production of the domestic like product; and ( b) the volume and value of 
U.S. production of the domestic like product produced by the petitioner(s) and each domestic 
producer identified.66  
3.72.   A determination on whether or not to initiate an investigation is usually made within 
20 days of the date of  filing of the petition, as specified in S ection 732(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930  
and 19  CFR 351.203. Following the initiation of the investigation, the USITC makes a preliminary 
injury determination: if this is negative, the investigation is terminated, i f it is affirmative, the ITA 
issues a preliminary determination of dumping or subsidization. The investigation continues, 
whether the ITA's preliminary determination is affirmative or negative. In the case an affirmative 
determination is made, provisional measures may be applied.67 If the ITA's final determination 
finds a margin of dumping or a subsidy rate above the de minimis  level, the USITC issues a final 
injury determination. If the USITC determination is affirmative, the ITA issues an order imposing 
AD or CVD duties, if it is negative, the investigation is terminated, no order is issued, provisional 
measures are lifted, and cash deposits returned, with interest.  
3.73.   The ITA uses two types of AD calculation methods: (i) market -economy (ME); and 
(ii) non-market economy (NME). In both cases, the ITA compares prices in the United States to a 
normal value (NV). However, the determination of the NV varies according to whether the ITA is 
dealing with a n ME or a n NME. In ME calculations, the ITA bases NV on the comp any's actual costs 
and prices in the comparison market, which can be either the home country of the respondent or 
another suitable third country. If the ITA does not find a suitable comparison market, it bases NV 
on the constructed value (CV) which is a co st-based build -up of a surrogate price. In NME AD 
calculations, NV is comprised of the company's factors of production valued in an appropriate 
surrogate country.  
3.74.   AD and CVD investigations may be suspended under some circumstances based on an 
agreement to cease exports, or to eliminate the injurious effect. In the case of AD investigations, 
under suspension agreements exporters accounting for substantially all of the imports of the 
merchandise under investigation may agree to cease exports or accept price u ndertakings. For 
non-market economies, AD suspension agreements may combine price undertakings and 
additional elements in order to prevent price suppression or undercutting. In CVD cases, the 
Government alleged to be providing the subsidy may agree to elim inate the subsidy, to completely 
offset the net subsidy, or to cease or limit exports of the merchandise to the United  States. 
                                                
66 USDOC online information. Viewed at: http:  http://enforcement.t rade.gov/petitioncounseling/pcp -
howtofile.html .  
67 The collection of duties is done by CBP: cash deposits equal to the preliminary margins are collected 
from the publication date of the preliminary determination (or earlier if the USDOC reached an affirma tive 
critical circumstances determination); cash deposits equal to the final margins from the publication date of the 
final determination; cash deposits equal to the amended final margins (if need be) from the publication date of 
the amended final determin ation; and cash deposits equal to the final margins (or amended final margins) 
from the publication date of the AD Order. See Sections 703(d)(1) (B) and 733(d) (1)(B) of the Act and 19  CFR 
Section  351.205(d).  WT/TPR/S/350 • Unite d States  
 
- 55 - 
 
  Agreements to suspend an AD investigation entered into with a WTO Member considered a market 
economy may only involve price under takings. Agreements with respect to CVD investigations may 
also involve quantitative restrictions.  
3.75.   Interested parties may request administrative reviews of CVD and AD orders in effect each 
year, during the anniversary month of the publication of the order.68 These afford interested 
parties an opportunity to have the USDOC review a particular company's entries, exports, or sales 
made during the period of review, that is, the 12 months immediately preceding the anniversary 
month in which the review was request ed. The outcome of this review determines the actual 
weighted -average margin and duty assessments for that period and the future cash deposit rate. If 
the number of companies or products involved is so large as to make a request impracticable, the 
USDOC ma y choose to limit its review to a statistically significant sample of exporters, producers, 
or types of products, or to exporters and producers accounting for the largest volume of the 
subject merchandise from the exporting country that can be reasonably e xamined. Requests for 
duty absorption rulings may also be made in administrative reviews, but only for those initiated 
two or four years after publication of the AD order.69 If no review is requested for a particular 
12-month period, final duties are assess ed in the amount deposited for that period.  
3.76.   Section 751(c) of the U.S. Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the URAA, requires that the 
USDOC and the USITC initiate sunset reviews no later than 30 days before the fifth anniversary of 
publication in the Federa l Register of an AD or CVD order or suspension agreement. The sunset 
review must determine whether the revocation of the order would be likely to lead to the 
continuation or recurrence of dumping or countervailable subsidies ( by USDOC) and of material 
injury to the domestic industry ( by USITC). Initiations are automatic. The USDOC has 
implemen ted a policy of providing a one -month advance notification of sunset reviews in the 
Federal Register, informing interested parties of sunset reviews scheduled for init iation in the 
month to follow. Sunset reviews are order -specific (country - and product -specific) but may be 
grouped in an investigation; suspension agreements are also subject to sunset review.70 In 
determining whether revocation of an order or termination of a suspended investigation would 
likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping, the USDOC considers the margins established 
in the investigation and/or reviews conducted during the sunset review period, as well as the 
volume of imports for the per iods before and after issuance of the order or acceptance of the 
suspension agreement. It may also consider other economic factors if interested parties can 
demonstrate good cause.  
3.77.   In August 2010, the USDOC announced a Trade Law Enforcement Package to str engthen its 
administration of the U.S. trade remedy laws. A number of proposals were launched to refine the 
USDOC's current practice and strengthen its administration of U.S. AD and CVD laws . The 
proposals touch on issues related to the determination of AD  duties , CVD, market econo my status 
and non -market economies . They gave way to amended regulations or changes in practices, 
issued mostly between 2011 and 2013.71  
                                                
68 Parties that may request administrative review s include: domestic interested parties; certain foreign 
governments that are defined as interested parties; most exporters and producers of merchandise covered by 
an order; and importers of merchandise covered by an order.  
69 Duty absorption occurs when th e affiliated importer pays or "absorbs" the anti -dumping duties rather 
than adjusting prices to eliminate dumping.  Although a finding of duty absorption does not affect the margin 
calculation in an administrative review, it makes it more difficult to obtai n revocation or termination, since duty 
absorption will be taken into account when determining in sunset reviews the dumping margins likely to prevail 
if an order were to be revoked. The USDOC considers that absorption of duties is a strong indication that  
calculated dumping margins may not be indicative of the margins that would exist in the absence of an order. 
The USDOC notifies the USITC of its findings regarding duty absorption and the USITC will take those findings 
into account when determining in a s unset proceeding whether injury is likely to continue.  See 
Section  751(a)(4) of the Act and 19 CFR Section 351.213(1). See also Modification of Regulations Regarding 
the Practice of Accepting Bonds During the Provisional Measures Period in Antidumping and Countervailing 
Duty Investigations, 76  Fed. Reg. 61042 (3 October 2011).  
70 Sunset review procedures and rule s for USDOC are set out in 19 CFR  Sections 351.218. Procedures 
specific to the USITC sunset review proceedings are set out in 19 C FR Sections  207.6 0-69. 
71 The new rules and changes in practice adopted included: The Announcement of Change in 
Department Practice for Respondent Selection in Antidumping Duty Proceedings and Conditional Review of the 
Nonmarket Economy Entity in NME Antidumping Duty Procee dings (78 Fed. Reg. 65963, 4 November 2013); 
Final Rule: Use of Market Economy Input Prices in Nonmarket Economy Proceedings (78 Fed. Reg. 46799, 
2 August 2013); Certification of Factual Information To Import Administration  During Antidumping and 
Counterva iling Duty Proceedings (78 Fed. Reg. 42678, 17 July 2013); De Facto Criteria for Establishing a WT/TPR/S/350 • United States  
 
- 56 - 
 
  3.78.   More recently, the United States made some changes and updates to the AD and CVD laws. 
The ma in changes were with respect to amendment s of the Tariff Act of 1930 . The Trade 
Preferences Extension Act of 2015 (PL 114-27) of 29 June 2015 was notified to the WTO in 
July 2015.72 Its Title V  – Improvements to Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Laws, als o known 
as the American Trade Enforcement Effectiveness Act  – provided five amendments to U.S. AD and 
CVD laws: (i) Section 502 amends Section 776 of the Tariff Act of  1930, to modify the provisions 
addressing the selection and corroboration of certain inf ormation that may be used as facts 
otherwise available with an adverse inference in an AD or CVD proceeding; (ii) Section  503 
amends Section 771(7) of the Tariff Act of 1930 to modify the definiti on of ''material injury'' in 
AD and CVD proceedings; (i ii) Section 504 amends sections  771(1 5) and 773 of the Tariff Act 
of 1930, to modify the definition of ''ordinary course of trade'' and the provisions governing the 
treatment of a ''part icular market situation'' in AD  proceedings; (iv) Section 505 amends 
Sectio n 773(b)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to modify the treatment of distorted prices or costs in 
AD proceedings; and (v) Section 506 amends Section  782(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930 to modify 
the provision regarding accepting voluntary respondents in AD and C VD proceedings. The Act does 
not contain dates of application for any of these amendments.73 However, the USDOC issued a 
notice stating that all sections of the Act, except Section 503, would be applied to de terminations 
made on or after 6  August  2015.74 
3.79.   Among the changes introduced, the American Trade Enforcement Effectiveness Act 
expressly states that the USITC may not determine that there is no material injury or threat of 
material injury to an industry in the United States merely because that industry is profitable or 
because the performance of that industry has recently improved.  It also introduced changes with 
respect to the concept of constructed value, by stating  that, if a particular market situation exists 
such that the cost of materials and fabricat ion or other processing of any kind does not accurately 
reflect the cost of production in the ordinary course of trade, the administering authority may use 
another calculation methodology. With respect to prices and  costs in nonmarket economies, 
Section 77 3(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 was amended by adding a provision that gives the 
investigative authority discretion to disregard price or cost values without further investigation if it 
has determined that broadly available export subsidies existed or parti cular instances of 
subsidization occurred with respect to those price or cost values or if those price or cost values 
were subject to an antidumping order.  
3.80.   Questions were raised in the WTO's Committees  on Anti -Dumping Practices and on 
Subsid ies and Counte rvailing Measures  regarding some aspects of Public Law 114 -27, in particular  
the treatment of information from "secondary sources" in new cases , and the definition of 
"particular market situation" and the legal implications for specific producers with rega rd to the 
calculation methodology.75 The United States replied that this depended on the facts and 
circumstances the administering authority had before it on the administrative record.76 
                                                                                                                                                  
Separate Rate in Antidumping Proceedings Involving Non -Market Economy Countries (78 Fed. Reg. 40430, 
5 July 2013); Final Rule: Definition of Factual Information  and Time Limits for Su bmission of Factual 
Information  (78 Fed. Reg.  21246, 10  April 2013); Methodological Chang e for Implementation of 
Section  772(c)(2)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as Amended, In Certain Non -Market Economy Antidumping 
Proceedings (77 Fe d. Reg. 36481, 19  June 2012); Modification to Regulation Concerning the Revocation of 
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders (77 Fed. Reg. 29875, 21 May 2012); Non -Market Economy 
Antidumping Proceedings: Notice of Policy Concerning Assessment of Antidu mping Duties (76 Fed. Reg. 65694, 
24 October  2011); Modification of Regulations Regarding the Practice of Accepting Bonds During the Provisional 
Measures Period in Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Investigations (76 Fed. Reg. 61042, 3 October 2011); 
Antidumping Methodologies in Proceedings Involving Non -Market Economies: Valuing the Factor of Production: 
Labor , Announcement for change in methodology (76 Fed. Reg. 36092, 21  June 2011); Certification of Factual 
Information to Enforcement and Compliance Dur ing Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings, Interim 
Final Rule (76 Fed. Reg. 7491, 10 February 2011).  
72 Notified to the WTO in WTO document G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.20 and G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.20, 
16 July 2015.  
73 The full text of Public Law 114 -27 may be viewed at: https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th -
congress/house -bill/1295?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22antidumping%22 %5D%7D&resultIndex=18 .  
74 See Notice of Determination for the Dates of Application of Amendments to the Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duty Laws Made by the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015. 80 F ed. Reg. 46793 
(6 August  2015), n otified to the WTO i n WTO document G/ADP/N/1/ USA/Suppl.21, 
G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.2 1, 13 August 2015.  
75 WTO document G/ADP/Q1/USA/27, G/SCM/Q1/USA/27, 9 October 2015.  
76 WTO document G/ADP/Q1/USA/28, G/SCM/Q1/USA/28, 29 October 2015.  WT/TPR/S/350 • Unite d States  
 
- 57 - 
 
  3.81.   The Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015  (PL 114-125), signed into law on  
24 February  2016, amended the Tariff Act of 1930 regarding the application of the U.S. AD and 
CVD law to dumped and subsidized imports.77 Title IV of the Act, Prevention of Evasion of 
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders, known also  as the Enforce and Protect Act of 2015, 
contains provisions to strengthen enforcement to prevent the evasion of the payment of duties.78 
To this end, the Act mandates the establishment of a Trade Remedy Law Enforcement Division 
(TRLED) within the Office of  Trade of the Department of Homeland Security. The Division is 
entrusted with the development and administration of policies to prevent and counter evasion, and 
is responsible for directing enforcement and compliance assessment activities, as well as for 
conducting commercial risk assessment with respect to cargo destined for the United  States, and 
for the development of policies for the application of single entry and continuous bonds for entries 
of covered merchandise to sufficiently protect the collectio n of AD and CV duties. The TRLED has 
already initiated implementation of Title IV of the Act, including working with CBP 's Regulations 
and Rulings Division during the drafting phase of the implementing re gulations release d on 
22 August 2016. The TRLED has also drafted Standard Operating Procedures for the processing of 
Enforce and Protect Act allegations and begun programming the CBP.gov website to accommodate 
the public's submissions of alleg ations. Additionally, the TRLED has drafted FAQs for public 
guida nce on the procedures required for filing an allegation in proper form and will be reaching out 
to small businesses that may require additional assistance.  
3.82.   During the period under review, both the USITC and the USDOC instituted some changes in 
practice rel ated to investigation  procedures. The USDOC modified its regulation concerning the 
extension of time limits for submissions in AD and CVD proceedings. The modification clarifies that 
parties may request an extension of time limits before any time limit est ablished expires. This 
modification also requires that an request must be made in a separate, stand -alone submission, 
and clarifies the circumstances under which the Department will grant untimely -filed requests for 
the extension of time limits.79 The USDOC  also decided to continue not to apply its withdrawn 
targeted dumping regulations in less -than-fair-value investigations and to continue to determine 
whether to apply an alternative comparison method as appropriate based upon the particular facts 
in each c ase.80 The USDOC also modified its regulations pertaining to price adjustments in AD duty 
proceedings, to clarify that it does not intend to accept a price adjustment made after the time of 
sale unless the interested party demonstrates its entitlement to su ch an adjustment. The USDOC 
adopted in this final rule a non -exhaustive list of factors that it may consider in determining 
whether to accept a price adjustment made after the time of sale.81 
3.83.   The USITC amended its Rules of Practice and Procedure to modify  rules of general 
application, and provisions concerning the conduct of AD and CV duty investigations and reviews. 
The amendments were designed to increase efficiency in the processing and reviewing of 
documents filed with the Co mmission and to reduce expend iture.82 The USITC also introduced an 
amendment to its rules designed to facilitate the collection of information and reduce the burden 
on petitioning parties by changing the information they need to provide in petitions.83 
3.1.7.2   Anti-dumping  
3.84.   During the period  2014 to end-June 2016, the number of AD investigation initiations 
totaled  85. Although the number of initiations decreased to 19 in 2014 from 39 in 2013, it 
increased in 2015 to 42 and there were 24 initiations up to J une 2016 (Table 3.6). Of the 
19 investiga tions initiated in 2014, 14 resulted in the imposition of definitive measures (74% of 
the total), and one, regarding sugar from Mexico, resulted in a suspension agreement. The other 
four investigations resulted in termination due to a no injury finding, bu t in two of them provisional 
measures had been imposed. As at 30 September  2016, 14 of the investigations initiated in 2015 
had resulted in the imposition of definitive measures, and 3 had been terminated due to a no 
                                                
77 The full text of Public Law 114 -25 may be  viewed at: https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th -
congress/house -bill/644?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22antidumping%22%5D%7D& resultIndex=17 .  
78 Notified to the WTO in WTO document G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.23 and G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.23, 
1 April 2016.  
79 WTO document G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.15, G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.15, 10 October 2013.  
80 WTO document G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.16, G/SCM/ N/1/USA/1/Suppl.16, 19 May 2014.  
81 WTO document G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.24, 1 April 2016.  
82 WTO document G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.17, G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.17, 11 July 2014.  
83 WTO document G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.22, G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.22, 3 September 2015.  WT/TPR/S/350 • United States  
 
- 58 - 
 
  injury finding.84 Between 1995 and 2015,  the United States initiated 569  AD investigations, the 
second largest number of initiations among WTO Members.85  
Table 3.6 Anti-dumping investigations, 2013 -June  2016  
 2013  2014  2015  2016 (June)  
Investigati on initiations , of which  39 19 42 24 
Preliminary injury determinations, affirmative  39 17 40 23a 
Preliminary dumping determination, affirmative, of which  36 16 39 33a 
Provisional measure applied  35 15 39 32a 
Final dumping determinations  35 16 14 21a 
Final injury determinations, of which  21 15 9 10a 
Duty order imposed  20 14 9 10a 
Suspension agreements  1 1 0 0 
Sunset review determinations  13 29 36 14 
Continuation of orders  11 24 31 13 
Revocations  3 6 6 1 
Revocations other than from sunset reviews  0 3 2 0 
a Refers to investigations started in 2015.  
Source:  WTO Secretariat based on U.S. Department of Commerce; USITC; and notifications.  
3.85.   In 2013, seven AD duty orders were issued, while in 2014, the number rose to 20, before 
declining to 14 in 2015. Seven new AD orders were issued in the first half of 2016.86 As of 
30 June 2016, final AD orders were applied to imports from 39 trading partners; the most affected 
was China with 102 AD orders, and Chinese Taipei and the EU with 21  each, followed by 
India (16), Japan  (15) and  the Republic of Korea (14) (Table 3.7).  
Table 3.7 Anti-dumping measures in force, by trading partner/region, 2013 -16  
Trading partner/region  2013  2014  2015  2016 (June)  
Total  245a 259b 265c 276d 
Argentina  1 1 1 1 
Brazil  8 8 7 8 
Canada  2 2 2 3 
China  93 93 97 102 
EU(28)  22 23 20 21 
India 15 15 15 16 
Indonesia  7 8 8 9 
Japan  14 15 15 15 
Korea, Rep. of  12 14 15 14 
Malaysia  2 0 4 4 
Mexico  8 11 11 11 
Russian Federation  6 6 6 6 
South A frica 3 3 3 3 
Chinese Taipei  18 19 21 21 
Thailand  6 7 7 7 
Turkey  3 4 5 5 
Ukraine  7 7 7 7 
United Arab Emirates  2 2 2 2 
Vietnam  6 8 9 9 
Other America  3 3 3 3 
Other Asia (including Australia)  4 7 4 6 
Other Europe  3 3 3 3 
a  Including six suspension agreements.  
b  Including seven suspension agreements.  
c  Including seven suspension agreements.  
d  Including seven suspension agreements.  
Source:  WTO documents G/ADP/N/252/USA, 6 March 2014; G/ ADP/N/265/USA, 26 February 2015 ; 
G/ADP/N/ 280/USA, 11  March  2016; and G/ADP/N/286/USA, 7 September 2016 ; U.S. Department of 
Commerce ; and USITC online information. Viewed at: 
http://www.usitc.gov/trade_remedy/documents/orders.xls . 
                                                
84 For details, see Enforcement and Compliance online information. Viewed at: 
http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/index.html , and WTO document G/ADP/N/280/USA, 11 March 2016.  
85 WTO online information. V iewed at: 
https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/adp_e/AD_InitiationsByRepMem.pdf .  
86 This refers to orders issued during the year; the investigations may have been initiat ed the previous 
year. U.S. Department of Commerce online information. Viewed at: 
http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/index.html ; and USITC online information. Viewed at: 
http://www.usitc.gov/trade_remedy/documents/orders.xls .  WT/TPR/S/350 • Unite d States  
 
- 59 - 
 
  3.86.   As of 30 June 201 6, there were 269 definitive AD orders were in place , up from 258 as of 
31 December  2015.87 At that date, 2 76 AD duty orders and suspension agreements were in effect, 
compared with 259  as of December 2014  and 265 as of December 2015 .88  
3.87.   Of the 258 AD and 65 CVD measures in place (excluding suspension agreements) at 
end-2015, 217 AD and 41 CVD had been renewed after a review, that is, they had been in place 
for over five years. The average duration of an AD measure in place at the end of 2015 was 
around  seven years.89 At the end of 2015, 59 AD and 5 CVD measures had been in place for more 
than 20  years; 104 AD and 14 CVD measures had been in place for over 10 years. The 
longest -lasting AD measure in place dates from 1977, and is applied on pressure sensitive pla stic 
tape from Italy; a measure on pre -stressed concrete steel wire strand  from Japan dates 
from 1978.  
3.88.   During the period under review , the level of AD duties applied varied significantly. The 
definitive duties applied during 1 January 2013 –30 June 2016 , range from a low of 0.0% to a high 
of 407.52%; provisional duties applied over the same period also range from 0.0% to 407.52%.  
3.89.   During the last three years , the United States entered into two new suspension agreements: 
one with Mexico in 2014, concerning su gar, and another one in 2013 with Ukraine concerning  
certain oil country tubular goods. At end 2015, seven suspension agreement s were in place, with 
Argentina  (1), Mexico (2), the Russian Federation (2), and Ukraine (2), related to lemon juice, 
fresh toma toes, sugar, carbon steel plate and  uranium, and oil country tubular goods, respectively. 
Four of the agreements involve price undertakings, one involves export limits and the other 
involves export limits combined with a price undertaking.90 There were 230 a dministrative reviews 
of AD duties during FY 2013 -15.  
3.90.   There were 78 sunset reviews of AD orders during 2013 -15; during the same period, there 
were 12 revocations, while 66 orders were continued. In general, from 2013 to 2015, there were 
14 revocations res ulting from 5 -year sunset reviews of AD and CVD  measures . Most of the 
revocations during that period include iron and stee l products as well as chemicals;  they covered 
9 trading partners. During the same period, there were 93 AD and CVD orders in place for  
products including  iron and steel products, chemicals, paper and food  from 24 trading partners  
that had been subject to a  5-year sunset review.91  
3.91.   During the review period, some aspects of U.S. AD investigation procedures and findings 
were the subject of W TO disputes. In December 2014, the Republic of Korea requested 
consultations with the United States regarding AD measures on oil country tubular goods from 
Korea; a Panel was composed on 25 March 2015.92 In March 2015 , Indonesia requested 
consultations rega rding AD and CV measures on coated paper from Indonesia.93  
3.1.7.3   Countervailing duties  
3.92.   Between 2013 and 2015, the number of CVD investigation initiations total led 60 : 
19 in 2013, 18 in 2014, and 23 in 2015  (Table 3.8). There were also 12 initiations in the first  six 
months of  2016.94 Of the 18 CVD investigations initiated in 2014, eight resulted in the imposition 
of definitive measures and one resulted in a suspension agreement on sugar with Mexico. The 
other nine investigations resulted in terminations due to a f inding of no injury or a final negative 
determination. As of 30 June 2016, five  of the investigations initiated in 2015 had resulted in the 
                                                
87 U.S. Department of Commerce online information. Viewed at: 
http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/inde x.html ; and USITC online information. Viewed at: 
http://www.usitc.gov/trade_remedy/documents/orders.xls .  
88 WTO documents G/ADP/N/265/USA, 25 February 2015; G/ADP/N/280/USA, 11 March 2 016; and 
G/ADP/N/286/USA, 7 September 2016.  
89 Calculated from USITC data. Viewed at: https://www.usitc.gov/  and 
https://www.usitc.gov/t rade_remedy/publications/opinions_index.htm  (AD/CVD orders).  
90 WTO document G/ADP/N/280/USA, 11 March 2016.  
91 USDOC online information. Viewed at: http://ia.ita.doc.gov/sunset/ .  
92 WTO documents WT/DS488/1, G/ L/1100, and G/ADP/D107/1, 5 January 2015; and WT/DS488/6, 
14 July 2015.  
93 WTO document WT/DS491/1, G/L/1109, G/ADP/D108/1, and G/SCM/D106/1, 17 March 2015.  
94 WTO document G/SCM/N/305 /USA, 26 September 2016.  WT/TPR/S/350 • United States  
 
- 60 - 
 
  imposition of definitive duties and two had been terminated due to a final negative 
determination.95 All investigatio ns initiated in 2015 were subject to provisional measures.96 
Table 3.8 Countervailing duty investigations and measures imposed, 2013 -15 
 2013  2014  2015  
Investigation initiations  19 18 23 
Preliminary injury de terminations, affirmative  19 16 23 
Preliminary countervailing duty determination s, affirmative , of which  13 11 18 
Provisional measure applied  13 10 18 
Final countervailing duty determinations  14 10 5 
Final injury determinations, of which  8 14 6 
Duty o rder imposed  6 8 5 
Suspension Agreement  0 1 0 
Revocations  1a 2b 0 
a Due to sunset review.  
b One of which due to sunset review .  
Note:  Figures refer  to the year in which the investigation was initiated.  Some provisional or definitive 
duties may have been  applied the following year.  
Source:  WTO, based on U.S. Department of Commerce, USITC , and notifications information.  
3.93.   Overall, there were 66 CVD orders in place and one suspension agreement with Mexico 
regarding sugar at end December 2015 , involving 12 tra ding partners (Ch ina being the most 
affected ).97 Some 50% of the CVD orders in place related to steel products.98 There were 69 CVD 
orders in place as at 30  June 2016.99 
3.94.   In March 2016, Canada requested consultations with the United States concerning the 
count ervailing measures on supercalendered paper from Canada, regarding investigation 
procedures, the preliminary determination, the final affirmative determination, the final 
determination, and the duty order.100 
3.95.   Of the 345 AD and CV  duty orders in place as of 3 0 June 2016, 23 were on agricultural 
products, 48 on chemicals and pharmaceuticals, 162 on iron and steel products, 23 on metals and 
minerals, 64 on miscellaneous manufactured products, 19 on plastics, rubber , stone, and glass 
products,  3 on textiles , and 3 on machinery and equipment.101 
3.1.7.4   Safeguards  
3.1.7.4.1   Global safeguards  
3.96.   U.S. legislation on global safeguards is contained in Sections  201-204 of the U.S. Trade Act 
of 1974, as amended by the URAA. Under Section 201 of the Act, the USITC determines whether 
an article is being imported in such increased quantities that it is a substantial cause of serious 
                                                
95 U.S. Department of Commerce  online information.  Viewed at: 
http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/index.html ; and WTO documents G/SCM/N/298/USA, 11 March 2016, and 
G/SCM/N/305, 26 September 2016.  
96 Some of these measures were applied in the first ha lf of 2016. WTO documents G/SCM/N/298/USA, 
11 March 2016, and G/SCM/N/305, 26 September 2016.  
97 The trading partners affected were: Brazil (2); Canada (1); China (33); India (9); Indonesia (3); 
Iran (2); Italy (1); Republic of Korea (3); Mexico (1); South Africa (1); Chinese Taipei (1); Thailand (1); 
Turkey (5); and Viet Nam (3).  
98 Of the 66 orders in place in late 2015, 33 were on steel and iron products, 5 on food products, 7 on 
chemicals, 5 on paper, 2 on semiconductors, 1 on kitchen appliance, 2 on tire s, 1 on washers and 10 others. 
WTO document G/SCM/N/298/USA, 11 March 2016.  
99 Of the 69 orders in place on 30 June 2016, 33 were on steel and iron products, 5 on food products, 
9 on chemicals, 6 on paper, 2 on semiconductors, 1 on kitchen appliance s, 2 on tyres, 1 on washers and 
10 others. The trading partners affected were: Brazil (2); Canada (1); China (34); India (10); Indonesia (4); 
Iran (2); Italy (1); Republic of Korea (3); Mexico (1); South Africa (1); Chinese Taipei (1); Thailand (1); 
Turkey (5); an d Viet Nam (3). WTO document G/SCM/N/305/USA, 26 September 2016.  
100 WTO documents WT/DS505/1, G/L/1144, and G/SCM/D109/1, 5 April 2016.  
101 U.S. Department of Commerce online information. Viewed at: 
http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/index.html ; and USITC online information. Viewed at: 
http://www.usitc.gov/trade_remedy/documents/orders.xls .  WT/TPR/S/350 • Unite d States  
 
- 61 - 
 
  injury, or threat thereof, to the U.S. industry producing a like or directly competitive article. If the 
USITC makes an affirmative determination, it recommends to the  President relief that would 
address the serious injury or threat thereof, and facilitate the adjustment of the domestic industry 
to import competition. The President makes the final decision on whether to provide relief and the 
form and amount of relief, within 60 days of receipt of an USITC report.  
3.97.   Under U.S. law, safeguard measures may include tariffs, quantitative restrictions, tariff 
quotas, import licensing and other measures as listed in Section 203 of the Trade Act of 1974 . 
NAFTA partners are exclud ed from the application of safeguard measures, unless they individually 
account for a substantial share of total imports, and it is shown that they contribute importantly to 
serious injury or threat thereof.  
3.98.   In 2015 the United States  notified to the WTO am endments to its regulations pertaining to 
the U.S.  International Trade Commission (USITC). The amendments relate to provisions of the 
USITC's Rules of Practice and Procedure concerning global safeguard actions. The amendments are 
part of the USITC's retros pective analysis of its Rules that attempt to determine whether rules 
should be modified, streamlined, expanded, or repealed so as to make the agency's regulatory 
program me more effective or less burdensome in achieving regulatory objectives.102 
3.99.   The United S tates has not applied any safeguard measures nor initiated any safeguard 
investigations during the review period; no new Section 201 cases have been initiated since 2001.  
3.1.7.4.2   Special safeguards  
3.100.   The USITC also conducts country – or region -specific safeguard inv estigations (special 
safeguards) under legislation that implements U.S. free  trade agreements, including NAFTA, 
CAFTA, and the FTAs with Australia, Bahrain, Chile, Morocco, and Singapore. If the USITC finds, as 
a result of a duty reduction under an FTA, a domestic industry that is seriously injured or 
threatened with serious injury by increased imports, it recommends temporary relief to the 
President, who makes the final decision. Relief may be in the form of a rollback of a duty reduction 
under the agreeme nt or suspension of further duty reductions on the imported good. No safeguard 
investigations were initiated nor were measures of this type maintained during the period under 
review.  
3.1.8   Standards and other technical requirements  
3.101.   Standardization activities in the United States are decentralized and demand -driven. 
Voluntary consensus standards (VCS s) are developed by private sector standards developing 
organizations (SDOs) in response to specific concerns and needs expressed by industry, 
government, and consumer s.103  
3.102.   The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) is a private, non -profit organization that 
coordinates and administers the private -sector VCS system in the United States. ANSI is the 
U.S. member body to the International Organization for Standardizat ion (ISO) and the 
International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), via the U.S. National Committee. American 
National Standards (ANS), a type of VCS, are prepared by some 245 ANSI -accredited standards 
developers (ASDs). These ASDs have sponsored more than 11,000 ANS s. In order to maintain 
their accreditation with ANSI, the ASDs must adhere to the "ANSI Essential Requirements"104 
ensuring due process in the preparation, approval, revision, reaffirmation and withdrawal of 
American National Standards. The basic requirements of the ANS process stipulate : the use of 
suitable media to facilitate broad participation; a process open to all directly and materially 
affected by the activity; a balance of interests without dominance by any single interest category, 
indivi dual or organization; coordination and harmonization to resolve potential conflicts; a readily 
available appeals mechanism; consensus decision making; and compliance with ANSI's patent 
policy. The ANSI Essential Requirements embrace globally -accepted princ iples of standardization 
                                                
102 WTO document G/SG/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.1, 20 July 2015.  
103 American National Standards Institute online information. Viewed at: 
https://www.standardsportal.org/usa_en/standards_system.aspx . 
104 ANSI online information. Viewed a t: 
https://share.ansi.org/shared%20documents/Standards%20Activities/Ame rican%20National%20Standards/Pr
ocedures,%20Guides,%20and%20Forms/2016_ANSI_Essential_Requirements.pdf . WT/TPR/S/350 • United States  
 
- 62 - 
 
  implemented, inter alia, by the International Telecommunications Union, the International 
Organization for Standardization, and the International Electrotechnical Commission. American 
National Standards may relate to products, proc esses, services, systems, or personnel.  
3.103.   At present, the basic legal framework for the preparation and adoption of standards and 
technical regulations in the United States includes the Trade Agreements Act of 1979, the 
Administrative Procedure Act of 1947 (APA), the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (PL 104 -113) (NTTAA), U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A -119, 
and Executive Orders 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), 13563 (Improving Regulation and 
Regulatory Rev iew), 13609  (Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation), and 13610 
(Identifying and Reducing Regulatory Burdens).  
3.104.   Federal law specifically prohibits any U.S. government agency from engaging in 
standards -related activity creating unnecessary obstacles  to the foreign commerce of the 
United  States.105 Moreover, federal agencies are obliged to ensure that imported goods are treated 
no less favourably than like domestic products in the application of standards -related activities. 
The NTTAA directs federal ag encies to use standards developed or adopted by voluntary consensus 
standards bodies as a means to carry out objectives. The NTTAA codifies existing guidance 
provided in Circular A -119, which directs federal agencies in the elaboration of technical 
regulat ions and in their procurement activities to rely on "voluntary consensus standards", rather 
than developing "government unique standards", unless this approach would be inconsistent with 
law or otherwise impractical. Circular A -119 also encourages federal regulatory agencies to 
participate in standards developing organizations ( SDOs ). 
3.105.   In January 2016, the Office of Management and Budget ( OMB) issued a revised 
Circular  A-119 which takes into account regulatory developments since the 1998 revision, 
including the increasingly easy access and online availability of documentation, and the timely 
updating of standards using the retrospective review mechanism set out in Executi ve 
Orders  13563 and 13610.106 The revised Circular A -119 takes account of a final rule of t he Office 
of the Federal Register (OFR), published on 7 November 2014, regarding access to standards and 
other material incorporated by reference in proposed federal regulations.107 The OFR rule obliges  
federal agencies to : add more information regarding mat erials incorporated by reference in the 
preambles of their rulemaking documents, and notably how this material may be considered 
"reasonably available" to interested parties, and to provid e summaries of the material to be 
incorporated by reference.108  
3.106.   The Administrative Procedure Act of 1947 ( APA) provides for pub lic participation in 
rulemaking  by U.S. agencies through a system of notice and comment. The APA requires agencies 
to undertake a notice and comment process open to the public, both foreign and dome stic, for all 
rulemakings, and to take these comments into account in the final rule. Additionally, the principles 
laid down in Executive Order 12866 for the planning, development, and review of federal 
regulations direct federal agencies to present draft regulations to the Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) for review prior to publication together with, inter alia , an assessment of 
the costs and benefits of the regulatory action. Regulations deemed economically significant by 
OIRA or by th e agency itself must be accompanied by a more detailed regulatory impact analysis, 
including in -depth cost -benefit analysis of alternative regulatory approaches.109 In addition to th e 
                                                
105 19 U.S.C. 2532.  
106 OMB Circular A -119 "Federal Participation in the Development and Use of Voluntary Consensus 
Standards" of 17 January 1980 was revise d in October 1982, October 1993, and again in February 1998 (for 
consistency with the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995). Annex A of the revised OMB 
Circular A -119 of 27 January 2016 reproduces the Decision of the WTO TBT Committee r egarding principles for 
the development of international standards, guides and recommendations in relation to Articles 2, 5 and 
Annex  3 of the TBT Agreement (Annex 4 of WTO document G/TBT/9, 13  November 2000).  
107 79 FR 66267.  
108 Petitions addressed to the OF R, if accepted, would have obliged federal agencies to use only 
standards available free of charge, or required the full reproduction of (or hyperlinks to) material incorporated 
by reference. However, privately developed codes and standards are copyright p rotected and may be sold 
against payment, even when incorporated into federal regulations. The OFR rule balances the "reasonable 
availability" of standards rule with U.S. copyright law, international trade obligations of the United States, and 
agencies' ab ility to regulate substantively under their authorizing statutes.  
109 Executive Order 12866 defines economically significant regulatory action as any regulatory action 
likely to result in a rule that may " have an annual effect on the economy of US$100 millio n or more or 
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the WT/TPR/S/350 • Unite d States  
 
- 63 - 
 
  Executive Orders and Circular  A-119, the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), the 
Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) and OIRA issued in January  2012 a joint 
Memorandum outlining five fundamental strategic objectives for federal engagement in standards 
activities when addressing  national priorities .110  
3.107.   The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), within the Department of 
Commerce, is a non -regulatory federal agency promoting U.S. innovation and industrial 
competitiveness by advancing measurement science, standards, and technology. Under  the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act, NIST is responsible for working with federal 
agencies to coordinate public - or private -sector conformity assessment activities to eliminate 
unnecessary complexity and duplication.111 Procedures for accre ditation of conformity assessment 
bodies vary according to the particular standard or technical regulation. U.S. requirements 
generally follow the ISO Council Committee on Conformity Assessment (CASCO) standards.  
3.108.   NIST's Standards Coordination Office opera tes the TBT enquiry point and notification 
authority of the United States under the WTO TBT Agreement. NIST responds to information 
requests from other WTO Member national enquiry points and constituents, and transmits 
comments or queries it receives from WTO Members on U.S. notified proposed measures to the 
relevant U.S. regulatory agency within one or two days. The  TBT enquiry point received 
114 information requests in 2015 and 71 such requests in 2016 through the end of August.  
3.109.   The United States submitt ed 180 TBT notificat ions to the WTO in 2014 and 
283 notifications in 2015 (including revised notifications, adden da, and corrigenda). The 
United  States is the only WTO Member notifying measures at the local government level; one such 
notification was recei ved in 2014, and none in 2015. However, 39 measures proposed or 
maintained at the State level were notified under Article 3.2 of the TBT Agreement in the first half 
of 2016. No specific trade concerns have been raised in the TBT Committee regarding  measure s 
taken by the United States since its last Trade Policy Review.112 Furthermore, no dispute 
settlement proceedings were initiated against the United States with reference to the TBT 
Agreement during the period under review.113  
3.110.   Executive Order 13609 of 1 May 2 012 seeks to promote international regulatory 
cooperation in an increasingly global economy, noting that differences in regulatory approaches 
between the United States and its foreign trading partners may be unnecessary and impede the 
ability of U.S. busin esses to export and compete internationally. There is  an interagency 
Regulatory Working Group serving, where appropriate, as a forum to discuss international 
regulatory cooperation activities.114 The Regulatory Working Group issued guidelines on the 
                                                                                                                                                  
environment, public health or safety,  or State, local, or tribal governments or communities." Federal Register 
online information. Vi ewed at: http://www.archives.gov/federal -register/executive -orders/pdf/12866.pdf . 
110 Memorandum M -12-08 "Principles for Federal Engagement in Standards Activities to Add ress National 
Priorities" of 17 January 2012. Viewed at: www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/memoranda/2012/m -
12-08_1.pdf . The five objectives are to (i) produce timely, effective standards and efficient conformity 
assessment schemes essential to address an identified need; (ii) achieve cost -efficient, timely, and effective 
solutions to legitimate regulatory, procurement, and policy objectives; (iii) promot e standards and 
standardization systems that promote and sustain innovation and foster competition; (iv) enhance U.S. growth 
and competitiveness and ensure non -discrimination, consistent with international obligations; and (v) facilitate 
international trad e and avoid the creation of unnecessary obstacles to trade.  
111 NIST "Guidance on Federal Conformity Assessment Activities" (15 CFR part 287) was issued in 2000. 
Viewed at: https:// www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR -2000-08-10/html/00 -20262.htm . 
112 The last specific trade concern about a measure (t yre identification and recordkeeping) maintained 
by the United States was raised in the TBT Committee in November 2014.  
113 Regarding three disputes r aised against the United States and pending at the time of the 2014 Trade 
Policy Review, a mutually acceptable solution on implementation has been notified for DS406 (Measures 
Affecting the Production and Sale of Clove Cigarettes). In the "Certain Country of Origin Labelling (COOL) 
Requirements" cases initiated by Canada (DS384) and Mexico (DS386), both countries were granted 
authorization to retaliate. The United States has now repealed the COOL measure and come into compliance 
with the DSB's rulings and r ecommendations. DSU Article 22.6 and Article 21.5 proceedings are ongoing in 
DS381 (Measures Concerning the Importation, Marketing and Sale of Tuna and Tuna Products).  
114 The Working Group must ensure that its activities are consistent with U.S. trade polic y and guidance 
as formulated by USTR in consultation with bodies such as the Trade Policy Staff Committee and its 
subcommittees, and the Trade Policy Review Group. The Working Group is chaired by the OIRA Administrator 
and includes a representative from US TR. It was established by Executive Order 12866 of 30 September 1993.  WT/TPR/S/350 • United States  
 
- 64 - 
 
  applicab ility and implementation of Executive Order 13609 in June 2015,115 highlighting the OECD 
and APEC as fora engaged in international regulatory cooperation activities raising issues of 
significant interest to multiple U.S. agencies, and the mandates of the Reg ulatory Cooperation 
Councils with Canada and Mexico to engage in sector -specific regulatory cooperation.  
3.111.   Excluded from the scope of Executive Order 13609 are the statutory authorities of USTR in 
the area of trade policy as these are pursued, inter alia , in APEC, the WTO TBT Committee, and 
through bilateral free  trade agreements. Many of the bilateral FTAs of the United States include 
common provisions reaffirming the parties' obligations under the TBT Agreement; adherence to 
the principles of the Decision o f the TBT Committee of 13 November 2000; mutual recognition of 
conformity assessment procedures; transparency; joint work on standards, technical regulations 
and conformity assessment proc edures; and exchange of information.  
3.112.   The United States has conclude d mutual recognition agreements (MRAs) with numerous 
foreign partners. In the area of testing and certification of telecommunications equipment, MRAs 
with Japan, Mexico, and Israel were signed in 2007, 2011, and 2012 respectively. The APEC 
Mutual Recogniti on Arrangement for Conformity Assessment of Tel ecommunications Equipment 
(APEC -TEL MRA), signed on 8  May 1998, entitles 21 member economies to participate in the 
arrangement, which covers mutual acceptance of test reports (phase I) and certification of 
products (phase II). The United  States has implemented the APEC -TEL MRA for phase I and II with 
Canada; Hong Kong, China; and Singapore, and phase I only with Australia, the Republic of Korea, 
Malaysia, Chinese Taipei, and Viet Nam. The Inter -American Mutual Recognition Agreement for 
Conformity Assessment of Telecommunications Equipment is not yet operational. The U.S. and EU 
signed a MRA in 1998 covering six sectors; the EEA -EFTA States MRA (2005) mirrors the 
provisions of the U.S. -EU MRA for three sectors. I n addition, the United States has signed separate 
MRAs with the EU (2004) and EFTA States (2006) for marine safety equipment.  
3.1.9   Sanitary and phytosanitary requirements  
3.1.9.1   Basic legal and institutional framework  
3.113.   The United States maintains numerous laws and reg ulations pertaining to food safety, 
animal health and plant health including the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, the Federal 
Meat Inspection Act, the Plant Protection Act, and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and 
Rodenticide Act. The most extensive  update of U.S. food safety legislation in decades occurred in 
January 2011 with the promulgation of the Food and Drug Administration Food Safety 
Modernization Act (PL 111 -353).116  
3.114.   Depending on the product and the type of risk, responsibilities for sanitary  and 
phytosanitary (SPS)  matters are divided among federal agencies. The International Regulations 
and Standards Division at the USDA Foreign Agricultural Service serves as the national enquiry 
point and national notification authority for the United State s under the WTO SPS Agreement. The 
United States submitted 112  regular SPS notifications in 2014 and 86 notifications in 2015. One 
new specific trade concern regarding a measure proposed by the United States has been raised in 
the WTO Committee on Sanitary  and Phytosanitary Measures during the period since the last 
Trade Policy Review.117 In addition, three previously raised concerns continued to be discussed in 
the SPS Committee.118 
                                                
115 Guidelines of 26 June 2015. Viewed at: 
https://www.whitehouse.go v/sites/default/files/omb/inforeg/eo_13609/eo13609 -working -group -guidelines.pdf . 
116 According to the FDA, the authoritative and official source of the law is the version provided by the 
Government Printing Office (at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW -111publ353/pdf/PLAW -111publ353.pdf ). 
Box III.1 in WTO document WT/TPR/S/275/Rev.1, 12 February 2013 provides an overview of the principal 
elements of the Act.  
117 In March  2015, Mexico raised a concern about the proposed revision of fees for agricultural 
quarantine and inspection services, particularly as the revised fees would lead to markedly higher charges for 
agricultural goods transported to the United States by commer cial truck.  
118 The concerns relate to U.S. measures on Siluriformes fish and fish products, including catfish (raised 
by China and Viet Nam), the high cost of certification for mango (India), and non -acceptance of the OIE 
categorization for BSE (also raised  by India).  WT/TPR/S/350 • Unite d States  
 
- 65 - 
 
  3.1.9.2   Food and Drug Administration (FDA)  
3.115.   The FDA's responsibilities include the regu lation of food (except meat, poultry, catfish and 
processed eggs, which are regulated by USDA); food additives; dietary supplements; human and 
veterinary drugs; medical devices; human biologics; tobacco; and cosmetics. Implementation of 
the 2011 FDA Food S afety Modernization Act (FSMA), which aims at shifting the regulatory 
approach from response to prevention of food safety hazards, has been a core activity of the FDA 
in recent years. The law provides new abilities to hold food companies responsible for fo od safety.  
3.116.   The FDA published seven draft regulations to implement key elements of the FSMA for 
public comment between January 2013 and February 2014. The proposed regulations, addressing 
preventive controls for human and animal food, produce safety, foreig n supplier verification 
programmes, accreditation of third -party auditors, protection against intentional adulteration of 
human food, and sanitary transportation of food, were also notified to the WTO.119 The key 
implementing regulations were finalized betwe en September 2015 and July 2016 (Table 3.9). Most 
of the regulations include phased -in compliance dates for "small" and "very small" businesses, and 
various exemptions or limitations on their scope (such as, for example, certain exemptions for 
low-risk act ivities performed on farms by small and very small businesses). In addition, the FDA 
has issued (and will continue to issue) various guidance documents that represent the Agency's 
current thinking to assist industry in complying with the new food safety re gulations.120  
Table 3.9 Implementing regulations for the FSMA  
Title Effective 
datea Federal 
Register 
citation  WTO notification (final 
rule)  
Key regulations  
Current Good Manufacturing Practice, Hazard 
Analysis , and Risk -Based Preventive Controls for 
Human Food  15.09.2015b 80 FR 55907  G/SPS/N/USA/2502/Add.6, 
15.09.2015  
Current Good Manufacturing Practice, Hazard 
Analysis, and Risk -Based Preventive Controls for 
Food for Animals  16.11.2015c 80 FR 56169  G/SPS/N/US A/2593/Add.3, 
15.09.2015  
Foreign Supplier Verification Programs for 
Importers of Food for Humans and Animals 
("FSVP Rule")  26.01.2016  80 FR 74225  G/SPS/N/USA/2569/Add.3, 
16.11.2015  
Accreditation of Third -Party Certification Bodies 
to Conduct Food Safety Audits and to Issue 
Certifications ("Accreditation Third -Party 
Certification Rule")  26.01.2016  80 FR 74569  G/SPS/N/USA/2570/Add.4, 
16.11.2015  
Standards for the Growing, Harvesting, Packing, 
and Holding of Produce for Human Consumption 
("Produce Safety Rul e") 26.01.2016  80 FR 74353  G/SPS/N/USA/2503/Add.6, 
16.11.2015  
Mitigation Strategies to Protect Food Against 
Intentional Adulteration ("Intentional 
Adulteration Rule")  26.07.2016  81 FR 34165  G/SPS/N/USA/2610/Add.2, 
02.06.2016  
Sanitary Transportation of Hu man and Animal 
Food ("Sanitary Transportation Rule")  06.06.2016  81 FR 20091  G/SPS/N/USA/2631/Add.2, 
08.04.2016  
Supplementary regulations  
Amendments to Registration of Food Facilities  09.12.2016  81 FR 45911  G/SPS/N/USA/691/Add.15, 
18.07.2016  
Record Avail ability Requirements: Establishment, 
Maintenance and Availability of Records  04.04.2014  79 FR 18799  G/SPS/N/USA/703/Add.4, 
08.04.2014  
Information Required in Prior Notice of Imported 
Food 30.05.2013  78 FR 32359  G/SPS/N/USA/690/Add.12, 
03.06.2013  
Criteria  Used to Order Administrative Detention 
of Food for Human or Animal Consumption  05.02.2013  78 FR 7994  G/SPS/N/USA/704/Add.3, 
08.02.2013  
                                                
119 WTO documents G/SPS/N/USA/2502 and 2503, 10 January 2013; G/SPS/N/USA/2569 and 2570, 
30 July 2013; G/SPS/N/USA/2593, 30 October 2013; G/SPS/N/USA/2610, 13 January 2014; and 
G/SPS/N/USA/2631, 10 February 2014.  
120 A list of current FSMA guidance  can be consulted at: 
http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/FSMA/ucm253380.htm .  WT/TPR/S/350 • United States  
 
- 66 - 
 
  Title Effective 
datea Federal 
Register 
citation  WTO notification (final 
rule)  
Proposed rule (as at June 2016)  
User Fee Program to Provide for Accreditation of 
Third-Party Auditors/Certification Bo dies to 
Conduct Food Safety Audits and to Issue 
Certifications  n.a. 78 FR 45782  G/SPS/N/USA/2570, 
30.07.2013,  
G/SPS/N/USA/2570/Add.2, 
04.08.2015  
Advance notice of proposed rulemaking  
Implementation of Food and Drug Administration 
Food Safety Modernizatio n Act Amendments to 
the Reportable Food Registry Provisions of the 
Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act  n.a. 79 FR 16698  G/SPS/N/USA/2645, 
31.03.2014  
n.a. Not applicable.  
a  The compliance dates for the rules are phased in by size of business, as explaine d in the Federal 
Register notices for the rules. For specific compliance dates, see www.fda.gov/FSMA . 
b Effective date for amendment to part 110 in instruction 13 is 17 September 2018. Effective date for 
paragraph (2 ) of the definition of "qualified auditor'' is to be determined.  
c Effective date for paragraph (2) of the definition of "qualified auditor" is to be determined.  
Source:  WTO Secretariat.  
3.117.   The final rules for preventive controls for human and animal food re quire U.S. and foreign 
facilities that must register under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act to establish and 
implement hazard analysis and risk -based preventive controls. Known or reasonably foreseeable 
biological, chemical and physical hazards must  be identified and evaluated, and potential 
preventive controls include process, food allergen, and sanitary controls, supply chain controls and 
product recall plans. The final rule for animal food also establishes (for the first time) requirements 
for "cu rrent good manufacturing practices" (CGMPs) in the production of safe animal food. The 
final rule for human food modernizes existing CGMP requirements. The final rules for preventive 
controls for human and animal food were published in September 2015. Comp liance dates for 
some businesses thus began  in September 2016, whereas smaller businesses have longer 
implementation time  frames (2 to 4 years from the date of publication).121  
3.118.   The regulation that addresses imported food requires U.S. -based importers to hav e 
Foreign Supplier Verification Programs (FSVP) for the human food and animal food they import.122 
Under the FSVP Rule, importers are required to verify that their foreign suppliers produce food in 
ways that provide the same level of public health protection  as U.S. preventive controls and 
produce safety regulations, and that the food is not adulterated or misbranded with respect to 
allergen labelling. Importers are obliged to identify and evaluate known or reasonably foreseeable 
hazards for each type of food , including biological, chemical, and physical hazards. A FSVP must be 
developed for each food and each foreign food supplier. Importers may carry out risk -based 
supplier verification through several means, for example, through annual on -site audits of sup plier 
facilities, sampling and testing, or by reviewing of the supplier's relevant food safety records. The 
verification may be performed by an independent third  party, as long as the importer reviews and 
assesses the relevant documentation.  
3.119.   The final acc redited third -party certification rule allows, but does not require, accreditation 
bodies to seek recognition by the FDA to accredit certification bodies to issue certifications for food 
and facilities. Certification under this program me can be used for tw o purposes. First, importers 
will use facility certifications from foreign suppliers in helping to establish their eligibility to 
participate in the expedited entry program me called the Voluntary Qualified Importer Program (or 
VQIP).123 Second, the FDA may r equire certification of food or facilities under this program me in 
specific circumstances when the FDA determines it necessary to ensure food safety. Accreditation 
bodies recognized by the FDA may be foreign government agencies or private entities. The 
                                                
121 Businesses subject to the Pasteurized Milk Ordinance must comply with the new requirements  from 
17 September 2018.  
122 Some products are exempt from FSVP, notably food subject to the FDA's seafood and juice HACCP 
rules and alcoholic beverages, as well as meat, poultry and egg products supervised by USDA at the time of 
importation.  
123 The Voluntary  Qualified Importer Program (VQIP) will be established in a guidance document. The 
FDA published the draft guidance for comment in June 2015 and is working to finalize the guidance for 
publication.  WT/TPR/S/350 • Unite d States  
 
- 67 - 
 
  accreditation bodies may use documentation demonstrating conformance with ISO/IEC standards 
to prove their eligibility to be recognized by the FDA. Accreditation bodies are expected to apply to 
the FDA for recognition, but the FDA may also accredit third -party certification bodies directly. 
Accredited third -party certification bodies are required to perform unannounced facility audits and 
notify possible negative findings to the FDA. The Accredited Third -Party Certification programme is 
not yet in operation; t he FDA expects implementation as soon as possible after the publication of 
its final Model Accreditation Standards guidance, and its final rule on user fees.124 
3.120.   The Food Safety Modernization Act ( FSMA ) has three additional rules. First, the final 
produce saf ety rule establishes science -based minimum standards for safe growing, harvesting, 
packing, and holding of fruit and vegetables for human consumption on farms. In particular, the 
regulation establishes a risk -based approach that addresses routes of contami nation including 
agricultural water quality and the use of biological soil amendments.  
3.121.   Second, the intentional adulteration rule requires each covered facility to prepare and 
implement a Food Defense Plan , in general to be reassessed every three years.125  
3.122.   Third, the purpose of the sanitary transportation rule is to prevent food from becoming 
unsafe during transportation activities for bulk foods and foods that require temperature control 
for safety. To prevent food from becoming unsafe during transport, the rule requires controls, such 
as segregating raw foods from other foods and non -food items in a load, and maintaining vehicles 
and transportation equipment in sanitary condition for their intended use. The requirements apply 
to shipments by motor vehicle an d rail, but not to maritime and air transport.  
3.123.   The FDA has developed an International Comparability Assessment Tool (ICAT) to evaluate 
the food safety systems, including the legal framework and approaches to food industry regulation,  
of U.S. trading partn ers.126 The FDA pilot tested the draft ICAT as it worked with New Zealand to 
conclude an arrangement in December 2012, whereby the national institutions (USFDA and the 
NZ Ministry for Primary Industries) recognized their food safety systems as comparable to each 
other. The FDA concluded a second systems recognition arrangement, with the Canadian Food 
Inspection Agency and the Department of Health Canada, in May 2016.127 The FDA is currently 
engaged in similar system recognition processes with Australia and the European Commission. The 
systems recognition arrangements are developed by the FDA and other countries' food safety 
competent authorities on their domestic activities to increase regulatory cooperation and build 
reliance in implementing risk -based food fac ility inspections and follow -up to foodborne outbreaks. 
Systems recognition does not grant market access to the U.S. market. Importers of foods that are 
within the scope of these arrangements may take advantage of modified requirements of the FSVP 
rule tha t are less stringent than the standard FSVP requirements.  
3.1.9.3   Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS)  
3.124.   The FSIS of the U.S. Department of Agriculture is responsible for ensuring that commercial 
supplies, including imports, of meat, poultry and egg products a re safe, wholesome, and properly 
labelled and packaged. Imported goods must be produced under conditions equivalent to the level 
of protection provided in the United States.  
3.125.   The FSIS maintains a list of those countries determined equivalent, which also id entifies 
those establishments in each country certified and eligible to export meat, poultry, or egg products 
to the United States.128 Currently, there are some 32 countries determined equivalent and actively 
                                                
124 User fees for accreditation bodies and certification bo dies were published in July 2015.  
125 The rule targets large enterprises, in all some 3,400 firms operating 9,800 food facilities. Smaller 
companies and farms are exempted.  
126 ICAT has 10 core elements: regulatory foundation (including preventive controls), t raining/human 
resources, inspection programmes, programme assessment/inspection audit programme, food -related illness 
and outbreaks, compliance and enforcement (including verification analysis), industry and community 
relations, programme resources, intern ational communications and harmonization, and laboratory support.  
127 FDA online information. Viewed at: 
http://www.fda.gov/Food/NewsEvents/ConstituentUpdates/ucm498611.htm . 
128 FSIS online information. Viewed at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/po rtal/fsis/topics/international -
affairs/importing -products/eligible -countries -products -foreign -establishments/eligible -foreign -establishments . WT/TPR/S/350 • United States  
 
- 68 - 
 
  exporting meat (beef and pork), poultry, and proc essed egg products to the United States.129 
The 2008 Farm Act amended the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) to transfer food safety 
inspection authority for Siluriformes fish and fish products from the FDA to the FSIS. The final rule 
for this change in regu latory authority was published on 5 December  2015 and became effective 
on 1 March 2016.  
3.126.   The FSIS also manages the National Advisory Committee on Meat and Poultry Inspection 
(NACMPI) and the National Advisory Committee on Microbiological Criteria for Foods  (NACMCF).  
3.1.9.4   Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)  
3.127.   The broad mission of APHIS at the Department of Agriculture is to promote and protect 
U.S. agricultural health, including the defence against plant and animal diseases and pests. Once a 
disease  or pest of concern is detected, APHIS will work with the affected States under emergency 
protocols to manage and eradicate the outbreak. To guard against imported pests and diseases, 
APHIS regulates imports of live plants; grain, oilseeds, and horticultur al products; animals, 
including semen, embryos and ova; research and exhibition animals; and animal products. In 
cases where both APHIS and FSIS requirements apply to imported goods, APHIS has responsibility 
for evaluating the disease and pest risks, while  the FSIS administers and enforces food safety 
requirements.  
3.128.   The Lacey Act, which combats trafficking in wildlife, fish and plants, was expanded to a 
broader range of plants and plant products in 2008. Lacey Act declarations (PPQ Form 505), which 
are mand atory for certain plants and plant products130, have been required to be filed in the 
Automated Commercial Environment ( ACE) since 31  March  2016. However, as of June 2016 many 
importers did not appear ready for the full range of data to be submitted to APHIS  through the 
new "single window" approach before the end of the year.131  
3.1.9.5   Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)  
3.129.   EPA responsibilities cover, inter alia , the registration of pesticides, including herbicides and 
fungicides, and the establishment of tolerances ( maximum residue limits – MRLs) for pesticides in 
food. EPA uses risk assessment to establish tolerances for each crop use of a pesticide. The list of 
tolerances (and exemptions) is revised annually in the Code of Federal Regulations (Chapter 40, 
Part 180) and daily in the electronic Code of Federal Regulations (e -CFR). As of August 2016, EPA 
had established approximately 277 new tolerances (permanent and temporary) since the last TPR 
in 2014. The tolerances are enforced by USDA for meat, poultry and certain  egg products, and by 
the FDA for other foods.  
3.130.   Other federal agencies are also involved in SPS issues, notably the CBP, the Agricultural 
Marketing Service, the Agricultural Research Service, the National Institute of Food and Agriculture 
(USDA), the Center s for Disease Control and Prevention (Department of Health and Human 
Services), the National Marine Fisheries Service (Department of Commerce), and the Alcohol and 
Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau ( Department of Treasury).  
3.2  Measures Directly Affecting Exports  
3.2.1   Export procedures and requirements  
3.131.   The Customs and Border Protection, along with the Department of Commerce, is 
responsible for the enforcement of U.S. laws, regulations, and rules relating to exports. CBP also 
acts on behalf of other relevant government a gencies in enforcing the rules. Export data must be 
filed electronically prior to the departure of cargo. Advance information is required for security 
purposes and to assess risk prior to export. For participants in the post -departure filing 
programme, ele ctronic submissions can be made up to five days after the departure of the 
conveyance.  
                                                
129 Poultry may, with some specific limitations, be imported from establishments in 11 countries. Only 
Canada and t he Netherlands may currently export egg products to the United States.  
130 The list of products that must be declared may be consulted at: 
http://www.aphis.u sda.gov/plant_health/lacey_act/downloads/ImplementationSchedule.pdf . 
131 APHIS online information. Viewed at: 
https://www.aphis.usda.gov/stakeholders/dow nloads/2016/letter -gregoire -ace-readiness.pdf . WT/TPR/S/350 • Unite d States  
 
- 69 - 
 
  3.132.   All export data have been processed electronically since 2008. The purpose of a utomation 
is to facilitate l egitimate trade and target high -risk shipments prior to depar ture. The Automated 
Export System (AES), mandatory for all shipments valued over US$2,500, has been the interface 
for shipment data and export manifests processed by CBP, including for exports requiring a 
licence. With the gradual introduction of the singl e-window Automated Commercial Environment 
(ACE), absorption of the AES into the ACE platform began in March 2014. Capabilities have been 
deployed to support electronic export manifest filing, with pilot program mes announced for air, 
ocean, and rail modes. Initial pilots have recently begun for rail and ocean modes with export 
manifest data being processed in ACE. A pilot for air mode is expected to start later this year. As 
of July  2016, electronic export manifests for air, rail, and ocean modes of transpor t are being filed 
voluntarily by industry in a pilot stage for full implementation. However, as there is currently no 
regulatory requirement to file export manifests electronically, paper copies continue to be 
accepted. CBP has been working with other Part ner Government Agencies (Agricultural Marketing 
Service; Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms; Drug Enforcement Agency; Fish and Wildlife Service; 
National Marine Fisheries Service; Environmental Protection Agency; Directorate of Defence Trade 
Controls; and Alcoh ol and Tax and Trade Bureau) to explore ways of replacing paper export 
licences with electronic processes.132  
3.133.   Together with the U.S. Census Bureau, CBP developed AESDirect, a free internet 
application allowing U.S. Principal Parties in Interest133 and authori zed agents of Foreign Principal 
Parties in Interest to transmit Electronic Export Information (EEI)134 to the AES. The migration of 
AESDirect into the ACE Secure Data Portal has been proceeding in stages. A Refactored AESDirect 
for electronic export commodit y filings via the ACE portal was launched on 30 November 2015. As 
of 20 May 2016, the full transition of legacy AESDirect (export commodity filings via the portal) to 
ACE was completed.  
3.2.2   Export taxes, charges, and levies  
3.134.   Section 9 of the United States Const itution bans the use of export taxes. General export 
levies or fees, to the extent that these have been applied in the past, have been found 
unconstitutional when examined by the courts and consequently revoked. On the other hand, fees 
may be charged for s pecific services rendered such as inspection and certification fees for 
agricultural exports (Section 10 of the Constitution).  
3.2.3   Export prohibitions, restrictions, and licensing  
3.135.   The United States maintains restrictions, licensing requirements, additional co ntrols and 
prohibitions on a variety of exports for national security and foreign policy reasons. Export 
measures may be based on domestic legislation, policy decisions, UN Security Council Resolutions, 
international agreements, or U.S. participation in no n-binding arrangements such as the 
Wassenaar Arrangement, the Missile Technology Control Regime, the Treaty on the 
Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and the Exporters Committee (Zangger Committee), the 
Nuclear Suppliers Group, and the Australia Group. D epending on the relevant requirements, the 
exporter may have to identify factors such as the country of destination, end -use, and foreign 
buyer. The categories of items subject to export controls did not change during the review period , 
although there have  been some modifications to the licensing process for some categories  
(Table  3.10).  
3.136.   Enforcement of U.S. export controls is shared between the Department of Homeland 
Security, the Department of Justice, and the Department of Commerce. The determination of 
criminal acts and penalties varies depending on the product and the relevant agency or law.135 
                                                
132 For example, Form DSP -73 is used to authorize temporary commercial export of unclassified defence 
articles in accordance with the Arms Export Control Act and the International Traffic in Arms Regulations.  
133 USPPI – the person in the United States receiving the primary benefit of the export.  
134 EEI is the electronic version of the Shippers Export Declaration (SED), no longer accepted in paper 
form.  
135 The Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS), maintains a list of persons 
and entities denied export privileges and with whom any dealings are prohibited (Denied Persons List), 
end-users the BIS has been unable to verify in prior transactions (Unverified List), and an Entity List, 
i.e. parties whose presence in a transaction may trigger a supplementary licence requirement. The Department 
of the Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control, has elaborated lists with respect to specially designated WT/TPR/S/350 • United States  
 
- 70 - 
 
  Table 3.10 Items subject to export restrictions, controls, licensing, or certification  
Product category  Responsible agency  Legal reference  
Natural gas and electric power  Department of Energy, Office of 
Fossil Energy, Office of Imports 
and Exports, and Office of 
Electricity Delivery & Energy 
Reliability  15 U.S.C.  §717b  
Dual-use items that are chiefly 
commercial but can  also be used in 
conventional arms, weapons of mass 
destruction, terrorist activities, or 
human rights abuses; less sensitive 
military items; most commercial 
satellite and spacecraft items; and 
timber  Department of Commerce, 
Bureau of Industry and Security  Export Administration Act 
(EAA)and International 
Emergency Economic Powers Act 
(IEEPA)  
Munitions  Department of State, Directorate 
of Defense Trade Controls  Arms Exports Control Act s 
(AECA)  
Nuclear materials and equipment  Nuclear Regulatory Commission  Atomic Energy Act  
Nuclear technology, technical data, 
and special nuclear materials  Department of Energy, Office of 
Export Control Policy and 
Cooperation  Atomic Energy Act  
Controlled substances and precursor 
chemicals  Drug Enforcement Administration  21 U.S .C. 1312  
Economic sanctions  Department of the Treasury, 
Office of Foreign Asset Control  Various laws and provisions  
Food, drugs, cosmetics  Food and Drug Administration  Federal Food, Drug, and 
Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act)  
Fish and wildlife, including endanger ed 
species  Department of the Interior  50 CFR Part 14  
Meat, poultry, egg products, and 
Siluriformes fish and fish products  Department of Agriculture, Food 
Safety and Inspection Service  Federal Meat Inspection Act 
(FMIA) 21 U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 
Poultry Prod ucts Inspection Act 
(PPIA) (21 U.S.C. 451 et seq.); 
Egg Products Inspection Act 
(EPIA) (21 U.S.C. 1031 et seq.)  
Agriculture risk products  Department of Agriculture, 
Animal and Plant Health 
Inspection Service  7 CFR Part 37  
High value and value added 
agriculture products  Department of Agriculture, 
Agricultural Marketing Service  7 CFR Part 36  
Note:  The programmes administered by the Department of Agriculture pertain to programmes applicable 
to domestic producers , exporters,  and importers in the areas of fo od safety, organic certification, 
and marketing orders.   
Source:  Export.gov online information. Viewed at: http://www.export.gov . 
3.137.   Munitions and dual -use (military/civilian) goods, including services, technology and dat a, 
are the main items subject to export licensing. T he Department of Commerce maintains the 
Commerce Control List (CCL) , regulated by the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) , and is 
responsible for dual use and certain munitions goods. The Department o f State is responsible for 
the U.S. Munitions List (USML) , identifying  items control led and regulated by the International 
Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) . Some types of items are similar to both lists, while others are 
unique to CCL or USML  (Table 3. 11). Both schemes are currently under reform (section  3.2.3.1 ). 
Harmonization efforts could include a common licence form.  
3.138.   Defence trade cooperation treaties with the United Kingdom (2012) and Australia (2013) 
exempt certain  persons or entities from the req uirement to obtain an export licence or export 
authorization for certain defence products and services under the ITAR.  
                                                                                                                                                  
nationals, foreign sanctions evaders, sectoral sanc tions identifications, the Palestinian Legislative Council, 
foreign financial institutions subject to Part 561, and non -SDN Iranian sanctions. The AECA Debarred List 
(Department of State, Directorate of Defence Trade Controls) enumerates entities and perso ns prohibited from 
participating directly or indirectly in the export of defence articles. Although the Department of State, Bureau 
of International Security and Non -proliferation, identifies parties sanctioned under various statutes, the Federal 
Register is the only complete official source for non -proliferation sanctions determinations.  WT/TPR/S/350 • Unite d States  
 
- 71 - 
 
  Table 3.11 Commerce Control List (CCL) and U.S. Munitions List (USML)  
Commerce Control Li st U.S. Munitions List  
Category  Products  Category  Products  
0 Nuclear & miscellaneous  I Firearms, close assault weapons, and combat shotguns  
1 Materials, chemicals, 
microorganisms, and toxins  II Guns and armament  
2 Materials processing  III Ammunition /Ordnance  
3 Electronics  IV Launch vehicles, guided missiles, ballistic missiles, 
rockets, torpedoes, bombs and mines  
4 Computers  V Explosives and energetic materials, propellants, 
incendiary agents and their constituents  
5 Part 1  Telecommunications  VI Surface vessels of war and special naval equipment  
5 Part 2  Information  security  VII Ground vehicles  
6 Sensors  and lasers  VIII Aircraft and related art icles 
7 Navigation and avionics  IX Military training equipment and training  
8 Marine  X Personal protective equipment  
9 Aerospace and propulsion  XI Military electronics  
 XII Fire control, range finder, optical and guidance and 
control equipment  
XIII Materials and miscellaneous articles  
XIV Toxicological agents, including chemical agents, 
biological agents, and associated equipment  
XV Spacecraft and r elated articles  
XVI Nuclear weapons and related articles  
XVII Classified articles, technical data and defense services 
not otherwise enumerated  
XVIII Directed energy weapons  
XIX Gas turbine engines (GTE) and associated equipment  
XX Submersible ve ssels and related articles  
XXI Articles, technical data, and defense services not 
otherwise enumerated  
Note:  Each broad category on the CCL is subdivided into (a) systems, equipment, and components; 
(b) test, inspection, and production equipment; (c) m aterial; (d) software; and (e) technology.  
Source:  U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security online information. Viewed at: 
http://www.bis.doc.gov/ind ex.php/regulations/commerce -control -list-ccl; and 22 CFR Part  121. 
3.139.   The Natural Gas Act of 1938 (as amended) requires any person wishing to export or import 
natural gas (including liquefied natural gas (LNG) and compressed natural gas) to obtain 
authorizat ion from the Department of Energy.136 Permission is granted in the form of short -term or 
long term authorizations. A short -term authorization enables the holder to import or export natural 
gas for up to two years on a spot basis or similar short arrangements . Long -term authorizations 
are granted to companies having concluded tolling agreements or sales/purchase contracts of 
more than two years duration. Applications from/ to import or export natural gas to countries with 
which the United States has free trade agreements (FTAs) requiring  national treatment for trade in 
natural gas (FTA countries), and imports of LNG from any country, are deemed to be consistent 
with the public interest and authorization is granted without modification or delay. DOE is required 
to grant authorizations to applications for natural gas export to non -FTA countries, unless the 
Department finds that the proposed exports "will not be consistent with the public interest", or 
where trade is explicitly prohibited by law or policy.137  
3.140.   By the end of July 2016, the Department of Energy had issued final authorization of LNG 
exports to non -FTA countries up to the equivalent of 15.22 billion cubic feet per day (Bcf/d) of 
natural gas. By comparison, global LNG trade in 2015 was just over 30 Bcf/d. T he first major 
shipment of U.S. LNG occurred in February 2016.  
3.141.   The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 and other statutes effectively banned 
most U.S. exports of crude oil.138 Export  licensing  of crude oil has been administered by the 
                                                
136 Authorizations are granted by the Office of Regulation and International Engagement, Division of 
Natural Gas Regulation.  
137 DOE's authority to regulate the export of natu ral gas arises under Section 3 of the Natural Gas Act 
(NGA), 15 U.S.C. §717b. Additional information on DOE's Program Regulating Liquefied Natural Gas Export 
Applications can be found at: http://energy.gov/fe/articles/does -program -regulating -liquefied -natural -gas-
export -applications .  
138 Exemptions have allowed exports of limited quantities to Canada and Mexico.  WT/TPR/S/350 • United States  
 
- 72 - 
 
  Department of C ommerce's Bureau of Industry and Security . On 18 December 2015, legislation 
entered into force terminating the licensing requirement with immediate effect.139 Henceforth, 
crude oil is classified as EAR99 whereby no licence is required.140 The legislation provi des for the 
reintroduction of export licensing requirements in certain limited circumstances, such as a national 
emergency declared by the President, or due to sustained material oil supply shortages. 
U.S. exports of crude oil increased by 9% in the first five months of 2016 over the same period 
in 2015.141 
3.142.   Country -specific embargoes or other special controls primarily affect trade with Cuba, Iraq, 
the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, the Russian Federation, Iran, and Syria. Measures 
applicable to the D emocratic People's Republic of Korea were tightened in February 2016.142 
3.2.3.1   Export Control Reform (ECR) Initiative  
3.143.   President Obama launched the ECR Initiative to review and reform the export control 
system in 2009. The review concluded that the present system was overly complicated, 
fragmented, and needed updating to respond to a changing economic and technological landscape. 
The objective of the reform is not to reduce or eliminate export controls, but rather to achieve 
better allocation of resources allowing improved controls on the more sensitive items. Export 
requirements for selected, less sensitive items have been made more flexible.  
3.144.   The establishment of an Export Enforcement Coordination Cen ter (E2C2), tasked to 
coordinating and enhancing  criminal, admin istrative and related export enforcement activities, was 
announced in 2010.143 The centre began operations in March 2012. Administered by the 
Department of Homeland Security, E2C2 brings together representatives of eight 
U.S. governmental departments and 15 federal agencies. The E2C2 links federal law enforcement 
agencies with the intelligence community, and is the principal contact point for export licensing, 
public outreach, and government -wide statistical tracking.  
3.145.   The ECR Initiative is implemented in thr ee phases. Phases I and II have been devoted to 
the reconciliation of definitions, regulations, and export control policies, including the integration of 
IT systems. The rationalization and merger of the two export control lists (CCL and USML) have 
been th e focus of much work. Many of the regulatory changes have led to the migration of less 
sensitive items from the USML to the CCL. Of the 21  categories on the USML list (Table 3. 11), the 
regulatory revision process had been completed for 13 of them by 1 Augu st 2016. Since then, 
revisions for another two categories have taken effect, and it is expected that revisions of 18 of 
21 categories will be effective by the end of calendar year 2016.144 As of August 2015, Phase I of 
the ECR Initiative had been finalized, while Phase II was nearing completion. The conclusion of 
Phase III, which will require changes in legislation, should lead to a new export control system 
based on (i) a unified control list; (ii) a single licensing agency; (iii) an integrated information 
technology platform (for licensing and enforcement); and (iv) a single enforcement coordination 
centre.  
3.2.4   Export support and promotion  
3.2.4.1   Institutional structure  
3.146.   Several government agencies or departments have specific programmes supporting or 
encouraging expo rts. The Trade Promotion Coordinating Committee (TPCC), encompassing 
20 federal agencies with export -related programmes, is the Government's main body for the 
coordination of export promotion and export financing activities. In the past, the TPCC issued an  
                                                
139 Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2 016 (PL 114 -113), Division O – Other Matters, Section 101 Oil 
Exports, Safety Valve, and Maritime Security.  
140 Authorization is still required for exports to embargoed or sanctioned countries or persons, including 
those listed in parts 744 and 746 of the EA R, and to persons denied export privileges.  
141 U.S. Energy Information Administration online information. Viewed at: 
www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=27532 .  
142 North Korea Sanctions  and Policy Enhancement Act of 2016 (PL 114 -122), 18 February 2016.  
143 Executive Order 13558, 9 November 2010.  
144 U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security, online information (Export Control 
Reform Dashboard). Viewed at: https://www.bis.doc.gov/index.php/2012 -03-30-17-54-11. WT/TPR/S/350 • Unite d States  
 
- 73 - 
 
  annual National Export Strategy (NES)  report , establishing priorities and reporting on the activities 
of the member agencies. However, no new report s have been issued since 2012, in which year  the 
report focused on the National Export Initiative (NEI) and  on reducing trade barriers for 
U.S. exports. A  new NES report was expected to be published in September 2016.  
3.147.   The President's Export Council (PEC) brings together representatives of the private sector, 
Congress, the United States Conference of Mayors, the National Governor's Association, and 
officials from the Administration. The PEC presents  advice  and recommendations  to the President  
(in the form of letters) on matters relating to export trade . The PEC has forwarded a total of 
59 letters to the Presiden t since September  2010. At its meeting in December 2015, the Council 
adopted a letter outlining priorities for action in 2016. Among its recommendations, the PEC 
recommended the President's Administration : engage Congress to implement the Trans -Pacific 
Partnership as soon as possible; accelerate the pace of the TTIP and China BIT negotiations; 
accelerate efforts to conclude a new Safe Harbour framework with the EU; advance the 
negotiations for a Trade in Services Agreement and, in the WTO, an Environmental Goods 
Agreement; secure the entry into force of the Trade Facilitation Agreement as soon as possible 
with broad coverage, particularly of developing countries; establish a Small Emerging Growth 
Enterprise Credit Review and extension of the State Small Busi ness Credit Initiative through 2022; 
implement regulations to administer the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act and the Trade 
Adjustment Assistance Reauthorization Act; and extend manufacturing -related outreach and 
training activities such as the Manufacturing Day and business internships for teachers and 
guidance counsellors. The PEC also commended the Administration for its comprehensive Export 
Control Reform Initiative and encouraged the continued streamlining of licensing and compliance 
requiremen ts, including harmonized regulations across all agencies engaged in export control and 
a common licensing application form accessible via a public application portal. The PEC met via 
teleconference in June 2016 and adopted a letter with recommendations reg arding U.S. policies 
towards Cuba.145 The next meeting of the PEC was scheduled for 14 September 2016.  
3.148.   The Export Promotion Cabinet, created under the NEI, comprises 11 government agencies 
and 3 senior advisors or assistants to the President.146 The Cabinet d evelops and coordinates the 
implementation of the NEI and coordinates export promotion matters with the TPCC.  
3.149.   The U.S. Trade and Development Agency (USTDA) focuses on  the use of U.S. goods , 
services , and technology in infrastructure development projects i n emerging economies. USTDA 
sponsors activities such as feasibility studies, pilot projects, technical assistance at a project's 
early stages , as well as reverse trade missions, workshops/conferences and training . The activities 
enable the Agency's partner s to approach financial institutions to fund their priority projects. The 
USTDA supports projects related, inter alia , to the Power Africa initiative to increase electricity 
access in sub-Saharan Africa, the Climate Action Plan to reduce harm ful carbon emi ssions, and 
value -based investments in infrastructure such as energy generation, transportation, and 
telecommunications. A biweekly eNewsletter (TradePosts) provides information about USTDA 
activities and events. According to the Agency, each dollar alloca ted to its programmes for priority 
development projects in emerging markets produces US$74 worth of U.S. exports.147  
3.2.4.2   National Export Initiative (NEI) and NEI/NEXT  
3.150.   The National Export Initiative was launched in 2010 as a government -wide programme to 
promote exports, with focus on improved access to finance, trade promotion and advocacy, a 
lowering of barriers, and enforcement of trade rules. The development of export programmes for 
small U.S. businesses was given high priority.  
                                                
145 The letter adopted on 8 June 2016 can be consulted at: http://trade .gov/pec/docs/PEC -Cuba-Letter -
and-Trip-Findings.pdf .  
146 The officials named to the Export Promotion Cabinet are all part of the Trade Promotion Coordinating 
Committee, and since the beginning of the President's National Export Initiative, principals have met as a 
combined group of the two interagency bodies, co -chaired by the Secretary of Commerce and Deputy National 
Security Advisor to the President.  
147 USTDA programmes generated US$11.8 billion in new exports, supporting an estimated 65,900 jobs 
in the U .S. economy in 2015. USTDA (2015), Annual Report 2015 . Viewed at: 
https://www.ustda.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/about/r eports/annualreports/2015/0%20 -
%20USTDA%20FY15%20Annual%20Report.pdf . WT/TPR/S/350 • United States  
 
- 74 - 
 
  3.151.   Applying the lessons learned fr om NEI to develop a tailored, more hands -on approach, the 
Administration announced in May 2014 a long -term strategic framework (NEI/NEXT) for continued 
export growth. The objectives of NEI/NEXT are to connect more U.S. businesses to global 
customers, strea mline export -related services and processes, expand access to finance, promote 
exports and FDI, and to assist developing economies in improving their business environments.  
3.152.   The original goal of the NEI was to double U.S. goods and services exports in five  years 
(compared with 2009) to support an additional two million jobs.148 Although exports have grown 
significantly, the targets have not been met as the NEI encountered strong global economic 
headwinds and unfavourable macroeconomic factors (though the addi tional jobs goal was almost 
met at 1.9 million jobs supported by exports by 2014). The potential for increased exports is 
nevertheless recognized as most exporting U.S. firms sell their goods and services in only one 
foreign market. Moreover, among small U .S. businesses no more than 3 to 5% of them engage in 
goods exports.  
3.2.4.3   Drawback regime  
3.153.   The United States Code (19 U.S.C. 1313) authorizes drawback of customs duty on 
imported articles subsequently exported or incorporated in products that are exported or 
destroyed. Paid duty on unused imported merchandise, exported or destroyed under CBP 
supervision, may also be recovered as drawback. The drawback amounts to 99% of customs 
duties, certain excise taxes, as well as fees lawfully collected at importation, inclu ding the 
merchandise processing fee and t he harbour maintenance tax.  Claims  for the refund of duties and 
taxes , addressed to one of the four CBP drawback offices,149 should generally be filed within three 
years of exportation or destruction of the articles. According to CBP, the drawback is the most 
complex commercial programme it operates as it involves every aspect of CBP's business, 
including imports and exports.150  
3.154.   Section 903 of the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015 (PL 114 -125) 
introdu ced a number of changes in the duty drawback programme. The deadline for exportation or 
destruction of imported articles under the unused merchandise drawback programme has been 
extended from three to five years. Henceforth, claims for duty drawback should  be accompanied 
by detailed lists identifying all relevant inputs by their HS 8 -digit numbers. The Secretary of the 
Treasury is mandated to elaborate new regulations for the calculati on of duty drawback by 
December  2017.  
3.2.5   Export finance, insurance, guarant ees 
3.2.5.1   The Export -Import Bank of the United States (EXIM)  
3.155.   EXIM Bank is the official export credit agency of the United States, assuming credit and 
country risks that commercial lenders and insurers may be unwilling or unable to accept. 
Nonetheless, all author ized transactions must demonstrate a reasonable assurance of repayment, 
and comply with EXIM policies and practices as directed by statute, EXIM Bank Board decisions, 
and international agreements. Private -sector lenders normally act as partners in EXIM 
transactions.  
3.156.   Both an independent agency and a government corporation, EXIM Bank is financially 
self-sustained, having accumulated operating profits of nearly US$7 billion over the last 20 years. 
Long term project finance is the most profitable business for the bank. It plays a critical role as a 
source of export financing for small U.S. businesses, which also benefit indirectly as 
sub-contractors to EXIM's larger customers. The main sectors relying on export finance through 
EXIM Bank have been  aircraft manuf acturing, general manufacturing, oil and gas, and power 
projects. EXIM Bank authorizations and activities are very diverse geographically, involving 
transactions with some 172  countries. In terms of exposure, the largest export markets at the 
                                                
148 Some agencies developed their own targets. For example, the Department of Agriculture aspired to 
reach annual agricultural exports worth US$150 billion by FY2013, and the Department o f Commerce targeted 
a 7% increase in the  number of new markets entered by  client firms . 
149 The drawback offices are located in Chicago, Houston, Newark, and San Francisco.  
150 U.S. Customs and Border Protection online information. Viewed at: 
https://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/documents/drawback_refund_2.pdf . WT/TPR/S/350 • Unite d States  
 
- 75 - 
 
  close of fisc al year 2015 were Mexico, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia , the United Arab Emirates, 
China, India, Australia, and the Republic of Korea. Certain limitations apply with respect to EXIM 
Bank's acceptance of commercial and political risks, detailed in the Country  Limitation Schedule.151 
Support is legally prohibited for trade with Cuba, Iran, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, 
Sudan, and Syria.  
3.157.   Although independent in its day -to-day operations, EXIM Bank's lending authority is 
established by Congress. EXIM Bank's maximum allowable financial exposure was set at 
US$130  billion for 2013, and US$140 billion until 30 June 2015. On 4 December 2015, the 
President signed legislation reauthorizing the Export -Import Bank of the United States until 
30 September 2019.152 EXIM Bank's lending authority is capped at US$135 billion during this 
period.  
3.158.   EXIM Bank's full authority lapsed temporarily on 1 July 2015. Having operated for more 
than 80 years, EXIM Bank was forced to curtail all involvement in new business opportuniti es, 
reversing the steady growth of earlier years (Table 3.12). Its activities focused on monitoring and 
managing the existing portfolio and meeting continuing legal obligations under the EXIM Bank's 
charter. EXIM Bank's total financial exposure stood at US $90.4 billion at the end of June 2016.  
Table 3.12 EXIM Bank authorizations, 2013 -15 
 2013  2014  2015  
No. US$ million  No. US$ million  No. US$ million  
Loans  71 6,893.8  69 1,947.8  41 107.9  
Long term  29 6,878. 4 14 1,927.6  4 43.2 
Medium term  0 0 0 0 0 0 
Working capital  42 15.4 55 20.2 37 64.7 
Guarantees  674 14,911.8  540 13,314.1  344 13,676.8  
Long term  73 12,179.7  51 10,786.7  42 7,594.7  
Medium term  68 132.5  58 149.8  41 173.0  
Working capital  533 2,599.6  431 1,001.0  261 5,909.2  
Credit Insurance  3,097  5,542.0  3,137  5,206.1  2,245  3,248.2  
Short term  3,027  5,440.3  3,078  5,107.3  2,216  3,196.5  
Medium term  70 101.7  59 98.8 29 51.7 
Source:  Export -Import Bank of the United States (201 5), Annual Report 201 5. Viewed at: 
http://www.exim.gov/sites/default/files/reports/annual/EXIM -2015- AR.pdf .  
3.159.   Despite the resumption of new authorizations, an important operational drawback remains.  
As outlined in its charter, EXIM Bank has a five -member Board of Directors to consider individual 
transactions, Bank policies, and other matters that arise. Members of the Board are appointed by 
the President of the United States and with the advice and c onsent of the U.S. Senate. While 
certain small - and medium -term loans can be approved by EXIM Bank staff, medium and 
long-term authorizations above US$10 million require approval by the Bank's Board of Directors. 
At present, with three of its five seats va cant, the EXIM Bank does not have the quorum to take 
such decisions.  
3.160.   Section 55002 of PL 114 -94 states that the United States is to initiate and pursue 
negotiations with other major exporting countries to reduce substantially, with the possible goal of 
eliminating (by 2025), subsidized export financing program mes and other forms of export 
subsidies. In addition, the law states that the United States is to initiate and pursue negotiations 
with countries that are not OECD members to bring those countries int o a multilateral agreement 
establishing rules and limitations on officially supported exported credits. The Administration 
submitted a non -public report on its strategy on export credit negotiations to Congress in 
June 2016.  
3.2.5.2   Small Business Administration  (SBA) Export Loan Programs  
3.161.   Applicants for SBA export loans must provide export business plans, including historical 
data, projections, and written information supporting the likelihood of increased export sales. The 
                                                
151 The schedule is updated regularly, e.g. on 11 May 2016. Viewed at: 
http://www.exim.gov/sites/default/files/cls/CLSMay2016.pdf . 
152 Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (PL 114 -94), Division E – The Export -Import Bank 
Reform and Reauthorization Act of 2015 (12 U.S.C. 635), 4 December 20 15. WT/TPR/S/350 • United States  
 
- 76 - 
 
  SBA as such is not a bank. Thus, the spe cific terms of SBA loans are negotiated between the 
qualified borrower and an SBA -approved lender. No minimum borrowed amount is required to 
qualify as an SBA loan. In turn, the SBA guarantees the loans (up to US$5 million) against a fee. 
The fee is calcul ated according to maturity and guaranteed amount. The guarantee fee is initially 
paid by the lender.  
3.162.   The SBA  Office of International Trade  administers several programmes that offer export 
financing for small businesses  exporting or planning to export (Tab le 3.13). The Small Business 
Jobs Act of  2010 increased the attractiveness of the International Trade Loan Programme by 
increasing the guarantee limit from the generally applied 75% to 90% of the approved loan. Under 
this programme, up to US$5 million may be borrowed to invest in fixed assets, to be held as 
working capital, or to refinance existing debt.153 The Export Working Capital Program offers up to 
US$5  million to fund export transactions from purchase order to collections. The simplest export 
loan prod uct offered by the SBA is the Express Loan Program, approved within 36 hours. Providing 
financing up to US$500,000, the programme allows lenders to use their own forms and 
procedures. Loans may not be made to businesses exporting to a p rohibited foreign co untry, 
i.e. Cuba, Iran, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Sudan, and Syria.154  
Table 3.13 Approved applications and loan amounts under SBA Export Loan Programs, 
2012 -15 
Programme title  2012  2013  2014  2015 
No. US$ million  No. US$ million  No. US$ million  No. US$ million  
Export Express  185 35.1 160 30.9 124 23.5 156 28.0 
Export Working Capital  159 219.6  188 295.7  185 307.4  176 307.5  
International Trade Loan  61 95.8 152 251.1  193 285.4  215 394.3  
Sourc e: SBA (2015), Summary of Performance and Financial Information – Fiscal Year 2015 . Viewed at: 
https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/files/SBA -SPFI-Report -2015.pdf .  
3.2.5.3   Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC)  
3.163.   OPIC is the U.S. Government's development finance institution. OPIC mobilizes private 
capital to help address critical development challenges by providing investor financing, insurance 
of political risk, and pr ivate equity investment funding where these services are not available on 
commercially viable terms. OPIC does not compete with private -sector lenders. OPIC is an entirely 
financially self -sustaining, independent government corporation.  
3.164.   OPIC is authorized  to offer its services in more than 160 developing and post -conflict 
countries.155 OPIC requires its clients to be U.S. citizens, permanent residents, or U.S. companies, 
otherwise  the projects must show a "meaningful involvement" of the U.S. private sector, defined 
as a minimum 25% stake in the project or in the project company.156 OPIC activities, including 
insurance, are not limited to particular sectors. However, OPIC is prohibited from supporting 
certain categories of projects, such as those having adverse environmental or social effects in the 
country of operation157 or possible negative effects on the U.S. economy and employment. OPIC 
has a statutory requirement to ensure that its supported projects are established and maintained 
in accordance with internati onally -recognized (i.e. ILO) worker rights standards.  
3.165.   OPIC Financing provides medium - to long -term funding through direct loans and loan 
guarantees, with a minimum of US$350,000 and maximum of US$250 million per project, 
primarily to cover the capital cos ts of a project's establishment or expansion. OPIC will not 
consider requests related solely to the needs for working capital or the financing of acquisitions, 
and OPIC does not provide trade finance. OPIC Insurance covers political -risk insurance for the 
loss of tangible assets, investment value, and earnings. Also, sin ce 1987, OPIC has committed 
                                                
153 The International Trade Loan Program  is also available to companies adversely affected by import 
competition.  
154 Export Import Bank of the United States, Country Limitation Schedule, Note 7.  
155 The list of authorized countries can be consulted at: https://www.opic.gov/doing -business -us/OPIC -
policies/where -we-operate . The consideration of new financing and insura nce transactions in the 
Russian  Federation is currently su spended.  
156 Other forms of participation, such as franchise or long -term management contracts, may also be 
considered.  
157 OPIC – Environmental and Social Policy Statement, Appendix B. Viewed at: 
https://www.opic.gov/sites/default/files/consolidated_esps.pdf . WT/TPR/S/350 • Unite d States  
 
- 77 - 
 
  US$4.1  billion to 62 private equity funds in emerging markets. The fu nds, in turn, have invested 
US$5.6 billion in more than 570 companies across 65 countries.  
3.166.   OPIC operations have been growing over the years. At the end of September 2015, its 
combined total exposure stood at US$19.93 billion, the largest portfolio in its history (Table 3.14). 
The authorized exposure limit of OPIC is US$29 billion. As of June 2016 , OPIC was operating under 
the provisions of Title VI of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 (PL 114 -113).  Congress was 
considering legislation under various vehicles that would extend the authority of OPIC to operate 
on a longer -term legal basis.  
Table 3.14 Overview of OPIC activities, FY2013 -15 
(US$) 
 FY2013  FY2014  FY2015  
New commitments     
Financing  3.58 billion  2.32 billion  3.84 billion  
Investment funds  178 million  267 million  387 million  
Insur ance  171 million  380 million  160 million  
Total  3.93 billion  2.96 billion  4.39 billion  
U.S. exports projected  833 million  314 million  264 million  
Total portfolio  18.0 billion  18.0 billion  19.93 billion  
Active countries  102  101 100 
Source:  OPIC (several years),  Annual Reports  2013-15. Viewed at: https://www.opic.gov/media -
events/annual -reports ; and information provided by the authorities.  
3.3  Measures Affecting Production and Trade  
3.3.1   Incentiv es 
3.167.   The United States encourages private enterprise and competition based on free market 
economic principles. A number of policies and tools are employed to promote private -sector 
growth, investment, job creation, entrepreneurship, and small business develo pment. In 
December  2015, legislation was passed simplifying the taxation of small businesses and making 
certain tax cuts permanent for them.158 Investments in small businesses are exempt from capital 
gains tax.  
3.168.   The last major overhaul of the corporate income  tax system took place in 1986. 
Discussions regarding simplification of the corporate tax code, including a lowering of the statutory 
tax rate (currently ranging from 15% to 35%)159 together with the removal of tax "expenditures" 
(deductions, exemptions, def errals, or tax credits), are ongoing. Corporate inversion and earnings 
stripping have been issues of particular concern.160 As foreign earnings of U.S. -based corporations 
are taxed in the United States only once funds have been repatriated, it is estimated t hat 
U.S. firms have accumulated more than US$2 trillion in overseas earnings held abroad.161  
3.169.   SelectUSA was created in 2011 as a government -wide programme to promote and 
facilitate business investment in the United States. To better serve its primary clients , foreign 
investors and U.S. economic development organizations (EDO) in all 50 states plus the federal 
territories, SelectUSA has expanded its suite of program mes, services, and activities. The 
program me has developed new data tools, such as SelectUSA  Stats, a public, self -service data 
visualization tool which provides insights into FDI trends.162 SelectUSA continues to offer products 
such as the states ' incentives database and federal incentives database to help foreign investors 
                                                
158 Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 (PL 114 -113), Division Q - Protecting Americans from Tax 
Hikes (PATH) Act of 2015, 18 December 2015.  
159 Including state taxation of corpo rate profits, the highest marginal tax rate for corporate income in 
the United States is 38.92%.  
160 A corpora te inversion occurs when a U.S. -based corporation merges with a foreign entity and is able 
to change its tax residence to a foreign country as a re sult of the merger. An example of earnings stripping is 
when a company reduces its tax base in the United States through tax deductible interest payments on 
related -party debt from a low -tax jurisdiction.  
161 White House and the Department of the Treasury  (2016),  The President's Framework for Business 
Tax Reform: An Update , Joint Report, April.  Viewed at: https://www.treasury.gov/resource -center/tax -
policy/Documents/The -Presidents -Framework -for-Business -Tax-Reform -An-Update -04-04-2016.pdf .  
162 SelectUSA online information. Viewed at: https://www.selectusa. gov/selectusa -stats.  WT/TPR/S/350 • United States  
 
- 78 - 
 
  navigate potential relevant  program mes throughout the United States. Additionally, SelectUSA 
offers research and counselling services that help potential investors leverage data resources such 
as the Cluster Mapping Tool (https://www.clu stermapping.us/ ), a joint project of the Harvard 
Business School and the Economic Development Administration  (part of the Department of 
Commerce) , to identify regional concentrations of specific industries and potential partners . 
SelectUSA also organizes in-market promotional program mes for U.S. locations that wish to target 
markets overseas. In June 2016, a new Investment Advisory Council was established. The Council 
will examine selected priority issues, such as workforce development, provide guidance on  the 
development of strategies and program mes to attract and retain foreign investment, and present 
its findings and recommendations directly to the Secretary of Commerce.  
3.170.   The Small Business Administration (SBA) has been active ly supporting small business es 
and entrepreneurs for more than sixty years. SBA program mes assist small businesses in nearly 
every sector of the economy. The SBA does not provide grants for business start -ups, although 
this form of support may be available from state or local authori ties.163 The SBA provides loans 
through partner financial institutions, loan guarantees, counselling, and other forms of 
assistance.164 The SBA supported loans totalling US$33 billion through its program mes in FY 2015. 
In public procurement, the SBA's Office of  Government Contracting works with federal 
departments and agencies to attain the government -wide procurement goal for small businesses, 
namely that a minimum of 23% of the total value of all prime contract awards in each fiscal year 
should go to small bus inesses.165 
3.3.2   Subsidies and other government assistance  
3.171.   In the aftermath of the 2008economic crisis, the U.S. government took unprecedented 
action to restore demand, stabilize financial markets, and put people back to work. The American 
Recovery and Reinvestme nt Act of 2009 (ARRA) was enacted in February 2009. The estimated cost 
of ARRA amounted to US$831 billion over its lifetime, i.e. fiscal years 2009 -19.166 ARRA included a 
variety of measures such as tax cuts for individuals; business tax incentives; aid to s tates; social 
security spending; investment in infrastructure, health information technology, and renewable 
energy R&D; and tax credits for certain types of private investment. Most of the fiscal stimulus 
occurred during the first two years of the programm e. Around 95% of the discretionary funding 
under ARRA had been spent  by the end of 2014.  
3.172.   The Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP), signed into law in October 2008 through the 
Emergency Economic Stabilization Act, provided funding of government purchases of assets and 
equity from financial institutions to provide liquidity and shore up confidence in the financial 
sector. Originally authorizing US$700 billion in expenditures, TARP was subsequently scaled down 
to US$475 billion. In all, some US$433.3 billion  were disbursed, including around US$80 billion 
under the Automotive Industry Financing Program. TARP investment program mes were essentially 
wound down in December 2014 with the sale of its last major investment (Ally Financial, a major 
auto lender).167 Total revenue from the sales of TARP assets amounted to US$442.1 billion, 
approximately US$8.8 billion more than the accumulated acquisition costs.  
3.173.   The United States has no overarching legal framework governing subsidies at federal and 
sub-federal levels. Tra ditionally, federal subsidies have been in the form of grants, tax 
concessions, loan guarantees, and direct payments. Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) 
programmes exist for firms, workers and farmers. TAA has been re -authorized regularly, most 
recently in June 2015.168 On a cost -sharing basis, the Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms 
(TAAF) programme provides professional guidance, and technical assistance for firms to develop 
                                                
163 Federal grants are only available for certain non -commercial organizations.  
164 The SBA operates 17 major programmes under the principal headings Capital, Contracting, 
Counseling/Technical Assistance, and Innovation.  
165 The Small Busi ness Act (PL 85 -536), Section 15(g). The target was met for the first time in FY2014 
as subsequently reported in 2015. SBA online information. Viewed at: 
https://www.sba.gov/contracting/finding -government -customers/see -agency -small-business -scorecards .  
166 Congressional Budget Office (2012), Estimated Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment 
Act on Employment and Economic Output from Octo ber 2011 through December 2011 , February. Viewed at: 
https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/112th -congress -2011-2012/reports/02 -22-ARRA.pdf .  
167 TARP ho using programmes continue to operate.  
168 TAA Reauthorization Act of 2015 (PL114 -27). The reauthorized Act includes sunset provisions (more 
restrictive eligibility and benefit provisions) that take effect on 1 July 2021.  WT/TPR/S/350 • Unite d States  
 
- 79 - 
 
  recovery plans, and it co -finances the use of outside consultants. TAAF  operates t hrough 
11 regional centres serving firms in the 50 states. Appropriations to the TAAF have amounted to 
approximately US$16  million annually in recent years.  
3.174.   The Trade Adjustment Assistance for Workers provides federal assistance to workers 
having lost the ir jobs due to foreign competition, either due to relocation of production to a foreign 
country or because of an increase in directly competitive imports. The main TAA benefits are 
access to reemployment services, a weekly payment (Trade Readjustment Allow ance (TRA)), a 
wage insurance programme for workers aged 50+ (Reemployment Trade Adjustment Assistance 
(RTAA)), and a health coverage tax credit. Budget expenditures on training and other 
reemployment services are capped at US$450 million per year, while t otal expenditures on TRA 
and RTAA are not capped.  
3.175.   Like other WTO Members, the United States notifies subsidy programmes to the WTO 
without prejudice to their legal status regarding specificity, or being actionable (or otherwise) 
under the Agreement on Sub sidies and Countervailing Measures. The latest subsidy notification 
covered fiscal years 2013 and 2014. Outside of agriculture, federal -level subsidies are 
overwhelmingly directed towards the energy sector (Table 3.15). In addition, a number of 
energy -related support measures are implemented at the sub -federal level, particularly in relation 
to renewable energy (Table A3.4).  
Table 3.15 Federal subsidy programmes (non -agriculture), 2013 -14 
(US$ million)  
Program mes Type of subsidy  Expenditure  
FY2013  FY2014  
Energy and fuels   1,852.4  1,981.8  
Energy Supply – Renewable Energy Resources  Grants, cooperative 
agreements, cooperative 
research and development 
agreements (CRADAs), and 
other forms of subsidy  725.9  735.3 
Energy Conservation Programs – Transportation 
Sector  303.2  289.7  
Energy Conservation Programs – Building 
Technologies Office  204.6  177.9  
Energy Conservation – Advanced Manufacturing  114.3  180.5  
Fossil Energy R&D  Cost-shared contracts  498.7  570.4  
Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program  CRADAs and loan guarantees  0.0 22.0 
Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan 
Program (ATVM)  Direct loans  5.7 6.0 
Other energy and fuels   15,480.0  11,084.0  
Expensing of Exploration and Development (E&D ) 
Costs for Oil, Gas and other Fuels  
Income tax concession  550.0  240.0  
Excess of percentage over Cost Depletion for Oil, Gas 
and Other Fuels  530.0  660.0  
Capital Gains Treatment of Royalties on Coal  90.0 100.0  
Energy Efficient Appliance Credit  150.0  150.0 
Second Generation Biofuel Credit  Unknown  Unknown  
Credits for Investment in Advanced Coal Facilities and 
Advanced Gasification Facilities  180.0  200.0  
Advanced Energy Property Credit  210.0  100.0  
Two-year Amortization of Geological and Geophysical  
Expenditures  100.0  80.0 
Energy Production Credit  1,670.0  2,240.0  
Energy Investment Credit  1,950.0  1,870.0  
Biodiesel and Renewable Diesel Credit  Income and excise tax 
concession and direct 
payments  1,620.0  1,910.0  
Alternative Fuel Mixture Credit  Excise tax concession  350.0  370.0  
Energy Grant in lieu of the Energy Production Credit or 
the Energy Investment Credit  Direct payment  8,080.0  3,164.0  
Fisheries   82.5 81.1 
Columbia River Fishery Development Program  Operating grants  14.8 14.1 
Sea Grant C ollege Program  Direct grants  57.2 67.0 
Saltonstall -Kennedy Grant Program: Fisheries R&D  Competitive grants  10.5 .. 
Fisheries Finance Program (FFP)  Collateralized loans  0.0 0.0 
Lumber and timber   440.0  490.0  
Capital Gains Treatment of Certain Timber Inc ome 
Income tax concession  90.0 100.0  
Expensing of Multi -Period Timber Growing Costs  280.0  320.0  
Expensing and Seven -Year Amortization for 
Reforestation Expenditures  70.0 70.0 WT/TPR/S/350 • United States  
 
- 80 - 
 
  Program mes Type of subsidy  Expenditure  
FY2013  FY2014  
Medical   1,058.5  1,229.4  
Office of Nuclear Physics, Isotope Development an d 
Production for Research and Applications Program  Annual Congressional 
appropriations  18.5 19.4 
Orphan Drug Tax Credit  Income tax concession  1,040.0  1,210.0  
Non-fuel minerals   630.0  670.0  
Excess of Percentage over Cost Depletion for Non -fuel 
Minerals  Income tax concession  580.0  590.0  
Expensing of Exploration and Development Costs for 
Non-Fuel Minerals  50.0 80.0 
Shipyards   9.5 0.0 
Assistance to Small Shipyards Grant Program  Grants  9.5 0.0 
Timepieces and jewellery   1.0 1.6 
Insular Possessions Wat ch and Jewellery Programs  Duty refunds and exemptions  1.0 1.6 
Regional program mes  1,500.0  1,200.0  
Empowerment Zones  
Income tax concession  450.0  90.0 
New Markets Tax Credit  950.0  1,010.0  
New York Liberty Zone  100.0  100.0  
Total   21,053.9  16,737.9  
.. Not available.  
Source:  WTO document G/SCM/N/284/USA, 18 November 2015.  
3.176.   The notification also provides information on nearly 620 subsidy programmes maintained 
at state level. Although data on programme costs has been made available for some of these 
subsidy schemes, an overall estimate of sums granted or revenue foregone does not exist for 
sub-federal subsidy programmes.   
3.3.3   Competition policy  
3.177.   The competition policy framework has remained broadly unchanged in the United States 
for many years. The federal co mpetition (anti -trust) legislation consists of three core laws; the 
Sherman Act (1890), which outlaws monopolization and restraints of trade; the Clayton Act (1914) 
prohibiting mergers and acquisitions reducing competition; and the Federal T rade Commission  
Act (1914) prohibiting unfair competition methods, and unfair or deceptive practices. The Robinson 
Patman Act (1936) and the Hart -Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act (1976) amended the 
Clayton Act by prohibiting certain discriminatory practices and by  requiring detailed filing and 
setting deadlines for the consummation of transactions  in larger mergers and acquisitions.169 In 
addition, most States have anti -trust legislation, often modelled on the federal laws. Furthermore, 
judicial decisions and adminis trative proceedings interpreting existing legislation are important 
elements in the development of U.S. competition policy.  
3.178.   Acts of g overnment, including those limiting  commercial activity , are exempted from 
federal anti -trust legislation, where authorize d as a matter of state policy .170 Limited immunity also 
applies to specific aspects of agriculture, fisheries, and insurance. In relation to international trade, 
the Webb -Pomerene Export Trade Act may allow associations of otherwise competing businesses 
to engage in the collective exports of goods provided there are no anticompetitive effects, or injury 
to competitors, within the United States. The Export Trading Company Act (1982) also creates a 
procedure whereby persons engaged in export may obtain, under c ertain circumstances, an export 
certificate of review providing, inter alia , for limited antitrust immunity.171 The Shipping Act  (1984) 
allows international ocean carriers to engage in pric ing arrangements (liner conferences) unless 
these are contested by th e Federal Maritime Commission.  
3.179.   Enforcement of federal antitrust laws is entrusted to two agencies : the Antitrust Division of 
the Department of Justice (DoJ) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The DoJ Antitrust 
Division conducts criminal proceedings a gainst wilful violations of the antitrust laws, whil e civil 
                                                
169 The size -of-transaction thresholds  for filings of proposed mergers and acquisitions are adjusted 
annually based on the change in U.S. GDP.  
170 Additionally, the judicially -created "state action doctrine" exempts anticompetitive conduct by state 
bodies and municipalities authorized by a clear ly articulated state policy or law, as well as private parties as 
long as they have legal authorization and are actively supervised by the state.  
171 Forty-seven certificate groups are reporting information to the Department of Commerce at this time 
(Septem ber 2016).  WT/TPR/S/350 • Unite d States  
 
- 81 - 
 
  antitrust proceedings and regulatory guidance to businesses may be carried out by either agency . 
A well -established system of cooperation exists where competencies overlap between the two 
agencies . Enforcement actions may also be triggered by aggrieved private parties.  
3.180.   The FTC and the DoJ screen a large number of mergers and acquisitions in the pre -merger 
notification procedures pursuant to the Hart -Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Ac t (Tables  3.16 
and 3.17 ). The Clayton Act (Section 7) outlaws mergers and acquisitions likely to lessen 
competition. Enforcing these provisions, the FTC and the Attorney General may seek court orders 
to prevent a merger, and the FTC may issue cease and desist orders  in administrative proceedings.  
Table 3.16 DoJ a ctions against anticompetitive practices, FY2013 -15 
 FY2013  FY2014  FY2015  
Total investigations initiated, by primary type of conducta    
Sherman §1 - Restrain t of Tradeb 25 31 39 
Sherman §2 – Monopoly  2 0 3 
Clayton §7 – Mergers  65 80 67 
Othersc 0 2 2 
Hart-Scott -Rodino (HSR) premerger notifications     
Received  1,326  1,663  1,801  
HSR investigations initiated  50 67 55 
Number of cases filed  5 5 10 
Antitru st Division Cases – Court of appeals     
Filed 5 10 1 
Terminated  0 6 8 
Antitrust Division Cases – Supreme Court     
Filed 0 0 1 
Terminated  1 0 1 
Case results     
Total individual fines (US$ '000)  3,069  2,016  369 
Number of individuals fined  29 24 15 
Total corporate fines (US$ '000)  272,214  1,904,714  985,706  
Number of corporations fined  24 25 15 
Total fines imposed (US$ '000)  275,283  1,906,730  986,075  
Incarceration     
Number of individuals sentenced  39 35 15 
Number of individuals sentenced to inc arceration time  28 21 12 
Average number of days of incarceration  750 787 402 
a Statistics reflect only the primary type of conduct under investigation at the ou tset of the 
investigation; the statistics do not reflect whether a matter investigated a poten tial violation of an 
additional statute(s), or whether the primary violation changed during the pendency of the 
investigation. They do not  include business reviews, judgment modification or termination 
investigations, or premerger notifications, but includ e investigations initiated as a result of 
premerger notifications.  
b This category reflects both civil and criminal investigations.  
c This category includes investigations of potential violations of Clayton §§ 3, 7A, and 8, the 
Robinson -Patman Act, and Tit le 18, among other statutes.  
Source:  Department of Justice online information. Viewed at: 
https://www.justice.gov/atr/file/788426/download , and supplementary information provided by the 
Depar tment.   
Table 3.17 FTC actions against anticompetitive practices, FY2013 -15 
 FY2013  FY2014  FY2015  
Merger investigations  23 17 22 
Horizontal agreements settled by FTC  4 6 4 
FTC cases in court of appeals  1 1 4 
FTC cases in Supreme Court  2 0 1 
Investigations on unilateral conduct  15 3 10 
Source:  Federal Trade Commission C ompetition Enforcement Database. Viewed at:  
https://www.ftc.gov/compe tition-enforcement -database , and information provided by FTC.  
3.181.   The Sherman Act prohibits restrictive practices and arrangements such as price fixing, bid 
rigging, and agreements to divide markets. The law also applies to vertical agreements between 
seller s and buyers. According to the case law pursuant to Section 1 of the Sherman Act, horizontal 
conduct such as price fixing, bid rigging, and market allocation agreements is treated as illegal WT/TPR/S/350 • United States  
 
- 82 - 
 
  per se, while a "rule of reason" standard is applied to other con duct. Sherman Act violations may 
be subject to criminal or civil prosecution (DoJ) or challenged by the FTC in civil proceedings under 
the Federal Trade Commission Act. Criminal enforcement may result in significant fines and 
penalties as well as prison se ntences for convicted individuals.172 On average, the number of 
persons serving time for criminal antitrust offences, and the length of the sentences, ha s been 
increasing over time.173  
3.182.   The FTC's merger and non -merger enforcement activities in FY2015 resulted in estimated 
savings to U.S. consumers of US$3.4 billion. In 2015, the Supreme Court decided one anti -trust 
case and other appellate courts decided another four cases, all upholding the FTC's position. 
Following the Supreme Court's 2013 decision in FTC v. Actavis  that reverse -payment 
pharmaceutical patent settlements are subject to antitrust scrutiny, the FTC submitted an amicus 
brief to the First Circuit Court of Appeals in a similar case, arguing that the Supreme Court's 
Actavis  holding applies to non -monetary settlements, which the First Circuit upheld. The FTC also 
obtained a settlement of its 2008 lawsuit against Cephalon, Inc. , which required Cephalon's parent 
(Teva) to disgorge and return to purchasers US$1.2 billion it had obtained through agreements  to 
pay four firms to refrain from selling generic versions of its drug Provigil. As part of the FTC's 
efforts to police anticompetitive conduct that may raise costs or reduce options for consumers, the 
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit upheld  the FTC's determination that McWane, Inc . 
unlawfully maintained its monopoly in the domestic pipe fittings market through exclusionary 
conduct. In the merger area, in FY2015 the FTC challenged 22 proposed transactions in industries 
critical to consumers, such as healthcare, pharmaceuticals, hospitals, and retail. In healthcare, the 
Commission challenged transactions alleging that concentrated provider markets tend to lead to 
higher prices and lower quality of care for patients. For example, the FTC achieve d an important 
victory when the Ninth Circuit of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision in St. Luke's Health 
System v. St. Alphonsus Medical Center  that the acquisition had violated the antitrust laws. In the 
FTC's case against Sysco Corporation an d US Foods, the parties abandoned the transaction after 
the Commission sought an injunction in federal court to prevent the acquisition from going 
forward. In Staples/Office Depot , the parties abandoned their proposed merger after the district 
court grante d the FTC's request for a preliminary injunction.  
3.183.   The Antitrust Division obtained a record US$3.6  billion in criminal fines and penalties in 
FY2015, notably due to settlements with financial institutions and auto part manufacturers in the 
United States an d elsewhere . The auto part makers plead ed guilty to price fixing and bid rigging 
involving 20 different auto parts , and their acts have led to significant fines over a course of years.  
Cooperation regarding related enforcement actions is ongoing with enfor cement authorities in 
Japan, the Republic of Korea, the European Union, Canada, and other jurisdictions. The DoJ is also 
continuing to prosecute collusion and fraud in the financial services industry, resulting in criminal 
fines of more than US$2.5 billion  for price fixing in the foreign exchange markets for U.S. dollars 
and euro s, and manipulation of key reference interest rates (LIBOR). Another major ongoing 
investigation concerns a single, world -wide conspiracy to fix prices, rig bids and allocate market s 
for roll -on, roll -off cargo in ocean shipping between the United States and elsewhere.  The 
investigation of the conspiracy, which affects transportation of cargo such as new and used motor 
vehicles as well as mining, construction, and agricultural eq uipment from 2000 to  2012, has so far 
(July 2016) resulted in agreed -upon fines exceeding US$230 million  in the United  States.174 The 
conspiracy is also under investigation in other jurisdictions.  
3.184.   Advice and assistance to governmental bodies and other instituti ons in their decisions 
affecting consumers or competition are important tasks for the national competition authorities. 
Insight and expertise are provided formally through the filing of advocacy letters, often submitted 
jointly by the FTC and t he DoJ Antit rust Division . Noteworthy recent submissions include joint 
comments provided to the United States Patent and Trademark Office on its initiative to increase 
the quality of granted patents, updated DoJ views to the Federal Communications Commission on 
its Mo bile Spectrum Holdings proceeding, and comments submitted by FTC staff to state legislators 
on proposed legislation affecting  competition among local health care providers.  In its policy 
                                                
172 Corporations may be fined up to US$100 million per offence, whilst individuals risk fines of up to 
US$1  million and ten years in federal prison.  
173 It is a widely held view in the United States that imprisonment may be a more effective deterr ent 
against criminal antitrust behaviour than corporate fines and penalties.  
174 U.S. Department of Justice online information. Viewed at: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/wwl -pay-
989-million -fixing -prices -ocean -shipping -services -cars-and-trucks .  WT/TPR/S/350 • Unite d States  
 
- 83 - 
 
  advocacy, the FTC has helped define the contours of the state action d octrine for conduct by state 
boards whose members are private actors, which resulted in the FTC's Supreme Court victory in 
North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners  v. FTC . During FY2015, the FTC or FTC staff 
submitted 17 advocacy letters and amicus b riefs, some jointly with DoJ, expressing concerns about 
efforts to provide antitrust immunit y to hospitals and other health care providers that engage in 
mergers and other forms of collaboration, practices that may harm competition in the 
pharmaceutical ind ustry, restrictions for automobile manufacturers to sell cars directly to 
consumers, and occupational licensing practices that may harm competition.175  
3.185.   In 2015, the FTC issued a policy statement on the use of its FTC Act Section 5 authority.176 
As part of its  research and study agenda, the FTC held a workshop examining competition, 
consumer protection, and economic issues associated with the "sharing economy". A report 
summarizing the findings of the workshop, as well as a study focusing on competition issues 
related to Patent Assertion Entities are forthcoming.177  
3.186.   The DoJ Antitrust Division and the FTC are also actively engaged in interagency discussions 
and decision -making concerning competition issues in international trade and investment policy. 
Both agencie s are typically involved in the negotiations of competition policy chapters in U.S. FTAs, 
including the Trans -Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Trans -Atlantic Trade and Investment 
Partnership (T -TIP). The agencies also continue to participate in working gr oups and negotiations 
on regional and bilateral trade agreements.  
3.187.   The U.S . antitrust agencies are actively engaged in international cooperation in the area of 
competition policy and consumer protection. The DoJ Antitrust Division and the FTC participate i n 
multilateral and regional frameworks such as the International Competition Network (ICN), the 
Competition Committee of the OECD, UNCTAD, and the APEC Competition Policy and Law Group. 
The agencies also rely on strong bilateral relationships with enforcem ent agencies in other 
jurisdictions. During the period under review, the DoJ and the FTC signed an antitrust 
memorandum of understanding with the Korea Fair Trade Commission (September 2015) and an 
antitrust cooperation agreement with the National Institut e for the Defense of Competition and the 
Protection of Intellectual Property (INDECOPI) of Peru (May 2016). In all, the United States has 
bilateral agreements with 15 jurisdictions.178  
3.3.4   State trading, state -owned enterprises, and privatization  
3.188.   State enterpri ses engage in commercial activities on a relatively limited scale in the 
United  States. At the level of the Federal Government , government corporations and 
government -sponsored enterprises (GSEs) generally fulfil public policy or governmental functions 
in the United States and are not intended to compete with private enterprises. Government 
corporations are corporations "owned or controlled by the Government of the United States".179 
The Federal Government owns a number of such corporations, established by Co ngress to perform 
a public purpose with a clear and transparent mandate (Table 3.18). The corporations have 
separate legal personality and may receive federal budgetary allocations, although they may also 
have independent sources of revenue.  
3.189.   Operating excl usively in the financial sector, GSEs are quasi -governmental, private 
corporations structured and regulated by the Government to enhance their ability to borrow money 
                                                
175 The FTC's advocacy letters and amicus briefs are available at: https://www.ftc.gov/policy/adv ocacy . 
DoJ comments and testimony can be found at: https://www.justice.gov/atr/comments -and-testimony .  
176 FTC online information. Viewed at: 
https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_statements/735201/150813section5enforcement.pdf .  
177 FTC online information. Viewed at: https://www.ftc.gov/news -events/events -
calendar/2015/06/sharing -economy -issues -facing -platforms -participants -regulators , and 
https://www.ftc.gov/policy/studies/patent -assertion -entities -pae-study .  
178 Agreements have been concluded with Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, the EU, 
Germany, India, Israel, Japan, the Republic of  Korea, Mexico, Peru, and the Russian Federation. Six of these 
agreements include a formalized system of notification and consultation in the investigation phase. Cooperation 
is particularly close with Canada and Mexico, due to the high level of market int egration between the three 
countries.  
179 Definition provided in Title 5 of the US Code (5 U.S.C. 103). The Government Corporation Control Act 
(31 U.S.C. 9101 -10) distinguishes between mixed -ownership government corporations and wholly -owned 
government corp orations.  WT/TPR/S/350 • United States  
 
- 84 - 
 
  (Table 3.19). Their debt is not fully backed by the Federal Government . Freddie Mac and 
Fannie  Mae received federal assistance as a result of the financial crisis.  
Table 3.18 Government corporations, 2015  
Government corporation  Legal reference  Area of operation  
Commodity Credit Corporation  15 U. S.C. 714  Commodity credit financing  
Community Development Financial Institutions 
Fund 12 U.S.C. 4701  Banking  
Corporation for National and Community Service  42 U.S.C. 12651  National and communities services  
Export -Import Bank  12 U.S.C. 635  Export financi ng 
Federal Crop Insurance Corporation  7 U.S.C. 1501  Agricultural insurance  
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation  12 U.S.C. 1811  Bank resolution and deposit insurance  
Federal Financing Bank  12 U.S.C. 2281  Financing  
Federal Home Loan Banks  12 U.S.C. Ch. 11 Banking  
Federal Prison Industries (UNICOR)  18 U.S.C. 4121  Prison services  
Financing Corporationa 12 U.S.C. 1441  Financing  
Government National Mortgage Association  12 U.S.C. 1717  Mortgagees  
Government National Mortgage Association  12 U.S.C. 1717  Mortgages  
International Clean Energy Foundation  42 U.S.C. 17352  Foreign assistance for greenhouse gas 
reduction  
Millennium Challenge Corporation  22 U.S.C. 7703  Foreign assistance  
National Credit Union Administration Central 
Liquidity Facility  12 U.S.C. 1795 b Credit Unions  
National Railroad Passenger Corporation 
(AMTRAK)  49 U.S.C. 241  Passenger rail services  
Overseas Private Investment Corporation  22 U.S.C. 2191  International investment and financing  
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation  29 U.S.C. 1301  Pensions 
Presidio Trust of San Francisco  16 U.S.C. 460bb  Park and recreation  
Resolution Funding Corporation  12 U.S.C. 1441(b)  Financing and bonds for debt created by 
the former Resolution Trust Corporation  
St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation  33 U.S. C. 981  Marine transport  
Tennessee Valley Authority  16 U.S.C. 831  Navigation, flood control, electricity, 
certain manufacturing and economic 
development  
U.S. Postal Serviceb 39 U.S.C. 101  Mail services  
Valles Caldera Trust  16 U.S.C. 698 -v4 Historical pre servation  
a No longer writing new business; current outstanding obligations expire by 2019.  
b Only partially a government corporation . 
Source:   Kosar, K. (2011), Federal Government Corporations: An Overview , CRS P ublication RL30365, 8 June . 
Viewed at: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL30365.pdf ; Government Corporat ion Control Act, 
31 U.S.C. 9101; and information provided by U.S. authorities.  
Table 3.19 Government -sponsored enterprises  
(US$ million ) 
GSE Area of operation  Total assets 2015  
Federal National Mortgage 
Association (Fannie Mae)a Residential and multi -family mortgages  3,221,917  
Federal Home Loan Mortgage 
Corporation (Freddie Mac)a Residenti al and multi -family mortgages  1,986,050  
Federal Agricultural Mortgage 
Corporation (Farmer Mac)  Creates a secondary market for agricultural, rural housing, 
and rural utility loans  15,540  
Federal Home Loan Bank 
System  Provides funding to member banks so t he banks can 
provide community development credit  969,267  
Farm Credit Systemb Guarantees payments as to principal and interest on 
securities issues by member banks  303,503  
a In conservatorship since 6 September 2008; the U.S. Department of the Treasury e ntered into a 
Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement (PSPA) to make investments in senior preferred stock to 
maintain positive equity. Fannie Mae has not received funds from Treasury since the first quarter 
of 2012.  
b The Farm Credit System banks are Ag First Farm Credit Bank, AgriBank, FCB, CoBank, ACB, and 
Farm Credit Bank of Texas.  
Source:  Financial Statements. Viewed at: http://www.fanniemae .com/resources/file/ir/pdf/quarterly -annual -
results/2016/q12016_release.pdf ; http://www.freddiemac.com/investors/er/pdf/financial -
statements_2015.pdf ; https://www.farmermac.com/wp -content/uploads/Q1 -2016-Form-10-Q-
Final.pdf ; http://www.fhlb -of.com/ofweb_use rWeb/resources/2016Q1CFR.pdf ; and 
http://www.farmcreditfunding.com/ffcb_live/serve/public/pressre/finin/report.pdf?assetId=29 8759&
uniq=1463758363724 .  WT/TPR/S/350 • Unite d States  
 
- 85 - 
 
  3.190.   In June 2016, the United States notified its state trading enterprises (STEs) pursuant to 
Article  XVII:4(a) of the GATT 1994 and Paragraph 1 of the Understanding on the Interpretation of 
Article  XVII, providing information on the  Commodity Credit Corporation, the Isotopes Production 
and Distribution Program Fund, certain power administrations, and the Strategic Petroleum 
Reserve.180  
3.3.5   Government procurement  
3.3.5.1   Overview  
3.191.   The United States is a party to the WTO Agreement on Government Proc urement (GPA) 
and played an active role in the negotiations leading to the Revised Agreement on Government 
Procurement . GPA thresholds in U.S. dollars are revised every two years by the USTR.  Annex I of 
Appendix I of  the Agreement contains the list of cent ral government agencies covered by the 
GPA.181 Annexes 2 and 3 list the 37 States, and the federal and sub -federal bodies applying the 
GPA. The Protocol amending the Agreement on Government Procurement entered into force for the 
United States  on 6 April 2014; U.S. thr eshold values as expressed in SDR are the same under the 
revised and the 1994 Agreement s. 
3.192.   In December 2013, the United States proposed removing or replacing  4 entities in Annex 1 
of Appendix I of the Agreement. In its submission, the United State s noted that the Advisory 
Commission on Intergovernmental Relations no longer existed, and that the National Commission 
on Libraries and Information Science, the Office of the Nuclear Waste Negotiator, and the Office of 
Thrift Supervision had duties that w ere taken over by other entities , and that the proposed 
modification would not reduce the level of mutually agreed coverage provided under the GPA.182 In 
April 2014, the United States submitted a notification to make minor corrections to its Appendix I, 
including the adoption of new formatting.183 In 2016, the United States submitted a notification 
with respect to the electronic or paper media utilized by parties for the publication of laws, 
regulations, judicial decisions, administrative rulings of general  application, standard contract 
clauses, and procedures regarding  government procurement covered by th e GPA.  
3.193.   According to the Federal Procurement Data System's "Federal Contract Actions and 
Dollars " report, which looks at dollars obligated against contracts aw arded by U.S. Federal 
Government agencies, the value of federal government procurement in the United States for 
FY2015 was US$439.3 billion. Procurement by the Department of Defense during the same time 
period was US$274.5 billion; procurement by other age ncies and entities od was 
US$1 64.8 billion.184 There are no collected state or locality figures that are available that would 
allow for comparison to these data.  
3.194.   USASpending.gov, a website which provides for the public dissemination of federal 
contract, gran t, loan, and financial assistance  data as required by the F ederal Funding 
Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 , provides information on total federal government 
spending, excluding tax credits and assistance for housing, rent, food, or personal expe nses. For 
FY2015, the total government spending was approximately US$2.8 trillion; of this, government 
contracts accounted for US$439.3 billion. Procurement then made up about 15.5% of total federal 
government expenditures in 2015. Spending has been on a d eclining path; in FY2013, for instance, 
it was US$463.7 billion, or about 15.9% of total federal government expenditures of that year.185 
3.195.   Statistics on the procurement activities of the main agencies at the federal level are 
contained in the United States' F ederal Procurement Data System (FPDS), maintained by General 
Services Administration (GSA) under the direction of the Office of Management and Budget 's Office 
of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP). The GSA operates multiple e -procurement systems that 
suppor t collection and dissemination of information on U.S. Federal procurements to include 
                                                
180 WTO document G/STR/N/16/USA, 29 June 2016.  
181 WTO document GPA/113,  2 April 2012.  
182 WTO document GPA/MOD/USA/14, 4 December 2013.  
183 WTO document GPA/MOD/USA/15, 14 April 2014.  
184 Federal Procurement Data System. "Federal Contract Actions and Doll ars." Viewed at: 
https://www.fpds.gov  [8 August 2016].  
185 USASpending.gov, "Overview of Awards by FY 2008 – 2016." Accessed August 8, 2016. Viewed at: 
https://www.usaspending.gov/Pages/TextView.aspx?data=OverviewOfAwardsByFiscalYearTextView .  WT/TPR/S/350 • United States  
 
- 86 - 
 
  awards, contractor performance and integrity, and a single point -of-entry for contracting 
opportunities, known as Federal Business Opportunities (FedBizOpps).186 In Decembe r 2015 the 
United States submitted to the WTO procurement statistics, with statistical information for the 
year 2009.187 For procurement at the central level only (Federal Government), the submission 
reported 330,586  contract awards and actions for GPA -cover ed goods and services above the 
threshold that were made by GPA -covered entities, with a total value  of US$175.0 billion, and 
6,741  construction contracts above the threshold , with a total value of US$29.1  billion.188 These 
numbers represent the obligations made against contracts awarded in FY2009 as well as options 
exercised in following years to represent the true value of opportunities. Previous statistical 
submissions contained higher values due to a different methodology.  
3.3.5.2   Institutional and legal framewo rk 
3.196.   Government procurement at the federal level is decentralized, and is carried out through 
the various executive agencies' procurement systems. The Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) oversees and coordinates federal procurement, and reviews proposed re gulations for 
compliance with policy guidance, through the Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP), which 
provides overall direction for government -wide procurement policies.189 The OFPP  plays a central 
role in shaping the policies and practices federal agencies use to  acquire goods and services; it is 
headed by an Administrator who is appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.190 
The OFPP Administrator issues policy letters stating principles that must be followed by the 
agencies; implementati on takes place  through the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR).   
3.197.   The GSA is responsible for support ing other federal agencies with basic functions , including 
procurement services  and central contract vehicles . The Department of Defense uses various 
method s of procurement, including GSA Schedules; it has its own on -line catalogue procurement 
capability referred to as DOD e -Mall (https://dod .emall.dla.mil/acct /). There are multiple agencies 
such as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration , the Department of Health and Human 
Services, and others that have been designated by OFPP to manage government -wide acquisition 
contracts that leverage federal buying of  common goods and services.  
3.198.   The main legislation with respect to government procurement remains the Buy American 
Act (1933), which requires the Federal Government to purchase domestic goods; and the Trade 
Agreements Act (TAA) of 1979, which p rovides  author ity for the President to waive  discriminatory 
purchasing requirements  (e.g. the Buy American Act),  designate eligible countries, and bar  
procurement from non -designated  countries.  The United States notified to the WTO its basic 
procurement legislation and legislation giving effect to the GPA in 1998.191 The GPA is 
implemented in U.S. law at the federal level primarily through the TAA, as amended. The GPA is 
implemented at the state level through laws and regulations in each of the 37 States participating 
in it. 
3.199.   Legislation on procurement is also contained in various other laws, in particular the Federal 
Property and Administrative  Services Act of 1949 (FPASA), the Competition in Contracting Act of 
1984 (CICA), the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 ( FASA), the Clinger -Cohen Act 
of 1996, the Small Business Act of 1985, and the Services Acquisition Reform Act.  
3.200.   The FAR regulates federal government agencies' acquisitions of supplies and services with 
appropriated funds. The Department of Defense (DoD), GS A, and the National Aeronautics and 
Space Administration (NASA) jointly issue the FAR  for use by executive agencies in acquiring 
goods and services.  The FAR system allows executive agencies and their sub -agencies to develop 
their own specific internal guid elines. The FAR is updated regularly through  Federal Acquisition 
Circulars (FACs)  to reflect changes in procurement procedures, the effect of trade agreements, and 
other changes.  Proposed regulations are published in the Federal  Register and are open to pu blic 
comments, which are considered when drafting the final rules. The FAR regulates the procurement 
process in detail. Heads of  major purchasing entities , i.e. the Secretary of Defense, the 
                                                
186 The website's address is: https://www.fbo.gov/?s=main&mode=list &tab=list .  
187 WTO document GPA/104/Add.8, 7 December 2015.  
188 WTO document GPA/104/Add.8, 7 December 2015.  
189 OFPP online information. Viewed at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/procurement/i ndex.html . 
190 OFPP online information. Viewed at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/procurement_default .  
191 WTO document GPA/23, 15 July 1998.  WT/TPR/S/350 • Unite d States  
 
- 87 - 
 
  Administrator of General Services, and the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration , have the authority to issue regulations in the context of the FAR, following 
approval by OMB, specifically the Administrator of the O FPP and the Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs .  
3.201.   Rules and regulati ons with respect to government procurement are also contained in  
agency supplements to the Federal Acquisition Regulation and include the General Services 
Acquisition Manual ( GSAM), which consolidates GSA agency acquisition rules and guidance . The 
GSAM inc orporates the General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation (GSA AR) as well as 
internal agency acquisition policy.  
3.202.   Federal government agencies are required (with some exceptions) to publish in 
FedBizOpps notices of proposed procurement for contra cts in excess of US$25,000 at least 15  days 
before a request for bids. Prospective suppliers have at least 30  days from that date to submit 
bids. In the case of procurement of commercial items and for procurement valued at or  below 
US$100,000, shorter time frames may be established and simplified procedures applied. When 
procurement falls within the scope of the GPA or a free  trade agreement, a period of not less than 
40 days must generally be granted . State governments covered by the GPA are required to pub lish 
invitations to tender in their own state publications  and must conform to GPA deadlines. In 
addition to notices of proposed procurement, some states use notices of planned procurement.  
3.203.   The CICA mandates that procurement take place through full and op en competitive 
procedures. Executive agencies must solicit sealed bids, unless the procurement is urgent, and 
awards must be generally made on the basis of price, although there are some exceptions to this 
principle. The CICA provides for simplified proced ures for small purchases. The FASA establishes a 
threshold, the Simplified Acquisition Threshold (SAT), which provides simplified procedures in 
cases of new acquisitions valued below the SAT , which is currently set at US$150,000 . It also 
exempts purchases valued below the micro -purchase threshold, currently set at US$3,500, from 
Buy American Act requirements and allows them to be made without obtaining competitive 
quotations if the contracting officer determines that the purchase price is reasonable.192  
3.204.   Federal government agencies may maintain non -exhaustive lists of suppliers, provided 
they justify in writing the need for such a list. The GSA maintains Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite 
Quantity contracts with  approved suppliers , known as the  Federal Supply Sch edules or Multiple 
Award Schedules (MAS), which include both national and foreign suppliers from parties to the GPA 
or other international agreements. Interested suppliers can apply for inclusion on the Schedules at 
any time. The list of Federal Supply Sch edule Contractors is available publicly on 
"GSAAdva ntage!." Only authorized users may purchase directly from the Federal Supply 
Schedules . Authorized users are outlined in GSA Order 4800.2I.193  
3.205.   Apart from the non-exhaustive lists of suppliers , Federal agenc ies, as well as states and 
other sub -federal  bodies may maintain lists of qualified suppliers for their (selective) procurement ; 
several of the 37 states covered by the GPA use such lists when tendering for certain types of 
procurement. Lists of qualified or registered suppliers are made public.  
3.206.   Contractors are required to register online in the System for Award Management (SAM), an 
official website of the U.S. government  that consolidated  the Central Contracting Registration 
(CCR) as the primary  vendor dat abase for the U.S. Federal Government in 2012.194 In July 2016, 
some 403,432 government vendors were registered, of which  8,118 were foreign firms  (i.e. a firm 
that is not located in the United States or its territories and has foreign ownership) . In 2014, t he 
FAR was amended to require the use of Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) codes, 
                                                
192 The threshold adjustment process is governed by  statute 41 U.S.C. 1908, which requires mandatory 
review and adjustment of certain statutory acquisition -related thresholds for inflation using the Consumer Price 
Index (CPI).  
193 For more information on how to become a Schedule holder, see: www.gsa.gov/schedules . 
194 The System for Award Management (SAM) combines federal procurement systems and the Catalog of 
Federal Domestic Assistance into one new system. This consolidation is being done in phases. The first phase  
of SAM includes the functionality from the following systems: Central Contractor Registr ation (CCR); Federal 
Agency Registration (Fedreg); Online Representations and Certifications Application; and Excluded Parties List 
System (EPLS). System for Award Man agement online information. Viewed at: 
https://www.sam.gov/portal/SAM/#1 .  WT/TPR/S/350 • United States  
 
- 88 - 
 
  including North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) CAGE (NCAGE) codes for foreign entities, for 
awards valued at greater than the micro -purchase threshold.  
3.207.   Procurement  at the sub -federal level is governed by state or other sub -federal government 
laws and procurement regulations. Where procurement  is funded with federal money, states must 
comply with certain federal statutory  requirements. Local governments have their ow n 
procurement agencies, as well as their own procurement policies.  
3.208.   Efforts to increase transparency in U.S. federal procurement includes introduction of 
changes to ensure that the unique identifier used in federal procurement (the Procurement 
Instrument Id entifier (PIID)) is both unique and uniform across the Federal Government , capturing 
information on parent s or predecessors of bidders, and requirements to make public expenditures 
under federal contracts in addition to existing obligations. These requirem ents are being 
implemented through regulatory, process, and information technology changes and will be 
completed by 2018.  
3.3.5.3   Market access conditions  
3.209.   U.S. policy with respect to market access for government procurement continues to be 
based on reciprocity. T hat is, access is granted based on participation in specific trade agreements, 
including the GPA. Domestic purchasing requirements are maintained for procurement not covered 
by the GPA, the WTO plurilateral Agreement on Trade in Civil Aircraft, or preferen tial trade 
agreements. The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 generally prohibits federal agencies from 
purchasing goods and services from countries that are not a party to the GPA or other trade 
agreements that cover government procurement (non -designated count ries).  
3.210.   Revised GPA and FTA thresholds in U.S. dollars for the period starting on 1  January  2016 
and ending on 31  December  2017 were published in the Federal Register at 80 FR 77694, on 
15 December 2015.195 For the GPA, they were set at US$191,000 for goods and services included 
in Annex 1; and US$7,358,000 for construction services (Table 3. 20).196  
Table 3.20 Central government thresholds for the application of trade  agreements,  
2016 -17 
(US$)  
Trade agreement  Supply contract 
equal or exceeding  Service 
contracts  Construction 
contracts  
WTO GPA  191,000  191,000  7,358,000  
Australia FTA  77,533  77,533  7,358,000  
Bahrain FTA  191,000  191,000  10,079,365  
CAFTA -DR (Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, 
El Salvador, Guatemala, Ho nduras, and Nicaragua)  77,533  77,533  7,358,000  
Chile FTA  77,533  77,533  7,358,000  
Colombia FTA  77,533  77,533  7,358,000  
Korea, Rep. of  FTA 100,000  100,000  7,358,000  
Morocco FTA  191,000  191,000  7,358,000  
NAFTA     
Canada  25,000  77,533  10,079,365  
Mexico  77,533  77,533  10,079,365  
Oman FTA  191,000  191,000  10,079,365  
Panama FTA  191,000  191,000  7,358,000  
Peru FTA  191,000  191,000  7,358,000  
Singapore FTA  77,533  77,533  7,358,000  
Israel FTA  50,000  - - 
Source:  Acquisition Central online information. Viewed at : 
http://www.acquisition.gov/far/html/Subpart%2025_4.html ; and 
https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=FAR -2016-0001-0001. 
3.211.   Under the Buy American Act of 1933 (BAA), the purchase of supplies and construction 
materials by government  agencies  is limited to those defined as "domestic end -products", in 
accordance with a two -part test that must establish that the article  is manufactured in the United 
                                                
195 The regulation may be viewed at: https://www.regulations .gov/document?D=FAR -2016-0001-0001.  
196 Notified in WTO document GPA/W/336/Add.2, 6 January 2016.  WT/TPR/S/350 • Unite d States  
 
- 89 - 
 
  States, and that the cost of domestic components exceeds 50% of the cost of all the components. 
The BAA does not apply to services. As a way of monitoring enforcement of the BAA, t he 
Independent Agencie s Appropriations Act of  2006 (PL  No. 109 -115) requires the head of each 
Federal agency to submit a report to Congress relating to acquisitions of articles, materials, or 
supplies manufactured outside the United States. Federal domestic preference requirements are 
also sometimes included in annual appropriation and authorization bills.  
3.212.   The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 gives authorization to the President to grant waivers 
from the Buy American Act and other procurement restrictions; this authority has been delegated 
to the USTR. The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 waives the application of the BAA to the 
end-products of designated countries, which include the parties to the GPA, bilateral agreements 
that cover government procurement, CBERA beneficiaries, and least developed countries.  For 
CBERA and least developed countries, the thresholds are those of the GPA. For the other trading 
partners that are beneficiar ies of a preferential agreement, the  thresholds are as shown in 
Table  3.20. Eligible products are granted non -discriminatory tre atment.  
3.213.   Apart from the waiver faculty provided by the Trade Agreements Act, exceptions to the 
BAA can be granted if it is determined that the domestic preference is inconsistent with the public 
interest, in case of U.S. non -availability of a supply or mate rial, or for reasonableness of cost. 
Public interest determinations may be made on individual procurements or as a blanket for a set of 
procurements. In case of U.S. non -availability of a supply or material, the FAR contains a list of 
articles that have be en determined to be non -available (FAR 25.104) which must go through public 
notice and comment every five year s. Additionally, such non -availability determinations may be 
made on an individual basis. The cost of the domestic offer has been interpreted as b eing 
unreasonable if the cost of the foreign (non -eligible) product, inclusive of import duty and a 6% 
added margin, is below the lowest domestic offer when this offer is from a large business concern. 
If the lowest domestic offer is from a small business concern,  the added margin considered 
is 12%. For purchases by the Department of Defense the price difference must be at least 50%. 
The provisions of the BAA are also waived for civil aircraft and related articles that meet the 
substantial transformation te st of the Act and originate in parties to the WTO Agreement on Trade 
in Civil Aircraft.  
3.214.   Under the Balance of Payment Program the Department of Defense applies provisions  
similar to those required under the  BAA to contracts over US$1 50,000 for end -products for use 
outside the United  States.197 For eligible goods (i.e. those covered by the United States under the 
WTO GPA or an FTA), the  Department of Defense waives the restrictions of the BAA/Balance of 
Payments Program . For other goods, the Department of Defen se waives the restrictions for  
equipment produced in a "qualifying country" (with which there is a reciprocal procurement 
agreement or memorandum of understanding).198  
3.215.   In certain cases imported supplies for use in government contracts may be  exempted from 
customs duties. These goods are listed in sub -chapters VIII and X of Chapter 9 8 of the U.S. tariff 
schedule. Other supplies may al so be granted duty -free entry; if this is the  case, the contract price 
must be reduced by the amount of duty that would be paya ble if the supplies did not enter duty 
free. Supplies (excluding equipment) for government -operated vessels or aircraft may be imported 
duty free.199 
3.216.   Each U.S. State has its own procurement access conditions. As noted, 37 States participate 
in the GPA; among  those that do not, some restrict foreign participation in biddings, others offer 
preferences to in -state suppliers, or apply  domestic purchase requirements . Some states 
(e.g. New Jersey) do not grant specific state preferences, but may grant them on a r eciprocity 
basis, depending on what the state of origin of the out -of-state bidder grants.  Others grant 
in-state preferences only when there is a tie in the bid, or for some specific products. A few states, 
including  New Hampshire, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Vermont and Wisconsin do not 
grant any form of preference .  
                                                
197 DFAR Subpart 225.75. Viewed at: http://farsite.hill.af.mil/vfdfara.htm .  
198 Australia, Belgium, Canad a, Denmark, Egypt, France, Germany, Greece, Israel, Italy, Luxembourg, 
the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, and the United  Kingdom. Products 
from Austria and Finland could  also be exempted, on a purchase -by-purchase basis.  
199 FAR Subpart 25.9. Viewed at: http://www.arnet.gov/far/current/pdf/FAR.book.pdf .  WT/TPR/S/350 • United States  
 
- 90 - 
 
  3.217.   In late 2010 , the United States passed Public Law 111 -347, Title III  of which creates a 
federal excise tax of 2% to be applied to government purchases of goods and services from fore ign 
entities not party to an international procurement agreement , entered on or after 2  January  2011. 
On 18 August 2016, the Internal Revenue Service issued the final regulations implementing the 
Title.200 The final regulations define the term international procurement agreement  as the WTO 
GPA and any free trade agreement to which the United States is a party that includes government 
procurement obligations that provide appropriate competitive government procurement 
opportunities to U.S. goods, services, and suppliers. For the purposes of this definition, a party to 
an agreement is a signatory to the agreement and does not include a country that is merely an 
observer with respect to the agreement. The legislation requires Public Law  111-347 to be applied 
in a manner consistent with United States' obligations under international agreements. The 
reference to "international agreements" includes income tax treaties to which the United States is 
a party (57 agreements with 66 countries).  Payments for purchases under  the simplified 
acquisition procedures that do not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold of US$150,000 or 
less are exempted from the tax, as are emergency acquisitions and certain  foreign humanitarian 
assistance contracts . Also, countries that are  a party to an income tax treaty whit the 
United  States are exempt. The new regulations will establish procedures for collecting and paying 
the tax, but interim tax collection procedures have been in effec t since enactment of Public 
Law 111-347 Section  5000C in 2010.  
3.218.   A new reciprocity approach to sub -federal procurement was adopted by the United States  
in three FTAs  (Colombia, Panama, and Peru). Based on this policy, government procurement s of 
eight U.S. states and Puerto Rico was covered in the FTAs signed wi th Colombia, Panama, and 
Peru.  
3.3.5.4   Set-asides and preferences  
3.219.   U.S. p rocurement policy seeks to increase the participation of small businesses, 
veteran -owned small businesses, small disadvantaged business (SDBs), HUB Zone  businesses, and 
women -owned small busi nesses. To this end, the U.S. government carries out a policy of fixing 
set-asides  when market research concludes that small businesses are available and able to 
perform the work or provide the products being procured by the Government .201  
3.220.   The Federal Government has specified annual prime contracting goals for designated small 
businesses. The Small Bus iness Act (PL  85-536) required , in principle, that each contract with an 
anticipated value greater than US$2,500 but less than US$100,000 be reserved exclusive ly for 
small business concerns. These thresholds were later revised, and currently e very federal 
government purchase with an anticipated value above the micro -purchase threshold of US$3,500, 
and up to the simplified acquisition threshold (SAT) of US$150,00 0, is required to be automatically 
and exclusively set -aside for small businesses . In this case, t here must be at least two or more 
(Rule of Two) responsible small business concerns that are competitive in terms of market prices, 
quality, and delivery for an automatic set -aside to occur. C ontract opportunities above 
US$150,000 must also be set aside if the Rule of Two is met. Moreover, c ontract opportunities 
over US$700,000 or US$1.5 million  for construction awarded to Other -than-Small -Businesses 
(OTSBs), m ust include  small business subcontracting plans to the extent there are subcontracting 
opportunities . Pursuant to the Small Business Act, the Small Business Administration is responsible 
for defining the specific size standards for each industry to determi ne which businesses qualify as 
small.202 
3.221.   Subcontracting plans must include one or more businesses that fall under t he Small 
Business Administration (SBA) main program mes to promote the ability of small businesses to 
compete for federal procurement contracts.203 These are : the  Women -Owned Small Bu siness 
(WOSB) Federal Contract program mes; the 8(a) Business Development Program ; the Historically 
                                                
200 Federal Register 81  FR 55133. Viewed at: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR -2016-08-18/pdf/2016 -
19452.pdf .  
201 Small Business Administration online information. Viewed at: 
https://www.sba.gov/contracting/government -contracting -programs/what -small-business -set-aside.  
202 Definition of small business. Viewed at: 
http://www.sba.gov/sites/default/f iles/files/Size_Standards_Table.pdf .  
203 Small Business Administration online information. Viewed at: 
https://www.sba.gov/contracting/government -contracting -programs/what -small-business -set-aside.  WT/TPR/S/350 • Unite d States  
 
- 91 - 
 
  Underuti lized Business Zones (HUBZone) Program; the S mall Disadvantaged Business  Program; 
and the Service -Disabled Veteran -Owned Small Business  Concerns (SDVOSBC)  Program .  
3.222.   The current, government -wide procurement goal stipulates that at least 23% of all federal 
government contracting dollars should be awarded to small businesses. In addition, targeted 
sub-goals are established for the following  small business categories: women owned small 
business : 5%; small disadvantaged business : 5%; service -disabled veteran -owned small 
business : 3%; and  HUBZone: 3%. These goals are not in addition to the 23% but rather are 
counted as part of the overall goal.  In fiscal year 2015, the overall small -business procurement 
goal was met, as 25.7% of the value of all contracts was procured from them. In the case of the 
targeted subgroups, the goals were met for the  women owned small business  (5.1)%; small 
disadvantag ed busines s (10.1 %); and service -disabled  veteran -owned small business (3.9)%, but 
procurement from  HUBZone s was below the goal (1.8%).204 
3.223.   To benefit from set -asides, s ome contracting rules and limitations apply. The main one is 
the non -manufacturer rule. If  a small business prime contractor does not itself manufacture the 
products or materials that it provides to the Government under a set -aside contract for supplies, it 
must supply the product of a small business , unless the SBA has granted a waiver or the contract 
is a small business set -aside under US$150,000 . The SBA may issue waivers to the 
non-manufacturer rule if it determines that there are an insufficient number of small businesses 
with the required manufacturing capabilities.  
3.224.   There are also s ubcont racting limitations: u nder set -aside award conditions, small 
businesses are required to perform minimum levels of work when they receive a federal contract. 
These subcontracting limitations apply to contract set -asides for small businesses when the 
contrac t amount exceeds US$150,000 and  to all other set -aside or sole -source contracts under 
the 8(a), HUBZone, SDVOSB or WOSB program mes. In the case of s ervice contracts, t he small 
business prime contractor must provide at least 50% of the contract cost for per sonnel; for supply 
contracts, the prime contractor must perform work for at least 50% of the cost of manufacturing 
the supplies, not including the cost of materials, unless the concern qualifies as a 
non-manufacturer. Finally, the small business prime cont ractor must perform at least 15% of the 
cost of the contract with its own employees, not including the cost of materials, for g eneral 
construction contracts, and at least 25% in the case of specialty construction contracts . Under the 
HUBZone, SDVOSB or WOS B program mes the small business prime contractor can utilize similarly 
situated subcontractors to meet these performance requirements.  
3.225.   Eligibility conditions vary according to the program me. To enjoy the benefits of the 
HUBZone Program, the business must b e a small business by SBA standards; it must be at least 
51% owned and controlled by U.S. citizens, or a Community Development Corporation, an 
agricultural cooperative, or an Native American  tribe; at least 35% of its employees must reside in 
a HUBZone ; and its principal office must be located within a "Historically Underutilized Business 
Zone", which includes lands considered "Indian Country " and military facilities closed by the Base 
Realignment and Closure Act . HUBZon e benefits include a 10% price evaluation preference in full 
and open contract competitions, as well as subcontracting opportunities.  
3.226.   The WOSB Program was established in 2001 through Public Law 106 -554, which created a 
women's procurement program me to ass ist the Government in meeting its 5% women -owned 
small business (WOSB) contracting goal. The WOSB Federal Contract Program allows Contracting 
Officers (COs) to set aside contracts for WOSBs under certain conditions. As of December 2015, it 
also allows COs to grant contracts to WOSBs under sole -source authority in specific 
circumstances.205 In March 2016, eligible industries were revised and expanded to 113 ; 36 new 
industries were added to the p rogram me, six industries were removed from the p rogram me, and 
27 industries had their designation changed. To benefit from the program me, the business must 
be at least 51% unconditionally and directly owned by women who are U.S. citizens; a woman 
                                                
204 Federal Procurement Data System (2016), FY 2015 Small Business Goaling Report . Viewed at: 
https://www.fpds.gov/do wnloads/top_requests/FPDSNG_SB_Goaling_FY_2015.pdf .  
205Contracting officers may grant set -asides on their sole authority if : the contract (including options) is 
valued at US$6.5 million or less for manufacturing contracts or US$4 million or less for all ot her contracts;  the 
contract is awarded to the WOSB at a fair and reasonable price ; and if there is a reasonable expectation that 
there is only one WOSB/EDWOSB that can perform. Small Business Administration online information. Viewed 
at: http://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/files/2016_WOSB_Federal_Contract_Program_Module_1_ -
_Program_Overview_FINAL.pptx .  WT/TPR/S/350 • United States  
 
- 92 - 
 
  must manage the day -to-day operations, hold the highest officer position and make the long -term 
decisions for the business . Additionally, p ersonal net worth (assets minus liabilities) must be  less 
than US$750,000, the adjusted  gross income average over three years must be US$350,000 (with 
certain exclusions), and the f air market value of all assets must be  US$6 million or less.  
3.227.   The 8(a) Business Development Program  is a business assistance program me for small 
disadvantaged businesses. To qualify, firms must be at least 51% owned and controlled by socially 
and economically disadvan taged individuals; firms may form joint ventures and teams to bid on 
contracts. Participants can receive sole -source contracts, up to a ceiling of US$4 million for goods 
and services and US$6.5 million for manufacturing, but are also encouraged to particip ate in 
competitive acquisitions. The limit on the total dollar value of sole -source contracts that an 
individual participant can receive while in the program me is US $100 million.  Participation in this 
program me by an individual small disadvantaged business  is limited to nine years.  
3.228.   The Small Disadvantaged Businesses Program was established in October 2008. It is 
similar to the 8(a) Business Development Program , but requirements are less stringent.  Small 
businesses can self -represent their status as a small disadvantaged business (SDB) by registering 
in the System for Award Management. To qualify: the firm must be 51% or more owned and 
controlled by one or more disadvantaged persons; the disadvantaged person or persons must be 
socially disadvantaged and econo mically disadvantaged; the firm must be small, according to 
SBA's size standards .206 
3.229.   The Vete rans Benefits Act of 2003 established the Service -Disabled Veteran -Owned Small 
Business Concerns (SDVOSBC)  Program, a procurement program me that allows  federal 
contracting officers to restric t competition to SDVOSBCs and award a sole -source or set -aside 
contract w here certain criteria are met. Sole-source contracts may be awarded if : the CO does not 
have a reasonable expectation that at least two responsible SDVOSBCs will submit offers; the 
anticipated award price of the contract, including options, will not exceed US$5 million for 
manufacturing requirements and US$3 million for all other requirements ; and the award can be 
made at a fair market price.  If the requiremen t is at or below the simplified acquisition threshold, 
the CO may set  aside the requirement for consideration among SDVOSBCs using simplified 
acquisition procedures or may award a sole -source contract to a SDVOSBC.  
3.230.   In July 2016, DoD, GSA, and NASA issu ed a final rule amending the Federal Acquisition 
Regulation (FAR) to implement regulatory changes made by the Small Business Administration, 
which provide for a government -wide policy on small business subcontracting (48 CFR Parts 1, 2, 
15, 19, and 52 ). The ch anges are aimed at facilitating the participation of small businesses in the 
procurement process .207 The SBA also issued a final  rule (13 CFR Part 121 ) in January 2016 that 
adjusted monetar y small business size standards , increas ing them by  8.73% (except the  
US$750,000 receipts -based size standard for agricultural enterprises established b y the Small 
Business Act). The final rule also increased by the same rate the size standards for Sales of 
Government Property (Other Than Manufacturing) and Stockpile Purcha ses.208 
3.231.   There are also set -asides for procurement from prison labour. In July 2016, DoD, GSA, and 
NASA issu ed a final rule amending  the FAR to increase the blanket waiver threshold for small 
dollar -value purchases from Federal Prison Indus tries (FPI) by federal agencies , from US$3,000 to 
US$3,500.209 
3.3.5.5   Bidding p rocedures  
3.232.   FAR P arts 8, 13, 14 and 15  contain the main regulations regarding bidding procedures. 
They are of two basic types: sealed bidding and contracting by negotiation. Sealed bidding , the 
most-used me thod, requires that the final decision by agencies be bas ed on "only price and the 
price-related factors included in the invitation". The contract is awarded to the lowest bidder 
meeting all  the contract requirements. In cases where the Government needs to  gather more 
information from suppliers before the sealed bidding process is initiated , a two-step sealed bidding 
                                                
206 Small Business A dministration online information. Viewed at: 
https://www.sba.gov/contracting/government -contracting -programs/small -disadvantaged -businesses .  
207 For further information, see: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=FAR_FRDOC_0001 -1176.  
208 For further information, see: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=SBA -2014-0009-0015.  
209 For further information, see: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=FAR_FRDOC_0001 -1174.  WT/TPR/S/350 • Unite d States  
 
- 93 - 
 
  process is used. Contracting by negotiation is required where sealed bidding is not applicable, such 
as when the agency anticipates more varie ty among proposed solutions, a need to conduct 
discussions, or consideration of evaluation factors other than price and price -related factors.  
3.233.   In general  terms , all contracts exceeding US$25,000 must be published in 
www.fedbizopps.gov  15 days before solicitati ons begin. G overnment agencies are required to allow 
for a 30-day response time , or a 40 -day response time for procurements covered under an 
international trade agreement . Contracts may also be publicized thro ugh paid advertisements, if 
considered necessary.  
3.234.   Part 8 of the FAR mandates that  agencies give consideration first to "required sources" for 
their supplies and services ' needs . The list of "required sources" is made up of various sources, 
including exces s (left over) from other agencies and supplies from the Federal Prison Industries.210 
Required sources take priority over all other sources, including the program mes authoriz ed by the 
Small Business Act. As noted above, a simplified acquisition procedure  (Part 13 of the FAR ) is used 
for purchases below  US$150,000, and there are normally set  asides for the small business 
categories when there is a reasonable expectation that a minimum of two small businesses are 
able to provide the product/service competitivel y in terms of market prices, quality, and delivery. 
Subpart 13.3 of the FAR provides guidance for the use of methods to simplify the acquisition 
process.  Agencies may use government -wide commercial purchase cards for quick payments of 
certain goods and ser vices. The purchase orders method allows agencies, after deciding upon a 
vendor, to issue a legal document, i.e. the purchase order, which details the type, quantity, and 
delivery date of the goods or services. Where there is a repetitive need for supplies  or services, 
the FAR allows for blanket purchase agreements (BPAs), which establish regular "charge accounts" 
with suppliers found after a competitive bidding process.  
3.235.   Bid protests (before awards) may be taken to the Government Accountability Office (GAO ) 
or the U.S. Court of Federal Claims (COFC). They are governed  by federal statutes including the 
Competition in Contracting Act of 1984 and the Federal Courts Improvement Act of 1982. If a 
party is dissatisfied with a decision by the GAO, it may file a ne w protest with COFC. COFC 
decisions may be appealed to the U.S.  Court of Appeals for the F ederal Circuit. In 2015 , 2,639  bid 
protest cases were filed with GAO and 13  bid protests were filed with the COFC. Contract disputes 
in government procurement, i.e. on actions and events that occur after the contract is awarded,  
are dealt with under the Contract Disputes Act of 1978. The parties may file contract dispute 
claims to either an agency board  of contract appeals or the COFC, whose decisions may be 
appealed t o the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In 2015, 50 contract dispute cases 
were filed with the COFC and 12 were appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal 
Circuit.  
3.236.   GSA offers an on -line shopping service called "GSA Advantage! " throu gh which eligible 
users  may p lace orders against Schedules. Eligible users  may also use GSA Advantage! to place 
orders through GSA 's Global Supply System, a GSA wholesale supply source. Users may access 
GSA Advantage! through the GSA Federal Supply Service  home page ( http://www.gsa.gov/fas ) or 
the GSA Federal Supply Schedule home page ( http://www.gsa.gov/schedules ). GSA Advantage! 
enables eligible users to search specific in formation, review delivery options, place orders directly 
with Schedule contractors and pay for orders using the government -wide commercial purchase 
card. GSA Advantage! has an electronic Request for Quotation system (RFQ), E -Buy, which allows 
users to  post requirements, obtain quotes, and issue orders electronically.  
3.3.6   Intellectual property rights  
3.3.6.1   Overview  
3.237.   Intellectual property (I P) and innovation are of critical importance to the enhanced 
productivity and growth of the U.S. economy. The United States is an important producer and 
                                                
210 In accordan ce with FAR Part 8 agencies shall satisfy requirements for supplies and services from or 
through the sources and publications listed below in descending order of priority: (1) supplies : (i) inventories 
of the requiring agency; (ii) excess from other agenci es; (iii) Federal Prison Industries, Inc.; (iv) supplies which 
are on the Procurement List maintained by the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely 
Disabled; (v) wholesale supply sources, such as stock program mes of the GSA; and (2) services : services that 
are on the Procurement List maintained by the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely 
Disabled.  WT/TPR/S/350 • United States  
 
- 94 - 
 
  exporter of goods and services that embody knowledge  and other intellectual developments. IP is 
present in a large share of U.S.  goods exports (some 52% in 2014 ) and IP -intensive industries in 
the United States account for 38.2%  of U.S. GDP in 2014 .211 The United  States traditionally posts 
a balance -of-payments surplus in IP -related trad e, as measured by the category charges for the 
use of intellectual property . In 2015, net receipts were US$85.2  billion, with receipts totalling 
US$124. 7 billion and payments reaching US$39.5 billion.212 
3.238.   The Administration considers intellectual property a critical source of economic growth and 
high-quality jobs for the United States. In the Special 301 Report of the USTR, it has been noted 
that the authori ties work  to protect U.S. inno vation and creativity with all the tools of U.S. trade 
policy, because fostering innovation and creativity is essential to U.S. prosperity, competitiveness, 
and the support of an estimated 40 million U.S. jobs that directly or  indirectly r ely on IP -intensive 
industries.213  
3.239.   At the request of the U.S. Senate Committee on Finance, the U.S. International Trade 
Commission (USITC) undertook an investigation (The Digital Trade in the U.S. and Global 
Economies, Part 2, launched in Augus t 2014) to better understand the role  of digital trade in the 
United  States and in other economies . The report showed that digital trade contributes to 
economic output by improving productivity and reducing trade costs. Digital trade 's combined 
effects of increased productivity and lower trade costs were estimated to have increased U.S. real 
GDP by between US$517.1 and US$710.7 billion (3.4 -4.8%), and U.S. aggregate employment by 
up to 2.4 million full -time equivalents (up to 1.8%).214  
3.240.   Enacted in 1980, the B ayh-Dole and Stevenson Wydler Acts215 apply to the funding of 
research and development in the United States. Bayh -Dole allows universities, non -profit 
institutions, and small businesses to obtain patents arising from research funded by the Federal 
Government . The Stevenson -Wydler Act requires the establishment of an Office of Research and 
Technology Applications within each federal laboratory and agency . The offices generally work  to 
transfer technology, including the licensing of intellectual  property develo ped by the 
U.S. Government at its laboratories.  Government expenditures on research and development tend 
to fluctuate, but exceeded US$130 billion in 2014 and 2015 across all federal research and 
development program mes. Preliminary estimates for 2016 (obli gations and outlays) indicate a 
spending level of around US$140 billion. The Department of Defense receives approximately 50% 
of the funding. Other important recipients are the National Institutes of Health (US$32 billion), the 
National Aeronautics and Spa ce Administration (US$12  billion), and the National Science 
Foundation (US$6 billion).216  
3.3.6.2   General regulatory framework  
3.241.   The United States is a member of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), and 
participates in a large number of international conventions and treaties related to intellectual 
property rights ( IPRs).217 
3.242.   The United States has notified to the WTO its laws and regulations on trade -related 
aspects of IPRs. Updates of legislation addressing IPRs, including amendments presented in a 
conso lidated text, have been notified subsequently.218 The most recent updates were made 
in 2013 ( Table 3.2 1), among which is the Act to Implement the Provisions of the Geneva Act of the 
Hague Agreement  Concerning the International Registration of Industrial Desi gns, which entered 
                                                
211 USPTO (2016), Intellectual Property and the U.S. Economy: 2016 Update , September. Viewed at: 
https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/IPandtheUSEconomySept2016.pdf .  
212 BEA online information. Viewed at: 
http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?ReqID=62&step=1#reqid=62&step=6&isuri=1&6210=1&6200=2 .  
213 USTR (2016), 2016 Special 301 Report , April. Viewed at: https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/USTR -
2016-Special -301-Report.pdf .  
214 USITC (2014), Digital Trade in the U.S. and Global Economies . Viewed at: 
https://www.u sitc.gov/publications/332/pub4485.pdf . 
215 The Patent and Trademark Law Amendments Act  (PL 96 -517) and the Stevenson -Wydler Technology 
Innovation Act of 1980  (PL 96 –480).  
216 National Science Foundation online information. Viewed at: 
https://ncsesdata.nsf.gov/fedfunds/2014/html/FFS2014_DST_003.html . 
217 WIPO online information. Viewed at: http://www.wipo.org . 
218 WTO document IP/N/1/USA/6, 18 April  2013.  WT/TPR/S/350 • Unite d States  
 
- 95 - 
 
  into force for the United States on 13 May 2015,  and of the Patent Law Treaty, which entered  into 
force for the United States on 18  December  2012219; and the text of the Consolidated Patent Laws, 
which entered into force on 1  August  2012.220 On 17  December 2005, the United  States accepted 
the Protocol Amending the TRIPS Agreement adopted by the General Council on 6 December 2005 
(WT/L/641).  
Table 3.21 Most recent changes in intellectual property laws and regulations  
Title WTO document  Date of 
enactment  Date of entry into 
force  
Consolidated Copyright Regulations  IP/N/1/USA/C/6  3.1.2013  3.1.2013  
Consolidated Patent Laws  IP/N/1/USA/D/6 -IP/N/1/USA/P/11  1.8.2012  1.8.2012  
Consolidated Patent Rules  IP/N/1/USA/D/7 -IP/N/1/USA/P/12  1.8.2012  1.8.2012  
Patent Law  Treaties Implementation Act 
of 2012 IP/N/1/USA/D/8 -IP/N/1/USA/P/13  18.12.2012  18.12.2012  
13.05.2015 
(industrial designs)  
Changes to Implement Micro Entity Status 
for Paying Patent Fees  IP/N/1/USA /D/9-IP/N/1/USA/P/14  19.12.2012  13.3.2013  
An Act to Amend The Trademark Act 
of 1946 to Correct an Error in the Provisions 
Relating to Remedies for Dilution  IP/N/1/USA/T/7  5.10.2012  5.10.2012  
Source:  WTO notifications.  
3.243.   Among other legislative changes d uring the review period, the Defend Trade Secrets Act 
was signed into law in 2016, amending the Economic Espionage Act to create a private civil cause 
of action for trade secret misappropriation. The STELA  Reauthorization Act of 2014, signed into law 
in Dece mber 2014 , extend s until 31 December 2019 the statutory licen ce under which satellite 
carriers retransmit distant television broadcast stations to viewers who are unable to receive 
signals for such stations in their local market.  
3.244.   Intellectual property prot ection is a key issue for the United States; the promotion of  
increased IPR protection and enforcement  is sought through a variety of mechanisms. For 
instance, t he United States has addressed IPR subject matter s in the context of bilateral IP 
agreements an d memoranda of understanding, bilateral investment treaties, and trade and 
investment framework agreements. IPR issues have also been included in U.S. free  trade 
agreements in force or pending approval or implementation , such as the Trans -Pacific Partnersh ip 
(TPP) Agreement which includes standards  for IPR protection and enforcement (see below) . The 
United States also pursues enhanced standards of IP protection through its engagement with 
countries seeking accession to the WTO. Other key  areas of work for t he promotion of IPRs 
include : bilateral and regional engagement through such vehicles as the annual "Special 301" 
review and report (see below)  and IP dialogues with trading partners; multilateral engagement on 
IP issues through the WTO and other organizat ions; implementation of trade policy in support of 
U.S. innovations; and  providing interagency trade policy leadership.221 
3.245.   Table 3.2 2 provide s a snapshot of IPR protection in the United States as of mid -2016.   
Table 3.22 Summary of intellectual property protection in the United States, June 2016  
Form  Main legislation  Coverage  Duration  
Copyright 
and related 
rights  Copyright Law  of the 
United St ates, Title 17 
of the U.S.  Code (t he 
STELA Reauthorization  
Act of 2014  
(PL 113 200) signed 
into law on 
4 December  2014, 
amended Title 17 of the  
U.S. Code) Authors' rights in the artistic, lit erary 
and scientific domains. T o enjoy 
copyright protection a work must be 
an original creation  Life of author plus 70 years 
for works created on or 
after 1  January 1978. 
Anonymous works, 
pseudonymous works, and 
works made for hire 
protected for 95  years after 
publication or 120 years 
after creation, whichever is 
the shorter  
Patents  Patent Law  of the 
United States, as 
incorporated in Tit le 35 
of the U.S.  Code Any invention  (process, machine, 
manufacture or composition of 
matter, or improvements thereof ) 
that is new, useful, and non -obvious  20 years from filing date  
                                                
219 WTO document IP/N/1/USA/D/8, IP/N/1/USA/P/13,  6 May 2013.  
220 WTO document IP/N/1/USA/D/6, IP/N/1/USA/P/11 , 6 May 2013.  
221 USTR online information. Viewed at: https://ustr.gov/issue -areas/intellectual -property .  WT/TPR/S/350 • United States  
 
- 96 - 
 
  Form  Main legislation  Coverage  Duration  
Industrial 
designs  Patent Law  of the 
United States, as 
incorporated in Ti tle 35 
of the U .S. Code Any new, original and ornamental 
design for an article of manufacture  For applications filed before 
13 May 2015, 14 years 
from the date of grant . For 
applications filed on or 
after 13 May 2015, 
15 years from the date of 
grant  
Trade marks  The Lanham Act  of 
1946, as amended (15 
U.S.C. 1051 et seq.) 
and state laws  Any sign used to identify and 
distinguish goods or services of one 
enterprise from those of another 
enterprise  10 years from registration 
date; renewable indefinitely 
as long as the trademark is 
in use in commerce that is 
lawfully regulated by 
Congress  
Geographical 
indications  The Lanham Act  of 
1946, as amended 
(15 U.S.C. 1051 et 
seq.), and Federal 
Alcohol Administration 
Act of 1935  Protection against misuse of 
geographic sign s and names of 
viticultural significance  Unlimited  
New plant 
varieties  Plant Variety Protection 
Act Amendments of 
1994 (7  U.S.C. 2321 et 
seq.) New plant varieties  which are 
reproduced by seed or 
tuber -propagated  that have not 
previously been sold for purp oses of 
exploitation of the variety: in the 
United  States,  for more than 1 year 
prior to the date of filing; or in any 
area outside of the United States, for  
more than 4 years prior to the date of 
filing, or, in the case of a tree or vine, 
more than 6 year s prior to the date of 
filing 20 years from date of issue 
of the certificate in the 
United States  
Layout 
designs of 
integrated 
circuits  Semiconductor Chip 
Protection  Act of 1984 
(17. U.S.C. 901 et seq.)  Topography of microelectronic 
semiconductor products  provided it is 
original (the result of its creator's own 
intellectual effort) and is not staple, 
commonplace or familiar in the 
industry at the time of its creation  10 years from filing date 
(or, if earlier, from first 
use) 
Trade 
secrets  Economic Espiona ge Act  
of 1996 and state laws  
(Defend Tra de Secrets 
Act, Public 
Law 114-153, 2016 
amended the Economic 
Espionage Act ) Any information, including a formula, 
pattern, compilation, programme 
device, method, technique, or 
process, not generally known to the 
relevant portion of the public, that 
provides an economic benefit to its 
holder, and is the subject of 
reasonable efforts to maintain its 
secrecy. PL 114 -153 amended the 
federal criminal code to create a 
private civil cause of action fo r trade 
secret misappr opriation  Indefinite  
Source:  WIPO ; U.S. Department of Commerce; and notifications to the WTO.  
3.246.   In October 2015, t he United States updated the TRIPS Council o n its implementation of 
Article  66.2 of the TRIPS Agreement, noting that a major avenue for techno logy transfer from the 
United States is the U .S. university system, where foreign students are educated and then take 
advantage of their training through private and public employment in their home countries. Since 
many U .S. universities are established as  not-for-profit (tax -exempt) entities, education is 
subsidized by the U .S. taxpayer through tax revenues. In addition, the private endowments that 
assist financially many foreign students to attend U .S. universities were built with tax exempt 
donations.222 
3.247.   The Trans -Pacific Partnership (TPP) Agreement , for which the United States completed 
negotiations  in 2015223, would require , once implemented, a strong and balanced protection of 
intellectual property rights with mechanisms to effectively enforce IPRs, consis tent with U.S. law, 
                                                
222 WTO document IP/C/W/611/Add.5, 2 October 2015 and IP/C/W/611/Add.5/Rev.1, 29 October 2015.  
223 USTR online information. Viewed at: https://ustr.gov/trade -agreements/free -trade-agreements . WT/TPR/S/350 • Unite d States  
 
- 97 - 
 
  including civil and administrative procedures and remedies, border measures, and criminal 
enforcement. It includes : commitments to combat counterfeiting, piracy and other infringement; 
obligations to facilitate legitimate digital trade,  including creative content; and provisions to 
promote development of, and access to, innovative and generic medicines. The TPP  is also the first 
trade agreement to require  parties to adopt or maintain criminal procedures and penalties for 
trade secret the ft, including cyber theft.224 
3.3.6.3   Patents  
3.248.   The USPTO Office of Policy and International Affairs leads agency efforts to formulate and 
execute U.S. domestic and international policy regarding protection and enforcement of intellectual 
property rights . This include s promoting the development of intellectual property systems, 
nationally and internationally, and advocating improved and more effective means of obtaining and 
enforcing intellectual property rights of U.S. nationals domestically and internationally. Recen t 
cooperative projects to improve the efficiency and quality of patent examination include the Patent 
Prosecution Highway, the Global Patent Search Network, the Cooperative Patent Classification 
system, and the Global Dossier Initiative . The USPTO Office o f International Patent Cooperation 
(OIPC), established in 2014, is responsible for implementing the technical aspects of these 
cooperative projects .225 
3.249.   In its overall Strategic Plan for 2014 -18, the Department of Commerce identified a role for 
the USPTO in h elping build the capacity of U.S.  regional economies to accelerate the production of 
value -added goods and services, strengthening the digital economy, and accelerating the growth 
of innovation -intensive economic sectors by building public and private capa city to invent, 
improve, and commercialize new products and services, as well as promoting enhanced IP 
protection abroad.226 The USPTO's own Strategic P lan for 2014 -18 sets out three  goals for this 
period: optimizing  patent quality and timeliness; optimizing  trademark qua lity and timeliness; and 
providing  domestic and global leadership to improve IP policy, protection, and enforcement.227  
3.250.   The USPTO  received 589,410  patent applications in 2015 .228 During the period under 
review, the number of patents granted by t he US PTO remained stable , but increased with respect 
to previous years . In 2015, the USPTO granted a total of 298,407  utility patents , slightly down 
from 300,677  in 2014, but up from 277,835  in 2013 and 253,155 in 2012. The share of patent s of 
foreign orig in issued by the USPTO has been rising over the past few  years ; they represented  52% 
of total  applications in FY2015.229  
3.251.   The USPTO has continued dealing with the concerns identified in previous years, mainly 
the long pendency period for patent applications and the need to improve the ir quality 
applications. In this respect, it designed a Strategic P erformance Framework to strengthen the 
capacity of the USPTO by focusing on a specific set of goals and the steps the USPTO must take to 
reach them, which include  to provide timely examination of patent applications, r educing  the 
average time from filing until an examiner 's initial determination on patentability to 10 months and 
average total pendency (average time from filing until the applic ation is issued as a p atent or 
abandoned)  to 20 months . During the period under review , the pendency time continued to  
decrease . In FY2015 , the pendency time was 26.6 months, down from 27.4 months for FY2014 
and 29.1 months for FY2013 .230  
                                                
224 Office of the U.S. Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator (2016), Annual Report for Fiscal 
Year 2015. Viewed at: 
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/IPEC/fy2015ipecannualreportchairmangoodlatteletter.pdf .  
225 USPTO online information. Viewed at: http://www.uspto.gov/ about/offices/patents/ipc.jsp ; and 
information provided by the authorities.  
226 Department of Commerce (2013), America is Open for Business, Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 
2014-2018. Viewed at: https://www.commerce.gov/sites/commerce.gov/files/media/files/2014/doc_fy2014 -
2018_strategic_plan.pdf .  
227 USPTO (2014), Strategic Plan 2014 -2018. Viewed at: http://www.uspto.gov/about/stratplan/ . 
228 USPTO online information. Viewed at: 
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/us_stat.htm .  
229 USPTO online information . Viewed at: 
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/us_stat.htm .  
230 USPTO (2016), United States Patent and Trademark Office Performance and Accountability Report for 
FY2015. Viewed at: http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/USPTOFY15PAR.pdf .  WT/TPR/S/350 • United States  
 
- 98 - 
 
  3.252.   The Deputy Commissioner for Patent Quali ty is responsible for optimizing the quality of 
patent products, processes and services. This office provides support and services to improve 
quality by: prioritizing improvement  initiatives in alignment with the Strategic P lan, continually 
pursuing proces s improvements and monitoring those improvements to facilitate the replication of 
best practices, providing training for continuous improvement at all levels of patent examination 
and IT infrastructure, and routinely evaluating and reporting quality in all  products and services 
and providing detailed feedback for improvement.  This Office is comprised of the Office of Quality 
Management and staff focused on developing and implementing the Enhanced Patent Quality 
Initiative , which aims at strengthening work products, processes, services, and  the measure ment 
of patent quality at all stages of the patent process .231  
3.253.   As was mentioned in the previous review, the Leahy -Smith A merica Invents Act (AIA) , 
signed into law in 2011232, introduced  one of the most significant reforms to the U.S. patent law in 
recent years  and required the enactment of significant regulatory and administrative changes to 
give effect to these reforms . These  entailed : transition ing the United States to a 
first-inventor -to-file system; providing an enhanced grace period for inventors to safeguard patent 
rights against disclosures made one year or less before the effective filing date; modify ing the 
definition of prior art to include non -printed disclosures, including oral disclosures, made available 
to the public anywhere in the world; providing prior art effect to U.S. patent applications as of 
their foreign priority dates; eliminating the requirement for inve ntors to set forth the best mode to 
carry out the invention as a defen ce in infringement actions or in post -grant review; and providing 
a 75% discount for patent fees to all applicants that qualify as micro entities.233 
3.254.   The USPTO identified AIA implementatio n as helping " the U nited States  align with 
international norms", in turn providing "a renewed opportunity to harmonize the international 
patent system and facilitate office cooperation through work -sharing with international patent 
offices," leading to hig her quality examination, more predictability in the prosecution process, and 
cost reduction for applicants around the world.234 
3.255.   In June 2013, the Administration announced a series of initiatives to build on the AIA 
reforms.235 These included: (a) a proposed ru le on transparency to ensure that records of patent 
ownership are accurate and up to date , and (b) making use of crowdsourcing techniques and 
resources, so as to expand ways for identifying prior art relevant to determining the novelty of 
claimed invention s.236 In February 2014, the Administration announced  three new executive 
actions to encourage innovation and further strengthen the quality and accessibility of the patent 
system: (a) Crowdsourcing Prior Art, to  help patent examiners, holders, and applicants  find 
relevant "prior art ": the USPTO conducted consultations with th e public on its third -party 
pre-issuance submission procedures and implemented refinements based on feedback received ; 
(b) Expansion of the USPTO's Patent Examiner Technical Training Prog ram: the USPTO has 
enhanced its technical training program me to make scientists and engineers available to 
examiners for the purposes of educating them on the latest state -of-the-art technology, 
advancements, and emerging trends in their fields ; and (c) Pro Bono and Pro Se Assistance : to 
increase the accessibility of the patent system, the USPTO will dedicate educational and practical 
resources to assist inventors who lack legal representation, appoint a full -time Pro  Bono 
Coordinator, and help expand the e xisting America Invents Act pro bono program me to cover a ll 
50 states.237 The USPTO has appointed a Pro Bono program me coordinator and all 50 states have 
now launched a regional program me. 
                                                
231 USPTO online information. Viewed at: http://www.uspto.gov/about -us/organizational -offices/office -
commissioner -patents/office -deputy -commissioner -patent -19.  
232 Public Law 112 -29. Viewed at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW -112publ29/content -detail.html . 
233 USPTO online information " Global Impacts of the AIA" . Viewed at: 
http://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws -and-regulations/america -invents -act-aia/global -impacts -aia.  
234 USPTO online information " Global Impacts of the AIA" . Viewed  at: 
www.uspto.gov/aia_implementation/global_impacts.jsp . 
235 White House Press Release, 4  June 2013. Viewed at: www.whitehouse.gov/the -press -
office/2013/06/04/fact -sheet -white -house -task-force-high-tech-patent -issues . 
236 USPTO online information " USPTO -led Executive Actions on High -Tech Patent Issues". Viewed at: 
http://www.uspto.gov/patents/init_events/executive_actions.jsp . 
237 White House Press Release, 20 February 2014. Viewed at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the -press -
office/2014/02/20/fact -sheet -executive -actions -answering -president -s-call-strengthen -our-p. WT/TPR/S/350 • Unite d States  
 
- 99 - 
 
  3.3.6.4   Industrial designs  
3.256.   The Patent Law Treaties Implementation Act of 2012  establish ed the legal basis to 
implement the Geneva Act of the Hague Agreement Concerning the International Registration of 
Industrial Designs (the Hague Agreement) , which entered into force for the  United  States on 
13 May 2015.  This enabled the U nited States to join the WIPO -administered system . As of 
13 May 2015, U.S. applicants can file international design applications through the USPTO as an 
office of indirect filing , and applicants  filing international  design  applications  can designate  the 
United  States for design  protectio n. In addition, U.S. design patents resulting from applications 
filed on or after 13 May 2015 will have a 15 -year term of protection from issuance .238  
3.3.6.5   Trademarks and g eographical indications  
3.3.6.5.1   Trademarks  
3.257.   Other than through federal regi stration, trademark protection in the United States arises 
from the actual use of the mark under state laws and federal unfair competition laws. Federal 
registration of a mark is not required to establish rights to the mark, or to use it, but it grants the  
holder additional rights, such as the legal presumption of ownership, validity, and the entitlement 
to use the mark in connection with the goods or services identified in the registration. In the case 
of domestically filed applications , a trademark must be used commercially before an application fo r 
federal registration is issued . For applications filed by foreign nationals pursuant to the Paris 
Convention and the Madrid Protocol, use is not required for registration, but is required to maintain 
the regist ration. The Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2006 (PL  109-312) revised and clarified 
the 1995 Federal Trademark Dilution Act, entitling an owner of a famous mark to an injunction 
against the use of a mark o r trade name in a manner that is likely to cause  dilution by blurring or 
tarnishment, as well as to oppose applications or cancel registrations that are likely to cause 
dilution with the famous mark.  
3.258.   Federal trademark  registration applications must be filed with the USPTO . Pursuant to the 
Madrid Protoco l, a trademark  owner with an application filed with, or a registration issued by, the 
USPTO and who is a national of, has a domicile in, or has an industrial or commercial 
establishment in the United States may also fil e an international application  with t he USPTO.  
Holders of international registrations based on U.S. applications or registrations may request 
extensions of protection i n other Madrid Protocol member S tates.  
3.259.   Trademark  registrations totalled 282,091 in FY2015, out of 503,889 trademark 
applicat ions. Earned revenue for trademark applications increased from US$140.4 million in 
FY2014 to US$145.1 million in FY2015.  There were 40,864 trademarks registered to residents of 
foreign countries in FY2015, and the average pe ndency time for FY2015 was 10.1  month s.239 
Trademark application filings increased by 10.7% in FY2015, more than double the rate of increase 
for FY2014 (4.9%). This represents an acceleration of a trend that began in FY2013 . The 
trademark renewal rate was 29.5% in FY2015.240 
3.260.   The Administrati on noted that an important part of the USPTO's mission is to optimize 
trademark quality and timeliness. The Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) allows for 
easy electronic filing by applicants. A new reduced trademark application filing fee optio n, TEAS 
Reduced Fee (TEAS RF), has been available since 17 January 2015. This new filing option 
promotes electronic communication and application processing while giving applicants more 
flexibility in identifying their goods and services. With the TEAS RF option, applicants pay a 
reduced fee if they agree to two -way electronic communication throughout the process. First and 
final action compliance rates, which measure trademark quality, exceed 96%. The number of 
trademark applications processed completely e lectronically increased to 82.2% in 2015.241 
                                                
238 USPTO information online. Viewed at: http://www.uspto.gov/patent/initiatives/hague -agreement -
concerning -international -registration -industrial -designs .  
239 USPTO (2016), Performance and Accountability Report FY2015 . Viewed at: 
http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/USPTOFY15PAR.pdf .  
240 USPTO (2016), Trademark Public Advisory Committee Annual Report 2015 . Viewed at: 
http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/TPAC_Annual_Report_2015.pdf . 
241 USPTO (2016), Performance and Accountability Report FY2015 . Viewed at: 
http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/USPTOFY15PAR.pdf .  WT/TPR/S/350 • United States  
 
- 100 - 
 
  3.3.6.5.2   Geographical indications  
3.261.   The United States offers protection for geographical indications (GIs) for all classes of 
goods and services through its trademark system.242 The United States, together with other 
countries , has submitted a proposal to other WTO Members for a multilateral system for 
notification and registration of GIs for wines and spirits in the context of Article 23.4 of the TRIPS 
Agreement.243 
3.3.6.6   Trade secret protection  
3.262.   Trade secrets are protected though the Economic Espionage Act (EEA) o f 1996 and state 
laws. The EEA  was amended by the Theft of Trade Secrets Clarification Act of 2012 , which  clarified 
the application of the Economic Espionage Act to source code, following the 2012 decision of the 
U.S. Court of  Appeals for the Second Circuit in United States v.  Aleynikov . The EEA was amended 
more recently by the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA), Public Law 114 -153, 2016, effective 
11 May 2016  (see below) . The DTSA added a federal civil cause of action for trade s ecret 
misappropriation  (see below) . Prior to the enactment of the DTSA, civil enforcement of trade 
secret protection was  addressed through state law . The Uniform Trade Secrets Act ( UTSA) is a 
model civil trade secrets law drafted by the National Conference  of Commissioners on Uniform 
State Laws. The UTSA has been adopted by almost all of states , with some variations from the 
original. States that have not adopted the UTSA protect trade secrets either by statute, common 
law or a combination. The DTSA does no t pre-empt state trade secrets law.  
3.263.   In February 2013, t he Administration issued a Strategy on Mitigating the Theft of 
U.S. Trade Secrets.  This S trategy lays out a series of steps to curb the theft of trade secrets, 
including diplomatic efforts to protect t rade secrets overseas, voluntary best practices by private 
industry, enhanced domestic law enforcement operations, improved domestic legislation, and 
public awareness and stakeholder outreach. The Strategy notes that  "trade secret theft threatens 
American businesses, undermines national security, and places the security of the U.S. economy  in 
jeopardy "244 and proposes  the use of "trade policy tools", including cooperation with trading 
partners, using the Special 301 process to identify weaknesses in trade sec ret protection, seeking 
new provisions in trade negotiations that would make available remedies si milar to those under 
U.S. law, and raising trade secret protection in bilateral, regional, and multilateral forums, 
including the TRIPS Council.  
3.264.   The Strategy  also led to some changes in legislation, mainly to allow civil enforcement of 
trade secret protection at the Federal level. Traditionally , civil enforcement had been principally 
addressed through state law, while federal law, e.g. the Economic Espionage A ct was for criminal 
enforcement of  violations of  trade secrets. T he DTSA , which  introduced an amendment to the 
Economic Espionage Act by amending  the Federal Criminal  Code to create a private civil cause of 
action for trade secret misappropriation , authori zes a trade secret owner to file a civil action in a 
U.S. district court seeking relief for trade secret misappropriation related to a product or service in 
interstate or foreign commerce. It establishes remedies, such as an injunction and damages. A 
trade  secret owner may apply for, and a court may grant, a seizure order to prevent dissemination 
of the trade secret if the court makes specific findings, including that an immediate and irreparable 
injury will occur if seizure is not ordered. A court must tak e custody of the seized materials and 
hold a seizure hearing within seven days. Any party harmed by the order may move to dissolve or 
modify the order and may also seek relief against the applicant of the seizure order for wrongful or 
excessive seizure. Th is Law also increases the maximum penalty for trade secret theft to 
US$5  million or three times the value of the stolen trade secret. It adds economic espionage and 
trade secret theft to the list of offen ces that constitute racketeering activity.245 
3.265.   In Janua ry 2015 , the U SPTO  held a public symposium on issues relevant to t he protection 
of trade secrets. Topics discussed included, losses due to trade secret theft and challenges to 
                                                
242 USPTO online information. Viewed at: http://www.uspto.gov . 
243 WTO documents IP /C/W/386, 8 November 2002 and TN/IP/W/7/Rev.1, 20 June 2003.  
244 Executive Office of the President of the United States (2013), Administration Strategy on Mitigating 
the Theft of U.S. Trade Secrets . Viewed at: 
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/IPEC/admin_strategy_on_mitigating_the_theft_of_u.s._tr
ade_secrets.pdf .  
245 Defend Trade Secret Act 2016. Viewed at: https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th -congress/senate -
bill/1890?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22trade+secret%22%5D%7D&resultIn dex=1 .  WT/TPR/S/350 • Unite d States  
 
- 101 - 
 
  protecting trade secrets, the intersection of patent and trade secret protection , issues in civil 
litigation, trade secret protection in foreign jurisdictions, and proposed responses to the threat of 
trade secret theft in the U nited Sates.246 
3.3.6.7   Copyright  
3.266.   Copyright is a form of protection provided by the laws of the United States ( Title 1 7 of 
U.S. Code) to the authors of " original wo rks of authorship ". Eligible subject matter includes several 
categories of works such as: literary works (including computer software); musical works, 
including any accompanying words; dramatic works, including  any accompanying music; 
pantomi mes and choreographic works; pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works; motion pictures 
and other audiovisual works; sounds recording; and architectural works.247 Automatic protection is 
granted to copyrighted works  of WTO Memb ers as well as members of other international 
copyright agreement s to which the United States is a party.  
3.267.   The U.S. Copyright Office administers the Copyright Act, and the duties of the Office and the 
Register of Copyrights are prescribed in, and governed b y, the Copyright Act and related chapter of 
Title 17 of the U.S. Code.248 For example, the Office: examines copyright claims and documents; 
registers copyright claims; administers deposit requirements; records transfers, assignments, 
licences and other trans actions; and administers regulations, practices and program mes that explain 
the provisions of the law.  Registration is not required for protection , although in addition to 
establishing a public record of the copyright claim , there are additional benefits t hat accrue with 
timely registration. T he Copyright Office registered 476,298 claims to copyright  in 
Fiscal  Year 2014249, and 443,812 claims in Fiscal Year 2015. Copyright owner s who  have registered 
their copyright with the Copyright Office may also choose  to record  their registration with 
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) for protection against the importation of infringing copies. 
In December 2014, the Office released an updated version of its Compendium of U.S. Copyright 
Office Practices, a technical  manual on registration practices that services as a guidebook for 
authors, copyright licensees, practitioners, scholars, the courts, and the general public.250 In 
April 2015, the U.S.  House of Representatives ' Committee on the Judiciary completed its series  of 
hearings to review the current state of U.S. copyright laws .  
3.268.   The United States is a party to the Geneva Phonograms Convention and the WIPO 
Performances and Phonograms Treaty,  but not to the Rome Convention.  
3.269.   The Department of Commerce  Internet Policy Task Force (IPTF or Task Force), created 
in 2010, is responsible for  review ing the nexus between privacy policy, copyright, global free flow 
of information , cybersecurity, and innovation in the internet economy .251 One of its goals has been 
to support  moderni zation of copyright policy by striking an appropriate balance between " the 
meaningful protection of IP and preserving the dynamic innovation and growth that have made the 
Internet and digital technology so impor tant to our economy and society". In July 201 3, it issued a 
Green Paper on Copyright Policy  recommend ing adjustments to the public performance right for 
sound recordings by extending the right to cover broadcasting, as well as assessing and improving 
enforcement tools  to combat online infringement. T he report called for legislation to adopt the 
same range of penalties for criminal streaming of copyrighted works as exists for criminal 
reproduction and distribution. In January  2016, as a follow up to the Green Paper , IPTF issued the 
White Paper on Remix es, First Sale, and Statuto ry Damages , which made recommendations for 
legislation to provide both more guidance and greater flexibility to courts  in awarding statutory 
damages .  
3.270.   The U.S. Copyright Office also advises Congress on national and international issues 
relating to copyright, and undertakes studies on U.S. copyright law at the request of Congress and 
                                                
246 USPTO online information. Viewed at: http://www.uspto.gov/about -us/organizational -offices/office -
policy -and-international -affairs/uspto -trade -secret -symposium .  
247 17 U.S.C. Section  102.  
248 See 17 U.S.C. Sections  701, 702.  
249 U.S. Copyright Office (2014), Fiscal 2014 Annual Report . Viewed at: 
http://www.copyright.gov/reports/annual/2014/ar2014.pdf .  
250 U.S. Copyright Office, Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices, Third Edition . Viewed at: 
http://www.copyright.gov/comp3/comp -index.html . 
251 USPTO (2013), Copyright Policy, Creativity, and Innovation in the Digital Economy , July. Viewed at: 
http://www.uspto.gov/news/publications/copyrightgreenpaper.pdf . WT/TPR/S/350 • United States  
 
- 102 - 
 
  also under its own initiative .252 Recent reports prepared for Congress have included:  (a) a report of 
the making available right in the United States  (February 2016)253; (b) a report on orphan works 
and mass digitization (June 2015)254; and (c)  a report on copyright and the music marketplace 
(February  2015).255 
3.271.   With respect to new legislation on copyright approved during the review period, i n 
July 2014, the U.S . Congress passed the Unlocking Consumer Choice and Wireless Competition 
Act,256 which re -establishes a limited exemption to prohibitions on circumvention of certain 
technological protection measures for the purposes of "unlocking" wireless telephone  handset s to 
allow cell phone owners to connect to different wireless network providers. The President signed 
the Act into law on 1 August 2014. In addition, the U.S. Copyright Office completed its sixth 
triennial rulemaking proceeding under Section 1201 of Title 17 of the U.S. Code. The primary 
responsibility of the Register and the Librarian of Congress in the rulemaking proceeding is to 
assess whether the implementation of access controls impairs the ability of individuals to make 
non-infringing uses of copyrigh ted works within the meaning of Section 1201(a)(1).  The Register 
of Copyrights forwarded her Recommendation to the Librarian of Congress, who adopted the 
recommendations and issued the Final Rule which resulted in regulations adopting limited 
exemptions fr om the general prohibition against the circumvention of copyright protection systems 
for access controls.257 
3.272.   The Copyright Act provides for several types of statutory licences. Generally, interested 
parties are given the opportunity to negotiate the terms of  the licence; a rate will be set by the 
authorities only if they fail to agree. The Copyright Royalty and Distribution Reform Act of 2004 
and the amendments contained in the Copyright Royalty Judges Program Technical Corrections Act 
of 2006 replaced the Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panels with Copyright Royalty Judges (CRJs).  
Statutory licensing provisions in the U.S. Copyright Act govern the retransmission of distant and 
local television broadcast signals by cable operators and satellite carriers to those  who cannot 
receive broadcast signals. The statutory licensing authority for such satellite retransmissions was 
scheduled to expire on 31 December 2014. The  STELA  Reauthorization Act of 2014 (PL  113-200), 
signed into law on 4 December 2014, amended Title 1 7 to extend until 31 December 2019 the 
statutory licen ce under which satellite carriers retransmit distant television broadcast stations to 
viewers who are unable to receive signals for such stations in their local market.258  
3.3.6.8   IP enforcement  
3.273.   Protection and enforcement of IPRs is a national priority, and U.S. law enforcement stands 
at the forefront of these efforts.259 
3.274.   The Office of the United States Trade Representativ e (USTR)  conducts annual review s of 
the state of IPR protection and enforcement in U.S. tradi ng partners around the worl d, known as 
the Special 301 Report .260 In 2016, 73 trading partners were reviewed. In the 2016 Report, the 
USTR listed 34 trading partners, placing  11 of them on the Priority Watch List and 23 on the Watch 
List.261  
                                                
252 17 U.S.C.  Section  701(b).  
253 U.S. Copyright Office (2016), The Making Available Right in the United States , February. Viewed at: 
http://www.copyright.gov/docs/maki ng_available/making -available -right.pdf .  
254 U.S. Copyright Office (2015), Orphan Works and Mass Digitization . Viewed at: 
http://www.copyright.gov/orphan/reports/orphan -works2015.p df.  
255 U.S. Copyright Office (2015), Copyright and the Music Marketplace . Viewed at: 
http://www.copyright.gov/policy/musiclicensingstudy/copyright -and-the-music -marketplace.pdf .  
256 Unlocking Consumer Choice and Wireless Competition Act, S. 517, 113th Congress (2014).  
257 All documentation, including notices of inquiry, public comments, related materials, hearing 
transcripts, the Register's Recommendati on, the letter from the National Telecommunications and Information 
Administration, the Final Rule, and regulations, as well as frequency asked questions about the rulemaking, are 
posted on the U.S. Copyright Office website, and may be viewed at: http://www.copyright.gov/1201/ . 
258 U.S. Copyright Office information online. Viewed at: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/ . 
259 For a detailed description of the Administra tion's efforts, programmes, cost and results of industrial 
property enforcement, see: USPTO (2016), Performance and Accountability Report FY2015 . Viewed at: 
http://www.uspto .gov/sites/default/files/documents/USPTOFY15PAR.pdf . 
260 The report is prepared pursuant to Section 182 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended by the 
Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988, the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, and the Trade 
Facilitation a nd Trade Enforcement Act of 2015 (19 U.S.C. §2242) . 
261 USTR (2016), 2016 Special 301 Report , April. Viewed at: https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/USTR -
2016-Special -301-Report.pdf .  WT/TPR/S/350 • Unite d States  
 
- 103 - 
 
  3.275.   In the 2016 Specia l 301 Report, the USTR highlighted serious and ongoing concerns with 
respect to the environment for IPR protection and enforcement in a number of countries . The 
Report also identified a wide range of concerns, including: (a)  the deterioration in IPR protec tion, 
enforcement, and market access for persons relying on IPR in a nu mber of trading partners; 
(b) reported inadequacies in trade secret protection as well as an increasing incidence of trade 
secret misappropriation; (c)  troubling "indigenous innovation " policies that may unfairly 
disadvantage U.S. rights holders; (d) continuing online copyright piracy and trademark 
counterfeiting; and (e) reportedly non -transparent and potentially discriminatory measures, 
including measures that coul d impede market acces s for U.S.  entities that rely upon IPR 
protection.262 
3.276.   The Notorious Markets List identifies selected markets, including those on the Internet, 
that exemplify the global problem of marketplaces engaged in facilitating substantial copyright 
piracy and trademar k counterfeiting. The Notorious Markets List, previously included in the annual 
Special 301 Report, has been published separately each year since 2010. The 2015 Out-of-Cycle 
Review of Notorious Markets  published  in December  2015,  highlighted 21 online mark ets, based in 
14 trading partners. The 2015 Notorious Market List also identified physical markets in 
nine countries.  
3.277.   Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, declares unlawful "unfair methods of competition and 
unfair acts in the importation and sale of pro ducts in the United States, the threat or effect of 
which is to destroy or substantially injure a domestic industry, prevent the establishment of such 
an industry, or restrain or monopolize trade and commerce in the United States. " Section 337 also 
declare s unlawful the importation into the United States, sale for importation or the sale after 
importation within the United States of articles that infringe a valid U.S. patent, registered 
trademark, registered copyright, registered ma sk work, or vessel hull d esign. The injury 
requirement does not apply to  Section 337 investigations alleging these causes of action . 
Section  337 investigations are instituted by the United States International Trade Commission 
(USITC);  administrative law judges make an initial det ermination of whether there is an 
infringement/contravention of the law, which is then subject to review by the USITC.  If the USITC 
determines that Section 337 has been violated, it may issue exclusion orders, cease and desist 
orders, or both , after consid ering the effect of the orders on four statutory public interest factors . 
Exclusion orders direct the CBP either to bar entry into the United States of infringing goods from 
whatever source (general exclusion orders) or to bar entry of  imports from specifi cally identified 
entities (limited exclusion orders) . The President may  disapprove a USITC order within 60 days. 
Between 1 January 2013 and 23 June 2016, 144 new Section 337 investigations were instituted.263 
Investigations covered products from 31 trading p artners. In the same period the USITC issued 
32 exclusion orders, of which 23 were limited exclusion orders, and 9  were general exclusions, 
together with cease and desist orders.  As of 1 July 2016, there were 91  outstanding exclusion 
orders in effect, affe cting imports of a range of products, including smart phones, network devices, 
tablets, televisions, integrated circuits, memory chips, cast -iron stoves, cube puzzles, various 
footwear products, nut jewellery , soft drinks and energy drinks, agriculture veh icles, crawler 
cranes and excavators, cigarettes, light -emitting diodes, sucralose, railway wheels, rubber resins, 
stainless steel, various printing cartridges, biometric devices, sleep apnoea devices, and outdoor 
grills. 
3.278.   The Stop Counterfeiting in Manufac tured Goods Act of 2006 (PL 109 -181) amended the 
federal criminal code to r evise provisions prohibiting  trafficking in counterfeit goods and services to 
include trafficking in labels or similar packaging of any type or nature bearing a counterfeit mark 
and that are intended to be used on or in connection with the goods or services for which the 
genuine mark is registered. The Act subjects to forfeiture any article that bears or consists of a 
counterfeit mark and any property used to violate the prohibition against counterfeit marks.  
3.279.   In its annual report, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) noted that the total 
number of products seized containing IPR infringements increased nearly 25 % in FY2015. The re 
were 28,865 seizures of shipments, an increase f rom 23,140 in FY2014.  Apparel and accessories 
                                                
262 Office of the U.S. Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator (2016), Annual Report for Fiscal Year 
2015. Viewed at: 
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/IPEC/fy2015ipecannualreportchairmangoodlatteletter.pdf .  
263 USITC online information. Viewed at: https://pubapps2.usitc.gov/337external/ .  WT/TPR/S/350 • United States  
 
- 104 - 
 
  along with watches and jewellery were the top two product categories for number of IPR volatile 
shipments seized .264  
3.280.   Every year, t he Office of the U.S. Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator (IPEC) , 
under  Section  304 of the PRO IP Act of 2008  (15 U.S.C. § 8114), launch es an annual report 
focusing on the IP enforcement activities of the Federal Government. The FY2015  Annual Report 
addresses the implementation of the "2013 Joint Strategic Plan on Intellectua l Property 
Enforcement", providing a detailed description of the efforts the Federal departments and agencies 
have undertaken in furtherance of the 26 action items enumerated  in the 2013 Joint Strategic 
Plan.265 The IPEC and the I nteragency Intellectual Prop erty E nforcement Advisory Committee are  
working on a new three -year strategic plan for 2016 -2019, which is to be present ed to the 
President and Congress in the coming months. On 1 September 2015, IPEC's Office issued a 
Federal Register Notice asking intere sted parties to provide their ideas on advancing the Nation al 
IP enforcement agenda and related policy priorities.  
3.281.   The FY2015 Section 304 Report noted that to improve efficiency, law enforcement is 
working through improved coordination amongst the IP enfo rcement agencies. For example, CBP 
has created an operational network among CBP 's trade targeting assets to improve  
communication s, coordinate actions, and standardize procedures for more effective tactical trade 
targeting.  CBP's Centers of Excellence and Expertise ( CEEs) are developing industry -specific 
expertise to better identify infringement. For example, in 2015, CBP's Pharmaceutical and 
Electronics CEEs conducted special IPR enforcement operations targeting counterfeits in these 
sectors.  The Departmen t of Justice 's (DOJ) Bureau o f Justice Assistanc e (BJA) has provided grants 
to state and local authorities to increase IP enforcement and coordination wit h Federal officials. 
Through FY 2014, those receiving program me grants have seized over US$351 million worth of 
infringing goods and pr oceeds. Additionally, between 1 July 2014 and 30  June 2015, grant 
recipients arrested 545 individuals for violation of IP laws, served 175 state and local search 
warrants in IP cases, and disrupted or dismantled 474 piracy/c ounterfeiting organizatio ns.266 
 
                                                
264 U.S. Cus toms and Border Protection online information. Viewed at: 
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/national -media -release/2016 -04-15-000000/ cbp-ice-report -more-1-billion -
intellectual .  
265 Office of the U.S. Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator (2016), Annual Report for Fiscal 
Year 2015. Viewed at: 
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/IPEC/fy2015ipecannualreportchairmangoodlatteletter.pdf .  
266 Office of the U.S. Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator (2016), Annual Report for Fiscal 
Year 2015. Viewed at: 
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/IPEC/fy2015ipecannualreportchairmangoodlatteletter.pdf . WT/TPR/S/350 • Unite d States  
 
- 105 - 
 
  4  TRADE POLICIES BY SE CTOR  
4.1  Agriculture  
4.1.1   Main features  
4.1.  Value -added in  agriculture, together with other primary activities (forestry, fisheries and 
hunting), account for little more than 1% of U.S. GDP ( Chart  1.1) and employs les s than 2% of the 
workforce.1 Nonetheless, the U.S. agricultural sector is among the largest in the world, and the 
United States is a major world exporter of many agricultural commodities. The United States is a 
net exporter of food. Agricultural activities  are very important to the local economy in parts of the 
United States.  
4.2.  According to the 2012 Census of Agriculture, the United States had 2.1 million farms 
generating a market value of goods sold (including government payments) of US$402.6 billion in 
that year.2 Crops – first and foremost maize, soybeans, hay (including alfalfa), and wheat – make 
up roughly half of the production value (Table 4.1). Animal production is dominated by cattle (beef 
and dairy), milk, poultry, and eggs. The United States is the  world's largest producer of soybeans, 
maize, beef, chicken, and turkey, and ranks third in the world in the production of pig meat and 
cotton. Market developments in the United States thus have a considerable influence on the world 
market prices for many commodities.  
Table 4.1 Value of U.S. production, 2008 -15 
(US$ billion and %)  
 2008  2009  2010  2011  2012  2013  2014  2015  % of 
totala 
Total  318.3  284.5  334.9  379.5  396.6  394.3  405.2  382.5b  
Maize for grain  49.1 46.6 64.5 76.7 74.2 61.9 53.0 49.0 12.8 
Soybeans for beans  29.5 32.2 37.6 38.5 43.7 43.6 39.5 34.5 9.0 
Hay 18.6 14.7 14.6 18.1 18.6 19.8 19.1 16.8 4.4 
Wheat  16.7 10.6 12.6 14.3 17.4 14.6 11.9 10.2 2.7 
Cotton  3.0 3.8 7.3 7.0 6.3 5.2 5.1 3.9 1.0 
Milk 35.0 24.5 31.5 39.7 37.2 40.5 49.6 35.9 9.4 
Cattle and calves  35.6 31.9 36.9 45.1 48.1 48.5 59.9 59.9 15.6 
Poultry and eggs  36.0 31.6 34.7 35.3 38.2 44.4 48.4 48.0 12.6 
Hogs 14.4 12.5 16.0 20.0 20.3 21.7 24.2 19.3 5.0 
Crops total (excl. 
horticulture)  168.4 158.6  191.1  211.4  223.9  210.2  192.9  .. 47.6 
.. Not available.  
a Percentage of total for the year 2015, except for crops total (excl. horticulture) where the 
percentage is for the year 2014.  
b Provisional data.  
Source:  USDA National Agricultural Stat istics Service Online. Viewed at: 
https://quickstats.nass.usda.gov/#A18C7854 -5C8F-360C-9973-AFC9D13A0EFA ; USDA National 
Agricultural Statistics Service online informatio n, "Poultry - Production and Value", different 
bulletins, viewed at: 
http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/MannUsda/viewDocumentInfo.do?documentID=1130 ; and 
OECD  Stats, Agriculture Policy Indicators, 2016 Monitoring and Evaluation: Reference Tables.  
4.3.  The United States exports significant portions of its agricultural production, particularly of 
soybeans, maize, wheat, cotton, and chicken. The United States is accordingly on e of the world's 
largest exporters of these commodities. However, as other producers around the world have been 
expanding their production faster than the United States, its shares in world trade have been 
declining steadily for the main exported commoditi es with the exception of beef (Table 4.2). As for 
beef, the United States is also a major importer of bovine meat (Table 4.3).  
                                                
1 While value -added  in agriculture was US$196 billion in 2015, gross output was considerably higher, 
having reached some USç454 billion in that year. Foreign direct investment (FDI) stock in agriculture industries 
in the United States totalled US$4.1  billion in 2015, signifi cantly less than 1% of all FDI in the United States. 
United States outbound FDI stock in agricultural sectors abroad at the end of the same year totalled 
US$4.7  billion, less than 0.1% of overall U.S. FDI abroad.  
2 The number of farms had fallen by 100,000  compared with the previous census in 2007. USDA 
National Agricultural Statistics Service (2014), 2012 Census of Agriculture . Viewed at: 
https://www. agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2012/Full_Report/Volume_1,_Chapter_1_US/usv1.pdf . WT/TPR/S/350 • United States  
 
- 106 - 
 
  Table 4.2 U.S. and world production and trade of selected commodities, 
2008/09 -2015/16  
('000 tonnes, unless otherwise indicated)  
 Marketing 
year 2008/09  2009/10  2010/11  2011/12  2012/13  2013/14  2014/15  2015/16  
Maize  
Production  United States  305,911  331,921  315,618  312,789  273,192  351,272  361,091  345,486  
% of world  38.2 40.2 37.8 35.2 31.4 35.5 35.6 36.0 
Exports  United States  46,965  50,270  46,508  39,096  18,545  48,783  47,359  41,912  
% of world  55.8 52.0 50.9 33.4 19.5 37.2 33.5 40.9 
Wheat  
Production  United States  68,363  60,117  58,868  54,244  61,298  58,105  55,147  55,840  
% of world  10.0 8.8 9.1 7.8 9.3 8.1 7.6 7.6 
Exports  United States  27,635  23,931  35,147  28,608  27,544  32,001  23,249  21,092  
% of world  19.2 17.5 26.5 18.1 20.0 19.3 14.3 12.4 
Cotton (thousand 480 lb. bales)         
Production  United States  12,825  12,183  18,102  15,573 17,314  12,909  16,319  12,870  
% of world  11.8 11.8 15.4 12.2 14.0 10.7 13.7 13.3 
Exports  United States  13,261  12,037  14,376  11,714  13,026  10,530  11,246  9,500  
% of world  43.8 33.8 41.3 25.5 28.0 25.7 31.7 26.3 
Soybean, oilseed  
Production  United Stat es 80,749  91,470  90,663  84,291  82,791  91,389  106,878  106,934  
% of world  38.1 35.1 34.3 35.1 30.8 32.3 33.4 33.4 
Exports  United States  34,817  40,798  40,959  37,186  36,129  44,574  50,169  46,402  
% of world  45.1 44.6 44.7 40.3 35.8 39.6 39.8 35.1 
 Calendar  
year 2008  2009  2010  2011  2012  2013  2014  2015  
Beef and veal  
Production  United States  12,163  11,891  12,046  11,983  11,848  11,751  11,076  10,815  
% of world  20.7 20.4 20.6 20.6 20.2 19.8 18.5 18.5 
Exports  United States  905 878 1,043  1,263  1,112  1,174  1,167  1,028  
% of world  11.9 11.8 13.4 15.6 13.7 12.9 11.7 10.8 
Poultry meat  
Production  United States  16,561  15,935  16,563  16,694  16,621  16,976  17,306  17,971  
% of world  22.7 21.5 21.1 20.5 19.9 20.1 20.0 20.3 
Exports  United States  3,157  3,093  3,067  3,165  3,299  3,332  3,312  2,866  
% of world  37.7 36.6 34.5 33.1 32.7 32.4 31.6 27.9 
Source:  USDA Foreign Agricultural Service, Production, Supply and Distribution database. Viewed at: 
http://apps.f as.usda.gov/psdonline/psdQuery.aspx . 
Table 4.3 U.S. exports and imports of selected products, 2012 -15a 
  2012  2013  2014  2015  
Total exports  US$ million  149,170  152,126  158,607  141,021  
1201 Soybeans  US$ milli on 24,807  21,606  23,907  18,963  
'000 tonnes  43,660  39,401  40,224  48,231  
1005 Maize  US$ million  9,697  6,871  11,141  8,670  
'000 tonnes  31,480  24,080  35,770  44,655  
0802 Other nuts, fresh or dried  US$ million  6,071  7,110  7,515  7,655  
'000 tonnes  1,130  1,132  1,064  1,057  
1001 Wheat and meslin  US$ million  8,189  10,525  7,781  5,577  
'000 tonnes  25,823  33,118  24,487  21,048  
2106 Food preparations not elsewhere specified  US$ million  4,832  5,485  5,653  5,454  
'000 tonnes  823 881 872 846 
0201 + 
0202b Meat o f bovine animals fresh and frozen  US$ million  4,658  5,247  6,047  5,174  
'000 tonnes  777 818 816 720 
0203b Meat of swine  US$ million  4,838  4,433  4,875  4,019  
'000 tonnes  1,646  1,490  1,477  1,507  
2304 Oil-cake and solid residues, from extraction of 
soybe an oil  US$ million  3,474  3,999  4,216  3,898  
'000 tonnes  6,747  7,539  7,815  9,345  
5201 Cotton  US$ million  6,227  5,593  4,398  3,898  
'000 tonnes  2,753  2,791  2,168  2,401  
2303 Residues of starch manufacture and similar 
residues, beet -pulp, bagasse and othe r waste 
of sugar manufacture  US$ million  3,007  4,012  3,993  3,751  
'000 tonnes  9,760  12,104  12,234  14,602  
0207b Meat and edible offal poultry  US$ million  5,022  4,985  4,935  3,473  
'000 tonnes  3,931  3,869  3,870  3,182  
2309 Preparations of a kind used in animal feeding  US$ million  2,724  2,935  2,842  2,664  
'000 tonnes  2,027  2,042  1,540  1,821  
Total imports  US$ million  113,238  115,566  123,024  125,348  
2208 Spirits, liqueurs and other spirituous 
beverages  US$ million  6,662  7,078  7,219  7,415  
'000 tonnes  634 646 1,137  620 
0201 + 
0202b Meat of bovine animals fresh and frozen  US$ million  3,487  3,550  5,441  6,405  
'000 tonnes  715 717 957 1,079  
0901 Coffee  US$ million  6,751  5,461  6,013  6,029  
'000 tonnes  1,446  1,493  1,525  1,538  WT/TPR/S/350 • Unite d States  
 
- 107 - 
 
    2012  2013  2014  2015  
2204 Wine of fresh grapes  US$ million  5,309  5,494  5,597  5,622  
'000 tonnes  1,168  1,097  1,644  1,102  
2203 Beer made from malt  US$ million  3,917  3,907  4,347  4,745  
'000 tonnes  3,252  3,231  4,426  3,666  
1905 Bread, pastry, cakes, biscuits and other 
bakers' wares  US$ million  3,352  3,519 3,688  4,041  
'000 tonnes  980 1,019  1,059  1,190  
0804 Dates, figs, pineapples, avocados, guavas, 
mangoes and mangosteens, fresh or dried  US$ million  1,987  2,335  2,880  3,011  
'000 tonnes  1,833  2,017  2,203  2,359  
0709 Other vegetables, fresh or chille d US$ million  2,398  2,787  2,839  2,876  
'000 tonnes  1,842  1,903  2,041  2,026  
2202 Waters, including mineral waters and aerated 
waters, containing added sugar or other 
sweetening matter or flavoured, and other 
non-alcoholic beverages, not including fruit o r 
vegetable juices of heading 20.09  US$ million  2,161  2,348  2,511  2,869  
'000 tonnes  1,536  1,571  2,415  1,841  
2008 Fruit, nuts and other edible parts of plants, 
otherwise prepared or preserved  US$ million  2,431  2,533  2,570  2,868  
'000 tonnes  1,298  1,399 1,348  1,474  
a Trade volumes in this table are derived from the UNSD Comtrade database and differ from those in 
Table 4.2, which are taken from USDA Foreign Agriculture Service, Productions, Supply, and 
Distribution database.  
b HS headings 0201 (meat of bovine animals, fresh and chilled) and 0202 (meat of bovine animals, 
frozen) have been added together so that trade in meat of bovine animals is comparable to 
HS headings 0203 (meat of swine) and 0207 (meat and edible offal of poultry), which both include 
fresh, chilled, and frozen meat under the same HS heading.  
Source:  UNSD Comtrade database.  
4.4.  Except in 2005 -06, when imports matched exports, the United States has been a significant 
net exporter of agricultural products over the last ten years (Chart 4.1). The net trade surplus fell 
from around US$35 billion per year over 2012 -2014 to less than US$16 billion in 2015, primarily 
as a result of lower commodity prices for traditional U.S. exports such as soybeans, maize, and 
cotton.  
Chart 4.1 U.S. exports and imports of agricultural products, 2000 -15 
020406080100120140160180
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015Exports
ImportsChart 4.1
Exports and imports of agricultural products, 2000 -15
Source:  UNSD Comtrade database..(US$ billion)
 
Source:  UNSD Comtrade database.  
4.1.2   The 2014 Farm Act  
4.1.2.1   Overview  
4.5.  The Agricultural Act of 2014 (PL 113 -79), henceforth referred to as the 2014 Farm Act, was 
signed into law on 7 February 2014. The Act authorizes nutrition and agriculture programmes in 
the United States until 30 September 2018.3 According to estimates made by the Congressional 
Budget Office in early 2014, projected expenditures under the Act amount to US$489 b illion 
                                                
3 Some provisions remain in force after 2018.  WT/TPR/S/350 • United States  
 
- 108 - 
 
  during  2014-2018, of which nearly 80% concern the funding of domestic nutrition assistance 
program mes, the largest component of which is the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program 
(SNAP).  
4.6.  The 2014 Farm Act introduced major changes to the system of support to agricultural 
producers.4 Direct payments, a cornerstone of U.S. policy towards crop production since 1996, 
were eliminated. The Counter -Cyclical Payments (CCP) Program and the Average Crop Revenue 
Election (ACRE) Program were also terminated.  Furthermore, the Act : replaced market price 
support for dairy products with a margin protection program me for dairy farmers ; modified and 
refunded disaster aid programmes for livestock producers ; and sought to rationalize conservation 
programmes.5 Federal  crop insurance programmes have been expanded.  
4.7.  Principal new features of the 2014 Farm Act are : the Price Loss Coverage (PLC) programme, 
which provides payments on a share of historical base acres and yields when commodity prices fall 
below reference pric e levels for covered crops; the Agricultural Risk Coverage (ARC) programme, 
which provides payments on a share of historical base acres and yields when revenue at the 
county or farm level for covered commodities falls below a county -based or individual ben chmark 
guarantee for covered commodities; the Supplemental Coverage Option (SCO), an area -based 
insurance policy requiring, and taking on the characteristics, of the underlying policy;  the Stacked 
Income Protection Plan (STAX), a subsidized supplemental in surance plan for producers of upland 
cotton; and the Margin Protection Program for Dairy Producers (MPP -Dairy). In addition, a number 
of programmes established under earlier legislation have been continued unaltered or in modified 
form (Table 4.4).  
Table 4.4 The 2014 Farm Act, main programmes  
 Programme title  Essential elements  
Commodity 
programmes  
Producers with 
base acres 
choose between 
PLC or 
county -based 
ARC for each 
covered 
commodity or 
farm-based ARC 
for all covered 
commodities on 
the farm  Price Loss Coverage 
(PLC)  New 
 Payments coupled to current prices but decoupled from 
production  
 Payments are tied to historical base acres and historical 
yields without requirement to produce; land owners had  
the option  of updating yields and reallocating , but not 
increasing,  base acres  
Agriculture Risk 
Coverage (ARC)  New 
 Payments based on difference between actual revenue 
and the benchmark revenue guarantee at the county or 
farm level   
 Choice between revenue guarante e at county level 
(county ARC) for each covered commodity or farm-level 
(individual ARC)  revenue guarantee based on all covered 
commodities on the farm  
 Payments are coupled to current prices  but decoupled 
from production  
 Payments are tied to historical base acres ; land owners 
had the option of reallocating , but not increasing, base 
acres  
Marketing Loan Program   Maintained  
 Coupled to current prices and production  
 Loan rates unchanged, except for potential downward 
adjustment of upland cotton loan rate  
Crop insurance  Federal Crop Insurance 
Program  (permanently 
authorized)  Maintained; new subsidized insurance programmes:  
 Supplemental Coverage Option (SCO)  
 Stacked Income Protection Plan for producers of upland 
cotton (STAX)  
                                                
4 The Agricultural Adjustment Act (1938), the Agriculture Act (1949), and the Commodity Credit 
Corporation Charter Act (1948) c onstitute the permanent legal framework for commodity programmes and 
farm income support in the United States. However, most current programmes are funded under multi -year 
legislation approved by Congress that amends or suspends permanent law provisions. T he forerunner of 
the 2014 Farm Act, i.e. the Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008, was extended through 2013 by the 
American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012.  
5 The acreage cap for the Conservation Reserve Program, which compensates farmers for cropland p ut 
in retirement, has been reduced.  WT/TPR/S/350 • Unite d States  
 
- 109 - 
 
   Programme title  Essential elements  
Disaster 
assistance  Non-Insured  Crop 
Disaster Assistance 
Program (NAP)  Maintained  
 
Livestock Indemnity 
Program (LIP)  Restored retroactively  
Livestock Forage 
Disaster Program (LFP)  Restored retroactively  
Emergency Livestock 
Assistance Program 
(ELAP)  Restored retroactively  
Tree A ssistance Program 
(TAP)  Restored retroactively  
Export credit 
guarantees  Export Credit Guarantee 
Program (GSM -102) Maintained; amendments include:  
 Maximum tenor reduced to 24 months  
 Flexibility given to the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture to 
adapt the progra mme pursuant to the 2014 Memorandum 
of Understanding Related to the Cotton Dispute  
(WTO/DS267 ) between the United  States and Brazil  
Sugar  Sugar Program  Maintained (unchanged) ;  
 includes price suppo rt and supply control measures  
Dairy  Margin Protection 
Program for Dairy  
Producers  New 
 Subsidized insur ance of  milk margins (US$4 -8/cwt)  
 Payments are made when milk margin declines below 
(insured) level of US$4 -8/cwt  
 Decoupled from actual production  
Dairy Product Donation 
Program  New 
 CCC dairy product purch ase programme for distribution to 
low-income people in times of low margins (US$4/cwt or 
below)  
 Time-limited market support purchases at prevailing 
market prices  
Federal Milk Marketing 
Orders  Maintained (unchanged)  
Sourc e: WTO document WT/TPR/S/307/Rev. 1, 13 March 2015  and information provided by the authorities . 
4.1.2.2   Price Loss Coverage (PLC)  
4.8.  PLC covers historical base (made up of historical area and yield) of maize, soybeans, wheat, 
other feed grains, other oilseeds, peanuts, pulses, and rice. For each cove red commodity on a 
farm, PLC payments are made on 85% of historical base when current average market year price 
falls below the reference price. Producers made a one -time choice for the life of the 2014 Farm Act 
of whether to elect PLC for historical base of each covered commodity on their farm. PLC is 
decoupled from current production as it is based on historical base. However, land owners had a 
one-time option to reallocate, but not to increase, their base acres for their farm using average 
planted acreag e during 2009 -12. They also had a choice between retaining the payment yield 
under the earlier CCP programme and updating it to 90% of the average commodity yield in crop 
years 2008 -12.6  
4.9.  PLC payments are linked to current prices as they are triggered when  the national average 
market price during the marketing year or the national average loan rate, whichever is higher, fall s 
short of reference prices (per bushel or pound) established in the 2014 Farm Act  for the covered 
crops (Table A4.1). The payment to t he farmer equals the difference between the national average 
market price/loan rate and the reference price multiplied by the eligible base. According to the 
USDA Farm Service Agency, payments under PLC had totalled US$776.2  million by 20  May 2016 
on base acres of long grain rice (US$399.5 million), peanuts (US$321.5 million), and canola 
(US$55.2 million).7  
                                                
6 Many CCP yields date back to the 1980s. USDA Farm Service Agency data indicates that farmers 
opting for updated yields increased their yield by approximately 30% for maize, soybeans, and wheat, and 
significantly more f or some pulses and oilseed crops. UDSA Farm Service Agency online information. Viewed 
at: http://www.fsa.usda.gov/programs -and-services/arcplc_program/index .  
7 Nearly 90,00 0 farms received PLC payments. USDA Farm Service Agency online information. Viewed 
at: http://www.fsa.usda.gov/Assets/USDA -FSA-Public/usdafile s/arc-
plc/pdf/ARCPLCPaymentsasMay202016.pdf .  WT/TPR/S/350 • United States  
 
- 110 - 
 
  4.1.2.3   Agricultural Risk Coverage (ARC)  
4.10.   Producers could choose between electing PLC or ARC for their base for each of the covered 
commodities. ARC is a revenu e-based income support program me tied to county -level benchmark 
revenue guarantees. Farmers could instead choose a revenue guarantee determined at the farm 
level (individual ARC or ARC -IC) but choosing ARC -IC automatically included all covered 
commodities on the farm. Under the ARC -IC option a revenue guarantee is established based on 
all covered commodities for the farm while the ARC at the county level (ARC -CO) is established on 
a commodity -by-commodity basis. A farmer could thus choose the ARC -CO revenue  guarantee for 
some crops and PLC for others, but cannot switch back and forth between the two programmes.8  
4.11.   ARC-CO sets benchmark revenues for each of the covered commodities, which is 86% of the 
five-year average of national market price times the five -year average county yield. When actual 
county revenue falls below the county benchmark guarantee, farmers in that county with eligible 
base receive a payment of up to 10% of the difference.9 The revenue calculations for ARC -CO are 
based on current prices an d current county yields, not farm -level yields, and payments are limited 
to 85% of the enrolled historical base. The benchmark revenue for ARC -IC is based on a farm's 
five-year average planted acres and yields of all covered commodities on the farm. Paymen ts are 
made when the actual revenue from all covered commodities on the farm falls below the 
benchmark guarantee, but the payment rate is limited to 65% of the historical base of covered 
commodities on the farm. For both PLC and ARC, landowners were allowe d to reallocate, but not 
increase, their base acres according to planted acres in 2009 -12.10  
4.12.   Data collected by the USDA Farm Service Agency indicates that ARC -CO was elected for 
60% or more of base acres of maize, soybeans, oats, and chickpeas, while PLC w as elected for 
60% or more of base acres of barley, canola, crambe, flaxseed, safflower, sesame, sorghum, rice, 
and peanuts.11 For base acres of other covered commodities, elections were split between the two 
program mes. By 20 May 2016 some 919,000 farms ha d received ARC -CO payments totalling 
US$4.44  billion, primarily for historical base of maize (US$3.7 billion), wheat (US$349 million), 
and soybeans (US$317 million). Although decisions may vary significantly across states, the 
nationwide results indicate t hat producers chose ARC -CO for soybean base acres (97%), maize 
base acres (93%), and wheat base acres (56%). Very few farmers chose ARC -IC. Overall, the 
reallocation of base acres resulted in significantly higher historical base for maize 
(12.8  million  acres) and soybeans (4.7 million acres), and a decline in wheat base of nearly 
9.9 million acres.  
4.1.2.4   Marketing loan programme  
4.13.   The USDA Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) provides marketing assistance loans to 
eligible producers of the covered commodities.12 Marketing loans allow producers to delay sales 
from normal harvest time (or shearing, for wool) until market conditions are favourable. The loans 
may be redeemed by repayment (of the loan principal plus interest and other charges) or by 
delivery of the commod ity pledged as collateral to the CCC. Under certain circumstances, e.g. if 
market prices fall below the loan rate, a lower repayment rate may be accepted resulting in a 
marketing loan gain  (MLG) .13 Alternatively, producers who do not wish to take out a loan  on a 
harvested commodity may elect to receive a loan deficiency payment (LDP) instead of the 
marketing loan gain. As with all U.S. commodity and crop insurance program mes, farmers must 
comply with conservation and wetland protection requirements and repor t all crop acreage planted 
                                                
8 According to the 2014 Farm Act, if farm output is shared between several owners/producers and these 
fail to reach a unanimous decision whether to enrol in ARC or PLC, the Secretary of Agriculture could  decide 
not to make any payments to the farm for the crop year 2014, and consider the farm to have chosen PLC 
though crop year 2018.  
9 The ARC payment rate is capped at 10% of the benchmark revenue.  
10 Table A4.1 in WTO document WT/TPR/S/275/Rev.1, 12 February 2 013 provides a comparative 
overview of the main features of the PLC, ARC -CI and ARC -CO schemes.  
11 More than 90% of the farms growing rice (long and medium grain) and peanuts have opted for PLC. 
Relative to the PLC payments of US$776.2 million, accumulated  payments for the same crops under ARC -CO 
amounted to less than US$500,000 by 20 May 2016.  
12 The interest rate is set at the CCC cost of borrowing from the U.S. Treasury, plus one percentage 
point, at the time the loan is made.  
13 A marketing loan gain (M LG) is recorded when the loan is repaid at less than the principal.  WT/TPR/S/350 • Unite d States  
 
- 111 - 
 
  to be eligible for LDP or marketing loans ; gross income and payment limitations also apply.14 
Marketing loan support is fully coupled to current prices and current production.  
4.14.   The statutory marketing loan rates are fixed for crop  years 2014 -18 in the 2014 Farm Act, 
generally at the same levels as in crop years 2010 -13. Loan rates have been set well below 
current market prices and current production costs in recent years, and the marketing loan 
programme is thus designed to provide  income support at times of low commodity prices. In its 
agriculture support notifications, the United States reports benefits under the marketing loan 
programme (i.e. LDPs, MLGs and forfeitures) as non -exempt dire ct payments in supporting 
table DS:7. Havi ng peaked at US$6.5 billion in 2005 -06, marketing loan benefits have been 
modest in recent years, and amounted to less than US$36 million in marketing year 2013.  
4.1.2.5   Crop insurance  
4.15.   Federal multi -peril insurance was first offered to wheat farmers in 1938. The Federal Crop 
Insurance Corporation (FCIC) sold yield insurance products through its own network and 
independent insurance agents for only a limited number of crops in specific areas until 1980. The 
1980 Crop Insurance Act mandated substantially increased c overage (crops and geographic area), 
and that the FCIC should use the private sector to the maximum extent possible to sell and service 
crop insurance. Subsequently, the 1994 Crop Insurance Reform Act and the 2000 Agricultural Risk 
Protection Act have led to a broad range of insurance products on offer, including revenue or 
yield-based plans, and whole -farm products. Today, the federal crop insurance programme allows 
participants to insure against losses on some 130 crops, including the five major crops (ma ize, 
cotton, grain/sorghum, soybeans, and wheat), minor crops, and specialty crops (fruit, vegetables, 
nursery crops, and tree nuts). Premium rates and other contract provisions are determined by the 
USDA Risk Management Agency (RMA), but sold to farmers b y private insurance companies and 
private insurance agents.15  
4.16.   In general, farmers may choose between catastrophic coverage, insuring 50% of the normal 
yield and 55% of the estimated market price of the crop, and additional ("buy -up") coverage 
(50% -85% of n ormal yield and up to 100% of the estimated market price of the crop). The 
Federal Government  pays the entire premium for catastrophic coverage, while participants pay an 
annual US$300 administrative fee for each crop insured in each county. Buy -up plans a re also 
subsidized, although the level varies according to the type of plan and coverage selected. Since 
early 2015, eligible participants have also had the possibility to shift a portion of a farm's coverage 
from an individual plan to an area plan under t he Supplemental Coverage Option (SCO).  As its 
name suggests, SCO is supplemental, meaning that it requires the producer to have an underlying 
policy. SCO then takes on the characteristics of the underlying policy. Thus, if the underlying policy 
is a yield policy, the SCO will generate a guarantee for yields, and if the underlying policy is 
revenue -based, it will generate a guarantee for revenues. SCO is an area -based policy, so (like 
ARC) if the revenues/yields of the operator do not correlate well with the  county, the producer 
may not receive payments when individual losses occur and vice versa. Nevertheless, the first 
14% of the loss (actual versus expected revenue) is always borne by the participant. SCO may be 
combined with PLC, but not with ARC. The Federal Government subsidizes 65% of the insurance 
premium for SCO.  
4.17.   The growth in crop insurance has been significant since 1996, both in terms of acreage 
insured (60% increase since 1998) and average coverage level selected (58% in 1996, 75% 
in 2014). Over the same period, the insured liability has risen from US$35 billion to 
US$110  billion, i.e. an increase of more than 300%.16 The federal crop insurance programme is 
                                                
14 Persons or legal entities are not eligible for MLGs and LDPs when their average adjusted gross 
incomes exceed US$900,000 per crop year, but remain eligible for marketing loans repaid at principal plus 
interest. Accumulated payments for PLC, ARC, MLGs, and LDPs may not exceed US$125,000 per person or 
legal entity per year. A separate and additional US$125,000 annual payment limit applies to peanut farming.  
15 In practice, premium rates and other conditions are proposed by RMA or third parties, and reviewed 
by independent experts on behalf of the FCIC board. The FCIC board approves or rejects the proposed rates. 
The RMA manages the FCIC.  
16 The increase in insured liability also reflects the effect of rising comm odity prices since 2006. 
Zulauf  C. and D. Orden (2015), "U.S. Crop Insurance Since 1996", farmdoc daily  (5):129, Department of 
Agricultural and Consumer Economic s, University of Illinois at Urbana -Champaign, 16 July. Viewed at: 
http://farmdocdaily.illinois.edu/pdf/fdd160715.pdf .  WT/TPR/S/350 • United States  
 
- 112 - 
 
  now considered the largest agricultural insurance programme in the world.17 However, the 
U.S. experience has shown that farmers have been reluctant to take on insurance unless it is 
subsidized. The share of premiums paid by farms has declined from 74% in the early 1990s to 
38% in recent years.18 The annual costs of crop insurance for the Federal Go vernment averaged 
US$8.2 billion from 2008 to 2014 (Table 4.5). The key components of the cost structure are the 
subsidized insurance premiums and reimbursements to private insurers for their administrative 
and operating expenses in delivering the products . Private insurance companies operate under a 
Standard Reinsurance Agreement (SRA) with the Federal Government .19 The SRA, which is 
renegotiated periodically, allows the Government and private insurers to share the results of 
insurance underwriting.20 Depend ing on the claims situation in any given year, the arrangement 
may thus produce an underwriting loss (or gain) to the Government.21  
Table 4.5 Crop insurance fiscal costs, by crop year, 2008 -14 
(US$ billion)  
 Premiums  Indemnities  Loss 
ratio  A&O 
costs  Govt. 
underwriting 
(gains)/losses  Total 
Govt. 
cost Farmer  Subsidy  Total  Total  Net 
2008 4.2 5.7 9.9 8.7 4.5 0.88 2.0 -0.1 7.7 
2009 3.5 5.4 9.0 5.2 1.7 0.58 1.6 -1.5 5.7 
2010 2.9 4.7 7.6 4.3 1.4 0.56 1.4 -1.5 4.7 
2011 4.5 7.5 12.0 10.9 6.3 0.91 1.4 0.5 9.5 
2012 4.2 7.0 11.1 17.5 13.3 1.57 1.4 5.0 13.5 
2013 4.5 7.3 11.8 12.1 7.6 1.02 1.4 0.8 9.7 
2014 4.0 6.2 10.1 7.5 3.5 0.74 1.4 -0.8 6.9 
Total  27.8 43.8 71.6 66.1 38.3 0.92 10.5 2.4 57.7 
Source:  Zulauf  C. and D. Orden  (2015) , "U.S. Crop Insurance Fiscal Costs and WTO Notifications under 
Current Rules" , farmdocDaily  (5):139 , Department of Agricultural and Consumer Economics , 
University of Illinois  at Urbana -Champaign . Viewed at: 
http://farmdocdaily.illinois.edu/pdf/fdd300715.pdf ; and data taken from USDA -RMA.  
4.18.   The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) published reports in 2012 and 2013, 
arguing that federal costs could be cut through a reduction in the premium subsidies to all farmers 
and/or caps on individual premium subsidies.22 Moreover, the GAO released a study in 
March  2015, concluding that a reduction in premium subsidies for the highest income participants 
could lead to significant  savings while leaving 99% of the participants unaffected.23 Earlier studies 
have argued that the crop insurance programme is inefficient compared with other forms of 
government support, such as decoupled payments.24  
                                                
17 Glauber J.W. (2015), Agricultural Insurance and the World Trade Organization , IFPRI Discussion 
Paper 01473. Viewed at: 
http://ebrary.ifpri.org/utils/getfile/collection/p15738coll2/id/129733/filename/129944.pdf . 
18 Zulauf C. and D. Orden (2015), "U.S. Crop Insurance Since 1996", farmdoc dail y (5):129, 
Department of Agricultural and Consumer Economic s, University of Illinois at Urbana -Champaign, 16 July. 
Viewed at: http://farmdocdaily.illinois.edu/pdf/fdd160715.pdf . 
19 The SRA e stablishes the business terms for the insurance industry on a state -by-state basis.  
20 The current SRA came into effect in 2011 and remains in place through the 2017 reinsurance year. 
The 2014 Farm Act requires any renegotiated SRA to be budget neutral.  
21 Although the Government recorded an underwriting gain in four of the seven years from 2008 
to 2014, losses from the 2012 drought resulted in an accumulated loss of US$2.4 billion over the period, or 
around US$340 million per year. By comparison, the insuran ce companies had an accumulated underwriting 
gain of US$8.3 billion during 2008 -14, or nearly US$1.2 billion (average) per year.  
22 GAO (2012), Crop Insurance: Savings Would Result from Program Changes and Greater Use of Data 
Mining , GAO -12-256, 13 March. Viewed at: http://www.gao.gov/assets/590/589305.pdf ; and GAO (2013), 
2013 Annual Report: Actions Needed to Reduce Fragmentation, Overlap, and Duplication and Achieve Other 
Financial Benefits , GAO -13-279SP, 9 April. Viewed at: http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/653604.pdf .  
23 GAO (2015), Crop Insurance, Reducing Subsidies for Highest Income Participants Could Save Federal 
Dollars with Minimal Effect o n the Program , GAO -15-356, 18 March. Viewed at: 
http://gao.gov/assets/670/669062.pdf . The GAO estimates that elimination of premium subsidies to high 
income participants, i.e. those with incomes exceedin g limits applied under certain farm and conservation 
programmes, would have saved the Federal Government some US$290 million over a five -year period 
(2009  through 2013).  
24 Babcock B.A. and C.E. Hart (2006), "Crop Insurance: A Good Deal for Taxpayers?", Iowa Ag Review , 
12(3):1 -10. Viewed at: http://www.card.iastate.edu/iowa_ag_review/summer_06/IAR.pdf ; Smith V.H. and 
J.W. Glauber (2012), "Agricultural Insurance in Developed Countrie s: Where Have We Been and Where Are We WT/TPR/S/350 • Unite d States  
 
- 113 - 
 
  4.1.2.6   Cotton  
4.19.   The 2014 Farm Act does not autho rize historical acreage planted with upland cotton to be 
enrolled in PLC or ARC. Instead, a new Stacked Income Protection Plan (STAX) provides coverage 
for losses of up to 20% of the expected county revenue. STAX may be purchased on its own or in 
conjuncti on with other crop insurance (companion policy).25 Indemnities are triggered under STAX 
when area revenue falls below 90% of the expected level and may increase to cover a maximum 
of 30% of the expected revenue or the maximum loss level under the companion policy. In 
addition, the grower may increase (or decrease) the effective coverage under STAX by choosing a 
multiplier (protection factor) that may range from 80% to 120%. The premium subsidy rate, i.e. 
the share paid by the Federal Government , is 80%. Neve rtheless, cotton farmers have been 
reluctant to sign up to STAX.  
4.20.   Although upland cotton is excluded from the ARC and PLC, former upland cotton base 
became "generic acres" under the ARC and PLC programmes, and growers with generic acres have 
the option to plant those acres to other crops that are eligible for ARC and PLC. Thus far, some 
2.2 million generic acres planted to covered commodities have received ARC and PLC payments 
totalling US$149.3 million (by 20 May 2016), primarily for peanuts (US$87.6 milli on), maize 
(US$39.8 million), and long grain rice (US$14 million).   
4.1.2.7   Sugar  
4.21.   The United States is the world's s ixth largest producer and fifth -largest consumer of sugar. 
Producers of sugar from sugarcane and sugar beet (known as processors) qualify for market ing 
loans, which are administered in combination with a domestic market allotment mechanism.26 
Unlike other commodity marketing loans, sugar marketing loans are granted to processors who, in 
turn, pay growers of sugarcane and sugar beets at a rate proportio nal to the loan.27 At the end of 
the 9 -month loan term, borrowers may repay the loan in full by selling the sugar to the domestic 
market or, if prices are too low, forfeit the sugar collateral to USDA to satisfy the loan. U.S. sugar 
prices have been above w orld market levels since the early 1980s.  
4.22.   The purpose of the market allotment mechanism for sugar is to manage supplies such that 
the price of sugar remains above the level that would cause forfeitures. Allotments are based on 
production history and estab lished at state -level for the sugarcane sector and processor -level for 
the beet sugar sector. The overall allotments equal at least 85% of estimated domestic demand 
for human consumption. Excess sugar may not be sold in the market for human consumption and  
must thus be stored at the owner's expense. Depending on market conditions, USDA may adjust 
allotments upwards in the course of the marketing year to release more sugar into the market. In 
addition, excess supply situations are mitigated by the Feedstock Flexibility Program (FFP) that 
helps divert sugar from human consumption towards the production of ethanol.28  
4.23.   On average, the United States imports roughly 3 million short tons of raw and refined sugar 
(raw value) per year. The main suppliers are Brazil (1 8%), the Dominican Republic (17%), and 
Australia (10%). Imports are regulate d through the annual WTO tariff -rate quota of 
1,117,200  metric tons of raw sugar and 22,000 metric tons of refined sugar.29 Above -quota 
                                                                                                                                                  
Going?", Applied Economic Perspectives and Policies , 34(3): 360 -390. Viewed at: 
http://aepp.oxfordjournals.org/content/e arly/2012/08/29/aepp.pps029.full.pdf+html ; and Goodwin B.K. and 
V.H. Smith (2012), "What Harm Is Done by Subsidizing Crop Insurance?", American Journal of Agricultural 
Economics , 95(2): 489 -497. Viewed at: http://ajae.oxfordjournals.org/content/95/2/489.full.pdf+html .  
25 Examples of such policies are Yield Protection, Revenue Protection, Revenue Protection with the 
Harvest Price Exclusion, and any Area Risk Protection insurance p olicy.  
26 More U.S. sugar is derived from beet than from cane. In the 2015 -16 crop year, the cash receipts for 
growers of sugar beet amounted to US$2.956 billion, versus US$1.075 billion for sugarcane farming. The 
2014 Farm Act establishes marketing loan r ates of 18.75 cents per pound for raw sugar and 24.09 cents per 
pound for refined beet sugar. USDA Economic Research Service online information. Viewed at: 
http://www.ers. usda.gov/topics/crops/sugar -sweeteners/background.aspx  and 
http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/crops/sugar -sweeteners/policy.aspx . 
27 USDA has the authority to establish minimum p ayments to producers.  
28 The FFP was introduced through the Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008 and is continued 
under the 2014 Farm Act.  
29 USDA may increase the TRQs on 1 April each year should a shortage be expected.  WT/TPR/S/350 • United States  
 
- 114 - 
 
  imports are normally neither practical nor ec onomical due to relatively high MFN tariffs.30 The 
Dominican  Republic -Central American Free Trade Agreement (DR -CAFTA) includes increased sugar 
market access for these countries in the United States. FTAs with Colombia, Chile, Morocco, 
Panama, and Peru also  contain provisions to increase sugar market access in the United States.31 
Moreover, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) has allowed for duty -free and 
quota -free imports of sugar from Mexico since 1  January 2008. However, Mexican sugar exports 
are currently limited under a 2015 suspension agreement following the initiation of 
U.S. anti-dumping and countervailing duty proceedings in  2014.  
4.24.   Outside of the TRQ system, two re -export programmes allow duty -free imports of sugar. 
The Refined Sugar Re -Export Program provides processors a licence to import raw sugar for 
refining and subsequent export or sale to licensed manufacturers of sugar -containing products. 
Participating manufacturers under the Sugar -Containing Products Re -Export Program  may trade 
with participating sugar processors to obtain refined sugar to be incorporated in to products 
destined for U.S. export markets. Finally, the Polyhydric Alcohol Program allows participating 
U.S. manufacturers to purchase sugar at world market prices from lice nsed refiners or their agents 
as long as the output (polyhydric alcohols) is not used as sugar substitutes in human food 
production.  
4.1.2.8   Dairy sector  
4.25.   The 2014 Farm Act eliminated the Dairy Product Price Support Program , deficiency 
payments for dairy producers  (the Milk Income Loss Contract (MILC) Program), and dairy export 
subsidies (Dairy Export Incentive Program). Instead, it introduced a margin protection for milk 
producers (MPP -Dairy) and a Dairy Product Donation Program, which authorizes the  Commodity 
Credit Corporation ( CCC) to purchase dairy products at prevailing market prices when milk 
margins are depressed. The purchased quantities are subsequently distributed to low income 
households.  
4.26.   MPP-Dairy insures milk farmers against falling margins, calculate d as the difference between 
the national "all -milk" price and average feed costs.32 The production margin is calculated for 
consecutive two -month periods (January/February, March/April, etc.). If the margin remains below 
insured levels (US$4 -US$8 per hundre dweight) for any of these two -month periods, enrolled 
producers receive a payment based on their chosen coverage. Dairy producers enrol in MPP -Dairy 
by establishing the production history of the dairy operation and the extent of margin protection 
selected.  The historical production level equals the highest annual milk sales in any of the calendar 
years 2011, 2012, and 2013 for established producers. Special provisions apply for 
intergenerational transfers and for new dairy operations. The USDA may adjust in dividual historical 
production levels to reflect increases in overall national milk production in future years. Apart from 
that, no change in production history is allowed.  
4.27.   Apart from the payment of an annual administrative fee (US$100) to the FSA, partic ipating 
producers are guaranteed a US$4 margin (per cwt of milk) for 90% of the historical production 
volume at no additional cost. However, milk producers may opt for higher margin protection with 
the payment of an annual premium (Table 4.6). In that case , the participant must also select the 
coverage percentage (25% -90% of historical production) for the higher margin.33 MPP-Dairy 
requires a higher premium for additional protection of larger production volumes (Table 4.6), but 
does not cap compensation paym ents or limit eligibility according to farm size. However, payments 
under MPP -Dairy may be subject to sequestration pursuant to the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
Deficit Control Act of 1985. The Congressional Budget Office of the United States has estimate d 
the annual cost of MPP -Dairy to be in the order of US$30 -190 million per year. Premiums and fees 
                                                
30 The estimated average MFN ta riff for sugar and confectionary is currently 10.8% (Table A3.1), 
ranging from free to 65.6% ( ad valorem  equivalent).  
31 USTR online information. Viewed at: https://ustr.gov/issue -areas/agricult ure/sugar .  
32 The National Agricultural Statistics Service reports the average price of milk marketed in the 
United  States. The average feed cost for the production of one hundredweight (cwt) of milk is derived from the 
sum of (i) 1.0728 times the price o f maize (per bushel); (ii) 0.00735 times the price of soybean meal 
(per ton); and (ii) 0.0137 times the price of alfalfa hay (per ton).  
33 For example, if a producer selected the US$7 margin for 50% of historical production 
(3 million  lbs=30,000 cwt), the premium paid for one year would be US$0.217x30,000x0.5=US$3,255. If the 
actual margin were US$5 during one two -month period, the payment received would be 
US$(7 -5)x30,000x(2:12)x0.5=US$5,000.  WT/TPR/S/350 • Unite d States  
 
- 115 - 
 
  collected for the 2015 calendar year under MPP -Dairy amounted to US$70.8 million, while 
payments were less than US$700,000.  
Table 4.6 MPP Dairy, premium payments  
(US$)  
Coverage level (margin)  
per cwt.  Tier 1 – Premium for 2016 -18 Tier 2 – Premium for 2014 -18 
Covered production history  
< 4 million lbs.  Covered production history  
> 4 million lbs.  
4.00 None None 
4.50 0.010  0.020  
5.00 0.025  0.040  
5.50 0.040  0.100  
6.00 0.055  0.155  
6.50 0.090  0.290  
7.00 0.217  0.830  
7.50 0.300  1.060  
8.00 0.475  1.360  
Source:  USDA Farm Service Agency (2016), 2014 Farm Bill Fact Sheet, Margin Protection Program for Dairy 
(MPP-Dairy), June. Viewed at: http://www.fsa.usda.gov/Assets/USDA -FSA-
Public/usdafiles/FactSheets/2016/2016_MPP -Dairy_Fact_Sheet.pdf .  
4.28.   The Dairy  Product  Donation Program (DPDP) is administered by the FSA and the Food and 
Nutrition Service (FNS) and funded by the Commodity Credit Corporation. DPDP purchases are 
triggered if the FSA determines that the national production margin has fallen below 
US$4 (per cwt) for two consecutive months. The purchased goods are donated to public and 
private non -profit organizations that provide nutrition assistance to low -income households. FSA 
and FNS determine the type and quantity of dairy products to be acquired in consultation with the 
non-profit organizations and eligible state and local agencies. Products are purchased for 
immediate distribution and may not be stored or resold in commercial markets. DPDP purchases 
are terminated when the national production mar gin returns to US$4 or more, or after a period of 
a maximum of three months.34 The DPDP is authorized until the end of 2018. No purchases have 
been made under the DPDP until now as margins have not dropped below US$4 per cwt.  
4.29.   Federal Milk Marketing Orders provide  classified pricing and price pooling. The system, 
which dates back to the 1930s, has been maintained without change. The 2014 Farm  Act also 
extends the Dairy Forward Pricing Program, the Dairy Indemnity Program, and the Dairy 
Promotion and Research  Program through 2018. The promotion and research programme 
authorizes the collection of a levy equal to US$0. 15 per cwt o n domestically -produced milk and 
US$0.075 per cwt (milk equivalent)  on imported  dairy products.35  
4.1.2.9   Other programmes  
4.30.   The Supplemental Nu trition Assistance Program (SNAP) is the dominant programme, in 
terms of expenditures, under the 2014 Farm Act (Title IV), accounting for US$756.4 billion or 
nearly 80% of all projected outlays over FY2014 -FY2023. Although the basic eligibility criteria ha ve 
been maintained, changes in the calculation of benefits are designed to reduce the annual 
spending on SNAP by around US$800 million. At present, around 22 million households 
representing some 45 million individuals participate in SNAP.36 The average mont hly benefit is 
about US$125 per person.  
4.31.   Although with somewhat reduced funding for conservation measures, Title II of the 
2014 Farm Act retains the three main programmes (the Conservation Reserve Program, the 
Environmental Quality Incentives Program, and the Conservation Stewardship Program). Other 
smaller programmes have been maintained through the new Agricultural Conservation Easement 
Program, designed to protect wetlands and preserve agricultural land from commercial and 
residential development. The ne w Regional Conservation Partnership Program is also the result of 
consolidation and coordination efforts.  
                                                
34 Purchases may also be suspended during the three -month period if the national production margin is 
depressed, but the domestic price of cheddar cheese or non -fat dry milk exceed the world market price for 
cheddar cheese or skim milk powder by certain percentages.  
35 Famers and importers may receive a credit against t he levy if they contribute to quality programmes, 
authorized by federal or state laws, conducting dairy product promotion, research, or nutrition education.  
36 USDA Food and Nutrition Service online information. Viewed at: 
http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/pd/34SNAPmonthly.pdf .  WT/TPR/S/350 • United States  
 
- 116 - 
 
  4.32.   The 2014 Farm Act (Title IX) maintains the Biomass Crop Assistance Program with a 
mandatory funding level of US$25 million per year. The Rural Energy  for America Program, which 
encourages installations of renewable energy systems and energy efficiency, is also maintained but 
with lower funding. US$30 million per year  is earmarked for the Farmers Market and Local Food 
Promotion Program.  
4.33.   The reauthorize d Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program (NAP) provides financial 
assistance in case of natural disaster damage to crops for which crop insurance is not available. 
The basic coverage is the same as the catastrophic coverage level for insured crops, bu t the 
current farm bill authorizes "buy -up" coverage for up to 65% of historical yields at 100% of the 
average market price.37 Crops intended for grazing are not eligible for additional coverage. 
Producers with an annual adjusted gross incom e over US$900,00 0 may not enrol  in NAP, and NAP 
payments are limited to US$125,000 per participant per crop year.  
4.1.3   Trade measures  
4.1.3.1   Imports  
4.34.   The average U.S. import tariff on agricultural products (as defined by the WTO) is currently 
9.1% (Table 3.2), a slight increase from 2 014 (9.0%), and 2012 (8.5%). The average applied MFN 
rate exceeds 10% for three product categories only: dairy (27.6%), beverages, spirits and tobacco 
(22.9%), and sugar and confectionary (10.8%). As there has been  no change in the underlying 
tariff policy , the variations in the calculated duty are accounted for by the easing of commodity 
prices which automatically increase the ad valorem  equivalents of specific and compound duties. 
Compared with two years ago, average import duties are now higher on dairy products, cotton, 
and sugar and confectionary, but lower on cereals, beverages, and tobacco. U.S. agricultural 
import duties are low compared with many other countries, and applied on a customs value that 
excludes transportation and landed costs.  
4.35.   The Unit ed States notifies the Committee on Agriculture regularly about the administration 
of its WTO tariff quota commitments, covering 44 product categories (or around 200 tariff lines at 
present). The main product categories are beef, cheese and other dairy pro ducts, sugar and 
sugar -containing products, tobacco, and cotton. The sugar TRQs are allocated to around 
40 exporting countries, rather than to importers, on the basis of historical supply data. As a 
market allocation mechanism applies to domestic productio n of sugar (section 4.1.2.7), the import 
TRQ regime may be adjusted to take account of changes in U.S. market conditions.38 Fill rates 
vary considerably among the commodities subject to TRQs.39 Certain modifications in the TRQ 
regime for dairy products were announced in July 2015.40  
4.36.   The United States has reserved the right to apply the Special Agricultural Safeguard (SSG) 
on imports from other WTO Members on 189 tariff lines, mostly dairy, sugar/sugar -containing 
products, and cotton. The SSGs may be price - or volume -based. In October 2015, the United 
States imposed volume -based agricultural safeguards on butter, applying a volume -based 
safeguard for the first time since 2003. By contrast, price -based SSGs are invoked automatically 
when the declared import pric e for an out -of-quota item is below a pre -established price range. 
The United States applied price -based SSGs on 53 tariff lines in 2013 and on 44 lines in 2014.41 
Applied automatically on a shipment -by-shipment basis, many SSGs affect small volumes of 
goods.  
                                                
37 A premium is assessed for the additional coverage. All NAP participants pay a service fee per year of 
US$250 per crop/commodity, capped at US$750 per administrative county and at US$1,875 for producers with 
farming interests in multiple counties.  
38 The most recent notification, detailing the country -specific sugar TRQs to be applied in FY2016, has 
been circulated in WTO document G/AG/N/USA/1 06, 25 April 2016. Additional quota allocations were notified in 
WTO document G/AG/N/USA/106/Add.1, 27 April 2016.  
39 The United States has reported data for TRQ imports in 2013 (crop year or calendar year) in 
WTO document G/AG/N/USA/102, 20 May 2015.  
40 80 FR 44251. Fees have been aligned more closely with administrative costs and electronic means are 
now the only manner of communication. The final rule extends the suspension of the "historical licence 
reduction provision" (§6.25(b)), i.e. the transfer of under -utilized licences to the lottery category, for an 
additional seven years.  
41 WTO document G/AG/N/USA/104, 21 January 2016.  WT/TPR/S/350 • Unite d States  
 
- 117 - 
 
  4.1.3.2   Exports  
4.37.   The Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) of USDA administers the Export Credit Guarantee 
Program (GSM -102) on behalf of the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC). Under GSM -102, CCC 
guarantees U.S. private sector financing to approved foreign financ ial institutions, primarily in 
developing countries, for imports of U.S. food and agricultural commodities. The guarantee 
typically covers 98% of the principal and a portion of the interest payments. The maximum credit 
term is 18 months, but may vary from country -to-country.42 Commodities eligible for loan 
guarantees are bulk products (grains and oilseeds), intermediate goods (e.g. hides, flour and 
paper products), and high -value processed consumer products such as frozen foods, meat, beer, 
and wine. Registe red guarantees per 31 July 2016 totalled more than US$1.6 billion, principally for 
exports of soybeans, including yellow corn (US$636  million), soybeans (US$325 million), soybean 
meal (US$264 million), wheat (US$171 million), and rice (US $67 million).  
4.38.   The 2014 Farm Act reauthorized four export promotion programmes administered by the 
USDA FAS, namely the Market Access Program (MAP), the Foreign Market Development Program, 
the Emerging Markets Program, and the Technical Assistance for Specialty Crops Progra m. MAP is 
the most important program in terms of funding (US$186.4 million in FY2016, after 6.8% 
sequestration), and requires that the participating agricultural trade associations, cooperatives, 
and state regional trade groups provide at least a 10% contr ibution to generic marketing. 
A 50/50  cost-sharing is required for the promotion of branded products.  
4.1.3.3   Food aid  
4.39.   The United States provides 2 -3 million tonnes of agricultural commodities in international 
food aid and food assistance every year (Table 4.7). The corresponding monetary value, some 
US$2 -2.5 billion, represents more than 6% of total U.S. foreign aid.43 The international food aid 
programmes are currently based on three main permanent authorizations; (i) the Food for Peace 
Act (PL 480)44, (ii) the Fo od for Progress Act of 1985; and (iii) the McGovern -Dole International 
Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program.45 Most disbursements are authorized under Title II 
of the Food for Peace Act (FFPA), which is administered by USAID. The agency has been  also using 
its authority under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to provide cash -based food assistance under 
an Emergency Food Security Program (EFSP) since 2010. The 2 014 Farm Act includes a Local 
& Regional Procurement Projects programme, administered by  USDA, which is also cash -based.  
Table 4.7 Deliveries of food aid from the United States, 2008 -12  
(Tonnes ) 
 2008  2009  2010  2011  2012  
Direct transfer  3,066,794  3,110,056  3,046,766  2,030,209  1,958,265  
Local purchase  80,916  111,672  776,660  254,173  99,952  
Triangular purchase  63,985  52,962  59,424  27,381  27,505  
Source:  WFP Food Aid Information System database. Viewed at: http://www.wfp.org/fais/ . 
4.40.   Although the growth of the EFSP (in particular), whose outlays reached US$577.6 million in 
FY2013, is pushing up the share of cash -based food assistance, most U.S. food aid is still provided 
in kind. FFPA Title II, the dominant programme, regulates U.S. donations of agricultural  
commodities to international organizations (such as the World Food Programme) and 
non-governmental organizations in response to emergency and non -emergency food needs. 
U.S. laws establish a number of conditions for in -kind food aid. Notably, all donations  must be 
sourced in the United States, and preferably (at least 50%) shipped on U.S. -flag vessels. 
Moreover, 20% -30% of FFPA -funded aid (minimum US$350 million per year) must be 
                                                
42 The 2014 Farm Act reduced the maximum loan guarantee term from three years to two  years.  
43 Schnepf R. (2015), U.S. Internat ional Food Aid Programs: Background and Issues , Congressional 
Research Service, 1 April. Viewed at: https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41072.pdf . 
44 The President of the United States renamed the Ag ricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act 
of 1954 (PL 83 -480) the "Food for Peace Act" in 1961. Congress recognized the name change in its 2008 farm 
bill (PL 110 -246).  
45 The first international food aid programme of the United States was authorized u nder 
Section  416(b)  of the Agricultural Act of 1949. The programme remains in effect, but is reliant on surplus 
inventories of the Commodity Credit Corporation. Government -owned grain stocks were depleted in 2006, and 
the programme has been inactive since then.  WT/TPR/S/350 • United States  
 
- 118 - 
 
  non-emergency food aid, of which minimum 75% should be processed, fortified, o r bagged. At 
least 50% of bagged food transfers should be whole -grain c ommodities bagged in the 
United  States. Non -governmental recipients are also required to subject at least 15% of 
U.S. non-emergency food donations to monetization, i.e. the sale of dona ted food in 
recipient -country markets to generate cash for development programmes.  
4.41.   In recent years, the Administration and members of Congress have tabled several proposals 
to enhance the efficiency and reduce the costs of U.S. food aid and food assistanc e addressing, for 
example, cash versus in -kind, U.S. -only purchasing provisions, shipping charges, and 
monetization. However, most of these proposals have not advanced in Congress.  
4.1.4   Levels of support  
4.42.   The OECD notes that the United States has reduced its pr oducer support and border 
protection substantially since 1986 -88. However, most of the reduction can be ascribed to higher 
commodity prices since 2002, as many support measures are linked to market prices.46 
Nevertheless, the OECD's Producer Support Estimat e (PSE) for the United States of around 
US$40 billion  in 2014  (Table 4.8), or roughly 10% of gross farm receipts, is about half the 
percentage level of all OECD countries.  
Table 4.8 Total producer support est imate and single commodity transfer values for 
selected commodities, 2008 -15 
 2008  2009  2010  2011  2012  2013  2014  2015a 
Producer support estimate          
US$ million  29,954  31,535  30,774  32,684  35,993  29,020  43,572  38,785  
PSE as % gross farm receipts  8.6 10.1 8.6 8.0 8.5 6.9 10.0 9.4 
Single commodity transfers          
Wheat          
 US$ million  940 1,610  802 1,140  1,117  1,318  921 812 
 SCT as % gross farm receipts  5.2 13.0 6.1 7.3 6.0 8.2 7.1 7.3 
Maize          
 US$ million  2,147  2,167  1,771  2,894  2,846 2,998  2,209  2,259  
 SCT as % gross farm receipts  4.2 4.5 2.7 3.6 3.7 4.6 4.0 4.4 
Soybeans          
 US$ million  1,483  1,198  1,076  1,597  1,536  1,540  1,397  1,308  
 SCT as % gross farm receipts  4.8 3.6 2.8 4.0 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.6 
Cotton          
 US$ million  1,313  252 339 813 591 529 908 836 
 SCT as % gross farm receipts  30.1 6.2 4.4 10.4 8.6 9.4 15.2 17.2 
Milk         
 US$ million  8 2,947  4,581  2,637  5,125  2,296  6,646  5,356  
 SCT as % gross farm receipts  0.0 11.9 14.5 6.7 13.7 5.7 13.5 15.0 
Beef and veal          
 US$ million  0 0 0 0 0 230 3,289  1,841  
 SCT as % gross farm receipts  0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 5.3 3.2 
Refined sugar          
 US$ million  718 557 1,157  990 656 193 684 1,114  
 SCT as % gross farm receipts  33.6 21.3 35.0 29.0 17.6 7.6 27.1 44.2 
a Provisional data.  
Source:  OECD Stats.  
4.43.   Among the main commodities tracked by the OECD, the highest single commodity transfers 
(as a percentage of gross farm receipts) are provided to sugar, milk, and cotton. In principle, the 
OECD views positively the in creasing U.S. policy focus on insurance and risk management to 
provide a safety net for farmers in need. However, the OECD also states that the 2014 Farm Act 
may have transferred some of the risks normally incurred by farmers to the public budget.  
4.44.   At the WTO, the United States provides information on support to agriculture to the 
Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures as well as to the Committee on Agriculture. 
The most recent notifications cover the period up to FY2014 and the 2013 marketing y ear, 
                                                
46 OECD (2016), Agricultural Policy Monitoring and Evaluation 2016 . Viewed at: http://www.oecd -
ilibrary.org/content/book/agr_pol -2016-en.  WT/TPR/S/350 • Unite d States  
 
- 119 - 
 
  respectively, and thus do not capture the most recent policy changes implemented through the 
2014 Farm Act. The level of payments under discontinued programmes, such as direct payments 
to agricultural producers and ACRE, of just under US$5  billion per  year in FY2013 and FY2014 
nonetheless do not appear markedly different from payments effected under the new PLC and ARC 
programmes ( sections 4.1.2.2 and 4.1.2.3).  
4.45.   The U.S. notifications to the Committee on Agriculture classify support according to the 
definitions of the Agreement on Agriculture. The reported assistance primarily falls in the 
Green  Box category (Charts 4.2 and 4.3) due to the extensive coverage of domestic food aid 
programmes, accounting for US$109.6 billion of total green box outlays of U S$132.5 billion in 
the 2013 marketing year.47  
Chart 4.2 Green Box support in the United States, 2001 -13 
020,00040,00060,00080,000100,000120,000140,000
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013Environmental programmes
Structural adjustment
Payments for relief from natural disasters
Decoupled income support
Domestic food aid
General servicesChart 4.2
Green Box support in the United States, 2001 -13
Source: WTO notifications.(US$ million)
 
Source:  WTO notifications.  
Chart 4.3 Amber Box support i n the United States, 2001 -13 
05,00010,00015,00020,00025,00030,000
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013Other
Rice
Maize
Cotton
Livestock and livestock products
Soybeans
Wheat
Sugar
Dairy
Non product-specificChart 4.3
Amber Box support in the United States, 2001 -13
Source:   WTO notifications.(US$ million)
 
Source:  WTO notifications.  
                                                
47 In 2013, Supplemental Nutrition Ass istance Program (SNAP) payments were the dominant source of 
food aid at US$82.5 billion, followed by child nutrition programmes (US$19.3 billion), and the Special 
Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (US$6.6 billion). WTO documen t 
G/AG/N/USA/108, 25 May 2016.  WT/TPR/S/350 • United States  
 
- 120 - 
 
  4.46.   For the 2013 marketing year, the United States has notified total support under the 
Amber  Box (including de minimis  subsidies) of US$14 billion, and US$6.9 billion when de minimis  
support is exclude d. The relatively high levels of support to the dairy and sugar sector reflect the 
market price support programmes in place at the time as well as methodological factors in the 
support calculations.  
4.2  Services  
4.2.1   Financial services  
4.2.1.1   General overview  
4.47.   The U.S. fi nancial services sector share of GDP was 7.1% in 2015: banking activities 
generated some 2.8% of GDP; insurance, 2.6%; securities trading activities, 1.4% ; and funds, 
trusts, and other financial vehicles, 0.2 %.48 The financial sector in the United  States em ployed 
5.8 million people in 2014, accounting for  some 4.4% of total employment.49 The United States 
runs a substantial trade surplus in financial services. In 2015, exports of financial services, 
excluding insurance, amounted to US $102.5 billion; exports o f insurance and pension services 
reached US $17.1 billion.50 Also in 2015, imports of financial services amounted to US $25.2 billion, 
while imports of insurance and pension services amounted to  US$47.8 billion.51 Sales of financial 
services, including insuran ce, to foreign persons by U.S. multinational co rporations' affiliates 
abroad amounted to US$220.9  billion in 2013, while sales of financial services to U.S. persons by 
foreign multinational corporations amounted to  US$176.1 billion in the same year.52 
4.48.   The U .S. financial services industry (finance and insurance) plays a central role in the 
country's  economic performance, including export financing, and it is highly important  to the 
stability of the global financial system, in terms of, inter alia , direct expo sure and price correlation 
with other key financial markets across the world. For example, U.S. global systemically important 
banks (G -SIBs) account for 22 % of total G -SIB assets53; the three U.S. global systemically 
important insurers  (G-SIIs) account for a third of total G -SII assets; and th e U.S. derivatives 
market accounts for  one third of the world market. The United States has highly developed capital 
markets. The combined market capitalization of the NASDAQ OMX and NYSE Euronext is nearly 
US$16 trilli on. 
4.49.   The financial services industry in the United States has largely recovered from the 
2008 economic and financial crisis. The majority of financial institutions have repaid the money 
received from the Government's Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) dur ing the crisis. By the 
first quarter of 2016, 16 banks remained under TARP, out of the 707 that received funds and 
261 banks and credit unions had fully repaid their entire principal with interest. Thirty -two 
institutions were in bankruptcy or receivership . As of 31 December 2015, the Treasury had 
recovered US$226.7 billion from the Capital Purchase Program (CPP) through repayments, 
dividends, interest, and other income, compared to the US$204.9 billion initially invested under 
the programme.54 The Federal N ational Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) and Federal Home L oan 
Mortgage Corp (Freddie Mac)  have been  under supervision since 2008.  
                                                
48 BEA online information, "Industry Data 2016". Viewed at: http://www.bea.gov/industry/xls/io -
annual/GDPbyInd_VA_1947 -2015.xlsx .  
49 BEA onl ine information, "Industry Data  2016". Viewed at 
http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?ReqID=9&step=1#reqid=9&step=3&isuri=1&903=197 . Some 
2.5 million pe ople were employed in banking; 2.4 million in insurance; 858,000 in securities; and 6,000 in 
funds, trusts and other financial activities.  
50 Trade in insurance services is calculated as the sum of premium income (adjusted for normal losses), 
investment inc ome, and income from auxiliary services.  
51 BEA online information. Viewed at: 
http://www.bea.gov/iTabl e/iTable.cfm?ReqID=62&step=1#reqid=62&step=6&isuri=1&6221=0&6220=1,2&62
10=1&6200=51&6224=&6223=&6222=0&6230=1 . 
52 BEA online information. Viewed at: http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?Re qID=62&step=1#  and 
http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?ReqID=62&step=1#reqid=62&step=6&isuri=1&6210=4&6200=237 .  
53 A G-SIB is referred to as  a bank whose distress or disorderly failure, because of its size, complexity 
and systemic interconnectedness, would cause significant disruption to the global financial system and 
economic activity.  
54 U.S. Department of Treasury online information. Viewed  at: 
https://www.treasury.gov/initiatives/financial -stability/TARP -Programs/bank -investment -
programs/cap/Pages/payments.a spx.  WT/TPR/S/350 • Unite d States  
 
- 121 - 
 
  4.50.   There were 1,792 "large" commercial banks in the United  States as at 31 March 2016, each 
with consolidated  assets of US$300  million or more. The total consolidated assets of these banks 
at the same date amounted to US$14.5 trillion, representing 81% of GDP; of these assets 
US$13.1  trillion or 90.2% of the total were domestic assets.55 At the same date, total banking 
system asse ts were US$15.73 trillion.56 Also as at 31 March 2016, foreign banks from 55 countries 
and territories operated 457 institutions in the United  States: there were 46 federal branches, 
141 State branches, 32 agencies and 127 representative offices of foreign banks, as well as other 
types of foreign entities, including four Edge corporations.57 The assets of these institutions 
reached some US$2.45 trillion on 31 March 2016, accounting for approximately 15.6% of the total 
assets of the U.S. commercial banking sys tem.58 
4.51.   The U.S. insurance market is the world's largest, with gross insurance premiums of 
US$1.32  trillion in 2015, up 3.6% from the previous year, and representing 29% of the world 
market, of which US$552.5 billion were in life and health insurance, and US $763.8  billion were in 
property and casualty insurance. The United  States is ninth in the world with respect to insurance 
premiums per capita, with US$4,096 per head in 2015; it is 15th with respect to premiums as a 
percentage of GDP (7.4% in 2015).59 As at  September 2015, there were 1,031 life and health  
(L/H)  insurance entities, 2,718 property and casualty P/C insurance entities, and 1,060 health 
insurance entities licensed in the United States.60 
4.52.   The United  States has the largest securities markets in the world.61 The New York Stock 
Exchange (NYSE) is the world's largest capital market with more than 2,400 companies listed, and 
an average daily trade volume of US$123 billion.62 It ha d a market capitalization  of 
US$19.3  trillion as at June  2016.63 As at 31 May 2016, there were 501 listed non -U.S. issuers from 
46 countries.64 The NASDAQ is the second largest stock exchange in the world with an average 
daily share volume of 1.1  billion in U .S. equities.65 
4.2.1.2   Legislative and regulatory framework  
4.53.   The 2010 Dodd -Frank Wall  Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (P L 111-203, 
H.R. 4173) (the Dodd -Frank Act), is the main  piece of  financial regula tory legislation introduced 
since the 2008  financial crisis. The Act, which entered into force on 21 July 2010, aims at 
promoting financial stability, addressing " too big to fail"  considerations,  protecting taxpayers, and 
shielding consumers from abusive financial services practices. The Act established a new and 
comprehensive regulatory framework and exten ded regulation over new mar kets, entities, and 
activities. In total, the Dodd -Frank Act mandated 3 90 rulemaking requirements by 20 regulatory 
agencies, a process that is still ongoing. As of July 2016 , 274 of the se 390 rulemakings had 
resulted in finalized rules, 36 rules had been p roposed, and the remaining 80 of these statutorily 
mandated rules had yet to be proposed by financial services regulators.  
                                                
55 Federal Reserve Statistical Release, "Large Commercial Banks", 30 June 2016. Viewed at: 
http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/lbr/current/ .  
56 Federal Reserve online information.  Viewed at: 
https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h8/current/default.htm .  
57 Federal Reserve online information, " Structure Data for the U.S. Offices of Foreign Banking 
Organi zations", 31  March 2016 . Viewed at: https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/iba/201603/bycntry.htm . 
An Edge corporation is a subsidiary of a bank or Bank Holding Company or Fina ncial Holding Company, 
chartered under the Edge Act of 1919, to engage in foreign banking activities.  
58 Federal Reserve online information. Viewed at: 
https://www.fede ralreserve.gov/econresdata/releases/assetliab/current.htm .  
59 Swiss Re (2016), World Insurance in 2015:Steady Growth Amid Regional Disparities , Sigma 
No. 3/2016. Viewed at: http://media .swissre.com/documents/sigma_3_2016_en.pdf .  
60 Federal Insurance Office (2015), Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (September 2015) . Viewed 
at: https://www.treasury.gov/initiatives/fio/reports -and-
notices/Documents/2015%20FIO%20Annual%20Report_Final.pdf .  
61 In April  2007, the NYSE merged with the European stock exchange Euronext, based in Paris, and 
formed NYSE Euronext, which at that moment operated as the world's largest exchange group. In  2008, the 
American Stock Exchange (AMEX) joined the NYSE to be renamed in 2012 NYSE MKT. In 2013 , the 
Intercontinental Exchange (ICE) acquired NYSE Euronext to create the premier financial m arkets operator.  
62 NYSE online information. Viewed at: https://www.nyse.com/make -the-move/international -listings .  
63 NYSE online information. Viewed at: 
http://www.nyxdata.com/nysedata/asp/factbook/viewer_edition.asp?mode=tables&key=333&category=5 .  
64 NYSE online information. Viewed at: 
https://www.nyse.com/publicdocs/nyse/data/CurListofallStocks.pdf .  
65 NASDAQ online information. Viewed at: http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/trader.a spx?id=marketshare .  WT/TPR/S/350 • United States  
 
- 122 - 
 
  4.54.   Section 173 of the Dodd -Frank Act (Access to United States Financial Market by Foreign 
Institutions) introduced modifications to Sections 7(d)(3) and 7(e)(1) of the International Banking 
Act of 1978 and to Section 15 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (see below). The Dodd -Frank 
Act also introduced important changes in the U.S. financial services regulatory structure: it 
eliminated the Office of Thrift Supervision, and transferred its functions to the Federal Reserve, the 
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency 
(OCC).  The Act also established a Financial Stability Oversight Coun cil (FSOC) to: (i) identify risks 
to the financial stability of the United States that could arise from material financial distress, 
failure or ongoing activities of large, interconnected bank holding companies or nonbank financial 
companies; (ii) promote market discipline; and (iii) respond to emerging threats to the stability of 
the U.S. financial system. The FSOC consists of 10 voting and five non -voting members.66 As 
Table  4.9 shows, f our federal agencies have prudential authority to examine banks, thrif ts, and 
credit unions, two agencies oversee markets for financial contracts (securities and derivatives), 
and two agencies either regulate an activity regardless of the institution or provide prudential 
regulation to non -banks.  
Table 4.9 Federal financial regulators and organizations  
Prudential bank 
regulators  Securities and derivatives 
regulators  Other regulators of 
financial activities  Coordinating forum  
Office of the Comptroller of 
the Currency (OCC)  Secur ities and Exchange 
Commission (SEC)  Federal Housing Finance 
Agency (FHFA)  Financial Stability Oversight 
Council (FSOC)  
Federal Deposit Insurance 
Corporation (FDIC)  Commodit y Futures Trading 
Commission (CFTC)  Consumer Financial 
Protection Bureau (CFPB)  Federal Financial Institutions 
Examinations Council (FFIEC)  
National Credit Union 
Administration (NCUA)    President's Working Group on 
Capital Markets (PWG)  
Federal Reserve Board (FRB, 
or the Fed)     
Source:  CRS document R43087, 30 January  2015. Viewed at:  https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43087.pdf .  
4.55.   The Dodd Frank Act also introduced a framework for the orderly resolution of a large, 
complex, and systemically important financial institution. The largest bank holding companies and 
designated non -bank financial companies are required to submit resolution plans to the Federal 
Reserve and the FDIC.  
4.56.   The FSOC functions as a coordinating forum in charge of facilitating communication and 
coordination amon g member agencies. In fact, in its task of monitoring and addressing overall 
risks to financial stability, the FSOC is authorized to facilitate regulatory coordination among the 
member agencies regarding domestic financial services policy development, rule making, 
examinations, reporting requirements, and enforcement actions, so as to reduce gaps and 
weaknesses within the regulatory structure. It is also authorized to:  (i) facilitate the sharing of 
data and informatio n among the member agencies; (ii ) designa te nonbank financial compani es for 
consolidated supervision ; (iii) designate systemic financial market utilities and systemic payment, 
clearing, or settlement activities, requiring them to meet prescribed risk management standards 
and heightened oversight by the Federal Reserve, the SEC, or the CFTC; (iv) recommend stricter 
standards for the largest, most interconnected firms, and make recommendations to the primary 
financial regulatory agencies for new or heightened regulatory standards; and (v ) break up f irms 
that pose a "grave threat" to financial stability.67 
4.57.   The Dodd-Frank Act also established the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) (an 
independent bureau of the Federal Reserve System), mandated to regulate the offering and 
provision of consumer financial products and services under federal consumer financial protection 
laws. The CFPB supervises insured depository institutions and credit unions with assets greater 
than US$10 billion  to ensure  compliance with federal consumer financial protection l aws and 
regulations, and may take appropriate enforcement action to address violations (Table 4.10).  
                                                
66 The voting members are the Secretary of the Treasury, who serves as the Chairperson of the Council; 
the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System; the Comptroller of the Currency; the 
Director of the Bureau of  Consumer Financial Protection; the Chairman of the Securities and Exchange 
Commission; the Chairperson of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation; the Chairperson of the Commodity 
Futures Trading Commission; the Director of the Federal Housing Finance A gency; the Chairman of the 
National Credit Union Administration; and an independent member with insurance expertise.  
67 U.S. Department of the Treasury online information. Viewed at: 
https://www.treasury.gov/initiatives/fsoc/about/Pages/default.aspx .  WT/TPR/S/350 • Unite d States  
 
- 123 - 
 
  Table 4.10 Federal financial regulators and entities supervised  
Regulatory 
agency  Institutions regulated  Emergency/systemic risk 
powers  Other notable 
authority  
Federal Reserve 
(the Fed)  Bank holding companies and 
certain subsidiaries, financial 
holding companies, securities 
holding companies, savings and 
loan holding companies, and any 
firm designated as system ically 
significant by the FSOC;  
state banks that are members of 
the Federal Reserve Syste m, 
U.S. branches of foreign banks, and 
foreign branches of U.S. banks;  
payment, clearing, and settlement 
systems designated as systemically 
significant by the FSOC, un less 
regulated by SEC or CFTC  Lender of last resort to 
member banks (thr ough 
discount window lending);  
in "unusual circumstances", 
the Fed may extend credit 
beyond member banks, to 
provide liquidity to the 
financial system, but not to 
aid failing financial  firms. 
The Fed may impose 
restrictions or requirements 
on certain firms that pose a 
grave threat to financial 
stability (requires 
concurrence of two thirds of 
the FSOC)  Numerous 
market -level 
regulatory 
authorities, such as 
checking services, 
lending marke ts, 
and o ther 
banking -related 
activities  
Office of the 
Comptroller of 
the Currency 
(OCC)  National banks, federally chartered 
savings associations, and federal 
branches and agencies of foreign 
banks    
Federal Deposit 
Insurance 
Corporation 
(FDIC)  Federally  insured depository 
institutions, including state banks 
and thrifts that are not members of 
the Federal Reserve System  Resolution authority for 
failed insured depository 
institutions under the FDI 
Act and certain non -bank 
financial companies under 
Title II  of the Dodd -Frank 
Act Operates a deposit 
insurance fund for 
federally and state 
chartered banks and 
thrift 
National Credit 
Union 
Administration 
(NCUA)  Federally chartered or insured 
credit unions  Serves as a liquidity lender 
to credit unions experiencing  
liquidity shortfalls through 
the Central Liquidity Facility  Operates a deposit 
insurance fund for 
credit unions, known 
as the National 
Credit Union Share 
Insurance Fund 
(NCUSIF)  
Securities and 
Exchange 
Commission 
(SEC)  Securities exchanges, brokers, and 
dealers; clearing agencies; mutual 
funds; investment advisers 
(including hedge funds with assets 
over US$150 million);  
nationally recognized rating 
organizations;  
security -based swap (SBS) dealers, 
major SBS participants and 
execution facilities;  
corporati ons selling securities to 
the public must register and make 
financial disclosures  May unilaterally close 
markets or suspend trading 
strategies for limited period  Authorized to set 
financial accounting 
standards which all 
publicly traded firms 
must use  
Commodity 
Futures Trading 
Commission 
(CFTC)  Futures exchanges, brokers, 
commodity pool operators, and 
commodity trading advisors;   
swap dealers, major swap 
participants, and swap execution 
facilities  May suspend trading, order 
liquidation of positions 
during market emergencies   
Federal Housing 
Finance Agency 
(FHFA)  Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the 
Federal Home Loan Banks  Acting as conservator (since 
Sept.  2008) for Fannie Mae 
and Freddie Mac   
Consumer 
Financial 
Protection Bureau 
(CFPB)  Non-bank mortgage -related firms, 
private student lenders, payday 
lenders, and larger "consumer 
financial entities" to be determined 
by the Bureau;  
consumer businesses of banks with 
over US$10 billion in assets   Writes rules to carry 
out the federal 
consumer financial 
protection  laws 
Source:  Information provided by the authorities.  WT/TPR/S/350 • United States  
 
- 124 - 
 
  4.58.   The Dodd -Frank Act established the Treasury's Federal In surance Office  (FIO) and  vested  it 
with the authority to monitor all aspects of the insurance sect or, and to  represent the 
United  States on pru dential aspects of international insurance matters.  In addition, the FIO serves 
as an advisory member of the FSOC, and advises the Treasury Secretary on important national 
and international insurance matters.68 In the case of derivatives reform, the Dodd -Frank Act 
granted the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Commodity Futures Trading 
Commission (CFTC) authority to regulate over -the-counter (OTC) derivatives, including the 
clearing, reporting, and trading of certain products and the entities t hat buy and sell them. The Act 
mandated that certain OTC derivatives be traded on regulated exchanges or trading platforms and 
required that banks that were insured deposit ory institutions spin -off their riskiest derivatives 
trading operations into affilia tes. 
4.59.   Section 619 of the Dodd -Frank Act, known as the "Volcker Rule" , prohibits banking entities 
from engaging in  proprietary trading of any security, derivative s, and certain other financial 
instruments for a banking entity's own account, subject to certai n exceptions to the definition of 
proprietary trading and permitted activity exemptions.69 In addition, it prohibits banking entities 
from acquiring or retaining any equity, partnership, or other ownership interest in or from 
sponsoring a hedge fund or priv ate equity fund  (covered fund) , subject to certain exceptions to the 
definitions of covered fund and certain permitted activity exemptions.70 The Volcker Rule  
regulations were approved on 10 December 2013, by four federal agencies ( the Board of 
Governors  of the Federal Reserve System , the FDIC, the OCC, and the SEC ). Revised final 
regulations were approved on 1 January 2014 . The rules  in most cases went into effect on 
1 April 2014, with banks' full compliance requ ired by 21 July 2015.  The Dodd -Frank Act grants the 
Federal Reserve  authority  to extend the Volcker Rule 's conformance p eriod for "legacy covered 
funds"  for up to three years, pursuant to three sequential one -year blanket extensions. The 
Federal Reserve gr anted the final of these three -year-long extensions on 7 July 2016, which 
moves the general legacy covered funds conformance deadline to 21 July 2017.  
4.60.   Regarding international arrangements, the Basel III Accord was agreed upon in 
September  2010 by global ba nk regulators, including those of the United States. Among other 
provisions, it has led large internationally active banks to hold significantly more and higher quality 
capital, as well as build stronger liquidity reserves. The Fed supported these standard s and 
required large banks to implement new rules by 2019. In September 2014, U.S. banking 
regulators finalized rules to implement the Liquidity Coverage Ratio in the United States, creating 
for the first time a standardized minimum liquidity requirement f or large , internationally active 
banking organizations. These institutions will be required to hold minimum amounts of 
high-quality, liquid assets such as central bank reserves and government and corporate debt that 
can be converted quickly and easily into  cash. The minimum liquidity requirements for systemically 
important, non -bank financial companies designated by the FSOC will be established at a later 
date.71 
4.61.   In July 2013, the Federal Reserve Board finalized a rule to implement Basel III capital rules 
in the United States, a package of regulatory reforms designed to help ensure that banks maintain 
strong capital positions that will enable them to continue lending to creditworthy households and 
businesses even after unforeseen losses and during severe econ omic downturns.72 This final rule 
                                                
68 Department of the Treasury online information. Viewed at: 
https://ww w.treasury.gov/about/organizational -structure/offices/Pages/Federal -Insurance.aspx .  
69 The definition of "banking entities" includes insured depository institutions, bank holding companies, 
and their subsidiaries or affiliates. It also includes foreign ba nks that maintain branches or agencies in the 
United States or that own U.S. banks or commercial lending companies in the United States. The exemptions 
to the ban on proprietary trading include trading transactions in government securities; and transaction s in 
connection with underwriting or market -making, on behalf of customers by an insurance company solely for 
the general account of the company. Additionally, certain risk -mitigating hedging is allowed under the Act, as 
well as proprietary trading occurri ng solely outside of the United States and conducted by a banking entity not 
directly or indirectly controlled by a banking entity organized under U.S. federal or state laws.  
70 Despite the general prohibition, a banking entity may make a " de minimis " inves tment in a fund it 
advises, to provide the fund sufficient initial equity to attract unaffiliated investors. This investment may not 
exceed 3% of total ownership interest of the fund within one year of the date of its establishment and the 
aggregate of all  of the interests of the banking entity in all such funds may not exceed 3% of its Tier 1 capital.  
71 Federal Reserve online information. Viewed at: 
http://www.federalreserve. gov/newsevents/press/bcreg/20131024a.htm .  
72 Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System online information. Viewed at: 
http://www.federalreserve.gov/bankinforeg/basel/default .htm.  WT/TPR/S/350 • Unite d States  
 
- 125 - 
 
  increases both the quantity and quality of capital held by U.S. banking organizations.  It sets a new 
minimum ratio of common equity tier 1 capital to risk -weighted assets of 4.5 % and a common 
equity tier 1 capital conservat ion buffer of 2.5 % of risk -weighted assets that will apply to all 
supervised financial institutions. The rule also raises the minimum ratio of tier 1 capital to 
risk-weighted assets from 4 % to 6% and includes a minimum leverage ratio of 4 % for all ba nking 
organizations, as well as a ratio of total  capital to risk -weighted assets (total  capital ratio) of 8 %. 
In September 2016 the Federal Reserve Board issued a final rule , allowing implementation of a 
counter -cyclical capital buffer, to range from 0% to 2.5% of risk -weighted assets, when authorities 
determine credit growth is resulting in unacceptable systemic risk. The final rules came out on 
16 September 2016, and came into effect on 14 October 2016, to be implemented through 2019.73 
These rules do not apply to branches.  
4.62.   For large, internationally active banking organizations, the final rule includes a new 
minimum supplementary leverage ratio that takes into account a broader set of exposures , 
including  off-balance sheet exposures . The final rule contains prov isions that emphasize the 
importance of the  quality of common equity tier 1 capital and implements strict eligibility criteria 
for regulatory capital instruments. The final rule also improves the methodology for calculating 
risk-weighted assets to enhance risk sensitivity.74 
4.63.   Under Section 113 of the Dodd -Frank Act, the FSOC may determine that a U.S. or a foreign 
non-bank financial company is a systemically important financial institution (SIFI) that should be 
subject to supervision by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and to prudential 
standards with respect to financial activities if the company's material financial distress or the 
nature or mix of its activities could pose a threat to the financial stability of the United States. The 
FSOC  reconsiders its designations annually; it issued a final rule and interpretative guidance 
regarding the application of Section 113 requirements on 3 April 2012.75 In an effort to increase 
transparency, the FSOC issued on 4 February 2015 supplemental proced ures relating to nonbank 
financial company determinations.76 Section 165 of the Act also subjects bank holding companies 
(U.S. and foreign) with more than US$50 billion in assets to enhanced supervision and prudential 
standards. A company will be subject to  additional review if it meets both the US$50 billion size 
threshold and any one of the other thresholds (US$30 billion in gross notional credit default swaps 
outstanding for which a company is the reference entity; US$3.5 billion of derivative liabilities ; 
US$20 billion in total debt outstanding; 15 to 1 leverage ratio of total consolidated assets to total 
equity; and 10% short -term debt ratio of total debt outstanding with a maturity of less than 
12 months to total consolidated assets).  
4.2.1.3   Consolidated finan cial sector regulation  
4.64.   The main law regulating the consolidated financial sector is the Gramm -Leach -Bliley Act 
(Financial Services Modernization) of  1999 (GLBA). Under the GLBA, domestic and foreign banks 
are allowed to affiliate  with entities that engage in other activities that are financial in nature or 
incidental or complementary to a financial activity, provided certain capital and managerial 
standards are met. A U.S. bank may affiliate with other financial services companies by setting up 
a bank holdi ng company (BHC) under the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (BHCA) unless they 
                                                
73 Federal Reserve online information. Viewed at: 
https://www.federalregis ter.gov/documents/2016/09/16/2016 -21970/regulatory -capital -rules-the-federal -
reserve -boards -framework -for-implementing -the-us-basel-iii.  
74 Federal Register Vol. 78, No. 198, 11 October 2013. Viewed at: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR -
2013-10-11/pdf/2013 -21653.pdf .  
75 FSOC online information, "Final Rule and Interpretive Guidance on the Authority to Require 
Supervision and Regulation of Certain Nonbank Financial Companies". Vie wed at: 
http://www.treasury.gov/initiatives/fsoc/Documents/Nonbank%20Designations%20 -
%20Final%20Rule%20and%20Guidance.pdf . The FSOC must consider six categories in evaluating whether a 
non-bank financial company should be subject to enhanced supervision: size, interconnectedness, 
substitutability, leverage, liquidity risk and maturity mismatch, and existing regulatory scrutiny. T he first three 
relate to the potential impact of a company's financial distress on the broader economy; and the others relate 
to the vulnerability of a company to financial distress.  
76 FSOC online information, "Supplemental Procedures Relating to Nonbank F inancial Company 
Determinations." Viewed at: 
https://www.tre asury.gov/initiatives/fsoc/designations/Documents/Supplemental%20Procedures%20Related%
20to%20Nonbank%20Financial%20Company%20Determinations%20 -%20February%202015.pdf .  WT/TPR/S/350 • United States  
 
- 126 - 
 
  have U.S. non -branch assets of US$50 billion or more.77 The GLBA amended the BHCA to allow 
foreign banks to seek an exemption to the BHCA requirement that certain banks set up ho lding 
companies. Instead of setting up as a BHC, a foreign banking organization may elect to become a 
financial holding company, or FHC. Such FHCs may control banking, securities, or insurance firms, 
and may engage in additional activities that are financi al in nature,  with some exceptions, subject 
to prior approval by the Federal Reserve in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury.78 The 
BHCA does not permit BHCs and FHCs to own non -financial corporations other than through 
FHC-authorized merchant ba nking activities. Securities and insurance companies can become FHCs 
by acquiring a bank, provided they meet certain criteria. In July 2016, 511 bank holding 
companies were being treated as FHCs, including 48  foreign banks.79 
4.65.   The Federal Reserve supervises and regulates large consolidated banking institutions that 
include BHCs, FHCs, and foreign branches and agencies of foreign banks. The Financial Stability 
Oversight Council (FSOC)  provides comprehensive monitoring of the stability of the U.S. financial 
system. As it carries out its statutory mission, established by the Dodd -Frank Act, to identify 
financial stability risks, promote market discipline, and respond to emerging threats, the FSOC and 
its member agencies continuously monitor potential risks to fin ancial stability in the banking 
sector. The FSOC may determine that certain financial companies should be subject to supervision 
by the Federal Reserve and make recommendations concerning prudential standards that should 
apply to those companies, but the F SOC does not regulate or supervise any market participant. 
The activities of subsidiaries  of FHCs are regulated by the appropriate regulator: the Office of the 
Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) in the case of national banks; a state banking agency and the 
Federal Reserve or Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) in the case of state -chartered 
banks; the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in the case of securities firms; and a state 
insurance commission in the case of insurance companies.   
4.66.   During  the review period, the Federal Reserve continued to implement a Bank Holding 
Company Rating System , in place since 1 January 2005 under which each inspected BHC is 
assigned a composite rating based on an evaluation of the BHC's managerial and financial 
condition and an assessment of future potential risk to its subsidiary depository institutions. The 
composite component and subcomponent ratings are assigned to BHCs on the basis of a numeric 
scale, from  5 (lowest) to 1 (highest).80 This composite rating is t he basis to classify a BHC or FHC 
as "well managed".  
4.2.1.4   Banking services  
4.67.   Banking sector supervision in the United States is the responsibility of a number of federal 
and state regulators. The Federal Reserve Board (FRB), the OCC, the FDIC, and the state 
regulators all play a role in supervising the operations of foreign banks in the United States. The 
OCC charters, regulates, and supervises all national banks and federally -chartered savings 
associations and also supervises the federal branches and agencies of  foreign banks, as well as the 
international activities of U.S. national banks. The FDIC insures deposits and is the primary federal 
regulator for state -chartered  institutions that are not members of the Federal Reserve System. 
State regulators are organiz ed in the Conference of State Bank Supervisors (CSBS).81 The banking 
regulators are members of the FSOC, as are other financial service regulators and representatives.  
4.68.   The United  States maintains a general policy of national treatment towards the 
U.S. branches, agencies, securities affiliates, and other operations of foreign banks. U.S. bank 
subsidiaries of foreign banks are treated in the same manner as domestically -owned banks, while 
branches of foreign banks are granted similar powers (excluding acceptan ce of retail deposits 
                                                
77 Federal Reserve Press Release, 18 February 2014. Viewed at: 
https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/bcreg/20140218a.htm .  
78 The exceptions are insurance underwriting, merchant banking, insurance company portfolio 
investments, and real estate develop ment and investment. A U.S. bank that meets specified prudential 
standards may establish financial subsidiaries to engage in certain financial activities. The aggregate assets of 
all financial subsidiaries must not exceed 45% of the parent bank's assets or  US$50 billion, whichever is less.  
79 Federal Reserve online information. Viewed at: 
https://www.federalreserve.gov/bankinforeg/fhc.htmhttp://ww w.federalreserve.gov/generalinfo/fhc/ .  
80 Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (2015), BHC Supervision Manual , January. Viewed 
at: https://www.federalreserve.gov/ boarddocs/supmanual/bhc/4000p2.pdf .  
81 CSBS online information. Viewed at: https://www.csbs.org .  WT/TPR/S/350 • Unite d States  
 
- 127 - 
 
  unless grandfathered) and are subject to supervision similar to domestic banks. Agencies of 
foreign banks, however, may not accept deposits from U.S. citizens or residents.   
4.69.   The United States made GATS commitments in market access and  national treatment for all 
subsectors included in the Annex on Financial Services, and in line with the Understanding on 
Commitments in Financial Services.82 Although geographic and other limitations are applied to 
foreign banks and foreign -owned bank subs idiaries generally on a national treatment basis , the 
U.S. GATS Schedule has reserved against national treatment for some measures. For example, 
foreign banks cannot be members of the Federal Reserve System, although foreign -owned 
U.S. bank subsidiaries ar e not subject to this limitation. Also, foreign ownership of Edge 
corporations is limited to foreign banks and U.S. subsidiaries of foreign banks, while domestic 
non-bank firms may own such corporations.  
4.70.   The United States maintains standard  maximum deposit  insurance through the Federal 
Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) . The amount in 2016 is US$250,000 per depositor, per 
insured bank, for each account ownership category.83 
4.71.   Foreign banks may establish a commercial presence in the U.S. market either by 
establishing federal or state -licensed branches and agencies, or representative offices, or by 
establishing or acquiring a national or state subsidiary bank. In order to accept or maintain 
domestic retail deposits of less than an amount equal to the standard m aximum deposit insurance 
amount (currently US$250,000), a foreign bank must establish an insured banking subsidiary, 
except in the case of a foreign bank branch which was already engaged in insured deposit -taking 
activities before or on 19 December 1991. B ranches of foreign banks are generally not required to 
commit organizational capital at the federal level and in some States that allow branches, although 
federal branches and agencies are required to establish and maintain a capital equivalency deposit.  
4.72.   The International Banking Act of 1978 (IBA), governs the operations of foreign banks in the 
United States. The IBA provides for the granting of national treatment to foreign banks and offers 
them the option of establishing federally -licensed branches and ag encies in addition to 
state-licensed offices.  Section 173 of the Dodd -Frank Act (Access to United States financial market 
by foreign institutions) introduced modifications to Sections  7(d)(3) and 7(e)(1) of the IBA an d to 
Section 15 of the Securities Excha nge Act of 1934 (see below). The amended I BA now explicitly 
requires the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, when considering an application 
for establishment of a U.S. office of a foreign bank that presents a risk to the stability of the 
U.S. financial system, to consider whether the home country of the foreign bank has adopted, or is 
making demonstrable progress toward adopting, an appropriate system of financial regulation to 
mitigate such risk. The new amendments also allow the Board to or der the termination of the 
activities of U.S. offices of such foreign banks in the absence of these criteria . 
4.73.   U.S. law permits interstate branching, whether by merger or by the de novo  establishment 
of branches, subject to relevant restrictions. Domestic b anks, including those owned by a foreign 
bank, may enter into an interstate merge subject to certain requirements. Interstate expansion by 
a foreign bank through the establishment of branches by merger with another foreign bank that 
has branches located ou tside the home state of the initial foreign bank is allowed as long as it is 
permitted under 12 U.S.C. 36(g), which applies to the interstate branching of national banks.84 All 
states have introduced legislation to give effect to the branching by merger pro visions of the 
Riegle -Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Act (RNIBBA) of 1994. Also, certain size limitations 
are applied on a non -discriminatory basis: the merged bank may not control more than 10% of the 
total deposits of insured depository institutio ns in the United States, and limits on the total 
deposits of the merged bank within a state apply as well. The Dodd -Frank Act clarified the 
remaining limitations in this area.  
                                                
82 WTO document GATS/EL/90/Suppl.3, 26 February 1998.  
83 FDIC online information. Viewed at: https://www.fdic.gov/deposit/deposits/ .  
84 Under 12 U.S.C. 36(g), in general, the Comptroller of the Currency may approve an application by a 
national bank to establish and operate a de novo  branch in a State (other than the bank' s home State) in 
which the bank does not maintain a branch if the law of the State in which the branch is located, or is to be 
located, would permit establishment of the branch, if the national bank were a State bank chartered by such 
State; and if the app lication by a national bank to establish and operate a de novo  branch in a host State is 
subject to the same requirements and conditions to which an application for an interstate merger transaction is 
subject.  WT/TPR/S/350 • United States  
 
- 128 - 
 
  4.74.   Initial entry into the U.S. market through the establishment or acquisition of a  nationally 
chartered bank subsidiary by a foreign person is permitted in all states but there are commercial 
presence limitatio ns which vary according to the state. Initial entry or expansion by a foreign 
person (but not a domestic person) through acquisi tion or establishment of a state -chartered 
commercial bank subsidiary is prohibited or limited in 22 states. There are some other limitations 
at the state level: for example, branch licences for foreign banks are not available in four states.85 
Representati ve offices of foreign banks are not permitted in 12 states, and are subject to 
limitations in Oklahoma, while some states require the incorporation of representative offices.86 
Some states also place limitations on the acquisition by a foreign person of sav ings banks or loan 
associations (Tennessee and Washington).  
4.75.   Banks are subject to lending limit regulations that restrict the total amount of loans and 
credits that a bank may extend to a single borrower. For example, a national bank generally must 
limit it s total outstanding loans and credits to any single borrower to no more than 15% of the 
bank's total capital and surplus. Some state banking regulations also contain similar lending limits 
applicable to state -chartered banks.   
4.76.   The GLBA , as amended , provide s that "well capitalized" and "well managed" standards 
comparable to those applied to U.S. bank holding companies and banks , be applied to foreign 
banks operating a branch or agency in the United States, and any holding companies of those 
foreign banks. Fo reign banks are deemed well managed based on similar assessments of their 
U.S. operations, along with other criteria. For foreign banks whose home country supervisors have 
adopted risk -based capital standards consistent with the Basel Accord, the "well cap italized " 
standard is based on specified capital ratios and whether the foreign bank's capital is comparable 
to a U.S. bank owned by a FHC. Other foreign banks are assessed under the comparable capital 
standard. Bank transactions with affiliates are subjec t to some statutory restrictions.87 
4.77.   The Dodd -Frank Act made some amendments to banking regulations relative to mergers. 
More specifically, Section 604(d) of the Act amends Section 3(c) of the Bank Holding Company Act 
of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)), making it m andatory for the Federal Reserve Board, when 
considering a proposed acquisition, merger or consolidation, to "take into consideration the extent 
to which a proposed acquisition, merger, or consolidation would result in greater or more 
concentrated risks to  the stability of the United States banking or financial system".  
4.78.   In June 2016 , 33 U.S.-based bank holding companies passed "stress tests" to measure the 
performance of banks' regulatory capital in a hypothetical highly distressed economic scenario, 
marked  by falling economic output and share prices, along with soaring joblessness and inflation. 
This is the sixth round of stress tests led by the Federal Reserve since 2009, and the fourth  round 
under rules required by the Dodd -Frank Act. The 3 3 firms tested represent more than 80 % of 
domestic banking assets.88 
4.2.1.5   Insurance  services  
4.79.   As per the McCarran -Ferguson Act of 1945 (U.S. Code Title 15, Chapter 20), U.S. regulation 
of the insurance services sector takes place primarily at the state level, as insurance is ex empt 
from Federal antitrust statutes to the extent that it is regulated by the states. The GLB Act 
confirms the power of the states to regulate insurance activities, and specifies 13 areas of state 
insurance regulation that may not be pre -empted by federal  law. Although it does not have 
regulatory powers, the Treasury's Federal Insurance Office  (FIO) monitor s the insurance sector, 
and represen ts the United States on prudential aspects of international insurance matters.  The 
insurance sector is also subject to the general oversight of the FSOC.  
                                                
85Georgia, Louisiana, Missouri, and Oklahoma.  
86 Representative offices of foreign banks are not permitted in Arizona; Arkansas; Kansas; Montana; 
North Dakota; Rhode Island; South Carolina; South Dakota; Tennessee; Virginia; Wisconsin; and Wyoming.  
87 The restrictions are contained in sections 23A and 23 B of the Federal Reserve Act, and implemented 
through FRB's Regulation W. Section 23A limits a Federal Reserve System member bank's covered transactions 
with any single affiliate to no more than 10% of the bank's capital stock and surplus, and transactions  with all 
affiliates combined to no more than 20%. Section 23B requires that certain transactions between a bank and 
its affiliates occur on market terms.  
88 Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (2016), Dodd-Frank Act Stress Test 2016: 
Superviso ry Stress Test Methodology and Results . Viewed at: 
https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/bcreg/bcreg20160623a1.pdf .  WT/TPR/S/350 • Unite d States  
 
- 129 - 
 
  4.80.   Insurance companies, agents, and brokers must be licensed under the law of the state in 
which the risk they intend to insure is located, and are authorized to offer insurance services only 
in the state in which  they ar e licensed. In addition, in most states, insurers must obtain approval 
from state regulators for their premium rates. There are differences in licensing requirements 
across states and by line of insurance, although the trend in recent years has been to ado pt a 
more uniform approach (see below).  
4.81.   Establishment conditions vary across states. In general terms, the U.S. direct insurance 
market is open to foreign direct investment through acquisition of an insurance company licensed 
in a given state. In most stat es, market access for foreign companies can also be done by 
incorporation in a State as a subsidiary of a foreign insurance company; the exceptions are 
Minnesota, Mississippi, and Tennessee. Foreign companies enter the market as a licensed branch 
in 37 sta tes and the District of Columbia. If this form of incorporation is chosen, operations in 
principle are limited to writing premiums based on the capital deposited in each state where the 
company intends to do business. However, in practice this requirement is often waived, 
particularly if the applicant has a qualifying deposit in another State.  
4.82.   Foreign investors in the insurance sector are liable for the full amount of their U.S. assets, 
and not just for their assets in a particular State. Although insurers must be licensed in a state to 
conduct insurance business within and across its borders, some residency requirement exceptions 
exist, which vary from state to state. For instance, several states exempt certain large industrial 
placements, MAT (marine, avia tion, or transport insurance) or "surplus lines" insurance from 
residency requirements.89  
4.83.   Under certain specific conditions and with some exceptions, foreign reinsurers may write 
insurance in the United  States even when not licensed in a particular State.  When they conduct 
cross-border reinsurance businesses with U.S. companies, foreign reinsurers are required to make 
a trust account deposit in the United States for the whole of the operation equivalent, or to submit 
a letter of credit for collateral.  
4.84.   In-state residency requirements apply in most states to brokers and suppliers of other 
services auxiliary to insurance.  
4.85.   A federal tax on gross premium income is charged at a rate of 1% on all life insurance and 
on reinsurance, and at 4%, on non -life insurance p remiums covering U.S. risks paid to companies 
not incorporated under U.S. law, or under the laws of countries with which the United  States has 
double taxation treaties. A national treatment exception for this measure was listed in the 
U.S. GATS Schedule.  
4.86.   As noted above, the trend in recent years has been to reinforce interstate coordination. 
State regulators coordinate positions through their participation in bodies such as the National 
Conference of Insurance Legislators (NCOIL) and the National Associatio n of Insurance 
Commissioners (NAIC). The NCOIL is an organization of state legislators that has as its  main area 
of public policy concern insurance legislation and regulation .90 All states are NCOIL members. The 
purpose of the NCOIL is "to help legislators make informed decisions on insurance issues  that 
affect their constituents and to declare opposition to Federal encroachment of state authority to 
oversee the business of insurance, as authorized under the McCarran -Ferguson Act of 1945" . In 
that sense, the  NCOIL is an opponent of Congressional initiatives that may pre -empt state laws.91 
The NCOIL promotes an interface among state legislat ors and aims at contributing to the 
improvement the quality of insurance regulation.  
4.87.   The NAIC is  the U.S. standard -setting  and regulatory support organization created and 
governed by the chief insurance regulators from the 50 states, the District of Columbia  and five 
U.S. territories, and provides a forum for the development of uniform policy when appropriate.92 
                                                
89 Surplus line insurance policies are t hose that protect against a financial risk that is too high for 
regular insurance. They can be purchased from an insurer not licensed in the insured's state, but licensed in 
the state where it is based. They are also sold through insurance agents, who must  have a surplus lines license 
to sell a surplus lines policy.  
90 NCOIL online information. Viewed at: http://www.ncoil.org/ .  
91 NCOIL online information. Viewed at: http://ncoil.org/history -purpose/ .  
92 NAIC online information. Viewed at: http://www.naic.org/index_about.htm .  WT/TPR/S/350 • United States  
 
- 130 - 
 
  Through the NA IC, state insurance regulators establish standards and best practices, conduct peer 
review, and coordinate their regulatory oversight. The NAIC repr esents the collective views of 
state regulators domestically and  internationally  and its mission is to assis t state insurance 
regulators, individually and collectively, in achieving fundamental insurance regulatory goals . NAIC 
members form the national system of state -based insurance regulation in the U nited States.  
4.88.   The NAIC plays a substantial role in the acro ss-state standardization of regulatory 
requirements through the development of model laws. To this end, the NAIC adopted the Producer 
Licensing Model Act (PLMA) in 2000, which serves as the primary vehicle for states to achieve 
reciprocity, and to take maj or steps toward reaching uniformity. The PLMA provides for 
streamlined administrative licensing requirements, reciprocity for surplus lines and limited lines 
producers, and creates uniform standards for key areas of producer licensing.  The PLMA also 
creates a uniform application process for both resident and non -resident applications and 
establishes uniform definitions for the six major lines of insurance  (life, a ccident and  health, 
property, c asualty, variable life and v ariable annuity, and p ersonal  lines).  
4.89.   In December 2002, the NAIC adopted the Uniform Resident  Licensing Standards to 
harmonize licensing procedures. Currently, 54 (out of 56) jurisdictions process resident and 
non-resident licen ces electronically. Also, t he majority of states have  changed f rom using varying 
applications to using the NAIC Uniform Application for both individuals  and business entities and  
47 jurisdictions have been certified as reciprocal  under the 2002 reciprocity standard. More 
recently, the  NAIC has established an enhanced "NAIC Reciprocity Standard", which has been 
adopted by 40 jurisdictions . 
4.90.   The NAIC has also participated in other uniformity initiatives, such as the System for 
Electronic Rate and Form Filing, (SERFF); all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico a nd 
over 3,400 insurance companies, third -party filers, rating organizations and other companies 
accept SERFF filings.  
4.91.   To promote harmonization of legislation and procedures across states, in 2002 the NAIC 
developed a state -based system, the Interstate Insu rance Product Regulation Compact , which  
aims at developing uniform standards and a central clearinghouse to provide prompt review and 
regulatory approval for life insurance products.93 The Compact , which has been adopted by 
40 states and Puerto Rico to date , employs a set of uniform standards and established in 200 6 a 
multi-state public entity, the Interstate Insurance Product Regulation Commission (IIPRC) . The 
IIPRC provides the states with a vehicle to develop uniform national product standards in life and  
long-term care insurance products, establish a central point of filing for these insurance products, 
and review product filings and make regulatory decisions according to uniform standards .  
4.92.   The NAIC Market Actions Working Group (MAWG) is the national for um to identify and 
address issues of multistate concern and for states to coordinate multistate regulatory actions, 
including market conduct examinations. The goal is to improve market oversight through better 
interstate coordination.  
4.93.   The GLB Act introduc ed uniformity or reciprocity requirements for agents and brokers 
among the states, requiring states to enact uniform laws and regulations or a system of reciprocal 
licensing by 12  November  2002, failing which a National Association of Registered Agents and  
Brokers (NARAB) would be created, triggering federal pre -emption of state licensing laws. As a 
response, all states except New  Mexico, plus Guam, passed the Producer Licensing Model Act 
(PLMA) or other licensing laws. Through NAIC's Uniform Treatment/Lice nsing Reciprocity project, 
participating states agree to  license non -resident producers  that are in good standing in their 
resident states, without imposing additional restrictions or qualifications not required of resident 
producers.  
4.94.   Under the Terrorism R isk Insurance Act of 2002 (TRIA), the U.S. Government pays 85% of 
the insured losses of an insurer resulting from acts of terrorism, subject to prior payment of a 
deductible (20% of the prior year's earned premiums in commercial lines). The Government's 
share of industry losses is capped at an annual aggregate maximum of US$100 billion. Also, the 
Government does not share in any losses if industry -wide insured losses do not first exceed 
                                                
93 An interstate compact is a contract between states that allows them to cooperate on multi -state or 
national issues while retaining state control. Interstate compacts are mentioned in the U.S. Constitution.  WT/TPR/S/350 • Unite d States  
 
- 131 - 
 
  US$100  million. The program me was initially introduced for a three -year period , from 
22 November  2002 to 31  December  2005; it was subsequently extended to 31 December 2007 by 
the Terrorism Insurance Extension Act of 2005, and was extended again until 31 December 2014 
by the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program Reauthorization Act  of 2007. Companies licensed in a 
U.S. state may benefit from the provisions of the Act, as well as non -licensed companies that are 
an eligible surplus line carrier listed on the Quarterly Listing of Alien Insurers of the NAIC, or have 
been approved for th e purpose of offering proper ty and casualty insurance by a federal agency in 
connection with maritime, energy, or aviation activities. Participating insurers are required to make 
terrorism insurance available to policyholders. Insurers pay no premiums for TRIA reinsurance; 
instead, federal payments are later collected through surcharges assessed on all commercial 
policyholders.  
4.95.   On 12 January 2015, the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2015 
(Reauthorization Act) was si gned into law (Pu blic Law 114 -1). In addition to reauthorizing TRIA 
until 31 December 2020, the Reauthorization Act included several reforms to the Terrorism Risk 
Insurance Program. In February 2015, the Federal Insurance Office (FIO) published Interim 
Guidance Concerning the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program . In April 2015, the FIO created the 
Advisory Committee on Risk -Sharing Mechanisms , to provide advice and recommendations to the 
Treasury Department with respect to the creation and development of nongovernmental, privat e 
market risk -sharing mechanisms for protection  against losses arising from acts of terrorism.  
4.96.   During the period under review, the U.S. insurance industry continued to report consecutive 
years of a moderately good financial performance, despite relative ly low investment yields that 
reflect low interest rates. Life insurance sector premiums rebounded in 2014 after a small decline 
in 2013. Property and casualty (P&C) sector premiums continued to grow in 2014, reaching a 
record -high level of total volume. All in all, the sector was profitable in 2014, but net income and 
return on average equity were below 2013 levels. However, taking into account retained earnings, 
the insurance business capital and surplus reached a record -high level at the end of 2014.94 
4.97.   The life insurance market remains noticeably concentrated in the United States, with the top 
ten firms accounting for about 54.5 % of the US$590.6 billion  total premiums in 2014. The largest 
provider of life  insurance is Metropolitan Life  with 16.1% out of the t otal, followed by Prudential of 
America Group with 7.6% (Table 4.11). All of these top life insurers , with the exception of Aegon 
US Holding Group  (Neth erlands) and Jackson National ( United Kingdom ), are domestically owned . 
Table 4.11 Top 10 life insurers, 2014  
(US$ million and %)  
Insurer  Direct premiums  written  
National total (US$ million)  590,582  
 (% of total)  
Metropolitan Life Group  16.1 
Prudential of America Group  7.6 
New York Life Group  4.8 
Jackson N ational Group  4.5 
Aegon US Holding Group  4.3 
Lincoln National Group  4.1 
American International Group  3.9 
Principal Financial Group  3.2 
Manulife Financial Corp.  3.1 
Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Co  2.9 
Total 10  54.5 
Source:  FIO (2015), Annual  Report on the Insurance Industry  (September 2015) . Viewed at: 
https://www.treasury.gov/initiatives/fio/reports -and-
notices/Documen ts/2015%20FIO%20Annual%20Report_Final.pdf . 
4.98.   The accident and health insurance group is also quite concentrated: the top ten companies 
combined account for 71.3% of the US$166.1  billion  total direct premiums. Four companies: 
UnitedHealth Group Inc. (26.1%),  Aetna Inc. (13.9%), Aflac Inc. (8.8%) and Cigna Corp (8.1%), 
                                                
94 Federal Insurance Office (2015), Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (September 2015) . Viewed 
at: https://www.treasury.gov/initiatives/fio/reports -and-
notices/Documents/2015%20FIO%20Annual%20Report_Final.pdf .  WT/TPR/S/350 • United States  
 
- 132 - 
 
  account for 56.9% of premiums .95 The non -life market is less concentrated, with the 10 largest 
companies capturing 45.4% of premiums. This is a result of the divest iture of  numerous units of 
Amer ican International Group (AIG)  – previously the larg est firm –in the wake of the financial 
crisis. To date, major insurers include State Farm, Liberty Mutual, and Allstate (Table 4.12).  
Table 4.12 Top 10 P&C i nsurers, 2014  
(US$ million and %)  
Insurer  Direct premiums written  
National total ( US$ million)  569,059  
 (% of total)  
State Farm Group  10.3 
Liberty Mutual Group  5.2 
Allstate Insurance Group  5.1 
Berkshire Hathaway Group  4.7 
Travelers Companies Inc . Group 4.0 
Nationwide Corp Group  3.4 
Progressive Group  3.3 
American International Group  3.3 
Farmers Insurance Group  3.3 
USAA Group  2.8 
Total 10  45.4 
Source:  FIO (2015), Annual Report on the Insurance Industry  (September 2015) . Viewed at: 
https://www.treasury.gov/initiatives/fio/reports -and-
notices/Documents/2015%20FIO%20Annual%20Report_Final.pdf . 
4.99.   In the aftermath of the financial  crisis, the Financial Stability Board ( FSB) and  the 
International Association of Insurance Supervisors (IAIS) developed a process to assess insurers'  
systemic risk, and to recommend polic y measures designed to prevent failure s in the sector.  
Through this process, th e FSB identifies  insurers that i t believes could become insolvent and fail in 
a disorderly manner, and have a negative impact  on the stability of the global financial system . In 
July 2013, the FSB identified a list of nine multinational insurance groups it considers to be global 
systemically important insurers (G -SIIs), including three based in the U nited States  (AIG, M etlife, 
and Prudential Financial ).96 The G -SII list  is updated annually, based on information provided by 
the IAIS and published by the FSB each November. The FSB and IAIS have develop ed a 
framework of policy measures t o be applied to G -SIIs, including  enhanced supervision, effective 
resolution, and higher  loss absorbency. In 2014, there were no changes to the list and the FSB 
decided to postpone a decision on the G -SII status of reinsurers, pending further development of 
the me thodology. The FSB published the new G -SII list in November  2015. The list is again 
composed of a total of nine insurers ; not all are the same insu rers as in the previous years. The 
FSB's G-SII list is advisory.  
4.100.   In the context of a prolonged period of low interest rates, the industry has continued  to 
consolidate, with many firm s exiting the market, and a few firms failing. According to a recent 
assessment by the IMF, in an effort to diversify their sources of yield, some insurers have recently 
undertaken investments with a higher risk with the goal of higher yield, such as investing  more in 
private equity, hedge funds, longer duration and lower -rated  corporate bonds, and real 
estate -related assets. Large life insurance groups in particular have expanded non -traditional 
busine ss, provide complex guarantees, and remain exposed to macroeconomic risks.97 
4.2.1.6   Securities services  
4.101.   The U.S. securities markets are the largest in the world. They are governed  by the 
Securities Act of 1933, t he Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Trust Indenture Act of 1939, the 
Investment Company Act of 1940, the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, the Sarbane s-Oxley Act 
                                                
95 Federal Insurance Office (2015), Annual Report on the I nsurance Industry (September 2015) . Viewed 
at: https://www.treasury.gov/initiatives/fio/reports -and-
notices/Documents/2015%20FIO%20 Annual%20Report_Final.pdf .  
96 NAIC online information, " Global Systemically Important Insurers (G -SIIs)", 15 June 2016. Viewed at:  
http://www.naic.org/cipr_topics/topic_global_sy s_insurers.htm .  
97 IMF (2015), United States:  Financial Sector Assessment Program , Country Report No. 15/170, July. 
Viewed at: http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/scr/2015/cr15170.pdf .  WT/TPR/S/350 • Unite d States  
 
- 133 - 
 
  of 2002, the Do dd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 and the 
Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act of 2012 .98 
4.102.   The Securities Act of 1933 requires that investors receive financial and other significant 
information concerning securities being offered  for public sale and prohibits deceit, 
misrepresentations and other fraud in the sale of securities. The Act mandates that securities sold 
in the United States be registered, but there are exemptions from the registration requirement, 
which include: privat e offerings to a limited number of persons or institutions; offerings of limited 
size; intrastate offerings; and secur ities of municipal, State, and Federal governments. Foreign 
issuers can opt to use different registration and periodic reporting forms tha n those used by 
domestic users.  
4.103.   The Securities Exchange Act of 193499 created the Securities and Exchange Commission 
(SEC) granting it broad authority over all aspects of the securities industry.100 This includes the 
power to register, regulate, and oversee b rokerage firms, transfer agents, and clearing agencies as 
well as securities self -regulatory organizations (SROs). The Act identifies and prohibits certain 
types of conduct in the markets and provides the SEC with disciplinary powers over regulated 
entitie s and persons associated with them. The Act also empowers the SEC to require periodic 
reporting of information by companies with publicly traded securities. Companies with more than 
US$10 million in assets whose securities are held by more than 500 owners must file annual and 
other periodic reports.101 The Financial Services Regulatory Relief Act of 2006 amended the 
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 by exempting savings 
associations from the same investment adviser and br oker-dealer registration requirements as 
banks . Further amendments to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 were introduced by the 
Dodd -Frank Act (see below).  
4.104.   The Trust Indenture Act of 1939 applies to debt securities such as bonds, debentures, and 
notes tha t are offered for public sale . Such securities may be registered under the Securities Act, 
but may not be offered for sale to the public unless a formal agreement between the issuer of 
bonds and the bondholder, known as the trust indenture, conforms to the  standards of this Act. 
The Investment Company Act of 1940 regulates the organization of companies, including mutual 
funds, that engage primarily in investing, reinvesting, and trading in securities, and whose own 
securities are offered to the investing pu blic. The Act requires these companies to disclose their 
financial condition and investment policies to investors when stock is initially sold and, 
subsequently, on a regular basis, but does not permit the SEC to directly supervise the investment 
decisions  or activities of these companies or judge the merits of their investments.  
4.105.   The Investment Advisers Act of 1940 regulates investment advisers. With certain 
exceptions, this Act requires that firms or sole practitioners compensated for advising others about  
securities investments register with the SEC and conform to regulations designed to protect 
investors. Since the Act was amended in 1996 and 2010, only advisers who have at least 
US$100 million of assets under management or advise a registered investment company must 
register with the SEC. Foreign banks are required to register under  the Investment Advisers Act 
of 1940 to engage in securities advisory and investment manag ement services in the 
United  States, while domestic banks are exempt from registration . The U nited States took a 
national treatment reservation in the GATS in this regard .102 The registration requirement involves 
record maintenance, inspections, submission of reports and payment of a fee.  
                                                
98 United States Securities and Exchange Commission online information. Viewed at: 
https://www.sec.gov/about/laws.shtml .  
99 The Securities Exchange Act of 1934 was amended by Public Law 94 -29, to remo ve barriers to 
competition, to foster the development of a national securities market system and a national clearance and 
settlement system, to make uniform the SEC's authority over self -regulatory organizations, and to provide for 
the regulation of broker s, dealers and banks trading in municipal securities, among other purposes.  
100 The major securities market participants include: the securities exchanges; securities firms; self -
regulatory organizations (SROs) including the Financial Industry Regulatory Aut hority (FInRA), the Municipal 
Securities Rulemaking Board (MSRB), clearing agencies that help facilitate trade settlement; transfer agents 
(parties that maintain records of securities owners); securities information processors; and credit rating 
agencies. SEC online information . Viewed at: https://www.sec.gov/about/whatwedo.shtml .  
101 These reports are available to the public through the SEC's EDGAR database at: 
https://www.sec.gov/edgar/searchedgar/webusers.htm .  
102 WTO I -TIP services database.  WT/TPR/S/350 • United States  
 
- 134 - 
 
  4.106.   Foreign -owned dealers of U.S. government securities ar e granted national treatment, 
under the Primary Dealers Act of 1988, as long as U.S. firms operating in the government debt 
markets of the foreign country are accorded "the same competitive opportunities" as domestic 
compani es operating in those markets. The United  States took an MFN exemption in its GATS 
Schedule for participation in issues of government -debt securities.103 
4.107.   The Commodity Exchange Act and the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000  grant 
the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), cr eated by the CFTC Act of 1974, regulatory 
authority over futures trading in the United States. Persons offering or selling foreign 
exchange -traded futures and option products to persons located in the United States must register 
with the CFTC or obtain an exemption. CFTC Regulation 30.10 allows the CFTC to provide such 
exem ption if the firm's home -country regulator demonstrates that it provides  a comparable system 
of regulation and enters into an information -sharing agreement with the CFTC. Currently, 
17 self-regulatory and regulatory organizations have be en granted order exemption under CFTC 
Regulation  30.10, in 12 trading partners.104 
4.108.   The Sarbanes -Oxley Act of 2002 mandated a number of reforms to increas e corporate 
responsibility, enhance financial disclosur es and combat corporate and accounting fraud, and 
created the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB), to oversee the activities of the 
auditing profession.  
4.109.   The Dodd -Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 set out to 
reshape  the U.S. regulatory system in a number of areas including consumer protection, trading 
restrictions, credit ratings, regulation of financial products, corporate governance and disclosure, 
and transparency.   
4.110.   Section 173 of the Dodd -Frank Act (Access to Uni ted States financial market by foreign  
institutions) introduced modifications to Section 15 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Under 
these modifications the SEC now may, when considering an application of a foreign person , or an 
affiliate of a foreign  person to register as a United States  broker or dealer,  consider whether, for a 
foreign person, or an affiliate of a foreign person that presents a risk to the stability of the United 
States financial system , such person's  home country has adopted, or mad e demonstrable progress 
toward adopting, an appropriate system of financial regulation to mitigate such risk . The SEC is 
also explicitly authorized to rescind the authorization of such foreign brokers or dealers if the home 
country authority has not taken the steps required.   
4.111.   Section 403 of the Dodd -Frank Act introduced a new regime for private fund advisers, that 
eliminated the "private adviser exemption" contained in section 2 03(b)(3) of the Investment 
Advisers Act of  1940. The final rules implementing th is provision  were released by the SEC on 
22 June 2011, and advisers subject to the rules were required  to register with the SEC by 
30 March 2012. Registration entails significant regulatory and compliance obligations.  Under the 
revised  Act, exemptions from  the Advisers Act registration requirements now apply , among other 
entities, to:  (i) advisers solely to venture capital funds; (ii) advisers solely to private funds with 
less than US$150 million in assets  under management in the United  States; and (iii) ce rtain 
foreign advisers without a place of business in the United States, having less than 15 clients and 
investors in the United States in private funds and less than US$25 million in aggregate assets 
under management attributable to clients.105  
4.112.   Section 932  of the Dodd -Frank Act amended the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to 
require each nationally recognized statistical rating organization (NRSRO) to establish, enforce, 
and document an effective internal control structure governing policies, procedures, and  
methodologies f or determining credit ratings.  
4.113.   Title VII of the Dodd -Frank Act established a comprehensive regulatory framework for 
swaps and security -based swaps. It requires swap dealers and major swap participants to register 
                                                
103 WTO I -TIP services database.  
104 They are: Australia, Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Malaysia, 
Singapore, Spain,  Chinese Taipei, and the United Kingdom. CFTC online information. Viewed at: 
http://sirt.cftc.gov/sirt/ sirt.aspx?Topic=ForeignPart30Exemptions&implicit=true&status=Order+Issued+Granti
ng&CustomColumnDisplay=TTTTTTTT .  
105 SEC online information. Viewed at: http://www.sec.gov/about/laws/ica40.pdf .  WT/TPR/S/350 • Unite d States  
 
- 135 - 
 
  with the CFTC and security -based swap dealers and major security -based swap partic ipants to 
register with the SEC. It also requires certain swaps and security -based swaps transactions to be 
executed on an exchange and cleared through a central counterparty to reduce systemic risk. I n 
addition, companies that use swaps are now subject to new regulatory, business, and operational 
requirements.   
4.114.   The Jumpstart Our Business Startups (JOBS) Act of 2012 aims to help businesses raise 
funds in public capital markets by lessening  regulatory re quirements. The JOBS Act is designed to 
facilitate capital formation and help innovative, emerging growth companies access the capital 
they need to grow and create jobs. The Act also allows for an exemption for up to five years from 
the Sarbanes -Oxley Act Section 404's requirement to obtain an annual verification report from a 
registered public accounting firm.106 
4.2.2   Telecommunications  
4.115.   The telecommunications market in the United States is the largest in the world by revenue 
(US$569 billion in 2013, up from US$52 6 billion in 2011).107 The United States ranks 15th out of 
167 countries in the latest Information and Communications Technology (ICT) Development Index 
compiled by the International Telecommunications Union (ITU).108 In 2013, the United  States 
invested US$34  billion in mobile infrastructure.109 By end -2015, the United States had a trade 
surplus in telecommunications, computer, and information se rvices estimated at around 
US$9  billion.110 
4.116.   During 2011 to 2015, mobile phone subscriptions continued to increase, reachi ng 
382 million and a penetration rate of  117.6% in 2015. However, fixed -line subscribers continued 
to decrease, from 45.5 subscriptions per 100 inhabitants in 2011 to 37.5 subscriptions per 
100 inhabitants in  2015. The use of Internet is also on the rise: fixed-broadband subscriptions per 
100 inhabitants increased from 28 in 2011 to  31.5 in 2015, and wireless -broadband subscriptions 
per 100 inhabitants have exceeded 100 since 2014. Overall, 74.6% of individuals had Internet 
access in 2015 (Table 4.1 3). 
Table 4.13 Selected tele communications indicators, 2011 -15 
 2011  2012  2013  2014  2015  
Fixed telephone subscriptions (million)  143 139 133 128 122 
Fixed telephone subscriptions per 100 inhabitants  45.5 43.7 41.6 39.8 37.5 
Mobile -cellular telephone subscriptions (million)  297 305 311 356 382 
Mobile -cellular telephone per 100 inhabitants  94.4 96.0 97.1 110.2  117.6  
Internet users (%)  69.7 74.7 71.4 73.0 74.6 
Fixed -broadband subscriptions (million)  88 93 96 98 103 
Fixed -broadband subscriptions per 100 inhabitants  28.0 29.1 30.0 30.3 31.5 
Wireless broadband total subscriptions (million)  242.2  270.9  298.1  334.2  .. 
Wireless broadband total subscriptions per 100 inhabitants  77.6 86.1 94.1 104.7  .. 
.. Not available . 
Source:  ITU online information .Viewed at: www.itu.int/en/ITU -D/Statistics/Pages/stat/default.aspx ; and 
OECD Telecommunications and Internet Statistics . Viewed at: http://www.oecd -ilibrary.org/science -
and-technology/data/oecd -telecommunications -and-internet -statistics_tel_int -data-en. 
4.117.   The legal and institutional framework of the telecommunications sector has not changed 
since the last Review of the United States. The Communications Act of 1934, as amended by the 
Telecommunications Act of 1996, is the main law governing the sector. Interstate 
telecommunications providers, wireless companies, interconnected VoIP providers, internet service 
                                                
106 NYSE  online information. Viewed at: 
https://www.nyse.com/publicdocs/nyse/listing/Keynote_speech_axis_2016.pdf .  
107 OECD (2015), Digital Economy Outlook 2015 . Viewed at: http://www.oecd.org/sti/oecd -digital -
economy -outlook -2015-9789264232440 -en.htm .  
108 The ICT Development Index comprises 11 indicators covering ICT access, use, and skills. ITU online 
information. Viewed at: http://www.itu.int/net4/ITU -D/idi/2015/ . 
109 OECD (2015), Digital Economy Outlook 2015 . Viewed at: http://www.oecd.org/sti/oecd -digital -
economy -outlook -2015-9789264232440 -en.htm . 
110 BEA online information, "U.S. International Transactions Accounts Data, Table  1.2, U.S. International 
Transactions, Expanded Detail". Viewe d at: 
http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?reqid=62&step=1#reqid=62&step=6&isuri=1&6210=1&6200=2 .  WT/TPR/S/350 • United States  
 
- 136 - 
 
  providers (ISPs)111, radio and TV broadcasters, cable providers, and satellite companies are all 
primarily regulated by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).112 The National 
Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) under the Department of Commerce is 
the principal advisor to the President on telecommunications and information policy issues. The 
International Communication and Information Policy ( CIP) Office under the Department of State, 
as well as the United States Trade Representative (USTR), play an active role in developing and 
coordinating trade policy relating to telecommunications in international fora including in the 
negotiation of bilate ral and multilateral agreements.  
4.118.   Wireline providers, as well as submarine cable landing licensees, are not generally subject 
to any foreign ownership restrictions beyond the FCC's general obligations and qualifications for 
ownership for such pr oviders . The provision of broadband internet access service is not subject to 
any foreign ownership restrictions. There are, however, restrictions for some other services: 
foreign ownership without prior FCC approval is limited, under Section 310 of the Communications  
Act of 1934113, to 20% direct investment and 25% indirect investment for common carrier wireless 
licensees.114 Under the Communications Act of 1934, the FCC must conduct a public interest 
analysis when evaluating applications to receive authorization to excee d the 
25% foreign -ownership benchmark.115 Since the inception of the WTO, no foreign applicant has 
ever been denied a common carrier wireless licence under the FCC's public interest analysis. 
During the review period, the policy stance in this respect has be en modified. In 2013, the FCC 
revisited its prior de facto  policy against streamlined treatment of applications involving more than 
25% foreign ownership, and indicated that it may grant approval for foreign ownership greater 
than 25% in a streamlined mann er, depending on the circumstances.116  
4.119.   The FCC maintains several regulatory safeguards to deter conduct by a foreign carrier that 
could result in harm to competition in the U.S. telecommunications market. These safeguards 
include the "no special concessions " rule, the benchmark settlement rates policy, and dominant 
carrier requirements. The no special concessions rule prohibits U.S. international carriers from 
agreeing to enter into exclusive arrangements with foreign carriers that have sufficient market 
power to affect competition adversely in the U.S. market. The Foreign Participation Order adopted 
a presumption that carriers with less than 50% market share in the foreign market lack such 
market power.  
4.120.   On 26 February 2015, the FCC adopted a new Open Intern et Order (commonly referred as 
the "FCC net neutrality decision") which became effective on 12 June 2015.117 Under the Open 
Internet Order, the FCC reclassified fixed and mobile broadband internet access service as a 
                                                
111 Internet service providers may be telephone comp anies, cable companies, or other types of 
providers.  
112 Traditional intrastate wireline telecommunications providers are primarily regulated by a public utility 
commission (PUC) in each State, and some PUCs also lightly regulate wireless companies and/or 
interconnected Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) providers. Cable operators are licensed and regulated by 
cable franchising authorities at the local or state level.  
113 Under Section 310 of the Communications Act of 1934, common carrier radio licenses cannot  be 
granted to or held by non -U.S. citizens, corporations not organized under the laws of the United States, or 
foreign governments. Nor can licenses be granted to U.S. corporations of which more than 20% of the capital 
stock is owned of record or voted by  any of these entities. However, licenses may be granted to companies set 
up in the United States that are controlled by holding companies set up in the United States and in which 
foreign individuals, corporations, or Governments own of record or vote more  than 25% of the capital stock, 
unless the FCC finds that such ownership is inconsistent with the public interest.  
114 Non-common carrier wireless licensees, including most satellite licensees, are not subject to foreign 
ownership restrictions.  
115 The public interest analysis conducted to review an application by a supplier from a WTO Member 
relies on an "open entry" standard, whereby the FCC starts from a presumption (subject to rebuttal) that 
foreign entry does not threaten competition in the U.S. telecommun ications market. It also involves a 
consideration of policy concerns raised by federal government agencies in relation to national security, law 
enforcement, foreign policy, or trade policy issues. This FCC public interest analysis is not a CFIUS review th at 
is focused on national security concerns (see section 2.4).  
116 FCC Second Report and Order (In the Matter of Review of Foreign Ownership Policies for Common 
Carrier and Aeronautical Radio Licensees under Section 310(b)(4) of the Communications Act of 19 34, as 
amended ), FCC13 -50. Viewed at: https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC -13-50A1.pdf .  
117 FCC Open Internet Order (2015). Viewed at: https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC -
15-24A1.pdf . See also FCC news r elease, "FCC adopts strong, sustainable rules to protect open internet" . 
Viewed at: https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC -332260A1.pdf .  WT/TPR/S/350 • Unite d States  
 
- 137 - 
 
  telecommunications service under Title II  of the Communication Act.118 As a result, providers of 
broadband internet access service are now subject to some of the same rules that apply to 
common carriers, including a prohibition on unjust or unreasonable practices or unreasonable 
discrimination.119 The new rules apply to both fixed and mobile broadband service, with an aim to 
ensure that consumers and businesses have access to a fast, fair, and open Internet. The FCC has 
noted that this approach recognizes advances in technology and the growing signifi cance of mobile 
broadband Internet access in recent years and that, therefore, these rules will protect consumers 
without regard to the means of their access to the Internet, i.e. through a desktop computer or a 
mobile device.120  
4.121.   The new Open Internet Order  imposes three "bright -line" rules that prohibit blocking, 
throttling, and paid prioritization.121 Specifically, the new rules provide:  
 No Blocking : a service provider "shall not block lawful content, applications, services, 
or non -harmful devices", subject to reasonable network management.122 
 No Throttling : a service provider "shall not impair or degrade lawful Internet traffic on 
the basis of Internet content, application, or service, or use of a non -harmful device", 
subject to reasonable network management.  
 No Paid Prioritization : a service provider "sh all not engage in paid prioritization. Paid 
prioritization refers to the management of a broadband provider's network to directly or 
indirectly favour some traffic over other traffic, including through the use of techniques 
such as traffic shaping, prioritization, resource reservation, or other forms of preferential 
traffic management, either (a) in exchange for consideration (monetary or otherwise) 
from a third party, or (b) to benefit an affiliated entity."123  
4.122.   In addition, the new Open Internet Order establishes a "no unreasonable 
interference/disadvantage" standard for conduct falling outside the three bright -line rules. Under 
this standard, a broadband internet access service provider "shall not unreasonably i nterfere with 
or unreasonably disadvantage end users' ability to select, access, and use broadband Internet 
access service or the lawful Internet content, applications, services, or devices of their choice, or 
edge providers' ability to make lawful content , applications, services, or devices available to end 
users. Reasonable network management shall not be considered a violation of this rule. The 
general conduct standard will allow the FCC to address practices not covered by the three 
bright -line rules on a case by case basis.124 
4.123.   In general, common carriers have a duty to interconnect with each other, either directly or 
through other carriers ' facilities.125 Interconnection agreements may be regulated at both the state 
and Federal levels.126 As part of the Order,  the FCC did not apply specific open Internet regulations 
to broadband providers ' interconnection activities.127 However,  the FCC does have the authority to 
                                                
118 FCC Open Internet Order (2015), paras. 41 -50. 
119 FCC Open Internet Order (2015), paras 283 -284. See also FCC news release . Viewed at: 
https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC -332260A1.pdf . 
120 FCC online information, "Open Internet". Viewed at: https://www.fcc.gov/ge neral/open -internet . See 
also FCC News Release. Vi ewed at: https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC -332260A1.pdf .  
121 FCC Open Internet Order (2015), paras, 15, 16, and  18. 
122 A network management practice is a practice that has a primarily technical network management 
justification, but does not include other business practices. A network management practice is reasonable if it 
is primarily used for and tailored to achie ving a legitimate network management purpose, taking into account 
the particular network architecture and technology of the broadband Internet access service. See the FCC Open 
Internet Order para. 32.  
123 Unlike the no -blocking and no -throttling rules, there  is no "reasonable network management" 
exception to the paid prioritization rule because paid prioritization is inherently a business practice rather than 
a management practice. See FCC Open Internet Order, para. 18, footnote 18.  
124 The FCC News Release, "F CC adopts strong, sustainable rules to protect open internet". Viewed at: 
https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC -332260A1.pdf .  
125 47 U.S.C. 251. Viewed at: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/251 . See also the definition 
of "telecommunications carrier" and "telecommunications service" in 47 U.S.C. 153 for the requirement that 
the service must be offe red to the public. Viewed at: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/153 .  
126 47 U.S.C. 252. Viewed at: https://www.law.cornell. edu.uscode/text/47/252 .  
127 FCC Open Internet Order (2015), para. 513.  WT/TPR/S/350 • United States  
 
- 138 - 
 
  address interconnection issues on a case -by-case basis where such conduct is not just and 
reasonable or is unreasonably discriminatory.128 
4.124.   The new Open Internet Order does not apply to enterprise services, virtual private network 
services, hosting, or data storage services.129 
4.125.   As elaborated in the previous Reviews, the United States has made commitments on ba sic 
telecommunications under the GATS and made an MFN exemption to allow for "differential 
treatment of countries due to application of reciprocity measures or through international 
agreements guaranteeing market access or national treatment" for direct -to-home (DTH) service, 
direct broadcast satellite (DBS) television services, and digital audio services (DARS).130 
4.126.   The United States has also made both regulatory and market access commitments on 
telecommunications in its free trade agreements (FTAs). In the t elecommunications chapters of its 
FTAs, rules were agreed with regard to access to telecommunication networks, the provision of 
enhanced or value -added services, and the adoption of telecommunications standards. In the 
recently concluded Trans -Pacific Part nership (TPP) negotiations, a new section on international 
mobile roaming was included. This is to facilitate the use of alternatives to roaming by prohibiting 
operators from blocking voice over Internet protocol (VoIP) services, or disabling Wi -Fi service , 
and to ensure that any bilateral arrangements to lower roaming rates are opened up to suppliers 
from other TPP countries.131 In the TPP text, as in other FTAs, disputes can be brought to 
telecommunications regulators not only by operators, but also any ent erprises using 
telecommunications services.132 
4.2.3   Transport  
4.127.   The general framework for the transport sector in the United States remained largely 
unchanged during the period under review. The Department of Transport ation (DOT) is the major 
regulator for this sec tor, whereas the Department of Homeland Security has jurisdiction in the 
sector concerning security issues.  
4.128.   The United States maintains a number of preferences accorded to its domestic carriers in 
maritime transport and aviation transport. There are some a ssistance funds provided for the 
transport sector that are also linked to industrial policies in other, related, areas (e.g. ship 
building).  
4.2.3.1   Air transport  and airports  
4.2.3.1.1   Air transport  
4.129.   The legal and institutional framework for air transport remained largely u nchanged during 
the period under review. The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs 
under the DOT is responsible for policy formulation with regard to air transport. The Federal 
Aviation Administration (FAA) , under the DOT , has the authority over safety issues, and is 
responsible for regulating U.S. commercial space aviation, and for monitoring U.S. and foreign air 
carriers operating in U.S. territory. The Air Traffic Organization (ATO) under the FAA provides air 
navigation  services in the airspace of the United States and large portions of the Atlantic and 
Pacific Oceans and the Gulf of Mexico.133 The Transportation Security Administration under the 
Department of Homeland Security is responsible for air transport security in the United States, 
including regulating and monitoring the implementation of security standards at U.S. airports and 
of U.S. aircraft operators and foreign air carriers' operations to, from, and within the 
United  States.  
                                                
128 FCC Open Internet Order (2015), para. 513.  
129 FCC Open Internet Order (2015), para. 26.  
130 WTO document WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1, 13 March 2015.  
131 Article 13.6 of the TPP Agreement.  
132 Article  13.21 of the TPP Agreement.  
133 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) online information, "Air Traffic Organization". Viewed at: 
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_of fices/ato/ .  WT/TPR/S/350 • Unite d States  
 
- 139 - 
 
  4.130.   The airline industry consolidation , begun in 2001, continued  during the period under 
review. On 17 October 2015, US Airways merged with American Airlines (the name American 
Airlines was kept after the merger) and became the world's largest carrier, in terms of revenue, 
passengers flown, an d fleet size. After a decade of mergers in the industry, four large carriers, 
namely American Airlines, Delta Air Lines, Southwest Airlines, and United Airlines, have emerged 
and operate 82% of the scheduled seat capacity in the domestic market in 2016. S cheduled 
passenger airlines reported an after -tax net profit of US$3.1 billion in the first quarter of 2016, 
down from US$7.7 billion in the fourth quarter of 2015 and virtually unchanged from 
US$3.1  billion in the first quarter of 2015 .134 
4.131.   Air freight is mos tly used for perishable and/or high value goods. In 2013, total freight 
transported by air stood at US$1.17 trillion in value  terms, of which international trade via air 
freight accounted for 89% (at US$1.03 trillion). The authorities estimate that the tot al value of air 
freight will reach US$5.04 trillion in 2040.135 FedEx and UPS are the world's two largest air cargo 
carriers.  
4.132.   Cabotage restrictions in the United States remain in place, i.e. domestic air services can be 
provided only by U.S. carriers, which are still required to be controlled by U.S. citizens. 
Non-U.S. citizens may not hold more than 25% of the voting interest of any airline providing 
domestic services. In addition, the airline's president and at least two thirds of the Board of 
Directors and  other managing officers must be U.S. citizens. The DOT may, on a case -by-case, 
allow total foreign equity investment (voting and non -voting) above the 25% threshold provided 
that actual control remains in the hands of U.S. citizens and an open skies agree ment exists 
between the United States and the country of origin of the foreign investor. In fact, the DOT has 
allowed foreign citizens to own up to 49% of an airline's stock b y using non -voting shares 
above  25%. Crews engaged in domestic air passenger and freight service must be U.S. nationals 
or U.S.  residents.  
4.133.   Anyone wishing to provide air transport services as a U.S. air carrier must obtain two 
separate authorizations from the DOT: an "economic" authority from the Office of the Secretary of 
Transportati on, and a "safety" authority from the FAA. The DOT has statutory authority to 
preserve competition. The DOT considers competition issues as one of many factors when 
allocating limited air services rights . In addition, any authority granted by the Secretary  of 
Transportation is conditional on the operator satisfying international safety and security 
requirements.  
4.134.   Under the Fly America Act (49 U .S.C. 40118), any government -financed transportation, of 
passengers or cargo, must be provided by U.S. air carriers  (or a U.S. carrier code -share on a 
foreign airline). In FY2015, the Federal Government awarded an estimated US$520 million of 
business to U.S. airlines under the Fly America Act. Nonetheless, this restriction may be waived 
where  the United States has ente red into bilateral or multilateral agreements that allow the 
provision of such services by foreign air carriers. Currently, five bilateral agreements  (outside 
code-shares) , those with Australia, the European Union, Japan, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia 
(cargo  only) and Switzerland, allow federally funded transportation services for travel and cargo 
movements to use foreign carriers under certain circumstances.136  
4.135.   The DOT also manages programmes that provide subsidies for services to certain small 
communities, i ncluding the Essential Air Service (EAS) Program and the Small Community Air 
Service Development Program (SCASDP). EAS is a program me to guarantee at least a minimum 
level of scheduled air services to small communities that generally were served by certifi cated air 
carriers before deregulation in 1978. This is generally accomp lished by subsidizing two round -trips 
a day with 30 - to 50 -seat aircraft, or additional f requencies with aircraft with 9  or fewer seat s, 
                                                
134 Bureau of Transportation Statistics online information, "Airline Financial Data". Viewed at: 
http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/si tes/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/subject_areas/airline_information/index.html .  
135 Bureau of Transportation Statistics (2015), Freight Facts and Figures 2015 . Viewed at: 
http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/FF%26F_complete.pdf .  
136 The rights to foreign airlines concerning U.S. Government procured transportation under the "Open 
Skies Agreements" do not apply to transportation obtained or funded by the S ecretary of Defense or the 
Secretary of a military department, i.e. they do not apply to Department of Defense (DoD) Uniformed Services, 
or DoD civilian employees unless their travel is funded by a non -DoD agency. For details, see State 
Department online i nformation, "Open Skies Agreement", viewed at: 
http://www.state.gov/e/eb/tra/ata/index.htm .  WT/TPR/S/350 • United States  
 
- 140 - 
 
  usually to a large  or medium -hub airport  outsid e of Alaska, and varying service levels from one per 
month to daily service within Alaska . The subsidy is provided direct ly to air carriers ; EAS  serves a 
limited universe of eligible communities, in particular those that were receiving subsidized EAS 
betwe en 30 September 2010 and 30 September 2011. Communities are subject to various 
eligibility criteria, including subsidy caps and other requirements.137 An Alternative Essential Air 
Service Program also exists to give more flexibility to communities to craft t heir own air service.138 
SCASDP has a broader eligibility scope than EAS  and provide s a grant applicant the opportunity to 
self-identify its air service deficiencies and propose an appropriate solution.  No limits are set on 
the amount of individual awards. I n Fiscal Year 2016, SCASDP offered a total of US$5.15  million in 
grants to nine local communities.  
4.2.3.1.2   Airports  
4.136.   Most U.S. public -use airports with commercial services are publicly owned, either by states 
or local governments, or local authorities.139 There are n o legal or regulatory barriers to prevent 
airports from being privately owned. However, general legal complexities at the federal, state, and 
local levels, plus restrictions on the use of revenues have meant that there has been little incentive 
for private  sector own ership of  airport s.140 The United States offers grants for the planning and 
development of public -use airports included in the National Plan of Integrated Airport System s 
(NPIAS)141 through the Airport Improvement Program (AIP).142 Improvement project s relate to 
runways, taxiways, ramps, lighting, signage, weather stations, land acquisit ion, and some areas of 
planning. The share of costs covered by grants from the AIP is dependent on the type of work and 
the size of the airport: it can be up to 93.75% of eligible costs143 for small primary and general 
aviation airports. In FY2016, a total of US$3.35 billion was authorized for the AIP in the Federal 
Aviation Administration Reauthorization Act of 2016.144  
4.137.   Some Buy America n provisions apply to airport infrast ructure projects when they are 
financed under the AIP.145 The Buy America n Preferences under 49 U.S.C. § 50101 require that all 
steel and manufactured goods used in AIP -funded projects be produced in the United States. 
However, under 49 U.S.C. 50101, the FAA may grant a discretionary waiver when 60% domestic 
content is reached.146  
4.138.   Congress established the Airport Privatization Pilot Program (APPP) in 1997 through the 
Federal Aviation Reauthorization Act of 1996 (49 U .S.C. 47134, PL 104 -264), with the aim of 
increasing private participation, especially private capital investment, in airport operations and 
development. The APPP permits airport sponsors to be exempted from certain federal 
requirements such as repayment of federal grants, return of property acquired  with federal 
assistance, and the use of proceeds from the sale or lease of airport to be used exclusively for 
                                                
137 Subsidy caps include a cap of US$200 per passenger for points located within 210 miles of the 
nearest  large or medium hub  outside of Alaska and Hawaii, or US$1,000 per passenger regardless of distance 
to the nearest small or medium hub . There is a requirement that a community enplane a minimum of 
10 passengers per day for those points within 175 miles of the nearest large or medium hub. Communities 
within 40 miles of the nearest small hub must negotiate a cost share with the DOT.  
138 U.S. Department of Transportation online information, "Alternate Essential Air Service". Viewed at: 
https://cms.dot.gov/office -policy/aviation -policy/alternate -essential -air-service .  
139 Tang R.Y. (2016), Airport Privatization: Issues and Options for Congress , Congressional Research 
Services Report. Viewed at: https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43545.pdf .  
140 For example, a federally -funded airport may not use proceeds from sales of the airport for 
non-airport purposes, i.e. the  airport revenue must be used for the capital and operating costs of the airport.  
141 There are nearly 3,400 airports covered in the National Plan of Integrated Airport System (NPIAS). 
Viewed at: http://www.faa.gov/airports/planning_capacity/npias/ .  
142 The Airport Improvement Program (AIP) was established by the Airport and Airway Improvement Act 
of 1982 (49 U.S.C. 471). The AIP is funded through taxes on passenger ticket sales and on aviati on fuel.  
143 In extremely limited cases, 95% of eligible cost may be covered by the AIP.  
144 U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation (2016), Federal Aviation 
Reauthorization Section -by-Section Analysis . Viewed at: 
http://www.commerce.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/ae9d5486 -e1fa-4456-97f4-
c993b7997742/EC864F25A5CC519BA632 299E860F6D29.faa -section -by-section -handout.pdf .  
145 Department of Transportation online information, "Buy America", viewed at: 
https://www.transportation.gov/highlights/buyamerica . See a lso FAA online information, "AIP Buy American 
Preference Requirements", viewed at: http://www.faa.gov/airports/aip/buy_american/ .  
146 When procuring a facility or equipment, the cost of component s and subcomponents produced in the 
United States must be more than 60% of the cost of all components, and final assembly must be  in the 
United  States.  WT/TPR/S/350 • Unite d States  
 
- 141 - 
 
  airport purposes. The number of airports participating in the APPP increased from five to ten 
in 2012 through the FAA Modernization and Reform Ac t of 2012 (PL 112 -95); only one large hub 
commercial airport may participate in the program me and that airport may only be leased but not 
sold; one of the participating airports must be a general aviation airport.147 The APPP has had very 
limited success in increasing the number of privately -run airports.148 As of July 2016, among the 
ten participating airports, only two had been privatized, namely the Luis Muñoz Marin International 
Airport (San Juan, Puerto Rico) and the Stewart International Airport (Newburgh , NY).149 As of 
end-August 2016, FAA approval for Hendry County Airglades Airport (Clewiston, FL) was pending, 
due to Hendry County and the private operator not having completed the environment assessment  
needed for  Hendry County 's submission of  its final ap plication for the APPP.150  
4.139.   The operation and the management of airports may be fully carried out by the airport's 
owners or partly or wholly by a third party through outsourcing and management contracts. 
Operations that are frequently outsourced are cleanin g and janitorial services, airport landscaping, 
shuttle bus operations, and terminal concessions. Some airports contract out specific facilities or 
responsibilities such as parking and terminal operation, airfield signage, and aircraft refuelling. In 
a few  cases, a private management company has been contracted to manage an entire airport for 
a specific term. With respect to security services, its providers are subject to regulations by the 
Transportation Security Administration under the Department of Home land Security.  
4.140.   The United States has GATS commitments with respect to aircraft repairs and 
maintenance, and has scheduled MFN exemptions with regard to the sale and marketing of air 
transport services and the operation and regulation of computer reservati on system ( CRS) 
services.  
4.141.   The United States maintains bilateral air service agreements  with most countries in the 
world.151 With nearly 120 countries, the United States has negotiated liberal commitments under 
"open skies" agreements (OSAs) as defined by the  DOT152; these "open skies" agreements cover, 
among other issues, market access, pricing, and commercial opportunities including code -sharing, 
self-handling, user charges, fair competition, and intermodal rights.  
4.142.   The United States is a contracting party to t he WTO Plurilateral Agreement on Civil 
Aircraft. Thus, national treatment is granted to acquisition of civil aircraft and related articles 
originating from other parties to the Agreement.  
4.2.3.2   Maritime transport, port services, and shipbuilding  
4.2.3.2.1   Maritime transpo rt 
4.143.   Waterborne trade in the United States amounted to 1.94 b illion short tons 
(1.75  billion  metric tonnes) in 2015. International waterborne trade totalled 1.37 billion short tons, 
while domestic waterborne trade totalled  565 million short tons.153 The size o f the U.S. -flag 
privately -owned fleet has continued to decline over the years: as of early August  2016, there were 
a total of 1 71 privately -owned vessels with a 7.9 million deadweight tons , down from 282 vessels 
with a 12 million deadweight tons in  2000.154  
                                                
147 Only general aviation airports can be sold under the Airport Privatization Pilot Program (APPP).  
148 Tang R.Y. (2016), Airport Privatization: Issues and Options for Congress , Congressional Research 
Services Report. Viewed at: https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43545.pdf . 
149 Stewart International Airpo rt was the first privatized commercial airport under the APPP in 2000 by 
National Express Group, but in 2007 the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey purchased the lease, thus 
it was reverted back to public operation.  
150 Federal Aviation Administration  online information, "Airport Privatization Pilot Program". Viewed at: 
http://www.faa.gov/airports/airport_compliance/privatization/ .  
151 U.S. Department of State online informati on, "Air Transport Agreements". Viewed at: 
http://www.state.gov/e/eb/rls/othr/ata/index.htm .  
152 An "open  skies" agreement is defined by DOT Order 92 -8-13.  
153 Institute for Water Resources (20 16), Preliminary Waterborne Commer ce Statistics For Calendar 
Year 2015, 1 September. Viewed at: http://www.navigationdatacenter.us/wcsc/pdf/Prelim -wcsc2015.pdf .  
154 United State s Maritime Administration (MARAD) online information, "MARAD Open Data Portal". 
Viewed at: http://www.marad.dot.gov/resources/data -statistics/ . All the numbers referring to vessels in this  
section only reflects oceangoing, self -propelled, cargo -carrying vessels of 1,000 gross tons and above.  WT/TPR/S/350 • United States  
 
- 142 - 
 
  4.144.   The legal and institutional framework for maritime transport has remained largely 
unchanged during the period under review. The Maritime Administration (MARAD) under the 
Department of Transportation is responsible for developing maritime regulations and p rogram mes 
that promote the use of waterborne transportation and its integration with other segments of the 
transportation system, and the viability of the U.S. Merchant Marine. The independent Federal 
Maritime Commission (FMC) regulates ocean -borne liner t ransport, including ocean transportation 
intermediaries, and oversees the collective activities of shipping lines which are not subject to 
U.S. anti-trust laws for both U.S. and foreign operators of liner shipping services with 
fixed-schedules. The U.S. Co ast Guard under the Department of Homeland Security is responsible 
for regulating maritime transport, including vessel safety and security, environmental protection, 
and licensing mariners.  
4.145.   Under the laws on documentation of vessels in 46 U.S.C.  121 and th e coastwise laws in 
46 U.S.C.  551, restrictions on cabotage of goods and passengers remain in place. Under the 
coastwise laws (such as the Jones Act  and the Passenger Vessel Service Act  of 1886) , cargo and 
passenger services b etween two points in the Unite d States, either directly or via a foreign port, 
are reserved for ships that are registered and built in the Un ited States and owned by a 
U.S. corporation, and on which 100% of the officers and 75% of the crew are U.S. citizens.155 As 
of 2 August  2016, 93 ve ssels were eligible as Jones Act vessels.156 The Jones Act does not prevent 
foreign companies from establishing shipping companies in the United  States as long as they meet 
the requirements with respect t o U.S . employees. Foreign -owned U.S.  companies may also own 
and operate ships flying the U.S. flag in international service.  
4.146.   Requests for waivers of the provisions of the coastwise laws are made to the Commissioner 
of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). With the exception of waivers requested by th e 
Secretary of Defense, CBP is required to consult with MARAD and, as a matter of practice, also 
consults with other interested agencies before a waiver is granted or denied. Waivers of the Jones 
Act are granted by the Secretary of Homeland Security only " in the interest of national defen se", 
and consequently, only in "extremely rare" cases. One such waiver was granted in the wake of 
Hurricane Sandy. Under the Defense Authorization Act of 2013, MARAD  is required to publish 
Jones Act vessel availability dete rminations not later than 48 hours after the determination is 
made.   
4.147.   MARAD is responsible for canvassing domestically flagged shipping to locate suitable 
vessels carrying preference cargos in international trade. Additionally, MARAD has sole 
responsibility  for the programme for small passenger vessels waivers; it grants approximately 
75 waivers each year.157 To benefit from the program me, the vessel must be at least three years 
old, and must carry passengers , but not  more than 12  passengers. Activities such a s carriage of 
cargo, commercial fishing, towing, dredging and salvage do not qualify for this program me. The  
vessel must be owned by a U.S. c itizen.  
4.148.   Preferences accorded to U.S. -flag vessels for transporting agricultural cargos under certain 
USDA and USAID  foreign assistance programmes were revoked in 2012.158 Existing legislation 
continues to provide cargo preferences for domestically flagged vessels159: 
 Public Resolution No. 17 of 1934 requires that exports of goods that benefit from export 
loans or credit gu arantees from the Export -Import Bank must be carried in U.S .-flag 
vessels, although the vessels of a recipient country may be granted access to 50% of 
those cargoes, where there is no discriminatory treatment against U.S. -flag carriers. 
Waivers may be gran ted, subject to reciprocal treatment for U.S .-flag vessels by the 
recipient country.  
                                                
155 Under 46 U.S.C. 8103(b)(B) not more than 25% of the total number of unlicensed seamen on the 
vessel may be aliens lawfully admitted to the United Sta tes for permanent residence.  
156 MARAD online information, "MARAD Open Data Portal". Viewed at: 
http://www.marad.dot.gov/resources/data -statistics/ . 
157 MARAD online information, "Small Passen ger Vessel Waiver Program". Viewed at: 
http://www.marad.dot.gov/ships -and-shipping/domestic -shipping/ .  
158 The Food Security Act of 1985 requires  that 75% of agricultural cargo s under certain USDA and 
USAID foreign assistance programmes be carried on domestically flagged vessels. This provision was repealed 
in 2012 under the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP -21), Pub. L. 112 -141. 
159 Maritime Administration (MAR AD) online information, "Cargo Preference". Viewed at: 
http://www.marad.dot.gov/ships -and-shipping/cargo -preference/ .  WT/TPR/S/350 • Unite d States  
 
- 143 - 
 
   The Cargo Preference Act of 1954 requires that at least 50% of the gross tonnage of all 
government -generated cargo be transported on privately -owned, domestically -flagged 
commercial vessels to the extent such vessels are available at fair and reasonable rates. 
The Act also requires that shipments from or to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve use 
domestically flagged tankers for at least 50% of oil transport.  
4.149.   In addition, the C argo Preference Act of 1904 requires all items procured for or owned by 
U.S. military departments and defence agencies to be carried exclusively on U.S. -flagged vessels. 
The United States also administers two maritime transport program mes related to nation al 
defense: the Maritime Security Program (MSP) and the Voluntary Intermodal Sealift Agreement 
(VISA) program me.  
4.150.   The Maritime Security Program (MSP), created by the Maritime Security Act of 1996, 
supports the U.S. -flag merchant marine by providing a fixed  payment to U.S. -flag vessel 
operators. The Maritime Security Act of 1996 required that the Secretary of Transportation, in 
consultation with the Secretary of Defense, establish a fleet of commercially viable, militarily 
useful, privately -owned vessels to meet national defense and other security requirements. The 
program was originally established for  Fiscal Years (FY) 1996 through 2005. In November 2003, 
the President signed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for FY 2004, which contained 
the Mar itime Security Act of 2003 reauthorizing  the MSP for FY 2006 through FY  2015 and 
increasing the size of the Maritime Security Fleet receiving stipend payments to 60 vessels . In 
January 2013, the President signed the NDAA of 2013 ( PL 112 -239) extending the current MSP to 
FY 2016 through FY 2025. Section 3508 of the NDAA authorized the Secretary of Transportation to 
extend existing MSP operating agreements through 30 September 2025.160 Section 3504 of the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (PL 114 -92) and Division O, Title 1, 
Section 101(e) of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 (PL 114 -113) revised the annual 
Maritime Security Program payment schedule for fiscal years 2016 through 2021. The authorized 
funding for FY 2016 is US$3.5 mill ion per programme vessel ; it was US$3.1 million per fiscal year 
during FY2012 -15. The authorized funding for FY2017 is almost US$5 million  per programme 
vessel , whil e the authorized funding for FY 2018-2020 is US$5  million  per fiscal year . 
4.151.   The Voluntary Int ermodal Sealift Agreement (VISA) programme, introduced in 
January  1997 and sponsored by MARAD, provides the Department of Defense (DoD) with assured 
access to commercial intermodal capacity during time of war or national emergency. Intermodal 
capacity incl udes dry cargo ships, equipment, terminal facilities and intermodal management 
services.  The VISA program is authorized under the Maritime Administration 's authorities under 
the Defense Production Act of 1950, and th e Maritime Security Act of 2003. It  provides for a 
time-phased activation of commercial intermodal equipment to coincide with DOD requirements 
while minimizing disruption to U.S. commercial operations.161 As of 2 August 2016, there were 
56 vessels in the VISA programme. MSP participants' vessel ca pacity makes up 82 % of the VISA 
capacity.162 VISA participants receive priority consideration for award of DoD peacetime ocean 
freight contracts.   
4.152.   U.S. and foreign operators of liner shipping services and marine terminal operators in the 
United States benefi t from exemptions to antitrust laws, including the Sherman and Clayton Acts, 
with respect to their operations in U.S.  foreign ocean -borne trade. Under the Shipping Act of 1984, 
as amended by the Ocean Shipping Reform Act (OSRA) of 1998 , agreements among li ner 
operators and marine terminal operators (MTOs) to discuss, fix, or regulate transportation rates, 
and other conditions of service, or cooperate on operational matters , must be filed with and 
examined by the FMC.  
4.153.   The Shipping Act of 1984 requires ocean  carriers to publish tariff rates and charges for 
carriage for trade with foreign countries. The FMC also reviews the rates of government -controlled 
ocean carriers to ensure that their rates and contracts are not unreasonably low. Without 
permission from t he FMC, government -controlled carriers may not change rates within 30 days of 
publication. The FMC also maintains an electronic system containing service contracts between 
                                                
160 MARAD online information, "Maritime Security Program". Vi ewed at: 
http://www.marad.dot.gov/search/maritime+security+program/ .  
161 MARAD online information, "VISA Program". Viewed at: 
http://www.marad.dot.gov/search/VISA+program/ .  
162 This is based on the number of vessels, not on tonnage.  WT/TPR/S/350 • United States  
 
- 144 - 
 
  ocean common carriers and shippers, which are required by law to the filed with the FMC. Parties 
to the service contracts may agree to keep the terms confidential from the public.  
4.154.   Under the Foreign Shipping Practices Act (FSPA) of 1988 the FMC is required to investigate 
and take action in response to conditions arising from foreign govern ment measures or business 
practices in the U.S.  foreign shipping trades that adversely affect U.S. carriers but do not apply to 
foreign carriers in the United States. Section 19 of the Merchant Marine Act of 1920 authorizes the 
FMC to investigate and take action to address "unfavourable shipping conditions in U.S. foreign 
commerce and may impose penalties". No action was taken during the period under review.  
4.155.   The United States did not ma ke any commitment on maritime transport under the GATS. It 
maintains an MFN exemption under the GATS covering restrictions on performance of longshore 
work by crews of foreign vessels owned and flagged in countries that similarly restrict U .S. crews 
on U.S.-flag vessels from longshore work.  
4.156.   The United States has bilateral agre ements with Brazil, China, Japan, Korea (Republic of), 
the Philippine s, the Russian Federation, and Viet Nam.163 
4.2.3.2.2   Port services  
4.157.   There are more than 300 ports in the United States. Ports may be operated by a state, a 
county, a municipality, a private corporati on, or a combination. Many ports are complex entities, 
involving facilities for several modes of transportation: water, rail, road, or even air. Ports are a 
vitally important part of the nationwide Marine Transportation System, which also includes inland 
and coastal waterways and intermodal connectors. The top 50 ports account for roughly 85% of 
total U.S. waterborne cargo tonnage. Vessel calls to U.S.  ports represent some 3% of world vessel 
calls. The volume of traffic into U.S. west coast ports has been i ncreasing over the past decade 
with the exception of 2015, and those ports have experienced abnormally high congestion. During 
this same period, cost pressures have increased leading to large containership sizes in an effort to 
achieve better economies of scale. The arrival of relatively larger ships at both west and east coast 
ports in the United States has stretched the capacity of some ports .  
4.158.   U.S. port services are available on a non -discriminatory basis. The United States does not 
grant preferential tr eatment with respect to the use of port and harbour facilities. The 
United  States maintains an MFN exemption covering restrictions on performance of longshore work 
by crews of foreign vessels owned and flagged in countries that similarly restrict U.S. crew s on 
U.S.-flag vessels from longshore work. The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, as amended, 
prohibits non -U.S.-national crewmembers from performing longshore work in the United States, 
but provides a reciprocity exception.  
4.159.   Commercial vessels arriv ing in the United States from a foreign port are required to 
transmit electronically, in advance, information on passengers, crew, and cargo as mandated by 
Title I of the Maritime Transpo rtation Security Act of 2002 (P L 107 -295). The Maritime 
Transportatio n Security Act of 2004 amended federal shipping law to grant U.S. district courts 
jurisdiction to restrain violations of certain port security requirements, and authorized the 
Secretary of Transportation to refuse or revoke port clearance to any owner, age nt, master, 
officer, or person in charge of a vessel that is liable for a penalty or fine for violation of such 
requirements.  
4.160.   The problem of port congestion has been a growing  issue over the past few years. To 
address this concern , MARAD established the Of fice of Port Infrastructure Development and 
Congestion Mitigation, to assist with port, terminal, waterway, and transportation network 
development issues. These have included: coordinating and managing port infrastructure projects 
for a variety of entities , including state, local, and territorial authorities; coordinating and directing 
studies, surveys, and investigations of port and inter -modal facilities, including recommending 
improvements in their operation and new locations and types of facilities and equipment that make 
the entire transportation system more efficient and productive; informing and advising 
organizations and individuals in the analysis of inter -modal economics; and  providing technical 
advice on ports to foreign countries . Through its Str ongPorts Program , MARAD  also provides 
                                                
163 MARAD online information, "International Agreement". Viewed at: http://www.marad.dot.gov/about -
us/international -activities/international -agreements/ .  WT/TPR/S/350 • Unite d States  
 
- 145 - 
 
  expertise on port financing and port infrastructure , and has assisted major ports in the recent 
redevelopment plans.  
4.2.3.2.3   Shipbuilding and ship repairs  
4.161.   Under the coastwise laws, only U.S. -built ships qualify for domestic s ervice; the 
United  States was granted an exemption from GATT rules for measures prohibiting the use, sale, 
or lease of foreign -built or foreign -reconstructed vessels in commercial applications between points 
in national waters or the waters of an exclusive  economic zone.  There are no restrictions on 
foreign investment in U.S. shipyards or ship -repair facilities, but floating drydocks are eligible for 
loan guarantees under the Federal Ship Financing Program  only if owned by U.S. citizens.164 
4.162.   Under the Federal Ship Fin ancing Program  established pursuant to Title XI of the Merchant 
Marine Act, 1936, as amended, MARAD provides financial ass istance to ship -owners and 
U.S. shipyards. The aim is to promote the growth and modernization of the U.S. merchant marine 
and U.S. shipyards. The program me, authorized pursuant to 46 U. S.C. Chapter 537, provides 
U.S. Government guaranteed debt issued by : (i) U.S. or foreign ship -owners for the purpose of 
financing or refinancing either U.S. flag vessels or eligible export vessels  constructed, 
reconstructed or reconditioned in U.S. shipyards; and (ii) U.S. shipyards for the purpose of 
financing advanced shipbuilding technology and modern shipbuilding technology of a 
privately -owned, general shipyard facility located in the United S tates. Under the Federal Credit 
Reform Act of 1990, appropriations to cover the estimated costs of a project must be obtained 
prior to the issuance of any letter of commitments for debt guarantees. By offering long -term debt 
repayment guarantees, the Progr am encourages ship -owners to obtain new vessels from 
U.S. shipyards cost effectively.165 Since t he obligations are guaranteed by the U.S. Government , 
the repayment term allowed is longer and the interest rates lower than those available fro m the 
commercial l ending market.166 
4.163.   The program me consists of federal government guarantees of private -sector financing or 
refinancing obligations for ship construction or reconstruction of U.S. and foreign -owned vessels in 
U.S. shipyards. The guarantee is based on the "actua l cost" of the vessels or the technology used 
in shipbuilding, which generally includes the cost of construction, reconstruction, or reconditioning 
of the vessel, together with construction period interest and the guarantee fee. The guarantees are 
up to 87 .5% of the value of the project, for up to 25 years depending o n the type of project. In 
FY2016, one new application for a project totalling US$415 million was approved, representing 
US$363  million in guarantees. As of end -July 2016, Title XI guarantees to talling US$1.55 billion 
were outstanding, and applications totalling US$244 million are under review.  
4.164.   Under the Capital Construction Fund (CCF) and Construction Reserve Fund (CRF), 
U.S. citizens owning or leasing vessels may obtain tax benefits for the construction, 
reconstruction, or acquisition of vessels. CCF vessels must be built in the United States and 
documented under the laws of the United States for operation in the nation's foreign, Great Lakes, 
short-sea shipping or non -contiguous domestic trade  or its fisheri es. Participants must meet 
U.S. citizenship requirements.  The CCF provides tax -deferral benefits to vessel operators in the 
foreign or domestic trade of the United States and U.S. fisheries. The stated purpose of the CCF is 
to make up for th e competitive disadvantage operators of U.S. -flag vessels face in the construction 
and replacement of their vessels relative to foreign -flag operator s whose vessels are registered i n 
countries that do not tax shipping income. The CRF is a financial assista nce scheme that provides 
tax-deferral benefits to U.S. -flag operators with respect to gains attributable to the sale or loss of 
a vessel, provided the proceeds are used to expand or modernize the U.S. merchant fleet.  
4.165.   Under the Manufacturing Exten sion Progr am, Section 8062 of PL  108-87 U.S. naval 
shipyards are eligible to participate in any manufacturing extension programme financed by funds 
appropriated by any Act.  
4.166.   As at mid -2016, there were 124 shipyards and ship -repair facilities in the United States. 
The order book was estimated at US$46 billion. U.S. -flag vessels repaired in most foreign 
                                                
164 See 46 U.S.C. 53701 and 46 U.S.C. 53706.  
165 The programme also allows vessels to be built in U.S. shipyards for foreign ship -owners.  
166 MARAD onli ne information, "Federal Ship Financing Program (Title XI)". Viewed at: 
http://www.marad.dot.gov/ships -and-shipping/federal -ship-financing -title-xi-program -homepage/ .  WT/TPR/S/350 • United States  
 
- 146 - 
 
  countries face a 50% ad valorem  duty167, assessed on the cost of equipment and non -emergency 
repairs in foreign countries, although exemptions apply under certain circums tances. U.S. -owned 
foreign -flag vessels are not subject to any duty.  
                                                
167 There are exemptions applied to certain countries in accordance with the bilateral agreements 
between the United States and the respective countries.  WT/TPR/S/350 • Unite d States  
 
- 147 - 
 
  5  APPENDIX TABLES  
Table A1. 1 Merchandise exports, by HS sections and main chapters, 2012 -15 
(US$ million and %)  
Description  2012  2013  2014  2015  
Total  exports  1,544,930  1,577,590  1,619,740  1,503,870  
 (% of total exports)  
1 - Live animals; animal products  1.8 1.9 1.9 1.7 
 02 - Meat and edible meat offal  1.0 1.0 1.1 0.9 
 03 - Fish and crustaceans, molluscs and other 
aquatic invertebrates  0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 
 04 - Dairy produce; birds' eggs; natural honey; 
edible products of animal origin, not elsewhere 
specified or included  0.3 0.4 0.4 0.3 
2 - Vegetable products  4.6 4.4 4.6 4.3 
 12 - Oil seeds and oleaginous fruits; 
miscellaneous grains, seeds and fruit; industr ial 
or medicinal plants; straw and fodder  1.9 1.7 1.8 1.6 
 10 – Cereals  1.3 1.3 1.4 1.3 
 08 - Edible fruit and nuts; peel of citrus fruit or 
melons  0.9 0.9 0.9 1.0 
 07 - Edible vegetables and certain roots and 
tubers  0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 
3 - Animal or veget able fats and oils; prepared 
edible fats  0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 
4 - Prepared foodstuffs; beverages, spirits and 
vinegar; tobacco  2.6 2.8 2.8 3.0 
 23 - Residues and waste from the food industries; 
prepared animal fodder  0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 
 21 - Miscellaneous edib le preparations  0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 
 22 - Beverages, spirits and vinegar  0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 
5 - Mineral products  9.5 10.1 10.3 7.7 
 27 - Mineral fuels, mineral oils and products of 
their distillation; bituminous substances; mineral 
waxes  8.9 9.4 9.6 7.1 
6 - Products of the chemical or allied industries  10.5 10.4 10.2 10.8 
 30 - Pharmaceutical products  2.6 2.5 2.7 3.1 
 29 - Organic chemicals  3.0 3.0 2.6 2.6 
 38 - Miscellaneous chemical products  1.6 1.7 1.7 1.7 
7 - Plastics and articles thereof; rubber and a rticles 
thereof  4.8 4.8 4.8 4.9 
 39 - Plastics and articles thereof  3.8 3.9 3.9 4.0 
8 - Raw hides and skins, leather, furskins and 
articles thereof; travel goods, handbags; articles of 
animal gut  0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 
9 - Wood and articles of wood; wood charc oal; cork 
and articles of cork  0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 
10 - Pulp of wood or of other fibrous cellulosic 
material; paper and paperboard and articles thereof  2.1 2.0 1.9 2.0 
 48 - Paper and paperboard; articles of paper 
pulp, of paper or of paperboard  1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 
11 - Textiles and textile articles  1.7 1.7 1.6 1.7 
12 - Footwear, headgear, umbrellas; prepared 
feathers and articles; artificial flowers  0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 
13 - Articles of stone, plaster, cement, etc.; ceramic 
products; glass and glassware  0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 
14 - Natural or cultured pearls, precious or semi -
precious stones, precious metals  4.7 4.5 4.0 3.9 
15 - Base metals and articles of base metal  5.3 5.0 4.9 4.6 
 73 - Articles of iron or steel  1.4 1.4 1.4 1.3 
 72 - Iron and steel  1.5 1.2 1.1 1.0 
 76 - Aluminium and articles thereof  0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 
16 - Machinery and mechanical appliances; electrical 
equipment; television image and sound recorders  24.4 24.0 24.2 25.0 
 84 - Nuclear reactors, boilers, machinery and 
mechanical appliances; parts there of 13.9 13.5 13.6 13.7 WT/TPR/S/350 • United States  
 
- 148 - 
 
  Description  2012  2013  2014  2015  
 85 - Electrical machinery and equipment and 
parts thereof; sound recorders and reproducers, 
television image and sound recorders and 
reproducers, and parts and accessories of such 
articles  10.5 10.5 10.6 11.3 
17 - Vehicles, aircra ft, vessels and associated 
transport equipment  15.9 16.2 16.6 17.7 
 87 - Vehicles other than railway or tramway 
rolling - stock, and parts and accessories thereof  8.6 8.5 8.4 8.5 
18 - Optical, photographic, precision, medical or 
surgical instruments; cloc ks and watch es; musical 
instruments  5.5 5.5 5.4 5.7 
 90 - Optical, photographic, cinematographic, 
measuring, checking, precision, medical or 
surgical instruments and apparatus; parts and 
accessories thereof  5.4 5.3 5.2 5.5 
19 - Arms an d ammunition  0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 
20 - Miscellaneous manufactured articles  1.2 1.2 1.2 1.3 
21 - Works of art, collectors' pieces and antiques  0.5 0.5 0.6 0.7 
Other  2.6 2.7 2.7 2.8 
Source:  UNSD, Comtrade database.  
 WT/TPR/S/350 • Unite d States  
 
- 149 - 
 
  Table A1. 2 Merchandise imports,  by HS sections and main HS chapters, 201 2-15 
(US$ million and %)  
Description  2012  2013  2014  2015  
Total  imports  2,334,680  2,326,590  2,410,860  2,306,820  
 (% of total imports ) 
1 - Live animals; animal products  1.1 1.1 1.3 1.4 
 03 - Fish and crustaceans, molluscs and other 
aquatic invertebrates  0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 
2 - Vegetable products  1.8 1.8 1.8 1.9 
 08 - Edible fruit and nuts; peel of citrus fruit or 
melons  0.5 0.5 0.6 0.7 
3 - Animal or vegetable fats and oils; prepared 
edible fats  0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 
4 - Prepared foodstuffs; beverages, spirits and 
vinegar; tobacco  2.4 2.4 2.4 2.6 
 22 - Beverages, spirits and vinegar  0.9 0.9 0.9 1.0 
5 - Mineral products  18.9 17.0 15.2 9.0 
 27 - Mineral fuels, mineral oils and products of 
their distillation; bituminous s ubstances; mineral 
waxes  18.5 16.7 14.9 8.7 
6 - Products of the chemical or allied industries  7.6 7.6 7.8 8.6 
 30 - Pharmaceutical products  2.8 2.7 3.0 3.7 
 29 - Organic chemicals  2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 
7 - Plastics and articles thereof; rubber and articles 
thereof  3.2 3.2 3.3 3.4 
 39 - Plastics and articles thereof  1.9 2.0 2.1 2.2 
 40 - Rubber and articles thereof  1.3 1.2 1.2 1.2 
8 - Raw hides and skins, leather, fur skins and 
articles thereof; travel goods, handbags; articles of 
animal gut  0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 
 42 - Articles of leather; saddlery and harness; 
travel goods, handbags and similar containers; 
articles of animal gut (other than silk - worm gut)  0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 
9 - Wood and articles of wood; wood charcoal; cork 
and articles of cork  0.6 0.7 0.8 0.8 
 44 - Wood and articles of wood; wood charcoal  0.6 0.7 0.7 0.8 
10 - Pulp of wood or of other fibrous cellulosic 
material; paper and paperboard and articles thereof  1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 
 48 - Paper and paperboard; articles of paper 
pulp, of paper or of paperboa rd 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 
11 - Textiles and textile articles  4.6 4.8 4.8 5.2 
 61 - Articles of apparel and clothing accessories, 
knitted or crocheted  1.8 1.9 1.9 2.1 
 62 - Articles of apparel and clothing accessories, 
not knitted or crocheted  1.6 1.7 1.6 1.8 
 63 - Other made up textile articles; sets; worn 
clothing and worn textile articles; rags  0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 
12 - Footwear, headgear, umbrellas; prepared 
feathers and articles; artificial flowers  1.3 1.3 1.3 1.5 
 64 - Footwear, gaiters and the like; parts o f such 
articles  1.1 1.1 1.1 1.2 
13 - Articles of stone, plaster, cement, etc.; ceramic 
products; glass and glassware  0.8 0.8 0.9 1.0 
14 - Natural or cultured pearls, precious or semi -
precious stones, precious metals  2.7 2.8 2.7 2.5 
15 - Base metals and articles of base metal  5.3 5.1 5.5 5.3 
 73 - Articles of iron or steel  1.7 1.6 1.6 1.7 
 72 - Iron and steel  1.3 1.1 1.5 1.2 
 76 - Aluminium and articles thereof  0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 
16 - Machinery and mechanical appliances; electrical 
equipment; television image and sound recorders  26.2 26.4 27.0 28.7 
 85 - Electrical machinery and equipment and 
parts thereof; sound recorders and reproducers, 
television image and sound recorders and 
reproducers, and parts and accessories of such 
articles  12.7 13.0 13.3 14.4 WT/TPR/S/350 • United States  
 
- 150 - 
 
  Description  2012  2013  2014  2015  
 84 - Nuclear reactors, boilers, machinery and 
mechanical appliances; parts thereof  13.5 13.4 13.7 14.3 
17 - Vehicles, aircraft, vessels and associated 
transport equipment  11.7 12.3 12.6 14.1 
 87 - Vehicles other than railway or tramway 
rolling - stock,  and parts and accessories thereof  10.5 10.9 11.0 12.3 
 88 - Aircraft, spacecraft, and parts thereof  1.0 1.3 1.4 1.5 
18 - Optical, photographic, precision, medical or 
surgical instruments; clocks and watch es; musical 
instruments  3.3 3.4 3.4 3.7 
 90 - Optical, photographic, cinematographic, 
measuring, checking, precision, medical or 
surgical instruments and apparatus; parts and 
accessories thereof  3.0 3.1 3.2 3.4 
19 - Arms and ammunition  0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 
20 - Miscellaneous manufactured articles  3.4 3.6 3.7 4.2 
 94 - Furniture; bedding, mattresses, mattress 
supports, cushions and similar stuffed 
furnishings; lamps and lighting fittings, not 
elsewhere specified or included; illuminated 
signs, illuminated name - plates and the like; 
prefabricated buildings  2.0 2.2 2.3 2.7 
 95 - Toys, games and sports requisites; parts and 
accessories thereof  1.2 1.2 1.2 1.4 
21 - Works of art, collectors' pieces and antiques  0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5 
Other  2.9 3.0 3.1 3.5 
Source:  UNSD, Comtrade database.  
 WT/TPR/S/350 • Unite d States  
 
- 151 - 
 
  Table A1. 3 Merchandise exports, by trading partner, 20 12-15 
(US$ million and %)  
Description  2012  2013  2014  2015  
Total exports  1,544,930  1,577,590  1,619,740  1,503,870  
 (% of total exports)  
Americas  44.7 45.0 45.4 44.4 
Other America  44.7 45.0 45.4 44.4 
Canada  18.9 19.1 19.3 18.6 
Mexico  14.0 14.3 14.8 15.7 
Brazil  2.8 2.8 2.6 2.1 
Colombia  1.1 1.2 1.2 1.1 
Chile 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.0 
Argentina  0.7 0.7 0.7 0.6 
Peru 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 
Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of  1.1 0.8 0.7 0.6 
Panama  0.6 0.7 0.6 0.5 
Dominican Republic  0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 
Europe  20.3 19.7 19.6 20.7 
EU(28)  17.6 16.9 17.2 18.3 
United Kingdom  3.6 3.0 3.3 3.7 
Germany  3.1 3.0 3.0 3.3 
Netherlands  2.6 2.7 2.7 2.7 
Belgium  1.9 2.0 2.1 2.3 
France  2.1 2.1 2.0 2.1 
EFTA 2.0 2.0 1.7 1.7 
Switz erland  1.7 1.7 1.4 1.5 
Other Europe  0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 
Turkey  0.8 0.8 0.7 0.6 
Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS)  1.0 1.0 1.0 0.6 
Russian Federation  0.7 0.7 0.7 0.5 
Ukraine  0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 
Africa  2.1 2.2 2.3 1.8 
South Africa  0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 
Egypt  0.4 0.3 0.4 0.3 
Nigeria  0.3 0.4 0.4 0.2 
Middle East  4.5 4.6 4.6 4.8 
United Arab Emirates  1.5 1.5 1.4 1.5 
Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of  1.2 1.2 1.2 1.3 
Israel  0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 
Asia 27.3 27.4 27.1 27.6 
China  7.2 7.7 7.6 7.7 
Japan  4.5 4.1 4.1 4.2 
Other As ia 15.6 15.5 15.3 15.7 
Korea, Republic of  2.7 2.6 2.7 2.9 
Hong Kong, China  2.4 2.7 2.5 2.5 
Singapore  2.0 1.9 1.9 1.9 
Chinese Taipei  1.6 1.6 1.6 1.7 
Australia  2.0 1.7 1.6 1.7 
India 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.4 
Other  0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 
Source: UNSD, Comtrade databas e. WT/TPR/S/350 • United States  
 
- 152 - 
 
  Table A1. 4 Merchandise imports, by trading partner, 201 2-15 
(US$ million and %)  
Description  2012  2013  2014  2015  
Total imports  2,334,680  2,326,590  2,410,860  2,306,820  
 (% of total imports ) 
Americas  33.6 33.7 33.5 31.2 
Other America  33.6 33.7 33.5 31.2 
Canada  14.0 14.5 14.7 13.0 
Mexico  12.0 12.2 12.3 12.9 
Brazil  1.4 1.2 1.3 1.2 
Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of  1.7 1.4 1.3 0.7 
Colombia  1.1 1.0 0.8 0.6 
Chile 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.4 
Ecuador  0.4 0.5 0.5 0.3 
Europe  18.5 18.8 19.6 20.9 
EU(28)  16.7 17.0 17.7 18.9 
Germany  4.8 5.0 5.2 5.5 
United Kingdom  2.4 2.3 2.3 2.5 
France  1.8 2.0 2.0 2.1 
Italy 1.6 1.7 1.8 2.0 
Ireland  1.4 1.4 1.4 1.7 
EFTA 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.6 
Switzerland  1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 
Other Europe  0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 
Turkey  0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 
Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS)  1.5 1.4 1.2 0.9 
Russian Federation  1.3 1.2 1.0 0.8 
Africa  2.9 2.2 1.5 1.1 
South Africa  0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 
Algeria  0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 
Middle East  5.1 4.7 4.4 2.8 
Israel  1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 
Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of  2.5 2.3 2.0 1.0 
Kuwait, the State of  0.6 0.6 0.5 0.2 
Asia 38.4 39.2 39.8 43.1 
China  19.0 19.7 20.2 21.8 
Japan  6.4 6.1 5.7 5.8 
Other Asia  12.9 13.3 14.0 15.4 
Korea, Republic of  2.6 2.8 3.0 3.2 
India 1.8 1.9 1.9 2.0 
Chinese Taipei  1.7 1.7 1.7 1.8 
Viet Nam  0.9 1.1 1.3 1.7 
Malaysia  1.1 1.2 1.3 1.5 
Thailand  1.2 1.2 1.2 1.3 
Indonesia  0.8 0.8 0.8 0.9 
Singapore  0.9 0.8 0.7 0.8 
Other  0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 
Source:  UNSD, Comtrade database.  WT/TPR/S/350 • Unite d States  
 
- 153 - 
 
  Table A1. 5 Commercial servic es exports, by type, 2012 -15 
(US$ million)  
Services supply through modes 1, 2, and 4  2012  2013  2014  2015  
Total commercial services  656,411  687,894  710,565  750,860  
Maintenance and repair services  17,186  18,648  22,389  24,035  
Transportation, of which  83,94 4 87,415  90,031  87,222  
Sea transport  17,012  17,322  18,152  18,044  
Air transport  62,078  65,523  67,498  64,672  
Other transport  4,854  4,570  4,381  4,505  
Travel  161,632  172,901  177,241  204,523  
Insurance services  16,790  17,058  17,417  17,142  
Financial service s 76,692  84,091  87,290  102,460  
Charges for the use of intellectual property n.i.e., of which  124,440  127,927  130,362  124,663  
Industrial processes  42,962  44,904  48,723  45,898  
Computer software  40,493  42,464  39,514  36,752  
Trade  marks  16,243  15,944  16,883  20,582  
Audio -visual and related products  18,715  18,410  19,414  21,308  
Telecommunications, computer and information services, of 
which  32,510  35,035  35,885  35,894  
Telecommunications services  13,749  14,471  13,550  12,645  
Computer services  12,554  13,779  15,310 15,951  
Information services  6,207  6,784  7,025  7,299  
Other business services, of which  120,382  121,873  129,514  134,647  
Research and development services  27,680  29,258  33,192  34,527  
Professional and management consulting services  53,542  55,649  59,48 7 64,912  
Technical, trade -related and other business services  39,160  36,965  36,834  35,210  
Government goods and services, n.i.e.  22,835  22,946  20,438  20,271  
Source:  WTO Statistics Database and U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (September 2016).  
Table A1. 6 Commercial services imports, by type, 2012 -15 
(US$ million)  
Services supply through modes 1, 2, and 4  2012  2013  2014  2015  
Total commercial services  452,013  463,700  477,428  488,656  
Maintenance and repair services  8,015  7,486  7,468  8,996  
Transportation  84,985  90,634  94,219  97,049  
Sea transport  33,162  36,264  36,254  37,295  
Air transport  47,458  50,104  53,697  55,851  
Other transport  4,365  4,266  4,268  3,904  
Travel  100,338  104,107  110,787  112,871  
Insurance services  55,513  53,420  50,096  47,773  
Financial services  16,703  18,519  19,503  25,162  
Charges for the use of intellectual property n.i.e., of which  38,661  38,999  42,124  39,494  
Industrial processes  22,140  22,508  23,783  20,868  
Computer software  6,570  6,481  6,773  6,772  
Trade  marks 4,220  4,440  .. 3,767  
Audio -visual and related products  5,472  5,253  7,643  7,954  
Telecommunications, computer, and information services, of 
which  32,779  33,812  33,314  36,440  
Telecommunications services  7,169  7,348  6,656  6,241  
Computer services  23,86 5 24,438  24,386  27,785  
Other business services, of which  87,157  92,389  95,753  99,355  
Research and development  services  28,552  30,978  33,048  32,021  
Professional and management consulting services  33,212  34,462  38,163  40,436  
Technical, trade -related and other business services  25,394  25,949  24,542  26,896  
Government goods and services, n.i.e.  27,861  25,334  24,163  21,515  
.. Not available.  
Source:  WTO Statistics Database and U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis  (September 2016 ). WT/TPR/S/350 • United States  
 
- 154 - 
 
  Table A1. 7 U.S. commercial services exports (modes 1, 2, and 4), by destination, 
2012 -14 
(US$ million)  
  2012  2013  2014  
World  633,576  664,948  690,127  
EU(28)a 197,934  204,329  217,877  
Canada  61,576  62,376  61,069  
Japan  46,133  45,986  46,081  
China  32,751  36,974  42,062  
Mexico  27,798  29,403  29,618  
Switzerland  27,416  27,472  28,835  
Brazil  24,880  26,507  28,026  
Korea, Republic of  17,938  20,699  20,429  
Australia  18,687  19,210  19,047  
India 12,091  13,286  14,766  
Chinese Taipei  11,303  11,362  12,256  
Singapore  13,167 11,364  11,686  
Bermuda  9,736  10,678  10,781  
Hong Kong, China  6,472  9,003  9,998  
Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of  6,987  7,672  7,820  
Argentina  6,221  6,641  6,688  
Venezuela, Bolivarian Rep. of  6,392  7,080  6,185  
Israel  3,810  4,427  4,775  
Norway  3,756  3,995  4,162 
Chile 3,555  3,563  3,776  
All others  94,973  102,921  104,190  
a Data for 2012 refer to EU(27).  
Source:  Bureau of Economic Analysis th rough OECD.  
Table A1. 8 U.S. commercial services imports (modes 1, 2, and 4), by origin , 201 2-14 
(US$ million)  
  2012  2013  2014  
World  424,152  438,366  453,265  
EU(28)a 147,191  153,847  159,675  
Canada  30,793  30,446  29,781  
Japan  24,535  27,463  28,275  
Bermuda  27,645  26,803  24,754  
Switzerland  21,554  22,258  21,676  
India 18,717  19,327  20,743  
Mexico  15,313  17,161  19,368  
China  12,967  14,051  14,311  
Brazil  7,435  7,563  8,383  
Korea, Republic of  8,132  8,309  7,972  
Hong Kong, China  6,995  7,116  7,571  
Chinese Taipei  6,916  7,000  7,297  
Australia  6,651  6,678  6,578  
Singapore  5,405  5,388  5,808  
Israel  5,116  4,975  5,543  
Philippines  3,911  3,867  4,335  
Thailand  2,304  2,611  2,739  
Norway  2,297  2,622  2,722  
Malaysia  1,427  1,410  1,774  
South Africa  1,737  1,667  1,705  
All others  1,885  1,745  1,660  
a Data for 2012 refer to EU(27).  
Source:  Bureau of Economic Analys is through OECD.  WT/TPR/S/350 • Unite d States  
 
- 155 - 
 
  Table A1. 9 Services supplied by U.S. affiliates established abroad (outward FATS), by 
economy of affiliate, through mode 3, 2010 -13 
  2013  Annual percentage change  
Value  Share  2010 -13 2012  2013  
 World  1,320,875  100.0  5 3 3 
1 EU(28)  558,724  42.3 3 1 1 
2 Canada  127,589  9.7 3 1 0 
3 Japan  71,568  5.4 1 2 -7 
4 Switzerland  64,214  4.9 1 -1 6 
5 Singapore  59,522  4.5 13 9 9 
6 Australia  52,580  4.0 5 0 4 
7 Mexico  43,393  3.3 8 8 7 
8 China  43,257  3.3 14 14 9 
9 Brazil 39,594  3.0 10 2 3 
10 Hong Kong, China  33,770  2.6 3 0 3 
11 India 21,301  1.6 14 5 25 
12 British Virgin Islands  16,264  1.2 18 4 43 
13 Bermuda  15,065  1.1 1 17 -8 
14 Korea, Republic of  12,571  1.0 5 0 3 
15 Chile 11,521  0.9 11 15 0 
 Above 15  1,170,933  88.6 - - - 
Source:  Bureau of Economic Analysis.  
Table A1. 10 Services supplied by foreign affiliates in the United States (inward FATS), 
by economy of affiliate, through mode 3, 2010 -13 
  2013  Annual percentage change  
Value  Share  2010 -13 2012  2013  
 World  867,683  100.0  8 4 8 
1 EU(28)  451,530  52.0 5 4 4 
2 Japan  146,509  16.9 16 7 36 
3 Canada  84,394  9.7 6 1 3 
4 Switzerland  52,024  6.0 -2 -11 -1 
5 Australia  22,865  2.6 20 15 4 
6 Bermuda  17,602  2.0 19 26 3 
7 Korea, Republic of 16,121  1.9 16 9 16 
8 India 11,850  1.4 17 11 8 
9 Singapore  8,331  1.0 12 -4 -1 
10 Mexico  7,503  0.9 19 15 13 
11 British Virgin Islands  4,464  0.5 19 42 4 
12 China  4,437  0.5 59 222 -1 
13 Hong Kong, China  4,214  0.5 9 -4 4 
14 United Arab Emirates  2,848  0.3 6 -7 5 
15 Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of  2,451  0.3 .. .. 52 
 Above 15  837,143  96.5 - - - 
.. Not available.  
Source:  Bureau of Economic Analysis.  
  
  WT/TPR/S/350 • United States  
 
- 156 - Table A2. 1 The T rade Advisory Committee System  
Type and name Maximum or approxim ate 
number of membersa Appointments by  Subject  
President's Advisory Committee  
Trade Policy and Negotiations (ACTPN)  45 President  Examines U.S. trade policy and agreements  
Policy advisory committees  
Intergovernmental Policy Advisory Committee (IGPAC)  35 USTR  Representation of States and non -federal 
government entities  
Trade and Environment Policy Advisory Committee (TEPAC)  35 USTR  Trade and environmental policy issues  
Trade Advisory Committee for Africa (TACA)  30 USTR  Trade and development issues of su b-Saharan 
Africa  
Agricultural Policy Advisory Committee (APAC)  35 USTR and the Department of Agriculture  Agriculture issues  
Labor Advisory Committee for Trade Negotiations and Trade 
Policy (LAC)  30 USTR and the Department of Labor  Representation from lab our unions  
Technical advisory committees  
Agricultural Technical Advisory Committees (ATACs) : 
Animals and Animal Products  35 USTR and the Department of Agriculture  Animals and animal products  
Fruits and Vegetables  35 USTR and the Department of Agricultu re Fruits and vegetables  
Grains, Feed, and Oilseeds  35 USTR and the Department of Agriculture  Grains, feed, and oilseeds  
Processed Foods  35 USTR and the Department of Agriculture  Processed foods  
Sweeteners and Sweetener Products  35 USTR and the Departme nt of Agriculture  Sweeteners and sweetener products  
Tobacco, Cotton, Peanuts, and Planting Seeds  35 USTR and the Department of Agriculture  Tobacco, cotton, peanuts, and planting seeds  
Industry Trade Advisory Committees (ITACs):  
Committee of Chairs of th e Industry Trade Advisory Committee  16 Consists of Chairs of the 16 ITACs  Trade matters of common interest to the ITACs  
Aerospace Equipment (ITAC 1)  50 USTR and the Department of Commerce  Aerospace equipment  
Automotive Equipment and Capital Goods (ITAC  2) 50 USTR and the Department of Commerce  Automotive equipment and capital goods  
Chemicals, Pharmaceuticals, Health/Science Products and 
Services (ITAC 3)  50 USTR and the Department of Commerce  Chemicals, pharmaceuticals, health/science 
products and servi ces  
Consumer Goods (ITAC 4)  50 USTR and the Department of Commerce  Consumer goods  
Distribution Services (ITAC 5)  50 USTR and the Department of Commerce  Distribution services  
Energy and Energy Services (ITAC 6)  50 USTR and the Department of Commerce  Energy and energy services  
Forest Products (ITAC  7) 50 USTR and the Department of Commerce  Forest products  
Information and Communication Technologies Services and 
Electronic Commerce (ITAC 8)  50 USTR and the Department of Commerce  Information and commun ication technologies 
services and electronic commerce  
Building Materials, Construction, and Nonferrous Materials 
(ITAC  9) 50 USTR and the Department of Commerce  Building materials, construction, and nonferrous 
metals  
Services and Finance Industries (ITA C 10)  50 USTR and the Department of Commerce  Services and finance industries  
Small and Minority Business (ITAC 11)  50 USTR and the Department of Commerce  Small and minority business  
Steel (ITAC 12)  50 USTR and the Department of Commerce  Steel  
Textile s and Clothing (ITAC 13)  50 USTR and the Department of Commerce  Textiles and clothing  
Customs Matters and Trade Facilitation (ITAC  14) 50 USTR and the Department of Commerce  Customs matters and trade facilitation  
Intellectual Property Rights (ITAC 15)  50 USTR and the Department of Commerce  Intellectual property rights  
Standards and Technical Trade Barriers (ITAC 16)  50 USTR and the Department of Commerce  Standards and technical trade barriers  
a There is no limit on the number of participants in APAC and the ATACs. The charter indicates "sufficient membership" and suggests between 20 -40 members.  
Source:  WTO Secretariat, based on http://www.ita.doc.gov/itac/committees/  and http://www.ustr.gov/about -us/intergovernmental -affairs/advisory -committees .  
 WT/TPR/S/350 • United States  
 
- 157 - 
 
  Table A2. 2 Selected U.S. notifications to the WTO, September 2014 -July 2016  
WTO Ag reement  Description  Document symbol  Date  
Agreement on Agriculture  
Articles 10 and 18.2 
(ES:1 and ES:2)  Export subsidies commitments: 
budgetary outlays and quantity 
reduction commitments; and 
notification of total exports  G/AG/N/USA/107  
G/AG/N/USA/99  23/05/2016  
05/11/2014  
Article 16.2 NF:1 (1) -(4) Net-Food Importing Developing 
Country (NFIDC) Decision: food 
and other assistance; and other 
specific actions  G/AG/N/USA/105/Rev.1  
G/AG/N/USA/98  
G/AG/N/USA/97  03/06/2016  
31/10/2014  
15/09/2014  
Article 18.2 (DS: 1) Domestic support  G/AG/N/USA/108  
G/AG/N/USA/100  25/05/2016  
08/12/2014  
Article 18.2 (MA:1)  Administration of tariff and other 
quota commitments  G/AG/N/USA/106  
G/AG/N/USA/101  25/04/2016  
28/04/2014  
Articles 5.7 and 18.2 
(MA:4)  Special safeguard provision s G/AG/N/USA/103  07/10/2015  
Article 18.2 (MA:5)  Tariff rate quotas  G/AG/N/USA/104  21/01/2016  
General Agreement on Trade in Services  
WT/L/847  Services LDC waiver  S/C/N/825  04/09/2015  
Agreement on the Implementation of Article VI of the GATT 1994 (Anti -Dumping Agreement)  
Article 16.4 – semi 
annual  Anti-dumping actions (taken 
within the preceding six months)  G/ADP/N/280/USA/Corr.1  
G/ADP/N/280/USA  
G/ADP/N/272/USA  
G/ADP/N/265/USA  
G/ADP/N/259/USA  06/04/2016  
11/03/2016  
14/09/2015  
26/02/2015  
05/09/2014  
Article 16.4 – ad hoc Anti-dumping actions 
(preliminary and final)  G/ADP/N/287  
G/ADP/N/285  
G/ADP/N/284  
G/ADP/N/283  
G/ADP/N/282  
G/ADP/N/281  
G/ADP/N/279  
G/ADP/N/278  
G/ADP/N/277  
G/ADP/N/276  
G/ADP/N/275  
G/ADP/N/274  
G/ADP/N/273  
G/ADP/N/271  
G/ADP/N/270  
G/ADP/N/269  
G/ADP/N/268  
G/ADP/N/267  
G/ADP/N/266  
G/ADP/N/264  
G/ADP/N/263  
G/ADP/N/262  23/06/2016  
31/05/2016  
19/04/2016  
24/03/2016  
23/02/2016  
21/01/2016  
18/01/2016  
25/11/2015  
15/10/2015  
16/09/2015  
31/08/2015  
24/07/2015  
22/06/2015  
29/05/2015  
16/04/2015  
01/04/2015  
20/02/2 015 
22/01/2015  
18/12/2014  
21/11/2014  
15/10/2014  
23/09/2014  
Article 16.5  Competent authorities  G/ADP/N/14/Add.41  22/04/2016  
Article 18.5  Laws and regulations, and 
changes thereto, including 
changes in the administration of 
such laws  G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl .24 
G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.23  
G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.22  
G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.21  
G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.20  
G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.19  
G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.18  01/04/2016  
01/04/2016  
03/09/2015  
13/08/2015  
16/07/2015  
30/06/2015  
27/11/2014  
GATT 1994  
Article XVII: 4(a) and 
Paragraph 1 of the 
Understanding o n the 
Interpretation of 
Article  XVII State -trading activities  G/STR/N/16/USA  
 29/06/2016  
Paragraph 3(c)  Notification and statistical data  WT/L/983  
WT/L/948  18/01/2016  
22/12/2014  
Agreement on Government Procurem ent 
Appendix I  Procurement thresholds  GPA/W/336/Add.2  06/01/2016  
Article XXII:8  Work Programme on Exclusions 
and Restrictions  GPA/WPS/EXCS/2  22/10/2014  WT/TPR/S/350 • United States  
 
- 158 - 
 
  WTO Ag reement  Description  Document symbol  Date  
Article XXII:8  Response to SME Questionnaire  GPA/WPS/SME/20  
GPA/WPS/SME/11  15/06/2016  
29/10/2015  
Agreement on Import Licensing  
Article 1.4(a)  Licensing procedures  G/LIC/N/1/USA/6/Add.1/Corr.
1 
G/LIC/N/1/USA/6/Add.2/Corr.
1 
G/LIC/N/1/USA/6/Add.2  20/08/2013  
21/03/2013  
15/03/2013  
Article 7.3(2)  Replies to the questionnaire  G/LIC/N/3/USA/12  
G/LIC/N/3/USA/1 1 09/10/2015  
03/10/2014  
Article 8.2(b)  Changes in Laws/regulations and 
administrative arrangements  G/LIC/N/1/USA/6/Add.1/Corr.
1 
G/LIC/N/1/USA/6/Add.2/Corr.
1 
G/LIC/N/1/USA/6/Add.2  20/08/2013  
21/03/2013  
15/03/2013  
Decision on Notification Procedures for Qu antitative Restrictions  
G/L/59/Rev.1  Notification of QRs  G/MA/QR/N/USA/2  09/10/2014  
Agreement on Rules of Origin  
Paragraph 4 of Annex II  Preferential rules of origin  G/RO/N/88  18/01/2013  
Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures  
Article 25.1 and GATT 
1994 Article  XVI:1  Subsidies  G/SCM/N/284/USA  18/11/2015  
Article 25.11 – ad hoc  Countervailing duty actions 
(preliminary and final)  G/SCM/N/306  
G/SCM/N/304  
G/SCM/N/303  
G/SCM/N/302  
G/SCM/N/301  
G/SCM/N/300  
G/SCM/N/297  
G/SCM/N/296  
G/SCM/N/295  
G/SCM/N/294  
G/SCM/N/293  
G/SCM/N/292  
G/SCM/N/291  
G/SCM/N/288  
G/SCM/N/287  
G/SCM/N/286  
G/SCM/N/285  
G/SCM/N/283  
G/SCM/N/282  
G/SCM/N/280  
G/SCM/N/279  
G/SCM/N/278  20/06/2016  
24/05/2016  
13/04/2016  
16/03/2016  
25/02/2016  
19/01/2016  
22/12/2015  
19/11/2015  
09/10/2015  
18/09 /2015  
03/09/2015  
23/07/2015  
22/06/2015  
29/05/2015  
16/04/2015  
20/03/2015  
23/02/2015  
21/01/2015  
19/12/2014  
17/11/2014  
15/10/2014  
18/09/2014  
Article 25.11 – 
semi-annual  Countervailing duty actions 
(taken within the preceding six 
months)  G/SCM/N/298/USA  
G/SCM /N/289/USA  
G/SCM/N/281/USA  
G/SCM/N/274/USA  11/03/2016  
18/09/2015  
10/03/2015  
05/09/2014  
Article 25.12  Competent authorities  G/SCM/N/18/Add.41   22/04/2016  
Article 32.6  Laws/regulations and changes 
thereto, including changes in 
administration of such laws  G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.23  
G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.22  
G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.21  
G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.20  
G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.19  
G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.18  01/04/2016  
03/09/2015  
13/08/2015  
16/04/2015  
30/06/2015  
27/11/2014  
Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary  Measures  
Article 7 Annex  B Sanitary and phytosanitary 
regulations  Several notifications (series G/SPS/N/USA/)  
Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade  
Article 2.9  Technical regulations  Several notifications (series G/TBT/N/USA/)  WT/TPR/S/350 • United States  
 
- 159 - 
 
  WTO Ag reement  Description  Document symbol  Date  
Articles 2.9 and 5.6  Technical regulations and 
conformity assessment 
procedures  G/TBT/N/USA/1143  
G/TBT/N/USA/1141  
G/TBT/N/USA/1137  
G/TBT/N/USA/1127  
G/TBT/N/USA/1126  
G/TBT/N/USA/1115  
G/TBT/N/USA/1112  
G/TBT/N/USA/1102  
G/TBT/N/USA/1093  
G/TBT/N/USA/1089  
G/TBT/N/USA/1076  
G/TBT/N/ USA/1075  
G/TBT/N/USA/1071  
G/TBT/N/USA/1067  
G/TBT/N/USA/1032  
G/TBT/N/USA/989  
G/TBT/N/USA/976  
G/TBT/N/USA/953  
G/TBT/N/USA/921  15/06/2016  
15/06/2016  
03/06/2016  
12/05/2016  
12/05/2016  
28/04/2016  
27/04/2016  
19/04/2016  
29/03/2016  
24/03/2016  
19/02/2016  
19/02/2016  
18/02/2016  
27/01/2016  
01/10/2015  
23/04/2015  
23/03/2015  
23/03/2015  
19/09/2014  
Article 3.2  Technical regulations (local 
government)  Many notifications received, see: 
http://tbtims.wto.org/   
Article unspecified  Techn ical regulations  G/TBT/N/USA/1159  
G/TBT/N/USA/1142  
G/TBT/N/USA/1138  
G/TBT/N/USA/1125  
G/TBT/N/USA/1119  
G/TBT/N/USA/1099  
G/TBT/N/USA/1095  
G/TBT/N/USA/1053  
G/TBT/N/USA/1036  
G/TBT/N/USA/1024  
G/TBT/N/USA/1013  
G/TBT/N/USA/1004  
G/TBT/N/USA/992  
G/TBT/N/USA/969  
G/TBT/N/USA/968  
G/TBT/N/USA/925  27/06/2016  
15/06/2016  
13/06/2016  
12/05/2016  
04/05/2016  
11/04/2016  
31/03/2016  
01/12/2015  
12/10/2015  
13/08/2015  
23/07/2015  
01/07/2015  
19/05/2015  
04/03/2015  
03/03/2015  
02/10/2014  
Source:  WTO Secretariat.  
 WT/TPR/S/350 • United States  
 
- 160 - 
 
  Table A2. 3 Dispute settlement cases involving the United States, July 2016  
Subject  Respondent/  
complainant/appellan
t Request for 
consultation 
received  Status  
(as at 15  July 2016)  WTO 
document 
series  
Requests for consultations  
United States - Condi tional 
Tax Incentives for Large 
Civil Aircraft  United States/  
European  Union  19-Dec-14 Panel report expected to 
be circulated in 
November 2016  WT/DS487  
China — Measures Related 
to Demonstration Bases and 
common Service Platforms 
Programmes  China/United St ates 11-Feb-15 On 14 April 2016, China 
and the United States 
informed the DSB that 
they had reached an 
agreement in relation to 
this dispute in the form 
of a Memorandum of 
Understanding  WT/DS489  
China — Tax Measures 
Concerning Certain 
Domestically Produce d 
Aircraft  China/United States  8-Dec-15 Consultations  WT/DS501  
United States — Measures 
Concerning Non -Immigrant 
Visas United States/India  3-Mar-16 Consultations  WT/DS503  
United States — 
Countervailing Measures on 
Supercalendered Paper  United States/Cana da 30-Mar-16 Panel established 
21 July 2016 WT/DS505  
Panels  
United States as respondent  
United States — 
Anti-Dumping and 
Countervailing Measures on 
Certain Coated Paper  United States/Indonesia  13-Mar15  Panel composed on 
4 February 2016  WT/DS491  
United States — 
Anti-Dumping Measures on 
Certain Oil Country Tubular 
Goods  United States/Korea 
(Rep. of)  22-Dec-14 Panel composed on 
13 July 2015  WT/DS488  
United States — Certain 
Methodologies and Their 
Application to Anti -Dumping 
Proceedings involving China  United States/China  3-Dec-13 Panel report expected to 
be circulated i n 
October  2016 WT/DS471  
United States — 
Anti-Dumping and 
Countervailing Measures on 
Large Residential Washers 
from Korea (Rep. of)  United States/Korea 
(Rep. of)  29-Aug-13 Appellate Body Re port 
expected to be circulated 
in September 2016  WT/DS464  
United States — Measures 
Affecting the Importation of 
Animals, Meat and Other 
Animal Products from 
Argentina  United States/Argentina  30-Aug-12 Report adopted, with 
recommendation to bring 
measure i nto conformity 
on 31 August 2015  WT/DS447  
United States — 
Anti-Dumping Measures on 
Certain Shrimp from Viet 
Nam United States/Viet Nam  22-Feb-12 On 18 July 2016, Viet 
Nam and the United 
States notified the DSB 
that they had rea ched a 
mutually agreed solut ion WT/DS429  
United States — 
Countervailing Duty 
Measures on Certain 
Products from China  United States/China  25-May-12 Implementation notified 
on 21 December 2015. 
Article 21 .5 panel 
established on 
21 July 2016 WT/DS437  
United States — 
Countervailing Mea sures on 
Certain Hot -Rolled Carbon 
Steel Flat Products from 
India United  States/India  12-Apr-12 Implement ation notified 
on 22 April 2016  WT/DS436  
United States as complainant  
Indonesia — Importation of 
Horticultural Products, 
Animals and Animal 
Products  Indonesia/United  States  10-Jan-13 Panel established, but 
not yet composed  WT/DS455  WT/TPR/S/350 • United States  
 
- 161 - 
 
  Subject  Respondent/  
complainant/appellan
t Request for 
consultation 
received  Status  
(as at 15  July 2016)  WTO 
document 
series  
Indonesia — Importation of 
Horticultural Products, 
Animals and Animal 
Products  Indonesia/United States  30-Aug-13 Consultations  WT/DS465  
Indonesia — Importation of 
Horticul tural Products, 
Animals and Animal 
Products  Indonesia/United St ates 8-May-14 Panel report issued in 
August 2016  WT/DS478  
Argentina — Measures 
Affecting the Importation of 
Goods  Argentina/United States  21-Aug-12 Report adopted, with 
recommendation to brin g 
measure into conformity 
on 26 January 2015  WT/DS444  
India — Measures 
Concerning the Importation 
of Certain Agricultural 
Products  India/United States  6-Mar-12 Matter referr ed to 
arbitration under 
Article  22.6 WT/DS430  
Appeals to the Appellate Body  
United States — 
Anti-Dumping and 
Countervailing Measures on 
Large Residential Washers 
from Korea (Rep. of)  United States/Korea 
(Rep. of)  29-Aug-13 Appellate Body Report 
expected to be circulated 
in September 2016  WT/DS464  
Countervailing and 
Anti-Dumping  Measu res on 
Certain Products from China  United States/China  17-Sept-12 Report adopted, with 
recommendation to bring 
measure into conformity 
on 22 July 2014  WT/DS449/AB
/R 
Measures related to the 
Exportation of Rare Earths, 
Tungsten and Molybdenum  China/United S tates  13-March -12 Implementation notified 
on 20 May 2015  WT/DS431/AB
/R 
Implementation (Articles 21.5 and 22.6)  
United States — Measures 
affecting trade in large civil 
aircraft  EC/United States  6-Oct-04 Suspension of 
Article  22.6 arbitration 
on 19  Januar y 2012, 
Article  21.5 panel 
composed on 
17 April 2012 WT/DS353  
European Communities and 
certain member States — 
Measures Affecting Trade in 
Large Civil Aircraft  EC/United States  6-Oct-04 Panel report expecte d to 
be circulated in 
September  2016 WT/DS316  
United States — Measures 
Concerning the Importation, 
Marketing and Sale of Tuna 
and Tuna Products  United States/Mexico  24-Oct-08 Article 22.6 arbitrator 
appointed on 
2 May 2016 
 
Recourse by the U .S. to 
Article  21.5, panel 
composed on 
27 May 2016 
 
Second reco urse by 
Mexico to Article 21.5, 
panel composed on 
11 July 2016  WT/DS381  
China — Countervailing and 
Anti-Dumping Duties on 
Grain Oriented Flat -Rolled 
Electrical Steel from the 
United  States  China/United  States  15-Sept-10 Implementation notified 
on 10 April  2015 WT/DS414  
United States — Measures 
Affecting the Production and 
Sale of Clove Cigarettes  United States/Indonesia  7-Apr-10 On 3 October 2014, 
Indonesia and the United 
States notified the DSB 
that they had rea ched a 
mutually agreed solution  WT/DS406  
United States — Certain 
Country of Origin Labelling 
(COOL) Requirements  United States/Canada 
and Mexico  1-Dec-08 Implementation notified 
on 21 December 2015  WT/DS386 
and 384  
Source:  WTO Secretariat.  WT/TPR/S/350 • United States  
 
- 162 - 
 
  Table A3. 1 Summary analysi s of United States MFN tariff, 2016  
Description  MFN Final bound 
averagea 
(%) No. of 
lines  Average 
(%) Range 
(%) Coefficient of 
variation (CV)  
Total  10,516  4.8 0 - 510.9  2.9 4.8 
HS 01 -24 1,873  8.3 0 - 510.9  3.7 8.3 
HS 25 -97 8,643  4.1 0 - 57.9 1.3 4.1 
By WTO category       
WTO agriculture  1,690  9.1 0 - 510.9  3.5 9.1 
Animals and products thereof  161 3.0 0 - 26.4 1.8 3.0 
Dairy products  167 27.6 0 - 510.9  1.9 27.6 
Fruit, vegetables, and plants  527 5.4 0 - 131.8  2.1 5.4 
Coffee and tea  82 8.9 0 - 55.1 1.0 8.9 
Cereals and preparations  182 8.3 0 - 122.0  1.9 8.3 
Oil seeds, fats and oils and their 
products  107 6.8 0 - 163.8  3.5 6.8 
Sugars and confectionary  53 10.8 0 - 65.6 1.2 10.8 
Beverages, spirits, and tobacco  149 22.9 0 - 439.9  3.5 22.9 
Cotton  16 6.2 0 - 24.4 1.3 6.2 
Other agricultural products, n.e.s.  246 1.6 0 - 53.0 2.7 1.6 
WTO non-agriculture (incl.  petroleum)  8,826  4.0 0 - 57.9 1.4 4.0 
WTO non -agriculture (excl.  petroleum)  8,794  4.0 0 - 57.9 1.4 4.0 
Fish and fishery products  331 1.5 0 - 35 2.4 1.5 
Minerals and metals  1,547  2.5 0 - 38 1.6 2.5 
Chemicals and photographic supplies  1,847  3.7 0 - 6.5 0.7 3.7 
Wood, pulp, paper, and furniture  544 1.0 0 - 16 2.6 1.0 
Textiles  1,082  7.8 0 - 42.3 0.7 7.8 
Clothing  571 11.6 0 - 32 0.7 11.6 
Leather, r ubber, footwear, and travel 
goods  424 7.4 0 - 57.9 1.5 7.3 
Non-electric machinery  799 1.4 0 - 9.9 1.4 1.4 
Electric machinery  530 2.2 0 - 15 1.0 2.3 
Transport equipment  241 2.5 0 - 25 1.9 2.5 
Non-agriculture articles, n.e.s.  878 3.0 0 - 33.4 1.2 3.0 
Petroleum  32 1.9 0 - 7 1.3 2.0 
By ISIC sectorb      
Agriculture and fisheries  580 6.5 0 - 510.9  6.3 6.5 
Mining  115 0.4 0 - 10.5 3.2 0.4 
Manufacturing  9,820  4.8 0 - 350 2.2 4.8 
By HS section       
01. Live animals & prod ucts 569 9.2 0 - 510.9  3.4 9.2 
02 .Vegetable products  558 3.9 0 - 163.8  3.0 3.9 
03. Fats & oils  69 3.7 0 - 20.9 1.3 3.7 
04. Prepared food etc.  677 11.6 0 - 439.9  3.5 11.6 
05. Minerals  204 0.6 0 - 12.6 2.7 0.6 
06. Chemical & products  1,714  3.5 0 - 12.9 0.8 3.5 
07. Plastics & rubber  375 3.7 0 - 14 0.7 3.7 
08. Hides & skins  220 4.3 0 - 20 1.1 4.3 
09. Wood & articles  240 2.4 0 - 18 1.4 2.4 
10. Pulp, paper etc.  275 0.0 0 - 0 n.a. 0.0 
11. Textile & articles  1,592  9.0 0 - 32 0.8 9.0 
12. Footwear, headgear  197 13.4 0 - 57.9 1.1 13.3 
13. Articles of stone  298 5.2 0 - 38 1.2 5.2 
14. Precious stones, etc.  105 3.0 0 - 13.5 1.1 3.1 
15. Base metals & prod ucts 988 1.9 0 - 22.4 1.4 1.9 
16. Machinery  1,349  1.7 0 - 15 1.2 1.7 
17. Transport equipment  252 2.4 0 - 25 1.9 2.4 
18. Precision equipm ent 512 2.9 0 - 19.9 1.1 2.9 
19. Arms and ammunition  33 1.9 0 - 12.7 1.4 1.9 
20. Miscellaneous manufactured articles  282 3.6 0 - 33.4 1.2 3.6 
21. Works of art, etc.  7 0.0 0 - 0 n.a. 0.0 
By stage of processing       
First stage of processing  1,101  4.3 0 - 510.9  7.1 4.3 
Semi-processed products  3,445  4.2 0 - 65.6 1.1 4.2 
Fully-processed products  5,970  5.3 0 - 350 2.4 5.3 
n.a. Not applicable.  
a  The bound tariff is in the HS12 nomenclature and is not yet certified; the number of tariff lines in the 
bound tariff  is also different from the applied MFN tariff . 
b  ISIC (Rev.2) classification, excluding electricity (1 line).  
Source:  WTO Secretariat estimates, based on data provided by the authorities.  WT/TPR/S/350 • United States  
 
- 163 - 
 
  Table A3. 2 Prohibitions, re strictions or other special requirements  
Product  Prohibition, restriction, or requirement  
Art materials  Conform to the provisions of the Labeling of Hazardous Art Materials 
Act 
Bicycles and bicycle helmets  Bicycles to meet regulations issued under the Fe deral Hazardous 
Substances Act and helmets must meet CPSC's Safety Standard  
Biological drugs  Domestic as well as foreign manufacturers of such products must 
obtain a U.S. licen ce for both the manufacturing establishment and 
for the product intended to be produced or imported  
Biological materials and vectors  Prohibited unless they have been propagated or prepared at an 
establishment with a U.S. licen ce for such manufacturing issued by 
the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services  
Cheese, mi lk, and dairy products  Subject to requirements of the Food and Drug Administration and the 
Department of Agriculture  
Cigarette lighters and multi -purpose 
lighters  Compliance with the child-resistant safety standard  
Commercial and industrial equipment  Energy performance standards to be met  
Counterfeit articles  Articles bearing facsimiles or replicas of coins or securities of the 
United States or of any foreign country cannot be imported  
Dog or cat fur  The importation, exportation, transportation, distrib ution or sale of 
any product that consists of any dog fur, cat fur, or both, is 
prohibited  
Fireworks  Labelling requirements and technical specifications to be met  
Flammable fabrics  Conform to applicable flammability standard under the Flammable 
Fabrics A ct 
Foods, cosmetics, etc.  Prohibits the importation of articles that are adulterated or 
misbranded and products that are defective, unsafe, filthy, or 
produced under unsanitary conditions  
Foods, drugs, cosmetics, and medical 
devices  Subject to the requir ements of the Public Health Security and 
Bio-Terrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002  
Fruits, vegetables, and nuts  Import requirements relating to grade, size, quality, and maturity  
Fur Must be tagged, label led, or otherwise clearly marked with sp ecific 
information  
Gold and silver  Articles made of gold or alloys thereof are prohibited from 
importation into the United States if the gold content is one half carat 
divergence below the indicated fineness  
Hazardous substances  Substances  must be shippe d to the United States in packages 
suitable for household use  
Household appliances  Energy standards to be met, and labe lled to indicate expected energy 
consumption or efficiency  
Insects in a live state that are 
injurious to cultivated crops and the 
eggs,  pupae, or larvae of such insects  Prohibited from importation, except for scientific purposes, under 
regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Agriculture  
Lead in paint  Banned if they contain more than 0.06% lead by weight of the dried 
plant film  
Livest ock and animals  Inspection and quarantine requirements of the Animal and Plant 
Health Inspection Service (APHIS)  
Matches, fireworks, knives  Certain matches, fireworks, and knives are prohibited  
Meat, poultry , egg products , and 
(since 1 March 2016) Silu riformes fish 
and fish products  Subject to USDA regulations and must be inspected by the Food 
Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS)  
Monetary instruments  If a person receives more than US$10,000 at one time from or 
through a place outside the United States, a report of the 
transportation (form FINCEN 105) must be filed with CBP  
Obscene, immoral, or seditious matter 
and lottery tickets  Certain books, writings, advertisements, circulars, or pictures 
containing these are prohibited  
Pesticides  The regulations r equire importers to submit to CBP an EPA Notice of 
Arrival that the EPA has reviewed and approved before the 
importation arrives in the United States  
Products of convict or forced labour  Merchandise produced, mined, or manufactured, wholly or in part by 
means of the use of convict labour, forced labo ur, or indentured 
labour under penal sanctions is prohibited from importation  
Radiation - and sonic 
radiation -producing products  Compliance with a radiation performance standard  
Radio frequency devices  Subject  to radiation performance standards  
Refrigerants  The EPA regulates the importation of ozone -depleting substances  WT/TPR/S/350 • United States  
 
- 164 - 
 
  Product  Prohibition, restriction, or requirement  
Seeds  Provisions of the Federal Seed Act of 1939 and regulations of the 
Agricultural Marketing Service govern the importation into the United  
States  
Textile products  Must be stamped, tagged, label led, or otherwise marked with the 
specific information  
Toxic substances  Imports will not be released from CBP custody unless proper 
certification is presented to CBP indicating that the import "compl ies 
with" or "is not subject to" TSCA requirements  
Toys and children's articles  Compliance with applicable regulations issued under the Federal 
Hazardous Substances Act  
Wood packing materials  Import regulations require wood packing material to be treated  and 
marked  
Wool Must be tagged, labe lled, or otherwise clearly marked with specific 
information  
Source:  WTO document WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1, 13 March 2015, summarizing CBP online information. Viewed 
at: https://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Importing%20into%20%20the%20U.S.pdf  
(document last revised in 2006).  
  
  WT/TPR/S/350 • United States  
 
- 165 - Table A3. 3 Products subject to import licensing  
Category  Products  Agency  Purpose  Legal reference  Other info  
Animals and 
animal products  Certain animal and animal 
products  Department of Agriculture  To protect domestic 
agriculture from the 
introduction or entry of animal 
diseases or disease vectors  Title 9 CF R, Parts 92, 94.7, 
94.16, 95.4, 95.18, 95.19, 
95.20 t hrough 98, 104 and 
122; and: 21  U.S.C  102 to 
105, 111, 134, 135, 151 -
159 and 19  U.S.C -1306 All persons, firms and institutions in the 
United  States may apply for permits  
Controlled 
substances and 
listed chem icals Controlled substances and 
listed chemicals  Department of Justice, Drug 
Enforcement Administration  To restrict the quantity of 
imports of controlled 
substances and listed 
chemicals (not monetary 
value) and to maintain a 
monitoring system  Title 21, CFR , Part 1310, 
1312, 1313, 21 U.S.C. 
Sections 822, 823, 826, 
953, 957 and 958  Importation only by approved, registered 
importers  
Dairy products  Certain dairy products  Department of Agriculture  An administrative tool that 
governs importat ions of 
certain dair y products subject 
to TRQs resulting from the 
Uruguay Round Agreement  CFR 6.20 -6.37 Importers or manufacturers of dairy 
products may apply for import licences if 
they meet the Import Regulation 
performance criteria on the quantity of 
imports entered in a p revious 12 -month 
period, and for manufacturers the 
specified level of dairy production in a 
previous 12 -month period. Manufacturers 
must be listed in USDA's Dairy Plants 
Surveyed  
Distilled spirits 
(beverages), wine, 
and malt 
beverages  Distilled spirits 
(beverages), wine, and 
malt beverages  Department of the Treasury, 
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and 
Trade Bureau  To provide an enforcement 
mechanism to ensure that 
importers comply with all 
requirements of federal law 
relating to alcohol  Federal Alcohol 
Administra tion Act  Any person, firm or institution may apply 
for a licence  
Distilled spirits or 
alcohol for 
industrial use  Distilled spirits or alcohol 
for industrial use, 
including denatured spirits  Department of the Treasury, 
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and 
Trade Bur eau To prevent tax fraud  26 U.S.C. 5001, 26 U.S.C. 
5002(a), 26 U.S.C. 5171, 
26 U.S.C. 5181, 27 CFR 
Part 19 Any person, firm or institution may apply 
for a licence  
Explosives  Explosives, blasting agents 
and detonators  Department of Justice, 
Bureau of Alcoh ol, Tobacco, 
Firearms and Explosives  To protect against the misuse 
and unsafe storage of 
explosive materials  18 U.S.C.  Chapter  40; 
27 CFR Part 555  All persons, firms, and institutions may 
apply for a licence  
Firearms and 
ammunition  Firearms and ammunition  Department of Justice, 
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, 
Firearms and Explosives  To administer licensing 
provisions under three 
statutes  18 U.S.C., Chapter 44 and 
27 CFR Part 478  All persons, firms, and institutions may 
apply for a licence  
Firearms, 
ammunition , and 
defence articles  Defence articles on the 
U.S. munitions list  Department of Justice, 
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, 
Firearms and Explosives  To regulate international 
trafficking in arms, consistent 
with U.S. national security and 
foreign policy interests  18 U.S.C. Chapter 44, 
22 U.S.C. 2778, 26 U.S.C. 
Chapter 53  All persons, firms, and institutions may 
apply for a licence   
  WT/TPR/S/350 • United States  
 
- 166 - Category  Products  Agency  Purpose  Legal reference  Other info  
Fish and wildlife  Fish and wildlife including 
endangered species  Department of the Interior, 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife service  To: identi fy commercial 
importers and exporters of 
wildlife; require records that 
fully and correctly disclose 
each importation or 
exportation of wildlife and the 
subsequent disposition of the 
wildlife by the importer or 
exporter  50 CFR Part 14  All persons, firms, a nd institutions may 
apply for a licence  
Natural gas  Natural gas, including LNG 
and CNG  Department of Energy  To fulfil the requirements of 
the Natural Gas Act requiring 
authorization to import  15 U.S.C. 717b  All persons, firms, and institutions may 
import natural gas  
Nuclear facilities 
and materials  Production  and utilization 
facilities, special nuclear 
materials, source 
materials, and by -product 
materials, including when 
such materials are  
contained in radioactive 
waste  Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission  To protect public health and 
safety and the environment, 
and maintain the common 
defense and security of the 
United States, by exercising 
prudent controls over the 
possession, use, distribution, 
and transport of such items  Atomic Energy Act, 10 CFR 
Part 110 All persons, firms and institutions must 
have a permanent (physical) address 
within the United States  
Plant and plant 
products  Certain plant and plant 
products  Department of Agriculture  To protect against the entry of 
plant pests and diseases, and 
to protect  endangered plant 
species  Section 412 of the Plant 
Protection Act, 7  U.S.C. 
7712, the Endangered 
Species Act, and Title 7 CFR 
Parts 300-399 Persons, firms, and institutions resident in 
the United States may apply for a permit  
Steel All basic steel mill 
product s Department of Commerce, 
International Trade 
Administration  To provide fast and reliable 
statistical information on steel 
imports to the government 
and the public  74 FR 11474, 78 FR 11090  Only registered users may file steel 
licences; registration is  available to all and 
is free  
Sugar  Raw and refined sugar  Department of Agriculture  To administer the sugar TRQ 
and the sugar re -export 
programme  15 CFR 2011, Sub -part A, 
15 CFR 2011, Sub -part B.7 
CFR 1530 All importers are eligible to apply for 
certifica tes for specialty sugars. Only 
U.S refiners may apply for licences to 
import quota -exempt sugar  
Tobacco products  Tobacco products, 
processed tobacco, and 
proprietors of export 
warehouses  Department of the Treasury, 
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and 
Trade Bureau  Primary  purpose is to ensure 
proper collection of federal 
excise tax revenue on tobacco 
products  Title 26 U.S.C. Chapter 52  Any person, firm or institution may apply 
for a licence  
Source:  WTO document WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1, 13 March 2015, based on WTO docum ent G/LIC/N/3/USA/10, 24 September 2013.   
  WT/TPR/S/350 • United States  
 
- 167 - Table A3. 4 Selected sub -federal subsidy schemes for "greener" energy  
State  Authority  Form of subsidy  Objective  Recipients  Description  
AZ Dept. of Revenue  Solar liquid fuel tax credit  Promote use of solar 
energy  Taxpayers involved in increased 
research and development 
activities with regard to solar 
liquid fuel  For taxable  years beginning from and after 31 December 2010 through 
31 December 2021, a credit is allowed for increased researc h and 
development activity related to solar liquid fuel. The amounts vary  
AZ State Energy Office  Biofuel Conversion 
Program  (grants)  Encourage the use of 
biofuels in Arizona  Companies engaged in the 
conversion of existing and 
installation of new storage a nd 
dispensing equipment for 
biofuels  Grants are equal to the lesser of US$75,000 or the conversion cost per site. 
Unused credits may be carried forward for up to three yearsa 
AR Dept. of Finance 
and Administration  Wind energy income tax 
exemption  Stimulat e job creation 
and investment  Manufacturers of wind energy 
equipment and/or components  Exemptions up to 25  years are based upon various calculations which result in 
the number of years the income tax exemption is granted to the qualified 
windmill blade or windmill component manufacturer  
AR Agriculture Dept.  Alternative Fuels 
Development Program 
(grants)  Increase the availability 
of alternative fuels  Alternative fuels producers, 
feedstock processors and 
distributors  Grants for the construction, modification , alteration, or retrofitting of 
feedstock processing facilities in Arkansas. Grants not in excess of 
US$3  million or 50% of the project cost, whichever is less to a feedstock 
processor in any fiscal year. Distribution grants not in excess of $300,000 or 
50% of the project cost, whichever is less , to any alternative fuel distributor 
per year  
CA Section 25678 of 
the California Public 
Resources Code  Biomass fuel incentive 
(grant)  Promote liquid fuels 
fermented from biomass 
and biomass -derived 
resources  Produ cers of liquid fuels 
fermented in California from 
biomass and biomass derived 
resources  A US$0.40/gallon production incentive  
CA Bill 8651.8 of the 
California Revenue 
and Taxation Code  Ethanol tax credit  Encourage the use of 
alternative fuels  Fuels consis ting of at least 85% 
ethanol or methanol  Reduces the excise tax to one half the normal rate for each gallon of ethanol 
or methanol used  
HI §235-110.3, HRS  Ethanol Production 
Incentive (tax credit)  Encourage ethanol 
production  Ethanol facilities in product ion 
before 1  January  2017 Incentive equal to 30% of nameplate capacity or facilities producing between 
500,000 and 15  million gallons per year. The facility must produce at least 
75% of its nameplate capacity to be eligible for tax credit in that year. The  tax 
credit, up to eight years, only available to first 40  million gallo ns of ethanol 
produced per year  
IL Dept. of Commerce 
and Economic 
Opportunity  Biofuels Research, 
Development & 
Demonstration Program 
(grants)  Promote R&D and 
demonstration projects 
related to the 
production of ethanol 
and biodiesel fuels  "Units of state and local 
government, associations, 
public and private schools, 
colleges and universities, 
research organizations, 
not-for-profit organizations, 
private companies and 
individuals"  For facilities construction grants, recipient must build new biofuels production 
facility with a capacity of at least 30  million gallons/year, or expand/modify 
existing facility by at least 30  million gallons/year. Maximum grant award for 
the construction of a new biofuels production facility is US$5.5  million. Total 
grant award cannot exceed 10% of total construction costs of the facility, or 
US$0.10/gallon of the new production. The Biofuels Business Planning Grants 
programme provides planning grants of up to US$25,000. For demonstration 
projects, the maximum grant award that may be requested for each eligible 
project category is US$225,000. The grant term shall be determined on a 
project by project basis, not to exceed a two -year time period  
IL Dept. of Comme rce 
and Economic 
Opportunity 
Renewable Energy 
Resources Program  Biogas and B iomass to 
Energy Grant Program  
(grants)  Encourage the use of 
biogas and biomass for 
on-site energy 
generation  Targets projects designed to use 
biogas or biomass as a source of 
fuel to produce electricity with 
combined heat and power 
through gasification, co -firing or 
anaerobic digestion technologies  Incentives up to 50% of the total project cost. The maximum award for biogas 
or biomass to energy feasibility studies is Us$2,500. The maximum grant 
amount for biogas to energy systems is US$225,000 and the maximum grant 
for biomass to energy systems is US$500,000   
  WT/TPR/S/350 • United States  
 
- 168 - State  Authority  Form of subsidy  Objective  Recipients  Description  
IL Dept. of Commerce 
and Economic 
Opportunity  Renewable Energy 
Resources Biogas and 
Biomass to Energy Grant 
Program  (grant)  Foster investment in 
and the development 
and use of renewable 
energy resources  Projects focused on increasing 
the utilization of renewable 
energy and support renewable 
energy technologies  Maximum grant of US$2,500 for project costs associated with biogas an d 
biomass equipment, studies. The maximum grant for biogas to energy 
systems is US$225,000. The maximum for amount for biomass to energy 
systems is US$500,000  
IL Dept. of Commerce 
and Economic 
Opportunity  Renewa ble Fuels 
Development Program 
(grant)  Constr ucting, 
modifying, altering or 
retrofitting a renewable 
fuels plant  Plants with a production 
capacity of 30  million gallons  Grants of up to US$15  million annually  
IL Dept. of Commerce 
and Economic 
Opportunity  Renewable Energy 
Resources Development of 
Wind Energy Project 
(grant)  Foster investment in 
and the development 
and use of renewable 
energy resources  Primary recipients: utility scale 
wind projects ( at least 5 MW 
nameplate capacity)  Maximum grant of US$25,000 per project. Depending on applicants, one o r 
multiple smaller projects may be selected for support  
IL Established in June 
of 2003 by Public 
Act 93 -15 Renewable Fuels 
Development Program 
(grant)  Promote and encourage 
the production and use 
of renewable fuels  Construction of new biofuels 
production facilities with a 
capacity of at least 
30 million  gallons per year  Maximum grant award of US$5.5  million per facility  
IA Iowa Energy Center 
Code 476.46  Alternative Fuel Loan 
Program  
Alternative  Energy 
Revolving Loan Program  Encourage alternative 
energy pr ojects  Fuel production facilities  0% interest loans for up to half the cost of biomass or alternative fuels related 
to fuel production projects, up to a maximum of US$250,000 per facility. The 
remainder of the loans are made by participating lenders at a n egotiated 
interest rate  
IA Sections 476C, 
476.48, 422.11J, 
422.33 (16), 
422.60 (8), 
432.12E, 423.4 (4), 
437A.17B, Code of 
Iowa Renewable energy tax 
credit  Promote the growth of 
renewable energy  Producers or purchasers of 
energy from an eligible 
renewable energy facility 
appro ved by the Iowa Utilities 
Board  A power -purchase agreement is signed between the purchaser and producer 
which sets forth which party will receive the tax credit. Renewable Energy Tax 
Credits equal to US$0.015/kWh of electricity, or US$ 4.50 per  million British 
thermal units of heat for a commercial purpose, or US$4.50  per million British 
thermal units of methane gas or other biogas used to generate electricity, or 
US$1.44  per 1,000 standard cubic feet of hydrogen fuel generated by and 
purchased from an eligible renewable energy facility. The credit may be 
claimed against corporate income, individual income, franchise, insurance 
premium, sales and use, and replacement taxes  
IA Sections 476B, 
422.11J, 422.33 
(16), 422.60 (8), 
423.4 (4), Co de of 
Iowa Wind energy production 
tax credit  Promote the growth of 
renewable energy  Qualified facilities  A "qualified facility," defined as a facility th at produces electricity from wind 
that is located in Iowa, was originally placed in service on or after  1 July 
2005, but before 1  July 2012, and is approved by the local board of 
supervisors and the Iowa Utilities Board. Credit is equal to US$0.01/kWh of 
electricity sold or generated for on -site consumption. Credits are available for 
a ten-year period from the initial in -service date of the facility  
KY Econom ic 
Development 
Finance Authority  Incentives (tax rebate and 
other tax incentives) for 
Energy Independence Act 
(IEIA)  Encourage projects that 
are likely to increase 
energy independence  Gasification, alte rnative energy 
or renewable energy facilities 
including natural gas  Capital investment min. US$25  mill. for alternative fuel facility using biomass, 
or investment of min. US$100  mill. for alternative fuel facility with coal as 
primary feedstock. Capital in vestment of min. US$1  mill. required for 
renewable power facility meeting minimum electric output standards based 
upon power source. Negotiated incentives cannot exceed 50% of the capital 
expenditures. The program provides reimbursement of sales and use ta xes 
paid on tangible personal property; an income tax credit; and, wage 
assessment incentives up to 4% of gross wages of each employee whose job 
was created as part of the project   
  WT/TPR/S/350 • United States  
 
- 169 - State  Authority  Form of subsidy  Objective  Recipients  Description  
KY Kentucky Cabinet 
for Economic 
Development  
 Alternative Fuel and 
Renewabl e Energy Fund 
(seed stage capital - 
grants and investments)  The development and 
commercialization of 
alternative fuel and 
renewable energy 
products, processes, 
and services  Kentucky -based companies 
using the funds for business 
development activities  Grants  of up to US$30,000 and investments up to US$750,000  
KY Economic 
Development 
Finance Authority  Biodiesel fuel tax credit 
(State income tax credit)  Promote the production 
and use of biodiesel  Producers or blenders of 
biodiesel fuel or blended 
biodiesel fue l A state income tax credit is allowed for producers or blenders of biodiesel fuel 
or blended biodiesel fuel with a blend of at least 2%. Biodiesel or blended 
biodiesel producers receive a US$1 credit per gallon produced or blended. 
Unused credits cannot b e carr ied forward  
LA Dept. of Natural 
Resources  Alternative fuel vehicle 
(AFV) incentives (tax 
credit)  Support the purchase of 
alternative fuel vehicles  Consumers purchasing 
alternative fuel vehicles, 
alternative fuel refuelling 
equipment, or performing A FV 
conversions  State income tax credit for 50% of the incremental cost of purchasing a 
factory -equipped AFV, 50% of the cost for converting a vehicle to alternative 
fuels, and 50% of the cost for alternative fuel refuelling  equipment. For the 
purchase of a n original equipment manufacturer AFV, if the taxpayer is unable 
to determine the incremental cost of the vehicle relating to the use of 
alternative fuel, a credit of the lesser of 10% of the cost of the veh icle or 
US$3,000 may be claimed  
ME Maine Revised  
Statutes Title 36 
Section 5219 -X Biofuels production 
incentive (tax credit)  Increase the production 
of biofuels  Producers of biofuels for use in 
motor vehicles  State income tax credit of US$0.05/gallon for the commercial production of 
biofuels for use in motor vehicles or otherwise used as a substitute for liquid 
fuels 
MD Renewable Fuels 
Promotion Act of 
2005 Biofuels production credits 
(tax credit)  Promote ethanol and 
biodiesel production  Ethanol and biodiesel producers. 
Ethanol and biodiesel producers 
may apply to the Renewable 
Fuels Incentive Board for 
ethanol a nd biodiesel production 
credits  To be eligible for the credits, the producer must first apply to the Board in 
order to receive certification as a producer. Ethanol production credits are as 
follows: a) US$0.20/gallon of ethanol produced from small grains, and b) 
US$0.05/gallon of ethanol produced from other agricultural products. The 
Board may not certify ethanol production credits for more than a total of 
15 million gallons per calendar year, of which at least 10  million gallons must 
be produced from small grains. Biodiesel production credits are as follows: 
a) US$0.20/gallon of biodiesel produced from soybean oil (the soybean oil 
must be produced in a facility or through expanded capacity of a fa cility that 
began operating after 31  December 2004), and b)  US$0.05/gallon for 
biodiesel produced from other feedstocks (including soybean oil produced in a 
facility that began operating on or before 31  December 2004)  
MD Energy 
Administration  Clean energy  incentive 
income tax credit  Promote the use of 
certain renewable 
energy sources or waste 
materials to produce 
electricity  Businesses using certain 
renewable energy sources or 
waste materials to produce 
electricity sold to unrelated 
person  Credit is US$0. 0085/kWh of electricity produced at a Maryland facility using 
qualified energy resources during the five -year period after the facility is 
originally placed in service. Use of primarily qualified energy resources 
including any solid, non -hazardous, cellulos ic waste material segregated from 
other waste materials and derived from: forest -related resources, including 
mill residues (except sawdust and wood shavings), forest thinning, slash, or 
brush, but excluding old -growth timber; waste pallets, crates, and du nnage, 
landscape or right -of-way trimmings; agricultural sources (orchard tree crops, 
vineyard, grain, legumes, sugar, and other crop by -products or residues)  
MD Dept. of Business 
and Economic 
Development  Maryland cellulosic ethanol 
R&D tax credit  Promote  R&D in 
cellulosic ethanol 
technology  Businesses that incur qualified 
cellulosic ethanol technology 
research and development 
expenses in Maryland  The amount of the income tax credit is 10% of the "qualified research and 
development expenses" paid or incurr ed by an individual or business during 
the previous tax year for investment in cellulosic ethanol technology with a 
limit of US$250,000  
MA Green Jobs Act of 
2008 Massachusetts Clean 
Energy Center - 
Commonwealth 
Hydropower (grants)  Increase the output of 
the Commonwealth's 
hydropower assets  Projects that can demonstrate a 
high likelihood of qualifying for 
the Massachusetts Renewable 
Energy Portfolio Standard  Grants are capped at the lesser of US$600,000 or 50% of actual costs, or 
US$1/incremental kWh/year. Grants for feasibility studies are capped at the 
lesser of US$40,000 or 80% of actual costs   
  WT/TPR/S/350 • United States  
 
- 170 - State  Authority  Form of subsidy  Objective  Recipients  Description  
MA Green Jobs Act of 
2008 Massachusetts Clean 
Energy Center - 
Commonwealth 
Commercial Wind (grants 
and loans)  Encouraging 
development of 
responsibly sited 
commerci al electric 
generating facilities 
employing wind energy 
technologies.  Landowners and new wind 
project developers for land -
based projects greater than 
2 MW that cannot be net 
metered  The wind project must have three turbines or more. Applicants can include 
private and public entities such as federal, state and local governments. 
Funding for site assessments, wind resource assessments, feasibility studies 
and development activities including interconnection. Benefits include up to 
US$55,000 in grants per proj ect for feasibility studies. Up to US$250,000 in 
unsecured loans bearing interest at the prime rate plus 2% for development 
activities. A cost share is required  
MA Green Jobs Act of 
2008 Massachusetts Clean 
Energy Center - 
Commonwealth Wind 
Community Scal e Initiative 
(grants)  Encourage wind projects  Projects proposed by any 
residential, commercial, 
industrial, institutional or  public 
entity in Massachusetts  Project nameplate capacity must be greater than or equal to 100 kW, and 
project's utility meter to b e grid connected. At least 50% of the renewable 
energy produced to be used behind the meter or assigned through the net 
metering provisions of the Green Communities Act based on annual 
production and usage estimate. Grants vary based on size and other 
characteristics of the wind project. Non -public entities have a 20% cost share 
requirement associated with the grant  
MA Green Jobs Act of 
2008 Massachusetts Clean 
Energy Center - 
Investments in Job 
Creation (financing)  Encourage growth 
capital investments tha t 
support the expansion 
of a clean energy 
company's operations in 
Massachusetts  Clean energy companies that 
demonstrate significant job 
creation and economic 
development in the 
Commonwealth  The investment structure and amount depends on the applicant's gro wth 
trajectory and geography  
MA Green Jobs Act of 
2008 Massachusetts Clean 
Energy Center - 
Investments in the 
Advancement of 
Technology (financing)  Promote venture capital 
equity investments in 
promising early -stage 
Massachusetts clean 
energy companies  Early-stage clean energy 
companies contributing to the 
advancement of one or more 
listed clean energy or energy 
efficient technologies  Clean energy companies developing and commercializing technologies 
contributing to advancement of various clean energy or e nergy efficient 
technologies. Listed clean energy or energy efficient technologies include solar 
photovoltaic, solar thermal, wind power, geothermal, biofuels and hydrogen. 
Seed venture investments up to US$500,000 in the form of a suitable equity 
instrume nt, depending on the applicant's circumstance  
MA Green Jobs Act of 
2008 Massachusetts Clean 
Energy Center - Catalyst 
Program (grants)  Support demonstration 
of commercial viabili ty 
of clean energy 
technologies  A principal investigator with 
technology discl osed to a host 
institution located in 
Massachusetts  The aim is not to perfect technology but its development to a point where 
features can attract additional commercialization funding. Maximum award is 
US$40,000  
MA Massachusetts 
Clean Energy 
Center  The Co mmonwealth Solar 
II Rebate Program II 
(rebates)  Rebates for 
homeowners and 
businesses in 
Massachusetts installing  
solar photovoltaics (PV)  Various commercial, industrial, 
non-profit and government 
entities  Rebates granted through non -competitive applicatio n process for the 
installation by professional, licensed contractors. For all systems, rebates 
calculated by multiplying per watt incentive (base incentive plus adders) times 
nameplate capacity of system, up to 5 kW; non -residential projects eligible 
only if total capacity under 10 kW. Benefits are: (1)  Residential: up to 
US$8,500 per/yr (with all extra incentives except for the disaster relief 
incentive); (2) commercial: US$4,250 (per host customer). The per watt 
incentives are capped at 5KW per project, a nd are measured by energy 
production capacity and not actual production   
  WT/TPR/S/350 • United States  
 
- 171 - State  Authority  Form of subsidy  Objective  Recipients  Description  
MI Dept. of Treasury  Michigan NextEnergy 
Authority (MNEA) (tax 
incentives)  Promote the 
development of 
alternative energy 
technologies and to 
provide tax incentives 
for business activi ties 
and property related to 
the research, 
development, and 
manufacturing of those 
technologies  Taxpayers engaged in R&D or 
manufacturing of alternative 
energy technology and certified 
as eligible by the MNEA  Taxpayers engaged in R&D or manufacturing of al ternative energy technology 
and certified as eligible by the MNEA may claim a non -refundable credit 
against their single business tax liability. Personal property that is certified by 
the MNEA as Alternative Energy Personal Property (AEPP) is exempt from t he 
collection of personal property taxes. An Alternative Energy Zone (AEZ) has 
been created within Wayne State University's Research and Technology Park 
in Detroit to promote the research, development, and manufacturing of 
Alternative Energy Technologies. Businesses engaged in one of those 
qualifying activities and located within the AEZ will enjoy the full range of 
Renaissance Zone tax benefits. Alternative energy technology companies 
located in the AEZ may also be eligible for a refundable payroll credit on their 
SBTb 
MI Michigan Economic 
Development 
Corporation  Centre s of Energy 
Excellence Program  
(grants)  Promote the 
development, 
acceleration and 
sustainability of energy 
sectors  For profit companies showing 
they promote new and 
developing industry secto rs in 
the energy field in the state  New and developing industry sectors where state has a competitive advantage 
and barriers exist to the commercialization of technology within the new and 
developing industry sector. US$30 million in total has been authori zed from 
the 21st Century Jobs Trust Fund. Grants are provided to match federal 
funding of up to 50% of the total project costs  
MI Michigan Economic 
Development 
Corporation  Renewable energy 
renaissance zones (tax 
exemption)  Assist in the 
development of a strong 
renewable energy 
industry  Zones located anywhere in 
Michigan  Companies must maintain a renewable energy facility. Companies located in a 
renaissance zone do not pay Michigan business tax, state education tax, 
personal and real property taxes and loc al income tax  
MI Michigan Compiled 
Laws 207.552 and 
207.803  Alternative fuel 
development property tax 
exemption (tax exemption)  Certain property tax 
exemptions apply to 
industrial property used 
for, inter alia , high -
technology activities or 
creation or sy nthesis of 
biodiesel fuel  High-technology activities 
include those related to 
advanced vehicle technologies  Advanced vehicle technologies include electric, hybrid, or alternative fuel 
vehicles and their components. The amount varies. Industrial facility 
exemption certificate for the property to be obtained from the State Tax 
Commission  
MS Mississippi 
Development 
Authority/  
Dept. of Revenue  Clean Energ y Initiative 
Incentive Program  (tax 
exemption)  Encourage clean energy 
component 
manufacturers to locate 
or expand in Mississippi  Companies manufacturing 
systems or components used in 
generation of renewable or 
alternative energy  Companies must invest at least US$50  million, and create at least 250 jobs in 
the state. 10 -year exemption from income and franchise t ax and a sales and 
use tax exemption from the beginning of the project until three months after 
the start of commercial production  
MO Dept. of 
Agriculture/Dept. of 
Revenue  Missouri Qualified Fuel 
Ethanol Producer Fund 
(grant)  Promote in -state, 
cooperative ly owned 
biofuels production to 
increase home -grown 
production of ethanol 
and biofuels  Producers at least 51% owned 
by agricultural producers  The agricultural producers must be actively engaged in agricultural production 
for commercial purposes in the stat e. Ethanol incentives include a payment of 
US$0.20/gallon for the first 12.5  million and US$0. 05/gallon for the next 
12.5 million gallons  
MT Montana Code 
Annotated 15 -6-138 Ethanol facility tax 
exemption  Support ethanol 
production  Manufacturers of ethanol  All manufacturing machinery, fixtures, equipment, and tools used for the 
production of ethanol from grain during the construction on an ethanol 
manufacturing facility and for 10  years after initial production of ethanol from 
the facility are exempt from t axation  
NE Dept. of Revenue  Ethanol tax credit  Support ethanol 
producers  Ethanol producers  Credit is $0.18/gallon   
  WT/TPR/S/350 • United States  
 
- 172 - State  Authority  Form of subsidy  Objective  Recipients  Description  
NJ New Jersey 
Economic 
Development 
Authority/  
Board of Public 
Utilities  Edison Innovation Clean 
Energy Manufacturing Fund 
(CEMF) (mixed fina ncing)  Encourage the 
manufacturing of 
energy efficient and 
renewable energy 
products in New  Jersey  Manufacturer of Class I 
renewable energy or energy 
efficiency systems, products or 
technologies  Funding under two separate components: (a) Project Assessment  and Design 
Grant: up to US$300,000, not to exceed 10% of total CEMF project funds 
requested, as a grant to assist with the manufacturing site identification, 
procurement, design, and permits. 20% available up front as seed funds at 
closing; (b) Project Co nstruction and Operation Loan: up to US$3  million as a 
ten-year, 2% interest loan with repayments to start at beginning of 4th year, 
to support site improvements, equipment purchases, and facility 
construction/completion. One -third of loan (up to US$1  million) may convert 
to a performance grant if company specific business and tech milestones are 
met during first 3  years. Maximum half the funds advanced prior to 
commercial production  
NJ New Jersey 
Economic 
Development 
Authority  Edison Innovation Green 
Growth Fund (mixed)  Advance newly 
discovered energy 
efficient, renewable 
energy or supply chain 
products assisting Class 
I renewable energy or 
energy efficient 
technologies to become 
competitive  Technology companies with 
Class I renewable energy or 
energy effi ciency products or 
systems  Class I renewable energy or energy efficient technologies to become 
competitive with traditional sources of electric generation. Products or 
systems that have achieved "proof of concept" and successful independent 
beta results, h ave begun generating commercial revenues, and will 
receive  1:1 match funding by time of loan closing. Loans up to US$2  million 
with a performance grant component  
NM Economic 
Development Dept./  
Taxation and 
Revenue Dept.  Alternative energy product 
manufact urers tax credit  Support manufacturers 
of electric or hybrid 
vehicles; fuel cell, 
renewable energy, and 
IGCC systems; and 
carbon sequestration 
equipment  Alternative energy companies  Manufacturers of electric or hybrid vehicles, fuel cell systems, renewable  
energy systems, integrated gasification combined cycle systems (IGCC) 
systems, and carbon sequestration equipment may receive for a tax credit of 
up to 5% of their capital expenses  
NM Economic 
Development Dept./  
Taxation and 
Revenue Dept.  Renewable energ y 
production tax credit  Support renewable 
energy production  Renewable energy companies  Each renewable energy generator of one megawatt or more may earn an 
income tax credit (personal or corporate) of US$0. 027 (on average) per kWh 
for the first 400,000 MWh of electricity produced for ten consecutive years, 
beginning with the first year of production. This credit is fully refundable  
NY Tax Law Section 28  Biofuels production credit 
(tax credit)  Credit providing 
manufacturers of 
qualified biofuel 
products a re fundable 
tax credit  Manufacturers of qualified 
biofuel products (primarily 
ethanol and bio -diesel).  The refundable tax credit amounts to US$0.15 per gallon of biofuel produced 
at plant, after first 40,000 gallons/year has been presented to the market. 
Credit cap of US$2.5  mill. per taxpayer per taxable year (up to four 
consecutive taxable years) per biofuel plant  
NY New York State 
Energy R&D 
Authority  Energy Products Center 
(loans)  Promote more efficient 
and clean supplies of 
energy  Businesses involved wit h a 
technology, product, or service 
generating new supplies of 
energy more efficiently and 
cleanly  Up to US$500,000 of project costs, with 50% co -funding. Project funding is 
budgeted in advance by program me topic and specific in each "Program 
Opportunity N otice". The program me money is allocated among the chosen 
projects. New York State lenders provide loans with an interest rate of 4.5%. 
The average cost of a project being funded is up to US$200,000  
NC N.C.§105 -275(45)  Article 3B Renewable 
Energy & Waste Reduction 
Tax Credits  Encourage sustainable 
development through 
renewable energy and 
waste reduction projects  Renewable energy installation; 
biodiesel & alternative fuel 
production; alternative fuel 
infrastructure; recycling facility  Tax credits of 25 -35% of project cost per installation  
NC Dept. of Revenue  Credit for biodiesel 
producers (tax credit)  Encourage biodiesel 
production  Biodiesel industry  Credit may not exceed US$500,000c  
  WT/TPR/S/350 • United States  
 
- 173 - State  Authority  Form of subsidy  Objective  Recipients  Description  
ND Tax Dept.  Biodiesel or green diesel 
tax credits  Encourage biodiesel or  
green diesel production  Biodiesel or green diesel 
producers, suppliers and sellers  Income tax credit equal to 10%/year for five  years of costs to establish, 
adapt, or retrofit a facility to produce or blend at least 2% biodiesel or green 
diesel fuel. Any credit in excess of current year's liability may be carried 
forward five taxable years; cumulative credit limited to US$250,000 for all 
taxable years. From 31.12.2004, a licensed fuel supplier blending at least 5% 
biodiesel or green diesel fuel is allowed an income tax credit of 5 cents per 
gallon of fuel. Excess credit may be carried forward five  taxable  years. From 
31.12.2004, a seller of biodiesel or green diesel fuel having at least a 2% 
blend is allowed an income tax credit equal to 10% per year for 5  years of the 
seller's direct costs to adapt or add equipment to their facility to enable them 
to sell the biodiesel or green diesel blend  
ND Bank of North 
Dakota  Biofuels Partnership in 
Assisting Community 
Expansion (PACE) (interest 
rate subsidy)  Encourag e biofuels 
production  Ethanol and biodiesel producers 
with production facility located 
in North Dakota  Additional criteria must be satisfied: The facility must make agriculturally 
derived denatured ethanol, or biodegradable, combustible liquid fuel from 
vegetable oil or animal fat; the fuel must be suited for blending with 
petroleum product for use in internal combustion engines; ownership: 
agricultural producers holding at least 10% interest in the facility and 
residents of North Dakota owning at least 50% . Biofuels PACE was established 
to buy down the interest rate on loans to biodiesel and ethanol production 
facilities, and livestock operations. Interest buy down of 5% below the note 
rate 
ND Dept. of Commerce  Ethanol Incentive Program  
(grants)  Encourage ethanol 
production  Ethanol producers  The incentive calculation factors in the difference between baseline prices for 
ethanol and corn and quarterly average North Dakota prices for ethanol and 
corn. Producers may apply for incentives on a quarterly basis by  providing 
proof of the number of gallons of ethanol produced. Total cumulative incentive 
to all eligible producers capped at US$1.6  million in any year. No producer 
may receive incentive payments exceeding US$10  million over the life of their 
production f acility  
OH Development 
Services Agency  Advanced Energy Fund 
(loan)  Utilize energy efficient 
measures and 
technologies, reduce 
energy usage, reduce 
fossil fuel emissions and 
create/retain jobs  Projects located in Ohio in the 
service territories of one of t he 
four participating electric 
distribution companies  The four participating companies are: American Electric Power, Duke Energy, 
Dayton Power and Light and First Energy. Eligible entities apply through the 
Energy Loan Fund. Amounts under this program me are based on entity type: 
(1) manufacturers & small businesses: loan up to 80% of total project costs; 
and (2)  public entities: loan up to 90% of total project costs. Typical loan 
amounts range from US$50,000 -US$5  million  
OK Tax Commission  Alternative energ y sources 
tax credits  Encourage alternative, 
zero-emission electricity 
generation from 
renewable resources 
including wind, solar, 
geothermal and water  Producers of electricity utilizing 
alternative, zero -emission fuel 
and small wind turbine 
manufacturers  Producers may receive a tax credit of 50 one -hundredths of one cent per k Wh 
of electricity generated by facilities placed in operation between 01.01.2007 
and before 01.01.2016. The tax credits will be for a period of 10  years and 
may be transferrable. For f acilities placed in operation before 01.01.2007, 
producers may receive a tax credit of 25 one -hundredths of one cent per 
kilowatt -hour of electricity generated between 01.01.2007 and before 
01.01.2012. Small wind turbine manufacturers may earn a credit of 
US$25  per square foot of rotor swept area starting in 2003. Credits are freely 
transferable and may be carried forward 10  years. Senate Bill 498 modifies an 
ad valorem  tax exemption for manufacturing by wind companies; SB 501 sets 
five-year step -down for z ero emission tax credits  and US$6  million annual cap 
state wide 
PA Act 178  Alternative fuels incentive 
grants  Create new markets for 
biofuels  Renewable fuel producers  Reimbursement of up to US$0.05/gallon of renewable fuels produced in a 
calendar year up to 12,500,000 gallons total   
  WT/TPR/S/350 • United States  
 
- 174 - State  Authority  Form of subsidy  Objective  Recipients  Description  
PA Dept. of Community 
and Economic 
Development/  
Dept. of 
Environmental 
Protection  Solar Energy Program  
(grants and loans)  Promote the use of 
alternative solar energy  Solar energy equipment 
manufacturers and operators of 
solar e nergy generators  Loans for component manufacturers of solar energy generation equipment up 
to US$35,000 for every new job created within three  years after loan 
approval. Loans for solar energy generation or distribution projects not to 
exceed US$5  mill. or  US$2.25 per watt, whichever is less. Grants for 
component manufacturers of solar energy generation equipment up to 
US$5,000 for every new job created by the business within three  years after 
approval of the grant. Grants for solar energy generation or dis tribution 
projects, solar research and development facilities, and solar thermal projects 
not to exceed US$1  mill. or US$2.25 per watt, whichever is less. Grants for 
planning and feasibility studies not to exceed 50% of the total cost of the 
planning proje ct or US$175,000, whichever is less  
PA Dept. of Community 
and Economic 
Development/  
Dept. of 
Environmental 
Protection  Alternative Clean Energy 
Program  (grants and 
loans)  Utilization, development 
and construction of 
alternative and clean 
energy projects; a nd 
energy efficiency and 
energy conservation 
projects  Manufacturers of alternative 
and/or clean energy generation 
equipment and operators of 
alternative and/or clean energy 
generation projects  Loans for manufacturers of alternative and/or clean energy gene ration 
equipment or components shall not exceed US$40,000 for every new job 
created within three  years after approval of the loan. Loans for any alternative 
energy production or clean energy project shall not exceed US$5  million or 
50% of the total project  cost, whichever is less. Grants for manufacturers of 
alternative and/or clean energy generation equipment or components shall 
not exceed US$10,000 for every job projected to be created by the business 
within three  years after approval of the grant. Grants  for any alternative 
energy production or clean energy project shall not exceed US$2  million or 
30 percent  of the total project cost, whichever is less  
PR Dept. of Economic 
Development and 
Commerce  Green Energy Incenti ves 
Act of Puerto Rico (Act 
No. 82-2010) (tax credits 
and exemptions)  Encourage the creation 
of a new, strong and 
robust renewable 
energy industry  Businesses engaged in 
production and commercial sale 
of green energy for consumption 
in Puerto Rico  The recipient may be owner and direct operator  of the production unit or 
owner of a production unit operated by another pe rson. This program me 
provides (1)  a 4% fixed rate on income derived from production of green 
energy, (2)  90% exemption on municipal and state real a nd personal property 
taxes, (3)  60% exemption on municipal licen ces, excises an d other municipal 
taxes, and (4)  various tax credits for job creation  
SC Energy Office  Renewable fuels 
processing facilities tax 
credits  Provide credit  Commercial facilities that 
process certain renewable fue ls, 
including ethanol and biodiesel  Commercial facilities placed in service after 2006. This program me provides a 
credit against income tax equal to 25% of the cost of constructing and 
equipping the facility, to be taken in 7 equal annual instalmentsd 
SC Energy Office  Renewable fuels 
distribution facilities tax 
credits  Provide a credit  Commercial facilities that 
distribute or dispense certain 
renewable fuels, including 
ethanol and biodiesel  The commercial facilities must have been placed in service after 2 006. Credit 
against income tax equal to 25% of the cost of purchasing, constructing and 
installing property that is used directly and exclusively for distributing, 
dispensing or storing renewable fuel, to be taken in three equal annual 
instalmentsd 
SC Energy Office  Tax credit for renewable 
energy systems 
manufacturers  Promote the production 
of renewable energy 
systems  Manufacturers of renewable 
energy systems  Recipients must invest US$500  mill. and meet certain job and wage 
thresholds. Income tax credit eq ual to 10% of qualifying expenditures. Credits 
cannot exceed US$500,000 for any taxable year or US$5  mill. totala 
SD Dept. of Revenue  Alternative annual tax on 
wind farm property (tax 
incentives)  Promote alternative 
energy sources  Companies owning or hold ing 
under lease, or otherwise, real 
or personal property used, or 
intended for use, as a wind farm 
producing power  The tax liability is based on generative capacity of wind farm. These taxes are 
in lieu of all taxes levied by the state, counties, municipal ities, school districts, 
or other political subdivisions of the state on the personal and real property of 
the company used or intended for use as a wind farm, but are not in lieu of 
the retail sales and service tax or other taxes   
  WT/TPR/S/350 • United States  
 
- 175 - State  Authority  Form of subsidy  Objective  Recipients  Description  
TN Dept. of Revenue  Carbon charge tax credit  Promote "green energy" 
job creation and capital 
investment  Certified green energy supply 
chain manufacturers and any 
campus affiliates  Any manufacturer having made a required capital investment above 
US$250  mill. during the investment period to construct, expand, or remodel a 
facility certified to be engaged in manufacturing a product necessary for the 
production of green energy. The certification is carried out by the 
Commissioner of Revenue, Commissioner of Economic and Community 
Development and Commissioner of the Tennessee Economic Development 
Council in their sole discretion. A certified green energy supply chain 
manufacturer is allowed a carbon charge credit, against the sum total of 
franchise and excise tax liability, equal to any  carbon tax levied by the 
Tennessee Valley Authority on a certified supply chain manufacturer's energy 
bill. Credit must be used to offset a certified green energy supply chain 
manufacturer's Tennessee franchise and excise tax liability. Any credit that 
cannot be used during a fiscal year may be refunded to the taxpayer as a cash 
overpayment  
TN Dept. of Revenue  Green energy tax credit  Promote "green energy" 
job creation and capital 
investment within the 
state Certified green energy supply 
chain manufacture rs Any manufacturer having made a required capital investment above 
US$250  mill. during the investment period to construct, expand, or remodel a 
facility certified to be engaged in manufacturing a product necessary for the 
production of green energy. Certi fication carried out by the Commissioner of 
Revenue, Commissioner of ECD and Commissioner of TDEC, in their sole 
discretion. The Green Energy Tax Credit equals the amount by which the 
charge for electricity sold to the certified green energy supply chain 
manufacturer exceeds the charge that would have been made for such total 
delivered electricity if the maximum certified rate had been applied during the 
applicable tax year. The Maximum Certified Rate is a rate expressed as a price 
per kWh established by pr ivate letter ruling by the Commissioner of Revenue, 
subject to approval by the Commissioner s of ECD and Finance & 
Administration  
TX TX Tax Code Sec 
162.001, 162.204  Ethanol and biodiesel tax 
exemption  Exemption from fuel tax 
on diesel fuel blended 
with et hanol or biodiesel  Diesel suppliers and distributors  The exemption is only for the portion of ethanol or biodiesel that is blended 
into the diesel fuel otherwise subject to fuel tax of US$0.20/gallon  
TX Energy 
Conservation Office  Wind and solar energy tax  
exemptions and deductions  Wind and Solar Energy 
Tax Exemptions and 
Deductions Tax Code 
Section 171.056  Manufacturers, sellers, or 
installers of solar energy devices  Section 171.056 extends a franchise tax exemption to manufacturers, sellers, 
or installers  of solar energy devices. The state also permits a corporate 
deduction from the state's franchise tax for renewable energy sources. 
Business owners may deduct the cost of the system from the company's 
taxable capital or deduct 10% from the company's income . Wind energy 
qualifies under the term, solar energy, for the exemption and deduction under 
Sections 171.056 and 171.107. Franchise tax amounts are exempted or 
deducted in varying amounts  
UT Tax Commission  Sales and Use Tax 
Exemption 
(59-12-104(55))  Attract businesses and 
investment  Renewable energy production 
facilities  Leases or purchases of machinery or equipment with an economic life of five 
or more  years that will be used to create or expand the operations of a 
renewable energy production facility ar e exempt from sales and use tax  
UT Tax Commission  Sales and Use Tax 
Exemption 
(59-12-104(56))  Attract businesses and 
investment  Waste energy production 
facilities  Leases or purchases of machinery or equipment that has an economic life of 
five or more  years  that will be used to create or expand the operations of a 
waste energy production facility ar e exempt from sales and use tax  
UT Tax Commission  Sales and Use Tax 
Exemption 
(59-12-104(57))  Attract businesses and 
investment  Facilities that produces energy 
from biomass fuel  Leases or purchases of machinery or equipment with an economic life of five 
or more  years that will be used to create or expand the operations of a facility 
that produces energy from biomass fuel are exempt from sales and use tax   
  WT/TPR/S/350 • United States  
 
- 176 - State  Authority  Form of subsidy  Objective  Recipients  Description  
VA Dept.  of Taxation  Green Jobs Tax Credit  Taxpayer allowed a 
US$500 credit against 
Virginia personal or 
corporate income tax 
for each new green job 
created within the 
Commonwealth by the 
taxpayer for taxable  
years before 
1 January  2018 A "green job" means 
employm ent in industries 
relating to the field of 
renewable, alternative energies,  "Green jobs" include the manufacture and operation of products used to 
generate electricity and other forms of energy from alternative sources that 
include hydrogen and fuel cell t echnology, landfill gas, geothermal heating 
systems, solar heating systems, hydropower systems, wind systems, and 
biomass and biofuel systems. Using the Bureau of Labour Statistics Green 
Jobs Definition, the tax credit applies to jobs in businesses produci ng goods or 
services benefitting the environment or conserving natural resources and/or 
jobs involving workers' duties making the production processes more 
environmentally friendly or using fewer natural resources. US$500 credit 
available to all qualifying  jobs paying at least US$50,000, first allowed for the 
taxable year in which the job has been filled at least one year and for each of 
the four succeeding taxable  years, provided the job is continuously filled. Each 
taxpayer may claim the credit for up to 350 green jobse 
WA HB2939 (2006)  Biofuels Production 
Incentive (Energy Freedom 
Fund) (loans and grants)  Advancing Washington's 
move towards energy 
independence.  Public R&D institutions in 
partnership with private 
producers  Low-interest loans and grants fo r R&D of new and renewable energy sources, 
including infrastructure, facilities, technologies and R&D. Since the inception 
of the program me, a total of US$18  million in grants and low -interest loans 
has been provided to local public -private partnerships  
WA Dept. of Revenue  Biofuels property and 
leasehold tax exemption  Manufacturing of 
biodiesel, biodiesel 
feedstock or alcohol fuel  Biofuel manufacturers  Property and leasehold tax exemption on investments in buildings, equipment 
and labour. This program me provides exemption from the property tax for 
six assessment  years following the date on which the facility or addition to an 
existing facility becomes operational  
WA Dept. of Revenue  B&O tax credit for biodiesel 
sellers and distributers  Provide a B&O tax cr edit 
for retailer sellers and 
distributers of biodiesel 
fuels.  Retail sellers and distributers of 
biodiesel fuels  The amount varies  
WA Dept. of Revenue  Retail and sales use tax 
exemption for biodiesel 
sales Facilitate the retail sale 
of biodiesel blend or  
E85 motor fuel  Retail sale of biodiesel blends  The program me provides a retail sales and use tax exemption for machinery 
and equipment which is used directly to facilitate the retail sale of biodiesel 
blend or E85 motor fuel. The amount varies  
WI DATCP  Woody biomass harvesting 
and processing tax credit  Equipment investment 
used to harvest or 
process woody biomass 
for fuel  Eligible recipients are those that 
meet the equipment investment 
requirements  This program me provides a tax credit up to 10% of the amo unt paid in the 
taxable year for equipment used primarily to harvest or process woody 
biomass that is used as fuel or component of fuel  
a Until end of 2015.  
b The personal property tax exemption applies to taxes levied after 31 December 2002, and before 1  January 2013.  
c The credits last until the end of 2013, with a five -year carry forward.  
d Credit is repealed for facilities placed in service after 2019.  
e This program me sunsets on 31 December 2017.  
Note:  Arizona (AZ); Arkansas (AR); California (CA); Haw aii (HI); Illinois (IL); Iowa (IA); Kentucky (KY); Louisiana (LA); Maine (ME); Maryland (MD); Massachusetts (MA); 
Michigan (MI); Mississippi (MS); Missouri (MO); Montana (MT); Nebraska (NE); New Jersey (NJ); New Mexico (NM); New  York (NY); North Carolina ( NC); North Dakota 
(ND); Ohio (OH); Oklahoma (OK); Pennsylvania (PA); Puerto Rico (PR); South Carolina (SC); South  Dakota (SD); Tennessee (TN); Texas (TX); Utah (UT); Virginia (VA); 
Washington (WA); Wisconsin (WI).  
Source:  WTO document G/SCM/N/284/USA, 18 November 2015.  WT/TPR/S/350 • United States  
 
- 177 - 
 
  Table A4. 1 Commodity loan rates and Price Loss Coverage reference prices, 
2014  Farm  Act 
Covered commodities  Marketing loan programme  Price Loss Coverage  
Commodity loan rates  Reference prices  
  converted into  
US$/tonne   converted into 
US$/tonne  
Wheat (bu.)  2.94 108.0  5.5 202.1  
Maize (bu.)  1.95 76.8 3.7 145.7  
Grain sorghum (bu.)  1.95 76.9 3.95 155.2  
Barley (bu.)  1.95 89.6 4.95 227.4  
Oats (bu.)  1.39 95.8 2.4 165.3  
Rice long -grain (cwt.)  6.50 143.3  14 308.7  
Rice medium -grain (cwt.)  6.50 143.3  14 308.7  
Peanuts (ton)  355 391.3  535 486.9  
Soybeans (bu.)  5.00 183.7  8.4 308.6  
Other oilseeds (cwt.)  10.09  222.5  20.15  372.9  
Dry peas (cwt.)  5.40 119.1  11 242.6  
Lentils (cwt.)  11.28  248.7  19.97  440.3  
Small chickp eas (cwt.)  7.43 163.8  19.04  419.8  
Large chickpeas (cwt.)  11.28  248.7  21.54  475.0  
Graded wool (lb.)  1.15 2,535.3  n.a. n.a. 
Non-graded wool (lb.)  0.40 881.9  n.a. n.a. 
Mohair (lb.)  4.20 9,259.4  n.a. n.a. 
Honey (lb.)  0.69 1,521.2  n.a. n.a. 
Sugar beet, re fined (lb.)  0.2409  531.2  n.a. n.a. 
Sugar cane, raw (lb.)  0.1875  413.4  n.a. n.a. 
Extra -long staple cotton (lb.)  0.7977  1,758.6  n.a. n.a. 
Upland cotton  Simple average of the adjusted 
prevailing world price for the two 
immediately preceding MYs, but not 
less than US$0.45/lb. or more than 
US$0.52 /lb. The loan rate for the 
2015 crop year was US$0.52/lb.  n.a. n.a. 
n.a. Not applicable (i.e. not a covered commodity).  
Note:  For the conversion factors, see WTO document WT/TPR/S/235/Rev.1, 29 October 2010,  Table AIV.1.  
Source:  WTO document WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1, 13 March 2015 , based on the 2014 Farm  Act. 
__________